(The Basel Commentary) Stoevesandt, Magdalene - Homer's Iliad. Book VI (2016, 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 VI
By Magdalene Stoevesandt
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 978-1-61451-739-9
e-ISBN (PDF) 978-1-5015-0176-0
e-ISBN (EPUB) 978-1-5015-0180-7
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.
© 2016 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 to the German Edition | VII
Preface to the English Edition | XI
Notes for the Reader (including list of abbreviations) | XIII
24 Rules Relating to Homeric Language (R) | 1

Overview of the Action in Book 6 | 9
Commentary | 11
Bibliographic Abbreviations | 183
Preface to the German Edition
The present commentary on Book 6 of the Iliad follows the previously published
volumes on Books 1 and 2 in its aims and structure, and the prefaces to those
volumes provide detailed information regarding the ideas behind the commen-
tary as a whole. Only a few notes are added here.
With the sequence ‘Hektor in Troy’ (237–529), Book 6 contains one of the most
widely read sections of the Iliad. The immediately preceding episode involving
Diomedes and Glaukos (119–236), along with the inset stories of Lykourgos’ sac-
rilege and Bellerophontes’ adventures, have attracted almost an equal degree of
scholarly attention; many related interpretative issues have been debated since
antiquity. It scarcely requires saying that it would have been neither possible nor
useful to document every scholarly opinion regarding each individual problem.
An attempt has nevertheless been made to provide as comprehensive an overview
as possible of the solutions offered to date in regard to contentious issues – even
where the commentary gives clear preference to one particular choice. The goal is
to also take into account readers who may not agree with positions favored in the
commentary and to provide adequate references to allow interested individuals
to pursue all significant questions further.
In the present volume, I was able to draw upon many discussions of seman-
tics, syntax, formulaic language and realia already found in the other volumes.
Accordingly, references to the commentaries on Books 1 and 2 of the Iliad are
numerous; where appropriate, reference was also made to Books 3, 19 and 24,
which will be published in the near future.1 Care has nevertheless been taken to
include all information necessary for understanding each passage in the present
volume itself.
The generous support of a number of sponsors made it possible for work on

the Commentary project as a whole to continue on a new basis after the pub-
lication of the first volumes in 2000/03. Prominent mention is owed the Schwei-
zerischer Nationalfonds zur Förderung der wissenschaftlichen Forschung, which
has supported the project from the start and provided the financial basis for the
completion of the present volume. Two private Basel institutions, the Freiwillige
Akademische Gesellschaft and the Max Geldner-Stiftung, as well as the Ham-
1 Note for the English edition: These volumes appeared in German in 2009 and are currently
being translated into English; the English editions are scheduled to appear in 2015/16.
VIII Iliad 6
burger Stiftung zur Förderung von Wissenschaft und Kultur, allowed an increase
in the number of collaborators, enabling work on multiple commentaries on
Books of the Iliad during this phase of the project. Various important resources,
including infrastructure, were provided by the Hamburger Stiftung and the Uni-
versität Basel. The team’s motivation and well-being were greatly enhanced by a
move to more spacious premises in close proximity to the Seminar für Klassische
Philologie, thanks to a decision by the University administration in December
2004.
My personal interest in Homeric epic dates back to my student days; my discovery

of a love for these texts, and the continuation of that love to this day, is due to the
infectious enthusiasm of Prof. Dr. Joachim Latacz. It was therefore particularly
gratifying that after the conclusion of my studies, Prof. Latacz invited me to par-
ticipate in the Commentary project, providing me with an opportunity to become
active in the field of Homeric studies myself. Over the years, I have learned much
from his benevolent and critical attention to my work. Prof. Dr. Anton Bierl, who
has led the project together with Prof. Latacz since 2003, deserves no less thanks;
he has continually supported the work for the present volume and has given me
the opportunity to regularly contribute to teaching in our department. Discus-
sions with students that took place in this context have stimulated my academic
studies to no small degree.
The constant exchange of ideas with my colleagues was also invaluable. The
commentary in its present form could not have come into being without the will-
ingness of my Basel comrades-in-arms, Claude Brügger and Marina Coray, to at all
times lend an ear to as-yet-incomplete ideas, thus contributing to the solution of
almost all complex problems. I am also indebted to our two external colleagues,
Martha Krieter-Spiro (Zürich) and Robert Plath (Erlangen), for additional valuable
suggestions.
The project leaders and my colleagues have read various drafts of the text
with great attention and have saved me from numerous errors; they suggested
additions and clarifications but also cuts, and raised questions I had not consid-
ered. The same is true for our external experts: Rudolf Führer, Fritz Graf, Irene de
Jong, Michael Meier-Brügger, Sebastiaan R. van der Mije, René Nünlist, Rolf A.
Stucky, Jürgen von Ungern-Sternberg, Rudof Wachter and Martin L. West. While it
would have been impossible to document all their contributions in detail, I have
made explicit mention where they expressed ideas that provided a nuance not
suggested in previous interpretations. Cordial thanks are due all of them for dedi-
cating considerable amounts of time to the work, and for using their professional
expertise in a variety of specialist fields within Homeric studies to ensure that the
commentary did not end up one-sided or incomplete.
Preface to the German Edition IX
A further opportunity for fruitful dialogue with outstanding experts on Homer

was due to Prof. Dr. Michael Meier-Brügger, who invited my colleague Claude
Brügger and me to Hamburg in May 2006 to participate in a project meeting of
collaborators on the Lexikon des frühgriechischen Epos (LfgrE) in which sections
of our draft commentaries were discussed in detail. (Some of the discussions ini-
tiated there were continued this past January on the occasion of the Hamburg
team’s reciprocal visit to Basel.)
I owe thanks to the administration and staff of the Universitätsbibliothek
Basel for their generous help in sourcing bibliography, and in particular to Chris-
toph Schneider, who as collections manager for Classics willingly met all requests
for acquisitions.
Addressing the inevitable details that completing a commentary entails re-
quires particular commitment and perseverance. Here, our research assistants
Tamara Hofer and especially Alexandra Scharfenberger provided invaluable ser-
vices.
It is thanks to my colleague Claude Brügger that the idea of preparing a
camera-ready copy did not cause me many sleepless nights. He instructed me in
all the technical processes with unfailing helpfulness and patience, and always
quickly identified solutions for issues that exceeded my abilities in this area.
It was a great motivation for me to know that the volume rested in the best
possible hands at Walter de Gruyter. Particular thanks are due to Dr. Elisabeth
Schuhmann; the kind sympathy of her interest in the volume’s progress was
second to none.
Completion of the commentary would have been unthinkable without my
ability to rely on the constant support of my family and friends; it is due to them
that I did not lose courage during dry spells, but also that I took, and enjoyed, the
necessary breathing room.
Basel, September 2008 Magdalene Stoevesandt

Preface to the English Edition
This is a revised and updated version of my German commentary from 2008.
Homeric studies are a flourishing field, producing new insights and ideas every
year; I have tried to include as many of them as possible into the present English
edition. It was an especially rewarding task to study the commentary on Iliad 6
by Barbara Graziosi and Johannes Haubold that appeared in 2010 and to compare
their interpretations in detail with mine. In many cases, I found my views corrob-
orated by theirs; in others, their commentary drew my attention to points I had
previously overlooked, or made me rethink my positions (although, inevitably,
some points of disagreement remain).
The present English edition has been made possible by the generous support
of the Stavros Niarchos Foundation, the Freiwillige Akademische Gesellschaft
(FAG) and the L. & Th. La Roche Stiftung, as well as the publisher Walter de
Gruyter, to all of which I feel deeply indebted. Many thanks are also due to Michiel
Klein-Swormink, director of the US branch of De Gruyter, and the two directors
of the Homer Commentary, Prof. Dr. Anton Bierl and Prof. Dr. Joachim Latacz,
for initiating and supporting the translation project with considerable effort. The
greatest workload, of course, has been shouldered by our translation team, Prof.
Dr. S. Douglas Olson, Dr. Benjamin W. Millis and Dr. Sara Strack. They under-
took the difficult task of rendering my rather complex German text into readable
English, never losing patience with my queries. I want to express my warmest
thanks to them. Last, but not least I want to thank my colleagues at the Homer
Commentary, Claude Brügger, Marina Coray, Martha Krieter-Spiro and Katharina
Wesselmann, for their unceasing support and humor during a long period of
shared work.
Basel, June 2015 Magdalene Stoevesandt

Notes for the Reader
1. In the commentary, three 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 smaller type.
These sections correspond to a standard philological commentary.
c) 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. —
Information 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 of the Iliad: Gods/Human Beings
COM Introduction: Commenting on Homer
FOR Formularity 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 Scholarship
xxxP Superscript ‘P’ following a term refers to the definitions of terms
in ‘Homeric Poetics in Keywords’.
STR Structure of the Iliad
XIV Iliad 6
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 passa-
ges, 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 reading 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 refer-
ence 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 XV
8. Abbreviations
(a) Bibliographic abbreviations

For the bibliographic abbreviations, see below p. 183 ff.
(b) Primary literature (on the editions used, see below pp. 186 f.)
Aesch. Aeschylus (Sept. = Septem, ‘Seven against Thebes’; fr. = frag-
ment)
Anth. Pal. Anthologia Palatina
‘Apollod.’ Works ascribed to Apollodorus (Bibl. = Bibliotheke, Epit.
= Epitome)
Apoll. Rhod. Apollonius Rhodius
Archil. Archilochus
Aristoph. Aristophanes (Nub. = Nubes, ‘Clouds’)
Bacchyl. Bacchylides
Chrest. Chrestomathia (Proclus’ summary of the ‘Epic Cycle’)
Cypr. Cypria (in the ‘Epic Cycle’)
Diod. Diodorus
Eur. Euripides (Andr. = ‘Andromache’, Ba. = ‘Bacchae’, Hec.
= ‘Hecuba’, Hel. = ‘Helen’, Or. = ‘Orestes’; fr. = fragment)
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)
h.Hom. A collective term for the Homeric Hymns
h.Ap., Individual Homeric Hymns: to Apollo,
h.Bacch., – to Bacchus/Dionysus,
h.Cer., – to Ceres/Demeter,
h.Merc., – to Mercurius/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’)
Isocr. Isocrates
Od. Odyssey
Ov. Ovid (Met. = Metamorphoses)
Paus. Pausanias
Pind. Pindar (Isthm., Nem., Ol., Pyth. = ‘Isthmian, Nemean, Olym-
pian, Pythian Odes’ [victory poems])
XVI Iliad 6
Plat. Plato (Phaed. = Phaedo, Phaedr. = Phaedrus)

Plut. Plutarch (Quaest. Gr. = Quaestiones Graecae, ‘Studies on the
origin of Greek customs’)
schol. scholion, scholia
schol. A (etc.) scholion in manuscript A (etc.)
Soph. Sophocles (Ant. = ‘Antigone’, Phil. = ‘Philoktetes’; fr. = frag-
ment)
Strab. Strabo
Theophr. Theophrastus (hist. plant. = historia plantarum, ‘History of
plants’)
Thuc. Thucydides
Verg. Vergil (Aen. = ‘Aeneid’)
Xen. Xenophon (Anab. = Anabasis, ‘March Up-country’; Hell.
= Hellenica, ‘History of Greece’; Cyr. = Cyropaedia, ‘Educa-
tion of Cyrus’)
(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 1, B 1 (etc.) indicate caesurae in the hexameter (cf. M 6)
app. crit. apparatus criticus (West edition)
fr., frr. fragment, fragments
Gr. Greek
IE Indo-European
imper. imperative
Introd. Introduction
loc. locative
ms., mss. manuscript, manuscripts
n. note2
2 ‘77n.’ refers to the commentary on verse 77 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
Notes for the Reader XVII
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
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.)
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 Greek’ [G] in the Prolegomena
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, meter, prosody
R2 Sound change of ᾱ > η: In the Ionic dialect, old ᾱ has changed 5–8
to 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 quanti-
tative metathesis [lengthening of a short second vowel] does often
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). The phoneme 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 6
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 synizesis: R 7]: χρυσέ͜ῳ 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: Πηληϊάδε͜ω: R 3) but also in the gen. pl. -έ͜ων (synizesis is
indicated by a sublinear curved line connecting the affected
vowels, 1.18: θε͜οί.).
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

variants (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; Ἀχιλ(λ)εύς; 17
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 row, 49 f.
or a single short between two longs (both metrically impossible),
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. -ᾱ´ων (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 76
(16.395: πόληος);
gen./dat./acc. sing. of ēu-stems: -ῆος, -ῆϊ, -ῆα
(1.1: Ἀχιλῆος; 1.9: βασιλῆϊ; 1.23: ἱερῆα);
4 Iliad 6
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 comparatives 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, 85
e.g. 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
corresponding long vowel), esp. aor. pass. -θεν beside
-θησαν (1.57: ἤγερθεν)
The difference from Attic forms frequently lies merely in the
omission 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 6
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 instan-
ces in the so-called σχῆμα καθ’ ὅλον καὶ κατὰ μέρος: two accusa-
tives 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 mid. 100
forms are used as convenient metrical variants with no discernible
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),
sometimes 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 6
24.4 ἦ: ‘really, actually’; almost exclusively in direct speech. –

Weakened 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 6
1–118 Undecided battles
1–72 After a phase of indecisive fighting, Aias manages to break
through the opposing front, causing a mass flight among the
Trojans.
73–118 Helenos urges Hektor and Aineias to halt the fleeing Trojans.
Hektor is to go to the city afterwards and ask Hekabe to initiate
a procession of supplication by the Trojan women to the temple
of Athene. After restoring Trojan resistance, Hektor leaves the
battle.
119–236 Diomedes and Glaukos

While Hektor is on his way into the city, a duel develops between
Diomedes and the Lykian leader Glaukos. Glaukos responds to
Diomedes’ provocative challenge – in which he tells of Lycour-
gos’ sacrilege against Dionysos – with a long excursus on his
family’s history; it transpires that the two heroes are linked by
a bond of guest friendship inherited from their grandfathers.
At Diomedes’ suggestion, they decide to refrain from all further
confrontation in battle and exchange their armor as a visible
sign of their newly discovered relationship – although Glaukos
is here taken advantage of.
237–529 Hektor in Troy

237–241 Hektor is assailed by the women of Troy with questions about
their relatives; he tells them to pray to the gods.
242–285 Hektor and Hekabe
Hektor encounters his mother Hekabe near Priam’s palace; she
offers him wine for a libation and for his own refreshment. Hektor
declines and asks Hekabe to conduct a procession of supplica-
tion to the temple of Athene together with the Trojan women; he
himself will fetch his brother Paris to rejoin the battle.
286–312 A futile supplicatory procession to the temple of Athene by the
Trojan women
313–368 Hektor with Paris and Helen
Hektor censures Paris for his withdrawal from battle; Paris prom-
ises to immediately arm himself in order to return to battle along
with his brother. Hektor declines Helen’s invitation to rest a bit
in her house: he does not wish to keep the hard-pressed Trojans
10 Iliad 6
waiting – and since he has a sense of his impending death, he

wants to see his wife and child one last time before returning to
battle.
369–502 Hektor and Andromache (so-called homilia)
Hektor does not find Andromache at home, since she has gone
to the tower by the Skaian gate out of concern for him. He there-
fore hurries back to the gate himself and comes upon her there
along with their young son Astyanax. Andromache implores
him not to continue to risk his life in open battle. He reciprocates
her feelings of love and concern, but explains that his sense of
duty compels him to fight. Astyanax’ childlike fear of his father’s
crest lifts the somber mood for a moment; in the end, however,
Andromache takes leave of her husband in tears and on her
return home begins mourning him together with her servants.
503–529 Paris, resplendent in his armor and filled with new lust for
battle, catches up with Hektor at the Skaian gate; the brothers
converse before returning to battle together.
Commentary
Book 6 of the Iliad takes place during day 22 of the action of the epic – the first of
four days of battle described in detail (see STR 21, fig. 1). Achilleus has withdrawn
from battle in anger after his fight with Agamemnon; via his mother Thetis, he
has obtained Zeus’ support for the Trojans henceforth (days 1–21: Il. 1.12b–2.47).
But Zeus’ plan, containing a decisive Greek defeat (1.495b–530, 2.3 f.), remains
suspended for the time being: during the first day of battle (2.48–7.380), the
Greeks remain in overall control, several minor setbacks notwithstanding. This
is because Books 2–7 represent a sort of latent external analepsisP (STR 22 with
fig. 2): although the narrative ostensibly takes place during year 9/10 of the war,
it contains elements that within the logic of the narrative are placed at the begin-
ning of the Trojan War. The minor episode of Achilleus’ wrath is thus embedded
in the larger context of the myth of Troy (STR 22–24); at the same time, the delay of
the anticipated Greek defeat serves to increase suspense (retardationP; Morrison
1992, 35–43). In addition to the catalogue of forces (2.484 ff., 2.816 ff.), the duel
between Paris and Menelaos over Helen (see 3.67–75n.), the teichoscopia (3.121–
244n.), etc., the elements referred to above include the Greek successes described
in Il. 4–7, which reflect the course of battle at the beginning of the Trojan cam-
paign (Latacz [1985] 1996, 126–132; cf. also Kakridis [1956] 1971, 61; Kullmann
1960, 278). The situation as outlined at the beginning of the work is only consid-
ered insofar as the narrator repeatedly recalls Achilleus’ angry boycott (Latacz
loc. cit. 123 f., 127 f.); other Greek heroes emerge in his place on the first day of
battle. The most successful is Diomedes, whose aristeia occupies all of Book 5
and still reverberates in the following Books (cf. 96–101n.). In Book 6, this occurs
in a twofold manner: Diomedes himself has a further significant appearance in
119–236 (see ad loc.), and the terror he spreads forms the background of the scene
sequence ‘Hektor in Troy’, which provides the narrator with an occasion for an
impressive portrayal of the situation within the besieged city (237–529n.). There,
the end of the Trojan War, which is not told as part of the Iliad, is also already
anticipated in the dark forebodings of those concerned (esp. 447 ff.; see STR 22
fig. 2; on the position of Book 6 within the overall structure of the Iliad, see also
Graziozi/Haubold, Introd. 24–26).
Diomedes’ prominent role in Book 6 is also reflected in the fact that Hdt. 2.116.3 cites
verses 289–292 as coming from the part of the Iliad entitled Διομήδεος ἀριστείη; later, as
attested in Eust. 621.17 f. (introduction to Il. 6) and in the medieval mss., Book 6 has the title
Ἕκτορος καὶ Ἀνδρομάχης ὁμιλία, while Διομήδους ἀριστεία denotes only Book 5 (cf. Jensen
1999, 10; 2011, 330 f.; on the division of the Iliad into Books, see 1n.).
12 Iliad 6
1–72 After a phase of indecisive fighting, Aias manages to break through the oppos-
ing front, causing a mass flight among the Trojans.
In the battle scenes of the Iliad, two basic situations alternate: (1) phases of
indecisive fighting, (2) flight/withdrawal of one party (followed by the fleeing
fighters assembling and forming a new front). The narrator sometimes uses
comprehensive descriptions of mass battle to depict both phase types, and in
a few verses these convey an overview of the entire battle situation/action; at
other times, he uses (much more detailed) descriptions of individual engage-
ments that exemplify the course of battle at that point or single out highlights
(Latacz 1977 passim, esp. 75 ff.; van Wees 1997, 673–687; somewhat differently
Hellmann 2000, esp. 91–150; on this, Stoevesandt 2004, 48–51 nn. 187, 189,
194, 198). Here, the portrayal of an indecisive battle from a bird’s-eye view
(verses 1–4; similarly e.g. 4.446–451 = 8.60–65, cf. Kelly 2007, 106–108) is fol-
lowed by a phase of Trojan flight, illustrated by a catalogue of killing scenes:
pursuing their fleeing opponents, various Greek heroes kill one or more of
them (likewise 5.37–83, 14.511–522, 16.306–351; with reversed roles 15.328–342,
briefly indicated at 7.8–16; cf. Kelly loc. cit. 267 f.).
1 2nd VH = 5.379; ≈ 4.65, 16.256. — Achaians: one of the Homeric terms for the
Greeks (1.2n.; HE s.v.). — left to itself: sc. by the gods, who until now had taken
part in battle. The verse picks up from the preceding narrative in the man-
ner of a summary: the high point of Diomedes’ aristeia was his battle with
Ares, in which he was supported by Athene (and indirectly Hera); in 5.864 ff.
Ares leaves the battle, and in 5.907 ff. he is followed by Athene and Hera (in
West’s edition of the text, 5.907–6.1 are printed as a single paragraph). At the
same time, the verse introduces a change of scene by making a transition to
a bird’s-eye view (de Jong/Nünlist 2004, 74). Such ‘hinge’ points were fre-
quently chosen as boundaries in the (likely post-Homeric) division of the Iliad
into 24 Books (Edwards 2002, 39–47 [with bibliography]; cf. also HT 5; STR
21 n. 22; Nünlist 2006; an argument for the division into Books by the poet
of the Iliad himself is made by Jensen 2011, 329–362; cf. also Heiden 2008,
37–65, esp. 61 ff.). – A complete withdrawal of the gods from battle remains the
exception in the Iliad (Frontisi-Ducroux 1986, 50). At 7.17 ff., Athene returns
to the battlefield together with Apollo; beginning in Book 8, Zeus attempts to
direct the action of battle by himself, but his ban on interference is repeatedly
circumvented by the other gods; he permits Apollo to return to the battle in
15.220 ff., Athene in 17.544 ff., and all the gods in 20.22 ff. The present situation
1 οἰώθη: on the unaugmented form, R 16.1. — καὶ Ἀχαιῶν: on the so-called correption, R 5.5.
Commentary 13
is matched most closely by 11.73 ff. and the brief moment before the arrival of
the gods in 20.41 ff.
φύλοπις αἰνή: an inflectible VE formula (nom./acc.; in total 11x Il., 1x Od., 2x Hes., 1x
h.Hom.). φύλοπις (etymology uncertain: Frisk, DELG, Beekes) is part of the semantic
field ‘battle, combat’, although the exact nuance in meaning is uncertain (see LfgrE
s.v. and Graziozi/Haubold ad loc.: φύλοπις may denote an aspect of πόλεμος, cf. the
phrase φυλόπιδος … πτολέμοιο [13.635, similarly Od. 11.314, ‘Hes.’ Sc. 113 f.] and the
common collocation πόλεμος … καὶ φύλοπις [4.82 etc.]). Like all other terms from this
semantic field, it generally has a negative connotation in early epic (epithets: 15x αἰνή
as well as 2x κρατερή and 1x each ἀργαλέη and κρυερή; cf. also Il. 19.221 φυλόπιδος …
κόρος): Trümpy 1950, 165 f.; see also de Jong (1987) 2004, 231–233 (collection of all epi-
thets used with μάχη, π(τ)όλεμος, ὑσμίνη and φύλοπις); de Romilly 1997, 69 f.; 1 162n.,
2.401n., 6.77n.
2 now one way, now in another: During indecisive phases of battle, there are
repeated episodes of temporary retreat and renewed rousing of one party (e.g.
4.505–514, 16.569–602), creating the impression that the battle surges forward
and back on a broad front (Latacz 1977, 91).
ἴθυσε μάχη: Word end between the two shorts of the 4th metrum is unusual (against
so-called ‘Hermann’s bridge’, see M 9; Hoekstra 1969, 62–65; Brillante ad loc. and
Blanc 2008, 38, with further bibliography); whether this was designed to achieve a
‘«bouncing» effect’ to highlight the ‘spasmodic, to-and-fro aspect of the fighting’ (thus
Kirk), must remain open. – ἰθύω (from ἰθύς ‘straight’) is occasionally used in battle de-
scriptions with the sense ‘advance, push forward’; with an inanimate subject only here
(alternatively μάχη may be understood here specifically as ‘mass of men fighting’: LfgrE
s.v. μάχη 48.46 ff.); otherwise of individual heroes (16.582 etc.), of collectives (Achaians:
4.507, Trojans: 12.443, 17.725) and of beasts of prey in similes (11.552 etc.): LfgrE s.v.
3 A four-word verse (1.75n.). — bronze: Greek chalkḗrea, from chalkós ‘bronze’
and ararískō ‘join together’, originally means ‘fitted with (a) bronze (tip)’
(on the word formation, Leumann 1950, 66 f.). In reality, battles in the Homeric
period were largely fought with iron weapons; epic’s virtually exclusive talk of
bronze weapons can be ascribed to two factors: (1) the continued use of met-
rically convenient formulae that originated in the Bronze Age (West on Hes.
Op. 150; Hooker [1988] 1996, 276); (2) the poet’s desire to contrast his own pe-
riod with the heroic past (cf. 1.272n., 5.302 ff., etc.; 6.34–35n. end). But it is dis-
puted whether the virtual absence of iron weapons in Homeric epic stems from
a deliberate archaizing tendency on the part of the poet (thus e.g. Finley [1954]
1979, 149; LfgrE s.v. σίδηρος; Hesiod’s story of the ages of men attests to the fact
2 πολλά: adv., ‘many times, repeatedly’. — ἔνθα καὶ ἔνθ(α): ‘hither and thither’; the partitive gen.
πεδίοιο (on the declension, R 11.2) is dependent on this.
14 Iliad 6
that the comparative novelty of this material was well-known in the Archaic
period: West loc. cit.) or whether bronze weapons were considered a ‘heroic’
attribute primarily because of their luster (hierarchy of metals: gold/silver for
the gods [1.37n., 2.448n.], bronze for heroes, iron largely for tools in daily use:
Patzek 1992, 188 ff.; van Wees 1994, 133 f.; LfgrE s.v. χαλκός; but cf. also 48n.).
— spears: the primary weapon of attack in Homeric epic (cf. 2.692n.), used in
both distance and close combat (LfgrE s.v. δόρυ 337.54 ff.); less often mentioned
are arrows, sling stones, swords and battle axes. On the archaeological finds,
Höckmann 1980; Franz 2002, 64–67; cf. also 319n.
ἀλλήλων ἰθυνομένων: ἀλλήλων is dependent on ἰθυνομένων (gen. after verbs of aim-
ing: Schw. 2.104 f.); ἰθυν. (in reference to the fighters on both sides) may be understood
as a gen. dependent on μάχη (LfgrE s.v. μάχη 48.46 ff., cf. 2n.) or as a gen. absolute
(AH, Leaf; cf. Chantr. 2.324): ‘of those who/while they were aiming at each other’;
similarly 13.497–499 περὶ στήθεσσι δὲ χαλκός | σμερδαλέον κονάβιζε τιτυσκομένων καθ’
ὅμιλον | ἀλλήλων. — χαλκήρεα δοῦρα: an inflectible VE formula (acc. pl. also at Od.
5.309; dat. sing. 3x Il., 2x Od.); on the form δοῦρα, see G 4, 27, 53 and Graziosi/Haubold
with bibliography (δουρ- < *dorw-; the false diphthong <ου> stands in place of length-
ened ο); on the metrical system for the noun-epithet formulae for ‘spear’ in general, see
Page 1959, 238 ff., 273 ff.; Paraskevaides 1984, 22–27; cf. also 31–32n.
4 Xanthos … Simoeis: the two major rivers in the Trojan plain (Xanthos
= Skamandros: 20.74). The text does not make clear precisely how the narrator
envisages their course; all the same, most passages – including the present
one – convey the impression that in his imagination the rivers formed the lat-
eral boundaries of the battlefield (the armies’ advance and retreat are not ob-
structed by the rivers): Elliger 1975, 45, 48–51; Trachsel 2007, 66–78 (on the
contradiction, probably only apparent, between this conception and 5.773 f.,
see Herzhoff 2011, 225, 239 nn. 55–57; on the problem of the thrice-mentioned
ford of the Skamandros, 24.351n. with bibliography). – The Simoeis is gener-
ally identified with the modern Dümrek Su, the Skamandros/Xanthos with the
Menderes (Cook 1973, 66, 128; Herzhoff loc. cit. 225, 238 f. nn. 47–54; differ-
ently Hertel 2003, 183); further attempts to align information from the Iliad
with specific geographical realities unsurprisingly meet with obstacles (cau-
tion against applying inappropriate realism to the Homeric texts in Drerup
1921, 128 ff.; Cook loc. cit. 91 f.; Elliger loc. cit. 43 f.; de Jong 2012a, 21, 36–38;
cf. also 2.793n.).
3 χαλκήρεα: on the uncontracted form, R 6. — δοῦρα: on the declension, R 12.5 and ↑.

4 ἰδέ: ‘and’ (a metrically convenient variant for ἠδέ). — ῥοάων: on the declension, R 11.1.
Commentary 15
An early such attempt may be at the bottom of the v.l. μεσσηγὺς ποταμοῖο Σκαμάνδρου
καὶ στομαλίμνης, which was initially adopted in Aristarchus’ ὑπομνήματα but later dis-
missed on the ground of the theory of the Iliad’s topography that Aristarchus developed
in the meantime (schol. A, bT). A στομαλίμνη (lagoon) at the mouth of the Skamandros
and Simoeis is mentioned in Strab. 13.1.31/34 (= C 595/597) and appears to have played
a role in the Hellenistic discussion of Homeric topography; this form of the word is
attested only in Strabo (previously only στομάλιμνον Theoc. 4.23; στόμα λίμνης Apoll.
Rhod. 4.1572) and appears to be a neologism (West 1967, 72 f.; cf. also van der Valk
1949, 23). – Rengakos 1993, 154 f. (followed by Trachsel 2007, 58 f.) assumes a ‘respect-
able age’ for the v.l., but the reading of Pap. Hibeh II 193 (3rd cent. BC), the earliest
witness, is quite uncertain: Johnson 2002.
5–36 ‘A series of uninterrupted, easy slayings by one side’ (Fenik 1968, 10), like
5.38–83, 7.8–16, 12.182–195, 14.511–522, 15.328–342, 16.306–350 (cf. 1–72n.). Aias
kills one opponent (verses 5–11), Diomedes two (12–19), Euryalos four (20–28);
the next eight verses (29–36) report another seven victories by prominent
Achaian heroes (similarly 15.328–342 and in the aristeiai of individual heroes
12.182–187, 12.188–195, 16.399–418). The climax stresses the inevitability of the
Trojans’ flight (cf. also verse 41). On this, Albracht (1886) 2005, 81; Broccia
1963, 17–33, esp. 32 f.; Nicolai 1973, 16 f., 31 f.; Graziosi/Haubold ad loc.; on
catalogue-like lists of killing scenes in general, Strasburger 1954, esp. 15–20,
52–68; Beye 1964; Kühlmann 1973, 28–41; Kelly 2007, 267–269; Sammons
2010, 7 f., 13 f., 156–158 (with further bibliography).
5–11 First Telamonian Aias … | broke the Trojan battalions …: Flight phases
in the Iliad are triggered by exceptional achievements by individual heroes, by
one army’s mass advance (e.g. 8.335 f., 11.86–91), and/or by divine interven-
tion (e.g. 8.68–77, 15.320–327). Here Aias achieves a breakthrough by killing
a leader, which leads to a swiftly spreading panic among the latter’s fellow
combatants; similarly 5.9–29, 14.489–507, 16.284–296 (on this, Latacz 1977,
211; Hellmann 2000, 153 f.; a tabulated overview of the triggering moments of
flight phases: Stoevesandt 2004, 89–91; cf. also Kelly 2007, 117 f.).
5 1st VH = 12.378, ≈ 14.511; cf. also 13.809. — First: In a new phase of battle, the
narrator frequently highlights who is the first hero to record a success (regard-
less of whether said success is the trigger for the turn/change in question [as
here and at 16.593] or not [e.g. 4.457/59, 5.38, 8.256]); on this, Latacz 1977, 83 f.;
de Jong (1987) 2004, 50 f.; somewhat differently Hellmann 2000, 153 (who
attempts to assign all passages to the first category). — Aias, that bastion of
the Achaians: Aias son of Telamon – the patronymic distinguishes him from
the homonymous son of Oïleus – is the best Achaian fighter after Achilleus
(CH 3 and 2.768n. with bibliography). The apposition ‘bastion of the Achaians’
is used as a distinctive epithetP (3x Il. of Aias: also at 3.229, 7.211; cf. LfgrE s.v.
16 Iliad 6
ἕρκος 707.6 ff.); he is thereby characterized by his main function as a defensive

fighter irrespective of context (FOR 3).
Τελαμώνιος: on adjectives of affiliation in -ιος as patronymics, see G 56; 2.20n. —
ἕρκος: originally ‘(protective) enclosure’; on its metaphorical use, 1.283b–284n.
6 brought light: In Homeric battle scenes, ‘light’ generally serves as a meta-
phor for ‘rescue/rescuer’ in moments of extreme distress (11.797, 15.741, 16.39,
16.95, 17.615, 18.102, 21.538; on this, Lossau 1994; cf. the association of ‘light/
life’ [5.120 etc.], ‘darkness/death’ [6.11 etc.]). The use is somewhat different
here, where the light metaphor likely conveys something like ‘relief’ (AH ad
loc.: ‘made space’), while at the same time communicating the notion ‘(glory
of) victory, fame’ (cf. 8.282 f./285 [with AH and Kirk ad loc.], 20.95 f.; Ciani
1974, 8; on parallels from the Old Testament [Isaiah 49:6 etc.] and the Rigveda
[1.117.21 etc.], see West 1997, 253 and Durante 1976, 117 f.; West 2007, 482). Cf.
also Bremer 1976, 59–66 (the fundamental idea of a ‘unity of space and light’:
‘«Making light» has the effect of a liberating opening up of space’ [62, transl.]).
Τρώων: ‘placed in striking juxtaposition to Ἀχαιῶν at the end of line 5: Aias protects the
Achaeans and defeats the Trojans’ (Graziosi/Haubold). — φάλαγγα: the only example
in Homer of φάλαγξ in the sing.; the reference is apparently to the opposing army’s first
line of battle. For details on the sense of φάλαγξ/φάλαγγες in the Iliad, see Latacz 1977,
45–67 (a military technical term, corresponding to ‘line of battle, rank’); differently van
Wees 1997, 674 f. (‘rank’ in a non-specific sense as part of an ‘amorphous mass’, in part
because of the metaphor νέφος … πεζῶν [4.274, with a following cloud simile]; but see
Latacz loc. cit. 57 f.). For the continuing debate about the function of φάλαγγες in the
Iliad, as well as the realism of Homeric battle descriptions, see Raaflaub 2008, esp.
474–479; Schwartz 2009, 102–115; Buchholz 2010, 97–103.
7–8 the man … | Akamas: The first victim after the departure of the gods from
the battlefield, probably not entirely by chance, is the hero whose shape Ares
had taken at 5.461 ff. when supporting the Trojans (schol. T; Finsler [1908]
1918, 59; Stanley 1993, 87); Akamas is otherwise mentioned only when he is
introduced in the catalogue of Trojans (as one of two leaders of the Trojans’
Thracian allies: 2.844n.). – The fallen warrior’s significance is highlighted by
a number of details describing him more closely (Strasburger 1954, 20); the
actual mention of the name is delayed for effect (likewise at 4.457 f., 12.378 f.
[as here, each concerns the initial victim in a catalogue of killing scenes], as
6 ῥῆξε: aor. of ῥήγνυμι; on the unaugmented form, R 16 1. — φόως: on the epic diectasis (φάος
> φῶς > φόως), R 8. — ἑτάροισιν: on the declension, R 11.2; ἕταρος is a variant form of ἑταῖρος.
7 ἐνί: = ἐν (R 20.1). — Θρῄκεσσι: on the declension, R 11.3. — τέτυκτο: plpf. pass. of τεύχω, ‘was’.
8 Ἐϋσσώρου Ἀκάμαντ(α): on the hiatus, R 5.6. — ἠΰν: ἠΰς is a variant form of ἐΰς ‘capable’.
Commentary 17
well as 5.541 f., 16.570 f.; cf. also 23.470–472, 23.664 f.): Broccia 1963, 17 f. — far
the best of the Thracians: Dying warriors are often emphatically termed the
‘best’ of their group (leaders here and at 11.328, 17.307, 21.207; others: 5.541,
5.843, 17.80, cf. 16.570; see LfgrE s.v. ἄριστος 1289.58 ff., 1294.54 ff., 1296.40 ff.).
On Thrace and the Thracians in the Iliad, 2.844n.
βαλών: temporally coincident with ῥῆξε, ‘by hitting’ (AH; Schw. 2.300 f.; cf. de Jong on
Il. 22.15–16). — ἠΰν τε μέγαν τε: an inflectible VE formula; a combination of two generic
warrior epithetsP (2.653n.).
9–11 = 4.459–461, likewise at the start of a catalogue of killing scenes; proba-
bly an element of epic formulaic language coined for this type of narrative sit-
uation (on typical elements in battle scenes in general, Fenik 1968). In the
Iliad, details regarding the kind of injuries sustained are given for about half
of the 243 named victims (the spectrum ranges from a simple designation of
the affected body part to grisly depictions of bloody details, the latter almost
exclusively of Trojans); on this in detail, Friedrich (1956) 2003; Morrison
1999; Saunders 2003 (from the point of view of medical history); Tatum 2003,
116–135 (with parallels from modern literature and art); Stoevesandt 2004,
117–122 (with statistical data and further bibliography). The injury is usually
followed immediately by death; a description of extended agony is avoided
(Marg [1942] 1976, 12).
9 τόν ῥ’ ἔβαλε πρῶτος: a ring-compositionP, reprising verses 5/7; cf. ABC-schemeP (more
pronounced in 12–19, see ad loc.). – τόν ῥ’ ἔβαλε(ν) is a VB formula (4x Il.). — φάλον: The
meaning of the term has been disputed since antiquity; it likely denotes a metal plate
affixed to the front of a (leather) helmet for reinforcement (3.362n.). — ἱπποδασείης:
‘bushy with horse-hair’, an epithet of κόρυς (7x Il.) and κυνέη (2x Od.) (LfgrE s.v.); on the
function of the crest, cf. 469n.
11 = 4.461, 4.503; 2nd VH = 4.526, 13.575, 14.519, 15.578, 16.316, 20.393, 20.471, 21.181; ≈
16.325, h.Ap. 370. — αἰχμὴ χαλκείη: an inflectible VB formula (only Il., 10x nom., 1x
dat.). — τὸν δὲ σκότος ὄσσ’ ἐκάλυψεν: a formulaic expression for the occurrence of
death (see iterata); metrically equivalent variants: στυγερὸς δ’ ἄρα μιν σκότος εἷλεν (5.47,
13.672, 16.607), θάνατος δέ μιν ἀμφεκάλυψεν (5.68); cf. also τὸν/τὴν δὲ κατ’ ὀφθαλμῶν
ἐρεβεννὴ νὺξ ἐκάλυψεν (5.659, 13.580; 22.466 of Andromache’s loss of consciousness),
θανάτου δὲ μέλαν νέφος ἀμφεκάλυψεν (16.350, similarly Od. 4.180, Il. 20.417 f.), κατὰ δ’
ὀφθαλμῶν κέχυτ’ ἀχλύς (16.344, similarly Od. 22.88) and others. On this, Garland 1981,
9 τόν … φάλον: acc. of the whole and the part (R 19.1); on the demonstrative function of ὅ, ἥ, τό,
R 17. — ῥ(α): = ἄρα (R 24.1). — ἱπποδασείης: on the form (-η- after -ι-), R 2.
10 πῆξε: sc. his spear. — ὀστέον εἴσω: = εἰς ὀστέον; on the uncontracted form, R 6.
11 χαλκείη: on the metrical lengthening (-ει- rather than -ε-), R 10.1. — τὸν … ὄσσ(ε): acc. of the
whole and the part (R 19.1); ὄσσε: dual, ‘eyes’.
18 Iliad 6
46, 55; Clarke 1999, 239–243; Morrison 1999, esp. 130 f., 136 f. – Given the formulaic
nature of both metaphors, it is unlikely that σκότος is used here as a deliberate antithe-
sis to φόως in 6 (thus Stanley 1993, 87, following Broccia 1963, 21).
12–19 An ABC-schemeP scene (Beye 1964, esp. 348): 12 (part A) anticipates in
summary fashion the action portrayed in detail in 17–19 (part C); part B con-
tains a retrospect of highlights in the life of the otherwise unknown Axylos.
These so-called ‘obituaries’ occur for about a quarter of named victims in
the Iliad. They consist of recurrent basic motifs that are variously combined
and individually configured: in this case, the secondary themes ‘homeland’
and ‘affluence’ (the same combination at e.g. 5.543 f., 5.612 f., 5.708 f., 13.664,
16.595 f.) are combined with the primary theme ‘abilities/characteristics that
are useless in the face of death’ (Axylos’ hospitality; cf. e.g. Ennomos’ abili-
ties as a seer 2.858 ff., Skamandrios’ talent for hunting 5.49 ff., Phereklos’ craft
skills 5.59 ff., Polydoros’ speed 20.407 ff.). Fundamental for the typology and
function of the ‘obituaries’ is Strasburger 1954 (where see 28 and 113 ff. for
Axylos); in addition, Merz 1953; Spieker 1958; Fenik 1968, 150 ff. and passim;
Griffin 1976; 1980, 103–143; on the differences between ‘obituaries’ for Trojans
and Achaians, Stoevesandt 2004, 126–156.
12 Diomedes: the most significant Achaian offensive fighter after Achilleus,
whom he temporarily replaces during the latter’s boycott of battle (aristeia in
Books 5/6/8, cf. p. 11 above and 96–101n.; on the individual, CH 3).
Ἄξυλον: occurs only here; the derivation and etymology of the name are uncertain (for
possible explanations, see LfgrE and Wathelet s.v.). — ἔπεφνε: a reduplicated aor.
from the word stem *gu̯hen-, ‘slay, kill’, see LfgrE s.v. *θείνω, πεφνεῖν and 3.281n. with
bibliography; part of a formulaic system of verbs of killing that are used synonymously
(also ἕλε(ν), κτεῖνε(ν), ἔκτανε(ν), ἐνήρατο, ἐνάριζε(ν), ἐξενάριξε(ν) and others): Visser
1987, esp. 197 f. (on the genesis of the present verse) and 68, 75 f.; 1988, 27–37. — βοὴν
ἀγαθός: a set phrase that serves as an epithet for a number of heroes, although with
uneven distribution (21x in the present VE formula of Diomedes, 25x of Menelaos, but
only 5x in total of other heroes: 2.408n.); it thus occupies a position between generic
and distinctive epithetsP (Graziosi/Haubold ad loc. with reference to Hainsworth on
Il. 9–12, Introd. 22 f., and Friedrich 2007, 84–86).
13 Arisbe: a city on the Hellespont that cannot be localized more specifically
(2.836n.).
Τευθρανίδην, ὅς …: The patronymic in progressive enjambmentP eases the connec-
tion to the following relative clause; likewise at 2.628 (see ad loc.), 5.535, 12.438, 13.561,
12 βοήν: acc. of respect (R 19 1).

13 ἐϋκτιμένῃ ἐν: on the bridging of hiatus by non-syllabic ι (ëuktiménēy en), M 12.2.
Commentary 19
14.444, etc. On this, Hoekstra 1965, 34 (‘a syntactic type of enjambement which is likely
to be traditional’); Higbie 1990, 33 f.; in general on progressive enjambment with a fol-
lowing dependent clause: 2.325n., 2.614n., 2.626n., 19.8–9a n.; Clark 1997, 92–105. – The
name Τεύθρας is of non-Greek origin, but nonetheless occurs in the Iliad among the
Achaians as well (5.705); it may have been known to the poet of the Iliad from the myth of
Telephos, where Τεύθρας is the eponymous king of the Mysian region of Teuthrania (on
the so-called Teuthranian expedition of the warriors who went to Troy, cf. Kullmann
1960, 192 ff.): Wathelet s.v. — ἐϋκτιμένῃ: ‘well-built, well-settled, well-planned’; a
generic epithetP of towns (cf. 2.501n.), streets (6.391), gardens (21.77 etc.), houses (Od.
4.476 etc.), etc. (LfgrE; Hainsworth on Od. 8.283).
14–15 On the significance of guest-friendship in Homeric society, see 3.207n.; cf.
also 6.215n., 6.226n.
ἀφνειὸς βιότοιο: an inflectible VB formula (= 5.544, acc. 14.122); on the partitive gen. with
ἀφνειός, Schw. 2.111; on βίοτος ‘livelihood, property’, LfgrE s.v. 63.29 ff. — φιλέεσκεν:
on φιλέω in the sense ‘receive hospitably, entertain’, cf. 3.207n. (ἐξείνισσα beside
φίλησα), Od. 8.208 etc. — ὁδῷ ἔπι: i.e. likely located along a well-travelled country-
road (Strasburger 1954, 28; LfgrE s.v. ὁδός 494.47 ff., 61 ff.). — οἰκία ναίων: an inflect-
ible VE formula (5x Il., 4x Od.).
16 2nd VH = 20.289, Od. 4.292; ≈ Il. 2.873; cf. also 11.120, 20.296. — Yet there was
none of these now to stand before him and keep off | the sad destruction:
‘an expression of regret’ (AH, transl.); on the emotional function of ‘obituaries’
in the Iliad in general, Strasburger 1954, esp. 69–77, 113–115; Griffin 1976;
1980, 103–143. On human vulnerability in the face of violence and death as an
underlying theme of Homeric epic, see Lynn-George 1993 (based on a study
of the verbs, usually negated, arkéin ‘to defend, protect’ and chraisméin ‘to
benefit, help’); Grethlein 2006, 154–159.
λυγρὸν ὄλεθρον: an inflectible formula at VE and following caesura A 3 (2.873n.).
17–19 stripped life from both of them …: The joint death of a chariot fighter
and his charioteer is a typical motif; cf. 5.576 ff., 11.92 ff., 11.101 ff., 11.320 ff.,
13.384 ff., 16.399 ff., 20.484 ff., etc. (Strasburger 1954, 45 n. 4; Fenik 1968,
60 f., 82).
17 πρόσθεν: locative: ‘in front of him’, for his protection (AH). — ὑπαντιάσας: ‘confronting
(the attacker)’ (AH); the sense of ὑπό is uncertain, perhaps ‘unnoticed’ (LfgrE s.v. ἀντάω/
15 φιλέεσκεν: frequentative (-σκ-): R 16.5. — ὁδῷ ἔπι: = ἐφ’ ὁδῷ (R 20.2). — ἔπι (ϝ)οικία: on the
prosody, R 4.3. — οἰκία: on the plural, R 18.2.
16 ἀλλά (ϝ)οι: on the prosody, R 4.3. — οἱ: = αὐτῷ (R 14.1). — τῶν: anaphoric demonstrative
pronoun (R 17).
17 ἀπηύρα: root aor. of a defective verb (with lengthened vowel as augment [< *ἀπ-η-ϝρᾱ]), ‘he
took away’ (with double acc.).
20 Iliad 6
ἀντιάω 922.15 f.; cf. Schw. 2.524). — ἄμφω θυμὸν ἀπηύρα: Diomedes is the subject;
ἄμφω, which exceptionally is not used anaphorically here (LfgrE s.v. 701.33, 703.3 f.),
is explained in 18 and emphatically repeated in 19 (Kirk, AH). – θυμὸν ἀπηύρα is an
inflectible VE formula (7x Il., 2x Od., 1x ‘Hes.’); on θυμός ‘life, life-force’, see 1.205n.,
3.294n.
18 αὐτὸν καὶ θεράποντα: a VB formula (= 13.331, 16.279); on θεράπων ‘servant, follower’,
see 1.321n. — Καλήσιον: a speaking name, from καλέω (like Καλήτωρ [15.419; epithet of
a herald in 24.577]; on the formation, von Kamptz 12, 117). In the present context per-
haps to be read ‘inviter’ (Aristarchus [schol. A]; Strasburger 1954, 28; LfgrE s.v.). Other
interpretations: as a charioteer, Kalesios is named ‘for the calls with which he directs his
horses’ (Robert 1901, 490, transl.); or with a passive sense: ‘The charioteer is the one
whom a warrior calls upon when he needs him in the course of battle’ (Wathelet s.v.,
transl.). — [οἱ] τόθ’: The τόθ’ of the dominant tradition emphasizes the difference be-
tween the situation before Troy and the image of peace mapped out earlier; if Καλήσιος
were to be understood ‘inviter’ (see above), the resulting idea would be ‘Kalesios, who
used to assist his master in feasts, «then», i.e. before Troy, served as charioteer – which
led to his demise’. West prefers the weakly attested v.l. οἱ.
19 down [to the underworld] below the earth went both men: a variant of the
more common phrase ‘descend into Hades/the house of Hades’ (e.g. 284, 422,
3.322 [see ad loc.], etc.; ‘below the earth’ also at 411, 18.333, Od. 24.106; in com-
bination: Il. 22.482 f.). As here, it is usually said of the dying individual himself;
less frequently of his psychḗ (1.3n. [in contrast to the corpse, which remains
on earth: 1.4n.], 16.856 = 22.362, etc.). On Homeric ideas of dying and of life
after death in detail, Clarke 1999, 127–284 (where see 168 ff. on the passage to
Hades); on parallels in Near Eastern and Hittite literature, see West 1997, 151 ff.
ἔσκεν: on the durative-iterative use of ἔσκε(ν), Chantr. 1.320 f.; Graziozi/Haubold ad
loc.: ‘he used to be’. — ὑφηνίοχος: a Homeric hapaxP; not ‘a charioteer subordinate
to another charioteer’ (like ὕπαρχος ‘subordinate commander, lieutenant’) but ‘his (sc.
Axylos’) dependent/subordinate charioteer’; i.e. with no factual difference from the
simplex, like Od. 4.386 ὑποδμώς (= ὁ ὑπό τινι δμώς), Od. 15.330 ὑποδρηστήρ (see schol.
A, bT; AH; Lehrs [1833] 1882, 108; Schw. 2.524). With reference to Il. 5.226–238, Kirk ob-
jects that ‘acting as driver is not necessarily a menial task’, but there is normally a status
difference between warrior and charioteer (cf. the formula ἡνίοχος/-ον θεράπων/-οντα
[4x Il.] cited by Kirk himself).
20 Euryalos: son of Mekisteus (28); joint leader, with Diomedes and Sthenelos,
of the southern Argive contingent (2.565n.). He excels here as victor over four
18 ῥά (ϝ)οι: on the prosody, R 4.3.

19 τώ: nom. dual of the anaphoric demonstrative pronoun (cf. R 17). — γαῖαν: acc. of direction
without preposition (R 19.2). — ἐδύτην: 3rd dual aor. of δύομαι.
Commentary 21
Trojans, but subsequently features only in the funerary games for Patroklos
in 23.677–699, where Epeios defeats him in a boxing match. – ‘Apollod.’ Bibl.
3.6.3/3.7.2 (= 3.63/3.82) includes Mekisteus and Euryalos among the Seven
against Thebes (223–224n.) and the Epigoni respectively, whereas they are
absent from the lists in Aesch. Sept. 375 ff. and schol. bT on Il. 4.406; see the
source critical analysis in Kullmann 1960, 148 ff. — Opheltios … Dresos:
mentioned only here; Opheltios has an Achaian namesake who dies at the
hands of Hektor at 11.302.
For the structure of the verse, cf. 11.335, 14.513, also 6.30; a reconstruction of the gen-
esis of the verse in Visser 1987, 173–177. — ἐξενάριξεν: (ἐξ)εναρίζειν strictly means ‘to
remove armor (ἔναρα: 68–69n.) from a slain opponent’ (thus 417, 7.146, etc.), which may
be implied here (cf. 28; LfgrE s.v. 575.56 ff.); more often, it is simply ‘to kill’ (1.191n., 5.703,
6.30 f., etc.; cf. 12n.).
21–28 The death of a pair of brothers is a common motif in Homeric battle scenes

(of twins, as here, also at 5.541 ff.; in addition, 5.148 ff., 5.152 ff., 5.159 ff., etc.; on
this, Kotopoulos 1982, 100–148; cf. also Trypanis 1963; Hellmann 2000, 112–
116). – This scene, like the preceding one, contains an ‘obituary’ of the victims;
as at 5.542–549, it has the form of an extended genealogy with an ‘onion’ struc-
ture (sons – parents – grandparents – parents – sons; on this, Strasburger
1954, 22; cf. ring-compositionP and ABC-schemeP); here the arrangement of the
narrative is such that the accounts of the twins’ birth and death in 26 f. follow
one another immediately (Graziosi/Haubold on 26–7). – The scene gains ‘a
distinct kind of pathos’ (Fenik 1968, 152) via use of the typical motif ‘concep-
tion/birth in a rural environment’ (25), which provides an effective contrast to
the war scenes in the primary narrative; cf. 14.442 ff. and 20.381 ff. (likewise of
sons of nymphs), 4.473 ff.; on the particular associations between the present
passage and 14.442 ff., see Kirk.
21 Aisepos and Pedasos: Aisepos is named after a river at the eastern border of
the Troad, Pedasos after a town in the south (2.825n., 6.34–35n.); both heroes
are mentioned only here.
βῆ δὲ μετ(ά): a formulaic phrase (5x Il. at VB; 3x Il., 1x Od. following caesura C 2). Here
and at 5.152, 13.469 of an attacker (‘he attacked/charged’); otherwise neutral ‘he/she
walked toward’ (4.292, 13.297, etc.): Schw. 2.485. — οὕς ποτε: A relative pron. + ποτε
frequently introduces analepsesP; e.g. 4.474, 11.104, 21.35 (in ‘obituaries’, as here), as
well as 4.106, 6.132, etc.
22–23 Abarbare: The etymology of the name is uncertain (LfgrE; likely of non-

Greek derivation, according to Wathelet s.v.). Whether the character stems
from a local myth from Asia Minor (as suspected by Wathelet and Willcock)
or represents an ad hoc invention cannot be determined (Kirk). — Boukolion:
22 Iliad 6
a speaking name, appropriate to the rustic scene evoked in what follows: ‘cow-
herd’ (and in general ‘herdsman’, see LfgrE s.v. βουκόλος; in 25, Boukolion
appears as a shepherd); cf. von Kamptz 260; Wathelet s.v.; Higbie 1995,
21 f. – An older half-brother of Priam, although not listed among the sons of
Laomedon in the genealogy of the Trojan dynasty in 20.237 f. (since he is a
mere ad hoc invention for the present passage: Leaf; or due to his position
as an illegitimate son: Kirk; Ebbott 2003, 20 f. n. 48). Extramarital children
occasionally feature in the Iliad’s ‘obituaries’ (cf. 5.69 ff., 11.101 ff., 13.173,
15.332 ff.; Strasburger 1954, 23 f.); on their social position in Homeric society,
see Wickert-Micknat 1982, 84–86.
νηΐς: The term ‘naiad, spring-nymph’ (from νάω/ναίω ‘flow’) adds greater specificity to
νύμφη in 21 (in general ‘female nature deity’): LfgrE s.v. — ἀμύμονι: one of the most com-
mon generic epithetsP (1.92n.); usually of persons, as here, but also of statements, plans,
activities, etc. (LfgrE s.v.). The conventional rendering ‘blameless’ is based on a disputed
etymology (α privativum + -μυμ- from μῶμος, supported by Janko on 13.641–2 [with bib-
liography]); alternative suggestion by Heubeck 1987 (cf. ChronEG 1 s.v.): a deverbative
with suffix -μων- like δαήμων, ἐλεήμων, etc.; from ἀμεύομαι in the sense ‘exceed’ at-
tested in Pindar (Nem. 11.13 etc.), or alternatively from ἀμύνω (in this case originally
‘successfully fending off enemies’, later generalized as ‘excellent’). — Βουκολίωνι. |
Βουκολίων …: similarly 5.800 f., 6.197 f. On this type of linking, Fehling 1969, 144 f.;
cf. also 2.101–108n. end. — ἀγαυοῦ: a generic epithet of humans and deities; meaning
uncertain, but most likely ‘admirable, eminent’ (3.268n.).
24 in … secrecy: cf. 2.515, 14.296, 16.184: as these parallels suggest, the reference
is not to adultery (as at 160 ff.) but to a premarital relationship (Aristarchus
[schol. A on 24]; cf. Lehrs [1833] 1882, 131 f.; Rengakos 1994, 138). The motif
has the character of a ‘spicy’ detail; on its significance in Greek myth (where
the paternity of children conceived premaritally is generally assigned to a god)
and the socio-historical implications, see Mauritsch 1992, 39–60; Ebbott
2003, 9–36.
γενεῇ: properly ‘among the offspring’ (2.707n.). — γείνατο μήτηρ: a VE formula
(1.280n.). The stress is here (as at 13.777, Od. 6.25) placed on the predicative adj. σκότιον;
there is less interest in the mother – who remains nameless – than in the circumstances
of the birth.
25 1st VH ≈ 11.106; 2nd VH = Od. 5.126, ‘Hes.’ fr. 17(a).5 and 177.12 M.-W. (restored); ≈ Il.
3.445, Od. 23.219, h.Hom. 32.14. — ποιμαίνων … ἐπ(ί): ‘while watching over’. On this
use of ἐπί, Schw. 2.467; cf. Od. 20.209 f. ὅς μ’ ἐπὶ βουσὶν | εἷσ(ε), 20.221 βουσὶν ἐπ’
24 δέ (ϝ)ε: on the prosody, R 4.3. — ἑ: = αὐτόν (R 14.1).

25 μίγη: aor. of μείγνυμαι ‘mix with’, i.e. ‘sleep with’ (sc. τῇ νύμφῃ).
Commentary 23
ἀλλοτρίῃσι καθήμενον. – On princes as herdsmen, cf. Graziosi/Haubold ad loc. and

424n. — ὄεσσι: dat. pl. of ὄϊς, a metrically convenient variant of ὀΐεσσι (Schw. 1.564,
573; Chantr. 1.219). — φιλότητι καὶ εὐνῇ: a formulaic phrase; with the exception of
15.32 (φιλότης τε καὶ εὐνή), always in the dat. (7x early epic in the present VE formula,
see iterata; 2x Od., 2x ‘Hes.’ VB formula εὐνῇ καὶ φιλότητι). On the terminology, 3.441n.,
3.445n.; Wickert-Micknat 1982, 100–102.
26 2nd VH = ‘Hes.’ Sc. 49, ≈ fr. 17(a).14 M.-W.; cf. also Il. 5.548. — ἣ δ’ ὑποκυσαμένη: a VB
formula (also Od. 11.254 and 8x Hes./‘Hes.’, 1x h.Hom.; also in the pl. at Il. 20.225 of the
mares of Erichthonios). — γείνατο παῖδε: an inflectible formula (usually at VE; also
ἐγείνατο; object in the sing., dual or pl.; in total 2x Il., 3x Od., 10x Hes./‘Hes.’, 1x h.Hom.).
27 καὶ μέν: ‘καὶ μέν, like καὶ μήν, introduces a new point, or develops and amplifies an old
one’ (here: a reprisal of 21): Denniston 390; 1.269n. — ὑπέλυσε μένος καὶ φαίδιμα
γυῖα: Together with the objects μένος, ἦτορ, ἅψεα, γυῖα and γούνατα (connected in
different formulae; μένος + γυῖα only here), (ὑπο)λύειν describes the consequences of
lethal injuries, exhaustion and strong emotions: ‘to loosen (below)’ (causing the indi-
vidual’s knees to buckle), ‘to weaken, make limp’ (AH; LfgrE s.v.; Garland 1981, 47,
55–57). — μένος: denotes the vital energy lost at the point of death (LfgrE s.v. 141.29 ff.;
similarly θυμός in 17, see ad loc. and cf. 3.294n.; see also 6.72n.). — φαίδιμα γυῖα: a VE
formula (7x Il., 1x Hes.); on φαίδιμος, see 144n.
28 2nd VH = 15.524, 22.368 (also VE = 5.164, 17.60). — Despoiling slain opponents
is a recurrent element of Homeric battle descriptions. In addition to its mate-
rial value, the looted armor has symbolic significance as a document of the vic-
tor’s bravery (see esp. 480 f., 13.260 ff., 17.229 ff., as well as 6.234–236n.; but cf.
also Nestor’s admonition in 66 ff. not to be distracted from battle by despoiling
opponents [see ad loc.]). Bibliography: Hoekstra 1981, 21 f. (formulaic system
for scenes of despoiling); van Wees 1996, 54–56; Patzer 1996, 172–174.
29–36 A summary portrayal of seven further Achaian victories: leaders of dif-
ferent rank (see CH 3/4; on Polypoites 2.740n., on Leïtos 2.494n.) each kill an
opponent (similarly 14.511–522, of Trojan successes 15.339–342). All the vic-
tims are mentioned only here and are likely ad hoc inventions by the poet of
the Iliad (Faesi/Franke; Kullmann 1960, esp. 124 n. 1 and 129 n. 2; Broccia
1963, 32 n. 36). For the most part, they bear Greek names (see Wathelet s.v.;
Pidytes and Ableros are the only uncertain ones); Phylakos (2.705n.), Elatos
(Od. 22.267) and Melanthios (Od. 17.247 etc.) occur elsewhere as the names of
Greek characters.
26 διδυμάονε … παῖδε: dual.

28 Μηκιστηϊάδης: Euryalos. — τεύχε’ ἐσύλα: on the hiatus, R 5.1; on the uncontracted form
τεύχε(α), R 6.
24 Iliad 6
On the structure of the list in detail, see Broccia 1963, 25–28: the self-contained 29 is
followed by three pairs of verses with chiastic construction (30 f. and 35b–36: victim –
victor – victor – victim; reversed in 32 f.), while the symmetry is broken by three ad-
ditions in progressive enjambmentP (of different function syntactically: ἔγχεϊ χαλκείῳ,
Νεστορίδης, φεύγοντ(α)); further loosening is introduced by the parenthesis 34–35a.
The passage overall evokes ‘the impression of rapid and relentless attack’ (Graziozi/
Haubold ad loc.). – Reconstruction of the genesis of individual verses in Visser 1987
(197–199 on 29, 181–184 on 30, 79–102 on 32, 220–222 on 35, 190–194 on 36).
29 μενεπτόλεμος: a generic epithetP of heroes and peoples; 4x in the present VE formula
of Polypoites, leader of the Lapiths (2.740n.).
30 Perkote: a town situated on the Hellespont (2.835n.).
31–32 with the bronze spear … | … with the shining shaft: The use of spear vs.
shaft (Greek énchos/dóry, largely synonymous in Homer) in regard to these two
killings in particular does not represent a specific detail of fighting technique
(cf. 3n.); redundant in terms of content, the two expressions aid versification
as metrical filler (as well as introducing variatio): Visser 1987, 80 ff.; Bakker/
Fabricotti 1991, 66 ff.
ἔγχεϊ χαλκείῳ: a VB formula (7x Il.). — δῖον: the most common generic epithetP in
epic language (1.7n.). — δουρὶ φαεινῷ: a VE formula (22x Il.), identical to νήλεϊ χαλκῷ
in terms of meter and prosody (11x Il., 8x Od., 2x Hes./’Hes.’). The deviation from the
principle of economy of formulae (FOR 32) can be explained by the different use of the
two expressions: in contrast to the more neutral δουρὶ φαεινῷ, ‘νήλεϊ χαλκῷ may add
an overtone of menace and imminent terror to the context’, e.g. 5.330, 13.501 = 16.761
(Bakker/van den Houten 1992, quotation from p. 11; on this phenomenon in general:
Friedrich 2007).
33 ἄναξ ἀνδρῶν Ἀγαμέμνων: an inflectible VE formula (nom./voc.; see 1.172n.); on the
phrase ἄναξ ἀνδρῶν, 1.7n.
34–35 Satnioeis … | … Pedasos: river and town in the territory of the Leleges,
beneath Ida in the southern Troad (21.86 f.; Strab. 13.1.50 [= C 605 f.]; more pre-
cise localization is impossible: Cook 1973, 245 f., 267). Pedasos, the hometown
of Priam’s secondary wife Laothoë, was destroyed together with Lyrnessos
(2.690n.) by Achilleus (20.92, 21.84 ff.).
30 Ὀδυσεύς: on the single -σ-, R 9.1.

32 ἐνήρατο: aor. of ἐναίρω ‘kill’; mid. with no difference in meaning from the act. (R 23). —
δουρί: on the declension, R 12.5; cf. 3n.
33 δὲ (ϝ)άναξ: on the prosody, R 4.3.
34 ἐϋρρείταο: on the declension, R 11.1.
35 ἕλε: = εἷλε (R 16.1).
Commentary 25
ναῖε δέ: on the v.l. ὃς ναῖε (Zenodotus), see Graziosi/Haubold ad loc. — ἐϋρρείταο: a
generic epithet of rivers (LfgrE s.v.). — αἰπεινήν: a generic epithet of towns/cities (met-
rical variants: αἰπύς [2.538n.], αἰπήεις [only at 21.87, likewise of Pedasos]). The reference
is more likely to the impression created by a well-fortified town’s exterior (‘towering’;
Visser 1997, 86, 128 f.) than to its geographical situation (LfgrE: ‘located on high’). —
ἥρως: appears as a generic epithetP of a range of major and minor characters (here
and at 63, as at 1.102, 24.474, etc.) and of the Achaians (2.110, 6.67, 19.34, etc.), as a peri-
phrastic denominationP of outstanding warriors (e.g. 61), and in the pl. in reference to
fighters from both sides (1.4, 16.144, 20.326, etc.). The term characterizes the human ac-
tors in epic narratives as belonging to a grand past (see Hes. Op. 156 ff. and Il. 12.23: the
age of heroes as ‘demi-gods’; cf. 1.4n., 6.3n.; LfgrE s.v. ἥρως; van Wees 2006); the extent
of its social connotation (‘member of the elite’) is disputed (pro: 1.4n. with bibliography;
contra: Schmidt 2004, 17; van Wees loc. cit. 368 f.). On the significance of hero cults in
the Homeric period, see 419a n.
36 as he ran away: Like the use of spear vs. shaft at 31/32, this is not a detail
characteristic of this act of killing (after Aias breached the opposing frontline,
a general flight began, cf. 41, 73 f.; 1–72n.). The addition (Greek phéugont’:
participle in enjambmentP) again has a primarily metrical-stylistic function;
likewise 15.342 (following the mention of mass flight at 15.326): Visser 1987,
190–192.
37–65 A warrior’s plea for mercy is a typical motif in Homeric depictions of battle
(a variant of the themeP ‘supplication’]; on this, 1.500–531n. and HE s.v. ‘suppli-
cation’ with bibliography; specifically on the present type of scene, Merz 1953,
36–40; Strasburger 1954, 85–88; Griffin 1980, 53–56; Pedrick 1980; 1982,
129–133, 139 f.; Yamagata 1994, 41–44; Giordano 1999, 109–134; Stoevesandt
2004, 149–159; Pagani 2008, 407–415). Throughout the Iliad, the supplicants
are members of the Trojan party (a sign of their military inferiority that also
becomes apparent elsewhere: schol. T on 6.45 etc.; Stoevesandt loc. cit.).
Although mercy toward individual warriors – especially by Achilleus – is men-
tioned in external analepsesP (11.104b–106, 21.35b–46a/100–102, 24.751–753; cf.
also 2.229–230n.), in battle scenes in the Iliad itself all supplication is in vain
(10.374b–381/446–457, 11.122–147, 20.463–472a, 21.34–119; cf. also 22.337–354;
likewise Od. 22.310–329, differently Od. 14.273–284, 22.330–377). The distinc-
tiveness of the present scene lies in the fact that Menelaos at first wants to ac-
cede to his opponent’s plea, but is then persuaded otherwise by Agamemnon
(a special type of the epic ‘almost-episode’ [‘Beinahe-Episode’; cf. 2.155–156n.]:
Nesselrath 1992, 11 f.; on a parallel motif in the story of Gilgamesh, see West
1997, 216 f.). In the wider context, it serves to recall the war’s prehistory (56–
57a n.) and to clarify the situation faced by the Atreidai (55–60n., 62a n.) and
the Trojans (57b–60n.) after the injustice perpetrated in the past.
26 Iliad 6
37–44 The terse statement ‘Menelaos captured Adrestos alive’ (37–38a) is fol-

lowed by a detailed narrative outlining step by step how the situation came to
be; on this narrative technique, de Jong 2007, 35; de Jong/ Nünlist 2007, 539
s.v. ‘«header» device’; cf. also 156–159n.
37–38 1st VH of 37 ≈ 45; 2nd VH of 38 ≈ 18.7. — Menelaos of the great war cry:
2.408n. — captured … | alive: a surprise after the numerous killing scenes,
ensuring renewed attention. — Adrestos: mentioned only here. The character
shares his name with two other Trojans who die in the Iliad (2.830n., 11.329:
leader of the people from Adresteia; 16.694: victim of Patroklos) and with
the well-known leader of the Seven against Thebes (2.572n., 14.121, etc.; BNP
s.v.). The derivation of the name is disputed, but it might have been linked, at
least by folk etymology, with Greek ádrēstos ‘inescapable/not running away’
(Wathelet s.v. Ἄδρηστος I with bibliography); in the present context (see esp.
57–60), it is perhaps to be read ‘who cannot escape (his fate)’ (Wilamowitz
1916, 303; Maronitis 1965, 327).
δ’ ἄρ’ ἔπειτα: a more emphatic connective than the usual simple δέ / δ’ ἄρ(α) (sugges-
tion by de Jong); it leads from the unembellished catalogue in 29 ff. to the more signif-
icant episode that follows (similarly Od. 22.285; cf. also Il. 3.398n. on τ’ ἄρ’ ἔπειτα in
connection with verbs of emotion). — ἀτυζομένω …: ἀτύζεσθαι primarily means ‘to
be bewildered, panicked, beside oneself’ (cf. 41, 8.183, 15.90, etc.); here and at 18.7, Od.
11.606 with an indication of location/direction: ‘to flee in a panic’ (LfgrE s.v.); cf. also
468n. – On the asyndetic string of participles (ἀτυζομένω … | … βλαφθέντε … | ἄξαντ(ε)),
cf. Schw. 2.405 f. — πεδίοιο: ‘across the plain’ (2.785n.).
39–40 1st VH of 40 = 16.371. — tamarisk growth: The tamarisk, a ‘woody
plant that predominantly occurs, in the form of a tree or bush, in wet areas
such as embankments’, was ‘one of the most common tree species found by
Schliemann on the banks of the Skamandros, in agreement with the informa-
tion in the Iliad’ (LfgrE s.v. μυρίκη, transl.); cf. 10.466 f., 21.18, 21.350. — char-
iot: on the use of war-chariots in Homer, see 2.384n., 6.103n.; current biblio-
graphy: Buchholz 2010, 29–38; Raaflaub 2011.
βλαφθέντε: In Homer, the medio-passive βλάπτεσθαι is commonly used with the (per-
haps primary) sense ‘to lose one’s footing, stumble, become entangled in’; cf. 15.647,
16.331, 23.387, etc. (LfgrE s.v.; Kurz 1966, 22 with n. 23). — ἀγκύλον: with ἅρμα only
38–40 ἵππω … ἀτυζομένω … | … βλαφθέντε … | ἄξαντ(ε) … αὐτώ: nom. dual (Homeric war-

chariots are pulled by two horses).
38 γάρ (ϝ)οι: on the prosody, R 4.5. — οἱ: = αὐτῷ (R 14.1).
39 ὄζῳ ἔνι: = ἐν ὄζῳ (R 20 1–2).
40 ἄξαντ(ε): aor. part. of ἄγνυμι ‘shatter’. — ἐβήτην: 3rd dual of ἔβην.
Commentary 27
here (likely in reference to the curved edge of the chariot body), otherwise an epithet
of bows (3x Il./Od. ἀγκύλα τόξα); a prosodic variant of καμπύλος (2x in early epic with
ἅρμα, 10x with τόξα); see Plath 1994, 139–143 (with bibliography). — ἐν πρώτῳ ῥυμῷ:
‘at the tip of the pole’, i.e. at the apparently particularly fragile join between pole and
yoke (numerous Trojan chariots break in the same weak spot during their flight across
the ditch of the Achaian camp, 16.370 f.); on the technical details, see 5.729 f., 24.271–
274n.; Wiesner 1968, 16–18, 104–106; cf. also Crouwel 1981, 90–97; 1992, 71 f. — αὐτὼ
μέν: in contrast to Adrestos (αὐτὸς δ(έ), 42); but probably not ‘the horses themselves’
vs. ‘he himself’ (since in antitheses the elements of the contrasting pair are not nor-
mally both rendered with αὐτός), but αὐτώ with the sense ‘on their own’, without their
charioteer (considered in LfgrE s.v. 1653.40 ff.; on this use of αὐτός, cf. 1.270, 14.248,
etc.).
41 ≈ 21.4, 21.554. — φοβέοντο: According to Aristarchus, φοβεῖσθαι is used in Homer ex-
clusively with the sense ‘to flee’ (schol. A ad loc. etc.; Lehrs [1833] 1882, 75–77), but in
contrast to φέβομαι, it has a psychological component (135, 12.45 f., 21.574 f., etc. show
the first signs of the later standard sense ‘to be afraid’; Φόβος as a demonic force: 4.440,
5.739, 9.2, etc., cf. CG 38); on this, Trümpy 1950, 221 f.; Gruber 1963, 19–25; Kurz 1966,
142; Erbse 1986, 29 ff.; 2002, 45 f.
42 = 23.394 (of Eumelos during a chariot race). — was whirled beside the wheel
from the chariot: i.e. he had fallen sideways across the wheel and remained
lying beside it; the narrator probably envisages a chariot body with low sides
or railings (Wiesner 1968, 16), as was common in the Geometric period
(Wiesner loc. cit. 68–70 with figs. 17–18 and 25; Crouwel 1981, 73 f. with figs.
143–145).
δίφροιο: on the semantic range (‘chariot[body]’ and ‘chair, stool’) and the formation of
the word, cf. 3.262n.
43 πρηνὴς ἐν κονίῃσιν: an inflectible VB formula (see the iterata at 2.418n.); on the use of
πρηνής, 2.414n., 6.307n.
44 Ἀτρεΐδης Μενέλαος: an inflectible formula (VB: nom. 5x Il.; voc. 1x Il., 6x Od. – VE:
nom. 1x Il., 2x Od.; acc. 1x Od.); but also with word(s) intervening (Ἀτρ. at VB or after
caesura A 3, Μεν. at VE: 15x in early epic). — δολιχόσκιον ἔγχος: a VE formula (and
after caesura B 1 at 6.126); δολιχόσκιος probably means ‘casting a long shadow’ (the
second component is σκιά): 3.346n. with bibliography.
41 ᾗ περ: ‘just where, where also’; περ stresses the preceding word (R 24.10).
43 πρηνής: predicative adj., ‘forward, head first’. — κονίῃσιν: on the declension, R 11.1. — πὰρ …
ἔστη: so-called tmesis (R 20.2); on the apocope (πάρ = παρά), R 20.1. — δέ (ϝ)οι: on the prosody,
R 4.3.
28 Iliad 6
45 2nd VH = Od. 10.264; ≈ Il. 21.71. — catching him by the knees: a common
gesture of supplicants (1.500n.; Gould [1973] 2001, 24–27; Naiden 2006, 45 f.);
on the significance of the physical contact, see 1.513n., 6.61–65n.
ἐλλίσσετο: The main tradition shows the standard form ἐλίσσετο, but -λ- must be pro-
nounced as a double consonant for metrical reasons; West accordingly prints the papy-
rus variant ἐλλίσσετο; cf. G 16.
46–50 ≈ 11.131–135; 48–50 also ≈ 10.379–381. On the rhetorical composition of the
supplication speech, Dentice di Accadia Ammone 2012, 157–160 (≈ 2013, 106–
110). – The release of captured soldiers for ransom was a common practice in
Greek and Roman antiquity (evidence in Pritchett 1991, 245–283). Menelaos’
spontaneous reaction in the present scene (51–53), as well as 2.229 f. (see ad
loc.), 11.106 and 22.49–51, show that a similar concept operated in principle in
Homeric society (notwithstanding the fact that all relevant offers in the Iliad
are rejected); see Wickert-Micknat 1983, 33–37; Wilson 2002, 31 f., 148 f. – On
the ring-compositionP structure of the speech, Lohmann 1970, 113.
46 ζώγρει: ζωγρέω < ζωὸν ἀγρέω ‘capture alive’ (Frisk and DELG s.v. ζωάγρια). — Ἀτρέος:
short-vowel gen. of Ἀτρεύς (the original form of the name was perhaps *Atresion vel
sim., from ἄτρεστος ‘untrembling, fearless’: West 2001b; 3.36–37n.). — σὺ δ(έ): occurs
predominantly in Homer and Herodotus, ‘sometimes at the beginning of a sentence
without necessarily emphasizing the previously mentioned second person, who does
not stand in contrast to another person either’ (Schw. 2.188, transl.). Common with im-
peratives: cf. e.g. 24.555 (λῦσον …· σὺ δὲ δέξαι ἄποινα), Od. 7.163, 12.219 f., 22.431; see
also 1.97n. on ὅ γε. – On σὺ δέ after a voc., 2.344n. — ἄξια: like other adjs. of eval-
uative content, used almost exclusively in character speechP (exception: 23.885); see
Graziosi/Haubold ad loc. — δέξαι ἄποινα: an inflectible VE formula (imper. 4x Il.; inf.
2x Il., 1x h.Ven.; cf. also 1.20, 1.95). ἄποινα ‘ransom’ is usually explained as haplology for
*ἀπό-ποινα (from ἀπο-τίνω) (1.13n.); differently, West 2001a, 121: *ἅποινα < *sm̥ -kwoina,
‘equalizing payment’, with psilosis (cf. 2.169n. on ἀτάλαντος). On the distinction of the
term from ποινή (usually ‘compensation’ for injustice committed, then also ‘revenge’:
3.290n.), see LfgrE s.v. ἄποινα and ποινή; for details on the economic and social aspects
of payments of ransom, compensation and revenge: Scodel 2008, 75–93. – The aor.
imper. δέξαι ‘relates to the statement immediately required that Menelaos is willing to
accept the payment’ (AH, transl.).
47 ἐν ἀφνειοῦ πατρός: sc. δόμῳ (Schw. 2.120). According to Chantr. 2.104 f., however,
this is not in accord with the original meaning of the phrase, which may instead repre-
sent the remains of an old construction εἰς/ἐν + partitive gen. (cf. ἐμποδών). — κειμήλια
κεῖται: an inflectible VE formula (5x Il./Od.; in addition 3x Od. κειμήλια κεῖτο ἄνακτος);
45 λαβών: sc. Μενέλαον, with γούνων as gen. of the body part touched. — γούνων: on the declen-
sion, R 12.5 (< *γόνϝων, cf. R 4.2).
Commentary 29
figura etymologica (κειμήλιον ‘treasure, valuable object’ with κεῖμαι ‘lie in store’ [cf.
1.124, 4.144, etc.]: Frisk, LfgrE). – On the social and cultural significance of κειμήλια in
Homer and Archaic Greece in general, see Fischer 1973, 442–448; Bichler 2007.
48 = 10.379, 11.133, Od. 21.10; ≈ Od. 14.324. — bronze … gold … difficultly
wrought iron: ‘a triad as an expression of comprehensiveness’ for a collective
(here ‘many treasures’), whose importance is meant to be stressed, as at e.g.
1.177, 3.431, 9.498, 11.265 (Göbel 1933, 32 f., transl.; cf. also Blom 1936, 38–40).
In accord with the ‘law of increasing parts’, the third noun is augmented with
an epithet (a common stylistic figure in IE poetry: 1.145n.; West 2004). – On the
significance of bronze in Homeric epics, cf. 2.226n., 6.3n. The fact that iron is
listed next to gold as a precious material may be interpreted as an archaizing
trait: Gray 1954, 1 f.; LfgrE s.v. σίδηρος with bibliography (the value of iron
in the Bronze Age due to its scarcity); Hoekstra on Od. 14.324 (a formulaic
verse of late Mycenaean or Dark Age date, when the processing of iron still
entailed great effort – as attested by the epithet polýkmētos [LfgrE s.v.]); differ-
ently Patzek 1992, 190.
49 χαρίσαιτο: on the development of the specialized sense ‘give cheerfully/willingly’ from
the phrase διδόναι χαριζόμενον (11.23, Od. 10.43), see Latacz 1966, 113 f. The choice of
words portrays Adrestos’ ‘desperate attempt to establish a bond with the enemy’ as un-
dertaken only ‘as a last resort in supplication’ (Graziosi/Haubold); likewise 19.380,
11.134; cf. also 1.18 f. and 24.478 f. (with n.). — ἀπερείσι’ ἄποινα: ‘immeasurable ran-
som’, a hyperbolic formula (1.13n.; Scodel 2008, 76–80).
50 by the ships of the Achaians: i.e. in the Greek camp, which is surrounded by
their ships in the manner of a rampart (1.12b n.).
εἴ κεν …: κεν is often used in Homer in the main and subordinate clauses of potential
sentences (Schw. 2.685 f.). — ἐπὶ νηυσὶν Ἀχαιῶν: a VE formula (1.559n.).
51 ≈ 2.142 (see ad loc.), 3.395, 4.208, 11.804, 13.468, Od. 17.150 (each with ὄρινεν at VE); 2nd
VH = Od. 7.258, 9.33, 23.337; ≈ Il. 9.587, ‘Hes.’ fr. 22.8 M.-W (restored). — θυμὸν ἔπειθεν:
The lexemes of the semantic field ‘soul-spirit’ are frequently chosen with regard to
metrical convenience alone (1.24n.; Jahn 1987 passim). But a semantic difference can
be identified in the phrases θυμὸν and φρένα(ς) πείθειν (here and at 9.386, 9.587, 22.78,
Od. 7.258, 9.500, 23.230 vs. Il. 4.104, 12.173, 16.842, Od. 1.42 f.): θυμός is employed where
emotions are concerned (θυμὸν ἔπειθεν ≈ ‘swayed/overcame his heart’), whereas φρένες
49 τῶν: ‘from these things’ (R 17). — κεν: = ἄν (R 21.1). — τοι: = σοι (R 14.1).
50 ζωόν: predicative with ἐμέ, to be taken with the locative phrase ἐπὶ νηυσὶν Ἀχαιῶν: ‘that I am
alive by the ships of the Achaians’. — πεπύθοιτ(ο): reduplicated aor. of πυνθάνομαι. — νηυσίν:
on the declension, R 12.1.
51 φάτο: impf. of φημί; mid. with no difference in meaning from the act. (R 23). — στήθεσσιν:
on the plural, R 18.2.
30 Iliad 6
denotes someone’s rational side (φρένα(ς) ἔπειθε ≈ ‘convinced/persuaded him’): van

der Mije 2011, esp. 453. Menelaos’ willingness to spare Adrestos (probably not merely
because of the ransom, but also out of pity: cf. Agamemnon’s rebuke 55 f.) is in keeping
with his otherwise rather gentle character (cf. e.g. 23.566–600; Graziosi/Haubold on
51–65 with bibliography). But Agamemnon persuades him to change his mind by ap-
pealing to reason (61: ἔτρεψεν … φρένας): van der Mije loc. cit. 451. — ἔπειθεν: The
impf. is probably not conative (thus Leaf, similarly Willcock, Kirk), but has an aorist
sense (as at 4.104, 16.842, etc.); Menelaos is already about to hand the captive to his
servant (52 f.): van der Mije 2011, 451 n. 6, with reference to Rijksbaron (1984) 2002,
18. – ἔπειθεν is the reading in one papyrus and three manuscripts (among them the
‘libri praestantissimi’ Venetus A and Laur. 32.15; see app. crit. and West 1998, XI); the
vulgate ὄρινεν (in the Venetus A super lineam) is presumably the result of a mechanical
alignment of the passage with the formulaic verse (see iterata).
52–53a Heroes in leadership positions always have men at hand who can, when
needed, take charge of prisoners (as here and 21.32), captured horses (5.25 f.
etc.) or spoils (13.640 f. etc.) (Hellmann 2000, 118).
τάχ’ ἔμελλε: an inflectible formulaic phrase (3rd sing./pl.; in total 4x Il., 3x Od., 1x
each Hes./‘Hes.’, 1x h.Merc.). The impf. of μέλλω + fut. inf. is occasionally used in
‘almost-episodes’ (‘Beinahe-Episoden’) to refer to an expected action that is temporarily
or conclusively checked; cf. e.g. 11.181, 23.773, Od. 4.514, 6.110, 10.275 f.; Basset 1979, 52–
57; LfgrE s.v. 112.53 ff.; de Jong on Od. 6.110–11. — θοὰς ἐπὶ νῆας Ἀχαιῶν: a VE formula
(1.12b n., 1.371n.). — καταξέμεν: a thematic s-aorist (as at 23.50, 23.111, 24.663), probably
secondarily derived from the ‘future imperative’ ἄξετε (3.105 etc.; cf. ἄξοντο 8.545 be-
side ἄξεσθε 8.505): 3.103n.; Risch 250; Chantr. 1.418; Roth (1970–1974) 1990, 23–26.
53b ἀλλ’ Ἀγαμέμνων: on a new beginning after caesura C 2, see 1.194n.
54 1st VH ≈ 15.584, 17.257; cf. 6.394, 15.88 (2nd VH). — θέων … ὀμοκλήσας: The two parti-
ciples highlight Agamemnon’s eagerness. — ὀμοκλήσας: from ὀμοκλή ‘loud call’ (the
final element is from καλέω; the initial element is uncertain, but is perhaps equivalent
to Sanskr. áma- ‘power, force’: Frisk, DELG; more optimistically, West 1998, XVIII); the
word is used in reference to scolding, threatening or warning speeches (cf. e.g. 2.199,
5.439, 20.365, 20.448, 24.248/252): LfgrE s.v.; Krapp 1964, 78. — ἔπος ηὔδα: a VE formula
(14x Il., 1x Od.); always with a preceding participle that determines the tone of the fol-
lowing speech more precisely (ὀμοκλήσας only here; elsewhere δακρύσας, εὐχόμενος,
ὀλοφυρόμενος, etc.). On the adaptation of speech introduction formulaeP to their indi-
vidual context in general, see 1.58n.
52 μιν: = αὐτόν (R 14.1). — τάχ(α): adv., ‘soon’, in connection with ἔμελλε ‘he was almost on the
point of’. — νῆας: on the declension, R 12.1.
53 ᾧ: possessive pron. of the 3rd person (R 14.4). — καταξέμεν: aor. inf. (R 16.4; ↑), final: ‘in
order to lead him down (sc. to the coast)’.
Commentary 31
55–60 This speech is typical of Agamemnon’s self-perception as an ‘unrelenting

judge and designated avenger of Trojan transgression’ (Strasburger 1954,
70, transl.; cf. Schadewaldt [1938] 1966, 50) and of his propensity to cruelty
(Fenik 1986, 5 ff.); cf. 1.26–32n., 2.411–420n., 4.234–239 and esp. 11.137b–147.
At the same time, his advice in 62 is termed ‘appropriate’ or ‘sensible’ by the
narrator, since Menelaos would have sent the wrong signal by sparing his op-
ponent (see 62a n.); the speech can perhaps be understood as a ‘rhetorical per-
formance’ aimed also at the other Achaians and ‘intended to boost the morale
of the army and encourage the kind of relentless fighting urged by Nestor in
the exhortation that follows’ (Sammons 2009, 178 f.); on the idea that even in
the midst of battle, foot-soldiers attentively follow all that is happening around
them, cf. 230 f.
The passion of the appeal is underscored by rhetorical means: a double address with 2x
ὦ (cf. 17.238; Soph. Phil. 799; Aristoph. Nub. 816, etc.; on this, Schw. 2.61); ironic ques-
tions; a cluster of negatives (57–59: μή τις … | … μηδ’ ὅν τινα … | … μηδ’ ὅς); three integral
and two progressive enjambmentsP in six verses (see Broccia 1963, 41 f.; Kirk on 55–60
and 57–60).
55 1st VH = 17.238. — ὦ πέπον: an intimate address, approximate to ‘my dear’; depending
on the context, it can be meant amicably (e.g. 5.109, 11.314, 12.322, etc.) or – as here –
used to admonish/reproach (cf. e.g. 9.252, 16.628; it is even more pointed in the two
attestations of the pl.: 2.235n., 13.120): LfgrE s.v. – On ὦ with the voc., 1.442n. — τίη
δέ: δέ after interrogatives often contains ‘a note of surprise, impatience, or indignation’
(Denniston 173; cf. AH ad loc.); in the combination τίη δὲ σύ, as here: 14.264, 15.244,
17.170, Od. 16.421, 17.375, 19.500. On writing τίη as a single word, West 1998, XXI f. —
κήδεαι: on κήδομαι ‘be concerned for someone’s well-being, feel pity’, see LfgrE s.v.
1401.35 ff.; Mawet 1979, 366–368; Kim 2000, 53–58.
56–57a Did you in your house get the best of treatment | from the Trojans?:
an ironic allusion to the abduction of Helen (cf. CH 8 with n. 30; 2.161n., 6.288–
295n., 6.291–292n.).
ἀνδρῶν; … | … Τρώων: generalizing plurals: Agamemnon accuses Menelaos of exces-
sive humanity; he does not consider Adrestos so much an individual as a representative
of the Trojan side (cf. AH; LfgrE s.v. ἀνήρ 844.57 ff.). — ἦ: on ἦ introducing indignant
questions, see 1.133n. — ἄριστα: not an adv., but the subject of πεποίηται (impersonal
ποιεῖταί τινι + adv. is post-Homeric: Leaf).
55 τίη: ‘why?’. — κήδεαι: on the uncontracted form, R 6.

56 κατὰ (ϝ)οῖκον: on the prosody, R 4.3.
57 πρὸς Τρώων: ‘on the part of the Trojans, from the Trojans’.
32 Iliad 6
57b–60 The practice of Homeric warfare is that generally only adult men are
killed in the conquest of a city, whereas women and children are enslaved
(see Agamemnon’s own words in 4.238 f.; in addition 9.593 f., 24.732 ff., Od.
14.264 f.); the victors’ vindictiveness may nevertheless also affect children, es-
pecially members of the royal family (cf. 22.63 f., 24.734 ff.; Il. parv. fr. 29 West
[Astyanax]; Cypr. fr. 31 West: ‘he is a fool who kills the father and spares the
sons’). Agamemnon’s angry, pointed wish not to spare even unborn male chil-
dren poignantly reveals the extent of the threat facing the besieged Trojans:
a sombre background for the Troy-scenes following in 237 ff. (Owen 1946,
57). – On Homeric practice regarding conquests in general, see Wickert-
Micknat 1983, 32–49 (specifically on the handling of children: 32 f., 38 f.,
46 ff.; more precisely on this, Hutchinson 1985, 100). For references to the
extinction of unborn life in Near Eastern literature (e.g. in the Old Testament:
2 Kings 8:12 and 15:16, Isaiah 13.18, Amos 1:13), see West 1997, 217; Louden
2006, 151.
57 2nd VH = Od. 12.287; ≈ Od. 9.286, 12.446; cf. also Il. 14.507 = 16.283 = Od. 22.43; Od. 1.11,
17.47, 22.67. — αἰπὺν ὄλεθρον: a VE formula (6x Il., 8x Od.; 1x Od. after caesura A 3).
In its figurative meaning ‘abrupt, harsh, difficult to deal with’ (with ὄλεθρος, πόνος,
χόλος, etc.), αἰπύς is one of the words of emotion that are largely limited to direct speech
(see character languageP; de Jong [1987] 2004, 142).
59–60 of Ilion’s | people: on ‘Ilion’ and ‘Troy’ as alternative names for the be-
sieged city, see 1.71n.; FOR 24.
κοῦρον ἐόντα: a more precise determination of gender, ‘as a boy’ (AH). κοῦρος (other-
wise mostly ≈ νεανίας) in reference to unborn children is found only here in early epic;
of infants (with the meaning ‘son’) at Od. 19.523, h.Hom. 19.45 (LfgrE s.v.; Rengakos 1994,
105 f.). — φέροι: on the potential opt. in a relative clause after a desiderative in the
main clause, see Schw. 2.325; Chantr. 2.248. — ἅμα πάντες: an inflectible formula
(in different locations within the verse; in total 11x Il., 10x Od., 5x h.Hom.); virtually
‘merged into a single semantic unit’ (≈ ἅπαντες): LfgrE s.v. ἅμα 600.57, transl.; 1.424n. —
ἀκήδεστοι καὶ ἄφαντοι: ‘unburied and with no grave marker’ (ἀκήδεστος like ἀκηδής
in 24.554, Od. 24.187: ‘unprovided for’ in the sense of ‘without receiving the last hon-
ors’; ἄφαντος from φαίνομαι, i.e. with no visible sign of them remaining): LfgrE s.v.;
Wickert-Micknat 1983, 70 f.; on the emphatic connection of semantically similar terms
(occasionally both with α privativum, as here), see 1.415n., 3.40n. (with further parallels
and bibliography). – Similar threats and wishes – in particular that the body of an oppo-
nent fall prey to dogs and carrion-eating birds – are repeatedly found in speeches by he-
58 γαστέρι: locative dat. without preposition (R 19.2).

