Bringing Evil to Others: A Reexamination of Piracy Through Homeric Relationships
Master’s Thesis
Presented to
The Faculty of the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences
Brandeis University
Graduate Program in Ancient Greek and Roman Studies
Dr. Joel Christensen, Advisor
In Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements for the Degree
Master of Arts
in
Ancient Greek and Roman Studies
by
James Martin
May 2017
Copyright by
James Martin
© 2017
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I would first like to thank my advisor, Dr. Joel Christensen of the Ancient Greek and
Romans Studies Faculty at Brandeis University. Dr. Christensen has been an integral
element of this project and my success through its process. He allowed this work to be my
own while simultaneously steering me in the right direction. His advising and mentorship
has ultimately contributed to my success as a graduate student and as a scholar in the
progress of this project.
I would also like to thank my additional readers, Dr. Andrew Koh, Dr. Ann Olga
Koloski-Ostrow, and Dr. Cheryl Walker. Thanks to their diverse expertise, but equal
interest in my progress, I was able to incorporate multiple disciplines into my project. Koh,
Kolowki-Ostrow, and Walker have all also been extremely accessible and invested in my
development during my time as a graduate student. I am thankful that I have been able to
share this last project, which serves as an excellent capstone, with all four of my readers.
iii
ABSTRACT
Bringing Evil to Others: A Reexamination of Piracy Through Homeric Relationships
A thesis presented to the Graduate Program in Ancient Greek and Roman Studies
Graduate School of Arts and Sciences
Brandeis University
Waltham, Massachusetts
By James Martin
The topic of piracy has been long debated by both Greek and modern readers of
Homer. The scenes involving piratical acts, with only a few notable instances, seem to have
little to no negative judgment on the pirates. This paper examines the scenes that involve
piracy and address the reasons for the attitudes toward the pirates. Their actions and those
of the Homeric heroes are often similar. Though the terms for pirates are not associated
with heroes, the similarity in their behavior can allow us to interpret some of the actions of
the Homeric heroes as also being piratical. The judgement of piracy within the epics should
be understood primarily in terms of the targets of the raids, and not a judgment on the
raiding itself. By examining when there seems to be a condemnation of piracy and who is
being attacked at that time, a hierarchy of relationships is able to be made. This hierarchy
helps us to understand how a Homeric warrior is expected to interact with those around
him, and how he is able to treat people differently depending on what level of relationship
he shares with them. This paper displays the categories of relationships and provides the
scenes which reveal the conduct that is expected of the hero towards each group. The
iv
hierarchy of relationships is primarily focused on the topics of violence and acquisition of
booty, but is also able to illuminate additional interactions in which the relationship of the
Homeric characters can be understood.
v
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS………………………………………………………………………………………………….. iii
ABSTRACT…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS………………………….…………………………………………………………………………vi
LIST OF FIGURES………………………………………...………………………….....………..…………………………vii
CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION…………………………………………………….……………………………………..1
CHAPTER II: ILIAD……………………………………………………………………..………………………………….12
CHAPTER III: ODYSSEY………………………………………………………………………………………………….29
CHAPTER IV: CONCLUSION…………………………………………………….……………………………………..45
REFERENCES……………………………………………………………………..…………………………………………49
vi
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1.
Figure 2.
Figure 3.
Hierarchy of Relationships without ξένος
Complete Hierarchy of Relationships
Hierarchy of Relationships in Proximity
vii
23
27
37
Chapter I: Introduction
καὶ προσπίπτοντες πόλεσιν ἀτειχίστοις καὶ κατὰ κώμας οἰκουμέναις ἥρπαζον καὶ τὸν
πλεῖστον τοῦ βίου ἐντεῦθεν ἐποιοῦντο, οὐκ ἔχοντός πω αἰσχύνην τούτου τοῦ ἔργου,
φέροντος δέ τι καὶ δόξης μᾶλλον: δηλοῦσι δὲ τῶν τε ἠπειρωτῶν τινὲς ἔτι καὶ νῦν, οἷς
κόσμος καλῶς τοῦτο δρᾶν, καὶ οἱ παλαιοὶ τῶν ποιητῶν τὰς πύστεις τῶν καταπλεόντων
πανταχοῦ ὁμοίως ἐρωτῶντες εἰ λῃσταί εἰσιν, ὡς οὔτε ὧν πυνθάνονται ἀπαξιούντων τὸ
ἔργον, οἷς τε ἐπιμελὲς εἴη εἰδέναι οὐκ ὀνειδιζόντων.
Thucydides 1.5.1-2
And they would fall upon un-walled cities, made up of villages, and plunder them.
From that they made the greatest part of their livelihood since it brought no shame
from the deed, but it actually brought some glory. Some of the mainlanders show
this even now, for whom it is becoming for someone to carry out these raids well,
and so do the old poets everywhere have people asking of those sailing whether
they are pirates, as though there was no intention of disowning the deeds on the
part of those asked, nor of reproaching for those inquiring.
In the proem to his Peloponnesian War, Thucydides is first concerned with giving a
history of Greece going back as far as he can using his own methods of research. By utilizing
burials, word of mouth, and cultural memory, he is able to create a picture of what he believes
Greece may have looked like. The above passage captures one of the more colorful descriptions
of the world before him. Thucydides describes the prevalence of piracy in a world that is already
old and somewhat foreign to him. For Thucydides, piracy is something that used to be acceptable
and even appropriate earlier in Greece. By mentioning that part of his evidence for the
prevalence of piracy is that some people on the mainland still practice those acts, Thucydides
implies that the piracy gradually became less acceptable over time. What started out to be
commonplace eventually became inappropriate to most of Greece, with only a few exceptions.
1
The second piece of evidence that Thucydides cites is the commonplace greeting given
by the poets to inquire as to whether a visitor is a pirate. Thucydides accepts that the poets, in
this case Homer,1 reflect historical reality that can tell a contemporary audience something about
Greece before his time. The concept that piracy could potentially be without shame is foreign
enough to Thucydides that he deems it worthy to discuss. Thucydides is surprised and interested
in a topic that continues to perplex those reading Homer. Even other ancient audiences found this
worth discussing. The scholia on Homer agrees with Thucydides that piracy was not considered
shameful.2 Modern scholars range from agreeing with Thucydides to those who believe that there
is actual condemnation of the act of piracy in the epics.3 Can we then believe Thucydides and his
understanding of the epics? And why is there so much debate over the way the epics treat piracy
if every modern scholar is looking at the same information?
The cause for such widespread debate on the attitudes toward pirates is that the
interpreters of the epics have not fully understood the range of relationships depicted in the
poem. As Thucydides implies, piracy in the epics is certainly present and wide spread.
According to values of the Homeric warriors, piracy does seem to be an acceptable action within
the epics. Piracy does, however, exist in a hierarchy of relationships. Thucydides’ understanding
of piracy ultimately comes from his understanding of Homeric relationships and how they
function. By exploring these relationships, we can potentially learn more about Homer and
Thucydides’ conception of piracy. These relationships may also help us in understanding more
about the historic time period that Thucydides reflects on. I will, therefore, first investigate what
world Thucydides examines and then summarize the sections of this paper.
1
Hornblower 1991, 23.
φαίνεται γὰρ οὐκ αἰσχρὸν τοῖς ἀρχαίοις ὂν τὸ λῃστεύειν, καὶ Θουκυδίδης εἴρηκεν. H.Q.T.
3
See Ormerod 1924 and Van Wees 1992 for the argument supporting Thucydides. See DeSouza 1999 and Heubeck
et al. 1988 for the assertion that piracy clearly has negative connotations.
2
2
Homer and History
Before analyzing what the Homeric epics represent to a historic era, we must first explore
with which era we should associate the information. It is commonly agreed that the epics which
we now possess were composed sometime in the early Archaic Period.4 The time that the
Homeric epics are thought to represent, however, has been seriously debated during the last
century. After the discoveries at Troy and Mycenae by Heinrich Schliemann, many believed that
the Trojan War and the surrounding cultural make-up of the epics must reflect the Bronze Age.
Due to archaeological and philological evidence and due to the revolutionary developments in
our understanding of orality,5 the Bronze Age connection has been largely dismissed.6 The
nature of oral poems is one of change and re-composition. Thus, it is unlikely that a poem would
retain many elements reflecting real culture in the Bronze Age after so many generations. The
audience of the epic, however, may not have been able to differentiate the past in a significant
way. As a result, their understanding of the time within the epics would simply be the past.
Elements that do remain in the poem, however, are the larger plot narratives that the main
stories take place within. For example, the Iliad is not actually a retelling of the war, but rather a
focus on the feud of Agamemnon and Achilles during the war. The details of the Trojan War are
likely a remnant of an existing tradition that possibly dates back to the Late Bronze Age or
perhaps Early Iron Age. There is historical evidence that there was already conflict between the
Mycenaean mainland and Western Anatolia where Troy was located. In the Amarna letters,
Mycenaean men are mentioned by name, who are accused of conducting raids. In analyzing a
4
West 2014, 1; Van Wees 1992, 1.
See Lord 1960 for a complete discussion on the orality of the epic poems.
6
See Bennet 1997.
5
3
few of these letters in her exploration of early raiding before the Bronze Age collapse, Louise
Hitchcock writes,
The Indictment of Maduwatta is dated to Late Helladic IIB-IIIA2 (c. 1450-1430)
and complains about a man of Ahhiya, Attarissiya (Atreus?), conducting military
raids against Anatolia and Alasiya. The Manapa-Tarhunda Letter from the Annals
of Mursili II (c. 1326 BCE) complains about attacks by the renegade Piyamaraduu
(Epiamandas?) on the Seha River Land, on Lazpa (Lesbos), and on Wilusa
(Ilios/Troy).7
Whether the etymological similarities between the included Hittite names and the traditional
names associated with the Trojan War are accurate or not, the letters of the Amarna tablets
confirm two things; first, that there was an established connection of sea travel between Wilusa
(Troy) and vassals of the Mycenaean mainland and, second, that raiding in Western Anatolia was
an established behavior among the Mycenaean forces.
One can see how a tradition about an ongoing, foreign war could develop out of several
raids and skirmishes. Thucydides would consider these raids to be done by pirates, but the epic
poems cover too broad of a range of time for them to be used as historical evidence. Though
there is evidence for an origin of the Trojan War tradition in the Bronze Age, there are not many
other elements that can be seen from Homer from that period. Though some scholars still believe
that the society of the Bronze Age is the same one reflected in Homer, Kurt A. Raaflaub agrees
that the social structure seen in the epics does not reflect life from such a long time previous. He
writes “Yet the Mycenaean palaces are a world apart from the houses of the Homeric leaders,
and the centralized, hierarchical systems revealed by the tablets resembles contemporary Near
Eastern civilizations but is incompatible with anything found in Homer or known from later
Greek history.”8 Therefore, to find a cultural reflection in Homer, we must look to an age closer
7
8
Hitchcock and Maeir 2016, 3.
Raaflaub 1997, 625.
4
to the poet and one that is more likely to still be established in the collective memory of Homer’s
audience. Some scholars argue that the evidence in the archaeological record supports the idea of
a memory of wide spread piracy.9 Scholars of the Bronze Age generally agree that peoples in the
Eastern Mediterranean suffered a large trauma during the end of this age. Many modern and
ancient sources turn to the widespread attacks from the sea which often destroyed or severely
hurt different societies. Could the Sea Peoples be whom Thucydides is recalling as his pirates
and is their memory perhaps captured in the Homeric epics in the form of widespread and
common practices of piracy? 10 Although the trauma of the Sea Peoples began in the Bronze Age,
the memory and practices surely could have endured afterward.
