L'antiquit classique

Homer's Nationalistic Attitude

Marchinus H. A. L. H. Van der Valk

Citer ce document / Cite this document :

Van der Valk Marchinus H. A. L. H. Homer's Nationalistic Attitude. In: L'antiquit classique, Tome 22, fasc. 1, 1953. pp. 5-26;

http://www.persee.fr/doc/antiq_0770-2817_1953_num_22_1_3461

Document gnr le 24/01/2017

 HOMER'S NATIONALISTIC ATTITDE

par M. H. A. L. . van der Valk

Ancient as well as modern critics have been struck by the fact

that Homer represents the Trojans less favourably than the
Greeks (*). When Trojan heroes such as Hector or Aeneas are
mentioned in the Iliad, the Scholia abound with notes pointing to
the inferiority of the Trojans and the superior character of their
Greek opponents (2). Though the observations of the Scholia are
no doubt exaggerated on this point, modern critics, too, have
observed that in some passages the Trojans are represented as
inferior to the Greeks (3). On the other hand, it cannot be denied
that the Trojans are portrayed sympathetically in their domestic

(1) Cp. e. g., Schol. BT 14 : . Cp. also Schol.

ABT 1 and Schol. 29, Schol. BT 78 and BT 1.
(2) Cp. Schol. BT 192, 227, 810, O 502, where Ajax' moderateness
is opposed to Hector's vainglorious attitude. Cp. also Eustath., 800, 45 :
" , ; cp. Eustath.,
970, 8 : ", . Also Aeneas is
unfavourably over against Diomedes in Schol. BT 168, 224, 252,
256, 258. It is also to be noted that Paris, who is already represented
in Homer, is depicted still more unfavourably in the Scholia, cp. my
observations in Lexikon zu Homer, Hesiod und dem lteren Epos (to be published),
s. v. Alexandros. In the main it can be said that the Trojan commanders
are represented in the Scholia in a more unfavourable way than their
in reality is depicted in the Iliad. On the other hand, the Greek
are sometimes depicted more favourably in the Scholia than in the
Iliad, cp. my observations in Lexikon zu Homer, Hesiod und dem lteren Epos,
s. . Agamemnon. Rightly also on the Scholia Wilamowitz, Iliasu. Horn. 39, n. 1.
(3) Cp. e. g., the similes used in the beginning of the description of the
battle ( 1 ff., 433 ff.) ; cp. on this passage already Plut., De aud. Poet., X,
and Philodem., . , VII, 27. For modern scholars
Homer's pro-Greek attitude, cp. Scott, Unity of Homer (1921), p.
206 and W. J. Verdenius, Hector, Inaugrele Orcttie Utrecht (1947), p. 41
(here a complete bibliography), p. also TAPA 1949, 3,
6 M. H. A. L. H. VAN DER VALK

relations. Thus Hector in Z, Priamus in , and are depicted

with sympathy. Also Hector's corpse is solemnly returned to
his parents in and is carefully preserved by the gods ( 184 ff.
and 20 f.). We also see that Hera, though a pro-Greek goddess
is depicted as a rash and jealous wife. We may conclude that as
an artist, Homer portrayed the Trojans (Priamus, Andromache,
Hector) objectively and even favourably, whereas as a Greek he
was influenced by nationalistic sympathies. We must add,
that these sympathies have never conclusively influenced
or weakened Homer's artistic qualities. He is in the first place
an artist. We wish to support our statement by a discussion of
Hector's character which has a dualistic appearance in the Iliad.
On the one hand, he is represented favourably as father, husband
and son (cp. books and X) and as a pious hero (cp. 266 ff.,
33 f.). On the other, less favourable characteristics appear,
when Hector comes into contact with Greek heroes. Thus in the
description of the combat between Ajax and Hector in H, Ajax'
conduct is manly and moderate (*), whereas Hector is depicted
as being rash and on the other hand fearful. In the Trojan is
not only physically but also morally inferior to the Greek (2).
In the same way in JV 809 ff. Ajax and Hector are contrasted when
rearranging and addressing the troops. The Scholia already
observed that Ajax'# speech is more moderate and virile than
Hector's (3). Hector e.g. is immoderate in supposing that he
might be a son of Zeus and equal to Apollo and Athene (N 827),
whereas Ajax, though prophesying Troy's destruction, does so in
moderate words (N 813 ff.) (4). These examples are corroborated
by other passages, in which Hector is represented as a boasting
warrior. Thus in 497-541, when addressing his troops, Hector

(1) Cp. especially 195-199 ; the lines were wrongly athetized by the
Alexandrian critics.
(2) Incorrect on this point, Bowra, Tradition and Design in the Iliad,
p. 96. For the view of the Scholia on Hector, cf. especially Schol. 49.
(3) Cp. Schol. BT 810. Note also that Ajax only addresses Hector as
, whereas Hector uses the less moderate epithets ,
.
(4) Cp. also Hector's admonition to the soldiers in O 347-351. Hector
menaces to kill the soldiers who tarry. Nestor when giving a similar
in 67-71 speaks in more moderate terms, also Agamemnon in 2? 391-3
speaks in more covert terms.
 HOMER S NATIONALISTIC ATTITUDE 7

does not end his speech with an appeal to the gods (*), but with
self-assertive and presumptuous words. In H 75 he speaks about
himself as " , although in the Iliad and the Odyssey it
is not usual for persons to call themselves . He also says twice
* { 538 ff., 825 ff.),
a sentence which is never used by a Greek hero (2). These features
have been used on purpose in order to characterize Hector as
overbold. We also point to the fact that in X Hector has been
expressly represented as fleeing before he accepts battle. These
facts allow us to state that Homer was animated by nationalistic
feelings (3).
This nationalistic attitude Homer's can also be traced in the
composition of the Iliad as a whole and of some of its books (4).
It can be seen especially in books M-P, of which we shall discuss
a few instances (5). In these books Homer is loath to admit the
gradual defeat of the Greeks and is markedly influenced by this
disinclination in the composition of these books. We point to
the second part of M, 11. 290-439, of which passage analytical
critics are suspicious (6). For the Greek wall is attacked by Sar-
pedon and not, as we should have expected, by Hector himself.
Hector does not attack the wall until the end of M. We have to
take into consideration that Hector's victorious assault on the
wall is purposely delayed, because the poet is influenced by
tendencies. By way of comparison we point to book A,
where Hector is purposely removed from the battle-field in order

(1) In 526 he had mentioned the gods incidentally.

(2) Perhaps also 298, where Hector says :
, can be explained in this way ; cp. 761, 467, O 481. It is,
however, possible that is an ethic dative; thus, e. g., Mazon, Iliade, II,
14 . Cp. also W. Leaf, The Iliad (1900), on H 298 : The expression
would be intolerably impious .
(3) Cp. for this unfavourable representation of the Trojans 441-57, where
the impious attitude of the Trojan king Laomedon, who even threatens the
gods is mentioned.
(4) For an example of this nationalistic attitude in 548-52 cp. v. d. Valk,
Textual Criticism of the Odyssey, p. 87-9.
(5) W. Schadewaldt, I liasstudien, Abhandl. Sachs. Akadem., 1938, Nr. 6,
had no opportunity to discuss these books which are very interesting in view
of the analysis of the Iliad.
(6) Cp. WitAMOwnz, Die Jifas Hopxer (1916), 214,
 8 M. H. A. L. H. VAN DER VALK

that Greek victories may take place and the Greek defeat may
be delayed. This is the reason why in M Sarpedon, who is not
so important as Hector is introduced. For in this way the poet
is enabled to describe the Trojan hero as being held in check by
the principal Greek hero, Ajax (1). We may argue as follows.
Of course the Greek wall had to be forced and we expect it to
be forced by Hector himself (cp. M 445). Even if Hector should
be opposed by Ajax at that moment, the economy of the plot
made it imperative that Ajax should be driven back. By
Sarpedon Homer could save the honour of the Greeks.
For now he could first show that the Greek commander, Ajax
and his troops were equal to the assaulting Trojans. Only then
does he narrate Hector's forcing of the wall (2). We also point
to M 108-194. We are expecting that the Trojans after having
divided themselves into five divisions will make a general attack
on the wall. Instead of it our attention is focussed on the left
side of the battle-field, the less important one (3), where a less
important hero, Asius, is repelled by the Greeks. At this moment
Homer cannot represent the Greeks as victorious on the main
part of the battle-field. Therefore, he introduces a less important
Trojan and a less important part of the battle-field in order once
again to mention Greek successes.
This method can be observed especially in book JV, here it is
even a clue to the explanation of the book. We know that the
retreat of the Greeks forms the subject matter of , , , 0.
Homer has, however, managed to construct these books in such
a way that the actual setback of the Greeks is only narrated in
M and O (4), whereas JV and mention Greek victories. The
principal Greek victory takes place in , where Hector is wounded
and eliminated from the battle by Ajax. In Homer has to be
more cautious in relating Greek victories. This appears from the

(1) Cp. M 413 ff. and M 436 : -

.
(2) Also in 497 ff. where the Greek defeat begins, no combat between
Hector and Ajax takes place. The poet evaded it, because the economy of
the plot would have required Ajax to be inferior.
(3) Cp. for this below, p. 9.
(4) For this reason M is one of the shortest books of the Iliad (M has only
471 lines, has 837 lines). Also , which narrates serious defeats of the.
Creeks is a short book (565 lines),

>.
 homer's nationalistic attitude 9

fact that only minor Greek heroes such as Idomeneus are prominent
there, whereas Ajax remains in the background. Analytical critics
thought that repeats an older lay, the aristeia of Idomeneus (),
because they did not pay attention to the curious composition
of this book. For the successes of the Greeks could not be
for the reasons pointed out just now. Just as in M
118 ff., the main part of the battle in takes place '
( 312 ff.). This place is the less important
as we may learn from 375 ff. (2). Here, the main action,
the combat for Patroclus' corpse takes place in the middle of
the battle-field, whereas Antilochus is summoned from the left
side of the battle-field (P 682). In the situation is quite the
reverse. The principal heroes, Hector and Ajax are in the central
part, which is, according to Homer himself (N 312 ff., 679 ff.),
at that moment of minor importance. The poet's reasons are plain.
He cannot in this book give the Greeks a decisive victory ;
he makes them victorious on the less important left side.
If he presented an independent lay, it cannot be explained why
the combats should take place precisely there. If we accept the
unity of the Iliad, an explanation can be given, as we saw just
now. We point to the following examples illustrating Homer's
cautious behaviour in N. In 190 ff. Ajax pushes Hector back
but does not inflict any wound on him (3). Also in 155 ff.
Meriones hits Deiphobus, but does not yet wound him. Only
further on in and in Meriones and Ajax are to wound their
opponents. Likewise in 169 ff. when a Greek and a Trojan
are killed, the success of the Greeks is only revealed here in the
Greeks taking possession of the corpses. In the same way in the
beginning of JV (11. 125-135) the Greeks are still on the defensive,
whereas in the beginning of (11. 364 ff.) they are on the offensive.
A similar typical example of Homer's nationalism was already
referred to above viz. the death of Cebriones in IT 712-781. Since
Hector himself cannot be killed by Patroclus, his charioteer is
killed instead and in this way a kind of victory over Hector is

(1) Gp. WiLAMowiTZ, Was und Homer, p. 217 ff.

(2) For the meaning of left and right in Homer, cp. Joseph Cuillandre,
La droite et la gauche dans les Pomes homriques, Rennes, 1943.
(3) Cp. also Schadewaldt, Iliasst., p. 69 f. His explanation as
, however, is incorrect.
10 M. H. A. L. H. VAN DER VALK

assigned to him. Therefore, in 775 f. it is said of Cebriones

o ' ., a line
which actually does not suit a hero of minor importance, but
which has been inserted in order to signalize Patroclus' victory.
A striking parallel is furnished by 118 ff., where Diomedes has
to retreat and is attacked by Hector. At this moment Diomedes
kills Hector's charioteer, since Hector himself of course cannot
be killed as yet. We also point to the aristeia of Agamemnon,
218 ff. The economy of the plot demands that at last
should be wounded. This appears from the fact that
when Iphidamas attacks him, Agamemnon misses his adversary
at first ( 233). We have to bear in mind, however, that he has
not as yet lost his energy (*). For he is compared with a lion (2)
and kills Iphidamas ; only after this is he wounded by Coon.
We see that, just as was the case with Patroclus, the wounding
of Agamemnon is being delayed.
A similar vein of nationalism can be observed in E. In 29 ff.
Athene proposes to Ares to leave the battle-field and she actually
leaves the field in 133 (3). Thus Homer succeeds in disculpating
the pro-Greek gods and in showing that Ares himself is the cause
of his subsequent misfortunes. After the victorious attack of
Diomedes and his assault on the Trojan walls (4) has been
(E 35-440), Ares comes into the battle. It is necessary that
now the Trojans should be victorious in order that the subsequent
intervention of Athene and the wounding of Ares by Diomedes
can be motivated. However, it is not Hector but Sarpedon who
is the principal hero in this passage (E 627-667), whereas only
in 680-710 Hector is mentioned. The situation is clear. The
Trojans should be victorious. However, the poet is loth to admit
this fact and therefore assigns the principal victory not to Hector
but to a minor figure, Sarpedon.
We can observe similar features in the second part of 0. Already

