previous next

[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 ἤπια εἰδείη 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. στρατόν does not suit the present position of affairs, as “ἀμφιμάχεσθαι” when it takes the acc. is used only in a local sense, ‘to fight round about,’ as the Greeks are said “Ἴλιον ἀμφιμάχεσθαι” 6.461, cf. 9.412, 18.208. Now that the possession of the camp is at stake the gen. should be used, as “νεκροῦ ἀμφιμάχεσθαι” is ‘to fight for the possession of a dead body.’ This is surely hypercritical; the battle is going on round the camp in the literal sense, as well as for it; it is not yet in the camp, for the outer ships are only the edge of it. If we remember that the wall is not part of the original scenery there is nothing to be said against the phrase. Fick, though he does not believe in the originality of I, still rejects 64-79, but the only serious linguistic reasons he gives are the form νικῶντες (79), for which he would apparently, if on other grounds convinced of the genuineness of the passage, be prepared to read the Aiolic “νίκαντες”, and the two Ionic genitives Τυδεΐδεω and Ἀτρεΐδεω. But in the first place there is no reason why the old Epic language may not have had in the -“α” declension a short form of the gen. (either -“α”, like Thessalian and Aiolic, or -“αυ” like Arkadian or -“ω” like Cyprian) baside -“αο” just as in the -“ο” decl. it has -“ου” beside -“οιο”. Secondly it is quite possible to read “Ἀτρεΐδα᾽ ὀπός”, for (“ϝ”）“όψ” in H. has lost the “ϝ” (Knös Dig. p. 88, H. G. § 393); and van L. reads “Τυδεΐδηι Διομήδεϊ”. The only other argument for rejection lies in the alleged want of reference in ἀλλὰ καὶ ὦς, 80. This clearly alludes to the thought of 72, and not to the intervening passage; but such a rapid transition is surely highly dramatic and suitable to the temper of Achilles, whose injured pride is continually uppermost in his thoughts, even when his words do not directly name it. I see no reason at all, therefore, for rejecting any lines beyond 64 in this portion of Achilles' speech.

The Iliad, edited, with apparatus criticus, prolegomena, notes, and appendices. Walter Leaf. London. Macmillan. 1900.

The National Endowment for the Humanities provided support for entering this text.

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 United States License.

An XML version of this text is available for download, with the additional restriction that you offer Perseus any modifications you make. Perseus provides credit for all accepted changes, storing new additions in a versioning system.

hide References (3 total)
  • Commentary references from this page (3):
hide Display Preferences
Greek Display:
Arabic Display:
View by Default:
Browse Bar: