Agamemnon Audience

862019 Agamemnon Audience

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullagamemnon-audience 127

Greek Roman and Byzantine Studies49 (2009) 159ndash185copy 2009 GRBS

Agamemnon and His Audiences

Benjamin Sammons

HEN WE INTERPRET a speech in Homer we shouldconsider the social and performative context towhich the speech belongs That is to say we should

consider whether the speech is delivered in the context of acouncil of leaders ( βουλή ) an assembly ( ἀγορή ) within anintimate group of ἑταῖροι as with the embassy to Achilles or inprivate conversation Recent studies suggest that the poet andby extension his audience is very sensitive to these distinctionsand is usually quite clear as to the social context of a speechand the internal audience to which it is delivered 1 Understand-ing this helps the external audience to identify the rhetoricalaims of the speaker and to follow their execution On the otherhand Homeric speeches are more than mere representationsof social interaction or political discourse They add in sig-nificant ways to the ongoing characterization of the speakerand more importantly they provide an important space forthe development of the poetrsquos themes 2 In this paper I examine

1 The poet is even more sensitive to these distinctions than older studiesof Homeric rhetoric eg Richard P Martin The Language of Heroes Speechand Performance in the Iliad (Ithaca 1989) have appreciated For differencesbetween speech in the βουλήas opposed to ἀγορή see Joel P ChristensenThe Failure of Speech Rhetoric and Politics in the Iliad (diss New York Univ2007) 132ndash176 for the ἀγορήas a venue for ldquoinstitutionalized dissentrdquo see

Elton Barker ldquoAchillesrsquo Last Stand Institutionalising Dissent in Homerrsquos Iliad rdquo PCPS 50 (2004) 92ndash120 for different poetic conventions for describ-ing speech and its reception in assembly and council as opposed to intimateor private converse see Deborah Beck Homeric Conversation(Cambridge[Mass] 2005) 191ndash229

2 Indeed as Jasper Griffin demonstrates ldquoHomeric Words and Speak-ersrdquo JHS 106 (1986) 36ndash57 character-speech includes an entire vocabulary

W



160 AGAMEMNON AND HIS AUDIENCES

a speech of Agamemnon for which the poet is not only unclearas to performative context and internal audience but I believeintentionally ambiguous I hope to show that this speech isintroduced and performed in such a way that it can be in-terpreted either as an emotional personal address to a closerelative or as an ingenious piece of political theater directed to

a broader internal audience I hope to show as well that when viewed from the latter standpoint the speech is entirely con-sistent not only with the Agamemnonrsquos characteristic rhetoricalstrategies but also with the poetrsquos habitual use of this extra-ordinary figure for the development of themes important to hisrepresentation of the Trojan War

In Book 3 of the Iliad Paris and Menelaus fight a duel todecide the outcome of the war The Achaeans and the Trojanshave sworn a solemn oath should Paris win the Achaeans willdepart and leave the Trojans alone should Menelaus be vic-torious the Trojans will return Helen and the property takenwith her and pay an indemnity (3276ndash291) The narrative

leaves little doubt of Menelausrsquo imminent victory (373) 3 How-ever the gods are loath to permit this ending to the war First Aphrodite rescues her proteacutegeacute from Menelaus and returns himto the safety of his boudoir In Book 4 Zeus after cajolinglysuggesting that the oath should stand finally strikes a deal withHera sealing Troyrsquos fate (34ndash67) Athena is sent to earth andbeguiles the wits of Pandarus who shoots an arrow at Mene-laus and wounds him This nefarious act violates the oath andleads eventually to a resumption of hostilities

Naturally the infamous shot of Pandarus being engineeredby Athena herself does not seriously injure the hero Althoughhe shudders at first he quickly notices that the wound is super-ficial and regains his composure Meanwhile Agamemnon seesthe wound shudders himself approaches and takes Menelausby the hand He then delivers our speech (4155ndash182)

ldquoφίλε κασίγνητε θάνατόν νύ τοι ὅρκιrsquo ἔταμνον 155οἶον προστήσας πρὸ Ἀχαιῶν Τρωσὶ μάχεσθαι

___

that is never or rarely used by the poet in his own voice and yet expressesmany of the more pathetic themes of the poem

3 Parisrsquo poor chances are already signaled by Priamrsquos shudder at 259



BENJAMIN SAMMONS 161

ὥς σrsquo ἔβαλον Τρῶες κατὰ δrsquo ὅρκια πιστὰ πάτησανοὐ μέν πως ἅλιον πέλει ὅρκιον αἷμά τε ἀρνῶν σπονδαί τrsquo ἄκρητοι καὶ δεξιαί ᾗς ἐπέπιθμενεἴ περ γάρ τε καὶ αὐτίκrsquo Ὀλύμπιος οὐκ ἐτέλεσσεν 160ἔκ τε καὶ ὀψὲ τελεῖ σύν τε μεγάλῳ ἀπέτεισαν σὺν σφῇσιν κεφαλῇσι γυναιξί τε καὶ τεκέεσσινεὖ γὰρ ἐγὼ τόδε οἶδα κατὰ φρένα καὶ κατὰ θυμόνmiddot

ἔσσεται ἦμαρ ὅτrsquo ἄν ποτrsquo ὀλώλῃ Ἴλιος ἱρὴ καὶ Πρίαμος καὶ λαὸς ἐϋμμελίω Πριάμοιο 165Ζεὺς δέ σφι Κρονίδης ὑψίζυγος αἰθέρι ναίωναὐτὸς ἐπισσείῃσιν ἐρεμνὴν αἰγίδα πᾶσι τῆσδrsquo ἀπάτης κοτέωνmiddot τὰ μὲν ἔσσεται οὐκ ἀτέλεσταmiddotἀλλά μοι αἰνὸν ἄχος σέθεν ἔσσεταιὦ Μενέλαεαἴ κε θάνῃς καὶ πότμον ἀναπλήσῃς βιότοιο 170καί κεν ἐλέγχιστος πολυδίψιον Ἄργος ἱκοίμηνmiddotαὐτίκα γὰρ μνήσονται Ἀχαιοὶ πατρίδος αἴηςmiddotκὰδ δέ κεν εὐχωλὴν Πριάμῳ καὶ Τρωσὶ λίποιμεν Ἀργείην Ἑλένηνmiddot σέο δrsquo ὀστέα πύσει ἄρουρα κειμένου ἐν Τροίῃ ἀτελευτήτῳ ἐπὶ ἔργῳ 175καί κέ τις ὧδrsquo ἐρέει Τρώων ὑπερηνορεόντων τύμβῳ ἐπιθρῴσκων Μενελάου κυδαλίμοιοmiddotlsquoαἴθrsquo οὕτως ἐπὶ πᾶσι χόλον τελέσειrsquo Ἀγαμέμνωνὡς καὶ νῦν ἅλιον στρατὸν ἤγαγεν ἐνθάδrsquo Ἀχαιῶνκαὶ δὴ ἔβη οἶκόνδε φίλην ἐς πατρίδα γαῖαν 180σὺν κεινῇσιν νηυσί λιπὼν ἀγαθὸν Μενέλαονrsquoὥς ποτέ τις ἐρέειmiddot τότε μοι χάνοι εὐρεῖα χθώνrdquo

ldquoDear brother so I swore those oaths to be death for you when I sent you alone to fight the Trojans on behalf of the Achaeanssince the Trojans have shot you and have trampled firm oathsBut an oath and the blood of sheep are in no way vainnor unmixed libations and the right hands in which we trustedFor even if the Olympian does not fulfill these immediately

yet he will do so late and perjurers pay with a great pricewith their own lives and with their women and childrenFor I know this well in my mind and heart

