adkins, a. w. h._art, beliefs, and values in the later books of the iliad_cph, 70, 4_1975_239-254

8/9/2019 Adkins, A. W. H._art, Beliefs, And Values in the Later Books of the Iliad_CPh, 70, 4_1975_239-254

1/17

Art, Beliefs, and Values in the Later Books of the IliadAuthor(s): A. W. H. AdkinsSource: Classical Philology, Vol. 70, No. 4 (Oct., 1975), pp. 239-254Published by: The University of Chicago PressStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/268228 .Accessed: 21/02/2015 18:56

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

The University of Chicago Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access toClassical Philology.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 1 32.248.9.8 on Sat, 21 Feb 201 5 18:56:50 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ucpresshttp://www.jstor.org/stable/268228?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/268228?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ucpress


2/17

CL SSIC L PHILOLOGY

VOLUME LXX, NUMBER 4

October 975

ART, BELIEFS, AND VALUES IN THE LATER BOOKS OF THE ILIAD

A. W. H. ADKINS

IN HIS preface to The Story of the"Iliad," 1 Professor E. T. Owen says,2"With the Homeric controvetsy, then,

this book has nothing to do. No-one deniesthat the Iliad we possess, in whatevercircumstances and from whatever sourcesit was put together, was designed to betaken as a single poem, as a continuousstory. It is this poem only that I am talkingabout, not its history nor its authorship,but itself, and with a view, not to estab-lishing, but to accounting for, its artistic

integrity." Professor Owen, as has beenwidely recognized, made a notable contri-bution to demonstrating that3 "wheremany of the searchers for the 'original'poem run off the rails aesthetically is inassuming that by showing that a passageis unnecessary to the intelligibility of thestory they have shown that it is notnecessary in the poem" and that "to sayit is not necessary to the intelligibility ofthe story is not the same as saying it is notnecessary artistically." Other scholars4

1. E. T. Owen, The Story of the "Iliad" as told in the "Iliad"(Toronto, 1946).

2. P. vii.3. P. 201.4. See, for example, W. Arend, Die typischen Szenen bei

Homer (Berlin, 1933); J. I. Armstrong, "The Arming Motifin the Iliad," AJP, LXXIX (1958), 337-54; idem, "TheMarriage Song-Odyssey 23," TAPA, LXXXIX (1958),38-43; A. A. Berman, "The Transmigrations of Form:Recurrent Patterns of Imagination in the Odyssey and the

Aeneid," HSCP, LXV (1961), 348-51; S. S. Bertmann, "AStudy of Analogy and Contrast as Elements of SymmetricalDesign in the Structure of the Odyssey" (Diss. Columbia,1965); C. R. Beye, "The Catalogue as a Device of Composi-

have studied narrative and other devicesfound in the Iliad-and Odyssey-whichare characteristically associated with oralcomposition: we know nowadays a greatdeal more about, and pay more attentionto, the nature of the Iliad as a poem thanwas once the case.

In this paper I wish to adopt a stancesimilar to that of Professor Owen and,while raising none of the traditionalquestions related to the composition orassembly of the Homeric poems (a number

of which, in my own opinion, MilmanParry demonstrated to be in principleincapable of being answered), to entertainsimply the hypothesis that passages whichappear at a particular point in the exposi-tion of our Iliad were placed there forsome reason which appeared good to theperson who placed them there; and I shallendeavor, with reference to a number ofpassages which seem to me to be linkedand to be of importance to the story, tosuggest what that reason may have been in

tion in the Iliad," HSCP, LXV (1961), 351-53; J. B. Hains-worth, "The Criticism of an Oral Homer," JHS, XC (1970),90-98; J. A. Notopoulos, "Parataxis in Homer: A NewApproach to Homeric Literary Criticism," TAPA, LXXX(1949), 1-23; idem, "Continuity and Interconnexion inHomeric Oral Composition," TAPA, LXXXII (1951),81-101; M. N. Nagler, "Formula and Motif in the HomericEpics: Prolegomena to an Aesthetics of Oral Poetry" (Diss.University of California Berkeley, 1966); H. Patzer, Dichter-ische Kunst und poetische Handwerk im homerischen Epos

(Frankfurt, 1972); W. J. Verdenius, "L'association des ideescomme principe de composition dans Homere, Hesiode,Theognis," REG, LXXII (1960), 345-61.

239

This content downloaded from 1 32.248.9.8 on Sat, 21 Feb 2015 18:56:50 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


3/17

240 A. W. H. ADKINS

their case. In so doing I shall advance andattempt to justify the claim that someaesthetic judgments of passages in theIliad-and, I would argue, of other Greek

works of literature too-have in the pastbeen inappropriately blinkered by the pre-suppositions of our own culture. Scholarshave assumed that what seems irrelevantor unimportant to us must have at alltimes appeared irrelevant or unimportant,and therefore aesthetically crass and offen-sive: an assumption which it is dangerousto make about a work composed in asociety so remote from us in space andtime as that in which the Homeric poemswere composed. In their edition of theIliad Leaf and Bayfield were making justsuch an assumption when they wrote :5"For some reason which we do not know,the poet of this part has wished to inter-weave into the Iliad legends which wereevidently current in his time about thesway in the Troad of some descendants of

the family of Aineias. To this end he hassubordinated all considerations of literaryappropriateness." That is to say, literaryappropriateness s literary appropriatenessat all times and the world over; the poet ofthe "original Iliad" must have known this;he was a genius: therefore we may rejectas not his handiwork all parts of the poemwhich do not appear to us to be appropriatein terms of our aesthetic. Leaf and Bay-field's comment refers to Iliad 20, moreespecially to 156-352. On this passageMonro takes a similar view,6 though herecognizes the artistic contribution ofBooks 20 and 21 in general. The reasonwhy Achilles7 iS "drawn away into aslaughter of Trojan rank and file, withincidents that occupy two books" is that"the poet has to fill his canvas. The death

of Hector must not stand by itself in the5. W. Leaf and M. A. Bayfield (eds.), The "Iliad" of Homer,

II (London, 1898), 482.6. D. B. Monro (ed.), "Iliad" XIII-XXIV4 (Oxford, 1897),

366.

picture, but form the climax of the lastand greatest days of the battle." Owen8agrees with Monro's general account, butattempts to rebut his criticism of the fight

between Achilles and Aeneas. He con-cedes,9 "But after this thunderous intro-duction the tone changes. It flattens downto the slow-moving, comparatively spirit-less account of Achilles' meeting withAeneas. The faults of this incident areplain to see. It is in itself one of the leasteffective fights in the Iliad, and it standsout particularly glaringly here because theaction has been moving at such hightension. Also, a futile fight would seemto be exactly the thing not to give Achillesat this time; it seems to slow him up, toblunt the keen edge of his wrath, and so toblunt the keenness of our expectations. Iflegend forbade Achilles to kill Aeneas,why make him meet Aeneas at all ?"

Owen in fact offers a subtle and sensitiveanalysis of the reasons, as he sees them,

linking Achilles' fight here with Diomedes'fight in Iliad 5; but he has this to say of213-241:10 "Aeneas's extended sketch ofhis ancestry . .. should not surprise us byits apparent ineptitude at such a moment:we have had this sort of thing before; it isindeed a duller version of Glaucus'saddress to Diomedes in Book VI. Suchspeeches before a fight are a literarydevelopment of the taunts which apparentlywere really uttered in this kind of fighting.And though it may seem to us surprisingthat the relation of Aeneas's ancestryshould have been regarded as interestingeither by the poet or by his audience, it isa fact that early story everywhere showsthat there was a deep interest in geneal-ogies."

