Note: references to the poem are given by book+line-numbers, and page in Hammond’s translation: e.g. 1.22f., p.3 = book 1, lines 22-23, on p.3. References by page will be acceptable in essays.
1: the quarrel between Achilles and Agamemnon;
2: large-scale structure;
3-4: detailed structure and narrative technique;
5-6: the tragedies of Achilles and Hector; individual and
community;
7-8: ethics; mortals and gods;
9-10: composition and performance — leading to optional
seminar (week 6): Does it matter whether the Iliad was
composed without the use of writing?’
Difficulties in interpretation :
(i) ideological barriers to sympathetic understanding;
(ii) limited explicit guidance from poet — high proportion
of direct speech (est. 45% of Iliad);
(iii) in interpreting what characters say, consider importance of
what is not said (e.g. what is suppressed; pointedly left
unsaid; hinted at; done by means of what is said) — but this
increases scope for divergent readings.
Chryses’ supplication : army supports the request (1.22f., p.3) — but cannot interfere with Agamemnon’s booty (implications for his subsequent actions?). Agamemnon refuses suppliant; risks provoking Apollo; has been offered compensation; gratuitously brutal in describing Chryseis’ fate (1.29-31, p.4).
The assembly : Achilles convenes the meeting — prompted by Hera (1.55f., p.4): cf. role of Hera and Athene in restraining Achilles later (1.194-221, p.8).
Is he genuinely uncertain of reason for Apollo’s anger (1.62-5, p.4)? Characters do not share audience’s privileged knowledge. Or: does not wish to accuse Agamemnon — less confrontational to seek expert opinion?
Agamemnon’s hostility to Calchas (1.106-8, p.5f.): Homer does not mention Agamemnon’s sacrifice of Iphigeneia at Aulis: is the story later invention (n.b. Agamemnon has living daughter Iphianassa: 9.145, p.136; for the gathering at Aulis with omen but no reference to the sacrifice see 2.299-330, p.26f.); or deliberately suppressed; or hinted at here?
Calchas’ oblique reference to Agamemnon (1.78f., p.5) unnecessarily made explicit by Achilles (1.88-91, p.5): Agamemnon must either appear to back down or show defiance.
Agamemnon’s restraint: angry, but insults Calchas, not Achilles; agrees to give up Chryseis; face-saving demand for compensation (1.118, p.6) — could be managed, though ‘... without delay’ is difficult.
Achilles offers exit (deferred multiple compensation: 1.127-9, p.6) undermined by insulting opening (1.122f., p.6): acceptance would again be seen as backing down. (Compare the actual course of the debate with Achilles’ report to Thetis (1.382-8, p.12): is Achilles concealing his own errors, or unaware of them?)
Agamemnon responds with self-assertion, but avoids singling out Achilles (‘your prize, or Aias’ or Odysseus’’: 1.137f., 6), and proposal to defer discussion (1.140, p.6) offers exit — undermined by threat.
Quarrel has own momentum: each offers exit, but in way that makes it impossible for other to take. Underlying tension: in coalition army (contrast individual contingents) leader and best fighter not identical. Hence Achilles resentful (1.149-171, p.6f.), Agamemnon insecure (1.176f., p.7).
Agamemnon reasserts superior status (1.184-7, p.7); Achilles responds with extreme insults (1.225-44, p.8f.) — but restrains himself from irrevocable violence.
Nestor (wise, respected, too old to be a threat) fails to reconcile (1.275-84, p.10): even-handed in criticism, but confirms that Agamemnon is making a military mistake (cf. Achilles at 1.240-44, p.9) — risking the army again.
Achilles concludes (1.293-303, p.10) by conceding Briseis to Agamemnon — but n.b. this is presented as concession to the army and disguised by uncompromising defiance of non-existent threat:
I will not come to hand-fighting over the girl with you [singular = Agamemnon] or any other — you [plural = army] Achaians gave her, and you [plural = army] have taken her away. But as for the other possessions I hold by my fast black ship, you [singular = Agamemnon] will not take and carry away any one of them without my will. Come, try, if you [singular = Agamemnon] wish, to make it clear to all: in an instant your [singular = Agamemnon] dark blood will drip from my spear.
Overarching design : Compare funeral games for Patroclus in 23: chariot-race leads to quarrel among spectators, calmed by Achilles (23.473-98, p.377) and competitors — Menelaus accuses Antilochus of cheating (for the disputed manoeuvre see 23.429-41, p.376): quarrel defused by mutual concessions (23.566-613, p.379f.). Quarrel resolved mirrors initial uncontrolled quarrel; cf. rejected suppliant mirrored by Achilles’ acceptance of Priam’s supplication in 24.
Chronology and focus : Iliad (tale of Ilium = Troy) does not tell whole story of 10-year Trojan War: longest archaic Greek epic (15000+ lines: Odyssey = c.12000; next longest probably c.7000) concentrates on 53 days (including 2 foreshadowed in book 24 but not narrated), of which 14 are separately narrated; books 2-22 cover 6 days (2 briefly at end of book 7); most of poem focuses on 4 days:
(i) books 2-7: indecisive day’s fighting when Agamemnon
makes an all-out attack on Troy;
(ii) book 8 (three days later): severe Greeks defeat (hence
embassy to Achilles in book 9);
(iii) books 11-18 (next day): successful assault on Greek camp
the next day, defeated by Patroclus;
(iv) books 19-22 (next day): Achilles avenges Patroclus, kills
Hector.
Note: division into 24 books probably not part of the original plan of poem.)
Broader perspective by allusions: (i) to other stages of war: e.g. gathering at Aulis (2.299-330, p.26f.); fall of Troy (Agamemnon 4.163-5, p.57 = Hector 6.447-9, p.102); Achilles’ death (e.g. 9.410-16, p.143; 18.54-64, p.296; 18.94-6, p.297; Hector’s prophecy 22.359f., p.360); (ii) to events outside the war: e.g. Nestor’s youthful exploits; family histories of Glaucus and Diomedes (6.119-236, pp.94-97); (iii) to background of dying warriors: e.g. Simoeisios (4.473-9, p.64f.); (iv) peace-time existence in similes; (v) scenes from ordinary life depicted on Shield of Achilles (18.490-606, p.307-10).
