No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
The Iliad is not an Achilleid, although Achilles is the most important character in the epic. One of the most striking features of the poem is the way in which it embraces the action of the whole Trojan war by retrospective and prospective references, rather than by narrating the events in full. In this, as is evident from ancient testimony, the Iliad was markedly different from the ‘cyclic’ epics (see esp. Hor. Ars 136f.). The human characters refer to the abduction of Helen, the initial embassy to the Trojans, the mustering at Aulis, the earlier campaigns and clashes; the prophecies and comments of the gods, particularly Zeus and Thetis, anticipate the doom of Achilles and the ultimate fall of Troy, also grimly foreshadowed in other ways. In an important passage which seems to be deliberately reserved for a late stage in the poem, Homer himself looks back to the origin of the whole conflict, the judgement of Paris which aroused the implacable anger of Athena and Hera against Troy. Another remarkable feature is the intensity of the action of the poem. In terms of time, the whole poem occupies some 40 days, of which only 14 include narrated events, and three in particular are the subject of fourteen books. As for place, the human action is virtually confined to three areas: the camp of the Greeks, the city of Troy, and the plain of battle which lies between. The scenes involving the Olympians are more various and provide a broader perspective, but their attention too is generally focussed on the human suffering on the battlefield. Consequently the Iliad gains in emotional power what it lacks in diversity of scene and situation. A third feature, already implied, is the prominence of the Trojans in the poem. The very title Iliad, though probably not original, reminds us that this is no jingoistic or ‘pan-Hellenic’ epic; despite the claims of some ancient commentators, the Trojans are treated by Homer with great sympathy and generosity. That is not to deny the fundamental guilt of Paris or to assert that the Achaean victory is undeserved.
The commentary by Kirk and others (1985–93) is now the first resource; see also Macleod 1982 on book 24, Griffin 1995 on book 9. For general books on the Iliad in English see also Bowra 1930, Redfield 1975, Schein 1984 (useful but rather derivative), Mueller 1984, Edwards 1987, Silk 1987 (short but acute), Taplin 1992. In German Reinhardt 1961 and Schadewaldt 1943 are fundamental. Stanley 1993 is extremely useful for book-by-book bibliography even if one finds his analyses over-schematic. More specific studies are mentioned below.
2. 3.443-6; 3.204-24; 2. 301-30; for references to earlier campaigning see e.g. 1. 366-9,6.414-28,9. 328-33. For anticipation of the fall of Troy see e.g. 4.163-5 - 6.447-9; 15.69-71; 18.207 ff., 22. 410-11, etc. For the death of Achilles see below, p. 91. In general see e.g. Kullmann 1960, ch. 5; Griffin 1980, 1; Mueller 1984, 66 f.
3. See esp. Reinhardt, K., ‘Das Parisurteil’, in Tradition und Geist (Göttingen, 1960), 16–36 Google Scholar; Griffin 1980, 195 n. 49; Richardson 1993, 276-8, a very careful discussion.
4. Taplin 1992, 14-22, with earlier references.
5. G. Nagy, in a series of studies, has described the Homeric epics as ‘pan-Hellenic’ in a different sense, following use of the term by A. Snodgrass: see e.g. Nagy, , Pindar’s Homer (Johns Hopkins, 1990), 70-1Google Scholar, and the 1995 paper cited in ch. 1 n. 77 above. By this he means that the epic spread widely, and that a common tradition of heroic song was swiftly established throughout the Greek world. It is certainly remarkable that the epic assumes that characters and readers are familiar with place-names and peoples throughout the Greek mainland and islands. This use of ‘pan-Hellenism’, however, would not affect the point made in my text, that the epic is not obviously nationalistic.
