Book 16 (*p）
nho/s, the ship of Protesilaos, 15.704.
[2] Patroklos was last heard of in 15.390-405 on his way back from Nestor to Achilles. pari/stato, was coming up, as usual, 2.244; cf. 1.197, etc.
[3] 3-4 = 9.14-15.
[7] deda/krusai, cf. 22.491 “deda/kruntai de\ pareiai/,” Od. 20.204 “deda/kruntai de/ moi o)/sse”. So “pepoth/atai”, are on the wing, 2.90, “pefulagme/nos”, on the watch, “keklaume/na”, Aisch. Cho. 458, Soph. O. T. 1490; H. G. § 28.
[8] Hentze conj. “a)nw/ghi . . kateru/khi”, so that the subj. may distinguish the subordinate verbs forming the supposition from potide/rketai in the clause which contains the point of comparison.
[9] ei(anou=, i.e. “veanou=” (see on 5.734), with “e” lengthened in the first arsis; App. D, c. 1. Brandreth's “a(ptome/nh veanoi=o kai\ e)ss”. is needless. Van L. suggests “v'” for “t'”.
[11] Notice *pa/trokle by *patro/kleis (“*patro/kleves”) above. The former is the familiar shortened form like “*)/alkimos” by “*)alkime/dwn”, etc. “ te/ren, ” 3.142.
[12] h)e/ appears to be the correct accentuation, not h)=e/, as approved by Herod., who regarded “h)=” as an interrogative particle, here introducing asyndetically three independent questions, like an — an — an. There is no reason to suppose it any other than the ordinary conjunction marking three disjunctive questions; see H. G. § 340. The questions are of course ironical. It is perfectly natural that in the altered state of affairs Achilles should forget the trivial errand on which he dispatched Patroklos in the eleventh book, a mere piece of machinery introduced for the purpose of the moment.
[22] 22 = 10.145, 23-37 = 11.658-62. The last line is properly in place here.
[27] It is needless to find a difficulty, as some have done, in the omission of Machaon among the wounded; he is of very trifling importance compared to the three great chiefs.
[30] For g' ou)=n see H. G. § 349. The combination recurs only in 5.258 (where see note).
[31] ai)nare/ta, though very poorly attested, is the correct form of the voc., with the “a^” lengthened by ictus and the pause natural after this case (H. G. § 387). The only analogies to the vulg. “ai)nare/th” are “*)atrei+/dh” and “u(yago/rh” (Od. 2.85, Od. 2.303, Od. 17.406 only; we should probably read “u(yago/ra”). The variant “ai)nare/ths” as an exclamatory nom. is quite possible (H. G. § 163), and there is something to be said for “ai)/n' a)reth=s”, which would come to the same thing as the compound, cursed in thy valour. (Brandreth conj. “ai)/n), a)reth=s ti/s t' a)/llos”, comparing 11.763 “oi)=os th=s a)reth=s a)ponh/setai”.) For the sense we may compare the later compounds “ai)no/pater” Aisch. Cho. 315, “ai)no/gamos, ai)no/lektros, *ai)no/paris”, etc., though these do not contain the same oxymoron, which is like that of “dusaristoto/keia” 18.54. “e)pi\ kakw=i th\n a)reth\n e)/xwn”, An., rightly.
[34] “nu=n a(/pac th\n qa/lassan e)piqetikw=s glaukh\n ei)=pen”, An., adding that Hesiod uses “glaukh/” by itself for the sea (Hesiod Theog. 440 “glaukh\n duspe/mfelon”). The word recurs in H. only in “glaukw=pis” (see note on 1.206) and “glaukio/wn” 20.172. It probably means only gleaming, though the ‘grey’ sea would better give the idea of the merciless element, sunless and wind-swept.
[35] o(/ti, as I know because: H. G. § 269. 2. Ar.'s “o(/ te” is equally possible (ibid. 3).
[36] 36-45. See 11.794-803, with the notes. The lines must be interpolated in both places with the whole idea of the exchange of armour (see Introduction). ai)/ ke/n: it is curious that the incorrect “h)/n pou/”, which in the parallel line has hardly any authority, has here invaded almost all MSS. In 8.282 “h)/n pou/” does not appear at all.
[46] 46-47. This couplet, which is quite unnecessary, seems to be a late addition. It twice has a short vowel before the “l” of “lit”-. Of this there is no other instance in Il. (see on 1.15), and only eight in Od. out of some thirty instances of the root (including “lith=isi” Od. 11.34). Further, the aor. “lite/sqai” (or pres. if we read “li/tesqai” with Ask.Ptol.) does not recur in H. (in Od. 14.406 read “*kroni/wn' a)litoi/mhn”: see van L. Ench. p. 280); nor does either aor. or pres. agree with the Epic use of “me/llw” (Platt in J. P. xxi. 41). If the line is to be saved we must read “li/sesqai” with van L.; he was destined to pray; not he was like to have been (or to be) praying.
[50] For h(/n tina Ar. read “ei)/ tina”, even if I do know of one; no doubt in order to bring the line into harmony with I 410, where Achilles speaks of a prophetic warning from his mother. That passage, however, must be regarded as much later than the present. And in any case ‘Achilles does not necessarily mean that Thetis has told him nothing: he only denies that anything she may have told him is the reason of his refusing to fight’ (Monro).