(1) This is Schadewaldt's view : Iliasst., p. 58 : Den Agamemnon beseelt

nicht mehr der alte Geist .
(2) In the preceding lines, Agamemnon has been thrice compared with
a lion, 113 ff., 129, 173 ff.
(3) Ameis-Hentze, Anhang Was, II, p. 59, wrongly takes exception to
this fact.
(4) Cp. 702 ffv where Patroclus also attacks the walls of Troy.
 homer's nationalistic attitude 11

in 0 379 ff. the Trojans victoriously approach the ships, while

in O 414 ff. Ajax and Hector fight for a ship. However, in O 653 ff.
the Trojans are apparently again approaching the ships, while
Ajax again defends a ship against Hector. It is understandable
that analytical critics such as Wilamowitz have taken exception
to this fact and have thought that O 379 ff. is a doublet of O 674 ff. (x)
The passages must, however, be explained from Homer's
point of view. Just as in M the Trojans under Sarpedon
were at first brought to a standstill and only were victorious at
the end of M, so in O they are at first held in check when
the ships (2). Not until O 592 ff. does a decisive turn take
place (3), just as at the end of M Hector decisively attacks the
wall. For the difference between O 390-591 and O 592-746 we
point to the two speeches delivered by Ajax in O 502-513 (4) and
in O 733-741. In the first speech the situation is not yet critical (5)
and therefore Ajax' speech is ironical. In the second passage
the situation has become considerably worse. This time Ajax
is no longer ironical, but flatters and beseeches his compatriots (6).

(1) Cp. Wilamowitz, I lias..., pp. 238 ff. and pp. 242 ff. ; Ameis-Hentze,
Anhang, III, p. 115. The lines have been defended by Schadewaldt, I
93 . The explanation of O 653 : ' by the ancient
critics (Sch. BT O 653) is a forced one.
(2) Cp. O 413 = M 436 :
. Cp. also the similes in M 433-5 and in O 410-2, which indicate that the
battle remains stationary.
(3) At the end of O the defeat is postponed, because the poet did not wish
to end this book with a defeat of the Greeks.
(4) It is interesting to observe the difference between the exhortations of
Hector and Ajax in O 486-99 and O 502-13 and those of the early elegists
such as Tyrtaeus. Tyrtaeus points to the fame which the valiant soldiers
will receive after death. This topic is not touched upon by the Homeric
heroes. This is understandable because the Homeric view of life after death
is gloomy.
(5) In O 514-91 Homer wishes to give the Greeks some more successess
However, because the situation is already critical for the Greeks only les-
important heroes such as Antilochus and Meges come to the fore. Cp. for
a similar situation our observations on book N.
(6) He calls them in O 733 f. Cp, 189 f., where Odysseus, when
in great danger, addresses his comrades in a similar way, cp. v. d. Valk, Text.
Crit. Odyss., p. 274. Cp. also Eustath., 1050, 24 :
, Schol. BT O 735 wrongly assumes that the second speech is of
the same stamp as the first ( ). Already in the
12 M. H. A. L. H. VAN DER VALK

A similar fact can be observed in 0 668-673, where it is said that

at Hector's decisive attack the goddess Athene lifted the mist
from the eyes of the Greeks and made them see Hector clearly.
It is understandable that the lines were athetized by the
since before this passage there was no question of a mist
and accordingly the lifting of it was unnecessary Q). However
those critics did not take into account Homer's religious and
nationalistic mentality. When the Trojans attacked the ships
for the first time Nestor had prayed to Zeus (0 370 ff.) and the
god had thundered loudly (0 377 f.). Because the Trojans were
held in check this time, Homer could picture Nestor as
praying to Zeus. When, however, the Trojans approach
for the second time, they are bound to be victorious. Therefore,
this time Nestor does not pray to Zeus, since it is impossible,
according to the economy of the plot, that Zeus should hear him
and give a favourable omen. Accordingly, Nestor only addresses
the troops, 0 659-667. However, Homer wishes to show that the
gods have not completely deserted the Greeks. Therefore, instead
of Zeus, the minor goddess Athene gives a sign and thus it appears
that even at this critical moment divine favour does not wholly
desert the Greeks. Accordingly we see that the lines cannot be
removed, if we take into account Homer's religious mentality
and his partiality for the Greeks. A similar fact can be observed
in 0 610-4 which lines were equally athetized by the Alexandrians (2).
The lines state that Zeus honoured Hector at this moment, but
that the latter's death by the hand of Athene and Achilles is near.
The lines occur at a decisive moment, when Hector definitely
approaches the ships and the approach of the Trojans is described
at length in 0 592-614. The passage may be divided into two
parts. In 0 592-602 the Trojans are described and compared to
lions, in 0 603-614, their commander Hector is described and is
compared to Ares. Since Homer is partial to the Greeks, he im-

short speech which he delivers in 0 561-4 (= 529-32) Ajax speaks in a

flattering way (in 0 562 he says ).
(1) Cp. Schol. ABT, 0 668 ; the Scholia and the views of modern scholars
on the passage are given by Bulling, Athetized lines of the Iliad (1944),
p. 149 f.
(2) Cp. Schol. ABT, 0 610, Zenodotus did not even write the lines. The
passage has been defended by Schadewaljt, Iliasstudien, p. 107i
 homer's nationalistic attitude 13