6. As the Meleager-tale especially makes clear (9. 524-99); see also 13. 460, 20.178ff., 6. 326ff.
7. See Page 1959, ch. 6, esp. 248ff., 286-8; Combellack, F. M., ‘Homer and Hector’, AJP 65 (1944), 209-43Google Scholar. But Erbse, H., ‘Ilias und Patroclie’, Hermes 111 (1983), 1–15 Google Scholar thinks it at least possible that the role of Patroclus has been much expanded.
8. Beck, G., Die Stellung des 24. Buches der Ilias in der alten Epentradition (diss. Tübingen, 1964)Google Scholar, Macleod 1982, esp. 32-5, Richardson 1993,1-14. Contrast Seaford 1994, ch. 5 (hardly tenable).
9. In all this discussion it must be borne in mind that the book-divisions are unlikely to be the work of the poet. They are first attested in Alexandrian times, and may well be the work of the school of Aristarchus (Janko 1992, 31; for an earlier date, West, S., The Ptolemaic Papyri of Homer (Cologne-Opladen, 1965), 18–25 Google Scholar, cf. S. West 1988, 39 f.). Their inadequacy has been strenuously asserted by Taplin 1992, 13, 285-93. It is a major defect of Stanley 1993 that so many of his analyses assume the division goes back to the poet. On the ancient titles given to books or episodes see Stanley 1993, 418 n. 133.
10. 2.699, 721-6, cf. 686-94. In general on the Catalogue see Kirk’s commentary, i. 168-87,237-40.
11. Ø. Andersen, Die Diomedesgestalt in der Ilias (Symb. Osl. Suppl. 25, Oslo, 1978) is a detailed study of Diomedes’ role. See also Reichel 1994, 217-30.
12. The quotation is from Taplin 1992, 253. See further Redfield 1975, 206-12, Macleod 1982, 28-32.
13. Kakridis 1971, 54-67 rejects simple assertions of Homeric philhellenism; see also Hall 1989, ch. 1. Sale, W. M., ‘The Trojans, Statistics, and Milman Parry’, GRBS 30 (1989), 341–410 Google Scholar argues that Homer greatly expanded the role of the Trojans.
14. 3. 161-80; 24. 762-75, esp. 767, 771-2.
15. Other ways in which Hector and Achilles are contrasted are discussed below, pp. 49-52.
16. Griffin 1980, 3-6 and 23 overstates the case against Paris. On p. 23 he is mistaken in saying that the wound Paris inflicts on Diomedes is ‘superficial’ (see 19. 48 f.).
17. Macleod 1982, 22 n. 2.
18. See further Schadewaldt 1943, 148; Reinhardt 1961, 63-8; Rabel, R. J., ‘Chryses and the opening of the Iliad ’, AJP 109 (1988), 473-81Google Scholar. Fenik 1974, 172-207 discusses the Odyssey’s fondness for ‘character doublets’ (e.g. Eurycleia and Eurynome), and illustrates this tendency also from the Iliad; cf. Fenik 1968, 148 ff.
19. 5. 318ff., 792-865. For another case see Patroclus’ assault on the wall, 16. 698ff. (where he yields ground before Apollo) and his renewed onslaught at 783 ff. (where Apollo strikes him down). On the principle see esp. Fenik 1974, 180-7; also M. W. Edwards, ‘Topos and transformation in Homer’, in Bremer et al. 1987, 50ff.
20. On retardation in general see Reichel, M., ‘Retardationstechniken in der Ilias’ ap. Kullmann, W. and Reichel, M. (edd.) Der Übergang von der Mündlichkeit zur Literatur bei den Griechen (Tübingen, 1990), 125-51Google Scholar; also Bremer ap. Bremer et al. 1987, 33-7. A related technique, misdirection (that is, leading the audience to expect one development and then surprising them) is also present in Homer, though less important: on this see Morrison, J. M., Homeric Misdirection: Fahe Predictions in the Iliad (Michigan, 1992)Google Scholar.