Variable relationship between narrative and chronology (e.g. book 1 = 23 days; books 11-18 = 1 day) allow manipulation of audience. E.g.: book 1: Achilles angry; book 9: Achilles still angry; book 16: Achilles’ anger has abated (16.60f., p.254) — but book 1-book 9 = 16 days, book 9-book 16 = less than 24 hours. Narrative delay conceals discrepancy: Homer as illusionist.
Book 2 stresses this is ninth year of war (2.134f., p.22; 2.299-330, p.26f.) — audience is correctly oriented. But Catalogue of Ships (!) relates to contingents assembling at Aulis (lightly adapted); in book 3 the Paris-Menelaus duel and Priam’s failure to recognise Greek leaders (3.161-244, pp.45-7) are surprising in year 9: has an account of the beginning of the war been grafted into new context?
This illustrates a technique for expanding and varying the core narrative. Hence:
Core and elaboration : Crude summary: (a) quarrel; (b) withdrawal; (c) defeat; (d) embassy; (e) refusal; (f) defeat; (g) intervention, (h) victory. But consider also:
(i) Background to (a-c), both human (Lecture 1) and divine: Apollo, Hera, Athene, Thetis, Zeus.
(Question: Achilles (1.240-4, p.9) and Nestor (1.282-84, p.10) warn of consequences of his withdrawal: but Trojans not victorious in first battle (books 2-7); in second (book 8) Zeus’ intervention secures Trojan victory; Hector is beaten by Ajax (books 7, 14), and Diomedes (book 11); fights Patroclus (16.751-64, p.271f.) but does not kill him until disarmed by Apollo and wounded. Is Achilles’ contribution really decisive?)
(ii) In (f-h) Achilles does not intervene directly — allows Patroclus to intervene: his death (undesigned consequence of Achilles’ actions) adds a tragic twist.
(iii) Hence (h) has added significance (victory is vengeance), but is not the end of the story: acceptance of Priam’s supplication achieves reconciliation (inverting beginning of poem). By time of Achilles/Agamemnon reconciliation (book 19) the ‘anger’ of the first line (1.1, p.3) superseded by anger against Hector, continued after his death, but ended in scene with Priam — not what the opening lines imply.
(iv) Sympathy for Priam (and e.g. Hector-Andromache in book 6): the poem is not chauvinist, but the war was started by Paris; the Trojans break their oaths (violating truce in book 3); the poem averse to Greek defeats. Hence attitude to Trojans — and Hector? — is complex.
Book |
Events |
Days |
| 1 | Chryses’ embassy rejected. | 1 |
| Plague | 2-10 | |
| Achilles calls assembly. Quarrel. Appeal to Thetis. Appeasement of Apollo. | 11 | |
| Thetis waits for gods’ return and appeals to Zeus. | 12-23 | |
| Agamemnon’s dream. Preparations for battle. Catalogue. | 24 | |
| 3 | Paris-Menelaus duel. | |
| 4 | Battle commences. | |
| 5 | Diomedes’ victories. Trojans rally. | |
| 6 | New Greek offensive. Hector goes to Troy. | |
| 7 | Hector-Ajax duel. | |
| Funerals. | 25 | |
| Greeks build wall. | 26 | |
| 8 | Battle: Trojan victory. | 27 |
| 9 | Greek council. Embassy to Achilles. | |
| 10 | Night raid on Trojan camp. | |
| 11 | Battle: Agamemnon’s victories. Trojan counter-attack. Nestor prompts Patroclus. | 28 |
| 12 | Assault on the Greek camp. | |
| 13 | Poseidon prompts Greek counter-attack. | |
| 14 | Hera seduces Zeus to distract him from Poseidon’s intervention. | |
| 15 | Zeus ends Poseidon’s intervention: Trojans advance to the ships. | |
| 16 | Achilles approves Patroclus’ intervention. Patroclus’ victory and death. | |
| 17 | The fight for Patroclus’ corpse. | |
| 18 | Mourning for Patroclus. New armour for Achilles. | |
| 19 | Reconciliation of Achilles and Agamemnon. Preparations for battle. | 29 |
| 20 | Battle commences. | |
| 21 | The battle of the gods. The Trojans retreat into the city... | |
| 22 | ... but Hector remains outside to face Achilles. Hector’s death. Achilles maltreats his corpse. | |
| 23 | Sleep: Patroclus appears to Achilles in a dream. | |
| Patroclus’ corpse cremated. | 30 | |
| The remains are interred. The funeral games. | 31 | |
| 24 | Continuing maltreatment of Hector’s corpse. | 32-40 |
| Priam ransoms Hector’s body. | 41 | |
| Preparations for Hector’s funeral. | 42-50 | |
| Hector’s funeral. | 51 | |
| The building of Hector’s funeral mound [see 24.66, p.407]. | 52 | |
| Fighting resumes [see 24.667, p.407]. | 53 |
4. Detailed structure
(a) After the quarrel: Complex use of parallel narrative: selective (e.g. omits reception of Briseis) — so inclusions imply deliberate seeking multiple strands with suspension and interleaving. Cf. ancient stress on Homer’s variety and avoidance of tedium (on ancient views of Homer’s variety see M. Heath Unity in Greek Poetics (Oxford 1989) 102-23).
(b) Hector leaves battlefield 6.118 (p.94), arrives in city 6.237 (p.97): interlude contains Glaucus-Diomedes dialogue — self-contained incident, contrasting with battle. Hector’s trip fruitless (Trojan women supplicate Athene (6.286-310, p.97f.) and are refused (6.311, p.98) — though n.b. Athene and Apollo do end battle in book 7), but shows Hector in different contexts — esp. with Andromache (effectively, though not in ‘reality’, their last meeting).
(c) First day of battle:
Book 2 : Agamemnon’s dream; leaders’ council; assembly; ‘testing’ the army; fiasco retrieved; deployment (2.442, p.30: n.b. similes 2.455-83, pp.30.); Catalogue of Ships; deployment resumes 2.780 (p.38); Trojan deployment and catalogue. Armies ready to fight (after 877 lines), but...
