"Russian Iliad. The poems “Iliad” and “Odyssey” Who translated the Iliad into Russian

Those wishing to study Homer must, of course, begin by studying the text itself. Those who do not speak Greek should begin studying Russian translations, which, by the way, are of high quality, so that Russian literature can rightfully be proud of them.

The Iliad was first translated in its entirety by the famous Russian writer and representative of the Pushkin school N. I. Gnedich in 1829. The latest editions of this translation appeared already in Soviet times. This is: Homer, Iliad, translation by N. I. Gnedich. Editing and commentary by I. M. Trotsky with the participation of I. I. Tolstoy. Articles about the song of F. Preobrazhensky, I. M. Trotsky and I. I. Tolstoy, Academia. M.-L., 1935. Also in 1935, this publication appeared in the same publishing house in a larger format and improved form. Recently, Gnedich's translation appeared in its entirety in the collection of this translator's own poems in the large series "poet's library": N. I. Gnedich, Poems. Introductory article, preparation of the text and notes by I. N. Medvedeva, L., 1956. Gnedich’s translation has generated a lot of literature, since at one time it was a wonderful example of translation art and has not lost its significance to the present day. Gnedich managed, with sufficient closeness to the original, to reproduce the cheerful Homeric cheerfulness and heroism, which were combined here with high and magnificent, although at the same time light solemnity. The modern reader of Gnedich will be put off, perhaps, only by the abundance of Slavicisms, which, however, with a deeper historical approach, reveal a high artistic style that does not in the least interfere with the ease and mobility of the speech technique of translation. The reader can be convinced that Gnedich’s translation is based on Winckelmann’s assessment of antiquity and on the poetics of Pushkin’s school by reading A. Kukulevich’s special work “The Iliad” translated by N. I. Gnedich in “Scientific Notes of the Leningrad State University”, No. 33, series of philological science, issue 2, L., 1939. The philological and stylistic characteristics of Gnedich’s translation in comparison with the Greek original are given by I. I. Tolstoy in the article “Gnedich as a translator of the Iliad,” published in the above edition of Gnedich’s translation in 1935. , pages 101–106 (the notes to Gnedich's translation in this edition indicate discrepancies between Gnedich and the original).

Unfortunately, the newest reissue of Gnedich does not contain those annotations by Gnedich for each song of the Iliad, without which studying the poem is very difficult. These annotations were compiled by Gnedich very carefully, even marking the verse numbers for each individual topic. Therefore, we have to recommend and keep in mind also the old edition of Gnedich. This is Homer’s “Iliad,” translated by N. I. Gnedich, edited by S. I. Ponomarev, edition 2, St. Petersburg, 1892. This edition also contains useful articles by Ponomarev and Gnedich himself. The same translation - M., St. Petersburg, 1904, St. Petersburg, 1912.

Since Gnedich’s translation by the end of the 19th century. already turned out to be outdated, there was a need to provide a translation of the Iliad in a simplified form, without any Slavicisms and based only on the modern Russian literary language. Such a translation was undertaken by N.I. Minsky in 1896. The latest reissue of this translation: Homer, Iliad, translation by N.I. Minsky. Editorial and introductory article to the song of F. Preobrazhensky, M., 1935. Minsky’s translation is prosaic in nature and often gives the impression of being interlinear. Nevertheless, for those who do not understand or do not like Gnedich’s Slavicisms, this translation is of great importance and played a significant role in its time. A scientific analysis of this translation can be found in the review by S.I. Sobolevsky in the Journal of the Ministry of Public Education, 1911, No. 4 (department 2), pages 346–360.

Finally, recently a third complete Russian translation of the Iliad has appeared: Homer, Iliad, translation by V. Veresaev, M.-L., 1949. Veresaev’s translation went even further than Minsky. Having used many successful expressions of Gnedich and Minsky, Veresaev nevertheless understands Homer in an overly folkloric way and tries to use various kinds of folk and pseudo-folk expressions, some of them even of a not entirely decent nature. True, the too sublime and too solemn style of the Iliad is currently a great exaggeration. But numerous naturalistic and even abusive expressions, which abound in Veresaev’s translation, met criticism from S. I. Radzig in his review in “Soviet Book”, 1950, No. 7. Compare also the review of M. E. Grabar-Passek and F. A Petrovsky in "Bulletin of Ancient History", 1950, No. 2, pages 151–158.

As for the Odyssey, its classic translation belongs to V. A. Zhukovsky and was made in 1849. Its latest reprints date back to Soviet times: Homer, Odyssey, translation by V. A. Zhukovsky. Article, editing and commentary by I. M. Trotsky with the participation of I. I. Tolstoy. Asademia, M.-L., 1935. The same edition was repeated in a large format. There is also another edition: Homer, Odyssey. Translation by V. A. Zhukovsky, editions and introductory article by P. F. Preobrazhensky, GIHL, M., 1935. Most recently, a luxurious edition appeared - Homer, Odyssey, translation by V. A. Zhukovsky, M., 1958 ( preparation of the text by V. P. Petushkov, afterword and notes by S. V. Polyakova). This edition was made according to the last lifetime edition of V. A. Zhukovsky and verified with the manuscript and proofreading of the translator. In addition, in the text of V. A. Zhukovsky, transliteration was carried out according to the modern pronunciation of Greek names, since in Zhukovsky’s own translation many names were written in an archaic way. This edition must be considered the best of all editions of the Odyssey after the death of V. A. Zhukovsky. It is also very important that this edition contains detailed annotations compiled by V. A. Zhukovsky before each song of the poem, which greatly facilitate the study of the poem. Of the new editions of this translation, the annotations are preserved only in the edition - Homer's "Odyssey" translated by V. A. Zhukovsky, edition "Enlightenment", St. Petersburg. (year not specified).

Until very recently, this translation was the only one, since its high artistic merit was never questioned. Everyone knew that this translation reflected the style of sentimental romanticism. But everyone forgave Zhukovsky this feature of his translation, since everyone was captivated by his bright colors and expressiveness, his easy and understandable Russian language, his constant poetry and accessibility. Nevertheless, Zhukovsky allowed too much inaccuracy in his translation, introducing epithets that did not belong to Homer, various expressions and even entire lines and abbreviating others. A scientific idea of ​​the peculiarities of Zhukovsky’s translation can be obtained from S. Shestakov’s article “V. A. Zhukovsky as a translator of Homer,” published in “Readings in the Society of Lovers of Russian Literature in Memory of A. S. Pushkin,” XXII. Kazan, 1902. Compare also I. I. Tolstoy’s article “The Odyssey” in Zhukovsky’s translation,” published in the above edition, 1935.

But in Zhukovsky’s translation there was also something that began to be clearly understood only in Soviet times, namely the ideology and pictures of the old Moscow boyars and a weak understanding of genuine Homeric and purely pagan heroism. Taking into account all these features of Zhukovsky’s translation, P. A. Shuisky for the first time, almost 100 years later, decided to compete with Zhukovsky, after which no one dared to translate the “Odyssey” again: Homer, Odyssey, translation (in original size) by P. A. Shuisky, edited by A I. Vinogradova. Sverdlovsk 1948. Indeed, Shuisky avoided the mentioned features of Zhukovsky’s translation; however, striving for a literal rendering of the original, Shuisky constantly falls into excessive prosaism, and from a poetic point of view, the technique of his verse also suffers greatly. Shuisky's translation found a negative assessment in the review of F.A. Petrovsky and M.E. Grabar-Passek in "Bulletin of Ancient History", 1950, No. 3, pages 151–158. A. A. Taho-Godi judges the translation of Shuisky somewhat less harshly in the article “On the new translation of the Odyssey” in “Uchen. Notes of the Moscow Regional Pedagogical Institute", volume XXVI, pages 211–225. M., 1953. This author points out the merits of Shuisky in comparison with Zhukovsky. However, he also notes prosaism, unsuccessful versification, and most importantly, the translator’s orientation to an outdated text, which is now being corrected beyond recognition by the latest editors in connection with the progress of philological science.

Finally, there is another translation of the Odyssey, which belongs to the above-mentioned V. Veresaev and has the same features as his translation of the Iliad: Homer, Odyssey, translation by V. Veresaev. Edited by I. I. Tolstoy, M., 1953.

The edition is also important: Homer. Poems, abridged edition. Preparation of the text of the poems, retelling of the myths of the Trojan cycle, notes and dictionary by A. A. Taho-Godi, introductory article and scientific edition by A. I. Beletsky, Detgiz, M.-L., 1953. This publication, created for youth, has the advantage , which is just important for beginners. In addition to the excellent article by A.I. Beletsky, here is a retelling of all the main myths about the Trojan War, without which it is impossible to understand the plot of the poems. And, besides, the text of the “Iliad” and “Odyssey” is located here not in the order of the poems themselves (this order, as mentioned above, is quite confusing), but in the order of the events themselves, which are depicted in these poems. Therefore, those who begin to study Homer receive here, as it were, a single and integral, completely consistent development of the plot.

Thus, Russian translations of Homer are available in sufficient quantities, and each of these translations in its own way possesses all the features of a large translation culture. Anyone who does not speak Greek should take advantage of the above reviews of these translations. These reviews will undoubtedly help him to navigate both the style of these translations and the degree of their closeness to the Greek original.