A day will come when sacred Ilion shall perishand Priam and the host of Priam skillful spearmanand Zeus son of Kronos high-ruling living in the skywill himself shake the dark aegis over them all in angerat this deception These things will not be unaccomplishedBut I will have terrible grief for you Menelausif you die and fulfill the end of your lifeThen under great reproach I would go to thirsty Argos




For the Achaeans will immediately think of their fatherland And we would leave as a boast for Priam and the Trojans Argive Helen But your bones the earth will make rottenas you lie dead in Troy for an unaccomplished work

And one of the overbearing Trojans will sayas he leaps on the funeral-mound of glorious MenelauslsquoMay Agamemnon fulfill his anger against all in this wayas just now he led an army of Achaeans here in vainand then went home to his dear fatherlandwith empty ships leaving good Menelaus behindrsquoThus someone will speak Then let the wide earth swallow merdquo

The speech has drawn attention in the scholarship mainly forseeming contradictions between its two parts 4 In the first part(155ndash168) Agamemnon confidently predicts that the Trojanswill be destroyed by Zeus for their impious violation of theoath In the second (169ndash182) he ponders at length the con-sequences should Menelaus die of his wound These includethe disbanding of the Achaean army his own ignominioushomecoming elation of the arrogant Trojans at his failure anddestruction of Menelausrsquo funeral monument 5 It seems strangeto imagine as two consequences of a single impious act Zeusrsquoanger and destruction of Troy on the one hand and the failureof the Achaean expedition on the other

The contradiction is not entire or inescapable by strict logic Agamemnon may imagine that the Trojans will meet theirdoom not through the agency of the Achaean army butthrough other human agents or more directly at the hands of Zeus 6 Nevertheless there is a peculiar difference in tone and

4 On the bipartite structure of the speech see Dieter Lohmann Die Kom- position der Reden in der Ilias(Berlin 1970) 43ndash45

5 The phrase τύμβῳ ἐπιθρῴσκωνis often translated ldquodancing on yourgraverdquo but the verb is stronger than this clicheacute would suggest In my viewthe imagined Trojan will leap on Menelausrsquo funeral mound so as to effaceall memory of his heroic death Contra Lora L Holland ldquoLast Act in Cor-inth The Burial of Medearsquos Childrenrdquo CJ 103 (2008) 407ndash430 at 417 Cf

Andrew Ford Homer The Poetry of the Past (Ithaca 1992) 144 who contraststhe ldquodurable provocative but unreadable signrdquo of the tomb with the gloryoffered by poetry

6 So Wolfgang Bergold Der Zweikampf des Paris und Menelaos(Bonn 1977)164ndash167 see also the scholion on line 164 quoted below








tells us that Menelausrsquo wound is not serious (151ndash152) and Agamemnonrsquos notion of divine retribution appears naiumlverelative to the Olympian scene that has just been narrated (1ndash 72)10

I suggest that rhetorical analysis is necessary if not for asolution to the puzzling nature of the speech at least to un-

covering the multivalent interpretations to which it is subjectTo whom after all does Agamemnon speak I noted at thebeginning that social context and internal audience should beconsidered in the analysis of a Homeric speech but this doesnot mean that the poet always chooses to be clear on thesepoints I argue that Homer leaves open the possibility that

Agamemnon speaks here for the benefit of a larger audiencethan just Menelaus indeed that he can be imagined asspeaking for the benefit of the whole Achaean host Considerthe rather elaborate way in which Homer sets the scene andintroduces the speech (4148ndash154)ῥίγησεν δrsquo ἄρrsquo ἔπειτα ἄναξ ἀνδρῶν Ἀγαμέμνωνὡς εἶδεν μέλαν αἷμα καταρρέον ἐξ ὠτειλῆςmiddotῥίγησεν δὲ καὶ αὐτὸς ἀρηΐφιλος Μενέλαος 150ὡς δὲ ἴδεν νεῦρόν τε καὶ ὄγκους ἐκτὸς ἐόνταςἄψορρόν οἱ θυμὸς ἐνὶ στήθεσσιν ἀγέρθητοῖς δὲ βαρὺ στενάχων μετέφη κρείων Ἀγαμέμνωνχειρὸς ἔχων Μενέλαον ἐπεστενάχοντο δrsquo ἑταῖροιmiddotφίλε κασίγνητεhellip

Agamemnon lord of men shudderedwhen he saw the dark blood flowing from the wound

War-loving Menelaus also shudderedBut when Menelaus saw that the cord and barbs were outsidethe spirit in his breast came back to himBut groaning heavily powerful Agamemnon spoke among themtaking Menelaus by the hand while companions lamented for himldquoDear brother helliprdquo

As a speech-introduction these lines seem to blend conventions

10 Cf Fenik Homer and the Nibelungenlied 23 ldquoAll this melancholy missesthe mark because the wound is so slightmdashwe know that from the start andso does Menelaus The result is the bathos of a mawkish and untimelythrenodyrdquo Agamemnonrsquos ironic misapprehension of divine justice is em-phasized by Rabel Plot 85ndash87




associated with public and private speech respectively Sug-gestive of private speech is the vocative φίλε κασίγνητε(155)and the fact that Menelaus remains the addressee through-out 11 The description of their respective reactions to the crisisemphasizes the intimate atmosphere Moreover Agamemnontakes Menelaus by the hand a gesture elsewhere associated

with private if not intimate conversations12

Suggestive of public speech is the verbum dicendi μετέφηwith a plural com-plement τοῖς This verb with a dative always introduces publicspeech most often in an assembly where the speaker is making a positive proposal For personal address προσέφηwith an ac-cusative would be regular 13 Moreover a larger audience isavailable since Homer mentions the presence of additionalemotionally engaged ldquofellowsrdquo on the scene ( ἐπεστενάχοντο δrsquoἑταῖροι )14 Besides these unidentified Achaeans it should be re-membered that as far as we know the army still sits in order asthey had at the beginning of the duelmdashthat is to say in theposition of an audience Agamemnon was able to address both

armies publicly not much earlier when declaring victory afterthe disappearance of Paris (3456ndash460) 15 Finally Menelausrsquoresponse implies that not just others but the whole army is

11 Except at line 177 on which see below12 Eg Il 530 14137 14232 24361 Od 1121 3374 1233 17263

See Christophorus Barck Wort und Tat bei Homer (Spudasmata 34 [1976]141ndash143 Martin Language of Heroes18ndash19 G S Kirk The Iliad A Com-mentaryII (Cambridge 1990) 247 ad 7106ndash108 (on which see below)

13 H Fournier ldquoFormules homeacuteriques de reacutefeacuterence avec verbe lsquodirersquordquo RevPhil SER III 20 (1946) 29ndash68 at 32ndash33 For μετέφη introducing publicproposals see Il 158 1955 19100 Od 4660 8132 16363 1851

