Professional Documents
Culture Documents
A series edited by
GREGORY NAGY
111I1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 !
21300097199
THE LANGUAGE
OF HEROES
Speech and Performance
in the Iliad
RICHARD P. MARTIN
SBD-FFLCH-USP
""1111111111"1111"111111111111111111
125364
vii
:1,
Foreword
GREGORY NAGY
ISee V. Turner, The Forest of Symbols: Aspects ofNdembu Ritual (Ithaca, N. Y., 1967),
and P.-Y. Jacopin, "La parole generative: De la mythologie des Indiens Yukuna"
(diss., University of Neuchatel, 1981).
2See especially M. Detienne, L'invention de la mythologie (Paris, 1981), and my
review in Annales: Economies Societes Civilisations 37 (1982) 778-80.
lX
j
x Foreword
tion, more than one of the books in this series will deal primarily with
ancient Greece. The testimony of the Greeks is particularly instruc-
tive with regard to our central concern, the relationship between
ritual and myth. The very word myth, as derived from Greek muthos,
is a case in point: the semantics of this word bring to life, in micro-
cosm, the relationship between myth and ritual in ancient Greek
society.
In order to grasp the special meaning of Greek muthos, let us con-
sider the distinction between marked and unmarked speech (in the ter-
minology of Prague School linguistics). We find that marked speech
occurs as a rule in ritual contexts, as we can observe most clearly in
th~-reast~~est-sc~e socie-ties. It iSIn such SOCletlesatSo
that we ca~-oEs~~ve---mostaearly -ti;:~symbiosis of ritual and myth,
and the ways in which the language of ritual and myth is marked
whereas "everyday" language is unmarked. The Greek language
gives us an exarhpleOftlieses-emantics:-miiifmeans "I have my eyes
closed" or "I have my mouth closed" in everyday situations, but "I
see in a special way" or "I say in a special way" in ritual. Hence mustes
is "one who is initiated" and musterion "that into which one is initi-
ated, mystery (Latin mysterium)." Hence also muthos, "myth": this
word, it has been argued, is a derivative of muo and had at an earlier
stage meant "special" as opposed to "everyday" speech.
A later classical example of such early patterns of thought occurs in
Sophocles, Oedipus at Colonus 1641-1644: the visualization and the
verbalization of what happened to Oedipus in the precinct of the
Eumenides at Colonus are restricted, in that the precise location of his
corpse is a sacred secret (1545-1546, 1761-1763). Only Theseus, by
virtue of being the proto-priest for the Athenians of the here-and-now,
is to witness what happened, which is called the dromena (1644). This
word is what Jane Harrison used to designate "ritual" in her formula-
tion "myth is the plot of the dromenon." Thus the visualization and the
verbalization of the myth, what happened to Oedipus, are restricted to
the sa~red context of ritual, controlled by the heritage of priestly
authority from Theseus, culture-hero of the Athenian democracy.
From an anthropological point of view, "myth" is indeed "special
speech" in that it is a means by which society affirms its own reality.
In the poetry of Homer, however, as Richard Martin's Language of
Heroes demonstrates, muthos is not just "myth" in the sense Q( a
narrative that affirms reality. It is any speech-actt~y.
In making thiSargument, M-ar-t-in----appites-rheLheones of]. L. Austin
Foreword Xl
To hear the voice which tells the Iliad-that was my simple and
impractical aim as I began this book. The urge to do so came from
my sense that the archaic Greek epic poem is inevitably polyphonic-
created by generations of traditional tellers, narrated in the voices of
many individual characters-yet unique: it seems to have the persua-
sive force and coherence of a single, powerful performance, by one
poet, whom we have come to call Homer. The interplay between
traditional narrative material and the poet's spontaneous composition
seemed to me particularly important in the Iliad's dramatic represen-
tation of the speech of humans and gods. In what sense can the words
of any hero in the poem be "traditional" as are the repeated phrases
used to narrate the poem, the epithets and type-scenes? Conversely,
how spontaneous might such dramatic representation of speech be-
come, if the poet of the Iliad composed rapidly, making verses in a
difficult meter, as he performed? Must a poet (or a heroic speaker)
"misuse" the medium in order to express an idea that was not tradi-
tionally expressed in the inherited diction of epic? Can the speeches in
the Iliad be used to prove whether or not the poem was composed
orally at all?
My attempt to answer these questions led me to rethink a number
of my assumptions about language, verbal art, and the individual
performer. With the help of work in ethnography and ethnolinguis-
tics, folklore studies, linguistic philosophy, and literary theory, I have
been able to formulate the answers I offer in this book.
XUl
XIV Preface
-My central conclusion is that the Iliad takes shape as a poetic com-
position in precisely the same "speaking culture" that we see fore-
grounded in the stylized words of the poem's heroic speakers, espe-
cially those speeches designated as muthos, a word I redefine as
"authoritative speech-act." The poet and the hero are both "perform-
ers" in a traditional medium. The genre of muthos composing re-
quires that its practitioners improve on previous performances and
surpass them, by artfully manipulating traditional material in new
combinations. In other words, within the speeches of the poem, we
see that it is traditional to be spontaneous: no hero ever merely re-
peats; each recomposes the traditional text he performs, be it a boast,
threat, command, or story, in order to project-his-in~n
ality in the most convincing manner. I suggest that the "voice" of the
poet is the product of the same traditional performance technique. In
Chapters 4 and 5, I show in detail how this technique might explain
the vexing problem of the "language of Achilles," a problem first
raised by Adam Parry and one that goes to the heart of the oral-
formulaic theory constructed largely by Adam Parry's father Milman
Parry. In short, it seems to me that both father and son can be
confirmed in their intuitions: the speeches of the Iliad are, on the one
hand, perfectly consistent with the assumption of oral compositio~
in-performance; on the other hand, the technique of individualizing
variation within these speeches enables us to uncover the very moti-
vation for the composition of a unique and monumental oral epic
about the hero Achilles. -
The problems this book explores first attracted my attention when
I began to teach a graduate seminar, The Poetics of the Iliad, in the
spring ofI985 at Princeton University. My first thanks, therefore, go
to all the students in that memorable course. I am particularly grateful
to Sheila Colwell, Carol Dougherty-Glenn, Carolyn Higbie, Drew
Keller, Leslie Kurke, Lisa Maurizio, Victor Ortiz, and David Rosen-
bloom for their continued interest and suggestions as this project
grew.
Through the generosity of the alumni and faculty of Princeton
University, I was enabled to devote the academic year I985-86 to
research with a leave provided by the Class of I936 Bicentennial
Preceptorship. For this award I am extremely grateful. My colleagues
in the Department of Classics have lavished on me their encourage-
ment and advice; without the environment they create, in which both
critical practice and philological acumen are valued, I doubt that this
Preface xv
book could have been written. lowe all a great debt of thanks,
especially three Hellenist colleagues, John Keaney, Froma Zeitlin,
and Andrew Ford, who generously gave their time and expertise in
discussing many aspects of this book with me.
To audiences at Cornell, Columbia, the University of Kansas, and
Harvard I am grateful for appreciative comments and critiques, par-
ticularly on portions of Chapter I. I thank Alan Nussbaum, James
Coulter, Stanley Lombardo, and Jeffrey Wills for invitations to speak
on my work at these institutions. Homerists at several other univer-
sities provided advice and much needed reassurance, in person or by
letter, while I was engaged in writing: I thank Mark Edwards of
Stanford University; George Dimock of Smith College; J. B. Hains-
worth of New College, Oxford; Michael Nagler of Berkeley; and
Norman Austin of the University of Arizona for their kindness.
I have been blessed with good teachers, to whom lowe more than
any book could repay. I regret that Cedric Whitman, in whose classes
I first encountered the power of the Iliad, will not read my thanks.
John Finley, Robert Fitzgerald, and Calvert Watkins showed me,
each in his way, the beauty of Homeric poetry, and how to write of
it. Lowell Edmunds, who has patiently endured my writing since
1975, taught me much about clarity of thought anc,l style and led me
to explore other disciplines to illuminate Greek-poetry. Finally, Gre-
gory Nagy has provided guidance and friendship, inspiration and
motivation. My book would not have been possible without his pi-
oneering studies in the' Greek poetic tradition. My scholarly debts to
him show forth in each chapter. This work stands as a serna of my
deep gratitude for his princely instruction.
It remains to offer thanks to my wife, Maureen, whose patience,
understanding, and affection enabled me to write. Her endurance
deserves Homeric commemoration. The dedication at the front of
this volume records my debt to those whose love and sacrifice reared
and educated me, teaching me from the start the language heroes
speak.
RICHARD P. MARTIN
Princeton, New Jersey
d, '
THE LANGUAGE
OF HEROES
CHAPTER I
Performance, Speech-Act,
and Utterance
I
2 The Language of Heroes
reaction has set in against the work of Milman Parry and other expo-
nents of an "oral" Homeric poetry-or, we should say, against a
certain portion of this work, for many of Parry's insights are ignored
by the new critique. The oralists' concern with technique has earned
them the label "Formalists," and their emphasis on the traditional
nature of Homeric craft has prompted the charge that they negleCt the
individual genius of the poet.2 Of course, such criticisms were leveled
at Parry from the outset, not surprisingly given the climate of Anglo-
American literary study at the time. More puzzling is the resurgence
today of this reactionary criticism, half a century after Parry's seminal
work. It is disturbing that young philologists such as David Shive
find it necessary to attack the alleged flaws in Parry's first publica-
tions, and to defend the "creativity" of Homer, while failing to reex-
amine the very idea of what creativity in an oral tradition might
mean. 3
ill
This wave has been building; in 1978 David Bynum could note a
II
"palpable ennui" among scholars first attracted to the Parry view, "as
the practice of formula-counting has become more common, lost its
first blush of novelty, and for the most part failed to deliver the
innovations in the substantive understanding of oral traditions which
were expected of it from the first. "4 The reaction has been aided to
some extent by the honest appraisals of Homeric tradition produced
by philologists who followed the Parry direction. One turning point
came as it was gradually recognized that "oral poetry" and "formulaic
poetry" were not convertible terms, and that the "orality" of our
poems must remain an open question. In one of his last articles,
Adam Parry subjected his father's work to a critical reappraisal. He
concluded that although the style of Homer "shows many features of "
a style originally created for oral composition," the oral composition
of the two epics "probably cannot now be proved. "5 From another
perspective, the apparent uniqueness of the Iliad, at least among the
European epic traditions, has been noted by British scholars generally
sympathetic to Parry's work. J. B. Hainsworth remarks that "the
6Hainsworth (I970) 40. On the "uniqueness" of Homer, see also Griffin (I977).
There is some confusion, in these arguments, between uniqueness of style and of
subject matter or treatment, and I am not convinced that the former has been proved.
7Fenik (I986) 17I.
8Ibid. 15I; xi-xiv.
9Clarke (I98I) I 16-21 gives a good introduction to this seventeenth-century debate
and its later manifestations.
IOMueller (I984) 14.
4 The Language of Heroes
at all to the wealth of insight gained from the post-Parry work in so-
called oralliterature.1 1 Perhaps too narrow a focus on the definition
and description of "oral literature" has produced ennui. The term
itself perpetuates an unhelpful stance, as Michael Herzfeld notes:
"Even the recognition of folk texts as 'oral literature' ... merely
projected an elegant oxymoron: by defining textuality in terms of
'literature,' a purely verbocentric conception, it left arbitration in the
control of 'high culture.' "12 Inevitably, the text-centered nature of
academic study shifts the emphasis from "oral" to "literature," from
performance to script. In what follows I intend to redress the balance.
! I" ~
Only within the past few decades have social anthropologists,
folklorists, linguists, sociologists, and a few literary critics begun to
detect the crucial importance of performance in the study of verbal
behavior. One of the earliest and most influential books in the field
was Erving Goffman's study of personal interaction routines, pub-
lished in 1959, the year before Lord's Singer of Tales. Goffman bor-
rowed the concepts of actor and role from dramaturgy and game
theory in order to show how everyday communication, and the more
stylized communication of art and "performances" in a strict sense,
share essential features. To use Goffman's definition, both types of
communicative "performance" represent "the activity of a given par-
ticipant on a given occasion which serves to influence in any way any
of the other participants. "13
This approach, which sees verbal art as part of a spectrum of hu-
man communicative performance, has led to significant research into
discourse strategies. We have learned that orally produced "texts,"
artistic or not, establish cohesion by a number of means undeveloped
in written texts: they involve the audience through direct quotation
and increased use of deictic pronouns and present-tense verbs, or they
ease comprehension by reduced sentence complexity. At the same
time, written communication can be seen as often elaborating "strat-
1 i egies associated with speaking, in order to create involvement. "14
Such findings regarding everyday communication surely have rele-
vance for the Homerist's judgments concerning "orality" in the
liOn Analyst criticism, see Latacz (1979) and Clarke (1981) 156-82. It is not a
coincidence that reaction to Parry has paralleled the rise ofNeo-analysis, on which see
now M. Clark (1986).
12Herzfeld (1985b) 202.
13Goffman (1959) IS.
14Tannen (1982) 18-19.
Performance, Speech-Act, and Utterance 5
the performances of the epics are highly complex events which must be
viewed as total social and artistic phenomena. Besides the actual bard
and his aides (eventually including the apprentices), there is a diverse
and sometimes large, actively participating audience. There is a con-
15The number of such studies is now quite large. For an introduction, see van Dijk
(1976) 27·
16Cited by Pickering (1980) 5. On the development of his performance-centered
fieldwork, see Labov (1972) 49-69.
17On this issue, see Searle (1976).
180ng (1986) 148-49.
6 The Language of Heroes
19Biebuyck (1978) 351. Reichl (1985) 614-43 observes a similar context for Uzbek
and Karakalpak epic performances. Okpewho (1979) 52 points out that only a full-
length color ftlm could accurately recreate a contemporary African epic performance.
Recognizing this role of the audience, Renoir (1986) 105-10 stresses the need for
readers of ancient and medieval texts to re-imagine the original milieu.
20Biebuyck (1978) 352.
210n the Cretan, see Notopoulos (1952) 239-40; Ghil (1986) 607-35 discusses the
relation of the Romanian bard to his audience.
22Wrigglesworth (1977) 104.
23Compton (1979) 13, 122-29.
Performance, Speech-Act, and -Utterance 7
the 1960s. Bauman (1986b) 112-15 cites Walter Benjamin, Roman Jakobson, and
Mikhail Bakhtin as models for criticism that "recontextualizes" literature. Pratt (1977)
68 nicely compares Labov's sociolinguistics with V. Shklovskij's poetics. Howell
(1986) 79 traces a concern with performance to B. K. Malinowski in the 1920S.
28Bauman (1986b) 78.
290n this topic, a red herring, see Chapter 4.
30Shive in his recent attack (1987) 10-20 claims that the economy and extension
demonstrated by M. Parry for the noun-epithet system does not apply to the other
formulaic phrases in the poems. Yet Parry never asserted that it did, and this restraint
on his part has long been acknowledged, by Hainsworth, Hoekstra, and others. The
more careful study by Paraskevaides (1984), not cited by Shive, demonstrates that
even Homer's use of most synonyms shows clear marks of formulaic economy and
extension. .
31 A few Homerists have recognized the import of comparative studies. Hainsworth
(1970) 29 saw that "the oral poem, propedy speaking, is knowable only through its
performances. "
Performance, Speech-Act, and Utterance 9
cannot see that it has had any impact on Iliad studies. 35 Ultimately,
the evidence is too thin for us to draw conclusions about Homer from
his depictions of bards.
If we start with the idea that Homer was an oral poet, it seems to
me essential that we should delve more deeply and concentrate not on
poets in the texts. but on orality itself, to look at the very notion of
speech within the poems to discover the parameters of this very basic
sort of performance. Then we can extend the notion of performance,
or rather, recapture what Greeks considered to be a "performance,"
and compare it with our own notions. The task is ethnographic; the
society to be observed happens to be extant only in the remnants of its
poetic production. Yet some reconstruction can be attempted. To my
knowledge, this has not been done yet; I find the task all the more
compelling precisely because workers in the other fields I have men-
tioned now seem agreed in stressing the importance of performance
as the distinguishing feature of all speech events. We know what
Homer says about the power of memory and of art: Odysseus is an
emblem for their dual potency. But what does this poetry say about
its very stuff, words themselves? And can this tell us something about
the poetry?
We should begin with words for speech itself. Again, Lord pro-
vides valuable hints from field experience, when he relates that some
modern singers claim to repeat a composition "word for word" like
an earlier song, yet are shown to have made wide changes by the
transcripts of their performances. In fact, as Lord and Parry found,
the idea of a single "word" made no sense to their informants, who
regularly used the same term to mean an utterance of any length. 36
We can press further this insight about terminology, for meta-
language-talk concerning talk-is highly language-specific. That is,
the spectrum of speech, like the spectrum of colors, can be described
in various ways by different languages. Irish, for example, denotes
with one adjective-glas-the shades of color that English distin-
guishes as green, gray, and blue-green. As regards speech notions,
tional folk cultures such as these. The same must apply to study of
archaic Greece.
The ethnographer of speaking who attempts to reconstruct Greek
talk about words, then, will not be surprised to find a folk taxonomy
of speech that is askew from the standpoint of our own notions. The
difficulty lies in recapturing the semantics of words for speech when
we have no native informants and only poetic texts. Homerists have a
model for overcoming part of this problem: I refer to the brilliant
work of Leonard Muellner, which explains the problematic semantics
I,., of the speech-act verb eukhomai-boast/pray-by analyzing its for-
mulas iIi the text of Homer. 41 I find Muellner's method useful for
,1 1.1 analyzing the two terms that demand attention when we turn to
words for "speech" in Homer-namely muthos and epos. In hopes of
recapturing the intricacies of the oral poetic world behind Homeric
verse, I have investigated these two words in their context and can
now redefine the words as follows: muthos is, in Homer, a speech-act
indicating authority, performed at length, usually in public, with a
focus on full attention to every detail. I redefine epos, on the other
hand, as an utterance, ideally short, accompanying a physical act, and
focusing on message, as perceived by the addressee, rather than on
performance as enacted by the speaker. In short, I believe the analysis
of speech terms within Homer offers us an immediate entryway into
notions of performance, through those speeches in the poems which
are called muthoi.
In what follows, I shall explain how I arrive at this reconstruction
of notions regarding speech in archaic Greek. The dichotomy of
speech-performance and utter~e can be used, along the way, to
answer such questions as what kind of speech-act the epic is, and
whether "winged words" is just a convenient ftller or.a meaningful
phrase. In Chapters 2 and 3, as I examine the poetics and rhetoric of
the major types of Iliadic performances, it will be seen that the word
muthos comprises a range of speech-genres similar to that of Chamu-
la "words for heated hearts": political talk, angry speech, and affectio-
nate recollection. Heroes can be distinguished as performers by their
ability in these genres. Chapters 4 and 5 will focus on one heroic
performer, Achilles, and my conclusion on another-the poet Hom-
er.
Before beginning with the semantic distinctions between these two
41Muellner (1976).
Performance, Speech-Act, and Utterance I3
ing glosses the word "sermo intimus"; Hofmann derives the senses of
"fable" and "opinion" from an original meaning "cogitatum"; Four-
nier followed along similar lines, giving the definition "pensee qui
s'exprime, Ie langage, l'avis, langage interieur"; and even Chantraine
seems to feel this way about the term: "Suite de paroles qui ont un
sens, propos, discours; associe a E:n:O~ qui designe Ie mot, la parole, la
forme."47
It is certain that, in the language of the Iliad, muthos is associated
with words for thinking. For example, Paris in the assembly of the
Trojans alleges that Antenor knows how to think of another and
better proposal than the muthos he has just made (that Helen should
be returned):
"You know how to think of another muthos better than this one."
(7.35 8)
Earlier in the poem, when Antenor recalls during the teikhoskopia the
speech styles of the Achaean heroes who came to Troy, he associates
the word muthos with well-made plans (medea):
"But when they wove speeches (muthoi) and plans for all,
Then, you know, Menelaos discoursed in running fashion,
Speaking little, but very clearly, since he is not much with words
(polumuthos)
nor one to cast words about. And, indeed, he was younger.
But when indeed Odysseus mqch with wiles (polumetis) arose
he'd stand, he'd look down fixing his eyes on the ground.... "
(3. 212 - 1 7)
47Ebeling (I885) II22-24; Hofmann (I922) 28-33; Fournier (I946) 2I5-I6; Chan-
traine (I968-80) 7I8. Frisk (I96o-70) 2:264 defmes muthos .as "Wort, Rede, Ges-
prach, Uberlegung, Erzahlung, Sage, Marchen, My thus, " in an unhelpful collection
of attested meanings. Some would go so far as to connect muthos (which has no
known etymology) with words meaning "thought" in other Indo-European lan-
guages. See Hofmann (I922) 47.
48See Detienne and Vemant (I974) 222, 23 I.
16 The Language of Heroes
not epos, and denote speech that is meant to have an active role in
resolving a crisis, as when Polydamas addresses the Trojans: "And
the painless word pleased Hektor" (muthos apemon 12.80, 13.748).
Close as is the connection between muthos and "intent," however,
the word always refers to actual speech accompanying a speak-
er's thought. Thus, one can never justify translating the word as
"thought. "49 This problem, by contrast, never arises with the word
epos. Unlike muthos, this word has a clear Indo-European deriva-
tion, which connects it with the root seen in Greek ossa and opa and in
Latin vox. 50 The root refers to voice, and this original sense survives
in epos. A muthos focuses on what the speaker says and how he or
she says it, but epos consistently applies to what the addressee hears.
We can see the root meaning in a number of places in the Iliad, as
when Hektor does not "fail to recognize the epos" of the goddess Iris
(2.807), and Andromakhe says she wants to be out of hearing of
Hektor's death: "May the epos be away from my ear" (22.454).51
Given the etymology of epos, we can see that a consistent image
underlies Aeneas' words to Achilles at 20.203-204:
ded in the word epos. First, it is an inanimate neuter noun (as opposed
to the animate noun muthos).53 In the few places where speech is
described by means of both words, it appears that the term epos refers
to the ~mallest elements of connected discourse, to single words or
emergent sounds. Antenor's description of Odysseus' rhetoric men-
tions voice (opa) and words (epea) in the same breath, and vividly
compares the latter with winter snowflakes (3.221-22). The image is
that of a powerful, silent natural phenomenon itself composed of
single powerless parts. The description of the speech style of Ther-
sites (a foil for Odysseus) concentrates on his inability to organize the
discrete small units of his talk, the epea:
During one of the rare moments when fighters discuss speech for
more than a few lines, we see again that muthoi are the large units,
epea the small. Toward the end of the challenging speech to Achilles,
in which Aeneas refers to "famous words" that have acquainted the
warriors with one another's deeds, he calls for a fight, to put an end to
childish talk. The contrasting mention of "speech" versus "deeds" is a
frequent Homeric topos. Only at 20.246-250, however, is the first
part of the contrast further subdivided.
530n the determinate, material nature of epos, see Fournier (1946) 211-12 and Beck
(1987). I cannot agree with the latter that the use of the two terms in one line is simply
hendiadys.
18 The Language of Heroes
"Zeus father with the flashing bolt, I will place some word in your
mind."
solation, but "hand and wor.d" descriptions can also occur whenever
one speaker establishes contact with a listener for an emotional pri-
vate conversation, as when Athena persuades Ares to leave battle
(5.30): "Taking his hand she spoke to rushing Ares with words
(epeessi). "60 The focus is on speech as a social bonding mechanism,
the equivalent of a handshake, an affirmation, like that between help-
ing divinities (Athena and Poseidon) and Achilles (21.286): "Taking
hand in hand they pledged faith by means of words (epeessin)." The
parallel between verbal and physical gesture is highlighted particular-
ly in the following formulas:
She put her hand on him and spoke a word and called.
She stroked him with her hand and spoke a word and called.
She was amazed, and spoke a word and called the name,
"Strange one, why do you want to deceive me?"
As prayer and supplication work for mortals, so these soft words will
supposedly help Hera, making the angry divinity propitious (hi-
laos). 65 Words alone do not complete the reconciliation, though. We
do not hear Hera speak to Zeus. Instead, Hephaistos' advice to Hera is
joined to his gesture of offering her a cup (585) and to his comic
autobiographical story (586-94). The ensemble of word and action
carries the scene to its harmonious end.
Much remains to be said about the role of this social-poetic meta-
phor in Homeric speech depictions. It can be shown, for example,
that the "supplication" of the godlike Achilles by the embassy de-
pends on this concept of speech as reciprocal exchange, as the realm
of epea. Nestor instructs the Achaeans to propitiate Achilles with
"mild words and pleasing gifts," significantly equating the two
65The propitiation of Apollo not long before this scene uses similar language
(1. 100), as does the embassy to Achilles (9.639), the only mortal to whom this diction
is applied.
22 The Language of Heroes
But he sent him off badly, and ordered a hard muthos." (1.379)
66In addition to these examples, cf. I.273, I. 565, 2.I56-66, 20.295, 23.I57;
Helenus' prophetic advice to Hektor (7.43-53) transmits a directive of Apollo, obeyed
Performance, Speech-Act, and Utterance 23
Thus he spoke, and the old man feared and obeyed the muthos.
(1.33, Khryses = 24.571, Priam)
by Athena (oud' apithese). The force of Helen us' muthos comes from its representation
of divine voice-op' akousa theon.
67S ee Herzfeld (1985) and (1985b).
-- "
he spoke and then they listened and obeyed. (14. 133 = 9·79)
26 The Language of Heroes
Thus far we have seen that epos can be distinguished from muthos
through the former's close relation to voice and hearing and the lat-
ter's consistent association with powerful, status-related speech. Yet
it could be objected at this point that epos also means "command" or
"proposal" in more than a few contexts. Does this mean that the
systematic distinctions shown thus far are a mirage caused by the
formulaic language of the poem? A closer look at the employment of
epos shows that this is not the case; the system of Homeric speech
terms is instead even more complex (and yet economical) than at first
suspected. This becomes clear if we examine contexts in which epos
seems to be synonymous with muthos and compare the results with
patterns of co-occurrence, either of the two words in the same de-
scription of a speech or of the two words in association with mutual
modifiers.
At first it seems there is a striking difference in the use of the word
epos to mean command: that it, 1,lnlike muthos, refers to the second-
ary transmission of an original command by someone else. The focus
appears to be on the message itself (as we have seen with this word in
other contexts). Thus, Achilles' demand that Thetis supplicate Zeus is
referred to by his mother as an epos: Looking forward to the moment
when she will transmit the message, she promises: 70
71 A similar ideology has been traced in the Poema de Mio Cid: see Read (1983) 2-21.
28 The Language of Heroes
Not yet was the whole epos said when they themselves came.
Still, there are differences in the acts referred to by these two terms:
reading context, we see that Odysseus at 19.216-37 makes an au-
thoritative proposal, called by him muthoi (19.220). This the poet
refers to at 19.242. But Nestor (10.533-39) merely voices his suspi-
cion that the best of the Achaeans are returning from' their night
mission: his speech is labeled epos-as one could predict, given the
associations of this word with reported speech. A similar explanation
will show the differences beneath the surface likenesses when the two
different nouns share an adjective, giving the appearance that they are
formulaically interchangeable words. When Hera tells Athena that_
they are dangerously close to reneging on their promise that Men-,
elaos will take Troy, she refers to the original speech-act as muthos:
~ Q' (lALOV 1:()V f,.LueOv unE<JTI1f,.LEV MEVEAaq> (5.715)
Achilles also mentions a past speech-act when he uses the same adjec-·
tive halian, "in vain," and we might expect him to label it muthos,
but the line concludes:
But here the nature of the original speech-act gives us a clue to explain \
why it can be called epos in retrospect: as a boast, it is attracted into .
the language of actual boast descriptions, which often contain the
formula £UXOf.t£vO~ £:1tO~ rruOu. 73 Once again, then, external fac-
tors-formulaic pressure, poetic themes in the larger discourse, or
accidents of the system-can mask the inherent semantic distinction /
between muthos and epos. .
And yet, even after we exclude and explain such apparent syn-
onymity, there remain passages in which the two different terms that
we are studying co-occur. For example, we might look at Agamem-
non's words during the troop-rousing episode (4.337-48). The poet
introduces his speech to Menestheus and Odysseus as "winged
words" (337), and Odysseus responds to the speech by labeling it
with a formulaic line (350): 'AtQ£lo'Y], :1to'iov O£ £:1tO~- <j>uy£v £Q'Xo~
ooov'twv ("Atreus' son, what sort of word has escaped your teeth's
fence?"). Yet at 357, in reference to Agamemnon's apology the poet
says, "He took back the muthos." It seems either that the poet is
simply manipulating formulas without regard for how they corre-
spond (and so is not stopped by any semantic differences between the
two terms, if they exist); or that the two terms simply are syn-
onyms. 74
Rather than being a flaw in the system, this co-occurrence is the
key to Homeric usage of speech terms, and can help us understand the
seemingly aribitrary deployment of lines such as "she spoke winged
words." For the origin of this usage, in which epos resembles
muthos, can be explained if we return to Prague School linguistics for
a moment, in particular to the notion of "marked" versus "un-
marked" members of an opposition. The "marked" member of a pair
carries greater semantic weight, but can be used across a narrower
range of situations, whereas the unmarked member-the more color-
less member of the opposition-can be used to denote a broader
range, even that range covered by the marked member: it is the more
general term.
----Turning to the words for speech, we can now say that muthos is
730n the formula, see Muellner (I976) I27. Note that similar phrasing occurs at
I4.44-45 describing Hektor's boast/threat.
74The same might be concluded after we read Zeus' declaration at 8.8, "Let no male
or female divinity cut through my word (epos)"-a speech referred to as muthos (29)
by the poet. Here, however, it can be argued that the poet's label refers to the whole
threatening performance of Zeus, while Zeus' term denotes just his (personal) com-
mand.
30 The Language of Heroes
the marked member of the pair, and epos the unmarke~ This
means that a muthos can always be referred to periphras~icilly as
epea, "utterances," since the latter word, singular and plural, has
primary reference to anything uttered or heard; to "words" in the
most general, unmarked sense. One can never simply substitute the
semantically restricted term muthos-~!!1.hor:itatiy~_.S.~_ch
!~,
: I: ,I
, act, or "performance"-for
.L---- --=-
the ordinary term epos, however. Thus,
:, , Odysseus can refer to Agamemnon's words, in the scene just men-
; I.
750n marked versus unmarked, see Ducrot and Todorov (1972) 148.
Performance, Speech-Act, and Utterance 31
76See Vivante (I975) 2-8 on this image-evoking utterance in its purest form. To
recognize the aptness of the metaphor, however, is not to specify the function of the
speech introductions in which it occurs, and I do not agree with Vivante's impres-
sionistic conclusion that the phrase refers to "sudden" words at points of reunion,
recognition, danger, and perception.
77Calhoun (I935) 226. M. Parry (I97I) 4I4-I8. Combellack (I950), a good sum-
mary of the controversy, includes J. A. Scott's comment to Calhoun on emotionality;
Combellack himself saw no particular quality shared by "winged word" speeches.
780n directives, see Searle (I976) I I.
79See Fingerle (I939) for the fullest description.
32 The Language of Heroes
er's own "formulaic" art. For now, we can observe that "character"
in the poem (as in life) arises from our perception of a speaker's
selectivity and sensitivity in matching linguistic expression to internal
motivation. Some people always make their directives into impera-
tives. Some have more tact. Achilles, whose expressive repertoire we
shall examine later, is good at hinting: to his mother, he speaks
"winged words" (19.20-27) to say he will arm. These end with what
is almost an afterthought: "But I fear terribly that flies, meanwhile,
might breed worms down in the bronze-cut wounds, might defIle the
corpse-his life being destroyed, the flesh might all go rotten"
(19.23-27). The description is worthy of poetic narrative at its best. It
convinces both audiences-:-that of the poem (persuaded of the height
of Achilles' el;Ilotion) and that in the poem, Thetis, who replies to this
extended hint/ directive by infusing Patroklos' corpse with nectar and
ambrosia.
Four passages make clear the tone implied by the mention of epea
pteroenta: the death ofPatroklos, the encounter ofHektor and Achilles
in Book 20, the death of Lykaon, and the encounter of Priam and
Achilles in Book 24. We have seen that, out of the hundreds of
passages where speech appears, "winged words" in the Iliad highlight
only "directive" speeches between those sharing a social bond. They
are language appropriate to an "in-group." As the poem nears its end,
enemies exchange "winged words." It must be noted that the four
passages in which this occurs are not casual encounters, but rather
highly charged events important to the outcome of the plot and,
furthermore, that they are given lengthy, elaborate ornamentation by'
the poet. Much of the powerful effect in these scenes comes from
their inclusion in the conventional pattern of fighters addressing
comrades-in-arms with "winged words." For here, the fighters are
paradoxically bonded by their very determination to kill one another.
What seems like a violation of formulaic conventions is actually a
creative extension of the usual meaning of the phrase. 82 The speeches
of Apollo and Hektor resemble one another as warnings to Patroklos
that Troy will not be taken by him or Achilles. Apollo's speech,
furthermore, is an explicit directive: "Fall back, god-born Patroklos!"
What is the force ofHektor's words? They are introduced as a boast
(EJtEUX6!lEVO~, 16.829). They actually contain an embedded directive,
820n the poet's formulaic artfulness in describing the death of Patroklos, see
Lowenstam (r98r) r06-r8,
34 The Language of Heroes
"For you did not die on a bed and stretch out to me your hands,
nor say to me any close-set word (pukinon epos),
one I could recall, sheddirig a tear for days and nights."
84Birds: Kirk (1985) 74; arrows: Latacz (1968) 27-32, following Durante (195 8) 5-
8. These are the two commonest solutions: see D' A vino (1981) 89, who favors
"wings, " but sees a reference to the divine origin of sacral speech, epea. Hainsworth
(1960) 264n.1 doubts that either image applies.
85Gladstone (1874) 844. Vivante (1970) 5 seems to want a similar mixture.
36 The Language of Heroes
The word she wanted from Hektor would have been enduring
through time, unassailable in the way of well-constructed, solid, or
dense-packed objects in the poem tha,t are called pukinon. The adjec-
tive and related forms modify arms and armor, beds, troop forma-
tions, house construction, branches, and clouds. But mental products
can also be thus qualified: a tightly constructed plan (2.55), Odyssean
wiles (3.202), an ambush (4.392), a trick (6. r87). 86 If epos generally .i~
speech as product, as I have argued, then this particularized fortnor
speech is the paradigm for the best kind of epos, speech that has
become a lasting possession for its hearer, the "last word" to remain
with an intimate (Achilles, Andromakhe) or to put an end to strife
(the truce in Book 7, the ransom in Book 24)·
The adjective obtains this sense of !'unassailable" from the basic
reference to density; the same root meaning in the adjective emerges
in adverbial use, but this time with reference to a series of rapid
movements, a density in temporal terms which we might call in the
language of physics "frequency." Homeric similes associate the tem-
poral with the physical sense of "density," as when Hektor's rapid
striking of his enemies' heads (pukna !eareath') is compared to the
action of wind piling up wave and cloud (r1.305-9). I suggest that the
same combination of "density" and "frequency" occurs in the phrase
ptera pukna, so that it describes both the close-packed construction of
the wing and the resultant rapid wing-beating of the bird: this is a
prime example of "interaction" in poetic imagery. 87
It is the aural quality resulting from the flight of birds that is the
primary association in the phrase "winged words. " This is to say that
the one poetic phrase is built on the image of the other, of "thick-and-
fast wings" (ptera pukna). Such a close association between physical
density or frequency and aural effect is found elsewhere in Homeric
diction where emotional, forceful speech is being described. For the
adverb pukna can also be applied to the sound of the lamenting voice:
86Cf. Cunliffe (1924) s. v. On the phrase's associations, see also Lynn-George (1988)
232-33-
87For the Greek phrase, see 11.454, peri ptera pukna balpl1tes (of scavenger birds). A
comparison with 9.588, thalamos puk' eballeto (of a chamber under frequent assault)
shows that the word pukna in 11.454 can be either adjectival or adverbial. In 23.879 it
is clearly the former. On "interaction," see Silk (1974),
Performance, Speech-Act, and Utterance 37
To carry out Hera's project, Aphrodite grants her parphasis, the sort
of speech characterized as "soft," "gentle," and "sweet. "88 It is per-
sonal appeal, not authoritative performance, that generates speech
denoted as epea. The ideal "utterance," the enduring pukinon epos, is
set in a context of intimate relationship: it is the language Andro-
makhe expected from her husband, and that which Patroklos is in-
structed to provide for Achilles: "But tell him well a pukinon epos and
instruct and give him directions" (11.788-89; c[ 24.744). This kind
of discourse is language one can personally "keep"-or fail to keep,
as is the case when Patroklos forgets Achilles' personal warning
(16.686-87): "If he had guarded the epos of the son of Peleus, he
would have fled the evil fate of black death." In this function, it is
worth noting, epea are often spoken by women, a convention that
appears to be canonical in the deployment of the phrase epos t'ephat' ek
t'onomaze, as we observed earlier.
The private nature of the epos explains the use of this word (rather
than muthos) in those scenes where the poet privileges us with seeing
the communication between heroes and divinities. Diomedes labels
his talk with Athena in this way: "I recognize you, goddess, daughter
of aegis-bearing Zeus. Therefore I will candidly say a word (epos)
and will not conceal it" (5.816-17). Achilles refers to Athena's private
advice (1.216) and his own prayer to Zeus (16.236) with the word
epos. Prayer, which epitomizes private communication, is in fact
never designated muthos in the Iliad. A further indication of the
personal nature of epos comes from Homer's adjective usage: posses-
sives frequently accompany the word epos: Achilles speaks of "your
word" (1.216), as does Aphrodite to Hera (14.212); Achilles, praying
to Zeus, and Hera, using a similar formula to Hypnos, say "You have
880 n persuasion and malakos speech, see 6.337 (Paris describing Helen's words); for
the association of pareipon and epos, see also 6.54-62 (Agamemnon to Menelaos).
Performance, Speech-Act, and Utterance 39
heard my word before" (emon epos eklues, 14.234, 16.236). Zeus refers
to his own command with this phrase (8.8). By contrast, muthos is
rarely referred to by a speaker as his or her own or as that of his or her
addressee: it is "impersonal" in the sense that it is public discourse
(although it is certainly personal expressive performance).
To talk of one's own "speech" as opposed to "word" would be
equally aberrant in normal American conversation. I have been work-
ing with a distinction between epos as "utterance" and muthos as
"speech-act." Were we to attempt a definition in terms of familiar
English vocabulary, "word" or "talk" might best translate epos, and
muthos could be paralleled by "speech" in the sense of "making a
speech." The marked character of the latter can be appreciated if we
examine patterns of co-occurrence in English: one cannot "make a
word" or even "make a talk." The distinction between the terms in
English depends on a number of contrasting features including occa-
sion, tone, audience, and length of discourse: "speech" implies an
audience of more than one, a formal routine (for instance; speakers
take turns, without engaging in cross-talk) and elaborated use of
language occupying a significant amount of time. Precisely these fea-
tures fit the deployment of the term muthos in the Iliad.
First, we see this in the simple fact of poetic mimesis: speeches
called muthos are almost always quoted in full by the poet, whereas
those designated epos or epea, if quoted at all, occupy only a few
lines. When muthoi are not represented by the poet, we are still given
to understand that the discourses were lengthy, as in the description
of the stories exchanged between Makhaon and Nestor (II.642-43):
Not only does the imperfect tense here reinforce our perception of
lengthy storytelling: the narrative itself shows us this pair of heroes
still drinking as Book 14 opens. 89 Notice that a translation for muthos
as "story" accords with our earlier definition of the term-an au-
thoritative speech-act performed in detail. The only unusual feature
distinguishing the "stories" in Nestor's tent is their nonpublic perfor-
mance.
89The same implication can be seen in the nearly exact line describing Odysseus'
storytelling session with Penelope, Od. 23.300-301.
40 The Language of Heroes
It is worth noting that Achilles believes that Ajax has made a full
disclosure of his views.
Three times the verb appears in the infinitive at line-end, (muthe-
sasthai), with another verb meaning "command." The passages share
certain rhetorical features. Kalkhas (1.74-83) answers Achilles by in-
terpreting the hero's previous speech as a specific kind of request:
"You bid me to make a muthos about the divine wrath of Apollo"
(muthesasthailmenin). Reassured by Achilles, Kalkhas proceeds to
make a formal declaration of the god's will; Achilles' own precise
formulation of the problem seems to have elicited this response (see
1.65-67, raising three possible religious delicts; and 1.85: a call for the
theopropion which Kalkhas knows). The formality of Kalkhas' de-
claratory speech is enhanced by the priamel at lines 93-96, as also the
double prin construction (97-98) and asyndetic legal phrasing (99). At
7.284-86 a different situation elicits this highly marked verb "to make
a muthos. "The duel of Hektor and Ajax would have continued, if
not for the intervention of the heralds, one of whom, the Trojan
Idaios, "said a muthos" (eipe te muthon, 277). Ajax replies, "Bid Hek-
tor to speak these things (muthesasthai). F?r he himself challenged all
the best to battle. Let him take the lead" (284-86). Hektor then re-
phrases what had been suggested (290-93): "Let us cease from battle
and strife."
Why does the poet give us such a roundabout description to end the
duel which, itself, has struck critics as inessential? Because Homeric
poetry so keenly attends to socially correct forms of speech. Hektor's
Performance, Speech-Act, and Utterance 41
940n the later development of the term epos see Koller (1972) and Ford (1981). :
95Note here that the phrase kertomiois epeessi, "with cutting words," is also associ- '
ated with the act. This shows the plural epea in its function as a periphrasis for
muthos, as in the "winged words" phrase discussed earlier. On this blame genre, see I:,
Nagy (1979) 222-42.
CHAPTER 2
43
44 The Language of Heroes
such verbal events are well known, but they are constantly undergo-
ing change and recombination because this is a vital oral art form.
One judges a leader by his ability to engage in this art, at the right
~
'" I
time, in the most stylized yet topical way. Although the Maori do not
'H ,i, '
have developed "drama" in the Western sense, these events, to some
degree, take on the values and performance interest of plays. A stu-
dent of the conventional "literature" would neglect them at great
risk. 4 In the same way, prayer among the Navaho, verbal repartee
among Antiguans, and joking, "tantalisin," and "'busin" in Guyana
all represent socially grounded verbal genres to which attention and
prestige are accorded, on a level with the prestige given poetry in the
the European tradition. 5
Is Homer in the European tradition? In hindsight, surely, the poet
is its progenitor. But it may be more effective for an investigation of
the Iliad if we abandon the notion of "genre" as a literary term and
train ourselves in the anthropologist's working methods. If we ex-
amine the speeches within this poem, it can be seen that there are
"genres" -conventional verbal organizations-for certain ways of
speaking. The major rhetorical genres available for the heroic per-
formers are prayer, lament, supplication, commanding, insulting,
and narrating from memory.6 We could, of course, argue that these
social genres, especially in his work on Rabelais. For a summary and bibliography see
Bakhtin (I986) 60-IOO. Stewart (I986) 46, compares Bakhtin's insights with those of
Searle and Austin on speech-acts. Todorov, working from the Formalists and Bakh-
tin, illustrates the relationship between the types of genres in Les genres du discours
(I978). I have applied his insights to archaic Greek poetry in my work on the Theogony
proem (Martin I984). A selection of essays on folklore genres can be found in Ben-
Amos (I976).
4See Salmond (I974) I96-2I2.
5Navaho: Gill (I98I) esp. 9-34; Antigua: Reisman (I974); Guyana: W. Edwards
(I979).
6See Bassett (I938) 70-7I, who estimates that these occupy 90 percent of the Iliad's
speeches. Bauman (I978) 27 observes that the distinction between speech-acts and
speech-genres is often not significant in oral cultures: I suggest this is the Homeric
situation.
Heroic Genres of Speaking 45
llThis is not uncommon typologically: Bauman (1978) 27 notes that "a nartlc:ulalr"
performance system may well be organized ... in terms of speech-acts that con
tionally involve performance, others that mayor may not, and still others for which
performance is not a relevant consideration." .
Heroic Genres of Speaking 47
12See Notopoulos (1938) on the relation between memory and Homeric art.
48 The Language of Heroes
dream: "If anyone else had told us this dream, we would call it a lie
1.1 and turn away instead. But now the one who claims to be best of the
Achaeans saw it" (2.80-83). The logical conclusion is never stated,
and indeed Nestor never asserts that Agamemnon is right, only that
he has more authority. We may well imagine that Dream's persuasive
disguise-as Nestor-restrains the self-regarding elder hero from
dismissing the message entirely. Zeus' authority, higher than Aga-
memnon's, has been de constructed neatly within the first few lines of
this book when Homer demonstrates that muthos speech does not
require truth so much as an effective representation.
It is particularly characteristic of Zeus' commands that they com-
I'
,. bine several types of speech-act. In his commands, through Iris, to
Hera and Athena (8.399-408) and Hektor (II. I86), directives blend
with explicit promises or threats. He orders Iris to tell Hektor to
"Ii retreat a short way (II.I89), then promises killing strength to the
'II
hero (II.I92). Athena and Hera are told to turn back; if they do not,
Zeus will lame their horses, cast them out, and wreck the chariot
(8.402-3). In the chief divinity Homer draws a character whose
speech-acts are consistent. As Searle observes, in certain speech-
acts-statements, assertions, and explanations-the speaker makes
his language describe his situation, producing a "word-to-world"
fit. 17 Requests, commands, vows, and promises, on the other hand,
involve the speaker in shaping the world to his own word: Zeus'
muthoi fall in the latter group.
One problem appears to arise in the framing of Zeus' commands
here. The words of Iris to Hera and Athena are described as a threat
(epeilese, 8.4I5), but have been introduced by Zeus with a line appro-
priate to a prediction (40I, "Thus I will speak out and it will be
completed"). Similarly, Zeus' promise to Hektor at II.I9I-94 con-
tains elements of prediction: the strength will come "when struck by
spear or hit by arrrow he leaps to his horse." Since in speech-act
theory predictions are "constatives," and commands are directives,
this correlation in Zeus' rhetoric appears puzzling at first. Is this a
confusion of word to world and vice versa? Is Homer nodding?18
In human terms, yes, this is confusion. But Zeus' language of gods
transcends human speech categories. Searle's remarks on the class of
declaratives can help clarify the poetry here. Most declaratives- "I
17Searle (I97 6) 4.
180n the types of speech-act, see Bach and Harnish (I979) 39-59.
Heroic Genres of Speaking 53
find you guilty," "I thee wed," and so on-require that we assume
the authority of an extralinguistic institution acting through the
speaker. But a few escape this requirement. Individuals acting alone
can declare the name for something, just as parents determine what a
child is to be called in many cultures. Divinity exercises this right
over everything in the world: as Searle notes: "When God says, 'Let
there be light,' that is a declaration. "19 In other words, in the lan-
guage of Zeus, commands, threats, and predictions comprise one and
the same category. It is this very use of language that makes Zeus
supreme. Although humans must prove in the field their boasts and
threats, the mere speaking of a threat by Zeus is effective, the equiv-
alent of action. Homeric poetry respects this mystery of divine
speech, at the same time that it surrounds the speech of gods with a
clamor of competing words. As we shall see shortly, the primacy of
Zeus' divine speech is threatened by the speech-acts of heroes and by
the rival demands of his "family." These touches of realism, showing
that even divine speech is subject to human limits, find vivid corre-
lates in the narrative, which seems at times to circumvent the lan-
guage of Zeus. Hektor, for example, does not receive strength to
reach the ships on the day that Zeus prornised. 20 His surge occurs
later; the time-frame of divine speech thus differs radically from that
of its divine addressees.
Because Zeus is set beyond the time and distance limits of human-
ity, his muthos speeches show an amount of verbal detail unparalleled
in heroic discourse. The threat to Athena and Hera (8.399-408) lists
the amount of damage Zeus intends; his promise at 1I. 186-94 spec-
ifies exactly the point at which power will be granted. Furthermore,
at the conclusions of both commands, Zeus sets exact limitations on
the action of the threat and promise. Hera he will not berate as much
as Athena, seeing that she is an inveterate adversary. Hektor he will
allow to win, but only until he reaches the Achaean ships (II.193-
94). Zeus' power to command, then, is matched by his power to
create nuance and give verbal texture to his directives. This shows in
the amplitude of his rhetoric, achieved by repetition and synonymity:
"Turn back and do not allow them onward" (8.399); "I will throw
them from the chariot box and break the chariot" (403); "I do not
blame Hera so much nor am I angry" (407). It is the accumulation of
L.
54 The Language of Heroes
230ne sign of this challenge is the formulaic iine "What sort of muthos have you
said," which is attributed to Hera, speaking to Zeus, six of the seven times it occurs
(1. 552,4.25, 8.462, 14.330, 16.440, and 18.361). The seventh use of the phrase (8. 20 9)
is by Poseidon to Hera-interestingly, in light of the slight edge she holds over him in
number of muthoi spoken. The contrast in rhetorical strategies between Hera and
Poseidon is a fascinating study in its own right. Suffice it to say that Homer flanks
Zeus, as on a pediment, with portrayals of wife and brother enacting muthos com-
mands that do not equal his. The order of portrayal is chiastic: Poseidon (7.445-53),
Hera (8.201-7), Hera (20. II4-3 1), Poseidon (20.292). These speeches further show
the poetry's capacity for characterization through style and sociolinguistic distinc-
tions.
58 The Language of Heroes
ii
"
I,
cause that has led to this strife has been foregrounded by Homer at
the beginning of Book 24 in such a way that we surely must be
f'i ,- meant to see the juxtaposition. Human blame has tainted the gods:
'1:
'" Paris "blamed" (neikesse, 29) goddesses (we are not told which) but
"praised" (eines' aorist tense of dineo) the one goddess who gave him
"lust" (makhlosune).24 Zeus resolves the present conflict by an affir-
mation of inequality: Achilles and Hektor will not be given the same
honor rating (time, 66). As we shall see in the next chapter, the
r~cognition of an inequality of styles goes along with heroic striving
to speak well in the Iliad. Zeus' divine rhetoric shows itself fully in the
next speech he makes, a muthos (24.104) to Thetis. The subservience
of the other Olympians emerges in details that contrast with the scene
in Book I. Hera serves Thetis now, instead of being a distant dissent-
er (contrast Hephaistos' service to her at 1.585-94). Zeus begins gent-
ly, recalling Thetis' anguish, something he himself knows (105)-
presumably from seeing Satpedon killed, although the poet does not
state this. If we have been prepared by Homer to accept Zeus' sympa-
thy as authentic, we have also been privileged to hear his earlier
motives for summoning Thetis: he cannot let Hermes steal the corpse
because the nymph is night and day beside her son (24.71-73), so he
240n the significance for the poem's theme of these concepts, see Nagy (1979) 130.
Heroic Genres of Speaking 59
Heroic Commands
ik.
60 The Language of Heroes
from the alleged "instructions" ofPeleus that will contrast most with
his own recapitulation of another speech of advice, that made by
Patroklos' father, suggesting the companion of Achilles should in-
struct and guide him (I I. 786-90). In brief, the older man uses his
muthos to praise Patroklos, thereby constructing an image of the role
he is supposed to play. As with Zeus' speeches to Hera and Thetis in
Book 24, Homer here has supplied enough detail to make us appreci-
ate the possibilities for fictional presentation within authoritative
speechmaking.
It helps that Nestor's age makes him an appropriate stand-in for
Menoitios, so that this speech is truly a "performance" by a seasoned·
actor. His advice to Patroklos is described in the same terms as Men-
oitios' instructions (compare 11.783 and 785, epetelle with the same
verb in 840, used by Patroklos). This fatherly instruction is meant to
replicate itself when Patroklos next returns to Achilles. But Patroklos
improvises his performance rather than copying Nestor's. Instead of
reminding Achilles about Peleus, he denies the hero's parentage
(16.33-35) and weeps ominously "like a black-watered stream." In
the poet's image system, the performance ofPatroklos thus resembles
that of the Iliad's weakest rhetorician, Agamemnon, the only other
speaker who resorts to such an act (16·3-4 = 9.14-15).
So far we have seen that the distribution of muthos speeches among
heroic speakers accurately predicts their success at persuasion within
the poem. In what follows, I want to explore the distinctions in the
power relations thus sketched. This is not a formal poetics, since it
will be seen that the seemingly simple act of issuing a command
becomes so variable as to resist reduction to a schema. Questions of
individual style arise, which in turn are inseparable from notions
of the proper convention for commanding or enacting other types of
speech-act. If we keep in mind the example of Zeus-in which long,
detailed, and self-assertive rhetoric represents the best command
form-it soon appears that only one Iliadic speaker comes closest to
this ideal, Achilles. Other commands bear a kind of family re-
semblance one to the other, and offer less noticeable similarities to
divine speech.
We can gauge the distance between Nestor, Agamemnon, and the
others in several ways. In terms of the narrative progression, Aga-
memnon drops out of sight as a source of muthos commands by
Book 14. Odysseus appears in this role up to Book 19, at which point
we see Agamemnon deferring to his judgment. As Agamemnon's
speaking power wanes, Achilles' waxes: it is he who gives the muth-
Heroic Genres of Speaking 63
os commands on the Achaean side all through the last two books of
the Iliad. Thus, the control of authoritative speech passes like the
Achaean scepter from the "owner," Agamemnon, to his young com-
petitor.
A second gauge of difference comes in the rhetorical form and
effectiveness of commands. Here, the same hierarchy is reaffirmed.
Agamemnon is less powerful as a speaker than Odysseus, and he, in
turn, must defer to Achilles. We shall see the differences on the level
of individual stylistic choices in the next chapter. But some of the
broader signs of these distinctions should be noted here. An impor-
tant preliminary strike against Agamemnon comes in the detail that
tells us he speaks against the wishes of his audience: "The other
Achaeans all approved ... but it did not please Agamemnon" (I.23-
24). His threat to Khryses, that the skeptron of the god will not do him
any good should he return, turns out t() have ironic appropriateness
for himself, when his authority sinks. In contrast to Zeus, whose
similar threat silences Hera at the end of Book 1 (I. 566), Agamem-
non's language works destruction, turning the priest to seek divine
intervention with deadly effect. Like the fault of Paris in blaming the
goddesses, Agamemnon's improper speech-act has disastrous conse-
quences.
Another sign of Agamemnon's rhetorical ineffectiveness comes in
his dialogue with Menelaos in Book 10. His brother has not even
been commanded, yet comes (10.25) with as much sympathy as
Agamemnon for the Argive sufferings, only to find that Agamemnon
himself is ceding authority to Nestor over the guards, "for they
might obey him most." In this context, the muthos that Agamemnon
makes to Menelaos shrinks in consequence. In fact, Menelaos has to
elicit the command on his own, since Agamemnon has given no clear
directions in his rambling talk (10.43-59). "How do you instruct and
order me with a muthos?" Menelaos asks. Agamemnon's reply is a
weak warning to stay in place lest the brothers lose one another in
camp (65-71), and a suggestion to "glorify" the other commanders
on waking them up-a rather obvious rhetorical strategy.
Finally, there is Agamemnon's yielding to Odysseus' criticism.
"You very much reached my heart with your tough rebuke, " he tells
him, after Odysseus has demolished Agamemnon's graceless pro-
posal to flee (14.105-5). Odysseus demands silence from him; Aga-
memnon's only defense is another weak rhetorical excuse, that he was
only fulfilling what his audience wanted (14.90, 105). '
Odysseus, the speaker to whom control passes at this point, first
64 The Language of Heroes
32 I, pothe... pathoimi
322 , patros apophthimenoio puthoimen
323, hos pou nun Phthiephi
32 5, polemizo
327, Neoptolemos
329, phthisesthai
330, Phthiende
334, pelea ... pampan
337, apophthimenoio puthetai
36For a survey, see Brenneis (1978). On Turkish rhyming duels, see Dundes et al.
(1972). Cf Winner (1958) 30-34 on poetic competitions.
370ng (1981) 110.
380n lying in traditional tale-trading, see Bauman (1986b) 18-27.
39Pratt (1977) 217.
40Herzfeld (1985) 143.
41See Larson (1978) 58-66 for the distinction between direct speech which functions
to move a story along, and that which is meant to represent certain speech-acts.
68 The Language of Heroes
"Why do you stand off shrinking in fear and wait for others?" (340)
omedes, he uses the verb (kata)ptosso (340, 371) a verb related to the
word for "rabbit" that still exhibits an active association with the ani-
ma1's behavior (cf. the image in 17.676 of an eagle capturing the
cowering creature). The final strategy in these speeches relies on priv-
ileging another place, thereby implying that the addressee occupies a
position of no importance. Thus, to the Argives, Agamemnon con-
trasts their stilled movement with the preferable alternative of en-
gagement in battle. Waiting by the ships is equivalent, in his words,
to the vague hope that Zeus will protect them at some future time
(4.249). The "other place" hurled at Odysseus and Menestheus as an
insult is the dais, which, says Agamemnon, they prefer instead of
battle (343-46). Diomedes is provoked by Agamemnon with the
mention of another place and time, the heroic exploits ofTydeus, his
father, at Thebes.
It is not coincidental that Agamemnon finally selects Odysseus and
Diomedes as targets for his abuse in Book 4. The investigation of the
command genre of muthoi shows us that these two heroes pose the
greatest threat, next to Achilles, in their verbal abilities. 45 Idomeneus
and the two Ajaxes, whom he praises, are conspicuously absent from
the rolls of active muthos speakers in the poem. Nestor, on the other
hand, is too good a speaker for abuse. But even when he has chosen
the right competitors, Agamemnon loses to them in the flyting that
follows, bested by different but equally effective performances.
Odysseus feels himself to be the real target of Agamemnon's
blame, and rightly, since only he (not Menestheus) is called names-
"pre-eminent in evil tricks, mind on gain" (4.339). Instead of denying
these epithets, Odysseus deftly parries the accusation oflaxness with
a rhetorical question: "What word has escaped the fence of teeth on
you? How can you talk about neglecting war?" (350-52). Then he
switches to speak of the future: "You will see ... the father of Tele-
makhos mixing in the front lines" (promakhoisi, 354). Finally, he
criticizes Agamemnon's style of speech: "You are talking idly" (an~
molia bazeis, 355). Odysseus gains forcefulness from his manipulation
of poetic devices. Theparonomasia using his son's name allows Od-
ysseus to allude subtly to his own status as an archer, or "far fighter."
The pun furthermore becomes a subtle boast: not only will he fulfill
his traditional epic function, but he will go beyond this, to fight even
in the front lines: he can play any role you like. And this implicit
apparent gesture of support for the chief, by reference to the way the
game is played, reinforces the agonistic intention of Diomedes' si-
lence. By directing his reply to Sthenelos and then getting him to
consent to a muthos of command (412), he acknowledges that he
knows the ambiguous import of his silence in the duel. Then, sin-
gling out Agamemnon for responsibility in the success of the war,
Diomedes has also posed the unspeakable possibility of defeat (417-
18). This effectively silences the abuser. With a grand gesture, Di-
omedes leaps full-armed from his chariot, his armor crashing about
him so that "fear would have seized even a stout-hearted one," as
Homer says (421). The audience for this gesture is Agamemnon,
however, and he is neatly put in his place by the poet with this phrase.
The ability to conduct a flyting match forms an essential part of the
hero's strategic repertoire. We shall return in the next chapter to a
consideration of various styles in flyting. For now, it will be useful to
examine three varieties of such speeches-those between ,comrades,
gods, and enemies-to sketch some salient aspects of the poetics of
abuse.
A reference to other authoritative speech is a recurring feature of
flyting speeches among companions. The powerful muthos per-
formed by Achilles as he marshals the Myrmidons begins in this way,
with an injunction to recall their previous threats (apeilai) against the
Trojans: "Myrmidons, let no one forget on me the threats with which
you threatened the Trojans at the ships all during the time of an-
ger" (16.200-201). Adkins has described the conditions under which
the semantic range of apeilai can include threats, boasts, vows, prom-
ises, and magniloquent speech.47 All can be classed together as efforts
to make oneself felt in a hostile environment. I would add that
Homeric diction once more proves attentive to the category of
speech-act (as we noticed in the case of winged words). For all senses
of apeilai can be subsumed under the head of assertives or commis-
sives. And the latter can actually fit under the former category, be-
cause, in context, vows and promises are made in order to announce a
social assertion of alliance or opposition. 48 Achilles' reference to this
category of speech is at one remove from its original force. Although
he mentions threats, he does so not to threaten anyone himself, but
signed to ratify the renewed solidarity among' the Achaeans; it is the 'I
opposite of a flyting speech. Appropriately, therefore, the speech-act I
which Agamemnon recalls to open his discourse was a neikos event,
now over-the muthos which the Achaeans spoke to Agamemnon
many times (19.85-86), apparently in voicing their dissatisfaction
with his treatment of Achilles. From this brief reference to the past,
Agamemnon shifts to the present: "But I am not responsible" (86).
74 The Language of Heroes
51The verb here relies on the same image of rushing wind that we saw in other
speech criticisms: cf. 2.148, in which the related adjective labros describes the west
wind and cf. anemolia used of talk at 4.355.
52See Letoublon (1983) 40-48 on the "rite du defi" as a conventional part of the fight
description.
Heroic Genres of Speaking 77
Feats of Memory
530n verbatim repetition as a valued element in contest poetry, see Herzfeld (1985)
142-43 on Cretan mandinadhes.
54Hardy (1975) 103.
78 The Language of Heroes
55Notopoulos (1938) 465 cites Mnemosyne, mother of the Muses, as "the person-
ification of an important and vital force in oral composition." J.-P. Vemant (1965) and
Marcel Detienne (1973) have investigated the interactions among Greek notions of
memory, persuasion, truth, and time. For further bibliography, see Svenbro (1976)
3In.88.
i
56See Moran (1975) esp. 196, 199.
H
Heroic Genres of Speaking 79
57See 4.222 and I4.44I (return of Achaeans after wounding of Menelaos, retreat of
Hektor); 8.252 and I 5.380 (return to battle after sign of eagle, sign of thunder). Once,
the formula is varied to make a negation (I3.722: the Trojans did not remember the
fight).
58At 6.II2, 8.I74, II.287, I5.734, I5.487, I6.270, I7.I85. A variant of the direct
speech formula, noteworthy for being in the speech of a god, is I3.48, alkes mnesa-
menii.
59At I6.357, the formula is broken up and merged with another: "They remem-
bered flight and forgot rushing strength." The "forgetting strength" formula occurs
elsewhere at 6.265, II.313, and so on.
80 The Language of Heroes
seen. Achilles in his speech upon return (19.146-53) uses both strat-
egies, conventional and otherwise:
The gifts, if you wish, offer, as is fit, Agamemnon lord of men, most
glorious son of Atreus, or keep them by you. But now let us remem-
ber the batde (mnesometha kharmes), right away. For it is necessary not
to chatter nor waste time here, for a great deed is still undone. In this
way, one may see Achilles again with the front-lines, killing rows of
Trojans with a bronze spear. And in this way let anyone of you,
remembering, fight a man (memnemenos andri makhesthO).
mand of the muthos takes on the job, and fails. Nestor does
succeed-but with what seems to us to be the wrong audience, Pa-
troklos. I observed earlier that Odysseus and Nestor practice similar
rhetorical tacks in their commanding muthoi to Achilles and Pa-
troklos. Indeed, the central trope in these speeches is explicitly an act
of memory. Odysseus had said (of Peleus' speech): "Thus the old
man instructed, but you forget" (9.259). Compare Nestor's words to
Patroklos, in which the same line recurs (I I. 790). Nor is the strategy
of dramatic memory limited to these two speakers. Phoinix, who
seems to stand in for Nestor in the embassy scene, uses a long dis-
course from memory as the centerpiece of his attempt to induce
Achilles to come back. "I recall this deed from of old, nothing new
indeed, how it was. I will tell it among you, friends all" (9.527).60
The epic tale he proceeds to recount does refer to a past event, but
dearly has been shaped in peiformance to address the present audience
for the composition, Achilles, with hints embedded in such things as
the name of the older hero's wife, Kleo-patra (reminding Achilles of
his companion's name, Patro-klos).61
Alongside the presentation of Nestor as ideal speaker in the Iliad is
that of Odysseus as another effective performer from memory. It is
not, then, inauthentic for Odysseus to be selected as one who tries to
persuade Achilles. An earlier episode, however, shows us the differ-
ences between the rhetoric of Odysseus and Nestor and may provide
more insight on why Odysseus' rhetoric is not quite as good. He
performs a muthos to spur the Achaeans into battle in Book 2, just
before a similar speech by Nestor. Again, command is combined
with memory, and pointed up nearly to the sharpness of a flyting
discourse. One could score the speech by noting the shifts in genres of
muthos within it. Odysseus begins with flyting: "The Achaeans want
to make you [Agamemnon] most shameful of mortal men," he says,
comparing the troops to children or women anxious to get home.
Now memory takes over: "It is the tenth year at Troy, so I do not
blame the Achaeans for chafing." A command intrudes: "Bear up,
friends, until we know ifKalkhas is prophesying truth" (2.299-300).
This in turn triggers a long rendition by Odysseus of an earlier
600n this speech in its setting, see Rosner (1976) who has full bibliography of
previous studies; and see Nagy (1979) III-IS on the semantics of the names, which
embody the theme of ancestral poetic glory.
610n the introduction of non-Homeric epic with the verb memnemai see Moran
(1975) 204·
82 The Language of Heroes
650n the African examples, see Finnegan (1977) 189; on Indo-European, Campanile
(1981).
86 The Language of Heroes
660 n this important scene at 20.200-258, see Nagy (1979) 270-75, esp. 274, on his
mastery and on the name of Aeneas. It is worth noting that Agamemnon explicitly
refers to an oral tradition combining genealogy and epic treatment, in his speech to
Diomedes, since he says that he has only heard ofTydeus, never seen his heroic deeds
(4.374-75).
67 Alexiou (1974).
68S ee Nagy (1979) 69-71 for the theme and details of the etymology.
69S ee Chadwick and Zhirmunsky (1969) 72 on Central Asian examples, and, on
lament in Beowulf, the work of Opland (1980) 32-38 and Frank (1982). Bowra (1952)
8-10 surveys epic traditions that may have arisen from panegyric.
Heroic Genres of Speaking 87
70The verb mimneskomai occurs with increasing urgency from the death ofPatroklos
on; lament usually accompanies it: see 17.671; 19.314, 339; 24.4, 9, 129, 167,486, 504,
509, 602, 613, 475.
71Caraveli-Chaves (1980) 135.
88 The Language of Heroes
Heroes as Performers
-
.........- - - - - - - - - - - - - ------
90 The Language of Heroes
Each culture, each person within it, uses the entire sensory repertoire
to convey messages: manual gesticulations, facial expressions, bodily
postures, rapid, heavy, or light breathing, tears, at the individual level;
stylized gestures, dance patterns, prescribed silences, synchronized
movements such as marching, the moves and "plays" of games,
sports, and rituals, at the cultural level. 2
3Herzfeld (1985) 124. On the reciprocal nature of word and deed, see also p.
140 (an insignificant deed "dhe lei prama"-does not "say" anything).
4Ibid. 1 I. On the resultant rhetorical poses adopted by Glendiots, see p. 16.
92 The Language of Heroes
San Anang, see Hymes (1974) 33-34; on Rundi, Saville-Troike (1982) 172.
Both offer counterexamples of cultu~es that do not have these values, for exam-
ple, the Navaho and Gbeya. I have experienced the Irish situation firsthand in
Cois Fhairrge, Connemara.
6Albert (1972) 77. For a full-length study of such training in expressive speech
in West Indian society, and its role in the community, see Abrahams (1983).
Heroes as Performers 93
Andromakhe, and Hekabe.1 6 Now I would add that the very act of .
composing boasts, commands, insults, and stories from memory
characterizes the speaker within the poem as a particular type of '
performer, since these discourse types constitute poetic "genres" out-
side epic that are subject to audience evaluation in traditional so-
cieties.
The system of praise and blame that operates within Homeric so-
ciety conceivably might have remained implicit in the Iliad. Yet this
did not happen. Instead, we see from the start that Homer's Achaeans
and Trojans refer to the system itself: they have a "metalanguage," a
system of terms about speech. Odysseus warns Diomedes, "Son of
Tydeus, neither praise nor blame me very much. For you are speak-
ing these things among the Argives, who know" (10.249-50). In his
remark, the "performance" of Diomedes-ainos or neikos-is placed
against Odysseus' own understanding of his heroic worth with the
"But when they wove speeches (muthoi) and plans for all,
Then, you know, Menelaos discoursed in running fashion,
Speaking little, but very clearly (ligeos), since he is not much with
words (polrimuthos)
nor one to cast words about (apharmatoepes). And indeed he was
younger.
But when indeed Odysseus much with wiles (polumetis) got up,
he'd stand, he'd look down fixing his eyes on the ground,
170n this passage, see Nagy (1979) 34-35. Nagy (1986) 89-102 examines the
interrelation of the attested genre of praise-poetry, as in Pindar, with Homeric
epic.
180n ranking, see especially Kotopoulos (1977). Shtal' (1983) 97-105 examines
epithets; on the implications for characterization, see pp. 175-90. See also, on
ranking, Letoublon (1983) 43-44. The gods are shown engaging in rating one
another's worth (20.122-23). For an illustration of the rhetorical use of rating, see
Idomeneus' speech at 13.310-27.
96 The Language of Heroes
"Achilles, Peleus' son, most powerful Achaean, you are stronger than I
am, and, not a little, more powerful at the spear. In thought, at least,
though, I could surpass you by far, since I was born earlier and I know
more. Therefore let your heart endure my commands (muthoisin
emoisin). "
200n the semantics of this concept, see Adkins (1960) and Nagy (1979) 149.
21 For a similar interpretation of this phrase with different application, set; Nagy
(1979) 134. Proportionality, rather than factual accuracy or detail, is uppermost
in this view, pace Finkelberg (1987).
22Note the verb in description of a woman/prize, "She knew many works and
they rated her at four-cow worth" (tion de he tessaraboion, 23.705).
98 The Language of Heroes
charge with words that fit exactly Odysseus' own speech strategy
status flaunting (9.160-61): "And let him submit to me inasmuch
am kinglier and assert that I am more advanced in ancestry
progenesteros). "23 The strategy is proportionate with Odysseus' uF....~'illI
ing worth, so mere reference to status might carry some .... "'JL"U..."l
weight. In the case of Agamemnon, such rhetoric is overcharged
using it corrodes the heroic system.
To sum up at this point: ethnography, other literatures, and
Iliad itself concur to convince us of the necessity and consciousness
individual style in traditional society. The heroes of the Homeric.
poems surely possess individual styles; furthermore, I suggest that " •• 1
these are not mere literary constructs, but are based on a deeper social"
reality. All this would perhaps seem too obvious to reiterate were it •
not for two trends affecting recent Homeric study. First, the influen-
tial works of Bruno Snell have accustomed critics to believe that the
"individual" did not exist as a category of Homeric thought; personal
style we are told is only "discovered" in the "lyric age. "24 This trend
has combined with a second, found in a too-general application of .:
Milman Parry's work, which amounts to a type of behaviorism, a
claim that neither Homer nor his creations could speak with individu-
al style. 25 The first approach has begun to lose ground from one
border thanks to careful studies showing the conventional nature of
Greek lyric poetry. Rismag Gordesiani has challenged the second
notion as it applies to Homeric characters, who are painstakingly
depicted as individuals, however conventional the medium of Hom-
eric poetry might be. 26 A full-scale critique of the second trend must
await my analysis of formulaic poetry in the next chapters; for now, I
point out that individual heroic "style" at some level has been recog-
nized by readers of Homer from antiquity on. 27 Moreover, even !
variation remain for us in the text of the Iliad and might be recover_
able through microscopic philological study, not yet done, on indi-
vidual phrases or sound sequences. I attempt this with a portion
Achilles' language in the next chapters.
Meanwhile, we can consider the results of a few investigations into
characterizing style in Homer and other traditions, to suggest where
we might look for "individuality." Because adjectives are emotive
words, some stylistic contrasts might depend on their use. Gordesiani
has demonstrated that Achilles, Agamemnon, and Hektor all use
nearly the same percentage of adjectives (about 10 percent of the total
number of words given each speaker). The specific adjectives used by
these heroes tend to be quite individualized, however: 59 percent of
Hektor's adjectives are not used by Achilles, who has 74.7 percent
unlike Hektor's; Agamemnon's adjectives match Achilles' only in
40.8 percent of the occurrences, while Achilleshas 71.9 percent that
he does not share with Agamemnon. The conclusion must be that the
epic consciously seeks to differentiate heroes by their speech in at least
one way.33 Glimmers of such characterization, at different levels of
r-""""
1:0__
the discourse, come from other epic traditions. It is significant that
ff U)
the Cid in the Spanish epic "is the one most disposed to verbal
L:J play. "34 On the level of formulaic language, Cynewulf's Old English
~ "- ' poems Juliana and Elene distinguish the direct speech of negative
characters by making it noticeably less formulaic (in terms of repeated
diction) than that of the protagonist. 35 And Bhima in Sanskrit epic
tradition can be distinguished from other characters on the level of
speech-act: he performs almost exclusively curses, vows, and the
granting of boons. 36
Let us return once more to Homer's Iliad. At what level do the
heroes explicitly judge another's discourse? This is not to exclude the
possibility that Homer may be signaling heroic capacity at speaking
through metrical, phonological, or morphological means. But do the
speakers themselves ever refer to these means? No; heroic perfor-
mance gains approval when it is persuasive, as we saw in the preced-
ing chapter. And the sign of persuasion is that speech moves others to
act in sympathy with the speaker. We have seen already that the
Nestor ofPylos enters the Iliad just when it seems all speech must
fail: Achilles has attacked Agamemnon afresh with a stream of abuse
(1.223-44) ending with a threat to the very notion of authority in the
assembly, the symbolic casting down of the skeptron. But the arrival
of the faintly preternatural Pylian, who has seen two previous genera-
tions perish (ephthiath', 251), renews the dialogue of the contending
speakers long enough for them to reach a rough agreement (1.285-
303). Several features of this entrance catch our attention. To begin
with, the very first effort of Nestor at persuasion succeeds. In a
system that judges style by results, Nestor holds a preeminent place;
this characteristic will mark all his speech in the poem. The speech he
makes on arrival is highly iny_e}ltiyejn_attemptiJ1K~~__<!ppeas~
separareaiiruences-;-the---f\.Vo flyting heroes and the Achaeans in
cam-p..37JV1oyeover, the syntax and discourse st!}lcture of the speech
enact, we might say~t1ienotionof m:utuarSuPport~~-
~ woras:-:B~;ry-str-uciures ab()uild,~presentiiigarlletorical mOdel,
or icon, for two-sidedness. Consider the following only (1.254-84):
And I fought on my own / But with them no one now might fight
And they understood my counsels / and obeyed my muthos
But you too obey / for obeying is better
You, do not take the girl / but let go
Nor should you, son ofPeleus want to strive with kings / since
never a king had an equivalent value
If you are stronger / a goddess mother bore you
But he is more powerful/since he rules over more.
