The Role of the Plague in the "Iliad" Author(s): Daniel R. Blickman Source: Classical Antiquity, Vol. 6, No. 1 (Apr., 1987), pp. 1-10 Published by: University of California Press Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/25010855 . Accessed: 05/10/2014 18:07

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

University of California Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Classical Antiquity.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 76.72.144.32 on Sun, 5 Oct 2014 18:07:50 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions DANIEL R. BLICKMAN

The Role of the Plague in the Iliad

IN HIS FAMOUSstudy of image and symbol in the Aeneid, Viktor P6schl remarks thatHomer does not use the plague motif to set themood of the Iliad in the same way that Virgil does through the opening storm at sea.1Homeric scholars have concurred insofar as the episode of the plague is discussed mainly as the occasion of Agamemnon and Achilles' quarrel.2Yet this drama should not blind us to the role of the plague in setting the tone for what follows, nor, more importantly, in providing an ethical pattern which lies near the heart of the story. The connections between the Loimos and the central story of theMenis are illustrated through the uniformity of diction in the two.3Mfjvtg is the first linkingwork to be noticed. The plague is caused by the ELjvigof (fjlvv 'Ajt6kkovog, 1.75), which therefore recalls verbally and foreshadows dramati cally the rtjvLgof Achilles (Fjvlv, 1.1). In both cases Agamemnon provokes thewrath by seeking possession of a woman. The IltjVL;of 1.1 not only singles out themost central theme of the Iliad but, despite the passions of the poem's

1. The Art of theAeneid (Ann Arbor 1962) 13-14. 2. The primary exception to this neglect is K. Reinhardt, whose penetrating investigation, in Die Ilias und ihr Dichter (Gottingen 1961) 42-68, into the backgrounds of Chryseis and Briseis shows how the poet has fashioned disparate characters and traditionalmotifs into his own narration of Agamemnon's two quarrels, the firstwith Chryses and Apollo, the second with Achilles, which are therefore to be associated. 3. Noticed by G. Nagy, The Best of theAchaeans (Baltimore and London 1979) 73-77. His interest, however, is in the pervasive association of Achilles with the theme of grief (72, 77) and the "ritual antagonism" between the hero Achilles and the god Apollo (142-44). See too W. Burkert, "Apellai und Apollon," RhM 118 (1975) 19.

? 1987 BY THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA

This content downloaded from 76.72.144.32 on Sun, 5 Oct 2014 18:07:50 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 2 CLASSICALANTIQUITY Volume 6/No. 1/April 1987 heroes, is used only of Achilles among them and always in reference to his anger at Agamemnon's slight. "The anger that Achilles felt later over the killing of Patroclus is nowhere denoted by tY1vLg."4Although discussion contin ues over the precise meaning of [lJvit, there is a consensus that the use of this noun with only the gods and Achilles is of the deepest significance.5Through out the poem, the word underlines the similarity of Achilles' wrath to that of a god; inBook 1 its two occurrences, both in the first seventy-five lines, point to a specific instance of this similarity, the wrath of both Apollo and Achilles at Agamemnon. The most important term for the destruction caused by the plague, Xoyo6g, provides another connection. It is used in this way three times (1.67, 97, 456) and otherwise commonly refers to the destruction suffered by theGreeks with out Achilles, whose absence is often explicitly mentioned in these contexts (1.341, 13.426, 15.736, 16.32, 75, 80, 18.450, 21.134). The wrath of both Apollo and Achilles brings Xolyog on the . Xoly6o means "death, de struction," not "plague."6 Rather, the plague itself, as in later Greek, is a vovoog (10) or XoLtOg(61). Aolyog, after Homer, is a rare poetic word, and I know of no case in which it is used to refer to the destruction brought by a plague.7 Although it would be idle speculation to claim that the word had not been used in such a way before Homer, the evidence does suggest that the situation of a plague was not itsmost familiar context. Its reference is clear in 67 because vorioog (10), XoLpi6g(61), and the description of Apollo's actions (48-51) have explained that the Greeks are suffering a plague. But XoLy6g in