59 ἐόντα: = ὄντα (R 16.6). — μηδ’ ὃς φύγοι: ὅς is demonstrative, ‘not even he’.
60 ἐξαπολοίατ(ο): = ἐξαπόλοιντο (R 16.2); with gen.: ‘let them be eradicated from’.
Commentary 33
roes on both sides; cf. e.g. 13.831 (Hektor addressing Aias), 22.41 ff. (Priam on Achilleus),
22.335 f./352 ff. (Achilleus addressing Hektor); further attestations and bibliography in
1.4n.
61–65 Menelaos accepts Agamemnon’s speech without objection and pushes
away Adrestos, who is then killed by Agamemnon. It is noteworthy that (1)
Menelaos does not kill the supplicant himself and (2) the killing happens only
after physical contact between him and his opponent is severed: the Atreidai
thus avoid violating the ‘rules’ of the supplication ritual (otherwise done
in Homeric epic only by Odysseus in Od. 22.310 ff.). Menelaos must still use
physical force to end physical contact with Adrestos (in contrast to the scene
with Lykaon Il. 21.114 ff.; see in detail Gould [1973] 2001, 32–36), but this does
not turn him into a violator of divine law: supplicants on the battlefield are
not protected by Zeus hikésios, since there can be no right to mercy in war
(Stoevesandt 2004, 153 with n. 481; Pagani 2008, 415).
61 ≈ 7.120, 13.788. — ἔτρεψεν: v.l. παρέπεισεν (cf. iterata). — ἀδελφεόο: a reconstructed
form (see app. crit.); the transmitted ἀδελφειοῦ shows metrical lengthening that can
be removed via dissolution of the contraction at word end (West 1998, XXXIII f. [with
bibliography]; critical of this is G 45 n. 24; Führer/Schmidt 2001, 18); cf. also 2.518n.,
2.731n., 6.344n. — φρένας: cf. 51n.; on the original meaning, 1.103n. — ἥρως: 34–35n.
62a = 7.121a. — [since he urged justice] by counseling what was appropriate:
This passage has caused discomfort among ancient and modern interpreters,
since the cruelty apparently recommended is in contradiction to the sympa-
thetic portrayal of the Trojans’ fate elsewhere (especially in the ‘obituaries’ [cf.
16n.] and in the homilia [392 ff.]: Fenik 1986, 25 f.). But (1) Greek pareipṓn (‘by
counseling’) denotes the act of swaying (cf. Schw. 2.493); the remark should
thus be connected specifically with Agamemnon’s advice to spare no suppli-
cant, rather than with his cruel wish in verses 57 ff. (von der Mühll 1952,
109). (2) aísimos in connection with verbs of speech and thought means ‘in
accord with the situation and social norms; appropriate, sensible’ (clearly so
in the parallel passage 7.121; cf. LfgrE s.v.). It does not contain a moral judg-
ment (‘what is right’) but a sober statement: the ‘heroic code’ demands that
Menelaos – the initiator of the campaign – consequently pursue the restora-
tion of his honor without sparing any opponent (contrast 226n.); after the fail-
ure of the negotiations for Helen’s return, the entire Trojan community can be
held liable for the injustice committed, individual sentiments notwithstanding
(cf. 1.42 vs. 1.22 f.). But the fact that the narrator records this does not imply
that he wants to prevent compassion being felt for the victims of this intercom-
61 ἀδελφεόο: = ἀδελφοῦ (↑).

34 Iliad 6
munal conflict; see Kirk ad loc.; van Wees 1992, 188 with 384 n. 50; Wilson
2002, 166 f.; Stoevesandt 2004, 152–155; Scodel 2008, 83 f.; Sammons 2009,
175–180 (cf. 55–60n.).
Other attempts at a solution are less satisfactory: Fenik 1986 (αἴσιμα παρειπών, coined
for situations such as 7.121, is here employed incorrectly due to a ‘formular reflex’);
Goldhill 1990 (αἰ. παρ. ‘swaying him with fateful words’); Yamagata 1990 (αἰ. παρ. as a
mere evaluation of Agamemnon’s ‘eloquence’: ‘persuading/dissuading by a well meas-
ured/-balanced argument’). – According to Taplin 1992, 50, the phrase αἴσιμα παρειπών
portrays Menelaos’ judgment in secondary focalizationP, but the text contains no clear
signal of focalization (de Jong [1987] 2004, 205; cf. Stoevesandt loc. cit. n. 486). –
A recent interpretation worth considering (though unverifiable) is offered by Bostock
2015, esp. 106: παρειπών should be read like παραύδα in Od. 11.488 with the sense ‘try
to make someone think differently about something’; αἴσιμα παρειπών would thus not
be the narrator’s comment on Agamemnon’s speech, but simply state that Agamemnon
made Menelaos change his opinion about αἴσιμα: ‘talking him round as to what was
appropriate’.
62b–65 String of integral enjambmentsP (as in the preceding speech of Agamemnon): ‘The
result is intense and dramatic’ (Kirk).
62b ἕθεν: on the prosodic reverberation of an original word beginning [ww] (< *hw- < *sw-),
see G 22.
63 κρείων Ἀγαμέμνων: a VE formula (1.102n.).
64 ≈ 14.447; 1st VH also ≈ 14.517. — οὖτα: root aor., existing beside the probably more
recent sigmatic aor. οὔτασε and οὔτησε (Frisk s.v. with bibliography; Tucker 1990,
211 f.). οὐτά(ζ)ω means ‘strike, pierce, wound (from close proximity)’ (in contrast to
βάλλω ‘strike [with spear or arrow]’): Trümpy 1950, 92 f.; LfgrE s.v. — ἀνετράπετ(ο):
‘fell backwards’ (sc. on his back, see 65): AH; Kurz 1966, 22.
65 1st VH ≈ 2nd VH of 13.618, 16.503. — setting his heel upon the midriff: sc.
to pull the spear from the body more easily; at the same time, a gesture of tri-
umph (Kurz 1966, 35). Cf. iterata and 5.620, 16.863.
λάξ: adv., ‘with the foot or sole’; formed like πύξ ‘with the fist’, γνύξ ‘with bent knee’,
etc. (Frisk; Risch 364; Schw. 1.260, 620). — ἐν στήθεσι βάς: on ἐν + dat. in indications
of direction, see Schw. 2.455 f. — μείλινον ἔγχος: a VE formula (6x Il.); in contrast to the
metrically equivalent formula χάλκεον ἔγχος (3.317n.), never with verbs meaning ‘hit,
strike’ or ‘wound’ (since μείλινον is said of the shaft of ash wood, χάλκεον of the point):
LfgrE s.v. μείλινος (with bibliography s.v. μελίη); cf. 3n., 31–32n.
62 παρ(ϝ)ειπών: on the prosody, R 4.5. — ὃ δ(έ): sc. Menelaos. — ἀπὸ (ϝϝ)έθεν: = ἀφ’ ἑαυτοῦ
(R 14.1); on the prosody, ↑.
64 οὖτα: 3rd sing. aor. (↑). — κατὰ (λ)λαπάρην: on the prosody, M 4.6. — Ἀτρεΐδης: sc. Aga-
memnon.
Commentary 35
66–72 Nestor, the oldest warrior at Troy, regularly comes to the fore in the Iliad
with speeches of warning, appeals to battle, and strategic advice (CH 3;
1.247b–252n.; 2.362–368n.); in this way, he repeatedly reminds his addressees
to place the common good above individual interest (Graziosi/Haubold ad
loc.; cf. esp. 1.254–284n., 4.303–305, 9.96–113, 11.664–668/762–803). His warn-
ing not to linger over the spoliation of opponents (28n.) finds a parallel in
Hektor’s appeal in 15.346–351.
66 1st VH = 7.123; 2nd VH = 110, 8.172, 11.285, 15.346, 15.424, 15.485, 16.268, 17.183: a speech
introductory formulaP for battle exhortations. In contrast to the formulaic verse ἤϋσεν
δὲ διαπρύσιον Δαναοῖσι/Τρώεσσι γεγωνώς, which generally introduces appeals to per-
severe in situations of distress (8.227, 11.275, 13.149, etc.), ἐκέκλετο μακρὸν ἀΰσας is usu-
ally used before exhortations to intensify an attack and is directed at an army that is
already victorious or at least confident: these formulae seem to have been coined for the
relevant standard situations (Kaimio 1977, 26–30). Cf. also 13.413, 13.445, 14.453, 14.478
(ἐπηύξατο μακρὸν ἀΰσας, introduction of speeches of triumph); differently, 22.294
(ἐκάλει … μ. ἀ., a call for help). — Ἀργείοισιν: 107n.
67 = 2.110 (see ad loc.), 15.733, 19.78; 2nd VH = ‘Hes.’ fr. 193.6 M.-W. (restored). On this in
detail, Graziosi/Haubold: ‘The line falls into three sections, each defining the relation-
ship between the speaker and his listeners from a slightly different perspective. ὦ φίλοι
establishes an affective bond […], ἥρωες Δαναοί identifies the addressees collectively
as Danaans [= Greeks, cf. 107n.] […], θεράποντες Ἄρηος defines the addressees as war-
riors […] and prepares them for the military advice to come.’
68–69 μή τις νῦν … | μιμνέτω: A negated pres. imper. (rather than aor. subjunc.) is used
when an action is not meant to continue: ‘now no man should remain 〈for longer〉’
(cf. e.g. 1.210 μηδὲ ξίφος ἕλκεο after 194 εἵλκετο … ξίφος): Schw. 2.343; Chantr. 2.230 f.
On the 3rd sing. imper. in exhortations directed at multiple present individuals, Schw.
2.342 f.; cf. also 2.381–393n. — ἐνάρων: ἔναρα always denotes the slain opponent’s
armor that has been or is going to be looted (like post-Homeric σκῦλα, Lat. spolia):
Trümpy 1950, 86–88; Pritchett 1991, 132 f., 147 f.; cf. also 20n. — ὥς κεν … ἵκηται: on
the modal particle in final clauses, Schw. 2.665, 672 with n. 1; Chantr. 2.270; cf. 1.32n.
70 ἀλλ’ ἄνδρας κτείνωμεν: core of the speech, formulated with expressive terseness in
contrast to the introductory warning in 68 f. (1⁄2 verse vs. 2 verses).
66 ἐκέκλετο (+ dat.): reduplicated aor. of κέλομαι ‘admonish, urge’. — μακρόν: adv., ‘loudly’.
67 Ἄρηος: on the declension, R 12.4.
68 ἐπιβαλλόμενος (+ gen.): ‘pouncing upon’.
69 μιμνέτω: 3rd sing. pres. imper. of μίμνω (≈ μένω).
70 τά: sc. τὰ ἔναρα (68). — τὰ (ϝ)έκηλοι: on the prosody, R 5.4.
36 Iliad 6
71 νεκροὺς … τεθνηῶτας: probably derivative of the formulaic phrase νεκύων κατα-

τεθνηώτων (LfgrE s.v. νεκρός). On the form τεθνηῶτας, G 95, Chantr. 1.430 f. —
συλήσετε: fut. ind. with concessive meaning, ‘afterwards you may … despoil … if you
must’ (cf. 24.716 f.): Schw. 2.291, Chantr. 2.202. A pointed change from 1st to 2nd person
(κτείνωμεν … συλήσετε): Nestor wants to participate in the labors of battle but to leave
the spoiling to others (schol. A: Athenocles [3rd/2nd cent. BC] against Zenodotus’ v.l.
Τρώων ἂμ πεδίον συλήσομεν ἔντεα νεκρούς; cf. Kirk; on Athenocles, see West 2001, 77).
72 = 5.470, 11.291, 13.155, 15.500, 15.514, 15.667, 16.210, 16.275; ≈ 5.792, Od. 8.15; with the
exception of Od. 8.15, always after a battle exhortation. 1st VH also = 4.73, 19.349, 22 186,
Od. 24.487. — εἰπών: temporally coincident with ὤτρυνε (AH on 5.470; Schw. 2.300 f.;
cf. 7–8n.). — μένος καὶ θυμόν: μένος usually, as here, denotes warriors’ targeted,
aggressive energy (cf. 1.103n.); the more general term θυμός may be used to denote both
the seat of emotions and mental energy and the relevant mental powers themselves (cf.
17n., 51n., 2.196n.; LfgrE s.v. θυμός 1081.51 ff.; on the differentiation of μένος/θυμός, see
also Jahn 1987, 39–45). On the common linking of semantically similar terms in epic
language, cf. 59–60n. (ἀκήδεστοι καὶ ἄφαντοι).
73–118 Helenos urges Hektor and Aineias to halt the fleeing Trojans. Hektor is to
go to the city afterwards and ask Hekabe to initiate a procession of supplication
by the Trojan women to the temple of Athene. After restoring Trojan resistance,
Hektor leaves the battle.
Interpreters from antiquity on (cf. schol. bT on 116) have been vexed by the fact
that the most powerful Trojan hero is made to leave the battlefield at a critical
moment for the sake of a simple errand (for a detailed account of the history of
research: Broccia 1963, 53–72, esp. 64 ff.). But ‘the force of such logic pales be-
fore the poetic requirement that Hector must be shown inside the walls of Troy’
(Mueller [1970] 1978, 110; already similarly Leaf, Introd. 256, etc.). The action
is also carefully motivated. In 76 (see ad loc.), Helenos is introduced as a figure
of the highest authority, a signal by the narrator that the necessity of his in-
structions is not to be questioned (Kakridis [1937] 1949, 63 f.; Haubold 2000,
88; on such ‘speaker-recommendations’ in general: de Jong [1987] 2004, 199).
At the seer’s command, Hektor applies himself first to his military, then to his
religious duties; the fact that he personally goes to Troy after the restoration
of order on the battlefield – where he leaves Aineias as his deputy (75–80n.) –
underlines the urgency of the ritual (cf. Carlier 1984, 162 f. with n. 118; the
ultimate failure of the rite cannot be blamed on either Hektor or Helenos; cf.
96–101n., 288–295n., 306–307n.). The danger experienced by the Trojans fight-
71 ἄμ: = ἀνά (R 20.1). — συλήσετε: from συλάω (with double acc.), ‘despoil someone of some-
thing’; on the fut., ↑. — τεθνηῶτας: = τεθνεῶτας (↑).
Commentary 37
ing in Hektor’s absence, furthermore, provides an effective background for the

scenes in Troy (repeatedly called to mind: 254 ff., 360 ff., etc.): Schadewaldt
(1935) 1997, 140; Broccia loc. cit. 67 ff.
73–76 ‘If-not’ situationsP often mark dramatic moments in the course of a battle
(Fenik 1968, 154, 175–177, 221; de Jong [1987] 2004, 72–75; Nesselrath 1992,
12–16), especially when mass flight is prevented from breaking out (Trojans:
8.130 ff., 13.723 ff., 17.319 ff.; Achaians: 11.310 ff., cf. also 2.155–156n.) or those
fleeing regroup in time to avoid total defeat (Trojans: here and at 16.698 ff.,
similarly 21.544 ff.; Achaians: 8.217 ff., similarly 18.151 ff.). The looming danger
is usually averted through the intervention of a god (8.130 ff., 16.698 ff.) or a
hero driven by a god (8.217 ff., 17.319 ff., etc.), less often by human initiative
alone (here and at 11.310 ff. [Odysseus], 13.723 ff. [Polydamas]; Helenos’ char-
acterization as ‘best by far of the augurs’ may of course imply that his inter-
vention – as at 7.44 ff. – is inspired by the gods [de Jong loc. cit. 72 f.; similarly
Kirk on 73–101]).
73–74 = 17.319 f., ≈ 17.336 f.; in addition, 73 ≈ 16.303.
73 ἔνθά κεν: on the accentuation, West 1998, XVIII. — αὖτε: sometimes denotes a ‘shift
of focus’ (e.g. in formulae such as τὸν δ’ αὖτε προσέειπε that accompany a change of
speaker in dialogue); taken in this sense by Graziosi/Haubold ad loc.: ‘the Trojans
«for their part»’ in contrast to the previously mentioned Achaians. But αὖτε here may
also be understood as an unstressed particle that is simply continuative (thus LfgrE s.v.
1584.70 ff., 1589.74 ff.). — ἀρηϊφίλων: a generic epithetP; 4x with Ἀχαιῶν (see iterata
73–74n.), elsewhere of Menelaos (25x) and occasionally other heroes (2.778b n.). As in
the phrase θεράποντες Ἄρηος (6.67 etc.), the god’s name here is a metonymy for ‘war’
(CG 28), since the character Ares fights on the side of the Trojans; cf. Graziosi/Haubold
ad loc. — ὑπ’ Ἀχαιῶν: a VE formula (2.334n.); on ὑπό ‘under the influence of’, cf. also
3.61n., 4.423, 18.149 f., etc. (Schw. 2.528 f.).
74 ἀναλκίῃσι δαμέντες: Powers, conditions and emotions, divine and natural, some-
times appear as the logical subjects of δάμνημι ‘overcome’ (e.g. 1.61: war and pestilence;
14.353: sleep and love; 21.52: exhaustion [LfgrE s.v. 214.43 ff.]); here the fleeing Trojans’
temporary ‘lack of spirit for battle/resistance’ (ἀναλκίη is always dependent on the situ-
ation and thus does not denote ‘cowardice’ as a permanent characteristic: LfgrE s.v.). On
the frequent ‘poetic plural’ for abstracts of ā-stems, see 2.588n.
75–80 Aineias and Hektor …: Aineias (leader of the Dardanians: CH 8; 2.819n.,
2.820n.) and Hektor in particular (1.242n., 2.796–806n.; on the etymology of
his name, 6.402–403n.) regularly appear in battle scenes in the Iliad as the
73 κεν: = ἄν (R 24.5).
74 ἀναλκίῃσι: on the declension, R 11.1; on the plural, ↑.
38 Iliad 6
recipients of exhortations (paraeneses) and advice (Aineias: 13.462 ff., 17.322 ff.,

20.79 ff., 20.330 ff., also mentioned at 16.536 with others besides Hektor;
Hektor: 5.471 ff., 7.46 ff., 11.195 ff., 11.521 ff., 12.60 ff., 12.210 ff., 13.723 ff., 16.536 ff.,
16.715 ff., 17.70 ff., 17.140 ff., 17.333 ff., 17.582 ff., 20.375 ff.; cf. Fenik 1968, 49 f.,
154 f. [and passim: see Index s.v. ‘rebuke pattern’ and ‘advice pattern’]; on
Hektor’s occasional lack of initiative, see Mackie 1996, 87–89; Stoevesandt
2004, 95, 200 f., 297). Here Helenos addresses both at the same time, likely so
that Aineias can assume the role of leader in the battle after Hektor departs
(AH on 77).
75–76 2nd VH of 76 = 1.69 (see ad loc.). — Priam’s son, Helenos, best by far of
the augurs: a formula (in the Greek line 76, in Lattimore 75) encompassing an
entire verse used for the introduction of a significant individual, as at 1.36 (see
ad loc.), 1.102, etc. As ‘best by far of the augurs’, Helenos is a figure of authority
(as is Kalchas among the Achaians: 1.69–73n.), whom Hektor willingly obeys
here and at 7.44 ff. (whereas he contradicts Polydamas, who appears later as
a counselor, in two of four situations; on the connections between these six
advice-giving scenes, see Bannert 1988, 71–81). On the significance of augurs
and other seers in early epic in general: 1.62–63n. and 1.72n. with bibliography;
Woronoff 1999; Di Sacco Franco 2000 (although the statement on p. 43 f.
that Helenos is not explicitly characterized as a seer is problematic); Collins
2002. – On Helenos’ overall role in the Trojan cycle, see Wathelet s.v. 510 ff.;
West 2011 ad loc.
εἰ μὴ ἄρ(α): a VB formula (10x Il., 1x Od., 2x Hes., 1x h.Cer.; cf. 3.374n.). — εἶπε
παραστάς: a formulaic phrase (7x Il.: 6x VE, 1x before caesura C 2) that signals a certain
familiarity between speaker and addressee (Kurz 1966, 95). Aside from 23.155 and 23.617
(and ἄγχι παραστάς 23.304), the phrase usually prefaces advice and paraeneses directed
at Hektor (by Polydamas: 12.60 = 12.210 ≈ 13.725; by Apollo: 20.375, similarly 16.715; by
Helenos: here and 7.46). — οἰωνοπόλων ὄχ’ ἄριστος: on the v.l. μάντις τ’ οἰωνοπόλος
τε, see Graziosi/Haubold.
77–79 Helenos begins with an appeal, in the manner of a captatio benevolen-
tiae, to both leaders’ sense of responsibility (similarly Nestor in 1.254 ff., see
ad loc.; cf. also 2.25 [on this, 2.20–34n.]). His reference to their positions of
leadership (77 f.), and particularly his diplomatic compliment in 78 f., appeal
to their honor: combat and strategic planning – including the ability to keep a
clear head in the current battle – are the most important prerequisites of heroic
75 μὴ ἄρ’… καὶ Ἕκτορι: on the so-called correption, R 5.5. — Ἕκτορι (ϝ)εῖπε: on the prosody,
R 5.4.
76 Ἕλενος(ς), οἰωνοπόλων: on the prosody, M 4.6 (note also the caesura). — ὄχ(α): adv., ‘by far’.
Commentary 39
prowess (although no hero in the Iliad excels equally in both areas: 1.258n.
with bibliography; on Hektor’s deficiencies in the second area, cf. 75–80n.,
13.727 ff., 18.249 ff./312 f.; on this, Lowenstam 1993, 132–135 with n. 175). The
praise is suitable for reminding the two of what is expected of them in a situa-
tion like the current one.
77 πόνος: often denotes in Homer the ‘labor of battle’ specifically (e.g. 13.344, 16.568;
on battle as laborious work, also 1.162n., 2.401n.), but it can also refer to mental strain
(355: πόνος φρένας ἀμφιβέβηκεν). The notion of the burden of responsibility borne by
the addressees might be heard here as well (LfgrE s.v. 1445.52 ff., cf. 1445.48 ff.).
78 Lykians: probably here denotes the Lycians in the Troad mentioned in Strabo
12.8.4 (= C 572) rather than the Trojan allies from Lycia in south-west Asia Minor
(cf. 2.826n., 2.877n. end, 5.105, 5.173; Parker 1999, 501 n. 52; Latacz 2002, 1117
n. 59). The expression ‘Trojans and Lycians’ thus serves as a summary term for
the inhabitants of the area threatened by the Greeks (town and hinterland).
Τρώων καὶ Λυκίων: an inflectible VB formula (only Il.; occasionally ἤ rather than καί,
in the dat. τε καί; in total 1x nom., 3x gen., 3x dat., 1x acc., 6x voc.).
79 πᾶσαν ἐπ’ ἰθύν: ἡ ἰθύς is derived from the adj./adv. ἰθύς ‘straight’ (Risch 41; Frisk with
bibliography) and thus originally meant ‘a straight direction’ (cf. 21.303 πρὸς ῥόον …
ἀν’ ἰθύν, ‘straight on against the flow’ [LfgrE]); figuratively ‘intention, disposition’ (cf.
Od. 16.304, Odysseus to Telemachos: γυναικῶν γνώομεν ἰθύν). πᾶσαν ἐπ’ ἰθύν (here and
Od. 4.434) thus likely means ‘for any undertaking’ (AH; Leaf: ‘enterprise’, Kirk: ‘initia-
tive’); differently LfgrE (from the basic meaning ‘direction [of thrust]’: ‘for any confron-
tation’).
80–82 The passage links three characteristic motifs of Homeric battle paraene-
ses and warning speeches: (1) an exhortation to stand firm (an appeal for per-
severance in a difficult situation or, in a phase of flight such as this, a demand
to resume resistance): cf. 4.509 ff., 5.529 ff. ≈ 15.561 ff., 8.94 ff., 11.348, 11.587 ff.,
13.150 f., etc.; on this, Fenik 1968, 57; Latacz 1977, 196; (2) an exhortation for
the leaders to spur on the other warriors: cf. 5.485 f., 11.204 f., 12.367, 13.55 f.,
15.258 f., 15.475, etc.; (3) a warning against the shame of defeat, here expressed
by the provocative formulation ‘tumble into their women’s arms’ (81–82n.),
and against the gloating of the enemy that is to be expected (cf. 1.255 f., 2.160
≈ 2.176, 3.51, 10.193). – A collection of passages relating to the three motifs:
Stoevesandt 2004, 297 with nn. 889 f., 300–302 with nn. 898 and 900.
77 ὔμμι: = ὑμῖν (R 14.1).

78 Τρώων καὶ Λυκίων: partitive gen. dependent on ὔμμι μάλιστα. — ἐγκέκλιται: to be construed
with ὔμμι: ‘rests on you’. — οὕνεκ(α): crasis for οὗ ἕνεκα (R 5.3), ‘because’.
79 φρονέειν: on the uncontracted form, R 6.
40 Iliad 6
80 your people: Greek lāós, in the Iliad usually (as here) ‘the (male) population
in arms, the army’ (1.10n.).
81–82 by the gates: Phases of flight terminate ‘regularly only after those fleeing
arrive at a place that is topographically suitable for facilitating the collection of
the dispersed forces (their ships, the ditch, their wall in the case of the Greeks,
the citywalls in the case of the Trojans […])’: Latacz 1977, 214, transl. — before
they tumble into their women’s | arms: The phrasing is even more pointed
than that of the narrator in 74: it insinuates that the Trojans want to seek refuge
with their women, whom they were in fact supposed to protect (schol. bT on
81; Scully 1990, 67 f.; cf. the transport of Paris to his bedchamber in 3.380 ff.
and Helen’s reaction in 3.410 ff./426 ff.; on the accusation of ‘effeminate’ be-
havior in the Iliad in general: 2.235n. with bibliography). The passage can also
be interpreted as the seedP for the leitmotif that later directs the sequence of
scenes ‘Hektor in Troy’ (237–529n.): the hero will have to resist three times the
temptation of being distracted from his duties by the women of Troy (Graziosi/
Haubold ad loc.).
πάντῃ ἐποιχόμενοι: an inflectible VB formula (only Il., 2x each nom. sing./pl.). On the
issue, 104n. — πρίν: often scanned long in early epic (DELG). — αὖτ(ε): in contrast to 73
(see ad loc.), likely used here pointedly as a modal adv.: ‘it marks the restoration of an
earlier condition’ (LfgrE s.v. 1584.54, transl.), i.e. αὖτε with the sense ‘back again into the
safety of their domestic environment’. But a temporal sense cannot be excluded (‘again,
as before’: Faesi/Franke). — ἐν … | … πεσέειν: repeatedly used in reference to pan-
icked behavior in flight; cf. 2.175n., 11.311, 13.742, etc. — δηΐοισι: to be read either with
a shortened vowel in internal hiatus (⏖–⏑) or with three syllables (δῄοισι) (Chantr.
1.107; cf. 2.415n. with bibliography; see also there for the etymology and semantic devel-
opment). — χάρμα: ‘object/occasion of gloating’ (3.50–51n.).
83 φάλαγγας: 6n. — ἁπάσας: an emphatic echo of πάντῃ from line 81: ‘Helenos makes it
clear that «all» the lines need to be restored before Hector can enter the city’ (Graziosi/
Haubold).
80 αὐτοῦ: adv., ‘on the spot, here’. — ἐρυκάκετε: reduplicated aor. imper. of ἐρύκω. — πυλάων:
the noun is used only in the plural and can denote a single gate or multiple gates; here, as in 237,
probably the Skaian gate as the main gate of Troy is meant (the plural refers to the gate’s two
wings, cf. Lat. fores); on the declension, R 11.1.
81–82 ἐν … | … πεσέειν (+ dat.): from ἐμπίπτω ‘throw oneself into’; on the so-called tmesis,
R 20.2; on the aor. inf. in -έειν, R 8, R 16.4. — φεύγοντας: in logical agreement with the collective
λαόν (80) (constructio ad sensum). — δηΐοισι: on the declension, R 11.2.
83 ἐπεί κε: = ἐπειδάν (cf. R 24.5). — ἐποτρύνητον: 2nd dual aor. subjunc. of ἐποτρύνω ‘urge on’.
Commentary 41
84 Δαναοῖσι: cf. 67n., 107n. — μαχησόμεθ(α): a common formation of the fut. of μάχομαι/
μαχέομαι in Homer (Chantr. 1.451; cf. 2.366n.).
85 1st VH ≈ Od. 7.218; 2nd VH = Od. 19.73. — τειρόμενοι: from τείρω ‘distress, weaken’
(cf. Lat. terere), ‘oppress, torment, exhaust’; always in the present stem in reference to
persistent conditions (LfgrE s.v.).
86–101 Helenos gives Hektor detailed instructions for a ritual the Trojan women
are to conduct to plead for Athene’s help (this fails, however: 306–307n.,
311n.). Athene is the patron goddess par excellence of cities (her epithet is ery-
síptolis ‘protector of cities’ in Theano’s prayer at 305 and h.Hom. 11.1, 28.3; a
cult title common later is Poliás/Poliúchos ‘preserver of cities’: Burkert [1977]
1985, 140). She is venerated as such also at Troy (cf. CG 3) – despite her ani-
mosity after the Judgment of Paris, which the Trojans are perhaps not even
aware of (cf. 96–101n. end); the pro-Achaian Hephaistos, for example, likewise
receives worship in Troy (5.9 ff.). The cult of Athene also plays a role elsewhere
in the story of Troy: the theft of the Palladion by Odysseus and Diomedes
(Il. parv., Proclus Chrest. § 4 West); and the goddess’ anger at the sacrilege com-
mitted by Oilean Aias, who dragged Kassandra away from Athene’s cult statue
(Il. Pers., Proclus Chrest. § 3 West; cf. also Od. 1.325 ff. [with West ad loc.],
3.132 ff., 4.499 ff.). – Helenos’ instructions are repeated several times in what
follows, sometimes literally, sometimes with variations (also in content):
cf. 113–115 (Hektor explains to the army why he must leave the battle), 269–
278 (he conveys the instructions to Hekabe), 286–311 (the narrator reports on
the performance of the ritual); for detailed discussion of the differences, see
88–89n., 113–115n., 269–278n., 270n. (overview: Kirk on 86–98). Repetitions
of this type are an old convention in epics formed by oral tradition (FOR 12;
Bowra 1952, 254–259); on their use in the Iliad, cf. 1.308–312n., 2.28–32n.,
and 2.60–70a n. with bibliography; de Jong (1987) 2004, 179–185, 208–210; Di
Benedetto (1994) 1998, 46–54; Kelly 2007, 325–329.
86 ἀτάρ: ‘normally first in sentence or clause: but in Homer occasionally postponed af-
ter apostrophe’ (Denniston 54); cf. 429, 22.331, Od. 4.236 (AH). — εἰπέ: on εἰπεῖν ‘to
relay an order’, cf. 114, 14.501, 15.57, Od. 3.427, 22.431, etc. (LfgrE s.v. 472.32 ff., 476.59 ff.).
Elsewhere construed with the inf.; here the contents of the message follow in an inde-
pendent clause 87 ff. (but cf. 87–93n.).
84 ἡμεῖς μέν: as opposed to ἀτὰρ σύ (86). — αὖθι: short form of αὐτόθι ‘on the spot, here’.
85 περ: concessive (R 24 10). — ἀναγκαίη: ≈ ἀνάγκη.
86 πόλινδε: on the suffix -δε, R 15.3. — μετέρχεο, (ϝ)ειπέ: on the prosody, R 4.3. — μετέρχεο: ‘go
toward’; on the uncontracted form, R 6.
42 Iliad 6
87–93 ἣ δὲ … | 4 verses | θεῖναι … | καί οἱ ὑποσχέσθαι: an imperatival inf. of the 3rd pers.
with an expressed subj. in the nom. is unusual; the present passage is explained as ‘a
kind of attempt at an indirect style’ (direct: 273 f. θὲς … | καί οἱ ὑποσχέσθαι): Chantr.
2.317, transl.; Schw. 2.382.
87 μητέρι σῇ καὶ ἐμῇ: a periphrastic denominationP of Hekabe (as at 251, 264); her
name itself occurs first only at 293 (see ad loc.). — ξυνάγουσα: prior to the main action
(schol. A: ἀντὶ τοῦ συναγαγοῦσα; cf. 270 ἔρχεο … ἀολλίσσασα) (AH; cf. K.-G. 1.200). —
γεραιάς: The fem. is found in Homer only here and at 270, 287, 296; as a counterpart
to γέροντες (2.53n.), it denotes female members of the elite, including young women (at
379 f., Hektor suspects Andromache is among them); differently Graziosi/Haubold. –
The weakly attested v.l. γεραιράς here and at 270 (schol. bT ad loc.: τινὲς ‘γεραιράς’, τὰς
ἱερείας τὰς ἐκ τῶν ἱερῶν γέρας δεχομένας) is probably an ancient conjecture (van der
Valk 1963, 456 f.; differently Schulze 1892, 500–503, followed by AH, Brillante, etc.).
88–94 As far as can be ascertained from archaeological evidence, the passage
reflects contemporary cult practice of the Homeric period (cf. Kirk on 87–94;
the reflexive application to Troy is in accord with epic convention: CG 3). (1)
The construction of detached temples as ‘dwellings’ for deities represented
by their cult statues emerged in the 8th cent. BC (Gruben [1966] 2001, 29 ff.;
Coldstream [1977] 2003, 317 ff.; cf. also 1.39n.). (2) Sanctuaries of Athene –
in contrast to extra-urban sanctuaries for other gods – were frequently situ-
ated on acropoleis (Burkert [1977] 1985, 140). (3) The custom of offering gar-
ments to deities (esp. female deities) is widespread in antiquity (attestations
in Mesopotamia starting in the 2nd millenium BC: Romano 1988, 133; on the
Greco-Roman sources, see Boardman 2004, 296–298; Kauffmann/Szabados
2004 [best known example: the offering of a peplos at the Panathenaia]).
(4) Animal sacrifices were normally made on an open-air altar in front of a
temple, but also inside the temple in some locations (Coldstream loc. cit. 280,
321, 324; Gruben loc. cit. 31: a temple in the shape of a megaron with a central
sacrificial hearth). The sacrifice of twelve head of cattle in an indoor space is
nevertheless difficult to envisage; nēós thus probably denotes here the ‘temple
compound’ as a whole: AH; LfgrE s.v. νηός 367.20 ff.
88–89 Both verses are suspected as interpolations by schol. bT, 89 alone by Koechly and
others (see app. crit. and Leaf ad loc.), since (1) Hektor does not repeat them in his in-
structions to Hekabe at 269 ff. and (2) it is not Hekabe’s (but rather Theano’s: 298) duty to
open up the temple. But (1) the mention of Athene’s temple in 88 is essential and corre-
sponds to 269 (the verbatim rendition of the order only begins at 271 ff., whereas the be-
ginning has been rephrased: 269–278n.), and (2) at 298 ff., Theano not only opens up the
temple, but also conducts the entire ceremony (the offering of a garment and prayers)
87 ἐμῇ· ἥ: on the hiatus, R 5.6. — ξυνάγουσα: ξυν- = συν- (R 20.1).

Commentary 43
which had been entrusted to Hekabe at 90 ff. ≈ 271 ff.; cf. 2.155–181, where Athene has
Odysseus fulfill an order entrusted to her by Hera (see ad loc.). The fact that the ritual is
to be conducted by a priestess is likely omitted here and at 271 ff. as obvious. (Graziosi/
Haubold give slightly more significance to the differences between Helenos’ orders and
their execution: see Introd. 29 f. and their comments on 88–9, 269–78, 297–311, 300.)
88 Ἀθηναίης γλαυκώπιδος: an inflectible formula after caesura A 2 (gen. here and 1x
h.Hom., dat. 3x Il.); for the nom./acc., the considerably more common VE formula γλ.
Ἀθήνη(ν) is used instead (1.206n., there also on the meaning of the epithet: likely ‘with
bright/shining eyes’). On the form Ἀθηναίη (literally ‘the Athenian 〈goddess〉’), also at-
tested epigraphically, see Wachter 2001, 263. — ἐν πόλει ἄκρῃ: a VE formula (4x Il.).
πόλις ἄκρη/ἀκροτάτη (in total 6x/2x Il.), like ἀκρόπολις (Od. 8.494/504), denotes the
part of the city that is highest and that simultaneously constitutes the political and reli-
gious center of Troy (LfgrE s.v. πόλις 1350.26 ff.).
89 οἴξασα: an s-aorist of ὀ(ϝ)είγω with a contracted verbal stem (Schw. 1.250; West 1998,
XXXIII; Forssman 2005, 109, 112 [assuming a more complex development]). — κληϊ῀δι:
κληΐς with the meaning ‘key’ (elsewhere in Homer mostly ‘latch’) is already attested in
Mycenaean (ka-ra-wi-po-ro /klāwi-phoros/, likely ‘key-bearer’ as the title of a priestess’
office: MYC s.v. κληΐς; Kirk and Hitch 2009, 36, with bibliography); on the appearance
and function of keys, cf. Od. 21.6 f. and 46–50 (with Fernández-Galiano on verse 6 and
LfgrE s.v. 1443.42 ff.).
90–97 ≈ 271–278; also 92 ≈ 303, 93b–95 ≈ 308b–310 (cf. 86–101n.).
90–91 a robe …: Textile work, also practiced by queens and goddesses (5.733 ff.,
Od. 7.234 f., etc.), plays a major role in Homeric society (Wickert-Micknat
1982, 42–45; van Wees 2005, esp. 16–18); skillfully woven cloth and garments
are accordingly regarded as having special value (cf. e.g. 22.510 ff., 24.229 ff.
[with n.], Od. 15.104 ff., 18.292 ff., 19.232 ff.; see also Taplin [1980] 2001, 354–
356). The quality of the garment to be offered to Athene by Hekabe is empha-
sized by the use of three superlative expressions.
90 πέπλον: a garment for women consisting of a cloth fastened with pins or clasps (Od.
18.292 ff.; πέπλοι may also be used to cover or wrap objects, 5.194 f., 24.795 f., etc.): LfgrE;
van Wees 2005, 4 ff. — ὅ: masc. of the anaphoric demonstrative pronoun functioning
as a relative pronoun (R 14.5; G 83). West prefers Bentley’s conjecture (confirmed by a
papyrus) over the manuscripts’ ὅς, since the digamma in (ϝ)οι is usually prosodically
relevant in early epic (Chantr. 1.147; West 2001, 192; but cf. 101n.). The transmis-
sion of the Iliad overall vacillates between ὅ οἱ (13.211, Od. 14.3, Aristarchus’ reading
88 νηόν: = ναόν (Att. νεών), acc. of direction without preposition (R 19.2). — Ἀθηναίης … ἄκρῃ:
on -η- after -ι- and -ρ-, R 2.
89 ἱεροῖο δόμοιο: on the declension, R 11.2.
90 οἱ: = αὐτῇ (R 14.1). — δοκέει: on the uncontracted form, R 6. — ἠδέ: ‘and’ (R 24.4).
44 Iliad 6
in Od. 1.300 [see West ad loc.]) and ὅς οἱ (the main tradition here and at 13.561, Od.
1.300 = 3.198, 21.416; to be retained according to Graziosi/Haubold). — χαριέστατος:
χαρίεις denotes ‘the attractive, fetching effect of an object on its viewer, and so is not
primarily static, like καλός, but energetic’ (Latacz 1966, 99, transl.); it frequently occurs
in the context of cult and prayer (likewise κεχαρισμένος; cf. 1.39, 8.204, 20.298 f., Od.
3.58 f., 19.397, etc.): in a kind of ‘charm war’, humans try to obtain gifts from the gods in
return for tempting gifts (Parker 1998, esp. 109; cf. 1.39–41a n.). — μέγιστος: The value
of a garment is determined inter alia by its size, cf. Od. 15.107, 18.292; on this, van Wees
2005, 4, 15–17.
91 μεγάρῳ: here not the central gathering room of the house but (as often) the house as
a whole (LfgrE s.v. 65.14 ff.; cf. 24.209a n. [with bibliography]). — φίλτατος: on the con-
nection with χαριέστατος, see Latacz 1966, 103 (transl.): ‘the attractive is at the same
time endearing; hence later χαρίεις = «charming».’
92 lay it along the knees: Whether the cult statue is meant to be dressed in the
garment later is unclear (on a similar lack of clarity in other sources relating
to the custom of offering garments, cf. Boardman 2004, 296; Kauffmann/
Szabados 2004, 427 f.). – The narrator here evidently envisages a sitting figure,
a cause of debate already in antiquity (schol. A: epí ‘on’ should be understood
in the sense of pará ‘beside, next to’, since palladia are always rendered in a
standing position; Strabo 13.1.41 [= C 601] disagrees and points to the existence
of a number of seated statues of Athene, which in his day were considered
very old; on this, Graf 1985, 44 f., 209 f.). No Geometric cult statues – with
the exception of three standing cult figures from Dreros (Crete) – have been
preserved, probably because they were mostly made of wood (Coldstream
[1977] 2003, 321). But a seated figure type is attested in the form of a clay model
(dated ca. 800 BC) that depicts an enthroned female deity within a small round
building (Hägg/Marinatos 1991); furthermore, an 8th/7th-century seated fig-
ure of Athena Lindia (Rhodes) is attested by literary sources and later copies
(Canciani 1984, 35 f.). Cf. also Kirk (although it is unclear if the vase painting
mentioned by him is to be interpreted as a cult scene); Burkert (1977) 1985,
90; Vermeule 1974, 16 f., 42, 158 f., 164.
ἠϋκόμοιο: a generic epithetP of women and goddesses (1.36n.).
93 twelve: a typical numberP that ‘expresses a sense of completeness’ (in con-
trast to the number 9, cf. 174n.: Graziosi/Haubold); of sacrificial animals also
91 ἐνὶ (μ)μεγάρῳ: on the prosody, M 4.6. — ἐνί: = ἐν (R 20 1). — καί (ϝ)οι: on the prosody, R 4.4.
— οἱ … αὐτῇ: = ἑαυτῇ.
92–93 θεῖναι … | καί … ὑποσχέσθαι: imperatival inf. (↑ 87–93n.). — γούνασιν: on the declension,
R 12.5. — καί (ϝ)οι: on the prosody, R 4.4. — οἱ: = αὐτῇ (R 14.1).
Commentary 45
at Od. 8.59 (sheep), 13.181 f. (bulls); of the young Trojans Achilleus plans to sac-
rifice at Patroklos’ pyre: Il. 18.336 f. ≈ 23.22 f., etc; a tripod worth twelve head
of cattle as the prize in a contest: 23.703 (cf. Kirk); in various other contexts:
Waltz 1933, 22; Germain 1954, esp. 99, 101 (collection of attestations). — heif-
ers: Sacrifices of cattle are expensive and are offered only on special occasions
(sacrifices of sheep and goats being more common); cf. 1.66n., 2.402n.
94 ἤνις: an epithet of sacrificial cows intended for Athene, found only here (repeated at
275/309) and at 10.292 f. = Od. 3.382 f. (βοῦν ἤνιν [or ἦνιν] εὐρυμέτωπον, | ἀδμήτην).
The etymology and meaning are disputed; most likely ‘one year old’ (from ἔνος, an old
word for ‘year’ also contained in ἐνιαυτός: Wackernagel [1914] 1953, 1171 f. n. 1; LfgrE,
Frisk, DELG). Differently Szemerényi 1965 (cf. DELG and Wyatt 1969, 73 n. 34): ἦνιν <
νῆνιν < νεῆνιν ‘young’; ἦνιν to be explained through haplography of ν in the collocation
ΒΟΝΗΝΙΝ. Critical of all previous attempts at explanation (although without offering a
solution of his own): Darms 1978, 113–116 with 471 n. 178. — ἠκέστας: only in the pres-
ent iteratum-verse (on the alliterative connection with ἤνις, cf. the penchant for repeat-
ing the prefix in phrases such as ἀκήδεστοι καὶ ἄφαντοι [59–60n.] and ὄτριχας οἰέτεας
[2.765n.]: Fehling 1969, 240). Understood ‘uncurbed, untamed’ since antiquity (schol.
T: ἀδαμάστους, ἀκεντήτους; cf. ἀδμήτην in the corresponding phrase at 10.292 f. = Od.
3.382 f.), from κεντέω ‘spur on’; since metrical lengthening of α privativum resulting in
ἠ- (rather than ᾱ᾽- as in ᾱ᾽θάνατος) would be unparalleled, probably originally *νήκεστος
(like νη-κερδής etc.; loss of initial ν in the original formula in the sing. *ΗΝΙΝΗΚΕΣΤΗΝ,
cf. ΒΟΝΗΝΙΝ above): Frisk and DELG, following Schwyzer (1931) 1983, 672 (accord-
ing to Reece [1999/2000, 196 f.; 2009, 52–55] a mishearing already in the pre-Homeric
oral poetic tradition; cf. also Wyatt 1969, 72 f.). On other interpretations of the word,
see Reece 2009, 52, 63 (with bibliography). – As noted by Eust. 627.18 f., young female
animals are particularly suitable as sacrifices for the virgin goddess Athene; ἤκεστος is
thus perhaps also to be read ἡ μήπω ταύρῳ μεμειγμένη (Tzannetatos 1960/61; consid-
ered in LfgrE; cf. the ambiguity of ἀδμής and ἄδμητος ‘not yet tamed’/‘virginal’). — αἴ
κ’ ἐλεήσῃ: a VE formula (inflectible: 2nd sing. at 309, elsewhere 3rd sing.; in total 6x
Il., 1x Od.). αἴ κε here may express a condition or an expectation (Wakker 1994, 368 n.
7): ‘promise to offer cows, if she pities the city’ or ‘promise her to offer cows in the hope
that she may pity the city’ (cf. e.g. 1.420n.: αἴ κε πίθηται ‘in the hope that he will obey’;
unequivocally so – the iterata at 275 and 309 aside – in all remaining attestations of
the formula αἴ κ’ ἐλεήσῃ: 9.172, 24.301, 24.357, Od. 13.182; on εἰ/ἐάν-clauses expressing
expectation or intent in general: Wakker 1994, 365–379).
95 ἄστύ τε: on the accentuation, West 1998, XVIII. ἄστυ usually denotes a town as a topo-
graphic entity, but occasionally – as here – also the community of town-dwellers (e.g.
Tyrtaios fr. 12.24 West): Raaflaub 1993, 13 with 26 n. 69; on πόλις in the same sense,
LfgrE s.v. 1376.45 ff.; on ἄστυ and πόλις as metrically convenient alternatives, 2.332n. —
94 ἤνις: acc. pl. — ἱερευσέμεν: on the form, R 16.4. — αἰ: = εἰ (R 22.1).

46 Iliad 6
ἀλόχους καὶ νήπια τέκνα: a VE formula (nom. 2.136 [see ad loc.], elsewhere acc.); on
νήπιος ‘small, helpless’ as an epithet of τέκνον, 2.311n.
96–101 son of Tydeus …: Although Diomedes appears at the beginning of
Book 6 as only one warrior among many (5–36n.), he is nevertheless the most
successful Achaian hero on the first and second days of fighting in the Iliad
(Book 5 passim, 6.119–236, 8.90–132; cf. p. 11 above) – a kind of replacement
character for the absent Achilleus (with whom he shares a number of features:
Andersen 1978, 10–12; Lang 1995, 154–156; Alden 2000, 170 n. 40, 173–175).
Helenos’ words thus illustrate the impression left by the depiction of his aris-
teia in Book 5, while at the same time serving on the level of narrative strategy
to prepare for Diomedes’ impending appearances (esp. the scene that follows
immediately in 119 ff.): AH on 98; Broccia 1963, 60 f. – The statement in 98–
101 that Diomedes proved a more dangerous opponent even than Achilleus
is at odds with the narrator’s commentary at 2.768 f. (a comparison of heroes
at the end of the Catalogue of Ships: Achilleus is the best Achaian warrior,
Aias the second best; cf. also 99n.). It may be understood as (a) a rhetorical
exaggeration, meant to underline the mission’s urgency (Lohmann 1970, 128
n. 59); (b) a situational ‘extreme and personal view’ on the part of Helenos
(not communicated to Hekabe by Hektor; egṓ … phēmi, ‘I say’, at 98 is em-
phatic): Kirk (similarly Willcock 1977, 51); or (c) a realistic ‘snap-shot’: as a
result of Athene’s influence, Diomedes has worked himself up to an extreme
battle frenzy (Schnapp-Gourbeillon 1981, 103 f.); Achilleus, who so far has
been moderate despite all his boldness (cf. 37–65n. and 417–419a n.), will dis-
play similar behavior only after the death of Patroklos (Zanker 1994, 74 f.). –
Whether Helenos suspects Athene’s fundamental enmity toward the Trojans
and her particular support for Diomedes remains uncertain. If not, his words
are characterized by dramatic ironyP (thus Andersen 1978, 95 f.; although in
this case, the evident dramatic irony at 306 f. would lose some of its edge [see
ad loc.]). If so (this is possible even for heroes who lack the abilities of a seer,
according to Homeric notions: 20.94 ff., 22.296 ff.), he would have the Trojan
women pray for Athene’s mercy precisely for that reason; after the positive
introduction of Helenos at 73 ff., the latter interpretation seems more likely
(cf. 73–118n.; Schnapp-Gourbeillon loc. cit.).
96 αἴ κεν: thus the majority of mss. (and unanimously transmitted at 270): a paratactic
explication of the first αἴ κε clause in 94 (similarly 10.510 f., Od. 19.81/83: two clauses of
concern in each case). Parataxis is typical of Homeric style (1.10n., 1.134n.); this speaks
against Aristarchus’ reading ὥς κεν (and Od. 19.83 ἤν πως rather than μή πως), in which
96 ἱρῆς: = ἱερῆς.
Commentary 47
the second clause is subordinate to the first (AH, Leaf, Kirk). — Τυδέος υἱόν: an in-
flectible formula (2.406n.). Τυδέος is a short vowel gen. of Τυδεύς (cf. G 76); the absence
of the earlier standard form in -ῆος, however, suggests that the name (likely pre-Greek)
was not originally formed in -εύς (West 2001b, 262 f.; cf. 3.36–37n.). — Ἰλίου ἱρῆς: an
inflectible VE formula (5x nom., 3x gen., 15x acc.; in total 21x Il., 2x Od.); on adjectives
meaning ‘sacred’ as generic epithetsP of cities, see 1.38n.
97 ἄγριον: used only by warriors in direct speech (character speechP) in reference to op-
ponents; it is thus likely pejorative: cf. 8.96 (Diomedes on Hektor), 21.314 (Skamandros
on Achilleus). — μήστωρα φόβοιο: an inflectible VE formula (5x acc. sing., 2x acc.
dual; in total 6x Il., 1x ‘Hes.’). μήστωρ (from μήδομαι) means ‘he who can devise clever
plans’ (7.366, 8.22, etc.) and ‘he who knows how to achieve something by cleverness
and dexterity’: thus in the phrases μήστωρ ἀϋτῆς ‘author of battle-din’ (13.93 etc.) and
μήστωρ φόβοιο ‘he who knows how to incite the flight of his opponents, an inciter of
flight’ (LfgrE s.v.). On φόβος ‘(panicked) flight’, see Trümpy 1950, 219 f.; Erbse 1986,
29 ff.; cf. also 41n.
98 δή: The particle is both ‘evidential’ and ‘socializing’ (Bakker 1997, 75): by using it,
the speaker conveys the suggestion that the view expressed is obvious and is surely
shared by the addressee (Sicking/Ophuijsen 1993, 51–53, 140–151; Bakker loc. cit. 75 f.,
78 f.). — γενέσθαι: With a predicative adj., γ. may denote a constant characteristic or
a behavior in specific situations (in the first case, like εἶναι but likely on the basis of
the idea of ‘having grown into something’: e.g. 153, 210, 9.558; in the second case, ‘to
assume a characteristic, prove to be’: e.g. 23.632): LfgrE s.v. 152.43 ff. It is probably to be
understood in the second sense here; thus AH (‘became, proved to be’, as a situational
opinion/insight [cf. 96–101n.]; differently LfgrE loc. cit.).
99 Achilleus: The terrifying effect Achilleus had on his opponents prior to his
withdrawal from battle is repeatedly made a topic of the narrative in the Iliad
(external analepsesP: cf. 5.788 ff. [Hera], 9.352 ff. [Achilleus himself], 20.28
[Zeus], etc.; see AH and Jones 1995, esp. 104 f., 109).
ἐδείδιμεν: < *ἐ-δέ-δϝι-μεν (with compensatory lengthening after the loss of digamma:
R 4.2, G 27); Plpf. of the perf. δείδω (< *δέδϝοα < *δέδϝοια); see Schw. 1.769, LfgrE s.v.
δείδω. — ὄρχαμον ἀνδρῶν: ‘leader of men’; an inflectible VE formula (2.837n.) used
like a generic epithetP for various heroes.
100 goddess: on Thetis, mother of Achilleus, see CG 20. On the connection be-
tween the divine parentage of a hero and his military success, cf. 1.178n., 1.280,
21.106 ff., 21.184 ff., e negativo 10.47 ff.; Fenik 1968, 67; see also 24.58–59n.
98 κάρτιστον: = κράτιστον.
99 Ἀχιλῆα: on the single -λ-, R 9.1. — ποθ’: = ποτέ ‘ever’.
100 ἐξέμμεναι: = ἐξεῖναι (R 16.4); with gen.: ‘descend from’. — ὅδε: Diomedes.
48 Iliad 6
ὅν περ …: ‘who … in fact’: relative clauses with περ repeatedly follow a relative em-
phasized by οὐδέ (‘not even’) or καί (‘even’). In these cases, ‘[t]he relative clause […]
provides the relevant intension [i.e. connotation] of the head noun, the superlative
property by virtue of which the head noun functions as focus constituent’ (here, the
superlative property of the head noun Achilleus is his divine parentage); likewise
16.709, 18.117 f., 19.95, 19.415 f., etc. (Bakker 1988, 77 f., quotation from p. 77). — φασί:
in relation to a person’s origin also at 5.635, 20.105, 20.206, 21.159, Od. 1.220, etc. It
may suggest doubt, but can also refer to generally accepted fact (2.783n., 19.96n.; de
Jong [1987] 2004, 237 f.); the latter is likely here. — ὅδε: ‘the deictic pronoun pre-
sents Diomedes as dangerously near’ (Graziosi/Haubold with reference to Chantr.
2.168 f.).
101 μαίνεται … μένος: possibly an etymologizing word playP; cf. 8.355/358 (with Leaf and
Kirk ad loc.); Frisk and DELG s.v. μαίνομαι and μέμονα (DELG is cautious); Hershkowitz
1998, 142–147 with n. 64. – μαίνεσθαι in the sense ‘to rage in battle’ is consistently used
in the Iliad in direct speech in reference to a feared and/or loathed opponent (see char-
acter speechP), with the exception of 15.605 and 21.5; it is sometimes enhanced by ad-
verbs (here λίην, 8.355 οὐκέτ’ ἀνεκτῶς, 9.238 ἐκπάγλως): LfgrE s.v. 6.8 ff.; Graz 1965,
184 f.; Eck 2012, 136–141. On μένος, see 72n. — οὐδέ τίς οἱ: one of the rare cases in which
the digamma in (ϝ)οι is not taken into account (a cause for conjecture: Bentley οὔ τίς οἱ,
Brandreth οὐδέ τις ἄρ, see app. crit. and Leaf); cf. 90n.; Chantr. 1.147 f.; West on Hes.
Op. 526. — ἰσοφαρίζειν: ‘to deem oneself equal with someone’, probably from ἰσοφόρος
(Od. 18.373) ‘with α rather than ο in accordance with other verbs in -αρίζω’ (Risch 299,
transl.; on other attempts at explanation, see LfgrE s.v.).
102–109 A dramatic twist: Hektor induces the Trojans to restore their front line;
their renewed resistance is quite unexpected for the Achaians (108–109n.).
102 A variant of the formula ὣς ἔφατ’, οὐδ’ ἀπίθησε + subject (2.166n.). That a character
executes another’s command without comment is standard in Homer (individuals of
any status occur as the subject of πείθομαι/οὐκ ἀπιθέω, e.g. even Agamemnon and Zeus:
2.441, 4.68; cf. 1.345n.). — ὣς ἔφαθ’, Ἕκτωρ δ(έ): a VB formula (5x Il.: 2.807n.).
103–106 = 5.494–497, ≈ 11.211–214; likewise in reference to Hektor after he has
been prompted to act by someone else (Sarpedon and Iris, respectively). These
verses may have been coined for this type of scene; it is perhaps due to their
formularity that Aineias is not mentioned again here.
101 οὐδέ: In Homer, connective οὐδέ also occurs after affirmative clauses (R 24.8). — οἱ: = αὐτῷ
(R 14.1). — μένος: acc. of respect (R 19.1).
102 ἔφαθ’: = ἔφατο, impf. of φημί; mid. with no difference in meaning from the act. (R 23). — οὔ
τι: ‘in no way’ (literally ‘not in some way’: τι is acc. of respect). — κασιγνήτῳ ἀπίθησεν: on the
bridging of hiatus by non-syllabic ι (kasignḗtōy apíthēsen), M 12.2. — ἀπίθησεν: aor. of ἀπιθέω
(= ἀπειθέω); on the unaugmented form, R 16.1.
Commentary 49
103 = 3.29 (see ad loc.) etc. In Homeric descriptions of battles, chariots are pre-
dominantly employed in phases of flight and pursuit (2.384n., more recent
bibliography in 6.39–40n.); by leaping off the chariot, Hektor signals renewed
readiness for combat.
αὐτίκα: The present formulaic verse is ‘[a] typical instance of αὐτίκα signaling the
zooming in on action after speeches or after general descriptions’ (Bonifazi 2012,
277 n. 32); αὐτίκα is occasionally used to highlight a character’s determined action
(cf. 308a n.). — ἄλτο: aor. of ἅλλομαι ‘leap’; on the form, Chantr. 1.383; on the accent,
West 1998, XX.
104 shaking two sharp spears: sc. one in each hand (Homeric heroes are some-
times equipped with two spears: 3.18n.); a gesture for challenging opponents
(3.19n.) or, as here, for attracting the attention of one’s own people (cf. LfgrE
s.v. πάλλω 949.27 ff.). — ranged over the whole host: ‘It is […] a standard tactic
for a warrior to move through the ranks and encourage his men’ (Fenik 1968,
177); cf. 4.231 ff. (Agamemnon’s ‘epipolesis’ immediately before battle begins),
5.528, 12.265 f., 12.467, 17.356 (during battle, as here).
105 φύλοπιν αἰνήν: 1n.
106 = 17.343 (etc., see 103–106n.). — ἐλελίχθησαν: < *ἐ(ϝ)ελίχθησαν, ‘turned around’ (from
ἑλίσσω; in contrast, 22.448 ἐλελίχθη from ἐλελίζω ‘cause to vibrate’): Chantr. 1.132;
LfgrE s.v.; cf. 1.530n.
107 Argives: In a strict sense, this denotes the inhabitants of the region of Argos
(later the ‘Argolid’) in the Peloponnese (cf. 158–159n.); but it is frequently
used in Homer as a synonym for ‘Achaians’ (106) and ‘Danaans’ (66 f.) as a
summary term for all Greeks (1.2n.). — gave way backward: sc. without tak-
ing flight; Greek hypochōréō is used when one of the two sides retreats tem-
porarily but then resumes battle (cf. 4.505 = 16.588 = 17.316; Broccia 1963,
62 f.).
108–109 and thought …: an indirect rendering of the thoughts and emotions
of the crowd, as at 12.106 f., 12.125 f., 12.261 f., 13.41 f., 15.699 ff., 17.395 ff., etc.
(occasionally also expressed in tis-speechesP: 2.271 ff., 3.297 ff., etc.): de Jong
(1987) 2004, 113 with n. 37. – An event is rarely assigned erroneously to a deity’s
intervention in Homer (but cf. 5.177 f./183 [Diomedes’ powers in combat induce
Aineias and Pandaros to fear that he might be a god], Od. 23.62 ff. [Penelope on
the killing of the suitors]; see also 128n.). The reaction of the Achaians under-
103 ὀχέων: gen. of τὰ ὄχεα ‘chariot’, which occurs only in the pl.; on the uncontracted form,
R 6. — χαμᾶζε: adv., ‘to the ground’.
104 δοῦρα: on the declension, R 12.5.
106 ἔσταν: = ἔστησαν (R 16.2).
50 Iliad 6
scores the exceptionality of the situation: no one would have expected such
a sudden reverse of their flight on the part of the Trojans. — sky: on the sky
(vs. Olympus) as the dwelling of the gods, see 1.497n.
108 οὐρανοῦ ἀστερόεντος: an inflectible VE formula (gen./dat./acc.; in total 7x Il., 4x
Od., 10x Hes. [+ 2x in different locations in the verse], 3x h.Hom.). The ornamental epi-
thetP ἀστερόεις is used not only of the night sky but also of the daytime sky and the god
Uranos (highlighted already by schol. bT in reference to 15.371: οὐ τὸν τότε, ἀλλὰ τὸν
φύσει; cf. FOR 3; LfgrE s.v.; Nünlist 2009, 299–306).
109 κατελθέμεν· ὣς ἐλέλιχθεν: thus West, following Nikanor (schol. A: ὣς ἐλέλιχθεν
ἀντὶ τοῦ οὕτως [in the sense ‘so suddenly’] ἐλέλιχθεν; on Nikanor, see COM 19 and HT
15); the majority of the manuscripts offer κατελθέμεν, ὡς ἐλ. (in this case ὡς in the sense
ὅτι οὕτως, as at 16.17; cf. Monro [1882] 1891, 238 f.; K.-G. 2.370 f.).
110–118 Before leaving the battlefield, Hektor orders the army to stand fast even
in his absence (likewise 17.183 ff.; cf. also 11.276 ff. [Agamemnon], 11.587 ff.
[Eurypylos], 17.669 ff. [Menelaos]; on this, Fenik 1968, 169 f.). ‘Since there are
virtually no battle paraeneses in epic that remain without success […], the
audience knows that battle will now continue on a large scale’ (confirmed at
7.4 ff.: great relief among the now completely exhausted Trojans at Hektor’s
return to battle together with Paris): Latacz 1977, 137 (transl.).
110 = 8.172, 15.346; 2nd VH also = 66 etc. (see ad loc.).
111 = 9.233; ≈ 11.564, 12.108, but there in the nom.: used only here as a for-
mula of address (instead of the more common phrases ‘Trojans, Lykians and
Dardanians who fight at close quarters’ [6x Il., here v.l.] and ‘Listen to me, o
Trojans, Dardanians and companions’ [4x Il.]). This indicates that the two
laudatory epithets are here used pregnantly: ‘his [sc. Hektor’s] troops have to
live up to their reputation of being high-spirited and far-renowned when they
have to fight temporarily without the benefit of his leadership’ (Friedrich
2007, 110).
Τρῶες ὑπέρθυμοι: an inflectible VB formula (only Il.; voc. also at 20.366, in addi-
tion 3x nom., 1x acc.; elsewhere 1x Τρῶας μὲν ὑπ. after A 4). On ὑπέρθυμος, 2.746n.
and Friedrich loc. cit. 108–110. — τηλεκλειτοί τ’ ἐπίκουροι: an inflectible VE for-
mula (only Il.; 2x nom., 1x voc., 1x gen. [without τ’]; variant: κλειτοί (τ’) ἐπίκουροι
[227n.]). ἐπίκουροι is used in the Iliad only in reference to the Trojan side (LfgrE s.v.). –
τηλεκλειτός/τηλεκλυτός, ‘far-famed’, is also used with personal names (e.g. 14.321
108 φάν: = ἔφασαν (R 16.1–2), ‘they thought’. — ἀθανάτων: metrically lengthened initial syllable
(R 10.1).
109 κατελθέμεν: on the form, R 16.4. — ἐλέλιχθεν: = ἐλελίχθησαν (R 16.2).
110 Τρώεσσιν: on the declension, R 11.3. — ἐκέκλετο μακρὸν ἀΰσας: = 66 (see ad loc.).
Commentary 51
Phoinix, Od. 1.30 Orestes). In addition to the adj., numerous phrases in early epic ref-
erence the idea ‘widely spread fame’ (e.g. κλέος εὐρύ, Od. 1.344 etc.; κλέος …, ὅσον τ’
ἐπικίδναται ἠώς, Il. 7.451/458; κλέος οὐρανὸν ἵκει, 8.192 etc.): a motif inherited from IE
poetry (Schmitt 1967, 71 ff.; cf. also 2.325n.). But the transmission of the present VE for-
mula regularly fluctuates between τηλεκλειτοί and τηλεκλητοί ‘summoned from afar’
(here and at 5.491, 9.233, 12.108): some Trojan allies come from very far afield (see 2.877,
5.478 f., 16.538–540, 17.300 f.; LfgrE s.v. τηλεκλειτός).
112 The manuscripts here offer the formulaic verse ἀνέρες ἔστε, φίλοι, μνήσασθε δὲ
θούριδος ἀλκῆς (= 8.174, 11.287, etc., including the present passage 7x Il.; on ἀλκή as
the object of verbs of recalling and forgetting, cf. 265n.). Zenodotus (see HT 9 f.) read
the variant ἀνέρες ἔστε θοοὶ καὶ ἀμύνετον ἄστεϊ λώβην (schol. A). ἀμύνετον (dual for
plural) will have been introduced into the text by rhapsodes to avoid hiatus and should
be emended to ἀμύνετε (Leaf; West 2001, 41 f., 45); West prefers this form of the text
(following Leaf and Rengakos 1993, 60) to the vulgate version, since the formulaic
verse is more likely to have replaced the variant than vice versa (differently Kelly 2007,
392, and Graziosi/Haubold ad loc.). On θοός as a positive characteristic of warriors, cf.
2.542–544n., 2.758n.; 5.571 ≈ 15.585; 16.494, etc.; LfgrE s.v. 1054.66 ff.: the basic meaning
‘fast’ (from θέω) in these passages is ‘overlaid by strong connot. of […] effectiveness in
aggression, martial vigour’. Alternatively, does θοός here have the sense ‘sharp, dash-
ing’ (suggestion by Führer)? Cf. θοόω ‘sharpen, put a point on’ Od. 9.327; LfgrE s.v. θοός
1053.14 f., 1055.40 ff.
113–115 Hektor briefly explains why he must leave the battlefield. His words do
not correspond exactly to Helenos’ instructions; the narrator clearly has him
take into account both the audience and the context (Willcock 1977, 45 f.): (1)
The seer did not instruct Hektor to address both women and council members
(which he does not do in the end); the addition may be explained as Hektor’s
attempt to avoid giving the army the impression that he is seeking help (spe-
cifically and exclusively) from women in a time of war (schol. A, bT on 114 and
Eust. 628.6 ff.; Redfield [1975] 1994, 121; cf. 81–82n.). On Hektor’s use of the
phrasing ‘our wives’ instead of mentioning Hekabe and the ‘ladies of honor’
(geraiaí, cf. 87n.), see Graziosi/Haubold on 110–118 and on 114. (2) Hektor
talks in general about prayers of supplication to ‘the gods’ and does not men-
tion either Athene or Diomedes; this is likely for reasons of economy (the de-
tails are unimportant to the army).
112 ἀνέρες: = ἄνδρες; metrically lengthened initial syllable (R 10.1). — ἀμύνετε (ϝ)άστεϊ: on the
prosody, R 4.3.
52 Iliad 6
113–114 γέρουσιν | … βουλευτῇσι: i.e. the members of the βουλὴ γερόντων, an estab-

lished institution of the Homeric polis (1.144n., 2.53n.; likely already Mycenaean, cf.
DMic s.v. ke-ro-si-ja); on their role in Troy, cf. 3.149n., 15.721 ff., 22.119 ff. — εἴπω: as at 86
(see ad loc.) in the sense ‘instruct’.
115 δαίμοσιν: δαίμων, originally probably ‘allotter of fortune’, is used here (as elsewhere in
Homer) with no recognizable difference from θεός (1.222n.; LfgrE s.v.; Tsagarakis 1977,
98–116; but cf. 3.420n.). — ἀρήσασθαι: in Homer not yet with the meaning ‘to curse’, but
‘to voice a plea (for good or bad things) to a deity’ (LfgrE; 1.35n.; on the differentiation
from εὔχομαι, 304n.). — ἑκατόμβας: literally ‘sacrifice of a hundred head of cattle’;
in actuality, used of any large-scale blood sacrifice and thus not in contradiction to 93
(cf. 1.65n.). Hektor nevertheless remains vague in talking about ‘sacrifices’ to ‘the gods’
(the pl. is also used of sacrifices to several/all gods on a particular occasion at 2.306 [see
ad loc.] etc.; cf. LfgrE s.v. 501.50 ff.; differently AH with reference to 1.315 [pl. of one large-
scale sacrifice, there dedicated to Apollo]).
116 = 369, 17.188; 1st VH ≈ 1.428 etc. (see ad loc.). — κορυθαιόλος Ἕκτωρ: a VE formula
(2.816n.). The epithet (only Il., 38x of Hektor, 1x of Ares) ‘evokes the imposing and fear-
some aspects of the warrior’s appearance’ (LfgrE, transl.); it means either ‘shaking the
helmet’ (cf. 13.805, 15.608 ff.: a shock to the helmet during intense battle; 3.337 etc.: a
menacing nodding of the plume [see ad loc.]; 22.132: κορυθάϊξ as an epithet of Ares)
or ‘with a shining helmet’ (cf. 13.340 ff., 16.70 ff., etc.: the gleam of weapons can cause
panic; 5.4 ff., 11.62 ff., etc.: similes with gleaming weapons often mark the opening of an
aristeia); see Camerotto 2009, 111–122 (with further attestations). Cf. also 466–473n. –
Epithets that refer to the weaponry of individual heroes or entire armies (or sections
thereof) occur frequently elsewhere in the Iliad; e.g. ἀγκυλότοξος (2.848n.), δολιχεγχής
(21.155), ἐϋκνήμις (1.17n.), ἐϋμμελίης (6.448–449n.), ἱπποκορυστής (2.1–2a n.), λινοθώρηξ
(2.528–530n.), χαλκοκορυστής (6.198b–199n.), χαλκοχίτων (1.371n.).
117–118 In contrast to e.g. Antilochos at 17.698 f., Hektor retains his armor when
leaving the battlefield. His sense of duty urges him to hurry (cf. 237–529n.); he
remains ‘the warrior’ also in Troy (Kirk; Broccia 1963, 67 f.; Kurz 1966, 157).
ἀμφί: here probably with the sense ‘above and below’ (cf. 1.45n.), explicated by σφυρὰ
καὶ αὐχένα (AH, Faesi/Franke, Leaf); others read ‘on both sides’, referring to σφυρά
only (Monro [1882] 1891, 170; cf. Chantr. 2.86). — σφυρὰ τύπτε καὶ αὐχένα: Hektor
carries a long shield that reaches down to his feet (cf. 15.645 f.), which he has thrown
across his back on leaving the battle (cf. 11.545). On the long shield (which in the Iliad
113 ὄφρ(α): ‘while’ (R 22.2), with a prospective subjunc. — βείω: subjunc. of ἔβην (att. βῶ); *βήω
> *βέω (R 3) > βείω (reconstruction of the original prosodic structure; cf. R 8). — προτὶ (ϝ)ίλιον: on
the prosody, R 5.4. — προτί: = πρός (R 20.1).
114 βουλευτῇσι … ἡμετέρῃς ἀλόχοισιν: on the declension, R 11.1–2.
117 ἀμφί: adv. (↑). — μιν σφυρὰ … καὶ αὐχένα: acc. of the whole and the part (R 19.1); μιν =
αὐτόν (R 14 1).
Commentary 53
is found beside the more modern round shield; likely a Mycenaean reminiscence), see
Kirk (with bibliography); 2.388–389n.; cf. below s.v. ἀσπίδος ὀμφαλοέσσης. — δέρμα
κελαινόν, | ἄντυξ ἣ πυμάτη θέεν …: ἄντυξ is generally understood as predicative to
δέρμα: ‘the dark leather that ran around as the outermost rim’ (ἥ is postpositive and
adapted to the gender of ἄντυξ: AH, Faesi/Franke, Willcock); but it may also be under-
stood as specifying apposition: ‘the dark leather – (namely) the rim that …’. The shields
described in the Iliad largely consist of multiple layers of leather and one layer of metal
(7.245 ff., 12.294 ff., 13.803 f., etc.; cf. LfgrE s.v. πτύξ); δέρμα here denotes either the shield
as a whole as pars pro toto (Kirk; in that case, ἄντυξ is clearly in apposition) or the out-
ward-turned edge of the leather lining (Leaf, Willcock; depictions suggest the existence
of Mycenaean shields made of animal pelt, which were turned outward at the edges to
reinforce the rim: Borchhardt 1977, 6 f.). — ἀσπίδος ὀμφαλοέσσης: an inflectible VE
formula (10x Il., 1x Od.; in total 4x gen. sing., 6x nom. pl., 1x each acc. sing./pl.). Bosses
for decoration and reinforcement of the center of the shield are attested archaeologically
only for the smaller round shields. Originally, the formula was likely coined to describe
such shields (Borchhardt loc. cit. 27 ff., esp. 36, 50); but in the narrator’s imagination,
Aias’ tower shield is also fitted with a boss (7.266 f., not formulaic). In Homeric schol-
arship, this is either explained via the so-called amalgamation theory (which suggests
that over the course of centuries, elements of different provenance were merged in the
epic tradition) or as an expression of poetic fantasy. On the amalgamation theory, see
Kirk 1962, 179–210, esp. 190–192, and ad loc.; Latacz 1977, 16 f. (with older bibliography);
Sherratt (1990) 1992, esp. 148–151; Finkelberg 2012, 92–95; critically: van Wees 1992,
esp. 17–21; Grethlein 2010, 126–129; a middle position: Raaflaub 2011, esp. 10–14; in
general on considering Homeric epics under diachronic aspects: NTHS 21 ff.
119–236 While Hektor is on his way into the city, a duel develops between Diomedes
and the Lykian leader Glaukos. Glaukos responds to Diomedes’ provocative chal-
lenge – in which he tells of Lykourgos’ sacrilege against Dionysos – with a long
excursus on his family’s history; it transpires that the two heroes are linked by a
bond of guest friendship inherited from their grandfathers. At Diomedes’ sugges-
tion, they decide to refrain from all further confrontation in battle and exchange
their armor as a visible sign of their newly discovered relationship – although
Glaukos is here taken advantage of.
The episode forms a continuation of Diomedes’ aristeia in Book 5; as such, it
underlines once more, despite its bloodless outcome, the danger posed by the
hero who motivated Hektor’s errand to Troy (cf. 96–101n., 234–236n.; Broccia
1963, 82–84, 94 f.). But the content and tone are clearly distinct from the
preceding battle descriptions: the stories embedded in the challenge speeches
provide diversion (schol. bT on 119; Eust. 628.36 ff.), and the surprising turn at
the end is an elegant way of saving the narrator from having to undertake an
‘awkward attempt’ at exceeding once again the peaks of Diomedes’ military
performance portrayed in Book 5 (Faesi/Franke on 119, transl.). The scene
54 Iliad 6
also serves to bridge the time between Hektor’s departure from the battlefield
(116–118) and his arrival in Troy (237); on this, see ‘covering’ sceneP (with bib-
liography) and e.g. 1.312/430 f. (for which, 1.431n.), 11.616 f./644, 17.700 f./18.2,
18.148/369, Od. 15.284 ff./495 ff., 23.366 ff./24.205 ff., 24.412/489 f. – Broccia
1963, 73–105, offers a detailed interpretation of the scene (with critical assess-
ment of the older, largely analytical bibliography), likewise Fornaro 1992 and
Grethlein 2006, chap. III (esp. 43–45, 78–87, 94–97, 112–115); see also Maftei
1976 (on discussion of the episode in antiquity); Gaisser 1969; Andersen 1978,
95–110; Krischer 1979, 9–16; Piccaluga 1980; Scodel 1992; Harries 1993;
Fornaro 1994, 141–171; Di Benedetto (1994) 1998, 319–328; Fineberg 1999;
Newton 2009, 58–70, 81 f.; Tsagalis 2010 (≈ 2012, 67–74, 247–252); Buchan
2012, 130–141; Graziosi/Haubold, Introd. 36–40; cf. also 145–211n., 152–211n.,
234–236n. (further bibliography specifically on Glaukos’ speech and the motif
of the exchange of armor).
According to schol. A on 119, some interpreters (τινές) moved the scene to another point
in the Iliad. Their reasons can only be guessed at; the ostensible contradiction between
128 f. and 5.127 ff. (see 123–143n.) may have prompted them to place the episode at the
beginning of the Diomedeia (before Athene gave Diomedes the gift of recognizing gods):
Leaf, Introd. 256; Maftei 1976, 5–7, 14; Fornaro 1992, 25–29.
119 1st VH = 7.13, 17.140. — Glaukos: named in the catalogue of Trojans as the sec-
ond Lykian leader beside his cousin Sarpedon (2.876n.), to whom he is clearly
subordinate (see 12.309 ff.); his appearance here is his first (and most signifi-
cant). In subsequent battle action, he proves a courageous but only moderately
successful warrior (kills an opponent at 7.13 ff.; is wounded by an arrow shot by
Teukros at 12.387 ff. and is healed by Apollo at 16.508 ff.; then participates in
the battle for Sarpedon’s corpse, defeating a single foe at 16.593 ff.). – Glaukos
bears a common Greek personal name (attested already in Mycenaean; on the
uncertain etymology, see Wathelet s.v. with bibliography); this fits with his
Greek roots (154n.), but the phenomenon also occurs fairly often with other
individuals on the Trojan side (2.816–877n. end). — the son of Tydeus: see
96–101n., 96n.
120 = 20.159; ≈ 23.814. At 20.159 ff., the duel between Achilleus and Aineias fol-
lows, and it offers numerous parallels to the present scene (an exchange of
extensive challenge speeches, including a narration of the Trojan warrior’s
genealogy; a bloodless outcome, achieved in that case by the spiriting away
119 Ἱππολόχοιο: on the declension, R 11.2.

120 ἐς μέσον: substantive, ‘in the middle’; ἐς = εἰς (R 20.1). — συνίτην: 2nd dual impf. of συνιέναι;
on the unaugmented form, R 16.1. — μεμαῶτε: nom. dual part. of μέμονα ‘strive, have an urge’.
Commentary 55
of the defeated Aineias; cf. Grethlein 2006, 79 with n. 107). In contrast to the
tournament at 23.814 ff. (with a slightly varied introductory verse) and the for-
mal duels at 3.340 ff. and 7.207 ff., neither confrontation takes place before pas-
sive spectators (see 110–118n.; 20.244 f., 20.319 f.); the individual warriors have
simply ventured far into the field midway between the frontlines (cf. 125 f.;
20.178 f.), whereas the majority of warriors are engaged in a battle with mis-
siles carried out across greater distances. It is in accord with Homeric narrative
convention (which of course does not require a completely ‘realistic’ portrayal
of battle) that the two heroes carry on an extended conversation undisturbed
by the fight raging around them. On this, Latacz 1977, 118 ff., esp. 133–139, 145;
de Jong 2005, 17–20.
ἀμφοτέρων: sc. Greeks and Trojans. On the v.l. ἀμφοτέρω (nom. dual, referring to the
two warriors), see Graziosi/Haubold. — συνίτην: sc. on their chariots, which they
only leave at 232 (LfgrE s.v. εἶμι 459.66 f.). Cf. 5.14 and 5.850 (= an iteratum: 6.121): ἐπ’
ἀλλήλοισιν ἰόντες there in both cases refers to one warrior on foot and two on a chariot;
ἰέναι in the sense of ‘to drive’ also at 23.8, Od. 6.179, etc. — μεμαῶτε μάχεσθαι: an in-
flectible VE formula (masc. dat. sing. and nom./acc. dual, fem. nom. sing.; in total 7x Il.,
1x Od.).
121 An iteratumP (12x Il., 23.816 with VB ἀλλ’ ὅτε); aside from 3.15 (see ad loc.), always used
to introduce duels.
122 τὸν πρότερος προσέειπε(ν): a VB formula (10x Il., 1x ‘Hes.’; variants: προτέρη
προσέειπε(ν) / προτέρη … προσεφώνεε(ν): 1x/2x Od.; πρότερος προσέφη: 2x h.Merc.). –
προσέ(ϝ)ειπε is a reduplicated thematic aor. (Schw. 1.745; Rix [1976] 1992, 216). — βοὴν
ἀγαθὸς Διομήδης: 12n.
123–143 Diomedes begins his challenge speech by asking ‘who among mortal
men’ his opponent is, and comments on his opponent’s courage in a surprised
fashion (123–127); should he be facing a god, he does not wish to fight him:
Lykourgos is a cautionary example (128–141). If his opponent is human, on the
other hand, he should approach and thus come to ruin all the more quickly
(142 f.). – Since antiquity, there has been discussion of (1) how/whether it is
possible that Diomedes does not yet know the Lykian leader in the tenth year of
the war (whereas Glaukos immediately recognizes his opponent [145], in accord
with the narrative conventions of the Iliad [de Jong 2005, 15 f.; cf. 123n.]); (2)
what relation exists between 128 ff. and Book 5, where Athene gave Diomedes
the ability to distinguish gods from men (5.127 ff.) and he repeatedly fought the
121 οἵ: on the anaphoric demonstrative function of ὅ, ἥ, τό, R 17. — ἀλλήλοισιν: on the declen-
sion, R 11.2.
122 πρότερος: ‘as the first’. — προσέειπε: = προσεῖπε (↑). — βοήν: acc. of respect (R 19 1).
56 Iliad 6
former (Maftei 1976, 13–18; cf. 119–236n. end). There are two fundamental inter-
pretative approaches to both questions (aside from analytic attempts at a solu-
tion; bibliography on this in Broccia 1963, 82 f. n. 32), depending on whether
one understands Diomedes’ words as (a) serious or (b) ironic: (1) (a) Books 2–7
reflect events that actually belong to the beginning of the war (cf. p. 11 above;
STR 22); Diomedes’ question regarding the identity of Glaukos (who appears
for the first time here) has a counterpart in 3.161 ff., where Priam has Helen ac-
quaint him with the most prominent Achaian leaders (Faesi). What is more, the
relationship between the two heroes via guest friendship is only revealed by
this question, and this leads to the unexpected end of the scene (212 ff. indicates
that Diomedes at least had to known that Glaukos is Bellerophontes’ grand-
son): de Jong 2005, 16 f. (b) 123 is a rhetorical question (cf. 14.470–475). 124 ff.
thus acquire a certain point: Diomedes pretends not to know Glaukos, as if the
latter had so far refrained from playing a role in battle; and such a nobody is
now trying to challenge him! (thus Kirk; cf. also Pelliccia 2002, 220; Newton
2009, 59–61). – (2) (a) Athene must have given Diomedes the ability to distin-
guish between gods and men only temporarily; after her departure at 5.907 f.,
he is again left to his own devices (schol. bT on 123; AH, Kirk on 128; Bassett
1923, 178 f.). Apollo’s warning at 5.440 ff. taught him caution (5.596 ff./815 ff.);
this experience explains his concern at 6.128 ff. (Andersen 1978, 85 f., 97; al-
ready similarly Bassett loc. cit.; Malten 1944, 1 f., etc.). Furthermore, the
motif is anticipated in 108 f. (schol. bT on 128; Bassett loc. cit.; Avery 1994).
(b) Diomedes does not seriously expect Glaukos to be a god. 128 ff. are part of
his technique of rhetorical intimidation (the implication is ‘only if you were
a god could you dare face me’) and serve to mock his opponent (see Kirk on
128–143; Donlan 1989, 13; Martin 1989, 127–130 [going a bit too far; see Scodel
1992, 79 f.]; Fornaro 1992, 15–19). This interpretation is supported by the fact
that challenge speeches – especially by Achaian heroes – are generally char-
acterized by aggression and sarcasm (Martin loc. cit.; on the type in general,
Stoevesandt 2004, 305–335, with bibliography); that the thought at 128 ff.,
after the question in 123 (‘who are you among mortal men’), is unexpected
and framed by harsh threats (127/142 f.) (Fornaro loc. cit.); and that the god
Dionysos appears intimidated and helpless in the narrative example Diomedes
uses as an implicit parallel for his opponent (Martin and Fornaro loc. cit.).
123 1st VH = 15.247, 24.387. — There is only a single parallel in the Iliad for a
question on the battlefield regarding an opponent’s identity: 21.150, where
123 σύ ἐσσι: on the hiatus, R 5.7. — ἐσσι: = εἶ (R 16.6).

Commentary 57
Achilleus addresses Asteropaios (who has only been in Troy for eleven days:
21.155 f.); cf. de Jong 2005, 17 n. 49; on further parallels between the two
scenes, Di Benedetto (1994) 1998, 317 n. 1, 325 f.; Louden 2006, 28–30. At the
same time, the motif is common in IE epic poetry: see Schmitt 1967, 135–138;
West 2007, 431, 476.
τίς δέ: on δέ after interrogatives, see 55n. — φέριστε: formally a polite form of address
(cf. iterata and Od. 1.405, 9.269, h.Merc. 208, 533); but possibly ironic/condescending
here and at Od. 1.405: ‘my good man’ (suggestion by Nünlist; cf. Graziosi/Haubold).
— καταθνητῶν ἀνθρώπων: a VE formula (1x Il., 6x Od.) and a variation of the more
common formula θνητῶν ἀνθρώπων (1.339n.); on the epithets connected with the terms
for ‘human’ in general (ἄνθρωπος, ἀνήρ, βροτός), see Düntzer (1864) 1979, 104 f.
124 μάχῃ ἔνι κυδιανείρῃ: a VE formula (4x Il.; the variant μάχην ἐς/ἀνὰ κυδ.: 4x Il.).
The epithetP, otherwise ornamental, may have been revitalized here (i.e. is pointedly
context-sensitive: FOR 39); in that case, it would contain the malicious insinuation
that Glaukos had thus far earned no κῦδος (Martin 1989, 127). – On the formation of
κυδιάνειρα, see Tronci 2000, 282 f.
125 1st VH = Od. 4.32; ≈ h.Ap. 476; cf. also Il. 16.573, Od. 4.518, h.Cer. 451 (there πρίν … τότ(ε)).
— τὸ πρίν: emphatic with the sense ‘in the old days, in the whole of the past’ (in contrast
to simple πρίν ‘in an earlier age’): Wackernagel (1920/24) 2009, 575; LfgrE s.v. πάρος
987.25 ff. — γε: The particle clusters in Diomedes’ speech (cf. 128, 129) and ‘contributes
to its animated tone’ (Graziosi/Haubold). — προβέβηκας: ‘you have ventured to the
fore (as πρόμαχος)’ (LfgrE s.v. βαίνω 20.13 f.; AH; cf. 120n.); according to others, with the
metaphorical sense ‘you exceed’ (as at 23.890: Létoublon 1985, 135; Ruijgh 815).
126 θάρσει: an ambivalent term: usually positive, ‘courage’ (e.g. 5.2, 7.153, etc.) but occa-
sionally with a negative connotation, ‘(reckless) audacity’ (clearly thus at 21.395): LfgrE;
cf. also 2.212n. on the name ‘Thersites’. — ὅ τ(ε): ‘motivates the judgment expressed in
σῷ θάρσει’ (AH, transl.), cf. 4.32, 15.468, etc.; approximately: ‘〈I say this〉 because’; ‘〈as
can be seen in the fact〉 that’ (cf. Chantr. 2.286, who, however, reads ὅ τε in the pres-
ent passage as a simple causal conjunction: ‘since’ [‘puisque’]); or temporal ὅτε with
a causal implication (cf. 1.244n.): ‘now that’ [‘maintenant que’], referring to νῦν at 125
(Ruijgh 815). — δολιχόσκιον ἔγχος: 44n.; according to Kirk, here with ‘sinister over-
tones’ signaled by the unusual position of the formula (elsewhere at VE). — ἔμεινας: on
μένω/μίμνω ‘withstand, stand up to a thing’, cf. 8.536, 13.830, 15.708 f. (with reference
to spears and other weapons, as here), also 12.133, 15.620 (wind and weather): LfgrE s.v.
149.32 ff.
124 μέν: ≈ μήν (R 24.6); likewise 125. — ὄπωπα: sc. σέ. — μάχῃ ἔνι: = ἐν μάχῃ (R 20.1–2); on the
hiatus, R 5.6. — κυδιανείρῃ: on the form (-ῃ after -ρ-), R 2.
125 ἀτάρ: ‘but’ (R 24.2).
58 Iliad 6
127–143 On the ring-compositionP structure of the passage, see Lohmann 1970,

12 f. (with bibliography); the central section 132–139a, in which the Lykourgos
paradigm is set out in detail, is framed by the four ‘rings’ 127/143, 128/142,
129/141, 130 f./139b–140. – On narrative examples in the Iliad in general, see
paradigmP; Grethlein 2006, 43–63 (taking the present passage as his starting
point: 43–45) and 334–340 (collection of attestations).
127 = 21.151; 2nd VH ≈ 21.431. — The threat – implicit or explicit – that an op-
ponent will not survive a duel is a standard element in Homeric challenge
speeches (more commonly delivered by Achaians than representatives of the
Trojan side: on the whole, the Achaians behave more confidently than their op-
ponents); cf. e.g. 5.652–654 ≈ 11.443–445, 6.143 = 20.429, 17.30–32 ≈ 20.196–198,
21.150 f. (Stoevesandt 2004, 308 f., with further examples). Here, Diomedes
lends a particular point to his threat by anticipating the mourning of Glaukos’
parents, which simultaneously causes his opponent emotional pain and treats
him ‘patronisingly […] as young and inexperienced’ (Graziosi/Haubold ad
loc.; on the motif ‘kinsmen’s sorrow’ in challenge and triumph speeches, cf.
11.393 ff., 11.452 ff., 14.501 ff., 17.27 f., 21.122 ff., 21.151, 22.348 ff.; Stoevesandt
loc. cit. 312).
128 ≈ Od. 7.199. Gods readily appear in human form in Homeric epic. Occasionally,
humans see through this ‘mask’ (cf. 1.197–198n., 2.791n., 2.807n.). At the same
time, humans are occasionally mistaken for gods – or speculation to this effect
is expressed for rhetorical reasons, as probably here (see above): cf. 5.177 f./183
(Aineias and Pandaros on Diomedes); Od. 6.123 f./149 f. (Odysseus on Nausikaa
and her servants and Odysseus addressing Nausikaa, respectively); 6.243/280 f.,
7.199, 16.178 ff., 17.484 ff., 23.62 ff. (Nausikaa, Alkinoös, Telemachos, the suitors
and Penelope on/to Odysseus; on this, Bierl 2004b, 49 ff.); see also 108–109n.
129 ἐπουρανίοισι: an epithet of the gods only here and at 131 (in the same position within
the verse: a close interlocking of introduction and paradigm), 527, Od. 17.484; frequently
paraphrased by the expression οἳ/τοὶ οὐρανὸν εὐρὺν ἔχουσι(ν) (20x in early epic); cf.
also the VE formula θεοὶ οὐρανίωνες (6x in early epic: 1.570n.).
127 δυστήνων … παῖδες: ‘sons of unfortunate 〈parents〉’. — τε: ‘epic τε’ (R 24.11). — μένει
ἀντιόωσιν: on the so-called correption, R 5.5. — ἀντιόωσιν: on the epic diectasis, R 8.
128 εἰ δέ τις ἀθανάτων … εἰλήλουθας: τις ἀθ. is predicative, ‘but if you came … as one of the
immortals …, but if you came … being one of the immortals’. — ἀθανάτων … εἰλήλουθας: on the
metrical lengthening of the first syllables, R 10.1 (εἰλήλουθας = ἐλήλυθας).
129 θεοῖσιν: generalizing plural.
Commentary 59
130–140 Greek mythology abounds in stories of mortals who dared to compete

with the gods in battles and competitions (on this, Treu [1955] 1968, 17–28);
the Iliad also mentions: Thamyris 2.594 ff. (see ad loc.); Otos and Ephialtes,
as well as Herakles 5.385 ff./392 ff. (Dione’s paradigmsP when comforting
Aphrodite after she is wounded by Diomedes; on the relation between these
stories and the present paradigm, see Sammons 2009, 23–38); Idas 9.558 ff.;
Laomedon 21.441 ff.; Niobe 24.602 ff. (on this, 24.599–620n., 605–609n.); cf.
also 6.200–205n. on Bellerophontes. The story of Lykourgos is one of the wide-
spread myths that describe human resistance to Dionysos and his orgiastic
cult; cf. the stories of Pentheus in Thebes (Eur. Bacchae), Orpheus in Thrace
(Aesch. Bassarae, fr. 23–25 Radt; on this, West [1983] 1990, 32 ff.), the daugh-
ters of Minyas in Boiotian Orchomenos (Ov. Met. 4.1–40 and 390–415; Plut.
Quaest. Gr. 38), Perseus (Paus. 2.20.4 and 2.22.1) and the daughters of Proitos
in Argos (‘Apollod.’ Bibl. 2.2.2 [= 2.26], referring to Hesiod; on this, West 1985,
78 f.), etc. These are apparently aetiological myths concerning rituals that are
enacted differently at a local level but are related in their core structure; for de-
tailed discussion, see Dodds (1944) 1960, XXV–XXVII; Privitera 1970, 14–19;
Burkert (1972) 1997, 191–200; (1977) 1985, 164 f.; Casadio 1994, esp. 83–99,
111–116, 252–263; Davies 2000, 23–25. – The myth of Lykourgos is transmitted
in various versions. Not all of them portray Dionysos as being as helpless as
this one does: in the majority of sources, the god avenges himself on Lykourgos
by inflicting him with madness (see Dodds loc. cit.; West [1983] 1990, 26–32;
Fornaro 1994, 154; LIMC s.v. ‘Lykourgos I’).
130 Lykourgos: In older sources, a king in Thrace (‘Eumelos’ Europia, fr. 27
West), where he was ruler of the Edones (Aesch. Edones, fr. 57–67 Radt;
Soph. Ant. 955–965); on later divergent localizations of the myth, BNP and
LIMC s.v.
οὐδὲ γὰρ οὐδέ: ‘since even … not’ (as at 13.269 etc.; see Chantr. 2.337 f.); an intro-
duction to a mythological paradigm also at 18.117: a negative counterpart to καὶ γάρ at
19 95, 24.602, etc. (Davies 2000, 18 n. 16). — υἱός: The first syllable should be read as
short (υ-yος, perhaps derived from older ὑύς): Chantr. 1.168, 228 f.; West 1998, XXXIV;
1.489n.
131–132 ὅς ῥα … ὅς ποτε: ‘the two relative clauses have complementary tasks: the first
states the main point of the story’ (θεοῖσιν ἐπουρανίοισιν ἔριζεν reprises the phrase
θεοῖσιν ἐπουρανίοισι μαχοίμην at 129); ‘the second introduces a detailed account of
what happened’: Graziosi/Haubold.
130 Λυκόοργος: on the uncontracted form, R 6 (but cf. 134: Λυκούργου).