This judgment is not fettered by the

presuppositions of our own culture: Owen7. Ibid., p. 365.8. Op. cit., pp. 199 ff.9. Ibid., p. 203.10. Ibid., p. 205.




4/17

ART, BELIEFS, AND VALUES IN THE LATER BOOKS OF THE "ILIAD" 241

acknowledges that different societies havedifferent nterests, and that these differencesaffect aesthetic preferences; but it is rathera negative judgment nevertheless. My

first objective in this paper is to demon-strate that this extended sketch of Aeneas'ancestry has great relevance to the mostimportant events of the later books of theIliad, when it is considered in the light ofthe attitudes, values, and beliefs of theoriginal audience; and that indeed thechoice of a hero with Aeneas' particularattributes was necessary. I shall thenendeavor to link this passage with otherpassages in subsequent books, in order todemonstrate the existence of an importanttheme in the latter part of the Iliad.

In the earlier part of Book 20, Apollourges Aeneas to face Achilles in battle. Inthe voice of Lycaon, Priam's son, he tauntshim (83 ff.), asking him what has becomeof the apeilaill that he uttered, saying thathe would fight against Achilles. Aeneas

replies (87 ff.) that he is unwilling, sinceAchilles almost killed him on a previousoccasion. Achilles has the help of Athena,so that (97 ff.) "it is not possible for a manto fight against Achilles; for there is alwaysone of the gods with him, warding offdestruction from him." Athena preventsTrojan warriors from harming Achillesand at the same time she sees to it that hismissiles strike home-as they did, saysAeneas, even without divine help. Never-theless, if the god made the chances even,Achilles would not win easily.

Apollo replies (104 f.) with a speechwhich is worth quoting in full:

epts, sam ayE Kat OuV 9eoZ0ttycvs+wtvEVXEO Kal fcE as ebaut JLOS KOVp77S A0bpOIT7)S

11. For apeilai, see my "Threatening, Abusing and Feeling

Angry in the Homeric Poems," JHS, LXXXIX (1969),10 ff.12. For euchesthai, see my "'EzxoAat, ezxcoA?5 and EiXos- in

Homer," CQ, N.S. XIX (1969), 20-33.13. "Men say" does not cast doubt on Aeneas' parentage:

what men say is the only means by which the truth may be

EKyEya/lEV, KElVOS Se XEPELOVoS EK OEov ECTLv

7) ,AEv yap JltoS E'aO' v 8' e'A aoto yEpovros.aAA taVS OEpE XaAKOV aTELpEa, /LI8E asE 7Tr7rav

AEvyaAEoLS E7TEEaaLv a7ToTpETTETrCI Kat apEL-7.

Aeneas should "pray" (euchesthai)12 tothe gods himself. Men say13 that he isthe son of Aphrodite, daughter of Zeus,while Achilles is the son of an inferiordeity:14 Aphrodite is the daughter of Zeus,Thetis the daughter of the old man of thesea. So let Aeneas fight boldly againstAchilles.

Apollo then breathes might into Aeneas(110 ff.); and now Hera becomes alarmed,

and urges Poseidon and Athena either thatthey should go down and drive Apolloaway, or that one of them should stand ina similar manner by Achilles, and give himstrength (121 ff.),

SE'o ' a '- ' itv OW vat a'-o8EvE'C , wva Etl O UlV klAEOVUJlV aPLUTOl

&OaVaTCOV, ot 8 avT aVE/COALoL Ol TO 7TapOS 7TEpTpCOat'V aq,v'ovCtv 7ToA,lOV Kat 8I7lOTI7Ta.

They should see to it that Achilles realizesthat the most agathoi of the gods philein15him, whereas the gods who support theTrojans are worthless by comparison. Ifthe gods themselves do not send Achilles amessage, he may be terrified if he comesface to face with Apollo or any god whomeets him in a hostile manner.

Poseidon in reply recommends that theyshould not interfere in the battle unless

Ares or Apollo begins the fight, or attemptsto restrain Achilles; and both groups ofdeities retire to hills and watch the fighting.Nevertheless, two points have been made:Aeneas' divine parentage is better thanthat of Achilles, and Achilles is supported-or Hera asserts that he is-by strongerdeities.

transmitted in a non-literate society. See my "Truth, Kosmos

and Arete in the Homeric Poems," CQ, N.S. XXII (1972),5-18.14. To be the child of a deity gives one an advantage in

prayer. See " Eixoiam" (n. 12), p. 23.15. For philein, see my " 'Friendship' and 'Self-Sufficiency'

in Homer and Aristotle," CQ, N.S. XIII (1963), 30 ff.




5/17

242 A. W. H. ADKINS

How does the modern reader respond tothis? Probably hardly at all: like theeditors of the Iliad, he sees little point inthe lines. Yet Homer has not finished with

the subject: he returns to it even in Book20.Achilles now taunts Aeneas, who has

advanced to meet him. He recalls theprevious occasion when Aeneas fled, andsays that, though Zeus and other godsprotected Aeneas then, Zeus will not helphim now. Aeneas, emboldened, scornsAchilles' attempt to terrify him with merewords as if he were a child, and adds thateach knows the other's genealogy, thoughthey have never met before (206 ff.):Achilles is the son of "blameless" Peleusand Thetis, whereas he is the son ofAnchises and Aphrodite. The mind returnsto Apollo's heartening words: Aeneas isclaiming to be sprung from a more power-ful deity than is Achilles. But Aeneas nowenumerates his paternal genealogy too,

which also derives from Zeus, though at amuch greater distance: Zeus-Dardanus-Erichthonius Tros -Assaracus-Capys-An-chises-Aeneas.16 Aeneas then says (241 ff.),

cc t a a vTaVT7)S TOl YEVE7)s3 TE Kal aqt/aTOS EVXOuLaL Etvac.

ZEvs S' apE-r77v aVApEUclv O'kEbAAELE tVVwel TE,

o7T7TW3 KEV EOEq7a7vU o yap KapT-LUoS a7TravTWv.

He has, at least implicitly, reiterated theclaim, expressed by Apollo earlier, that he

is of better descent than Achilles; but heimmediately adds that Zeus can increaseand diminish arete (and hence grantvictory and defeat) as he chooses. He doesnot assume that superior lineage willguarantee victory.

Achilles and Aeneas now fight (259 ff.).Aeneas hits Achilles' shield with a spear,and Achilles is afraid. "Fool that he was,"

16. The account indicates that Anchises and Priam have acommon great-grandfather (Tros), so that the words may inpart be a reply to Achilles' disparaging words (181 ff.); butAeneas does not emphasize this point. His primary concernis to demonstrate his descent from Zeus.

17. For the relationship of Poseidon's reasons to Greek

says Homer, since Achilles' armor wasmade by a god. Achilles then hits Aeneas'shield (273 ff.), with much more success;and as Achilles rushes forward, drawing

his sword, Aeneas picks up a rock withwhich to repel him. Aeneas would havebeen killed, we are told, had Poseidon notnoticed. He proposes that the three (Hera,Athena, and himself) should save Aeneas.17Hera and Athena refuse to help Poseidon,but make no attempt to prevent him.Accordingly, Poseidon pours mist overAchilles' eyes, and enables Aeneas to makea great leap, saying to him (332 ff.):

"Alvea, TlSga (wJSiE iELv aTEovTa KEAEVEL

aVTta 177AE'tLVOs V7TEpOv'Loto /,aXEa6at,

os aEv^ a,La KpELaaLvV Kat obATEpos. aOavaTotatv;

aAA' aVaXwp7aa), OTE KEV aV/fA 77Uaea avT7iZ,

,L7 Kat Vi7rEp p-oZpav 8o4,ov 'AiSos, ELcaakL'K7)at.* 1 % t 3n n \aVTapET ' AXLAE`S1OavaToV Kat 7TOTHlOV Emam

Oapa7)aaSg 877 E'7TTEta /IeTa 7Tpy'TotaU /ItaxEUOatV" % t t ' -v Ao AX tZv E Eva

let.oV ,Iev yap TlS. a aAAoS XaL6V eCevapL eL.

