This section will use the funeral games of Patroclus in Iliad 23 as a basis for a study of the typical patterns governing funeral games, with the proviso given at the beginning of the chapter that we cannot be sure of the extent to which such patterns can be generalized since Iliad 23 offers the only fully developed {232|233} example of funeral games. After exploring these typical patterns, including their links to the conventions governing conversational types that have been studied in previous chapters, I will examine the role of conversation in creating emphasis and shaping the funeral games of Patroclus into our final picture of the Greek forces in the poem, restored to harmony among themselves while at the same time preserving a strong sense of honor and competition.

The similarities between assemblies and athletic games exist at the level of broad, organizational principles. One of these similarities is the notion of the group being seated at the start of the business for which they have gathered together. When the games in honor of Patroclus begin after the Greeks finish putting out his funeral pyre, a leader—here the chief mourner, Achilles—collects the group together, who are then seated (23.257-258).

Although game participants mark themselves as taking a turn when they stand up, there is no corresponding way to indicate that a turn is over, as there is for assembly speakers. In assemblies, in contrast, the formula “X stood up” before a speech generally follows a formula mentioning previous speaker Y, who sat down after finishing a turn at speaking. This has to do with two unique aspects of game turns: first, if the “turn” that is indicated by the person who stands up is a shot at competition, it is not only permitted but necessary that more than one person at a time should take a turn. So, standing up identifies {235|236} someone as a turn-taker in a particular contest, but does not limit the entire turn to this person. Because it is not necessary to limit a game turn to one individual, it does not matter if turns overlap, and so it is not as important in funeral games as it is in assemblies to indicate where a particular turn ends. Secondly, even when standing marks the start of a speaking turn rather than a competitor turn (as when Achilles stands before announcing a new competition), the speech it introduces usually does not lead to conversation. Achilles, like a speaker in an assembly, does exclude others from taking a turn when he stands up before announcing a new competition. He not only identifies himself as a turn-taker by standing, he also signals that he alone is taking a turn. But Achilles, unlike a speaker in assembly, has a unique type of turn because he is the leader of the funeral games. No one else can announce new competitions, whereas many people can take a turn at speaking in an assembly. For the most part, after Achilles announces a new competition, the next turn is not another speech but the self-identification of competitors. Again, such a mixture of speech and action within a larger exchange recalls the battlefield, particularly since the only repeating speech element of the “competition” type is a single kind of speech (announcement that a competition will begin). The overall structure and the orderly rules governing the competition in games closely resemble the essentially cooperative conversational type of the assembly. Individual turns, which emphasize the spirit of competition more than the spirit of cooperation, resemble those found in combat situations. This combination of elements produces an activity that successfully mixes cooperation and competition.

The first conversation in the chariot race occurs between two spectators, and it threatens to turn into a competition of its own until Achilles puts a stop to it. After some sharp words between the competitors Menelaus and Antilochus about Antilochus’ sneaky driving technique while the race is in progress, the scene shifts to the spectators. The spectators are seated ἐν ἀγῶνι (in their assembly, 448), but Idomeneus sits higher up than the other spectators and so he can see the racecourse better than they can (450-455). He rises from his seat and speculates about who is in the lead. {237|238}

This conversation about the competition now runs the risk of becoming a full-fledged competition in “competition” with the chariot race. Ajax rises to take up Idomeneus’ challenge, just as he might have done if he were showing his intention to compete in a contest that had been formally announced by the leader of the games. But for the timely intervention of Achilles, a contest other than the chariot race would have broken out (488-491).

The progression here resembles the “competition” type in some ways: it includes the typical contest elements “leader stands (Idomeneus’ first speech) / announces contest / contestants rise (Ajax after second speech of Idomeneus).” However, unlike the typical pattern for introducing a competition, this exchange between Ajax and Idomeneus includes conversation in which the announcer and the would-be competitor get into an argument. Moreover, it presents the person who speaks first as a possible competitor, which Achilles never is. At the same time, the narrative depicts this budding competition as a conversational exchange, since Ajax’s aborted reply is referred to in verse 489 with the verb ἀμείψασθαι.