380n the heritage, see Schmitt (1967) 255, who cites Rig Veda I.1l4.6 for the
cognate phrase, and Hymn. Hom 32.2, Hesiod Theogony 965, 1021 (= Muses'
phrase).
Heroes as Performers 103
tor says about speech, rather than how he makes his speeches.
line between style and other aspects of the poetry is difficult to
exactly because Homeric ideology would conflate the two: style is
man. We can, however, be more specific about the level at
stylization occurs. Now that we have looked at some distinctive
vidual features, it is time to turn to Nestor's repertoire of
a whole. We find that the totality of his performances marks
as a unique orator, a speaker whose rhetoric rests on eulogy.
makes thirty-two speeches in the poem, ranging in length from 2
147 lines. Eighteen different speech-introduction formulas
pany these, so it is impossible to say that the poet characterizes
at this level; of these, only five contain the word muthos (2
10.203, 81, 190; and 23.305). Yet, when analyzed in terms of genre
discourse, all but three of the speeches Nestor makes fall under
muthos categories we have previously identified. 45 .Most .
the distribution among categories is unique: Nestor can make
commands (e.g. 7.327, his instructions to build the wall); but
rarely does. He can use the language of flyting; he does so with
idiosyncratic use of the conventions. The discourse of
what
To Nestor's range of
speeches: the imperatives directed at Agamemnon and Achilles
Nestor's first intervention are clear enough (1.259, 274, 282,
indirect command at 283-84); but the medium in which these "~'-""U"'1.
acts float is of a different nature, a long recollection of his fight a5CUl""~"
the Centaurs. Again, a straightforward command to keep the
together becomes, in Nestor's rendition, a reminiscence, and he O"i",piil.
the background motivations for his own commands, in a way
other hero attempts, saying, "That is the way the men of old
sacked cities and walls" (4.308). The command at 15.661-"be men
is filled out by Nestor in a manner unparalleled in the other occur-',
rences of this formula, as he calls for the Achaeans to remember,
"raging strength," the usual phrase (e.g. 8.174), but "children
wives and estate and parents" (15.663). In other words, his
ment of recollection differs markedly, whether it be of other times "
other places and persons. Of c~urse, the best illustration of memory'
in the service of an order is Nestor's long and persuasive performance
tic for its tonal nuances. The strategy that we have seen Agamemnon
and Odysseus use, of mentioning status to enforce orders, occurs in
Nestor's speech but with a different orientation. In a gently instruc-
tive turn, he tells Diomedes: "You talk intelligently to the kings,
since you spoke in proportion" (kata moiran, 9.59). "But come, I, who
. claim I am more honored/ older than you (geraiteros) will speak out
and narrate everything. " When he does begin a neikos with Diomedes
(10.158, neikese), Nestor changes his tone after the younger hero calls
him "hard to deal with" (amekhanos, 167). He pauses and recollects:
yes, there are other, less elderly Achaeans who could rouse the camp,
but the crisis requires him, says Nestor. The merest hint of flyting
rhetoric comes just at the end of this speech, when he hurls back the
topic of old age that Diomedes brought up and twists it into pointed
reason for Diomedes to follow his own command: "for you are youn-
ger" (10.176). A similar deflection of criticism had already occurred
earlier in the scene, when Nestor, speaking to Agamemnon, declares
he will rebuke (neikeso, 10.114) Menelaos for not being awake, "even
though he is close in affection and respectful" (philon ... aidoion).
Both the indirect nature of this rebuke (which Agamemnon assures
him is not needed) and the hesitant phrasing show Nestor's reluctance
to practice this genre of discourse. Only a regard for fairness and for
46Compare for instance the turn of phrase at 11.750-51, "Now ... I would
have taken ... had not ... " with Homer's narrative at 8.131-32. On Homer's
technnique of appositional expansion as like Nestor's speech, see Thornton
(1984) 106-7. Stories of raiding are an identifiable genre in the "poetics of man-
hood"; see Herzfeld (1985) 163-205, who notes the initiatory character of such
raids and recountings.
108 The Language of Heroes
Yet there is some reason for taking the description seriously. As Kirk
observes, Thersites is good at what he does, delivering "a polished
piece of invective. "49 Moreover, the argumentsThersites makes have
long been recognized as recapitulating the very points Achilles has
made in Book 1. 50 Ahd his strategy at times appears simply to make
use of arguments available in any aggrieved hero's traditional stock.
For the tack of toting up one's opponents' goods, compare 2.226-
27-"the huts are full of bronze, many select women are in the huts"
with Antilokhos's sharp words to Achilles (23.549-50): "Much gold
you have in the hut, much bronze and movable goods, women-slaves
and single-hoofed horses." If we are meant to think of Thersites'
speech as flawed in some way, at what level does it fail, and is it
related to the style of the speech?
Thersites' speech is overdetermined to look bad by a number of
criteria, at least two of which I would call stylistic. Perhaps less style-
48As Kirk (1985) does, 142.
49Kirk (1985) 140 points to the elaborate syntax and expansive style of his lines.
sOThe fullest demonstration is by Freidenberg (1930} 243-44. Whitman (195 8)
161 and Kirk (1985) 141 also notice parallels.
1 IO The Language of Heroes
51Freidenberg (1930) would associate him with wider patterns of ritual clown-
ing. Chantraine (1963) examines the implication of his name, "bold, intrepid,"
which also occurs as, for example, an epithet of Ares in Laconian cult.
52Nagy (1979) 260. See in general his discussion at 253-64.
53S ee, in order, Kirk (1985) 138-39; Freidenberg (1930) 247; Nagy (1979) 263.
Heroes as Performers III
541 cannot
agree with Kirk (1985) 245 who translates the epithet at 2.796 simply
to mean "numberless."
112 The Language of Heroes
ways. Of course, these figures only make full sense with the
of statistics for correption in the rest of the Iliad. Stephen
's work indicates that the average rate of correption for narrative
in the poem is 20 percent; for speeches, it is 40 percent. I
conclude from this, therefore, that Nestor, "of sweet speech," sounds
Homer as we first hear him. Thersites, on the other hand, is quite
m his performance, markedly more so than
55Kelly (1974) 7. It may be that such slurring indicates another genre of speech;
vowel elision, prefixation, and other linguistic markers can function in this way:
see Sherzer (1978) 136-37.
II4 The Language of Heroes
561.25 (harsh speech); 1. 105 (spoke looking evilly); 4.241, 336, 368 (form of the
verb neikeo used); 6.54 (rebuke); 11.137 (ungentle voice).
Heroes as Performers 115
57 As an example of this curt style, Bassett (1934) 143 cites the juxtaposition of
1.322, Agamemnon's address to the heralds, without any vocative, and 1.334,
Achilles' reception of the same heralds, with full titles of praise.
116 The Language of Heroes
60A good example is 14.44-51, his fear that Hektor will complete a boast and
the Achaeans will lose confidence in him.
61Pattison (1982) 16 makes the quoted observation in the course of examining
Agamemnon's blunders.
Heroes as Performers 119
with detail hovering between the clinical and the poetic: he wanders
~round with insomnia, sleep does not "sit on the eyes," his heart
i'leaps out of my chest," and his limbs are atremble (10.91-95). No
other hero describes himself in this way.
The rhetoric of excess is, of course, the underlying strategy of
Agamemnon's endless offer of gifts to Achilles in Book 9; Agamem-
non acts as if merely listing things without thinking about the effects
of his earlier speech is a sufficient performance of goodwilL Given
this consistently overblown style, an audience might well begin to
ignore the speaker's actual words or suspect his intent. As Pindar later
put it, there is satiety even in praise. Agamemnon, to sum up, is a
deficient rhetorician because he violates proportions. He tells his
brother,
Contrast with this hysterical accumulation the laconic style that be-
gins Nestor's battle description: "I never saw such men nor may I
see" (1.262-65).
120 The Language of Heroes
65Note that this apparent modesty (ro.555-59) makes it seem that he had no:
divine help, when in fact Athena figured prominently in the raid-a fact he omitsi
~~. i
680n the etiquette of inclusive pronominal usage, see Wackernagel (1926) 43.
69In this connection, his threat to strip Thersites bare and beat him, later, is
more a description of what he actually is doing verbally, and physically with the
scepter. It bears noting that Odysseus in the Odyssey defines himself as a rhetori-
cian par excellence: see Martin (1984), Walsh (1984) 7, II3, and Austin (1975)
198-99. To contrast with Odysseus' unique audience-adjusted style: the two
Ajaxes accost men in battle, some with sweet words, some with harsh (12.267-
68); but it takes two men speaking as one to do this. Agamemnon's epipolesis in
Book 4 is a dramatization of this strategy, but, as we saw in Chapter 2, Odysseus
thwarts him at it (4.350-55).
70Fenik (1986) 18.
Heroes as Performers I25
going together, the one notes before the other how there may
gain. One alone may notice, but his attention is shorter and his
ning intelligence thin" (ro.224-26).71 Or consider the
again to Nestor, when he rescues the old warrior with his chariot
briefly boasts how he took the horses from Aeneas (8. I02-rr).
artful silence, too, in the face of Agamemnon's flyting insult (4.
can be viewed as a stylistic victory over a king with whom he has.· . .
traditional enmity.72 These attempts at developing a style must
seen, first of all, as complementing the Iliad's portrayal of
developing fighting skill, especially in Book 5. In turn, the roots
Homer's concern with Diomedes probably lead back to
traditions that surface later and independently in the -Cyclic epics.
Yet these traditional associations of the hero, particularly with the·
role of Nestor's son Antilokhos, support my contention that the;
speech style of Diomedes, as well as his characterization, is con-
sciously shaped.
The encounter between Glaukos and Diomedes in Book 6 must be
considered in this light. It is the turning point in Diomedes' education
in performance, as that affects his speech to enemies. After this, the
hero delivers several quite good flyting attacks, against Dolon (ro.369
and 446), Hektor (r1.36r), and Paris(r1.384). The last is particular-
ly inventive, with its consistent feminizing: Paris is called a "girl-
watcher" (parthenopipa, 385); his spear cast is like a woman's or a
child's, but the women and children ofDiomedes' opponents end up
lamenting (393); and there are more scavenger birds than women
around the foe's rotting corpse. Before his encounter with Glaukos,
however, Diomedes manages to assault with words only his chario-
teer Sthenelos (5.25r-73) and the unwarlike Aphrodite (5.347), de-
spite the opportunity to confront Aeneas, to whom he addresses only
a curt "you missed" and a short threat (5.287-89). If the exchange
with his enemy is such an empowering experience for Diomedes, can
we say that the dialogue itself represents a mastery of a genre of
muthos, the usual mark of such authority?
I am inclined to affirm this by the prominence within Diomedes'
710n Nestor and "cunning intelligence" (metis) , see 23.315-18. Nestor's son
uses the same half-line at 23.590.
72See Brillante (1980) on ancient traditions that feature competing claims to
rule Argos by Diomedes and Agamemnon.
73For a summary and bibliography on this problem in Neo-analytic studies,
see Fenik (1986) 15 and Whitman (1958) 166-67.
Heroes as Performers 127
appears Glaukos has read him the same way, and calls his bluff. The
fate of Bellerophon, wandering apart from men as he "devours his
own thumos" (200-202), remains puzzling, but perhaps its role in this
narrative is the conventional function of establishing the claim to be
better than one's ancestors (cf. Sthenelos' speech at 4.405). Glaukos'
portrayal of the collateral branches of his house as failures (6.203-5)
accomplishes the same status-raising function, as he can thereby focus
attention on himself, product of the surviving line.
Glaukos' tale of ancestry, then, may have factual information, but,
like any tale in an oral tradition, it makes sense only in performance.
The spontaneous details here gain an air of authority because one
assumes that the speaker has privileged information about his own
"local" tradition. But they are symbols instead in a game of dueling
narratives, important moves of muthos in the new sense I have pro-
posed, an act of self-presentation that attempts to wrest authority.
If this were a conventional scene of flyting before fighting, the ex-
change of speeches would have ended in a mutual casting of spears. 76
This "duel" remains on the verbal plane; moreover, Diomedes gets an
extra shot. If we think of his reply to Glaukos as another attempt at
lethal speech, we can now reinterpret the story that he tells in this
second performance, how Oineus, his grandfather, played host to
Bellerophon and the two became guest-friends (6.215-31). As Julia
Gaisser notes, this tale is shaped to fit the situation, as are most
Homeric paradigmatic stories: "Bellerophon and Oineusmust ex-
change gifts because Diomedes and Glaukos are to exchange ar-
mor. "77 Her view, taking the Homeric narrator's design as its starting
point, could be sharpened somewhat if we consider the internal dy-
namics of Diomedes' rhetorical ploy. This is the only passage in
which such a "myth" of Oineus' meeting with Bellerophon is ever
mentioned because Diomedes has just invented the "tradition" in order
to force Glaukos into the socially correct ritual exchange. He speaks
to win, and does. There are enough hints in the text to make an·
audience attuned to the conventions suspect his veracity and admire
his cunning. It is not accidental, first, that Glaukos had brought up
the them~ of xenia in mentioning the nine-day hosting ofBellerophon
(6.174); Diomedes retorts with a tale of a twenty-day hosting, putting
Bellerophon into his grandfather's debt (and so Glaukos in his). We
can see his creative expansion of "tradition" at work; the mention of
76S ee Fingerle (1939) 133 on the unconventional nature of the exchange here.
77Gaisser (1969) 175.
13 0 The Language of Heroes
790f interest but less important for overall contrast are Hektor's use of pictur-
esque language (Bassett [1938] 78-79); and his use of characteristic phrases, such
as "Trojan women with trailing gowns" (Gordesiani [1986] 78-80). Similar traits
have been observed in Achilles' speeches: see discussion later in this chapter and
in Chapters 4 and 5.
13 2 The Language of Heroes
87Duban (1981) 116-17 sees it as independent use of the same words by the two
heroes, ,:without any diminishing effect.
880n this line, see Gentili and Giannini (1977) 22-25.
Heroes as Performers 137
91 A dozen of Achilles' speeches do not fall under one of these categories. Two
are prayers (1.351, 16.231); two promises (1.121, 24.668); three simple declara-
tions (23.102, 617, 734); two questions (18.181, 187); two expressions of soli-
darity (1.215,9.196); and one simple threat (21.222).
920n the scepter and sword scenes, see Lynn-George (1988) esp. 48-50; on the
meeting with Thetis, de Jong (1985) 11.
140 The Language of Heroes
that he has just left on the plain (6.362). Again, Achilles' npT'<:h"I'~;
larger. 93
How does sympathetic imagination prove itself in
then? One technique, as we saw with Odysseus, consists in the
first-person pronouns. Although Achilles makes use of this
start (1.59, 62), he makes deeper changes in the structure
speeches in order to accommodate the addressee in the act. It
unusual for him to explain to his audience why they should
when he urges the Achaeans to fight, he adds that "it is UU.J.H.Ult!
me, though powerful,· to follow up on so many and battle
(20.356-57). A simple order to the Myrmidons carefully'
Achilles himself-"Let us not loose the horses yet ... but let.'
weep over Patroklos"-and cites, as explanation, "for this is the
ditional honor (geras) of the dead" (23.6-9). Another mark
Achilles' consideration for the persons he commands is his use'
indirect directives, a strategy we examined in Chapter 1 (e.g. 19.20
Thetis and 1.201 to Athena), and one unexplored by other heroes
the poem. The device of directing another to speak, "so that we
both know" (16.19), also gives us the impression that Achilles
about what his listener thinks.
Nor is this approach simply the Odyssean attitude, a way of
ing his audience by adjusting his speech to fit the hearers.
Achilles' commands are remarkable in that they seem to "negate"
notion of the speaker's authority to order. Achilles uses command
pass on that authority to others, as when he validates Kalkhas' s
in Book 1. In speech-act terms, it would appear that one "t-"111'1:~u"d
condition for a directive-that the speaker be in a position to issue .
order-is actually jeopardized by the directives themselves. The de-'
nial of authority comes out clearly in the command to Phoinix, "Be
king equally with me and share half the honor" (9.616); in the grant-
ing of power to Patroklos to "rule the Myrmidons in battle" (16.65);
in Achilles' later commitment to obey all commands of Patroklos
(23.95-96); and in his directive-really an entreaty-that his com-
panion's spirit "not be angered with me" (24.592) for having released
Hektor's corpse. There is a slightly odd sound to these at first, as if I
Achilles were telling his audience not to regard him as worth listening 1
to. But this self-deprecating strategy fits with Achilles' preference for
two-way communication between speaker and addressee. And of
930n this quality in his use of place-names, see Griffin (I9 86) 54-55.
Heroes as Performers 141
The silence of Achilles about the offer of Agamemnon does not yield.-
to any interpretation that is compatible with the conventions of Iliadic ' .
narrative, and we may conclude that his silence is not an intentional
and interpretable aspect of the narrative but a by-product of the cumu- ,J
lative process of composition. 96
95For other rebukes in the course of recollection by Achilles, see 21.276 and,
24.649-54. In the latter, the indirect hit at the Achaeans has been raised, in the ,;
introductory phrase (649) to characterize the whole speech, although Achilles'
talks mildly, in fact, to Priam.
96Mueller (I984) I72.
Heroes as Performers 143
what it means for the world of the Iliad. Achilles has played the
equivalent of damnatio memoriae. Thus, in the terms of heroic
he has effectively outdone the rhetoric of Agamemnon, whose
ve style could only cause competitors to enter an escalating
if they choose to speak against him. Achilles' great speech in
9 is as effective a reply as he could give, verbally. This "forget-
silence in Book 16, however, is an even more damning state-
It deserves notice, inasmuch as "a successful act of revenge is
that so appropriately caps the original injury that it draws atten-
to its own significance" in a society that values heroic style. 97
(.Silence proves an effective weapon elsewhere as Achilles performs
the battlefield. In the light of the speech conventions we have been
, Achilles' flyting remarks are often characterized by brev-
ity, which we can now view as itself an insult, conveying to the
victim Achilles' sense that his addressee is not worth a waste of
words. To Aeneas he accords a reasonably full and damaging rec-
ollection, citing his successful rout of that hero in an earlier encounter
(20.188-95); Iphition, however, rates only a perfunctory four verses
on being killed, yet in these Achilles states exactly where his victim's
ancestral home lay and who his father was (20.389-92). The brevity
may strike us as epigrammatic, but compared to other examples of
this genre it means that Achilles knows all that is worth knowing
about the dead hero and finds nothing notable. At times, this refusal
to speak at length produces the impression that Achilles simply wants
to be done with the inevitable killing. Unlike Diomedes, who could
spend twenty lines on the topic (6.123-43), Achilles employs just two
conventional verses asking where his next victim came from (21. 150-
51) and saves his breath for a lengthier boast, a feat of genealogical
memory, after the killing of Asteropaios (21. 184-99). He convinces
the audience that he needs no softening up of his enemies with verbal
thrusts, unlike other warriors.
The final characteristic that deserves mention in the analysis of
9 8 0n the similarities between 24.559 and Book I, see Minchin (19 86) 15- 17.
CHAPTER 4
IHomeric epic associates two roles not commonly conjoined: see Bauman (1978) 29
on roles of performers in other societies. For a contrasting approach to mine, see
Barck (1976), an examination of pervasive opposition between "word" and "deed" in
Homer.
2For the history of the traditional formulation "style is the man," from Plato on, see
Muller (1981) esp. 9-21. -
The Language of Achilles 147
3The most detailed treatment of this theme in the poem is Thornton (I984) II3-42.
4For the Platonic discussion, in which speech style equals ethical stance, see Hp. Mi.
364e, 365b, 37oa. Perhaps as early as the fourth century, Odysseus, Nestor, and
Menelaos were taken as models of the three rhetorical styles: see Russell (I98I) I37-
38. Achilles, in this tradition, is not a model to be imitated. The issue of individual
speaking styles in Homer is tied to the larger ancient debate over whether the art of
rhetoric existed in Homeric times, on which see Kennedy (I957) 23-35 and (I963) 35-
39. Karp (I977) argues for the existence of a kind of rhetorical art in Homer but un-
duly enlarges the term to include any persuasive use oflanguage: see his comments on
Achilles' speech, pp. 256-57. Gladstone (I874) had well compared Homeric rhetoric
148 The Language of Heroes
with the less formal art of parliamentary debate: see also Myres (1958) 94-122 on this
viewpoint. Instead of discussing rhetoric as a science in early Greek poetry, it is better
to speak of it as one feature of universal verbal art, poetry and prose. It is this "proto-
rhetoric" that needs investigation, as Horner (1983) notes, 29.
sOn the tradition underlying scholiastic comments about rhetoric, see Schmidt
(1976) 43-45. Kazhdan (1984) 183-94 has a good study of Eustathius' rhetorical
teaching; Lindberg (1977) provides the context for Eustathius' remarks on rhetoric in
the commentary. See also Kennedy (1983) 316. Roemer (1914) 5 points out that
Eustathius held all of Book 9 to be a rhetorical contest: see Eust. 751. I (ad 9.309) and
751.33 (ad 312) for his remarks, and also the scholia (bT) to lines 307 and 309 for
similar observations.
6A. Parry (1956) 5-6. Similar remarks can be found in his 1957 Harvard dissertation
on Thucydides, which begins with an examination of the logoslergon distinction in
early Greek. For discussion of the way in which this distinction clouded Parry's
thinking concerning formulaic language, see Claus (1975) 14.
The Language of Achilles 1.49
Adam Parry had posed his essay as an attempt "to explore some of
implications of the formulaic theory of Greek epic verse. "7 On the
that the epic formula represents for the poet the single best
•..,,,r..... ''''''lL for a given idea, Parry asserts that "the style of Homer
eJll.l-'lLa.,..~~~ constantly the accepted attitude toward each thing in the
and this makes for a great unity of experience."8 The argu-
.rnent continues with reference to Sarpedon's famous defense of the
heroic code (II. 12.310-28), the main point of which (honor equals
tangible goods) Parry finds to be agreed on by all Iliadic heroes. This
universal agreement is next compared to Homer's own formulaic
style. The crucial step in the reasoning of the essay comes with Par-
ry's assertion that "the economy of the formulaic style confines
speech to accepted patterns which all men assume to be true"-
speech, thought, and reality are an undivided whole. Yet Achilles,
who seems to perceive "the awful distance between appearance and
reality," who distrusts the false front of Odysseus, is unable to fit into
this perfect Nominalist world. He is "the one Homeric hero who
does not accept the common language, and feels that it does not
correspond to reality," writes Parry. At the same time "neither Hom-
er in his own person as narrator, nor the characters he dramatizes, can
speak any language other than the one which reflects the assumptions
of heroic society," those precepts uttered by Sarpedon. 9 Therefore,
Achilles' "misuse" oflanguage is needed to break out of the formulaic
system: it consists of his asking questions without answers and mak-
ing demands that cannot be met; the former, when he questions the
need for the fight with Troy, the latter, his request that Agamemnon
pay back his disgrace. Adam Parry declines to discuss in detail the
great speech in which Achilles allegedly misuses his language, but
describes it as "passionate, confused, continually turning back on
itself," and takes this as another sign of Achilles' inability to fit the
heroic world. 10
The description might rather have been applied to the state of
scholarly discussion on Homeric style once Milman Parry's impor-
tant work began to become widely known, especially through the
7 A. Parry (1956) 1.
8Ibid. 3.
9Ibid. 6.
lOIbid. 5-6.
ISO The Language of Heroes
llSee Foley (1981) 22-26 for a bibliography of Lord's work, and Foley (1985) for a
listing of some 1,000 articles inspired by Parry-Lord theory.
12For a summary, see Lloyd-Jones (1981); Myres (1958); and Davison (1962).
13See Kirk (1962) 87-88; Vesterholt (1973); Lord (1975) 12-13.
14The terms are those of Rosenmeyer (1965). Holoka (1973) traces the debates over
the Parry~Lord theory in the 1950S and 1960s, a contentious series of misunderstand-
The Language of Achilles 151
ings and inaccuracies. For a representative selection of the work from this period, see
Latacz (1979) 297-571.
15See the debate with Adam Parry and Anne Amory Parry in Lord (1968) and the
response of A. A. Parry (1971). Lord (1960) 25-27, 68-98 discusses and illustrates the
art of expansion. Milman Parry had called attention to the creativity of certain singers
who knew the tradition thoroughly enough to improve it: see M. Parry (1971) 335,
406-7 (hereafter abbreviated MHV).
16This work took several tacks: some, like Whallon (1969) and Anne Parry (1973)
found "meaning" in the so-called ornamental epithets: others, like Edwards (1980),
Fenik (1968 and 1978 especially) and Beye (1964) concentrated on variatio technique
within type-scenes; Austin (1975) and Vivante (1970 and 1982) showed that the poet's
decision to use a formula, when the noun itself suffices, is meaningful; Nagy (1974
and 1979) starts from Parry's insight that all Greek epic is traditional in his own
explorations of the interplay among meter, diction, and theme. Hainsworth (1970)
37-38 has good examples of Homeric innovation. For further developments, see
Foley (1985) 35-41. Recent studies in other poetic traditions show how artistic talent
is revealed through the individual performer's exploitation of traditional material: see
Vesterholt (1973) 75-85 and Beaton (1980) 18. On the richness of Homeric style as
resulting from such free variation, see Bowra (1962) 32-34, Peradotto (1979) 5, and
Russo (1968) 294. Again, Parry was not unaware of the possibilities inherent in the
recombination of fixed formulas: see MHV 220, 270, 307.
