A Reexamination of Piracy Through Homeric Relationships

Bringing Evil to Others: A Reexamination of Piracy Through Homeric Relationships

Master’s Thesis

Presented to

The Faculty of the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences Brandeis University Graduate Program in Ancient Greek and Roman Studies Dr. Joel Christensen, Advisor

In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree

Master of Arts in Ancient Greek and Roman Studies

by James Martin

May 2017

James Martin

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would first like to thank my advisor, Dr. Joel Christensen of the Ancient Greek and

Romans Studies Faculty at Brandeis University. Dr. Christensen has been an integral element of this project and my success through its process. He allowed this work to be my own while simultaneously steering me in the right direction. His advising and mentorship has ultimately contributed to my success as a graduate student and as a scholar in the progress of this project.

I would also like to thank my additional readers, Dr. Andrew Koh, Dr. Ann Olga

Koloski-Ostrow, and Dr. Cheryl Walker. Thanks to their diverse expertise, but equal interest in my progress, I was able to incorporate multiple disciplines into my project. Koh,

Kolowki-Ostrow, and Walker have all also been extremely accessible and invested in my development during my time as a graduate student. I am thankful that I have been able to share this last project, which serves as an excellent capstone, with all four of my readers.

iii

ABSTRACT

Bringing Evil to Others: A Reexamination of Piracy Through Homeric Relationships

A thesis presented to the Graduate Program in Ancient Greek and Roman Studies

Graduate School of Arts and Sciences Brandeis University Waltham, Massachusetts

By James Martin

The topic of piracy has been long debated by both Greek and modern readers of

Homer. The scenes involving piratical acts, with only a few notable instances, seem to have little to no negative judgment on the pirates. This paper examines the scenes that involve piracy and address the reasons for the attitudes toward the pirates. Their actions and those of the Homeric heroes are often similar. Though the terms for pirates are not associated with heroes, the similarity in their behavior can allow us to interpret some of the actions of the Homeric heroes as also being piratical. The judgement of piracy within the epics should be understood primarily in terms of the targets of the raids, and not a judgment on the raiding itself. By examining when there seems to be a condemnation of piracy and who is being attacked at that time, a hierarchy of relationships is able to be made. This hierarchy helps us to understand how a Homeric warrior is expected to interact with those around him, and how he is able to treat people differently depending on what level of relationship he shares with them. This paper displays the categories of relationships and provides the scenes which reveal the conduct that is expected of the hero towards each group. The

hierarchy of relationships is primarily focused on the topics of violence and acquisition of booty, but is also able to illuminate additional interactions in which the relationship of the

Homeric characters can be understood.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS………………………………………………………………………………………………….. iii

ABSTRACT…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS………………………….…………………………………………………………………………vi

LIST OF FIGURES………………………………………...………………………….....………..…………………………vii

CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION…………………………………………………….……………………………………..1

CHAPTER II: ILIAD……………………………………………………………………..………………………………….12

CHAPTER III: ODYSSEY………………………………………………………………………………………………….29

CHAPTER IV: CONCLUSION…………………………………………………….……………………………………..45

REFERENCES……………………………………………………………………..…………………………………………49

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Hierarchy of Relationships without ξένος 23 Figure 2. Complete Hierarchy of Relationships 27 Figure 3. Hierarchy of Relationships in Proximity 37

vii

Chapter I: Introduction

καὶ προσπίπτοντες πόλεσιν ἀτειχίστοις καὶ κατὰ κώμας οἰκουμέναις ἥρπαζον καὶ τὸν πλεῖστον τοῦ βίου ἐντεῦθεν ἐποιοῦντο, οὐκ ἔχοντός πω αἰσχύνην τούτου τοῦ ἔργου, φέροντος δέ τι καὶ δόξης μᾶλλον: δηλοῦσι δὲ τῶν τε ἠπειρωτῶν τινὲς ἔτι καὶ νῦν, οἷς κόσμος καλῶς τοῦτο δρᾶν, καὶ οἱ παλαιοὶ τῶν ποιητῶν τὰς πύστεις τῶν καταπλεόντων πανταχοῦ ὁμοίως ἐρωτῶντες εἰ λῃσταί εἰσιν, ὡς οὔτε ὧν πυνθάνονται ἀπαξιούντων τὸ ἔργον, οἷς τε ἐπιμελὲς εἴη εἰδέναι οὐκ ὀνειδιζόντων. Thucydides 1.5.1-2

And they would fall upon un-walled cities, made up of villages, and plunder them. From that they made the greatest part of their livelihood since it brought no shame from the deed, but it actually brought some glory. Some of the mainlanders show this even now, for whom it is becoming for someone to carry out these raids well, and so do the old poets everywhere have people asking of those sailing whether they are pirates, as though there was no intention of disowning the deeds on the part of those asked, nor of reproaching for those inquiring.

In the proem to his Peloponnesian War, Thucydides is first concerned with giving a history of Greece going back as far as he can using his own methods of research. By utilizing burials, word of mouth, and cultural memory, he is able to create a picture of what he believes

Greece may have looked like. The above passage captures one of the more colorful descriptions of the world before him. Thucydides describes the prevalence of piracy in a world that is already old and somewhat foreign to him. For Thucydides, piracy is something that used to be acceptable and even appropriate earlier in Greece. By mentioning that part of his evidence for the prevalence of piracy is that some people on the mainland still practice those acts, Thucydides implies that the piracy gradually became less acceptable over time. What started out to be commonplace eventually became inappropriate to most of Greece, with only a few exceptions.

The second piece of evidence that Thucydides cites is the commonplace greeting given by the poets to inquire as to whether a visitor is a pirate. Thucydides accepts that the poets, in this case Homer,1 reflect historical reality that can tell a contemporary audience something about

Greece before his time. The concept that piracy could potentially be without shame is foreign enough to Thucydides that he deems it worthy to discuss. Thucydides is surprised and interested in a topic that continues to perplex those reading Homer. Even other ancient audiences found this worth discussing. The scholia on Homer agrees with Thucydides that piracy was not considered shameful.2 Modern scholars range from agreeing with Thucydides to those who believe that there is actual condemnation of the act of piracy in the epics.3 Can we then believe Thucydides and his understanding of the epics? And why is there so much debate over the way the epics treat piracy if every modern scholar is looking at the same information?

The cause for such widespread debate on the attitudes toward pirates is that the interpreters of the epics have not fully understood the range of relationships depicted in the poem. As Thucydides implies, piracy in the epics is certainly present and wide spread.

According to values of the Homeric warriors, piracy does seem to be an acceptable action within the epics. Piracy does, however, exist in a hierarchy of relationships. Thucydides’ understanding of piracy ultimately comes from his understanding of Homeric relationships and how they function. By exploring these relationships, we can potentially learn more about Homer and

Thucydides’ conception of piracy. These relationships may also help us in understanding more about the historic time period that Thucydides reflects on. I will, therefore, first investigate what world Thucydides examines and then summarize the sections of this paper.

1 Hornblower 1991, 23. 2 φαίνεται γὰρ οὐκ αἰσχρὸν τοῖς ἀρχαίοις ὂν τὸ λῃστεύειν, καὶ Θουκυδίδης εἴρηκεν. H.Q.T. 3 See Ormerod 1924 and Van Wees 1992 for the argument supporting Thucydides. See DeSouza 1999 and Heubeck et al. 1988 for the assertion that piracy clearly has negative connotations.

Homer and History

Before analyzing what the Homeric epics represent to a historic era, we must first explore with which era we should associate the information. It is commonly agreed that the epics which we now possess were composed sometime in the early Archaic Period.4 The time that the

Homeric epics are thought to represent, however, has been seriously debated during the last century. After the discoveries at Troy and Mycenae by Heinrich Schliemann, many believed that the Trojan War and the surrounding cultural make-up of the epics must reflect the Bronze Age.

Due to archaeological and philological evidence and due to the revolutionary developments in our understanding of orality,5 the Bronze Age connection has been largely dismissed.6 The nature of oral poems is one of change and re-composition. Thus, it is unlikely that a poem would retain many elements reflecting real culture in the Bronze Age after so many generations. The audience of the epic, however, may not have been able to differentiate the past in a significant way. As a result, their understanding of the time within the epics would simply be the past.

Elements that do remain in the poem, however, are the larger plot narratives that the main stories take place within. For example, the Iliad is not actually a retelling of the war, but rather a focus on the feud of Agamemnon and Achilles during the war. The details of the Trojan War are likely a remnant of an existing tradition that possibly dates back to the Late Bronze Age or perhaps Early Iron Age. There is historical evidence that there was already conflict between the

Mycenaean mainland and Western Anatolia where Troy was located. In the Amarna letters,

Mycenaean men are mentioned by name, who are accused of conducting raids. In analyzing a

4 West 2014, 1; Van Wees 1992, 1. 5 See Lord 1960 for a complete discussion on the orality of the epic poems. 6 See Bennet 1997.

few of these letters in her exploration of early raiding before the Bronze Age collapse, Louise

Hitchcock writes,

The Indictment of Maduwatta is dated to Late Helladic IIB-IIIA2 (c. 1450-1430) and complains about a man of Ahhiya, Attarissiya (Atreus?), conducting military raids against Anatolia and Alasiya. The Manapa-Tarhunda Letter from the Annals of Mursili II (c. 1326 BCE) complains about attacks by the renegade Piyamaraduu (Epiamandas?) on the Seha River Land, on Lazpa (Lesbos), and on Wilusa (Ilios/Troy).7 Whether the etymological similarities between the included Hittite names and the traditional names associated with the Trojan War are accurate or not, the letters of the Amarna tablets confirm two things; first, that there was an established connection of sea travel between Wilusa

(Troy) and vassals of the Mycenaean mainland and, second, that raiding in Western Anatolia was an established behavior among the Mycenaean forces.

One can see how a tradition about an ongoing, foreign war could develop out of several raids and skirmishes. Thucydides would consider these raids to be done by pirates, but the epic poems cover too broad of a range of time for them to be used as historical evidence. Though there is evidence for an origin of the Trojan War tradition in the Bronze Age, there are not many other elements that can be seen from Homer from that period. Though some scholars still believe that the society of the Bronze Age is the same one reflected in Homer, Kurt A. Raaflaub agrees that the social structure seen in the epics does not reflect life from such a long time previous. He writes “Yet the Mycenaean palaces are a world apart from the houses of the Homeric leaders, and the centralized, hierarchical systems revealed by the tablets resembles contemporary Near

Eastern civilizations but is incompatible with anything found in Homer or known from later

Greek history.”8 Therefore, to find a cultural reflection in Homer, we must look to an age closer

7 Hitchcock and Maeir 2016, 3. 8 Raaflaub 1997, 625.

to the poet and one that is more likely to still be established in the collective memory of Homer’s audience. Some scholars argue that the evidence in the archaeological record supports the idea of a memory of wide spread piracy.9 Scholars of the Bronze Age generally agree that peoples in the

Eastern Mediterranean suffered a large trauma during the end of this age. Many modern and ancient sources turn to the widespread attacks from the sea which often destroyed or severely hurt different societies. Could the Sea Peoples be whom Thucydides is recalling as his pirates and is their memory perhaps captured in the Homeric epics in the form of widespread and common practices of piracy?10 Although the trauma of the Sea Peoples began in the Bronze Age, the memory and practices surely could have endured afterward.

The Iron Age is a more likely candidate for a time period in which Homeric social structure can be understood. The epics were compiled and composed sometime at the beginning of the Archaic Age, so it is likely that the time reflected in the epics would be the middle to late

Iron Age. This analysis, however, is not universally agreed upon. Ian Morris takes a close look at the evidence of material culture throughout the Iron Age and the evidence within Homer. His conclusion is “Although Homer was clearly aware of eighth century developments in material culture, it has not proved possible to identify a single region and period with a material culture exactly like that in the epics.”11 Morris lays out the difficulty in assigning an appropriate time for

Homer’s epic to occur and concludes, “there is no point in trying to pull Homer’s picture apart, reassembling it in ‘layers’ which can then be correlated with the artifacts found in discrete archaeological strata.”12 Morris is likely correct in bringing light to the difficulty of dating

Homer, but Morris is focused only in material culture and the “artifacts” found in Homer.

9 Hitchcock and Maeir, 2014. 10 See Sandars 1978 for the widespread raids of the Sea Peoples. 11 Morris 1997, 558. 12 Ibid. 559.

Homer, due to the nature of poetry, would use actual objects that he is aware of, whether contemporary or existing in memory of the past, indiscriminately to describe the events in the poem. Where Homer would be more precise and consistent, however, is in cultural memory of social structure in the past.

One cannot treat cultural history within the epics in the same manner as material culture.

When analyzing the cultural history in Homer, Raaflaub does not believe that the endeavor is impossible. He writes that cultural elements, for the most part, can be separated into concepts that can be understood in a few ways: established tradition (elements of the Bronze Age left over in the poems), exaggerated elements due to the nature of poetry (which can be identified and understood in non-literal ways), and archaisms (elements of the past used to make the poem more heroic, which is the purpose of the poet).13 He believes, therefore, that these elements can be understood to represent historical realities in the times appropriate to each concept. The nature of the orality can also help when it comes to dating these elements. Raaflaub proposes, “In preliterate societies, collective memories of the past are preserved beyond a period of roughly three generations only if they are important to the present; even so, they are constantly reinterpreted to fit the changing needs of the present.”14 According to this understanding, the values of the poem must reflect actual concerns, at least allegorically, of the audience contemporary with Homer.

Although the values of the stories within the epics likely reflect an audience of the early

Archaic, the collective memory can still harken back several generations. Thus, there can exist in

Homer memory of societies of the Late Iron Age. More precisely, Raaflaub calls this time the near-contemporary period and puts the dating of the epic within the ninth and eighth centuries.

13 Raaflaub, 627. 14 Ibid. 628.

The poem, however, “is historical in appearance but contemporary in meaning… The social background of heroic poetry needed to be modern enough to be understandable, but archaic enough to be believable.”15 The poem therefore reflects the Iron Age in memory and the beginning of the Archaic Age in values. The epics, and the response the audience has to them, both naturally changed over time. The attitude towards pirates changed by Thucydides’ time before the attitude in the poems did. That attitude towards pirates instead reflects what the audience believed the past actually looked like. More specifically, the recollection of a time when piracy was common and supported, whether accurate or not, is what is reflected in the epics. The audience simply acknowledges that, at some point in the past, a pirate could be commonplace and raid certain people without being condemned.

Understanding Piracy in Homer

The method by which this paper examines piracy in the epics is through the relationships within which the Homeric hero has to operate. By thoroughly examining the relationship that the

Homeric warrior has with the victims of the piracy, the epics show that the target of raid is the important factor determining whether the action is good or bad. The main argument that emerges from this perspective is that the negative attitudes toward piracy within the epics must be understood as a violation of one of the hero’s relationships, not a condemnation of the act itself.

This ‘relational’ lens of examining piracy can also be extended to evaluating heroic behavior in general. The relationships of the hero extend beyond just those he can target for raids. The ways in which the hero is expected to navigate his relationships ultimately can tell us more about the epic as a whole and help us to understand various motivations and reactions of the characters

15 Raaflaub. 628.

within. Ultimately, the way the audience views the relationships the hero has with those around him is what determines how the audience reacts to his actions.

In this paper, I examine the nature of these relationships within the Odyssey and the Iliad.

Though the focus of the two poems differ, the types of relationships are similar or the same in the stories. I begin with the Iliad and the importance of spoils acquisition to the Homeric warrior.

There are two types of spoils to the warrior. The first includes the spoils taken from those the warrior defeats in battle. These are personal spoils which include weapons and armor, horses, or even ransoms taken from defeated enemies. I refer to these spoils as ληίς.16 The other types of spoils are those given in a public assembly in order to reinforce a warrior’s position in the community and represent their social status. This type of spoils, I refer to as a γέρας.17 The γέρας is simultaneously the symbol for a warrior’s position in the community, but also the position itself. This concept becomes important when understanding the relationship the heroes of the epics have with others in their community.

The people whom the warriors raid end up making two of the positions in the hierarchy of relationships. There are two kinds of people that the warrior attacks. Those whom the warrior hurts for the sake of hurting them, I call the ἐχθροί. The Homeric warrior attacks the ἐχθροί not only for material gain, but mainly to punish them for something that they did. The other people that the warrior attacks are the ἄλλοι. The ἄλλοι are people that have not necessarily harmed the warrior, but are people emotionally distant enough to attack. Warriors attack the ἄλλοι for material gain and also for a gain in their honor. The primary example in the Iliad of the difference between the ἄλλοι and the ἐχθροί is Achilles’ attitude toward the Trojans. Achilles begins the war by being indifferent to the Trojans. He even mentions that the Trojans never did

16 Also appears as λεία 17 plural: γέρα

him harm by raiding his lands or taking his things. Achilles is present in the war to increase his own wealth and reputation and the Trojans are thus ἄλλοι to him. It is only after the loss of his good friend that Achilles’ view towards the Trojans shift from people from whom he can gain wealth, to people who are his true enemies, ἐχθροί.

Achilles’ relationship with Patroclus is not shared with all of the other warriors in the

Achaean army. Patroclus is very close to Achilles and is someone that can turn people into enemies if they harm him. Achilles’ considers Patroclus an extension of himself. Those who have this kind of relationship with the warrior, I call the φίλοι. It is clear that not all the men in the Achaean coalition can be called φίλοι to one another. The nature of the relationship between them is more complex, but is more easily understood in terms of each of the heroes’ relationship with Agamemnon. I follow Walter Donlan’s interpretation of these relationships as one of alliances and not vassalage. The agreement, therefore, between Agamemnon and one like

Achilles is of mutual respect and benefit that is only to exist during the war. Agamemnon and

Achilles should not at all be considered φίλοι. The larger community in which the warrior operates, I refer to as the δῆμος. When Agamemnon, with the implicit consent of the rest of the assembly, takes away Achilles’ γέρας, in the form of Briseis, he also violates his end of the agreement made with Achilles. The Achaeans, who are taking away the goods and position of

Achilles, transfer out of the position of δῆμος and become ἐχθροί to Achilles. Thus, the reaction of Achilles to pray for their deaths seems a little less extreme. The hierarchy of relationships, in closeness to the hero, declines from φίλοι, the δῆμος, ἄλλοι, and ἐχθροί. The positions stay in this order, but people can move from one of these relationships to another.

The final position that I discuss within the hierarchy of relationships in the Iliad is the

ξένος. Though ξένοι play a much larger role in the Odyssey, the relationship is still an important

one in the Iliad. Ξένοι are people who have undergone a ritualized friendship where one warrior, or ancestor of the warrior, hosts another. When this happens, the men are bound in friendship and protection even in the face of war. During the Trojan War, men who are ξένοι, such as

Glaukos and Diomedes, cannot hurt one another and even wish each other luck in destroying their opponents. One can see, therefore, how a friendship in the category of ξένος is held to be more important than the relationships within the δῆμος. This hierarchy of relationships, especially the ξένοι and the ἄλλοι, become much more prevalent in the Odyssey and help explain the behavior of pirates and the attitudes towards them.

I begin discussing the Odyssey by reaffirming the presence of the hierarchy of relationships that was established in the Iliad. The primary shift between the two poems is that the δῆμος in the Odyssey is made up of the citizens of Ithaca. Though the citizens living around a king have obvious differences from a coalition of the Achaeans in a war, I find there to be similarities in how the warrior interacts with them. Primarily, the suitors are considered to be attempting to take Odysseus’ γέρας. Much like Achilles, Odysseus then takes action against them that some could consider excessive. Though these relationships in the abstract may seem unrelated to piracy in the epics, by setting up their hierarchy, violence in the epics is more easily understood.

After establishing some of the relationships in the Odyssey, I finally delve into the issues of piracy. Pirates in the epic are referred to as ληϊστήρες18. Ληϊστήρες are warriors who seek out spoils, but as their name suggests, only obtain ληίς. The γέρας form of spoils that are doled out based on status in the community are not the priority of the ληϊστήρες. As a result, since

ληϊστήρες target people based on financial gain and not based on who their enemies are, the

18 Singular: ληϊστήρ

ἄλλοι are their targets. I agree with Hans Van Wees that the term ληϊστήρ is not used to refer to the warriors in the legendary wars, but the issue is of time. The same men can be both a legendary warrior in a great war at one time, but then be considered a ληϊστήρ at another. This ultimately brings us back to Thucydides’ assertions about piracy; first, that it was extremely wide spread and second, that is was not a shameful act. To examine this, I first look to Thucydides’ own evidence of the common occurrence of a host asking his guest if he is a pirate or not. The questions certainly show the prevalence of piracy, but I then turn to the question about the judgment of the act. The evidence suggests that a ληϊστήρ is able to grow in his own reputation through his acquisition of spoils and that a ληϊστήρ is able to become a prominent member of his community through piracy. Conversely, those who increase their reputation by fighting in legendary wars then commonly become ληϊστήρες afterward.

After showing the evidence suggesting that piracy is not shameful, I address the evidence that makes piracy seem negative. There are two major scenes where there is a negative attitude toward ληϊστήρες. These attitudes toward the ληϊστήρες, however, is negative due to targets of the raids and not the raid itself. In one of these instances, a ληϊστήρ is condemned because his targets are not ἄλλοι, but are his allies. The other scene is from the view of the target of the piracy. He, therefore, is the ἄλλος and has a negative opinion of the individuals who attack him.

Considering either of these scenes as a condemnation of the act of piracy is a misunderstanding of the relationships in Homer. A more complete exploration of the hierarchy of relationships within the epics helps the reader of the poems to avoid misjudging societal attitudes in the stories.

Chapter II: Iliad

The acquisition of spoils plays an integral part in the Iliad in both the narrative and the values of the Homeric communities. In the Iliad, a hero is able to obtain spoils in a variety of ways:

Stripping dead opponents while fighting on the front line such as the famous scene with Hector and Patroclus (Il. 17.125), stealing horses such as Odysseus and Diomedes do from the Thracians

(Il. 10. 495-525), ransoming nobles back to their wealthy families (Il. 21.41-2), trading goods with another hero such as Diomedes and Glaucus (Il. 6.212-240), or receiving γέρα19 from either the host or from the leader of the host such as Chryseis and Briseis for Agamemnon and

Achilles, respectively. With all of these methods of acquiring spoils, the hero also increases his own glory and fame among his community. There are, however, standards for how the warrior is supposed to gain these spoils. The type of relationship that the hero has with those around him, determines how he is supposed to interact with them. This hierarchy of relationships can be seen through both epics, but is most clearly visible through the lens of obtaining spoils.

All of these methods of obtaining spoils comes from physical violence towards others.

Even the γέρα awarded to heroes come from the communal spoils of the host which in turn come from the victims of the host. These victims of raids and violence, much like in the Odyssey, can be a variety of people who are not necessarily established as enemies before the raids. The Iliad,

19 Gifts of honor reflecting station in the community, γέρα in the plural. Not to be confused with λήις, the spoils obtained in battle and raids.

since the Trojan War is the primary focus, allows for many enemies and friends of enemies to kill and raid, so most of the spoils collected and then redistributed among the Greek heroes come from the Trojans and their allies. The Trojans, however, are not by rule the only ones the Greeks raid during the war. Though the story opens after nine years of the war having already passed, we learn that in the beginning of the war, Achilles had led several expeditions for the purpose of raiding.

The warriors in the epics raid some people, even though they are not their enemies.

Achilles led raids on the islands of Tenedos, Skyros, and Lesbos20 and then several allies of the

Trojans once on land. Though many of these attacks before the narrative of the Iliad could be understood as military expeditions to harm the Trojan alliances, I agree with Hans Van Wees that

“But since it is unlikely that the islands, too, were regarded as part of the Trojan coalition, it seems more probable that the raiding was random and that the main goal was booty.”21 In the

Odyssey, Nestor recalls these raids when speaking with Telemachus,

‘ὦ φίλ᾽, ἐπεί μ᾽ ἔμνησας ὀιζύος, ἥν ἐν ἐκείνῳ δήμῳ ἀνέτλημεν μένος ἄσχετοι υἷες Ἀχαιῶν, ἠμέν ὅσα ξὺν νηυσίν ἐπ᾽ ἠεροειδέα πόντον πλαζόμενοι κατὰ ληίδ᾽, ὅπῃ ἄρξειεν Ἀχιλλεύς, ἠδ᾽ ὅσα καὶ περί ἄστυ μέγα Πριάμοιο ἄνακτος μαρνάμεθ᾽… (Od. 3.103-6) Oh my friend, since you remind me of that misery, which we sons of the Achaeans endured in that land when we were unchecked in our strength. We both attacked so much with our ships on the misty sea for booty, wherever Achilles would lead us, and we fought so much around the great city of lord Priam.22

20 τὴν ἄρετ᾽ ἐκ Τενέδοιο γέρων, ὅτε πέρσεν Ἀχιλλεύς,/ θυγατέρ᾽ Ἀρσινόου μεγαλήτορος, ἥν οἱ Ἀχαιοὶ/ ἔξελον οὕνεκα βουλῇ ἀριστεύεσκεν ἁπάντων. Il.11.625-627. Πάτροκλος δ᾽ ἑτέρωθεν ἐλέξατο: πὰρ δ᾽ ἄρα καὶ τῷ/ Ἶφις ἐΰζωνος, τήν οἱ πόρε δῖος Ἀχιλλεὺς/ Σκῦρον ἑλὼν αἰπεῖαν Ἐνυῆος πτολίεθρον. Il.9.666-8. δώσω δ᾽ ἑπτὰ γυναῖκας ἀμύμονα ἔργα ἰδυίας/ Λεσβίδας, ἃς ὅτε Λέσβον ἐϋκτιμένην ἕλεν αὐτὸς/ ἐξελόμην, αἳ κάλλει ἐνίκων φῦλα γυναικῶν. Il.9.128-30. 21 Van Wees, 1992. 211. 22 All translations are my own.

Nestor admits that the reason for these attacks on sea are for booty. These are predatory attacks that are quick strikes from the sea which are then contrasted with the war that is actually fought around the city of Troy later.23 These raids are explicitly for the acquisition of spoils to increase the renown of the warriors, and are realistically also used to supply the war with Troy. Since the

Achaeans are so far away from their homelands, they do not have established relationships with many of the foreign islands and, as a result, feel no shame in raiding them.24

Concerning the acquisition of spoils, the several ways that a warrior can gain spoils can be divided into two categories. There are the spoils which the warrior, himself, gains while on the front line such as stripping armor, stealing horses, or ransoming hostages. These spoils, the warrior tends to keep such as in the case of when Hektor takes and wears the armor stripped from

Patroklus or when Idomeneus boasts of the his collection of spears.

δούρατα δ᾽ αἴ κ᾽ ἐθέλῃσθα καὶ ἓν καὶ εἴκοσι δήεις ἑσταότ᾽ ἐν κλισίῃ πρὸς ἐνώπια παμφανόωντα Τρώϊα, τὰ κταμένων ἀποαίνυμαι: (Il. 13.260-62)

If you should want spears, you can find both one and twenty Trojan ones sitting in my hut on the side of the shining wall, which I take for myself from those killed.

In both of these scenarios, the warrior who is actually doing the fighting and killing gets to keep the spoils from those that he kills. The same situation can be seen in ransoms for hostages. The family or friends of the hostage then trades goods for his safe return. The person being ransomed can then be considered to be personal spoils. As a result, the warrior that captured the prisoner

23 For more discussion about the differences between predatory warfare and the Trojan War, see Finley 1965. 24 It will later be established that the exception to the rule that the Achaeans can raid anyone so far away is if members of the Greek alliance have preexisting friendships with their enemies. Those whose families have engaged in the ritual friendship of ξένια, will put their friendships before even the war effort. Cf. Diomedes and Glaucus (Il. 6.12-640).

keeps the spoils exchanged.25 The formulaic response when a hostage is taken highlights this very concept. Specifically, when Adrestus is surrendering to Menelaus, he pleads,

ζώγρει Ἀτρέος υἱέ, σὺ δ᾽ ἄξια δέξαι ἄποινα: πολλὰ δ᾽ ἐν ἀφνειοῦ πατρὸς κειμήλια κεῖται χαλκός τε χρυσός τε πολύκμητός τε σίδηρος, τῶν κέν τοι χαρίσαιτο πατὴρ ἀπερείσι᾽ ἄποινα (Il. 6.46-9) Son of Atreus, take me captive, and receive a worthy ransom: my treasures lie in the house of my rich father, bronze and gold and well-wrought iron, of these things my father would bestow abundantly a countless ransom onto you.

The implication is that Menelaus will personally receive the ransom for the exchange of the hostage. These spoils are a personal reward which are used as a measurement of a warrior’s prowess in battle.26

The second type of acquisition of spoils found in the Iliad are communal spoils. The communal spoils are when the entire Achaean coalition assemble in order to divide up what has been successfully taken during the raids. During this distribution, γέρα are given out to the Greek leaders and to the warriors. The personal acquisition of spoils, such as stripping the dead and ransoming hostages, serves to show a warriors’ prowess in battle and to increase his reputation.

The communal distribution of spoils, such as awarding γέρα to distinguished and noble warriors, also serves to increase the reputation of the warrior, but also serves to reinforce social hierarchy among the Achaean coalition. Van Wees writes, “In assigning gera, the king shows who, according to him and ideally according to the whole community, is a member of the elite of princes and eminent fighters, and who is not; and who among these men ranks higher than whom. The allocation of gera is, as it were, an ‘official’ statement about the community hierarchy.”27 As a result, the importance of a γέρας is held much higher than the material worth

25 Ready 2007, 14. 26 For more on ransom and exchange, see Wilson 2002. 27 Van Wees, 1992. 309.

of the gift. The loss of Chryseis and Briseis for Agamemnon and Achilles represents more than the loss of a girl, a good that both men have plenty of. Agamemnon offers Achilles seven women from Lesbos for him to return to the Achaean ranks (Il.9128-30), but the loss of Briseis was much greater than the loss of a slave woman.

The redistribution of spoils and allocation of the γέρα is not the only time where the warrior’s status is reaffirmed. The distribution of the γέρα parallels the distribution of food in times of feasts. In his question to Glaukos, Sarpedon describes the relationship between being an elite warrior and the honor given during a δαίς.28 Sarpedon expresses that the reason they are honored so greatly during the δαίτες and that they have their land is because they put themselves in the front during the battles. The honoring of the warriors during feasts is often based on their status, thus it serves in a similar way as the redistribution of γέρα. Many scholars view this scene as the explanation on why so many warriors join in the war,29 even though they are not at risk and they do not have enemies on the other side of the battlefield. This obligation of the heroes and warriors explains why they are in the war, and the γέρα aids in representing how valued they are in the war.

The word γέρας itself incorporates this theme in the epics. The meaning of γέρας does not only include a gift of honor, but also comes to mean honor as well. The honor of the γέρας, however, is not the same honor that one would achieve from obtaining ληίς. Whereas the acquisition of ληίς reflects a warrior’s prowess in battle and improves his reputation, the ληίς only means the physical spoils acquired by the warrior. The γέρας, however, reflects and means his standing in the larger community, which I will refer to as the δῆμος. Within the Iliad, the

28 δαίς is a feast where the warriors are positioned based on their relative status and honor within the community. δαίτες is the plural. For more on δαίς and the significance of feasting to the Homeric warrior, see Nagy 1979. 29 For more on Sarpedon’s speech and obligation of the heroes, see Pucci 1998, Willcock 1976, Hogan 1979, and Griffin 1980.

δῆμος is the Achaean community and Homer uses the term λαός to describe it. Since a γέρας is what helps determine a warrior’s place in the δῆμος,30 Homer uses the term metonymically to actually mean a warrior’s position in the δῆμος. In the scene concerning the loss of Chryseis,

Agamemnon replies to Achilles,

ἀλλ᾽ εἰ μὲν δώσουσι γέρας μεγάθυμοι Ἀχαιοὶ ἄρσαντες κατὰ θυμὸν ὅπως ἀντάξιον ἔσται: εἰ δέ κε μὴ δώωσιν ἐγὼ δέ κεν αὐτὸς ἕλωμαι ἢ τεὸν ἢ Αἴαντος ἰὼν γέρας, ἢ Ὀδυσῆος ἄξω ἑλών: ὃ δέ κεν κεχολώσεται ὅν κεν ἵκωμαι. (Il. 1.135-139) But if the great-hearted Achaeans will give me a γέρας, appropriate according to my desire, it is worth just as much, but if they will not award this, then I, myself, will seize a γέρας, taking either yours or Ajax’s, or Odysseus’. Then he can grow wroth, the man I come for.

When Agamemnon loses Chryseis, he also loses his γέρας. He is afraid that he will be the only

Achaean without one and that his status as leader of the coalition could be threatened. The loss to

Agamemnon’s status is, in his mind, made up in either two ways. The Greeks can give him another prize to reaffirm his position at the top of the δῆμος, or he can attempt to assert his power by taking the γέρας from one of his allies who follows his orders.31 Agamemnon feels that it is essential to maintain the appearance of his authority over the δῆμος in one of these two ways.

The interaction between Achilles and Agamemnon shows the relationship that an independent warrior has to the δῆμος. Achilles’ relationship with the δῆμος consists of an alliance to accomplish a task. He and the δῆμος have the same initiative which is to destroy Troy.

He, and many of the other warriors, are only at Troy due to an arrangement made with

30 For instances in the Odyssey where γέρας is used to mean the position in society, see Od. 11.184 and Od. 15.522. 31 Agamemnon’s dominance is further emphasized by the men he chooses to target. Achilles, Ajax, and Odysseus are not vassals of Agamemnon, but are allies that have joined him for the war.

