THE AUGMENT USE IN ILIAD 10: A Test Case from Later and Non-Homeric (?) Greek Epic

This article addresses the augment use in Book 10 of the Iliad (the so-called Doloneia). As most scholars assume that this book is not genuinely Homeric, but a later addition to the Iliad, it could serve as a test case to see if the explanations I provided elsewhere for the augment use are valid for later works as well or if the author(s) of these later works use(s) the augment as a metrical tool. I distinguish between forms that are metrically secure (type A), forms that can be determined binternal reconstruction and comparison (type B) and forms that are insecure and undeterminable (type C). The A and B forms are subjected to a syntactic, semantic and pragmatic analysis. For the syntactic analysis, I investigate the clitic and the reduction rule. For the semantics, I start from observations on the augment use by various scholars who stated that the augmented forms refer to recent past actions, close to speaker and hearer, and that the augment highlights the more pivotal elements in the story or that it is a kind of evidential marker indicating that the speaker or narrator vouches for his statement by claiming that he has "witnessed" the events himself; the absence of the augment would mean that the speaker has no direct knowledge of it and/or does not want to make an emphatic statement about it. The analysis shows that the augment use in Iliad 10 can indeed be explained by these semantic and pragmatic factors, whereas a metrical explanation would require a much more random distribution.