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

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

in the context of analyzing the apobatēs race invented by Erichthonios

evidence for contention that Od. XVIII.265 is very old, as ἤ κεν and ἢ κεν is likely older than ἠέ κεν and ἢε κεν.

analysis of meaning of halonai, “to be killed” as a genuine opposite of hairéō

in a list of passages where theōi hōs is used

The time has come for Hector to die at the hands of Achilles, and his final moments of life are singularly grim. Achilles shows him no mercy, expressing the most brutal thoughts even before he vengefully finishes off the killer of Patroklos. Hector is forced to know in advance, before he loses consciousness to the death blow from Achilles, that his executioner intends to mutilate his corpse instead of allowing for a proper funeral. And the form of this mutilation is particularly horrific and morally shocking: attaching the body of Hector to the back of his chariot, Achilles will drag it around the walls of Troy for all to see the humiliation of his hated enemy. Is there any hope, then, for transcending such degradation? Only divine intervention, in the story yet to be told, could prevent the disfigurement of a heroic body’s beauty in death. But the story of transcendence must wait. For now, the focus is on the horror and the sorrow of a heroic death as seen through the eyes of Hector’s lamenting widow Andromache.

Copperplate etching (1795) by Tommaso Piroli, after a drawing (1793) by John Flaxman. Image via Wikimedia Commons.

analysis of semantic overlap between perfect oida and aorist eidon

application of the epithet ōmēstēs to Achilles alone among Homeric heroes, otherwise to beasts, as in this verse

Hector is well aware that he may die at the hands of Achilles, but he wishes to die in a way that will assure him of having the kleos ‘glory’ of poetry, and such ‘genuine’ glory, as marked by the prefix eü- of the adverb eü-kleiōs ‘with the genuine glory [kleos] (of poetry)’, is simultaneously ‘good’ glory, as also in the case of the adjective esthlon ‘genuine, good’, which applies as the epithet of kleos at I.18.121. See the comment on I.18.121. The overarching ambition of Hector to achieve the genuine kleos ‘glory’ of poetry is recognized at the end of Andromache’s second lament, I.22.514. See the comment on I.22.514.

On this proverb about the oak and the rock, see the comment at O.19.162–163.

In this speech, Hector finally understands that he has been delusional all along in thinking that he could possibly defeat Achilles. Athena has actively contributed to the hero’s tragic delusion, and now Hector sees clearly that his death at the hands of Achilles is near. Hector’s delusion is already signaled at I.18.243–314, where the assembly of the Trojans approves of Hector’s plan to stay on the offensive against the Achaeans—even after Achilles has already re-entered the Trojan War. The Master Narrator had commented at I.18.311: this was a bad decision by the assembly, to approve the strategy of Hector, since the goddess Athena had taken away from them their senses, phrenes. If the assembly had been sensible, they would have recognized that Hector’s mētis ‘mind, intelligence’ had failed him, I.18.312. As noted in the comment on I.18.243–314 as also in the earlier comments on I.06.286–311, I.07.017–061, I.08.538–541, I.10.043–052, I.11.200, and I.13.825–829, there is a pattern of personal hostility felt by the goddess Athena toward Hector as a hero who aspires to some of the same qualities that Athena herself exemplifies. Like the goddess, Hector can be seen as an exponent of (1) defensive tactics in the warfare of protecting a citadel from sieges and (2) mētis ‘mind, intelligence’—two qualities that were tragically taken away from him when he most needed to have them.

Hector is now quite certain that he will in fact die at the hands of Achilles, but he wishes all the more to die in a way that will assure him of having the kleos ‘glory’ of poetry, and such ‘genuine’ glory is marked here by the negation of the adverb a-kleiōs ‘without the genuine glory [kleos] (of poetry)’. What he is saying, then, is that he wishes not to die without being assured of the kleos ‘glory’ of poetry. He has already been saying that at I.22.110. See also the comment on I.22.110, where it is already noted that the overarching ambition of Hector to achieve the genuine kleos ‘glory’ of poetry is recognized at the end of Andromache’s second lament, I.22.514. See the comment on I.22.514.

