The Best of the Achaeans: Concepts of the Hero in Archaic Greek Poetry

  Use the following persistent identifier:

Chapter 3. A Conflict between Odysseus and Achilles in the Iliad

3§2. I will confine myself, then, to examining whether a poem that is composed in a given tradition may refer to other traditions of composition. Thus, for example, our Odyssey may theoretically refer to traditional themes that are central to the stories of the Cypria—or even to the stories of the Iliad, for that matter. But even in that case, such traditional themes would have varied from composition to composition. There may theoretically be as many variations on a theme as there are compositions. Any theme is but a multiform, and not one of the multiforms may be considered a functional “Ur-form.” Only by hindsight can we consider the themes of our Iliad to be the best of possible themes.

3§4. For a striking illustration, I begin with the reference in Odyssey viii 78 to the quarreling Achilles and Odysseus as ‘the best of the Achaeans’ (áristoi Akhaiôn), where the context of their quarrel is a daís ‘feast’ (Odyssey viii 76). Let us compare a scene in Iliad VIII, where Agamemnon seeks to revive the fighting spirit of the demoralized Achaeans. He stands on the ship of Odysseus (Iliad VIII 222), which is exactly halfway between the ships of Ajax on one extreme and {43|44} Achilles on the other (Iliad VIII 223–226), [5] and begins his speech with these words:

In verses 231–232, we note that the setting for this scene of boasting is equivalent to a daís, which in viii 76 had served as the setting for the scene of quarreling between Odysseus and Achilles. In the present passage, the key words for understanding its affinity with viii 72–82 are at VIII 229: áristoi ‘best’, in collocation with the plural noun eukhōlaí ‘boasts’, derived from the verb eúkhomai ‘boast’. Agamemnon’s own claim to be “best of the Achaeans” is in fact formulated with this same verb:

ὃς νῦν πολλὸν ἄριστος Ἀχαιῶν εὔχεται εἶναι
who now boasts to be by far the best of the Achaeans

Iliad I 91 {44|45}

ὃς μέγ᾽ ἄριστος Ἀχαιῶν εὔχεται εἶναι
who boasts to be by far the best of the Achaeans

Iliad II 82

From the intensive studies of Leonard Muellner on the behavior of eúkhomai ‘boast’ and its substitute phēmí ‘say’ in Homeric diction, we know that these words are used by or of a hero to express his superiority in a given area of heroic endeavor. [
8] Take, for example, Iliad V 171–173, where we hear that no one in Lycia can boast (eúkhetai: 173) to be better than Pandaros in archery (171), and that the hero thus gets kléos in this area of endeavor (172). [9] We may compare kléos at Odyssey viii 74, correlated with neîkos ‘quarrel’ between the áristoi Akhaiôn ‘best of the Achaeans’, Odysseus and Achilles himself (Odyssey viii 78). Granted, the scene of eukhōlaí ‘boasts’ at Lemnos is presented at VIII 228–235 not as a quarrel among various Achaeans with various areas of heroic superiority but rather as a collective affirmation of the Achaeans’ superiority over the Trojans. Such a perspective of collectivity stays in effect, however, only so long as the narrative remains general by not quoting any individual hero. Once the Homeric narrative quotes a hero as he actually eúkhetai ‘boasts’, the factor of comparison and even rivalry with other heroes becomes overt. [10] Ironically, the boasts of all the other Achaeans during their onetime feast at Lemnos now sound empty because the hero who is “best” when all heroic endeavors are taken into account is not at hand to stop the overwhelming might of Hektor.

3§5. Among the areas of heroic endeavor that serve as conventional points of comparison when a hero boasts, we actually find bíē ‘might’ (e.g., Iliad XV 165) and the equivalent of mêtis ‘artifice, stratagem’ (e.g., Iliad XVII 171). [11] In this connection, we may note again that the reference in Odyssey viii 78 to the quarreling Achilles and Odysseus as the “best of the Achaeans” seems to be based on an epic tradition that contrasted the heroic worth of Odysseus with that of Achilles in terms of a contrast between mêtis and bíē. The contrast apparently took the form of a quarrel between the two heroes over whether Troy would be taken by might or by artifice. The scholia to Odyssey {45|46} viii 75 and 77 point to such an epic tradition, where Achilles is advocating might and Odysseus, artifice, as the means that will prove successful in destroying Troy. [12] We have also considered the testimony of the scholia (A) to Iliad IX 347, from which we learn that Aristarchus apparently thought this particular Iliadic passage (Iliad IX 346–352) to be an allusion to precisely the same tradition that we are now considering, namely, the rivalry of Achilles and Odysseus as indicated in Odyssey viii 72–82. [13] In Iliad IX 346–352, we find Achilles in the act of rejecting the request of Odysseus that he rescue the hard-pressed Achaeans:

In effect, the words of Achilles defiantly and ironically challenge Odysseus, Agamemnon, “and the other kings” (Iliad IX 346) to rely on artifice at the very moment when they are desperately in need of his might.{46|47}

3§6. There are still further allusions to the theme of a dispute over might against artifice. Our Iliad preserves, in evocative contexts, the very words which must have signaled the rival means to a common end. The word bíē might’, on the one hand, is a conventional Iliadic measure of Achilles’ superiority, as in the following juxtaposition:

πρεσβύτερος δὲ σύ ἐσσι· βίῃ δ᾽ ὅ γε πολλὸν ἀμείνων
You [Patroklos] are older; but he [Achilles] is much better in bíē

Iliad XI 787

The word mêtis ‘artifice, stratagem’, on the other hand, characterizes Odysseus in particular: in the Iliad and the Odyssey, only he is described with the epithets polúmētis ‘of many artifices’ and poikiló-mêtis ‘of manifold artifices’. He is frequently called Díï̀ mêtin atálantos ‘equal to Zeus in artifice’. The polarity of bíē ‘might’ and mêtis ‘artifice’ is clearly visible in old Nestor’s advice to his son about the art of chariot racing:

ἀλλ᾽ ἄγε δή σύ, φίλος, μῆτιν ἐμβάλλεο θυμῷ
παντοίην, ἵνα μή σε παρεκπροφύγῃσιν ἄεθλα.
μήτι τοι δρυτόμος μέγ᾽ ἀμείνων ἠὲ βίηφι·
μήτι δ᾽ αὖτε κυβερνήτης ἐνὶ οἴνοπι πόντῳ
νῆα θοήν ἰθύνει ἐρεχθομένην ἀνέμοισι·
μήτι δ᾽ ἡνίοχος περιγίγνεται ἡνιόχοιο.
Come, my phílos, put in your thūmós every sort of mêtis ,
so that prizes may not elude you.
It is with mêtis rather than bíē that a woodcutter is better.
It is with mêtis that a helmsman over the wine-dark sea
steers his swift ship buffeted by winds.
It is with mêtis that charioteer is better than charioteer.

Iliad XXIII 313–318

In such a traditional celebration of mêtis ‘artifice’ at the expense of bíē might’, we see that superiority is actually being determined in terms of an opposition between these qualities.

3§7. With these passages serving as background, we now move back to the evidence of IX 346–352, [15] where Achilles is defiantly challenging Odysseus and the other Achaean chieftains to survive the Trojan onslaught without the benefit of his own might. As his speech draws to a close, the final words of Achilles to Odysseus can be understood as conveying an underlying awareness and even bitterness. Let the {47|48} Achaeans, Achilles tells Odysseus, devise “a better mêtis” to ward off the fire of the Trojans and thus save the Greek ships:

The reference is to Nestor’s original stratagem to build the Achaean Wall, and this stratagem actually is designated in that context as mêtis (Iliad VII 324). Ironically, Nestor’s later stratagem, to send the Embassy to Achilles, is also designated in the narrative as mêtis (Iliad IX 93). Ironically too, Odysseus is the one who is pleading for what the Achaeans most sorely need at this point, the might of Achilles. For the moment, the mêtis ‘artifice’ of Odysseus (and Nestor) is at a loss, and the bíē ‘might’ of Achilles is implicitly vindicated.