"Achilles is stronger and more philos tothe gods. Retreat, lest you be killed,

though it is not your moira to be killed(vWrEp oZpav).18 But when Achilles is dead,fight in the forefront: no other Greek willkill you."

Poseidon then dispels the cloud aboutAchilles, who sees that Aeneas has escapedand concludes 347 f.), "3 ,a KMc ACVEtaS-/Aog a'Oavarotot GEOLOLV / 7EV arap Ltv

9'frV 4a% acrWs- EvxETraarOat. Aeneas

turns out to have been philosto the

immortal gods, for they are prepared tophilein him.19 He is not, however, it seems,so philos to them as Achilles, despite hissuperior lineage: a question which willbecome relevant again later.)

Achilles now perforce, Aeneas havingescaped, attacks other Trojans. Hectormakes a brief appearance (366 ff.), and

beliefs concerning the motives of their deities, see my"Homeric Gods and the Values of Homeric Society," JHS,XCII (1972), passim.

18. One may be killed 5vsip t,oipav. See my Merit andResponsibility (Oxford, 1960), pp. 17 ff. (henceforth MR).

19. For this, see "Homeric Gods" (n. 17), pp. 11 ff.




6/17


utters threatening words, but retreats onApollo's advice. Later, however (419 ff.),when Achilles has killed his brother Poly-dorus, Hector advances boldly, in reply to

Achilles' threats speaks three lines (431-33)already used by Aeneas (200-202), andcontinues:'otSa 8' OTt av puv 'aOAo', E'7SC8' aE'OEv ToAv XELpWv.aM) TOL /LEV TalYTa OcEV Elv yovvaat KELTal,

w~~ ~ ~~~,1 % V1' Awilat8at KE ae XelpOTEPOS 7TEp C'JV a7To Ovpv EWXLSovp' flaA 'v, E&T Kal oV flEAOs Oov 7TcapoL0Ev"

[434-37].

Achilles is more agathos than he, Hector, is.The word reminds us that Achilles is thebetter fighter; but to be agathos is also tobe of good birth, to be more agathos to beof better birth. The claims of birth havea conspicuous role to play later in the poemwhere the status of Hector and Achilles isconcerned; and there may well be allusionto them here.

Hector then hurls a spear at Achilles(438); but Athena blows it back, and it lies

at Hector's feet. His spear may have asharp point, as he has just said (437); butif the gods prevent it from reaching itstarget, it is useless. Achilles attacks, butApollo hides Hector in a mist. At thisAchilles is angry, and says (449 ff.),

"e' av' Vvv 9fVyESI OavaaTov, KVOV- X TE TOl ayxL

jA0E KaKOV V^V av'T a" EpvaaTo OlPofOS ATro'AAAv,p pCEAAELs, vXEaOaL Ct)V ES SOV7TOV aKOVTWV.

7' O'v a" seavvWO YEKatc VaTEpOv avTl,OA7aas,

EL 7TOV TLS Kat ClOL7E OECW)V TtlTaPPo0OS' aTl.

Phoebus Apollo has saved Hector thistime: no doubt Hector "prays" (euches-thai) to him before battle. But Achilles willkill Hector on a later occasion, if there isa god who is on his side. For the moment,Achilles attacks other Trojans.

Leaf and Bayfield, as we have seen, holdthat the first part of this book (which they

in fact divide into two, 1-74 and 75-352) ismarked by "literary inappropriateness";but from 353 onward is, they claim, partof the original "wrath-poem." Monro

values the first part of the book rathermore highly, regarding it as a meanswhereby the poet fills his canvas, buildingup to the climax of the fight between

Achilles and Hector. (He holds that "theremainder of this book, at least from 381,satisfies every requirement of epic art.")Owen, despite his defense of the book, canspeak of the "spiritless" meeting betweenAchilles and Aeneas, "a futile fight," andinquire why Aeneas should be portrayedas meeting Achilles if legend forbadeAchilles to kill him. Aeneas' excursus onhis ancestry, possessed as it is of "apparentineptitude at such a moment," he canexplain only as a result of "a deep interestin genealogies."

It is not my purpose here to defend theauthor of these lines on the ground onwhich he has been attacked, to attempt toshow that the fight is not really spiritlessat all; I wish to argue that the book has adifferent, and very powerful, interest, for

anyone holding early Greek values andbeliefs, and that there are certain motifsand ideas which bind the narrative ogether,and also link it with later books. (I shouldadd that it is not my purpose to constructa traditional "unitarian" argument on thisbasis: I am considering the poem here as afinished product.)

There is, I believe, an important reasonwhy Achilles must meet Aeneas, or some-one with lineage similar to that of Aeneas,even if legend forbade Achilles to kill him;and the reason lies in the lines quotedabove, which raise the question whetherAeneas can possibly defeat Achilles, whenAthena is both preventing anyone fromhitting Achilles and insuring that Achilles'missiles strike home. Anyone who readsIliad 20 reads these lines; but we find

difficulty in appreciating their force in asociety which actually believed in the godsconcerned, and was accustomed to fightingbattles hand-to-hand in not dissimilar




7/17

244 A. W. H. ADKINS

circumstances; for such lines are likely toaffect us in the same way as do passageslike the following:20The Fairy had provided King Giglio with a suitof armour, which was not only embroidered allover with jewels, and blinding to your eyes tolook at, but was waterproof, gun-proof andsword-proof, so that in the midst of the veryhottest battles His Majesty rode about as calmlyas if he had been a British Grenadier at Alma.Were I engaged in fighting for my country, Ishould like such a suit of armour as PrinceGiglio wore, but, you know, he was a Prince of afairy tale, and they always have these wonderfulthings ...Giglio meets and pursues the usurperPadella, catches him, and compels him toturn and fight.When he was fairly brought to bay, Padellaturned and dealt Prince Giglio a prodigious crackover the sconce with his battle-axe, a mostenormous weapon, which had cut down I don'tknow how many regiments in the course of theafternoon. But Law bless you though the blowfell right down upon His Majesty's helmet, itmade no more impression than if Padella had

struck him with a pat of butter: his battle-axecrumpled up in Padella's hand, and the royalGiglio laughed for very scorn at the impotentefforts of that atrocious usurper.

At the ill success of his blow the Crim Tartarmonarch was justly irritated. "If," says he toGiglio, "you ride a fairy horse, and wear fairyarmour, what on earth is the use of my hittingyou? I may as well give myself up at once. YourMajesty won't, I suppose, be so mean as tostrike a poor fellow who can't strike again."

The justice of Padella's remark struck themagnanimous Giglio. "Do you yield yourself aprisoner, Padella?" says he.

