Chapter 3. A Conflict between Odysseus and Achilles in the Iliad

3§1. As we have already seen, some experts argue that the quarrel of Achilles and Odysseus in Odyssey viii is a pastiche actually based on the opening of our Iliad, where Achilles and Agamemnon have their memorable quarrel. [1] But in this line of reasoning there is a flaw that we have yet to single out: it presupposes that one text (the Odyssey) is here referring to another text (the Iliad). The same sort of flaw afflicts the argument of other experts who seek to show that the Odyssean passage in question refers to some lost passage in the Homeric Cycle (specifically, the Cypria). [2] Even if we were to accept for the moment the dubious notion that parts of the Homeric Cycle are drawn from some text that predates our Iliad and Odyssey, the fundamental objection remains the same: when we are dealing with the traditional poetry of the Homeric (and Hesiodic) compositions, it is not justifiable to claim that a passage in any text can refer to another passage in another text. Such a restriction of approaches in Homeric (and Hesiodic) criticism is one of the most important lessons to be learned from the findings of Milman Parry and Albert Lord on the nature of traditional “oral” poetry. [3] {42|43}

3§2. I will confine myself, then, to examining whether a poem that is composed in a given tradition may refer to other traditions of composition. Thus, for example, our Odyssey may theoretically refer to traditional themes that are central to the stories of the Cypria—or even to the stories of the Iliad, for that matter. But even in that case, such traditional themes would have varied from composition to composition. There may theoretically be as many variations on a theme as there are compositions. Any theme is but a multiform, and not one of the multiforms may be considered a functional “Ur-form.” Only by hindsight can we consider the themes of our Iliad to be the best of possible themes.

3§3. In the specific case of Odyssey viii 72–82, we do indeed see what amounts to an Iliadic overture in the thematic combination of Achilles, Agamemnon, grief for Trojans and Achaeans, involvement of Apollo, and the Will of Zeus. Nevertheless, we may not infer that these themes were based specifically on the opening of our Iliad. [4] There are traditional elements in the epic opening reported by Odyssey viii 72–82 that go beyond the scope of the opening in Iliad I. These elements may still be considered “Iliadic” only in the sense that clear traces of them are indeed to be found in our Iliad. But they are not within the actual opening of Iliad I; instead, they surface here and there in the rest of the composition.

3§4. For a striking illustration, I begin with the reference in Odyssey viii 78 to the quarreling Achilles and Odysseus as ‘the best of the Achaeans’ (áristoi Akhaiôn), where the context of their quarrel is a daís ‘feast’ (Odyssey viii 76). Let us compare a scene in Iliad VIII, where Agamemnon seeks to revive the fighting spirit of the demoralized Achaeans. He stands on the ship of Odysseus (Iliad VIII 222), which is exactly halfway between the ships of Ajax on one extreme and {43|44} Achilles on the other (Iliad VIII 223–226), [5] and begins his speech with these words: In verses 231–232, we note that the setting for this scene of boasting is equivalent to a daís, which in viii 76 had served as the setting for the scene of quarreling between Odysseus and Achilles. In the present passage, the key words for understanding its affinity with viii 72–82 are at VIII 229: áristoi ‘best’, in collocation with the plural noun eukhōlaí ‘boasts’, derived from the verb eúkhomai ‘boast’. Agamemnon's own claim to be “best of the Achaeans” is in fact formulated with this same verb: From the intensive studies of Leonard Muellner on the behavior of eúkhomai ‘boast’ and its substitute phēmí ‘say’ in Homeric diction, we know that these words are used by or of a hero to express his superiority in a given area of heroic endeavor. [8] Take, for example, Iliad V 171–173, where we hear that no one in Lycia can boast (eúkhetai: 173) to be better than Pandaros in archery (171), and that the hero thus gets kléos in this area of endeavor (172). [9] We may compare kléos at Odyssey viii 74, correlated with neîkos ‘quarrel’ between the áristoi Akhaiôn ‘best of the Achaeans’, Odysseus and Achilles himself (Odyssey viii 78). Granted, the scene of eukhōlaí ‘boasts’ at Lemnos is presented at VIII 228–235 not as a quarrel among various Achaeans with various areas of heroic superiority but rather as a collective affirmation of the Achaeans' superiority over the Trojans. Such a perspective of collectivity stays in effect, however, only so long as the narrative remains general by not quoting any individual hero. Once the Homeric narrative quotes a hero as he actually eúkhetai ‘boasts’, the factor of comparison and even rivalry with other heroes becomes overt. [10] Ironically, the boasts of all the other Achaeans during their onetime feast at Lemnos now sound empty because the hero who is “best” when all heroic endeavors are taken into account is not at hand to stop the overwhelming might of Hektor.

3§5. Among the areas of heroic endeavor that serve as conventional points of comparison when a hero boasts, we actually find bíē ‘might’ (e.g., Iliad XV 165) and the equivalent of mêtis ‘artifice, stratagem’ (e.g., Iliad XVII 171). [11] In this connection, we may note again that the reference in Odyssey viii 78 to the quarreling Achilles and Odysseus as the “best of the Achaeans” seems to be based on an epic tradition that contrasted the heroic worth of Odysseus with that of Achilles in terms of a contrast between mêtis and bíē. The contrast apparently took the form of a quarrel between the two heroes over whether Troy would be taken by might or by artifice. The scholia to Odyssey {45|46} viii 75 and 77 point to such an epic tradition, where Achilles is advocating might and Odysseus, artifice, as the means that will prove successful in destroying Troy. [12] We have also considered the testimony of the scholia (A) to Iliad IX 347, from which we learn that Aristarchus apparently thought this particular Iliadic passage (Iliad IX 346–352) to be an allusion to precisely the same tradition that we are now considering, namely, the rivalry of Achilles and Odysseus as indicated in Odyssey viii 72–82. [13] In Iliad IX 346–352, we find Achilles in the act of rejecting the request of Odysseus that he rescue the hard-pressed Achaeans: In effect, the words of Achilles defiantly and ironically challenge Odysseus, Agamemnon, “and the other kings” (Iliad IX 346) to rely on artifice at the very moment when they are desperately in need of his might.{46|47}

3§6. There are still further allusions to the theme of a dispute over might against artifice. Our Iliad preserves, in evocative contexts, the very words which must have signaled the rival means to a common end. The word bíē ‘might’, on the one hand, is a conventional Iliadic measure of Achilles' superiority, as in the following juxtaposition: The word mêtis ‘artifice, stratagem’, on the other hand, characterizes Odysseus in particular: in the Iliad and the Odyssey, only he is described with the epithets polúmētis ‘of many artifices’ and poikiló-mêtis ‘of manifold artifices’. He is frequently called Díï̀ mêtin atálantos ‘equal to Zeus in artifice’. The polarity of bíē ‘might’ and mêtis ‘artifice’ is clearly visible in old Nestor's advice to his son about the art of chariot racing: In such a traditional celebration of mêtis ‘artifice’ at the expense of bíē ‘might’, we see that superiority is actually being determined in terms of an opposition between these qualities.

3§7. With these passages serving as background, we now move back to the evidence of IX 346–352, [15] where Achilles is defiantly challenging Odysseus and the other Achaean chieftains to survive the Trojan onslaught without the benefit of his own might. As his speech draws to a close, the final words of Achilles to Odysseus can be understood as conveying an underlying awareness and even bitterness. Let the {47|48} Achaeans, Achilles tells Odysseus, devise “a better mêtis” to ward off the fire of the Trojans and thus save the Greek ships: The reference is to Nestor's original stratagem to build the Achaean Wall, and this stratagem actually is designated in that context as mêtis (Iliad VII 324). Ironically, Nestor's later stratagem, to send the Embassy to Achilles, is also designated in the narrative as mêtis (Iliad IX 93). Ironically too, Odysseus is the one who is pleading for what the Achaeans most sorely need at this point, the might of Achilles. For the moment, the mêtis ‘artifice’ of Odysseus (and Nestor) is at a loss, and the bíē ‘might’ of Achilles is implicitly vindicated.

3§8. Of course, the primary and central grievance of Achilles in our Iliad is against Agamemnon; any grievance of his against Odysseus that may have surfaced in Book IX must be secondary and marginal, as we can see clearly in IX 346–352. [17] Furthermore, even when we accept as traditional the theme of a quarrel between Achilles and Odysseus, we must keep in mind that the quarrel between Achilles and Agamemnon in Iliad I is in all likelihood an equally traditional theme. [18] It would be useless to argue that one theme or the other was older. All we can say is that the quarrel of Achilles and Odysseus is an alternative traditional theme that would have been suitable for testing the heroic worth of Achilles in a different dimension. Whereas the conflict of Achilles and Agamemnon contrasts martial with social superiority, [19] the conflict between Achilles and Odysseus is on a {48|49} different axis of opposition: bíē ‘might’ against mêtis ‘artifice’. I submit that the epic theme of such a conflict is maintained as an undertone in Iliad IX, by means of including Odysseus in the Embassy to Achilles.

3§9. In fact, this theme may help account for a notorious problem involving the Embassy Scene of Iliad IX. The problem is, simply put, that this passage features some dual constructions in places where we might have expected the plural. [20] Instead of plunging into the vast bibliography on the subject, [21] I propose simply to examine the passage anew, attempting to correlate how the dual constructions are deployed in the story with how the story itself applies to the tradition of a conflict between Odysseus and Achilles. I should note at the outset, however, that the evidence for this conflict has already been established in the preceding discussion and stands by itself. It does not depend on the discussion that follows. As for what I am about to argue, there is considerable room for disagreement. But I hope to show, at the very least, that the Embassy Scene as we have it is not a clumsy patchwork of mutually irreconcilable texts but rather an artistic orchestration of variant narrative traditions.

3§10. We take up the story at a point where King Agamemnon and the Achaeans finally despair of resisting the onslaught of Hektor and the Trojans without the aid of Achilles, who has withdrawn from the fighting. At a meeting of the elders, Nestor suggests that an embassy be sent to Achilles, bringing to him an offer of settlement from Agamemnon (Iliad IX 93–113). Agamemnon agrees and makes a lavish offer (Iliad IX 114–161), whereupon Nestor suggests that there be three emissaries: Phoinix, Ajax, and Odysseus (Iliad IX 162–172). Nestor's original plan calls for Phoinix to go first, followed by Ajax and Odysseus, followed by the heralds Odios and Eurybates: {49|50} The crucial expression is Φοῖνιξ ... ἡγησάσθω at verse 168: ‘let Phoinix ... take the lead’. As the emissaries proceed on their way to Achilles, the one who actually takes the lead is not Phoinix but Odysseus: The word ἡγεῖτο here at IX 192 is in direct contrast with the corresponding ἡγησάσθω of IX 168 (‘he led the way’ compared to ‘let him lead the way’ respectively). In contradiction of the original plan, Odysseus is now leading the way instead of Phoinix.

3§11. As we consider the dual construction τὼ δὲ βάτην προτέρω ‘and the two were moving along’ here in the second passage (Iliad IX 192), let us not immediately assume that we are dealing with the emergence of an earlier version involving two emissaries as opposed to the first passage (Iliad IX 167–170), which is supposed to present a later version involving three emissaries. Instead, at least for the moment, let us take the thematic progression from the first passage to the second passage as a given of the narrative at hand. In that case, the dual in the second passage must refer to Ajax and Phoinix, not to Ajax and Odysseus. The plan of the first passage had called for Ajax and Odysseus to be led by Phoinix. Instead, we now see Ajax and Phoinix being led by Odysseus. (See now Foreword §29n40).

3§12. Rather than assume that Phoinix, in Denys Page's words, “mislaid himself” [22] in the forgetful mind of the composer, let us suppose that Odysseus simply asserted himself in the actual narrative of the composition. Old Nestor, as the originator of the plan to send an embassy, had after all made a point of stressing the role of Odysseus when the emissaries were sent off: {50|51}

3§13. The self-assertion of Odysseus goes beyond taking the lead in the procession to the tent of Achilles. When the emissaries are about to deliver their message to Achilles, Ajax gives Phoinix the signal to begin, but it is Odysseus who takes the initiative: Instead of Phoinix, it is Odysseus who now gives the first speech (Iliad IX 225–306); only then does Phoinix speak (Iliad IX 434–605), then Ajax (Iliad IX 624–642). In the end, Phoinix stays behind with Achilles, and it is Odysseus who leads the Embassy back to the tent of Agamemnon: As the leader of the Embassy, it is he who reports to Agamemnon the reply of Achilles (Iliad IX 673 ff.).