3§10. We take up the story at a point where King Agamemnon and the Achaeans finally despair of resisting the onslaught of Hektor and the Trojans without the aid of Achilles, who has withdrawn from the fighting. At a meeting of the elders, Nestor suggests that an embassy be sent to Achilles, bringing to him an offer of settlement from Agamemnon (Iliad IX 93–113). Agamemnon agrees and makes a lavish offer (Iliad IX 114–161), whereupon Nestor suggests that there be three emissaries: Phoinix, Ajax, and Odysseus (Iliad IX 162–172). Nestor’s original plan calls for Phoinix to go first, followed by Ajax and Odysseus, followed by the heralds Odios and Eurybates: {49|50}

εἰ δ᾽ ἄγε, τοὺς ἂν ἐγὼ ἐπιόψομαι, οἱ δὲ πιθέσθων.
Φοῖνιξ μὲν πρώτιστα Διῒ φίλος ἡγησάσθω,
αὐτὰρ ἔπειτ᾽ Αἴας τε μέγας καὶ δῖος Ὀδυσσεύς·
κηρύκων δ᾽ Ὀδίος τε καὶ Εὐρυβάτης ἅμ᾽ ἑπέσθων.
But come, let those upon whom I am looking take on the task.
First of all, let Phoinix, dear to Zeus, take the lead;
and after him the great Ajax and brilliant Odysseus,
and of the heralds let Odios and Eurybates accompany them.

Iliad IX 167–170

The crucial expression is Φοῖνιξ … ἡγησάσθω at verse 168: ‘let Phoinix … take the lead’. As the emissaries proceed on their way to Achilles, the one who actually takes the lead is not Phoinix but Odysseus:

τὼ δὲ βάτην προτέρω, ἡγεῖτο δὲ δῖος Ὀδυσσεύς.
And the two were moving along, and brilliant Odysseus led the way.

Iliad IX 192

The word ἡγεῖτο here at IX 192 is in direct contrast with the corresponding ἡγησάσθω of IX 168 (‘he led the way’ compared to ‘let him lead the way’ respectively). In contradiction of the original plan, Odysseus is now leading the way instead of Phoinix.

3§11. As we consider the dual construction τὼ δὲ βάτην προτέρω ‘and the two were moving along’ here in the second passage (Iliad IX 192), let us not immediately assume that we are dealing with the emergence of an earlier version involving two emissaries as opposed to the first passage (Iliad IX 167–170), which is supposed to present a later version involving three emissaries. Instead, at least for the moment, let us take the thematic progression from the first passage to the second passage as a given of the narrative at hand. In that case, the dual in the second passage must refer to Ajax and Phoinix, not to Ajax and Odysseus. The plan of the first passage had called for Ajax and Odysseus to be led by Phoinix. Instead, we now see Ajax and Phoinix being led by Odysseus. (See now Foreword §29n40).

3§15. These strong words are framed by Achilles’ outright rejection of the speech by Odysseus (Iliad IX 308–311, 314–429). Moreover, even before he heard the offer that he rejects so forcefully, Achilles may have already considered Odysseus to be the sort of ekhthrós ‘hateful one, enemy’ that is described in IX 312–313. We come back to the moment when Achilles sees the Embassy approaching:

στὰν δὲ πρόσθ᾽ αὐτοῖο· ταφὼν δ᾽ ἀνόρουσεν Ἀχιλλεὺς
αὐτῇ σὺν φόρμιγγι, λιπὼν ἕδος ἔνθα θάασσεν.
ὣς δ᾽ αὔτως Πάτροκλος, ἐπεὶ ἴδε φῶτας, ἀνέστη.
τὼ καὶ δεικνύμενος προσέφη πόδας ὠκὺς Ἀχιλλεύς·
“χαίρετον· ἦ φίλοι ἄνδρες ἰκάνετον· ἦ τι μάλα χρεώ.
οἵ μοι σκυζομένῳ περ Ἀχαιῶν φίλτατοί ἐστον.”
And they stood in front of him, and Achilles jumped up, amazed,
still holding the lyre, leaving the place where he was sitting.
Likewise Patroklos, when he saw the men, stood up.
Greeting the two of them, swift-footed Achilles said:
“Hail to the two of you: you have come as friends. I need you very much—
you two who are the dearest to me among the Achaeans, even now when I am angry.”

