previous next

[30] “ἀργοί λευκοί: ἀλλ᾽ οὐ θύεται λευκὰ τοῖς τεθνεῶσι: δῆλον γὰρ ἐκ τοῦ “ἔνθ᾽ ὄϊν ἀρνειὸν ῥέζειν θῆλύν τε μέλαιναν”” (Od. 10.527) “καὶ “ὄϊν ἱερευσέμεν οἴωι παμμέλανα”” (Od. 10.524) Sch. T, who suggests “ὅτι οὐ τῶι Πατρόκλωι ἀλλ᾽ εἰς τὸ δεῖπνον τῶν ζώντων τοὺς βόας ἔθυον”. The remark has weight, especially as “ἀργός” is not a standing epithet of the ox as it is of the dog (obviously in another sense). The only other animal to which it is applied is the goose, Od. 15.161, and there as well as here it may mean not so much white as glistening, ‘sleek.’ Cf. “ταῦρον ἀργᾶντα” Pind. O. xiii. 69.The variant “ἀργῶι” (“σιδήρωι”) is evidently a mere conj. “ὀρέχθεον, ἅπαξ εἰρημένον” in H. and obscure in meaning. Three explanations are given by tradition: (a) “κατὰ μίμησιν ἠχοῦ τραχέος πεποίηται τὸ ῥῆμα, ἀντὶ τοῦ ἔστενον ἀναιρούμενοι”, Schol. T (so Hesych. Lex. etc.); bellowed upon (when pierced by) the knife; (b) “ἀναιρούμενοι ὠρέγοντο, ἤτοι ἐξετείνοντο”, “ευστ. ἐξετείνοντο ἀποθνήισκοντες, ὡς τὸ “κεῖτο μέγας μεγαλωστί”,” Schol. T; stretched themselves out, plunged. This is sometimes compared with “τανύοντο” (33); but that word evidently means were extended on spits (of wood); if the same sense be assumed here, we shall have to suppose that spits of iron large enough to roast an ox were known in Homeric days, which is not likely; (c) “οἱ δέ, διεκόπτοντο. ἀπὸ τούτου καὶ ἐρεγμός, ὁ ἀποκεκομμένος κύαμος”, Schol. B and Eust. who quotes 5.83 “θυμὸν ἐρέχθων” (cf. also 23.317), rending his soul. Of these (b) seems the most defensible etymologically, “ὀ-ρεχ-θέω” being related to “ὀ-ρεγ”- to stretch as “γη-θέ-ω” to “γαϝ” (see Curtius, Vb. ii. 343). (a) is due to the similarity of “ῥοχθέω” to roar, and in this sense Theokritos took the verb, “θάλασσαν ἔα ποτὶ χέρσον ὀρεχθῆν” xi. 43. Linguistically the connexion is at least improbable, as initial “ρ” in Greek implies a lost consonant (“σρ” or “ϝρ”-), while the “ὀ”- indicates an originally initial “γ”. The connexion with “ἐρείκω” generally assumed for (c) is improbable on account of the rootvowel (reik, weak rik); and even if this were admitted it would require a purely passive sense for the active form. Schol. T has a curious note on the line, “τινὲς ἀθετοῦσιν, ὡς οὐκ ὄντος σιδήρου τότε”. Many atheteses would be needed to expel iron from the text in the later passages; cf. 4.123. It may be noted that out of twenty-three places where iron is mentioned in the Iliad five are found in this book (see 177, 261, 834, 850). The present case is in harmony with the usual use, by which the metal is confined to tools of small size (see Helbig H. E. pp. 329-32). This and 18.34 happen to be the only places where a knife of iron is mentioned.

The Iliad, edited, with apparatus criticus, prolegomena, notes, and appendices. Walter Leaf. London. Macmillan. 1900.

The National Endowment for the Humanities provided support for entering this text.

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 United States License.

An XML version of this text is available for download, with the additional restriction that you offer Perseus any modifications you make. Perseus provides credit for all accepted changes, storing new additions in a versioning system.

hide References (8 total)
  • Commentary references from this page (8):
hide Display Preferences
Greek Display:
Arabic Display:
View by Default:
Browse Bar: