NESTOR AND TIlE HONOR OF ACHILLES (Iliad 1.247-84)

by CHARLES SEGAL

By line 245 of the first book of the Iliad the quarrel between Achilles and Agamemnon has reached an impasse. Anger has mounted stage by stage, the pitch of the insults has increased, and Achilles, drawing his sword, is restrained only by Athena. He swears solemnly that the Greeks will regret his absence (1.225-44) and hurls the gold-studded scepter to the ground (1.245-6). Agamemnon is equally gripped by "wrath" (1.247): 'A-'PELO'l1C; 0' E..EPWi}E\I E~1)\lLE. At this point Nestor arises, his intervention announced in the middle of line 247: -.oLG'L oE NEG''t'WP / f}OUE1t'i)C; c1\16pouG'£ (247-8).

Nestor's speech (254-84) resembles in function the appearance of Athena: it brings no resolution, but .calms the rising passions: Yet, unlike Athena, Nestor is a mortal who addresses the entire assembly. Athena appeared to Achilles alone (OLctl cpaL\lO~E\I'l1, 198), but Nestor focuses the issue decisively on the public, rather than the private, realm.2

Homer obviously had to find some way of getting beyond the impasse of the quarrel and adjourning the assembly (cf. 305) in order to allow the action to advance. Nestor's speech not only performs this function, but also serves several additional purposes which relate to the presentation of Achilles at the very outset of the action. It is with these purposes that this paper is primarily concerned.

Nestor's speech not only avoids the monotonous continuation of an already drawn out quarrel and prevents a premature climax; it also establishes the book's rhythmic alternation between tight, dramatic dialogue and broader,

1 See U. von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, Die Was und Homer (Berlin 1916) 250-1; L.A. Post, "The Moral Pattern in Homer," TAPA 70 (1939) 174.

2 See Wilamowitz (preceding note) 251.

Nestor and the honor of Achilles 91

more open scenes. In this easing, broadening function Nestor more closely resembles Hephaestus at the end of the book than Athena, to whom we have compared him above. Both Nestor and Hephaestus are mediators in a tense quarrel and restore a certain measure of harmony to a temporarily disrupted social order. The two speeches begin with a broader perspective and an assertion of shame or regret at the present quarrel (cf. 1.254-8 and 573-4).3 Like so many of the parallels between the human and divine action, this one too dramatizes the gulf between the urgency and finality of human affairs and the almost comic triviality of divine.

Nestor's first line stresses the consequences of such a quarrel and places it within its social perspective (1.254): ... Ti IJ.EyCX 1tE'IIt}O~ , Axcxttocx YCXLCX'll i.Xa.'IIEt. The "Greek land" reminds the contestants of their responsi­bilities to the entire army and its purpose. This concern with the Achaean cause as a whole bears indirectly on the character of Achilles. It had been Achilles, not the selfish Agamemnon, who first expressed a similar sense of communal responsibility. In fact, Achilles was the first to speak of the "Achaeans" collectively (61) as he tried to stir Agamemnon to take positive action against the plague {59-67). Nestor's similar concern with the welfare of the whole Achaean expedition at this crucial point brings up again the contrast between Achilles' generous motives and Agamemnon's selfish ones and thus prepares for the justification of Achilles which the speech implies.4

Nestor's theme is order: yielding and obeying.s That sense of order has both a spatial and temporal dimension: spatial in its appreciation of the strife between the" Achaean land" and "Priam and Priam's sons" (254-5); temporal in that it rests upon the traditions of the heroic past which is Nestor's recurrent theme in the Iliad. Again and again he cites the examples of the great heroes who are the paradigms of arete; and in this passage his exempla are, among others, Theseus, Peirithous, Caeneus.

The battle against the bestial Lapiths, the "mountain-dwelling beast men" 6 whom these heroes "gloriously destroyed," affirms the worth and the duration of heroic achievement (1.267-8):

3 For the parallels between Nestor and Hephaestus see ]. T. Sheppard, The Pattern of the Iliad (London 1922) 27; E. T. Owen, The Story of the Iliad (Toronto 1946) p. 15 with n. 2.

4 So later in the poem Nestor is indirectly responsible for reawakening in Achilles a sense of responsibility for the army as a whole: see 11.656-805, especially 790-805. See also C. H. Whitman, Homer and the Heroic Tradition (Cambridge, Mass. 1958) 195.

5 Note the recurrence of 1te:£1}EW - 1te:£1}Ecr1}at in the early part of the book (33, 132, 150, 214, 218, 220, etc.), taken up in Nestor's speech (259, 273, 274), and given a climactic force in the replies of Agamemnon (289) and Achilles (296).

6 There is not unanimous agreement that the CP'l1pcrLV OPEcrXtfJOtcrt of 1.268 = 1}npcr' and means "beast" or "beast-men" (i. e. Centaurs), but this is extremely likely in

92 Charles Segal

xap'tLO''tOL Il-E,\I £O'a\l xat xap'ttO''tOLe; EIl-&'XO\l'to, Cj>l)pO'tv OPEO'XtilOLO'L, xat EX1t&'y A.We; a.1t6A.EO'O'a\l.

Nestor is describing a manly struggle of companions united against a recognized, dangerous foe. His account of his exploits in 262-8, then, is more than senile garrulity: it serves to recall us to the image of a unified heroic society undividedly directing its energies against an external aggressor, an image which, we may hazard, Nestor implicitly regards as valid for the present conflict between Greeks and Trojans with which the speech began (254-5). Against that proper use of heroic energy stand the present quarrel and its consequences for the heroic society to which Nestor belongs.

