analysis of this passage and I.09.009-078 (assemblies of the Trojans and of the Achaeans, respectively) as an instance of “Zielinski’s law”

example of laos as referring to one’s own even with ōlese

analysis of the relationship of Nestor and Diomedes (like father and son)

analysis of mētis and the phrase “began to weave mētis,” used of Nestor (as here), as implying deception

citation of Nestor’s proposal to send embassy to Achilles as evidence for his clear connection with nóos

analysis of Nestor’s association with noos

comparison with I.07.358 and I.12.232 with regards to noos and muthos

suggestion that Hirēn poiēssan “grassy Hire” should perhaps be read as hirēn Poiēssan “sacred Poieessa”

presupposing a Spartan conquest of territory on the Messenian Gulf as possibly explaining Agamemnon’s offer of 7 cities there to Achilles (here, Phērai)

presupposing a Spartan conquest of territory on the Messenian Gulf as possibly explaining Agamemnon’s offer of 7 cities there to Achilles

The beginning of Rhapsody 9 picks up where Rhapsody 8 ended. There is a brief reference at I.09.001 to the ending of Rhapsody 8. Then, in the rest of the verse at I.09.001 and continuing into I.09.002–003 there is a transition into the narrative as it now resumes. A fitting term for this sort of transition is rhapsodic sequencing. Here as elsewhere, the transition of the narrative from one rhapsody to the next shows that each one of the 24 rhapsodies of the Iliad—and each one of the 24 rhapsodies of the Odyssey—is a distinct unit of performance. In the classical period of Athens, as we see in Plato’s Ion, professional performers of Homeric rhapsodies were known as rhapsōidoi ‘rhapsodes’. The term rhapsōidiā, translated in this comment as ‘rhapsody’, originates from the traditions of rhapsōidoi ‘rhapsodes’ who performed poetry in competitive relay with other rhapsodes. Accordingly, the rhapsōidiai ‘rhapsodies’ of Homeric poetry can be seen as units of relay performance.

The Master Narrator now approaches what can surely be seen as the highest point so far in the narrative arc of the Homeric Iliad. Achilles has not spoken since Rhapsody 1. Now, in Rhapsody 9, he will speak again. And what he says will define what can and cannot happen in the rest of the Iliad.

The embassy to Achilles, featuring Phoenix and Odysseus in front of Achilles. Attic red-figure hydra, circa 480 BCE. Public domain image via Wikimedia Commons.

The name Phúza, which is a personification of phúza ‘running away out of fear’ is described here at I.09.02 as the hetaírē ‘companion’ of Phóbos, which is a personification of phóbos ‘turning and running out of fear’. The immediate context is that the Trojans are now winning while the Achaeans are losing, I.09.1–2. The verse-final feminine form hetaírē, a morphologically leveled replacement of the older feminine form hétairă, likewise meaning ‘companion’, occurs only here in the Iliad. In this case, the morphological leveling can be explained as a replacement of the alternation -́i̯ă-/-i̯ā́- by way of non-alternating -i̯ā́-. In the Odyssey as well, feminine hetaírē occurs only once, O.17.271. Elsewhere in the Homeric tradition, feminine hetaírē occurs only in Homeric Hymn to Hermes 31 and 478. In all three of these other occurrences as well, hetaírē is verse-final. The application of hetaírē to Phúza here at I.09.02 is comparable to the application of the vocalically rhyming form krataiḗ to Moîra, personification of moîra in the sense of ‘fate, destiny’. This form krataiḗ, which is likewise verse-final, is found nine times in the Iliad but not once in the Odyssey. For the occurrences, see the comment on I.05.083. As in the case of hetaírē, this feminine form krataiḗ can be explained as a morphologically leveled replacement of an older feminine form, to be reconstructed as krataí-u̯i-ă* and meaning ‘whose power [u̯i-] has the upper-hand [krátos]’. In this case as well, the morphological leveling involves a replacement of the alternation -́i̯ă-/-i̯ā́- by way of non-alternating -i̯ā́*-.

As the Achaeans are being routed by the Trojans, I.09.1–2, they are afflicted with penthos ‘grief’. Whenever the Achaeans are losing and the Trojans are winning, they suffer penthos or, to say it by way of this noun’s synonym, akhos.

As an epithet describing the noun pontos ‘crossing [of the sea]’, the adjective ikhthuoeis ‘fish-swarming’ signals danger. At O.14.135 and O.24.291, for example, the fear is expressed that Odysseus in his travels at sea could have died by falling overboard, and then the ikhthues ‘fish’ in the pontos ‘crossing [of the sea]’ would have devoured him.

The penthos ‘grief’ felt by the losing Achaeans is now compared, by way of a simile, to a seastorm brought by the North Wind and the West Wind personified respectively as Boreas and Zephyros, I.09.005: these winds come suddenly and violently from the direction of Thrace, blowing across the narrow strait of the Hellespont. See the comment on I.07.063–064. As the narrative of the Iliad advances, such a violent seastorm will become a fitting synonym also for the danger facing the Achaeans as their fortunes in war start giving way to the overwhelming momentum of the Trojan offensive led by Hector.

After the intervening simile, at I.09.004–008, of the storm at sea, the penthos ‘grief’ felt by the Achaeans at I.09.003 is described further: this grief, it is said at I.09.008, is felt by them inside their collective ‘heart’, as expressed by thūmos. But then, at I.09.009, the penthos ‘grief’ of I.09.003 is now reconfigured as the akhos ‘grief’ felt by the leader of the Achaeans, Agamemnon, in his individuated ‘heart’, as expressed this time by ētor, which is a partial synonym of thūmos. In this ring-composition, the penthos ‘grief’ of verse 3 comes full circle with the synonym akhos ‘grief’ of verse 9, but the circle has in the meantime rotated the perspective from a collective to an individuated ‘heart’.

Here at I.09.057–058, Nestor makes a remark to Diomedes about that hero’s relatively young age. You could be, Nestor tells Diomedes, the youngest of my sons. Elsewhere, at O.03.412–415, six of Nestor’s sons are mentioned, including Peisistratos, who figures prominently in the Odyssey, and Thrasymedes, who has a major role in the fighting at Troy in the Iliad. Missing from this list in the Odyssey, because he had been killed in action at Troy, is Antilokhos. There is a passing reference to the death of Antilokhos at O.04.186–188. When Nestor makes his remark at I.09.057–058 about the youngest of his sons, the referent here must be Antilokhos, since that hero’s relatively young age is noted elsewhere as well in the Iliad. For example, in a battle scene where the Achaeans are urging each other to fight hard, Menelaos singles out Antilokhos as he urges him on, telling him there is no Achaean there who is younger. And the relatively young age of Diomedes is likewise noted in the Iliad. In another battle scene, at I.14.109–114, while addressing his fellow warriors, Diomedes boasts that ‘I am the youngest among you’ (νεώτατός εἰμι μεθ’ ὑμῖν), I.14.112. So, it may be that Diomedes is even younger than Antilokhos, but that is not the point. Rather, the point is that Antilokhos and Diomedes are comparably young. Nestor himself highlights the youth of Antilokhos when he addresses him on a later occasion, I.23.306. In view of all these other Homeric references, Nestor’s remark at I.09.057–058 about Diomedes as comparable in age to Antilokhos can be seen as an evocation of an epic moment that is awaiting Nestor in the future. At that future moment, Antilokhos, his own young son, will try to save the old hero when Nestor gets entangled in his chariot and is about to be attacked and killed by the chariot fighter Memnon. Antilokhos will succeed in saving Nestor, but it is the young son and not the old father who will now get killed by Memnon. This epic moment, which is in the future for the Iliad, is evidently narrated in a part of the epic Cycle, the Aithiopis, attributed to Arctinus of Miletus, as we read in the plot-summary of Proclus p. 106 lines 4–6 (ed. Allen 1912). On the epic Cycle, see the inventory of Words and Ideas. There is also a reference to this same epic moment in a song of Pindar, Pythian 6.28–42. These non–Iliadic passages have already been cited in the anchor comment on the relevant Iliadic passage, Ι.08.076–117. In that passage, which is already in the epic past from the standpoint of the current Iliadic passage taken from I.09.057–058, Diomedes was acting as a stand-in for Antilokhos, performing in the epic past a task that mirrors the task that will be undertaken by Antilokhos in the epic future. That task was to save Nestor from his entanglement in his chariot. Diomedes saved the life of Nestor, and Nestor knows it when he now compares young Diomedes to his own young son, I.09.057–058. As for Antilokhos, he too will save the life of Nestor, but, unlike Diomedes, he will lose his own life in performing this same task in the future, which is, to save Nestor from another entanglement. And of course Nestor does not yet know it. So, there is an irony in the remark made by the old hero here in comparing young Diomedes to young Antilokhos, though of course the character of Nestor did not intend such an irony. The intentionality, rather, is to be found in the poetics of evocation.