60 Iliad 6
131 At 5.407, Aphrodite’s mother Dione speaks in a similar fashion about

Diomedes. But her prophecy of his imminent death is not fulfilled (cf. 200–
205n. end).
δὴν ἦν: on the predicative use of the adverb, see 1.416n.; Schw. 2.414 f.; Chantr. 2.9; cf.
also Hoffmann (1952/56) 1976 (with examples from other IE languages).
132 fosterers: According to h.Hom. 26.3 ff., Zeus handed his newborn son Dionysos
to the nymphs of the Nysa range, who brought him up and later ranged through
the mountains with him. In the episode narrated here, Dionysos is probably to
be imagined as still a child (Kirk on 132–137: ‘child-god’). — Dionysos: wor-
shipped since the Mycenaean period (on the attestations in Linear B, see BNP
s.v. with bibliography; Palaima 1998), but mentioned in Homer only here
and at 14.325, Od. 11.325 and 24.74; cf. also Il. 22.460 (comparison between
Andromache and a maenad) and 6.388–389n. On the god’s marginality in
Homer, see CG 10 (the cult of Dionysos, which is supported almost exclusively
by women and ‘radically intervenes in the ordinary lives of communities’, has
no place in the main action of the epic); further considerations in Privitera
1970; Granata 1991; Wathelet 1991; Seaford 1994, 328 ff.; Davies 2000;
Tsagalis 2008, 1–13, 26–29; Rangos 2009; Graziosi/Haubold on 130–140
(‘In this episode he is mentioned precisely as a limit-case: even the least mar-
tial of gods should not be attacked’) and on 132.
μαινομένοιο: The behavior that Dionysos, as god of ecstasy, elsewhere triggers in oth-
ers is ‘projected’ onto the god himself; on this phenomenon, Henrichs 1994, esp. 44–47.
133 Nyseian hill: a variously located (schol. D) mythological region where
Dionysos grew up (132n.); the name (difficult to interpret etymologically) may
be linked to the final element of the name Dio-nysos (LfgrE s.v. with bibliogra-
phy).
ἠγάθεον: ‘most holy’, a generic epithetP of toponyms (1.252n., cf. 1.38n.); here perhaps
with a pregnant sense (LfgrE s.v.). — ἅμα πᾶσαι: 59–60n.
134 θύσθλα: The etymology and precise meaning have been a matter of dispute since
antiquity (sources collected in Pisani 1934, 225 f.; Moreschini Quattordio 1974,
36–38); either a precursor of the Classical thyrsos (θύσθλα < *θύρσ-θλα: DELG following
Benveniste 1935, 203; Krauskopf 2001); or general cult equipment of maenads (related
to θυ(ί)ω ‘rave’, connected secondarily with θύω ‘sacrifice’: Frisk 1.697 and 3.108; LfgrE
s.v. θύσθλα; Beekes s.v. is skeptical of all attempts to identify a Greek etymology: ‘rather
131 δήν: adv., ‘for long’. — ἦν: here a full verb, ‘lived’. — ῥα: = ἄρα (R 24.1).
132 Διωνύσοιο: = Διονύσου (on the declension, R 11.2).
133 σεῦε: aor. of σεύω ‘chase away, hunt’.
134 χαμαί: adv., ‘on the ground’. — κατέχευαν: ‘let fall’, epic aor. of καταχέω.
Commentary 61
[…] a loan, either from Anatolian or from Pre-Greek’). — ὑπ’ ἀνδροφόνοιο Λυκούργου:
an example of the use, rare in Homer, of ὑπό + gen. for the agent of a passive verb (Schw.
2.529; Chantr. 2.143, 180 f.; Aliffi 2002, 414; George 2005, 61–66 [with further biblio-
graphy]). – Cf. also Finkelberg 2012, 91–95: The present passage (130–137), like many
direct speeches in Homer, displays an accumulation of linguistically recent elements
(i.e. dating to the time of the written version of the Iliad); one of these is the contracted
form Λυκούργου (beside the older Λυκόοργος at 130). — ἀνδροφόνοιο: a generic epi-
thetP going back to the common IE poetic diction (Schmitt 1967, 123–127); frequently of
Hektor (1.242n., 6.498n., 24.509n.), elsewhere of Ares, Achilleus’ hands, and 1x each of
a lance and a poison: LfgrE s.v.
135a βουπλῆγι: a Homeric hapaxP; according to schol. D and T, either a cow-hide whip or
an axe for killing sacrificial cattle (cf. Anth. Pal. 9.352; thus in Nonnos’ version of the
story, Dionysiaca 20.322 ff., etc.); Eust. 629.51 adds ‘ox-goad’ (βούκεντρον). The third in-
terpretation is supported by the use of the homonym μύωψ (‘spur, goad’) in the Europia
ascribed to Eumelos, fr. 27 West (the version of the Lykourgos myth closest to that of the
Iliad in terms of content; the date is uncertain, perhaps 7th/6th cent.: West 2002, 131 f.).
The iconographic evidence begins in the 5th cent. BC and usually shows Lykourgos with
a double axe, but it relates predominantly to episodes of the myth attested only in the
post-Homeric period (particularly involving Lykourgos, struck with madness, killing his
wife and son): LIMC s.v. ‘Lykourgos I’. – There may be a connection between Lykourgos’
βουπλήξ and the variously attested idea of Dionysiac epiphanies in the shape of a bull
(carmina popularia 871 Page [Elian cult song], Aesch. fr. 23 Radt, Eur. Ba. 920 ff., etc.; on
this, Leaf; Brillante; Fornaro 1994, 152).
135b–137 For the stress on the god’s fear, see 123–143n. end (elsewhere men trem-
ble before gods: 24.170n.).
135b φοβηθείς: see 41n. According to schol. A ad loc., Zenodotus’ text offered the variant
χολωθείς: possibly an early rhapsodic correction, inspired by the criticism of Homeric
depictions of deities that began in the 6th cent. (in this case likely combined with an
athetesis of 137 – although this is not attested): West 2001, 23–28, esp. 27; but perhaps
merely a conjecture to avoid the tautology φοβηθείς/δειδιότα (137): Nickau 1977, 193.
136 2nd VH ≈ 18.398 (Hephaistos recalls Eurynome and Thetis sheltering him
when his mother Hera cast him down from Olympos); on Thetis’ role as a
helper of other deities, cf. also 1.396 ff. (with n.); Slatkin 1991, 53 ff. — dived
into the salt surf: cf. the myth, recounted in h.Bacch., of the Tyrrhenian sail-
ors turned into dolphins by Dionysos (Graziosi/Haubold with bibliography).
δύσεθ’: a thematic s-aorist (hypotheses on its origin: 3.262n. s.v. βήσετο). — (ὑπε)δέ-
ξατο κόλπῳ: a VE formula (483, 18.398, h.Cer. 231; cf. h.Hom. 26.4 δεξάμεναι κόλποισι,
of Dionysos’ nurses). – κόλπος originally denoted the female bosom (and the portion of
136 δύσεθ’: = δύσετο, s-aor. of δύομαι (beside the root aor. ἔδυ): ↑.

62 Iliad 6
the garment enveloping it; cf. 24.215n. on βαθύκολπος), particularly with reference to
mothers and nurses who hold a child to their bosom or take it to their breast, where
it finds shelter and security (cf. 400, 467, and the above-listed attestations of the pres-
ent phrase): Laser 1983, 32; Wickert-Micknat 1982, 70. But here the second meaning
‘marine gulf, bay’ may also be implied (‘Thetis’ denotes both the marine deity and her
affiliated element, cf. CG 28): LfgrE s.v. κόλπος.
138–140 On the motif ‘divine hatred as a cause of human suffering’, see Irmscher
1950, 15 f. (collection of passages) and passim.
138 ὀδύσαντο: aside from Od. 19.407 (an etymological wordplay, see Russo ad loc.), al-
ways referring to gods’ anger at mortals (LfgrE s.v.). — θεοὶ ῥεῖα ζώοντες: a VE formula
(= Od. 4.805, 5.122); like μάκαρ (141, cf. 1.339n.), used to characterize gods in contrast to
δειλοὶ/ὀϊζυροὶ βροτοί (AH).
139 son of Kronos: on Zeus as the guarantor of law, see CG 24. — blindness:
‘a traditional punishment for impiety’ (Kirk with reference to Teiresias [for
the various versions of the myth, see KlP and BNP s.v.]); cf. also the legend of
the blinding of Stesichoros after his blasphemous remarks concerning Helen
(Plat. Phaedr. 243a = Stesichoros fr. 192 Page/Davies). Further attestations of
the notion, widespread in antiquity, that blindness and ailments of the eyes
generally were punishments sent by the gods: John 9:2; Acts 9:8 f.; confessional
inscriptions from western Asia Minor dating to the 1st–3rd cent. AD (Petzl
1994, nos. 5, 16, 45, 49, 50, etc.); see also Gartziou-Tatti 2010 (with further
bibliography).
οὐδ’ ἄρ’ ἔτι δήν: a VE formula (4x Il., 3x Od.; 1x Od. at VB), here in integral enjamb-
mentP followed by the predicate ἦν; this reprises the phrase δὴν ἦν at 131 as part of the
ring-compositionP (cf. 127–143n.).
140 2nd VH = 200 (of Bellerophontes), ≈ Od. 14.366. — πᾶσι θεοῖσιν: a VE formula (6x each
in Il./Od., 2x h.Hom.; in addition 2x Od. after caesura A 3).
141 οὐδ’ ἂν ἐγὼ … ἐθέλοιμι: an elliptical expression for ‘I, too, would likely not have long
to live, if I … wanted to fight’ (AH, transl.).
137 δειδιότα: = δεδιότα (δειδ- < *δεδϝ-, R 4.2), part. of the perf. δείδω/δείδια, with present mean-
ing. — ἔχε: = εἶχε (R 16.1), sc. αὐτόν. — ὀμοκλῇ: dat. of cause.
138 τῷ: sc. Lykourgos — ῥεῖα: adv., ‘easily, at ease’. — ζώοντες: = ζῶντες (R 8), pres. part. of
ζώειν (= ζῆν).
139 μιν: = αὐτόν (R 14.1). — οὐδ(έ): In Homer, connective οὐδέ also occurs after affirmative
clauses (R 24.8). — ἔτι δ(ϝ)ήν: on the prosody, R 4.5.
140 ἀπήχθετο: aor. of ἀπεχθάνομαι ‘make oneself hated, be hated’.
141 μακάρεσσι: on the declension, R 11.3.
Commentary 63
142 1st VH = Od. 6.153 (Odysseus to Nausikaa); 2nd VH ≈ Il. 21.465, cf. also h.Ap.
365, ‘Hes.’ fr. 211.13 M.-W. — who eat what the soil yields: sc. in contrast
to the gods (see 5.339 ff. with Kirk ad loc.), who feed on nectar and ambrosia
(Od. 5.92 f., 5.195 ff.; cf. Il. 5.777, 19.38n., 19.161n.); similar expressions: 13.322,
Od. 8.222 ≈ 9.89 = 10.101, 9.191 (AH).
143 = 20.429 (Achilleus to Aineias; on parallels between the two scenes, see
120n., 145–211n.). On threats of this type in challenge speeches, see 127n.
ἄσσον … θάσσον: on the accentuation, West 1998, XX; on the rhyming effect, cf.
5.440 φράζεο … χάζεο (Leaf; Kirk; Macleod, Introd. 51: ‘a calculated form of [stylistic]
heightening’, with further examples of deliberate use of acoustic effects). — ὥς κεν …
ὀλέθρου πείραθ’ ἵκηαι: cf. Od. 23.212b = h.Ven. 106b γήραος οὐδὸν ἱκέσθαι, Od. 11.317b
ἥβης μέτρον ἵκοντο, etc.: the periphrastic expressions aid the versification at VE (sug-
gestion by Führer). The exact meaning of the present phrase is uncertain, since πεῖραρ
in early epic can mean ‘boundary’ (e.g. in the VE formula πείρατα/πείρασι γαίης: 7x in
early epic) as well as ‘cord, (end of a length of) rope’ (Od. 12.51 etc.); on the disputed
etymology and semantic development, see LfgrE s.v.; Janko on 13.358–360. Here used
metaphorically, either ‘in order for you to … reach the borderland of your doom’ (LfgrE
following Bergren 1975, 35 ff.; developed from phrases such as 8.478 f. τὰ νείατα πείραθ’
ἵκηαι | γαίης) or ‘in order for you to … be bound by the ties of doom’ (AH and others;
cf. the VE formula ὀλέθρου πείρατ’ ἐφῆπται/ἐφῆπτο [7.402 etc., 4x Il./Od.] and the re-
lated metaphors κήδε’ ἐφῆπται [2.32n.], ἄτῃ ἐνέδησε βαρείῃ [2.111n.], μοῖρ’ ἐπέδησεν
[22.5]).
144 2nd VH = 21.97; ≈ 21.152, Od. 16.308. — the shining son of Hippolochos:
a periphrastic denominationP of Glaukos; perhaps employed deliberately in
preparation for the genealogy that follows (esp. 206 ff.): de Jong (1987) 2004,
198.
φαίδιμος υἱός: an inflectible VE formula (nom./acc.; in total 4x Il., 10x Od., 3x Hes., 1x
h.Hom.; in addition 2x Od. after caesura A 3). φαίδιμος may have originally served to de-
scribe heroes in the splendor of their armor (cf. 12.462 ff.), but is used in early epic with
the general meaning ‘radiant, beautiful, stately’ (a generic epithetP of heroes [Hektor,
Aias, Achilleus, etc.] and of body parts [γυῖα: 7x Il., 1x Hes.; ὤμῳ: 2x Od.]): LfgrE s.v. with
bibliography.
142 ἐσσι: = εἶ (R 16.6).
143 κεν: = ἄν (which occurs in Homer also in final clauses: R 21.1). — πείραθ’: = πείρατα, acc. of
direction without preposition (R 19.2; on the meaning, ↑). — ἵκηαι: uncontracted (R 6) 2nd sing.
aor. subjunc. of ἱκνέομαι.
144 αὖθ’: = αὖτε.
64 Iliad 6
145–211 Glaukos initially seems inclined to disregard Diomedes’ question re-

garding his identity (= ancestry: 145n.), but then responds to it comprehen-
sively (150–211: the longest genealogical narrative in the Iliad); his reflections
on the transience of human life (leaf simile 146–149) show a certain tension
with the pride in his own lineage that he reveals in what follows (esp. 151b
and 206–211). For that reason, some interpreters regard the leaf simile as a
topos, inserted for its own sake and only superficially adapted to the context
(Fränkel 1921, 41; Holoka 1976, 78 f.; West 1997, 365, and 2011 on verse 145;
Pelliccia 2002, 223–230). But (1) Glaukos’ behavior is paralleled at 20.200–
258, where Aineias’ own comments on the uselessness of long speeches do
not deter him from dwelling at length on his genealogy; both speeches can be
interpreted as expressions of a certain ‘nervous hesitation’ (Willcock 1992,
68–72). (2) Glaukos’ vacillation between pessimism (entirely appropriate in
the face of looming danger: Broccia 1963, 85 f.; Craig 1967, 243 f.) and proud
self-confidence is ‘characteristic of Homeric psychology’ (Griffin 1980, 72):
cf. 4.160–168 vs. 169–182 (Agamemnon), 6.447–465 vs. 476–481 (Hektor), and
esp. 20.213–241 vs. 242 f. (Aineias). (3) Glaukos’ reference to the transience of
human life and his pride in his ancestors are only apparently contradictory;
for Homeric heroes, knowledge of transitoriness is a particular incentive to
obtain fame – and thus a kind of immortality – via great deeds (see 12.322–
328, Sarpedon to Glaukos). After Bellerophontes’ sad end and the premature
death of two of his children (200–205: an implicit illustration of 146–149), re-
sponsibility for the family’s reputation now rests on Glaukos (and his cousin
Sarpedon) alone; he reminds himself of this responsibility at 206–211 (Griffin
1980, 72 f.; Macleod, Introd. 11 f.; de Jong [1987] 2004, 166–168; Goldhill
1991, 77–79; Susanetti 1999, 100–102; Aceti 2008, 45–57; Collobert 2012,
43–47, 50 and passim [cf. the review by Stoevesandt 2014]). – Other interpret-
ers read the speech, including the leaf simile, as a witty repartee to Diomedes’
verbal attack: Kirk on 144–151 (Glaukos’ answer ‘is both witty and clever […]
The reflective tone makes Diomedes’ sarcasm sound cheap […]’); Martin 1989,
128 f.; Lowry 1995; Pelliccia 2002 (with interesting observations on the for-
mal composition of 146–149); cf. also 200–205n. end. In this view, Glaukos is
not intimidated in any way, but then it remains difficult to explain his behavior
at 234–236 (see ad loc.).
On the structure of the speech, see Lohmann 1970, 89–91: framing of the genealo-
gical narrative by a ring-compositionP, 145–151/211 (expansion of the outer ring’s first
component as at 7.124–131/159 f., 11.656–668a/762b–764, 19.155–161/171–172a); enumera-
tion of three generations each at 152–155 and 196–210 as the second ring that encloses
Bellerophontes’ adventures (156–195).
Commentary 65
145 ≈ 21.153 (Asteropaios to Achilleus). Glaukos and Asteropaios evidently under-

stand the question regarding their identity (6.123, 21.150) as referring to their
lineage; both subsequently identify themselves exclusively via their ancestors,
without providing their own names (thus also the Myrmidon Hermes imper-
sonates at 24.397, Nausikaa at Od. 6.196, Telemachos at Od. 15.267: Fenik 1974,
18 f.; Fornaro 1992, 20 n. 25; on ancestry as a primary means of identification,
cf. also the formulaic verse at Od. 1.170 [etc.] with West ad loc.).
μεγάθυμε: a generic epithetP of heroes and peoples (1.123n.).
146–149 On comparisonsP and similesP in character speech, see 2.289n. – Leaves,
flowers and grass are common images of human transience; Glaukos here
also implicitly answers Diomedes’ question as to whether he is man or god.
In the Iliad, the image is found a second time at 21.464–466a (there used by
Apollo, who refuses to fight Poseidon for the sake of short-lived humans); cf.
also 17.53 ff., 18.54 ff., etc. (Grethlein 2006, 87–94; Kelly 2007, 289–291; see
also D’Alfonso 2008, 8–14, who links the passage to ‘Hes.’ fr. 204.124 ff. M.-W.:
the simile represents the condition humaine that began with the separation
of men and gods; further Rangos 2009, 72–76, who reads the simile against
a background of religious notions stemming from the cult of Dionysos). On
further attestations in Greco-Roman literature and the question of the extent
to which later poets were influenced by the present passage, see Delz 1995,
9–12; Sider (1996) 2001; Burgess 2001, 117–126 (with further bibliography
p. 235 n. 252); Pelliccia 2002, 197, 222 f., 229 f.; Rangos 2009, 76–82; Graziosi/
Haubold on 146–9 and 146. The motif probably derives from Near Eastern liter-
ature (examples in the Old Testament: Job 14:2 f., Psalms 90:5 f., 103:15 f., Isaiah
40:6 f., etc.; on this, West 1997, 365; Burgess loc. cit. 121 f.; Grethlein 2006a,
4 n. 2).
The interpretation of the details of the present simile is disputed: φύει at 149 (see be-
low) poses difficulties, as does the broad range of meanings possible for the key word
γενεή. In the simile’s frame at 145/151, γενεή is used with the sense ‘descent’ (i.e. ‘«lin-
eage» […] with aspects of ancestry’: LfgrE s.v. 126.65 f., transl.). At 146, γενεὴ φύλλων/
ἀνδρῶν evidently denotes the entirety of leaves and men (‘human race’ [without aspects
of ancestry] = ‘human kind’, transferred to the leaves: Grethlein 2006a, 5; similarly
LfgrE s.v. 128.60 ff.; Fornaro 1994, 155; cf. 146n.; the meaning ‘generation’, adopted by
145 τίη: ‘why?’.
146 οἵη περ: ‘just as’ (R 24.10). — δέ: In Homer, the particle can signal the transition to the main
clause (apodotic δέ: R 24.3).
147 τὰ μέν … ἄλλα δέ: ‘some … but other (sc. new) ones’ (in reference to φύλλα). — τ(ε) … θ’: 2x
‘epic τε’ (R 24.11).
66 Iliad 6
many interpreters [see Grethlein loc. cit. n. 6], hardly makes sense here). 147 ff. are
more difficult; possible interpretations: (1) φύει is to be understood as transitive in 148
(with its normal meaning ‘brings forth, produces’) but intransitive in 149 (‘grows, de-
velops, emerges’); the expected underlying idea, ‘growth and decline of leaves corre-
sponds to the growth and decline of human γενεαί’, is expressed most pointedly in this
way (Faesi/Franke, Leaf, etc.). The intransitive use of φύω is unparalleled in Homer –
and surprising immediately after the standard use in 148 – but possible linguistically
(149n.). γενεή at 149 then means either (a) ‘generation’ (thus among others Fränkel
1921, 41; Griffin 1980, 72; Pelliccia 2002, 217; Fornaro 1992, 33): suggested by the
image at 147 f.; but in that case the connection of the thought with 145/151 is hard to
see (LfgrE s.v. 128.15 ff.). Alternatively, the word is used with the meaning (b) ‘lineage,
family’ (again without aspects of ancestry): ‘it emphasizes the transience even of noble
families and distinguished lineages’ (LfgrE s.v. 128.13 ff., transl.). (2) φύει is transitive
at 148 and at 149; (a) γενεή is again ‘family’: ‘one procreates, the other ceases (i.e. dies
out)’: suggestion by Führer, transl. (similarly LSJ s.v. φύω A II). (b) ἀνδρῶν γενεή in
149, as in 146, denotes the ‘human race’ and is parallel with ὕλη in 147; ἣ μὲν … ἣ δ(έ) at
149 is to be understood as a distributive apposition (K.-G. 1.286 ff.): as the wind blows
leaves to the ground, while the forest regrows them, ‘so also the race of men: in part it
brings forth (men), in part it ceases to do so …’ (Grethlein 2006a, quotation from p. 10,
transl.; similarly Fornaro 1994, 155). In this case, however, the lack of analogy between
147a and 149b remains somewhat unsatisfactory. Solutions (1) (b) and (2) (a) appear
preferable to the others.
146 φύλλων: ‘a pun on φῦλα, «tribes», which is close in meaning to γενεή = «race»’:
Graziosi/Haubold with reference to ‘Musaios’ (VS 2 B 5): ὡς δ’ αὔτως καὶ φύλλα φύει
ζείδωρος ἄρουρα· | ἄλλα μὲν ἐν μελίῃσιν ἀποφθίνει, ἄλλα δὲ φύει· | ὣς δὲ καὶ ἀνθρώπων
γενεὴ καὶ φῦλον ἑλίσσει.
148 τηλεθόωσα: τηλεθάω (only the participle occurs in Homer) is an ‘expressive present’
derived from θάλλω (with dissimilation of the aspirate *θηλ- > τηλ-): DELG s.v. θάλλω
B 3, transl. — ὥρῃ: The tradition varies between dat. ὥρῃ (schol. A ascribes this to
Aristophanes of Byzantium; on his text, see HT 11) and nom. ὥρη; the parallel φύλλα …
γίνεται ὥρῃ at 2.468 ≈ Od. 9.51 supports Aristophanes’ reading (but cf. Graziosi/
Haubold ad loc.).
149 φύει: If understood as intransitive (146–149n.), this may be a linguistic innovation
arising from the ‘antithetical dynamics’ of the passage: Pelliccia 2002, 218–220, with
reference to Hes. Op. 5: (Zeus) ῥέα μὲν γὰρ βριάει (‘makes strong’), ῥέα δὲ βριάοντα (‘one
who is strong’) χαλέπτει; on the intransitive use of otherwise transitive verbs in gen-
eral, K.-G. 1.91–96; Schw. 2.219. The conjecture φύεθ’ (Bothe/Brandreth) thus appears
unnecessary.
148 τηλεθόωσα: on the epic lengthening, R 8; on the word formation, ↑. — φύει, (ϝ)έαρος: on

the prosody, R 4.4. — ἐπιγίνεται: = ἐπιγίγνεται; sc. φύλλα as the subject.
Commentary 67
150–151 = 20.213 f.; 150 also ≈ 21.487. — εἰ δ’ ἐθέλεις καὶ ταῦτα δαήμεναι …: The apodo-
sis (ἴσθι vel sim.) can easily be supplied from the context (similarly e.g. 1.135 f. [see ad
loc.], 21.487, Od. 1.188; on this, Schw. 2.687, Chantr. 2.275). Punctuation after ἐθέλεις
(with δαήμεναι as imperatival inf.), favored by Nikanor (schol. A) and others, appears
artificial by comparison. — καὶ ταῦτα: referring to Diomedes’ question about Glaukos’
identity (AH; Leaf). — ὄφρ’ εὖ εἴδῃς: an inflectible VE formula (1.185n.; cf. 6.438n.). —
ἡμετέρην γενεήν: ‘our’ in the sense of ‘my and my kinsmen’s/ancestors’ lineage’ (LfgrE
s.v. γενεή 127.36 f., transl.; cf. Chantr. 2.33). Differently, Ebeling s.v. ἡμέτερος (‘meus’);
in cautious agreement with this, Floyd 1969, 126 f. (ἡμετ. may mark an emphatic con-
trast: ‘my origin’ as opposed to that of all other humans). — πολλοὶ δέ μιν ἄνδρες
ἴσασιν: on the pride expressed by these words, see 145–211n.; at the same time, probably
‘a putdown, answering Diomedes’ insults’ (at 124 f.): Graziosi/Haubold.
152–211 Genealogies are a characteristic element of Homeric challenge and tri-
umph speeches (cf. 5.635–642, 13.448–453a, 14.472–474, 20.206–241, 21.157–
160, 21.184–191; on this, Lang 1994; Stoevesandt 2004, 329–335; Grethlein
2006, 65–84). The present genealogical narrative contains a number of dis-
tinctive features that have provoked scholarly interest; matters of discussion
are, in particular: (1) the link established between Greece and Lykia (152 ff. [see
154n. with bibliography], 196n., 209 f.); (2) the fairytale-like features of the
Bellerophontes narrative and the accumulation of motifs of Near Eastern prov-
enance (on this, EM s.v. Bellerophon; Dornseiff 1934, 72 f.; Radermacher
[1938] 1943, 97–117; Strömberg 1961; Astour 1965, 250–276; Petersmann
1981, 55–57; White 1982; Burkert 1983, 51–53; Bertolini 1989, 138–140; West
1997, 365–367; for details, see 160–166n., 168–170n., 178–195n., 179–182n.,
201–202n.); (3) the fragmentary nature of the narrative, which in some places
is limited to mere allusions – especially concerning the role of the gods (on this
phenomenon, found on occasion in secondary storiesP, in general, see Scodel
2002, 124–154; similarly allusive are e.g. the stories surrounding Diomedes’
father Tydeus at 4.376–398/405–409 and 14.113–125); related are the questions
of (a) whether and where the poet of the Iliad had recourse to older narrative
traditions, knowledge of which he could take for granted in his audience, and
(b) what aims he was pursuing with his individual arrangement of the material
(especially where the omission or alteration of elements set by tradition can
be considered plausible). On this complex of issues, Maftei 1976, 38–40, 45–
50 (summary of the discussion in antiquity); Malten 1944; Kullmann 1956,
22–25; Peppermüller 1961 and 1962; Gaisser 1969; Andersen 1978, 101–105;
150 δαήμεναι: inf. of the aor. ἐδάην, ‘find out, learn of’ (R 16.4). — ὄφρ(α): final (R 22.5). — εὖ
(ϝ)είδῃς: on the prosody, R 4.4.
151 μιν: = αὐτήν (R 14.1).
68 Iliad 6
de Jong (1987) 2004, 162–168; Fornaro 1992, 40–56; Scodel 1992; Alden 1996
and 2000, 131–152; Assunção 1997; Grethlein 2006, 78–84; Aceti 2008, 45–57
and esp. 187–194; for details, see 153n., 157n., 183n., 191n. and esp. 200–205n.
152 2nd VH = Od. 3.263. — There is a city …: New locales and characters are
often introduced with ésti/ḗn (‘there is’ / ‘there was’) placed in emphatic posi-
tion at VB; this narrative pattern has parallels in IE (2.811n. with bibliography;
West 2007, 93) as well as Near Eastern literature (West 1997, 259). — Ephyre,
in the corner of horse-pasturing | Argos: Ephyre/Ephyra is a frequent top-
onym (RE s.v.). The localization of the city referred to here is a matter of dis-
pute (see below); but the poet of the Iliad clearly thinks of it as situated in
the part of the northeast Peloponnese later known as the ‘Argolid’, which in
mythological tradition is firmly linked to the name Proitos (157n.; on the – am-
biguous – toponym ‘Argos’, see LfgrE s.v. and cf. 1.30n., 2.108n.). Schol. A, bT
ad loc., likely justifiably (cf. 2.570n.), identify Ephyre with Corinth, which in
other sources appears as the backdrop of the myths surrounding Sisyphos and
Bellerophontes (‘Eumelos’ Corinthiaca, frr. 19 and 23–25 West; Pind. Ol. 13.49–
93; on this, Gostoli 2012).
This identification has often been called into question in modern scholarship, on the
grounds that the expression μυχῷ Ἄργεος – used at Od. 3.263 in reference to Mycenae –
is unsuitable for Corinth and refers instead to a remote location ‘in the interior’ of
the Argolid (thus, among others, Leaf; Sakellariou 1968, 901 f.; West 2002, 130;
Visser 1997, 158 with n. 12) or elsewhere in Greece (‘Argos’ in a wider sense: Graziosi/
Haubold), since the phrase ἐν μυχῷ is otherwise used to refer to the interiors of houses
(sleeping or private quarters) or to the rearmost corners of grottoes (e.g. 9.663 = 24.675,
22.440, Od. 5.226, 9.236, 13.363). It is unlikely, however, that an important king’s seat
of power would be imagined as in a remote location; instead, ‘in a corner’ should be
understood in the sense ‘on the edge’ (which also fits Mycenae, located at the southern
border of Agamemnon’s realm; cf. the map in Visser loc. cit. 156 and LfgrE s.v. τὸ Ἄργος
1209.30 ff.): suggestion by Latacz; cf. also Gostoli 2012, 86. — μυχῷ Ἄργεος: Datives
in -ῳ and -ῃ, shortened in hiatus, often have a locative function in Homer and may
derive from *-οι/*-αι (originally short diphthongs): Hoffmann in Dürbeck 1978, 43–47;
this is particularly plausible in the present case: the locative μυχοῖ is attested at Od.
21.146 in the form μυχοί-τατος ‘in the farthest corner’ (Dürbeck loc. cit. n. 8; cf. LfgrE
s.v. μυχός/μυχοίτατος). — Ἄργεος ἱπποβότοιο: a VE formula (7x in early epic: 2.287n.).
The generic epithetP of landscapes ἱππόβοτος (ἵππος + βόσκω, ‘horse-pasturing’) is used
with Ἄργος in total 14x in early epic (independent of whether the later ‘Argolid’, the
Peloponnese or the whole of Greece is referred to), also 1x each with Elis, Trikke, etc; cf.
εὔπωλος as an epithet of Ἴλιος/Δαρδανίη: in the Iliad, horse breeding is equally impor-
152 πόλις(ς) Ἐφύρη: on the prosody, M 4.6.

Commentary 69
tant to Greeks and Trojans (LfgrE s.v. Ἄργος and ἱππόβοτος; Sauzeau 2004, esp. 132 ff.
[with bibliography]; cf. also 2.23n., 2.230n.).
153–154 Σίσυφος … | Σίσυφος Αἰολίδης: Epanalepses, used only exceptionally in Homer
(2.672n.) as a means of emphasis, facilitate the addition of supplementary information
(Fehling 1969, 183–185); they thus occur frequently in genealogies and other cata-
logue-poetry (Fornaro 1992, 40 n. 68; collection of examples: 2.672n.; cf. also 2.871n.,
6.394–399n. end). For parallels in Near Eastern and IE literature, see West 1997, 256 f.,
and 2007, 106 f.
153 Sisyphos: a mythical king of Ephyre/Corinth, known largely as a penitent
in the underworld (Od. 11.593–600, suspected without reason as a ‘rhapsodic
expansion’ by Kirk). The majority of sources stipulate Sisyphos’ attempt to
escape death through cunning as the reason for his punishment (Alcaeus fr.
38a Voigt), whether he did this by persuading Persephone (Theognis 702–712
West) or by binding Thanatos and outwitting Hades (Pherecydes FGrHist 3 F
119 = fr. 119 Fowler); see BNP and HE s.v.; Gostoli 2012, 88–91. Sisyphos’ char-
acterization as kérdistos andrṓn, ‘most clever/cunning of men’ (see LfgrE s.v.
κέρδιστος), and the early attestation of the myth suggest that the rudiments
of the story were known to both the poet of the Iliad and his audience; it is of
course omitted from the narrative of Glaukos, who aims to portray his family in
the best light possible (cf. 157n., 183n., 200–205n.).
ἔσκεν … γένετ(ο): durative ἔσκεν (cf. 19n.) beside declarative γένετο: ‘he lived … he
was’; γένετο here functions as aor. of the copula ἐστίν (cf. 210, 24.61, etc.): Kölligan
2007, 89, 97.
154–155 τέκεθ’ … | … ἔτικτεν: In early epic, τίκτειν in the aor. mid. and impf. act. usually
denotes the male act of procreation, whereas the aor. act. (e.g. 196, 199) is largely used
in the sense ‘give birth’ (Kirk; LfgrE s.v. with bibliography; on the development of the
use of the word in epic, Hoekstra 1981, 72–81, 92–96).
154 Aiolos’ son: Aiolos (not identical with the custodian of the winds men-
tioned at Od. 10.2) is a son of Hellen (‘Hes.’ fr. 9 M.-W.) and the ancestor of
the Greek Aiolians. The tracing of a non-Greek family from Greek origins is
remarkable and unparalleled in the Iliad, and suggests that the present ge-
nealogical construct reflects historical contact between Greece and Lykia; the
idea is supported by the accumulation of Near Eastern motifs in the story of
Bellerophontes. But a closer determination of the time and manner of these
contacts is difficult, given the sources available. The Hittite Tawagalawa-
letter provides an early attestation of Greek-Lykian relations (13th cent. BC:
153 ὅ: anaphoric demonstrative pron. functioning as a relative pron. (R 14.5).

154 υἱόν: predicative, ‘as a son’.
70 Iliad 6
the ‘people of Lukka’ [ancestors of the Lykians], driven from their homes,
found shelter with the brother of the king of ‘Achijawa’ [Mycenaean Greece:
2.494–759n., 3. (1)]; on this, Bryce 1992, 125–130; Mellink 1995, 35). From the
end of the 10th cent. (Dorian colonisation) at the latest, there appear to have
been repeated confrontations between Lykians and Greek settlers from Rhodes
(2.653–670n.; Kirk on 5.627–669 [duel between Sarpedon and the Rhodian
leader Tlepolemos] and 6.168–170; Frei 1978). The 8th-cent. ‘Renaissance’
eventually led to a closer cultural exchange between East and West (on this
in general, Burkert [1984] 1992; Latacz [1985] 1996, 52–56, with further bib-
liography; with reference to the story of Bellerophontes: Burkert 1983, 51–53;
Kullmann 1999, 107; [1999] 2002, 70–72). Which contact(s) led to the formation
of the present mythological tradition is a matter of dispute; the hypothesis that
it merges reminiscences of historical situations of various dates is most plau-
sible (a balanced portrayal: Bryce 1986, 11–41 [with reservations: Bryce 1992];
Aceti 2008, 155–224; on the amalgamated character of the Homeric epics, cf.
2.494–759n., 3. (3); 2.816–877n. end; 6.117–118n. end). Unprovable is the theory,
still maintained today, that the poet of the Iliad or one of his predecessors had
personal contacts with Lykian rulers and created a Greek pedigree for them at
their request (thus, among others, Malten 1944; Frei 1978, 826; Hiller 1993,
109, 115 [who admittedly posits a historical core for the myth in the Mycenaean
period]; Patzek 1996, 220; contra: Tsagalis 2010, 106–108; cf. also 2.820n. on
the ‘Aeneiadae hypothesis’). — Glaukos: the homonymous great-grandfather
of the speaker.
155 Bellerophontes: The origin and etymology of the name are disputed.
Understood as ‘Slayer of Belleros’ in the scholia, and likely understood thus also
in the Homeric period (the final element as in Hermes’ cult-title ‘Argeïphontes’
[on which, 2.103n.] and in Lykophontes, Polyphontes [von Kamptz 78]). At the
same time, Belleros plays only a minor role in the mythological tradition; the
explanation in the D-scholia (= Asklepiades FGrHist 12 F 13) that the reference
is to the Corinthian leader Belleros, after whose slaying Bellerophontes fled to
Proitos (cf. 157n.), appears to be an ad hoc invention (Kirk: ‘His name clearly
invited all sorts of speculation […]’). Kretschmer 1948, aiming to retain the
ancient etymology, regards ‘Belleros’ as the pre-Greek name of a local demon
or monster who was the eponym of the region ‘Pelleritis’ on the border be-
tween the Corinthia and the Argolid (with approval: von Kamptz 186). But
‘Bellero-phontes’ might also be a folk etymological reinterpretation of a for-
eign name (Lykian: Malten 1944, 10 f., with bibliography; Semitic: Astour
1965, 225–240, following Lewy 1895, 190–193; White 1982, 120–122; Thracian:
Bonfante 1998, 560; in general, see Frisk, DELG).
Commentary 71
ἀμύμονα: 22–23n.; Bellerophontes is alternately given the epithets ἀμύμων (here and
at 190) and δαΐφρων (162 [see ad loc.], 196), although δαΐφρων would be metrically
possible in all four passages (sc. omitting the preceding ny ephelkystikon at 155 and at
190): likely deliberate variatio (suggestion by Führer; on this phenomenon in general:
Friedrich 2007, 68–77; cf. 263n.).
156–159 A brief synopsis of the events described in more detail at 160–170;
similarly e.g. 37–38a : 38b–44 (see 37–44n.), 3.328 f. : 330–338, 11.16 : 17–46,
16.257 f. : 259–276a, 20.79 f. : 81–110, Od. 14.337b–338 : 339–347, Hes. Op. 47–49 :
50–105, Pind. Pyth. 6.28–32a : 32b–42 (AH; Heubeck 1979, 133 n. 710; de Jong
2007, 35; Nünlist 2007, 235 f., 242; de Jong/Nünlist 2007, 539 f. s.vv. ‘«header»
device’ and ‘initial summary with subsequent elaboration’).
156 To Bellerophontes the gods granted …: Exceptional qualities are fre-
quently termed gifts from the gods in Homeric epic, although some gifts are
ambivalent for the recipients (3.54–55n. with bibliography). The reference to
Bellerophontes’ ‘beauty’ and ‘graceful masculinity’ serve as anticipatory ex-
planations of Anteia’s passion (Faesi/Franke, Kirk), but he will also prove
his ‘manliness’ in heroic exploits in Lykia (LfgrE s.v. ἠνορέη). – On depictions
of male beauty in the Iliad in general: Bernsdorff 1992, 89–92; on the notion
that physical beauty ideally coincides with heroic prowess, loc. cit. passim and
2.671–675n., 3.44–45n., 3.179n.
157 Proitos: according to later sources, a king in Argos (capital of the Argolid:
‘Hes.’ fr. 37.10 M.-W.; Pind. Nem. 10.40–42) or Tiryns (‘Hes.’ fr. 129.16; ‘Apollod.’
Bibl. 2.2.1 [= 2.25]; schol. on Eur. Or. 965). Why Bellerophontes travelled to
Proitos from Ephyre – or whether Ephyre, contrary to later tradition, should
be regarded as Proitos’ residence and the scene of the action depicted at
160 ff. – is not apparent from the text; it likewise remains unclear what rela-
tionship Bellerophontes has with Proitos, and why he is in Proitos’ house in
the first place. Post-Homeric sources indicate that Bellerophontes took refuge
with Proitos after a homicide (Eur. Stheneboia, fr. 661.16–18 Kannicht, where
the victim is not named; according to schol. D on 155, he was the Corinthian
king Belleros; ‘Apollod.’ Bibl. 2.3.1 [= 2.30] lists further names; on this mo-
tif in general, Alden 2012, 117 f., 121 f.; Nünlist 2009a). If the story formed
part of a pre-Homeric narrative tradition in some way, this would represent
another detail omitted by Glaukos for the sake of his family’s reputation (cf.
153n.; similarly Diomedes at 14.119 f., see Janko ad loc.): Gaisser 1969, 170–172;
Andersen 1978, 102; Alden 2000, 137 f.; 2012, 118; differently Nünlist 2009a,
157 αὐτάρ (ϝ)οι: on the prosody, R 4.5. — οἱ: = αὐτῷ (R 14.1). — μήσατο: from μήδομαι (+ dat.)
‘devise (against)’. — θυμῷ: locative dat. without preposition (R 19.2).
72 Iliad 6
632 f. (according to whom ‘cases of exiled killers appear to be unproblematic

for Homer’: loc. cit. 628).
κακὰ μήσατο θυμῷ: ≈ 14.253. θυμῷ is here perhaps pregnant, ‘clandestinely’ (LfgrE
s.v. μήδομαι 180.43; cf. in general Jahn 1987, 225–232); the phrase foreshadows the ruse
portrayed at 168–170.
158–159 ἐκ δήμου … | Ἀργείων: ‘from the region (2.198n.) of the Argives’, i.e. from the
Argolid, which encompasses both Ephyre (152: μυχῷ Ἄργεος) and Argos/Tiryns (157n.).
Kirk (following Payne Knight and Leaf) suspects that 159 is ‘a gloss designed to show
that Argos itself [i.e. Proitos’ seat of government in Argos town] was in question’: in-
conclusive. — ἔλασσεν: (ἐξ)ελαύνω means ‘expel (by force)’ (LfgrE s.v. 519.60 ff.), lead-
ing Hentze (and others) to identify a contradiction in the ‘mission’ described at 168 f.,
and thus to suspect an interpolation at 156–159 (see AH on 156–159 and 158; Anh.
137 f.; differently Ameis in the 1st edition). But from Glaukos’ perspective, i.e. in hind-
sight, the result of Proitos’ actions may well be described as ‘expulsion’. — φέρτερος:
generally means ‘superior (to)’; here likely in reference not to personal ἀρετή but to
political power (as at 1.186, see ad loc.). — Ζεὺς γάρ οἱ ὑπὸ σκήπτρῳ ἐδάμασσεν: ‘the
Argives’ is probably to be supplied as object of ἐδάμασσεν (schol. bT; cautiously ap-
proving: Willcock, Kirk): the verse explains that Proitos rather than Bellerophontes
(as Sisyphos’ heir) ruled the Argolid at the time. Others supply ‘Bellerophontes’ (AH,
Faesi/Franke, Graziosi/Haubold; LfgrE s.v. σκῆπτρον 145.50 ff.; two manuscripts offer
μιν as a v.l. of οἱ); Leaf and LfgrE s.v. δάμνημι 216.31 ff. consider both possibilities. The
emphasis should be in any case on the fact that Bellerophontes becomes dependent on
Proitos not through a lack of personal qualities but by Zeus’ will (Eust. 632.1 ff. compares
the relationship of Bellerophontes and Proitos with that of Herakles and Eurystheus
[on which, see 19.95–133n., 19.133n.]). On Zeus as the source of regal authority – which
includes power over individuals – see 1.277–279 with nn., CG 24. — σκήπτρῳ: on the
σκῆπτρον as a sovereign’s insignia and symbol of power, cf. 2.101–108n.
160–166 The passage follows a common narrative scheme: the so-called
Potiphar motif (Genesis 39) is already attested in the 13th cent. BC in Near
Eastern literature (in the Egyptian ‘Story of Two Brothers’: Pritchard [1950]
1969, 23–25); parallels in Greek mythology: Peleus and Hippolyte/Astydameia
(‘Hes.’ fr. 208 M.-W.; Pind. Nem. 4.54–61 and 5.26–34), Hippolytos and Phaidra
(Eur. Hippolytos), etc. On the numerous literary versions of the motif, see in
detail Thompson K2111 (with bibliography); Peppermüller 1961, 105–131;
West 1997, 365, 482; Hansen 2002, 332–352 (with further bibliography); cf.
158 ῥ’: = ἄρα (R 24.1). — ἔλασσεν: = ἤλασεν (R 16 1, R 9.1). — ἦεν: = ἦν (R 16.6).

159 Ἀργείων: dependent on δήμου (158). — γάρ (ϝ)οι: on the prosody, R 4.5. — οἱ … ἐδάμασσεν:
‘had made subject to him (sc. Proitos), had put in his power’. — σκήπτρῳ ἐδάμασσεν: on the
bridging of hiatus by non-syllabic ι (skḗptrōy edámassen), M 12.2; on the -σσ-, R 9.1.
Commentary 73
also Alden 2012, 118–122. – Anteia reappears in later sources under the name
‘Stheneboia’ (‘Hes.’ fr. 129.16 ff. M.-W.; Eur. fr. 661–672 Kannicht).
160 ἐπεμήνατο: aor. of ἐπιμαίνομαι (+ dat., as at e.g. Anacreon 359 Page), ‘be out of one’s
mind with desire for someone, be mad about someone’; governs the epexegetical inf.
μιγήμεναι (161). – A Homeric hapaxP (cf. γυναιμανές at 3.39); in contrast to the more neu-
tral ἠράσ(σ)ατο (16.182, 20.223, etc.), it may express moral disapproval (direct speech
often contains value judgements: character languageP): suggestion by Führer. — δῖ(α):
a conventional generic epithetP (1.7n.); deemed inappropriate in the current passage by
Aristarchus (since Anteia is behaving unethically), but defended by Herodian (schol. A:
κατὰ κόσμον ποιητικὸν προσέρριπται, ὡς καὶ ἐπὶ τοῦ ‘δῖα Κλυταιμνήστρη’ [Od. 3.266]):
that Homeric epithets may be purely ornamental was recognized already in antiquity
(Nünlist 2009, 299–306; cf. FOR 3–4).
161–162 1st VH of 162 ≈ Od. 1.43. — κρυπταδίῃ φιλότητι μιγήμεναι: cf. Hes. Op. 329
κρυπταδίῃς εὐνῇς (also referring to adultery; further parallels in West ad loc.); on the
phrase φιλότητι μιγήμεναι, cf. 25n. — οὔ τι | πεῖθ(ε): The negated iterative impf. ‘can
produce a particularly strong negation of the verbal content’, ‘could not persuade’
(Schw. 2.279, transl.). — ἀγαθὰ φρονέοντα: ‘since he was thinking properly’, i.e. in
the way expected of someone ἀγαθός (LfgrE s.v. ἀγαθός 28.47 ff.; Leaf; on the conno-
tations of ἀγαθός, see 1.275n.). Cf. the phrase φρεσὶ γὰρ κέχρητ’ ἀγαθῇσι (expression
of a ‘fixed notion of «proper» behavior […] corresponding to the fixed notion of some-
one ἀγαθός’: LfgrE loc. cit. 27.63 f., transl.): Od. 3.266 (of Klytaimestra before she suc-
cumbed to Aigithos’ seduction; cf. Penelope’s ἀγαθαὶ φρένες praised at Od. 24.194),
in addition Od. 14.421 (Eumaios remembers to sacrifice to the gods before the meal),
Od. 16.398 (Amphinomos resists the other suitors’ plan to kill Telemachos). Differently
Il. 24.173 (see ad loc.) and Od. 1.43 (ἀγαθὰ φρονέων with dat.: ‘being kind to someone’).
— δαΐφρονα: a generic epithetP, always of men, with the exception of Od. 15.356 and
h.Cer. 359. On the etymology and meaning, Tronci 2000, 280–282 (earlier bibliography
in 2.23n.): probably originally ‘clever’ (related to Sanskrit dasrá- ‘miraculous, wise’, cf.
δαῆναι ‘learn, find out’; frequently in the Odyssey with this meaning), but secondarily
associated with δαΐ ‘during battle’ and interpreted as ‘courageous, brave’; here and at
196, both readings are possible (LfgrE s.v. 207.10 ff.).
164–165 Direct speeches quoted by characters (‘speech within speech’) are a
popular stylistic device in Greek epic and drama (Nünlist 2002). On their
(comparatively sparse: Nünlist loc. cit. 220 f.) use in the Iliad, see de Jong
160 τῷ: sc. Bellerophontes. — δῖ’ Ἄντεια: on the hiatus, R 5.1.

161 μιγήμεναι: aor. inf. of μείγνυμαι (R 16.4). — οὔ τι: 102n.
163 βασιλῆα: on the declension, R 11.3, R 3.
164 τεθναίης … ἢ κάκτανε: a curse formula: ‘you ought to be killed … or kill’ (i.e.: ‘you ought to
be killed, if you yourself do not kill’, ‘kill or be killed’). — κάκτανε: = κατάκτανε (↑), imper. of
the 2nd aor. of κατακτείνω.
74 Iliad 6
(1987) 2004, 171–179; 2.323–332n. (with further bibliography). Here, the quote
serves to mark a crucial moment in the story; Proitos’ predicament and Anteia’s
perfidy are highlighted with ‘dramatic vividness’ (de Jong loc. cit. 172).
κάκτανε: on the form, Schw. 1.337, 2.473 n. 5: κατάκτανε > *κάκκτανε (apocope and as-
similation) > κάκτανε (simplification of the resulting gemination); analogous are 11.702
κάσχεθε, Od. 17.32 καστορνῦσα; the apocope here may have a deliberate onomatopoetic-
rhetorical effect (Kirk). — μ’: = μοι; elision of -οι is rare, but cf. 1.170 f. οὐδέ σ(οι) ὀΐω
| … πλοῦτον ἀφύξειν, Od. 4.367 ἥ μ(οι) οἴῳ ἔρροντι συνήντετο (G 30; Graziosi/Haubold
ad loc.). — ἔθελεν … οὐκ ἐθελούσῃ: cf. Od. 5.155 παρ’ οὐκ ἐθέλων ἐθελούσῃ, 3.272
ἐθέλων ἐθέλουσαν (schol. bT; Kirk). — φιλότητι μιγήμεναι: a pointed repetition of
the phrase from 161.
166 χόλος λάβεν: 1.387n. — οἷον: ‘(because of) what’ (οἷον in the sense of ὅτι τοιοῦτον:
K.-G. 2.370 f.; cf. 2.320n., 6.109n.).
167 since his heart was awed (sebássato) by such action: = 417 (there of
Achilleus when he refrains from despoiling Eëtion’s corpse). sébas (‘awe’) and
the derivative verbs sebázomai/sébomai (e.g. 4.242) are close in meaning to
aidṓs/aidéomai (on this, 441–442n.): ‘Like aidṓs, sébas can acknowledge the
status of others and inhibit action […] In Homer both accompany a reluctance
to embark on conduct which is instinctively found unacceptable […]’ (Cairns
1993, 137 f.; cf. also Kirk). No reason is given for Proitos’ awe; the passage may
be understood as an indication that the poet of the Iliad presupposes the ver-
sion of the myth mentioned at 157n. (schol. D, similarly T: a supplicant may
not be killed).
τό γε: ‘«that particular act». Glaukos emphasises the limitations of Proitos’ piety: he
shies away from attempting to kill Bellerophontes; but he does arrange for him to be
killed by someone else’ (Graziosi/Haubold ad loc.).
168–170 A letter containing a death sentence for the messenger is a common
narrative motif (Thompson K978), likely of Near Eastern origin (best-known
parallel: the letter of Urias, 2 Samuel 11:14–17; on a possible example already
in the Old Babylonian legend of Sargon, see Alster 1987; West 1997, 366). –
The art of writing is not mentioned elsewhere in Homeric epic (even longer
messages are commonly conveyed orally); the poet appears to have imagined
heroic society as largely pre-literate. Aristarchus (followed among others by
Wolf [1795] 1985, 95–100 [= cap. 19]; Faesi/Franke; Powell 1991, 198–200;
1997, 27) therefore assumed that the ‘signs’ (sḗmata) in 168 were not letters but
a type of pictogram (as at 7.175–189, where the Greek heroes mark lots, with
166 φάτο: impf. of φημί; mid. with no difference in meaning from the act. (R 23). — δὲ (ϝ)άνακτα:
on the prosody, R 4.3.
Commentary 75
only Aias recognizing his own sḗma; for details on the discussion of the two
passages in antiquity, see Maftei 1976, 29–35; Schmidt 1976, 213 f.; Heubeck
1979, 127 f., 135). But the phrasing in 169 contradicts this interpretation: the
‘numerous’ signs are apparently meant to convey a more complex message
(AH, Anh. 151; Heubeck loc. cit. 137, 140); and the phrase ‘folding tablet’ refers
to a writing material widely used since the Bronze Age and common in Greece
(once more) from the 8th cent. BC on (169n.). Which type of writing should be
posited here is disputed. It is not impossible that the story of Bellerophontes
preserved a vague memory of the Mycenaean Linear B script (Willcock;
Lesky 1967, 56 [= RE s.v. Homeros 742]) or – more likely in this context – of Near
Eastern Bronze Age writing systems (cuneiform Hittite or hieroglyphic Luwian:
Aravantinos 1976; Mellink 1995, 41; Brillante 1996, 41–45; on the use of
these two writing systems, Dinçol/Dinçol 2005, 211 f.; on cuneiform corre-
spondence between Mycenaean Greece and the Hittite-Luwian sphere, Latacz
[2001] 2004, 123–128, 243 f.): as a set component of an old story, the motif of the
deadly letter may have survived in the Greek narrative tradition even through
the non-literate Dark Ages (Jeffery 1962, 555; cf. Carlier 2000, 309). But the
passage may also be read as an allusion – albeit isolated – to the contemporary
alphabetic script obtained by the Greeks via their renewed contacts with the
Near East during the 8th-cent. ‘Renaissance’ (adaptation of the Phoenician al-
phabetic script: Burkert [1984] 1992, 25–33; Teodorsson 2006); in that case,
the impression of a disrupting anachronism would be skilfully avoided by the
narrator’s careful circumscription of the matter at hand (‘murderous symbols’
rather than ‘letters’), which retains the exotic and slightly sinister character
of writing (Kirk; Heubeck loc. cit. 137–146; Burkert 1983, 51–53; Bellamy
1988/89, 289–295; Ford 1992, 132, 137).
168 ὅ γε: Proitos (cf. 1 97n.; Schw. 2.208).
169 folding tablet: Wooden writing tablets, joined with hinges and covered with
wax on the interior, were known in the Near East, and possibly also in Greece,
already in the 2nd millenium BC: an example of unknown provenance, dated
to the 14th/13th cent. BC, was preserved in the shipwreck at Ulu Burun near
Kaş (south coast of Turkey) (Payton 1991 with bibliography); the existence of
wooden writing tablets in Mesopotamia, Syria and the Hittite kingdom is at-
tested in Bronze Age written sources – in turn transmitted in stone and clay
(Symington 1991, with 119–121 on the use of sealed wooden tablets for the
safe transmission of messages); small bronze hinges that may have belonged
168 μιν: = αὐτόν (R 14.1). — Λυκίηνδε: on the suffix -δε, R 15.3.

76 Iliad 6
to folding writing tablets were discovered in Pylos and Knossos (Shear 1998;
more cautiously Perna 2007, 226, 229). – In Greece, writing tablets came into
(renewed) use, following the non-literate Dark Ages, by the 8th cent. at the
latest; they were likely adopted from the Phoenicians along with the alpha-
bet (délta/déltos, the letter name and a technical term for a ‘writing tablet’, is
a Semitic loan word: Heubeck 1979, 143–146; Burkert 1983, 52; [1984] 1992,
28–30; West 1997, 25, 561).
γράψας: basic meaning ‘scratch, incise’; elsewhere in Homer (except for 7.187: Aias’ lot)
only in descriptions of woundings (4.139, 17.599, etc.): LfgrE s.v. — θυμοφθόρα: ‘life-
destroying, deadly’ (Od. 2.329 in reference to poison): LfgrE s.v.; on θυμός with the
meaning ‘life, life force’, cf. 17n.
170 his wife’s father: Proitos leaves his revenge to Anteia’s father, the king of
the Lykians (173; here unnamed, in later sources ‘Iobates’: schol. A, T; Soph.
Iobates, fr. 297–299 Radt; ‘Apollod.’ Bibl. 2.3.1 [= 2.30 f.]; schol. T also consid-
ers an identification with Amisodaros, mentioned at 16.328 f., who raised the
Chimaira).
ἠνώγειν: ἠνώγει(ν) < *ἠνώγεε(ν), spelled with ny ephelkystikon by West following
Aristarchus (see schol. A and West 1998, XXVI), is 3rd sing. of the probably Ionic plpf.
form ἠνώγεα (LfgrE s.v. ἄνωγα 960.64 ff. with bibliography).
171 in the blameless convoy | of the gods: Glaukos repeatedly empasizes
that the gods show a particular interest in Bellerophontes and play a part in
determining his fate – for good or evil: cf. 156n., 158–159n., 183, 191, 200 ff.
On the motif of divine company on a perilous path, cf. 24.153n., 24.331b–469a,
Od. 3.376, 9.142, 10.141, 11.332, etc.; parallels from the Old Testament: Exodus
23:20/23, Numbers 20:16 (Kirk; West 1997, 366).
αὐτὰρ ὃ βῆ: a VB formula (11x Il., 4x Od.). — ἀμύμονι: 22–23n.
172 ≈ 5.773; cf. also 14.433 f. = 21.1 f. = 24.692 f. — Xanthos: Homeric epic knows
two rivers by this name, one in the Troad (= Skamandros: 4n.; see iterata) and
the main river of Lykia mentioned here (2.877n.).
ἀλλ’ ὅτε δή: a frequent VB formula marking a new point in a report or narrative
(1.493n.); in the present condensed narrative in particularly close succession: 172, 175,
191, 200, also 178 αὐτὰρ ἐπεὶ δή; similarly 3.209–221 (see 3.209n.), 10.338–365. — ἷξε:
thematic s-aorist of ἵκω (3rd sing. 11x in early epic, 3rd pl. ἷξον 14x in early epic, 2nd sing.
ἷξες 3x h.Ap.; provides metrical variants for ἵκετο, -οντο, -εο; a hypothesis regarding the
origin of these forms in Roth [1970–1974] 1990, 77–85). — ῥέοντα: The epithet may func-
170 ἠνώγειν: ‘commanded’, 3rd sing. plpf. (↑) of the perf. ἄνωγα (cf. 382n.). — ᾧ: possessive
pron. of the 3rd person (R 14.4). — ὄφρ(α): final (R 22.5).
172 Λυκίην: acc. of direction without preposition (R 19.2).
Commentary 77
tion to distinguish the river from the town of the same name at the river mouth (schol.
bT; Maftei 1976, 35 f.).
173–177 According to the conventions of Homeric guest-friendship, visitors are
asked no questions until they have been served a meal (cf. 9.221–224, Od. 1.123 f.,
etc.; on this, Reece 1993, 26). At first glance, it is nevertheless surprising that
the Lykian king entertains Bellerophontes for a full nine days before asking to
see Proitos’ letter (Leaf, Kirk; Odysseus’ sojourn among the Phaeacians, which
they adduce as a parallel, is not quite comparable, in that the guest there ig-
nores an initial question regarding his identity: Od. 7.237 f./8.548 ff.). But 176 f.
implies that Bellerophontes has already mentioned the letter and thus proba-
bly answered the standard questions regarding his name and origin after the
welcoming meal (AH); after that, he is treated as a ‘friend of the family’ for the
time being. – Generous hospitality is mentioned elsewhere in Homeric epic:
cf. 217 (Bellerophontes visiting Oineus: twenty days), 3.232 f. (‘frequently’), Od.
19.194–199 (twelve days), Od. 24.118 f. (travel and stay together: one month);
cf. also Od. 15.1–183 (Telemachus’ departure after a stay of ca. one month at
Sparta). – The indication of time employed here – ‘for nine days … but on the
tenth’ – is formulaic and occurs in various contexts; the typical numberP nine
frequently expresses incompleteness: the tenth day then brings the decisive
change (Graziosi/Haubold; cf. 1.53n., 2.326–329n.).
173–174 προφρονέως μιν τῖεν …· | ἐννῆμαρ ξείνισσε: The explicative asyndeton en-
hances the narrative’s vivacity and lends it an ‘affective nuance’: Ruijgh 208 f., transl.;
cf. 1.105n. — εὐρείης: a generic epithetP of regions (and towns, there likely in reference
to the surrounding countryside: Visser 1997, 87); in early epic 7x of Lykia, 9x of Troy,
7x of Krete, 1x each of Knossos, Sparta and others (LfgrE s.v. 805.55 ff.). — ἐννῆμαρ …
ἐννέα βοῦς: The anaphora stresses the outlays incurred by the Lykian king on his
guest’s behalf: a cow per day (cf. Fehling 1969, 215). On the formation of ἐννῆμαρ, see
1.53n. — ἱέρευσεν: In contrast to 94 (= 275 ≈ 309), here the thought of meat consumption
is dominant; it is nonetheless likely implied that the gods receive their share (as is cus-
tomary for more festive meals: cf. 9.219 f., Od. 7.190 f., 14.414–438): LfgrE s.v. 1137.34 ff.;
Casabona 1966, 22–26; Vermeule 1974, 95, 98 f.
175 ≈ 24.785; 1st VH = 9.474, h.Cer. 51; 2nd VH ≈ Il. 1.477, 9.707, 23.109, 24.788 and
21x Od. (see below). — the rose fingers of the … dawn: 1.477n.; on dawn as
a goddess, see CG 38 s.v. Eos; on the variety of formulaic expressions for ‘day-
break’, see Kirk on 2.48–9.
174 ἐννῆμαρ: adv., ‘for nine days’. — ξείνισσε: = ἐξένισε (ξειν- < *ξενϝ-: R 4.2; on the -σσ-, R 9.1).
175 ἠώς: ‘dawn’, Att. ἕως (cf. R 3).
78 Iliad 6
δεκάτη ἐφάνη: The hiatus is likely caused by modification of the formula

(M 14); 175 is a variant of the more common formulaic verse ἦμος δ’ ἠριγένεια
φάνη ῥοδοδάκτυλος Ἠώς (Il. 1.477, 24.788 and 20x Od.): Graziosi/Haubold.
176 καὶ τότε: serves to highlight ‘significant events or breaks in the story’ (Bakker 1997,
79) – especially in combination with ἀλλ’ ὅτε (δή) in the preceding verse; e.g. 1.494,
22.209, Od. 2.108. — σῆμα: The sing. (as opposed to the pl. at 168) denotes the folding
tablet as a whole (AH, Leaf, Kirk).
177 ὅττί ῥά οἱ: a VB formula (5x Il., 2x Od.; also 3x Il. after caesura A 3).
178–195 The three difficult tasks Bellerophontes must perform, and the reward
of the hand of the princess and half the kingdom, are typical fairytale mo-
tifs (Strömberg 1961, 4 f.; Petersmann 1981, 55 f.; cf. also EM s.v. ‘Aufgaben’;
Thompson H918 and H931). The attack on the hero, who has already per-
formed the three tasks, is also paralleled in fairytales (Göbel 1933, 23, referring
to Grimm nos. 20 and 134, ‘The Brave Little Tailor [Das tapfere Schneiderlein]’
and ‘The Six Servants [Die sechs Diener]’), but the ambush motif, through
which a parallel is created here between Bellerophontes and Diomedes’ father
Tydeus (see 187–190n.), is related primarily to the genre of epic (cf. 4.391–398
[Tydeus], also 1.227, 13.276–291, 18.513–529, Od. 8.492–520, 14.217–221, 14.468–
506, etc.; Bertolini 1989, 140 f. n. 22; Assunção 1997, 48; on the ambush motif
in Homer generally: Edwards 1985, 15–41).
Bellerophontes’ invincibility is underscored by the emphatic repetition of the predicate
κατέπεφνε(ν) (183, 186, 190). The increase in narrative speed at 179–186 is notable as
well (three tasks: 5 verses, 2 verses, 1 verse); the fourth adventure (187–190), again de-
scribed in greater detail, thus gains in importance.
179–182 the Chimaira …: mentioned again in the Iliad at 16.328 f. (Amisodaros,
father of two of Sarpedon’s companions, raised her ‘to be an evil to many’); de-
scribed in more detail at Hes. Th. 319–322, where she is the daughter of Hydra,
the monster killed by Herakles (or the daughter of Echidna and Typhon?, cf.
West ad loc.), whereas here she is merely ascribed a vague ‘divine’ origin. The
Greek word chímaira literally means ‘goat’; in pictorial art, the Chimaira usu-
ally appears as a lion (less frequently: lioness) with a goat’s head growing from
its back, while its tail ends in a snake’s head (a popular motif from the 7th cent.
BC on; see LIMC s.v.). Invention of the Chimaira was likely stimulated by Near
176 καί: apodotic (like δέ in 146): R 24.3. — μιν(ν) ἐρέεινε: on the prosody, M 4.6. — σῆμα
(ϝ)ιδέσθαι: on the prosody, R 4.3. — ἰδέσθαι: on the middle, R 23.
177 ὅττι: = ὅ τι (R 9.1). — ῥά (ϝ)οι: on the prosody, R 4.3. — οἱ: = ἑαυτῷ (R 14 1). — γαμβροῖο πάρα:
παρὰ γαμβροῦ (R 20.2, R 11.2). — φέροιτο: opt. as an indication of indirect speech; mid., ‘brings
with him’.
Commentary 79
Eastern art, where hybrid creatures were common; nevertheless, the combi-
nation of lion, goat and snake appears to have sprung from Greek imagination
(closest to the Greek depictions is a Neo-Hittite relief from Carchemish [8th
cent. BC]: a winged lion with the heads of a lion and a human being and a tail
ending in the head of a snake); see Boardman (1964) 1980, 79 (with fig. 80);
Akurgal 1966, 187 f. (with fig. 78 p. 108); Burkert 1983, 52; West 1997, 366 f. –
Schol. T on 181 and other later sources connect the fire-breathing monster to
volcanic activity in Lykia (Kirk; Bryce 1986, 17–19; Negri 2001; cf. 2.782n. on
Typhoeus).
179 ἀμαιμακέτην: epithet of uncertain etymology and meaning. At 16.329, as here, of
the Chimaira, Hes. Th. 319 of her fiery breath (cf. 182n.); ‘Hes.’ Sc. 207 of the sea; Od.
14.311 of a mast floating in the sea. Most likely ‘with (many) storms’ (α copulativum +
*μαιμακετός ‘storm’, from μαιμάω/-άσσω ‘rush, be eager’), i.e. ‘of a tempestuous nature’
(Od. 14.311 consequently ‘being in a storm’); in Homer’s time perhaps connected also to
μάχη/μάχομαι and read as ‘invincible’ (of masts: ‘indestructible, solid’) (DELG; LfgrE;
Leukart 1986, 344; Graziosi/Haubold with further bibliography).
180 of immortal make, not human: The combination of a term with its negated
opposite is a popular stylistic figure (rhetorical polarity, see polar expressionP;
collection of material: Tzamali 1997).
θεῖον: possessive adj. instead of gen. (AH; Schw. 2.176 f., Chantr. 2.14); cf. e.g. 2.54
(Νεστορέῃ παρὰ νηῒ Πυλοιγενέος βασιλῆος), 5.741 (Γοργείην κεφαλὴν δεινοῖο πελώρου).
— γένος: ‘offspring’ (AH; LfgrE s.v. 131.61 ff.).
181–182 = Hes. Th. 323 f., where, however, it is surely interpolated (see West ad loc.).
181 Tripartite verses with parallelism are rare in Archaic poetry (cf. ‘Hes.’ fr. 321 M.-W. ἔργα
νέων, βουλαὶ δὲ μέσων, εὐχαὶ δὲ γερόντων): Bühler 1960, 218–221 (with further exam-
ples, largely from Hellenistic poetry); cf. also Fehling 1969, 312.
182 δεινόν: attribute of μένος (AH with reference to 17.565, 23.177) or adv. (Leaf with refer-
ence to Od. 4.406; Willcock; LfgrE s.v. 238.2 f.). — ἀποπνείουσα πυρὸς μένος: μένος is
sometimes used with reference to elemental forces of nature (fire also at 23.177, 24.792,
etc.; also rivers 12.18, winds 5.524 etc., the sun 23.190 etc.; see LfgrE s.v. 142.40 ff.). On
the phrase ἀποπνείουσα μένος, cf. 2.536n., 3.8, etc. (μένεα πνείοντες Ἄβαντες/Ἀχαιοί,
‘breathing aggression, valor’); on this, Graz 1965, 291 (transl.): ‘πυρὸς μένος offers a
different force than that of a simple periphrase indicating what the Chimaira breathes
out [i.e. fire, as at Hes. Th. 319 πνέουσαν … πῦρ]; in breathing out «the might of fire», the
Chimaira simultaneously exhales its own might, as do the Abantes and the Achaeans.’
180 πεφνέμεν: ‘to kill’, inf. (R 16.4) of the aor. ἔπεφνον. — ἔην: = ἦν (R 16.6).
181 χίμαιρα: here (unlike in 179) the appellative ‘goat’.
182 ἀποπνείουσα: on the metrical lengthening -ει-, R 10.1.
80 Iliad 6
183 2nd VH = 4.398 (there in reference to Diomedes’ father Tydeus; cf. 187–190n.).

— According to most sources, Bellerophontes overcomes the Chimaira with the
help of the winged horse Pegasos, which Poseidon sent to him (Hes. Th. 325;
‘Hes.’ fr. 43(a).84–87 M.-W.; Pind. Ol. 13.61–93, etc.); he later misuses the mirac-
ulous horse to enter the realm of the gods and meets an inglorious end (Pind.
Isthm. 7.42–48 etc.). It is unlikely that the poet of the Iliad was unaware of this
version (thus schol. T on 191; Hesiod, who limits himself to a brief allusion
at Th. 325, appears to assume general knowledge of the story: Peppermüller
1961, 42). The lack of any mention of Pegasos here (183b is only a vague allusion,
if that, see below) is instead to be explained as an attempt by Glaukos to avoid
any thought of his ancestor’s sacrilegious ride to heaven (Gaisser 1969, 173;
Andersen 1978, 109 n. 11; cf. 157n. and especially 200–205n.). That the omis-
sion of Pegasus was in addition meant to make Bellerophontes’ victory over
the Chimaira appear even more heroic (thus, among others, Radermacher
[1938] 1943, 98; Petersmann 1981, 56 f.) is doubtful: in the Homeric view, the
hero’s own achievement is generally not diminshed if he receives supernatural
assistance (cf. e.g. 22.214–299; on this Janko, Introd. 2).
Some scholars read the phrase θεῶν τεράεσσι πιθήσας as a veiled allusion to Pegasos;
Pindar appears to have understood the passage this way, since at Ol. 13.73 he uses τέρας
to denote the golden bridle given by Athene to Bellerophontes for the taming of Pegasos
(Malten 1944, 3 f.; Peppermüller 1961, 42–44, 155–163; cf. also Gaisser 1969, 174;
Fornaro 1992, 89). But in Homer the word usually means mere signs that manifest di-
vine will (LfgrE s.v.): natural phenomena such as rainbows (11.28, 17.548) etc.; miracles
such as the snake’s petrification at 2.308 ff. (at 308 there, μέγα σῆμα is synonymous
with 324 τέρας μέγα, see 2.308n.); τέρας without further specification as here, 4.398,
4.408, etc. For humans, such signs are a cause of fear (17.548 etc.), warnings (4.398
etc.) or encouragement (4.408, 12.256, Od. 20.101, etc.); only the sandstorm caused by
Zeus at Il. 12.252 ff. is simultaneously concrete help for the Trojans, since it obstructs
their opponents. It is thus unlikely that τέρας here refers to the dispatch of Pegasos,
although this cannot be ruled out (also skeptical are Leaf, Kirk and West 2011 ad loc.).
— πιθήσας: intransitive s-aor. beside ἐπιθόμην, with only the part. occuring in early
epic (usually at VE); whereas the metrically equivalent πεποιθώς (‘having constant trust
in’) is generally used in reference to one’s own abilities or posessions (505n.), πιθήσας –
as here – is more often used in relation to externalities in which trust is put in concrete
situations (LfgrE s.v. 1099.41, transl.: ‘at the moment [ingressive] relying on something
[foreign]’).
184 against the … Solymoi: according to Hdt. 1.173, Strab. 13.4.16 (= C 630 f.),
etc., a long-established people in southwest Asia Minor (border region of Lykia
and Pisidia; among other places in Termessos at the foothills of the Solymos
mountains, which are also mentioned at Od. 5.283): Bryce 1986, 19 f.; Kupke
1989, 4.
Commentary 81
αὖ: frequent in lists (in responsion to μέν: 179/183): Klein 1988, 251–255; Bonifazi 2012,
225–229; cf. 2.768n., 3.200n. — κυδαλίμοισιν: a generic epithetP (used with the name of
a people only here and at 204; otherwise of Menelaos [14x] and other heroes, as well as
of κῆρ). On κῦδος, see Latacz 1966, 130 f. (cf. 1.222n.): the original meaning seems to
have been ‘being singled out’ [‘Herausgehobenheit’]; consequently ‘sense of elevation’
on a psychological level and, in military contexts, ‘success, superiority; (resulting) pres-
tige’. The nuance of the adj. derived from it is hard to grasp (LSJ: ‘glorious, renowned’,
in reference to κῆρ ‘noble’; LfgrE: ‘valiant’; perhaps also ‘in good spirits’). – On the
word formation, Risch 105: -άλιμος is a contamination of -αλέος and -ιμος, ‘*κυδαλέος
(: κῦδος = θαρσαλέος : θάρσος) + κύδιμος = κυδάλιμος’.
185 and this he [thought] said: Greek pháto, ‘he said’ (rather than ‘he thought’,
as translated by Lattimore), indicates that Bellerophontes later on gladly re-
counted his adventures and that Glaukos grew up with these ‘family histories’
(cf. 207–210n.): de Jong (1987) 2004, 165, 168.
μάχην … δύμεναι: δύνω here in the sense ‘enter a sphere of action’; cf. δῦναι ὅμιλον
‘to throw oneself into the fray‘ (11.537, 20.76), πόλεμον … δύῃς/δύμεναι (9.604, 14.62 f.):
LfgrE s.v. 358.50/58 ff.; Kurz 1966, 148. — ἀνδρῶν: ἀνήρ functions as a contrasting term
to god, woman, animal, etc. (LfgrE s.v. 829 ff.); here, μάχην … ἀνδρῶν forms a contrast to
Bellerophontes’ battles with the Chimaira and the Amazons.
186 Amazons: a mythical people of female warriors, mentioned in Homer only
here and at 3.189 (see 3.184–190n.; cf. also 2.813–814n. on ‘Myrina’s tomb’);
their role as allies of the Trojans, whom they aid under the direction of their
queen Penthesilea after the death of Hektor, is attested only in post-Homeric
literature (but may go back to older narrative material): Aithiopis, Proclus
Chrest. § 1 and fr. 1 West; cf. 24.804n. Speculation as to the significance of the
Amazonomachy motif in the myth of Bellerophontes in Blok 1995, 303–347.
ἀντιανείρας: ‘a match for a man (or men), man-like’ (3.189n.; cf. 199n. on ἀντίθεον).
187–190 Bellerophontes’ final adventure resembles Tydeus’ (CH 6) errand to
Thebes (4.384–398; literal echoes: 187a ≈ 4.392a, 189 f. ≈ 4.397; in addition 183b
[trust in the signs of the gods when slaying the Chimaira] = 4.398b); the impli-
cation: Glaukos’ lineage is equal to Diomedes’ (Andersen 1978, 103).
τῷ … δόλον ἄλλον ὕφαινεν· | κρίνας …: explicative asyndeton; cf. 173–174n.
187–188 1st VH of 187 ≈ 4.392. — spun another … | treachery: a familiar meta-
phor, cf. 7.324, 9.93, Od. 5.356, 9.422, etc. (as here, the object may be dólos
‘ruse, plot/attack’, mḗtis ‘plan’, or both): see 3.212n. and Müller 1974, 217 f.;
185 καρτίστην: = κρατίστην; predicative. — τήν: demonstrative (R 17). — δύμεναι: inf. of ἔδυν

(R 16.4).
187 ὕφαινεν: sc. the king of Lykia.
82 Iliad 6
cf. also Od. 19.137 with Russo ad loc. (Penelope commenting on herself: ‘I spin
out deceptions’, with reference inter alia to her weaving ploy; on this, Bierl
2004a, 110 f.; Clayton 2004, 32 f.); other related metaphors: ‘weave sorrows’
(Il. 18.367 etc.), ‘spin someone’s fate’ (24.209b–210n., 24.525n.): Clarke 1999,
251 f. with n. 49.
πυκινόν: In the parallel verse 4.392 (story of Tydeus), πυκινός is an epithet of λόχος, like-
wise at 24.779 (see ad loc.) and at Od. 11.525; as here, however, it may be used metaphor-
ically of plans, remarks and other results of mental processes; see 2.55n. on πυκινὴν …
βουλήν (‘The products of the mind are fashioned as tightly and strongly as a proper
craft product’ or, as here, a fabric: Müller 1974, 32 n. 120, transl.); 3.202n. on μήδεα
πυκνά; LfgrE s.v. 1632.46 ff. — ἐκ Λυκίης εὐρείης φῶτας ἀρίστους: In this expression,
εὐρείης (173–174n.) is likely used with a pregnant sense: ‘far and wide the best men from
Lykia’ (LfgrE s.v. εὐρύς 805.58 ff.; likewise 210, 13.433, 24.256 [see ad loc.], etc.). – φῶτας
ἀρίστους is an inflectible VE formula (nom.: 18.230; acc. as here in a λόχος situation:
Od. 4.530, 4.778); selection of the best for a λόχος also at 1.227 (see ad loc.), 13.276 f., Od.
8.512 f., etc. (a set motif: Edwards 1985, 21 f.).
189 εἷσε λόχον: εἷσε is a transitive aor. of ἕζομαι, ‘made sit down’; λόχος here (as at 4.392,
8.522, etc.) means the group forming the ambush (LfgrE s.v.). — oἶκόνδε νέοντο: an
inflectible VE formula (2.290n.).
190 1st VH = 423; cf. also 4.397 (of Tydeus in a similar situation). — κατέπεφνεν: cf. 12n.
191 knew him for the powerful stock of the god: seemingly a contradic-
tion of the genealogy in 152–155, which mentions no divine progenitors of
Bellerophontes. Possible explanations: (1) Bellerophontes actually was a
son of Poseidon (‘Hes.’ fr. 43(a).81 f. M.-W.; Pind. Ol. 13.69; schol. T); this ver-
sion is alluded to here (Faesi/Franke; Leaf; Willcock; Gaisser 1969, 173).
(2) The expression ‘a god’s offspring’ should not be taken literally; it merely
signifies ‘the highest kind of heroic ancestry’ (Kirk; Assunção 1997, 42, with
reference to Eust. 636.5; cf. the formulaic use of the epithet diogenḗs ‘sprung
from Zeus’ [1.337n.]). (3) The Lykian king inferred divine origin on the basis
of Bellerophontes’ exceptional achievements (schol. A): ‘In other words, B.’s
divine parentage as mentioned in 191 may be no more than the inference of one
character (the Lykian king), adopted only too willingly by another character
(Glaucus), who thus augments the glory of his family’ (de Jong [1987] 2004,
166; cf. secondary/tertiary focalizationP). – The statement may be understood
189 τοί: anaphoric demonstrative pron. (R 14.3). — οὔ τι: 102n. — πάλιν (ϝ)οῖκόνδε: on the pros-
ody, R 4.5.
191 γίνωσκε (= γίγνωσκε) … ἐόντα (= ὄντα, R 16.6): sc. Βελλεροφόντην; predicative to this is
θεοῦ γόνον ἠΰν. — ἠΰν: 8n.
Commentary 83
as a reply to 128 ff.: Glaukos claims a closeness to the gods for himself and his
family that is based upon heroic deeds – and not the divinity of an unwarlike
Dionysos (cf. 123–143n. end, 132n.): suggestion by Bierl.
ἀλλ’ ὅτε δή: 172n. — γίνωσκε: impf. for a gradually growing realization (AH, Leaf); cf.
192n., in addition 15.241 (on which, Snell 1978, 23), Od. 22.501.
192 = 11.226. — δίδου: ‘offered in marriage’ (AH); ‘the imperf. is somewhat more pictur-
esque than the following δῶκε, as it brings before us in connexion with γίνωσκε above
the gradual opening of the king’s eyes, whereas δῶκε merely states a fact’ (Leaf). — ἥν:
The original word-beginning [ww] (< *hw- < *sw-, cf. Lat. suam) has a lasting prosodic
effect; see G 22 and cf. 62b n.
193 half of all the kingly privilege (timḗs basilēídos): Greek timḗ generally
means the respect enjoyed by an individual, and as such is the gauge of a per-
son’s social rank (1.159–160n.); here (as at 2.197, 20.181, Od. 1.117, 24.30, Hes.
Th. 462, etc.), it refers to the institutionalized ‘regal (position of) honor’ that
provides its bearer with material advantages in addition to recognition and
power (cf. 9.149–156, 12.310–314, Od. 1.392 f.; on this, Benveniste 1969, 51 f.;
Cobet 1981, 24 f., 30). The division of timḗ (here and at 9.616: Achilleus’ of-
fer to Phoinix) probably indicates that the ruler cedes control over part of his
realm, and consequently over the associated rights and revenues, to another
(cf. 9.149–156, 9.483 f.; on this, van Wees 1992, 39, 284).
194 2nd VH = 20.184. — piece of land: Greek témenos, perhaps originally an
Akkadian loanword, albeit with a shift in meaning (Akkadian tem(m)en(n)u
‘title deed, boundary marker, foundation deposit’: West 1997, 36); at the same
time, Greek folk etymology linked it with témnō ‘to cut’, with which it is here
connected in a word playP: ‘something cut out, excised’, i.e. a piece of land
delimited for a particular purpose (see Frisk and LfgrE s.v.; unambiguously
in favor of the word’s Greek origin: Beekes s.v.). Already in Mycenaean Greek,
the word is attested as the term for the land holdings of a ruler or another
high-ranking dignitary (DMic s.v. te-me-no with bibliography). In Homer, it is
used for (1) a ‘sacred precinct’ (2.696 etc.; thus also post-Homeric); (2) a ruler’s
‘royal domain’ (12.313 [Sarpedon’s and Glaukos’ témenos: likely inherited from
Bellerophontes], 18.550, 20.391, etc.); (3) land that may be awarded by the com-
munity for special services (thus in the present passage – where ‘royal domain’
is likewise a possibility – and at 9.578, 20.184). In cases (1) and (2), at least a
192 αὐτοῦ: adv., ‘on the spot, there’. — θυγατέρα (ϝϝ)ήν: on the prosody, ↑. — ἥν: possessive
pron. of the 3rd person (R 14.4).
193–194 δέ (ϝ)οι and μέν (ϝ)οι: on the prosody, R 4.3 and 4.5; οἱ = αὐτῷ (R 14.1). — τάμον: (unaug-
mented: R 16.1) aor. of τάμνω/τέμνω.
84 Iliad 6
nominal award by the community may also be assumed (as in the case of hon-
orific gifts: cf. 1.118–129n.); for details, see Carlier 1984, 158–160; van Wees
1992, 294–298; Scheid-Tissinier 1994, 229–233. On the controversial question
of what land the people could draw on to award a témenos, see Donlan 1989a;
Link 1994; Scheid-Tissinier loc. cit.
καὶ μέν: 27n.
195 ≈ 20.185 (νέμηαι), 12.314 (VE πυροφόροιο, here v.l.). — φυταλιῆς: ‘(tree) plantation,
orchard’ (or ‘vineyard’: cf. 9.579 f. / Od. 9.133 f., where οἰνόπεδον/ἄμπελοι is used beside
ἄροσις): Ebeling s.v.; Leaf; LfgrE s.v. ἄρουρα 1336.38 ff.
196 His bride bore …: sc. the Lykian king’s daughter (192); after the story of
Bellerophontes, Glaukos returns to the actual genealogy. On the link estab-
lished here between Greece and Lykia, see 154n.
δαΐφρονι: 161–162n.
197–198a Isandros … Hippolochos … Laodameia: Bellerophontes’ three chil-
dren play virtually no role in the myth otherwise (see Wathelet s.v.). Hip-
polochos is mentioned occasionally in the Iliad as the father of Glaukos;
Isandros and Laodameia appear only in the present passage.
Λαοδάμειαν. | Λαοδαμείῃ …: cf. 22 f. Βουκολίωνι. | Βουκολίων … (with n.).
198b–199 Zeus: on Zeus’ numerous liaisons with mortal women and the result-
ant offspring, cf. LfgrE s.v. Ζεύς 872 f. — and bore him … Sarpedon: According
to the genealogy that later becomes canonical (‘Hes.’ frr. 140 and 141.14 M.-W.
[restored], Hdt. 1.173, etc.), Sarpedon was the son of Zeus and Europa; as a
brother of Idomeneus’ grandfather Minos, he thus lived two generations prior
to the Trojan War. Attempts by later mythographers to harmonize the two tra-
ditions are forced (Diod. 5.79.3; ‘Apollod.’ Bibl. 3.1.2 [= 3.6]; cf. Bryce 1986, 21).
Which account is older cannot be said with assurance; the current view is that
the poet of the Iliad was the first to introduce Sarpedon into the myth of Troy
in order to create a worthy opponent for Patroklos: Janko on 16.419–683 (with
older bibliography); contra: Prinz 1979, 100–107. – Sarpedon is considered
the best fighter among the Trojan allies (12.101 ff.); for his role in the Iliad, see
2.876n.; Wathelet s.v.
μητίετα Ζεύς: a VE formula (1.175n.). — ἀντίθεον: a generic epithetP of heroes (also of
Penelope) and peoples (LfgrE); it ‘expresses equivalence of power, rather than family
resemblance; cf. ἀντί, «of equal value», «exchangeable for». Here, however, the geneal-
195 φυταλιῆς καὶ ἀρούρης: gen. of content with τέμενος, ‘(with, consisting of) fruit orchards
and farmland’.
198 μητίετα: nom. sing. of an a-declension adj. in -ᾰ, ‘rich in μῆτις’.
Commentary 85
ogy reinforces the epithet’ (Graziosi/Haubold). — χαλκοκορυστήν: a generic epithetP

(elsewhere in the Iliad always of Hektor; Hes. Th. 984 of Memnon, h.Hom. 8.2 of Ares);
likely ‘with bronze helmet’ rather than ‘armored with bronze’ (i.e. directly from κόρυς
‘helmet’, not the denominative κορύσσω with the extended sense ‘arm oneself’): Risch
34; Frisk (1940) 1966, 324 f.; Trümpy 1950, 47 f. (contra Ebeling s.v. and others); cf.
LfgrE s.v. ἱπποκορυστής. – On epithets referring to weapons and (parts of) armor gener-
ally: 116n.; on the significance of bronze weapons in Homer, 3n.
200–205 According to the common version of the myth (presumably known
already in Homer’s time: 183n.), Bellerophontes descends into hybris after
accomplishing his tasks; when he tries to enter the heavens with Pegasos,
Zeus makes him fall into the deep and become a cripple (Pind. Isthm. 7.42–48;
Asclepiades FGrHist 12 F 13 [= schol. D on Il. 6.155]). Glaukos omits this igno-
minious episode and portrays the sudden disaster befalling Bellerophontes,
long favored by the gods, and his family as the result of an inexplicable divine
whim: the Olympians’ hatred of Bellerophontes is as little justified as Artemis’
anger at Laodameia. In this way, the hero’s end appears as an illustration of
the leaf simile at 146 ff. (Gaisser 1969, 174; Macleod, Introd. 11 f.; Grethlein
2006, 94–96; Sammons 2010, 36–38). For Glaukos, the responsibility resting
on him as one of the last survivors of his lineage becomes an incentive to prove
himself in battle (145–211n. with bibliography).
According to some interpreters, the passage also contains an implicit – legitimate –
warning addressed to the overly confident Diomedes (suggested already by schol. bT
and Porphyry on 6.200–201 §§ 2–3 MacPhail; on this, Maftei 1976, 48; in addition,
Andersen 1978, 102–105; Scodel 1992; Alden 1996 and 2000, 130–152; Assunção 1997,
48–66; cf. Grethlein 2006, 111 f.). But such a warning would miss its target at least for
the time being: the present episode has an outcome favorable to Diomedes (234–236);
the procession of supplication by the Trojan women notwithstanding, Athene does not
withdraw her favor (311); and according to Od. 3.180–182, Diomedes eventually returns
from the Trojan War unharmed (cf. Sammons 2010, 28 f.: Dione’s prophecy at 5.406 ff. is
not fulfilled). At the same time, even Diomedes experiences serious setbacks (8.130–171,
11.369–400): the general truth portrayed in Glaukos’ speech – that no man is granted
permanent success – naturally applies to Diomedes as well (Scodel 1992, 83 f.).
200–202 These verses have frequently been suspected as interpolations on the grounds

that (1) the reference of καί in 200 is unclear, and (2) they represent an inappropriate
interruption of the report on Bellerophontes’ descendants (μέν at 198 supposedly re-
sponds to δέ at 203/206): see AH, Anh. 138 f., 152, and Willcock; Koechly 1859, 5 f., and
Faesi/Franke also athetize 205; according to West 2011 ad loc., 200–205 were perhaps
adopted en bloc from a source in which the story of Bellerophontes was not part of a ge-
nealogical narrative. – On (1): Leaf and Kirk consider transposing 200–202 to after 205
(200: ‘he too’, like Isandros and Laodameia; cf. schol. T); this is unnecessary: καὶ κεῖνος
either creates a relation between Bellerophontes and Lykourgos (200b = 140b) (AH) or
86 Iliad 6
is to be read more generally: ‘even he’, who had been a favorite of the gods until now
(Monro ad loc.; Grethlein 2006, 83, 340; cf. 24.538, ἀλλ’ ἐπὶ καὶ τῷ θῆκε θεὸς κακόν);
or both at the same time: ‘«he too»; looking back to the story of Lycurgus, but also be-
yond, to the inevitable fate of all humankind’ (Graziosi/Haubold). On (2): 200–202
do not in fact represent an illogical interruption of the narrative. Bellerophontes’ fate
is closely linked to that of his children; 200 marks the moment in which it turned to
the worse. 201 ἤτοι ὅ corresponds to 203 Ἴσανδρον δέ and 205 τὴν δέ (de Jong [1987]
2004, 166; on ἤτοι ≈ μέν, see Ruijgh [1981] 1996). – The responsion of δέ at 203 with
ἤτοι at 201 also forbids reading 203 ff. as a paratactically connected causal clause (thus
Giusti 1933; Assunção 1997, 54 f.; Grethlein 2006, 341 f.; cf. schol. bT on 202); rather,
Bellerophontes’ melancholy is meant to appear to be a suffering sent by the gods (Faesi/
Franke, Leaf, Kirk), joined by the further disaster of the premature death of his two
children.
200 1st VH = Od. 3.286, ≈ Od. 4.519; 2nd VH = 140, ≈ Od. 14.366. — ἀλλ’ ὅτε δή: 172n.
201–202 he wandered (Greek aláto) alone about the plain of Aleios (pedíon
Alḗïon) … | … skulking aside (aleéinōn) from the trodden track of human-
ity: Herodotus 6.95 mentions an ‘Alean plain’ in Cilicia, but the poet of the
Iliad appears to have chosen the name primarily for the sake of the word playP
(schol. A, followed by modern commentators; Rank 1951, 37 f.; Louden 1995,
30). The combination aláto – pedíon Alḗïon (which could be rendered: ‘went
wandering in the Plain of Wandering’: West 2011 ad loc.) has a parallel at
Genesis 4:12/16: the fratricide Cain – condemned to be ‘restless and vagrant
(nād)’ – proceeds to the land of Nod, ‘land of Wandering’ (White 1982, 126 f.;
West 1997, 367). – On the basis of later sources (Hes. Th. 793 ff., ‘Hes.’ fr. 204.124 ff.
M.-W., Empedocles fr. 115 DK), D’Alonso 2008 interprets Bellerophontes’ fate
as a ‘destiny in limbo’ between life and death. On the specter of a life of restless
wandering in general, cf. 24.531–533n. — eating | his heart (thymón) out: a
metaphor attested already in Sumerian and Egyptian (West on Hes. Op. 799);
cf. Od. 9.75, 10.143, 10.379; Il. 1.491, 24.129 with nn. (there kḗr/kradíē ‘heart’
rather than thymós); also expressions such as ‘heart-eating hatred’ (19.58 with
n.). Further attestations: West loc. cit.; LfgrE s.v. θυμός 1082.48 ff.
203–204 Ares …: Expressions such as ‘Ares slew XY’ are often used figuratively
for ‘XY fell in battle’ (cf. 16.543, 24.260–262n., 24.498n.). At the same time, in
the case of characters such as Ares, Hephaistos, etc., the boundaries between
metonymical use and anthropomorphic perception are fluid (CG 28; LfgrE s.v.
200 κεῖνος: = ἐκεῖνος (sc. Bellerophontes). — ἀπήχθετο: 140n.