Nestor's language also establishes a point of connection between Achilles and the heroes of Nestor's past. It is a special quality of Achille's that he is karteros, "strong," "valiant," while Agamemnon is pherteros. Agamemnon makes this distinction at 178, and Nestor repeats it at 280. Now this quality of "strength" is possessed by Nestor's heroes in the highest degree. Nestor calls them kartistoi three times in emphatic anaphoric repetition (266-7), and the word does not occur again until the fifth book. Achilles, then, is distinguished for his possession of this attribute of great, remote heroes. Yet we are reminded of his heroic prowess just when it has been insulted. Achilles, therefore, will withdraw from the heroic society in which he could display the karteria that he shares with the great figures of the past. At the same time the reminder of a great and noble battle of the past will add an edge to the longing for "the battle-cry and the fighting" which Achilles is soon to feel (l. 4 9 0-2).

Nestor's list of heroes in 262-5 is also a reminder of the glory preserved in song and legend which such heroes win. Achilles, the greatest of the heroes before us, is especially concerned with such glory and is occupied with singing the "fame of heroes" (xAEa a.\lOpGw) when the embassy comes upon him in book 9 (9.189).

Nestor's list is a small foretaste of that "rhythmed, name-studded hierarchy" which is the Catalogue of Ships.7 It thus bdngs together the ideal of heroic glory and the sense of a stable order reflected in the preserva­tion of legend and perhaps in the combat against a bestial enemy. But it presents these themes just when Achilles has been forced to reject these ideals and when the rapacity of Agamemnon has violated the orderly proce­dures and sanctions of heroic society.

The first half of Nestor's speech, then, interprets the quarrel in terms

view of It. 2.743 and Od. 21.295-304. See Waiter Leaf, The Iliad 12 (London 1900) a.d loco and the scholia ad loco

7 C. R. Beye, The Iliad, the Odyssey, and the Epic Tradition (Garden City, N.Y. 1966) 121.

Nestor and the honor of Achilles 93

of the large themes of heroic action, social order, and communal order. These are all issues which Achilles has to face and redefine in his own terms.s

It is essential for our judgment of Achilles' position that we have some sense of how his peers view the quarrel. Nestor's is the only voice {since the inception of the quarrel) which we hear from the assembled army.9 He is the only chieftain, outside of the two contestants, to speak. To intervene between two angry, powerful, and violent kings is no task to be assumed lightly; and Nestor, aged, respected, calm and reasonable, is the inevitable choice, probably the only possible choice. This speech, therefore, carries the special burden of showing us how the quarrel might appear in the eyes of the assembled host. Ancient Nestor, the repository of the lore of the past, comes as close as is possible to being the voice of social expectation and approval. lO Agamemnon, now for the second time in the poem (cf. 1.21-2), £latly rejects that voice.

Nestor's judgment, though couched in all the tact which this skilled, honey-voiced diplomat can muster, is unambiguous. It is Agamemnon, not Achilles, who has violated the heroic code.ll Agamemnon should not take the girl (1.275-6):

(l.1rn: (]'U 't6vS' &,yaiM~ 7tEp EWV &'7tOa£pEO XOUPTJV, &,)..).: ea, wc, ot 7tpw'ta 86(]'av YEpa~ ULE~ 'Axa~wv'

Nestor's allegiance must ultimately be with the established authority, Agamemnon, nor is it ever in the slightest doubt. Hence in book 2, after Achilles has retired, Nestor fully supports Agamemnon in his dubious plan of "testing" the army and gives him the title &p~(]''to~ 'Axa~wv (2.82) which Achilles had claimed for himself in the first book (1.244, 412; cf. 1. 91 and 2.239).

Yet Nestor is fair to Achilles' position. He is careful to divide his compliments between both parties and to ask concessions of both. He enjoins both Agamemnon and Achilles to "cease from strife" (277) or "give up anger" (282-3). This general advice, however, is far less important and less striking than the specific, concrete advice to Agamemnon, "Do not take away the girl" (275). And it is this advice, given by the oldest and wisest of the counselors, which Agamemnon immediately spurns (318££.).

8 See 9.316-27, 401-9; Whitman (above, note 4) chap. 9, especially 185ff. 9 See S. E. Bassett, The Poetry of Homer = Sather Classical Lectures 15 (Berkeley

1938) 198. 10 On the role of Nestor see Whitman (above, note 4) 183-4; Beye (above,

note 7) 128. 11 See below, note 16.

1

94 Charles Segal

Achilles rejects the simple, material conception of honor on which both Agamemnon and Nestor rely. In so doing, he opens the quarrel to larger issues: he demands not just his prize back again, but ultimately honor from Zeus (1.353-4; d. 175).12 Yet even in the terms of the heroic code itself Nestor's speech, and especially lines 275-6, tell heavily in Achilles' favor. Homer has taken pains to show that Achilles is justified. He is not the "spoiled child" he has often seemed to later readers 13, nor the victim of the "tragic flaw" dear to critics of the earlier part of this century.14 It is not merely that "Achilles has some justice on his side" IS: his position is com­pletely justified.16 Given Agamemnon's inexcusable behavior, he has followed the only course left open to him. The truth of Nestor's judgment is con­firmed only slowly; and the impression left by his first speech is, therefore, all the more important in affirming the essential vaHdity of Achilles' position.

Nestor's speech gives public indication of what the goddess Athena had confirmed to Achilles in private: Agamemnon's action is hybris, an outrage, an open, flagrant insult (1.203 and 214); and Achilles repeats the word when he dismisses Agamemnon's overtures in book 9 (Ecpv~pL~w\l, 9.368) 17. Athena's judgment, since she appears to Achilles alone (198),

12 See the passages cited above, note 8, along with 9.607-8; also Post (above, note 1) 174; and in general Thomas McFarland, "Lykaon and Achilles," Yale Review 45 (1955-56) 191-213, especially 195-9, 201-2.

13 Whitman (above, note 4) 189. 14 For Achilles' supposed "tragic flaw" or hamartia see Andrew Lang, Homer and

the Epic (London and New York 1893) 137 and The World of Homer (London 1910) 249-50; C. M. Bowra, Tradition and Design in the Iliad (Oxford 1930) 17ff. For a strong and cogent refutation see S. E. Bassett, "The Hamartia of Achilles," T APA 65 (1934) 47-69 and recently A.1. Motto and ]. R. Clark, "lse Dais: The Honor of Achilles," Arethusa 2 (1969) 109-25, with further literature there in notes 2 and 3, pp. 120-1.

IS Bowra (preceding note) 194. 16 Werner ]aeger, Paideia P (New York 1945) 48 restates the more or less tradi­

tional view that Homer "takes no sides" and that both Achilles and Agamemnon "have erred in pushing their claims to excess." Achilles, of course, gets angry; but his reaction, given the degree of provocation, is remarkably restrained: see Whitman (above, note 4) 184-5. ]aeger's view is rightly rejected by Post (above, note 1) p. 160 with note 5. Wolfgang Schadewaldt, Iliasstudien = Abh Leipzig 48.6 (1938; ed. 3, Darmstadt 1966) 144-5, with note 3, tries, rather feebly, to find some justice on Agamemnon's side, though he admits, "Es bleibt aber der Eindruck, dass Achill mehr im Recht ist. Er versteigt sich nicht bis zum letzten, sondern mildert seine Drohung abzufahren sogar zur blossen Kampfabsage und will nicht einmal der Abholung der Briseis widerstreben (298)." . See also Owen (above, note 3) 10; Motto and Clark (above, note 14) 110.

17 Note the intensity with which Achilles explains the degree of the insult to Ajax, 9.646-8, a passage which Bassett (above, note 14, 67) calls "the most true and

Nestor and the honor of Achilles 95

carries no validity for the rest of the army, of course, until Nestor gives it that social validity in lines 275-6.

Subsequent events gradually substantiate Achilles' judgment of Aga­memnon. Soon, in another personal and private encounter with a goddess­this time his mother, Thetis-Achilles will complain of Agamemnon's ate (1.412). That description of Agamemnon's behavior too, though just, remains dormant and unconfirmed for the moment. In book 2, Agamemnon says that Zeus "bound (him) with heavy infatuation» (li't'n EVEOT)G"E BapELn 2.111). By this ate, however, he means not his maltreatment of Achilles, but his failure to sack Troy despite Zeus' promise. The statement is part of his scheme to "test" the army (2.72), but in fact Agamemnon is really involved in an ate of which he is not yet fully aware. The real ate is enacted in the narrative: Zeus is really "deceiving" him (cf. 2.114). Agamemnon's pretence is ironically the truth, and his "test" backfires ignominiously.

A little later in book 2 Achilles' judgment of Agamemnon's ate is confirmed more clearly, though still indecisively. This confirmation comes from the side of the Greek army at the opposite extreme from stately Nestor: Thersites blurts out the judgment that Nestor had so cautiously stated (2.239-42). But naturally the words of a lowly, ugly commoner can claim no authority. Later in book 2 Agamemnon seems to be attempting to divide responsibility for the quarrel more or less evenly between himself and Achilles (2.375-8):

"Zeus son of Kronos, bearer of the aegis, gave me suffering, he who threw me into the midst of unprofitable strife and quarrels. For Achilles and I fought for the girl with hostile words, but I was the first to get angry."

Though Agamemnon has to grant that he "was the first to get angry" (2.378), his avowal of responsibility for the quarrel remains incomplete and half­hearted. He does not suggest that his anger was unjust or marked by hybris, for the statement in 378, though a faint glance toward accepting his share of responsibility, is still merely descriptive and non-committal.

It is only in book 9, when Achilles' threat has proved its force, that Agamemnon admits the truth. And here Nestor refers back to his words in 1.275. He now lays the blame fully upon Agamemnon, and incidentally he reverses that relationship between karteros and pherteros which he had earlier cited in support of Agamemnon's claim (see 1.280-81). Agamemnon

terrible denunciation of an unkingly act to be found in Homer, or perhaps anywhere in literature."

96 Charles Segal

took away Briseis "not according to my' thought" .( OV 't't Xtl.~' l1IJ.E't'EPO'\/ yE '\/00'\/ 9.108), says Nestor, and he goes on (9.108-11):

OV 't't Xtl.~' l1IJ.£-tEPO'\/ yE '\/00'\/ • IJ.aAtl. yap 't'Ot EYWYE 1tOAA' &'1tEIJ.Ui}E0IJ.11,\/· CTV OE CTti> IJ.Eytl.Al}'t'Opt i}UIJ.ti> EL~tl.<; &'\/optl. q>EptCT't'O'\/, 0'\/ &.M'\/tl.'t'OL 1tEp E't'EtCTtl.'\/, i]'t'i.!J.11CTtl.<;· EAW,\/ ya.p EXEt<; yEptl.<; ••.

Nestor also grants here the "honor from gods" which Achilles had sought in book 1.

