Beck, Deborah. 2005. Homeric Conversation. Hellenic Studies Series 14. Washington, DC: Center for Hellenic Studies. http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:hul.ebook:CHS_BeckD.Homeric_Conversation.2005.
Chapter 5. Group Contexts I—Assemblies
He spoke thus and sat down again, and among them stood up
The full-verse speech introduction ὅ σφιν ἐϋφρονέων ἀγορήσατο καὶ μετέειπεν is found with four of the six occurrences of Ἤτοι ὅ γ’ ὣς εἰπὼν κατ’ ἄρ’ ἕζετο· τοῖσι δ’ ἀνέστη. [9] In between these two verses, a speaker is always named, but the amount of information given about that speaker varies. At a minimum, we learn the speaker’s name and his patronymic or other descriptive information, as when Nestor speaks in an assembly at Iliad 2.76-78: [10]
Νέστωρ, ὅς ῥα Πύλοιο ἄναξ ἦν ἠμαθόεντος,
ὅ σφιν ἐϋφρονέων ἀγορήσατο καὶ μετέειπεν·
He spoke thus, and sat down again, and among them rose up
Nestor, he who ruled as a king in sandy Pylos.
He in kind intention toward all spoke out and addressed them: {193|194}
The length of the identifying passage varies, however, depending on various contextual and aesthetic factors that I will discuss in more detail below. The importance of sitting as one aspect of appropriate behavior in assembly clearly emerges later on in this assembly scene from Iliad 2, after Odysseus heads the Greek army off from their eager rush to launch their ships for home. Here the narrator characterizes Thersites as a misbehaving speaker partly by his failure to sit down when everyone else has been seated (211-214).
Assembly Patterns vs. Other Kinds of Deliberative Groups: Iliad 9
Assembly
δὴν δ’ ἄνεῳ ἦσαν τετιηότες υἷες Ἀχαιῶν·
ὀψὲ δὲ δὴ μετέειπε βοὴν ἀγαθὸς Διομήδης·
“Ἀτρεΐδη σοὶ πρῶτα μαχήσομαι ἀφραδέοντι,
ἣ θέμις ἐστὶν, ἄναξ, ἀγορῇ· σὺ δὲ μή τι χολωθῇς.” {195|196}
So he spoke, and all of them stayed stricken to silence.
For some time the sons of the Achaians said nothing in sorrow;
but at long last Diomedes of the great war cry addressed them:
“Son of Atreus: I will be first to fight with your folly,
as is my right, lord, in this assembly; then do not be angered.”
The speech frame between Agamemnon’s initial turn in the assembly and Diomedes’ reply consists of two full-verse formulas (29 and 31) and one verse that appears twice, both times in Iliad 9 (30). This passage allows us to imagine several different ways to make the transition from Agamemnon’s speech to Diomedes’ that provide varying amounts of length and emphasis to this moment in the episode. The simplest and briefest way to get from Agamemnon’s words to Diomedes’ answer would be the single verse formula τοῖσι δὲ καὶ μετέειπε βοὴν ἀγαθὸς Διομήδης (and Diomedes of the great war cry addressed them). A slightly more drawn-out version could pair this verse with the formulaic speech conclusion “they were stricken to silence” (9.29). A more emphatic but still entirely formulaic speech frame here could be achieved with 9.29 followed directly by 9.31. This would not only mention the silence of the audience after Agamemnon finished speaking (29), but would also draw their silence out by delaying the next speech until a certain amount of time had passed without anyone taking the next turn (31). In the passage as printed by modern editors, however, verse 30 literally extends the period of silence in the narrative—and emphasizes the reason for it—by saying why the Greeks were silent. Thus, the speech frame in 9.29-31 emphasizes the depths of the Greeks’ emotions by describing it at length. This sets off both the gravity of the situation and the speech of Diomedes, when he does eventually give it.
