Davies, Malcolm. 2019. The Cypria. Hellenic Studies Series 83. Washington, DC: Center for Hellenic Studies. http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:hul.ebook:CHS_DaviesM.The_Cypria.2019.
1. The Origins of the Trojan War
From Zeus’ Plan to Eris’ Intervention
⟨ ⟩ βαθυστέρνου πλάτος αἴης.
Ζεὺς δὲ ἰδὼν ἐλέησε καὶ ἐν πυκιναῖς πραπίδεσσι
† σύνθετο κουφίσαι παμβώτορα γαίης ἀνθρώπων †
5 ῥιπίσσας πολέμου μεγάλην ἔριν Ἰλιακοῖο
ὄφρα κενώσειεν † θανάτου βάρος· οἱ δ᾽ ἐνὶ Τροίηι
ἥρωες κτείνοντο· Διὸς δ᾽ ἐτελείετο βουλή·
καὶ τὰ μὲν παρὰ τοῖς νεωτέροις ἱστορούμενα περὶ τῆς τοῦ Διὸς βουλῆς ἐστι τάδε.
This is the story more recent poets tell concerning the plan of Zeus.
The Plan of Zeus
I have placed these arguments in what seems to me the ascending order of plausibility. None of them possesses an overwhelming persuasiveness when taken in isolation; together, however, they make up a reasonably convincing case. But clearly these scholars go too far who assume we have the very first lines of the poem:  we have absolutely no means of determining whether the more normal invocation of the Muse(s) will have preceded our fragment or not.
The Priority of the Cypria’s Phrase 
The Priority of the Iliad ’s Phrase 
Proclus Chrestomathia: Ζεὺς βουλεύεται μετὰ τῆς Θέμιδος  περὶ τοῦ Τρωϊκοῦ πολέμου.
Zeus confers with Themis concerning the Trojan War.
“The son of Thetis shall be mightier than his father”
ἐξέτι νηπυτίης αὐτὴ τρέφον ἠδ’ ἀγάπησα
ἔξοχον ἀλλάων, αἳ τ’ εἰν ἁλὶ ναιετάουσιν,
οὕνεκεν οὐκ ἔτλης εὐνῆι Διὸς ἱεμένοιο
λέξασθαι. κείνωι γὰρ ἀεὶ τάδε ἔργα μέμηλεν
ἠὲ σὺν ἀθανάταις ἠὲ θνητῆσιν ἰαύειν.795
ἀλλ’ ἐμὲ αἰδομένη καὶ ἐνὶ φρεσὶ δειμαίνουσα,
ἠλεύω· ὁ δ᾽ ἔπειτα πελώριον ὅρκον ὄμοσεν.
αὐτὰρ Ἀχιλλεύς ἐστι θεᾶς γόνος ἣν ἐγὼ αὐτὴ
θρέψα τε καὶ ἀτίτηλα καὶ ἀνδρὶ πόρον παράκοιτιν,60
Πηλέϊ, ὃς περὶ κῆρι φίλος γένετ’ ἀθανάτοισι.
πάντες δ’ ἀντιάασθε, θεοί, γάμου· ἐν δὲ σὺ τοῖσι
δαίνυ’ ἔχων φόρμιγγα, κακῶν ἕταρ’, αἴεv ἄπιστε.
Wagner, of course, cited these lines to support his guess about Apollodorus Bibliotheca III 13.5 (see page 37 above), and Wilamowitz (“Die Galliamben der Kallimachos,” Hermes 14 : 201) had already argued that this section presupposed as source some sort of song on the marriage of Peleus and Thetis. We now see that the stress on Hera’s role as Thetis’ kindly nurse and arranger of her wedding fits well with Cypria F2 (cf. Lesky, RE 292.28–33 for the scholars who accept the link). The occurrence of a cryptic allusion to the Judgment of Paris about thirty lines previously (28–31) is unlikely to be coincidence.
The Wedding of Peleus and Thetis
Proclus Chrestomathia: (παραγενομένη δὲ Ἔρις) εὐωχουμένων τῶν θεῶν ἐν τοῖς Πηλέως γάμοις…
And Eris, turning up while the gods are feasting at the wedding of Peleus…
Eris and Her Apple
Proclus Chrestomathia: παραγενομένη δὲ Ἔρις εὐωχουμένων τῶν θεῶν ἐν τοῖς Πηλέως γάμοις.
