In the Iliad the Achaean ships play a prominent role in the narrative; they are foregrounded as Achilles sits by his vessels in anger and threatens to sail home; as the Trojans come close to burning them; and as Hector's body lies by Achilles’ ships until ransomed. Where not in the foreground, the ships remain a consistent background; without them the Achaeans would not have reached Troy; they are an essential component of the Greek encampment; and are the unrealized potential vehicle of the Achaean homecoming.Footnote 1
For such a constant facet of the Homeric world we find a correspondingly wide array of epithets.Footnote 2 Considering the centrality of the ship to the Iliad we might expect the epithets that qualify it to be similarly significant. Despite this, relatively little attention has been paid to the ship-epithets in the poem beyond either metrical quantification or questions of nautical construction.Footnote 3 This study aims to go some way towards addressing the paucity of literary investigation by considering the usage and meaning of the ship-epithet κοῖλος (‘hollow’, transliterated hereafter) in the Iliad.Footnote 4
As with the majority of ship-epithets in Homer, the current attitude towards the expression κοῖλαι νῆες (‘hollow ships’) has been greatly influenced by archaeological-historical discussions of ship construction and ship composition of the Mycenaean period or later, dependant on how Homer is ‘dated’. This approach uses the Iliad and the Odyssey, often without differentiation, as concrete evidence for contemporary or near-contemporary practice. Here koilos is understood in a very pragmatic sense as denoting a material historical reality.Footnote 5 This interpretation of koilos leads to one of two conclusions: either the ‘hollowness’ of a ship is indicative of its construction, or the hollowness refers to the carrying capacity of the ship itself.Footnote 6 In the absence of literary investigation these archaeological-historical conceptions of the epithet have been taken as definitive. In LfgrE, for instance, Führer defines koilos as ‘hollow, furnished with holding capacity, spacious’.Footnote 7
Understanding the epithet in terms of archaic nautical construction can be useful, but I suggest that there is (also) a deeper literary significance to koilos in the Iliad. I will argue that the use of ‘hollow’ as an epithet for ship functions as a lynchpin which draws together and combines two major thematic strands of the Homeric web. The first of these ‘strands’ is the importance of material gain (prizes, objects) as the means by which the Homeric hero wins and displays his honour. The second is the hero's nostos, his return home and to his community after distinguishing himself in war. Koilos, I submit, is used to connect and denote these themes by signifying a potentiality: the ‘hollow’ (that is, ‘empty’) ship has the potential to be filled, and filled with hero-won prizes for the journey home.
A useful analogy to this ‘potentiality’ is provided by the similar ship-epithet θοή (‘swift’); although the Achaean ships remain beached throughout the Iliad, they nevertheless have the capacity to be ‘swift’.Footnote 8 This is to say that these epithets may denote an as yet unrealized narrative possibility. In the hollow ships this possibility embodies the importance of prize-giving/winning in the Iliad’s heroic society and functions as an external prolepsis anticipating the hero's eventual return from Troy.
