The tenth book of the Iliad, traditionally referred to as Doloneia, has long presented scholars with questions regarding its authenticity and place in the Iliad. It is the only sustained ambush narrative in the Iliad, a nocturnal episode that breaks markedly from the poem’s dominant modes of warfare. In this study, Christos C. Tsagalis breaks new ground by not only reevaluating this book of the Iliad but also repositioning it as a crucial narrative hinge within the evolving tapestry of the poem and the larger epic tradition. The central thesis—that the Doloneia is not a late or marginal addition to the Iliad, but rather a multiform segment shaped by evolving oral forces—advances a compelling case for rethinking the book’s position in the epic’s architecture.
The opening chapter offers a lucid overview of the narrative structure of Iliad 10, dividing it into its major components: the Nyktegersia, the Dolon episode, and the tale of Rhesus. Tsagalis deftly introduces his central concern: the shaping and evolution of Iliad 10. He begins by addressing long-standing suspicions about the book’s Homeric authenticity and then turns to more productive questions: How did the Doloneia take shape within the poem in the context of the broader epic tradition? What does its distinct style reveal about the flexibility and forces of oral poetics? His treatment of “oral indexing”—the capacity of poetic memory to recall and allude to themes, motifs, and phrases across contexts—lays the foundation for his subsequent discussion. It also highlights the poetic artistry to use self-reflexive tropes of allusion or how epithets become important markers of referentiality while looking at different motifs or themes. Particularly fruitful is the concept of mirroring in Homeric allusive art, as a distinctive focus of analysis, for which several examples are presented (e.g., Achilles’ dashing to the ground of the scepter in Il. 1.245 shares phraseology with Telemachus’s dashing down the scepter in Od. 2.80), but in a way that one scene may even rectify its angle on the other. The concept of mirroring that I am highlighting in this review is picked up in different parts of the book. As someone who has worked on the concept of entextualization, that highlights how other genres or types of speech and song are embedded within epic, I was gratified to see how this applies to the Doloneia (with examples, such as speech acts, similes, or scenes like the spying mission itself).[1] This chapter concludes with a valuable methodological discussion outlining a model of oral intertextual analysis that operates both within the Iliad and across epic poems, emphasizing the dynamic tension between innovation and the preservation of traditional themes and formulations with a keen eye in understanding the process within which epic tradition is shaped and transmitted.
The second chapter explores intratextual references and themes. Tsagalis foregrounds the theme of mētis (cunning intelligence), which pervades Iliad 10 and takes center stage through the collaboration of the paired Diomedes and Odysseus, whose ambush mission exemplifies planning, stealth, and tactical agility. Similarly, the theme of travel and sailing (πλοῦς scene) also presents associations with ambush. Tsagalis perceptively links Iliad 10 with broader narrative symmetries, proposing that Iliad 10 mirrors Iliad 9 in a thematic diptych, much like Iliad 1 works with Iliad 2. Where Iliad 9 presents a failed embassy and deliberation, Iliad 10 depicts swift and decisive action. Moreover, forward references abound: Dolon’s isolation prefigures Hector’s own isolation and doom, a technique known as Fernbeziehung. The way Diomedes inflicts losses on the enemy subtly foreshadows Achilles’s later rampages, creating deep narrative arcs of violence and retribution. Ambush is embedded in the plot making a subtle commentary within the greater war theme. Among the most engaging insights in this chapter is the discussion of the overconfidence theme informed by a brief comparison with animal fables; in this light, Dolon’s overconfidence in Iliad 10 mirrors Hector’s moments of overconfidence in the entire poem while the poem presents evocative verbal associations with Agamemnon’s arrogance to suggest a shared pattern of hubris and downfall. Such intertextual echoes enrich our reading of the Doloneia and encourage a broader view of Homeric character construction. The discussion of parallel narrative sequences in Iliad 10 and 13—each culminating in the death of a minor figure, Dolon in book 10, and Othryoneus, in book 13—further strengthens the argument for Iliad 10’s deep integration into the poem’s structure.
