Article contents
Some Questions concerning the Armour of Homeric Heroes
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 23 December 2013
Extract
When Pandaros treacherously shoots at Menelaos (Δ 132 sq.), the arrow lights—
- ὅθι ζωστῆρος ὀχῆες
- χρύσειοι σύνεχον καὶ διπλόος ἤντετο θώρνξ·
- ἐν δ᾿ ἔπεσε ζωστῆρι ἀρηρότι πικρὸς ὀιστός·
- διὰ μὲν ἂρ ζωστῆρος ἐλήλατο δαιδαλέοιο,
- καὶ διὰ θώρηκος πολυδαιδάλου ἠρήρειστο
- μίτρης θ᾿ ἣν ἐφόρει ἔρυμα χροός, ἕρκος ἀκόντων,
- ἥ οἱ πλεῖστον ἕρυτο· διαπρὸ δὲ εἴσατο καὶ τῆς.
A little later, Menelaos says of the same wound (Δ 185-187):
- οὐκ ἐν καιρίῳ ὀξὺ πάγη βέλος, ἀλλὰ πάροιθεν
- εἰρύσατο ζωστήρ τε παναίολος, ἠδ᾿ ὑπένερθεν
- ζῶμά τε καὶ μίτρη τὴν χαλκῆες κάμον ἄνδρες
And Machaon, after drawing the arrow out (Δ 215-6),
- λῦσε δέ οἱ ζωστῆρα παναίολον, ἠδ᾿ ὑπένερθεν
- ζῶμά τε καὶ μίτρην τὴν χαλκῆες κάμον ἄνδρες.
The word ζῶμα occurs again only in ξ 482, a passage which we will postpone for the moment, and in Ψ 683 of the boxer's girdle, which does not require further consideration.
Comparing the second and third of the passages quoted with the first, it seems perfectly clear that the ζῶμα was a part of the θώρηξ, and not an appendage to it. The word, in fact, stands as a passive to the active correlative ζωστήρ, and means the part of the θώρηξ which was fastened down by the girdle. It is quite clear from the oldest vase paintings that the lower part of the θώρηξ was bent outwards into a sort of ridge all round, in order to make a hollow which should be capable of holding the ζωστηρ in its place. This is very well shown in the woodcut, which is taken from Conze's Melische Thongefässe, Leipzig, 1877. The is expressed by the parallel lines at the bottom of the thorax; this is clear from the Kameiros pinax, where the lines are diagonal, and therefore do not indicate anything in the nature of such a πτερύγιον as we shall presently have to discuss.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © The Society for the Promotion of Hellenic Studies 1883
References
page 76 note 1 See however Milchhoefer, , Anf. der Kunst in Griech., p. 93Google Scholar, “Es ist nicht deutlich ob derselbe bisweilen den untern Rand eines Panzers bezeichnet. Auffallend ist, dass sich dieser Ring noch in altgriechischen Bronzen bei sonstiger Nacktheit der Figuren vorfindet.” He mentions also four gems in the Berlin Museum which show the same ring, and a finger-ring from Salonichi in which “Bänder mit (Metall-?) Verzierungen herabhängen.”
page 78 note 1 Yet so virtually Buttmann, , Lex. p. 66Google Scholar (Eng. tr.), where αἰολομίτρης is derived from the ‘suppleness and flexibility essential’ to the waist.
page 78 note 2 It also follows that there is no difficulty in explaining αἰόλος, wherever it refers to armour, as indicating the ‘glancing’ of light on the metal surfaces.
page 82 note 1 Duc de Luynes, Vases peints, pl. XII. Others call the warrior Hector, but there is little to determine the question. The style appears to be the same as in our vase. There is an inscription, but it is meaningless. λινοθώρηξ, Il. ii. 529, 830.
page 83 note 2 Anab. iv. 7, 15.
page 83 note 3 ii. 182, iii. 47.
page 83 note 4 Hist. Nat. xix. 2.
page 84 note 1 Archäol. Zeitung, 1846, pl. 39.
page 85 note 1 It ought perhaps to be mentioned as an instance of the caution needed in studying vase-paintings from any source except the originals, that Gerhard in his drawing of the amphora (Auserl. Vasenbilder, pl. 207) gives a black instead of a white corslet, and that Brunn, (Gesch. der Gr. Künstler, II. 656)Google Scholar and Panofka both make the first letter of the doubtful word π, without any hint of uncertainty.
- 1
- Cited by