Book 3 : ... Paris challenges Menelaus; preparations for duel (including visit to Troy: Helen-Priam); duel = 3.355-380 (p.49f.), followed by rescue and scenes in Troy: 25 lines of combat out of 1338 lines for day so far.
Book 4 : Menelaus’ victory thwarted by Trojan breach of truce — prompted by gods (allowing scene on Olympus: cf. end of book 1); wounding of Menelaus; Trojans attack. Battle (almost started at 4.222, p.58) postponed by Agamemnon’s review of troops (n.b. Agamemnon-Diomedes at 4.364-421, p.62f.: contrast Diomedes’ restraint with Achilles in book 1, and compare Diomedes at 9.32-49, p.134). Battle commences 4.446 (p.64) = 1784 lines into day.
Book 5 : battle.
Book 6 : Hector leaves battlefield (6.118, p.94) — battle narrative has lasted 1123 lines.
Book 7 : battle ends; Hector-Ajax duel, called off with no result. Day ends 7.380 (p.114), after total of 3700 lines.
(d) Hence Iliad is less about fighting than human relationships and interactions; the fighting provides context for and determines significance of each interaction (e.g. Hector-Andromache in light (i) of Trojan reverses in battle, and (ii) prospect of Troy’s ultimate defeat: cf. 6.447-9, p.102).
(e) Battle narrative varied by other material and internally varied. E.g.:
Book 4 :
- general overview (4.446-51, p.64.) plus simile >
individual combats (4.457-538, pp.64-66) > brief general view;
- each individual combat is different (e.g. Simoeisius:
background story + simile, 4.473-89, p.64f.);
- combats varied by Apollo and Athene (4.507-16, p.65f.);
- switch from victor-introduction to victim-introduction
(‘Then his fate shackled Diores, son of Amarynkeus. He was
hit by a jagged rock...’: 4.517f., p.66).
Book 5 :
- opening (5.1-3, p.67) indicates shift from
overview/miscellaneous individual combats to aristeia
(series of heroic exploits) of Diomedes;
- Diomedes’ aristeia postponed by Athene-Ares
incident (5.29-36, p.67f.) and series of individual combats;
- Diomedes re-introduced by overview + simile (5.85-94, p.69);
- switch to Trojan perspective: Pandarus wounds Diomedes; Athene
assists Diomedes.
- concentrated series of killings (5.144-160, p.70f., framed by
lion-similes);
- return to Trojan perspective: Aeneas and Pandarus oppose
Diomedes — introducing dialogues: Aeneas-Pandarus,
Diomedes-Sthenelus, Pandarus-Diomedes.
- Diomedes kills Pandarus, wounds Aeneas;
- Aphrodite rescues Aeneas: Diomedes wounds Aphrodite (prepared
at 5.127-32, p.70);
- Aphrodite returns to Olympus (5.352-431, p.76-78);
- Diomedes attacks Apollo; is warned off;
- Apollo incites Ares (prepared at 5.29-36, p.70) to inspire
Trojan rally, led by Hector and Sarpedon;
- Diomedes does not oppose Ares until Athene (she arms for
battle: 5.733-747, p.85f.) helps him to wound Ares —
superhuman achievement as climax of aristeia.
Prepares for book 6: Diomedes’ invincibility motivates Hector’s return to Troy (6.96-101, p.93; 6.277f., p.96; 6.306f., p.98); peaceful Diomedes-Glaucus encounter is sharp contrast.
On Homer’s technique in battle narrative see further M. Mueller The Iliad (London 1984) 77-107.
4. Detailed structure (cont.)
(f) Second day of battle:
Book 8 : highly compressed narrative of fighting: 8.60-65, p.119 (= 4.446-51, p.64) to 8.349, p.126. Foregrounds gods: Zeus forbids other gods to intervene (8.1-51, p.118f.); Hera-Poseidon interlude (8.198-212, p.123); abortive intervention by Hera and Athene (Athene’s arming: 8.384-391, p.127f. = 5.733-747, p.85f.); Zeus’ prophecy (8.470-6, p.130).
Diomedes: rescues Nestor (8.90-123, p.120f.); would have routed Trojans (8.130-5, p.121); reluctant to retreat (8.137-71, p.121f.). Crucial speeches at: 9.31-51, p.134; 9.696-711, p.150.
Book 9 : all discussion: Greek assembly (contrast Trojans at end of book 8) and council of leaders; embassy; renewed discussion in council: cf. poem’s focus on human relationships and interactions.
Book 10 : night raid on Trojan camp — if this is an authentic part of the poem.
(g) Third day of battle expansive: books 11-18 = 5664 lines (compare 1-10 = 6270; 1-9 = 5691).
Zeus’ prophecy (8.470-6, p.130) misleads (lack of narrative control, or deliberate misdirection? compare incomplete information in poem’s opening lines): Patroclus does not die by ships; Achilles does not enter fighting that day; conceals complexity and variety. Note e.g. Trojans reach ships at 12.470f. (p.199) and again at 15.367 (p.243) — after 1720 lines of diversion.
Book 11 : note use of two locations — battlefield and Greek camp (needed for Patroclus’ intervention): cf. book 1. Balanced fighting (11.84f., p.168 = 8.66f., p.119) unexpectedly followed by Greek success: Agamemnon’s aristeia. Series of woundings and withdrawals:
- Agamemnon 11.264-83, p.172f.;
- Diomedes 11.369-400, p.175f.;
- Odysseus 11.401-488, p.176-8 — note isolation/rescue as
variation;
- Machaon 11.504-20, p.178f. — escorted off by Nestor;
- Eurypylus 11.575-95, p.180f.).
This device: (i) explains Greek defeat; (ii) establishes battlefield-camp interaction. Eurypylus’ wound also used to put Patroclus’ intervention (initiated by Nestor-Patroclus meeting) into suspension until needed in book 15.
Book 12 : Trojan assault on Greek camp. Note start of important series of exchanges between Hector and Poulydamas (introduced at 11.57, p.167).
Book 13 : Zeus looks away, Poseidon rallies Greeks (this and Hera’s help in book 14 were prepared at 8.198-212, p.123). Battle narrative varied: e.g. sequence of movements involving Meriones (13.164-8, p.204) and Idomeneus (13.210-215, p.271), leading to (but not necessary for) Idomeneus’ aristeia.