After wounding Hector mortally at I.22.326–330, Achilles now declares to his enemy his intention to expose Hector’s corpse as prey for dogs and birds to devour while Patroklos will be getting a proper funeral, I.22.335–336. In response, the dying Hector begs to be spared the horror of exposition to dogs and birds, offering ransom if his sōma ‘body’ is restored safely to his family, I.22.342, who can give him a proper funeral that features the all-important ritual of cremation, I.22.342–343. But Achilles rejects the offer, I.22.344–354, and he declares again his intention to deprive Hector of cremation and to subject his enemy’s corpse to the horrors of exposition, I.22.354.

Achilles declares to the dying Hector how certain he is about his ghastly intent to expose the corpse of his hated enemy for dogs and birds to devour, I.22.248 (also I.22.354). This certainly is linked to an even more ghastly uncertainty, expressed as a wish: if only the thūmos and the menos of Achilles, I.22.346, which can be translated here as his ‘heart’ and his ‘mind’ respectively, could bring him to do something that would otherwise be unthinkable, which is, to cut up the body of Hector and eat it raw, I.22.346–347. The use of the two words thūmos and menos here at I.22.346 is relevant to a comparison made earlier by Achilles at I.22.262: Hector is to Achilles as men are to lions. Elsewhere in Homeric diction, Achilles is in fact described as thūmoleōn ‘having the heart of a lion’, at I.07.228. As for the noun menos, which can be translated more literally as ‘mental power’ in contexts where it applies to heroes, it is used at I.20.174 in collocation with thūmos ‘heart’ in describing the impetus of Achilles as an elemental force of nature, comparable to the impetus of an attacking lion, I.20.171.

Achilles strips the armor from the corpse of Hector, I.22.368–369, who is lying there naked on the battleground while the companions of Achilles are jeering at him and taking turns at inflicting further wounds on his dead body, I.22.369–375. Such mistreatment of the corpse can be seen as a form of degradation that anticipates an even more horrific form of degradation that is still waiting to happen, which is, the dreaded exposition of Hector’s body to dogs and birds.

Further degradation awaits the naked corpse of Hector. Here at I.22.395–405, Achilles proceeds to subject the body of Hector to an act that is meant to disfigure it, and the Master Narrator hints at his own moral disapproval by referring to this act as aeikea . . . erga ‘things unseemly’, I.22.395. The generalized idea of ugliness as conveyed by aeikea ‘unseemly’ and other such words in Homeric diction is reciprocal: when you do something ugly to someone, making that someone look ugly, you are thereby making yourself look ugly as well. To be specific, I describe here in detail the ugly things that Achilles will now do to Hector. First, he pierces a hole between the ankle and the heel of Hector’s two feet, and then he threads through these two holes a leather strip that he attaches to the back of his chariot, I.22.396–398. Then he will drag the corpse through the dust and grime of the battleground as he mounts the chariot and drives off at top speed, with Hector in tow. At this horrific moment in the Homeric narrative, feelings of pity are prompted by the narrative itself at I.22.401–403. The Master Narrator prompts his listeners by focusing here on Hector’s hair, once so beautifully groomed but now all disheveled, and then on his head, with a face that was once so charming to look at—but now you expect this beautiful head to be mutilated beyond recognition, once it gets dragged over the harsh and scraping surface of the battleground. The Master Narrator concludes ruefully: the god Zeus himself is allowing all this to happen, I.22.403–404. But what is the god really allowing to happen? So far, there has been a mistreatment and even degradation of Hector’s body, yes. But, at least so far, there has been no disfigurement to be seen. As the Master Narrator takes one last look here at the corpse of Hector, the hero’s head is shrouded in a swirl of dust, I.22.405, and so his face is not visible. The next time the Master Narrator looks at the corpse of Hector, Achilles is displaying the body lying face down in the dust, I.23.024–026, near the stand where the dead body of Patroklos is lying in state, obviously face up. For a preview of this later moment, see the comment on 1.23.1–64. Even there at 1.23.1–64, though, it cannot be known whether the body that Achilles is intending to degrade has in fact already been disfigured. Once again, the face is not visible. At a later point, however, at I.23.184–191, it will become clear that the face and the head and in fact the whole body of Hector cannot be disfigured. The body is saved. In the anchor comment at I.23.184–191, there will be an analysis of this vision of salvation for Hector’s body.

