Homer's Iliad, books xix-xxiv

421쪽

Among the goda themsolve mas anticipatet, an nothinii the immediate contexi suggesta a motive for Euch a scene. Achilles has uat been rescuod from the Scamander, and the attentio of the reader Araxe Mon his further achlsu menta, hen suddent this ne acene a thrus in, Without introductio indmitti no effect Mon the subsequent narrative. The conception is no Without grandeur, ut it is inadequalet carrie out The god assume in altitude of ille, ut me immediatet dimove that ome of them are ea an othera have no destre t fght. The cali tomin theis kinini an separate linmutua complimenta, a most unaatisfactor conclusion to a scene Irom Whichtho reade expecta much.

me res of the Book is in genera una allabie, though man dissiculti

424쪽

this argumen is unaound ainc xv σπόδων is haesi more than a prope name

X 469, here hiatus occum effore this Word, though in acti case, as here, at the lam caesura in the third foot Seemetrical Appendix, p. 430'. 353. onro 271 prefers or, o the ground that in vere is osten omitte in

425쪽

471. Thia verso, Justly rejected by Aristarchus, ince Artemis has almady been indicated by πμνια θηρων an καὶ . . . φάτο fas in 303 amountario a repetitionis μάλα νεέλεσε.

561. auch, hero a elae here, Writea lub' Ae Ahrens, Beturve ur Griech. u. Loet. ινm. i. 1343, O moid What he considere an un-Homeri contraction. 567 the synizesis in πιλως, me Μ. 378. 570. his verse a rejected by Aristarchus, as an interpolation intendoctio complete the meaning of the foreming Word by means of --ναι. ut itald a thought whichrismo in place at the moment When Agenor decide to mi meet Achilles. 575. On ἐν se Μ. 296. 576. O the orde here, se Μ. 365.

CRITICA INTRODUCTION a.

lamenta of riam, Hecabe, an Andromache ver the falle hero 305 15i. The actio stili akes place o the fame da a that of the three previoua Boori, the fourth da os batile and the twenty-sevent of tho actio of tho Iliad. This Book offers titue valle round for criticium. The unit os action 1 noldisturbed, and the possibi later addition are Mil detecte an may beremove Without interrupting the course of the narrative. e managrae mitti Bero in recognietin in his Book for the mos pari, the work of tho poet of the originta Iliad.

426쪽

The cene in Olympus l67-207 is ope to severa objections Athena's amistance 18b is utinecessarnio Achilles, since the event, 'tready decidedis destin 1793. The majesti picture of the weighin os ovis 209-213ὶ lose some of ita impressivenes by this anticipatio of the result, hile thesud ian hange of purpos in Zeus, from 169 to 185, here e actualinurges Athenario prompt interference, Aeem unWorth of the supreme uter. It is inexstet though not --Ηomerici to compare ector 18 1923, Wh cannotescape rom the ver path of Achilles, o a fawn hic repeatedi succeelsin idin unde the bushes. The introduction o Apollo a the laAt momentbefore the na decision 203 1. is eis, and the precedin question 202his hardi intolligibi in iis present connection. Verses 381 90 offer a number of slight dissiculties. The formula in 385 is stranget used, and is no appropriate in addressing the arti . Vere 389is obscure in ita expression, and the idea of thus testin the disposition fine Trojaniis hardi a Nasonable One. Finalty the objectio is made to Versea 487 505 that in extreme overtypredictet for Astyanax 489-499 is a mors than could be expecte toriali tothe tot of the grandson of the king, and that 501 is no consistent Wit the age of tho infant chil describe in 503. The transition rom ille genera picture es the utiliappy lotis an orphan 490 504 to the present siluation, illi theaudde introductionis the nam Astyanax at the end, and the change froin thethir to the aecon person in speakingis Hector 505 5073 are potnis Whichliave been unnecessarii criticiaed. The beaut an patho of the whole passage are iis suffcient vindication.