It is in the context of this echo of Nestor's first speech and the vindica­tion of Achilles' claims which it had implied that Agamemnon finally admits his ate (9.116-18):

&'tl.CTcX.IJ.1]'\/, OUO' tl.1J't'O<; &.'\/tl.L'\/OIJ.tl.t. &.,\/'t't 'VU 1tOAAW,\/ Atl.W,\/ EO"'t'W &.'\/1)p 0'\/ 't'E ZEV<; xTjpt q>tAl}O"TI, w<; '\/v'\/ 't'ov't'o'\/ E't'EtO"E, MIJ.tl.o"o"E OE Atl.O'\/ 'AXtl.tw,\/.

These lines, prefacing the list of gifts and s,ignificantly not repeated to Achilles by Odysseus (see 9.260ff.) la, make three important admissions: (1) Agamemnon grants his own ate. (2) He allows Achilles the full measure of his worth (&.,\/'t'L 'VU 1tOAAW,\/ Atl.W,\/), a point to which we shall return later. (3) He grants Achilles' "honor from Zens." He does not, however, offer a public apology or even a personal meeting (see 9,373). Indeed, even in his reconciliation in book 19 Agamemnon avoids facing full responsibility. He declares that he is not "responsible" {aitios), but Zeus and Moira and the Erinys are, who threw ate into his heart (19.86-9).19 Still, the three admissions of 9,116-8, if granted in book 1, might have averted a total rupture.

The echo in 9,106-19 of Nestor's speech in book 1 confirms the truth stated there so cautiously and maintained, though ineffectively and un­heroically, in Thersites' speech in book 2. Achilles has also been shown correct in his assessment of Agamemnon's sense of honor: only the dire necessity of the battlefield and a severe defeat have brought the king to grant Achilles his due,

Achilles is capable of violence and inhumanity too, and his acts in the last books of the poem are excessive. Yet in the early books of the Iliad he is the only warrior willing to face up to Agamemnon's high-handed

18 See Whitman (above, note 4) 192; F. Focke, "Zum I der Ilias," Hermes 82 (1954) 262; Bassett, Poetry of Homer, 136-7,

19 See Post (above, note 1) p, 158, note 1. Also Il. 13,111-14.

Nestor and the honor of Achilles 97

selfishness. The entire army approves Chryses' plea en masse (1.22-3), but no single hero ventures to step forth as an individual challenging the king. The fearful Calchas speaks only in the shelter of Achilles' promise of protec­tion (1.74-83). Thersites speaks the truth after a fashion, but when Odysseus beats him the army shouts ·approval.20 By book 9 it is absolutely clear,- if it has not been clear from book 1, that Achilles is the wronged warrior who has held out alone against superior force for truth and justice. This isolated devotion to an ideal is an essential quality in Achilles' heroism and one which has an important formative influence on the heroic ideal in later Greek literature (one thinks of Aeschylus' Prometheus and Plato's Socrates),21 though it is only a part of Homer's tragic theme of wrath, passion, and suffering.

n.

By his very commitment to the established order of things Nestor is bound to be ineffectual in affirming the justice of Achilles' position.22 Yet the second half his speech provides some important confirmation of the image of Achilles set before us at the beginning of the poem.

At first Nestor seems to be urging the claims of Agamemnon. He stresses the difference in "honor" (time) between the two heroes (278), echoes Agamemnon's distinction between karteros and pherteros (280-1; cf. 178, 186) and the inequality implied therein (cf. OU 1CO~' OIJ.OL1JC; EIJ.IJ.OPE

't'LIJ.TjC;, 278 and Agamemnon's OI.lOLW~l)1.1£V(xL liv't'1Jv, 187), and makes the point of the greater numbers ruled by Agamemnon .(281 ).23 All this does Achilles no good and can only serve to aggravate his disaffection.

Homer provides an ironical reflection of Nestor's failure to grasp the issues at stake in the fact that Nestor maintains the authority due the "scepter-bearing king" (279) just after Achilles has dashed to the ground the scepter which symbolizes this authority (234-46). In fact he totally disregards Achilles' solemn oath by the scepter, even though it immediately

20 See Bassett (above, note 14) 63. 21 See. B. M. W. Knox, The Heroic Temper: Studies in Sophoclean Tragedy = Sather

Classical Lectures 35 (Berkeley and Los Angeles 1964) 50ff; Plato, Apology 28 cod and Crito 44b; N. A. Greenberg, "Socrates' Choice in the Crito," HSCP 70 (1965) 47-8, 74ff.

22 Whitman (above, note 4) 157 remarks, quoting Nestor's speech at 1.277-81, "Nestor has stated the case precisely as Achilles will not allow it."

23 See also Agamemnon's concern with superiority in numbers in 2.129. He is angry and frustrated that, though he has "more" men than the Trojans, he still cannot sack their city.

7

98 Charles Segal

preceded his own speech.24 This Polonian arbiter and strategist remains unable to see the quarrel in other than the conventional terms of the "honor" due to the "scepter-bearing king," and he will naturally pass over Achilles' radical gesture of rejecting the scepter. He is not the man to grasp Achilles' fierce and uncompromising individualism. Naturally Agamemnon finds that Nestor has "spoken everything properly" (kata moiran, 286), though his "everything" overlooks the crucial line 275, "Do not take away the girl." And Achilles, replying to Agamemnon's short, but bitter speech of 286-91, speaks as if he assumes that Nestor's advice will make no dif­ference and the injunction of 275 will not be heeded (293-303).

Yet Nestor's speech brings more than just a feeble assertion of the status quo ante. In his restraining advice to Agamemnon in 275 Nestor addresses him with the phrase, a:ya.Mc; 7tEp EWV. Agamemnon had used this same phrase of Achilles in his . first haughty reply to him in 131-2, and there it carried a bitter and ironical tone.25 Now Nestor applies it to Agamemnon when he is urging him not to carry out his threat. The repetition recalls Agamemnon's overbearing, insulting behavior in the more lucid atmosphere of a wise counselor's speech when it is Agamemnon's last chance to avoid a final rupture.

