Speech Presentation in Homeric Epic 9780292738812

Citation preview

S PE E C H PR E SE N TAT ION I N HOM E R IC E PIC

Beck-final.indb i

6/26/12 7:55:28 PM

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

SPE ECH PR E SE N TAT ION in HOM E R IC E PIC

BY DE BOR A H BEC K

u n i v e r s i t y of t e x a s pr e s s Austin

Beck-final.indb iii

6/26/12 7:55:29 PM

Copyright © 2012 by the University of Texas Press All rights reserved Printed in the United States of America First edition, 2012 Requests for permission to reproduce material from this work should be sent to: Permissions University of Texas Press P.O. Box 7819 Austin, TX 78713-7819 www.utexas.edu/utpress/about/bpermission.html ∞ The paper used in this book meets the minimum requirements of ○ ansi/niso z39.48-1992 (r1997) (Permanence of Paper). L I BR A RY OF CONGR E SS C ATA LOGI NGI NPU BL IC AT ION DATA

Beck, Deborah. Speech presentation in Homeric epic / by Deborah Beck. — First edition. pages. cm. Includes bibliographical references and index. isbn 978-0-292-73880-5 (cloth : alkaline paper) — isbn 978-0-292-73881-2 (e-book) 1. Homer—Criticism and interpretation. 2. Speech in literature. I. Title. pa4177.c64b434 2012 883′.01—dc23 2012000876

Beck-final.indb iv

6/26/12 7:55:30 PM

In memory of my mother Susan Schwarz Beck lHz

Beck-final.indb v

6/26/12 7:55:31 PM

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

C ON T E N TS

ac k now l e d g m e n t s ix I N T RODUC T ION 1

c h a p t e r on e DI R E C T QUO TAT ION 23

ch a pter t wo F R E E I N DI R E C T SPE E C H 57

chapter thr ee I N DI R E C T SPE E C H 79

c h a p t e r f ou r SPE E C H M E N T ION 107

chapter five SPE E C H PR E SE N TAT ION I N T H E ODY S S E Y 130

chapter six SPE E C H PR E SE N TAT ION I N T H E I L I A D 155 C ONC LUSION 187

vii

Beck-final.indb vii

6/26/12 7:55:32 PM

no t e s 197 bi bl io g r a ph y 237 g e n e r a l i n de x 245 i n de x l o c oru m 255

SPE ECH PR E SEN TAT ION in HOM ER IC EPIC

viii

Beck-final.indb viii

6/26/12 7:55:33 PM

AC K NOW L E DGM E N TS

It is a great pleasure to thank the people and institutions that have supported this book and its author. The National Endowment for the Humanities and Swarthmore College funded a sabbatical in 2004–2005, during which I did the initial work. The Harvard University Department of the Classics hosted me as a Visiting Scholar for the 2008–2009 academic year, providing a congenial and welcoming environment as well as matchless library resources. The University of Texas at Austin has given invaluable assistance in bringing the book to completion. This includes appointments as the 2009–2010 holder of the Rachael and Ben Vaughan Faculty Fellowship in Classics, as a Fellow of the Robert M. Armstrong Centennial Professorship, and to a Summer Research Assignment, as well as less tangible but by no means less helpful efforts like strategic course scheduling and moral support. Maria Sarinaki, my research assistant, allowed me to finish the project much earlier than I would otherwise have been able to with her superb efficiency and attention to detail. I owe particular thanks to Stephen White, the Chair of the Department of Classics, for his unflagging support and enthusiasm for my work. At the University of Texas Press, Jim Burr is every writer’s dream of an editor, insofar as he works promptly, offers lots of positive feedback, and gives constructive criticism in a clear and low-key way that maximizes the likelihood of headstrong academics actually doing what they are told. Lynne Chapman and Sherry Wert were extremely responsive and helpful with the editing and production process. The two readers, whose eyes were equally keen and constructive for big-picture issues and for missing, wrong, or unclear details, improved the finished book a great deal. I am entirely responsible for its remaining shortcomings. Phil Baldi entertained linguistic questions with unfailing goodwill. Eric Behrens taught me about FileMaker, without which this book would not have been possible. The help and expertise of Peter Keane and Suloni Robertson, in Liberal Arts Instruc-

ix

Beck-final.indb ix

6/26/12 7:55:34 PM

tional Technology Services at the University of Texas at Austin, were invaluable for putting the database on the Internet. Eleanor Dickey provided feedback on work in progress that had a transformative effect on the later directions of the project. Ruth Scodel provided sound and helpful criticism at several points along the way. Jennifer Trimble always had confidence in the project, even (or especially) when I did not. Versions of several ideas in this book first appeared in “Character-Quoted Direct Speech in the Iliad” (Phoenix 62 [2008]: 162–183) and “Narratology and Linguistics: An Interdisciplinary Perspective on Homeric Speech Representation” (Transactions of the American Philological Association 138 [2008]: 351–378, reprinted with permission by The Johns Hopkins University Press). Portions of Chapters 2, 4, and 5 have previously appeared as “The Presentation of Song in Homer’s Odyssey,” in Orality and Literacy IX, edited by E. Minchin (Leiden: Brill, 2011), 25–53. One point in Chapter 4 was published in “Speech Act Types, Conversational Exchange, and the Speech Representational Spectrum in Homer,” in Narratology and Interpretation, edited by J. Grethlein and A. Rengakos (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2009), 137–151. I am indebted to these publications for permission to include this material. Finally, I would like to dedicate this book to my late mother, who had no background in classics but whose own professional life provided a model for combining a rigorous and systematic attention to detail with not losing sight of the big picture. Despite failing health, she remained interested in my work until the last week of her life. I offer this book as a small token of my love and gratitude for all she taught me.

SPE ECH PR E SEN TAT ION in HOM ER IC EPIC

x

Beck-final.indb x

6/26/12 7:55:35 PM

S PE E C H PR E SE N TAT ION I N HOM E R IC E PIC

Beck-final.indb xi

6/26/12 7:55:36 PM

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

I N T RODUC T ION

This book is a study of the full range of techniques for presenting speech in the Homeric epics, something that has been assumed not to exist in Homeric poetry.¹ A range of speech presentation strategies² can indeed be found in Homeric poetry, and they are well worth our attention. If there is such a thing, this fact alone changes our understanding of Homeric narrative in a basic and significant way. Moreover, individual pieces of this overall approach to presenting speech do not fully make sense if they are studied in isolation from other parts of the system. The main conclusion of this book is that each speech presentation technique has a stable set of functions and effects, and that these individual techniques add up to a unified, consistent speech presentation spectrum that underlies the entirety of both poems at all narrative levels. Different kinds of narrators use varied but overlapping subsets of this spectrum;³ a given speech presentation technique does not have one function or effect for a particular narrator or type of speech or narrative context, and a different function in a different context. Such a unified speech presentation spectrum gives a new kind of unity to the poems, which we must take into account in order to understand their power and effect as narratives. This study draws mainly on two bodies of theory for its approach to speech presentation, namely narratology and pragmatics. Narratology, a branch of literary theory concerned with how stories are constructed and told, has developed widely used terminology for describing speech presentation. However, there are important aspects of Homeric speech presentation that narratology cannot explain. For example, whether a given speech is part of a conversation, and where it falls in a conversational exchange, affects how the speech is presented. So does what the speech is trying to do (or, in other words, the speech act type). Directives are presented in a much greater variety of ways than questions or emotional exclamations like vaunts or laments, but the speech presentation typology developed by

1

Beck-final.indb 1

6/26/12 7:55:37 PM

narratology does not address this aspect of Homeric speech presentation. To complement narratological approaches to speech presentation, we must turn to ideas developed by subfields of linguistics. In addition to speech act theory, we need pragmatics, and in particular, the notion of the “move” of a speech, which relates various features of an utterance to its position within a conversation. Finally, expressivity, or the features of an utterance that mark it as the speech of an individual with feelings about what he or she has said, can explain why some speeches are presented with direct quotation and others, apparently identical in content and function, are presented differently. This study draws on consensus ideas of these different concepts developed within the individual disciplines from which each has emerged, and uses them in new combinations to shed light both on Homeric speech presentation and on each other. This approach to speech presentation has several benefits. It provides a more well-rounded view of individual speech presentation techniques than we get from studying each one in isolation. Some techniques that have been almost completely neglected, like speech mention, can be understood for the first time as positive contributors to the narrative texture of the poems and not simply fallback mechanisms for times when the “default” presentation technique of direct quotation is not needed. Conversely, we gain a much richer appreciation of what direct quotation brings to the poems if we see it not simply as the default option for presenting speech, but against the larger background of what the other ways of presenting speech contribute to the narrative texture of the poems. Moreover, if both narratology and linguistics are combined into one set of interpretive tools for studying speech presentation, Homeric speech presentation takes on a qualitatively different and more compelling force as a way of understanding the poems. Not only does speech presentation make more sense with this interdisciplinary approach than if either narratology or pragmatics is used alone, but individual speeches themselves yield new insights when we look at them as human speech that can be understood along the same lines as the recorded speech of contemporary speakers that pragmatics uses for its inquiries. If the Homeric epics present speech partly according to pragmatic features that characterize “real” spoken speech, the speech in the poems is implicitly brought closer to the speech patterns of non-fictional humans. Just as direct speech has pushed other modes of speech presentation to the periphery of studies about Homeric speech presentation, so, too, the main narrators of the poems have generally been privileged over the characters as narrators in analyses of Homeric narrative.⁴ A speech presentation spectrum brings together into one cohesive unity not only individual modes of speech presentation, but also different narrators and different narrative levels. As with SPE ECH PR E SEN TAT ION in HOM ER IC EPIC

2

Beck-final.indb 2

6/26/12 7:55:37 PM

different ways of presenting speech, different narrators play complementary roles as presenters of speech that, together, form the Homeric poems. These conclusions are important for two related reasons. First, this unified speech presentation spectrum entails a new kind of unity not only for each poem individually, but for the Iliad and the Odyssey together. Different kinds of speech acts, different kinds of narrators, and both Homeric epics draw on the same speech presentation spectrum to create a huge range of different effects. That the same set of building blocks creates all these different effects suggests a powerful unity both within and between the Homeric epics. The best way to explain this from a theoretical perspective is the implied author, defined by one scholar as “not the narrator, but rather the principle that invented the narrator, along with everything else in the narrative, that stacked the cards in this particular way.”⁵ The implied author, although a perfectly valid narratological construct, is generally ignored in narratological work focusing on Homeric poetry.⁶ In fact, the main narrators and their narrative practices complement those of the characters, a fundamental aspect of the narrative texture of the poems. I attribute this to the implied author, the voiceless arranger of the voices found in the text across all narrative levels. Although scholars have studied some of the differences between the main narrator and the characters as narrators,⁷ this work has generally not gone on to consider the overall effect of the combination of this type of main narrator with this type (or types) of character narrator. The overall effect of the combination is, in fact, the poems themselves. The notion of the implied author appears here only in my Introduction and Conclusion, because the importance of the implied author is the cumulative result of all the chapters rather than the conclusion of any one chapter individually. The unity of the poems that I connect with the implied author is nonetheless one of the book’s key conclusions. The presence of an implied author points to a final benefit of the approach in this book, which is not a conclusion so much as a way of looking at the poems that I hope will contribute to the recent intellectual climate of seeing the Homeric epics both as orally based poetry and as fundamentally human and accessible forms of behavior. Both fictional storytelling and conversational interchange in the Homeric poems can be understood in ways that are similar to those applied to modern fictional narrative— namely the speech presentation spectrum and the implied author—and to the conversations of “real” people who are directly available for linguistic study. An overblown sense of Homeric epic as unique and inexplicable in literary history can stand in the way of understanding the poems. This has been particularly troublesome in relation to the tradition of oral poetry that underlies the Homeric epics. Despite important work showing the range INTRODUCTION

3

Beck-final.indb 3

6/26/12 7:55:38 PM

and capacity of oral poetic traditions around the world,⁸ some scholars’ minds have simply boggled at the idea that the Homeric epics could themselves be oral.⁹ Accordingly, some readers have abandoned the orality of the epics because they are undeniably subtle and complex fictional narratives.¹⁰ This is a pity, because a persuasive body of work shows that sophisticated aesthetics can exist in poetry that relies heavily on formulaic language.¹¹ Similarly, theoretical frameworks for understanding speech presentation that have been developed for modern fictional narrative can profitably be applied to Homeric poetry to a greater extent than has been generally done, resulting in the insights that (for example) the poems do use unified speech presentational systems. In a broader sense, this both changes our idea of how Homeric poetry fits into the overall “storyline” of Western literature, and makes the poems themselves seem more intellectually accessible, insofar as we can use a modern theoretical construct to make sense of the product of an ancient and in some ways very alien oral poetic tradition. In an effort to make this study as widely accessible as possible, I have intentionally avoided detailed discussions of theoretical background for its own sake. This may displease devotees of the various disciplines on which I draw, who might prefer a more extensive and exhaustive treatment of the theoretical framework both of relevant concepts developed by their discipline and of current debates going on within the discipline. I hope that this study will contribute to the individual disciplines from which it draws its terminology, insofar as it juxtaposes theoretical perspectives in new combinations, thus offering fresh views of each of the individual areas of study. But this book is really aimed at the broader audience of people who are interested from whatever point of view in the fundamental human pastimes of storytelling and presenting speech within the stories we tell, as we see those activities at play in the Homeric epics. I hope that this book is in the best sense a humanist study—in other words, a study of (one aspect of) what it means to be human.

S C HOL A R LY B AC KG ROU N D

homer ic speech a nd na r r atology The most influential broadly based narratological works on Homeric poetry have included speech presentation among the topics they cover, but these studies have not led to the kind of fruitful and transformative insights about speech that they have produced about other features of Homeric narrative.¹² This is because these scholars have implicitly or explicitly dismissed the idea that the range of techniques for presenting speech in SPE ECH PR E SEN TAT ION in HOM ER IC EPIC

4

Beck-final.indb 4

6/26/12 7:55:39 PM

Homeric poetry exists as a cohesive, unified system, or that individual parts of the system besides direct speech are meaningful in their own right. This is particularly clear in discussions of indirect speech used by the main narrator. One study categorizes indirect speech as the exception to the default option of direct speech:¹³ when indirect speech is used, it presents speeches that for various reasons are peripheral to the main storyline¹⁴ or where the exact wording is not necessary.¹⁵ Richardson makes important and valid observations about indirect speech, namely that the narrator uses indirect speech primarily to report commands, whereas characters regularly use indirect speech to report what other characters have said.¹⁶ These observations are certainly true as far as they go, but they lack the wider context that would make them useful in explaining and understanding Homeric speech presentation more broadly. For example, Richardson does not discuss when the exact wording is or is not necessary when presenting speeches, and he does not mention that not only indirect speech, but also direct speech, is used primarily for presenting directives. So, directives are common in both direct and non-direct speech (a collective term for all forms of speech presentation other than direct quotation). This suggests that non-direct speech, far from differing fundamentally from direct speech, most frequently presents the same types of speech as direct speech does. What is the difference, we should ask, between directives that the main narrator quotes directly and apparently identical ones that are presented with indirect speech? Moreover, the reader is left wondering why characters and narrators use indirect speech for different kinds of speech reporting, or what the effect of this might be for the poems overall. Thus, although narratology has advanced our understanding of other aspects of Homeric narrative, it has not described a speech presentation spectrum for the Homeric poems, and accordingly has left important aspects of Homeric narrative unexplained.

ter minology for speech pr esentat ion techniques Scholars studying how speech is presented use two overlapping perspectives for classifying the different possibilities. Narratologists generally focus on the degree and nature of the resemblance between a presentation of speech and the speech that is being presented; linguists are more interested in the specific language features of different techniques of presentation that distinguish one from another, such as how deictic words like “you” or “tomorrow” are handled. Both of these approaches contribute to the definitions of speech presentational terms used in this study. Most scholars of narratology who study speech presentation have related INTRODUCTION

5

Beck-final.indb 5

6/26/12 7:55:40 PM

the different techniques to each other in one of two ways. Some have presented a set of discrete possibilities, each of which is clearly defined but at the same time contains a good deal of variety. An example of such a system is Genette’s three categories of narratized speech, transposed speech in indirect style, and character speech.¹⁷ Others have favored a scalar or spectrum approach, either by defining a larger number of categories of speech presentation that are not as clearly distinguished from one another (such as McHale 1978, followed by Rimmon-Kenan 2002) or by questioning the usefulness of the whole idea of “categories” in analyzing speech presentation strategies (Fludernik 1993: ch. 5). Fludernik, who critiques the process of naming and categorizing methods of presenting speech and thought more thoroughly than any other person who has written on the topic, points out that although the scalar approach she favors has the advantage of describing most accurately the range of presentations that are actually found in narrative texts, this approach can become bogged down in its own subtleties and vitiate the categories it comprises (Fludernik 1993: 284). Sternberg (1991) notes that many of the features that supposedly characterize individual modes of speech presentation in fact do not, and that direct, free indirect, and indirect discourse all can do most of the things that the other modes do, and/or things that they are not supposed to be able to do. He is in essence following a spectrum approach to these terms, although he does not say so. Perhaps as a result, he does not sufficiently acknowledge that although it is indeed an overstatement to call it a rule that (for example) indirect speech does not admit imperatives, it is perfectly true to say that this and similar statements remain accurate and useful as general tendencies. These categories do not lose their legitimacy as categories because their boundaries are fluid. All of these scholars are striving to develop systems for describing speech presentation that can explain as wide a range of texts as possible. For Homeric poetry, which contains a small number of different methods of presenting speech that can be fairly clearly distinguished one from another and that display relatively little variation within individual categories, there is no need to worry about describing a wide range of subtly different approaches to speech presentation. Accordingly, this study is based on a few discrete categories of speech presentation, whose definitions are given below. Traditionally, the notion of “mimesis” has been used as a criterion for organizing different modes of speech presentation.¹⁸ Since Plato first used this as a term of narrative analysis in the Republic (392d), it has been used to refer to so many different aspects of narrative that it brings up as many

SPE ECH PR E SEN TAT ION in HOM ER IC EPIC

6

Beck-final.indb 6

6/26/12 7:55:40 PM

problems as it solves as a term of analysis.¹⁹ Recent discussions of direct speech have proposed that what it provides is not the imitation of the “actual words” of the supposed speaker, even in non-fictional situations where there is such a thing as “actual words.”²⁰ No one interpretation has taken the place of “imitation of the original.” In one view, what is important about direct speech is that “a voice other than the narrator’s appears to take over”;²¹ other explanations of the effect of direct speech include offering the appearance rather than the reality of an original utterance, or requiring the audience to participate more directly as interpreters of the narrative.²² A different way of distinguishing speech presentation modes from one another concerns the perspective of the deictic words in the presented speech, such as pronouns and temporal words. The term “deixis” covers the various words and grammatical structures (such as verb tenses, personal pronouns, and demonstratives) that take their meaning from the specific time and place of the utterance in which they occur.²³ For example, the pronoun “you” has no intrinsic meaning; it has only a relational meaning based on some “I” that appears in or is implied by a particular utterance. Similarly, “here” or “tomorrow” do not designate any stable place or time. They refer to a place or time relative to the spatio-temporal perspective of the sentence in which they occur. In direct speech, the verb of speaking and the speech are deictically separate: the deictic words in the reported speech present the perspective of the quoted speaker. So, in the sentence, “Mary said, ‘I left my hat on the bus yesterday,’” her speech refers to person and time in terms that are oriented toward herself, not toward the reporter who says, “Mary said. . . .” In indirect speech, deixis in the reported speech is oriented to the reporting speaker. Mary’s speech about her hat would then look something like, “Mary said that she had left her hat on the bus yesterday,” or “Mary said that she had left her hat on the bus last Friday.”²⁴ Here Mary and the time of the incident are referred to from the perspective of whoever is telling us about Mary and her hat. In free indirect speech, some deictic features are oriented toward the speaker of the presented speech and some toward the voice that presents Mary and her speech. The speech presentation spectrum used here is essentially the one that is used by the linguistically oriented critics Leech and Short.²⁵ Their spectrum contains five methods of speech presentation: speech mention, indirect speech, free indirect speech, direct speech, and free direct speech. The most concise option for presenting a given speech act is “speech mention,”²⁶ which tells the audience that an act of speaking took place without giving any indication of the words that the speaker used. This approach treats speech as a narrative event. In Homeric poetry, speech mentions gen-

INTRODUCTION

7

Beck-final.indb 7

6/26/12 7:55:41 PM

erally take the form of speaking verbs without direct objects (e.g., αὐτὰρ ἐπεί ῥ᾽ εὔξαντο καὶ οὐλοχύτας προβάλοντο, “And when all had made prayer and flung down the scattering barley,” Iliad 1.458)²⁷ or speaking verbs with object accusatives (e.g., ἄειδε δ᾽ ἄρα κλέα ἀνδρῶν, “He was singing of men’s fame,” Iliad 9.189). In “indirect speech,” the text goes some way toward presenting the form and/or the content of an utterance (e.g., κηρύκεσσι λιγυφθόγγοισι κέλευσε / κηρύσσειν ἀγορήνδε κάρη κομόωντας Ἀχαιούς, “He gave the word now to his clear-voiced heralds to summon / by proclamation to assembly the flowing-haired Achaians,” Od. 2.6–7). In this study, any speech presentation that is introduced by a verb of speaking is considered to be indirect speech if it makes some attempt to present the content and/or form of the utterance (i.e., it is not speech mention), and it also uses the same deictic center in both the verb of speaking and the reported speech (i.e., it is not direct quotation). A great deal of recent scholarship has focused on the variously named phenomenon that I am calling “free indirect speech.”²⁸ Free indirect speech, unlike indirect speech, lacks an introductory verb of speaking. In traditional accounts of free indirect speech, it combines the perspectives of indirect speech (by shifting verb tenses and personal pronouns to the presenting speaker’s deictic orientation) and direct speech (by presenting other features, such as demonstratives, from the deictic perspective of the speaker of the utterance). Thus, free indirect speech can include the voice of both a presenter of the speech and the speaker of that speech. Most scholarship claims that this technique originated with modern fiction,²⁹ and it is closely associated with defining features of modern fiction such as stream of consciousness (McHale 1978: 276–278). The following quotation from Jane Austen’s Emma gives a typical example of free indirect discourse (FID) in fictional narrative. It presents the thoughts of a vulgar and self-satisfied character named Mrs. Elton, whom the narrator repeatedly mocks. This passage immediately follows a direct quotation of Mrs. Elton’s reply to an invitation. No invitation came amiss to her. Her Bath habits made evening-parties perfectly natural to her, and Maple Grove had given her a taste for dinners. She was a little shocked at the want of two drawing rooms, at the poor attempt at rout-cakes, and there being no ice in the Highbury card parties. Mrs. Bates, Mrs. Perry, Mrs. Goddard and others, were a good deal behind hand in knowledge of the world, but she would soon shew them how every thing ought to be arranged. In the course of the spring she must return their civilities by one very superior party—in which her card tables should be set out with their separate candles and unbroken SPE ECH PR E SEN TAT ION in HOM ER IC EPIC

8

Beck-final.indb 8

6/26/12 7:55:41 PM

packs in the true style—and more waiters engaged for the evening than their own establishment could furnish, to carry round the refreshments at exactly the proper hour, and in the proper order.³⁰

This passage uses the tense and pronoun shifting of indirect speech (here “she” and “was” at the end of the second line rather than Mrs. Elton’s own “I am”); it retains the quoted speaker’s perspective for deictics such as “now,” as in direct speech; and it uses some expressive and stylistic features not permissible in indirect speech, such as vocatives, exclamations, and word choice (here the clue that the passage is FID rather than the narrator making fun of Mrs. Elton is the italicized she). It has recently been argued that a number of premodern literatures do contain free indirect speech.³¹ One persuasive reading is that in fact, both of these arguments are at least somewhat accurate: free indirect speech is used to present speech quite regularly in premodern texts (including Homeric epic), but its use for the presentation of thought becomes widespread only in the nineteenth century.³² At all events, this technique has received essentially no attention in relation to Homer.³³ Though free indirect speech is not one of the most prominent speech presentation strategies in the Iliad and Odyssey, it is by no means absent: both the main narrator and the characters use it, generally as a continuation of a speech that begins as unambiguously indirect speech. Free indirect speech in Homer functions, for the most part, just as theoretical treatments of it would lead us to expect. We recognize instances of free indirect speech mainly because they follow instances of indirect speech with which they are associated (McHale 1978: 268). And, although free indirect speech frequently entails emotional effects (empathy, irony) when used to present thought, it generally has either no particular emotional impact or an ironic effect when used to present speech.³⁴ Probably scholars have not pointed out free indirect speech in Homer because it lacks the explicitly expressive elements found when it is used in modern fiction. In fact, other premodern texts besides Homeric epic contain free indirect speech that lacks such expressive markers, and these expressive elements are not a requirement for free indirect speech.³⁵ Free indirect speech in Homeric epic is much shorter than the example from Emma, but it usually follows indirect speech, and like the Austen quotation, it presents ambiguous information that might belong either to the presenting narrator or to the speaker being presented. For instance, in Iliad 9 (274–276), when Odysseus tells Achilles that Agamemnon will swear an oath that he never slept with Briseis, he includes a relative clause in free indirect speech. INTRODUCTION

9

Beck-final.indb 9

6/26/12 7:55:42 PM

ἐπὶ μέγαν ὅρκον ὀμεῖται μή ποτε τῆς εὐνῆς ἐπιβήμεναι ἠδὲ μιγῆναι ἣ θέμις ἐστίν, ἄναξ, ἤ τ᾽ ἀνδρῶν ἤ τ᾽ γυναικῶν. He will swear a great oath that he never entered into her bed and never lay with her as is natural for human people, between men and women.