17Austin (1975) 79-80.
152 The Language of Heroes
that these labels do not limit the expressive power of the poet;
pressiveness" is simply posited at a different level. The ground
been cut from under Adam Parry's contentions about Achilles'
guage." In retrospect, it can be seen that the younger Parry
three unquestioned assumptions in applying his father's theory.
he used "language" to mean two very different things: as a
expression for" cultural code" or "value system," but also in the
of "diction." In Saussurean terms, when Adam Parry speaks
Achilles' inability to accept the "common language," he refers to
"signified," that is, the heroic code. When he says Achilles has
language" to express his disillusionment, Parry really means "no sig""
nifiers." Of course, his concurrent work on the logos/ ergon distinction
tempted Parry to make this semantic slide in discussing Achilles.·
Thus, he was led to make a second assumption-that all Homeric
language is formulaic. Milman Parry, indeed, seemed to believe that
this was so (according to a remark by Antoine Meillet), but he never
specified in what way such a statement might be true, other than by
pointing out the existence of "formulaic systems" in Homer. 1S Nor
did he indicate the essential differences between such regular syntactic .
patterning and the noun-epithet "formulas." This brings us to Adam
Parry's third premise: his claim that the "economy of the formulaic
style" is what predetermines how Homer's figures speak. Even if all .
of Homer's works were "formulaic" in some sense, I believe it is still
the highly developed noun-epithet systems examined by Milman
Parry that exhibit "economy and extension," in a strict sense. There
may be only one way to say "Odysseus" at a certain point in the
hexameter line; there are a half-dozen ways of saying "Achilles was
angry," however. 19 If formulaic "thrift" is an illusion, if characters
can vary their expression at will-why should Achilles "misuse" his
language?
Adam Parry's ideas on the "language" of Achilles were not con-
tested until 1973, when M. D. Reeve briefly and persuasively pointed
out that "neither an unanswerable question nor an impossible demand
18MHV 275-79. On the later transformations of this notion, see Hainsworth (1964)
155·
19The notion of "economy," which Milman Parry derived from earlier work on
Homeric Kunstsprache, proved to be the strongest point in the demonstration of the
traditional nature of the noun-epithet system. See MHV 6-16. As Adam Parry points
out, the principle is open to criticism if extended to all Homeric repetitions: MHV
xxxi-ii. See further Russo (1971) 32-33.
The Language of Achilles 153
20Reeve (1973) 194. Kirk (1976) 74, while expressing reservations about A. Parry's
exaggeration of the rigidity of the system, nevertheless appears to accept his conclu-
sion (at p. 207).
21Claus (1975) 16-17..
l
154 The Language of Heroes
same way twice. The problem remains with Homer's formulaic po::,
etry of determining the amount of difference in meaning at each
repetition of phrase or line.
A more recent examination of the "language" -meaning "thought"
of Achilles resorts to similar abstraction. Steven Nimis also argues
that formulaic language takes on different meanings according to.
context. He attempts to reconcile the views of Claus and Adam Parry
by posing the "language of Achilles" problem in Chomskyan terms,','
regarding rule-governed creativity. Achilles, in this way, is a "sign.;. ,
producer who wishes to change the' code, ' to articulate a meaning for
whose communication and accurate reception no adequate conven-
tions exist as yet. "23 How Achilles does this remains unclear in
Nimis's exposition: the changes that the hero makes in the "code"
appear to include the use of hyperbole, catachresis, and oxymoron, as.
well as his refusal to share a communal meal after Patroklos' death.
But surely these are no more than examples of Achilles' ability to call
upon alternatives that are equally conventional; and the "changes"
themselves have nothing to do with "language" unless we persist in
using that word to denote "behavior." Hyperbole and the other rhe-
torical devices are operations applied to language, but in no real sense
do they constitute it.24
22Jakobson (1981) contains the classic definition of such forms, which include the
personal and deictic pronouns, as well as other grammatical markers.
23Nimis (1986) 219.
24Ibid. 220-21. Nimis here follows Friedrich and Redfield (1978) in equating rhet-
oric and language: see my later discussion. Cramer (1976) 301 rightly traces the
differences which A. Parry picked out in Achilles' speeches to the unique rhetorical
The Language of Achilles 155
stance of the hero, "free-wheeling but rhetorically calculating"; he cites the changes
made from one speech to another in Achilles' mode of referring to Briseis (9.340
versus 19.59) and the sea (1.157 versus 9.360).
25Hogan (1976) 309.
26Scully (1984) 24.
27Ibid. 25. Despite the title of his article, Scully seems to recognize the distinction:
he explains Achilles' idiosyncratic use as Homer's playing against an established "pat-
tern of expectation" at the formular level. For an analogous use of characterization by
the variation of one formula, see now Olsen (1984) 134-35, who observes that the
andswarode formula in the Old English Andreas is restricted to Christ's messages,
whereas other characters' speeches conclude with ageaf andsware.
156 The Language of Heroes
28Friedrich and Redfield (1978) 265, 267, 266. A further methodological problem,
not noticed by later critiques: Redfield's and Friedrich's "counter-samples" of speeches
made within the hearing of Achilles, while the first effort by any scholars to provide a
control on Achilles' language, are less representative of non-Achillean speech since it
has been shown recently that Iliadic replies copy, to a large extent, the diction and the
structure of the speeches they answer: see Lohmann (1970) 131-82.
29Redfield and Friedrich (1978) 271-75.
The Language of Achilles 157
style. Indeed, Redfield and Friedrich must concede that several other
speakers in the Iliad command the same linguistic resources: Paris is
"direct" in his choice of words; Aeneas uses similes; Hektor can build
up a rhetorically elaborate series in his speech to Andromakhe in
Book 6. In this light, Achilles stands out because he consistently uses
certain devices, not because he monopolizes them. In addition, Red-
field and Friedrich point out that Achilles can be contrasted with
other speakers in his avoidance of certain strategies: unlike Nestor,
Odysseus, or other characters, Achilles does not concede points,
make distinctions, anticipate his interlocutors' objections in argu-
ment, or offer multiple reasons for his behavior. But this is to say that
Achilles is simply a different character in the poem; it so happens that
literary "character" is constructed out of language; yet it would be
tautologous and misleading to assert that each character thereby has a
different "language. "30
When the analysis turns to those features that are actually "linguis-
tic" at the level of sentence and clause, rather than at the level of
discourse, it becomes less assured and more speculative. Achilles' !I
il
speeches are found to contain more asyndetic expressions; more
I'
subjunctives-perhaps he is more emotional; more elaborate and
combined vocatives, more titles of address, terms of affection and
abuse, emotive particles e and de-clear signs to the investigators of
his passionate nature and dominant relation with his peers.
Redfield and Friedrich do not analyze Achilles' speeches from the
point of view of the formula, other than to note that his words do not
differ from those of other Iliadic speakers in the number of formulas
per line. 31 They conclude, however, with a glance at the theory that
first gave rise to the "language of Achilles" debate. Apparently, they
proceed from Milman Parry's work without reference to later modi-
fications in formula theory, when they assert that "if the choice of
adjective is less meaningful than in non-traditional verse sources of
meaningful variation are to be sought elsewhere-in the general
shape of utterances, in the use of rhetorical devices and in the choice
of particles, or particular highly-marked lexemes, or of marked syn-
32Ibid. 284. Fish (1973). See also Pearce (1977) 1-36. Plett (1985) argues for a
renewed study of rhetorical stylistics to remedy the faults of statistical and structural
analysis.
The Language of Achilles 159
33Messing (1981) 890-94, 897. On ethopoiia, see Kennedy (1963) 90-93. An exam-
ple not cited by Messing is in Eust. 752.61, where the commentator links amphiboly
in Achilles' speech with the ethos of "an angry person." In defense of Friedrich's and
Redfield's intuitions, it should be noted that some oral literature does in fact use
grammatical and phonetic means to distinguish the talk of distinct characters: for
example, the "buzzard talk" in Nomatsiguenga (Peruvian) myths, on which see Pick-
ering (1980) 21.
160 The Language of Heroes
34See Cantilena (I982) 23n.9 for the list of analyses. Segal (I97I) comes closest to
the goal of combining literary appreciation with formula analysis. For exemplary
close formulaic analysis of other oral poetic traditions, see Davidson (I983 and 1985)
on the Iranian Shah nama and Barnett (I978) 534-60 on Indic epic.
35A. Parry (I966) 12. See his further remarks on the illusion of formulaic inflex-
ibility at A. Parry (I972) IO.
360n the history of attempts to prove orality by formula quantity, see Miller (I982)
28-38.
The Language of Achilles r61
believe that the uncertainty regarding the relation of the two monumental
especially in the light of such recent work as A. Edwards (1985), esp. II-13,
ing the competitive stance of the Odyssey-poet and the echoic nature of certain
and characters in the Odyssey-compels one to restrict the background, in order to'
avoid calling "formulaic" many lines and expressions that occur only in this speech
and in a restricted number in the Odyssey. To my way of thinking, such iterata are
more likely intentional reworkings of language familiar from Achilles' speech, and
composed with the assumption that an audience will recognize them as coming from a
particular character and context. This is not to say that one must be an Analyst in
considering the two poems: both could be oral compositions, and yet show such
responsions, especially if they are indeed by the same poet, or by two poets in an
agonistic performance situation. Contemporary Nigerian oral poetry affords the best
example, to my knowledge, of the way in which certain themes and ways of narrating
them can come to be associated with one particular poet, even though the performer
in question has never set them down in writing under his name: some virtuoso oral
poets among the Hausa are credited with creating a bakandamiya, "poetic master-
piece," which they consider their favorite song and which they have reworked, ex-
panded, and polished for years. Their reputations are based on these large-scale com-
positions. See Muhammed (1981).
40MHV 272. This does not include echoed phrases, anaphora, or polyptoton, he
notes.
The Language of Achilles r63
42Hainsworth (I968) esp. 39-45 outlines the various ways in which flexibility is
achieved in the formula. Nagy (I974) showed that correspondence between kleos
aphthiton and Vedic srtivas tik~itam extends to their metrical environments, and that
these, in turn, suggest that the hexameter originated as an expanded lyric line. On the
choice between the metrical and the semantic explanations of formula, see Cantilena
(I982) 45-62.
43S ee Ducrot and Todorov (I972) I39-42 for a concise discussion of these concepts.
The Language of Achilles 16 5
44I believe that the first factor explains the almost universal occurrence of the noun
makhe after the trochaic caesura. It has this position in the most common formulas,
but keeps it also when the poet does not "expand" the line by using the full formulas.
See Martin (I983) 67-69.
45Note that this is a shift from the usual practice (e.g. Lord [I960] I43) of using
broken underlining for diction that resembles other formula types: my broken under-
linings indicate that the word in question, or a form of the word,. itself recurs in the
slot in question.
46In using as background the single poem, I am taking Lord's dictum that the
formula has meaning only in performance (see Lord [I960] 33) to its logical end: the
formula has significance as "formula" only in the space of a performance.
The Language of Achilles 167
I suggest that the underlinings, and even more so, the frequent
marks that separate "paradigmatic" formulas in the speech of
n."•.~--' give us graphic proof of the primary tenet held by field-
~C ~Ir."r" in oral literature, Lord in particular, that every song is both
__
CHART 1. (continued)
aAAa / 0' / aQLOLtlEOdL / OLOO'U / Y£Qa / xa!' / ~aOLAEiiOL·
-roLm / [.tEv ~iiitEbaTxEl-ra~TfiEi;-b'-art6Tio-{'-vou-r;-Axmrov 335
Etl"E-r', / EXEL 0' aAOXOV T 8'U[.taQ£a· 'tTI rtaQ/ La,fwv - - - - - - - --
'[EQi£o8w~--il OfbiCT:ii:oAE[.tLS£[.tEv/m / TQcGEOOLV
'AQYELOU£; / 'tL oE / Aa6v-r&v~yaYEv / Eve&b'-r&ydQa~
~~!~~t~~5~ / ~ oux i'mlv!)-s-rfi~Y:.' 7 fjiix6-[.t()LO;
~ [.tOiiVOL / qHA.£O'UO' / aA.6xo'U~ / [.tEQOrtWV av8Qwrtwv 340
'A'tQEtom; TEnEITo~ ~L~-r&V~Q / aya8o~ / xa!' / EX£<j>QWV
!~~ ~u~~~U <j>"iIfEL -xa!' xt)OE~aL, / (G~- ;tal EYW / :!~~ - - - --
EX 8'U[.toii / <j>LAEOV / OO'UQLX'tT)'ttlV / rtEQ Eoiioav.
viiv 0' Ertd 7Ix-iELQrov / ),~!l~~ / ~'~~!~ / xaL [.t' artu't!)OE
[.ttl [.tE'U :t~~Qq~~ / di dM'tO~· / oM£ [.tE rtdOEL. 345
aAA' / 'Oo'UoEii / aUv / OOL 'tE / xa!' aAAOLOLV / ~aOLAEiiOL
~g~s~i~~7~~~qqL! / ~~~~£J.L_E!~! / Ot)·LOV rtiiQ.-------·
!j [.tEv oit / [.tuAa rtoAA.O. / :tSlY!.l~~!~ / V60pLV E[.tELO,
xa!' oit / 'tELXO~ EOEL[.tE, /1'!11 / ijAaoE 'tuPQov / Ert' au't<j)
EUQELav [.tEyUA!)V, Ev OE oXOAOrta~ X(J.'t£rt!)~EV· ' 350
aAA' ouo' cl)~ / §~~~:!~~ ~ g~~~2S / 'Ex'tOQo~ avoQopoVOLO
lq~E-,,~:.~§pgSLJ_~'_~'L~! [.tH' 'AxmoLOLv / !t_oJ.~J:l~~~v_
OUX E8£AEOXE [.tUX!)V / arto 'tdXEO~ / §~~~J:l~~ / E~"!.~!h
~~~~ / §~2~ / ~~ / ~xmu~ 'tE rt1JAa~ xa!' P!)yov LxavEv·
Ev8a / rto't' / oLov E/:tL[.tVE, / [.tOYL~ / bE [.tE'U / EX<j>'UyEV / oQ[.ttlv. 355
~~~ ~~ lJ~!!! _o_u!,_ ~ ~~~~~ TjtO~E[.tLSE[.tEV 'EXl:OQL &to- - - ---
aUQLOv / LQa / dL!, / QE~a~ / xa!' rtaOL 8EOLOL
v~~aa£ -~~-Lv!t..a_~J.7JftfLv) -aAaOE rtQOEQUOOW,
O'\jJEaL, at x' E8EAno8a xa!' at XEV 'tOL 'ta [.tE[.tt)An,
/
~QL .!:1~!-~ 'EAAtlO/rtOV'tOV Ert' LX8'UOEV't(J. rtAEOuoa~ 360
vf]a~ E[.tU~, / ~~!}~ Lf1:v_0_Q51.SJ EQEOolE[.tEvm [.tE[.taro'ta~·
d bE XEV / EurtA,oLT)V / !>§>n / XA'U'tOS EvvooLymo~
~J:l~:!~ ~ ~~L:QL!f}:!9!J <l>8L!)V EQL@WAOV / !~2~TLv~
~~LJ_ ~~ ~ J-tSl}! [.tuAa rtOAA.a, / ~~J XUAALrtOV / Ev8ME EQQWV·
~~~~~! _O~ j }_v~J!§~ / XQ'Uoov xa!' xaAxov / EQ'U8Qov 365
i)bE y'UVaLxa~ Eiiswvo'U~ rtOALOV 'tE OLOT)QOV
a~oJ:lm, aoo' EAaxov YEo / YEQa~ / bE / [.tOL, / o~ / rtEQ / EOWXEV,
~~!~~~n<j>/~~~~~~~ / EAE'tO-XgELWV 'Aya~~[.tvwv-------------
~~"!!llE.t!>!I5:~!pJ rtuv't' ayoQE'UE[.tEV w~ ErtL'tEAAW
a[.t<j>aMv, 0pQa xa!' aAAOL ErtLOXUswv'tm 'AxmoL 370
Et 'tLVU rto'U / davarov / E'tL / EArtE'tm / E~arta'ttlOELV
~~~vJ avmodl]v- inL-Ei:~fv-o-~: 701,6' ~v- TJ~9!YE~ - --
'tE'tAaLT) XUVEO~ / rtEQ EWV / EL~ dirta i.oEo8m·
~~§L'tiL~LJ @o'UAa~ O'U[.tPQuooo[.tm, / ouOE [.tEv / ~2Y~~·
The Language of Achilles 169
;x yaQ 6tl /-t' / an:a't'l']OE / ?:'~! / ijAL'tEV· / ou6' &.v / h' aii'tLC,; 375
~~an:a<l>OL't' / ~~~~qqL~:, / UALe; bE ot· / aAAa EXl)AOe;
~~~~~~. / EX yaQ IOU <j>QEvae; .ELAE'tO / IJ!Il'tLE'ta ZEUe;.
~~~~~ L ~~ 1:L9~! }pii_~0g~.! / 'tLoo bE /-tLV / EV xaQoe; / ~!qn.
oM' EL /-tOL / 6ExaxLe; 'tE xal dxooaxLe; / 'tooa 60Ll)
§CJCJ~.L~(~9~~ii'!! £O'tL, xal E'L / n:08EV /?!-~~~Ly"EY2);T:.'?'_ 380
oM'oo' / Ee; / 'OQX;o/-tEVOV n:O'tL/,!~qI~!m, / oM' ooa / ~l}~~s.
ALyvn:'tLae;, / OSL / n:AEiO'ta / M/-tOLe; / EV / x'ttl/-ta'ta / xEi'tm,
a'L 8' / Exa'to~/jtu).o[7E[OL~7bL!)x6(jLO-L-6'-<XV'-Ex(i"Oi:a~-----
liv~QE~ 71~oLXVE"iiOL T oiJv tn:n:OLOLV xal OXEO<j>LV·
oi,6'"Ef /-tOL / 'tooa 60Ll) / §~~) 'Ijl a /-ta8o e; !~!~.9.Y~s.(:r~!.. 385
OME XEV / ~e;_~T:.LJ 8v/-tov E/-tOV / !1:.Eiq~L~ / 'Ay"~~E~V~':
n:QLV y' an:o / ~!t_~<1:.v_~~~~~~§§tt~~~I:.~~~tt~!-Y~C:!}:.~~1]~._
?:,9~~!)'!L6~!_~u_~Y~1:L~CE! 'Aya/-tE/-tVOVOe; 'A'tQEt6ao,
oM' EL / XQVOELn 'A<j>Q06L'tn / ~~_A!-PS!_~Q.L~9~,_
~qy~!~~ / 'A8l)vaLn yl...avxwm6L / !q~<.p~2~l;.'?L,: 390
OME /-tLV / ~sj_y~~~~:.~§_~' / 'Axmwv / aAAov EAE08oo,
oe; 'tLe; / pj _'t~ / ~~~~I:.~E) xal oe; / @aOLAEu'tEQOe; EO'tLV.
i\v / ~ / ~~{g~§~qL_~~~~~~!,~! oLxab' 'Lxoo/-tm,
!I.!LA_E~5 / ~~'! / /-t0L £n:EL'ta / y~,!c:~~~ / yE / /-taooE'tm / ~P}§5:.
n:oAAal / 'AxmtbEe; / ELOlv av' / 'EAM6a / 'tE / <l>8L'l']V / 'tE 395
~~~~~~ / ~2~q:tl~~J~fj~]J!~~lJ~~ii]1~~V}~~!.. ---
'taoov fjv x' E8EAoo/-tL / 9>i~1]~ / n:OL'l)oo/-t' axoL'tLv.
~~~~_b_(/_~~I:. / /-taAa n:OAAOV / En:EOOV'tO / 8v/-t0e; aytlvooQ
~1:L~'!!C: / /-tV'l'JO'tnv aAoxov / ~·~x_V}~'!!_~~~~'t);~
!,~~C:CJI:. {:~~~~q~~1:. ~:E~ / YEQooV EX'ttlOa'to TIl)AEUe;· 400
au yaQ E/-tol / ~~iis" av'ta~LOv / oub' ooa / 9>~_o},!
}~~~': / Ex'tfjo8m / EV vmo/-tEVov n:'tOALE8Qov
'to n:Qlv En:' ELQt)V'l'Je;, n:Qlv EA8Eiv vIae; 'AXmwv, .
OU()' ooa Aa·LVOe; ouMe; a<l>tl'toQoe; EV'tOe; EEQyEL
<l>OL@OV 'An:OAAooVOe; / TIv80i / £VL / n:E'tQl)EOon. 405
A'l']LO'tol / /-tEV yaQ 'tE / @OEe; xal L<j>La I-tfiAa,
x't'l']'tol / §~L't_Qi~9§~S. / 'tE xal / 'Ln:n:oov ~av8a xaQl)va,
~'!§~~S L~( ~ :!I'~_xiL~ ~£t!-!~ {~~~~i..vJ_ ~~T:.~J AE·LO'tit
~~~'_~~~~'t]zJ EnEL aQ / ~~~L~~Ei~~!<!~/ EQXOe; Mov'toov.
1Lit:!)!:?Ll~~{:~ / /-tE <I>'l'JOL / 8Ea 6E'tLe; aQyvQon:Eta 410
§!Xt!~~L!lSJ_ ~~2%! _ce.EJ?..E1L~ ! 8ava'tOLo 'tEAoobE.
d /-tEV x' / aML /-tEVooV / TQwoov n:OALV / ~1:L9>);~~X~1L~~!..
0!-~!~ / /-tEV /-tOL / voO'toe;, / ~!~!?!?:'~~~S.L~.tt!L!~'!!.Jp:t~);:.
EL bE XEV / oLxab' 'LXoo/-tL / <j>LAl)V Ee; n:a'tQLba yaiav,
§l_A_E!§L~'?LJ XAEOe; Eo8A6v, / ~!t! / b'l']Qov / §~J.L2~L~L~V_ 415
£ooE'tm, / 9~§Lx_EJ-,:!,~~~~~) 'tEAOe; 8ava'tOLO / ~~~~L.!I..:
xal b' &.v 'toie; aAAOLoLv / EyW n:aQa/-tv8l)oaL/-tl)v
170 The Language of Heroes
CHART 1. (continued)
0'(xa6' cut03tA.ELELV, E3tEL OUXE'tL 6t)E'tE 'tEXf.l.WQ
'!A.LO'll at3tELvij~· f.l.aA.a yaQ E8Ev EUQu03ta ZEiJ~
x,ELQa Ei)v U3tEQEOX,E, 'tE8aQm]xaOL 6£ A.aoL 420
oJ.!..' U~EL~ ~Ev / _t§~!~~-' UQLO'ttJEOOLV ' Ax,mwv
UYYEA.L!)V u3to<j>ao8E· / 'to yaQ yEQa~ EO'tL YEQOV'tWV·
§pg~!.ft}".?-.!l~jj~!?~~~~~~~ / EVL <j>QEOL / !rij'tLV Uf.l.ELVW,
ii / XE / OCj>LV / vfja~ 'tE omp / xaL A.aov ' Ax,mwv
Vijii(j[v ~3tLyA.a<j>'llQfi~, / bEL ou / ~P~<!l:..v-'_ ~~~~)'~ !.~!~~1l. 425
~~.!_,:~v_ ~ ~p~{tgg~~!~.! E~EU U3tOf.l.!)VLoaV'to~·
p_o~~~;_~~/ aML / l1:5~.{[L~~~L-' f.l.EvWV / ~~~~~~~~lJ.!!it.~~,
o<j>Qa ftoL / tv VtJEOOL / <j>LA.!)V E~ 3ta'tQL6' / ~!I!~~
~~!?~~~ / ijv E8EA.DOLV· uvayxD 6' / ou 'tL / ~~~ {!l5~.
Types of Repetition
491 have explained the notion of "genres of discourse" more fully in applying it to a
problem in Book 8 of the Odyssey: see Martin (1984) 30-32,
172 The Language of Heroes
SOOn Neo-analyst methods, see Kullmann (1981) and (1984). Fenik (1974) 139
discusses possible non-Analyst readings of Homeric repetitions.
The Language of Achilles 173
52S ee , on repetitions that are not formulaic, MHV 273. Mueller (I984) ISO-5 8
borrows the notion of "contextual surplus" from Paul Ricoeur to describe the type of
repetition under discussion.
The Language of Achilles 175
530n the phenomenon of such formula runs, see Janko (1981) and Hainsworth
(1976).