21. 16. 140-2. See further for explicit cases e.g. 2. 35-40, 419-20, 11. 604, 16. 46-7; for implicit, e.g. 18. 22ff. (p. 91 below), 18. 207-13 and 219-22, 22. 410-11 (similes which anticipate the sack of Troy). On this whole topic see Duckworth, G. E., Foreshadowing and Suspense in the Epics of Homer, Apollonius and Vergil (Princeton, 1933)Google Scholar, and now Reichel 1994.
22. E.g. 2. 155, 8. 217, 16. 698 ff.; see further Reinhardt 1961, 107 ff, de Jong 1987, 68-81, Nesselrath, H.-G., Ungesehenes Geschehen. Beinahe-Episoden im gr. und röm. Epos von Homer bis zur Spätantike (Stuttgart/Leipzig, 1992)Google Scholar.
23. For detailed analysis see Fenik 1968, 217; Janko on 16. 830-63, Richardson on 22. 330-67.
24. 12. 60ff, 80, 210ff, 13. 725ff., 18. 249-313. See Schadewaldt 1943, 104-6; Redfield 1975, 272-7; Bannert 1988, 71-81; Reichel 1994, 175-82.
25. The simile applied to Priam at 24. 480-4 brings out the extraordinary nature of his situation: see Macleod’s note.
26. For further analysis of corresponding scenes of this type, see Schadewaldt 1943, Taplin 1992.
27. See further Lord 1960, 68-98; Powell, B. B., Composition by Theme in the Odyssey (Meisenheim am Gian, 1977)Google Scholar; Edwards 1992, 11-23 (contrast Richardson 1993, 14-24).
28. 1985, ix - though he goes on to allow that ‘such dimensions undeniably exist’.
29. I say ‘Iliadic’ deliberately, since it is not necessarily the case that Homer the man held precisely these views in his everyday life: not only are literature and life distinct, but the Iliad itself clearly represents a deliberately selective vision of the heroic world.
30. Morris 1986 and van Wees 1992, 78-89 argue that the epics serve to ‘legitimize’ kingly rule (similarly Janko 1992, 38). This works well with the Thersites-episode, but surely does not represent the primary purpose of the poems.
31. See further Thalmann, W. G., ‘Thersites: Comedy, scapegoat, and heroic ideology in the Iliad ’, TAPA 118 (1988), 1–28 Google Scholar; Halliwell, S., ‘The Uses of Laughter in Greek Culture’, CQ 41 (1991), 279-96CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at p. 282; Reichel 1994, 106 n. 9.
32. Against Page 1959, 315-24, who argued from Thucydides for late interpolation of the passages concerning the wall, see West, M. L., ‘The Achaean Wall’, CR 19 (1969), 255-60Google Scholar and Tsagarakis, O., ‘The Achaean Wall and the Homeric Question’, Hermes 97 (1969), 129-35Google Scholar.
33. In the Cycle the solution was magical: Cypria fr. 20 Allen; cf. Griffin 1977, 40-1.
34. In general on the problems concerning Phoenix see pp. 86 ff. below.
35. Janko ad loc. defends Hector’s success in crossing the ditch by appealing to an earlier passage where Apollo opened the way for the Trojan attack (15. 355-8), but the lines still seem difficult.
36. Fundamental treatment by Fenik 1968; cf. also Krischer 1971, Kirk 1976, ch. 3; Latacz 1977, Mueller 1984, ch. 3 (a very useful brief account), Kirk 1990, 15-27. Willcock, M. M., ‘Battle Scenes in the Aeneid ’, PCPS n.s. 29 (1983), 87–99 Google Scholar compares Homeric and Virgilian battle-scenes.
37. The brief reference to ambushes by Idomeneus in 13. 275-87 (cf. 1. 226f.) is abnormal. Contrast the Odyssey, and see further A. T. Edwards 1985, 18ff.
38. For another reason for the dropping of this motif see Edwards (see n. 19 above), 57. Edwards 1987, 261 thinks even Sarpedon’s uncertainty is a stock motif, cf. 5. 175-6.