Agamemnon to come aid the sons of Atreus in war. Achilles, while raging that his γέρας may be taken from him, tells Agamemnon,

οὐ γὰρ ἐγὼ Τρώων ἕνεκ᾽ ἤλυθον αἰχμητάων δεῦρο μαχησόμενος, ἐπεὶ οὔ τί μοι αἴτιοί εἰσιν: οὐ γὰρ πώποτ᾽ ἐμὰς βοῦς ἤλασαν οὐδὲ μὲν ἵππους, οὐδέ ποτ᾽ ἐν Φθίῃ ἐριβώλακι βωτιανείρῃ καρπὸν ἐδηλήσαντ᾽, ἐπεὶ ἦ μάλα πολλὰ μεταξὺ οὔρεά τε σκιόεντα θάλασσά τε ἠχήεσσα: ἀλλὰ σοὶ ὦ μέγ᾽ ἀναιδὲς ἅμ᾽ ἑσπόμεθ᾽ ὄφρα σὺ χαίρῃς, τιμὴν ἀρνύμενοι Μενελάῳ σοί τε κυνῶπα πρὸς Τρώων: (Il. 1.152-160)

I did not come here to fight because of the Trojan spearman, since they are not blameworthy for anything done to me: for they never drove off my cattle or horses, nor have they ever destroyed my crops in fertile, hero nourishing Phthia. Since there are many mountains and a roaring sea between us: But we followed you, you giant, shameless man, in order that you would be pleased, that we might gain regain honor from the Trojans for Menelaus and you, you dog-face.

Here, Achilles reveals his thoughts on the Trojans and why he is in the Achaean coalition. The

Trojans were never enemies of Achilles before the war. He articulates exactly what sort of thing someone would do to become an enemy. All of the reasons that Achilles lists have to do with financial gain. He lists cattle, horses, and crops. For Achilles, enemies are people who take your goods away from you. The Trojans are people who are far away and would never have committed some act against Phthia, his homeland. Their distance makes them a people who are beyond quarrel. As a result, Achilles views the Trojans in the same way that he viewed the islands where he led raids before arriving at Troy. In his mind, both are far away and outside of range of his relationships. As such, he has no issue raiding and fighting them to earn wealth and honor, but they have given him no previous grievance.

Since the Trojans were no enemy to Achilles, the reason that he is there in Troy is to aid

Agamemnon. Achilles and Agamemnon, like many of the other warriors, had entered into an

agreement. Agamemnon would gain assistance in attacking Troy and the warriors that joined him would have the opportunity to gain τιμή (honor) and ληίδες (plural of λήις, spoils). This agreement is contingent upon mutual respect from the warriors that gets reaffirmed regularly with the distribution of the γέρας. A financial incentive is not enough alone to solidify an agreement of war like the Achaeans made with Agamemnon. The agreement between the warriors requires gratitude for the help of the warriors, which Donlan refers to as χάρις. I agree with Donlan’s notion of the nature of the Achaean alliance in terms of favors given. He writes,

“The favor giver and the favor receiver make promises to each other to be kept for the duration only: the ally promises that he will fight faithfully for the leader, the leader that his thanks

(χάρις) will properly reciprocate the favor (χάρις). If the relationship is not to fall apart and the combined endeavor fail, the reciprocity must be, and remain, strictly balanced as per the initial agreement.”32 Of course, the foreboding breakdown of relationships in Donlan’s description, is exactly what happens to Achilles and Agamemnon. When his γέρας was taken from him,

Achilles no longer felt obligated to continue his side of the agreement and thus violated the social contract between them. Agamemnon overstepped his role in how he was supposed to show

χάρις to Achilles first. As a result, when Achilles is challenging Agamemnon, he reminds him that the Achaean warriors kept their agreement with him when they came to fight the Trojans.

Achilles reminds Agamemnon that the warriors came “in order that you would be pleased”

(ὄφρα σὺ χαίρῃς). When Agamemnon does not return the favor, Achilles is then free from having to continue his side of the agreement.

The conflict and subsequent violence between Achilles and Agamemnon can then be understood in terms of their relationship. The relationship the warrior has with the δῆμος is one

32 Donlan 2002, 158. For more on emotional and physical elements of χάρις, see Donlan 2002 and MacLachlan 1993. For more on reciprocities, see Donlan 1982.

that is based on mutual respect and each upholding their side of a social contract. Achilles’ frustration with Agamemnon is understandable and perhaps justified when understood in the terms that Agamemnon first violated the χάρις agreement that brought them there. As a result,

Achilles is justified to leave the Achaean coalition and cease his war with the Trojans who are, at that point, not his ἐχθροί.33 If the hierarchy of relationships is not properly understood, a reader could interpret this scene as Achilles being the one who is violating his obligations to his friends.

Achilles, however, does not just remove himself from the war, he prays that the gods will harm the Achaean coalition until they come and ask for Achilles back. This behavior is certainly beyond a legitimate response to a violation of χάρις by Agamemnon, but not showing Achilles his favor is not the only mistake of Agamemnon. When Achilles perceives that Agamemnon is going to take his γέρας, he is stopped by Athena from attacking and killing Agamemnon. The slight of taking Achilles’ γέρας is beyond just a material position and is also beyond a blow to

Achilles’ τίμη. As was briefly explored above, a γέρας does not just represent one’s honor, but also their position in the δῆμος. Agamemnon’s attack, then, was also on Achilles’ position and standing with the whole community.

A person’s position in the hierarchy of relationships is subject to change when there is a violation of how the warriors are supposed to interact. When there is a change in relationship to the warrior, his obligations to them also changes. The δῆμος, itself, is also complicit in the decision to remove Achilles’ γέρας. As the δῆμος and Agamemnon are both said to be the ones that present the γέρας, the δῆμος also allows for Achilles’ position to be taken away from him.

As the δῆμος desires to maintain the current alliances and peace among the coalition, they support Agamemnon’s decision. As Donlan puts it, “But by their orthodox decision to uphold

33 Enemies.

Agamemnon, they come to be perceived as adversaries in the eyes of Achilles.”34 When Achilles perceives the δῆμος as involved in his loss of γέρας and τίμη, he no longer views them as allies.

In Achilles’ eyes, they have all done the very thing he perceives enemies to do. They have stolen goods from him. As a result, Achilles’ feels that he is able to wrong the δῆμος by wishing for their deaths, since the δῆμος wronged him first.

The Achaeans ultimately return from the position of enemies to Achilles back to the

δῆμος when the Trojans become a much greater enemy to him. The reconciliation between

Achilles and the Achaeans does not happen until the death of Patroclus, his φίλος. With the loss of someone so close to him, Achilles’ priorities change. At this point, the Trojans are not a distant people who had never really done him harm; they are responsible for the death of his

φίλος. As a result, the Trojans shift from a position of indifference and opportunity for Achilles to actual ἐχθροί. Once Achilles lost someone actually close to him, his desires are in line with

Agamemnon’s and he can forget his offense against the χάρις that he is supposed to show.

Agamemnon desires to present Achilles with gifts to renew their alliance, but Achilles replies,

Ἀτρεΐδη κύδιστε ἄναξ ἀνδρῶν Ἀγάμεμνον δῶρα μὲν αἴ κ᾽ ἐθέλῃσθα παρασχέμεν, ὡς ἐπιεικές, ἤ τ᾽ ἐχέμεν παρὰ σοί: νῦν δὲ μνησώμεθα χάρμης (Il. 19.146-8) Lord of men, noble Agamemnon, son of Atreus, bring the gifts if you would like, as you see fit, or keep them for yourself. But now let us remember the joy of battle.

Achilles no longer has an interest in obtaining goods. He is indifferent to Agamemnon’s offer, but will fight alongside him anyway. When the Trojans become ἐχθροί to Achilles, his desire changes from only obtaining wealth and glory, to hurting his enemies whether or not there is a material benefit in doing so.

34 Donlan 2002, 163.

The shift in Achilles from an ally who desires wealth and reputation at the expense of the

Trojans to a warrior whose only interest is hurting the Trojans is further seen in the ransoming of

Lykaon. In Book Twenty-One, Achilles is in the middle of raging against the Trojans and slaughtering the warriors. As he pushes the Trojans to the river, he comes across Lykaon. We learn that, at a previous point in the war, Achilles had captured Lykaon in battle and had ransomed him for one hundred bulls. Lykaon beseeches Achilles to capture him and ransom him once again, but Achilles replies,

πρὶν μὲν γὰρ Πάτροκλον ἐπισπεῖν αἴσιμον ἦμαρ τόφρά τί μοι πεφιδέσθαι ἐνὶ φρεσὶ φίλτερον ἦεν Τρώων, καὶ πολλοὺς ζωοὺς ἕλον ἠδ᾽ ἐπέρασσα: νῦν δ᾽ οὐκ ἔσθ᾽ ὅς τις θάνατον φύγῃ ὅν κε θεός γε Ἰλίου προπάροιθεν ἐμῇς ἐν χερσὶ βάλῃσι καὶ πάντων Τρώων, περὶ δ᾽ αὖ Πριάμοιό γε παίδων. ἀλλὰ φίλος θάνε καὶ σύ: (Il. 21.100-6)

Before Patroclus met his fate, up to that very day it was more pleasing in my heart to spare the Trojans, and I took many of them still alive and sold them overseas: But now there is not one whom before the walls of Troy god might put into my hands who would escape death, no one of all the Trojans, nor of the sons of Priam. No friend, even you die.

Achilles is no longer interested in gaining wealth. After the death of his φίλος, the Trojan are his enemies and he is only looking to destroy the sons of Priam and all of the Trojans. Achilles’ conduct with the Trojans has shifted because the Trojans have shifted from the ἂλλοι relationshi to the ἐχθροί. As such, Achilles desires to hurt them for the sake of hurting them, even though there is no financial gain in it.

The conflict of Achilles with the Achaean host helps to illuminate the nature of relationships between different groups in the Homeric epics. The groups of relationships can be understood in a hierarchy of degrees of emotional distance from the hero. See the following image to understand the relationships thus far.

Figure 1

The Homeric hero surrounds himself with those closest to him, who are referred to as φίλοι. The

hero’s φίλοι can be family, kin, or, as in the case with Patroclus and Achilles, just good friends.

The hero’s φίλοι are significantly more important to the hero than his allies in a conflict, which is

why Achilles wishes for the deaths and pains of the Achaeans, but then returns to the war after

the death of his φίλος. The people in the δῆμος can be important to the hero, so long as the

appropriate behavior is upheld by both. If a member of the δῆμος betrays or harms the hero, the

hero considers himself to have a right to punish or harm those in the δῆμος. For this reason,

Achilles considers himself in the right for hoping for their destruction. The δῆμος temporarily

become enemies to Achilles, ones he will not bemoan if they should die at the hands of the

Trojans.

