Iliad. Homer. Samuel Butler (Translator). London. 1898.
Search the Perseus Catalog for:
Search the Perseus Catalog for:
Current edition Perseus
Iliad (English) (Homer. The Iliad of Homer, rendered into English prose for the use of those who cannot read the original. Butler, Samuel, 1835-1902, translator. London: Longmans, Green, and Co, 1898.)
Editions (1)
Ἰλιάς Perseus (Homer. Homeri Opera, Volumes 1-2. Monro, D. B. (David Binning), editor; Allen, Thomas W. (Thomas William), editor. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1908-1920.) — 9.328 focus
Translations (8)
Iliad Perseus (Homer. The Iliad, Volume 1-2. Murray, A. T. (Augustus Taber), translator. London: William Heinmann; New York: G.P. Putnam's Sons, 1924-1925.) — 9.328 focus
English (Butler, rev. Nagy et al., 2020) (OCR draft) Experimental (English (Butler, rev. Nagy et al., 2020)) — 9.328 focus
English (William Cullen Bryant, 1870) (OCR draft) Experimental (English (William Cullen Bryant, 1870)) — 9.328 focus
English (Alexander Pope, 1720, ed. Watson, 1857) (OCR draft) Experimental (English (Alexander Pope, 1720, ed. Watson, 1857)) — 9.328 focus
English (Thomas Hobbes, 1667, ed. Molesworth 1843) (OCR draft) Experimental (English (Thomas Hobbes, 1667, ed. Molesworth 1843)) — 9.328 focus
English (George Chapman, 1611, ed. Hooper 1857) (OCR draft) Experimental (English (George Chapman, 1611, ed. Hooper 1857)) — 9.328 focus
English (William Cowper, 1791, ed. Southey) (OCR draft) Experimental (English (William Cowper, 1791, ed. Southey)) — 9.328 focus
English (F. W. Newman, 1856) (OCR draft) Experimental (English (F. W. Newman, 1856)) — 9 focus
BOOK IX
New Alexandria Commentaries
Douglas Frame
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
Gregory Nagy
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.
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
The response of Achilles to the speech of Odysseus continues. The passion intensifies even further.
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.
Leonard Muellner
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
Richard Martin
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.
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.
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.
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.