VALK, M. VAN DER, The "Iliad" and Its Ancient Commentators: Some Textual Notes , Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 23:4 (1982:Winter) p.293 The Iliad and Its Ancient Commentators: Some Textual Notes M van der Valk A FEW YEARS AGO Professor Erbse brought to a close his impos­ ing edition of the scholia to the Iliad.! The remarks that follow are occasioned by the publication of the final volume of this edition, which provides an excellent basis for further progress in Homer studies. 1. Iliad 23.597-600 A 'locus conclamatus' (see Erbse 456f): when Antilochus apolo- . M \ I (J \ " (J ." \ I , I Th glzes, EVEl\.aov V!-W() LaV 'Y1 W() EL 'TE 1TEpt U'TaXVEUUW EEPU'Y1. e difficulty is that when dew is warmed, it melts and disappears. Erbse comments, "in Ap.Rh. (3,1018-20) simile bene esse interpretatum." Apollonius has laivE'TO BE cppeva() Etuw, 1'TJKO~V'Y1 K'TA. The intent here, as often in the Alexandrian poets, was to refine and clarify Homer's expression. While Homer did not say so expressly, Apol­ lonius thinks that the warming of the heart makes it melt and soften: in this way Menelaos is softened and therefore yields. The same interpretation is offered by modern scholars.2 Nevertheless, the ex­ pression (JvJ.W() (or K'Ap) laiVE'Tat or cpPEULV laiVE'Tat, in Homer as well as other archaic poets (Aleman, Pindar), means 'be glad, rejoice', but not 'melt'.3 Indeed, this metaphor of compassion would have little place in the harsh world of the heroes, with its brutal treatment of fallen enemies, or in the primitive representation of the psychology of decision-making that we find in Homer. In keeping with this, Mene­ laus' reaction is pride in his advantage: in this way he rejoices and his heart is made warm. Leaf rightly compared 17.112, a heart frozen with fear (';''TOP 1TaXVOV'Tat):4 likewise a heart is warmed because of joy. 1 H. ERBSE, Scholia graeca ad Homeri lIiadem V (Berlin 1976), cited hereafter by the author's name alone. 2 See LSJ s. v. laillw I.2a, "to melt," invoking our passage. Mazon translates "il sent fondre son coeur." W. Leaf, The Iliad II (London 1902) 513, comments however that the passages of l;Iomer and Apollonius cannot be put on a par. 3 See LSJ I.3 ("warm, cheer") for testimonies; /I. 24.119 is especially telling. 4 See Leaf (supra n.2) 225. Cf, R. Onians, The Origins of European Thought (Cam­ bridge 1951) 46 n.6; but the strange interpretation here offered of thymos as 'vapour' is completely unlikely. 293 VALK, M. VAN DER, The "Iliad" and Its Ancient Commentators: Some Textual Notes , Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 23:4 (1982:Winter) p.293 294 THE ILIAD AND ITS ANCIENT COMMENTATORS Homer presents a simile in which Menelaos' heart (fJv,.w~) is likened to dew on ears of grain being warmed at sunrise. This simile, however, as so often, compares two items not strictly identical-as the scholia and Eustathius observed already.5 When dew is warmed by the rising sun, it melts and disappears, but at the same time it invigorates the ears of grain.6 When the thymos of Menelaos has been warmed, it does not melt but rather invigorates Menelaos. 2. Iliad 23.533 For the constitution of the Homeric text here, the text and views of the Alexandrian critics provide interesting evidence. In 23.533 the MSS. give EAavvwv 71'pouuo(Jev i7T7ro~: the form 71'pouuo(Jev, rather than the usual 71'pouwfJev, is found only here. The difficulty is avoided if we accept, as does Duentzer, the text of Zenodotus, EAav­ vwv wKea~ i1T7TO~. Inasmuch as Erbse (449) offers without comment Duentzer's extensive notice, one assumes that he accepts this text and solution. In my view, however, Zenodotus' readings are mostly subjective conjectures of his own.7 In the present instance, I submit, it is obvious that 71'pouuofJev was rightly accepted by the MSS., edi­ tors, and commentators, for the evidence of the epics makes clear that Homer now and again permitted himself liberties of form oc­ casioned by metrical necessity.8 Zenodotus tried to eliminate the objectionable form by means of a conjecture. 