427쪽

rejecta 69-76. 70. On περί se Μ. 186, 2.M. Studntcgka mitrao Euri chic te d. in sera Trachit has proved that in Homeric peplos as in later times, Was fasinnexat the inoulder, an ope atine fide, no in front See also Helbig 218 ff.9 130. his solitomyi Hector, in hic he weigha the disserent ponsi bilities of scapo rom the combat wit Achilles, implies a change of feelingune laine in What goec fore. M oni hach been completet unmovectby the ouchin entreaties of his parenis, ut also his inextinguis bis fumfor batile hascius Me emphasiged by the comparison in 3 6. his Onsideration, as et a the reference to the warning o Polydamas W249'. Whic occurs in 100 ff., has iveri se to the opinio that his solitoquy likoine scene in , is os later origimina the est of the Book. 108. The referenco in με is dissiculta explain. I seem to potn to thoprecedincas ἐρέουσιν, aci the death in batile, hic Hector refers to thotaunis of the Trojans, a conceived a simultaneous With, or eis folloming, in other alternative M in Z 410 cf. Δ 182, Θ 1503. The explanation os με in the note is doubiful, and Nauc conjectum τό κεν, though τόδ' a mouit perhapsis preferable O 226.111 130. Fic Die mm Ili raras regarda this passage a a late and unaui abis addition. 117 f. Schol. Venetus A sed Dindori, ii 236 explain ἀμφι in connectionWit ἀποδάσσεσθαι as equivalent ora ιδάσεσθαι, δίχα ιερισεσθαι. O the therhan Schol. Vineri in ed. Dindori, iV. 288 say ἄμα τῆ προτέρ*4ποσχέσει uia ἔτερα, χωρὶς, Ἀλέξανδρο ηρπασεν o δὲ, ἀμφὶς ἀντὶ του δίχα δ ἐστιν εἰς δ . The communi ἀποδάσσεσθαι standa in the way of the forme explanation sincethe restoration os in booty, and the division of tho hole into imo partacan carcet be expresse in a single clause. The explanation o ἀμφέ equivalent to χωρις is thereiore the oni probable ne an is supporte by thoanalogo caseam 470, 3 130, 478. Nauc conjecture Ἀργε&ισιν for ἁ-ὶε

428쪽

121 his verae lato found in the beat SS., an is inappropriate alter 118.126. F., an apparenti La Roche, prefer in explanation in the Ole. But the fac that in expression occum elaemhere se note Wit an apparently proverbia tone, and the further consideratio that suo a picture is hardlyconsistent mith in epic feeling, or even With Gree idem in generat, a Dit rhapa preferable in talio ἀπδ δρυι η ἀπδ πέτρη a referring t mme legend of the originis mankin from a tremor a roch. I cannot tia Wit Achilles in the simple and mendi Way in Whichoouth and maidens mirat talios ancient f lea. in the main, Leas, Monro, Stier, and othera SeeMelcher, Griech. ασιμνε i. 782 II. Schwenck, Philolo a xiv. 391 ff. Bergh, O tech. Lit i. 360. 130. Οὐδρα dependent question os dactyi, se male, Anticipalom 134. La Rocho dentes that χαλα can refer to the armor, a this, in his opinion, ould require περι N 245 X 32.145es Thia Maage ha been much discussed, sincerat in an important bearing upon the questionis the ait os Homeric Troy. Unti the excavationao Schuemann irom 1868, at intervata, unti his deat in 1890 mos scholara re agrael in favor of the Bunare hi vite, more than te miles inland thoughGrote advocate in opposite viem But during the past inent yeara themound of Himarlik, the sit of Nomum Ilium, has come tot generali accepista in location hicli the poetisa in ind. Seo Grote, maior o Graece, Par i. Chap. V. Jebb Homer 148 ff. Schuchhard 17 2 and speciallym Dorpsoli' book o Troy Which, it is oped, mill Eoon appear. Woqueationa speciali aria on this passage: 1 What apring aro referre t in 147 f. p Thmao ce of the Scamander isinit. Ida Μ 19'. , ut a Scholi texpiatas the Mn. Σκαμάνδρου as equiV. in ἐκ ἀπ Σκαμάνδρου, ascis the pringa originato in the Scamander, ein perhaps connecte mith it by Aome under-groundia age Thia VieW is accepted by La Roche an othera L Chovalier thoum that he had dimovere in apring nea Bunisbaahi, ut instea of ing tW in number inere are about forinthere, it no great disserence intemperatum. Schliemann found apringa ne mimarlik, With remaius of Washing trouos, ut stili in dissereno es temperatur is lacring. The real Aourceo in Scamander, hoWever, is in Wo large sphinga onmt Ida, an oneos theae accordinxto Virchom is much Warmer than in other. tria probabio that in me had vagusi heard of this faci, an is a poet)a licens transferretineae pringa in the foot of Ηisaarlin. 2 Doea in post mean to ameri 166ὶ that in imo amor actuali ran three times mund the ity, - - almost impossibi feat, sither atinissarii or Bunisbaahilo make the ator more credibi Faeat, a Roche, and thera rite πόλιν πέρι δινηθήτην, as ii theco se lani a circle or ellipse in is the city, and not around it But τριτ est 16 aeema in remove at doub about the meaning of the oris. SeoWelinor mein Schristem II lxv ff.; asper, Mur. a. opoor. d. mm Itina 32 Boiser, Hom. Ustiter i. 20.

