There has been one almost invariable feature in discussions of πεĩραρ, an endeavour to support the abstract meaning by citing parallel phrases with τέλος, the abstractness of τέλος itself never being questioned. It is, however, a word which puzzles philologists. Indeed to them it is not one word but several. Unable to harmonise and correlate the widely varied meanings, they are driven to assume more than one original. Boisacq, for instance, distinguishes three originally distinct words (related to three different words or groups of words in various Indo-European languages) meaning (1) ‘end’, (2) ‘troop’, and (3) ‘payment’; and these are but the central points of three series of meanings. It was the first of these which was called in to throw light on πεĩραρ. Πολέμου τέλος and τέλος θανάτοιο have been quoted to show that ἔριδος… καὶ…πτολέμοιο πεĩραρ and ὀλέθρου πείρατα mean respectively ‘the issue of war’ and ‘utter destruction’, which we have seen they do not. Indeed such abstract and periphrastic expressions are far to seek in Homer.

We have already seen that Priam's remark about the impending duel between Paris and Menelaos: ‘Zeus knows this and the other gods, for which of the two the τέλος of death is πεπρωμένονʾ, probably involves the image of fate, death, as a band or bond. Another formula deserves attention.