mediately emphasizes that the success of the Trojans will only

be a temporary one. Thus in O 599-602 he says that soon a -
will take place, in O 610-4 he says that Hector
will be killed (*). Accordingly it appears that the lines cannot
be athetized. Moreover, the same motif occurs in O 56-77, where
Zeus at length exposes to Hera the coming events viz. Hector's
attack on the ships, Patroclus' intervention, Hector's death and
even the final destruction of Troy. These lines were equally
athetized by the Alexandrians (2). In reality, if we take into
account their specific point of view, we have to admit that they
showed critical acumen. For it is surprising that Zeus should
explain and excuse his conduct to Hera, who had just now been
severely rebuked (3). In fact, the poet addresses the public in
this passage and emphasizes at the beginning of this book in which
the darkest events will befall the Greeks, that their setback will
be only a temporary one, and that at the end Troy will be
etc. (4).
In this connection we also point to O 113-141, where Ares is
ready to transgress Zeus' interdiction and to attack the Trojans,
he is only prevented from carrying out this design by Athene.
Though at first sight it would seem that the scene is a needless
intermezzo, it completely fits in with the religious mentality of
those times. For to the archaic religious mind defeats are caused
by the gods. If a defeat threatens the Greeks, the audience will
expect the pro-Greek gods to avert the defeat. Thus in , where
the Greeks are defeated, Homer narrates that Athene and Hera
try to intervene on their behalf ( 198 ff., 350 ff.) and are only
prevented by Zeus. It appears here that the pro-Greek gods are
willing to give their support. In O the situation is more serious
and accordingly an intervention of pro-Greek gods is impossible
at this moment. In order to satisfy religious feeling Homer
the scene with Ares in order to show that the intervention

(1) Cp. the parallelism between O 592-602 and O 603-14 and between O 610
and O 593 f.
(2) Cp. Schol. ABT, O 56.
(3) In O 174-183 Zeus does not explain his conduct to Poseidon.
(4) Thus at the beginning of O, when the Greek defeat begins, Homer points
to the future destruction of Troy and in O 592 ff. ; when the Trojans
approach the ships he again emphasizes this fact.
14 M. ti. A. L. . VAN >R VALfc

in behalf of the Greeks is impossible and can on ly be taken into

consideration by a hot-heated god such as Ares. In view of this
we can also understand that M 175-181 were wrongly athetized
by the Alexandrians Q). For the lines state at the moment when
the Greek wall was attacked by the Trojans, that the pro-Greek
gods deplored this fact. Thus Homer expressly disculptes the
pro-Greek gods from inactivity in situations which are critical
for the Greeks. We also point to the composition of , 0. It
was necessary that the Greeks should be decisively defeated.
To this end Hera's deception of Zeus was useful (2). For by it
the Greek successes in were made possible and Zeus' anger against
the Greeks, which resulted in their serious defeat in 0, was made
plausible.
Also in Homer was led by nationalistic motives, a fact which
has sometimes given a dualistic appearance to this book. Thus
Wilamowitz (?) was already struck by the incongruity between
753-761, where the Greeks have to retreat and 735-752, where
the offensive strength of the two Ajaxes is underlined. However,
Homer was led by two conflicting motives. For reasons of
it was desirable that Patroclus' corpse should be rescued
by Achilles and accordingly it was necessary that the Greeks
should retreat (4). However, because Homer is partial to the
Greeks, he expressly stresses at the beginning of the retreat the
strength of the Greek heroes and depicts them in three similes,
722-752. We may compare the way how Ajax in 548-563
when he has to retreat, is also depiected in two similes (6). The
two conflicting motives can be equally observed in 545 f. and

(1) Cp. Schol. ABT, M 175. Aristarchus and Aristophanes athetized the
lines, Zenodotus did not write them. Jachmann, Nachricht. Akadem.
1949, 174 f, rightly emphasizes that the omission of the lines by
does not prove that they were absent from his mss. (Bulling, Athetized
lines of the Iliad, p. 130 f., is wrong).
(2) The scene between Hera and Zeus in possibly goes back to older
poems (thus, e. g., Bielolahwek in A. R.W., 28, 117), at least it mirrors older
representations.
(3) Was und Homer, p. 153 f.
(4) In 160 ff. it is even said that the two Ajaxes could not push back
Hector, whereas ordinarily Hector is no match for Ajax.
(5) In where the situation is crucial, Ajax is compared to the lion. In P,
where the situation is less critical, the two Ajaxes are compared to a less
majestic animal, the boar.
 homer's nationalistic attitude 15

in 593 ff. In 593 ff. Zeus lifts the aegis and makes the Trojans
victorious, in 545 ff. Athene descends from heaven, sent by
Zeus in order to aid the Greeks. The passages seemed to contrast
with each other and therefore 545 (the sending of Athene by
Zeus) was already excised by Zenodotus (). The Alexandrian
critic did not take into account that Homer was led by two con
trasting motives. He had to make the Trojans victorious in
order to make it possible for Achilles to be summoned (P 593
ff.). On the other hand, Homer wishes to show that Zeus is
no longer unfavourable to the Greeks, after Achilles' wrath has
been satisfied. Therefore, Athene is sent by Zeus, 545 ff. (2).
Because the Greeks had to retreat soon (P 593 ff.), no decisive
turn could be given to the battle by Athene's appearance.
she only aids a warrior of minor importance, Menelaus,
553 ff. As to Homer's partiality for the Greeks in we
point to 862-7, where Hector pursues Achilles' chariot and
leaves Patroclus corpse. In this way Patroclus' slayer, Euphor-
bus, can be killed by Menelaus (3). Also Menelaus is brought
purposely to the fore in P. Since he is a warrior of minor
he can retreat without dishonour before Hector after he
has slain Euphorbus (P 106 ff.), a fact which would have been
dishonourable in the case of Ajax. Menelaus has to retreat in
order that Hector can take possession of Achilles' armour. On
purpose Hector does not immediately put on Achilles' armour,
but first retreats before Ajax, 128 ff. In this way Homer can
show his inferiority with respect to the Greek hero (4). Also the
scene of Automedon, 426-542, has the purpose to show that
the dishonour put upon Achilles' chariot by Patroclus' death has
been effaced. This partiality for the Greeks in shows that
545 is genuine, since it emphasizes that the supreme god
is again favourable to the Greeks (5).

(1) Cp. Schol. AT P 545.