Nestor makes a remark about the watchfires of the Trojans: these fires, he says, are too close for comfort—too close, that is, to the beached ships of the Achaeans. We see here a premonition of the Battle for the Ships and of the fire of Hector, which will threaten to burn down the ships and thus destroy the Achaeans.

By virtue of holding the skēptron ‘scepter’, I.09.099, Agamemnon is the holder of royal authority when he speaks, and this authority emanates from Zeus. By implication, Agamemnon would not have the authority to speak if he did not hold the scepter.

This verb noeîn ‘take note (of), notice’, corresponding to the noun nóos ‘mind’, is used in contexts where the subject of the verb is taking the initiative in doing whatever is being done. Here at I.09.104–105 it is the hero Nestor who boasts of possessing a special aptitude for ‘taking note, noticing, having things in mind’, noeîn. At I.09.104–105, Nestor literally ‘has in mind’ a ‘mindfulness’, nóos, that is superior to the thinking of all other heroes.

Agamemnon here at I.09.115 admits that it was atē for him to dishonor Achilles. In such a context, the noun atē can be translated as an ‘aberration’. The noun is used here in the plural, atai, indicating specific instances of aberration, not just an overall error. After all, in his quarrel with Achilles, Agamemnon insulted the prime hero of the Iliad in multiple ways. Agamemnon goes on to say that he is ready to pay apoina ‘compensation’, I.09.120, for his aberrations. For Achilles to reject this compensation has its own risks, as we see in the comment on I.09.502–512: here too, there is a danger of atē ‘aberration’, Ι.09.512.

Agamemnon here formulates the terms of the compensation that he offers to Achilles. The last four verses of his formulation, I.09.158–161, bluntly reassert his claim to be superior to Achilles. When Odysseus restates to Achilles the terms of Agamemnon, Ι.09.260–299, he omits what Agamemnon claims about his superiority to Achilles. It can be argued that Achilles, if he had accepted the terms of Agamemnon as reasserted by Agamemnon himself, would have put at risk his own epic stature in the Iliad.

Among the prizes that Agamemnon at I.09.128–131 offers as compensation to Achilles are seven captive Aeolian women who were captured by Achilles when he conquered the Aeolian island of Lesbos. The story about these women as it is told here is then retold at I.09.270–272. The significance of the Aeolian identification of these women will be analyzed in the anchor comment that follows. The focus in the present comment, by contrast, is on the moral problems that are raised in the story about the actual capture of these women—and of other women in the Iliad who suffer the same fate of captivity. Two prominent examples are Briseis and Chryseis, captured by Achilles when he conquered the cities of Lyrnessos and Thēbē respectively, as noted in the anchor comment at I.02.689–694. All these women—the seven unnamed ones and the two named ones—evidently became the common property of the Achaeans after being captured by Achilles, and it appears that Agamemnon as the Achaean over-king originally had a say, ostensibly by way of public deliberation with the rest of the Achaeans, in deciding which woman was allotted as a war-prize to which Achaean man. Even though all these women were captured by Achilles alone, they were thereafter to be distributed as war-prizes among the Achaean men as a group. In terms of this reconstruction of the story as outlined here, the role of Agamemnon in having a say about the awarding of these captive women as war-prizes is morally problematic. Likewise problematic is this over-king’s role in the original awarding of the captive woman Briseis, with the approval of the Achaeans, as a war-prize to Achilles—and in the parallel awarding of the captive woman Chryseis to himself. Moreover, the seizing of Briseis by Agamemnon after his loss of Chryseis is even more problematic. Here, then, is the overriding question to be asked about the treatment of all these women as war-prizes: is Agamemnon entitled to have a say in deciding which Achaean man will have sex with which woman? And the question can be broadened: are the Achaeans as a group entitled to make such decisions? Such a broader question extends also to Achilles.