176 The Language of Heroes
intentional recall. When a line recurs more often, and shows af-
with other formulaic lines, we are obliged to examine the
of each occurrence for variations. Near the start of Achilles'
we get one such line (9.314) which occurs two other times in the
(9.103, 13.735) as the introduction to speeches of mild rebuke
advice. When Nestor and Polydamas begin in this way, there is a
implication that the listeners (Agamemnon and Hektor, re-
have erred. Nestor discreetly places this line after his elab-
captatio benevolentiae which explains the advantage Agamemnon
wi1l gain from hearing him out (9.96..,...102). Polydamas, the younger
.man, is less discreet as he rebukes Hektor right from the start (13.726,
<'ExtoQ, <l!-tllXav6; EOOL 3taQaQQ'l1'tOLOL 3tL8to8m) and goes on to im-
ply that Hektor does not have his own gift of v60;. In both speeches,
the autuQ EYWV line leads into brief analyses of the status quo. Nestor
notes that no better plan has been found (9.104, v60;-cf. 13.732)
and thus by indirection refers to Agamemnon's faux pas; Polydamas
mentions the dangerous extended position of the Trojans. Both
speakers sum up their advice with exhortations to take counsel: 9. 112,
<j>Qa~w!-tE08' -cf. 13.741 E3tL<j>QaooaL!-tE8a ~01JAiJV. Compared to
this norm, Achilles' speaking strategy is deviant: instead of stating the
status quo, he leaps into the future, asserting that Agamemnon will
not persuade him (9.315). The triad of denials in lines 315-16 takes us
into a past-continuous tense; finally, we are shifted to a general state-
ment of the status quo by means of another triadic structure (3 18-20).
While these lines perform the function of the corresponding state-
ments of grievances by Nestor and Polydamas, they take the form of
general statements about types-the "good man," the "one who
stays," and so on-the referents for which remain in doubt. The
more informative ouM 'tL !-tOL 3tEQLxELtm (321) likewise drifts into
general statement (witness the repeated aLEL of317 and atEv of 322).
In fact, Achilles never states a single grievance, but floods us with a
multitude. The systematic reshaping of the norm extends even to the
"offer of advice" feature of the rebuke speeches. Instead of a first-
person plural hortatory, Achilles uses a third-person <j>Qa~to80)
(347). This deviation fits with a larger one: unlike Nestor and Poly-
damas, Achilles is advising Agamemnon in absentia. The distance
perhaps encourages him to heap blame on his advisee: the command
to "let him take counsel" forms the summit of yet another triad, the
minatory imperatives ("let him take pleasure," 337; "let him not try
me," 345). Furthermore, I have called Agamemnon the "advisee"-
178 The Language of Heroes
but Homer at this point has placed four men in Achilles' pn~se:nCf~:i.i
each of whom could be the true advisor to the hero. We might ...
this is another deviation, from sociolinguistic patterns, in that Achill.es'
even presumes to use the <llJ"tuQ EYWV line in such company. .'
The full analysis of such repeated formulaic lines requires that we .
look also at what could have been said but was not. This is dearlya.
vast project once we begin to study. anything more than a few lines.;'
Yet the insight gained into Homer's construction of character is
sometimes worth the effort. Our perception of a speaker's tone de"-
pends precisely on such cues as can be created through the poet's
selection of one variant. The line we have been investigating reminds
one of a different but related formulaic line, displaying the same
structure: aJ.Jloo bE "tOL EQEW, aU 6'EVI. <j>Q?OI. ~aAAEO ofjm. Although
Achilles at 9.314 uses the "advising" formula, he does so with the
more aggressive tone usually encountered when a speaker employs
this second formulaic line. Achilles himself had used the line to
threaten Agamemnon with bloodshed (1.297). With a similar hint of
anger, Zeus warns Hera that she will not always get her way (4.39).
The fixed value which the line seems to have in the rhetoric of the
poem appears again when Hera concedes to Zeus the right to save his
own son, Sarpedon (16.443):58
59Thetis (24. I3 I-32) uses precisely Patroklos' words to foretell Achilles' death.
180 The Language of l;Ieroes
aergos aner
aupnous nuktas
emata haimatoenta
oaron spheteraon
empeda keitai
182 The Language of Heroes
alokhon thumarea
phileous' alokhous
aner agathos kai ekhephron
Hellesponton ep' ikhthuoenta
eressemenai memaotas
esti moi
khalkon eruthron
karos aise
psamathos te koilis te
thumalgea loben
gunaika massetai (or gunaika gamessetai)
kourai aristeon
eikuian akoitin
ptoliethra ruontai
psukhes antaxion
Ilion ektesthai
lainos oudos
xantha karena
ameipsetai herkos odonton
kleos aphthiton
The last item on this list brings us once more to the paradox that
diction which can be described as innovative, when compared on the
synchronic level with the rest of the Iliad is highly traditional when
considered from a diachronic perspective: a phrase can be quite "new"
and yet very old. For kleos aphthiton, "unwithering fame," represents
a combination of words which dates to the Indo-European period, as
Adalbert Kuhn demonstrated in 1853, comparing the phrase with the
identical Vedic srava(s) ak~itam. The work of Gregory Nagy has now
shown that the metrical shape of the phrase, as well, presupposes a
common Indo-European prototype and represents within Greek "a
fragment of Indo-European versification. "61 Despite this heritage,
the phrase has been labeled by other scholars a chance innovation,
because it occurs only here in Homeric poetry and employs the adjec-
tive as a predicate, with estai. In this view, it was invented because the
poet sought an alternative to the more common kleos ou pot' oleitai to
avoid repetition of the verb in that formula. 62 Yet the flexibility of the
61Nagy (I974) I4I. See also Risch (I987). For collection and analysis of other Indo-
European poetic phrases, see Schmitt (I967).
62For this interpretation, see Finkelberg (I986). Nagy replies to this argument in a
forthcoming work, Pindar's Homer: The Lyric Possession of an Epic Past.
The Language of Achilles 183
63The notion of phraseology as heirloom, explicit in the Old English poetic conceit,
is also inherent in Greek tradition: witness Pindar's image of the "treasure-house" of
song (Pyth. 6.8; cf. 01. 6.65); for full explication of this image within archaic poetics, I
refer the reader to the forthcoming work in this series of Leslie Kurke on Pindaric
oikonomia. In this regard, it is significant that Achilles at 9.413 is actually quoting
Thetis, for the phrase kleos aphthiton is thus given the authority of the speech of the
immortals, an appropriate emblem for its age-old heritage. On Homer's use of this
phrase as intentional, significant archaism, see A. Edwards (1985) 75-78 and also
Nagy (1981).
641 would argue that the phrase aner agathos owes something to a genre of moral-
didactic poetry, which eventually produces such poems as that by Simonides on the
man who is "four-square and good" (Poetae Me/ici Graeci 542. I, 17; c£ 531.6). In other
words, we do not have to consider the new phrase an entirely new creation; its
novelty may lie in its being imported from an old genre for use in a new one: on this
phenomenon, see Martin (1984).
184 The Language of Heroes
650n this meaning of phi/os and its derivatives, see Benveniste (1969) 1:338-53.
The Language of Achilles 185
work, fusing the genitive into the syntax of his sentence in line 339,
rather than leaving it as a noun modifier. A third instance is at 9.400:
geron ektesato Peleus substitutes a verb in pl~~e of the usual epithet
hippelata (e.g. 11.772, 9.438, 18.331). In addltIOn, we have seen that
the ancient formula kleos aphthiton is also remade by the addition of
the verb estai. 66
Thus, the close analysis of noun-phrases automatically leads us to
consider how verbs are employed in the speech of Achilles, to discov-
er whether, in general, their use is idiosyncratic (even if their place-
ment is not). I will sketch out two ways in which Achilles' verbal
expressions in this speech differ from other such phrases in the Iliad.
First, his language differs at the level of semantics and pragmatics-
that is, his verbs relate to objects and events in the world of the poem
in unparalleled fashion. Moreover, through his use of verbs, Achilles
can often be classed with a small group of speakers, usually gods or
the poet himself, who are the only other users of certain expres-
sions. 67 Second, Achilles' use of verbs quite often represents a devia-
tion from patterns visible elsewhere in the poem, either of the place-
ment of the verb within a particular speech or of the associations that
the verb has with other verbal expressions. (The latter aspect is in
turn related to the different rhetorical strategies that the poet chooses
to give Achilles.)
The first set of deviations begins to confront us right from the start
of Achilles' reply. After a conventional greeting (9.308), he informs
Odysseus that he will refuse Agamemnon's offer completely (ap-
elegeos apoeipein). The verb has two meanings in the Iliad. When not
directly connected with the story of Achilles' anger and reconcilia-
tion, it means "report" (as in 23.361, 7.416, both line-end). The other
seven occurrences cluster around Books 1, 9, and 19, where there are
66Sakhamyj (1976) 76 observes that a similar reshaping occurs in line 9.409: instead
of the usual subject ("word") in the phrase "passes the barrier of the teeth" we have
here "spirit." On the unusual placement and reference of lainos oudos (404), see
Ramersdorfer (1981) 193.
67This also occurs with a few noun phrases in the speech: for instance, Achilles uses
aise (9.378) in what appears to be the older sense, "measure, estimate" (c£ Leaf[1900-
1902] 1.418), as opposed to the derived meaning "fate" (c£ 22.477, 24.428-in this
slot), and he is consistent in this: at 9.608 he uses it in the same way to speak of being
honored "in the estimation of Zeus" (c£ 378 tio and 608 tetimesthai). The only other
time the noun means "estimate" is in the frozen expressions kata aisan and huper aisan.
An example of phraseology shared by only Achilles and the poet: thea Thetis arguro-
peza (410), which occurs six other times, but only in the narrator's voice.
186 The Language of Heroes
The Language of Achilles I87
Only here does a speaker use the phrase to refer to what is in another's
mind, as if Antilokhos has shifted into the role of narrator, explaining,
to the audience what Achilles is thinking.70 Compare with this the,
similar formulas in which Homer foretells the dashed hopes of
Agamemnon, at the beginning of the poem, and of Achilles near the,
end: (2.36, Dream leaves Agamemnon) "to. <j>QOVEOV"t' avO. 8uf.tov, a-i
{?' ou "tEAEw8m Ef.tEAAOV and (18.4, Antilokhos comes to Achilles to
report Patroklos' death and finds him) "to. <j>QOVEOV"t' avO. 8uf.tov a. ()~:
"tE"tEAE<Jf.tEV(l ~EV. Agamemnon's ignorance and Achilles' premoni-
tions frame the narrative but also provide vivid capsule characteriza-.,
tions, at two points of particular emotional intensity in the poem;:
The disjunction between thought (phroneont') and outcome (teleesthai, .
tetelesmena) produces pathetic irony when the concepts are juxtaposed
in a single line: by contrast, Antilokhos' reading of Achilles' thought
process (23.544-54) is dramatized with comic irony, as a piece of
negotiation in which the outcome is not what has been thought.
Antilokhos plays the role of an angry young man disappointed by
the division of spoils-that is, the role that Achilles has just aban~
doned at this point in the poem. Antilokhos swears, "I will indeed
be angered if you complete this utterance" (note telesseis at 23· 543).
He goes on to reject the alleged basis of Achilles' decision, and
calls for another gift, painting Achilles as that hero had portrayed
Agamemnon: rich in possessions but unwise in their distribution
(23.549-52).71 The contrast between this scene in Book 23 and the
Thus, while thought and outcome at the narrative level are predeter-
mined to diverge, at the level of speakers' discourse within the poem
the one can influence the other-a fine narrator's trick for creating the
illusion of fictive freedom.
The other· passage in which the ta plus phroneon phrase is used
prospectively appears to have been constructed with equal attention
to the characterization of Achilles. Phoinix uses the expression to
explain his personal motivations for caring for the young Achilles.
Thinking that a curse was preventing the gods from "bringing off-
spring to fulfillment" for him, Phoinix attempted to treat Achilles as
his own son (9.493-95: note the disjunction between phroneon and
exeteleion, thought and outcome). The rhetorical technique here is
that used by Hektor in his brief reminiscence at I7. 225, cited earlier: a
speaker analyzes his own state of mind at some important point in the
past, in order to influence his present audience. Again, the poetic
technique behind the display of this strategy aims at creating a sense
oflayering, by showing us characters with a permanence of memory
and purpose. That the same two-word expression (ta phroneon) is
employed so consistently to introduce such rhetorical strategies gives
us more reason to think each small expression in Achilles' speech can
be fruitfully compared with its congeners.
Thus far, the comparison with other occurrences of the verb phro-
neo has shown us that it appears in patterns that are significant for
moving the narrative forward by focusing on motivations. At times
by anticipation recalls the characterization of Achilles, who had guessed what Kalkhas
had to say (I.90-91). Further touches reminiscent of Book 1 in this scene are Anti-
lokhos' use of u<j>mQTjoE06m (cf. I.230, u3tomQ£i06m) and his echo of Agamem-
non's refusal to hand over Khryseis (cf. I.29: "tTiv 0' eyoo ou Mo<.O; 23.553: "tTiv 0' eyoo
ou 0000<.0.), as also the assertion that he will fight for the mare (23.554)-a contrast
with Achilles' yielding up ofBriseis (I.298: X£Qot !lEv OU""coL Ey<.Oy£ !lUXTJoo!lm). The
recognition of a kindred young heroic spirit prompts Achilles' famous smile here
(23.555).
190 The Language of Heroes
At other times, if the speakers are gods, the pattern built on the
seems to function as a linguistic politeness gesture, revealing llUUlJ.Il2"
of the speaker's thought, but inviting further discourse:
(18.426-27) and Aphrodite (14.195-96) perform this way,
their visitors to candor by saying:
god speak alike. For Achilles, first, uses phroneo to mean "I think,"
without any hint of the meaning "I am disposed toward someone in
thinking. " The depiction of Achilles even before Book 9 has prepared
us for this sort of absolute isolation; I point out simply that this can be
documented by formulaic analysis as well. Second, Achilles like Zeus
does not reveal his thought, even when he most explicitly claims to
value candor. This is an important piece of evidence for the complex
characterization of Achilles as a master speaker. He appears to speak
his mind, after asserting that he must deny the previous offer. But the
topic he then brings up immediately is, instead, the necessity for
others to speak what they think. The poet has constructed a variant of
the politeness gesture used elsewhere in the type-scene of "visit": the
host invites discourse from his guest, but, in Achilles' case, the host
also maintains a tight control on the conversation, is self-assertive
rather than receptive. He employs the same notions, but, instead of
saying "speak what you think" and "I shall fulfill it," Achilles reflects
back on himself: "I must deny the offer ... in the way that I think
and the way it will be fulfilled." As we shall see shortly, the final
phrase of 9.310 is also deviant when considered against the usual
patterns and it is this that creates the arrogant tone we recognize in
Achilles' opening gambit. 72
The principle invoked earlier-that coherent patternings of devia-
tion from a norm make for "style" -can be successfully applied to
this speech. Several other uses of first-person verbs in this speech
relate Achilles to the figures of gods. Only Zeus, for example, uses
the pattern of 9.397: 'tawv flv x' Efh~AWf,tL, <j>LA'Y]V :n:OL~OOf,t' UXOL'tLv.
He does so in a similar context, expressing his ability to choose
whatever he wishes (in this case, whatever speech-act): DV 6E x' EyWV
... E8EAWf,tL vofiom (1.549).73 And only Zeus says "tell all as I com-
mand": compare 2.10, :n:av'ta. f,taA' &.'tQEXEW~ &'YOQEUEf,tEV w~ EJtL-
'tEAAW, with Achilles' words (9.369): 't<j) :n:av't' &'YOQEUEf,tEV w~ EJtL-
'tEAAW. In both cases, the ultimate recipient of the message is Aga-
memnon. 74 The god Poseidon is the only other speaker to mention
720n this line, Ameis and Hentze compare 8.415: lptELAl]OE KgovolJ :11:(':iL';, ~
in which the adverbial Ti modifies "he will complete" (said of Zeus' threat):
'tEAEEL :n:Eg
Note that, in Achilles' version, the adverbial phrase seems to go with both verb-
phrases: he makes thought and action one process, just as a god who threatens.
73The more immediate model is in the previous speech, 9.288.
74Furthermore, the idea of "telling all" is itself rare in the poem; it is mentioned as a
task possible only for a god, not for a poet (12.176), and treated as an unusual request
from his divine mother by Achilles (1.365).
I9 2 The Language of Heroes
his life, and at the same time furnishes his killer with words for the
future (in which the victim ultimately gains some memorial). The
man who is addressed by this line gives twice, to the living (eukhos)
and the dead (Aidi). At the same time, this utterance collapses distinc-
tions, by reducing "boast" and "soul" to counters in a game of war-
exchange. The equivalence of the boast and the life which paid for it is
represented iconically by the careful balance of sound and meter in the
line, with eukhos initially and psukhen-another two-syllable word
with medial kh-at the other emphatic position, after the pent-
hemimeral caesura. The repeated line, then, is itself a memorable
piece of verbal art.76 For a poet who had used it often, only a slight
extension of the metaphor "giving life to Hades" could produce the
more arresting image that Achilles uses, "gaming with my life in
fighting." And we might detect an echo of the more traditional ex-
pression in Achilles' reference to the gates of Hades (3 I2).
The emotive quality of Achilles' discourse has led others to com-
pare him to a poet. 77 I shall explore later the way in which the hero
fits the role. For now, we can note that as well as using similes more
often than any other figure in the Iliad Achilles also mimics the poet's
own voice in his use of smaller phrase units and single words. 78 The
expression in the second half of 9. 324, for example (xux&~ 0' uQu 0'1,
3tEAH ulrtfi) is paralleled only by phrasings of the narrator, two in
particular: when Patroklos answers Achilles, to be sent on the mission
that eventually ends his life, the poet comments xuxoii 0' uQu 0'1,
3tEAEvaQxi] (II.604). This technique offoreshadowing creates a mo-
mentary distance between audience and actors of the tragedy. In the
same way, pathos results from the narrator's interjection of a brief
biography at the death of Phereklos, son of the carpenter Harmo-
nides, who "had made the ships for Alexandros, the ill-beginners
(arkhekakous) that were an evil for the Trojans and himself." Achilles
uses this poetic sort of expression in the same way, to increase the
emotional response to his own fictional world of the simile. Within
the same group of lines, another instance of Achilles' poetic voice
comes in his use of diepresson. The word occurs at 326 in the first-
760n the antiquity of the formula ending this line, see Ivanov (1980) 74-76.
77See, for example, Friedrich and Redfield (1978) 277; also King (1978) 21, Maehler
(1963) 9-16, Whitman (1958) 195. The fullest comparison is by Gerlach (1870) 35-37·
78Moulton (1977) IOO-IOI lists eight Achillean similes. He compares the bird simile
in this speech with other images, in the narrative, of mothers and children. See also on
the image Randall (1978) 74-78.
194 The Language of Heroes
81Apart from Agamemnon and Achilles, only a few characters use phemi to intro-
duce statements about themselves. Among men, Nestor (10.548) and Meriones
(13.269) use the verb to assert their lasting power in the fray; among gods, Zeus
(15.165) and Hera (18.364) claim superiority using similar expression with phemi. All
these make their boasts in the present tense: Achilles thus has doubly marked deviant
usage: he states his claims self-referentially, and he uses the past tense.
196 The Language of Heroes
of reaching agreement with Hera: she may harry Troy now, says·.
Zeus; his turn will come.
Achilles, thus, shares with Hektor a pattern of speaking about his·.
wishes. With Agamemnon (and no one else) he shares the distinction
of saying "I honor" within the Iliad. At 4.257, Agamemnon claims to·
honor Idomeneus above all the Achaeans-the motivation for his
feeling is not given, only the spheres to which it applies (war and
wine in particular). It is Agamemnon, again, who provides the model
for Achilles' words at 9.378, 't(oo ()€ flLV EV 'XaQo~ a'LOn (line-end),
when he promises in his offer of marriage to honor Achilles as a son
(9.142): 'tELooo bE flLV loov 'OQEo'tn (line-end). Achilles' refo~mulation
of Agamemnon's words is an expressive expansion of the type we
shall investigate shortly. Achilles combines the patterns, whereas oth-
er mentions of time refer either to a generous granting of respect
(4.257,5.325-26,6.173,16.146,17.576), in which case the degree of
respect is explicit (e.g. malista, peri pases, prophroneos), or to a with-
holding of respect (9.238, 13.461), in which case the fact is simply
noted. Achilles denies that he feels respect toward Agamemnon, but
rather than simply stating the fact, he specifies, hyperbolically, the
extent of his disregard: "I honor him not a whit. "
Even the handful of examples reviewed so far has sufficed to show,
first, that the poet reshapes traditional phrases to give them individu-
alized reference, thus creating the illusion of an interiorized, Achillean
language; and second, that we-the uninitiated audience-must
search out such reshaping at the level of formulaic usage patterns. In
other words, to read Achilles' speech properly, we are obliged to
reread every scene in the Iliad in which any phrase of that speech
appears. Just as the analysis of noun formulas led us to investigate
verbal expressions more closely, so this step takes us into a study of
larger units of discourse. Now that we have seen Achilles' deviation
from the normative usage of certain individual verb expressions, I
shall present the most important instances of his variation from these
larger patterns. Whereas the study of the former showed that
Achilles' "voice" is unique, resembling as it does that of the gods and
the poet, the latter set of variations will demonstrate that Achilles'
overall performance in Book 9 depends on a quite rare strategy of
verbal ornamentation, which I call the "expansion aesthetic." Achilles
"speaks" like the poet, it turns out, because, in Achilles' words, epic
poetry reveals its own precise mode of composition.
The Language of Achilles 197
tentative aL XE J"tLe'Y)m to the more urgent au 6' '(OXEO, J"tEL8EO 6' lJf.tLV
Achilles makes the choice of words instead of deeds; he will go on .
defeat Agamemnon, symbolically, by being the best performer
the verbal level. In his reply to the goddess at 1.216-18, he affirms
theological correctness of his choice with a gnomic statement: the
who "is persuaded/obeys" the gods gets favor in turn:
viiv b' ll1:OL !-tEV EYW :n:auw x6Aov, OME 1:( !-tE XQlJ
aoxEAEw£ atEL !-tEVEaLVE!-tEV.
Two final examples in this genre of discourse mention the need for
speech: significantly, both occur in Book 9. At the end of the episode,
Ajax admits to Odysseus, within the hearing of Achilles, that the
muthos of the withdrawn hero must be reported (9.627). At the
beginning of the book, Nestor speaks as advisor to Agamemnon.
After a rounded introduction, the structure of which recalls a hymn
to a god (cf. 9.97), Nestor brings up the topic of rhetoric: Agamem-
non has the power to speak, to listen, and (like Zeus) to validate
another's authority to offer advice. 89 Nestor implies that Agamem-
non is thus empowered to approve his own attempt to persuade
Achilles. His speech is an affirmation of speech, a call for gifts and
soothing words. In the foreground of his remarks, as in those of
Achilles at 9.307- 1 7, is the power of Peitho, that effective speech
which makes Iliadic society cohere.
Keeping in mind the conventional deployment of khre phrases else-
where in the poem, we can return with fresh insight to the first words
of Achilles. It now appears that his words are distinctive not only in
the'positioning of the "need" phrase, at the head of his statement, and
in the joining of khre with men, but, more important, in relation to
larger patterning. One usually says khre to speak about fighting, or
about speaking: Achilles explicitly denies both topics in his opening
statement. 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. If Achilles
resembles any other hero in this use of an idiosyncratic pattern, it is
Nestor; there is a strong hint that the young warrior deserves to be
ranked with the oldest as both speaker and instructor of the niceties of
speech. 90
89For the notion of divine authority contained in the verb kraiaino, see Benveniste
(1969) 2:35-4 2 .
900n speaking as an important aspect of the Indo-European tradition of prince
instruction, see Martin (1984).
202 The Language of Heroes
910n the distinction between the "existential" esti and the verb used as a copula,
which is common in the poem, see Benveniste (r966) r87-207·
204 The Language of Heroes
92Moulton (r977) ror points out that Achilles is not the only figure to use similes:
for example, see Asius' comparison of Achaeans to wasps and bees, r2. r67-72.
930n the conventions of augury talk, and the delineation of heroes by their skill at '
it, see Bushnell (r982).
· The Language of Achilles 20 5
these are highly marked lines, as well, since they finally cap the long
list of impossibilities with a seemingly concrete condition on which
Agamemnon might persuade him-one that turns out to be an im-
possible demand. This memorable couplet attracted Adam Parry's
attention for good reason: 1 would only point out that a good part of
its power comes from the repetition, for the third time, of the topic of
persuasIOn.
lThis line shows the far more common word order hils kai introducing the final
phrase. The reverse order, entailing epic correption, is found in 9.3 10, but almost
nowhere else in the Iliad as far as these two words are involved.
2Also, with different verb tense, see 1.388: t]3tEtATJOEV llii8ov, 0 bi) 'tE'tEAEOIlEvO;
EO'ttV.
210 The Language of Heroes
words, the second half ofline 310 "belongs with" the first half ofline
314 (ajoin that can be made with no change for the sake of meter).3 I
am far from suggesting that interpolation is the cause for this "split,"
unless we understand the word to mean the poet's own introjection of
different material into the middle of a formulaic line or lines, for
artistic reasons.