(2) In 545 ff. Athene is compared to a rainbow. We may compare
75 ff., where Athene is also sent by Zeus, and is compared to a star, etc.
(3) Euphorbus is in all probability an invention of Homer's. The name
suits a rich Trojan. Cp. the name Phorbas. His mother's name Phrontis
suits the mother of the sagacious Polydamas.
(4) If Hector had put on the armour immediately, it would have been
improper to represent him as fleeing before Ajax.
(5) 356-67, where Zeus teases Hera for having succeeded in recalling

"
f
16 M. H. . L. H. VAN Dfe VALlt

Homer's nationalism also appears in the portrayals of Paris

and Helen in . On purpose Homer has assigned the principal
part in not to Hector, the Trojan commander, but to Paris.
For in this way he is enabled to emphasize Paris' crime and to
show that the Trojans are responsible for the war. Accordingly
Paris' crime is mentioned again and again in this book (x).
he is represented in a very unfavourable way ; for he is
vainglorious, 15-20, a coward, 30 ff., weak and inferior to
Menelaus, 346 ff. and voluptuous, 437 ff. On the other hand,
Helen has been represented as favourably as possible. Whereas
Paris is called the cause of the war, Priamus says of Helen ( 164)
that she is innocent, since the gods are the cause of the calamities.
Paris is hated even by his own countrymen (2), whereas Helen
is admired even by the Trojan elders ( 157 f.). Helen, too, has
a sense of shame (cp. 243 ff.) and wishes to be dead ( 173 f.).
It is significant that such wishes are never uttered by Paris, but
that his own brother and wife wish his death ( 40, 428 f.,
281 f.). Helen is also unwilling to return to Paris and has to
be forced by Aphrodite (3). Helen, the Greek queen, is on purpose
disculpated, whereas the whole responsibility for the war is shifted
on to Paris (4). Homer even hints at the fact that she has not
been persuaded by Paris, but has been kidnapped by him (6).

Achilles to action (cp. also 168) is not at variance with the above-named
notice. For Homer only wishes to emphasize here the fervour of the pro-
Greek goddesses.
(1) Cp. 87: (cp. also 374 and 388), 100 :
' ' , Menelaus says in 366 :
and in 351 : ' . In 28 Paris is
called , in 42: , 50: . The kidnapping of Helen
is mentioned on purpose in 46-51 and at the end of the book, 443-6.
(2) Cp. 320-2, 453 f., H 390.
(3) Aristarchus wrongly athetized this passage, because he thought Helen's
words unbecoming, addressed as they were to a goddess.
(4) This has already been observed by Eustath., 434, 20 ff. Whereas
Helen is represented favourably, her sister Clytaemnestra is represented in
the Odyssey in an unfavourable way. The reason for it is that in the Odyssey
the poet need not take account of nationalistic motives.
(5) Cp. 444 : . This may be the reason why the first intercourse
between Paris and Helen took place in an isle according to 445. If Paris
had kidnapped Helen, the intercourse could only take place after they had
departed in the ships. In the Cgpria Helen is not kidnapped but persuaded
cp. Proclus, Chrest. Allen, 103, 5 : 'Evfl ' and
 OMER*S NATIONALISTIC ATTTUDE 17

Nestor's words in 356 are in keeping with this representation.

For he says that the Greeks wish to take revenge for "
. Also in the remaining part of the
Iliad Paris' crime is emphasized. Thus in when the first battles
begin, one of the Trojans killed by the Greeks, is the son of Harmo-
nides who built the for Paris. In the same way
in A when the principal battle begins, two sons of Antimachus
are killed by Agamemnon. Antimachus is the Trojan who tried
to please Paris and advanced the felonious proposal of killing
the Greek ambassadors, A 122 ff. (?). In post-Homeric literature
the judgement passed by Paris on the three goddesses is thought
to be the cause of the war (2). Homer mentions this judgment
in 28-30, a passage whose genuineness is convincingly established
by Reinhardt (3). It has surprised scholars that this fact has not
been mentioned until the end of the Iliad. The reason for it is
that Homer wished to make Paris' crime against Menelaus the
real cause of the war. For this crime is much more villainous (4)
than the judgment on the goddesses. For this reason the other
motif was thrown into the background (5). Some scholars have
thought that Homer's representation of Paris is on the whole
not unfavourable (6), because the latter wounds and kills a number

accordingly the first intercourse takes place in Sparta, cp. Proclus, Chrest.
Allen, 103, 8.
(1) Agamemnon's three victories in 91-148 are represented according,
to the principle of the descending scale (cp. v. d. Valk, Museum, 1950,
p. 164 f.). The three couples of Trojans offer gradually decreasing resistance.
On the other hand, they are gradually more intimately connected with the
culpable. For the first couple are ordinary Trojans, the second couple (
101 ff.) belong to the guilty family of Priamus, the third couple ( 122 ff.)
are sons of the felonious Antimachus.
(2) Cp. the Cypria, Proclus, Chrest., Allen, 102, 13 ff.
(3) K. Reinhardt, Das Parisurteil, Frankfurt, 1938.
(4) Cp. also that in 355 ff. the Trojans are made responsible for the fact
that Helen is not delivered to the Greeks. Homer wishes to underline their
responsibility, too. Also in 620 ff. Menelaus does not accuse Paris but the
Trojans of the kidnapping of Helen.
(5) It is to be noted that in 28 the judgement passed on the goddesses
by Paris is called an , whereas Helen's kidnapping is called in 100
(viz. the cause of the war). For the text in 100 cp. v. d. Valk, Text. Crit.
Od., p. 129 ; v, d. Mhll, Hypomnema zur Ilias (1952), p. 67, n. 10.
(6) Thus Bowra, Tradition and design in the Iliad, p. 210 ; Severyns,
Homre, III, 84.
18 M. H. A. L. H. VAN DER VALK

