Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-vpsfw Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-21T14:24:43.307Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

IV. Some Memorable Scenes

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 February 2016

Get access

Extract

In the remaining pages I shall offer some more detailed comments on a number of passages from both epics. Besides allowing slightly more attention to stylistic matters than was possible in the earlier chapters, this procedure also gives an opportunity to comment on some specific problems, and on a number of other approaches which have not been discussed so far.

And Aphrodite, smiling goddess, herself took up a chair for Helen, and brought it and placed it in front of Alexandros [Paris]. There Helen, daughter of Zeus who wields the aegis, took her seat, turning her eyes aside, and spoke slightingly to her husband: ‘You came back from the fighting, then. I wish you had died there, brought down by a man of strength, who was once my husband. Oh, before now you used to boast that you were superior to the warrior Menelaus in strength and power of hand and spear. Well, go now, challenge the warrior Menelaus to fight you again face to face. But no, I would advise you to stop now, and not pit yourself against fair-haired Menelaus in warfare or combat without thinking - you might well be brought down by his spear.’

Paris then answered her: ‘Wife, do not deride my courage with these hard taunts. This time Menelaus has beaten me with Athena’s aid, but another time I shall beat him: there are gods on our side too. No, come, let us enjoy the bed of love. Never before has desire so enveloped my heart, not even on that first time when I stole you away from lovely Lacedaimon and sailed off with you in my seafaring ships, and lay with you in love’s union in the island of Kranae - even that was less than the love and sweet desire for you that comes over me now.’

So he spoke, and led the way to their bed: and his wife followed. (Tr. M. Hammond)

Type
Research Article
Information
New Surveys in the Classics , Volume 26: Homer , 1996 , pp. 82 - 104
Copyright
Copyright © The Classical Association 1996

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Notes

1. Cf. Hdt. 2. 113-20, esp. 120. 1-2, for scepticism; for disapproval, see Alcaeus 42, 283 Lobel-Page; Aesch. Agam. 62,225,448, 681ff., Eur. Andrem. 590-69, Iph. Taur. 356,438ff., Cyclops 179ff.(!), etc.

2. On Helen see also Reckford, K.J., ‘Helen in the Iliad ’, GRBS 5 (1964), 5–20 Google Scholar; Kakridis 1971,25-53; Reichel 1994,264-71 (with bibl.). On this episode see Lendle, O., ‘Paris, Helena und Aphrodite. Zur Interpretation des 3. Gesanges der Ilias’, A&A 14 (1968), 63–71 Google Scholar.

3. See e.g. the notes in J. T. Hooker’s and M. M. Willcock’s commentaries on the scene; also the older edition by W. Leaf. Kirk 1985 sits on the fence.

4. A point stressed by Kirk 1985 ad loc. Almost identical lines are found at 4. 208, 11. 804, 13.468; compare also 2. 142, 14. 459, 17. 123.

5. Kullmann 1960,250f., who regards the scene as indebted to the Cyclic poem the Cypria; cf. e.g. Edwards 1987, 196.

6. In 445 it is unclear whether κραναῇ is a proper name (as we might speak of the island of Rockall) or an adjective. Even if the former is right, the name suggests the discomfort of the lovers.

7. Cf. Macleod 1983, 10.

8. See esp. Kakridis 1971, 68-75; also Griffin 1980, 6-8.

9. On Phoenix’s speech see further Lohmann 1970, 245-76; Rosner 1976, Scodel, R., ‘The autobiography of Phoenix: Iliad 9. 444-95’, AJP 103 (1982), 128-36Google Scholar. On the Meleager-paradigm see p. 7.

10. Macleod 1982, 34.

11. For obvious reasons, translations often gloss over this, translating the duals as plurals: e.g. Hammond’s Penguin. Fitzgerald even inserts at 182 ‘Following Phoenix, Aias and Odysseus walked together ...’! Exceptions include Lattimore and Fagles.