39. See Griffin 1980, passim, e.g. 48-9.
40. Taplin 1990; Reichel 1994, 198-203.
41. Bowra 1961, ch. 3; cf. his The Greek Experience (London, 1957), ch. 2; also the same author’s ‘The meaning of a heroic age’, in Kirk 1964, 22-47.
42. Cf.Irwin, T., Classical Thought (Oxford, 1989), ch. 2 Google Scholar. Many of the topics covered below are also discussed by Gill, C., Greek Thought (G&R New Surveys 25, Oxford, 1995), esp. 20-7Google Scholar, 46-9.
43. Goldhill, S., Reading Greek Tragedy (Cambridge, 1986), 154-61CrossRefGoogle Scholar; note also Aristotle, Anal. Post. 97b15, identifying Achilles, Ajax, and Alcibiades as men characterized by pride.
44. Andersen (n. 11 above), Griffin 1980, 74, Macleod 1982, 25 n. 1.
45. Taplin 1992, 6-7, 50-1, 71-2, 166 against Finley 1954 (2nd edn. 1978), 113, cf. 115.
46. See 18. 105-6, and further Schofield, M., ‘ Euboulia in the Iliad ’, CQ 36 (1986), 6–31 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; also Greenhalgh, P. A. L., ‘Patriotism in the Homeric world’, Historia 21 (1972), 528-37Google Scholar.
47. Dodds 1951, chh. 1-2, esp. 17-18, 28, 47-50. For modern studies of honour and shame see Peristiany, J. G. (ed.), Honour and Shame: the values of Mediterranean Society (Chicago, 1965)Google Scholar; Walcot, P., Greek Peasants ancient and modern. A comparison of social and moral values (Manchester, 1970)Google Scholar; DuBoulay, J., Portrait of a Greek Mountain Village (Oxford, 1974)Google Scholar; Campbell, J. K., Honour, family and patronale: a study of institutions and moral values in a Greek mountain community (New York, 1964)Google Scholar; also Lloyd-Jones, H., ‘Honour and shame...’ in Academic Papers (Oxford, 1990), ii. 253-80Google Scholar = A & A 33 (1987), 1 ff. (German version).
48. Adkins 1960, and many subsequent articles. For criticism see Long, A. A., ‘Morals and Values in Homer’, JHS 90 (1970), 121-39CrossRefGoogle Scholar (contrast Adkins, , ‘Homeric Values and Homeric Society’, JHS 91 (1971), 1–14 CrossRefGoogle Scholar), Lloyd-Jones 1971,ch. 1, Dover 1983, Williams, B., Shame and Necessity (Berkeley, 1993)Google Scholar, Zanker 1994, esp. ch. 1. C. J. Rowe, ‘The Nature of Homeric Morality’, in Rubino-Shelmerdine 1983, 248-75, is a review of the issues. Yamagata, N., Homeric Morality (Mnem. Suppl. 131, Leiden, 1994)Google Scholar retraces the ground at book length.
49. Again the terminology derives from Adkins, e.g. 1960, 31-46.
50. Dodds 1951, 15. Cf. Snell (Eng.tr. 1953), 17ff.,Fränkel (Eng.tr. 1975), 75 ff Contrast Williams (n. 48), ch. 1; also Fenik 1978, 68-71, and the works cited in n. 81 below.
51. Lloyd-Jones 1971, 15, 24-7; Dover 1983.
52. Cairns, D. L., Aidos: the psychology and ethics of Honour and Shame in Ancient Greek Literature (Oxford, 1993)Google Scholar, an exhaustive treatment; see also Williams (n. 48), ch. 4.
53. See further Segal 1971, Vermeule 1979, ch. 3, Parker, R., ‘Homer’s war music’, Omnibus 10 (1985), 17–21 Google Scholar.