The third chapter deepens the analysis of the Rhesus episode and the significance of horses in the Iliad. Tsagalis highlights the conspicuous absence of Rhesus’s magnificent (but not divine) horses in later books, particularly in book 23. While Book 2 references the Myrmidon’s games as a prelude to Book 23 (Il. 2.773–5), the conspicuous absence of Rhesus’s horses, which had close associations with miraculous or supernatural elements, from the funeral games in honor of Patroclus becomes telling. This detailed view on horses in the Iliad and in particular their presence or absence in chariot races or funeral games inserts a ludic lens that adds to the poetics of self-referentiality and should invite further studies. Conversely, just as Hector’s death points to the subsequent fall of Troy, Iliad’s 10 nocturnal raid and the theft of Rhesus’s horses allude to the ultimate ambush of Odysseus’ wooden horse (and Diomedes’ role inside it). Such resonances reveal how the Doloneia—often treated as marginal—echoes and anticipates pivotal themes in the epic’s larger arc.
The fourth chapter provides a detailed statistical and stylistic account of speech patterns in Iliad 10. Book 10 contains the third-highest number of direct speeches in the epic (41 in total, following book 24 which has 47 speeches, and book 23 which has 43), but these are somewhat shorter and more staccato than in other books. There are 14 speeches in the Nyktegersia episode, 22 speeches in the Dolon episode and 5 in the Rhesus episode. This formal pattern points to heightened dramatic urgency, suited to the narrative’s focus on action, secrecy, and tension. One of the most exciting parts of this chapter is the analysis of clothing and arming scenes and predatory imagery. Diomedes and Odysseus are wearing lion skin (e.g., Il. 10.297–8), which underscores the transgressive nature of night warfare and anticipates their silent, lethal mission. Odysseus’s choice to carry his own shield is similarly revealing and helps characterize his agency and forethought. Tsagalis’s sensitivity to such semiotic details reveals the depth of Homeric visuality and metaphor.
Chapters Five and Six together form the core of Tsagalis’s boldest contribution: a reconstructed earlier phase of Iliad 10, first a “Hector-version” that is then followed by the “Rhesus phase.” Through close reading of the scholia, internal narrative markers, and thematic cues, Tsagalis suggests that an earlier form of the Doloneia had the Achaeans targeting Hector directly. He draws particular attention to the phrase μέγα ἔργον (mega ergon) used in connection with the prospect of killing Hector. The episode’s intensity, the invocation of Athena, and the abrupt shift in mission goals suggest a narrative recalibration. In this earlier form, Dolon, a third-rate Trojan fighter, may have originally been a looter rather than a spy with a mission, until he was caught, interrogated, and eventually killed. In this light, Agamemnon’s sleeplessness, his consultations with Menelaus and Nestor, and the eventual dispatching of Diomedes and Odysseus become strategic moments within a larger war effort aimed directly at eliminating Troy’s primary defender. Tsagalis frames these narrative shifts as poetic recalibrations, evidence of the evolving and adaptive nature of oral composition. Books 9 and 10 offer close readings on the importance of personal and collective mētis, deliberation and decision-making, as also recalibrating of the execution of a plan. In a way, these two books work together, and if, as Tsagalis suggests and I agree, we had an earlier phase reflected in book 10 as we have it, then this extreme emphasis in these books on the acts of deliberating and fine-tuning strategy is yet another reflection of poetic artistry mirroring strategizing as an evolving performance or game. I may be reading this “sub specie ludorum,”[2] but I think the observations here would have important repercussions for another layer of a strategy game reflected in the Iliad’s oral poetics that will need to be mined further in future scholarship. I was left wondering: could we even have divergent types of narratives evolving in competing poetic performances, as if in an evolving mental or oral performance chess game? Tsagalis offers clues for new turns in scholarship by daring to present his reconstructed Hector-version.
