analysis of the significance of nóos and néomai in the speech of Diomedes

analysis of the significance of nóos and néomai in the speech of Diomedes

brief analysis of the importance of ‘returning’ in this scene

cited as evidence for the well recognized notion that Priam’s ransom of Hector in Iliad XXIV is represented as a journey to the underworld and a consequent “return to life”

reference to same lines in similar thematic connection in Il. XXIV.328

reference to location and time (sunset) of Herme’s meeting with Priam, the tomb if Ilus. Indication of Priam’s ransom of Hector as a to the underworld and consequent ‘return to life’ [MRBTP: 'ff']

quoted and translated; analysis of the role of nóos in the encounter between Priam and Hermes

quoted and translated; analysis of the role of nóos in the encounter between Priam and Hermes

quoted and translated; analysis of the role of nóos in the encounter between Priam and Hermes

quoted and translated; analysis of the role of nóos in the encounter between Priam and Hermes

brief analysis of the importance of ‘returning’ in this scene, as indicated by Athena’s words to Diomedes, nóstou dḕmnēsat

analysis of Solon’s familiarity with the Homeric epics and their correspondence in language and theme with Solon fr. 4 West

reference to the connection between the captured horses of Diomedes and Odysseus and the ‘the rays of the sun’

reference to time (sunrise) of Priam’s return from the ransom of Hector. Indication of a journey to the underworld and consequent ‘return to life’ [MRBTP: 'ff']

analysis of the meaning of names in -tōr, here specifically Hector as “protector,” as exemplified in Andromache’s lament

The agōn ‘competition’, that is, the ‘coming together’ for the sake of competition, is now over. Or, to say it in Greek, the coming-together is now undone, as expressed by the verb luein ‘undo’. Now all the participants disperse, returning to their beached ships. See the comment on I.23.257–258.

The Iliad ends with the funeral of Hector, not of Achilles. And it is Hector, not Achilles, who is lamented at the end. But it is Achilles who makes it all happen, since he has transcended his rage and has shown mercy to an old father. The tears of Priam had made Achilles think of his own old father, of his own ancestors—and of Patroklos, who embodied the glories of the ancestors. Achilles was looking bad at the beginning of Iliad 23 and even at the beginning of Iliad 24, but he looks very good by the time Iliad 24 comes to a close.

Mourners lament as Hector’s corpse is laid out in preparation for the funeral that closes Iliad Rhapsody 24. Copperplate etching (1795) by Tommaso Piroli, after a drawing (1793) by John Flaxman. Image via Wikimedia Commons.

While the others sleep, Achilles is awake and restless, and he sorely misses Patroklos, as expressed by the verb potheîn ‘long for’. This verb potheîn ‘long for’, like the noun pothē ‘longing’, evokes the feelings of those who worship cult heroes: see especially the comment on I.17.685–690.

In these four verses, there is a compressed narration of what Achilles does over and over again during a sleepless night. He harnesses his chariot and drives it around the tomb of Patroklos three times while dragging the corpse of Hector. The tomb is called the sēma at I.24.16. The Master Narrator states here that this tomb belongs to Patroklos, as if the ultimate ownership of the tomb by Achilles were still in doubt. But the statement is justified, since the size of the tomb has not yet been adjusted to fit the prestige of Achilles himself: on this point see the anchor comment at I.23.245–248 and 256–257. Achilles drives his chariot around the tomb three times, then rests in his klisiē ‘shelter’, I.24.017, and then drives around three times again, and so on. Each time he rests inside his shelter, he leaves the body outside, lying prone in the dust, face down, I.24.017–018. The body has been shown before in this same degraded state: see the comment on I.22.395–405. Once again here, it is left to the imagination whether the body is horribly disfigured. It cannot be known, however, whether the body that Achilles is intending to degrade has in fact already been disfigured. Once again, the face is not visible. But, once again, it will become clear that the face and the head and in fact the whole body of Hector cannot be disfigured. This time, the clarification happens immediately, in the verses that follow.

Once again, divine intervention prevents the disfigurement of Hector’s body. The intervention starts midline at I.24.018, and the narrative of the intervention extends through I.24.018: the god Apollo will not allow any aeikeiē ‘unseemliness’ to happen to the body of Hector, I.24.019. Apollo focuses here on Hector’s khrōs ‘complexion’, I.24.019, worrying that the hero’s skin will be grotesquely scraped away by the harsh surface over which it is being dragged behind the speeding chariot of Achilles, I.24.021. This time, the protective covering that is granted by the gods is not an enveloping glow, as it was at I.23.188–191 (see the anchor comment at I.23.184–191), but rather a mystical aigis ‘skin-shield’, I.24.020. Then, at I.24.022, by way of ring-composition, the thinking returns to the horrors of mutilation by way of ‘disfiguring’ the body, as expressed here by the verb aeikizein. But the disfigurement is canceled. Once again, the body is saved. See again the anchor comment at I.23.184–191, where the vision of salvation for Hector’s body is fully analyzed.

The gods pity Hector and are on the verge of sending Hermes to hide the corpse of Hector, but this plan is vetoed by Hērā and Poseidon, in that order. They bear a grudge against Troy and Priam because of an atē ‘aberration’ of Paris=Alexandros. But the narrative concentrates only on Hērā, since the atē ‘aberration’ that the Master Narrator has in mind involves a direct insult to that goddess. On the story of that insult, see the comment on the verses that immediately follow.

In the story about the Judgment of Paris, as we read in the plot-summary of the Cypria, Proclus 102.14–19 (ed. Allen 1912), Paris=Alexandros has to choose from among three goddesses, Hērā, Athena, and Aphrodite, Cypria/Proclus 102.14–19. Which of the three is supreme? Paris chooses Aphrodite, who rewards him by arranging his love affair with Helen. The story of the Judgment of Paris is recapitulated, in a most compressed form, here at I.24.025–030. And the story is told in terms of a contrast between positive and negative words. The fact that Paris chose Aphrodite means that he aimed negative words at Hērā and Athena, as expressed by the verb neikeîn ‘quarrel with’ at I.24.029 (νείκεσσε), while he aimed positive words at Aphrodite, as expressed by the verb aineîn ‘praise’ at I.24.030 (ᾔνησ᾽). As noted in the comment on I.03.100, the verbs aineîn ‘praise’ and neikeîn ‘quarrel with’ express both the social and the poetic significance of praise and blame respectively.

In the speech of Apollo here, Ι.24.032–054, there is a compressed retelling of unseemly deeds committed by Achilles. At Ι.24.050–052, the god condemns especially the violence of Achilles, and he points to the hero’s dragging the corpse of Hector, I.24.050–052, around the sēma ‘tomb’ of Patroklos, I.24.051. In this context of condemning the hero’s violence, the god compares him to a ravenous lion at I.24.041–043. The wild beast is driven by its wild instincts, described here as its biē ‘force, violence, strength’ and its thūmos ‘heart’, I.24.042, as it lunges to devour the sheep that it is attacking, and here the word dais ‘portion (of meat)’ is used in referring to the meat of its prey, I.24.43. There is an irony here in the use of the word dais, since this word is closely connected to stories about Achilles: see the comments on I.07.319–322, I.19.044, I.19.179–180. The picturing of a ravenous lion that is lunging for the meat of its prey is comparable to the use of the word sōma at I.03.023 and I.18.161: what is pictured in both these contexts is a carcass that is being devoured by a ravenous lion that holds on to it and won’t let go. Here is what I said about such contexts in Point 6 of the anchor comment for I.23.184–191: for wild animals, the sōma is something that must be saved for devouring, while for humans the sōma is something that must be saved from being devoured by wild animals. See also the comment on I.22.346–348, where I analyze other comparisons of Achilles to lions.

evidence for Zenodotus’ alternate reading οἰωνοῖσι τε δαῖτα (Athenaeus Epitome 12f) at Il. I.5

In the speech of Hērā here, Ι.24.055–063, we see a reference to a primal story that is connected to the Judgment of Paris. It is the story about the wedding of Peleus and Thetis, the mortal and immortal parents-to-be of Achilles. As we read in the plot-summary of the Cypria in Proclus 102.13–19 (ed. Allen 1912), there was eris ‘strife’ at the feast celebrating the marriage of Thetis and Peleus. It was the Will of Zeus that Eris ‘Strife’ personified would bring about a neikos ‘quarrel’ among the gods that would ultimately result in the Trojan War (Proclus 102.14/15 on Eris/neikos). Hērā notes that even Apollo attended the wedding, singing at the feast, Ι.24.062–063.

In the speech of Zeus here, Ι.24.064–076, an elaborate plan leads to a most elaborate plot for the conclusion of the Iliad.

Köhnken’s argument for inclusion of Odysseus in the dual construction preceding I.09.192, citing this passage and criticism of it

On this expression, see the comment at O.01.342.

Zeus tells Thetis to tell Achilles that the gods are angry at him and want him to release to Priam the body of Hector. In this case, the Will of Zeus becomes an unambiguous moral force for the maintenance of ritual correctness in the post-heroic age.

Thetis conveys the Will of Zeus to her son. Her role here in Iliad 24 is symmetrical with her role in Iliad 1.

See the anchor comment at O.07.256.

See the anchor comment at O.07.256.

In speaking to Priam, the god Hermes disguises himself as a therapōn of Achilles. It is as if he were the spirit of the dead Patroklos, the other self of Achilles himself.

See again the comment on I.24.393.

See the anchor comment at O.07.256.

Here it is Alkimos who is called ozos Arēos ‘attendant of Ares’. See the anchor comment at I.12.188.

While Priam mourns for his own son Hector, Achilles alternates in mourning for his own father Priam and for Patroklos as his own other self. By mourning for both his father and for Patroklos, Achilles shows the way—showing how to mourn for ancestors. Do as I do. Relevant is what the “speaking name” (nomen loquens) of Patroklos means: ‘he who has the glory [kleos] of the ancestors [pateres]’. See the comments on I.01.345, I.06.209, I.09.185–191. Such a meaning signals the basic fact that one’s father is one’s most immediate ancestor. The kleos ‘glory’ of Achilles is thus linked, for all time to come, with a poetic glory that originates from the ancestors.

verses matching these quoted in the Derveni Papyrus and considered by the commentator as Orphic (Obbink 1997:41n4)

The two heroes Automedon and Alkimos are both marked as therapontes of Achilles, I.24.573, by virtue of this detail: Achilles honored the two of them more than anyone else after the death of Patroklos, I.24.574–575 (tīein ‘honor’ at I.24.575). Here they are acting as the attendants of Achilles, I.24.576–580.

analysis of petrified characters, here in Niobe’s story, and Aristarchus’ analysis of 611 in the passage as Homeric but 614-617 as non-Homeric

analysis and comparison of the different traditions about the children of Niobe, here the Iliadic one according to which they all were killed (contra an Argive one, according to which two were saved by Leto), in the context of analyzing Pausanias

analysis of locating the realm of Tantalos in Pausanias and comparison with the Iliad

reference to the fact that númphē can mean not only “goddess,” as here, but also “bride.” See Il. XVIII.492

analysis of EPEISE read as epei sé (non-enclitic) as opposed to epei se (enclitic), according to Herodian

The funeral of Hector may now begin. A funeral procession takes Hector to his bier, where the laments can begin.

The word penthos ‘grief’ here at I.24.708 refers to the context for performing laments, I.24.720–776, on the occasion of Hector’s funeral. The word recurs in the actual words of the lament sung by Andromache at Ι.24.741, where she says that Hector, by dying, has caused penthos ‘grief’ and góos ‘lament’ for his parents.