New difficulties arise in the chariot race after the contestants have all finished the race and the prizes are to be awarded. Several conversations occur in the course of these disagreements. First, Antilochus refuses to accept Achilles’ decision to give second prize to Eumelus even though Eumelus came in last place. A conversation takes place in which he and Achilles discuss the issue (536-562). Then a second dispute arises almost immediately between Antilochus and Menelaus over which of them is really entitled to Antilochus’ prize (566-611). The overall organization of this conversation and its turn sequences resembles a battlefield exchange. That is to say, conversation about a particular activity alternates with the activity itself, namely the distribution of the prizes. This gives a competitive edge to the idea of distributing prizes, even though in theory, this should be a celebratory, consensus-based part of a contest. Once again, conversation is used to bring forward both the strength of the competitive feelings of the participants and the underlying group harmony that makes it possible to resolve or defuse these feelings.

Similar concerns now arise for other competitors. Menelaus, the winner of the third prize, becomes angry. He rises to speak (566), saying that Antilochus had beaten him unfairly to win (570-585). Antilochus gives way before the wrathful Menelaus and offers to hand over the mare that he was awarded for his prize (587-595). The pleasure of Menelaus at this deferential treatment is described at some length and includes a simile. The thrust of 596-601, however, is simply that Menelaus replied to Antilochus:

The passage highlights Menelaus’ pleasure by describing it in terms of dew on ears of wheat that are blowing in the breeze, a vivid and peaceful image that both adorns the scene and contributes to the sense of calm that succeeds the conflict over the prize.

The simile and the speech frame as a whole emphasize the swift action that Antilochus takes to placate Menelaus (in contrast to Agamemnon’s inaction in a similar situation) and its beneficial, calming effect on the offended person. As it turns out, Antilochus’ gesture alone is enough to calm Menelaus, and he refuses to take the mare (602-611). Menelaus gives her to the companion of Antilochus to lead away, and Menelaus gets a cup instead (612-613). Thus, this disagreement contrasts strongly with the disastrous argument between Achilles and Agamemnon over prizes that begins the poem and has such a far-reaching effect. Here, both participants go further than is necessary to resolve their dispute, whereas neither Agamemnon nor Achilles was willing to go far enough to resolve theirs until it had already done enormous damage. As this passage makes clear, in these games, conflict is not avoided; instead, it is repeatedly confronted and defused in an orderly and productive manner. {242|243} The poem draws to a close partly by dwelling at length on this process and implicitly contrasting it to the conflicts that bedevil the Greeks through most of the Iliad.

No one argues about Meriones’ fourth prize, which he receives without any accompanying disputes or speeches (614-615). Achilles awards the fifth and final prize for the chariot race, which has gone unclaimed by any contestant, as a sort of honorary prize for Nestor since he is now too old to compete (618-623). Nestor is delighted to accept this award, which we learn not only from the narrator in the introduction to Nestor’s speech (624-625) but also from Nestor’s own words (626-650). Here, too, an expanded speech frame emphasizes reciprocity, both the actual giving of the gift and the joy of the recipient, although the narrative could have proceeded smoothly if a single verse “Nestor answered him” reply introduction were used instead.

Once again, the full-verse introductory formula καί μιν φωνήσας ἔπεα πτερόεντα προσηύδα appears in combination with another verse or verses that describe the pleasure of one of the participants in the games at an orderly distribution of prizes, bringing this notion to the fore at the end of the process of awarding the prizes for the chariot race.