"Of course I do," says Padella.A frivolous work; but I have quoted it

to illustrate a point. We all know just howwe are intended to read this passage. Wedo not believe in fairies, nor in the possi-bility of magic armor; and we know thatThackeray and his readers did not believe

20. W. M. Thackeray, The Rose and the Ring: The Historyof Prince Giglio and Prince Bulbo, chap. xvii.

21. See "Homeric Gods" (n. 17), passim.22. E.g., the Spartan kings, and many aristocratic families,

such as the Eteobutadae at Athens. For the manner in which

in them either. The danger is that we shallread our Homer in a similar mood. Wedo not believe in Zeus, Hera, Apollo, andthe rest, and we may carelessly suppose

that no one else believed in them either.But Homeric men-both the characters inthe poems and the Greeks of the bards' dayand later-did believe in the existence ofsuch gods as these, and in their interven-tion in time both of war and of peace. Whenthey were fighting in battle and everythingwent wrong, while everything that theenemy attempted prospered, they werewont to ascribe the situation to the inter-vention of deity, and they ascribed to theirdeities a motivation based on arete, time,social status, and blood relationship,21analogous to the motivation of the humanagathos vis-a-vis his fellow men. They didnot find the behavior of such deitiesincredible, unworthy, shocking, or amus-ing: they had no other standard of divinebehavior with which to compare it. In

real life too, Greek gods were respectersof persons; and in real life too therewere those who traced their lineage froma deity.22 Furthermore, Greek gods de-manded sacrifice, and were believed tofavor most those who were able to offer themost expensive sacrifices.23 Accordingly, ina real-life situation a Greek might well beconcerned to know what could be expectedto happen if he fought against a man witha god in his ancestry, a man whose arete inany aspect of that complex notion wassuperior to his own, or a man who hadsacrificed to the gods more copiously thanhe himself could hope to do. For theGreek of the archaic period-and later-the question was not academic, and it didnot belong to the realms of fairy tale: hewould not have overlooked the passages I

different classes in society are mythologically allotted differentorigins, see my From the Many to the One (London, 1970),pp. 53 ff.

23. See, for example, MR, pp. 134 ff.




8/17


have discussed above, and they would nothave appeared irrelevant to him.

To return to the subject matter of thepoem: in Iliad 22 we are to have, and

the audience knows that we are to have, theclimactic action of the whole sequence, thecombat between Achilles, son of a goddess,and Hector, whose immediate parentage ishuman. In these circumstances, is thereany hope for Hector? The question isimportant to the Greek of this period; and,I suggest, in Book 20 the matter is discussedon a number of occasions, and a number ofanswers are suggested. (The definitiveanswer of the poem is offered in Iliad 24,as I shall argue below.) If I am correct,Book 20 offers not merely "preliminarybouts" to fill the poet's canvas and help toraise the tension: it also offers discussionsof a real problem of belief and values.

Let me recapitulate, and comment on,the discussions that have occurred. Theposition is evaluated first by Aeneas (97 ff.):

Achilles has the help of a goddess, Athena,and so can defeat Aeneas, who has not (andAchilles is a powerful and effective war-rior even unaided). Apollo replies thatAeneas too is the son of a goddess, andthat Achilles' mother is a goddess inferiorto Aeneas' mother, since Aphrodite is thedaughter of Zeus, whereas Thetis is merelythe daughter of the old man of the sea.

The consolation and encouragementhave a different basis from the basis ofAeneas' complaint. Aeneas believed thathe could not defeat Achilles becauseAthena was actually present on the battle-field helping him. Apollo does not replythat Aeneas can summon his mother todefeat Athena, a reply that would ofcourse be most implausible: Homeric manhas a low opinion of Aphrodite as a

warrior24 and it is also difficult to imagine24. SeeII.5. 311.25. See "Homeric Gods" (n. 17), pp. 11 ff.26. As will appear, were it Aeneas' moira to be killed now,

Thetis in this role). Apollo is claiming thatAeneas is descended from the major divinearistocracy, while Achilles is sprung fromthe minor. I have discussed the values of

such judgments elsewhere:25 the implica-tion in this passage is presumably thatAeneas, a socially superior descendant ofdeity, may reasonably hope that morepowerful deities will interest themselves inhis affairs. I repeat that I make no sugges-tion that this is a dogma: there are nodogmas in this area of Greek belief. It isone of several possible evaluations offeredby characters in this book.

At 121 ff., Hera becomes anxious forAchilles' safety, and insists that Poseidon,Athena, and herself should make it clearto him that the most agathoi (a word whichcommends both status and power) of thegods are on his side. This is not formally arejoinder to Apollo's words, since Hera didnot hear them; but the audience of the poemis aware of both, and can take the point.

Aeneas has heard only the words ofApollo / Lycaon, and has been heartenedby them: when he proclaims his genealogy(206 ff.), he should, on the basis of theargument of 104 ff., have the advantage.But being a mortal, with no knowledgeof what the gods in fact intend, he piouslyand prudently ascribes control of theeventual result to Zeus.

The question thus far remains open;but possibilities have been discussed. At332 if. Poseidon's statement that Achillesis KpE&TTrc than Aeneas and OAXrEposothe gods requires comment. KpE&TTWVserves as a comparative of agathos, whichcommends both prowess and high birth.Here prowess must be in the forefront ofthe mind: despite the fact that Aeneas is ofbetter birth, Achilles is more "dear,"

to the gods.26 Yet, even if Achilles isno amount of "dearness" should (not "could") save him. Seep. 250.




9/17

246 A. W. H. ADKINS

"dearer," Aeneas is "dear," and so escapes(347 f.). An analogous evaluation occursin Iliad 24, as we shall see.

When Hector arrives on the scene, he

concedes that Achilles is much moreesthlos than he (and this is true, in respectboth of his parentage and of his prowess);but he reflects that the more kakos can infact kill the more esthlos, that the godsdispose, and that they may not do so interms merely of the arete of the contestants.He is more sanguine than in Iliad 22; andthe effect of his entrance here is twofold.Leaf and Bayfield, who believe this passageto be part of the "original Iliad," thusevaluate it: "Hektor is brought before usfor a moment, in order to rouse ourexpectation of the final meeting; but thathas to be postponed for a while, that it mayserve as the climax of Achilles' revenge."This is true; 27 but Hector's words alsocontribute to the discussion of the attitudeof the gods to human combatants of

different status, as does Achilles' speechat 449 ff.-a discussion that has beensustained throughout the book. Whoeveroriginally composed the poetry that wenow find in Iliad 20, for whatever purposeit was originally composed, whether theparts were originally composed separatelyor together, however the bards developedthe parts, or the whole, over a period oftime, the book as a whole, I contend, wasarranged in this manner (and it is possiblethat some of the passages were speciallycomposed for the purpose) in order thatthe argument which is put forward couldoccur in circumstances which developnaturally from the action. The argument isvery important: it concerns matters whichaffect the most significant events whichoccur in the remainder of the poem; and,

I suggest, Hector is briefly ntroduced at thispoint in the narrative not only to whet

27. And cf. Owen, op. cit., p. 207.28. See MR, pp. 17 ff.

the appetite of the audience for the finalconflict, but to remind the audience of therelevance to that final conflict of the re-flections which have arisen out of the

indecisive meeting of Achilles and Aeneas.But only argument has occurred so far:the question is left open, for neitherAchilles nor Aeneas has killed the other.

A related theme, relevant to the ultimatetreatment of Hector by gods and men, isalso stated in this book. At 20. 20 ff. Zeusgives his permission to the other gods togo down to the battlefield est Achilles sackTroy, though it is not his "share" (,o'pos)to do so; and at 302 and 336 Poseidonexpresses the fear that Achilles may killAeneas though it is Aeneas' "share"(JoZpa) to survive the war. I have discussedelsewhere28 the possibility of doing orsuffering more than one's share. I mentionthese passages here in the context of alarger question: we know, and the originalaudience knew, that Achilles is much

stronger than Hector, and that he will soonkill Hector; that he has higher status thanHector in the eyes of the gods, for he isdirectly descended from a goddess andHector is not; and that he will treat thecorpse of Hector in a cruel and insultingmanner. Since he has more status thanHector, and the gods are believed toacknowledge this, it might perhaps appearthat he may behave in any manner that iswithin his power: are there in fact anyother restraints on his behavior, and-anallied question-what are the limits ofAchilles' power? This question too, Isuggest, is debated in the later books of theIliad, and debated in a manner appropriateto an epic poem: the questions arise fromviolent action and suffering.

