Casey Dué and Mary Ebbott, Iliad 10 and the Poetics of Ambush
Part I. Essays. 1. Interpreting Iliad 10
Part I. Essays. 2. The Poetics of Ambush
Part I. Essays. 3. Tradition and Reception: Rhesos, Dolon, and the Doloneia
Part I. Essays. 4. Iliad 10: A Multitextual Approach
Part II. Texts. Iliad p609
Part II. Texts. Iliad p425
Part II. Texts. Iliad p46
Part II. Texts. Venetus A: Marcianus Graecus Z. 545 (= 822)
Part III. Commentary
Venetus A (Marcianus Graecus Z. 454 [= 822])
Marcianus Gr. Z. 454 (= 822) is the earliest extant, complete manuscript of the Iliad, and it is the one on which modern printed texts are primarily based. (The few medieval manuscripts that predate it contain commentary and paraphrases or portions of the poem, but not a complete text.) It was hand copied and assembled by Byzantine Greek scribes in the tenth century CE, but it is known as the “Venetus A” because it has been housed at the Biblioteca Nazionale Marciana in Venice since the sixteenth century. The nearly two hundred manuscripts of the Iliad that succeed it are remarkable for the relative uniformity of their texts, and in this respect they differ considerably from the ancient witnesses, which show a great deal more variation. But, although they do not vary in substantial ways from one another, it is important to understand that the medieval manuscripts of Homeric epic do not descend from a single exemplar, nor is there a medieval vulgate for the Iliad or Odyssey, as is sometimes stated or (more often) assumed without justification. It is clear that a substantial number of texts survived the transition from papyrus scrolls to parchment codices and that there were therefore multiple channels of transmission. What is not entirely understood is why the versions that survived resemble each other so closely. It has been postulated that the editorial activities of the scholars associated with the library at Alexandria played a role in the standardization of the Homeric text. But this theory does not entirely account for the continued multiformity of the text in the medieval period.
The Venetus A is invaluable to us for much more than its text of the Iliad, however. This manuscript contains not only the texts of the poem but also excerpts from the scholarly commentaries of these same Alexandrian scholars, which are copied into its margins and between lines of the text itself. These writings, known as scholia, contain notes on the text that explain points of grammar, usage, definition of words, interpretation, and disputes about the authenticity of verses and the correct text. The material contained in these marginal notes derives from scholarly works that predate the manuscript’s construction by a thousand years or more, and at times preserves variations known at that time which survive in no other witness. The commentary on the text below is confined primarily to the readings of the main text of the Venetus A and reports of alternate readings in the scholia, but see the general commentary for more on the interpretive questions addressed in the scholia or raised by the variations we have noted below. We have made particular note of the places where the text of the Venetus A either agrees or disagrees with an ancient papyrus witness, verses that were controversial in antiquity, and places where the medieval manuscript tradition is divided between a number of readings. (For more on the features and history of this remarkable manuscript, see Dué 2009a.)
To see an image of the manuscript, click here.
10.10 τρομέοντο Zenodotus, the first head of the library at Alexandria and a well known Homer scholar, knew of the reading φοβέοντο here, according to the scholia that survive in manuscripts A and T (or “Townley,” Burney 86 in the British Museum). The scholia in T seem, however, to derive from a source different from those of A, and so it is notable that both manuscripts mention this multiform. For more on the Alexandrian editors of Homer, see on 10.51–52 in the general commentary in Part Three.
10.46 ἐπὶ φρένα θῆχ’ ἱεροῖσιν The scholia in A report that “in some of the commentaries” (ἔν τισι τῶν ὑπομνημάτων) the alternate reading ἐπὶ φρένας εἶχ’ ἱεροῖσιν could be found. A first/second-century CE papyrus (288 = Pack3 853) agrees with the manuscripts.
10.51–52 These lines were athetized by Aristophanes of Byzantium and Aristarchus, two great heads of the library in Ptolemaic Alexandria (second century BCE). The athetesis of these lines is discussed in more detail ad loc. in the general commentary in Part Three.
10.53 Αἴαντα Evidence from the Venetus A scholia indicates that Aristarchus may have known a reading Αἴαντε instead of Αἴαντα (which is the reading of papyrus 288 and most manuscripts). See the general commentary in Part Three on this line.
10.54 ἐπὶ νῆας A and most manuscripts have this reading, but the A scholia record that Aristarchus read παρὰ. In 10.141, A again reads ἐπὶ νῆας, where most manuscripts have κατὰ (the A scholia at 141 record κατὰ as an alternate reading). In 10.336, A reads ἐπὶ νῆας where other manuscripts and the scribes of A themselves are divided between ποτὶ and προτὶ (see on p425 and on A 10.336 below). All manuscripts read ἐπὶ νῆας at 10.281.
10.65 ἀβροτάξομεν There are three different spellings of this verb (found only here in our Homeric texts) in the textual tradition: ἀβροτάζομεν, ἀβροτάξομεν, and ἀμβροτάξομεν. See the general commentary ad loc. for the possible significance of the variation.
10.84 ἠέ τιν’ οὐρήων διζήμενος, ἤ τιν’ ἑταίρων This verse was athetized by Aristarchus. The scholion in A explaining the athetesis objects to οὐρήων. It explains that what is meant here is ‘one of the guards’ and that the word οὖρον, accented like κοῦρον, means ‘a guard’, but οὐρέα means ‘mule’ (implied is that the genitive plural is from the latter). A further reason for athetesis is that “the question is inopportune.” Although a word meaning ‘guards’ rather than ‘mules’ would seem to make more immediate sense here, it is interesting that none of our surviving witnesses appears to have anything other than οὐρήων, and even for Aristarchus or the scholiast, there does not seem to be a witness that he can cite that has the word he thinks it should be.
10.98 ἁδηκότες A and several of the oldest manuscripts have the rough breathing, but the majority have a smooth breathing here. A number of manuscripts report the reading ἀδδηκότες, which lengthens the first syllable (where length is required for meter).
10.141 ἐπὶ νῆας See above on 10.54.
10.142 ἀμβροσίην In A, ὀρφναίην is written in the margin next to νύκτα δι᾽ ἀμβροσίην at this line (see Figure 1), and a thirteenth-century manuscript (Vaticanus Graecus 26, or V1) prints ὀρφναίην here instead of ἀμβροσίην. On the significance of the two adjectives and the variation we find here, see the general commentary in Part Three on 10.41.
10.159 ὄρσεο The manuscripts are divided between this reading and ἔγρεο. The scholia indicate that Aristarchus knew both readings. See the general commentary ad loc. for the significance of the variation and the attribution to Aristarchus.
10.168 τὸν δ’ αὖτε προσέειπε In the margin of A the equally formulaic τὸν δ’ ἠμείβετ’ ἔπειτα (= 10.143) is recorded as an alternate reading.
10.169 φίλος In the margin of A at this line the alternate reading τέκος (cf. Iliad 23.626) is recorded along with φίλος. One of these two readings seems to be attributed to Aristophanes of Byzantium, but it is not entirely clear which.
10.180 ἔμιχθεν In the margin of A next to this line, a scholiast notes that at least one other manuscript has γένοντο here, and we find this reading in a number of manuscripts, including B, C, V1, and V16. We may compare Iliad 9.669, which has a similar construction: οἳ δ’ ὅτε δὴ κλισίῃσιν ἐν Ἀτρεΐδαο γένοντο. γένοντο is yet another example of an alternate reading that, while lacking a majority of manuscript support, could very well be an authentic reflex of the formulaic system in which the Iliad was composed.
