¹ Homer, Iliad: Book XXIV, ed. Macleod, C. W. (Cambridge, 1982), 23.Google Scholar

² Macleod perhaps means that Achilleus changes intellectually but not morally. But do not the two spheres overlap? They do at least for Aristotle; cf. my article, ‘The Meaning of ήθο’, Hermes 113 (1985), 285.Google Scholar

³ See Redfield, J. M., Nature and Culture in the Iliad(Chicago, 1975), 218–219Google Scholar. Howald, E., Der Dichler der Ilias(Erlenbach-Ziirich, 1946), 96 also denies change in Achilleus.Google Scholar

⁴ Schadewaldt, W., Iliasstudien(Leipzig, 1938), 83Google Scholar, asserted that Phoinix's speech in form is much like Nestor's at 11.656–803. Lohmann, D., Die Komposition der Reden in der Ilias(Berlin, 1970), 263–271, following Schadewaldt, argues that Phoinix's speech mirrors Nestor's in great detail. But some of his parallels are quite dubious: for example, he holds that 11.657–64, which contains a catalogue of wounded soldiers, corresponds to the parable of the Prayers and that the basis of the correspondence is that both passages are unnecessary digressions (p. 267)CrossRefGoogle Scholar. For parallels to Phoinix's speech, see also Rosner, J. A., ‘The Speech of Phoenix: Iliad 9.434–605’, Phoenix 30 (1976), 314–327CrossRefGoogle Scholar. All of the above scholars believe that the parallels which they point out corroborate the much-debated authenticity of Phoinix's speech. For arguments against its authenticity, see Page, D. L., History and the Homeric Iliad(Berkeley, 1972), 297–315Google Scholar and Kirk, G. S., The Songs of Homer(Cambridge, 1972), 217–218.Google Scholar

⁵ Fenik, Cf. B., Typical Battle Scenes in the Iliad(Wiesbaden, 1968), 45Google Scholar. Let me make clear that what is important in my eyes is the significance of the parallels which I will discuss, not their origin. Here and elsewhere I assert that these parallels are the product of Homer's consciousintention because I do not see how otherwise they can be significant in the way I suggest. There may, however, be some who, while allowing the significance which I attach to them, would hold that these parallels are rather largely or entirely the product of thematic and formulaic composition, i.e. Homer's tendency to repeat, rather than to vary, the structures of speeches, descriptions, etc. Such readers I will consider to be in complete agreement with me on all that is important in this essay.

⁶ The only other passage in Homer which might qualify as a parable is Penelope's description of the gates of horn and ivory (Od.19.560–7), but it seems to me to lack the moral didacticism of a true parable.

⁷ Cf. Howald, op. cit. (n. 3), 19.

⁸ On the theme of withdrawal and return in the Iliad,see Nagler, M. N., Spontaneity and Tradition(Berkeley, 1974), 131–166, esp. 139.Google Scholar

⁹ Finlay, R., ‘Patroklos, Achilleus, and Peleus: Fathers and Sons in the Iliad’, CW 73(1980), 267–73, argues that Patroclos is also something of a father figure. His case would be stronger if it were true, as he says, that ‘Phoinix and Patroklos were sent by Peleus to accompany Achilleus to war’ (p. 270). Actually it was Menoitios, Patroclos' father, who sent Patroclos to accompany Achilleus to Troy and who appointed him as an adviser to Achilleus (cf. Il. 11.769–89) though, admittedly, he did so in the house and presence of Peleus and therefore presumably with his approval. In any case, Patroclos is hardly a father figure in the same sense as are Chryses, Phoinix and Priam.Google Scholar

¹⁰ Thus, all three main parts of Phoinix's speech recur in identical order in Book 24. The first speeches of Priam and Achilleus to each other there form together a tripartite unit roughly parallel in structure to Phoinix's speech: an autobiographical account emphasizing one's role as a father, a parable and a paradeigma.

¹¹ Schein, Cf. S., The Mortal Hero(Berkeley, 1984), 111. Rosner, op. cit. (n. 4), 318. even supposes that Phoinix makes an attempt at ‘recasting Agamemnon as Peleus’.Google Scholar

¹² Schein, op. cit. (n. II), 111.

