The headword is the perfect passive participle, feminine accusative plural, of
katenari/zw ('I kill outright'). It is quoted here from
Sophocles,
Ajax 26, with comment from the
scholia there; cf.
lambda 356.
The scholiast is criticizing a supposedly wrong usage by
Sophocles, but his own explanation is not accurate either. The starting-point must be the equivalence of the two nouns
e)/nara and
sku=la. These nouns seem to have kept their original meanings with verbal forms derived from them (Chantraine s.v.
e)/nara and
sku=la;
epsilon 1124,
epsilon 1125,
sigma 707). For
e)/nara, the verb
e)nai/rw is attested first, followed by the secondary form
e)nari/zw. The primary meaning of both verbs,
e)nai/rw and
e)nari/zw, seems to have been to strip an enemy of his arms and only as a second step to slay him.
To the semantic field of
e)/nara belongs the first quotation, given here:
Homer,
Iliad 21.485. Hera, reproving Artemis for taking part in the battle, defines Artemis' usual activity this way. The
scholia there mention the same difficulties, and the expression (
qh=ras e)nai/rein) is qualified as misuse of language, because animals do not have armour to be stripped of. An alternative explanation uses the verb to kill (
foneu/w) to gloss it, alluding to special behaviour of Artemis, who is clad in animal skins. A fragment of
Alcman (fr. 53 P = 119 Calame) is quoted but the transmitted form of the verb there is spurious (see Calame 1983). A third explanation links Artemis, through the custom of some hunters to skin animals at full moon, to this verb. Both explanations involving Artemis are however based on the wrong association of
to\ sku/los and
ta\ sku=la and extend the meaning of the verb from stripping a warrior of his armour to stripping an animal of its skin, which brings us back from
e)/nara to
sku=la and the quotation from
Callimachus (fr. 677 Pfeiffer =
SH 268B).
There is also some confusion in this second part of the explanation. The quotation from
Callimachus attests the noun
to\ sku/los (meaning skin) which is not the singular of
sku=la (
to\ sku=lon). See Chantraine s.v.
sku/los. The verb
skuleu/w involved here (with the meaning of stripping foes of their arms) is linked to
sku=la, whereas to
sku/los belongs another verb:
sku/llw, with the meaning of maltreat, tear into pieces. Still, the equivalence of the two verbs
skuleu/w and
e)nari/zw is correct and reappears in the
scholia to
Homer,
Iliad 21.26b. The same difficulty is mentioned but about Achilles slaying Trojan warriors near the Scamander. The scholiast reports the misuse of a rhapsode called Hermodoros and goes on affirming that
e)nai/rein is a synonym of
skuleu/ein.
Sophocles,
Ajax 26 is alluded to, however, as supporting evidence. The two occurrences in the
Iliad prove however that the verb
e)nai/rein was used for both, for the slaying of enemies (Achilles) and for the killing of beasts (Artemis) in
Homer.
Hesychius s.v.
e)nai/rw gives both meanings, killing and despoiling.
1kalu/ptrh is more often used for a woman's veil. This may explain the addition of a)ndri/ in the line for its usage in the masculine sphere. ↩2e)/ruma: Callimachus seems to combine two usages of this word in archaic poetry. In Homer, Iliad 4.137, it describes a protection against thrown arms, whereas in Hesiod, Works and Days 536 it means a protection from snow.
The present occurrence is the only attestation of the two lines of Callimachus (fr. 677 Pf. = SH 268B). The fragment could be about Heracles. Indeed in Theocritus, Idylls 25.142 sku/los le/ontos is used for Heracles’ garment (see Pfeiffer 1949 and D’Alessio 1997). For the use of sku/los as the skin of any animal see Lycophron, Alexandra 1316, about the golden fleece and Hesychius s.v. sku/los.