The story that is being told here at I.09.128–131 and retold at I.09.270–272 centers on one single stunning event: Achilles captured the entire island of Lesbos. By implication, this island became Aeolian precisely because it was captured by the principal hero of the Aeolians. The vastness of this story is even broader in scope, since we can see in the Iliad occasional references to other such conquests accomplished by Achilles. Most prominent are the Iliadic references to his capturing of two cities located on the Aeolian mainland of Asia Minor: they are Lyrnessos and Thēbē. In the Iliad, the conquest of Lyrnessos by Achilles and his capturing of Briseis are mentioned for the first time at I.02.690–691. What then follows at I.02.691 is a mention of his conquering the walled city of Thēbē as well. Thēbē is mentioned already at I.01.366: it was there that Achilles captured another woman, Chryseis, when he conquered that city, I.01.366–369. For background on Briseis and on Chryseis, I again strongly recommend the work of Dué 2002 and 2006, listed in the Bibliography. Another native of Thēbē was Andromache, who had been married off to Hector at Troy before the beginning of the Trojan War: she was taken captive only later, after Troy was captured, and she was then allotted as a war-prize to the son of Achilles, Neoptolemos: the story was told in an epic that was part of the epic Cycle and was known as the Iliou Persis ‘Destruction of Ilion’, attributed to Arctinus of Miletus, plot summary by Proclus p. 108 line 9 (ed. Allen 1912). That said, I now elaborate further on the argument initiated in the anchor comment at I.02.689–694: the conquests of these territories by Achilles, especially his capture of Lesbos, can be interpreted as a charter myth that aetiologizes a prehistoric or even non-historical “colonization” of east Aeolis, as it were, by west Aeolian migrants from Thessaly, situated in the European mainland, which was the reputed birthplace of Achilles. See Nagy 2011b:171–173. In using the term “east Aeolis” here, I am referring to the islands of Lesbos and Tenedos, together with the facing mainland of northern Asia Minor. The “colonization” of this area has conventionally been described as the “Aeolian Migration,” and the term ‘migration’ here matches neatly the appropriate Greek word, apoikiā as used in Strabo 9.2.3 C401 and elsewhere (see Nagy 2011b:161). The reference at I.09.129 to the captive women from Lesbos can be correlated with the poetic traditions of Lesbos as later attested in the songs of Sappho and Alcaeus, both dated around 600 BCE. These poetic traditions, which are decidedly Aeolian, derive not only from the island of Lesbos but also from the island of Tenedos and from the mainland of northern Asia Minor facing these two islands. See HPC 184–185. Traces of these Aeolian poetic traditions can be seen in the Iliadic references to such figures as Briseis, Chryseis, Andromache, and the seven unnamed captive women from Lesbos. All these figures derive from Aeolian poetic traditions, and the same can be said about the figure of Achilles himself: in terms of his poetic heritage, he is Achilles the Aeolian. See Nagy 2011b:171–172. But there is an important difference to be highlighted here: Achilles is an Aeolian from European Thessaly, while the captive women are Aeolians from Asia Minor and from the offshore islands of Lesbos and Tenedos (on the captive woman Hekamede from Tenedos, see the anchor comment at I.11.624–627). In the Ionian poetic traditions of epic as exemplified by Homeric poetry, we can track the early influence of corresponding Aeolian poetic traditions as exemplified at a later period, around 600 BCE, by the songmaking of Sappho and Alcaeus. See also anchor comment at I.02.689–694 on: Aeolian women in the Iliad, part 1 and anchor comment at I.11.624–627 on: Aeolian women in the Iliad, part 3.