We may now turn to Book 21. I forbear

to quote the analysesof this book

given byeditors:29 I shall simply inquire whether

29. For which see, e.g., Leaf and Bayfield. 11 50M ff.;Monro, "Iliad" XIII-XXIV4, pp. 374 ff.




10/17


the themes that I have discussed aboveappear in 21, and whether they have adiscernible role to play in the developmentof the narrative.

The theme of divine parentage is re-introduced in Achilles' second contest inthis book, that with Asteropaeus, whoproclaims himself to be the grandson ofthe river Axius; for rivers are gods.Possibly the grandson of a river-god is atleast equal in status with the son of a seanymph. Achilles ignores the claim untilhe has killed Asteropaeus; but then says(184 ff.):

KIEa OVTW09 XaACno'V TOL EplaOeVeOS KpovIwVos

7TaLULv pL tEVcal, 7TOTa/lOlO 7TEp EKy)EyaC7Ta.efrauOa av) /VE'V 7ToTa/LOV YEVOS 4/J4EVaL EVpV pEOVTOS,

0CVT0Cp Eya) YEVE77V /fyOaAOV ZIlOS f6XOlka EtlVal.

lKTe /L aV?7p TWoAaLv &vva'aauv Mvp/ILt&vEaaLllqAeVs, AIaK1SI- O'

'Op' AIaKo' EK ZlOS EV.

T ) KpftLaUa(UV v ZV SV IOTTa/LV &AL/xVp2JEVTWV,

KpflUaaV avTf ALO, YEVE IOToTa/L0O 7TVKTal.

A card is played here that was not played

in the encounter between Achilles andAeneas. Achilles is not merely the son ofThetis, he is the great-grandson of Zeus,and evidently both outranks and is greaterin strength than the grandson of a mereriver. He might even be held to outrankAeneas in the male line, for Aeneas' descentfrom Zeus is much more remote. (Thatstrength as well as rank is in question hereis evident from 192 if.) The suggestion maywin little support, since it is generallyagreed that we are here groping among themurky dregs of the Homeric poems; butsurely the fact that Achilles reserves his aceuntil now not merely advances the dis-cussion by adducing more relevant data,but is artistically very effective.

But now another adversary appears.The river Scamander is angry with Achilles,

who has been clogging his streams with thecorpses of dead Trojans. He attacksAchilles and pursues him over the plain;

30. Contrast Leaf and Bayfield, 1I, 500.

and Achilles flees, as flee he must: OEoL e'TE cf,EpTEpOl av8pJv (264). Achilles fearshe may be overcome and drowned in a mostignominious death; and though Poseidon

and Athena give him courage and strength,and Poseidon assures him that it is not his"lot" to be drowned, he continues to be ingreat difficulty until Hera tells Hephaes-tus-another god-to fight with the river.

I suggest that the fight with Asteropaeusand the fight with the river are juxtaposedto define the powers of Achilles. Astero-paeus is the grandson of a river-god,Scamander a river-god himself. The grand-son of the Axius can be slain with smalldifficulty by the great-grandson of Zeus,but the great-grandson of Zeus is muchweaker than a mere river-god: EoE be' TE

ObEprEpOl ELoLv. The status and prowess ofAchilles are established with relation toboth gods and men; and this is relevantto the treatment of Achilles and Hector inthe remainder of the poem.

There now ensues the fight among thegods (385-513). Few commentators canfind anything favorable to say of it. Owen(pp. 212 f.) speaks of it as "the grotesquefoolery, the laughter of the battle of thegods," and adds, "No doubt this is rathercrude and clownish sort of fun, and seemsto us readers out of keeping with theterrible seriousness of the event which weknow is approaching, but no doubt also itwas heartily appreciated by the com-paratively naive minds of those listenersfor whom it was composed, and excellentlyserved its purpose of giving them therecreation of simple laughter, so that theymight re-enter the solemn and darkeningscene of human suffering with renewed zestfor the pity and terror of it." This is anunusually favorable judgment of the

passage; 30 and it attempts to evaluate it interms of the likely response of the originalaudience: it produces, Owen claims, an




11/17

248 A. W. H. ADKINS

effect like that of the porter's scene inMacbeth.

To argue thus, however, is to assumethat no one could fail to find the Battle of

the Gods amusing. The assumption seemsto be generally made; but is it self-evidentlyjustified? If the behavior of the godsdepicted here falls far below the standardexpected by their worshipers in Homericsociety, it must certainly have seemedamusing; but there is no evidence of this.The gods have more arete, time, andstrength than human beings; and this,apart from the fact that they do not die,alone distinguishes them from humannoblemen.31 Human noblemen battleamong themselves to further their ownplans: why then should not the gods? Tobe defeated in battle is certainly laughable,mockable, aischron, for a human being;and a defeated god will be mocked byanother god.32 One might accordinglysuppose that the original audience might

find amusing and mockable those deitieswho are worsted here. But to suppose thisis not to suppose that the audience foundthe battle as such amusing. Furthermore,even a weaker deity is much stronger thanthe strongest human being: a river-god,readily worsted by Hephaestus, would havebeen too much for Achilles, as we haveseen. An audience which believed in thesedeities could not afford to mock even theweakest of them: even the weakest of themcould effectively take their revenge. Theaudience of Homer is different from theaudience of Offenbach.33

But if this passage is not included ascomic relief, and we hold in reserve, as alast resort, the explanation that it is merelyinept, we must endeavor to furnish a

31. See "Homeric Gods" (n. 17), pp. 1 ff.32. As in II. 5. 421 ff. (Athena and Aphrodite).

33. I intend to discuss this question more fully on anotheroccasion. I include here only so much as is necessary to thepresent theme.

34. As Leaf and Bayfield observe, II, 501.35. See II. 1. 573 ff.

rational explanation of its presence here.The narrative eads naturally from Achilles'fight with the river,34 by way of Hephaestus'fight with the river, to the general melee;

and we may inquire whether any judg-ments relevant to our theme are passed.At 357 ff., as we have seen, the river-god

admits his inferiority to Hephaestus incombat, and beseeches Hera to call off herson. This she does (379 f.): "ovi y&p 'OtKEV /aCavaTov 0GE)v C8 fporwv EVEKa

oTrvOEALtvEw." It is unseemly for one godto fight with another for the sake ofmortals. Divine unwillingness to quarrelon mortals' behalf can readily be exempli-fied elsewhere in Homer: 35 gods arereluctant to give themselves trouble merelyfor the sake of mortals, and must bepersuaded to do so.36 But when their ownstatus has become involved in the outcome,they will certainly contend with oneanother, as they do here:37 the gods ingeneral do fight one another with no

regard for the proprieties alleged by Herato exist. And it is certainly not aischronfor them thus to behave-a much strongerjudgment-for it is aischron only to bedefeated. 38

Only one god unbidden adopts theattitude which Hera successfully urges uponHephaestus; and the identity of that god is,I believe, significant. At 435 ff., Poseidonchallenges Apollo to fight, saying,

'"POlfE, Tl 2 ViL &lE'JTa/EV; OV& E'OLKEV

apgocvTwv ETEpWV. TO -LEV aLaXLOV, at K &/Lx?7TLLO/IEV OvAV/u7TroVSE, Jltos 7ToTL XaAKOPaTES% 8o"O

[436-38].

