The kótos between Deiphobus and Idomeneus has its origin in their rivalry over Helen (as in Il. 13.517 ff.); so too does the kótos of Athena and Diomedes in Il. 10.517 and Il. 23.391. Structurally, kótos in the passages just reviewed describes a wrath between individuals who may be viewed as equals (for example, a god vs. a god, a warrior vs. a warrior). But the origin of this wrath is not any particular and immediate grievance between the characters. Rather some founding moment, often but not always involving members of another social stratum, must be unearthed in order to understand kótos. Table 3.1 displays the way the conflict between and within social strata provides motivation for kótos in such cases.

Some important features emerge to amplify our view of kótos. In Il. 14.19092 Hera prepares for the seduction of Zeus by seeking Aphrodite’s assistance:

Here, as in Hermes’ warning to Calypso, a god is styled as having kótos, potentially, against another god; indeed we have observed divine kótos working against mortals in those cases that concern violations on the human level. Here it is a god’s kótos that is rooted in the all-too-human Trojan War (Il. 14.192): hoúnek ’ egṑ Danaoîsi, sù dè Trṓessin arḗgeis (“that I help the Greeks and you the Trojans”).

The change in emphasis from a god’s kótos against a mortal to a god’s kótos against another god because of mortal concerns is marked by a change in phrasing. Each instance of kotessámenos in the Iliad is accompanied by a dative object immediately preceding, at the trochaic caesura, or following kotessámenos. But here the cause of the kótos is specified and expanded upon in the next line (Il. 14.192).

Here, the kótos is not merely Aphrodite’s against Hera; rather, her kótos is due to the separation and opposition of the two mortal groups. The Trojan War makes it possible for Aphrodite to deny Hera’s request because of conflicting loyalties across social segments. That is to say that the kótos alluded to in Iliad 14 finds its genesis in the origins of the Trojan War, since Aphrodite possesses kótos because of the loyalties of the subordinate groups, here groups of mortals (the Trojans and the Greeks). Moreover, the kótos that may prevent Aphrodite from helping Hera is the very anger alluded to in Il. 24.27, which arose because of Paris’ átē (“moral blindness”) in regard to makhlosúnē (“lust”). Thus kótos has as its source something outside the immediate context, especially in reference to foundational experiences, the greatest one being the neîkos that leads to the Trojan War.

In many cases, kótos involves characters from the same social level, with conflict occurring at the same time on another social level. For example, when Hera warns Zeus that he would be challenging fate by saving Sarpedon, the kótos she refers to is that of the immortals against men:

This kótos is comparable to that at Il. 14.191 and Il. 10.517 because it emerges from an alliance of gods and warriors. In addition, when Hera sees the gods enraged at Zeus because the gods’ sons have died in battle, she presents a figure analogous to that of Agamemnon imagining the kótos of an Achilles returned to Phthia (Il. 1.181), an image that Agamemnon, in a fit of bravura, dismisses out of hand. Kótos is used in such passages as a kind of a fortiori argument because of its long duration and its intrinsic need to reach a télos, as well as the implication (made explicit in Il. 16.449) that the anger is not that of an individual but of a social group. Kótos is the most dangerous thing to be feared when considering another’s anger because it may involve much more than a personal grievance. In effect, what Hera is telling Zeus here is that his actions might precipitate a feud among the gods.

When Agamemnon fantasizes about Achilles’ kótos (as discussed above), he does so because of loyalties relating to subordinates (here the Myrmidons) in the context of Achilles as their sovereign:

Now, it may be said that the structural relationship is the same in this as in the previous examples: kótos between two equals over a conflict concerning a subordinate. Just as the gods’ kótos against one another concerns mortals, so Agamemnon and Achilles can potentially have kótos against each other because of their captives.

These are statements of principle because they refer beyond the particulars of the offensive speech that Thersites has just made. In this regard, Odysseus’s comments {84|85} resemble the remarks he will make to Melantho in the Odyssey. Finally, the display of violence against Thersites clearly shows us why Calchas has asked for protection against a king’s kótos.

But Achilles has no nóstos (“return”) and no future, apart from the kléos (“fame”) provided by song. Hence, kótos will never again be referred to when the subject of Achilles’ anger comes up. Rather, as in the Iliad‘s proem, his anger is mênis, or, most often, as we will soon see, khólos. In fact, in the very next scene, Achilles is about to kill Agamemnon when Athena comes down and restrains him. Here his anger is khólos (Il. 1.192, 1.217) and oú pō lêge khóloio (Il. 1.224) “and he did not yet let go of his khólos (‘anger’).”

Before we turn to the wrath of Achilles, our pursuit of Calchas’s definition provides us with questions that need to be answered comparatively, in two senses. First, from the point of view of comparative historical linguistics, I will provide a history of kótos. Second, with the comparative insights provided from the ethnography of the feud, I will demonstrate the typological foundation for this kind of anger. {86|87}