4. Nagy (supra n.3) 73. 5. Recent literature on fivtSg:C. Watkins, "A propos de MHNIX," Bulletin de la Society de Linguistique de Paris 72 (1977) 187-209, explaining AVLit as a reciprocal notion; J. M. Redfield, "The Proem of the Iliad: Homer's Art," CP 74 (1979) 97, "j vitg includes an element of moral outrage"; P. Considine, "The Indo-European Origin of Greek MENIS 'Wrath',"Transactions of the Philological Society (1985) 144, "no moral connotation whatever," but, rather, "numinous rage, divine fury." All these scholars acknowledge that two related verbs, $ vie and Exeivie, occur with Agamemnon (1.247) and Aeneas (13.460); on IrlnV0p6jg(16.62, 202, 282), seeWatkins, 194-95. But occasional uses of a key expression, or, as here, expressions similar to an important one, outside an otherwise impressively regular pattern do not deprive the pattern of all signifi cance. Exceptions can be real, but unimportant: S. Scully, "The Language of Achilles: The OXOH.AX Formulas," TAPA 114 (1984) 20 n. 18. 6. Hesychius s.v. XoLY6[v]sg?* vaTog, 65e1QOg. 7. The post-Homeric evidence ismeager. In the Hesiodic Shield, Pindar, and Aeschylus, it refers to the destruction of war andmurder: Shield 240 kXoy6va&tVvovxeg of those defending a city; Pind. Nem. 9.37 &d veLv.oty6v 'EvvCoXov,cf. Isthm. 7.28; Aesch. Suppl. 679 &v6fooxg XoLy6g (cf. 'AQ-T,681); Cho. 402 PoCt ya0' Xolyog 'EQL'jv (Schutz: XoLyov 'EQLvigM). Homer uses the epithet PQOTOXOLY6gof twelve times in the Iliad and once in the , and the "winnow ing-fan"mentioned by Teiresias is an &dviD@Qgloty6g(11.128, 23.275). Hes. fr. 86 is obscure. The epic notion of XoLy6V&4VVal is parodied inCratinus fr. 171.War is again the context for thewords of Idas, the impious warrior of theArgonauts, who, trusting in his spear, disdains the help of (t1I vu TLx FCtoL'oLyov /oEOiatL, Ap. Rhod. 1.468-69; cf. infra on Xoitya fcoeosta in the Iliad); A.P. 7.368 XOLy6gAOrlS, 9.460. It is, however, a favorite word of Nicander in his discussions of poisons (Ther. 6, 243, 733, 815, 921; Alex. 207, 256).

This content downloaded from 76.72.144.32 on Sun, 5 Oct 2014 18:07:50 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions BLICKMAN:The Role of the Plague in the Iliad 3 place of voioog in verse 10 would probably not have been intelligible as "de struction brought by plague" without further information. Once the advent of the plague is established, is there any significance in the preference shown for describing it as a Xoyo6g rather than a voioog or XkoLIg? In the accusative the word is always found at the same place in the fifth foot of the line: of the plague:

am0o Xolyv a&urvcLi 1.67 aelxEa Xotyov avxoOEl 1.97 aelxca Xolyov aUtvvov 1.456 of theAchaeans' plight without Achilles:

aeLxEa XOLyov avvcal 1.341 a&wvvovXkoyov 'AxaoL[g 13.426 Xolyov &a[Oval 15.736 aecLxea XOLyov CatUvvYr 16.32 aJTo kolOV &avival 16.75 Wao XoLyov a'&uvcov 16.80 XOLyov&aOvaL 18.450 Xolyov 'AxaLcOv 21.134 of the protection by Achilles of Phoenix (who is pleading for the Achaeans) and Peleus (mentioned by Priam when pleading forHector's corpse):

aelxCa Xotyov aqfvvt; 9.495 Xolyov a&ival 24.489 of the protection of someone by a god:

aELxea Xkoyov6aiVVaL 1.398 aids Zeus XoLyovatfuvel 5.603 Ares of Hector XOLYOva'&vvev 5.662 Zeus of Sarpedon XoLyov&afvel 20.98 unspecified god of Achilles of the Trojans' plight after Achilles' return:

XOLyov&Xd.xoL 21.138, 250, 539 Skamander and Apollo are the subjects kolyog occurs in the nominative in a verse appearing twice. The whole context is relevant:

'Evea xe XoLyosgS TV xai adlxava EQya YEVovTo, xaci VU xE oalxaaev xara zTaov IV'TE&aQVg, Ei [lj &Q' 6~i vorloe nraTr/lQavGQWv TE ftEbv TE (8.130-32)

This content downloaded from 76.72.144.32 on Sun, 5 Oct 2014 18:07:50 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 4 CLASSICALANTIQUITY Volume 6/No. 1/April 1987

"Evfa Xe .olyty6 E Vvxai a&t'iXava E@yay:vovTo, XaL vU XV EV vqieLool CTOov EYovTE 'AXalOi, ElnE TV6Ei6iqLALtovlfi& xexXET''06(Jooe( (11.310-12) koiyta is found four times: ' l r koiylcL EQy'60 T: ?Xo6ojrrioal qcp5ioEtg1.518-19 Zeus to Thetis "HQTIL,O6T' &v t' eQ@1rqotJV O6ve&6ioLgt EtEEOLV ' M X.oiylcaEQyLa Td6a' EooGETa oi' T &vExTd, 1.573-74 Hephaistos to ei 6 ocpw) vexa bVTTrlOV?@QLaLiveToV d6e Zeus and VryaQ 'AXLkkeig 21.532-33 Priam of yyiuSO66 xXoveov. vOv oi'0oXoiY' 6aocftl Trojans' plight TO)T' o'LW)kOyl' ?aeo0Cal 23.310 Nestor advising Antilochus

Given the obvious ease with which Homer could reach for the phrases in 1.67, 97, and 456, nothing would have been simpler for him than to substitute kXolip for Xolyog. Perhaps he did, and our texts are wrong. This doubt, however, is allayed by the rest of the evidence that links the Loimos and Menis so intricately. Nagy acutely points out how .oly6g is repeatedly glossed with a reference to the slaughter of theGreeks at the ships.8Achilles' prophetic words at 1.341 44 about the kolyog to come are echoed at 16.80 and 21.134-35. Thus the use of koLy6gat 1.341, like that of pLIVLgat 1.75, serves to knit together the Loimos andMenis by describing the coming defeat of theGreeks with the same term as is used for the destruction brought by the plague (cf. kXolyg at 67, 97, 456). Moreover, the fact that Achilles' wrath is the cause of this future kolyo6 is emphasized by a second declaration of his resolve (1.338 f.; cf. 1.233-44). The final uses of the term strikingly confirm the poet's attention to it. It is last applied to the Greeks by Achilles when he has returned to the fight in order to avenge Patroclus and the .Oly6g 'AXaciv (21.134-35). This retro spective view brings us full circle from his earlier prediction (1.341). A line separating the Achaean from the Trojan kOLy6gis drawn explicitly here. For the only time, OLyogsin the accusative is the object of a verb that does not mean "ward off"; rather, the Trojans will now pay for (TELaoEE,21.134) the kotLy6 'Axativ. The notion of "warding off Xoly6g" is then immediately ap plied to the Trojans' situation for the first time (21.138, 250, 539).9 Priam's mention of Achilles' bringing koiyL6 in this context (21.532-33) strengthens our awareness of the reversal of who is suffering Xoly6g. The distribution of themotif of "warding off Xoly6g" closely resembles the

8. Nagy (supra n.3) 75-76. 9. These three texts are distinguished from the earlier ones with XotLyoby their governing verb, &akdxol. Nagy (supra n.3, 75-76) seems to have missed them: "the accusative koty6v occurs exclusively in combination with the same verb &[uv-'ward off' that we find here in 1.456."

