¹ I owe this parallel to Dr M. Winterbottom, whose teaching has enhanced my understanding of Homer as of other authors with whom his name is more usually associated. I have also been much helped by comments on this paper by Dr O. Taplin, and by many discussions of Homer with Miss E. Kearns. Finally, I thank Mrs P. E. Easterling and the late C. W. Macleod, for valuable criticisms and advice, and the latter for constant stimulus over a longer period. I offer this paper as a tribute to his memory.

² See esp. Griffin, J., Homer on Life and Death (Oxford 1980)Google Scholar, hereafter ‘Griffin’, and the articles which preceded this outstanding study; and now Macleod, C. W., Homer: Iliad xxiv (Cambridge 1982)Google Scholar. Adam Parry, in his introduction to Parry, Milman, The Making of Homeric Verse (Oxford 1971) l–lixGoogle Scholar, had already pointed the way: cf. Macleod, , Notes & Queries xxi (1974) 318–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

³ For ancient statements of the debt which the tragedians owed to Homer, see Pl. Rep. x 595cGoogle Scholar, Arist., Poet. 4.1448b38 f., 8.51a22–30, 23.59a29–34Google Scholar; also Gudeman, on Poet. 3.48a6Google Scholar; Aesch. ap. Athen. viii 347e; Vita Soph. 20; Ps.-Plut., de vita et poesi Hom. 213Google Scholar; Radt, , TGF iv T 115–16Google Scholar; Richardson, N. J., CQ xxx (1980) 270Google Scholar.

⁴ For related contrasts see Arist., Poet. 24.59b10–16Google Scholar; Ps.-Long. 9.15, 29.2 with Russell's nn.

⁵ On this episode see further Reinhardt, K., Die Ilias und ihr Dichter (Göttingen 1961) 348–73Google Scholar.

⁶ Cf. Macleod, , Iliad xxiv (n.2) 23–8Google Scholar.

⁷ On death-wishes in tragedy, see Collard on Eur. Supp. 86.

⁸ See further Collard ad loc. and on 504–5.

⁹ Another aspect of Achilles' human limitations is brought out in the Theomachy. Here his defiance of the gods is perilous, and for all his greatness he will be punished: he himself recalls this at xxi 275 ff, and the gods, especially Scamander, resent his brutality (xxi 136, 147, 214, 217–21, 306, 314–15). This stands in contrast with the prudence of Diomedes in the earlier theomachy: Diomedes remembers the warning he has received (v 815–24) from Athene, and observes the limits laid upon him (see v 121 ff., 443–4, 606, 815–24; Vi 129–41 is not therefore inconsistent). See further Andersen, Ø., Die Diomedesgestalt in der Ilias, Symb. Osl. supp. xxv (1975) ch. ivGoogle Scholar; and on theomachoi in tragedy Kamerbeek, J. C., Mnemos.⁴ i (1948) 271–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

¹⁰ In general, see Knox, B. M. W., The Heroic Temper (Berkeley/L.A. 1964) chs i–ii, esp. pp. 50–2Google Scholar.

¹¹ Antilochus' fear that Achilles will kill himself (xviii 34) also finds echoes in tragedy, e.g. Soph., Aj. 326–7, 583–8Google Scholar, Eur., Med. 37Google Scholar, and the whole final scene of the Heracles (see Bond on 1248; Stanford's comm. on Ajax, appendix E).

¹² Cf. Vickers, B., Towards Greek Tragedy (London 1973) 62Google Scholar.

¹³ Contra Bremer, J. M., Hamartia (Amsterdam 1969) 99Google Scholar, ‘in a more or less rudimentary form in Homer’.

¹⁴ Cf. Knox, B., Word and Action (Baltimore 1979) 21–2Google Scholar.

¹⁵ For helpful observations on this passage and its context, see Else, G. F., Aristotle's Poetics: the Argument (Cambridge Mass. 1957) 342–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

¹⁶ For ‘error’ and ‘flaw’ in the OT and elsewhere, see esp. Stinton, T. C. W., CQ xxv (1975) 221–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and the discussion in subsequent issues. For the Homeric background see Bremer (n. 13) 99–111, who somewhat over-emphasises the element of divine control.

