I want to move beyond literal meaning. Is my interpretation acceptable? Or bizarre? Expecially with “noctem . . . trahunt”, “vices adita atque exhausta”, and reading the questions at the end of the passage as addressed to the reader/listener.
Context: Before the walls of Troy, the Greek warriors are feasting after battle. Their amusement is not the plucked strings of the cithara, not the singing of bards,
. . . sed noctem sermone trahunt, virtusque loquendi
materia est: pugnas referunt hostisque suasque,
inque vices adita atque exhausta pericula saepe
commemorare iuvat,— quid enim loqueretur Achilles,
aut quid apud magnum potius loquerentur Achillem?
. . . but they drag out the night in talk, of bravery [in battle]
their fights and their foes;
how each delights to take his turn and use it up relating the exploits of the day.
What [ O listener] would Achilles talk about?
Or, what else would the others talk about before mighty Achilles?
sed noctem sermone trahunt – but they drag out the night in talk
virtusque loquendi materia est – and bravery is the subject of the talking
pugnas referunt hostisque suasque – they tell [stories of] combats of the enemy and of their own
inque vices adita atque exhausta pericula saepe commemorare iuvat – they enjoy taking turns reminding one another of dangerous situations they entered[voluntarily] approached/into and endured/put an end to
quid enim loqueretur Achilles, aut quid apud magnum potius loquerentur Achillem? – for what would Achilles more readily talk about, or what would [the others] more readily talk about in the presence of might Achilles?
potius should be taken with both loqueretur and loquerentur.
Of course, when the embassy comes to Achilles in Book 9 of the Iliad, he’s singing and accompanying himself on the lyre, but he’s singing of the glorious deeds of men.
Superb critique, Qimmk, for which much thanks! The whole reply was helpful, but the parts I quoted above nailed the problems about which I had thought the most, and the most inconclusively.