201 κάπ: = κατά (with apocope and assimilation: R 20.1).
202 ὅν: possessive pron. of the 3rd person (R 14.4).
Commentary 87
Ἄρης 1257.21 ff.; Clarke 1999, 266 ff., esp. 269–272); here, the notion of the god
in person is indicated by the context (raging gods at 200/205); cf. 5.842 ff.,
where Ares personally kills an Achaian (LfgrE s.v. 1262.61 ff.).
203 2nd VH = 5.388, 5.863; ≈ 13.746, Hes. Th. 714. — ἆτος πολέμοιο: ‘inexhaustible in bat-
tle’. ἆτος < ἄατος (thus the primary paradosis in Hes. Th. 714 [see West ad loc.] and v.l.
at 5.388 etc.) < *ἄ-σατος, from α privativum and ἄ-μεναι ‘to sate’ (cf. Engl. sate; Old High
German sat, Lat. satis): LfgrE s.v. with bibliography. πόλεμος in early epic usually refers
to a fight/fights as an event/activity, less frequently to ‘war’: LfgrE s.v. 1335.41 ff.; 2.453n.
with bibliography.
204 A four-word verse (1.75n.). — μαρνάμενον: μάρνασθαι in Homer is occasionally used
as a metrical variant for μάχεσθαι and πολεμίζειν (Trümpy 1950, 167 f.). — Σολύμοισι …
κυδαλίμοισιν: 184n.
205 1st VH = 3.413; ≈ 23.482, 24.55, Od. 18.25; cf. also 2.599n. — Artemis: A
woman’s sudden demise is regularly blamed on Artemis’ arrows (CG 7), cf.
428, 19.59n., 21.483 f., 24.605 ff. (with n.: myth of Niobe), Od. 11.172 f., etc.:
see Hoekstra on Od. 15.411; Burkert (1977) 1985, 151 (specifically on puer-
peral deaths); Clarke 1999, 257–259. The cause of the goddess’ anger remains
shrouded (nor do post-Homeric mythographic sources provide information);
suggestions by ancient and modern commentators (schol. T: ‘perhaps on ac-
count of the Amazons’; AH and others: on account of Laodameia’s liaison with
Zeus) are mere speculation.
τὴν δέ: sc. Laodameia. — χρυσήνιος: ‘with golden reins’; in early epic only here and
at Od. 8.285 (of Ares). Divine attributes are often envisioned as made of gold or silver
(1.37n., 2.448n.; divine team of horses with a golden harness: 5.720 ff.).
206 begot me, and I claim that he is my father: The creation of emphasis via
redundance is characteristic of oral poetry; cf. 1.160n., 1.192n. — I claim: an
expression of Glaukos’ pride in his family (Kirk; cf. 211n.).
207–210 The motif ‘exhortation by a father at the departure of a warrior’ is also
found at 5.197–200, 9.252–259a, 11.782–790a; additional reminiscences of de-
parture scenes: 9.438–443, 18.324–327, 23.144–149 (de Jong [1987] 2004, 173–175
with n. 51 p. 280). – The phrasing at 209 f. incidentally suggests that the father’s
exhortations were linked to a reminder of their ancestors’ achievements – es-
pecially, of course, those of the legendary Bellerophontes: in addition to 185
(see ad loc.), a further pointer to the family tradition to which Glaukos refers in
his narrative (de Jong loc. cit. 168).
203 δέ (ϝ)οι: on the prosody, R 4.3. — οἱ: = αὐτῷ (ethical dat.).

204–205 κατέκτανε … | … ἔκτα: 2nd aor. and root aor. of (κατα)κτείνω as metrically convenient
variants.
88 Iliad 6
207 μάλα πόλλ’ ἐπέτελλεν: a formula (VE also at 21.230, Od. 12.268/273; after caesura A 1:
Il. 4.229; π. ἐ. only: 2x Hom.); in addition, ἐπιτέλλω is regularly found in scenes of the
present type (5.198, 9.252, 11.782/783/785). πολλ(ά) illustrates the transition from noun to
adj.: ‘many’ > ‘much, strongly’ (LfgrE s.v. 1422.33 ff.; quantity denoting intensity, as often
in Homer, cf. 1.35n.; Snell [1939] 1999, 254).
208 = 11.784 (Peleus to Achilleus): pregnant formulation of the code of behavior
obligatory for Homeric heroes. It contains ‘no directive for the pursuit of re-
cords and the removal of co-competitors’ at all costs (Latacz 1995, 39, transl.),
but rather the challenge to prove oneself optimally as an áristos – a member
of the elite – in any situation. In addition to achievements in battle – which
dominate the present context; likewise 441–446 (see ad loc.) – and the coun-
cil (1.258n.), this includes ‘values such as kindness, loyalty, compassion and
chivalry, as well as a rationally founded sense of justice and respect for others’
(Latacz loc. cit. 40, transl.; on the extensive scholarly discussion, p. 91 nn.
108–110; see also Latacz 2013, 65–69).
209 ≈ Od. 24.508. — not shaming the generation of my fathers: on this de-
mand, cf. 4.370–400, 5.633–643, 5.800–813, 6.444–446 (and 476–481), 7.124–
131, 8.281–285, Od. 24.506–509; Alden 2000, 156–161; Bouvier 2002, 111–117;
Grethlein 2006, 72–77, 83 f.; Aceti 2008, 47–50, 55–57; cf. also Crotty 1994,
24–41 (on the significance of father figures in the Iliad generally).
210 Ἐφύρῃ: 152n. — ἐγένοντο: declarative, ‘they were’ (cf. 153n.). — εὐρείῃ: 187–188n.
211 = 20.241 (Aineias addressing Achilleus; cf. 120n., 143n.). — γενεῆς τε καὶ αἵματος: a
synonym doubling (1.160n.); from αἷμα ‘blood, lineage, descent’, see LfgrE s.v. 308.37 ff.
— εὔχομαι εἶναι: an inflectible VE formula (in total 15x Il., 18x Od., 2x h.Hom.; occasion-
ally in other positions in the verse; also with ἔμμεναι). As here, frequently in reference
to lineage, e.g. 5.246, 14.113, 21.187 (Muellner 1976, 68–78). On εὔχομαι ‘provide official
information about oneself, (proudly) say about oneself’, see 1.91n.; Latacz 1969, 350 f.,
353; Muellner loc. cit. 78, 93.
212–231 Diomedes is pleased to discover a connection with Glaukos via the
guest-friendship of their grandfathers (215n.), and proposes an exchange of
armor for a visible renewal of this bond. Only later does the audience learn that
Glaukos’ armor is worth many times more than that of Diomedes (234–236n.). If
one interprets Diomedes’ behavior in light of this information, he appears as a
coolly calculating man who knows how to cleverly use a novel situation to his
208 αἰέν: = ἀεί. — ὑπείροχον (+ gen.): ‘surpassing someone, being excellent in comparison with’
(from ὑπερ-έχω; -ει- is metrically lengthened: R 10 1). — ἔμμεναι: = εἶναι (R 16.4).
209 αἰσχυνέμεν: on the form, R 16.4.
211 ταύτης: conceptually also modifies αἵματος. — τοι: = σοι (R 14.1; cf. also R 24.12).
Commentary 89
own advantage (thus among others Mazon 1942, 164 f.; Donlan 1989, 12–15;
Willcock 1992, 71; Harries 1993, 142 f.; von Reden 1995, 26 f., who compares
Penelope’s behavior at Od. 18.250–283; cf. also Willcock on 234–236 [on the
importance of material possessions in Homeric society: profit-oriented think-
ing is not fundamentally inconsistent with the heroic ideal]). But taken on
their own, Diomedes’ words seem cordial and genuine, so that his proposal for
exchanging armor initially appears to be a simple inspiration with no ulterior
motive (schol. bT on 230; Traill 1989, 304). It must remain an open question
whether the contemporary audience, which was only listening, was inclined
to reevaluate the speech on the basis of the narrator’s commentary at 234 ff.
in the way outlined above (Perry 1937 interprets the episode as an example
of ‘the early Greek capacity for viewing things separately’: in accord with
this view, Diomedes’ reaction and the narrator’s commentary are on different
levels).
The impression that a friendship between equal partners is about to be entered into here
is emphasized linguistically via the frequency of the pronoun ἀλλήλων, -οισ(ι) (218, 226,
230, 233) as well as of verse pairs with parallelisms (219 f. and 224 f. μέν – δέ, 227/229
μέν – δ’ αὖ): ‘Diomedes persuades Glaukos, and he may initially persuade us too; but
eventually we realise that there can be no equality in friendship between the two war-
riors’ (Graziosi/Haubold on 212–31).
212 1st VH = 17.567, 24.424, Od. 7.329, 8.199, 8.385, 13.250, 18.281, Hes. Th. 173, h.Cer. 370. —
βοὴν ἀγαθὸς Διομήδης: 12n.
213 κατέπηξεν ἐπὶ χθονὶ πουλυβοτείρῃ: an unambiguous sign that he does not wish to
enter into a duel (cf. 3.134 f.). Bekker conjectures ἐνί for ἐπί (with reference to 11.378), but
cf. 23.876 f.; on the inflectible VE formula (ἐπὶ) χθ. πουλ., 3.89n.
214 1st VH ≈ 10.288. — μειλιχίοισι: sc. ἔπεσι/μύθοις (the same ellipse at 17.431, ‘Hes.’ fr.
280.25 M.-W.); ‘gentle, sweet’ (linked to μέλι in folk etymology: Chantraine 1937; DELG
s.v. μείλια), ‘placatory, kind, ingratiating’; of both genuine (4.256, 6.343, etc.) and decep-
tive words (Od. 9.363 [Odysseus addressing the Cyclops], 18.283 [Penelope addressing
the suitors]: LfgrE s.v. 87.67 f.). — ποιμένα λαῶν: an inflectible VE formula (1.263n.);
‘a common description of leaders in epic, which expresses their duty of care towards
their people’ (Graziosi/Haubold ad loc.; cf. Haubold 2000, 17–24).
215 my guest friend from far in the time of our fathers: on the significance
of guest-friendship in general, 3.207n.; on its capacity to be inherited, cf. Od.
213 πουλυβοτείρῃ: on the metrical lengthening (πουλυ- instead of πολυ-), R 10.1.

214 αὐτὰρ ὅ: sc. Diomedes again; αὐτάρ is progressive (R 24.2).
215 ξεῖνος: = ξένος (< *ξένϝος: R 4.2). — ἐσσι: = εἶ (R 16.6).
90 Iliad 6
1.175 f., 1.187, 1.417, 15.196 f.; historical examples: Thuc. 8.6.3, Isocr. Trapezitikos
43, etc. (Herman 1987, 16 f., 69–72, 166–175 [with further examples]).
ἦ ῥά νυ: emphatic, cf. 3.183, 12.164, 18.394, 19.315, etc. ῥα ‘marks the process of realisa-
tion’ (Graziosi/Haubold; cf. LfgrE s.v. ἄρα 1160.48 ff.). More on the particle νυ in Ruijgh
1957, 59 ff. (ibid. 59, transl.: ‘an intensive particle, primarily in exclamations, exhorta-
tions and questions’). — παλαιός: ‘old’ in the sense ‘from ancient times, from earlier’
(similarly Od. 2.118, 2.188, etc.; see LfgrE s.v. 936.23 ff.).
216 Oineus: the ruler of Kalydon in Aitolia, father of Meleagros and Tydeus,
grandfather of Diomedes (cf. 2.641n., 14.115–118).
‘The chiastic arrangement and the juxtaposition of δῖος and ἀμύμονα give great for-
mality to the announcement’ (Kirk). On δῖος, see 1.7n., 6.31–32n.; on ἀμύμων (of
Bellerophontes already at 155 and at 190), 1.92n., 6.22–23n.
217 twenty days: cf. 173–177n.
ἐρύξας: temporally coincident with ξείνισ(ε) (Schw. 2.300 f.; cf. 7–8n.). ἐρύκω here as
at Od. 16.82, 17.515 ‘keep (a guest) in one’s house’ (not ‘keep back by force’): LfgrE s.v.
718.40 ff.
218–221 Diomedes’ report of the gift-exchange between Oineus and Bellerophon-
tes is striking: Homeric custom otherwise only provides for gifts for a depart-
ing guest (albeit with the expectation of reciprocation on the occasion of a
visit by his host: cf. Od. 1.318, 24.283–286; on this, Finley [1954] 1979, 64–66;
Scheid-Tissinier 1994, 160, 164–170). Possible explanations for the present
exception (not mutually exclusive): (1) This act initiates a new guest-friendship
(the exchange of armor by the grandsons consequently serves to renew it):
Herman 1987, 58–63; van Wees 1992, 228 f.; cf. Od. 21.11–38a, Hdt. 3.39.2, Xen.
Hell. 4.1.39 (where, however, the partners are either both abroad or exchange
gifts through messengers: no visiting scenes [Scheid-Tissinier loc. cit. 163]);
similarly Il. 7.299–305 (exchange of weapons following the formal duel between
Hektor and Aias). (2) The gift exchange between Bellerophontes and Oineus is
designed as a precedent for the subsequent exchange of armor (Gaisser 1969,
174 f.); on such ad hoc inventions, cf. 1.262–270n., 1.396–406n., 19.95–133n.,
24.599–620n., item (2); Willcock (1964) 2001.
219–220 a war belt bright with the red dye, | … a golden … drinking-cup:
Some interpreters assume that the cup was worth more than the belt, so that
the grandfathers’ exchange of gifts corresponds also in this regard to the
subsequent unequal exchange of armor (Eust. 638.44 ff.; Porphyry on 6.234
217 ἐνὶ (μ)μεγάροισιν: on the prosody, M 4.6; on the plural, R 18.2. — ἐείκοσιν: = εἴκοσιν. —
ἤματ(α): from ἦμαρ ‘day’.
Commentary 91
§§ 3–5 MacPhail; Donlan 1989, 10 f.). This cannot be substantiated. Belts are
an important part of a warrior’s equipment (with a protective function [4.186,
11.236], albeit not always effective [5.539, 12.189, etc.]; sometimes adorned with
fittings and/or a buckle of precious metal [4.132 ff., 11.236 f.]; on the archaeo-
logical evidence, Brandenburg 1977; Bennett 1997, 3–57). The belt referred to
here is further distinguished as a prestige object by its purple color (Bennett
loc. cit. 49–51, 92–96; Wagner-Hasel 2000, 94; on purple as a status symbol,
cf. 4.141 ff.; Blum 1998). The value of the cup cannot be estimated with any
accuracy; on the one hand, cf. 23.656 (a cup, with no further description, as
consolation prize in a boxing match), on the other hand, 11.632 ff., 16.225 ff.,
24.234–237a n. (three skilfully made cups of considerable value); at the very
least, the one mentioned here is made of gold.
219 ≈ 7.305 (exchange of weapons between Hektor and Aias); in addition, VE
= Od. 23.201, ≈ Il. 15.538.
220 δέπας ἀμφικύπελλον: a VE formula (6x Il., 3x Od.); probably denotes a two-handled
drinking vessel (1.584n.; on the archaeological evidence, Bloedow 2007).
221 a thing I left behind: i.e. it is still in his possession; the memory of their
grandfathers’ guest-friendship has survived together with the heirloom (AH,
Faesi/Franke; cf. also Herman 1987, 16 f., 61–63; Grethlein 2008, 36–38, 40).
On the function of gifts as a memento of the donor, see Wagner-Hasel 2000,
108–112 (cf. Od. 4.589 ff., 8.430 ff., 15.125 ff., 21.38 ff., etc.); on stories about the
origins of objects in general, 2.101–108n. and – from an archaeological perspec-
tive – Crielaard 2002, 249–256 (prestige objects that have traveled great dis-
tances attest to the significance of gift-exchange for 8th/7th cent. BC reality).
222–223 Schol. T calls these two verses ἄτοποι, and numerous modern interpreters suspect
them to be an interpolation, since the somewhat abrupt mention of Tydeus disrupts
the context (see Koechly 1859, 6 f.; Faesi/Franke; AH ad loc. and Anh. 139, 152; van
Leeuwen; cf. Leaf and Kirk). At the same time, narratives with genealogical content
and stories of the origins of objects generally do not skip generations (Brillante ad
loc.; Kirk: ‘Diomedes evidently feels the need to show how his father fitted into the tra-
dition of guest-friendship’; cf. also Newton 2009, 66–69), and glimpses at the Theban
myth cycle are not unusual for the poet of the Iliad (West 2001, 196; Friedrich 1975, 80
with 188 n. 215 [collection of examples]; cf. 223–224n.). West (loc. cit. 195 f. and app. crit.)
consequently posits a gap before 222 and restores exempli gratia: τοῦ δ’ Οἰνεὺς πίνεσκε
καθήμενος ἤματα πάντα, | πατρὸς ἐμοῖο πατήρ (14.118), ὅ μ’ ἔϋ τρέφεν ἠδ’ ἀτίταλλεν.
220 χρύσε͜ον: on the synizesis, R 7.

221 μιν: = αὐτό (sc. τὸ δέπας) (R 14.1). — ἰών: ‘when I went away’ (sc. to the war). — δώμασ(ι):
on the plural, R 18.2.
92 Iliad 6
222 Tydeus, though, I cannot remember: on Diomedes as a ‘fatherless hero’,

see Pratt 2009 and Graziosi/Haubold, Introd. 38.
Τυδέα: on the short-voweled form, 96n. — μέμνημαι: with acc. meaning ‘remember,
have a memory of’, as at 9.527, Od. 24.122, etc. (AH; Schw. 2.108, Chantr. 2.39).
223–224 that time … perished | in Thebe: sc. in the battle of the Seven against
Thebes, one generation before the Trojan War (the cause was a dispute be-
tween Eteokles and Polyneikes, the sons of Oedipus, concerning the rule of
Thebes, in which Polyneikes was supported by his father-in-law, Adrestos of
Argos, and five other heroes – among them Tydeus); cf. 4.376–410, 5.800–808,
6.20n. — Argos: here (as at 14.119 etc.) meaning Diomedes’ realm, i.e. the south-
ern Argolid (2.559–568n.; cf. 2.108n.); Glaukos’ grandfather Bellerophontes
was from the northern Argolid (152n.).
λαὸς Ἀχαιῶν: an inflectible formula (only Il.; 5x before caesura C 2, otherwise VE; in to-
tal 4x nom., 20x acc.); cf. Haubold 2000, 43–45, 198, 201; here, as at 4.384, 5.803, etc., it
probably denotes the Argives (i.e. the attacking army led by Adrestos) as opposed to the
Thebans: LfgrE s.v. Ἀχαιός 1738.43 ff.; cf. also Beck 1988, 6. On λαός ‘(male) population
under arms’, 1.10n. — τώ: ‘therefore, accordingly’ (Schw. 2.579; on the accent, West
1998, XXII).
225 εἶμι: ‘I am’ (on the accent, West 1998, XX). — τῶν: ‘of them’, sc. the Lykians. — δῆμον:
here (as at 158 etc.) ‘region, land’; on the semantic range of δῆμος, see 2.198n.; LfgrE s.v.
226 Let us avoid each other’s spears: In Homeric society, guest-friendship
during times of war appears to be valued more highly than the participants’
party affiliations (whereas later analogous constellations frequently lead to
conflicts in loyalties): Herman 1987, 1–9 and passim; cf. 3.204 ff. and Il. parv.
fr. 22 West (the Trojan Antenor once hosted Odysseus; during the sack of Troy,
Antenor’s son Helikaon is recognized, and saved, by Odysseus). Since both
Diomedes and Glaukos fight for a foreign cause, there is no reason for them –
in contrast to the Atreidai (53 ff., 62a n.) – to indiscriminately kill all opponents
(cf. Achilleus’ situation preceding Patroklos’ death: 1.152 ff., 21.100 ff.). — even
in the close fighting: i.e. in future encounters in the crush of massed battle
(Greek hómilos): AH, Leaf, Willcock.
ἔγχεα δ’ ἀλλήλων ἀλεώμεθα: The v.l. ἔγχεσι δ’ ἀλλήλων ἀλεώμεθα (explained as
ἀλλήλων παρακελεύεται φείσασθαι [schol. A] and ἀποτύχωμεν ἀλλήλων [schol. bT]) ex-
presses more clearly that the two heroes no longer want to fight one another (whereas
222 ἐόντα: = ὄντα (R 16.6).

223 κάλλιφ’: = κατέλιπε (cf. R 20.1). — ἐν: ‘at’. — Θήβῃσιν: on the declension, R 11.1.
224 Ἄργεϊ μέσσῳ: locative dat. without preposition (R 19.2); on the -σσ-, R 9.1.
225 κεν: = ἄν (R 24.5).
Commentary 93
ἔγχος ἀλέομαι is otherwise used of warriors evading an opponent’s attack: 13.184

= 13.404, etc., 22.285): van der Valk 1963, 75 f.; but ἀλέομαι + gen. is not otherwise at-
tested (Leaf). Zenodotus read ἔγχεσι δ’ ἀλλήλους ἀλεώμεθα, which is worth considering
(La Roche 1861, 139; cf. HT 10). – On the frequency of forms of the pronoun ἀλλήλων/
-οισ(ι) in the present passage, see 212–231n. end.
227–229 There are plenty of Trojans … for me | to kill, … | many Achaians for
you to slaughter …: sentence parts constructed in a parallel manner, but var-
ied such that Diomedes’ sense of superiority is subtly expressed: two verses for
his own expectation of future victories, one verse for that of Glaukos; trust in
divine help and his own swift feet vs. ‘whom you may (kill)’, expressing gentle
doubt about Glaukos’ military abilities (Eust. 638.37 f.; Broccia 1963, 95; Kirk,
Graziosi/Haubold).
227 2nd VH = 18.229, ≈ 3.451, 11.220, 17.14; the inflectible VE formula κλειτοί (τ’) ἐπίκουροι
(variant of τηλεκλειτοί (τ’) ἐπίκουροι, cf. 111n.) also 2x Il., 1x Hes.
228 whom the god sends to me, or those I run down with my swift feet: In the
Homeric imagination, divine influence and human action frequently coincide
(double motivationP); cf. e.g. 368, 9.702 f., 16.103 f., 16.543 (Kullmann 1956,
108; Lesky [1961] 2001, 180 f.). – Running speed is one of the characteristics
that render Achilleus the best of the Achaians (cf. his various epithetsP with
the meaning ‘with swift/strong feet’, pódas ōkýs, podárkēs, podṓkēs: 1.58n.,
1.121n., 2.860n.); this naturally also applies to Diomedes, since he is Achilleus’
‘replacement character’ (96–101n.).
γε: lends ‘a touch of modesty’ to the statement (Leaf).
230–231 so that these others may know …: similarly 7.299–302, 19.173 f. (see ad
loc.), 23.609–611. The witnesses to the scene are supposed to take note of the
relationship of guest-friendship between Diomedes and Glaukos and respect
the fact that they refrain from combat (Eust. 638.40 ff.).
231 2nd VH = Od. 1.187. — Resumption of 215 in a ring-compositionP.
εὐχόμεθ’ εἶναι: 211n.
227–229 ἐμοὶ … | 1 verse | … σοί: sc. εἰσίν, ‘there are’; dependent on this are the two final/consec-
utive infinitives κτείνειν and ἐναιρέμεν. — ὅν κε … | … ὅν κε (+ subjunc.): generalizing, ‘〈namely〉
each one [sc. of the Achaians/Trojans], whom’, ‘whomever’.
228 κιχείω: aor. subjunc. of κιχάνω ‘overtake, reach’.
229 ἐναιρέμεν: on the form, R 16.4. — δύνηαι: on the uncontracted form, R 6.
230 ἐπαμείψομεν: with dat. of person (as against 235 ἀμείβω πρός); short-voweled subjunc.
(R 16.3).
94 Iliad 6
232 ὣς ἄρα φωνήσαντε: an inflectible VB formula (1.428n.). — καθ’ ἵππων ἀΐξαντε: cf.
120n. s.v. συνίτην. – The pl. and dual of ἵππος are repeatedly used in Homer to mean
‘chariot’ (LfgrE s.v. 1211.57 ff., 1216.43 ff.; Plath 1994, 278–287); καθ’ ἵππων ἀ. is an in-
flectible VE formula (11.423 and 20.401 acc. sing.).
233 gripped each other’s hands: common in antiquity, just as today, as a
gesture to affirm alliances and agreements: see 2.341n.; Elmiger 1935, 13 f.;
Taillardat 1982, 1–4; Herman 1987, 49–54; Kitts 2005, 79–84. The gesture
is thought to have originally signified a symbolic declaration of peaceful in-
tentions, as ‘two clasping rights nullify each other’s aggressive potential’
(Herman loc. cit. 51; Elmiger loc. cit. 14 f.).
πιστώσαντο: ‘made a commitment to one another’ (AH); middle verbs can denote re-
ciprocity (K.-G. 1.89 f., 107 f.; Schw. 2.233). — ἀλλήλων: cf. 212–231n. end.
234–236 The concluding narrator commentary lends the episode an unexpected
point (comparable judgements by the narrator on his characters’ actions, al-
beit without the present moment of surprise: 18.311, in addition 2.38 [see ad
loc.], 2.873, 12.113, etc.; cf. Edwards, Introd. 4 f.). The unequal value of the
two pieces of armor had not been mentioned previously (212–231n.); the act
that initially appeared to serve purely to seal a new bond of friendship turns
out to be a poor exchange, entered into by Glaukos in a moment of blind-
ness. Interpreters from the Hellenistic period on have considered this turn of
events strange, and have sought explanations in a multitude of ways (see be-
low). But the most likely explanation is that the narrator commentary marks
Glaukos as the inferior character, over whom Diomedes gains a symbolic vic-
tory; since (1) the gods generally prompt humans to actions toward which they
are predisposed in the given circumstances (Schmitt 1990, 82–99; cf. double
motivationP; 1.55n., 2.169–171n.). Glaukos’ acceding to Diomedes’ unreason-
able proposal – although guest gifts may in principle be discussed, so that an
objection would have been possible (Scodel 1992, 76, with reference to Od.
4.600 ff.) – should thus be seen as an indication that he is intimidated by his
formidable opponent. (This does not make him a coward: it is an achievement
for a middling warrior like him [119n.] to have confronted a hero of Diomedes’
stature [96–101n.] in the first place.) Cf. Horace, Serm. 1.7.15–18; Craig 1967;
Walcot 1969; Andersen 1978, 106; Donlan 1989, 12–14; Willcock 1992, 71;
Stoevesandt 2004, 334 f. (2) The fighting scenes of the Iliad reveal a slight
pro-Achaian bias (on this in general, Stoevesandt 2004). The turn in favor of
Diomedes will have been welcomed by the contemporary audience (so Pius fr.
232–233 φωνήσαντε … ἀΐξαντε | … λαβέτην … πιστώσαντο: three duals in combination with a

plural (R 18.1).
Commentary 95
2 Hiller [see schol. T ad loc.]), and perhaps also perceived as funny (Willcock
1992, 71, etc.); the more valuable armor recompenses the Achaian, as it were, for
the fact that he is denied a regular victory over Glaukos – with subsequent spo-
liation – by the present circumstances (similarly 5.20–26/311–327a: Diomedes
captures the teams of horses belonging to heroes who have been removed from
his access by being spirited away): Traill 1989; cf. also Newton 2009, 62–69
(a scene that began as a battle scene has turned into one of guest-friendship,
albeit a competitive one decided in Diomedes’ favor).
Overviews of the history of interpretation of this passage are provided by Bartelink
1956, 169 f.; Calder 1984, 31–33; Fornaro 1992, 66–69; Alden 2000, 305 f. Several in-
terpreters, the above explanation notwithstanding, assume that Glaukos should be con-
sidered the winner because of his generosity, and/or that the narrated episode and the
commentary at 234 ff. express different worldviews that here collide abruptly. Thus e.g.
schol. bT on 234: ἐξέλετο is used with the meaning ὑπερηύξησε (untenable, but nev-
ertheless taken up repeatedly in the modern period, e.g. by Pope: ‘elevated his Mind’;
see Fornaro loc. cit.); Calder 1984: Glaukos demonstrates his superiority by outdoing
Diomedes’ gift; the poet of the Iliad no longer understood this custom called ‘potlatch’
by anthropologists (but see Donlan 1989); Mackie 1996, 95 f., and Fineberg 1999, esp.
34–39: the narrator commentary is to be taken ironically and is meant (thus Fineberg)
to instigate critical reflection on traditional values in the recipients; Buchan 1999: the
episode illustrates ‘[the Iliad’s] failed efforts to find a meaningful ideology of exchange’
(131). Differently again Scodel 1992: Zeus had no reason to rob Glaukos of his senses;
with this arbitrary act he ironically supports Glaukos’ own references to the gods’ un-
predictability – ‘a mild and almost funny proof of an important and usually tragic truth’
(84).
234 Zeus the son of Kronos stole away the wits (phrénas) of Glaukos: i.e. he
temporarily robbed him of ‘the ability to think rationally’ (Böhme 1929, 46,
transl.; cf. Sullivan 1988, 150 ff.); as here, in a narrator commentary at 18.311
(of Athene in reference to the Trojans) and perhaps ‘Hes.’ fr. 69 M.-W. (context
not preserved); also in (self-)reproaches by characters: 9.377, 17.469 f., 19.137
(see ad loc.), ‘Hes.’ Sc. 89; similarly 7.360 = 12.234, 15.724 f., Od. 14.178, 23.14
(‘destroy/harm’ rather than ‘remove’). – On phrénes with the meaning ‘mind,
intellect’, cf. 1.115n.; Berres 2004, 251–253.
ἔνθ’ αὖτε: introduces surprising turns in the narrative; cf. e.g. 23.140 = 23.193, Od. 2.382
= 2.393 = 4.795, etc. (LfgrE s.v. αὖτε 1588.75 ff.). — Γλαύκῳ … ἐξέλετο: on the dat. with
verbs of removal, Schw. 2.146 and Chantr. 2.67 f., transl.: ‘The dative expresses better
than the accusative or the genitive the interest of the person who is deprived of some-
thing.’ — φρένας ἐξέλετο Ζεύς: a VE formula (= 19.137, in addition 2x ‘Hes.’).
96 Iliad 6
235 who exchanged with Diomedes … armor: At 8.195, Diomedes’ armor,

which Hektor hopes to capture, is described as the work of Hephaistos; it is
unclear whether the reference there is to the golden armor taken from Glaukos
(pro: schol. A and T on 8.195, cf. schol. T on 6.234 and Willenbrock [1944]
1969, 27; contra: Leaf on 236, Kirk on 234–235).
236 In Greek, a memorable four-word verse (cf. 1.75n.) with a parallel sequence
of two antithetical elements (Fehling 1969, 281 f., 311); the 1st VH later be-
comes proverbial (AH; Bartelink 1956, 170–172). — for nine oxen’s worth
the worth of a hundred: on cattle as a unit of value, see 2.449n.; Macrakis
1984. ‘One hundred’ and ‘nine’ are typical numbersP in early epic (collection of
examples: Germain 1954, 99–101; cf. 173–177n.).
237–529 Hektor in Troy
The narrator returns to the storyline suspended after 118, and in seven scenes
sketches a vivid image of the situation in the besieged city: (1) Hektor’s ar-
rival in Troy and the questions of the anxious Trojan women regarding their
relatives (237–241); (2) an encounter between Hektor and Hekabe (242–285);
(3) a procession of Trojan women to the temple of Athene (286–312); (4)
Hektor with Paris and Helen (313–368); (5) Hektor’s search for Andromache
and their encounter at the Skaian gate (the so-called homilia, 369–495a); (6)
Andromache’s return home (495b–502); (7) Paris catches up with Hektor and
the two brothers talk before their return to battle (503–529). The narrative fol-
lows Hektor’s path through Troy; only in (3) and (6) does he temporarily dis-
appear from view (on the coordination of the parallel storylines, see Krischer
1971, 108 f.; Rengakos 1995, 17 f.; Purves 2011, 528–530). – One leitmotif of the
passage is Hektor’s haste: in each of the three core scenes (2/4/5), a woman
attempts to persuade him to stay (Hekabe 258 ff., Helen 354 ff., Andromache
431 ff.), but each time he refuses; the emotional tension increases from scene to
scene (Schadewaldt [1935] 1997, 129; Kakridis [1937] 1949, 50–52; Lohmann
1988, 50–55); cf. also Reckford 1964, 8 f. (a triple appeal to the hero as a tra-
ditional motif with ‘folk-tale quality’, translated in the Iliad into complex epic
scenes); Krischer 1997, 109 f. (a variant of the schetliasmos speech type, cf.
407–465n.); Lateiner 2004/05, 419 (on the significance of proximity and dis-
tance in Hektor’s encounters with the women). This sequence of scenes subtly
prepares for the end of the Iliad: the same three women will engage in lament
at 24.723–776 (see ad loc.) after the return of Hektor’s corpse (Guastalla 1937;
235 ὅς: sc. Glaukos.

Commentary 97
cf. also 369–502n. [parallels relating to Il. 22 and 24] with further bibliogra-
phy). – With the exception of (3), all seven scenes are variants of the type-
sceneP ‘arrival’ (on the basic scheme, 1.496b–502n.; on the specifics of the
present scenes [esp. 2/4/5], 6.242–253n., 313–324n., 369–389n.; Arend 1933,
31–34). – On the passage as a whole, see Guastalla loc. cit.; Schadewaldt
(1935) 1997, 128–130; Kakridis (1937) 1949; Schmitz 1963; Bretzigheimer
1969; Arthur 1981; Lohmann 1988, 48–59; Maronitis (1990) 2004, 33–37,
42–45; Metz 1990, 389–393; de Romilly 1997, 47–66; Van Nortwick 2001;
Louden 2006, 30–34; Graziosi/Haubold, Introduction 40–47; for further bib-
liography relating specifically to the scene between Hektor and Andromache,
see 369–502n., 407–496n., 407–465n.
237–241 Hektor is assailed by the women of Troy with questions about their rela-
tives; he tells them to pray to the gods.
237 From caesura A 4 on ≈ 9.354, 11.170. — to the Skaian gates: i.e. Troy’s main
gate, facing toward the plain of the Skamandros (3.145n.).
πύργον: The transmission vacillates between φηγόν (cf. 9.354, 11.170) and πύργον.
φηγόν is less appropriate here, given that the oak, mentioned repeatedly as a topo-
graphical fixed point, is located outside the city walls and that the narrator is unlikely
to imagine the Trojan women meeting Hektor outside the city (West 2001, 196; contra:
Graziosi/Haubold ad loc.). On the tower at the Skaian gate, 3.149n. — ἵκανεν: impf.
with aor. force (1.431n.).
238 2nd VH ≈ 22.155, Od. 11.227, 11.329. — wives of the Trojans and their daugh-
ters: The periphrastic denominationP of the Trojan women may have a the-
matic function: the subsequent narrative deals with the relationship between
the Trojan women and their family members on the battlefield (in general:
239 f.; then made concrete in regard to Hekabe, Helen and Andromache in their
respective relationships with Hektor).
θέον: cf. 394 ἐναντίη ἦλθε θέουσα (of Andromache concerned for Hektor).
239–240 after their sons, after their brothers and [neighbours] relations, |
their husbands: The significance of family bonds is emphasized repeatedly
in early epic (24.36–37a n., 24.47n.). On the term étai (‘relations’ rather than
‘neighbours’, as rendered by Lattimore), see 239n.
237 Σκαιάς τε πύλας καὶ πύργον: acc. of direction without preposition (R 19.2). — πύλας: 80n.
238 μιν: = αὐτόν (R 14.1). — θέον: on the unaugmented form, R 16.1. — ἠδέ: ‘and’ (R 24.4). —
θύγατρες: = θυγατέρες.
98 Iliad 6
239 2nd VH ≈ 16.456, 16.674, Od. 15.273; cf. also Il. 24.793. — ἔτας: ἔται (Elean with initial
ϝ), always pl. in Homer, belongs to the IE reflexive *swe; it thus originally means ‘one’s
own people’ (Frisk, DELG; Leukart 1994, 150–154, 250, 263–265). In Homer, the term
sometimes (as here) denotes more or less close relations, sometimes (as at 262 and in
post-Homeric literature) ‘(fellow) citizens’ (LfgrE s.v. with bibliography).
240–241 As revealed by the narrator’s comment at 241b, Hektor’s exhortation
contains dramatic ironyP: for many of the women it will already be too late to
pray for their family members’ survival.
ὃ δ’ ἔπειτα θεοῖς εὔχεσθαι ἀνώγει | πάσας ἑξείης: Kirk prefers the v.l. πᾶσι μάλ’
ἑξείης attested in schol. A on 241 (cf. Od. 11.134 ≈ 23.281). But there is nothing problem-
atic about the main transmission πάσας ἑξείης: a summary of several speeches with
similar content in indirect speech, as at 2.400 f. (see ad loc.), 9.179–181, 20.5 f., etc. (de
Jong [1987] 2004, 115 f.; cf. schol. bT: πρὸς πάσας ἐφεξῆς τὴν αὐτὴν ἀπόκρισιν ἐποιεῖτο).
— ἔπειτα: ‘thereupon’, i.e. probably without addressing their questions; Hektor neither
has the time to inform all the women about the fate of their family members nor in the
present situation is he in a position to offer an overview of the most recent losses from
the Trojan contingent (on the complexity of battle action, cf. e.g. 13.770 ff., 22.46 ff.). —
ἀνώγει: unaugmented plpf. of ἄνωγα ‘order’, a perf. with present sense (Schw. 2.777,
LfgrE s.v. ἄνωγα 960.64 ff.); differently 439 (see ad loc.). — κήδε’ ἐφῆπτο: ‘suffering
was imposed’ (κῆδος in the sense ‘mourning for kinsmen’: Mawet 1979, 357, 358 f.); an
inflectible VE formula (2.32n.; cf. also 1.445n.).
242–285 Hektor encounters his mother Hekabe near Priam’s palace; she offers him
wine for a libation and for his own refreshment. Hektor declines and asks Hekabe
to conduct a procession of supplication to the temple of Athene together with the
Trojan women; he himself will fetch his brother Paris to rejoin the battle.
242–253 The type-sceneP ‘arrival’ (1.496b–502n., 6.369–389n.) is here, as occa-
sionally elsewhere, expanded via a description of the setting; likewise at 313–
317, 18.369–371, 24.448–456, Od. 7.84–132, etc. (Arend 1933, 32; Richardson
1990, 50–57; Reece 1993, 79). – The description of Priam’s palace is likely
influenced by reminiscences of the Mycenaean period, and/or by knowledge
of Near Eastern palace complexes (Raaflaub 1993, 89 n. 16, 92 f. n. 42 [with
bibliography]; cf. also Shear 2000, chap. 1, esp. 1 f., 9 ff.; Schirmer 2002
239 εἰρόμεναι: part. of εἴρομαι (+ acc.) ‘ask after’. — τε (ϝ)έτας: on the prosody, R 4.3.
240 πόσιας: acc. pl. of πόσις ‘husband’. — ὅ: on the anaphoric demonstrative function of ὅ, ἥ,
τό, R 17. — εὔχεσθαι ἀνώγει: on the so-called correption, R 5.5.
241 ἑξείης: = ἑξῆς (adv., ‘in turn, one after another’). — πολλῇσι: on the declension, R 11.1. —
κήδε’ ἐφῆπτο: on the hiatus, R 5.1; on the uncontracted form κήδε(α), R 6.
242 Πριάμοιο: on the declension, R 11.2.
Commentary 99
and Seeher 2002 [on Mycenaean and Hittite palaces]; others suspect mod-
els from the Dark Ages and the period in which the Homeric epics themselves
emerged: Hertel 2003, 157 f.; Graziosi/Haubold ad loc. with further biblio-
graphy). It is not entirely clear how the building complex is envisioned in
the text – at least for the modern reader (243n.); the narrator was probably
less concerned with a precise image of the disposition of the various parts of
the building than with creating ‘atmosphere’ and ‘setting’ via his description
(Willenbrock [1944] 1969, 36, transl.; cf. Alden 1990): the emphasis is on
the magnificence and spaciousness of the complex. This creates a tangible
impression of the extent of the Trojan king’s power, which nevertheless will
be unable to save the city from its downfall – as the audience knows from
numerous prolepsesP, as well as from the narrative tradition (cf. Willenbrock
loc. cit. 37; Müller 1968, 89 f.; Rougier-Blanc 2002, 103, 111 f.; 2005, 286 f.,
293, 302 f.; Tsagalis 2012, 137 f.). – The passage is marked by the parallel con-
struction of the verse groups 244–246 ≈ 248–250 (Kirk): a linguistic reflection
of the ‘ordered reality’ (if endangered) of urban life as opposed to the ‘turbu-
lent world of battle’ from which Hektor comes (Di Benedetto [1994] 1998, 88,
transl.).
ἀλλ’ ὅτε δή …: The main clause follows only at 251 (ἔνθα … ἤλυθε μήτηρ), and the
description of the palace at 243b–250 is parenthetical; likewise at 24.448 ff. (descrip-
tion of Achilleus’ hut at 24.449b–456, framed by 448/457 ἀλλ’ ὅτε δὴ … / δή ῥα τόθ’ …);
similar but with anacoluthon is Od. 6.262 ff. (a return to the main thought only at 289). On
parentheses in Homer, see Classen (1851–1857) 1867, 5–18; on parentheses as an ‘ancient
stylistic means of colloquial diction, which is utilized by elevated language’ generally,
Schwyzer (1939) 1983 (with many examples from IE literature; p. 85 for the quotation
[transl.]; for Homer specifically, 91–93).
243 ξεστῇς αἰθούσῃσι: comitative instrumental (with τετυγμένον), ‘built with well-
polished halls’ (AH; Schw. 2.161 f.). ξεστός is a generic epithetP, mostly of items made
from wood or carved stone (thus at 244/248 and likely also here; see LfgrE s.v.). The exact
meaning of αἴθουσα is disputed; the term is most frequently used in the sing., where
it likely denotes a ‘vestibule’ between the courtyard and the main building (24.238n.
with bibliography); in the pl. only here and at 20.11, Od. 8.57, which may refer to col-
onnaded porches surrounding the courtyard (Willcock, Kirk; Shear 2000, 9). — ἐν
αὐτῷ: Whether a contrast with ἔνδοθεν αὐλῆς (247) is implied is unclear. If so, the sons’
fifty bed chambers (θάλαμοι: cf. 316n.) in the main complex would have to be envisaged
as clearly separate from the daughters’ twelve (Leaf, Graziosi/Haubold); otherwise,
all θάλαμοι would border the palace courtyard, the twelve (with further rooms for ser-
243 ξεστῇς αἰθούσῃσι: on the declension, R 11.1. — τετυγμένον: perf. pass. part. of τεύχω ‘make,
produce; build’.
100 Iliad 6
vice personnel?) opposite the fifty (thus AH, Faesi/Franke; Rider [1916] 1964, 181; Kirk
considers both possibilities).
244–246 fifty …: a typical numberP (cf. the fifty sons of Aigyptos and the Danaids,
the fifty Nereids, etc.; further examples in Roscher 1917). Twenty-two of
Priam’s fifty sons are mentioned by name in the Iliad, and eleven die over the
course of the action (see CH 8 with n. 28). Nineteen in total are borne by Hekabe
(24.496), others by additional legitimate, high-status wives (Kastianeira from
Thrace, 8.304 f.; Laothoë, daughter of the Lelegian king Altes, 21.84 ff./22.46 ff.):
Priam’s polygamy is one of the few traits in the Iliad that lend an Eastern char-
acter to Trojan culture (Leaf on 22.48; Deger-Jalkotzy 1979; polygamy of
rulers, inter alia as a means of political alliance, is historically attested par-
ticularly for the Hittites and in Israel: see Starke 1997, 464 with n. 183; West
1997, 392). Other sons of Priam are children of concubines (of lower social
rank than the children of legitimate wives, but nonetheless socially respected;
see e.g. 8.318 f., 12.91 f., 13.790 ff. on Kebriones; cf. Wickert-Micknat 1982,
84–86).
245 πλησίοι ἀλλήλων: i.e. probably immediately adjacent (AH with reference to Od.
14.14). An inflectible VB formula: 3.115n.
246 μνηστῇς: μνηστή (only fem.), always an epithet of ἄλοχος except at h.Ap. 208, de-
notes a wife ‘obtained via proper courtship’, i.e. one who is ‘legitimate’ (LfgrE s.v.). The
main tradition has μνηστῇς here, as opposed to the v.l. αἰδοίῃς; the reverse is true at 250
(see app. crit.). Kirk hypothesizes that originally both passages had αἰδοίῃς ἀλόχοισιν
(VE formula: in addition to this passage, 1x each Il., Od., h.Ap.), since the combination
μνηστὴ ἄλοχος does not otherwise occur at VE and is usually in the sing. (3x Il., 1x Od.).
But declension and dislocation of formulae are common phenomena, and the slight
variation within the parallelism is probably deliberate (Di Benedetto [1994] 1998, 88
n. 4; Friedrich 2007, 76 f.).
247–248 ἔνδοθεν αὐλῆς | … θάλαμοι: likely not a free-standing building within the court-
yard (thus LfgrE s.v. αὐλή 1550.75 ff., but cf. West on Od. 1.426) but chambers opening
onto the court (AH, transl.: ‘on the opposite courtyard wall’; Kirk: ‘built into the colon-
nades’). — τέγεοι: ‘roofed’; an ornamental epithet used as a metrical stop-gap: δώδεκ’
ἔσαν τέγεοι θάλ. corresponds to πεντήκοντ’ ἔνεσαν θάλ. at 244 (Kirk).
248 twelve: another typical numberP (93n.).
244 ἔνεσαν: = ἐνῆσαν (R 16.1).

245 δεδμημένοι: perf. pass. part. of δέμω ‘build’.
246 μνηστῇς ἀλόχοισιν: on the declension, R 11.1–2.
247 κουράων: on the declension, R 11.1.
Commentary 101
249–250 lords of the daughters of Priam: In Homeric society, men usually ei-

ther stay in their father’s house after marriage (245 f., Od. 3.412 ff., etc.) or start
a household of their own in the neighbourhood (Paris: 313 ff.; Hektor: 370 ff.).
Special circumstances may cause them to settle with their father-in-law (e.g.
loss of their own native land: Bellerophontes [157 ff./191 ff.], Tydeus [14.119 ff.]);
here the reason is apparently the war: the sons-in-law, some of whom lived
abroad prior to the war, support Priam in the defence of Troy (13.172 ff.; cf.
5.473 f., 13.365 ff.; see Walcot 1970, 55 f.; van Wees 1992, 333 n. 60).
αἰδοίῃς: epithet of women, with both an active and a passive meaning: ‘who practice fe-
male αἰδώς and who are accorded αἰδώς’ (LfgrE s.v. 269.69 ff., transl.); thus ‘chaste, true’
and hence ‘respected, honorable’ (cf. Cairns 1993, 120 f.). On the v.l. μνηστῇς, 246n.
251 ἠπιόδωρος: a Homeric hapaxP (epithet of Κύπρις in Stesichoros fr. 223.2 Page/Davies).
The meaning is uncertain (see LfgrE s.v.): most likely ‘giving kindly (kind gifts)’ (in ref-
erence to 258 ff.?; on the word formation, Risch 186), but perhaps also a suppletive fem.
of ἤπιος (with weakened final element) or a metrical variant of πολύδωρος (3x Il./Od.
as epithet of ἄλοχος, including of Andromache at 394 in a situation analogous to the
present one: ἔνθ’ ἄλοχος πολύδωρος ἐναντίη ἦλθε θέουσα [see Kirk]).
252 ≈ 3.124 (see ad loc.); 2nd VH = 13.365, 13.378, ≈ 2.715, h.Cer. 146. — Λαοδίκην ἐσάγουσα:
Hektor and Hekabe – arriving from different directions – meet in front of the palace. 252
explains why Hekabe had been out (a variant of element 3 of the type-scene ‘arrival’:
account of the situation): she had accompanied her daughter home (well-born women
do not normally move about in the public sphere by themselves, see 3.143n., 6.399 f.,
Od. 6.84; cf. also Od. 1.331 with West ad loc.). The mention of Laodike is likely due
to an associative reminiscence of 3.121 ff.: the goddess Iris had taken Laodike’s form for
her errand to Helen, and both poet and public may have retained the impression that
the actual Laodike as well had been walking about in the city (West 2001, 196 f.; Danek
2006, 11 f.).
253 = 406, 14.232, 18.384, 18.423, 19.7, Od. 2.302, 8.291, 11.247, 15.530; ≈ Od. 10.280;
2nd VH (speech introductionP) a further 11x Il., 21x Od., 2x h.Ven. A formulaic
verse introducing cordial, urgent speeches: see 19.7n.
ἐν … οἱ φῦ χειρί: ‘firmly clasped his hand’; οἱ … χειρί is likely double dat. in the σχῆμα
καθ’ ὅλον καὶ μέρος (whole and part), with χειρί as a locative dat. of destination, i.e. lit-
erally ‘grew into his hand’ (19.7n. with bibliography). — ἔκ τ’ ὀνόμαζεν: ‘and addressed
250 αἰδοίῃς: on the form, R 2, R 11.1.

251 ἔνθά (ϝ)οι: on the prosody, R 4.3. — οἱ: = αὐτῷ (R 14.1); likewise in 253. — ἤλυθε: = ἦλθε.
252 ἐσάγουσα: = εἰσάγουσα (R 20.1). — εἶδος: acc. of respect (R 19.1).
253 ἐν … φῦ (from ἐμφύομαι), ἐκ … ὀνόμαζεν: so-called tmesis (R 20.2). — ἄρα (ϝ)οι … χειρὶ
(ϝ)έπος: on the prosody, R 4.3, R 5.4. — ἔφατ(ο): impf. of φημί; mid. without a diffence in meaning
from the act. (R 23).
102 Iliad 6
him’; the original meaning of the phrase, ‘called him by his name’, has faded due to its
formulaic use (1.361n.; LfgrE s.v. ὀνομάζω 715.19 ff.).
254–262 Hekabe correctly guesses that Hektor has come to the city to obtain di-
vine help; she errs only in assuming that in the current trouble he will take
the time to conduct ritual actions himself, and recommends, with maternal
concern, that he also use the opportunity to fortify and rest himself.
254 τέκνον: In the Iliad, the voc. is always an address to adult sons or daughters (in to-
tal 17x, including 4x Hekabe addressing Hektor, 7x Thetis addressing Achilleus); in the
Odyssey also for relations outside the immediate family (Nestor addressing Telemachos
and others); see 1.362n., 19.8n. — πόλεμον θρασύν: an inflectible formula after cae-
sura B 1 (10.28, Od. 4.146, v.l. Il. 16.494) beside the metrically equivalent πόλεμον/-ος
κακόν/-ός (13.225, 16.494 [main transmission], Od. 22.152). In the Iliad, θρασύς is gen-
erally used to characterize warriors; here it is applied to battle as the sphere in which
they prove themselves (or πόλεμος as synecdoche for the fighters themselves: LfgrE s.v.
θρασύς). — εἰλήλουθας: on the form, Schw. 1.347, 769.
255 ἦ μάλα δή: a common combination of particles (12x Il., 15x Od., 2x ‘Hes.’); like ἦ δή
(1.518n.) always in direct speeches (Griffin 1986, 45 f.; Kirk). At times, as here, intro-
ducing an assumption that seems obvious to the speaker (‘certainly, surely’; cf. 518,
15.91, 18 12, ironically at 5.422, 21.55) and/or used as an expression of sympathy (cf.
8.102, 15.91; feigned at 22.229). — τείρουσι: cf. 85n.; used absolutely, as at Od. 4.441 f.
— δυσώνυμοι υἷες Ἀχαιῶν: The unique expression replaces the VE formula κάρη
κομόωντες Ἀχαιοί (2.11n.; in the nom. 17x Il., 1x Od.): an example of transcending the
principle of formula economy (FOR 32) in favor of a ‘phrase juste’ matching the situation
and the speaker’s perspective (Friedrich 2007, 93 f.; cf. loc. cit. 23–28). – δυσώνυμος
‘with a bad name, cursed’ is always used, with the exception of 12.116 (of a warrior’s
deathly fate), in direct speech (character languageP; Griffin 1986, 42); cf. Od. 19.571
(Penelope on the day of her wedding to a suitor), Hes. Th. 171 (Kronos on his father
Uranos), h.Ap. 368 (Apollo on the Chimaira); also Κακοΐλιον οὐκ ὀνομαστήν (Od. 19.260
etc.). According to some interpreters, δυσώνυμοι in the present passage suggests an
etymologizing interpretation of the name Ἀχαιοί as derived from ἄχος ‘pain, distress’
(Eust. 640.31 ff.; AH; Rank 1951, 41 f.; cf. 10.145 = 16.22 ἄχος βεβίηκεν Ἀχαιούς). But this
would be unparalleled among the other attestations of δυσώνυμος. — υἷες Ἀχαιῶν: an
inflectible VE formula; the periphrastic description ‘sons of the Achaians’ for ‘Achaians’
is probably a Semitism (1.162n.; further bibliography: Graziosi/Haubold; LfgrE s.v. υἱός
701.3 ff.).
254 τίπτε: = τί ποτε, ‘why?’ — εἰλήλουθας: = ἐλήλυθας (with metrical lengthening of the initial
syllable: R 10.1).
255 υἷες: on the declension, R 12.3.
Commentary 103
256 μαρνάμενοι: 204n. — περὶ ἄστυ: in a local sense (as opposed to a figurative sense ‘to
fight for’ with gen./dat., e.g. 18.265, Od. 17.471: K.-G. 1.492 f., Schw. 2.501 f.). — θυμός:
occurs repeatedly as an active subject in combination with verbs of urging, desire, etc.
(LfgrE s.v. 1084.7 ff.; 2.276n. with further bibliography).
257 from the peak of the citadel: i.e. from the acropolis, as the city’s religious
center (88n.). The passage does not necessarily imply that a temple of Zeus
must be envisaged in addition to the temple of Athene mentioned at 88: until
the Classical period, Zeus was largely worshipped in the open air (Kirk contra
Leaf; cf. Burkert [1977] 1985, 88 f.). – On the application of Greek cult prac-
tice to Troy, see CG 3. — lift your hands: a gesture of prayer common in many
cultures (3.275n. with bibliography).
χεῖρας ἀνασχεῖν: an inflectible VE formula (3.275n.).
258–260 But stay: pointedly at VB. ‘This is Hecuba’s central request. Like all
the other women Hector meets in Troy, Hecuba tries to delay him’ (Graziosi/
Haubold; cf. 237–529n.). — to pour out | a libation … | first, and afterwards
if you will drink yourself, be strengthened: In the same way that sacrifice
and feast belong together (1.447–468n., 1.460–461n., 6.173–174n.), in libations
only part of the wine is generally poured out, and the remainder is consumed;
cf. 9.177 ≈ Od. 3.342, etc.; Rudhardt (1958) 1992, 240–245; Casabona 1966, 232–
234. — father: on Zeus’ role as ‘father of gods and men’, see 1.544n., 3.276n.
258 ὄφρα κε … ἐνείκω: a transition from temporal to final ὄφρα: ‘until I will have brought
you’ > ‘so that I bring you’ (Schw. 2.651; Chantr. 2.262; Wakker 1988, 329). — μελιηδέα
οἶνον: an inflectible formula (gen./acc., after caesura B 1 or at VE, in total 3x Il., 6x
Od., 2x h.Hom.; also 3x in early epic with hyperbaton οἶνος/-ου/-ον … μελ.). μελιηδής,
literally ‘sweet as honey’, like the other epithets of wine belonging to the same semantic
field (γλυκερός, ἡδύς, ἡδύποτος and μελίφρων: cf. 264n., in general 3.246n.), is also
used with a broader sense ‘delicious, invigorating’ (e.g. 10.569 of wheat as horse fodder)
and metaphorically ‘pleasant, longed-for’ (of νόστος, ὕπνος, etc.: Od. 11.100, 19.551; see
LfgrE s.v.); it thus does not necessarily denote flavor in this case.
260 πρῶτον, ἔπειτα δέ: a VB formula (= 11.176, 17.64; ≈ 16.229). — δὲ καὐτός: Crasis is
rare in Homer; cases like the present one may originally have represented elision (δὲ
256 περὶ (ϝ)άστυ: on the prosody, R 5.4. — ἐνθάδε: ‘here’ (R 15.3), to be connected with ἐλθόντ(α)
(257).
257 πόλιος: on the declension, R 11.3.
258 κε: = ἄν (R 24.5). — τοι: = σοι (R 14.1). — μελιηδέα (ϝ)οῖνον: on the prosody, R 4.3. — ἐνείκω:
= ἐνέγκω (aor. subjunc. of φέρω).
259 ὡς: ‘so that’. — ἀθανάτοισιν: metrically lengthened initial syllable (R 10 1).
260 ὀνήσεαι: on the uncontracted form, R 6. — αἴ κε: ≈ ἐάν (R 22.1, 24.5). — πίῃσθα: 2nd sing. aor.
subjunc. of πίνω (R 16.2).
104 Iliad 6
κ’(αὶ) αὐτός). The reading preferred by Aristarchus, δέ κ’ αὐτός (with elided κε rather
than καί) seems less pregnant, since Hekabe means that Hektor himself should have
some wine as well (Leaf; Graziosi/Haubold; Chantr. 1.85; Schw. 1.401 with bibliogra-
phy; cf. also 13.734 with Janko ad loc., Od. 3.255, 6.282). — ὀνήσεαι: likely a short-vowel
subjunc. (differently AH and Graziosi/Haubold: fut. ind. no longer dependent upon
ὡς). — αἴ κε πίῃσθα: probably derived from the VE formula αἴ κε πίθηαι (1.207n.) by
tonal association (Kirk; cf. FOR 25).
261 Advice and exhortations are often emphasized by gnomes (cf. 1.274n., 2.196–
197n.; Ahrens 1937, 58; Lardinois 1997, esp. 218 f.); on the notion that men
require food and drink for battle and other deeds, cf. 9.706, 19.155 ff. (esp. 19.161
with n.), Od. 2.290 (all of which, however, refer to wine and bread as a general
periphrasis for ‘food’).
κεκμηῶτι: perf. part. of κάμνω; on the form, G 95, Chantr. 1.430 f. — μένος: 72n. —
μέγα: adv. ‘very’ (Leaf) or proleptic adj. with μένος (i.e. ὥστε μέγα εἶναι: thus AH); both
possibilities also at Od. 11.195, 17.489, etc.
262 τύνη: an amplified personal pronoun of the 2nd pers. used in emphatic addresses
(elsewhere always at VB, cf. 5.485, 12.237, etc.; in total 6x Il., 3x Hes.). On the disputed
origin of the form, 19.10n. end. — ἔτῃσιν: here probably ‘fellow citizens’ (239n.); on
Hektor as Troy’s main defender, see 402–403n. end.
263 = 359; 1st VH (with τόν/τήν) in total 48x Il., 24x Od., 2x h.Ven.; 2nd VH in total 12x Il.
(2.816n.; on the VE formula κορυθαιόλος Ἕκτωρ, also 6.116n.). The verse is used without
recognizably differing in meaning from the response formulae τὸν/τὴν δ’ αὖτε προσέειπε
μέγας κορ. Ἕκτωρ (440 etc.) and τὸν δ’ ἀπαμειβόμενος προσέφη κορ. Ἕκτωρ (520) (cf.
1.121n. with bibliography). On the alternating use of different response formulae ex-
pressing a deliberate creative drive, see Friedrich 2007, 68–77 (‘deliberate variatio’).
264–285 Hektor refuses Hekabe’s offer for good reasons: he feels unable to carry
out the proposed ritual himself (264–268n.). This provides him with an obvi-
ous opening for conveying Helenos’ message (although he passes on the in-
structions in his own name, 269–278n.): he must leave it to his mother and the
other women of Troy to seek divine aid. He himself will attempt to persuade
Paris to return to battle – a new motif not prepared for by Helenos’ speech at
86 ff. (280b–285n.).
264–268 A character refusing an invitation out of consideration for the urgency
of his mission is a common epic motif: in Book 6 also at 360 ff. (and a varia-
tion at 441 ff.; cf. 237–529n.), additionally at 11.647 ff., 23.204 ff., 24.552 ff., Od.
1.314 ff., 3.360 ff., 4.593 ff., etc. (on this, Dickson 1995, 161–168; Minchin 2007,
261 ἀέξει: ≈ αὐξάνει.
262 τύνη: = σύ (↑).
Commentary 105
52–73; on parallels in Hittite literature, West 1997, 203). – In his justification for
his refusal, Hektor addresses Hekabe’s words in inverse order (‘continuity of
thought’ principleP): the wine would not increase his lust for battle but instead
deaden it (méneos at 265 reprises ménos at 261: catch-word techniqueP; on the
ambivalent valuation of wine in early Greek literature generally, see Privitera
1970, 94 ff.; Arnould 2002; cf. 1.225n.), and his religiosity prevents him from
performing a sacrifice for Zeus with bloody hands: he treats it as obvious that
he lacks the time for the necessary purification ritual (1.449n. with bibliogra-
phy) (Brillante ad loc.).
264 ἄειρε: ἀντὶ τοῦ πρόσφερε, δίδου (schol. A); perhaps an elliptical expression for
ἀείρασα φέρε (cf. 24.583 vs. 17.718, also Od. 1.141 = 4.57 παρέθηκεν ἀείρας): LfgrE s.v.
169.25 ff., 168.51 ff.; Graziosi/Haubold ad loc. — μελίφρονα: a generic epithetP used
similarly to μελιηδής (258n.): 4x each in Il./Od. of wine, elsewhere of wheat as horse
fodder (8.188), of food in general (Od. 24.489 etc.), figuratively of sleep (Il. 2.34), etc. On
the word formation and the meaning, 2.34n. and LfgrE s.v.: probably factitive/causa-
tive, ‘turning the senses as sweet as honey, heartwarming’ (cf. 3.246n. on ἐΰφρονα), but
alternatively perceived as merely a metrical variant of μελιηδής. — πότνια μῆτερ: In
early epic (as already in Mycenaean Greek), πότνια ‘mistress’ largely serves as an hon-
orary title of goddesses; of human women only in combination with μήτηρ/μῆτερ in the
present VE formula: an indication ‘of the status, based on the structure of the family, of
the mother as mistress of the house […] and of the respect owed her by her children and
husband’ (LfgrE s.v. πότνια 1499.11 ff., transl.; 1.357n.).
265 2nd VH ≈ 22.282. — μή μ’ ἀπογυιώσῃς μένεος: ἀπογυιόω is a Homeric hapaxP; the
simplex is attested 3x in early epic with the meaning ‘cause to slacken, deaden’ (8.402
≈ 416, Hes. Th. 858). The compound is probably formed directly from ἀπό + γυῖα ‘limbs’
(and γυιόω is a back-formation from it, like e.g. ἐκ-διφρεύω ‘throw from a chariot’ with
the back-formation διφρεύω ‘drive’: Wachter 2006, XVIII); see Aly (1913) 1966, 93 f.
The present expression thus means something like ‘in order for you not to separate
(Germ. «ab-gliederst», ἀπο-γυιώσῃς) me from my energy’. Differently LfgrE s.v. γυιόω
(the simplex is primary, ἀπο- amplifying: ‘completely cripple’). — ἀλκῆς τε λάθωμαι:
ἀλκή denotes a warrior’s mental readiness to defend himself: ‘spirit of resistance, will
to defend oneself’ (Latacz 1966, 25, 28 f.; cf. 3.45n., 19.36n.); like its counterpart χάρμη
‘aggressiveness’ (19.147–148n.), it is frequently joined with μιμνήσκομαι/λήθομαι: ‘turn
one’s thoughts to ἀλκή, remember one’s ἀλκή (v.l. at 112, also 8.174 = 11.287, etc.) vs. ‘no
longer think of one’s ἀλκή, let go of one’s ἀλκή’ (cf. 11.313, 15.322, etc.): Latacz loc. cit.
27–31. On comparable expressions in an Old Babylonian hymn and in Old English po-
etry, see West 1997, 228, and 2007, 477.
264 μοι (ϝ)οῖνον: on the prosody, R 4.4.

265 μένεος(ς), ἀλκῆς: on the prosody, M 4.6 (note also the caesura).
106 Iliad 6
266 1st VH ≈ Hes. Op. 725, 2nd VH = Hes. Op. 724. — ἀνίπτῃσιν: thus West, following
Zenodotus (contra Aristarchus and manuscripts: -οισιν). Compound adjectives and ver-
bal adjectives can be two- or three-termination in Homer (Schw. 2.38); occasionally, the
transmission is divided (cf. Leaf on 5.466; La Roche 1866, 387–389; Matthaios 1999,
277 f.). — αἴθοπα: ‘sparkling, fiery-looking’; forms a VE formula in combination with
οἶνον (1.462n.).
267–268 there is no means for a man to pray to the … | son of Kronos, with
blood and muck all spattered upon him: This applies only to prayers as-
sociated with a sacrificial ritual (cf. 9.171 f./175–177, Od. 4.750–752/761a), and
there is thus no contradiction with 475 ff. (schol. bT on 266; AH; Aubriot-
Sévin 1992, 100 ff.); cf. the short prayers during battle at 5.115 ff., 8.236 ff., etc.
— dark-misted | son of Kronos: Zeus (son of Kronos: CG 26) is characterized
via various epithets as a god of thunderstorms and rain (1.354n.; CG 24).
267 ἅζομαι: < *ι̯άγι̯ομαι, related to ἅγιος ‘sacred’: ‘feel religious awe’ (1.21n.; LfgrE s.v.).
— οὐδέ πῄ ἐστι: a formulaic expression (24.71 and 2x h.Hom. at VE; similarly Hes. Op.
105); ‘nor is it indeed possible/allowed’ (AH), with ἐστι as a full verb (use of the accent
to distinguish between the full verb and copula does not reflect ancient practice; the
accentuation is instead dependent on word position: Wackernagel [1891] 1979, 1581;
Vendryès 1904, 108–110; Schw. 1.677; West 1998, XX). — κελαινεφέϊ Κρονίωνι: an
inflectible VE formula (1.397n.).
268 VB to caesura C 2 = Od. 22.402, 23.48. — λύθρῳ: ‘(clotted, thick) blood’ (literally ‘pollu-
tion’; on the root *lū- like λῦμα ‘dirt’, cf. Lat. pol-luo: LfgrE, Frisk, DELG); here and in the
iterata connected with αἷμα in a synonym doubling (1.160n.). On the motif of the blood-
stained warrior, cf. also 11.169, 17.541 f., 20.503 (Fenik 1968, 182), further Od. 22.401–
406/487–491, 23.95/115 f./153–163 (Odysseus in the aftermath of killing the suitors).
269–278 Hektor delivers Helenos’ instructions (87b–97) without identifying
him as the initiator of the action (probably because he outranks Helenos: de
Jong [1987] 2004, 282 n. 73, with reference to Hektor’s speech at 7.67 ff. after
Helenos’ suggestion at 7.47 ff.; similarly Zeus at 16.671 ff. after Hera’s sugges-
tion at 16.454 ff.). Further cases in which the character reporting messages or
suggestions made by another character speaks in his/her own name: 2.173–
181 (vs. 2.155–167, cf. 2.155–181n.); 2.796–806 (vs. 2.786 f.); 16.23–27/36–45 (vs.
11.658–662/794–803); 18.18–21 (vs. 17.685–693); cf. 18.170–186 (Iris mentions
Hera, who sent her, only at 184 after Achilleus’ request); apparently speaking
entirely on their own initiative are Iris at 3.130–138 (see 3.121n.) and 23.205–211,
and Hypnos at 14.357–360 (de Jong loc. cit. 181 f.). – The message is for the most
267 Κρονίωνι: = Κρονίδῃ.
268 πεπαλαγμένον: from παλάσσω ‘besmirch, befoul’, sc. τινα (‘someone’) as subject acc. —
εὐχετάασθαι: inf. of εὐχετάομαι (epic by-form of εὔχομαι); on the epic diectasis, R 8.
Commentary 107
part repeated literally (271–278n.) in accord with epic narrative convention (86–
101n.). The beginning has been rephrased due to technical reasons of versifi-
cation (in 87 Helenos started in the middle of the verse, whereas in 269 Hektor
starts at VB; cf. 270n.); the closing verses 98–101, Helenos’ personal remarks
regarding the danger posed by Diomedes, are omitted (since they are not part
of the message per se and are less suitable in Hektor’s mouth: Andersen 1978,
106; Apthorp 1980, 143–145, with references to comparable cases).
269 ἀλλὰ σύ: a VB formula, commonly (as here) introducing a demand that arises from
the preceding argument (1.127n., 2.360n.). — Ἀθηναίης: on the form, 88n. — ἀγελείης:
a cult title of Athene (in total 11x early epic, including 7x in the present inflectible VE
formula [6x gen., 1x acc.]). Traditionally understood ‘driver, carrier of the spoil’ (thus
Frisk, DELG and Beekes s.v. λεία; apparently an old etymology, cf. Il. 10.460 Ἀθηναίῃ
ληΐτιδι); ἀγελείη in the Homeric text would thus have to be explained as an Atticism
for Ionic *ἀγεληΐη (Attic λεία = Ionic ληΐη, see Hdt. 4.202 etc.). But an Attic inscription
of the 4th cent. BC has the form ἀγελάᾳ, from ἄγω + λαός: ‘leader of the warring peo-
ple’ (cf. Athene’s epithets λαοσσόος at 13.128 and ἀγέστρατος at Hes. Th. 925, in addi-
tion to the Homeric personal name Ἀγέλαος at 8.257 etc.): this is thus likely the correct
derivation of Homeric ἀγελείη as well (*age-lāwā > Ionic *ἀγελήη > *-λέη > -λείη; cf.
Werner 1948, 64 [on Λειώδης] and G 39 [on Ἑρμείας], further G 54; somewhat differ-
ently, West on Hes. Th. 318 with bibliography). Undecided: LfgrE s.v.; Risch 191; Kirk on
4.128.
270 σὺν θυέεσσιν: a detail not mentioned at 87 ff. and perhaps added simply as metrical
filler (cf. 269–278n.). The word is attested in Mycenaean Greek with the meaning ‘aro-
matic substance’ (tu-we-a: PY Un 267.3, see MYC s.v. θύος, DMic s.v. tu-wo), whereas in
the Classical period it denotes a ‘sacrificial cake’ (on the development of the meaning
Casabona 1966, 109 ff.); in Homer it is used to refer to unspecified burnt sacrifices (in
contrast to blood sacrifices or libations: 9.499 f., Hes. Op. 336–339; LfgrE s.v.): perhaps
incense or an aromatic wood (schol. bT: θυμιάματα; Lilja 1972, 33), cereal or sacrifi-
cial bread (RE s.v. ‘Opfer’ 587 f.). – There is no reason to follow Kirk in thinking of the
cattle mentioned at 93 and 274 – which would then have to accompany the procession
of women (cf. 308a n.). — ἀολλίσσασα: causative (cf. 287: Hekabe obviously does not
summon the women herself). — γεραιάς: 87n.
271–278 ≈ 90–97 (see ad locc.), with minor changes to suit the different conversa-
tional situation (cf. 87–93n.).
269 νηόν: = ναόν (Attic νεών).

270 ἔρχεο: on the uncontracted form, R 6. — θυέεσσιν: dat. pl. (R 11.3) of τὸ θύος ‘burnt sacrifice’
(↑). — ἀολλίσσασα: from ἀολλίζω ‘assemble’; on the -σσ-, R 9 1.
271–278 ≈ 90–97 (see ad locc.).
271 τοι: = σοι (R 14.1).
108 Iliad 6
279–280 A reprisal of 269–270a in the form of a ring-compositionP serves to round off the
individual instructions and to introduce what follows (AH, Kirk). ‘You go … but I will …’
(correlating men … de in the Greek) introduces a bifurcation of the action; the events
narrated successively at 286 ff./313 ff. essentially take place concurrently (Rengakos
1995, 17; cf. 313n.).
280a ἔρχε(ο): The main transmission has ἔρχευ, the vv.ll. are ἔρχε’ and ἔρχεο (as at 270);
on the uncontracted form preferred by West, see HT 7, West 1998, XXII f.; contra: G 45
with n. 25.
280b–285 An unexpected turn of events (Morrison 1992, 63–65): Hektor goes
beyond Helenos’ order and uses his errand in the city to fetch Paris back to
the battle (this subsequently proves helpful for the hard-pressed Trojans:
7.1–16; on the third day of battle, Paris makes a crucial contribution to the
Greek defeat via his bowshots from an ambush: 11.369 ff./504 ff./581 ff.; cf.
Stoevesandt 2004, 182 f.). At 3.373–382, Paris was removed by Aphrodite
from his duel with Menelaos directly to his bedchamber and has not been
seen on the battlefield since. Even if the circumstances of this sudden dis-
appearance remained hidden from the bystanders (3.449 ff.), it is reason-
able for Hektor to assume that his brother is now at home. – Hektor’s de-
claration of intent is followed by a sudden outburst of anger that recalls
his rebuke at 3.39 ff. (cf. 3.40 with 6.281b–282a/284 f., 3.50 with 6.282 f.): an
expression of disappointment with Paris – the cause of the war – who af-
ter his failure at 3.30 ff. once again neglects to play his proper part in battle
(Bergold 1977, 174).
280b ≈ Od. 17.52.
281–282a αἴ κ’ ἐθέλησ(ι): ‘in the hope that he is willing’ (cf. 1.408n., 6.94n.). On the se-
mantic range of ἐθέλω, see 1.112n.; on the subjunc. ending -ησι (without ι subscr.), West
1998, XXXI. — ὥς κε … | γαῖα χάνοι: The same image, but as the speaker’s wish for
himself, is found at 4.182 ≈ 8.150, 17.416 f.; cf. also 19n. and Clarke 1999, 179 f. – κε with
the cupitive opt. is unusual (formally comparable, but better explained as conditional
clauses, are Od. 15.545 εἰ γάρ κεν σὺ … μίμνοις, h.Ap. 51 Δῆλ’, εἰ γάρ κ’ ἐθέλοις …). Various
attempts at explanation in Schw. 2.330, Chantr. 2.218, Ruijgh 111 f.; most convincing is
Kirk ad loc.: ‘κε presumably emphasizes the wish’s unreality’.
280 μετελεύσομαι: fut. of μετελθεῖν (+ acc.) ‘to go to seek someone, go in quest of someone’. —

ὄφρα καλέσσω: final (R 22.5); on the -σσ-, R 9.1.
281 αἰ: = εἰ (R 22.1). — ἐθέλησ(ι): 3rd sing. pres. subjunc. (R 16.3). — εἰπόντος: sc. μου. —
ἀκουέμεν: on the form, R 16.4. — κέ (ϝ)οι: on the prosody, R 4.3. — οἱ: = αὐτῷ (R 14.1). — αὖθι:
short-form of αὐτόθι ‘immediately, at once’.
Commentary 109
282b Double motivationP: the war is traced back to both a divine and a human
originator/cause (Zeus/Paris), but without relieving the human being of re-
sponsibility (somewhat different is 3.164 f., but see the commentary there, with
bibliography); cf. 356–358n.; for the phrasing ‘the gods have made someone
be something’, cf. also Od. 23.166 f., Hes. Th. 600 f.; Ennius Ann. 107 qualem te
patriae custodem di genuerunt! (West 2007, 87, with additional parallels from
the Rigveda).
Ὀλύμπιος: In the sing. the word always refers to Zeus (and once to a messenger sent by
Zeus: 24.194), in the pl. to all the gods (a collective designation at 1.399 and 20.47, also in
the formula Ὀλύμπια δώματ’ ἔχοντες, see 1.18n.): LfgrE s.v. — πῆμα: frequently with the
sense ‘evil, plague, cause of pain’, as here, characterizing individual persons and other
living creatures; e.g. 3.50–51n., 3.160, 10.453, 11.347, 22.288; repeatedly with τρέφειν/
τίκτειν: 22.421, Od. 12.125, Hes. Th. 223, h.Ap. 305 f., 351 f. (Mawet 1979, 91–97).
283 to the Trojans, and … Priam, and all of his children: Before expressing
his personal feelings toward Paris in a sort of heart-felt groan (284 f.), Hektor
speaks in an objective manner of the suffering that afflicts the community as a
whole (among whom he includes himself only indirectly: ‘Priam and his sons’
rather than ‘we’). The Iliad repeatedly emphasizes elsewhere as well that the
war affects the royal family and the general population of Troy in the same
way: cf. 3.50 (Hektor addressing Paris), also 2.304, 4.35 f., 4.164 f. = 6.448 f.,
21.103–105, 24.27 f.
Πριάμῳ … τοῖό τε παισίν: a variant of the VE formula Πρίαμος Πριάμοιό τε παῖδες (4x
Il., see 1.255–256n.); cf. 4.28 Πριάμῳ κακὰ τοῖό τε παισίν. — μεγαλήτορι: ‘with much
energy, great-hearted’; a generic epithetP ossified into something like a title, of various
male characters (less often peoples) and of θυμός (LfgrE s.v.), of Priam 3x in the dat.
in the same position in the verse (also 24.117, 24.145); a metrical variant of μεγάθυμος
(1.123n.).
284 Ἄϊδος εἴσω: an elliptic variant of the VE formula δόμον Ἄϊδος εἴσω (on this, 3.322n.,
cf. 6 19n.), as at 422, 22.425, etc.
285 φαίην κεν φίλον ἦτορ ὀϊζύος ἐκλελαθέσθαι: thus Zenodotus; the majority of the
manuscripts have φαίην κεν φρέν’ ἀτέρπου ὀϊζύος ἐκλ., corrected by Aristarchus to
φρέν’ ἄτερ (‘without’) που ὀϊζύος ἐκλ. Aristarchus’ criticism was directed at the adj.
ἀτέρπου (probably justifiably: although ἄτερπος rather than ἀτερπής is not without
282 μιν: = αὐτόν.
283 τοῖο: anaphoric demonstrative pronoun (R 17; on the declension, R 11.2), referring back to
Πριάμῳ: ‘his’.
284 κεῖνον: = ἐκεῖνον. — γε (ϝ)ίδοιμι: on the prosody, R 4.3. — Ἄϊδος εἴσω: sc. δόμον, ‘into the
house of Hades’ (↑); εἴσω (postpositive) ≈ εἰς (cf. R 20.1–2).
285 φίλον ἦτορ: probably subject acc. rather than acc. of respect.
110 Iliad 6
parallels [Wachter 2001, 45], the word appears somewhat weak in terms of sense here:
‘ὀϊζύς is by its nature ἀτερπής, to say the least’ [West 2001, 197]). At the same time, the
solution ἄτερ που ὀϊζύος is even less satisfactory, since ἐκλελαθέσθαι remains without a
gen. object, while που does not really make sense. West with reservations accordingly
adopts Zenodotus’ text, ‘which, if it were the only reading attested, would be subject
to no query. The difficulty it leaves is that of explaining how φρέν’ ἀτέρπου came into
the tradition in the first place and came to dominate it’ (loc. cit. 197). — φίλον ἦτορ:
a formulaic phrase (3.31n.; see also there on the disputed question of whether φίλον
in such phrases has an affective or purely possessive meaning). — ὀϊζύος: ὀϊζύς (from
the cry of lament ὀΐ) means ‘woe, misery’ (Frisk s.v.); in Homer it may denote psycho-
logical suffering (e.g. Od. 4.812, 23.210) or misfortune, trouble and vexation allotted by
fate (sometimes in synonym doubling with πόνος or κάματος in reference to the labor
of battle: 13.2, 15.365, etc.): LfgrE s.v. 556.6 ff. The present passage likely refers to the
suffering experienced by Hektor in the face of the situation as a whole (other interpreta-
tions: LfgrE loc. cit. 556.58 ff.). — ἐκλελαθέσθαι: The reduplicated aor. mid. is causative/
intensive: ‘to make oneself forget entirely, drive fully out of one’s mind’ (Latacz 1966,
58–62).
286–312 A futile supplicatory procession to the temple of Athene by the Trojan

women
286–287 Hekabe immediately begins carrying out Hektor’s instructions (with-
out even answering him); this accords with Homeric narrative conventions
(1.345n., cf. 6.102n.).
μολοῦσα ποτὶ μέγαρ(α): μέγαρα is pars pro toto (a part for the whole), ‘house, pal-
ace’ (cf. 91n.; LfgrE s.v. 65.14 ff., 66.17); on the present situation, 252n. — ἀμφιπόλοισιν
| κέκλετο: a simple ‘speech-act mention’ rather than direct speech (which would have
been too cumbersome here): a comparatively rare phenomenon in the Iliad (only 39
cases in contrast to 677 direct speeches: de Jong [1987] 2004, 114 f.). – On the etymology
and use of ἀμφίπολος, see 3.143n., 6.323–324n. — γεραιάς: 87n.
288–295 While Hekabe leaves it to her servants to summon the women, the selec-
tion of the garment is an important, delicate task that only she can fulfill (90 f.
≈ 271 f.). She accordingly chooses the most valuable piece in her possession
(289–291n., 295n.); the story of its origin, however, fatefully recalls Paris’ sacri-
lege (291–292n.) – and thus indirectly the insult to Athene in the judgement of
Paris (cf. CH 8; 24.27–30n.). It remains unclear whether or not the Trojans are
286 ἔφαθ’: = ἔφατο (cf. 253n.). — ποτὶ (μ)μέγαρ(α): on the prosody, M 4.6. — ποτί: = πρός (R 20.1).
— μέγαρ(α): on the plural, R 18.2.
287 κέκλετο (+ dat.): reduplicated aor. of κέλομαι ‘urge, order’. — ταί: anaphoric demonstrative
pronoun (R 14.3). — κατὰ (ϝ)άστυ: on the prosody, R 4.3.
Commentary 111
aware of this background (cf. 86–101n., 96–101n. end; Hekabe would be acting
thoughtlessly in the one case, unwittingly in the other); the audience at any
rate can already guess at this point that the sacrifice will fail to achieve its ob-
jective (Taplin [1980] 2001, 355; Erbse 1986, 137; Danek 2006, 13). On stories
of origin of objects in general: 2.101–108n. (with bibliography); on allusions
generally to the prehistory of the Trojan War and the first nine years of fighting
(external completive analepsesP): Kullmann 1960, 227–302; Friedrich 1975,
81 f. with 188 nn. 217–223 (collection of attestations). – The narrative follows
the type-sceneP ‘Visit to the treasury’ (24.191–237a n.; de Jong on Od. 21.5–62
and appendix F p. 598). The elements present are: (1) entering the room (288),
(2/3) description of the room (‘fragrant’: 288) and its contents (289a), together
with (6) the history of the objects mentioned (289b–292); (5) selection of an
object (293) and (7) comment on its particular value (294 f.).
288 ≈ 24.191 (see ad loc.) = Od. 15.99; 1st VH = Od. 7.7; 2nd VH ≈ Il. 3.382. — fra-
grant: probably of substances burnt like incense (cf. 3.382n.) or placed be-
tween garments to protect against moths: Marinatos 1967, 60 f.; Lilja 1972,
48 f.; Graziosi/Haubold (with discussion of ancient sources on the etymology
of the adj. kēṓeis).
According to schol. A on 288, the ‘Aristarchan’ texts available to Didymos (on this, HT
12) contained an alternative verse: ἣ δ’ εἰς οἶκον ἰοῦσα παρίστατο φωριαμοῖσιν (2nd VH
= Od. 15.104). This variant – attested only weakly in the manuscript transmission – is
less suitable here, since after 286 Hekabe is already inside the house (in Homer, οἶκος
never denotes a single room: LfgrE s.v. 568.7 ff.): Leaf, Kirk. — θάλαμον: 316n. —
κατεβήσετο: a thematic s-aorist of καταβαίνω (on the disputed development of the
form, see 3.262n. with bibliography). The choice of words does not necessarily imply
that the θάλαμος is located in the basement, since καταβαίνω is also used in early epic
with the sense ‘enter a closed room’ (e.g. Od. 11.523 of the heroes climbing into the Trojan
horse): LfgrE s.v. βαίνω 19.35 ff.; Graziosi/Haubold ad loc.
289–291 the work of Sidonian | women, whom Alexandros … had brought
home | from the land of Sidon: The Phoenicians from Tyre (not mentioned in
Homer) and Sidon were famed throughout the Mediterranean for their crafts-
manship; cf. 23.740 ff., Od. 4.613 ff.; 1 Kings 5:15 ff., 7:13 ff.; 2 Chronicles 2:3 ff.
(Solomon sends for specialists from Tyre for the construction of the temple
in Jerusalem); see Richardson on 23.740–749 and West on Od. 4.618; Latacz
(1990) 1994; Winter 1995 (with bibliography also on the archaeological evi-
dence). How Paris got hold of the Sidonian weavers is unclear from the text
(291–292n.); conceivable possibilities: ‘via recruitment, purchase or abduc-
288 ἐς: = εἰς (R 20.1).

112 Iliad 6
tion’: Latacz loc. cit. 127 (transl.); cf. (2001) 2005, 328 f.; or perhaps as a guest-
gift (cf. Od. 24.273/278): considered by Ormerod 1924, 88; van Wees 1992,
380 f. n. 17.
Welcker (1849) 1882, 94, followed by Leaf and others, conjectures τούς – referring to
πέπλοι – in place of τάς in 290 (also thus in a more recent manuscript). This is implau-
sible: the Homeric epics nowhere mention the import of garments; textiles are made
within the household or by hired day laborers (12.433 ff.) (van Wees 2005, 18 with nn.
79 f.).
289 ≈ Od. 15 105. — ἔνθ’ ἔσάν οἱ: Although rare, disregard of the digamma in (ϝ)οι is not
unparalleled (see 101n. with bibliography); on attempts at emendation (ἐνθ’ ἦν οἱ
Bekker, ἔνθα (ϝ)’ ἔσαν van Gent), see app. crit.; Leaf; Chantr. 1.120, 148. — πέπλοι:
90n. — παμποίκιλοι: ‘all-variegated’ (cf. 294n.); on the word formation, Leumann 1950,
101–105; Risch 213, 217. — ἔργα γυναικῶν: a VE formula (also Od. 7.97, Hes. Th. 603).
290 Alexandros: = Paris; on the origins of both names (used in Homer as metri-
cal alternatives), see 3.16n.
αὐτός: emphatic (LfgrE s.v. 1633 ff.), here perhaps with the overtone ‘he of all …’ (sug-
gestion by Nünlist; cf. 288–295n.). — Ἀλέξανδρος θεοειδής: an inflectible VE formula
(3 16n.).
291–292 on that journey | when he brought back also … Helen: Various ver-
sions of Paris’ abduction of Helen circulated in the mythic tradition (cf. West
2013, 90–93). (1) With favorable winds, the couple completed the journey from
Sparta to Troy in three days (according to Hdt. 2.117, this was the version found
in the Cypria: fr. 14 West). (2) At the same time, the present passage implies that
Paris returned to Troy, together with Helen, via a lengthy detour. Later sources
cite a storm at sea sent by Hera or Paris’ fear of pursuit as reasons for the de-
lay; in addition to Sidon (which Paris conquered, according to Proclus [see be-
low]), Egypt and Cyprus are mentioned as stops along the way (Proclus’ Cypria
summary, Chrest. § 2 West [source-critical considerations on this in Kullmann
1960, 204–206, 253; Huxley 1967]; schol. A, bT on 291; ‘Apollod.’ Epit. 3.4). (3)
Helen stayed behind in Egypt, while Paris returned to Troy either alone or with
a phantom of Helen (Stesichoros fr. 192 f. Page/Davies; Hdt. 2.113–115; Eur. Hel.
31 ff.). The origin of these versions can only be a matter of speculation. The
present passage may allude to an older narrative tradition (Hdt. 2.116 even
considers it an indication that Homer knew of version (3) – which he other-
289 ἔσαν: = ἦσαν (R 16.1, 16.6). — οἱ: = αὐτῇ (R 14.1).

290 τάς: anaphoric demonstrative pronoun with the function of a relative pronoun (R 14.5).
291 Σιδονίηθεν: on the suffix -θεν, R 15.1.
292 περ: stresses Ἑλένην (R 24.10).
Commentary 113
wise suppresses), but Paris’ detour via Sidon may also have been an ad hoc
invention by the poet of the Iliad for the present passage (sc. for the sake of
the point mentioned at 288–295n.); the detail would then have presented an
occasion for further elaboration and would have turned into the nucleus of
(2/3) (Kullmann loc. cit.).
ἤγαγε … ἀνήγαγεν: (ἀν)άγω is sometimes used with the sense ‘abduct, carry away’ (cf.
3.48n., 6.455), although the verb does not necessarily imply the use of force (LfgrE s.v.
ἄγω passim); according to Helen herself at 3.173 ff., 6.344 ff. and Od. 4.259 ff., she fol-
lowed Paris voluntarily – albeit under Aphrodite’s influence (cf. 2.356n.). — ἐπιπλούς:
The manuscripts have ἐπιπλώς, but ἐπιπλούς is expected as the participle of the root-
aorist ἐπέπλων (like γνούς from ἔγνων, etc.: schol. A on 3.47; Chantr. 1.378); the trans-
mitted ἐπιπλώς is perhaps due to an erroneous interpretation of the spelling -ΠΛΟΣ in
an early Attic text that used Ο for ο, ō (ου) and ω (West 2001, 21, 23; contra: Graziosi/
Haubold). – On the origin of the aor. ἔπλων, cf. 3.47n. — εὐρέα πόντον: an inflectible
VE formula (acc. 1x each in Il., Od., Hes., also 1x Il. ἐπ’ εὐρ. πόντ. after caesura B 2; dat.
6x Od., 1x Hes., 1x h.Ap.). The form εὐρέα (rather than εὐρύν) probably resulted from
the declension of a formula originally coined for the dat. (εὐρέϊ πόντῳ): Ellendt (1861)
1979, 78; Forssman 1991, 278 f. (with further bibliography). — εὐπατέρειαν: ‘having a
noble father, daughter of a noble father’ (here and at Od. 22.227 of Helen as the daughter
of Zeus, cf. 3.199n.; Od. 11.235 of Tyro as the daughter of Salmoneus); on the word forma-
tion, Risch 137 f.; LfgrE s.v. with bibliography.
293 VB until caesura C 2 ≈ Od. 15.106. — Ἑκάβη: The name is used for the first time here
(up to this point, the periphrastic denominationP ‘mother’ has been used: 87n., 251,
264): ‘The proper name emphasises her individual agency as she chooses the fateful
robe’ (Graziosi/Haubold). – Ἑκάβη (attested on two Corinthian vessels as ϝhεκαβ[α]
and ϝεκαβα) is probably a short form of *ἑκαβόλος (an alternative or earlier form of
ἑκηβόλος, an epithet of Apollo [1 14n.] and Artemis [Soph. Meleagros, fr. 401 Radt] un-
derstood as ‘far-shooting’ [from ϝεκάς]); if of foreign origin, the name was at least inter-
preted this way in folk etymology (Hekabe has been linked with Artemis-Hekate since
antiquity; cf. the myth of her transformation into a she-dog, the animal associated with
Hekate [Eur. Hec. 1265, Ov. Met. 13.402 ff./565 ff., etc.]): Frisk 3.84; Wathelet s.v. with
bibliography; Wachter 2001, 239 f.
294–295 = Od. 15.107 f.; 1st VH of 295 ≈ 2nd VH of Il. 19.381 (there referring to the
gleam of Achilleus’ helmet).
294 κάλλιστος … ἠδὲ μέγιστος: a variant of the expression χαριέστατος ἠδὲ μέγιστος in
Helenos’ instructions at 90 = 271. ‘While κάλλιστος describes the objective quality of
beauty, χάρις also evokes the pleasure of the gods as viewers: see 90n. As we soon real-
293 ἕν’: = ἕνα. — ἀειραμένη (ϝ)Εκάβη: on the prosody, R 4.4 (↑).