3. Iliad 17.54 The editors (e.g. Mazon, Allen, Leaf) here print ava{3e{3poxev, which again is a reading of Zenodotus, as the scholia state.9 On the other hand, nearly all the Homeric MSS. give a va{3e{3pvxev. Here too Erbse (343) presents with apparent approval a note of Duentzer, who 5 Eust. 1318.23-37; it is likely (see Erbse 456f) that Eustathius here relied in part on a scholium deperditum. I hope to discuss the point in the fourth volume of my edition of Eustathius. 6 C. J. Ruygh, Autour de TE epique (Amsterdam 1971) 622f, wishes to supplement the active laivw. In fact the ears are invigorated and one might expect Homer to say that the dew does this. But the first idea that presents itself to the poet's mind is that the dew is made warm (laiVETaL); only then does it invigorate the ears. Leaf followed a reading UpU'fI found in a few MSS.; he rightly admits, however, that these MSS. are not authoritative. The reading is obviously incorrect. Moreover, with the nominative (Jv~r;; we expect a nominative UpUTJ which is likened to it. 7 M. van der Valk, Researches on the Text and Scholia of the Iliad II (Leiden 1964) ch. 10. B See M. Lejeune, Les adverbes grecs en -(JEV (Bordeaux 1939) 331, "(attestee au vers 'I' 533) analogique du type 7TO(JEV"; Chantraine, Dictionnaire etymologique 942f, "par commodite metrique"; Schwyzer, Griechische Grammatik I 628. 9 Likewise Ruygh (supra n.6) 471 accepts avafJE{3poXEV. VALK, M. VAN DER, The "Iliad" and Its Ancient Commentators: Some Textual Notes , Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 23:4 (1982:Winter) p.293 M. VAN DER VALK 295 takes the view that ava!3e!3poXEv was also the reading of Aristo­ phanes of Byzantium and Aristarchus: these critics, he thinks, re­ alized that ava{3e{3pvXEv would be metrically impossible here because the upsilon is long. If in fact Zenodotus' a va {3e{3po XE V offers the correct text, two explanations are possible: (a) Zenodotus found the correct text of the Iliad in the MSS. he consulted, or (b) he restored the true text by means of a felicitous emendation.l° I think it un­ likely, however, that ava{3e{3poXEv was given also by Aristophanes and Aristarchus. For there is not only no notice of this fact in the scholia, but the reading itself occurs in only two MSS. of the Iliad. If it had been offered by the three important Alexandrians, we should expect to find it in more MSS., especially as it seems a possible reading. l1 Rather the two critics did not accept Zenodotus' reading, doubtless because they took exception to his mistaken explanation connecting the word with ava{3pogELE. As to the reading itself, one expects a verb ava{3pvw to have as its perfect ava{3e{3pvKEv. But a semantic point is also in question here. {3pvw occurs with the meaning 'burst forth', and is so used of water (ef. LSJ s. v. 3). It is well known that the soil of Greece does not abound in water. The passage in question describes an olive sprig that is thriving. For this one wants a place that is moist by the nature of the terrain, and one finds such where the water in the soil 'bursts forth'. The prefix ava- is pertinent: the water of the soil bursts up­ wards. If we read ava{3e{3poXEv, 'is moistened', one might think rather that the water is due to rain, and for this one might expect KaTa{3e{3poXEv. Accordingly, taking into account the evidence of the Homeric text and the import of the words, I think that we must retain a va{3e{3pvXE v: Homer here offered a perfect of ava{3pvw that uses X and short V. 12 4. Iliad 22.45 Priam here says that his sons were sold by Achilles V~(TWV iTTL TTJAEBa1TClwv (so also 21.454), the reading of all the MSS. and without 10 Zenodotus himself offered a false explanation, for he connected uvu{3i.