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

analysis of passages in the Iliad that (can) allude to the Odyssey, with these lines as an example anticipating O.14.156-157

analysis of how alive the meaning of the name Agelaos was based on the collocation of agein with laos

Example of Achilles’ indecision about remaining in Troy for to achieve kléos or to achieve his nóstos. Issue of free will and fate is ambiguous when compared to Il. I.352 and Il. XVIII.89-96

this line as one of the counterexamples for identifying unmodified laos as one’s own

list of/analysis of passages where humans are likened to gods

analysis of the formulaic element at work in the diction to do with “remembering return”

example of relationship between verbs signifying mind as nóstos. Compare to Il. X.509, Od. III.142

this line as one of the counterexamples for identifying unmodified laos as one’s own

formulaic patterns here are conflated in Od. XIV.183-184

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.

Here is the speech of Odysseus to Achilles. It is the first of the three speeches to be delivered by the three ambassadors, and it is now being delivered out of sequence, in contradiction of the plan formulated by Nestor, who had wanted Phoenix to deliver the first speech: see the comment on I.09.182–198. See also BA 51. The speech of Odysseus starts abruptly at I.09.225, since the Master Narrator does not use formal wording to introduce the speech: instead, at I.09.224, Odysseus simply fills a cup with wine and, gesturing at Achilles, he just starts speaking directly to him, toasting him at I.09.225.

The fear of the Achaeans is that Hector’s fire will reach their ships beached at the Hellespont, and such a disaster would surely destroy them.

As Odysseus warns, I.09.249, Achilles will suffer akhos ‘grief’ in some unforeseeable way if he does not help the Achaeans right now. And there will be no akos ‘remedy’ for the pain of this grief, I.09.250. The warning will come true, since the future death of Patroklos will turn Achilles into a man of constant sorrow. See especially the comment on I.18.015–073; also the comment on I.23.046–047. Of special interest here at I.09.249–250 is the morphological parallelism of akhos ‘grief’ at I.09.249 with akos ‘remedy’ at I.09.250. Another morphological parallel for akos ‘remedy’ is the synonym althos ‘remedy’. Whereas akos and althos are synonyms, they are both antonyms of akhos, and the morphological parallelism of all three words serves to highlight the semantic contrast of akhos on one side with akos and althos on the other side. The morphological parallelism extends to names derived from the antonyms althos and akhos, since althos ‘remedy’ is to Althaiā as akhos ‘grief’ is to Akhaiā (see BA 88).

The wording of Odysseus refers here to the kholos ‘anger’ of Achilles. But this word is only a partial synonym of mēnis ‘anger’, which is a more specialized word that suits more accurately the relevant emotion of Achilles.

Embedded here within the speech of Odysseus is his restatement of Agamemnon’s terms for compensating Achilles. For a significant omission, see the comment on I.09.120–161.

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.

In the speech of Odysseus, he reports here at I.09.270–272 what Agamemnon said at I.09.128–131, but now the action of Achilles is narrated in the second person.

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.

Whereas the Master Narrator did not use formal wording to introduce the speech of Odysseus at I.09.225–306, he does use formal wording both to introduce at I.09.307 the speech of Achilles and then to conclude it at I.430

In these four verses, Achilles begins his own speech in response to the speech of Odysseus, and he rejects straightaway Agamemnon’s offer for compensation. The tone is hostile toward Odysseus, not only toward Agamemnon.

Achilles expresses here his hostility toward Odysseus: someone who says one thing and means another thing is as ekhthros ‘hateful’ to Achilles as the Gates of Hādēs. If in fact Odysseus has misrepresented the offer of Agamemnon by leaving out the part of the offer that would have compromised the epic status of Achilles, then Odysseus is ekhthros ‘hateful’ and thus not philos ‘near and dear’ to Achilles. And that is why it can be argued that the earlier wording of Achilles in greeting the ambassadors is designed to exclude Odysseus from the company of those who are near and dear. See the comment on I.09.193–198. There is, then, a traditional enmity between these two heroes.

The response of Achilles to the speech of Odysseus continues. The passion intensifies even further.

I suggest that the story embedded here about 11 cities that Achilles conquers on foot, I.09.329–333, may be an indirect reference to the 12 cities of the Aeolian Dodecapolis minus Smyrna, which was lost to the Ionians. For details about these 12 cities, see the inventory of Words and Ideas under Aeolian Dodecapolis. By contrast, Achilles conquers 12 other cities not on foot but sun nēusi (σὺν νηυσί) ‘by way of ships’, I.09.328. Similarly at I.06.640–642, Hēraklēs had earlier conquered Troy itself hex oiēis sun nēusi (ἓξ οἴῃς σὺν νηυσί) ‘by way of merely six ships’, I.06.641. The analogous deed of Hēraklēs here leads me to think that Achilles too was conquering the 12 cities in the vicinity of Troy, whereas the other 11 cities would have been situated further south on the mainland of Asia Minor, that is, in the territory of the ancient Aeolian Dodecapolis. Herodotus 1.149.1 lists the cities of the Aeolian Dodecapolis, and one of them happens to be Killa. I think that this Killa is the same place that is mentioned twice in the Iliad, I.01.038 and I.01.452, in the context of Aeolian places that are specially sacred to Apollo. The two other places mentioned both times in those passages at I.01.038–039 and at I.01.451–452 are Chrysa and Tenedos. It has been argued that the Homeric Killa cannot be the same place as the Killa mentioned by Herodotus (Leaf 1923:310), but such arguments are based on the assumption that Homeric Killa was near Lyrnessos and Thēbē, two other places said to be conquered by Achilles. Herodotus 1.151.1 notes that the Aeolian cities on the mainland of northern Asia Minor in the region of Mount Ida—that is, in the general area of ancient Troy—were grouped separately from the Aeolian Dodecapolis, but he does not list those cities by name. The reason, I suspect, is that any federation of cities situated in this area would have been already severely disrupted by the Athenian empire in the fifth century BCE, that is, in the era of Herodotus, and, earlier, by the domination of this area by the Aeolian city of Mytilene in the seventh and the sixth centuries BCE. In that era, this city on the island of Lesbos was a major rival of Athens in seeking to possess the sacred real estate, so to speak, of ancient Troy and its environs. See Point 7 in the anchor comment that follows immediately below.

There are ten points in this anchor comment, epitomized mostly from HPC 131–146:

Point 1. Our point of departure is New Ilion, which in the historical period was an Aeolian city built over the ruins of the old Troy of the Trojan War as narrated in the epic that we know as the Homeric Iliad. Archaeologists have verified that Hisarlık, which is the Turkish name for the site of New Ilion, was in fact the same place as the site of old Troy, which was also known in the ancient world as Ilion. [HPC 131]

Point 2. After a major destruction of the citadel at old Troy sometime around the beginning of the 12th century BCE, which marks the end of a phase that archaeologists recognize as Troy VIIa, the importance of the site was radically diminished, and things stayed that way through the phase known as Troy VIIb, lasting into the 10th century BCE. After Troy VIIb comes Troy VIII, which marks a “Greek era” extending all the way to the so-called “Roman era” that is Troy IX. In the earliest phase of Troy VIII, from the 10th to the mid-7th century BCE, a small population was occupying the area of the citadel, and, on the western side of the citadel wall, they left behind some archaeological remains of a “place of memory” that must have commemorated in some way the epic traditions of the Trojan War (Aslan and Rose 2013:11). At a later phase of Troy VIII, in the mid-7th century BCE, there was a destruction, to be followed in the late 7th century by a reoccupation. From this time onward, in the latest phase of Troy VIII, we see the beginnings of the historical period. Now the old Troy is on its way to becoming the new Troy, that is, New Ilion. [HPC 131.]

Point 3. As in modern times, the old Troy of New Ilion was sought out in antiquity, most prominently by rulers striving to link themselves with the heroes who fought in the Trojan War of the epic past. In 480 BCE, as we read in Herodotus 7.43.2, Xerxes the king of the Persian Empire traveled to New Ilion and made sacrifice there to the goddess Athena, and his magi made libations to the hērōes ‘heroes’ who were entombed in the environs. Over a century later, Alexander the Great likewise sacrificed to Athena in New Ilion (Strabo 13.1.26 C593; Arrian Anabasis 1.11.7). [HPC 131–132.]

Point 4. I highlight the term used by Herodotus here at 7.43.2 in referring to the goddess Athena as worshipped in her sacred space at New Ilion: she is hē Ilias, meaning something like ‘she who is in Ilion’. But the name can also be interpreted to mean ‘she who is in the Iliad’, in the sense that Ilias as an ‘Iliad’ means simply ‘the song about Ilion’. [HPC 126.]