The Iron Age is a more likely candidate for a time period in which Homeric social
structure can be understood. The epics were compiled and composed sometime at the beginning
of the Archaic Age, so it is likely that the time reflected in the epics would be the middle to late
Iron Age. This analysis, however, is not universally agreed upon. Ian Morris takes a close look at
the evidence of material culture throughout the Iron Age and the evidence within Homer. His
conclusion is “Although Homer was clearly aware of eighth century developments in material
culture, it has not proved possible to identify a single region and period with a material culture
exactly like that in the epics.”11 Morris lays out the difficulty in assigning an appropriate time for
Homer’s epic to occur and concludes, “there is no point in trying to pull Homer’s picture apart,
reassembling it in ‘layers’ which can then be correlated with the artifacts found in discrete
archaeological strata.”12 Morris is likely correct in bringing light to the difficulty of dating
Homer, but Morris is focused only in material culture and the “artifacts” found in Homer.
9
Hitchcock and Maeir, 2014.
See Sandars 1978 for the widespread raids of the Sea Peoples.
11
Morris 1997, 558.
12
Ibid. 559.
10
5
Homer, due to the nature of poetry, would use actual objects that he is aware of, whether
contemporary or existing in memory of the past, indiscriminately to describe the events in the
poem. Where Homer would be more precise and consistent, however, is in cultural memory of
social structure in the past.
One cannot treat cultural history within the epics in the same manner as material culture.
When analyzing the cultural history in Homer, Raaflaub does not believe that the endeavor is
impossible. He writes that cultural elements, for the most part, can be separated into concepts
that can be understood in a few ways: established tradition (elements of the Bronze Age left over
in the poems), exaggerated elements due to the nature of poetry (which can be identified and
understood in non-literal ways), and archaisms (elements of the past used to make the poem
more heroic, which is the purpose of the poet).13 He believes, therefore, that these elements can
be understood to represent historical realities in the times appropriate to each concept. The nature
of the orality can also help when it comes to dating these elements. Raaflaub proposes, “In
preliterate societies, collective memories of the past are preserved beyond a period of roughly
three generations only if they are important to the present; even so, they are constantly
reinterpreted to fit the changing needs of the present.”14 According to this understanding, the
values of the poem must reflect actual concerns, at least allegorically, of the audience
contemporary with Homer.
Although the values of the stories within the epics likely reflect an audience of the early
Archaic, the collective memory can still harken back several generations. Thus, there can exist in
Homer memory of societies of the Late Iron Age. More precisely, Raaflaub calls this time the
near-contemporary period and puts the dating of the epic within the ninth and eighth centuries.
13
14
Raaflaub, 627.
Ibid. 628.
6
The poem, however, “is historical in appearance but contemporary in meaning… The social
background of heroic poetry needed to be modern enough to be understandable, but archaic
enough to be believable.”15 The poem therefore reflects the Iron Age in memory and the
beginning of the Archaic Age in values. The epics, and the response the audience has to them,
both naturally changed over time. The attitude towards pirates changed by Thucydides’ time
before the attitude in the poems did. That attitude towards pirates instead reflects what the
audience believed the past actually looked like. More specifically, the recollection of a time
when piracy was common and supported, whether accurate or not, is what is reflected in the
epics. The audience simply acknowledges that, at some point in the past, a pirate could be
commonplace and raid certain people without being condemned.
Understanding Piracy in Homer
The method by which this paper examines piracy in the epics is through the relationships
within which the Homeric hero has to operate. By thoroughly examining the relationship that the
Homeric warrior has with the victims of the piracy, the epics show that the target of raid is the
important factor determining whether the action is good or bad. The main argument that emerges
from this perspective is that the negative attitudes toward piracy within the epics must be
understood as a violation of one of the hero’s relationships, not a condemnation of the act itself.
This ‘relational’ lens of examining piracy can also be extended to evaluating heroic behavior in
general. The relationships of the hero extend beyond just those he can target for raids. The ways
in which the hero is expected to navigate his relationships ultimately can tell us more about the
epic as a whole and help us to understand various motivations and reactions of the characters
15
Raaflaub. 628.
7
within. Ultimately, the way the audience views the relationships the hero has with those around
him is what determines how the audience reacts to his actions.
In this paper, I examine the nature of these relationships within the Odyssey and the Iliad.
Though the focus of the two poems differ, the types of relationships are similar or the same in
the stories. I begin with the Iliad and the importance of spoils acquisition to the Homeric warrior.
There are two types of spoils to the warrior. The first includes the spoils taken from those the
warrior defeats in battle. These are personal spoils which include weapons and armor, horses, or
even ransoms taken from defeated enemies. I refer to these spoils as ληίς.16 The other types of
spoils are those given in a public assembly in order to reinforce a warrior’s position in the
community and represent their social status. This type of spoils, I refer to as a γέρας.17 The γέρας
is simultaneously the symbol for a warrior’s position in the community, but also the position
itself. This concept becomes important when understanding the relationship the heroes of the
epics have with others in their community.
The people whom the warriors raid end up making two of the positions in the hierarchy
of relationships. There are two kinds of people that the warrior attacks. Those whom the warrior
hurts for the sake of hurting them, I call the ἐχθροί. The Homeric warrior attacks the ἐχθροί not
only for material gain, but mainly to punish them for something that they did. The other people
that the warrior attacks are the ἄλλοι. The ἄλλοι are people that have not necessarily harmed the
warrior, but are people emotionally distant enough to attack. Warriors attack the ἄλλοι for
material gain and also for a gain in their honor. The primary example in the Iliad of the
difference between the ἄλλοι and the ἐχθροί is Achilles’ attitude toward the Trojans. Achilles
begins the war by being indifferent to the Trojans. He even mentions that the Trojans never did
16
17
Also appears as λεία
plural: γέρα
8
him harm by raiding his lands or taking his things. Achilles is present in the war to increase his
own wealth and reputation and the Trojans are thus ἄλλοι to him. It is only after the loss of his
good friend that Achilles’ view towards the Trojans shift from people from whom he can gain
wealth, to people who are his true enemies, ἐχθροί.
Achilles’ relationship with Patroclus is not shared with all of the other warriors in the
Achaean army. Patroclus is very close to Achilles and is someone that can turn people into
enemies if they harm him. Achilles’ considers Patroclus an extension of himself. Those who
have this kind of relationship with the warrior, I call the φίλοι. It is clear that not all the men in
the Achaean coalition can be called φίλοι to one another. The nature of the relationship between
them is more complex, but is more easily understood in terms of each of the heroes’ relationship
with Agamemnon. I follow Walter Donlan’s interpretation of these relationships as one of
alliances and not vassalage. The agreement, therefore, between Agamemnon and one like
Achilles is of mutual respect and benefit that is only to exist during the war. Agamemnon and
Achilles should not at all be considered φίλοι. The larger community in which the warrior
operates, I refer to as the δῆμος. When Agamemnon, with the implicit consent of the rest of the
assembly, takes away Achilles’ γέρας, in the form of Briseis, he also violates his end of the
agreement made with Achilles. The Achaeans, who are taking away the goods and position of
Achilles, transfer out of the position of δῆμος and become ἐχθροί to Achilles. Thus, the reaction
of Achilles to pray for their deaths seems a little less extreme. The hierarchy of relationships, in
closeness to the hero, declines from φίλοι, the δῆμος, ἄλλοι, and ἐχθροί. The positions stay in
this order, but people can move from one of these relationships to another.
The final position that I discuss within the hierarchy of relationships in the Iliad is the
ξένος. Though ξένοι play a much larger role in the Odyssey, the relationship is still an important
9
one in the Iliad. Ξένοι are people who have undergone a ritualized friendship where one warrior,
or ancestor of the warrior, hosts another. When this happens, the men are bound in friendship
and protection even in the face of war. During the Trojan War, men who are ξένοι, such as
Glaukos and Diomedes, cannot hurt one another and even wish each other luck in destroying
their opponents. One can see, therefore, how a friendship in the category of ξένος is held to be
more important than the relationships within the δῆμος. This hierarchy of relationships,
especially the ξένοι and the ἄλλοι, become much more prevalent in the Odyssey and help explain
the behavior of pirates and the attitudes towards them.
I begin discussing the Odyssey by reaffirming the presence of the hierarchy of
relationships that was established in the Iliad. The primary shift between the two poems is that
the δῆμος in the Odyssey is made up of the citizens of Ithaca. Though the citizens living around a
king have obvious differences from a coalition of the Achaeans in a war, I find there to be
similarities in how the warrior interacts with them. Primarily, the suitors are considered to be
attempting to take Odysseus’ γέρας. Much like Achilles, Odysseus then takes action against them
that some could consider excessive. Though these relationships in the abstract may seem
unrelated to piracy in the epics, by setting up their hierarchy, violence in the epics is more easily
understood.
After establishing some of the relationships in the Odyssey, I finally delve into the issues
of piracy. Pirates in the epic are referred to as ληϊστήρες18. Ληϊστήρες are warriors who seek out
spoils, but as their name suggests, only obtain ληίς. The γέρας form of spoils that are doled out
based on status in the community are not the priority of the ληϊστήρες. As a result, since
ληϊστήρες target people based on financial gain and not based on who their enemies are, the
18
Singular: ληϊστήρ
10
ἄλλοι are their targets. I agree with Hans Van Wees that the term ληϊστήρ is not used to refer to
the warriors in the legendary wars, but the issue is of time. The same men can be both a
legendary warrior in a great war at one time, but then be considered a ληϊστήρ at another. This
ultimately brings us back to Thucydides’ assertions about piracy; first, that it was extremely wide
spread and second, that is was not a shameful act. To examine this, I first look to Thucydides’
own evidence of the common occurrence of a host asking his guest if he is a pirate or not. The
questions certainly show the prevalence of piracy, but I then turn to the question about the
judgment of the act. The evidence suggests that a ληϊστήρ is able to grow in his own reputation
through his acquisition of spoils and that a ληϊστήρ is able to become a prominent member of his
community through piracy. Conversely, those who increase their reputation by fighting in
legendary wars then commonly become ληϊστήρες afterward.
After showing the evidence suggesting that piracy is not shameful, I address the evidence
that makes piracy seem negative. There are two major scenes where there is a negative attitude
toward ληϊστήρες. These attitudes toward the ληϊστήρες, however, is negative due to targets of
the raids and not the raid itself. In one of these instances, a ληϊστήρ is condemned because his
targets are not ἄλλοι, but are his allies. The other scene is from the view of the target of the
piracy. He, therefore, is the ἄλλος and has a negative opinion of the individuals who attack him.
Considering either of these scenes as a condemnation of the act of piracy is a misunderstanding
of the relationships in Homer. A more complete exploration of the hierarchy of relationships
within the epics helps the reader of the poems to avoid misjudging societal attitudes in the
stories.
11
Chapter II: Iliad
The acquisition of spoils plays an integral part in the Iliad in both the narrative and the values of
the Homeric communities. In the Iliad, a hero is able to obtain spoils in a variety of ways:
Stripping dead opponents while fighting on the front line such as the famous scene with Hector
and Patroclus (Il. 17.125), stealing horses such as Odysseus and Diomedes do from the Thracians
(Il. 10. 495-525), ransoming nobles back to their wealthy families (Il. 21.41-2), trading goods
with another hero such as Diomedes and Glaucus (Il. 6.212-240), or receiving γέρα19 from either
the host or from the leader of the host such as Chryseis and Briseis for Agamemnon and
Achilles, respectively. With all of these methods of acquiring spoils, the hero also increases his
own glory and fame among his community. There are, however, standards for how the warrior is
supposed to gain these spoils. The type of relationship that the hero has with those around him,
determines how he is supposed to interact with them. This hierarchy of relationships can be seen
through both epics, but is most clearly visible through the lens of obtaining spoils.