Verse 275 presents the oath with indirect statement, and the relative clause in 276 might be either part of the oath or Odysseus’ aside to Achilles. Although this instance of free indirect speech lacks features like irony or clear signals of speaker focalization, ambiguity about whether it belongs to Agamemnon’s oath or to Odysseus’ presentation of the oath marks it as free indirect statement. “Direct speech” is the only speech presentation strategy in Homer that has already been widely studied. Studies of direct speech in Homer have generally assumed that its defining characteristic in comparison to indirect speech—and therefore, the reason it predominates so heavily over indirect speech—is its faithfulness to a putative “original” speech and its vividness;³⁶ a cogent critique of faithfulness and reproducibility suggests that direct speech is distinguished by its potential to reproduce whatever can be reproduced about an “original” utterance, although the reproducible elements fall short of the entirety of the reported speech event.³⁷ That is to say, we can imagine that we are hearing the character’s own words (if not a complete and exact replica of a speech event) after a verse like τὸν δ᾽ ἀπαμειβόμενος προσέφη πόδας ὠκὺς Ἀχιλλεύς (“Then in answer again spoke Achilleus of the swift feet”; 12 instances in the Iliad), whereas we have no such expectation for an expression like θεοῖσι δὲ θῦσαι ἀνώγει / Πάτροκλον (“[He] told his companion, Patroklos, / to sacrifice to the gods,” Iliad 9.219–220).

lingu ist ics a nd speech: speech ac t a nd mov e Various linguistic attributes of individual speeches strongly affect which of the speech presentation techniques just described is likely to present the speech. These features include what kind(s) of speech act are depicted in the speech; how the speech functions within a conversational exchange; and the subjective aspects of the speech, or its expressivity. Indirect speech in Homeric poetry, as I have already mentioned, is supposedly associated with directives, but in fact, directives are characteristic of Homeric speech in

SPE ECH PR E SEN TAT ION in HOM ER IC EPIC

10

Beck-final.indb 10

6/26/12 7:55:43 PM

general. This basic misunderstanding shows that Homeric speech presentation cannot be properly understood without taking into account the nature of the speech being presented. “Speech act type” is a way of classifying speeches that grows out of the work of Austin.³⁸ His central insights—that speech not only states facts, but does things, or states feelings; that utterances cannot be understood without a context; and that utterances can be fruitfully classified and studied based on these features—have formed the basis of speech act theory. The typology of speech acts that Austin created, however, has not won general acceptance. There is no single criterion—or group of related criteria— that is consistently used as the basis for the categories in his typology.³⁹ Rather, he seems to take a quite impressionistic approach, both in what distinguishes one category from another and in what justifies the existence of something as a category at all.⁴⁰ The five families of speech acts Austin proposes at the end of How to Do Things with Words do not elicit unambivalent agreement even from Austin himself.⁴¹ Almost immediately, commentators began to overhaul, rework, and criticize Austin’s categories. Even today, there is no particular “speech act typology” that is generally considered to be the consensus approach. Instead, different versions of speech act typologies proliferate, and scholars working on aspects of speech act theory tend to produce their own typology of speech acts as part of their inquiries.⁴² Different speech act typologies include different speech act types, and are based on different criteria for classifying the individual speech acts. The speech act typology used in this book categorizes different types mainly according to what they are about—facts, emotions, and/or actions—and secondarily according to the orientation of the speech act toward the speaker, toward the addressee, or (sometimes) toward a third party.⁴³ Speaker and addressee orientation will also play a central role in defining various subtypes of the large categories. The speech act types that I use in this study, which will be discussed in more detail in the next section, are directives (speech about action), assertives (speaker-oriented speech about fact), questions (addressee-oriented speech about fact), and emotives (speech about feelings).⁴⁴ How a given speech is presented in Homeric poetry relates not only to what kind of speech it is (its speech act type), but also to its role within an interactional exchange.⁴⁵ In an unjustly ignored but important point, Bassett (1938) asserted many years ago that the kinds of speech that appear in non-direct forms are those which are “outside of the dialogue” (106). Homeric speeches that form part of an exchange (a conversation) differ in both content and presentation from those which appear singly. For example, the

INTRODUCTION

11

Beck-final.indb 11

6/26/12 7:55:44 PM

kinds of speech that are most frequently presented with non-direct speech are the same kinds that tend to appear singly rather than in conversational sequences when they are directly reported. This includes not just orders, but similar speech act subtypes like oaths, prayers, and so forth. Hence, we need to know where a speech falls in (or outside of) a conversational structure in order to understand speech presentation. A further development of speech act theory adds information about how a particular speech works within an interactive structure. A “move” is essentially a speech act in a conversational context:⁴⁶ “speech act” defines a particular utterance as a directive, assertive, and so forth in terms of particular linguistic and grammatical features of the utterance, whereas “move” concentrates on how a particular utterance operates in its context. Kroon (1995: 66) defines a move as “the minimal free unit of discourse that is able to enter into an exchange structure. . . . A move usually consists of a central act (which is the most important act in view of the speaker’s intentions and goals) and one or more subsidiary acts, which also cohere thematically with the central act.” The same basic categories apply to moves as to speech acts (a move can be a directive, assertive, question, or emotive), but the interactive perspective of move terminology entails a second dimension. Moves are classified both by what they are trying to do and by where they are in the interactional structure of the exchange in which they occur. So, a move can be initiating, reactive, or problematic, depending on whether it begins a new topic or theme (initiating), responds satisfactorily to a topic begun by a previous move (reactive), or somehow objects to or refuses to go along with the previous move (problematic).⁴⁷ Problematic moves are both reactive and initiating at the same time.⁴⁸ Most often, one initiating and one reactive move form an exchange, but from time to time a reactive move itself elicits a reaction,⁴⁹ or two different speakers react to the same initiating move,⁵⁰ particularly in a conversation that involves more than two speakers. The following exchange between Iris and Achilles illustrates most of the permutations of what types of moves there are, how a move overlaps with an individual speech, and how individual moves interact to form an exchange. When Iris goes to Achilles in Iliad 18 and tells him to defend Patroclus (170–180), this is an initiating directive. Rather than immediately go along with this directive, Achilles asks not one but two questions about it (182 and 188–195). These are problematic moves: they are reactive insofar as they respond to the directive, but they are also initiating because they invite a response from Iris. Iris answers both questions in reactive assertive moves (184–186, 197), and then repeats the directive a second time after an-

SPE ECH PR E SEN TAT ION in HOM ER IC EPIC

12

Beck-final.indb 12

6/26/12 7:55:44 PM

swering Achilles’ second question (198–201). This directive does not constitute a new move, but a continuation of her initial directive move at 170–180. This exchange illustrates several possibilities for how move and individual speech overlap. The first speech, Iris’ directive, contains one move. It begins and ends with repetitions of one directive (170–172, 178–180), while the middle section consists of subsidiary assertive acts that are intended to persuade Achilles to follow the directive. Achilles’ question at 182 consists of a single question with no subsidiary acts. Iris’ final speech at 197–201 contains an assertive in answer to a previous question (reactive) and a directive. Here the directive is not a new move because she has already given this directive once before, but other speeches commonly introduce an initiating directive move after a reactive move.⁵¹ In contrast to direct speeches like this one, which contains both a reactive assertive and an initiating directive, non-direct speeches usually contain just a single move. Move terminology offers one way of describing the conversational dimensions of speech.⁵² Expressivity provides another. As we will see, the move of a particular speech in Homeric epic and the expressive features it contains, as well as its speech act type, are relevant for understanding how the speech is presented. Expressivity offers a useful tool to describe in a quantitative manner what direct speech conveys that non-direct speech usually does not, and more importantly, what effect this has in a narrative. Expressivity is a somewhat slippery catch-all term covering the features of an utterance that make it the speech of a particular person with feelings about what he says.⁵³ What distinguishes linguistically oriented discussions of expressive features from what a narratologist might say about (for example) focalization is primarily their focus on understanding the vehicles for conveying emotions and judgments rather than the specific emotions or judgments conveyed. Moreover, expressive elements may convey nothing more than that a particular speaker is the speaker (such as first-person forms) without implying any additional feeling on his part. Besides firstand second-person forms, expressive elements also include vocatives, exclamations like ὤ μοι, and language that contains evaluations, emotions, and reasoning by the character speaking.⁵⁴ As we will see, the interchange of conversation itself has an expressive value in Homeric poetry. Systematically bringing this idea to bear on Homeric epic has several benefits. We can see in a new way just how much of direct quotation in Homeric epic consists of expressive features rather than propositional content, and by extension, how central that expressive quality is to the poems. Non-direct modes of speech presentation have expressive qualities, too, which we are more likely to notice if expressivity is identified as one of the dimensions

INTRODUCTION

13

Beck-final.indb 13

6/26/12 7:55:45 PM

of speech presentation. These forms of expressivity make a positive contribution to the shape and effect of Homeric narrative that complements the more vivid and noticeable expressivity of direct quotation.

DE F I N I NG A S PE E C H AC T T Y P OL O G Y: S PE E C H AC T T Y PE S A N D S U B T Y PE S

As with terms for modes of speech presentation derived from narratology, I have chosen a system of speech act terminology that uses the fewest and clearest available terms that are nonetheless up to the task of describing speech in the Homeric poems: too much terminology is cumbersome to use and puts off nonspecialists, whereas too little or insufficiently specific descriptive language leads to analysis that is too general to be useful, or that leaves out important features of what is being studied.⁵⁵ Questions and assertives are both about facts.⁵⁶ Whereas an assertive is speaker-oriented (“The cat is on the mat”), questions seek out a position about some fact from the addressee (“Is the cat on the mat?”). An emotive speech act such as “I wish the cat were on the mat!” presupposes a fact and gives the speaker’s feelings about it. Directive speech acts are aimed at getting some action accomplished. The directive “Put the cat on the mat” presumes certain facts, such as the cat not (yet) being on the mat. Commissives, where the speaker commits himself to a future action, hardly ever appear as the main speech act in Homeric epic,⁵⁷ and accordingly are not included as part of this taxonomy.⁵⁸ Instead, promises function as assertives, either to provide inducements to comply with a directive to the addressee, which is the main act, or in some more diff use way to provide a guarantee for what the character presenting the promise is trying to achieve with his own speech.⁵⁹ In Homeric speech, promises are best understood not as committing the speaker to a particular course of action, since that is rarely the main point of the utterances in which they occur, but instead as one of a variety of assertions that characters make to each other in order to produce compliance with a directive. The category “directive” contains a number of subtypes depending on how obligatory the directive is and whether the directive advances the interests of the speaker, the addressee, or both.⁶⁰ The speaker may give the addressee an option not to obey: noncompliance is essentially not available for an order,⁶¹ but is possible in the case of a request⁶² or a plea.⁶³ The proposed action may benefit the addressee as well as the speaker, as in a suggestion like “Let’s X,” the subtype to which battlefield exhortations belong.⁶⁴ An invitation makes an optional directive in which the speaker has SPE ECH PR E SEN TAT ION in HOM ER IC EPIC

14

Beck-final.indb 14

6/26/12 7:55:46 PM

a moderate interest.⁶⁵ Supplication, a plea conducted in a particular way,⁶⁶ benefits primarily the speaker, who generally tries to persuade the addressee to go along with his speech with emotional inducements of various kinds rather than by asserting his own power—usually the speaker has little or no power relative to the addressee—or by trying to align their interests.⁶⁷ Directives may have negative consequences attached, generally within the speaker’s control (a threat)⁶⁸ or not (a warning).⁶⁹ Instructions provide a series of directives for accomplishing a particular end in which the speaker does not have a strong interest. Instructions take the general form “If you want to accomplish X, do A, B, C,” but generally speaking, the speaker of instructions is involved because of knowledge about X rather than interest in getting it done (Sadock 1974: 139–142).⁷⁰ Permission, a reactive directive, falls outside such a scheme,⁷¹ as does prayer, a kind of specialized or exaggerated plea in which a mortal issues a directive to a god.⁷² Messages in Homeric poetry generally convey directives by means of an intermediary (a messenger), who has a moderate interest in the directive in addition to the more lively interest of the originating speaker. These are essentially two-stage directives. First, the originator of the message gives an order to the messenger to deliver a particular message to a third party.⁷³ The messenger satisfies this first directive by setting out on a journey to the intended recipient of the message. Second, the messenger delivers the message, usually itself a directive,⁷⁴ to the recipient. The messenger has an interest in seeing that the recipient acts on the message, and messengers regularly urge recipients to comply with a message even where their own emotions might seem to align their interests with the recipient rather than the originator of the message.⁷⁵ When a speech is not quoted directly, sometimes it is impossible to tell from the context what kind of directive is depicted (an unspecified subtype). Indeed, characters who report directives often do not distinguish among different subtypes, presenting directives simply with a form of κελεύω and an infinitive.⁷⁶ All of these directive subtypes either use directive sentence types (usually an imperative, infinitive, or hortatory subjunctive), or they are not quoted and leave unclear what the subtype is. Directives that are directly quoted but whose content does not clearly convey that the speech act is a directive are implicit directives.⁷⁷ The context identifies these speech acts as directives, but the speech act itself does not make this explicit. Although implicit speech acts are very common in most languages, especially for directives, they are quite rare in Homeric poetry. Indeed, the main narrator often points out explicitly speeches where the speaker’s intentions are significantly at variance with what he actually says.⁷⁸ This implies that the audience was not accustomed to speech that appeared to say one thing but actually meant something else. INTRODUCTION

15

Beck-final.indb 15

6/26/12 7:55:46 PM

The most common subtypes of assertives, statement and reply, are distinguished by whether they are oriented toward the speaker (statement)⁷⁹ or the addressee (reply).⁸⁰ Other kinds of assertives bring in various kinds of third-party authority for the statement being made. Oaths guarantee a statement that the speaker makes about himself, generally by invoking a god.⁸¹ Oaths can be about a state of affairs either past, present, or future. Clearly an oath referring to the past or present is an assertive; because Agamemnon’s oath that he did not sleep with Briseis⁸² and oaths about future actions⁸³ are presented the same way, all Homeric oaths are classed as assertives.⁸⁴ Prophecy, a related kind of assertive that is less speakeroriented, makes a statement about the future that is about something other than the speaker and is guaranteed by a god or some kind of supernatural intervention.⁸⁵ Song⁸⁶ is classified as a kind of assertive because it clearly involves a commitment to the accuracy of the speech act, since Homeric characters refer to poets in terms of their knowledge of what they sing about⁸⁷ or praise them for singing as though they had been personally present at the events in their songs.⁸⁸ It seems to be mainly addressee-oriented, insofar as characters can ask a poet to sing some particular song and poets are not described as singing when no one is present to hear them.⁸⁹ At the same time, song differs from other speech act subtypes, because although an audience is necessary and the audience is often depicted responding to a song, the listeners are not so much addressees as an audience. This is a different kind of interaction than most conversation, even though interaction between a speaker and a listener takes place. Questions have few variations that depend on the speaker or addressee orientation. Rather, questions vary primarily in relation to particular social contexts, where a small group of speech act types are used in different ways depending on the situation.⁹⁰ These variations are important and interesting, but they do not translate into speech act subtypes. Questions can become more speaker-oriented than the prototypical addressee orientation in two ways. First, questions regularly appear in directive rather than interrogative sentence types, where the speaker orientation of the directive form heightens the speaker orientation of the question.⁹¹ A smaller subset of questions⁹² poses a more speaker-oriented question subtype by asking not for information unknown to the speaker, where the focus is on the addressee’s knowledge of that information, but for information that the speaker already knows.⁹³ Here, the goal of the question is not finding out the requested information, but exercising power by asking a question to which the speaker already knows the answer. Emotives, as Risselada notes, are a grab-bag category.⁹⁴ Emotive subtypes are mainly speaker-oriented, but challenges aim at producing fear in SPE ECH PR E SEN TAT ION in HOM ER IC EPIC

16

Beck-final.indb 16

6/26/12 7:55:47 PM

the addressee.⁹⁵ Encouragement, conversely, seeks to create a positive frame of mind in an addressee.⁹⁶ Breaking down emotives broadly into those that express positive emotions and those that express negative ones, we find in the former category vaunts (satisfaction that an enemy is dead),⁹⁷ greetings (pleasure in the arrival of someone), and farewells (good wishes to a departing guest).⁹⁸ Negative emotions motivate laments (sorrow on behalf of a dead person).⁹⁹ Wishes, which express dissatisfaction with the current state of affairs insofar as they express the speaker’s desire for a different one, also belong in this category.¹⁰⁰ Emotives about sorrow express dissatisfaction with a current state of affairs without expressing a clear preference for something else instead; they are weaker and less ritualized than laments.¹⁰¹ Rebukes have elements of both an emotive and a directive speech act: the speaker expresses dissatisfaction with the current state of affairs and (at least implicitly) a directive to the addressee(s) to do something different. These two elements occur in different proportions in different rebukes. Some instances primarily express dissatisfaction with the current state of affairs and make a directive to change it only by implication rather than explicitly stating any particular action or result that the speaker desires. Given the diff use nature of the directive component of such rebukes, and the metadirective quality of speech in general (Risselada 1993: 44), it seems most appropriate to view these as emotives.¹⁰² Other rebukes rather perfunctorily refer to the speaker’s dissatisfaction as an inducement to go along with a much more fully developed directive,¹⁰³ and these make most sense as directives. One subtype of emotive speech act consists of speeches that the speaker makes to himself. The same kind of language that introduces speech also introduces these monologues or soliloquies, most commonly the formula ὀχθήσας δ᾽ ἄρα εἶπε πρὸς ὃν μεγαλήτορα θυμόν (“And troubled, he spoke then to his own great-hearted spirit”).¹⁰⁴ The προς + (ἔ)ειπε combination is one of the most common ways to introduce direct quotation, so it is clear that these speeches are presented as though they are direct quotations, too. Whether this is literally the case has been widely debated.¹⁰⁵ For my purposes, what is important about these is that they are presented as if they were speech, not whether they are “actually” speech or thought. All of them in some way convey the speaker’s emotions—hence the frequent appearance of ὀχθήσας, “troubled,” in the introductory verses and of emotional exclamations at the beginning of the speech—so they are classified as a subtype of emotive speeches. For the most part, assertives, questions, and directives have typical sentence patterns that correspond to the speech act type. However, sentence type and speech act type do not always coincide. Questions in Homeric poINTRODUCTION

17

Beck-final.indb 17

6/26/12 7:55:47 PM

etry are most often presented with interrogative sentence types, but they are also presented not only with directive sentence types (as noted earlier), but also with assertive sentences: “I want to know who broke that glass.”¹⁰⁶ Conversely, an assertive like “It’s cold in here” can be a statement of information (someone has asked, “Is it cold in here, or is it just me?”) or an implicit directive (to close the open window). Where the sentence type and the speech act type of a given speech act differ, the “speech act type” entered in my database is the sentence type, and the “speech act subtype” is the actual function of the utterance in its context. Usually this is simply a matter of using a nontypical sentence type (as in the common case of a question presented as a directive), but some of these speech acts are implicit (as in the question cited in note 106). DATA B A S E C ON T E N T A N D DE S IG N

The data that underlie the majority of this book are collected in a FileMaker database that I constructed and then revised several times over a multi-year period. In hindsight, there are some features that I would have designed differently, and in spite of many iterations of careful editing and standardizing, I am sure that mistakes and inconsistencies remain.¹⁰⁷ The database contains information about each presentation of speech in the Iliad or Odyssey. The FileMaker format allows searches that not only tally a single feature, such as the number of speeches presented with direct quotation, but also collate multiple features of speech presentation, such as directives in indirect speech presented by the main narrator of the Iliad, or directives presented by characters except for those presented by Odysseus. For each speech presentation, the database includes the citation (work, book, starting and ending verse numbers); the length of the speech in verses based on the number of verses in which some part of the speech is presented;¹⁰⁸ the narrative level at which the speech is presented (main narrator, character narrator, ambiguous between the two, third level of character narration); the names of the speaker and addressee of the speech, as well as their genders;¹⁰⁹ the Greek word(s) of speaking that introduce or present the speech and the verse number(s) in which the words appear; for non-direct speech modes, any subordinate clauses depending on the verb of speaking; and the speech act type(s), subtype(s), and move type(s) of the speech. Speeches embedded within character speech collect most of this information a second time for the characteristics of the speech within which the speech is embedded. Not all of these fields are equally important for my analyses, which fo-

SPE ECH PR E SEN TAT ION in HOM ER IC EPIC

18

Beck-final.indb 18

6/26/12 7:55:48 PM

cus mainly on three features of speech presentation: what level of narrator is reporting the speech; what kind of speech presentation is used; and various facets of the speech act being presented. Because this book focuses on how speech acts build on each other to create conversations, and what effect conversational exchange itself has on speech presentation, only the main speech act of each speech is tabulated. Some speeches have two main speech acts within them, but subsidiary acts (such as statements that explain why a directive should be obeyed) are not counted separately except under specific circumstances, which are explained as they arise. Many directives presented by characters present the action that the enclosing speech is ordering the addressee to do. Thus, there is a sense in which directives are overrepresented in my database, since I have counted a speech like Odyssey 21.350–353 as a directive twice. ἀλλ᾽ εἰς οἶκον ἰοῦσα τὰ σ᾽ αὐτῆς ἔργα κόμιζε, ἱστόν τ᾽ ἠλακάτην τε, καὶ ἀμφιπόλοισι κέλευε ἔργον ἐπίχεσθαι· τόξον δ᾽ ἄνδρεσσι μελήσει πᾶσι, μάλιστα δ᾽ ἐμοί· τοῦ γὰρ κράτος ἔστ᾽ ἐνὶ οἴκῳ. Go therefore back into the house, and take up your own work, the loom and the distaff, and order your handmaidens to ply their work also.¹¹⁰ The men shall have the bow in their keeping, all men, but I most of all. For mine is the power in this household.

The direct quotation overall presents the directive that Telemachus gives to Penelope, which in this case has two components. One is an action (attending to her own work), and the other is a speech (giving a directive to the maids). So, Telemachus’ directive presents a second speech that is also Penelope’s desired action, a further directive. I have tallied this speech overall as a directive from Telemachus to Penelope, but within that, I have tallied as a separate directive the directive by Penelope that Telemachus presents with indirect speech. The direct quotation is a directive presented by the main narrator; the underlined indirect speech presents a different directive, presented by a character to his addressee. These two directives have different properties as speech presentation—they occur at different narrative levels, are presented with different forms of speech presentation, and present two different speeches—so they are counted separately. My main interest is in what Homeric characters say and how the audiences of the poems gain access to those speeches. The speech-related phenomena that I did not include in my data have been left out because in various ways they do not provide access to what people in the poems are

INTRODUCTION

19

Beck-final.indb 19

6/26/12 7:55:49 PM

saying: the references omitted are either not about speech, or are not about presentation. The largest category of arguably speech-related references that I have not included, from a numerical standpoint, is presentation of thought. Thought presentation and speech presentation differ substantially, particularly in premodern literature (Fludernik 1993: passim). Accordingly, thought presentation does not appear in this study, although clearly there is fascinating work to be done comparing speech and thought presentation in Homeric poetry. Some Greek words depict events that might or might not be speech. For instance, I have not counted objects of the verb προΐημι as speech presentation unless the context requires that understanding, since προΐημι depicts a wide range of actions, many of which are nonverbal.¹¹¹ The boundary between presenting speech and presenting action is regularly a hard one to draw, and this verb gives a particularly clear example of that. A short presentation of a speech that occurs at greater length elsewhere does not present the speech to the audience; rather, in order to help the audience follow the train of events or to position a speech within a conversational sequence, such cross-references point to a speech presentation that either has already happened or is about to happen. Cross-references are counted if they go beyond conventional references like ὡς ἐκέλευες, a phrase that regularly appears in character speech to position a particular speech within a conversational exchange and is normally not counted as speech presentation. For instance, an especially detailed presentation of what someone has already said, or one that characterizes a speech as a different kind of speech act than it appears to be from the main presentation, attempts to re-present the speech as something different from its original appearance, and so such instances are included. References to one’s own speech, such as εὔχομαι εἶναι, are not presenting the speech so much as characterizing it as a particular sort of speech. Finally, I have not counted references to talking about speech in general terms, such as how someone talks, because these do not present the content of a specific speech.

