Untitled - Get a Free Blog

Book Mine
knew as much about him as we do at the end of this book his inclusion
could be seen as an attempt to coerce Akhilleus with the sort of moral
pressure that a respected member of Peleus' household could exert. As
it is, he has not been so much as mentioned up to this point. Apart from his
admonition of Akhilleus at 496-605 he has a very minor role in the Iliad
(16.196, 19.311, 23.360, with an allusion at 17.555) DUt received a mention
in the Cypria (fr. 16 Davies = Paus. 10.26.4) where he is said to have
bestowed the name Neoptolemos on the son of Akhilleus; D on 19.326 affirm
that the recruiting officers who unmasked Akhilleus on Skuros included
Phoinix as well as Odysseus and Nestor (frr. incert. loc. 4 Davies, not
according to that editor from the Cypria). His introduction here as if he were
as well-known a figure as Hektor (cf. 1.242 for his unheralded introduction),
and a natural choice, is awkward - however appropriate he turns out to be.
For his story see 434-95. He is now a dependant (OTT&COV 23.360) of the
family of Peleus, lord of the Dolopes, and commander of the fourth regiment
of Myrmidons (16.196). In spite of this he does not appear to reside with
Akhilleus' contingents. It would indeed be necessary to mention Phoinix at
this point and include him in the embassy only if he had some essential
function to perform before his intervention at 434, e.g. to mollify an irate
Akhilleus before the suppliants dared to present themselves. In the event,
192-3, the ambassadors felt no such inhibitions. The problems surrounding
his introduction prompt the question, why Phoinix? To which the answer
must be that the poet needs a character with strong moral leverage to
put pressure on Akhilleus, but that the character best qualified to do so,
Patroklos, is unavailable at this point, being held in reserve until book 16.
(There is another Phoinix at 14.321. The name is probably from (poivos
according to von Kamptz, Personennamen 143.)
TrpcoTiOTa ... fiynaacjOco has been tendentiously interpreted at least since
the time of Aristarchus to ease the difficulty of the dual verbs at i82ff., cf.
Arn/A OTI 6 OoTvi^ TrpoepxeTOti KOCI oO crv|JTrpe(7(3evei TOIS "rrspi TOV 'OBucraea
cbcrre uf) auyxsiaOca 81a TGOV e£ns TOC 8UIK&. In 169 Iiterta was then taken in
a strongly temporal sense. In a normal context fjyeicrOai means 'lead' with
a nuance of commanding or guiding. Neither specialized meaning is appropriate
at this point, for Phoinix does not have the status to command Aias
and Odysseus, nor does it make sense to have him show Akhilleus' friends
the way to Akhilleus' quarters. In the present context fjyeTaOai must be
given its weakest sense, 'lead the way', so as to lend some dignity, perhaps,
to the ambassadorial procession; the alternative is Higher Criticism or
special pleading.
170 We should probably not ask to whom these heralds are attached.
There are two of them because twoness and attendance are regularly conjoined,
cf. the formula OUK OTOS, ocua TCO ye 8uco ... (7X including variants).
82