To Do

¹⁴³ Equivalent to “Furies” (cf. 70). In the last lines of this antistrophe, for the battle at the gates between the Thebans and the Argives is substituted a battle between the House of Laius and the powers of destruction (the Curses, Ruin and the δαίμων) ending in decisive victory for the latter.

Apollodorus

3.12.3

But Ilus went to Phrygia, and finding games held there by the king, he was victorious in wrestling. As a prize he received fifty youths and as many maidens, and the king, in obedience to an oracle, gave him also a dappled cow and bade him found a city wherever the animal should lie down; so he followed the cow. And when she was come to what was called the hill of the Phrygian Ate, she lay down; there Ilus built a city and called it Ilium.¹ ...

...But afterwards Electra, at the time of her violation, took refuge at the image, and Zeus threw the Palladium along with Ate⁶ into the Ilian country; ...

...

1 This legend of the foundation of Ilium by Ilus is repeated by Tzetzes, Scholiast on Lycophron 29. ... As to the hill of Ate, compare Stephanus Byzantius, s.v. Ἴλιον.

...

6 Homer tells （Hom. Il. 19.126-131） how Zeus in anger swore that Ate should never again come to Olympus, and how he seized her by the head and flung her from heaven.

Apollonius of Rhodes

Argonautica

4.817

ἀάσθη· καὶ γάρ τε θεοὺς ἐπινίσσεται ἄτη.

He was foolish; but even the gods are sometimes visited by Ate. (Rieu)

He made a mistake—yes, but mistakes happen to gods as well. (Race)

Demosthenes

On the Embassy

19.255.33–38

Ye men of Athens, listen while I show

How many ills from lawless licence flow.

Respect for Law [Εὐνομίη] shall check your rising lust,

Humble the haughty, fetter the unjust,

Make the rough places plain, bid envy cease,

Wither infatuation’s [ἄτης] fell increase,

Empedocles

fr. D24 Laks-Most [= B121 Diels-Krantz]

D24 (B121) Hierocl. In Carm. Aur. 24.2–3 (et al.)

D24 (B121) Hierocles, Commentary on Pythagoras' Golden Verses

. . . a joyless place,

Where Murder, Rage, and the tribes of the other Death-divinities

Wander in darkness along the meadow of Destruction (Atê).

Hesiod

Theogony 226–232

αὐτὰρ Ἔρις στυγερὴ τέκε μὲν Πόνον ἀλγινόεντα

Λήθην τε Λιμόν τε καὶ Ἄλγεα δακρυόεντα

Ὑσμίνας τε Μάχας τε Φόνους τ’ Ἀνδροκτασίας τε

Νείκεά τε Ψεύδεά τε Λόγους τ’ Ἀμφιλλογίας τε

Δυσνομίην τ’ Ἄτην τε, συνήθεας ἀλλήλῃσιν,

Ὅρκόν θ’, ὃς δὴ πλεῖστον ἐπιχθονίους ἀνθρώπους

πημαίνει, ὅτε κέν τις ἑκὼν ἐπίορκον ὀμόσσῃ·

And loathsome Strife bore painful Toil and Forgetfulness and Hunger and tearful Pains, and Combats and Battles and Murders and Slaughters, and Strifes and Lies and Tales and Disputes, and Lawlessness and Recklessness [Ate], much like one another, and Oath, who indeed brings most woe upon human beings on the earth, whenever someone willfully swears a false oath.

Works and Days

213–224

As for you, Perses, give heed to Justice [Dike] and do not foster Outrageousness [Hybris]. For Outrageousness is evil in a worthless mortal; and even a fine man cannot bear her easily, but encounters calamities and then is weighed down under her. The better road is the one toward what is just, passing her by on the other side. Justice wins out over Outrageousness when she arrives at the end; but the fool only knows this after he has suffered. For at once Oath [Horkos] starts to run along beside crooked judgments, and there is a clamor when Justice is dragged where men, gift-eaters, carry her off and pronounce verdicts with crooked judgments; but she stays, weeping, with the city and the people’s abodes, clad in invisibility, bearing evil to the human beings who drive her out and do not deal straight.

225–231

But those who give straight judgments [δίκας] to foreigners and fellow citizens and do not turn aside from justice [δικαίου] at all, their city blooms and the people in it flower. For them, Peace [Εἰρήνη], the nurse of the young, is on the earth, and far-seeing Zeus never marks out painful war; nor does famine [λιμὸς] attend straight-judging men, nor calamity [ἄτη], but they share out in festivities the fruits of the labors they care for.

Homer

Iliad

6.256

the folly [ἄτης] of Alexander [i.e. Paris]

9.502–512

For Prayers [Λιταί] there are as well, the daughters of great Zeus, halting and wrinkled and of eyes askance,¹ and they are ever mindful to follow in the steps of Blindness [Ἄτης]. But Blindness [Ἅτη] is strong and fleet of foot, so she far outruns them all, and goes before them over all the earth making men to fall, and Prayers follow after, seeking to heal the hurt. Now him who will respect the daughters of Zeus, when they draw near, him they greatly benefit, and hear him when he prays; but if a man denies them and stubbornly refuses, then they go and beg Zeus, son of Cronos, that Blindness [Ἄτης] may follow that man so that he may fall and pay full recompense. (Murray and Wyatt)

19.85–113

"Often have the Achaeans spoken to me [Agamemnon] these words and reproached me; [86] but it is not I who am at fault, but Zeus and Fate and Erinys, that walks in darkness, since in the place of assembly they cast on my mind fierce blindness on that day when on my own authority I took from Achilles his prize. [90] But what could I do? It is a god that brings all things to their end. Eldest daughter of Zeus is Ate [πρέσβα Διὸς θυγάτηρ Ἄτη] who blinds all [ἣ πάντας ἀᾶται,]—accursed one; delicate are her feet, for it is not the ground that she touches, but she walks over the heads of men, bringing men to harm, and this one or that she ensnares. [95] For she once even blinded Zeus, though men say that he is the greatest among men and gods; yet even him Hera, though but a woman, deceived in her craftiness on the day when Alcmene in fair-crowned Thebes was to bear the mighty Heracles. Zeus spoke boastfully among all the gods: ‘Hear me, all you gods and goddesses, while I speak what the heart in my breast commands me. This day will Eileithyia, the goddess of childbirth, bring to the light a man who will be the lord of all those who dwell round about, one of the race of those men who are from me by blood.’ But with crafty mind spoke to him the queenly Hera: ‘You will play the cheat, and once again not bring your words to fulfillment. But come, Olympian, swear to me now a mighty oath that in very truth that man will be lord of all those who dwell round about, whoever this day will fall between a woman’s feet, one of those men who are of the blood of your stock.’ So she spoke; but Zeus in no way recognized her craftiness, but swore a great oath and then was much blinded." (Murray and Wyatt)

19.114–138

"But Hera darted down and left the peak of Olympus, and swiftly came to Achaean Argos, where she knew was the stately wife of Sthenelus, son of Perseus, who bore a son in her womb, and the seventh month had come. This child Hera brought out to the light even before the full term of the months, but stayed Alcmene’s bearing, and held back the Eileithyiae. And she herself spoke to Zeus, son of Cronos, to bring him the news: ‘Father Zeus, lord of the bright lightning, a word will I put in your mind. Even now has been born a mighty man who will be lord over the Argives, Eurystheus, son of Sthenelus, the son of Perseus, of your own lineage; no disgraceful thing is it for him to be lord over the Argives.’ So she spoke, and sharp pain struck him deep in his mind, and immediately he seized Ate by her bright-tressed head, angered in his mind, and swore a mighty oath that never again to Olympus and the starry heaven should Ate come, who blinds all. So said he, and whirling her in his hand flung her from the starry heaven, and quickly she came to the tilled fields of men. At thought of her would he ever groan when he saw his dear son in disgraceful toil at Eurystheus’ tasks. [134] So I also at the time that great Hector of the flashing helmet was destroying the Argives at the sterns of the ships could not forget Ate, by whom at the first I was made blind. But since I was blinded, and Zeus robbed me of my senses, I am minded to make amends and to give compensation past counting." (Murray and Wyatt)

24.28

the folly [ἄτης] of Alexander [i.e. Paris]

Lycophron

Alexandra

29

Ἄτης ἀπ᾿ ἄκρων βουπλανοκτίστων λόφων,

the high Hill of Doom^f

^f Ate, thrown out of Olympus by Zeus (Il. xix. 126), fell on a hill in the Troad which was hence called the Hill of Doom (Ἄτης λόφος). Dardanus was warned by Apollo not to build a city there. But Ilus, his great-grandson, being told by an oracle to found a city where a certain cow should rest, did so; and this place chanced to be the Hill of Doom.

Nonnus

Dionysiaca

11.113–134

But Ate, the deathbringing spirit of Delusion, saw the bold youth straying on the mountains away from Lyaios during the hunt; and taking the charming form of one of his agemate boys, she addressed Ampelos with a coaxing deceitful speech—all to gratify the stepmother of Phrygian Dionysos.^b

^b Hera.

118 “Your friend, fearless boy, is called Dionysos for nothing! What honour have you got from your friendship? You do not guide the divine car of Lyaios, you do not drive a panther! Your Bromios’s chariot has fallen to Maron’s lot,c his hand manages the beast-ruling whip and the jewelstudded reins. What gift like that have you gotten from Lyaios of the thyrsus? The Pans have their cithern and their melodious tootling pipes; the Satyrs have the round loudrattling tomtom from your patron Dionysos; even the mountainranging Bassaridsd ride on the backs of lions. What gifts have you received worthy of your love, you, loved for nothing by Bacchos the driver of panthers? Atymniose has often been seen on high in the chariot of Phoibos cutting the air; Abarisf also you have heard of, whom Phoibos sped through the air perched on his winged roving arrow. Ganymedes

11.135–159

also rode an eagle in the sky, a changeling Zeus with wings, the begetter of your Lyaios. But Bacchos never became a lovebird or carried Ampelos, lifting your body with talons that would not tear. The Trojan winepourer had the better of you—he is at home in the court of Zeus. Now my boy, look here: but you are still kept waiting for the chariot, so just refuse to drive a nervous colt on the road—a horse goes rattling along like a tempest on a whirlwind of legs, and shakes out the driver. Glaucos’s horses went mad and threw him out on the ground.a Quickwing Pegasosb threw Bellerophontes and sent him headlong down from the sky, although he was of the seed of Earthshaker and the horse himself shared the kindred blood of Poseidon.

147 “Come this way, do, to the herd, where are the clear-piping drovers and lovely cattle—get on a bull, and I will make you conspicuous on his back as the man who can ride a wild bull! Then your bull-body king Dionysos will applaud you more loudly, if he sees you with a bull between your knees! There is nothing to fear in such a run; Europa was a female, a young girl, and she had a ride on bull-back, held tight to the horn and asked for no reins.”

155 This appeal persuaded him, and the goddess flew up into the air. And there was a stray bull suddenly running down from the rocks! His lips were open, and the tongue hung out over his jaws to show his thirst. He drank, then stood looking at

Panyassis

fr. 20 West

20 Ath. 36d

20 Athenaeus, Scholars at Dinner

The epic poet Panyassis assigns the first round of drinks to the Graces, the Horai, and Dionysus, the second to Aphrodite and Dionysus again, but the third to Hybris and Ate. He says:

"The Graces and the cheerful Horai take the first portion, and Dionysus the mighty roarer, the ones who created it. After them the goddess born in Cyprus takes her share, and Dionysus, at the stage where the wine session is at its most perfect for men: if you drink in measure and go back home from the feast, you will never run into anything bad. But when someone drinks heavily and presses to the limit of the third round, then Hybris and Ate take their unlovely turn, which brings trouble. Now, pal, you’ve had your ration of the sweet liquor, so go and join your wedded wife, and send your comrades to bed. With the third round of the honey-sweet wine being drunk, I’m afraid of Hybris stirring up your spirits and bringing your good hospitality to a bad end. So do as I say, and stop the excess drinking."

fr 22 West

22 Ath. 36d (post fr. 20)

22 Athenaeus, Scholars at Dinner (after fr. 20)

And following that, about immoderate wine:

For with it the turn of Ate and Hybris comes along.²²

²² This line may have directly followed fragment 21.

Quintus Smyrnaeus

Posthomerica

1.751–754

"Lesser men should beware of insulting their kings either face-to-face or behind their backs: the result is terrible wrath. Justice does exist: Ruin, who brings mortals misery upon misery, punishes an insolent tongue."

Sappho or Alcaeus

fr. 25B

For after α, when a vowel follows, υ is added in Aeolic, e.g. ἀάταν becomes ἀυάταν, ‘harm’: cf.

and insatiable Ate (Harm)

Solon

fr. 4 Gerber [= fr. 4 West = fr. 3 GP = Demosthenes, On the Embassy 19.254–56]

4 Dem. 19.254–56

4 Demosthenes, On the Embassy

...

30–35 [= Demosthenes, On the Embassy 19.255.33–38]

[30] ταῦτα διδάξαι θυμὸς Ἀθηναίους με κελεύει,

[31] ὡς κακὰ πλεῖστα πόλει Δυσνομίη παρέχει,

[32] Εὐνομίη δ᾿ εὔκοσμα καὶ ἄρτια πάντ᾿ ἀποφαίνει,

[33] καὶ θαμὰ τοῖς ἀδίκοις ἀμφιτίθησι πέδας·

[34] τραχέα λειαίνει, παύει κόρον, ὕβριν ἀμαυροῖ,

[35] αὑαίνει δ᾿ ἄτης ἄνθεα φυόμενα,

This is what my heart bids me teach the Athenians, that Lawlessness brings the city countless ills, but Lawfulness³ [Eunomia] reveals all that is orderly and fitting, and often places fetters round the unjust. She makes the rough smooth, puts a stop to excess, weakens insolence [hybris], dries up the blooming flowers of ruin [ἄτης],⁴

³ On these two personifications see M. Ostwald, Nomos and the Beginnings of Athenian Democracy (Oxford 1969) 64–69: “They are ‘poetic persons’ which symbolize, respectively, the orderly and disorderly state of affairs in the city” (p. 66).

⁴ Or "infatuation."

fr 13 Gerber [= fr. 13 West = Stobaeus, Anthology 3.9.23]

13 Stob. 3.9.23

13 Stobaeus, Anthology

...

[68] ἐς μεγάλην ἄτην ["folly"] καὶ χαλεπὴν ἔπεσεν,

...

[75] ἄτη ["ruin"] δ᾿ ἐξ αὐτῶν ἀναφαίνεται, ἣν ὁπότε Ζεὺς

[76] πέμψῃ τεισομένην, ἄλλοτε ἄλλος ἔχει.

ruin, which now one, now another has, whenever Zeus sends it to punish them.

Modern

Cairns

p. 12

The fundamental association with the notion of ‘harm’ and the way in which the harmful state of mind and the harmful state of affairs are mutually entailed is well illustrated in Phoenix’s allegory of the Litai (Il. 9.496-514): ...

p. 14

Here the personified Atē appears twice, first as the cause of the original offense and second as a consequence of rejecting reparation. In both cases, it encompasses both mental impairment and its disastrous consequences: Agamemnon’s mind was impaired when he first insulted Achilles, but that action has now led to disaster; the mistake which Achilles would be making if he rejected the Embassy would be as disastrous in its consequences as the original offence.¹⁰ There are two stages of cause and effect, with the emphasis first on the subjective aspect and then on the objective: the Atē which outruns the Litai is harmful (βλάπτουσ’, 507), both in that it has bad consequences that have to be remedied by entreaty and in so far as it is the affliction of a man who “transgresses and errs” (ὑπερβήῃ καὶ ἁμάρτῃ, 501). Equally, the point of the warning that it would be a mistake on Achilles’ part to refuse the Embassy’s request is that this would be harmful to Achilles – “harmed (βλαφθείς) in 512 points towards the end of the sequence, the disaster to Achilles that consists in his having to pay for his mistake (ἀποτίσῃ, ibid.).¹¹ Atē covers both [cont.]

p. 15

the harm that results from a human being’s actions and the harm to his mental faculties that causes that outcome in the first place. In the one case we translate it as ‘delusion’, and in the other ‘disaster’, but though there are contexts in which these senses are distinct, it is often very difficult to decide which is in play, and it is normal in Homer for each to imply the other – even where the primary reference is to mental impairment, this is an impairment that has objectively disastrous consequences, and even where it refers to consequences, these are regularly the result of some misjudgement.

p. 24

Sometimes the external agent is Atē herself. This personification reaches its fullest development in the allegory of the Litai and in Agamemnon’s apology in Iliad 19. These are ad hoc inventions tied to very particular persuasive strategies, but they are not wholly isolated: they simply take to a higher level something that is a fundamental feature of the concept’s phenomenology, namely the sense that atē is something that ‘comes over’ a person from outside.

p. 25

In Agamemnon’s Apology, it is Zeus, Moira, and the Erinys that send Agamemnon’s atē, but the speech also employs an elaborate para-narrative in which Agamemnon presents Zeus himself as a fellow sufferer (Il. 19.85-138). The external agent of Zeus’ atē is none other than Atē herself; but if it is only for the purposes of this argument (and its companion in Book 9) that Atē is actually a goddess, to say that one’s atē was caused by Atē is simply to say that it happened.²⁶ The real cause of Zeus’ atē, the blindness in which he swears the oath, is Hera, who deceives him. Deception, to be sure, has its source in an external agent, but it is not compulsive – whether one falls for it or not depends on how careful, alert, or sceptical one is at the time.²⁷

²⁶ This remains true regardless of the appearance of the personified atē in other contexts, e.g. Hes. Th. 224-30; see further Stallmach (1968) 85-92, esp. p.90: “Nach all dem muß man sagen, daß die Gestalt des Daimon Ate ohne feste Umrisse bleibt. Stallmach thus anticipated Dodds (1951) 5: “the two passages which speak of ate in personal terms ... are transparent pieces of allegory”.

p. 26

Equally, if we de-allegorize the parable of the Litai in Book 9 (496-514), the atē that initially affected Agamemnon and that which Phoenix suggests will affect Achilles if he rejects the Embassy are both endogenous. First, the entreaties that Phoenix and the others make on Agamemnon’s behalf are compared to the prayers to the gods made by human beings who “transgress and err” (ὅτε κέν τις ὑπερβήῃ καὶ ἁμάρτῃ, 501).^29, Then, after the allegory, Phoenix proceeds to argue that, in his opinion, the situation would be different if Agamemnon were still acting as provocatively as he did in Book 1 (515-20); in that case, Achilles’ persistence in anger would be justified – but now that Agamemnon has offered to make amends, it no longer is (523):

P. 27

Phoenix’s argument requires the retention of the regular relation between offence, anger, and reparation – both the anger and the reparation accept that the true origin of the offence lies in the offender. Equally, the point of the warning (that if the Litai are rejected, they will beg Zeus to send Atē against the man who offended them) is that Achilles, if he rejects the embassy, will be making a mistake with potentially,disastrous consequences; and this mistake itself would (according to Phoenix) make Achilles a legitimate object of censure (523). We notice that even in allegorical terms, Zeus sends Atē only after the person in question has rejected the Litai.

p. 45

having ...

Atē is a major theme in the Iliad.⁶² It has its role to play in the causation of the war itself, in so far as Paris’ abduction of Helen is described in its terms.63 It is in the poem’s central theme, however, namely the quarrel of Achilles and Agamemnon and its consequences, that it plays its most prominent role, as is clear both from the sheer number of passages in which it is associated with Agamemnon’s behaviour and from the thematic salience of the two passages in which the concept is allegorized and personified in Books 9 and 19.

p. 46

First, as we have noted more than once above, it is clear that the initial point of Phoenix’s allegory is to present Agamemnon’s gifts as atonement for the offence committed in Book 1: the gods themselves are swayed by gifts and prayer, when a human being “transgresses and errs” (497-501); a fortiori Achilles too should subdue his anger (496-7). Atē (sc. Agamemnon’s offence) comes first, but the Litai (sc. the ambassadors and their message regarding Agamemnon’s readiness to make amends) come after to undo the damage she has caused (502-7). Since Achilles has already predicted that Agamemnon will regret his atē (1.411-12), and Agamemnon has already accepted that it was atē to dishonour Achilles (9.115-20), there can, pace Yamagata, be no question of the allegorized Atē, strong and swift-footed though she is, standing primarily for Achilles’ conduct in Book 1 rather than Agamemnon’s.65 The next stage of Phoenix’s argument, also noted above, is to suggest that rejection of Agamemnon’s offer could be as big an error as Agamemnon’s original offence, something that Achilles will come to regret as much as Agamemnon, it is implied, now regrets his behaviour in Book 1 (508-14). These two points, the retrospective and the prospective, are then explicitly applied to Achilles’ case in the sequel (513ff.). Achilles is urged to grant

Caldwell

p. 40

212-232 The remaining children of Night are personifications ... The children of Eris are Hardship [Ponos], Forgetfulness (Lethe), Starvation [Limos], Pains [Algea], Battles [Hysminai], Wars [Machai], Murders [Phonoi], Manslaughters [Androktasiai], Quarrels [Neikea] Lies [Pseudea], Stories [Logoi], Disputes [Amphillogiai], Anarchy [Dysnomia], Ruin [Ate], Oath [Horkos].

The Cambridge Greek Lexicon

s.v. ἀάω [I p. 1]

s.v. ἄτη [I p. 238]

...1 delusion, infatuation (inflicted on a person's mind by a god, esp Zeus) ...

2 reckless behavior (sts. assoc.w. delusion), recklessness, folly ...

3 ruin, calamity, harm

-Ἄτη ης, dial. Ἄτᾶ..., f. Ate (personified Ruin, daughter of ... instigator of delusion and destruction) Il. +

Coray

p. 50

86b–138... Agamemnon embeds [in his speech] a myth of Zeus as a victim of delusion (section B: 95-133) [cont.]

p. 51 on 86b–138

in order to gain sympathy for his conduct ... The aetiological narrative of the banning of Ate, personified 'Delusion' (CG 38), from Olympus is supposed to explain how delusion/Delusion entered the world and thus how the rift between Achilleus and himself could come about (PRIESS 1977, 78, 188; HELD 1987, 256; DAVIES 1995, 5f.). The links between Agamemnon and Zeus are brought out by the parallel structure of the two sections:

...

p. 53

88 ... delusion (Greek átē): induces human beings to act foolishly with catastrophic consequences and causes them to overlook the possible effects of their actions.

p. 55

90 ... the first explanatory section (d) (Ate's effects on human beings: 86b-138n.);

...

91–94 Soft feet, her lack of, contact with the ground, and her residence in the region of the head all symbolize the nature of Ate, the personification of delusion. ... She approaches humans unnoticed and affects them through 'osmosis'; her corporality remains entirely vague in what follows ... Phoinix' narrative ... in Book 9 stresses other characteristics ...: speed, strength, and the contrast with other daughters of Zeus, namely the 'Pleas' (Litaí), disregard of whom is punished by Zeus via Ate ...

p. 56 on 91 πρέσβα

[elder] venerable daughter of Zeus: emphasizes her power (FRÄNKEL [1951], 1962, 70); ...

πρέσβα: ... the word means 'venerable', perhaps in rank and dignity in the case of goddesses ... ; the meaning 'eldest' ... may be heard here as well (EDWARDS; JANKO on 14.194-197; PADEL 1995, 182).

p. 57 on 94

The verse forms the hinge between the aitiologym and the myth of Zeus delusion, and describes the effect of Ate: the person concerned has their flexibility restrained, i.e. becomes unable to break free from a pattern of behavior or action.

p. 59 on 95–133

It is unclear to what extent the story told here was dictated by tradition or was an ad hoc invention by the poet of the Iliad for the sake of the Zeus-Agamemnon parallel (Scodel 2002, 150); on additional possible inventions of this type, see 1.262–270n., 1.396–406n., 6.218–221n., 24.599–620n. section (2). It thus remains open to question (1) whether Ate is a Homeric creation, a so-called ad hoc personification (CG 31) (thus Erbse 1986, 11–14); via Ate’s connection with Hera’s delay of the birth of Herakles, which is missing e.g. in the complete account of the myth of Herakles in Diodorus Siculus (4.9.4 f.), Agamemnon is made to articulate a parallel with his own ‘delusion’, although one in which Hera plays the actual lead (Kullmann 1956, 26; de Jong [1987] 2004, 172 f.; cautiously Edwards on 95–133; Willcock [1964] 2001, 443 f. and 1977, 44 with n. 16: Ate’s fall from Olympus is a Homeric invention); and (2) whether the myth of the birth itself is a set part of the myth of Herakles (Kullmann loc. cit. 25 f.) or is an entirely Homeric invention that in this fashion explains the dominant theme of the myth of Herakles – ‘the stronger must serve the weaker’ – as a result of Zeus’ mistaken actions under the effects of delusion, creating a parallel with Agamemnon (Erbse loc. cit. 15–17). In the Old Testament, Gen. 27 is comparable: Rebecca uses deception to convince her husband Isaac that the elder son, Esau, should serve the younger, Jacob (West 1997, 459 f.).

p. 72 on 126–127 'shining hair'

Carefully coiffed hair, gleaming with the oil used to care for it, is a mark of a refined appearance (Marinatos 1967a, 2–4; Laser 1983, 154, 164; LfgrE s.v. πλόκαμος; cf. 2.44n.) and is part of Ate’s alluring look (AH; cf. Hera’s careful attention to her body mand hair before she seduces Zeus at 14.170 ff., esp. 175 f.; differently Edwards: a contrast with Zeus’ aggression; on epithets referring to female beauty, see 1.143n.; relating to the beauty of hair, 6.379–380n.).

p. 72 on 128–130

With his oath, Zeus definitively banishes Ate from the realm of the gods ... This is meant to explain her presence and effect among humans; cf. 131 and 91-94 ...

p. 75 on 136

Agamemnon could no longer avoid the realization that the Greek losses were connected to Ate. — Ἄτης, ᾗ ... ἀάσθην: The articulation of an agent (Ἄτης, ᾗ) makes clear the transition from the mid. to the pass. meaning

p. 75 on 137

here too Agamemnon blames Zeus for his delusion (‘since ... Zeus took my wits away’;

Davies

p. 2

Leaving aside these problematic terms we may perhaps win more general assent if we describe the tale as a variety of aition.⁶ As it now stands, the story supplies an explanation both for (i) how Heracles came to be subservient ... and (ii) how Ate came to exercise power over men on earth.