54. The standard instance of an impossible wound is 13. 546ff. (cf. 442ff, 616ff). For gruesomeness see Griffin 1980, 91, Mueller 1984, 82-6.
55. On supplication see above all Gould, J., ‘Hiketeia’ JHS 93 (1973), 74–103 CrossRefGoogle Scholar (80 n. 39 for a full list); also Thornton 1984, Goldhill, S., ‘Supplication and Editorial Comment in the Iliad: Iliad Z 61-2’, Hermes 118 (1990), 273-6Google Scholar; Crotty, K., The poetics of supplication: Homer’s Iliad and Odyssey (Ithaca, London, 1994)Google Scholar.
56. Segal 1971, 18-47. See also Griffin 1980, 44-6, for Eastern parallels and contrasts.
57. Threatened at 21. 27f., fulfilled at 23. 175f. Cf. G. Murray 1907 (ed. 4, 1934), ch. 5.
58. Achilles to Hector, 22. 346-7; cf. 4. 34-6, Zeus to Hera on her hatred for the Trojans; also 24. 212-13, Hecuba on Achilles. See Redfield 1975, 197-9; Griffin 1980, 20.
59. See Vermeule 1979, esp. 99-103; Parks, W., Verbal Dueling in Heroic Narrative: the Homeric and Old English Traditions (Princeton, 1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
60. A memorable essay by Weil, S., ‘The Iliad as a poem of force’ (originally 1953; Eng. tr. in Intimations of Christianity among the ancient Greeks (London, 1957), 24–55)Google Scholar emphasizes both the pity and the horror of Homeric warfare; the horror is more cheerfully accepted by Finley 1954 (2nd edn., 1978), 118, ‘The poet and his audience lingered lovingly over every act of slaughter’, and by Vermeule 1979, 84, 85, 96, 99, 114 (who speaks of’wit’ and ‘ballet’ in the battle-scenes).
61. E.g. 4. 473-89 (well discussed by Schein 1984, 73-6), 5.152-8 (the bereaved father), 11.241-7 (the bride left behind); more examples in Griffin 1980, ch. 4. For similes used to enhance the pathos of death see e.g. 8.306-7; Porter, D. H., ‘Violent juxtaposition in the similes of the Iliad ’, CJ 68 (1972), 11–21 Google Scholar.
62. On the shield see Schadewaldt 1944 (4th edn., 1965), 352-74; Reinhardt 1961, 401-11; Taplin, O., ‘The shield of Achilles within the Iliad ’, G&R 27 (1980), 1–21 Google Scholar. There has been much interest in the shield more recently among students of ecphrasis (the formal description of a work of art in literature); see now Becker, A. S., The Shield of Achilles and the Poetics of Ekphrasis (Maryland and London, 1995)Google Scholar, with earlier bibl.
63. It is misguided to lay too much stress on the phrases ‘unseemly acts’ and ‘harsh deeds’ (22.395, 23.24, 176), used to describe Achilles’ actions (as is done by e.g. Bowra 1930, 21, Segal 1971, 13); these phrases do not necessarily convey moral criticisms. See Griffin 1980, 85; Vermeule 1979, 234 n. 11; Hainsworth 1993, 49-50, Richardson 1993 ad loc.
64. See esp. Griffin 1980, chh. 5-6; Erbse 1986; Edwards 1987, ch. 17; Kirk 1990, 1-14; Janko 1992, 1-7. On religion more generally see above all Burkert, W., Greek Religion (Oxford, 1985)Google Scholar, and Bremmer, J. N., Greek Religion (G&R New Surveys 24, Oxford, 1994)Google Scholar. For illustrations of the gods in art see Simon, E., Die Götter der Griechen (Munich, 1969; 3rd edn., 1985)Google Scholar.