- “The ILIAD,” an epic poem attributed to Homer (q.v.), the oldest surviving monument of Greek literature (q.v.), is a reworking and unification of numerous tales of feudal Greece about the exploits of ancient heroes. Action… … Literary encyclopedia

ILIAD- Greek ilias, from Elion, Ilion, Troy. Homer's epic, which tells the story of the siege and destruction of Troy. Explanation of 25,000 foreign words that have come into use in the Russian language, with the meaning of their roots. Mikhelson A.D., 1865. The ILIAD is the oldest... ... Dictionary of foreign words of the Russian language

"Iliad"- Iliad. Illustration by M.I. Pikov for publication 1949 (Moscow). “ILIADA” (poem about Ilion, i.e. Troy), an ancient Greek epic poem attributed to Homer, a monument of world significance. Apparently, it arose in the 9th-8th centuries. BC based on legends about... ... Illustrated Encyclopedic Dictionary

ILIAD- (poem about Ilion, i.e. Troy), an ancient Greek epic poem attributed to Homer, a monument of world significance. Apparently, it arose in the 9th-8th centuries. BC e. in Ionia based on legends about the Trojan War (13th century). Written in hexameter (approx. 15,700... ... Big Encyclopedic Dictionary

Iliad is an ancient Greek epic poem attributed to Homer. Apparently, it arose in the 9th-8th centuries. BC. based on legends about the Trojan War (hence its name, the poem about Ilion, i.e. Troy). There are about 15,700 verses in the Iliad. The main character of the poem is Achilles... ... Historical Dictionary

ILIAD- “ILIADA” (poem about Ilion, i.e. Troy), an ancient Greek epic poem attributed to Homer, a monument of world significance. Apparently, it arose in the 9th-8th centuries. BC e. in Ionia based on legends about the Trojan War (see TROJAN WAR) (13th century).... ... encyclopedic Dictionary

Iliad- noun, number of synonyms: 1 poem (9) ASIS Dictionary of Synonyms. V.N. Trishin. 2013… Synonym dictionary

Iliad- ("Iliad") an ancient Greek epic poem about Ilion (Troy), attributed to Homer (see Homer's question). In modern classical studies it is generally accepted that “I.” arose in the 9th-8th centuries. BC e. in the Greek Ionian cities of Asia Minor on... ... Great Soviet Encyclopedia

Iliad- (Greek Ilias) an epic poem by Homer, named after the capital of the Trojan kingdom of Ilion. It tells about the events of 51 days of the last, tenth, year of the war between the Achaeans and the Trojan army (its traditional date is 1194-1184 BC). "AND."… … Ancient world. Dictionary-reference book.

"ILIADA"- (Ilias) other Greek. epic poem attributed to Homer (see Homeric Question). The time of creation of the poem, apparently, is 8–7 centuries. BC e. In I. tragic characters are depicted. events of the last year of the Trojan War (early 12th century BC). East. the reality described... Soviet historical encyclopedia

Books

• Iliad, Homer, Nikolai Gnedich, Homer - this is the beginning of all literature, and success in the study of his work can be considered as a symbol of the forward movement of all philological science, and interest in Homer’s poems and their ... Category: Classic prose Series: Literary monuments Publisher: Nauka. Leningrad branch, Buy for 1800 rub.
• Iliad, Homer, The Iliad is the oldest surviving piece of ancient Greek literature, an epic poem attributed to Homer. It is based on folklore tales about the Achaean war against Troy. IN… Category: Literature of the Ancient World. Ancient literature Series: Anthology of Thoughts Publisher:

Hello, dear readers of the Sprint-Response website. Today we have 10.10.2017 on our calendars, which means tomorrow the printed version of the next issue of the newspaper “Arguments and Facts” will be released. While there is an electronic version of the newspaper, it is already possible to print all the correct answers to crossword puzzle No. 41 in the newspaper “Arguments and Facts” for 2017. All correct answers to the crossword puzzle can be found at the end of the article; they are printed in a compact form immediately after the crossword puzzle questions. Answers will be published as crossword No. 41 in AiF for 2017 is solved.

Horizontally:

1. Some kind of savagery!
6. “Courier” from the maternity hospital.
9. Croupier at the betting.
10. Services of gigolo.
11. “Collected Works” of the fashion designer.
14. Root vegetable against laryngitis.
16. What is hanging in the house of the hero of the film “Nameless Star”?
17. What art did Elvis Presley never study anywhere?
18. Retail... higher than wholesale.
19. Sitting on nails.
20. Who made the first poetic translation of the Iliad into Russian?
21. What grain is buried in the ground?
23. Kingdom of Uranus.
25. Whose flowers are brewed to take for nerves?
29. Award for a book based on an online magazine.
31. Who is married to your son?
32. The largest dorm in the zoo.
34. Aura from icons.
37. Which of his films did film director Andrei Tarkovsky reshoot three times, changing three cameramen?
38. What brand of watch did James Bond wear in nine films?
40. In which Italian city was the first anatomical theater in Europe created?
42. Dry... among tourists.
44. "Bishop's Stone."
45. Which god protected the Roman herds from wolves?
46. ​​Wetness during bad weather.
47. Leonid Ilyich “at the head of stagnation.”
48. Where is Amedeo Modigliani from?
49. “I love your lake melancholy to joy and pain.”
50. Who initiated the invitation of Oleg Efremov to the Moscow Art Theater?
51. Which president made excuses in the Monica Lewinsky “case”?
52. Imperious.
53. Prankster from Melmac.
54. The richest man in the world, Bill.

Vertically:

1. What region is the early childhood of the poet Andrei Voznesensky connected with?
2. River from the Siberian paintings of Vasily Surikov.
3. Convoy in music.
4. Planet of people.
5. In what fairy tale does everyone “pull and pull, but they can’t pull it out”?
7. Flash in the brain.
8. “Mute Examiner.”
10. Who dreamed of building a Hollywood branch in the vicinity of Chisinau?
12. “Start the thinking …”.
13. The patriarch of Soviet cinema, who preferred books to all luxury goods.
15. To which instrument did Ennio Morricone assign the main theme to the soundtrack to the film “The Mission”?
16. “Weights” for the athlete.
19. County with personalized pudding.
22. “Chimney nozzle.”
24. What quality can never be summed up in a few words?
26. World Museum on Rivoli Street.
27. Old weather habits.
28. “Hobby” with infliction of grievous bodily harm on “our little brothers.”
30. What kind of stone is used to decorate the inside of the Gur-Emir mausoleum?
33. Under whose personal guarantee was Sergei Yesenin, who was accused of counter-revolution, released from the Cheka?
34. The very first aid.
35. “For show.”
36. Which marshal “pulled singer Lydia Ruslanova out of the camp dust”?
39. Line with a screw.
40. What squeaks in an old mattress?
41. “Shy Forest.”
43. “Vespers…” on the eve of Easter.
46. ​​Excess due to hooliganism.
48. “Housebreaker” among the lifts.

Amedeo (Iedidia) Clemente Modigliani (Italian: Amedeo Clemente Modigliani; July 12, 1884, Livorno (Livorno (Italian: Livorno) is the largest port of Tuscany, the administrative center of the province of the same name. Situated on the eastern shore of the Ligurian Sea in a natural bay, a few miles south of the mouth of the Arno River, surrounded by the low Livorno hills. The patron saint of the city is Julia of Carthage. City holiday on May 22. ), Kingdom of Italy - January 24, 1920, Paris, French Third Republic) - Italian artist and sculptor, one of the most famous artists of the late 19th - early 20th centuries, a representative of expressionism.

"Stalker" is a Soviet science fiction film-parable directed by Andrei Tarkovsky, filmed at the Mosfilm studio in 1979 based on the story “Roadside Picnic” by the Strugatsky brothers.
One of the most significant works in the work of Andrei Tarkovsky, who said that in it he “legally touched the transcendental.” The production of the film was accompanied by many problems and took about three years. When developing the film, the first version was almost completely lost, and the film was re-shot three times, with three different cameramen and production designers.

Alexander Salnikov

Who is the ninth son of Priam?

The Iliad is the Bible of Ancient Greece. And this great poem of antiquity is fraught with many more secrets and mysteries. For example, there is, in my opinion, an unresolved, and perhaps insoluble, question about the name of one of the sons of the king of Troy, elder Priam. It is known that Priam had many children; any man would envy his fertility. Different sources name different numbers of his descendants, some say that Priam had 50 sons and 50 daughters, others mention 50 sons and 12 daughters, others say that he had only 50 children. Hyginus, for example, indicates 41 sons and 14 daughters, and Virgil alludes to 100 daughters and daughters-in-law. Be that as it may, here we are interested only in one son of King Priam.

While working on a modern translation of the Iliad, I naturally had to consult existing Russian translations. V. Veresaev admitted that when working on the translation of the Iliad, he tried to adhere to the translation of N. Gnedich, but did not reject the translation of N. Minsky. In the preface to his translation, Veresaev writes: “I base my translation on Gnedich’s translation wherever it is successful, wherever it can be preserved... I considered it possible to also include individual successful verses and phrases of Minsky in the translation. And if borrowing improves the quality of the translation, then everything will be justified.” I also used this rule, with the only difference that in addition to the translations of Gnedich and Minsky, I also had at my disposal Veresaev’s translation. I did not use other Russian translations, for example, by Shuisky, for the simple reason that three were already more than enough. By the way, I got the impression that Veresaev’s translation in many places is even more accurate than Gnedich’s translation, contrary to the established opinion that Gnedich’s translation is the most accurate. But this is so, a remark to the point.

As for my translation, I took as a basis the ancient Greek text of the Iliad, published by D. Monroe and T. Allen. If not for this choice, I probably would not have paid attention to the line in which the name that interested me was indicated. In the 24th song of the Iliad, in verses 249-252, there is a listing of the nine sons of the king of Troy. This passage tells how Priam shouts at them for their negligence before going to the Achaean camp to retrieve the body of Hector, his eldest son. Here is what these verses look like in the ancient Greek text of Thomas Allen's edition:

Δηΐφοβόν τε καὶ Ἱππόθοον καὶ δῖον Ἀγαυόν·

In this short list of royal sons, the last name is Ἀγαυόν (Agav, Agaon, Agayon). However, it is known that in the Russian translation tradition the name Diy is indicated in this place. For example, in the same three main Russian translations of the Iliad (N. Gnedich, N. Minsky, V. Veresaev), the name of the ninth son of Priam from this list is translated as Diy. Here it can be noted that N. Gnedich in this place, perhaps by mistake, indicated another son of Priam named Cleitus, who is not in the poem. Gnedich turned out that Homer in this place is talking not about nine, but about ten sons. The last in Gnedich’s list is Diya:

Everyone left. He cried out, blaming his sons,

Klyta, Helena, Parisa, pet of the gods Agathon,

Pammona, Hippophooia, Deiphobe leader, Antiphon,

Brave son Polita and glorious in courage Diya;

The elder shouted and ordered threateningly at these sons:

We will not examine the question of which original text Gnedich translated the Iliad from at one time, what word he translated as the name Cleitus, and why (and, most likely, this is why) he left out the numeral “nine” (ἐννέα) in Line 252. This is a topic for another equally interesting study. We are not interested in Cleitus, but in Diy and Agaon (Agav). N. Minsky, when translating, removes Cleitus, but leaves Diya:

He began to call his sons: Agathon , Helena, Parisa ,

Brave in battle Polita , fighter Antiphon , Pammona ,

Glorious Diya, equals Deiphobe leader with Hippophois .

He turned to all his sons and exclaimed:

V. Veresaev translates this passage almost in the same way as Minsky, only rearranging the names of the characters. He also removes Cleitus and leaves Diya. But he translates verse 252 more accurately, indicating that we are talking specifically about nine sons:

Loudly cursing Agathon like god Parisa,

Pammona And Hippophoi, Antiphon And Deiphobe,

Diya With Gehlen, Polita mighty-voiced - all of them

He called the nine and loudly gave orders:

If everything is clear about Clit as the son of Priam, and this “mistake” of Gnedich is recognized by everyone, since this name does not appear in the original (although in some Russian lists of the children of Priam, Clit is still present, but with constant reservations and references to Gnedich’s translation ), then about Diya, and especially Agaon (Agave), everything is not so simple and clear. Like the name of Cleitus, the name of Dia Priamida appears in only one place in the Iliad. When talking about Diya as the son of Priam, all sources invariably refer us to the 251st verse of the 24th canto of the poem. But we remember that in Thomas Allen’s edition it is not Diy, but Agaon (Agave).

In this regard, I was interested in the question why most antiquists and translators (not only Russian, but also foreign: for example, A. Pope, S. Butler, I. Foss, R. Fitzgerald and others) prefer to call the ninth son of Priam in this list precisely Diya? And we know that in some other editions of the Iliad in ancient Greek, at this point in the poem, Diy is indicated as the last among the royal sons:

σπερχομένοιο γέροντος· ὃ δ᾽ υἱάσιν οἷσιν ὁμόκλα

νεικείων Ἕλενόν τε Πάριν τ᾽ Ἀγάθωνά τε δῖον

Πάμμονά τ᾽ Ἀντίφονόν τε βοὴν ἀγαθόν τε Πολίτην

Δηΐφοβόν τε καὶ Ἱππόθοον καὶ Δῖον αγαυόν ·

ἐννέα τοῖς ὃ γεραιὸς ὁμοκλήσας ἐκλευε·

This tradition is especially strong in Russian-language translations, which apparently began even before N. Gnedich. Head of the Department of Classical Philology, IVKA RSUH, Doctor of Philology, who defended his dissertation on the topic: “Formation of ancient literary theory,” Professor N.P. Grinzer wrote to me about this in one of his letters:

“The problem is that it is not clear which of the two Greek words δῖον and αγαυόν is an epithet and which is a name; it could be either way. In one case, “divine Agave,” and in the other, “brilliant Diy.” Mythographers, indeed, preferred Diya, and in most publications he is written with a capital D.”

What is this choice of mythographers, antique scholars and translators based on? Why do most of them prefer Diya? And what guided the publishers of that text of the Iliad in ancient Greek, with which I worked when translating the poem, when they indicated the last name of Agave (Agaon), and not Diya? These are the questions that interested me.

As it turned out, the problem of interpreting this passage of the Iliad arose a long time ago; disputes about the preference for writing a proper name “Ἀγαυόν” or “Δῖον” began in ancient times, during the rewriting of manuscripts. There is no doubt that the different interpretations in the choice of "δῖον Ἀγαυόν" or "Δῖον αγαυόν" occurred due to the practice of writing ancient manuscripts in which upper and lower case letters did not differ, as confirmed by the ancient manuscript text of the Iliad, known as the Codex Venetus A "from the library of St. Mark.

From the phrase “δῖον αγαυόν” in the ancient manuscript it is not entirely clear which of these words should be a proper name and which should be an epithet to it. However, most mythographers, antique scholars and translators (and therefore publications) prefer to point to Diya. What is this choice based on? Many sources point to the ancient Greek mythographer and cosmologist Pherecydes from Syros (Cyclades), who lived in the 6th century BC. e., who allegedly mentioned Dius as the son of Priam. It is also known that in the work “Myths” by the Roman writer of the 1st century AD. e. Gaius Julia Hygina's name Dius is mentioned in the list of the sons of Priam. That is why Diy as the son of Priam is indicated not only in all Russian, but also in many foreign translations of the Iliad.

However, we note that Hyginus in his list simply mentions Dius among the other sons of Priam without any comments or references to any source. As for Pherecydes and his opinion on the use of the words “δῖον αγαυόν”, then to clarify this issue we must turn to the ancient scholia.

Interpretation of ancient texts is a rather difficult and painstaking task; researchers for many centuries had to work hard on collecting, copying and interpreting the ancient scrolls of the Iliad. In his introductory article to the next edition of the poem translated by Gnedich, Russian philologist, specialist in ancient mythology, philosophy, history and culture of Ancient Greece, Doctor of Historical Sciences, Professor A.I. Zaitsev wrote:

“Alexandrian philologists of the Hellenistic era - Zenodotus from Ephesus, Aristophanes from Byzantium and especially Aristarchus from Samos (apparently, this means not Aristarchus of Samos, but Aristarchus of Samothrace - A.S.) - methodically collected manuscripts of Homer’s poems from all over the Hellenic world and tried restore the Homeric text to its original form. Comparing the papyri of Homer of the 3rd century found in large quantities in Egypt. BC e. With the Homeric texts of the post-Aristarchus time, we see what a grandiose job Aristarchus did. And if Aristarchus was largely naive in his interpretation of Homeric poems, imagining, in particular, Homeric society in the image and likeness of the royal court of the Hellenistic monarchy, the text of both poems, apparently, only in rare cases deviates from the authentic Homeric text of the 8th century. BC e. In subsequent centuries, the text of the Iliad and Odyssey, restored by Aristarchus, was carefully rewritten, moving into the 3rd-4th centuries. n. e. from papyrus scrolls to parchment codices. The best of these manuscripts were provided with marginal commentaries, the so-called scholia, based on the works of Hellenistic philologists. These scholia, which have come down to us in Byzantine manuscripts of Homer’s poems, still largely help researchers to more accurately understand the poems.”

So, how can the ancient scholia help us? Let us note that mention of this incomprehensible place occurs only twice in the scholia to the Iliad. The first entry in the scholia to the 251st verse of canto XXIV is as follows:

καί οτι ἄδηλον ποτερον ἐστί το κυριον ο Δῖος η ο Ἀγαυός.

From this line we see that an unknown scholiast (sometimes assumed to be Aristarchus of Samothrace himself) doubts which of the two words here should be used as a proper name: “Δῖος” or “Ἀγαυός”, which of them is the main one. It is unlikely that we can glean anything useful for our research here, except that this was apparently the first indication of the problem, that is, of a possible discrepancy between a proper name and an epithet to it.

The author of another scholium approaches this problem more definitely, who makes reference to Pherecydes as an authoritative source on this issue. In his commentary to the 251st verse of the XXIV song of the Iliad, this scholiast writes that Pherecydes allegedly considers Diy to be the illegitimate son of Priam, and the word “ἀγαυόν” as an epithet for the name Diy:

Φερεκύδης τόν Δῖον νοθον υἱόν Πρίᾰμου φησίν εστιν οὖν το «αγαυόν» ἐπιθετον.

From the above line it is difficult to say whether we are talking about Pherecydes of Syros, and whether Pherecydes really insisted that in this place of the Iliad the word “δῖον” should be considered a proper name. But, unfortunately, we do not have any other information on this matter, and the author of this scholium does not give any reasons for his notes. And most importantly, it is again not clear to us on what basis the indicated Pherecydes believes that the word “δῖον” should be used as a proper name.

Nevertheless, these scholia partly give us the opportunity to understand why many researchers are more inclined to Diy on this issue than to Agaon. Apparently, having accepted the reference of the “second” scholium on faith, they perceived it as convincing evidence. It is quite possible that this circumstance also prompted Hyginus to include Dius in the list of the sons of King Priam. And it is very likely that the lack of any additional information on this matter did not allow Hyginus to make at least some references or comments on this matter, and he simply mentions Dius in his list among the other sons of Priam without any notes or references, which also does not bring us closer to the truth.

There is also a known work called “The Library” (in historical literature the name “Mythological Library” is accepted), first attributed to Apollodorus of Athens, who lived for some time in Alexandria and worked under the leadership of Aristarchus of Samothrace. Later it turned out that the author of the “Mythological Library” was an unknown ancient Greek writer, who began to be called Pseudo-Apollodorus. Nevertheless, the Mythological Library is a large collection of traditional Greek myths and legends, being one of the significant sources of Greek mythology. However, Pseudo-Apollodorus does not mention the son of Priam named Dius at all.

The English banker, philologist and Homerist Walter Leaf (1852 - 1927) in his translation of the poem traditionally, following Alexander Pope and others, indicates in this line Diy as the son of Priam, but in fairness in the comments he writes that it is impossible to say with complete certainty , what exactly is a proper name here, “δῖον” or “ἀγαυόν”, and what is an epithet. W. Leaf's opinion is shared by many modern Homeric scholars.

In search of the truth, I turned to the Russian Association of Antiquities for clarification of this issue. Professor of the Center for Ancient Studies of the Institute of Historical Studies of the Russian State University for the Humanities, chief researcher at the Institute of General History of the Russian Academy of Sciences, head of the Department of Ancient Languages ​​of the Faculty of History of Moscow State University, Doctor of Historical Sciences A.V. Podosinov advised me to contact Associate Professor of the Faculty of Philology of the Higher School of Economics, Candidate of Philological Sciences V.V. Fayer, as one of the best specialists on Homer, ancient culture and the history of classical studies.

To my letter to V.V. Fire sent a detailed response, kindly allowing me to use it in this research of mine. With his permission, I will quote some excerpts from the letter:

“In short, Walter Leaf is right. (...) Suffice it to say that both of these words can act as epithets for a character’s name. In addition, some names and titles were simply invented by the narrator during improvisation. Of course, the names of the main characters existed in tradition, but all sorts of tertiary characters could, I believe, receive random names. (...)

Second question: what did the ancient readers of the Iliad think about this? Of course, Hyginus is an authoritative source, but it should be understood that he is approximately the same distance from Homer as we are, for example, from “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign.” Can modern scientists claim that they understand everything well about this monument? Hardly. So I think that both the opinion of Pherecydes (which we know from someone else’s retelling) and the opinion of Hyginus say absolutely nothing about Homer, but only about the understanding of Homer in later eras ... "

Opinion of V.V. Fire cheered me up somewhat on this issue. It turns out that the authorities of Hyginus and Pherecydes, on which everyone relies, are not so indisputable. And although we are forced to agree that it is impossible to say for sure which of these two words the creator of the Iliad considered a proper name in this verse of his amazing poem, since we have no other historical sources, except for references to Hyginus and Pherecydes, everything we can continue searching for arguments in other directions.

Perhaps in this matter it is worth following the method of Heinrich Schliemann and turning directly to the text of the Iliad itself to find the truth? Perhaps the Iliad itself will tell us which of the words the ancient storyteller would most likely prefer to use as a proper name, and which as an epithet to him? After all, if we find out which of these words was most often used as an epithet in the Iliad, it will be easier for us to understand the ancient author’s train of thought, to recognize his view on certain things, and we will be able to more likely assume one or another of his intentions.

Textual analysis, as a scientific method, can give us no less information than reference to historical sources that do little to clarify the situation. Often, counting the frequency of use of a word in one meaning or another has been used by many researchers as one of the methods for searching for arguments. For example, L.S. Klein often used this method in his work Anatomy of the Iliad. In the 1st chapter, “Ilion and Troy” (3. “Epithets of the city”), he counted the epithets for both names of the city (Troy and Ilion), and in the 2nd chapter, “Achaeans, Danae, Argives” (3. “Epithets with the ethnonyms of the Greeks") - counted epithets for ethnonyms.

Let's see what the method of statistical analysis of the frequency of word use will give us. Let's do the math and first look for the word “αγαυόν” in the poem, in the form in which it is used in the 251st verse of the 24th canto. It turns out that this word in this form appears only three times in the poem! We see it in the 4th song:

οἵ ἑ μέγαν περ ἐόντα καὶ ἴφθιμον καὶ ἀγαυὸν

Then the same line is completely repeated in the 625th verse of the 5th canto of the poem (the repetition technique is often used in the Iliad). And for the third time this word appears already in the 24th canto, precisely in that very 251st verse. This word is not used in this form anywhere else. However, it is used in other forms. For example, it is used once in the form "ἀγαυῶν" (13:5), five times in the form "ἀγαυοὶ", always at the end of a poetic line, and twelve times in the form "ἀγαυοῦ", always in the middle of a poetic line. And it's all. Not so much.

Now let's look at the statistics on the use of the word “δῖον”. It turns out that in the Iliad the word “δῖον” occurs 57 times and everywhere (!), except for our controversial place (and I would say that not except, but - including), it is an epithet for proper names, that is to the names of heroes (most often to Hector and Achilles), as well as, for example, to the names of rivers. The only exception is the 538th verse of the 9th song, where this word refers not to the name of the hero or the name of the river, but to the word “γένος”, meaning “descendant, offspring”, in this verse “child, daughter”:

ἣ δὲ χολωσαμένη δῖον γένος ἰοχέαιρα

However, here too it is an epithet. Also in the Iliad the form “δῖος” is often used. This word appears in the texts of the poem 91 times, but, like “δῖον”, in all cases (!) it is an epithet for proper names, mainly for the names Achilles, Odysseus and Alexander.

Statistics are a stubborn thing. Doesn't the result of this brief statistical analysis indicate that the author of the Iliad himself, throughout the entire text of the poem, preferred to use this word as an epithet for proper names, as a rule, for the names of mortal heroes?

Now let's once again turn to the place of interest to us in the 24th song in the ancient Greek text and notice one nuance. Just above verse 251 we again encounter the word “δῖον”, and we see that here it is “traditionally” used precisely as an epithet. No one has any doubts about this. This is the place in the text:

σπερχομένοιο γέροντος· ὃ δ᾽ υἱάσιν οἷσιν ὁμόκλα

νεικείων Ἕλενόν τε Πάριν τ᾽ Ἀγάθων τε δῖον

Πάμμονά τ᾽ Ἀντίφονόν τε βοὴν ἀγαθόν τε Πολίτην

Δηΐφοβόν τε καὶ Ἱππόθοον καὶ δῖον Ἀγαυόν·

ἐννέα τοῖς ὃ γεραιὸς ὁμοκλήσας ἐκλευε·

Why is it that in the first case the word “δῖον” is translated as the epithet “divine”, “god-like”, “god-like”, “brilliant”, and in the second - as a proper name? We already know partly the answer to this question. Many Homeric scholars agree with the reference to Pherecydes and Hyginus, therefore in the phrase “δῖον αγαυόν” they prefer to use the word “δῖον” rather than “αγαυόν” as a proper name.

But textual analysis showed us a different result. In addition, Diy as a proper name is used in the Iliad, usually when talking about Zeus. Even if we analyze separately only the 24th song of the Iliad, we can see that the name Diy as Zeus, as well as a friend of the form (of Zeus, from Zeus, by the will of Zeus) is used in it 12 times. Of these, the form “Διὶ” is used 4 times, the form “Διὸς” 6 times and the form “Διόθεν” 2 times. Is it appropriate to use the name Diy as a mortal hero next to the name Diy as Zeus?

It is known that many of the names of the heroes of the Iliad had no historical basis and were simply invented by Homer, so to speak, to connect the plot. L.S. Klein even writes about a way to distinguish such heroes:

“A way has been developed to distinguish the heroes created specifically for the Iliad from the heroes taken into it from other poems of the Trojan cycle. The first enter the war only with the beginning of the events of the Iliad, that is, in the tenth year of the war, and by the end of the poem they find death. They do not go beyond the scope of the Iliad, because this would contradict their absence in other poems created earlier and depicting the preceding and subsequent events of the Trojan War. The heroes who existed before the Iliad are well represented in these poems - they are characterized by passages called Ante-Homerica (or Ante-Italica) and Post-Homerica (or Post-Italica), that is, pre-Homeric manifestations (before the Iliad ) and post-Homeric (after the Iliad). Using this method, V. Kulman achieved a lot.”

Many scholars of antiquity believe that Diy, as the son of Priam, belongs precisely to such fictional heroes. But it would be strange for the author, along with the name of the supreme god Zeus (Diya), to use an invented similar name, and even for a third-rate hero, the careless son of King Priam, who did not even fight and is mentioned only once in the poem. This somehow does not fit into the logic of the narrative not only of the entire epic poem, but, as we see, even of the 24th song taken separately, in which the name of Diya, as the supreme god, is used 12 times in one form or another.

In addition, history shows that the names of people who became national heroes and symbols were often deified over time and became the actual names of gods. The reverse process, that is, for mortals to be called by the names of gods, is extremely rare, especially if these gods were still “in power.” For example, it is hardly possible to find people named after gods directly by their names (Hera, Aphrodite, Apollo, Zeus, Hephaestus, etc.), although they may well be used as epithets for names, for example: “Apollo’s favorite,” “favorite of Zeus”, or “like Aphrodite”. At L.S. Klein in his book “Ethereal Heroes,” where he examines in detail the origins of many of the heroes of the Iliad, similar conclusions can be traced. Is it common in written sources of that era, when Zeus was the supreme deity, to find the male name Diy among people? I think not. In this regard, it would be strange to assume that King Priam named one of his sons Diem, after Zeus himself, but as an epithet “godlike”, “godlike” this word could well be suitable for the name of the king’s son.

By the way, as a hypothesis, we can consider the possibility that Homer used the names of his contemporaries as fictitious names of the heroes of the Iliad: perhaps the king under whom the storyteller lived, and by whose order he may have written his poems; It is also quite possible that he used the names of the royal relatives, noble nobles of that time, etc. Like Dante Alighieri, who populated The Divine Comedy with his contemporaries.

But let's return to our question. The very meaning of the name can also say a lot. The name Diy (Zeus) means “bright sky, shining sky”, the name Agav (Agaon), like Agathon (Agaton), means “good”, “good”, “kind”, “glorious”. Parents are more likely to give their baby a name that means “glorious” or “kind” than one that means “bright sky” or even “divine.” The epithet “divine”, as a rule, was given to an adult hero for his exploits. The name Ἀγαυόν (Agav, Agaon) could well be the name of the king’s son, since a line higher in the same place in the poem we see the name Ἀγάθων (Agaton, Agathon), and both of these names mean approximately the same thing: “good” , “good”, “kind”, “good”, “glorious”. The word “ἀγαθον”, like the word “ἀγαυόν” means “good”, “good”, and the word “ἀγαυός” means “glorious”, “worth-glorious”, “glorified”.

In the Iliad there is another “clue” about the name Ἀγαυόν. We know that in the poem many names have both masculine and feminine forms. For example: Agamedes and Agameda, Alpheus and Althea, Brys and Briseis, Hippodamus and Hippodamia, Podarkes and Podarga, Polydorus and Polidora, Chryses and Chryse with Chryseis, etc. And in the 18th canto, which tells about Achilles’ aunts, the sisters of his mother, the goddess Thetis, we see that one of the nymphs is called Agave:

καὶ Μελίτη καὶ Ἴαιρα καὶ Ἀμφιθόη καὶ Ἀγαυὴ

The masculine form of this name will be Agav (Agaon), which fits well into our theory.

Summarizing all of the above, we note that the Iliad itself, without outside sources, can give us enough reason to assume that in the verse we are considering, the author of the poem most likely could have had in mind the son of Priam named Agav (Agaon). At the same time, in the texts of the poem we do not find evidence that Priam could name his son Diem, that is, that in the 24th canto Homer could use this word as a proper name for a fictitious tertiary hero.

So, we can now say with a reasonable degree of probability on what basis D.B. Monroe and T.W. Allen, in his edition of the Iliad in ancient Greek, indicates Agave (Agaon) as the son of Priam. The poem itself provided us with a lot of evidence in this regard, and showed that the author of the Iliad would probably prefer to use the word “αγαυόν” as a proper name rather than “δῖον”.

Well, despite all the above arguments, in fairness we must admit that Walter Leaf and many other Homeric scholars who agree with his point of view are absolutely right that we are unlikely to ever be able to find out for what reason Pherecydes , and then Hyginus, indicate Diya as the son of Priam. Unless, of course, you suddenly find, somewhere in ancient archives or during excavations, some old scroll that would clarify this issue in the most indisputable way.

I think that over time everything will fall into place and in this place of the Iliad everyone will write “καὶ δῖον Ἀγαυόν”, and not “καὶ Δῖον αγαυόν”, that is, the name of the ninth son of Priam will rightfully become Agav (Agaon), not Diy. And in the alphabetical lists of the sons of Priam, he will take first place, displacing Agathon.

In conclusion, I will say that, being a writer, I analyzed the Iliad, first of all, as a literary, not a historical work, so I do not pretend to be the ultimate truth and I will be glad if my small research serves as a reason for new debates on this issue among Homeric scholars.

List of used literature

A. I. Zaitsev / Ancient Greek heroic epic and Homer’s “Iliad”, (Homer. Iliad. - L., 1990.

Ancient writers. Dictionary. - St. Petersburg: Lan Publishing House, 1999.

Apollodorus. Mythological library. Leningrad, Publishing House "Nauka", Leningrad branch, 1972.

Virgil. Aeneid II 501

Gigin. Myths 90

Homer. Iliad. / Per. V. Veresaeva. M.-L.: Goslitizdat, 1949. – 551 p.

Homer. Iliad. Odyssey. /Trans. N. Gnedich, ed. L. Lebedeva. – M.: OLMA-PRESS, 2000.

Euripides. Troyanki 135

Zhitomirsky S.V. Ancient astronomy and orphism. - M.: Janus-K, 2001.

Homer's Iliad. / Per. N. M. Minsky. M., 1896. – 416 p.

Klein L.S. "Anatomy of the Iliad." - St. Petersburg: St. Petersburg Publishing House. University, 1998.

Klein L.S. "Ethereal Heroes. The origin of the images of the Iliad. – St. Petersburg: Fiction, 1994. - 192 p.

Mythological Dictionary /Chief ed. E. Meletinsky. – M.: M 68 Sov. Encyclopedia, 1991.

Ancient scholia. Vol. II. Cantos XIII – XXIV. Ed. Scholia Graeca in Homeri Iliadem. Tomus II. (M. DCCC. LXXV). Published 1875 by Clarendoniano in Oxonii

Scholium "Townleyana". Vol. II. Cantos XIII – XXIV. Ed. Scholia Graeca in Homeri Iliadem Townleyana. Tomus II. (M DCCC LXXXVIII). London. Oxford. 1888.

A companion to the Iliad, for English readers, Walter Leaf, London and New York, Macmillan and Co., 1892.

Homer. Iliad. ed. D. B. Monroe and T. W. Allen. Oxford, 1920.

Homeri Ilias. Volumen alterum rhapsodias XIII-XXIV continens, recensuit Martin L. West (Bibliotheca scriptorum Graecorum et Romanorum Teubneriana), K. G. Saur: Leipzig & Munich 2000.

In anger, Achilles retires to the tent and asks his mother Thetis to beg Zeus so that the Greeks will continue to suffer defeats from the Trojans until Agamemnon gives him, Achilles, complete satisfaction. The nine-year siege is on the verge of collapse, but Odysseus corrects the situation.

In second song Homer describes the forces of the opposing sides. Under the leadership of Agamemnon, 1186 ships sailed to the walls of Troy, and the army itself numbered over 130 thousand soldiers. Various regions of Hellas sent their troops:

• Argos (under Diomedes),
• Arcadia (under Agapenor),
• Athens and Locris (under the leadership of Ajax the Great),
• Ithaca and Epirus (under Odysseus),
• Crete (under Idomeneo),
• Lacedaemon (Spartans of Menelaus),
• Mycenae, Rhodes (under Tlepolemus),
• Thessaly (Myrmidons of Achilles),
• Phocis, Euboea, Elis, Aetolia, etc.

Militia fought on the side of the Trojans under the leadership of Hector

• Dardans (under the leadership of Aeneas),
• Paphlagonians (under Pylemenes),

Since the Trojan War began with the abduction of Helen, then third song Her legal husband Menelaus and her actual husband, Paris, enter into single combat.

Menelaus wins the duel, but the goddess Aphrodite saves Paris from death and carries the wounded man away from the battlefield. Due to the fact that the fight did not end in the death of one of the opponents, it is considered invalid.

Agamemnon insists on fulfilling the concluded agreement, but the Trojan Pandarus breaks the truce by shooting an arrow at Menelaus, after which the first open battle ensues (fourth canto), Elephenor is killed by Agenor.

The war continues. However, neither the Achaeans nor the Trojans can gain the upper hand. Immortal gods help mortals. The Achaeans are patronized by Pallas Athena, Hera and Poseidon, the Trojans by Apollo, Ares and Aphrodite.

The fifth canto tells how, in a fierce battle, even the immortals Ares and Aphrodite are wounded by the Achaean Diomedes, led by Athena. Seeing the power of Pallas Athena, the leader of the Trojans, Hector, returns to Troy and demands rich sacrifices be made to the goddess. At the same time, Hector shames Paris, who has hidden in the rear, and encourages his wife Andromache.

Returning to the battlefield, Hector challenges the strongest of the Achaeans to a duel and challenges him to seventh song hosts Ajax the Great. The heroes fight until late at night, but none of them can gain the upper hand. Then they fraternize, exchange gifts and go their separate ways.

The desire to avenge his friend brings Achilles back into the game, who, in turn, kills Hector by hitting him in the neck with a spear. At the end of the Iliad, a lawsuit unfolds over the body of Hector, which Achilles initially refused to hand over to the father of the deceased for burial.

For the burial of Hector and Patroclus, an eleven-day truce is established, and funeral games are organized.

Heroes of the Iliad

The second song of the Iliad contains a list of Greek ships, which indicates the names of many Greeks who took part in the war, as well as the areas where they came from. There is also a list of Trojans, but it is much inferior to the list of Greeks; only some of the heroes of the Iliad are indicated in it.

Achaeans

• Diomedes - son of Tydeus, King of Argos.
• Ajax the Lesser is the son of Oileus, and a frequent ally of Ajax the Great.
• Patroclus is Achilles' best friend.
• Nestor - King of Pylos, trusted advisor to Agamemnon.

Achilles and Patroclus

Trojans

• Men
  • Hector is the son of King Priam and the main warrior of the Trojans.
  • Aeneas is the son of Ankhs and Aphrodite.
  • Deiphobus is the brother of Hector and Paris.
  • Paris is Helen's kidnapper.
  • Priam is the elderly King of Troy.
  • Polydamant is a sensible commander whose advice is ignored, an antagonist of Hector.
  • Agenor - Trojan warrior, son of Antenor, tried to fight Achilles (Canto XXI).
  • Sarpedon - killed by Patroclus. He was a friend of Glaucus of the Lycians, who fought on the side of Troy.
  • Glaucus is a friend of Sarpedon and together with him the leader of the Lycians who fought on the side of Troy.
  • Euphorbus - the first of the Trojan warriors to wound Patroclus.
  • Dolon is a spy in the Greek camp (Canto X).
  • Antenor is an adviser to King Priam, who proposed returning Helen and ending the war.
  • Polydorus is the son of Priam and Laothoi.
  • Pandarus is a great archer, son of Lycaon.

• Women
  • Hecuba (Ἑκάβη) - wife of Priam, mother of Hector, Cassandra, Paris and others.
  • Helen (Ἑλένη) - daughter of Zeus, wife of Menelaus, kidnapped by Paris, then became the wife of Deiphobus. Her kidnapping caused the Trojan War.
  • Andromache - wife of Hector, mother of Astyanax.
  • Cassandra is the daughter of Priam. Apollo tried to seduce her by giving her the gift of prophecy, but being rejected by her, he made it so that no one believed her predictions.
  • Briseis, a Trojan woman captured by the Greeks, was given to Achilles as a trophy.

According to some interpretation, the images of Hector and Achilles reflect the struggle between rational and impulsive principles.

Gods of the Iliad

Mount Olympus, on which Zeus, the son of Kronos, sits, has a sacred meaning in the Iliad. He is revered by both the Achaeans and the Trojans. He rises above the opposing sides. Many Olympian and other gods are involved in the narrative, some helping the Achaeans, others helping the Trojans. Many of the events described in the Iliad are caused and directed by the gods, and the gods also often influence the course of events, acting on the side of one of the warring parties.

• Olympians:
  • Zeus (neutral, but more often helps the Trojans because of his promise to avenge Achilles)
  • Hera (for the Achaeans)
  • Artemis (for the Trojans)
  • Apollo (for the Trojans)
  • Hades (neutral)
  • Aphrodite (for the Trojans)
  • Ares (for Trojans)
  • Athena (for the Achaeans)
  • Hermes (neutral)
  • Poseidon (for the Achaeans)
  • Hephaestus (for the Achaeans)

• Rest:
  • Eris (for the Trojans)
  • Iris (for the Achaeans)
  • Thetis (for the Achaeans)
  • Summer (for the Trojans)
  • Proteus (for the Achaeans)
  • Scamander (for the Trojans)
  • Phobos (for the Trojans)
  • Deimos (for the Trojans)

Research

The name Ἰλιάς "Iliad" literally means "Trojan Poem", in accordance with the second name of Troy - "Ilion".

For a long time, researchers argued about whether the poem describes real events, or whether the Trojan War was just fiction. Schliemann's excavations in Troy revealed a culture corresponding to the descriptions in the Iliad and dating back to the end of the 2nd millennium BC. e. Recently deciphered Hittite inscriptions also indicate the presence of a powerful Achaean power in the 13th century BC. e. and even contain a number of names hitherto known only from the Greek poem.

The literary fate of the Iliad

"Iliad" in Russia

For the first time, translations of fragments from Homer's Iliad appeared, including from the pen of M. Lomonosov.

In the 18th century, the first attempts at translating the Iliad appeared: P. E. Ekimov carried out a prose translation (1776, 1778), and E. I. Kostrov - in Alexandrian verse (items I-VI, 1787; items VII-IX, “ Bulletin of Europe", 1811).

In the 20s of the XIX century. a new prose translation of both Homer's poems was made by I. I. Martynov. An analysis of all the songs of the Iliad was published in 1826 by I. Ya. Kroneberg.

N. I. Gnedich, who began translating the Iliad in Alexandrian verse, then abandoned this plan and translated the entire poem into hexameter (1829). The translation was warmly welcomed by the best writers, especially Pushkin. Subsequently, V. G. Belinsky wrote that “so far only Gnedich in Rus' was destined to comprehend the spirit, divine simplicity and plastic beauty of the ancient Greeks.” The Iliad in Gnedich’s translation, replete with archaisms, accurately conveys the feeling of the original in terms of the strength and vivid imagery of the language and is considered a classic Russian translation.

In the 20th century, the translation of the Iliad was carried out by V.V. Veresaev and P.A. Shuisky (the latter’s work has not yet been published, so far only digitized from it).

In the 21st century, the Iliad was translated into Russian using classical hexameter by Alexander A. Salnikov in 2011.

Bibliography

Editions

• Homeri Ilias. Volumen prius rhapsodias I-XII continents, recensuit Martin L. West (Bibliotheca scriptorum Graecorum et Romanorum Teubneriana), Stuttgart & Leipzig: B.G. Teubner 1998, lxii + 372 pp. ISBN 3-519-01431-9
• Homeri Ilias. Volumen alterum rhapsodias XIII-XXIV continents, recensuit Martin L. West (Bibliotheca scriptorum Graecorum et Romanorum Teubneriana), K. G. Saur: Leipzig & Munich 2000, vii + 396 pp.

Translations

Russian translations:

• Omirovs creations part 1, containing twelve songs of the Iliad. Translated from Greek by college secretary Pyotr Ekimov. St. Petersburg, . 406 pp.
• Omirova Iliad part 2, containing the last twelve songs. / [Transl. P. E. Ekimova]. St. Petersburg, . 433 pp.
• Iliad. / Per. prose and notes. I. Martynova. At 4 o'clock. St. Petersburg, 1823-1825. (parallel text in Greek and Russian)
• Iliad Homer, translated by Nikolai Gnedich... St. Petersburg, . ( reprinted several times)
• Iliad Homer. / Per. N. I. Gnedich, directed by S. I. Ponomarev. 2nd ed. St. Petersburg: A. S. Suvorin, 1892. LXXXVI, 440 pp.
• Iliad Homer. / Per. N. M. Minsky. M., . 416 pp.
  • / Per. N. M. Minsky, entry. Art. P. F. Preobrazhensky. M.: Goslitizdat, . 353 pp. 10,000 copies.
• Homer. Iliad. / Per. V. Veresaeva. M.-L.: Goslitizdat, . 551 pp. 10,000 copies.
  • reprints of the “Iliad” and “Odyssey” in his translation: M.: Prosveshcheniye, 1987. 398 pp. 263,000 copies.

The most detailed commentary available in Russian is included in the publication:

• Homer. Iliad. / Per. N.I. Gnedich. Art. and approx. A. I. Zaitseva. Rep. ed. Ya. M. Borovsky. (Series “Literary Monuments”). L.: Science, . 576 pp. 50,000 copies.
  • reprint: St. Petersburg: Nauka, 2008.

Research

see also bibliography in the article Homer

• Shestakov S. P. On the origin of Homer's poems. Vol. 2. About the origin of the Iliad. - Kazan, 1898. - 547 p.
• Sugar N. L. The Iliad: Research into the meaning and style of Homer's poem. - Arkhangelsk, 1957. - 379 p. - 800 copies.
• Stahl I.V. Homeric epic: Experience of textual analysis of the Iliad. - M.: Higher. school, 1975. - 246 p. - 15000 copies.
• Klein L.S. Ethereal heroes. The origin of the images of the Iliad. - St. Petersburg. : Farn, Fiction, 1994. - 192 p. - 1000 copies. - ISBN 5-280-02015-x.
• Klein L.S. Anatomy of the Iliad. - St. Petersburg. : St. Petersburg Publishing House. University, 1998. - 560 p. - 1000 copies. - ISBN 5-288-01823-5.
• Gindin L. A., Tsymbursky V. L. Homer and the history of the Eastern Mediterranean. - M.: Eastern literature, 1996. - 328 p. 2000 copies
• Page D. History and the Homeric Iliad. Berkeley, Univ. of California Press, 1959.
• Reinhardt K. Die Ilias und inr Dichter. Gottingen, 1961.
• Edwards, Mark W.; Kirk, Geoffrey Stephen; et al. (editors), Cambridge University Press, 1993
• West, Martin L., München: K.G. Saur, 2001. ISBN 3-598-73005-5
• Zelinsky, f. f. “The Law of Chronological Incompatibility and the Composition of the Iliad” (collection “Χαριστήρια”, St. Petersburg, 1897),
• Zelinsky, f. f. "Die Behandlung gleichzeitiger Ereignisse im antiken Epos" (Leipzig, 1901; Suppl. to "Philologus")
• Zelinsky, f. f. “Old and new paths in the Homeric question” (ZhMNP, May, 1900).

Ancient scholia to the Iliad

The scholia to the Iliad, published by Diendorff (), occupy 6 volumes:

• Ancient scholia:
  • . Cantos I-XII
  • Songs XIII-XXIV
• Scholia from Codex Veneti Marcianus 453:
  • . Cantos I-XII
  • . Songs XIII-XXIV
• Scholia "Townleyana":
  • .
  • .
• Genevan scholia to the Iliad
• New edition of scholia: Erbse, Hartmut, Scholia graeca in Homeri Iliadem (scholia vetera). 7 vol. Berlin: de Gruyter. - .

Screen adaptation

• Wrath of Achilles

Write a review about the article "The Iliad"

Literature

• The article is based on materials from the Literary Encyclopedia 1929-1939.

Notes

Links

	in Wikisource

• in the library of Maxim Moshkov
• in the library of Maxim Moshkov
• translation by Shuisky;

Epic Others

Epic cycle (Trojan War)
Cypria(11 songs) | Iliad (24 songs) | Ethiopida(5 songs) | Little Iliad(4 songs) | Destruction of Ilion(2 songs) | Returns(5 songs) | Odyssey(24 songs) | Telegony(2 songs)

Passage characterizing the Iliad

“Je voudrais voir le grand homme, [I would like to see a great man," he said, speaking about Napoleon, whom he, like everyone else, had always called Buonaparte.
– Vous parlez de Buonaparte? [Are you talking about Buonaparte?] - the general told him, smiling.
Boris looked questioningly at his general and immediately realized that this was a joke test.
“Mon prince, je parle de l"empereur Napoleon, [Prince, I’m talking about Emperor Napoleon,] he answered. The general patted him on the shoulder with a smile.
“You will go far,” he told him and took him with him.
Boris was one of the few on the Neman on the day of the emperors' meeting; he saw rafts with monograms, Napoleon's passage along the other bank past the French guard, saw the thoughtful face of Emperor Alexander, while he sat silently in a tavern on the bank of the Neman, waiting for Napoleon's arrival; I saw how both emperors got into the boats and how Napoleon, having first landed on the raft, walked forward with quick steps and, meeting Alexander, gave him his hand, and how both disappeared into the pavilion. Since his entry into the higher worlds, Boris made himself a habit of carefully observing what was happening around him and recording it. During a meeting in Tilsit, he asked about the names of those persons who came with Napoleon, about the uniforms that they were wearing, and listened carefully to the words that were said by important persons. At the very time the emperors entered the pavilion, he looked at his watch and did not forget to look again at the time when Alexander left the pavilion. The meeting lasted an hour and fifty-three minutes: he wrote it down that evening among other facts that he believed were of historical significance. Since the emperor’s retinue was very small, for a person who valued success in his service, being in Tilsit during the meeting of the emperors was a very important matter, and Boris, once in Tilsit, felt that from that time his position was completely established. They not only knew him, but they took a closer look at him and got used to him. Twice he carried out orders for the sovereign himself, so that the sovereign knew him by sight, and all those close to him not only did not shy away from him, as before, considering him a new person, but would have been surprised if he had not been there.
Boris lived with another adjutant, the Polish Count Zhilinsky. Zhilinsky, a Pole raised in Paris, was rich, passionately loved the French, and almost every day during his stay in Tilsit, French officers from the guard and the main French headquarters gathered for lunch and breakfast with Zhilinsky and Boris.
On the evening of June 24, Count Zhilinsky, Boris's roommate, arranged a dinner for his French acquaintances. At this dinner there was an honored guest, one of Napoleon's adjutants, several officers of the French Guard and a young boy of an old aristocratic French family, Napoleon's page. On this very day, Rostov, taking advantage of the darkness so as not to be recognized, in civilian dress, arrived in Tilsit and entered the apartment of Zhilinsky and Boris.
In Rostov, as well as in the entire army from which he came, the revolution that took place in the main apartment and in Boris was still far from accomplished in relation to Napoleon and the French, who had become friends from enemies. Everyone in the army still continued to experience the same mixed feelings of anger, contempt and fear towards Bonaparte and the French. Until recently, Rostov, talking with Platovsky Cossack officer, argued that if Napoleon had been captured, he would have been treated not as a sovereign, but as a criminal. Just recently, on the road, having met a wounded French colonel, Rostov became heated, proving to him that there could be no peace between the legitimate sovereign and the criminal Bonaparte. Therefore, Rostov was strangely struck in Boris’s apartment by the sight of French officers in the very uniforms that he was accustomed to look at completely differently from the flanker chain. As soon as he saw the French officer leaning out of the door, that feeling of war, of hostility, which he always felt at the sight of the enemy, suddenly seized him. He stopped on the threshold and asked in Russian if Drubetskoy lived here. Boris, hearing someone else's voice in the hallway, came out to meet him. His face at the first minute, when he recognized Rostov, expressed annoyance.
“Oh, it’s you, I’m very glad, very glad to see you,” he said, however, smiling and moving towards him. But Rostov noticed his first movement.
“I don’t think I’m on time,” he said, “I wouldn’t have come, but I have something to do,” he said coldly...
- No, I’m just surprised how you came from the regiment. “Dans un moment je suis a vous,” [I am at your service this very minute," he turned to the voice of the one calling him.
“I see that I’m not on time,” Rostov repeated.
The expression of annoyance had already disappeared from Boris's face; Having apparently thought it over and decided what to do, he with particular calm took him by both hands and led him into the next room. Boris's eyes, calmly and firmly looking at Rostov, seemed to be covered with something, as if some kind of screen - blue dormitory glasses - were put on them. So it seemed to Rostov.
“Oh come on, please, can you be out of time,” said Boris. - Boris led him into the room where dinner was served, introduced him to the guests, calling him and explaining that he was not a civilian, but a hussar officer, his old friend. “Count Zhilinsky, le comte N.N., le capitaine S.S., [Count N.N., captain S.S.],” he called the guests. Rostov frowned at the French, bowed reluctantly and was silent.
Zhilinsky, apparently, did not happily accept this new Russian person into his circle and did not say anything to Rostov. Boris did not seem to notice the embarrassment that had occurred from the new face and, with the same pleasant calm and cloudiness in the eyes with which he met Rostov, tried to enliven the conversation. One of the French turned with ordinary French courtesy to the stubbornly silent Rostov and told him that he had probably come to Tilsit in order to see the emperor.
“No, I have business,” Rostov answered briefly.
Rostov became out of sorts immediately after he noticed the displeasure on Boris’s face, and, as always happens with people who are out of sorts, it seemed to him that everyone was looking at him with hostility and that he was disturbing everyone. And indeed he interfered with everyone and alone remained outside the newly started general conversation. “And why is he sitting here?” said the looks that the guests cast at him. He stood up and approached Boris.
“However, I’m embarrassing you,” he told him quietly, “let’s go, talk about business, and I’ll leave.”
“No, not at all,” said Boris. And if you are tired, let’s go to my room and lie down and rest.
- Indeed...
They entered the small room where Boris was sleeping. Rostov, without sitting down, immediately with irritation - as if Boris was guilty of something in front of him - began to tell him Denisov’s case, asking if he wanted and could ask about Denisov through his general from the sovereign and through him deliver a letter. When they were left alone, Rostov became convinced for the first time that he was embarrassed to look Boris in the eyes. Boris, crossing his legs and stroking the thin fingers of his right hand with his left hand, listened to Rostov, as a general listens to the report of a subordinate, now looking to the side, now with the same clouded gaze, looking directly into Rostov’s eyes. Each time Rostov felt awkward and lowered his eyes.
“I have heard about this kind of thing and I know that the Emperor is very strict in these cases. I think we should not bring it to His Majesty. In my opinion, it would be better to directly ask the corps commander... But in general I think...
- So you don’t want to do anything, just say so! - Rostov almost shouted, without looking into Boris’s eyes.
Boris smiled: “On the contrary, I’ll do what I can, but I thought...
At this time, Zhilinsky’s voice was heard at the door, calling Boris.
“Well, go, go, go...” said Rostov, refusing dinner, and being left alone in a small room, he walked back and forth in it for a long time, and listened to the cheerful French conversation from the next room.

Rostov arrived in Tilsit on a day least convenient for interceding for Denisov. He himself could not go to the general on duty, since he was in a tailcoat and arrived in Tilsit without the permission of his superiors, and Boris, even if he wanted, could not do this the next day after Rostov’s arrival. On this day, June 27, the first peace terms were signed. The emperors exchanged orders: Alexander received the Legion of Honor, and Napoleon Andrei 1st degree, and on this day a lunch was assigned to the Preobrazhensky battalion, which was given to him by the battalion of the French Guard. The sovereigns were supposed to attend this banquet.
Rostov felt so awkward and unpleasant with Boris that when Boris looked at him after dinner, he pretended to be asleep and early the next morning, trying not to see him, he left the house. In a tailcoat and a round hat, Nicholas wandered around the city, looking at the French and their uniforms, looking at the streets and houses where the Russian and French emperors lived. In the square he saw tables being set up and preparations for dinner; on the streets he saw hanging draperies with banners of Russian and French colors and huge monograms of A. and N. There were also banners and monograms in the windows of the houses.
“Boris doesn’t want to help me, and I don’t want to turn to him. This matter is decided - Nikolai thought - everything is over between us, but I will not leave here without doing everything I can for Denisov and, most importantly, without delivering the letter to the sovereign. Emperor?!... He’s here!” thought Rostov, involuntarily approaching again the house occupied by Alexander.
At this house there were riding horses and a retinue had gathered, apparently preparing for the departure of the sovereign.
“I can see him any minute,” thought Rostov. If only I could directly hand him the letter and tell him everything, would I really be arrested for wearing a tailcoat? Can't be! He would understand on whose side justice is. He understands everything, knows everything. Who could be fairer and more generous than him? Well, even if they arrested me for being here, what’s the harm?” he thought, looking at the officer entering the house occupied by the sovereign. “After all, they are sprouting. - Eh! It's all nonsense. I’ll go and submit the letter to the sovereign myself: so much the worse it will be for Drubetskoy, who brought me to this.” And suddenly, with a determination that he himself did not expect from himself, Rostov, feeling the letter in his pocket, went straight to the house occupied by the sovereign.
“No, now I won’t miss the opportunity, like after Austerlitz,” he thought, expecting every second to meet the sovereign and feeling a rush of blood to his heart at this thought. I will fall at my feet and ask him. He will raise me, listen and thank me.” “I am happy when I can do good, but correcting injustice is the greatest happiness,” Rostov imagined the words that the sovereign would say to him. And he walked past those who were looking at him curiously, onto the porch of the house occupied by the sovereign.
From the porch a wide staircase led straight upstairs; to the right a closed door was visible. At the bottom of the stairs there was a door to the lower floor.
-Who do you want? - someone asked.
“Submit a letter, a request to His Majesty,” said Nikolai with a trembling voice.
- Please contact the duty officer, please come here (he was shown the door below). They just won't accept it.
Hearing this indifferent voice, Rostov was afraid of what he was doing; the thought of meeting the sovereign at any moment was so tempting and therefore so terrible for him that he was ready to flee, but the chamberlain Fourier, who met him, opened the door to the duty room for him and Rostov entered.
A short, plump man of about 30, in white trousers, over the knee boots and one cambric shirt, apparently just put on, stood in this room; the valet was fastening a beautiful new silk-embroidered belt on his back, which for some reason Rostov noticed. This man was talking to someone who was in another room.
“Bien faite et la beaute du diable, [Well-built and the beauty of youth," this man said, and when he saw Rostov he stopped talking and frowned.
-What do you want? Request?…
– Qu"est ce que c"est? [What is this?] - someone asked from another room.
“Encore un petitionnaire, [Another petitioner,”] answered the man with the help.
- Tell him what's next. It's coming out now, we have to go.
- After the day after tomorrow. Late…
Rostov turned and wanted to go out, but the man in the arms stopped him.
- From whom? Who are you?
“From Major Denisov,” Rostov answered.
- Who are you? Officer?
- Lieutenant, Count Rostov.
- What courage! Give it on command. And go, go... - And he began to put on the uniform handed to him by the valet.
Rostov went out again into the hallway and noticed that there were already many officers and generals on the porch in full dress uniform, whom he had to pass by.
Cursing his courage, frozen by the thought that at any moment he could meet the sovereign and in his presence be disgraced and sent under arrest, fully understanding the indecency of his act and repenting of it, Rostov, with downcast eyes, made his way out of the house, surrounded by a crowd of brilliant retinue , when someone's familiar voice called out to him and someone's hand stopped him.
- What are you doing here, father, in a tailcoat? – his bass voice asked.
This was a cavalry general who earned the special favor of the sovereign during this campaign, the former head of the division in which Rostov served.
Rostov fearfully began to make excuses, but seeing the good-naturedly playful face of the general, he moved to the side and in an excited voice conveyed the whole matter to him, asking him to intercede for Denisov, known to the general. The general, after listening to Rostov, seriously shook his head.
- It’s a pity, it’s a pity for the fellow; give me a letter.
Rostov barely had time to hand over the letter and tell Denisov’s whole business when quick steps with spurs began to sound from the stairs and the general, moving away from him, moved towards the porch. The gentlemen of the sovereign's retinue ran down the stairs and went to the horses. Bereitor Ene, the same one who was in Austerlitz, brought the sovereign's horse, and a light creaking of steps was heard on the stairs, which Rostov now recognized. Forgetting the danger of being recognized, Rostov moved with several curious residents to the porch itself and again, after two years, he saw the same features he adored, the same face, the same look, the same gait, the same combination of greatness and meekness... And the feeling of delight and love for the sovereign was resurrected with the same strength in Rostov’s soul. The Emperor in the Preobrazhensky uniform, in white leggings and high boots, with a star that Rostov did not know (it was legion d'honneur) [star of the Legion of Honor] went out onto the porch, holding his hat at hand and putting on a glove. He stopped, looking around and that's it illuminating the surroundings with his gaze. He said a few words to some of the generals. He also recognized the former chief of the division, Rostov, smiled at him and called him over.
The entire retinue retreated, and Rostov saw how this general said something to the sovereign for quite a long time.
The Emperor said a few words to him and took a step to approach the horse. Again the crowd of the retinue and the crowd of the street in which Rostov was located moved closer to the sovereign. Stopping by the horse and holding the saddle with his hand, the sovereign turned to the cavalry general and spoke loudly, obviously with the desire for everyone to hear him.
“I can’t, general, and that’s why I can’t because the law is stronger than me,” said the sovereign and raised his foot in the stirrup. The general bowed his head respectfully, the sovereign sat down and galloped down the street. Rostov, beside himself with delight, ran after him with the crowd.