On the other end of the relationship spectrum are those who are enemies, the ἐχθροί, and those with whom the hero may not have a particular quarrel, but is willing to attack for his own benefit. I refer to these groups as the ἄλλοι. The ἄλλοι include the island residents that the

Achaeans raided, though they likely were not allies with the Trojans. The Trojans themselves, though ἐχθροί to the sons of Atreus, begin as ἄλλοι to Achilles. As a result, Achilles is only interested in fighting them because they bring to him increased honor, position, and material possessions. After the death of his φίλος, however, the Trojans are no longer ἂλλοι to Achilles, but become ἐχθροί. As a result, Achilles does not need material wealth as an incentive for fighting them. The destruction of the hero’s ἐχθροί is reward enough.

There is one additional relationship that appears at various places throughout the Iliad that also needs to be placed within this system. Ξένοι are those with whom the Homeric hero has engaged in ritualized friendship. Though not as much the focus in the Iliad as φίλοι, ἄλλοι,

ἐχθροί and the δῆμος, ξένοι are relationships that are extremely important to the hero. The

Achaean coalition is acting like a δῆμος that has a social contract based on mutual respect and reciprocity. The methods of creating a ξένος are similar to creating the relationship that is required among the δῆμος. Both often involve an exchange of gifts and require mutual respect to form a ritualized friendship. The δῆμος in the Iliad, however, is a temporary alliance. The agreement between the sons of Atreus and the warriors that fight for them lasts only as long as the war.35 The relationship between ξένοι is a much longer standing relationship that is not necessarily for a finite time.

Though there are similarities between these ritualized friendships, the men in the

Achaean coalition are not necessarily ξένοι with Agamemnon even though he becomes their

35 Donlan 2002.

leader, with whom the warriors enter into an agreement of war. We learn that before the war,

Agamemnon and Menelaus traveled abroad to convince different heroes to join their cause. The

Odyssey reports that when Agamemnon travelled to convince Odysseus to join his cause, he stayed with another Ithacan, Melaneus, who was already a ξένος of Agamemnon.36 One could deduce that, since Agamemnon stayed with his ξένος, Melaneus, in Ithaca, that he was not at that time a ξένος of Odysseus since he did not stay in his home.

The warriors in the Achaean coalition do not necessarily become ξένοι after their agreement with Agamemnon either. The attitude that many of the Achaeans have toward one another and Agamemnon does not seem to be a typical ξένος relationship. Ξένια requires an exchange of goods showing that a friendship will endure. As stated above, the relationship among the Achaeans is a temporary agreement in order to accomplish the task of attacking the

Trojans. In Book Six, Diomedes is leading the Achaean forces against the Trojans and Glaucus leads the Trojans in Hector’s absence. The two men are about to fight one another in front of their armies, but ask who each other is first. Both men give their lineage and they discover that their grandfathers were ξένοι. Diomedes then says,

ἦ ῥά νύ μοι ξεῖνος πατρώϊός ἐσσι παλαιός: Οἰνεὺς γάρ ποτε δῖος ἀμύμονα Βελλεροφόντην ξείνισ᾽ ἐνὶ μεγάροισιν ἐείκοσιν ἤματ᾽ ἐρύξας: οἳ δὲ καὶ ἀλλήλοισι πόρον ξεινήϊα καλά: … τὼ νῦν σοὶ μὲν ἐγὼ ξεῖνος φίλος Ἄργεϊ μέσσῳ εἰμί, σὺ δ᾽ ἐν Λυκίῃ ὅτε κεν τῶν δῆμον ἵκωμαι. ἔγχεα δ᾽ ἀλλήλων ἀλεώμεθα καὶ δι᾽ ὁμίλου: πολλοὶ μὲν γὰρ ἐμοὶ Τρῶες κλειτοί τ᾽ ἐπίκουροι κτείνειν ὅν κε θεός γε πόρῃ καὶ ποσσὶ κιχείω, πολλοὶ δ᾽ αὖ σοὶ Ἀχαιοὶ ἐναιρέμεν ὅν κε δύνηαι. (Il. 6.215-18, 224-29)

You are already my ancestral friend from long ago. For godlike Oeneus at one time received noble Bellerophon and hosted him for twenty days in his halls: They gave each

36 24.115

other beautiful guest gifts… Therefore I am a guest-friend to you in the middle of Argos, and you are in Lycia whenever I come to your people. Let us avoid the spears of one another even through this crowd: There are many Trojans and far-famed allies to kill whomever god may provide me and whomever I come upon with my feet, and there are many Achaeans for you to slay, whomever you are able.

In this scene, Diomedes and Glaucus were prepared to fight and kill another, but had to stop due to their grandfathers becoming ξένοι many years before. Unlike the relationship among the allies which exists only in terms of helping the sons of Atreus in the war against the Trojans, the relationship among ξένοι has lasted much longer. This passage alludes to the relationship not lasting forever, however, because Diomedes and Glaucus exchange armors in order to reaffirm their friendship and to let the rest of the armies know that they will not be attacking one another.

The final comments of the exchange between these heroes helps to place the relationship of a ξένος to a hero in the larger scale of the hero’s relationships. At the end of the speech,

Diomedes says that he has no need to attack Glaucus because there are more Trojans that he can kill. He then tells Glaucus that there are also many Achaeans for Glaucus to kill. Diomedes knows that he cannot kill Glaucus due to his relationship with him, but does not concern himself with the concept that Glaucus will be killing Diomedes’ allies. Therefore, still understanding the concept of the Achaean alliance as the δῆμος, Diomedes considers the ξένος to be a more important relationship to him than the δῆμος. Considering all of the relationships shown in the

Iliad, the importance of relationships shown is reflected in the image below.

Figure 2

This image and ordering of relationships will ultimately aid us in understanding many of the acts of violence within the Homeric epics. These relationships expand our knowledge of the violence only in terms of enemies and allies. As is seen in the Iliad, the relationships are subject to change and are contingent often on upholding an agreement based on ritualistic exchange and respect.

The diagram of relationships serves as a starting point to interpreting interactions among the Homeric characters. By understanding the relationships the warrior has with those around him, we can also understand the proper way in which the warrior is supposed to interact with others. The Iliad does not stand alone in having this hierarchy of relationships. Many of these relationships transfer also to the Odyssey and can help us to understand certain acts of violence in the epic. Specifically in terms of piracy, we can now look at how the Homeric heroes treat these different levels of relationships. We can then see what differences, if any, exist between how a

hero is expected to behave and how pirates are expected to raid without bringing shame onto themselves.

Chapter III: Odyssey

ὦ ξεῖνοι, τίνες ἐστέ; πόθεν πλεῖθ᾽ ὑγρὰ κέλευθα; ἤ τι κατά πρῆξιν ἦ μαψιδίως ἀλάλησθε οἷά τε ληιστῆρες ὑπεὶρ ἅλα, τοί τ᾽ ἀλόωνται ψυχὰς παρθέμενοι κακὸν ἀλλοδαποῖσι πέροντες; (Od. 3.73, 9.254) “O strangers, who are you? From where do you sail the watery paths? Do you come for trade or do you wander aimlessly like pirates on the sea, who risk their lives bringing pains to others?”

The chart of relationships established above from examining the Iliad also aids in understanding the violence in the Odyssey and navigating the moral judgment associated with the violence. Specifically, the Odyssey’s attitude towards piracy becomes more nuanced by understanding what relationship ληϊστήρες (traditionally translated as pirates) have to their potential targets. Though the relationships are conceptually the same in both epics, the people who comprise the relationship may be different. A primary example is the prevalence of ξένοι in the Odyssey and the downplaying of the δῆμος. In the Iliad, the story takes place during the war, so the primary figures the epic follows are the Achaeans and Trojans or their allies. As a result, the relationship of all of the Achaeans can be considered in terms of the δῆμος or ξένοι, and the relationship then between the Achaeans and the Trojans who are actually fighting one another can be considered framed under either ἄλλοι or ἐχθροί.37 In the Odyssey, however, the Achaean and Trojan coalitions have been disbanded or destroyed. Within this epic, there are many more possibilities of people to encounter beyond just the δῆμος of the Achaeans or the ἐχθροί of the

37 Certain relationships, such as Achilles and Patroclus being φίλοι and Diomedes and Glaukon being ξένοι, are the exceptions, but they exist prior to the conflict between the Achaeans and Trojans, not born out of it.

Trojans. As a result, the role of ξένος becomes more important to see who is a potential enemy and who is a potential ally.

The δῆμος represented in the Odyssey is no longer the Achaean coalition, but is instead the community of Ithaca and neighboring islands. The behavior of Ithaca seems to mirror the

Achaean coalition in many ways. Both have councils of elders, but are also ruled by a chief figure. Unlike the Achaean coalition, however, the Ithacans lack their king in Odysseus’ absence.

By the end of the epic, Odysseus is vindicated by Athena in killing the suitors who have been eating up his household.38 The suitors violated traditional behaviors of guest-host relationships which may be justification enough for their elimination, but Odysseus mentions other concerns he has against the suitors. He is afraid that they are attempting to take his γέρας, meaning his station, in the community at large (Od. 11.184 and Od. 15.522).

The γέρας comes to mean the position of a warrior in his community, and as a result, an attack on his γέρας by the δήμος is also seen as an attack on the warrior, himself. Much like how, in the Iliad, Agamemnon felt threatened because he had to give up his γέρας so he had to take the

γέρας of another to reaffirm his station, Odysseus is concerned about an attack to his station. The term γέρας is sometimes used in the Odyssey to mean a prize that is awarded just like in the

Iliad.39 It also can be used not only to represent a hero’s position in the community, but to actually be used as the term to refer to a hero’s station. When Odysseus is in the Underworld, he asks his mother about life back on Ithaca.

εἰπὲ δέ μοι πατρός τε καὶ υἱέος, ὃν κατέλειπον, ἢ ἔτι πὰρ κείνοισιν ἐμὸν γέρας, ἦέ τις ἤδη ἀνδρῶν ἄλλος ἔχει, ἐμὲ δ᾽ οὐκέτι φασὶ νέεσθαι. (Od. 11.174-6)

38 Concerning the transgression of the suitors as poor hosts, see Cook 1995, 23-27. 39 11.534. γέρας means an awarded prize.

Tell me about my father and my son, whom I have left behind. Does my seat still rest with them, or does some other man already hold it, and do they no longer say that I will return home.

Here the word γέρας is used specifically for the position that Odysseus holds in his community rather than a gift that is given to him. Odysseus’ γέρας is not necessarily directly relating to items or wealth, as can be seen in the next couple lines where asks if Penelope is guarding his things.

The idea that another man could be taking his γέρας is then repeated by his mother (Od. 11.184).

The same concept is brought up by Telemachus when he is talking to the seer, Theoclymenus.

Telemachus fears that Eurymachus is going to take the γέρας of Odysseus (Od. 15.522), but the seer replies ὑμετέρου δ᾽ οὐκ ἔστι γένος βασιλεύτερον ἄλλο/ ἐν δήμῳ Ἰθάκης, ἀλλ᾽ ὑμεῖς

καρτεροὶ αἰεί. (Od. 15.533-4.) “There is no other line more kingly than yours in the land of

Ithaca, but you always will be mightier.” The seer seems to understand Telemachus’ concern for

Odysseus’ γέρας in terms of the rule of the island and power of the family. The seer finds it important to reaffirm that Telemachus’ lineage would continue to rule in Ithaca in order to alleviate his fears that another would be able to take his father’s γέρας.