The inserted sentences in this split expansion constitute another
form of expansion, which I have termed replacement. We can discov-
er this expansion at work in lines 3 I 1-13 by examining one word in
particular-keuthei, which was underlined, on our formulaic analysis,
because it occurs here in the same slot as the same verb in a formula:
exauda me keuthe nooi. The formula occurs three times in the poem.
The pattern is significant. At 1.363, Thetis consoles the weeping
Achilles by asking him to speak his mind: E~a:uba, !-til 'XEu8E vo<p,
'(va E'Lbo!-tEV u!-tcj>w. Achilles' reply is the direct cause of the subse-
quent destruction of Achaeans; when the havoc has reached a crisis,
Patroklos, in tears, entreats his companion, and Achilles replies using
the formula that Thetis had used at a similar juncture (16.19). Achilles
listens; Patroklos soon dies; to Achilles once more comes Thetis. This
time, as if she already knows his grief, she omits the second part
of the formulaic line (18.74-75): E~auba, !-til 'XEu8E. 't<l !-tEv bi) 'tOL
'tE'tEAEO'taL / E'X L\LO; ... The three occurrences of the phrase thus
mark three main stages of the narrative. The poet seems to use it as a
refrain. In context, the phrase has two other purposes: it characterizes
the tender relations between Achilles and Thetis, and Achilles and his
companion; and it introduces speech, in such a way that we assume
the following words are the candid outpourings of the speaker who is
addressed. Achilles appears to employ the same rhetorical strategy,
but, once again, with a difference. His opening sally against the "man
who hides one thing in his thought and says another" is, after all, 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 re-
directs the expected pattern by expanding the idea in me keuthe to
a hyperbolic, two-line expression of hatred for the concealer. He
switches the second-person address (still present in 9.311, truzete) to a
third-person description of an ambiguous foil-figure, keinos. 4 The·
STwice in the poem hiding is associated with Hades by a speaker: 22.482 ( 'At<lao
Mf.lo'U~ lmc> XSUSSOL yaLrl~) and 23.244 (Achilles speaking: eywv 'At<lL xsuSWf.laL). A
similar notion underlies English "hell" (from Indo-European *cel-: cf. Latin ceiare,
"hide").
212 The Language of Heroes
shape: aAA08Ev aAAor;.7 Whereas Zeus' direct and blunt style in this
speech is emphasized by end-stopped lines, Achilles' tone sounds
more rational because his syntax is more complex: he uses hos and gar
to connect what in Zeus' speech are three separate elements. The
effect of the conjunction and particle is fluidity: we seem to get a
rational explanation of his behavior from Achilles. Furthermore,
rather than calling his interlocutor "most hateful" (although the
thought underlies his words), Achilles mutes his expression to the
simpler "hateful is that man." The couplet 9.312-13 is grammatically
subordinated to 3 II, itself subordinate to line 309. In both the speech
of Zeus and of Achilles, the lines form a separable introduction,
directed to an interlocutor who has made a complaint: note that both
speakers shift the topic abruptly after the rebuke (5.895, all' ou man;
9.314, autar egon).
We have seen how the expansion technique affects the tone, and
ultimately the characterization, within the space of several lines. Be-
cause expansions, particularly those of the splitting and replacement
varieties, obscure the formulaic models on which they are. built,
Achilles' "language" comes to sound unique. This can be observed in
greater detail, first, in two passages of the speech that deal with the
central topics of reward and love; and, second, in a number of lines_
that exhibit "telescoping" of formulas which is caused by expansion
of other formulas.
The idea presented in the second half of line 316 recurs twice in
terms that help illuminate the passage in Book 9. When the poet
describes the death of Iphidamas at Agamemnon's hands, the tone is
that of the most haunting of Homeric obituaries: resigned, factual,
yet tense with restrained emotion. The victim "fell and slept the
bronze-hard sleep, pitiable man, away from young wedded wife,
fighting for his townsmen-the wife, from whom he had no joy,
though he had given much (for her)": XO'UQL<>L'Y]r;, ~r; ou 'tL X<lQLV 'L()E,
JtOAAa. ()' MWXE (II.243). 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 prop-
7Note that the word, applied to Ares at 5.83 I also, appears to 'mean in context "one
who switches sides. " By contrast, the phrase, at 9.3 I I is less well grounded in context.
Homer, expanding in Achilles' speech with the previous passage in mind, may there-
by have been led to improvise a scenario in which three speakers assail Achilles'
resolve, "one from one side, one from another." The expansion technique tends to
ramify in this way, as we have seen.
214 The Language of Heroes
lar passages in the poem; the two later passages are not ''''''''''1:1
identical, in that the second omits two lines which add -....~ •.'v~
color to the first. Contrast Achilles' narrative (r6.56-59):
with the story told by his mother a short time later (r8.444-45):
f
12The meaning of "well knowing" in 9.345 is closer to that of the verb in the line-
end phrase ophr' eu eideis (I. 185 etc.), although it occurs here in the slot associated with
the formula eu eidiis, which refers to knowledge of a skill rather than of facts. For a
discussion of stylization in Hektor's speech at 7.234-43, see Duban (1981) 106-7·
2I 8 The Language of Heroes
13The only other time this placement of Dii occurs is at 10.16. The contracted form
hira occurs also at I 1.707, coupled with a form of the verb rezo and with a dative
indicating a single set of recipients.
14We might speculate that the second half ofline 370 is built on the model of such
lines as I. 17, 23.272, and so on, in which Atreides and "other Achaeans" are named;
the enjambed word Atreides in 369, occurring in the slot it occupies in the formula,
would then have prompted the poet to end the next line as he did.
The Expansion Aesthetic 21 9
"Not without booty (aleios) would a man be who had such things,
nor without possessions (aktemon) of precious gold,
so many prizes have the single-hooved horses brought me. "
15The foregoing examples do not exhaust the list of expansions in this speech.
Internal expansions occur in lines 325-26 (compare with 18.340, 23.186, where
"nights and days" is a unified phrase); in 338 (compare with laon ... ageiras the
unexpanded phrase in 2.664, 11.716, 11.770, etc.); in 390-91 (compare with 13·432:
220 The Language of Heroes
EYW (325, 342); and obtaO' lXWflaL (393; with different desinence,
4 1 4). That the phrases are repeated for the sake of rhetorically full and
emphatic discourse can be corroborated from other internal repeti-
tions. Consider the following on the phonetic level:
The climax of the repetition of sounds comes at line 388: xouQ'I1v 0'
OVYUflEW 'AYUflEflVOVO~, which makes a pun on the name of Achilles'
f adversary by equating it with the preceding verb phrase: "The daugh-
non's wits: autis ... heleto (368); elpetai exapatesein (37I); ek gar;
apatese (375); autis ... exapaphoit' (375-76); ek gar . .. heileto
The most memorable portions of Achilles' speech depend for
power on this sort of parallelism: his assertion concerning the
coverability of man's life (406-9) not only abolishes
formulation, but takes on authority by being cast in terms of
morphologically related adjectives. And the syntax of his
concerning his own choice of fates mirrors, in its paired "v.uU'U'JU:;~
the content: syntax here is iconic (4I2-I5). Just as powerful, but
a triplex rather than binary structure, are the denials at 3I5-I7
out', ouk . .. ) and at 3 I8-20 (with progressive contrasts of six
all of whom have the same fate). Over a wider expanse, such
structures are themselves made into a trinity of denials: first, oud' .
tosa doie (379), oud' hosa (twice, 38I), oud' ei ... tosa qoie (385),
... peisei' (386); next, ou gameo (388), oud' ei (389), oudt-min hos
(39I); and finally, ou ... antaxion oud' hosa phasin (40I), oud' hosa .
oudos ... eergei (404-note the paronomasia of negative with
noun meaning "threshold"), oute leiste / outh' helete (408-9). i
The ultimate result of repetition, then, is the construction of a
cohesive and forceful speech. The narrative attests to the power oj
Achilles' discourse, so that its success, on the level of style, is explicit
his audience is silent in amazement at the muthos (9.43I). By speak~
ing so well about his resistance to persuasion, Achilles, paradoxically,
persuades. We have seen the devices by which Achilles/the poet pro-
duces such victorious discourse, and I have shown that deviations a1
the level of formula are to be explained by reference to the scope oj
this particular speech, which demands that traditional expressions be
expanded themselves, or telescoped for the sake of expansion at an-
other point in the text. Now it is time to draw conclusions; I offel
two, in brief: first, that the "language of Achilles" is none other that:
that of the monumental composer; and second, that the poetic rhet-
oric of the narrator, in turn, is that of a heroic performer in the role 01
an Achilles.
The first perhaps seems tautologous; it has already been said that aI
Iliadic heroes, not just Achilles, "speak Homeric." Yet, while that i~
true if we are discussing morphology and phonology, the evidence 0
formulaic diction tells us otherwise-Achilles, as Adam Parry intu-
ited, does not speak quite like the others_ In seeking to find reason:
for his deviations, at the level of diction, we have been led to the
The Expansion Aesthetic 223
higher linguistic structures, beyond the phrase and into the realm of
rhetoric. And at this level, Achilles can be seen to use a rhetoric-the
art of disposing and arranging words-similar only to the poet's
own. In other words, we assume that Homer could have expanded
formulaic diction in the speeches of any other hero so as to produce
dicourse as complex, inward-looking, and pleonastic as Achilles'. But
he did not; he fully reveals all the possibilities of his own poetic craft
only in the extended speech of Achilles. The effect is to make Achilles
sound like a poet, as critics have remarked so often. We can now say,
however, that the reasons Achilles sounds like a performer lie deeper
than such techniques as the use of similes. The similarity arises be-
cause Homer, when he constructs Achilles by means of language,
employs all his poetic resources and stretches the limits of his for-
mulaic art to make the hero as large a figure as possible. In short, the
monumental poem demands a monumental hero; the language of
epic, pressed to provide speech for such a man, becomes the "lan-
guage of Achilles."19
There is one further piece of evidence in Achilles' words in Book 9
to suggest that in Achilles we hear the speech of Homer, the heroic
narrator. Only Homer and Achilles refer, in speaking, to the possibil-
ity of endless expansion. Achilles says "not even if Agamemnon gives
ten and twenty times as much will he persuade me" (379). We have
just seen that this denial is expressed within a tripartite structure, each
section of which is also triplex. Form contrasts with context in the
expression: although the limits of wealth are considered, and refused,
the expression of refusal itself is hyperbolic, verbally full, "exces-
sive." I have suggested that this rhetorical auxesis adds weight to
Achilles' verbal defeat of his adversary, as he simply outtalks Aga-
memnon; I shall trace the consequences of this view shortly. For
now, we must put this speaking strategy-referring to a wealth of
possibilities and then dismissing them-in context. It turns out to be
on a par with the poetic technique which later comes to be called
recusatio, and which Homer himself uses in the proem to the Cata-
logue of Ships. Just as he is about to begin the most elaborate listing
20Note that the number of troops can be compared with sand (2.800, Iris speaking)
just as Achilles can use the image to speak of numbers of gifts (9.385).
The Expansion Aesthetic 225
21See Fenik (1968) and (1978); also M. Edwards (1980) for an analysis of this
technique in the space of one book of the Iliad. Lohmann (1970) provides a useful
demonstration of the way in which the structure of speeches can be expanded or
contracted through use of typical elements but he does not examine speeches at the
level of diction as I have done: see the critique by Latacz (1975) 414-18.
22See, on Swahili epic, Knappert (1983) 72 and on the same phenomenon in Ainu
and Arabic poetry, Bowra (1952) 35.
23Herzfeld (1985) ro.
24For an analogy to the use of smaller genres see Tigay (1982) 163 on the Gilgamesh
tradition.
226 The Language of Heroes
25Sherzer (1978) 139-42. On varying attitudes toward the value oflength in dis-
courses, see Hymes (1974) 35-40, who cites the contrast between Athenian and Spar-
tan performances (cf. Plato, Laws 641e423).
26Austin (1966) 79. See Redfield (1975) 226.
The Expansion Aesthetic 227
If the poet deals with the common store of awareness accessible to all,
his warrant for saying or singing again what everybody is already
familiar with can only be that he can say it better than others. The
invocation of the Muse can be paraphrased, "Let me win, outdo all the
other singers. " In preromantic rhetorical culture, the poet is essentially
a contestant. 27
The only other passage in the poem to mention sacking a city, ships,
and a specific number (in this case, of ships) is 5.638-42, part of the
battle-boast Tlepolemos makes to Sarpedon:
Clearly, the mention of Troy's sack in these lines performs the same
function as the reference to Achilles' raids: it is part of the warrior's
rhetoric of egoism, the verbal performance that authenticates his mar-
tial acts. But there are telling differences between the two passages.
Tlepolemos boosts his own status by referring to his father, Herakles,
who sacked Troy in the previous generation, with six ships and a few
men. Achilles boasts of his own sacking, not of one city, but of
twenty-three towns around Troy. 29 His act is bigger; the expanded
two-line expression of his deeds fits the exploits.
If we consider only quantity, Achilles, although not destined to
take Troy, has already surpassed the most important hero of his
father's generation. The difference in size between the two heroes'
achievements is explicit in the doubling of the number at the begin-
ning of 9. 328-twelve (cities) versus Herakles' six (ships); the for-
mula is expanded semantically, as it were, as well as spatially. We
should not think that this similarity of expression between 9.328-29
29La Roche (r878) 24 observes that the Iliad actually names only six of these.
The Expansion Aesthetic 229
300n this passage, see the analysis of o. M. Davidson (1980); her demonstration of
Herakles' relation to the heroes of cognate epic traditions makes it more plausible that
Achilles, who does not share these ties, is modeled on the older hero.
310n this tradition, see Galinsky (1972) 9-10.
32See A. Edwards (1985) 12 and Maehler (1963) 16-17. Schadewaldt (1965) 64 was
first to point out that Thamyris' boast in the story refers to his success in singing
against other performers. No contest with the Muses is said to have taken place.
33S 0 Kirk (1985) 216. His observation that the story, as digression, most resembles
the story attached to Tlepolemus (2.658) gains significance in light of my finding:
both will be seen to relate to Herakles.
230 The Language of Heroes
4Knappert (1983) 129. This continues in the written tradition in the form of an
address by the scribe to his readers.
SWrigglesworth (1977) 106.
60 n these devices, including naming, quoting, onomatopoeia, and style, pronoun,
and media shifts, see Babcock (1978) 73.
7Bassett (1938) 86. The device offorecasting action comes under this category-see
2.724, 12.8-33, 17.197, 24. 85.
234 The Language of Heroes
convention for both establishing contact and at the same time keeping
distance between himself and the audience of the Iliad. By assuming
the voice of Achilles, making the hero's performance as monumental
as his own, and using turns of phrase in Achilles' voice that only
Homer as narrator uses elsewhere, he turns the figure of Achilles into
the "focalizer" of narration. The "authorial knowledge" possessed by
Achilles-his ability in Book I to say why Khryses came, or how
Agamemnon thought-is not then an accident of composition, but a
poetic strategy. 14 In a way, this is to validate the notions one sees in
both Hesiod and Plato regarding the relation between a narrator and
narrated speech. Both assume that, to a large extent, the poet takes on
the role of the speaker in his poem. To the eighth-century poet, the
overlap is a status-raising device, in that his Theogony shares in the
authority of divine speech. By the fourth century, such shape-shifting
mimesis is thought dangerous to the soul by the philosopher. 15 What-
ever the reception of this strategy, I believe its consistent deployment
by Homer with regard to Achilles can help explain two long-standing
critical problems in the Iliad: the use of apostrophe and the dual verbs
in Book 9.
Adam Parry first made the fullest argument for the view that the
poet's rare use of direct address to certain figures in the Iliad and
Odyssey is only partially determined by metrical necessities in a rigid
system of name formulas. Heroes thus addressed-Menelaos and Pa-
troklos in this poem-are "all in other ways treated with particular
concern by the poet" and are "represented as unusually sensitive and
worthy of the audience's sympathy. "16 More recently, critics have
located the motivation for apostrophizing less in a regard for charac-
ter and more in the creation of emotional effect, to increase the poi-
gnancy ofPatroklos' death or highlight the themes of protection and
responsibility for which they are the focus. These are certainly the
intended effects of apostrophe in other narrative and lyric tradi-
tions. 17 If we ask, however, why Patroklos alone is given prime
attention, apostrophized eight times in the course of a single book,
140n this feature, see de Jong (1985), esp. 15. On focalizers, see Rimmon-Kenan
(1983) 71-85.
150n Plato, see Detienne (1986) 22. On the Muses, Walsh (1984) 27-33.
16A. Parry (1972) 9.
170n the emotional effect, see M. Edwards (1987) 37; on theme, Block (1986) 160.
The apostrophe is often used in the Malay oral performances viewed by Wriggles-
worth (1977) 106. For its use in Central Asian epic, see Hatto (1980) 305-6 and
Chadwick and Zhirmunsky (1969) 45-46. In general, see Culler (1981).
236 The Language of Heroes
stance of Achilles and uses the speech habit again (duals) associated
with this stance.
Thus far, I have offered practical explanations based on my finding
that Homer as narrator carries over into the poem certain habits that
properly belong to Achilles as focalizer. My third proposal does not
attempt to answer an old critical dilemma. Instead, encouraged by the
evidence that Homer throughout the Iliad pays exact attention to the
style and effect of heroic speech, I wish to ask how Homer himself
conceived of poetic speech. What speech-act does the poem make?
This particular question has not been asked before, yet the general
theoretical question of the status of fictional communication has
aroused much interest. 22 Homeric poetry may have something to add
to the debate.
Nor do we necessarily face a dead end on encountering, in the
invocation to the Iliad, the line "Sing, goddess, the anger of Peleus'
son Achilles" (I. I). In Chapter I, I argued that the taxonomy of
speech terms is culture-specific. The same applies to notions of sing-
ing. Among the Maori of New Zealand, instrumental music is
classified as a part of "song," and both, ultimately, are regarded as
part of "speech. "23 If performances of epic in other traditions are of
comparative value, it seems that the word, rather than musical ac-
companiment, is primary; "sing" does not imply melodic perfor-
mance. 24 And surely Homeric poetry struck later critics, especially
the Romans, as akin to oratory rather than song. 25 The reader finds it
today to be rhetorical, "conceived as a massive utterance, inspired by
the Muse, following its thread independently of an author's will," in
one critic's view. 26
Homeric diction does not pose the poem as an utterance, neverthe-
22Critics such as van Dijk (I976) 45-50 argue that the literary text does not repre-
sent an actual speech-act, but an imitation of one. Searle (I979) 58-75 points out that
no strictly textual property enables us to distinguish between "real" and fictionalized
speech-acts, however; at most, we can say that the illocutionary act behind the latter is
one of pretending. Levin (I 976) I 48- 55 believes that the opening of a poem contains
an implicit performative, to the effect "I imagine myself in a world and invite you into
one in which .... " For a survey of work on literary speech-acts, see Ihwe and Rieser
(I979)·
23Hymes (I974) 31. See also Bauman (I978) I2-I3·
24Bowra (I952) 39. I choose not to rely, as Austin does (I975) 65-66, on the term
"epic" for evidence that the Greeks recognized a continuing association between the
poetic genre and the meaningful "word," since Koller has shown that the genre term
derives from the use of epos (utterance) to mean "line of verse."
25Cf. Cicero, Brutus 40, Quintilian IO.47-51.
26Vivante (I970) 5.
238 The Language of Heroes
27Risch (I985) esp. 9. On the cognates describing narrative genres (Irish sce/; Latin
insece-used by Livius Andronicus to translate ennepe) see Fournier (1946) 3-4.
2JJA similar phrase to describe recollections by Odysseus and Penelope is at Gd.
23.3 0 1.
29Peabody (1975) 270-72 has a good collection of the relevant material.
The Poet as Hero 239
rated within a tradition of tales about his exploits. As with the tradi-
tional singers of the massive Kirghiz poems about the hero Manas,
the sheer effort of performing the Iliad would have earned him a place
in popular tradition as a hero. We can still appreciate his overpower.:.
ing art in the Iliad's recording of the language of heroes. 30
300n the Kirghiz epic poets as legendary heroes, see Ba~gi:iz (1978) 318f. Wrig-
glesworth (1977) 105 describes a performance that resembled a test of physical en-
durance.
Bibliography
Abrahams, Roger D. 1970. Deep Down in the Jungle. Rev. ed. Chicago: Aldine.
__ . 1976 . "The Complex Relations of Simple Forms." In Ben-Amos 1976, pp.
193- 21 4.
__ . 1983. The Man-of Words in the West Indies: Performance and the Emergence of
Creole Culture. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
__ . 198 5. Review of Jeff Opland, Xhosa Oral Poetry. Poetics Today 6, 553-5 8.
Adkins, A. W. H~ 1960. "'Honour' and 'Punishment' in the Homeric Poems."
BICS 7, 23-32·
__ . 1969. "Threatening, Abusing, and Feeling Angry in the Homeric Poems."
JHS 89, 7- 2 1.
Ahrens, E. 1937. Gnomen in griechischer Dichtung. Halle: Triltsch.
Albert, Ethel. 1972. "Culture Patterning of Speech Behavior in Burundi." In
Hymes and Gumperz 1972, pp. 72-96.
Alexiou, Margaret. 1974. The Ritual Lament in Greek Tradition. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Ameis, K., and C. Hentze, ed. 1905. Homers Ilias. 2 vols. 4th ed. Leipzig: Teub-
ner.
Austin, J. L. 1962. How to Do Things with Words. Ed. J. Urmson. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Austin, Norman .. 1966. "The Function of Digressions in the Iliad." GRBS 7,
295-3 12~ Repr. in Wright 1978, pp. 70- 84.
__ . 1975. Archery at the Dark of the Moon: Poetic Problems in Homer's "Odyssey."
Berkeley: University of California Press.
Auty, Robert. 1980. "Serbo-Croat." In Hatto 1980, pp. 196- 210 .
Babcock, Barbara A. 1978. "The Story in the Story: Metanarration in Folk
Narrative." In Bauman 1978, pp. 61-79·
Bach, K., and R. Harnish. 1979. Linguistic Communication and Speech-Acts. Cam-
bridge: MIT Press.
Bibliography
Clarke, Howard. 1981. Homer's Readers: A Historical Introduction to the Iliad and the
Odyssey. Newark, Del.: University of Delaware Press.
Claus, David B. 1975. "AIDOS in the Language of Achilles." TAPA 105, 13-28.
Combellack, F. 1948. "Speakers and Sceptres in Homer." C] 43, 209-17.
__ . 1950. "Words That Die." C] 46, 21-26.
Compton, Carol. 1979. Courting Poetry in Laos: A Textual and Linguistic Analysis.
De Kalb, Ill.: Northern Illinois University, Center for Southeast Asian Stud-
Ies.
Connor, W. R. 1987. "Tribes, Festivals, and Processions: Civic Ceremonial and
Political Manipulation in Archaic Greece." ]HS 107, 40-50.
Couch, H. N. 1937. "A Prelude to Speech in Homer." TAPA 68, 129-40.
Cramer, Owen C. 1976. "Speech and Silence in the Iliad." C] 71, 300-304.
Crowley, Daniel. 1983. I Could Talk Old-Story Good: Creativity in Bahamian
Folklore. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Culler, J. 1981. The Pursuit of Signs: Semiotics, Literature, Deconstruction. Ithaca:
Cornell University Press.
Cunliffe, R. 1924. A Lexicon ofthe Homeric Dialect. Repr. 1963, Norman: Univer-
sity of Oklahoma Press.
Davidson, Olga M. 1980. "Indo-European Dimensions of Herakles in Iliad
19.95-133." Arethusa 13, 197-202.
__ . 1983. "The Crown-bestower in the Iranian Book of Kings. " Ph.D. diss.,
Princeton University.
__ . 1985. The Crown-bestower in the Iranian Book of Kings. In Acta Iranica.
Hommages et Opera Minora, vol. 10. Papers in Honor of Prof. Mary Boyce,
pp. 61-148. Leiden: Brill.
D'Avino, R. 1969. "La funzionalita di 6vo!J.u~w e la formula EltO~ 1:' E<j>U1:' EX 1:'
6v6!J.u~E." In Studia Classica et Orientalia A. Pagliaro Oblata, vol. 2., pp. 7-33.
Rome: Istituto di Glottologia.
__ . 1981. "Messaggio verbale e tradizione orale: Hom. EltEU lt1:EQOEv1:U."
Helikon 20/21, 81-II7.
Davison, J. A. 1962. "The Homeric Question." In Wace and Stubbings 1962, pp.
234-65·
deJong, Irene 1985. "Iliad 1.366-392: A Mirror Story." Arethusa 18,5-22.
Delaunois, Marcel. 1952. "Comment parlent les heros d'Homere." LEC 20, 80-
92.
De Romilly, Jacqueline. 1983. Perspectives actuelles sur l'epopee homerique. Paris:
Presses Universitaires de France.
Detienne, Marcel. 1973. Les m<iitres de verite dans la Grece archatque. 2d ed. Paris: F.
Maspero.
__ . 1986. The Creation of Mythology. Trans. M. Cook. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
__ . 1985. "Le my the, en plus ou en moins." In Mondo classico: Percorsi possibili.
ed. V. Citti, pp. 9-26. Ravenna: Longo.
Detienne, M., andJ.-P. Vernant. 1974. Les ruses de l'intelligence: La metis desgrecs.