[52] to/de is best taken as an acc., it is for this that sore grief comes to my heart, the pronoun anticipating the following relative sentence: see the same line in 15.208. So to/ after “a)/xos”, 55.
[53] o(moi=on, sc. in birth and worth; but kra/tei+ probeb/hkhi because “pleo/nessin a)na/ssei” 1.281. The use of the article to classify — “to\n o(moi=on” = any one who is his equal — is very rare in H. See note on 1.106 and H. G. § 260 e. So again Od. 17.218 “w(s a)ei\ to\n o(moi=on a)/gei qeo\s w(\s to\n o(moi=on”. a)me/rsai, to despoil; see note on 13.340. The pres. is “a)me/rdw” in H., “a)mei/rw” in Pindar.
[55] to/ anticipates the following “kou/rhn h(/n k.t.l”. pa/qon a)/lgea qumw=i, cf. 9.321, where it is used of sufferings undergone in war. Here it refers to the humiliation endured.
[57] Cf. 9.343 “dourlkthth/n per e)ou=san”. po/lin, Lyrnessos, 2.690. e)utei/xea, elsewhere always “e)utei/xeon” (1.129, etc.). But the present form is more in accordance with analogy, and Nauck is perhaps right in wishing to restore it throughout; “e)utei/xeon” always occurs before the bucolic diaeresis, where the hiatus is admissible, and the fact that several MSS. read it here against the metre shews that there was a standing tendency to introduce it.
[59] Cf. 9.648 “w(/s m' a)su/fhlon e)/recen *)atrei+/dhs w(s ei)/ tin' a)ti/mhton metana/sthn”, where see note. It is clear that the “metana/sths” is here also Achilles himself, not Briseis; it could be no outrage to treat one who was already “dourikthth/” as an outlander. But the omission of the pronoun is undoubtedly very harsh; it is easy to conjecture “th/n m' a)/y”, but not to see why the letter should have been lost. The text is in any case very ancient, for Rhianos and the Massaliot edition probably read “metana/stin”, as a feminine. Bentley was perhaps right in rejecting the line here.
[60] This phrase, to let bygones be bygones, is again used by Achilles in 18.12, 19.65. ‘We will let these matters go their way, i.e. put them away from us. The common explanation is let them have happened before, i.e. treat them as past and done with; but this is not the exact force of the expression. The inf. protetu/xqai is not = “w(/sper protetugme/na” but = “w(/ste protetugme/na ei)=nai”. And it is more natural to take pro/ = forth, away; cp. “pro-i/aye”,’ etc.: Monro. But this is not entirely convincing. h)=n, the common use of the imperf. to express the contrast of a past belief with the reality: ‘I see that it was not possible for me.’
[61] e)/fhn is commonly referred to the words of Achilles in 9.650. But it need hardly be said that “fhmi/” does not necessarily imply more than ‘I thought,’ and so Ar. took it (“o(/ti to\ e)/fhn ge a)nti\ tou= dienoh/qhn”, An.). There is thus nothing inconsistent with the supposition of the later origin of I; the words there put into Achilles' mouth may well have been suggested by this very phrase.
[62] mhniqmo/n, a word peculiar to this book, see 202, 282. a)ll' o(po/t' a)/n, a slight alteration for the second “pri/n” which we should have expected. Cf. 5.23 “ou)de/ ken au)to\s u(pe/kfuge kh=ra, a)ll' *(/hfaistos e)/ruto”, for “ei) mh/”.
[66] ei) d/h, since now, not expressing any doubt. kua/neon ne/fos, cf. 4.282 “fa/lagges kua/neai,” 4.274, 23.133 “ne/fos ei(/peto pezw=n”, and see 17.243. “ a)mfibe/bhke ” with dat. is elsewhere used only in the sense of protection, but always with tmesis; the acc. is used when surrounding is implied, cf. Od. 12.74 “nefe/lh de/ min a)mfibe/bhke kuane/h”. The dative may be explained by the idea of hostile attack which is emphasized by the “e)pi”- of “e)pikrate/ws”, as in the common “e)p' a)llh/loisin i)o/ntes”.
[68] kekli/atai, see note on 15.740.
[71] e)nau/lous, cf. 21.283 “o(/n r(a/ t' e)/naulos a)poe/rshi xeimw=ni perw=nta”. The word apparently means torrent-beds, but does not seem to recur in this sense after Homer. The reference must be to the gullies in the open plain, opposed to the camp, “strato/n”.
[72] 72-73. This couplet contains a more apparent than real contradiction with I. Of course Agamemnon has done all in his power to shew friendliness to Achilles in the Embassy, which therefore appears to be ignored; but it is no doubt true that h)/pia ei)dei/h refers to the whole course of Agamemnon's action. Achilles means ‘if Agamemnon “were of gentle mind” to him, i.e. behaved as a good friend generally, such mischief would not arise’ (Monro). None the less unitarians have almost without exception thought it necessary to expunge the lines, always on the weakest grounds. E.g. it is objected by Hentze that the acc. strato/n does not suit the present position of affairs, as “a)mfima/xesqai” when it takes the acc. is used only in a local sense, ‘to fight round about,’ as the Greeks are said “*)/ilion a)mfima/xesqai”