The laments for Hector at his funeral can be divided into two main parts, the second of which can be subdivided into three sub-parts. The first main part is at I.24.720–722, where professional aoidoi ‘singers’ who are men, I.24.720, perform thrēnoi ‘laments’, I.24.721; as they perform, the word that refers to their performance is thrēneîn ‘make lament’, I.24.722, which is a verb derived from the noun thrēnos ‘lament’. Following up on the laments performed by the professional singers are laments performed by the gunaikes ‘women’ of Troy, I.24.722. These women, as women singers, are of course non-professionals, and their role as singers is subordinated to the role of the professional singers, as we see from the use of the verb epi-stenakhesthai ‘wail in response’ at I.24.722 in referring to their performance. This act of wailing-in-response is treated here as an antiphonal complement to the singing of the professional singers, who are described as ex-arkhoi ‘lead singers’ of the thrēnoi ‘laments’ that they sing, I.24.721. By now we have reached the end of the narrative about the first main part of the laments performed at the funeral of Hector. Now the narrative about the second part of the laments can begin, and this part, as noted already, can be subdivided into three sub-parts. The Master Narrator now quotes, as it were, three laments, to be performed by Andromache at I.24.725–745, by Hecuba at I.24.748–759, and by Helen at I.24.762–775. But the two main parts in this overall scheme are not kept separate here, since the same women who sang at I.24.722 their responses to the laments sung by men who were lead singers will now perform responses to the three women who will now be singing their own laments, and these three will now be singing as lead singers in their own right, as expressed by the verb arkhein / ex-arkhein / ex-arkhein ‘lead off [in performing]’ in the case of Andromache / Hecuba / Helen at I.24.723 / I.24.747 / I.24.761. These three singing women are not professionals, but nevertheless they hold positions of great social status, since they all belong to Hector’s immediate family: as family members, they sing a form of lament that qualifies as a góos, not as a thrēnos. This word góos ‘lament’ is applied to the singing of Andromache / Hecuba / Helen at I.24.723 / I.24.747 (also at I.24.760) / I. 24.761. Of these three, the most important performer of lament here is Andromache, since she gets to cradle the head of Hector from behind while she sings her song of lament over his corpse, I.24.724. The special importance of Andromache is also signaled by the fact that the verb epi-stenakhesthai ‘wail in response’, which had signaled at I.24.722 the antiphonal singing of the women of Troy in response to the thrēnoi ‘laments’, I.24.721, that were sung by the professional lead singers, is also used at I.24.746 to signal the antiphonal singing of the women of Troy in response to the góos ‘lament’, I.24.723, that is sung by Andromache as the non-professional lead singer. The general response at I.24.746 by the women of Troy to the lament of Andromache is an intensification of the more specific response at I.22.515 by the women who attended her when she previously sang her second lament, though the wording is exactly the same at I.24.746 as at I.22.515: ‘So she [= Andromache] spoke, and the women wailed in response’ (ὣς ἔφατο κλαίουσ’, ἐπὶ δὲ στενάχοντο γυναῖκες). An even more general response, however, occurs at I.24.776, where not just the women of Troy but the entire dēmos or ‘populace’ of the city joins the antiphonal singing, as signaled here by the verb epi-stenein ‘wail in response’: ‘So she [= Helen] spoke, and the vast populace [dēmos] wailed in response’ (ὣς ἔφατο κλαίουσ’, ἐπὶ δ’ ἔστενε δῆμος ἀπείρων). Now the whole community is lamenting in response to the góos ‘lament’ as re-started at I.24.761 by Helen as the last of the three women who sing here as lead singers.

In the first of the three laments performed by Andromache, as quoted by the Master Narrator at I.06.407–439, she is already lamenting the death of Hector before he is even dead. As for the second lament, as quoted at I.22.476–515, she sings it when she sees the corpse of Hector for the first time. As for her third lament, here at I.24.723–746, she sings it on the occasion of Hector’s funeral. As Andromache starts her song of lament at I.24.723, the verb arkhein in the sense of ‘lead off [in performing]’ signals that she is leading off as a lead singer, and the song that she sings is called here a góos ‘lament’. Then, as Andromache finishes her lead song at I.24.746, the women of Troy sing an antiphonal refrain as signaled by the verb epi-stenakhizesthai ‘wail in response’. See also anchor comment at I.06.407–439 on: three laments by Andromache, part 1; and anchor comment at I.22.476–515 on: three laments by Andromache, part 2.

example in support of the argument that whereas a performer performs for an audience, a group can perform together for a group. Here, it is as if the lamenting woman were addressing not only her group but also the audience that is listening to the performer as the singer re-enacts the woman singing her lament

See the anchor comment at I.24.720–776.

See the anchor comment at I.24.720–776.

the need of gods to intervene in Achilles’ mistreatment of Hektor’s corpse, given the principle that mēnis against Achilles has been suspended in the Iliad

Poseidon, Hera, and Athena’s persistence in their hatred of Trojans even when other gods decide Hermes should steal Hektor’s body back

comment of the workings of the principle of closure in the Iliad (esp. I.24), here regarding the Judgment of Paris

analysis of Apollo’s words on Achilles as echoing earlier lines concerning persons whose actions incur mēnis

comment on blood-relatives as more philoi than friends (as in this line) in the context of analyzing Ajax’s speech to Achilles in I.09, assuming that friends are more valuable than blood-relatives

Achilles’ apparent continuing of his antisocial behavior and refusal to let go after losing and mourning someone philos (comparison with situation in I.09.) vs. his immediate acquiescence to Thetis’ request (from Zeus)

comment of the workings of the principle of closure in the Iliad (esp. I.24), here regarding the Marriage of Peleus and Thetis

analysis of philotēs and timē going together with this passage as an example [MRBTP: 'ff']

analysis of Thetis’ speech to Achilles for the three things (food, sex, and death) that are central to his philotēs/solidarity with his fellow humans

Achilles’ apparent continuing of his antisocial behavior and refusal to let go after losing and mourning someone philos (comparison with situation in I.09.) vs. his immediate acquiescence to Thetis’ request (from Zeus)

analysis of Achilles’ decision to ransom Hektor as a reconfirmation of his solidarity with Zeus

analysis of the language affirming the rules of reciprocal exchange in Achilles’ ransoming Hektor/receiving Priam (Zeus’ words), with particular comment on endukeōs

analysis of thuoskoos as not a particularly prestigious occupation, in the context of analyzing Odysseus’ response to Leodes in O.22.321

postulation of the preservation, only in connection with Hector, of a phrase which might have once been hieratic (posis eukhomai/Vedic pátir … ohase), in the context of the analysis of the development of Greek posis compared with Vedic pati-

in a list of passages with eukhesthai + infinitive (aorist)

analysis of the attestations of eukhesthai + aorist infinitive (and the series to which this verse belongs)

analysis of the traditionality of the collocation of eukhesthai and spendein

analysis of the ambiguity in the meaning of eukhesthai in this verse (‘make a wish,’ ‘pledge, promise,’ ‘boast’), discussion of Benveniste’s analysis of the collocations of spendein and eukhesthai

analysis of the versatility of poetic technique to report prayers (invocation, grant of favor, request of favor)

analysis of the section I of the classification of the attestations of eukhesthai + dative (consistent inflection but apparently irregular metrical position of eukhesthai)

in a list of examples of eukhesthai + dative (sacral)

analysis of the development of the meaning of Latin spendō, in the context of analyzing the development of uoueō/eukhesthai

example of a transformation of the themes in a prayer, in the context of the analysis of composition by theme in prayers, which can be amplified or minimized according to circumstances

comment on eukhomenos and epos being traditionally and syntactically bound together, despite the separate existence of epos ēuda# as in this verse

example of a transformation of the themes in a prayer, in the context of the analysis of composition by theme in prayers, which can be amplified or minimized according to circumstances

comment on overlap between Hermes and Athena (here, Athena’s wearing Hermes’ sandals), in the context of analyzing her reminding of Hermes in O.13.221ff.