And Eris, turning up while the gods are feasting at the wedding of Peleus…
Proclus Chrestomathia: Ἔρις … νεῖκος περὶ κάλλους ἐνίστησιν Ἀθηναῖ, Ἥραι καὶ Ἀφροδίτηι …
Eris instigates a quarrel about beauty between Athena, Hera, and Aphrodite.
From the Judgment of Paris to Helen’s Abduction
The Judgment of Paris
Proclus Chrestomathia: … Ἀθηναῖ, Ἡραι καὶ Ἀφροδίτηι, αἳ πρὸς Ἀλέξανδρον ἐν Ἴδηι … πρὸς τὴν κρίσιν ἄγονται.
Athena, Hera, and Aphrodite are led to Paris on Mount Ida to have their beauty judged.
The Judgment of Paris regularly transpires on Mount Ida, and Hermes is as regularly the deity entrusted with their conveyence (as befits the Odyssean messenger of the gods? The Iliadic picture of Iris in that role seems to have occurred later in the poem: see page 121 below). Art too, from the earliest times, gives him this task: LIMC s.v. “Paridis Iudicium” VII 1, pp. 177–185; cf. Pausanias’ description of the Chest of Cypselus (V 19.5) and Raab 1972:21–23. Why Paris was to be found on Ida in the Cypria we shall probably never know. But since Nichtwissen is ever preferable to a specious Scheinwissen we may at least examine the views that have been taken of the significance of Paris’ presence on the mountain within our epic. Welcker (2.90) could not conceive why Paris should have been on Ida at all unless he had been exposed there as an infant and had dwelt there ever since, ignorant of his parents’ identity. This conclusion contains far-reaching repercussions for the history of the whole legend: for if Welcker were right, the Cypria must also have contained an account of Paris’ recognition by his family after the Judgment, an event of which Proclus’ summary says as little as he does of the original exposure. But it must be stated at once that Welcker’s deduction is by no means inevitable: Carl Robert pointed out (Bild und Lied 234; cf. Heldensage 2.978n3) that the Iliad provides several examples of Trojan princes tending cattle upon Mount Ida as if such an occupation were a perfectly normal part of their existence: compare Aeneas’ plight near the end of this very poem (see page 180 below and further Kenney’s commentary on Ovid Heroides XVI [Cambridge 1996] 7n10 as well as I. Karamanov’s commentary cited page 73 below). 
ποίησαν καὶ ἔβαψαν ἐν ἄνθεσιν εἰαρινοῖσιν
οἷα φοροῦσ᾽ Ὧραι, ἔν τε κρόκωι ἔν θ᾽ ὑακίνθωι
ἔν τε ἴωι θαλέθοντι ῥόδου τ᾽ ἐνὶ ἄνθεϊ καλῶι,
ἡδέϊ νεκταρέωι, ἔν τ᾽ ἀμβροσίαις καλύκεσσιν5
ἄνθεσι ναρκίσσου καὶ λειρίου † δ᾽ οἷα Ἀφροδίτη †
ὥραις παντοίαις τεθυμένα εἵματα ἕστο.
ἀμβρότωι, οἷα θεοὺς ἐπενηνοθεν αἰὲν ἐόντας,
ἀμφὶ δὲ εἵματα ἕσσαν ἐπήρατα, θαῦμα ἰδέσθαι.
χρυσῶι κοσμηθεῖσα φιλομμειδὴς Ἀφροδίτη
σεύατ’ ἐπὶ Τροίης…
She finds Anchises, who is overcome by her beauty (86–89):
εἶχε δ’ ἐπιγναμπτὰς ἕλικας κάλυκάς τε φαεινάς,
ὅρμοι δ’ ἀμφ’ ἁπαλῆι δειρῆι περικαλέες
καλοὶ χρύσεοι παμποίκιλοι· ὡς δὲ σελήνη
στήθεσιν ἀμφ’ ἁπαλοῖσιν ἐλάμπετο, θαῦμα ἰδέσθαι.
δέξαντ’ ἀσπασίως, περὶ δ’ ἄμβροτα εἵματα ἔσσαν,
κρατὶ δ᾽ ἐπ’ ἀθανάτωι στεφάνην εὔτυκτον ἔθηκαν
καλὴν χρυσείην, ἐν δὲ τρητοῖσι λοβοῖσιν
ἀνθεμ’ ὀρειχάλκου χρυσοῖό τε τιμήεντος,
10 δειρήι δ’ ἀμφ’ ἁπαλῆι καὶ στήθεσιν ἀργυρέοισιν
ὅρμοισι χρυσέοισιν ἐκόσμεον, οἷσί περ αὐταί
Ὧραι κοσμείσθην χρυσάμπυκες ὁππότ’ ἵοιεν
ἐς χόρον ἱμερόεντα θεῶν καὶ δώματα πατρός.