Although Nestor repeats Agamemnon's karteros - pherteros distinction, he makes an important addition (280-1): E~ OE: (jU Xa.P'tEPOC; E(j(j~, 1}ECl. OE (jE YE£Va.'tO I-J:Yl'tT}P, / a)..).: 0 yE CPEP'tEPOC; E(j'tLV, E7td • • • Agamemnon has hinted earlier at Achilles' special connection with the gods, but in a context which minimizes and indeed scorns its importance and suggests that Achilles' karteria is an accidental rather than an essential attribute of his character (177-8):

a.~Et ytip 'to~ EP~C; 'tE cpl.)" T} 7tO).,EllOl. 'tE lltiXa.~ 'tE . E~ llti).,a. xa.p'tEp6c; E(j(j~, 1}E6c; 7tOV (jot 'to y' EOWXEV ....

Agamemnon makes another probably slighting reference to Achilles' divine

24 See Peter von der Miihll, Kritisches Hypomnema zur Ilias = SchweizBeitrAlt 4 (Basel 1952) 23; see also Whitman (above, note 4) 160-1, with note 34, p. 341. Achilles' description of the scepter as a living thing which has had its time of bloom and leaf and is now stripped and dead also marks his broader and more intense sensi­tivity to the preciousness of life (see 9.401-9; Od. 11.488-91) which, once more, sets him apart in another way from the kings and chieftains who wield the scepter as a mere symbol of power. See also the celebrated discussion in Lessing's Laokoon, chap. 16, and the discussion by S. Benardete, "Achilles and the Iliad," Hermes 91 (1963) 15-16, who aptly remarks (p. 15), "The conflict between them is between authority and power, between the gifts of nature and those of heritage."

25 So too the other instances of the phrase a:yal}6.; 'ltEP ew" (in the nominative, dative, or accusative case) also carry a tone of bitterness, anger, or frustration: 9.627, 15.185, 19.155 = 1.131, 24.53 .

Nestor and the honor of Achilles 99

connections in his first speech when he called him " godlike Achilles" (t}EOE!.XEA' 'AXLAAEU, 131), an epithet which recurs in 19.155 where Aga­memnon's line is repeated by Odysseus once more in a quarrel (though restrained) with Achilles.26 The epithet occurs nowhere else in the Iliad. In 1.280, however, Nestor treats Achilles' divine parentage with the dignity which it deserves. Further, he speaks not merely of some indefinite, anony­mous god, as Agamemnon had (t}E6e; 7tOU, 178), but of Achilles' "goddess mother." His line thus both prepares for Achilles' important meeting with Thetis later in the book and gives Achilles' divine ancestry something of the importance it deserves. Achilles' famous speech to Lycaon in book 21 shows that he himself regards his divine ancestry as a special distinction which sets him apart from ordinary men (21.108-10):

OUX opa.q.e; oloe; XrLt EYW XrLA.6e; "CE !J.EYrLe; "CE; 7trL"Cpoe; 15' EL!J.' aYrLt}o~o, t}Efx. CE !J.E YELVrL"CO !J.'i)"CT}P· aAA' Em "COL XrLt E!J.Ot t}aVrL"Coe; XrLt !J.o~PrL XPrL"CrLLT) •••

In book 24 Hera justifies Achilles' treatment of Hector on similar grounds (24.57-61): they do not have "equal honor," for Achilles is "the offspring of a goddess" (t}Efie; y6voe;, 24.59).

Ill.

Nestor's last three lines have puzzled interpreters (282-4):

'A"CPELCT}, rrv cE 7trLUE "CEOV !J.EVOe;· rLu"Cfx.p EywYE ALrrrro!J.' , AXLAAiii: !J.Et}E!J.EV XOAOV, Be; !J.EYrL 7tfirrtV EpXOe; , AXrLLO~rrtV 7tEAE"CrLL 7tOAE!J.OLO XrLXOLO.

Leaf notes the "not very clear" connection of the thought which "has given rise to suspicion of interpolation," and Bekker and others have deleted the lines.27 The supposed lack of clarity is the result of Nestor's attempt to straddle both sides. He recognizes the folly and injustice of Agamemnon's position (275-6), but is neither willing nor able to carry his ideas to their logical conclusion. Hence from criticizing Agamemnon in 275-6 he moves back to defending him in 277-81 and then swings back to checking him

26 The epithet does, however, occur three times in the Odyssey, of Telemachus, Deiphobus, and Alcinous, respectively (Od. 3.416, 4.276, 8.256). The epithet &EOi:<;

EmElxEA.' 'AX~A.A.EU, however, is used fairly commonly of Achilles (9.485 and 494, 22.279, 23.80, 24.486). ef. also 1.265.

27 See Leaf (above, note 6) ad loc.; Von der Mlihll (above, note 24) 24.

I I i, I,

i . I

100 Charles Segal

and supporting Achilles in 282-4. Homer must be faithful to the character of Nestor, who of course will support Agamemnon, as he does even in his foolish "test" of the army in book 2 (2.79-83); but he also wishes to indicate through Nestor the validity of Achilles' position in the terms of his heroic society.

