Beginning with a table of contents and a short Preface (p. 7), this book contains a List of Technicalities (pp. 9-10), a General Introduction to the whole Iliad, divided into five paragraphs (pp. 11-43), a line-by-line commentary on each book of the poem, based on three selected translations (pp. 45-323), an Appendix, entitled The 'Truce' in Book 3 (pp. 325-327), a rather extensive Bibliography, a useful Index of the subjects discussed.
(I) THE GENERAL INTRODUCTION (pp. 11-43)
Section 1. Poetry and History (pp. 11-23). Jones begins by explaining the plot (pp. 11-15). Rather than a mere summary following the order-sequence of the Iliadic books, after having specified briefly the core of the plot (what, when, where), Jones unfolds the subject as a series of shots concerned with the events that he calls "bare bones of the story" (p. 11), i.e. those events gravitating around Achilles and his 'anger', showing Homer as a skilled director who successfully organized the rest of the plot (the other two thirds of the poem representing the so-called non-Achillean books). Jones describes how the shots gradually become wider by showing Homer (a) as setting the scene first in the context of the battle between the Greeks and Trojans, then within the broad context of the whole history of the ten-year Trojan war; (b) as dealing with his personages like a "vast cast" (p. 12), that includes leading heroes, secondary characters and gods; and (c) as controlling the fictional time of the story by glimpsing the periods before and after the 'real time' of the Iliadic events themselves. In the end, Jones' description not does only give a complete and vivid recounting of the whole plot of the poem, but it also gives an almost complete set of clues concerning the narrative structures. Jones shows an attractive way of elucidating the plot later, as well, when he introduces a peculiar "way of thinking about a plot" that consists of determining the main characters' 'object of desire' (see, pp. 32-33). Therefore, he describes the Iliadic plot as a sequence of main personages' 'object of desire', and, in doing so, covers the entire plot.
Later in the commentary he does give some details about both food and blood, but there is something wrong. Commenting on 5. 340 (p. 112), he writes: 14 Jones' interpretation seems to be based on what is generally considered as being a bard's misinterpretation of the adjective ambrotos in Il. 5. 339-340 (see M. Leumann, Homerische Wörter, Basel 1950, pp. 124-127). If it is so, Jones should have discussed it with more details and references. As to the gods' blood, when it is not named as ichor, not accidentally it is qualified by the adjective ambrotos ('immortal'), exactly as in 5. 870, mentioned by Jones in brackets with an exclamation mark: here, in fact, the blood belongs to Ares; therefore, it is also obvious that, even if it is shed, he does not die.
Section 4. Features of Homeric Plotting and Narrative (pp. 32-43). Here Jones discusses almost every narratological technique which one has to know: "The plot and 'retardation'", "Homer as narrator and 'focaliser'", "Ring-composition", "Similes" and "Battle".
Section 5. Introductory Bibliography (p. 43). Jones finally provides information about the main secondary literature that should be used for both the general introduction to Homer and the book-by-book analysis.
(II) LINE-BY-LINE COMMENTARY (pp. 45-323).
Each book's line-by-line commentary is introduced by a meticulous summary by means of which Jones allows the readers not only to familiarize themselves with the content of the book but also to 'see' Homer building his poem by facing, step by step, the narrative problems (sometimes vividly qualified as "tricky", p. 139; "serious", p. 148; "especially difficult", p. 271) that the fictional situations themselves could raise. A typical device that Jones uses to realize this goal consists of asking what the poet can do or how he reacts to the narrative situation, as if the poet asks himself, interacting, as a consequence, with both his own personages and readers. This is a noteworthy way to engage the readers by making them participate in Homer's creative process. Jones' asking-device frequently occurs in the detailed notes where the challenge to the readers sometimes becomes excessive because of the absence of answers. It is also worth noting that each introduction begins by reminding the readers of the preceding stages of the narration, so that they cannot lose their way. This commitment to jogging the memory is also shown in the detailed notes concerning the personages. At the end of each book's introduction Jones also indicates the main sources for the commentary and related readings.
The line-by-line commentary is in turn divided into several thematic segments. Each segment is introduced by a short and clear summary of its contents that includes also precise indications about the time of the involved events. The commentary is characterized by an abundance of details, which ranges from explanations of epithets to geographical and ethnological notes; from descriptions of narratological rules and devices (such as Zielinski's rules, ring-composition, some peculiar speech-pattern, paradigm-speech, parallel-structure) to the meticulous recording of every simile; from the focusing on typical scene-patterns (such as departure, arming, killings 'chain reaction', aristeia, 'rebuke') to descriptive notes on the vivid figurative language of both Homer and his characters. There are also clarifying comments on the situation of the single personage in a given stage of the narration, sometimes enriched by exquisite quotations (see, e.g., on 18. 98-102, p. 253).
Jones' commentary does not omit to point out and discuss passages that are specifically object of interest of analytical scholars (see, e.g., on 8. 80, p. 141; on. 11. 609, p. 180, etc.) nor cases concerning specific lines' Homeric authenticity (see, e.g., on 8. 548+550-2, p. 146; 9. 458-461, p. 158; 18. 604-605, p. 261; 23. 806, p. 307; 24. 45, p. 312). There are also several interesting notes on the issue of translation, although these are, unfortunately, not as numerous as one would expect from the title of the book. In these notes, Jones often focuses on what the Greek word or sentence means, which translation is preferable, and why. Some of the translation's notes are acute, explained in detail, and show an effort to avoid too modern and anachronistic interpretation.
As in each book's introduction, the focus in the commentary is on Homer's art of narrating. With regard to this, Jones prefers to highlight the 'objective' way of the Homeric narrative. Although talking of intervention of the poet to manipulate events, or to make general statements or personal comments, contrary to trends in recent scholarship, Jones tends to consider it as being rare.
In sum, the overall commentary is very rich in details; most of Jones' notes are indeed notable. However, in this section, too, there are some shortcomings, not unexpected in so long a commentary.
As to the translation, in light of Jones' attention to precise explanations and avoidance of too modern translations, it comes as a surprise that he does not discuss the way that Rieu-Jones translate Δύσπαρι, i.e. "parody", in 3. 39: first, one can ask "parody of what?"; that it could be a 'parody of the real hero' may be an obvious inference, but this goes beyond the Greek term Δύσπαρι and the involved tone, which is that of a reproach (especially in 3. 39). Second, considering its vocative case, 'parody' seems a very strange way of addressing a person, at least without any other clarifying explanation. Also, concerning 14. 172 (p. 206) Jones writes "it seems more likely that this phrase means the 'immortal oil with which her dress was scented'". In fact, Homer first talks of her skin, χρώς, not of her dress: see ll. 170, 175; also ἀλείφω implies the notion of anointing the skin, generally with oil. Only then does Hera put on an immortal dress (l. 178), gradually adding various ornaments (ll. 179-187). Another point: on 24. 44-45 (p. 312) Jones discusses both the translation of aidos at l. 44 as 'respect for others', and the consequent omission of the l. 45 (= 'which can both help and hurt a man'), which does not fill that meaning well. Yet it has been argued that the Homeric use of aidos could be ambivalent as in Hesiod and in this perspective, preserving the l. 45 seems to make sense.15
A few other points: on Thersites (on 2. 212, p. 71), Jones says that it means 'loud-mouth'; but it should mean '(man) bold of speech' since θέρσος is the Aeolic form for θάρσος meaning both courage and impudence.16 The reference to the story of Typhoeus (on 2. 783, p. 79) is inaccurate: at least on the basis of the Hesiodic lines that Jones mentions, Typhoeus was generated after Zeus completely defeated the Titans (see, in fact, Theogony 820-821), not while Zeus was fighting them; moreover, Hesiod does not mention earthquakes as consequence of the fact that Zeus hit Typhoeus with a thunderbolt and buried him deep in the earth. The Hesiodic image focuses on flames, fire, burning (Theogony 859, 861) and on Earth groaning and lamenting (Theogony 858), just like the Homeric passage under discussion, where Homer establishes a simile by focusing on the effects on the earth provoked by the Greeks' march and those provoked by the Typhoeus' defeat at the hands of Zeus. Also, as to the competitiveness (on 23.259, p. 302), talking of the games in honor of Patroclus Jones writes: "Once dead, one no longer competed, because there is nothing to compete over (cf. Achilles in the underworld at Od. 11. 487-93). So special games in the dead man's honor were, perhaps, felt to be a consolation for him... ". The reference to Od. 11. 487-93 could be misleading since, in the underworld, Achilles is sad and wishes to be still alive not just to compete: it is not accidental that Achilles asks Odysseus about his son and his father (11. 492-94), i.e. those persons who can keep alive his glory and fame. Considering that in the Homeric world the heroic worth passes from father to son, and so the latter can ensure a 'revival' of the former, it is remarkable that, after having talked with Odysseus, Achilles seems no longer to be sad or to wish to be alive; indeed, he goes away rejoicing because he knows from Odysseus that his son was glorious and famous (11. 538-540).17
Finally, in the appendix concerning the 'truce' in Book 3 (pp. 325-327) Jones rejects the common view of the oath taken by the Trojans and Greeks in 3. 276-301, when Menelaus and Paris are about to duel, as constituting an official truce. Jones' argument is clearly explained and is quite persuasive. He focuses on the fact that a real truce should be sealed by oaths and, in his opinion, the oath itself of Book 3 concerns only the outcome of the duel (ll. 276-309), not "any truce, official or otherwise" (p. 325). Thus, on the basis of the words of Hector in 3. 84-94, Jones regards the truce as possibly being concluded after the duel takes place. To a closer analysis, Jones' overall argument seems to be questionable. To simply touch on the issue, it is just Hector's words that imply something different from what Jones argues. Hector reports Paris' command-exhortation (l. 87) that involves, on one hand (l. 88), all other Trojans and Greeks, who are significantly invited to put away, down the weapons (l. 89); on the other hand (l. 90) Paris himself and Menelaus, i.e. the duel. Passing over the immediately following wish-order expressed by Menelaus ("you others be parted with all speed", l. 102), I wonder whether the command 'to put away' the weapons is so unimportant as to exclude that at least an unofficial truce, covering the period of the duel, is implied (see, also, ll. 113b-115). Moreover, Jones does not consider the libation and the sacrifice, which take place (ll. 266-274; 292-296), as possibly having officially sealed the mentioned friendship (see ll. 73, 94) and the putting away of the weapons, too, i.e. a sort of 'truce'.18
In conclusion, it is unfortunate that a certain unevenness in quality weakens the potential force of this book, whose basic idea of comparing three translations is to be applauded especially when one considers that the translation itself may be a major issue for everybody. On the other hand, the commentary's richness strongly struggles with misgivings over specifics. In the end, I would think that addressing the shortcomings, in a possible revised edition, would permit the overall notable traits of this book to be more appreciated.
1. See J.B. Hainsworth, The flexibility of the Homeric Formula, Oxford 1968, the well-known originator of these observations. Even taking into account the declared limited scope of this book, I have to notice that Jones misses mentioning Hainsworth's work; yet, he usually cites the bibliographic references after other specific topics are discussed. The same occurs later, when talking about the repeated patterns of common scenes and mentioning some of them (pp. 18-20), Jones omits to quote the very first pioneer work of this kind of studies, W. Arend, Die typischen Scenen bei Homer, Berlin 1933.
2. The only evidence that Jones has introduced to support his statement that the Homeric poetry has little substantial to tell us about the Mycenaean Age is questionable; he hints at the written records, the Linear B tablets, whose contents have no relation with the society of the Iliad. In my opinion one should take into account that the discrepancy concerning the Linear B tablets' contents, as well as other inconsistencies between Homeric poems and the Mycenaean Age, may be due to the inevitable mixture with the traits of the following ages (the Dark Age and the beginning of the Archaic Age) throughout the oral transmission of traditional material. Curiously, Jones never mentions the Dark Age that, covering a considerable length of time between the Bronze Age and the Archaic Age (i.e. the time when it is more or less agreed that Homer composed his poems), has been taken into consideration by the scholarship within the Homeric question (however, see, e.g., M. Ventris & J. Chadwich, Documents in Mycenean Greek Cambridge 1972, p. XXVIII; V. R. d'A. Desborough, The Greek Dark Age London 1972, p. 321). There are still scholars that date the society described by Homer as late Dark Age (see, e.g., P.A. Draper, Homer. Iliad Book 1 with notes and vocabulary Ann Arbor 2002).
3. Jones simply hints at their Mycenaean origin in the comment on 7. 219 (p. 135). Also, as to the general weapons there is a misleading statement: Jones writes (p. 15): "all their [Homer's heroes] armour and weapons are bronze". Instead, there is, at least, one exception in 4.123 that has caused many discussions (see also 7. 141 and Odyssea 21.10-11). It is true that the exception is pointed out in the commentary of that book (p. 98). However, someone that reads the general introduction and not the commentary on every single book, has, at least at this stage, inaccurate information. I point this out not only for reasons of precision, which should obviously be adhered to the extent possible, but since this fact also indicates that the Homeric picture is not as invariable as Jones at times seems to imply.
4. The lion is a very popular animal-motif of the Mycenaean iconography. On this subject, see, e.g., E. Bloedow, On Lions in Mycenaean and Minoan Culture, in "Aegaeum" 8, (1992), pp. 295-305; Löwenjagd im spätbronzezeitlichen Griechenland, in "Altertum" 38 (1993), pp. 241-250; more recently, "Hector is a lion": New Light on Warfare from the Homeric Simile and Bronze Age Iconography, in "Aegaeum" 19 (1999), pp. 285-295, where the scholar has observed that a comparison of lions in Homeric similes and lions in Mycenaean iconography can also enable us to gain new insights into Bronze Age war and warfare.
5. See G. S. Kirk et al., The Iliad. A Commentary, vol. VI (by N.J. Richardson), Cambridge 1993, pp. 186-189. Jones hints at this case of human sacrifice in the comment on 18. 336 (p. 257), simply explaining it as a clear signal of how intensive Achilles's grief is, given that similar brutal acts are normally avoided.
6. See W. Schadewaldt, Die Anfange der Geschichtsschreibung bei den Griechen, in "Die Antike" 10 (1934), pp. 144-168 (the quotation is on p. 149).
7. Regarding the inner didactic purpose of the poetry according to the archaic mentality, see, e.g., W. J. Verdenius, The Principles of Greek literary Criticism, "Mnemosyne" 36 (1983), espec. pp. 31-36. As to the ancient sources, it could be enough to mention, e.g., Xenophanes fr. B 10 D-K; Heraclitus fr. B 50, 57 D-K; Herodotus II, 53; Aristophanes Frogs 1031-1036a.
8. It is also a little strange that Jones has never introduced the concept of 'myth', which is as important for understanding the ancient Greek poetry, and more generally the archaic Greek culture, as it is difficult to define. In the commentary, Jones occasionally uses the word, and/or derivatives (pp. 99 on 4. 219; 123 on 6. 119-236; 124 on 6. 132; 151-152 on 9. 145; 266 on 19. 95-133), without any explanation and, sometimes, accompanied by confusing terminology, e.g.: "folktale/myth" to name the Bellerophon's story told by Glaucus (p. 123); while about Meleager in Book 9, Jones talks of a "traditional story" (p. 159).
9. E. R. Dodds, The Greeks and the Irrational, Berkeley-Los Angeles-London 1951, pp. 17-18, 28. As to the transliterated form of αἰδός, I have to notice a misprint in the section under discussion (espec. p. 25) as well as later (espec. p. 312): it is always written aidôs.
10. See, e.g., W. Donlan, The Structure of Authority in the Iliad, in "Arethusa" 12 (1979), pp. 51-70; V. Di Benedetto, Nel laboratorio di Omero, Torino 1994, pp. 349-358.
11. Jones also never introduces the concept of geras, which is actually what provokes the quarrel (see E. Benveniste, Le vocabulaire des institutions indo-européennes, Paris 1969, vol. II, espec. pp. 43-44). As to how the time / aidos issue affects the reaction of Achilles and his desire of revenge, Jones nevertheless later talks of "revenge for his own [Achilles] slighted honour" (p. 311).
12. See H. Fraenkel, Early Greek Poetry and Philosophy (transl. by M. Hadas & J. Willis) New York-London 1975, pp. 54 and n. 4. On this 'mode of polar opposite' with reference to early Greek Religion, see also G. E. R. Lloyd, Polarity and Analogy: Two Types of Argumentation in Early Greek Thought , Cambridge 1966, pp. 41-48.
13. In the comment on 4. 34 (p. 97) Jones writes: "... : gods, of course, consume only ambrosia and nectar (5.341-2)". Beside the fact that the reader cannot understand why "of course" since nothing has been explained before, I would think that there is a misprint here, because there is no mention of those words in the Greek text neither in the l. 34 nor in the surrounding lines (except for nectar, mentioned at the very beginning: 4. 3)
14. See, e.g., H. Frisk, Griechisches Etymologisches Wörterbuch, Heidelberg 1960, pp. 270-271; P. Chantraine, Dictionnaire étymologique de la langue grecque, Paris 1968, I, pp. 197-198; B. Snell, Lexicon des frühgriechischen Epos, Hamburg 1979, I, pp. 616-618.
15. Regarding to the ambivalent meaning of αἰδός in Homer, see, e.g., D. B. Claus, Defining Moral Terms in Works and Days, in "TAPA" 107 (1977), espec. pp. 77-80. As to translations preserving the l. 45, see, e.g, C. W. Macleod, Homer. Iliad. Book XXIV, Cambridge Greek and Latin Classics, Cambridge University Press, 1982, p. 92 comm. ad 45; A. T. Murray, Homer. The Iliad, LCL, Cambridge-London 1985, p. 565 n. 2.
16. For the meaning of Thersites, it is enough to check on LSJ, s.v. θερσιεπής.
17. Regarding to this, see G. Arrighetti, EOIKOTA TEKNA GONEUSI. Etica eroica e continuità genealogica, in "SIFC" (1991), espec. pp. 141-144 (with further bibliographic references).
18. Moreover, I would like to point out that the subjunctive in 3.94 seems to be hortatory, which indeed would express propelling and hastening instead of waiting and delaying, as supposed by Jones. At times, actually, τάμωμεν (3. 94) is translated as hortatory subjunctive: see, e.g., A. T. Murray, Homer. The Iliad, LCL, Cambridge-London 1985, p. 123 ("... but for us others, let us swear friendship and oaths of faith with sacrifice").