Book 2 (*b）
[2] There is a slight inconsistency between this line and 1.611, which it has been proposed to avoid by taking “e)/xe” to mean ‘did not keep hold’ all night long; i.e. Zeus awoke after going to sleep. But “e)/xe” implies only the presence of sleep (cf. 23.815), and this pregnant sense cannot be read into it in the absence of fuller expression. After all ‘sleep’ and ‘pass the night’ are interchangeable expressions in 1.611, cf. the use of “i)au/ein” (note on 9.325). It is better either to assume that 1.609-11 are of the nature of a movable tag (see the note there), or to admit such a small inconsistency as would hardly be noticed at a point which forms a natural break in the narrative. 10.1-4 follows 9.713 in precisely the same manner, but the contradiction there is insignificant (see note), and in any case proves nothing, in view of the doubts as to the position of K in the original poem. For h(/dumos MSS. give “nh/dumos”, a word which has never been satisfactorily explained, and no doubt arose, as Buttmann saw, from the adhesion of the “n” which, in seven cases out of the twelve where it occurs, ends the preceding word; a phenomenon which may be paralleled in English, e.g. “a nickname” for “an ekename”, “nuncle” from “mine uncle” (“tante” from “ta ante”), “a newt” for “an ewt” (other instances in Skeat's Dictionary under N, and Wordsworth J. P. v. 95. So in mod. Greek “o( na/ndras” from “to\n a)/ndra”). “h(/dumos” itself was in use as a poetical word in much later times; the scholia quote Simonides and Antimachos as employing it, and Hesiod, Epicharmos, and Alkman are attested by others. It is also in the Hymns, Merc. 241, 449; xix. 16. MS. evidence for it will be found (for what it is worth) also in Od. 4.793, Od. 12.311. It is used by Ap. Rhod. (ii. 407), and “*(/adumos” occurs as a proper name in an inscr. from Phthiotis (Collitz 1470). Ar. read “nh/dumos”, it may be presumed, because of the hiatus in 16.454, Od. 12.366, Od. 13.79; of course he could not know that “vh/dumos” began with “v”. There is no independent evidence for the form “nh/dumos”, except Hymn. Ven. 172. For the form “h(/dumos” by “h(du/s” cf. “ka/llimos” by “kalo/s, fai/dimos” by “faidro/s” (van L. Ench. p. 162 n.), and numerous cases of adjectives formed from other adjectives by secondary suffixes without apparent differences of meaning, “faidimo/eis, qhlu/teros”, etc. etc.
[4] It would be easy here to read “timh/sei'” with the edd., did not this involve “o)le/sai”, with the rare term. “-ai” (1.255, 7.129, 130, 12.334, 19.81 are the only clear cases in Il.; see van L. Ench. p. 291). On the other hand, the subj. after the historic tense is equally rare in H. though so common later (M. and T. §§ 318-20, and particularly H. G. § 298). A precisely similar question arises in 16.646-50, q.v. As between “timh/shi, -ei, -ei'”, MS. authority is nil, but with “o)le/sai” and “o)le/shi” it counts for something. See also 1.558-60, which has, of course, had an influence on the present passage, only it seems impossible to say whether it was on the mind of the poet or of later copyists. In spite of its rarity in H. the subj. (or fut.?) is a very natural and vivid way of representing what is passing through the mind of Zeus. The form “polu=s” here attributed to Zen. is etymologically correct (for “poluns”, H. G. § 100), and is probably preferable in all cases to “polei=s” or “pole/as”.
[6] ou)=lon, baneful, as 5.461, 717, 21.536. It is presumably conn. with “o)/llumi” (for “o)/l-nos”?). Cf. “ou)/lios” 11.62 n. It appears to be only the particular dream which is personified; there is no trace in Homer of a separate Dreamgod.
[8] To avoid the hiatus illicitus we may with Lange and Naber read “ou)=los o)/neire”, cf. 4.189 “fi/los w)= *mene/lae”, H. G. § 164 (“qa=sson” conj. Bentley).
[13] a)mfi/s, on two sides, i.e. divided in counsel; 13.345.
[15] e)fh=ptai, lit. ‘are fastened upon the Trojans,’ i.e. hang over their heads. So 6.241, 7.402, 21.513. The variant form of the end of the line twice given by Aristotle (see App. Crit.) is noteworthy in its bearing on the significance of ancient quotations, as it is certainly not a lapse of memory. It appears from what he says that critics were offended by the downright lie put into Zeus' mouth by the word “di/domen”, and that Hippias of Thasos ‘solved the problem’ by reading “dido/men”, infin. for imper., thus leaving the actual falsehood to the dream.
[19] a)mbro/sios, fragrant, as sleep is commonly called “gluku/s”, besides being “h(/dumos” and “meli/frwn” in the compass of a few lines. So “nu\c a)mbrosi/h”, because it gives men sleep, or perhaps because of the peculiar fragrance of a still warm night. Verrall has shewn that the idea of fragrance is always suitable to the use of “a)mbro/sios”, while there is no clear instance of its meaning immortal only. It is probably not a pure Greek word at all, but borrowed from the Semitic ambar, ambergris, the famous perfume to which Oriental nations assign mythical miraculous properties, so that “a)mbrosi/a” has taken the place of the old Aryan soma, “a)/mbrotos”, though in some of its uses it undoubtedly means immortal, in others is a synonym of “a)mbro/sios”, the two senses being thus from different sources and only accidentally coincident in sound (Od. 8.365 “a)/mbr. e)/laion,” Od. 5.347 “krh/demnon,” 16.670 “ei(/mata,” Od. 11.330 “nu\c a)/mbrotos”, and 14.78 “nu\c a)bro/th” = “nu\c a)mbrosi/h”). That the epithets are chiefly restricted to divine objects is clearly the result of popular etymology.
[20] *nhlhi+/wi ui(=i, an unusual expression, with which we may compare “*telamw/nie pai=” Soph. Aj. 134. So also 13.67.
[21] gero/ntwn, members of the royal council, without regard to age; see 53. Young men like Diomedes and Achilles belonged to the council.
[22] min is of course acc. after “prosefw/nee. ou)=los” is preferable to “qei=os”, which in the Il. retains the original scansion “qe/i+os, qei-” being always in thesis, cf. 41, 56 (23.689 is no exception), but “qei=os a)oido/s” is common in
[27] This line occurs in 24.174, and was rejected by Aristarchos here and 64, as the ‘pity’ seems out of place. seu is gen. after “kh/detai”, not “a)/neuqen. se” is of course to be supplied to “e)leai/rei”, from “seu”.
[33] It is not usual for Homeric messengers to exceed the words of their message. In 8.423-4 a similar addition is suspected for other reasons.
[36] e)/mellon: so Ar. for “e)/melle”. He preferred the plural wherever the choice was possible, relying on passages such as 2.135, 7.6, 102, and others, where the verb cannot be in the singular. As the tendency of corruption would be towards the more familiar idiom, he is no doubt right.
[40] dia/, either through the whole course of battles, as we find “dia\ nu/kta” in a temporal sense; or better by means of, like “h(\n dia\ mantosu/nhn” 1.72, “dia\ mh=tin *)aqh/nhs” 10.497, battles being Zeus' instrument for working his will.
[41] a)mfe/xuto, surrounded him, i.e. rang in his ears. o)mfh/ in Homer is always accompanied either with “qei/h” or “qeou=, qew=n”.
[43] nhga/teon occurs only here and 14.185 in a similar phrase. The exact meaning of the word is doubtful; it is generally derived from “ne/os” and “ga-” for “g”（“e”）“n-” of “gi/gnomai”, as meaning ‘newly produced’; but it may be questioned whether the root “gen-” is ever employed to express the production of manufactured objects, and “neh-” from “ne/vo-” never coalesces to “nh-”, least of all in a genuine Homeric word. A derivation now widely accepted is that of Schmalfeld from Skt. snih, oiled, and thus shining; cf. note on 18.596. Monro (J. P. xi. 61) refers it to a subst. *“nh=gar” from *“nh/gw”, related to “ne/w” to spin, as “tmh/gw” to “te/mnw” (“tme”). Thus “nhga/teos” = of spun work. Goebel derives from “nh-” priv. and “a)gata=sqai” = “bla/ptesqai” (Hesych.) in the sense integer, fresh, not worn. Similarly Düntzer refers it to root “a)g-” of “a)/gos” = pollution, as meaning ‘undefiled.’ fa=ros, the luxurious linen robe of royalty, not the common “xlai=na” of wool. Cf. note on 8.221.
[45] a)rguro/hlon: cf. notes on 1.246 and 11.29, where the same (?) sword has nails of gold. The discrepancy would hardly deserve mention were it not the occasion for the excellent remark of Ar., “ta\ toiau=ta kuri/ws ou) le/getai, a)lla\ kat' e)pifora/n e)sti poihtikh=s a)reskei/as”.
[46] a)/fqiton, as the work of a god (see l. 101) and the symbol of a divine authority.
[49] e)re/ousa, heralding the approach of light; so 23.226 “*(ewsfo/ros ei)=si fo/ws e)re/wn e)pi\ gai=an”.
[53] For boulh/n of Zenod. and MSS. Aristarchos read “boulh/”, taking “i(=ze” as intransitive, as is usual in Homer (e.g. ll. 96 and 792). The transitive use of the present stem appears to recur only in 24.553. The “boulh/” was composed of a small number of the most important chiefs (“ge/rontes”) specially summoned; see note on 194.
[54] *nestore/hi = “*ne/storos”, as “*nhlhi+/wi”, l. 20; for the addition of the gen. cf. “*gorgei/h kefalh\ deinoi=o pelw/rou” 5.741. No reason is given for the meeting at Nestor's ship, as though it were a matter of course; we should have expected to find Agamemnon's ship — or hut — the meeting-place of his council.
[56] 56 = Od. 14.495. e)nu/pnion, which does not recur in Homer, is an adverbial neut. of the adj. “