All of these methods of obtaining spoils comes from physical violence towards others.
Even the γέρα awarded to heroes come from the communal spoils of the host which in turn come
from the victims of the host. These victims of raids and violence, much like in the Odyssey, can
be a variety of people who are not necessarily established as enemies before the raids. The Iliad,
Gifts of honor reflecting station in the community, γέρα in the plural. Not to be confused with λήις, the spoils
obtained in battle and raids.
19
12
since the Trojan War is the primary focus, allows for many enemies and friends of enemies to
kill and raid, so most of the spoils collected and then redistributed among the Greek heroes come
from the Trojans and their allies. The Trojans, however, are not by rule the only ones the Greeks
raid during the war. Though the story opens after nine years of the war having already passed,
we learn that in the beginning of the war, Achilles had led several expeditions for the purpose of
raiding.
The warriors in the epics raid some people, even though they are not their enemies.
Achilles led raids on the islands of Tenedos, Skyros, and Lesbos20 and then several allies of the
Trojans once on land. Though many of these attacks before the narrative of the Iliad could be
understood as military expeditions to harm the Trojan alliances, I agree with Hans Van Wees that
“But since it is unlikely that the islands, too, were regarded as part of the Trojan coalition, it
seems more probable that the raiding was random and that the main goal was booty.”21 In the
Odyssey, Nestor recalls these raids when speaking with Telemachus,
‘ὦ φίλ᾽, ἐπεί μ᾽ ἔμνησας ὀιζύος, ἥν ἐν ἐκείνῳ
δήμῳ ἀνέτλημεν μένος ἄσχετοι υἷες Ἀχαιῶν,
ἠμέν ὅσα ξὺν νηυσίν ἐπ᾽ ἠεροειδέα πόντον
πλαζόμενοι κατὰ ληίδ᾽, ὅπῃ ἄρξειεν Ἀχιλλεύς,
ἠδ᾽ ὅσα καὶ περί ἄστυ μέγα Πριάμοιο ἄνακτος
μαρνάμεθ᾽…
(Od. 3.103-6)
Oh my friend, since you remind me of that misery, which we sons of the
Achaeans endured in that land when we were unchecked in our strength. We both
attacked so much with our ships on the misty sea for booty, wherever Achilles
would lead us, and we fought so much around the great city of lord Priam.22
20
τὴν ἄρετ᾽ ἐκ Τενέδοιο γέρων, ὅτε πέρσεν Ἀχιλλεύς,/ θυγατέρ᾽ Ἀρσινόου μεγαλήτορος, ἥν οἱ Ἀχαιοὶ/ ἔξελον
οὕνεκα βουλῇ ἀριστεύεσκεν ἁπάντων. Il.11.625-627.
Πάτροκλος δ᾽ ἑτέρωθεν ἐλέξατο: πὰρ δ᾽ ἄρα καὶ τῷ/ Ἶφις ἐΰζωνος, τήν οἱ πόρε δῖος Ἀχιλλεὺς/ Σκῦρον ἑλὼν
αἰπεῖαν Ἐνυῆος πτολίεθρον. Il.9.666-8.
δώσω δ᾽ ἑπτὰ γυναῖκας ἀμύμονα ἔργα ἰδυίας/ Λεσβίδας, ἃς ὅτε Λέσβον ἐϋκτιμένην ἕλεν αὐτὸς/ ἐξελόμην, αἳ
κάλλει ἐνίκων φῦλα γυναικῶν. Il.9.128-30.
21
Van Wees, 1992. 211.
22
All translations are my own.
13
Nestor admits that the reason for these attacks on sea are for booty. These are predatory attacks
that are quick strikes from the sea which are then contrasted with the war that is actually fought
around the city of Troy later.23 These raids are explicitly for the acquisition of spoils to increase
the renown of the warriors, and are realistically also used to supply the war with Troy. Since the
Achaeans are so far away from their homelands, they do not have established relationships with
many of the foreign islands and, as a result, feel no shame in raiding them.24
Concerning the acquisition of spoils, the several ways that a warrior can gain spoils can
be divided into two categories. There are the spoils which the warrior, himself, gains while on
the front line such as stripping armor, stealing horses, or ransoming hostages. These spoils, the
warrior tends to keep such as in the case of when Hektor takes and wears the armor stripped from
Patroklus or when Idomeneus boasts of the his collection of spears.
δούρατα δ᾽ αἴ κ᾽ ἐθέλῃσθα καὶ ἓν καὶ εἴκοσι δήεις
ἑσταότ᾽ ἐν κλισίῃ πρὸς ἐνώπια παμφανόωντα
Τρώϊα, τὰ κταμένων ἀποαίνυμαι:
(Il. 13.260-62)
If you should want spears, you can find both one and twenty Trojan ones sitting in
my hut on the side of the shining wall, which I take for myself from those killed.
In both of these scenarios, the warrior who is actually doing the fighting and killing gets to keep
the spoils from those that he kills. The same situation can be seen in ransoms for hostages. The
family or friends of the hostage then trades goods for his safe return. The person being ransomed
can then be considered to be personal spoils. As a result, the warrior that captured the prisoner
23
For more discussion about the differences between predatory warfare and the Trojan War, see Finley 1965.
It will later be established that the exception to the rule that the Achaeans can raid anyone so far away is if
members of the Greek alliance have preexisting friendships with their enemies. Those whose families have
engaged in the ritual friendship of ξένια, will put their friendships before even the war effort. Cf. Diomedes and
Glaucus (Il. 6.12-640).
24
14
keeps the spoils exchanged.25 The formulaic response when a hostage is taken highlights this
very concept. Specifically, when Adrestus is surrendering to Menelaus, he pleads,
ζώγρει Ἀτρέος υἱέ, σὺ δ᾽ ἄξια δέξαι ἄποινα:
πολλὰ δ᾽ ἐν ἀφνειοῦ πατρὸς κειμήλια κεῖται
χαλκός τε χρυσός τε πολύκμητός τε σίδηρος,
τῶν κέν τοι χαρίσαιτο πατὴρ ἀπερείσι᾽ ἄποινα
(Il. 6.46-9)
Son of Atreus, take me captive, and receive a worthy ransom: my treasures lie in
the house of my rich father, bronze and gold and well-wrought iron, of these
things my father would bestow abundantly a countless ransom onto you.
The implication is that Menelaus will personally receive the ransom for the exchange of the
hostage. These spoils are a personal reward which are used as a measurement of a warrior’s
prowess in battle.26
The second type of acquisition of spoils found in the Iliad are communal spoils. The
communal spoils are when the entire Achaean coalition assemble in order to divide up what has
been successfully taken during the raids. During this distribution, γέρα are given out to the Greek
leaders and to the warriors. The personal acquisition of spoils, such as stripping the dead and
ransoming hostages, serves to show a warriors’ prowess in battle and to increase his reputation.
The communal distribution of spoils, such as awarding γέρα to distinguished and noble warriors,
also serves to increase the reputation of the warrior, but also serves to reinforce social hierarchy
among the Achaean coalition. Van Wees writes, “In assigning gera, the king shows who,
according to him and ideally according to the whole community, is a member of the elite of
princes and eminent fighters, and who is not; and who among these men ranks higher than
whom. The allocation of gera is, as it were, an ‘official’ statement about the community
hierarchy.”27 As a result, the importance of a γέρας is held much higher than the material worth
25
Ready 2007, 14.
For more on ransom and exchange, see Wilson 2002.
27
Van Wees, 1992. 309.
26
15
of the gift. The loss of Chryseis and Briseis for Agamemnon and Achilles represents more than
the loss of a girl, a good that both men have plenty of. Agamemnon offers Achilles seven women
from Lesbos for him to return to the Achaean ranks (Il.9128-30), but the loss of Briseis was
much greater than the loss of a slave woman.
The redistribution of spoils and allocation of the γέρα is not the only time where the
warrior’s status is reaffirmed. The distribution of the γέρα parallels the distribution of food in
times of feasts. In his question to Glaukos, Sarpedon describes the relationship between being an
elite warrior and the honor given during a δαίς.28 Sarpedon expresses that the reason they are
honored so greatly during the δαίτες and that they have their land is because they put themselves
in the front during the battles. The honoring of the warriors during feasts is often based on their
status, thus it serves in a similar way as the redistribution of γέρα. Many scholars view this scene
as the explanation on why so many warriors join in the war,29 even though they are not at risk
and they do not have enemies on the other side of the battlefield. This obligation of the heroes
and warriors explains why they are in the war, and the γέρα aids in representing how valued they
are in the war.
The word γέρας itself incorporates this theme in the epics. The meaning of γέρας does not
only include a gift of honor, but also comes to mean honor as well. The honor of the γέρας,
however, is not the same honor that one would achieve from obtaining ληίς. Whereas the
acquisition of ληίς reflects a warrior’s prowess in battle and improves his reputation, the ληίς
only means the physical spoils acquired by the warrior. The γέρας, however, reflects and means
his standing in the larger community, which I will refer to as the δῆμος. Within the Iliad, the
28
δαίς is a feast where the warriors are positioned based on their relative status and honor within the community.
δαίτες is the plural. For more on δαίς and the significance of feasting to the Homeric warrior, see Nagy 1979.
29
For more on Sarpedon’s speech and obligation of the heroes, see Pucci 1998, Willcock 1976, Hogan 1979, and
Griffin 1980.
16
δῆμος is the Achaean community and Homer uses the term λαός to describe it. Since a γέρας is
what helps determine a warrior’s place in the δῆμος,30 Homer uses the term metonymically to
actually mean a warrior’s position in the δῆμος. In the scene concerning the loss of Chryseis,
Agamemnon replies to Achilles,
ἀλλ᾽ εἰ μὲν δώσουσι γέρας μεγάθυμοι Ἀχαιοὶ
ἄρσαντες κατὰ θυμὸν ὅπως ἀντάξιον ἔσται:
εἰ δέ κε μὴ δώωσιν ἐγὼ δέ κεν αὐτὸς ἕλωμαι
ἢ τεὸν ἢ Αἴαντος ἰὼν γέρας, ἢ Ὀδυσῆος
ἄξω ἑλών: ὃ δέ κεν κεχολώσεται ὅν κεν ἵκωμαι.
(Il. 1.135-139)
But if the great-hearted Achaeans will give me a γέρας, appropriate according to
my desire, it is worth just as much, but if they will not award this, then I, myself,
will seize a γέρας, taking either yours or Ajax’s, or Odysseus’. Then he can grow
wroth, the man I come for.
When Agamemnon loses Chryseis, he also loses his γέρας. He is afraid that he will be the only
Achaean without one and that his status as leader of the coalition could be threatened. The loss to
Agamemnon’s status is, in his mind, made up in either two ways. The Greeks can give him
another prize to reaffirm his position at the top of the δῆμος, or he can attempt to assert his
power by taking the γέρας from one of his allies who follows his orders.31 Agamemnon feels that
it is essential to maintain the appearance of his authority over the δῆμος in one of these two
ways.
The interaction between Achilles and Agamemnon shows the relationship that an
independent warrior has to the δῆμος. Achilles’ relationship with the δῆμος consists of an
alliance to accomplish a task. He and the δῆμος have the same initiative which is to destroy Troy.
He, and many of the other warriors, are only at Troy due to an arrangement made with
30
For instances in the Odyssey where γέρας is used to mean the position in society, see Od. 11.184 and Od. 15.522.
Agamemnon’s dominance is further emphasized by the men he chooses to target. Achilles, Ajax, and Odysseus
are not vassals of Agamemnon, but are allies that have joined him for the war.