The end of Nestor's speech is more severe toward Agamemnon than Achilles. Agamemnon is told starkly, eru OE 1ta.UE 't'EO'J ~E'JOC; (282), though Nestor at once tones this down to "beseeching" ()..£erero~a.L) Agamemnon to "let go" (~Ei}E~E'J, a milder word than 1ta.UE) his wrath against Achilles (283). Agamemnon's anger has been the cause of the quarrel, which began when his chest was filled with that menos (103-4) which Nestor tells him to bring to an end here in 282. We have also been given a broader and more impartial judgment on Agamemnon's anger in the words of the prophet Calchas, who twice speaks of it (xo)..werE~E'J, 78; X6)"o'J, 81). Calchas' second statement, that Agamemnon, even if he "digests his wrath" for the day, will still "keep spiteful anger (kotos) in his breast afterwards to accomplish it» (81-3), proves grimly correct, for Agamemnon does indeed "fulfill" his anger by taking Briseis (318££.).

Nestor speaks of Agamemnon's menos in 282, and that menos has been given a vivid individuality in the earlier scene with Calchas (103-4):

~E'JEOC; oE ~Eya. CPPE'JEC; &.~cpl ~E)..a.L'Ja.L 1t£~1t)..a.'J't", oererE OE ot 1tUpt )..a.~1tE't'6w'J't'L EtX't'TJ'J •••

The phrase CPPE'JEC; &.~cpl ~E)..a.L'Ja.L occurs again only in the confused fighting following the death of Patroclus in book 17, when it characterizes the combatants' (and especially Hector's) deluded hopes of victory (17.83,499, 573). There in book 17 Menelaus describes the raging Hector in terms somewhat similar to those describing Agamemnon in book 1: 1tUpOC; a.L'JO'J EXEL ~E'JOC; (17.565).

The light-dark imagery of 1.103-4 gives Agamemnon's menos an espe­cially ominous significance, for it echoes the nightlike darkness of Apollo's deadly approach and the burning of the pyres in the night (47 and 52). The associations foreshadow the destructive implications of Agamemnon's be­havior. The language of 103-4, therefore, is an imagistic equivalent of Agamemnon's ate, which Nestor implicitly recognizes in 282. Lines 103-4 also prepare for and validate Achilles' description of Agamemnon as "raging with destructive mind" (6)..oLTIerL CPPEert Met, 1.342) when the heralds come to demand Briseis. Achilles' words are confirmed by Agamemnon himself in book 9, who admits (119), &.a.era.~TJ'J CPPEerl )..EUya.A.EUerL mi}1)era.c;.

Achilles has his anger, his x6)"oc; and ~E'JOC; too, of course (192), but he is capable of checking his wrath; and he acceded to Athena's request that he do so (207, 217), at least in part (224). Homer gives us another objective

Nestor and the honor of Achilles 101

confirmation of Achilles' relative restraint in book 2, when Thersites (who has no reason to love Achilles any more than Agamemnon) contrasts Achilles' moderation with Agamemnon's harshness (2.241): &).).,,&, 1J.a.).' ovx 'AXLMi~ X6)'0~ CPPEcrLV, &,)')'&, IJ.El)ruJ.wv. Not only the word x6)'0c;, but also IJ.ElhilJ.wV point back to Nestor's speech (1.283, IJ.El)EIJ.EV X6).OV).28

Nestor's very last utterance is especially important for strengthening our sympathies for Achilles. He asks that Agamemnon "let go his wrath against Achilles who is a great bulwark against evil war." Nestor grants to Achilles a crucial recognition which Agamemnon had refused or taken slightingly, namely the recognition of his special worth as a warrior. When Achilles first threatened defection, Agamemnon's response was cold and supercilious. He says (in paraphrase) "Go away if you like. I do not need you. I have enough men to honor me 073-8). Go off with your Myrmidons. I don't care if you are angry" (crEl)EV 0' EYW OVX &').EY£SW / OVo' ol)OIJ.ClL XO"t'EOV"t'OC;, 1.180-1). This dismissal of Achilles' prowess and especially the studied nonchalance toward Achilles' anger in 180-1 form one of the harshest of possible insults to a hero's time. Achilles has no choice but to take drastic action. Agamemnon's cool acknowledgment immediately after Nestor's speech that "the gods have made Achilles a spearman" (EL OE IJ.w Cl.LXIJ.'I1"t'1}V El)EcrCl.V l)EOL ••. , 1.290) repeats the insult.

Nestor's words in 283-4, however, set Agamemnon's violation of Achil­les' honor into a clear, realistic perspective of which Agamemnon is not yet capable. The Achaeans are losing their "bulwark" and are to be exposed to the full force of "evil war" without the benefit of "the best of the Achaeans" (see also 2.769-73, 4.512-13). By the middle of the next book Agamemnon has moved a little closer to the reality of the situation, but still avoids facing the actual consequences of his behavior (2.379-80):

EL 0E. 'lto"t" E~ YE 1J.£Cl.V ~O\J).EVcrOIJ.EV, OVXE"t" E'ltEL"t'Cl. TPWcrLV a.Va.~).'I1crL~ XCl.XOV EcrcrE"t'Cl.L, ovo'1)~Cl.L6v.

The language of this passage is revealing. Agamemnon puts the issue here in terms of the Greek offensive, that is, inflicting losses on the Trojans, as if the absence of Achilles meant only a "postponement" of Troy's fall and not near defeat for the Greeks. Nestor's words in 1.283-4 evince a more accurate grasp of the situation: it is in fact a matter of defense, not offense, of staving off defeat themselves when they are deprived of their "great bulwark against evil war." Nestor here indirectly confirms what Achilles

28 Cf. also Thersites' echo in 2.237 of Calchas' words about Agamemnon's "digest­ing his anger" in 1.81.

102 Charles Segal

himself warns as the consequences of his withdrawal (1.239-44, 340-2), and by book 9 even Agamemnon has to admit the truth (9.115-19).

The language of 282-4 gives special emphasis to this point, the value of Achilles as a warrior. The usual way of expressing the thought of 283-4 would be a line ending with the formula EPXO~ 'AXa.LW'J. Homer does not here use the common formula. He thus reinforces the specialness of Achilles' martial worth. He adds the phrase l1Eya. 'ltiicrw, places EPXO~ first in the line, and puts "Achaeans" in the dative case.29 The unique and non-formulaic quality of the resultant expression is especially appropriate to the unique and distinctive value of Achilles at the point when the leader of the expedi­tion has called that value into question.

IV.

Several of the themes which Nestor raises also have resonances in the immediately ensuing scenes, and it remains to consider these.

Homer has carefully disposed his material so as to keep the wrath­theme most vividly in the foreground. After 317, the despatching of Odys­seus with Chryseis and the performance of the sacrifices to Apollo, Homer might have placed the detailed description of the embassy to Chryses and the final resolution of the wrath of Chryses, with its disastrous consequences for the Greek army. Instead he puts Agamemnon's seizure of Briseis at this point (318-48) and holds back the narrative of Chryseis' return and the actual appeasement of Apollo for nearly a hundred lines (428f£.). This arrangement provides continuity with the main subject {Achilles' wrath and injured honor), for it brings the taking of Briseis and Achilles' long scene with Thetis (352-427) as close as possible to the assembly and to the three speeches (Nestor's, Agamemnon's, and Achilles') which close it.

The order of Homer's narrative also has the effect of stressing Aga­memnon's irresponsibility. Agamemnon dishonors Achilles while the effects of his similar treatment of Chryses are still unresolved, still hanging over the Greek camp. The order of events also interweaves the two parallel acts of selfishness and overbearing, 'the rejection of Chryses' supplication and the threats to Achilles. There is both irony and foreboding in the fact that Agamemnon restores one girl, but, in almost the same gesture, appears as taking away another. The cycle of folly and disaster is beginning again, and one may note the similarity in the language of the two actions:

1.310-11 : a.'Ja. OE XpucrT)toa. xa.A.A.ma.PDo'J ELcrE'J (iyw'J' E'J 0' a.pxo~ ~~T) 'ltOA.Ul1T)'t'L~ 'OOUcrcrEU~.

29 ~pxo~ comes first in the line only 4.299 and 5.316 in the phrases ~pxo~ ~P.E'II ~O)'EP.O~O (~EMw'll). See the scholiast on 1.283-4: mj}a.'IIw~ ~poCTElh'}XE 'to 'P.Eya.' t~EL ~pxo~ q>TJCTL xa.L 'to'll Ata.'II'ta..

Nestor and the honor of Achilles 103

1.346-7: Ex 0' ayay£ XAtO"t'l']C; BPtO"'l']LOCX XCXAAt1tapTIov, owx£ 0' ay£w· 'tw 0' cxu't"tC; h'l']v 1tCXPCt viicxc; 'Axcxtwv.

It is, in fact, possible that Homer mentions the return of Chryseis here, even though he deals with it much more fully in 430-87, just to bring out this cyclical repetition in Agamemnon's action.

Agamemnon's irresponsibility is emphasized in another way too. The brevity of the description of the sending back of Chryseis in 308-17 keeps the emphasis upon Agamemnon's wrath and violence rather than his lead­ership. Agamemnon makes no public statement; Odysseus is the leader of the expedition (311) . Nor are the final results of the return of Chryseis and the hecatombs to Apollo yet given. Homer stresses the action of Odys­seus and of the army as a whole in 312-18. When Agamemnon again appears as an individual actor, it is not as a priest-king performing the propitiatory offerings which save his people, but as a man obstinate in his wrath: Ouo' 'AYCXP.EP.VWV / A1jy' EptOOC;, 't"l}V 1tpw't"ov E1t'l']1t£tA'l']O"' 'AXtAi'j~ (318-19). Those threats are now at once made good in the sending of the heralds to Achilles' tent (320-5). Homer, for the moment, presents the positive side of Agamemnon's behavior only as a brief interlude ,(308-17) framed by the themes of his wrath, exactly as in l.137-47, echoed in part here. Thus the restoration of Chryseis is cancelled out by the seizure of Briseis. The new insult to a figure deserving respect echoes the old, and Agamemnon's charge to the heralds in 326 repeats the formula used in his harsh rejection of Chryses in 25: xpcx't"£pov 0' E1tL p.vi)ov E't"£AA£. The parallel between the two situations becomes even stronger when Achilles soon after describes to Thetis Agamemnon's earlier behavior toward Chryses and repeats some half-dozen lines from that scene, including line 25 (372-5=13-16; 376-9=22-5).

Nestor had asked Achilles not to "wish to engage in strife (EptSEP.£VCXt) against the king" (277). Strife, eris, has been one of the key words of the book, first sounded in the proem as a major cause of the Wrath (l.6, 1.8). Agamemnon accused Achilles of loving "strife and wars and battles" (177). Yet it was Achilles who had heeded Athena's request to "cease from strife" (Ai'jy' EptOOC;, 210) and sheathe his sword. That phrase is present in our minds as Agamemnon pushes his side of the "strife" to its limits and "does not cease from strife" (ouo' 'AYCXP.EP.VWV / Ai'jy' EptOOC;, 318-19) as he prepares to take Briseis. The repetitions in 210, 277, and 318-19 all tell in Achilles' favor and accumulate indications of his justification. It is characteristic of Agamemnon that in book 9 he regards it as Achilles' responsibility to "cease from wrath" (p.£'t"aAAi);av't"t X6AOtO, 9.157=299), despite Nestor's statement at l.282-3 - and then adds, "Let him be subdued" (op.'l']i)i)'t"w, 9.158). There is also an irony (again in Achilles' favor) in the fact that Odysseus, the closest of the three ambassadors to being Agamemnon's spokesman, asks Achilles to relinquish strife and wrath in words that recall those very admonitions

11 ,

104 Charles Segal

by Nestor to Agamemnon in book 1 (cf. 9. 260, 1tI1UE', £11 oE x6A,oV l}UIJ.Cl.A,yEI1, and 1.283; 9.257 and 1.319; also 9.255-6 and 9.109-10). We are thus reminded (as we are throughout the- first part of book 9) of the causes of the wrath and therefore of Achilles' justification in rejecting Agamemnon's overtures.YJ

v.

It seems that Nestor's words in book 1 were entirely wasted as an attempt to awaken Agamemnon to a fairer sense of Achilles' rights. Indeed, Agamemnon's threat that "he will come with more" (crVv 1tA,E6vEa"a"t, 325) if Achilles does not hand over Briseis looks like a characteristically overwean­ing distortion of Nestor's defense of Agamemnon because "he rules over more" (E1tE1. 1tA,E6vEa"a"tV avaa"a"Et, 281). Yet just such a distortion enables us to see Agamemnon's action against the calmer and broader perspective of heroic norms which Nestor sets forth. The very fact that Nestor favors Agamemnon works to Achilles' benefit: even a supporter finds it necessary to speak sharply to Agamemnon's menos: C1U OE 1tI1UE "t'EOV llEVO<; (282).

The failure of Nestor's mediation has a still greater significance for the position of Achilles. It confirms his total isolation. Even the wise, respected counselor, the most authoritative spokesman for whatever is orderly, tradi­tional, and honorable in the society, can do nothing to prevent an outright wrong in an open assembly of all the Achaeans. Blatantly wronged by his peers, Achilles has no choice but to withdraw from a society which appears as unjust and corrupt. He has only his goddess mother to turn to, the mysterious figure from the sea who is intimately connected with the hero's loneliness in a special destiny and with an awareness of death which sets him apart from other men. The hero moves from the angry voices and ineffective restraints upon meanness and wrongdoing in the assembly to the "limitless sea" over which he gazes in grief (1.348-50):

l1,h~p , AXtA,A,EU<; OI1XPVC1I1<; hapwv licpl1p ESE"t'O v6a"q>t A,tl1C1l}EL<;, l}i:v' itcp' aM<; 1tOA,tll<;, op6wv E1t' a1tELpovl1 1t6v"t'ov.

This movement into isolation reflects not Achilles' pettiness or child­ishness (Homer has been careful to present him first in a position of true leadership and responsibility), but rather his greatness and his uncompro­mising integrity. Achilles has no "flaw," but rather a tragic destiny in which this same integrity will cost him his dearest friend and reduce him to the violence and inhuman savagery of the closing books, until he attains

YJ See my remarks in GRBS 9 (1968) 103ff.

Nestor and the honor of Achilles 105

a new dignity and broad vision in the Funeral Games and the scene with Priam.

The hierarchical order and material values of Agamemnon's camp cannot hold this figure whose mother comes "from the depths of the sea." Achilles is the only hero who gazes out into the broad horizons of the "limitless sea" (1.350; cf. 23.143) or who commands the vast distances of "shadowy mountains and echoing sea" (1.156-7).31 Sitting apart from his companions by the sea in 1.349-50, he resembles Zeus himself "sitting apart from the others on the topmost peak of many-ridged Olympus" (1.498-93.32 Nestor, of course, is no more capable than Agamemnon of recognizing the deepest levels of Achilles' greatness, and it requires the entire poem to clarify and define them.

Agamemnon, as we have seen, had briefly alluded to Achilles' divine parentage, but only in an impersonal and slighting way (178). Nestor is the first character in the poem to speak specif,ically of Achilles' goddess­mother (280): t}EtX. OE (TE YE£'\I~"O V.1)uIP. For Nestor Achilles' lineage is still merely another external attribute, coordinate with his strength in battle. Yet the phrase in 280 marks a distinctly greater appreciation of Achilles' special identity, not just as a useful warrior, but as a complex individual who has a destiny and therefore a greatness which set him apart from the others. Nestor's speech not only validates the justice of Achilles' position. It also takes us closer to the essence of his character and to those qualities which are so closely bound up with his goddess-mother and are partially revealed in the ensuing scene (1.348££.).

There is thus a tight and logical progression from Athena's appearance to Achilles "alone" (198), through Nestor's speech and Agamemnon's final, irreversible act, to Achilles' meeting with Thetis by the "limitless sea" and her plea for his honor (505) on Olympus. The movement of the narrative seems spontaneous and artless, but it has an linner coherence which focuses the main concerns of the poem and shows Homer masterfully in control of the ancient materials of the wrath-theme.

Brown University Intercollegiate Center for Classical Studies in Rome

31 See Adam Parry, "The Language of Achilles," TAPA 87 (1956) 1-7 = G. S. Kirk, ed., The Language and Background of Homer (Cambridge and New York 1964) 48-54; idem, "Have We Homer's Iliad?" YCS 20 (1%6) 194-6.

32 Whitman (above, note 4) 225f£. has noted "a kind of identification" of Zeus with Achilles over the course of the poem. As he observes (p. 227), the phrase used of Achilles in 1.349, V6trCjlL A.LCItrilEL.;, occurs only one other time in the Iliad, and that is in a description of Zeus (11.80).