12. For a fuller account of the difficulties see Hainsworth 1993, 57, 85-7; Griffin 1995, 51-3. In English the major analytic discussion is Page 1959, 298ff. For subsequent argument see Motzkus, D., Untersuchungen zum 9. Buch der Ilias (diss. Hamburg, 1964)Google Scholar, Segal, C., ‘The embassy and the duals of Iliad 9. 182-89’, GRBS 9 (1968), 101-14Google Scholar (unpersuasive), Wyatt, W. S., ‘The embassy and the duals in Iliad 9’, AJP 106 (1985), 399–408 Google Scholar; Edwards 1987, 218-19, 228-30.

13. Reinhardt 1961, 212-42, endorsed by Hainsworth 1993, 57.

14. A phrase used by Willcock 1976, 99, and by Hainsworth (cited in last n.).

15. E.g. Edwards 1987, 228, on whose discussion I am building here.

16. See further Fenik 1968, 216, Willcock 1976, 126 and 189, Taplin 1992, 156.

17. Cf. Griffin 1980, ch. 3.

18. For the scholia see Richardson 1980, 272. For modern discussion see e.g. A. Parry 1972, 8-22 = Parry 1989, 310-25; Janko on 13. 602-3.

19. In the Odyssey the situation is less clear: there the device is exclusively reserved for the swineherd Eumaeus.

20. For scepticism about the significance of this kind of placing of words, see Bassett, S. E., ‘The so-called emphatic position of the runover word’, TAPA 57 (1926), 116-48Google Scholar; Edwards, M.W., ‘Some features of Homeric craftsmanship’, TAPA 97 (1966), 139fGoogle Scholar; contrast Tsagarakis 1982, 10-31; a thorough investigation of the question by Higbie, C., Measure and music: enjambement and sentence structure in the Iliad (Oxford, 1990)Google Scholar.

21. Janko 1992, 408-10 explains this in neo-analytical terms, according to which the episode is modelled on the death of Achilles.

22. Kakridis, P. J., ‘Achilles’ Rüstung’, Hermes 89 (1961), 288-97Google Scholar. The situation in the Iliad is complicated by the fact that Achilles at different stages has two separate sets of divine armour, the first being seized by Hector. See further Janko on 16. 130-54.

23. Compare the comment by J. Griffin, in his contribution to the joint article by Griffin, and Hammond, M., ‘Critical Appreciations VI: Homer, Iliad 1. 1-52’, G&R 29 (1982), 126-42Google Scholar, at 142 n. 17: ‘ “Half-lines in Homer” is a less obvious title than “Half-lines in Virgil”, but it might make an interesting study.’

24. Also relevant are 16. 638-40,17. 51-2, 439-40. Cf. Fenik 1968,163, Segal 1971, 41-2, Griffin 1980, 134-8.

25. Cf. esp. Achilles himself in Aeschylus’ Myrmidons, as shown by Ar. Frogs 832ff. and scholia, with Taplin, O., ‘Aeschylean silences and silences in Aeschylus’, HSCP 76 (1972), 57–97 Google Scholar. For other cases see Richardson on Hymn to Demeter 197-201; cf. Richardson 1980,281; I. de Jong, ‘Silent characters in the Iliad’, in Bremer et al. 1987, 105-21.

26. Fundamental treatment by Kakridis 1949, esp. 65-95; the authoritative collection of material is Kullmann 1960. More recent discussions include Kullmann, W., ‘Oral poetry theory and neoanalysis in Homeric research’, GRBS 25 (1984), 307-23Google Scholar, reprinted with other papers in Kullmann, , Homerische Motive (Stuttgart, 1992)Google Scholar; see also Edwards 1991,15-19. Clark 1986 provides a bibliographical survey. Much of Malcolm Willcock’s work on Homer is indebted to this school; I am grateful to him for sending me an essay on the whole subject forthcoming in a Leiden Companion to Homer.