The description of the women from Lesbos as victorious over other women in their beauty can be interpreted as a reference to a local tradition at Lesbos known as the Kallisteia, which was a kind of ritualized beauty contest for girls and for women. The scholia D for the Iliad give details, with specific reference to I.09.130: this beauty contest was a seasonally recurring event that took place in a federal space that was shared by five cities on the island of Lesbos, and this space was sacred to the goddess Hērā. See Nagy 2015§§135–159. There are occasional references to this space in what remains of the songs of Sappho and Alcaeus (again, Nagy 2015). Also, as we see at I.09.128, the beauty of the women of Lesbos is matched by the beauty of their handiwork, which externalizes their aristocratic charisma. Such handiwork, as we will see in another comment, comes to life in the skillfulness displayed by women in practicing their art of pattern-weaving: a prime example is Andromache the Aeolian, described at Ι.22.440–441 in the act of pattern-weaving. There and elsewhere, the craft of pattern-weaving by Aeolian women is linked with the power of the craft of Homeric poetry to make contact with the Bronze Age. See MoM 2§§69–81.

Here is where Agamemnon reasserts his claim to be superior to Achilles. See the comment on the whole passage, I.09.120–161.

Here is where Nestor formulates the sequence of speakers for the embassy to Achilles: Phoenix must lead, I.09.168, followed by Ajax and then by Odysseus, I.09.169. At I.09.167, Nestor reinforces his verbal formulation by specially glancing at each one of the three ambassadors.

Nestor signals to the three ambassadors, glancing at them with coded looks, especially at Odysseus. Once again, the special glances of Nestor, I.09.180, reinforce his verbal formulation. See the comment on I.09.167–170.

As the three ambassadors and the two heralds proceed toward the shelter of Achilles, a series of dual forms is activated in the narrative, starting already with the very first verse and continuing from there: 182, 183, 185, 192, 196, 197, 198. The intervening plurals as at 186 are negligible, since plurals can normally substitute for duals in Homeric diction. But duals cannot substitute for plurals. So, the problem is, who are the referents in these contexts where the dual form is used? One way to approach the problem is to follow through on the formulation of Nestor, who had said that Phoenix must lead the embassy, I.09.168, followed by Ajax and then by Odysseus, I.09.169. See the comment on I.09.167–170. But then, when the group reaches the shelter of Achilles, it is said explicitly that Odysseus now takes the lead, I.09.192. Further, when Ajax signals to Phoenix at I.09.223, it is Odysseus who picks up the signal instead, as indicated by the verb noeîn ‘take note (of), notice’ (see further the comment on I.09.223), and now it will be Odysseus and not Phoenix who delivers the first of the three speeches. At I.09.224, Odysseus fills a goblet with wine and toasts Achilles—a gesture that may have seemed more appropriate for Achilles to perform as the host, not for Odysseus as the guest. For Odysseus to violate the etiquette is not to violate the traditions of myth, however, in that it is traditional for the figure of Odysseus to violate rules of etiquette. At O.08.475–476, to cite another example, Odysseus seems to be behaving like a host in a situation where he is really the guest. For more on this point, see HQ 142. In any case, right after pouring the wine and toasting Achilles, Odysseus starts at I.09.225 to deliver the first of the three speeches addressed by the three ambassadors to Achilles. Only after this speech of Odysseus, I.09.225–306, and after the reply of Achilles to that speech, I.09.308–429, will Phoenix get a chance to give his own speech, I.09.434–605—even though Nestor had intended for Phoenix to be the first speaker. So, returning to I.09.192, where Odysseus already takes the lead away from Phoenix, we can view this point in the narrative as the marker of a transition: before this point, the dual forms could refer to Ajax and Odysseus, as led by Phoenix, but then, after this point, the dual forms could refer to Phoenix and Ajax, as led by Odysseus. Alternatively the dual forms in these verses could have an elliptic function, where a singular X is paired with a group Y. This way, the dual still refers to a pair, even though the second part of the pair is a group.

