No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 07 September 2009
Priam has arrived at Achilles' hut. He has taken Achilles unawares. He has clasped his knees, he has kissed his hands. He has made his twofold plea: he has appealed for compassion in Peleus' name and, taking his cue from Achilles' sympathetic response, he has requested the ransom of Hector. It is the climax of the Iliad. We await Achilles' words, we await the response which has been the focus of the enormous expansion and elaboration of Book 24: the preparation for the journey, the journey, the meeting with Hermes, Priam's remarkable arrival at Achilles' hut, his painfully slow but deliberate approach to the single reason for his mission, to his request for the return of Hector's corpse. It has been the point to which the course of the Iliad has been implicitly directed since Achilles first learned of the death of Patroclus: his bitterness and his continuing obsession with Patroclus have found expression in the harsh negatives of his response first to Lycaon, then to Hector. That harshness has been translated into action, too: into the cruel rhythm of Achilles' ἀριστεία and his repeated mutilation of Hector's corpse.
1. We see the harsh side of Achilles' nature at Il. 21.99–113; 22.345–54, 395–404; 24.14–18.
2. Howald, E., Der Dichter der Ilias (Erlenbach-Zürich, 1946), p. 113, and see below, n. 20Google Scholar.
3. Muhll, P. Von der, Kritisches Hypomnema zur Ilias (Basel, 1952), pp. 383–4Google Scholar.
4. Leaf, W. (ed.), The Iliad (Amsterdam, 2nd ed. 1960), 2, p. 577Google Scholar.
5. Holoka, J. P., TAPA 113 (1983), 15Google Scholar.
6. The relationship is largely logical, as one action will often presuppose another (cf. an arming scene); but time and usage – the tradition – will play their role in strengthening the bonds between one element and another. Nagler, M., Spontaneity and Tradition (Berkeley, 1974), pp. 81–82Google Scholar, defines a theme thus: ‘an inherited pre-verbal Gestalt for the spontaneous generation of a “family” of meaningful details’.
7. Some thematic patterns, it is true, may be realized at each repetition by the same, or almost the same, phrases. Others, however, may be expressed differently at each repetition. Cf. Lord, A., The Singer of Tales (Cambridge, Mass., 1960), p. 69Google Scholar.
8. Cf. Whitman, C., Homer and the Heroic Tradition (Cambridge, Mass., 1958), p. 250CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
9. For discussion of the role of the audience of Homeric epic, see Bassett, S., The Poetry of Homer (Berkeley, 1938), pp. 130–7Google Scholar; Scott, W., TAPA 102 (1971), 550Google Scholar.
10. However, current research into the modern literary narrative affirms the existence of a sender-text-audience relationship within the written mode, although it will differ from that of the oral mode. In literature the relationship is indirect, not face to face: yet the author, as he composes, envisages a specific type of potential reader, and adjusts his discourse to that image. The reader's response to the discourse, and his degree of receptivity, is modified by his own concept of the author and his ‘authority’, and by his perception of the author's stance. That is, the competent reader's interpretation of the message, and his response, is dependent on his social, moral, and intellectual conditioning and his familiarity with the conventions which underpin the writing and reading of a literary text. For a discussion of author-audience dynamics see Eco, U., Lector infdbula: la cooperazione interpretativa nei testi narrativi (Milan, 1979), pp. 53–66Google Scholar. For a digest of current literature on this topic, see, for example, Lanser, S., The Narrative Act: point of view in prose fiction (Princeton, 1981), pp. 64–148Google Scholar.
11. The Achilles of 1.149–71, 223–44; of 9.308–429, 644–55; the Achilles of the closing books of the Iliad, from the arming scene of 19.364, onwards. We know of a milder Achilles from times past, before the beginning of the Iliad, 6.425–7, and, within the narrative, in his relations with Patroclus, cf. 16.1–100.
12. Cf. 1.149–71, 225–44; 9.308–429, 644–55. The resentment flares up again at 16.52–60 and, briefly, at 19.65–68.
13. At 22.205–7. Cf. his warning to Patroclus at 16.87–90.
14. At 22.14–20. It is this well-attested concern of Achilles for his κῦδος which leads me to disagree with Holoka's interpretation of Achilles' resentment (op. cit., 15, and see above, p. 12). I cannot accept that the ransom gifts, and their objective value, were of no importance to Achilles, and that, as a consequence, Achilles should resent Priam's mention of the ransom. For the fundamental principle which underlies the heroic society of the Iliad is that of reciprocity. In the exchange of goods and services the past is laid to rest; honour is satisfied. Through the ransom exchange Priam will recover the body of his son, and Achilles will necessarily receive proper, equivalent compensation. Furthermore, the material value of the ransom bears a triple significance. It is emblematic of the donor, the once prosperous Priam; it is a measure of the value of Hector to his father; it honours the recipient, Achilles, and thereby reinforces his status. Here lies the importance of the ransom to Achilles; his honour will not be diminished as he gives up his ‘prize’, but enhanced.