14 As H Paul Brown notes ldquoAddressing Agamemnon A Pilot Study of Politeness and Pragmatics in the Iliad rdquo TAPA 136 (2006) 1ndash46 ldquoIn forming an utterance speakers consider not only the potential impact of theirstatement on the specific addressee but also its impact on other bystanderswho may perceive itrdquo (35)

15 At 3324 the armies sit drawn up in ranks ( οἳ μὲν ἔπειθrsquo ἵζοντο κατὰ στίχας ) with their armor set aside There has been no indication since thateither army has changed position except Pandarus and his fellows at 4113ndash 115 The Olympian scene at 41ndash72 perhaps creates an exaggerated senseof time intervening between Agamemnonrsquos general address to both sidesand the shot of Pandarus




listening in (4183ndash185)τὸν δrsquo ἐπιθαρσύνων προσέφη ξανθὸς Μενέλαοςmiddotθάρσει μηδέ τί πω δειδίσσεο λαὸν Ἀχαιῶνmiddotοὐκ ἐν καιρίῳ ὀξὺ πάγη βέλος hellip Blonde Menelaus answered encouraging himldquoTake heart and do not frighten the army of the Achaeans

The sharp missile did not strike a fatal spot helliprdquo ldquoDonrsquot scare the armyrdquomdashone imagines the line delivered infurtive whisper 16 Note the use of τὸνhellip προσέφη appropriateto private conversation Menelausrsquo response at least shows anawareness that Agamemnonrsquos words may have an effect on thelarger public and this is what I suggest as a solution to the con-tradictions in the speech A speech that begins as a personal ad-dress to Menelaus ends up sounding more like an exhortationfor the benefit of the Achaean army This may be suggested tooin the third-person reference to Menelaus near its end (177) 17

The scholia on the speech seem to respond to the same diffi-culties as modern critics but seek a solution not only in thecharacterization of Agamemnon but in the rhetorical effect ona larger audience In some scholia it seems to be assumed thatthe army is listening and constitutes the true addressee as onescholion notes when Agamemnon regrets allowing Menelausto fight on behalf of the Greeks ldquohe stirs pity and zeal in the

Achaeansrdquo 18 More significant is the way the scholia handle theseeming contradiction in Agamemnonrsquos simultaneous predic-tion of calamity for the Trojans and a shameful homecoming for himself (schol 164b 2-c2 [I 480])ἀπειλεῖ τοῦτο οὐχ ὑπ rsquo αὐτοῦ γενέσθαι ἀλλrsquo ὑφrsquo ἑτέρων τινῶνmiddotφησὶ γοῦνmiddot ldquo καί κεν ἐλέγχιστος πολυδίψιον Ἄργοςrdquo ἢ μᾶλλον διὰ τούτων τοὺς ἀκούοντας προτρέπεται πολεμεῖνHe threatens that this thing will be done not by himself but bysome others Therefore he says ldquoand [I will go] to thirsty Argos

16 Van Erp Taalman Kip Agamemnon32 detects a slight reproof17 Cf M L West Studies in the Text and Transmission of the Iliad (Munich

2001) 189ndash190 who argues partly on this basis that line 177 is a rhapsodicinterpolation

18 Schol 4156b (I 479 Erbse) πρὸ Ἀχαιῶν οἶκτον ἅμα καὶ σπουδὴν κινεῖ τοῖς Ἀχαιοῖς




under great reproachrdquo Or rather through these remarks heurges those listening to make war

And then on his dark fantasy of an inglorious homecoming (schol 4171b [I 481ndash482])

καί κεν ἐλέγχιστος ltπολυδίψιον Ἄργος ἱκοίμηνgt διὰ τί ὅτι Ἕλληνες μὲν ἄπρακτοι ἐπανελεύσονται Τρῶες δὲ κερτομήσουσι

τὸν Ἀγαμέμνονα Μενέλαος ἐπὶ ξένης σαπήσεται ἀτελὴς ἡ μάχη μενεῖ τεχνικῶς δὲ διrsquo ὧν ἀπολοφύρεται ὡς καταλειφθησόμενος ὑπὸ τῶν συμμάχων εἰ ὁ Μενέλαος ἀποθάνοι κατέχειν αὐτοὺς πειρᾶται μὴ τεθνηκότος τοῦ Μενελάου

[ μὴ τεθν T τεθνηκότος ἢ καὶ μὴ b καὶ μὴ τεθνηκότοςMaass]

ldquoAnd under great reproach [I would go to thirsty Argos]rdquo WhyBecause the Greeks will go home unsuccessful the Trojans willrevile Agamemnon Menelaus will rot in a foreign land the warwill remain incomplete But by loudly bewailing these things asthough he is going to be abandoned by his allies should Mene-laus die he skillfully tries to hold them back should Menelaus not dierdquo

Here the intricacy of interpretation seems to have led to textualdifficulties and we may read ldquowhether Menelaus dies or notrdquoor following Maass ldquoeven if Menelaus doesnrsquot dierdquo It is clearin any case that the scholia follow two mutually exclusive linesof interpretation The first takes Agamemnonrsquos words literallyand closely tracks modern interpretations based in his emo-tional or histrionic character The second assumes a rhetoricalduplicity and takes his words as intended to provoke a par-ticular emotional response in a larger audience that is repre-sented by the whole Achaean army

The possibility that Agamemnon performs here for thebenefit of a wider audience lends new significance to parallels

which have been noted between the second despairing part of the speech and Agamemnonrsquos ldquotestrdquo of the army in Book 2 19 This duplicitous speech is the audiencersquos first introduction to

19 2110ndash141 On the parallels see Lohmann Komposition44 n72 Ber-gold Zweikampf 165ndash167




Agamemnonrsquos public rhetorical style 20 and is not unlikely to belingering in their minds early in Book 4

The most notable parallels in Book 2 Agamemnon declaredthat Zeus having promised victory ldquonow orders me to go to

Argos in ill repute since I lost a great armyrdquo In Book 4 hedeclares that if Menelaus dies ldquounder great reproach I would

go to thirsty Argos for the Achaeans will immediately takethought for their fatherlandrdquoνῦν δὲ κακὴν ἀπάτην βουλεύσατο καί με κελεύει δυσκλέα Ἄργος ἱκέσθαι ἐπεὶ πολὺν ὤλεσα λαόν (2114ndash115)καί κεν ἐλέγχιστος πολυδίψιον Ἄργος ἱκοίμηνmiddotαὐτίκα γὰρ μνήσονται Ἀχαιοὶ πατρίδος αἴηςmiddot (4171ndash172)

In Book 2 he complains that ldquoour work has not been ac-complished for which we came hererdquo In Book 4 he bewailsthe fact that Menelaus will die for an ldquounfinished workrdquo

ἄμμι δὲ ἔργον αὔτως ἀκράαντον οὗ εἵνεκα δεῦρrsquo ἱκόμεσθα (2137ndash38)

σέο δrsquo ὀστέα πύσει ἄρουρα κειμένου ἐν Τροίῃ ἀτελευτήτῳ ἐπὶ ἔργῳ (4174ndash75)

In Book 2 Agamemnon complains that it would be shamefulfor ldquosuch a large armyrdquo to go home without success (2119ndash 122)

αἰσχρὸν γὰρ τόδε γrsquo ἐστὶ καὶ ἐσσομένοισι πυθέσθαι μὰψ οὕτω τοιόνδε τοσόνδε τε λαὸν Ἀχαιῶν ἄπρηκτον πόλεμον πολεμίζειν ἠδὲ μάχεσθαι ἀνδράσι παυροτέροισι τέλος δrsquo οὔ πώ τι πέφανταιmiddotFor this is a shameful thing even for future generations to hear of that in vain so great and numerous an army of Achaeans fought a war without result and battled with a less numerous foe and an end was never in sight

In Book 4 his prediction of Trojan mockery seems nothing lessthan a vivid description of how this shame will be thrown in histeeth it will be said of him that he led an army of Achaeans in

vain ( ἅλιον στρατὸν ἤγαγεν ἐνθάδrsquo Ἀχαιῶν 179) That the

20 That is to say the speech in Book 2 is the first Agamemnonrsquos deliversas a prepared speech before an assembly of the Achaeans (in contrast to hisimpromptu remarks in the quarrel with Achilles in Book 1)




mockery is conjoined with an act of destroying Menelausrsquofuneral mound shows clearly how good repute can be replacedwith bad repute ldquofor future generationsrdquo Indeed Agamem-nonrsquos wish that he be swallowed by the earth (182) suggests thathe can expect little better than to be consigned to the sameoblivion

But perhaps the clearest parallel is with a speech of Heraafter the army responded to Agamemnonrsquos test by running forthe ships Then Hera had spurred Athena to intervene with arhetorical question (2157ndash162)ὢ πόποι αἰγιόχοιο Διὸς τέκος Ἀτρυτώνηοὕτω δὴ οἶκόνδε φίλην ἐς πατρίδα γαῖαν Ἀργεῖοι φεύξονται ἐπ rsquo εὐρέα νῶτα θαλάσσηςκὰδ δέ κεν εὐχωλὴν Πριάμῳ καὶ Τρωσὶ λίποιεν Ἀργείην Ἑλένην ἧς εἵνεκα πολλοὶ Ἀχαιῶν ἐν Τροίῃ ἀπόλοντο φίλης ἀπὸ πατρίδος αἴηςmiddot

Alas Athena daughter of aegis-bearing Zeusthus home to their dear father-land

will the Achaeans flee over the wide back of the seaand leave behind as a boast for Priam and the Trojans Argive Helen for whose sake many of the Achaeanshave been killed in Troy far from their dear fatherland

The dire prediction is repeated by Agamemnon again in viewof a prospective disbanding of the Achaean army (4172ndash174)

αὐτίκα γὰρ μνήσονται Ἀχαιοὶ πατρίδος αἴηςmiddotκὰδ δέ κεν εὐχωλὴν Πριάμῳ καὶ Τρωσὶ λίποιμεν Ἀργείην Ἑλένηνmiddot σέο δrsquo ὀστέα πύσει ἄρουραhellip

That Agamemnon repeats Herarsquos words suggests that for allhis misapprehension of divine justice he is entirely in tune withthe divine petulance of Homerrsquos gods Indeed the manifold

echoes and repetitions from Book 2 suggest continuity in Agamemnonrsquos work both as leader of the Achaean host and asunwitting victim of the poemrsquos manifold ironies I will takeeach aspect of his performance in turn

Viewed as a public performance the second half of Aga-memnonrsquos speech is entirely in accord with the rhetoricalstrategy he pursued albeit with nearly disastrous results earlierin Book 2 and moreover in accord with the strategy hepursues in the so-called ldquoEpipolesisrdquo later in Book 4 where hestirs up various Achaean leaders again with a fair measure of




rebuke and play-defeatism 21 Indeed I suggest that across thesescenes we can see a development and refinement of Agamem-nonrsquos rhetorical strategy All the parallels adduced aboveconcern the second despairing and pessimistic part of Aga-memnonrsquos speech What makes our speech different is the firstoptimistic part In Book 2 Agamemnon claimed that Zeus no

longer willed the destruction of Troy while here in Book 4 hetreats Zeus as the guarantor of Troyrsquos destruction In the newperspective the onus of failure falls exclusively upon the armyand its supposed eagerness to abandon the war The imaginedfailure of the Achaeans is no longer due to the hostility of thegods but to their own lack of resolve before the perfidy of theTrojans For it is imagined that the Achaeans who were willing to avenge Menelausrsquo cuckoldry will not be willing to avenge hisdeath though Zeus will be an unfailing guarantor of Troyrsquos de-struction regardless of the armyrsquos response From this perspec-tive it seems clear that Agamemnon expatiates on the Achaeanretreat and consequent Trojan delight in order to stimulate the

armyrsquos sense of shame for in departing they would do nothing more than remove themselves from the workings of divine justice But as an effort to stir up Achaean shame it is muchmore effective in view of another crucial difference In Book 2

Agamemnon spoke in his capacity as leader of the Achaeanexpedition before a formally convoked assembly of the armyIn Book 4 his speech is ostensibly a private address and hespeaks in his capacity as a loving brother He puts the

Achaeans into the role of eavesdroppers and in doing so hefinds a more effective way of arousing their sense of shame Hemakes the Achaeans audience to their own poor repute ( κακῶς ἀκούειν )22

Of course this interpretation opens up the possibility that Agamemnon knows full well that his brother is not seriouslyinjured and not in danger of imminent death As the (textually

21 Eg 4242ndash249 338ndash348 370ndash40022 Cf Johannes Haubold Homerrsquos People Epic Poetry and Social Formation

(Cambridge 2000) 56 who argues that already in Book 2 Agamemnon shiftsfocus from his own failure and disrepute to the question of ldquowhat reputationthe people deserverdquo




difficult) scholion quoted above seems to suggest it is as thoughhe is intent on using Menelausrsquo death for political purposeswhether the latter dies or not Perhaps the narrative leaveseven this most cynical interpretation open if one considers thesequence of events leading up to the speech Homer first re-cords Agamemnonrsquos shudder at seeing the wound (148ndash149)

then a shudder from Menelaus (150) who quickly regains hiscomposure upon seeing that the wound is not serious (151ndash 152) Only then does Agamemnon groan and deliver hisspeech (153ndash154) Homer neglects to mention Agamemnonrsquosobservations in the meantime and it is worth noting that thewhole sequence could be differently ordered Agamemnonrsquosshudder could come after Menelausrsquo shudder and relief di-rectly before the speech so as to make clear that he does not

yet see that all is well or Menelausrsquo relief could come after thespeech and before his encouragement of Agamemnon hencekeeping the external audience in suspense as the possible con-sequences are worked out by Agamemnon The poet seems

concerned to make clear beforethe speech that Menelaus is notin danger With Menelausrsquo relief standing between Agamem-nonrsquos shudder and his verbal response the tension is broken ina way that relieves the external audience of concern for thewound itself but opens up a new space of interpretation for thespeech that follows Alternatively it may appear so much morehistrionic or so much more calculated

The interpretation suggested here granted only it be a pos-sible one sheds light on important aspects of Agamemnonrsquosstyle of rhetoric This speech offers an excellent example of histendency to transgress the conventions associated with par-ticular performance contexts and to blend different registers of rhetorical speech and physical gesture This is seen in hisgesture of taking Menelaus by the hand and in his pretense of despair both of which give the impression of private address

As I have noted the pretense of despair is a tactic Agamemnonhas already used in a public setting his test of the army inBook 2 But in Book 4 we see Agamemnon handling the devicewith greater skill for he has made it more natural and effectiveby translating it into an ostensibly private speech addressed tohis brother Certainly Agamemnonrsquos blending of the personaland public can be traced to his special position as leader or




primus inter pares of the Achaean expedition and the constantpressure he is under to maintain morale and enthusiasm for thewar Agamemnon perhaps inevitably given his position of authority among the Achaeans is the consummate public manOnly on very rare occasions in the Iliad does Agamemnonengage in an unambiguously private conversation 23 In other

words he is always ldquoonrdquo always before the eyes of the publicand always to some degree putting on a public performanceThis aspect of Agamemnonrsquos rhetorical style may shed light

on other scenes and speeches that have earned him a reputa-tion as irascible or histrionic That reputation is partly a con-sequence of the difficulties of interpretation his verbal behaviorpresents to the audience That is to say the poetrsquos audiencedoes not always know what to make of his speeches and this isso because the poet wishes it so Agamemnon as leader of the

Achaean expedition of the Trojan War and as is often im-plied24 instigator and organizer of the war on the Greek sideis important to the poet as a vehicle and spokesmen for the

themes touching the larger frame of the Iliad rsquos story As suchhe presents a less tragic less stable and more heavily ironizedpicture of the war than his Trojan counterpart HectorThrough Agamemnon Homer keeps his audience off-balancein a way that adds to the entertainment value of his narrativeas well as its depth of theme 25

It is well known that the poet explores various alternatives tothe traditional story of the Trojan War and one is that the

23 Book 10 offers the clearest examples 43ndash59 87ndash101 120ndash127 (on thelast see below)

24 As in our speech at 178ndash179 where it is Agamemnon not Menelauswho led the army of the Achaeans to Troy to avenge his anger Cf 2112(Agamemnon received a promise of victory from Zeus) 2612ndash614(Agamemnon provided ships to the Arcadians to make possible theirparticipation in the war) 11766 (Menoetius sent Patroclus as a recruit to

Agamemnon not to Menelaus)25 See Pietro Pucci The Song of the Sirens Essays on Homer (Lanham 1998)

187ndash193 for a beautiful description of the ironies generated through thefact that the language of Agamemnon while authoritative for the characterswithin the story nevertheless complicates the narrative through its ldquoamor-phousnessrdquo and ldquounpredictabilityrdquo (193)




Achaeans could go home without victory 26 Of course in-glorious nostos is an important theme in the Iliad preciselybecause it is endorsed by Achilles and represents one of histwo possible fates (9412ndash416) But surprisingly it is Agamem-non and Achilles only to a lesser degree who serves as thepoetrsquos spokesman in developing this theme throughout the first

half of the Iliad Agamemnon proposes an inglorious departurethree times in the Iliad with varying seriousness In Book 2(110ndash141) his proposal is merely a ploy and the aim is to excitethe troops through some kind of reverse psychology In Book 9(17ndash28) it is less clear whether his proposal is serious butDiomedes furnishes the objections which were lacking in Book 2 and Agamemnon willingly accepts Nestorrsquos advice to recon-cile with Achilles27 Finally in Book 14 (65ndash81) Agamemnon isdeadly serious and for the first time he supplements his pro-posal with specifics namely to drag the ships to sea in prepara-tion for retreat under cover of night This time it is not only aconcern for glory but the impracticality of the scheme which is

pointed out by Odysseus (83ndash102)Our speech in Book 4 represents a step in the process but itsrhetorically ambiguous directedness leaves a great deal todepend on how one interprets it Interpreted as an emotionaloutburst it seems to seriously contemplate the possibility of an

Achaean retreat and offers an embarrassing acknowledgmentof the poor Achaean morale evidenced already in Book 2 In-terpreted as a rhetorical exhortation it appears shrewder and

26 Another possibility is Trojan victory a theme played out in the on-going characterization of Hector (eg at 8497ndash541 13824ndash832) Thepossibility of an Achaean victory before its fated day is developed throughPatroclus (16698ndash701) and Achilles (22378ndash394) respectively

27 That Agamemnon weeps on this occasion suggests that his despair is tobe taken seriously on the other hand the fact that he presents his proposalbefore an assembly of the Achaean host rather than as in Book 14 to acouncil of leaders leaves open the possibility of more political theater aimedat provoking objections It is also worth noting that when Nestor suggestsreconciliation with Achilles Agamemnon responds promptly with an offerof recompense As I argue in CJ 103 (2008) 353ndash379 the offer is ingeniouslyconstructed and shows great enthusiasm for a successful conclusion to thewar






of Ilium be utterly destroyed unmourned and utterly blotted outrdquoSpeaking thus the hero persuaded his brotherrsquos mindwith prudent advice

The speech has troubled critics for its spirit of cruelty in theface of supplication an attitude somewhat at variance withstandard ethics of the Homeric warrior and best exampled

elsewhere in the person of Achilles28

In the view of many theproblem is exacerbated by the poetrsquos own endorsement of thespeech when he notes that Agamemnon persuaded his brotherbecause he gave good advice ( αἴσιμα παρειπών )29 Agamem-nonrsquos wish for the utter annihilation of the Trojan race inparticular his notion of destroying male offspring even from thewomb of pregnant mothers shows the same rhetorical overkillelsewhere observed in his speeches 30 Aside from its im-passioned tone the speech is similar in other ways to ourexample from Book 4 Here as there Agamemnon addresseshis brother alludes to Trojan wickedness and predicts total an-nihilation as its consequence Just as in Book 4 Agamemnon

had imagined the destruction of Menelausrsquo funeral mound sohere he predicts that the Trojans will not be mourned indeedwill be rendered ldquoinvisiblerdquo ( ἄφαντοι ) that is to say in bothcases he represents remembrance and glory as the stakes of thegame Is it possible that here as well Agamemnon intends hisremarks to be overheard by a wider audience

Homerrsquos imagined battlefield is a broad and noisy one buthe relaxes verisimilitude in allowing his heroes to deliver ex-hortations as though to their assembled forces Hence the battle

28 20463ndash472 2134ndash135 cf Graham Zanker The Heart of AchillesCharacterization and Personal Ethics in the Iliad (Ann Arbor 1994) 102ndash106

29 On the controversy see F S Naiden Ancient Supplication(Oxford 2006)142ndash144 Magdalene Stoevesandt Feinde ndash Gegner ndash Opfer zur Darstellung der Troianer in den Kampfszenen der Ilias(Basel 2004) 152ndash155 Donna F Wilson

Ransom Revenge and Heroic Identity in the Iliad (Cambridge 2002) 165ndash167with earlier bibliography

30 The idea of infanticide is not found elsewhere in the Iliad rsquos accounts of city-sacking where men are killed while women and children are enslaved(see especially 9591ndash594) Cf Kirk The Iliad II 161 ad 57ndash60 ldquoThe notionof killing male embryos is rhetorical rather than realistic powerful enoughin its way and typical of Agamemnon at his nastiestrdquo




narrative is a context in which private and public speech bothfind a place This is clear from the context of the passage athand Agamemnonrsquos personal address to his brother is im-mediately followed (after Adrestos is dispatched notably by

Agamemnon and not Menelaus) with an exhortation of thearmy from Nestor (666ndash71)

Νέστωρ δrsquo Ἀργείοισιν ἐκέκλετο μακρὸν ἀΰσαςmiddotldquoὦ φίλοι ἥρωες Δαναοί θεράποντες Ἄρηος μή τις νῦν ἐνάρων ἐπιβαλλόμενος μετόπισθε μιμνέτωὥς κε πλεῖστα φέρων ἐπὶ νῆας ἵκηται ἀλλrsquo ἄνδρας κτείνωμενmiddot ἔπειτα δὲ καὶ τὰ ἕκηλοι νεκροὺς ἂμ πεδίον συλήσετε τεθνηῶταςrdquo But Nestor exhorted the Argives shouting loudly ldquoOh dear Danaan heroes servants of Ares let no one now hang back in eagerness for spoils so as to go back to the ships with the most Rather let us kill men Afterwards at your pleasure

you will strip the dead corpses along the plainrdquo

But again to whom does Agamemnon speak Here as wellthere are hints that Agamemnon may intend his speech for awider audience than Menelaus alone First there is the speechintroduction Agamemnon like Nestor shouts his advice ὁμο-κλήσας The verb may be used of impassioned personal ad-dress or for commanding and exhorting an entire army 31 Hisspeech encourages indiscriminate slaughter of the enemywithout thought of taking prisoners for ransom just as Nestorrsquosexhortation encourages the Achaeans to fight continuouslywithout thinking of collecting spoils Both speeches can be seento encourage the troops to press their advantage rather than toallow an interruption of the Achaeansrsquo excellent momentum at

this juncture32

It is certainly not coincidental either that Menelaus ratherthan some other Achaean is here Agamemnonrsquos addressee As

Agamemnonrsquos speech implies it is Parisrsquo mistreatment of Men-elaus that justifies the Achaean war against the Trojans it will

31 Cf 15658ndash660 16714 18156 20364ndash36532 From the beginning of Book 6 to the Adrestos episode ten Achaeans

kill fourteen Trojans in a one-sided catalogue of victories




not do for Menelaus to show mercy Just as the injustice hesuffered in Book 4 offered ample opportunity to boost thegeneral morale so his pity here may threaten it There is someevidence that Menelausrsquo lack of resolve is a matter of embar-rassment to Agamemnon In Book 10 he says to Nestor whohas asked why Menelaus is not also awake with care for the

armyrsquos plight (10120ndash123)ὦ γέρον ἄλλοτε μέν σε καὶ αἰτιάασθαι ἄνωγαmiddotπολλάκι γὰρ μεθιεῖ τε καὶ οὐκ ἐθέλει πονέεσθαι οὔτrsquo ὄκνῳ εἴκων οὔτrsquo ἀφραδίῃσι νόοιο ἀλλrsquo ἐμέ τrsquo εἰσορόων καὶ ἐμὴν ποτιδέγμενος ὁρμήν

Aged sir I encourage you to find fault even at another time For often he lets up and does not wish to labor not because he yields to sloth or foolishness of mind but looking to me and waiting for my initiative

He then goes on to explain that Menelaus is indeed up andabout 33 On the battlefield where every act is observed by anynumber of spectators Menelausrsquo pity for Adrestos may have an

exaggerated effect on the armyrsquos commitment to battle And soI suggest Agamemnonrsquos criticism of Menelaus is meant for awider audience This would explain the way in which Aga-memnonrsquos advice to his brother goes beyond the matter of Menelaus and Adrestos and touches on the whole matter of the Trojan War from its beginning (with allusion to the ab-duction of Helen) to its end (with the entire destruction of theTrojan race)

The poetrsquos statement that Agamemnon gave good advice( αἴσιμα παρειπών ) is difficult to judge insofar as the meaning of the phrase is uncertain it appears elsewhere only once in asimilar passage discussed below But the statement may alert usto the speech as a rhetorical performance in which there ismore at stake than the fate of hapless Adrestos That is it may

33 This short speech is one of the few in which Agamemnon engages in aprivate conversation (cf n23 above) and it is notable that his concernsabout his brother are expressed with more candor than elsewhere His moreoblique manner is on evidence later in Book 10 where in conclave withother Achaean leaders he indirectly advises Diomedes not to select Men-elaus as a companion in arms (10234ndash239 with the poetrsquos remark at 240)




signal that the speech is intended to boost the morale of thearmy and encourage the kind of relentless fighting urged byNestor in the exhortation that follows If we assign to αἴσιμα the meaning ldquoprudent well-advisedrdquo or perhaps even ldquotimelyrdquorather than ldquorighteousrdquo or ldquofatefulrdquo the authorial commentcould be taken to allude to Agamemnonrsquos opportunistic execu-

tion of a rhetorical aim34

Taking the speech as a battlefieldexhortation perhaps palliates its harshness this is not to saythat as a declaration of ldquototal warrdquo it is any less shocking toHomerrsquos audience It likely marks a point of progress in thesteadily increasing cruelty of the conflict that characterizes the

Iliad rsquos battle narrative culminating in the aristeiaof Achilles Italso looks forward to the second half of Book 6 where Hector

visits is wife and the groundwork of his tragedy is laid down bythe poet As Mueller notes ldquo[Agamemnonrsquos] savage threatagainst the unborn child is deliberately placed by the poet in acontext that will soon see Hektor among the women of Troyrdquo 35 I suggest that here once again Homer gives Aga-

memnon a speech that is both rhetorically and thematicallymultivalent Hence one could argue that the poetrsquos own esti-mation of Agamemnonrsquos words rather calls attention to thedifficulty of interpreting them Are Agamemnonrsquos wordsldquoprudentrdquo in the eyes of Menelaus or the army Are theyprudent relative to the supplication of Adrestos or relative tothe whole Trojan War Are they ultimately to be read with or

34 Irene J F de Jong Narrators and Focalizers the Presentation of the Story in the Iliad (Amsterdam 1987) 204 argues for a morally significant but focalizedmeaning (ldquoproperrdquo) Fenik Homer and the Nibelungenlied 26ndash27 sees reflexiveuse of a traditional formula Simon Goldhill ldquoSupplication and AuthorialComment in the Iliad Iliad Ζ 61ndash2rdquo Hermes 118 (1990) 373ndash376 favorsldquofatefulrdquo followed by Zanker The Heart of Achilles102 Naiden Ancient Supplication143 argues that both meanings are relevant and also sees animplication that rejecting the suppliant is ritually ldquocorrectrdquo Stoevesandt

Feinde152ndash155 Wilson Ransom165ndash167 Taplin Homeric Soundings51ndash52and Kirk The Iliad II 161 ad 61ndash62 favor a blander sense something likeldquoprudentrdquo or ldquoto the pointrdquo This seems reasonable given the other contextin which the phrase appears but it does not help much with the awk-wardness the whole passage creates for us For ldquotimelyrdquo cf 6519

35 Martin Mueller The Iliad (LondonBoston 1984) 70




against Homerrsquos own representation of the war Narratologi-cal solutions have been suggested for the problem of αἴσιμα παρειπών but they tend to create an entanglement of per-spectives that confuses rather than elucidates interpretation 36

What I suggest is that the difficulty is no isolated case butbelongs to a pattern of peculiar verbal behavior from Aga-

memnon that can be traced back to Books 2 and 4My second example is from Book 7 Agamemnonrsquos rhetoricalaims are here most obvious and the attendant ironies mostglaring Again Agamemnon addresses his brother and againthe narrative context is that of a duel this time a duel proposedby Hector against whomever the Achaeans would care topresent as their champion After an uncomfortable silenceMenelaus rises to the challenge A bout between Menelaus andHector as the poet makes clear would certainly end withdefeat for the former But Agamemnon intervenes (7104ndash122)ἔνθά κέ τοι Μενέλαε φάνη βιότοιο τελευτὴ Ἕκτορος ἐν παλάμῃσιν ἐπεὶ πολὺ φέρτερος ἦεν 105

εἰ μὴ ἀναΐξαντες ἕλον βασιλῆες Ἀχαιῶναὐτός τrsquo Ἀτρεΐδης εὐρὺ κρείων Ἀγαμέμνων δεξιτερῆς ἕλε χειρὸς ἔπος τrsquo ἔφατrsquo ἔκ τrsquo ὀνόμαζενmiddot ldquoἀφραίνεις Μενέλαε διοτρεφές οὐδέ τί σε χρὴ ταύτης ἀφροσύνηςmiddot ἀνὰ δὲ σχέο κηδόμενός περ 110 μηδrsquo ἔθελrsquo ἐξ ἔριδος σεῦ ἀμείνονι φωτὶ μάχεσθαι Ἕκτορι Πριαμίδῃ τόν τε στυγέουσι καὶ ἄλλοι καὶ δrsquo Ἀχιλεὺς τούτῳ γε μάχῃ ἔνι κυδιανείρῃ ἔρριγrsquo ἀντιβολῆσαι ὅ περ σέο πολλὸν ἀμείνωνἀλλὰ σὺ μὲν νῦν ἵζευ ἰὼν μετὰ ἔθνος ἑταίρων 115 τούτῳ δὲ πρόμον ἄλλον ἀναστήσουσιν Ἀχαιοίεἴ περ ἀδειής τrsquo ἐστὶ καὶ εἰ μόθου ἔστrsquo ἀκόρητος φημί μιν ἀσπασίως γόνυ κάμψειν αἴ κε φύγῃσι δηΐου ἐκ πολέμοιο καὶ αἰνῆς δηϊοτῆτοςrdquo ὣς εἰπὼν παρέπεισεν ἀδελφειοῦ φρένας ἥρως 120 αἴσιμα παρειπών ὃ δrsquo ἐπείθετοmiddot τοῦ μὲν ἔπειτα γηθόσυνοι θεράποντες ἀπ rsquo ὤμων τεύχεrsquo ἕλοντο Then Menelaus the end of your life would have appearedat Hectorrsquos hands since he was a better man by far

36 Cf Zanker The Heart of Achilles102 n49 De Jong Narrators204 andTaplin Homeric Soundings51 suggest focalization of the poetrsquos remark




if the kings of the Achaeans had not leapt up and restrained youand if the son of Atreus himself wide-ruling Agamemnonhad not taken your right hand and named you and spoken a wordldquoYou are foolish god-reared Menelaus nor have you needof this foolhardiness Restrain yourself though you sorrowDo not desire out of quarrelsomeness to fight a better manHector son of Priam whom even others fearEven Achilles shuddered to meet this manin glorious battle and Achilles is much better than youBut go amidst your companions and seat yourselfagainst this man the Achaeans will set some other championThough he be fearless though he be insatiate of battleI think he will gladly take his rest should he escapedestructive war and dire battlerdquoSpeaking thus the hero persuaded his brotherrsquos mindwith prudent advice Menelaus obeyed and hiscompanions happily took the armor from his shoulders

Here again the speech is ostensibly a private address from onebrother to another as the hand-taking gesture implies 37 But

more clearly than in any previous instance there is an internalemotionally engaged audience Moreover the occasion is adelicate one for Agamemnon in his role as leader Though it isclear that the Achaean kings do not wish Menelaus to presenthimself for certain death (106) there is a good reason he

volunteers it is his quarrel that precipitated the war Yet thereis more at work here than Menelausrsquo own inability to actuallyavenge Trojan wrongs behind his gesture is the awkward factthat no Achaean immediately rises to Hectorrsquos challenge andnone will do so until a rousing speech of Nestor which im-mediately follows Agamemnonrsquos (124ndash160) Menelausrsquo ownreproach of the Achaeans as feckless boasters (96ndash102) appearsimpolitic although his rhetoric closely matches Nestorrsquos he isnot the appropriate person to deliver this reproach Agamem-non must simultaneously excuse his brother from a suicidalduel redress the harshness of his remarks to the army and

37 Cf n12 above on the full formula in line 108b see Martin Language of Heroes 19ndash20 Elizabeth Minchin Homeric Voices Discourse Memory Gender (Oxford 2007) 151ndash152 classifies this speech as a ldquorebukerdquo and suggests thehand-gesture may express ldquodominancerdquo as well as affection




somehow produce another volunteer in his placeThe speech shows the same rhetorical back-and-forth as our

example in Book 4 and the same peculiar blend of confidenceand defeatism Great emphasis is placed on Hectorrsquos extra-ordinary prowess even to the point of alleging that Achilleshimself feared to face him in battle The latter detail seems

exaggerated and awkward On the one hand it appears un-likely that Achilles the preeminent warrior on the Achaeanside would avoid battle with Hector In this sense the detail issuggestive of rhetorical hyperbole intended to protect Men-elausrsquo honor 38 On the other hand the claim appears self-serving in Agamemnonrsquos mouth and can be seen to protect hisown reputation before a wider Achaean audience sinceHectorrsquos present challenge to the Achaeans no doubt makes

Achillesrsquo absence most keenly feltIn any case the claim that not even Achilles would face

Hector is difficult to reconcile with the immediately following lines in which Agamemnon confidently predicts Hectorrsquos eager

flight from destruction at the hands of some unnamed Achaeanchampion Here we can once again see Agamemnon suddenlychanging gears to suit the situation and tailoring his remarks toa broader internal audience Having excused Menelaus (andperhaps himself) from facing Hector Agamemnon is left withthe awkward fact that no one else has yet volunteered 39 Hisprediction of Hectorrsquos defeat suggests that his concern shiftsmid-speech from the well-being of Menelaus to the matter of general Achaean morale As in Book 4 the speech as a wholeseems contradictory in tone if not strictly in logic It is left toNestor to take up the thread of its ending and rouse the

Achaeans to the desired resultmdashthat is so many volunteers thatlots must be drawn (161ndash174) As in Book 4 the irony is en-riched by our uncertainty as to whom Agamemnon is really

38 So Wolfgang Kullmann Die Quellen der Ilias( Hermes Einzelschr 14[1960]) 183 Cf Kirk The Iliad II 248 ad 113 ldquoThis must be a piece of persuasive exaggeration by Agamemnon to assuage his brotherrsquos priderdquo At9352ndash354 Achilles claims that when he fought Hector would not even

venture beyond the walls of Troy39 Cf Fenik Homer and the Nibelungenlied 24




talking to what begins as a private address to Menelaus ends assomething appropriate to a larger public but in the end thewhole may just as well be read this way As for the phraseαἴσιμα παρειπών it is unproblematic so long as we interpretthe speech as private advice from brother to brother Agamem-non gives good advice indeed when he urges Menelaus not to

fight Hector On the other hand if the phrase calls attention tothe speech as a rhetorical performance directed to a wideraudience it is deployed by the poet with greater irony For insaving Menelaus from certain destruction Agamemnon simul-taneously entices the Achaean champions into undertaking thesame riskConclusions

In this article I may appear to complain too strenuously of Agamemnonrsquos rhetorical duplicity while following two lines of argument which could appear mutually exclusive in their ownright On the one hand I have argued that Agamemnonrsquosspeeches to his brother seem at times to be delivered for thebenefit of a wider audience of bystanders and that viewed inthis light his rhetoric shows ulterior motives relative to theseulterior audiences On the other hand I noted at the beginning that speeches in Homer are not mere representations of socialor political interaction between ldquorealrdquo people that is reading them with an undue social realism misses the way in whichspeech and speaker are both elements of the larger narrativeand do the narrativersquos work I have more than once asked therather naiumlve question ldquoto whom does Agamemnon speakrdquo Of course he speaks ultimately to us Homerrsquos audience What Ihope to have shown is that Homer may unsettle our inter-pretation of a speech by creating ambiguities surrounding itsrhetorical direction and aims

The ambiguous directedness of Agamemnonrsquos language isnot generally characteristic of Homeric speakers It is certainlyan important part of Homerrsquos construction of this uniquecharacter I suggest above that the peculiarity is related to

Agamemnonrsquos unique position as leader among the Achaeansas such he stands always before an audience and shows anexcessive concern for how his words and actions may influencethe general morale of the army and his own position of




authority Indeed it can be seen in my three examples thatHomer exploits Agamemnonrsquos relationship with his brother asa particularly sensitive boundary between his public andprivate concerns Certainly their relationship is an awkwardone 40 Although Agamemnon is the leader of the Achaeanexpedition it is Menelausrsquo personal dispute with Paris that is

the reason for the war Menelaus as the moral if not thepolitical figurehead of the expedition is a figure whose publicprofile Agamemnon is at pains to control This may meanurging him on to greater enthusiasm excusing him in diplo-matic fashion from a suicidal heroism or painting him as a

victim of Trojan wickedness In each case what we see at work is no mere brotherly affection but Agamemnonrsquos attempt tocondition Achaean attitudes to the war

Yet Agamemnon also exerts control on our own attitudesHomerrsquos most strongly drawn characters among whom Aga-memnon is to be ranked with Achilles and Hector give voice tocompeting models of heroism and competing interpretations

of the narrative in which they play a role As the leader of the Achaean expedition and the figure who provokes Achillesrsquowrath Agamemnon is the character from whom both the storyand the frame-story of the Iliad originate It is only natural thatour vision of both should be influenced by his words andactions As Pucci observes for all Agamemnonrsquos tears andposture of impotence his words are both politically andtextually powerful 41 Yet his crocodile-tears and manifoldcajoleries make him a less than reliable guide through thewoods for Homerrsquos audience This begins in Book 2 but if it iscorrect to rescue our passages in Books 4 6 and 7 fromanalyses based only on Agamemnonrsquos supposed irrationalemotionalism a pattern of rhetorical duplicity emerges that

40 As Fenik notes Homer and the Nibelungenlied 25 their relationship ldquois flat-tering to neither and it springs from a sustained conceptionrdquo

41 Pucci The Song of the Sirens191 ldquoNo matter how false weak andhysterical no matter how copiously watered by tears of impotence it is[Agamemnonrsquos] word that represents the will of the whole army and to theextent that it reflects the continuity of the Iliadic action the word thatsecures the continuity of the narrativerdquo




can be traced at least through Book 9 42 Moreover the duplicityfocuses throughout on the nature aims and prospects of the

Achaean expedition against Troy and runs at times with attimes counter to the poetrsquos own representation of this war inthese crucial books preceding the resumption of Achillesrsquo story

Why our poet should have given so forked a tongue to the

Achaean leader remains something of a mystery and the ques-tion no doubt awaits a more thorough study than presentedhere But it seems clear that in this early portion of his nar-rative Homer is not at pains to grant his audience the comfortof an authoritative heroic voice He saves for the reappearanceof Achilles a deeper reflection on heroismmdashand perhaps adeeper obfuscation 43

December 2008 New York Citybgs205nyuedu

42 On Agamemnonrsquos catalogue of gifts in Book 9 and its subtexts see mystudy CJ 103 (2008) 353ndash379

43 A draft of this paper was read by Joel P Christensen and much im-proved by his advice The careful attention of an anonymous reader forGRBS helped me to further clarify and strengthen my argument Finally Iwould like to thank Kent Rigsby for a smooth editorial process and fornumerous stylistic improvements to my final draft




a speech of Agamemnon for which the poet is not only unclearas to performative context and internal audience but I believeintentionally ambiguous I hope to show that this speech isintroduced and performed in such a way that it can be in-terpreted either as an emotional personal address to a closerelative or as an ingenious piece of political theater directed to

a broader internal audience I hope to show as well that when viewed from the latter standpoint the speech is entirely con-sistent not only with the Agamemnonrsquos characteristic rhetoricalstrategies but also with the poetrsquos habitual use of this extra-ordinary figure for the development of themes important to hisrepresentation of the Trojan War

In Book 3 of the Iliad Paris and Menelaus fight a duel todecide the outcome of the war The Achaeans and the Trojanshave sworn a solemn oath should Paris win the Achaeans willdepart and leave the Trojans alone should Menelaus be vic-torious the Trojans will return Helen and the property takenwith her and pay an indemnity (3276ndash291) The narrative

leaves little doubt of Menelausrsquo imminent victory (373) 3 How-ever the gods are loath to permit this ending to the war First Aphrodite rescues her proteacutegeacute from Menelaus and returns himto the safety of his boudoir In Book 4 Zeus after cajolinglysuggesting that the oath should stand finally strikes a deal withHera sealing Troyrsquos fate (34ndash67) Athena is sent to earth andbeguiles the wits of Pandarus who shoots an arrow at Mene-laus and wounds him This nefarious act violates the oath andleads eventually to a resumption of hostilities

Naturally the infamous shot of Pandarus being engineeredby Athena herself does not seriously injure the hero Althoughhe shudders at first he quickly notices that the wound is super-ficial and regains his composure Meanwhile Agamemnon seesthe wound shudders himself approaches and takes Menelausby the hand He then delivers our speech (4155ndash182)

ldquoφίλε κασίγνητε θάνατόν νύ τοι ὅρκιrsquo ἔταμνον 155οἶον προστήσας πρὸ Ἀχαιῶν Τρωσὶ μάχεσθαι

___

that is never or rarely used by the poet in his own voice and yet expressesmany of the more pathetic themes of the poem

3 Parisrsquo poor chances are already signaled by Priamrsquos shudder at 259


































































































































































this juncture32




















































































































































































































































this juncture32












































































































































































































































this juncture32

































































































































































































































this juncture32































































































































































































































this juncture32





























































































































































































































this juncture32


















































































































































































































this juncture32






































































































































































































this juncture32




























































































































































































this juncture32















































































































































































this juncture32
































































































































































this juncture32




















































































































































this juncture32









































































































































this juncture32
































































































































this juncture32



















































































































this juncture32










































































































this juncture32








































































































this juncture32



























































































this juncture32















































































































































































































































































































































































































































Documents

Agamemnon Audience