As the three ambassadors and the two heralds enter the shelter of Achilles, they find the hero singing klea andrōn ‘the glories [klea] of men’ while his companion Patroklos is listening to the song, waiting to continue it where Achilles will leave off. We see here a dramatization of relay singing, which is a model for the poetic world of rhapsōidoi ‘rhapsodes’ who perform Homeric poetry in sequence. But the relay from one performance to the next is a sequencing that does not have to happen only at one particular time. The sequencing can be seen as happening over time. Relevant here is the meaning of the name of Patroklos, which is a “speaking name” (nomen loquens), Patrokléēs ‘he who has the glories [klé(e)a of the ancestors [patéres]’. Here the etymology of the name is adjusted by way of interpreting the component kléos ‘glory’ in the plural sense of the word, not only in the singular sense that was noted in the comment on I.01.345. In terms of this meaning, the kléos ‘glory’ of song is passed on, from one generation to the next, as the living heritage of the patéres ‘ancestors’. As for the original singing of Achilles himself in his shelter, it mirrors the singing of the god Apollo, who performs his songs while accompanying himself on the lyre. In the case of the lyre played by Achilles as he sings, it had once belonged to Eëtion, father of Andromache. As we have seen in the anchor comment at I.06.407–439, Andromache in the Iliad sings laments in expressing her sorrows. Such singing is relevant to songs sung about and perhaps also by Achilles himself. In the case of songs sung about Achilles, we know for a fact that these songs touched on that hero’s direct involvement in the sorrowful fate of Andromache herself. On that involvement, see the comment on I.17.194–214.

analysis of the convergences between the (wording) of Sappho 44 and the Iliad and the application of the epithet theoeikelos in Sappho 44 to Hector and Andromache and its ominous dimension when analyzed in light of the Iliad, here also the transfer of the sorrows of Andromache to Achilles as he performs klea andrōn on Eëtion’s lyre

analysis of the change of leader from Phoinix to Odysseus and the dual (I.09.192) in the passage on the embassy to Achilles

Achilles greets the ambassadors in the dual, I.09.197–198, and not in the plural. And he refers to them first as philoi ‘near and dear’, I.09.197, and then as the philtatoi ‘most near and dear’ among the Achaeans, I.09.198; again at I.09.204, he refers to them as philtatoi ‘most near and dear’. But are the ambassadors really at the very top of this hero’s ascending scale of affection? The dual construction of the verb in the syntax of I.09.197 might indicate that one of the three ambassadors is being left out of the hero’s reference to his nearest and dearest friends among all the Achaeans. The ambassador who might be left out is Odysseus. At I.09.312–313, Achilles says to Odysseus: whoever says one thing but means another thing is as ekhthros ‘hateful’ to me as the Gates of Hādēs, I.09.313.

analysis of Phoenix’ speech to Achilles and atē leading to mēnis

in a list of examples of eukhesthai einai + comparative (regarding age)

analysis of asperches (whether to interpret as “furiously” or “ceaselessly”)

comparison of Agamemnon and Achilles in terms of pherteros and karteros (also, of Zeus and Poseidon in same terms)

on mētis (here, Nestor’s) in the context of the embassy to Achilles

comparison of Agamemnon and Achilles in terms of pherteros and karteros (also, of Zeus and Poseidon in same terms)

contra Benveniste that themis concerns genos and dikē is inter-familial

analysis of themistes, rules for social behavior, as coming from Zeus

comparison of Agamemnon and Achilles in terms of pherteros and karteros (also, of Zeus and Poseidon in same terms)

analysis of Phoenix’ speech to Achilles and atē leading to mēnis

analysis of the interconnections of timē and philotēs

analysis of Achilles’ refusal to accept apoina and comparison with the litigation scene on the Shield and Ajax’s plea (with poinē)

demonstration that there is no gap between statements of superiority in age and statements of superiority in prestige, physical prowess, and physical beauty (in the context of demonstrating the contextual unity of eukhesthai einai + superlative/comparative formulas and their relationship with genos eukhesthai einai formulas)

comparison of Agamemnon and Achilles in terms of basileuteros and progenesteros (also, of Zeus and Poseidon in same terms)