αὐτὰρ ἐπεὶ δὴ πάντα περὶ χροῖ κόσμον ἔθηκαν
15 ἦγον ἐς ἀθνάτους· οἱ δ’ ἠσπάζοντο ἰδόντες … 
λύματα πάντα κάθηρεν, ἀλείφατο δὲ λίπ’ ἑλαίωι
ἀμβροσίωι ἑδανῶι, τό ῥά οἱ τεθυωμένον ἦεν:
τοῦ καὶ κινυμένοιο Διὸς κατὰ χαλκοβατὲς δῶ
ἔμπης ἐς γαῖάν τε καὶ οὐρανὸν ἵκετ᾽ ἀϋτμή.
175 τῶι ῥ’ ἥ γε χρόα καλὸν ἀλειφαμένη ἰδὶ χαίτας
πλεξαμένη χερσί πλοκάμους ἔπλεζε φαεινούς
καλοὺς ἁμβροσίους, ἐκ κράατος ἀθανάτοιο.
ἀμφὶ δ’ ἂρ ἀμβρόσιον ἑανὸν ἕσαθ’, ὅν οἱ Ἀθήνη
ἔξυσ’ ἀσκήσασα, τίθει δ’ ἐνὶ δαίδαλα πολλά·
180 χρυσείηις δ᾽ ἐνετήιοι κατὰ στήθος περονᾶτο.
ζῶσατο δὲ ζωνῆι ἑκατὸν θυσάνοις ἀραρυίηι
ἐν δ’ ἄρα ἕρματα ἥκεν ἐϋστρήτοισι λοβοῖσι
τρίγληνα μορόεντα· χάρις δ’ ἐπελάμπετο πολλή.
κρηδέμνωι δ’ ἐφύπερθε καλύψατο δῖα θεάων
185 καλώι νηγατέωι· λευκὸν δ’ ἦν ἠέλιος ὥς·
ποοσί δ’ ὑπὸ λιπαροῖσιν ἐδήσατο καλὰ πέδιλα.
αὐτὰρ ἐπεὶ δὴ πάντα περὶ χροῖ θήκατο κόσμον…
ἀμφὶ δὲ οἱ Χάριτες τε θεαὶ καὶ πότνια Πειθώ
ὅρμους χρυσείους ἔθεσαν χροΐ, ἀμφὲ δὲ τήν γε
Ὧραι καλλίκομοι στέφον ἄνθεσιν εἰαρινοῖσιν·
πάντα δὲ οἱ χροΐ κόσμον ἐφήρμοσε Παλλάς Ἀθήνη
πλεξάμεναι στεφάνους εὐώδεας, ἄνθεα γαίης,
ἂν κεφαλαῖσιν ἔθεντο θεαὶ λιπαροκρήδεμνοι,
Νύμφαι καὶ Χάριτες, ἅμα δὲ χρυσῆ Ἀφροδίτη,
5καλὸν ἀείδουσαι κατ’ ὄρος πολυπιδάκου Ἴδης.
The Judgment of Paris
καὶ Πρίαμος καὶ λαὸς ‘Αλεξάνδρου ἕνεκ’ ἄτης,
ὃς νείκεσσε θεάς, ὅτε οἱ μέσσαυλον ἵκοντο,
τὴν δ’ ἤινησ’ ἥ οἱ πόρε μαχλοσύνην ἀλεγεινήν.