Iliad IX 193–198

The last three verses of this passage all contain dual constructions, as if there were only two emissaries rather than three. Furthermore, the two are addressed by Achilles as ‘most dear [phílos]’ to him among all the Achaeans, Ἀχαιῶν φίλτατοι (Iliad IX 198). [
25] If indeed Achilles later {52|53} implies that Odysseus may be an ‘enemy’ (ekhthrós) to him, is Odysseus being excluded from his greeting? Certainly the definition that we find for ekhthrós ‘enemy’ in IX 312–313 [26] —a definition framed by the words of Achilles himself—applies to the epic behavior of Odysseus. As we see most clearly in his own epic, the Odyssey, he continually says one thing and means another. [27]

3§17. On the level on content, this interpretation is viable if an “Embassy of Ajax and Phoinix to Achilles” had been a stock theme of Greek epic tradition and if the story of an enmity between Odysseus and Achilles had likewise been traditional. If we find evidence to support these two propositions, then we could also claim that the Embassy episode of Iliad IX has, from the standpoint of, say, an audience in the eighth century B.C., much higher artistic {53|54} merit than what we can see in a text without attested precedents. Then we could confidently reject any superficial impression of ours that the Embassy is an imperfect story, marred by a clumsy deployment of misplaced duals.

3§19. If, on the other hand, the stock theme of an “Embassy of Ajax and Phoinix to Achilles” had been traditional, then we see in Iliad IX the insertion of Odysseus on the level of form and the self-assertion of Odysseus on the level of content. Of course, we may in the meantime reject the assumption of some analysts that any such insertion is a textual phenomenon: all we need say is that the composition integrates another traditional element. If, in turn, the insertion of Odysseus into the Embassy story carries with it the traditional theme of an enmity between him and Achilles, then the narrative of Iliad IX may allow the retention of duals referring to the pair of Ajax and Phoinix when the time comes for Achilles to greet the Embassy. For an audience familiar with another version of the story where Achilles had only two emissaries to greet, the retention of the dual greeting when Odysseus is included in the Embassy surely amounts to an artistic masterstroke in the narrative. The exclusion of Odysseus in the dual greeting would serve to remind the audience of the enmity between him and Achilles.

3§20. We should consider whether there are any formal traces of material for a traditional story where only Ajax and Phoinix are emissaries to Achilles. For this purpose, let us contrast the way in which the narrative in Book IX handles the pair of Ajax and Phoinix {54|55} with the way in which it handles the pair of Ajax and Odysseus. When Odysseus is set off from Ajax and Phoinix, the latter pair is designated in the dual. This is what I propose to be the case in IX 192 [32] and 196–198. [33] Conversely, when the narrative overtly sets off Phoinix from Ajax and Odysseus, it designates this pair consistently in the plural. Besides IX 656–657, [34] I can also cite the following:

The ὑμεῖς μὲν … here is immediately contrasted with Φοῖνιξ δ(ὲ) … , which follows at IX 427. Achilles is asking Phoinix to stay with him, while the other emissaries are to go back carrying the message of his refusal. Elsewhere too, Achilles distinguishes Phoinix from the others, to whom he refers not in the dual but in the plural:

οὗτοι δ᾽ ἀγγελέουσι, σὺ δ᾽ αὐτόθι λέξεο μίμνων
εὐνῇ ἔνι μαλακῇ
These men will take the message; but you must stay here
and lie down on the soft bed.

IX 617–618

In sum, dual constructions fail to appear in every triadic situation where Ajax and Odysseus are explicitly set off from Phoinix. This evidence, then, goes against the possible counterclaim that the dual constructions of IX 192 and 196–198 [
36] might refer implicitly to Ajax and Odysseus. It therefore remains tenable to claim that they refer instead to Ajax and Phoinix. Furthermore, these references may be explicit in the narrative of Book IX, if indeed there existed a traditional epic story that told of Achilles being angry at Odysseus. Then the dual constructions of IX 196–198 express a pointed exclusion of Odysseus from those who are ‘most dear [phílos]’ to Achilles (φίλτατοι: IX 198). [37] {55|56}

3§21. This much said, I leave the problem of the dual constructions in Iliad IX and return to the broader problem of establishing the relationship between the expanded passage of the Embassy Scene and the compressed passage of Odyssey viii 72–82. So far we have been dealing with only one specific theme that seems to be shared by these two passages, namely, a conflict between Achilles and Odysseus. Besides this theme, however, there are a number of accessory themes that also seem to be shared by these two passages. Let us examine these comparable themes by using as our frame of reference the compressed narrative of Odyssey viii 72–82.