¹⁷ Cf. Buxton, R. G. A., JHS c (1980) 22–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar; also a forthcoming study by David Seale, as Mrs Easterling informs me.

¹⁸ For a comparison of oracle-types in Herodotus and Greek tragedy, see Knox, B. M. W., Oedipus at Thebes (Yale 1957) 33–47Google Scholar. For examples of ironic twist and unexpected fulfilment, see Hdt. i 53.2, 66.2–4, iii 64.4 (cf. Shakespeare, , HIV Pt 2 IV v ad fin), vi 76.1Google Scholar and 80; also Fontenrose, J., The Delphic Oracle (Berkeley/L.A. 1978) 58–70, 80, 96–100Google Scholar. On Herodotus and Sophocles see now Podlecki, A. J., in Greece and the Eastern Mediterranean, Festschr. Schachermeyer, F., ed. Kinzl, K. H. (Berlin 1977) 248–9Google Scholar.

¹⁹ See Kranz, W., Studien zur antiken Literatur und ihrem Fortwirken (Heidelberg 1967) 285 ff.Google Scholar; Reeve, M. D., GRBS xi (1970) 283 ffGoogle Scholar.

²⁰ Line 444 is sensitively defended by Stinton, T. C. W., JHS xcvi (1976) 135–6Google Scholar.

²¹ See esp. Whitman, C. H., Sophocles: A Study in Heroic Humanism (Cambridge Mass. 1951) ch. vi, and p. 265 n. 4CrossRefGoogle Scholar, citing Soph. Ant. (quoted in text), and also Aesch., Ag. 1425Google Scholar, Pind., P. v 28 ff.Google Scholar, Eur., Or. 99Google Scholar, Aeschin. iii 157. Add Eur., Alc. 940Google Scholar (with Dale's comm., p. xxii); Hipp. 1401 (and the whole situation of Theseus at the time of Artemis's revelation); Ba. 1120 f., 1285, 1296, 1345; perhaps Aesch., Septem 655, 709–11Google Scholar. See also Nock, A. D., Essays on Religion and the Ancient World (Oxford 1972) 538Google Scholar; West on Hes., Op. 86 f.Google Scholar, adding Hom., Od. viii 564–71Google Scholar with xiii 125–87 (esp. 169, 172 f.); ix 507 ff, xviii 124–57. The non-tragic nature of the Odyssey (Cf. Jacoby, F., Kl. Philol. Schriften [Berlin 1961] i 107–39)Google Scholar means that the ὀψιμαθία pattern is attached to unsympathetic characters (Aegisthus, the Cyclops, the suitors), not to the successful hero, whom the prophecies favour. (The fate of the Phaeacians is an interesting exception.) In the Iliad, compare ii 325, 330 (the Greeks will sack Troy). A related conception, that of πάθει μάθος, has received much more attention: Cf. Dodds, E. R., The Ancient Concept of Progress (Oxford 1973) 59–62Google Scholar; West on Hes., Op. 218Google Scholar; Headlam–Thomson on Aesch., Eum. 520 f.Google Scholar, who point out that this idea is in turn linked with he precept γνῶθι σεαυτόν.. Such self-knowledge involves above all consciousness of the gulf between god and man: see Il. v 440–2, xvi 705–9, xxiv 525–6, etc.Google Scholar; Od. xviii 129–42Google Scholar; also Richardson, on hDem. 147–8Google Scholar.

²² For an interesting though occasionally fanciful analysis of this ode see Segal, C. P., Arion iii (1964) 46–66Google Scholar = Sophocles, ed. Woodard, T. (New Jersey 1966) 62–85Google Scholar. For further connections with fifth-century thought see Knox (n. 18) 107 ff; Havelock, E. A., The Liberal Temper in Greek Politics (London 1957) 66 ffGoogle Scholar.

²³ For related themes in Sophocles see the passages collected by Opstelten, J. C., Sophocles and Greek Pessimism (Amsterdam 1952) 124–5Google Scholar. For the futility of human intelligence and insight as a recurrent theme in Euripides' plays see Dodds (n. 21) 80–9; also Opstelten 132 (very unselective). For the general prevalence of this theme in fifth-century literature see Macleod, C. W., PCPS xxv (1979) 53–60Google Scholar.