The δήμος is now attacking the warrior, so, just as with Achilles, the people are now shifting into ἒχθροι. The Ithacans are encroaching on Odysseus’ γέρας and his reaction is to consider them his enemies. Thus, when he returns to Ithaca and slays the suitors, he could be considered to be justified in the same way that Achilles is justified in turning away from the

Achaean coalition and going so far as to wish for their deaths. In both instances, the heroes are betrayed by the δῆμος, and as a result, the hero is absolved from his responsibility to the δῆμος.

This is perhaps the time to note that the δῆμος is geographically close to the hero. It is the community within which the hero must operate, even if he has not entered into a formalized pact or agreement. As a result, these are not people that the hero may kill with impunity. But if these

people somehow attack the hero first, they shift out of this position and into the positon of

ἒχθροι. The gods obliged Achilles’ wish to have the Achaean army hurting to have him back, and

Athena, herself, aids Odysseus in the slaughtering of his own people.

Outside of Ithaca, there are several kings and countries that would have been considered part of the δῆμος in the Iliad, but have a different relationship with Odysseus in the Odyssey.

One thing that Telemachus learns on his journey to the friends of his father is how properly to treat a ξένος. Early on in the story, it is clear that Telemachus wants to be a good host by how he treats Athena disguised as Mentes. Telemachus greets her and is concerned whether she was properly treated in his house. When he arrives at Pylos, however, Athena teaches him how to be a guest in Pylos. Telemachus then continues to Menelaus and is a guest in his home as well.40

Along the way, he gains a ξένος in Peisistratus, Nestor’s son. These heroes, though part of the

Achaean coalition, are considered ξένοι with Odysseus and, just like the relationship between

Diomedes and Glaukon in the Iliad, the relationship transfers through generations.

The nature of the friendship between ξένοι is unlike the δῆμος in that the friendship is ritualized and confirmed with the exchange of gifts. Generally the host bestows gifts upon the guest with the implicit promise that the favor will be returned when the host later visits the guest.

The gift exchange can be seen in each scene that Telemachus engages with his father’s ξένοι.41

The gifts given are signs of the continued friendship between two heroes, but also act as a way for a hero to increase his own reputation and standing. The guest-gift can be understood as a gift representing one’s importance to others and in that way is similar to the γέρας. When Odysseus returns home disguised as a beggar, one of the suitors, Ctesippus, says to him,

ἀλλ᾽ ἄγε οἱ καὶ ἐγὼ δῶ ξείνιον, ὄφρα καὶ αὐτὸς

40 For more on the importance of Telemachus’ growth in the epic, See Martin 1993. 41 Telemachus insists a gift be given to Mentes before he leaves (Od. 1.316). Telemachus returns with the gifts of Menelaus (Od. 15.206-7).

ἠὲ λοετροχόῳ δώῃ γέρας ἠέ τῳ ἄλλῳ δμώων, οἳ κατὰ δώματ᾽ Ὀδυσσῆος θείοιο. (Od. 20.296-8) But come, I will give him a guest gift, a prize he can give to the one who bathes him or to another of the slaves, who are in the home of godlike Odysseus.

Though in this scene Ctesippus is plotting to mock Odysseus, he still equates a guest-gift with a physical prize that can be understood as a wealth item. The benefits that come from participating in ξένια, then, can be considered to have both a financial benefit, but also one that contributes to one’s reputation just like the γέρας does in the assembly of the Iliad.

Also similar to the Iliad is how a warrior’s reputation can increase through personal acquisition of wealth that is not through the community at large. As shown above, this behavior manifests itself on the plains of Troy through stealing of armor or horses or through ransoms.

This same behavior can be seen in the Odyssey through the prevalence of the ληϊστήρες. The

ληϊστήρες are warriors that attack and raid, not because their targets are enemies, but for the sole endeavor to gain wealth. Hans Van Wees refers to ληϊστήρες as “a term which is never applied to the combatants in any of the legendary wars.”42 This is not say that those who fight in legendary wars cannot also be the same as those who are ληϊστήρες. Rather, if men are fighting in a legendary war, they are not acting as ληϊστήρες because they have a purpose to fight their ἐχθροί beyond just obtaining goods.

These ληϊστήρες are common enough in the world of the Odyssey that a common greeting to unknown strangers appears more than once in which the host asks,

42 Van Wees 1991, 208.

“O strangers, who are you? From where do you sail the watery paths? Do you come for trade or do you wander aimlessly like pirates on the sea, who risk their lives bringing pains to others?”

Nestor asks this question of Telemachus and Athena when they travel to find news of Odysseus.

He seems not to have any apprehension about the question. Nestor has had a meal and prayed with his guests. As a result, he is indifferent to whether his guests are ληϊστήρες because he knows that he is not the target of their raids. He knows this for two reasons. Had Pylos been the target of the raid, he would already know because the ληϊστήρες would have been hostile. The other reason is that they have already begun to undergo proper behavior of ξένια. Nestor does not yet know that he dines with Telemachus, the son of his ξένος, but he knows that he is dining with non-aggressive people who are praying to the gods with him. Concerning this question, Van

Wees writes, “The question at any rate indicates that it is not unusual to be paid a (peaceful) visit by a freebooting party on its way to plundering elsewhere.”43 Nestor does not pass judgment on the act of piracy itself and is content with knowing that he is not the target.

A potential reason a friendly visit from the ληϊστήρες on their way to their victims is not unusual is the nature of the relationship between the warriors and those they attack. As explained above, the ληϊστήρες are not involved in war that is meant to hurt their ἐχθροί, but are only involved in seeking people to attack for wealth. Just as the islands that are uninvolved in the

Trojan War are attacked by the Achaeans, the victims of the ληϊστήρες can be understood as the

ἄλλοι. The ἄλλοι are people who are outside of the relationships of the raiders’ communities.

They tend to be geographically far from the warrior, not as a rule, but as a reality that those close to the warrior likely already have a different relationship with him. Van Wees supposes that the targets of raids must be geographically far away in order to prevent retribution from those

43 Van Wees, 1991. 213.

attacked.44 Though this may be a logical concern for the ληϊστήρες, it seems more likely that the raids tend to happen farther away because the raiders have to go farther abroad in order to find someone who is within the ἄλλοι category and acceptable to raid.

A potential target’s distance from the warrior is a crucial one for the ληϊστήρ, but the distance is an emotional one rather than a geographic one. The assertion that a ληϊστήρ desires to raid someone far away because the target will not know them is not always true. A warrior’s

ξένοι can be just as geographically distant as an ἄλλος, yet they will know one another quite well. In the scene in the Iliad with Glaukon and Diomedes, after the reaffirmation between the two heroes that they are ξένοι, Diomedes says that he will be a friend and host when Glaukon comes to the middle of Argos, and that Glaukon will be the same when Diomedes goes to Lycia.

These lands are far from one another, and yet the warriors will have a relationship with people in those lands in the future.

The scene with the Cyclops in the Odyssey also reaffirms that ξένοι and ἄλλοι, who are targets of raids, can be equally far away. When Odysseus discovers that someone lives on the island neighboring the one where his ships landed, he prepares for both possible encounters with a stranger. Odysseus describes his thoughts,

αὐτὰρ ἐγὼ κρίνας ἑτάρων δυοκαίδεκ᾽ ἀρίστους βῆν: ἀτὰρ αἴγεον ἀσκὸν ἔχον μέλανος οἴνοιο ἡδέος, ὅν μοι ἔδωκε Μάρων, Εὐάνθεος υἱός, ἱρεὺς Ἀπόλλωνος, ὃς Ἴσμαρον ἀμφιβεβήκει, οὕνεκά μιν σὺν παιδὶ περισχόμεθ᾽ ἠδὲ γυναικὶ ἁζόμενοι: (Od. 9.195-200) However, after I picked the twelve best men, I approached: But I took a goat skin of sweet, black wine, which Maron had given me, the son of Euanthes, the priest of Apollo, who protected Ismaros, because we rescued him with his son and wife, since we were reverent.

44 Van Wees, 1991. 213.

The audience already has in mind that Odysseus and his men have just come from the raid on the

Cicones. Mentioning the twelve best men reinforces the possibility that they could easily raid people who are nearby, but they could also be friendly. By bringing the wine and telling the story of how he earned it, the audience is reminded of two critical elements of the process of ξένια.

First, the wine is a gift given in respect to Odysseus which is reminiscent of the gifts that are exchanged between ξένοι. As Ruth Scodel points out, guest gifts are commonly re-gifted and by discussing the pedigree of the gift, the κλέος of the initial gift-giver also increases.45 Second, he mentions that he and his men were ἁζόμενοι “reverent”. The audience is reminded of the initial question that Odysseus ponders about who lives on the island. He asks, ἦε φιλόξεινοι, καί σφιν

νόος ἐστὶ θεουδής (Od. 9.176) “Or are they lovers of guests, and do they have a god-fearing mind.” As Odysseus later reminds the Cyclops, a ξένος is protected by Zeus, and men who are reverent to the gods will be good ξένοι. Thus, before Odysseus even enters the cave of the

Cyclops, the audience has in mind the behaviors of both a ληϊστήρ and a ξένος.

Once in the cave, the dilemma between ληϊστήρ and a ξένος comes up again among the men. Odysseus’ men want to take the goods they find in the cave and escape, but Odysseus refuses.

ἔνθ᾽ ἐμὲ μὲν πρώτισθ᾽ ἕταροι λίσσοντ᾽ ἐπέεσσιν τυρῶν αἰνυμένους ἰέναι πάλιν, αὐτὰρ ἔπειτα καρπαλίμως ἐπὶ νῆα θοὴν ἐρίφους τε καὶ ἄρνας σηκῶν ἐξελάσαντας ἐπιπλεῖν ἁλμυρὸν ὕδωρ: ἀλλ᾽ ἐγὼ οὐ πιθόμην, ἦ τ᾽ ἂν πολὺ κέρδιον ἦεν, ὄφρ᾽ αὐτόν τε ἴδοιμι, καὶ εἴ μοι ξείνια δοίη. (Od. 9.224-229)

There my companions first begged me with words that we take the cheeses and come back, then to set sail on the salty sea after we had quickly driven the kids and sheep from the pen into our swift ship: But I was not persuaded, how much better it would have been, until I should see him, and if he would give me gifts.

45 Scodel 2008.

All of Odysseus’ men want to be ληϊστήρες by taking the goods and running. Odysseus, however, was to become a ξένος with the owner of the cave. The cave is far away from their home, and though Odysseus later regrets not simply raiding the cave, both options of being a

ληϊστήρ or a ξένος are open for the men. Thus, the geographic distance is not what determines a viable target for the ληϊστήρες, but rather it is the relationship of the target to the warrior. There is a correlation, however, between the closeness of distance and the closeness of relationship.

Those that are far away are less likely to have already entered in some friendship with the warrior and tend to be ἄλλοι to him. The graphic below shows the correlation between the previously established relationship and their geographic distance from the hero.

Figure 3

As discussed above, the acquisition of goods through warfare improves the reputation of the warrior, even if not in a community context such as the γέρα. In the Iliad, a warrior who was fighting to acquire goods was doing so either in context of the war or obtaining supplies for the

war.46 As a result, community sharing and distribution of the captured goods is essential for the community of warriors. A warrior is still able to obtain some goods personally that then are not redistributed to the whole army based on status. In the Odyssey, since ληϊστήρες are not fighting in context of a larger war, the spoils obtained by the raiders are kept and equally shared. When describing his raid on the Cicones, Odysseus says,

Ἰλιόθεν με φέρων ἄνεμος Κικόνεσσι πέλασσεν, Ἰσμάρῳ. ἔνθα δ᾽ ἐγὼ πόλιν ἔπραθον, ὤλεσα δ᾽ αὐτούς: ἐκ πόλιος δ᾽ ἀλόχους καὶ κτήματα πολλὰ λαβόντες δασσάμεθ᾽, ὡς μή τίς μοι ἀτεμβόμενος κίοι ἴσης. (Od. 9.39-42) Carrying me from Ilium, the wind brought me to the Cicones, to Ismarus. There I sacked the city, and killed the men: After we seized the wives and many goods from the city, we divided them up, in order that no one would go deprived of his share by me.

Odysseus divides up the goods that the men obtained and it seems to imply that everyone received an equal share. This is unlike the redistribution of spoils in the Iliad, where certain members of the community received greater shares due to their greater status. Odysseus’ redistribution does not include a γέρας to reflect someone’s position among those raiding.47

This reading of the Odyssey is perhaps the most in line with modern theories of actual piracy during the Iron Age. Aren Maeir and Louis Hitchcock propose the possibility of large groups of raiders that are still led by one pirate king. Such groups of raiders would likely share their spoils equally based on what they took from their targets. Once the Eastern Mediterranean began to be no longer lucrative for such raiders, the leaders of the pirates likely settled their people in different areas. One such group is known as the Philistines, who settled in the Levant.

The leader of the Philistines was known as a Seren, which potentially has an etymological

46 Finley 1945, 41. 47 When comparing piracy during the Iron Age to historic piracy, Aren M. Maeir and Louise Hitchcock explore the egalitarian nature of pirates and the necessity to recruit men by a share in the spoils. They discuss the etymology of Seren and the likelihood of settling among and assimilating with local populations.

similarity with the Neo-Hittite word Tarwannis, and then the Greek Tyrannos. The conclusion about the wide spread use of this title is the mixing of languages across the Mediterranean. The raiders, after they had set aside their piracy, would settle an area and assimilate with the local people. Could Odysseus be serving as a cultural memory of this time? It is possible that

Odysseus represents a king who has been off raiding, who finally returns to his original place and settles.48 Whether or not the behavior of Odysseus and his men actually reflect a cultural past during the Iron Age, during their raids after the war such the attack of the Cicones, Odysseus and his men share equally in the spoils.

Odysseus and his men seem to differ in their expectations about certain relationships.

Specifically, Odysseus’ relationships with a ξένος benefits him by the increase in his reputation and by an increase in possessions. The benefit, however, is not always transferred to his men.

When sailing with the bags of wind back to Ithaca, his men are upset that he got a guest-gift from

Aeolus. After Odysseus falls asleep, his men decide that they should get some of what is in the bag. The men say,

πολλὰ μὲν ἐκ Τροίης ἄγεται κειμήλια καλὰ ληίδος, ἡμεῖς δ᾽ αὖτε ὁμὴν ὁδὸν ἐκτελέσαντες οἴκαδε νισσόμεθα κενεὰς σὺν χεῖρας ἔχοντες: καὶ νῦν οἱ τάδ᾽ ἔδωκε χαριζόμενος φιλότητι Αἴολος. ἀλλ᾽ ἄγε θᾶσσον ἰδώμεθα ὅττι τάδ᾽ ἐστίν, ὅσσος τις χρυσός τε καὶ ἄργυρος ἀσκῷ ἔνεστιν. (Od. 10.40-5) He carries many beautiful things from the spoils piled up from Troy, but we are going home with empty hands after we have completed the same journey. And now Aeolus has given him these graciously bestowing these things to him with affection. But come on, let us quickly see what things there are, what sort of gold and silver are in the bag.

Odysseus’ men seem to begrudge him two things. First, that he is leaving with a large store of spoils that he obtained during the war. His men are angry that he has more than

48 Hitchcock and Maeir 2014.

they do, but they had not previously decided to try to take these goods. When Odysseus, however, gets his guest-gift, his men think that they should get some portion of the goods. Their expectation that they should get part of his guest-gift is clearly not shared by

Odysseus.

This disagreement could also explain why previously his men wanted to raid the cave of the cyclops, but Odysseus wanted to wait for the guest-gift. When a hero partakes in ξένια with another hero, his men do not benefit from the goods taken home. Thus, perhaps it was never Odysseus’ intention to raid the Cyclops, but his men wished to take things from the cave and run so that they could gain in the spoils. The scholia on that scene argues that Odysseus brings only twelve men because he attempts not to seem like a pirate as he is approaching the Cyclops’ cave.49 Unlike the Cicones, where he is fully invested in raiding them, he takes fewer men to the cave. This scene shows us that the inclination of Odysseus’ men are more towards raiding than Odysseus’. Whether

Odysseus raids or receives a guest-gift, he gains financially and his reputation will grow.

His men, however, can only gain in wealth by completing these raids.

Even when there is no situation where the community is simultaneously bestowing wealth and position on the hero, the reputation of the hero can still improve from his personal acquisition of goods. When Odysseus returns to Ithaca, he lies about his identity to Eumaeus and fabricates a story about a Cretan raider. He tells Eumaeus that he is a noble from Crete and gives the story of his life before he was imprisoned.

49 αὐτὰρ ἐγὼ κρίνας ἑτάρων] χωρίσας καὶ ἐπιλεξάμενος τοὺς ἀρίστους. διὰ τί δώδεκα; καὶ γὰρ ὀλίγοι, ἵνα μὴ δοκῇ ὡς ἐπὶ λῃστείαν ἥκειν· ἐλάττους δὲ πάλιν οὐκ ἦγεν, ἵνα μὴ εὐκαταφρόνητος εἶναι δόξῃ· ἀλλ' οὐδὲ ὅπλα ἐπιφέρεται, ἵνα μὴ ὡς πολέμιος εἶναι δοκῇ. αὐτὸς δὲ παρέστη καὶ οὐ προπέμπει, ἵνα μὴ φαίνηται δειλὸς τοῖς Φαίαξι. τὸν δὲ ἀσκὸν οἰκεῖον ἐφόδιον λαμβάνει, τὸν οἶνον, πρὸς ποιμενικοὺς καὶ ἀγρίους ἄνδρας. διὰ τί οὖν κινεῖ τὸν ᾿Οδυσσέα πρὸς τὸ μὴ πεισθῆναι τοῖς ἑταίροις συμβουλεύουσι φυγεῖν; ὅτι γενόμενος ἐν τῷ σπηλαίῳ οὐδεμίαν βίου θηριώδους ὑπόνοιαν ἔλαβε. T scholia ad. Od. 9.195.

πρὶν μὲν γὰρ Τροίης ἐπιβήμεναι υἷας Ἀχαιῶν εἰνάκις ἀνδράσιν ἦρξα καὶ ὠκυπόροισι νέεσσιν ἄνδρας ἐς ἀλλοδαπούς, καί μοι μάλα τύγχανε πολλά. τῶν ἐξαιρεύμην μενοεικέα, πολλὰ δ᾽ ὀπίσσω λάγχανον: αἶψα δὲ οἶκος ὀφέλλετο, καί ῥα ἔπειτα δεινός τ᾽ αἰδοῖός τε μετὰ Κρήτεσσι τετύγμην. (Od. 14.229-34) Before leading the sons of the Achaeans to Troy, nine times I led men in our fast sailing ships against foreign men, and many great things fell upon me. From them I took for myself a pleasing amount, and much more came to me by lot afterward: quickly my house grew, and then I had made myself feared and respected among the Cretans.

Odysseus reveals here that a man would be able to grow both his personal wealth and reputation through raiding. He reveals that the purpose for the expeditions that he leads is specifically to obtain wealth, and he does not get involved in a formal war until the Trojan War. A warrior who was previously a raider could join in on a legendary war. “The Cretan” joins along with

Idomeneus in leading the Cretan forces at Troy showing he has achieved a high rank among the

Cretans. He reveals that he returns to raiding after the war and the Cretans go to Egypt to raid.

Later on when the same story is told, Odysseus actually uses the term ληϊστήρες when referring to those attacking Egypt.50 ληϊστήρες can gain honor just like any hero fighting at Troy, and the term seems to one of temporary status. A hero can fight in a legendary war and be considered a warrior, but then raid others for the sole purpose of gaining wealth and is at that time considered a pirate. As a result, the actions of piracy and ληϊστήρες do not have a negative connotation so long as it is done against the appropriate people.

When ληϊστήρες have a negative connotation, it is because the ληϊστήρες are not raiding the proper people. In book XVI, Penelope is rebuking Antinous for his disrespect toward

Odysseus’ home and reminds him that his father, Eupeithes, once came to Odysseus for help due to his involvement with ληϊστήρες. She says,

50 Od. 17.425.

ἦ οὐκ οἶσθ᾽ ὅτε δεῦρο πατὴρ τεὸς ἵκετο φεύγων, δῆμον ὑποδείσας; δὴ γὰρ κεχολώατο λίην, οὕνεκα ληϊστῆρσιν ἐπισπόμενος Ταφίοισιν ἤκαχε Θεσπρωτούς: οἱ δ᾽ ἡμῖν ἄρθμιοι ἦσαν: τόν ῥ᾽ ἔθελον φθῖσαι καὶ ἀπορραῖσαι φίλον ἦτορ ἠδὲ κατὰ ζωὴν φαγέειν μενοεικέα πολλήν: (Od. 16.424-9) Do you not know that your father came here as a fugitive, and shrinking away from the people? For indeed he was excessively hated because he followed the Taphian pirates and grieved the Thesprotians: and they were in league with us. They wanted to destroy him and to bereave him of his dear heart and to eat up his great, satisfying, livelihood.

The Ithacans are so angry with Eupeithes that they want to take all his wealth and kill him. Only

Odysseus is able to hold them back from doing so. The level of anger that the Ithacans have toward Eupeithes is so much greater than any other attitude taken towards ληϊστήρες that his mistake must have been more grievous than piracy alone. Eupeithes’ mistake is that he was not raiding ἄλλοι. The Thesprotians were people with whom the Ithacans were united and, as a result, not an acceptable target for piracy.

One passage remains, however, where a character seems to view piracy in a negative light. When the swineherd, Eumaeus, is offering to food to Odysseus, he laments how little he has to offer because the suitors are consuming all the food themselves. Eumaeus then draws a comparison between the suitors and pirates.

ἀτὰρ σιάλους γε σύας μνηστῆρες ἔδουσιν, οὐκ ὄπιδα φρονέοντες ἐνὶ φρεσὶν οὐδ᾽ ἐλεητύν. οὐ μὲν σχέτλια ἔργα θεοὶ μάκαρες φιλέουσιν, ἀλλὰ δίκην τίουσι καὶ αἴσιμα ἔργ᾽ ἀνθρώπων. καὶ μὲν δυσμενέες καὶ ἀνάρσιοι, οἵ τ᾽ ἐπὶ γαίης ἀλλοτρίης βῶσιν καί σφι Ζεὺς ληΐδα δώῃ, πλησάμενοι δέ τε νῆας ἔβαν οἶκόνδε νέεσθαι, καὶ μὲν τοῖς ὄπιδος κρατερὸν δέος ἐν φρεσὶ πίπτει. οἵδε δὲ καί τι ἴσασι, θεοῦ δέ τιν᾽ ἔκλυον αὐδήν, κείνου λυγρὸν ὄλεθρον, ὅτ᾽ οὐκ ἐθέλουσι δικαίως μνᾶσθαι οὐδὲ νέεσθαι ἐπὶ σφέτερ᾽, (Od. 14.82-91)

The suitors, however, eat the fat hogs, not concerned with vengeance or pity in their hearts. The blessed gods do not love wicked deeds, but they honor justice and the suitable deeds of men. Even enemies and hostiles, who have come to foreign land and Zeus grants them spoils, and they go home returning with filled ships, even then a strong fear of vengeance falls on them in their hearts. But these suitors know something, they heard some report from the gods, the mournful death of that man. So they do not wish to court justly or to return to their own homes.

Some scholars see this passage as a condemnation of pirates and raiders. They believe that

Eumaeus is comparing the suitors with raiders in order to liken two groups of men doing shameful acts.51 Van Wees, however, offers an interpretation of this scene that opposes these views. He argues that the retribution that is mentioned in these lines is not necessarily divine retribution, but is instead a retribution that could be carried out by the victims.52

By using the hierarchy of relationships, Eumaeus’ remarks can become clearer. The raiders are going to lands of others, ἂλλοι, in order to do their raiding. Zeus, rather than punishing them, grants them their spoils. Eumaeus emphasizes that even these men are afraid.

Their fear, however, is not that they have violated the will of the gods or done something wrong.

Instead, their fear is that the victims of their raids may want some sort of retribution. The suitors, on the other hand, fear nothing. Eumaeus implies that they should be afraid. They, as the δῆμος, have violated and wronged the hero. As a result, they should expect some sort of retribution for their actions. Just as in the Iliad, Achilles is able to wish the Achaeans harm after he was wronged by the δῆμος, Odysseus is also in the right to punish those who have betrayed him.

Eumaeus explains that they do not fear vengeance, and it is because they believe that the man they have wronged, and who could justly harm them, is dead.

51 Heubeck, West, and Hainsworth 1988. 52 Van Wees 1993, 215-216.

What seem to be grey areas and divided opinions towards piracy in the epics, may actually only be misinterpretations of the expectations of pirates. As with the other warriors in the epics, the attitudes towards pirates are not determined by their actions, but rather the targets of their actions. Understanding the relationships the pirates have with the groups around them, and the ways the pirates are supposed to interact with those groups, aids us in interpreting their actions. Although there is not a condemnation of piracy within the epic tradition, there is a turning away from violence. With Odysseus in the position of pirate king, he will eventually need to turn away from piracy and return to Ithaca. His journey back to Ithaca and return to a peaceful position of king, after slaying the people who became his ἒχθροι, may represent more than just a warrior’s return home. An audience that is receiving this tale which may have a negative attitude towards piracy could be harkening back to a time where piracy was rampant, yet eventually had to give way to changing times.

Chapter IV: Conclusion Many of the mistakes made when interpreting piracy in the epics comes from misunderstanding the hierarchy of relationships. The reader must understand that the ληϊστήρες are not considered shameful, but actually have an opportunity to increase their own reputation among the community, if they are targeting the right people. If the ληϊστήρες target someone other than ἄλλοι, then they are not practicing piracy in the appropriate way. As a result, one could interpret animosity towards these ληϊστήρες who do not attack the proper people as having animosity towards the act of piracy itself. Thucydides’ surprise about the attitude toward piracy is likely due to the influence of his own time. In his world, polis states have become a much larger focus than the individual. Consequently, when private citizens, independent of the city’s wishes, raid others solely for wealth, they are not seen in a good light. Thucydides could see that the warrior’s status in Homer, which is often determined by prowess on the battlefield, holds a larger importance in the epics than does simply acting in the best interest of the city.

Understanding the epics in this way help both to reveal attitudes towards the warrior’s interaction with this community and to understanding how some readers view these interactions.

The archaeological evidence of a Bronze Age trauma, combined with our knowledge of

Sea Peoples, paints a picture in which raiding existed on a large scale before Thucydides.

Thucydides may be reacting to the memory of these times and seems to be equating this historic past with the cultural memory in the poets. As a result, Thucydides claims that piracy was not a shameful act. As shown, the Homeric epics do not seem to have a negative attitude towards pirates so long as they target the appropriate victims. Thucydides and the epics may be behaving

in the same way, however, where they both reflect the cultural past. The concept that Thucydides cites in the poems to support his memory of piracy may be the very same memory that the poets are singing of. Although I think Thucydides’ concept of piracy in respect to the Homeric epics is correct, his understanding of relationships in the epics and in his own world determine his attitude towards it.

Even in Thucydides’ day, piracy was not uncommon. One form of warfare used in the

Peloponnesian War was raiding, which Thucydides calls ληίστεια. Historians of piracy in

Thucydides’ time note that this was a common tactic used by the Athenians to raise money against the Spartans, and a way for Sparta to attack Athens. Sparta would call for reprisals against Athens in the form of raids, essentially making piracy legal so long as it was against their enemies.53 If Thucydides used the word ληίστεια, he surely would have recognized the etymological similarities with the pirates in Homer. He does not, however, find it necessary to comment on the moral judgment of raids in his own time. The judgment of piracy during

Thucydides’ time seemed to be contingent on the relationship the raiders have to the targets. If the raiders’ allies were enemies with the targets, the raid was a good thing. Could this have shaped Thucydides’ understanding of piracy and relationships in the epics?

Piracy is not the only topic where the way in which the audience understands the relationships in the epics determine how they judge the characters. In his Republic, Plato uses the stories in the Iliad in a didactic way for his audiences and draws attention to the behavior of

Achilles when Agamemnon is attempting to offer him great wealth in order to return to the

Achaean army. Plato condemns Achilles and the advice of Phoenix to accept the gifts, and warns of avarice.54 Plato is ignoring the nature of the relationship between Agamemnon and Achilles.

53 DeSouza 1995. 54 The Republic, 3.390e-91a

They are not two citizens of the same polis, nor is Achilles the vassal of Agamemnon. As stated above, their relationship is an alliance bound by mutual respect and opportunity. When

Agamemnon takes the γέρας from Achilles, he is acting as an enemy. The importance of Achilles accepting the gifts is not just that he is placated with wealth, but it is the renewal of their relationship. Plato chooses not to understand their relationship in these terms and warns against the message of needing wealth for reconciliation. His understanding of their relationship determines how he reads who is at blame for their sundering and allows him to pass a judgment, contemporary to him, but foreign to the epics about Achilles’ actions.

Finally returning to the historicity of Homer and the impact that this may have on our understanding of the times before the epics, I wish to reiterate that the cultural history is near contemporary with the presentation of the poems. It is likely that the attitude towards pirates, both being common and without shame, is an attitude or expectation that the audience of Homer had with the past. A memory about a time in which piracy dominated the seas may be present, but the way in which that story must end is through a decrease in piracy. Odysseus may embody this shift from a time where a king would lead a large force against unsuspecting towns, to a time where a king and warriors had to settle down from their pirating ways.

When I first began to look at the attitudes towards raiding and piracy in the epics, I considered the behavior of the Homeric heroes to be overly simplistic. As may be common, I considered the hero to be primarily focused on simply hurting his friends and harming his enemies. After I have explored a topic, in the form of piracy, where violence is not so easily understood, it became clear that the social complexity of how a warrior was supposed to interact with his community was much more nuanced. Separating the relationships of the heroes, even the ones that would otherwise seem the same, perhaps like ξένοι and φίλοι, can ultimately aid us.

The process of creating the hierarchy of relationships requires the reader to examine which people the hero treats in similar ways. After creating a category for the relationship, we can see what other people may be in that relationship to help us understand the dynamics in their relationship. Ultimately, creating a hierarchy of relationships cannot be an exact process due to varying degrees of appropriate behavior that the epic may show, but the process of examining these relationships in order to understand the motivations of the characters within the poems will ultimately help us understand the epics that much more.

References

Bennet, John. 1997. “Homer in the Bronze Age” in A New Companion to Homer. Morris and Powell, eds. Brill, New York. 511-534. Cook, Erwin. 1995. The Odyssey in Athens. Cornell University Press. De Souza, P. 1999. Piracy in the Graeco-Roman World. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. De Souza, P. 1995. ‘Greek Piracy’, in Powell, A., ed., The Greek World, London: 179-98. Donlan, Walter. 1982. “Reciprocities in Homer”, in The Classical World, Vol. 75, No. 3 (Jan.- Feb., 1982), pp. 137-175. Donlan, Walter. 2002. “Achilles the Ally”, in Arethusa, Vol. 35, No. 1 (Winter 2002), pp. 15- 172. Finley, M. I. 1965. The World of Odysseus. New York: The Viking Press. Griffin, Jasper. 1980. Homer on Life and Death. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Heubeck, A. West, S. and Hainsworth, J.B. 1988. A Commentary on Homer’s Odyssey. Vol I. Introduction and Books i-viii. Oxford University Press. Hitchcock, Louise and Maeir, Aren. 2014. “Yo-ho, yo-ho, a seren’s life for me!”, World Archaeology, 46:4, 624-640. Hitchcock, Louise and Maeir, Aren. 2016. “A Pirate’s Life for Me: The Maritime Culture of the Sea Peoples.” Palestine Exploration Quarterly. 148(4). pp. 1-20. Hogan, J. 1979. A Guide to the “Iliad.” Garden City, NY. Doubleday. Hornblower, Simon. 1991. “A Commentary on Thucydides: Vol. I: Books 1-3.” Oxford University Press. Lord, Albert B. 1960. The Singer of Tales. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. MacLachlan, Bonnie. 1993. The Age of Grace: Charis in Early Greek Poetry. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Martin, Richard. 1993. “Telemachus and the Last Hero Song” in Colby Quarterly. Vol 29. Issue 3. pp. 222-240. Morris, Ian. 1997. “Homer and the Iron Age” in A New Companion to Homer. Morris and Powell, eds. Brill, New York. 535-599. Nagy, Gregory. 1979. The Best of the Achaeans. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Ormerod, Henry Arderne. 1978. Piracy in the Ancient World: An Essay in Mediterranean History. Liverpool: Liverpool University Press. Pucci, Pietro. 1988. The Song of the Sirens: Essays on Homer. New York: Rowman and Littlefield, Inc. Raaflaub, Kurt. 1997. “Homeric Society” in A New Companion to Homer. Morris and Powell, eds. Brill, New York. 624-648. Ready, Jonathan. 2007. “The Acquisition of Spoils in the Iliad” in Transactions of the American Philological Association (1974-), Vol. 137, No. 1 (Spring, 2007), pp. 3-43. Sandars, N.K. 1978. The Sea Peoples: Warriors of the Ancient Mediterranean. New York: Thames and Hudson. Scodel, Ruth. 2008. Epic Facework: Self-presentation and Social Interaction in Homer. The Classical Press of Wales. Van Wees, Hans. 1992. Status Warrior: War, Violence and Society in Homer and History. Amsterdam: J.C. Gieben.

West, M.L. 2014. The Making of the Odyssey. Oxford University Press. Willcock, M.M. 1976. A Companion to the “Iliad.” Chicago: Chicago University Press. Wilson, Donna. 2002. Ransom, Revenge, and Heroic Identity in the Iliad. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.