Point 5. Elsewhere, at 5.122.2, Herodotus uses the same expression hē Ilias in referring to the territory of Ilion as inhabited by Aeolians. The context is this: a Persian general was redeploying his forces at the time of the Ionian Revolt, ongoing in the first decade of the 5th century BCE, and he was moving his troops westward in the direction of the Hellespont (ἐπὶ τὸν Ἑλλήσποντον). Then, along the way to the Hellespont, ‘he captured all the Aeolians who inhabit the territory of Ilion [hē Ilias]’ (καὶ εἷλε μὲν Αἰολέας πάντας ὅσοι τὴν Ἰλιάδα νέμονται). This detail from Herodotus concerning hē Ilias as ‘the territory of Ilion’ is a most valuable piece of evidence showing that New Ilion was at this time inhabited by Aioleîs ‘Aeolians’. I should add that there is a plethora of further evidence showing the Aeolian identity of New Ilion in the era of Troy VIII. [HPC 142–146.]

Point 6. But now we must confront a big complication. This New Ilion was not the only ‘new Ilion’. As early as the late seventh century BCE, a rival ‘new Ilion’ emerged, and its occupants claimed that their site replaced the real Troy of olden days. This alternative New Ilion was located not far from the old Troy, but it was a different site. The inherited name of the site was Sigeion, and it was situated on a promontory at Kum Kale, overlooking the entrance to the narrows of the Hellespont. Archaeologists have securely identified the site at Cape Yenişehir as Sigeion. [HPC 143; see the map at HPC 158.]

Point 7. Like the New Ilion that was built over the old Troy, the site of Sigeion used to be occupied by Aeolians. Also, for some time in the seventh century BCE, Sigeion had been dominated by one particular sub-group of Aeolians, namely, the elites of Mytilene, which was then the most powerful city in Lesbos, an Aeolian island situated due west across the sea from the Aeolian mainland of northern Asia Minor. As we read in Strabo 13.1.38 C599, the Mytilenaeans under the leadership of one Archeanax built the walls of the citadel of Sigeion from the stones of the ruined walls of the ancient citadel of Troy. Strabo thinks that this important piece of information validates arguments made in the second century BCE by the antiquarian Demetrius of Scepsis, who denied any continuity between the old Ilion and the city of New Ilion as it existed in his own day, claiming that there was no trace left of the old Ilion—and that the site of this old city was not New Ilion but rather a village located some 30 stadium-lengths to the southeast, in the territory of Scepsis. In terms of the theory posited by Demetrius, all the stones of the old Ilion had been used up in the process of building the walls of other cities like Sigeion. But we have already seen at Point 2 that the stones of the old Ilion were in fact still very much in evidence throughout the phase known as Troy VIII, and so the theory of Demetrius is invalidated. See also the comment on I.07.433–465 on the myth about the building of the Trojan Wall by Poseidon and Apollo for Laomedon, who had been king of Troy before Priam, I.07.452–453. Still, the information reported by Demetrius and transmitted by Strabo about the re-using of stones from old Troy for the building of new Troys retains its full value. A shining example of another such new Troy was the Aeolian city of Neon Teikhos ‘New Wall’, which belonged to a confederation of twelve Aeolian cities situated on the mainland of Asia Minor and commonly known as the Aeolian Dodecapolis (Herodotus 1.149.1 lists them all). [HPC 145–146. About Neon Teikhos, see also HPC 180.]

Point 8. Unlike New Ilion, which remained an Aeolian site, the city of Sigeion underwent a drastic change in identity, and this happened already in the late seventh century BCE. Somewhere around that time, control of Sigeion was seized by the Ionian city of Athens and taken away from the Aeolian city of Mytilene-in-Lesbos, which had dominated Sigeion earlier, as we saw at Point 7. I cannot go into details here about this drastic change, but I will at least highlight the fact that Sigeion is pictured as already belonging to Athens in the poetry of Alcaeus, who can be dated to the late seventh century BCE. Herodotus notes that Alcaeus himself says in his own poetry that his armor was captured from him by the Athenians in a battle against the Mytilenaeans, and that it was displayed by the enemy at the Athḗnaion ‘sacred space of Athena’ in Sigeion. Here is the way Herodotus says it at 5.95.1: ‘the Athenians have his [= Alcaeus’] armor and they have hung it up for display at the space of Athena [Athḗnaion] in Sigeion’ (τὰ δέ οἱ ὅπλα ἴσχουσι Ἀθηναῖοι καί σφεα ἀνεκρέμασαν πρὸς τὸ Ἀθήναιον τὸ ἐν Σιγείῳ). Strabo quotes the words of Alcaeus telling about the captured armor, and these words actually give the name of Athena’s sacred space as Glaukṓpion (Alcaeus F 401B via Strabo 13.1.37 C600). This same name Glaukṓpion, derived from the sacred epithet of Athena glaukôpis ‘having the looks of the owl’, is attested in Athens as well. There it applies to the sacred space of Athena Nike at the southwest corner of the acropolis (Callimachus F 238.11), and this space, like the Glaukṓpion in Sigeion, can be dated at around 600 BCE. On the protracted war between the Athenians and the Mytilenaeans over the possession of Sigeion, I cite the primary sources here: Herodotus (5.94–95), Strabo (13.1.38–39 C599–600), and Diogenes Laertius (1.74); a most admirable secondary source is Aloni 1986. [HPC 142–146.]

Point 9. Just as Athena had a sacred space in the new Ilion of Sigeion, so also she had her own sacred space in the New Ilion built on top of the old Troy, where as we have already read in Herodotus 7.43.2 the goddess was worshipped as hē Ilias, meaning not only ‘she who is in Ilion’ but also ‘she who is in the Iliad’. As noted at Point 4, such an ‘Iliad’ was not the Homeric Iliad that we have but instead ‘the song about Ilion’ as it was known then—and as it was known even earlier when the occupants of Troy VIII were already venerating a “place of memory” commemorating the epic traditions of the Trojan War, as we saw at Point 2. [HPC 131.]

Point 10. There may be some uncertainties about positively identifying an earlier version of ‘Iliadic’ Athena—hē Ilias—as the goddess who presided over the “place of memory” in the early phases of Troy VIII, but we can be quite certain about the actual linking of the old Troy with epic traditions about an old Troy. And here again the same expression hē Ilias applies: at Point 5, we already saw that Herodotus 5.122.2 says hē Ilias in referring to the territory of Ilion as inhabited by Aioleîs ‘Aeolians’. But now we will see that Herodotus also uses the same expression hē Ilias in a context where he refers to a territory belonging not only to Ilion but also to the Iliadic tradition of poetry. The context is this: Herodotus is describing a scene where representatives of the cities of Mytilene and Athens, which have evidently already fought in many wars over the possession of Sigeion, are submitting their dispute to inter-state arbitration, and now the Aeolians of Mytilene are demanding that the Athenians give back to them the territory of Sigeion and its environs (Herodotus 5.94.2): ‘You see, the Mytilenaeans and the Athenians had been waging war with each other for the longest time. One side [= the Mytilenaeans] operated out of the city [polis] of Akhílleion and the other side [= the Athenians], out of Sigeion. They [= the Mytilenaeans] were demanding the return of the territory [khōrā], but the Athenians rejected the demand, trying to demonstrate by way of what they said that the Aeolians were no more entitled to the Iliadic territory [hē Ilias khōrā] than were they [= the Athenians] and all the other Hellenes who had joined forces in avenging Menelaos for the abduction of Helen’ (ἐπολέμεον γὰρ ἔκ τε Ἀχιλληίου πόλιος ὁρμώμενοι καὶ Σιγείου ἐπὶ χρόνον συχνὸν Μυτιληναῖοί τε καὶ Ἀθηναῖοι, οἱ μὲν ἀπαιτέοντες τὴν χώρην, Ἀθηναῖοι δὲ οὔτε συγγινωσκόμενοι ἀποδεικνύντες τε λόγῳ οὐδὲν μᾶλλον Αἰολεῦσι μετεὸν τῆς Ἰλιάδος χώρης ἢ οὐ καὶ σφίσι καὶ τοῖσι ἄλλοισι, ὅσοι Ἑλλήνων συνεπρήξαντο Μενέλεῳ τὰς Ἑλένης ἁρπαγάς). As the wording of Herodotus indicates, the Aeolian city of Mytilene in Lesbos claimed to be representing all Aeolic-speaking Hellenes in claiming possession of the Iliadic territory of Sigeion in the Troad. By contrast, the city of Athens claimed to be representing all Hellenes who took part in the Trojan War. From the standpoint of both sides, then, the disputed territory is poetic as well as political. [HPC 145.]

By now the feelings of Achilles about the captive woman Briseis whom he had won and then lost as a war-prize have deepened and intensified. He says that he now loves her as if she were his wife. And he asks ironically: are Agamemnon and Menelaos the only Achaeans entitled to love their wives? And do they even love them? Whether or not they do, is the wife of Menelaos, Helen, really worth fighting for and even dying for?

Achilles in his speech here returns to something that Odysseus had said at I.09.241–243: how the Achaeans are afraid that Hector’s fire will reach their ships beached at the Hellespont, and that such a disaster would surely destroy them. Achilles now gives a biting response at I.09.347: let Agamemnon find a way to ward off the fire of Hector without the help of Achilles. The verb used here for the idea of finding a way, phrazesthai ‘devise a plan’, is correlated with the noun mētis ‘mind, intelligence’ in Homeric diction, as we see in the wording of Achilles at a later point, I.09.423. Since Odysseus is the primary exponent of mētis ‘mind, intelligence’ in Homeric poetry, Achilles is in effect saying to him at I.09.347: let Agamemnon rely on your mētis, Odysseus, since he cannot any longer rely on my biē ‘force, violence, strength’. Achilles is the primary exponent of biē ‘force, violence, strength’ in Homeric poetry, just as Odysseus is the primary exponent of mētis ‘mind, intelligence’. According to the scholia A for I.09.347, Aristarchus apparently thought that the passage we are now considering, I.09.346–352, was an allusion to another passage, O.08.072–083, which is about a quarrel that once took place between Achilles and Odysseus over one overriding question: will Troy be conquered by relying on the physical power of Achilles or on the mental power of Odysseus?

analysis of Calhoun, Marg, and Rüter’s arguments about the interconnections of Demodokos’ song of Achilles’ and Odysseus’ dispute in O.08 and I.01 and I.09

As we will see in later comments, especially starting with the comment on I.19.373–380, Achilles has a special relationship with the Hellespont.

At I.07.063–064, we saw that a young hero named Phríxos escaped the dangers of the póntos ‘[sea-] crossing’ that is the Hellespont, as we read in Pindar Pythian 4.160–161: Pindar’s wording goes on to say that Phríxos was ‘saved’, saōthē, because he was carried to safety by the ram with the golden fleece. But the young heroine Héllē, who was the sister of Phrixos, did not escape the dangers: she fell off the ram and drowned in the stormy waters of the Hellespont, as we read in Apollodorus 1.9.1. That is why the Hellespont is named after her: Hellḗs-pontos means ‘the [sea-] crossing of Hellē’.

In the Iliad and Odyssey, Apollo at Delphi is mentioned only here at Ι.09.404–405 and at O.08.079–081.

From the standpoint of its etymology, derived as it is from the verb keirein ‘cut, slice’, the noun kḗr in the sense of a ‘cut’ or a ‘slice’ or a ‘portion’ need not convey the negative idea of a ‘fated death’. When a hero chooses between two alternative kêres or ‘fates’, one of the two alternatives may be death but the other may be life. Thus when Achilles here speaks of two alternative kêres or ‘fates’ that may await him, namely, either the kleos or ‘glory’ that he will get if he dies young in the Trojan War or the nostos or ‘homecoming’ that will be his if he abandons that war, I.09.413, the second alternative is not really a ‘fated death’ for Achilles as is the first alternative. Instead, a nostos ‘homecoming’ would give him life. But this life would be limited. It would last only until the hero’s age runs out of time, just as the age of a plant will surely run out of time. Conversely, the kleos ‘glory’ that the hero would get from dying young in the Trojan War would have an unlimited life of its own, because this kleos is conferred by poetry, and this poetry is held to be imperishable.

The kleos ‘glory’ of the song that glorifies Achilles will be aphthiton ‘imperishable, unwilting’, I.09.413. The analysis here will focus first on the general sense of ‘imperishable’ and then on the specific sense of ‘unwilting’. The Greek combination of the adjective áphthiton ‘imperishable’ with the noun kléos ‘glory, fame’ here at I.09.413 is parallel to the Indic combination of the adjective ákṣita- ‘imperishable’ with the noun śrávas ‘glory, fame’ at Rig-Veda 1.9.7 (full argumentation in GMP 123–126). From the standpoint of the formulaic system inherited by Homeric diction, the function of the adjective áphthiton in combination with the noun kléos ‘glory, fame’ in the expression kleos aphthiton estai (κλέος ἄφθιτον ἔσται) at I.09.413 can be not only predicative, ‘the glory will be imperishable’, but also attributive, ‘there will be a glory that is imperishable’. An attributive syntax is indicated by the shorter expression kleos estai (κλέος ἔσται), as at I.07.458, meaning ‘there will be a glory’. There is also the comparative evidence of the attributive syntax that we see at work in the cognate wording of Sappho Song 44.4, … kleos aphthiton (… κλέος ἄφθιτον) ‘imperishable glory’ (line-final), and of Ibycus S151.47, … kleos aphthiton hexeis (… κλέος ἄφθιτον ἑξεῖς) ‘you will have imperishable glory’ (line-final). On the other hand, the expression kleos aphthiton estai (κλέος ἄφθιτον ἔσται) at I.09.413 seems to be coefficient with the expression kleos oupot’ oleitai (κλέος οὔποτ’ ὀλεῖται) as at I.02.325, ‘the glory will never perish’. See the comment on I.02.325. The syntax of kleos oupot’ oleitai ‘the glory will never perish’, if we compare it to the syntax of kleos aphthiton estai at I.09.413, may point to a predicative use of the adjective aphthiton: ‘the glory will be imperishable’. It has been suggested that the expression kleos oupot’ oleitai (κλέος οὔποτ’ ὀλεῖται) ‘the glory will never perish’ could have been used instead of kleos aphthiton estai (κλέος ἄφθιτον ἔσται) even at I.09.413 if it were not for the fact that the word ōleto (ὤλετο) ‘perished’ (the subject is nostos ‘[safe] homecoming’) is already used at the beginning of the same verse. It does not follow, however, that the wording kleos aphthiton estai (κλέος ἄφθιτον ἔσται) instead of kleos oupot’ oleitai (κλέος οὔποτ’ ὀλεῖται) at I.09.413 must be some kind of a reactive innovation: on the contrary, this wording can be an archaism that survives precisely for the stylistic purpose of avoiding an awkward duplication of wording in the same verse. As a general approach to poetics, I suggest that allowance should regularly be made for the possibility that older forms can be activated in situations where a more innovative equivalent form might create a poetically awkward side-effect (GMP 122–123). That said, my focus of analysis now shifts from the general sense of the adjective aphthito- as ‘imperishable’ to its specific sense as ‘unwilting’. This sense has already been noted in the comments on I.01.155, I.02.046, I.02.325. Unlike a plant that runs out of time, the kleos of poetic ‘glory’ is like an imperishable flower that will never wilt, never lose its vibrant color and aroma. Accordingly, the kleos aphthiton of Achilles will be like an unwilting flower. And the way for a hero to be adorned with such an unwilting flower is to experience a fated death. That is why the alternative of death in a choice between kēres ‘fates’ is the desired choice for the hero to make. And that is why the meaning of kḗr defaults to ‘a fated death’ as desired by heroes in the epic world of heroes. See again the overall comment on I.09.410–416. For Achilles, the kleos aphthiton ‘unwilting glory’ that he chooses is really an alternative form of life, while the nostos ‘homecoming’ that he ultimately rejects is an alternative form of death, since the name of his homeland is Phthiē, a “speaking name” (nomen loquens) that means literally ‘the land of wilting’. See the comment on I.01.155. See also HPC 168n67 on the ritualized idea of wearing garlands that are ‘unwilting’ in a Thessalian ritual that honors Achilles. By contrast with the hero Achilles, however, who chooses kleos or poetic ‘glory’ instead of a nostos ‘homecoming’, the hero Odysseus does not need to make a choice. In fact, as we will see in a future comment, Odysseus cannot even make such a choice, since he needs a nostos ‘homecoming’ to achieve his own kleos or poetic ‘glory’, which will be ‘a song of homecoming’.

The syntax for referring to the pair of Ajax and Odysseus here is constructed in the plural. To be contrasted are the earlier constructions in the dual, I.09.182–198, where the referents might be the pair of Phoenix and Ajax—or a pairing of Phoenix with the whole group that he leads.

Here, finally, is the speech of Phoenix, postponed because Odysseus took the initiative of speaking first. Whereas the Master Narrator did not use formal wording to introduce the speech of Odysseus at I.09.225–306, he does use formal wording to introduce at I.09.432–433 the speech of Phoenix.

Phoenix speaks here about the need for Achilles to prevent the fire of Hector from setting the beached ships of the Achaeans on fire.