²⁴ See esp. Dodds, E. R., The Greeks and the Irrational (Berkeley/L.A. 1951) 102–11Google Scholar; also Messor, W. S., The Dream in Homer and Greek Tragedy (New York 1918)Google Scholar.

²⁵ Cf. Méautis, G., Paideia xv (1960) 81–6Google Scholar.

²⁶ In general on omens in the Odyssey see Podlecki, A. J., G&R xiv (1967) 12–23Google Scholar. For Herodotean parallels involving dreams misunderstood or ignored, see i 34.2 with 45.2, 107–8, 209–210.1, iii 124.1–2, 125.4, v 55–6, vi 107, vii 12–19. Omens ignored: Hdt. i 59.2, vii 37.3, 57.1–2, etc. The wise advisor: Bischoff, H., Der Warner bei Herodot (Diss. Marburg 1932)Google Scholar; Lattimore, R., CPh xxxiv (1939) 24–35Google Scholar.

²⁷ In general on the theology of the Persae see Winnington-Ingram, R. P., JHS xciii (1973) 210–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

²⁸ I strongly doubt Page's reattribution of 929 to Clytemnestra, and less certainly question the likelihood of Macleod's proposal ap. Taplin, O., The Stagecraft of Aeschylus (Oxford 1977) 356 n. 2Google Scholar.

²⁹ Cf. Taplin (n. 28) 356–7.

³⁰ Cf. West on Hes., Op. 202Google Scholar.

³¹ The ‘riddle’ passage is imitated by Sophocles, at El. 1476–81Google Scholar (as the repetition of ξυνῆκα τοὔπος makes certain). There the victim is Aegisthus, and when he recognises Orestes' identity, the latter taunts him as a μάντις who has failed until that moment (1481). But Aegisthus, like Polymestor in Eur., Hec. 1257–84Google Scholar, achieves a kind of status at the end as a prophet of future evils (El. 1497–8; Cf. n. 38), which Orestes' bluster cannot simply brush aside (1499 ἐγώ σοι μάντις εἰμὶ τῶνδ᾿ἄκρος, says Orestes, deliberately refusing to look further). This scene thus carries heavy implications of reprisals for the victors, however hazily defined. Different again is the prophetic role of Cassandra in Eur., Tro. 353–461Google Scholar.

³² See Dodds, loc. cit. (n. 21); Taplin (n. 28) 327–9, 356–7.

³³ See further Alexanderson, B., Eranos lxvii (1969) 1–23Google Scholar; Scott, W. C., Phoenix xxiii (1969) 336–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Sansone, D., Aeschylean Metaphors for Intellectual Activity, Hermes Einzels. xxxv (1975) ch. iiiGoogle Scholar.

³⁴ Fränkel, H., TAPA lxxvii (1946) 131–45Google Scholar and Early Greek Poetry and Philosophy (Oxford 1976) index p. 530Google Scholar, provides a valuable collection of material. This also figures as a central theme in Griffin, esp. ch. vi (more fully CQ xxviii [1978] 1–22Google Scholar).

³⁵ Cf. section V below.

³⁶ Griffin 43–4, 163, makes important points in this connection, but his remarks are very brief. See further the excellent essay by Schadewaldt, W., Von Homers Welt und Werk⁴ (Leipzig 1965) 240–67Google Scholar; and on Hector, Erbse, H., Ausgewählte Schriften (Berlin/N.Y. 1979) 1–18Google Scholar = Kyklos, Keydell, Festschr. R. (Berlin 1978) 1–19Google Scholar.

³⁷ Parallels and connections may also be seen between the deaths of these heroes and that of Sarpedon in book xvi: for interesting remarks on the significance of these, and on Sarpedon, and his ‘code’ (xii 310–28Google Scholar) as a foil to the lonelier and more tragic fates of Patroclus, Hector and Achilles, see Müller, M., Mosaic iii (1970) 86–103Google Scholar = Essays on the Iliad, ed. Wright, J. (Indiana 1978) 105–23Google Scholar.