1. The dispute of Achilles and Odysseus took place at a sacrificial feast or daís (θεῶν ἐν δαιτὶ θαλείῃ: Odyssey viii 76). Compare this setting of a daís ‘feast, portion’ with the first words of Odysseus to Achilles in the Embassy Scene:

χαῖρ᾽, Ἀχιλεῦ· δαιτὸς μὲν ἐΐσης οὐκ ἐπιδευεῖς
ἠμὲν ἐνὶ κλισίῃ Ἀγαμέμνονος Ἀτρεΐδαο
ἠδὲ καὶ ἐνθάδε νῦν· πάρα γὰρ μενοεικέα πολλὰ
δαίνυσθ᾽· ἀλλ᾽ οὐ δαιτὸς ἐπηράτου ἔργα μέμηλεν,
ἀλλὰ λίην μέγα πῆμα, διοτρεφές, εἰσορόωντες
Hail, Achilles! You will not be without a fair daís
either in the tent of Agamemnon son of Atreus
or here and now. There is at hand much that would suit you,
for you to have as daís . But the concern is not about a pleasant daís .
Rather, we are facing a great pêma [pain], O diotrephḗs,
and we are in doubt.

Iliad IX 225–230

3. The omen that Troy would be destroyed was predicted for Agamemnon by Phoebus Apollo “at holy Delphi, when he [Agamemnon] had crossed the stone threshold to ask the oracle” (Odyssey viii 79–81). Compare the incidental reference of Achilles to Delphi in his answer to Odysseus:

οὐδ᾽ ὅσα λάϊνος οὐδὸς ἀφήτορος ἐντὸς ἐέργει,
Φοίβου Ἀπόλλωνος, Πυθοῖ ἔνι πετρηέσσῃ
nor all the things contained within the stone threshold of the Archer, Phoebus Apollo, in rocky Delphi.

Iliad IX 404–405

This passage contains the only reference to Delphi in our Iliad (except for the purely geographical reference in the Great Catalogue, II 519).


[ back ] 1. See Ch.1§§10–11.

[ back ] 2. Ch.1§10.

[ back ] 3. The lesson has not yet been learned, I fear, by what still seems to be a majority of Homerists. To list some prominent examples would be unproductive. Instead, I send the reader to the collection of Parry’s writings (1971) and to Lord’s synthesis (1960), which remain indispensable. For a useful formulation rejecting the methodology of positing exemplum and imitatio on a textual level, see Edwards 1971:189: “Given two poems A and B, now in a written text, however well a word or phrase fits its context in A, it is impossible to prove that it was invented for that place at the moment when the text of A became fixed. We can never rule out the existence of an older place X, which provided a common source for both A and B at the lines in question, so making their chronological relationship impossible to determine. This remains true even if X was only an older version of A.” Instead of the wording “older place,” however, I would prefer to substitute a phrase that does not connote the existence of an older text. See now Foreword §§22–24.

[ back ] 4. Marg 1956 takes the position that the neîkos ‘quarrel’ of Odyssey viii 72–82 must be an “invention” based on the opening of the Iliad, since such a neîkos between Achilles and Odysseus is not directly attested anywhere else. This position is challenged by Maehler 1963:27n1, who points out that this argument from silence fails to take into account the traditional nature of such quarrel scenes between prominent Achaeans. On the topic of traditional quarrel scenes in epic, I find the discussion by Girard 1902:249 particularly suggestive. I would add that narratives about quarrels allow the genre of epic to accommodate the diction of other genres that are otherwise unsuitable to it, such as the diction of blame poetry—a genre that functions as the converse of praise poetry. Discussion at Ch.12§6.

[ back ] 5. I feel tempted to compare this arrangement with the relative ranking of Achaean heroes in the Iliad and the Odyssey traditions: Achilles and Ajax are best and second-best in the former, while Odysseus is best in the latter. See again Ch.2, esp. §6n20.