31
17
Agamemnon to come aid the sons of Atreus in war. Achilles, while raging that his γέρας may be
taken from him, tells Agamemnon,
οὐ γὰρ ἐγὼ Τρώων ἕνεκ᾽ ἤλυθον αἰχμητάων
δεῦρο μαχησόμενος, ἐπεὶ οὔ τί μοι αἴτιοί εἰσιν:
οὐ γὰρ πώποτ᾽ ἐμὰς βοῦς ἤλασαν οὐδὲ μὲν ἵππους,
οὐδέ ποτ᾽ ἐν Φθίῃ ἐριβώλακι βωτιανείρῃ
καρπὸν ἐδηλήσαντ᾽, ἐπεὶ ἦ μάλα πολλὰ μεταξὺ
οὔρεά τε σκιόεντα θάλασσά τε ἠχήεσσα:
ἀλλὰ σοὶ ὦ μέγ᾽ ἀναιδὲς ἅμ᾽ ἑσπόμεθ᾽ ὄφρα σὺ χαίρῃς,
τιμὴν ἀρνύμενοι Μενελάῳ σοί τε κυνῶπα
πρὸς Τρώων:
(Il. 1.152-160)
I did not come here to fight because of the Trojan spearman, since they are not
blameworthy for anything done to me: for they never drove off my cattle or
horses, nor have they ever destroyed my crops in fertile, hero nourishing Phthia.
Since there are many mountains and a roaring sea between us: But we followed
you, you giant, shameless man, in order that you would be pleased, that we might
gain regain honor from the Trojans for Menelaus and you, you dog-face.
Here, Achilles reveals his thoughts on the Trojans and why he is in the Achaean coalition. The
Trojans were never enemies of Achilles before the war. He articulates exactly what sort of thing
someone would do to become an enemy. All of the reasons that Achilles lists have to do with
financial gain. He lists cattle, horses, and crops. For Achilles, enemies are people who take your
goods away from you. The Trojans are people who are far away and would never have
committed some act against Phthia, his homeland. Their distance makes them a people who are
beyond quarrel. As a result, Achilles views the Trojans in the same way that he viewed the
islands where he led raids before arriving at Troy. In his mind, both are far away and outside of
range of his relationships. As such, he has no issue raiding and fighting them to earn wealth and
honor, but they have given him no previous grievance.
Since the Trojans were no enemy to Achilles, the reason that he is there in Troy is to aid
Agamemnon. Achilles and Agamemnon, like many of the other warriors, had entered into an
18
agreement. Agamemnon would gain assistance in attacking Troy and the warriors that joined him
would have the opportunity to gain τιμή (honor) and ληίδες (plural of λήις, spoils). This
agreement is contingent upon mutual respect from the warriors that gets reaffirmed regularly
with the distribution of the γέρας. A financial incentive is not enough alone to solidify an
agreement of war like the Achaeans made with Agamemnon. The agreement between the
warriors requires gratitude for the help of the warriors, which Donlan refers to as χάρις. I agree
with Donlan’s notion of the nature of the Achaean alliance in terms of favors given. He writes,
“The favor giver and the favor receiver make promises to each other to be kept for the duration
only: the ally promises that he will fight faithfully for the leader, the leader that his thanks
(χάρις) will properly reciprocate the favor (χάρις). If the relationship is not to fall apart and the
combined endeavor fail, the reciprocity must be, and remain, strictly balanced as per the initial
agreement.”32 Of course, the foreboding breakdown of relationships in Donlan’s description, is
exactly what happens to Achilles and Agamemnon. When his γέρας was taken from him,
Achilles no longer felt obligated to continue his side of the agreement and thus violated the
social contract between them. Agamemnon overstepped his role in how he was supposed to show
χάρις to Achilles first. As a result, when Achilles is challenging Agamemnon, he reminds him
that the Achaean warriors kept their agreement with him when they came to fight the Trojans.
Achilles reminds Agamemnon that the warriors came “in order that you would be pleased”
(ὄφρα σὺ χαίρῃς). When Agamemnon does not return the favor, Achilles is then free from
having to continue his side of the agreement.
The conflict and subsequent violence between Achilles and Agamemnon can then be
understood in terms of their relationship. The relationship the warrior has with the δῆμος is one
Donlan 2002, 158. For more on emotional and physical elements of χάρις, see Donlan 2002 and MacLachlan
1993. For more on reciprocities, see Donlan 1982.
32
19
that is based on mutual respect and each upholding their side of a social contract. Achilles’
frustration with Agamemnon is understandable and perhaps justified when understood in the
terms that Agamemnon first violated the χάρις agreement that brought them there. As a result,
Achilles is justified to leave the Achaean coalition and cease his war with the Trojans who are, at
that point, not his ἐχθροί.33 If the hierarchy of relationships is not properly understood, a reader
could interpret this scene as Achilles being the one who is violating his obligations to his friends.
Achilles, however, does not just remove himself from the war, he prays that the gods will harm
the Achaean coalition until they come and ask for Achilles back. This behavior is certainly
beyond a legitimate response to a violation of χάρις by Agamemnon, but not showing Achilles
his favor is not the only mistake of Agamemnon. When Achilles perceives that Agamemnon is
going to take his γέρας, he is stopped by Athena from attacking and killing Agamemnon. The
slight of taking Achilles’ γέρας is beyond just a material position and is also beyond a blow to
Achilles’ τίμη. As was briefly explored above, a γέρας does not just represent one’s honor, but
also their position in the δῆμος. Agamemnon’s attack, then, was also on Achilles’ position and
standing with the whole community.
A person’s position in the hierarchy of relationships is subject to change when there is a
violation of how the warriors are supposed to interact. When there is a change in relationship to
the warrior, his obligations to them also changes. The δῆμος, itself, is also complicit in the
decision to remove Achilles’ γέρας. As the δῆμος and Agamemnon are both said to be the ones
that present the γέρας, the δῆμος also allows for Achilles’ position to be taken away from him.
As the δῆμος desires to maintain the current alliances and peace among the coalition, they
support Agamemnon’s decision. As Donlan puts it, “But by their orthodox decision to uphold
33
Enemies.
20
Agamemnon, they come to be perceived as adversaries in the eyes of Achilles.”34 When Achilles
perceives the δῆμος as involved in his loss of γέρας and τίμη, he no longer views them as allies.
In Achilles’ eyes, they have all done the very thing he perceives enemies to do. They have stolen
goods from him. As a result, Achilles’ feels that he is able to wrong the δῆμος by wishing for
their deaths, since the δῆμος wronged him first.
The Achaeans ultimately return from the position of enemies to Achilles back to the
δῆμος when the Trojans become a much greater enemy to him. The reconciliation between
Achilles and the Achaeans does not happen until the death of Patroclus, his φίλος. With the loss
of someone so close to him, Achilles’ priorities change. At this point, the Trojans are not a
distant people who had never really done him harm; they are responsible for the death of his
φίλος. As a result, the Trojans shift from a position of indifference and opportunity for Achilles
to actual ἐχθροί. Once Achilles lost someone actually close to him, his desires are in line with
Agamemnon’s and he can forget his offense against the χάρις that he is supposed to show.
Agamemnon desires to present Achilles with gifts to renew their alliance, but Achilles replies,
Ἀτρεΐδη κύδιστε ἄναξ ἀνδρῶν Ἀγάμεμνον
δῶρα μὲν αἴ κ᾽ ἐθέλῃσθα παρασχέμεν, ὡς ἐπιεικές,
ἤ τ᾽ ἐχέμεν παρὰ σοί: νῦν δὲ μνησώμεθα χάρμης
(Il. 19.146-8)
Lord of men, noble Agamemnon, son of Atreus, bring the gifts if you would like,
as you see fit, or keep them for yourself. But now let us remember the joy of
battle.
Achilles no longer has an interest in obtaining goods. He is indifferent to Agamemnon’s offer,
but will fight alongside him anyway. When the Trojans become ἐχθροί to Achilles, his desire
changes from only obtaining wealth and glory, to hurting his enemies whether or not there is a
material benefit in doing so.
34
Donlan 2002, 163.
21
The shift in Achilles from an ally who desires wealth and reputation at the expense of the
Trojans to a warrior whose only interest is hurting the Trojans is further seen in the ransoming of
Lykaon. In Book Twenty-One, Achilles is in the middle of raging against the Trojans and
slaughtering the warriors. As he pushes the Trojans to the river, he comes across Lykaon. We
learn that, at a previous point in the war, Achilles had captured Lykaon in battle and had
ransomed him for one hundred bulls. Lykaon beseeches Achilles to capture him and ransom him
once again, but Achilles replies,
πρὶν μὲν γὰρ Πάτροκλον ἐπισπεῖν αἴσιμον ἦμαρ
τόφρά τί μοι πεφιδέσθαι ἐνὶ φρεσὶ φίλτερον ἦεν
Τρώων, καὶ πολλοὺς ζωοὺς ἕλον ἠδ᾽ ἐπέρασσα:
νῦν δ᾽ οὐκ ἔσθ᾽ ὅς τις θάνατον φύγῃ ὅν κε θεός γε
Ἰλίου προπάροιθεν ἐμῇς ἐν χερσὶ βάλῃσι
καὶ πάντων Τρώων, περὶ δ᾽ αὖ Πριάμοιό γε παίδων.
ἀλλὰ φίλος θάνε καὶ σύ:
(Il. 21.100-6)
Before Patroclus met his fate, up to that very day it was more pleasing in my heart
to spare the Trojans, and I took many of them still alive and sold them overseas:
But now there is not one whom before the walls of Troy god might put into my
hands who would escape death, no one of all the Trojans, nor of the sons of
Priam. No friend, even you die.
Achilles is no longer interested in gaining wealth. After the death of his φίλος, the Trojan are his
enemies and he is only looking to destroy the sons of Priam and all of the Trojans. Achilles’
conduct with the Trojans has shifted because the Trojans have shifted from the ἂλλοι relationshi
to the ἐχθροί. As such, Achilles desires to hurt them for the sake of hurting them, even though
there is no financial gain in it.
The conflict of Achilles with the Achaean host helps to illuminate the nature of
relationships between different groups in the Homeric epics. The groups of relationships can be
understood in a hierarchy of degrees of emotional distance from the hero. See the following
image to understand the relationships thus far.
22
Figure 1
The Homeric hero surrounds himself with those closest to him, who are referred to as φίλοι. The
hero’s φίλοι can be family, kin, or, as in the case with Patroclus and Achilles, just good friends.
The hero’s φίλοι are significantly more important to the hero than his allies in a conflict, which is
why Achilles wishes for the deaths and pains of the Achaeans, but then returns to the war after
the death of his φίλος. The people in the δῆμος can be important to the hero, so long as the
appropriate behavior is upheld by both. If a member of the δῆμος betrays or harms the hero, the
hero considers himself to have a right to punish or harm those in the δῆμος. For this reason,
Achilles considers himself in the right for hoping for their destruction. The δῆμος temporarily
become enemies to Achilles, ones he will not bemoan if they should die at the hands of the
Trojans.
23
On the other end of the relationship spectrum are those who are enemies, the ἐχθροί, and
those with whom the hero may not have a particular quarrel, but is willing to attack for his own
benefit. I refer to these groups as the ἄλλοι. The ἄλλοι include the island residents that the
Achaeans raided, though they likely were not allies with the Trojans. The Trojans themselves,
though ἐχθροί to the sons of Atreus, begin as ἄλλοι to Achilles. As a result, Achilles is only
interested in fighting them because they bring to him increased honor, position, and material
possessions. After the death of his φίλος, however, the Trojans are no longer ἂλλοι to Achilles,
but become ἐχθροί. As a result, Achilles does not need material wealth as an incentive for
fighting them. The destruction of the hero’s ἐχθροί is reward enough.
There is one additional relationship that appears at various places throughout the Iliad
that also needs to be placed within this system. Ξένοι are those with whom the Homeric hero has
engaged in ritualized friendship. Though not as much the focus in the Iliad as φίλοι, ἄλλοι,
ἐχθροί and the δῆμος, ξένοι are relationships that are extremely important to the hero. The
Achaean coalition is acting like a δῆμος that has a social contract based on mutual respect and
reciprocity. The methods of creating a ξένος are similar to creating the relationship that is
required among the δῆμος. Both often involve an exchange of gifts and require mutual respect to
form a ritualized friendship. The δῆμος in the Iliad, however, is a temporary alliance. The
agreement between the sons of Atreus and the warriors that fight for them lasts only as long as
the war.35 The relationship between ξένοι is a much longer standing relationship that is not
necessarily for a finite time.
Though there are similarities between these ritualized friendships, the men in the
Achaean coalition are not necessarily ξένοι with Agamemnon even though he becomes their
35
Donlan 2002.
24
leader, with whom the warriors enter into an agreement of war. We learn that before the war,
Agamemnon and Menelaus traveled abroad to convince different heroes to join their cause. The
Odyssey reports that when Agamemnon travelled to convince Odysseus to join his cause, he
stayed with another Ithacan, Melaneus, who was already a ξένος of Agamemnon.36 One could
deduce that, since Agamemnon stayed with his ξένος, Melaneus, in Ithaca, that he was not at that
time a ξένος of Odysseus since he did not stay in his home.
The warriors in the Achaean coalition do not necessarily become ξένοι after their
agreement with Agamemnon either. The attitude that many of the Achaeans have toward one
another and Agamemnon does not seem to be a typical ξένος relationship. Ξένια requires an
exchange of goods showing that a friendship will endure. As stated above, the relationship
among the Achaeans is a temporary agreement in order to accomplish the task of attacking the
Trojans. In Book Six, Diomedes is leading the Achaean forces against the Trojans and Glaucus
leads the Trojans in Hector’s absence. The two men are about to fight one another in front of
their armies, but ask who each other is first. Both men give their lineage and they discover that
their grandfathers were ξένοι. Diomedes then says,
ἦ ῥά νύ μοι ξεῖνος πατρώϊός ἐσσι παλαιός:
Οἰνεὺς γάρ ποτε δῖος ἀμύμονα Βελλεροφόντην
ξείνισ᾽ ἐνὶ μεγάροισιν ἐείκοσιν ἤματ᾽ ἐρύξας:
οἳ δὲ καὶ ἀλλήλοισι πόρον ξεινήϊα καλά:
…
τὼ νῦν σοὶ μὲν ἐγὼ ξεῖνος φίλος Ἄργεϊ μέσσῳ
εἰμί, σὺ δ᾽ ἐν Λυκίῃ ὅτε κεν τῶν δῆμον ἵκωμαι.
ἔγχεα δ᾽ ἀλλήλων ἀλεώμεθα καὶ δι᾽ ὁμίλου:
πολλοὶ μὲν γὰρ ἐμοὶ Τρῶες κλειτοί τ᾽ ἐπίκουροι
κτείνειν ὅν κε θεός γε πόρῃ καὶ ποσσὶ κιχείω,
πολλοὶ δ᾽ αὖ σοὶ Ἀχαιοὶ ἐναιρέμεν ὅν κε δύνηαι.
(Il. 6.215-18, 224-29)
You are already my ancestral friend from long ago. For godlike Oeneus at one time
received noble Bellerophon and hosted him for twenty days in his halls: They gave each
36
24.115
25
other beautiful guest gifts… Therefore I am a guest-friend to you in the middle of Argos,
and you are in Lycia whenever I come to your people. Let us avoid the spears of one
another even through this crowd: There are many Trojans and far-famed allies to kill
whomever god may provide me and whomever I come upon with my feet, and there are
many Achaeans for you to slay, whomever you are able.
In this scene, Diomedes and Glaucus were prepared to fight and kill another, but had to stop due
to their grandfathers becoming ξένοι many years before. Unlike the relationship among the allies
which exists only in terms of helping the sons of Atreus in the war against the Trojans, the
relationship among ξένοι has lasted much longer. This passage alludes to the relationship not
lasting forever, however, because Diomedes and Glaucus exchange armors in order to reaffirm
their friendship and to let the rest of the armies know that they will not be attacking one another.
The final comments of the exchange between these heroes helps to place the relationship
of a ξένος to a hero in the larger scale of the hero’s relationships. At the end of the speech,
Diomedes says that he has no need to attack Glaucus because there are more Trojans that he can
kill. He then tells Glaucus that there are also many Achaeans for Glaucus to kill. Diomedes
knows that he cannot kill Glaucus due to his relationship with him, but does not concern himself
with the concept that Glaucus will be killing Diomedes’ allies. Therefore, still understanding the
concept of the Achaean alliance as the δῆμος, Diomedes considers the ξένος to be a more
important relationship to him than the δῆμος. Considering all of the relationships shown in the
Iliad, the importance of relationships shown is reflected in the image below.
26
Figure 2
This image and ordering of relationships will ultimately aid us in understanding many of the acts
of violence within the Homeric epics. These relationships expand our knowledge of the violence
only in terms of enemies and allies. As is seen in the Iliad, the relationships are subject to change
and are contingent often on upholding an agreement based on ritualistic exchange and respect.
The diagram of relationships serves as a starting point to interpreting interactions among
the Homeric characters. By understanding the relationships the warrior has with those around
him, we can also understand the proper way in which the warrior is supposed to interact with
others. The Iliad does not stand alone in having this hierarchy of relationships. Many of these
relationships transfer also to the Odyssey and can help us to understand certain acts of violence in
the epic. Specifically in terms of piracy, we can now look at how the Homeric heroes treat these
different levels of relationships. We can then see what differences, if any, exist between how a
27
hero is expected to behave and how pirates are expected to raid without bringing shame onto
themselves.
28
Chapter III: Odyssey
ὦ ξεῖνοι, τίνες ἐστέ; πόθεν πλεῖθ᾽ ὑγρὰ κέλευθα;
ἤ τι κατά πρῆξιν ἦ μαψιδίως ἀλάλησθε
οἷά τε ληιστῆρες ὑπεὶρ ἅλα, τοί τ᾽ ἀλόωνται
ψυχὰς παρθέμενοι κακὸν ἀλλοδαποῖσι πέροντες;
(Od. 3.73, 9.254)
“O strangers, who are you? From where do you sail the watery paths? Do you
come for trade or do you wander aimlessly like pirates on the sea, who risk their
lives bringing pains to others?”
The chart of relationships established above from examining the Iliad also aids in
understanding the violence in the Odyssey and navigating the moral judgment associated with the
violence. Specifically, the Odyssey’s attitude towards piracy becomes more nuanced by
understanding what relationship ληϊστήρες (traditionally translated as pirates) have to their
potential targets. Though the relationships are conceptually the same in both epics, the people
who comprise the relationship may be different. A primary example is the prevalence of ξένοι in
the Odyssey and the downplaying of the δῆμος. In the Iliad, the story takes place during the war,
so the primary figures the epic follows are the Achaeans and Trojans or their allies. As a result,
the relationship of all of the Achaeans can be considered in terms of the δῆμος or ξένοι, and the
relationship then between the Achaeans and the Trojans who are actually fighting one another
can be considered framed under either ἄλλοι or ἐχθροί.37 In the Odyssey, however, the Achaean
and Trojan coalitions have been disbanded or destroyed. Within this epic, there are many more
possibilities of people to encounter beyond just the δῆμος of the Achaeans or the ἐχθροί of the
37
Certain relationships, such as Achilles and Patroclus being φίλοι and Diomedes and Glaukon being ξένοι, are the
exceptions, but they exist prior to the conflict between the Achaeans and Trojans, not born out of it.
29
Trojans. As a result, the role of ξένος becomes more important to see who is a potential enemy
and who is a potential ally.
The δῆμος represented in the Odyssey is no longer the Achaean coalition, but is instead
the community of Ithaca and neighboring islands. The behavior of Ithaca seems to mirror the
Achaean coalition in many ways. Both have councils of elders, but are also ruled by a chief
figure. Unlike the Achaean coalition, however, the Ithacans lack their king in Odysseus’ absence.
By the end of the epic, Odysseus is vindicated by Athena in killing the suitors who have been
eating up his household.38 The suitors violated traditional behaviors of guest-host relationships
which may be justification enough for their elimination, but Odysseus mentions other concerns
he has against the suitors. He is afraid that they are attempting to take his γέρας, meaning his
station, in the community at large (Od. 11.184 and Od. 15.522).
The γέρας comes to mean the position of a warrior in his community, and as a result, an
attack on his γέρας by the δήμος is also seen as an attack on the warrior, himself. Much like how,
in the Iliad, Agamemnon felt threatened because he had to give up his γέρας so he had to take the
γέρας of another to reaffirm his station, Odysseus is concerned about an attack to his station. The
term γέρας is sometimes used in the Odyssey to mean a prize that is awarded just like in the
Iliad.39 It also can be used not only to represent a hero’s position in the community, but to
actually be used as the term to refer to a hero’s station. When Odysseus is in the Underworld, he
asks his mother about life back on Ithaca.
εἰπὲ δέ μοι πατρός τε καὶ υἱέος, ὃν κατέλειπον,
ἢ ἔτι πὰρ κείνοισιν ἐμὸν γέρας, ἦέ τις ἤδη
ἀνδρῶν ἄλλος ἔχει, ἐμὲ δ᾽ οὐκέτι φασὶ νέεσθαι.
(Od. 11.174-6)
38
39
Concerning the transgression of the suitors as poor hosts, see Cook 1995, 23-27.
11.534. γέρας means an awarded prize.
30
Tell me about my father and my son, whom I have left behind. Does my seat still
rest with them, or does some other man already hold it, and do they no longer say
that I will return home.
Here the word γέρας is used specifically for the position that Odysseus holds in his community
rather than a gift that is given to him. Odysseus’ γέρας is not necessarily directly relating to items
or wealth, as can be seen in the next couple lines where asks if Penelope is guarding his things.
The idea that another man could be taking his γέρας is then repeated by his mother (Od. 11.184).
The same concept is brought up by Telemachus when he is talking to the seer, Theoclymenus.
Telemachus fears that Eurymachus is going to take the γέρας of Odysseus (Od. 15.522), but the
seer replies ὑμετέρου δ᾽ οὐκ ἔστι γένος βασιλεύτερον ἄλλο/ ἐν δήμῳ Ἰθάκης, ἀλλ᾽ ὑμεῖς
καρτεροὶ αἰεί. (Od. 15.533-4.) “There is no other line more kingly than yours in the land of
Ithaca, but you always will be mightier.” The seer seems to understand Telemachus’ concern for
Odysseus’ γέρας in terms of the rule of the island and power of the family. The seer finds it
important to reaffirm that Telemachus’ lineage would continue to rule in Ithaca in order to
alleviate his fears that another would be able to take his father’s γέρας.
The δήμος is now attacking the warrior, so, just as with Achilles, the people are now
shifting into ἒχθροι. The Ithacans are encroaching on Odysseus’ γέρας and his reaction is to
consider them his enemies. Thus, when he returns to Ithaca and slays the suitors, he could be
considered to be justified in the same way that Achilles is justified in turning away from the
Achaean coalition and going so far as to wish for their deaths. In both instances, the heroes are
betrayed by the δῆμος, and as a result, the hero is absolved from his responsibility to the δῆμος.