³⁸ On the last words of dying men as prophetic, see also Pl., Ap. 39cGoogle Scholar; Virg., Aen. iv 614 ff.Google Scholar, x 739–41; Genesis xlviii–ix; Shakespeare, , R II II ii31 ff.Google Scholar; Pease on Cic., Div. i 63–4Google Scholar.

³⁹ Further, Lesky, A., Göttliche und menschliche Motivation im homerischen Epos, SB Heidelberg 1961, 4Google Scholar. Abh. esp. pp. 22–44.

⁴⁰ For a useful collection of passages see Duckworth, G. E., Foreshadowing and Suspense in the Epics of Homer, Apollonius and Virgil (Princeton 1933) 38–9, 53–5, 60–1, 71, 92Google Scholar, et passim. More briefly, Moore, C. H., HSCP xxxii (1921) 109–16Google Scholar.

⁴¹ Compare the method of Euripidean prologues, and of Homer's own proems (Cf. van Groningen, B. A., Med.d.Kon.Med.Ak. ix.8 [1946]Google Scholar; and on proemia in general, Richardson, on hDem. 1–3Google Scholar, Austin on Virg., Aen. i 1–11Google Scholar, and bibliographies there).

⁴² On the significance of this passage see Griffin 1; and compare Priam's speech at xxii 59–76.

⁴³ For bibliography of this ‘neo-analyst’ school of criticism, see Heubeck, A. in Homer: Tradition and Invention, ed. Fenik, B. (Leiden 1978) 9 n. 27Google Scholar.

⁴⁴ Cf. Griffin 85.

⁴⁵ Cf. Kakridis, J. T., Homer Revisited (Lund 1971) 64Google Scholar.

⁴⁶ On Homer's use of this word see Bremer (n. 13) 101 n. 9.

⁴⁷ The close verbal connection with xxii 403–4 (Zeus permits the defilement of Hector's body) is another link between the two scenes.

⁴⁸ See esp. xvii 202–3 (quoted in text), 448–50, 472–3, 693 ἀτὰρ τά γε τεύχε᾿ ἔχει κορυθαίολος (repeated from xvii 122; Cf. xviii 21), xviii 131–2, 188, 197. The repetitions and emphasis on the physical possession of the armour by Hector make the object symbolically significant. Part of the point of book xviii is that Hector's triumph in acquiring Achilles' old armour is negated by the acquisition of new and greater armour. And in xxii 322–7 it is a weakness in the plundered armour that proves Hector's undoing (for Virgilian imitation, see Aen. x 496 ff.Google Scholar, 503–5, xii 941–4). For such significant objects see Griffin ch. i (he does not discuss this example). Again the Homeric technique is inherited by Greek tragedy: see Taplin, O. P., Greek Tragedy in Action (London 1978) ch. viCrossRefGoogle Scholar. An obvious parallel is the bow of Philoctetes.

⁴⁹ The κλέος gained from his victory does not seem to me to alter this picture, for even glory no longer means anything to Achilles, (xviii 121 is belied by his final attitude in book xxiv: note esp. his indifferent tone at 139–40, and the deep disillusionment expressed in 540–2. See further Griffin 98–101.) This is another way in which the mood and reactions of Achilles during his first wrath (see ix 315–43) are echoed in more tragic circumstances in the final books of the poem.

⁵⁰ Again there are verbal echoes, through the significant use of τελεῖν and cognates: xviii 74 τετέλεσται and 79 ἐξετέλεσσεν should be related not only to xviii 4 τὰ φρονέοντ᾿ ἀνὰ θυμὸν ἅ δὴ, τετλεσμένα ἦεν but also to i 523 ἐμοὶ δέ κε ταῦτα μελήσεται, ὄφρα τελέσσω and 526–7 οὐ γὰρ ἐμὸν παλινάγρετον οὐδ᾿ ἀπατηλὸν/οὐδ᾿ ἀτελεύτητον, ὅ τί . . . κατανεύσω cf. the title Ζεύς τέλειος (Fraenkel on Aesch Ag. 973–4Google Scholar).

⁵¹ On the force of this word see most recently Griffin 163 n. 41, who is more cautious than I would be about finding the meaning ‘destroyed’ present.