[ back ] 6. Cf. Ch.14§14, esp. n. 45

[ back ] 7. On the use here of phēmí ‘say’ (φάμεν) as a substitute for eúkhomai ‘boast’: Muellner 1976:83.

[ back ] 8. Muellner, pp. 81–83.

[ back ] 9. Discussion by Muellner, p. 82.

[ back ] 10. See again Muellner, pp. 79–83.

[ back ] 11. See Muellner, p. 83; for phrénes ‘thinking’ as an attribute of mêtis, consider the epithet epíphrōn ‘having phrénes’ as applied to mêtis at Odyssey xix 326.

[ back ] 12. See Ch.1§11. Cf. Rüter 1969:249–251, Marg 1956:22, Girard 1902:253. These discussions do not raise the possibility, as I do here, that there was indeed an epic tradition—independent of our Iliad and Odyssey—about a quarrel between Achilles and Odysseus. Marg in fact explicitly rejects the possibility (20). As I am about to argue, however, the internal evidence of Iliad IX contains clear traces of such an independent epic tradition. The information of the scholia, on the other hand, is admittedly garbled except for the clear delineation of ‘might’ compared to ‘artifice’: ἀνδρεία/σύνεσις, βιάζεσθαι/δόλῳ μετελθεῖν (scholia ad viii 75), σωματικά/ψυχικά, ἀνδρεία/μηχανή καὶ φρόνησις (scholia ad viii 77).

[ back ] 13. See Ch1§11. Cf. Lehrs 1882:174: πρὸς τὸ ἐν Ὀδυσσείᾳ ζητούμενον “νεῖκος Ὀδυσσῆος καὶ Πηλείδεω Ἀχιλῆος,” ὅτι ἐμφαίνει καὶ νῦν ἀναιρῶν τήν ἐπιχείρησιν τῶν περὶ Ὀδυσσέα, λεγόντων βουλῇ καὶ λόγῳ αἱρεθήσεσθαι τήν πόλιν· νῦν γὰρ οἷον ἐπισαρκάζων λέγει. (Scholia (A) ad IX 347)

[ back ] 14. On phrázomai as a verb that denotes the activity of mêtis: Detienne/Vernant 1974:25n32 (in connection with Hesiod Works and Days 85–86). Cf. §7n16 below.

[ back ] 15. See §5.

[ back ] 16. Compare the use of phrázomai ‘devise’ here at Iliad IX 423 and 426 with its use at Iliad IX 347. At §5n14, we have noted that this word functions as a verb of mêtis.

[ back ] 17. See §5.

[ back ] 18. For a discussion of epic precedents: Davidson 1980.

[ back ] 19. On the traditional nature of this contrast, see again Davidson, pp. 26–28 on the Indo-European epic theme of an opposition between dux and rēx; cf. also Muellner 1976:83n27.

[ back ] 20. Besides the various interpretations of Book IX based on the premise that the dual constructions designate an actual pair, we also come upon the argument that these dual forms may have a plural function. There is, however, no grammatical justification for such a claim, and the sporadic instances in Homeric poetry where duals may seem to function as plurals cannot be cited as parallels to the situation in Book IX. In each instance, there is an ad hoc explanation available, so that the theory of dual-for-plural remains unproved. See Page 1959:324–325 for discussion and bibliography.

[ back ] 21. For a conscientious survey, I cite Lesky 1967:103–105. Segal’s (1968) comparison of the compressed Embassy Scene of Iliad I (320–348) with the expanded scene of Iliad IX helps us understand better the traditional narrative themes that are deployed (see especially his p. 104), but his discussion leaves room for disagreement on the question of the dual constructions in Iliad IX.

[ back ] 22. Page 1959:298.

[ back ] 23. For the use of noéō ‘take note, think’ in contexts of ‘taking the initiative’, see especially Iliad X 224–226, 247; Iliad V 669 (with reference to Odysseus); also Iliad IX 104–108 (with reference to Nestor). For the traditional combination of neúō ‘nod’ and noéō ‘take note’ in situations where signals are sent and received respectively, see Odyssey xvi 164–165 (Athena nods to Odysseus, who gets the message and then takes the initiative); also Odyssey xvi 283. Cf. Köhnken 1975:32. For an important study of Homeric nóos and related words, I cite again Frame 1978.