Cf. K. Reinhardt, Das Parisurteil (Frankfurt 1938) = Tradition und Geist pp. 16–36 = Homer: German Scholarship in Translation (Oxford 1997) 170–191; Jouan 1966:98n2. Aristarchus’ attitude at first sight seemed irreproachable: τὴν περὶ τοῦ κάλλους κρίσιν οὐκ οἶδεν· πολλαχῆι γὰρ ἂν ἐμνήσθη (Σ A ad loc. [5.522 Erbse]: cf. Severyns, 1928:261–264). The discovery of the ivory comb from Sparta which is our earliest evidence for the legend (see page 53 above) showed that the story was not, after all, a late invention, for the comb is to be dated ca. 620. It is indeed difficult, as Reinhardt insists, to imagine the Trojan War and the main features of the Iliad’s plot without the Judgment of Paris as ultimate cause and ἀρχὴ κακῶν. He explained its near absence in terms of its unheroic atmosphere, redolent of folktale and allegory, and thus alien to the epic style deployed by Homer. The hatred felt by Hera and Athena towards Troy as a result of Paris’ slighting verdict is maintained by the Iliad while the event that it presupposes is kept from sight until near the end. That hatred, thus unexplained, becomes impressive, malignant, and sinister.  For the further suggestion that Hector’s visit to Troy in Iliad VI presupposes the story see my article “The Judgments of Paris and Solomon,” Classical Quarterly 53 (2003): 32–43. At the very least one must concur with Stinton’s conclusion (1965:4 = 19): “What Reinhardt shows is that the Iliad is consistent with Homer’s having known the story; and the burden of proof now lies on those who say he did not.” West contends in “Mythological and Political Interpolations in Homer,” Eikasmos 26 (2015): 21 that “the poet may or may not have known the story … but he failed to mention it in connection with Hera’s hatred of Troy at IV 31–36.” This is to overlook Reinhardt’s stress on the frighteningly unexplained nature of that hatred, as well as the poet’s presumed understanding of female psychology.
Proclus Chrestomathia: καὶ προκρίνει τὴν Ἀφροδίτην ἐπαρθεὶς τοῖς Ἑλένης γάμοις Ἀλέξανδρος.
Paris judges Aphrodite to be the prize-winner, excited at the prospect of union with Helen.
Helen and Her Abduction
But, as Luppe observes, there are two obstacles to this identification. In the first place, the basic rationale of this and other similar tales of metamorphosis is that the two parents assume the male and female sexes of the same animal. Compare, for instance, Pausanias VIII 25.5:
or Hyginus Fabula 188:
In view of these clear analogies it is hard to see why, when Nemesis had changed herself into a goose, Zeus should wish to become a swan.  And secondly, there are grounds for suspecting the phrase in which this anomalous piece of information is conveyed. For how exactly does one extract any sense from ὁμοιωθέντα δὲ καὶ Δία κύκνωι συνελθεῖν? We will not succeed by taking κύκνωι with ὁμοιωθέντα, for Apollodorus has just informed us that Nemesis was in the shape of a goose when Zeus coupled with her. And though we must clearly take κύκνωι with ὁμοιωθέντα, the self-same observation forbids us to interpret καὶ Δία in the obvious way that common sense demands (“Zeus too” [i.e. as well as Nemesis]). In fact, we can only make any coherent sense of the six words under consideration by injecting into κύκνωι a nuance (“Zeus changed in his case into a swan” vel sim.) that the text itself lamentably fails to provide. Willing or not, we are thus inescapably drawn to Luppe’s conclusion that κύκνωι is a marginal or interlinear gloss  supplied by someone aware of the more familiar account of the metamorphosis of Zeus. Delete the offending word, supply Zeus’ metamorphosed shape from the context and from the general expectations we entertain about this class of story, and you have what F8 (independently again) suggests. For there the words ἐγ]έ̣νετο κύκνος imply that the preceding metamorphoses (which include Zeus’ encounter with Nemesis) did not include the swan, and the most natural supplementation of the text has the king of gods and men transformed into a goose. The same fragment helpfully mentions the egg which this bizarre but divine congress produced.
Content of F6–F7
The mention of Pheidias here should really refer to Agoracritus. As to the evi-dence of plastic art, this too tells the same story. Vase paintings that show the relevant details are handily listed and evaluated by Beazley, Etruscan Vase Painting (Oxford 1947) 39–41, with supplements in Attic Vase Paintings in Boston 3 (Boston 1963) 71–74 and more recently LIMC s.v. “Leda” VI 1 II.
αὐτὰρ ὅ γ’ ἀθάνατος Πoλυδεύκης, ὄζος Ἄρηος.
Cf. Σ Pindar Nemean X 80 (3.182 Drachmann). Although the reference to Helen and the swan cannot have occurred in this way in the Cypria (whose version of Helen’s birth Apollodorus instantly proceeds to give prefaced by λέγουσι δὲ ἔνιοι: see page 77 above), the other details may derive from our poem, whose present fragment clearly presupposes some such explanation of the twins’ birth.
τήν ποτε καλλίκομος Νέμεσις φιλότητι μιγεῖσα
Ζηνὶ θεῶν βασιλῆι τέκεν κρατερῆς ὑπ᾽ ἀνάγκης.