Book 14 : the wounded heroes revisited. Hera’s initiative: the seduction of Zeus. Greek advance.
Book 15 : Zeus wakes up and restores control (more accurate forecast: 15.64-8, p.235). Hector’s revival (15.262, p.240) leads very quickly to renewed attack on ships (15.367, p.243). Patroclus reacts 15.390-405, p.244: why not at end of book 12, when the Trojans first reached ships?).
Book 16 : Patroclus reaches Achilles, intervenes, dies.
Book 17 : fight over Patroclus’ body; Antilochus sent to Achilles with news (17.651-701, p.291) — but he has no armour! Prepares for...
Book 18 : ... Achilles drives off the Trojans by sight and sound alone; Thetis arranges for divine armour (including lavishly illustrated shield) to be made by Hephaestus.
(h) Examples of low-level variation:
- watching the Greeks from the walls of Troy (3.161-244, pp.45-47): note variation in three rounds of questioning: Priam-Helen-Priam; Priam-Helen-Antenor; Priam-Helen-poet.
- formulaic language (e.g. ‘swift-footed Achilleus’ x30 (1.58, p.4 etc); ‘swift-footed godlike Achilles’ x42 (1.121, p.6 etc); passages repeated verbatim (examples above: 8.60-65, p.119 = 4.446-51, p.64; 8.384-391, p.127f. = 5.733-747, p.85f.; 8.66f., p.119 = 11.84f., p.168) combined with variation of incident. See (e.g.) six combats in 5.37-83 (p.68f.): note variations in detail, including death-formulae:
(i) ‘he fell with a crash [x19], and his armour clattered about him [x9]’ (5.42): x6
(ii) ‘he crashed from the chariot [x9], and the hateful darkness took him [x3]’ (5.47): x1
(elsewhere: ‘he crashed from the chariot [x9], and his armour clattered about him [x9]’ x2)
(iii) ‘he crashed down on his face [x1], and his armour clattered about him [x9]’ (5.58): x1
(iv) ‘he screamed and dropped on his knees [x2], and death enfolded him [x1]’ (5.68): x1
(v) ‘he crashed in the dust [x3], the cold bronze clenched in his teeth [x1]’ (5.75): x1
(vi) ‘and over his eyes came the surge of death, and strong fate took him’ (5.82f.): x3
(elsewhere: ‘death and strong fate’ x3; ‘death and fate’ x4)
(i) Sophisticated large-scale structures produce and presuppose large-scale composition: Iliad (and Odyssey) exceptional — but not crude or exploratory? And demands an audience able to cope with these demands. What does this imply about background, composition, performance, context?
(a) After Patroclus’ death: battle delayed by assembly — Achilles no longer interested in quarrel (19.56-62, p.312) or compensation (19.147-9, p.314). Agamemnon: ‘I am not to blame...’ (19.85-90, p.313): evasion of responsibility, or tactful disclaimer of the insults? Achilles’ impatience impractical (19.154-237, p.315f.: even for Achilles: 19.340-54, p.319) — not Odysseus also concerned about formal reconciliation — wanting to secure it in the long-term? But Achilles does not have a long term: cf. horse’s and Achilles reply (19.404-421, p.321).
(b) How is Achilles’ anger evaluated in heroic world? No criticism in first part of book 9 (Agamemnon is criticised: 9.104-111, p.135), and note Phenix’s endorsement in the embassy (9.515-23, p.145). But rejection of compensation provokes disapproval; Achilles may recognise has gone too far (makes compromises in book 9; and cf. 16.60f., p.254). Father (Peleus) warned about his passionate nature (9.254-8, p.139).
In book 9Achilles considers reversing choice of short life and glory (9.410-416, p.143) — the quarrel almost overturns his dominant values (though has backed off from that by 9.644-55, p.148f.). Gravity of the choice: for bleak Homeric view of Underworld see Od. 11.482-91. All humans will die: see Sarpedon to Glaucus (12.310-28, p.195f.) — but n.b. his argument assumes that fighting brings rewards which balance the risk: this element has been removed for Achilles.
Tragic poem: imminent death; and Achilles’ actions bring about the least desired result. Anger against Hector is also anger with himself (18.98-104, p.297 — note expressive incoherence of language).
(c) Treatment of suppliants: previous prisoners have been taken and ransomed, but within the poem all suppliants are killed. Turning point for Agamemnon is breach of truce: so killing of Adrestos (6.37-65, p.92) and sons of Antimachos (11.122-147, p.169 — punishment for father’s plot to kill Menelaus when on diplomatic mission, for which cf. 3.203-224, p.46). For Achilles it is the death of Patroclus: see killing of Tros (20.463-72, p.333f.) and Lykaon (21.34-135, p.336-8). In latter case Achilles is reflective and self-controlled (21.99-113, p.338) — but goes on to make gloating, vindictive speech, kicks body into river, provokes and tries to fight river-god (an almost fatal mistake).
(d) Combination of passionate extreme and calm rationality: mutilates Hector’s body and sacrifices Trojan prisoners — but in funeral games defuses a quarrel (23.473-98, p.377); treats Nestor with thoughtful respect (23.615-52, p.380); tactfully protects Agamemnon from possibly embarrassing defeat (23.884-97, p.387 — or is this implicitly insulting, as some argue?).
(e) Book 24: Priam’s supplication and Achilles’ response: read this carefully! Note how Achilles’ sympathy (24.507-51, p.401) co-exists with passionate instability — anger is barely under control (24.552-71, p.402): the reconciliation-scene avoids sentimentality.
(f) In Odyssey Calypso offers Odysseus immortality and agelessness; his departure is choice of death (cf. Achilles) — but could not have been happy without home, family etc: humans have emotional and personal attachments (contrast gods’ carefree Olympian life). Odysseus suffers grief for companions; his subsequent sufferings are prophesied (Od. 11.90-151, 23.248ff.). Happy ending (only enemies killed, civil war avoided, harmony restored) not unqualified. In Iliad — more obviously tragic: how far does final reconciliation offset that tragedy?