of Greek warriors, cp. 82 ff. and passim. In my opinion,

Homer has allotted some victories to Paris for nationalistic reasons.
For Paris is an archer and consequently his victories are no proof
of the inferiority of his Greek adversaries in a pitched battle.
Thus Paris is introduced in passages, where the Greeks have to
be defeated, in order to minimize their defeat in this way. We
point to Paris' counterpart on the Greek side, the archer Teucer.
The latter specially comes to the fore, when the Greeks are
cp. 226 ff., O 442 ff., and when Homer wishes to
some victories to them. He elects an archer, because the
latter's victories are less significant and can accordingly be more
readily admitted. Thus the Greek archer comes to the fore, when
the Greeks are retreating, the Trojan archer is prominent, when
the Trojans are victorious. The nationalistic motif is especially
of importance in , , , which books, as we observed already,
are not dominated by the leading theme of the Iliad, the wrath
of Achilles, but by the motif of Troy's destruction. It is
that analytical critics because of the difference with
the other books of the Iliad, should have ascribed the above-
named books to a different poet, an explanation which is not
necessary, if we take account of Homer's partiality for the Greeks.
For Homer, from nationalistic motives, does not make the theme
of Achilles' wrath effective until , and thus was not forced to
narrate Greek defeats in B-. On the contrary, he was enabled
to mention Greek successes in , , and to stress in these books
the approaching destruction of Troy Q. This motif was prepared
by , , where Paris' defeat and the breaking of the solemn oaths
by the Trojans were narrated, while book forms a connection
with Achilles' wrath in A and accordingly presents a somewhat
dualistic character. In the first part of B, 11. 1-283, the motif of
Achilles' wrath is dominant. This theme is superseded, however,
in the second part of by the motif of the destruction of Troy.
This theme is emphasized in the speech of Odysseus, 300 ff.,
as well as in that of Nestor, 350 ff. This motif is also dominant
in the last speech which is delivered in the assembly, viz. the

(1) For Z, cp. WilaMowitz, Was und Homer, pp. 302 if. ; SchadewaldT,
I Hasst., p. 150 f. Recently has been discussed by G. Jachmann, Symbola
Coloniensia J. Kroll oblata, pp. 1-70.
 Homer's nationalistic attitude id

speech of Agamemnon, 369 ff., and gives a clue to the right

of that speech. Agamemnon says in 375 ff. that
he has quarrelled with Achilles and that this quarrel hampers the
success of the army. It is curious that the haughty commander
at a moment when the troops are ready to fight and the
for the future are bright, should admit his fault (cp. 378 :
' ). This becomes understant^able, if we
take into account the poet's aims. The destruction of Troy,
to which Odysseus and Nestor had pointed, will not take place
in the following books Q) because of Achilles' menis. On the
contrary, defeats of the Greeks will be narrated. Therefore, the
poet makes on purpose Agamemnon emphasize that only Achilles'
menis prevents a final success. As soon as he and Agamemnon
are reconciled, the destruction of Troy is inevitable (cp. 379 f.).
We have also to take into consideration that in A 245 ff. Nestor's
speech, which represented the views of the army was ineffective,
whereas in 336 ff. his speech is of great importance and will
be fulfilled.
After the preparatory indications of , , the above-named
motif comes to the fore especially in , , . For a good
of we should bear in mind that in archaic times special
attention was paid to the gods, human action being intermingled
with and often overruled by divine action. Thus in , we see
not only that the Greeks are victorious but also that the pro-
Trojan gods are defeated by the pro-Greek gods (2). Also in
the Greek victory is emphasized by the fact that not only the
Trojans but also the pro-Trojan gods are defeated. In this
we first of all point to the fact that the Trojans who are
and killed in the beginning of (11. 1-83) are special
of the gods. Thus the son of a priest of Hephaestus, a
of Artemis and a favourite of Athene and last of all a priest
of Scamander (3) are killed by the Greeks. In this way the poet
wishes to show that even the gods do not save their favourites

(1) Cp. already 419 f. where it is stated that Agamemnon's prayer for
the destruction of Troy is at the moment ineffective.
(2) In , the pro-Trojan gods begin the battle. Thus the pro- Greek
gods are disculpated.
(3) The last-named person is the most important in this connection, since
he is a priest. Cp. below for the importance of Adrestus in Z.
 20 M. H. A. L. H. VAN t>R VALK

from the impending disaster. The remaining part of is in

with the beginning, since in it there is narrated that Diomedes
irresistibly defeats the Trojans and their gods. Book has the
special function to indicate that the divine protection of the
Trojans is ineffective.
Book forms a corresponding sequel to it. It is well-known
that is one of the most crucial books of the Iliad from the point
of view of composition. For it is surprising that Hector's
death and Troy's destruction are emphasized, whereas in
already the Greeks are defeated and Hector is victorious.
critics have thought that was an independent lay, whose
main purpose was to give a sympathetic picture of Hector and
Andromache Q). Homer's principal purpose, however, is to show
in this book the inevitability of the destruction of Troy. This
appears already in the beginning of Z, 11. 1-66, in which passage
just as in the beginning of victories of the Greeks occur. Now
the last Trojan who is killed is typical of this passage and of the
trend of Z. For in 37-66 Adrastus, who is caught alive by
Menelaus, is killed by Agamemnon, who says that no one of the
Trojans shall escape the nearing doom. The Trojan's name he
who cannot escape and the fact that he is killed by the commander-
in-chief are significant. We may compare 34-135, where Lycaon
is also caught alive by Achilles and is not spared either. Lycaon,
however, is killed for personal reasons and in order to emphasize
Achilles' anger over Patroclus' death (2). Adrestus is typical of
the Trojans who shall all be killed ruthlessly. Just as in Et the
beginning of (3) is in keeping with the remaining part of it.
For the ineffective supplication of Athene shows that the city-
goddess herself is hostile to the Trojans (4) and thus will not save
the city. In the interview between Hector and Andromache