The words of Phoenix warn against the dangers of atē ‘aberration’, I.09.512. The Litai, goddesses of supplication personified, I.09.502, afflict with atē a man who does wrong by showing cruelty to suppliants and rejecting their supplications, I.09. 510–512. The warning here is intended for Achilles. But why is it that Achilles should heed the Litai? An answer emerges at I.09.507, where the Litai are said to heal the damage caused by the atē ‘aberration’ that is committed by wrongdoers when these wrongdoers offer compensation for such atē. As we saw in the comment on I.09.115–120, Agamemnon admits his atē ‘aberration, for which he stands ready to offer apoina ‘compensation’, I.09.120. In rejecting the Litai, one is rejecting the process whereby compensation can be awarded for damage suffered—and the word for ‘damage’ is Atē personified at I.09.504 and I.09.505. Further, the punishment for such refusal is another round of atē ‘aberration’—this time suffered by the one who rejects the Litai, I.09.510–512. For Achilles, such an atē would be the death of his other self, Patroklos, who personally experiences atē at the moment of his death, I.16.805, in the form of an aberration of the senses. See the comments on I.16.685–687 and on I.16.804–806. At I.19.268–275, Achilles seems to recognize that both he and Agamemnon have in the end been afflicted with atē.

Phoenix refers to the three ambassadors, including himself, as philtatoi, the ‘nearest and dearest’ to Achilles. But the relationship of Achilles to the three has its problems, as analyzed in the comment for I.09.193–198.

The story told by Phoenix about Meleagros and Kleopatra is introduced at the very beginning, I.09.524, by the expression houtō ‘this is how’, which conventionally introduces a discourse containing a moral message, such as a fable. The Greek word for such discourse is ainos, the meaning of which is impossible to translate by way of any single English word. For want of a better alternative, I define ainos pragmatically as ‘coded words’—a ‘coded message’. In the case of the story told by Phoenix, it is intended to carry a moral message for Achilles. The story is described, already at I.09.524, as klea andrōn | hērōōn ‘the glories [klea] of men who were heroes’. By convention, such an expression refers to song, especially to the medium of epic. We saw at I.09.185–191 a truncated version of this expression, klea andrōn, ‘the glories [klea] of men’, I.09.189, and the performer in that context was Achilles himself, singing his song while accompanying himself on the lyre. The male hero in the story of Phoenix, Meleagros, is like Achilles. He too is angry at his community, and he too has withdrawn from fighting in a war, leaving his own people in desperate trouble. Those who are near and dear to him now approach Meleagros, imploring him to return to the fight and making their appeals to him as suppliants. The narrative arranges the order of the suppliants in terms of the hero’s ascending scale of affection. Those who are starting off on the lower levels of this scale will be mentioned earlier, while those who end up on the higher levels will be mentioned later. So, the highest someone on this scale will be mentioned last. Near the top of the scale are the hetairoi ‘companions’ of Meleagros, I.09.585, who are described at I.09.586 as philtatoi ‘nearest and dearest’ to him. So also Phoenix thinks that he and his fellow ambassadors, as companions of Achilles, should be placed at the very top of his ascending scale of affection. But the highest person on the ascending scale of affection for Meleagros turns out to be his wife, named Kleopatra, I.09.556. Her name fits the moral message of the story, since Kleopátrā means ‘she who has the glory [kleos] of the ancestors’. Thus Kleopatra is the very embodiment of the story described as klea andrōn | hērōōn ‘the glories [klea] of men who were heroes’, since heroes are figured as stylized ancestors of the community. But the question is, what meaning will this story have for Achilles? For this hero, the top of his own ascending scale of affection will turn out to be Patroklos, whose full name, Patrokléēs, has the same meaning as the name of Kleopátrā, but the two elements of the name, kleos ‘glory’ and pateres ‘ancestors’ are in reverse. Each of the two names is a “speaking name” (nomen loquens), and both names mean ‘he/she who has the glory [kleos] of the ancestors’. Further, as noted in the comment for I.09.185–191, the etymology of the name Patrokléēs can be adjusted by way of interpreting the component kléos ‘glory’ in the plural sense of the word, not only in the singular sense: ‘he who has the glories [klé(e)a of the ancestors [patéres]’. And the same can be said for Kleopátrā: ‘she who has the glories [klé(e)a of the ancestors [patéres]’.

comment on the parallel between the loss of timē by Achilles in I.01 and Artemis’ being deprived of her share in a sacrifice, which qualifies as a dais in the Meleager story (Motto and Clark)

Here at I.09.561–564, it is revealed that Kleopatra had a second “speaking name” (nomen loquens), and that this name had to do with the singing of laments. Her second name was Alkuónē, I.09.562, which was given to her as a reminder of sorrows suffered by her mother, who is said to have lamented just as a songbird laments, I.09.562–564. The lamenting songbird here is the halkúōn ‘halcyon’, described as polupenthēs ‘having much grief’, I.09.563. See also the comments on I.22.483 and on Ι.24.708, analyzing further contexts where penthos ‘grief’ is connected with singing songs of ritual lament.

For Meleagros, what elevates Kleopatra to the top of his own ascending scale of affection is her lament at I.09.590–594 expressing her grim premonition about a destroyed city. Suddenly, Meleagros comes to his senses and sees for the very first time that the doomed city as pictured in the lament of Kleopatra will be his very own city if he does not take immediate action.

Once again, the fire of Hector looms as a threat to the salvation of the Achaeans.

The speech of Achilles in response to Phoenix is remarkably brief in comparison to his speech in response to Odysseus. If Phoenix had spoken first, the response of Achilles would have been different.

Once again, the pairing of Ajax and Odysseus is a plural instead of a dual construction.

This speech is not even addressed to Achilles: Ajax speaks to Odysseus, telling him that it is not even worth trying to speak to Achilles. It is a form of ignoring a person, comparable perhaps to the partial ignoring of Odysseus by way of dual constructions. See the comment on I.09.193–198.

Ajax here is accusing Achilles of ranking Briseis ahead of his own companions by failing to be swayed when they assure him that they are near and dear to him. There will be more about this speech in a future comment, with analysis of parallelisms between this passage and a passage dealing with a litigation scene as depicted on the Shield of Achilles.

use of poinē as in the sense of wergild in the context of discussing the litigation scene on Achilles’ Shield

As Ajax declares, the three ambassadors desire to be philtatoi ‘most near and dear’ to Achilles. So, they desire to be at the very top of this hero’s ascending scale of affection.

The response of Achilles to Ajax is stark, as we see in common on I.09.650–653.

This time, Achilles himself declares that he will not concern himself with the Trojan War until Hector’s fire reaches the Achaean ships beached on the Hellespont.

Phoenix stays behind in the shelter of Achilles while the rest of the delegation make their way back to the headquarters of Agamemnon. Odysseus is the leader of the remaining group, I.09.657, and this group is designated in the plural, not in the dual.

In this passage, two more women whom Achilles had captured are named: (1) Diomede, daughter of Phorbas, from Lesbos and (2) Iphis from Skyros.

Now Agamemnon is asking Odysseus whether Achilles is willing to ward off the fire of Hector from the beached ships of the Achaeans. The obsession with this fire has lost none of its intensity.

analysis of Odysseus’ speech to Achilles (esp. regarding philophrosunē) and Odysseus’ separation of the interests of Agamemnon and the rest of the Achaeans, contrary to the way Achilles views the situation

analysis of Odysseus’ speech to Achilles and Odysseus’ separation of the interests of Agamemnon and the rest of the Achaeans, contrary to the way Achilles views the situation

analysis of Phoenix’s speech as echoing Odysseus’ concluding statement

comparison of Plato’s text of the verses with what has come down to us through the medieval manuscript tradition in the context of analyzing Socrates’ and Hippias’ debate over Homer’s representation of Achilles

analysis of Achilles’ response to Odysseus’ speech in terms of his alienation, mēnis, desire to realize his heroic identity and win kleos, as well as the hostility between Achilles and Odysseus

analysis of Achilles’ response to Odysseus’ speech in terms of his alienation, mēnis, desire to realize his heroic identity and win kleos, as well as the hostility between Achilles and Odysseus

analysis of Achilles’ response to Odysseus’ speech in terms of his alienation, mēnis, desire to realize his heroic identity and win kleos, as well as the hostility between Achilles and Odysseus

analysis of Achilles’ response to Odysseus’ speech in terms of his alienation, mēnis, desire to realize his heroic identity and win kleos, as well as the hostility between Achilles and Odysseus

analysis of Achilles’ response to Odysseus’ speech in terms of his alienation, mēnis, desire to realize his heroic identity and win kleos, as well as the hostility between Achilles and Odysseus

analysis of Achilles’ response to Odysseus’ speech in terms of his alienation, mēnis, desire to realize his heroic identity and win kleos, as well as the hostility between Achilles and Odysseus