(a) War caused by Paris taking Menelaus’ wife (could be ended by return: 3.58-100, p.42-3). Both armies want end to war (3.110f., p.44), pray for death of guilty party (3.321-3, p.49); Hector disapproves (3.50f., p.42); Trojan elders want her gone (3.156-60, p.45). Breach of truce adds to Trojan guilt; see also plot against Menelaus (11.122-147, p.169; cf. 3.203-224, p.46). Agamemnon predicts Troy’s fall (4.163-5, p.57), echoed by Hector (6.447-9, p.102); cf. Antenor’s proposal (7.347-53, p.114): Paris refuses Helen but compromises on property (7.354-64, p.114) — Priam’s view of the offer may be inferred (7.365-78, p.114); note herald’s hostile commentary (7.389-93, p.115).
(b) Trojan army less disciplined (3.1-9, p.41; (4.427-38, p.63-4: cf. 2.803-6, p.38 for polyglot Trojan army). Hard-pressed on first day’s fighting; in book 8 victory depends on Zeus’ intervention (n.b. 8.130-5, p.121); on third day Greeks get first advantage, and Trojan victory depends on Zeus. Reflects pro-Greek perspective of poet? But...
(c) Sympathetic view of Trojans: fighting against the odds (8.53-7, p.119). Sympathetic view of Priam: treats Helen kindly (3.161-5, p.45); cannot watch son fighting duel (3.259, p.47; 3.305-7, p.48) — sensitive and vulnerable.
(a) Hector also kind to Helen (24.767-72, p.407) — ‘gentle-hearted way’ (aganophrosunê) only paralleled in Iliad in negative statement about Achilles (not aganophrôn: 20.466-8, p.333). Cf. Briseis on Patroclus (19.295-300, p.318: here ‘gentle’ = meilikhos).
(b) Hector also seen in domestic setting. Contrast disillusioned Paris-Helen marriage (3.428, p.5; 6.350-3, p.99f .: ‘gentle persuasion’ ironical at 6.337f., p.99) with Hector-Andromache: seeks her out, relationship not purely sexual, touching encounter (effectively their last). Unique in Iliad (but cf. Odysseus’ longing for wife in Odyssey, and compare ‘obituaries’ in Iliad battle-narrative giving glimpse of trabquil life beyond the war).
(c) How good a fighter? ‘Murderous Hektor’ (1.242, p.9); challenge intimidates Greeks — ‘even Achilleus shudders to meet this man’ (7.111-4, p.107f.); leading role in Trojan victories. But beaten by Ajax in duel; avoids Ajax (11.540-2, p.179); beaten by Ajax in battle (14.402-20, p.231); beaten by Diomedes (11.343-67, p.174f.: sets right Diomedes’ reluctant retreat at 8.137-71, p.121f.); kills Patroclus when stunned, disarmed and wounded (16.787-828, p.272f.).
(d) Do these limitations make him more admirable? Bears main weight of Troy’s defence (Helen: 6.355, p.100; Andromache: 24.727-30, p.406) — too great a burden? But does not evade his duty. N.b. Hector is frightened of Ajax, but stands his ground (7.214-8, p.110): contrast Paris (3.30-37, p.42).
(e) Paris and Hector both issue challenges that prove beyond their capacity — both are overconfident, act without forethought. Cf. 8.493-541, p.131: sound tactics plus excessive confidence about following day (in book 11 Hector is beaten by Diomedes; Greeks gain initial advantage). Note esp. relationship with Poulydamas: his advice accepted (12.60-80, p.189f.), rejected angrily (12.210-50, p.193f.), accepted (13.723-53, p.218), and fatally rejected (18.243-313, p.301f.: not a rational attitude). Hector’s intolerance of advice: 12.211-4, p.193; resentment of restraint exercised by cautious counsellors: 15.719-23, p.252; overconfident boasting not new: 5.472-4, p.79 (Sarpedon).
(f) Hector’s remorse: 22.99-110, p.353f. — cannot face the community he has failed, but his death will be worse for the community (cf. Priam: 22.56f., p.352).
(g) Boast about killing Achilles (18.305f., p.302) exposed by panic and flight: but Achilles is formidable; fights skilfully; divine armour and Athene’s trickery thwart him.
(h) Zeus’ love for Hector (22.168-72, p.355, 24.66-70, p.389f.) —also for Troy as a whole (4.44-9, p.54): but they are in wrong, break oath. What is role of gods?
(a) Human characters act in context of divine action: direct intervention (partially known to humans), and divine interaction (esp. on Olympus).
(b) Poet’s opening question (1.8f., p.3) assumes divine involvement needed to explain what happens on human level. (Note: Greek religion is polytheistic — many gods, acting independently: do not talk of ‘the gods’ as a collective — always consider which god.) (i) Apollo reacts to human initiative: human action has consequences beyond their control. (ii) Hera prompts Achilles (1.55f., p.4), and prompts Athene to restrain Achilles (1.194-222, p.8). Note diversity of modes of divine action: direct effect (Apollo); indirect prompting (Hera-Achilles); persuasion (Athene-Achilles); etc.
Apollo: motivated by treatment of his priest Chryses. Hera ‘cares for’ the Greeks (1.55f., p.4) — and hates Troy intensely (4.31-6, p.54; 4.51-4. p.54); angered by them (18.367, p.304), implacable (20.313-7, p.330). Judgement of Paris is grounds for her and Athene’s hostility to Troy (24.27-30, p.388f.: the authenticity of these lines is disputed): so Zeus is disingenuous and provocative when he asks the cause of her anger (4.31-3, p.54); raising the possibility that the war will end (ruled out by his oath to Thetis) also provocative. Apollo’s pro-Trojan attitude (additional motive for his action in book 1?) not explained (anti-Trojan Poseidon is surprised: 21.4 35-460, p.346). Gods are partisan.
(c) What was ‘Zeus’ will’ (1.5, p.3)? Possibly (i) the plan made in response to Thetis’ request. Note that he agrees reluctantly (1.517, p.16) for reason explained in advance by Achilles (1.394-412, p.13) but tactfully not mentioned by Thetis. Zeus balances personal motives: debt to Thetis vs desire to avoid conflict with Hera. Also consents to fall of Troy reluctantly (4.37-43, p.54) since he loves the city (4.44-49, p.54). Alternatively (ii) Achilles suggests the quarrel itself was engineered by Zeus (19.270-4, p.317) — a plan behind the plan. But is Achilles right?