27. See 18. 316 = 23.17 (Achilles over Patroclus), 24.723,747,761 (the women at Hector’s funeral).

28. Kakridis 1949, 65f.; illustration in Vermeule 1979, 15.

29. Similar argument in Seaford 1994, 154-9, with criticism of the sceptics.

30. Auerbach’s essay ‘Odysseus’ scar’, the first chapter in his Mimesis (Berne, 1946; Eng. tr. 1953), has often been reprinted. For criticism see Köhnken, A., ‘Die Narbe des Odysseus’, A&A 22 (1976), 101–114 Google Scholar = Latacz 1991b, 491-513; de Jong 1987, 22-3, Lynn-George 1988, 2-27.

31. See further Willcock, M. M., ‘The funeral games of Patroclus’, BICS 20 (1973), 1–11 Google Scholar and ‘Antilochus in the Iliad’, in Mélanges E. Delebecque (Aix-en-Provence, 1983) 479-85.

32. Macleod 1982, 28-32, esp. 30.

33. See further Kullmann 1960, 37-8, 311, Seaford 1994, 154-6.

34. Cf. 470, 550-1, Soph. Ajax 1340f., PMG 898. Similarly in the games of Iliad 23, Ajax enters three contests and comes first in none of them.

35. See e.g. Page 1955, 26-7.

36. So esp. Eisenberger 1973, 184 (independently e.g. Parry, A., Logos and Ergon in Thucydides (N.Y., 1981), 29 Google Scholar), endorsed by de Jong (see next n.), 5 and Sourvinou-Inwood 1995, 85.

37. de Jong, I. J. F., ‘The Subjective Style in Odysseus’ Wanderings’, CQ 42 (1992), 1–11 CrossRefGoogle Scholar (cf. already Suerbaum, W., ‘Die Ich-Erzählungen des Odysseus’, Poetica 2 (1968), 150-77Google Scholar). See also Rutherford 1986, 150 n. 33.

38. For fuller discussion of Homer’s similes see Fränkel, H., Die Homerischen Gleichnisse (Göttingen, 1921)Google Scholar; Coffey, M., ‘The function of the Homeric simile’, AJP 78 (1957), 113-32Google Scholar; Scott, W. C., The oral nature of the Homeric simile (Mnemos. Suppl. 58, Leiden, 1974)Google Scholar (with full lists); Moulton 1977, Macleod 1982, 48-50, Edwards 1987, ch. 12 and 1991, 24-41, Rutherford 1992, 73-7.

39. Cf. and contrast Kirk 1970, 162-71, who interprets the Cyclops myth along structuralist lines as a nature vs. culture story: primitive man-eating monster vs. shrewd intelligent human armed with a quick wit, wine, and fire. Note also the similes at ix. 384ff, 391ff, both applied to Odysseus as he proceeds with the perilous act of blinding the Cyclops. Both describe his action in terms of human craftsmanship: ship-building and the work of a bronzesmith, techniques of a civilized society.

40. Cf. Macleod 1982, 49.

41. See Griffin 1980, 19 on heroic diet: add Pl. Rep. 404b and context; Richardson 1975, 73 n. 6.

42. For other reversals, see Rutherford on xx. 356-7, and 1986, 152 n. 40.

43. See further Moulton 1977, ch. 1 and pp. 133-9 (sometimes over-subtle).

44. Moulton 1977, 128-9.

45. Shipp, G. P., Studies in the Language of Homer (Cambridge, 1953; 2nd edn. 1972), 208-22Google Scholar, argues on linguistic grounds that the elaborated similes are late in date, and this has been generally accepted (see e.g. Janko 1992, 12 [though ctr. his p. 9] ). It is striking, in a poem so rich in formulaic material, that similes are so rarely repeated, even when the same subject matter is involved. Is this a sign of Homer’s relative independence of the tradition?