This is perhaps the time to note that the δῆμος is geographically close to the hero. It is the
community within which the hero must operate, even if he has not entered into a formalized pact
or agreement. As a result, these are not people that the hero may kill with impunity. But if these
31
people somehow attack the hero first, they shift out of this position and into the positon of
ἒχθροι. The gods obliged Achilles’ wish to have the Achaean army hurting to have him back, and
Athena, herself, aids Odysseus in the slaughtering of his own people.
Outside of Ithaca, there are several kings and countries that would have been considered
part of the δῆμος in the Iliad, but have a different relationship with Odysseus in the Odyssey.
One thing that Telemachus learns on his journey to the friends of his father is how properly to
treat a ξένος. Early on in the story, it is clear that Telemachus wants to be a good host by how he
treats Athena disguised as Mentes. Telemachus greets her and is concerned whether she was
properly treated in his house. When he arrives at Pylos, however, Athena teaches him how to be
a guest in Pylos. Telemachus then continues to Menelaus and is a guest in his home as well.40
Along the way, he gains a ξένος in Peisistratus, Nestor’s son. These heroes, though part of the
Achaean coalition, are considered ξένοι with Odysseus and, just like the relationship between
Diomedes and Glaukon in the Iliad, the relationship transfers through generations.
The nature of the friendship between ξένοι is unlike the δῆμος in that the friendship is
ritualized and confirmed with the exchange of gifts. Generally the host bestows gifts upon the
guest with the implicit promise that the favor will be returned when the host later visits the guest.
The gift exchange can be seen in each scene that Telemachus engages with his father’s ξένοι.41
The gifts given are signs of the continued friendship between two heroes, but also act as a way
for a hero to increase his own reputation and standing. The guest-gift can be understood as a gift
representing one’s importance to others and in that way is similar to the γέρας. When Odysseus
returns home disguised as a beggar, one of the suitors, Ctesippus, says to him,
ἀλλ᾽ ἄγε οἱ καὶ ἐγὼ δῶ ξείνιον, ὄφρα καὶ αὐτὸς
40
For more on the importance of Telemachus’ growth in the epic, See Martin 1993.
Telemachus insists a gift be given to Mentes before he leaves (Od. 1.316). Telemachus returns with the gifts of
Menelaus (Od. 15.206-7).
41
32
ἠὲ λοετροχόῳ δώῃ γέρας ἠέ τῳ ἄλλῳ
δμώων, οἳ κατὰ δώματ᾽ Ὀδυσσῆος θείοιο.
(Od. 20.296-8)
But come, I will give him a guest gift, a prize he can give to the one who bathes
him or to another of the slaves, who are in the home of godlike Odysseus.
Though in this scene Ctesippus is plotting to mock Odysseus, he still equates a guest-gift with a
physical prize that can be understood as a wealth item. The benefits that come from participating
in ξένια, then, can be considered to have both a financial benefit, but also one that contributes to
one’s reputation just like the γέρας does in the assembly of the Iliad.
Also similar to the Iliad is how a warrior’s reputation can increase through personal
acquisition of wealth that is not through the community at large. As shown above, this behavior
manifests itself on the plains of Troy through stealing of armor or horses or through ransoms.
This same behavior can be seen in the Odyssey through the prevalence of the ληϊστήρες. The
ληϊστήρες are warriors that attack and raid, not because their targets are enemies, but for the sole
endeavor to gain wealth. Hans Van Wees refers to ληϊστήρες as “a term which is never applied to
the combatants in any of the legendary wars.”42 This is not say that those who fight in legendary
wars cannot also be the same as those who are ληϊστήρες. Rather, if men are fighting in a
legendary war, they are not acting as ληϊστήρες because they have a purpose to fight their ἐχθροί
beyond just obtaining goods.
These ληϊστήρες are common enough in the world of the Odyssey that a common
greeting to unknown strangers appears more than once in which the host asks,
ὦ ξεῖνοι, τίνες ἐστέ; πόθεν πλεῖθ᾽ ὑγρὰ κέλευθα;
ἤ τι κατά πρῆξιν ἦ μαψιδίως ἀλάλησθε
οἷά τε ληιστῆρες ὑπεὶρ ἅλα, τοί τ᾽ ἀλόωνται
ψυχὰς παρθέμενοι κακὸν ἀλλοδαποῖσι πέροντες;
(Od. 3.73, 9.254)
42
Van Wees 1991, 208.
33
“O strangers, who are you? From where do you sail the watery paths? Do you
come for trade or do you wander aimlessly like pirates on the sea, who risk their
lives bringing pains to others?”
Nestor asks this question of Telemachus and Athena when they travel to find news of Odysseus.
He seems not to have any apprehension about the question. Nestor has had a meal and prayed
with his guests. As a result, he is indifferent to whether his guests are ληϊστήρες because he
knows that he is not the target of their raids. He knows this for two reasons. Had Pylos been the
target of the raid, he would already know because the ληϊστήρες would have been hostile. The
other reason is that they have already begun to undergo proper behavior of ξένια. Nestor does not
yet know that he dines with Telemachus, the son of his ξένος, but he knows that he is dining with
non-aggressive people who are praying to the gods with him. Concerning this question, Van
Wees writes, “The question at any rate indicates that it is not unusual to be paid a (peaceful) visit
by a freebooting party on its way to plundering elsewhere.”43 Nestor does not pass judgment on
the act of piracy itself and is content with knowing that he is not the target.
A potential reason a friendly visit from the ληϊστήρες on their way to their victims is not
unusual is the nature of the relationship between the warriors and those they attack. As explained
above, the ληϊστήρες are not involved in war that is meant to hurt their ἐχθροί, but are only
involved in seeking people to attack for wealth. Just as the islands that are uninvolved in the
Trojan War are attacked by the Achaeans, the victims of the ληϊστήρες can be understood as the
ἄλλοι. The ἄλλοι are people who are outside of the relationships of the raiders’ communities.
They tend to be geographically far from the warrior, not as a rule, but as a reality that those close
to the warrior likely already have a different relationship with him. Van Wees supposes that the
targets of raids must be geographically far away in order to prevent retribution from those
43
Van Wees, 1991. 213.
34
attacked.44 Though this may be a logical concern for the ληϊστήρες, it seems more likely that the
raids tend to happen farther away because the raiders have to go farther abroad in order to find
someone who is within the ἄλλοι category and acceptable to raid.
A potential target’s distance from the warrior is a crucial one for the ληϊστήρ, but the
distance is an emotional one rather than a geographic one. The assertion that a ληϊστήρ desires to
raid someone far away because the target will not know them is not always true. A warrior’s
ξένοι can be just as geographically distant as an ἄλλος, yet they will know one another quite
well. In the scene in the Iliad with Glaukon and Diomedes, after the reaffirmation between the
two heroes that they are ξένοι, Diomedes says that he will be a friend and host when Glaukon
comes to the middle of Argos, and that Glaukon will be the same when Diomedes goes to Lycia.
These lands are far from one another, and yet the warriors will have a relationship with people in
those lands in the future.
The scene with the Cyclops in the Odyssey also reaffirms that ξένοι and ἄλλοι, who are
targets of raids, can be equally far away. When Odysseus discovers that someone lives on the
island neighboring the one where his ships landed, he prepares for both possible encounters with
a stranger. Odysseus describes his thoughts,
αὐτὰρ ἐγὼ κρίνας ἑτάρων δυοκαίδεκ᾽ ἀρίστους
βῆν: ἀτὰρ αἴγεον ἀσκὸν ἔχον μέλανος οἴνοιο
ἡδέος, ὅν μοι ἔδωκε Μάρων, Εὐάνθεος υἱός,
ἱρεὺς Ἀπόλλωνος, ὃς Ἴσμαρον ἀμφιβεβήκει,
οὕνεκά μιν σὺν παιδὶ περισχόμεθ᾽ ἠδὲ γυναικὶ
ἁζόμενοι:
(Od. 9.195-200)
However, after I picked the twelve best men, I approached: But I took a goat skin
of sweet, black wine, which Maron had given me, the son of Euanthes, the priest
of Apollo, who protected Ismaros, because we rescued him with his son and wife,
since we were reverent.
44
Van Wees, 1991. 213.
35
The audience already has in mind that Odysseus and his men have just come from the raid on the
Cicones. Mentioning the twelve best men reinforces the possibility that they could easily raid
people who are nearby, but they could also be friendly. By bringing the wine and telling the story
of how he earned it, the audience is reminded of two critical elements of the process of ξένια.
First, the wine is a gift given in respect to Odysseus which is reminiscent of the gifts that are
exchanged between ξένοι. As Ruth Scodel points out, guest gifts are commonly re-gifted and by
discussing the pedigree of the gift, the κλέος of the initial gift-giver also increases.45 Second, he
mentions that he and his men were ἁζόμενοι “reverent”. The audience is reminded of the initial
question that Odysseus ponders about who lives on the island. He asks, ἦε φιλόξεινοι, καί σφιν
νόος ἐστὶ θεουδής (Od. 9.176) “Or are they lovers of guests, and do they have a god-fearing
mind.” As Odysseus later reminds the Cyclops, a ξένος is protected by Zeus, and men who are
reverent to the gods will be good ξένοι. Thus, before Odysseus even enters the cave of the
Cyclops, the audience has in mind the behaviors of both a ληϊστήρ and a ξένος.
Once in the cave, the dilemma between ληϊστήρ and a ξένος comes up again among the
men. Odysseus’ men want to take the goods they find in the cave and escape, but Odysseus
refuses.
ἔνθ᾽ ἐμὲ μὲν πρώτισθ᾽ ἕταροι λίσσοντ᾽ ἐπέεσσιν
τυρῶν αἰνυμένους ἰέναι πάλιν, αὐτὰρ ἔπειτα
καρπαλίμως ἐπὶ νῆα θοὴν ἐρίφους τε καὶ ἄρνας
σηκῶν ἐξελάσαντας ἐπιπλεῖν ἁλμυρὸν ὕδωρ:
ἀλλ᾽ ἐγὼ οὐ πιθόμην, ἦ τ᾽ ἂν πολὺ κέρδιον ἦεν,
ὄφρ᾽ αὐτόν τε ἴδοιμι, καὶ εἴ μοι ξείνια δοίη.
(Od. 9.224-229)
There my companions first begged me with words that we take the cheeses and
come back, then to set sail on the salty sea after we had quickly driven the kids
and sheep from the pen into our swift ship: But I was not persuaded, how much
better it would have been, until I should see him, and if he would give me gifts.
45
Scodel 2008.
36
All of Odysseus’ men want to be ληϊστήρες by taking the goods and running. Odysseus,
however, was to become a ξένος with the owner of the cave. The cave is far away from their
home, and though Odysseus later regrets not simply raiding the cave, both options of being a
ληϊστήρ or a ξένος are open for the men. Thus, the geographic distance is not what determines a
viable target for the ληϊστήρες, but rather it is the relationship of the target to the warrior. There
is a correlation, however, between the closeness of distance and the closeness of relationship.
Those that are far away are less likely to have already entered in some friendship with the
warrior and tend to be ἄλλοι to him. The graphic below shows the correlation between the
previously established relationship and their geographic distance from the hero.