(d) Human perceptions of divine fallible: Agamemnon deceived by dream (reported three times: 2.8-15, 23-34, 56-61, p.19f. — irony? Cf. his unwittingly truthful claim to have been deceived by Zeus: 2.114, p.22). Sacrifice and prayer cannot guarantee outcome (3.302, p.48; 6.311, p.98; 4.44-49, p.54). Omens can be obscure (4.82-4, p.55: the omen signals either peace or war). Nestor’s prayer evokes favourable omen — which enocurages the Trojans (15.370-80, p.243)!
(e) Is Zeus motivated by moral considerations? The Trojans are in the wrong — offence against Menelaus, breach of truce. Agamemnon (4.234-6, p.59; cf. 4.163-8, p.57) and Menelaus (13.622-5, p.215) assume Zeus will punish these crimes (cf. Antenor: 7.347-53, p.114). Are they right?
(f) Zeus can be thwarted — deceived by Hera (book 14); reestablishes control, but details of his plan are variable. Note that his prediction of future may be inaccurate (8.470-6, p.130) — and as a result of his own choices (16.644-55, p.269): Zeus improvises.
(g) Fate not deterministic: human action could go against fate — needs divine action to prevents this (21.515-77, p.348; cf. 16.698-700, p.270). Zeus considers rescuing Sarpedon (16.431-38, p.264) and Hector (22.168-76, p.355) from fated death — other gods may object but not prevent this (16.440-3, p.264 = 22.178-81, p.355). In these cases Zeus refrains from overriding fate against his own wishes.
(h) Hence Zeus’ will is unexplained: the Homeric universe is more comprehensible to audience than to characters — but not fully comprehensible.
(a) Human beings matter to gods: e.g. Zeus’ concern for Hector, Sarpedon (rain of blood to honour his death: 16.459-61, p.264); Hera’s hatred of Troy. So humans are important. But: Zeus’ favourites are not saved, Hera gives up favourite cities (4.51-4, p.54). Human beings matter to gods up to a point. Hence divine partisanship limited: humans not worth spoiling a feast (Hephaestus: 1.573-6, p.17) or fighting between gods (Apollo: 21.462-7, p.346). Gods can be hurt but suffer no serious consequences (Aphrodite wounded: 5.352-4, p.76; healed: 5.416f., p.77): contrast human suffering, death, afterlife.
(b) Eventual death is the only certainty for humans: life is unstable and unpredictable (even Achilles — outstanding fighter, with divine mother who has leverage with Zeus — cannot predict or avoid disaster). Precariousness: risk of death in battle; death/slavery if city captured (e.g. Chryseis, Briseis); loss of status in community: see esp. Andromache’s fears for her son (22.477-515, p.363f.: but this lament must be balanced against Hector’s encouragement to troops: 15.494-9, p.246). Cf. Telemachus’ insecure position in Odyssey in absence of father and before he can assert his own position. Also position of those who are too old to assert themselves: wise Nestor (with living sons!) is honoured (see also Od. 3): contrast Laertes (Od. 1.189f. 11.187-96, 15.353ff.), Achilles’ fears for Peleus (Od. 11.494-503). So status and maintenance of status requires self-assertion or support from others capable of self-assertion.
(c) Hence premium on qualities which make for effective self- assertion — which tends to promote conflict: see e.g. Achilles in book 1, but anger (= first word of poem) is not his individual peculiarity. Cf. Peleus’ warning to Achilles (9.254-8, p.139); Phoenix’s story of Meleager’s anger (9.524-605, p.145-7); Phoenix’s own life-story (9.447-84, p.144) — yet Peleus made him Achilles’ tutor, and Patroclus Achilles’ comrade though in exile because of murder (23.84-90, p.367; for Patroclus’ gentleness cf. 17.669-72, p.291; 19.295-300, p.318); Hector’s reaction to unwelcome advice; quarrels during funeral games (esp. Idomeneus and Ajax: 23.473-98, p.377).
(d) This quarrel-promoting culture needs restraints:
(i) Objective deterrents: risk of vengeance and exile (with loss of security and independence).
(ii) Opinion of others (self-assertion is self-defeating if taken to a point that provokes general disapproval and lowers your standing): see e.g. Achilles restraining Idomeneus and Ajax (23.493f., p.377); Hector rebuking Paris’ (inferred) anger (6.326-30, p.99; cf. Paris’ reply, 6.335f.). But:
- limited effect: Trojan disapproval does not make Paris surrender Helen; Agamemnon goes against army’s will in keeping Chryseis and incurs disapproval in quarrel with Achilles.
- sometimes too effective: Hector’s sense of public opinion leads to his death, and disaster for the community (22.99-110, p.353f.).
Sometimes does work:
- Agamemnon makes provocative speeches — to stimulate fighting spirit? (He is pleased by Odysseus’ angry reply: 4.356f., p.62; the poet seems to approve Agamemnon’s approach: 4.223-50, p.58f.; he has weaknesses as a leader, but is not simply incompetent.) Criticism of Diomedes provokes Sthenelus, but Diomedes shows restraint (4.401-8, p.63). Speaks more sharply in assembly (9.31-49, p.134): pointedly critical allusion to book 1 in the reference to Agamemnon’s anger? Now responds to the insult in book 4 (greater freedom of speech in assembly, or has his leading role in the battles made him more assertive?), and openly insults Agamemnon in return. Nestor (9.53-9) flatters him, but stresses his youth (signal to Agamemnon to show restraint?); moves discussion to closed session of leaders (9.68-78, 134f.) — sensitive discussion in private puts Agamemnon under less pressure to react aggressively to criticism?
- Menelaus and Antilochus defuse own quarrel (23.566-613, p.379f.: n.b. Antilochus is Nestor’s son).
(iii) Sense of shared humanity, prompting pity (cf. Priam’s supplication of Achilles) — fragile (cf. fate of suppliants in battle), but has positive value in heroic world (e.g. Od. 17.415ff.).