analysis and comparison of the claims to equal/higher rank between Zeus and Poseidon and Agamemnon and Achilles

demonstration that there is no gap between statements of superiority in age and statements of superiority in prestige, physical prowess, and physical beauty (in the context of demonstrating the contextual unity of eukhesthai einai + superlative/comparative formulas and their relationship with genos eukhesthai einai formulas)

in a list of examples of eukhesthai einai + comparative (regarding age)

analysis of Achilles’ response to Odysseus’ speech, and the place of those who are philoi to him in his mēnis’ turning into philotēs

on mētis (here, Nestor’s) in the context of the embassy to Achilles

analysis of the place of Achilles’ singing klea andrōn in his mēnis’ turning into philotēs

analysis of Achilles’ response to Odysseus’ speech, and the place of those who are philoi to him in his mēnis’ turning into philotēs

analysis of the place of Achilles’ singing klea andrōn in his mēnis’ turning into philotēs

analysis of the place of Achilles’ singing klea andrōn in his mēnis’ turning into philotēs

analysis of the place of Achilles’ singing klea andrōn in his mēnis’ turning into philotēs

analysis of the significance of the sacrificial meal Patroklos is cooking being salted

Nestor's response to Diomedes' speech in Book 9 introduces the concept of telos muthōn, "the perfection of speeches" (line 56): "No one will find fault with your muthos, as many as are Achaeans, nor speak against it. But you have not reached the utmost point of muthoi" (9.50-56). Nestor approves the substance of Diomedes' remarks (9.57-59), then speaks his own mind as explicit instruction for the younger hero in how one reaches the "perfection of speeches." (Martin 1993:25).

Nestor demonstrates the telos muthōn with his own speech (9.60-62): "But, come, I who claim to be more honored than you, I will say out all and go through it all, and no one can devalue my muthos, not even Agamemnon who rules." He proceeds to deliver a simple proposal in elegant form, full of polyptoton, asyndetic gnomic statements (line 63), and, most important, full praise for his audience—Agamemnon. All approve Nestor's muthon (9.79). The same formulaic outcome appears at 14.133 after Diomedes' speech in Book 14 (Martin 1993:25).

Nestor instructs the Achaeans to propitiate Achilles with "mild words and pleasing gifts," significantly equating the two (9.113): dōroisin t' aganoisin epeessi te meilichioisi. The supplication of Achilles by the embassy depends on this concept of speech as reciprocal exchange, as the realm of epea (Martin 1993:22).

In his first muthos speech in Book 9, Nestor can control three segments of an audience at once: Diomedes, whom he instructs in the art of speech; the kouroi whom he orders to take guard duty; and finally Agamemnon. Nestor commands Agamemnon to give orders, "for you are most kingly" (9.69), a status clearly cast in doubt by the old hero's own leading position. His elaborate praise of Agamemnon (9.73-75) in a triplex polyptoton is self-serving, since Nestor is undoubtedly the nameless "one who plans the best counsel" whom Agamemnon is said to obey. Praise and control—the Nestorian strategy—continue through Book 10, in which Nestor regularly upstages the younger hero. Nestor's proposition for the night mission explicitly involves the winning of kleos, whereas Agamemnon's faulty offer in the preceding book had involved gifts alone—an important distinction (Martin 1993:60-61).

For the broader analysis of Nestor as commander and master of the memory genre, see the comment on Iliad 1.259-274.

References

Martin, R. P. 1993. The Language of Heroes: Speech and Performance in the Iliad. Ithaca.

Diomedes is the exception that proves the interpretation of the meaning of muthos for Homeric heroes. Demonstrably inexperienced, needing tutorials by Nestor to make a proper self-presentation in the assembly (9.31-49), he is represented even on the level of discourse genres as one who has not yet mastered the repertoire of commanding, flyting, and feats of memory. His assembly speeches are introduced as "late" interjections (7.399, 9.31, 9.696), a trait never noted with older heroes. He seems to bungle his first such speech by using the tactics of neikos speeches when he really just wants to dissent from what Agamemnon is saying: "Son of Atreus, I will fight first with you, mindless as you are, as tradition has it (hē themis estin), in the speaking assembly (agorē)" (9.31-33). There are hints that he is learning the tradition—note the rather clumsy gnomic utterance, for example, which he enthusiastically trots out to impress Nestor when he volunteers: "Two going together, the one notes before the other how there may be gain. One alone may notice, but his attention is shorter and his cunning intelligence thin" (10.224-26) (Martin 1993:124-25).