15. Cf. Apollo's words at 24.46–49.
16. The request of Priam, 24.553–8, is clearly courteous. Although he refuses Achilles' hospitality (24.553), his refusal reflects neither upon his host nor upon his invitation. In parallel scenes elsewhere in the Iliad we find that Hector refuses first his mother's and then Helen's offer of hospitality, arguing his duty to return to battle (6.264, 360); that Patroclus resists Nestor's invitation, because Achilles expects his prompt return (11.648). Another parallel, similar in emotional overtones, is that of Achilles, grieving for Patroclus. On two occasions he refuses to accept physical comforts before he has fulfilled his responsibilities towards his dead friend (19.306–7; 23.43–47). The composition of Priam's refusal of hospitality is the same as that of the responses above: that is, it is an expression of a thematic structure. And, from an examination of the structural parallels and their contexts we can observe that, underlying them, there is no hint of anger, or of discourtesy; rather, courtesy is the keynote in this thematic structure which expresses not only refusal, but also a careful explanation of the grounds for that refusal – in each case preoccupation with a matter of personal concern. Thus I cannot agree with Martinazzoli, F., Atene e Roma 44 (1942), 14Google Scholar, who speaks of‘… il tono secco e quasi iracondo della risposta di Priamo’. Therefore I suggest that Achilles' anger of 24.559–70 stems more from the emotional turmoil engendered, first, by the entire encounter and, second, by this critical moment, rather than, if at all, from external provocation in the form of Priam and in his words.
17. Compare his gravity and diplomacy at 24.64–119 with the comedy of his seduction by Hera, 14.300–51.
18. One aspect of Aphrodite is encapsulated in the epithet of 5.375 and 14.211, and in the imputation of frivolous pursuits at 5.421–5. Compare this with her terrible threat at 3.413–7. Hera can be malicious (for example, her teasing at 5.421–5) and splendid (for example, 5.711–92).
19. Agamemnon's petulance and obstinacy colour the action of Book 1: cf. 1.26–32, 105–20, 130–9, 181–7. Contrast with this his kingly manner of Book 4, to which the singer makes specific reference, 4.223–5. The Hector of 6.360–493 stands in contrast with the Hector of 16.827–41. Priam's considerate treatment of Helen, 3.161–244, may be set against his abrupt burst of anger at 24.237–64. Diomedes' words to Agamemnon at 9.37–39 crystallize the singer's concept of the polarity within the individual temperament.
20. Cf. Howald, , op. cit., p. 113Google Scholar: ‘Dass unsere Angstlichkeit nicht grundlos war, zeigt die ungeduldige Antwort Achills’.
21. The same formula lends force to Achilles' words at 1.148; 22.260, 344. It is used to reflect the anger or resentment of others, too: of Diomedes at 4.411; 5.251; 10.446; of Zeus at 5.888. For a thorough study of the expression, see J. P. Holoka, op. cit.
22. The statement of intent to ransom finds a counterpart in Agamemnon's refusal, 1.29–31. The statement of intent may be compared with Priam's statement at 24.194–5, 198–9: description of the undertaking, 24.561, cf. 24.195–6, statement of intent, 24.560, cf. 24.198–9, reason, 24.561–2, cf. 24.194–5. An Odyssean parallel may be observed at Od. 2.359, 360, 372.
23. Sheppard, J. T., for example, The Pattern of the Iliad (London, 1922), pp. 204–10Google Scholar, draws on the parallel supplications of Chryses and Priam to underpin his interpretation of ‘the poet's vision of life’. Myres, J., too, JHS 52 (1932), 294CrossRefGoogle Scholar, sees Chryses' supplication as the balancing scene against which the Priam-scene will be set. In that the symmetrical position of the scenes urges us to contrast the context, outcome, and, thus, the implications of each, his point is valid. M. Edwards, at the conclusion of his thematic study of Iliad 1, can only invite the reader to compare the thematic expression of the supplications of Chryses and Priam: to decide ‘whether the ransoming scene at the end of the poem gains anything in impact by comparison with its counterpart at the beginning’ (HSCP 84 (1980), 28)Google Scholar.
24. Cf. Hainsworth, J., JHS 90 (1970), 96–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
25. At 1.26–32 and 3.414–7, respectively.
26. Patroclus' speech, 16.844ff., and Hector's, 22.356ff., will be further analysed below, n. 27.
27. Not only Patroclus and Hector, but Ajax, too, expresses his indignation in this way: at 17.629ff. he perceives Zeus' support of the Trojans. Achilles' recognition of the true circumstances of Priam's visit is expressed through the element refusal to be deceived, 24.563, cf. 16.844–6; 17.629–30; 22.356. The account of the reasons often includes an assertion of divine assistance, 24.564, cf. 16.844–6; 17.631–3. At 22.357 we hear not an assertion of divine assistance but an admission of the opponent's extraordinary resilience. At 24.565–7 the reasons offered refer to the dangerous nature of the journey, and the obstacles on the way (cf. 24.453–7). Patroclus at 16.849–50, Ajax at 17.631–3, and Odysseus at Od. 23.187–9 likewise recount recent events in order to prove divine assistance.
28. At 24.364–5, 368–9.
29. At 24.568, cf. 1.26–27; 3.414.
30. At 24.569, cf. 1.32. At 3.415–7 the threat of Aphrodite, a goddess, is much more terrible and more specific, as are the threats, the predictions, of the dying Patroclus and of Hector, 16.851–4; 22.358–60.
31. At 24.570, cf. 1.28.
32. The prevailing force is expressed at 16.844–50; 22.357.
33. At 24.469–70; for a similar introduction to the encounter on the battlefield, see 5.494–5; 12.80–81.
34. Even in his first moments of success Priam is still afraid, 24.571. Even in defeat Achilles retains the active role, 24.572. The repeated reversal of the expected and the unexpected, in the singer's insistence on the courage and will of the frail old king, has been a continual source of tension and pathos in Book 24.