Foley ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 58 (2018) 443–472 2018 Adam Foley A Partial Interlinear Translation of the Iliad from the Fifteenth Century Adam Foley N THE BIBLIOTECA NAZIONALE of Naples is a large manu- script of the scholia antiqua on Homer’s Iliad.1 The scholia end on f. 310v, after which follows a partial interlinear translation of the Iliad that has been unexplored by scholars. The translation covers the first two books of the Iliad. It dates to the middle decades of the fifteenth century (ca. 1425–1476) and seems to have offered a student in the initial stages of Greek acquisition an exercise for improving his understanding of the Iliad.2 The translation exercise was carried out in two phases.3 The 1 MS. Napes, Bibl.Naz. II D 45 (21.5 x 29 cm) probably derives from the fifteenth century and contains the scholia on ff. 2r–310v). For a description of the manuscript see P. Baffi, “Catalogus mss. Graecorum Bibliothecae Regiae Neapolitanae,” in J. A. Fabricius, Bibliotheca graeca V (Hamburg 1796), 783 no. 133, where it is attributed to the fourteenth century: “Scholia breviora, sive potius glossae in Homeri Iliadem. Cod. chart. saec. XIV”; F. Napolitano, M. L. Nardelli, and L. Tartaglia, “Manoscritti greci non compresi in cataloghi a stampa,” Quaderni della Biblioteca Nazionale di Napoli SER. IV 8 (1977) 11–32, here 19; L. Pernot, “La collection de manuscrits grecs de la maison Farnèse,” MEFR 91 (1979) 457–506, here 481, and “Le manuscrits grecs,” in Le Palais Farnèse I.2 (Rome 1981) 695 n.4; S. J. Voicu and S. D’Alisera, I.M.A.G.E.S. Index in manuscriptorum graecorum edita specimina (Rome 1981) 436; M. R. Formentin, Catalogus codicum graecorum Bibliothecae Nationalis Neapolitanae II (Rome 1995) 47–49. 2 For the date see the description of the codex in Formentin, Catalogus codicum graecorum 47–49. 3 Both translations seem to have been made independently of the manu- script and then inserted at a later date, because the text does not proceed in a linear manner. The first proceeds as follows: f. 312r-v = Il. 2.1–2, ff. 313r– 315v = Il. 2.102–236, f. 316r-v = Il. 2.395–449, f. 317r-v = Il. 2.29–63, f. 318r-v I 444 A PARTIAL INTERLINEAR TRANSLATION OF THE ILIAD ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 57 (2017) 443–472 first phase was a grammatical exercise that helped the student improve his understanding of Greek. In this phase, a sample of which is in the Appendix below, the student parsed every Greek word in the text from the first two books of the Iliad and wrote the Latin equivalent of each word in between the lines of the Greek text. He then equipped this translation and grammatical commentary with a series of marginal glosses, in which he ad- dresses textual and historical questions, for example, about the conjugation of certain Greek verbs or the peculiar features of animal sacrifice in Homeric times. In the second phase, a sample of which is in the Appendix, the student re-wrote the same portion of text as in the first, except this time he presented the text in a more elegant form without the grammatical commen- tary that suffocates the text in the first phase. From the second exercise it seems that the student wished to create something of a working copy of the Iliad to read in Greek at his leisure with the help of his own interlinear glosses in Latin. These two translation exercises belong to the initial period in the history of Homer’s reception in the Italian Renaissance. Leontius Pilatus (1310–1365) had produced an ad verbum Latin translation of both epics in the 1360s, which inspired a gen- eration of humanists to try their hand at a less literal rendering.4 Manuel Chrysoloras (ca. 1350–1415) arrived in Italy in the spring of 1397 and taught Greek to the first generation of Hel- lenists, while also inculcating in them a taste for literary transla- tion.5 As scholars have often noted, however, many translators = Il. 2.450–493, f. 319r-v = Il. 2.64–101, ff. 320r–322v = Il. 2.237–394, f. 323r‑v = blank, ff. 324r–329v = Il. 1.245–502. The second is organized: ff. 333r–335r = Il. 1.483–611, ff. 335r–355v = Il. 2.1–3.301. 4 For a now dated but useful and comprehensive overview see Agostino Pertusi, Leonzio Pilato fra Petrarca e Boccaccio: Le sue versioni omeriche negli autografi di Venezia e la cultura greca del primo umanesimo (Venice/Rome 1964); for a more recent study see Valeria Mangraviti, L’Odissea Marciana di Leonzio Pilato tra Boccaccio e Petrarca (Rome/Barcelona, 2016). 5 Antonio Rollo, “Problemi e prospettive della ricerca su Manuele Crisolora,” in R. Maisano and A. Rollo (eds.), Manuele Crisolora e il ritorno del greco in Occidente (Naples 2002) 31–85. ADAM FOLEY 445 ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 57 (2017) 443–472 after Chrysoloras contented themselves with re-working the literal translation of Pilatus.6 In 1964 Agostino Pertusi referred to such re-workings as retractationes. At first glance, the Naples translation seems to belong to this class of ‘translation.’ There are at least five such reworkings of Pilatus in the fifteenth cen- tury.7 Among them, Roberto Weiss had already drawn attention to a reworking of the Iliad completed around 1410 in a manu- script now in the Bodleian Library (Can.lat. 139), while Pertusi discovered an anonymous retractatio of Pilatus’ translation of the Odyssey dated to 1398 (Venice, Marc. XII 23 [3946]).8 One could argue that Pier Candido Decembrio’s translation of five books of the Iliad in the early 1440s (Milan, Ambros. D 112 inf.) also belongs to this category of ‘translation.’ There is also the anonymous retractatio of Pilatus’ Iliad completed for Cardinal Francesco Gonzaga in 1477 copied in one of the most splendid manuscripts of the century (Vat.gr. 1626).9 6 Robin Sowerby, “The Homeric ‘Versio Latina’,” ICS 21 (1996) 161–202, has demonstrated the influence of Pilatus on Latin translations all the way up to the late seventeenth century. 7 Pertusi identifies four, while I follow Ernst Ditt, “Pier Candido Decem- brio: Contributo alla storia dell’umanesimo italiano,” in MIL 24 (1931) 21– 108, here 28, who claimed that Decembrio’s translation was “la seconda edizione riveduta della traduzione del Pilato” and therefore another retractatio. See also Marianne Pade, “Leonzio Pilato e Boccaccio: le fonti del De mon- tibus e la cultura Greco-latina di Leonzio,” in Quaderni Petrarcheschi: Petrarch e il Mondo greco 12 (2002) 257–276, here 259, who identifies seven manuscripts of Pilato’s translation of the Iliad and thirteen of his Odyssey, of which the latest dates to 1527, in addition to the many retractationes made from them. 8 On f. 5r of the Bodleian MS. there is a colophon that reads “Apud montem libanum per me fratrem Andream Aligem de Reate anno salutis 1410”; for this MS. see Roberto Weiss, “An Unknown Fifteenth-Century Version of the Iliad,” The Bodleian Quarterly Record 7 (1934) 464. For the Marciana MS. see Ezio Franceschini and Agostino Pertusi: “Un’ignota Odissea latina dell’ ultimo trecento.” Aevum 33 (1959) 323–355, as well as Pertusi, Leonzio Pilato 531 ff. 9 Antonio Iacobini and Gennaro Toscano, “Illustrare Omero nell’Italia del Quattrocento: Sanvito, Rhosos e Gespare da Padova nell’Iliade vaticana,” in F. Flores d’Arcais and F. Crivello (eds.), Come nasce un manoscritto miniato: Scriptoria, tecniche, modelli e materiali (Modena 2010) 63–80. 