This content downloaded from 76.72.144.32 on Sun, 5 Oct 2014 18:07:50 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions BLICKMAN:The Role of the Plague in the Iliad 5

use of AviLg, since both expressions associate Achilles with the gods. Other mortals are hardly to be found warding off koly6g. Idomeneus tries toward off XoLyog (13.424-26); Patroclus does so (16.80) as Achilles' surrogate. These remarks concern the particular motif expressed by XoLy6 in the accusative with a verb meaning "to ward off." The two instances of koLyog in the nominative (8.130, 11.310), without such a verb and in a different part of the verse, might be considered distinct enough not to affect the argument. However, when these two texts as well as those with koiyta are brought into relation with our motif, they make a positive contribution to its development. The passages in Books 8 and 11, which share the same first verse and introduc tory words in the second and third verses, say that there would have been destruction, and one side would have retreated (xca v0uxE), unless (ei nqj) someone had intervened. In Book 8, Diomedes would have wrought havoc, since Hector has gone after a new charioteer, ifZeus had not forced him back. In the second passage, Hector would have wrought havoc, ifOdysseus had not summoned Diomedes, who recalls that Zeus is helping the Trojans (11.317 19). Xoltog is a powerful word in these contexts, and neither Diomedes nor Hector is capable of inflicting it at thesemoments. To put it another way, these texts, along with those to be considered below, help to establish thatkoLyo6 is a strong term.Only Achilles will inflict Xoly6g on the Trojans, Diomedes being incapable of doing so precisely because Zeus forbids it him but not Achilles. Hector, on the other hand, will succeed in bringing koly6g on the Achaeans because he has the help of Zeus, and this contrast between the twowarriors is brought out in the words of Diomedes at 11.317-19, which clearly reflect his experience of being driven back by Zeus at 8.130-56.10 The two episodes, with their encounters between Hector and Diomedes, are linked and form part of the carefully controlled pattern of advance and retreat between the two sides. Only decisive victory-as Hector's, once the wall is breached, or Achilles' brings death widespread enough to be called koly6S. Short of that, as inBooks 8 and 11, koLy6g appears only in a contrafactual condition. The averting of koty6g by someone connects these two passages with the notion of koty6v &aE1vac (or alXaxoL). The two texts with koiytLa in Book 1 (518, 573) form a second pair closely parallel to 8.130 and 11.310. The words of Zeus (518-19) and Hephaistos (573-74) have a pattern similar to that of the lines just considered, except that instead of the poet beginning with the assertion that there would have been Xolyog in the apodosis of a contrafactual condition (8.130, 11.310), both gods begin with the prospect of koiyLcaEya (1.518, 573). In the case of Hephaistos,

10. This little speech by Diomedes is a typical example of Homeric foreshadowing, the techniques of which A. Thornton, Homer's Iliad: Its Composition and theMotif of Supplication, Hypomnemata Heft 81 (Gottingen 1984) 67-72, has described as "indications of goals," and we are not meant to worry that there is a tension between Diomedes' (slightly longer-term) prediction and his immediately successful repulse of Hector (11.349-67).

This content downloaded from 76.72.144.32 on Sun, 5 Oct 2014 18:07:50 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 6 CLASSICALANTIQUITY Volume 6/No. 1/April 1987

the opening verse is an apodosis with future-more-vivid force (573). Zeus begins with the same phrase ( 6ri koiyta Q?rya,518), and though the syntax is loose and somewhat uncertain, his opening verse is also equivalent to an apodosis.1' The protases which follow in these cases (518, 574) describe, not the intervention of someone (as in 8.130 and 11.310), but the positive action thatwill produce koiyca EQya.This action is strife between Zeus andHera, and the scene on Olympos provides a contrast with the preceding quarrel in the Greek camp.12The EQLgbetween Agamemnon and Achilles (1.6, 8, 177, 210, 277, 319, 2.376, 9.257) unleashes a Xolyog that only Achilles can ward off, but among the gods Hephaistos settles the strife (Qt6abveTvov,574; cf. EQ?trolov, 519), so that koiyta sQya are prevented. Thus, the two passages in Book 1 form a pair that take their place next to the pair in Books 8 and 11 in positing the possibility of 0oty6gor kortya EQya and then averting it. AoLy6o is to be realized elsewhere in the poem. Priam's remark-vsv ol'w koiyt' aoeetal,21.533 (cf. koiyLa EQya Ta6' EiSoeTat, 1.573)-can now be seen as the negative expres sion of warding off Xoty6g: Priam does not believe it can be done. In fact, at least in the Iliad, the term kolyo6 is not called forth simply by death or destruc tion on a large scale, but by the issue of whether such ruin can be averted or not. A third term that links the Loimos and Menis is ncaiwov. One is sung to Apollo in order to end the plague (1.473), and the only other is that called for by Achilles upon the slaying of Hector (22.391, almost identicalwith 1.473). Each tralycov marks the end of a koty6g. No Trojan success earns such a song. These key words, YtLjvtg,kotyog, and natiWov, could easily have been used often in the poem in other situations. The restriction of them strongly implies on the part of the poet a conscious association of plague and quarrel (as argued by Reinhardt on other grounds), or, less plausibly, an association of the two in the tradition. As always, this is not to say that an audience will notice all these verbal patterns. But whether we speak of the poet or "the tradition" as respon sible, the text certainly presents these links between the opening episode and what follows. The evidence of the diction, then, gives some indication that the plague is an opening image for the poem as a whole.13 The composition of the narrative confirms this conclusion. The transition from the Loimos toMenis presented the poet with a delicate task. There is an explicit juxtaposition of the favorable reception of the Achaeans' prayers by Apollo (1.457-92), who clearly gives up his wrath, and the continued anger of

11. "Destructive work indeed, your incitingme to enter into hostilities with Here, whenever she provokes me with insulting words": G. S. Kirk, The Iliad: A Commentary, volume 1 (Cam bridge 1985) 108, with discussion. Similarly, Ameis-Heintze-Cauer, Leaf and Bayfield. Xoiyla /^ya (scil. oaral), Paley, Munro. 12. J. Griffin, Homer on Life and Death (Oxford 1980) 179-204. 13. On "Symbolic Scenes and Significant Objects" in Homer generally, see Griffin (supra n.12) 1-49.

This content downloaded from 76.72.144.32 on Sun, 5 Oct 2014 18:07:50 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions BLICKMAN:The Role of the Plague in the Iliad 7

Achilles (aca'Q 6 LvLIE.. . , 488-92).14 The very comparison of Achilles to a god suggests themagnitude of his rage, andM. W. Edwards has shown that the leisurely expedition to Chryses gives the feeling of a length of a time during which Achilles has been angry.15As we shall see in studyingAchilles' rejection of the Litai in the Embassy, the intensity of his emotion in this early compari son with the appeasement of Apollo has ominous implications.'6Apollo re lents, Achilles will not. Yet at the same time, Zeus is about to grant Achilles' suit (493 ff.), which must therefore appear to be a fair one. The mention of Achilles' unhappiness (491-92) moderates the description of his rage (488-90); the contrast to the pleased Apollo (474) increases our sympathy for Achilles. For related reasons, there is not a more explicit ending of the plague at this point. The envoys to the god simply return to camp and scatter among their tents (484-87). The mention of an end to the KoLyogsent by Apollo, or of cleansing procedures such as those at 313-14 when the Xkoy6opredicted by Achilles is being arranged, could only be ironical andmar the finesse needed in making the transition. One Xkoyog flows into the next, and the imperceptible passage from one to the other reinforces the sense thatAchilles is as justified as Apollo.17 But this skillful blending of the opening episode and the central story is not done merely to smooth the course of the narrative. Rather, the assimilation of the actions of Achilles to those of a god in Book 1 has a crucial function in shaping the ethical and religious context of the hero's choices, for later, in the pivotal scenes of Book 9, he is gradually separated from the position of a god. A few remarks on this development, though obviously insufficient to address the problem of the choice of Achilles as a whole,18may serve to indicate briefly the more general ethical import of the Loimos. In order to avert the plague, the king returns Chryseis and offers sacrifice and prayers toApollo. Likewise,

14. A. Dihle, Homer-Probleme (Opladen 1970) 75. 15. "Convention and Individuality in Iliad 1," HSCP 84 (1980) 23-25. Thetis tellsAchilles to maintain his anger back in 421-22 (cf. ivtLE,422). 16. "Der Gott ist vers6hnt, nachdem die Ursache seines Grimmes beseitigt ist; denn auch die Gotter lassen sich in ihrem Zorn bewegen, wie es I 497 dem grollenden Achilleus vorgehalten wird." Job. Irmscher, Gotterzorn bei Homer (Leipzig 1950) 50. 17. The effect achieved here is to be found in the prooemium itself. The hearer of the first ten lines has the following train of associations: wrath of Achilles (1), corpses of Achaeans (2-5), strife of Agamemnon and Achilles (6-8), Apollo as cause (9), disease and death (10). The corpses and the strife are the two salient points of the tV;Lg.The disease and death in verse 10 echo 2-5. The audience, upon first hearing verse 10, may well identify the deaths that it describes with those in 2-5. The prooemium (1-11) hardly makes clear the exact relation between the chieftains' quarrel and the anger of Apollo. Death, the quarrel, and the plague flow together again. &aXyeain verse 2 is another term linking the Loimos andMenis, since it is associated with X.oLyi at 96-97: Nagy (supra n.3) 74; Redfield (supra n.5) 101. &6.yea appears in other Homeric descriptions of vovoog, too (14.670; Od. 5.395; cf. 11. 2.721 on Philoctetes, though vo(Joo is not used). 18. An introduction to the issues: C. Whitman, Homer and the Homeric Tradition (Cam bridge, Mass. 1958) 181-220; D. B. Claus, "AID6S in the Language of Achilles," TAPA 105 (1975) 13-28; J. M. Redfield, Nature and Culture in the Iliad (Chicago 1975).

This content downloaded from 76.72.144.32 on Sun, 5 Oct 2014 18:07:50 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 8 CLASSICALANTIQUITY Volume 6/No. 1/April 1987

Briseis, gifts, and supplication are offered toAchilles, andAgamemnon, faced with a figure whose intractable might is reminiscent of a god's, draws the parallel between his supplication of Achilles and that of a god (9.158-61).19He compares Achilles to who, as aitELkLXog and &a6dtaorog, is the most hated of all the gods. Faced with such a force, one could have thought it better to offer words of supplication than to assert superiority, asAgamemnon does.20 Yet Achilles is not truly a god, so Agamemnon can (even if foolishly) demand his submission. The king's words, though rich in paradox,21 reveal obliquely that the status of the hero is not, in fact, as exalted as a god's. When the envoys arrive, the comparison to Achilles is rehearsed at length by Phoenix in his account of the Litai, but on quite a different tack.He remindsAchilles that the gods themselves are swayed by supplication (9.496-501)22 and then goes on

19. With neither Apollo in Book 1 nor the Embassy is there a formal supplication of the type inwhich the suppliant(s) sits or crouches and grasps the knees of the one supplicated. J. P. Gould, "Hiketeia," JHS 93 (1973) 74-103, has brilliantly analyzed this ritual.As the study by V. Pedrick, "Supplication in the Iliad and the Odyssey," TAPA 112 (1982) 125-40, has established, however, it is a mistake to approach the Homeric poems with the notion that they observe strict rules concern ing the language and gestures of supplication. They emphatically do not. Rather, depending on literary considerations, such language and gestures are employed (or neglected) in an enormous variety of situations, including the prayers of men to gods (II. 23.196; Od. 4.433; and especially Od. 5.445-50). Thus, it is wrong to discount the parallels between Apollo and Achilles on the grounds thatApollo is "appeased" (ikao6tcea, 1.444; ihdoovto, 472), while Achilles is "suppli cated" (9.496-520, 698, etc.-see J. A. Rosner, "The Speech of Phoenix: Iliad 9.434-605," Phoe nix 30 [1976] 321). Phoenix knows of no such distinction in his description of the Litai, where he speaks in one breath of their approach to both gods and men (cf. kXoo6gevot, 9.501). Too much concern with the formal ritual leads Thornton (supra n.10, 113-24) to identify the four major supplication scenes as Chryses-Agamemnon, Thetis-Zeus, the Embassy, and Priam-Achilles, therebymissing the significance of the scene with Apollo. 20. These words have been recognized as setting the seal of failure on the embassy, since Agamemnon manifestly does not reinforce his gifts with the "sweet words" (113) thatNestor had called for: Thornton (supra n.10) 85n.46, 126-29, and Rosner (supra n.19) 320, with references to earlier literature; see particularlyWhitman (supra n.18) 192-93. The obtuse king has taken to heart another remark of Nestor's: ouyai PctpaotLevxaToS ool (9.69). Although Odysseus diplomati cally omits Agamemnon's harsh comments in relayingAgamemnon's offer, Achilles' rejection of it seems to be due in part to his feeling that the deal involves this subordination (9.392 echoes 9.160). Moreover, lines 312-13, which have been considered an indication thatAchilles has some inkling of 158-60, echo 158-59 on the topics of Hades and the extremes of hate. To the ear of the audience they provide a retort. Thus, Agamemnon's senseless words are self-fulfilling: Achilles plays the harsh role that Agamemnon assigns him. 21. While making amends as one would to a god, Agamemnon yet proclaims his superiority. This tension is expressed especially in the notion of Hades &difaorog, the adjective being a hapax in Homer and having here both its meanings of "unwilling" and "too powerful to be subdued." Hades is both a personal god who is "unwilling" and the force of death which is "too powerful." Just as the idea of being unwilling to relent, applied to Achilles, helps Agamemnon to plead his case (one rhetorical effect, I believe, is to impugn the claim of such irresistiblemight by implying that it is synonymous with bad will), so the reminder of Achilles' superior strength, also conveyed by &laucaoxog, betrays Agamemnon's weak and paradoxical position. The complexity of Agamem non's utterance is hardly foreign to Homeric verse; see Claus (supra n.18) 18ff., on II. 9.318-20. 22. "t un'intuizione felicissima, questa di Fenice, e rivela una conoscenza dell'animo e della grandezza sovruma d'Achille: richiamare Achille non ad una legge e ad un'esperienza umana [thoughAjax does so with some effect], ma a una legge riconcsciuta e seguita dagli dei e ilmezzo

This content downloaded from 76.72.144.32 on Sun, 5 Oct 2014 18:07:50 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions BLICKMAN:The Role of the Plague in the Iliad 9

to speak of theman whom the Litai approach and theAte which is called down on the one who refuses them (508-14). But of course one could not threaten a god with Ate for not hearing prayers. With magnificent art, Phoenix has moved from the similarity between Achilles and a god, to the difference. He prepares the ground for this shift quietly in his opening gambit that the a&eFql, TLpir,and PIrtof the gods are greater than a man's. Thus, the telling lines in which Phoenix makes the distinction between Achilles and a god explicit are the denouement of the sequence set inmotion by the Loimos. Achilles, having imitated Apollo's ljvitg, later diverges from his divine model by failing to relent and toward off XkotLg. The movement in the Loimos by which society is thrown, through this divine wrath, briefly into an unhealthy moral and physical condition, and then restored, is repeated on a large scale in the disruption caused by Achilles' anger. In the prooemium EQLgamplifies EvLjvgand is one of themajor points (eYQoavTe,6; EQL6L,8). Thereafter it is repeatedly applied to the two chieftains' quarrel (1.177, 210, 277, 319, 2.376, 9.257),23 with the result that EQLgand [LvLtgare presented as a single problem (18.107-8, 19.56-77). Given the asso ciations in the prooemium of /QLg with vovoog and death, and the use of koyo6g for the deaths caused both by the plague and by EQLg,the breach among the Achaeans could almost be described as a secular plague. The Iliad fore shadows later connections made between oaT(La and plague. Its opening scene, while providing a symbol for the main story, does not, however, invoke this widespread idea only for its somber mythical reverberations.24 Rather, an occasion is found to establish ethical paradeigmata. Through the Loimos and the passages that continue its themes, the poem depicts the religious element, by which I mean Achilles' relationship to the gods, as one important factor in the ethics of his choice. A. W. H. Adkins has argued that no other human being can say how much TLri is enough forAchilles.25 Perhaps not, but the gods can set a limit. That is what Phoenix tries to communicate to Achilles, and one lesson of the Loimos is that the TCyi of a great king can be humbled by the gods. When, inBook 24 Apollo, echoing Phoenix, intervenes to protect Hector's corpse with the comment thatAchilles ought to be flexible