(iv) Divine sanctions — assumed by characters (Zeus defends host/guest: 13.622-5, p.215; punishes oath-breakers: 4.234-6, p.59; 7.347-53, p.114; cf. Zeus as protector of vulnerable in Odyssey: e.g. Od. 7.164, 9.269-71, 13.213, 17.483-7): belief makes a potential restraint regardless of the divine reality (poet treats Zeus as guarantor of justice at 16.384-8, p.262 — simile, not narrative).
(e) Mixture of good and bad from Zeus’ two jars: 24.525-30 p.401.
(a) No reliable ancient evidence for Homer — earliest traditions involve conjecture (e.g. conflicting claims to be his place of origin) and legend (e.g. Homer as son of river-god). General ancient assumption that same poet wrote Iliad and Odyssey (and possibly other poems) questioned by many modern scholars: differences explained biographically in ancient world (e.g. wrote Od. in old age); but similarities could be due to imitation. Question to consider: does this uncertainty matter?
(b) In antiquity all copies of a book hand-copied; hence variations between copies. Homeric texts more variable (many earlier papyri have lines differently worded, different order of lines, or extra lines). Attempts to identify Homer’s original text produced standard text in 2nd c. BC, esp. under influence of Aristarchus. Has standardisation distorted the tradition? Evidence suggests Aristarchus preserved the mainstream traditional text, even when he doubted authenticity. E.g. 24.22-33 (p.388f.):
So Achilleus dishonoured godlike Hektor in his fury. [23] But the blessed gods looked on and pitied Hektor, [24] and they kept urging Hermes the sharp-sighted, the slayer of Argos, to steal the body. [25] This found favour with all the other gods, but never with Hera or Poseidon or the bright-eyed girl. They persisted in the hatred they had from the beginning for sacred Ilios and Priam and his people, because of the blind folly of Alexandros, who had scorned the goddesses when they came to his sheepfold, and gave his choice to the one who offered him dangerous lust. [31] But when the twelfth dawn came round from the day that Hektor died, then Phoibos Apollo spoke to the immortals: ‘You are cruel, you gods...’.
- Aristarchus doubted the authenticity of 25-30: (i) absurd to explain Poseidon’s hatred by reference to the judgement of Paris; (ii) Homer does not refer to the judgement of Paris elsewhere (if he had known the story, references might be expected at 4.31f., p.54; 3.164, p.45; 6.344-58, p.99f.; 24.762-5, p.407); (iii) the word translated ‘scorned’ (neikesse) should mean ‘dispute’ (e.g. 18.498, p.307: used of the disputants, not the adjudicator!); (iv) ‘lust’ is a desire for women in general, whereas Paris was offered a specific woman, and the word (makhlosunê) is not used elsewhere by Homer.
- Other ancient scholars questioned 23-30 or (given that 23 is arguably necessary for the continuity of the narrative) 24-30: (i) ‘steal’ is unbecoming to the gods; (ii) it makes no sense for Apollo to criticise the gods in general when it has been stated that most of them agree with him; (iii) it is inappropriate for gods to share Achilles’ emotions; (iv) ‘sheepfold’ assumes the story that Paris grew up in the country, found in other sources but not Homer, who portrays him as a sophisticated urbanite (3.54f., p.42).
Assess these arguments, and compare with a modern commentary — e.g. N.J. Richardson in The Iliad. A Commentary ed. G.S. Kirk (Cambridge 1985-1993), vol. 6, 276-8.
(c) Modern approaches:
- analytical: two versions (i) Iliad not originally a single poem: many shorter poems composed separately, and later patched together — hence apparent discrepancies and discontinuities explained as by-product of combining independent compositions. But: overall design apparent. Hence (ii) Iliad originally a single poem, but later insertions produced discrepancies and discontinuities.
- unitarian: Iliad originally a single poem, preserved intact.
Unitarians accept there may be minor additions (e.g. O. Taplin Homeric Soundings (Oxford 1992) 11, 152-3 on book 10) — hence analysts and unitarians differ in degree, but also in underlying emphasis: are detailed problems or overall design most in need of explanation?
- neo-analysis: poet used and adapted pre-existing traditions (not pre-existing poems). E.g. book 2 (Catalogue of Ships) and 3 (Duel etc) perhaps adapted from narrative of beginning of war (cf. lecture 2).
- progressive fixation: progressive elaboration by original poet (not later adapters): composition of Iliad must have been a prolonged process — did poet go from beginning to end once? Or compose a less elaborate poem, and gradually elaborate it? Latter would explain mastery of large-scale narrative technique (see lecture 4): learned gradually as poem progressively elaborated.
- oral poetry: Note different senses:
(i) poetry for oral performance (to public audience, not private reader).
(ii) poetry composed without aid of writing in limited sense: fixed text memorised, but not written down (progressive elaboration in memory analogous to revision of written drafts). But a memorised text dies with the poet unless (a) it gets written down (e.g. by dictation) or (b) the poet teaches it to someone else. Hence:
(iii) poetry transmitted without aid of writing.
(iv) poetry composed without aid of writing in radical sense: text improvised in oral performance — i.e. no fixed text in memory, but narrative pattern that is expressed differently in each performance. Hence concept of recomposition-in-performance — observed in e.g. Bosnian heroic poetry, where formulaic language provides an analogy with Homer.
(d) Some relevant facts and questions:
(i) Iliad and Odyssey were meant to performed orally (but in what context?)
(ii) Iliad and Odyssey were memorised by some people in antiquity — and not only professional performers.
(iii) Iliad and Odyssey did get written down. By poet? From poet’s dictation? Or after period of purely oral transmission? Would oral transmission create too much variation in text? (Does the variation found in early papyri indicate oral transmission — or oral transmission have created even more variation?)
(iv) Before writing came to Greece oral composition (and transmission?) was the only possibility.
(v) Writing was introduced into Greece before the probable dates of Iliad and Odyssey: so writing could have been available to the poet(s).
(vi) Technology of writing cumbersome in early stages, esp. on very large scale. Would writing have helped or hindered a poet? Writing is a convenient aid to composition for us: but we have long tradition of literacy and many aids.
(vii) Does the view that Iliad and Odyssey are too complex and subtle it impossible to have been composed without aid of writing reflect limited modern imagination?