10.185 ὀρυμαγδὸς There is a general disagreement about the spelling of this word in the manuscript tradition. Many manuscripts spell the word ὀρυγμαδός, which in this line would be unmetrical. It would also be unmetrical in the most commonly found formula using this word, πολὺς δ’ ὀρυμαγδὸς ὀρώρει, which fills the line from the weak caesura in the third foot to the end (Iliad 2.810, 4.449, 8.59, 8.63, and Odyssey 24.70). The Venetus A consistently spells the word ὀρυμαγδὸς except, interestingly, within the “replacement pages” (those nineteen sheets that replaced lost pages of the original): at Iliad 17.424, 17.461, and 17.741 the different and later hand that wrote these lines spells the word ὀρυγμαδός. Here at 10.185 in the Venetus A there is a smudge on the parchment that looks like it may be an erasure of a letter between ὀρυ and μαγδὸς, as if the scribe were hesitating between the two spellings. (A high-resolution image of this spot can be seen at http://www.homermultitext.org.)
10.191 The verse conventionally referred to as 191 (according to the edition of Wolf 1804)― καί σφεας φωνήσας ἔπεα πτερόεντα προσηύδα―is not present in the main text of manuscripts A, D, E4, T, or Ge. It is recorded in the margin of D and included in the main text of most other manuscripts. The verse is a common formula for speech introduction and therefore largely duplicates the purpose of 10.190. In Iliad 4.337 and 4.369 we find the same formula used in similar contexts, and in both cases some manuscripts and papyri lack the verse. West 1998 brackets the line in each of these cases. Yet the existence of these three examples suggests that the combination of this line with another speech introduction was, at some phase in the tradition, possible. After Iliad 9.224, several manuscripts add a version of this verse (καί μιν φωνήσας ἔπεα πτερόεντα προσηύδα, designated 9.224a). Although the main text of A does not include 9.224a, the A scholia comment explicitly that Aristarchus did not add this verse here, a comment which suggests the verse was known in antiquity. As Dué 2001 has shown, verses that seem repetitive and/or are particularly common were frequently athetized or omitted in Alexandrian editions, which favored shorter texts in keeping with the poetics of the day. (See also the general commentary in Part Three on 10.51–52.) The weak manuscript support for this formulaic verse may well be a reflex of the Alexandrian editorial tradition rather than evidence for interpolation.
10.203 τοῖσι δὲ μύθων ἦρχε In the margin of A next to this line a scholiast notes that at least one other manuscript has τοῖσι δὲ καὶ μετεέιπε here, a common formula for speech introduction (see e.g. Iliad 2.336 and 10.219).
10.221 ἐόντων The manuscripts are divided between ἐόντων and ἐόντα. A reads ἐόντων, but the alternate reading is also recorded just above the line. See Figure 2.
10.240 According to the scholia in A, this verse was omitted altogether in the text of Zenodotus (that is to say, it was not present in his text). It was present in the texts of Aristarchus, but he athetized it. See the general commentary ad loc. for more on this disputed line.
10.253 Like 10.240, this verse was omitted by the text of Zenodotus, while present but athetized in the texts of Aristarchus and Aristophanes of Byzantium. The textual controversy is alluded to in the Argonautica of Apollonius of Rhodes (3.1340–1341): ἦμος δὲ τρίτατον λάχος ἤματος ἀνομένοιο/λείπεται ἐξ ἠοῦς. As Antonios Rengakos has shown, Alexandrian poets like Callimachus and Apollonius of Rhodes displayed their learnedness by alluding to the variant readings of Homer known to them and to the textual problems encountered in the work done by the Alexandrian scholars on the text of Homer. On this very specialized form of allusion, see Rengakos 1993.
10.281 ἐπὶ νῆας See above on 10.54.
