Civilization, Homeric; Epic poetry, Greek -- History and criticism; Homer; Homer -- Criticism and interpretation
There is a passage in the _Iliad_ (xiii. 573) in which a man, speared
from behind through the bowels, "where a wound is most baneful to
wretched mortals, writhes about the spear ... for a moment, not for
long"; his life follows the spear withdrawn. This is not a pleasant
picture; but war, in fact, is not pleasant. Mr. Murray conceives the
line which he renders "he struggled quite a little while, not at all
long," to be a later palliative or expurgative addition; like the
same formula in Odyssey, xxii. 473, where it is applied to the dying
struggles of the hanged women-servants of Odysseus. This may be so,
or may not; the fact that the line _is_ a formula, like those of our
ballads, makes me incline to think it ancient. The point is not of
much importance, and cannot be decided. The horrible death inflicted on
the treacherous thrall, Melanthius, in the _Odyssey_, is a proof that
Homer's men could be very cruel to a treacherous thrall; but so could
the Norsemen be, as in the scarcely quotable parallel case of Wolf the
Unwashed. In the sagas generally we hear of few such cases, though many
must have occurred, abroad, in Viking raids. In the _Iliad_ there is
no treacherous thrall; if such an one there were, he would have been
treated like Melanthius.
I understand Mr. Murray to argue that the _Iliad_ has been expurgated,
but not quite successfully, of traces of poisoned arrows; while
the _Odyssey_ (l. 257-264) has the story of Odysseus seeking for
arrow-poison at Ephyre, where poison was, we elsewhere learn, a
marketable commodity. Ilus would not give it, for he feared the
gods; another man gave it, as he dearly loved Odysseus. The story is
not a true story, but a fable told by Athene. All it proves is that
arrow-poison was known, but was hateful to the gods. As to Mr. Murray's
arguments that such words as _ἄφυκτος_, not "to be escaped," applied to
arrows in the _Iliad_, and "bitter" (πικρός) and "groanful" and "not
long to be supported" as proofs of the practice of poisoning arrows,
I can only say that I do not think the inference necessary. _Πικρός_
means "sharp," according to Liddell and Scott; unpoisoned arrows cause
groans enough; the heroes "do not long support" flesh-wounds from
_spears_, but "retire hurt." That Agamemnon expects Menelaus to die
(iv. 134) when arrow--smitten in the belly, is very natural. Menelaus
would have died had the arrow bitten deep, but it merely grazed him
through several interstices of his armour. Pandarus shot with a fresh
arrow, "unused before," "whose poison has not been rubbed off." I reply
that in meditating an important shot, any archer would use a fresh
arrow if he could, because the feathers would have been in better trim
and the shaft unstrained, the point unblunted, exactly as a man would
use a new spear in a tournament.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account