The latest in a growing number of commentaries on Homer in the Green and Yellow series, de J.'s volume on Iliad Book 22 is an excellent teaching aid. Its greatest strength is that it can be used as an all-purpose introduction to Homeric studies, for it contains a good deal of information on a wide range of material, expressed in clear language; it should be very popular among teachers and students for many years.
The helpful introduction is separated into four sections: (1) Homer and literary interpretation, (2) Book 22 within the Iliad, (3) narrative art and oral style, and (4) language, metre and text. The first and last sections in particular are especially fine summaries of the material, and de J. usually manages to include up-to-date scholarship (though J.M. Foley's traditional referentiality was a surprising omission from section 3). Of particular worth is section 4's summary of Homeric metre and language, the latter not simply because it is divided into numbered points, to which constant easy reference is made throughout the commentary. Indeed, these summaries should be mandatory reading for all students. The rather lengthy recounting of the Iliad's plot (pp. 7–11) in section 2 seemed a little otiose to this reviewer, though the same section's discussion of the links between Books 6, 22 and 24 (pp. 11–13) is concise and informative.
The text is de J.'s ‘own, but essentially a “collation”’ (p. 39) of the OCT, van Thiel and West; given the very different approaches of these three editions, and of course the aims of the Green and Yellow series, the apparatus is wisely restricted. De J. also offers a few cases of alternative punctuation, which are always signalled and explained.
The commentary is clearly set out, generous in its explanations and sensible. Narratology unsurprisingly plays a role in both the introduction (pp. 19–21) and the notes (e.g. p. 109 ad 202–4, p. 118 ad 229, pp. 181–2 ad 464 & 465, p. 183 ad 468–72), but it is never presented in an alienating or exclusiving manner, so that those who are not convinced by its claims will still find much of use and interest. Similarly to be expected is de J.'s concentration on typical patterns and motifs, as for example ad 33–91 (p. 67) on supplication scenes, ad 91–137 (p. 80) on deliberation monologues, ad 165–6 (p. 101) on the ‘three times’ pattern, ad 226–47 (pp. 117–18) on divine / mortal encounters, ad 248–305 (pp. 121–2) on single combats, etc. This material is always well directed to the passage at hand, so that the interpretative pay-off is constant.
Indeed, de J. has the happy knack of conveying an enormous amount of useful information in a very brief space. For instance, in the twelve-line note ad 9–10 (pp. 61–2) she explains inter alia (!) the significance of the juxtaposition θνητός … θεόν, the morphology of ἐών, the relationship of νυ to νῦν, the ‘proleptic’ object με, the use of δέ and the connotations of ἀσπερχές, and she rightly rejects a concordance interpolation (10a) found in one papyrus. This range of material – linguistic, syntactical, interpretative and text-critical – is typical of the medium-sized notes.
Moreover, the longer section notes (e.g. p. 67 ad 33–91, pp. 72–3 ad 56–76, pp. 140–2 ad 326–66, etc.) manage to introduce the essential issues and themes of the passage, and provide a solid grounding in both the rest of the poem and its scholarship. Anyone, for instance, consulting the note ad 100–3 (p. 84) will find there everything a reader of the Iliad (not just Book 22) needs to know about Poulydamas, and how his role in the rest of the poem informs Hector's reluctance to return to the safety of Troy.
There are criticisms to be made, of course. Some notes seem to have suffered in the editing process, as ad 71–6 (pp. 75–6), where the discussion of the relationship between Tyrtaeus 10.21–30 W2 and Priam's speech is frankly elliptical. The three options (Tyrtaeus drew on Homer, Tyrtaeus has been interpolated into Homer, they both drew on a common theme) are, first, set out very clearly. The third option is said to be ‘always possible’, the second is refuted at some length, and then de J. concludes, with no further discussion, that this makes ‘the first position the most likely one’. It may well be so, but the note itself only makes the case against the second option, and does not explain why the first is to be preferred to the third, or give any positive arguments in its favour. Another caution needs to be sounded about the linguistic explanations: sometimes they are very clear, at other points there is a preponderance of technical language which students will find off-putting, if not mysterious. Thus, ad 15–16 (p. 63) (ἔβλαψας … τρέψας), de J. explains the ‘coincident use of the aorist participle’ in straightforward terms, but in the directly preceding note (ad 14 ὀχθήσας) she merely comments ‘the aorist is ingressive’.
However, problems like these are rare and relatively unimportant, and one is more often left with a sense of judicious discussion, informed by de J.'s influential career in Homeric scholarship. Homerists will find it a valuable teaching tool.