294 ἔην: = ἦν (R 16.6).
114 Iliad 6
ise, Athena takes no pleasure in this gift’ (Graziosi/Haubold). — ποικίλμασιν: colorful

designs or figural depictions; probably worked into the fabric (as described at 3.126 and
at 22.441): Marinatos 1967, 3 f., 11; Hoekstra on Od. 15.105. — μέγιστος: 90n.
295 and shone like a star: In Homer, textiles are frequently described as ‘radi-
ant’ or ‘gleaming’ (comparisonP with the radiance of stars also at 14.185, Od.
15.108, 19.234, 24.148 [on this, Scott 1974, 67; on parallels in the Babylonian
epic Erra and in the Rigveda, see West 1997, 252, and 2007, 84]; further in-
stances: Shelmerdine 1995, 100). Woolen and linen fabrics were made to shine
via treatment with (scented) oil, a practice attested already in the Mycenaean
period: 18.595 f., Od. 7.105 ff.; Marinatos 1967, 4 f.; Mycenaean attestations:
Shelmerdine loc. cit. 102 f. — It lay beneath the others: ‘as the most valua-
ble, safely stored and not in use’ (AH, transl.; schol. bT), i.e. Hekabe does not
pick the first item she encounters.
νείατος ἄλλων: gen. of comparison with the superlative, ‘as the lowest in comparison
with others’, i.e. ‘the lowest of all’ (Schw. 2.100); on νείατος, cf. 2.824n.
296 βῆ δ’ ἰέναι: literally ‘strode out in order to walk’, i.e. ‘started her journey’; an inflect-
ible formula (usually at VB, 3x after caesura A 3; variants: βῆ/βῆν/βάν, δ’/ῥ’, ἰέναι/
ἴμεν(αι); in total 32x Il., 41x Od., 4x h.Hom.). The expression is, ‘in contrast to simple
βῆ without an inf., […] more emphatic (6x in combination with a simile or comparison),
more expressive (3x hysteron proteron) and more ceremonial (7x in a series of leaders
and followers)’: LfgrE s.v. βαίνω 10.61 ff., transl.; cf. also 2.8n. (βάσκ’ ἴθι), 2 183n. (βῆ δὲ
θέειν). — μετεσσεύοντο: ‘«rushed after her» […] μετεσσεύοντο casts Hecuba in the role
as leader and adds to the sense of urgency’, cf. 361 ἐπέσσυται, 390 ἀπέσσυτο (Graziosi/
Haubold).
297 1st VH ≈ 10.526, 18.520, 23.138. — ἐν πόλει ἄκρῃ: 88n., 257n.
298–300 Theano …: from Thrace, an ally of Troy (11.222 ff.); as the wife of
Antenor and the mother of numerous sons, she is a member of one of Troy’s
most influential families (CH 9). Her role as the priestess of Athene may go
back to a pre-Homeric narrative tradition (Kullmann 1960, 276; Danek 2005,
esp. 13–17; 2006, 12 f.; but see also Davies 1977, 81). Only a post-Homeric myth
turned her into a sister of Hekabe (Leaf, Willcock). – Theano was not men-
tioned in Helenos’ instructions; on this, see 88–89n.
298 ὤειξε: an aor. of ὀ(ϝ)είγω restored by West (following Fick and others; see West 1998,
XXXIII; cf. Schmidt 1968, 81 n. 29); Forssman 2005, 108 f., 111 f. argues for retaining the
295 ἀστὴρ δ’ ὥς: ὡς ἀστήρ.

297 νηόν: = ναόν (Attic νεών), acc. of direction without preposition (R 19.2).
298 τῇσι: ≈ ταύταις (R 11.1, R 17). — θύρας: pl. with reference to the two leaves of the door (as
with πύλαι, cf. 80n.).
Commentary 115
transmitted form ὤϊξε (with zero-grade; according to him, *ὤειξε should be posited as
the pre-Homeric form). — Θεανὼ καλλιπάρηος: an inflectible VE formula (= 302, acc.
11.224). Θεανώ may be a speaking name: ‘she who is concerned with the goddess’ (from
θέαινα < *θέαν-ι ̯α): von Kamptz 126, 266; but cf. the doubts loc. cit. 127, 339; further
discussion: Wathelet s.v. – καλλιπάρηος is a generic epithetP of women and goddesses
(1.143n.).
299 Κισσηΐς: In the Iliad, this is taken as a patronymic (the father Kisses, a Thracian, is
mentioned at 11.223 f.), but perhaps was originally an ethnic, ‘woman of Kissos’ (a city
in Macedonia); in that case, the name of the relatively insignificant father Κισσῆς
would have been derived secondarily from Κισσηΐς: von Kamptz 152, 293 f.; LfgrE
s.v. Κισσῆς; cf. also 1.11n., 1.184n. (on Chryseïs/Chryses/Chryse and Briseïs/Briseus/
Brisa). — ἱπποδάμοιο: a generic epithetP of heroes (2.23n.) and of the Trojans as a group
(2.230n.).
300 she whom the Trojans had established …: In Homeric society, important
decisions and legal procedures are subject to community control; cf. 1.118–
129n., 6.194n. (conferment of gifts of honor and crown lands); Raaflaub 1991,
238; 1993, 54 f. (with bibliography). On procedures and criteria regarding the
appointment of priests in Greek antiquity generally: Graf 1997, 473 f.; Pirenne-
Delforge 2005, 6 ff. — to be Athene’s priestess: on the cult of Athene in Troy,
see 86–101n.
301 With a wailing cry: Greek ololygḗ (an onomatopoeic form derived from an
interjection: Tichy 1983, 236 f.) denotes shrill cries of women, usually in the
context of ritual activities (cf. Od. 3.450, 4.767; corresponding to the men’s
ritual cry iḗ paián: Bacchyl. 17.124 ff., Xen. Anab. 4.3.19); possibly ‘an arche-
type of prayers’ (Deubner [1941] 1982, 625 [transl.], with reference to the pl.
‘they prayed’ at 312 [see ad loc.]), here at least in connection with the typical
gesture of prayer (‘they raised their hands’: 257n.); see LfgrE s.vv. ὀλολυγή and
ὀλολύζειν with bibliography; Pulleyn 1997, 178–183.
303 ≈ 92 (see ad loc.), 273.
304–311 The type-sceneP ‘prayer’ (1.37–42n.). The elements present are: (1) ges-
ture of prayer (anticipated in 301, see ad loc.); (2/3) verb of praying and name
of the deity invoked (304); (5) invocation of the deity, using cult titles (305);
(7) plea (306 f., 309b–310); (6) pledge, tied to the fulfillment of the plea (rather
than a reference to services rendered earlier; the preceding offering of a gar-
ment serves as an implicit legitimization of the plea, cf. 2.411–420n. with bibli-
300 ἔθηκαν: = ἔθεσαν.
302 ἣ … Θεανώ: ἥ is anaphoric demonstrative (R 17), Θεανώ in apposition to it.
303 γούνασιν: on the declension, R 12.5 (< *γόνϝασιν, cf. R 4.2).
116 Iliad 6
ography) (308–309a); (8) formulaic conclusion (311a); (9) the deity’s response,
here – exceptionally – negative (311b; cf. 306–307n., 311n.).
304 ≈ 10.296, Od. 6.323, 24.521, h.Hom. 33 9. — εὐχομένη δ’ ἠρᾶτο: a unique combination.
The two verbs are frequently used as interchangeable synonyms, but here the original
differentiation between ἀράομαι for the plea within the prayer (115n.) and εὔχομαι (in
general ‘make an official statement’ [211n.] > ‘solemnly affirm, pledge’) for the accom-
panying pledge (Latacz 1969, 351–353; LfgrE s.v. (ἐπ)εύχομαι 821.22 ff.; cf. 1.35n.) is still
apparent. Differently, Kirk and Pulleyn 1997, 74 (in Homer, the difference in mean-
ing between εὐ. and ἀ. can no longer be perceived); Aubriot-Sévin 1992 (the semantic
fields of the two verbs are generally to be distinguished [thorough analysis in chap. III–
IV], but here overlap [387 with n. 258]); similarly Graziosi/Haubold (the two verbs are
here used in synonym doubling, underlining the solemnity of Theano’s prayer). — Διὸς
κούρῃ μεγάλοιο: an inflectible VE formula (5x Il., 3x Od., 1x each Hes. and h.Hom.);
5x in reference to Athene, otherwise of Artemis (2x), the personified ‘Pleas’, the Muses
and the Dioskouroi (1x each). – An alternative formula from caesura B 1 on (instead
of B 2): κούρη/-ῃ/-ην/κοῦραι Διὸς αἰγιόχοιο (2.598n.; on such formula pairs generally,
Hoekstra 1981, 45 f.).
305 A solemn address comprising an entire verse (as frequently in prayers: cf.
2.412n., 3.276, 5.115, etc.); on the piling up of epithets in the language of prayer,
sometimes as a tricolon, as here, see Beckmann 1932, 42 f.; in addition (with
reference to Vedic parallels), Tzamali 1996, 38, 274 f.; Pulleyn 1997, 145 f. —
our city’s defender: a cult title of Athene (86–101n.); ‘Athena is addressed
with the title that pins her down to what is now required of her’ (West 2011
ad loc.).
πότνι(α): cf. 264n. — ἐρυσίπτολι: from ἔρυμαι < *ϝέρυμαι (LIV 684 f.), but the digamma –
here bridging the hiatus – has left no other traces in other occurrences of the word in
early epic (LfgrE s.vv. ἐρυσίπτολις/ἔρυμαι). — δῖα θεάων: a VE formula, approximately
‘sublime among goddesses’ (δῖα, originally ‘belonging to Zeus, divine’, has likely faded
to a general expression of excellence in this expression): 19.6b n.
306–307 According to Helenos, Athene should only be beseeched to keep
Diomedes away from Troy (96 f. = 277 f.). Theano’s prayer deviates significantly
from this: the narrator has her plead for the impossible by asking for the death
of the hero; it is clearly presupposed that she suspects nothing of Athene’s
close relationship with Diomedes (dramatic ironyP; cf. 96–101n. end). There
are good reasons for the narrator’s approach: a rejection of the plea in the form
originally intended would have discredited Helenos as a seer (problematic af-
ter the positive introduction of the character, cf. 73–118n.), whereas its accept-
304 κούρῃ: on the form, R 2, R 4.2.

305 Ἀθηναίη ἐρυσίπτολι: on the hiatus, R 5.6 or R 4.4 (↑); on the -πτ-, R 9.2.
Commentary 117
ance ‘would […] have spoiled the pathos of Book 6’ (Mikalson 1989, 96 n. 102;
cf. 311n.; the explanation in Morrison 1991, 152–156, is somewhat labored).
306 break the spear of Diomedes: In accord with Homeric thought, gods fre-
quently intervene directly in the action of battle by disarming heroes or render-
ing their weapons useless; see 13.562 f., 15.461 ff., 16.791 ff. (esp. 16.801); cf. also
23.382 ff. (Brillante ad loc.; West 1997, 210 f., with reference to parallels in
Near Eastern literature [among others, the Old Testament: Psalms 46:10, 76:4,
Jeremiah 49:35, Hosea 1:5]).
ἆξον: on the accent, see West 1998, XX. — δή: on emphatic δή with imper., cf. 476 (δότε
δή, in a prayer, as here), 20.115, Od. 12.378, etc. and the common expression ἄγε δή
(Denniston 216–218). — ἠδὲ καὶ αὐτόν: an inflectible VE formula (gen./acc. sing. and
nom. pl. masc.; in total 3x Il., 2x Od., 2x h.Hom.).
307 πρηνέα: usually in reference to dying (or already deceased) warriors, as here; cf.
2.417 f. etc. (2.414n.). — δὸς πεσέειν: δός + inf. is, unsurprisingly, common in the lan-
guage of prayer (Morrison 1991, 153 n. 26). — Σκαιῶν … πυλάων: 237n.; the narra-
tor may be alluding to the mythological tradition in which Achilleus fell at the Skaian
gate (cf. 22.360; ‘Apollodorus’ epit. 5.3; on the commonalities between Diomedes and
Achilleus, see 96–101n.): West 2011 ad loc.
308a ὄφρα …: a pledge in the form of a final clause (da ut demus), as at Od. 16.184 f.; else-
where with parataxis (da et dabo): 10.291 ff., Od. 3.380 ff., cf. Il. 14.236 ff. (Tabachovitz
1951, 55 with n. 1). As shown by the context of Od. 16.184 f., the formula da ut demus is
not offensive in and of itself (as assumed by Lang 1975, 310 f.: ‘bribe’, ‘rather insulting’;
similarly Lateiner 1997, 262; more cautiously: Pulleyn 1997, 27 f.); the prayer is rejected
solely on account of its content. — αὐτίκα νῦν: does not have to imply that the sacrifi-
cial animals have already arrived (thus Kirk, cf. 270n.), since the sacrifice is meant to be
performed only after Athene has fulfilled the plea being made. αὐτίκα often emphasizes
more the resolve and readiness for action of the individuals involved than the speed
with which an action is performed (Erren 1970).
308b–310 ≈ 93b–95 (see ad locc.), 274–276: the only verses in Theano’s prayer
that exactly correspond to Helenos’ instructions (cf. Graziosi/Haubold ad
loc. and on 304–10).
311–312 ὣς ἔφατ’ εὐχομένη· … | ὣς αἳ μέν ῥ’ ηὔχοντο: a combination of a speech cap-
ping formulaP with an ‘appositive summary’ (Richardson 1990, 31 ff.) that concludes
306 ἆξον: aor. imper. of ἄγνυμι ‘shatter’. — δὴ ἔγχος: on the hiatus, R 5.6. — αὐτόν: ‘the man
himself’, in contrast to ἔγχος.
307 πρηνέα: predicative adj., ‘forwards, head first’. — πεσέειν: aor. inf. (on the form, R 16.4, R 8).
308b–310 ≈ 93b–95 (see ad locc.).
308 ὄφρα: final (R 22.5). — τοι: = σοι (R 14.1).
309 ἱερεύσομεν: short vowel subjunc. (R 16.3).
118 Iliad 6
the scene as a whole (312n.); likewise 17.423 f., 22.515/23.1, Od. 13.184 f.: there is no reason
for athetizing 311 (as suggested by schol. A, probably following Aristarchus) or 312 (see
Wilamowitz 1916, 308 n. 1). Cf. AH, Leaf, Kirk; Hölscher 1939, 41; Lührs 1992, 111–113.
311 turned her head from her: ‘The rude shock of this abrupt dismissal of what
has been so elaborately described gives us a sharp realization of the hopeless-
ness of Troy’s cause, and thus helps to establish the mood for the meeting of
Hector and Andromache’ (Owen 1946, 64; similarly Mason 1973, 144, 149; on
the prolepticP function of prayers in general: Duckworth 1933, 10 f.). – The
rejection of prayers is an exceptional event in Homer (Morrison 1991, 147 f.
with n. 14; Kelly 2007, 250–253): of thirty formal prayers, twenty-four are an-
swered (20x the deity’s positive response is explicitly mentioned), albeit only
partially in one case (16.249 ff.); 2x (2.419 and 3.302) the formula oud’ ára pō …
epekráaine is used (unclear whether ‘but he did not yet fulfill’ or ‘… definitely
not …’, see 3.302n. with bibliography); 3x (3.318 ff., 3.349 ff., 6.475 ff.) the deity’s
response is not mentioned, but the wish remains unfulfilled in what follows.
An explicit, complete rejection of a formal prayer rendered in direct speech
occurs only here (and perhaps at 2.419/3.302, see above). Further instances
(futile sacrifices or prayers mentioned in narrator text or character speech):
see 2.419–420n.; Mikalson 1989, 95–97; Lateiner 1997, 260 f.; a thorough dis-
cussion of Greek and Roman sources from Homer to Late Antiquity is provided
by Naiden 2013, 131–182, 331–345.
ὣς ἔφατ’ εὐχομένη: an inflectible VB formula (fem. sing. only here, 10.295 masc. pl.,
otherwise masc. sing.; in total 13x Il., 5x Od.). 3x concluding formula of speeches of tri-
umph, otherwise of prayers, as here (in these cases, usually continued with τοῦ δ’ ἔκλυε
+ name of the deity: cf. 1.43n.). — ἀνένευε: ἀνανεύω is literally ‘nod upward’: a slight
tossing back of the head as a gesture of negation/rejection, as is common in Greece to
this day (cf. Lat. renuo: Schw. 2.440; LfgrE; antonym: κατανεύω, cf. 1.528n.); here met-
aphorical, with the impf. likely stressing the negative verbal content: ‘did not want to
grant’ (Leaf; Schw. 2.279). — Παλλὰς Ἀθήνη: a VE formula (1.400n.); on the uncertain
meaning of Παλλάς, 1.200n.
312 1st VH ≈ Od. 13.185. — ὣς αἳ μέν: an inflectible VB formula, usually followed by a verb
in the impf., as here: denotes the transition of a scene to a uniform action, no longer
worth describing in detail, thus preparing for a change of scene (1.318a n.). — ηὔχοντο:
The plural underlines the fact that Theano spoke in the name of the community (cf.
1.450/457 f., 2.411/421); via ὀλολυγή and the gesture of prayer (301n.), the women are
also actively involved in the rite (like the sacrificants at 1.449/458 and 2.410/421 by jointly
throwing grains of barley): Corlu 1966, 88; cf. Pulleyn 1997, 173 ff.
312 ῥ’: = ἄρα (R 24.1).

Commentary 119
313–368 Hektor censures Paris for his withdrawal from battle; Paris promises
to immediately arm himself in order to return to battle along with his brother.
Hektor declines Helen’s invitation to rest a bit in her house: he does not wish
to keep the hard-pressed Trojans waiting – and since he has a sense of his im-
pending death, he wants to see his wife and child one last time before returning
to battle.
313–324 Another variant of the type-sceneP ‘arrival’ (1.496b–502n., 6.369–389n.),
expanded, as at 242 ff. (see ad loc.), with a description of the setting. In ad-
dition, the portrayal of the situation – Paris among the women, apparently
calmly occupied with his ‘very lovely’ weapons (321–322n.) – is preceded by a
glance at the entering Hektor, who with his mighty spear appears as the war-
rior par excellence, ready for battle: a pointed image of the contrast between
the two dissimilar brothers (schol. bT on 319 f. and 321; Bethe 1914, 236; Arend
1933, 33; Griffin 1980, 7 f.).
313–317 In contrast to the other sons of Priam (245 f.), Paris and Hektor each have
their own house (365/370), albeit in the vicinity of their father’s palace. The
mention of Paris’ personal efforts in building his house is surely made with ap-
proval; cf. the analogous statement referring to Hephaistos at 18.369 ff. (on this,
Marg [1957] 1971, 39 f., also on the particular proximity between Hephaistos,
the creator of beautiful objects, and the poet of the Iliad, a creator of words;
on the appreciation of craft and artistic abilities in the world of the Homeric
epics generally: Eckstein 1974, 2, 6 ff., 12 ff., 25, etc.; Patzer 1996, 157; Ndoye
2010, 41 f.; cf. also 90–91n.). But in the current crisis – which he himself has
brought upon his native city – Paris is at risk of becoming an outsider due to
his ‘artistic nature’: cf. 3.46 ff. (esp. 54), 3.64–66n., 6.335–336n.; Latacz 1992,
207; Rougier-Blanc 2005, 333 f.
313 βεβήκει: probably not anterior to the main action but rather ‘turned his step, ap-
proached’ (preterite of the iterative perf. ‘take steps’: LfgrE s.v. 10.7 ff. [with bibliogra-
phy]; cf. 1.221n., 6.495, 6.513; differently, Kurz 1966, 111). Although the narrative in fact
falls back somewhat (Hektor’s walk to the nearby house of his brother can only have
taken a fraction of the time needed by the women for their procession to the temple;
cf. 279–280n.) – thus diverging from the ‘continutity of time’ principleP – the Homeric
narrator does not usually signal such a ‘step back’ explicitly (Nünlist 1998, 8).
314a ≈ Od. 7.235; cf. also Il. 18.371 (of Hephaistos, see 313–317n.), and in addition 5.735
= 8.386.
313 δώματ(α): on the plural, R 18.2. — Ἀλεξάνδροιο: on the declension, R 11.2.

314 τά: anaphoric demonstrative pronoun with the function of a relative pronoun (R 14.5). —
ῥ(α): = ἄρα (R 24.1).
120 Iliad 6
314b–315 οἳ τότ’ ἄριστοι | ἦσαν ἐνὶ Τροίῃ: In Homeric epic, superlatives and superlative
expressions are often made more precise by information regarding their area of applica-
tion; on limitations via τότε, cf. 9.272, 9.558 f. (in external analepsesP, as here), 14.287. —
Τροίῃ ἐριβώλακι: an inflectible formula after caesura A 4 (3.74n.). ἐριβῶλαξ ‘with large
clods’ is a generic epithetP of fertile landscapes, but is occasionally used in conjunction
with city names (Larisa: 2.841n.); in Homer, Τροίη may denote both the city and the en-
tire Troad (2.141n.). — τέκτονες ἄνδρες: Occupational and status terms are sometimes
used in apposition to a generic concept (ἀνήρ, γυνή), and in these cases approximate an
adjectival function (Schw. 2.614; cf. 2.474n.). – The word τέκτων denotes any craftsper-
son skilled in the working of wood or stone (here ‘builder’, elsewhere also ‘ship builder’,
‘carpenter’, etc.): Eckstein 1974, 23–25; LfgrE s.v.
316 VE (from caesura C 1 on) = Od. 22.494. — θάλαμον: θάλαμος may denote ‘any private
room’, especially (1) bedrooms (cf. 244, 248), (2) day-rooms for the mistress of the house
and her servants, women’s quarters (Od. 17.506 etc.), (3) treasuries (cf. 288); here and
321/336, the meaning is either (1) (following from 3.423 ff.; in that case, the bedroom is
also used as a day-room) or (2) (LfgrE s.v.). – Although the θάλαμος is part of the δῶμα, it
is here highlighted explicitly (cf. Od. 22.494 μέγαρον καὶ δῶμα καὶ αὐλήν) as the setting
for the following scene (Leaf) and/or the place with which Paris has a special affinity
(suggestion by Latacz); but perhaps the passage only points out that the building of the
house began with the θάλαμος (cf. Od. 23.192 ff.). — δῶμα: the main building (as at Od.
22.494), in contrast to the courtyard (Leaf); elsewhere mostly used as a generic term for
the house as a whole (sing. and pl. without differentiation in meaning: cf. 1.533 etc. and
6.313 etc.).
317 ἐγγύθι τε Πριάμοιο καὶ Ἕκτορος: on the position of τε, cf. Hdt. 1.69.2 ἄνευ τε δόλου
καὶ ἀπάτης (Schw. 2.574). — ἐν πόλει ἄκρῃ: 88n.
318–320 ≈ 8.493–495 (there of Hektor in a military assembly). The repetition of verses and
verse groups in different contexts is a common technique of oral poetry (FOR 9 ff.; cf.
1.333n.); the Alexandrian scholars’ question as to whether the verses are better suited
to the present situation (thus Zenodotus) or Book 8 (thus Aristarchus) is thus irrelevant
in terms of Homeric poetics (Lührs 1992, 211–213). On the function of the verses in the
present passage, see 313–324n.
318 διίφιλος: a generic epithetP (1.74n.).
319 eleven-cubit-long: ca. 5 m (cf. BNP s.v. ‘pechys’: the locally diverging meas-
urements for the ancient cubit range from 40 to 52 cm). This can hardly be
315 ἐνί: = ἐν (R 20 1). — Τρoίῃ ἐριβώλακι: on the hiatus, R 5.6. — Τροίῃ: on the form (-ῃ after -ι-),
R 2.
316 οἵ (ϝ)οι: on the prosody, R 4.4. — οἱ: = αὐτῷ (R 14.1). — οἱ ἐποίησαν … καὶ αὐλήν: 2x so-called
correption (R 5.5).
317 ἄκρῃ: on the form (-ῃ after -ρ-), R 2.
319 ἔχ(ε) … λάμπετο: on the unaugmented forms, R 16.1. — δουρός: on the declension, R 12.5.
Commentary 121
understood as realistic information (lances of this size are attested only from
the 4th cent. BC onward [sc. for the Chalybians and Macedonians: Xen. Anab.
4.7.16, Theophr. hist. plant. 3.12.2] and presuppose a different battle technique:
Lendle 1995, 269; lances of the Minoan-Mycenaean and Homeric periods
are thought to have had a maximum length of 2–3 m, while throwing spears
were significantly shorter: Höckmann 1980, esp. 276 f., 281; Franz 2002, 67).
Hektor is evidently meant to be characterized by this exceptional weapon as a
hero whose powers exceed the human norm (cf. 12.445 ff.; likewise Achilleus:
16.141 ff. = 19.388 ff.; Aias: 15.677 f.; cf. van Wees 1992, 20; Raaflaub 2008,
471 f.). — shining: on the motif of shining weapons as a sign of a warrior’s
heroic ‘aura’, see Ciani 1974, 136 ff.; Camerotto 2009, 116–122; cf. also 116n.,
466–473n., 513n.
πάροιθε: preposition with δουρός, ‘at the tip of the shaft’ (AH); or adv., ‘at the front
extremity, at the tip’ (in which case δουρός is to be connected with αἰχμή, and δόρυ is
synonymous with ἔγχος): ‘at the tip, there gleamed the bronze point of the spear’: LfgrE
s.v. 984.49 ff.
320 πόρκης: a ring that pressed the socket (a tube-shaped metal extension of the spear
blade) tightly to the wooden shaft; archaeological examples date from the Minoan-
Mycenaean period to the 6th cent. BC (Lorimer 1950, 254 f., 260; Höckmann 1980, 296;
Franz 2002, 66).
321–322 found …: a portrayal of the situation in secondary focalizationP from
the point of view of the person arriving (cf. 1.329–333n., 2.169–171n.); here used
pointedly to characterize Paris: 313–324n. — corselet … shield … bow: In
contrast to 3.17 ff., Paris appears in what follows (as at 3.328 ff.) in the stand-
ard armor of hoplites (cf. 504, 513); for weapons, he continues to use bow and
spear (cf. 3.18–20n., with bibliography). He nevertheless only uses the spear
at 15.341 f. and likely also at 7.8; he is significantly more efficient as an archer
(3.18n.; there also generally on the ambivalent role of archers in the Iliad).
περικαλλέα τεύχε’ ἕποντα, | … καὶ ἀγκύλα τόξ’ ἁφόωντα: The simplex of both verbs
is attested only here in early epic. Their meanings must be deduced from the etymology
and use of their compounds: ἕπω (from the IE root *sep- ‘hold, handle’: LIV 534; Vine
1988; Forssman 2006, 111) apparently means ‘handle, manipulate, be busy with’ (e.g.
1.166 διέπω ‘carry out, implement’; 11.776 etc. ἀμφέπω ‘prepare [meat]’); ἁφάω (related
320 περί: adv., ‘all around’ (or so-called tmesis: περὶ … θέε): R 20.2. — χρύσε͜ος: on the synizesis,
R 7.
321 τόν: on the anaphoric demonstrative function of ὅ, ἥ, τό, R 17. — περικαλλέα τεύχε(α): on
the uncontracted forms, R 6. — τεύχε’ ἕποντα: on the hiatus, R 5 1.
322 τόξ(α): on the plural, R 18.2. — ἁφόωντα: part. of ἁφάω (↑); on the epic diectasis, R 8.
122 Iliad 6
to ἁφή ‘touch’ or a deverbative of ἅπτω: Frisk) likely means ‘feel (in order to examine)’
(AH; cf. τόξον … ἀμφαφόωντας Od. 19.586). The point is that Paris is mending his weap-
ons (cf. 2.382n.) in order to return to battle (see 337 ff.): AH, Kirk. At the same time, the
epithet περικαλλέα, likely used pointedly, indicates that his attention is lovingly drawn
to their beautiful appearance (περικαλλέα with τεύχεα only here and at Od. 24.165; else-
where simple καλά [21x early epic]); cf. schol. bT and Leaf on 321 (‘the «dandy» Paris is
turning over and admiring his fine armour’): he is in no particular hurry. The scene in
the θάλαμος as a whole appears relaxed (Kirk; Kurz 1966, 46). — ἀγκύλα: 39–40n.
323–324 of Argos: i.e. a ‘Greek woman’ (107n.); epithet of Helen (2.161n.), which
defines her as an ‘outsider’ in Troy and recalls her role as the cause of the
Trojan War (Graziosi-Haubold). — directing: i.e. she was supervising their
spinning and weaving (while participating in the work herself): cf. 3.125n.,
6.90–91n., 6.491 f.
δμῳῇσι γυναιξίν: a VE formula (dat. an additional 2x Od.; acc. δμῳάς τε γυν. 1x Il.,
2x Od.); on phrases of this type cf. 314b–315n. — δμῳῇσι … | … ἀμφιπόλοισι: δμῳαί
(in Homer only in the pl.) is generally a collective term for ‘female servants’, whereas
ἀμφίπολος (from ἀμφι-πέλομαι ‘be around someone’) is used specifically for servants
who operate in the mistress’ immediate vicinity and accompany her during walks
around the city (3.143n. with bibliography; cf. 6.372, 491). Here both terms, as metri-
cally convenient variants, denote the same group of people (LfgrE s.v. δμῳ(ή) 321.66 ff.,
322.17 ff.); likewise at Od. 6.99/109. — κέλευεν: in Homer frequently with the dat. of per-
son (Chantr. 2.69; Schw. 2.147).
325–342 The Iliad depicts three occasions on which Hektor reprimands his
brother Paris (also 3.38 ff., 13.765 ff.; on the relationship between the three
scenes, Reichel 1994, 249–252; on this type of reproach generally, 2.225–242n.
with bibliography). In each case, Paris replies matter-of-factly and precisely:
he accepts legitimate criticism with disarming candor (333, 3.59; more general
self-criticism 13.776–777a), but also seeks to clarify the situation to his brother
when he feels that his character, behavior or motives have been misjudged
(3.60–63n., 3.64–66n., 6.335–336n., 13.777b–780a).
325 = 3.38 (see ad loc.), VE = 13.768 (always spoken by Hektor to Paris). — αἰσχροῖς
ἐπέεσσιν: < *αἰσχροῖσι ϝέπεσσιν (West 1998, XXXIII; cf. G 69–70). αἰσχρός, literally
‘ugly, abusive’, denotes words meant to arouse feelings of shame in the addressee
(Cairns 1993, 76).
323 δμῳῇσι: on the declension, R 11.1.

324 ἀμφιπόλοισι: on the declension, R 11.2. — περικλυτὰ (ϝ)έργα: on the prosody, R 4.3.
325 ἐπέεσσιν: on the declension, R 11.3 and ↑.
Commentary 123
326 this [coldness] anger: The Greek expression chólon tónde ‘is best captured
by «this anger which I assume on the basis of what I see»’ (de Jong 2012,
78): from the fact that his brother sits about in his bed chamber instead of
fighting, Hektor concludes that Paris is angry with the Trojans (cf. 321–322n.
end, 335 f.). The motif ‘boycott of battle by an angry hero’ is traditional; in the
Iliad, it forms the core of the action (the wrath of Achilleus: 1.1 and passim);
cf. also 9.524 f./553 ff. (Meleager and other early heroes), 13.459 ff. (Aineias),
13.107 ff./14.49 ff. (suspected Achaian wrath against Agamemnon); on this,
Fenik 1968, 121 f.; Scodel 1999, 64. Its use in the present passage has never-
theless vexed interpreters since antiquity, since it is unclear why Paris should
be angry at the Trojans at this moment (see the overview of the history of
scholarship in Heitsch [1967] 2001). It has thus been assumed that Hektor is
delicately insinuating a ‘heroic motif’ – rather then accusing Paris of coward-
ice – ‘in order to smooth the way for an honorable return to battle’ (Heubeck
1974, 68 [transl.], criticizing other interpretations – analytical and neo-analyt-
ical; schol. bT ad loc. and Eust. 644.63 f.; Kirk; Graziosi/Haubold; cf. also
Heitsch loc. cit. 186–188, 195; Scodel loc. cit.). But such diplomatic consid-
eration could hardly be expected after the opening verse 325, and Hektor’s
words can also be read as a serious assessment of the situation: the Trojans
are hostile toward Paris (3.453 f., 6.523 ff., 7.390), a fact that over time cannot
have escaped his notice; it is indeed a reasonable assumption on Hektor’s part
that Paris would react to this with defiant bitterness – especially after his failed
attempt to rectify his wrongdoing via a duel with Menelaos; see schol. A and D;
Faesi/Franke; Kirk; Bassett 1938, 134 f.; cf. Heitsch loc. cit. 184, 191 f.
δαιμόνι(ε): The adj. originally meant ‘standing under the influence of a δαίμων’; the
voc. indicates astonishment at the addressee’s behavior (cf. 407, 486n., 521; 1.561n.,
2.190n.). The accumulation of occurrences of this form of address in the second half
of Book 6 (4 of a total of 13 attestations in the Iliad) ‘indicates that tensions are run-
ning high’ (Graziosi/Haubold). — χόλον τόνδ’ ἔνθεο θυμῷ: ≈ Od. 24.248; cf. also Od.
11.102 = 13.342; Il. 14.50. As shown by the parallels, the expression means ‘develop anger
(against others)’ (Heitsch loc. cit. 185 f.), not ‘take to heart the anger (of others)’ (thus
schol. T; Bergold 1977, 177 f.; considered by Leaf).
327 2nd VH ≈ 11.181, Od. 14.472, h.Cer. 271. — λαοί: 80n. — φθινύθουσι: ‘perish (one after
the other), dwindle away’ (2.346a n.). — περί: local (256n.).
326 οὐ … καλά: adverbial; ‘it is not fair that …’ — μέν: ≈ μήν (R 24.6). — ἔνθεο: 2nd sing. aor. of
ἐντίθεμαι (= ἐνέθου: R 16 1, R 6).
327–328 πτόλιν … | … πτόλεμος: on the initial πτ-, R 9.2. — σέο: = σοῦ (R 14.1, R 6). — εἵνεκ(α):
initial syllable metrically lengthened (R 10.1).
124 Iliad 6
328–329 2nd VH of 328 = 16.63; ≈ 1.492 (see ad loc.), h.Hom. 11.3; cf. also Il. 14.37,
14.96. — it is for you …: similarly already 3.46–51 (see ad loc.): as the cause
of the war, Paris can afford least of all people to evade his duties. — this war
with its clamour | has flared up: a common metaphor, cf. 12.35, 13.736, 17.253,
20.18, ‘Hes.’ Sc. 155; see also 2.93n. (with bibliography). — You yourself would
fight with another: Homeric reproaches sometimes contain ‘a view of the un-
desirable action from a broader perspective’ (Minchin 2007, 28), here in the
shape of an explicit demand that Paris regard his own behavior as if from the
outside (likewise 23.494; the same figure of thought in the 1st sing. as a ration-
ale for the speaker’s own behavior: Od. 6.286, 15.69 ff.; see Cairns 1993, 76 n.
107; Minchin loc. cit. 33–35).
μαρνάμενοι: 204n. — ἄστυ τόδ(ε): The emphatic demonstrative pronoun (‘this city
here; the city in which we dwell’) emphasizes the urgency of the appeal. — μαχέσαιο:
μάχομαι is rarely used for verbal confrontations, in which case it stresses their ferocity
(1.8n.); here ‘express vehement disapproval’, as at 5.875, 9.32, negated at 13.118 (LfgrE
s.v. 55.12 ff.).
330 ≈ 4.240; cf. also 12.268 and 2nd VH of 4.516, 13.229. — μεθιέντα: a key word in bat-
tle paraeneses; elsewhere mostly in reference to warriors who threaten to descend
into a lack of initiative and resignation during battle (clustered in 13.95–124; on this,
Latacz 1977, 214 f.). — στυγεροῦ πολέμοιο: πόλεμος (‘battle, fighting’: 203n.), like
φύλοπις (1n.) and other related terms, is largely linked with epithets of negative con-
notation (ἀργαλέος, δακρυόεις, δυσηχής, κακός, φθεισήνωρ, etc.; see LfgrE s.v. πόλεμος
1334.54 ff.); on στυγερός ‘abominable, hated’, see 2.385n. and LfgrE s.v.
331 ἀλλ(ά): on ἀλλά with imper., cf. 269n.; in reproaches, it regularly serves to introduce
the concluding demand (Minchin 2007, 29). — ἄνα: adv. used imperativally, ‘up!’
(Schw. 2.421, 424). — πυρὸς … θέρηται: θέρομαι literally means ‘warm oneself’; here
and at 11.667 as a euphemism for ‘be burnt’ (LfgrE; Graz 1965, 220 ff.). πυρός is partitive
gen., either in place of an instrumental dat., as with πρήθω (2.415n.; Schw. 2.110 f.), or
analogous to the gen. with verbs of enjoyment (Graz loc. cit. with reference to the basic
meaning; cf. Od. 17.23 θέρεσθαι πυρός ‘warm oneself at the fire, enjoy the fire’s warmth’).
— δηΐοιο: see 81–82n., 2.415n.
332–333 = 3.58–59 (see ad loc.).
329 ἀμφιδέδηε: ‘blazes around (this city)’, intrans. perf. of ἀμφιδαίω; sing., since the expression
ἀϋτή τε πτόλεμός τε forms a hendiadys.
330 μεθιέντα (ϝ)ίδοις: on the prosody, R 4.3.
331 τάχα (ϝ)άστυ: on the prosody, R 4.3. — τάχα: adv., ‘soon’.
332 προσέειπεν: = προσεῖπεν (122n.).
Commentary 125
334 = Od. 18.129; ≈ Od. 15.318 = 24.265, 16.259, Il. 1.76 (see ad loc.); 1st VH = Od. 20.229. The
verse is athetized by West following Bekker and others, since an apodosis is not ne-
cessary after an ἐπεί clause (cf. e.g. the parallel passage: 3.59n.): 334 might be the sup-
plement of an interpolator who failed to understand the elliptical construction (West
2001, 12 with n. 29; cf. Leaf). But there are no compelling reasons for an athetesis (see
Kirk). — τούνεκα: on the spelling, see West on Hes. Th. 88. — μευ: contracted form of
μεο (G 45 with n. 25).
335–336 Paris does not entirely reject Hektor’s supposition from 326 (see below
on ou … tósson ‘not so much’), but corrects it on an essential point: for him, bit-
terness toward the Trojans is not to the fore; instead, he brings up his need to
give himself over to grief as the reason for his withdrawal from battle. The os-
tensible cause of this grief is his defeat at the hands of Menelaos (cf. 339b n.); a
growing realization of the inescapability of the situation he has brought upon
himself and all of Troy may be seen as a deeper reason (Hijmans 1975; similarly
Bergold 1977, 181 f.: resignation after the failure of his attempt to achieve a
speedy conclusion to the conflict via his duel with Menelaos). – Paris’ need for
a ‘timeout’ during which he passively submits to his emotions highlights his
role as an outsider within the ‘ruling class’ of Homeric society, ‘which is char-
acterized by a strict code of duty’ (Latacz 1992, 207, transl.): he distinguishes
himself by his otherness, which makes it difficult for the people around to un-
derstand him – which in turn aggravates his suffering (3.60–63n., 3.64–66n.,
6.517–529n.; cf. the detailed interpretation of the scene in Collins 1988, 27–39
[but on this, see immediately below]; Gartziou-Tatti 1992, 85 f. [with further
bibliography]). — I sat: In Homer, ‘sitting’ may express passivity (i.e. to be un-
derstood pregnantly in the sense ‘sit about idly’): 1.349n., 2.137n., 7.100, 18.104.
But Paris clearly signals by his choice of the preterite that mentally he has
already given up this attitude – even though he is still physically sitting down.
οὐ … τόσσον … | …, ἔθελον δ(έ) …: ‘οὐ τόσ(σ)ον x … ὅσσον/ὡς y’ or (as here and at
21.275 f., Od. 14.142–144) ‘οὐ τόσ(σ)ον x … y + adversative particle’ weigh x against y:
for the speaker, y stands in the foreground, but without dismissing x as entirely insig-
nificant (e.g. 450 ff., 22.424 f., Od. 14.142 ff.). This speaks against the interpretation of
Collins loc. cit., that the point of the scene lies in an implicit comparison of Paris – who
feels a ‘wrathless grief’ at the community’s reproach, which he realizes is justified –
and angry heroes such as Achilleus or Meleager (326n.). — οὔ τοι … Τρώων τόσσον
χόλῳ οὐδὲ νεμέσσι: on the collocation, cf. 8.407 Ἥρῃ δ’ οὔ τι τόσον νεμεσίζομαι οὐδὲ
334 τούνεκα: ‘therefore’. — τοι (ϝ)ερέω: on the prosody, R 4.4. — τοι: = σοι (R 14.1). — ἐρέω: fut.
‘will say’ (Attic ἐρῶ, cf. R 6). — σύνθεο: aor. imper. of συντίθεμαι ‘attend, heed’. — μευ: = μου (↑).
335 τοι: here the particle (R 24 12); strengthens the negation. — τόσσον … νεμέσσι (= νεμέσει):
on the -σσ-, R 9.1.
126 Iliad 6
χολοῦμαι; Od. 23.213 μὴ νῦν μοι τόδε χώεο μηδὲ νεμέσσα. – Τρώων is an objective gen.,
‘not so much from anger and irritation against the Trojans’ (cf. 326n. end) rather than a
subjective gen. (thus Bergold 1977, 178 f., and others), since the thought of the Trojans’
irritation with his behavior should instead move Paris to change his attitude and return
to battle (cf. 350 f., 13.121 f.): Hijmans 1975, 179 f.
337 with soft words: Helen scolded Paris violently (3.428 ff.) immediately after
his defeat by Menelaos, and in the present scene (349 ff.) she once more speaks
bitterly about him; Paris’ statement is thus sometimes interpreted as a dissem-
bling assertion, by means of which he attempts to maintain the appearance of
a happy marriage in front of his brother (Willcock 1977, 51; Roisman 2006,
24). The passage may also be read, however, as an internal completing ana-
lepsisP offering the audience correct information (suggestion by Nünlist): the
relationship between Paris and Helen was portrayed as very complex in Book
3 (cf. 3.427n., 3.428–436n., 3.447n.), while 6.321 ff. creates the impression that
the situation has eased somewhat after the ferocious scene at 3.427 ff. (cf. 313–
324n., 321–322n. end); that Helen had spoken kindly to her husband just be-
fore Hektor’s appearance thus cannot necessarily be dismissed as implausible
(even though the situation changes again shortly thereafter); cf. schol. A (on
this, Nünlist 2009, 157 with n. 2, 164); Faesi/Franke.
παρειποῦσ(α): coincident with ὥρμησε (AH; cf. 7–8n.). — μαλακοῖς ἐπέεσσιν:
< *μαλακοῖσι ϝέπεσσιν (325n.); a formulaic expression (a further 3x Od. at VE; in addition
4x in early epic with hyperbaton); repeatedly, as here, in connection with ‘persuade,
sway’ (παρειπεῖν, παράφημι), cf. Od. 16.286 f., 19.5 f., Hes. Th. 90, h.Cer. 336.
338–339a The statement creates a contrasting background to the following scene
between Hektor and Andromache: Paris considers a return to battle only after
Helen’s encouragement; Hektor is not deterred from continuing to risk his life
in battle even by Andromache’s pleas at 407 ff. On the contrast between the
two couples, see schol. bT on 431 and 492; Schadewaldt (1935) 1997, 129 f.,
134; Besslich 1966, 114 (with further bibliography); Lohmann 1988, 55–62;
Metz 1990, 389 f.
339b Victory passes back and forth between men: At 3.439 f., Paris attempted
to play down the significance of his recent defeat before Helen by using the
same argument; here, he employs the gnome to encourage himself (similarly
Hektor at 18.309): Faesi/Franke; Leaf; Ahrens 1937, 17 f.
337 παρ(ϝ)ειποῦσ(α): on the prosody, R 4.5.

338 ἐς: = εἰς (R 20.1). — δοκέει: on the uncontracted form, R 6.
339 λώϊον: comparative without an attendant positive, ‘better, more correct’. — ἔσσεσθαι: =
ἔσεσθαι (R 9.1).
Commentary 127
ἐπαμείβεται: ‘changes’, i.e. favors now one, now another; cf. 15.684 θρῴσκων ἄλλοτ’
ἐπ’ ἄλλον ἀμείβεται, Od. 1.375 ἀμειβόμενοι κατὰ οἴκους (Leaf).
340 1st VH = Od. 1.309, 4.587. — ἐπίμεινον, … δύω: ‘wait, I will put on’; paratactic connec-
tion of a voluntative subjunc. in the 1st person with an imper., as at 22.450 δεῦτε, δύω
μοι ἕπεσθον· ἴδωμ’ ὅτιν’ ἔργα τέτυκται and 23.71 θάπτε με ὅττι τάχιστα, πύλας Ἀΐδαο
περήσω (cf. the combinations of particle-like ossified imperatives with the volunta-
tive subjunc. still current in post-Homeric literature, e.g. Plat. Phaed. 63b φέρε δή, …
πειραθῶ ‘well then, I will try’); see Schw. 2.314; Chantr. 2.207; Strunk 1988 (with in-
ferences about the development of the functions of the subjunc.).
341 or go, and I will follow: an ‘afterthought’ sprung from polite consideration,
as at 5.228, 10.481, etc. (Hohendahl-Zoetelief 1980, 104 ff.). On the level of
narrative strategy, the suggestion creates space for the subsequent scene be-
tween Hektor and Andromache (the brothers only meet again at 514 ff.); this
‘technical’ function remains unobtrusive, however, since the narrator has
Hektor remain silent at first (342) and respond indirectly to the suggestion only
at 363 ff.: ‘[…] via the interlude, Helen’s lament, the purely technical device
is embedded in more meaningful actions and is thus no longer perceived as
technical’ (Besslich 1966, 115, transl.).
342 = 5.689; ≈ 1.511 (see ad loc.), 4.401, 8.484, 21.478, Od. 20.183. The formulaic
verse occurs in very different situations (see Kirk); here, the reason for the
lack of response should most likely be sought in Hektor’s impatient haste (as at
5.689): AH; differently Kirk: ‘Hektor may well be showing his disdain’.
343 1st VH = 3.171 (see ad loc.). — μειλιχίοισιν: 214n.
344–358 Helen’s speech intensifies the image of her character outlined in Book
3 and prepares for her final appearance at 24.761 ff. (lament over the death of
Hektor). The passage repeats and varies multiple motifs from other scenes in-
volving Helen in the Iliad (cf. Reichel 1994, 264–267, 268 f.): self-incrimination
and wish for death as an expression of remorse and despair at her actions and
their consequences (344–348, 356: cf. 3.172–180n., 3.404, 24.764 [athetized by
West]); shame at what others (may) say or think about her and Paris (350 f.;
cf. 3.241–244n., 3.410–412, 24.775); bitter disappointment with Paris (349–353:
cf. 3.406–409, 3.428–436); at the same time, respect and affection for Hektor
(354–356: cf. 24.762–775; her feelings toward Priam are similar: 3.172, 24.770);
finally, consciousness of the importance of her fate, which will make her the
subject of epic poetry (357 f. [see 356–358n.]; cf. 3.126n.).
340 ἄγε: originally imper. of ἄγω; an ossified form used as a particle, lends weight to orders.
341 ἠ(έ): ‘or’. — ὀΐω: with no difference in meaning from the mid. ὀΐομαι/οἶμαι (R 23).
342 φάτο: impf. of φημί; mid. with no difference in meaning from the act. (R 23).
128 Iliad 6
In the view of some interpreters, Helen is portrayed here as disingenuous or at least

calculating: she is using negative statements about herself to try to gain sympathy,
particularly from Hektor (Wilamowitz 1916, 309; Hohendahl-Zoetelief 1980, 30–32;
Worman 2001, 22–30; 2002, 47–55; Graziosi/Haubold, Introd. 41 f. and nn. on 344–348,
345, 354–356). But clear textual signals for this interpretation are lacking; see Latacz
(1987) 1994, 122 f.; 2007, 98 f.; Roisman 2006, 28; finding a middle ground: Blondell
2010 (esp. 10 ff. vs. 20 ff.: self-reproach as a rhetorical strategy – yet still sincere and
justified). Further bibliography on the character of Helen: Reichel loc. cit. 264 n. 1; more
recent bibliography in Worman and Blondell loc. cit.
344 Brother by marriage to me, who am a nasty bitch: reprised in the form of
a ring-compositionP at 355 f. – ‘dog’/‘bitch’ and ‘dog-eyed’ are common insults
in Homeric epic (see 1.159n. and Stoevesandt 2004, 319 n. 953, with biblio-
graphy); commonly used in reference to shameless behavior, in the case of
women often in the sexual sphere: aside from here and 356, also in episodes
of self-incrimination by Helen at 3.180 (see ad loc.), Od. 4.145; cf. also Od.
8.319 (Hephaistos on Aphrodite), 11.424 (Agamemnon on Klytaimestra), 19.154
(Penelope on her disloyal servant women).
δᾶερ: ‘brother-in-law’ (3.180n.). — ἐμεῖο: Use of the gen. of the personal pronoun rather
than the possessive pronoun is still rare in Homer and strongly emphatic: ‘brother-in-
law of mine, the bitch’ (Schw. 2.201). — κακομηχάνοο κρυοέσσης: κακομήχανος ‘mis-
chief-plotting’, limited to character languageP like many evaluative adjectives, occurs
in early epic only here, at 9.257 (Achilleus on ἔρις) and at Od. 16.418 (Penelope address-
ing Antinoos). κρυόεις (from κρύος ‘icy cold’) means ‘that makes one shudder, dread-
ful, horrifying’ (elsewhere an epithet of Ἰωκή: 5.740, Φόβος: 9.2, πόλεμος: 9.64, Hes.
Th. 936, Τάρταρος: ‘Hes.’ Sc. 255); on the use of terms from the semantic field ‘cold’ to
denote things causing fear or dread in general: Zink 1962, 15–30. – Here and at 9.64,
the manuscripts offer the form ὀκρυόεις (in each case after a gen. in -ου: κακομηχάνου
ὀκρ. and ἐπιδημίου ὀκρ.) which is attested in Hellenistic poetry as well; perhaps under
the influence of the similar sounding adj. ὀκριόεις ‘jagged’, this form must have de-
veloped in a phrase like the present one through erroneous separation of words, at a
time when the gen. ending in the 2nd declension was still uncontracted (-οο rather then
-ου): see Beekes, Frisk and DELG s.v. ὀκρ., LfgrE s.v. κρ. (each with bibliography). When
this happened is disputed. West (following Payne Knight and others) reconstructs -οο
κρυοέσσης for the Homeric period (the error would thus have arisen in the post-Homeric
written transmission); but the neologism ὀκρυόεις may also derive from an aural error
in the pre-Homeric tradition of singers, and may already have been established in the
time of the poet of the Iliad (Reece 1999/2000, 198; 2009, 81–88; cf. G 45 n. 24: the gen.
in -οο is probably pre-Homeric; cf. also 61n.). In any case, the oldest texts (HT 6) using Ο
for ο and ō (ου) offered ΚΑΚΟΜΗΧΑΝΟΟΚΡΥΟΕΣΣΗΣ (West 2001, 29 n. 81).
344 ἐμεῖο: = ἐμοῦ (R 14.1, ↑). — κακομηχάνοο: gen. sing. (↑).

Commentary 129
345–348 On the death-wish motif, see 3.173n. and the examples collected at
Vagnone 1982, 37 f., and Worman 2001, 24 f. At the same time, Helen’s wish
to have died immediately after being born recalls the familiar topos ‘if only
I had never been born’ (22.481: Andromache; Od. 8.312: Hephaistos; simi-
larly Achilleus Il. 18.86 ff.; on parallels in Semitic literature, West 1997, 368).
Helen here imagines being caught up in a whirlwind that deposited her in the
mountains (i.e. in uninhabited wilderness [LfgrE s.v. ὄρος 806.65 ff., 808.28 ff.]:
a traditional location for exposing children [Kirk]) or into the sea; similarly
Penelope at Od. 20.63–79 (equating the whirlwinds with the Harpies); cf. also
Od. 4.727 and 1.241 = 14.371 (LfgrE s.v. θύελλα 1073.18 ff.).
345 2nd VH ≈ Od. 19.355. — ὥς … ὄφελ(ε): ὄφελε is formally an aor. of ὀφείλω ‘owe’ (in
this original meaning at e.g. 11.688: πόλεσι γὰρ Ἐπειοὶ χρεῖος ὄφειλον ‘for the Epeians
owed a debt to many’). Over the course of time, ‘the verb developed a function similar
to a mood as it came to mark counterfactual wishes «if only …»’ (Allan 2013, 3; in de-
tail on the development of the meaning of the word, loc. cit. 11–30; cf. also 1.353n. with
older bibliography). This is here (as elsewhere) underlined by use of ὡς introducing the
wish (Schw. 2.345 f.; Chantr. 2.228; cf. 3.173n.). On the distribution of impf. ὄφελλον/
ὤφελλον and aor. ὄφελον/ὤφελον, see 350n. — ἤματι τῷ, ὅτε: a formulaic phrase,
elsewhere always at VB (2.351n.); ‘the expression singles out a crucial moment in one’s
life or that of the community, e.g. 2.351–2, 8.475–6, 22.359–60’ (Graziosi/Haubold). —
ὅτε … πρῶτον: ‘as soon as’ (like Lat. cum primum); cf. 1.6n. — τέκε μήτηρ: a VE for-
mula (5x Il., 5x Od., 1x h.Bacch.; metrical variant: γείνατο μήτηρ, see 1.280n.). Homeric
epic mentions Leda as the mother of Helen (Od. 11.298 ff. in combination with Il. 3.238);
other sources name the goddess Nemesis (Cypr. fr. 10 f. West et al.) or a nameless daugh-
ter of Okeanos (‘Hes.’ fr. 24 M.-W.).
346 1st VH ≈ Od. 20.64; 2nd VH ≈ Od. 10.54. — ἀνέμοιο θύελλα: an inflectible VE formula
(nom./dat./acc. sing.; in total 2x Il., 3x Od., 1x Hes.).
347 πολυφλοίσβοιο θαλάσσης: a VE formula (1.34n.).
348–349 τάδε ἔργα … | … τάδε γ’ ὧδε … κακά: By using deictic pronouns (‘these things
here … this evil here’) and ὧδε (‘such [as can be seen now]’), Helen emphasizes that the
terrible consequences of her behavior are evident: outside, a battle is raging – in which,
she implies in what follows, Paris, as jointly responsible for the disaster, should at least
be participating with full commitment.
348 ἀπόερσε: ‘would have torn away’; ind. preterite (without modal particle) with un-
real meaning, since the dependent clause is part of a counterfactual wish. Likewise 351
(ὃς εἴδη), Od. 1.218 (Schw. 2.353; Chantr. 2.249). – On the form, see Frisk, DELG s.v.
345 μ(ε): to be taken with προφέρουσα (346). — ἤματι τῷ: ≈ ἐκείνῳ τῷ ἤματι (ἤματι from ἦμαρ
‘day’; on the demonstrative function of ὅ, ἥ, τό, R 17).
348 πάρος (+ inf.): ‘before’. — τάδε (ϝ)έργα: on the prosody, R 4.3.
130 Iliad 6
ἀπούρας (s-aorist of a root ϝερ- ‘tear, grasp’?); differently, Forssman 1980, 192, followed
by Beekes s.v. ἀπόερσε (of the root u̯ert, cf. Lat. ā-uert-ere).
349 the gods: cf. 282b n., 356–358n., 357–358n.
τεκμήραντο: ‘have (pre)determined, imposed’, from τέκμωρ ‘fixed mark, goal; sign’;
‘cf. Russian metit' «mark», nametit' «plan, intend» (related to μῆτις, Lat. mētior),
from meta «characteristic», primeta «feature, sign»’: LfgrE s.v. τεκμαίρομαι 359.25 ff.
(transl.).
350–353 I wish I [had been] were the wife of a better man than this …: an
implicit battle paraenesis (cf. 348–349n.) directed at Paris, which appears all
the harsher since Helen is speaking slightingly, in the 3rd person (cf. three-
way conversationP), of the person present. Like Hektor (cf. 3.41 f., 6.523 ff.), she
suffers as a consequence of the fact that Paris is causing general offence by his
behavior while not seeming to care in the least. She herself possesses a distinct
sense for public opinion (cf. 3.241 f., 3.410 ff.) – and so is related to Hektor also
in this regard (441–442n.).
350 ἔπειτ(α): ‘in that case’ (since the first wish has not been fulfilled). ἔπειτα repeatedly
serves to highlight an alternative (Cunliffe s.v.), cf. 13.743, 20.120, 24.356 (with n.), Od.
20.63 (with AH ad loc.). — ὤφελλον: like ὄφελε at 345 (see ad loc.), introduces a contra-
factual wish. Both forms, impf. ὄφελλον/ὤφελλον and aor. ὄφελον/ὤφελον, may intro-
duce contrafactual wishes regarding the present (as here) and the past (as at 345). In the
case of wishes regarding the present, however, a subtle difference may be observed: the
impf. is used for those that remain unfulfilled but are feasible (here and at 1.353, 14.84,
19.200), the aor. for those that are not feasible (e.g. 1.415, 4.315, Od. 1.217): Allan 2013,
22–28. — ἄκοιτις: ‘she who shares the bedstead, wife’ (from α copulative and κοίτη
‘bedstead’: 3.138n.).
351 ὃς εἴδη: i.e. he who would notice the judgement of others and behave accordingly;
similarly Hes. Op. 187 (οὐδὲ θεῶν ὄπιν εἰδότες). οἶδα is often used in reference to per-
sonal attitudes and moral conduct (cf. expressions such as θέμιστα/δίκας εἰδέναι, 5.761,
Od. 3.244, 9.215): ‘Much that we call «character» or «giftedness» is for Homer knowl-
edge of the matters in question and of their proper disposition’ (Fränkel [1951] 1973,
82; cf. LfgrE s.v. 547.36 ff., esp. 549.32 ff.). On the unreal meaning of the preterite, see
348n.; on the spelling εἴδη (without augment), West 1998, XXXIII. — νέμεσίν τε καὶ
αἴσχεα πόλλ’ ἀνθρώπων: The expression demonstrates ‘[t]he close connection be-
tween νέμεσις as public indignation, and αἴσχεα as its expression’ (Yamagata 1994, 234;
on αἴσχεα ‘abuses, reproaches’, cf. 3.242n.); similarly 9.460 δήμου … φάτιν καὶ ὀνείδεα
πόλλ’ ἀνθρώπων.
351 ὃς (ϝ)είδη: on the prosody, R 4.5. — εἴδη: unaugmented preterite of οἶδα (R 16 1; ↑).
Commentary 131
352 Criticism of an individual’s phrénes is common; in such cases, the term pri-

marily denotes the ability to think (‘mind, intellect’: 234n.), but often com-
prises an ethical aspect as well (‘manner of thinking, ethos’: 24.40n.; Berres
2004, 252 f.); cf. e.g. 3.108, 7.359 f. = 12.233 f., 9.377, 14.95 = 17.173, 14.141, 15.128,
17.469 f., 24.40, 24.201 with n., Od. 17.454, 18.215/220, 21.288, Archil. fr. 172.2 f.
West.
οὔτ’ ἂρ νῦν … οὔτ’ ἄρ’ ὀπίσσω: an emphatic polar expressionP; cf. Od. 11.482 f. σεῖο
δ’, Ἀχιλλεῦ, | οὔ τις ἀνὴρ προπάροιθε μακάρτερος οὔτ’ ἄρ’ ὀπίσσω, Thuc. 1.86.2 ἡμεῖς
δὲ ὁμοῖοι καὶ τότε καὶ νῦν ἐσμεν, etc. (Kemmer 1903, 180). — ἔμπεδοι: either ‘(are)
present’ (opposite: φρένες οἴχονται vel sim., cf. 24.201n.) or ‘(are) firm, steadfast’ (op-
posite: φρένες ἠερέθονται, cf. 3.108n.), i.e. ‘prudent’ (AH), ‘consistent’ (Faesi/Franke)
or ‘firmly rooted (in the system of social norms)’ (Bergold 1977, 182; cf. Od. 18.215/220
φρένες ἔμπεδοι/ἐναίσιμοι); see LfgrE s.v. 565.65 ff.
353 τοῦ: thus West following Herwerden, since a gen. object would be expected with
ἐπαυρήσεσθαι (cf. 1.410, 13.733, 15.16 f.); mss.: τῶ. In early Attic texts, ΤΟ was written for
τοῦ as well as τῶ, which could easily lead to erroneous interpretations (West 2001, 21,
23; cf. HT 6 and 291–292n.). Graziosi/Haubold, however, argue in favor of the mss. read-
ing τῶ ‘therefore’ (as at Od. 22.317 and 416; the gen. object may be implied: Od. 17.81).
— ἐπαυρήσεσθαι: ἐπαυρίσκω in the active means ‘participate, enjoy’ (e.g. 18.302, Od.
17.81), ‘come into contact with’ (e.g. 11.573); in the middle with the figurative sense ‘reap
the fruits of, benefit from’ in both a positive sense (13.733: many profit from the mind of
an intelligent man) and a negative one (here and at 1.410, 15.17, Od. 18.107). If the positive
meaning is original, the second sense is ironic (thus 1.410n.; but see Buttmann [1818]
1825, 81 f.; LSJ and Ebeling s.v.; cf. also LfgrE).
354 1st VH = Od. 16.25. — But come now, come in …: Modification of the type-
sceneP ‘visit’ (24.477–478n.), in which someone present notices the person ar-
riving and asks him inside as soon as he steps onto the threshold (e.g. 11.644 ff.,
11.777 ff., 23.201 ff., Od. 1.104 ff.; Arend 1933, 34 ff.; Dickson 1995, 160 ff.). Here,
Hektor is the first to speak (325 ff., element 5 of the type-scene ‘arrival’: Arend
loc. cit. 31; 1.496b–502n.) and remains standing by the door for the entire con-
versation: a further indication of his haste (cf. 117–118n., 237–529n., 264–268n.,
342n., 370n., 390n.; Broccia 1963, 68 f.; cf. also Patroklos’ and Iris’ behavior at
11.648 ff. and 23.205 ff.).
δίφρῳ: 42n.
352 ὀπίσσω: here temporal, ‘afterwards; later, in the future’ (on the -σσ-, R 9.1).
353 τοῦ: neuter of the anaphoric demonstrative pronoun (R 17), gen. object of ἐπαυρήσεσθαι
(↑). — μιν: = αὐτόν (R 14.1).
132 Iliad 6
355 δᾶερ: on the emphatic repetition of the address, cf. 2.284n., 2.362n., 6.429–430n. —
πόνος: 77n. — φρένας ἀμφιβέβηκεν: cf. Od. 8.541 ἄχος φρένας ἀμφιβέβηκεν. On the
notion that emotions envelop a person’s mind or soul, see also 1.103n., 3.442n.; LfgrE
s.v. ἀμφί 665.52 ff.
356–358 An instructive example of double motivationP: although Helen consid-
ers herself and Paris victims of a fate decreed by Zeus (cf. 357–358n.), in the
same breath she talks about the responsibility they both bear for the current
situation (cf. already 344 vs. 349): Lesky (1961) 2001, 194 f.; Roisman 2006,
26 f. – The thought that her fate will be picked up by singers in future genera-
tions is not so much a consolation for her (thus among others Marg [1957] 1971,
21; Collobert 2011, 19, 87) as an additional reason for bitterness – since she
must fear that in this way the memory of her shame will also remain alive (on
shameful and disastrous events as potential topics for future poetry, cf. 2.119n.,
Od. 8.579 f., 21.255, 24.199 ff., also Il. 19.64n.; Maehler 1963, 85; Griffin 1980,
96–98). – By making his characters think about their (positive or negative)
‘posthumous fame’, the narrator simultaneously calls to mind the entire nar-
rative tradition known to his audience, as well as his own work as its most
recent product (schol. bT on 358; Kirk; Scodel 2002, 69); on this type of poetic
self-referentiality, see 2.119n. (with further parallels and bibliography, also on
similar notions in IE and Near Eastern poetry); in addition Bouvier 2002, esp.
54–66, 82–84; Grethlein 2006, 139–151; de Jong 2006, esp. 195–198; 2009,
98 f.; Latacz 2013, 58–60; Graziosi/Haubold on 357–358; NTHS 60–62 with
further bibliography.
356 ≈ 3.100; 2nd VH = 24.28 (see ad loc.). In all three passages, the transmission vacil-
lates between ἀρχῆς and ἄτης (West 2001, 197 f.): in 3.100, ἀρχῆς (complementary to
ἔριδος) should be preferred, whereas ‘here the principle of parallelism favours ἄτης […]
«me, who am a shameless bitch, and Alexander’s losing his head»’ (on ἄτη as – self-
inflicted – delusion, see 1.412n., 19.88n.; Cairns 2012). On the hiatus after Ἀλεξάνδρου,
see 3.100n.
357–358 on whom Zeus set a vile destiny …: On the notion that Zeus doles out
human fate, which is often characterized by misfortune, cf. 24.527 ff. (image
of Zeus’ two storage containers), esp. 24.529–530n. with bibliography; on the
complex relationship between human free will, the gods, fate and the stric-
tures of the epic narrative tradition, see also Janko, Introd. 4–7.
355 σὲ … φρένας ἀμφιβέβηκεν: acc. of the whole and the part (R 19.1). — μάλιστα: to be taken
with σέ.
356 εἵνεκ(α): initial syllable metrically lengthened (R 10.1). — ἐμεῖο κυνός: 344n.
357 οἷσιν ἔπι … θῆκε: = ἐφ’ οἷσιν ἔθηκε or οἷσιν ἐπέθηκε (R 20.2). — ὡς: here final.
Commentary 133
358 ἀοίδιμοι: ‘subject of song’; a Homeric hapaxP, but more common in later literature
(e.g. h.Ap. 299 on the temple of Apollo in Delphi: ἀοίδιμον ἔμμεναι αἰεί).
359 = 263 (see ad loc.).
360–362 On the typical motif ‘refusal of an invitation’ and its significance in
Book 6, see 264–268n. and 237–529n.
360 2nd VH = 18.126. — φιλέουσά περ: ‘although you want to prove your love to me, i.e.
although you mean well’ (AH, transl.). φιλέω sometimes denotes solicitous behavior;
cf. 18.126 (Achilleus addressing Thetis, who wants to hold him back from fighting); in
reference to guest-friendship: 15 (see ad loc.), Od. 15.305, etc. — οὐδέ με πείσεις: a VE
formula (1.132n.); cf. esp. 11.648 and 18.126, 24.219 (a hero rejects an invitation or cannot
be dissuaded from his intention by a woman).
361 1st VH = Od. 15.66. — θυμὸς ἐπέσσυται: on this collocation, cf. 1.173n., 9.42, 9.398, Od.
10.484; here ‘strengthened by ἤδη, meaning that his mind is already made up’ (Kirk).
— ὄφρ’ ἐπαμύνω: on expressions of desire with a final clause (rather than inf.), see
K.-G. 2.8 f.; Chantr. 2.297 f. (AH, Leaf and Kirk compare λελιημένος, ὄφρα … συλήσειε/
ὤσαιτ(ο) at 4.465 f./5.690 f., although ὄφρα there may be dependent on the respective
superordinate verbs).
362 οἳ μέγ’ ἐμεῖο ποθὴν … ἔχουσιν: ‘who miss me greatly’; on the difference between
ποθή ‘longing’ (for an absent person or thing) or ‘lack, want’ (of goods, e.g. Od. 15.514)
and πόθος ‘desire’ (especially sexual), see Kloss 1994, 66 ff.; LfgrE s.vv. On the set motif
‘the troops miss their absent/slain leader’, see 1.240n.; Kloss loc. cit. 71 f., 74 f.
363–368 As at 279–280 (see ad loc.), announcement of two actions that will take
place concurrently; the two strands rejoin at 514 ff. (Rengakos 1995, 17 f.; cf.
503n.).
363–364 Like Helen at 350–353 (see ad loc.), Hektor addresses Paris indirectly in
a sort of three-way conversationP (cf. schol. bT on 363; Nünlist 2009, 321 f.).
363 f. reprise 337 ff. (VE 363 kai autós ‘also himself’ ≈ 338 kai autṓi ‘also to my-
self’: catch-word techniqueP; 364 in implicit reply to 341b): Hektor takes Paris
at his word. — while I am still in the city: Hektor will return to battle at the
same time as his brother, which will have a positive effect on troop morale
(7.1–7); this will also give him time, of course, to realize a private desire be-
360 περ: concessive (R 24.10).

361 ἐπέσσυται: perf. pass. of ἐπισ(σ)εύω ‘drive, urge’: ‘is driven, disposed’. — ὄφρα: final
(R 22.5, ↑).
362 μέγ(α): adv., ‘very’. — ἀπεόντος: = ἀπόντος (R 16.6).
363 ἐπειγέσθω: 3rd sing. imper.
364 κεν: = ἄν (occurs also in final sentences in Homer: R 21.1). — πόλιος: on the declension,
R 11.3.
134 Iliad 6
fore his return to the battlefield – his urgent sense of duty notwithstanding
(365–368n.; Graziosi/Haubold).
365–368 A second unexpected turn (after 280 ff., see ad loc.): Hektor’s visit with
his family was just as unprepared for by Helenos’ speech at 86 ff. as his meet-
ing with Paris had been (Morrison 1992, 63–67). Hektor justifies his wish to
see his wife and child by his sense of his impending death. The encounter thus
gains the character of a final farewell (the fact that Hektor spends another three
nights at home before his death in Book 22 is noticed only by the philologist
keeping a tally: Schadewaldt [1956] 1970, 21–24); the unexpectedly inserted
scene becomes the climax of the entire sequence ‘Hektor in Troy’.
365 καὶ γάρ: γάρ is connective; καί is either used with the meaning ‘also’ or serves – as
at 9.533, 11.698, Od. 7.24, etc. – merely to add a bit of emphasis (‘in fact’): Denniston
108 f. In the first case, it may refer to ἐγών (Schadewaldt 1975: ‘me too’, sc. like Paris)
or οἶκόνδε (‘also to my house’, sc. as now to yours). — οἶκόνδ’ ἐσελεύσομαι: thus the
majority of mss. (on -δε + compound of ἔρχομαι, cf. 86 πόλινδε μετέρχεο: AH); Allen,
Leaf and others prefer the weakly attested v.l. οἶκόνδε ἐλεύσομαι (ἐσελ- would be a later
correction designed to avoid hiatus). Cf. the analogous variants at Od. 1.88 and 17.52. —
οἶκόνδ(ε): like οἴκαδε, always in reference to one’s own house (as opposed to δόμονδε
at Od. 24.220 ‘into the house’ [of Laertes]; where one’s own house is meant, a clarifying
possessive pronoun is added [VE formula ὅνδε δόμονδε]).
366 ≈ 5.688. — οἰκῆας … υἱόν: οἰκ. means either ‘housemates’ in general (from whom
wife and child would again be singled out: Gschnitzer 1976, 16 f.) or ‘servants’ (cf. Od.
7.224 f. and see LfgrE s.v. [with detailed discussion]). In the latter case, the mention of the
servants may be interpreted as a ‘poetic anticipation of events’, since at 375 ff. Hektor
encounters first the female servants and only later Andromache and Astyanax (LfgrE s.v.
562.32 ff., transl.); the expression may also be conditioned by formulaic language (Kirk
with reference to 6.95 = 276 = 310: VB οἰκ. rather than ἄστυ, which would be inappropri-
ate in terms of content here; the inflectible phrase ἄλοχός τε φίλη after caesura A 4 is
also formulaic; followed by further kin-relationships, as here: 4.238, 5.688, 17.28, 18.514,
24.710). — νήπιον: ‘small, helpless’ (2.311n.).
367–368 An initial vague prolepsisP of Hektor’s death; more will follow, gradually
increasing in certainty: 407 ff., 431 ff., 447 ff., 501 f. (with echoes of the pres-
ent scene, see ad loc.), 7.52 (‘not yet’), etc. – culminating in explicit announce-
ments by Zeus and the narrator (15.64 ff./612 ff. [athetized by West], 16.800,
17.207 f., 22.208 ff.): ‘Homer frequently takes pains to build up for the reader
an atmosphere of foreboding long before definite foreknowledge of the event
365 ἐγών: = ἐγώ. — ὄφρα (ϝ)ίδωμαι: on the prosody, R 4.3. — ἴδωμαι: on the middle, R 23.
366 οἰκῆας(ς) ἄλοχον: on the prosody, M 4.6 (note also the caesura). — οἰκῆας: on the declen-
sion, R 11.3, R 3.
Commentary 135
is given. The gradual development from vague foreshadowing to definite fore-

telling serves to create in the mind of the reader an ever increasing anticipa-
tion’ (Duckworth 1933, 53; see also Schadewaldt [1956] 1970, 25–36; Broccia
1956/57; Reichel 1994, 182–191; de Jong 2007, 24 f., 29). – In his thoughts re-
garding his own fate and that of Troy, Hektor himself vacillates between dark
foreboding and confident hope of victory; see 475–481n., 526–527a n.
367 γάρ τ’ οἶδ(α): The expression γάρ τε is unusual in non-generalizing statements
(Denniston 530 f.; Ruijgh 737 f.); as is occasionally the case in our text of Homer, τ’ is
likely used here metri gratia as a replacement for lost initial ϝ of the next word (cf. Od.
10.190, 17.78, etc.; Ruijgh 422 with n. 62). Such instances were once generally ascribed
to later modifications of the text (Wackernagel [1878] 1979, 1542 f.; Chantr. 1.119,
2.343), leading Allen and others here to prefer the – less well attested – v.l. γὰρ οἶδα;
but τ’ instead of ϝ may have already arisen in the Homeric period (Ruijgh 121, 422). —
ὑπότροπος: 6x in early epic, always predicative; 501, Od. 20.332, 21.211 and v.l. 22.35 in
conjunction with ἵκομαι, as here; always in reference to the return home (on ὑπο- ‘back’,
cf. ὑποστρέφω 3.407 etc.): LfgrE s.v.
368 the gods … at the hands of the Achaians: see 228n.
ὑπὸ χερσί: often in connection with δάμνημι (2.860n.); on ὑπό + dat. with the meaning
‘under the influence of’ (≈ instrumental), see Schw. 2.526, Chantr. 2.140; Aliffi 2002.
— δαμόωσιν: fut. of δάμνημι (*δαμάουσιν > δαμῶσιν > δαμόωσιν): Schw. 1.784, Chantr.
1.448; on the diectasis, G 48.
369–502 Hektor does not find Andromache at home, since she has gone to the
tower by the Skaian gate out of concern for him. He therefore hurries back to
the gate himself and comes upon her there along with their young son Astyanax.
Andromache implores him not to continue to risk his life in open battle. He re-
ciprocates her feelings of love and concern, but explains that his sense of duty
compels him to fight. Astyanax’ childlike fear of his father’s crest lifts the somber
mood for a moment; in the end, however, Andromache takes leave of her hus-
band in tears and on her return home begins mourning him together with her
servants.
The section contains elements of a ring-compositionP (Lohmann 1988, 46):
A Hektor arrives at his house and speaks to the female servants (370–389)
B Encounter between the spouses, Hektor smiles at Astyanax (390–404)
C Dialogue Hektor – Andromache (405–465)
B´ Helmet-scene, his parents smile at Astyanax (466–484a)
367 σφιν: = αὐτοῖς (R 14.1). — αὖτις: = αὖθις.

368 ἦ(ε): ‘or’.
136 Iliad 6
A´ Hektor sends Andromache home; her lament together with the female
servants (484b–502)
‘The poet’s direction has the number of individuals progressively dimin-
ish and increase again, from the group scenes in the framing sections […] to
the intimate dialogue in the center’ (Lohmann loc. cit., transl.). – Close the-
matic references connect the passages with scenes from Books 22 and 24: like
Andromache here, Hektor’s parents unsuccessfully try to keep him away from
battle at 22.33 ff.; Andromache’s ‘searching with foreboding’ at 372 ff. and
her premature lament at 499 ff. contrast with her ‘unsuspecting absence’ at
22.437 ff. (Hölscher 1955, 389, transl.), whereas her growing fear at 22.447 ff.
corresponds to her mood in Book 6 (cf. 388–389n., 407n.); both Andromache
herself (407 ff.) and Hektor (454 ff.) anticipate her fate as a widow, which she
mourns at 22.477 ff. and at 24.725 ff.; at the same time, Hektor’s hopeful prayer
for Astyanax at 476 ff. presents a sharp contrast to Andromache’s visions of the
future at 22.484 ff. and 24.726 ff. More details in Schadewaldt (1935) 1997, 141;
(1956) 1970, 36–38; Kakridis (1956a) 1971, 71–73; Segal 1971a; Lohmann 1988,
63–74; Reichel 1994, 272–274; Gagliardi 2006, esp. 11–16; Grethlein 2006,
248–253; Louden 2006, 30–34; cf. also 237–529n.
369–389 That Hektor does not encounter Andromache at home is unexpected:
he had anticipated her presence there as a matter of course (365 f.; cf. 490 ff.:
domestic chores as the typical responsibilities of women). The moment of sur-
prise is emphasized even more in that the negation in 371 (see ad loc.) repre-
sents a marked deviation from the standard course of the type-sceneP ‘arrival’
(1.496b–502n.): the character (1) sets off (369), (2) arrives (370), (3) does not
encounter the character sought (371–374; reasons for this offered in place of
the usual description of the situation), (4) approaches (375a) and (5) begins
to speak (with the female servants rather than Andromache: 375b–380); on
this, see schol. bT on 371; Arend 1933, 31–34; Kakridis (1937) 1949, 52; de Jong
(1987) 2004, 65. Three further negations with a signal effect follow at 383 f.
(see 383–385n.): none of the obvious assumptions regarding Andromache’s
whereabouts apply (even though her worried walk toward the city gates is not
entirely surprising after the introductory scene at 237 ff.: Tsagarakis 1990,
112). While Hektor fruitlessly searches for his wife in her domestic sphere,
she has gone to the ramparts to spot him within his sphere on the battlefield:
‘The same longing sends them across and past each other and apart’, delaying
their meeting; only through this suspenseful retardationP does the encounter
achieve its full impact (Schadewaldt [1935] 1997, 131; cf. also Maronitis [1990]
2004, 34).
369 = 116 (see ad loc.), 17.188; 1st VH ≈ 1.428, etc. (see ad loc.).
Commentary 137
370 = 497; ≈ Od. 17.28, 17.85, 17.178, 24.362; 1st VH ≈ 3.145, 5.367, Od. 15.193. — αἶψα δ’
ἔπειθ’ / ἔπειτ(α): a formulaic phrase (8x Il., 2x Od., 2x ‘Hes.’), although significantly
less common than the metrically equivalent formula αὐτὰρ ἔπειτ(α) (32x Il., 20x Od.,
4x Hes., 5x h.Hom.): Hektor’s haste is again emphasized (Graziosi/Haubold; cf. 237–
529n., 354n.). — δόμους εὖ ναιετάοντας: an inflectible VE formula (1x gen., otherwise
acc.; in total 3x Il., 8x Od., 1x h.Hom.). εὖ ναιετ., epithet of δόμος, μέγαρον and πόλις,
means ‘where one lives well’ (a metrical variant of εὖ ναιομεν-, cf. 1.164n.). The intran-
sitive use of ναιετάω (elsewhere ‘inhabit’) is explained in various ways; most likely, this
is a case of a ‘misplaced’ use of the participle, like English ‘dining establishment’ for
‘establishment where dining takes place’, French ‘café chantant (singing café)’ for ‘café
where singing takes place’ (analogous: thé dansant); occasionally transferred from the
participle to finite forms as well (ναιετάω ‘be inhabited, be situated’ at 4.45, Od. 4.177,
9.23; likewise ναίω at Il. 2.626 [see ad loc.]): Frisk s.v. ναίω with reference to Debrun-
ner 1944; LfgrE s.v. ναιετάω; on the change from transitive to intransitive, cf. also
149n.
371 failed to find: Similar is Od. 5.81 (vs. 5.58), 9.216 f. (Reece 1993, 131; 369–389n.
with bibliography); in contrast, cf. the typical course of the scene at 6.321 f.
(with n.) etc. — Andromache: here mentioned by name for the first time. The
speaking name, ‘fighting with men’, scarcely refers to a trait she herself bears
(despite her strategic advice at 433 ff., against which Hektor implicitly protests
at 492 f.), but rather to the courage of her husband Hektor: mythical figures,
women and children in particular, occasionally bear names alluding to char-
acteristics of their (more notable) kinsmen (402–403n. s.v. Astyanax; LfgrE s.v.
Ἀνδρομάχη; von Kamptz 31–33; cf. Graziosi/Haubold ad loc. with further
bibliography).
λευκώλενον: a generic epithetP of goddesses and women, mostly of high status (who
thus do not have to work outside the house): 1.55n. — ἐν μεγάροισιν: i.e. ‘at home’ (like
ἔνδον at 374); cf. 91n., 24.209a n.
372 ξὺν … ἀμφιπόλῳ: sc. with Astyanax’ nurse (τιθήνη: 389, 467). The fact that
Andromache is accompanied by only one servant (rather than two or more, as is usual:
3.143, 22.450/461, Od. 1.331, 6.84, 18.207) contributes to the intimacy of the subsequent
encounter (Kurz 1966, 126). On the term ἀμφίπολος, cf. 323–324n. — εὐπέπλῳ: on the
orthography (εὐ- rather than ἐϋ-), West 1998, XXIV. A generic epithet of women (8x in
370 ἔπειθ’: = ἔπειτα. — δόμους: acc. of direction without preposition (R 19.2); on the plural,
R 18.2. — ναιετάοντας: on the uncontracted form, R 6; on the meaning, ↑.
371 οὐδ(έ): In Homer, connective οὐδέ also occurs after affirmative clauses (R 24.8). — μεγά-
ροισιν: on the declension, R 11.2; on the plural, R 18.2.
372 ἥ: anaphoric demonstrative pronoun (R 17). — ξύν: = σύν (R 20.1). — καὶ ἀμφιπόλῳ: on the
so-called correption, R 5.5. — ἀμφιπόλῳ εὐπέπλῳ: on the bridging of hiatus by non-syllabic ι
(amphipólōy eup.), M 12.2.
138 Iliad 6
early epic, of which 3x in the present scene: the choice of εὔπεπλος rather than the hia-
tus-avoiding τανύπεπλος [3.228n.] is perhaps influenced by the VE formula at 378/383):
LfgrE s.v. On the significance of elaborately made textiles in Homeric society, cf. 90–91n.;
other epithets referring to garments worn by women and goddesses: κροκόπεπλος,
ἑλκεσίπεπλος (441–442n.), βαθύκολπος (24.215n.), βαθύ-/ἐΰ-/καλλίζωνος. – ‘Beautifully/
well dressed’ is also found as an epithet of women in the Rigveda (1.124.7 etc.: West
2007, 84).
373 ≈ 23.106, 2nd VH ≈ Od. 19.119; cf. also Il. 22.427. — on the tower: The tower at
the Skaian gate (237n.) where Hektor and Andromache will meet (392 ff.) pro-
vides a good overview of the battle action; cf. 3.145 ff. (see 3.149n.), 21.526 ff.,
22.25 ff. (tower and gate are mentioned at 22.35/97), 22.405 ff./462 ff. – The
keyword ‘tower’ may evoke for the primary audience Astyanax’ eventual fate
(Anderson 1997, 58): as in Andromache’s premonition at 24.734 ff. (see ad
loc.), the child will be thrown to his death from the top of the tower after the
fall of Troy (Il. parv. fr. 29 West; cf. also 466–473n. and 22.63 f. [with de Jong
on 22.56–76]). — in lamentation, and tearful: ‘Andromache weeps from her
first to her last appearance in the poem. The motif of tears underlies her entire
story’(Monsacré 1984, 160, transl.; see also Segal 1971a, 52; Arnould 1990,
81 f.); cf. 405, 455, 459, 484 (with n.), 496, 499, 22.476, 24.723, 24.745 f. – Both
words (goáō and mýromai) are common in the Iliad in reference to mourning
(LfgrE s.vv.): Andromache anticipates Hektor’s impending death (cf. góos/goáō
at 499 f.; see also 407–465n. with bibliography). On the emphatic synonym
doubling, see 1.160n., 1.196n.
374 ἀμύμονα: 1.92n., 6.22–23n. — τέτμεν: ‘came across’, reduplicated thematic aor.
(Schw. 1.748); perhaps to be associated with the pres. τέμει (hapaxP at 13.707) (thus
Chantr. 1.309, LIV 624, LfgrE s.vv. τέμει and τετμεῖν; more guardedly, Beekes, Frisk
and DELG s.v. τετμεῖν).
375 1st VH ≈ Od. 20.128, 21.124, 21.149, 24.178, 24.493; 2nd VH ≈ Od. 8.433, 16.336, 17.493.
— οὐδόν: may denote the threshold separating interior rooms (Od. 4.680, 4.718, etc.;
LfgrE s.v. 859.6 f.); here likely the one at the entrance to the women’s quarters, where the
female servants are working (AH, Willcock; differently, Graziosi/Haubold: threshold
of the main entrance door, where Hektor turns back once again toward the servants;
in this case, his question directed at them would be portrayed as an ‘afterthought’). —
ἔειπεν: cf. 122n.
373 πύργῳ ἐφεστήκει: ‘stood on the tower’. — γοόωσα: on the epic diectasis, R 8.

374 ἔνδον: ‘inside’ in the sense ‘at home’. — τέτμεν: aor. (↑); on the unaugmented form, R 16.1.
375 ἐπ’ οὐδόν: to be taken with ἔστη. — δμῳῇσιν: on the declension, R 11.1. — ἔειπεν: = εἶπεν.
Commentary 139
376 εἰ δ’ ἄγε … μυθήσασθε: εἰ with the imperative (usually in connection with ἄγε)
functions as an interjection; both the origin of hortative εἰ and its relation to the hom-
onymous conjunction and the wish-particle εἰ (γάρ) / εἴθε are disputed (discussion
of various possibilities in Schw. 2.557; Chantr. 2.274; Dunkel 1985, 63–66; Wakker
1994, 386–391). – ἄγε with the imper. plural, as at 2.331, 8.18, etc. (Leaf; Schw. 2.583);
δ’ is formulaic in this expression (10x Il., 9x Od.; at the beginning of direct speech at
16.667, Od. 12.112, 23.35, as here: Graziosi/Haubold); it likely serves to avoid hiatus. —
νημερτέα: < the privative prefix *n̥ + ἁμαρτάνω (Forssman 1966, 145–149; Beekes 1969,
98–113); like ἀληθέα at 382, it addresses not so much the truth – there is no reason for
Hektor to believe that the servants might be lying to him – as the clarity and accuracy of
the information requested (LfgrE s.v. 363.43 f., 364.32 ff.; Fuchs 1993, 43; cf. also 1.514n.).
377 From caesura A 3 on ≈ 371: ‘Hector’s language is very similar to that of the poet […],
though in his mouth it sounds more ponderous’ (Graziosi/Haubold); this effect is
likely created predominantly by the epithet λευκώλενος, which is more appropriate for
narrator-textP than for character language – as already noted by ancient interpreters of
Homer (schol. bT ad loc.; on this, Nünlist 2009, 120 f., 303). – 2nd VH also ≈ Od. 18.198,
19.60 (on this, Parry [1928] 1971, 98).
378–380 ἠέ … ἠ’ … | ἠ’ …: Questions in three or more parts with anaphora are a popular
poetic stylistic technique (e.g. 10.406 ff.; Sappho fr. 1.15 ff. Voigt; Pind. Ol. 2.2; on this,
Göbel 1933, 29, 48; Tzamali 1996, 65 f.). The third part is here expanded with a relative
clause (similarly Sappho fr. 1; examples from Vedic in Tzamali loc. cit.) according to the
‘law of increasing parts’ (48n.). At the same time, the first two possibilities suggested by
Hektor are closely connected to allow 378 to be interpreted as the first part of a double
question (thus AH and Chantr. 2.11 [who read ἠέ … ἢ … ἦ], Schw. 2.566; on the textual
variants, see app. crit. and Schw. loc. cit.). — ἐς γαλόων … | … ἐς Ἀθηναίης: sc. δόμον
or νηόν (but cf. also 47n.); on the form Ἀθηναίης, 88n.
378 ≈ 383, 24.769. — γαλόων … εἰνατέρων: differentiated terms for sisters-in-law: γαλόῳ
are the husband’s sisters (3.122n.), εἰνατέρες the wives of the husband’s brothers (cf.
iterata and 22.473; thus e.g. Andromache and Helen are εἰνατέρες: schol. D). Inherited
terms from the era of extended families, in the Iliad used only of members of Priam’s
family, post-Homeric only in grammarians and lexicographers and occasionally in late
inscriptions from Asia Minor (from the 1st cent. BC on; likely imitations of Homer: Gates
1971, 34 with 72 n. 2); for details, see LfgrE, Frisk, DELG s.vv.; Gates loc. cit. 23–26;
Wickert-Micknat 1982, 86 f.; Mallory/Adams 2006, 210, 215 f. – For women married
into a foreign city – particularly for Andromache, whose blood relatives are now dead
(413 ff.) – the husband and his kin are the closest family members.
376 εἰ δ’ ἄγε: emphatic introduction of the imper. (cf. 340n.; ↑). — νημερτέα: acc. obj. (neut. pl.)
or adv.; on the uncontracted form, R 6.
377 πῇ ἔβη: on the hiatus, R 5.7. — μεγάροιο: on the declension, R 11.2.
378 ἐς: = εἰς (R 20.1). — ἠ’ εἰνατέρων: on the hiatus, R 5.1.
140 Iliad 6
379–380 ≈ 384–385. — to the house of Athene: on the cult of Athene in Troy, see
86–101n. — where … | … propitiate: reference to the ongoing ritual scene that
the narrator at 312 had consigned to a uniform ‘background’ action; see 312n.
and cf. 1.390n.
ἔνθά περ ἄλλαι: an inflectible formula at VE and after caesura A 3 (nom. pl. of all gen-
ders; in total 4x Il., 4x Od., 2x Hes.). — ἐϋπλόκαμοι: ‘fair-tressed’, a generic epithetP of
women of all social levels and of goddesses (42x in early epic); forms a semantic field
along with καλλιπλόκαμος (10x in early epic), λιπαροπλόκαμος (only at 19.126 [see ad
loc.] and 1x Od. as a v.l.), ἠΰκομος (51x) and καλλίκομος (5x) (LfgrE; in general on epi-
thets describing female beauty: 1.143n.). — δεινὴν θεόν: δεινός is frequently used in
reference to deities (31x in early epic, see LfgrE s.v. 236.40 ff.); it usually portrays them
as intimidating and as – potentially or actually – menacing (e.g. 16.788 f., 17.210 f., Od.
12.322 f., Hes. Th. 934 f.), although occasionally also as powerful protectors and aides
(e.g. Il. 18.394 f., Od. 7.40 f.). At times, both aspects are active (deities as simultaneously
aides to one party and dangerous opponents of another: 4.514, 5.839, Hes. Th. 669 f.,
etc.; figures such as Kalypso and Kirke: Od. 7.245 f./254 ff., 10.135 f., 11.6 ff., etc.); thus
probably here as well: the Trojan women hope for Athene’s assistance as ‘protectress of
the city’ (305), but at the same time Hektor’s ominous visions of the future (367 f., 447 ff.)
suggest that he at least suspects the goddess’ true attitude toward Troy (cf. 96–101n.
end).
381 housekeeper: The Greek word tamíē denotes an (enslaved) servant in a lead-
ing position (likely related to tameín ‘to cut up’ [19.44n.]: charged among other
matters with managing and distributing provisions); as the ‘head maid’ she
naturally comes to the fore here as the spokesperson (LfgrE s.v.).
ὀτρηρή: related to ὀτρύνω, thus likely ‘deft, rendering ready service’ (LfgrE); elsewhere
an epithet of θεράπων (1.321 and 4x Od.; additionally 1x Od. adv. ὀτρηρῶς ‘quickly,
rapidly’). – In the Odyssey, ταμίη is instead used with the metrically equivalent epithet
αἰδοίη ‘worthy of honor’ (formulaic verse Od. 1.139 = 4.55 etc., in total 7x), which in the
Iliad is reserved for individuals of high status (Kirk). — πρὸς μῦθον ἔειπεν: a VE for-
mula (2.156n.).
382 2nd VH = Od. 14.125, 17.15, 18.342, h.Cer. 121. — ἐπεί …: on the absence of an apodosis
(here approximately: ‘thus I will inform you’), K.-G. 1.51; cf. 334n. — ἀληθέα: a metrical
variant of νημερτέα at 376 (see ad loc.; Kirk on 381–385).
379 ἐξοίχεται: ‘has gone out’ (pres. with perf. sense). — περ: emphasizes ἔνθα, ‘where indeed’
(R 24 10).
380 ἱλάσκονται: durative (‘they are in the process of …’) or conative.
381 τόν: anaphoric demonstrative pronoun (R 17). — ὀτρηρὴ ταμίη: on the -η after -ρ- and -ι-,
R 2. — πρὸς … ἔειπεν: so-called tmesis (R 20.2); governs the two acc. objects τόν and μῦθον.
382 ἄνωγας: perfect with present sense, ‘you order’.
Commentary 141
383–385 ≈ 378–380: The servant responds in the negative to Hektor’s suppo-

sitions one after another; this creates a kind of priamel, strongly emphasiz-
ing the subsequent, correct answer (‘not a, not b, but rather c’: Race 1982,
39 with n. 18). Similarly 1.65/93 f. (see 1.93n.), 16.36 f./50 ff., Od. 2.30 ff./42 ff.,
11.172 f./198 ff., 11.398 ff./406 ff., 16.95 ff./114 ff.; on this, see Arend 1933, 13–17;
Kakridis 1949a, 108–120; West 1997, 198 f., and 2007, 107 f. (all three with ref-
erences to parallels in other poetic traditions: Ugaritic, Hittite, Old English,
Serbo-Croatian, modern Greek, etc.); cf. also 6.450–465n.
386–389 The information, provided earlier in the narrator-textP (372 f.), is re-
peated in the servant’s speech, since it has significance for the communication
on the characterP level as well; similarly 1.208 f. ~ 1.195 f., 13.256–258 ~ 13.156–
168/247 f., 13.780–783 ~ 13.761–764, 18.184 ~ 18.168 (de Jong [1987] 2004, 218 f.).
At the same time, the servant’s ‘refocalization’ manifests itself in a ‘greater de-
gree of emotion’ (especially 389a vs. 373b; similarly 13.769–773 vs. 13.758–760,
16.516b–521a vs. 16.510–512: Di Benedetto [1994] 1998, 60–63, quotation from
p. 60 [transl.]), and the justification for Andromache’s conduct via news of the
plight of the Trojan army – portrayed in a rhetorical antithesis in 387 – adds
new information (completing analepsisP).
387 κράτος: repeatedly used with the meaning ‘predominance, superiority’ in relation to
actual battle situations; e.g. 1.509 (see ad loc.), 11.319, 17.613, 17.623 (LfgrE s.v. 1527.64 ff.).
388–389 like a woman | gone mad: literally ‘like a raging woman’ (maino-
ménēi); reprised at 22.460, where Andromache runs to the city walls ‘like a
maenad’ (mainádi ísē), fearful – justly this time – that Hektor may have been
killed (on the connections between Books 6 and 22, see 369–502n.). As if in
a Dionysian frenzy, Andromache is ‘beside herself’ (cf. Bierl 1991, 228–230:
Dionysian imagery is common in expressions of excessive emotion [attesta-
tions from Attic tragedy]; two examples for similar imagery in Akkadian liter-
ature in West 1997, 369). On possible further implications of the comparison,
see Arthur 1981, 30 (Andromache is acting like a maenad by leaving her own
domestic sphere); similarly Seaford 1994, 332 f.; Gagliardi 2006, 16 ff.; also
Tsagalis 2008, 1–29 (a somewhat speculative attempt to uncover intertextual
connections between Iliad 6 and a rival tradition of epic poetry concerning
Boeotian Thebes); further bibliography on Dionysos and Dionysian elements
in the Iliad: 132n.
386 οὕνεκ(α): crasis for οὗ ἕνεκα (R 5.3), ‘because’.