446 A PARTIAL INTERLINEAR TRANSLATION OF THE ILIAD ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 57 (2017) 443–472 From the comparative analysis that follows, however, the precise relationship that the Naples translation has with these retractationes supports the conclusion that the translation of the Iliad at the end of the manuscript was an independent attempt on the part of a student in the beginning stages of Greek to translate Homer as a private exercise in Greek grammar and therefore bears no significant relation either to the scholia con- tained in the same manuscript or to any other Latin translation of Homer. There is some evidence that the student had various sources available, as his glosses seem at times indebted to, among others, Eustathius’ commentary on Homer and Hesychius’ glos- sary as well as scholia not contained in the same manuscript. As the folio pages were inserted in a haphazard manner at the end of this codex, it is probable that the translator never set eyes on the scholia contained therein. The first translation exercise The first exercise (ff. 312r–329v) includes the second half of the first book of the Iliad (1.245–502) and the first half of the second book (2.1–493). Without any literary pretensions, this initial sketch seems to have provided our translator with a means of learning the rudiments of Homeric Greek. First, the student wrote out the Greek text. Then he underlined each word as it appears in the Iliad. After each Greek word he then wrote de- clined forms of the same word, starting from the nominative singular and moving his way through the other forms, demon- strating how to derive the oblique form of the word as it is found in the text. For example, the first line of the second book of the Iliad reads as follows: Ἄλλοι µέν ῥα θεοί τε καὶ ἀνέρες ἱπποκορυσταὶ The rest of the gods and horse-marshalling men The translator underlined each word as it is found in the text, and then wrote out the declined forms in the space that follows (f. 312r): Ἄλλοι ὁ ἄλλος τοῦ ἄλλου ἡ ὀνοµαστικὴ τῶν πληθύντων οἱ ἄλλοι. µέν ῥα θεοί ὁ θεὸς τοῦ θεοῦ ἡ ὀνοµαστικὴ τῶν πληθύντων τε καὶ ἀνέρες ὁ ἀνὴρ τοῦ ἀνδρὸς καὶ ἄνδρες ἡ ὀνοµαστικὴ τῶν πληθύντων ADAM FOLEY 447 ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 57 (2017) 443–472 οἱ ἀνέρες καὶ ἄνδρες. ἱπποκορυσταὶ ὁ ἱπποκορυστὴς .στοῦ. ἡ ὀνο- µαστικὴ τῶν πληθύντων οἱ ἱπποκορισταὶ. Ἄλλοι. the other, of the other, nominative plural (is) the others. µέν ῥα θεοί. the god, of the god, present plural gods. τε καὶ ἀνέρες. the man, of the man and men, present plural men (ἀνέρες) and men (ἄνδρες). ἱπποκορυσταὶ. marshaller of chariots, of the marshaller, present plural marshaller of chariots. In addition to this rudimentary grammatical commentary, the student attempted to translate the Greek text into Latin. As can be seen from the sample of this first exercise in the Appendix, the student put the Latin equivalent of each word in between the lines of the Greek text. The initial two lines in the first phase of the student’s inter- linear translation read as follows: alii Ἄλλοι ὁ ἄλλος τοῦ ἄλλου ἡ ὀνοµαστικὴ τῶν πληθύντων οἱ ἄλλοι. quidem autem dei que et viri µέν ῥα θεοί ὁ θεὸς τοῦ θεοῦ ἡ ὀνοµαστικὴ τῶν πληθύντων τε καὶ ἀνέρες ὁ ἀνὴρ τοῦ ἀνδρὸς καὶ ἄνδρες ἡ ὀνοµαστικὴ τῶν πληθύντων οἱ ἀνέρες armigeres id est equos armantes καὶ ἄνδρες. ἱπποκορυσταὶ ὁ ἱπποκορυστὴς .στοῦ. ἡ ὀνοµαστικὴ τῶν dormiebant πληθύντων οἱ ἱπποκορυσταὶ. εὗδον εὕδω καὶ ὁ παρατατικὸς εὕδοντος nocturni id est tota nocte τῶν πληθύντων εὗδον. παννύχιοι ὁ παννύχιος .ου ἡ ὀνοµαστικὴ τῶν Jovem πληθύντων οἱ παννύχιοι. Δία ὁ Ζεὺς τοῦ Διὸς τῷ Διΐ τὸν Δία ἡ autem non habuit dulcis αἰτιατικὴ. δ’ οὐκ ἔχε ἔχω, ἔχον, ἔχες, ἔχε. νήδυµος ὁ νήδυµος .µου. sompnus ὕπνος ὕπνου. A few observations about the tendencies of this translator can be made from this brief passage alone. First is the tendency found in Pilatus’ translation of Homer and the earliest retractationes to translate every Greek particle, even those such as µέν (quidem) and ῥα (autem) that cannot be translated and therefore do not have a Latin equivalent. Second is his tendency to include two alternative renderings, as when for ἱπποκορυσταί he writes “armigeres id est equos armantes” or for παννύχιοι “nocturni, 448 A PARTIAL INTERLINEAR TRANSLATION OF THE ILIAD ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 57 (2017) 443–472 id est, tota nocte.” Third, the gloss “equos armantes” bears re- semblance to the reading ἵππους ὁπλίζοντες found in Hesychius’ glossary, which raises the question of the sources that the student had at his disposal.10 Before discussing the nature of this trans- lation and its relation to other translations of Homer from the early fifteenth century, a word on the second, more polished phase of translation is in order. The second translation exercise The second translation takes up ff. 333r–355v and includes Il. 1.483–611 and Il. 2.1–3.301. In this section the translator wrote out the Greek text without interruption and omitted all gram- matical commentary in Greek. The presentation therefore ap- pears simpler and more elegant than the first exercise. Unlike in the first sketch, the title of the second book is written in red ink: ἀρχὴ τῆς βῆτα Ὁµήρου ῥαψωδίας (“The beginning of Book Two of Homer”). Likewise, the traditional title of the ὑπόθεσις or argumentum to Book 2—Βῆτα δ’ὄνειρον ἔχει, ἀγορὴν καὶ νῆας ἀριθµεῖ (“Book 2 includes a dream, an assembly, and the cata- logue of ships”)—is written in red along with the initial letter of each book. This time the student included the Latin equivalent of some Greek words in between the lines but not all of them. The first four lines of the second book in this phase of his translation read as follows (f. 335r): utique nunc viri equites armati Ἄλλοι µέν ῥα θεοί τε καὶ ἀνέρες ἱπποκορυσταὶ dormiebant tota nocte Jovem non tenebat dulcis sompnus εὗδον παννύχιοι, Δία δ’ οὐκ ἔχε νήδυµος ὕπνος, sed hic Iupiter cogitabat secundum animum ut Achillem ἀλλ’ ὅ γε µερµήριζε κατὰ φρένα ὡς Ἀχιλῆα honoraret destrueret plures super navibus τιµήσῃ, ὀλέσῃ δὲ πολέας ἐπὶ νηυσὶν Ἀχαιῶν. From this comparison of the first and second phases of trans- lation, the most noticeable feature is a certain plasticity of word choice. The student seems to have always kept a variety of pos- sible translations open to consideration. For ἱπποκορυσταὶ he 10 Hesych. Ι 837 ἱπποκορυσταί· ἵππους ὁπλίζοντες/ἱππικοί. ADAM FOLEY 449 ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 57 (2017) 443–472 wrote “armigeres, id est, equos armantes” in the first translation, while in the second “equites armati.”11 The second noticeable feature is that the translator does not include the Latin equiva- lent of every Greek word in the second translation. This leniency on his part suggests that he was not aiming to produce a de- finitive translation of the Iliad with a fixed Latin text. Rather, it seems that these two translations were either a student exercise carried out in the classroom under the supervision of a Greek instructor or a private study done at home. In either case, they were probably intended to help the student improve his facility with the Greek language on the one hand while helping him to comprehend the Iliad better for private enjoyment on the other. Marginal glosses After finishing the grammatical commentary and interlinear translation in the first phase, the translator then equipped the text with a series of marginal glosses. A comparison of these glosses with the corresponding passages in the scholia help to determine whether he had recourse to the scholia contained in the same manuscript, and, if not, what other sources he may have had at his disposal. There are fourteen glosses, which can be organized loosely into two categories of exegesis: grammatical and historical-contextual. Of the fourteen there are an equal number in each category. These glosses can be further divided thematically according to the subject matter that attracted the commentator’s attention. The four major themes that dominate the marginal glosses are tmesis, which seems to have troubled our translator’s comprehension of the text, the ritual sacrifice of animals in antiquity, the speech of Achilles to Thetis (Il. 1.365– 412), and Homeric maritime vocabulary. Of these glosses, those pertaining to animal sacrifice are particularly helpful in de- termining whether the translator consulted the scholia contained in the same manuscript. 