3§14. This pattern of self-assertion on the part of Odysseus reflects in particular on one of his many traditional roles, that of the trickster. By taking the lead among the emissaries, he puts himself in the position of being the one who actually delivers the terms of compensation proposed by Agamemnon for settlement with Achilles (Iliad IX 260–299, reporting IX 120–158). In doing so, Odysseus makes a {51|52} significant adjustment to Agamemnon's original message by failing to repeat Agamemnon's reaffirmation of social superiority over Achilles (Iliad IX 160–161). As Cedric Whitman argues, the acceptance of such compromised terms by Achilles would thus have aborted his heroic stature in the Iliad. [24] The success of Odysseus in the Embassy would have entailed the failure of Achilles in his own epic. Accordingly, the suspicion of Achilles upon hearing the speech of Odysseus seems justified:

3§15. These strong words are framed by Achilles' outright rejection of the speech by Odysseus (Iliad IX 308–311, 314–429). Moreover, even before he heard the offer that he rejects so forcefully, Achilles may have already considered Odysseus to be the sort of ekhthrós ‘hateful one, enemy’ that is described in IX 312–313. We come back to the moment when Achilles sees the Embassy approaching: The last three verses of this passage all contain dual constructions, as if there were only two emissaries rather than three. Furthermore, the two are addressed by Achilles as ‘most dear [phílos]’ to him among all the Achaeans, Ἀχαιῶν φίλτατοι (Iliad IX 198). [25] If indeed Achilles later {52|53} implies that Odysseus may be an ‘enemy’ (ekhthrós) to him, is Odysseus being excluded from his greeting? Certainly the definition that we find for ekhthrós ‘enemy’ in IX 312–313 [26] —a definition framed by the words of Achilles himself—applies to the epic behavior of Odysseus. As we see most clearly in his own epic, the Odyssey, he continually says one thing and means another. [27]

3§16. Let us pursue the hypothesis that the duals in IX 196–198 [28] refer to Ajax and Phoinix, and that Odysseus is being excluded by Achilles in his reference to the Achaeans who are ‘most dear [phílos]’ to him (φίλτατοι: Iliad IX 198). On the level of form, we can say that the dual pronoun τώ of IX 196 recapitulates the τώ of IX 192, [29] which immediately precedes in the narrative. In IX 192, the dual τώ sets off Ajax and Phoinix from Odysseus; as I have already argued, it is here that Odysseus first seizes the initiative and takes the lead in the Embassy, with his fellow emissaries being relegated to the dual τώ. [30] Now the dual τώ in IX 196 takes up where the last dual left off in IX 192, and we may continue with the understanding that it refers to Ajax and Phoinix.

3§17. On the level on content, this interpretation is viable if an “Embassy of Ajax and Phoinix to Achilles” had been a stock theme of Greek epic tradition and if the story of an enmity between Odysseus and Achilles had likewise been traditional. If we find evidence to support these two propositions, then we could also claim that the Embassy episode of Iliad IX has, from the standpoint of, say, an audience in the eighth century B.C., much higher artistic {53|54} merit than what we can see in a text without attested precedents. Then we could confidently reject any superficial impression of ours that the Embassy is an imperfect story, marred by a clumsy deployment of misplaced duals.

3§18. If the stock theme of an “Embassy of Ajax and Odysseus to Achilles” had been original to the Iliadic tradition for this particular period in the course of the Trojan War narrative—as Page and other analysts infer—then the final Iliadic treatment that we see attested in Book IX, with the “Embassy of Ajax, Odysseus, and Phoinix to Achilles,” should have required the conversion of all duals into plurals, especially at the moment when Achilles greets the emissaries (Iliad IX 193–198). Instead, Achilles greets them in the dual! The purported grafting of Phoinix into this scene is thus only partially successful, in that the role of Phoinix fails to get its proper due. As Page exclaims, “Unhappy Phoenix, Achilles' oldest friend, not a single word of you!” [31] We are left with the impression that the story has faults beyond remedy.