analysis of Achilles’ response to Odysseus’ speech in terms of his alienation, mēnis, desire to realize his heroic identity and win kleos, as well as the hostility between Achilles and Odysseus

analysis of Phoenix’s speech (the part of how he came to know Achilles) as expressing his philotēs and attempting to evoke Achilles’ as an antidote to his mēnis

analysis of Achilles’ response to Odysseus’ speech in terms of his alienation, mēnis, desire to realize his heroic identity and win kleos, as well as the hostility between Achilles and Odysseus

analysis of the goal of Agamemnon’s offer of gifts and the questions of relative status (rank) involved, specifically Agamemnon’s offer of gifts as an assertion of the giver’s prestige (potlatch) and Achilles’ responses

analysis of Achilles’ response to Odysseus’ speech in terms of his alienation, mēnis, desire to realize his heroic identity and win kleos, as well as the hostility between Achilles and Odysseus

analysis of the goal of Agamemnon’s offer of gifts and the questions of relative status (rank) involved, specifically Agamemnon’s offer of gifts as an assertion of the giver’s prestige (potlatch) and Achilles’ responses

analysis of Achilles’ statement of the value of his life’s breath in light of the relative value system of the society represented in epic

analysis of Achilles’ statement of the value of his life’s breath in light of the relative value system of the society represented in epic

analysis of Achilles’ response to Odysseus’ speech in terms of his alienation, mēnis, desire to realize his heroic identity and win kleos, as well as the hostility between Achilles and Odysseus

analysis of Achilles’ choice of destiny (nostos or kleos) in connection with his response to Ajax

adaptation of kleos aphthiton originally in the cadence of a lyric meter to the dactylic hexameter as in this verse, in the context of analyzing the relationship of genos eukhomai einai # and eukhomai einai #

analysis of Achilles’ response to Odysseus’ speech in terms of his alienation, mēnis, desire to realize his heroic identity and win kleos, as well as the hostility between Achilles and Odysseus

analysis of Achilles’ response to Odysseus’ speech in terms of his alienation, mēnis, desire to realize his heroic identity and win kleos, as well as the hostility between Achilles and Odysseus

analysis of mēnis as a tabu deformation and here specifically an example the relaxation of the speech tabu

analysis of philotēs and timē going together with this passage as an example

analysis of Phoenix’ Meleagros story and its parallels with his own story

analysis of Phoenix’s speech (the part of how he came to know Achilles) as expressing his philotēs and attempting to evoke Achilles’ as an antidote to his mēnis

analysis of Phoenix’s speech (the part of how he came to know Achilles) as expressing his philotēs and attempting to evoke Achilles’ as an antidote to his mēnis

analysis of Phoenix’s speech (the part of how he came to know Achilles) as expressing his philotēs and attempting to evoke Achilles’ as an antidote to his mēnis

analysis of Phoenix’s speech regarding Litai and Atē as meaning that Achilles is being appeased like a god with mēnis but if he is inflexible, he is danger of falling victim to Atē

analysis of kluein + eukhesthai formulas (here, examples of absolute eukhesthai)

in a list of examples of absolute use of eukhesthai to report prayers (kluein + eukhesthai formulas)

analysis of Phoenix’s speech regarding Litai and Atē as meaning that Achilles is being appeased like a god with mēnis but if he is inflexible, he is danger of falling victim to Atē

analysis of Phoenix’s plea to Achilles (transitioning from Litai to story of Meleagros)

contra Watkins that this is the only time a mortal utters the root noun mēnis

analysis of Phoenix’s plea to Achilles (transitioning from Litai to story of Meleagros)

list of instances when mortals (and narrator and gods) utter the root noun mēnis

analysis of Hector’s and Andromache’s exchange and comparison with Kleopatre’s with Meleagros (I.09) and Achilles and Patroklos, and analysis of kleos, patēr, and philoi in these contexts (here, specifically on the semantics of the collocation of pater and kleos as ‘the kleos of the ancestors’)

analysis of Phoenix’s plea to Achilles (transitioning from Litai to story of Meleagros)

analysis of Phoenix’s Meleagros story in terms of Kakridis’ folktale motif of the ascending scale of affection

analysis of Phoenix’s Meleagros story in terms of Kakridis’ folktale motif of the ascending scale of affection

analysis of Phoenix’s Meleagros story in terms of Kakridis’ folktale motif of the ascending scale of affection and distinguishing philoi who are family members from philoi in general

analysis of Phoenix’s Meleagros story in terms of Kakridis’ folktale motif of the ascending scale of affection

analysis of Phoenix’s Meleagros story in terms of Kakridis’ folktale motif of the ascending scale of affection

analysis of Phoenix’s Meleagros story in terms of Kakridis’ folktale motif of the ascending scale of affection

analysis of Phoenix’s Meleagros story in terms of Kakridis’ folktale motif of the ascending scale of affection, here specifically to do with verbs from the root of the word Litai

analysis of Phoenix’s Meleagros story in terms of Kakridis’ folktale motif of the ascending scale of affection

analysis of Phoenix’s Meleagros story in terms of Kakridis’ folktale motif of the ascending scale of affection, here specifically to do with verbs from the root of the word Litai

analysis of Phoenix’s Meleagros story in terms of Kakridis’ folktale motif of the ascending scale of affection, here specifically to do with verbs from the root of the word Litai

analysis of Ajax’s speech to Achilles as corresponding to the penultimate group of pleaders in Phoenix’s Meleagros story

analysis of Phoenix’s Meleagros story in terms of Kakridis’ folktale motif of the ascending scale of affection

analysis of Phoenix’s Meleagros story in terms of Kakridis’ folktale motif of the ascending scale of affection, and also to do with verbs from the root of the word Litai

analysis of Hector’s and Andromache’s exchange and comparison with Kleopatre’s with Meleagros (I.09) and Achilles and Patroklos, and analysis of kleos, patēr, and philoi in these contexts

analysis of kēdea as a word for the solidarity bond arising from a death in the community or through marriage

analysis of Phoenix’s Meleagros story in terms of Kakridis’ folktale motif of the ascending scale of affection

analysis of Achilles’ response in light of the parallels with the Shield and the embassies to Meleagros, here also whether Achilles’ refusal of Agamemnon’s prizes is really harmful to his timē as Phoenix claims

analysis of Achilles’ response to Phoenix in terms of timē and philotēs/solidarity with Achaeans or with his family

analysis of Achilles’ response to Phoenix for how the latter’s speech affects Achilles’ decision

analysis of Achilles’ response to Phoenix in terms of timē and philotēs

analysis of kēdea as a word for the solidarity bond between those who share grief

analysis of Achilles’ response to Phoenix for how the latter’s speech affects Achilles’ decision

analysis of Ajax’s speech to Odysseus

analysis of Ajax’s speech, his use of the third person of Achilles and reference to philotēs

comparison with, and analysis of the litigation scene (with eukhesthai) on Achilles’ shield

analysis of Ajax’s speech (esp. about poinē) and its comparison with Phoenix’s Meleagros story and Achilles’ Shield in I.18

apoina as object of dekhesthai, in the context of analyzing I.18.499-500 (litigation scene on the Shield), and Corlu, Benveniste, and Chantraine

analysis of Ajax’s speech, his legal analogy for Achilles

analysis of the application of ilaos (and cognates) to gods (and heroes) with mēnis, here Achilles

apoina as object of dekhesthai, in the context of analyzing I.18.499-500 (litigation scene on the Shield), and Corlu, Benveniste, and Chantraine

analysis of Ajax’s speech, change to second person address to Achilles

analysis of Ajax’s legal analogy for Achilles’ situation and his belonging to their friendship group

analysis of Achilles’ response to Ajax’s speech

analysis of Odysseus’ reporting back to Agamemnon only the message Achilles gave him and omitting the concessions Achilles made to Phoenix and Ajax

analysis of Achilles’ response to Ajax’s speech

analysis of Achilles’ response to Ajax’s speech, specifically his stipulation that he will not fight until Hector is at the ships of the Myrmidons

analysis of Odysseus’ reporting back to Agamemnon only the message Achilles gave him and omitting the concessions Achilles made to Phoenix and Ajax

analysis of the philotēs between Achilles, Phoenix, and the Achaeans, and Achilles’ detaching Phoenix from them

analysis of Odysseus’ reporting back to Agamemnon only the message Achilles gave him and omitting the concessions Achilles made to Phoenix and Ajax

example of the inexplicit version of the rite of pouring a libation (to Hermes when going to sleep, i.e. where the return for it is not explicitly stated but ordained by custom)

The heroic imperative as crystallized in Phoinix's words to Achilles—μύθων τε ῥητήρ' ἔμεναι πρηκτῆρά τε ἔργων (9.443)—demands that a hero learn to "be a doer of deeds" and a speaker, not of words, but of muthoi, "authoritative speech-acts." Both deeds and such words can be enacted (Martin 1993:25).