389 μαινομένῃ (ϝ)εικυῖα: on the prosody, R 4.4. — φέρει … ἅμα: ‘brings at the same time’ (by
accompanying her), ‘carries after her’.
142 Iliad 6
388 ἀφικάνει: ‘is on her way’ (LfgrE s.v. ἱκάνω 1179.35 f.); alternatively with perf. sense
(as at 14.43, Od. 14.159: AH, Leaf), where δή implies that this is an obvious assump-
tion: ‘must have arrived’ (Kirk; cf. Sicking/Ophuijsen 1993, 82, 140–151). The doubts
directed at the authenticity of the verse by West 2001, 198 – the servant is in no position
to know that Andromache is just arriving at the city walls or what psychological state
she is in – are uncompelling.
390 and Hektor hastened from his home: on Hektor’s haste as a leitmotif, see
237–529n., 354n.
ἦ: with explicit designation of the subject only here and at Od. 3.337, 22.292 (to clarify
change of subject), Il. 22.77 (AH, Leaf). — γυνὴ ταμίη: on collocations of this type,
314b–315n.
391 ἐϋκτιμένας: 13n.
392 εὖτε: usually asyndetic at the beginning of a sentence in Homer (Schw. 2.660 f.;
Chantr. 2.254).
393 Σκαιάς: strongly emphasized by hyperbaton and its position in enjambment at VB; the
Skaian gate (237n.) marks the border between city and battlefield, where husband and
wife may meet for a moment, before they must each return to their own sphere (490 ff.):
Graziosi/Haubold ad loc. and Introd. 45. — ἔμελλε: ‘should, had to’ (sc. after the con-
versation with Andromache: Kirk; cf. Basset 1979, 52); not ‘was about to’ (implying that
Hektor had almost returned to battle without seeing Andromache: thus, among others,
Willcock; Schadewaldt [1935] 1997, 131; Morrison 1992, 67): since the servant has
told Hektor precisely where to look for Andromache, and since Paris has not yet caught
up with him, such a change of mind after 365 ff. would be difficult to explain.
394–399 Via information regarding Andromache’s ancestry, the narratorP pre-
pares the ground for the characterP’s own words at 413 ff. (Lohmann 1988, 41;
Richardson 1990, 41 f.; similarly e.g. 11.122 ff./138 ff., 21.34 ff./54 ff. and 74 ff.:
de Jong [1987] 2004, 89 f.). As the audience knows from 1.366 ff. and 2.691,
Andromache’s native city, Thebe, together with Lyrnessos, was destroyed by
Achilleus (cf. 1.366n.). The fate of these cities and their inhabitants forms a
leitmotif in the Iliad (Zarker [1965] 1987): Chryseïs (1.369) and Andromache’s
mother (6.425 f.) were captured in Thebe, Briseïs in Lyrnessos (2.689 f., 19.59 f.);
in addition, spoils from Thebe are mentioned at 9.186 ff. (a lyre), 16.152 ff.
390 ἦ: 3rd sing. impf. of ἠμί ‘say’. — ῥα: = ἄρα (R 24.1). — ὃ … Ἕκτωρ: ὅ is demonstrative (R 17),
with Ἕκτωρ in apposition. — ἀπέσσυτο: root-aor. of ἀποσεύομαι ‘hurry away’.
391 αὖτις: = αὖθις. — κατ’ ἀγυιάς: ‘down the streets’ (Hektor’s house is situated on the acropo-
lis).
392 εὖτε: ‘as’ (R 22.2). — μέγα (ϝ)άστυ: on the prosody, R 4.3.
393 τῇ: ‘where’ (demonstrative of πῇ, here relative: R 14.5). — διεξίμεναι: = διεξιέναι (on the
form, R 16.4). — πεδίονδε: on the suffix -δε, R 15.3.
Commentary 143
(Achilleus’ horse Pedasos) and at 23.826 ff. (a lump of iron that Eëtion used to
throw in the manner of a discus). Like Briseïs (19.291 ff.), Andromache has lost
almost all the members of her family at the hands of Achilleus (413 ff.); the fate
of slavery, which she initially evaded because she was already married in Troy
at the time her native city fell (cf. 22.471 f.), still awaits her: Thebe’s destruction
anticipates Troy’s ruin (cf. 19.291–296n.; Reinhardt 1961, 61 f.; Zarker loc. cit.
151; Taplin 1986, 18 f.).
At the same time, the passage has the effect of increasing suspense: the meeting be-
tween husband and wife, expected immediately after ἐναντίη ἦλθε θέουσα, is delayed
once more by several verses (retardationP; Graziosi/Haubold). Stylistically, the pas-
sage is characterized by two traits found mainly in spoken language that hint at the
‘oral background’ of the Iliad (Tsagalis 2004, 123 n. 337, with bibliography; Bakker
[1999] 2005, 48–52; Kirk): (a) ‘cumulative technique’: the repetition of names in
progressive enjambmentP aids the addition of new information (epanalepsis 395 f.:
Ἠετίωνος, | Ἠετίων, ὅς …; similarly 396 f.: ὑπὸ Πλάκῳ ὑληέσσῃ, | Θήβῃ Ὑποπλακίῃ …);
(b) ring-compositionP (394/399: ἔνθ’ ἄλοχος … ἐναντίη ἦλθε / ἥ οἱ ἔπειτ’ ἤντησ(ε);
395/398: θυγάτηρ … Ἠετίωνος / τοῦ περ δὴ θυγάτηρ; 396/397: ὑπὸ Πλάκῳ …, | Θήβῃ
Ὑποπλακίῃ).
394 2nd VH = 15.88; cf. 54 (1st VH). — πολύδωρος: an epithet of ἄλοχος (here and at
22.88, Od. 24.294), ‘richly endowed’ or ‘bringing many gifts’; whether in reference to
the groom’s bridal gifts (cf. 22.471 f.), the dowry provided by the parents (cf. 9.147 f., Od.
1.277 f. = 2.196 f.), or both (LfgrE with bibliography; Willcock; Heubeck on Od. 24.294),
is unclear. — θέουσα: cf. θέον at 238 (of the Trojan women anxious about their kins-
men).
395–396a 395 = 8.187; a four-word verse (1.75n.). — μεγαλήτορος: 283n. — Ἠετίωνος, |
Ἠετίων, ὅς: on the epanalepsis, cf. 153–154n. The conspicuous nom. Ἠετίων (rather
than repetition of the gen., as at 21.86, 2.850 ≈ 21.158) is usually explained as an at-
tractio inversa (attraction of the antecedent to the case of the relative pronoun, as at
14.75 f., 14.371 f., etc.: Chantr. 2.237 f., AH, Leaf, Kirk and others; an attempt to explain
the development of the phenomenon on the basis of the present passage in Jacquinod
1996). Differently, West 1965, 139, and Slings 1994, 423 f. (cf. the objections to an inter-
pretation as attractio inversa in Wackernagel [1920/24] 2009, 79 f.): apposition with
anacolouthon, as at Od. 1.50 f. νήσῳ ἐν ἀμφιρύτῃ, ὅθι τ’ ὀμφαλός ἐστι θαλάσσης, | νῆσος
δενδρήεσσα: ‘The tendency to revert to the nominative is a widespread linguistic phe-
nomenon’ (West loc. cit.; attestations from inscriptions and papyri and parallels from
other languages in Havers 1928, 105 ff.), but at Od. 1.50 f. the nom. may also be in appo-
sition to ὀμφαλός (see S. West ad loc.).
394 ἔνθ(α): ‘there’ (introducing the main clause).

144 Iliad 6
396b–397 396b = 2nd VH of 425, 22.479. — underneath wooded Plakos, | in

Thebe below Plakos: Like Lyrnessos (394–399n.), Thebe is among the cities
in Troy’s vicinity that were conquered by Achilleus while Troy itself was being
unsuccessfully besieged (1.366n., 9.328 f.). The name is attested historically:
Hdt. 7.42.1, Xen. Anab. 7.8.7 and others mention a ‘plain of Thebe’ between
Adramyttion (modern Edremit) and Antandros in the southern Troad (2.691n.;
further testimonia in Leaf 1923, 307 f.). Remains of a Bronze Age settlement,
perhaps identifiable as Thebe, were discovered at Mandra Tepe on the north-
western edge of the plain of Edremit (Cook 1973, 267; Kirk). ‘Plakos’ likely re-
fers to the southern foothills of the Ida mountains (Kirk); Demetrios of Skepsis
(fr. 8 Gaede) mentions a village ‘Plakus’ six stades from Thebe (cf. Leaf loc. cit.
322). — Kilikian people: The name ‘Kilikians’ occurs in Homer only here and
at 415, in both cases in relation to the inhabitants of Thebe in the Troad (cf.
Strab. 13.1.7, 13.1.60 [= C 585/611]); they are to be distinguished from the inhabit-
ants of the region of Kilikia in southeastern Asia Minor, which is about 800 km
from Troy and is not mentioned in the Iliad (the geographical area from which
the Trojan allies come only reaches as far as Lykia: 2.876 f.).
ὑληέσσῃ: a generic epithetP, largely of mountain ranges and mountainous islands (e.g.
21.449: Ida; 13.12: Samos; Od. 1.246, 9.24, etc.: Zakynthos). — ἄνδρεσσιν ἀνάσσων: a VE
formula (= 17.308; ἄνδρεσσιν ἄνακτα: 5.546, 13.452; on such modifications of formulae,
see Hoekstra 1965, esp. 55).
398 ἔχεθ’ Ἕκτορι: ἔχω in early epic may be used in the sense ‘have as wife’ (3.123n.); in
the passive only here (perhaps to avoid frequent change of subject at 394–399: Jankuhn
1969, 78; in addition, the passive construction allows the responsion between 395 and
398 [2x θυγάτηρ after caesura A 4]: suggestion by Führer). On the dat. of interest with
the passive, see Schw. 2.149 f.; Chantr. 2.72 f.; George 2005, 51–60. — χαλκοκορυστῇ:
199n.
399 2nd VH ≈ 22.461, Od. 6.84, 19.601.
400–403 Introduction of Astyanax in preparation for his role at 466 ff. The emo-
tionally colored description of the child at 400 f. may be focalizedP by Hektor
(de Jong 1987, 108; Graziosi/Haubold; skeptical: Kullmann 2002, 668).
397 Θήβῃ Ὑποπλακίῃ: locative dat. without preposition (R 19.2). — Κιλίκεσσ’ ἄνδρεσσιν: on the
declension, R 11.3.
398 τοῦ περ δὴ θυγάτηρ: ‘the very one whose daughter’ (on περ, R 24.10). — ἔχεθ’ Ἕκτορι: ‘was
married to Hektor’ (properly pass., ‘was held by’ [ἔχεθ’ = ἔχετο]; see ↑).
399 ἥ (ϝ)οι: on the prosody, R 4.4. — ἥ: anaphoric demonstrative pronoun (R 17). — οἱ: = αὐτῷ
(R 14.1). — ἔπειτ(α): ‘there’, points back to 394 f. — ἅμα: governs αὐτῇ. — κίεν: ‘went’, 3rd sing.
preterite of a defective verb.
Commentary 145
400 κόλπῳ: cf. 136n. — ἀταλάφρονα: a Homeric hapaxP; etymology and meaning are
unclear. Most likely ‘a spur of the moment invention on the basis of ἀταλὰ φρονέοντες’
(18.567), approximately ‘cheerful, (childishly) playful, lively’, perhaps also ‘delicate,
spoiled’ (related to ἀτιτάλλω ‘rear, coddle’): LfgrE s.v. (transl.) with bibliography
and discussion of additional possibilities. — νήπιον αὔτως: ≈ 22.484, 24.726 (there
Andromache about Astyanax; here the designation of Astyanax as νήπιος, underlining
the helplessness of the little child [366n.], foreshadows Andromache’s appeal at 407 ff.,
‘as if the narrator, in prolepsis, were responding to the appeal of one of his most pathetic
characters’: Briand 2011, 197, transl.; cf. also Bonifazi 2012, 288 f.). αὔτως ‘only just’
(K.-G. 1.655; cf. 1.133n.), i.e. ‘no more than an infant’, ‘just a baby’ (Leaf, Willcock),
‘still so small’ (AH); differently LfgrE s.v. αὔτως 1682.54 ff.
401 the [admired] beloved: Elsewhere in early epic, Greek agapētós is used ex-
clusively in direct speech (4x Od. in reference to Telemachos): de Jong 1987,
108; cf. character languageP. — beautiful as a star shining: Entrances of char-
acters are often marked by similes or comparisons (Scott 1974, 38–41). Here
the comparison to a star probably refers to the loveliness emanating from the
child (schol. bT; on light/radiance as a metaphor for ‘beauty’, e.g. 295, 10.547,
14.183/185, h.Ven. 174 f.; of a beloved person also at Od. 16.23 = 17.41 [Eumaios
and Penelope addressing Telemachos: ‘darling light’]: Bremer 1976, 214–221). –
On stars as motifs in similes in general: Fränkel 1921, 47 f.; Scott 1974, 66–68.
402–403 On the double name of Hektor’s son, cf. 9.556 ff. (Kleopatra/Alkyone)
and 3.16n. (Alexandros/Paris). Whether this is an ad hoc invention of the poet
of the Iliad, or whether both names (perhaps originally designating different
sons of Hektor) were specified in the tradition, must remain a matter of specu-
lation. The epic cycle has only ‘Astyanax’, who is killed during the sack of
Troy (373n.); later mythographic sources (first Hellanicus, FGrHist 4 F 31 = fr.
31 Fowler [5th cent. BC]) name a ‘Skamandrios’, who survives the war. If this
version was already known to the poet of the Iliad, he implicitly rejects it here
by identifying ‘Skamandrios’ with ‘Astyanax’: according to his understanding
(20.306), the lineage of Priam was meant to perish completely (Smith 1981,
53–58; cf. also LfgrE s.vv. Ἀστύαναξ and Σκαμάνδριος with bibliography). —
called Skamandrios: after the main river of Troy (Skamandros = Xanthos: 4n.;
also the tutelary god of the city, who in Book 21 is defeated by Hephaistos).
Personal names derived from names of rivers are common, cf. 4.474 ff., 6.21n.,
14.443 ff. In the Iliad, ‘Skamandrios’ occurs only here as the name of Hektor’s
402 τόν: functioning as a relative pronoun (R 14.5). — ῥ’: = ἄρα (R 24 1). — καλέεσκε: frequenta-
tive (-σκ-): R 16.5.
403 ἐρύετο (ϝ)ίλιον: on the prosody, R 4.3.
146 Iliad 6
son; another Trojan with the same name is killed at 5.49 ff. — Astyanax: 3x Il.
(22.500/506 both spoken by Andromache; as here, 22.506 explicitly labels this
a nickname given to the child by the Trojans). ‘Asty-anax’ means ‘city-ruler’,
with the connotation ‘protector’ (cf. below on the etymology of ‘Hektor’): the
defense of the community is the ruler’s main task (cf. 12.318 ff., 16.542; whether
‘protector’ should be taken as the basic meaning of ánax [thus Leumann 1950,
42 f., with bibliography] is disputed: cautiously positive DELG, more guarded
Frisk s.vv. ἄναξ and ἀνακῶς; opposed LfgrE s.vv. ἄναξ 783.26 ff. and Ἀστύαναξ
1461.78 ff.). Children may be named for traits or offices of their fathers (Leaf;
von Kamptz 31 f.; cf. 371n.); e.g. Tele-machos ‘remote-fighter’ (in reference to
Odysseus as archer), Iphi-anassa ‘ruling with might’ (Agamemnon’s daughter,
9.145). Here the naming likely expresses both the Trojans’ gratitude toward
Hektor as their protector and their desire that his son may rule Troy one day
(cf. Hektor’s own wish at 478). — since Hektor alone saved Ilion: similarly
Andromache at 22.507. Hektor is by far the best warrior on the Trojan side; the
Iliad repeatedly creates the impression that the course of battle essentially de-
pends on him, at least as long as his more powerful opponent Achilleus does
not participate, and that Troy’s fate is sealed with his doom: see e.g. 12.37 ff.,
12.462 ff., 14.388 ff., 15.279 f., 22.410 f. (narrator-text); 6.492 f., 13.151 ff., 16.833 ff.
(Hektor on himself); 22.56 ff., 22.507, 24.243 f., 24.499 ff. (see ad loc.), 24.729 f.
(Priam and Andromache); 1.241 ff., 9.351 f., 11.820 f., 22.378 ff. (Achilleus and
Patroklos); cf. de Jong (1987) 2004, 134; van Wees 1996, 15; Hellmann 2000,
156; Stoevesandt 2004, 199 ff. In the Iliad, his name is accordingly linked
with Greek échō in the sense ‘preserve, protect’ (see below). oíos ‘sole, alone’
should of course not be taken literally: for Troy’s defense, Hektor relies on the
active participation of the entire army (cf. 5.472 ff.; on this, Stoevesandt loc.
cit. 285 f., 297; on the significance of the massed army in battle descriptions in
the Iliad generally: Latacz 1977 passim). At the same time, he is indisputably
the best fighter and acknowledged as the chief commander by both the Trojans
and their allies – and thus as the ‘head’ and guarantor of the city’s defense.
καλέεσκε Σκαμάνδριον: The initial double consonant Σκ- does not make position
(M 4.5; Chantr. 1.110). — αὐτὰρ οἱ ἄλλοι: a VE formula (= 19.83, Od. 8.40). — Ἕκτωρ:
The name, already attested in Mycenaean (DMic s.v. e-ko-to), likely originally meant
‘conqueror, victor’ (corresponding to e-ka-no *Ἐχάνωρ ‘conqueror of men’ and others),
related to the IE root *seg̑h- ‘overcome, win’ (cf. Germanic names such as Sigemund,
Sigurd, English Victor: West 2007, 399). In accordance with the development of the
meaning of Greek ἔχω ‘obtain (by force)’ > ‘hold fast; preserve, protect’ (LfgrE s.v. ἔχω
837.32 ff.), Ἕκτωρ is consequently interpreted secondarily as ‘protector’; this is espe-
cially clear in the etymologizing word playP Ἕκτορ … | … πόλιν ἑξέμεν at 5.472 f. (see AH
ad loc.; von Kamptz 261 f.; Meier 1976; Watkins 1998, 208–211; cf. also 24.729b–730n.).
Commentary 147
404 ἤτοι ὃ μέν: a VB formula (16x Il., 3x ‘Hes.’); ἤτοι and μέν are nearly synonymous (cf.
200–202n.); the pleonastic combination may result in emphasis, but in the present ex-
pression is likely mainly metri gratia (Ruijgh [1981] 1996, 523–526).
405 letting her tears fall: cf. 373n.; on the VE formula, 1.413n.; on related formu-
lae, Arnould 1990, 130.
406 = 253 (see ad loc.) etc.
407–496 The dialogue between Hektor and Andromache reveals a fundamen-
tal conflict of values that will also determine the future action of the Iliad.
Andromache implores her husband to no longer risk his life in open battle,
since by losing him she would lose her last remaining – and closest – relative.
Hektor counters with a consideration of public opinion (aidṓs, see 441–442n.)
and the demands of heroic ethics to preserve his and his father’s fame (kléos,
446). Nonetheless, Hektor leaves no doubt that Andromache means more to
him than anyone else (450 ff.). The conflict is multifaceted: (1) Like any hero,
Hektor must decide between the desire to preserve his own life and fame –
usually obtained by an early death, but persisting beyond death (cf. 145–211n.,
point (3), 9.408 ff., 12.322 ff.; Schadewaldt [1935] 1997, 133; Quaglia 1959/60,
167 ff.). (2) As a warrior in a city under siege, he is further subject to tension be-
tween his obligations to his family and to the community as a whole: if he risks
his life defending the community, his exertions benefit everyone, whereas his
death will hit his closest relatives the hardest (407 ff., 431 f.; Redfield [1975]
1994, 123). (3) The conflict has another dimension for Hektor, as Troy’s preem-
inent warrior, chief commander and heir to the dynasty (Redfield loc. cit.
123 f.): the greatest commitment in battle is expected from him (441 ff., 492 f.),
while at the same time Troy’s future depends on his survival (402–403n.);
Andromache is thus not alone in urging him to be cautious (433–439n.). –
Scholars dispute whether the text suggests a judgement favoring one of the
two speakers: (a) more likely in favor of Hektor: Schadewaldt loc. cit. 132–
139; Quaglia loc. cit.; Erbse (1978) 1979, 14–16; (b) in favor of Andromache
(Hektor is proving selfish and/or imprudent, since he is biased toward his per-
sonal fame): Arthur 1981, 31–37; Mackie 1996, 119–125; Alden 2000, 272–275,
311–318; Görgemanns 2001; Zajko 2006, 88–91; Tsagalis 2012, 134–136; more
cautiously, Van Nortwick 2001, 226–232 (Hektor in internal conflict); (c) the
text provides an impartial portrayal of an irreconcilable conflict: Schmitz
1963; Redfield loc. cit.; Lohmann 1988, 78 f. (differently 68 f. and 81: in favor
of Andromache); Metz 1990, 389–395; cf. also Minchin 2012, 91–94. The
405 δέ (ϝ)οι: on the prosody, R 4.3. — οἱ: = αὐτῷ (R 14.1), as in 406. — δάκρυ: collective sing.
406 = 253 (see ad loc.).
148 Iliad 6
sophistication with which the tensions noted above are portrayed in the Iliad
as a whole (on this, Redfield loc. cit. chap. 3–4), favors (c); cf. also 433–439n.
end.
407–465 Andromache’s speech and Hektor’s response are related to one another
via an overarching chiastic composition (Lohmann 1970, 96 ff.; 1988, 34 ff.; cf.
‘continuity of thought’ principleP):
Andromache (407–439)
A Vision of the future (Hektor’s death) and death wish (407–411a)
B Fate of the homeland and of her remaining relatives (retrospective);
Hektor’s significance for Andromache (411b–430)
C Plea (431 f.) and strategic counsel (433–439)
Hektor (441–465)
C´ Rejection of the plea (441–446)
B´ Fate of the homeland and of his remaining relatives (prospective);
Andromache’s significance for Hektor (447–454a)
A´ Vision of the future (Andromache as a slave) and death wish (454b–465)
In terms of motifs, the pair of speeches echoes the genre ‘lament’; on this, see
Lohmann 1988, especially 38–45 (comparison with the speeches of mourn-
ing for Patroklos at 19.287–337); Foley 1999, 187–199; Murnaghan 1999,
esp. 212–214; Derderian 2001, 48 f.; Dué 2002, 67–73; Tsagalis 2004, esp.
109–112, 118–129; Gagliardi 2006; Foley 2010, 25 f., 30 f.; cf. also 369–502n.
(references to the lament for Hektor in Books 22 and 24); 497–502n. (motif of
premature lament). – In addition, Andromache’s speech belongs to the genre
schetliasmos (an attempt to discourage a loved one from a dangerous path;
e.g. 22.38–76, 22.82–89, 24.200–216n.; on the rhetorical means Andromache
employs, see Dentice di Accadia Ammone 2012, 160–167 [≈ 2013, 110–116]).
It is characteristic of the present scene that the motif ‘horrors of the future’ –
otherwise used by the supplicant to rouse compassion for his or her own fate
(22.59 ff., 22.86 ff.; Soph. Aias 496 ff.) – is not expanded on by Andromache
but instead by Hektor (454 ff.). This is an indication of the particular intimacy
between the speakers: it is unique in a scene of this type that the recipient of
the pleas gives so much time to the counterpart’s situation (Krischer 1979,
16–22).
407–439 Internally, Andromache’s speech is again arranged as a ring-composi-
tionP (Lohmann 1970, 96 f.; 1988, 34 f.): (a) accusation of a lack of compassion
for his wife and child (407–411a); (b) Hektor as Andromache’s sole support
(411b–413a); (c) Andromache’s loss of all remaining relatives (413b–428); (b´)
Hektor as Andromache’s sole support (429 f.); (a´) plea for compassion for
his wife and child (431 f.; the strategic counsel at 433 ff. is added as a kind of
Commentary 149
‘coda’ [athetized by Lohmann loc. cit. and others, following Aristarchus: see
ad loc.]).
407–412 A cluster of integral enjambmentsP (407 f., 408 f., 410 f., 411 f.) expressing agi-
tation, as at 22.451–455, 24.725–745 (see ad loc.): Schadewaldt (1935) 1997, 133; Kirk;
Bakker (1999) 2005, 54 f.
407 [Dearest] Strange man, your own great strength will be your death …:
on the address (Greek daimónie), cf. 326n. end. Hektor’s impetuous urge for
battle (Greek ménos, see 72n.) has a self-destructive component that frightens
Andromache (cf. her premonitions at 22.455–459). The dangers of an exces-
sive urge for battle are discussed in the narrator-text as well: with reference to
Hektor, implicitly at 22.96 (in his ‘unquenchable ménos’ he faces the duel with
Achilleus, despite the pleas of his parents) and in the lion simile at 12.41 ff.
(esp. 46); in addition at 5.563 f. (Ares lends ménos to Menelaos in order to have
him killed) and 16.751 ff. (lion simile referring to Patroklos): Schadewaldt
(1935) 1997, 133; cf. also Graziosi/Haubold 2003 and Clarke 2004, esp.
80 ff. — have no pity: here an accusation, but reprised at 431 in the shape of
an appeal. Hektor will pity Andromache (484), but will nevertheless be unable
to comply with her plea (Burkert 1955, 86–88; Graziosi/Haubold with fur-
ther bibliography).
φθείσει: on the spelling φθει-, West 1998, XXXVI; 2001, 30.
408 νηπίαχον: likely an expressive expansion of νήπιον (Frisk, DELG; discussion of fur-
ther possibilities in Graziosi/Haubold); denotes small children in their weakness and
helplessness (elsewhere at 2.338 and 16.262; cf. νηπιαχεύω at 22.502, also Andromache
of Astyanax). — ἄμμορον: possessive compound from α privative and μόρος ‘share’,
i.e. ‘without a share in, excluded from’ (e.g. at 18.489 ἄμμορος … λοετρῶν Ὠκεανοῖο),
‘deprived (of a thing/relative)’ (Eur. Hec. 421 ἡμεῖς δὲ … ἄμμοροι τέκνων); here and at
24.773 absolute: ‘miserable’ (at the loss of a relative): LfgrE, LSJ s.v.; cf. also 19.315n. on
the expanded form δυσάμμορος (always in the context of laments).
409 σεῖ(ο): thus West, following Fick (mss.: σεῦ, likewise at 411); cf. 454 (where σεῖ’, ὅτε
is the main transmission, σεῦ a v.l. attested in a single ms.). — κατακτενέουσιν: Both
κτενέω (24.156 etc.) and κτανέω (here, 14.481, etc.; assimilation to the aorist, see G 62)
occur in the mss. as the fut. of κτείνω; West (see 1998, XXXII), following Cobet 1876,
330 f., gives the standard form κτεν- throughout.
407 φθείσει: fut. of φθίνω ‘destroy’. — τεόν: possessive pronoun of the 2nd person (R 14.4).
408 τάχα: adv., ‘soon’.
409 σεῖ(ο): = σοῦ (R 14.1), as in 411. — κατακτενέουσιν: fut. of κατακτείνω (Attic κατακτενοῦσιν,
cf. R 6).
150 Iliad 6
410–411 On the death-wish motif, cf. 3.173n., 6.345–348n. — to sink into the
earth: 19n. (both passages use the same expression in the Greek).
410 2nd VH = Od. 2.74. — κε κέρδιον εἴη: an inflectible VE formula (3.41n.); as at 4.171,
a potential optative is used between forms of the fut. ind. (409, 412) to convey greater
subjectivity (AH).
411 σεῖ’ ἀφαμαρτούσῃ: on (ἀφ)αμαρτάνω (+ gen.) meaning ‘lose’, cf. 22.505, Od. 9.512
(Luther 1935, 34 f.; LfgrE s.v. 609.19 ff., 47 ff.).
412 θαλπωρή: related to θάλπω ‘warm’, metaphorical throughout (in Homer also at 10.223,
Od. 1.167): ‘heartening, comfort, consolation’ (LfgrE; Zink 1962, 11 f.). — σύ γε: emphatic
(as at 9.231); stressed σύ also at 429 and 430 (AH). — πότμον ἐπίσπῃς: an inflectible VE
formula (7x Il., 16x Od.), ‘fulfill one’s fate of death, die’ (2.358–359n.; LfgrE s.v. πότμος
149711 ff.); the original notion may be ‘come into contact with one’s fate’ (Forssman
2006, 114, with reference to ‘«handle, touch», the apparently old, concrete meaning of
ἕπω’ [transl.; cf. 321–322n.]).
413–428 Andromache’s report of her family’s fate, in the shape of an external
completing analepsisP, at once fulfills (1) an argument functionP (on the char-
acter level) and (2) a key functionP (on the level of the narrator/audience): (1)
Andromache expands on what Hektor must naturally have known for a long
time; she appeals to his pity and pointedly clarifies what his death would mean
for her (especially emotionally, but also socially: in Homeric society, a widow
usually returns to her birth family [427–428n.], an option no longer open to
Andromache after the loss of her parents and brothers [Wickert-Micknat 1983,
63]). (2) Andromache’s comments regarding Achilleus suggest to the audience
that she will lose her husband at the hands of the same individual who has
already killed her father and brothers (dramatic ironyP: Andromache herself
does not anticipate this [409 f.]). Here, 417 ff. in particular reflect future events
(they contrast with the defiling of Hektor’s body at 22.395 ff., 24.14 ff. and, at the
same time, illustrate Achilleus’ magnanimity and gentleness, which resurface
at the end of the Iliad: 24.515 ff., especially 580 ff. [see ad loc.]): Owen 1946,
67–69; Segal 1971, 65; Tsagalis 2004, 119–124; cf. also 417–419a n. – In more
detail on Andromache’s native city of Thebe, and on parallels between her fate
and that of Briseïs: 394–399n.
410 κε: = ἄν (R 24.5).
411 χθόνα: acc. of direction without preposition (R 19.2). — δύμεναι: = δῦναι (R 16.4).
412 ἔσται: sc. μοι. — ἐπίσπῃς: aor. subjunc. of ἐφέπω (↑).
Commentary 151
413 2nd VH = 429, 9.561, 11.452, 13.430, 19.291, 22.239, 22.341 and 4x Od.; ≈ Il. 6.471. — πότνια
μήτηρ: 264n.
414 ἤτοι: ≈ μέν (404n.), picked up by δέ at 421 and 425 (Graziosi/Haubold). — ἁμόν: ἁμός
< Aeolic ἄμμος (related to ἄμμες ‘we’; LfgrE s.v.; Chantr. 1.272; G 82) or a Doric form
(West 1988, 168; 1998, XVII); it is unclear whether to understand ‘our’ (with the brothers
mentioned at 421 ff. in mind: AH; on the sociative pl. of family language, Slotty 1927,
351–353; cf. also Schw. 2.203, 243) or ‘mine’ (ἁμός sometimes appears to be understood
as the possessive pronoun of the 1st sing., i.e. as a variant of ἐμός: Chantr. 1.272). —
δῖος Ἀχιλλεύς: a VE formula (1.7n.).
415 Κιλίκων: 396b–397n. — εὖ ναιετάωσαν: 370n.; on the irregular form, West 1998,
XXXII.
416 ὑψίπυλον: 3x Il. (16.698 and 21.544 of Troy); together with εὔπυργος, εὐτείχεος,
τειχιόεις and others, a generic epithetP of cities that emphasizes solidity and the im-
pressive appearance of the fortifications (cf. 1.129n.; Visser 1997, 86, 131). — κατὰ δ’
ἔκτανεν Ἠετίωνα: The repetition of the statement at 414 (with the proper name rather
than πατέρα) works both as emphasis and as preparation for the contrast that follows
at 417 ff. (AH, Kirk).
417–419a It is evidence of great generosity that Achilleus personally took care
of Eëtion’s funeral, and that he abstained from despoiling his opponent (cf. in
contrast Hektor’s contractual conditions for the formal duel at 7.77 ff.: release
of the corpse, but despoiling of the opponent [Kirk]). Achilleus’ even-handed
conduct toward opponents prior to his friend Patroklos’ death is repeat-
edly emphasized in the Iliad (external completing analepsesP): cf. 11.104 ff.,
21.35 ff./100 ff., 24.751 ff. (sparing hostages; cf. 37–65n.); on this, Zanker 1994,
8 f., 74 f.; Kim 2000, 10 f.; Scodel 2002, 13 f. (a contrast to the non-Homeric epic
tradition: Achilleus’ cruelty in the Troïlos episode).
417 2nd VH = 167 (see ad loc.). — ἐξενάριξε: 20n.
418 2nd VH = 13.331, 13.719. — burned the body in all its elaborate war-gear:
Cremation is the only type of burial in Homeric epic (1.52n.; Andronikos 1968,
21 ff., 129 ff.). Including the warrior’s armor in the pyre (elsewhere only in the
413 ἀλλ(ά): ‘but 〈only〉’. — ἄχε’: = ἄχεα (R 6, R 5.1). — πατὴρ καὶ … μήτηρ: felt as a single concept,
thus with a predicate in the sing.
414 ἀπέκτανε: In Homer, beside the weak aor. ἀπέκτεινα, a strong aor. ἀπέκτανον is also formed
from (ἀπο)κτείνω (likewise 416: κατὰ … ἔκτανε).
415 ἐκ … πέρσεν: aor. of ἐκπέρθω; on the so-called tmesis, R 20.2.
417 μιν: = αὐτόν, likewise in 418 (R 14.1). — σεβάσσατο: aor. of σεβάζομαι (+ acc.) ‘shrink from’;
on the -σσ-, R 9 1. — τό: anaphoric demonstrative pronoun (R 17). — θυμῷ: locative dat. without
preposition (R 19.2).
418 κατέκηε: aor. of κατακαίω ‘burn’.
152 Iliad 6
case of Elpenor: Od. 11.74, 12.13), however, is exceptional; therefore, it is all the
more remarkable that Achilleus does not take it (on the material and idealized
value of spoils, cf. 28n.).
ἔντεσι: The pl. ἔντεα ‘equipment, weapons’ is used in epic as a prosodic alternative for
τεύχεα (LfgrE s.v.); on the use of synonyms as metrically convenient variants in general:
Düntzer (1864) 1979, 97 ff. — δαιδαλέοισιν: ‘elaborately decorated’ (cf. the speaking
name of the mythical artist ‘Daidalos’); an epithet of defensive weapons, furniture, tex-
tiles, etc. (LfgrE s.v.; see also 19.13n. with bibliography).
419a piled a grave mound over it: Achilleus ensures that his opponent survives
in the memory of posterity; contrast Agamemnon’s vision at 59b–60 and the
repeated threats of Homeric heroes to throw their opponent’s corpse to the
dogs and carrion birds (59–60n.; Griffin 1980, 161 with n. 35). On the function
of the grave monument (Greek sḗma) as a ‘sign’ that preserves a hero’s fame,
cf. 7.86 ff., Od. 1.239 ff./291 f., 4.584, 11.75 ff., 24.80 ff., etc.; Sourvinou-Inwood
1995, 108–140, especially 131 ff.; Grethlein 2008, 28–32. – The increasing
significance of grave monuments as places of memory is also indicated by
the spread of ancestor and hero cult during the ‘renaissance’ of the 8th cent.
(Antonaccio 1995; Deoudi 1999); on the much discussed question of why
Homer nowhere explicitly mentions such cults, see van Wees 2006, 370–375;
Graziosi/Haubold on 34–35 with further bibliography; on possible implicit
allusions to this custom, see Nagy 2012, especially 47–71; NTHS 50–53.
419b–420 Mention of the nymphs in this otherwise realistic story seems sur-
prising; it is impossible to decide whether this is an allusion to a local myth
(Wilamowitz 1916, 313; cf. Willcock) or merely a ‘touching and exotic detail’
(Kirk) in celebration of the deceased. (Elsewhere in the Iliad, nymphs appear
mostly in the genealogies of Trojan heroes: cf. 21 f., 14.444 f., 20.384 f.; Priess
1977, 82.) — elm trees: Probably because of their apparent barrenness, these
were considered trees of the dead (like the poplars and willows mentioned
at Od. 10.510; cf. also Verg. Aen. 6.282 ff. [an elm at the entrance to the under-
world]): Leaf; LfgrE s.v. πτελέη.
κοῦραι Διὸς αἰγιόχοιο: an inflectible VE formula (denoting nymphs and Muses, in
the sing. Athene: 2.598n.); on αἰγίοχος as an epithet of Zeus, 1.202n.; on the aegis,
2.446b–454n.
419 ἠδ(έ): ‘and’ (R 24.4). — ἐπὶ … ἔχεεν: ‘piled up 〈over him〉’ (R 20.2). — περί: adv., ‘all around’
(R 20.2).
420 κοῦραι: on the form, R 4.2.
Commentary 153
421 seven: a typical numberP (cf. 24.399n.; Graziosi/Haubold: the girl with

seven brothers is also a common motif in fairy tales, see Thompson Z71.5.1).
ἐν μεγάροισιν: i.e. ‘at home’, in the parental home (cf. 371n.).
422 ἰῷ: a Homeric hapaxP; either an artificially formed neuter of ἴα (= μία, Aeolic or an
archaism), in pointed contrast to πάντες: ‘all in one and the same day’ (Ruijgh [1971]
1991, 601; LfgrE s.v. ἴα); or an anaphoric pronoun (as in the Gortyn lawcode at 7.23 and
8.8), ‘on that day’ (considered in DELG s.v. ἰός, LfgrE loc. cit.; Ruijgh [1991] 1996, 349 n.
41). — Ἄϊδος εἴσω: 3.322n., 6.284n.
423 1st VH = 190 (see ad loc.); 2nd VH 21x Il. (1.121n.). — κατέπεφνε: cf. 12n.
424 1st VH = ‘Hes.’ fr. 193.17 M.-W. (restored); ≈ Hes. Th. 290. — Achilleus’ raids
in the vicinity of Troy served, among other things, to capture cattle and sheep
(sc. to feed the army: Thuc. 1.11; Wickert-Micknat 1983, 4); cf. 11.104 ff., 20.91,
20.188 ff. – In Homeric society, it is standard practice for princes to take the an-
imals to pasture: members of the elite regularly participate in everyday labor
(cf. 25n., 90–91n., 313–317n., 11.106, 20.188, 21.37 f., 24.29n., Od. 13.222 f., etc.;
Ndoye 2010, 32–42).
βουσὶν ἔπ(ι): i.e. during their watch over the cattle, ‘when grazing the cattle’ (cf.
25n.). — εἰλιπόδεσσι: an epithet of cattle; etymology and meaning are unclear. The adj.
is perhaps related to εἴλω/ἑλίσσω ‘turn’ (on the neglect of the digamma, see Hoekstra
1965, 67 f.: VB βουσὶν ἔπ’ εἰλ. < VE *ἐπὶ ϝειλ. βόεσσιν); in that case, it refers to the roll-
ing gait of the animals, whose back legs describe a semi-circular movement (schol.
D: ὅτι ἑλίσσουσι τοὺς πόδας κατὰ τὴν πορείαν; LSJ, LfgrE, Frisk s.v.). Contrast: ἵπποι
ἀερσίποδες (3.327 etc., ‘lifting their feet’); cf. also μῆλα ταναύποδα (Od. 9.464 etc.,
‘〈striding〉 with extended legs’?, cf. LfgrE s.v.). — ἀργεννῇς ὀΐεσσιν: = Od. 17.472; on
ἀργεννός ‘whitish, shimmering white’, see 3.141n.
425 2nd VH = 396 (see ad loc.), 22.479. — βασίλευεν: ‘was queen’, as wife of the king (like
Chloris as the wife of Neleus at Od. 11.285); whether and to what extent the word also im-
plies the exercise of ruling functions (cf. Arete’s role in the public life of the Phaiakians,
Od. 7.71 ff.) cannot be discerned from the text. The idea of matriarchy (Pomeroy 1975,
17 f.) should at any rate be discarded (cf. 1.366, 6.396 f., 9.188, 16.153).
421–422 οἳ … | οἵ: the first οἵ is relative (with ἑπτὰ κασίγνητοι in apposition), the second demon-
strative. — ἔσαν: = ἦσαν (R 16.1, 16.6). — κίον: cf. 399n. — ἤματι: from ἦμαρ ‘day’. — Ἄϊδος εἴσω:
284n.
424 βουσὶν ἔπ(ι): = ἐπὶ βουσίν (R 20.2; ↑). — εἰλιπόδεσσι … ὀΐεσσιν: on the declension, R 11.3. —
ἀργεννῇς: on the declension, R 11.1.
154 Iliad 6
426 with all his other possessions: Captured women may be listed in the same
breath as other booty (e.g. at 9.122 ff. ≈ 264 ff., 9.365 ff., 23.259 ff.); as slaves, they
are of measurable, material value (23.704 f., Od. 1.430 f.).
427–428 released her again …: This presumably implies that her father, men-
tioned at 428, ransomed her (the attempt – naturally often fruitless – of fa-
thers to ransom their captured daughters or sons is a leitmotif in the Iliad:
cf. 1.13/20 f., 6.46 ff., 11.131 ff., 22.49 f., also 24.501 f./554 ff. [Hektor’s corpse];
see Wilson 2002, 29 f. with 191 n. 75). On the widow’s return to her parental
home, cf. Od. 1.275 ff. ≈ 2.195 ff. (Penelope’s situation after the supposed death
of Odysseus); Wickert-Micknat 1982, 92. — Artemis | … struck her down:
205n.
427 ἀπερείσι’ ἄποινα: a VE formula (1.13n.); on the etymology of ἄποινα, see 46n.
428 2nd VH = Od. 15.478. — ἰοχέαιρα: a distinctive epithetP of Artemis (26x early epic, of
these 13x in the present inflectible VE formula [nom./acc.]). Etymology and meaning are
disputed; probably originally ‘who holds arrows in her hands’ (final element related to
χείρ: Beekes s.v. with bibliography, especially Peters 1980, 223–228, and Viredaz 2000,
303; West 2007, 150; Sanskrit parallel: íṣu-hasta ‘who holds an arrow in his hand’),
but secondarily linked with χέω and interpreted as ‘who pours out, sends out arrows’:
Hesych. s.v., schol. T on 16.465; perhaps understood thus already in the Homeric period
(LfgrE s.v. with reference to 5.618 δούρατ’ ἔχευαν, 8.159 = 15.590 βέλεα … χέοντο; but
there in reference to a rain of missiles such as can only be produced by a group of marks-
men: Viredaz loc. cit. n. 100).
429–430 Hektor: A second address within the same speech has emphatic effect;
cf. 1.232 = 2.242, 1.401, 2.284n., 2.362n., 3.82n., 6.355, 9.33, 9.437, etc. — father …
mother | … brother … young husband: intensifying variation of 413 (Kirk;
Perceau 2002, 198): Hektor must replace all the loved ones Andromache has
lost, but she loves him especially as her husband (effectively stressed by the
epithet, the position at verse end, and the anaphora ‘you are to me … you are
to me’: Kakridis [1937] 1949, 50; Tsagalis 2004, 120 f.). – The thought may be
inspired by Near Eastern sources, where the motif ‘a god/ruler is like a father,
a mother, or a brother to the people’ is common: Graziosi/Haubold with ex-
amples and bibliography.
ἀτάρ: 86n. — σύ … | … σὺ δέ: on the connective δέ in anaphora, see Denniston 163. —
θαλερὸς παρακοίτης: ≈ 8.156 (acc. pl.), 3.53 (fem. acc. sing.). θαλερός used in reference
426–427 τὴν … | … τήν: anaphoric demonstrative pronouns, which pick up the object from 425
after the relative clause. — δεῦρ(ο): ‘hither’ (into the Achaean camp before Troy). — ὅ γε: sc.
Achilleus.
429 ἀτάρ: ≈ αὐτάρ (R 24.2). — ἐσσι: = εἶ (R 16.6).
Commentary 155
to human beings means ‘blooming, at the height of vitality’ (cf. Andromache’s lament at
24.725 over Hektor’s death at such a young age): LfgrE s.v.
431 Please take pity upon me: a reprisal of 407 (see ad loc.) in the shape of a
ring-compositionP.
ἐπὶ πύργῳ: ‘at the tower’ or ‘atop the tower’; the implication in any case is that Hektor
should stay within the protective sphere of the city fortifications (sc. in order to direct
battle from there: 433 ff.; see AH, Kirk).
432 παῖδ’ ὀρφανικὸν … χήρην τε γυναῖκα: chiasmus, by means of which the pointed
periphrastic denominationP ‘wife’ (rather than ‘me’) is placed at verse end: Andromache
stresses Hektor’s responsibility to the members of his family.
433–439 The athetization of these verses by Aristarchus (schol. A) triggered a
discussion of their authenticity that continues to the present (Aristarchus is
followed by, among others, AH; Bethe 1914, 239 ff.; Lohmann 1988, 37 f., 80 f.;
Görgemanns 2001, 116; counter arguments: scholia bT on 433, 434, 435, 436 f.;
Faesi/Franke; Kirk; Schadewaldt [1935] 1997, 134; Tsagalis 2004, 124 ff.;
Heath 2005, 70 f., with further bibliography; non-committal: Leaf; West
2001, 198 f.). The main arguments for athetesis are ((1) through (3) already in
Aristarchus): (1) strategic counsel is inappropriate coming from a woman, (2)
Hektor does not address it in his response at 441 ff., (3) nowhere else is there
mention of a weakness in the wall or of deliberate Achaian attacks there, so
that Andromache’s statement contains a falsehood (pseúdos), (4) the addition
disturbs the economy of the speech, which is in the form of a ring-composition
(Bethe loc. cit. 242; Lohmann loc. cit. 37 f.). Regarding (1) and (2): 433 ff. are
answered implicitly by Hektor at 490 ff.: Andromache’s ‘interference’ in mili-
tary matters is inappropriate from his point of view, but this in no way prevents
the narrator from having her speak thus (see below). Regarding (3): according
to the principle of ‘ad hoc narration’P, some facts are reported only when they
become relevant to the action, but that does not make them less ‘real’ within
the fictional world of the narrative (Andersen 1990, 37–39). (4) is based on an
overly schematic view of the poet’s compositional technique (see West and
Heath loc. cit.; cf. also 24.599–620n. end on 614–617). – Retaining 433 ff. is
supported especially by the fact that the speech might be read as an incite-
ment to a passive withdrawal from battle, were it to conclude with 431 f. – an
‘infamy’ Andromache can scarcely expect from her husband (Schadewaldt
loc. cit.; differently Lohmann loc. cit. 80). At the same time, Andromache is not
431 ἄγε: cf. 340n. — αὐτοῦ: adv., ‘just here’. — μίμν(ε): ≈ μένε.

432 θήῃς: aor. subjunc. of τίθημι (with double acc.) ‘make someone something’; on the uncon-
tracted form, R 6.
156 Iliad 6
alone (even among women) in counselling for a cautious, defensive strategy:

cf. 22.84 f. (Hekabe), also 12.211 ff. and 18.273 ff. (Polydamas), 15.721 ff. (elders),
22.56 f. (Priam).
The counsels mentioned above, however, differ in detail. In Book 22, Priam and Hekabe
ask their son not to expose himself to certain death in the duel with Achilleus and thus
deprive the city of its ablest defender. The elders, Polydamas in particular, are con-
cerned with the safety of the entire army. Hektor’s rejection in Book 18 of Polydamas’
advice to withdraw into the city after Achilleus’ return to battle is labelled a mistake
by the narrator (18.310 ff.), and is later recognized as such by Hektor himself (22.99 ff.:
self-reproach for having inflicted heavy losses on the army because of his decision).
Some interpreters conclude from this that the narrator is entirely on Andromache’s side
here (especially Alden 2000, 272–275; similarly Lohmann 1988, 68 f.; Mackie 1996,
123 f.; Görgemanns 2001, 118 f.; cf. 407–496n. end). But her counsel – unlike that of
Polydamas – is motivated primarily by consideration for Hektor’s personal safety and
the fate of Astyanax and herself (431 f.); this makes it difficult for Hektor to comply with
her wish (cf. 441–446n. and Graziosi/Haubold on 433).
433–434 fig tree: mentioned also at 11.167 and 22.145 (flight of the Trojans and
Hektor past the fig tree). It remains unclear where the tree should be imagined;
the reference appears to be to a location relatively close to the wall but at
some distance from the Skaian gate (Kirk; cf. also Elliger 1975, 46 f., 57 f.;
Thornton 1984, 152 f.; Trachsel 2007, 89 f.). – On the topographical land-
marks mentioned in the Iliad generally, see 2.793n. — there where the city
| is openest to attack, and where the wall may be mounted: According
to Pindar Ol. 8.31–46, Apollo and Poseidon were assisted by the mortal hero
Aiakos in building the walls of Troy; it had been decreed by fate that the other-
wise impregnable wall would be forced at the point constructed by Aiakos. In
the Iliad, only the construction of the wall by Apollo and Poseidon (7.452 f.) or
by Poseidon alone (21.446 ff.) is mentioned explicitly. If the story of Aiakos’
involvement was part of the pre-Homeric narrative tradition, the present pas-
sage would allude to it (cf. schol. bT on 438; West on 435; Scully 1990, 36 f.,
50); alternatively, the story may have developed on the basis of the present
passage (Faesi/Franke; Leaf; Kirk). – Andromache’s statement has been
linked by excavators since Dörpfeld to a weak point in the city walls of Troy
near Gate VI U, which may have inspired the poet’s fantasy (Kirk, Brillante
[with bibliography]; Korfmann 2002, 216 f.).
434 ἀμβατός: = ἀναβατός (cf. R 20.1), ‘mountable’. — ἐπίδρομον: ‘assailable, open to attack’.

Commentary 157
ἔπλετο: The aor. of πέλομαι may be used in reference to the present (together with a
pres. at 9.54, 14.337, etc., as here): ‘has proved to be’ > ‘is’ (LfgrE s.v. 1134.31 ff., 1135.40 ff.;
Waanders 2000, 257, 263, 266).
435 Three times: a typical numberP (collection of examples: Blom 1936, 24–28);
cf. especially 16.702 ff. (Patroklos’ triple attempt to storm the walls of Troy),
also 5.436 f., 18.155 ff., 20.445 f., etc. (‘triple attempts’ as a typical motif in bat-
tle scenes: Fenik 1968, 46). As in the motif ‘for nine days … but on the tenth’
(173–177n.), the expression suggests that a fourth attempt may follow and bring
about a decisive turn of events (West 2011 and Graziosi/Haubold ad loc.).
436–437 the two Aiantes … Idomeneus | … the two Atreidai … son of Tydeus:
cf. CH 2–3 and the similar enumerations at 2.404 ff., 7.162 ff., 8.253 ff./261 ff.
Achilleus’ absence is in accord with the situation at the beginning of the ac-
tion of the Iliad.
Αἴαντε: The dual probably originally denoted Aias son of Telamon together with his
brother Teukros, but in the Iliad the term is generally used for the homonymous sons
of Telamon and Oïleus (2.406n.). — ἀγακλυτόν: ‘very famous, splendid’ (metrical-pro-
sodic variants: ἀγακλειτός, ἀγακλεής; on the intensifying ἀγα- cf. ἄγαν); a generic epi-
thetP of heroes (and 1x each of Hephaistos and a centaur) and of δώματα (LfgrE s.v.).
— Τυδέος: 96n. — ἄλκιμον υἱόν: an inflectible VE formula (nom./acc.), in total 15x Il.
(of these 12x of Patroklos: 19.24n.), 5x Hes., 1x h.Merc.
438–439 Enumeration of suppositions is common in Homeric epic; cf. 5.811 f.,
in form of a question 6.378 ff. (see ad loc.), 10.84, 13.251 f., 16.12 ff., Od. 2.30 ff.,
11.172 f., etc. (cf. also 6.383–385n. with bibliography). On the two alternatives
considered by Andromache, cf. Od. 4.712 f., 7.263, also Il. 13.68–75 (combination
of divine and personal motivation); the ‘prophetic arts’ might allude to the ver-
sion of the myth transmitted at Pind. Ol. 8.31–46 (433–434n.).
438 που: ‘From που meaning «somewhere» is developed the sense «I suppose», «I think»,
the particle conveying a feeling of uncertainty in the speaker’ (Denniston 490 f.). —
θεοπροπίων: derived from θεοπρόπος ‘one who reveals the will of the gods, seer’, thus
‘sayings of a seer, divine signs (interpreted by seers)’ (1.85n.). — εὖ εἰδώς: an inflectible
VE formula (εἰδώς, εἴδω, -ῃς, οἶδα(ς); in total 15x Il., 10x Od., 3x h.Hom.; also sometimes
in other positions in the verse, cf. 1.385n.). On the partitive gen. with οἶδα, see Schw.
2.107.
435 ἐπειρήσανθ’: = ἐπειρήσαντο, absolute: ‘made an attempt’.

436 Αἴαντε: acc. dual (cf. R 18.1; ↑). — Ἰδομενῆα: on the declension, R 11.3, R 3.
438–439 ἤ που … | ἤ νυ καί: ‘it may be that … or that’; properly, main clauses connected para-
tactically, ‘perhaps he has either … or else’. — σφιν: = αὐτοῖς (R 14.1). — ἔνισπε: aor. of ἐν(ν)έ-
πω ‘report, say’. — εὖ (ϝ)ειδώς: on the prosody, R 4.4. — εἰδώς: with gen. ‘being knowledgeable
about, well skilled in’ (↑). — αὐτῶν θυμός: ‘their own heart, their own will’.
158 Iliad 6
439 ≈ 15.43. — θυμός: 256n. end, 444n. — ἐποτρύνει καὶ ἀνώγει: an inflectible VE for-
mula (-ει, -ῃ, -ναι/-ξαι, in total 5x Il., 2x Od.); on the synonym doubling, 1.160n. In con-
nection with ἐποτρύνει, ἀνώγει is to be understood as pres. (contrast 240 with n.): a
secondary derivation from the present sense of the perf. ἄνωγα (Schw. 1.767 with n. 10;
DELG), perhaps emerging under the influence of the present formula (LfgrE s.v. ἄνωγα
961.8 ff.). – The pres. is likely used beside the aor. ἔνισπε as an expression of the expec-
tation that further attacks will occur in the same location: ‘(again and again/still) urges
and encourages’ (AH, Faesi/Franke).
440 = 22.232; ≈ 7.233, 7.287, 22.249; 1st VH (with τόν/τήν) 42x Il., 57x Od., 2x Hes., 2x h.Hom.;
cf. 263n.
441–465 Although Hektor’s response to Andromache’s speech contains a heart-
felt declaration of love (454, 464 f.), it offers no consolation; its dark, savagely
realistic visions of the future at 447 ff. can only serve to confirm her fears.
Hektor only achieves a more comforting tone at 486 ff. (see ad loc.; Latacz
[1987] 1994, 117). On the structure of the speech, see 407–465n.
441–446 Hektor rejects Andromache’s plea by referring to the values he recog-
nizes as obligatory for himself as a member of the elite: if he were to limit him-
self to conducting the battle from a protected position, both the community
and Hektor himself would regard this as cowardice (see 441–442n.); a man in
his position is expected to fight at the front line at all times (cf. 445n.). Similarly
pregnant formulations of the ‘heroic code’ can be found at 5.253 f., 6.208 ff. (see
208n.), 11.408 ff., 11.784, 12.310 ff. (Fenik 1968, 31; Morrison 1992, 146 n. 9).
Hektor will later justify his offensive strategy on the ground that decisively driving the
Greeks back will secure his homeland permanently and will free his city from the op-
pressive siege (15.494 ff., 18.285 ff.; cf. 8.526 ff., 12.243, 15.718 ff.; see also 9.590 ff., where
Kleopatra – the antithesis of Andromache – drives her husband Meleager into battle in
order that he might save the city from ruin [on this, Wissmann 1997, 66]). There, Hektor’s
confidence in his ability to drive the enemies entirely out of the country is derived from
the successes of the second and third day of battle, as well as from Zeus’ promise of
victory (11.200 ff.). But this notion has no place beside the visions of the future at 447 ff.
(Görgemanns 2001, 119 f.). – Only at the end of his speech does Hektor indicate that he
wishes to give his best in battle not least for Andromache’s sake – namely, to save her
from the ‘day of slavery’ for as long as possible (463n.; cf. also 447n.).
441–442 442 = 22.105 (Hektor before his duel with Achilleus); 2nd VH = 7.297.
— All these things are in my mind also …: Hektor clarifies that he shares
Andromache’s concerns, but then immediately counters them – without ad-
dressing them in detail – with a declaration of his own point of view; similarly
441 ἦ: emphatic (R 24.4).

Commentary 159
1.286 f. (see ad loc.), 8.146 f., etc. (formulaic expression ‘you spoke fittingly of
all this – but …’). — lady: a neutral form of address (mostly but not exclusively
in reference to wives); used in different contexts and moods: e.g. Od. 4.266
vs. 23.183, 6.168 vs. 19.81; Il. 3.204, 3.438, 24.300. — I would feel deep shame
| before the Trojans …: ‘feel shame’ is Greek aidéomai, ‘feel aidṓs’; aidṓs
makes human beings respect social norms: the term denotes both consider-
ation for others and fear of the criticism to which one will be subjected if one
fails to fulfill their expectations (Cairns 1993 passim, esp. 68–87 on aidṓs in
the context of battle; on this, also van Wees 1996, 21–23). – Since Dodds 1951,
Homeric society has often been denoted a ‘shame culture’, whose members are
primarily guided in their conduct by concern for public opinion (in contrast to
modern ‘guilt culture’, in which internal standards of value take precedence).
Opposing this one-sided perspective is Cairns loc. cit. 14–47 and (on the pres-
ent passage) 79–81: although Hektor is particularly sensitive to public opinion
(see 459–463n.), his behavior is determined as much by his own thymós (men-
tal energy, ‘heart’ as the location for the striving of the will: LfgrE s.v.; cf. 444n.)
as by aidṓs; external and internal motivations coincide.
ἀλλὰ μάλ’ αἰνῶς: a VE formula (= 10.38, 19.23, 22.454). — Τρῶας καὶ Τρῳάδας: a po-
lar expressionP denoting the Trojan population as a whole (cf. the iterata, as well as
7.80, 22.57, 22.434, 22.514, 24.215, 24.704; Kemmer 1903, 144 f.). — ἑλκεσιπέπλους: a dis-
tinctive epithetP of the women of Troy in the Iliad (3x, see iterata); also 1x ‘Hes.’ of the
women of Thebes. The meaning is ‘dragging their gown behind, with a long train’, or
better ‘gathering their gown’ (cf. Sappho fr. 57.3 Voigt: disparagingly of a woman who
does not know how to τὰ βράκε’ ἔλκην ἐπὶ τὼν σφύρων): LfgrE s.v. with bibliography. On
the formation of the word, Risch 192; Tronci 2000, 295 f.; on the semantic field, 372n.
443–444 a coward … | … valiant: When used of persons, Greek kakós (basic
meaning ‘bad’) and its counterpart esthlós mostly refer in the Iliad to accom-
plishment in battle, while also having a social connotation (‘a coward/com-
moner’ vs. ‘a valiant/noble person’): see LfgrE s.vv. and 2.190n. with biblio-
graphy.
443 κακὸς ὥς: scanned ⏑––: in formulaic expressions such as this, the original initial /j/
of ὥς still has a prosodic effect (West 1997a, 229; cf. 2.190n.). — ἀλυσκάζω: deverbative
from ἀλύσκω ‘(be able to) escape, evade’, with an intensive iterative meaning; pejorative
here and at 5.253, ‘shirk/dodge (danger)’ (LfgrE s.v.).
444 οὐδέ … ἄνωγεν: ‘does not allow, prohibits’ (sc. ἀλυσκάζειν); cf. οὐκ ἐθέλω ‘deny’
(3.289n.), οὐ κελεύω ‘dissuade’ (14.62, 24.297), etc. (AH, Leaf; Schw. 2.593 f.). — θυμός:
443 αἴ κε: ≈ ἐάν (R 22.1, R 24.5). — κακὸς ὥς: = ὡς κακός. — πολέμοιο: dependent on νόσφιν.
444 ἄνωγεν: perfect with present sense (382n.). — ἔμμεναι: = εἶναι (R 16.4).
160 Iliad 6
used pregnantly ‘to emphasize the independent personal factor in the process of mental
activities’ (Jahn 1987, 229 f., transl.); cf. θυμὸς ἐπέσσυται at 361. — μάθον: The verb is
attested in Homer only here and at Od. 17.226, in both passages with the meaning ‘get
permanently in the habit of, adopt an attitude’ (LfgrE s.v. μαθεῖν; cf. also 351n. on οἶδα in
reference to patterns of behavior).
445 to fight … among the foremost ranks: likewise Sarpedon in his formula-
tion of the ‘heroic code’ at 12.321; cf. 5.536, 9.709, 13.270 f. (on which, Latacz
1977, 151–154); on parallels in IE poetry, West 2007, 458 f. — always: in the
Greek in stressed position at VB, as at 208 = 11.784 (‘to always be the best …’),
here further emphasized via enjambmentP; fame calls for constant protection
(Patzer 1996, 217). This is also apparent in passages such as 17.142 ff.: a brief
slackening in the battle tempo (17.129 f.) immediately results in vehement criti-
cism of Hektor.
446 great glory: Greek kléos, literally ‘what is heard (about someone), reputa-
tion’; mostly used positively with the sense ‘renown’ (2.325n. with bibliogra-
phy). On the prevalence of the expression ‘great fame/renown’ in IE poetry, see
West 2007, 406 f. — my father: cf. 209n.
ἀρνύμενος: The context suggests the meaning ‘seeking to maintain’ (schol. bT; AH);
in that case, the notion is the same as in 209. Differently, LfgrE s.v. (cf. schol. A, Kirk):
ἄρνυμαι, ‘achieve, obtain’ in the aor. stem, is regularly used in the present with the
meaning ‘seek to obtain’ (cf. 1.159, 5.553, with dat. of advantage; as a consequence,
πατρός … ἠδ’ ἐμὸν αὐτοῦ stands for πατρὶ καὶ ἐμαυτῷ; cf. Eust. 654.61). But both nu-
ances of meaning may reverberate in ἀρνύμενος: cf. Od. 1.5 ἀρνύμενος ἥν τε ψυχὴν (‘pre-
serve’) καὶ νόστον ἑταίρων (‘obtain’; West ad loc.: ‘trying to secure’ in reference to both
objects). — ἐμὸν αὐτοῦ: an amplification of the possessive pronoun by means of the
gen. of αὐτός, as at 490 τὰ σ’ αὐτῆς ἔργα, Od. 1.7 αὐτῶν … σφετέρῃσιν ἀτασθαλίῃσιν,
etc.; the compound reflexive pronouns ἐμαυτοῦ, σ(ε)αυτοῦ, etc. are post-Homeric
(Chantr. 2.158; Schw. 2.201, 205).
447–449 ≈ 4.163–165, spoken by Agamemnon (after the breach of the treaty by
Pandaros): an example of the varying effects repeated verses may display in
different contexts; in the present case, the repetition allows the audience to
consider the city’s doom from the Greek point of view as well as the Trojan
one (Macleod, Introd. 43; Kirk; Owen 1946, 71; Di Benedetto [1994] 1998,
184–187; on repeated verse groups in direct speeches in general: de Jong [1987]
2004, 179–192, esp. 187 f.). – ProlepsesP of the fall of Troy run through the Iliad
as a leitmotif (predominantly in direct speech; exceptions: explicit prediction
12.13 ff., allusions 21.522 ff., 22.410 f., etc.); on this, Duckworth 1933, 30–32, 54
445 αἰεί: = ἀεί. — πρώτοισι μετὰ Τρώεσσι: = μετὰ πρώτοις Τρ. (cf. R 20.2).
Commentary 161
n. 120; collection of attestations: Kullmann 1960, 343–349; Haft 1990, 39 f.,

56; formulaic expressions for Troy’s destruction: Scully 1990, 69–77. – On
the contrast between Hektor’s clear-sighted anticipation of Troy’s end and his
re-awakening hope at 475 ff., see ad loc.
447 ≈ 4.163, Od. 15.211. — μέν: ≈ μήν ‘although, admittedly’ (K.-G. 2.139 f.); implication:
Hektor seeks to defend Troy by his efforts in battle for as long as possible, even though he
anticipates the city’s ultimate fall. – The majority of the mss. offer the reading γάρ (as in
the iterata) rather than μέν; in that case, 447 ff. would imply that a knowledge of Troy’s
imminent ruin in particular reinforces Hektor’s striving for fame – as a permanent value
(Taplin 1992, 123 f.; Görgemanns 2001, 116; cf. 145–211n., point (3)). In the present con-
text, this notion nevertheless appears forced (Kirk) and insensitive to Andromache:
Hektor – elsewhere the defender of their homeland par excellence (402–403n.) – would
be giving her the impression that he is now fighting exclusively for the sake of his per-
sonal fame, having given up in resignation his role as defender of the city. μέν, although
less well attested in the tradition, gets further support from the fact that γάρ might have
replaced μέν more easily than vice versa (in analogy to the parallel passage at 4.163, and
because γάρ is in general ‘more typically invasive’ than μέν: West 2001, 199). — κατὰ
φρένα καὶ κατὰ θυμόν: a VE formula (1.193n.) used for various spiritual or mental pro-
cesses: 3x with οἶδα (see iterata), also 8x with ὁρμαίνω, 6x with μερμηρίζω, 2x with
φράζομαι, 1x each with νοέω, ἐρέθω and δέδοικα. A metrically convenient synonym
doubling (1.160n.); φρήν and θυμός thus do not denote two different aspects of mental
processes: the lexemes of the semantic field ‘soul-spirit’ are generally interchangeable
in such phrases (Jahn 1987, 210 f.; cf. 51n., 61n.).
448–449 = 4.164 f.; 448b–449 ≈ 4.46b–47 (and 8.551b–552, probably spurious). On the no-
tion, cf. 283n. — Ἴλιος ἱρή: 96n. — λαός: here denotes the people as a whole, including
women and children (LfgrE s.v. 1636.31 ff.; but cf. 80n., 327, 433). — ἐϋμμελίω: ‘with a
good ash lance’, a generic epithetP of heroes, but in the Iliad only of Priam and the sons
of Panthoos (LfgrE s.v.; cf. 12n. on βοὴν ἀγαθός). On the contracted form, Schw. 1.252,
Chantr. 1.64 f.; on the semantic field, 116n.
450–465 An implicit reply to Andromache’s profession of love at 429 f.: as she
had done, Hektor indicates how much his wife means to him through the con-
trast ‘all other relatives – you’. The form of the priamel lends additional emo-
tional intensity to the notion (with intensification from one section to the next:
‘it is not the pain of the Trojans that touches me so much [1 verse] – not even
that of Hekabe, nor that of Priam [1 verse] – nor that of my brothers [2 verses] –
447 μέν: ≈ μήν (R 24.6, ↑). — τόδε (ϝ)οῖδα: on the prosody, R 4.3.

448 ἔσσεται: = ἔσται (R 16.6). — ὀλώλῃ (ϝ)ίλιος: on the prosody, R 4.4. — ὀλώλῃ: subjunc. of the
intrans. perf. of ὄλλυμι, ‘perish’. — ἱρή: = ἱερά.
449 ἐϋμμελίω: gen. of ἐϋμμελίης (↑).
162 Iliad 6
as much as yours’ [expressed across 12 verses]); see Race 1982, 35, 41 f.; fur-
ther bibliography on the priamel in general: Bierl 2003, 103 n. 43; cf. also
383–385n.
450–458 On the fate awaiting the population of a conquered city, cf. 57b–60n.,
9.591b–594, 22.59–71a (Schadewaldt [1938] 1966, 140 n. 3; Wickert-Micknat
1983, 32 f., 38–49); specifically on the sufferings of a warrior’s widow: Od.
8.523 ff.
450–454 Τρώων … ἄλγος … | … Ἑκάβης … | 2 verses | … σεῖ(ο): Τρώων and the genitives
that follow are taken as objective by AH (‘my pain for the Trojans … does not affect me as
much as the one for you’). But ἄλγος does not denote only (physical and mental) pain,
but also the circumstances of fate causing this pain (cf. the common expression ἄλγεα
δίδωμι with a deity as the subject: Mawet 1979, 161 ff.; Rijksbaron 1992); this allows for
the more natural interpretation of Τρώων etc. as subjective genitives (‘the pain of the
Trojans …’): LfgrE s.v. μέλω 118.71; Kirk; Graziosi/Haubold on 450.
450 ὀπίσσω: ‘for the future, with a view to the future’ (LfgrE s.v. 736.59 ff.); cf. Od. 19.330 τῷ
δὲ καταρῶνται πάντες βροτοὶ ἄλγε’ ὀπίσσω, Il. 22.19 ἐπεὶ οὔ τι τίσιν γ’ ἔδδεισας ὀπίσσω.
451 αὐτῆς: intensifying (‘herself’ in the sense ‘even’, like French même, negated ‘not
even’): LfgrE s.v. 1642.3 ff./35 ff. — Πριάμοιο ἄνακτος: a VE formula (2.373n.).
452 brothers: On the role played by the sons of Priam in the Iliad, see 244–246n.
πολέες τε καὶ ἐσθλοί: an inflectible phrase (nom./acc./gen.; neuter πολλὰ καὶ ἐσθλά),
common at VE; in total 12x Il., 9x Od., 1x h.Hom. In contexts similar to this one: 22.44,
24.167, 24.204, 24.520.
453 ἐν κονίῃσι πέσοιεν: an inflectible formulaic phrase: also at VB at 23.437 (as here),
15.423, 17.428 (πεσόντα/-τος); 5x Il. ἐν κονίῃσι πεσών after caesura A 3; 4x Il. πέσον/-εν
ἐν κονίῃσι at VE; also other variants. — ὑπ(ό): 368n. — ἀνδράσι δυσμενέεσσιν: = Od.
3.90, 22.234; more frequent at VB (inflectible: 19.168n.); on the archaic form (beside the
younger δυσμενέσιν at 3.51), see G 70 and Blanc 2007, 21 f.; 2008, 187–189. δυσμενής,
in the Iliad always relating to opponents in war, is like many emotional terms largely
limited to character languageP (exception: 22.403): LfgrE s.v.; de Jong (1987) 2004, 144.
454–455 κεν … | … ἄγηται: a prospective subjunctive as an expression of a definite expec-
tation (Schw. 2.311), in contrast to the potential optatives at 452 f. (fate of the brothers)
and 456 f. (secondary consequences of Andromache’s fate as a slave): Kirk. — Ἀχαιῶν
χαλκοχιτώνων: a VE formula (1.371n.). — δακρυόεσσαν: cf. 373n. — ἐλεύθερον ἦμαρ:
450 τόσσον … ὀπίσσω: on the -σσ-, R 9.1.

451 Πριάμοιο (ϝ)άνακτος: on the prosody, R 4.3.
452 πολέες: = πολλοί (R 12.2).
454–455 σεῖ(ο): = σοῦ (R 14.1). — ὅτε κεν … | … ἄγηται: prospective subjunc. mid.: ‘when … will
lead with himself’. — δακρυόεσσαν: sc. σε. — ἀπούρας: part. of ἀπηύρων ‘took away’ (root aor.
of a defective verb, cf. 17n.).
Commentary 163
VE formula (= 16.831, 20.193), ‘day of freedom’ (adj. rather than a gen.: Schw. 2.177 f.).
As a description of a condition, ἐλεύθερον ἦμαρ is presumably secondarily derived
from the antonym δούλιον ἦμαρ (463, Od. 14.340, 17.323), where ἦμαρ is still used of
the actual ‘day’ of the change in condition (Raaflaub 1981, 188 with n. 62; LfgrE s.v.
ἐλεύθερος). On comparable expressions (ἦμαρ ἀναγκαῖον, ὀλέθριον ἦμαρ, αἴσιμον ἦμαρ,
etc.), see 19.294n.; LfgrE s.v. ἦμαρ 917.34 ff. – On the concept of freedom in Homer, see
LfgrE s.v. ἐλεύθερος with bibliography (especially Raaflaub loc. cit. 188 f. with nn.
68 f.) and Jacquinod 1992: the prerequisite for an individual’s personal freedom is inte-
gration into an intact community; both aspects are inseparably connected in the term
ἐλεύθερος (elsewhere in early epic only at 528, see ad loc.).
456–459 καί κεν … | καί κεν … | 1 verse | καί: The emphatic anaphora stresses the number
of sorrows awaiting Andromache in slavery.
456–458 Weaving and fetching water are typical female tasks, performed also by
free individuals in Homeric society (see 90–91n., 490 f.; Od. 7.19 f., 10.105 ff.);
the trouble regarding Andromache’s future fate thus does not concern the im-
pending labor so much as life in a foreign land (cf. 1.30) and subordination
to another woman’s authority (see 456b vs. 491 f.; schol. bT on 456; Wickert-
Micknat 1983, 41 n. 1; Ndoye 2010, 275 f.). Hektor omits mentioning that as a
young female slave, she may also face sexual exploitation (cf. 1.31n.; in the
post-Homeric narrative tradition, Andromache appears as Neoptolemos’ con-
cubine [Eur. Andr. 12–38 etc.]): Kirk on 455. — in Argos … | … from the spring
Messeis or Hypereia: Since Hektor cannot foresee where Andromache will be
taken after the fall of Troy, ‘Argos’ here likely denotes Greece as a whole (LfgrE
s.v. Ἄργος 1210.24 ff.; cf. 107n., also 24.437n.: ‘Argos’ as a sort of code for the
center of the enemy’s country); ‘Messeis’ and ‘Hypereia’ may be interpreted as
universally common names of springs (‘the middle’, ‘the upper’: Kirk; LfgrE
s.v. Μεσσηΐς end; cf. 2.734n.). At any rate, attempts at localization by later au-
thors (Strab. 9.5.6, 9.5.18 [= C 432/438 f.], Paus. 3.20.1) do not lead to definitive
results (details in Kirk).
456 πρὸς ἄλλης: ‘on the orders of another (woman)’ (Schw. 2.514 f.). — ἱστόν: ‘web’;
forms an inflectible formula together with ὑφαίνω (3.125n.).
458 2nd VH ≈ Od. 10.273, h.Ven. 130. — πόλλ’ ἀεκαζομένη: an inflectible VB formula (1x
each Il./Od., 2x h.Cer.). — ἀνάγκη: also stressed elsewhere as a characteristic of slaves’
456 ἐοῦσα: = οὖσα (R 16.6).

457 φορέοις: φορέω is the frequentative of φέρω. — Μεσσηΐδος ἠ’ Ὑπερείης: gen. of origin with-
out preposition (R 19.2); ἠ(έ) = ‘or’.
458 πόλλ’: = πολλά; adv., ‘much, very’. — ἀεκαζομένη: ‘unwilling’ (part. of the otherwise unat-
tested verb *ἀεκάζομαι). — ἐπικείσετ(αι): sc. σοι, ‘will lie upon you’.
164 Iliad 6
existence, cf. 16.836 (ἦμαρ ἀναγκαῖον), Od. 14.272 = 17.441 (τοὺς δ’ ἄναγον ζωούς, σφίσιν
ἐργάζεσθαι ἀνάγκῃ): Gschnitzer 1976, 9.
459–463 The Iliad contains eight tis-speechesP imagined by charactersP, five of
them by Hektor: also 479 (see ad loc.), 7.87–91, 7.300–302, 22.106–108 (else-
where only one each by Agamemnon, Sarpedon and Menelaos: 4.176–182,
12.317–321, 23.575–578): consideration of what others might later say about
him is characteristic of Hektor (de Jong 1987a, 76–79; Bouvier 2002, 59–64;
Kelly 2007, 183 [with further bibliography]; Beck 2012, 52–54, 166 f.). On the
one hand, his grief over Andromache’s future suffering is in the foreground:
he imagines how bitter it will be for her – a slave – to be called the former wife
of Troy’s leading hero. On the other hand, this grief is combined with a certain
pride: the tis-speech is ‘a kind of oral epitaph […], indicating how he hopes
to be remembered, viz. as the best warrior before Troy’ (cf. 7.87–91): de Jong
(1987) 2004, 177; cf. de Jong 1987a, 77; schol. bT on 460; Scodel 1992a, 59, 64 f.
In this way, Hektor again implicitly justifies the heroic attitude to life that pre-
vents him from complying with Andromache’s plea (Schneider 1996, 126). –
Differently, Schadewaldt (1935) 1997, 135 f.; Arthur 1981, 33; Van Nortwick
2001, 228 (in his tis-speech, Hektor anticipates the shame Andromache’s hu-
miliation will bring to his own name).
459 1st VH = 7.87; ≈ 2.271 (see ad loc.), etc. — εἴπησιν: a prospective subjunc., taken up by
the fut. ἐρέει at 462 (likewise at 7.87/91, Od. 6.275/285; cf. καί κέ τις ὧδ’ ἐρέει Il. 4.176).
On the functional proximity of subjunc. and ind. fut., see G 100; Schw. 2.310; Chantr.
2.209 f.; examined under a diachronic aspect in Ruijgh (1992) 1996, 677 ff. (678 f.: use
of εἴπησι as a – metrically convenient – equivalent of ἐρέει is an archaism, the remnant
of a prehistoric declarative use of the subjunc.). – On the ending -ησι (without ι sub-
script), West 1998, XXXI. — (κατὰ) δάκρυ χέουσαν: an inflectible VE formula (1.413n.;
cf. 6.405n., 496).
460–461 ὃς ἀριστεύεσκε μάχεσθαι | Τρώων: This corresponds to the ideal, formulated
by Hektor at 445, αἰεὶ … πρώτοισι μετὰ Τρώεσσι μάχεσθαι; an imagined tis-speech often
contains echoes of the surrounding direct speech (de Jong 1987a, 83).
460 2nd VH = 11.746, 16.292, 16.551, 17.351.
461 1st VH = 2.230 (see ad loc.), 4.333, 4.355, 11.568; ≈ 8x Il. — Τρώων ἱπποδάμων: on the
generic epithet ἱππόδαμος, 299n.; on horse-breeding in Troy, 2.230n.
459 τις (ϝ)είπησιν: on the prosody, R 4.5. — εἴπησιν: 3rd sing. subjunc. (R 16.3). — κατὰ …
χέουσαν: so-called tmesis (R 20.2). — δάκρυ: collective sing.
460 ἀριστεύεσκε: frequentative (R 16.5), ‘was continually the best’; dependent on this is Τρώων
(461) as a comparative or partitive gen.
461 ὅτε (ϝ)ίλιον: on the prosody, R 4.3.
Commentary 165
462 1st VH = 4.182, 7.91; ≈ 22.108.

463 1st VH ≈ 19.324. — χήτει: an ossified dat. (related to *χῆτος ‘lack’; in early epic also
at 19.324, Od. 16.35, Hes. Th. 605, h.Ap. 78); used like a preposition with the gen. (Kloss
1994, 138 f.). Cf. Latin. absentiā > Italian senza (suggestion by Führer). — τοιοῦδ’
ἀνδρὸς ἀμύνειν: τοιόσδε, τοῖος, τοιοῦτος, etc. may be used with a final-consecutive inf.
to mean ‘of such a kind that he can/could’ > ‘capable of doing something’; cf. 15.254 f.,
Od. 2.60, 3.205 f., etc. and the expression οἷός τέ εἰμι (AH, Leaf; Schw. 2.364, Chantr.
2.302); here ‘a man (like me), who was able (so long as he was alive) / who would be able
(if he were still alive), …’: a suggestion that, in his efforts in battle, Hektor has not least
Andromache’s welfare in mind (cf. 441–446n.; Latacz 2008, 127). — δούλιον ἦμαρ: cf.
454–455n.
464 2nd VH ≈ 14.114. — But may I be dead and the piled earth hide me under:
a recourse in form of a ring-compositionP to Andromache’s death wish at the
beginning of her speech (see 407–465n., 410–411n.).
χυτὴ … γαῖα: i.e. a grave mound, cf. the iteratum (Tydeus’ tomb), also 23.256b = Od.
3.258b χυτὴν ἐπὶ γαῖαν ἔχευαν, Il. 6.419a (see ad loc.), 7.86 etc. (σῆμα χέω of the piling up
of a grave mound).
465 that they drag you captive: cf. Priam’s vision of the future at 22.62/65.
πρίν γ’ ἔτι: The transmission vacillates between γ’ ἔτι and γέ τι (‘before in any way’,
preferred as the more emphatic variant by AH [see Anh. 160], Leaf, Brillante and oth-
ers). πρίν + inf. in the sense ‘before it comes about that’ (as at e.g. 24.245 f., Od. 17.597):
Hektor would rather be dead than witness this. — σῆς τε βοῆς σοῦ θ’ ἑλκηθμοῖο: a
hendiadys, ‘your cries during your abduction’ (Leaf, Willcock). The second possessive
pronoun functions as an objective gen. (‘when they abduct you’); cf. 19.321a n., 19.336 f.,
Od. 11.202 (AH; Schw. 2.203). — πυθέσθαι: may denote both immediate (‘to hear’:
Leaf; Schw. 2.107) and indirect perception (‘to hear about’: Faesi/Franke; LfgrE s.v.
πεύθομαι, πυνθάνομαι 1204.32 ff., but see also 1204.16 f.).
466–496 Astyanax’ childish fright at his father’s helmet leads to a temporary
decrease in tension: the parents laugh out loud in relief (471); as ‘a small cham-
pion of the wife’ (Schadewaldt [1935] 1997, 137), the infant makes his father
set aside his helmet, and thus his war-like nature, for a moment (472 f.); after
Hektor tenderly handles the infant, he hands him back to his wife rather than
to the nurse, creating a moment of particular intimacy (482 ff.); when he sees
her laugh as a result amidst her tears, he feels pity for her, caresses her and
finally finds some words of comfort (484 ff.). But the fundamental difference
between the spouses also remains tangible in this scene: Hektor’s prayer at
462 τις (ϝ)ερέει: cf. 459n. — ἐρέει: fut. ‘will say’ (Attic ἐρεῖ, cf. R 6). — ἔσσεται: = ἔσται (R 16.6).
463 χήτει: ‘given the absence of, because you are lacking’ (↑).
464 τεθνηῶτα: = τεθνεῶτα (cf. 71n.). — κατὰ … καλύπτοι: so-called tmesis (R 20.2).
166 Iliad 6
475 ff. (see ad loc.) once again shows his heroic attitude that Andromache had
deplored to be so dangerous; his speech of comfort at 490 ff. leads to a sober
request that she return to everyday life, where the male and female spheres
are strictly separated; in the end, Andromache leaves in tears, just as she ar-
rived (VE 496 = 405; cf. 373n.). On the scene as a whole, see Schadewaldt loc.
cit. 136–139; Owen 1946, 71 f.; Quaglia 1959/60, 179 f.; Herter 1973 (compari-
son with representations in the visual arts); Arthur 1981, 31, 34 f.; Lohmann
1988, 47; Metz 1990, 391 f.; Pratt 2007, esp. 28–30; Halliwell 2008, 53–55;
Le Meur 2009, 48–50.
Astyanax’ role as a link between his parents finds a linguistic reflection in the fact that
the three characters, introduced at 395 ff. by their proper names, are now largely iden-
tified through their relationships with one another: παῖς (466, 467, 477, 483), υἱός (474),
πατήρ (468, 471, 479), μήτηρ (471, 481), ἄλοχος (482, 495), πόσις (484) (de Jong 1987, 109
[with somewhat different stress]; cf. periphrastic denominationP). The significance of
familial relationships is further stressed by the frequency of the adj. φίλος: 468 (in con-
trast to ἀτυχθείς), 471 (striking expansion of the VE formula πατὴρ καὶ πότνια μήτηρ,
thus likely with an emphatic, affective sense [cf. 1.20n.]), also 474, 482, 495 (Kirk; Di
Benedetto [1994] 1998, 118).
466–473 The scene may be prompted by Hektor’s traditional epithet korythaiólos
(‘shaking the helmet’ or ‘with gleaming helmet’: 116n.), which evokes the men-
acing effect of his war-like appearance: Whallon 1969, 63–70; Camerotto
2009, 111 ff., esp. 121 with nn. 145 f. (with further bibliography); Willcock
2004, 60 with n. 11; on this phenomenon in general, NTHS 15. Despite the lev-
ity of the scene, it graphically expresses the conflict between Hektor’s roles as
warrior and family man that his helmet frightens Astyanax as much as it does
his enemies (cf. 468n.): Redfield (1975) 1994, 123; Griffin 1980, 7; Schein
1984, 175 f.; cf. 407–496n.
The scene may also once more point ahead in the form of a prolepsisP to Astyanax’ end
(cf. 373n.): according to Il. parva fr. 29 West, Neoptolemos snatches the child from his
nurse’s bosom before throwing him down from the tower: παῖδα δ’ ἑλὼν ἐκ κόλπου
ἐϋπλοκάμοιο τιθήνης | ῥῖψε ποδὸς τεταγὼν ἀπὸ πύργου. If this detail was already pres-
ent in the pre-Homeric narrative tradition (and if the fragment of the Il. parv. reflects
this tradition in its phraseology), 467 f. will have been understood as alluding to it: ἂψ
δ’ ὁ πάϊς πρὸς κόλπον ἐϋζώνοιο τιθήνης | ἐκλίνθη ἰάχων. In that case, the narrator would
remind his audience of Astyanax’ imminent end precisely via this inversion of the tra-
ditional motif – here the infant finds shelter in his nurse’s bosom rather than being
torn away from it (Burgess 2012, 176–183). – The ancient scholia (bT on 467) stress the
scene’s ἐνάργεια (‘graphic quality’) and life-like realism; on this, see Nünlist 2009, 153,
190, 195.
Commentary 167
466 οὗ παιδὸς ὀρέξατο: ‘stretched (himself) out for, reached for his son’, with the gen.
of the aspired (but unachieved) goal, as at 13.190 f. (Schw. 2.104; Sommer 1977, 111, 138;
LfgrE s.v. ὀρέγω 762.53 ff., 763.8 f.). — φαίδιμος Ἕκτωρ: a VE formula (29x Il.); on the
generic epithetP φαίδιμος, see 144n.
467 κόλπον: 136n. — ἐϋζώνοιο: ‘well-girdled’, a generic epithet of women (1.429n.).
468–470 ἀτυχθείς, | ταρβήσας … | … νοήσας: progressively refined reasons for the
child’s behavior: ἀτυχθείς explains ἐκλίνθη ἰάχων and is itself explicated by ταρβήσας;
νοήσας in turn denotes the external cause for ταρβήσας (AH, Faesi/Franke).
468 ἰάχων: ἰάχω ‘cry out’ is used in a variety of situations; of cries of fear or terror as here,
also e.g. 5.343, 20.62 (Krapp 1964, 96 f.); elsewhere mostly of warriors trying to instill
fear in others with cries of attack (especially in the VB formula σμερδαλέα ἰάχων, see
16.785n.), and in mass scenes as expressions of assent (2.333, 7.403, etc.), joy (13.822), an-
ger (17.723), etc. (LfgrE s.v.; Wille 2001, 32). — ἀτυχθείς: related to ἀτύζομαι (37–38n.),
elsewhere mostly in reference to warriors or horses that flee from their opponents in
panic (Schein 1984, 175). Here construed with the acc. like a verb of fearing (Willcock;
LfgrE s.v. 1520.22 ff.).
469 crest with its horse-hair: Helmet crests serve as status symbols and make
warriors appear more imposing, while at the same time fulfilling a protective
function (cushioning sword blows): 3.337n. with bibliography. On the archae-
ological evidence from the Bronze and Iron Ages, see Borchhardt 1972, 143–
147; 1977a, 61 ff.; Schwartz 2009, 55–66, esp. 59 f.; Buchholz 2010, 135–209,
esp. 162 ff.
ταρβήσας χαλκόν: sc. because of the gleam (473n.) – which may appear threatening to
adult warriors as well: 13.340 ff., 16.70 ff., etc.; cf. 116n. — ἰδέ: a metrical variant of ἠδέ
(2.511n. with bibliography). — ἱππιοχαίτην: a hapaxP (on the formation of the word, see
Risch 185, 218, 228; LfgrE s.v. ἱππιοχάρμης); cf. the more common epithets ἱππόκομος,
ἵππουρις and ἱπποδάσεια (of helmets: LfgrE s.vv.) and ἱπποκορυστής (of warriors:
2.1–2a n.).
470 δεινὸν … νεύοντα: cf. δεινὸν δὲ λόφος καθύπερθεν ἔνευεν (formula in arming scenes:
3.337 [see ad loc.], 11.42, 16.138, etc.). — νοήσας: on the construction with the participle,
2.391n.
466 οὗ: possessive pronoun of the 3rd person (R 14.4). — ὀρέξατο: on the unaugmented form,
R 16.1.
467 ἐϋζώνοιο: on the declension, R 11.2.
468 ἐκλίνθη (ϝ)ιάχων: on the prosody, R 4.4. — φίλου ὄψιν: on the so-called correption, R 5.5.
469 τε ἰδέ: on the hiatus, R 5.6. — ἰδὲ (λ)λόφον: on the prosody, M 4.6.
470 δεινόν: adverbial (with νεύοντα), ‘terribly’.
168 Iliad 6
471 2nd VH ≈ 413 (see ad loc.), here expanded by φίλος (see 466–496n. end). — ἐκ …
ἐγέλασσε: The compound is found only here in the Iliad; ἐκ expresses ‘the sponta-
neous, open reaction of both Hector and Andromache’; similarly h.Merc. 389, where
Zeus laughs at his small son Hermes (Graziosi/Haubold, with further bibliography on
laughter as a motif in Homer).
472 1st VH = Od. 14.276, 2nd VH = Il. 6.494.
473 Cf. 3.293; 1st VH = Od. 6.75, h.Merc. 63; ≈ Il. 4.112, 24.271, Od. 9.329, 13.20, 13.370,
h.Merc. 134. — παμφανόωσαν: emphatic; the predicate adj. replaces the verse end
πουλυβοτείρῃ expected in formulaic language ([ἐπὶ] χθον. πουλυβοτ. in total 20x in early
epic, see 3.89n.): ‘The unexpected effect, startling to anyone familiar with the usual
formulae, directs attention both to the sight of the helmet lying on the ground and to its
glitter, the reason for the child’s fright’ (Edwards 1987, 211).
475–481 An abbreviated version of the type-sceneP ‘prayer’ (1.37–42n., 6.304–
311n.). The elements here realized are: (2/3) verb of praying and naming of the
deities invoked (475); (5) invocation (476a); (7) plea (476b–481). As a spontane-
ous wish, the prayer is comparatively informal (absence of gesture of prayer,
cult titles in the invocation, and reference to services rendered or received ear-
lier). – At the same time, the prayer is an expression of renewed confidence
(see esp. 478b vs. 448); on Hektor’s vacillation between different visions of
the future, Schadewaldt 1956 (1970), 25–36; Kullmann (1968) 2001, 397–399;
Redfield (1975) 1994, 125–127; cf. 526–527a n. (similar is e.g. Agamemnon at
4.160–168 vs. 169–182; on this, cf. 6.145–211n. point (2)). Hektor attempts to im-
part confidence to Andromache as well: 480 f. are addressed to her as much as
to the gods (three-way conversationP; similar is Od. 7.331–333 etc.; cf. Lateiner
1997, 252). At the same time, the contrast between the spouses is brought out
precisely in this passage: whereas Andromache fears that Hektor will soon fall
victim to his own impulse for battle, making an orphan of Astyanax, he hopes
that the child will one day stand out in the fighting himself – to the delight of
his mother (cf. Lohmann 1988, 47; Metz 1990, 392). No reaction of the gods is
mentioned (cf. 311n.), but at this point the audience is already in a position to
know (if familiar with the narrative tradition: 373n.), or at least to suspect, that
471 ἐκ … ἐγέλασσε: ingressive; on the so-called tmesis, R 20.2; on the -σσ-, R 9 1. — πατήρ τε …
καὶ … μήτηρ: like 413 (see ad loc.), with a predicate in the sing.
472 κρατός: gen. of κάρη ‘head’.
473 τήν: anaphoric demonstrative pronoun (R 17), relating to κόρυθ(α) in 472. — παμφανόωσαν:
on the epic diectasis, R 8.
474 ὃν φίλον υἱόν: anticipated object of the ἐπεί clause; ὅν is the possessive pronoun of the 3rd
person (R 14.4). — κύσε and πῆλε: unaugmented (R 16.1) aorists of κυνέω ‘kiss’ and πάλλω ‘shake,
swing, sway’.
Commentary 169
the prayer will not be heard (Edwards 1987, 211). Andromache’s fears will be
proven right (407 ff., 432), and at 22.484 ff. and 24.726 ff. she draws up her own
image of Astyanax’ future; on the connections between the three passages,
Lohmann 1988, 66 f., 72 f.; Tsagalis 2004, 131–134; Grethlein 2006, 251–253
(see esp. 22.498 as a ‘reply’ to 6.479); cf. 369–502n.
475 2nd VH = 8.526, Od. 4.472, 8.432; on the formulaic phrase ‘Zeus and the other
gods’, see also 3.298n. with bibliography.
ἐπευξάμενος: temporally coincident with εἶπεν, ‘while he prayed’ (Schw. 2.300 f.; cf.
7–8n., 72n.).
476–478 δότε δὴ … γενέσθαι | 1 verse | … καὶ … ἀνάσσειν: on δή with the imper., see
306n. The syntax of the passage has been interpreted in various ways; the least com-
plicated solution (with West’s punctuation, i.e. no comma at the end of 477, but rather
after ἀγαθόν at 478): both infinitives depend on δότε (on δίδωμι + inf. in the language
of prayer, see Morrison 1991, 153 n. 26); τ(ε) at 478 links ἀριπρεπέα and ἀγαθόν (with
chiastic placement of the adj. and additions; the centrally placed ὧδε probably refers
ἀπὸ κοινοῦ to both parts). Punctuation after 477 in older editions is less satisfactory (see
Leaf, Kirk). — καὶ τόνδε … ὡς καὶ ἐγώ περ: καί is readily used twice in corrrespond-
ing parts of sentences (AH); cf. e.g. Xen. Cyr. 2.2.6 οὕτω δὴ καὶ ἐγώ, ὥσπερ καὶ οἱ ἄλλοι
ἐποίουν (Denniston 324, with further examples). With ὡς καὶ ἐγώ περ, add εἰμί (as at
10.556 f.: ἀμείνονας ἠέ περ οἵδε [sc. εἰσὶν] | ἵππους; contrast 1.260 with assimilation of
the case: ἀρείοσιν ἠέ περ ὑμῖν): Faesi/Franke. — ἀριπρεπέα Τρώεσσιν: on the loca-
tive dative without preposition referring to groups of persons, cf. e.g. ἔξοχον ἡρώεσσιν
(2.483); Schw. 2.155, Chantr. 2.80. — ἶφι ἀνάσσειν: an inflectible VE formula (3x Il., 2x
Od., 1x ‘Hes.’). ‘Hector reflects on Astyanax’s public name’ (ἀνάσσειν > Ἀστυ-άναξ, cf.
402–403n.): Graziosi/Haubold.
479 In a manner similar to the imagined tis-speechP regarding Andromache
(459–463n.), Hektor is concerned with his own posthumous fame also here
when discussing his son (Scodel 1992a, 61; Bouvier 2002, 60). On the ideal
of heroes’ sons needing to maintain their fathers’ fame, see 209n., 446; here
intensified: only exceptionally in Homeric epic do sons surpass their fathers
(1.272n.; cf. 4.399 f. vs. 4.405, 15.641 f., Od. 2.276 f.; on this Schouler 1980, 1–7;
475 ἄλλοισιν … θεοῖσιν: on the declension, R 11.2.