3§19. If, on the other hand, the stock theme of an “Embassy of Ajax and Phoinix to Achilles” had been traditional, then we see in Iliad IX the insertion of Odysseus on the level of form and the self-assertion of Odysseus on the level of content. Of course, we may in the meantime reject the assumption of some analysts that any such insertion is a textual phenomenon: all we need say is that the composition integrates another traditional element. If, in turn, the insertion of Odysseus into the Embassy story carries with it the traditional theme of an enmity between him and Achilles, then the narrative of Iliad IX may allow the retention of duals referring to the pair of Ajax and Phoinix when the time comes for Achilles to greet the Embassy. For an audience familiar with another version of the story where Achilles had only two emissaries to greet, the retention of the dual greeting when Odysseus is included in the Embassy surely amounts to an artistic masterstroke in the narrative. The exclusion of Odysseus in the dual greeting would serve to remind the audience of the enmity between him and Achilles.

3§20. We should consider whether there are any formal traces of material for a traditional story where only Ajax and Phoinix are emissaries to Achilles. For this purpose, let us contrast the way in which the narrative in Book IX handles the pair of Ajax and Phoinix {54|55} with the way in which it handles the pair of Ajax and Odysseus. When Odysseus is set off from Ajax and Phoinix, the latter pair is designated in the dual. This is what I propose to be the case in IX 192 [32] and 196–198. [33] Conversely, when the narrative overtly sets off Phoinix from Ajax and Odysseus, it designates this pair consistently in the plural. Besides IX 656–657, [34] I can also cite the following: The ὑμεῖς μὲν ... here is immediately contrasted with Φοῖνιξ δ(ὲ) ... , which follows at IX 427. Achilles is asking Phoinix to stay with him, while the other emissaries are to go back carrying the message of his refusal. Elsewhere too, Achilles distinguishes Phoinix from the others, to whom he refers not in the dual but in the plural: In sum, dual constructions fail to appear in every triadic situation where Ajax and Odysseus are explicitly set off from Phoinix. This evidence, then, goes against the possible counterclaim that the dual constructions of IX 192 and 196–198 [36] might refer implicitly to Ajax and Odysseus. It therefore remains tenable to claim that they refer instead to Ajax and Phoinix. Furthermore, these references may be explicit in the narrative of Book IX, if indeed there existed a traditional epic story that told of Achilles being angry at Odysseus. Then the dual constructions of IX 196–198 express a pointed exclusion of Odysseus from those who are ‘most dear [phílos]’ to Achilles (φίλτατοι: IX 198). [37] {55|56}

3§21. This much said, I leave the problem of the dual constructions in Iliad IX and return to the broader problem of establishing the relationship between the expanded passage of the Embassy Scene and the compressed passage of Odyssey viii 72–82. So far we have been dealing with only one specific theme that seems to be shared by these two passages, namely, a conflict between Achilles and Odysseus. Besides this theme, however, there are a number of accessory themes that also seem to be shared by these two passages. Let us examine these comparable themes by using as our frame of reference the compressed narrative of Odyssey viii 72–82.

3§22. Taken separately, any one of these four convergences in detail between the compressed narrative of Odyssey viii 72–82 and the expanded narrative of the Embassy Scene in Iliad IX is not enough to make a case for the existence of a common epic heritage. Taken together, however, all four of them serve to corroborate the argument that both the compressed and the expanded narratives draw from a stock epic theme—details and all—about an enmity between Achilles and Odysseus. Even without these four convergences, we have strong evidence for this theme in a fifth convergence. As we have already observed in the Embassy Scene, Achilles replies to Odysseus with an ad hoc definition of ekhthrós ‘enemy’ that actually fits the epic role of Odysseus, the consummate dissembler (Iliad IX 312–313). [42] The words of Achilles and the corresponding epic actions of Odysseus combine to make the message of Iliad IX explicit. As in Odyssey viii 72–82, the first song of Demodokos, a traditional enmity exists between these two preeminent heroes of Greek epic.{58|}