HETAIREIA IN HOMER John Elias Esposito A dissertation submitted to the faculty at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Department of Classics in the College of Arts and Sciences. Chapel Hill 2015 Approved by: Fred Naiden William H. Race James J. O’Hara Emily Baragwanath James Rives © 2015 John Elias Esposito ALL RIGHTS RESERVED ii ABSTRACT John Elias Esposito: Hetaireia in Homer (Under the direction of Fred Naiden) This study addresses the neglected subject of hetaireia (roughly, “warrior- companionship”) in Homer. Although many discussions of Homer mention hetairoi in passing, no study treats semantic, poetic, social, and military aspects comprehensively. The purpose of this dissertation is to fill this gap. To this end I explicate the meaning of the heta(i)r- root, survey the social and military roles of Homeric hetairoi, and expose the way the Iliad and the Odyssey use hetaireia to portray pathos and character. The argument is informed by the etymology of heta(i)r- from the PIE reflexive *swe-, but rests on a catalogue and analysis of all scenes in which hetairoi appear. The four chapters of this dissertation argue that hetaireia is a major axis on which both epics turn. The two chapters on the Iliad show what the world is like when hetaireia dominates and consider how a poem about war focuses on the bond between warriors and their companions. The two chapters on the Odyssey show how the world changes when hetaireia disappears and consider how a poem about homecoming replaces the relationships of the battlefield with the relationship between the oikos and the gods. A brief concluding chapter suggests how the analysis of hetaireia presented in this dissertation might affect Homeric studies, cultural, social, and military history of the archaic period, ancient philosophy, the history of psychology, and aspects of modern military psychology, particularly leadership and motivation in battle. iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Fred Naiden first encouraged me to write on this topic and offered far more and better guidance and support than any advisor might be expected to give. I owe him the lion’s share of thanks for his tremendous intelligence, erudition, dedication, and honesty throughout the writing process. Bill Race, Jim O’Hara, Emily Baragwanath, and James Rives improved the dissertation immensely as readers. For help limiting scope and for countless examples of supremely lucid writing I owe Bill Race in particular. For innumerable insights on a short timeline I am in special debt to Jim O’Hara, who kindly agreed to join a project well underway. Their remarks played no small part in the successful aspects of the study presented here. All errors and infelicities are of course my own. Many others deserve special thanks. Peter Smith has always encouraged me to read Homer more carefully, and his comments on the Iliad have guided me away from many interpretive dead ends. The dissertation has also benefited from remarks by Ben Sammons, a true Homerist. Sharon James has often supported me when research projects seemed intractable or impossible. Bruce McMenomy first helped me understand ancient epic and read classic literature critically. My dialectical and rhetorical abilities were (and still are) honed by countless arguments with my brothers Steve, Mike, Ricky, and Peter. My parents began the education that led to this project—along with my existence—and cannot be thanked enough. Most of all I owe my wife iv Sarah, who has immeasurably sharpened my mind on all matters classical and other matters as well. v TABLE OF CONTENTS GENERAL INTRODUCTION 1 CHAPTER 1: HETAIREIA IN THE ILIAD: MEANING, ACTIVITY, NATURE 13 Introduction 13 1.1 Heta(i)r-: etymology, reference, descriptors 14 1.2 Actions of hetairoi 19 1.3 The pathos of hetaireia 39 1.4 Analysis: three attributes of hetaireia 56 CHAPTER 2: GROUPS OF HETAIROI IN THE ILIAD 68 Introduction 68 2.1 ἔθνος ἑταίρων as group of hetairoi 71 2.2 Leading groups of hetairoi 86 CHAPTER 3: DISSOLVING HETAIREIA IN THE ODYSSEY 140 Introduction 140 3.1 Distrust: hetaireia begins to dissolve 148 3.2 Dissention: rebellion, restructuring, retreat 161 3.3 Destruction: the road to Thrinakia 179 3.4 Solidarity lost: the overthrow of Odysseus by his hetairoi 198 CHAPTER 4: REPLACING HETAIREIA IN THE ODYSSEY 203 Introduction 203 4.1 What Odyssean hetairoi are not 206 4.2 Odysseus’ new allies 237 CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSIONS AND POSTSCRIPT 282 5.1 Effects of changing hetaireia on the transition from Iliad 1 to Odyssey 24 282 vi 5.2 Non-literary implications beyond the world of epic 289 5.3 Prospective: hetaireia and military companionship after Homer 297 APPENDIX 301 Table 1: Combat motivation in the Iliad 302 Table 2: Actions of/to/for/with hetairoi in the Iliad 308 Table 3: Human leadership in the Iliad 314 Table 4: Words describing hetairoi 321 Table 