φεῦγε γὰρ οὐδ’ ἔθελεν μιχθήμεναι ἐν φιλότητι
5πατρὶ Διὶ Κρονίωνι· ἐτείρετο γὰρ φρένας αἰδοῖ
καὶ νεμέσει· κατὰ γῆν δὲ καὶ ἀτρύγετον μέλαν ὕδωρ
φεῦγεν, Ζεὺς δ’ ἐδίωκε· λαβεῖν δ’ ἐλιλαίετο θυμῶι.
ἄλλοτε μὲν κατὰ κῦμα πολυφλοίσβοιο θαλάσσης
ἰχθύι εἰδομένην, πόντον πολὺν ἐξορόθυνεν,
10ἄλλοτ’ ἀν’ Ὠκεανὸν ποταμὸν καὶ πείρατα γαίης,
ἄλλοτ’ ἀν’ ἤπειρον πολυβώλακα. γίγνετο δ’ αἰεὶ
θηρί᾽ ὅσ’ ἤπειρος αἰνὰ τρέφει, ὄφρα φύγοι νιν.
Proclus Chrestomathia: ἔπειτα δὲ Ἀφροδίτης ὑποθεμένης ναυπηγεῖται.
Then, on Aphrodite’s suggestion, Paris builds a fleet.
‘Αρμονίδεω, ὃς χερσὶν ἐπίστατο δαίδαλα πάντα
τεύχειν· ἔξοχα γάρ μιν ἐφίλατο Παλλὰς Ἀθήνη·
ὃς καὶ Ἀλεξάνδρωι τεκτήνατο νῆας ἐΐσας
ἀρχεκάκους, αἳ πᾶσι κακὸν Τρώεσσι γένοντο
οἷ τ’ αὐτῶι, ἐπεὶ οὔ τι θεῶν ἐκ θέσφατα ἤιδη.
It does not require much foresight to see that the ambiguity of the penultimate word in line 59 (Τέκτονος or τέκτονος) will have repercussions for the exact identity and genealogy of the individual who built Paris’ ships. The scholia and Eustathius ad loc. (the remarks of each may be most conveniently compared as they are set out in Erbse’s edition of the former [2.11]) contain traces of either interpretation. The family tree Φέρεκλος Τέκτονος υἱός, Τέκτων υἱὸς τοῦ Ἅρμονος seems also to be implied by Apollodorus as cited, and Severyns (1928:265–267) ingeniously suggests that this represents the Cypria’s version (further etymologically significant names? see page 82 above), and that the alternative approach preserved in our ancient commentators (with τέκτων a proper noun) stems ultimately from an Aristarchean note warning against any explanation of the Homeric lines in the light of οἱ νεώτεροι. Aristarchus will then have connected line 60’s relative with the patronymic Ἁρμονίδεω in the preceding line (cf. Kullmann 1960:245n1).
Proclus Chrestomathia: καὶ Ἕλενος περί τῶν μελλόντων [scil. Ἀλεξάνδρωι] προθεσπίζει … καὶ Κασσάνδρα περὶ τῶν μελλόντων προδηλοῖ.
Helenus delivers a prophecy concerning the future … and Cassandra reveals the truth concerning the future.
Proclus Chrestomathia: καὶ ἡ Ἀφροδίτη Αἰνείαν συμπλεῖν αὐτῶι κελεύει.
And Aphrodite commands Aeneas to sail with him.
Proclus Chrestomathia: καὶ Κασσάνδρα περὶ τῶν μελλόντων προδηλοῖ.
Proclus Chrestomathia: ἐπιβὰς δὲ τῆι Λακεδαιμονίαι ξενίζεται παρὰ τοῖς Τυνδαρίδαις καὶ μετὰ ταῦτα ἐν τῆι Σπᾶρτηι παρὰ Μενελάωι.
And arriving at Lacadaemonia (Paris) is entertained by the sons of Tyndareus and afterwards in Sparta by Menelaus.
Proclus Chrestomathia: καὶ μετὰ ταῦτα ἐν τῆι Σπάρτηι παρὰ Μενελάωι· καὶ ‘Ελένηι παρὰ τὴν εὐωχίαν δίδωσι δῶρα ὁ Ἀλέξανδρος.
…and after this, in Sparta with Menelaus, and Paris gives Helen gifts during the feasting.