Council
τοῖς ὁ γέρων πάμπρωτος ὑφαίνειν ἤρχετο μῆτιν
Νέστωρ, οὗ καὶ πρόσθεν ἀρίστη φαίνετο βουλή·
ὅ σφιν ἐϋφρονέων ἀγορήσατο καὶ μετέειπεν·
“Ἀτρεΐδη κύδιστε ἄναξ ἀνδρῶν Ἀγάμεμνον …”
But when they had put away their desire for eating and drinking,
the aged man began to weave his counsel before them {197|198}
first, Nestor, whose advice had shown best before this.
He in kind intention toward all spoke out and addressed them:
“Son of Atreus, most lordly and king of men, Agamemnon …”
9.92 is formulaic, often effecting a transition from feasting to conversation. [16] The introduction of Nestor looks very similar to the introduction of a first assembly speaker, with some interesting differences: 93 briefly mentions the first speaker; 94 describes and names this person at slightly more length; and 95 is a formulaic reply introduction that is common in assembly scenes. [17] Although the structure here closely resembles common speech frame structures in assemblies (mention speaker / provide some details about speaker / reply introductory verse), the content of the description of the speaker differs compared to what we have seen in an assembly scene. Nestor is described in verses 93-94 in terms of the advice he had given to the Greeks on previous occasions. This passage, indeed, forms an instructive contrast with the previously quoted speech frame for Nestor from Iliad 2, where Nestor speaks in an assembly in response to a previous speech (2.76-78).
Νέστωρ, ὅς ῥα Πύλοιο ἄναξ ἦν ἠμαθόεντος,
ὅ σφιν ἐϋφρονέων ἀγορήσατο καὶ μετέειπεν·
He [Agamemnon] spoke thus, and sat down again, and among them rose up
Nestor, he who ruled as a king in sandy Pylos.
He in kind intention toward all stood forth and addressed them
This description of Nestor focuses on his kingship—on his authority, in other words—and not on the quality of his advice. In the council, moreover, in contrast to the assembly, there is no reference to Nestor sitting or standing. This reinforces the idea that sitting and standing in connection with speaking is restricted to the formal, institutional nature of the assembly.
Embassy
μῦθον ἀγασσάμενοι· μάλα γὰρ κρατερῶς ἀπέειπεν·
ὀψὲ δὲ δὴ μετέειπε γέρων ἱππηλάτα Φοῖνιξ
δάκρυ’ ἀναπρήσας· περὶ γὰρ δίε νηυσὶν Ἀχαιῶν·
So he spoke, and all of them stayed stricken to silence
in amazement at his words. He had spoken to them very strongly.
But at long last Phoinix the aged horseman spoke out
in a stormburst of tears, and fearing for the ships of the Achaians:
Here, as in the assembly earlier in Book 9, an additional verse follows the formula “they were all silent” that describes the emotions of the silent {200|201} listeners. The embassy is amazed (ἀγασσάμενοι, 431), while the group at the assembly was grief-stricken (τετιηότες, 9.30). The basic structure, though, is the same: A gave a speech; listening group was silent because they felt/were [emotion]; finally, B replied. Our passage, like 9.30, lengthens the related typical structure “A gave a speech / listening group was silent / finally, B replied.” By doing so, it calls the attention of the audience of the poem to the effect of the speech on the listeners. Furthermore, in 433, our passage contains a second additional verse after the “finally B replied” formula that describes the emotions of B. This is a particularly interesting elaboration from the structural standpoint, because it is rare for anything to intervene between a formulaic speech introduction and the speech itself. When an audience heard the reply introductory formula in 432, that would set up a strong expectation of hearing the beginning of a speech in the next verse. When they heard yet more description of the speaker instead, that surprising departure from the normal structures of speech frames would strongly draw their attention to this pathetic description of Achilles’ old friend Phoenix, afraid and in tears, as he begs Achilles to pity his struggling comrades.
Informal Group Conversation
μῦθον ἀγασσάμενοι· μάλα γὰρ κρατερῶς ἀγόρευσε.
δὴν δ’ ἄνεῳ ἦσαν τετιηότες υἷες Ἀχαιῶν·
ὀψὲ δὲ δὴ μετέειπε βοὴν ἀγαθὸς Διομήδης·
So he spoke, and all of them stayed stricken to silence
in amazement at his words. He had spoken to them very strongly.
For a long time the sons of the Achaians said nothing, in sorrow,
but at long last Diomedes of the great war cry spoke to them:
All the descriptive language here focuses on the grief and distress of the listeners rather than on the feelings of the next speaker. [25] Diomedes criticizes Agamemnon for sending the embassy in the first place and advises that the Greeks go to bed but be ready to fight at dawn (697-709). This proposal meets with the group’s approval (710), and they retire for the night. In this conversation, although several people are present and make speeches, there are no references to any of the accompaniments of formal group conversations (heralds or the posture of the speaker when he makes his remarks). Hence, this exchange should be considered simply a group of people talking rather than as one of the more formal types of group conversation. [26]
Variations on Typical Assembly Patterns: Iliad 1 and 19
Iliad 1
turn | speaker | addressee | notes on speech framing language |
1 | Achilles | group | |
2 | Calchas | group | |
3 | Calchas | Calchas | |
4 | Calchas | Achilles | |
5 | Agamemnon | Calchas | first speech by Agamemnon; preceded by speech frame describing his anger |
6 | Achilles | Agamemnon | unique vocative for Agamemnon |
7 | Agamemnon | Achilles | |
8 | Achilles | Agamemnon | unique vocative |
9 | Agamemnon | Achilles | |
10 | Achilles | Athena | interlude between Achilles and Athena begins |
11 | Athena | Achilles | |
12 | Achilles | Athena | |
13 | Achilles | Agamemnon | return to Achilles and Agamemnon; unique vocative; after speech, Achilles throws down σκῆπτρον |
14 | Nestor | group | |
15 | Agamemnon | Nestor | |
16 | Achilles | Agamemnon | Achilles interrupts {208|209} |
“Ἀτρεΐδη -…”
Achilleus of the swift feet stood up among them and spoke forth:
“Son of Atreus …”
Although Calchas is worried initially (74-83), and his first speech is preceded by a multi-verse passage that describes him (69-72), no one is angry or upset in the first four turns of the conversation and the speech frames are correspondingly formulaic and regular throughout. This generally calm tone changes when Agamemnon begins to take part in the conversation.
ἥρως Ἀτρεΐδης εὐρὺ κρείων Ἀγαμέμνων
ἀχνύμενος· μένεος δὲ μέγα φρένες ἀμφιμέλαιναι
πίμπλαντ’, ὄσσε δέ οἱ πυρὶ λαμπετόωντι ἐΐκτην·
Κάλχαντα πρώτιστα κάκ’ ὀσσόμενος προσέειπε·
“μάντι κακῶν οὐ πώ ποτέ μοι τὸ κρήγυον εἶπας …”
He spoke thus and sat down again, and among them stood up
Atreus’ son the hero wide-ruling Agamemnon
raging, the heart within filled black to the brim with anger
from beneath, but his two eyes showed like fire in their blazing.
First of all he eyed Kalchas bitterly and spoke to him:
“Seer of evil: never yet have you told me a good thing …”
The picture of Agamemnon in verses 103-104 focuses on his anger, which is portrayed at some length in strong and vivid language. Normally, in contrast, a personal description in this kind of formulaic context represents consistent aspects of the character’s personality in a sort of elongated version of an epithet, rather than depicting his or her emotions at this particular moment of speaking (analogous to a context-specific participle). Hence, both the length of the description and the specific language it contains contribute to the emphasis it confers on this speech and on Agamemnon as he makes it.
Son of Atreus, most lordly, eagerest for gain of all men [44]
Unlike Achilles’ vocatives for Agamemnon later in the assembly, this verse is not unambiguously abusive: a desire for possessions is not necessarily bad. Beyond the unusual but ambiguous opening, Achilles’ speech shows no particular animus toward Agamemnon personally: he says that the prizes have already been distributed, and so none is available to give to Agamemnon, but that he will be amply compensated when Troy is sacked (123-129).
O wrapped in shamelessness, with your mind forever on profit
This address begins with the interjection ὤ μοι (translated here simply as “O”), which in a full-verse vocative may give a tone of angry grief to abuse. [47] ἀναιδείην (shamelessness) is unambiguously disapproving; κερδαλεόφρον (with your mind forever on profit) is a more clearly negative but only slightly more frequently attested relative of φιλοκτεανώτατε (eagerest for gain of all men). [48] When compared to Achilles’ previous vocative for Agamemnon, this one clearly shows the increase in his displeasure. He expresses the same idea of “out for gain” as in his previous address with a more clearly derogatory word. To strengthen the tone of disapproval, he adds the interjection ὤ μοι (generally associated with grief or disapproval, or both) and the unambiguously critical ἀναιδείην. On its own, Achilles’ address here clearly indicates that he is angry with Agamemnon. If we consider the verse alongside his preceding full-verse vocative for Agamemnon, the change in tone gives additional depth and {212|213} shape to the scene as a whole. This progression in the language of Achilles’ vocatives for Agamemnon also demonstrates his unique skill as a manipulator of language.
τιμὴν ἀρνύμενοι Μενελάῳ σοί τε, κυνῶπα,
πρὸς Τρώων·
but for your sake,
o great shamelessness, we followed, to do you favour,
you with the dog’s eyes, to win your honour and Menelaos’
from the Trojans.
ὦ μέγ’ ἀναιδές (o great shamelessness, 158) repeats the root in ἀναιδείην (149), with which Achilles abused Agamemnon in his previous speech. κυνῶπα (you with the dog’s eyes, 159), which appears only here in extant Greek literature, has the same meaning as κυνῶπις (bitch [my translation]), a word used in the Homeric epics to refer particularly to shameless women. [49] Abusive as these expressions are, only here in the speech does Achilles attack Agamemnon personally. For the remainder of his remarks, he shows his displeasure without such attacks: he bemoans the possible seizure of his hard-won prize (160-168) and threatens to return home rather than remain without honor at Troy (169-171).
Ἀτρεΐδην προσέειπε, καὶ οὔ πω λῆγε χόλοιο·
But Peleus’ son once again in words of derision
spoke to Atreides, and did not yet let go of his anger:
This is the only multi-verse speech introduction for Achilles in the assembly. This brings to mind the description of the angry Agamemnon before his first speaking turn in the assembly (101-105). In our passage, the multi-verse speech introduction magnifies and emphasizes anger at the moment when Achilles is angrier than at any other time in the assembly. This is conveyed through the word ἀταρτηροῖς (a rare word whose meaning is debated, 223) [52] and the clause οὔ πω λῆγε χόλοιο (did not yet let go of his anger, 224). When we compare the representations of Achilles and of Agamemnon at their angriest, it is noteworthy that—even at the height of Achilles’ anger—the narrator describes his rage at less length than is given earlier to the fury of Agamemnon, for which preceding events give less justification.
Then great Achilles spoke a word to the son of Atreus {215|216}
This would be comparable to both Iliad 9.201 (αἶψα δὲ Πάτροκλον προσεφώνεεν ἐγγὺς ἐόντα [at once he called over to Patroklos who was not far from him], where Achilles is the unnamed speaker) and Odyssey 8.381 (δὴ τότ’ ἄρ’ Ἀλκίνοον προσεφώνεε δῖος Ὀδυσσεύς [Then great Odysseus spoke a word to Alkinoös]). Thus, although this couplet stands out less than the description of the angry Agamemnon, it nevertheless effectively uses length to draw the attention of the audience to Achilles’ anger.
You wine sack, with a dog’s eyes, with a deer’s heart
This language abuses Agamemnon’s manliness and courage in the strongest language of any of the three abusive full-verse vocatives that Achilles has employed in his confrontation with the king. οἰνοβαρές (wine sack) is another rare word used only here in the Iliad. [54] It is not obvious whether the insult is simply that Agamemnon is a drunk or whether it implies some additional slur, although the literal meaning is clear. [55] The phrase κυνὸς ὄμματ’ ἔχων (with a dog’s eyes) develops the same idea as the insult at 159 (κυνῶπα), but at greater length. This is similar to the evolution of the ambiguous φιλοκτεανώτατε (most eager for profit, 122) to the more obviously negative κερδαλεόφρον (with your mind forever on profit, 149) from the first to the second vocative that Achilles uses for Agamemnon. Moreover, it shows Achilles using length for additional emphasis in a manner that evokes the technique of the narrator. Only here is the word ἔλαφος (deer) applied to a person—elsewhere it refers {216|217} only to a literal deer, and it appears primarily in similes. [56] Achilles is able to use vocatives inventively to demonstrate his deep displeasure and disgust with Agamemnon. His ability to do this, and to create different vocatives of increasing ferocity and abusiveness, clearly demonstrate the exceptional language ability of his character.
χρυσείοις ἥλοισι πεπαρμένον, ἕξετο δ’ αὐτός·
Ἀτρεΐδης δ’ ἑτέρωθεν ἐμήνιε· τοῖσι δὲ Νέστωρ
ἡδυεπὴς ἀνόρουσε, λιγὺς Πυλίων ἀγορητής …
Thus spoke Peleus’ son and dashed to the ground the sceptre
studded with golden nails, and sat down again. But Atreides {217|218}
raged still on the other side, and between them Nestor
the fair-spoken rose up, the lucid speaker of Pylos …
This passage also mentions Agamemnon, using the rare verb μηνίω to describe his anger. [59] This portrait of the two angry men at once, rather than one at a time as heretofore, gives extra vividness and point to the strong emotions of Agamemnon and Achilles just before Nestor intervenes. A much less emphatic, and hence less effective, passage can be imagined here which would achieve the same narrative result (that is, “Achilles sat down, and Nestor got up”):
Νέστωρ ἡδυεπὴς, ὁ λιγὺς Πυλίων ἀγορητής [60]
He spoke thus and sat down again, and among them stood up
Nestor the fair-spoken, the lucid speaker of Pylos
1.245-247 as it stands adds detail and emphasis to the essentially formulaic idea of “X spoke and sat down, and Y got up to speak.”
“ἦ γάρ κεν δειλός τε καὶ οὐτιδανὸς καλεοίμην …”
Then interrupting brilliant Achilleus answered him: [61]
“So must I be called of no account and a coward …”
Here, Achilles is so beside himself that he breaks the turn sequence by interrupting and leaving a question without an answer, very unusual events in Homeric epic.
Iliad 19
μῆνιν ἀπειπόντος μεγαθύμου Πηλεΐονος.
τοῖσι δὲ καὶ μετέειπε ἄναξ ἀνδρῶν Ἀγαμ̣έμνων
αὐτόθεν ἐξ ἕδρης, οὐδ’ ἐν μέσσοισιν ἀναστάς·
“ὦ φίλοι ἥρωες Δαναοί, θεράποντες Ἄρηος …”
He spoke, and the strong-greaved Achaians were pleasured to hear him {221|222}
and how the great-hearted son of Peleus unsaid his anger.
Now among them spoke forth the lord of men Agamemnon
from the place where he was sitting, and did not stand up among them:
“Fighting men and friends, o Danaans, henchmen of Ares …”
19.75, in adding enjambment with 74, features the thematically important word μῆνις (anger) in the verse-initial position to specify that the Greeks rejoiced because Achilles forswore his wrath. Yet 19.74 alone would achieve the same basic effect, namely “X spoke, and the Y’s were happy.” It is clear from Achilles’ speech that the Greeks must be happy because he has renounced his quarrel with Agamemnon and returned to them. The additional verse stating this fact between Achilles’ speech and Agamemnon’s answer does not clarify the situation, but rather emphasizes what Achilles’ feelings now are, particularly in light of the strong verse-initial position of the word μῆνις.
δῶρα δ’ ἐγὼν ὅδε πάντα παρασχέμεν, ὅσσά τοι ἐλθὼν
χθιζὸς ἐνὶ κλισίῃσιν ὑπέσχετο δῖος Ὀδυσσεύς.
εἰ δ’ ἐθέλεις, ἐπίμεινον ἐπειγόμενός περ Ἄρηος,
δῶρα δέ τοι θεράποντες ἐμῆς παρὰ νηὸς ἑλόντες
οἴσουσ’, ὄφρα ἴδηαι ὅ τοι μενοεικέα δώσω.”
“Rise up, then, to the fighting and rouse the rest of the people.
Here am I, to give you all those gifts, as many
as brilliant Odysseus yesterday went to your shelter and promised.
Or if you will, hold back, though you lean hard into the battle, {224|225}
while my followers take the gifts from my ship and bring them
to you, so that you may see what I give to comfort your spirit.”
In this passage, the bulk of Agamemnon’s references to Achilles are imperative verb forms (ὄρσευ ‘rise up’, ὄρνυθι ‘rouse’, and ἐπίμεινον ‘hold back’). One is an indicative verb (ἐθέλεις ‘you will’); two are dative pronouns (τοι ‘[to] you, your’). None are personal references of any kind. [70] Agamemnon’s speaking style here seems like a very minimal tip to a server in a restaurant: by giving the bare minimum, one makes it clear that the small size of the token of respect is deliberate rather than an oversight. Given that Agamemnon consistently ignores Achilles in his speech, he may remain seated while uttering it for the same reason: his failure to stand up when speaking provides a non-verbal analogue for his studied avoidance of Achilles. [71] Thus, Agamemnon avoids Achilles by addressing the Greeks as a group and by not addressing Achilles himself by name, and he downplays the importance of the occasion (and thus of Achilles’ anger towards him) by choosing to remain seated while making a speech in an assembly. His wound gives him a plausible excuse for doing so, but not a sufficient one. Formulas and typical patterns for assembly speakers in the Homeric epics strongly suggest that what Agamemnon does here is to sit rather than to stand in the same spot that he had been sitting. If we view 19.76-77 against the background of the typical assembly, we need resort neither to emendation nor to involved explanations to be able to understand the verses. They make cogent sense as they are.
Friends, who are leaders of the Argives and keep their counsel
ὦ φίλοι ἥρωες Δαναοί, θεράποντες Ἀρῆος [73]
Fighting men and friends, o Danaans, henchmen of Ares
Each of these verses appears in both battle scenes and assemblies and is spoken by various characters. There is no clear and obvious pattern that explains why one verse is used rather than the other in every case.
“χαίρω σεῦ, Λαερτιάδη, τὸν μῦθον ἀκούσας …”
Then in turn the lord of men Agamemnon answered him:
“Hearing what you have said, son of Laertes, I am pleased with you …”
In the body of Agamemnon’s speech, he agrees to Odysseus’ proposal and refers to Achilles, but in the third person and with an imperative (αὐτὰρ Ἀχιλλεὺς / μιμνέτω [Let Achilleus / stay here], 188-189). He avoids Achilles in another way by making it Odysseus’ job to select the prizes for Achilles (192-195).
Conclusions
Footnotes