Untitled - Get a Free Blog

Book Nine
34, 54), which may be broken down into (1) the journey is described; (2)
the visitor arrives, with a description of the scene; (3) the visitor waits at
the doors. If the visitor has the right standing, i.e. if he is not unwelcome
(like Agamemnon's heralds at 1.3271!.), not an enemy (like Priam in 24),
not a beggar (like Odysseus on Ithaca), he is then led within and seated.
Odysseus and his party do not wait but enter without ceremony. That is the
manner of suppliants, see 24.471-84 (Priam), Od. 7.134-45 (Odysseus),
but suppliants must quickly make physical contact with their protector and
Odysseus and Aias are not suppliants (see 50m.). Their action cannot be
discourteous and may be explained with reference to 6.313-31, Hektor's
visit to the house of Paris: a fellow citizen of equal rank need not stand on
ceremony. A messenger would then immediately deliver his message (see
6.325, 11.647). From this point, however, the scene follows the pattern of
the hospitality (and supplication) scene. The visitors are led within, seated,
and given food and drink. Only then is the message delivered, at the point
where it would have been appropriate in the hospitality scene for Akhilleus
to enquire their business.
182 The appearance of the dual in this verse and at 183, 185, 192,
196, 197, and 198 (with a plural intervening at 186) is embarrassing,
since with the addition of Phoinix the deputation has reached five in number;
but no less odd is the disappearance of the dual after 198, for there can
be no plausible reason why Akhilleus should receive his visitors in the dual
and dismiss them (649) in the plural, nor why they should arrive in the dual
and depart (657, 669) in the plural, especially when Akhilleus has subtracted
Phoinix from their number. The principals, Odysseus and Aias, are
no less a pair when they go than when they come. It would be prudent
therefore, whatever assumptions are made about the textual integrity of this
book, to concede that the duals in 182-98 are incidental, not integral, to
the poet's conception of the embassy. For some reason he can say fWrrqv at
182, and under the influence of that use continue the dual for a dozen and
a half verses. Why that number is possible in the first place is a question
that may be answered in at least six ways. (1) The use is an abuse of
grammar, the dual being treated in the Kunstsprache as interchangeable with
the plural. This view is mentioned by D, and was presumably that of
Zenodotus. It cannot be right in its simple form (but see (6) below); apart
from some special cases (e.g. 5.487, 8.73-4 ( see nn - ad locc), Od. 8.35, 8.48)
with special explanations, the plural may replace the dual where two are
in question but not vice versa where the reference is to three or more.
(The basic article is that of A. Debrunner, Glotta 15 (1927) 14-25). (2)
The essence of the embassy is the pair, Odysseus and Aias: the rest are
mere retinue, socially and grammatically invisible. This is intelligible, cf.
Odysseus' approach to the Laestrygonians, av5p£ 8uco Kpivas, TpiTorrov
85