The seventh chapter continues this trajectory, exploring the transformation from a Hector-focused episode to the “Rhesus phase” as Hector no longer remains the main target in book 10. Tsagalis distinguishes between two primary variants found in the scholia: a Pindaric version (with Rhesus performing an aristeia) and an “oracle-version” (with more magical and folk-tale elements). In both, Rhesus arrives late at Troy; in the Pindaric version he has an aristeia, but not in the “oracle-version.” Athena advises Diomedes and Odysseus for the night spying mission. The “oracle-version” is based on the oracle about the possibility to achieve invincibility if Rhesus can drink from Scamander and have his horses graze at its banks. In both, Diomedes and Odysseus find Rhesus asleep and kill him.
The eighth chapter explores comparative materials with a focus on scouting expeditions and ambush narratives in the 10th book of the Mahābhārata and Aeneid 9 (as also Aeneid 1 and 2). The similarities with the Mahābhārata are striking: a sequence of narratives in the poem when the enemy is victorious, major warriors have been killed, and non-conventional war plans become necessary. Both epics feature night-time raids undertaken in moments of crisis, with leaders wrestling with sleepless anxiety, seeking counsel, and turning to divine or prophetic insight. The narrative architecture—crisis, counsel, divine signs or assistance, nocturnal action—suggests common cognitive patterns shaping the epic tradition. The second part of this chapter is even bolder as a solid case is presented about Virgil’s sophisticated engagement with the Homeric poems. In Tsagalis’s view, Virgil works with earlier materials like a proto-neoanalyst “avant la lettre” (p. 275). This showcases the earlier submission about the “oracle-version” of the Rhesus story that Virgil seems to have known and embroidered in his epic. Virgil reworks materials that belong to both the Achaean and Trojan side of Iliad 10 while blending the Coroebus episode in Aeneid 2, who came to Troy as an ally who had been promised the hand of Cassandra, an episode that may have been shaped by Virgil’s knowledge of Ilias parva and the theft of the Palladium (also echoed in Aen. 9.195–6). Similarly, the episode when Ascanius promises Nisus a catalogue of gifts in Aen. 9.263–74 recalls Hector’s promise to Dolon of the best Achaean horses. Such insights invite renewed attention to the transmission of epic material and the formation of certain narrative patterns across linguistic and cultural boundaries.
The ninth and final chapter returns to the Rhesus story reiterating that this was not an independent poem or standalone narrative but an episode to be included in a larger narrative unit. This chapter delves further into exploring resonances of the “late-arriving ally” motif within the lyric and cyclic tradition. The Rhesus story which is reported in the scholia comes from cyclic materials and although not an independent poem it was adjusted within the current Iliadic narrative as the night mission episode was evolving—from attempting to kill Hector to becoming a spying mission about his plans—made to fit within the broader poetic plans.
In sum, The Homeric Doloneia is a major contribution that redefines how we understand Iliad 10 both within the Iliad itself and the broader epic tradition. Tsagalis presents a meticulously argued and philologically grounded reading of a long-misunderstood episode. By treating the Doloneia as a complex narrative that reflects vestiges of prior iterations, he not only reclaims Iliad 10 as a sophisticated product of oral poetics but also deepens our appreciation of the epic’s dynamic and adaptive nature and offers rich and audacious perspectives for reading Homer and the broader spectrum of ancient epic traditions.
Works Cited
Karanika, A. 2014. Voices at Work: Women, Performance, and Labor in Ancient Greece. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Minchin, E. 2001. Homer and the Resources of Memory: Some Applications of Cognitive Theory to the Iliad and the Odyssey. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ready, J. L. 2019. Orality, Textuality, and the Homeric Epics: An Interdisciplinary Study of Oral Texts, Dictated Texts, and Wild Texts. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Tsagalis, C. C. 2024. The Homeric Doloneia: Evolution and Shaping of Iliad 10. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Notes
[1] In Karanika 2014: 18–20, 40–41, 78. See also Minchin 2001: 106–12 (cited in Tsagalis 2024: 55n192); and Ready 2019: 18 and passim) cited in Tsagalis 2024: 54n186.
[2] This expression “sub specie ludorum” is used in a different context in Tsagalis 2024: 121, but I am using it here on purpose to highlight the strategy deliberations as aspects of possible evolving oral narratives.