11 It should be noted that this, too, may be indebted to Hesychius or an intermediary source that included glosses from Hesychius, as the word equites seems to come from ἱππικοί. 450 A PARTIAL INTERLINEAR TRANSLATION OF THE ILIAD ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 57 (2017) 443–472 Historical contextual exegesis: animal sacrifice The student seems to have taken a keen interest in issues of animal sacrifice. Towards the end of the first book of the Iliad, the Achaians decide to offer a hecatomb to Apollo to appease his wrath and bring an end to the plague. Before Odysseus boards the ship, the text reads (1.309–310): ἐς δ’ ἑκατόµβην / βῆσε θεῷ (“He drove on board a hecatomb for the god”). Our commentator glosses the word ἑκατόµβη as follows (f. 325r): Est sacrificium centum bovum, scilicet, monetarum in quibus erat sculptus bos. ἑκατόµβη. [A hecatomb] is a sacrifice of a hundred oxen, that is, a hundred coins on which an ox is depicted, ἑκατόµβη. Thus the student proposes that the ancient Greeks substituted a hundred coins (monetae), on which the image of an ox was stamped, for a hundred oxen (boves) in the sacrifice of a heca- tomb. It is likely that for this interpretation the commentator drew on a scholium to Il. 2.449, which is not in the Naples manu- script:12 Hecatomb] worth the value of a hundred oxen or a hundred coins. For since the ancients regarded the ox as sacred, on one side of the coin they engraved an ox and on the other the face of the king. From this gloss it can be said with certainty that the translator had access to at least one other source for his interpretation of the Iliad.13 12 Genevensi gr. 44: ἑκατόµβοιος· ἑκατὸν βοῶν ἄξιος τιµῆς ἤτοι νοµισµάτων· οἱ γὰρ ἀρχαῖοι, ὑπερτιµῶντες τὸν βοῦν ὡς ἱερὸν, ἐνεχάραττον τῷ ἑνὶ µέρει τοῦ νοµίσµατος βοῦν, τῷ δὲ ἑτέρῳ τὸ τοῦ βασιλέως πρόσωπον. Cf. schol. Il. 2.449 (I 108 Dindorf): ἑκατόµβοιος· ἑκατὸν βοῶν τιµῆς ἄξιος, ἢ ἑκατόν χρυσῶν νοµισµάτων. οἱ γὰρ ἀρχαῖοι, ὑπερτιµῶντες τὸ ζῶον τὸν βοῦν, διὰ πολλὰ µὲν καὶ ἱερόν ἐστιν, ἐνεχάραττον τῷ µὲν ἑνὶ µέρει τοῦ νοµίσµατος βοῦν, τῷ δὲ ἑτέρῳ τὸ τοῦ βασίλεως πρόσωπον. 13 Cf. a similar gloss in the margins of Raffaelo Maffei’s translation of the first two books of the Iliad: in Vat.Capp. 169, f. 324r, at Il. 2.449 (πάντες ἐυ- πλεκέες, ἑκατόµβοιος δὲ ἕκαστος, translated: “adfabre stabant bubus quoque singula centum”) in the left margin is: “Monetae generis Athenis bovem habentis.” ADAM FOLEY 451 ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 57 (2017) 443–472 When the hecatomb is carried out the Achaians wash their hands, take up barley grains, and, after praying to Apollo, sprinkle them over the heads of the sacrificial victims. Il. 1.449 reads χερνίψαντο δ’ ἔπειτα καὶ οὐλοχύτας ἀνέλοντο (“Then they washed their hands and took up barley oats”). Next to this line the gloss reads (f. 328v): Nota quod primi homines faciebant sacrificium bovis cum glandinibus et post aliud tempus cum ordeo et illud vas in quo ponebatur ordeum vocabatur οὐλοχύτης et isto tempore etiam greci quando portant nove [sic] nuptas ad domum mariti emittunt super caput ordeum. Note that at first men used to make a sacrifice of an ox using kernels and after some time using barley and that the vessel in which the barley was placed was called an οὐλοχύτης, and that, also at that time, when the Greeks take newly wedded wives to the home of their husbands, they [i.e. the Greeks] sprinkle barley over her head. Here the commentator notes a transition in the ritual of animal sacrifice from the earlier use of small kernels (glandes) for sprinkling over the victims to the use of barley (ordeum).14 The word for barley oats in the text is οὐλοχύτας, a word found only in the plural, a compound of οὐλαί (“barley corns”) and the verb χέω (“to pour”). The commentator glosses the word in its non- existent singular form (οὐλοχύτης) and mistakes it for illud vas (“that vessel”) in which the barley oats were stored. He made this mistake either by inference from etymology (οὐλαί and χέω mean “to pour barley oats”) or because he mistook it for οὐλο- χοεῖον or οὐλοχόϊον which is a compound noun with the same derivation and according to Hesychius means “the vessel in which the sacred barley was kept.”15 For this reason in the inter- linear translation above the word οὐλοχύτας reads vas in quo erat sacrificium (“the vessel in which the sacrifice was kept”). 14 Cf. Eustath. Il. I 203.5–27 van der Valk: τοῦ βαλανηφαγεῖν καὶ τῆς τῶν δρυκάρπων ἀπαλλαγέντες τροφῆς εἰς ἥµερον βίον τὸν ἐκ τῶν σπορίµων µετέπεσον. 15 Hesych. Ο 1759 οὐλοχόϊον: ἀγγεῖον, εἰς ὃ αἱ ὀλαὶ ἐµβάλλονται πρὸς ἀπαρχὰς τῶν θυσιῶν. 452 A PARTIAL INTERLINEAR TRANSLATION OF THE ILIAD ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 57 (2017) 443–472 The translator’s possible use of the scholia: A different hand. The scholia antiqua contained in Naples II D 45 clearly derive from a date earlier than the interlinear Latin translation and commentary found at the end of the codex. The Greek scribe who wrote these scholia also annotated the text with a series of marginal glosses of a largely philological nature by inserting missing passages and linking them to the main body of the text using signs of cross-reference. To answer the question whether the student whose work is found at the end of this codex may have consulted the scholia while translating the Iliad, the first clue would be to find traces of a hand other than that of the original Greek scribe in the margins of the scholia. An even more secure indication would be the intervention of a Latin hand, particularly in that part of the scholia which treats those passages from the Iliad that the student translated. There are, in fact, traces of a hand other than that of the original Greek scribe and they occur in connection with scholia that, though they do not treat those verses of the Iliad that are translated at the end of the codex, occur early in Book 1. Three glosses in total are in a different hand than the original Greek scribe; two are in Greek and one in Latin.16 The one and only gloss in Latin in this codex of scholia occurs on f. 11v where the scholiast commented on Il. 1.63 (ἢ καὶ ὀνειροπόλον, καὶ γάρ τ’ ὄναρ ἐκ Διός ἐστιν). The Latin gloss, however, is not on the Iliad but on a line from the Odyssey quoted by the scholiast. The scholiast quotes Od. 19.563 (αἱ µὲν γὰρ κεράεσσι τετεύχαται, αἱ δ’ἐλέφαντι), where Penelope responds to Odysseus still in disguise as a beggar. She claims that dreams are difficult to interpret, and their meaning is never clear. There are two gates of shadowy dreams, says Penelope, one fashioned of horn (κεράεσσι) and the other of ivory (ἐλέφαντι). The scholiast quotes this line from the Odyssey when discussing Achil- les’ call in Iliad 1 to consult a seer or priest or some interpreter 16 These annotations are on f. 11v and 13r. The two in Greek consist in only the substitution of a letter such as ἀφέξει instead of ἐφέξει (f. 13r) and are therefore insignificant. ADAM FOLEY 453 ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 57 (2017) 443–472 of dreams to explain the causes of Apollo’s wrath. The scholiast writes that dreams come from Zeus for everything they say is true—there are two gates of shadowy dreams: “one is fashioned of horn and the other of ivory.” In the left-hand margin next to this quotation is written cornua, eburnea: porte somniorum (“of horn, of ivory: the gates of dreams”). Though this could indicate that the translator had consulted the scholia, this gloss does not seem to have been written by the same hand as the translator whose work was inserted at the end of this codex. Furthermore, as will be shown in the following section, there are indications that the translator consulted some scholia but not those