⁵² For other formulations of this theme, see Od. v 103–4Google Scholar, Hes., Op. 105Google Scholarοὕτως οὔ τί τῃ ἔστι Διὸς νὸον ἐξαλέασθαι , 483 ff, Theog. 613, Semonides 1.1 ff. W, Theognis 141–2, Solon 13.63 ff. W, id.17, Heraclitus B78, Pind. fr. 61 Snell, Aesch., Supp. 92 ff.Google Scholar, 1057, Ag. 1487 f., Eur., Or. 1545–6Google Scholar, Hel. 1137–43 and Kannicht ad loc.

⁵³ On the other hand, ὁ μήτε ἀρετῇ διαφέρων καὶ δικαιοσύνῃ (13.53a8) does not seem an altogether suitable description of Achilles, and it might be said that Aristotle here overstates his point. It is not necessary to deny that a tragic hero can be superior in such qualities, as in birth and fortune, only to insist that he should possess also the human weaknesses that make him akin to ourselves (cf. nn. 60–1, 71–2). This is the case with Achilles as with Oedipus.

⁵⁴ There is a difficulty in reconciling xviii 9–11 with xvii 404–11: cf. Leaf on xvii 408, ‘The discrepancy of course arises from difference of authorship, and we need not try to remove it by excision of lines’; contrast Reinhardt (n. 5) 373–4. Homer's words do not seem to make a contradiction inevitable. Thetis had told Achilles many things, including, perhaps, the content of xvii 406–7? Cf. xvi 91 ff.: 97–100 (Achilles' strange prayer) seem to imply that he does know that the Greeks will sack Troy without him and Patroclus, but he wishes that the reverse could be true: cf. xviii 329–32; xix 328–33. But Thetis does not tell him now (on the force of δὴ τότε see Leaf ad loc.) that Patroclus has fallen (not ‘will fall’). But the passage is difficult, and perhaps deliberately made unclear, on any account. Others may prefer to have recourse to Tychoismus (Dawe, R. D., PCPS ix [1963] 21–62Google Scholar): so, e.g., Willcock, M. M., A Companion to Homer's Iliad (Chicago/London 1976)Google Scholar on ix 410, xvi 50–1, xvii 408. See also Σ ^Did xviii 10–11, for a different approach.

⁵⁵ Homer's treatment of Hector and Polydamas is well expounded by Redfield, J. M., Nature and Culture in the Iliad (Chicago/London 1975) 136–53Google Scholar; see also Erbse (n. 36) 5–6, 8–10.

⁵⁶ On the integrity of book ix and the place of Phoenix's speech in the structure of the book and of the epic, see esp. Motzkus, D., Untersuchungen zum 9. Buch der Ilias unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der Phoinixgestalt (Hamburg 1964) 37–46Google Scholar. See also Reinhardt (n. 5) 212–42.

⁵⁷ Cf. Redfield, loc. cit. (n. 55), esp. 145, 150; Willcock (n. 54) on xii 237 f., xiii 823.

⁵⁸ See esp. Schadewaldt (n. 36) 257, 263–4; also Griffin 163, who concisely collects and sums up the relevant passages.

⁵⁹ Cf. (with rather different emphasis) Redfield (n. 55) 108–13, 119–27. On the individualism of Achilles see also Knox, loc. cit. (n. 10); Griffin, J., JHS xcvii (1977) 43–4Google Scholar; Macleod, , Iliad xxiv, 23–8Google Scholar.

⁶⁰ Frye, R. Northrop, Anatomy of Criticism (Princeton 1957) 319Google Scholar comments: ‘It is hardly possible to overestimate the importance for western literature of the Iliad's demonstration that the fall of an enemy, no less than of a friend or leader, is tragic and not comic’ See further Vickers (n. 12) ch. ii; Dover, K. J., Greek Popular Morality (Oxford 1974) 268–72Google Scholar; Martinazzoli, F., Sapphica et Vergilia (Bari 1958)Google Scholar, a work known to me only from Griffith's, J. G. review in CR ix (1959) 285Google Scholar.