10.291 παρίστασο καί με φύλασσε The scholia in A record that Zenodotus had instead παρίσταο καὶ πόρε κῦδος. The scholia here and in the margins also note that Aristarchus and others also spell παρίστασο without the sigma, but only Zenodotus is credited with the change in phrasing following that. με φύλασσε and πόρε κῦδος represent two different interests, both of which are part of the poetics of ambush. με φύλασσε indicates the danger involved, and even the need for teamwork, while πόρε κῦδος relates a desire for the radiant glory to be won by such success. Either phrase, then, is possible and appropriate from the standpoint of these poetics as well as the meter and the necessities of performance. Hainsworth asserts that καὶ πόρε κῦδος “is not a Homeric expression” (1993:184). The expression as such does not appear in our texts other than in the scholia, but both πόρε (Iliad 4.219, 16.143, 19.390; Odyssey 12.302) and κῦδος (Iliad 3.373, 4.145, 18.165) appear in these positions in the line in our texts, so the expression is within the realm of possibility, and we must keep in mind how limited our “database” for Homeric language is.
10.306 οἵ κεν ἀριστεύωσι θοῇς ἐπὶ νηυσίν Ἀχαιῶν The scholia in the A manuscript record three different readings by the three major Alexandrian Homeric scholars, which in turn all differ from this main text. The scholia say that Zenodotus read αὐτοὺς οἳ φορέουσι ἀμύμονα Πηλείωνα; Aristophanes read something slightly different, καλοὺς οἳ φορέουσι ἀμύμονα Πηλείωνα; and Aristarchus read οἵ κεν ἄριστοι ἔωσι θοῇς ἐπί νηυσίν Ἀχαιῶν. See the general commentary ad loc. for a more detailed interpretation of how each of these variations might operate within a performance tradition before a traditional audience.
10.318 μῦθον ἔειπεν This is the reading of A, but Allen lists twelve medieval manuscripts that instead read εἶπε παραστὰς (and one more that has that reading in the margin). εἶπε παραστὰς is a formula seen elsewhere in speech introductions in this same metrical position (see e.g. Iliad 6.75, 12.60, 12.210, 13.725, 23.155, 23.617), and so we must recognize that either would have been possible in performance and that performance variation is likely the source of this multiform. Such multiformity in our manuscript tradition, moreover, should caution us against making any sort of interpretation about why one formula or the other is used or drawing too fine a distinction among them. That is, whether or not we want to argue that in one performance the emphasis on the public, performative nature of μῦθος was significant, or in another there was significance in making Dolon stand, or stand next to Hektor, we must recognize that either was possible. Privileging one reading at the expense of the other (as one must in a conventionally edited edition) can distort the nature of this oral, traditional poetry and the way it does create meaning with its traditional language.
10.323 ἀμύμονα Πηλείωνα A tiny interior scholion in the A manuscript states: γράφεται καὶ ποδώκεα καὶ ἀμύμονα. That is, a version of this line was known to the scholiast where the epithet is “swift-footed” rather than “faultless.” (Compare Iliad 8.474, 13.113, 16.281, 18.261, 18.267, 20.27, 20.45, 22.193, 23.35, and 23.793 for the formula ποδώκεα Πηλεΐωνα.) Because in either case the use of the epithet is what Parry has called “ornamental” (meaning that it is not directly called for by the context), Achilles could be called either here. And indeed, there are several other manuscripts that, according to Allen, transmit the epithet ποδώκεα on this line.
10.332 καί ῥ᾽ ἐπίορκον ἐπώμοσε See the general commentary on this line for how interpretation may have shaped different textual versions of the line.
10.336 ἐπὶ νῆας A reads this (cf. 10.54 and 10.141) where other manuscripts are divided between ποτὶ and προτὶ (see on p425). ποτὶ is recorded as a variant in the margin of A at this line, while the correcting hand has written προτὶ in the far left margin of the page). See Figure 3.