Diomedes' development within the Iliad illustrates the striving for this ideal. When Nestor approves the substance of his speech but tells him he has not reached the "perfection of speeches" (telos muthōn, 9.56), Nestor then demonstrates it himself—delivering a simple proposal in elegant form, with polyptoton, asyndetic gnomic statements, and full praise for his audience Agamemnon, all of whom approve his muthon (9.79). By Book 14, Diomedes has learned to construct an impregnable speech by preemptive action against possible objections, and the poet concludes his proposal with the identical line that followed Nestor's exemplary muthos in Book 9: "Thus he spoke and then they listened and obeyed" (14.133 = 9.79) (Martin 1993:24-25).

References

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

When Ajax performs a muthos before Achilles during the embassy (9.623-42), Achilles approves the format of the carefully made speech, although he seems little swayed by its content: "You appear to have said formally (muthēsasthai) all to me according to your heart (thumos)" (9.644-45). Achilles believes that Ajax has made a full disclosure of his views. The verb mutheomai here marks the speech as having a formal nature; full detail is laid out for the audience (Martin 1993:40).

Achilles' flyting speeches are distinctive through their use of recollection, and his memory feats are uniquely antagonistic. What remain separable modes of speaking for other heroes are for him two sides of the same experience (Martin 1993:141). The strategy of rebuking by recollection appears clearly in his third reply to the embassy. Although Ajax has spoken "according to your heart" (kata thumon, 9.645), Achilles' heart still swells with anger; he expresses this in terms of memory: "Whenever I recall how the son of Atreus degraded me among the Argives, like some worthless itinerant" (9.646-47; Martin 1993:141-42).

The same technique appears in his speech to Thetis in Book 1, which recaps in miniature narrative the first episode in the poem with Achilles' slight reshaping. Only at two points does Achilles intrude as narrator: when he sums up Agamemnon's muthos as a "threat" (ēpeilēsen, 1.388); and when he concludes with the wish that Agamemnon may realize "his own destructive act, that he did not honor the best of the Achaeans" (1.411-12). The narrative is indirectly blaming Agamemnon; its framework is the discourse of flyting. But it is a more convincing rebuke precisely because Achilles restrains himself from indulging in name-calling throughout the narrative (Martin 1993:141).

Even more striking is what Achilles does not remember. His words at 16.72-73, describing the Trojans' flight "should Agamemnon act mildly towards me," do not acknowledge the embassy scene that has just occurred, and this has long puzzled readers. Achilles, whose entire style relies on recollection, who is shown recalling the exact words of his own men's complaints in this same book (16.203-6), surely remembers. By refusing to acknowledge the existence of Agamemnon's offer, Achilles engages in a quite recognizable Iliadic convention—recall the effective silent reply of Diomedes to Agamemnon (4.401). Achilles has played the poetic equivalent of damnatio memoriae. Thus, in the terms of heroic style, he has effectively outdone the rhetoric of Agamemnon, whose excessive style could only cause competitors to enter an escalating spiral if they choose to speak against him. A "successful act of revenge is one that so appropriately caps the original injury that it draws attention to its own significance" in a society that values heroic style. Achilles' great speech in Book 9 is as effective a reply as he could give, verbally; this "forgetful" silence in Book 16, however, is an even more damning statement (Martin 1993:142-43).

References

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

The denial of command authority in Achilles' speeches comes out clearly in the command to Phoinix, "Be king equally with me and share half the honor" (9.616); in the granting of power to Patroklos to "rule the Myrmidons in battle" (16.65); in Achilles' later commitment to obey all commands of Patroklos (23.95-96); and in his directive—really an entreaty—that his companion's spirit "not be angered with me" (24.592) for having released Hektor's corpse. There is a slightly odd sound to these at first, as if Achilles were telling his audience not to regard him as worth listening to. But this self-deprecating strategy fits with Achilles' preference for two-way communication between speaker and addressee. And the denial of command only increases respect for the hero who can risk such apparent undercutting: it is a sign of higher authority. It gives substance to Achilles' assertion that he does not need the timē given by Agamemnon, since Zeus honors him (9.607-8) (Martin 1993:140-41).

For the broader analysis of Achilles' distinctive speech style, see the comment on Iliad 9.646-647.

References

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

The reply of Achilles to Odysseus in Book 9 (9.307-429) has been the focus of a long debate about the "language of Achilles," originating with Adam Parry's argument that Achilles, "bound by the formulaic nature of his diction, has no language with which to express his disillusionment" and yet succeeds by "misusing the language he disposes of." M. D. Reeve persuasively challenged this view, pointing out that "neither an unanswerable question nor an impossible demand is by its nature a misuse of language." The approach that best illuminates Achilles' speech is to compare every expression in his reply with similar expressions elsewhere in the Iliad, treating deviation from that norm as the site of characterization. The resulting analysis operates at the level of discourse—the full stretch of a speech—rather than at the level of particles, verb moods, or metrical features, which would not be perceptible to a listening audience (Martin 1993:152-53, 159-60).

For this analysis, formulas are divided into two types: syntagmatic (regularly repeated phrase groups—Parry's original definition) and paradigmatic (single words in regular metrical positions). A close reading of Chart 1, the full formulaic breakdown of Achilles' speech (9.307-429), produces the following finding: almost all of the speech consists of formulas, either paradigmatic or syntagmatic. Achilles' speech is thus traditional, in terms of the Iliad itself. But the number of paradigmatic formulas far outweighs the number of syntagmatic: Achilles uses very small, unconnected bricks for his edifice, choosing rather to rely on the ready-made longer phrase only occasionally. Each choice of word in a given place in the line is one that can be paralleled elsewhere, but the effect is one of tone: one seems to hear a man searching laboriously for the right word at every turn (Martin 1993:165-66).

Achilles generally employs familiar formulas in new ways; at the same time, what seem like new and innovative uses can in fact be explained as reworkings of familiar expressions paralleled elsewhere within the poem. His idiosyncrasy in formula use consists in his use of syntagmatic expressions elsewhere used exclusively by gods in speeches, or by the narrator in diegesis. There is a cohesiveness to these "deviations" (Martin 1993:169).

The key innovation that characterizes Achilles' speech over all other heroic discourse is what will be demonstrated as the "expansion aesthetic": an ability to ornament by expansion. Only Achilles, for example, asks essentially the same rhetorical question three times in succession (9.337-39). What is not conventional is the expanded form he gives to this strategy; and it is this expansion aesthetic that explains the dozens of fine deviations from the norm that a close reading of the speech reveals. Ultimately, it is this expansion aesthetic that shows the motivations for Homer's own poetry (Martin 1993:204).

For the analysis of kleos aphthiton as the speech's most marked formula, see the comment on Iliad 9.413. For the expansion aesthetic in full development, see the comment on Iliad 9.308-429 in Chapter 5.

References

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

The phrase kleos aphthiton ("unwithering fame") at Iliad 9.413 is the most marked formula in Achilles' reply: it does not appear elsewhere in Homeric poetry, and its metrical shape has been shown through comparative work to presuppose a common Indo-European prototype representing within Greek "a fragment of Indo-European versification" (Nagy). Despite this heritage, some scholars have labeled the phrase a chance innovation, since it occurs only here in Homeric poetry and employs the adjective as a predicate, with estai. Yet the single attestation of the phrase is actually the best proof that kleos aphthiton is not an accident of composition. Instead, the phrase is used just once, at the most important moment in the most important speech of the Iliad, and I believe it is used knowingly, as an heirloom from the poet's word-hoard (Martin 1993:182-83).

We can detect similar thematic importance in other combinations that are foregrounded in Achilles' speech by virtue of their unique occurrence in the Iliad. Line 341 gives us an opportunity to see how a new combination can spring from older, more usual phrases. The adjective agathos frequently appears in the slot following the hephthemimeral caesura, from its use in the formulas agathos Diomedes and boēn agathos. Similarly, anēr appears frequently in its slot, yet is never qualified by an adjective defining "goodness." In this case, the new juxtaposition of two ordinary words implies an equally unparalleled way of looking at human behavior: Achilles breaks through to the abstract language of philosophical ethics (Martin 1993:182-83).

The phrase thumalgea lōbēn (9.387) involves another kind of uniqueness. The adjective thumalgea is regularly used with another noun, kholos, in a formula that has primary reference in the poem to Achilles' own anger. The other occurrences of the adjective are placed on either side of Achilles' speech in Book 9: Odysseus reminds him of Peleus' admonition to put aside the "soul-paining anger" (9.260), and Phoinix includes in his paraenetic tale the detail that Meleager nursed this kind of wrath (9.565)—which is equivalent to calling Achilles' own anger "soul-paining." When Achilles uses thumalgea with lōbēn, "disgrace," the poet is characterizing him as rhetorician once more. Achilles' displacement of the adjective is an implicit answer to his elders, which asserts that his anger is not without an equally grievous motivation in the treatment accorded him (Martin 1993:183-84).