¹³ Braswell, Cf. B. K., ‘Mythological Innovation in the Iliad’, CQ 65 (1971), 16–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar and Lang, M. L., ‘Reason and Purpose in Homeric Prayers’, CW 68 (1975), 309–314.Google Scholar

¹⁴ Ameis, Cf. K. F. and Hentze, C., Homers Ilias(Leipzig, 1930), ad9.496: ‘Auf Grund der Schilderung des innigen persönlichen Verhaltnisses zwischen beiden folgt nun die Bitte, den Zorn aufzugeben’.Google Scholar

¹⁵ Arieti, J. A., ‘Achilles′ Alienation in Iliad 9’, CJ 82 (1986). 16, believes that Achilleus wants Phoinix to stay with him,‘ for Phoenix… will, by accompanying him, sanction Achilles′ internal and personal alienation and its rejection of human values… Yet he recognizes that Phoenix's approval must be voluntary to have any meaning.’ Achilleus may be thinking along these lines, but one should remember that in Phoinix's opinion he has no choice but to stay with Achilleus. His staying with him therefore is not ‘voluntary’ and hence implies no approval of Achilleus′ actions.Google Scholar

¹⁶ The phrase, admittedly, is a rather common one, occurring eight times elsewhere in the Iliad.

¹⁷ Lohmann, op. cit. (n. 4), 248, argues that Phoinix plays the role of teacher to Achilleus only while they are at Troy and that he had never held that position before. I do not accept his arguments. The logistics of how Phoinix could be both a teacher of Achilleus and a ruler of the Dolopes on the outskirts of Phthia (9.483–4) did not trouble Homer and should not trouble us.

¹⁸ Jaeger, W., Paideia: the Ideals of Greek Culture,1 trans. G. Highet (New York, 1965), 26.Google Scholar

¹⁹ Lohmann, op. cit. (n. 4), 252, asserts that Phoinix is cast primarily in the role of a father rather than an educator; Valgiglio, E., Achille eroe implacabile(Torino, 1956), 21Google Scholar, adopts virtually the same position. Jaeger, op. cit. (n. 18), 25–9, and Reinhardt, K., Die Ilias und ihr Dichler(Göttingen, 1961), 221, emphasize Phoinix's role as an educator.Google Scholar

²⁰ Parry, A., ‘The Language of Achilles’, TAPA 87 (1956). 1–7.Google Scholar

²¹ Claus, D. B., ‘Aidos in the Language of Achilles’, TAPA 105 (1975), 23–24Google Scholar. For further criticisms of Parry's thesis, see Reeve, M. D., ‘The Language of Achilles’, CQ 23 (1973), 193–195CrossRefGoogle Scholar and Friedrich, P. and Redfield, J. M., ‘Speech as a Personality Symbol: The Case of Achilles’, Language 54 (1978), 263–268CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Griffin, J., Homer on Life and Death(Oxford, 1980), 74–76Google Scholar, agrees with Claus; Schein, op. cit. (n. 11), 104–10, largely agrees with Nimis, Parry. S., ‘The Language of Achilles: Construction vs. Representation’, CW 79 (1986), 217–225Google Scholar, provides an excellent synthesis of the views of both Parry and Claus. He argues that one should view′ Achilles′ speeches and actions as attempts to constructa version of the heroic code rather than as a series of unsuccessful attempts to representan idealized version he knows all along′ (p. 219; his emphasis). J. A. Arieti, op. cit. (n. 15), 2 n. 4, agrees with Parry that Achilleus is trying to create a new concept of honour, but disagrees with him to the extent that he holds that Achilleus successfully‘stretches the available diction to express his new feelings’.

²² Voegelin, E., Order and History, 2(Baton Rouge, 1956), 86.Google Scholar

²³ Cf. Reinhardt, op. cit. (n. 19), 276, and Schein, op. cit. (n. 11), 94 n. 37.

²⁴ Achilleus′ great deeds include his returning Hector's body. The fact that the gods order a man to do something does not lessen his own responsibility and hence culpability or credit for doing what they ask. Schadewaldt, Cf. W., Von Homers Welt und Werk(Stuttgart, 1944), 348Google Scholar: ‘Die Tat gehort deswegen nicht weniger dem Menschen. nur eben nicht ihm allein’. Achilleus therefore deserves full credit for returning Hector's body despite that fact that he does so only upon orders from the gods. Howald, op. cit. (n. 3), 96, and Redfield, Nature and Culture,213–214, are wrong to imply the opposite. Both make much of the fact that Achilleus obeys the gods′ orders immediately and seemingly without mental anguish or conflict. The latter fact seems to me rather to indicate that when the gods′ orders come, Achilleus is already psychologically ready to return Hector's body.Google Scholar

²⁵ Though Lohmann accepts the authenticity of the parable of the Prayers because he finds a parallel to it in one of Nestor's speeches (a dubious parallel, see above, n. 4), he rejects the authenticity of the parable of the Jars of Zeus because he finds no parallel to it in the speech of Priam at 24.486–506 (p. 123). He holds that this speech and that of Achilleus which follows it have an identical ring-compositional structure, which the lines containing the parable of the Jars of Zeus interrupt. He also argues that the meaning of this parable is inappropriate to its context (p. 123 n. 48) because it makes the point that no man is completely happy, whereas Achilleus, in order to refute Priam's assertion that he is (24.493), should rather want to argue that no man is completely unhappy. I think that the parable of the Jars of Zeus appropriately makes the point that great suffering is universal and unavoidable. That is the consolation which Achilleus offers to Priam, and to himself. I also think that ring-compositional parallels are no basis for including or excluding anything from the Homeric poems. For a critique of Lohmann's methods, see J. B. Hainsworth's review of his book, JHS92 (1972), 187–188.Google Scholar

²⁶ I have taken this phrase from Havelock's, E. A.Preface to Plato(Oxford, 1963), 120. He uses it there to describe Jaeger's views as presented in chapters 2 and 3 of Paideia(cited above).Google Scholar

²⁷ Leaf, W., The Iliad(London, 1900–1902)Google Scholar, adloc. Monro, Cf. D. B., Iliad(Oxford, 1884). ad he.:‘In this instance the personification is drawn out with more detail than usual, and in a style that suggests allegorizingthat is to say, a process in which the poet was fully conscious of the difference between the thingprayer and the personsthat he was imagining. Whether such a mental process as this is one which can be attributed to a poet of the Homeric age is a difficult historical question’ (his emphasis). Reinhardt, op. cit. (n. 19), 222, asserts that the parable of the Prayers is better termed a personification than an allegory.Google Scholar

²⁸ Modern scholars are themselves inconsistent in their usage of these terms in regard to the stories in question. Cf. preceding note. Curiously, Lohmann refers to both the parable of thePrayers and that of the Jars of Zeus as allegories, but argues that the latter is an interpolation because he can find no parallel to it (see above, n. 25).

²⁹ Willcock, M. M., ‘Mythological Paradeigma in the Iliad’, CQ 58 (1964), 141–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

³⁰ There is no general statement by Willcock to this effect, but his particular statements about each of the other six examples lead to this conclusion.

³¹ Willcock, op. cit. (n. 29), 145.

³² The story of Hephaistos′ fall is a borderline case, but it seems to me that the basic form and meaning of the story do not change from one version to the other. What changes is mainly just the personages involved.

³³ Willcock, op. cit. (n. 29), 142. The words in brackets are my own, not Willcock's. They need to be added to this definition if the story of Meleager is to fit it, as Willcock clearly intended that it should. When I refer below to Willcock's definition, I mean his definition as slightly modified by myself here.

³⁴ and Teleology in the Poetics′, TAP A114 (1984), 159–176, esp. 172–173.Google Scholar

³⁵ ‘Parallels between The Gilgamesh Epicand Plato's Symposium’, Journal of Near-Eastern Studies42 (1983), 133–41.

³⁶ Ibid 140.

³⁷ On the change in Achilleus′ behaviour after Patroclos′ death, see Griffin, op. cit. (n. 21), 38 Redfield, Nature and Culture,218.

³⁸ Redfield, Nature and Culture, 218.Google Scholar

³⁹ Ibid 218–19.

⁴⁰ The idea of two Achilleus in the Iliaddoes not lack precedent. Bethe, E., Homer(Leipzig, 1914), i.74, also found two, one ‘der Sanguiniker’ and the other ‘der Melancholiker’, each the creation of a different poet.Google Scholar

⁴¹ Redfield, Cf., Nature and Culture,214: ‘Priam must be introduced into the semihuman, god-inhabited world where Achilles is at home’.Google Scholar

⁴² Redfield's express purpose is to provide an Aristotelian interpretation of the Iliad.

⁴³ It might be argued that life is intrinsically pleasurable, and that the mere pleasure of living makes life seem to most people significant and purposive.