(viii) So perhaps Homer composed without writing — i.e. text existed only in memory. If so, written down by poet, or dictated by poet, or transmitted orally.
(ix) Or perhaps Homer composed orally — i.e. no fixed text: recomposition-in-performance. If so, written text must be record of some particular performance (oral-dictated text theory).
(x) But how much does the modern analogy prove? Homer’s inherited poetic language and technique may have developed in a tradition of oral recomposition-in-performance — does it follow Homer composed in that way?
(e) Oral composition: (i) fixed text memorised, but not written down; or (ii) text improvised in oral performance — i.e. no fixed text in memory, but narrative pattern expressed differently in each performance (= recomposition-in-performance). Latter observed in modern fieldwork: does this provide analogy to Homer’s tradition, or Homer himself?
(f) Homer’s language:
- artificial: combines forms from different stages in history of Greek, different regional dialects (e.g. for ‘of me’ he has emou — but also emeio, emeo, emeu, meu, or emethen; for ‘to be’ he has einai — but also emmenai, emenai, emmen and emen). Alternatives give greater flexibility in composing to the rhythmical constraints of verse-form used in heroic epic (dactylic hexameter). The mixture must be inherited from long tradition.
- formulaic: see lecture 4. E.g. ‘noun-epithet’ formulae (i.e. noun+descriptive adjective), such as ‘swift- footed Achilleus’ x30, ‘swift-footed godlike Achilles’ x42. Not averse to repetition; no compulsion to choose formula with contextually relevant meaning (e.g. Achilles is not running at 1.58, p.4; 1.121, p.6) — though choice is influenced by rhythmical context. Hence formulae also aid composition in strict verse-form.
(g) See tables illustrating formulaic language: ‘him answering addressed...’ (x37) + ‘... swift-footed Achilleus’ (x12 in this combination), and + rhythmically equivalent formulae for other speakers (n.b. ‘godlike Priam’ x8 in total, ‘soothing sleep’ x5 in total; formulaic though unique in this combination). But not rigid constraint: other expressions available for different manners of reply. Note equivalent lines ‘him answering addressed swift-footed Achilles’ (1.84, p.5; 18.191, p.299) and ‘him answered then swift-footed godlike Achilles’ (1.121, p.6; 18.181, p.299) — avoids using same line in close succession. Special moments may have unique speech- introduction: e.g. 16.6f. (p.253) — though still made from formulaic language. Note ‘seeing him felt pity...’ occurred in at 11.814 (p.186) — where the spealer is Patroclus: should we see this as a deliberate verbal echo, or does formulaic language demand different kind of reading from that appropriate in sophisticated literate poet (e.g. Apollonius)?
(h) ‘He fell with a crash...’ (x19) ‘... and his armour clattered about him’ (x9) combined 6 times — but not at 16.822 (p.273), since Patroclus’ armour has been knocked off by Apollo: ‘he fell with a crash and brought anguish [unique phrase!] to the Achaean army’. But at 17.125 (p.278) Hector strips Patroclus’ armour (cf. Zeus, 17.205-6, p.280). Regular narrative patterns of victor stripping body (e.g. 17.60, p.276) reasserts itself. Recurrent sequences of words (‘formulae’) paralleled at higher level by recurrent sequences of events (‘themes’). Analyst might see this discrepancy as evidence of interference with text: oralist sees the kind of discrepancy expected in oral poetry using recurrent expressions and narrative patterns as aid to composition.
(i) Possible evidence of revision:
- Three envoys (Phoinix, Aias, Odysseus) at 9.168f. (p.137) — but ‘so they went along the shore of the sounding sea...’ (9.182, p.137) in the Greek uses dual (not plural) forms: ‘the pair of them went along the shore of the sounding sea...’; also at 9.192 (p.137f.); (9.196, p.137); etc. Perhaps originally two envoys (Odysseus and Ajax: contrasting pair), Phoenix (Achilles’ tutor: so why isn’t he with Achilles already?) added — how would this enhance the scene? (Analysts took such discrepancies as evidence of adaptation by later poet: may be rprogressive revision by one poet.)
- Do 11.609f. (p.181) and 16.84-6 (p.255) imply a version in which the embassy scene as a whole was absent?
- Ajax-Hector controntation (13.809-32, p.220) followed by fight — eventually (14.402, p.231). Has a continuous narrative been edited to insert new material? N.b. the intervening section includes the Deception of Zeus — not necessary to the plot (Hera distracts Zeus to give Poseidon a free hand: but this was already explained at the beginning of book 13): an attractive elaboration?
- Trojans reach the ships at 12.470f. (p.199), and again at 15.367 (p.243): intervening Greek rally ultimately futile. Results in Patroclus being suspended between end of book 11 (p.187) and 15.390-405 (p.244) — ostensibly because the Trojans have reached the ships, but he did not react in book 12. Perhaps: (i) early version went directly from the first assault on the ships to Patroclus’ appeal to Achilles; (ii) Poseidon’s intervention and Greek rally inserted; (iii) Deception of Zeus inserted into Greek rally.
(j) Oral composition (in both senses?) may be both less fixed than composition in writing (written text has appearance of fixity: unwritten text more open to change and revision) and more fixed (written text can be cancelled easily: memorised text is a persistent habit, so less easily changed): oral poetry combines fluidity and inertia. Hence revised versions may preserve traces of older versions.
(a) Uniquely large scale of Iliad and Odyssey deliberately sought — but would take a long time to perform. What could the context of performance have been? (The poet composed for performance: so composition and context of performance are linked.)
Singers in Odyssey: Phemius (Ithaca): 1.325ff., 22.351, 17.383-5; anon. (Sparta): 4.17-19; Demodocus (Phaeacia): 8.62ff., 255ff., 471ff. — perform at feasts and at festival (games for Odysseus), but on smaller scale than Homer. Festival performances: e.g. Plato Ion 530a-b. Daily performances: Xenophon Symposium 3.5-6. Complete performances in relay at Panathenaea: [Plato] Hipparchus 228b.
Original performance — over several days (see e.g. O. Taplin Homeric Soundings (Oxford 1992))? Poet must have exceptional prestige to secure this: perhaps evidence for prolonged progressive development — perceived quality creates demand for greater elaboration, which enhances quality, in continuing cycle.