[ back ] 24. Whitman 1958:191–192; cf. Rosner 1976:320.

[ back ] 25. For the function of the untranslatable word phílos ‘dear, friend’ and its derivatives in Homeric narrative, see Ch.6§13; see also Sinos 1975:65–81 on the ethical principle of philótēs that informs our Iliad.

[ back ] 26. §14.

[ back ] 27. See again §14; this trait of Odysseus corresponds to his epithet polúainos (Ch.12§19n70).

[ back ] 28. §15.

[ back ] 29. §10.

[ back ] 30. Granted, the subject + verb construction of Ὀδυσσεὺς + ἡγεῖτο ‘Odysseus led the way’ at Iliad IX 192 does not by itself rule out the possibility that Odysseus is included in rather than excluded from the dual construction that immediately precedes. Köhnken (1975:35) argues for inclusion, citing Iliad XXIV 95–96: there Iris is the leader (ἡγεῖτο) of two, Thetis and herself. But I must point out that this situation is not directly analogous, since the actions of the other member of the pair, Thetis, are designated in the singular, not the dual. Thus I am still bound to understand the dual constructions of Iliad IX 192 as referring to Ajax and Phoinix. On the other hand, Köhnken’s citing of ἡγεῖτ(ο) ‘led the way’ at Iliad XXIV 96 is useful for our understanding of Iliad IX 657, where Odysseus leads (ἦρχε) the Embassy back to the tent of Agamemnon. Besides himself and the heralds, only Ajax is left.

[ back ] 31. Page 1959:300.

[ back ] 32. §10.

[ back ] 33. §15.

[ back ] 34. §13.

[ back ] 35. We may note with interest the collocation of gérōn ‘elder’ with géras ‘privilege, honorific portion’ at Iliad IX 422.

[ back ] 36. §§10 and 15 respectively. See now Foreword §29n40.

[ back ] 37. There is an ad hoc explanation for the duals in the Homeric Hymn to Apollo (verses 456, 487, 501) that may be pertinent to the problem of the duals in Iliad IX. These dual constructions in the Hymn to Apollo occur in the quoted words spoken by the god to the Cretans. The narrative is presenting a dialogue between Apollo and the ‘leader of the Cretans’ (Κρητῶν ἀγός: 463), who is speaking on behalf of the other Cretans. Accordingly, Apollo’s random dual references to them may be elliptic: the leader (A) plus the others (B). Elliptic duals (A+B instead of A+A) and elliptic plurals (A+B+C … instead of A+A+A … ) are an Indo-European heritage in the Greek language; see Schwyzer/Debrunner 1950:50–52. Conceivably, Achilles may be “grammatically correct” when he gives a dual greeting to the leader of the Embassy (A) plus the others (B) at Iliad IX 196–198. Cf. Thornton 1978. But the ambiguities remain: maybe someone is still being excluded. Cf. also Köhnken 1978, replying to Thornton’s article.

[ back ] 38. See further at Ch7§19.

[ back ] 39. Again, Ch7§19.

[ back ] 40. Quoted at item (1) above.

[ back ] 41. One of the main points made by Köhnken (1975) is that the reference by Phoinix to the ‘best’ (ἀρίστους: Iliad IX 520) applies more to Ajax and Odysseus than to himself. But we also have to reckon with the reference, again made by Phoinix, to the ‘most dear’ (φίλτατοι: Iliad IX 522), which in turn seems to apply more to Ajax and himself than to Odysseus. Thus the problem of the dual greeting by Achilles remains (Iliad IX 197–198), since the emissaries are called ‘most dear of the Achaeans’ here (Ἀχαιῶν φίλτατοι: Iliad IX 198). Even if the greeting by Achilles were casual, it would be hard to justify the exclusion of his beloved mentor. Besides, Köhnken’s own catalogue of other Iliadic passages where Phoinix is mentioned (pp. 28) shortens the gap between the heroic stature of Ajax and Odysseus on the one hand and that of Phoinix on the other.

[ back ] 42. §14.