Untitled - Get a Free Blog

Book Nine
yociav (i6x //., 12X Od.) so as to accommodate the verb STrnTOti (i(3r|0-av
at 12.16).
430-605 Discourse ofPhoinix:'Akhilleus must be advised by his old friend and nurse.
To reject suppliants is dangerous arrogance and probably counterproductive, as the story
of Meleagros shows 3
(The commentary on 430-605 assumes that the passage is integral to book
9. For the opposite view, which rests on partly on the duals at 1826°. and
partly on the doctrines of 499-501 and 508-12, reinforced as usual with
allegations of un-Homeric language and diction, see Page, HHI 297-304
and the literature there cited, and for the language Shipp, Studies 269-
The conclusion of Akhilleus' discourse brings the plot of the Iliad to an
impasse. The narrative goal set up by book 1 (1.408-12) has been reached:
Agamemnon has acknowledged his onrrj, and Akhilleus has refused to listen.
His speech is described (by the poet) as Kporrspos 'uncompromising', or
'brooking no contradiction', like Agamemnon's words to Khruses or to
Akhilleus through Talthubios (1.25, 1.326), or Zeus's assertion of his superiority
(8.29). Akhilleus will do nothing; there is nothing more the Achaeans
can do. The ambassadors are silenced. Now that Nestor's plan has failed the
only proposals the poet has left on the table are those of Agamemnon (to
flee, 21-8) and Diomedes (to fight on alone, 45-9). It is therefore necessary
at least to hint at a new narrative goal. This, for the plot of the Iliad, is the
function of Phoinix' contribution to the debate. For Akhilleus had left one
point unanswered, the appeal to his pity (3016°.), overshadowed as it was
by his own self-pity. Phoinix takes this up, as will Patroklos at 16.21-35. In
fact he discharges the role in the drama of this book which would be more
naturally (but less dramatically and poetically, see 22on.) assigned to
Akhilleus' friend. There are also parallels with Nestor's address to Patroklos
at 11.656-803, on which see J. A. Rosner, Phoenix 30 (1976) 314-27, but it
is likely that these arise from the fact that both discourses are pleas for
intervention. Phoinix' speech is exceedingly long, a fact that indicates the
urgency of the situation as perceived by the speaker, cf. 11.656-803^ His
speech falls into three parts: his story (434-95), the allegory of the Litai
(496-523), and the cautionary tale of Meleagros (524-605). The point of
the first section is to establish Phoinix' credentials, for he is about to give
Akhilleus, a superior figure, some moral advice, cf. Nestor's preliminary
observations at 1.2546°. That done, Phoinix proceeds by insinuation to
reproof and warning. His argument has a subtlety that would have been
worthy of Odysseus but which would have sounded hypocritical on his lips.
Until this night Akhilleus' obduracy had been completely justified, but now
"9