The Iliad is the story of the fatal anger (mēnis) of Achilles, insulted by Agamemnon, who deprived the hero of his bride Briseis - the gift of honour (geras) of the Achaeans, a visible sign of the honour due him (timē). Deprived of honour, Achilles withdrew from the battle and made a request to his mother, the goddess Thetis, to avenge the insult. Zeus' fulfilment of Thetis' request sets up the actual plot of the epic - the defeat of the Achaeans. The plot is thus based on events taking place on two planes - human and divine. At the level of mortal actors, the actions form a chain: violation of a norm (offence) - reaction (anger) - restoration of the norm (reconciliation). The action that violates the norm is the taking/abduction of the girl or the refusal to return her for ransom (apoina) , and reconciliation requires the return of the kidnapped. In the case of immortal actors (gods), an analogous sequence of actions (insult - vindictive anger - restoration) may be the response to a request contained in the prayer of an insulted mortal who presents his or her harm (violation of the norm) and invokes charis, the principle of reciprocity governing the relations of gods and humans. The wrath of the deity can be relieved by taking appropriate ritual action - making a sacrifice. Thus, in order to maintain proper relations with the immortals, appropriate sacrifices are offered on the altars belonging to the gods. They are understood as gifts - signs of due honour to the gods. Therefore, the prayers invoke the sacrifices offered in the past or foretell the sacrifices to be offered in the future, and neglecting the sacrifices may provoke the god's anger. The role of sacrifice in this dispute can be illustrated by the following diagram (based on Hitch 2009).

1-7 Invocation to the Muses. Summary of theme.

8-32 Insult of Chryses by Agamemnon - refusal of request to give up Chryses in exchange for ransom (apoina).

33-42 Prayer of Chryses: request for vengeance supported by memory of past sacrifices made [Text 1].

43-52 Apollon punishes the Achaeans - plague.

[53-305] Assembly of the Achaeans.

59-67 Speech of Achilles: request for diagnosis: neglected hecatomb as possible cause of Apollon's wrath [Text 2].

92-100 'Transcendental diagnosis': the soothsayer Kalchas declares that it is not the neglected hecatomb that is the cause, but the insult of the priest: the devotion of Chrysippus and the laying down of the hecatomb can win over the god [Text 3].

121-139 Beginning of Achilles' dispute with Agamemnon.

140-147 Agamemnon decides to send an emissary with the hecatomb and Chrysippus [Text 4].

148-305 Agamemnon announces the recapture of Briseis.

306-307 Achilles retreats to the tents.

308-311 Agamemnon sails a hecatomb ship to Chryza [Text 5a].

311-317 Agamemnon's order: washing the army of defilement; laying up the hecatomb [Text 5b].

318-356 The taking of Briseis from the tent of Achilles.

357-430a Conversation between Achilles and Thetis. Achilles' request to avenge the insult.

384-390 The surrender of Chrysippus and the sending of gifts (offerings) to Apollo involve the taking of a due gift (Briseis) from Achilles [Text 6].

423-425 [Zeus at a feast with the Ethiopians Text 7].

430a-474 Surrender of Chryseis to Chrysippus and offering of the hecatomb to Apollon in Chryseis - reconciliation sacrifice accepted [Text 8].

475-487 Return of the messengers to the camp of the Achaeans.

488-492 Achilles overwhelmed with anger (mēnis) remains in his tent.

It has been pointed out that the whole episode resembles in structure the Homeric hymn to Apollon the Delphic, in which the narrative part ends with the sacrifice and the establishment of worship. Christopher Faraone has put forward the hypothesis that the source of the beginning of the poem may be the hymn to Apollon Smintejski (Faraone 2015). If this was indeed the case, the narrative origins of the hymn should be sought in the Anatolian Song of Deliverance, which, according to Mary Bachvarova, underlies the episode (Bachvarova 2016). Accepting this hypothesis allows us to answer the question why the main theme, i.e. Achilles' anger triggered by his dispute with Agamemnon, precedes Agamemnon's insult of Apollo's priest, Chryses. Chryses arrives at the camp of the Achaeans with a plea for the return of his daughter abducted by Agamemnon; Agamemnon refuses and chases the supplicant away. The offended Chryses prays to Apollo Sminteus to avenge the injustice, recalling the memory of the sacrifices he made. The angry god, granting the priest's request, sends a plague, causing a crisis in the camp of the Achaeans. Achilles, speaking at an assembly of the army, expresses his assumption that the cause of the god's anger may be a neglected hecatomb or an unfulfilled vow. The real reason is revealed by the soothsayer who, making a transcendent diagnosis, points to the guilty party (Agamemnon) and presents a possible way of propitiating the god: the wrath of Apollon, provoked by Agamemnon, can be appeased by giving the Chryside to Chryses and offering the hecatomb to Apollon. The whole episode ends with a day-long ritual, unannounced beforehand, during which the Achaean youths dance and sing the propitiatory pajan. The appeasement of the god's anger is intertwined with the inflaming of the hero's anger.

Iliad 1.33–43 (modlitwa Chryzesa):

Passus contains the prayer of Apollon's priest, Chryses, who has come to the camp of the Achaeans with a request to hand over his daughter Chryses, Agamemnon's captive. Driven away by Agamemnon, he prays to Apollo on the seashore, crying out for vengeance for the suffering he has suffered. The location of the scene on the seashore emphasises Chryses' despair and loneliness (e.g. Il. 1.327, 350, 23-59, 24.12, cf. Edwards 1980: 8). The god's fulfilment of the request will become the cause of Achilles' dispute with Agamemnon, which will arouse Achilles' anger (mēnis) - the main theme of the epic. On Chryses' prayer see Aubriot-Sévin 1992: 219, 281-283, 304; Ausfeld 1903: 505 ff; Chapot, Laurot 2001: 31-32 (G1); Pulleyn 1997: 16; Pulleyn 2000: 132-136; Citron 1965: 88-89; Edwards 1980: 8-9; Lateiner 1997: 241 ff; Morrison 1991; Mueller 1976; Rabel 1988: 473 ff. ; Servais 1967: 415 ff; Thornton 1984, for the function of the Chryses motif in the construction of the Iliad as a whole, see Rabel 1988. The effects of Chryses' prayer will cease when Chryses surrenders to his father and propitiates Apollon with a hecatomb, but its further consequence will be the wrath of Achilles, see Wilson 2002: 40-53.

Ὣς ἔφατ’, ἔδεισεν δ’ ὃ γέρων καὶ ἐπείθετο μύθῳ·
βῆ δ’ ἀκέων παρὰ θῖνα πολυφλοίσβοιο θαλάσσης·
πολλὰ δ’ ἔπειτ’ ἀπάνευθε κιὼν ἠρᾶθ’ ὃ γεραιὸς
Ἀπόλλωνι ἄνακτι, τὸν ἠΰκομος τέκε Λητώ·
κλῦθί μευ ἀργυρότοξ᾽, ὃς Χρύσην ἀμφιβέβηκας
Κίλλάν τε ζαθέην Τενέδοιό τε ἶφι ἀνάσσεις,
Σμινθεῦ εἴ ποτέ τοι χαρίεντ᾽ ἐπὶ νηὸν ἔρεψα,
ἢ εἰ δή ποτέ τοι κατὰ πίονα μηρί᾽ ἔκηα
ταύρων ἠδ᾽ αἰγῶν, τὸ δέ μοι κρήηνον ἐέλδωρ·
τίσειαν Δαναοὶ ἐμὰ δάκρυα σοῖσι βέλεσσιν.

So he said. The old man was frightened and obeyed the command;
he walked in silence along the shore of the loud sea;
then walking alone the old man made earnest supplication:
"Apollon, O Lord, whom the beautiful-haired Leto bore!
Hear me, O silver-haired one, what carest thou for Chrys,
and the holy Killa, and reign with power over Tenedos,
Sminteus, if I have once pleasantly covered thee with a temple roof
or if I once burned thee fat legs
bulls and goats - hear my entreaty now:
avenge on the Danayas my tears with your arrows".

36: Ἀπόλλωνι ἄνακτι, τὸν ἠΰκομος τέκε Λητώ - "Apollon, O Lord, whom the beautiful-haired Leto bore!"; Chryses' prayer is an example of a three-part prayer structure: 1) an invocation to the god or goddess with added epithets and/or genealogy; 2) an argumentation (justification for the request) indicating the basis for the expected charis; 3) a request (Aubriot-Sévin 1992: 218 ff.; Muellner 1976: 27-28); it opens with a solemn hexameter invoking Apollon, with a formal invocation of the genealogy (cf. Il. 19.413; h.h.Apol. 178).

37-38: Chryses, rather than summoning Apollo with a series of epithets (cf. Achilles' prayer to Zeus, Il. 16.233-235), emphasises his association with specific places of worship in Troad.

39-40: εἴ ποτέ τοι... τοι χαρίεντ᾽ ἐπὶ νηὸν ἔρεψα / ἢ... κατὰ πίονα μηρί᾽ ἔκηα - "if I once loved you I covered the temple with a roof or.... I burned the fat hind legs"; in the middle part of the prayer scheme Chryses uses the typical formula εἴ ποτέ τοι ("if I once..."): it is a matter of recalling acts indicative of the reverence shown to the deity in the past, which should now induce it to grant the request (Aubriot-Sévin 1992; Pulleyn 1997). Chryses cites two types of human action: the roofing of the temple and the offering of sacrifices. In both cases it is about actions which - as pleasing to God - win his kindness, graciousness, favour, i.e. charis. It is indicated by the adjective χαρίεντα defining the temple as "endowed with charis" - "conquering kindness, nice". (χαρίεντα... νηὸν). It can be assumed that animal sacrifices were perceived analogously. A direct connection between the concept of charis and the hind legs burnt on the altars is found in Od. 19.397 ('nice hind legs', κεχαρισμένα μηρία, cf. Ar. Pax 386) and Od. 16.184 ('nice offerings', κεχαρισμένα ... ἱρὰ). It is not a simple exchange based on the principle of do ut des, but a permanent relationship of generalized reciprocity (generalized reciprocity, M. Sahlins' term, see Sahlins 1972, ch. 5), that is, a relationship based on a permanent exchange in which one gives some good or service to another person without receiving anything immediately in return. This is because the recipient is expected to reciprocate later (on charis, Parker 2011; more extensively: Loew 1908; Latacz 1966: 78-98; Moussy 1966: 411-415; de Lamberterie 1978-79: 31-39). ἐπὶ νηὸν ἔρεψα - 'I covered the temple with a roof'; according to Walter Burkert, the wording may imply a repetition of both actions, which would suggest that Chryses covered the temple with a roof many times, perhaps each time he made the sacrifices mentioned in the prayer; this would therefore refer to a makeshift hut erected for the purpose of the festival (Burkert 2011 [1992]: 262). Alexander Ainan Mazarakis, on the other hand, believes that, however, the verb ἐρέφω here means 'to cover with tile' and uses Chryses' prayer to date the text of the epic, since the oldest examples of ceramic tile in Greece date from the early seventh century BC. (the temple of Apollo in Corinth, see Robinson 1984: 55-56; cf. Ainan Mazarakis 2000: 113, note 302). However, it seems that ἐρέφω simply means 'to cover, roof', not necessarily with tiles. Temple buildings appearing as early as the eighth century express the need to endow a deity with a home in which the deity, symbolised by the cult statue, will find shelter (cf. Coldstream 1977: 321). On the symbolic significance of the idea of protection and shelter in the Iliad, see Lynn-George 1993: 197-221. κατὰ πίονα μηρί᾽ ἔκηα - 'I burned the fat hinds'; in the prayers, the mention of the burning of the hinds (→ μηρία) is a metonymic evocation of sacrifices fulfilled in the past (cf. Il. 8.240; Il. 15.373; Od. 4.764; Od. 17.241). Their recollection is linked to a request addressed to a supernatural being within a reciprocal relationship. Chryses recalls the sacrifices he himself once made (similarly Agamemnon in Il. 8.240: ἀλλ᾽ ἐπὶ πᾶσι βοῶν δημὸν καὶ μηρί᾽ ἔκηα - 'but on all (the altars) of the oxen fat and femurs I burned'; and Il. 15.373-374: ἢ βοὸς ἢ οἰὸς κατὰ πίονα μηρία καίων / εὔχετο νοστῆσαι - '[if] I prayed for the return home of the ox or sheep fat thighbones by burning them'). In the case where a character- occupying a lower social position, such as Eumaeus and Penelope- prays, he invokes sacrifices made in the past by the rightful host (in both cases Odysseus): Od. 17.240-242 (Eumaios); Od. 4.763-765 (Penelope). Characteristically, in all cases the burnt legs are described as fat (πίονα μηρία) or, in the case of Eumaeus' prayer, the fact that they are hidden in fat (καλύψας πίονι δημῷ) is emphasised. The burning (→ καίω) of femurs wrapped in fat (→ κνῖσα, less frequently: → δημός) produced a thick, fragrant smoke (→ κνῖσα).

41: ταύρων ἠδ᾽ αἰγῶν - "bulls or goats"; the construction μηρία + ANIMAL NAME is quite frequent in the epic, the analysis showing a tendency to associate specific sacrificial animals with the god to whom they are sacrificed; the choice is therefore not entirely random, but fits into a pattern. It is noteworthy that also Agamemnon will later offer to Apollon the propitiatory τεληέσσας ἑκατόμβας / ταύρων ἠδ᾽ αἰγῶν - 'a perfect hecatomb of bulls and goats' (Il. 1.315). ταύρων - "bulls"; word → ταῦρος "bull" (uncastrated), 'bull' may suggest a particularly valuable sacrifice, as castrated bulls were usually sacrificed. αἰγῶν - 'goats'; it is difficult to clearly identify the sex of the goats, since the noun αἴξ can mean goat and goat (in Attic inscriptions - castrated, → αἴξ; uncastrated goat, cap, → τράγος does not occur in the Iliad, and in the Odyssey it appears only once: Od. 9.239). However, since it was the norm to sacrifice male individuals to male deities, the most appropriate translation is 'goats'.

Iliad 1.62–67

The crisis situation (plague) that afflicted the Achaean army requires countermeasures. The procedure provides for the making of a "transcendental diagnosis" (W. Burkert's term) by a ritual specialist, an expert-mediator, i.e. a soothsayer (mantis), who, on the basis of the interpretation of signs and knowledge, determines the appropriate remedies and how to apply them (Burkert 1996: 103-128). The request for a transcendental diagnosis is made at the assembly by Achilles. From the way he formulates it, it appears that the most likely cause of the crisis could be a ritual error, a failure to fulfil an obligation to the gods (a vow, → εὐχωλή) or a neglect of a blood sacrifice (a hecatomb, → ἑκατόμβη), and that the renewal of a correct relationship with the gods should be accomplished by making a proper sacrifice (Casevitz 1992: 3-5).

ἀλλ᾽ ἄγε δή τινα μάντιν ἐρείομεν ἢ ἱερῆα,
ἢ καὶ ὀνειροπόλον, καὶ γάρ τ᾽ ὄναρ ἐκ Διός ἐστιν,
ὅς κ᾽ εἴποι ὅ τι τόσσον ἐχώσατο Φοῖβος Ἀπόλλων,
(65) εἴ ταρ ὅ γ᾽ εὐχωλῆς ἐπιμέμφεται ἠδ᾽ ἑκατόμβης,
αἴ κέν πως ἀρνῶν κνίσης αἰγῶν τε τελείων
βούλεται ἀντιάσας ἡμῖν ἀπὸ λοιγὸν ἀμῦναι.

Let us ask some soothsayer or priest,
or a dream interpreter - for from Zeus a dream -
who could tell why Phoebos Apollon was so angry.
(65) Does he find fault in us because of the failure to perform a vow or a hecatomb?
Perhaps having accepted the fatty sacrificial smoke of the chosen rams or goats
decides to avert annihilation from us.

62-63: τινα μάντιν ἐρείομεν ἢ ἱερῆα, / ἢ καὶ ὀνειροπόλον - "some soothsayer let us ask either a priest, / or and interpreter of dreams"; a transcendental diagnosis can be made by a ritual specialist belonging to one of three (or two, see below) categories: → mantis ('diviner, soothsayer'), → hiereus ('priest'), → oneiropolos ('dream interpreter'). Verse 63 raised doubts among Alexandrian philologists. The first head of the Library, Zenodotos (c. 325 - c. 260 BC) athetizes (removes) it, probably considering the dream interpreter as a separate category of religious specialist, not directly related to the need to diagnose the causes of the crisis (cf. Kirk, ad loc.). Aristarchus (216 - 144 BC), on the other hand, puts a colon (comma) after ἐρείομεν, 'let us ask', which changes the meaning of the sentence: "let us ask some soothsayer: a priest or a dream interpreter" - according to this interpretation, the soothsayer (mantis) is the name of a general category, "a ritual specialist engaged in reading signs", while the priest (hiereus) and the dream interpreter (oneiropolos) are subcategories, specialists who read signs appearing during sacrifices or dreams. Note, however, that hiereus denotes an independent social role (Chaniotis 2008) and not a type of soothsayer (Pulleyn 2000: 142), although the two terms (plural) are juxtaposed in the epic (Il. 24.224). Michel Casevitz has recently argued that the word (mantis) is related to the verb μηνύω, 'to reveal what is hidden; to reveal' (Casevitz 1992). If we accept this hypothesis, it could be argued that also the root indicates that the original and primary function of manteis was to reveal the hidden causes of critical situations and thus to make a transcendental diagnosis. On the function of manteis in the epic, see Bremmer 1993, 171-6; Casevitz 1992; di Sacco 2000. The use of priests specialized in dream interpretation to solve problems by indicating the ritual necessary to solve them has parallels in the Babylonian religious system, see West (2008 [1996]) 88-89.

64: ὅ τι τόσσον ἐχώσατο Φοῖβος Ἀπόλλων – "Why was Phoebos Apollon so angry": the right question to ask when carrying out a transcendental diagnosis. The verb χώομαι, "I am angry, I am wrathful" refers, of course, to the signs perceived by people - the plague is caused by the god's wrath, and the reversal of evil is possible only on the condition of discovering the cause of the anger. The emotions associated with anger are in absolute opposition to the emotions associated with the term χάρις, "grace, kindness, benevolence".

65: εὐχωλῆς ἐπιμέμφεται ἠδ᾽ ἑκατόμβης - "whether he finds fault with us because of the failure to fulfill a promise or a hecatomb"; since the verb ἐπιμέμφεται + gen. rei means "to blame, rebuke because of the lack or failure of something, to complain because of something" (Il. 2.225, cf. 226 ff., ph. 229), we can assume that Achilles is wondering whether the god's wrath was triggered by some failure in the sphere of communication with the gods. The verb ἐπιμέμφεται in this context is often translated as an emotional state ('to be angry'), but it is rather a verb with a legal tinge, which means a broad accusation of failure to fulfil some legitimate obligation. For the anger of the gods caused by a neglected sacrifice (Il. 5.177) cf. Latacz, Nünlist, Stoevesandt 2009: 52-3. εὐχωλή - 'vow'; the word → εὐχωλή means a loud, solemnly spoken commitment to a god in return for expected help (Benveniste 1969). Since such a commitment was generally made during prayer, the word can be translated as 'vow, vow, pledge, promise' or 'prayer'. In this case, it seems that it is not an ill-formed request in prayer, but a failure to fulfil a promise (Corlu 1966: 157-158). An interesting alternative to "vow" in the Polish translation is the word "promise", which, although in modern Polish does not have sacral connotations, one should remember that it is related to the old name of "sacrifice" - obiata. In Old Polish "promise" was used to express a religious vow. ἑκατόμβη - "hekatomba"; the word → ἑκατόμβη is usually explained as a sacrifice "(made) of a hundred oxen, a hundredwolves" (cf. Homer, scholia vetera, ed. Erbse: ἑκατόμβη δὲ ἀπὸ τοῦ ἑκατὸν καὶ τοῦ βοῦς - "hekatomba: formed from "hundred" (hekaton) and "ox" (bous)"), but in the epic the word has now become lexicalised to mean "a large, valuable sacrifice" regardless of the number or species of animals (LfgrE s.v. ἑκατόμβη), and can therefore mean both a sacrifice of sheep and goats, fifty animals (Il. 23.146-8), or even just twelve heifers (Il. 6.93, cf. 6.115). The fact that, despite its clear structure, the word does not necessarily mean a sacrifice of a hundred oxen was already pointed out by ancient and Byzantine commentators (Eustathios, ad Il. 1.65, explains: θυσία ἐξ ἑκατὸν δηλονότι κυρίως βοῶν, καταχρησιτκῶς μέντοι καὶ ἡ ἐξ ἑκατὸν ζώων - 'a sacrifice, strictly speaking, of a hundred oxen, but in a wider sense also of a hundred animals'; The scholia add that ἑκατόμβη means "perfect sacrifices, τελείας θυσίας"). Paul Thieme put forward the hypothesis that the word originally meant an act aimed at winning the favour of the gods in order to obtain a hundred oxen (Thieme 1952: 62-76; cf. Pulleyn 2000: 143). Irrespective of the acceptance of this hypothesis referring to the prehistoric state, in Homeric language it refers to a feast-combined sacrifice of many animals, particularly economically valuable and thus pleasing to the god, which makes the word appear primarily in the context of vowing sacrifices or recalling rites already performed (details → ἑκατόμβη). What neglected ἑκατόμβη might be at issue here? André Corlu suggests that it is about a sacrifice pledged in a vow, and thus the word would be the complement of εὐχωλή, 'vow', but the syntax of the Greek sentence does not authorise this proposal. From the point of view of the epic narrative, it is important to note that the hecatomb motif introduced here will be taken up by Kalchas, the soothsayer of the Achaeans, who, after pointing out the real cause of the crisis (the insult of Chryses, priest of Apollo), orders Chryses to be sent back to his father and to send a hecatomb with her as a form of ritual propitiation to the god (Il. 1.100). Song I of the Iliad is the only place in Homer where the hekatomba appears in the main narrative; it is often referred to in character statements as a sacrifice promised to the deity in the future (Il. 4.102, 120; 6.115, cf. 6.93, 274; 23.146-8).

66: ἀρνῶν κνίσης αἰγῶν τε τελείων… ἀντιάσας – "having accepted ... the fatty sacrificial smoke of rams or ripe goats"; ἀντιάσας (part. aor. act.), literally "having gone out to meet the sacrificial smoke"; the verb → ἀντιάω, means "to go out to meet", in reference to the gods it is sometimes used in the sense of "to go out to meet the sacrificial smoke, the sacrifice, the hecatomb" > "to accept the sacrifice", Od. 1.25; 3.436 with commentary, cf. LfgrE, s.v. Translation by K. Jeżewska: "honoured with the sacrifice of the chosen rams and goats" shifts the emphasis to the intention of the people (to worship the god), while the Greek focuses on the divine response to the sign given by mortals. κνίση - "greasy smoke"; the noun → κνίση means both "fat" and "greasy (scil. dense) and fragrant smoke" emanating from the part intended for the gods burnt on the altar; strictly speaking, it is the fatty membrane of the peritoneum in which the femurs were wrapped as the part intended for the gods and burnt on the altar (Ekroth 2007; Forstenpointner, Galik, Weissengruber 2013); metonymically, like → μηρία, it can mean 'sacrifice' (→ κνίση). On the meaning of fat as a substance of life (life-stuff) with citation of Homeric verses, see Onians (1951) 279 ff.

Iliad 1.92–100

The bard Kalchas offers a diagnosis to explain the causes of the current state of affairs, to answer the question of what Apollon blames (ἐπιμέμφεται) the Achaeans for. Kalchas as mantis "knows what was, what is, and what will be" (ὃς ᾔδη τά τ᾽ ἐόντα τά τ᾽ ἐσσόμενα πρό τ᾽ ἐόντα, Il. 1. 69), therefore recognizes the present state, reveals the past cause of Apollon's anger (94: ἕνεκ᾽ ἀρητῆρος ὃν ἠτίμησ᾽ Ἀγαμέμνων, "because of the priest whom Agamemnon did not honour") and gives a possible future: either the Achaeans honour the priest and the god, or Apollon will continue to send suffering. And although the cause of the god's wrath was not the neglect of the sacrifices, its reversal requires a hecatomb. See Kaufman (1979) 44-45."

οὔτ ἄρ᾽ ὅ γ᾽ εὐχωλῆς ἐπιμέμφεται οὐδ᾽ ἑκατόμβης,
ἀλλ᾽ ἕνεκ᾽ ἀρητῆρος ὃν ἠτίμησ᾽ Ἀγαμέμνων,
(95) οὐδ᾽ ἀπέλυσε θύγατρα καὶ οὐκ ἀπεδέξατ᾽ ἄποινα,
τοὔνεκ᾽ ἄρ᾽ ἄλγε᾽ ἔδωκεν ἑκηβόλος ἠδ᾽ ἔτι δώσει·
οὐδ᾽ ὅ γε πρὶν Δαναοῖσιν ἀεικέα λοιγὸν ἀπώσει
πρίν γ᾽ ἀπὸ πατρὶ φίλῳ δόμεναι ἑλικώπιδα κούρην
ἀπριάτην ἀνάποινον, ἄγειν θ᾽ ἱερὴν ἑκατόμβην
(100) ἐς Χρύσην· τότε κέν μιν ἱλασσάμενοι πεπίθοιμεν.

App. crit. εὐχωλῆς ἐπιμέμφεται schol. A., Eusth. Mazon: εὐχωλῆς ἔπι μέμθεται Leuman (1950) 71 i nast.

He blames us not because of the wedding or the hecatomb,
(95) but because of the priest whom Agamemnon insulted, his daughter did not release to him, nor did he accept the ransom,
for this Trafnostic has given us torment and will continue to give:
and from the shameful doom of the Danes he will not first deliver,
until we give the dark-eyed girl to her father
free, not taking a ransom, and a hecatomb we shall send
(100) holy to Chryza. With this, perhaps, winning him over, we will propitiate him.

93: οὔτ ἄρ᾽ ὅ γ᾽ εὐχωλῆς ἐπιμέμφεται οὐδ᾽ ἑκατόμβης / ἀλλ᾽ ἕνεκ᾽ ἀρητῆρος – "He does not blame us because of the wedding or the hecatomb, / but because of the priest..."; Kalchas answers the question asked by Achilles (v. 65), exactly repeating his words except for the replacement of the interrogative participle with a negative. By pointing to the specific cause of the sufferings sent by the god, the soothsayer is no longer speaking of a possible negligence or oversight (expressed by the genitive), but of a specific fault that is the result of Agamemnon's act, so that the construction ἐπιμέμφεται + gen. rei in the question is completed by ἕνεκα, "because" > "he blames us for, accuses us because of" (see Pulleyn 2000: 150).

94: ἀλλ᾽ ἕνεκ᾽ ἀρητῆρος ὃν ἠτίμησ᾽ Ἀγαμέμνων - "but because of the priest whom Agamemnon insulted"; The insult by failing to show due reverence to the priest of Apollo provokes a reaction from the god similar to that which would be the cause of misfortune if the god himself were insulted (by negligence). The proper relationship between human beings is based on the showing of due reverence (τιμή); the gods too have their τιμαί connected with the distribution among them of their proper fields of action (cf. Il. 15.189, h.Dem. 86; h.Aphr. 37, Hes.Th. 73, 112, 393, 425-6, 885), and the people, by offering sacrifices, give them → γέρας, a posthumous gift, a material expression of worship (Il. 4.49-50, cf. Il. 9.498; Od. 5.335). On τιμή and γέρας, see Benveniste 1969 [2011]: 127-133, Rudhardt 1959: 57.

96: ἑκηβόλος - "Aptly-shot"; an epithet of Apollon, in antiquity understood as "from-distance-against/shooting" (ἑκάς "far" + "to throw, hurl, shoot"). Modern linguists explain the first part of the compound by ἑκών, 'at will', and thus it should be translated as 'at will' > 'accurately shooting', which emphasises the inevitability of hitting the deity's chosen target. See Beekes EDG, s.v. Cf. Cook 1925: 1042-1043 and Chantraine, DEG, s.v.

99-100: ἄγειν θ᾽ ἱερὴν ἑκατόμβην / ἐς Χρύσην - '(before) the hecatomb is sent / sacred to Chryza'; after presenting a 'transcendental diagnosis' (Apollon sends suffering on the Achaeans because of Agamemnon's insult of the god's priest), the mantis Kalchas presents a plan to rally the god, to persuade him to desist from further vengeance. The restoration of a relationship based on charis requires the surrender of the girl without accepting a ransom (poine) and the sacrifice of → hekatombe on the altar of the god in Chrissae. The hekatombe thus functions as a propitiatory sacrifice. The motif of offering a propitiatory hekatombe to Apollo will be one of the main themes of Song I, which makes it only in this part of the epic that the hekatombe appears in the narrative of the main narrator (Hitch 2009: 100-1). The whole ritual process from the selection of sacrificial animals to the feast will be described on two narrative planes: on the one hand, there will be the statements of the characters ordering the preparation of the sacrifice or announcing the intention to offer it, and on the other hand, the description of the actions presented by the main narrator, the aojda.

100b: τότε κέν μιν ἱλασσάμενοι πεπίθοιμεν - "with this we may win him over - propitiate him": the verb → ἱλάσκομαι, 'to alleviate strive to obtain favour, kindness', indicates the propitiatory nature of the hecatomb, as emphasised by its repetition throughout the first song whenever the intention of the sacrifice to Apollon is mentioned (Il. 1.100; 147; 386; 444; 472). The verb is derived from i.e. *si-sḷh2-sḱe/o- (reduplicated inchoate), "to strive for the favor of the god, for reconciliation" > "to offer a prayer" (Orm. alač'em, "I pray"), see Klingenschmitt 1970: 75-88. In Homeric epic the complement is always the deity (Il. 1.100; 147; 386; 444; 472; 6.380; 385; Od. 3.419; cf. Hes. Op. 338), which seems to correspond to the archaic religious meaning preserved in Armenian alač'em, 'I pray' (i.e. * sḷh2-sḱe/o-).

Iliad 1.141–147

Agamemnon, as commander of all the Achaeans, orders, in accordance with Kalchas's ruling, the laying down of the hecatomb and the surrender of Chrysippus. Agamemnon translates the bard's general recommendation into orders given in the first person plural (subiectivus hortativus). The verbs are arranged in two pairs, the first of which begins the hexameters after the caesura (let us push down - let us gather, ἐρύσσομεν - ἀγείρομεν), the second the subsequent hexameters (let us place - let us enter, θείομεν - βήσομεν). He then proceeds to choose the captain of the ship and the leader of the pilgrimage, which is expressed by the use of the 3rd person imperative mode ("let him stay", ἔστω). At the end Agamemnon addresses Achilles himself: "or thou Pelida [...], that thou mayest make us an accurate-shooter by offering sacrifice".

νῦν δ᾽ ἄγε νῆα μέλαιναν ἐρύσσομεν εἰς ἅλα δῖαν,
ἐν δ᾽ ἐρέτας ἐπιτηδὲς ἀγείρομεν, ἐς δ᾽ ἑκατόμβην
θείομεν, ἂν δ᾽ αὐτὴν Χρυσηΐδα καλλιπάρῃον
βήσομεν· εἷς δέ τις ἀρχὸς ἀνὴρ βουληφόρος ἔστω,
(145) ἢ Αἴας ἢ Ἰδομενεὺς ἢ δῖος Ὀδυσσεὺς
ἠὲ σὺ Πηλεΐδη πάντων ἐκπαγλότατ᾽ ἀνδρῶν,
ὄφρ᾽ ἥμιν ἑκάεργον ἱλάσσεαι ἱερὰ ῥέξας.

Now let us push the black ship to the shining sea,
let us gather as many sailors as we need and hecatomb
let's put on board, and at last, let's bring Chryseis herself
let us bring in. Let one husband sitting in council become commander:
(145) Ayas or Idomeneus, or the divine Odysseus,
or, thou Pelido, of all men most terrible,
so that thou mayest give us a sacrifice to the Thracian.

142–3: ἐς δ᾽ ἑκατόμβην / θείομεν – "the hecatomb / let us place (on board)"; Agamemnon, as commander-in-chief of the Achaean army, orders the hecatomb to be brought on board. The poet pays no attention to the choice of sacrificial animals (species, number), which seems to imply that the commander or the army has herds at its disposal, from which it can at any time choose a suitable bunch for sacrifice. Given the size of the ship, the hecatomb chosen for Apollon could not have consisted of a large flock.

144: εἷς δέ τις ἀρχὸς ἀνὴρ βουληφόρος ἔστω - 'let one man sitting in council become commander'; Agamemnon will remain in camp, and delegates his authority as 'lord of the sacrifices' to the chosen commander of the Chryza expedition (Hitch 2010: 169-170). Odysseus, on arriving at Chryza, will emphasise that he is coming sent by Agamemnon (Il. 1.442). The leader should be a husband "serving with advice" (βουληφόρος, literally "bringing counsel"), which emphasises the conciliatory and political nature of the message. The epithet denotes the members of the elite who make decisions during the council discussions, including the leader (Il. 2.24; 61).

147: ὄφρ᾽ ἥμιν ἑκάεργον ἱλάσσεαι ἱερὰ ῥέξας - "that thou mayest make propitiatory offerings to us of the Delightful One"; again, the verb ἱλάσκομαι (see above, commentary on verse 100) indicates the propitiatory nature of the hecatomb. ἱερὰ ῥέξας - 'having made a sacrifice'; a key phrase in Homeric sacrificial terminology (Casabona 1966: 6-7; 39-58). In the early epic, an adjective of the neuter gender → ἱερὰ, 'sacrifice' (literally, "that which is sacred, consecrated") as a complement of the verb → ἔρδω, "to do, to make", appears a total of 16 times, of which 4 in the Iliad (Il. 1.147; 9.357; 11.307, 327) and 10 in the Odyssey (Od. 1.61; 3.5, 159; 4.473; 5.102; 7.191; 11.130; 23.277). Here it should be understood as a series of actions that make up the ritual of animal sacrifice, which allows it to be translated by 'to make a sacrifice' (Casabona 1966: 50). In the further development of the language, the verb ἔρδω began to mean 'to offer a sacrifice' independently of the use of the complement ἱερὰ.

Iliada 1.308–317

Gdy spór Achillesa z Agamemnonem zakończył się wycofaniem się Achillesa z walki, Agamemnon przystępuje do realizacji postanowień podjętych podczas zgromadzenia. Opowiadanie narratora głównego powtarza sformułowania Agamemnona z ww. 141–147 ze znaczącymi przekształceniami. W ww. 141–147, w których przemawia sam Agamemnon, polecenia zostały wyrażone w 1os. l.mn., tutaj, przedstawiając realizację tych poleceń, poeta konsekwentnie używa 3os. l.poj., co podkreśla autorytet Agamemnona jako wodza i ofiarnika. O ile poprzednio Agamemnon kwestię liczby żeglarzy oraz ich dowódcy pozostawiał otwartą („ilu potrzeba żeglarzy zgromadźmy”, „niech jeden mąż biegły w decyzjach zostanie dowódcą”), teraz wybór został dokonany: hekatombę i Chryzejdę zawiezie do Chryzy dwudziestu wybranych wioślarzy, a ich dowódcą zostanie Odyseusz.

Ἀτρεΐδης δ᾽ ἄρα νῆα θοὴν ἅλα δὲ προέρυσσεν,
ἐν δ᾽ ἐρέτας ἔκρινεν ἐείκοσιν, ἐς δ᾽ ἑκατόμβην
(310) βῆσε θεῷ, ἀνὰ δὲ Χρυσηΐδα καλλιπάρῃον
εἷσεν ἄγων· ἐν δ᾽ ἀρχὸς ἔβη πολύμητις Ὀδυσσεύς.
Οἳ μὲν ἔπειτ᾽ ἀναβάντες ἐπέπλεον ὑγρὰ κέλευθα,
λαοὺς δ᾽ Ἀτρεΐδης ἀπολυμαίνεσθαι ἄνωγεν·
οἳ δ᾽ ἀπελυμαίνοντο καὶ εἰς ἅλα λύματα βάλλον,
(315) ἕρδον δ᾽ Ἀπόλλωνι τεληέσσας ἑκατόμβας
ταύρων ἠδ᾽ αἰγῶν παρὰ θῖν᾽ ἁλὸς ἀτρυγέτοιο·
κνίση δ᾽ οὐρανὸν ἷκεν ἑλισσομένη περὶ καπνῷ.

Atryda zaś lotny okręt zepchnął na morze,
wybrał dwudziestu wioślarzy i hekatombę wprowadził
(310) dla boga, a potem Chryzejdę pięknolicą
przywiódł. Jako dowódca wstąpił (na okręt) przebiegły Odyseus.
Gdy ci, wstąpiwszy na okręt, wilgotnym szlakiem popłynęli.
Atryda rozkazał ludowi obmywać się (ze zmazy):
ci obmywali się, do morza brudy wrzucali,
(315) i Apollonowi złożyli doskonałe hekatomby
z byków i kozłów nad brzegiem nieurodzajnego morza.
Zapach tłuszczu dosięgnął nieba kręcąc się wokół dymu ofiary.

When Achilles' dispute with Agamemnon ends with Achilles' withdrawal from the battle, Agamemnon proceeds to implement the resolutions made at the assembly. The narrative of the main narrator repeats Agamemnon's formulations from vv. 141-147 with significant transformations. In vv. 141-147, in which Agamemnon himself speaks, the commands were expressed in 1os. Here, presenting the implementation of these commands, the poet consistently uses the 3rd person singular, which emphasises Agamemnon's authority as a leader and sacrificer. While previously Agamemnon left the question of the number of sailors and their commander open ("let us gather as many sailors as we need", "let one man who is proficient in decisions be the commander"), now the choice has been made: the hecatomb and the Chryseis will be taken to the Chryseis by twenty chosen rowers, and their commander will be Odysseus.

317: κνίση δ᾽ οὐρανὸν ἷκεν ἑλισσομένη περὶ καπνῷ – "the fat smoke reached the sky swirling around the smoke of the sacrifice"; the verse vividly depicts the key moment of the ritual, the burning of the divine part on the altar - around the smoke rising to the sky (presumably from the burned logs) swirls κνίση, the smell of fat (and bones) burned for the god (cf. Il. 1.66). As in the case of the sacrifices mentioned by the epic's characters, in this description too the ritual is metonymically defined by the burning of fatty hind legs, and the narrator focuses on the spectacular sending of a visible sign to the god - the smoke arising from the burnt hind legs wrapped in a fatty membrane of peritoneum. Elsewhere in the Iliad the smoke is carried away by the wind (8.549), see Naiden 2013: 111-112.

Iliad 1.384–390

At Agamemnon's order the heroes took Briseis from Achilles' tent. Deprived of his gift of honour, the insulted Achilles distanced himself from his companions and called his divine mother, Thetis, to the sea shore. When she emerged from the depths and asked the cause of his tears, Achilles told the story of taking Chrysippa captive, giving her to Agamemnon during the division of the spoils, rejecting Chrysippa's plea for the return of her daughter and the plague sent by Apollon. He then recounted to his mother the events of the day when he got into a dispute with Agamemnon. This lengthy summary of events recounted in detail in the previous verses by the main narrator may come as a surprise. Presumably this is what Aristarchus was thinking when he athethised the entire passus 366-92 (cf. Kirk 1984: 91). However, the repetition is justified, since Achilles key events tying up the plot of the Iliad from the perspective of the actor of events, which is reflected in specific transformations of the narrative.

ἄμμι δὲ μάντις
(385) εὖ εἰδὼς ἀγόρευε θεοπροπίας ἑκάτοιο.
αὐτίκ᾽ ἐγὼ πρῶτος κελόμην θεὸν ἱλάσκεσθαι·
Ἀτρεΐωνα δ᾽ ἔπειτα χόλος λάβεν, αἶψα δ᾽ ἀναστὰς
ἠπείλησεν μῦθον ὃ δὴ τετελεσμένος ἐστί·
τὴν μὲν γὰρ σὺν νηῒ θοῇ ἑλίκωπες Ἀχαιοὶ
(390) ἐς Χρύσην πέμπουσιν, ἄγουσι δὲ δῶρα ἄνακτι·
τὴν δὲ νέον κλισίηθεν ἔβαν κήρυκες ἄγοντες
κούρην Βρισῆος τήν μοι δόσαν υἷες Ἀχαιῶν.

Wieszczek
(385) the well-wisher announced the verdicts in the Trafnostrzelny case.
Then I was the first to call to propitiate the god.
Then the son of Atreus was seized with wrath, having risen violently
He included threats in the command, which in fact is fulfilled.
For there the astute Achaians on a volatile ship
(390) they send to Chryza, carrying gifts for the Lord.
With this one the herolds have just departed from my tent, having abducted
the daughter of Bryzes, whom the sons of the Achaeans had given me.

385: ἀγόρευε θεοπροπίας ἑκάτοιο – "he pronounced the oracles in the case of the Thracian"; the word θεοπροπίας echoes the phrase εἰπὲ θεοπρόπιον ὅ τι οἶσθα, "say the oracle you know", spoken by Achilles to Kalchas (Il. 1.85). The noun θεοπροπία (r.s.) probably means 'oracle', although its etymology is disputed. The first element, θεο-, means deity, and originally referred to a miraculous, extraordinary experience, an ecstatic or prophetic epiphany (cf. Burkert 1997). The element -προπ- is most probably related to the verb πρέπω 'to appear clearly', 'to become prominent', 'to stand out' 'to be visible', 'to appear'. It is therefore a group of words denoting the revelation of divine, hidden causes of events and phenomena. According to another, less probable hypothesis, the element -προπ- derives from the stem *pre/ok "a request addressed to the gods to receive an indicated gift" and is related to Latin precor, "to ask", "to make request", "to turn" (in prayer), "to pray", Pol. The original form *θεοπροκος would have had to undergo progressive assimilation (turning 'k' into 'p'), cf. Pulleyn 2000: 147.

386: αὐτίκ᾽ ἐγὼ πρῶτος κελόμην θεὸν ἱλάσκεσθαι - 'then I was the first to call to propitiate the god'; the representation of the sequence of events is not accurate - Achilles admittedly spoke first and called to ask the bard the cause of Apollon's anger (v. 62-5) and offered to make a sacrifice to avert it (v. 66-7), but it was Kalchas who presented a way out of the crisis, the return of Chrysippus and the sacrifice of a hecatomb that could propitiate (→ ἱλάσκομαι) the god and induce an end to the plague (vv. 97-100), and the bard's diagnosis was endorsed by Agamemnon; moreover, before the dispute broke out, Agamemnon identified Achilles as a potential commander of a ship carrying sacrificial animals for the god (v. 147). Achilles thus omits entirely his harsh speech against Agamemnon, giving the impression that Agamemnon's anger was provoked by a call to propitiate Apollo.

390: ἄγουσι δὲ δῶρα ἄνακτι - "they carry gifts to the Lord"; the hecatomb mentioned earlier (v. 99, 142, 309) has been described as "gifts (→ δῶρα)" to the god.

Iliad 1.423–425

Thetis cannot immediately present the request to Zeus because the god is staying with the Ethiopians at a feast. The motif of the god staying with the Ethiopians as an explanation for his absence from Olympus also appears at the beginning of the Odyssey (1.22-25, cf. Il. 23.205-7). On this motif in song one, see Scodel 2007.

Ζεὺς γὰρ ἐς Ὠκεανὸν μετ᾽ ἀμύμονας Αἰθιοπῆας
χθιζὸς ἔβη κατὰ δαῖτα, θεοὶ δ᾽ ἅμα πάντες ἕποντο·
δωδεκάτῃ δέ τοι αὖτις ἐλεύσεται Οὔλυμπονδέ

For Zeus over Okeanos to the Ethiopians without blemish
he went to a feast yesterday, and all the gods followed him;
on the twelfth day he will come again to Olympus

423–4: Ζεὺς γὰρ ἐς Ὠκεανὸν… ἔβη κατὰ δαῖτα – "For Zeus over Okeanos ... went to a feast"; on the shield of Achilles, Hephaestus depicted Okeanos as a river circling the flat earth and reaching the celestial vault (Il. 18.607-8). In archaic world imagery, Okeanos was also the god of the cosmic river who gave birth to all that exists; he resided at the ends of the earth with his wife, Thetis (Il. 14.201, 246, 302). Zeus's absence on Olympus means that his requests do not reach him (in the case of Thetis - she cannot go to the god in person). It seems that the utopian people of the Ethiopians feast with the gods, like mankind in the times before its separation from the immortal gods. Sacrifice is a form of communication with the gods when direct fellowship has become impossible. μετ᾽ ἀμύμονας Αἰθιοπῆας - "to the Ethiopians without blemish"; the Ethiopians are usually located in the eastern borderlands of the land (cf. Mimnermos, fr. 12.9 West; Aesch. Prom. 809). The king of the Ethiopians, Memnon was the son of the dawn goddess, Eos (Hes. Theog. 984-5). The first author to place them south of Egypt is Hecataios (FGrHist 1 F 325-8 with commentary by F. Jacoby).

Iliad 1.430–431, 436–474

The offering of the hecatomb is intended to end the plague caused by Apollon as revenge for the insult to the priest Chryses. The restoration of the Achaeans' proper relationship with the god requires the return of Chryses' daughter to the priest and the offering of the prescribed sacrifice, during which the priest revokes his earlier request. The bride and the animals are brought with them on ships by envoys of the Achaean army led by Odysseus. In the ritual itself the role of the sacrificer (sacrifiant) is played by Chryses, the sacrificers on whose behalf the sacrifice will be offered are the Achaeans. Cf. Hitch 2009: 80-81; Muellner 1976: 32-33 (Chryses' prayer).

(430) αὐτὰρ Ὀδυσσεὺς
ἐς Χρύσην ἵκανεν ἄγων ἱερὴν ἑκατόμβην.
[...]
ἐκ δ᾽ εὐνὰς ἔβαλον, κατὰ δὲ πρυμνήσι᾽ ἔδησαν·
ἐκ δὲ καὶ αὐτοὶ βαῖνον ἐπὶ ῥηγμῖνι θαλάσσης,
ἐκ δ᾽ ἑκατόμβην βῆσαν ἑκηβόλῳ Ἀπόλλωνι·
ἐκ δὲ Χρυσηῒς νηὸς βῆ ποντοπόροιο.
(440) τὴν μὲν ἔπειτ᾽ ἐπὶ βωμὸν ἄγων πολύμητις Ὀδυσσεὺς
πατρὶ φίλῳ ἐν χερσὶ τίθει καί μιν προσέειπεν·
ὦ Χρύση, πρό μ᾽ ἔπεμψεν ἄναξ ἀνδρῶν Ἀγαμέμνων
παῖδά τε σοὶ ἀγέμεν, Φοίβῳ θ᾽ ἱερὴν ἑκατόμβην
ῥέξαι ὑπὲρ Δαναῶν ὄφρ᾽ ἱλασόμεσθα ἄνακτα,
(445) ὃς νῦν Ἀργείοισι πολύστονα κήδε᾽ ἐφῆκεν.
Ὣς εἰπὼν ἐν χερσὶ τίθει, ὃ δὲ δέξατο χαίρων
παῖδα φίλην· τοὶ δ᾽ ὦκα θεῷ ἱερὴν ἑκατόμβην
ἑξείης ἔστησαν ἐΰδμητον περὶ βωμόν,
χερνίψαντο δ᾽ ἔπειτα καὶ οὐλοχύτας ἀνέλοντο.
(450) τοῖσιν δὲ Χρύσης μεγάλ᾽ εὔχετο χεῖρας ἀνασχών·
κλῦθί μευ ἀργυρότοξ᾽, ὃς Χρύσην ἀμφιβέβηκας
Κίλλάν τε ζαθέην Τενέδοιό τε ἶφι ἀνάσσεις·
ἦ μὲν δή ποτ᾽ ἐμεῦ πάρος ἔκλυες εὐξαμένοιο,
τίμησας μὲν ἐμέ, μέγα δ᾽ ἴψαο λαὸν Ἀχαιῶν·
(455) ἠδ᾽ ἔτι καὶ νῦν μοι τόδ᾽ ἐπικρήηνον ἐέλδωρ·
ἤδη νῦν Δαναοῖσιν ἀεικέα λοιγὸν ἄμυνον.
Ὣς ἔφατ᾽ εὐχόμενος, τοῦ δ᾽ ἔκλυε Φοῖβος Ἀπόλλων.
αὐτὰρ ἐπεί ῥ᾽ εὔξαντο καὶ οὐλοχύτας προβάλοντο,
αὐέρυσαν μὲν πρῶτα καὶ ἔσφαξαν καὶ ἔδειραν,
(460) μηρούς τ᾽ ἐξέταμον κατά τε κνίσῃ ἐκάλυψαν
δίπτυχα ποιήσαντες, ἐπ᾽ αὐτῶν δ᾽ ὠμοθέτησαν·
καῖε δ᾽ ἐπὶ σχίζῃς ὁ γέρων, ἐπὶ δ᾽ αἴθοπα οἶνον
λεῖβε· νέοι δὲ παρ᾽ αὐτὸν ἔχον πεμπώβολα χερσίν.
αὐτὰρ ἐπεὶ κατὰ μῆρε κάη καὶ σπλάγχνα πάσαντο,
(465) μίστυλλόν τ᾽ ἄρα τἆλλα καὶ ἀμφ᾽ ὀβελοῖσιν ἔπειραν,
ὤπτησάν τε περιφραδέως, ἐρύσαντό τε πάντα.
αὐτὰρ ἐπεὶ παύσαντο πόνου τετύκοντό τε δαῖτα
δαίνυντ᾽, οὐδέ τι θυμὸς ἐδεύετο δαιτὸς ἐΐσης.
αὐτὰρ ἐπεὶ πόσιος καὶ ἐδητύος ἐξ ἔρον ἕντο,
(470) κοῦροι μὲν κρητῆρας ἐπεστέψαντο ποτοῖο,
νώμησαν δ᾽ ἄρα πᾶσιν ἐπαρξάμενοι δεπάεσσιν·
οἳ δὲ πανημέριοι μολπῇ θεὸν ἱλάσκοντο
καλὸν ἀείδοντες παιήονα κοῦροι Ἀχαιῶν
μέλποντες ἑκάεργον· ὃ δὲ φρένα τέρπετ᾽ ἀκούων.

App. crit. ἱερὴν Zen Ar cf. [99] P.S.I.13 (Pack2 608 s. V); [431] P.Berol. inv. 7507 (Pack2 871; s. I: 11, 101–6)

Meanwhile, Odysseus 430
reached Chryza, leading a holy hecatomb.
[...]
They cast the anchor-stones and tied the stern moorings,
And they went down to the seashore,
They landed a hecatomb for the Apollonian,
At last the Chryseis emerged from the sea-going ship
(440) Then leading her towards the altar, the thoughtful Odysseus,
gave her into the arms of her dear father, and thus said to him:
"Chryses, I was sent here by the lord of men Agamemnon,
to bring thee a child, and to Phoebus a sacred hecatomb
to make for the Danes, that we may win the Lord,
(445) who now afflicts the Argives with terrible calamities".
So he said, and into his father's hands he gave the girl. With joy
He received the beloved daughter. They soon made a holy hecatomb
Around the well-built altar they set the god in order.
When they had washed their hands and taken the sacrificial barley,
(450) For them Chryses prayed aloud, lifting up his arms:
"Hear me, Silversmith, what carest thou for Chryses,
and the transcendent Killa, and reign with power over Tenedos!
If thou hast first heard my supplication, by the grace
you showed me so much by destroying the tribes of the Achaeans,
(455) now hear me also and grant my supplication:
avert already now the shameful doom from the people of Danay".
Thus he spoke, pleading. Fojbos Apollon listened to him.
When they had prayed and thrown the sacrificial barley,
first they deflected (the throats) and butchered and skinned it,
(460) they cut out the legs and covered them with fat (of the peritoneal membrane)
wrapped on both sides, on these they placed pieces of raw meat.
The old man burnt them on a log and with dark wine
he sprinkled it, and the young men by him held in their hands a spit with five blades
When the legs were burnt and the entrails tasted,
(465) they chopped the rest and stuffed it on the spits,
They roasted them carefully, and then they were taken off the spits.
When they had rested after their toil and had prepared a feast,
they feasted, and nothing was lacking in the heart from an equal feast.
When they had quenched their thirst with drink, and their hunger with food
(470) the young men filled the mixers to the brim with drink,
and after pouring out the libation, they poured it into all the vessels.
And all day long with prayer song they sought to win the god
beautifully singing the pajan, the Achaean youths,
praising the Thracian, and he rejoiced in listening.

430–6: sailing to Chryza. From the point of view of poetic language, the description of Odysseus's arrival at Chryza is characterised by typicality of scenes and motifs as well as formality (see Schipp 1972: 296 ff.; Kirk 1985, ad loc.). The sailing of Odysseus with the hecatomb to Chryza is unique against the land setting of the action of the Iliad, which makes the formulas used to describe it find their equivalents in the language of the Odyssey (e.g. Il. 1.432 = Od. 16.324). The introductory sentence of the episode begins in the middle of the hexameter (... αὐτὰρ Ὀδυσσεὺς) and focuses on the transport of the hekatombe (ἄγων ἱερὴν ἑκατόμβην), omitting at the outset the presence on board of the Chrysidae.

436-9: going ashore and landing the sacrificial animals. The emphatic fourfold use of ἐκ at the beginning of successive hexameters is an epanaphora that creates a mood of hastily moving the ship's cargo out while maintaining order (Kirk 1985: 100): the disembarkation of the crew, the moving out of the sacrificial animals (ἐκ δ᾽ ἑκατόμβην βῆσαν) and the disembarkation of the Chryside form a kind of procession heading for the altar of Apollo.

440: τὴν μὲν ἔπειτ᾽ ἐπὶ βωμὸν ἄγων πολύμητις Ὀδυσσεὺς – "then leading her towards the altar, thoughtful Odysseus"; since the hecatomb is offered in the sacred precinct of Apollon Sminteus, the narrator consistently mentions the altar (cf. v. 448). In the second extensive scene typical in the Iliad (2.402-432), when the sacrifice is offered by Agamemnon in the camp of the Achaeans, the narrator is silent about the altar.

442: πρό μ᾽ ἔπεμψεν ἄναξ ἀνδρῶν Ἀγαμέμνων; the poet consistently emphasises Agamemnon's role as sacrificer, lord of the sacrifice in the terminology of German science (Opferherr). In Odysseus' speech, his authority is underlined by the epic formula ἄναξ ἀνδρῶν Ἀγαμέμνων (see Hitch 2009: 81; 141 ff.).

442-443: Φοίβῳ θ᾽ ἱερὴν ἑκατόμβην / ῥέξαι ὑπὲρ Δαναῶν ὄφρ᾽ ἱλασόμεσθα ἄνακτα - "and to Phoebos the sacred hecatomb / to make concerning the Danayans, that we may win over the lord"; for the expression ἔρδω + ἑκατόμβην, see. Casabona 1966: 52.

447-468: typical scene - blood sacrifice. The most extensive description of animal sacrifice in the Iliad is an elaborate type scene that contains almost all the ritual elements included in the elaborate depictions of sacrifice scenes in the epic's main narrative. The variants that appear in each type scene are justified by the narrative context. The hekatombe sacrificed for Apollo is a ritual performed at the temple altar, with the priest as sacristan and the Achaeans as sacrificers

447–448: θεῶι κλειτὴν ἑκατόμβην… ἔστησαν ἐΰδμητον περὶ βωμόν – "they set the god around the well-built altar with a famous hecatomb"; the setting in a circle of sacrificial animals appears in typical scenes, see Il. 2.410a: βοῦν δὲ περιστήσαντο - "they set the oxen around"; Od. 356a: τὰς δὲ περιστήσαντο. Cf. the variant in the description of the hog sacrifice offered by Eumayos, where instead of an altar we have ἔσχαρη, "hearth, fire", and one animal makes it impossible to set around: τὸν μὲν ἔπειτ᾽ ἔστησαν ἐπ᾽ ἐσχάρῃ - "they set it by the fire" (Od. 14.420). The two adverbs emphasize that once brought to the place of sacrifice, the sacrificial animals are set up quickly (ὦκα) and "in the right order" (ἑξείης), presumably to prevent confusion, tumult at the altar. The juxtaposition of violent death on the battlefield with orderly and controlled violence at the sacrifice is one of the hallmarks of the epic worldview, see Seaford 1993. ἐΰδμητον περὶ βωμόν - 'around a well-built altar'; for the expression cf. Od. 7.100 (outside the sacrificial context).

449: χερνίψαντο δ᾽ ἔπειτα καὶ οὐλοχύτας ἀνέλοντο - "when they had washed their hands and collected the sacrificial barley"; formular verse (= Il. 2.410); archaic technical terms of sacrificial vocabulary appear: χερνίπτομαι and οὐλόχυται. χερνίψαντο - 'they washed their hands'; verb → χερνίπτομαι, a technical term formed from the noun → χέρνιψ, 'water for washing hands', which in the context of sacrifice and prayer also appears in Nestor's description of the sacrifice (Od. 3.440 and 445). The washing of the hands, as a form of ritual cleansing, was a necessary condition before the rituals of the blood and liquid sacrifice (Il. 6.266-8). In the Odyssey, when newcomers join the feasters, they are given entrails to taste, poured libations and prayed over, but there is no mention of washing hands (see Od. 3.5 ff.). Outside the sacrificial context χέρνιψ means water for washing hands (before a meal: Od. 1.136; 4.52). Vase paintings depict χέρνιψ as a bowl with vices, cf. the discussion in Athenaeus (Ath. 408b-9b, 9.75-6). Fixed stone purification bowls appear in sanctuaries in the late seventh century BC. (Parker, 1983: 19-20). On opening rituals, see Ginouvès 1968: 313-4; Moulinier 1950 71-74; van Straten 1995: 31-40.

449b: καὶ οὐλοχύτας ἀνέλοντο - 'they took crumbs/barley grain'; formular verse (= Il. 2.410b). Although there is no mention in the Iliad of the basket in which the grain was brought to the place where the ritual was performed, the verb ἀνέλοντο - 'they fetched' suggests the existence of a container in which the grain was stored; the grain will be thrown on the animal after the prayer to Apollon is said (v. 458). The word → οὐλόχυται is a compound in which the second element is the adjective -χυτός, "poured out, poured over" formed from the verb χέω, "to pour out" (about solids), "to pour", "to pile up", "to scatter". J. Casabona sees it as an adjective denoting → κριθαί - 'barley'. The meaning of the element οὐλο- is more difficult to determine; by analogy with, for example, τεῖχος ἀμφίχυτον, it can be assumed that it specified the manner, purpose or addressee of the gesture of scattering grains (Casabona 1966: 283). In Od. 3.441 and the Pohomeric sources it has been replaced by the noun οὐλαί. Od. 3.444-5 directly links the use of water for purification and the taking of barley grains with the beginning of the sacrificial ritual at the altar (γέρων δ᾽ ἱππηλάτα Νέστωρ / χέρνιβά τ᾽ οὐλοχύτας τε κατήρχετο - 'the old man, the horseman Nestor / began with water and barley'). Odysseus' companions, when they had to make a sacrifice in a place where they had no access to grain, use oak leaves instead of barley (Od. 3.357-8: φύλλα δρεψάμενοι τέρενα δρυὸς ὑψικόμοιο- / οὐ γὰρ ἔχον κρῖ λευκὸν ἐϋσσέλμου ἐπὶ νηός, see comm. ad loc.).

450: τοῖσιν δὲ Χρύσης μεγάλ᾽ εὔχετο χεῖρας ἀνασχών – "but for them Chryses prayed aloud lifting up his arms"; the use of the εὔχομαι + dat. construction here indicates that Chryses is raising a prayer for the Achaeans, thus revoking a request to Apollo to punish them because of his daughter (Pulleyn 2002). In verse 458 the verb εὔχομαι is used in the plural, suggesting that the prayer, even if raised by an individual, may have been seen as a collective act, like other ritual actions.

458-469: The prayer is followed by formular verses that will be repeated in the scene of Il.2.421-432, which depicts the sacrifice made by Agamemnon, except for the verses of Il.1.462-463, which depart from the common pattern in Il.2.425-426 but return in the scene of Nestor's sacrifice in the Odyssey (3.459-460).

458: αὐτὰρ ἐπεί ῥ᾽ εὔξαντο καὶ οὐλοχύτας προβάλοντο - 'when they had prayed and thrown the barley'; a formulaic verse summarising the introductory rites accompanying the prayer (= Il. 2.421 = Od. 3.447; cf. variant in Od.12.359: αὐτὰρ ἐπεί ῥ᾽ εὔξαντο καὶ ἔσφαξαν καὶ ἔδειραν). The haemistic formular αὐτὰρ ἐπεί ῥ᾽ εὔξαντο is only used in a sacred context in typical scenes - animal sacrifice - which excludes the secular interpretation of the verb εὔχομαι, which here does not simply mean "to utter aloud solemn words" but more specifically "to pray, to raise a prayer". On this verb see Benveniste 1968; Muellner 1976 (the place in question is analysed on pp. 31-37). οὐλοχύτας προβάλοντο - "they threw barley"; in Od. 3.446 the washing of the hands, the scattering of the barley and the burning of the cut hair are referred to as primal rites, actions preceding ritual slaughter. In later sources, participants in the ritual throw barley into the fire lit on the altar, on the sacrificial animal or on the participants in the ritual. W. Burkert (1972: 5) interpreted throwing grains at an animal as a gesture of aggression, pointing to rituals in which stones were thrown instead of grains. F. Graf, on the other hand, drew attention to the species of grain used - barley was considered a cereal grown by humans in primitive times (Graf 2002: 121).

459a: αὐέρυσαν μὲν πρῶτα - "first they deflected" (the animal's throat); (formulaic verse = Il. 2.422a) after the preliminary rites have been fulfilled, the participants in the ritual proceed to the ritual slaughter. In the epic descriptions of the slaughter of the sacrificial animal there is a fixed sequence of actions, but individual scenes focus attention on selected elements. The sequence in its fullest form would be: "(1) stunning the animal, (2) butchering, (3) skinning, (4) trimming, (5) making meat". Although it is a constant element of slaughter scenes in the epic, all its elements never appear in one place. The element (1) of stunning the animal, which occurs in the Odyssey by dealing a blow to the animal's neck with an axe (cattle) or a billet (flock), does not appear in the Iliad. Here three elements are present: (2), (3). A fuller sequence, consisting of three elements: (2) butchering, (3) skinning and (5) making meat, is present in Il. 24.622 and is almost verbatim repeated in Il. 7.314-316. In the slaughter and supper preparation scene in Il. 18.559 (Achilles' shield) the elements (1) and (3) appear; while in Il. 23.167 (2) and (3) at, Od. 8.61, 19.421 This should not be attributed to differences of ritual, but to Homer's desire for brevity of description. The meaning of the verb αὐέρυσαν is explained by Apollonios the Sophist (Lex. Hom.): εἰς τοὐπίσω εἵλκυσαν, 'they bent backwards (the neck)' in order to cut the throat. καὶ ἔσφαξαν - "and butchered"; formular verse (= Il. 2.422). The verb → σφάζω belongs to the technical language of sacrifice. As with the prayer, the plural does not necessarily indicate the slitting of the animal's throat by a larger number of participants in the ritual. It is possible, however, that the plural emphasizes the complicity of several persons in the killing of the animal. In Od. 3.454 the cow's throat is cut by Pejsistratos, but the depiction of a private sacrifice, centred on the complicity of family members of both sexes, necessitated greater detail in the description, see comment ad loc. καὶ ἔδειραν - 'and they skinned'; the Homeric epic does not explicitly mention the further fate of the skin pulled from the animal, but we can assume that it was used as material to be further redistributed. Cf. Il. 23.144-151 with commentary.

460–461a: μηρούς τ᾽ ἐξέταμον κατά τε κνίσῃ ἐκάλυψαν/ δίπτυχα ποιήσαντες – "they cut the legs and hid them in fat (peritoneal membranes) / on two sides wrapping"; formular verses (= Il. 2, 427 = Od. 12, 364). After skinning the carcass of the animal, the sacrificers prepare the portion dedicated to the gods. The expression μηρούς τ᾽ ἐξέταμον - "they cut the legs" (cf. ἐκ μηρία τάμνον, with the thesis, Od. 3.456), which occurs only in extended type scenes, can be translated as "they cut the legs" (= thighbones) from the flesh covering them, or "they cut off the legs" (from the body). It opens in typical scenes with a repetitive arrangement of verses describing the procedure for preparing the hind legs (μηρούς) for burning (3x: Il. 1.464-5 = Il. 2.427-8 = Od. 12. 364-5): μηρούς τ᾽ ἐξέταμον κατά τε κνίσῃ ἐκάλυψαν / δίπτυχα ποιήσαντες, ἐπ᾽ αὐτῶν δ᾽ ὠμοθέτησαν, cf. the variant in Nestor's description of the offering to Athena (Od. 3.456b-457, see comment ad. loc.): ἄφαρ δ᾽ ἐκ μηρία τάμνον / πάντα κατὰ μοῖραν, κατά τε κνίσῃ ἐκάλυψαν. On κνίση see above, 1.60 with commentary.

461b: ἐπ᾽ αὐτῶν δ᾽ ὠμοθέτησαν - "on them they laid pieces of raw meat"; (= Il. 2.424 = Od. 3.458 = Od. 12.424); verb → ὠμοθετέω, composed of the adjective ὠμός, "raw", "not roasted" (about meat) and θετέω, "to arrange" (SlG.-P.: "to lay pieces of raw sacrificial meat on the altar"). The ritual is described in detail in Od.14.427-8: ὁ δ᾽ ὠμοθετεῖτο συβώτης, / πάντων ἀρχόμενος μελέων, ἐς πίονα δημόν - "the swineherd laid the raw pieces of meat on the fat saddle, offering a primal sacrifice of all the members". The meaning of the ritual is not clear. According to Karl Meuli (Meuli 1946: 306) and Walter Burkert (Burkert 1983: 6, 16), the ritual continues the tradition of Palaeolithic hunters who, by offering particles of slain prey, ensured the survival of animal herds as a response to guilt.

462-4: After preparing the parts for the gods, the sacrificer burns them on the altar, at the same time the youth roasts → σπλάγχνα - 'entrails'. The division of roles is clearly marked: the old priest Chryses (ὁ γέρων) supervises the burning of the femurs wrapped in the fatty membrane of the peritoneum and pours wine on the fire, while the youths roast on the same altar fire the entrails removed from the peritoneum and the heart, in place of which the bones were inserted.

462: καῖε δ᾽ ἐπὶ σχίζῃς - 'burned on a slab'; noun → σχίζα, 'slab', 'log', 'firewood'; since an altar was mentioned earlier (448), we may suppose that the logs were used metonymically here in place of the altar (βωμός); cf. the expression πολλὰ δὲ μηρί᾽ ἔκηε θεῶν ἱεροῖσ᾽ ἐπὶ βωμοὶς - 'numerous femurs I burned on the sacred altars of the gods', Od. 3.273. ὁ γέρων, ἐπὶ δ᾽ αἴθοπα οἶνον / λεῖβε - "burned the old man on a slab, poured with sparkling wine".

463: νέοι δὲ παρ᾽ αὐτὸν ἔχον πεμπώβολα χερσίν - "and the young ones by him held in their hands a spit with five blades"; formular verse (= Od. 3. 460); when the sacrificer sprinkles the burnt portion intended for the supernatural being with a liquid wine offering, the young participants in the ritual toast the animal's internal organs impaled on spits with five blades, → πεμπώβολα, in the same fire. Some commentators suggest that the object described by Homer was similar to the toothed fork found at the sanctuary of Apollo at Dendra, measuring 11.2 cm long by 7.5 cm wide. Cf. Bruns, Archaeologia Homerica, vol. Q: 39, see also Od. 3.460, West comm. ad loc.

464-6: Formular verses describing the actions following the ritual burning of the part intended for the supernatural being, the pouring out of libations and the tasting of pieces of internal organs by the participants in the ritual. In Homeric descriptions of animal sacrifice combined with a feast, the poet's attention is focused on the preparation of the part dedicated to the gods and the entrails, followed by the meat eaten by humans. These descriptions consist of formular verses, but allow for a number of variants adapted to the context and needs of the narrative, while the feast itself is mentioned in rather stereotyped formular verses. On the preparation of a meat meal from animal sacrifices, see van Straten 1995: 144-153.

466: αὐτὰρ ἐπεὶ κατὰ μῆρ’ ἐκάη καὶ σπλάγχνα πάσαντο – "when the legs were burnt and they tasted the entrails"; a formular verse (= Il. 2.427 = Od. 3.461 = Od. 12.364) summarizing the first part of the rite. The subject of the verb κατὰ... ἐκάη in the 3rd person ind. aor. pass. 3 sg. are → μῆρα, an archaic collective noun used as a term for femurs burned for the gods, which may indicate an early origin of the formula. σπλάγχνα πάσαντο - 'they tasted the entrails'; the collective noun σπλάγχνα, like μῆρα, is a technical term used in the context of the ritual of animal sacrifice (cf. ἔγκατα, plurale tantum, cf. pol. 'entrails'), which may be explained by the desire to frame the entrails as an inseparable collection of internal organs removed from the slaughtered animal. It seems that this symmetry is not accidental: in the first part of the rituals following the slaughter of the animal, the gods receive μῆρα and the humans receive σπλάγχνα. We have seen that the burning to the gods of the portion due to them, its transformation into smoke (κνίση) is the essence of sacrifice understood as an act of communication between humans and gods, metonymically signifying the sacrificial rite itself. The ritual takes place on an altar. Using the same fire, in which the smoke of burnt logs mingles with the thick smoke of burnt bones and fat, the people prepare the parts of the animal to be eaten on the spot, at the altar itself (later sources emphasise that still hot). There is no description in the epic detailing the organs included in the σπλάγχνα. Aristotle in his treatise On the Parts of Animals distinguishes: heart, lungs, liver, spleen and kidneys (De partibus animalium 664b-672b). On σπλάγχνα, see Stengel 1910 [1970]: 73-78; Rudhardt 1958: 262, note 8; Detienne 1977: 174-179; Durand 1979: 133-166 (especially 139-150); Berthiaume 1982: 60-61; van Straten 1995: 131-41 (especially 131-3); Ekroth 2008: 87-111 (especially 93-95).

465-6: μίστυλλόν τ᾽ ἄρα τἆλλα καὶ ἀμφ᾽ ὀβελοῖσιν ἔπειραν / ὤπτησάν τε περιφραδέως, ἐρύσαντό τε πάντα - "they chopped up the rest and on the spits they stuffed them, / they toasted them carefully, and then they pulled them all off the spits": Formular verse (= Il. 2.428 = Il. 7.317 = Il. 24.623 = Od. 3.462 = Od. 12.365 = Od. 14.430). In Homeric descriptions, the meal intended for humans consists of finely chopped pieces of meat toasted on spits, thus resembling skewers (souvlaki). In later sources, meat is also prepared in cauldrons like a stew. An opposition then appears between roasted splanchna and cooked sarks, see Detienne 1977: 174.

467: αὐτὰρ ἐπεὶ παύσαντο πόνου τετύκοντό τε δαῖτα - 'when they had rested after their toil and prepared a feast': formular verse (Il. 1.467 = Il. 2.430 = Il. 7.319, cf. οἱ δ᾽ ἐπεὶ οὖν παύσαντο πόνου τετύκοντό τε δαῖτα, Od. 16.478 = 24.384).

468: δαίνυντ᾽, οὐδέ τι θυμὸς ἐδεύετο δαιτὸς ἐΐσης - "they feasted, and nothing was lacking to the heart from an equal feast": formulaic verse (Il. 1.468 = Il. 1.602 = Il. 2.431 = Il. 7.320 = Il. 23.56 = Od. 16.479 = Od. 19.425; cf. Il. 4.48 = Il. 24.69).

469: αὐτὰρ ἐπεὶ πόσιος καὶ ἐδητύος ἐξ ἔρον ἕντο – "when with drink they quenched their thirst and ate their hunger"; formular verse (Il. 1.469 = Il. 2.432 = Il. 7.323 = Il. 9.92 = Il. 9.222 = Il. 13.638 = Il. 23.57 = Il. 24.227 = Il. 24.628; Od. 1.150 = Od. 3.67 = Od. 3.473 = From. 4.68 = From. 8.72 = From. 8.485 = From. 12.308 = From. 14.454 = From. 15.143 = From. 15.303 = From. 15.501 = From. 16.55 = From. 17.99 = From. 24.489). This very frequent closing formula (Abschlussformel) marks the end of the first part of the heroic feast, during which the participants of the feast satisfy their thirst and hunger. It seems that the organisation of the heroic feast assumed simultaneous eating and drinking. Closing the course of the whole feast satisfying biological needs with a short formula allows to focus on other activities of the feasters, cf. Arend 1933: 69-78 (especially 70); Węcowski 2011: 184-5.

470: κοῦροι μὲν κρητῆρας ἐπεστέψαντο ποτοῖο - 'the young men filled the mixers to the brim with drink'; the wine was poured into the craters (mixers) by young men (κοῦροι), members of the social elite rather than young slaves (cf. Il. 9.175; Od. 1.148; Od. 3.339; Od. 21.271).

471: νώμησαν δ᾽ ἄρα πᾶσιν ἐπαρξάμενοι δεπάεσσιν - "and after the libations were poured into all the vessels": the meaning of this formula has been explained by Paul Mazon (1937). After the preparation of the crater, the young men, acting as serving men, pour a few drops of wine into the spigot of each participant of the feast, which are then, probably simultaneously, poured as the libation beginning the drinking together. Cf. Węcowski 2011: 189.

472-5: the sacrifice and the subsequent aristocratic feast do not exhaust the activities of the day. Since the sacrifice proceeded immediately upon the arrival of the messengers, one may legitimately ask about the meaning of the pajan sung and presumably danced by the Achaean youths. Equally surprising is the use of the verb ἱλάσκομαι, which had previously been associated with the offering of a hecatomb. Now, although the propitiatory hecatomb has already been accepted, the Achaean youth erects a propitiatory paean, see Pharaoh 2015.

472: οἳ δὲ πανημέριοι μολπῇ θεὸν ἱλάσκοντο - and all day long with prayer song they sought to win over the god: both the use of the adjective πανημέριοι, 'working all day long', and the verb ἱλάσκοντο in the indicativus imperfecti expressing the duration of the action, emphasise the duration of the ritual propitiatory song.