It is not seemly-Hera's words-not tofight when others have begun. It is moreaischron to shun a fight: a sentiment notsurprising in the mouth of a god of a

36. See "`E6xo,4aL- (n. 12), pp. 20-33; "Threatening" (n. 11),pp. 12, 20.

37. They must contend in a manner similar to mortalwarriors, for in general all but Zeus function as mortalwarriors writ large: only Zeus can sit at a distance on amountain and promote his plans from there.

38. See MR, pp. 33 f.




12/17


warrior people, and one apparently sharedby most of the deities in this battle. ButApollo replies (462 if.),

Evvoatyat, OVK oaV /IE aocpovo /uVOrJaato

'E/IIEVaZt, 'EL 37 UOt yE fpo7wv EVEKOZ ToAE/L )StLA V, oL AAOLatv EOLKOTES OMAAOTE xEV TE

ga0IAEyEES TEAE`OVOTLV, pOVp77s Kap7TOCV 9SOVTES,

OZAOTE SC 0OLVOOVatV aK JpLOL. acMo T7ZXLaTOT

7TaVWEO`Z IkaX?S Ot o$ aVTOIL &jqptLaacO`Wv.

Poseidon would not-or rather should not(it was he who challenged Apollo, andApollo is gently and tactfully rebukinghim)-regard Apollo as saophron f Apollofought with him for the sake of wretched

mortals. The last four words indicate thatApollo is contrasting his own evaluationwith that of the other deities; and the poetexplains (469 f.): c3 a'pa bwv'4ouraas Arctv

s / X w>~~' / 7TarpKa tyETpLa7ETr -LatSTo yap p / TOtO/,L"yLE,vaL v 7raAc L cn. Apollo treats his

blood relationship to Poseidon as a reasonfor not fighting with him.

This is characterization of Apollo:Poseidon is equally the uncle of Artemis,and she immediately reviles Apollo as acoward for not fighting him. This charac-terization, I suggest, was of the utmostimportance for the original audience of thepoem. Let me repeat that that audiencereally believed in these deities, that it sawthe hand of deity everywhere displayedin daily life; and that it tried to account forthe apparent behavior of its deities,

friendly or hostile, by ascriptions of motivewhich it could understand.39

In Book 20 the poet almost created asituation in which two warriors were eachactively supported by a deity while theyfought, and the lines which occur theremust have induced any audience whichbelieved in such deities to wonder whatwould happen in such a situation, if thegods were equally matched. Could eitherhuman being ever defeat the other?

Now just such a situation is developing39. See."Homeric Gods" (n. 17), pp. 1-19.

in the poem. Athena regularly assists andaccompanies Achilles, while Apollo affordsthe same help to Hector. Apollo andAthena are equally matched, yet we know,

and the original audience knew, thatAchilles killed Hector. There must be somereason why Apollo did not protect Hectorin Book 22 as he protected the Trojansat the end of Book 21; or why he did notenshroud him in a mist, as he did at theend of Book 20. Surely, even if Apollohas to abandon Hector as a result ofsupernatural force majeure of some kind,he will protest bitterly and struggle againstnecessity there. He does not; we know hedoes not; and the ancient audience knewthat he does not. That he does not isartistically sound, as we shall see. But itneeds to be motivated, and I suggest thatApollo's behavior in the Battle of the Godsis intended to motivate it. Unlike most ofthe other deities, he is unwilling to go toextremes in conflict with them on mortals'

behalf. He quietly declines conflict withPoseidon here; and in 22 he quietly with-draws from the scene, without revilingAthena, without a word. His interventionto help the Trojans at the end of Book 21,his revelation to Achilles of what he hasdone (22. 8 if.), and Achilles' reply, allremind the audience of Apollo's powerwhen he feels no constraint of this kind.Apollo and Achilles both refer to thedifference n power between gods and men:at 22. 8 ff., Apollo says:

TITTE /LE, lJTLAe'0o Vle, TOaLV -aXe'eaaL &W'KEL9,

aCVTOv- V dw OEOV IpOTOV; OV E VV XX p9yVwK WUS OEOg El/U, av' o' &a7TEPXES .EVEacLvELS."

Achilles replies (18 ff.):VVV OE/e /1EV /Leya KV0S a&bELAEo, TOvs S' awua(x

p1qFL'(S', EITEL OV Tl TlalV y' AE&LaaS OITTWaU.

U oZV TELaaOL/I2JV, EL /kOL &VOa/LS YE Tapftl2J.

It is foolish for Achilles to strive againstApollo: Apollo can readily save whom hechooses, for he fears no reprisal afterward.




13/17

250 A. W. H. ADKINS

Achilles would readily make such areprisal for this injury, if only he could.But he cannot; and the narrative issweeping on to the combat between

Achilles, supported by Athena, and Hector,supported by Apollo. If Athena and Apolloeffectively protect Achilles and Hectorrespectively, how can either hero defeat theother?

Let me now mention briefly the relevantinterventions of deity in Iliad 22. At 169 ff.,Zeus expresses pity for Hector, who waswont to perform abundant sacrifice to him,but is now about to be killed by Achilles.He asks the gods to deliberate whether tosave him or "subdue him to Achilles sonof Peleus, esthlos though Hector is."Athena indignantly replies (178 ff.):

A)7TTEp aLpyLKEpaVVE, KEAMlVE()ES, OLOV EL7TE9S

cv8pa OVqpO V ovTa, Wa'Aal '7TE7TpEVoV aa

OE'ACElS Oav&rTOLO8vUqXEog 4'eavaAOUat;w t. , \ w , , ,co A O ,,9pS'. aTCp OV TOL 07TOVTE9E7TOalVEO/IEV OEOl aAAOl.

Hector is a mortal: it would be shocking

to save him when it is his moira to die now.This argument does not concern the

relative status of Hector and of Achilles.Athena does not mean that Hector is amortal while Achilles is something more:the same lines are used earlier in the poem(16. 441-43), when Patroclus, who has noclaim to divine parentage, is about to killSarpedon, who is a son of Zeus himself.When it is his moira to die, a mortal is amortal, no matter who his parents are,and it would be shocking for Zeus tointerfere, even to save his own son.40

Zeus's other relevant intervention in 22occurs at 210 ff. When Achilles and Hectorhave circled the city three times, Zeus

EV o3E TLOEL o3vo K7pE 7TaV71AEYEos` OavaTOLO,

T7V)VEVAXtAeoX1o, T7'V o' 'EKTopos0 rlo4LoLo,

MAKE oe 1Eaaa Aac%v pE`7TE o' 'EKTopoS aLaL,Iov /l,ap,

(XETO o' eLs At&ao, AL`7TEV e o^os AiroAAv.

40. For the reason, see MR, pp. 19 ff., and "HomericGods" (n. 17), pp. 1 ff., 11 ff.

Athena, as we have seen, complained whenher purposes seemed likely to be thwarted.Apollo does not complain, but quietlywithdraws, and ceases to protect Hector.

True, Athena complained when Zeuswished to go against moira, while Apollois merely acquiescing in the requirementsof moira. But gods can, and do, actbeyond what moira permits to them.41Apollo's withdrawal has several effects: itserves to characterize him here, or toexemplify the characterization sketchedin Book 21; it makes possible the occur-rence of what the story demands, since onlyif Apollo has withdrawn his aid can Hectorbe killed;42 and the unobtrusive mode ofApollo's withdrawal helps to direct theattention of the audience to the actions ofthe human combatants. Athena is therethroughout, it is true, helping Achilles andlending status and stature to the contest;but both here and in Book 22 in generalafter the initial altercation between Apollo

and Achiiles, the human combatants areevaluated primarily in terms of theirhuman characteristics. It is nonethelesstrue that Achilles is the son of a goddess,while Hector is not; and the fact becomesimportant again in Book 24. But the dis-cussion of the relative prowess and effec-tiveness of warriors of human and ofpartly divine descent occurred in Book 20,and there is no need to impede the flow ofthe narrative by including it here. Instead,it is Achilles as a human being whomHector fears (91 ff.) and from whom heruns (136 ff.). At 158, 7Tpo'oOE uEv E'osrAEcEVYE, 1WIKE OE' ItV EY aEtVWV. SinceHector is spoken of as esthlos, and he hashuman parents, to say that Achilles is moreesthlos does not here focus attention uponhis divine lineage but upon those human

qualities in terms of which he can be41. As Zeus does, according to Poseidon in II. 15. 185 ff.

See "Homeric Gods" (n. 17), pp. 1-3.42. See II. 22. 202 ff.




14/17


directly compared to Hector: his courageand prowess as a warrior.43 Throughout thecombat and the slaying of Hector, thestory is that of a better warrior overcom-

ing an inferior warrior. True, the betterwarrior has the aid of a powerful deity: thewhole combat is summed up: o' utvwuaAaT-rAE AoETpWv / XEpgtv AXtAAMos 8aqLaE

YAaVK60ITLS O'V-q (445-46). But the reasonfor Athena's supporting Achilles is left inthe background.

As I stated at the beginning of thispaper, it is not my purpose to discuss thehistory of the Homeric poems here: I amconcerned here with the Iliad as we have it,and with the artistic and other reasons,so far as these can be estimated, for theplacing of each passage where we have it.I have attempted to suggest reasons whythe much-criticized parts of Books 20 and21 may have been placed where they nowstand, reasons which would not appearappropriate to any modern writer, but

which might well appear entirely appro-priate to anyone who shared the values andbeliefs of the original bards and theiraudience. I now suggest that the treatmentof these important questions of belief andvalue in 20 and 21 opens the way to anartistic effect which we can all appreciate.Toward the close of 21 (514 ff.) Apollo goesinto Troy to protect it, but the rest of thegods, having ended their fight, return toOlympus. Since the beginning of 20, whenZeus gave permission to the gods (23 ff.)to go down onto the battlefield to supportthe side they favored, gods have been in the

43. Cf. also 250 ff. and 287 f.44. Lines such as 130, which ascribe the final outcome to

Zeus, do not affect the point I am making, since piety demandssuch an ascription in Homer: the emphasis is upon humanbehavior to the greatest extent possible in the Homericpoems, incomparably more so than in 20 and 21. (41 f. issimilar.)

45. In a very interesting article ("Some Aspects of the Godsin the Iliad," BICS, XVII [1970], 1-10), M. M. Willcock saysof Athena's presence here (p. 7): "Many people think,consciously or unconsciously, that this is unfair to Hector,that is it unsporting. Two against one. That is blasphemous

foreground of the action. Now all this isended: the emphasis in Priam's plea toHector (38 ff.), in Hecuba's plea (82 ff.), inHector's realization of his own situation,

is on human beings and their behavior.44Hector flees from Achilles, Achilles pur-sues, and the gods look on (160): with theexception of Apollo and Athena, they areno longer actors, but spectators. Zeus givesAthena permission to do what she will(185), and she returns to the battlefield. Aclash between deities seems imminent, butZeus holds up his scales, and Apollodeparts. The other gods watch from above,the Trojans watch from the city, Achilles(205) holds back the Greeks. Zeus's scalesare held up, only here for the death of anindividual. The poet emphasizes by everymeans at his disposal the isolation of thethree figures45-Hector, Achilles, and thedisguised Athena-within this mightyframe. After the confused tumult of 20 and21, the poet focuses his-and our-atten-

tion upon this one climactic event.This is an artistically powerful effect tothis day; and I do not believe that it is anaccidental effect. I have argued that it isnot the only reason for 20 and 21 as wehave them, that important questions ofbelief and values are there raised; but I feelcertain that it is one reason.

In Book 22, we are concerned withprowess rather than status. Book 24 returnsto the question of the advantages conferredby divine birth. Apollo allowed Hector tobe killed, for his time had come; butAchilles has not merely killed Hector, but

thought, arising out of disbelief. The god is not another humanbeing. There were two people, not three, standing out thereon the plain under the walls of Troy." But when Hector killsPatroclus with Apollo's help, Patroclus says (16. 849 f.),"dAAd ge 4Otp' 6Ao, Kai A?77oO KTaaeV vIdT, / dapvop8' E64op,os' at) 8& 4C Tp&TOS ?fcvapIctS." Moira is not aseparate agent, apparently; but the arithmetic shows thatHomeric man could treat a deity who behaves as Apollo (orApollo plus moira) behaves here as an additional agent. (Thegeneral influence of Zeus, 16. 845, is not counted.) On thisquestion and on the relation of this passage to general Homericbelief, see MR, chap. ii, and esp. pp. 14 f.




15/17

252 A. W. H. ADKINS

treated-or attempted to treat-his bodyin a shameful manner. All the gods saveHera, Poseidon, and Athena pitied Hector(23 ff.) and wished Apollo to steal the

corpse of Hector from Achilles. Apolloindignantly addresses the gods (33 f.):or ,EAo Eo,TE, GEOL, &qA?7.LOVES- 0) Vt)

7TO Vl4LZV "'EKTWp L7PLlK-7E fOloV OtYWVTE TEAElWV; Hector sacrificed to them all,yet they have not the heart to save his deadbody. No; they help Achilles (40-41), "(OVT 0p ?PEVES EtLUV EVAXlUlOl OVL E

VO(a / yVqLlTTOV EVo UT7Eoorl, AE'v O

Ws aypLL o0lEv." Achilles has lost all senseof pity (44) and acd&s. Others may losesomeone closer to them than was Patroclusto Achilles, but they do not behave asAchilles has behaved (52-54):

OVV Ol TO 7E KaAALOV v'E T alxIEVOV.\n, ns ) f epa c OVTl vEIEaa'qOE(v/IEv Ol glSIES

KCW0'V Yap 8 yataV MELKLEt EVlEClVV.

It is neither more kalon (honorable) forAchilles, nor more agathon (beneficial).Let him beware lest, agathos though he be,the gods may grow angry with him. (Itshould be noted that the reason whichApollo adds is that Achilles is treatingthe earth in an unseemly manner; but theearlier lines make clear that this is not thereason for Apollo's anger nor for that ofthe other deities who take his side. This isan early example of a rhetorical argument.)

Nothing that Apollo has said impliesthat Achilles is diminishing his arete byacting as he has done; 46 and it is his aretewhich gives him his claim to behave thus.Apollo is stating the case for Hector: hehas always given due sacrifice, and Achilles'behavior goes beyond the bounds of thereasonable.