examples of the identical contexts in which eukhos and kudos occur

comparison of this verse with I.05.654, 11.445, and 16.625, where kudos could fit the metric just as well as eukhos, and the analysis of the meaning of eukhos in this verse

analysis of the formulaic references to atasthaliai as indicating the responsibility of a whole group for what it suffers in the Iliad vs. the differentiation of blame in the Odyssey

in a list of passages exemplifying the complementary metrical distribution of eukhos and kudos

examples of the identical contexts in which eukhos and kudos occur

analysis of the formula daimoni isos used of heroes in their aristeia only, and in the context of hero-god antagonism

comment on mythopoeic exchange of attributes, here Hektor’s becoming swift-footed when wearing the armor of Patroklos, formerly Achilles’

analysis of the meaning of epidōsometh’ in I.10.463 and its variant reading epibōsometh’

in a list of examples of formulas for introducing a speech by an eukhomenos warrior, which Paris’ name-epithet formulas do not fit (in the context of analyzing I.11.379)

analysis of the equal power and danger accruing to the character who wields mēnis and to the one transgressing [MRBTP: 'ff']

in the list of offenses that (threaten to) incur mēnis

analysis of kēla theoio (as at I.01.053), here, through comparison with puri kēleōi

in the context of analyzing the only place in the Homeric corpus where a dative noun after eukhesthai is not a god/gods (but Hektor, and these verses among references to his ‘godhead’)

comparison of variant formulas with eukhetasthai for eukhomai in formulas with enjambed, present tense, sacral eukhesthai, in the context of analyzing Allen’s text of I.08.526

Achilles' words to Hektor at 22.268-69, "order Hektor to 'remember every sort of excellence: now you must be spearman and intrepid fighter,'" deploy the formulaic "remember strength" phrase in a radically changed way. As the analysis of battle formulas shows, it is always the commander urging on his own troops who uses this turn of phrase. By throwing this familiar encouragement at Hektor, Achilles violates a linguistic constraint with precisely the same tonal effect as when he uses "winged words" to an enemy. The ultimate rhetorical insult to a warrior is to be infantilized or feminized: if Achilles can "remind" Hektor how to fight, he has already negated Hektor's ability to win. This is a strategy Hektor knows as well, since he used a direct "quotation" to Patroklos (the alleged "order" of Achilles, 16.838-41) in order to reduce his adversary to the status of an unthinking, obedient follower of directions. Here the rhetoric of recollection comes full circle: a commander's persuasive power depends on an ability to construct memories, and so does a warrior's attack on the enemy (Martin 1993:83-85).

For the broader analysis of memory as a muthos genre, see the comment on Iliad 1.259-274.

References

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

By the final quotation he makes, just before his death, even Hektor can see that he has prematurely placed himself within the wrong poetic tradition: he now imagines a snippet of blame-discourse that will make him infamous: "Hektor trusting in his strength destroyed the fighting-troop (laon)" (22.107). In an ironic touch, soon after this Homer quotes, in the style of Hektor, anonymous Achaeans as they take turns stabbing his corpse: "Much softer to handle, really, is Hektor, indeed, than when he burnt the ships with fire" (22.374) (Martin 1993:137-38).

As Hektor nears death, he twice uses the rare figure of epanastrophe, as in his last long monologue (22.126-28), where the immediate repetition of a phrase sounds either like hesitancy in the speaker or an attempt to test out the appropriateness of his own formulation, to get it right. In Hektor's case, these amount to the same thing: his concern with style is ultimately too involuted to win him the universal fame—among Greeks and Trojans—that he envisioned (7.300). He is bested by a hero capable of the most expansive expression (Martin 1993:138).

For Hektor's distinctive quotation strategy throughout the poem, see the comment on Iliad 6.459-461.

References

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

An observance of the role of speech in combat marks Hektor's later flyting speeches. He vows that Achilles will not complete his words (muthois, 20.365), and later attempts to insult his opponent with the conventional "words not deeds" tactic: "You were somewhat glib with words (artiepēs) and thieving about speeches (epiklopos muthōn)," he says when Achilles has missed him with the spear (22.281). The insult makes a global stylistic comment because it implies that Achilles' form was good at the level of utterance (epos), but his authority to speak, based on warring skill, was lacking—he only stole others' muthoi. Yet Hektor is upstaged as a critic of flyting language by Aeneas, whose long discourse on insults delivered to Achilles (20.200-58) is one Hektor can only manage a fraction of, and which strikes us as a borrowing from his cousin at that (20.431-33 = 20.200-202). As Hektor nears his death, he begins to lose confidence not only as a fighter but as one who creatively manipulates the language of war (Martin 1993:135-36).

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

References

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