Dodds

p. 2

Let us start from that experience of divine temptation or infatuation (atē) which led Agamemnon to compensate himself [cont.]

p. 3 for the loss of his own mistress by robbing, Achilles of his. "Not I," he declared afterwards, ...

p. 5

But ate in Homer¹⁶ is not itself a divine agent: the two passages which speak of ate in personal terms, ... are transparent pieces of allegory. Nor does the word ever, at any rate in the Iliad, mean objective disaster,¹⁷ as it so commonly does in tragedy. Always, or practically always,¹⁸ ate is a state of mind—a temporary clouding or bewilderment of the normal consciousness.

p. 174

¹¹⁴ Rhode's view, that the "unfamiliar place" (fr. 118) and the "Medow of Ate" (fr. 121) are simply the world of men, has the support of ancient authority, and seems to me almost certainly right. It was challenged by Mass and Wilamowitz, but is accepted by Bigone (Empedocle, 492), Krantz (Hermes, 70 [1935] 114, n. 1), and Jaeger (Theology, 148 f.,238).

Doyle

p. 1

ἄτη initially meant "blindness" ... and the meaning does not disappear with the development of tragic poetry ... What does occurs in tragedy is the emergence, and in Aeschylus and Euripides the emergence to the point of preponderance, of another meaning: namely, not the subjective state of mental "blindness," "infatuation," or "folly," but the objective state of "ruin," "calamity," or "disaster."²

p. 20 n. 15

Though the use of ἅτη in both Iliad 9.504 and 19.88 is allegorical, there is no question of personification in either passage. Thus LSJ's citing of both passages as examples of Ἅτη personified, the goddess of mischief author of rash actions" must be rejected.

p. 25

The usual interpretation of the phrase συνήθεας ἀλλήλῃσιν is that it implies only to Δυσνομία and Ἄτη.

p. 90 n. 1

¹ ... In the seven extant plays of Aeschylus ... the word occurs ...

Dräger

Brill's New Pauly

s.v. Ate

(Ἄτη; Átē). Verbal noun of ἀάω (aáō), the etymology of which is unknown ([1]; wordplay in Hom. Il. 19,91;129). In most passages in Hom., A. originally refers to (e.g., Il. 19,270ff.; Od. 11,61) a cluster of ideas typical of early Greece, from which evidently as a secondary process specific meanings can be abstracted by a conceptual contraction process: the confusion of the senses sent by the gods -- the consequent misdeed and the damage that arises from it [2. 56ff.; 3. 1ff.; thus already 4]; a primary basic meaning of ‘injury’ postulated from Doric legal terminology (laws of Gortyn). [5; 6. 7ff.] cannot be proven [3. 1f.,1; 2. 56,1]. A. appears hypostasized or ‘personified’ [7. 25f. 346] in Hom. (Il. 19,91ff.: A. myth) as Zeus' venerable daughter, whom he casts from Olympus to the Earth having himself been tricked, likewise Il. 9,502ff. together with the Litai (Pleas), the daughters of Zeus who can only slowly follow the nimble-footed A. [8. 2ff.; 9. 40ff., but without knowledge of 2; 3; 6]; Hes. (Theog. 230; cf. Emp. B 121; Panyassis EpGF fr. 13; Aesch. Ag. 1433) includes her among the children of Eris. This conceptual narrowing, commencing with Homer (injury, expiation, punishment) continues after Homer [2. 61ff.; 3.6f.; 8. 25ff.]: Hes. Op. 230f.; Sol. fr. 13 W. [3. 7ff.]; Hdt. 1,32,6; Aesch. Cho. 383 (ὑστερόποινος, hysterópoinos); net of A.: Aesch. PV 1078. Ilium on the hill of A.: Apollod. 3,143; Lycoph. 29.

Dräger, Paul (Trier)

Gantz

p. 9

in art we find Eris ... Hesiod's [cont.]

p. 10

[Hesiod's] account goes on to list Eris' own children, born with no father mentioned and virtually all alegorizations: Ponos (Labor), Lethe (Forgetfulness), Limos (Famine), Algea (Pains), Hysminai (Comats), Machai (Battles), Phonoi (Slaughterings), Androktasai (Slayings of Men), Neikea (Quarrels), Pseudea (Falsehoods), Logoi (Words), Ampillogai (Unclear words), Dysnomia (Bad Government), Horkos (Oath), and Ate (Folly) (Th 226-32). Of this list, only the last has any identity, and she, when she appears in the Iliad to deceive Zeus (in the matter of Heracles' birthright: Il 19.91-133), is a daughter of Zeus himself (no mother mentioned). With regard to that story it may be noted that Hera is the one who actually carries out the deception by rearraging the order of births; Ate merely clouds Zeus' mind so that he does not notice the trick.

Grimal

s.v. Ate

(Ἄτη) The personification of Error. A goddess of lightness whose feet rested only on the heads of mortals, and that without their knowing it. When Zeus made the oath in which he pledged himself to give pre-eminence to the first descendant of Perseus to be born, and in this way exalted Eurystheus above Heracles, Ate deceived him. Zeus took his revenge on her by casting her down from the summit of Olympus. Ate fell to earth in Phrygia, on the hill which took the name of Hill of Error. That was the spot where Ilus built the fortress of Ilium (Troy). When Zeus cast Ate down from high heaven he forbade her ever to stay in Olympus and that is why Error is the sad lot of mankind. [Hom. Il. 9,503 ff.; 10,391; 19.85ff.; Lyc. Alex. 29 with Tzetzes on Lyc. ad loc.; Apollod. Bibl. 13.12.3; Steph. Byz s.v. Ἲλιον.

Hard

p. 31

The children of Eris represent the many harmful and destructive things that arise from discord and strife, namely Toil (Ponos), Oblivion (Lethe), Famine, Sorrows, Fights, Battles, Murders, Manslayings, Quarrels, Lies, Disputes, Lawlessness, Delusion (Ate) and Oath (Horkos).^{59 [Hes. Theog 226-232]} This is allegory of the most obvious kind for the most part; the last two alone require further comment.

ATE represents the delusion or clouding of the mind that leads people to commit acts of ill-considered folly. There is a striking portrayal of her mode of action in the nineteenth book of the Iliad, in which Agamemnon tries to excuse himself for having robbed Achilles of his pride of war Briseis (see p. 463) by claiming that he had been deluded by Ate who blinds all men, an accursed being 'who has delicate feet, for it is not on the ground that she walks, no, she tramples over the heads of men, bringing harm to mankind and ensnaring one of another'.^{60 [Hom. Il 19.91-4, cf. Pl. Symp. 195de]} Agamemnon goes on to say that even Zeus himself had once been deluded by Ate, when Hera had tricked him into swearing an oath that would enable her to ensure that the inheritance that he intended for his son Herakles would go to another (see p. 248). Zeus was so angry ro discover how he had been deluded that he had seized Ate by the hair and had hurled her down to the earth on the hill of Ate in the Troad, on a spot where she now works her mischief on mortals.^{61 [Hom Il 19.95-131]} would later found the city of Troy (see p. 523).^{62 [Apd. 3.12.3]}

Held

p. 251

Agamemnon's a parable about Ate (91—4) and a paradeigmatic story about Ate (95-144);

p. 253

The parable describes Ate in terms which emphasize her power over men (19.91—4):

...

The paradeigmatic story demonstrates that her power extends even to the greatest of the gods: Zeus himself was once blinded by Ate, which enabled Hera to arrange for the birth of Erechtheus in place of Heracles.

Lloyd-Jones

p. 192

Infatuation παρακοπή in the Agamemnon is hardly distinct from Ate in the Iliad; and Ate is commonly an instrument of Zeus.

LSJ

s.v. ἀάω

ἀάω , Ep. Verb (twice in Trag., v. infr.), used by Hom. in aor. Act. ἄα^σα （α_α_σαν Od.10.68, later α^α_σε prob. in Matro Conv.29) contr. ἆσα, Med. ἀα^σάμην （ἀα_σατο,

A.v.l. ἀάσσατο, Il.9.537) contr. ἀσάμην, Pass. ἀάσθην: pres. only in 3sg. Med. “ἀᾶται” Il.19.91:—hurt, damage, always in reference to the mind, mislead, infatuate, of the effects of wine, sleep, divine judgements, etc., “ἄασάν μ᾽ ἕταροί τε κακοὶ πρὸς τοῖσί τε ὕπνος” Od.10.68; “ἆσέ με δαίμονος αἶσα κακὴ καὶ . . οἶνος” 11.61; “φρένας ἄασε οἴνῳ” 21.297; of love, θαλερὴ δέ μιν ἄασε Κύπρις Epic. ap.Parth.21.2; inf. “ἆσαι” A.Fr.417; part. “ἄσας” S.Fr.628:—Med., “Ἄτη ἣ πάντας ἀᾶται” Il.19.91 :—Pass., “Ἄτης, ᾗ πρῶτον ἀάσθην” Il. 19.136, cf. Hes.Op.283, h.Cer.258.

II. Intr. in aor. Med., to be infatuated, act foolishly, “ἀασάμην” Il.9.116, etc.; ἀάσατο δὲ μέγα θυμῷ ib.537, 11.340; “καὶ γὰρ δή νύ ποτε Ζεὺς ἄσατο” 19.95, Aristarch., v.l. Ζῆν᾽ ἄσατο (sc. Ἄτη), cf. Sch.Ven. ad loc.; “εἴ τί περ ἀασάμην” A.R.1.1333; “ἀασάμην . . ἄτην” 2.623. (ἀϝάω, cf. ἀτάω.

s.v. ἄτη

ἄτη , ἡ, Dor. ἄτα , Aeol. αὐάτα ( ἀ ϝ-), v. infr.:—

A.bewilderment, infatuation, caused by blindness or delusion sent by the gods, mostly as the punishment of guilty rashness

2. Ἄτη personified, the goddess of mischief, author of rash actions, “πρέσβα Διὸς θυγάτηρ, Ἄτη, ἣ πάντας ἀᾶται” Il.19.91, cf. 9.504, Hes. Th.230, Pl.Smp.195d; “Ἄτης ἂν λειμῶνα” Emp.121.4; coupled with Ἐρινύς, A.Ag.1433

II. of the consequences of such visitations, either,

1. Act., reckless guilt or sin, “Ἀλεξάνδρου ἕνεκ᾽ ἄτης” Il.6.356: in pl., deceptions, 10.391: or,

2. Pass., bane, ruin, 24.480, Hdt.1.32; ἐγγύα, πάρα δ᾽ ἄτα prov. in Thales ap.Stob.3.1.172: τὸ πῆμα τῆς ἄτης the anguish of the doom, S.Aj.363 (lyr.); “ὕβρις γὰρ ἐξανθοῦσ᾽ ἐκάρπωσε σταχὺν ἄτης” A.Pers.822; “Πειθὼ προβουλόπαις . . ἄτης” Id.Ag.386 (lyr.): pl., Id.Pers.653 (lyr.), 1037 (lyr.), S.Aj.848, etc.; strokes of fate, “ἀνδρείη τὰς ἄτας μικρὰς ἔρδει” Democr.213.

3. Trag., of persons, bane, pest, “δίκην ἄτης λαθραίου” A.Ag.1230; “δύ᾽ ἄτα” S.Ant.533.

b. ill-fated person, A.Ag.1268 codd.—Not in Comedy (unless read for αὐτῆς, Ar.Pax605) nor in Att. Prose (exc. as pr.n.and in quotations of “ἐγγύα, πάρα δ᾽ ἄτα” Cratin. Jun.12, Pl.Chrm.165a), but found in Arist.VV1251b20; “κῆρας καὶ ἄτας” D.H.8.61; τοιαύτας κακὰς ἄτας such abominations, of certain Epicurean expressions, Cleom.2.1.

III. fine, penalty, or sum lost in a lawsuit, Leg.Gort.11.34, al. (From ἀάω, q. v.: orig. ἀϝάτη, Aeol. “αὐάτα” Alc. Supp.23.12, Pi.P.2.28, 3.24, Lyr.Adesp.123.) [α^α^τη, α_τη; α^τη is dub. in Archil.73.]

Otis

pp. 32–34

Padel

p. 9

In Homer, atē is "sent" or "given" by gods. In tragedy, "reckless mania" is theothen, "from god."¹⁷

p. 167

ATĒ AS "HARM"

...

Behind tragedy's picture of the mind and what happens in human beings is Homeric understanding of inner and outer harm. One Homeric [cont.]

p. 168

word, atē points to the central role of madness and mind-damage in tragedy.² Atē has two main areas of meaning.³ Damage to mind, and damage to life or fortune.⁴

The common denominator is "harm," "damage": blabē.⁵ This is the first explanation of atē in the ancient lexicon, the Suda.

² Stallmach 1978 is the most sophisticated atē-study I know. Vos 1971 adds to its bibliography. Dawe 1968 and Bremer 1969:99-134 (the best I know in English) agree with its general approach.

³ Useful discussion: Dodds 1951:2-8, 18; Barret ad Hipp. 241; ...

p. 169

INNER AND OUTER, CONCRETE AND ABSTRACT, MENTAL AND PHYSICAL

Above all we cannot heave onto Homer's atē distinctions deriving from our modern world: between mental and physical, active and passive, "Concrete" and metaphorical. ...

"I WAS DAMAGED"

p. 173

Atē is "sent" or "given". "I wept afterwords," says Helen, "for the atē Aphrodite gave me, when she led me to Troy." Atē takes hold of the mind. You are "grasped" by "dense atē"³⁴

p. 174

Chapter 17

HOMER'S DAMAGE-CHAIN

THE ATĒ-SEQUENCE

...

The modern lexicon, Liddell-Scott-Jones, has a confused entry for atē. ...

The entry shows how atē mingles the cause and consequence of harm. Atē is doubly spoken of. Mental and physical, inner harm—outer, ...

In most but not all Homeric contexts, atē and aaō seem to mark inner, prior "damage" done to the mind, which then causes the a terrible outward act. Call it the X-act. it is a mistake, a crime, with consequences: further outward "damage." Damage in the world. Atē belongs in a causal chain. Damage, X-act, damage. This chain is the word's main point.

Usually the damage is inward, done to innards (see Chapter 15), [cont.]

p. 175

the second outward: damage to body and life. ...

p. 178

"AND THEN": ATĒ AS CONSEQUENCE

As divine favor can become hatred, so atē as cause can become atē as "answer": as consequence, punishment. This is atē 's other main Homeric role.

p. 181

PERSONIFYING THE DAMAGE-CHAIN

Homer personifies atē twice. Here, according to conventions of scholarship and poetry which imitates Greek, we start calling her Ate. But orthography makes no difference to how she operates.

Personification, the externalizing and divinizing of states of body and mind, is a vital part of Greek imagination. ... Homeric Ate has a varying role in the damage-chain.

She appears first in a speech to Achilles. ... "Prayers" run after Ate to repair her damage.

Ate, "harming human beings," ... Ate causes damage, "goes in front" of Prayers. But she also "follows," the consequence of refused apology. She is at the front, and at the back: a dramzitation of the atē-sequence.

p. 182

What happens to Ate is the atē-sequence: a fatal act, a punishment. It explains why atē is so near human beings. She is a refugee, walking "on the heads of mortals" She was the first product of Zeus, his "eldest daughter," but he is protected from "error" now. Her business is with us.

All this emphasizes priority. Ate is Zeus's first daughter, who runs in front of Prayers. She causes crimes for which the lame Prayers beg forgiveness afterwards. Yet Ate as "and then" penalty is here too. Anyone refusing Prayers is punished by atē following. Zeus "is greatly aasthē." Afterwords.

...

These elaborate personifications [in the Iliad] of atē are unique; no one else personifies atē like this.

p. 187

ATĒ'S REPLACEMENTS: DECEPTION, ERINYS, MADNESS—AND TRAGEDY

Tragic poets had to thin the meaning of atē down till it meant simply "disaster" or "death", had to ditch interplay between its two meanings—because the whole genre enacted atē's sequence.

p. 249

ATĒ IN TRAGEDY: THE THINNING OF THE WORD

In tragedy, the word atē loses most of its Homeric meaning.

...

AECHYLUS: FROM "RECLESSNESS" AND ITS PUNISHEMENT TO "DOOM," OR INSTRUMRNT OF DOOM

Aeschylus ... atē's archaic weight associated with retributive Erinys: divine punishment.². The result of folly being caught in a "net of atē." ...

In Homer, the connection between stage 1 and stage 2 atē is not guilt. The atē-sequence is a way of not saying "guilty or not guilty?" Aeschylus can push the punishment element very near guilt. The Oresteia, especially Choephoroe, plays between atē and aitios, "responsible." ... Atē's relation to guilt acquires a new intensity.

p. 250

p. 251

In these passages [of Aeschylus] the language is often ornately ambiguous, the text sometimes corrupt. Even elsewhere, atē's precise grammatical function (let alone what it means) can be unclear.

Often atē [in Aescylus] cannot be fully translated by one English word. It seems to work as a sign of madness, and mad misjudgment or desire; a sign that dimōn is at work disastrously; a warning that the immediate damage in front of you has a long complex explanation.

Parada

s.v. Ate

Ἄτη.

Delusion, ruinous conduct. Zeus held her responsible for the blindness with which he took a solemn oath, and in his rage he seized Ate by her hair and whirling around his head cast her down to the world swearing that she should never set foot in Olympus again.

•a)Eris,-

•b)Zeus ∞

1)ABSTRACTIONS. 2)ZEUS OFFSPRING 3)ERIS' OFFSPRING

D..Hom.Il.19.100ff., Hom Il.9.504. •a)Hes.The.230. •b)Hom.Il.19.90.

Rose and Dietrich

Oxford Classical Dictionary

s.v. Ate

Herbert Jennings Rose and B. C. Dietrich

Published online: 22 December 2015

Mental aberration, infatuation causing irrational behaviour which leads to disaster; sometimes the disaster itself. A hero's atē is brought about through psychic intervention by a divine agency, usually Zeus, but can also be physically inflicted (Il.16. 805). Agamemnon blames Zeus, Fate, and the Erinyes for his delusion that made him take Briseis and lead the Achaeans to the brink of defeat (Il.19. 87 f., cf. 2. 111, 8. 237, 11. 340; Od. 12. 371 f., etc. ). Ate is personified as the daughter of Zeus whom he expelled from Olympus to bring harm to men (Il. 19. 90–4, 126–31). A similarly pessimistic notion of divine punishment for guilt underlies Homer's Parable of the Prayers. In this early allegory swift-footed Atē outruns the slow Prayers and forces men into error and punishment (Il. 9. 502–12). In another moralizing personification Ate becomes the daughter of Eris (Strife) and sister of Dysnomia (Lawlessness) (Theog. 230; cf. Solon 3. 30–5); but Hesiod also used atē impersonally in the sense of punishment for hubris (Hes. Op. 214 ff.). Aeschylus draws a powerful picture of atē both as a daemonic force (see daimon) and instrument of ruin (Ag. 1124, 1433; Cho. 383, 956 ff.).