476–477 τόνδε: subject-acc.; παῖδ’ ἐμόν is in apposition to it, ἀριπρεπέα and ἀγαθόν are pre-
dicative. — περ: stresses ἐγώ, ‘just as I am’ (R 24.10). — ἀριπρεπέα: on the uncontracted form,
R 6. — Τρώεσσιν: ‘among the Trojans’ (R 19.2; ↑); on the declension, R 11.3.
478 ὧδε: looks back to ὡς καὶ ἐγώ. — βίην: acc. of respect (R 19.1); on the -η- after -ι-, R 2. — καὶ
(ϝ)ιλίου ἶφι (ϝ)ανάσσειν: on the prosody, R 4.4 and R 5.4; the digamma of ἶφι (see below) is not
taken into account (R 4.6). — ἶφι: ‘instrumental’ (-φι: R 11.4) from (ϝ)ίς (cf. Lat. vis), ‘with force’.
479 τις (ϝ)είποι: on the prosody, R 4.5. — πολλόν: adverbial acc.; on the declension, R 12.2.
170 Iliad 6
Grethlein 2006, 49–54; cf. also Schneider 1996, 127–129; West 2007, 440–
443).
εἴποι: The vulgate text offers εἴπησι, apparently by assimilation with 459. The v.l. εἴποι
is supported by matters of meter and content: (1) the first syllable of πατρός regularly
scans long in Homer, (2) the opt. of wish is better suited to the context of a prayer than
is the prospective subjunc. (Leaf). Differently, Graziosi/Haubold: ‘the free-standing
subjunctive fits Hector’s animated, improvised prayer […] Hector is not simply express-
ing a wish, he is imagining a situation.’ — πατρός … ἀμείνων: Direct speeches – also
‘speeches within a speech’ (164–165n.) – encompassing less than one verse are very rare
in early epic: elsewhere only Hes. Op. 453, 454; a thought rather than a speech: Il. 15.82
(Führer 1967, 51 f.). Deviations from the stichic principle (beginning or ending a speech
in mid-verse) elsewhere at Il. 2.70 (see ad loc.) and 23.855 (Nünlist 2002, 223 with n. 13).
— γ’ ὅδε: Aristarchus’ reading is to be preferred over the vulgate δ’ ὅ γε: cf. ἥδε at 460,
τόδε at 7.89 (West, app. crit.). On emphatic γε, Denniston 116 (here ‘almost […] «even»:
a limitative force [«at any rate»] would attribute undue humility to Hector’). — πολλὸν
ἀμείνων: an inflectible VE formula (7x in early epic).
480–481 Joy of relatives or companions at the return of a hero from battle is a
typical motif: cf. 5.687 f., 7.294 ff., 7.306 ff., 10.540 ff., 17.27 f., 17.635 f., 24.705 f.
But in these cases the emphasis is usually on their relief that the hero has
survived. The stress here is on the successes Astyanax is meant to achieve;
as a matter of course, Hektor envisions Andromache in the role of the hero’s
proud mother. – Hektor’s martial projections may appear objectionable to the
modern reader, especially since they are opposed to Andromache’s previously
voiced thoughts and feelings (see 407–496n., 466–496n., 475–481n.). But his
attitude must be considered in the light of the social values he grew up with
(441 ff. with nn.); cf. Redfield (1975) 1994, XII; Pratt 2007, 30. His words find a
parallel 17.207 f., where Zeus regrets that Andromache will no longer be able to
receive from her husband Achilleus’ armour, which Hektor took after defeating
Patroklos (Graziosi/Haubold on 475–81).
480 ἀνιόντα: ‘(about him,) when he returns’, as if preceded by an acc.-inf. such as αὐτὸν
πατρὸς ἀμείνω εἶναι (AH, Willcock); or εἰπεῖν + acc., as in the expression εὖ εἰπεῖν τινα
(with the direct speech at 479 in place of the adv. εὖ: K.-G. 1.295); further discussion in
Leaf. — ἔναρα βροτόεντα: a formulaic phrase (8x Il., 1x ‘Hes.’; of which 6x at VE, 3x
after caesura B 1). On ἔναρα, 68–69n.; βροτόεις (related to βρότος ‘dried blood’) is found
in early epic only in the present phrase and 1x each with ἀνδράγρια and ὠτειλή (LfgrE
s.v.).
480 πολέμου ἀνιόντα: on the hiatus, R 5.6.

Commentary 171
481 δήϊον: ‘hostile’; on the etymology and semantic development, 2.415n. — φρένα: 61n.
482–485 On this moment of greatest closeness between the spouses, see 466–
496n.
482–483 ἐν χερσὶν ἔθηκεν | … δέξατο κόλπῳ: on the dat. of an attained position of rest
(with and without ἐν), Schw. 2.155 f.
483 2nd VH ≈ h.Cer. 231. — κηώδεϊ: ‘fragrant’ with perfumed oil (cf. Laser 1983, 156–158);
alternatively in reference to the fragrance of Andromache’s garments (AH; LfgrE s.v.; cf.
288n., 295n.). — δέξατο κόλπῳ: a VE formula (136n.).
484 and her husband … took pity upon her: cf. 407n. — smiling in her tears:
This marks the last moment of – tarnished – happiness for Andromache,
whose appearances in the Iliad are otherwise exclusively characterized by
tears (Monsacré 1984, 161; cf. 373n.). – On the expression of mixed feelings in
Greek literature in general: Arnould 1990, 93–99.
δακρυόεν: internal acc. (as at 2.270 ἡδὺ γέλασσαν, etc.): Schw. 2.77, Chantr. 2.41 f.
485 = 1.361 (see ad loc.), 5.372, 24.127, Od. 4.610, 5.181; 1st VH = Od. 13.288; 2nd
VH a further 13x Il., 24x Od., 2x h.Ven. — stroked her: a gesture of consolation
and affection; elsewhere in the Iliad only in mother-child relationships (see
iterata).
ἔκ τ’ ὀνόμαζεν: 253n.
486 [Poor Andromache] Strange woman: Greek daimoníē, equivalent to
Andromache’s address at 407 (cf. Od. 23.166 vs. 174). Here likely used sugges-
tively: in contrast to his first reaction (441/447 ff.), Hektor now seeks to comfort
his wife, by suggesting that in his opinion she is worrying more than is war-
ranted. — for me: a so-called ethic dat., as an expression of Hektor’s compas-
sion (Burkert 1955, 87).
ἀκαχίζεο: The present ἀκαχίζομαι (only 2nd sing. imper., here and at Od. 11.486) is
secondarily derived from the reduplicated aor. ἀκαχέσθαι (which serves as the aor. of
ἄχνυμαι/ἄχομαι): LfgrE s.vv. ἀκαχίζομαι and ἄχνυμαι; Mawet 1979, 341 f. (with further
bibliography).
487–489 The notion that the moment of one’s death is predetermined appears
here initially as a reason for consolation (487: Hektor will not die before his
481 φρένα: acc. of respect (R 19.1).

483 ἑόν: possessive pronoun of the 3rd person (R 14.4). — μιν: = αὐτόν (R 14.1).
484 ἐλέησε: ingressive.
485 μιν: = αὐτήν (R 14.1). — ἔφατ(ο): impf. of φημί; mid. with no difference in sense from the act.
(R 23). — ἐκ … ὀνόμαζεν: so-called tmesis (R 20.2).
486 τι: acc. of respect (R 19.1); used to stress μή: ‘not in any regard, not at all’. — ἀκαχίζεο: on the
uncontracted form, R 6. — θυμῷ: locative dat. without preposition (R 19.2).
172 Iliad 6
time); implicitly, however, it serves as a further argument for Hektor’s commit-

ment to battle: if both the coward and the brave man must die, there is no point
in holding back. Thus explicitly Callinus fr. 1.8 f./12–15 West (on this, Latacz
1977, 229 f. n. 11); similarly Il. 12.322–328 (Sarpedon addressing Glaukos; cf.
145–211n. point (3); Grethlein 2006, 117–120).
487–488 unless it is fated (aísa), | but as for fate (moíra): Originally both words
mean an actual ‘share’, then metaphorically ‘that apportioned by fate’; aísa
is the more general term, moíra is here used (as usually) in the sense ‘fate
of death’ (LfgrE s.vv.). More detail on the Homeric notion of fate: 2.155n. and
Redfield (1975) 1994, 131–136; Yamagata 1994, 105–120; Graziosi/Haubold
2005, 89–92; on the idea that a person’s fate – the moment of their death in
particular – is determined from birth, cf. 1.416–418, 20.127 f., 22.477, 23.78 f.,
24.209b–210n. (with further attestations); on parallels in IE poetry and mytho-
logy, see West 2007, 379–385.
487 Ἄϊδι προϊάψει: an inflectible VE formula (≈ 1.3 [see ad loc.], 11.55; cf. also 5.190, ‘Hes.’
fr. 204.118 M.-W.).
488 μοῖραν … φημί: μοῖραν in stressed position at VB (Willcock), φημί ‘solemnly declar-
ative’ (Kirk); similar (despite a difference in the situation) is 23.668. — πεφυγμένον
ἔμμεναι: an expressive periphrastic perfect (Schw. 2.407 f.) denoting a state achieved:
‘has escaped’ (AH, Willcock; LfgrE s.v. φεύγω 863.38 ff.).
489 ≈ Od. 8.553; 1st VH = Od. 22.415, 23.66. — οὐ κακόν, οὐδὲ μὲν ἐσθλόν: a common polar
expressionP (see iterata; additional parallels: LfgrE s.v. κακός 1283.47 ff.; Kemmer 1903,
101 f.); on the terms κακός and ἐσθλός, see 443–444n. — ἐπὴν τὰ πρῶτα: τὰ πρῶτα
in combination with temporal conjunctions emphasizes the irreversibility: ‘when once’
(1.6n.).
490–493 ≈ Od. 1.356–359, 21.350–353, both of which are Telemachos addressing
Penelope; instead of ‘battle’ (492), 1.358/21.352 has ‘(public) speech’ and ‘bow’
(as the instrument of the contest for the hand of Penelope); also 492b–493a ≈
Od. 11.352b–353a (Alkinoos among the Phaiakians, in reference to the escort
for Odysseus); 492b = Il. 20.137b (Poseidon addressing Hera; battle as a con-
cern for ‘men’ = humans as opposed to gods). The parallels in the Odyssey are
generally interpreted as altered citations of the present passage in the Iliad
(Kirk; Fernández-Galiano on Od. 21.350–353; Usener 1990, 47–66; cf. also
West on Od. 1.356–359 [perhaps interpolated]). Nevertheless, it remains pos-
487 τις: to be taken with ἀνήρ. — προΐαψει: fut. of προϊάπτω ‘throw down, throw to’.
488 ἔμμεναι: = εἶναι (R 16.4).
489 οὐδὲ μέν: ‘and neither’, emphatic (μέν ≈ μήν: R 24.6). — γένηται: γίγνομαι here in the sense
‘to be born’.
Commentary 173
sible that this is a common topos in the oral poetic tradition which, due to
the flexibility of formulaic language, could easily be adapted to the context
in question (Brillante ad loc.; Clark 1997, 64–66). – Hektor implicitly re-
plies to Andromache’s strategic counsel at 433–439 (see ad loc.), but in light
of the introduction to the speech at 484 f., his words should not be taken as
a mere expression of his claim to authority as a male, but primarily as an at-
tempt to preserve a certain normality in a crisis situation (Graziosi/Haubold
2003, 70), which may also be helpful for Andromache (cf. AH: A.’s ‘familiar
chores should help her forget her worries, while she trusts that the men will do
their duty in battle’ [transl.]). On the other hand, the news of Hektor’s death
at 22.440 ff. thus hits the unsuspecting woman all the harder in the midst of
her everyday tasks: that scene is set up here (seedP; cf. 369–502n. with biblio-
graphy; schol. A on 22.447).
490 τὰ σ’ αὐτῆς: = τὰ σὰ αὐτῆς (cf. ἐμὸν αὐτοῦ, 446n.).
491–492a Cf. 90–91n., 323–324n.
492 ἔργον ἐποίχεσθαι: a VB formula (here and 4x Od.; also 1x Od. δόρπον ἐποίχεσθαι).
ἐποίχομαι means literally ‘to go toward, to go back and forth’ (e.g. at the loom: 1.31n.);
metaphorically ‘to tackle something, to apply oneself to something’ (LfgrE s.v. οἴχομαι
625.3 ff.).
493 1st VH = Od. 1.359, 11.353, 21.353, 23.61; ≈ Il. 22.422; 2nd VH = 17.145. — I be-
yond others: cf. 402–403n.
πᾶσι, μάλιστα δ’ ἐμοί: v.l. attested in a papyrus and a testimonium (= iterata). The main
transmission offers πᾶσιν, ἐμοὶ δὲ μάλιστα (= Od. 14.138, cf. Il. 24.742), but this reading,
necessitating a correption of τοὶ Ἰλίῳ in the 2nd VH, neglects the digamma in (ϝ)ιλίῳ,
which is otherwise usually taken into account (1.71n). On the greater reliability of the
papyrus transmission in such cases, see Haslam 1997, 98 f.; contra: Führer/Schmidt
2001, 26 f., and Graziosi/Haubold ad loc. — ἐγγεγάασιν: ‘are born in’ > ‘are native to,
live in’ (LfgrE s.v. γίγνομαι 154.56 ff.); on the form, Schw. 1.767 n. 7, 769.
494 1st VH ≈ 1.428 (see ad loc.) etc.; 2nd VH = 472. — took up the helmet: ‘in
contrast to 472’ (AH, transl.): Hektor follows through on his closing words at
492 f. by returning to the role of a warrior from that of a father.
495 ἵππουριν: cf. 469n. — βεβήκει: 313n.
493 τοὶ (ϝ)ιλίῳ: on the prosody, R 4.4. — τοί: anaphoric demonstrative pronoun (R 14.3) function-
ing as a relative (R 14.5).
495 ἵππουριν(ν)· ἄλοχος: on the prosody, M 4.6 (note also the caesura). — φίλη (ϝ)οῖκόνδε: on the
prosody, R 4.4; on the suffix -δε, R 15.3.
174 Iliad 6
496 ἐντροπαλιζομένη: ‘repeatedly turning around’ (deverbative from τρέπω: Risch

300); 4x Il., always as participle at VB, but in completely different contexts (11.547,
17.109 of warriors in retreat; 21.492 of Artemis writhing under Hera’s blows). — κατὰ
δάκρυ χέουσα: an inflectible VE formula (459n.), here and 8x Od. expanded by θαλερόν
(‘pouring forth, swelling’: 2.266n.).
497–502 The ‘lament for the still living forms a prelude to the mourning for the
fallen’ at 22.477 ff. and 24.725 ff. (AH, transl.; Kirk); like the remaining Trojan
women there (22.515, 24.746), here Andromache’s many (498) servants join her
lament (Gagliardi 2006, 12 f.). The scene provides an effective closure for the
homilia and remains present for the audience as a gloomy background to the
following Books, during which Hektor is initially successful and forgets his
premonitions of death (Schadewaldt [1956] 1970, 36; on the increasingly cer-
tain prolepsesP of Hektor’s death, cf. 367–368n.). – Premature mourning is a
recurrent motif in Homer (Arnould 1990, 187–189; Kelly 2012, esp. 229–255):
cf. 18.37/51 ff., 24.83 ff. (Thetis’ mourning for Achilleus: external prolepsis); it
has a different effect in situations where the audience knows that the person
mourned will not die / has not died: 4.153 ff. (Menelaos), 24.327 f. (Priam), Od.
4.716 ff. (Telemachos), Od. 1.362 f., 4.724 f., 19.204 ff., etc. (Odysseus).
497 = 370 (see ad loc.).
498 2nd VH ≈ Od. 6.51. — Ἕκτορος ἀνδροφόνοιο: on ἀνδροφόνος, see 134n. The noun-
epithet formula Ἕκτ. ἀνδρ. (always in the gen.) is found 8x Il. and 1x ‘Hes.’ at VE; at VB
only here and 17.638, v.l. at 24.724. Metrically equivalent variant: Ἕκτορος ἱπποδάμοιο
(VE 4x Il. [+ 2x v.l.], VA v.l. 24.724); on the use of the two formulae, 1.242n., 24.509n.
Ἕκτορος usually appears without epithet elsewhere at VB (17x Il.); this may indicate
that ἀνδροφόνοιο is used pointedly here: ‘a deliberate recall to the realities of battle’
after the peaceful scene with the child (Kirk; cf. Schein 1984, 8; Friedrich 2007, 105 f.).
499 γόον … ἐνῶρσεν: cf. 24.760 γόον … ὄρινεν (similarly Od. 10.457, 17.46) and the VE for-
mula ὑφ’ ἵμερον ὦρσε γόοιο (24.507n.); on the use of γόος/γοάω, cf. 373n.
500 γόον: either an aor. formed directly from the noun γόος (like ἔκτυπον from κτύπος) or
an impf. (with hyphaeresis from *γόεον, a by-form of γόαον): Chantr. 1.392; Frisk s.v.
γοάω. — ᾧ ἐνὶ οἴκῳ: a VE formula (3x Il., 7x Od., 1x ‘Hes.’).
496 κατὰ δάκρυ χέουσα: cf. 459n.

497 = 370 (see ad loc.).
498 ἔνδοθι: = ἔνδον (on the suffix, R 15.2).
499 τῇσιν … πάσῃσιν: on the declension, R 11.1. — γόον: acc. of γόος ‘lament’. — ἐνῶρσεν: aor. of
ἐνόρνυμι (+ dat.) ‘arouse, awaken in someone’.
500 γόον (+ acc.): ‘wept for’ (on the form, ↑). — Ἕκτορα (ϝ)ῷ and ἐνὶ (ϝ)οίκῳ: on the prosody,
R 4.3 and R 5.4. — ᾧ ἐνί: on the bridging of hiatus by non-syllabic ι (hṓy ení), M 12.2; ᾧ is the
possessive pronoun of the 3rd person (R 14.4), ἐνί = ἐν (R 20 1).
Commentary 175
501–502 Similarly Hektor himself at 367 f. vis-à-vis Helen (ὑπότροπον ἱκέσθαι in the Iliad
only in these two instances: Di Benedetto [1994] 1998, 272 f.); Hektor’s wording, how-
ever, appears more ‘heroic’ than the women’s (μ’ ὑπὸ χερσὶ θεοὶ δαμόωσιν Ἀχαιῶν vs.
προφυγόντα μένος καὶ χεῖρας Ἀχαιῶν): de Jong 1987, 114.
502 ≈ 7.309; 2nd VH = 13.105. — μένος καὶ χεῖρας: a common phrase, mostly after caesura
B 2, as here (9x Il., 1x Od.; 1x nom., elsewhere acc.); also 1x ‘Hes.’ μένος κρατερὸν καὶ
χεῖρας, 2x Il. χεῖράς τε μένος τε. As a hendiadys the equivalent of μένος χειρῶν (5.506):
Berres 2004, 245.
503–529 Paris, resplendent in his armor and filled with new lust for battle, catches
up with Hektor at the Skaian gate; the brothers converse before returning to bat-
tle together.
503 But Paris in turn did not linger …: The narrative takes up 341/363 f. and
thus – in contrast to the ‘continuity of time’ principleP – reaches back a bit; on
the skilfull coordination of the different strands of the action, see 237–529n.
and 363–368n. with bibliography.
οὐδέ: may be used to introduce a change of scene; cf. 10.299, 13.10, 13.521, 17.1, 17.626,
20.112, etc. (Hölscher 1939, 40 f.; Broccia 1967, 26 f.). — δήθυνεν: related to δηθά ‘for
a long time’, as ταχύνω to τάχα (Schw. 1.733; Risch 291; Frisk s.v. δηθά). — ἐν ὑψηλοῖσι
δόμοισιν: a VE formula (a further 1x Od., 3x ‘Hes.’); ὑψηλός as an epithet of δόμος/
δῶμα also elsewhere: inter alia 5x in early epic at VE δόμου ὑψηλοῖο, 3x ἐν δώμασιν
ὑψηλοῖσιν; cf. also 3.423n. on ὑψόροφος (high, airy rooms as a sign of the quality of
houses belonging the wealthy).
504 κλυτὰ τεύχεα ποικίλα χαλκῷ: The beautiful exterior of Paris’ armor is stressed once
more (cf. 321–322n.). Although the phrase κλυτὰ τεύχεα (22x in early epic, see 19.10n.)
and the VE formula τεύχεα ποικίλα χαλκῷ (another 3x Il., 1x ‘Hes.’) are common in epic
poetry, the present combination is found only here. — ποικίλα χαλκῷ: ‘artfully embel-
lished with bronze’; i.e. with bronze fittings, which contrast decoratively with the base
material, leather (LfgrE s.v. ποικίλος 1322.19 ff.).
505 σεύατ(ο): an asigmatic α-aorist (Schw. 1.774–776, Chantr. 1.382–384), probably
formed as a non-ambiguous variant of the ambiguous form ἔσσυτο (usually a root aor.,
but formally identical to the plpf.): Chantr. 1.385; García Ramón 1994, 65. — ποσὶ
κραιπνοῖσι πεποιθώς: = 22.138; cf. ποδωκείῃσι πεποιθώς (2.792 with n.). πεποιθώς oc-
curs at VE a total of 14x Il., 1x Od., in combination with various concrete and abstract
terms; in contrast to πιθήσας (183n.), generally in reference to personal possessions
501 μιν(ν) ἔτ(ι): on the prosody, M 4.6 (note also the caesura). — μιν: = αὐτόν (R 14.1). — ἔφαντο:
‘they believed, thought’ (impf. of φημί; on the mid., R 23).
504 ὅ: anaphoric demonstrative pronoun (R 17).
505 ἀνὰ (ϝ)άστυ: on the prosody, R 4.3.
176 Iliad 6
or abilities continuously at one’s disposal (6x ἀλκί, 2x ἀγλαΐηφι, 1x each προθυμίῃσι,

χερσί, ἱπποσύνῃ τε καὶ ἠνορέηφι, ἅρμασιν οἷσι πεπ.): LfgrE s.v. πείθω 1098.46 ff./
54 ff.
506–514 The ‘as’ section of the present simileP (506–511) recurs verbatim at
15.263–268 (of Hektor returning to battle after having been healed from serious
wounds by Apollo). The relationship between the two passages has been dis-
puted since antiquity. A number of interpreters, following Aristarchus, argue
for athetesis of 15.265/266–268, as the emphasis on the hero’s elegance and
beauty is more aptly applied to Paris than to Hektor; in this view, the simile
was created for the present passage (West 2001, 231 f., with bibliography).
Indeed, 6.503–514 is characterized by a particularly close connection between
simile and context: a single image illustrates both the swiftness (505, 507, 511,
514) and the magnificent external appearance (504, 509 f., 513), as well as the
elation of the hero filled with new energy (507, 509 f., 514) (Fränkel 1921, 77 f.,
111; Nickau 1977, 119 f. n. 32; Bonnafé 1984, 48). But better is the assumption
that this and other similes derive from a reservoir of traditional, epic form-
elements upon which the poet could fall back as needed – and multiple times
(in Homer, beside brief formula-like comparisons such as ‘like a dáimōn’ [9x Il.],
a total of eight similes have been used twice; on this, Scott 1974, 127 ff.; Beye
1984; Lührs 1992, 213 ff.; Di Benedetto [1994] 1998, 148–151; cf. also 318–
320n.). At any rate, the use of similes to mark particular recurrent narrative sit-
uations is typical – and thus likely traditional: here and at 15.263 ff. the hero’s
re-entry into battle after a crisis; likewise at 5.136 ff. (Diomedes after recovery
from a wound, lion simile); similarly 22.22 ff. (Achilleus has returned to the city
after being distracted by Apollo; once again a horse simile); see Krischer 1971,
41 f. – According to Bowra 1930, 92 (followed among others by Krischer loc.
cit. 42 f., Moulton 1977, 94 f.), a deliberate relationship between 6.506 ff. and
15.263 ff. draws the audience’s attention to the contrast between Paris, intent
only on external glory, and Hektor, the true hero. But in the further course of
the action, Paris does not in fact turn out to be a weakling (see 521 f., 7.2 ff.,
13.765 ff., etc.; Stoevesandt 2004, 182 f.); the use of an image also applied to
Hektor, and in similar form to Achilleus (22.22 ff.), thus likely serves instead
to increase appreciation for Paris (Bergold 1977, 182 f.; Bernsdorff 1992,
29 f.). – Additional horse similes (on this, Fränkel 1921, 78–80): 22.162 ff.,
23.517 ff., Od. 13.81 ff. (cf. the metaphor at 4.708); simile of the skilful rider: Il.
15.679 ff. – On imitation of the simile by Apollonius (3.1259–1261), Ennius (fr.
sed. inc. lxxxii = 535–539 Skutsch) and Virgil (Aen. 11.492–497), see Graziosi/
Haubold (with bibliography).
Commentary 177
506–511 = 15.263–268 (see above). — ὡς δ’ ὅτε … | θείῃ …, | 1 verse | … ὑψοῦ δὲ κάρη

ἔχει …: Transition from hypotaxis (with subjunc.) to parataxis (with ind.) is common in
Homeric similes: see 2.147–148n.; Chantr. 2.355 f.
506 ὡς δ’ ὅτε: a common introduction to similes (2.147–148n.). — στατὸς … ἐπὶ φάτνῃ:
στατός may be understood as active (like Old West Norse staδ̍r, similarly of horses:
‘inclined to stand, standing still’: Frisk s.v. ἵστημι, Beekes s.v. στατός) or as passive
(‘stalled’; cf. Latin status: AH, Leaf; Ammann 1956, 17). In any case, reference is to the
horse that – in contrast to horses in the meadow – has been fed special fodder in the sta-
ble for an extended period of time (ἀκοστήσας from ἀκοστή ‘barley’: LfgrE s.v.; Richter
1968, 72). On the motif ‘horse feeding’ in the Iliad, cf. also 2.775b–777a n.
507 πεδίοιο: ‘across the plain’ (2.785n.). — κροαίνων: related to κρούω ‘knock, beat,
stamp’: ‘stomping (with hooves), clattering’ (Frisk s.v. κρούω, LfgrE s.v. κροαίνω;
Rengakos 1994, 107); on other (ancient) explications of the term, attested only here and
at 15.264, see Graziosi/Haubold.
508 A four-word verse (1.75n.). — ἐϋρρεῖος ποταμοῖο: a VE formula (5x Il.); on the par-
titive gen. after λούομαι, Schw. 2.112; Chantr. 2.52 (likewise at 5.6, 21.560, Hes. Th. 5).
509–510a κυδιόων: In stressed position at VB (AH): ‘with a sense of elation, full of self-
esteem’ (cf. 184n.). — ἀμφὶ δὲ χαῖται | ὤμοις ἀΐσσονται: ≈ h.Cer. 177 f.; ἀμφὶ δὲ χαῖται is
an inflectible VE formula (nom./dat.; in total 3x Il., 2x h.Cer.).
510b–511 ὃ δ’ ἀγλαΐηφι πεποιθώς, | ῥίμφά ἑ γοῦνα φέρει: ὃ … πεποιθώς forms a so-
called nominative absolute (at 511 reprised by the acc. ἑ). On this type of anacoluthon,
Schw. 2.403, Chantr. 2.323; a thorough analysis of the present passage within the cat-
egories of oral communication structures in Slings 1992, 96–100 (cf. also Tzamali 1996,
347 f.; Bakker 1997, 102 n. 29). – On ἀγλαΐηφι πεποιθώς, cf. 505n. — ἤθεα: ἦθος means
‘what one is accustomed to’; particularly ‘normal residence’ (of animals also at Od.
14.411, Hes. Op. 525; ‘residence’ of humans: Hes. Op. 137 etc.).
512 1st VH ≈ 9.651, 11.197 = 15.239. — from uttermost Pergamos: Greek katá
Pergámou ákrēs, ‘down from high Pergamos’. ‘Pergamos/Pergamon’ is a place
name attested in Asia Minor, Thrace and on Crete; in the Iliad, the term de-
notes the ‘acropolis’ (pólis ákrē, 88n.) of Troy, the highest point of the city,
containing its religious center and the houses of the royal family (in total 6x Il.,
507 θείῃ: subjunc. of θέω ‘run’ (with metrical lengthening: R 10 1).

508 ἐϋρρεῖος: < *ἐϋρρεϝέος, gen. of ἐϋρρεής ‘fair-flowing’.
509 κυδιόων: on the epic diectasis, R 8. — ἀμφί: adv. (R 20.2), specified more closely in the fol-
lowing verse by ὤμοις (locative dat.: R 19.2): ‘on both sides … around the shoulders’.
510 ἀΐσσονται: from ἀΐσσομαι ‘move rapidly’, here: ‘flutter, flap’. — ἀγλαΐηφι: dat. of ἀγλαΐη
‘radiance, radiant appearance’ (on the form, R 11.4).
511 ῥίμφά (ϝ)ε: on the prosody, R 4.3. — ἑ: = αὐτόν (R 14.1). — γοῦνα: nom. pl. of γόνυ (R 12.5). —
μετά (+ acc.): ‘into (the middle of), to’.
178 Iliad 6
otherwise usually in connection with Apollo and his temple: cf. 4.508, 5.446,
5.460, 7.21, 24.700n.). The name is probably related to Greek pýrgos ‘tower’;
the further etymology – e.g. the connection with IE *bhergh-, cf. Modern High
German ‘Berg’ and Hittite parku- ‘high, tall’ – is disputed (see Frisk, DELG and
Beekes s.v. πύργος; Solta 1990, 122 f.).
513 ≈ 19.398 (of Achilleus; cf. 506–514n. end). — The ‘so’ section of the simile
is expanded by an additional comparisonP. The motif of gleaming weapons
commonly introduces an aristeia (Krischer 1971, 36–38; cf. e.g. 5.4 ff., 11.44 f.,
11.62 ff., 19.374–383n., 22.26); here it is followed by a phase, albeit short, of vic-
tories for Paris (the single success described at 7.8–10 is likely representative
of additional ones, see 7.17 f. and cf. 6.1–72n.). — shining … as the sun shines:
Greek Ēléktōr denotes the sun (or is used as a name/epithet of the sun god:
19.398 [see ad loc.] and h.Ap. 369 in combination with Hyperíōn). Etymology
and meaning are unclear; the fact that the derivation ḗlektron refers both to an
alloy of gold and silver and to amber (whence in turn the modern term ‘elec-
tric’, based on the static electricity observed on the material), suggests that
it was taken to mean something like ‘the gleaming, shining’ (Kirk, DELG; cf.
also schol. D ad loc. and Russo on Od. 18.296; skeptical: LfgrE s.v.). On the as-
sociation of amber with the sun, cf. also ‘Hes.’ fr. 311 M.-W., according to which
amber originated from the tears of the daughters of Helios.
παμφαίνων: on the formation, 2.458n.: reduplicated φαίνω, although the prefix παμ-
may have been understood secondarily as a neuter of πᾶς. — ὥς τ(ε): commonly intro-
duces similes (2.289n.). — ἐβεβήκει: 313n.
514 καγχαλόων: ‘loudly cheering, rejoicing’ (on the etymology and formation of the
word, see 3.43n. with bibliography); as a counterpart of κυδιόων, it is similarly placed in
stressed position at VB (AH on 509). — ταχέες δὲ πόδες φέρον: corresponds to ῥίμφά
ἑ γοῦνα φέρει (511) in the ‘as’ section of the simile; in addition, πόδες reprises ποσί from
505. – πόδες φέρον is used in a formulaic manner before caesura C 2 (5x Il., 1x Od.). ‘The
phrase, even without ταχέες, suggests swiftness’ (Graziosi/Haubold with reference to
13.515, 15.405, 17.700). — αἶψα δ’ ἔπειτα: a formulaic phrase (370n.).
515 Ἕκτορα δῖον: an inflectible formulaic phrase (only Il.; acc. 27x in various positions in
the verse, dat. 11x VE). On the generic epithetP δῖος, 1.7n. — ἔτετμεν: ‘came upon’ (374n.).
516 1st VH ≈ Od. 16.352. — ὀάριζε: ὀαρίζω denotes private conversation, particularly
between husband and wife (cf. 22.126–128 with de Jong ad loc.; LfgrE s.v.).
513 τ(ε): ‘epic τε’ (R 24.11).

514 καγχαλόων: on the epic diectasis, R 8. — ταχέες: on the uncontracted form, R 6.
515 ἀδελφεόν: = ἀδελφόν. — εὖτ(ε): ‘as’ (R 22.2).
516 ὅθι (ϝ)ῇ: on the prosody, R 5.4. — ᾗ: possessive pronoun of the 3rd person (R 14.4).
Commentary 179
517–529 According to the narrator, Paris has not been lacking in enthusiasm

(503, 505, 511, 514). His words at 518 f. are thus likely to be read as an attempt
to preempt further reproach from his brother via precautionary self-criticism:
an expression of the unease the previous encounter with Hektor left him with
(similarly AH). Hektor reacts delicately (Besslich 1966, 115): rather than di-
rectly responding to Paris’ words, he once more comments on the tensions
that have arisen between them on a fundamental basis, but in a kind tone
(cf. 520–529n.). In the address (daimónie: 326n. end), he again hints at his
difficulty understanding his brother’s attitude – while earnestly trying to do
him justice. He begins with explicit ackowledgment of Paris’ military abilities
(521 f.; altogether different from 3.45, see ad loc.); he then explains how he per-
sonally suffers from the fact that Paris falls short of his capabilities and thus
exposes himself to censure by the Trojans (523–525); and he concludes with a
view toward a future reconciliation in a festive setting (526–529).
517 τὸν πρότερος προσέειπεν: 122n. — Ἀλέξανδρος θεοειδής: 290n.
518–519 Allen and others understand 518 f. as a question (in accord with schol. A, bT on
518): in the context, this is not inappropriate, although ἦ μάλα δή elsewhere only intro-
duces statements; here, as at 255 (see ad loc.), etc., likely a speculation uttered in a con-
cerned tone: Paris may fear not having caught up to Hektor in time, despite his hurry;
Leaf’s interpretation, that Paris is exaggerating the self-accusations ‘by way of «fish-
ing for a compliment»’ (similarly Willcock and Graziosi/Haubold), is uncompelling.
Differently again, Moulton 1977, 95 f.; Hohendahl-Zoetelief 1980, 27–30; Brillante
(and cf. Kirk): ἦ μάλα δή is to be understood ironically, as at 5.422; Paris’ words con-
tain a barb directed at Hektor who, despite his exhortations to hurry (363 f.), has him-
self tarried in Andromache’s company. But Hektor’s conduct corresponds exactly to
his announcement at 365 ff., while the address ἠθεῖε (518n.) sits poorly with pointed
irony.
518 1st VH = 22.229, ≈ ‘Hes.’ Sc. 103; cf. also Il. 11.441. — ἠθεῖ(ε): derived from ἦθος
(cf. 510b–511n.), thus approximately ‘familar, dear’ (Frisk, DELG, Beekes). In early epic
only in direct speech, always in the voc. except at Od. 14.147; expresses both affection
and respect (LfgrE s.v.; Bettini 1988): addresses to the elder/more distinguished brother
also at 10.37 (Menelaos to Agamemnon), 22.229/239 (Athene in the shape of Deïphobos to
Hektor); also 23 94 (Achilleus addressing the spirit of [the older] Patroklos in a dream),
Od. 14.147 (Eumaios on the supposedly absent Odysseus), ‘Hes.’ Sc. 103 (Iolaos address-
ing Herakles, his father’s brother). — ἐσσύμενον: perf. part. of σεύομαι; on the accent,
Chantr. 1.190.
517 προσέειπεν: = προσεῖπεν.
518 ἠθεῖ’, ἦ: on the hiatus, R 5.1. — καὶ ἐσσύμενον: adversative, ‘although you are in a hurry’.
180 Iliad 6
519 δηθύνων: contrasting with οὐδὲ … δήθυνεν at 503; see 517–529n. — ἐναίσιμον: related
to αἶσα in the sense ‘appropriate share, measure’; here adverbial ‘at the right time’, at
521 ‘thinking right and properly’ (LfgrE, cf. Leaf). — ὡς ἐκέλευες: see 331, 363 f.
520–529 The speech has some parallels with Hektor’s first speech addressed to Paris
at 326–331: vocative δαιμόνι(ε) (326, 521), reference to the Trojan suffering caused by
Paris (327–329, 523–525) and to his lack of engagement (330 μεθιέντα, 523 μεθίεις), a
request for speedy action (331, 526); but the bitter reproach (325 αἰσχροῖς ἐπέεσσιν) has
been replaced by a gentler tone (neutral speech introduction at 520), and whereas the
first speech concludes with a vision of the destruction of Troy, here Hektor closes op-
timistically, hoping for victory and peace: ‘He needs hope in order to face the enemy’
(Graziosi/Haubold; cf. 475–481n., 526–527a n.).
520 1st VH (with τόν/τήν) 36x Il., 68x Od., 1x h.Ap.; only here in combination with the VE
formula κορυθαιόλος Ἕκτωρ (116n.); cf. 263n.
521 δαιμόνι(ε): 326n., 517–529n.
522–523a ἔργον … μάχης: on battle conceived as work, cf. 1.162n., 2.401n., 4.470 f., 4.539,
etc.; LfgrE s.v. ἔργον 677.34 ff. — ἐπεὶ ἄλκιμός ἐσσι· | ἀλλὰ ἑκὼν μεθίεις: ἄλκιμος is one
who is in principle equipped with ἀλκή, i.e. the will and ability to stand his ground in
battle (LfgrE s.v.). At the same time, no warrior is safe from the danger of temporarily
‘forgetting’ his ἀλκή (265n.; cf. 16.688 ff. ≈ 17.176 ff.). Only one who does this without
being under big pressure may be subject to blame: this is what ἑκὼν μεθίεις aims at
(AH; LfgrE s.v. ἑκών; cf. 13.234, Od. 4.372, also ἑκὼν ὑποδάμνασαι Od. 3.214 = 16.95). —
μεθίεις: Reduplicated μι-verbs in early epic exhibit both thematic and athematic forms
(with some thematic forms accentuated in the manner of contract verbs, see app. crit. on
the present passage); e.g. ἀνίεις (v.l. ἀνίης) 5.880, 3rd sing. προΐει 2.752, μεθίει 10.121 vs.
athematic ἵησιν 3.12, etc.; various explanations of the phenomenon in Schw. 1.687 (the-
matic forms entered the text in the post-Homeric period); Monro (1882) 1891, 18 f., and
Hackstein 2002, 97, 99–102, 110 (influence of Ionic contract verbs); Chantr. 1.298 f. (ar-
chaism dating back to a period preceding the Ionic influence on epic language). — οὐκ
ἐθέλεις: perceived as one term (hence τε καὶ οὐκ rather than οὐδ(έ); cf. 3.289n., Schw.
2.593 f.). In combination with μεθιέναι also at 10.121; referring to a lack of engagement
in battle also at 4.224 (litotes), 4.300, 14.51, 16.540, 17.66, etc. (LfgrE s.v. (ἐ)θέλω 417.5 ff.;
Wissmann 1997, 27 f.).
519 οὐδ(έ): In Homer, connective οὐδέ also occurs after affirmative clauses (R 24.8).
521 τοι: = σοι (R 14.1). — εἴη: opt. because of assimilation of the mood to that of the main clause.
522 ἐσσι: = εἶ (R 16.6).
523 ἀλλὰ (ϝ)εκών: on the prosody, R 4.3.
Commentary 181
523b–525 Similar, but more strongly worded, is Helen at 350 f. (see 350–353n.);

on the Trojan attitude toward Paris, cf. 3.453 f., 7.390. — for your sake: cf. 328–
329n.; here stressed at VE.
τό: not an article with ἐμὸν κῆρ, but the object of ἄχνυμαι (anticipating the ὅτε-clause):
‘about this’ (AH, Leaf, etc.). — κῆρ | … ἐν θυμῷ: In contrast to φρένες (see 19.169–170n.:
ἦτορ … ἐνὶ φρεσί), θυμός does not occur elsewhere as the location of a different mental
faculty. It is difficult to say (cf. Kirk; LfgrE s.v. 1080.24–47) whether a concrete notion
of θυμός as a body part underlies the present expression (thus Jahn 1987, 15–18); ἐν
θυμῷ may simply have an intensifying function here (as at 19.312 etc., cf. Jahn loc. cit.
227, 230 f.: ‘deeply, in its innermost’): AH ad loc. and Anh. 166 f. — ὑπὲρ σέθεν: accord-
ing to Schw. 2.522, literally ‘in your stead, addressed to you’, although already making
the transition toward the meaning current later (except in Attic) ‘with regard to, about’
(≈ περί: Wackernagel [1920/24] 2009, 694 f.; differently Chantr. 2.137). — αἴσχε(α):
‘abuse, reproaches’ (cf. 3.242n., 6.351).
526–527a ἀλλ’ ἴομεν: a VB formula (5x Il., 6x Od.). — τὰ δ’ ὄπισθεν ἀρεσσόμεθ(α): ≈ 4.362
(Agamemnon addressing Odysseus, whom he had wrongly censured). ἀρεσσόμεθ(α) is
an aor. subjunc. or fut. ind. of the root ἀρε- (cf. ἀρείων, ἀρετή; an alternate form of
the root ἀρ- present in ἀραρίσκω: Frisk s.v. ἀρέσκω). It means literally ‘join something
so that it fits’, especially where the relationship between two individuals has been
disturbed: with acc. of a person ‘reconcile someone with oneself’ (9.112, 19.179, etc.);
here as at 4.362 with a pronoun in the neuter: ‘put in order together’, sc. that which
had occurred between the individuals concerned (clarified at 4.362 f. by εἴ τι κακὸν
νῦν | εἴρηται): LfgrE s.v. ἀρέσαι; Pernée 1988. — αἴ κέ ποθι Ζεύς | δώῃ: = Od. 12.215 f.,
22.252 f.; ≈ Il. 1.128 f. The prospective subjunc. denotes what the speaker considers ‘very
well possible’ (Wakker 1994, 205), only slightly limited by ποθί (LfgrE: ‘somehow’).
Hektor’s words are thus characterized by restrained optimism; this continues the direc-
tion taken at 475–481 (see ad loc.) in the prayer for Astyanax (Schadewaldt 1956 [1970],
26). Differently, Broccia 1964, 390: the conditional here serves to correct ὄπισθεν and
means approximately ‘if there even is a «later» for us’. But this interpretation is contra-
dicted by the festive depiction of the positive vision of the future at 527–529.
527 An expressive four-word verse (1.75n.; here followed by two five-word verses). The di-
vine epithets ἐπουράνιος and αἰειγενέτης are attested a total of 4x Il./Od. (129n.) and
524 ὅθ’: = ὅτε. — σέθεν: = σοῦ (R 14.1). — ἀκούω: subjunc. in a generalizing temporal clause
(iterative); in Homer this can occur also without a modal particle (R 21.1).
525 πρός (+ gen.): ‘on the part of’. — εἵνεκα: metrically lengthened initial syllable (R 10.1). —
σεῖο: = σοῦ (R 14.1).
526 ἴομεν: short vowel subjunc. (R 16.3). — τά: ‘these things, this’ (R 17). — αἴ κε: ≈ ἐάν (R 22.1, 24.5).
527–529 δώῃ … | 1 verse | … ἐλάσαντας: δώῃ = δῷ (R 6), to be taken with στήσασθαι (with θεοῖς
as dat. of interest); ἐλάσαντας refers to the subject acc. ἡμᾶς to be supplied with στήσασθαι:
‘when we have driven out’. — μεγάροισι: on the plural, R 18.2 and ↑.
182 Iliad 6
19x in early epic (always in the present inflectible formula: 2.400n.), but the combina-
tion is found only here (also similar is Od. 2.432: ἀθανάτοισι θεοῖσ’ αἰειγενέτῃσιν). On
the accumulation of epithets in general, La Roche 1897, 175 ff., esp. 178 f. (collection of
examples); cf. 305n.
528 setting up … the wine-bowl of liberty: sc. to offer libations to the gods after
the city’s deliverance from its enemies. Cf. Psalms 116.13: ‘I will lift up the cup
of salvation and call on the name of the Lord’ (sc. to thank Him for deliverance
from grave danger): West 1997, 369.
κρητῆρα … ἐλεύθερον: adj. instead of a gen., as in the expression ἐλεύθερον ἦμαρ (455
etc.), or ‘a mixing bowl where one is free’ (Schw. 2.178), i.e. from which the Trojans may
offer libations as free people (cf. Hipponax fr. 115.8 West: δούλιον ἄρτον ἔδων ‘eating the
bread of slavery, eating bread as a slave’). On the connotations of ἐλεύθερος in Homer,
cf. 454–455n. (with bibliography): a free person is one who can freely govern himself
and his own labor, due to having a secure existence within an intact community; expel-
ling the enemies will guarantee the continued existence of this community and conse-
quently the personal freedom of its individual members. — ἐν μεγάροισιν: Both in the
sing. and pl., μέγαρον may denote in a pregnant sense the central meeting place in a
house (as here; examples in the pl.: LfgrE s.v. 64.39 ff.), or more generally the house as a
whole (91n., 371n.).
529 ἐϋκνήμιδας Ἀχαιούς: an inflectible VE formula (see 1.17n., also for the archaeological
data).
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
1
1868–1884. (Books 1–6 by Ameis, rev. by Hentze; 7–24 by Hentze); most re-
cent editions: vol. 1.1 (Books 1–3) 71913, rev. by P. Cauer; vol. 1.2 (Books 4–6)
6
1908; vol. 1.3 (Books 7–9) 51907; vol. 1.4 (Books 10–12) 51906; vol. 2 1 (Books
13–15) 41905; vol. 2.2 (Books 16–18) 41908; vol. 2.3 (Books 19–21) 41905; vol. 2.4
(Books 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; Books 7–24 by Hentze);
cited in this volume: 2nd part (on Il. 4–6) 21882.
Allen Allen, Th.W. Homeri Ilias. Oxford 1931. (3 vols.)
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–.
Autenrieth/Kaegi Autenrieth, G. and A. Kaegi. Wörterbuch zu den Homerischen Gedichten14.
Stuttgart and Leipzig 1999 (= reprint of 131920, with a preface by J. Latacz and
an introduction by A. Willi; Leipzig 11873).
Beekes Beekes, R. S. P. Etymological Dictionary of Greek, with the assistance of L. van
Beek. Leiden Indo-European Etymological Dictionary Series 10. Leiden and
Boston 2010. (2 vols.)
BNP Brill’s New Pauly, ed. by H. Cancik and H. Schneider, transl. by C. F. Sala-
zar; online: http://referenceworks.brillonline.com/browse/brill-s-new-pauly
(retrieved 9. 1. 2015); print edition Leiden 2002–2011. (Original German ed.:
Der Neue Pauly. Enzyklopädie der Antike, ed. by H. Cancik and H. Schneider.
Stuttgart and Weimar 1996–2003.)
Brillante Brillante, C. Alle fonti della poesia mondiale. Omero, il canto VI dell’Iliade per
la I liceo classico. Testi e crestomazie, nuova serie. Turin 1995.
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.; cited in this volume:
ChronEG 1, RPh 70 (1996): 103–138 (also in DELG).
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. Norman and London 21963.
(London etc. 11924.)
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).
Denniston Denniston, J. D. The Greek Particles2. Oxford 1954 (11934).
DMic Aura Jorro, F. Diccionario Micénico. Madrid 1985–1993. (2 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.
184 Iliad 6
EM Enzyklopädie des Märchens. Handwörterbuch zur historischen und verglei-

chenden Erzählforschung. Founded by K. Ranke, ed. by R. W. Brednich etc.
Berlin 1977–.
Faesi Homers Iliade. Erklärt von J. U. Faesi. Leipzig 1851–1852. (2 vols.)
Faesi/Franke Homers Iliade. Erklärt von J. U. Faesi. 5th–6th ed., rev. by F. R. Franke. Berlin
1871–1887. (4 vols.)
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.)
Graziosi/Haubold Graziosi, B. and J. Haubold. Homer, Iliad. Book VI. Cambridge Greek and
Latin Classics. Cambridge 2010.
Hainsworth Hainsworth, B., in A Commentary on Homer’s Odyssey, vol. I: Books I–VIII.
Oxford 1988. (Original Italian ed. 1982.)
Hainsworth on Il. 9–12 Hainsworth, B. The Iliad. A Commentary, vol. III: Books 9–12. Cambridge
1993.
HE Finkelberg, M. (ed.). The Homer Encyclopedia. Online: http://onlinelibrary.
wiley.com/book/10.1002/9781444350302 (retrieved 16. 2. 2015); print edition
Chichester 2011 (3 vols.).
Heubeck Heubeck, A., in A Commentary on Homer’s Odyssey, vol. II: Books IX–XVI. Ox-
ford 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.
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 on Od. de Jong, I. J. F. A Narratological Commentary on the Odyssey. Cambridge 2001.
de Jong on Il. 22 de Jong, I. J. F. Homer, Iliad Book XXII. Cambridge Greek and Latin Classics.
Cambridge 2012.
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.
K.-G. Kühner, R. and B. Gerth. Ausführliche Grammatik der griechischen Spra-
che. Zweiter Teil: Satzlehre. Hanover 1898–1904. (Reprint Hanover 1992.)
(2 vols.)
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.)
Lattimore The Iliad of Homer. Transl. by R. Lattimore, introduction and notes by
R. P. Martin. Chicago and London 2011 (11951).
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.)
Bibliographic Abbreviations 185
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.
LIMC Lexicon Iconographicum Mythologiae Classicae, ed. by H. C. Ackermann and
J. R. Gisler. Zurich etc. 1981–1999. (18 vols.)
LIV Lexikon der indogermanischen Verben. Die Wurzeln und ihre Primärstamm-
bildungen. Ed. by M. Kümmel, Th. Zehnder, R. Lipp, B. Schirmer under the di-
rection of H. Rix and with the collaboration of many others. Second, expanded
and improved edition ed. by M. Kümmel and H. Rix. Wiesbaden 2001 (11998).
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.
Monro Monro, D. B. Homer. Iliad, Books I–XII5. With an Introduction, a Brief Ho-
meric Grammar, and Notes. Oxford 1906 (11884).
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 Richardson, N. J. The Iliad. A Commentary, vol. VI: Books 21–24. Cambridge
1993.
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.
Schw. Schwyzer, E., A. Debrunner, D. J. Georgacas and F. and St. Radt. Griechische
Grammatik. Handbuch der Altertumswissenschaft 2.1.1–4. Munich 1939–
1994. (4 vols.)
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.)
Thompson Thompson, S. Motif-Index of Folk-Literature: A Classification of Narrative
Elements in Folktales, Ballads, Myths, Fables, Mediaeval Romances, Exempla,
Fabliaux, Jest-Books and Local Legends2. Copenhagen 1955–1958 (11932–1936).
(6 vols.)
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.)
West Homeri Ilias. Recensuit / testimonia congessit M. L. West. Bibliotheca scrip-
torum Graecorum et Romanorum Teubneriana. Vol. I: Rhapsodias I–XII con-
tinens. Stuttgart and Leipzig 1998. Vol. II: Rhapsodias XIII–XXIV et indicem
nominum continens. Munich and Leipzig 2000.
West on Hes. Op. Hesiod, Works and Days. Ed. with Prolegomena and Commentary by
M. L. West. Oxford 1978.
West on Hes. Th. Hesiod, Theogony. Ed. with Prolegomena and Commentary by M. L. West.
Oxford 1966.
186 Iliad 6
West on Od. 1–4 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 texts1

Aeschylus, fragments (Radt)
in Tragicorum graecorum fragmenta, vol. 3, ed. S. Radt. Göttingen 1985.
Alcaeus (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).
Asclepiades (FGrHist)
no. 12 in Die Fragmente der griechischen Historiker (FGrHist) by F. Jacoby, vol. 1. Leiden 21957
(Berlin 11923).
Callinus (West)
Carmina popularia (Page)
in Poetae melici graeci, ed. D. L. Page. Oxford 1962.
Demetrius of Scepsis (Gaede)
Demetrii Scepsii quae supersunt, ed. R. Gaede. Greifswald 1880.
Ennius (Skutsch)
The ‘Annals’ of Q. Ennius, ed. with Introduction and Commentary by O. Skutsch. Oxford
1985.
‘Epic Cycle’ (West)
in Greek Epic Fragments. From the Seventh to the Fifth Centuries BC, ed. and transl. by
M. L. West. Loeb Classical Library 497. Cambridge, Mass. and London 2003.
‘Eumelus’ (West)
in Greek Epic Fragments. From the Seventh to the Fifth Centuries BC, ed. and transl. by
M. L. West. Loeb Classical Library 497. Cambridge, Mass. and London 2003.
Euripides, fragments (Kannicht)
in Tragicorum graecorum fragmenta, vol. 5.1–2, ed. R. Kannicht. Göttingen 2004.
Hellanicus (FGrHist/Fowler)
• no. 4 in Die Fragmente der griechischen Historiker (FGrHist) by F. Jacoby, vol. 1. Leiden
2
1957 (Berlin 11923);
• and in Early Greek Mythography, ed. R. L. Fowler, vol. 1: Texts. Oxford 2000.
1 Editions are included only of works for which different editions offer different verse, para-
graph or fragment numbers.
‘Hesiod’, fragments (M.-W.)

in Hesiodi Theogonia, Opera et dies, Scutum, ed. F. Solmsen; Fragmenta selecta3, edd.
R. Merkelbach and M. L. West. Oxford 1990 (11970).
Hipponax (West)
‘Musaeus’ (VS)
in Die Fragmente der Vorsokratiker6. Greek and German by H. Diels, ed. by W. Kranz, vol. 1.
Berlin etc. 1951 (11903).
Pherecydes (FGrHist/Fowler)
• no. 3 in Die Fragmente der griechischen Historiker (FGrHist) by F. Jacoby, vol. 1. Leiden
2
1957 (Berlin 11923);
• and in Early Greek Mythography, ed. R. L. Fowler, vol. 1: Texts. Oxford 2000.
Pius (Hiller)
E. Hiller. ‘Der Grammatiker Pius und die ἀπολογίαι πρὸς τὰς ἀθετήσεις Ἀριστάρχου’. Philo-
logus 28 (1869) 86–115.
Porphyry (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.
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 manu scriptos, ed. H. van Thiel, http://kups.ub.
uni-koeln.de/1810/; 2nd edition: http://kups.ub.uni-koeln.de/5586/ (both retrieved 9. 1.
2015).
Sophocles, fragments (Radt)
in Tragicorum graecorum fragmenta2, vol. 4, ed. S. Radt. Göttingen 1999 (11977).
Stesichorus (Page/Davies)
• in Poetae melici graeci, ed. D. L. Page, Oxford 1962;
• and in Poetarum melicorum graecorum fragmenta, post D. L. Page ed. M. Davies, vol. 1.
Oxford 1991.
Theognis (West)
Tyrtaeus (West)
188 Iliad 6
3. Articles and monographs

Journal abbreviations follow l’Année Philologique.2
Aceti 2008 Aceti, C. ‘Sarpedone fra mito e poesia.’ In L. Pagani (ed.). Eroi nell’Iliade.
Personaggi e strutture narrative, pp. 1–269. Pleiadi 8. Rome.
Ahrens 1937 Ahrens, E. Gnomen in griechischer Dichtung (Homer, Hesiod, Aeschylus).
Halle.
Akurgal 1966 Akurgal, E. Orient und Okzident. Die Geburt der griechischen Kunst. Kunst der
Welt: Die außereuropäischen Kulturen. Baden-Baden. (Reprint 1980.)
Albracht (1886) 2005 Albracht, F. Battle and Battle Description in the Iliad. A Contribution to
the History of War, transl. by P. Jones, M. Willcock and G. Wright. London.
(German original: Kampf und Kampfschilderung bei Homer. Ein Beitrag zu
den Kriegsaltertümern. Beilage zum Jahresbericht der Königl. Landesschule
Pforta 1886. Naumburg an der Saale.)
Alden 1990 Alden, M. J. ‘The Homeric House as Poetic Creation.’ In Païzi-Apostolopoulou
1990, pp. 57–67.
Alden 1996 Alden, M. J. ‘Genealogy as Paradigm: The Example of Bellerophon.’ Hermes
124: 257–263.
Alden 2000 Alden, M. J. Homer Beside Himself: Para-Narratives in the Iliad. Oxford.
Alden 2012 Alden, M. J. ‘The Despised Migrant (Il. 9.648 = 16.59).’ In Montanari et al.
2012, pp. 115–131.
Allan 2013 Allan, R. J. ‘Exploring Modality’s Semantic Space. Grammaticalization, Sub-
jectification and the Case of ὀφείλω.’ Glotta 89: 1–46.
Aliffi 2002 Aliffi, M. L. ‘Le espressioni dell’agente e dello strumento nei processi di
«morte violenta».’ In Montanari 2002, 409–423.
Alster 1987 Alster, B. ‘A Note on the Uriah Letter in the Sumerian Sargon Legend.’
Zeitschrift für Assyriologie und vorderasiatische Archäologie 77: 169–173.
Aly (1913) 1966 Aly, W. ‘Hesiodos von Askra und der Verfasser der Theogonie.’ In E. Heitsch
(ed.). Hesiod, pp. 50–99. Wege der Forschung 44. Darmstadt. (First published
in RhM 68 [1913] 22–67.)
Ammann 1956 Ammann, H. ‘Zum griechischen Verbaladjektiv auf -τός.’ In H. Kronasser
(ed.). ΜΝΗΜΗΣ ΧΑΡΙΝ. Gedenkschrift Paul Kretschmer, vol. 1, pp. 10–23.
Vienna.
Andersen 1978 Andersen, Ø. Die Diomedes-Gestalt in der Ilias. SO Suppl. 25. Oslo.
Andersen 1990 Andersen, Ø. ‘The Making of the Past in the Iliad.’ HSCPh 93: 25–45.
Andersen/Haug 2012 Andersen, Ø. and 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 Classi-
cal Monographs. Oxford.
Andronikos 1968 Andronikos, M. ‘Totenkult.’ ArchHom chap. W. Göttingen.
Antonaccio 1995 Antonaccio, C. M. An Archaeology of Ancestors: Tomb Cult and Hero Cult in
Early Greece. Greek Studies: Interdisciplinary Approaches. Lanham etc.
2 A cumulative list can be found at: http://www1.uni-hamburg.de/Thesaurus/APh_List.pdf

(retrieved: 13. 3. 2015).
Apthorp 1980 Apthorp, M. J. The Manuscript Evidence for Interpolation in Homer. Bibliothek
der Klass. Altertumswiss., N. F. 2.71. Heidelberg.
Aravantinos 1976 Aravantinos, V. L. ‘Osservazioni sulla lettera di Proitos.’ SMEA 17: 117–125.
Arend 1933 Arend, W. Die typischen Scenen bei Homer. Problemata 7. Berlin.
Arnould 1990 Arnould, D. Le rire et les larmes dans la littérature grecque d’Homère à Platon.
Collection d’études anciennes 119. Paris.
Arnould 2002 Arnould, D. ‘Du bon usage du vin chez Homère et dans la poésie archaïque.’
In J. Jouanna and L. Villard (eds.). Vin et santé en Grèce ancienne, pp. 7–10.
BCH Suppl. 40. Athens.
Arthur 1981 Arthur, M. B. ‘The Divided World of Iliad VI.’ In H. P. Foley (ed.). Reflections
of Women in Antiquity, pp. 19–44. New York etc.
Assunção 1997 Assunção, T. R. ‘Le mythe iliadique de Bellérophon.’ Gaia 1: 41–66.
Astour 1965 Astour, M. C. Hellenosemitica: An Ethnic and Cultural Study in West Semitic
Impact on Mycenaean Greece. Leiden.
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.
Avery 1994 Avery, H. C. ‘Glaucus, a God? Iliad Z 128–143.’ Hermes 122: 498–502.
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 (1999) 2005 Bakker, E. J. ‘How Oral is Oral Composition?’ In Bakker 2005, pp. 38–55.
(First published in Mackay 1999, pp. 29–47.)
Bakker 2005 Bakker, E. J. Pointing at the Past: From Formula to Performance in Homeric
Poetics. Hellenic Studies 12. Cambridge, Mass. and London.
Bakker/Fabbricotti 1991 Bakker, E. J. and F. Fabbricotti. ‘Peripheral and Nuclear Semantics in
Homeric Diction: The Case of Dative Expressions for «Spear».’ Mnemosyne
44: 63–84. (Also in Bakker 2005, pp. 1–21.)
Bakker/van den Houten 1992 Bakker, E. J. and N. van den Houten. ‘Aspects of Synonymy in Ho-
meric Diction: An Investigation of Dative Expressions for «Spear».’ CPh 87:
1–13. (Also in Bakker 2005, pp. 22–37.)
Bannert 1988 Bannert, H. Formen des Wiederholens bei Homer. Beispiele für eine Poetik des
Epos. Wiener Studien Beiheft 13. Vienna.
Bartelink 1956 Bartelink, G. ‘χρύσεα χαλκείων (Ilias, 6, 236).’ Hermeneus 27: 169–172.
Basset 1979 Basset, L. Les emplois périphrastiques du verbe grec μέλλειν. Lyon.
Bassett 1923 Bassett, S. E. ‘On Z 119–236.’ CPh 18: 178–180.
Bassett 1938 Bassett, S. E. The Poetry of Homer. Sather Classical Lectures 15. Berkeley.
Beck 2012 Beck, D. Speech Representation in Homeric Epic. Austin.
Beck 1988 Beck, W. ‘Ἀργειώνη in the Hesiodic Catalog and Antimachos.’ ZPE 73: 1–7.
Beckmann 1932 Beckmann, J. Th. Das Gebet bei Homer. Wurzburg.
Beekes 1969 Beekes, R. S. P. The Development of the Proto-Indo-European Laryngeals in
Greek. Janua linguarum. Series practica 42. Paris etc.
Bellamy 1988/89 Bellamy, R. ‘Bellerophon’s Tablet.’ CJ 84: 289–307.
Bennett 1997 Bennett, M. J. Belted Heroes and Bound Women: The Myth of the Homeric
Warrior-King. Greek Studies: Interdisciplinary Approaches. Lanham
etc.
Benveniste 1935 Benveniste, E. Origines de la formation des noms en indo-européen. Paris.
190 Iliad 6
Benveniste 1969 Benveniste, E. Le vocabulaire des institutions indo-européennes. Vol. 2: pou-

voir, droit, religion. Paris.
Bergold 1977 Bergold, W. Der Zweikampf des Paris und Menelaos. (Zu Ilias Γ 1 – Δ 222).
Habelts Dissertationsdrucke, Reihe Klass. Philol. 28. Bonn.
Bergren 1975 Bergren, A. L. T. The Etymology and Usage of πεῖραρ in Early Greek Poetry:
A Study in the Interrelationship of Metrics, Linguistics and Poetics. American
Classical Studies 2. New York.
Bernsdorff 1992 Bernsdorff, H. Zur Rolle des Aussehens im homerischen Menschenbild. Hypo-
mnemata 97. Göttingen.
Berres 2004 Berres, T. ‘Personalität und Sprache bei Homer.’ Perspektiven der Philoso-
phie. Neues Jahrbuch 30: 241–284.
Bertolini 1989 Bertolini, F. ‘Dal folclore all’epica: esempi di trasformazione e adattamento.’
In D. Lanza and O. Longo (eds.). Il meraviglioso e il verosimile tra antichità e
medioevo, pp. 131–152. Biblioteca dell’ ‘Archivum Romanicum’ 221. Florence.
Beßlich 1966 Beßlich, S. Schweigen – Verschweigen – Übergehen. Die Darstellung des Un-
ausgesprochenen in der Odyssee. Bibliothek der Klass. Altertumswiss., N. F.
2.12. Heidelberg.
Bethe 1914 Bethe, E. Homer. Dichtung und Sage. Vol. 1: Ilias. Leipzig and Berlin.
Bettini 1988 Bettini, M. ‘ΗΘΕΙΟΣ.’ RFIC 116: 154–166.
Beye 1964 Beye, C. R. ‘Homeric Battle Narrative and Catalogues.’ HSCPh 68: 345–373.
Beye 1984 Beye, C. R. ‘Repeated Similes in the Homeric Poems.’ In Rigsby et al. 1984,
pp. 7–13.
Bichler 2007 Bichler, R. ‘Über die Bedeutung der Zimelien in der Welt der Odyssee.’ In
E. Alram-Stern und G. Nightingale (eds.). Keimelion. Elitenbildung und
elitärer Konsum von der mykenischen Palastzeit bis zur homerischen Epoche
(Akten des internationalen Kongresses vom 3.–5. 2. 2005 in Salzburg), pp. 31–
39. Österr. Akad. der Wiss., Phil.-hist. Klasse, Denkschriften 350. Vienna.
Bierl 1991 Bierl, A. Dionysos und die griechische Tragödie. Politische und ‘metatheatrali-
sche’ Aspekte im Text. Classica Monacensia 1. Tübingen.
Bierl 2003 Bierl, A.: ‘«Ich aber (sage), das Schönste ist, was einer liebt!». Eine pragma-
tische Deutung von Sappho Fr. 16 LP/V.’ QUCC N. S. 74: 91–124.
Bierl et al. 2004 Bierl, A., A. Schmitt and A. Willi (eds.). Antike Literatur in neuer Deutung.
Festschrift für Joachim Latacz anlässlich seines 70. Geburtstages. Munich and
Leipzig.
Bierl 2004a Bierl, A. ‘Die Wiedererkennung von Odysseus und seiner treuen Gattin
Penelope. Das Ablegen der Maske – zwischen traditioneller Erzählkunst, Me-
tanarration und psychologischer Vertiefung.’ In Bierl et al. 2004, pp. 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:
43–61.
Blanc 2007 Blanc, A. ‘Rhythme et syntaxe dans l’hexamètre. Les datifs pluriels des
thèmes sigmatiques.’ In A. Blanc et al. (eds.). Procédés synchroniques de la
langue poétique en grec et en latin, pp. 13–26. Langues et cultures anciennes
9. Brussels.
Blanc 2008 Blanc, A. Les contraintes métriques dans la poésie homérique. L’emploi des
thèmes nominaux sigmatiques dans l’hexamètre dactylique. Leuven and
Paris.
Bloedow 2007 Bloedow, E. F. ‘Homer and the depas amphikypellon.’ In Morris/Laffineur
2007, pp. 87–95 (+ pls. XXII–XXIII).
Blok 1995 Blok, J. H. The Early Amazons: Modern and Ancient Perspectives on a Persis-
tent Myth. Religions in the Graeco-Roman World 120. Leiden.
Blom 1936 Blom, J. W. S. De typische getallen bij Homeros en Herodotos, I. Triaden,
hebdomaden en enneaden. Nijmegen.
Blondell 2010 Blondell, R. ‘«Bitch that I Am»: Self-Blame and Self-Assertion in the Iliad.’
TAPhA 140: 1–32.
Blum 1998 Blum, H. Purpur als Statussymbol in der griechischen Welt. Antiquitas, Reihe
1: Abhandlungen zur Alten Geschichte 47. Bonn.
Boardman (1964) 1980 Boardman, J. The Greeks Overseas: Their Early Colonies and Trade2. Lon-
don (Harmondsworth 11964).
Boardman 2004 Boardman, J. et al. ‘Greek Dedications.’ In ThesCRA 1: 269–318.
Böhme 1929 Böhme, J. Die Seele und das Ich im homerischen Epos. Leipzig and Berlin.
Bonifazi 2012 Bonifazi, A. Homer’s Versicolored Fabric: The Evocative Power of Ancient
Greek Epic Word-Making. Hellenic Studies 50. Washington, D. C.
Bonfante 1998 Bonfante, G. ‘Βελλεροφόντης.’ Athenaeum 86: 560.
Bonnafé 1984 Bonnafé, A. Poésie, nature et sacré. Vol. 1: Homère, Hésiode et le sentiment
grec de la nature. Lyon.
Borchhardt 1977 Borchhardt, H. ‘Frühe griechische Schildformen.’ In ArchHom chap. E 1
(‘Kriegswesen, Teil 1: Schutzwaffen und Wehrbauten’), pp. 1–56. Göttingen.
Borchhardt 1972 Borchhardt, J.: Homerische Helme. Helmformen der Ägäis in ihren Bezie-
hungen zu orientalischen und europäischen Helmen in der Bronze- und frühen
Eisenzeit. Mainz.
Borchhardt 1977a Borchhardt, J. ‘Helme.’ In ArchHom chap. E 1 (‘Kriegswesen, Teil 1: Schutz-
waffen und Wehrbauten’), pp. 57–74. Göttingen.
Bostock 2015 Bostock, R. ‘«No Comment»: Iliad 6.62’. RhM 158: 104–107.
Bouvier 2002 Bouvier, D. Le sceptre et la lyre. L’Iliade ou les héros de la mémoire. Collection
HOROS. Grenoble.
Bowra 1930 Bowra, C. M. Tradition and Design in the Iliad. Oxford. (Reprint 1950.)
Bowra 1952 Bowra, C. M. Heroic Poetry. London.
Brandenburg 1977 Brandenburg, H.: ‘Μίτρα, ζωστήρ und ζῶμα.’ In ArchHom chap. E 1 (‘Kriegs-
wesen, Teil 1: Schutzwaffen und Wehrbauten’), pp. 119–143. Göttingen.
Bremer 1976 Bremer, D. Licht und Dunkel in der frühgriechischen Dichtung. Interpreta-
tionen zur Vorgeschichte der Lichtmetaphysik. Archiv für Begriffsgeschichte,
Suppl. 1. Bonn.
Bretzigheimer 1969 Bretzigheimer, F. ‘Hektor in Troia. Zu Homer, Z 237–529 und Ω 697–804.’
Anregung 15: 167–176.
Briand 2011 Briand, M. ‘À propos de νήπιος dans l’Iliade et l’Odyssée: ambiguïtés et varia-
tions auctoriales, entre récit et performativité.’ In E. Raymond (ed.). Vox
poetae. Manifestations auctoriales dans l’épopée gréco-latine, pp. 195–213.
Actes du colloque organisé les 13 et 14 novembre 2008 par l’Université Lyon
3. Paris.
Brillante 1996 Brillante, C. ‘La scrittura in Omero.’ QUCC N. S. 52: 31–45.
Broccia 1956/57 Broccia, G. ‘Il posto della Ἕκτορος καὶ Ἀνδρομάχης ὁμιλία nell’Iliade e nel
corso della vita eroica di Ettore. Nota sul pensiero della morte nell’Iliade.’
AAT 91: 165–203.
192 Iliad 6
Broccia 1963 Broccia, G. Struttura e spirito del libro VI dell’Iliade. Contributo allo studio del
problema omerico. Parte prima: dalle androctasie del preludio alla homilia.
Biblioteca di cultura superiore, Sezione I. Sapri.
Broccia 1964 Broccia, G. ‘Homerica. La chiusa di Ζ secondo la «critica» e secondo l’es-
egesi.’ RFIC 92: 385–396.
Broccia 1967 Broccia, G. La forma poetica dell’Iliade e la genesi dell’epos omerico. Biblio-
teca di Helikon, Testi e Studi 4. Messina.
Bryce 1986 Bryce, T. R. The Lycians in Literary and Epigraphic Sources. Copenhagen.
Bryce 1992 Bryce, T. R. ‘Lukka Revisited.’ JNES 51: 121–130.
Buchan 1999 Buchan, M. ‘Marx’s Aesthetics: Between Gift and Commodity Exchange.’ He-
lios 26: 129–150.
Buchan 2012 Buchan, M. Perfidity and Passion: Reintroducing the Iliad. Wisconsin Studies
in Classics. Madison.
Buchholz 2010 Buchholz, H.-G. ‘Kriegswesen, Teil 3.’ ArchHom chap. E 3. 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 2012 Burgess, J. S. ‘Intertextuality without Text in Early Greek Epic.’ In Andersen/
Haug 2012, pp. 168–183.
Burkert 1955 Burkert, W. Zum altgriechischen Mitleidsbegriff. Erlangen.
Burkert (1972) 1997 Burkert, W. Homo Necans. Interpretationen altgriechischer Opferriten und
Mythen2. Berlin and New York (11972).
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 1983 Burkert, W. ‘Oriental Myth and Literature in the Iliad.’ In R. Hägg (ed.). The
Greek Renaissance of the Eighth Century B. C.: Tradition and Innovation. Pro-
ceedings of the Second International Symposium at the Swedish Institute in
Athens (1.–5. 6. 1981), pp. 51–56. Stockholm.
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. Re-
vealing Antiquity 5. Cambridge, Mass. (= Expanded version of: Die orienta-
lisierende Epoche in der griechischen Religion und Literatur. SHAW 1984.1.
Heidelberg 1984.)
Buttmann (1818) 1825 Buttmann, Ph. Lexilogus, oder Beiträge zur griechischen Wort-Erklärung,
hauptsächlich für Homer und Hesiod 2, vol. 1. Berlin (11818).
Cairns 1993 Cairns, D. L. Aidōs: The Psychology and Ethics of Honour and Shame in An-
cient Greek Literature. Oxford.
Cairns 2001 Cairns, D. L. (ed.). Oxford Readings in Homer’s Iliad. Oxford.
Cairns 2012 Cairns, D. L. ‘Atē in the Homeric Poems.’ Papers of the Langford Latin Semi-
nar 15: 1–52.
Calder 1984 Calder III, W. M. ‘Gold for Bronze: Iliad 6.232–36.’ In Rigsby et al. 1984, pp. 31–
35.
Camerotto 2009 Camerotto, A. Fare gli eroi. Le storie, le imprese, le virtù: composizione e rac-
conto nell’epica greca arcaica. Ricerche: collana della Facoltà di Lettere e Fi-
losofia dell’Università di Venezia 54. Padua.
Canciani 1984 Canciani, F. ‘Bildkunst, Teil 2.’ ArchHom chap. N 2. Göttingen.

Carlier 1984 Carlier, P. La royauté en Grèce avant Alexandre. Études et travaux publiés
par le groupe de recherche d’histoire romaine de l’université des sciences
humaines de Strasbourg 6. Strasbourg.
Carlier 2000 Carlier, P. ‘Les marques écrites chez Homère.’ In M. Perna (ed.). Administra-
tive Documents in the Aegean and their Near Eastern Counterparts. Proceed-
ings of the International Colloquium (Naples, 29. 2.–2. 3. 1996), pp. 309–314.
Pubblicazioni del Centro internazionale di ricerche archeologiche, antropo-
logiche e storiche 3. Rome.
Carter/Morris 1995 Carter, J. B. and S. P. Morris (eds.). The Ages of Homer: A Tribute to Emily
Townsend Vermeule. Austin.
Casabona 1966 Casabona, J. Recherches sur le vocabulaire des sacrifices en grec. Des origines
à la fin de l’époque classique. Aix-en-Provence.
Casadio 1994 Casadio, G. Storia del culto di Dioniso in Argolide. Filologia e critica 71.
Rome.
Chantraine 1937 Chantraine, P. ‘Grec μειλίχιος.’ AIPhO 5 (Mélanges Émile Boisacq): 169–174.
Ciani 1974 Ciani, M. G. φάος e termini affini nella poesia greca. Introduzione a una
fenomenologia della luce. Università di Padova, Pubblicazioni della facoltà
di lettere e filosofia 51. Florence.
Clark 1997 Clark, M. Out of Line: Homeric Composition Beyond the Hexameter. Greek
Studies: Interdisciplinary Approaches. Lanham etc.
Clarke 1999 Clarke, M. Flesh and Spirit in the Songs of Homer: A Study of Words and Myths.
Oxford Classical Monographs. Oxford.
Clarke 2004 Clarke, M. ‘Manhood and Heroism.’ In R. Fowler (ed.). The Cambridge Com-
panion to Homer, pp. 74–90. Cambridge.
Classen (1851–1857) 1867 Classen, J. Beobachtungen über den Homerischen Sprachgebrauch.
Frankfurt am Main. (First published as 5 individual essays appearing in the
Frankfurter Gymnasialprogramme of 1854–1857 and the Lübecker Programm
of 1851.)
Clayton 2004 Clayton, B. A Penelopean Poetics: Reweaving the Feminine in Homer’s Odys-
sey. Greek Studies: Interdisciplinary Approaches. Lanham etc.
Cobet 1876 Cobet, C. G. Miscellanea critica quibus continentur observationes criticae in
scriptores Graecos, praesertim Homerum et Demosthenem. Leiden.
Cobet 1981 Cobet, J. ‘König, Anführer, Herr; Monarch, Tyrann.’ In E. C. Welskopf (ed.).
Soziale Typenbegriffe im alten Griechenland und ihr Fortleben in den Sprachen
der Welt, vol. 3, pp. 11–66. Berlin.
Coldstream (1977) 2003 Coldstream, J. N. Geometric Greece: 900–700 BC2. London and New
York (11977).
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. Beitr. zur Klass. Philologie
189. Frankfurt am Main.
Collobert 2011 Collobert, C. Parier sur le temps. La quête héroïque d’immortalité dans
l’épopée homérique. Collection d’études anciennes 143. Paris.
Cook 1973 Cook, J. M. The Troad: An Archaeological and Topographical Study. Oxford.
Corlu 1966 Corlu, A. Recherches sur les mots relatifs à l’idée de prière, d’Homère aux
tragiques. Paris.
Craig 1967 Craig, J. D. ‘χρύσεα χαλκείων.’ CR N. S. 17: 243–245.
194 Iliad 6
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, pp. 239–295.
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.
D’Alfonso 2008 D’Alfonso, F. ‘La Terra Desolata. Osservazioni sul destino di Bellerofonte
(Il. 6.200–202).’ MH 65: 1–21.
Danek 2005 Danek, G. ‘Antenor und die Bittgesandtschaft. Ilias, Bakchylides 15 und der
Astarita-Krater.’ WS 118: 5–20.
Danek 2006 Danek, G. ‘Antenor und seine Familie in der Ilias.’ WS 119: 5–22.
Darms 1978 Darms, G. Schwäher und Schwager, Hahn und Huhn. Die Vr̥ddhi-Ableitung im
Germanischen. Münchener Studien zur Sprachwissenschaft, N. F. Beiheft 9.
Munich.
Davies 1977 Davies, M. I. ‘The Reclamation of Helen.’ AK 20: 73–85.
Davies 2000 Davies, M. ‘Homer and Dionysus.’ Eikasmos 11: 15–27.
Debrunner 1944 Debrunner, A. ‘Verschobener Partizipialgebrauch im Griechischen. (Der Ty-
pus ‘café chantant’ im Griechischen.)’ MH 1: 31–46.
Deger-Jalkotzy 1979 Deger-Jalkotzy, S. ‘Homer und der Orient: Das Königtum des Priamos.’ WJA
5: 25–31.
Delz 1995 Delz, J. ‘Wie die Blätter am Baum, so wechseln die Wörter.’ In D. Krömer (ed.).
Wie die Blätter am Baum, so wechseln die Wörter. 100 Jahre Thesaurus linguae
Latinae, pp. 1–12. Stuttgart and Leipzig.
Dentice di Accadia Ammone 2012 Dentice di Accadia Ammone, S. Omero e i suoi oratori.
Tecniche di persuasione nell’ ‘Iliade’. Beiträge zur Altertumskunde 302. Ber-
lin and Boston.
Dentice di Accadia Ammone 2013 Dentice di Accadia Ammone, S. ‘Homer und seine Redner. Drei
Bittreden als Beispiele homerischer Redekunst.’ Gymnasium 120: 103–122.
Deoudi 1999 Deoudi, M. Heroenkulte in homerischer Zeit. BAR International Series 806.
Oxford.
Derderian 2001 Derderian, K. Leaving Words to Remember: Greek Mourning and the Advent of
Literacy. Mnemosyne Suppl. 209. Leiden etc.
Deubner (1941) 1982 Deubner, L. ‘Ololyge und Verwandtes.’ In O. Deubner (ed.). Kleine Schriften
zur klassischen Altertumskunde, pp. 607–634. Beitr. zur Klass. Philologie 140.
Königstein/Ts. (First published in APAW 1941.1. Berlin 1941.)
Di Benedetto (1994) 1998 Di Benedetto, V. Nel laboratorio di Omero2. Turin (11994).
Dickson 1995 Dickson, K. Nestor: Poetic Memory in Greek Epic. New York and London.
Dinçol/Dinçol 2005 Dinçol, A. and B. Dinçol. ‘Ein anatolisches Reich als Treffpunkt zweier Wel-
ten: Die Vermittlerrolle der Hethiter zwischen Ost und West.’ In Ü. Yalçın,
C. Pulak und R. Slotta (eds.). Das Schiff von Uluburun. Welthandel vor
3000 Jahren. Katalog der Ausstellung des Deutschen Bergbau-Museums Bo-
chum (15. 7. 2005–16. 7. 2006), pp. 211–218. Bochum.
Di Sacco Franco 2000 Di Sacco Franco, M. T. ‘Les devins chez Homère. Essai d’analyse.’ Kernos
13: 35–46.
Dodds (1944) 1960 Euripides, Bacchae2. Ed. with Introduction and Commentary by E. R. Dodds.
Oxford (11944).
Dodds 1951 Dodds, E. R. The Greeks and the Irrational. Sather Classical Lectures 25.
Berkeley and Los Angeles.
Donlan 1989 Donlan, W. ‘The Unequal Exchange between Glaucus and Diomedes in
Light of the Homeric Gift-Economy.’ Phoenix 43: 1–15. (Also in Donlan 1999,
pp. 267–282.)
Donlan 1989a Donlan, W. ‘Homeric τέμενος and the Land Economy of the Dark Age.’ MH
46: 129–145. (Also in Donlan 1999, pp. 303–320.)
Donlan 1999 Donlan, W. The Aristocratic Ideal and Selected Papers. Wauconda, Ill.
Dornseiff 1934 Dornseiff, F. ‘Antikes zum Alten Testament. 1. Genesis.’ Zeitschrift für die alt-
testamentliche Wissenschaft, N. F. 11: 57–75.
Drerup 1921 Drerup, E. Das Homerproblem in der Gegenwart. Prinzipien und Methoden der
Homererklärung. Homerische Poetik 1. Wurzburg.
Duckworth 1933 Duckworth, G. E. Foreshadowing and Suspense in the Epics of Homer, Apollo-
nius, and Virgil. Princeton.
Dué 2002 Dué, C. Homeric Variations on a Lament by Briseis. Greek Studies: Interdisci-
plinary Approaches. Lanham etc.
Dunkel 1985 Dunkel, G. E. ‘IE hortatory *éy, *éyte: Ved. éta … stávāma, Hitt. eḫu=wa it,
Hom. εἰ δ’ ἄγε.’ MSS 46: 47–79.
Düntzer (1864) 1979 Düntzer, H. ‘Über den Einfluß des Metrums auf den homerischen Aus-
druck.’ In HTN, pp. 88–108. (Slightly abridged; first published in JbbClass-
Phil 10 [1864] 673–694; also in H. Düntzer. Homerische Abhandlungen,
pp. 517–549. Leipzig 1872.)
Durante 1976 Durante, M. Sulla preistoria della tradizione poetica greca. Part 2: Risultanze
della comparazione indoeuropea. Incunabula Graeca 64. Rome.
Dürbeck 1978 Dürbeck, H. ‘Il. 5.502: ἀχυρμιαί.’ MSS 37: 39–57.
Ebbott 2003 Ebbott, M. Imagining Illegitimacy in Classical Greek Literature. Greek Studies:
Interdisciplinary Approaches. Lanham etc.
Eck 2012 Eck, B. La mort rouge. Homicide, guerre et souillure en Grèce ancienne. Collec-
tion d’études anciennes. Série grecque 145. Paris.
Eckstein 1974 Eckstein, F. ‘Handwerk, Teil 1. Die Aussagen der frühgriechischen Epos.’
ArchHom chap. L 1. Göttingen.
Edwards 1985 Edwards, A. T. Achilles in the Odyssey. Ideologies of Heroism in the Homeric
Epic. Beitr. zur Klass. Philologie 171. Königstein/Ts.
Edwards 1987 Edwards, M. W. Homer: Poet of the Iliad. Baltimore and London.
Edwards 2002 Edwards, M. W. Sound, Sense, and Rhythm: Listening to Greek and Latin
Poetry. Princeton.
Ellendt (1861) 1979 Ellendt, J. E. ‘Einiges über den Einfluß des Metrums auf den Gebrauch von
Wortformen und Wortverbindungen im Homer.’ In HTN, pp. 60–87. (First
published in Programm Königsberg 1861; also in J. E. Ellendt. Drei Homeri-
sche Abhandlungen, pp. 6–34. Leipzig 1864.)
Elliger 1975 Elliger, W. Die Darstellung der Landschaft in der griechischen Dichtung.
Untersuchungen zur antiken Literatur und Geschichte 15. Berlin and New
York.
Elmiger 1935 Elmiger, J. Begrüßung und Abschied bei Homer. Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte des
antiken Grußes. Fribourg (Switzerland).
196 Iliad 6
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 H. G. Beck et al. [eds.].
Kyklos. Griechisches und Byzantinisches. Rudolf Keydell zum 90. Geburtstag,
pp. 1–19. Berlin and New York 1978.)
Erbse 1986 Erbse, H. Untersuchungen zur Funktion der Götter im homerischen Epos. Un-
tersuchungen zur antiken Literatur und Geschichte 24. Berlin and New York.
Erbse 2002 Erbse, H. ‘Zur homerischen Bedeutungslehre.’ Glotta 78: 44–50.
Erren 1970 Erren, M. ‘Αὐτίκα «sogleich» als Signal der einsetzenden Handlung in Ilias
und Odyssee.’ Poetica 3: 24–58.
Fehling 1969 Fehling, D. Die Wiederholungsfiguren und ihr Gebrauch bei den Griechen vor
Gorgias. Berlin.
Fenik 1968 Fenik, B. Typical Battle Scenes in the Iliad. Studies in the Narrative Techniques
of Homeric Battle Description. Hermes Einzelschriften 21. Wiesbaden.
Fenik 1974 Fenik, B. Studies in the Odyssey. Hermes Einzelschriften 30. Wiesbaden.
Fenik 1986 Fenik, B. Homer and the Nibelungenlied: Comparative Studies in Epic Style.
Martin Classical Lectures 30. Cambridge, Mass. and London.
Fineberg 1999 Fineberg, S. ‘Blind Rage and Eccentric Vision in Iliad 6.’ TAPhA 129: 13–41.
Finley (1954) 1999 Finley, M. I. The World of Odysseus4. London (New York 11954).
Finkelberg 2012 Finkelberg, M. ‘Late Features in the Speeches of the Iliad.’ In Andersen/Haug
2012, pp. 80–95.
Finsler (1908) 1918 Finsler, G. Homer2. Part 2: Inhalt und Aufbau der Gedichte. Leipzig and Berlin
(11908).
Fischer 1973 Fischer, F. ‘ΚΕΙΜΗΛΙΑ. Bemerkungen zur kulturgeschichtlichen Interpre-
tation des sogenannten Südimports in der späten Hallstatt- und frühen
Latène-Kultur des westlichen Mitteleuropa.’ Germania 51: 436–459.
Floyd 1969 Floyd, E. D. ‘The Singular Uses of Ἡμέτερος and Ἡμεῖς in Homer.’ Glotta 47:
116–137.
Foley 1999 Foley, J. M. Homer’s Traditional Art. University Park, Pa.
Foley 2010 Foley, J. M. ‘«Reading Homer» through Oral Tradition.’ In K. Myrsiades (ed.).
Approaches to Homer’s Iliad and Odyssey, pp. 15–41. American University
Studies 19.38. New York etc.
Ford 1992 Ford, A. Homer: The Poetry of the Past. Ithaca and London.
Fornaro 1992 Fornaro, S. Glauco e Diomede. Lettura di Iliade VI 119–236. Venosa.
Fornaro 1994 Fornaro, S. La memoria e il canto. Antologia omerica. Collezione scolastica.
Rome and Bari.
Forssman 1966 Forssman, B. Untersuchungen zur Sprache Pindars. Klassisch-Philologische
Studien 33. Wiesbaden.
Forssman 1980 Forssman, B. ‘Ein unbekanntes Lautgesetz in der homerischen Sprache?’
In M. Mayrhofer, M. Peters and O. E. Pfeiffer (eds.). Lautgeschichte und Ety-
mologie. Akten der VI. Fachtagung der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft (Wien,
24.–29. 9. 1978), pp. 180–198. Wiesbaden.
Forssman 1991 Forssman, B. ‘Schichten in der homerischen Sprache.’ In Latacz 1991,
pp. 259–288.
Forssman 2005 Forssman, B. ‘Das Verbum οἰγ- «öffnen» bei Homer.’ In G. Meiser und
O. Hackstein (eds.). Sprachkontakt und Sprachwandel. Akten der XI. Fach-
tagung der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft (Halle a.d. Saale, 17.–23. 9. 2000),
pp. 105–115. Wiesbaden.
Forssman 2006 Forssman, B. ‘Epischer und chorlyrischer Literaturdialekt: das Verbum

ἐφέπω.’ ILing 29: 111–117.
Fränkel 1921 Fränkel, H. Die homerischen Gleichnisse. Göttingen 1921 (= 21977: unaltered
reprint with afterword and bibliography, ed. by E. Heitsch). (Abridged Eng-
lish transl. in de Jong 1999, vol. 3, pp. 301–321 [= Fränkel 1921, pp. 16–35] and
Wright/Jones 1997, pp. 103–123 [= Fränkel 1921, pp. 98–114].)
Fränkel (1951) 1973 Fränkel, H. Early Greek Poetry and Philosophy. A history of Greek epic, lyric
and prose to the middle of the fifth century, transl. by M. Hadas and J. Wil-
lis. New York and London 1973. (German original: Dichtung und Philosophie
des frühen Griechentums. Eine Geschichte der griechischen Epik, Lyrik und
Prosa bis zur Mitte des fünften Jahrhunderts. Munich etc. 21962 [New York
1
1951].)
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.
Frei 1978 Frei, P. ‘Die Lykier bei Homer.’ In E. Akurgal (ed.). Proceedings of the Xth In-
ternational Congress of Classical Archaeology (Ankara and Izmir, 23.–30. 9.
1973), vol. 2, pp. 819–827. Ankara.
Friedrich 1975 Friedrich, R. Stilwandel im homerischen Epos. Studien zur Poetik und Theorie
der epischen Gattung. Bibliothek der Klass. Altertumswiss., N. F. 2.55. Heidel-
berg.
Friedrich 2007 Friedrich, R. Formular Economy in Homer: The Poetics of the Breaches.
Hermes Einzelschriften 100. Stuttgart.
Friedrich (1956) 2003 Friedrich, W.-H. Wounding and Death in the Iliad: Homeric Techniques
of Description, transl. by P. Jones and G. Wright, with a new appendix by
K. Saunders. London. (German original: Verwundung und Tod in der Ilias.
Homerische Darstellungsweisen. Abh. der Akad. der Wiss. in Göttingen, Phil.-
hist. Kl. 3.38. Göttingen 1956.)
Frisk (1940) 1966 Frisk, H. ‘Zur griechischen Wortkunde [1. Teil].’ In H. Frisk. Kleine Schriften
zur Indogermanistik und zur griechischen Wortkunde, pp. 324–334. Studia
Graeca et Latina Gothoburgensia 21. Göteborg etc. (First published in Eranos
38 [1940] 36–46.)
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 Klass. Altertumswiss., N. F.
2.91. Heidelberg.
Führer 1967 Führer, R. Formproblem-Untersuchungen zu den Reden in der frühgriechi-
schen Lyrik. Zetemata 44. Munich.
Führer/Schmidt 2001 Führer, R. and M. Schmidt. ‘Homerus redivivus. Rez. zu: Homerus, Ilias,
recensuit/testimonia congessit M. L. West (Bd. I, Stuttgart and Leipzig 1998).’
GGA 253: 1–32.
Gagliardi 2006 Gagliardi, P. ‘I lamenti di Andromaca nell’Iliade.’ Gaia 10: 11–46.
Gaisser 1969 Gaisser, J. H. ‘Adaptation of Traditional Material in the Glaucus–Diomedes
Episode.’ TAPhA 100: 165–176.
García Ramón 1994 García Ramón, J. L. ‘Indogermanische Wurzelpräsentia und innere Rekon-
struktion.’ In G. E. Dunkel et al. (eds.). Früh-, Mittel-, Spätindogermanisch.
198 Iliad 6
Akten der IX. Fachtagung der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft (Zurich, 5.–9. 10.