429쪽

156. For the quantityi πριν, ses4 41, Christ, Mari 2 175 miihne Blam, Grisin Gram. i. 310 4 Hartet,iom. Stud. 104, 107.164. II. and F construe ἀνδρι, κατατεθνη os With υλλον, hic iaprobabi right since it avoid in gen abs construction. 167 187. The decision acto Hector' late is made, in the ourae of thenarrative, in tW Ways strat by the consultatio of the mea here described, and second by the acales of Zeus 20s'. i. of these two narrativea, the Matris ope to objectionis anticipatin the secon in an inaspropriate Way, and cause of the insuffcient motive amimed 183'. for the change of purpos in Zeus. The ei in scene, o the contrary, is ver effectiVe by ita simple dignit an grandeur. 174. Fic rein μητιάεσθε, mining a rhyme muli φράζεσθε. S in W510 he

213. 1 202 07 are rejected this verse must share the fame late, sine nomention mould then have been male of the presence of Apollo. 236 Some ΜSS. read x equis to μι--ωs acinis 157, etc.

430쪽

conjecture.

333. F. - τοῖο Wit ἀοσσητήρ. 347. On account of the neglecte digamma in romas, obet, auch, and Christ Would omit Seem. p. 368. 34s. La Roche followa the ΜS reading εἰκοσινήριτ, but mos modern editora prini as in the text. 351. The meaning of ἐρύσασθαι seem to beraeived by Theogni 77 - παντος

os Priam an Hecabo the formis threnos. Priam is the ἔξαρχος the citigena the chorus Hecabe folloma Priam and the citigens respond. Priam'stamen occupies tmelve verses 417 Ming rejected a repeated from 4133 mahinglaur strophes of three Verses ach. Hecabe responds Wit sta verse or mostrophea. The hole question is diac sed, it species reference to the

Nauc conjectures os νυν βιομ.

A , oraδω dira ἔργα τέτυκται Hossmann Conjecture rδω, τίνα ἔργα τέτυκται SOBeiser', aucki. Bekke also accepi Bentley' ἔπεσθε. Ficcan Christ rite είδω τίνα an ἔπεσθε. ut Hossmann i. 311 f. hold thatram ἔργα τέτυ ται is in reading of Aristarchus, an correct He compares Σ 128, x 44, and explaina, What the facta are, since Andromache wiine to ut an en to theuncertaint Whic has prevalle in her mini since 447.4M. For these different head ornamenta se Helbig 219. 487 505. Aristarchus criticiae thia exaggerate description of the distrassand physical suffering of the princet orphan, a mellis the o genera chamacter of the picture in 49 499, and heuce rejected 487-499 But verses 50

라틴어 텍스트