10.338 ἀλλ᾽ ὅτε δή ῥ᾽ ἵππων τε καὶ ἀνδρῶν κάλλιφ᾽ ὅμιλον According to Allen, a few manuscripts read instead ἀλλ᾽ ὅτε δή ῥ᾽ ἕκτορα καὶ ἀνδρῶν κάλλιφ᾽ ὅμιλον, which introduces some metrical problems but makes perfect sense in the context, especially considering Odysseus’ pointed question later about where Dolon left Hektor (10.406). Also on this line, the scholia in the Venetus A note that it is marked with a diplē “because now ‘ὅμιλον’ means the number and gathering of the Trojans. In the Iliad ‘ὅμιλον’ more narrowly names battle, and in the Odyssey it names a gathering” (ὅτι νῦν μὲν ὅμιλον τὸ πλῆθος καὶ ἄθροισμα τῶν Τρώων λέγει. ἐν μὲν οὖν τῇ Ἰλιάδι πυκνότερον τὴν μάχην ὅμιλον καλεῖ, ἐν Ὀδυσσείᾳ δὲ τὸ ἄθροισμα). In this comment we may be seeing an early concern about the “Odyssean” language in this book. See the essay in this volume, “The Poetics of Ambush” for explanations of the common language between Iliad 10 and the Odyssey.
10.349–350 In A and all other manuscripts we find these lines, which describe Diomedes and Odysseus as speaking in the dual, even though only Odysseus actually speaks in our text. The scholia to A and T note however that in the text of Aristophanes of Byzantium and in others (ἐν μέντοι τῇ Ἀριστοφάνους καὶ ἄλλαις ἑτέρως ἐφέρετο) the text was as follows, including one plus verse:
349 ὣς ἔφατ’, οὐδ’ ἀπίθησε βοὴν ἀγαθὸς Διομήδης.
349a ἐλθόντες δ’ ἑκάτερθε παρὲξ ὁδοῦ ἐν νεκύεσσι
349a ἐλθόντες δ’ ἑκάτερθε παρὲξ ὁδοῦ ἐν νεκύεσσι
As we discussed above for the plus verse on p609 (see 10.432–434 there), these plus verses can be evidence for the composition-in-performance technique of expansion and thus should be regarded as a true performance multiform. In this case, moreover, the expansion is entirely plausible, since the “expanded” language here is demonstrably formulaic. For this version on 10.349, ὣς ἔφατ’, οὐδ’ ἀπίθησε βοὴν ἀγαθὸς Διομήδης, compare Iliad 2.166, 2.441, 4.68, 5.719, 5.767, 7.43, 8.112, 8.381, 11.195, 12.364, 14.277, 15.78, 15.168, 16.458, 17.246, 17.491, 17.656, 23.895, 24.120, 24.339 and Odyssey 5.43 and 22.492 for the same basic formula, with a wide variety of epithet + name formulas filling out the end of the line. Such expanded or compressed versions illustrate the flexibility of the traditional, formulaic language in performance, and either recorded version is equally appropriate.
10.362 μεμηκώς According to Allen, eleven manuscripts have μεμυκώς instead of μεμηκώς. μυκάομαι is a low, groaning sound―it is used for the sounds of cows lowing or bulls bellowing (Iliad 18.580, 21.237 in a simile for the sound the Skamandros river makes when ejecting the dead from his waters; Odyssey 10.413, 12.395), gates groaning open (Iliad 5.749 = 8.393, Iliad 12.460), and a shield resounding when hit (Iliad 20.260). μηκάομαι seems to be higher pitched, since it is used for the sound of sheep bleating (Iliad 4.435, Odyssey 9.439). It is used for the sound of various animals when wounded (Iliad 16.469, the horse Pedasos = Odyssey 10.163, the stag Odysseus kills = Odyssey 19.454, the boar Odysseus kills after it has wounded him) and of Irus when injured by Odysseus (Odyssey 18.98). Since both are used for animals being injured in an attack (in Iliad 18.580, the bull is bellowing as lions attack him), either may seem appropriate here, although we may expect the fawn or hare to have the higher pitched sound. This is a case where either choice may seem equally traditional and possible in the line, but the difference may also be a genuine copying mistake. In these cases, we have to recognize both possibilities and acknowledge the limitations of the evidence for concluding one way or the other.