(1) Thus Wilamowitz, Mas..., p. 308 ; Schadewaldt, Iliasst., p. 155

thinks that is a prelude to Hector's death in X.
(2) Achilles is the typical individualist.
(3) Cp. 548-552, where the gods do not accept the offerings of the Trojans
(4) Unlike in no favourites of the gods are killed in Z. The passages
also differ insomuch as in inhabitants of Troy, but in representatives of
the neighbouring cities are killed. Inhabitants of Percote, Pedasus and Teu-
thrania. Even two Trojans named after a city (Pedasus) and after a river
(Aesepus) are mentioned (Z 21). Aristarchus' reading for
is no doubt a conjecture.
 homer's nationalistic attitude 21

the commander of the enemies himself prophesies the nearing

destruction of the city, 447-9. The words had already been
used by Agamemnon and have been repeated here in order to
show that the Trojan commander himself emphasizes the
of the city. Hector is also bewailed at his departure as if he
were dead (Z 499-502). Thus it appears that both the city and
the commander of the enemies are doomed.
It is understandable that minor inconsistencies could not be
avoided in Z. Thus the gloomy picture of Hector given in does
not fit in with the following books. We also point to 433-9,
where Andromache says that the Greeks have already thrice
attacked the city-wall. The Alexandrians rightly observed that
this statement was not in agreement with the situation as pictured
in and therefore athetized the lines Q). The passage is, however,
typical of Homer's method. Because in he wishes to stress the
critical situation of Troy, he says that the walls have already been
attacked. We may point to our discussion of P, where also
conflicting notices were found. We also point to the
of Diomedes in and Z. In 128 ff. he does not wish
to fight with gods, whereas in he wounds Aphrodite and Ares.
We have to take into consideration that Diomedes is one of
Homer's special favourites. Thus the Greek hero even defeats
the pro-Trojan gods. At the same time, however, the poet wishes
to represent him as the ideal hero who is pious towards the gods (2).
Therefore, he emphasizes this motif in Z, lest the hearer should
think that fighting with gods, etc. was characteristic of Diomedes.
Book forms a transition to the following books. It narrates
the defeat of the Trojan hero, Hector, by Ajax (3), but it also
narrates the building of the Greek wall, 327-343. Books , ,
show the same theme, viz. the destruction of Troy.
Homer's nationalistic attitude can also be observed in the fact

(1) Cp. Schol. A Z 436; an extensive discussion of the passage is to be

found in Bulling, Athetized lines of the Iliad, p. 99 f.
(2) Achilles is differently represented, cp. X 15 ff. At the same time it
becomes apparent that the Iliad would have been far less imposing, if the
moderate Diomedes had been the principal hero. Cf. for Diomedes my
in Mnemos. 1952, 316 ff.
(3) The combat remains ineffective, because Hector fcas to be preserved
for the following bocks,
22 M. H. A. L. H. VAN DER VALK

that an object has different names in the language of gods and of

men (cp. A 404, 813, 291, Y 74) (*). Bowra has rightly observed
that the words wich are used in the language of men, are probably
of pre-Greek origin (2). An exception seems to be presented by
813 f., where a hill is called by men and
by gods. seems to be pre-Greek, can be connected
with . However, no distinction is made here between two
different names but between two different conditions. Gods have
a greater knowledge than men and therefore they know that
originally a heroine was buried there. Men have a limited
they only know the hill by a general name, . In
this connection we also point to 305 and to 61, where only the
divine name of an object (viz. the plant and the rocks -
) is given. According to archaic religious belief those who
know an object by name have power over it (3). The plant moly
is a mysterious plant which is only known to the gods and
has no name in the language of men. In the same way the
Planktai cannot be passed by men (4) and therefore only have
a name in the language of gods.

II

In the preceding chapter we had an opportunity to point to

the fact that, if the situation so requires, Homer does not shrink
from giving a representation of facts which is at variance with
other parts of the Iliad or even with other passages of the same
book (5). This characteristic of the poet should be borne in mind,
if one wishes to give a correct explanation of / and especially
of Phoenix. It is well-known that in connection with Phoenix
the Dual Number of / 182 (6) represents a

(1) Cp. Bowra, Tradition..., pp. 152-5.

(2) Thus is to be connected with pre-Greek words, cp. Chan-
traine, La formation des noms en Grec ancien, p. 248.
(3) Cp., e. g. the Egyptian myth of the sun-god Re who is persuaded by
Isis to enounce nis name. Cp. Pleyte-Rossi, Turiner Pap., 131, 14 ff.
(4) Iason can only pass by the divine aid of Hera.
(5) This characteristic can also be observed in the Odyssey. Cp. v. d. Valk,
Textual Criticism of the Odyssey, pp. 226 ff.
(6) Cp. also / 196 : ; I 197 : . A good
survey of the question of the Duals is given by Miss M. No, Phoinix, Ilias
Ufid Homer, Preisschr. Jablonowski Gesellschaft, 1940, pp. 12 ff.
 homer's nationalistic attitude 23

special difficulty. Since this Dual no doubt referred to Odysseus

and Ajax, critics have concluded that Phoenix was added by
a later poet (1). However, even analytical critics (2) are not
inclined to accept this solution, because by the removal of Phoenix
that part of I which has the greatest artistic merits is eliminated.
Now we should bear in mind that apparently Homer wished to
have Achilles appealed to not only by a representative of the
Greek army, but also by someone who stood nearest to him. It
appears from other parts of the Iliad that Phoenix is a subordinate
of Achilles (cp. 196). Therefore, we would expect him to stay
with Achilles. However, in / Homer makes him stay on purpose
with the Greek commanders. If he had stayed with Achilles the
latter would have had no occasion to address him in / 427 ff.
and thus call forth his speech, while Phoenix himself would have
had no authority to admonish Achilles. Therefore, Homer invents
the expedient of making Phoenix stay with the Greek army. In
this way he can introduce two persons addressing Achilles viz.
Odysseus, who is the leader of the deputation and who speaks
on behalf of the Greek army ; Phoenix, who is intimately connected
with Achilles and who is mindful of Achilles' personal interests
only. In this way it can be explained why in I 179 ff. before the
departure of the deputation, Nestor urges especially Odysseus
to persuade Achilles. In fact, Odysseus in his speech conveys
the wishes of the Greek army, whereas Phoenix only has Achilles'
personal interest in mind. Thus we see that the actual
which speaks on behalf of the army, is represented by Odysseus
and Ajax. Phoenix has to belong to this deputation so that he
can address Achilles as an independent king. By the introduction
of Phoenix, Homer has deepened and variegated the situation.
For the special significance of Phoenix' speech is that he speaks
with the authority and also with the love of a father. We may say
that Phoenix speaks in loco parentis (3). Therefore, Phoenix first
of all narrates his personal adventures, / 434-495, a story which
is in my opinion a personal invention of Homer's. For this story

(1) Thus No, L I., pp. 18 ff.