{3poxev wrongly (c! 17.54c schol. A) with uvu{3po~eLe (c! Od. 12.240), whereas it derives in fact from uvu{3pEXW. This fact, however, does not diminish the value of the reading, if Zeno­ dotus found it in his MSS. or 'made a correct conjecture even with a false explanation. 11 Readings that seem attractive and that were presented by Aristarchus were often accepted by part of the MSS.: see M. van der Valk, Textual Criticism of the Odyssey (Leiden 1949) 174f; (supra n.7) 583. 12 Ruygh (supra n.7) already compared the form lnro{3pvxu. I may add that, in re­ sponse to a letter giving my view, Ruygh has written, "After all the safest course is to follow the vulgate" - i.e., the reading uvu!3E{3pvxev. As to the short v, he refers to the later form EAT,Av(Je as compared with the older EAT,Aov(Je. VALK, M. VAN DER, The "Iliad" and Its Ancient Commentators: Some Textual Notes , Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 23:4 (1982:Winter) p.293 296 THE ILIAD AND ITS ANCIENT COMMENTATORS doubt the correct reading. IS In both instances the scholia report that the city-editions (politika;) read ifryAV'TEpawv. In my opinion, the city­ editions presented subjective corrections, characterized in most cases by a pedantic goal of greater accuracy.14 In the Iliad we hear of only one son of Priam who had been sold by Achilles, Lykaon (7.468f, 21.40-44, 22.746f), sold on Lemnos, which is however not far from Troy. I suggest that the emendation 9r(AV'TEpaWV owes its genesis to the fact that Lemnos was notorious for its women and their crimes. Callimachus twice offers 9'T1AV'Ta'Tov in passages that require the meaning 'fertile' (frr.384.27 and 548 P.). From this we can con­ clude that Callimachus owed the word to the reading of the city­ editions and that these accordingly were already then to be found in the library at Alexandria.16 As a true Alexandrian Callimachus availed himself of this rare piece of information offered him by the politikai. I believe however that the interpretation 'fertile' is due to Callimachus himself16 and does not reflect the view of the po!itikai,l7 His interpre­ tation is understandable, for Homer himself speaks of o-o9ap apovp'TI~ and women who bear offspring are called 'fertile' .18 The emendation of the politikai is not only ingenious, but it can be traced to their desire for accuracy and credibility: for it would seem unlikely that Achilles sold his captives in islands that were far away. In reality, however, the epic poet in this way heightened the pathetic character of this point of Priam's.19 13 See also R. Pfeiffer, History of Classical Scholarship (Oxford 1968) 139. 14 See Valk (supra n.1l) 14, (supra n.7) 608. Sometimes these emendations are characterised by a pedantic accuracy, to which the Homeric text was subjected. Thus in 23.206 the MSS. say that the gods went AUJw7rwV E" yawl'. The politikai offer E" BTj­ IIDV, for they wished to show that in reality the gods went to the BTjIID" which offered them the sacrifices of which they partook. 23.856 (see Erbse 500) says of the victor that he must bring his prize oWcov8E: schol. A says EV a~ "KJ\.wiT/v BE." This time the reading must not be attributed to the politikai, but it shows again a pedantic accura­ cy: in reality the victors did not live in Troy in houses but in tents. 