1992), pp. 53–75. Wiesbaden.
Garland 1981 Garland, R. ‘The Causation of Death in the Iliad: A Theological and Biologi-
cal Investigation.’ BICS 28: 43–60.
Gartziou-Tatti 1992 Gartziou-Tatti, A. ‘Pâris-Alexandre dans l’Iliade.’ In A. Moreau (ed.). L’initia-
tion: actes du colloque international de Montpellier (11.–14. 4. 1991). Vol. 1: Les
rites d’adolescence et les mystères, pp. 73–93. Montpellier.
Gartziou-Tatti 2010 Gartziou-Tatti, A. ‘Blindness as Punishment.’ In M. Christopoulos, E. D. Kara-
kantza and O. Levaniouk (eds.). Light and Darkness in Ancient Greek Myth
and Religion, pp. 181–190. Greek Studies. Interdisciplinary Approaches. Lan-
ham etc.
Gates 1971 Gates, H. P. The Kinship Terminology of Homeric Greek. Suppl. to Interna-
tional Journal of American Linguistics 37.4. Baltimore.
George 2005 George, C. H. Expressions of Agency in Ancient Greek. Cambridge Classical
Studies. Cambridge.
Germain 1954 Germain, G. La mystique des nombres dans l’épopée homérique et sa préhis-
toire. Paris.
Giordano 1999 Giordano, M. La supplica. Rituale, istituzione sociale e tema epico in Omero.
Annali dell’istituto universitario orientale di Napoli. Dipartimento di studi
del mondo classico e del mediterraneo antico, sezione filologico-letteraria 3.
Naples.
Giusti 1933 Giusti, A. ‘La distimia di Bellerofonte (Iliade, VI, 200–202).’ REHom 3: 39–49.
Göbel 1933 Göbel, F. Formen und Formeln der epischen Dreiheit in der griechischen Dich-
tung. Tübingen.
Goldhill 1990 Goldhill, S. ‘Supplication and Authorial Comment in the Iliad: Iliad Ζ 61–2.’
Hermes 118: 373–376.
Goldhill 1991 Goldhill, S. The Poet’s Voice: Essays on Poetics and Greek Literature. Cam-
bridge etc.
Görgemanns 2001 Görgemanns, H. ‘Hektors Entscheidung.’ In S. Böhm and K.-V. von Eickstedt
(eds.). ΙΘΑΚΗ. Festschrift für Jörg Schäfer zum 75. Geburtstag am 25. April
2001, pp. 115–120. Wurzburg.
Gostoli 2012 Gostoli, A. ‘Sisifo nei poemi omerici e nel culto corinzio.’ In G. Cerri et al.
(eds.). Tradizioni mitiche locali nell’epica greca. Convegno internazionale di
studi in onore di Antonio Martina per i suoi 75 anni (Rome, 22.–23. 10. 2009),
pp. 83–93. Rome.
Gould (1973) 2001 Gould, J. ‘Hiketeia.’ In J. Gould. Myth, Ritual Memory, and Exchange: Essays
in Greek Literature and Culture, pp. 22–77. Oxford. (First published in JHS 93
[1973] 74–103.)
Graf 1995 Graf, F. Nordionische Kulte. Religionsgeschichtliche und epigraphische Unter-
suchungen zu den Kulten von Chios, Erythrai, Klazomenai und Phokaia. Bib-
liotheca Helvetica Romana 21. Rome.
Graf 1997 Graf, F. ‘Griechische Religion.’ In H.-G. Nesselrath (ed.). Einleitung in die
griechische Philologie, pp. 457–504. Stuttgart and Leipzig.
Granata 1991 Granata, G. ‘Dioniso tra Pilo e Omero: una nota.’ Athenaeum N. S. 79: 623–633.
Gray 1954 Gray, D. H. F. ‘Metal-Working in Homer.’ JHS 74: 1–15.
Graz 1965 Graz, L. Le feu dans l’Iliade et l’Odyssée. ΠΥΡ: champ d’emploi et significa-
tion. Études et commentaires 60. Paris.
Graziosi/Haubold 2003 Graziosi, B. and J. Haubold. ‘Homeric Masculinity: ΗΝΟΡΕΗ and

ΑΓΗΝΟΡΕΗ.’ JHS 123: 60–76.
Graziosi/Haubold 2005 Graziosi, B. and J. Haubold. Homer: The Resonance of Epic. Classical
Literature and Society. London.
Grethlein 2006 Grethlein, J. Das Geschichtsbild der Ilias. Eine Untersuchung aus phäno-
menologischer und narratologischer Perspektive. Hypomnemata 163. Göttin-
gen.
Grethlein 2006a Grethlein, J. ‘Individuelle Identität und conditio humana. Die Bedeutung
und Funktion von γενεή im Blättergleichnis in Il. 6, 146–149.’ Philologus 150:
3–13.
Grethlein 2008 Grethlein, J. ‘Memory and Material Objects in the Iliad and the Odyssey.’ JHS
128: 27–51.
Grethlein 2010 Grethlein, J. ‘From «Imperishable Glory» to History: The Iliad and the Trojan
War.’ In D. Konstan and K. A. Raaflaub (eds.). Epic and History, pp. 122–144.
The Ancient World: Comparative Histories. Oxford.
Griffin 1976 Griffin, J. ‘Homeric Pathos and Objectivity.’ CQ 26: 161–187.
Griffin 1980 Griffin, J. Homer on Life and Death. Oxford.
Griffin 1986 Griffin, J. ‘Homeric Words and Speakers.’ JHS 106: 36–57.
Gruben (1966) 2001 Gruben, G. Griechische Tempel und Heiligtümer. 5th completely revised and
expanded new edition. Munich. (11966; 1st–4th editions entitled Die Tempel
der Griechen.)
Gruber 1963 Gruber, J. Über einige abstrakte Begriffe des frühen Griechischen. Beitr. zur
Klass. Philologie 9. Meisenheim am Glan.
Gschnitzer 1976 Gschnitzer, F. Studien zur griechischen Terminologie der Sklaverei. Part 2:
Untersuchungen zur älteren, insbesondere homerischen Sklaventerminologie.
Forschungen zur antiken Sklaverei 7. Wiesbaden.
Guastalla 1937 Guastalla, R. M. ‘Un effet de symétrie dans l’Iliade: les deux retours d’Hector
à Troie (VI 242 sqq. – XXIV 718 sqq.).’ REG 50: 50–66.
Hackstein 2002 Hackstein, O. Die Sprachform der homerischen Epen. Faktoren morpholo-
gischer Variabilität in literarischen Frühformen: Tradition, Sprachwandel,
sprachliche Anachronismen. Serta Graeca 15. Wiesbaden.
Haft 1990 Haft, A. J. ‘«The City-Sacker Odysseus» in Iliad 2 and 10.’ TAPhA 120: 37–56.
Hägg/Marinatos 1991 Hägg, R. and N. Marinatos. ‘The Giamalakis Model from Archanes: Be-
tween the Minoan and the Greek Worlds.’ In D. Musti et al. (eds.). La tran-
sizione dal Miceneo all’Alto Arcaismo. Dal palazzo alla città. Atti del Convegno
Internazionale (Rome, 14.–19. 3. 1988), pp. 301–308. Rome.
Halliwell 2008 Halliwell, S. Greek Laughter: A Study of Cultural Psychology from Homer to
Early Christianity. Cambridge.
Hansen 2002 Hansen, W. Ariadne’s Thread: A Guide to International Tales Found in Classi-
cal Literature. Myth and Poetics. Ithaca and London.
Harries 1993 Harries, B. ‘«Strange Meeting»: Diomedes and Glaucus in Iliad 6.’ G&R 40:
133–146.
Haslam 1997 Haslam, M. ‘Homeric Papyri and Transmission of the Text.’ In Companion,
pp. 55–100.
Haubold 2000 Haubold, J. Homer’s People: Epic Poetry and Social Formation. Cambridge
Classical Studies. Cambridge.
Havers 1928 Havers, W. ‘Zur Syntax des Nominativs.’ Glotta 16: 94–127.
200 Iliad 6
Heath 2005 Heath, J. The Talking Greeks: Speech, Animals, and the Other in Homer,
Aeschylus, and Plato. Cambridge.
Heiden 2008 Heiden, B. Homer’s Cosmic Fabrication: Choice and Design in the Iliad. Ox-
ford.
Heitsch (1967) 2001 Heitsch, E. ‘Der Zorn des Paris. Zur Deutungsgeschichte eines homerischen
Zetemas.’ In E. Heitsch. Gesammelte Schriften. Vol. 1: Zum frühgriechischen
Epos, pp. 178–209. Beitr. zur Altertumskunde 152. Munich and Leipzig. (First
published in E. Fries [ed.]. Festschrift für Joseph Klein zum 70. Geburtstag,
pp. 216–247. Göttingen 1967.)
Hellmann 2000 Hellmann, O. Die Schlachtszenen der Ilias. Das Bild des Dichters vom Kampf
in der Heroenzeit. Hermes Einzelschriften 83. Stuttgart.
Henrichs 1994 Henrichs, A. ‘Der rasende Gott. Zur Psychologie des Dionysos und des Diony-
sischen in Mythos und Literatur.’ A&A 40: 31–58.
Herman 1987 Herman, G. Ritualised Friendship and the Greek City. Cambridge.
Hershkowitz 1998 Hershkowitz, D. The Madness of Epic: Reading Insanity from Homer to Sta-
tius. Oxford.
Hertel 2003 Hertel, D. Die Mauern von Troia. Mythos und Geschichte im antiken Ilion.
Munich.
Herter 1973 Herter, H. ‘Der weinende Astyanax.’ GB 1: 157–164.
Herzhoff 2011 Herzhoff, B. ‘The Battlefield of the Trojan War: A New Philological and Geo-
graphical Analysis.’ Studia Troica 19: 219–254.
Heubeck 1974 Heubeck, A. Die homerische Frage. Erträge der Forschung 27. Darmstadt.
Heubeck 1979 Heubeck, A. ‘Schrift.’ ArchHom chap. X. Göttingen.
Heubeck 1987 Heubeck, A. ‘ἀμύμων.’ Glotta 65: 37–44.
Higbie 1990 Higbie, C. Measure and Music. Enjambement and Sentence Structure in the
Iliad. Oxford.
Higbie 1995 Higbie, C. Heroes’ Names, Homeric Identities. New York and London.
Hijmans 1975 Hijmans, B. L. ‘Alexandros and His Grief.’ GB 3: 177–189.
Hiller 1993 Hiller, S. ‘Lykien und Lykier bei Homer und in mykenischer Zeit.’ In J. Borch-
hardt and G. Dobesch (eds.). Akten des II. internationalen Lykien-Symposions
(Vienna, 6.–12. 5. 1990), vol. 1, pp. 107–115. Denkschriften der Österr. Akad.
der Wiss. 231. Vienna.
Hitch 2009 Hitch, S. King of Sacrifice: Ritual and Royal Authority in the Iliad. Hellenic
Studies 25. Washington, D. C.
Höckmann 1980 Höckmann, O. ‘Lanze und Speer.’ In ArchHom chap. E 2 (‘Kriegswesen, Teil 2:
Angriffswaffen’), pp. 275–319. Göttingen.
Hoekstra 1965 Hoekstra, A. Homeric Modifications of Formulaic Prototypes: Studies in the
Development of Greek Epic Diction. Verhandelingen der Koninklijke Neder-
landse Akad. van Wetenschappen, Afd. Letterkunde, N. R. 71.1. Amsterdam.
Hoekstra 1969 Hoekstra, A. The Sub-Epic Stage of the Formulaic Tradition: Studies in the
Homeric Hymns to Apollo, to Aphrodite and to Demeter. Verhandelingen der
Koninklijke Nederlandse Akad. van Wetenschappen, Afd. Letterkunde, N. R.
75.2. Amsterdam and London.
Hoekstra 1981 Hoekstra, A. Epic Verse Before Homer: Three Studies. Amsterdam etc.
Hoffmann (1952/56) 1976 Hoffmann, K. ‘Zum prädikativen Adverb.’ In K. Hoffmann. Aufsätze
zur Indoiranistik, ed. by J. Narten, vol. 2, pp. 339–349. Wiesbaden. (First pub-
lished in MSS 1 [1952/56] 42–53.)
Hohendahl-Zoetelief 1980 Hohendahl-Zoetelief, I. M. Manners in the Homeric Epic. Mnemosyne

Suppl. 63. Leiden.
Holoka 1976 Holoka, J. P. ‘«Thick as Autumnal Leaves» – The Structure and Generic
Potentials of an Epic Simile.’ Milton Quarterly 10: 78–83.
Hölscher 1939 Hölscher, U. Untersuchungen zur Form der Odyssee. Szenenwechsel und
gleichzeitige Handlungen. Hermes Einzelschriften 6. Berlin.
Hölscher 1955 Hölscher, U. ‘Rez. zu W. Schadewaldt, Von Homers Welt und Werk. Aufsätze
und Auslegungen zur homerischen Frage2, Stuttgart 1951.’ Gnomon 27: 385–399.
Hooker (1988) 1996 Hooker, J. T. ‘From Mycenae to Homer.’ In J. T. Hooker. Scripta Minora: Se-
lected Essays on Minoan, Mycenaean, Homeric and Classical Greek Subjects,
ed. by F. Amory, P. Considine and S. Hooker, pp. 275–282. Amsterdam. (First
published in Studies in Honour of T. B. L. Webster, ed. by J. H. Betts et al.,
vol. 2, pp. 57–64. Bristol 1988.)
Hutchinson 1985 Aeschylus, Septem contra Thebas / Seven Against Thebes. Ed. with Introduc-
tion and Commentary by G. O. Hutchinson. Oxford.
Huxley 1967 Huxley, G. ‘A Problem in the Kypria.’ GRBS 8: 25–27.
Irmscher 1950 Irmscher, J. Götterzorn bei Homer. Leipzig.
Jacquinod 1992 Jacquinod, B. ‘La liberté dans les poèmes homériques.’ In R. Sauter (ed.). Vi-
sages de liberté. Recherches lexicales et littéraires, pp. 17–27. Université Jean
Monnet – Saint-Étienne, Trauvaux 79. Saint-Étienne.
Jacquinod 1996 Jacquinod, B. ‘Homère Ζ 396 et l’attraction inverse.’ In D. Conso et al. (eds.).
Mélanges François Kerlouégan, pp. 289–295. Paris.
Jahn 1987 Jahn, Th. Zum Wortfeld ‘Seele-Geist’ in der Sprache Homers. Zetemata 83. Mu-
nich.
Jankuhn 1969 Jankuhn, H. Die passive Bedeutung medialer Formen untersucht an der
Sprache Homers. Ergänzungshefte zur ZVS 21. Göttingen.
Jeffery 1962 Jeffery, L. H. ‘Writing.’ In A. J. B. Wace and F. H. Stubbings (eds.). A Compan-
ion to Homer, pp. 545–559. London.
Jensen 1999 Jensen, M. S. et al. ‘Dividing Homer: When and How were the Iliad and the
Odyssey Divided into Songs?’ SO 74: 5–91.
Jensen 2011 Jensen, M. S. Writing Homer: A Study Based on Results from Modern Field-
work. Scientia Danica. Series H, Humanistica 8 vol. 4. Copenhagen.
Johnson 2002 Johnson, W. A. ‘P. Hibeh II 193 (Iliad VI 4–7).’ ZPE 139: 1–2.
Jones 1995 Jones, P. ‘Poetic Invention: The Fighting around Troy in the First Nine Years
of the Trojan War.’ In Ø. Andersen and M. Dickie (eds.). Homer’s World:
Fiction, Tradition, Reality, pp. 101–111. Papers from the Norwegian Institute
at Athens 3. Bergen and Athens.
de Jong 1987 Jong, I. J. F. de. ‘Silent Characters in the Iliad.’ In J. M. Bremer, I. J. F. de Jong
and J. Kalff (eds.). Homer: Beyond Oral Poetry. Recent Trends in Homeric In-
terpretation, pp. 105–121. Amsterdam.
de Jong 1987a Jong, I. J. F. de. ‘The Voice of Anonymity: tis-Speeches in the Iliad.’ Eranos 85:
69–84. (Also in de Jong 1999, vol. 3, pp. 258–273.)
de Jong (1987) 2004 Jong, I. J. F. de. Narrators and Focalizers: The Presentation of the Story in the
Iliad2. Amsterdam (11987).
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: Ho-
mer’s Art. London and New York.
202 Iliad 6
de Jong 2005 Jong, I. J. F. de. ‘Convention versus Realism in the Homeric Epics.’ Mnemo-
syne Ser. 4, 58: 1–22.
de Jong 2006 Jong, I. J. F. de. ‘The Homeric Narrator and His Own kleos.’ Mnemosyne Ser. 4,
59: 188–207.
de Jong 2007 Jong, I. J. F. de. ‘Homer.’ In de Jong/Nünlist 2007, pp. 17–37.
de Jong 2009 Jong, I. J. F. de. ‘Metalepsis in Ancient Greek Literature.’ In J. Grethlein and
A. Rengakos (eds.). Narratology and Interpretation: The Content of Narrative
Form in Ancient Literature, pp. 87–115. Berlin and New York.
de Jong 2012 Jong, I. J. F. de. ‘Double Deixis in Homeric Speech: On the Interpretation of
ὅδε and οὗτος.’ In M. Meier-Brügger (ed.). Homer, gedeutet durch ein großes
Lexikon. Akten des Hamburger Kolloquiums vom 5.–8. Oktober 2010 zum Ab-
schluß des Lexikons des frühgriechischen Epos, pp. 63–83. Abhandlungen der
Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Göttingen, N. F. 21. Berlin and Boston.
de Jong 2012a Jong, I. J. F. de. ‘Homer.’ In Space in Ancient Greek Literature. Studies in An-
cient Greek Narrative, vol. 3, pp. 21–38. Mnemosyne Suppl. 339. 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, pp. 63–
83.
de Jong/Nünlist 2007 Jong, I. J. F. de and R. Nünlist (eds.). Time in Ancient Greek Literature.
Studies in Ancient Greek Narrative, vol. 2. Mnemosyne Suppl. 291. Leiden and
Boston.
Kaimio 1977 Kaimio, M. Characterization of Sound in Early Greek Literature. Commenta-
tiones Humanarum Litterarum 53. Helsinki.
Kakridis (1937) 1949 Kakridis, J. Th. ‘Hectorea.’ In Kakridis 1949, pp. 43–64. (Original German
version: ‘ Ἑκτόρεια.’ Hermes 72 [1937] 171–189.)
Kakridis 1949 Kakridis, J. Th. Homeric Researches. Acta Reg. Societatis Humaniorum Litter-
arum Lundensis 45. Lund.
Kakridis 1949a Kakridis, J. Th. ‘Elements of Popular Style in Homer’s Poetry.’ In Kakridis
1949, pp. 106–126.
Kakridis (1956) 1971 Kakridis, J. Th. ‘Ἀεὶ φιλέλλην ὁ ποιητής?’ In Kakridis 1971, pp. 54–67. (Ori-
ginal, shorter version: ‘Homer, ein Philhellene?’ WS 69 [1956] 26–32.)
Kakridis (1956a) 1971 Kakridis, J. Th. ‘The Rôle of the Woman in the Iliad.’ In Kakridis 1971,
pp. 68–75. (First published in Eranos 54 [1956] 21–27.)
Kakridis 1971 Kakridis, J. Th. Homer Revisited. Publications of the New Society of Letters at
Lund 64. Lund.
Kauffmann/Szabados 2004 Kauffmann-Samaras, A. and A.-V. Szabados. ‘Rites et activités rela-
tifs aux images de culte: vêtements, parures.’ In ThesCRA 2: 427–437.
Kelly 2007 Kelly, A. A Referential Commentary and Lexicon to Iliad VIII. Oxford Classical
Monographs. Oxford.
Kelly 2012 Kelly, A. ‘The Mourning of Thetis: «Allusion» and the Future in the Iliad.’ In
Montanari et al. 2012, pp. 221–265.
Kemmer 1903 Kemmer, E. Die polare Ausdrucksweise in der griechischen Literatur.
Wurzburg.
Kim 2000 Kim, J. The Pity of Achilles: Oral Style and the Unity of the Iliad. Greek Studies:
Kirk 1962 Kirk, G. S. The Songs of Homer. Cambridge.
Kitts 2005 Kitts, M. Sanctified Violence in Homeric Society: Oath-Making Rituals and
Narratives in the Iliad. Cambridge etc.
Klein 1988 Klein, J. S. ‘Homeric Greek αὖ: A Synchronic, Diachronic, and Comparative
Study.’ HSF 101: 249–288.
Kloss 1994 Kloss, G. Untersuchungen zum Wortfeld ‘Verlangen/Begehren’ im frühgriechi-
schen Epos. Hypomnemata 105. Göttingen.
Koechly 1859 Koechly, H. De Iliadis carminibus dissertatio VI. Zurich.
Kölligan 2007 Kölligan, D. Suppletion und Defektivität im griechischen Verbum. Münchner
Forschungen zur hist. Sprachwiss. 6. Bremen.
Korfmann 2002 Korfmann, M. ‘Ilios, ca. 1200 BC – Ilion, ca. 700 BC: Report on Findings from
Archaeology.’ In Montanari 2002, pp. 209–225.
Kotopoulos 1982 Kotopoulos, I. T. ‘Ἡ τυποποιημένη φράση «υἷε δύω …» καὶ ἡ λειτουργία της
μέσα στὴν Ἰλιάδα.’ Dodone 11: 73–152.
Krapp 1964 Krapp, H. J. Die akustischen Phänomene in der Ilias. Munich.
Krauskopf 2001 Krauskopf, I. ‘Thysthla, Thyrsoi und Narthekophoroi. Anmerkungen zur
Geschichte des dionysischen Kultstabes.’ Thetis 8: 47–52.
Kretschmer 1948 Kretschmer, P. ‘Bellerophontes.’ Glotta 31: 92–103, 246–247.
Krischer 1971 Krischer, T. Formale Konventionen der homerischen Epik. Zetemata 56. Mu-
nich.
Krischer 1979 Krischer, T. ‘Zum Ζ der Ilias.’ GB 8: 9–22.
Krischer 1997 Krischer, T. ‘Regularität und Komplexität im homerischen Epos.’ In F. Létou-
blon (ed.). Hommage à Milman Parry. Le style formulaire de l’épopée homé-
rique et la théorie de l’oralité poétique, pp. 105–116. Amsterdam.
Kühlmann 1973 Kühlmann, W. Katalog und Erzählung. Studien zu Konstanz und Wandel einer
literarischen Form in der antiken Epik. Freiburg im Breisgau.
Kullmann 1956 Kullmann, W. Das Wirken der Götter in der Ilias. Untersuchungen zur Frage
der Entstehung des homerischen ‘Götterapparats’. Deutsche Akad. der Wiss.
zu Berlin. Schriften der Sektion für Altertumswiss. 1. Berlin.
Kullmann 1960 Kullmann, W. Die Quellen der Ilias (Troischer Sagenkreis). Hermes Ein-
zelschriften 14. Wiesbaden.
Kullmann (1968) 2001 Kullmann, W. ‘Past and Future in the Iliad.’ In Cairns 2001, pp. 385–408.
(Original German version: ‘Vergangenheit und Zukunft in der Ilias.’ Poetica 2
[1968] 15–37; also in Kullmann 1992, pp. 219–242.)
Kullmann 1992 Kullmann, W. Homerische Motive. Beiträge zur Entstehung, Eigenart und
Wirkung von Ilias und Odyssee, ed. by R. J. Müller. Stuttgart.
Kullmann 1999 Kullmann, W. ‘Homer and Historical Memory.’ In Mackay 1999, pp. 95–113.
Kullmann (1999) 2002 Kullmann, W. ‘Homer und Kleinasien.’ In W. Kullmann. Realität, Imagi-
nation und Theorie. Kleine Schriften zu Epos und Tragödie in der Antike, ed.
by A. Rengakos, pp. 60–74. Stuttgart. (First published in J. N. Kazazis and
A. Rengakos (eds.). Euphrosyne: Studies in Ancient Epic and Its Legacy in
Honor of Dimitris N. Maronitis, pp. 189–201. Stuttgart 1999.)
Kullmann 2002 Kullmann, W. ‘Seduta di chiusura.’ In Montanari 2002, pp. 666–672.
Kupke 1989 Kupke, B. ‘Lykiens Grenzen und Bevölkerung, Landschaft und Klima.’ In
B. Kupke und F. Kolb (eds.). Lykien. Geschichte Lykiens im Altertum, pp. 2–8.
Antike Welt 20, Sondernr. 2. Mainz.
Kurz 1966 Kurz, G. Darstellungsformen menschlicher Bewegung in der Ilias. Bibliothek
der Klass. Altertumswiss., N. F. 2.11. Heidelberg.
204 Iliad 6
Lang 1975 Lang, M. L. ‘Reason and Purpose in Homeric Prayers.’ CW 68: 309–314.
Lang 1994 Lang, M. L. ‘Lineage-Boasting and the Road not Taken.’ CQ 44: 1–6.
Lang 1995 Lang, M. L. ‘War Story into Wrath Story.’ In Carter/Morris 1995, pp. 149–162.
Lardinois 1997 Lardinois, A. ‘Modern Paroemiology and the Use of Gnomai in Homer’s
Iliad.’ CPh 92: 213–234.
La Roche 1861 La Roche, J. Homerische Studien. Der Accusativ im Homer. Vienna.
La Roche 1866 La Roche, J. Die Homerische Textkritik im Alterthum. Leipzig.
La Roche 1897 La Roche, J. ‘Die Stellung des attributiven und appositiven Adjectives bei
Homer.’ WS 19: 161–188.
Laser 1983 Laser, S. ‘Medizin und Körperpflege.’ ArchHom chap. S. Göttingen.
Latacz 1966 Latacz, J. Zum Wortfeld ‘Freude’ in der Sprache Homers. Bibliothek der Klass.
Altertumswiss., N. F. 2.17. Heidelberg.
Latacz 1969 Latacz, J. ‘Rez. zu A. Corlu, Recherches sur les mots relatifs à l’idée de prière,
d’Homère aux tragiques, Paris 1966, und zu A. Citron, Semantische Unter-
suchung zu σπένδεσθαι – σπένδειν – εὔχεσθαι, Winterthur 1965.’ Gnomon 41:
347–353.
Latacz 1977 Latacz, J. Kampfparänese, Kampfdarstellung und Kampfwirklichkeit in der
Ilias, bei Kallinos und Tyrtaios. Zetemata 66. Munich.
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; Dusseldorf 31997.)
Latacz (1987) 1994 Latacz, J. ‘Frauengestalten Homers.’ In Latacz 1994, pp. 95–124. (First
published in Humanistische Bildung 11 [1987] 43–71.)
Latacz (1990) 1994 Latacz, J. ‘Phönizier bei Homer.’ In Latacz 1994, pp. 125–135. (First published
in U. Gehrig and H. G. Niemeyer [eds.]. Die Phönizier im Zeitalter Homers
[Ausstellung Kestner-Museum Hannover, 14. 9.–25. 11. 1990], 11–21, 253. Mainz
1990.)
Latacz 1991 Latacz, J. (ed.). Zweihundert Jahre Homer-Forschung. Rückblick und Ausblick.
Coll. Raur. 2. Stuttgart and Leipzig.
Latacz 1992 Latacz, J. ‘Homers Ilias und die Folgen. Wie der Mythos Troia entstand.’ In
I. Gamer-Wallert (ed.). Troia. Brücke zwischen Orient und Okzident, pp. 201–
218. Tübingen. (Also in Latacz 2014, pp. 361–368.)
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 1995. (Also in Latacz 2014, pp. 267–
346.)
Latacz (2001) 2004 Latacz, J. Troy an Homer: Towards a Solution of an Old Mystery, transl. by
K. Windle and R. Ireland. Oxford. (German original: Troia und Homer. Der
Weg zur Lösung eines alten Rätsels. Munich and Zurich etc. 42003 [Munich
and Berlin 12001]; expanded German edition: Leipzig 62010.)
Latacz 2002 Latacz, J. ‘Troia – Wilios – Wilusa. Drei Namen für ein Territorium.’ In R. Aslan
et al. (eds.). Mauerschau. Festschrift für Manfred Korfmann, pp. 1103–1121.
Remshalden-Grunbach. (Also in Latacz 2014, pp. 443–468.)
Latacz 2007 Latacz, J. ‘A Battlefield of the Emotions: Homer’s Helen.’ In M. Païzi-Aposto-
lopoulou, A. Rengakos and Chr. Tsagalis (eds.). Άθλα και Έπαθλα στα Ομηρικά
Έπη (Contests and Rewards in the Homeric Epics). Από τα Πρακτικά του Ι’
Συνεδρίου για την Οδύσσεια (15.–19. 9. 2004), pp. 87–100. Ithaka. (Also in
Latacz 2014, pp. 347–358.)
Latacz 2008 Latacz, J. ‘Die Ilias: Inhalt und Aufbau.’ In J. Latacz et al. (eds.). Homer. Der
Mythos von Troia in Dichtung und Kunst (Katalog zur gleichnamigen Ausstel-
lung: Basel 16. 3.–17. 8. 2008, Mannheim 13. 9. 2008–18. 1. 2009), pp. 114–138.
Munich. (Also in Latacz 2014, pp. 191–235.)
Latacz 2013 Latacz, J. ‘Epos-Metamorphosen.’ In B. Dunsch, A. Schmitt and Th. A.
Schmitz (eds.). Epos, Lyrik, Drama. Genese und Ausformung der literarischen
Gattungen. Festschrift für Ernst-Richard Schwinge zum 75. Geburtstag, pp. 55–
88. Heidelberg.
Latacz 2014 Latacz, J. Homers Ilias. Studien zu Dichter, Werk und Rezeption (Kleine Schrif-
ten II), ed. by Th. Greub, K. Greub-Frącz and A. Schmitt. Beiträge zur Alter-
tumskunde 327. Berlin and Boston.
Lateiner 1997 Lateiner, D. ‘Homeric Prayer.’ Arethusa 30: 241–272.
Lateiner 2004/05 Lateiner, D. ‘Proxemic and Chronemic in Homeric Epic: Time and Space in
Heroic Social Interaction.’ CW 98: 413–421.
Leaf 1923 Leaf, W. Strabo on the Troad: Book XIII, Chapter I. Ed. with Translation and
Commentary. Cambridge.
Lehrs (1833) 1882 Lehrs, K. De Aristarchi studiis Homericis3. Leipzig (11833).
Le Meur 2009 Le Meur, N. ‘Les enfants dans l’Iliade.’ In M. Fartzoff et al. (eds.). Reconstruire
Troie. Permanence et renaissances d’une cité emblématique, pp. 41–72. Be-
sançon.
Lendle 1995 Lendle, O. Kommentar zu Xenophons Anabasis. Darmstadt.
Lesky (1961) 2001 Lesky, A. ‘Divine and Human Causation in Homeric Epic,’ transl. by L. Hol-
ford-Strevens. In Cairns 2001, pp. 170–202. (Abridged version of Göttliche
und menschliche Motivation im homerischen Epos. SHAW 1961.4. Heidelberg
1961.)
Lesky 1967 Lesky, A. Homeros. Sonderausgaben der RE. Stuttgart. (Also in RE Suppl. 11
[1968] 687–846.)
Létoublon 1985 Létoublon, F. Il allait, pareil à la nuit. Les verbes de mouvement en grec: sup-
plétisme et aspect verbal. Études et commentaires 98. Paris.
Létoublon 1992 Létoublon, F. (ed.). La langue et les textes en grec ancien. Actes du colloque
Pierre Chantraine (Grenoble, 5.–8. 9. 1989). Amsterdam.
Leukart 1986 Leukart, A. ‘Homerisch ἀτρύγετος.’ In A. Etter (ed.). o-o-pe-ro-si. Festschrift
für Ernst Risch zum 75. Geburtstag, pp. 340–345. Berlin and New York.
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. Schweiz. Beitr. zur Altertumswiss. 3. Basel.
(Reprint Darmstadt 1993.)
Lewy 1895 Lewy, H. Die semitischen Fremdwörter im Griechischen. Berlin.
Lilja 1972 Lilja, S. The Treatment of Odours in the Poetry of Antiquity. Commentationes
Humanarum Litterarum 49. Helsinki.
Link 1994 Link, S. ‘Temenos und ager publicus bei Homer?’ Historia 43: 241–245.
Lohmann 1970 Lohmann, D. Die Komposition der Reden in der Ilias. Untersuchungen zur an-
tiken Literatur und Geschichte 6. Berlin and New York.
206 Iliad 6
Lohmann 1988 Lohmann, D. Die Andromache-Szenen der Ilias. Ansätze und Methoden der
Homer-Interpretation. Spudasmata 42. Hildesheim etc.
Lorimer 1950 Lorimer, H. L. Homer and the Monuments. London.
Lossau 1994 Lossau, M. ‘Retter-Licht (φόως, φάος) bei Homer und den Tragikern.’ Eranos
92: 85–92.
Louden 1995 Louden, B. ‘Categories of Homeric Wordplay.’ TAPhA 125: 27–46.
Louden 2006 Louden, B. The Iliad: Structure, Myth, and Meaning. Baltimore.
Lowenstam 1993 Lowenstam, S. The Scepter and the Spear. Studies on Forms of Repetition in
the Homeric Poems. Greek Studies: Interdisciplinary Approaches. Lanham.
Lowry 1995 Lowry, E. R. ‘Glaucus, the Leaves, and the Heroic Boast of Iliad 6.146–211.’ In
Carter/Morris 1995, pp. 193–203.
Lührs 1992 Lührs, D. Untersuchungen zu den Athetesen Aristarchs in der Ilias und zu ihrer
Behandlung im Corpus der exegetischen Scholien. Beitr. zur Altertumswiss. 11.
Hildesheim etc.
Luther 1935 Luther, W. ‘Wahrheit’ und ‘Lüge’ im ältesten Griechentum. Borna and Leipzig.
Lynn-George 1993 Lynn-George, M. ‘Aspects of the Epic Vocabulary of Vulnerability.’ ColbyQ 29:
197–221.
Mackay 1999 Mackay, E. A. (ed.). Signs of Orality: The Oral Tradition and Its Influence in the
Greek and Roman World. Mnemosyne Suppl. 188. Leiden etc.
Mackie 1996 Mackie, H. Talking Trojan: Speech and Community in the Iliad. Greek Studies:
Macrakis 1984 Macrakis, A. L. ‘Comparative Economic Values in the Iliad: The Oxen-Worth.’
In Rigsby et al. 1984, pp. 211–215.
Maehler 1963 Maehler, H. Die Auffassung des Dichterberufs im frühen Griechentum bis zur
Zeit Pindars. Hypomnemata 3. Göttingen.
Maftei 1976 Maftei, M. Antike Diskussionen über die Episode von Glaukos und Diomedes
im VI. Buch der Ilias. Beitr. zur Klass. Philologie 74. Meisenheim am Glan.
Mallory/Adams 2006 Mallory, J. P. and D. Q. Adams. The Oxford Introduction to Proto-Indo-Euro-
pean and the Proto-Indo-European World. Oxford.
Malten 1944 Malten, L. ‘Homer und die lykischen Fürsten.’ Hermes 79: 1–12.
Marg (1942) 1976 Marg, W. ‘Kampf und Tod in der Ilias.’ WJA 2: 7–19. (Original, shorter version
in Die Antike 18 [1942] 167–179.)
Marg (1957) 1971 Marg, W. Homer über die Dichtung. Der Schild des Achilleus2. Orbis Antiquus
11. Münster (11957).
Marinatos 1967 Marinatos, S. ‘Kleidung.’ ArchHom chap. A. Göttingen.
Maronitis 1965 Maronitis, D. N. ‘Rez. zu Broccia 1963.’ Gnomon 37: 325–330.
Maronitis (1990) 2004 Maronitis, D. N. ‘The Space of Homilia and Its Signs in the Iliad and
the Odyssey.’ In D. N. Maronitis. Homeric Megathemes: War-Homilia-Home-
coming, transl. by D. Conolly, pp. 29–45. Greek Studies: Interdisciplinary
Approaches. Lanham etc. (Original Modern Greek version in Païzi-Aposto-
lopoulou 1990, pp. 105–123.)
Martin 1989 Martin, R. The Language of Heroes: Speech and Performance in the Iliad.
Myth and Poetics. Ithaca and London.
Mason 1973 Mason, H. A. ‘An Episode in the Sixth Book of Homer’s Iliad.’ The Cambridge
Quarterly 6: 143–150.
Matthaios 1999 Matthaios, S. Untersuchungen zur Grammatik Aristarchs: Texte und Interpre-
tation zur Wortartenlehre. Hypomnemata 126. Göttingen.
Mauritsch 1992 Mauritsch, P. Sexualität im frühen Griechenland. Untersuchungen zu Norm

und Abweichung in den homerischen Epen. Alltag und Kultur im Altertum 1.
Vienna etc.
Mawet 1979 Mawet, F. Recherches sur les oppositions fonctionnelles dans le vocabulaire
homérique de la douleur (autour de πῆμα – ἄλγος). Académie Royale de Bel-
gique, mémoires de la classe des lettres, 2e série 63.4. Brussels.
Mazon 1942 Mazon, P. Introduction à l’Iliade. With the collaboration of P. Chantraine,
P. Collart and R. Langumier. Collection des universités de France. Paris.
Meier 1976 Meier, M. ‘ Ἔχω und seine Bedeutung im Frühgriechischen.’ MH 33: 180–
181.
Mellink 1995 Mellink, M. J. ‘Homer, Lycia, and Lukka.’ In Carter/Morris 1995, pp. 33–43.
Merz 1953 Merz, F. Die Heldenbiographie als Stilmittel Homers. Zurich.
Metz 1990 Metz, W. ‘Hektor als der homerischste aller homerischen Helden.’ Gymna-
sium 97: 385–404.
van der Mije 2011 Mije, S. R. van der. ‘πείθειν φρένα(ς), πείθειν θυμόν – A Note on Homeric
Psychology.’ Mnemosyne 64: 447–454.
Mikalson 1989 Mikalson, J. D. ‘Unanswered Prayers in Greek Tragedy.’ JHS 109: 81–98.
Minchin 2007 Minchin, E. Homeric Voices: Discourse, Memory, Gender. Oxford.
Minchin 2012 Minchin, E. ‘Memory and Memories: Personal, Social, and Cultural Memory
in the Poems of Homer.’ In Montanari et al. 2012, pp. 83–99.
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.
Montanari et al. 2012 Montanari, F., A. Rengakos and Chr. Tsagalis (eds.). Homeric Contexts:
Neoanalysis and the Interpretation of Oral Poetry. Trends in Classics – Sup-
plementary Volumes 12. Berlin and Boston.
Moreschini Quattordio 1974 Moreschini Quattordio, A. ‘Su alcune particolarità linguistiche del
libro VI dell’Iliade.’ SCO 23: 31–53.
Morris/Laffineur 2007 Morris, S. P. and R. Laffineur (eds.). Epos: Reconsidering Greek Epic and
Aegean Bronze Age Archaeology. Proceedings of the 11th International Aegean
Conference (Los Angeles, 20.–23. 4. 2006). Aegaeum 28. Liège.
Morrison 1991 Morrison, J. V. ‘The Function and Context of Homeric Prayers: A Narrative
Perspective.’ Hermes 119: 145–157. (Also in de Jong 1999, vol. 3, pp. 284–297.)
Morrison 1992 Morrison, J. V. Homeric Misdirection: False Predictions in the Iliad. Michigan
Monographs in Classical Antiquity. Ann Arbor.
Morrison 1999 Morrison, J. V. ‘Homeric Darkness: Patterns and Manipulation of Death
Scenes in the Iliad.’ Hermes 127: 129–144.
Mueller (1970) 1978 Mueller, M. ‘Knowledge and Delusion in the Iliad.’ In J. Wright (ed.). Essays
on the Iliad, pp. 105–123. Bloomington. (First published in Mosaic 3.2 [1970]
86–103.)
Muellner 1976 Muellner, L. Ch. The Meaning of Homeric εὔχομαι through its Formulas.
Innsbr. Beitr. zur Sprachwiss. 13. Innsbruck.
Müller 1974 Müller, D. Handwerk und Sprache. Die sprachlichen Bilder aus dem Bereich
des Handwerks in der griechischen Literatur bis 400 v. Chr. Beitr. zur Klass.
Philologie 51. Meisenheim am Glan.
208 Iliad 6
Müller 1968 Müller, F. Darstellung und poetische Funktion der Gegenstände in der Odys-
see. Marburg.
Murnaghan 1999 Murnaghan, S. ‘The Poetics of Loss in Greek Epic.’ In M. Beissinger et al.
(eds.). Epic Traditions in the Contemporary World: The Poetics of Community,
pp. 203–220. Berkeley etc.
Nagy 2001 Nagy, G. (ed.). Greek Literature. Vol. 1: The Oral Traditional Background of
Ancient Greek Literature. New York and London.
Nagy 2012 Nagy, G. ‘Signs of Hero Cult in Homeric Poetry.’ In Montanari et al. 2012,
pp. 27–71.
Naiden 2006 Naiden, F. S. Ancient Supplication. Oxford.
Naiden 2013 Naiden, F. S. Smoke Signals for the Gods: Ancient Greek Sacrifice from the
Archaic through Roman Periods. Oxford.
Ndoye 2010 Ndoye, M. Groupes sociaux et idéologie du travail dans les mondes homérique
et hésiodique. Besançon.
Negri 2001 Negri, M. ‘Il commentario di Servio all’Eneide e l’esegesi greca di Omero.
Osservazioni sul commento ad Aen. VI 288 ed Eustazio ad Il. VI 181.’ Eikas-
mos 12: 323–336.
Nesselrath 1992 Nesselrath, H.-G. Ungeschehenes Geschehen. ‘Beinahe-Episoden’ im griechi-
schen und römischen Epos von Homer bis zur Spätantike. Stuttgart.
Newton 2009 Newton, R. M. ‘Geras and Guest Gifts in Homer.’ In K. Myrsiades (ed.). Read-
ing Homer: Film and Text, pp. 58–88. Madison.
Nickau 1977 Nickau, K. Untersuchungen zur textkritischen Methode des Zenodotos von
Ephesos. Untersuchungen zur antiken Literatur und Geschichte 16. Berlin
and New York.
Nicolai 1973 Nicolai, W. Kleine und große Darstellungseinheiten in der Ilias. Bibliothek der
Klass. Altertumswiss., N. F. 2.47. Heidelberg.
Nünlist 1998 Nünlist, R. ‘Der Homerische Erzähler und das sogenannte Sukzessions-
gesetz.’ MH 55: 2–8.
Nünlist 2002 Nünlist, R. ‘Speech within Speech in Menander.’ In A. Willi (ed.). The Lan-
guage of Greek Comedy, pp. 219–259. Oxford.
Nünlist 2006 Nünlist, R. ‘A Neglected testimonium on the Homeric Book-Division.’ ZPE 157:
47–49.
Nünlist 2007 Nünlist, R. ‘Pindar and Bacchylides.’ In de Jong/Nünlist 2007, pp. 233–251.
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 U. Dill and Chr. Walde (eds.).
Antike Mythen. Medien, Transformationen und Konstruktionen. Fritz Graf zum
65. Geburtstag, pp. 628–644. Berlin and New York.
Ormerod 1924 Ormerod, H. A. Piracy in the Ancient World: An Essay in Mediterranean His-
tory. Liverpool.
Owen 1946 Owen, E. T. The Story of the Iliad. London.
Pagani 2008 Pagani, L. ‘Il codice eroico e il guerriero di fronte alla morte.’ In L. Pagani
(ed.). Eroi nell’Iliade. Personaggi e strutture narrative, pp. 327–418. Pleiadi 8.
Rome.
Page 1959 Page, D. L. History and the Homeric Iliad. Berkeley and Los Angeles.
Païzi-Apostolopoulou 1990 Païzi-Apostolopoulou, M. (ed.). Ὁ Ὁμηρικὸς Οἶκος. Ἀπὸ τὰ Πρακτικὰ
τοῦ Ε΄ Συνεδρίου γιὰ τὴν Ὀδύσσεια (11.–14. 9. 1987). Ithaka.
Palaima 1998 Palaima, T. G. ‘Linear B and the Origins of Hellenic Religion: «di-wo-nu-so».’
In Die Geschichte der hellenischen Sprache und Schrift. Vom 2. zum 1. Jahr-
tausend v. Chr.: Bruch oder Kontinuität? (Tagung Ohlstadt in Oberbayern,
3.–6. 10. 1996), pp. 205–224. Altenburg.
Paraskevaides 1984 Paraskevaides, H. A. The Use of Synonyms in Homeric Formulaic Diction.
Amsterdam.
Parker 1998 Parker, R. ‘Pleasing Thighs: Reciprocity in Greek Religion.’ In C. Gill, N. Post-
lethwaite and R. Seaford (eds.). Reciprocity in Ancient Greece, pp. 105–125.
Oxford.
Parker 1999 Parker, V. ‘Die Aktivitäten der Mykenäer in der Ostägäis im Lichte der Linear
B Tafeln.’ In S. Deger-Jalkotzy, St. Hiller and O. Panagl (eds.). Floreant Studia
Mycenaea. Akten des X. Internationalen Mykenologischen Colloquiums (Salz-
burg, 1.–5. 5. 1995), vol. 2, pp. 495–502. Denkschriften der Österr. Akad. der
Wiss. 247. Vienna.
Parry (1928) 1971 Parry, M. ‘The Traditional Epithet in Homer.’ In M. Parry. The Making of Ho-
meric Verse: The Collected Papers of Milman Parry, ed. by A. Parry, pp. 1–190.
New York and Oxford. (Reprint 1987; original French version: L’Épithète
traditionnelle dans Homère. Essai sur un problème de style homérique. Paris
1928.)
Patzek 1992 Patzek, B. Homer und Mykene. Mündliche Dichtung und Geschichtsschreibung.
Munich.
Patzek 1996 Patzek, B. ‘Homer und der Orient.’ In U. Magen and M. Rashad (eds.). Vom
Halys zum Euphrat. Thomas Beran zu Ehren. Mit Beiträgen von Freunden und
Schülern, pp. 215–225. Münster.
Patzer 1996 Patzer, H. Die Formgesetze des homerischen Epos. Schriften der wiss. Ge-
sellschaft an der J. W. Goethe-Universität Frankfurt a. M., Geisteswiss. Reihe
12. Stuttgart.
Payton 1991 Payton, R. ‘The Ulu Burun Writing-Board Set.’ AS 41: 99–106.
Pedrick 1980 Pedrick, V. ‘Situational Observation’ in the Ransom Scenes of the Iliad: A
Study in Techniques of Characterization. Diss. Cincinnati.
Pedrick 1982 Pedrick, V. ‘Supplication in the Iliad and the Odyssey.’ TAPhA 112: 125–140.
Pelliccia 2002 Pelliccia, H. ‘The Interpretation of Iliad 6.145–9 and the Sympotic Contribu-
tion to Rhetoric.’ ColbyQ 38: 197–230.
Peppermüller 1961 Peppermüller, R. Die Bellerophontessage. Ihre Herkunft und Geschichte.
Tübingen.
Peppermüller 1962 Peppermüller, R. ‘Die Glaukos-Diomedes-Szene der Ilias. Spuren vorhomeri-
scher Dichtung.’ WS 75: 5–21.
Perceau 2002 Perceau, S. La parole vive. Communiquer en catalogue dans l’épopée homé-
rique. Bibliothèque d’études classiques 30. Louvain etc.
Perna 2007 Perna, M. ‘Homer and the «Folded Wooden Tablets».’ In Morris/Laffineur
2007, pp. 225–230 (+ pl. LVIII).
Pernée 1988 Pernée, L. ‘Ἀρέσαι dans l’Iliade et l’Odyssée.’ LEC 56: 67–72.
Perry 1937 Perry, B. E. ‘The Early Greek Capacity for Viewing Things Separately.’ TAPhA
68: 403–427.
Peters 1980 Peters, M. Untersuchungen zur Vertretung der indogermanischen Laryngale im
Griechischen. SAWW 377.8. Vienna.
Petersmann 1981 Petersmann, H. ‘Homer und das Märchen.’ WS N. F. 15: 43–68.
210 Iliad 6
Petzl 1994 Petzl, G. (ed.). Die Beichtinschriften Westkleinasiens. Epigraphica Anatolica

22. Bonn.
Piccaluga 1980 Piccaluga, G. ‘Il Dialogo tra Diomedes e Glaukos (Hom. Il. VI 119–236).’ SSR 4:
237–258.
Pirenne-Delforge 2005 Pirenne-Delforge, V. et al. ‘Personnel du culte: monde grec.’ In ThesCRA
5: 1–65.
Pisani 1934 Pisani, V. ‘Διονυσιακά.’ SIFC 11: 217–226.
Plath 1994 Plath, R. Der Streitwagen und seine Teile im frühen Griechischen. Sprachliche
Untersuchungen zu den mykenischen Texten und zum homerischen Epos. Er-
langer Beitr. zur Sprache, Literatur und Kunst 76. Nürnberg.
Pomeroy 1975 Pomeroy, S. B. ‘Andromaque: un exemple méconnu de matriarcat.’ REG 88:
16–19.
Powell 1991 Powell, B. B. Homer and the Origin of the Greek Alphabet. Cambridge etc.
Powell 1997 Powell, B. B. ‘Homer and Writing.’ In Companion, pp. 3–32.
Pratt 2007 Pratt, L. ‘The Parental Ethos of the Iliad.’ In A. Cohen et al. (eds.). Construc-
tions of Childhood in Ancient Greece and Italy, pp. 25–40. Hesperia Suppl. 41.
Princeton.
Pratt 2009 Pratt, L. ‘Diomedes, the Fatherless Hero of the Iliad.’ In S. R. Hübner and
D. M. Ratzan (eds.). Growing Up Fatherless in Antiquity, pp. 141–161. Cam-
bridge.
Priess 1977 Priess, K. A. Der mythologische Stoff in der Ilias. Mainz.
Prinz 1979 Prinz, F. Gründungsmythen und Sagenchronologie. Zetemata 72. Munich.
Pritchard (1950) 1969 Pritchard, J. B. (ed.). Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testa-
ment3. Princeton (11950).
Pritchett 1991 Pritchett, W. K. The Greek State at War, vol. 5. Berkeley and Los Angeles.
Privitera 1970 Privitera, G. A. Dioniso in Omero e nella poesia greca arcaica. Filologia e cri-
tica 6. Rome.
Pulleyn 1997 Pulleyn, S. Prayer in Greek Religion. Oxford.
Purves 2011 Purves, A. C. ‘Homer and the Art of Overtaking.’ AJPh 132: 523–551.
Quaglia 1959/60 Quaglia, L. ‘La figura di Ettore e l’etica dell’Iliade.’ AAT 94: 158–238.
Raaflaub 1981 Raaflaub, K. A. ‘Zum Freiheitsbegriff der Griechen. Materialien und Unter-
suchungen zur Bedeutungsentwicklung von ἐλεύθερος/ἐλευθερία in ar-
chaischer und klassischer Zeit.’ In E. C. Welskopf (ed.). Soziale Typenbegriffe
im alten Griechenland und ihr Fortleben in den Sprachen der Welt, vol. 4,
pp. 180–405. Berlin.
Raaflaub 1991 Raaflaub, K. A. ‘Homer und die Geschichte des 8. Jh.s v. Chr.’ In Latacz 1991,
pp. 205–256.
Raaflaub 1993 Raaflaub, K. A. ‘Homer to Solon: The Rise of the Polis. The Written Sources.’
In M. H. Hansen (ed.). The Ancient Greek City-State: Symposium on the Occa-
sion of the 250th Anniversary of The Royal Danish Academy of Sciences and
Letters (1.–4. 7. 1992), pp. 41–105. Copenhagen.
Raaflaub 2008 Raaflaub, K. A. ‘Homeric Warriors and Battles: Trying to Resolve Old Prob-
lems.’ CW 101: 469–483.
Raaflaub 2011 Raaflaub, K. A. ‘Riding on Homer’s Chariot: The Search for a Historical «Epic
Society».’ Antichthon 45: 1–34.
Race 1982 Race, W. H. The Classical Priamel from Homer to Boethius. Mnemosyne Suppl.
74. Leiden.
Radermacher (1938) 1943 Radermacher, L. Mythos und Sage bei den Griechen2. Brünn etc. (11938).
Rangos 2009 Rangos, S. ‘The Story of a Simile: Hidden Evidence for Dionysus in Homer and
Beyond.’ In E. Karamalengou and Eugenia Makrygianni (eds.). Ἀντιφίλησις.
Studies on Classical, Byzantine and Modern Greek Literature and Culture. In
Honour of John-Theophanes A. Papademetriou, pp. 67–82. Stuttgart.
Rank 1951 Rank, L. Ph. Etymologiseering en verwante verschijnselen bij Homerus (Ety-
mologizing and Related Phenomena in Homer). Assen.
Reckford 1964 Reckford, K. J. ‘Helen in the Iliad.’ GRBS 5: 5–20.
von Reden 1995 Reden, S. von. Exchange in Ancient Greece. London.
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 Ho-
meric Hospitality Scene. Michigan Monographs in Classical Antiquity. Ann
Arbor.
Reece 1999/2000 Reece, S. ‘Some Homeric Etymologies in the Light of Oral-Formulaic Theory.’
CW 93: 185–199.
Reece 2009 Reece, S. Homer’s Winged Words: The Evolution of Early Greek Epic Diction in
the Light of Oral Theory. Leiden and Boston.
Reichel 1994 Reichel, M. Fernbeziehungen in der Ilias. ScriptOralia 62. Tübingen.
Reinhardt 1961 Reinhardt, K. Die Ilias und ihr Dichter, ed. by U. Hölscher. Göttingen.
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.
Richardson 1990 Richardson, S. The Homeric Narrator. Nashville.
Richter 1968 Richter, W. ‘Die Landwirtschaft im homerischen Zeitalter. Mit einem Beitrag
«Landwirtschaftliche Geräte» von W. Schiering.’ ArchHom chap. H. Göttin-
gen.
Rider (1916) 1964 Rider, B. C. Ancient Greek Houses: Their History and Development from the
Neolithic Period to the Hellenistic Age. Argonaut Library of Antiquities. Chi-
cago (Cambridge 11916).
Rigsby et al. 1984 Rigsby, K. J. et al. (eds.). Studies Presented to Sterling Dow on His Eigthieth
Birthday. Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Monographs 10. Durham, N. C.
Rijksbaron (1984) 2002 Rijksbaron, A. The Syntax and Semantics of the Verb in Classical Greek3.
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 Commemora-
tion of the 150th Anniversary of the Publication of Raphael Kühner’s Ausführ-
liche Grammatik der griechischen Sprache, II. Theil: Syntaxe, Amsterdam
1986). Amsterdam.
Rijksbaron 1992 Rijksbaron, A. ‘D’où viennent les ἄλγεα? Quelques observations à propos
d’ἄλγε’ ἔχειν chez Homère.’ In Létoublon 1992, pp. 181–191.
Rix (1976) 1992 Rix, H. Historische Grammatik des Griechischen. Laut- und Formenlehre2.
Darmstadt (11976).
Robert 1901 Robert, C. Studien zur Ilias. Berlin.
212 Iliad 6
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.
Romano 1988 Romano, I. B. ‘Early Greek Cult Images and Cult Practices.’ In R. Hägg,
N. Marinatos and G. C. Nordquist (eds.). Early Greek Cult Practice. Proceed-
ings of the Fifth International Symposium at the Swedish Institute at Athens
(26.–29. 6. 1986), pp. 127–134. Acta Inst. Athen. Regni Sueciae. Series in 4o,
38. Stockholm.
de Romilly 1997 Romilly, J. de. Hector. Paris.
Roscher 1917 Roscher, W. H. Die Zahl 50 in Mythus, Kultus, Epos und Taktik der Hellenen
und anderer Völker, besonders der Semiten. ASG 33.5. Leipzig.
Roth (1970–1974) 1990 Roth, C. P. ‘Mixed Aorists’ in Homeric Greek. New York and London.
(Earlier versions of chap. 2–5 have previously been published: chap. 2 as
‘Some «Mixed Aorists» in Homer.’ Glotta 48 [1970] 155–163; chap. 3 as ‘More
Homeric «Mixed Aorists».’ Glotta 52 [1974] 1–10; chap. 4–5 as ‘Thematic S-
Aorists in Homer.’ HSCPh 77 [1973] 181–186.)
Rougier-Blanc 2002 Rougier-Blanc, S. ‘Maisons modestes et maisons de héros chez Homère.
Matériaux et techniques.’ Pallas 58: 101–116.
Rougier-Blanc 2005 Rougier-Blanc, S. Les Maisons Homériques. Vocabulaire architectural et
sémantique du bâti. Études d’archéologie classique 13. Paris.
Rudhardt (1958) 1992 Rudhardt, J. Notions fondamentales de la pensée religieuse et actes consti-
tutifs du culte dans la Grèce classique2. Paris (Geneva 11958).
Ruijgh 1957 Ruijgh, C. J. L’élément achéen dans la langue épique. Assen.
Ruijgh (1971) 1991 Ruijgh, C. J. ‘Rez. zu DELG Bd. 2.’ In C. J. Ruijgh. Scripta minora ad linguam
Graecam pertinentia, vol. 1, ed. by J. M. Bremer, A. Rijksbaron and F. M. J.
Waanders, pp. 591–602. Amsterdam. (First published in Lingua 28 [1971]
162–173.)
Ruijgh (1981) 1996 Ruijgh, C. J. ‘L’emploi de ΗΤΟΙ chez Homère et Hésiode.’ In Ruijgh 1996,
pp. 519–534. (First published in Mnemosyne 34 [1981] 272–287.)
Ruijgh (1991) 1996 Ruijgh, C. J. ‘À propos du pronom ἵ (Soph. fr. 471 Radt).’ In Ruijgh 1996,
pp. 335–352. (First published in H. Hofmann and A. Harder [eds.]. Fragmenta
dramatica. Beiträge zur Interpretation der griechischen Tragikerfragmente
und ihrer Wirkungsgeschichte, pp. 61–78. Göttingen 1991.)
Ruijgh (1992) 1996 Ruijgh, C. J. ‘L’emploi le plus ancien et les emplois plus récents de la parti-
cule κε / ἄν.’ In Ruijgh 1996, pp. 677–686. (First published in Létoublon 1992,
pp. 75–84.)
Ruijgh 1996 Ruijgh, C. J. Scripta minora ad linguam Graecam pertinentia, vol. 2, ed. by
A. Rijksbaron and F. M. J. Waanders. Amsterdam.
Sakellariou 1968 Sakellariou, M. B. ‘Ἐφύρη μυχῷ Ἄργεος ἱπποβότοιο.’ In Atti e memorie del
1° congresso internazionale di micenologia (Rome, 27. 9.–3. 10. 1967), vol. 2,
pp. 901–907. Incunabula Graeca 25.2. Rome.
Sammons 2009 Sammons, B. ‘Agamemnon and His Audiences.’ GRBS 49: 159–185.
Sammons 2010 Sammons, B. The Art and Rhetoric of the Homeric Catalogue. Oxford.
Saunders 2003 Saunders, K. B. Appendix to Friedrich (1956) 2003, pp. 131–167.
Sauzeau 2004 Sauzeau, P. ‘Pourquoi Argos nourrit-elle des cavales?’ Pallas 64: 129–143.
Schadewaldt (1935) 1997 Schadewaldt, W. ‘Hector and Andromache.’ In Wright/Jones 1997,
pp. 124–142. (Original German version: ‘Hektor und Andromache.’ Die Antike
11 [1935] 159–170; reprint in: W. Schadewaldt. Von Homers Welt und Werk.
Aufsätze und Auslegungen zur homerischen Frage4, pp. 207–233, 457 f. Stutt-

gart 1965; and in de Jong 1999, vol. 3, pp. 27–46.)
Schadewaldt (1938) 1966 Schadewaldt, W. Iliasstudien3. Berlin (Leipzig 11938; reprint Darmstadt
1987).
Schadewaldt (1956) 1970 Schadewaldt, W. ‘Hektor in der Ilias.’ In W. Schadewaldt. Hellas und
Hesperien. Gesammelte Schriften zur Antike und zur neueren Literatur in zwei
Bänden, ed. by R. Thurow and E. Zinn, vol. 1: Zur Antike2, pp. 21–38. Zurich
and Stuttgart. (First published in WS 69 [1956] [= Festschrift Albin Lesky]
5–25.)
Schadewaldt 1975 Schadewaldt, W. Homer Ilias. Neue Übertragung von W. Schadewaldt. Mit
zwölf antiken Vasenbildern. Insel taschenbuch 153. Frankfurt am Main. (Re-
print with an introduction by J. Latacz: Dusseldorf and Zurich 2002.)
Scheid-Tissinier 1994 Scheid-Tissinier, E. Les usages du don chez Homère. Vocabulaire et pra-
tiques. Nancy.
Schein 1984 Schein, S. L. The Mortal Hero: An Introduction to Homer’s Iliad. Berkeley etc.
Schirmer 2002 Schirmer, W. ‘Stadt, Palast, Tempel. Charakteristika hethitischer Architektur
im 2. und 1. Jahrtausend v. Chr.’ In Die Hethiter und ihr Reich. Das Volk der
1000 Götter (Katalog zur Ausstellung in Bonn, 18. 1.–28. 4. 2002), pp. 204–217.
Stuttgart and Bonn.
Schmidt 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. ‘Rez. zu: Homers Ilias. Gesamtkommentar, hrsg. von J. Latacz
(Prolegomena u. Bd. I–II).’ GGA 256: 1–22.
Schmidt 1968 Schmidt, V. Sprachliche Untersuchungen zu Herondas. Mit einem kritisch-
exegetischen Anhang. Untersuchungen zur antiken Literatur und Ge-
schichte 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 1963 Schmitz, A. ‘La polarité des contraires dans la rencontre d’Hector et Andro-
maque (Iliade, VI, 369–502).’ LEC 31: 129–158.
Schnapp-Gourbeillon 1981 Schnapp-Gourbeillon, A. Lions, héros, masques. Les représentations
de l’animal chez Homère. Textes à l’appui. Histoire classique. Paris.
Schneider 1996 Schneider, H. Der anonyme Publikumskommentar in Ilias und Odyssee. Phi-
losophie 25. Münster.
Schouler 1980 Schouler, B. ‘Dépasser le père.’ REG 93: 1–24.
Schulze 1892 Schulze, W. Quaestiones epicae. Gütersloh.
Schwartz 2009 Schwartz, A. Reinstating the Hoplite. Arms, Armour and Phalanx Fighting in
Archaic and Classical Greece. Historia Einzelschriften 207. Stuttgart.
Schwyzer (1931) 1983 Schwyzer, E. ‘Drei griechische Wörter.’ In Schwyzer 1983, pp. 668–676.
(First published in RhM 80 [1931] 209–217.)
Schwyzer (1939) 1983 Schwyzer, E. ‘Die Parenthese im engern und im weitern Sinne.’ In
Schwyzer 1983, pp. 80–123. (First published in APAW 1939.)
Schwyzer 1983 Schwyzer, E. Kleine Schriften, ed. by R. Schmitt. Innsbr. Beitr. zur Sprach-
wiss. 45. Innsbruck.
214 Iliad 6
Scodel 1992 Scodel, R. ‘The Wits of Glaucus.’ TAPhA 122: 73–84.

Scodel 1992a Scodel, R. ‘Inscription, Absence and Memory: Epic and Early Epitaph.’ SIFC
10: 57–76.
Scodel 1999 Scodel, R. Credible Impossibilities: Conventions and Strategies of Verisimili-
tude in Homer and Greek Tragedy. Beitr. zur Altertumskunde 122. Stuttgart
and Leipzig.
Scodel 2002 Scodel, R. Listening to Homer: Tradition, Narrative, and Audience. Ann Arbor.
Scodel 2008 Scodel, R. Epic Facework. Self-Presentation and Social Interaction in Homer.
Swansea.
Scott 1974 Scott, W. C. The Oral Nature of the Homeric Simile. Mnemosyne Suppl. 28.
Leiden.
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.
Seeher 2002 Seeher, J. ‘Großkönigliche Residenz – Mittelpunkt staatlichen Lebens. Die
Palastanlage in der hethitischen Hauptstadt Ḫattusa.’ In Die Hethiter und ihr
Reich. Das Volk der 1000 Götter (Katalog zur Ausstellung in Bonn, 18. 1.–28. 4.
2002), pp. 94–99. Stuttgart and Bonn.
Segal 1971 Segal, Ch. The Theme of the Mutilation of the Corpse in the Iliad. Mnemosyne
Suppl. 17. Leiden.
Segal 1971a Segal, Ch. ‘Andromache’s Anagnorisis: Formulaic Artistry in Iliad 22.437–
476.’ HSCPh 75: 33–57.
Shear 1998 Shear, I. M. ‘Bellerophon Tablets from the Mycenaean World? A Tale of Seven
Bronze Hinges.’ JHS 118: 187–189.
Shear 2000 Shear, I. M. Tales of Heroes: The Origins of the Homeric Texts. New York and
Athens.
Shelmerdine 1995 Shelmerdine, C. W. ‘Shining and Fragrant Cloth in Homeric Epic.’ In Carter/
Morris 1995, pp. 99–107.
Sherratt (1990) 1992 Sherratt, E. S. ‘«Reading the Texts»: Archaeology and the Homeric Ques-
tion.’ In C. Emlyn-Jones, L. Hardwick and J. Purkis (eds.). Homer: Readings
and Images, pp. 145–165. London. (First published in Antiquity 64 [1990]
807–824; also in Nagy 2001, pp. 139–156.)
Sicking/Ophuijsen 1993 Sicking, C. M. J. and J. M. van Ophuijsen. Two Studies in Attic Particle
Usage: Lysias and Plato. Mnemosyne Suppl. 129. Leiden etc.
Sider (1996) 2001 Sider, D. ‘«As Is the Generation of Leaves» in Homer, Simonides, Horace, and
Stobaeus.’ In D. Boedeker and D. Sider (eds.). The New Simonides: Contexts
of Praise and Desire, pp. 272–288. Oxford. (Original version in Arethusa 29
[1996] 263–282.)
Slatkin 1991 Slatkin, L. M. The Power of Thetis: Allusion and Interpretation in the Iliad.
Berkeley etc.
Slings 1992 Slings, S. R. ‘Written and Spoken Language: An Exercise in the Pragmatics of
the Greek Sentence.’ CPh 87: 95–109.
Slings 1994 Slings, S. R. ‘Een tandje lager. Aanzetten voor een orale grammatica van 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.
Smith 1981 Smith, P. M. ‘Aineiadai as Patrons of Iliad XX and the Homeric Hymn to
Aphrodite.’ HSCPh 85: 17–58.
Snell (1939) 1999 Snell, B. ‘Homer’s View of Man.’ In de Jong 1999, vol. 2, pp. 241–259 (original
German version: ‘Die Sprache Homers als Ausdruck seiner Gedankenwelt.’
NJAB 2 [1939] 393–410; revised version reproduced as ‘Die Auffassung des
Menschen bei Homer.’ In B. Snell. Die Entdeckung des Geistes. Studien zur
Entstehung des europäischen Denkens bei den Griechen4, pp. 13–29. Göttingen
1975; English version first published in B. Snell. The Discovery of the Mind:
The Greek Origins of European Thought, transl. by T. G. Rosenmeyer, pp. 1–22.
Oxford 1953.)
Snell 1978 Snell, B. Der Weg zum Denken und zur Wahrheit. Studien zur frühgriechischen
Sprache. Hypomnemata 57. Göttingen.
Solta 1990 Solta, G. R. ‘Rez. zu L. A. Gindin, Drevnejšaja onomastika Vostočnyh Balkan
(frako-hetto-luvijskie i frako-maloazijskie izoglossy), Sofia 1981.’ Kratylos 35:
113–124.
Sommer 1977 Sommer, F. ‘ὀρέγειν.’ In F. Sommer. Schriften aus dem Nachlaß, ed. by B.
Forssman, pp. 107–146. MSS Beiheft 1. Munich.
Sourvinou-Inwood 1995 Sourvinou-Inwood, C. ‘Reading’ Greek Death: To the End of the Classi-
cal Period. Oxford.
Spieker 1958 Spieker, R. Die Nachrufe in der Ilias. Münster.
Stanley 1993 Stanley, K. The Shield of Homer: Narrative Structure in the Iliad. Princeton etc.
Starke 1997 Starke, F. ‘Troia im Kontext des historisch-politischen und sprachlichen Um-
feldes Kleinasiens im 2. Jahrtausend.’ Studia Troica 7: 447–487.
Stoevesandt 2004 Stoevesandt, M. Feinde – Gegner – Opfer. Zur Darstellung der Troianer in den
Kampfszenen der Ilias. Schweizerische Beitr. zur Altertumswiss. 30. Basel.
Stoevesandt 2014 Stoevesandt, M. ‘Rez. zu Collobert 2011.’ Gnomon 86: 1–5.
Strasburger 1954 Strasburger, G. Die kleinen Kämpfer der Ilias. Frankfurt am Main.
Strömberg 1961 Strömberg, R. ‘Die Bellerophontes-Erzählung in der Ilias.’ C&M 22: 1–15.
Strunk 1988 Strunk, K. ‘Zur diachronischen Morphosyntax des Konjunktivs.’ In Rijks-
baron et al. 1988, pp. 291–312.
Sullivan 1988 Sullivan, S. D. Psychological Activity in Homer: A Study of Phrên. Ottawa.
Susanetti 1999 Susanetti, D. ‘Foglie caduche e fragili genealogie.’ Prometheus 25: 97–116.
Symington 1991 Symington, D. ‘Late Bronze Age Writing-Boards and their Uses: Textual Evi-
dence from Anatolia and Syria.’ Anatolian Studies 41: 111–123.
Szemerényi 1965 Szemerényi, O. ‘Etyma Graeca I.’ Die Sprache 11: 5–24.
Tabachovitz 1951 Tabachovitz, D. Homerische εἰ-Sätze. Eine sprachpsychologische Studie. Acta
instituti Atheniensis regni Sueciae. Series in 8o, 3. Lund.
Taillardat 1982 Taillardat, J. ‘Φιλότης, πίστις et foedus.’ REG 95: 1–14.
Taplin (1980) 2001 Taplin, O. ‘The Shield of Achilles within the Iliad.’ In Cairns 2001, pp. 342–
364. (First published in G&R 27 [1980] 1–21; also in J. Latacz [ed.]. Homer. Die
Dichtung und ihre Deutung, pp. 227–253. Wege der Forschung 634. Darmstadt
1991; and in I. McAuslan and P. Walcot [eds.]. Homer, pp. 96–115. G&R Stud-
ies 4. Oxford 1998; and in de Jong 1999, vol. 3, pp. 179–200.)
Taplin 1986 Taplin, O. ‘Homer’s Use of Achilles’ Earlier Campaigns in the Iliad.’ In
J. Boardman and C. E. Vaphopoulou-Richardson (eds.). Chios: A Conference
at the Homereion in Chios (1984), pp. 15–19. Oxford.
Taplin 1992 Taplin, O. Homeric Soundings: The Shaping of the Iliad. Oxford.
216 Iliad 6
Tatum 2003 Tatum, J. The Mourner’s Song: War and Remembrance from the Iliad to Viet-
nam. Chicago and London.
Teodorsson 2006 Teodorsson, S.-T. ‘Eastern Literacy, Greek Alphabet, and Homer.’ Mnemosyne
Ser. 4, 59: 161–187.
Thornton 1984 Thornton, A. Homer’s Iliad: Its Composition and the Motif of Supplication.
Hypomnemata 81. Göttingen.
Tichy 1983 Tichy, E. Onomatopoetische Verbalbildungen des Griechischen. SAWW 409.
Vienna.
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.
Traill 1989 Traill, D. A. ‘Gold Armor for Bronze and Homer’s Use of Compensatory τιμή.’
CPh 84: 301–305.
Treu (1955) 1968 Treu, M. Von Homer zur Lyrik. Wandlungen des griechischen Weltbildes im
Spiegel der Sprache2. Zetemata 12. Munich (11955).
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.
Trypanis 1963 Trypanis, C. A. ‘Brothers Fighting together in the Iliad.’ RhM N. F. 106:
289–297.
Tsagalis 2004 Tsagalis, Chr. Epic Grief: Personal Laments in Homer’s Iliad. Untersuchungen
zur antiken Literatur und Geschichte 70. Berlin and New York.
Tsagalis 2008 Tsagalis, Chr. The Oral Palimpsest: Exploring Intertextuality in the Homeric
Epics. Hellenic Studies 29. Washington, D. C.
Tsagalis 2010 Tsagalis, Chr. ‘Epic Space Revisited: Narrative and Intertext in the Episode
between Diomedes and Glaucus (Il. 6.119–236).’ In Ph. Mitsis and Chr. Tsaga-
lis (eds.). Allusion, Authority, and Truth: Critical Perspectives on Greek Poetic
and Rhetorical Praxis, pp. 87–113. Trends in Classics Suppl. 7. Berlin and New
York.
Tsagalis 2012 Tsagalis, Chr. From Listeners to Viewers: Space in the Iliad. Hellenic Studies
53. Washington, D. C.
Tsagarakis 1977 Tsagarakis, O. Nature and Background of Major Concepts of Divine Power in
Homer. Amsterdam.
Tsagarakis 1990 Tsagarakis, O. ‘Das Untypische bei Homer und literarische Komposition.’ In
W. Kullmann and M. Reichel (eds.). Der Übergang von der Mündlichkeit zur
Literatur bei den Griechen, pp. 111–124. ScriptOralia 30. Tübingen.
Tucker 1990 Tucker, E. F. The Creation of Morphological Regularity: Early Greek Verbs in
-éō, -áō, -óō, -úō and -íō. Göttingen.
Tzamali 1996 Tzamali, E. Syntax und Stil bei Sappho. Münchener Studien zur Sprachwis-
senschaft, N. F. Beiheft 16. Dettelbach.
Tzamali 1997 Tzamali, E. ‘Positive Aussage plus negierte Gegenaussage im Griechischen.
Teil I: Die ältere griechische Dichtung.’ MSS 57: 129–167.
Tzannetatos 1960/61 Tzannetatos, Th. S. ‘ἤνις ἠκέστας.’ EEAth 11: 455–466.
Usener 1990 Usener, K. Beobachtungen zum Verhältnis der Odyssee zur Ilias. ScriptOralia
21. Tübingen.
Vagnone 1982 Vagnone, G. ‘Aspetti formulari in Stesicoro, Pap. Lille 76 a b c: il desiderio di

morte.’ QUCC N. S. 12: 35–42.
van der Valk 1949 Valk, M. van der. Textual Criticism of the Odyssey. Leiden.
van der Valk 1963 Valk, M. van der. Researches on the Text and Scholia of the Iliad, vol. 1. Lei-
den.
Van Nortwick 2001 Van Nortwick, T. ‘Like a Woman: Hector and the Boundaries of Masculinity.’
Arethusa 34: 221–235.
Vendryès 1904 Vendryès, J. Traité d’accentuation grecque. Nouvelle collection à l’usage des
classes 27. Paris.
Vermeule 1974 Vermeule, E. T. ‘Götterkult.’ ArchHom chap. V. Göttingen.
Vine 1988 Vine, B. ‘Greek ἕπω and Indo-European *sep-.’ IF 93: 52–61.
Viredaz 2000 Viredaz, R. ‘k‘erb, jerb, χερσί.’ HSF 113: 290–307.
Visser 1987 Visser, E. Homerische Versifikationstechnik. Versuch einer Rekonstruktion.
Europäische Hochschulschriften 15.34. Frankfurt am Main.
Visser 1988 Visser, E. ‘Formulae or Single Words? Towards a New Theory on Homeric
Verse-Making.’ WJA 14: 21–37. (Also in de Jong 1999, vol. 1, pp. 364–381.)
Visser 1997 Visser, E. Homers Katalog der Schiffe. Stuttgart and Leipzig.
Von der Mühll 1952 Von der Mühll, P. Kritisches Hypomnema zur Ilias. Schweizerische Beitr. zur
Altertumswiss. 4. Basel.
Waanders 2000 Waanders, F. M. J. ‘Πέλομαι: To be or … to become?’ ZAnt 50: 257–272.
Wachter 2001 Wachter, R. Non-Attic Greek Vase Inscriptions. Oxford.
Wachter 2006 Wachter, R. ‘Die griechische Sprache.’ In Gemoll. Griechisch-deutsches Schul-
und Handwörterbuch10, pp. IV–XIX. Vienna.
Wackernagel (1878) 1979 Wackernagel, J. ‘Die epische Zerdehnung.’ In Wackernagel 1979,
pp. 1512–1565. (First published in Beiträge zur Kunde der indogerm. Sprachen
4 [1878] 259–312.)
Wackernagel (1891) 1979 Wackernagel, J. ‘Rez. zu: Homeri Ilias. Scholarum in usum ed. P. Cauer.
Pars I; carm. I–XII, Leipzig 1890.’ In Wackernagel 1979, pp. 1566–1584. (First
published in Berliner Philologische Wochenschrift 11 [1891] 5–9, 37–43.)
Wackernagel (1914) 1953 Wackernagel, J. ‘Akzentstudien III. Zum homerischen Akzent.’ In
J. Wackernagel. Kleine Schriften, ed. by the Academy of Sciences in Göttin-
gen, vol. 2, pp. 1154–1187. Göttingen. (First published in Gött. Nachr. 21 [1914]
97–130.)
Wackernagel (1920/24) 2009 Wackernagel, J. Lectures on Syntax with special reference to Greek,
Latin, and Germanic. Edited with notes and bibliography by D. Langslow. Ox-
ford. (German original: Vorlesungen über Syntax mit besonderer Berücksichti-
gung von Griechisch, Lateinisch und Deutsch. Erste Reihe: Basel 11920, 21926;
Zweite Reihe: Basel 11924, 21928.)
Wackernagel 1979 Wackernagel, J. Kleine Schriften, vol. 3, ed. B. Forssman on behalf of the
Academy of Sciences in Göttingen. Göttingen.
Wagner-Hasel 2000 Wagner-Hasel, B. Der Stoff der Gaben. Kultur und Politik des Schenkens und
Tauschens im archaischen Griechenland. Campus Historische Studien 28.
Frankfurt and New York.
Wakker 1988 Wakker, G. C. ‘Purpose Expressions in Homeric Greek.’ In Rijksbaron et al.
1988, pp. 327–344.
Wakker 1994 Wakker, G. C. Conditions and Conditionals: An Investigation of Ancient Greek.
Amsterdam.
218 Iliad 6
Walcot 1969 Walcot, P. ‘χρύσεα χαλκείων: A Further Comment.’ CR N. S. 19: 12–13.

Walcot 1970 Walcot, P. Greek Peasants, Ancient and Modern: A Comparison of Social and
Moral Values. Manchester.
Waltz 1933 Waltz, P. ‘L’exagération numérique dans l’Iliade et dans l’Odyssée.’ REHom 3:
3–38.
Wathelet 1991 Wathelet, P. ‘Dionysos chez Homère ou la folie divine.’ Kernos 4: 61–82.
Watkins 1998 Watkins, C. ‘Homer and Hittite Revisited.’ In P. Knox and C. Foss (eds.). Style
and Tradition. Studies in Honor of Wendell Clausen, pp. 201–211. Beiträge zur
Altertumskunde 92. Stuttgart and Leipzig.
van Wees 1992 Wees, H. van. Status Warriors: War, Violence and Society in Homer and His-
tory. Amsterdam.
van Wees 1994 Wees, H. van. ‘The Homeric Way of War: The Iliad and the Hoplite Phalanx.’
G&R 41: 1–18, 131–155.
van Wees 1996 Wees, H. van. ‘Heroes, Knights and Nutters: Warrior Mentality in Homer.’ In
A. B. Lloyd (ed.). Battle in Antiquity, pp. 1–86. London.
van Wees 1997 Wees, H. van. ‘Homeric Warfare.’ In Companion, pp. 668–693.
van Wees 2005 Wees, H. van. ‘Clothes, Class and Gender in Homer.’ In D. Cairns (ed.). Body
Language in the Greek and Roman Worlds, pp. 1–36. Swansea.
van Wees 2006 Wees, H. van. ‘From Kings to Demigods: Epic Heroes and Social Change
c. 750–600 BC.’ In S. Deger-Jalkotzy and I. S. Lemos (eds.). Ancient Greece:
From the Mycenaean Palaces to the Age of Homer, pp. 363–379. Edinburgh
Leventis Studies 3. Edinburgh.
Welcker (1849) 1882 Welcker, F. G. Der epische Cyclus oder die Homerischen Dichter. Part 2: Die
Gedichte nach Inhalt und Composition2. Bonn (11849).
Werner 1948 Werner, R. η und ει vor Vokal bei Homer. Freiburg im Üechtland.
West 1965 West, M. L. ‘Haplology.’ CR N. S. 15: 139–142.
West (1983) 1990 West, M. L. ‘The Lycurgus Trilogy.’ In M. L. West. Studies in Aeschylus, pp. 26–
50. Beiträge zur Altertumskunde 1. Stuttgart. (Earlier, shorter version in BICS
30 [1983] 63–71, 81–82.)
West 1985 West, M. L. The Hesiodic Catalogue of Women: Its Nature, Structure, and Ori-
gins. Oxford.
West 1988 West, M. L. ‘The Rise of the Greek Epic.’ JHS 108: 151–172. (Also in Nagy 2001,
pp. 191–212; West 2011a, pp. 35–73.)
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, pp. 218–237.
West 1998 West, M. L. ‘Praefatio.’ In Homeri Ilias. Recensuit / testimonia congessit
M. L. West, vol. 1, pp. v–xxxvii. Stuttgart and Leipzig.
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: 118–135.
West 2001b West, M. L. ‘Atreus and Attarissiyas.’ Glotta 77: 262–266.
West 2002 West, M. L. ‘«Eumelos»: A Corinthian Epic Cycle?’ JHS 122: 109–133. (Also in
West 2011a, pp. 353–391.)
West 2004 West, M. L. ‘An Indo-European Stylistic Feature in Homer.’ In Bierl et al.
2004, pp. 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. I: Epic. Oxford.
West 2013 West, M. L. The Epic Cycle: A Commentary on the Lost Troy Epics. Oxford.
West 1967 West, S. The Ptolemaic Papyri of Homer. Papyrologica Coloniensia 3. Cologne
and Opladen.
Whallon 1969 Whallon, W. Formula, Character, and Context: Studies in Homeric, Old Eng-
lish, and Old Testament Poetry. Publications of the Center for Hellenic Stud-
ies. Cambridge, Mass.
White 1982 White, J. A. ‘Bellerophon in the «Land of Nod»: Some Notes on Iliad 6 153–
211.’ AJPh 103: 119–127.
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 1956/57 Willcock, M. M. ‘Β 356, Ζ 326 and Α 404.’ PCPhS 184: 23–26.
Willcock (1964) 2001 Willcock, M. M. ‘Mythological Paradeigma in the Iliad.’ In Cairns 2001,
pp. 435–455. (First published in CQ 14 [1964] 141–154; also in de Jong 1999,
vol. 3, pp. 385–402.)
Willcock 1977 Willcock, M. M. ‘Ad hoc Invention in the Iliad.’ HSCPh 81: 41–53.
Willcock 1992 Willcock, M. M. ‘Nervous Hesitation in the Iliad.’ In J. Pinsent and H. V. Hurt
(eds.). Homer 1987: Papers of the Third Greenbank Colloquium (April 1987),
pp. 65–73. Liverpool Classical Papers 2. Liverpool.
Willcock 2004 Willcock, M. M. ‘Traditional Epithets.’ In Bierl et al. 2004, pp. 51–62.
Wille 2001 Wille, G. Akroasis. Der akustische Sinnesbereich in der griechischen Literatur
bis zum Ende der klassischen Zeit. Tübinger phänomenologische Bibliothek.
Tübingen. (2 vols.; originally Habilitationsschrift Tübingen 1958.)
Willenbrock (1944) 1969 Willenbrock, H. Die poetische Bedeutung der Gegenstände in Homers
Ilias. Marburg and Lahn. (Originally Diss. Marburg 1944.)
Wilson 2002 Wilson, D. F. Ransom, Revenge, and Heroic Identity in the Iliad. Cambridge.
Winter 1995 Winter, I. J. ‘Homer’s Phoenicians: History, Ethnography, or Literary Trope?
[A Perspective on Early Orientalism].’ In Carter/Morris 1995, pp. 247–271.
Wißmann 1997 Wißmann, J. Motivation und Schmähung. Feigheit in der Ilias und in der
griechischen Tragödie. Drama Beiheft 7. Stuttgart.
Wolf (1795) 1985 Wolf, F. A. Prolegomena to Homer, transl. with Introduction and Notes by
A. Grafton, G. W. Most, and J. E. G. Zetzel. Princeton. (Latin original: Prole-
gomena ad Homerum sive de operum Homericorum prisca et genuina forma
variisque mutationibus et probabili ratione emendandi. Halle 1795.)
Worman 2001 Worman, N. ‘This Voice Which Is Not One: Helen’s Verbal Guises in Homeric
Epic.’ In A. Lardinois and L. McClure (eds.). Making Silence Speak: Women’s
Voices in Greek Literature and Society, pp. 19–37. Princeton and Oxford.
Worman 2002 Worman, N. The Cast of Character: Style in Greek Literature. Austin.
Woronoff 1999 Woronoff, M. ‘Pouvoir et divination dans l’Iliade.’ In É. Smadja and É. Geny
(eds.). Pouvoir, divination, prédestination dans le monde antique, pp. 175–183.
Paris.
220 Iliad 6
Wright/Jones 1997 Homer. German Scholarship in Translation. Transl. by G. M. Wright and
P. V. Jones, with Introduction by P. V. Jones. Oxford.
Wyatt 1969 Wyatt Jr., W. F. Metrical Lengthening in Homer. Incunabula Graeca 35. Rome.
Yamagata 1990 Yamagata, N. ‘αἴσιμα παρειπών: A Moral Judgement by the Poet?’ PP 45:
420–430.
Yamagata 1994 Yamagata, N. Homeric Morality. Mnemosyne Suppl. 131. Leiden etc.
Zajko 2006 Zajko, V. ‘Hector and Andromache: Identification and Appropriation.’ In
C. Martindale and R. F. Thomas (eds.). Classics and the Uses of Reception,
pp. 80–91. Malden, Mass. etc.
Zanker 1994 Zanker, G. The Heart of Achilles: Characterization and Personal Ethics in the
Iliad. Ann Arbor.
Zarker (1965) 1987 Zarker, J. W. ‘King Eëtion and Thebe as Symbols in the Iliad.’ In K. Atchity et
al. (eds.). Critical Essays on Homer, pp. 146–152. Boston. (First published in
CJ 61 [1965] 110–114.)
Zink 1962 Zink, N. Griechische Ausdrucksweisen für warm und kalt im seelischen Be-
reich. Heidelberg.

(The Basel Commentary) Stoevesandt, Magdalene - Homer's Iliad. Book VI (2016, de Gruyter) PDF

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Judul Asli

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

(The Basel Commentary) Stoevesandt, Magdalene - Homer's Iliad. Book VI (2016, de Gruyter) PDF

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

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

© 2016 Walter de Gruyter Inc., Boston/Berlin

24 Rules Relating to Homeric Language (R) | 1

The generous support of a number of sponsors made it possible for work on

My personal interest in Homeric epic dates back to my student days; my discovery

A further opportunity for fruitful dialogue with outstanding experts on Homer

Basel, September 2008 Magdalene Stoevesandt

Basel, June 2015 Magdalene Stoevesandt

5. Quotations of non-English secondary literature

(a) Bibliographic abbreviations

Plat. Plato (Phaed. = Phaedo, Phaedr. = Phaedrus)

(c) Other abbreviations

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

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

Phonology, meter, 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

R 11 Especially noteworthy in the case of nouns are:

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. –

119–236 Diomedes and Glaukos

237–529 Hektor in Troy

waiting – and since he has a sense of his impending death, he

3 χαλκήρεα: on the uncontracted form, R 6. — δοῦρα: on the declension, R 12.5 and ↑.

ἕρκος 707.6 ff.); he is thereby characterized by his main function as a defensive

12 βοήν: acc. of respect (R 19 1).

18 ῥά (ϝ)οι: on the prosody, R 4.3.

21–28 The death of a pair of brothers is a common motif in Homeric battle scenes

22–23 Abarbare: The etymology of the name is uncertain (LfgrE; likely of non-

24 δέ (ϝ)ε: on the prosody, R 4.3. — ἑ: = αὐτόν (R 14.1).

ἀλλοτρίῃσι καθήμενον. – On princes as herdsmen, cf. Graziosi/Haubold ad loc. and

26 διδυμάονε … παῖδε: dual.

30 Ὀδυσεύς: on the single -σ-, R 9.1.

37–44 The terse statement ‘Menelaos captured Adrestos alive’ (37–38a) is fol-

38–40 ἵππω … ἀτυζομένω … | … βλαφθέντε … | ἄξαντ(ε) … αὐτώ: nom. dual (Homeric war-

denotes someone’s rational side (φρένα(ς) ἔπειθε ≈ ‘convinced/persuaded him’): van

55–60 This speech is typical of Agamemnon’s self-perception as an ‘unrelenting

55 τίη: ‘why?’. — κήδεαι: on the uncontracted form, R 6.

58 γαστέρι: locative dat. without preposition (R 19.2).

61 ἀδελφεόο: = ἀδελφοῦ (↑).

71 νεκροὺς … τεθνηῶτας: probably derivative of the formulaic phrase νεκύων κατα-

ing in Hektor’s absence, furthermore, provides an effective background for the

recipients of exhortations (paraeneses) and advice (Aineias: 13.462 ff., 17.322 ff.,