For the broader framework of the formulaic analysis of Achilles' reply, see the comment on Iliad 9.307-429.

References

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

Achilles' speech begins with the words khrē men dē ton muthon apēlegeōs apoeipein (9.309). The Greek word khrē is a strong expression of necessity and demands the attention of the listener. Furthermore, it sets off Achilles as a speaker distinct from the narrator, who never uses the word khrē in the Iliad. Achilles is concerned with the exigencies of life in a way that the omniscient Homer need not be. But besides being distinguished from the poet by his use of the word, Achilles alone among other speakers places khrē at the beginning of his discourse, and he alone combines it with the particle men. A rough paraphrase—"yes it is necessary, but"—shows that the combination transmits two messages at once. Something is crucial; at the same time, the speaker has other concerns: the anxious, serious tone thus created affects all the following words of the speaker. The combination khrē men occurs only one other time in the Iliad, at the point in Book 1 where Achilles replies to Athena (1.216-18) (Martin 1993:197-98).

Keeping in mind the conventional deployment of khrē phrases elsewhere in the poem—where they appear in contexts of battle advice or "talk about talk" (metalinguistic comment on another's speech)—Achilles' words are distinctive in a further way: he explicitly denies both topics. He will not fight, nor do his interlocutors need to speak to him about the decision. Achilles' denial of the effectiveness of speech goes beyond the usual expression which heroes use to silence one another for the moment; it becomes an abstract principle (Martin 1993:200-201).

For the broader analysis of Achilles' reply and the expansion aesthetic, see the comment on Iliad 9.307-429.

References

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

The phrase oude me peiseis occurs six other times in the poem, always in a reply and always within a standard pattern: (1) a person is told not to do something; (2) the phrase "you will not persuade me"; (3) the reason is given; (4) the speaker states his intended course of action. In Book 9, elements (1) and (2) are in place at 9.315-17, but the "reasoning" element—why Odysseus will fail to persuade him—occupies the entire first part of Achilles' speech (9.315-45). Moreover, his statement of intent is delayed until 9.356. Meanwhile, Achilles inserts instructions to Odysseus about what action the latter should take. The change in person of the verb—making a less common formula in the third-person singular—shows that Achilles is really refusing Agamemnon, not Odysseus. In sum, the usual pattern is expanded so as to be almost unrecognizable (Martin 1993:201-2).

For the broader analysis of Achilles' reply and the expansion aesthetic, see the comment on Iliad 9.307-429.

References

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

The gnomic utterance at 9.320—"They die alike, both the man without works and he who has done much"—is meant by Achilles to refer to his own situation, and represents a continuation of the self-reflective rhetoric that begins the speech. Here Achilles has twisted a traditional phrase so as to point it inward. The full phrase kai dē kaka polla eorge—which underlies Achilles' words (ho te polla eorgōs)—always elsewhere in the poem describes an enemy's deeds: Aeneas speaks of Diomedes (5.175), Hera of Hektor (8.356), and Sarpedon of Patroklos (16.424) in this way. In the logic of battle, the man who does many things to his enemies is necessarily a boon to his friends; only Achilles uses the poem's formulas to make the argument explicit (Martin 1993:192).

For the broader analysis of Achilles' self-referential reshaping of traditional diction, see the comment on Iliad 9.307-429.

References

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

The simile in which Achilles compares himself to a bird (9.323) has been singled out as a unique feature of his "language," an indication that he is more like a poet than any other character in the Iliad. I believe the simile does characterize Achilles as a skilled verbal performer, but the image itself is another example of a common motif found in patterns elsewhere in the poem that has been changed in his words. The other bird similes, uttered by the poet, compare flocks of birds with troops on the move (2.459-65, 3.2, 15.690) or equate horses with swift birds (2.764). The precedent for individual characters mentioning birds comes in the discourse associated with augury: in Odysseus' speech encouraging the Achaeans (2.308-29), the sēma made by Zeus at Aulis is described in the same pathetic manner, and the augur Polydamas combines sentiment with advice in his allegorical reading of another bird-sign (12.209). Before comparing himself to a bird and drawing conclusions, Achilles uses a phrase similar to Polydamas' preface (9.314; cf. 12.215). Like the augurs, he draws a moral from the depiction of the bird. His individual shaping of this piece of description from the discourse of augury consists in pointing the moral toward himself and toward the past, not the future: "So, too, I slept sleepless nights" (Martin 1993:203-4).

For the broader analysis of Achilles' reply, see the comment on Iliad 9.307-429.

References

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

The rhetorical questions of 9.337-41 represent a key instance of the expansion aesthetic. Sarpedon poses a similar question to Glaukos in a well-known passage (12.310-14), so the urge to question the reason for heroism is not unique in the Iliad. There is, however, an innovation in Achilles' words: only Achilles asks essentially the same rhetorical question three times in succession (9.337-39). Achilles can be seen as uttering a conventional rhetorical strategy, in order to foreground his own answer to the question "Why fight?" What is not conventional is the expanded form he gives to the strategy. Nor is this a minor factor: it is this one innovation—an ability to ornament by expansion—that characterizes Achilles' speech in contrast to the rhetoric of all other Iliadic heroes (Martin 1993:204).

The immediately following lines (9.341) illustrate a different kind of innovation: the only attestation in the Iliad of the theme of the "good man." The adjective agathos frequently appears in the slot following the hephthemimeral caesura in noun-epithet formulas; anēr appears frequently in its slot; yet the two are never elsewhere qualified together so as to define "goodness." The new juxtaposition of two ordinary words implies an equally unparalleled way of looking at human behavior: Achilles breaks through to the abstract language of philosophical ethics (Martin 1993:182-83).

For the broader analysis of Achilles' reply and the expansion aesthetic, see the comment on Iliad 9.307-429.

References

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

At 9.372-74, three phrases from Achilles' earlier exchange with Agamemnon in Book 1 recur together in a cluster: aien anaideian epieimenon (9.372 = 1.149), kuneōs per eōn eis ōpa idesthai (9.373, recalling kunōpa, 1.159), and boulās sumphrassomai (9.374 = from the narrator and Hera at 1.537, 540). The ensemble of phrases points back to another passage in which the expressions occur together. These are not random formulas but repetitions with "contextual surplus": they create meaning by providing a sense of the consistency of Achilles' own view of the world, characterizing the hero inasmuch as telling us his hatred of Agamemnon remains ever fresh. The phrase boulās sumphrassomai is particularly marked, since it is found nowhere else in the Iliad; the patterning of its speakers—Achilles, two goddesses, and the narrator—accords with Achilles' use of other, more regularly repetitive expressions elsewhere used only by gods or the poet (Martin 1993:173-74).

For the broader analysis of Achilles' reply and the typology of repetition, see the comment on Iliad 9.307-429.

References

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

The mention of great wealth at home (9.364-65), gold, bronze, and iron, belongs to the conventions of battlefield supplication. When the sons of Antimakhos plead before Agamemnon for mercy (11.130-35), their promise of ransom begins: "Many possessions lie in the house of Antimakhos, bronze and gold and much-enduring iron." Adrestos, appealing to Agamemnon, cites the identical objects (6.47-48); Dolon refers to the precious metals with which his father will buy his freedom (10.378-79). The reference to a rich father, a store of goods at home, gold, bronze, and iron—all these are features of Achilles' words at 9.364-400. But there is a change in context: instead of begging for his life, Achilles is rejecting the supplication being made by the Achaeans. A second genre of discourse has been called on to fill out Achilles' words, as a portion of this section (9.366) also seems to have been imported from the discourse associated with raiding boasts. The hero uses the conventional routine for a new purpose: isolated from the fray, he speaks as though in the thick of battle, his private life taking on the tone of the public conflict (Martin 1993:202-4).

For the raiding boast genre and its deployment in Achilles' speech, see the comment on Iliad 11.677-705. For the broader analysis of Achilles' reply, see the comment on Iliad 9.307-429.

References

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

Only Achilles speaks of the "soul" and of his "self" in the same breath within the Iliad, both at 9.322 and 9.401 (emēn psukhēn, emoi psukhēs antaxion). Reminders of the quarrel scene in Book 1 occur at 9.401: Achilles uses antaxion, a word not employed elsewhere in the context of recompense except at 1.136, where Agamemnon had demanded a gift "fitting in return." There is a point to the repetition: whereas Agamemnon had demanded a gift antaxion, Achilles asserts that there is nothing to exchange for his psuchē. These repeated phrases create meaning by providing a sense of the consistency of Achilles' view of the world, telling us his hatred of Agamemnon remains ever fresh. Furthermore, Achilles' final words ou ti min axō (9.429) are surely to be contrasted with Agamemnon's threat to take Briseis by force (1.139): Achilles refuses to use compulsion to detain Phoinix (Martin 1993:173-74).