15 In Researches on the Text and Scholia of the Iliad I (Leiden 1963) 253 n.263 I wrongly called this fact into doubt. Thus Erbse 272 rightly says "frustra obloquitur Valk." 16 Pfeiffer ad loc., wrongly in my view, thinks that Callimachus owed the interpreta­ tion to explanatory notes on the Homeric text. From all appearances, the politikai presented only the text and did not offer any notes. 17 One might argue that in 21.454, where Laomedon threatens to sell the gods in such islands, the idea 'more womanish' is unnecessary and does not leap to mind. We may conceive, however, that the ingenious conjecture was first devised for 22.45 and then applied also to 21.454. 18 Note too that in tragic authors the mother who bears children is often compared to an apovpa, cj P. Groeneboom, Aeschylus' Zeven tegen Thebe (Groningen 1938) 213 ad Sept. 754. 19 In the Odyssey (15.427-29) Eumaios had in fact been sold in an island that was far away. VALK, M. VAN DER, The "Iliad" and Its Ancient Commentators: Some Textual Notes , Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 23:4 (1982:Winter) p.293 M. VAN DER VALK 297 5. Iliad 24.304 A difficult question with regard to the text of the politikai occurs in the description of Priam's preparations for his mission to Achilles. Before departing, he washes his hands (24.304, cf Erbse 574). Our d ' {3 ',1,.'" "(J' .. \., Th MSS. rea XEPVt ov af.J,o/t7TOI\.O~ 7TpOXOOV af.J.a XEpo"tv Exovua. e word x~pvt8ov for 'basin' is a hapax in Homer, who elsewhere al­ ways employs A€/3"1t:; for this sense.20 Now according to schol. T the Massaliotike read instead of 7T'POXOOV '" Exovua the words TaJ.Li"1 f.J,ETa XEPUtv Exovua. Two solutions are possible. (a) Erbse takes the view that the Massaliotike altered the text "quod duo vasa COffi­ memorari noluit." It must be admitted, however, that by "vasa" he indicates two objects that are by no means identical, viz. a basin and a jug. (b) Accordingly, I think that another explanation may be prefer­ able. Perhaps the critic in the Massaliotike took exception to the hapax XePVt{3ov and replaced it with xepvt{3a, a word commonly found in Homer (as he will have known), indicating water for wash­ ing. In this case he had also to alter part of the following line, for in the other passages we find either XEpvt/3a ... 7T'pOXO~ (1.136) or XEpVt/3a ... EV AE/3"1Tt (3.440), but nowhere XePVt/3a and AE/3"1Ta or xepvt{3a and 7TpOXOOV. It would moreover be strange and ridiculous to say "water for washing and a ewer" (xepvt/3a ... 7T'POXOOV (J'), for of course water for washing is contained in a ewer. I think that in this case we must admit here the hiatus that Erbse stated.21 6. Iliad 23.806 The scholiast on 23.806 (see Erbse 491) comments on the single combat that is a contest in the funeral games: victory, says Achilles, will be obtained by the competitor who t/JavUTI 8' Ev8lvwv. One can understand why the Alexandrian critics, not accustomed to the rude manners of the Homeric age, athetised this line.22 In Etym. Orionis 20 For XEPVt/30V in this sense see LSJ s. v., where the earliest instance (this Homeric passage apart) is of the fourth century B. c. This meaning persisted, see e.g. Greg. Nys. at Migne, PC 44.1172. Compare Ath. 498B; schol. Od. 3.440; Eustathius 1400.60; Ph. Koukoules, 0Eaaa1l.oviK1j~ Evam8iov Tel: Aao'YpmptKcf I (Athens 1950) 225f. Erbse rightly takes the position that at 24.304 the Homeric text in fact had XEPVt/30V. 21 "De lectione editionis Massaliensis ipse scholiasta dubitat"; the scholiast says Ei f.J.T, apa EVtKw.; Ev(JeiBe 'YpaTrTEOV "XEPVt{30v a/ .. «pI:Tro1l.o<;." These words make it likely that the Massaliotike read in fact XEPVt{3a. The later scholiast is uncertain not about the text of the Massaliotike (as Erbse thinks), but about its meaning: he wrongly thought that in the Massaliotike XEpvt{3a had the meaning 'basin, ewer'. 