piu adatto a convincere l'eroe piu che uomo, obbediente agli dei ed incline a vedere nei mitici fatti divini lo specchio e ilmodello della propria esistenza": L. Quaglia, "La figura di Achille e 'etica dell'Iliade," AA Torino 95 (1960-1961) 369-70; cf. 11. 9.603. 23. "EQLgis also a key word for describing thewar itself. It receives an extraordinary personi fication when the two armies first meet (4.440-45) and is later singled out as rejoicing in the mutual slaughter of Greeks and Trojans at the opening of the Long Battle, alone of all the immortals (11.3ff., 73-77). See Griffin (supra n.12) 197-98. "EQtgalso appears at 5.518, 740, 18.535, 20.48. 24. It becomes the subject of modern theory in the works of R. Girard, "The Plague in Literature andMyth," Texas Studies in Literature and Myth 15, 5 (1974) 833-50, and Violence and the Sacred (Baltimore 1977);W. Speyer, "Religos-Sittliches und Frevelhaftes Verhalten in Seiner Auswirkung auf die Naturgewalten," Jahrbuch ftir Antike und Christentum 22 (1979) 30-39. 25. "Values, Emotions, and Goals in the Iliad," CP 77 (1982) 308-11, and see infra n.26.

This content downloaded from 76.72.144.32 on Sun, 5 Oct 2014 18:07:50 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 10 CLASSICALANTIQUITY Volume 6/No. 1/April 1987

(v6otr]a/yvaClTov,40-41; cf. entyvaTrzel voov, 9.514), the gods do act to limit the tli' of Achilles.26 Hera worries thatApollo is fixing it at too low a level, the same as Hector's (56-63). But Zeus reassures her (65-76). The audience thus prepared, Achilles himself realizes that the gods will not allow him to persist a second time in seeking retaliation on an enemy. Hence, when old Priam comes as a suppliant for his child, as Chryses had to Agamemnon, Achilles grants the prayers that he had rejected from the aged Phoenix and himself declares the difference between gods andmortals (525-26). Homer and his audience, like Achilles, would not have been free to dismiss the role of the gods.27When judging the hero's choices, although theymight feel sympathy for his dilemma and frustration, such feelings would at the same time be subject to grave reservations in the face of fears (hardly accessible to us) inspired by the Loimos and the warning of Phoenix.28

Brigham Young University

26. Pace Adkins, Merit and Responsibility (Chicago 1960) 38, and "Homeric Values and Homeric Society," JHS 91 (1971) 10-11; rightly, A. A. Long, "Morals and Values in Homer," JHS 90 (1970) 127-28, who does not, however, discuss the larger context. Cf. M. N. Nagler, Spontaneity and Tradition (Berkeley and Los Angeles 1974) 173: "Apollo closes his important and beautiful speech with a powerful image [of Achilles disgracing the dumb earth in his fury, 24.54] for the cumulative pressure that has necessitated divine intervention," an image that comments on "the cosmological magnitude of Achilles' actions." The plague seems to be echoed by the "impu rity" of Hector's maltreatment. In the Antigone, a pollution described as a vou(oog results from the corruption of burial practices (1015, 1141). The plague and abuse of Hector are the only two such impure states in the Iliad. Studies of this issue: C. P. Segal, The Theme of theMutilation of the Corpse in the Iliad, Suppl. 17 (Leiden 1971); Redfield (supra n.18) 160-223. The angry intervention of Apollo (24.33-54) on behalf of Hector recalls his role in sending and halting the plague. On the similarities between Books 1 and 24, Reinhardt (supra n.2) 63-68; C. W. Macleod, Homer Iliad Book 24 (Cambridge 1982) 32-35; Whitman (supra n.18) 259-60. 27. Cf. Griffin (supra n.12, 144-78), who criticizes Redfield's general neglect of the gods as I do Adkins' in the case of Achilles. I am not, of course, suggesting that the poem presents this religious factor as a simple key to the problem of Achilles' choice that enables us to condemn him without qualification (cf. supra n.18). 28. I would like to thankMac Frazer, the referees for Classical Antiquity, and especially its editorMark Griffith for their criticisms, and Brigham Young University for a grant supporting this research.

This content downloaded from 76.72.144.32 on Sun, 5 Oct 2014 18:07:50 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions