Homer's Iliad

Marina Coray, Martha Krieter-Spiro, Edzard Visser, Benjamin Millis, Sara Strack

• Publisher: De Gruyter
• Year: 2020
• ISBN:
  9783110608717
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Literature
• Subtopic: Ancient & Classical Literary Criticism
• Index: Literature

The renowned Basler Homer-Kommentar of the Iliad, edited by Anton Bierl and Joachim Latacz and originally published in German, presents the latest developments in Homeric scholarship. Through the English translation of this ground-breaking reference work, edited by S. Douglas Olson, its valuable findings are now made accessible to students and scholars worldwide.

Commentary

1 Summary

In Book 4 – before which the Book-division has a particularly disruptive effect (on this, see STR 21 n. 22) – the first military confrontation between the armies of the besiegers and the besieged drawn up in the plain before Troy is picked up and, beginning at 422 (see the chart at 422–544n.), continued; it had been adjourned in its initial stages in Book 3 (111–115) and was then followed by 767 verses of retarding intermediary action that created a rich background for the action.

2 Retrospective

At the end of Book 3, the narrator^P maneuvers the course of various intermediary actions (ep-eis-hódia/episodes) into a critical situation that contradicts the expectations of the audience and thus heightens the suspense considerably: the supreme commanders of the two armies that have been drawn up, Agamemnon king of Argos/Mycenae and Priam king of Troy, ratify publicly in the space between the two armies and under oath, and thus bindingly, a truce that may lead to a peace treaty: of the two originators of the campaign against Troy undertaken on account of the abduction of Helen from Sparta – namely, Menelaos of Sparta, Helen’s husband and the aggrieved party, and Paris of Troy, Helen’s abductor and thus the party who caused the injury – whichever wins a decisive duel will receive Helen; the war will thus come to an end (or rather be called off, see Remarks on the ‘gradual reversion’ below). The duel begins, but in the middle of the ring Paris suddenly disappears from view. Menelaos, in a rage, thinks Paris had fled and searches the Trojan ranks for his opponent (3.449 f.). But the Trojans, who themselves hate their dandy compatriot (3.454), are unable to help. At this moment of general bewilderment, Menelaos’ brother Agamemnon takes charge, immediately declares in the presence of the Greeks and the Trojans that Menelaos is the victor and, accompanied by applause from his army, demands that the Trojans surrender Helen at once and pay an exorbitant compensation (3.455–461). This is the conclusion of Book 3: the narrator leaves the problem unresolved and holds the issue as a whole in suspense. Were Agamemnon completely sure of his case, he would have to instantly order an attack on Troy. But now he must wait uncertainly for an answer: agreement or opposition, war or peace? The listener/reader waits with Agamemnon in a similar state of anxiety, since he knows more than the characters^P, who consider an alternative ending to the story possible. The listener/reader is aware not only that it was divine intervention (by the love-goddess Aphrodite) that spirited Paris away from the ‘ring’, meaning that Paris did not flee (3.380), but also that already in Book 1 (1.524–530) Zeus promised Achilleus’ mother Thetis that he would give the Trojans the upper hand until the Achaians restored the honor Agamemnon stole from her son (1.508–510). The listener/reader also knows beyond any doubt – a point stressed by Zeus himself at 1.526 f. – that a promise by the supreme god can never remain unfulfilled. But there can be no thought of the promise being fulfilled at the present moment in the narrative, since Achilleus is still filled with wrath. How could the war actually end at this point? How will the narrator extract himself from this dilemma of his own making?

3 Book 4

The narrator, having elicited these thoughts from the listener/reader, resolves the issue in a manner as elegant as it is consistent, not via a Trojan response and subsequent lengthy negotiations, but by a leap onto the divine plane:

3.1. The Book begins on Olympus. While agitation and confusion reign before Troy, the gods cheerfully sit down to a meal in Zeus’ golden home. Hebe pours nectar, and the gods drink one another’s health, all the while looking down on the scene bristling with weapons before Troy (2–4). The sight shows Zeus, who promised redress for Achilleus, that the honoring of his promise is endangered; a settlement between the opponents on earth, complete with a peace treaty, would nullify his word. The war for Troy must thus continue! In one of his famously provocative, mocking and testing speeches to Hera, he immediately argues – apparently sincerely – for a peace agreement and the continued existence of Troy (7–19). Hera angrily rejects the proposal (25–29), and by means of a barter – Troy for Argos, Sparta and Mycenae (51–54) – they ultimately agree once and for all on the fall of Troy and thus the continuation of the war (62–68). Athene, Hera’s ally, is tasked with provoking the Trojans into committing an obvious and thus indubitable breach of contract, thereby driving the Achaians, their behavior legitimized by this outrage, to immediately attack.

3.2. Athene flies down to earth like a flashing ‘star’ – neither Greeks nor Trojans can read the ‘sign’ (81–84) – and induces Pandaros, a Trojan ally, to shoot an arrow at Menelaos and thus violate the agreement (69–147). Pandaros hits his target – the first blood shed in the Iliad – and although Menelaos is only slightly injured, the Trojans are clearly guilty of continuing the conflict. The Achaians, now entirely convinced that right is on their side, pick up their weapons again and prepare to attack.

These two initial scenes in Book 4 illustrate in the first instance, on both the divine and the human planes, the uncertainty regarding the continuation of the action in: (a) fears voiced by Hera (25–29, 57) and Agamemnon (158–168, 172–174a, 176–181) that the destruction of Troy and the return of Helen may retreat into the distance, (b) the two armies tensely anticipating whether the divine sign (the ‘star’ [i.e. probably a shooting star in modern terms]) signifies war or peace (75–85). For both the characters^P and the listener/reader, this uncertainty is brought to an end only by the obvious breach of contract represented by the ‘arrow shot by Pandaros’.

3.3. The Achaian front has reformed and is once more in position, fully armed. Agamemnon, in his role as supreme commander, conducts an inspection. His walk along the prómachoi (the men who fight first and in front), from ‘battalion to battalion’, accompanied by battle appeals (paraeneses) directed at their leaders, is designed by the narrator like a small mustering (222–421, a so-called epipṓlēsis; see 231n.). Agamemnon’s appeals to morale in battle, and the reaction of the ‘battalion commanders’ thus addressed, allow for a sensitive characterization of the characters (Agamemnon himself, as well as the commanders Idomeneus, Aias, Nestor, Odysseus and Diomedes) who play key roles in the subsequent narrative up until Patroklos’ intervention (16.2), and in particular illuminate the attitude of the various commanders toward the war and how Agamemnon is conducting it.

Remarks on the ‘gradual reversion’ (for the term, cf. STR 22–23)

The episode of the violation of the officially arranged truce after the duel, and the resultant culpability of the Trojans for the war, is superficially located in year 9/10 of the war, while logically it should stand at the very beginning of the invasion, i.e. in year 1 – which here is probably mirrored in a ‘gradual reversion’ (sc. of time), as is also the case for individual episodes in Books 2 and 3 (STR 22 [2] with fig. 2); see also 86–219n. [on the character^P Pandaros], 13–19n., end; on the phenomenon of ‘mirroring’ episodes from the first nine years of the war or even further back in the past, see also 2.362–368n., 3.67–75n., 3.121–244n., as well as the Introductions to the commentaries on Books 3 and 6.

3.4. Typologically, the battle scenes that follow are part of a scheme characteristic of battle descriptions throughout the Iliad, i.e. a theme^P (a detailed, systematic description and discussion: Latacz 1977); its occurrence in the final part of Book 4 (422 to end) is illustrated and explicated as a prime example in Latacz loc. cit. 82–90. The sequence as a whole in its ideal form is illustrated as a outline in the introduction to 422–544, where it is combined with a general overview of the state of research on battle depictions in the Iliad.

The following lemmata in the commentary provide an overview of the action in Book 4 (see also the Overview above at p. 8f.): 1–72n., 85–104n., 105–147n., 148–187n., 188–219n., 220–421n., 422–544n. section II. B.2.–3., 457–544n.

Individual details:

on Homeric battle descriptions: 422–544n., 457–544n.

on battle paraeneses: 232–250n., 509–514n.

on individual characters^P: Agamemnon 155–182n., 169–182n., 176–182n., 220–421n., 223–225n., 232–250n., 327–363n., 338–348n., 358–363n.; Apollo 101–102n., 507n.; Diomedes: 364–421n., 401–402n., 412–418n.; Machaon 193n., 213–219n.; Menelaos 98n., 183–187n.; Odysseus: 349–355n., 354n.; Pandaros 85–219n., 85–104n., 88–89n.

on Thebes and the Thebais: 370–400n., 404–410n., 406n.

on the motif ‘premature termination of the Troy campaign’: 1–72n., 17–19n., 169–182n.

on the motif of revenge (punishment for breach of contract): 160–168n., 162n., 235–239n., 269–271n.

on loyalty and solidarity: 242n., 251–271n., 338–348n., 370–400n., 412–418n.

on the relationship between human beings and gods: 25–86n., 85–104n., 160–168n., 235–239n., 370–400n.

on the relationship between the generations (old age): 292–325n., 320n., 370–400n., 374–375n., 404–410n.

on similes^P and comparisons^P: 75–81n., 130–131n., 140–147n., 141–142n., 243–246n., 253n., 275–282n., 422–432n., 422–426n., 433–438n., 436–438n., 452–456n., 462n., 471b n., 482n.

on type-scenes^P and themes^P (in alphabetical order): arrival 86–92n., 220–421n.; change of location by a deity 69–92n.; delivery of a message 69–92n.; sequence of events in a pitched battle 422–544n. section II.

on double motivation^P 85–104n.; tis-speech^P 81n., 176–182n.; ‘if-not’ situations^P 12n., 169–182n.

1–84 A scene among the gods: Zeus raises for discussion the possibility of a peace settlement, but then in conversation with Hera sets in motion the continuation of the war. He instructs Athene to bring about a hostile act by the Trojans that violates the truce. Athene makes her way to the battlefield and joins the Trojans.

1–72 The divine scene that begins here is preceded by the breaking off of the duel between Menelaos and Paris, in that the latter was spirited away to Troy (3.313–447); Agamemnon consequently declared Menelaos the victor and demanded the return of Helen and her possessions (3.455–461); further action is for the moment left in limbo (cf. 13–16). As now becomes evident, these events were observed by the gods (cf. 9–13). Within the narrative strategy, the scene has multiple functions: (1) divine assemblies frequently serve to foretell future action, see 64b–72 (on which, esp. 25–68n.), as...

Table of contents

• Title Page
• Copyright
• Contents
• 24 Rules Relating to Homeric Language (R)
• Overview of the Action in Book 4
• Commentary
• Bibliographic Abbreviations