22 See also Valk (supra n.7) 150. I note that Eustathius (1331.2) offers the correct interpretation "to hit the entrails" CEvBtva = Evnja(Jta), living as he did in the age of the tournaments introduced by the Crusaders. VALK, M. VAN DER, The "Iliad" and Its Ancient Commentators: Some Textual Notes , Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 23:4 (1982:Winter) p.293 298 THE ILIAD AND ITS ANCIENT COMMENTATORS 52.16f, however, we read ~v8£va' 'Apurrapxor; hVf..WAO'YEt. "~v£va"23 Tel EVTO~ TWV ivwv. Lehrs rejected the notice, because Aristarchus had already athetised the line. It is well known, however, that Aris­ tarchus sometimes offered emendations in or observations on lines that he athetised.24 Moreover, the interpretation here ascribed to Aristarchus is in keeping with his mentality, and it is the better of the two false interpretations reported (Tel: EVTor; TOW ivwv and Tel: EVTor; TWV 07TAwV).25 For unlike the second, the first presents an etymology and interpretation that are ingenious as well as satisfactory (at least in the eyes of an ancient critic). Tel EVTor; TWV ivwv, "that which is within the sinews": in this contest it is sufficient if for the present the victor penetrates only the skin. 7. Iliad 22.110 According to the text of our MSS. Hector says here T,E KEV aVT4' oAEu8a£ EVKAE~ 7TPO '7TfJAT/Or;. Erbse (291), however, accepts the text offered by a papyrus (12), T1 aVT4' 7TPO 7TOAT/Or; EVKAEtWr; a7ToAEu8a£. In this he follows Pasquali; but Erbse further suggests that a lost scholium of Didymus contained the papyrus reading.26 It is true that the occurrence of KEV in the MSS. version here has been criticised. Several points may be made in its defense, however. (a) Pasquali calls the MSS. text "la tradizione medievale." But in fact it was al­ ready read by Aristonicus (see schol. A), and indeed was the only version known to him. (b) The version without KEV is found only in papyrus 12. We may surmise that if Aristarchus had found this text in his MSS. (or some of them), he would have given it preference, for he sometimes took exception to a Homeric text offering KEV (av),27 Therefore Erbse's suggestion that a scholium of Didymus on this line once existed is unlikely. Moreover, one might have expected at least a few MSS. to take up a reading of Aristarchus.28 (c) The MSS. version 23 The codex has EVUX, but Lehrs (see Erbse) made this convincing emendation on account of Etym.Gudean. 186.25f (EvfiLva ... 7j EVLva Ttva Dvm). 24 See Valk (supra n.7) 16 and n.84. 25 The first is reported (anonymously) also at schol. 23.806b (Erbse 491.920, Evfiivwv fiE aK01JEL TWV EV&)1I TOll )(pW'Tck this shows that it was an important interpretation (of Aristarchus, as I think). 26 G. Pasquali, Storia della tradizione e critica del testo 2 (Florence 1962) 242. In Valk (supra n.7) 566f I tried to defend the text of the MSS. I admit that Erbse presents his suggestion only with great reserve: "non liquet, num schol. (Didymi?) fuerit" etc. 27 See Friedliinder, quoted by Erbse 291, on 22.1lOa. . 28 Neither does Eustathius, who often preserves notices from scholia de perdita and who likes to present variant readings of the Homeric MSS., mention our passage, al­ though this is of course not decisive. VALK, M. VAN DER, The "Iliad" and Its Ancient Commentators: Some Textual Notes , Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 23:4 (1982:Winter) p.293 M. VAN DER VALK 299 with KEV can be justified grammatically, 29 for it replicates the use of av just before in 10.108, as Leaf already suggested.30 The reading of papyrus 12 must be seen as a simplification of the text. 8. Iliad 24.413 In Hermes' speech to Priam the editors here read with the vulgate of the MSS. (see Erbse 590) 5vw5EKaT.." 5E oi ";'W~ KEtf.