¹ owe much to the suggestions and comments of Jasper Griffin, Doreen Innes and Colin Macleod. It will be obvious that I am dealing with a vast and complex subject in an impressionistic way, but I hope to suggest that it deserves more attention than it has received.

² Cf. Latte, K., Philologus 80 (1925)Google Scholar, 171 (.= Kl. Schr. 662), Erbse, H., Beiträge zur Uberlieferung der Iliasscholien (Munich, 1960), pp. 171–3Google Scholar, Lehnert, G., De Scholiis ad Homerum rhetoricis (Diss. Freiburg-Leipzig, 1896), p. 69.Google Scholar

³ On sources and transmission see Erbse op. cit., the preface to his edition of the Scholia, and Valk, M. Van der, Researches on the Text and Scholia of the Iliad (Leiden, 1963), I. pp. 414 ffGoogle Scholar. The most useful study of literary criticism in the Scholia is by Franz, M. L. Von, Die iisthetischen Anschauungen der Iliasscholien (Diss. Zurich, 1943Google Scholar). See also Roemer, A., Die exegetischen Scholien der Bias in Codex Venetus B (Munich, 1879)Google Scholar, Griesinger, R., Die asthetischen Anschauungen der alten Homererkldrer (Diss. Tubingen, 1907)Google Scholar, Clausing, A., Kritik and Exegese der horn. Gleichnisse im Altertum (Diss. Freiburg)Google Scholar, Lehnert, op. cit., and Schmidt, M., Die Erkldrungen zum Weltbild Homers und zur Kultur der Heroenzeit in den bTScholien zur Ilias (Munich, 1976)Google Scholar, pp. 39 ff., who rightly criticizes Von Franz and Lehnert for excessive emphasis on Stoic origins. The Index to the Scholia by J. Baar (Baden-Baden, 1961) is useful, and should be consulted for full references to critical terms. My own references are not intended to be complete. I have taken most of my examples from the B and T Scholia, with some glances at A where relevant. I have not on the whole added illustrations from the other Scholia such as G. For further infor mation on technical terms of rhetorical theory see Lausberg, H., Handbuch der literarischen Rhetorik (Munich, Munich).Google Scholar

⁴ For cf. also BT 5.70, 143, 523, 6.37, ABT 6.371, B 8.5 (Porphyry), T 10.158, BT 11.104, T 11.378, 498, BT 11.722–5, T 12.129, BT 13.1, 219, 340–2, 408, 14.1, 147, 153, 476–7, T 15.333, BT 15.390, 16.320, 339, 345, 593, 17.306–7, 600, 18.1, A 18.314, ABT 20.372, BT 20.383, T 20.397, BT 20.463, T 20.473, BT 21.34, 24.266.

⁵ Cf. BT 4.539, 5.693, 7.17, 328, 8.209, T 11.599, BT 11.619, T. 13.20, 168, BT 14.1, 14.114, 15.362 (similes), 105, 16.431, 666, 793, 17.426, 18.148, 22.147.

⁶ Cf. also ABT 10.299, T 12.199, A 14.1, BT 22.131, T 22.437. Modern scholars have made great capital out of this simple principle. Cf. T. Zieliński, Philologus Suppl. 8 (1899–1901), 407 ff., Page, D., The Homeric Odyssey (Oxford, 1955), pp. 65 ff., 77 n. 11, etc.Google Scholar

⁷ Cf. especially BT 11.598: .

⁸ Cf. also BT 7.79, 13.831, 18.176–80, Eust. 1098.29 ff., 1136.17 ff., 1136.53 ff., and Redfield, J. M., Nature and Culture in the Iliad (Chicago, 1975), p. 169.Google Scholar

⁹ For other references to and anticipation (, etc.) cf. T 1.45, 213, BT 1.242, 247, BT 2.39, 272, 362, 375–7, 416, A 2.718, B 2.761, B 2.787, 872, BT 3.261, AB 3.363, BT 4.2, 421, 5.116, T 5.348, BT 5.543–4, 6.116, 490–1, 516, 7.125, 274, T 10.274, 276, 332, AB 11.17, BT 11.45, T 11.798, BT 12.37, 113, 116, T 12.228, 13.241, 521, BT 14.217, 15.56, T 15.64, BT 15.258, ABT 15.377, BT 15.556, 594, 610, 16. 46, 71, 145, 752–3, 17.215–16, 236, T 17.351, BT 17.695, A 18.215–16, BT 18.312, 372, 395, T 18.418, A 18.483,

T 20.7, 21.515, 22.5, 22.385, BT 23.62–3, A 23.616, etc. Cf. also Schol. G II. 2.36, 5.674, 10.336, 16.71, and G. E Duckworth, ’ in the Scholia to Homer’, AJP 52 (1931), 320 ff. As he points out, anticipation () is really distinct from explicit foreshadowing (), although they are often confused in the Scholia.

¹⁰ Death of Achilles: BT 1.352, 505, 18.88–9, 458. Fall of Troy and other later events: AT 2.278, BT 6.438, ABT 6.448, BT 12.13–15, T 13.156, BT 13. 411, BT 15.56, 21.376, ABT 22.61–2, G 12.10. Odyssey: T 2.260, ABT 4.354, T 5.561, T 10.247, 252, 260, 12.16, BT 24.804.

¹¹ Cf. BT 8.62, T 8.470, BT 10.38, 11.604, 711, 12.116, 297, 330, T 14.392, BT 15.594, 610, 16.46, 431, A13 20.443, BT 22.274, T 23.378, 383.

¹² Cf. T 11.507, BT 12.52, T 14.424, Reinhardt, K., Die Ilias and ihr Dichter, pp. 107 ff., discusses Homer's fondness for such situations.Google Scholar

¹³ Cf. Trendelenburg, A., Grammaticorum graecorum de arte tragica iudiciorum reliquiae (Bonn, 1867), pp. 70–85Google Scholar, Adam, L., Die aristotelische Theorie vom Epos … (Wiesbaden, 1889), pp. 30 ff.Google Scholar

¹⁴ For cf. also AB 2.484, BT 10.271, 11.464, 23.65, and esp. BT .

¹⁵ e.g. ABT 2.73, BT 2.144, T 7.424, ABT 8.428–9, T 13.241, BT 17.209 (), 20.25.

¹⁶ See also p. 281 on 17.695 ff. and Od. 11.563.

¹⁷ Cf. also Quint. 2.4.2, for this division of types of narrative. Criticism of Homer's fantasies was of course common (cf. ’Longinus’ 9.14, etc.).

¹⁸ Cf. A 2.553, ABT 5.127, A 5.231, 6.114, 11.506, 12.211, AT 16.432, ABT 16.666, ABT 17.24, A 18.356.

¹⁹ Cf. Demetrius, On Style, 222 (quoting Theophrastus).

²⁰ Cf. BT 5.744, 13.127, 343, 15.414, 24.163, Quintilian 8.4.21 ff. Homer's praise of Nestor's honey-sweet eloquence also subtly implies his own poetic charm, (AB 1.249)! Cf. BT 6.357–8.

²¹ Cf. T 10.482, A 18.217, 230.

²² Cf. ABT 8.85–7 (Nestor's physical weakness shown in action), and Vita Sophoclis § 21 for a similar comment on Sophocles. Homer and the tragedians seldom waste words on ’character sketches’. They know how to convey character in action and speech.

²³ That apostrophe is a sign of sympathy was argued independently by Adam Parry in his sensitive analysis of the characters of Patroclus and Menelaus (HSCP 76 (1972), 9 ff.).

²⁴ Cf. p. 281 below.

²⁵ Cf. Dittenberger, W., Hermes 40 (1905), 460 ff.Google Scholar

²⁶ Cf. Kakridis, J. T., Homer revisited (Lund, 1971), pp. 54 ff., who criticizes Van der Valk for supporting the view of the Scholia. See also Van der Valk, Researches, I, 474 ff.Google Scholar

²⁷ Cf. BT 7.89–90, 192, 226–7, 284, 289, 8.180–1, 197, 216, 497–8, T 515, BT 523.

²⁸ Cf. also BT 14.366, 15.346, T 15.721, BT 16.833, 17.220, A 17.225, 227, 240, ABT 17.248, BT 18.285, 293, 296, and Van der Valk, op. cit., pp. 475 f.

²⁹ This view is attributed to the scholar Pius (T 6.234). His date is not known (RE ILA 662), pace Van der Valk (op. cit., I, 437 n. 120).

³⁰ There are parallels in the tragic Scholia (cf. Trendelenburg, op. cit., p. 131). The historians were also criticized for lack of patriotism (Dionysius, Thucydides 41, Plutarch, De malignitate Herodoti).

³¹ For etc. cf. ABT 1.547, BT 5.370, 12.342–3, A 18.12; also ’Longinus’ 9.15, etc.

³² Cf. Griffin, J., ’Homeric Pathos and Objectivity’, CQ N.S. 26 (1976), 161 ff. for a full and sensitive discussion.Google Scholar

³³ Also , etc. (see Baar s.v.).

³⁴ Cf. B 2.692, BT 4.127, 146, 7.104, 13.180, T 13.603, ABT 16.549, BT 16.6923, 775, 787, T 17.301. At BT 15.610–14 they defend these lines against rejection by Zenodotus and Aristarchus, observing that they show the poet's sympathy at Hector's impending death.

³³ On this ’hierarchy of sublime themes’ see lnnes, D. C., ’Gigantomachy and natural philosophy’, CQ N.S. 29 (1979), 165 ff.Google Scholar

³⁶ Cf. BT 3.182, 190, 4.1, 2, 35, 153–4, 422, 435, 439, 452, 512, 5.23, 70, 87, 543–4, 703, 801, T 6.234, BT 6.413, 499, 7.208, 214, 8.2, 77, 131, A 9.14, ABT 11.475, AB 11.548, A 12.4, BT 12.23, T 12.154, BT 12.430, 465–6, T 13.345, BT 14.394–8, 15.258, 312–13, 414, 16.58, 98–9, 549, T 16.810, BT 16.814, AT 17.260, BT 17.671, 676, B 19.388–91, BT 20.213, T 21.385, BT 22.294, 371, AB 22.443–4, BT 23.222, 24.214, 490. See also Austin, N., ’The Function of Digressions in the Iliad’, GRBS 7 (1966)Google Scholar, 295 ff., and Calhoun, G. M., ’Homeric repetitions’, University of California Publications in Classical Philology 12 (1933), 1 ff.Google Scholar

³⁷ The Scholia also note that this is the only voyage described in the Iliad, and so receives a good deal of attention (BT 1. 434 f.). Structurally, this scene provides an effective contrast with the narrative of Achilles' anger.

³⁸ Cf. Dionysius, On the Arrangement of Words 16.

³⁹ Demetrius, however, praises 21.257 ff. as an example of accurate and vivid description (209). Cf. also BT 4.482, T 11.481, BT 17.666, 22.193. Demetrius (129) chooses the simile at Od. 6.105 ff. as an illustration of ’dignified and lofty elegance’ ().

⁴⁰ Cf. BT 1.505, A 2.765, 3.200–2, BT 4.125, 222, ABT 4.274, BT 6.460, 8.87, T 10.297–8, 314, BT 11.239, 300, 13.249, 15.219, 496, 16.112, T 16.630, ABT 20.372, BT 20.395.

⁴¹ Cf. also T 10.409, BT 15.6–7, 16. 293, 415–16, 17.605, 20.456, T 20.460.

⁴² Cf. also 6.467–8, 10.461, T 11.378, AB 11.548, BT 12.430, 14.438, 454, 15.381, 16.7, 17.263, 389, 20.394, 21.526, 22.61–2, 23.362, 692, 697.

⁴³ Another related term is (cf. )c, which is similarly used, though different in origin), of any striking or vivid effect or expression: BT 1.342, 2.414, 3.342, 4.126, 5.744, 8.355, 9.206, ABT 9.374–5, BT 11.297, 12.430, 15.381, 624, 740, 16.379, ABT 17.652–3, BT 21.9–10, 361, 362, 22.146, 24.212. (vigour) can be used in a similar way (and the MSS confuse this with ). Cf. esp. BT 12.461: , followed by a detailed catalogue of all the elements in the scene which make it so vivid and dramatic. Cf. also BT 10.369, T 20.48. Normally, however, is used for personification of inanimate objects. These qualities could really be classified as well or better under the grand or powerful style, and this shows the essential artificiality of the whole system.

⁴⁴ Cf. also A 3.327, BT 4.541, 5.82, 6.468, 10.524, 11.282, 12.463–5, T 13.11, BT 13.281, 597, T 14.285, BT 16.470, T 17.85, 136, 18.586, BT 18.603–4, 19.282, T 20.162, BT 21.67–8, T 21.175, BT 21. 325, 22.61–2, 80, T 22.97, 367, BT 22.474, T 24.163. Comparison between literature and the visual arts was common in antiquity. Cf. also Lee, R. W., ’Ut pictura poesis, The humanistic theory of painting’, The Art Bulletin 22 (1940), 199 ff., for the development of such ancient parallels in the Renaissance.Google Scholar

⁴⁵ Cf. Quint. 6.2.29 ff., ’Longinus’ 15 with D. A. Russell's commentary, and Von Franz, op. cit., pp. 19 ff.

⁴⁶ For an extensive discussion see the work of Clausing (op. cit., above, p. 265 n. 3).

⁴⁷ Cf. Virgil's echo of this simile, to describe Aeneas and Turnus raging over the battlefield (Aen. 12.523 ff.).

⁴⁸ Cf. ABT 2.87, BT 3.222, 6.509, ABT 9.4, BT 11.113, ABT 12.278, BT 12.433, 13.39, 137, 298, 14.394–8, 15.324, 618, 679, 690, 16.406, 633, T 16.756–7, BT 17.53, 61, 263, 434, ABT 17.657, BT 17. 676, 747, 755, 18.161, 207, B 18.220, BT 20.490, T 20.495, BT 21.12, 22, 522–3, 22.199–201.

⁴⁹ On this see Schlunk, R. R., The Homeric Scholia and the Aeneid (Ann Arbor, 1974), pp. 42 ff.Google Scholar

⁵⁰ On this aspect see Fränkel, H., Die bomerischen Gleichnisse (Gottingen, 1921)Google Scholar, and Moulton, C., Similes in the Homeric Poems (Göttingen, 1977).Google Scholar

⁵¹ See especially the elaborate treatment of the whole subject by Silk, M. S., Interaction in Poetic Imagery (Cambridge, 1974)CrossRefGoogle Scholar. His note on ancient views of Homeric imagery does not mention Porphyry (211 f.). See also West, D. A., JRS 59 (1969), 40 ff. on interaction and transfusion in the similes in the Aeneid.Google Scholar

⁵² See Kennedy, G. A., AJP 78 (1957), 23 ff.Google Scholar, North, H., Traditio 8 (1952)Google Scholar, 1 ff.; and for a modern analysis Lohmann, D., Die Komposition der Reden in der Ilias (de Gruyter, 1970).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁵³ Cf. BT 14.75, and [Dionysius of Halicarnassusi, On Contrived Speeches (Opuscula ii.310 ff.) and p. 273 above.

⁵⁴ BT 1.262, 7.132, 155, 9.448, B 9.452, 480, BT 9.527, 11.670, 717, 785–6, A 18.117, BT 24.601–2.

⁵⁵ Cf. Austin, op. cit., above (p. 276 n.36).

⁵⁶ Cf. ’Longinus’ 9.2, and Bühler, W., Beiträge z. Erklärung der Schrift vom Erhabenen, pp. 15 ff.Google Scholar

⁵⁷ Cf. Taplin, O., ’Aeschylean Silences and Silences in Aeschylus’, HSCP 76 (1972), 57 ff.Google Scholar

⁵⁸ Cf. A 2.629, 763 and P. Oxy. 1086 i.11 ff., A 4.451, 7.276, AT 11.834–5, A 12.400, T 15.330–3, A 24.605, Cicero ad Att. 1.16.1, and S. E. Bassett, HSCP 31 (1920), 39 ff.

⁵⁹ Cf. A 2.621, 6.219, T 15.330–3, tl 16.251, 22.158.

⁶⁰ Cf. Schmidt, , Erklärungen, pp. 36–8.Google Scholar

⁶¹ Cf. also 2.382–4 for epanaphora and bomoeoteleuton together (ABT 2.382).

L.P. Wilkinson observes that anaphora is relatively rare om Homer, and hence all the more striking when it does occur (Golden Latin Artistry (Cambride, 1966), pp. 66 f.).Google Scholar

⁶² Eustathius regarda such repetition as sponataneous () and realistic (1211.44, 1321.44).

⁶³ See also Demetrius, , On Style 54, Dionysius of Halicarnassus, On the Arrangement of Words 16 (ad fin.), on repetition and variation in the Catalogue of Ships.Google Scholar

⁶⁴ Cf. The Making of Homeric Verse (Oxford, 1971), pp. 120 ff.Google Scholar

⁶⁵ Schol. B 6.201 = Quaestiones Homericae I, No. 11. Cf. also A 6.200, T 7.278, A 9.137, BT 13.281, 14.176, T 14.178, ABT 14.518, T 15.536.

⁶⁶ Cf. Pfeiffer, , History of Classical Scholarship, i, pp. 3 ff.Google Scholar

⁶⁷ Cf. A 5.60, A 6.18, AT 12.342, etc.

⁶⁸ Note also Democritus, D.-K. 68 B 24: Eumaeus' mother was called Penia! As Eumaeus' father is called Ctesios (Od. 15.414), it looks as if Democritus intends an allegory like that of Poros and Penia as parents of Eros.

⁶⁹ In general see Stanford, W. B., The Sound of Greek (University of California Press, 1967)Google Scholar, who discusses the views of ancient critics such as Dionysius of Halicarnassus, and also Wilkinson, L. P., Golden Latin Artistry, pp. 9 ff.Google Scholar

⁷⁰ Cf. Od. 21.48–9 of doors, quoted at B 8.393 (on , where is also said to be ’onomatopoeic’).

⁷¹ Cf. p. 279 above, and also Dionysius, op. cit., 16.

⁷² Cf. Arist. Poet. 1458^b 31, Dionysius 15.

⁷³ On ’cacophony’ see also Demetrius 219, where he quotes as vivid Od. 9.289

⁷⁴ Cf. Demetrius 94 and 220, quoting (Il. 16.161). Demetrius admires Homer's ability to imitate sounds and to create new words. Dionysius (16) mentions and (Il. 2.210), (12. 207), (16.361), and (Od. 5.402). Quintilian cites ’justly admired’ (1.5.72).

⁷⁵ See esp. Demetrius 68 ff., Dionysius, op. cit., passim, Stanford, op. cit., esp. pp. 48 ff.

⁷⁶ Cf. Demetrius 69 ff. (citing , etc.). On the other hand, a concurrence of long vowels between two words could produce an effect of grandeur and strain, as in the famous passage in the Odyssey about Sisyphus (cf. Demetrius 72, Dionysius 20, Schol. Od. 11.596, Eust. 1701.55, 1702. 19–23).

⁷⁷ So in fact is 12.380 also. Dactylic lines such as 6.511, 13.30, 20.497, 24.691 are probably intended to suggest speed. Cf. also Od. 11.598 (Sisyphus' stone again), Hom. Hy. Dem. 89, 171, 184, 380.

⁷⁸ Cf. Demetrius 42, on spondaic rhythms in prose.

⁷⁹ Cf. S. E. Bassett, CP 12 (1917), 97 ff. and my notes on Hom. Hy. Dem. 31. See also Bassett, , ’Versus tetracolos’, CP 14 (1919), 216 ff.Google Scholar

⁸⁰ This provides added support for Aristarchus' condemnation of 24.556, although this fact is not mentioned by the Scholia. 557 is also metrically suspect (cf. Leaf). Aristarchus' reading at Il. 9.394, , avoids the rare trochaic caesura in the fourth foot which occurs with (Maas, op. cit., § 87), but we do not know why he preferred this reading.

⁸¹ It is not clear whether the Scholia distinguish properly between word-break and pause. According to Aulus Gellius (18.15) it was Varro who first noted the main caesura in the third foot, although it seems that metricians before him had already observed that the central part of the hexameter seldom consisted of a single unit of sense. See Bassett, , The Poetry of Homer (University of California Press, 1938), pp. 145 ff., and CP 11 (1916), 458 ff. (where he shows that Arist. Metaph. 1093^a 30 f. does not refer to the caesura).Google Scholar