(2) Cp. Wilamowitz, Die Was und Homer, pp. 64 f. ; Mazon, Introduction
Iliade, pp. 176 ff. ; cp. also Schadewaldt, Iliasstudien (1939), pp. 137 f.
(3) Scholars have thought that Phoenix is reminiscent of Chiron, Achilles'
teacher, cp. No, I, L, p. 24.
24 M. H. A. L. H. VAN DER VALK

enables Homer to represent Phoenix as a hero who has no children

of his own and who, accordingly, can consider Achilles as his child.
In this way Achilles could be addressed by a person who almost
had a father's authority and who, just like a father, was only
thinking of Achilles' interests. Odysseus does not speak to Achilles
with authority. For he comes as a suppliant. He only cautiously
admonishes Achilles to abandon his wrath and reminds him of
his father's words at his departure, / 247 ff. i1). The scene of the
departure from Phthia is a personal invention of Homer's. In this
way Odysseus is enabled to make use of Peleus' authority, since
he does not venture to admonish Achilles directly to abandon
his wrath. Phoenix, on the other hand, admonishes Achilles
directly, because he has the authority of a father. It is also to be
noted that Odysseus only cautiously touches upon the hazardous
subject of Achilles' abandoning his wrath, whereas Phoenix enlarges
precisely upon this topic, I 496-605. It is of special importance
that Achilles' wrath is discussed at length in /, because in the
sequel Achilles himself has to bear the deplorable consequences
of it. Because a member of the Greek embassy like Odysseus has
no authority to bring up this subject, Homer has introduced a
person who is one of Achilles' closest friends. First of all Phoenix'
points to the gods, / 496-514, who in archaic times always occupy
the first place. Then he reminds Achilles of the Greek army, /
515-523, a topic which had already been touched upon by Odysseus
and which is therefore dismissed briefly. Finally he dwells at
length upon Achilles' personal interests, / 524-605 and corroborates
his arguments by the story of Meleager. In this way Phoenix'
speech has the function of showing that the problem of the wrath
is not only of vital interest for the Greeks but also most intimately
concerns Achilles himself. Homer has shown a deep psychological
insight, since he has distributed the topic of the wrath over two
persons (Odysseus and Phoenix). It would be a great disadvantage,
if one assigned / to different poets (2).

(1) We also point to the fact that Odysseus purposely does not repeat
Agamemnon's final words, / 158-60 : .
(the Alexandrians wrongly replaced by the
weaker ). Instead, Odysseus in his peroration makes a personal
appeal to Achilles, / 300-6. Phoenix, however, says (/ 496) :
.
(2) We remind the reader of the fact that the Dual is used in / 182, etc.,
 homer's nationalistic attitude 25

The same psychological insight which we observed in I, can

be seen in the interview between Achilles and Priamus in . In
this scene Homer had to show the king of the enemies prostrated
as a suppliant before Achilles, a sight which ought to be gratifying
to a Greek audience. At the same time he was anxious not to
diminish Priamus' dignity by presenting him in this attitude.
In this he succeeded by placing Priamus and Achilles on the same
level, since after Priamus' first speech, 486-506, both Achilles
and Priamus mourn over their fate, 507-512. Accordingly, the
situation is less humiliating for Priamus (1). We also point to
the two invitations Achilles extends to the Trojan king, 518 ff.,
and 599 ff. The first invitation is declined by Priamus, the
latter is accepted. Now both speeches delivered by Achilles are
tuned to the occasion. For in the first speech Achilles mainly
thinks of his own situation. The image of the two jars, 527 ff.,
exemplifying that human existence is a mixture of good and bad,
fits in with Achilles' and not with Priamus' fate. This time the
admonitions are superficial (2). In his second speech Achilles
transposes himself into Priamus' position. For the example of
Niobe (3) entirely suits Priamus' fate.
We further point to Andromache's laments in X 477-514 and
in 725-745 which reveal Homer's psychological insight. The
scene in X is the most pathetic one, since Hector has just been
killed. At this moment Andromache especially comes to the
fore, whereas the laments of Hector's father and mother are only
short, X 416-436. Homer has purposely placed the principal
lament of Priamus and Hecuba at the beginning of book X, 11. 38-
89 (4). In this way, at the moment of Hector's death, he can

in view of the fact that Odysseus and Ajax actually represent the interests
of the Greek army.
(1) We may compare the beginning of . The poet purposely represents
Odysseus as being attacked by Eumaeus' dogs, when approaching the latter's
barrack. In this way the humiliating scene of Odysseus approaching
as a suppliant can be avoided.
(2) Achilles can only apply the example to Priamus by reasoning that
the latter had formerly been a rich king ( 543 if.).
(3) A fine explanation of Niobe in is given by J. Th. Kakridis, Homeric
Researches (Lund, 1949), Chapt. IV.
(4) We observe that in X 416-28 Priam delivers a short second speech.
It is interesting to compare the two speeches. In his first speech, X 38-76?
26 M. H. A. L. H. VAN DER VALK

focus the main attention on Hector's nearest relation, his wife.

As to Andromache's lament, it seems that her speech is more
passionate in X than in . For in she speaks in a more official
way as one of the chief-mourners at Hector's hearse (1). While
in X she only mentions herself, their son and Hector, in she
does not omit to mention Hector's parents, 741, and his
740. It is also understandable that in the last book of
the Iliad, she especially mentions Troy's impending destruction,
a theme which is absent from X. The fact that in X 508-514
she mentions her intention to burn Hector's clothes is in keeping
with the character of the lament. For in the pathetical lament
of X Homer wishes to emphasize that Hector remains unburied.
Thus we can say that in X the relation between Hector and
is the principal theme, in the impending destruction
of Troy.

Rumpt (Pays-Bas).

Priam had mainly spoken from the egotistic point of view, a feature common
in archaic times (cp. ,e. g., v. d. Valk, Text. Critic. Odyss., 22 ab). He also
laments his other sons and especially fears lest by Hector's death Troy will
be captured and he himself slain. It is significant that Priam's speech ends
here with a poignant description of his own fate (11. 66-76). In X 416 ff.,
however, after Hector's death, Priam only laments his son and does not think
of the consequences for himself and his family.
(1) We must not forget that in Hector is lamented by Andromache,
Hecuba and Helen, whereas in X there is room only for Andromache's
lament. It is interesting to note that neither in X nor in does Andromache
depict her own fate after the capture of Troy. This has been done by Hector
in 450 ff. There, the passage had been given in order to stress in this book
the impending doom of the Trojans. (For a reference to in X cp. X 477-81).