£EVCP. As to ";'W~, two variants occur in the MSS.: (a) 7i5E, found in a number of MSS., in papyrus 13 (I B.C.), and mentioned by Eustathius (I356.27f)~ (b) Ti8..", found in one MS. (c! Allen), in papyrus 14 (II A.D.), and mentioned as a variant in U4, which says <7i8E> 'Yp. Kat Ti8..", 'Yp. Kat 1,W~. Erbse thinks that in U4 we are dealing with a so-called h-scholion, which occurred in the commentary ApH but has this time been preserved only by U4 and is also presupposed by Eustathius.31 Although Erbse was right to call attention to these h-scholia, nevertheless caution is in order. Thus on schol. A to 24.566d Erbse (613) says of Eustathius 1365.44-46 "fort. ex hyparchetypo Iliadis." Eustathius, however, here follows an A-scholion, while his first words (Kat 7TOt""TtKW~ cf>vAaKoi) , which do not occur in the scholion, are his own addition, for he often observes on his own account that words are 7TOt.."TtKOi.32 As to 24.413, 8vw8EKaT'"f1 1,W~ given by the vulgate of the MSS. certainly presents the genuine reading, for 8vw8EKaT'Y1 or a kindred ordinal is twice connected with 1,W~ in identical expressions: so 1.493 and especially Od. 19.192, and compare 1,0" rfj 7TPOTEPYI (II. 13.793) and Ti,."aTt TqJ 7TPOTEPCP (21.5). These examples show that Homer could use these two terms interchangeably, which for metrical rea­ sons was very easy, and that he sometimes used 1,W~ where we might have expected ;',."ap.33 The reading 7i8E is a conjecture dating already 29 See D. B. Monro, A Grammar of the Homeric Dialect2 (Oxford 1891) 295; P. Chan­ traine, Grammaire homerique II (Paris 1953) 311. 30 Leaf (supra n.2) 438. Ruygh has expressed to me his agreement that the text of the MSS. must be accepted. He further refers to Od. 8.570 'Tel BE KEV (}EO<; 1i 'TEA.EUEtEV Ti 1(' (iTeA.EfT'T' Et'l"j, remarking that the first KEV has its proper place before the Ti ... Ti construction, while the second is a repetition and thus strictly speaking superfluous, as in our passage. He also calls attention in 22.110 to aim!), where one might have ex­ pected alhov. The dative is used, I believe, as being in similar close agreement with 108 E/-Wt BE KEV. .. 31 On the h-scholia see H. Erbse, Beitriige zur Uberlieferung der Iliasscholien (Zetemata 24 [1960]) 204; see also K. Alpers, Das attizistische Lexikon des Oros (Berlin 1981) 92f n.36. By ApH is meant the commentary that forms the main part of the A-scholia and which was used also by Eustathius; on it see Valk (supra n.15) ch. 1. 32 See M. van der Valk, Eustathii Commentarii ad lliadem II (Leiden 1976) xxxv n.2. 33 Thus schol. J3l (I 72.22-25 Dindorf) enumerates among the meanings he at­ tributes to r,~: Kat rT,V OA.'l"jV r,~pav. It was on account of such Homeric passages, I VALK, M. VAN DER, The "Iliad" and Its Ancient Commentators: Some Textual Notes , Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 23:4 (1982:Winter) p.293 300 THE ILIAD AND ITS ANCIENT COMMENTATORS from early antiquity, as is evident from papyrus 13.34 It is easy to understand why ancient critics took exception to T,W<;, which seemed here to mean 'day' and which, unlike the passages mentioned above, could be removed by a slight conjecture. The reading 71871, in turn, presents a further conjecture, seeking to make the text more elegant than ii8E. Erbse apparently takes the view that U4 uses an ancient scholion (of Didymus, one imagines), which was also known to Eustathius, who mentions two readings. Erbse is inclined to think that when Eustathius mentions two Homeric readings, he may have derived one of them from a scholion, viz. a scholion deperditum.35 My own con­ clusion from the evidence is rather that Eustathius normally used a particular MS. of the Iliad, his personal possession, now of course lost; but as a careful critic he now and again consulted