contained in Naples II D 45. The translator’s word-choice Another method of determining whether the translator con- sulted the scholia contained in this codex is to examine the choice of words in his translation for parallels with the scholia. Il. 2.11–12 reads θωρῆξαί ἑ κέλευσε κάρη κοµόωντας Ἀχαιοὺς / πανσυδίῃ (“He ordered the flowing-haired Achaians to get armed with all speed”). These same two lines are then repeated at Il. 2.28–29. The adverb πανσυδίῃ (“with all speed”) is tricky and can be translated in several ways. The word comes from σεύω, “to put in quick motion, drive,” and in the middle voice “to run, rush, dart or shoot along.” With the addition of παν- as a prefix, it has come to mean “in all haste” or “with all speed.” However, there is another interpretation that takes the word to mean πανστρατιᾷ (“with the whole army”). In the ὑπόθεσις or argumentum to Book 2 on f. 41r of the scholia there is a gloss on the meaning of this word: πανσυδίῃ, ὁ ἐστὶ σὺν πάσῃ στρατιᾷ (“πανσυδίῃ, that is, with the whole army”). When we turn to the back of the codex we find this ambiguity reflected in both translation exercises. The word πανσυδίῃ oc- curs twice, at Il. 2.12 and 2.29. The student worked through these passages in both translation exercises, which means that we can see how he translated it on four separate occasions. The first is at Il. 2.12 (f. 312r): 454 A PARTIAL INTERLINEAR TRANSLATION OF THE ILIAD ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 57 (2017) 443–472 simul omnes ad verbum est vel toti exercitus precipitatus πανσυδίῃ Here the translator offers three possible meanings of the word, distinguishing between the ad verbum sense and its other more metaphorical meanings. In the literal sense it means simul omnes (“all at once”), but it can also mean toti exercitus (“of the whole army”), and finally precipitatus (“headlong” or “precipitately”). The words toti exercitus seem to be a translation of σὺν πάσῃ στρατιᾷ (“with the whole army”) found at f. 41r of the scholia and therefore could offer an indication that the translator did in fact consult the scholia in this codex for his translation. Yet when he encountered the word again at Il. 2.29 he offered only one reading, the “ad verbum” translation omnes simul (“all at once”). This preference for the literal meaning of πανσυδίῃ in his first translation exercise may reflect the intentions that the student had in this phase of the project. The first phase, as was noted above, was a grammatical exercise intended to help the student learn the basics of Homeric Greek. At this stage a literal translation would have been more useful as he was interested only in the grammatical forms of each word and their primary, not their secondary, meanings. This may also explain why in the second, more polished translation exercise he abandoned the ad verbum rendering and in both instances chose toti exercitus. At this point it is useful to compare the readings contained in the Naples MS. with other early humanist translations of the Iliad. The first Latin translation of the Iliad since antiquity was that of Leontius Pilatus in the 1360s (PIL.). His ad verbum rendering was initially an interlinear translation quite like that found in Naples II D 45 but was later copied out into an all-Latin codex and circulated independently of the Greek text. It eventually formed the basis of many different Latin versions of Homer, which Agostino Pertusi has called retractationes of Pilatus. One such retractatio is in the Bodleian Library (BODL.). Another is Pier Candido Decembrio’s (DEC.) translation of five books of the Iliad in a manuscript at the Biblioteca Ambrosiana. Finally, there is the anonymous re-working of Pilatus in Vat.gr. 1626 (VAT.): ADAM FOLEY 455 ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 57 (2017) 443–472 HOMER: πανσυδίῃ NAP. 1: omnes simul ad verbum est vel toti exercitus / precipitatus NAP. 2.: toti exercitus PIL.: totaliter BODL.: cum toto exercitu DEC.: passim VAT.: cum toto exercitu From this comparison we can identify four clusters of meaning for the word πανσυδίῃ. The first meaning signifies the simul- taneity of the action and is conveyed in the words omnes simul and totaliter (NAP. 1, PIL.). The second includes the idea of an army, as in toti exercitus and cum toto exercitu (NAP. 1, NAP. 2, BODL., VAT.). The third—precipitatus (NAP. 1)—has more to do with the speed of the motion. The fourth conveys the diffusion of that motion as we see in passim (DEC.). Of these readings, that contained in the Bodleian manuscript exhibits the greatest similarity with the reading toti exercitus. In fact, the words cum toto exercitu seem to be an exact translation of σὺν πάσῃ στρατιᾷ. This fact alone indicates that this reading could be found in other sources and therefore our translator did not necessarily have to consult the scholia in Naples II D 45 for his understanding of πανσυδίῃ. Despite the marginal gloss in Latin at f. 41r (cornua, eburnea: porte somniorum) and despite the cor- respondence between σὺν πάσῃ στρατιᾷ and toti exercitus, the evidence for the translator’s dependence on the scholia con- tained in this manuscript is in fact minimal. When we compare some of the marginal glosses examined above to the corresponding passages in the scholia, we in fact find nothing in common between them. For example, the trans- lator glosses the word ἑκατόµβη as a “sacrificium monetarum in quibus erat sculptus bos.” The Naples MS. scholium on this line (Il. 1.309) simply reads: ἐς δ’ἑκατόµβην· εἰς αὐτὴν δὲ καὶ τελείαν θυσίαν (“on (the ship) a hecatomb: on it a complete sacrifice”). Here nothing suggests the idea that a hecatomb consisted of a hundred coins each stamped with the image of an ox. As we saw above, the translator also interpreted οὐλοχύται rather oddly as “illud vas in quo ponebatur ordeum” or “vas in quo erat sacrificium.” The scholium on this line (Il. 1.449) reads 456 A PARTIAL INTERLINEAR TRANSLATION OF THE ILIAD ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 57 (2017) 443–472 (f. 33): οὐλοχύτας· Οὐλάς. Εἰσὶ δὲ κριθαί µετὰ ἁλῶν µεµιγµέναι, ἃς ἐπέχεον τοῖς ἱερουργουµένοις ζώοις πρὸ τοῦ θύεσθαι ἤτοι πολύ- πληθείας χάριν ἢ µνήµην ποιούµενοι τῆς ἀρχαίας βρώσεως. οὐλοχύτας] Barley oats. They are barley corns mixed together with others that they used to pour over the victims offered before the sacrifice either in giving thanks on account of great abun- dance or in remembrance of the old manner of eating/old diet . The scholiast then cites Theophrastus’ On Discoveries,17 where he claims that “before men learned how to grind Demeter’s fruit, they ate the barley groats intact”: Ὡς γάρ φησι Θεόφραστος ἐν τῷ περὶ εὑρηµάτων, πρὶν ἢ µάθωσιν οἱ ἄνθρωποι ἁλεῖν τὸν Δηµητριακὸν καρπόν, οὕτω σώας αὐτὰς ἥσθιον, ὅθεν οὐλὰς αὐτάς φησιν ὁ Ποιητής. Here there is nothing about the vessel in which the barley was stored or the practice of throwing barley corns over the head of a newly wedded wife. From these examples alone, it can be con- cluded with a fair amount of certainty that our translator did not in fact consult the scholia contained in this manuscript when doing the two translation exercises found at the end of the codex. Rather, it seems that he had other sources available, including the glossary of Hesychius and the commentary of Eustathius. Possible correspondences with other translations of Homer At this point it has been shown that the student probably did not consult the scholia contained in the same codex. If he did there is little evidence of influence especially on his interpreta- tions of the ritual sacrifice of animals, for which he drew on different scholia. This negative evidence raises the question of what sources he did consult. It is possible that the translator had at his disposal one of the other early ad verbum translations of the Iliad from the late fourteenth and early fifteenth centuries. The comparison above between our translator’s rendering of the word πανσυδίῃ and that of Pilatus, the retractatio at the Bodleian, and Pier Candido Decembrio showed that the Bodleian and the Naples manuscripts were the only ones to interpret this word in 17 Text 730.3–5 Fortenbaugh/Gutas. ADAM FOLEY 457 ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 57 (2017) 443–472 the military context as either toti exercitus or cum toto exercitu. This agreement between the two manuscripts invites us to investigate this question of dependence further.18 Of the other four early humanist translations of Homer completed by Pilatus, Decembrio, the translator of the Bodleian manuscript, and the anonymous Vatican translation, the partial interlinear translation at Naples has the most in common with the Bodleian manuscript. This is not to say that there is any dependence of one on the other, or even on a third source in common, but only that the question of textual dependence is worth pursuing. Agreement between Naples and Bodleian: epithets, adjectives, and adverbs The dutiful rendering of every word was a staple of the earliest phase of humanist translations of Homer, which, from the middle of the 1360s to the 1430s did not move beyond a word- for-word rendering. It was not until the 1430s that translators such as Leonardo Bruni (1370–1444) drew inspiration from ancient models of translation and broke away from the literalist tendency.19 Often mistaking adjectives for heroic epithets, Bruni omitted many of them from his translation believing that they were irrelevant. Ancient Roman authors who translated por- tions of the Iliad often did the same, preferring to convey the sense of the epithet indirectly through the connotations of the other words that make up the line. Ausonius (ca. 310–ca. 395), for example, translated the first few lines of the second book of the Iliad in his Periochae. There he rendered the adjective παν- νύχιοι (“all night long”) as tranquilla obscuri munera somni (“the tranquil gifts of dark slumber”).20 When the same adjective 18 In the analysis that follows I consult the following manuscripts without indicating the folio page in each instance: Paris, Bibl.Nat. 7880.1; Milan, Ambros. D 12 inf.; Naples, Bibl.Naz. II D 45; Oxford, Bodleian Library, Can. lat. 139. 19 For an edition and commentary see Peter Thiermann, Die Orationes Homeri des Leonardo Bruni Aretino (Mnemosyne Suppl. 126 [1993]). 20 R. P. H. Green, The Works of Ausonius (Oxford 1991) 679; cf. Ov. Trist. 3.185 placidi carpebant munera somni. 458 A PARTIAL INTERLINEAR TRANSLATION OF THE ILIAD ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 57 (2017) 443–472 occurs again at Il. 10.1–2, Ausonius translated it cetera somno sopita iacebat turba ducum (“the rest of the commanders lay lulled to sleep”).21 No such poetry can be found in the earliest literal translations of Homer in the Renaissance. When our translator encountered the same adjective παννύ- χιοι at Il. 2.2 both he and the translator of the Bodleian man- uscript rendered it with the adjective nocturni, whereas Pilatus preferred to use the temporal expression tota nocte: HOMER: παννύχιοι NAP. 1: nocturni / tota nocte NAP. 2: tota nocte PIL.: tota nocte BODL.: nocturni DEC.: nocturni VAT. per τotam noctem In both cases there is an attempt to render a discrete unit of meaning (παννύχιοι) in one language with the equivalent in another language (nocturni). Rather than diffusing the sense of “all night long,” as Ausonius had done, through the connota- tions of the other words in the line or simply omitting the word altogether as was Bruni’s tendency, these early translators dili- gently conveyed each word as a discrete packet of meaning. When the epithet “swift” (θοαί) is applied to ships at Il. 2.8 the translators of the Naples, Bodleian, and Vatican manuscripts render it as veloces, while Pilatus and Decembrio preferred citas: HOMER: θοὰς NAP. 1: veloces NAP. 2: PIL.: citas BODL.: veloces DEC.: citas VAT.: veloces The ancient Roman translator of Homer, Gnaeus Matius, pro- vides a counter-example to this literal tendency. Applying a tech- nique similar to that of Ausonius above, Matius rendered the same word θοῇ at Il. 12.463 as follows:22 21 Green, The Works of Ausonius 682. 22 Fr.4.1 Courtney, quoted by Priscian Inst.gram., II 334 Keil; cf. Ilias Latina 794 aduolat interea, Danaum metus, impiger Hector, and 413 celer aduolat. ADAM FOLEY 459 ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 57 (2017) 443–472 ὃ δ’ ἄρ’ ἔσθορε φαίδιµος Ἕκτωρ νυκτὶ θοῇ ἀτάλαντος ὑπώπια· Celerissimus advolat Hector Here the translation does not make sense without the hemistych that precedes it. Like Ausonius, Matius conveys νυκτὶ θοῇ (“swift night”) by transferring the swiftness from night to Hector using the verb advolat, while conveying the epithet φαίδιµος with celeris- simus.23 When we compare this with the translation of Lorenzo Valla (1407–1457), we find a much more prosaic volucri nocti.24 This tendency poses a considerable contrast with the verse ren- dering by Niccolò Della Valle (1444–1473) of Il. 24.1, where he uses a technique of transference similar to that of Ausonius and Matius. Here he renders θοὰς ἐπὶ νῆας as ad naves festinat— instead of “to the swift ships” we have “swiftly to the ships.”25 The translator of the Naples and the Bodleian manuscripts also agreed in part on the meaning of the adverb ἀτρεκέως. Whereas Pilatus and Decembrio translated it as palam, and in the margin of his copy of Pilatus’ translation Petrarch glossed it as clare,26 the Bodleian translator rendered it as vere and the Naples translator as veriter or veraciter. HOMER: ἀτρεκέως NAP. 1: veriter NAP. 2: veraciter PIL.: palam / clare BODL.: vere DEC.: palam VAT.: valde congrue When we compare this to the translation done by the ancient Roman author Livius Andronicus (ca. 284–ca. 205 BCE), we 23 Cf. Edward Courtney, The Fragmentary Latin Poets (Oxford 1993) 101: θοῇ corresponds to Matius’ advolat, and celerissimus does not come from the syn- tactically equivalent φαίδιµος but rather from θοῇ. 24 Vat.lat. 1567, f. 75v [f.77v]. 25 Florence, Bibl.Riccard. 741, f. 148v. 26 For Petrarch’s gloss, see Paris, Bibl.Nat. 7880.1, f. 10v: in the right-hand margin next to the line Omnia valde palam contionaberis ut precipio (Il. 2.10) Petrarch wrote “clare: sine solitis ambagibus.” 460 A PARTIAL INTERLINEAR TRANSLATION OF THE ILIAD ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 57 (2017) 443–472 find a very different interpretation. Rendering Od. 1.169 he translated ἀτρεκέως as disertim:27 ἀλλ’ ἄγε µοι τόδε εἰπὲ καὶ ἀτρεκέως κατάλεξον tuque mihi narrato omnia disertim. Though Pilatus translated ἀτρεκέως as palam at this line in his translation of the Odyssey, he chose veraciter along with the Naples and the Bodleian manuscripts (“sed eya michi hoc dic, et vera- citer narra”), while Francesco Griffolini in his prose rendering of the same simply omitted it altogether (“sed age dic, oro”).28 In addition to the examples discussed above, there are many more instances of harmony between the Naples and the Bod- leian manuscripts in the rendering of epithets, adjectives, and adverbs. One particularly striking example is their translation of οὖλον as perniciosum in contrast to Pilatus’ and Decembrio’s quite anomalous dulcem or dulce. Likewise, the translators of the Naples and the Bodleian manuscripts agreed on the epithet πτερόεντα as velocia, while Pilatus preferred pennosa and Decembrio the more poetic per inane volantibus. For the adjective δαΐφρονος we find prudentis or habentis bellicosam scientiam in the Naples manu- script, and prudentis in the Bodleian translation, while Pilatus translated it as scientifici and Decembrio as prudentis ac bellicosi. What the analysis of these correspondences demonstrates is that the translator of the Naples manuscript belonged to the first phase of ad verbum humanist translations of Homer in the early fifteenth century. This phase in the translation differed both from ancient techniques of translation, exemplified by Ausonius, Matius, and Livius Andronicus, as well as later oratorical and poetic modes of translation found in the works of Bruni, Niccolò Della Valle, and Francesco Griffolini, and therefore forms a distinct period in the history of Homer’s reception in the Renais- sance. However, the evidence of harmony between the Naples manuscript and other retractationes is not strong enough to infer 27 Fr.7 Warmington, quoted by Nonius Marc. (De comp.doctr. II 819 Lindsay). 28 Bernd Schneider and Christina Meckelnborg, Odyssea Homeri a Francisco Griffolino Aretino in Latinum translata (Leiden 2011) 62. ADAM FOLEY 461 ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 57 (2017) 443–472 anything more than the coincidental correspondence between certain words and phrases. Divergence between Naples and the other retractationes: verbs and participles The samples provided in the Appendix show enough diver- gencies from other re-workings of Pilatus to warrant the claim that these translations were made independently of the others. Though there is greater agreement in general between the Naples and the Bodleian manuscripts than there is between either manuscript and the translations of Pilatus and Decembrio, the number of divergences outnumber those of agreement by about ten. These divergences are equally important for our understanding of the Naples translation and shed light on the translator’s sources, technique, and understanding of Greek. The greatest number of divergencies can be found in the rendering of verbs and participles. In some instances, the Naples translation exhibits more in common with Pilatus and Decem- brio than with the Bodleian translation. For example, the Naples translator chose to render αἱρήσοµεν with either capere or de- struere, while the Bodleian translator preferred the nonsensical accipere: HOMER: ἕλοι NAP. 1: capiet / destruet NAP. 2: caperet / destrueret PIL.: capiet BODL.: accipiet DED.: capiet VAT.: expugnabit When we compare Cicero’s translation of the same verb (αἱρήσοµεν) in Odysseus’ speech at Il. 2.329, we find a com- pletely different approach (Div. 2.64): τῷ δεκάτῳ δὲ πόλιν αἱρήσοµεν εὐρυάγυιαν quae decumo cadet et poena satiabit Achivos Instead of maintaining the same person and number (“We will capture”), Cicero switches to the third person and, along with it, changes the subject of the verb (“The city will fall”). He thus rearranges the entire syntax of the line, translating it, as he 462 A PARTIAL INTERLINEAR TRANSLATION OF THE ILIAD ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 57 (2017) 443–472 claimed, not as an interpres but as an orator.29 Not even Valla does this in his rendering of the same line. Rather, he maintains the same syntax as the Greek (“decimoque anno urbem expugnatam evertemus”).30 In fact, neither Janus Pannonius (“expugnabi- mus”) nor Angelo Poliziano (“expugnabimus”) departs from the syntax of the Greek line as Cicero had recommended, and therefore both remain much closer to the ad verbum tendency than they would have liked to admit.31 The only one to have departed from Greek syntax was Raffaele Volteranno (1451– 1522), who translated the line “At decimo nostris tandem ex- pugnabitur armis.”32 Finally, the verb προσφωνεῖν (“to address”: Il. 2.22) provides a point of divergence between all four translations. The Naples translator mistook it for vocare (“to call”), while Pilatus translated it erroneously as vociferare (“to cry out”) and Decembrio as fari (“to say”): HOMER: προσεφώνεε NAP. 1: vocabat NAP. 2: vocabat PIL.: vociferabat BODL.: alloquutus fuit DEC.: fatur VAT.: allocutus est Only the Bodleian and Vatican versions give a correct transla- tion. Decembrio was in the habit of translating the formulaic ὣς ἔφατο using the sic fatus formula found in Vergil, Lucan, and Statius, and seems here to have believed that προσφωνεῖν meant the same thing. Ausonius likewise rendered προσέφη as fatur (Il. 9.1) and Bruni translated it as locutus est (Il. 9.307).33 29 For an overview of Cicero’s theory of “oratorical” translation see Sio- bhán McElduff, “Living at the Level of the Word: Cicero’s Rejection of the Interpreter as Translator,” Translation Studies 2 (2009) 133–146. 30 Vat.lat. 1567, f. 9r. 31 For Pannonius’ translation of Nestor’s speech in the first book of the Iliad entitled “Calchantis de excidio Troiai,” see Sevilla, Bibl.Colombia y Capitular, 7-1-15, f. 104r; for Poliziano’s translation of the same see Vat.lat. 3298, f. 8v. 32 Vat.Capp. 169, f. 322r-v. 33 Green, The Works of Ausonius 689; Thiermann, Die Orationes Homeri 82. ADAM FOLEY 463 ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 57 (2017) 443–472 Conclusion What the foregoing analysis demonstrates is that sometime in the early to middle decades of the fifteenth century (c. 1425– 1476) a student of Greek took up the task of reading Homer’s Iliad. He made it at least as far as the first two books with the intention of proceeding further, but in all likelihood his reading came to an end around Il. 2.449. His study of the Iliad developed in two phases. In the first phase he wrote out the Greek text, surrounding each word in an elementary grammatical com- mentary, while writing a Latin translation in between the lines. In the second phase he copied the same portion of text without interruption, intending to create a more readable version of the Iliad with his own interlinear Latin translation. Both phases of the translation exercise are characterized by a certain plasticity of word choice, such that it is quite likely the text was meant for private use rather than official presentation. The marginal glosses that accompany the first phase of the student’s project were therefore probably intended for his eyes only. Some of these glosses, particularly those regarding animal sacrifice, pre- sent readings that diverge enough from the scholia contained in the same manuscript that it is likely that the translator relied on a different source altogether. Furthermore, the confusing organi- zation of the folio pages at the end of Naples II D 45 suggests that they were inserted in a hasty manner after the fact without having any connection with the scholia contained in the same manuscript. When we compare the translation to other ad verbum trans- lations from the early fifteenth century, we find similarities only in the word-for-word procedure but not in content. Those correspondences that can be detected between the Naples and the Bodleian manuscripts result rather from the fact that the ad verbum method constrains the translator to a small number of choices for each word. When there are only so many distinct Latin terms that could possibly be used to render a particular Greek word, there is bound to be some consensus among other- wise unrelated literal translations. It is therefore likely that this translation was carried out independently of the other ad verbum 464 A PARTIAL INTERLINEAR TRANSLATION OF THE ILIAD ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 57 (2017) 443–472 translations of Homer completed by Leontius Pilatus, Pier Can- dido Decembrio, the translator of the Bodleian manuscript, and the anonymous retractatio at the Vatican Library. What this study has not answered, however, is the more pressing question of attribution. Unfortunately, from the information contained in this manuscript it is impossible at this point to venture a guess at who the translator may have been. We must therefore await a future study that will put us on better footing in this regard. APPENDIX: Iliad 2.1 ff. First Translation Exercise vita autem sompnium habet congregationem et naves numerat 312r Βῆτα δ’ ὄνειρον ἔχει. ἀγορὴν. καὶ νῆας ἀριθµεῖ alii 1Ἄλλοι ὁ ἄλλος τοῦ ἄλλου ἡ ὀνοµαστικὴ τῶν πληθύντων οἱ ἄλλοι. quidem autem dei que et viri µέν ῥα θεοί ὁ θεὸς τοῦ θεοῦ ἡ ὀνοµαστικὴ τῶν πληθύντων τε καὶ ἀνέρες ὁ ἀνὴρ τοῦ ἀνδρὸς καὶ ἄνδρες ἡ ὀνοµαστικὴ τῶν πληθύντων οἱ ἀνέρες armigeres id est equos armantes καὶ ἄνδρες. ἱπποκορυσταὶ ὁ ἱπποκορυστὴς .στοῦ. ἡ ὀνοµαστικὴ τῶν dormiebant πληθύντων οἱ ἱπποκορυσταὶ. 2εὗδον εὕδω καὶ ὁ παρατατικὸς εὕδοντος nocturni id est tota nocte τῶν πληθύντων εὗδον. παννύχιοι ὁ παννύχιος .ου ἡ ὀνοµαστικὴ τῶν Jovem πληθύντων οἱ παννύχιοι. Δία ὁ Ζεὺς τοῦ Διὸς τῷ Διΐ τὸν Δία ἡ αἰτιατικὴ. autem non habuit dulcis sompnus δ’ οὐκ ἔχε ἔχω, ἔχον, ἔχες, ἔχε. νήδυµος ὁ νήδυµος .µου. ὕπνος ὕπνου. sed hic 3Ἀλλ’ ὅ γε τοῦ γε. ἀντωνυµία µερµήριζε µερµηρίζω ὁ παρατατικὸς id est in mentem ἐµερµήριζον .ζες .ζε. κατὰ φρένα ἡ φρὴν τῆς φρενὸς τῇ φρενὶ τὴν φρενὰ ut Achillem honoraret ὡς Ἀχιλῆα ὁ Ἀχιλεὺς τοῦ Ἀχιλέως τὸν Ἀχιλῆα 4τιµήσῃ τιµάω. ὑποτακτικὸν destrueret autem multos ἐὰν τιµήσω .σης .ση. ὀλέσῃ ὀλέσω. ἐὰν ὀλέσω .σης . ση. δὲ πολέας ὁ super navibus πολὺς τοῦ πολλοῦ ἐπὶ νηυσὶν ἡ ναῦς τῆς νηὸς ἡ δοτικὴ ταῖς ναυσὶ καὶ grecorum hec autem sibi in animam optimum νηυσὶ Ἀχαιῶν 5ἧδε τῆσδε δέ οἱ ὅς οὗ οἵ κατὰ θυµὸν ὁ θυµὸς .µοῦ ἀρίστη aparebat consilium .στης φαίνετο φαίνοµαι ὁ παρατατικὸς ἐφαινόµην .νου ἐφαίνετο βουλή mittare super atride .ης 6πέµψαι ἐπ’ Ἀτρεΐδῃ ὁ Ἀτρείδης .δου .δῃ Ἀγαµέµνονι ὁ Ἀγαµέµνων ADAM FOLEY 465 ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 57 (2017) 443–472 pernitiosum sompnium Ἀγαµέµνονος .vi. οὖλον .οὖλος .ου ὄνειρον ὁ ὄνειρος .ρου .ρῳ .ον et ipsum vocans verba 7καί µιν φωνήσας τοῦ φωνήσαντος ἔπεα τὸ ἔπος τοῦ ἔπεος ἡ ὀνοµαστικὴ alata et velocia τῶν πληθύντων τὰ ἔπεα πτερόεντα τὸ πτερόεν τοῦ πτερόεντος ἡ dicebat ὀνοµαστικὴ τῶν πληθύντων τὰ πτερόεντα προσηύδα προσαυδάω ὁ -ουν -ας -α vade παρατατικὸς προσηύδαον προσηύδαες προσηύδαε 8βάσκ’ βάσκω. i pernitiosum προστακτικὸν βάσκε βασκέτω. ἴθι προστακτικὸν ἴθι ἴτω οὖλε ὁ οὖλος o sompnium veloces τοῦ οὔλου ἡ κλητικὴ ὦ οὖλε ὄνειρε ὁ ὄνειρος .ρου θοὰς ἡ θοὴ .ῆς super naves grecorum veniens ad tentorium ἐπὶ νῆας Ἀχαιῶν ὁ 9ἐλθὼν τοῦ ἔλθοντος ἐς κλισίην ἡ κλισίη .ης omnia valde Ἀγαµέµνονος Ἀτρεΐδαο ἀτρείδης .δου 10πάντα τὸ πᾶν τοῦ παντὸς µάλα veriter dicere ἀτρεκέως ἀγορευέµεν ἀγορεύω .εύεις .εύει. καὶ τὸ ἀπαρέµφατον ut iubeo ἀγορεύειν καὶ ποιητικὼς ἀγορευέµεν ὡς ἐπιτέλλω .λλεις .λλει armare ipsum precipe 11θωρῆξαί ἀπαρέµφατον ἑ κέλευε κελευάτω προστατικὸν capita ornantes scilicet pulchros καρηκοµόωντας ὁ καρηκοµόων τοῦ καρηκοµόοντος. ἡ αἰτιατικὴ τῶν grecos πληθύντων τοὺς καρηκοµόωντας. Ἀχαιοὺς simul omnes ad verbum est vel toti exercitus precipitatus nunc enim coniunctio est capiet pro destruet 12πανσυδίῃ νῦν γάρ κεν ἕλοι ἕλω. εὐκτικὸν ἕλοι. civitatem platas vias habentem ἕλοις. ἕλοι πόλιν ἡ πόλις. τῆς πόλεως εὐρυάγυιαν ἡ εὐρυάγυια .ας troianorum non enim amplius dupliciter celestes 13Τρώων ὁ τρὼς τοῦ τρωὸς οὐ γὰρ ἔτι ἀµφὶς ὀλύµπια τὸ ὀλύµπιον .ου domos habentes δώµατ’ τὸ δῶµα τοῦ δώµατος ἔχοντες ὁ ἔχων τοῦ ἔχοντος οἱ ἔχοντες immortales intellexunt vel consulant 14ἀθάνατοι ὁ ἀθάνατος .του φράζονται φράζοµαι τὸ γʹ τῶν πληθύντων persuasit id est fecit declinare 312v φράζονται ἐπέγναµψεν ἐπιγνάµπτω ὁ µέλλων ἐπιγνάµψω ὁ ἀόριστος omnes Juno observans troianis autem ἐπέγναµψα .ψας .ψεν ἅπαντας 15Ἥρη .ρης. λισσοµένη .νης. Τρώεσσι δὲ estus suspense sunt κήδεα τὸ κῆδος τοῦ κήδεος ἐφῆπται. ἐφάπτοµαι. ὁ παρακείµενος ἐφῆµαι sic dixerat pro sic fatus est ἐφῆψαι ἐφῆπται. 16Ὣς φάτο. φῆµι. ὁ µέσος ἀόριστος ἐφάµην ἔφασο ἔφατο 466 A PARTIAL INTERLINEAR TRANSLATION OF THE ILIAD ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 57 (2017) 443–472 ivit autem sompnus καὶ φάτο. βῆ βῶ ὁ β́ ἀόριστος ἔβην ἔβης ἔβη καὶ βῆ. δ’ ἄρα ὄνειρος enim pro postquam sermonem pro verbum audivit id est audiverat ἐπεὶ τὸν µῦθον ὁ µῦθος .θοῦ ἄκουσε ἀκούω ὁ ἀόριστος mox veniebat ἤκουσα .σας. σε. 17καρπαλίµως δ’ ἵκανε ἱκάνω. ὁ παρατατικὸς ἵκανον. veloces super naves grecorum iverat νες. ἵκανε. θοὰς¨ἐπὶ νῆας Ἀχαιῶν, 18βῆ ἀόριστος ἔβην. βης. βῆ. super Atriden hunc invenerat δ’ ἄρ’ ἐπ’ Ἀτρεΐδην Ἀγαµέµνονα· τὸν δὲ ἐκίχανε κιχάνω ὁ β́ἀόριστος dormientem in tentorio circum ἐκίχανον. ες. νε. 19εὕδοντα. ὁ εὕδων. τοῦ εὕδοντος. ἐν κλισίῃ, περὶ δ’ divinus effusus est ἀµβρόσιος .ου. κέχυθ’ χέοµαι. παρατατικὸς ἐχεχύµην .σο. κέχυτο .ες. sompnius staterat ὕπνος. ὕπνου. 20στῆ ὁ ἀόριστος ἔστην ἔστης καὶ στῆ. super caput Neleus δ’ ἄρ’ ὑπὲρ κεφαλῆς ἡ κεφαλὴ .λῆς. Νηληΐῳ ὁ Νηλήïος .ου. filio similians υἷι ὁ ὑιεύς, ὑιέος, ὑιεῖ καὶ υἷι. ἐοικώς τοῦ ἐοικότος quidem maxime senum 21Νέστορι ὁ Νέστωρ, τοῦ Νέστορος. τόν ῥα µάλιστα γερόντων ὁ γέρων, τοῦ γέροντος, ἡ γενετικὴ τῶν πληθύντων τῶν γερόντων. honorabat 22τῖ’ τίω. ὁ παρατατικὸς ἔτιον, ἔτιες, ἔτιε καὶ τίε. Ἀγαµέµνων· cui ipsum simulatus vocabat τῷ µιν ἐεισάµενος .νου. προσεφώνεε προσφωνέω. ὁ παρατατικὸς divinum προσεφώνεον (-ουν), προσεφώνεες (-εις), προσεφώνεε (-εεν). ὁ θεῖος .ου. sompnium dormis fili ὄνειρος .ρου. 23εὕδεις εὕδω εὕδεις Ἀτρέος ὁ Ἀτρεύς τοῦ Ἀτρέος ὦ υἱὲ prudentis equos domantis ὁ ὑιὸς τοῦ ὑιοῦ δαΐφρονος ὁ δαΐφρων δαΐφρονος. ἱπποδάµοιο ὁ cui populus ἱππόδαµος τοῦ ἱπποδάµου καὶ ἰωνικῇ ἱπποδάµοιο 25ᾧ λαοί ὁ λαὸς recommissi pro conversi τοῦ λαοῦ ἡ ὀνοµαστικὴ τῶν πληθύνωτων οἱ λαοί τ’ ἐπιτετράφαται ἐπιτρέπωµαι ὁ παρακείµενος τέτραµµαι .ψαι τέτραπται ἐπιτετραµµένοι tanta εἰσὶ καὶ ἰωνικῇ ἐπιτετράφαται τὸ γʹ τῶν πληθύντων καὶ τόσα τὸ τόσον cura est non oportet .σου µέµηλε µέλω ὁ παρακείµενος µέµηλα .λας .λε 24οὐ χρὴ totam noctem dormire consiliarium παννύχιον ὁ παννύχιος .ου εὕδειν ἀπαρέµφατον βουληφόρον virum pro hominem ὁ βουληφόρος .ρου. ἄνδρα ὁ ἀνὴρ τοῦ ἀνδρὸς τὸν ἀνέρα καὶ ἄνδρα nunc autem mei intellige velociter Iovis 26νῦν δ’ ἐµέθεν scilicet ἐµοῦ ξύνες προστακτικὸν ὦκα διὸς ὁ ζεὺς ADAM FOLEY 467 ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 57 (2017) 443–472 tibi nuncius sum armare τοῦ διὸς δέ τοι ὁ ἄγγελός .λου εἰµι εἶ ἐστὶ 28θωρῆξαί ἀπαρέµφατον te imperavit pulchros σ’ ἐκέλευσε κελεύω ὁ ἀόριστος ἐκέλευσα .σας .σε. κάρη κοµόωντας grecos qui tui longe ens multum curat an Ἀχαιοὺς 27ὃς σεῦ pro σοῦ ἄνευθεν ἐὼν ἐόντος µέγα κήδεται ἠδ’ 317r miseretur omnes simul nunc enim an capies ἐλεαίρει. 29πανσυδίῃ ἐπίρρηµα νῦν γάρ κεν ἕλοις ἕλοιµι ἕλοις ἕλοι civitatem ampliam πόλιν εὐρυάγυιαν ἡ εὐρυάγυια .ας Second translation exercise ἀρχὴ τῆς βῆτα ὁµήρου ῥαψωδίας f. 335r Βῆτα δ’ ὄνειρον ἔχει. ἀγορὴν καὶ νήας ἀριθµεῖ utique nunc viri equites armati Ἄλλοι µέν ῥα θεοί τε καὶ ἀνέρες ἱπποκορυσταὶ dormiebant tota nocte Jovem non tenebat dulcis sompnus εὗδον παννύχιοι, Δία δ’ οὐκ ἔχε νήδυµος ὕπνος, sed hic Iupiter cogitabat secundum animum ut Achillem ἀλλ’ ὅ γε µερµήριζε κατὰ φρένα ὡς Ἀχιλῆα honoraret destrueret plures super navibus τιµήσῃ, ὀλέσῃ δὲ πολέας ἐπὶ νηυσὶν Ἀχαιῶν. hec autem sibi Iovi optima videbatur ἧδε δέ οἱ κατὰ θυµὸν ἀρίστη φαίνετο βουλή, Il. 2.5 mittere ad perniciosum sompnium πέµψαι ἐπ’ Ἀτρεΐδῃ Ἀγαµέµνονι οὖλον ὄνειρον· istum sompnium vocans Iuppiter verba velocia declamavit καί µιν φωνήσας ἔπεα πτερόεντα προσηύδα· vade vide perniciose sompnie ad βάσκ’ ἴθι οὖλε ὄνειρε θοὰς ἐπὶ νῆας Ἀχαιῶν· iens sompnium sui ad Atridis ἐλθὼν ἐς κλισίην Ἀγαµέµνονος Ἀτρεΐδαο f. 335v valde vel dicere sic omne multa veraciter dic ut precipio πάντα µάλ’ ἀτρεκέως ἀγορευέµεν ὡς ἐπιτέλλω· 2.10 illum scilicet aga armari precipe habentes capita comata grecos θωρῆξαί ἑ κέλευε καρηκοµόωντας Ἀχαιοὺς caperet vel destruet aga toti exercitus an habentem latam viam πανσυδίῃ· νῦν γάρ κεν ἕλοι πόλιν εὐρυάγυιαν deinceps amplius inconcorditus habentes Τρώων· οὐ γὰρ ἔτ’ ἀµφὶς Ὀλύµπια δώµατ’ ἔχοντες consulunt vel loquuntur declinavit vel persuasit immortales summi dii inclinavit omnes deos ἀθάνατοι φράζονται· ἐπέγναµψεν γὰρ ἅπαντας 468 A PARTIAL INTERLINEAR TRANSLATION OF THE ILIAD ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 57 (2017) 443–472 deprecans obsecrans mala iminet pro iminent Ἥρη λισσοµένη, Τρώεσσι δὲ κήδε’ ἐφῆπται. 