⁶¹ Further, note esp. Od. viii 485–531Google Scholar, where Odysseus, expecting to enjoy Demodocus' song of his own glorious deeds at Troy, finds himself weeping tears of pity (531: the preceding simile associates the victor Odysseus with the sufferings of the victims, as does the repetition in 530–1: τῆς δ᾿ ἐλεεινοτάτῳ ἄχεϊ φθινύθουσι παρειαί ὥς ᾿Οδυσσεὺς ἐλεεινὸν ὑπ᾿ ὀφρύσι δάκρυον εἶβεν. See also Soph., Tra. 303–6Google Scholar, Phil. 500–6, Thuc. v 90; perhaps Hdt. vi 21 ὀικήια κακά, but the exact sense is disputed, see Macan ad loc. The Homeric–tragic ethic of ὁμοιοπάθεια should be contrasted with the principle ‘do good to your friends and harm to your enemies’, for which see Kells, J. F., Sophocles: Electra (Cambridge 1973) 8Google Scholar; Dover (n. 60) 180–4; Knox (n. 14) 127–8, 152–3 ( = HSCP lxv [1961] 3–5, 29–30Google Scholar).

⁶² On Homeric rhetoric see Radermacher, L., Artium Scriptores, SÖAW ccxxvii.3 (Vienna 1951) 1–10Google Scholar; Kennedy, G., AJP lxxviii (1957) 26 ff.Google Scholar; Dover, K.J., Lysias and the Corpus Lysiacum (Berkeley/L.A. 1968) 175–81Google Scholar. On pity in rhetorical theory, with useful references to Homeric precedent, see Stevens, E. B., AJP lxv (1944) 1–25Google Scholar: add that Arist., Rh. ii 8.1385b27Google Scholar, though more intellectualised (cf. Eur., Hcld. 458–60Google Scholar, fr. 407), corresponds to Il. xxiv 157–8=186–7Google Scholar.

⁶³ Gould, J., JHS xciii (1973) 80–2Google Scholar. Further, Macleod, , Iliad xxiv, 15–22Google Scholar.

⁶⁴ Cf. Segal, C., The Theme of the Mutilation of the Corpse in the Iliad, Mnemos. suppl. xvii (1971) 18, 72–3Google Scholar.

⁶⁵ For the significance of ritual lamentation, tearing of clothes, etc., see Griffin 2–3 (for tragic parallels to the motif discussed there see Collard on Eur., Supp. 990 ff.Google Scholar); Vickers (n. 12) 87–96; Alexiou, M., The Ritual Lament in Greek Tradition (Cambridge 1974)Google Scholarpassim, esp. chs i–ii, vi, viii; also her index, s.v. ‘self-mutilation’, ‘laceration’, etc. In both subject-matter and form the tragic κομμός is influenced by Il. xxii 437–515, xxiv 718–76Google Scholar (though for a contrast of the genres, see Macleod on xxiv 721–2). For this aspect of tragedy see Broadhead, H. D., Aeschylus: Persae (Cambridge 1960)Google Scholar appendix 4; Collard on Eur., Supp. 1114–64Google Scholar.

⁶⁶ For grief-stricken ἀσιτία see Griffin 15–17, and add Od. iv 788Google Scholar, hDem. 47 ff. and Richardson ad loc., Soph., Aj. 324Google Scholar, Eur., Med. 24Google Scholar, Hipp. 135 ff., 277, Supp. 1105–6, Or. 39–41, 189.

⁶⁷ Thus the arguments at xix 155 ff., 178–80, 216 ff., 302 ff, correspond to Achilles'speeches to Priam at xxiv 522–4, 549–51, 599–620; Achilles' statement of his own supreme misfortune in xix 315–37 corresponds to Priam's at xxiv 486–506; Achilles' refusal to bathe (xxiii 38–47) is like Priam remaining uncleansed of the dung in which he grovelled after Hector's death (xxii 414, xxiv 162–5); Achilles cannot sleep (xxiv 3–13; cf. xxiii 62–7, where he sleeps only to dream of Patroclus), and Priam has not closed his eyes since Hector's death (xxiv 635–42). Note also the bitter injunction οὐδέ μιν ἀνστήσεις (xxiv 551, cf. 756; Soph., El. 137 ffGoogle Scholar. is an instance of this motif in tragedy).

⁶⁸ Compare the way in which Deianira comes to see both the similarity (Soph., Tra. 465Google Scholar, cf. 25) and the differences between herself and her rival Iole (303–6, 441–8).

⁶⁹ For instance, Hyllus' speech at the end of Trachiniae (lines 1257–78 are incredibly rejected by Dawe: no supporting argument in his Studies). Eur., Tro. 1240–5Google Scholar is another good example, and one with evident Homeric background: cf. Il. iii 125–8Google Scholar, vi 355–8, Od. i 346–59, viii 577–80, xxiv 196–202; Griffin 97–102Google Scholar; Marg, W., Homer über die Dichtung² (Munster 1971)Google Scholar; Macleod, , Iliad xxiv, 1–8Google Scholar, and his paper ‘Homer on poetry and the poetry of Homer’, to be published in his Collected Papers. This passage of Troades refutes the contention of Taplin (n. 28) 133 and of Bain, D., Actors and Audience (Oxford 1977) 208 ff.Google Scholar, that no case of theatrical self-reference can be found in Greek tragedy. Hecuba's utterance here is in fact very close to the passage of Julius Caesar cited by Bain 209 n. 1. (Tangentially relevant to this question: Bond on Eur., HF 1021 f.Google Scholar)

⁷⁰ Cf. Od. i 353–5Google Scholar; Kassel, R., Untersuchungen zur griechischen und römischen Konsolationsliteratur, Zetemata xviii (Munich 1958) 54 fGoogle Scholar. The uselessness of grieving over an inevitable loss is ‘consolatio pervulgata quidem illa maxime’ (Cic., Fam. v 16.2Google Scholar).

⁷¹ On the absence of partisanship or of any kind of ‘panhellenism’ in the Iliad see Kakridis (n. 45) 54 ff.; also Lewis, C. S., A-Preface to Paradise Lost (London 1942) ch. vGoogle Scholar. In tragedy, the message of Aeschylus’ Persae is not aimed at barbarians alone: see e.g. Broadhead (n. 65) xv–xviii, xxi, xxviii–ix; Kitto, H. D. F., Poiesis (Berkeley/L.A. 1966) 74–106Google Scholar. In Eur. IA I take it that the character and behaviour of the participants is meant to undermine the not-so-high ideals expressed by Agamemnon and picked up by Iphigenia (contra Conacher, D. J., Euripidean Drama [Toronto 1967] 261–4Google Scholar, with further bibliography). Note also the portrayal of the Trojan captives in Hec, Tro., Andr. A striking line. which epitomises Euripides' realistic, and Homeric, stand on this is Tro. 764: (Andromache speaks) ὦ βάρβαρ ᾿ἐξευρόντες ῾῾Ελληνες κακά. Here as elsewhere (n. 61) Homer anticipates the best elements of fifth-century ethics: cf. Antiph. Soph. B44b DK; Eur., Phaeth. 163Google Scholar and Diggle ad loc. Contrast the facile arrogance of popular opinion about βάρβαροι e.g. Isoc. iv 131, xv 293, and even Arist., Pol. vii 7.1327b20 ffGoogle Scholar. Further, Dover (n. 60) 83 ff., 279–83; Walbank, F. W., Phoenix v (1951) 41–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁷² Priam and Achilles are paradigms of humanity; which is not to deny that they are also vividly imagined and fully rounded characters. For individuals in tragedy as exempla of the human condition, see esp. Aesch., Ag. 1331–42Google Scholar, Soph., OT 1186–96Google Scholar, Ant. 1155–71; also Johansen, H. Friis, General Reflection in Tragic Rhesis (Copenhagen 1959) ch. viiiGoogle Scholar. Such archetypal figures are fit subject matter for poetry that is concerned with something broader than the narrative of an individual or a single historical sequence of events. Cf. Arist., Poet. 9.145 1a36–b11Google Scholar; perhaps Thuc. i 22.4? Further, Walbank, F. W., Historia ix (1960) 216–34Google Scholar; de Ste Croix, G. E. M., in The Ancient Historian and his Materials, Studies presented to Stevens, C. E., ed. Levick, B. (Farnborough 1975) 51–2Google Scholar.