65. Hall 1989, 43-5.
66. Jörgensen, O., ‘Die Götter in ι-μ der Odyssee’, Hermes 39 (1904), 357-82Google Scholar.
67. Cf. the stories of Niobe (24. 602-9) and of Meleager’s father (9. 533-7); cf. Page 1973, 79-83; Weiler, L., Der Agon in Mythos (Darmstadt, 1974)Google Scholar.
68. On this case, and on prayers in Homer more generally, see Macleod 1982, 42; more bibl. in Reichel 1994, 73.
69. Rutherford 1982, 156-7, with other examples.
70. In general on Thetis’ role in the Iliad see Slatkin 1991.
71. 18. 117; 3. 243-4; iv. 561ff.; cf. xi. 299-304, on Castor and Pollux. See M. L. West on Hesiod, WD 166-7; Griffin 1977, 42.
72. Cf. xvii. 483-7; Kearns, E., ‘The Return of Odysseus: a Homeric Theoxeny’, CQ 32 (1982), 2–81 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Fox, R. Lane, Pagans and Christians (Harmondsworth, 1986), ch. 4 Google Scholar.
73. Burkert (n. 64), 119-25.
74. See esp. Lesky 1961; also Willcock, M. M., ‘Aspects of the gods of the Iliad ’, BICS 17 (1970), 1–10 Google Scholar = Wright 1978, 58-69.
75. As 3.164, Priam to Helen; 19.86 ff., Agamemnon’s apology; more outrageously, Paris at 3.439 (p. 85 below). See Dodds 1951, ch. 1; Hutchinson on Aesch. Seven 4-9; Taplin 1990, 75-7, and Edwards 1991, 245 ff. on 19. 85-138.
76. For one particularly complex case, Aphrodite and Helen in Iliad 3, see p. 83 below. Another in which psychic intervention is clearly involved, and which seems to involve some distortion of the mortal’s ‘natural’ reactions, is Athena’s prompting of Penelope to show herself to the suitors in Odyssey xviii, a controversial scene (see Rutherford 1992, 29-33).
77. Zeus invoked at oath-taking, 3.104, 276, 298ff., 320. See 3. 351-4 and 13. 625 (Menelaus) for Zeus Xeinios. The oath-breaker Pandarus is indeed killed shortly after his offence, though it is not clear whether this is to be seen as either divine or poetic justice: see A. Parry in M. Parry 1971, lvii n. 1; Taplin 1992, 104-9.
78. Cf. 18. 507-8; Hes. Th. 85-6 with West’s n.; WD 35f., 250-69.
79. 16. 458-61. In general, Greene, W. C., Moira: Fate, Good and Evil in Greek Thought (Harvard, 1944)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, Dietrich, B. C., Death, fate and the gods (London, 1965)Google Scholar, Burkert (n. 64), 129-30, Janko 1992, 4-7.
80. Jaeger, W., ‘Solons Eunomia’, SPAW (1926), xi 69–85 Google Scholar = Scripta Minora i (Rome, 1960), 315-35 = Five Essays (Montreal, 1966), 77-99, at 83 ff; Dodds 1951, 32-4, Lloyd-Jones 1971, 28-32, Fenik 1974, 208-30, Kullmann 1985.
81. Sharples, R., ‘“But why has my heart spoken with me thus?” Homeric decision-making’, G&R 30 (1983), 1–7 Google Scholar; S. Halliwell, ‘Traditional Greek Conceptions of Character’, in Pelling 1990, 32-59; Gaskin, R., ‘Do Homeric heroes make real decisions?’ CQ 40 (1990), 1–15 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
82. These and parallel speeches are discussed by B. Fenik, ‘Stylisation and Variety: four monologues in the Iliad’, in Fenik 1978, 68-90, and by Petersmann, G., ‘Die Entscheidungsmonologe in den Homerischen Epen’, GB 2 (1974), 147-69Google Scholar.