What I am arguing for here is a cohesive semantic force of koilos operative upon and within each contextual application. John Miles Foley has given us a useful framework for conceptualizing this process with the term ‘traditional referentiality’, in which textual elements command ‘frames of reference’ larger than an isolated usage.Footnote 9 This formulation is useful whether we choose to assign these referential frames to the ‘tradition’ or to see them as a system of intratextual reference. For both the same holds true: the ‘referential’ meaning of koilos is an evocation of all uses of the epithet, a meaning contextually effective upon each iteration. The ultimate criterion of this action is referential consistency, which can only be shown through close reading of all iterations of a given word or phrase (undertaken below). Here we see that the referential meaning of koilos can be applied in different contexts through separate, but related, formulaic patterns. To make this case I briefly contextualize the two Homeric themes underlying the ‘referential’ meaning of koilos (and discuss the importance of the ship as the element which binds the two together), then outline the approach to ‘the formula’ applied here. Finally, I turn to an analysis of koilos in the Iliad through consideration of its contextual usage in light of its referential meaning.Footnote 10
As above, I will argue that the Homeric themes embodied by the hollow ships are prizes/honour and the hero's nostos. Actors within the Iliad draw an explicit connection between these two motifs when they express a desire to sack Troy and to return home afterwards. We find this from the very beginning of the poem, in Chryses’ address to the Achaeans: Ἀτρεῖδαί τε καὶ ἄλλοι ἐϋκνήμιδες Ἀχαιοί, | ὑμῖν μὲν θεοὶ δοῖεν Ὀλύμπια δώματ’ ἔχοντες | ἐκπέρσαι Πριάμοιο πόλιν, εὖ δ’ οἴκαδ’ ἱκέσθαι· ‘Atreus’ sons and you other well-greaved Achaeans | to you may the gods grant, they who have Olympian homes, | to sack Priam's city, and to get home safely’ (1.17–19).Footnote 11 Here we locate the two key Homeric themes connected by the hollow ships: the accumulation and display of material gain for the attainment of honour/glory (both τιμή and κλέος) and the hero's return home.
The pertinent element of the wider ‘heroic’ theme of glory/honour is the means by which Homeric heroes can attain fame. One crucial element of this process is material gain. The most frequent instance of this gain is the accumulation of prizes, which are an integral constituent of the heroic system, functioning as the means by which the hero wins and displays his honour. There are two main kinds of prize in the Iliad: the γέρας, given to the hero by his peers as a mark of honour, and the prize (predominately armour or horses) that the hero wins for himself on the battlefield. For both the same holds true; the prize is the quantitative manifestation of the hero's qualitative worth, a means by which others give him his due honour and by which he displays his achievement to others.Footnote 12
We can quickly see how the prize's function in the Iliad relates to the Homeric theme of nostos. It is well and good for the Achaeans to sit at Troy killing Trojans and gaining materially (as Achilles to Priam at 24.540–2), but through internal prolepses, the agency of fate in Homer and our extratextual knowledge we know that eventually the city will fall and the Greeks, furnished with their spoils, must sail home. To answer the question ‘how will the Greeks get home from Troy?’ with ‘in their ships’ may seem obvious, yet—because of this very fact—it must form the foundation of the argument.Footnote 13 We might add another question: ‘how will the Achaeans transport the prizes and spoils they have won?’ The answer is the same. It is not just the Greeks themselves who will travel home in their ships, but, crucially, they will bring the objects they have gained with them. The centrality of the ship to this act is evident in the Iliad: Agamemnon offers to let Achilles load his ship with spoils (9.135–8 = 9.277–80) and twice Hector speaks of the women of Troy being led away in ships (8.164–6 and 16.831–2). At the height of his quarrel with Agamemnon, Achilles intends to fill his ships and sail home (9.356–65), and the prizes that he sets out for Patroclus’ funeral games are brought out from his ships (23.257–61).Footnote 14
To bolster this argument, where in the Iliad we have future potentiality, in the Odyssey we have narrative after the event, as heroes have already sailed home with their spoils.Footnote 15 In the Odyssey there is undoubtedly a qualitative difference between returning with nothing and returning with something, a difference between Odysseus arriving at Scheria on a raft with no possessions (consider his appearance to Nausicaa at 6.127–41) and his return to Ithaca in a real ship, laden with gifts (13.7–22, 40–1 and 63–75).Footnote 16 Odysseus himself gives us the clearest statement of this difference; he would be willing to remain with Alcinous for a year in order to return laden with gifts, as this will make him αἰδοιότερος καὶ φίλτερος ἀνδράσιν, ‘more respected and dearer to men’ (11.355–62). The return of the hero matters, but the manner of that return—with prizes as concrete proof of his success and his τιμή—is crucial.
It is here that we locate the ship as the point of intersection between prize and nostos. It is my contention that in the ‘hollow’ ships we have the keystone that simultaneously intertwines and draws attention to these themes by the deployment of the epithet at relevant moments in the narrative. Accordingly, we find koilos used at the point of contact between prize-taking and nostos: κτήματα μὲν ὅσ’ Ἀλέξανδρος κοίλῃς ἐνὶ νηυσίν | ἠγάγετο Τροίηνδ’, ‘possessions, as many as Alexander in his hollow ships | lead Troyward’ (7.389–90).Footnote 17 It is not just that possessions (κτήματα) can be placed in ships, nor that a return must be undertaken by sea, but that each requires the other; and at this juncture we find the hollow ships.
With the referential meaning of koilos established, it is necessary to discuss its use within the compositional constraints of the hexameter, and to explain the conception of the Homeric formula applied here. Rigid definitions of the ‘formula’ have created significant difficulties when applied to the range of formulaic elements to be found in Homer.Footnote 18 The approach adopted here is above all pragmatic: a recurrent usage in recurrent context is ‘formulaic’, in other words, an adjective (koilos) used regularly with a substantive (ship) under the same circumstances. The connection between the two elements was usefully understood by Hainsworth as a ‘bond of mutual expectancy’.Footnote 19 Rather than see this pairing as rigidly determined by metrics, structure or analogy, I conceptualize the connection between koilos and ship as a both flexible and formulaic pattern that has thematic implications which are contextually triggered. This can be expressed: [κοίλη <preposition> νηῦς].Footnote 20 As we shall see, this pattern can be inflected depending on the requirements of context. To present this clearly, I have separated each formulaic pattern by form/contextual application, so (for example) κοίλας ἐπὶ νῆας has been separated from κοίλῃς ἐνὶ νηυσίν. This is not to suggest that these should be seen as different formulae (as Parry would probably have said), but that each represents one possible iteration of the formulaic pattern.
What is gained by thinking in terms of formulaic patterns is an awareness that different contextual applications of a formula can have separate, but related, connotations. It will be found that, whilst the contextual application of each formulaic pattern is different, there is both remarkable usage-cohesion within each pattern and a noticeable referential connection between prizes and nostos across the range of formulaic iterations. There are three layers to this process: each iteration of the formulaic pattern can be contextually relevant, each deployment of a given formulaic pattern creates the same contextual effect, and all possible iterations contain—and are informed by—the same cohesive referential force. The advantages that this has for our analysis, and the implications for our understanding of the formula, will become clearer as the study progresses.
I turn now to an analysis of koilos in the Iliad. My approach is to analyse each formulaic pattern individually, to suggest both the potential contextual force of this reading of koilos and to build (and reinforce) the referential meaning of the formulaic pattern by weight of evidence. I begin with the pattern type κοίλας ἐπὶ νῆας (Ἀχαιῶν)—designated pattern type A—as it comprises both the most frequent and the most straightforward instance of the koilos formulaic pattern. Notably, it is also confined to the Iliad, with only two uses of this formulaic pattern outside of the Iliad in Greek epic.Footnote 21 Within this category, it will be necessary to distinguish two further subcategories in which we find the same formulaic pattern deployed for a different contextual purpose, yet still informed by the web of associations engendered by koilos (filed under ‘A2’ and, imaginatively, ‘other’).
PATTERN TYPE A: 5.26, 7.78, 10.525, 16.664, 21.32, 22.465, 23.883, 23.892
This iteration (κοίλας ἐπὶ νῆας [Ἀχαιῶν]) of the formulaic pattern is used without exception to signify that a prize, which has been won, is being taken to the Achaean ships. On a simple level the formula tells us, literally, that the prize was conveyed to the Greek ships. However, through the use of koilos the ‘empty’ ship is connected with the material gain that will fill it, allowing the generation of the referential nexus of implications (glory, nostos) discussed above. To pick a paradigmatic example, during his aristeia Diomedes captures the horses of Phegeus and Idaeus: ἵππους δ' ἐξελάσας μεγαθύμου Τυδέος υἱός | δῶκεν ἑταίροισιν κατάγειν κοίλας ἐπὶ νῆας, ‘and driving out their horses, greathearted Tydeus’ son | gave them to his companions to lead down to the hollow ships’ (5.25–6). At this point in the poem Diomedes functions as a paradigm of ‘heroic’ conduct, and as a narrative substitute for the absent Achilles. The use of the ‘hollow’ ships at this moment brings Diomedes’ current role into focus by suggesting the value-system of heroic attainment that underpins his actions.
Whilst battle is the main arena of conspicuous individual achievement in the Iliad, Patroclus’ funeral games offer a similar opportunity to display pre-eminence to one's peers.Footnote 22 As a result, a prize won during the funeral games is denoted by the same formulaic pattern of koilos as a prize won during battle: ἂν δ’ ἄρα Μηριόνης πελέκεας δέκα πάντας ἄειρεν, | Τεῦκρος δ’ ἡμιπέλεκκα φέρεν κοίλας ἐπὶ νῆας, ‘and then Meriones took up all ten axes, | but Teucer carried the half-axes to the hollow ships’ (23.882–3).Footnote 23
The majority of these instances are self-explanatory and conform to the schema outlined above.Footnote 24 There is, however, one iteration of this formulaic pattern where the ‘prize’ is not immediately apparent. At the height of Achilles’ savagery, he attaches Hector's body to his chariot and drives the horses to his ships: ταχέες δέ μιν ἵπποι | εἷλκον ἀκηδέστως κοίλας ἐπὶ νῆας Ἀχαιῶν, ‘and him the swift horses | dragged heedlessly to the hollow ships of the Achaeans’ (22.464–5). This is an example of the standard formulaic pattern exceptionally deployed in order to signify Achilles’ singular distance from the other heroes of the poem; the material gain for him at this moment is the death of Hector and retention/display of Hector's body as a prize. In Book 9 Achilles has questioned the heroic system and come to the realization that prizes are not worth a man's life (9.405–9). His return to battle is not motivated by the accumulation of spoils (though he does receive the promised gifts from Agamemnon at 19.140–5 and 19.242–81) but by a desire to kill Hector (18.90–3 and 18.114–16). Where other heroes in the Iliad remain within the heroic system, content to win arms and horses, Achilles stands, to a degree, outside of it; the material gain he wins/displays to confirm his heroic pre-eminence is nothing less than the death of the Trojans’ greatest warrior.
In a challenge to Milman Parry's theory of extension and economy, Bengt Alexanderson analysed ‘formulae’ for ships and the formulaic pattern κοίλας ἐπὶ νῆας. He concluded that this ‘formula’ was not metrically unique, but could be expressed by the metrical scheme ⏔ |– ⏑⏑|– ⏓. Under these circumstances κοίλας ἐπὶ νῆας could be replaced by ἐπὶ νῆας Ἀχαιῶν at four points in the Iliad: 5.26, 16.664, 21.32 and 23.892.Footnote 25 Alexanderson's conclusion has relevance for our understanding of the contextual selection of koilos in these passages. However, we must raise two objections to modify his argument. First, we should note that substitution at 16.664 (χάλκεα μαρμαίροντα, τὰ μὲν κοίλας ἐπὶ νῆας) is not possible, as ἐπὶ νῆας Ἀχαιῶν cannot be preceded by a short vowel followed by a consonant. The syllable in μέν is short by nature and requires a subsequent consonant to make position. 16.664 is not a metrical duplication but a prosodically necessary metrical alternative (to use Friedrich's terms).Footnote 26 This reduces the iterations where substitution is possible to 3.
The second objection is that ἐπὶ νῆας Ἀχαιῶν is not the complete formulaic structure, which is preferentially preceded by θοάς (10 iterations) or ἰόντ’ (4 iterations).Footnote 27 Nevertheless, ἐπὶ νῆας Ἀχαιῶν is used as an independent formulaic pattern on 6 occasions in the Iliad.Footnote 28 Alexanderson does not make use of these instances, but two—17.691 and 22.417—support his argument. These uses are both at line-end in the same position as the iterations of κοίλας ἐπὶ νῆας, and therefore are candidates for metrical substitution. To confirm this, we should note that ἐπὶ νῆας Ἀχαιῶν at 17.691 is reciprocally interchangeable; κοίλας ἐπὶ νῆας would be metrically possible (though contextually inappropriate) here.
With these modifications, we can see that Alexanderson's analysis at least points towards the interchangeability of some instances of pattern A. If we can accept that what we find here is a breach of economy, then we enter the realm of poetic selection.Footnote 29 At these points in the narrative ἐπὶ νῆας Ἀχαιῶν could have been used instead of κοίλας ἐπὶ νῆας (or vice versa), but was not. As I suggest throughout, the reason for this is that κοίλας ἐπὶ νῆας carries a contextual force appropriate to narrative moments concerning material gain/glory and nostos. Where the potential for material gain and/or nostos is operative, κοίλας ἐπὶ νῆας is suitably deployed. Where there is no such potential (as at 17.691), the poet can instead use ἐπὶ νῆας Ἀχαιῶν.Footnote 30 Alexanderson comes close to divining the reason for this. He notes that all these instances have to do with material gain (what he calls ‘booty’), but as his investigation was purely metrical he could not pursue the implications of his discovery.Footnote 31 It is worth noting that, as all three possible alternative iterations of pattern A occur in the context of material gain/nostos, the metrically alternative instance of ἐπὶ νῆας Ἀχαιῶν—used instead of κοίλας ἐπὶ νῆας at 17.691—is not in this context. The point here is that, where possible, iterations of the ‘hollow ships’ were preferred to an alternative when the referential meaning of koilos was contextually appropriate.
PATTERN TYPE A2: 7.372, 7.381, 24.336
As subcategories of Type A we must consider two scenes in which we find the pattern type κοίλας ἐπὶ νῆας, but where material gain has not yet been won but is offered; here the material gain is potential rather than concrete, pre- rather than post-factual. The first iteration, Idaeus’ mission to the Greek ships, is informed by Paris’ offer to give back all of the possessions he took from Argos, and to add more of his own besides (7.362–4). As a result, his offer carries the potential for material gain and—should restitution succeed—an end to the war and a return home. Koilos is used to draw attention to the possibilities of this offer: ἠῶθεν δ’ Ἰδαῖος ἴτω κοίλας ἐπὶ νῆας | εἰπέμεν Ἀτρείδῃς, Ἀγαμέμνονι καὶ Μενελάῳ | μῦθον Ἀλεξάνδροιο, τοῦ εἵνεκα νεῖκος ὄρωρεν· ‘at dawn let Idaeus go to the hollow ships | to speak to Atreus’ sons, to Agamemnon and Menelaus | the word of Alexander, on account of whom strife arose’ (7.372–4). The same is true of the second iteration (24.336); here Zeus sends Hermes to guide Priam on his way to Achilles’ ‘hollow’ ships so that Priam can make an offer of material restitution for the return of Hector's body.
The parallel usages in Books 7 and 24, and the fact that Priam in effect ‘makes’ both offers, encourage us to meditate on the way in which the referential meaning of the ‘hollow’ ships operates on contextual application. The nexus of associations engendered through the use of koilos (glory through material gain, nostos) have a deferred semantic effect; they point us towards the change in relationship between the Trojans and the Achaeans from Book 7 to Book 24. The first offer is made with the Trojans and the Achaeans in relative equilibrium, and (though we know that the narrative/fate cannot be altered in this way) the epithet raises the possibility that the war may be ended by Priam's offer of material restitution. In this parallel narrative universe, the potentials engendered by koilos will be realized; the Achaeans will fill their ‘hollow’ ships with the prizes offered and sail home.Footnote 32 But by the time we reach Book 24 and Priam's second offer, there has been a fundamental alteration in the relationship between Trojans and Achaeans; the Trojans have gone from equals to proleptically defeated, and the entreaty itself has changed from an offer of restitution in Book 7 that aimed to end the war (with Troy intact and her men alive) to an attempt to ransom the body of one man, where the only promise of an end to the war is the fall of Troy.Footnote 33
PATTERN TYPE A ‘OTHER’: 7.432, 8.98
Finally, we have the two instances of pattern type ‘A’, where we see a slightly different contextual usage of koilos, designated ‘other’. We should see these two instances of koilos as transitional, moving from pattern A to pattern ‘B’ (discussed below); the ‘hollow’ ships are used at a moment in the narrative where the two themes that they embody begin to come under threat; either nostos is lost in death or the system of prize-winning is abandoned in retreat.
The first instance comes following the burial of the Achaean dead: ὣς δ᾽ αὔτως ἑτέρωθεν ἐϋκνήμιδες Ἀχαιοί | νεκροὺς πυρκαϊῆς ἐπινήνεον ἀχνύμενοι κῆρ, | ἐν δὲ πυρὶ πρήσαντες ἔβαν κοίλας ἐπὶ νῆας, ‘and likewise on the other side the well-greaved Achaeans | were heaping corpses on the pyre, sorrowing at heart | and when they had burned them in the fire they went to the hollow ships’ (7.430–2). Here we have pattern type ‘A’ of koilos, but deployed in a way that takes advantage of the referential meaning of the hollow ships to show the transition between Achaean and Trojan ascendancy. I suggest that we see this iteration in the context of Nestor's words at 7.334–5. The Achaean slain must be burnt ὥς κ᾽ ὀστέα παισὶν ἕκαστος | οἴκαδ᾽ ἄγῃ, ὅτ᾽ ἂν αὖτε νεώμεθα πατρίδα γαῖαν, ‘so that each man | may carry the bones home to the dead's children, whenever we return to our fatherland’.Footnote 34 The usual connotations of koilos are used to create a frisson of difference: something will be transported in the hollow ships, but bones not prizes, a nostos will be accomplished, but not by a living man. If we choose to athetize 7.334–5, we can nevertheless see that koilos is employed on the occasion of the cremation of the Achaean dead to flag up the range of associative meanings (glory/nostos) that have now been lost.
There is a similar contextual application of koilos in our other iteration of this formulaic pattern. Battle recommences at the beginning of Book 8, and Zeus gives victory to the Trojans (8.68–77). He thunders and sends lightning over the Achaeans, who turn to flight: θάμβησαν, καὶ πάντας ὑπὸ χλωρὸν δέος εἷλεν, ‘they were stunned, and pale fear seized them all’ (8.77). As the Achaean leaders flee, Diomedes sees Nestor in difficulty and calls out to Odysseus, who does not hear (or does not listen): ὣς ἔφατ᾽, οὐδ᾽ ἐσάκουσε πολύτλας δῖος Ὀδυσσεύς, | ἀλλὰ παρήϊξεν κοίλας ἐπὶ νῆας Ἀχαιῶν, ‘so he spoke, but he did not hear, much-enduring divine Odysseus | but swept past to the hollow ships of the Achaeans’ (8.97–8). Odysseus’ flight to the hollow ships uses the referential associations of koilos to highlight his abandonment of the normative heroic code. Deployed in this way, both of these instances of the formulaic pattern are the ideal passage between types ‘A’ and ‘B’. They emphasize the abandonment or loss of the potentials of koilos as ascendancy swings from Achaean to Trojan.Footnote 35
PATTERN TYPE B: 5.791, 12.90, 13.107, 15.743
To turn to our second pattern type, κοίλῃς ἐπὶ νηυσί is always used in the context of the Trojans fighting at the Greek ships (three of the four instances—5.791, 12.90 and 13.107—are completed by a form of μάχομαι). With this pattern the web of referential meaning engendered by koilos (material gain/glory, nostos) is used contextually to stress that these fundamental constituents of the Achaean heroic world are under threat. Whilst the Trojans have the upper hand the ships must remain empty, heroes will not win prizes, Troy will not be sacked and the Achaeans will not sail home.Footnote 36 The force of this narrative potentiality is cumulative in magnitude; each iteration comes as the threat to the Achaean ‘hollow’ ships grows graver. Initially, Hera exhorts the Achaeans by pointing out that, as a result of Achilles’ withdrawal from battle, the Trojans will now fight at the hollow ships (as opposed to around Troy): νῦν δὲ ἑκὰς πόλιος κοίλῃς ἐπὶ νηυσὶ μάχονται, ‘now they fight far from the city, upon the hollow ships’ (5.791).
As the narrative progresses, we find the pattern used as the Trojans threaten the Achaean camp and, by extension, the hollow ships. Pattern B is deployed as both Hector and the Trojans assault the wall around the encampment (12.89–90), and again as Poseidon (echoing Hera's words above) exhorts the Achaeans to resist Hector (13.107) in order to save the ships (σαωσέμεναι νέας ἁμάς, 13.96).Footnote 37 It is surely significant that the final instance of pattern B is found at the height of danger to the Greek ships (15.743–5), at the very moment that Ajax—the final bulwark of the Achaeans—fights upon (ἐπί?) the decks of a hollow ship. Note also that, in order to emphasize the intensification of the danger to the themes engendered by koilos, this final iteration of pattern B is not completed by a form of μάχομαι but by φέροιτο | σὺν πυρὶ κηλείῳ; the danger has shifted from fighting to burning, and all of the potentialities embodied by the hollow ships may go up in smoke.
I suggest that we see these two formulaic patterns as mutually complementary; pattern Type A is used when the Achaeans are ‘winning’ and enables the evocation of the intertwined themes of prize and nostos as Achaean heroes fulfil their role in the Homeric system of prize-winning and advance towards their nostos. Type B complements this as it is used when the Trojans are on the front foot, Achaean prize-winning stops and the hero's nostos is under threat; should the ships be destroyed the motifs they embody cannot be realized. In this way pattern A shows that everything is proceeding as planned; the normative heroic world continues and the narrative is following the proper course towards Achaean victory, whilst pattern B raises the possibility that the plot might short-circuit, the ships remain ‘hollow’ and the Achaeans lose their nostos. This becomes clearer if we consider the distribution of patterns A and B throughout the Iliad, where we find a strikingly distinct system of usage. Instances of type A are exclusively used when the Achaeans are ‘winning’ (Books 5–10 / 16–24), whilst pattern B fills the gap between, and is used almost exclusively when the Trojans are on top (3 uses concentrated from Books 12–15).Footnote 38
PATTERN TYPE C: 7.389, 22.115
The two instances of the formulaic pattern κοίλῃς ἐνὶ νηυσίν constitute the explicit connection of the hollow ship (and associated potential nostos) with the system of material gain that forms a key component of heroic achievement and fame. Notably both occur in the context of material restitution from Trojan to Achaean, specifically of the ‘possessions/acquisitions’ (κτήματα) that Paris carried back to Troy in his ship. The use of koilos in the context of Paris’ visit to Sparta cements the referential function of the hollow ships as the cornerstone that connects the two themes of glory and nostos, as what is potential for the Achaeans is concrete for Paris. In Sparta he confirmed the potentialities embodied by his ‘hollow’ ships; he emphasized his worth through material gain and completed his nostos successfully, bringing the ‘prizes’ he gained (including Helen) with him.
PATTERN TYPE D: 1.26, 1.89
Our final formulaic pattern, κοίλῃσιν/κοίλῃς παρὰ νηυσί, is concentrated within just 60 or so lines of the Iliad.Footnote 39 These seem to be bound up with the genesis of the quarrel between Achilles and Agamemnon, and again (as pattern types ‘A other’ and ‘B’ above) rely on the referential meaning of koilos to show exactly what is at stake (Achaean glory and nostos). At 1.26, after Chryses has supplicated Agamemnon for the return of his daughter, Agamemnon responds: μή σε, γέρον, κοίλῃσιν ἐγὼ παρὰ νηυσὶ κιχείω | ἢ νῦν δηθύνοντ’, ἢ ὕστερον αὖτις ἰόντα, ‘let me not, old man, come upon you by the hollow ships | either lingering now, or later returning again’ (1.26–7). Here the ‘hollow’ ships are indicative of Chryseis’ presence at the ships; her current status as Agamemnon's γέρας, the prize allocated to him as a material symbol of his status, and a prize that he intends to take home (1.29–31 and 1.112–15).Footnote 40 His refusal to return his ‘prize’ is the beginning of the quarrel, the next step of which is Achilles’ promise to protect Calchas from any anger/retribution his speech may provoke. This promise will set him in direct opposition to Agamemnon. Again, we find koilos deployed as part of this speech (1.89) as a form of shorthand that draws attention to the implications and consequences that will follow as a result of Achilles’ withdrawal from the war.
What I hope to have shown by this analysis is the literary function of koilos as the element that binds together Homeric themes of material gain and nostos, a referential meaning that informs the narrative at relevant points. We have seen both the notably consistent referential meaning of koilos throughout the poem and the way in which—through differentiation into various ‘formulaic patterns’—the utterances denoting this can have separate, but related, connotations. I have tried to suggest some of the ways by which this reading of koilos enriches and deepens the narrative through contextually relevant application.
To emphasize the importance of context for referential meaning, we should consider the instructive comparison afforded by γλαφυρός. This ship epithet is—like koilos—frequently translated with ‘hollow’, and dictionary definitions often equate one with the other (under γλαφυρός in LfgrE we find ‘= κοῖλος’).Footnote 41 However, when we look at the contextual application of these epithets in the Iliad, we find that this abstract equivalence does not translate into practical equivalence at the level of language usage.Footnote 42 The difference between abstract semantic congruence and actual linguistic use is in a way the subject of this paper: as we have seen, what is important for our understanding of koilos is context. When we consider γλαφυρός, we find that it does not have the same contextual function as koilos. This is to say that koilos and γλαφυρός share a similar denotation, but differ in connotation.Footnote 43
It is not necessary to undertake a comprehensive analysis of the usage of γλαφυρός in the Iliad to make this point, but simply to note that the majority of uses of γλαφυρός as an epithet for ships appear in one of two contexts: either (1) in the catalogue of ships, or (2) when a warrior withdraws from battle (often through injury).Footnote 44 The relevance of this is that what looks at first like rough semantic equivalence in fact shows a degree of differentiation when contextual relevance is taken into account. In other words, where the fundamental themes of material gain and nostos were operative in the text koilos was deployed by the poet. Where koilos was not contextually relevant (for instance when a warrior withdraws from battle), there is an alternative.
To embark on one final piece of interpretation, we might follow this reading of koilos through to its logical conclusion. Proceeding from the basis that koilos denotes an unrealized potentiality, we can ask when the themes of material gain and nostos will be realized: when will the hero receive his spoils, when will he have no prizes left to win and when must he sail home? In other words, when will the hollow ships be full? At the furthest interpretation of the ‘hollow’ ships we can discern an eternal and external prolepsis, sitting on the beach, waiting for the fall of Troy.