For Diomedes' education in flyting and the turning point of the Glaukos encounter, see the comment on Iliad 6.119-236.

References

Martin, R. P. 1993. The Language of Heroes: Speech and Performance in the Iliad. Ithaca.

Not only is Nestor advisor to the king and instructor of heroes in speech; Homer depicts him at 9.52-78 as actually instructing Diomedes in the proper way to enact a muthos—one of at least two occasions in the poem on which Nestor explicitly teaches other heroes how to speak (the other being his instructions to the embassy members on the technique to be used in persuading Achilles, 9.179-81). The control of speech appears to rest with Nestor. In his function as repository of Achaean traditions, the old man specifically reports the duties of kings and does so in terms of speech: he reminds Agamemnon that the king "must both speak a word and listen, and give authority to another, whenever one's thumos impels him to speak for the good" (9.100-103). In a gently instructive turn, he tells Diomedes: "You talk intelligently to the kings, since you spoke in proportion" (kata moiran, 9.59) (Martin 1993:104-5, 107-8).

For the broader analysis of Nestor as the ideal speaker whose rhetoric rests on eulogy, see the comment on Iliad 1.253-284.

References

Martin, R. P. 1993. The Language of Heroes: Speech and Performance in the Iliad. Ithaca.

Agamemnon's most noticeable rhetorical miscalculation comes in his instructions to the embassy: "Let him be subdued—Hades you know is unappeasable and unconquerable—for which reason it is most hateful of gods to men. And let him be subservient to me, inasmuch as I am more kingly and claim to be more advanced in ancestry" (9.158-61). The gibe at the end of a speech recurs in other contexts, as when Agamemnon tries to save the life of Menelaos (supposedly) but reminds his brother that "even Achilles feared to meet this one {Hektor} in glorifying battle, and he is far better than you" (7.113-14), cutting two victims at once with flyting rhetoric that is disconcerting in the context. In some passages, it appears that Agamemnon uses the tactics of neikos to the wrong audience. The general resort to the language of neikos by Agamemnon betrays an uncertainty about his power at speech which, in circular fashion, only makes his rhetoric more nervous and deficient (Martin 1993:116-17).

For the broader analysis of Agamemnon's style, see the comment on Iliad 4.336-421.

References

Martin, R. P. 1993. The Language of Heroes: Speech and Performance in the Iliad. Ithaca.

The vexed problem of the dual-number verb forms in the embassy scene of Book 9—where verbs referring to two persons are applied to an embassy comprising three, Phoinix, Odysseus, and Aias—admits of a solution based on the close contact between Homer and Achilles. Gregory Nagy's suggestion that Odysseus, the traditional nemesis of Achilles, is the intrusive element in the embassy has the advantage of being grounded in attested themes of Greek epic. If one prefers a solution from larger patterns of narrative voice, the close contact between Homer and Achilles, his voice, would lead one to consider Phoinix the odd man out, because the relationship between Achilles and Phoinix is such that the young hero, speaking, could assume the presence of the older man as natural and address dual verb forms to Odysseus and Aias, neither of whom belongs in his quarters. It is one of the more pragmatically interesting features of literary semantics that a speaker may assume the presence of a non-introduced hearer who shares his own knowledge. Achilles is such a speaker; Homer, as narrator, takes the stance of Achilles and uses the speech habit again—the duals—associated with this stance (Martin 1993:236-37).

For the apostrophe to Patroklos as a related consequence of Achilles' role as focalizer, see the comment on Iliad 16.19. For the broader argument regarding the identification of Homer's narrative voice with Achilles, see the comment on Iliad 2.488-492.

References

Martin, R. P. 1993. The Language of Heroes: Speech and Performance in the Iliad. Ithaca.