10.372 ἦ ῥα καὶ ἔγχος ἀφῆκεν, ἑκὼν δ’ ἡμάρτανε φωτός· The lemma of the A scholion on this line appears to confirm that Aristarchus read ἀφῆκεν here, as do p46, p425, other unpublished papyri (1173 and 1174 in West’s 1998 edition), and all manuscripts.
10.373 δεξιτερὸν δ’ ὑπὲρ ὦμον ἐΰξου δουρὸς ἀκωκὴ p46, p425, and A read this, but most manuscripts have ἐϋξόου, which is unmetrical. The adjective ἐΰξοος is used in many other places in the Iliad and Odyssey, but it is almost always in the accusative. As here, the accusative version of the formula occupies the space before the bucolic diaresis (cf. Iliad 2.390, 4.105, 11.629, 13.594, 13.706 and Odyssey 4.590, 5.237, 8.215, 19.586, 21.92, 21.281, 21.286, 21.326, 21.336, 22.71). There is one other place where we find the form ἐϋξόου, and that is at Odyssey 1.128: δουροδόκης ἔντοσθεν ἐϋξόου, ἔνθα περ ἄλλα. There, epic correction allows the –ου to scan short. Thus in 10.373 we may have an instance where the switch of a common formula to another case has resulted in an unmetrical verse, but one that may have felt natural to singers. The phrase ἐΰξου δουρὸς ἀκωκὴ is analogous to φαεινοῦ δουρὸς ἀκωκή (likewise in final position at Iliad 11.253 and Odyssey 19.453) and we also find δουρὸς ἀκωκή/ῃ in this position at Iliad 16.323, 20.260, and 23.821. Finally, the metrically equivalent phrase δουρὸς ἐρωή/ήν occurs in Iliad 15.358, 21.25, and 23.529. As we can see from these examples, the choice between ἐΰξου and ἐϋξόου for a singer would have been intricately connected with the traditional phraseology of this particular verse, and no doubt the choice would have been made unconsciously but differently by different singers, depending on their training and experience with the formulaic diction.
10.376 χλωρὸς ὑπαὶ δείους· τὼ δ’ ἀσθμαίνοντε κιχήτην Most manuscripts read ὑπαὶ δείους (as do p46, p425, and most manuscripts, including A), but there are a number of recorded variations, including ὑπ’ αἰδους (D) and δδειους (T). See also the general commentary ad loc. for the traditional significance of this phrase and its relationship to the theme of ambush.
10.385 πῇ ποῦ δ’ The text of papyrus 46 read πῇ δ’ before it was corrected to τίφθ’. (See ad loc. on p46 and p425.) Another recorded variation (recorded as a variant in manuscript C) is ποῖ.
10.397–399 These lines were athetized by Aristophanes of Byzantium and Aristarchus, according to the A scholia. They are present in fragmentary form p46 and p425. When Dolon relates to his interrogators what Hektor commanded him to do during his spying mission, it is perfectly good oral style for him to use the same formulaic language used in the original command (compare these lines to 10.310–312). We will see again this same phenomenon on 10.409–411, where Odysseus repeats the information Nestor asked them to gather on their spying mission; these lines were also athetized. In this case, the Alexandrian scholars seemed to have an additional objection, which is that Dolon actually changes the person of the verbs in 10.398, as shown in the A text. That is, at 10.311, Hektor says he wants to know what they are planning among themselves and whether they are willing to keep the night watch, and in the A text, Dolon says to Diomedes and Odysseus that Hektor wants him to find out what you are planning and if you are willing to keep the night watch. But the pronoun σφίσιν remains in the line, causing a grammatical disagreement. One telling historical sidelight in these scholia is that there seems to be no direct information about Aristarchus’ own motivations for athetizing: the scholiast says that in the tetralogy of Nemesion he found a statement saying that it is not possible to find in the commentaries of Aristarchus the reason for placing the obelos (the critical sign indicating athetesis) next to these lines. Such comments reveal the long history of scholarly attention to the text and commentary, and that our information about these aspects of the transmission is incomplete, to say the least. See also Chantraine 1937:63–64.