For the broader analysis of Achilles' reply and the typology of repetition, see the comment on Iliad 9.307-429.

References

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

Between lines 310 and 314 in Book 9, a splitting expansion has made room for the intrusion of Achilles' reference to his hatred for concealment. The phrase kai hōs tetelesmenon estai occurs in six other passages always in a context of explicit threat or promise and furthermore is coupled with a form of the verb ereō: see Athena at 1.212, Odysseus at 2.257, Agamemnon at 8.286, and in threats by Zeus (8.401), Epeios (23.672), and Antilokhos (23.410). All these speakers are persons in power; their hearers shrink in fear, give up their plans, fall silent, or obey. This does not occur at 9.310, where there is no immediate threat. The line further on, autar egōn ereō hōs moi dokei einai arista (9.314), is itself unusual; one senses the tone of the threat-introduction line which begins the same way. In other words, the second half of 9.310 "belongs with" the first half of 9.314—a join that can be made with no change for the sake of meter. The poet's own introjection of different material into the middle of a formulaic line for artistic reasons is the cause of the split (Martin 1993:208-10).

The inserted sentences (9.311-13) constitute a replacement expansion built on the formula exauda mē keuthe noōi, which occurs three times in the poem to mark three narrative stages: Thetis consoles Achilles at 1.363, Achilles responds to Patroklos at 16.19, and Thetis returns to Achilles at 18.74-75. The poet seems to use it as a refrain that characterizes the tender relations between Achilles and Thetis, and Achilles and his companion. Achilles appears to employ the same rhetorical strategy, but with a difference: his opening sally against "the man who hides one thing in his thought and says another" is a request for full disclosure, but Achilles directs this call to himself and then fulfills it by speaking his mind at length. He reshapes and redirects the expected pattern by expanding the idea in mē keuthe to a hyperbolic two-line expression of hatred for the concealer (Martin 1993:209-11).

For the model from Zeus' rebuke to Ares (5.889-90) underlying 9.311-12, see the comment on Iliad 5.889-890. For the host's invitation formula (14.195-96 = 18.426-27) as a model for 9.310, see the comment on Iliad 14.195-196.

References

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

The phrase oute meg' Atreidēn Agamemnona peisemen oiō (9.315) exemplifies what Martin calls "internal expansion"—the technique of filling out a formula with added modifying phrases. The formula peithethai oiō (the middle-passive form) was deployed by Agamemnon at 1.287-89 when describing Achilles, and tossed back by Achilles at 1.295-96, when he denies he will obey his commander. At 9.315, Achilles switches the formula so that the burden of persuasion is placed on Agamemnon: "Me he will not sway I expect." Furthermore, the next lines allow us to see that the formula is expanded so that Achilles denies all forms of persuasion on Agamemnon's part—neither he nor the troops will trust their leader. The technique of expansion has added another object to the verb, a variation not found elsewhere. Such small expansions can help create the impression that Achilles feels more deeply, sees over a vaster range, and articulates in a manner different from that of his companions (Martin 1993:207-8).

The second half of 9.316, ouk ara tis kharis ēen, echoes the poet's own voice. When the poet describes the death of Iphidamas at Agamemnon's hands (11.243), the tone is that of the most haunting of Homeric obituaries: "the wife, from whom he had no joy, though he had given much" (kouridiēs, hēs ou ti kharin ide, polla d' edōke). Here, as often, kharis signifies both pleasure and reciprocal giving, reciprocity itself being a "pleasure" in the world of Homeric epic and a sign that the cosmos is operating properly. It is with this dual meaning of the word that one should approach the ending of 9.316. Through his use of the abstract noun, the personal gripe about lack of payment grows into an elegiac statement of universal human lack. Not only does Homer himself use the "lack of kharis" motif in a tone similar to that at 9.316; the exact phrase of 9.316 is also used by Glaukos in a related context at 17.142-68 when he upbraids Hektor for deserting Sarpedon's corpse—but Achilles elaborates in twenty lines what Glaukos merely alludes to in two (Martin 1993:213-15).

For the broader analysis of internal expansion as one of three expansion types in Achilles' speech, see the comment on Iliad 9.307-429.

References

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

Achilles' boast that he sacked twelve cities using ships and eleven more on foot (9.328-29) has an important parallel in Tlepolemos' boast to Sarpedon (5.638-42), the only other passage in the poem to mention sacking a city, ships, and a specific number. Tlepolemos boosts his status by referring to his father Herakles, who sacked Troy in the previous generation with six ships and a few men. Achilles boasts of twenty-three towns around Troy—his act is bigger, and the expanded two-line expression of his deeds fits the exploits. The difference in size is explicit in the doubling of the number at the beginning of 9.328: twelve cities versus Herakles' six ships; the formula is expanded semantically as well as spatially. This similarity of expression between 9.328-29 and 5.638-42 is not accidental, for it is well known that the shadow of Herakles follows Achilles throughout the Iliad. This attitude on the part of Homer arises from his own situation as performer when he attempts to compose an Achilles epic against a widespread and predominant earlier tradition that privileges the role of Herakles. What can be viewed as generational conflict within the story of the Iliad—the claims about Diomedes that he surpasses his father—is also a poetic contest (Martin 1993:227-29).

For the Thamyris passage as a claim that the Herakles tradition suffered a break in transmission, see the comment on Iliad 2.594-600.

References

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

The triple mention of "love" in 9.340-43 affords a glimpse at the formulaic creativity of Achilles achieved by expansion of dictional elements. Two patterns are combined to produce this extraordinary statement of affection. First, there is the pattern attested at 7.204—ei de kai Hektora per phileis kai kēdeai autou—in which the verb describes the feelings of a divinity for a hero. The second pattern refers to affection among mortals and is found with the iterative: malista de min phileeske (6.15), pantas gar phileeske (9.450), tēn autos phileeske. When Achilles says tēn autou philei kai kēdetai, he is mixing the patterns by employing the positioning of the verb common in the second type alongside the conjunction of verbs (philei kai kēdetai) that appears in the first. Furthermore, he deviates from each pattern in using the "divine affection" formula to refer to his own feelings for a wife, and the "human interaction" formula without the iterative form. Such a reshaping of formulas arises from a desire for expansive expression. The overt sign of the urge for pleonasm is the progression phileou's, phileei, phileon in these lines (Martin 1993:214-15).

For the broader analysis of Achilles' expansion aesthetic and its consequences for his rhetoric, see the comment on Iliad 9.307-429.

References

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

The line mē meu peiratō eu eidotos (9.345) offers a good example of telescoping. Compare with Hektor's words to Ajax (7.235-37): "Do not try me (mē ti meu . . . peirētize) like a senseless child or a woman, who does not know the works of war. But I well know (eu oida) battles and man-slayings." Several elements are telescoped in Achilles' expression: where Hektor provides the expansion—naming the child and the woman, specifying their ignorance, then giving the full content of what he knows—Achilles achieves brevity by removing all the intermediate material and retaining only the bare elements of the formula. The reduction is compensated by an expansion at another point in the text, for the context of refusal in Achilles' speech is itself greatly expanded by the long argument that precedes 9.345. The technique shows how telescoping and expansion are two sides of the same aesthetic: compressing a traditional formula at one point enables the poet to expand expression at another (Martin 1993:215-16).

For the broader analysis of telescoping as the third expansion type, see the comment on Iliad 9.307-429.

References

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

Achilles' hyperbolic denial at 9.379—"Not even if Agamemnon gives ten and twenty times as much will he persuade me"—is part of a tripartite structure, each section of which is also triplex. Form contrasts with context in the expression: although the limits of wealth are considered and refused, the expression of refusal itself is hyperbolic, verbally full, "excessive." This rhetorical auxēsis adds weight to Achilles' verbal defeat of his adversary, as he simply outtalks Agamemnon. The strategy of auxēsis—magnification at every point, usually accomplished by doubling and tripling of expressions—is what I call the "expansion aesthetic," and it characterizes Achilles' speech in contrast to the rhetoric of all other Iliadic heroes. The ultimate result of this repetition is the construction of a cohesive and forceful speech: the narrative attests to the power of Achilles' discourse, as his audience is silent in amazement at the muthos (9.431) (Martin 1993:220-22).

The parallel with Homer's recusatio at 2.488-92 furnishes the most important evidence that this strategy belongs to Homer himself. See the comment on Iliad 2.488-492.

References

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