other MSS. of the Iliad and so transmitted other readings.36 As for this notice of U4, we should be cautious in attributing it to an ancient scholion, for as I have tried to show, Eustathius did not use a scholion here. More­ over, Didymus usually mentions only one variant, whereas U4 re­ ports two. And, if Didymus is the source, we should have to con­ clude that over against the genuine T,W<;, Aristarchus apparently read ii8E (thus U4): but a reader so well versed in Homer as Aristarchus will have known that T,W<; recurs elsewhere with the same meaning and so does not need correction. Perhaps in fact the source of U4 consulted other Homeric MSS. and so added the notice in question. 9. Iliad 24.553 Sometimes the correct text cannot be guaranteed by means of the evidence of the MSS. or the scholia, and other factors must be taken into account. So at 24.553 the vulgate of the MSS. and Eustathius read fJ,7J ,.AtE TrW it; 8povov ~E, whereas Allen and Mazon read with a num­ ber of MSS. fJ,7J TrW f,L' it; 8povov ~E and thus avoid the hiatus. Here I believe however that the vulgate reading is the correct one, for in it the first foot presents a dactyl and thus the whole line is dactylic. This believe, that Theocritus used ';'We; to mean 'day' at 7.35; see also A. S. F. Gow, The­ ocritus II (Cambridge 1950) 140. 34 Erbse rightly says "varia lectio antiqua." Leaf (supra n.2) 565 wrongly prefers 7j8e; he is right, however, in saying that 7j& is grammatically unobjectionable. 36 On this point see my review, Mnemosyne IV.28 (975) 305. Erbse himself must sometimes admit that in these circumstances Eustathius consulted not scholia but manuscripts (see 568 ad 24.264, 285 ad 22.83b). 36 Accordingly the second reading he offers is often the better, for in such cases he consulted MSS. often preferable to his own copy. VALK, M. VAN DER, The "Iliad" and Its Ancient Commentators: Some Textual Notes , Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 23:4 (1982:Winter) p.293 M. VAN DER VALK 301 will be intentional on the poet's part, for the effect of the rhythm is to give expression to the nervousness and emotion of Priam at this moment. 10. Iliad 23.565 and 24.558 These lines have in common the fact that they were athetised by the Alexandrian critics. At 23.563ff (cf. Erbse 453) the last assistant in the chariot race, Eumelos, receives his prize; line 565 adds Ev­ IJ-.ryAClj B' Ell X€P(J't 'TiBet. () Be BE~a'To xaipwlI. The line is missing in a number of MSS. and in two papyri.37 Erbse says "non liquet num nota fuerit de versu 'I' 565"; but I believe the question can be answered. 565 is the last line of a passage, and it can be omitted without any damage to the context; the information provided by 563-64 is suffi­ cient in itself. But we know that Homer is often circumstantial, whereas the Alexandrian poets preferred a style that was pointed and concise.3s Accordingly they sometimes took offence at the circum­ stantial manner of the epic poet. Here, in my view, Homer wishes to show by line 565 that even the limping Eumelos, who only because of his accident had to forego the first prize, is in fact content with his prize. Thus the audience learns that at these important games con­ ducted by Achilles everyone is content and rejoices. As to the textual situation, I take the view that in this instance Aristarchus did not athetise 565 but omitted it altogether from the text,39 as he was accustomed sometimes to do.40 As a result neither Didymus nor Aristonicus had any occasion to comment on the line, which in my opinion is nevertheless genuine. In this connection we may examine 24.558.41 One must admit first that Nill (557) can be used without an object: so 24.684, which is nearly identical and says only E'Trei (J" eia