analysis of the Greek words for “doubt” and “fear” as connected to “two,” with this passage as offering a striking collocation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here again the verb noeîn ‘take note (of), notice’ applies to the actions of Odysseus, who is specially linked with the meaning of this verb.

In these first four verses of the speech spoken by Odysseus to Achilles, there is an evocative reference to the dais as a ‘feast’ where portions of meat are being divided in an equitable way, I.09.225. The wording seems to evoke an epic scene where Odysseus and Achilles attended a dais ‘feast’ and quarreled. Such an epic scene is narrated at O.08.072–083.

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 wording of this verse, I.11.347, like the wording of the four previous verses, seems to evoke an epic scene as narrated at O.08.072–083. The future pēma ‘pain’ that is feared by the Achaeans here at I.09.229 is comparable to the future pēma ‘pain’ of the Trojan War as described at O.08.081.

The thunder and lightning of Zeus are interpreted here as a sēma ‘sign, signal’ of the Will of Zeus.

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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

References

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

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.