On the square where the sovereign went, a battalion of Preobrazhensky soldiers stood face to face on the right, and a battalion of the French Guard in bearskin hats on the left.
While the sovereign was approaching one flank of the battalions, which were on guard duty, another crowd of horsemen jumped up to the opposite flank and ahead of them Rostov recognized Napoleon. It couldn't be anyone else. He rode at a gallop in a small hat, with a St. Andrew's ribbon over his shoulder, in a blue uniform open over a white camisole, on an unusually thoroughbred Arabian gray horse, on a crimson, gold embroidered saddle cloth. Having approached Alexander, he raised his hat and with this movement, Rostov’s cavalry eye could not help but notice that Napoleon was sitting poorly and not firmly on his horse. The battalions shouted: Hurray and Vive l "Empereur! [Long live the Emperor!] Napoleon said something to Alexander. Both emperors got off their horses and took each other's hands. There was an unpleasantly feigned smile on Napoleon's face. Alexander said something to him with an affectionate expression .
Rostov, without taking his eyes off, despite the trampling of the horses of the French gendarmes besieging the crowd, followed every move of Emperor Alexander and Bonaparte. He was struck as a surprise by the fact that Alexander behaved as an equal with Bonaparte, and that Bonaparte was completely free, as if this closeness with the sovereign was natural and familiar to him, as an equal, he treated the Russian Tsar.
Alexander and Napoleon with a long tail of their retinue approached the right flank of the Preobrazhensky battalion, directly towards the crowd that stood there. The crowd suddenly found itself so close to the emperors that Rostov, who was standing in the front rows, became afraid that they would recognize him.
“Sire, je vous demande la permission de donner la legion d"honneur au plus brave de vos soldats, [Sire, I ask your permission to give the Order of the Legion of Honor to the bravest of your soldiers,] said a sharp, precise voice, finishing each letter It was the short Bonaparte who spoke, looking straight into Alexander's eyes from below. Alexander listened attentively to what was being said to him, and bowed his head, smiling pleasantly.
“A celui qui s"est le plus vaillament conduit dans cette derieniere guerre, [To the one who showed himself bravest during the war],” Napoleon added, emphasizing each syllable, with a calm and confidence outrageous for Rostov, looking around the ranks of Russians stretched out in front of there are soldiers, keeping everything on guard and motionlessly looking into the face of their emperor.
“Votre majeste me permettra t elle de demander l"avis du colonel? [Your Majesty will allow me to ask the colonel’s opinion?] - said Alexander and took several hasty steps towards Prince Kozlovsky, the battalion commander. Meanwhile, Bonaparte began to take off his white glove, small hand and, tearing it apart, threw it in. The adjutant, hastily rushing forward from behind, picked it up.
- Who should I give it to? – Emperor Alexander asked Kozlovsky not loudly, in Russian.
- Whom do you order, Your Majesty? “The Emperor winced with displeasure and, looking around, said:
- But you have to answer him.
Kozlovsky looked back at the ranks with a decisive look and in this glance captured Rostov as well.
“Isn’t it me?” thought Rostov.
- Lazarev! – the colonel commanded with a frown; and the first-ranked soldier, Lazarev, smartly stepped forward.
-Where are you going? Stop here! - voices whispered to Lazarev, who did not know where to go. Lazarev stopped, looked sideways at the colonel in fear, and his face trembled, as happens with soldiers called to the front.
Napoleon slightly turned his head back and pulled back his small chubby hand, as if wanting to take something. The faces of his retinue, having guessed at that very second what was going on, began to fuss, whisper, passing something on to one another, and the page, the same one whom Rostov saw yesterday at Boris’s, ran forward and respectfully bent over the outstretched hand and did not make her wait either one second, he put an order on a red ribbon into it. Napoleon, without looking, clenched two fingers. The Order found itself between them. Napoleon approached Lazarev, who, rolling his eyes, stubbornly continued to look only at his sovereign, and looked back at Emperor Alexander, thereby showing that what he was doing now, he was doing for his ally. A small white hand with an order touched the button of soldier Lazarev. It was as if Napoleon knew that in order for this soldier to be happy, rewarded and distinguished from everyone else in the world forever, it was only necessary for him, Napoleon’s hand, to be worthy of touching the soldier’s chest. Napoleon just put the cross to Lazarev's chest and, letting go of his hand, turned to Alexander, as if he knew that the cross should stick to Lazarev's chest. The cross really stuck.
Helpful Russian and French hands instantly picked up the cross and attached it to the uniform. Lazarev looked gloomily at the little man with white hands, who had done something above him, and, continuing to keep him motionless on guard, again began to look directly into Alexander’s eyes, as if he was asking Alexander: whether he should still stand, or whether they would order him should I go for a walk now, or maybe do something else? But he was not ordered to do anything, and he remained in this motionless state for quite a long time.
The sovereigns mounted and rode away. The Preobrazhentsy, breaking up the ranks, mixed with the French guards and sat down at the tables prepared for them.
Lazarev sat in a place of honor; Russian and French officers hugged him, congratulated him and shook his hands. Crowds of officers and people came up just to look at Lazarev. The roar of Russian French conversation and laughter stood in the square around the tables. Two officers with flushed faces, cheerful and happy, walked past Rostov.
- What is the treat, brother? “Everything is on silver,” said one. – Have you seen Lazarev?
- Saw.
“Tomorrow, they say, the Preobrazhensky people will treat them.”
- No, Lazarev is so lucky! 10 francs life pension.
- That's the hat, guys! - shouted the Transfiguration man, putting on the shaggy Frenchman’s hat.
- It’s a miracle, how good, lovely!
-Have you heard the review? - the guards officer said to the other. The third day was Napoleon, France, bravoure; [Napoleon, France, courage;] yesterday Alexandre, Russie, grandeur; [Alexander, Russia, greatness;] one day our sovereign gives feedback, and the next day Napoleon. Tomorrow the Emperor will send George to the bravest of the French guards. It's impossible! I must answer in kind.
Boris and his friend Zhilinsky also came to watch the Transfiguration banquet. Returning back, Boris noticed Rostov, who was standing at the corner of the house.
- Rostov! Hello; “We never saw each other,” he told him, and could not resist asking him what had happened to him: Rostov’s face was so strangely gloomy and upset.
“Nothing, nothing,” answered Rostov.
-Will you come in?
- Yes, I’ll come in.
Rostov stood at the corner for a long time, looking at the feasters from afar. A painful work was going on in his mind, which he could not complete. Terrible doubts arose in my soul. Then he remembered Denisov with his changed expression, with his humility, and the whole hospital with these torn off arms and legs, with this dirt and disease. It seemed to him so vividly that he could now smell this hospital smell of a dead body that he looked around to understand where this smell could come from. Then he remembered this smug Bonaparte with his white hand, who was now the emperor, whom Emperor Alexander loves and respects. What are the torn off arms, legs, and killed people for? Then he remembered the awarded Lazarev and Denisov, punished and unforgiven. He caught himself having such strange thoughts that he was frightened by them.
The smell of food from the Preobrazhentsev and hunger brought him out of this state: he had to eat something before leaving. He went to the hotel he had seen in the morning. At the hotel he found so many people, officers, just like him, who had arrived in civilian dress, that he had to force himself to have dinner. Two officers from the same division joined him. The conversation naturally turned to peace. The officers and comrades of Rostov, like most of the army, were dissatisfied with the peace concluded after Friedland. They said that if they had held out any longer, Napoleon would have disappeared, that he had no crackers or ammunition in his troops. Nikolai ate in silence and mostly drank. He drank one or two bottles of wine. The internal work that arose in him, not being resolved, still tormented him. He was afraid to indulge in his thoughts and could not leave them. Suddenly, at the words of one of the officers that it was offensive to look at the French, Rostov began to shout with vehemence, which was not justified in any way, and therefore greatly surprised the officers.
– And how can you judge what would be better! - he shouted with his face suddenly flushed with blood. - How can you judge the actions of the sovereign, what right do we have to reason?! We cannot understand either the goals or the actions of the sovereign!
“Yes, I didn’t say a word about the sovereign,” the officer justified himself, unable to explain his temper otherwise than by the fact that Rostov was drunk.
But Rostov did not listen.
“We are not diplomatic officials, but we are soldiers and nothing more,” he continued. “They tell us to die—that’s how we die.” And if they punish, it means he is guilty; It's not for us to judge. It pleases the sovereign emperor to recognize Bonaparte as emperor and enter into an alliance with him—that means it must be so. Otherwise, if we began to judge and reason about everything, then there would be nothing sacred left. This way we will say that there is no God, there is nothing,” Nikolai shouted, hitting the table, very inappropriately, according to the concepts of his interlocutors, but very consistently in the course of his thoughts.