2.15 sic locutus est Iupiter ivit sopnus postquam scilicet verbis audiverat Ὣς φάτο, βῆ δ’ ἄρ’ ὄνειρος ἐπεὶ τὸν µῦθον ἄκουσε· velociter applicuit καρπαλίµως δ’ ἵκανε θοὰς ἐπὶ νῆας Ἀχαιῶν, igitur qui aga invenit βῆ δ’ ἄρ’ ἐπ’ Ἀτρεΐδην Ἀγαµέµνονα· τὸν δὲ κίχανεν dormientem divinus occupabat agamemnonem εὕδοντ’ ἐν κλισίῃ, περὶ δ’ ἀµβρόσιος κέχυθ’ ὕπνος. stetit deus sopnii igitur capitis filio nilei filius scilicet fetus στῆ δ’ ἄρ’ ὑπὲρ κεφαλῆς Νηληΐῳ υἷι ἐοικώς 2.20 quem nestorem quidem honorabat Νέστορι, τόν ῥα µάλιστα γερόντων τῖ’ Ἀγαµέµνων· huic nestori filius fetus vocabat divinius istum aga τῷ µιν ἐεισάµενος προσεφώνεε θεῖος ὄνειρος· dormis filii habentis bellicosam scientiam boni equitis εὕδεις Ἀτρέος υἱὲ δαΐφρονος ἱπποδάµοιο· non decet quam totam noctam dormire consiliarum οὐ χρὴ παννύχιον εὕδειν βουληφόρον ἄνδρα andri vel cui aga subicitur pro subicuntur cogitat curat populi conversi sunt id est subiecti sunt tanta vel suis curare debit ᾧ λαοί τ’ ἐπιτετράφαται καὶ τόσσα µέµηλε· 2.25 mei audi statim tibi nunc autem sum νῦν δ’ ἐµέθεν ξύνες ὦκα· Διὸς δέ τοι ἄγγελός εἰµι, qui iupiter existens multum et tui longe curat miseretur ὃς σεῦ ἄνευθεν ἐὼν µέγα κήδεται ἠδ’ ἐλεαίρει. armari preciperet habentes capita comata θωρῆξαί σε κέλευσε καρηκοµόωντας Ἀχαιοὺς caperet toti exercitus an si destruet habentem latam viam πανσυδίῃ· νῦν γάρ κεν ἕλοις πόλιν εὐρυάγυιαν deinceps inconcorditus habentes Τρώων· οὐ γὰρ ἔτ’ ἀµφὶς Ὀλύµπια δώµατ’ ἔχοντες 2.30 consulunt vel loquuntur inclineavit immortales summi dii ἀθάνατοι φράζονται· ἐπέγναµψεν γὰρ ἅπαντας ADAM FOLEY 469 ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 57 (2017) 443–472 Juno deprecans troianis mala iminet pro iminent Ἥρη λισσοµένη, Τρώεσσι δὲ κήδε’ ἐφῆπται tu aga tene tuis ne oblivio ἐκ Διός· ἀλλὰ σὺ σῇσιν ἔχε φρεσί, µηδέ σε λήθη teneat cum dulcis demiserit αἱρείτω εὖτ’ ἄν σε µελίφρων ὕπνος ἀνήῃ. vocans sopnus reliquit poeta loquitur recessit aga ibi Ὣς ἄρα φωνήσας ἀπεβήσετο, τὸν δὲ λίπ’ αὐτοῦ 2.35 que adimpleri cogitantem super utique non futuri causa τὰ φρονέοντ’ ἀνὰ θυµὸν ἅ ῥ’ οὐ τελέεσθαι ἔµελλον· cogitabat agamemnon capere diei ipsi φῆ γὰρ ὅ γ’ αἱρήσειν Πριάµου πόλιν ἤµατι κείνῳ f. 336r demens erat summus aga sciret consulabat non haec quae opera νήπιος, οὐδὲ τὰ ᾔδει ἅ ῥα Ζεὺς µήδετο ἔργα· deinceps meditabatur dampna suspiria facere cogitabat super θήσειν γὰρ ἔτ’ ἔµελλεν ἐπ’ ἄλγεά τε στοναχάς τε fortes pugnas Τρωσί τε καὶ Δαναοῖσι διὰ κρατερὰς ὑσµίνας. 2.40 exsurrexit ex sopni divina occupabat vox agamemnonem ἔγρετο δ’ ἐξ ὕπνου, θείη δέ µιν ἀµφέχυτ’ ὀµφή· sedit surgens mollem induit camissiam [sic] sedebat ἕζετο δ’ ὀρθωθείς, µαλακὸν δ’ ἔνδυνε χιτῶνα novam magnam circum ponebat vestem καλὸν νηγάτεον, περὶ δὲ µέγα βάλλετο φᾶρος· pedibus sub fortibus induit sotularis ποσσὶ δ’ ὑπὸ λιπαροῖσιν ἐδήσατο καλὰ πέδιλα, de humeris posuit ensem fixum clavis super argenteis vel argentatum ἀµφὶ δ’ ἄρ’ ὤµοισιν βάλετο ξίφος ἀργυρόηλον· 2.45 cepit patrium incorruptibile semper εἵλετο δὲ σκῆπτρον πατρώϊον ἄφθιτον αἰεὶ huic sceptro ad habentum camissias [sic] eneas cum ivit supra scilicet toraces σὺν τῷ ἔβη κατὰ νῆας Ἀχαιῶν χαλκοχιτώνων· eous dea lucis processerat longum celum utique iverat Ἠὼς µέν ῥα θεὰ προσεβήσετο µακρὸν Ὄλυµπον 470 A PARTIAL INTERLINEAR TRANSLATION OF THE ILIAD ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 57 (2017) 443–472 Jovi lucem dictura immortalibus Ζηνὶ φόως ἐρέουσα καὶ ἄλλοις ἀθανάτοισιν· hic aga dulcisonis autem preconibus vel dulcisonantibus precipiebat αὐτὰρ ὃ κηρύκεσσι λιγυφθόγγοισι κέλευσε 2.50 preconizare conscionem habentes capita comata κηρύσσειν ἀγορήνδε κάρη κοµόωντας Ἀχαιούς· hii quidem predicaverunt isti surrexerunt valde velociter οἳ µὲν ἐκήρυσσον, τοὶ δ’ ἠγείροντο µάλ’ ὦκα· sedit vel faciebat sedere primus magnanimorum venerandorum vel senum Βουλὴν δὲ πρῶτον µεγαθύµων ἷζε γερόντων iuxta navi in pilo nati Νεστορέῃ παρὰ νηῒ Πυλοιγενέος βασιλῆος hic aga assiduam ordinabat hos convocans prudentem preperabat τοὺς ὅ γε συγκαλέσας πυκινὴν ἀρτύνετο βουλήν· 2.55 audies amici divinus in sompnum adverbaliter Agamemnon loguitur mihi venit κλῦτε φίλοι· θεῖός µοι ἐνύπνιον ἦλθεν ὄνειρος per noctem divino divinam per venit ἀµβροσίην διὰ νύκτα· µάλιστα δὲ Νέστορι δίῳ speciem magnitudinem membrum proximum corpus assimilabat εἶδός τε µέγεθός τε φυήν τ’ ἄγχιστα ἐῴκει· stetit sopnium super dixit στῆ δ’ ἄρ’ ὑπὲρ κεφαλῆς καί µε πρὸς µῦθον ἔειπεν· dormis o filii εὕδεις Ἀτρέος υἱὲ δαΐφρονος ἱπποδάµοιο· 2.60 οὐ χρὴ παννύχιον εὕδειν βουληφόρον ἄνδρα, ᾧ λαοί τ’ ἐπιτετράφαται καὶ τόσσα µέµηλε· νῦν δ’ ἐµέθεν ξύνες ὦκα· Διὸς δέ τοι ἄγγελός εἰµι, ὃς σεῦ ἄνευθεν ἐὼν µέγα κήδεται ἠδ’ ἐλεαίρει· θωρῆξαί σε κέλευσε κάρη κοµόωντας Ἀχαιοὺς 2.65 f. 336v πανσυδίῃ· νῦν γάρ κεν ἕλοις πόλιν εὐρυάγυιαν Τρώων· οὐ γὰρ ἔτ’ ἀµφὶς Ὀλύµπια δώµατ’ ἔχοντες ἀθάνατοι φράζονται· ἐπέγναµψεν γὰρ ἅπαντας Ἥρη λισσοµένη, Τρώεσσι δὲ κήδε’ ἐφῆπται deus sompnii tene sic dicens ἐκ Διός· ἀλλὰ σὺ σῇσιν ἔχε φρεσίν· ὣς ὃ µὲν εἰπὼν 2.70 recessit volans autem dulcis sopnus dimisit ᾤχετ’ ἀποπτάµενος, ἐµὲ δὲ γλυκὺς ὕπνος ἀνῆκεν. ducite si quomodo armentus filios ἀλλ’ ἄγετ’ αἴ κέν πως θωρήξοµεν υἷας Ἀχαιῶν· primum ego verbis experiar prout divina iusticia πρῶτα δ’ ἐγὼν ἔπεσιν πειρήσοµαι, ἣ θέµις ἐστί, ADAM FOLEY 471 ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 57 (2017) 443–472 multis transtris fugere cum habentibus multa transtra precipio καὶ φεύγειν σὺν νηυσὶ πολυκλήϊσι κελεύσω· vos alterutrum alter impedire pro impedite ὑµεῖς δ’ ἄλλοθεν ἄλλος ἐρητύειν ἐπέεσσιν. 2.75 hic aga certe sic sedit surrexit Ἤτοι ὅ γ’ ὣς εἰπὼν κατ’ ἄρ’ ἕζετο, τοῖσι δ’ ἀνέστη qui quidem erat nomen fluvii a flumine nomen civitatis nestoris sic dicto vel arenose Νέστωρ, ὅς ῥα Πύλοιο ἄναξ ἦν ἠµαθόεντος, qui istis bene sciens conscionatus est postea dixit ὅ σφιν ἐὺ φρονέων ἀγορήσατο καὶ µετέειπεν· duces et reges ὦ φίλοι Ἀργείων ἡγήτορες ἠδὲ µέδοντες siquidem quis sopnium alter dicebat pro dixit εἰ µέν τις τὸν ὄνειρον Ἀχαιῶν ἄλλος ἔνισπε 2.80 fari putaremus mendacium loquamur vel recedimus magis ψεῦδός κεν φαῖµεν καὶ νοσφιζοίµεθα µᾶλλον· nunc autem vidit multum optimus gloriatur esse νῦν δ’ ἴδεν ὃς µέγ’ ἄριστος Ἀχαιῶν εὔχεται εἶναι· sed si quomodo armavimus filios ἀλλ’ ἄγετ’ αἴ κέν πως θωρήξοµεν υἷας Ἀχαιῶν. exivit ire sic igitur vocans nestor ambulare Ὣς ἄρα φωνήσας βουλῆς ἐξῆρχε νέεσθαι, isti obediverunt pastori sive regi greci surrexerunt que οἳ δ’ ἐπανέστησαν πείθοντό τε ποιµένι λαῶν 2.85 reges movebantur σκηπτοῦχοι βασιλῆες· ἐπεσσεύοντο δὲ λαοί. caterva frequentum tanquam procedit apum densarum ἠΰτε ἔθνεα εἶσι µελισσάων ἁδινάων lapidis concavi semper nuper venientum πέτρης ἐκ γλαφυρῆς αἰεὶ νέον ἐρχοµενάων, tanquam racemus botrus volant super floribus vernalibus βοτρυδὸν δὲ πέτονται ἐπ’ ἄνθεσιν εἰαρινοῖσιν· quedam hinc satis volant quedam hic αἳ µέν τ’ ἔνθα ἅλις πεποτήαται, αἳ δέ τε ἔνθα· 2.90 sic istorum gentes multa navium ὣς τῶν ἔθνεα πολλὰ νεῶν ἄπο καὶ κλισιάων litoris coram longi ordinati ambulabant ἠϊόνος προπάροιθε βαθείης ἐστιχόωντο 472 A PARTIAL INTERLINEAR TRANSLATION OF THE ILIAD ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 57 (2017) 443–472 simul ordinate ad conscionem totum simul in istis divina vox surrexit ἰλαδὸν εἰς ἀγορήν· µετὰ δέ σφισιν ὄσσα δεδήει f. 337r nec proficisci movens divinus nuncius isti autem congregabantur ὀτρύνουσ’ ἰέναι Διὸς ἄγγελος· οἳ δ’ ἀγέροντο. turbata fuit conscio sub suspirabat τετρήχει δ’ ἀγορή, ὑπὸ δὲ στεναχίζετο γαῖα 2.95 sedentum tumultus autem erat novem illos λαῶν ἱζόντων, ὅµαδος δ’ ἦν· ἐννέα δέ σφεας precones vocantes impediebant vocis vociferantes quando clamoris κήρυκες βοόωντες ἐρήτυον, εἴ ποτ’ ἀϋτῆς contineat illustrium regum σχοίατ’, ἀκούσειαν δὲ διοτρεφέων βασιλήων. sollicitudini sedit tenebat σπουδῇ δ’ ἕζετο λαός, ἐρήτυθεν δὲ καθ’ ἕδρας quiescentes clangoris παυσάµενοι κλαγγῆς· ἀνὰ δὲ κρείων Ἀγαµέµνων 2.100 December, 2017 The University of Pennsyvania adamtoddfoley@gmail.com