Paris: Flammarion.
--4iiif..-------- ---------------------------------------------------------...
Bibliography 245
Dirven, R., ed. 1982. The Scene of Linguistic Action and Its Perspectivization by
Speak, Talk, Say, and Tell. Amsterdam: J. Benjamins.
Duban, J. M. 1981. "Les duels majeurs de I'Iliade et Ie langage d'Hector." LEC
49, 97- 124.
Ducrot, 0., and T. Todorov. 1972. Dictionnaire encyclopedique des sciences du
lang age. Paris: Editions du Seuil.
Duggan, Joseph, ed. 1975. Oral Literature: Seven Essays. Edinburgh: Scottish
Academic Press.
Dundes, A., et al. 1972. "The Strategy of Turkish Boys' Verbal Duelling
Rhymes." In Hymes and Gumperz 1972, pp. 130-60.
Durante, M. 1958. "Epea pteroenta: La parola come 'cammino' in immagini
greche e vediche." Rendiconti Lincei 13,3-14.
Ebeling, H., ed. 1885. Lexicon Homericum. 2 vols. Leipzig: Teubner. Repr. 1963,
Hildesheim: Olms.
Edwards, Anthony. 1985. Achilles in the Odyssey. K6nigstein/Ts.: Hain.
Edwards, Mark. 1969. "On Some Answering Expressions in Homer." CPhil64,
81-87·
___ . 1970. "Homeric Speech Introductions." Harvard Studies in Classical Philol-
ogy 74, 1-36.
__ . 1980. "Convention and Individuality in Iliad I." Harvard Studies in Classical
Philology 84, 1-28.
__ . 1986. "Homer and Oral Tradition: The Formula, Part I." Oral Tradition I,
171- 230.
__ . 1987. Homer: Poet of the Iliad. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Edwards, Walter. 1979. "Speech Acts in Guyana: Communicating Ritual and
Personal Insults." Journal of Black Studies 10, 20-39.
Enkvist, Nils. 1985. "Text and Discourse Linguistics, Rhetoric and Stylistics." In
van Dijk 1985, pp. 11-38.
Erlich, Victor. 1980. Russian Formalism: History, Doctrine. 4th ed. The Hague:
Mouton.
Ervin-Tripp, S. 1976. "Speech Acts and Social Learning." In Basso and Selby
1976, pp. 123-53·
Fantuzzi, Mario. 1980. "Oralita, scrittura, auralita. Gli studi sulle tecniche della
comunicazione nella Grecia antica (1960-80)." Lingua e stile 15, 593-612.
Fenik, Bernard. 1968. Typical Battle Scenes in the Iliad. Wiesbaden: F. Steiner.
__ . 1974. Studies in the Odyssey. Wiesbaden: F. Steiner.
__ . 1978. "Stylization and Variety: Four Monologues in the Iliad." In Homer:
Tradition and Invention. Ed. B. Fenik. Leiden: Brill.
__ . 1986. Homer and the Nibelungenlied: Comparative Studies in Epic Style. Cam-
bridge: Harvard University Press.
Fernandez, James. 1986. Persuasions and Performances: The Play of Tropes in Cul-
ture. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Fine, Elizabeth. 1984. The Folklore Text: From Performance to Print. Bloomington:
Indiana University Press.
Fingerle, Anton. 1939. Typik der homerischen Reden. Diss. Munich.
1
246 Bibliography
i
36, 1-5· I
_ _ . 1977. Oral Poetry: Its Nature, Significance, and Social Context. Cambridge: '
Cambridge University Press.
Fish, Stanley. 1973. "What Is Stylistics and Why Are They Saying Such Terrible'
Things about It?" In Approaches to Poetics. Ed. S. Chatman. New York: Co- .
lumbia University Press. .
Foley, John M., ed. 1981. Oral Traditional Literature: A Festschriftfor Albert Bates
Lord. Columbus, Ohio: Slavica.
_ _ . 1985. Oral-Formulaic Theory and Research: An Introduction and Annotated
Bibliography. New York: Garland.
__ , ed. 1986. Oral Tradition in Literature: Interpretation in Context. Columbia:
University of Missouri Press.
Ford, Andrew. 1981. "A Study of Early Greek Terms for Poetry: Aoide, Epos,
and Poiesis." Ph.D. diss., Yale University.
Fournier, H. 1946. Les verbes "dire" en grec ancien. Paris: Klincksieck.
Fowler, Alastair. 1982. Kinds of Literature: An Introduction. Cambridge: Harvard
University Press.
Fox,].]. 1974. '''Our Ancestors Spoke in Pairs': RotineseViews of Language,
Dialect, and Code." In Bauman and Sherzer 1974, pp. 65-85.
Frank, Roberta. 1982. "Old Norse Memorial Eulogies and the Ending of
Beowulf." In The Early Middle Ages. Ed. W. H. Snyder. (= Acta vol. 6).
Freidenberg, Olga M. 1930. "Tersit." JaphetiCeskii Sbornik 6, 23 I-53.
Friedrich, Paul, and]. Redfield. 1978. "Speech as a Personality Symbol: The Case
of Achilles." Language 54, 263-88.
Frisk, H. 1960-70. Griechisches etymologisches Worterbuch. 2 vols. Heidelberg:
Winter.
Gaisser, Julia. 1969. "Adaptation of Traditional Material in the Glaucus-
Diomedes Episode." TAPA 100, 165-76.
Galinsky, G. K. 1972. The Herakles Theme. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Gentili, B., and P. Giannini. 1977. "Preistoria e formazione dell'esametro." Qua- '
derni Urbinati di CultuTa Classica 26, 7-37.
Gerlach, L. 1870. "Die Einheit der Ilias und die Lachmannsche Kritik." Philologus
30, I-59·
Ghil, Eliza. 1986. "A Romanian Singer of Tales: Vasile Tetin." Oral Tradition I,
60 7-35.
Gill, Sam. 1981. Sacred Words: A Study of Navajo Religion and Prayer. Westport,
Conn.: Greenwood Press.
Bibliography 247
..
248 Bibliography
Held, George F. 1987. "Phoinix, Agamemnon and Achilleus: Parables and Pa-
radeigmata." CQ 37, 245- 6 1.
Heldmann, Konrad. 1982. Die Niederlage Homers im Dichterwettstreit mit Hesiod.
Gottingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht.
Hentze, C. 1887. Anhang zu Homers Ilias. vol. 3. 2d ed. Leipzig: Teubner.
Herington, John. 1985. Poetry into Drama: Early Tragedy and the Greek Poetic
Tradition. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Herzfeld, Michael. 1985. The Poetics ofManhood. Princeton: Princeton University
Press.
__ . 1985b. "Interpretation from Within: Metatext for a Cretan Quarrel." In
The Text and its Margins. Ed. M. Alexiou and V. Lambropoulos, pp. 197-218.
New York: Pella.
Hoekstra, Arie. 1965. Homeric Modifications ofFormulaic Prototypes. Verh. Konink.
Ned. Akad. v. Weten, vol. 71. Amsterdam: North-Holland.
Hofmann, Eric. 1922. Qua ratione EIIO~ MYeO~ AINO~ AOrO~ et vocabula
ab eisdem stirpibus derivata in antiquo graecorum sermone (usque ad annum Jere 400)
adhibita sint. Inaugural diss., Gottingen.
Hogan, James C. 1976. "Double TCQLV and the Language of Achilles." C] 71, 305-
10.
Holoka, James P. 1973. "Homeric Originality: A Survey." Classical World 66,
257-93·
Horner, Winifred. 1983. The Present State of Scholarship in Contemporary and His-
torical Rhetoric. Columbia: University of Missouri Press.
Howell, S. 1986. "Formal Speech Acts as One Discourse." Man n.s. 21, 79-101.
Hrdlickova, V. 1976. ''Japanese Professional Storytellers." In Ben-Amos 1976,
pp. 171-90.
Hymes, Dell. 1974. Foundations in Sociolinguistics: An Ethnographic Approach. Phil-
adelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Hymes, Dell, and J. J. Gumperz. 1972. Directions in Sociolinguistics. New York:
Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Ihwe, J. F., and H. Rieser. 1979. "Normative and Descriptive Theory of Fictlon:
Some Contemporary Issues." Poetics 8, 63-84.
Ingalls, WayneB. 1976. "The Analogical Formula in Homer. " TAPA 106, 2II-26.
Ivanov, V. 1980. "Proiskhozhenije drevnegrecskikh epiceskikh formul i metri-
ceskikh skhem tekstov." In Struktura Teksta. Ed. T. Tsivian, pp. 59-79.
Moscow: Nauka.
Jakobson, Roman. 1981. "Shifters, Verbal Categories, and the Russian Verb." In
Russian and Slavic Grammar: Studies 1931-1981. Ed. L. Waugh and M. Halle,
pp. 41-58. Berlin: Mouton.
__ . 1960. "Linguistics and Poetics." In Style in Language. Ed. T. Sebeok, pp.
350-77. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Janko, Richard. 1981. "Equivalent Formulae in the Greek Epos." Mnemosyne 34,
25 1-64.
Kaimio, M. 1977. Characterization of Sound in Early Greek Literature. Helsinki:
Societas Scientiarum Fennica.
Bibliography 249
Leaf, Walter, ed. 1900-1902. The Iliad. With commentary. London. Repr. 1971,
Amsterdam: Hakkert.
Leech, Geoffrey. 1985. "Stylistics." In van Dijk 1985, pp. 39-57.
Letoublon, Fran<;oise. 1983. "Defi et combat dans l' Iliade." REG 96, pp. 27-48.
Levin, Samuel. 1976. "Concerning What Kind of Speech Act a Poem Is." In
Pragmatics of Language and Literature. Ed. T. A. van Dijk, pp. 141-60. Amster-
dam: North Holland.
Lewis, I. 1986. "Literacy and Cultural Identity in the Horn of Africa: The Somali
Case." In Baumann 1986, 133-49.
Lindberg, Gertrud. 1977. Studies in Hermogenes and Eustathios. Lund: Lindell.
Lloyd-Jones, Hugh. 1981. "Remarks on the Homeric Question." In History and
Imagination: Essays in Honor of H. R. Trevor-Roper. Ed. H. Lloyd-Jones et aI.,
pp. 15-29. New York: Holmes and Meier.
Lockhart, Philip. 1966. " <!>QOVELV in Homer." CPhil 61, 99-102.
Lohmann, Dieter. 1970. Die Komposition der Reden in der Ilias. Berlin: de Gruyter.
Lord, Albert B. 1960. The Singer of Tales. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
_ _ . 1968. "Homer as Oral Poet." Harvard Studies in Classical Philology 72, 1-46.
- - . 1975. "Perspectives on Recent Work in Oral Literature." In Duggan 1975,
pp. 1-2 4.
Lowenstam, S. 1981. The Death of Patroklos: A Study in Typology. Konig-
stein/Ts.: Hain.
Lynn-George, M. 1982. Review of]. Griffin, Homer on Life and Death. JHS 102,
239-45·
_ _ . 1988. Epos: Word, Narrative, and the Iliad. Basingstoke: Macmillan.
MacCary, W. T. 1982. Childlike Achilles: Ontogeny and Phylogeny in the Iliad.
New York: Columbia University Press.
Macleod, Colin, ed. i982. Homer, Iliad: Book XXIV. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
_ _ . 1983. "Homer on Poetry and the Poetry of Homer." In Collected Essays, pp.
I - I I . Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Maehler, Herwig. 1963. Die Auffassung des Dichterherufs imfriihen Griechentum his
zur Zeit Pindars. Gottingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht.
Maftei, M. 1976. Antike Diskussionen iiherdie Episode von Glaukos und Diomedes im
VI Buch der Ilias. Meisenheim am Glan: Hain.
Martin, Richard P. 1983. Healing, Sacrifice, and Battle: Amechania and Related
Concepts in Early Greek Poetry. Innsbruck: Innsbrucker Beitrage zur Sprach-
wissenschaft.
- - . 1984. "Hesiod, Odysseus, and the Instruction of Princes." TAPA 114, 29-
4 8.
Martfnez-Bonati, Felix. 1981. Fictive Discourse and the Structures of Literature: A
Phenomenological Approach. Trans. P. W. Silver. Ithaca: Cornell University
Press.
Messing, Gordon M. 1981. "On Weighing Achilles' Winged Words." Language
57, 888-900.
Bibliography 251
Miller, D. Gary. 1982. Improvisation, Typology, Culture, and 'The New Ortho-
doxy': How Oral is Homer? Washington, D.C.: University Press of America.
Minchin, E. 1986. "The Interpretation of a Theme in Oral Epic." Greece and
Rome 33, 11-19·
Minton, William. 1965. "The Fallacy of the Structural Formula." TAPA 96,
241-53·
Mondi, Robert. 1978. "The Function and Social Position of the xfjQul; in Early
Greece." Ph.D. diss., Harvard University.
Moran, W. 1975. "Mirnneskomai and 'Remembering' Epic Stories in Homer and
the Hymns." Quaderni Urbinati di Cultura Classica 20, 195-21 I.
Moulton, Carroll. 1977. Similes in the Homeric Poems. G6ttingen: Vandenhoeck
and Ruprecht.
_ _ . 1981. "The Speech of Glaukos in Iliad 17." Hermes 109, 1-8.
Mueller, Martin. 1984. The Iliad. London: Allen and Unwin.
Muellner, Leonard. 1976. The Meaning of Homeric EUXOMAI through Its Formulas.
Innsbruck: Innsbrucker Beitrage zur Sprachwissenschaft.
Muhammed, Dalhatu. 1981. "Bakandamiya: Towards a Characterization of the
Poetic Masterpiece in Hausa." In Oral Poetry in Nigeria. Ed. U. Abalogu, pp.
57-70. Lagos: Nigeria Magazine.
Muller, Wolfgang. 1981. Topik des Stilbegriffs. Darmstadt: WissenschaftIiche
Buchgesellschaft.
.I'v1yres, John L. 1958. Homer and His Critics. Ed. D. Gray. London: Routledge and
KeganPauL
Nagler, Michael N. 1974. Spontaneity and Tradition: A Study in the Oral Art of
Homer. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Nagy, Gregory. 1974. Comparative Studies in Greek and Indic Meter. Cambridge:
Harvard University Press.
_ _ . 1979. The Best ofthe Achaeans. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
_ _... 198 I. "Another Look at Kleos AphthitOlI." Wiirzburger Jahrbiicher for die
Altertumswissenschajt n.f. 7, 113-16.
_ _ . 1982. Review ofM. Detienne, L'Invention de la mythologie. Annales 37,778-
80.
_ _ . 1983. "Sema and Noesis: Some Illustrations." Arethusa 16, 35-56.
_ _ . 1986. "Ancient Greek Epic Poetry: Some Typological Considerations." In
Foley 1986, pp. 89-102.
Nimis, Steven. 1986. "The Language of Achilles: Construction vs. Representa-
tion." Classical World 79, 217-25.
Notopoulos, J. A. 1938. "Mnemosyne in Oral Literature. " TAPA 69, 465-93.
_ _ . 1952. "Home~ and Cretan Heroic Poetry: A Study in Comparative Oral
Poetry." AJPhil 73, 225-50.
_ _ . 1964. "Studies in Early Greek Oral Poetry." Harvard Studies in Classical
Philology 68, 1-77.
Ohmann, Richard. 1973. "Literature as Act." In Approaches to Poetics. Ed. S.
Chatman, pp. 81-107. New York: Columbia University Press.
252 Bibliography
Oinas, Felix. 1978. Heroic Epic and Saga. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Okpewho, Isidore. 1979. The Epic in Africa: Towards a Poetics of the Oral Perfor-
mance. New York: Columbia University Press.
Olsen, Alexandra. 1984. Speech, Song, and Poetic Crafi: The Artistry of the
CynewulfCanon. New York: P. Lang.
Ong, Walter J. 1977. Interfaces of the Word. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
_ _ . 1981. Fightingfor Life: Contest, Sexuality, and Consciousness. Ithaca: Cornell
University Press.
_ _ . 1986. "Text as Interpretation: Mark and After." In Foley 1986, 147-69.
Opland, J. 1980. "From Horseback to Monastic Cell: The Impact on English
Literature of the Introduction of Writing. " In Old English Literature in Context.
Ed. J. Niles. Cambridge: D. S. Brewer.
Paraskevaides, H. A. 1984. The Use of Synonyms in Homeric Formulaic Diction.
Amsterdam: Hakkert.
Parks, Ward. 1986. "Flyting and ,Fighting: Pathways in the Realization of the
Epic Contest." Neophilologus 70, 292-306.
Parry, Adam. 1956. "The Language of Achilles." TAPA 87, 1-7.
_ _ . 1966. "Have We Homer's Iliad?" YCIS 20, 175-216. Repr. in Wright 1978,
pp. 1-27·
_ _ . 1972. "Language and Characterization in Homer." Harvard Studies in
Classical Philology 76, 1-22.
_ _ . 1981. Logos and Ergon in Thucydides. Repr. of Harvard Ph.D. diss., 1957,
with new intro. by D. Kagan. New York: Arno.
Parry, Anne Amory. 1971. "Homer as Artist." CQ 21, 1-15.
_ _ . 1973. Blameless Aegisthus: A Study of AMYMQN and Other Homeric Epi-
thets. Leiden: Brill.
Parry, Milman 1971. The Making of Homeric Verse: The Collected Papers ofMilman
Parry. Ed. A. Parry. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Pattison, R. 1982. The Politics of the Word from Homer to the Age of Rock. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Peabody, Berkley. 1975. The Winged Word: A Study in the Technique of Ancient
Greek Oral Composition. Albany: State University of New York Press.
Pearce, Roger. 1977. Literary Texts: The Application ofLinguistic Theory to Literary
Discourse. Birmingham: University of Birmingham.
Peradotto, John. 1979. "Originality and Intentionality." In Arktouros. Ed. G.
Bowersock et aI., pp. 3-11. Berlin: de Gruyter.
Pickering, Wilbur. 1980. A Frameworkfor Discourse Analysis. Arlington: Summer
Institute of Linguistics and University of Texas.
Pike, K. 1981. Tagmemics, Discourse, and Verbal Art. Ann Arbor: Michigan Stud-
ies in the Humanities.
Pisani, V. 1981. "Homo Loquens e l'etimologia di aveQ(On:o~." In Studi Saler-
nitani in memoria di R. Cantarella. Ed. I. Gallo, pp. 515-17. Salerno: Laveglia.
Plattner, S., and E. Bruner, ed. 1984. Text, Play and Story: The Construction and
Reconstruction of Self and Society. Washington, D.C.: American Ethnological
Society.
Bibliography 253
Plett, Heinrich. 1985. "Rhetoric." In van Dijk 1985, pp. 59- 84.
Pratt, M. L. 1977. Toward a Speech Act Theory ofLiterary Discourse. Bloomington:
Indiana University Press.
Propp, Vladimir. 1984. Theory and History of Folklore. Trans. A. Y. Martin and
R. P. Martin. Ed. and notes by A. Liberman. Minneapolis: University of
Minnesota Press.
Pucci, Pietro. 1987. Odysseus Polutropos: Intertextual Readings in the Odyssey and the
Iliad. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Race, William. 1982. The Classical Priamelftom Homer to Boethius. Leiden: Brill.
Ramersdorfer, H. 1981. Singuliire lterata der Ilias. Konigstein/Ts.: Hain.
Randall, Frederick P. 1978. "Studies of the Repetition of Word and Image in the
Iliad." Ph.D. diss., Princeton University.
Read, Malcolm. 1983. "Of Words and Deeds: A Study of the Role of Language
in the Poema de Mio Cid." In The Birth and Death ofLanguage, pp. 1-21. Madrid:
J. Porrua Turanzas.
Redfield, James. 1975. Nature and Culture in the Iliad. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
Reeve, M. D. 1973. "The Language of Achilles." CQ n.s. 23, 193-95·
Reichl, K. 1985. "Oral Tradition and Performance of the Uzbek and Karakalpak
Epic Singers." In Heissig 1985, pp. 613-f3.
Reisman, K. 1974. "Contrapuntal Conversations in an Antiguan Village." In
Bauman and Sherzer 1974, pp. II 0-24.
Renoir, Alain. 1986. "Oral-Formulaic Rhetoric and the Interpretation of Texts. "
In Foley 1986, pp. 103-35.
Rimmon-Kenan, Shlomith. 1983. Narrative Fiction: Contemporary Poetics. Lon-
don: Methuen.
Risch, E. 1985. "Homerisch EW€:1tW, Lakonisch E<j>Eve:n;ovn, und die alte Erzahl-
prosa." ZeitschriJt for Papyrologie und Epigraphik 60, 1-9·
_ _ . 1987. "Die altesten Zeugnisse fUr KA€O~ U<j>8L"tOV." ZeitschriJt for Ver-
gleichende Sprachforschung 100, I-I!.
Roemer, A. 1914. Homerische AuJsiitze. Leipzig: Teubner.
Rosaldo, M. 1982. "The Things We Do with Words: Ilongot Speech-Acts and
Speech-Act Theory in Philosophy." Language in Society II, 20 3-37.
Rosenmeyer, T. G. 1965. "The Formula in Early Greek Poetry." Arion 4, 295-
3 I 1.
RosIer, W. 1980. Polis und Tragodie. Konstanz: Universitatsverlag Konstanz.
Rosmarin, A. 1985. The Power of Genre. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota
Press.
Rosher, Judith. 1976. "The Speech of Phoenix: Iliad 9.434-605." Phoenix 30 ,
3 14-3 2 7.
Russell, D. A. 1981. Criticism in Antiquity. Berkeley: University of California
Press.
Russo, Joseph. 1963. "A Closer Look at Homeric Formulas." TAPA 94, pp.
235-47·
_ _ . 1968. "Homer against His Tradition." Arion 7, 275-95·
254 Bibliography
Iliad Book 2
Book I IO I9 I
25 22 and I14 26-27 49
33 23 IOI-9 86
65-67 40 I88-89 23
74- 83 40 I98-20I 23
93-96 40 2I2- I4 I7
I3 I -47 II5 225-42 II2
20I-5 32 245-47 I09
207-9 49 335 37
2I6-I8 I98 36I I04
220-2I 23 386 II9
245-46 82 433 37
254-84 IOI 4 88-9 2 224
259-74 80 79 6-97 III
273 I04
27 8-79 97 Book 3
287-89 207 38-62 75
29 I -9 2 II8 39-55 I35
295-96 20 7 I50-5I III
326 22 I66-80 88
363 2IO 2I2-I7 IS
379 22 2I2-23 95
387-88 22 2I4-I5 IIO
388-4 I2 I4I-42 22I-22 I7
4I9- 2O 26 398-99 20
426 - 27 208 459- 60 II8
545 57
549 I9 In73 Book 4
555 58 40-42 I95
57 I 37 286 II4
582-83 2I 320 I03
257
Index Locorum
208-10 38 28 5-87 48
212 38 286 19
234 39 44 1-45 83
Book 15 Book 22
45-46 192 107 138
202-4 42 126-28 138
28 3- 85 37 and 68 25 0-5 1 84
557-5 8 135 n86 268-69 199
281 135
Book 16 45 1 16n51
33-35 62 454 16
56-59 216 482 211n5
200-201 72
20 3-6 142 Book 23
236 39 6-9 140
433-35 56 and 178 244 2II n5
538-40 80 306-7 108
63 I 200 471-84 76
829 33 478-79 201
859 133n83 544-46 188
549-52 188nII
Book 17 791-9 6 74
142- 68 214
695 16n51 Book 24
107 58
Book 18 109- 10 59
74 210 200 87
316- 18 36 518-5 1 34
324 28 57 1 23
426- 27 190 744 35 and 38
444-45 216 762 -75 87
Book 19 Odyssey
23- 27 33 Book I
67-68 199 367 37
81-82 II7
107 II7 Book 2
121 18 15 37
146-53 80 188-89 23
149-50 200
216-20 97 Book 15
242 28 166 37
Book 20 Book 16
203-4 16 345 37
24 6-5 0 17
356-57 140 Book 23
449-54 34 300-3 01 39 n8 9
Book 21 Hesiod:
92-96 17 8 Theogony
182-91 86 27-28 105
General Index
261
General Index
.. -.--
._ _.--" .. S B 0 Iff LC H ! US p
~ --
.... ..... .
SEYJ!.O DE ....................... .' 0R
"_ ~
-;QUiSlyAO . ·c;d~/··iLc; ,~ ,()Q_
VAL
'j) ok
tau-~~..... I~
~~~~·~~~y·/~:ff;;;OOJ·~:~~·~~~L. j
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Martin, Richard P.
The language of heroes ; speech and performance in the Iliad / Richard P.
Martin.
p. cm -(Myth and poetics)
Bibliography; p.
Includes index.
ISBN 0-8014-2353-8 (alk. paper)
1. Homer. Iliad. 2. Homer-Language. 3. Heroes in literature. 4.
Speech in literature. 5. Performance in literature. 6. Achilles (Greek
mythology) in literature. I. Title. II. Series.
PA4037.M335 1989 883'.ol-dc20 89-42889
SPEECH AND .
PERfORMANCE IN
TME ILIAD'
[I'