46. For bibliography on the lies see ch. 3 n. 9 above.

47. For a different view see Stewart 1976, 90-1.

48. The first approach is pursued with perverse determination by Woodhouse 1930, esp. chh. 17-18; for emphatic rejection see Fenik 1974, 171 n. 69. The second, which concentrates especially on Odysseus’ account of his experiences in Thesprotia, is expounded by West, S., ‘An Alternative Nostos for Odysseus’, LCM 6 (1981), 169-75Google Scholar.

49. Here the work of Fenik 1974, 167-71 is virtually definitive.

50. Cf.Purcell, N., ‘Mobility and the Polis’, in Price, O. Murray-S. (edd.), The Greek City from Homer to Alexander (Oxford, 1990), 29–58 Google Scholar, who touches on Homeric matters only in passing, but presents a stimulating picture of the Mediterranean background. See also Strasburger, H., ‘Der soziologische Aspekt der homerischen Epen’, Gymn. 60 (1953), 97–114 Google Scholar, repr. in Strasburger, , Studien zur alten Geschichte (Hildesheim, 1982) i. 491–518 Google Scholar.

51. Both these places are hard to locate with any certainty: see S. West on i. 105 and 184.

52. See Boardman 1980, 114; Torelli, M., ‘Il santuario di Hera a Gravisca’, PP 26 (1971), 44–67 Google Scholar.

53. Lewis, R. Meiggs-D., A Selection of Greek Historical Inscriptions (Oxford, 1969, rev. 1988), no. 7 Google Scholar; Boardman 1980, 115-16, with illustrations.

54. Schaefer, H., ‘Eigenart und Wesenszüge der griechischen Kolonisation’, Heidelberger Jahrbücher 4 (1960), 77–93 Google Scholar; Graham, A.J., Colony and Mother City in Ancient Greece (Manchester, 1964)Google Scholar; id., CAH iii2 3. 163-95; Boardman 1980 (much-expanded revision of a 1964 book); many of the topics discussed there are developed further in Boardman, J., The Diffusion of Classical Art in Antiquity (London and Princeton, 1994)Google Scholar. For a briefer treatment see Jeffery, L. H., Archaic Greece: the City-States (London, 1976), 50-7Google Scholar.

55. Interpretations of this reference vary: Garvie 1994 ad loc. suggests that ‘to an Ionian poet Euboea itself seemed to be on the western edge of the known world, so that Scheria must be an unimaginable distance beyond it.’ M. L. West 1988, 172, argues that the Odyssey may itself have been composed in Euboea.

56. Cf. Vidal-Naquet 1970, rev. 1981, 84, 85-7.

57. Extended argument and bibliography on this debate in Raaflaub 1993. Seaford 1994, chh. 1-2 argues that the polis is emergent in Homer, but still weaker and less important than the oikos. The subject is also treated by Scully, S. R., Homer and the Sacred City (Cornell, 1990)Google Scholar (somewhat diffuse).

58. See further Raaflaub 1993, 54-9. On the use of the term dēmos in archaic Greece see e.g. Donlan, W., ‘Changes and shifts in the meaning of Demos...’ PP 25 (1970), 381-95Google Scholar. We may note incidentally that here, as in the Iliad, there is no trace of the more romantic notion that the Greek leaders, who had all been suitors of Helen, were now bound by an oath to aid her wronged husband. See Taplin 1990, 68-9, who argues that the three possible hints of this oath in the Iliad are not significant.

59. For a short but lively account of Archilochus’ career and poetry see Jeffery (n. 54 above) 181-3; more detail on history in Graham, A. J., ‘The Foundation of Thasos’, BSA 73 (1978), 61–98 Google Scholar; on poetry in Burnett, A. P., Three Archaic Poets (London, 1983), part 1 Google Scholar.

60. Fr. 5 West, cf. fr. 114 on the right sort of general.

61. See e.g. in this speech xiv. 198, 213-5, 235-6, 243, 274-5, 310, 338. Elsewhere see esp. xviii. 130-50 (Odysseus to Amphinomus); also e.g. xix. 325-34, xx. 194 ff.