Figure 3
As discussed above, the acquisition of goods through warfare improves the reputation of
the warrior, even if not in a community context such as the γέρα. In the Iliad, a warrior who was
fighting to acquire goods was doing so either in context of the war or obtaining supplies for the
37
war.46 As a result, community sharing and distribution of the captured goods is essential for the
community of warriors. A warrior is still able to obtain some goods personally that then are not
redistributed to the whole army based on status. In the Odyssey, since ληϊστήρες are not fighting
in context of a larger war, the spoils obtained by the raiders are kept and equally shared. When
describing his raid on the Cicones, Odysseus says,
Ἰλιόθεν με φέρων ἄνεμος Κικόνεσσι πέλασσεν,
Ἰσμάρῳ. ἔνθα δ᾽ ἐγὼ πόλιν ἔπραθον, ὤλεσα δ᾽ αὐτούς:
ἐκ πόλιος δ᾽ ἀλόχους καὶ κτήματα πολλὰ λαβόντες
δασσάμεθ᾽, ὡς μή τίς μοι ἀτεμβόμενος κίοι ἴσης.
(Od. 9.39-42)
Carrying me from Ilium, the wind brought me to the Cicones, to Ismarus. There I
sacked the city, and killed the men: After we seized the wives and many goods
from the city, we divided them up, in order that no one would go deprived of his
share by me.
Odysseus divides up the goods that the men obtained and it seems to imply that everyone
received an equal share. This is unlike the redistribution of spoils in the Iliad, where certain
members of the community received greater shares due to their greater status. Odysseus’
redistribution does not include a γέρας to reflect someone’s position among those raiding.47
This reading of the Odyssey is perhaps the most in line with modern theories of actual
piracy during the Iron Age. Aren Maeir and Louis Hitchcock propose the possibility of large
groups of raiders that are still led by one pirate king. Such groups of raiders would likely share
their spoils equally based on what they took from their targets. Once the Eastern Mediterranean
began to be no longer lucrative for such raiders, the leaders of the pirates likely settled their
people in different areas. One such group is known as the Philistines, who settled in the Levant.
The leader of the Philistines was known as a Seren, which potentially has an etymological
46
Finley 1945, 41.
When comparing piracy during the Iron Age to historic piracy, Aren M. Maeir and Louise Hitchcock explore the
egalitarian nature of pirates and the necessity to recruit men by a share in the spoils. They discuss the etymology
of Seren and the likelihood of settling among and assimilating with local populations.
47
38
similarity with the Neo-Hittite word Tarwannis, and then the Greek Tyrannos. The conclusion
about the wide spread use of this title is the mixing of languages across the Mediterranean. The
raiders, after they had set aside their piracy, would settle an area and assimilate with the local
people. Could Odysseus be serving as a cultural memory of this time? It is possible that
Odysseus represents a king who has been off raiding, who finally returns to his original place
and settles.48 Whether or not the behavior of Odysseus and his men actually reflect a cultural past
during the Iron Age, during their raids after the war such the attack of the Cicones, Odysseus and
his men share equally in the spoils.
Odysseus and his men seem to differ in their expectations about certain relationships.
Specifically, Odysseus’ relationships with a ξένος benefits him by the increase in his reputation
and by an increase in possessions. The benefit, however, is not always transferred to his men.
When sailing with the bags of wind back to Ithaca, his men are upset that he got a guest-gift from
Aeolus. After Odysseus falls asleep, his men decide that they should get some of what is in the
bag. The men say,
πολλὰ μὲν ἐκ Τροίης ἄγεται κειμήλια καλὰ
ληίδος, ἡμεῖς δ᾽ αὖτε ὁμὴν ὁδὸν ἐκτελέσαντες
οἴκαδε νισσόμεθα κενεὰς σὺν χεῖρας ἔχοντες:
καὶ νῦν οἱ τάδ᾽ ἔδωκε χαριζόμενος φιλότητι
Αἴολος. ἀλλ᾽ ἄγε θᾶσσον ἰδώμεθα ὅττι τάδ᾽ ἐστίν,
ὅσσος τις χρυσός τε καὶ ἄργυρος ἀσκῷ ἔνεστιν.
(Od. 10.40-5)
He carries many beautiful things from the spoils piled up from Troy, but we are
going home with empty hands after we have completed the same journey. And
now Aeolus has given him these graciously bestowing these things to him with
affection. But come on, let us quickly see what things there are, what sort of gold
and silver are in the bag.
Odysseus’ men seem to begrudge him two things. First, that he is leaving with a large
store of spoils that he obtained during the war. His men are angry that he has more than
48
Hitchcock and Maeir 2014.
39
they do, but they had not previously decided to try to take these goods. When Odysseus,
however, gets his guest-gift, his men think that they should get some portion of the
goods. Their expectation that they should get part of his guest-gift is clearly not shared by
Odysseus.
This disagreement could also explain why previously his men wanted to raid the
cave of the cyclops, but Odysseus wanted to wait for the guest-gift. When a hero partakes
in ξένια with another hero, his men do not benefit from the goods taken home. Thus,
perhaps it was never Odysseus’ intention to raid the Cyclops, but his men wished to take
things from the cave and run so that they could gain in the spoils. The scholia on that
scene argues that Odysseus brings only twelve men because he attempts not to seem like
a pirate as he is approaching the Cyclops’ cave.49 Unlike the Cicones, where he is fully
invested in raiding them, he takes fewer men to the cave. This scene shows us that the
inclination of Odysseus’ men are more towards raiding than Odysseus’. Whether
Odysseus raids or receives a guest-gift, he gains financially and his reputation will grow.
His men, however, can only gain in wealth by completing these raids.
Even when there is no situation where the community is simultaneously bestowing
wealth and position on the hero, the reputation of the hero can still improve from his personal
acquisition of goods. When Odysseus returns to Ithaca, he lies about his identity to Eumaeus and
fabricates a story about a Cretan raider. He tells Eumaeus that he is a noble from Crete and gives
the story of his life before he was imprisoned.
49
αὐτὰρ ἐγὼ κρίνας ἑτάρων] χωρίσας καὶ ἐπιλεξάμενος τοὺς ἀρίστους. διὰ τί δώδεκα; καὶ γὰρ ὀλίγοι, ἵνα μὴ δοκῇ
ὡς ἐπὶ λῃστείαν ἥκειν· ἐλάττους δὲ πάλιν οὐκ ἦγεν, ἵνα μὴ εὐκαταφρόνητος εἶναι δόξῃ· ἀλλ' οὐδὲ ὅπλα
ἐπιφέρεται, ἵνα μὴ ὡς πολέμιος εἶναι δοκῇ. αὐτὸς δὲ παρέστη καὶ οὐ προπέμπει, ἵνα μὴ φαίνηται δειλὸς τοῖς
Φαίαξι. τὸν δὲ ἀσκὸν οἰκεῖον ἐφόδιον λαμβάνει, τὸν οἶνον, πρὸς ποιμενικοὺς καὶ ἀγρίους ἄνδρας. διὰ τί οὖν κινεῖ
τὸν ᾿Οδυσσέα πρὸς τὸ μὴ πεισθῆναι τοῖς ἑταίροις συμβουλεύουσι φυγεῖν; ὅτι γενόμενος ἐν τῷ σπηλαίῳ οὐδεμίαν
βίου θηριώδους ὑπόνοιαν ἔλαβε. T scholia ad. Od. 9.195.
40
πρὶν μὲν γὰρ Τροίης ἐπιβήμεναι υἷας Ἀχαιῶν
εἰνάκις ἀνδράσιν ἦρξα καὶ ὠκυπόροισι νέεσσιν
ἄνδρας ἐς ἀλλοδαπούς, καί μοι μάλα τύγχανε πολλά.
τῶν ἐξαιρεύμην μενοεικέα, πολλὰ δ᾽ ὀπίσσω
λάγχανον: αἶψα δὲ οἶκος ὀφέλλετο, καί ῥα ἔπειτα
δεινός τ᾽ αἰδοῖός τε μετὰ Κρήτεσσι τετύγμην.
(Od. 14.229-34)
Before leading the sons of the Achaeans to Troy, nine times I led men in our fast
sailing ships against foreign men, and many great things fell upon me. From them
I took for myself a pleasing amount, and much more came to me by lot afterward:
quickly my house grew, and then I had made myself feared and respected among
the Cretans.
Odysseus reveals here that a man would be able to grow both his personal wealth and reputation
through raiding. He reveals that the purpose for the expeditions that he leads is specifically to
obtain wealth, and he does not get involved in a formal war until the Trojan War. A warrior who
was previously a raider could join in on a legendary war. “The Cretan” joins along with
Idomeneus in leading the Cretan forces at Troy showing he has achieved a high rank among the
Cretans. He reveals that he returns to raiding after the war and the Cretans go to Egypt to raid.
Later on when the same story is told, Odysseus actually uses the term ληϊστήρες when referring
to those attacking Egypt.50 ληϊστήρες can gain honor just like any hero fighting at Troy, and the
term seems to one of temporary status. A hero can fight in a legendary war and be considered a
warrior, but then raid others for the sole purpose of gaining wealth and is at that time considered
a pirate. As a result, the actions of piracy and ληϊστήρες do not have a negative connotation so
long as it is done against the appropriate people.
When ληϊστήρες have a negative connotation, it is because the ληϊστήρες are not raiding
the proper people. In book XVI, Penelope is rebuking Antinous for his disrespect toward
Odysseus’ home and reminds him that his father, Eupeithes, once came to Odysseus for help due
to his involvement with ληϊστήρες. She says,
50
Od. 17.425.
41
ἦ οὐκ οἶσθ᾽ ὅτε δεῦρο πατὴρ τεὸς ἵκετο φεύγων,
δῆμον ὑποδείσας; δὴ γὰρ κεχολώατο λίην,
οὕνεκα ληϊστῆρσιν ἐπισπόμενος Ταφίοισιν
ἤκαχε Θεσπρωτούς: οἱ δ᾽ ἡμῖν ἄρθμιοι ἦσαν:
τόν ῥ᾽ ἔθελον φθῖσαι καὶ ἀπορραῖσαι φίλον ἦτορ
ἠδὲ κατὰ ζωὴν φαγέειν μενοεικέα πολλήν:
(Od. 16.424-9)
Do you not know that your father came here as a fugitive, and shrinking away
from the people? For indeed he was excessively hated because he followed the
Taphian pirates and grieved the Thesprotians: and they were in league with us.
They wanted to destroy him and to bereave him of his dear heart and to eat up his
great, satisfying, livelihood.
The Ithacans are so angry with Eupeithes that they want to take all his wealth and kill him. Only
Odysseus is able to hold them back from doing so. The level of anger that the Ithacans have
toward Eupeithes is so much greater than any other attitude taken towards ληϊστήρες that his
mistake must have been more grievous than piracy alone. Eupeithes’ mistake is that he was not
raiding ἄλλοι. The Thesprotians were people with whom the Ithacans were united and, as a
result, not an acceptable target for piracy.
One passage remains, however, where a character seems to view piracy in a negative
light. When the swineherd, Eumaeus, is offering to food to Odysseus, he laments how little he
has to offer because the suitors are consuming all the food themselves. Eumaeus then draws a
comparison between the suitors and pirates.
ἀτὰρ σιάλους γε σύας μνηστῆρες ἔδουσιν,
οὐκ ὄπιδα φρονέοντες ἐνὶ φρεσὶν οὐδ᾽ ἐλεητύν.
οὐ μὲν σχέτλια ἔργα θεοὶ μάκαρες φιλέουσιν,
ἀλλὰ δίκην τίουσι καὶ αἴσιμα ἔργ᾽ ἀνθρώπων.
καὶ μὲν δυσμενέες καὶ ἀνάρσιοι, οἵ τ᾽ ἐπὶ γαίης
ἀλλοτρίης βῶσιν καί σφι Ζεὺς ληΐδα δώῃ,
πλησάμενοι δέ τε νῆας ἔβαν οἶκόνδε νέεσθαι,
καὶ μὲν τοῖς ὄπιδος κρατερὸν δέος ἐν φρεσὶ πίπτει.