5: Relative strength of warrior and hetairos 324 BIBLIOGRAPHY 325 vii HETAIREIA IN HOMER: GENERAL INTRODUCTION This study addresses the neglected subject of hetaireia1 in Homer. Although many discussions of Homer mention hetairoi in passing, no study treats semantic, poetic, social, and military aspects comprehensively. The purpose of this dissertation is to fill this gap. To this end I explicate the meaning of the heta(i)r- root,2 survey the social and military roles of Homeric hetairoi, and expose the way the Iliad and the Odyssey use hetaireia to portray pathos and character.3 The argument is informed by the etymology of heta(i)r- from the PIE reflexive *swe-, but rests on a catalogue and analysis of all scenes in which hetairoi appear. The scholarly neglect of hetaireia is all the more serious insofar as hetairoi are vital to both Homeric poems. The turning-point of the Iliad, and the cause of Achilles’ greatest sorrow, is the death of his hetairos Patroclus. The climax of the Odyssey proem, and the cause of Odysseus’ greatest sorrow, is the death of his hetairoi. The relationship between these principal heroes and their hetairoi is widely understood as a kind of affection, but the specific character of hetaireia has not been examined in detail. Nor have the differing ways in which different heroes relate to their hetairoi been considered comprehensively, in spite of growing scholarly awareness of the psychological depth and narrative sophistication of the Homeric poems. 1 The abstract noun does not appear in Homer but is common in Attic. The Homeric scholia include forms of ἑταιρία (as an abstract noun) eight times. I follow them in using hetaireia to describe relationships that include hetairoi. 2 Throughout the dissertation I will name the root using a parenthetical iota because the Homeric poet includes the iota in some passages and excludes it in others, apparently for metrical reasons. There is no semantic difference between hetaros and hetairos. 3 This is not to deny the importance of the orality of Homeric epic, of course. Albert Lord himself insisted that “[in] the extended sense of the word, oral tradition is as ‘literary’ as literary tradition” (Lord 1960, 141). 1 Furthermore, although scholars widely recognize that the Odyssey poet blames Odysseus’ hetairoi in the proem as warriors are never blamed in the Iliad, the difference between the moral worlds of the two poems with respect to the bond between hero and companions remains poorly understood. If the two narratives are interpreted together, the moral difference appears as a transformation: the hetairoi of the Odyssey proem are combat veterans of the Trojan war, but while Iliadic hetairoi die at the hands of enemies in battle, Odyssean hetairoi bring about their own destruction. The movement from a poem about warriors dying to a poem about a warrior returning home presumably has something to do with the transition from war to peace, but the change in warrior-companionship itself, commonly signified by the heta(i)r- root, has not been studied across both epics. In this dissertation I examine both the meaning of words containing heta(i)r- and the relationship signified thereby. I derive the semantics and the social significance of hetaireia from a comprehensive study of usage of heta(i)r-, a summary of which appears in five tables in an appendix. The resulting analysis presents hetaireia as a hitherto unrecognized type of social relationship, distinct from and irreducible to philia, xenia, and the relationship between shepherd/commander and the laos/laoi. In the Iliad, hetaireia obtains de facto: warriors are called hetairoi when they function as and are felt as companions in battle. In the Odyssey, in non-military settings, warriors are called hetairoi because they once fought together or because they are mutual supporters against the danger of the sea, companions bound together because they are all in the same boat. The examination of hetaireia in the Iliad reveals previously unrecognized features of Iliadic warrior psychology and sheds new light on central characters and incidents in the poem. In the Iliad, hetaireia is essential to the depiction of combat psychology, insofar as motivation in 2 battle is dominated by concern for warrior-companions. Hetaireia appears especially important to the Myrmidons in general and to Achilles and Patroclus in particular. Agamemnon’s weak hetaireia parallels his other shortcomings as a leader. Hector’s dedication to his family and his city is shown to come at the expense of his relationship with his hetairoi. These observations contribute to our understanding of these characters and to their approach to military leadership and organization. Hetaireia is no less central to the Odyssey. The proem signals the importance of hetaireia explicitly: the self-destruction of Odysseus’ hetairoi is the climax of the list of Odysseus’ sufferings.