Scott

pp. 51–56

Smith

s.v. Ate

（Ἄτη), according to Hesiod (Hes. Th. 230), a daughter of Eris, and according to Homer (Hom. Il. 19.91) of Zeus, was an ancient Greek divinity, who led both gods and men to rash and inconsiderate actions and to suffering. She once even induced Zeus, at the birth of Heracles, to take an oath by which Hera was afterwards enabled to give to Eurystheus the power which had been destined for Heracles. When Zeus discovered his rashness, he hurled Ate from Olympus and banished her for ever from the abodes of the gods. (Hom. Il. 19.126, &c.) In the tragic writers Ate appears in a different light: she avenges evil deeds and inflicts just punishments upon the offenders and their posterity (Aeschyl. Choeph. 381), so that her character here is almost the same as that of Nemesis and Erinnys. She appears most prominent in the dramas of Aeschylus, and least in those of Euripides, with whom the idea of Dike (justice) is more fully developed. (Blünmer, Ueber Idee die des Schicksals, &c., p.64, &c.)

Sommerstein 2013

p. 3

Thus we have the picture, familiar to students of ate ̄ in Homer, of a divinity deceiving a mortal, or disrupting his mental processes, so that he commits some act of folly which then has disastrous consequences. By a not uncommon semantic transition – which later affected both βλάβη and ζημία11 – the word that means ‘harm’ came to mean also ‘that which causes harm’, in this case either the delusion or infatuation itself or the act of folly that springs from it. A process has now been identified, starting with a divine initiative and finishing with a human catastrophe, whose beginning, middle and end can all be called atē: it is then a very small step to thinking of the whole process as a single instance of atē, and this step Homer takes.

p. 4

Homer tends to focus attention (predominantly in the Odyssey, almost invariably in the Iliad ) on the beginning of the process,¹³ but the end is always kept in mind: a mental aberration which does not have catastrophic consequences is not called atē.

In later archaic poetry there is something of a tug of war between the start and end points of the ate ̄ process, between damage to mind and damage to fortune

No archaic poet, however, when thinking of at ̄e, can quite escape from the spell of the Homeric tradition; it continues to be the case that whether one is thinking of at ̄e as cause or as consequence, the thought of its other aspect is nearly always latent—

p. 5

And so to Aeschylus, who is founder of the word atē than any other author.¹⁶ ... In Aeschylus atē normally denotes a deadly or disastrous event, and only rarely does it refer to the mental aberration that ultimately caused that event.

I cannot in the space available ... instead, after briefly illustrating a few typical passages, and then drawing attention to the small number of clear cases where atē does denote a mental aberration, I shall concentrate on passages where one might well be tempted to understand the word thus but where it seems to me more likely that atē denotes the outcome of what I have called the atē process and corresponds to such English words as ‘disaster’, ‘ruin’ or ‘destruction’.

p. 7

In Persians 97–101 we hear how this goddess first fawns on mortals and then leads them astray into a net from which they cannot escape. Ate is certainly here a causative agent, but the net into which her victims blunder is her net, the net of Ate, and that net is ruin. The whole process, both its beginning and its end, is her action, and as the passage ends we are left thinking of what she has achieved – of the impossibility of escaping from her snares (101) – more than of the manner in which she has achieved it. Certainly on the only other occasion when Ate is personified in the play (1007) the immediate context is entirely concerned not with Xerxes’ folly but with Persia’s ruin.

p. 13

¹⁶ As Doyle (1983, 90 n. 1) observes, the word occurs about as often in Aeschylus as in all surviving earlier literature together; this although the Homeric epics alone have nearly five times the wordage of Aeschylus’ extant plays.

Stephanus of Byzantium

s.v. Ἲλιον

Ἲλιον, πόλις Τρῳάδος ... Ἄτην ... Ἄτης λόφον ...

Tripp

s.v. Ate

The personification of moral blindness. Homer called her the eldest daughter of Zeus but added that Zeus flung her from Olympus when she helped Hera trick him into a vow that led to Eurystheus' birth before that of Heracles. Ate fell, it was later said, on the hill of Phrygian Ate, near Troy. Hesiod called Ate a child of Eris (Strife). [Homer, Iliad 9.502–512, 19.91–136; Apollodorus 3.12.3.]

West 1966

p. 232 on 230 Δυσνομίην τ’ Ἄτην τε

for the association cf. Op. 231, Sol. 3.30-35.

West 1978

p. 209 on 213–85 The superiority of Dike over Hybris

p. 210 on 213 Δικης

the modern editor is faced with the choice of small or capital initial, according to the degree of personification suggested by the phrase.

Yamagata

p. 21

Ate (ἄτη) is a sort of temporary blinding of mind, infatuation, delusion or the like, which leads one to serious errors. It can also mean the serious consequences of such errors or the agent which causes such mental conditions, most notably personified as the goddess Ate.¹ The Litae are the personification of the supplications and prayers (λιται), represented as themselves being supplants.

In Phoenix's allegory, Ate appears to personify the force that made Agamemnon dishonor Achilles and take his prize, Briseis, away, which resulted in disaster for the whole army. The Litae appear to personify the supplication that the Embassy in Iliad 9 is making to Achilles. Some are that by rejecting the Embassy's plea to return to battle, Achilles himself is struck by ate and makes a fatal mistake which leads to the death of his beloved friend, Patroclus.² Others argue that Achilles is not himself a victim of ate, but his tragedy derives from others around him who are struck by ate.³

p. 26

¹ For the meaning of ate, cf. LfrgE (Snell and Erbse 1955-) s.v. ατη; Wyatt 1982; Erbse 1986, 11-17.

² Eg. Bowra 1930, 17; Frankel 1975, 63; Lloyd-Jones 1971, 27; Arieti 1988, 4. ...

² E.g. Redfield 1975, 107; Yamagata 1994, Chapter 4 = Yamagata 1991.