comparison of Greek formulas for asking a person’s identity with Avestan and Indic parallels, as well as genos eukhesthai einai formulas

comparison of Greek formulas for asking a person’s identity with Avestan and Indic parallels, as well as genos eukhesthai einai formulas

analysis of the emotional claim Priam makes on Achilles as effective in turning each of them toward his own pain

analysis of the emotional claim Priam makes on Achilles as effective in turning each of them toward his own pain

comment on Priam’s exceptional behavior in kissing the hands of Achilles

analysis of the emotional claim Priam makes on Achilles as effective in turning each of them toward his own pain

analysis of Achilles’ extension of the notion of philotēs and seeing their encounter through Priam’s eyes

analysis of Achilles’ extension of the notion of philotēs and seeing their encounter through Priam’s eyes

analysis of the delicacy of the situation and the exchange between Achilles and Priam nearly not succeeding

analysis of the exchange between Achilles and Priam nearly not succeeding and the difference in the perspectives of Achilles and Priam

analysis of the delicacy of the situation and the exchange between Achilles and Priam nearly not succeeding

analysis of the delicacy of the situation and the exchange between Achilles and Priam nearly not succeeding

analysis of the teleology of Achilles’ mēnis and enacting his humanness in Achilles’ partaking of food (here), sleeping with a woman, and sharing in kēdea (Hektor’s funeral)

the difficulty of exchange in I.24 (in contrast to that proposed by Chryses in I.01) and need for the divine intervention of Hermes, here especially to avoid being noticed by Agamemnon

analysis of the teleology of Achilles’ mēnis and enacting his humanness in Achilles’ partaking of food, sleeping with a woman (here), and sharing in kēdea (Hektor’s funeral)

the difficulty of exchange in I.24 (in contrast to that proposed by Chryses in I.01) and need for the divine intervention of Hermes, here especially to avoid being noticed by Agamemnon

Zeus' directive for Thetis to transmit to Achilles (24.75) is the third of four instances of pukinon epos in the Iliad (7.375, 11.788, 24.75, 24.744). When applied to speech, the adjective pukinon carries the sense of language that is dense with meaning and filled with urgency (Martin 1993:35).

Achilles' words to Priam as the poem ends (24.518-51) are a mixture of reproach, pity, and encouragement: Priam is a "wretch" and foolish, with an "iron heart," to have dared approach the Achaean camp alone. Achilles directs him gently, however, to sit, mourn, and ultimately endure (line 549, anskheo forming a ring-composition with line 518, anskheo). These words are introduced as winged words. The triumph of this conclusion is tonal: enemies can exchange winged words without a killing (Martin 1993:34).

The last of the four instances of pukinon epos in the Iliad (7.375, 11.788, 24.75, 24.744) makes clear the special quality of this sort of speech: "For you did not die on a bed and stretch out to me your hands, nor say to me any close-set word (pukinon epos), one I could recall, shedding a tear for days and nights." The word Andromakhe wanted from Hektor would have been enduring through time, unassailable in the way of well-constructed, solid, or dense-packed objects in the poem that are called pukinon. If epos generally is speech as product, then this particularized form of speech is the paradigm for the best kind of epos, speech that has become a lasting possession for its hearer, the "last word" to remain with an intimate (Achilles, Andromakhe) or to put an end to strife (the truce in Book 7, the ransom in Book 24) (Martin 1993:35).

The address that Hekabe makes to Priam as he leaves for Achilles' tent is explicitly presented in the language of lament ("she wailed [kōkusen], and answered with a muthos," 24.200). The speech starts with desperate rebukes of Priam's folly in going—a tone comparable to Andromakhe's lament at 24.743-45, chiding Hektor for not consoling her. Even more explicit is the call for others to join in her mourning, a theme found in Greek lament tradition. Hekabe concludes with a dramatization of her anger and grief: she could eat the liver of Achilles; only such violence would offer requital. In sum, the speech laments both her son, now dead, and her husband, whom she does not expect to see alive again (Martin 1993:87-88).

Given the male, heroic in-group orientation of the word muthos and its association with powerful self-presentation, it would seem to be a social taboo for women to employ this kind of speech. But both Hekabe and Helen, who also addresses Priam with a muthos at 3.166-80, are in fact enacting laments in the speeches labeled with this word. They fulfill an expected performance role, using a recognized genre of muthos as memory, but they are presented as doing so at unexpected times, to create dramatic effect (Martin 1993:87).