10.409–411 Each of these lines, which are also found at 10.208–210, have an obelos, indicating athetesis, and an asterisk beside them in A. The scholia there tell us that they have been so marked because “they have been unnecessarily transferred here from the speech of Nestor” (ἐκ τῶν τοῦ Νέστορος λόγων μετενηνεγμένοι εἰσὶν οὐ δεόντως). The Alexandrian scholars, including Aristarchus, tended to athetize repeated lines and any verses that seemed unnecessary or repetitive, a practice that reflects the poetic sensibilities of the Alexandrian period. See the general commentary on 10.51–52.
10.413 καταλέξω Reported here and in 10.427, p425 and some manuscripts (D, T, V16) is ἀγορεύσω, which West chooses in this line for his edition. (West prints καταλέξω, however, at 10.427.) The A scholia at 10.413 tell us that καταλέξω was the reading of Aristarchus, but that others had ἀγορεύσω. (There is no corresponding scholion at 10.427 in the A manuscript.) For the distinction between the two verbs, see above on p425 at 10.413.
10.427 καταλέξω See above on p609 at 10.427, p425 at 10.413, and A at 10.413. Manuscripts D, Ge, and T read ἀγορεύσω here (and p425 records it in superscript).
10.463 ἐπιβωσόμεθ᾽ This verb is the reading of the text of the Venetus A manuscript, and it is glossed by an interlinear scholia as “We will call on you for help.” The interior scholia include a note that Aristarchus knew ἐπιδωσόμεθα instead, so that it would mean, according to the scholia, “we will honor with gifts.” ἐπιδωσόμεθα is the verb in the text of the Venetus B manuscript, as well as several others. See also Chantraine 1937:64.
10.478 πίφραυσκε This is the spelling in A, but most other manuscripts read πίφαυσκε. At 10.502, A and p425 appear to read πιφραύσκων, but there also appears to be a cancellation mark over the rho in A. At 10.202, A reads πίφαυσκον.
10.502 πιφραύσκων See also above on A 10.478. Here the rho of πιφραύσκων appears to have a cancellation mark above it, which brings A into accord with most manuscripts. p425 appears to read πιφραύσκων.
10.531 The line known as 10.531, which is found in the Laurentianus (D) and several later manuscripts and is written in the margins of E3 and T, is not present in the Venetus A. (So also B, Ge, and a majority of the oldest manuscripts do not have this line.) See the general commentary ad loc. for more on how to interpret the presence or absence of this verse within the context of Iliad 10.
10.534 ψεύσομαι, ἢ ἔτυμόν τοι ἐρέω; κέλεται δέ με θυμός According to the scholia in the T manuscript, this line was not present in Zenodotus’ text. The omission may be because of its similarity to the line found at Odyssey 4.140 and the feeling that it belonged there and not here. See the general commentary on this line to understand such repetition from the viewpoint of oral poetics. A includes the particle τοι, which modern editions such as Allen and West omit. The meter requires some exceptions either way: with the particle perhaps there would be synizesis in the final two syllables of ἐρέω to make it work.
10.539 ὀρυμαγδοῦ See above on 10.185 for more on the spelling variations of this word in different manuscripts.
10.570 πρύμνῃ This is the way A, and all other manuscripts according to Allen, spell this word on this line. But modern editions such as Allen and West instead spell it πρυμνῇ, shifting the accent and thereby making it the adjective rather than the noun. In his edition West credits Bekker with this emendation. But the switch to the adjective seems unnecessary, since we have other cases in which the noun is used in conjunction with νῆυς in the same case (e.g. Iliad 7.383: νηῒ πάρα πρύμνῃ Ἀγαμέμνονος “beside the stern of Agamemnon’s ship” or, similarly, 10.35 above: νηῒ πάρα πρύμνῃ). To ignore the accentuation in the manuscript and make the change to the adjective is the modern editorial convention not only here but also at e.g. Iliad 11.600, 13.333, and 15.348.