What have we learned about the structure of games? In the funeral games in Iliad 23, the overall structure with its formal markers for beginning, turn-taking, and ending resembles that of an assembly. Within this structure, however, individual turns and speeches differ from those that occur in formal assemblies because they rarely make a conversation. Instead, speech and action can each constitute a “turn,” and both may be combined in one interdependent structure within a given turn. These aspects of speech representation in the funeral games in Iliad 23 resemble battlefield scenes more than assemblies, where conversation forms the essence of the scene and where action other than various formal accompaniments to speech rarely occurs. So, we can say that the representation of speech and conversation in Patroclus’ funeral games combines the formal structures of assembly with the competition and speech-plus-action turn patterns found on the battlefield. That is to say, opponents strive against one another in an agonistic, competitive manner within a larger framework of rules and order that prevents the competitive aspect of the situation from getting out of control. Because conversation is rare in games scenes, when it does occur it creates emphasis simply by being there, as we have seen at length in the chariot race in Patroclus’ funeral games. In this competition, several different conversations consistently highlight conflict over the equitable distribution of goods in order to show these conflicts being resolved. Because conflict over prizes is one of the main themes of the Iliad, this provides an effective sense of closure in our last view of most of the important Greek heroes. {244|245}

• formulaic speech introduction: τῇσιν δ’ αὖτε or ἔπειτα [name of lamenter] ἐξῆρχε γόοιο
• lament
• formulaic speech conclusion: ὣς ἔφατο κλαίουσ’, ἐπὶ δὲ στενάχοντο γυναῖκες

All of these elements are not necessarily found in this identical form in every lament, but this basic structure and often these formulas usually accompany laments. As in assemblies, the regular structure of an individual turn in a formal lament sequence includes not only the speech itself, but also specific actions before and after the speech that are related to the context in which the speech occurs. {245|246}

Some of these laments for Patroclus have been used by neoanalysts to argue that Patroclus’ death is a superficially adapted version of Achilles’ death which has an uneasy or problematic relationship to its Iliadic context. However, if we closely examine the structures found in speeches about the dead Patroclus, it becomes clear that the speech most extensively used to support this neoanalytical argument shows significant differences from typical lament patterns and is not really a lament at all. In other words, speeches lamenting Patroclus’ death do not seem to be taken from some other part of the Troy tale without regard to their suitability for the Iliad, but to be well integrated into their own contexts. If we look for lament patterns outside of the well-known series about Hector in Book 24, we find them creating added layers of meaning and connection through the last section of the Iliad. Many of these laments, among the most beautiful and moving speeches in the Iliad, have been extensively studied before for their individual pathos and artistry; this analysis will draw out the connections among different examples of lament in order to show their significance as a consistent force in shaping the end of the poem into a depiction of the costs of war for Greek and Trojan alike.

The notion of the women’s responsive role appears in a slightly less developed way following the lament of Hecuba, since the usual conclusion for lament has an unusual expression in the second half of the verse (24.760-762).

Although 760 does not have the concluding half-verse ἐπὶ δὲ στενάχοντο γυναῖκες (and the women mourned in response), the passage between the laments of Hecuba and Helen nevertheless includes the key behavioral and responsive elements of formal lament. ὣς ἔφατο κλαίουσα tells us that Hecuba wept as she lamented, and τῇσι refers to the assembled women who are the audience for the lament of Helen. The expression γόον δ’ ἀλίαστον ὄρινε (wakened the endless mourning, 760) strongly implies the assembled women as the people in whom this mourning was awakened, but they are not mentioned explicitly as they would have been by the more common phrase ἐπὶ δὲ στενάχοντο γυναῖκες. Even so, this expression conveys the idea of a responsive group wailing in response to Hecuba’s speech.

This scene displays the basic features of formal lament. A series of speeches occur that are nominally addressed to the dead person, insofar as the vocatives they contain refer to him. Like assembly, laments feature a series of speeches by different characters to the same addressee. However, the group of people present are the ones who respond to a speech of lament, the dead person obviously being prevented by his condition from doing so. This response by the listening group forms an important and regular element of a lament, as shown by the formulaic expression that refers to it. Both the listeners and the person speaking the lament weep. Thus, lament alone of the conversational genres we have studied has a complete separation between the person addressed in a speech and the person(s) who responds to the speech. This separation contributes to the formality of the occasion; the importance of the listening audience in lament, assembly, and athletic games links all of these together as formal genres of speech. Moreover, since their common attributes have been documented linguistically as characteristic of institutional speech, it seems probable that the specific behavioral and sequential characteristics of these different kinds of conversation reflect at least to some degree a social reality in how they were conducted.

The formal laments in Iliad 24 take place within the larger context of funeral rites, including professional singers and the construction of a funeral pyre on which Hector is cremated after the laments over his body. The same conventions that apply to the laments themselves in Iliad 24, namely the invariable practice of weeping while lamenting and the responsive accompaniment of a group of mourners, also occur with the laments for Hector immediately after his death. These are less formal insofar as they do not take place as part of his funeral rites, and they sometimes lack the formulaic {251|252} speech frames for lament that appear regularly in Book 24. Nonetheless, the speeches themselves display the conventions of lament for the behavior of both lamenter and responsive group. Thus, the audience experiences Hector’s death twice. They also experience it in different ways, first with the despairing shock and immediacy of the moment of death itself, and then in a calmer and more elaborate way during Hector’s funeral. This double treatment of Hector’s death gives it great importance in structuring the end of the poem, and thus in creating the feeling of sorrow and loss that characterizes the poem as a whole.

After Priam finishes, Hecuba begins to speak. Her speech is both preceded and followed by formulaic speech frames for lament. In contrast to Priam, whose “chorus” of mourners are men like himself, Hecuba now makes a lament among the Trojan women. The introduction to her lament uses a dative proper noun to emphasize this difference, rather than the usual pronoun τῇσι (them), which in this context would not clearly identify the women who mourn with her. Her speech, unlike Priam’s, consists entirely of direct address to Hector and the traditional comparison between her own condition and his (431-436). The most unusual feature of Hecuba’s lament is the lack of a responsive audience in the speech conclusion that follows her lament, although the Trojan women appear as her audience before she begins. With this exception, Hecuba’s speech—unlike Priam’s—displays the typical features of formal lament.

In Book 22, the very first speech about the dead Hector (by Priam) only resembles a lament in some respects. It does not separate the addressee from the audience, for example, which other laments in the poem consistently do. Nor does it directly address the dead man. As the scene progresses, however, the speeches of other family members more clearly and fully demonstrate the characteristics of the formal lament. Hecuba’s speech displays virtually all of the conventions of lament, except for a reference to a responsive chorus at the end. The lament of Andromache derives special emphasis from its delayed position after the speeches of Hector’s parents, and it displays all of the conventions of formal lament that we see in all three laments in Book 24. {256|257} Overall, the scene gives a sense that the fact of Hector’s death sinks in gradually for the members of his family: Priam, in the immediate flush of grief, does not give a formal lament; Hecuba, with a bit more time to process that her son has been killed, gives a speech with most of the features of formal lament, while Andromache, the last speaker, makes the longest and most formal lament not only of the three in Book 22, but of any in the Iliad. This progression only emerges clearly against the backdrop of the typical patterns for formal lament.

If we compare the series of laments for Hector immediately after his death in Book 22 with those that appear in Book 24 in connection with his funeral rites, we see that the series in Book 24 is more formally arranged and presented in several respects. All of the laments in the series in Book 24 display the same set of formal criteria; the dynamic there is a gradual broadening of the responsive group of lamenters rather than (as in Book 22) a progressive heightening of the expression of grief from unadorned sadness to full-blown lament. At first, the mourners are women, as is usual in such contexts. By the final lament of Helen—who has caused the whole situation, in some sense—the group of mourners has been extended to include all the people of Troy, which will soon fall to the Greeks now that Hector is dead. These two scenes both use the typical features of formal lament to create an overall dynamic for a scene of mourning for Hector, but each scene does this in a different way that is well suited to the particular circumstances of that particular point in the story. Book 22 uses the conventions of lament to depict the gradual process of the loved ones taking in the fact of someone’s death; in Book 24, the narrator creates a sense of closure by gradually broadening the impact of Hector’s death from his immediate family to his entire city, which is now destined to fall, taking Achilles with it. Neither of these effects would be as successful as they are without a typical pattern as the basis for them.

Achilles laments for Patroclus later in Book 18, after Patroclus’ corpse has been returned to the Greek camp. While the Trojans eat their supper after holding an assembly, Achilles and his comrades spend the night in lamentation for Patroclus. Here Achilles is the only mourner to lament in direct speech, but in spite of the lack of a series of speeches, it is clear that his speech is a lament.

This passage begins by describing the group of grieving comrades among whom Achilles laments for Patroclus (314-315). The verb στενάχομαι (mourn), which regularly appears in formulaic lament conclusions to describe the responsive mourning of an accompanying group, is used in verse 315 in compound form for the activity of the Achaeans. This portrays them as the responsive chorus for the lament of Achilles. Verse 316 is a formulaic introduction for laments, with a masculine dative pronoun instead of a feminine one to suit the Achaeans as the audience for the lament.

This lament does not lead to further laments by other comrades. Instead, after Achilles finishes speaking, he and his companions bathe the corpse and lay it on a bier (343-353). Following this, a couplet very similar to 314-315 tells us that the Myrmidons lamented with Achilles throughout the night (354-355), and this vignette of the lamenting Achilles comes to an end. This speech displays all of the conventional features of formal lament except for a formulaic conclusion describing responsive lament by a group. This group lamenting does take place, but it is delayed until after the body has been washed. Moreover, the lament gains particular distinction from the simile that is woven into the introductory formula. The simile, which appears in addition to the traditional introduction for a lament rather than instead of it, draws on common battlefield imagery in an unusual context to create a particularly apposite image of Achilles’ grief when he first “meets” the corpse of his dead friend and laments over it.

Although the component of the lamenting group does occur in this scene, the primary focus is very much on Achilles rather than on a group of mourners, as befits the bitter and overwhelming grief of his first confrontation with the dead body of his friend. Unlike Hector, who has several loving relatives who are all grief-stricken by his death, only Patroclus’ absent father Menoetius is said to have an affection for him that resembles that of Achilles. As a result, Achilles has a distinctive role as “head mourner” for Patroclus, while the father, son, brother, and husband Hector is lamented over by many of his relatives. In Book 19, however, Achilles is joined by others in lamenting for Patroclus in a series that more closely resembles those that we saw for Hector. This broadens the impact of Patroclus’ death to include associates of Patroclus’ beyond Achilles. Similarly, Briseis’ lament and the response of the group around her provide an opportunity to explore the broader impact of war itself on the wives, parents, and comrades who are bereaved by the death of warriors they love during a peaceful interlude before Achilles returns to the battlefield to cause the deaths of many more warriors.

The impetus for this set of laments for Patroclus is Briseis’ return to Achilles after the assembly at which the disagreement between him and Agamemnon is resolved. When Briseis reaches Achilles’ tent and sees the corpse of Patroclus, she addresses him in tears. The introduction to her speech is not based on the common formulaic lament introduction and it does not include a reference to {263|264} a responsive audience among whom she speaks. In other respects, her speech can be confidently identified as a lament.

When she speaks, she addresses the corpse directly, as do the relatives of Hector when they mourn for him. Briseis, unlike Thetis, laments for Patroclus himself and the grief that his loss will cause her. She follows the typical lament pattern of directly addressing his corpse at the beginning and the end of her {264|265} lament, and she gives a narrative description of her own life in between. In addition, the formulaic conclusion for laments at 301 brings in the responsive group that usually accompanies lament. Moreover, an additional verse (302) describes the feelings of this lamenting chorus in more detail than we find elsewhere, giving them a particularly prominent role here in spite of their absence from the narrative before the lament begins. Briseis, in essence, assumes the role of a female relation of Patroclus, and gives a formal lament that follows all the conventions of the genre except for the explicit mention of a responsive group before the lament begins.

Thus, this lament for Patroclus brings in more people to grieve for him alongside Achilles. The contents of these various laments, and the stress that the speech frames lay on the thoughts of the lamenters, draw attention to the impact that the death of a warrior has on the range of people with whom the warrior is connected. Such connections, which led to Patroclus’ presence on the battlefield in the first place through his relationship to Achilles, become increasingly prominent during the last section of the poem. They finally assume center stage in Book 24, where they provide a way for Priam and Achilles to make a connection to each other and—in a very different context—draw together the whole community of Troy through their grief for the dead Hector to conclude the Iliad.

Thus far in our exploration of the sorrowful speeches about the dead Patroclus, we have seen one speech by Thetis that evokes lament without actually being one (18.52-64); a lament by Achilles amid the Achaeans when Patroclus’ corpse is brought home (18.324-342); and further laments by Briseis and then by Achilles when Briseis returns to Achilles’ tent and sees the corpse of Patroclus (19.287-300). Finally, in Book 23, Patroclus is buried with full funeral honors, which start with another lament by Achilles. This lament follows almost {266|267} immediately after Andromache’s lament for Hector at the end of Book 22, emphasizing the manifold connections among the characters involved in these two related deaths and the universality of sorrow and lament in war. Just after Hector dies for having killed Patroclus, Patroclus’ corpse receives its final funeral rites. As Book 23 opens, most of the other Greeks return to their ships after the fighting over Hector’s body has ended, but Achilles tells the Myrmidons to stay with him and mourn for Patroclus (4-11). Achilles leads a lamenting group of Myrmidons (οἱ δ’ ᾤμωξαν ἀολλέες, ἦρχε δ’ Ἀχιλλεύς [all of them assembled moaned, and Achilleus led them], 12). Accompanied by Thetis, they slowly drive their chariots around the corpse (12-16).

The introduction to Achilles’ speech at this point is identical to the beginning of the introduction to his first lament for Patroclus.

Once again, the added verse after the formulaic lament introduction gives a fuller and more moving picture of the grieving Achilles than the introduction alone would. A simile appeared in Book 18 after this additional verse, but the lament itself directly follows the couplet here. There is no reason why a simile could not have appeared in Book 23 as well as in Book 18. But the appearance of the simile when Achilles first grieves for Patroclus, and when his grief is presumably sharpest and strongest, gives that episode special prominence compared to the more formal context of the funeral rites for Patroclus. This progression, in which the grieving person (or people) becomes more able to voice his sorrow in the formal terms of lament as he gradually takes in the reality of his loved one’s death, resembles what we saw when we compared the laments for the just-killed Hector in Book 22 with the more formal and orderly speeches during his funeral at the end of Book 24.

By this point, although Achilles has not recovered from his grief (and in fact he refuses to eat just after this lament), his grief is somewhat more under control than it has been. He opens his speech here not with expressions of {267|268} grief but with a salutation to the corpse when he says χαῖρέ μοι ὦ Πάτροκλε (contrast the opening words of his first lament at 18.324, ὢ πόποι [ah me]). Moreover, this lament forms part of the funeral rites for Patroclus rather than standing on its own. For this reason too, less elaboration than in Book 18 seems appropriate. The lament itself is short, given that Achilles has already expressed his grief for Patroclus twice before: he merely bids Patroclus farewell and tells him that he has done all the things he promised the corpse that he would do.

If we look at the various laments for Patroclus (by Achilles in Books 18, 19, and 23 and by Briseis in Book 19), we can see that all of them are addressed at least partly to Patroclus himself; all take place with a group of accompanying mourners, although this group may not be mentioned in both the introduction and conclusion of the lament; and all maintain the distinction between the audience of the lament (the group) and the addressee of the lament (the dead person). Thetis’ speech at the beginning of Book 18, on the other hand, although it is often considered a lament, resembles formal laments only in naming the speech as a γόος at the beginning and in giving Thetis a group of women to whom to speak. Her speech itself conforms very little to the traditional structures of formal lament. This casts grave doubt on the neoanalyst contention that Patroclus’ death is a rehash or a reworking of Achilles’ death as depicted in other parts of the epic cycle. While much of the interest in Patroclus’ death lies in its connection to the death of Achilles, Patroclus and Achilles are not interchangeable and the laments for Patroclus should be evaluated on their own terms.

These laments for Patroclus adhere to the basic conventions of the lament as a formal speech genre that we saw in the more developed lament sequences for Hector. In fact, the genre of lament is restricted in the Iliad to Patroclus and Hector, yet another way that these two heroes are linked together and that the poem universalizes the sorrow of war to both sides of the conflict. For both Patroclus and Hector, speeches by dear friends or relatives immediately following the death of the relevant hero have a ragged immediacy that stems partly from the fact that these speeches do not include all the typical attributes of a lament. A later speech or series of speeches, by following lament patterns more fully, have a calmer and more formal tone. Individual laments regularly achieve special effects of pathos or vividness by using the common patterns of lament in unusual ways. Moreover, the laments for each hero interlock with one another over the last {268|269} quarter of the poem, thereby strengthening its shape and cohesion: Hector’s death at Achilles’ hands follows the first laments for Patroclus and precedes his funeral. Laments for Hector, the most developed and formal of all, bring the poem to a close after Patroclus’ funeral has taken place. Thus, the genre of lament plays a significant role both in setting apart Hector and Patroclus and in linking them together. Indeed, it shapes the last section of the poem into a subtle and highly effective depiction of war primarily as a source of sorrow for those on both sides. Of course, it is also a source of honor and prizes and so forth, but the consistent emphasis on lament and grieving in the last part of the Iliad depicts loss for both winners and losers as the main effect of war.

Although athletic games and formal laments do not appear often enough to have the same secure status as types that other kinds of conversations do, they show patterns that are clear and consistent. Not only do they follow particular patterns, albeit patterns that appear less often than those of more well established types, they also manipulate these patterns to create effects in the same manner that we have observed in previous chapters. Athletic games, formal laments, and assemblies share turn sequences and turn structures that appear to be associated with formal contexts. These include successive speeches to a group at the level of turn sequence; turns that are composed of both speech and action; and speech turns that are regularly accompanied by some kind of behavior. To a great extent, these patterns are consistent with characteristics of institutional talk that have been documented by linguistic research, suggesting that the specifics of behavior and sequence described in these poetic representations reflect at least to some degree actual practices in assembly, games and lament.

Each of these genres regularly adapts these conventions to create aesthetic effects that dramatize themes important to the poem overall. In the funeral games for Patroclus, conversation appears at moments when the Greeks in general and Achilles in particular successfully negotiate and resolve conflicts about status and prizes. This contrasts markedly with Achilles’ behavior and the use of conversation elsewhere in the Iliad, thereby providing an effective resolution to the theme of conflict and status among the various Greeks. Laments for Hector and for Patroclus in the last third of the poem bring forward the idea that the main characteristic of war is the {269|270} costs it exacts from the loved ones of the dead warriors on both sides. This idea of war, an extraordinary one in a Greek poem depicting a Greek victory, characterizes the outlook of the Iliad and gives it much of its superb force and power.

The Conclusion will discuss the characteristics and aesthetic significance of conversation, and will speculate on what this means for the composition, transmission, and writing down of the Homeric epics. {270|}