Helen's use is equally marked. When Priam on the wall asks her to name a hero below (3.166), she delays this identification and in her reply uses the language of lament, recalling her former home and wishing she had died when she followed Paris to Troy (3.171-80). The poet's use of the line Τὸν δ' Ελένη μύθοισιν ἀμείβετο, δῖα γυναικῶν keys an audience by the use of the word muthos to a graceful enactment of desire in the context of lament (Martin 1993:88).

These lamentations by Helen and Hekabe fulfill the conditions for performance found throughout the analysis of the three muthos genres: they are acts of self-presentation with an emphasis on extension and detail, in a public setting. It is, as well, the genre of lament in the context of larger memories that finally unites Achilles in thought with Priam and effects the closure of the Iliad, both men remembering their losses (Martin 1993:87).

References

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

Zeus' full divine rhetoric shows itself in the muthos he makes to Thetis at 24.104-19. The subservience of the other Olympians emerges in details that contrast with the scene in Book 1: Hera serves Thetis now, instead of being a distant dissenter (contrast Hephaistos' service to her at 1.585-94). Zeus begins gently, recalling Thetis' anguish, something he himself knows. If the audience has been prepared to accept Zeus' sympathy as authentic, they have also been privileged to hear his earlier motives for summoning Thetis: he cannot let Hermes steal the corpse because the nymph is night and day beside her son (24.71-73), so he must convince her to persuade Achilles. When Zeus faces Thetis, he explains his motives much differently: "They urge the keen-sighted slayer of Argos to steal, but I grant this glory to Achilles, keeping safe your respect and affection in later time" (24.109-10). The audience is left wondering which version is more like the truth—who is being kept in the dark, Hera or Thetis? This is a paradigm for heroic rhetoric as well: through the depiction of muthos speeches among the gods, Homer illustrates the role of politic fiction in the poetics of power (Martin 1993:58-59).

For the ideal of Zeus' muthos commands, see the comment on Iliad 8.5-27.

References

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

The poem's final scene presents a full-scale lamentation with performances by women close to Hektor. Andromakhe mourns for his early death, praises his protection of the city, and predicts the suffering she will face as a widow with a young child (24.725-45). Hekabe, his mother, dwells on the fine condition of his corpse as a sign of divine favor (24.748-59). Helen makes a dramatically fitting third mourner, as she has unwittingly caused Hektor's death: even though she may have expected abuse, Hektor never reviled her, and in fact protected her from the remarks of others (24.762-75). These lamentations fulfill the conditions for muthos performance found throughout the analysis: they are acts of self-presentation with an emphasis on extension and detail, in a public setting. The genius of the Iliad lies in having captured such acts within the medium of epic and used them to humanize archaic figures of myth (Martin 1993:88).

For the broader analysis of lament as a muthos genre of memory, and the specific discussion of Hekabe's and Helen's speeches earlier in the poem, see the comment on Iliad 24.200-217.

References

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

Memory plays the pivotal role in the final scene of the poem, as Achilles recalls Peleus on seeing Priam, and joins the old man in weeping (24.518-51). The jars of Zeus and Niobe's grief arise in his recollection as transparent myths, nor do we feel (as with Diomedes) that these are stories meant to sway Priam. Memory bonds them, rather—except in one disturbing moment. Priam, hurrying Achilles to bring the corpse of Hektor, mentions the many gifts brought as ransom. If any piece of evidence is needed to confirm that Achilles had heard Agamemnon's offer in Book 9, it is here. For the words of Priam spark a dangerous shift in Achilles' mood precisely because Agamemnon had made the same mistake, as if mere goods could persuade Achilles. Achilles responds in language ironically echoing Agamemnon's original refusal to honor another old man's request (compare 24.560 and 1.32, mēketi m'erethize / mē m'erethize). Unlike Agamemnon, he relents. But this final touch of characterization by discourse style tells an audience that Achilles has full mastery of the genre of recollections, whether of injury or grief (Martin 1993:144-45).

For the broader analysis of Achilles' strategy of rebuking by recollection, see the comment on Iliad 9.646-647.

References

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