οἵδε δὲ καί τι ἴσασι, θεοῦ δέ τιν᾽ ἔκλυον αὐδήν,
κείνου λυγρὸν ὄλεθρον, ὅτ᾽ οὐκ ἐθέλουσι δικαίως
μνᾶσθαι οὐδὲ νέεσθαι ἐπὶ σφέτερ᾽,
(Od. 14.82-91)
42
The suitors, however, eat the fat hogs, not concerned with vengeance or pity in
their hearts. The blessed gods do not love wicked deeds, but they honor justice
and the suitable deeds of men. Even enemies and hostiles, who have come to
foreign land and Zeus grants them spoils, and they go home returning with filled
ships, even then a strong fear of vengeance falls on them in their hearts. But these
suitors know something, they heard some report from the gods, the mournful
death of that man. So they do not wish to court justly or to return to their own
homes.
Some scholars see this passage as a condemnation of pirates and raiders. They believe that
Eumaeus is comparing the suitors with raiders in order to liken two groups of men doing
shameful acts.51 Van Wees, however, offers an interpretation of this scene that opposes these
views. He argues that the retribution that is mentioned in these lines is not necessarily divine
retribution, but is instead a retribution that could be carried out by the victims.52
By using the hierarchy of relationships, Eumaeus’ remarks can become clearer. The
raiders are going to lands of others, ἂλλοι, in order to do their raiding. Zeus, rather than
punishing them, grants them their spoils. Eumaeus emphasizes that even these men are afraid.
Their fear, however, is not that they have violated the will of the gods or done something wrong.
Instead, their fear is that the victims of their raids may want some sort of retribution. The suitors,
on the other hand, fear nothing. Eumaeus implies that they should be afraid. They, as the δῆμος,
have violated and wronged the hero. As a result, they should expect some sort of retribution for
their actions. Just as in the Iliad, Achilles is able to wish the Achaeans harm after he was
wronged by the δῆμος, Odysseus is also in the right to punish those who have betrayed him.
Eumaeus explains that they do not fear vengeance, and it is because they believe that the man
they have wronged, and who could justly harm them, is dead.
51
52
Heubeck, West, and Hainsworth 1988.
Van Wees 1993, 215-216.
43
What seem to be grey areas and divided opinions towards piracy in the epics, may
actually only be misinterpretations of the expectations of pirates. As with the other warriors in
the epics, the attitudes towards pirates are not determined by their actions, but rather the targets
of their actions. Understanding the relationships the pirates have with the groups around them,
and the ways the pirates are supposed to interact with those groups, aids us in interpreting their
actions. Although there is not a condemnation of piracy within the epic tradition, there is a
turning away from violence. With Odysseus in the position of pirate king, he will eventually
need to turn away from piracy and return to Ithaca. His journey back to Ithaca and return to a
peaceful position of king, after slaying the people who became his ἒχθροι, may represent more
than just a warrior’s return home. An audience that is receiving this tale which may have a
negative attitude towards piracy could be harkening back to a time where piracy was rampant,
yet eventually had to give way to changing times.
44
Chapter IV: Conclusion
Many of the mistakes made when interpreting piracy in the epics comes from
misunderstanding the hierarchy of relationships. The reader must understand that the ληϊστήρες
are not considered shameful, but actually have an opportunity to increase their own reputation
among the community, if they are targeting the right people. If the ληϊστήρες target someone
other than ἄλλοι, then they are not practicing piracy in the appropriate way. As a result, one
could interpret animosity towards these ληϊστήρες who do not attack the proper people as having
animosity towards the act of piracy itself. Thucydides’ surprise about the attitude toward piracy
is likely due to the influence of his own time. In his world, polis states have become a much
larger focus than the individual. Consequently, when private citizens, independent of the city’s
wishes, raid others solely for wealth, they are not seen in a good light. Thucydides could see that
the warrior’s status in Homer, which is often determined by prowess on the battlefield, holds a
larger importance in the epics than does simply acting in the best interest of the city.
Understanding the epics in this way help both to reveal attitudes towards the warrior’s interaction
with this community and to understanding how some readers view these interactions.
The archaeological evidence of a Bronze Age trauma, combined with our knowledge of
Sea Peoples, paints a picture in which raiding existed on a large scale before Thucydides.
Thucydides may be reacting to the memory of these times and seems to be equating this historic
past with the cultural memory in the poets. As a result, Thucydides claims that piracy was not a
shameful act. As shown, the Homeric epics do not seem to have a negative attitude towards
pirates so long as they target the appropriate victims. Thucydides and the epics may be behaving
45
in the same way, however, where they both reflect the cultural past. The concept that Thucydides
cites in the poems to support his memory of piracy may be the very same memory that the poets
are singing of. Although I think Thucydides’ concept of piracy in respect to the Homeric epics is
correct, his understanding of relationships in the epics and in his own world determine his
attitude towards it.
Even in Thucydides’ day, piracy was not uncommon. One form of warfare used in the
Peloponnesian War was raiding, which Thucydides calls ληίστεια. Historians of piracy in
Thucydides’ time note that this was a common tactic used by the Athenians to raise money
against the Spartans, and a way for Sparta to attack Athens. Sparta would call for reprisals
against Athens in the form of raids, essentially making piracy legal so long as it was against their
enemies.53 If Thucydides used the word ληίστεια, he surely would have recognized the
etymological similarities with the pirates in Homer. He does not, however, find it necessary to
comment on the moral judgment of raids in his own time. The judgment of piracy during
Thucydides’ time seemed to be contingent on the relationship the raiders have to the targets. If
the raiders’ allies were enemies with the targets, the raid was a good thing. Could this have
shaped Thucydides’ understanding of piracy and relationships in the epics?
Piracy is not the only topic where the way in which the audience understands the
relationships in the epics determine how they judge the characters. In his Republic, Plato uses the
stories in the Iliad in a didactic way for his audiences and draws attention to the behavior of
Achilles when Agamemnon is attempting to offer him great wealth in order to return to the
Achaean army. Plato condemns Achilles and the advice of Phoenix to accept the gifts, and warns
of avarice.54 Plato is ignoring the nature of the relationship between Agamemnon and Achilles.
53
54
DeSouza 1995.
The Republic, 3.390e-91a
46
They are not two citizens of the same polis, nor is Achilles the vassal of Agamemnon. As stated
above, their relationship is an alliance bound by mutual respect and opportunity. When
Agamemnon takes the γέρας from Achilles, he is acting as an enemy. The importance of Achilles
accepting the gifts is not just that he is placated with wealth, but it is the renewal of their
relationship. Plato chooses not to understand their relationship in these terms and warns against
the message of needing wealth for reconciliation. His understanding of their relationship
determines how he reads who is at blame for their sundering and allows him to pass a judgment,
contemporary to him, but foreign to the epics about Achilles’ actions.
Finally returning to the historicity of Homer and the impact that this may have on our
understanding of the times before the epics, I wish to reiterate that the cultural history is near
contemporary with the presentation of the poems. It is likely that the attitude towards pirates,
both being common and without shame, is an attitude or expectation that the audience of Homer
had with the past. A memory about a time in which piracy dominated the seas may be present,
but the way in which that story must end is through a decrease in piracy. Odysseus may embody
this shift from a time where a king would lead a large force against unsuspecting towns, to a time
where a king and warriors had to settle down from their pirating ways.
When I first began to look at the attitudes towards raiding and piracy in the epics, I
considered the behavior of the Homeric heroes to be overly simplistic. As may be common, I
considered the hero to be primarily focused on simply hurting his friends and harming his
enemies. After I have explored a topic, in the form of piracy, where violence is not so easily
understood, it became clear that the social complexity of how a warrior was supposed to interact
with his community was much more nuanced. Separating the relationships of the heroes, even
the ones that would otherwise seem the same, perhaps like ξένοι and φίλοι, can ultimately aid us.
47
The process of creating the hierarchy of relationships requires the reader to examine which
people the hero treats in similar ways. After creating a category for the relationship, we can see
what other people may be in that relationship to help us understand the dynamics in their
relationship. Ultimately, creating a hierarchy of relationships cannot be an exact process due to
varying degrees of appropriate behavior that the epic may show, but the process of examining
these relationships in order to understand the motivations of the characters within the poems will
ultimately help us understand the epics that much more.
48
References
Bennet, John. 1997. “Homer in the Bronze Age” in A New Companion to Homer. Morris and
Powell, eds. Brill, New York. 511-534.
Cook, Erwin. 1995. The Odyssey in Athens. Cornell University Press.
De Souza, P. 1999. Piracy in the Graeco-Roman World. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University
Press.
De Souza, P. 1995. ‘Greek Piracy’, in Powell, A., ed., The Greek World, London: 179-98.
Donlan, Walter. 1982. “Reciprocities in Homer”, in The Classical World, Vol. 75, No. 3 (Jan.Feb., 1982), pp. 137-175.
Donlan, Walter. 2002. “Achilles the Ally”, in Arethusa, Vol. 35, No. 1 (Winter 2002), pp. 15172.
Finley, M. I. 1965. The World of Odysseus. New York: The Viking Press.
Griffin, Jasper. 1980. Homer on Life and Death. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Heubeck, A. West, S. and Hainsworth, J.B. 1988. A Commentary on Homer’s Odyssey. Vol I.
Introduction and Books i-viii. Oxford University Press.
Hitchcock, Louise and Maeir, Aren. 2014. “Yo-ho, yo-ho, a seren’s life for me!”, World
Archaeology, 46:4, 624-640.
Hitchcock, Louise and Maeir, Aren. 2016. “A Pirate’s Life for Me: The Maritime Culture of the
Sea Peoples.” Palestine Exploration Quarterly. 148(4). pp. 1-20.
Hogan, J. 1979. A Guide to the “Iliad.” Garden City, NY. Doubleday.
Hornblower, Simon. 1991. “A Commentary on Thucydides: Vol. I: Books 1-3.” Oxford
University Press.
Lord, Albert B. 1960. The Singer of Tales. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
MacLachlan, Bonnie. 1993. The Age of Grace: Charis in Early Greek Poetry. Princeton:
Princeton University Press.
Martin, Richard. 1993. “Telemachus and the Last Hero Song” in Colby Quarterly. Vol 29. Issue
3. pp. 222-240.
Morris, Ian. 1997. “Homer and the Iron Age” in A New Companion to Homer. Morris and
Powell, eds. Brill, New York. 535-599.
Nagy, Gregory. 1979. The Best of the Achaeans. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Ormerod, Henry Arderne. 1978. Piracy in the Ancient World: An Essay in Mediterranean
History. Liverpool: Liverpool University Press.
Pucci, Pietro. 1988. The Song of the Sirens: Essays on Homer. New York: Rowman and
Littlefield, Inc.
Raaflaub, Kurt. 1997. “Homeric Society” in A New Companion to Homer. Morris and Powell,
eds. Brill, New York. 624-648.
Ready, Jonathan. 2007. “The Acquisition of Spoils in the Iliad” in Transactions of the American
Philological Association (1974-), Vol. 137, No. 1 (Spring, 2007), pp. 3-43.
Sandars, N.K. 1978. The Sea Peoples: Warriors of the Ancient Mediterranean. New York:
Thames and Hudson.
Scodel, Ruth. 2008. Epic Facework: Self-presentation and Social Interaction in Homer. The
Classical Press of Wales.
Van Wees, Hans. 1992. Status Warrior: War, Violence and Society in Homer and History.
Amsterdam: J.C. Gieben.
49
West, M.L. 2014. The Making of the Odyssey. Oxford University Press.
Willcock, M.M. 1976. A Companion to the “Iliad.” Chicago: Chicago University Press.
Wilson, Donna. 2002. Ransom, Revenge, and Heroic Identity in the Iliad. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
50