Parva Naturalia and Ambigua

Many others among the ancients have been diligent, my dear friend original: "ὦ βέλτιστε" - a standard polite address in scholarly correspondence, concerning Homeric questions, and in providing the reasons for those things in the poetry that seem to be problematic. One of these was Porphyry the philosopher in his Questions Referring to the "Homeric Questions" (Quaestiones Homericae) by Porphyry, which sought to resolve contradictions or perceived flaws in Homer's epics, partly by discovering the solutions himself and partly by collecting them from others. Seeing that some authors extend their discourse to great length, while others compress it so much as to miss clarity, I have attempted, as far as possible, to select the most essential solutions in a brief form. This is so that the usefulness of the work is not hidden by a multitude of words, nor should obscurity arise from too much brevity.

Porphyry

For this reason, we shall provide the etymologies of names, the accounts of the histories, and the explanations of the figures of speech, as far as possible, through brief remarks. One must begin from the first rhapsody The term "rhapsody" here refers to Book 1 of the Iliad, in which it is first asked: why did the poet begin with the events concerning Chryses? For it is questioned why he began from the presence of Chryses and not from the abduction of Helen or the gathering at Aulis Aulis was the port where the Greek fleet gathered before sailing for Troy. It is either because this was the first cause of the wrath of Achilles, or because Chryses was a priest of Apollo, and because of this, the god immediately brought on the plague; or because the poet did not wish to recount the history of things before the Iliad, but only the things within the Iliad, leaving the prior events to others. Since the Iliad is a part of the Trojan War, and the poet did not promise to tell of the whole war, but only the "wrath of Achilles," it was reasonable to begin from this, which was the cause of many evils for the Greeks.

Question?

...and he mentioned no one of the others, but only Chryses. This was either because this was the first cause of the wrath of Achilles, or because Chryses was a priest of Apollo, and for this reason the god immediately brought on the plague; or because the poet did not wish to relate the things before the Iliad, but only the things in the Iliad, leaving the prior events to others. There is also another reason: that Chryses arrives on account of his daughter, and Agamemnon dishonors him. From this dishonor the plague arises; from the plague, the assembly; from the assembly, the quarrel between Achilles and Agamemnon; from the quarrel, the withdrawal of Achilles; and from the withdrawal, the defeat of the Greeks. Thus, the presence of Chryses is the beginning of everything that happened in the Iliad.

Note this?

Again, it is asked why the poet did not call Agamemnon by his name at the beginning, but says "Atreides, lord of men" original: "Ἀτρείδης τε ἄναξ ἀνδρῶν" - Atreides means "Son of Atreus". Perhaps it is on account of the dignity of the kingship, so that he might immediately manifest his superiority; or because poets take more pleasure in the patronymic A name derived from a father or ancestor as it is more solemn. Furthermore, "lord of men" is a special epithet of Agamemnon, just as "swift-footed" original: "πόδας ὠκύς" is for Achilles.