Hera immediately states the other side ofthe case (56 ff.). To act as Apollo wishes is

to give equal time to Achilles and Hector.But Hector is a mere mortal and was

46. See MR, p. 38; "Homeric Values and Homeric Society,"JHS, XCI (1971), 10 ff.; "Homeric Gods" (n. 17), pp. 13 ff.

suckled by a mortal woman, whereasAchilles is the son of a goddess, whomHera herself brought up and gave as a wifeto Peleus. "And you all went to the

wedding, you gods-and you among them,Apollo, comrade of kakoi." The wholespeech is concerned with the respectivestatus of Achilles and Hector. Hector is amere mortal, by comparison with Achillesa kakos in status, whereas Achilles is theson of a goddess, a relative of the divinefamily.47

The position is now stated in the starkestterms of arete and time; and, to repeat whatI have said already, this is not a literaryexercise. The bards and the members ofthe original audience-and Greeks for longafter-believed in these gods, and believedthat they could decisively influence mortalwell-being. If one who was held to be the sonof a deity, or who had some other groundsfor superior status in terms of arete andtime, could act as he chose to the weaker

with no fear of the wrath of heaven, thestate of the weaker was miserable indeed.Zeus now arbitrates between Apollo and

Hera (65 ff.):

eHpn, on7 57 7TCqi7vavroaKV(/iaLvE OEoLaLVOv /1EV yap Tfl) YE /l EaaETaLt WUAA aC lEK7tp

IATMTOS0 EaKE OEoLaL fpoTWv Ol Ev 'IALW LaLvd) 70cp E/IOly v eITel 0V TI #lAWV nqilp TaVE 5Wpwv."

Hector may not have the same status as

Achilles, for the reasons already given.But Hector was most philos to the gods ofthe mere humans who live in Troy, for healways performed due sacrifice. Accord-ingly Zeus sends for Thetis (75-76), "60pa

a c 91 % V el\TL Ot El7TW 7TVKWVOV E7TOS, WS KEV xLAAEVs'8&fPC0V EK Ilpl0c ow AacX a7o 6''EKTOpcxA6- ." Achilles is not to be punished forthe harm he has done-or tried to do-tothe corpse of Hector: he is simply to be

told to accept an abundant ransom for thebody. And Hector is to be rescued not

47. For further discussions of this, see "Homeric Values"(n. 46), pp. 10-11.




16/17


because justice demands that a corpseshould not be so treated, but because hehas given sacrifice and can expect some-thing in return. Zeus bids Thetis to tell

Achilles that the gods, and especially Zeus,are angry (114-16):OTt ?fpeaL atuvoIe.vT)atv

EK-rop' EXEt 7rapa v77vat KOpWVtatv ovo a7rEAvaev

at KEV 7TW9 E1/E TE of '7rTo U EKTOpa Av'a?l.

The last line is presumably ironical. Thereis no likelihood that any mortal, howevergreat and powerful, would attempt to defya direct command of Zeus in Homer, andAchilles does not (139 ff.):48 "'rTo' E'L-X-owCaM OEpot, KaX VEKpOV IyoTo, / Et

'po'povt Ovp,63 OA '4urtos. a-r's 'vwyt."The body is now ransomed, and receives

due rites; and in the remainder of the bookthe reason for Hector's treatment is raisedon two more occasions. The disguisedHermes tells Priam (411 ff.) that the godshave kept Hector's body free from harmdespite all that Achilles and other Greeks

have done to it, and he ends his speech(422 f.), "Ws TOl K OOVITCl 1,-LKapES 6EO?VlOS E?70S / Kat VEKVOS' 7TEp EOVTOS, E7TEL

goft O1AoS' 7TEpt K-pt." Priam replies(425 ff.):

) TEKOS, 71 P ayo0ov KCU Evalatl/la &Ppa &OOVVataOav-roToLS, 7ET ov 7ro-rTE/.L 7TjS, Et 7TOT 'tqV YE,A4OET' EVL .ey apotat OeWv, oL OAv/Ilrov EXovat-rw O a7To,Iv77aavro KaL EV G0aVaToLo rep oxta-la.

Hecuba takes up the theme again in her

lament for Hector at 748 ff.:EKrop, 4t45 Ovp.t4 7rdvTwv 7roAv tArTa-TE roa18v,7i 1E'V pot 4wos` 7rEp CWv #tAos `a6a 0EoZatv-oL 8 apa aev K 'qoVTO Ka0 EV OVavTOLOrtEp aa?.

The gods have not merely restoredHector's corpse to her, but restored itundefiled, despite all that the Greeks havedone. The question of Hector's abundantsacrifices is not raised in 748 ff. It is un-necessary to do so: it has been a theme ofthe whole book; and it is a theme whose

48. He contended unsuccessfully with a mere river-godearlier, II. 21. 233 f., 264; cf. p. 247 above.

treatment in this book serves as the poet'sresolution of the questions raised fromBook 20 onward.

In all the books of the Iliad discussed

here, a theme of the poem has been themanner in which the gods regard andtreat those who possess more, and thosewho possess less, arete in one or more of itsdifferent aspects. Consider the encountersbetween Aeneas and Achilles (20. 83-352);Hector and Achilles (20. 419-54); Achillesand Asteropaeus (21. 149-99); Achillesand Scamander (21. 211-327); Hephaestusand Scamander (21. 328-82); the Battle ofthe Gods, with its conversation betweenApollo and Poseidon (21. 383-514); thealtercation between Apollo and Achilles(22. 8-20); the interventions of Zeus (22.169-85, 210-13); the treatment by Achillesof Hector's corpse, and the consequentargument between the factions of deities(24. 23-140). All have explored-in amanner entirely suited to an epic poem, for

the questions arise out of violent actionand suffering-the problem of the gods'attitude to human arete, and have facedthe fact that the Homeric gods werebelieved to be respecters of persons, as wasvirtually inevitable if one considers thenature of the universe of value and beliefin which Homeric man lived.49 The closeof the poem in Book 24 has offered asolution in terms of the most importantHomeric values, expressed by arete, time,and philotes.

The presence of these questions in thelater books of the Iliad, questions of thegreatest importance to those who believedin the Olympian deities, must have lentadded significance to those books for theoriginal audience, and endowed them withan additional thematic unity. The desire toraise

these questions, I believe, furnishedat least part of the motive for the inclusion

49. For which see "Homeric Gods" (n. 17), pp. 1-19.




17/17

254 A. W. H. ADKINS

of Books 20 and 21 in the form in whichwe have them. The same motivation is atwork in the composition of Book 24.Modern scholars and critics evaluate 24

very differently from 20 and 21; but, in thelight of the arguments offered here, Isuggest that the original audience is un-likely to have done so.

Here is a type of thematic link in theHomeric poems which is frequently over-looked, but which the original audiencecould hardly have overlooked; and here, itseems to me, we have further evidence ofpurposive activity, as opposed to mereagglomeration, in the composition of theHomeric poems. We need not resort toLeaf and Bayfield's "for reasons which wedo not understand": the reasons are thereto find. I wrote at the beginning that I wasnot concerned with the traditional "analyst-unitarian" conflict, largely because thework of Milman Parry and his successorshas rendered the traditional questions

meaningless and in principle unanswerable.I am not now smuggling in those questions

in disguise. I do not wish to discuss thequestion of how many "purposes"-indi-vidual bards-had a part to play in thedevelopment and composition of the fluid

units of oral poetry of which these booksare composed. What I do wish to argue isthat, from Book 20 onward (that beingthe scope of the present article), there areclear indications that the work of theseindividual "purposes" has been organizedinto a whole which is significant in the lightof the values of the society in which it wasproduced, and that this organizationsuggests the work of an overriding "pur-pose." If we confine our attention merelyto the presence of these themes in thepoem, we shall gain a deeper appreciationof "the poem as it exists." But, if we raisethe more hazardous question of how theycame to be there, we may find ourselvesdrawn to the conclusion that we see herethe mind of the "monumental composer"at work.

UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO

adkins, a. w. h._art, beliefs, and values in the later books of the iliad_cph, 70, 4_1975_239-254

Documents