Proclus Chrestomathia: καὶ μετὰ ταῦτα Μενέλαος εἰς Κρήτην ἐκπλεῖ.
And after this, Menelaus sails off to Crete.
Proclus Chrestomathia: κελεύσας τὴν ‘Ελένην τοῖς ξένοις παρέχειν, ἕως ἂν ἀπαλλαγῶσιν.
Menelaus … bidding Helen provide for the visitors as long as he and she were separated.
Proclus Chrestomathia: καὶ μετὰ τὴν μεῖξιν τὰ πλεῖστα κτήματα ἐνθέμενοι νυκτὸς ἀποπλέουσι.
And after their union they stow away the maximum number of possessions and sail off at night.
Why the Dioscuri Did Not Participate
Proclus Chrestomathia: χειμῶνα δὲ αὐτοῖς ἐφίστησιν Ἥρα· καὶ προσενεχθεὶς Σιδῶνι ὁ Ἀλέξανδρος αἱρεῖ τὴν πόλιν.
Hera sends a sea-storm down upon the pair; and Paris puts in at Sidon and captures the city.
Σιδονίων, τὰς αὐτὸς Ἀλέξανδρος θεοειδὴς
ἤγαγε Σιδονίηθεν, ἐπιπλὼς εὐρέα πόντον
τὴν ὁδὸν ἣν ‘Ελένην περ ἀνήγαγεν εὐπατέρειαν.
Proclus Chrestomathia: καὶ ἀποπλεύσας εἰς Ἴλιον γάμους τῆς ‘Ελένης ἐπετέλεσεν.
And sailing away to Troy (Paris) celebrated his marriage to Helen.
The End of the Dioscuri (F11)
Proclus Chrestomathia: ἐν τούτωι δὲ Κάστωρ μετὰ Πολυδεύκους τὰς Ἴδα καὶ Λυγκέως βοῦς ὑφαιρούμενοι ἐφωράθησαν.
In the meantime, Castor, in Polydeuces’ company, was detected rustling the cattle of Idas and Lynceus.
Τηΰγετον προσέβαινε ποσὶν ταχέεσσι πεποιθώς.
ἀκρότατον δ᾽ ἀναβὰς δειδέρκετο νῆσον ἅπασαν
Τανταλίδεω Πέλοπος, τάχα δ᾽ εἴσιδε κύδιμος ἥρως
5 δεινοῖς ὀφθαλμοῖσιν ἔσω κοίλης δρυὸς ἄμφω
Κάστορά θ᾽ ἱππόδαμον καὶ ἀεθλοφόρον Πολυδεύκεα.
νύξε δ᾽ ἄρ᾽ ἄγχι στὰς μεγάλην δρῦν …
Proclus Chrestomathia: καὶ Κάστωρ μὲν ὑπὸ τοῦ Ἴδα ἀνειρεῖται, Λυγκεὺς δὲ καὶ Ἴδας ὑπὸ Πολυδεύκους.
Castor is killed by Idas, and Lynceus and Idas by Polydeuces.
Proclus Chrestomathia: καὶ Ζεὺς αὐτοῖς ἐτερήμερον νέμει τὴν ἀθανασίαν.
And Zeus grants them alternating immortality.
ἥ ῥ’ ὑπὸ Τυνδαρέω κρατερόφρονε γείνατο παῖδε,
300 Κάστορα ἱππόδαμον καὶ πὺξ ἀγαθὸν Πολυδεύκεα,
τοὺς ἄμφω ζωοὺς κατέχει φυσίζοος αἶα·
οἳ καὶ νέρθεν γῆς τίμην πρὸς Ζηνὸς ἔχοντες
ἄλλοτε μὲν ζώουσ’ ἐτερήμεροι, ἄλλοτε δ’ αὖτις
τεθνᾶσιν· τίμην δὲ λελόγχασιν ἶσα θεοῖσιν. 
On the paradox in these accounts, whereby there is a “Life” within immortality, and life and death no longer function as polar opposites see Burkert, Griechische Religion 326= Engl. transl. 213. Cf. Cook, Zeus 2.438–440. 
ἐν Λακεδαίμονι αὖθι, φιλῆι ἐν πατρίδι γαίηι. (243–244)
The idea that one of them might be immortal, let alone the notion that both may enjoy immortality on alternate days, would be quite inconsistent with the Iliad’s tragic view of the human predicament and its poignant contrast between mortal and immortal existence (cf. Griffin 1977:42= 372).