83. For bibliography on the relationship of Homer to tragedy see Reichel 1994, 11; ancient texts on the subject are gathered by Herington 1985, 213-15. Some of the connections are discussed in Rutherford 1982, but I would now lay less emphasis on the Aristotelian concept of tragic error (hamartia). Sea-ford 1994, 275-8, 338-44 stresses the differences between the genres.
84. On Hector see esp. Redfield 1975, 109ff; also Erbse, H., ‘Hektor in der Ilias’, in Kyklos (Fest. R: Keydell, Berlin, 1978), 1–19 Google Scholar = Ausgew. Schriften (Berlin, 1979), 1-18; Reichel 1994, 156 n. 1 (bibl.).
85. See further Lohmann, D., Die Andromache-Szenen in der Ilias (Hildesheim, 1988)Google Scholar.
86. The point is emphasized not only by the earlier series of exchanges with Polydamas, but also by the carefully planned contrast between this scene and the corresponding Trojan assembly in book 8 (note esp. 8. 542 = 18. 310). Cf. Rutherford 1985, 135.
87. There are of course set-backs, notably the episode in which Hector is wounded (14.402–522, 15. 262 ff), but this does not affect the overall pattern.
88. For the scholia see Richardson 1980,273-4. Moderns who use the term hubris (a word remarkably rare in the Iliad) are listed and criticized by Fisher, N. R. E., Hubris. A study in the values of honour and shame in ancient Greece (Warminster, 1992), 177-8Google Scholar (now the definitive treatment of this difficult term).
89. See also Schadewaldt 1944 (4th edn., 1965), 268-351.
90. On Achilles generally see the very full bibliography in Reichel 1994, 99 n. 1; also Zanker 1994.
91. Much rhetorical play is made with this phrase: see 1.91, 244, 412, 2. 82, 16.271 f., 23.891, etc.
92. This formulation can stand, even if the case for informality of command structure pressed by Taplin 1990 is accepted in full.
93. See further my remarks in 1982, 157-8, and context.
94. Schadewaldt 1944 (rev. 1965), 234-67; Griffin 1980, 163-4.
95. On Homeric rhetoric see Lohmann 1970, Latacz, J., ‘Zur Forschungsarbeit an den direkten Reden bei Homer’, Gräzer Beiträge 2 (1974), 395–422 Google Scholar, Rutherford 1992, 58-69.
96. The essential discussion is by Griffin 1986, developed in 1995; some criticism in Kirk 1990, 28-35. See also Lohmann 1970, esp. 236-45 on book 9; Martin 1989, important though vulnerable in some details.
97. Aeschylus’ Myrmidons seems to have been particularly important, see frr. 134-7 Radt; also Dover, K.J., Greek Homosexuality (London, 1978), 196–201 Google Scholar, Halperin, D. M., One Hundred Years of Homosexuality (London, 1990), 75–87 Google Scholar; Edwards on 18. 82. Homer avoids any suggestion of homosexuality: even the favour shown by Zeus to Ganymede is treated in asexual terms in the Iliad, despite reference to the young man’s beauty (5. 266, 20. 232-5).
98. Parry, A., ‘The language of Achilles’, TAPA 87 (1956), 1–7 Google Scholar = Kirk 1964, 48-54 = Parry 1989, 1-7, was seminal in this discussion; for specific criticism see Reeve, M. D., ‘The language of Achilles’ CQ 23 (1973), 193-5CrossRefGoogle Scholar, Lynn-George 1988, ch. 2 (esp. 93-101); and for development see e.g. Redfield 1975, 3-23, 103-6, Edwards 1987, 231-6, Martin 1989, ch. 4; Gill (n. 42 above), 46-7.
99. Edwards’ commentary is invaluable on book 19, which earlier treatments often underrated; also valuable is Taplin 1992, 203-18. On the importance of feasting together see Griffin 1980, 14-21, an excellent section.
100. For a different approach see Seaford 1994, 159-80, who lays much emphasis on the importance of ritual in re-integrating Achilles into the community.