C H A P T E R OV E RV I E W S

The first four chapters treat the four speech presentation techniques that make up the Homeric speech presentation spectrum. Each chapter begins with an overview of the basic properties and effects of a particular speech presentation technique, which includes how often and in what contexts that technique appears. These overviews analyze individual speech presentation techniques according to what kinds of speech acts they present, what kinds of moves they contain, and how they are distributed among various narSPE ECH PR E SEN TAT ION in HOM ER IC EPIC

20

Beck-final.indb 20

6/26/12 7:55:49 PM

rative levels. Typical examples illustrate these overall patterns. Each chapter ends with an in-depth analysis of examples of the technique that draw on common properties of that technique to create meaningful narrative effects connected to a key theme or story development. Thus, each chapter combines a broad overview of aggregate data patterns with detailed analysis of individual examples. This combination strives to present the enormous body of data that underlies this book in a way that is simultaneously broad, detailed, and manageable in scope. In these first four chapters, the Iliad and Odyssey for the most part are not distinguished from one another. Chapter 1 focuses on direct quotation, the most common way of presenting speech in the Homeric poems. Chapter 2 focuses on free indirect speech, establishing that it does exist in Homeric poetry and showing what kinds of functions it has. These functions are consistent with the way free indirect speech has been shown to work in other premodern texts. Chapter 3, on indirect speech, shows that the characters use indirect speech for a wider range of functions than the main narrators do, but that all of these functions have underlying similarities related to the fundamental properties of indirect speech. In other words, focusing on indirect speech at the level of the main narrators, as previous studies have done, misses the full range of functions and effects that indirect speech has in the Homeric poems. Chapter 4 explores the effects and functions of speech mention. Speech mention differs from indirect speech mainly because it is more vague about the content of the speech being presented. This vagueness often helps to tell the story in a particular way, rather than simply being a fallback for speech that is not important to the narrative. As we will see, each technique has a consistent set of effects across various narrative levels and speech act categories. Different speech act types and different narrators draw on different subsets of these effects that relate to the specific features of those speech acts or narrators. Characters have their own consistent approaches to speech presentation, but the focus of previous studies about Homeric speech on the main narrators as the main, only, and/or normative presenters of speech has obscured this fact. I argue that characters do have a coherent approach to speech presentation, one that overlaps with rather than differing entirely from what the main narrators do. Indeed, the speech presentation techniques themselves are remarkably stable and consistent. Each technique has a unique set of attributes and effects that makes a positive contribution to the overall narrative texture of the Homeric poems. Chapters 5 (Odyssey) and 6 (Iliad) show how these different techniques work together in each of the Homeric poems. The first section of each chapter describes the speech presentation spectrum found in that poem, includINTRODUCTION

21

Beck-final.indb 21

6/26/12 7:55:50 PM

ing the breakdown of different speech presentation techniques, different speech act types, and different move types. The characters in each poem show the same basic approach to speech presentation as the main narrator of that poem does. Differences in speech presentation in the two poems result from drawing on different parts of a stable set of functions and effects for a given speech presentation technique, not on using the same technique in completely different ways. Both chapters end with an extended analysis of speech presentation in a key aspect of the story of that particular poem. Chapter 5 discusses speech presentation for song in the Odyssey; Chapter 6 shows how fundamental speech presentation is for telling the story of Patroclus. Finally, the Conclusion looks at the characters and the main narrators, at the Iliad and Odyssey, as a spectrum of a different kind: What kinds of “alternative” Homeric narratives can we see if we compare the varied norms of speech presentation for these different groups and narrators? That is to say, what if the entire Iliad were presented in the way that characters in the Iliad present their narratives? What kind of narrative would that be? Surely such a narrative falls within the scope of the Homeric poems overall, since the characters in the Iliad present half of the poem. Speech presentation in the Homeric epics shows a wide range of possibilities that draws on a stable set of attributes for individual speech presentation strategies across both poems and all narrative levels. These possibilities, deployed both with variation and with a fundamental underlying sameness, then imply a chooser. This figure is not necessarily a literal human composer, but the implied author, the voiceless force that creates the full range of phenomena in a given narrative. A narrative force beyond the main narrator arranges the Homeric epics so that they focus so strongly and expressively on the characters, so that the main narrator’s speech presentation techniques complement those of the characters to achieve this result, and so that a stable and consistent set of speech presentation techniques underlie an Iliad where words often present isolation, conflict, and sorrow, and an Odyssey that depicts both the deceptive and the connective possibilities of conversation, and of narrative itself.

SPE ECH PR E SEN TAT ION in HOM ER IC EPIC

22

Beck-final.indb 22

6/26/12 7:55:50 PM

c h a p t e r on e

DI R EC T QUOTAT ION

In response to the dissatisfaction described in the introduction with the idea of direct quotation¹ as fundamentally imitative, a consensus has developed among linguistically oriented scholars of speech presentation that the basic characteristic of direct speech is vividness.² The vividness characteristic of direct quotation is sometimes used to depict an individual speech spoken by a given person or character on a particular occasion,³ but it appears in many different contexts to achieve a range of narrative purposes and functions. This chapter starts from the assumption that the main effect of direct speech is vividness. It studies the various functions that vividness has in the direct quotations that are presented both by the main narrators and by characters. Direct speech has a wider range of functions than any other mode of speech presentation, and so this chapter focuses almost entirely on explaining these. The theoretical sophistication of scholarship on the presentation of speech in ancient Greek has in some respects lagged behind the views of scholars of speech presentation described above.⁴ Therefore, demonstrating that direct quotation in Homeric poetry has a broader range of functions than the transparent and accurate reflection of “what a character said” constitutes a real advance in our idea of Homeric speech presentation. In addition, this chapter does not isolate different narrative levels from each other, but rather compares systematically the ways that different kinds of narrators use direct quotation. Direct speech and its vividness are so pervasive in the Homeric poems at the level of the main narrators that this is rightly seen as a hallmark of the poems’ narrative style. Of 1,473 speeches presented by the main narrators in the Iliad and Odyssey, 1,223 (83 percent) are direct quotations. Looked at from the point of view of length, about half of the Iliad and two-thirds of the Odyssey consist of direct quotation.⁵ The vast majority of the speeches quoted by the main narrators present—within the fictional world of the poems—“actual” speeches that a particular character said at a specific time

23

Beck-final.indb 23

6/26/12 7:55:51 PM

in the past. A few direct quotations depict non-mimetic forms of speech, such as a representative speech standing in for several similar speeches uttered by individual members of a group (introduced with a form of τις, 22 instances), but none present hypothetical speeches. Characters, in contrast, use non-direct forms of speech presentation more often than direct quotation: just 139 of 856 speech presentations by characters are direct quotations (16 percent), and Odysseus is responsible for the majority of these (88) in his extended narrative in Odyssey 9–12. When characters present direct speeches, their quotations are usually connected to specific pragmatic features of the conversation within which the embedded speech is presented.⁶ For instance, characters quote others’ directives in order to reinforce their own directives, or they quote hypothetical comments to dramatize their own concerns in a way that places those concerns in the wider social context of which the embedding conversation provides an instance. These concerns give rise to direct quotations when others do not, because in various ways they are central to the main themes of the Homeric poems. Characters who use direct quotation in a manner similar to the main narrator, to depict while telling a story several characters talking in extended conversations, are in the minority among characters who use direct quotation. Even these apparently disinterested embedded conversations often turn out to closely reflect the characteristics and goals of the conversation in which the quoting speaker is a participant. Indeed, these embedded conversations depict ideas that are central not only to the specific conversations within which they are quoted, but also to the overall themes of the poems. Many direct quotations presented by characters involve gaps of various kinds between the language of the speech and the intention behind it. These include lying or deceptive speeches as well as implicit or non-typical kinds of speech acts, such as problematic moves. In these cases, direct quotation is used to present that gap effectively. These conclusions, derived from examining direct quotation presented at all narrative levels according to concrete linguistic features of conversation, provide several benefits. First, considering direct quotation as a unified phenomenon encompassing direct speech both as presented by the main narrators and as presented by characters gives a more accurate picture of the full range of functions that direct quotation has in the Homeric poems than do studies that assume the main narrators are the normative presenters of direct quotation. Direct quotation as used by the main narrators primarily depicts “actual” speeches, and although direct quotation presented by the characters works quite differently, it falls well within the range of functions that have been described for direct quotation. Second, analyzing direct quotations with concrete and specific linguistic criteria makes my conSPE ECH PR E SEN TAT ION in HOM ER IC EPIC

24

Beck-final.indb 24

6/26/12 7:55:52 PM

clusions about when and why direct quotation is used more easily accessible to other readers than a more impressionistic set of criteria. In this chapter, the main narrators of the Iliad and of the Odyssey are not considered as separate or different phenomena, but clearly this is an oversimplification of an important issue. The Conclusion will discuss whether, in what way(s), and to what extent the narrating voices of the two Homeric epics are different. Similarly, although the characters in the Iliad use direct quotation differently from characters in the Odyssey in several key ways that this chapter notes, I do not aim to emphasize this difference or to examine it in detail here. Chapters 5 (Odyssey) and 6 (Iliad) will focus on such differences.

M I M E T IC QUO TAT IONS

Characters use direct quotation for a much broader range of functions than the main narrators do, even though they use less direct quotation. Whereas virtually all of the main narrators’ direct quotations present speech that “really” took place (mimetic quotations), the characters present both mimetic speeches that capture a “real” speech and hypothetical speeches that present something that the embedding speaker explicitly says has not happened. The only characters who present multiple conversations with direct quotations in approximately the manner of the main narrators are Odysseus (in Odyssey 9–12) and Menelaus (in Odyssey 4). Their styles of presenting direct quotation are studied in the first two parts of this section. Other characters who use direct quotation to present “real” speeches generally use only one or just a few quotations within a speech in order to present some speeches—but not others—with direct quotation. The remaining parts of this section of Chapter 1 investigate the specific characteristics of these embedded speeches that explain why they are quoted by characters where neighboring and sometimes even replying speeches are presented non-directly. In contrast, the main narrators hardly ever present one speech with direct quotation and an adjoining one in a non-direct mode; where this does happen, it generally has a pointed effect.⁷

mimet ic quotat ions pr esented by t he m a in na r r ator s Direct speech presented by the main narrators comprises just over half of the instances of speech presentation in the poems overall (1,223 speeches out of 2,410), but the vast majority of speech presented by the main narrators (1,223 of 1,473, 83 percent). This suggests that direct speech forms the DIRECT QUOTATION

25

Beck-final.indb 25

6/26/12 7:55:52 PM

backbone of the Homeric epics not because there are more examples of it than there are of other modes of speech presentation, but because direct quotation is so much longer and more detailed than any of the non-direct modes. The 1,223 direct quotations presented by the main narrators in the two epics comprise 15,243 verses of direct quotation,⁸ which yields an average length of over 12 verses per direct quotation.⁹ In contrast, there are only ten instances of indirect speech that are at least ten verses long, and over 90 percent of indirect speeches are four verses long or fewer (549 of 589). Direct quotations presented by the main narrators include 675 directives (55 percent of speeches), 400 assertives (33 percent), 127 questions (10 percent), and 182 emotives (15 percent).¹⁰ In this group, 874 speeches include an initial move (72 percent), 444 contain a reactive move (37 percent), and 72 include a problematic move (6 percent). Only one direct quotation presented by a main narrator in the entire Homeric corpus does not have a specified move type.¹¹ In all 2,410 speech presentations at every narrative level in both poems, by comparison, we find 1,309 directives (54 percent), 747 assertives (31 percent), 198 questions (8 percent), 206 emotives (8 percent), and 122 (5 percent) with an unspecified speech act type, which never appears in direct quotation. The poems overall contain 1,609 initial moves (67 percent), 576 reactive moves (24 percent), 80 problematic moves (3 percent), and 326 speech presentations (14 percent) with an unspecified move type. These figures point to the most important functions of the vividness of direct quotation as presented by the main narrators: to depict either speeches within a conversation or speech act types that are strongly expressive. This is why the percentages for other kinds of speech acts are comparable for direct quotation presented by the main narrators and for the poems overall, but emotive speech acts (which by definition are strongly expressive) are much less common in the poems overall than they are in direct quotations presented by the main narrators. Initial moves appear with comparable frequency in both data sets, but the conversationally embedded reactive and problematic move types appear much less often in speech presentation overall than they do in direct quotation. Conversely, speeches that lack any obvious conversational connection—those with unspecified move types—are fairly common in the poems overall, but rarely appear in direct quotation presented by the main narrators. In brief, direct quotation as used by the main narrators tends to convey expressive features that, notably, include the interchange of conversation itself. What is striking about this, particularly in comparison to the ways of presenting speech found in character speech, is the extent to which the expressivity of direct quotation predominates in speech presented by the main SPE ECH PR E SEN TAT ION in HOM ER IC EPIC

26

Beck-final.indb 26

6/26/12 7:55:53 PM

narrators.¹² This is especially noticeable in very short speeches that are directly quoted, such as Iliad 20.429, a single-verse initial emotive speech that Achilles throws at Hector when they briefly meet on the battlefield: ἆσσον ἴθ᾽, ὥς κεν θᾶσσον ὀλέθρου πείρατ᾽ ἵκηαι (“Come nearer, so that sooner you may reach your appointed destruction”). Virtually every word in this verse has expressive features, such as the strong first- and second-person force of the verb forms and the use of multiple adverbs, and even a purpose clause giving a reason why Hector should come closer. Such far-reaching expressivity is seen as the norm for the Homeric poems because direct quotation presented by the main narrators takes up so much more room in the poems than any other mode of speech presentation, even though direct quotations presented by the main narrators constitute just half of the total number of speeches presented in the Homeric poems. What about the other half? The remainder of this chapter, and of the book, will create a unified, comprehensive speech presentation spectrum for the Homeric epics, of which direct quotations presented by the main narrators form one part. This will further clarify both the specific functions of direct quotation as presented by the main narrators and its differences from other speech presentation techniques. This spectrum provides glimpses of alternative Homeric narratives that present speech very differently from the one we have, and that at the same time are based on consistent narrative strategies contained within our Iliad and Odyssey. These alternative narratives show that the “norms” of direct quotation as presented by the main narrators are one option among many that the Homeric epics comprise, rather than a default narrative mode. Thus, the vividness and expressivity depicted in direct quotation presented by the main narrators is a key priority of Homeric epic, not a transparent or straightforward rule.

mimet ic quotat ions pr esented by ch a r ac ter s Characters present a noticeably different distribution of speech act types in direct quotation compared to the main narrators. Of the 139 direct quotations presented by characters, 66 contain directives (47 percent), 50 contain assertives (36 percent), 28 include questions (20 percent), and 8 include an emotive (6 percent). The most striking differences here are the comparatively large proportion of questions in direct quotation presented by characters compared to the main narrators, and the much lower proportion of emotive speech acts; these aspects of character-presented direct quotation will be discussed in more detail below. However, the overall proportions of different move types closely resemble what we find in direct quotation presented by the main narrators: there are 98 initial moves (70 percent), DIRECT QUOTATION

27

Beck-final.indb 27

6/26/12 7:55:53 PM

47 reactive moves (34 percent), 6 problematic moves (4 percent), and 3 unspecified moves, all of which are hypothetical speeches (2 percent). Overall, the kinds of speech acts and move types presented with direct quotation are consistent at the levels of both the main narrators and the characters. Alongside many differences between these narrative levels in relation to direct quotation, there is also a broad similarity.

Menelaus The only characters who use direct quotation to present multiple conversations within stories they tell—in other words, in a manner generally comparable to what the main narrators do—are Menelaus and Odysseus. This section on particular characters’ use of mimetic direct quotation begins, somewhat counterintuitively, with Menelaus rather than Odysseus for two reasons. First, Menelaus’ behavior as a narrator has generally been studied in the shadow of Odysseus’,¹³ and treating him first allows us to study his use of direct quotation on its own terms, not as a version of what Odysseus does. Second, both characters share a tendency, which Menelaus shows more clearly than Odysseus, to use direct quotation to present the same kind of speech that their enclosing narrative attempts to be. Demonstrating this for Menelaus first will make the pattern easier to see for Odysseus. Menelaus tells Telemachus about his homecoming in Odyssey 4.333–592. In this tale, he consistently presents speech act types that relate to the conversational context in which his story appears in a way that subtly reinforces the aims both of his own speech and of the conversation. Every move in Menelaus’ story is either a question or a reply, except for one order that Proteus gives Menelaus that relates more to the course of their conversation than to any proposed action. Moreover, the moves in these direct quotations are divided almost exactly equally between initial moves and reactive moves, which underlines the collaborative nature of the conversations that Menelaus reports. Of the 17 moves that appear in Menelaus’ 13 direct quotations, 8 are initial moves and 9 are reactive moves. The combination of the speech act types and move types of these speeches shows a highly reciprocal conversational structure where neither speaker asserts authority over the other. This is similar to the context in which Menelaus tells this story of his own homecoming: he is telling the story to Telemachus, who has come to Sparta partly to learn more about his father’s whereabouts.¹⁴ Within these essentially collaborative conversations, Menelaus consistently presents his questions with directive sentence types and his interlocutors’ as interrogatives. This puts him in charge, in a manner of speaking, both because he directs the course of the conversation by asking most of the questions and because his questions are more speaker-oriented than SPE ECH PR E SEN TAT ION in HOM ER IC EPIC

28

Beck-final.indb 28

6/26/12 7:55:54 PM

the interrogative questions attributed to his addressees. So, while Menelaus presents question-and-reply exchanges that both mirror and forward the informational and collaborative conversation in which his narrative appears, he highlights his own questions within his narrative by making them speaker-oriented. One instance of a question-and-reply exchange illustrates this feature of Menelaus’ narrative. To begin with, Menelaus does not use any speech in the first part of his tale depicting him stuck on an island near Egypt, where he would have remained if Eidothea had not taken pity on him (4.351–369). Eidothea makes the first speech presented in Menelaus’ narrative, asking him why he does not leave the island (νήπιός εἰς, ὦ ξεῖνε, λίην τόσον ἠδὲ χαλίφρων, / ἦε ἑκὼν μεθιεῖς καὶ τέρπεαι ἄλγεα πάσχων; “Are you so simple then, O stranger, and flimsy-minded, / or are you willingly giving up, and enjoying your hardships?” 4.371–372). Her question, following a subsidiary assertive statement that implicitly asks him if he is a fool (471), is introduced with the adversative ἦε (372).¹⁵ In Menelaus’ response, first he replies with an explanation of his circumstances, and then he asks her what god is keeping him there against his will (4.376–381). His question is in the form of a directive, since it starts with an imperative “Tell me!” (underlined), followed by an indirect question.¹⁶ ἐκ μέν τοι ἐρέω, ἥ τις σύ πέρ ἐσσι θεάων, ὡς ἐγὼ οὔ τι ἑκὼν κατερύκομαι, ἀλλά νυ μέλλω ἀθανάτους ἀλιτέσθαι, οἳ οὐρανὸν εὐρὺν ἔχουσιν. ἀλλὰ σύ πέρ μοι εἰπέ, θεοὶ δέ τε πάντα ἴσασιν, ὅς τίς μ’ ἀθανάτων πεδάᾳ καὶ ἔδησε κελεύθου, νόστον θ’, ὡς ἐπὶ πόντον ἐλεύσομαι ἰχθυόεντα. So I will tell, whoever you may be of the goddesses, that I am not detained of my own free will, but it must be I have offended the immortals who hold wide heaven. But do you then tell me, for the gods know everything, which one of the immortals hampers me here and keeps me from my journey and tell me how to make my way home on the sea where the fish swarm.

In comparison, the main narrator’s speech presentation in the Odyssey as a whole includes 76 questions, of which one-third (29) are presented with directive rather than interrogative sentence types. Menelaus begins all of his own questions with directives. Both Eidothea and Proteus begin their conversations with Menelaus by asking him one question in interrogative rather than directive form.¹⁷ In both conversations, Menelaus goes on to DIRECT QUOTATION

29

Beck-final.indb 29

6/26/12 7:55:55 PM

ask his divine interlocutor several questions, always presented with some kind of imperative introduction.¹⁸ Proteus gives the only true directive of the entire narrative when he breaks in on Menelaus’ sorrow at the news of Agamemnon’s death to tell him to stop grieving and press on for home, where he might be able to avenge his brother (4.543–547). This directive, however, is incidental to the overall conversation, since Menelaus responds with a further question about the fates of his comrades as they returned from Troy. This directive gets the conversation back on track; it does not affect Menelaus’ behavior outside the conversation or what he does in order to get home. The direct quotations within Menelaus’ narrative depict the same type of question-and-reply exchanges in quest of information about Greek heroes’ νόστοι as we see in Menelaus’ own conversation with Telemachus. Menelaus uses direct quotation to depict his own νόστος as a matter almost entirely of gaining knowledge rather than of doing heroic deeds, just as his visitor Telemachus is traveling in search of information. Within this question-and-reply structure, Menelaus uses a high proportion of metadirective openings to present his own questions, but not those of his interlocutors, so as to depict himself as a particularly engaged conversationalist given that the conversations he narrates contain no directives. He depicts himself as actively taking the lead in the conversations that he presents in his speech, which makes him look good to his visitors (and perhaps also to Helen), and at the same time models for Telemachus a more adult and assertive way to ask for information than Telemachus has used thus far in his conversation with Menelaus. The vividness of direct quotation in Menelaus’ tale depicts the central themes of homecoming and seeking information at three narrative levels at once—the story that Menelaus tells, the tale’s two distinct audiences of Telemachus and Helen, and the external audience of the Odyssey. This effect emphasizes both the theme itself and the narrative complexity of the Odyssey, which is yet another key theme of the poem.

Odysseus Although Menelaus uses much more direct quotation than any character except Odysseus, Odysseus is the only character whose use of direct quotation is vaguely comparable to that of the main narrator in quantity and variety. Odysseus’ qualities as a narrator—and the qualities of his narrative—have been the subject of a staggering amount of scholarship, of which I provide individual examples I find particularly useful rather than an exhaustive (and inevitably exhausting) bibliography. Major questions have included whether, and in what way(s), Odysseus resembles either a poet¹⁹ or the main narrator;²⁰ the structure of Odysseus’ narrative and its function SPE ECH PR E SEN TAT ION in HOM ER IC EPIC

30

Beck-final.indb 30

6/26/12 7:55:55 PM

within the broader narrative of the Odyssey;²¹ and the aims that Odysseus has in telling his story the way he does.²² No consensus has been reached on these issues, nor, perhaps, should one be expected, given the scope and complexity of Odysseus’ tale. Despite the attention Odysseus’ narrative has received overall, his use of direct quotation has gotten very little.²³ This analysis focuses on how Odysseus uses direct quotation in his long narrative in Books 9–12, and what larger points that makes about the function and effect of his narrative in its context. From the point of view of speech act types, Odysseus presents his adventures partly as actions in which the directive speech acts he quotes dramatize how events happened. At the same time, the many questions Odysseus quotes (half of which occur in the underworld) depict him learning new things and engaging in various battles of wits (notably with the Cyclops, the only story in Odysseus’ narrative without any non-direct speech presentation). Although scholarship has cast Odysseus’ heroism as a conflict between μῆτις and the more “heroic” βίη,²⁴ analysis of speech act types suggests that Odysseus uses direct quotation to present himself as a hero of both μῆτις (asking questions) and βίη (both giving and carrying out directives, the latter almost entirely from divine or supernatural figures). By means of this narrative, Odysseus wishes to tell the Phaeacians who he is—in the conversational context, his narrative answers Alcinous’ question “Who are you?” (8.548–586). At the same time, he tells a tale of his derring-do among supernatural creatures to impress and entertain the Phaeacians, both so that they return him home and to add to his own reputation.²⁵ Odysseus uses direct speech within the narrative as a spotlight to highlight the episodes and characters that best forward these goals, such as the Cyclops and Circe, but he uses speech presentation so that characters that do not advance his aims for his tale—most notably the companions—become peripheral. To begin with a broad overview of Odysseus’ direct quotations in the aggregate, how do the 143 speeches he presents break down in terms of speech presentation techniques, speech moves, and speech act types? The count of individual speech presentations is 147, since a few of the 144 speeches that Odysseus presents contain more than one speech presentation technique.²⁶ Slightly more than half of these speeches appear in direct quotation (88, 61 percent). Although Odysseus uses much more direct quotation in this long narrative than do the characters in the Odyssey as a group, or than Menelaus does in his narrative in Book 4,²⁷ he does not come close to the proportion of 83 percent direct quotation for speech presented by the main narrators in the Iliad and the Odyssey. Within his 88 direct quotations, 48 speeches contain directives (55 percent), 19 contain questions (22 percent), 24 include assertives (28 percent), and 7 include emotives (8 percent). DIRECT QUOTATION

31

Beck-final.indb 31

6/26/12 7:55:56 PM

He presents approximately two-thirds initial moves (61) and one-third reactive moves (34), a proportion similar to that of the main narrator of the Odyssey, who presents slightly more reactive moves as a proportion of all direct speeches (237, or 40 percent of the total, and 352 initial moves, for 60 percent of the total). Compared to the main narrator of the Odyssey, Odysseus presents a larger proportion of direct quotation as directives and questions, but a smaller percentage of assertives and emotives.²⁸ A complementary perspective on the tale considers Odysseus’ goals for his narrative as a function of what parts of his adventures he uses direct speech to present (and thus to depict vividly and engagingly for his audience). Among the various supernatural characters Odysseus meets, the Cyclops and Circe stand out because Odysseus spends a long time talking to them in order to get what he wants, escape and renown in the case of the Cyclops and information in the case of Circe.²⁹ Thus, one function of his tale overall is to display to the Phaeacians his skill as a conversationalist, one who can gain what he wants through conversational exchange even when his interlocutors are goddesses and fabulous monsters who might be supposed to be more powerful than himself. Indeed, Odysseus is trying to use that very skill on the vaguely supernatural Phaeacians, and so, as with Menelaus, the specific features of the conversations he quotes in his speech are implicitly forwarding the aims of the embedding speech. Speeches that he does not quote, in contrast, usually do not forward these aims. Thus, the self-oriented perspective of a first-person narrator clearly and consistently marks both the particular speeches that Odysseus presents and the overall patterns in how he presents speech in his tale, even while he uses direct quotation in a more wide-ranging way than any other character does. This point emerges most clearly by contrasting the way that Odysseus presents speech in the Cyclops episode, in which all 17 speeches involving the Cyclops are quoted directly, with the presentation of speeches to or by Odysseus’ companions. The companion speeches are quoted less than half the time (26 of 56 speeches); the minority that are quoted either feature Odysseus himself prominently in the speech, so that the companions become peripheral even if they are the speakers or addressees, or present a problematic move, which as we have seen is strongly correlated with direct quotation for pragmatic reasons, independent of who the speaker or addressee is. In the Cyclops episode, direct speech shows Odysseus using speech to manipulate the physically much stronger Cyclops, particularly in relation to his own name. Other activities in the episode that show different kinds of power, such as creating the stick with which to poke out the Cyclops’ eye, feature no speech at all. The Circe episode works in a similar way, alSPE ECH PR E SEN TAT ION in HOM ER IC EPIC

32

Beck-final.indb 32

6/26/12 7:55:57 PM

though it is more complicated for two reasons. First, the direct quotations for speeches by or to Circe depict two intertwined aspects of her character’s importance to the narrative, primarily the information and instructions about his journey that she gives Odysseus (quoted at length at 10.504– 540, 12.37–110, and 12.116–141), but also his success in evading her attempts to turn him into an animal (10.320–344 and 378–405). Second, this episode features a number of non-direct speech presentations, although most of these have pragmatic explanations related to the particular kinds of conversation they present.³⁰ Therefore, the following analysis focuses on the more straightforward Cyclops episode, noting as it goes along how conclusions about the Cyclops also apply to the Circe episode. Odysseus relates six separate conversations or single speeches that involve Polyphemus. In all of these, he quotes directly every speech that occurred, and in every case, the exchanges that are quoted depict either trickery about Odysseus’ identity or an emotive speech act type. All the conversations involving the Cyclops (as opposed to single speeches) in some way feature Odysseus giving information about his identity, a key feature of this episode and of the Odyssey overall.³¹ The two single speeches, 9.447–460 (Polyphemus to his ram) and 9.475–479 (Odysseus vaunts over Polyphemus as he is leaving), are both emotive speech act types, which tend to appear in direct quotation rather than in a non-direct form.³² In this particular episode, then, direct speech depicts Odysseus as a man of μῆτις more than as an action hero of βίη, insofar as it shows him speaking cleverly with the Cyclops rather than working with his men to build tools to physically overpower the Cyclops. To put the same point another way, the 17 speeches directly quoted in the Cyclops episode contain 20 moves, of which just eight are directives. Moreover, several of the directives are subtypes, like invitations or prayers, that do not have a strong element of asserting power over the addressee. This is a noticeably lower proportion of directives than Odysseus uses in his direct quotations overall.³³ Thus, Odysseus gets his way in the Cyclops scene by using language, but generally not by using language whose explicit purpose is to impose the speaker’s will on the addressee. The individual conversations involving Polyphemus consistently use direct quotation to depict the motifs of identity and deception. In Odysseus’ first conversation with Polyphemus, the Cyclops asks who his visitors are (9.252–255). Odysseus truthfully replies that they are Greeks from Troy, but does not identify himself; then he supplicates the Cyclops for hospitality (269–271). The Cyclops scoffs at the idea of reverence for the gods and asks where the visitors’ ship is (273–280), but Odysseus lies and says it has been destroyed (283–286). Odysseus repeatedly parries questions from a powerful interlocutor and avoids giving information that he does not want to reDIRECT QUOTATION

33

Beck-final.indb 33

6/26/12 7:55:57 PM

veal. In their second conversation (9.345–370), Odysseus gets the Cyclops drunk and tells him his name is Οὖτις. The blinded Polyphemus asks fruitlessly for help from the other Cyclopes, a telling exchange of three speeches that vividly and amusingly dramatizes the effects of Odysseus’ ruse in giving “Nobody” as his name (9.403–412). As Odysseus and his surviving men make their escape, Odysseus taunts Polyphemus in an emotive speech that resembles a vaunt on the battlefield (9.475–479). In Odysseus’ last conversation with Polyphemus, he tells the Cyclops his real name (9.502–525, a sequence of three speeches).³⁴ He does this against the advice of his men (9.494–499), one of only two speeches involving them in Book 9 that is quoted directly. When he learns Odysseus’ name, the Cyclops prays to Poseidon to avenge his blinding by hindering Odysseus’ homecoming (9.528– 535). This speech, too, depends on Odysseus’ name, since Polyphemus invokes it (530) when he prays for Odysseus to be punished for blinding him. Taken as a group, these speeches and conversations keep the focus in the episode strongly on Odysseus’ identity and his deception of the Cyclops; speech, indeed, plays a key role in focusing the Cyclops story on Odysseus’ identity and his deceptive powers, rather than on the role of the companions or the physical strength needed to make the pointed stake with which the Cyclops is blinded. In fact, the companions appear in Odysseus’ tale mainly as a sideshow, especially in the Cyclops episode. The only time the companions are quoted directly in Book 9, they ask Odysseus why he is bent on stirring up the Cyclops just as they are finally escaping him (9.494–500). This is most unusual in the context of Book 9, both because the companions are the speakers and not the addressees and because speech involving the companions in any way in Book 9 is rarely quoted directly.³⁵ ἀμφὶ δ’ ἑταῖροι μειλιχίοισ’ ἐπέεσσιν ἐρήτυον ἄλλοθεν ἄλλος· “σχέτλιε, τίπτ’ ἐθέλεις ἐρεθιζέμεν ἄγριον ἄνδρα; ὃς καὶ νῦν πόντονδε βαλὼν βέλος ἤγαγε νῆα αὖτις ἐς ἤπειρον, καὶ δὴ φάμεν αὐτόθ’ ὀλέσθαι. εἰ δὲ φθεγξαμένου τευ ἢ αὐδήσαντος ἄκουσε, σύν κεν ἄραξ’ ἡμέων κεφαλὰς καὶ νήϊα δοῦρα μαρμάρῳ ὀκριόεντι βαλών· τόσσον γὰρ ἵησιν.” ὣς φάσαν, ἀλλ’ οὐ πεῖθον ἐμὸν μεγαλήτορα θυμόν. But my friends about me checked me, first one then another speaking, trying to soothe me: “Hard one, why are you trying once more to stir up this savage

SPE ECH PR E SEN TAT ION in HOM ER IC EPIC

34

Beck-final.indb 34

6/26/12 7:55:58 PM

man, who just now threw his missile in the sea, forcing our ship to the land again, and we thought once more we were finished; and if he had heard a voice or any one of us speaking, he would have broken all our heads and our ship’s timbers with a cast of a great jugged stone, so strong is his throwing.” So they spoke, but could not persuade the great heart in me.

(Od. 9.492–500) In form, the companions’ speech is a question (494) with an explanation of why they are asking the question (495–499). However, both the introductory verb ἐρήτυον (“they checked,” 393)³⁶ and the concluding verse describing Odysseus’ response show that Odysseus takes the speech as a directive, since forms of πείθω regularly follow directives to describe how the addressee responded. These pragmatic features of what the companions say override Odysseus’ general lack of interest in directly quoting speeches that involve the companions.³⁷ The companions simply receive Odysseus’ orders and carry them out (or, at times, do not carry them out). Giving them orders is a one-way process in which their views are usually irrelevant, or at least unimportant. The one order to the companions in Book 9 that Odysseus does quote directly, in fact, mostly talks about what Odysseus himself is going to do while some of the companions wait behind (9.171–178): καὶ τότ’ ἐγὼν ἀγορὴν θέμενος μετὰ πᾶσιν ἔειπον· “ἄλλοι μὲν νῦν μίμνετ’, ἐμοὶ ἐρίηρες ἑταῖροι· αὐτὰρ ἐγὼ σὺν νηΐ τ’ ἐμῇ καὶ ἐμοῖσ’ ἑτάροισιν ἐλθὼν τῶνδ’ ἀνδρῶν πειρήσομαι, οἵ τινές εἰσιν, ἤ ῥ’ οἵ γ’ ὑβρισταί τε καὶ ἄγριοι οὐδὲ δίκαιοι, ἦε φιλόξεινοι, καί σφιν νόος ἐστὶ θεουδής.” ὣς εἰπὼν ἀνὰ νηὸς ἔβην, ἐκέλευσα δ’ ἑταίρους αὐτούς τ’ ἀμβαίνειν ἀνά τε πρυμνήσια λῦσαι. Then I held an assembly and spoke forth before all: “The rest of you, who are my eager companions, wait here, while I, with my own ship and companions that are in it, go and find out about these people, and learn what they are, whether they are savage and violent, and without justice, or hospitable to strangers and with minds that are godly.” So speaking I went aboard the ship and told my companions also to go aboard, and to cast off the stern cables.

DIRECT QUOTATION

35

Beck-final.indb 35

6/26/12 7:55:58 PM

Only the first verse of Odysseus’ speech is addressed specifically to the companions; most of it focuses on his own plans to learn about the inhabitants of the island (173–176). This seeming exception to the tendency not to quote orders to the companions in Book 9 underlines how uninterested Odysseus is in doing so, once we discover that in fact the speech in which he does quote an order to them is primarily about Odysseus himself.³⁸ The contrast between relying heavily on direct quotation for conversations with the Cyclops and hardly at all for dealings with the companions emphasizes the Cyclops episode even more strongly. It also underlines that the companions and their experiences appear mainly as background and not as a story worth telling in its own right. Where their interests and Odysseus’ are separate, as when he gives them orders that he is not involved in carrying out himself, he has no interest in presenting their experience with the vividness of direct speech. This is especially striking when we contrast the emotive speech that the Cyclops addresses to his ram (9.447–460, a wish for the ram to be able to tell him where the man is who wounded him), a speech that dramatizes his pain and sorrow after being blinded,³⁹ with the lack of any direct speech for the companions as they are being eaten.⁴⁰ From the point of view of speech presentation, Odysseus seems to have more concern for the pain of the monster he has maimed than he does for his own men. This is because he depicts his mastery of the Cyclops, with which he aims to create a specific view of himself in his audience, partly by vividly presenting the grief that he causes the Cyclops. The grief of the companions, and to a large extent the very existence of his companions, does not help him to depict himself in such a way as to forward his larger goals with his audience. Indeed, speech presentation suggests that Odysseus’ conflict with the companions, although certainly present as a feature of the wanderings, is not one of its central topics.⁴¹ In the small number of direct quotations involving the companions that neither identify them with Odysseus nor involve pragmatic considerations about what type of move or speech act is being presented, the companions are shown doing ill-judged things in the absence of Odysseus. These foolish actions are rarely actively disobedient; they are simply foolish, and even when foolish they are always understandable human inclinations. These speeches occur at 10.38–45, when Odysseus has fallen asleep and the companions decide to look into the bag given to Odysseus by Aeolus; at 10.226–228, as Polites (described in 225 as ὅς μοι κήδιστος ἑτάρων ἦν κεδνότατός τε, “who was the best and dearest to me of my friends”) suggests they address Circe; and at 12.340–351, where Eurylochus suggests that they sacrifice Helius’ cattle while Odysseus is away

SPE ECH PR E SEN TAT ION in HOM ER IC EPIC

36

Beck-final.indb 36

6/26/12 7:55:59 PM

praying to the gods. Only the last of these speeches disobeys an explicit directive that Odysseus had given (12.320–323, a suggestion rather than a more binding form of directive: τῶν δὲ βοῶν ἀπεχώμεθα, “Let us then keep our hands off the cattle,” 321), but Odysseus clearly disapproves of all of them. He calls their decision to open the bag of winds a βουλὴ . . . κακή (“evil counsel,” 10.46); their overtures to Circe are misguided rather than downright blameworthy, but come in for censure nonetheless (ἀϊδρείῃσιν ἕποντο, “In their innocence [they] entered,” 10.231). These direct speeches show the companions as a group being foolish or misguided in the absence of their leader Odysseus, but only rarely actually disobedient. It shows only a single companion, Eurylochus, actively opposing Odysseus’ leadership.⁴² But these direct quotations are significantly outnumbered both by direct quotations that involve other characters and by non-direct speech presentations for the companions themselves. At the level of direct quotations overall, Odysseus quotes both directives and question-and-reply pairs in order to depict himself as engaged simultaneously in doing heroic deeds and in learning from the characters he meets. Similarly, both of these are important goals in relation to the Phaeacians, not only to satisfy their curiosity about his identity but also to actively shape their perception of his identity and to get what he wants out of the conversation. Direct quotation within individual episodes highlights the characters and incidents in which Odysseus consistently depicts himself overpowering his adversaries while also gaining important knowledge from them about what to do in order to return home safely. The companions, in contrast, participate in directly quoted speech relatively rarely, casting them into the background of the narrative. The companions do not play a big role in Odysseus’ narrative, from a speech presentation point of view, because they do not contribute to the overall goals that Odysseus has for the narrative. Thus, the specific kinds of speeches that appear in conversations in the νόστος tales of Odysseus and Menelaus consistently reflect the kind of conversation in which the embedded tale is told while actively forwarding the aims of the presenting speaker for his own speech in relation to his addressees. Because Odysseus and Menelaus are the only characters who tell an extended story of their own νόστος in the Odyssey, they are the only characters who present multiple conversations within their speeches. Unlike the main narrator, however, who uses the vividness of direct quotation to present virtually every aspect of the Odyssey tale, characters present many directly quoted conversations in their stories only when the story is about the character himself and the story is a νόστος. This leads to two

DIRECT QUOTATION

37

Beck-final.indb 37

6/26/12 7:56:00 PM

broader conclusions: first, characters who directly quote other characters are fundamentally always talking about themselves, because they directly quote speeches that forward their own conversational goals rather than a wider sample of speeches that were uttered; and second, νόστος in the Odyssey has a strong connection with conversation at all narrative levels. This may represent a perspective on νόστος that distinguishes the Odyssey from other tales of homecoming. Characters do quote various kinds of speech besides conversations within νόστος tales. As we shall see, outside of νόστος tales, characters almost always quote single speeches rather than conversations, where specific reasons explain why particular speeches and not adjacent speeches are presented in direct quotation.

Deceptive Speech When characters refer to speeches that are lies, they quote the lies directly.⁴³ Indeed, quotation is more suitable than indirect speech for presenting lies.⁴⁴ This explains several instances of characters directly quoting other characters in ways that have long puzzled commentators, namely Agamemnon’s story of Ate in Iliad 19 and the conversation that Eumaeus reports between his nurse and the Phoenicians who ultimately kidnap them both (Odyssey 15). In each case, the story contains some speeches that are quoted directly and others that are not. Both stories have disturbed readers because they directly quote conversations that the character quoting them cannot be supposed to have heard first-hand. Agamemnon could not have been present at a conversation between Zeus and Hera, and Eumaeus was both a small child and not physically with his nurse during most of the conversations of hers that he reports.⁴⁵ Previous scholars have either given up in despair when trying to explain why direct speech is used in these stories,⁴⁶ or they have fallen back on the rather general notion that a directly quoted speech occurs at “a crucial point in the story.”⁴⁷ In fact, direct speech in these stories presents speeches made by women who lie, or attempt to deceive, whereas non-direct speech presents the other speeches. Let us begin with Agamemnon, because his use of direct quotation in his (probably invented)⁴⁸ Ate story in Iliad 19 has attracted skeptical criticism since Homeric scholarship began.⁴⁹ In the assembly in Book 19, Agamemnon says that Ate caused him to act as he did toward Achilles. Since she had tricked Zeus himself in the past, how could he have escaped (19.78– 144)? During this story, Agamemnon directly quotes three speeches, one by Zeus (101–105), in which Zeus states that the baby born that day will rule over his fellow men, and two by Hera (107–111 and 121–124). In the first of

SPE ECH PR E SEN TAT ION in HOM ER IC EPIC

38

Beck-final.indb 38

6/26/12 7:56:00 PM

these, Hera asks Zeus to swear an oath confirming his statement at 101– 105 (which he does, but his oath is presented in indirect speech, 112–113); in the second, after he has sworn his unbreakable oath, she tells him that Eurystheus, not Heracles, is the baby who has been born in fulfillment of the terms of his oath. Then the angry Zeus grabs Ate by her hair and swears an (again indirectly presented) oath to debar her from Olympus (125–129). Here the story ends, and Agamemnon’s speech returns to himself and the current situation. At every level, the story uses direct speech to focus attention on the trickery of Hera (not, interestingly, of Ate, although she is ostensibly the party responsible for the wrongs that occur in Agamemnon’s story). Hera speaks the majority of the directly quoted speeches; all the directly quoted speeches pertain to her trickery, whereas the indirectly reported ones do not; and the introductory verse that precedes her reply at 106 calls her “tricky.”⁵⁰ Conversation appears here as the medium in which the important deception occurred—no individual speech can fully depict Hera’s interactive trickery. However disturbing ancient and modern commentators have found these direct quotations of gods, they make sense if we see them as presentations of a lie that happens to be told by a god rather than of divine speech that happens to be a lie.⁵¹ Eumaeus is the only character in the Odyssey other than νόστος narrators who uses direct speech to depict other speakers in conversation. When Eumaeus entertains the newly arrived Odysseus (disguised as a beggar) in his hut, Odysseus asks him how he came to leave his home (15.381–388). In response (390–484), Eumaeus tells Odysseus about the Phoenician traders who stole him from his parents and sold him. As in Agamemnon’s story of Ate, direct speech appears for some but not all of the speeches in his story. The four speeches that are quoted directly are not outright lies, but they are deceptive: they are the speeches in which Eumaeus’ nurse and the Phoenician traders decide to run away together and to take the young Eumaeus with them. The four nondeceptive speeches, meanwhile, are presented with indirect speech or with speech mention. This is particularly noticeable at the beginning of Eumaeus’ story, where deceptive deeds and non-deceptive speech set the scene for the deceptive conversation that is to come. The nurse’s acquaintance with the Phoenicians begins when one of the traders makes love to her as she is doing the laundry. Afterward, an indirect speech presents him asking her who she is. The sailor’s question is perfectly unremarkable, particularly since he has just been sexually intimate with his addressee. Thus, the question itself has no deceptive function and is not presented with direct speech.

DIRECT QUOTATION

39

Beck-final.indb 39

6/26/12 7:56:01 PM

πλυνούσῃ τις πρῶτα μίγη κοίλῃ παρὰ νηῒ εὐνῇ καὶ φιλότητι, τά τε φρένας ἠπεροπεύει θηλυτέρῃσι γυναιξί, καὶ ἥ κ᾽ εὐεργὸς ἔῃσιν. εἰρώτα δὴ ἔπειτα, τίς εἴη καὶ πόθεν ἔλθοι. First of all, when she went out washing, one of them lay with her in love’s embrace by the hollow ship, which for female women is a heart’s beguilement, even for the one who is a skilled worker. Then he asked her who and whence she was.

(Od. 15.420 – 423) But when the nurse tells the Phoenicians that she is Phoenician and has been enslaved by Eumaeus’ parents (425–429), her speech is quoted directly, starting with the key assertion that she is from Sidon (ἐκ μὲν Σιδῶνος πολυχάλκου εὔχομαι εἶναι, “I claim that I come from Sidon, rich in bronze,” 425). This common point of identity between her and the traders leads to their offer to take her home in their next direct speech (431– 433), which ultimately entices her to leave her masters behind and take their child with her. This offer is the last time that the Phoenicians are quoted directly in the scene: when they swear the oath that the nurse requests in her next speech, promising to take her home (435–436), their oath is presented with speech mention (437). The longest direct speech in the tale quotes her as she gives detailed instructions to the Phoenicians for running away together and taking Eumaeus with them (440–453). This long speech is the climax of the scene, insofar as the episode contains no further direct quotations. Both the message that the Phoenicians send to the nurse (458) and the business dealings of the women of Eumaeus’ family with the traders (463) are presented with speech mention; the actual kidnapping and sea voyage, and even the sale of Eumaeus to Laertes after his nurse’s death, contain no speech references (463–484). Although the Phoenicians in some sense begin the whole business by seducing the nurse, the episode casts her as primarily responsible for what happened to Eumaeus by quoting her directly more than the Phoenicians, and in particular by quoting her when she— not they—arranges the plans for absconding with her young charge.⁵² As with Agamemnon’s story, the direct quotations in Eumaeus’ tale depict the deceptive speech of a woman, while other kinds of speeches are presented in non-direct ways. This tendency for characters to use direct quotation to show women being deceptive has surprising implications for Menelaus’ story about Helen

SPE ECH PR E SEN TAT ION in HOM ER IC EPIC

40

Beck-final.indb 40

6/26/12 7:56:02 PM

in Odyssey 4. When Menelaus tells how Helen tried to trick the Greek warriors hidden inside the Trojan horse by imitating the voices of their wives, he does not quote her directly. This contrasts markedly not only with the conversations discussed above, but with other examples of persuasive or deceptive female speech quoted by characters. In particular, Penelope’s deceptive speech about the shroud she claims to be weaving—but which she unravels every night to avoid marrying one of the suitors—makes clear that direct quotation of a deceptive female speech does not imply a negative view of the female character’s trickery. Antinous, the first of three characters to quote Penelope’s words about the shroud (2.96–102), clearly does blame her for her trick, inasmuch as he makes it the reason that she and not the suitors is responsible for the chaotic state of affairs in Odysseus’ palace.⁵³ However, the speech is quoted twice more, by Penelope in speaking to Odysseus (19.141–147) and by the ghost of Amphimedon in the underworld (24.131–137). Penelope’s main feeling when she quotes the speech is sorrow that her deception ended when she was betrayed by her maid; Amphimedon, despite having been killed for wooing Penelope, not only does not blame her, but praises the beauty of her weaving (24.147–148).⁵⁴ With this in mind, it is clear that we cannot attribute the lack of direct quotation for Helen’s deceptive speeches to the Greek warriors at Troy to a desire to conceal or minimize the trickiness of the speech because it would reflect badly on Helen: quoting a tricky speech directly does not require that the character quoting it think badly of the deception, even though that is clearly the case in the deceptive conversations quoted by Agamemnon and Eumaeus.⁵⁵ Instead, it seems probable that Menelaus simply does not see the speech as deceptive. That is, the deception comes, as he says, not from the speaker herself, but from the divinity who put the idea into Helen’s head.⁵⁶ If we use speech presentation as a way to understand this very puzzling speech, Menelaus seems to mean what he says when he absolves Helen of responsibility for her actions (4.274–279). ἦλθες ἔπειτα σὺ κεῖσε· κελευσέμεναι δέ σ’ ἔμελλε δαίμων, ὃς Τρώεσσιν ἐβούλετο κῦδος ὀρέξαι· καί τοι Δηΐφοβος θεοείκελος ἕσπετ’ ἰούσῃ. τρὶς δὲ περίστειξας κοῖλον λόχον ἀμφαφόωσα, ἐκ δ’ ὀνομακλήδην Δαναῶν ὀνόμαζες ἀρίστους, πάντων Ἀργείων φωνὴν ἴσκουσ’ ἀλόχοισιν. Then you came there, Helen; you will have been moved by some divine spirit who wished to grant glory to the Trojans, and Deïphobos, a godlike man, was with you when you came.

DIRECT QUOTATION

41

Beck-final.indb 41

6/26/12 7:56:03 PM

Three times you walked around the hollow ambush, feeling it, and you called out, naming them by name, to the best of the Danaans, and made your voice sound like the voice of the wife of each of the Argives.

Rather than quote Helen when she calls out to the individual Greeks, Menelaus simply mentions her behavior.⁵⁷ This supports recent arguments claiming that the pair of stories told by Helen and Menelaus in Odyssey 4 are mutually reinforcing (Minchin 2007b: 31–32). To me this is, frankly, counterintuitive, as I have always found the behavior of husband and wife in this episode unsettling in the extreme,⁵⁸ but the evidence of speech presentation suggests that Menelaus intends his story to complement Helen’s rather than to implicitly challenge it. More broadly, many characters in both poems present lying women, and when they do, the women are quoted directly. In these speeches, direct quotation presents the gulf between the content of the speech and the quoted character’s intentions.

Mimetic Quotation with Persuasive Function: Greeks in the Iliad Characters also use single direct quotations within their speeches as a kind of accent or highlight within the embedding speech in order to foster specific pragmatic goals for the embedding conversation. The Greeks in the Iliad regularly use direct quotations in their speeches to reinforce directives.⁵⁹ While the Iliad shows the Greeks repeatedly quarreling with one another over who has authority and who is actually able to wield the authority that he has,⁶⁰ the authority figures that Greek characters regularly quote when trying to assert their will over other characters, namely seers and fathers, derive their clout from comparatively uncontroversial sources of authority that lie beyond the political struggles of the camp. This rhetorical strategy indirectly confirms the problematic nature of political authority for the Greeks: the gods and one’s family are unanswerable sources of authority in a society where one’s comrades are not, and thus are important resources for someone trying to assert his authority within the Greek power structure. In a typical speech in which a Greek directly quotes someone else’s speech, the quoting speaker is giving a directive to his addressee(s).⁶¹ He reminds them of a past occasion when some particular person said something that either explicitly or implicitly supports the directive the quoting speaker is now giving. The quoting speaker presents these embedded quotations as having actually occurred, often by reminding the addressee that he was there and heard what the quoted speaker said.⁶² Odysseus’ speech to the Greeks in Iliad 2 shows the qualities typical of this kind of persuasive quoSPE ECH PR E SEN TAT ION in HOM ER IC EPIC

42

Beck-final.indb 42

6/26/12 7:56:03 PM

tation within a directive to a group. His account uses words of Calchas the seer to persuade the Greeks not to go home, countering Agamemnon’s earlier suggestion that the Greeks abandon Troy (2.110–141).⁶³ After an extensive retelling of the omen that the Greeks received as they were mustering to go to Troy before the war began (2.303–321), Odysseus ends his speech by directly quoting Calchas’ interpretation of this event (322–330).⁶⁴ Κάλχας δ’ αὐτίκ᾽ ἔπειτα θεοπροπέων ἀγόρευε· “τίπτ’ ἄνεῳ ἐγένεσθε, κάρη κομόωντες Ἀχαιοί; ἡμῖν μὲν τόδ’ ἔφηνε τέρας μέγα μητίετα Ζεύς, ὄψιμον, ὀψιτέλεστον, ὅου κλέος οὔ ποτ’ ὀλεῖται. ὡς οὗτος κατὰ τέκνα φάγε στρουθοῖο καὶ αὐτήν, ὀκτώ, ἀτὰρ μήτηρ ἐνάτη ἦν, ἣ τέκε τέκνα, ὣς ἡμεῖς τοσσαῦτ’ ἔτεα πτολεμίξομεν αὖθι, τῷ δεκάτῳ δὲ πόλιν αἱρήσομεν εὐρυάγυιαν.” κεῖνος τὼς ἀγόρευε· τὰ δὴ νῦν πάντα τελεῖται. Kalchas straightway spoke before us interpreting the gods’ will: “Why are you turned voiceless, you flowing-haired Achaians? Zeus of the counsels has shown us this great portent: a thing late, late to be accomplished, whose glory shall perish never. As this snake has eaten the sparrow herself with her children, eight of them, and the mother was the ninth, who bore them, so for years as many as this shall we fight in this place and in the tenth year we shall take the city of the wide ways.” So he spoke to us then; now all this is being accomplished.

Odysseus reminds the Greeks that they themselves were present when the omen happened, and they can testify that events transpired as he now relates (ἐστὲ δὲ πάντες / μάρτυροι, “And you all are / witnesses,” 301–302). He identifies Calchas as a prophet in the introduction to the speech (322), emphasizing his authoritative status. This quotation, along with Odysseus’ final command to the Greeks to remain at Troy until they capture it (323– 332), ends his speech. Odysseus devotes the majority of his speech to the directly quoted words of a speaker that the whole group recognizes as an authority in order to reinforce his own directive. This way of persuading others to follow one’s directives presupposes an orderly social structure where there is some kind of authority recognized by the group as a whole, namely the seer who serves the whole community through his privileged access to the gods’ will. When a Greek character reinforces a directive to an individual with a direct quotation, in conDIRECT QUOTATION

43

Beck-final.indb 43

6/26/12 7:56:04 PM

trast, the authority quoted is the private one of the addressee’s father rather than a public authority like a seer.⁶⁵ Seers are unique authority figures because all Greeks recognize the divine authority of a particular seer, even when the seer says something unpalatable. Fathers, in contrast, are special sources of authority because of the universal status of fathers in general, not because one person’s father has any special authority over anyone other than his own son. In all these contexts, Greek characters present a single direct quotation within their own speech that is spoken by someone with some kind of universal authority in order to put forward a specific pragmatic goal, namely to persuade the addressee to go along with the embedding directive. These embedded quotations regularly contrast the very problematic nature of authority for the embedding speakers and the more straightforward vision of authority implied by the embedded quotations. Thus, these quotations draw on the vividness of direct quotation to depict a central theme of the Iliad.

Persuasive Quotations Presented by Odysseus Unlike Greek characters in the Iliad who quote “actual” speeches to persuade, Odysseus fabricates persuasive quotations.⁶⁶ Moreover, the deception of the speeches Odysseus quotes does not lie entirely in the gap between the content of his direct quotations and the state of mind of the speakers of these quotations, as it does when other characters quote deceptive speeches (discussed earlier). Instead, he uses direct quotation in a manner that misleads his addressee on several levels at once. For instance, Odysseus uses direct quotations deceptively to serve a persuasive function when he tests Eumaeus in quest of a cloak (Od. 14.462–506). He combines two functions of direct quotation within characters’ speeches—to persuade, and to present deceptive speech—that other characters keep separate. Within the story Odysseus is telling, the characters always speak with a deceptive or misleading angle to their words, either because the speech act is implicit or (in one case) because someone is telling a character to keep quiet in order to conceal their plans from the other Greeks present. At another level, the disguised Odysseus—like the characters in the story he tells—is quoting these invented figures ostensibly for one purpose (to lament his vanished youth as it was in the days at Troy, 468–469), but really for a different one (to test Eumaeus and get a cloak, 459–461).⁶⁷ Like many other contexts in which characters present direct quotation, the pragmatics of the embedding speaker’s own speech and of the quotation he presents closely resemble one another. In addition, Odysseus’ persuasive quotations in the Odyssey draw on the ability of direct quotation to depict the gap between words and intentions. This is what Odysseus himself does, not only in the embedSPE ECH PR E SEN TAT ION in HOM ER IC EPIC

44

Beck-final.indb 44

6/26/12 7:56:04 PM

ding speech, but repeatedly throughout the second half of the Odyssey: he uses the deceptive power of speech to sway his addressees. The direct quotations within Odysseus’ story of a cold and stormy night at Troy depict manipulative ways of talking on the part of both of the invented speakers in the tale.⁶⁸ Moreover, the vividness of direct quotation effectively depicts the gulf between the words and the thoughts of the speakers. First, the nameless character who addresses “Odysseus” does not explicitly ask for a cloak to keep warm. Instead, he uses a statement about not having his own cloak as an implicit directive to get “Odysseus” to give him someone else’s cloak (Od. 14.486–489). διογενὲς Λαερτιάδη, πολυμήχαν’ Ὀδυσσεῦ, οὔ τοι ἔτι ζωοῖσι μετέσσομαι, ἀλλά με χεῖμα δάμναται· οὐ γὰρ ἔχω χλαῖναν· παρά μ’ ἤπαφε δαίμων οἰοχίτων’ ἔμεναι· νῦν δ’ οὐκέτι φυκτὰ πέλονται. Son of Laertes and seed of Zeus, resourceful Odysseus, I shall no longer be left among the living. The weather is too much for me. I have no mantle. The spirit made me silly, to go half-dressed, and now there is no escape for me.

Clearly there is a gap here between the propositional content of the speech (quoted above in its entirety) and its intended effect. After “Odysseus” orders the narrating character to be quiet lest the other Greeks overhear him (493), itself clearly a speech with deceptive intent—although trying to trick a third party, not the addressee—he uses a second implicit speech act (495– 498) to get the cloak for which his comrade has not openly asked him. κλῦτε, φίλοι· θεῖός μοι ἐνύπνιον ἦλθεν ὄνειρος. λίην γὰρ νηῶν ἑκὰς ἤλθομεν. ἀλλά τις εἴη εἰπεῖν Ἀτρείδῃ Ἀγαμέμνονι, ποιμένι λαῶν, εἰ πλέονας παρὰ ναῦφιν ἐποτρύνειε νέεσθαι. Hear me, friends. In my sleep a divine dream came to me. We have come too far away from the ships. Now, would there be someone to tell Agamemnon, Atreus’ son, shepherd of the people, so he might send more of the men by the ships to come here to us?

This speech, like the original request, makes an implicit directive, namely the optative in verse 496 requesting a volunteer to take a message to Agamemnon. However, the speech contains a further level of indirection, inDIRECT QUOTATION

45

Beck-final.indb 45

6/26/12 7:56:05 PM

sofar as the real point of the request is not the message it asks for—presumably, within the fictional world of this invented story, “Odysseus” has invented the supposed dream that sets off his wish to get in touch with Agamemnon⁶⁹—but the apparently secondary result that the messenger removes his cloak when he takes the message. When Thoas takes off his cloak and runs off in search of Agamemnon, he leaves his cloak behind for his chilly comrade to use (499–502). Only after finishing the tale does the narrating Odysseus finally reveal, again in implicit language (δοίη κέν τις χλαῖναν, “Some one . . . would give me a mantle,” 504), his hope that this tale of Troy will yield him a similar gift from someone in the swineherd’s household. These direct quotations in Odysseus’ story thus show indirection in speech at two different levels. Within the story, direct quotation rather than non-direct speech is necessary to depict the gap between what the characters in Odysseus’ invented story say and what they really mean. But in light of how rare implicit speech acts generally are in Homeric epic, two such speeches in one conversation within a speech that is itself an implicit directive strongly emphasize the implicit nature of the speech in which the quotations occur.⁷⁰ All these different direct quotations of implicit speech acts, at different narrative levels, are working together to show the disguised Odysseus making skillful use of the resources of language in order both to veil his intentions and to achieve his aims. Moreover, he does this in a way that no other character does: other characters persuade with stories that do not include direct quotations,⁷¹ or (as discussed above) by quoting speeches of widely recognized authority figures, but not by means of stories that include fabricated speeches that mirror the intent of the speech within which the story is told. This refinement, or advancement, of the way other characters use direct quotation fits well within the parameters that this chapter sets out for characters’ direct quotations. Within those parameters, it distinguishes Odysseus as particularly adroit.⁷² In his various narratives, Odysseus consistently uses direct quotation to help him get what he wants, which is essentially what all characters are aiming for when they embed direct quotation within their speeches. However, Odysseus is able to use a larger quantity of direct quotations in a wider range of ways to effectively achieve more different kinds of aims than any other character in either Homeric poem. In Books 9–12, he does this by presenting mimetic speeches that “really” happened;⁷³ in this scene with Eumaeus, he makes up incidents and conversations as part of an implicit directive. This depicts Odysseus not only as a skillful speaker, but also as a particularly versatile one. The range of ways that Odysseus uses the vividness of direct quotation to present speech contrasts not only with other SPE ECH PR E SEN TAT ION in HOM ER IC EPIC

46

Beck-final.indb 46

6/26/12 7:56:06 PM

characters who have less range and skill as presenters of speech than he does, but also with the main narrators, whose direct quotations do not have any clear pragmatic rationales analogous to what we find so consistently for character-presented speech.⁷⁴ This difference in the narrators’ use of direct speech is partly because the characters are personally interested in everything they present in a way that the main narrators are not. At the same time, the strongly pragmatic orientation of character-presented direct quotation calls to mind an alternative style of narrative at the level of the main narrators, in which the vividness of direct speech might be linked to more limited and specific features of the speeches being presented instead of presenting virtually any speaker of virtually any kind of speech in virtually any kind of context. If the entire Odyssey used direct speech in the contextspecific way that Odysseus does—a style of narrative that the Odyssey overall clearly does include—it would be a very different poem. Odysseus’ way of presenting direct speech implies that the abundant use of direct quotation at the level of the main narrators is a choice, not a default value or a genre requirement.

NONM I M E T IC DI R E C T QUO TAT IONS

Non-mimetic direct quotation has been previously recognized as a kind of direct speech in Homeric epic,⁷⁵ but it has not been systematically studied across both poems and all narrative levels. Non-mimetic quotations in Homeric poetry fall mainly into two types: speeches that are spoken by more than one person, and hypothetical speeches. Both types are introduced primarily by the indefinite pronoun τις. The main narrators in both poems use τις to introduce a single speech that encapsulates what a group of people was saying on a given occasion. This sort of τις speech is more common in the Odyssey than in the Iliad.⁷⁶ Odysseus is the only character to introduce speeches that purport to be the words of a group of people. Unlike the main narrators, he regularly uses plural verbs of speaking rather than a τις verse to introduce these, and he does not use τις to introduce speech.⁷⁷ When characters use τις verses to introduce direct quotations, they introduce a different kind of non-mimetic speech, invented or hypothetical speeches.⁷⁸ These hypothetical speeches form a significant proportion of the character-presented quotations in the Iliad, largely because Hector often uses them, but they are quite rare in the Odyssey. The main narrators, in contrast, never use direct quotation to present hypothetical speeches. The main narrators use non-mimetic direct speeches to lend expressivity to a group of people, whereas the character narrators use basically the same lanDIRECT QUOTATION

47

Beck-final.indb 47

6/26/12 7:56:06 PM

guage of speech presentation to dramatize their own feelings, mainly about their reputations. In both cases, a τις speech means “no real individual actually said this” and gives a voice to someone who otherwise does not speak in the narrative; but narrators at different levels use this technique for very different kinds of speakers.

m a in na r r ator s In both poems, τις speeches quoted by the main narrator present what a group of people said on a particular occasion by means of one typical speech that is assigned to an anonymous or representative member of that group. While the singular form τις—even with the dependent plural genitive that often modifies it—implies a single speaker, these representative speeches often have plural forms in a concluding verse, such as ὣς (ἄρ᾽) ἔφαν (found five times in the Iliad), that make clear that the speech entails a group of speakers.⁷⁹ Although these speeches sometimes respond to a previous speech, they only once elicit a response from another speaker that clearly arises from the preceding τις speech.⁸⁰ Most commonly, τις speeches comment on what just happened or is currently happening; in a more strongly emotionally marked version of the same phenomenon, they contain some kind of emotive speech.⁸¹ They depict the reactions and wishes of important groups of characters who otherwise are not heard from in Homeric epic, without closely connecting what they say with the ongoing action.⁸² The “group” in these cases always has an identity as a group; it is not simply a set of speakers in the plural. In the Iliad, τις speeches at the level of the main narrator primarily depict the Greek and Trojan fighters, whereas in the Odyssey, they present the suitors almost exclusively.⁸³ Some τις speeches depict the unity of the group in question, perhaps most notably in the case of several τις speeches quoted in the Iliad that are attributed to “some Greek and Trojan” while there is a truce in force.⁸⁴ A pair of τις speeches can show disagreement within a group or between two groups of people about a single event. A pair of τις speeches made during the fighting over Patroclus’ corpse (Iliad 17.414–423) shows a number of these characteristics, depicting and contrasting the perspectives of the Greeks and the Trojans at a crucial moment in the fighting. ὧδε δέ τις εἴπεσκεν Ἀχαιῶν χαλκοχιτώνων· “ὦ φίλοι, οὐ μὰν ἧμιν ἐϋκλεὲς ἀπονέεσθαι νῆας ἔπι γλαφυράς, ἀλλ’ αὐτοῦ γαῖα μέλαινα πᾶσι χάνοι· τό κεν ἧμιν ἄφαρ πολὺ κέρδιον εἴη,

SPE ECH PR E SEN TAT ION in HOM ER IC EPIC

48

Beck-final.indb 48

6/26/12 7:56:07 PM

εἰ τοῦτον Τρώεσσι μεθήσομεν ἱπποδάμοισιν ἄστυ πότι σφέτερον ἐρύσαι καὶ κῦδος ἀρέσθαι.” ὥς δέ τις αὖ Τρώων μεγαθύμων αὐδήσασκεν· “ὦ φίλοι, εἰ καὶ μοῖρα παρ’ ἀνέρι τῷδε δαμῆναι πάντας ὁμῶς, μή πώ τις ἐρωείτω πολέμοιο.” ὥς ἄρα τις εἴπεσκε, μένος δ’ ὄρσασκεν ἑκάστου. And such would be the saying of some bronze-armoured Achaian: “Friends, there is no glory for us if we go back again to our hollow ships, but here and now let the black earth open gaping for all; this would soon be far better for us if we give up this man to the Trojans, breakers of horses, to take away to their own city and win glory from him.” And such in turn would be the cry of some high-hearted Trojan: “O friends, though it be destined for all of us to be killed here over this man, still none of us must give ground from the fighting.” Thus a man would speak, and stir the spirit in each one of his fellowship.

First, the Greeks express their sorrow at the possibility that they may lose the corpse of Patroclus to the Trojans (17.415–419).⁸⁵ At a desperate point in the fighting, they are not striving to improve their chances of getting Patroclus’ corpse into their control or exhorting each other on to greater bravery, but instead are bemoaning the possibility of failure. The Trojans, in contrast, are urging each other to stand their ground even if every single one of them is killed (421–422). The Trojan speech ends with language closely related to a common battlefield speech concluding formula.⁸⁶ It is striking here that the Greeks, mired in a kind of passive regret, speak first and get no speech conclusion. The more hopeful and assertive Trojans, meanwhile, not only have a more determined attitude toward the struggle over Patroclus’ corpse, but also seem from the concluding language after their speech to be speaking like fighters in a way that the Greeks are not. This pair of quotations thus depicts the discouragement of the Greeks as a group in contrast to the determination of the Trojan side, partly by means of the individual τις speeches for each and partly by means of the contrast between the two. The bulk of the contest over Patroclus’ body is waged between individual fighters, but here, for a moment, we catch a glimpse of the two sides as groups. The poem depicts Patroclus’ death largely in terms of how it affects individual characters, particularly Achilles; these τις speeches give a complementary perspective by reminding the audience that his death also affects the warriors of both sides as larger units.

DIRECT QUOTATION

49

Beck-final.indb 49

6/26/12 7:56:08 PM

τις speeches presented by the main narrator in the Odyssey serve different functions connected to the different thematic concerns of the Odyssey. For example, three τις speeches in the Odyssey point out an ironic gap between what a group of people said and thought about their situation, and what was really the case.⁸⁷ All of these speeches end with the verse ὣς ἄρα τις εἴπεσκε, τὰ δ᾽ οὐκ ἴσαν ὡς ἐτέτυκτο (“Thus one or another spoke but they did not know what had happened,” 4.772 = 13.170 = 23.152). In each case, the τις speech ironically highlights the gap between what a particular group knows about something extremely important both to their own circumstances and to the plot of the poem, and what is actually the case regarding this important thing. When the suitors hope for marriage to Penelope (4.770–771), they fail to realize that they will achieve neither marriage to Penelope nor the murder of Telemachus, and in fact that they and not he will soon be killed. The Phaeacians do not know until Alcinous tells them (13.172–183) that they have just seen a prophecy of Poseidon come to pass, and the Ithacans criticizing Penelope for not waiting for her husband’s return (23.149–151) will shortly learn that she has done just that. In these examples, a group’s opinions are presented with τις speeches not simply to dramatize what that group thinks, but also to illustrate that they are ignorant or misinformed about something fundamental both to their story and to the Odyssey overall. Such gaps between the knowledge of one person or group and another, or between what someone thinks he knows and what he really knows, form one of the ongoing topics of the Odyssey. In both the Iliad and the Odyssey, the main narrators use representative direct quotations to depict the views of groups of people in a vivid way that does not compete with or detract from the ongoing focus on important individuals.

ch a r ac ter na r r ator s Speech Spoken by a Group The main narrators, then, present speeches by groups of people using τις introductory verses to depict a single speech as an example of what multiple people in the group said. Odysseus is the only character who directly quotes speeches made by more than one speaker.⁸⁸ He uses plural verbs of speaking, usually within a conversational context where the speech elicits a reply.⁸⁹ Sometimes, these plural speeches present a representative speech that appears to stand for multiple speeches by individuals within the group, as when Odysseus presents speech by the companions with direct quotation. This is quite similar to the way the main narrators use τις speeches to depict a representative speech for a group. At other times, though, the context seems to require that the group literally speak simultaneously, diffi-

SPE ECH PR E SEN TAT ION in HOM ER IC EPIC

50

Beck-final.indb 50

6/26/12 7:56:08 PM

cult as this is to imagine in practice. These group speeches are not generalizing representative speeches put into the mouth of a single speaker, like τις speeches presented by the main narrators, but quasi-choral utterances. In these instances, Odysseus depicts speech differently from either the main narrators or other characters. For example, the wounded Polyphemus apparently carries on a conversation with a group of Cyclopes after Odysseus has blinded him. His cries attract their attention, and they ask what his problem is. He tells them that “Nobody” is killing him, and they recommend, again as a group, that he pray to Poseidon for help. Throughout this exchange, Odysseus uses plural verb forms for the Cyclopes, and the conversational structure seems to require that these group speeches have a real existence as single utterances (Od. 9.401–413). οἱ δὲ βοῆς ἀΐοντες ἐφοίτων ἄλλοθεν ἄλλος, ἱστάμενοι δ’ εἴροντο περὶ σπέος ὅττι ἑ κήδοι· “τίπτε τόσον, Πολύφημ’, ἀρημένος ὧδ’ ἐβόησας νύκτα δι’ ἀμβροσίην καὶ ἀΰπνους ἄμμε τίθησθα; ἦ μή τίς σευ μῆλα βροτῶν ἀέκοντος ἐλαύνει; ἦ μή τίς σ’ αὐτὸν κτείνει δόλῳ ἠὲ βίηφιν;” τοὺς δ’ αὖτ’ ἐξ ἄντρου προσέφη κρατερὸς Πολύφημος· “ὦ φίλοι, Οὖτίς με κτείνει δόλῳ οὐδὲ βίηφιν.” οἱ δ’ ἀπαμειβόμενοι ἔπεα πτερόεντ’ ἀγόρευον· “εἰ μὲν δὴ μή τίς σε βιάζεται οἶον ἐόντα, νοῦσόν γ’ οὔ πως ἔστι Διὸς μεγάλου ἀλέασθαι, ἀλλὰ σύ γ’ εὔχεο πατρὶ Ποσειδάωνι ἄνακτι.” ὣς ἂρ’ ἔφαν ἀπιόντες. They hearing him came swarming up from their various places, and stood around the cave and asked him what was his trouble: “Why, Polyphemos, what do you want with all this outcry through the immortal night and have made us all thus sleepless? Surely no mortal against your will can be driving your sheep off ? Surely none can be killing you by force or treachery?” Then from inside the cave strong Polyphemos answered: “Good friends, Nobody is killing me by force or treachery.” So then the others speaking in winged words gave him an answer: “If alone as you are none uses violence on you, why, there is no avoiding the sickness sent by great Zeus; so you had better pray to your father, the lord Poseidon.” So they spoke as they went away.

DIRECT QUOTATION

51

Beck-final.indb 51

6/26/12 7:56:09 PM

The group of Cyclopes asks a question of an individual addressee (versus the Phaeacians’ question introduced with a τις verse at 13.168–169, which is addressed either to no one or to everyone) and then responds to the answer given by that individual. They seem to be participating in this conversation as though they were an individual, with the same kind of speech framing language as appears for characters presented by the main narrator,⁹⁰ except that more than one character is speaking. In this example, Odysseus uses the same verbs of speaking as the main narrators do to present plural speech that seems to be choral rather than representative, a kind of speech presentation that we do not find at the level of the main narrators. This is a rare instance of a kind of speech presentation that is found at one narrative level—albeit only once—but is simply absent from other parts of Homeric narrative.

Hypothetical Speeches Characters use τις speeches very differently from the main narrators. In the Iliad, Trojan characters are the main presenters of τις quotations.⁹¹ These quotations consistently present hypothetical speeches, never something they depict as having in fact occurred, and they usually do so in emotional contexts. Hector does this most often (five examples), but other Trojans who present direct quotations do so in a similar way.⁹² Hypothetical quotations within Hector’s speeches emphasize his feelings about his own reputation, one of the most prominent features of Hector’s character (Mackie 1996: 85). Indeed, these quotations are one of the most powerful ways that his concern for his reputation is depicted: direct quotations within Hector’s speeches both emphasize and portray a key feature of his personality and (to a lesser extent) of the Trojan forces. Occasionally Greeks in the Iliad who for some reason are very emotional also quote hypothetical speeches to dramatize their feelings.⁹³ In contrast, characters in the Odyssey rarely use τις quotations.⁹⁴ Although τις quotations dramatize concerns about one’s reputation in the Odyssey as they do in the Iliad, the underlying personalities of the quoting characters and their reasons for being so concerned about what people think of them differ dramatically from the Trojan worldview in the Iliad. Hector’s speech to Andromache in their final meeting in Book 6 provides a typical example of the way he uses τις quotations. He tells her that however great his ἄλγος (6.450) for the future sufferings of the Trojans when the city is sacked, he feels the most strongly about her fate. A hypothetical Greek’s comment about her after his death illustrates his emotions and concludes his speech (459–465).⁹⁵

SPE ECH PR E SEN TAT ION in HOM ER IC EPIC

52

Beck-final.indb 52

6/26/12 7:56:10 PM

καί ποτέ τις [sc. Ἀχαιῶν χαλκοχιτώνων, 454] εἴπῃσιν ἰδὼν κατὰ δάκρυ χέουσαν· “Ἕκτορος ἥδε γυνή, ὃς ἀριστεύεσκε μάχεσθαι Τρώων ἱπποδάμων, ὅτε Ἴλιον ἀμφεμάχοντο.” ὥς ποτέ τις ἐρέει· σοὶ δ’ αὖ νέον ἔσσεται ἄλγος χήτεϊ τοιοῦδ’ ἀνδρὸς ἀμύνειν δούλιον ἦμαρ. ἀλλά με τεθνηῶτα χυτὴ κατὰ γαῖα καλύπτοι πρίν γέ τι σῆς τε βοῆς σοῦ θ’ ἑλκηθμοῖο πυθέσθαι. And some day seeing you shedding tears a man will say of you: “This is the wife of Hektor, who was ever the bravest fighter of the Trojans, breakers of horses, in the days when they fought about Ilion.” So will one speak of you; and for you it will be yet a fresh grief, to be widowed of such a man who could fight off the day of your slavery. But may I be dead and the piled earth hide me under before I hear you crying and know by this that they drag you captive.

From one point of view, this speech presents Hector’s refusal of Andromache’s directive in the previous speech. However, rather than simply or explicitly refusing, Hector responds by reflecting at length on his feelings about his fighting reputation and the sorrow of his family and fellow Trojans when the city falls. He regularly sees his decisions about where and how to fight in emotional terms centering on his own reputation, emotions that he dramatizes with a hypothetical quotation. Unlike Hector, who seems to quote speeches related to his own reputation as a matter of course, Greek characters in the Iliad who use hypothetical speeches do so in unusually fraught circumstances. Diomedes, for instance, displays a kind of youthful excess in his concern for his own reputation on the battlefield.⁹⁶ In Book 8, Diomedes tells Nestor that he feels αἰνὸν ἄχος (“bitter sorrow,” 147) about agreeing to retreat, as Nestor has suggested in the previous speech (8.139–144), because Hector may then say that Diomedes is a coward (146–150). When other characters use hypothetical speech to express emotions about fighting, they do so at moments when they confront death, not simply—as here—the need to flee. ναὶ δὴ ταῦτά γε πάντα, γέρον, κατὰ μοῖραν ἔειπες· ἀλλὰ τόδ’ αἰνὸν ἄχος κραδίην καὶ θυμὸν ἱκάνει· Ἕκτωρ γάρ ποτε φήσει ἐνὶ Τρώεσσ’ ἀγορεύων· “Τυδεΐδης ὑπ’ ἐμεῖο φοβεύμενος ἵκετο νῆας.” ὥς ποτ’ ἀπειλήσει· τότε μοι χάνοι εὐρεῖα χθών.

DIRECT QUOTATION

53

Beck-final.indb 53

6/26/12 7:56:10 PM

Yes, old sir, all this you have said is fair and orderly. But this thought comes as a bitter sorrow to my heart and my spirit; for some day Hektor will say openly before the Trojans: “The son of Tydeus, running before me, fled to his vessels.” So he will vaunt; and then let the wide earth open beneath me.

The motif “Let the earth cover me” accompanies hypothetical quotation in Hector’s speech to Andromache discussed above (6.464–465) and in Agamemnon’s anguished concern for the wounded Menelaus (4.178–181), both of which appear in speeches that focus on the speaker’s fears about his own death or that of someone close to him. Only here does anyone use such language to talk about a concern less serious than death. Diomedes is particularly emotional and inclined to exaggerate, not because of the specific circumstances he faces at this point in the fighting, but because of his youth. Nausicaa, too, uses hypothetical quotation because of her youth, but her concerns as a young marriageable girl are quite different from those of the warrior Diomedes. In the course of instructing Odysseus how to get to the palace of Scheria and how he should conduct himself there (Od. 6.255–315), she gives the longest τις quotation in the Homeric epics to explain why they should separate once they reach the city (275–288). καί νύ τις ὧδ’ εἴπῃσι κακώτερος ἀντιβολήσας· “τίς δ’ ὅδε Ναυσικάᾳ ἕπεται καλός τε μέγας τε ξεῖνος; ποῦ δέ μιν εὗρε; πόσις νύ οἱ ἔσσεται αὐτῇ. ἦ τινά που πλαγχθέντα κομίσσατο ἧς ἀπὸ νηὸς ἀνδρῶν τηλεδαπῶν, ἐπεὶ οὔ τινες ἐγγύθεν εἰσίν· ἤ τίς οἱ εὐξαμένῃ πολυάρητος θεὸς ἦλθεν οὐρανόθεν καταβάς, ἕξει δέ μιν ἤματα πάντα. βέλτερον, εἰ καὐτή περ ἐποιχομένη πόσιν εὗρεν ἄλλοθεν· ἦ γὰρ τούσδε γ’ ἀτιμάζει κατὰ δῆμον Φαίηκας, τοί μιν μνῶνται πολέες τε καὶ ἐσθλοί.’” ὣς ἐρέουσιν, ἐμοὶ δέ κ’ ὀνείδεα ταῦτα γένοιτο. καὶ δ’ ἄλλῃ νεμεσῶ, ἥ τις τοιαῦτά γε ῥέζοι, ἥ τ’ ἀέκητι φίλων πατρὸς καὶ μητρὸς ἐόντων ἀνδράσι μίσγηται πρίν γ’ ἀμφάδιον γάμον ἐλθεῖν. And see how one of the worse sort might say when he met us, “Who is this large and handsome stranger whom Nausikaa has with her, and where did she find him? Surely, he is to be her husband, but is he a stray from some ship of alien men she found for herself, since there are no such hereabouts? Or did some god after much entreaty come down in answer SPE ECH PR E SEN TAT ION in HOM ER IC EPIC

54

Beck-final.indb 54

6/26/12 7:56:11 PM

to her prayers, out of the sky, and all his days will he have her? Better so, if she goes out herself and finds her a husband from elsewhere, since she pays no heed to her own Phaiakian neighbors, although many of these and the best ones court her.” So they will speak, and that would be a scandal against me, and I myself would disapprove of a girl who acted so, that is, without the good will of her dear father and mother making friends with a man, before being formally married.

As de Jong notes (2001: 166–167), the speech allows Nausicaa to tell Odysseus what she thinks of him under the guise of anticipating what some κακώτερος might say about them together. But why convey her feelings with this particular device, with its strong overtone both here and elsewhere of anxiety about public opinion? Why does Nausicaa in particular take this common strategy for expressing concern about one’s reputation to such unusual length? Like Diomedes in the previous example, Nausicaa is characterized by her youth; indeed, one commentator has called her “one of the most successful portrayals of puberty, whether ancient or modern” (Austin 1975: 202). Such a long quotation speculating about what others might say about her behavior makes a real contribution to the audience’s sense of Nausicaa’s youth, partly because it is so long and partly by means of its content. The specific concerns that she mentions not only convey to Odysseus what she thinks about him, but also depict both for him and for the external audience the typical preoccupations of a girl thinking about marriage: the physical appearance of a potential husband (276), the homes of her suitors (278–281), the lack of interest in suitors whom one has always known (282–284), the implied but evident pleasure in quantities of suitors (μνῶνται πολέες τε καὶ ἐσθλοί, “Many of these and the best ones court her,” 284), and the necessity of behaving in a socially acceptable manner to avoid becoming a subject of gossip (285–288).⁹⁷ These details, mentioned in the context of “what people might say,” give an appealingly vivid picture of a teenage girl’s ageless concerns in matters of love.⁹⁸ Nausicaa, like Hector, uses hypothetical direct quotation to depict her own emotions, while the main narrators use non-mimetic quotations to depict emotions that belong to various groups of important characters. The characters sparingly use the vividness of non-mimetic direct quotation within their speeches to depict their own emotions with hypothetical speeches, whereas the main narrators use it to portray the emotions of groups of people in representative speeches that complement the central characters in various ways. This shows us another way that characters use direct quotation to forward their own concerns. DIRECT QUOTATION

55

Beck-final.indb 55

6/26/12 7:56:12 PM

C ONC LUS IONS

Direct speech across all narrative levels is characterized by vividness. The main narrators use that vividness to present virtually any kind of speech or speaker found anywhere in the Homeric poems, but especially those that are strongly expressive (emotive speech acts) or tightly bound to a conversational exchange (problematic or reactive moves). Characters, in contrast, use direct quotation in a range of specific circumstances. Menelaus and Odysseus directly quote conversations that “actually” happened to them in the course of telling stories of their own νόστοι. From one point of view, these speeches are quoted directly because νόστος is thematically central to the Odyssey; from another point of view, the way that both Menelaus and Odysseus depict speech forwards the aims of the conversations in which they retell their νόστοι. Direct quotation within characters’ speeches may present lies and problematic moves, which entail direct speech regardless of narrative level because the full force of such a speech depends not simply on the propositional content but on the specific wording. Characters also present single speeches—some of which are hypothetical—that act as a kind of seasoning for the embedding speech. These single quotations make the embedding speech more persuasive, or more expressive; at the same time, they shape and reflect the aims of the quoting speaker’s own speech. This strong connection between virtually all speeches directly quoted by characters and the pragmatics of the surrounding conversations is perhaps the biggest difference between the way characters use direct quotation and the way the main narrators use it. In contrast to characters, the main narrators directly quote a wide range of speeches that “actually” happened, but they do not quote hypothetical speeches directly. The different norms of characters who present direct quotation imply that although the main narrators present the largest proportion of the direct quotations in the Homeric epics, their approach to direct quotation is not on that account a norm we should simply accept as some kind of straightforward or required default value. Indeed, because hypothetical quotations appear only in character speech, they are missing from an overview of the functions of direct quotation in the Homeric poems unless we include characters as well as the main narrators in our picture of direct quotation. The main narrators’ approach to direct speech represents a choice of one option among various approaches to direct quotation contained within the Homeric epics.

SPE ECH PR E SEN TAT ION in HOM ER IC EPIC

56

Beck-final.indb 56

6/26/12 7:56:12 PM

c h a p t e r t wo

FR E E I N DI R EC T SPE EC H

This chapter, unlike the other chapters that focus on a particular speech presentation technique, must establish that the technique in question—free indirect speech—exists in Homeric epic. Free indirect speech can be hard to see in Homeric poetry for a number of reasons. It occurs quite rarely in comparison to other modes of speech presentation in Homeric epic; it is found primarily in character speech; it never presents all of a given speech; some subordinate clauses presented in free indirect speech must appear in certain forms for syntactical reasons, which may wrongly appear to be the motivating force behind those instances of free indirect speech; and perhaps most importantly, the general assumption is so strong that free indirect speech is absent from Homeric poetry. It is instructive to quote de Jong on the songs of Demodocus in Odyssey 8, the most extensive examples of free indirect speech in the Homeric epics. De Jong describes free indirect speech without either seeming to realize that she has done so or attaching any great significance to the fact. “Strictly speaking, he [Demodocus] is not a secondary narrator, since his songs are quoted in indirect rather than direct speech . . . which after a few lines becomes an independent construction. In this way the voices of primary and secondary narrator merge” (2004a: 21–22). This is essentially her entire comment on speech presentation in Demodocus’ songs, either here or in her narratological commentary on the Odyssey (2001: 206–208).¹ If de Jong were not such a well-regarded scholar of narratology, this formulation would be justly considered naïve, whereas it in fact indicates the degree to which literally everyone working on Homeric narrative assumes that free indirect speech is not present there. If we approach Homeric speech presentation with an open mind and simply describe what we find, as scholars working on various premodern texts have already done (see the Introduction above), we find many instances of free indirect speech. That is, indirect speech or (occasionally)

57

Beck-final.indb 57

6/26/12 7:56:13 PM

speech mention regularly develops into something that appears to present more of the speech already begun, but in which, for various reasons, we cannot distinguish the voice presenting the speech act from the voice of the speaker of the speech being presented. In the context of an oral poem, a simple test for the presence of free indirect speech is whether one can imagine the poet (or character narrator) speaking something that is notionally part of an embedded speech in a different tone of voice, as an aside to the audience in the narrator’s own voice.² Recognizing free indirect speech, both as a technique that exists in the Homeric poems at all and as a part of the individual speeches it helps to present, adds an important dimension to our view of Homeric narrative. First, we have a more accurate understanding of the range of ways that expressive features of speech can be presented. While direct speech indisputably depicts a larger quantity of more detailed expressive features than any other mode of speech presentation, non-direct speech modes also regularly present expressive features in ways that balance the brevity characteristic of non-direct speech with the length and vividness given by expressive details. In these contexts, we can see important reasons for both the brevity of indirect speech and the expressive force conveyed by free indirect speech, underlining that both of these presentation techniques make positive contributions to the narrative texture overall. Second, Homeric poetry has more in common with modern fictional narrative than has been recognized, insofar as free indirect speech appears in both. To say that free indirect discourse is used the same way in modern fiction and in Homeric epic would go too far, as Homeric poetry does not contain the extensive depictions of thought characteristic of modern fiction, but we go too far in the other direction if we assert that free indirect speech is therefore not present in Homeric epic at all. OV E R A L L PAT T E R NS F OR F R E E I N DI R E C T SPE E C H

Laird (1999) discusses several examples of free indirect discourse from Latin literature that strongly support the claim that free indirect speech is present in Homeric poetry too.³ In Aeneid 2.655– 656, as Aeneas relates the events of the fall of Troy to Dido and her people, for instance, Laird points to a kind of blurring between the narrating Aeneas and the experiencing Aeneas that closely parallels many examples of free indirect speech presented by characters in the Homeric poems. rursus in arma feror mortemque miserrimus opto. nam quod consilium aut quae iam fortuna dabatur?

SPE ECH PR E SEN TAT ION in HOM ER IC EPIC

58

Beck-final.indb 58

6/26/12 7:56:13 PM

Again I take to arms and, miserable, long for death. What other stratagem or chance is left?⁴

Is this question voiced by the experiencing Aeneas at the time of the fall of Troy, or is it a comment by the narrating Aeneas that did not occur to him at the time?⁵ It is impossible to decide. The use of nam to present expressive detail that fleshes out the main thought, rather than the main propositional content of the character’s thought (presented as speech mention, mortem . . . opto), parallels the instances of free indirect speech in Homeric poetry that include γάρ clauses to explain or elaborate on non-direct presentations of speech. This example of first-person free indirect speech in Vergil shows that it may be found in classical epic poetry and can appear without any of the generally expected syntactical or deictic markers of free indirect speech. The following quotation (Od. 9.100–102) shows similar patterns that are typical of Homeric free indirect speech at all narrative levels. In Odysseus’ long tale to the Phaeacians, he regularly uses free indirect speech in conjunction with non-direct modes of speech presentation to present directives he gives to his companions.⁶ In several of these speeches, free indirect speech presents a purpose clause, a common expressive feature accompanying directives in direct quotations and a kind of subordinate clause that is regularly presented with free indirect speech by both characters (11 instances) and the main narrator (7 instances). αὐτὰρ τοὺς ἄλλους κελόμην ἐρίηρας ἑταίρους σπερχομένους νηῶν ἐπιβαινέμεν ὠκειάων, μή πώς τις λωτοῖο φαγὼν νόστοιο λάθηται. [I] then gave the order to the rest of my eager companions to embark on the ships in haste, for fear someone else might taste of the lotus and forget the way home.

The first two verses convey the main speech act, Odysseus’ directive to his companions to hurry on board their ships. In the 37 speeches that Odysseus addresses to the companions—all of which are directives—just over one-third are direct quotations (14 instances). The majority, 20 examples, is indirect speech with an infinitive construction and no subordinate clause. The expression ἐκέλευ[σα/ον] δ᾽ ἑταίρους / αὐτούς τ᾽ ἀμβαίνειν ἀνά τε πρυμνήσια λῦσαι (“I told my companions / also to go aboard, and to cast off the stern cables”) is formulaic, appearing three times during Odys-

FREE INDIRECT SPEECH

59

Beck-final.indb 59

6/26/12 7:56:14 PM

seus’ tale (9.177–178 = 561–562 ∼ 11.636– 637). This formula does not differ noticeably in propositional content or pragmatic force from Odysseus’ directive quoted above: the companions immediately obey in all of these incidents of boarding ship. What, then, is the explanation for this unusual elaboration on a common kind of directive between Odysseus and his men? The purpose clause describes the danger of forgetting one’s νόστος, a central topic not only of Odysseus’ narrative but also of the entire poem. Moreover, the form of the clause leaves unclear whether the clause was part of the directive that Odysseus made to his men, or he just said “get on board” and the purpose clause presents a comment by his narrating self on what was happening to his earlier, experiencing self. The ambiguity inherent in free indirect speech locates the concern that the purpose clause expresses in both the time that Odysseus is telling about and the time in which he is telling it. This purpose clause is included in Odysseus’ narrative because it mentions a key theme for the narrative overall in a form that emphasizes how constant and omnipresent that theme is, not because a purpose clause is usual in this kind of context or because one is necessary here in order to depict the conversational exchange, still less because a purpose clause must take this syntactical form when it accompanies indirect speech. This example depicts most of the common features of free indirect speech in Homeric epic: the main speech act is presented with indirect speech; the presenting narrator is a character; and the part of the speech that is presented with free indirect speech is a subordinate clause that offers expressive details about the speech rather than the main speech act or anything about the speech that is contextually necessary. Free indirect speech virtually always appears in Homeric poetry in combination with a non-direct mode of speech presentation, usually indirect speech (72 instances, 90 percent of all instances of free indirect speech), but occasionally speech mention (8 instances). The main propositional content of the speech act is presented with indirect speech (or speech mention), while free indirect speech is used to present a range of expressive features that enrich the main speech act. Onequarter of free indirect speech (20 instances) appears as a free-standing expression not syntactically dependent on the accompanying indirect speech or speech mention. The most common kinds of dependent clause found in free indirect speech are relative clauses (19, of which 4 are presented by the main narrators) and purpose clauses (18, of which 7 are presented by the main narrators), but we also find conditions (10, of which 3 are presented by the main narrators), γάρ clauses (6, 5 of which are presented by characters and 1 at a third level of narrative subordination), temporal clauses (4, of which 3 are presented by characters), and other kinds of causal clauses (5, of which 4 are presented by the main narrators). SPE ECH PR E SEN TAT ION in HOM ER IC EPIC

60

Beck-final.indb 60

6/26/12 7:56:15 PM

From a grammatical point of view, subordinate clauses must appear in the form they do if they are to be included in the speech presentation at all. However, this does not explain the largest category of free indirect speech—independent clauses—and it ignores how rare all kinds of dependent clauses are in non-direct forms of speech presentation. While direct speeches in Homeric poetry tend to be quite long, largely because of the quantity of expressive detail they contain,⁷ brevity is one of the main characteristics of non-direct modes of speech presentation. More than twothirds of indirect speeches take the form of a simple infinitive without any kind of clause accompanying the infinitive.⁸ Furthermore, characterpresented speech can use several verbs of speaking to introduce successive stages of a longer speech in a way that identifies the reporting speaker clearly as the reporter. If any subordinate clause that includes a finite verb appears as part of non-direct speech presentation, that is a choice that runs counter to prevailing norms of Homeric narrative.⁹ This chapter, therefore, focuses not on the grammatical rules that require a subordinate clause in indirect statement to take that form, but on the narrative considerations that lead to such a clause appearing at all. At the broadest level, free indirect speech appears similarly at all narrative levels. Both characters and the main narrators divide free indirect speech approximately equally between the two poems, with slightly less free indirect speech appearing in the Iliad than in the Odyssey.¹⁰ Both the characters and the main narrators use free indirect speech primarily to elaborate on indirect speech rather than speech mention. At the same time, characters use free indirect speech much more than the main narrators do. We can see this in several dimensions: a majority of free indirect speech is presented by characters,¹¹ a greater proportion of characters’ speech includes free indirect speech,¹² and the characters use free indirect speech in a greater variety of ways.¹³ Moreover, the preponderance of indirect speech for the main speech act of a speech presentation that also includes free indirect speech is slightly higher for character speech (50 of 56, 89 percent) than for speech presented by the main narrators (17 of 21 instances, 81 percent). These differences stem from the presentation of song, which appears mainly in speech presented by the main narrators, is presented most often with speech mention, and is disproportionately likely to include free indirect speech.¹⁴ Most speech presentations that include free indirect speech are not part of a conversational interchange, insofar as just 5 percent of them present reactive moves (4 of 80 instances), all but one of which appear in character speech presentations. Approximately two-thirds of free indirect speech presents expressive features of directives,¹⁵ and onethird presents content of assertive speech acts,¹⁶ with one emotive speech FREE INDIRECT SPEECH

61

Beck-final.indb 61

6/26/12 7:56:15 PM

act (Iliad 2.597–598, main narrator) and one request (Iliad 6.176–177, narrated by Glaucus) that could be either a question or a directive.

a ssert i v es Characters and the main narrators use free indirect speech quite differently for particular speech act subtypes. Among subtypes of assertives, song that includes free indirect speech appears only in speech presented by the main narrators; conversely, the main narrators present only one of the 12 statements that include free indirect speech.¹⁷ One character-presented statement that includes free indirect speech appears in the Iliad (24.608); of the ten that appear in the Odyssey, the majority appear in speeches by Odysseus, mainly his Cretan lies but also statements that he makes about Troy.¹⁸ Two other instances of statements that include free indirect speech, at Odyssey 1.391–393 and 16.144–145, describe the loneliness and sorrow of Laertes in the absence first of Odysseus and later of Telemachus, during his trip in search of news about his father. As the next chapter explains in more detail, the main narrators generally quote statements directly rather than presenting them in non-direct modes of speech, whereas statements within speech presented by characters are often presented with indirect speech. This difference explains why statements that include free indirect speech appear almost exclusively in character-presented speeches. In particular, the small minority of character-presented statements that include free indirect speech depicts key themes of the Odyssey, namely, Odysseus’ return from Troy— and especially his lies about himself once he returns to Ithaca—and the grief of his father Laertes at being separated from his family. The only statement in the Iliad that includes free indirect speech shows very clearly how free indirect speech presents the expressive elements of a speech. In Iliad 24, Achilles includes the story of Niobe as an inducement to Priam to take food now that Hector’s body has been prepared to return with Priam to Troy for funeral rites.¹⁹ Niobe, he tells Priam, ate even after she had lost twelve children, so Priam should eat too (24.601– 619). The story of Niobe includes a presentation of the boast she made that aroused the wrath of Apollo and Artemis. This boast is extremely short, but in the space of one verse, it clearly divides into one part that contains the propositional content of the speech (presented with indirect speech) and a second part with the explicitly boastful aspect of her speech (presented in free indirect speech). τοὺς μὲν Ἀπόλλων πέφνεν ἀπ’ ἀργυρέοιο βιοῖο χωόμενος Νιόβῃ, τὰς δ’ Ἄρτεμις ἰοχέαιρα, SPE ECH PR E SEN TAT ION in HOM ER IC EPIC

62

Beck-final.indb 62

6/26/12 7:56:16 PM

οὕνεκ’ ἄρα Λητοῖ ἰσάσκετο καλλιπαρῄῳ· φῆ δοιὼ τεκέειν, ἡ δ’ αὐτὴ γείνατο πολλούς· τῶ δ’ ἄρα καὶ δοιώ περ ἐόντ’ ἀπὸ πάντας ὄλεσσαν. . . . Whom Apollo killed with arrows from his silver bow, being angered with Niobe, and shaft-showering Artemis killed the daughters; because Niobe likened herself to Leto of the fair colouring and said Leto had borne only two, she herself had borne many; but the two, though they were only two, destroyed all those others.

(Iliad 2 4.605– 609) What Niobe says in verse 608 is the only speech in the story,²⁰ which gives some emphasis to what she says here. Moreover, because it elaborates in a single verse on what verse 607 has already said, it could be omitted without confusing Achilles’ narrative or disrupting the meter of the surrounding verses. Despite being only one verse long, the speech has an indirect speech component that states a fact without expressive features—Leto has given birth to two children—and a free indirect speech component presenting Niobe’s boasting about how many children she has compared to Leto. The free indirect speech form vividly foregrounds Niobe as she brags about her fertility. In particular, the intensive αὐτή vividly conveys the arrogant contrast that Niobe draws between the number of Leto’s children and her own large family. There is a clear division of labor in this short speech between indirect speech, used for the more dispassionate part of Niobe’s speech, and free indirect speech, for the part that makes her speech into a boast rather than a simple statement.²¹

dir ec t i v es As with assertives, the directive subtypes that tend to include free indirect speech are strongly expressive. The most expressive directive subtype, supplication, is overrepresented in character speech as a proportion of directive speech acts that include free indirect speech, compared to the proportion of all directives that are supplications. That is, while supplications are 6 percent of the directives that include free indirect speech (3 of 53, all presented by characters), they constitute just 2 percent of directives either in toto (30 of all 1,309 directives) or presented in indirect speech (7 of 355 indirect speech directives). In comparison, the narrators present 26 percent of the directives that include free indirect speech (14 of 53 instances),²² alFREE INDIRECT SPEECH

63

Beck-final.indb 63

6/26/12 7:56:16 PM

most all of which are orders (12 instances). In other words, the main narrators give expressive force to supplications by (almost) always quoting them directly,²³ and they use free indirect speech primarily for orders, the most common and least inherently expressive directive subtype. In contrast, characters disproportionately use free indirect speech to present supplications, not only because characters present most directives in non-direct speech modes, but also because supplications are a very expressive subtype of directive. Free indirect speech reconciles these conflicting aspects of characters’ speech presentation. The presentation of speech within Phoenix’s speech to Achilles in Iliad 9, which is discussed below, explores these ideas at greater length. The other subtype of directive that is overrepresented among directive subtypes presented with free indirect speech is messenger speeches, both message-originating speeches and message deliveries.²⁴ As with statements and supplications, the main narrators do not use free indirect speech in this way because they use direct quotation to present the content of messenger speeches. The motivating force behind including the details of a message speech that free indirect speech makes possible appears to be the strong predisposition of Homeric epic to repeat the entire content of messenger speeches at each stage of delivery.²⁵ In this respect, messages differ from statements, since neither the expressive demands of the message subtype nor the particular narrative context in which individual messages appear explain the frequency of free indirect speech.²⁶ In contrast, the only directive subtypes that the main narrators present with free indirect speech are orders and prayers. As we will see in more detail in later chapters, where the main narrators use non-direct speech to present orders, this may be done to give greater emphasis to a nearby directly quoted speech. This “highlighting” effect explains the use of nondirect speech for the main speech act, but for various reasons, expressive features of the speech that are presented with free indirect speech are also important. For example, in Iliad 18, Achilles orders his companions to heat water with which to bathe Patroclus’ corpse, an order that includes a purpose clause in free indirect speech. After an interlude in which the Trojans take counsel (18.243–314), the scene turns to the Greeks as they mourn for Patroclus (18.314–355) before it changes again to Olympus at 18.356. The only direct speech in this brief episode is Achilles’ lament for Patroclus (18.324– 342), a strongly expressive subtype of emotive speech at a highly charged point in the story.²⁷ The lack of other direct speeches in the vicinity of this quotation highlights Achilles’ lament. At the same time, the non-directly presented speech immediately following his lament is unusually expressive, partly because it includes free indirect speech. SPE ECH PR E SEN TAT ION in HOM ER IC EPIC

64

Beck-final.indb 64

6/26/12 7:56:17 PM

ὣς εἰπὼν ἑτάροισιν ἐκέκλετο δῖος Ἀχιλλεὺς ἀμφὶ πυρὶ στῆσαι τρίποδα μέγαν, ὄφρα τάχιστα Πάτροκλον λούσειαν ἄπο βρότον αἱματόεντα. οἱ δὲ λοετροχόον τρίποδ’ ἵστασαν. So speaking brilliant Achilleus gave orders to his companions to set a great cauldron across the fire, so that with all speed they could wash away the clotted blood from Patroklos. They set up . . . a bath-water cauldron.

(Iliad 18.343– 346) The purpose clause might be either the main narrator’s comment on why Achilles gives the order or part of what Achilles says to his companions in order to explain the order more fully to them and persuade them to do it. The simple presence of this clause heightens the expressiveness of Achilles’ order. But the specific content of this particular clause heightens its expressive force even further. Both Fludernik and de Jong point out the expressive quality of superlatives such as τάχιστα.²⁸ This particular superlative conveys Achilles’ anxiety on behalf of his dead companion, not wanting to let the body remain in a dirty and unkempt condition.²⁹ The epithet αἱματόεις (345) gives a further vivid detail to the purpose clause. This word is found primarily in narrator text,³⁰ but some of its occurrences are in passages with complex focalization,³¹ and it also occurs in character speech.³² Thus, the vivid note of the epithet cannot be clearly identified with any particular narrative level, since it occurs in both character speech and narrator text. This free indirect speech clause enables the narrative both to foreground the lament that precedes the preparations (insofar as it is the only direct speech in this section of the poem) and to give significant emotional coloring to this order, the other speech that occurs in the scene. In sum, free indirect speech clearly exists in Homeric epic. It is found at all narrative levels. Free indirect speech has a consistent set of characteristics and effects, in particular the mixture of brevity and expressiveness that free indirect speech and indirect speech together create. At the same time, as we will see in the next section, narrators at different narrative levels draw on different characteristics and effects for different narrative purposes. E X T E NSI V E USE S OF F R E E I N DI R E C T SPE E C H

The examples of free indirect speech discussed so far are all short. Moreover, except for the regular appearance of free indirect speech in Odysseus’ FREE INDIRECT SPEECH

65

Beck-final.indb 65

6/26/12 7:56:18 PM

long narrative, individual instances of free indirect speech generally appear alone and do not cluster together. The two episodes analyzed in this section depart from these patterns: one is longer than typical instances of free indirect speech, and the other contains several examples of free indirect speech that appear close together. Both of these differences from the common patterns of free indirect speech give these scenes unusual prominence. In both of these episodes, free indirect speech depicts expressive content of the presented speeches that is not necessary for the clarity of the conversation in which the speech appears, but without which the story would be considerably diminished in power and emotional impact. These analyses have several important results. From a broad theoretical point of view, they show a new kind of narrative sophistication in Homeric epic, which uses free indirect speech in a consistent, subtle, and effective way to shape key points in the narrative. Moreover, they contribute to the developing picture of speech presentation in Homeric epic as a set of techniques that shows both consistent properties across all narrative levels and different uses of these techniques at different narrative levels so that these consistent properties create different narrative effects.

phoeni x’s speech to achill es, ili a d 9.434– 605 Phoenix’s speech to Achilles asking him to accept Agamemnon’s gifts and return to his comrades is the longest speech in the Iliad. It presents sixteen other characters’ speeches within it, ten of which fall into the emotional subtype of directive introduced by the verb λίσσομαι. Of the ten λίσσομαι speeches of appeal presented within Phoenix’s own speech of appeal to Achilles, three include free indirect speech. Like direct quotations within Menelaus’ and Odysseus’ long speeches in the Odyssey, Phoenix presents speeches within his own speech that simultaneously convey and foster his pragmatic goals. But whereas Menelaus and Odysseus regularly use direct quotation for the speeches they present, Phoenix does not. Unlike them, he is not narrating his own story in reply to a request for information (although he does refer to his own story for persuasive purposes).³³ He is giving a directive. So, instead of direct quotations, Phoenix extensively uses free indirect speech to convey strongly expressive parts of the embedded speeches within his speech. Phoenix’s speech is noteworthy for several reasons: the speech is extremely long; it includes several instances of free indirect speech (only Odysseus’ long narrative in Odyssey 9–12 includes more free indirect speech within a single speech); all the speeches that include free indirect speech are spoken by female speakers;³⁴ it presents sev-

SPE ECH PR E SEN TAT ION in HOM ER IC EPIC

66

Beck-final.indb 66

6/26/12 7:56:18 PM

eral speeches of a strongly expressive subtype (nearly one-third of all the character-presented λίσσομαι speeches appear in this speech);³⁵ and it is itself a speech of the same expressive subtype as those it presents.³⁶ This analysis explores how these features are related, and what contribution free indirect speech makes to Phoenix’s speech overall. Phoenix’s speech falls into three sections. In the first part of his speech (9.434–495), Phoenix states that he does not want to stay at Troy without Achilles, telling a story about his own youth and arrival at Phthia to explain his deep attachment to Achilles. In the middle section (9.496–523), he brackets the figures of the Litae with directives to Achilles to give up his anger and return to the fighting (496 and 522–523); and in the final section (9.524–599), he offers the mythological exemplum of Meleager as a cautionary tale about what can happen if an angry fighter refuses the propitiatory gifts he is offered by friends who want him to rejoin their cause. Multiple examples of λίσσομαι speeches occur in each of these sections, but the largest number appears in the last section, which also includes the longest and most detailed example of free indirect speech. This distribution creates a crescendo effect, starting from a strong emotional tone that gradually strengthens as the speech progresses and finally reaches a peak with the speech of appeal that Cleopatra makes to her husband Meleager (9.590– 594). This crescendo, in which both free indirect speech and the directive subtypes associated with λίσσομαι play a central role, heightens the emotional impact of both the end of the speech and the speech as a whole. λίσσομαι speeches, which comprise both pleas and formal supplications, are a particularly emotional subtype of directive, insofar as they entail a relatively powerless speaker who appeals to his addressee on emotional grounds to do a directive that is primarily in the interest of the speaker. In order to accomplish this, the speaker may mark his speech as a formal supplication with gestures, especially touching the knees of the addressee.³⁷ If the speech is not a formal supplication, the speaker often appeals to the emotions of his addressee in an attempt to gain his point.³⁸ What unites speeches introduced by λίσσομαι is the emotional intensity of the directive being given and the speaker’s lack of power to force the addressee to comply,³⁹ in contrast to the prototypical directive subtype, orders, where the speaker’s main tool for getting compliance is precisely his power—either real or pretended—over the addressee, whose compliance is therefore assumed. Whether a λίσσομαι speech is marked by gestures as a formal supplication is less important than the pragmatic similarity of λίσσομαι speeches: they involve speakers without the power to force compliance on their addressees who use emotion in various ways to try to per-

FREE INDIRECT SPEECH

67

Beck-final.indb 67

6/26/12 7:56:19 PM

suade the addressees to do what they ask. Free indirect speech consistently presents expressive elements of these embedded speeches within Phoenix’s speech to Achilles. This makes an already expressive speech act subtype even more vivid and emotional, without recourse to direct quotation in a context where, as we have seen in the previous chapter, a character narrator would not use it. The first, mainly autobiographical section of Phoenix’s speech (9.434– 495) contains three speech presentations, two of which are λίσσομαι speeches.⁴⁰ Phoenix’s troubles at home begin when his father, Amyntor, takes up with a concubine and begins neglecting Phoenix’s mother as a result of his affection for the concubine. The mother supplicates her son to take the concubine to bed himself in order to alienate her from Amyntor (9.448–452). This embedded speech presents the main speech act with indirect speech and a subsidiary expressive feature of the directive with free indirect speech. φεύγων νείκεα πατρὸς Ἀμύντορος Ὀρμενίδαο, ὅς μοι παλλακίδος περιχώσατο καλλικόμοιο, τὴν αὐτὸς φιλέεσκεν, ἀτιμάζεσκε δ’ ἄκοιτιν, μητέρ’ ἐμήν· ἡ δ’ αἰὲν ἐμὲ λισσέσκετο γούνων παλλακίδι προμιγῆναι, ἵν’ ἐχθήρειε γέροντα. Running from the hatred of Ormenos’ son Amyntor, my father; who hated me for the sake of a fair-haired mistress. For he made love to her himself, and dishonoured his own wife, my mother; who was forever taking my knees and supplicating me⁴¹ to lie with this mistress instead so that she would hate the old man.

This speech is identified as a supplication by the reference to Phoenix’s knees in 451. The immediate context of the speech mentions no explicitly emotional features of what Phoenix’s mother says, but the close family relationships among the various characters are conveyed with kinship terms: πατρὸς (448) and μητέρ’ (451) evoke the strong emotional bonds between parents and children, particularly in the world of the Iliad, where such ties are central to the poem. The main speech act is presented with indirect speech: προμιγῆναι, the infinitive in 452, tells us what the mother was asking Phoenix to do. The specific content of her appeal adds a further emotional dimension, since it concerns a woman’s sexual jealousy about her husband. Free indirect speech presents a rationale for her supplication with the purpose clause in 452. The purpose clause presents an additional strong emotion felt by a woman, besides what Phoenix’s mother

SPE ECH PR E SEN TAT ION in HOM ER IC EPIC

68

Beck-final.indb 68

6/26/12 7:56:19 PM

implicitly feels both for her son and for her husband, but this time the emotion depicted belongs to the concubine. It is ambiguous whether this purpose clause is part of the presented speech, and Phoenix’s mother said ἵν᾽ ἐχθήρειε γέροντα⁴² (“so that she would hate the old man”) as part of her supplication, or this is Phoenix’s own interpretation presented as part of his narration of the events. The central section of the speech begins and ends with directives to Achilles to overcome his anger and return to the Greeks (ἀλλ’, Ἀχιλεῦ, δάμασον θυμὸν μέγαν, “Then, Achilleus, beat down your great anger,” 496; τῶν μὴ σύ γε μῦθον ἐλέγξῃς / μηδὲ πόδας, “Do not you make vain their argument / nor their footsteps,” 522–523). Once again, the single λίσσομαι speech that includes free indirect speech (510–512)⁴³ depicts female speakers appealing to a male relative. These are the Litae, somewhat mysterious figures whose name comes from the same root as the verb λίσσομαι.⁴⁴ Phoenix tells Achilles that they respond to the prayers of a man who holds them in appropriate reverence (508–509), but if a man does not give them their due, they go to their father Zeus (502) in search of satisfaction (510–512). ὃς δέ κ’ ἀνήνηται καί τε στερεῶς ἀποείπῃ, λίσσονται δ’ ἄρα ταί γε Δία Κρονίωνα κιοῦσαι τῷ Ἄτην ἅμ’ ἕπεσθαι, ἵνα βλαφθεὶς ἀποτείσῃ. But if a man shall deny them, and stubbornly with a harsh word refuse, they go to Zeus, son of Kronos, in entreaty that Ruin may overtake this man, that he be hurt, and punished.

As in the supplication by Phoenix’s mother (9.451–452), the main speech act is presented with indirect speech: ἕπεσθαι, the infinitive in verse 512, conveys the propositional content of the Litae’s request to Zeus. Although these particular verses do not allude to the relationship, we are told in verse 502 that the Litae are the daughters of Zeus, and so this appeal takes place within the emotional context of a parent-child relationship. Once again, a λίσσομαι speech spoken by a female speaker or speakers to a close male relative uses a purpose clause in free indirect speech to depict the purpose of the directive. Other λίσσομαι speeches presented in this part of Phoenix’s speech, in contrast, are presented in briefer and less expressive terms. What is an audience’s experience of these ambiguous purpose clauses?⁴⁵ They offer an unmediated sense of the character’s motivations and ideas about his plea. They also give a sense of the addressees in these exchanges and what they might find persuasive. Phoenix does indeed do as his mother

FREE INDIRECT SPEECH

69

Beck-final.indb 69

6/26/12 7:56:20 PM

asks (453), so her rationale works. We are not told whether Zeus does hound the man who disrespects the Litae, but presumably they would choose a rationale not only that they themselves found compelling but that they expected would appeal to their addressee as well.⁴⁶ Moreover, these purpose clauses also imply that Phoenix thinks close emotional ties are likely to persuade his addressee, Achilles, to comply with the speech of entreaty within which these λίσσομαι speeches are presented. We will see the same pragmatic considerations at work in the final instance of free indirect speech within Phoenix’s speech, but with an even stronger expressive effect. In the final section of Phoenix’s speech, he tells the story of Meleager as an exemplum for Achilles of what happens if an angry warrior does not heed the appeals of his friends to fight on behalf of his city.⁴⁷ The last speaker in a series of five appeals to Meleager to return to the fighting is his wife, Cleopatra.⁴⁸ The strength of the emotional ties between Meleager and the speakers of the λίσσομαι speeches, the increasing prominence given in the last two appeals to Meleager’s refusals, and the desperate situation in the city dramatically set the stage for the final appeal from Cleopatra.⁴⁹ Everything about her appeal (590–595) simultaneously resembles and exceeds the patterns of the other λίσσομαι speeches in Phoenix’s speech. In particular, this appeal once again uses free indirect speech to present the expressive features of an appeal by a woman to a close male relative, but in Cleopatra’s speech, free indirect speech is much longer and the content of the embedded speech is more explicitly emotional, not simply expressive. καὶ τότε δὴ Μελέαγρον ἐΰζωνος παράκοιτις λίσσετ’ ὀδυρομένη, καί οἱ κατέλεξεν ἅπαντα κήδε’, ὅσ’ ἀνθρώποισι πέλει τῶν ἄστυ ἁλώῃ· ἄνδρας μὲν κτείνουσι, πόλιν δέ τε πῦρ ἀμαθύνει, τέκνα δέ τ’ ἄλλοι ἄγουσι βαθυζώνους τε γυναῖκας. τοῦ δ’ ὠρίνετο θυμὸς ἀκούοντος κακὰ ἔργα. And then at last his wife, the fair-girdled bride, entreated Meleagros, in tears, and rehearsed in their numbers before him all the sorrows that come to men when their city is taken: they kill the men, and the fire leaves the city in ashes, and strangers lead the children away and the deep-girdled women. And the heart, as he listened to all this evil, was stirred within him.

Like other speakers of λίσσομαι speeches, Cleopatra is identified with a nominative form of a kinship term, παράκοιτις (“wife,” 590).⁵⁰ Uniquely among all the speeches presented within Phoenix’s speech, however, her emotions are explicitly mentioned via the participle ὀδυρομένη (“in tears,” SPE ECH PR E SEN TAT ION in HOM ER IC EPIC

70

Beck-final.indb 70

6/26/12 7:56:21 PM

591) and not simply implied with kinship language.⁵¹ The main speech act, her appeal itself, is presented with speech mention (λίσσετ’, 591), since at the end of a series of five appeals to Meleager, all asking him to do the same thing, the audience knows what the main speech act of her appeal will be. In fact, the means she uses to persuade Meleager to comply—a subsidiary speech act—are presented in more detail than the appeal itself. Her entreaty is based not on offering gifts, which the elders attempt in the first of the five appeals to Meleager (574–580), but on vividly and movingly evoking the grim consequences of war that will befall the city if Meleager refuses to fight. Cleopatra’s vignette of sorrowing family members contrasts instructively with the detailed description of the gifts that the elders unsuccessfully offer as incentives to go along with their plea. The structural similarity of the first and last pleas in the series, both of which describe the inducements offered for compliance in at least as much detail as the plea itself, underlines the different persuasive strategies that Cleopatra and the elders use. This in turn emphasizes that Cleopatra’s emotional appeal succeeds, whereas the elders’ offer of land does not. Part of the contrast between the two appeals lies in the mode of speech presentation used to convey each: Cleopatra’s appeal is presented with free indirect speech, a speech presentation technique that has a more engaging and expressive effect than the indirect speech that presents the elders’ offer of land. The mode of speech presentation used for Cleopatra’s appeal both reflects and depicts the emotional power of her speech. Cleopatra’s speech presents the emotional consequences of war in three different ways, each one more elaborate than the last. First, they appear simply as κήδε᾽ (“sorrows,” 592), the direct object of κατέλεξεν. These κήδεα are then described in a relative clause that shifts the time to the present (ὅσ᾽ ἀνθρώποισι πέλει τῶν ἄστυ ἁλώῃ, “that come to men when their city is taken,” 592) from the narrative past in the speaking verbs λίσσετ᾽ and κατέλεξεν. This relative clause would suffice, both metrically and logically, to tell us what Cleopatra said to persuade her husband to agree to her appeal.⁵² Instead, however, it provides a transition to the third and most dramatic evocation of the woes of a captured city. In 593–594, an independent sentence presented with free indirect speech gives the audience a vivid sense of what Cleopatra said to Meleager. Part of this effect comes from the structure of the verses: the destruction of the city by fire literally separates the dead men, who precede it in 593, from the enslaved women and children, who follow it in 594. Moreover, these verses use the present tense, like the relative clause in 592, rather than the past tense of narration of the speaking verbs in 591. This gives them a different kind of immediacy by bringing them into the present time. This picture of a city destroyed, with its men FREE INDIRECT SPEECH

71

Beck-final.indb 71

6/26/12 7:56:21 PM

killed and its women and children enslaved, is a familiar way of picturing the emotional costs of war in Homeric poetry. This motif is used by both victors and vanquished, and by both the main narrators and characters.⁵³ In Homeric poetry, the motif of “bereaved wife enslaved” seems to be a universal way to depict what it means for a city to be destroyed in war. Partly for that reason, we might be tempted to ascribe the comments in 9.593–594 to the main narrator. However, the language in 9.595 (τοῦ δ᾽ ὠρίνετο θυμὸς ἀκούοντος κακὰ ἔργα, “And the heart, as he listened to all this evil, was stirred within him”), which functions essentially as a speech conclusion, strongly suggests that Cleopatra says everything before verse 595. The participle ἀκούοντος (“as he listened”) is the most important reason for thinking this; more generally, expressions like “the θυμός was stirred” commonly occur as speech-concluding verses in speeches quoted by the main narrator.⁵⁴ In 593–594, then, we are given unmediated access to Cleopatra’s words. They are governed by no verb of speaking, they take the form of an independent sentence rather than a subordinate clause, and they use the present tense of Cleopatra’s own speaking time instead of the past narrative time of the verbs of speaking in 591. That is to say, 593–594 are presented with free indirect speech. At the top of the ascending scale of affection, and in some sense at the climax of Phoenix’s entire speech, the most emotionally significant person in the Meleager story is given her own voice when she gives her husband the reasons she wants him to do as she asks. What do these three instances of free indirect speech within Phoenix’s speech to Achilles have in common? Each one presents a subsidiary speech act of a λίσσομαι speech spoken by a woman to a man who is a close relative, whereas indirect speech or speech mention presents the propositional content of the main speech act of the women’s appeal. Phoenix’s speech contains many λίσσομαι speeches—either eight or ten, depending on whether one counts by instances of the verb λίσσομαι (8) or by pragmatic features of the presented speech (10)—but only the ones spoken by women include free indirect speech.⁵⁵ Several noteworthy features concentrate in these presented speeches. These aspects of the presented speeches work together both to forward the goals of Phoenix’s own speech and to explore the theme of supplication, which is crucial at all levels of the Iliad. Looking at the speech in relation to its immediate context, the strikingly large proportion of λίσσομαι speeches presented by Phoenix draws on the strong emotional tone of any λίσσομαι speech to lend his embedding speech—also a speech of appeal—the emotional power not only of his own words to Achilles, but also, by implication, of all the λίσσομαι speeches of desperate and sorrowful loved ones that his speech depicts. By SPE ECH PR E SEN TAT ION in HOM ER IC EPIC

72

Beck-final.indb 72

6/26/12 7:56:22 PM

using free indirect speech specifically for expressive subsidiary speech acts that explain the appeal in the main speech act or that try to persuade the addressee to accede to it, the speech consistently highlights not the appeals themselves, but the reasons for them. Similarly, Phoenix hopes to succeed in his appeal where the other members of the embassy have failed not because the content of his appeal is any different from theirs, but because his emotional bond with Achilles is stronger; the use of free indirect speech implicitly strengthens this aspect of Phoenix’s appeal. The female gender of the speakers of the embedded λίσσομαι speeches that include free indirect speech underlines in a different way the unique tie between Phoenix and Achilles.⁵⁶ These embedded λίσσομαι speeches appear in an extended conversation that is itself a failed appeal, at a moment of critical importance for both the plot and the themes of the Iliad overall. Supplication occurs repeatedly throughout the Iliad, and its success or failure results in some of the most moving and important scenes in the poem. This conversation between Achilles and the Greeks who are his closest friends is a prominent example of this theme. Thus, the use of free indirect speech in this episode reinforces not only the specific pragmatic goals of Phoenix’s speech, but even the broader themes of the entire poem. This suggests a degree of narrative power and sophistication in the Iliad that changes our ideas of what is possible in Homeric speech presentation.

t he second song of demodocus, odyssey 8.266 – 367 The main narrators use free indirect speech less often than the characters do, but the main narrator of the Odyssey presents the single longest piece of free indirect speech in the Homeric epics. The second song of Demodocus, which describes the adulterous affair of Ares and Aphrodite, has been widely studied, but these analyses have generally focused on the content rather than the form of the song. Some scholars have responded to Analyst criticisms of the song by exploring the relationship between the song and the surrounding context;⁵⁷ others have mined the songs of Demodocus for information about performance.⁵⁸ Surprisingly, given how many scholars have commented in passing on the way the songs of Demodocus present speech,⁵⁹ virtually no one has made this feature of the songs the main point of a scholarly study.⁶⁰ In fact, the second song of Demodocus offers an extended passage of free indirect speech of precisely the kind that has been universally dismissed from conceptions of Homeric narrative and speech presentation. It is not coincidental that this vast passage of free indirect speech presents a song, since both free indirect speech and song by charFREE INDIRECT SPEECH

73

Beck-final.indb 73

6/26/12 7:56:23 PM

acter poets stress the figure of the narrator, albeit in very different ways. When the two phenomena appear together, the focus on the narrator becomes much more powerful and exciting. In fact, a greater proportion of song includes free indirect speech (15 percent, 4 of 27 instances)⁶¹ than we find for any other subtype of speech act. In comparison, just 4 percent of orders—the most common speech act subtype, which regularly includes free indirect speech—have a free indirect speech component (24 of 602 orders). The following analysis establishes that the second song of Demodocus is presented with free indirect speech; in a complementary discussion, Chapter 5 explores how the full range of speech presentation techniques is used to depict songs in the Odyssey. The overall structure of the second song of Demodocus follows common patterns for presenting longer passages of song in the Odyssey. First, the poet begins to sing. His topic is initially presented as speech mention, which then segues into indirect speech. Free indirect speech follows the indirect speech clause. This is the same structure that we find with other examples of free indirect speech: speech mention or indirect speech—but not both outside of song—present the main speech act, and free indirect speech presents further details of the speech that enrich it from various expressive points of view but are not the main point of the speech in its conversational context. The song ends with a formulaic verse that functions like a speech conclusion. These features of the song all appear in the following excerpt (8.266–270, 367). αὐτὰρ ὁ φορμίζων ἀνεβάλλετο καλὸν ἀείδειν ἀμφ’ Ἄρεος φιλότητος ἐϋστεφάνου τ’ Ἀφροδίτης, ὡς τὰ πρῶτα μίγησαν ἐν Ἡφαίστοιο δόμοισι λάθρῃ· πολλὰ δ’ ἔδωκε, λέχος δ’ ᾔσχυνε καὶ εὐνὴν Ἡφαίστοιο ἄνακτος . . . ταῦτ’ ἄρ’ ἀοιδὸς ἄειδε περικλυτός· αὐτὰρ Ὀδυσσεύς . . . Demodokos struck the lyre and began singing well the story about the love of Ares and sweet-garlanded Aphrodite, how they first lay together in the house of Hephaistos secretly; he gave her much and fouled the marriage and bed of the lord Hephaistos . . . So the famous singer sang his song, and Odysseus . . .

As speech mention in the form of a prepositional phrase (266–267) leads to indirect speech (268–269), which in turn leads to free indirect speech (269–270, in this excerpt), the mode of speech presentation becomes both more specific and less clearly subordinated to the main narrator’s presentaSPE ECH PR E SEN TAT ION in HOM ER IC EPIC

74

Beck-final.indb 74

6/26/12 7:56:23 PM

tion, and the song becomes increasingly vivid to the audience. The second song of Demodocus stands out because the free indirect speech portion of the song is nearly 100 verses long, beginning at the independent clause πολλὰ δ᾽ ἔδωκε (“He gave her much”) in 269 and going through the entire rest of the song (269–366). This independent clause structure for free indirect speech is well attested in other examples that I have been discussing throughout this chapter; in light of those discussions, these clauses in Demodocus’ song can clearly be seen for what they are, namely, markers of free indirect speech. Once we realize that the song of Ares and Aphrodite is presented largely in free indirect speech, we have a golden opportunity to compare a long passage of free indirect speech with norms of both narrative and speech as presented by the main narrators. This analysis will focus mainly on the specific words and phrases that the song uses, since these are widely studied aspects of Homeric language that we can easily compare to one another. If we look at judgmental or evaluative language that appears in the song of Ares and Aphrodite, we find that it appears mainly in character speech, with one notable exception. The formulaic speech-introductory verses that regularly appear in the second part of the song are otherwise found exclusively in parts of the Homeric poems presented by the main narrators. Still other formulas and common epithets in the song appear at the level of both the main narrators and character narrators. The mixture or blurring of narrative levels created by the structure of the individual sentences in the song also characterizes the words and formulas that the song uses.⁶² At one end of this narrative spectrum, various words and phrases appear in the song of Ares and Aphrodite that elsewhere appear primarily in character speech. One of these crops up at the very beginning of the song, when the overall subject of the song is being described. In the passage quoted above, the start of the free indirect speech part of the song says that Ares πολλὰ δ᾽ ἔδωκε, λέχος δ᾽ ᾔσχυνε καὶ εὐνὴν / Ἡφαίστοιο ἄνακτος (“He gave her much, and fouled the marriage and bed / of the lord Hephaistos,” 269–270). The verb αἰσχύνω, which can mean both “shame,” as it does in our passage, and a more concrete and physical “defile,” as when a dead body is maltreated, appears 12 times in Homeric poetry, ten of which appear in character speech. The two exceptions describe physical acts that Achilles does to himself after he learns of the death of Patroclus (Iliad 18.24 and 27). Although these examples do not present Achilles’ focalization, since they describe his behavior rather than his mental processes, his behavior at this highly emotional moment expresses his feelings, and so in a sense every instance of this verb depicts a character’s perspective. Similarly, the adjective θυμαλγής describes the first speech that appears in the song (8.272): FREE INDIRECT SPEECH

75

Beck-final.indb 75

6/26/12 7:56:24 PM

Ἥφαιστος δ’ ὡς οὖν θυμαλγέα μῦθον ἄκουσε (“When [Hephaistos] had heard the heartsore story of it [from Helius]”). The speech is presented as speech mention, but θυμαλγής gives it some expressive color that is associated specifically with character speech. This adjective appears 13 times in the Homeric poems, of which ten occur in character speech and two more depict a character’s intentions.⁶³ The expressive force of θυμαλγής evokes both the specific emotions of Hephaestus when he hears the news that Aphrodite is betraying him and the explicitly judgmental and evaluative tone that is characteristic mainly of characters’ language.⁶⁴ When characters are named in character speech in Homeric poetry overall, their names are modified with epithets much less often than those of characters who are named by the main narrators.⁶⁵ The most important group of name-epithet formulas that are used only by the main narrators appear as part of full-verse speech-introductory formulas. Demodocus, indeed, is the only character who consistently uses speech-introductory formulas that are identical to the ones that the main narrators use (Beck 2005b). Moreover, speech-introductory formulas are one of the most noticeable features of the main narrators’ style of presenting their story. Indeed, one of the main reasons that this song so completely collapses the distinction between the main narrator and Demodocus—besides the length of the free indirect speech portion—is that it, uniquely among speeches presented by characters, consistently uses only speech-introductory formulas that are the same as the ones the main narrators use.⁶⁶ At the same time, however, the song also uses many name-epithet combinations that appear both in characters’ speeches and in narrative portions of the poems presented by the main narrators.⁶⁷ For instance, the formula Ἥφαιστος κλυτοτέχνης (“Hephaistos the glorious smith”) appears four times, divided equally between character speech (Iliad 18.143 and Od. 8.286, both accusatives) and the narrative in the Iliad (1.571, nominative case, and 18.391, accusative case, both formulaic speech introductions). Διὸς θυγάτηρ Ἀφροδίτη (“Aphrodite daughter of Zeus”) also appears regularly both in character speech and in text presented by the main narrator of the Iliad. It appears only at 8.308 in the Odyssey, which is not only part of the song of the character Demodocus but also part of the speech of the character Hephaestus within Demodocus’ song. In the Iliad, this formula appears eight times, primarily but not exclusively at the level of the main narrator.⁶⁸ Thus, the various name-epithet formulas that appear in Demodocus’ second song show a character not only using many of them, which, as Austin has shown, is not usually the case, but using both formulas that are found exclusively at the level of the main narrators and formulas that are used by both the main narrators and character narrators. These SPE ECH PR E SEN TAT ION in HOM ER IC EPIC

76

Beck-final.indb 76

6/26/12 7:56:25 PM

particularly visible expressions show the same mixture of narrative levels as does the song overall, which deepens an audience’s perception of Demodocus as a unique, vivid, and complex narrator. Other kinds of formulaic language in the song of Ares and Aphrodite regularly appear both in character speech and at the level of the main narrators. For example, the expression ἐϋκτίμενον πτολίεθρον (“the strongfounded citadel”), which describes Lemnos in verse 283 and appears a total of 10 times in both poems, is equally well attested both in character speech (4 instances) and at the level of the main narrators (5 instances). This overall even distribution applies to each poem individually, too: the Iliad has four instances of the formula in narrative presented by the main narrator, all in the catalogue of ships,⁶⁹ and three instances of it in character speech, all of which refer to sacking Troy.⁷⁰ In the Odyssey, the expression appears once in the main narrator’s description of Pylos (3.4), once in Demodocus’ song where the narrative level is ambiguous (8.283), and once at 24.377, where Laertes uses it when he reminisces about sacking Nericus. Similarly, the song of Ares and Aphrodite ends with the formulaic expression θαῦμα ἰδέσθαι (“a wonder to look on,” 366), which comments on the clothes that Aphrodite puts on after she flees to Cyprus to get over her embarrassment. This expression appears equally often not only in the Iliad and Odyssey (four instances in each), but also at the level of the main narrators (four instances) compared to character speech (three instances and Od. 8.366).⁷¹ Ending the entire song with a formula that expresses judgment, but that appears equally often in narrative presented by the main narrators and in character speech, sums up in one emphatically placed phrase how pervasively the song of Ares and Aphrodite combines language characteristic of different levels of narration. The range of narrative levels implied by the different formulas that appear in the song combines with the ambiguous effect of independent sentences not governed by verbs of speaking to produce the longest passage of free indirect speech in Homeric epic. Putting this passage into the mouth of a poet gives its pervasive blurring of narrative levels a much larger significance for the entire Odyssey, helping to make narration and poets one of the key themes of the poem.

C ONC LUS IONS

This chapter demonstrates, first of all, that free indirect speech exists in Homeric epic. The other explanations for the various kinds of clauses that appear in free indirect speech are unsatisfactory, mainly because they are governed by the widespread assumption that the Homeric poems do not FREE INDIRECT SPEECH

77

Beck-final.indb 77

6/26/12 7:56:25 PM

contain free indirect speech rather than by description of what the poems are actually doing with these clauses. Studies of other premodern narratives have consistently established that free indirect speech exists in those texts, so it should come as no surprise that it occurs in Homeric epic as well. Free indirect speech, whether in the form of a subordinate clause or an independent clause or clauses, appears in conjunction with indirect speech, or sometimes speech mention. The indirect speech or speech mention presents the main speech act, and the free indirect speech presents subsidiary parts of the speech that have expressive force. The main narrators are much less likely to use free indirect speech than the characters are, probably because free indirect speech appears only in combination with non-direct modes of speech presentation and the main narrators use predominantly direct quotation to present speech, especially the expressive parts of speech. Across all narrative levels, the free indirect speech portion of a presented speech depicts varied intensities of emotional power. At one end of an expressive spectrum, free indirect speech presents routine expressive features like the justification for an order presented within character speech, something that is regularly found in orders directly quoted by the main narrators. Extensive examples of free indirect speech presented by Phoenix consistently highlight the emotions of female characters in particular, giving them greater expressive force than similar male speakers in the same larger context, but without using direct quotation to do so. At the other end of this spectrum, the song of Demodocus is composed almost entirely in free indirect speech, so that the character narrator and the main narrator of the Odyssey seem to be one voice. But all of these examples of free indirect speech have basically the same job: to present in a comparatively vivid way expressive features of a speech whose main speech act is presented with indirect speech or speech mention. What differs is the specific function that this vividness has in various narrative contexts. Thus, free indirect speech works the same way that direct quotation does, insofar as it has a stable set of properties and effects that are used by different narrators at different narrative levels to create a range of narrative effects. The outlines of a Homeric speech presentation spectrum are beginning to come into view.

SPE ECH PR E SEN TAT ION in HOM ER IC EPIC

78

Beck-final.indb 78

6/26/12 7:56:26 PM

chapter thr ee

I N DI R EC T SPE EC H

After direct quotation (1,374 instances), indirect speech is the second most common technique for presenting speech in the Homeric poems (589 instances). Nonetheless, indirect speech in Homeric epic is seen as a relatively unimportant phenomenon that is used to present orders¹ and speeches that for various reasons are peripheral to the main storyline.² This characterization, while true in a limited way, does not forward the goal of understanding the full range of properties and effects of indirect speech in Homeric poetry, because it assumes that indirect speech is a fallback option for times when direct speech is not worth the space it would take up in the poem. This approach essentially eliminates the possibility of explaining the positive contributions that indirect speech makes to Homeric narrative in relation to other methods of speech presentation. One of the biggest problems with existing studies of indirect speech in Homeric poetry is that they ignore characters as users of indirect speech, even though characters present by far the majority of indirect speeches in the Iliad and the Odyssey.³ Moreover, characters use indirect speech for a wider range of functions than the main narrators do. Thus, a speech presentation spectrum that studies indirect speech only in terms of how the main narrators use it gives a mistaken idea both of indirect speech and of speech presentation in Homeric poetry overall. As with free indirect speech (and speech mention, the subject of Chapter 4), characters should be seen as the normative users of indirect speech and the main narrators should be studied in relation to them, both because the characters present so much more indirect speech than the main narrators do and because the main narrators present so much more direct quotation than they do indirect speech. Therefore, this chapter will use characters as the baseline for understanding indirect speech throughout. It considers the main narrators primarily in relation to the characters’ approach, but also in relation to generally accepted views of the main narrators’ use of in-

79

Beck-final.indb 79

6/26/12 7:56:27 PM

direct speech. This will show that these views fall short not only in omitting indirect speech found in characters’ speeches, but even in capturing the full range of ways that the main narrators use indirect speech.⁴ Indirect speech presents a speech presented with “its deictic center in the report situation.”⁵ In direct quotation, in contrast, the deictic center of the presented speech is the speaker whose words are being presented, whereas free indirect speech has either an ambiguous deictic center or deictic features that are oriented to both the speaker and the presenter of the speaker’s words. In order to have a deictic center at all, an utterance presented with indirect speech must also have some content, which distinguishes it from speech mention. Many influential scholars agree on this basic definition of what one might call a “prototype” of indirect speech.⁶ Beyond this prototype, however, agreement quickly breaks down. No single approach to indirect speech has gained general acceptance, and indeed, this is not a realistic expectation. Some scholars see this bare-bones description as a workable definition of indirect speech; others have created a spectrum of speech presentation techniques with many points on it that differ only slightly from one another.⁷ The conventional view is that indirect speech subordinates not only the syntax but also the point of view in the presented speech to the reporting speaker, but individual scholars have widely different views about how this works.⁸ There is a similar lack of consensus about the effect of the deictic consistency of indirect speech.⁹ For us, seeking to understand indirect speech as it appears in Homeric epic in particular, this multiplicity is stimulating and salutary if we are tempted to reach “obvious” conclusions—these disagreements show, if they show anything, that there are no “obvious” conclusions about indirect speech—but ultimately, the details of these disagreements are irrelevant to what we find in Homeric poetry. That is, the insights I hope to offer here are based on the consensus view of the characteristics of indirect speech, which map quite closely onto indirect speech as it is found in Homeric epic. As we will see, indirect speech has a wider range of functions and narrative effects than existing views would suggest. The conciseness of indirect speech is not simply a fallback technique for presenting peripheral speeches. Rather, it makes a positive and important contribution to the overall shape of Homeric narrative. OV E RV I E W OF I N DI R E C T S PE E C H I N HOM E R IC E PIC

The main quality that distinguishes indirect speech in Homeric epic from other speech presentation techniques is brevity. That is, indirect speech is

SPE ECH PR E SEN TAT ION in HOM ER IC EPIC

80

Beck-final.indb 80

6/26/12 7:56:27 PM

no briefer than speech mention, but unlike speech mention, indirect speech includes some information about the content of the speech being presented. So, it provides brevity without completely lacking content. Often, indirect speech presents only the propositional content of the speech without any expressive features (e.g., ὅ γ’ ἀεθλεύειν προκαλίζετο, “But [Tydeus] dared them to try their strength with him,” Iliad 4.389), but adjectives, adverbs, and other kinds of expressive language do regularly appear, as in Patroclus’ order to Automedon: ἵππους δ’ Αὐτομέδοντα θοῶς ζευγνῦμεν ἄνωγε (“[He] ordered Automedon rapidly to harness the horses,” Iliad 16.145). Directives are the most common kind of speech act in indirect speech at all levels of narration,¹⁰ but characters—unlike the main narrators—also use indirect speech to present a significant number of assertives.¹¹ Almost all indirect speech appears outside of conversational interchanges: only 6 percent of indirect speeches are reactive moves.¹² Syntactically, most indirect speech takes the form of an infinitive with a subject accusative, with 10 percent (59 of 589, including indirect question as well as indirect statement) using some kind of subordinate clause structure introduced by a coordinating conjunction.¹³ An example of character-presented indirect speech that shows the most common features of indirect speech as presented by both characters and the main narrators appears at Odyssey 21.351–352 (underlined in the longer quotation below, 21.350–353), where Telemachus gives Penelope various orders, including one telling her to give an order to her maidservants. ἀλλ’ εἰς οἶκον ἰοῦσα τὰ σ’ αὐτῆς ἔργα κόμιζε, ἱστόν τ’ ἠλακάτην τε, καὶ ἀμφιπόλοισι κέλευε ἔργον ἐποίχεσθαι· τόξον δ’ ἄνδρεσσι μελήσει πᾶσι, μάλιστα δ’ ἐμοί· τοῦ γὰρ κράτος ἔστ’ ἐνὶ οἴκῳ. Go therefore back into the house, and take up your own work, the loom and the distaff, and see to it that your handmaidens ply their work also. The men shall have the bow in their keeping, all men, but I most of all. For mine is the power in this household.

First of all, the presented speech is very brief. It includes only a verb of speaking, a dative for the addressee, and an infinitive and direct object for the content of the speech being presented. The addressees may be part of the presented speech, since Homeric speakers (as quoted by the main narrators) so often begin their speeches with a vocative address to the addressee. Here the addressee is plural, which (as we will see) is often the case in indirect speech. The speech is a directive, the most common type of speech act

INDIRECT SPEECH

81

Beck-final.indb 81

6/26/12 7:56:28 PM

not only in indirect speech, but also in Homeric speech in general. Characters, unlike the main narrators, generally do not specify the subtype of their directives. The directive in this passage does not give enough information to identify confidently what the subtype is, but given the context (an order to a group of servants), it is almost certainly an order, the most common subtype of directive when addressing servants.¹⁴ Similarly, the form of the speech presented here does not make clear whether the speech is initial or reactive, but the overwhelming probability, given the type of speech act as well as the speaker and addressee, is that it is initial.

ov er a ll pat ter ns for indir ec t speech: ch a r ac ter-pr esented These typical patterns to a large extent support the entrenched assumptions about the functions of indirect speech in Homeric poetry. However, as we study the usual patterns and properties of indirect speech in more detail, we will see many ways in which the most widely held views about Homeric indirect speech do not accurately reflect the way indirect speech actually works in Homeric epic. Perhaps most important, characters present by far the greatest proportion of the nearly 600 instances of indirect speech in the Homeric poems. This number is vastly and inappropriately reduced if only the indirect speech presented by the main narrators is taken into account. There are 417 instances of indirect speech presented by characters, split approximately equally between the Iliad (215) and the Odyssey (202). Indirect speeches generally present directives (228, 55 percent), with a healthy minority of assertives (164, 39 percent) and a smattering of other speech act types (two vaunts;¹⁵ nine questions, all of which must use clause syntax for the presented speech;¹⁶ and 14 unspecified speech act types). When the speech act type is unspecified, the presented speeches fall into a few categories. Half of the speeches whose speech act type is not clear present an identifiable subtype that can be a subtype of more than one larger speech act type, such as rebuke, which can be either an emotive or a directive (Iliad 9.35; Od. 19.190).¹⁷ Similarly, two are introduced by a verb that does not clearly indicate a particular speech act type (Iliad 14.484: εὔχεται, “[sc. a man] prays,” either a prayer or a vaunt; Od. 19.190: μετάλλα, “[sc. Odysseus] asked for,” either a question or a request). The remainder either present hypothetical speech (Od. 1.373–374) or speech whose context is simply too vague to decide what kind of speech it is.¹⁸ One of the uses for indirect speech is said to be to condense multiple speeches by different speakers into one representative speech (de Jong 2004b: 115–116). This point is true, but it is not very useful: it describes a deSPE ECH PR E SEN TAT ION in HOM ER IC EPIC

82

Beck-final.indb 82

6/26/12 7:56:28 PM

cided minority of indirect speeches, both because the proportion of indirect speech with a plural speaker is rather small and because not all of the plural speakers of indirect speech function as groups in the same way. Across all narrative levels, about 20 percent of indirect speech (116 of 589 instances) is used for speech with a plural speaker. The characters present 89 speeches with a plural speaker (21 percent),¹⁹ and another 103 have a plural addressee (25 percent).²⁰ Of the 89 speeches with plural speakers that characters present, almost two-thirds (54) are assertives. These constitute one-third of all the assertives (164) that characters present in indirect speech. Directives in indirect speech that have plural speakers, in contrast, represent a small minority of the directives that characters present in indirect speech (30 of 228, 13 percent). In turn, a minority of these plural speakers address a plural addressee (11 of 30). Only one of these 30 directives spoken by more than one person is attributed to unspecified speakers;²¹ all the rest are spoken by particular people, but by more than one specific person at a time.²² These may be large groups, such as the Greeks or the Trojans or the suitors of Penelope, or they may be much smaller ones, such as heralds, or even the two Ajaxes.²³ While these overall patterns match generally held opinions about indirect speech, these opinions are incorrect or incomplete in several respects. First, assertives constitute almost as much indirect speech presented by characters as directives do. Second, more directives presented in character speech have plural speakers than do directives presented by the main narrators. Even so, such directives constitute a small minority of directives presented by the characters. In fact, indirect speech at all narrative levels appears more often to present speech to a group than it presents speech spoken by more than one person, and in character-presented speech, the majority of indirect speech has both a singular speaker and a singular addressee. In fact, plural addressees²⁴ rather than plural speakers are found more often in indirect speech than in any other mode of speech presentation across all narrative levels. Less than one-quarter of direct quotations feature a plural addressee (301 of 1,374 instances, 22 percent).²⁵ In contrast, 31 percent of speech mentions (143 of 460 instances)²⁶ are addressed to more than one person, and nearly half of indirect speech has a plural addressee (245 of 589 instances). A decided majority of indirect speech presented by the main narrators has a plural addressee (77 of 129, 60 percent).²⁷ Thus, a substantial minority, or even in some cases a majority, of speech presented in non-direct speech modes—particularly indirect speech, but also speech mention—addresses groups, but direct quotations addressed to groups are much less common. The relationship between a speaker and his singular addressee, in fact, is one of the expressive features of conversational interchange in Homeric epic that direct quotation conveys more vividly than INDIRECT SPEECH

83

Beck-final.indb 83

6/26/12 7:56:29 PM

non-direct modes of speech presentation do. In turn, we can see these connections between individuals through direct speech as one of the mainstays of the overall emotional force of the poems. Just as the Iliad in particular mainly depicts encounters between individual fighters, even though its story of a war between two cities might well include panoramic “views” of the two opposing armies as groups (Fenik 1968: 19), so, too, the quoted speeches in the poems are addressed mainly to individuals, even though many different groups play important roles in the stories of both the Iliad and the Odyssey. This aspect of indirect speech is fairly consistent across different narrative levels. In some respects, characters use indirect speech for more varied and sometimes more specific and detailed functions than the main narrators do. These have generally escaped notice because they are not found in narrator-presented speech. Not taking these functions of indirect speech into account has impoverished our understanding of indirect speech, of character-presented speech, and of the subtlety and force of Homeric narrative. For example, the characters present a much greater proportion of assertives in indirect speech than the main narrators do. Moreover, nearly half (42) of the 89 indirect speeches presented by characters that have plural speakers are assertives that assign the authority for some statement the presenting speaker is making to an unspecified “they.” Looking at these numbers a different way, 54 (33 percent) of 164 assertives presented by characters with indirect speech have a plural speaker. Unlike group directives, these speeches usually lack a specified subject, but sometimes they are ascribed to a specific group, either a group like the Phaeacians (e.g., Od. 13.211–212) or several individuals (e.g., Hera and Athena at Iliad 5.715–716). Unattributed statements often say “X is Y,”²⁸ as at Odyssey 19.267, where the disguised Odysseus says about himself, Ὀδυσῆ᾽, ὃν φασὶ θεοῖς ἐναλίγκιον εἶναι (“Odysseus, [who] they say was like the immortals”). This deceptive comment is even more pointed and ironic than it would otherwise be because it plays off the common pattern of characters saying “They say X is Y” rather than simply “X is Y” for statements about which the speaker lacks first-hand knowledge. A particular subset of these “They say X is Y” speech presentations involves statements about genealogies.²⁹ For instance, Helenus describes Achilles as ὅν πέρ φασι θεᾶς ἐξ ἔμμεναι (“who they say was born of a goddess,” Iliad 6.100). Characters using this common format may exploit it to convey hostility, as when Tlepolemus scoffs at Sarpedon: ψευδόμενοι δέ σέ φασι Διὸς γόνον αἰγιόχοιο / εἶναι (“They are liars who call you issue of Zeus, the holder / of the aegis,” Iliad 5.635– 636).³⁰ The main narrators, unlike the characters, are conventionally omniscient, and so this common function of indirect speech has not previously been inSPE ECH PR E SEN TAT ION in HOM ER IC EPIC

84

Beck-final.indb 84

6/26/12 7:56:29 PM

cluded in discussions of what indirect speech typically does in the Homeric poems. Nevertheless, these examples show both that a pattern exists and that it can create meaningful narrative effects. Characters regularly present assertives by named speakers in indirect speech, which rarely happens in indirect speech presented by the main narrators except in very specific contexts that will be discussed in more detail shortly. At Iliad 18.8–11, Achilles remembers a prophecy that Thetis had made as he wonders uneasily what the Greeks are doing and whether Patroclus has died. μὴ δή μοι τελέσωσι θεοὶ κακὰ κήδεα θυμῷ, ὥς ποτέ μοι μήτηρ διεπέφραδε, καί μοι ἔειπε Μυρμιδόνων τὸν ἄριστον ἔτι ζώοντος ἐμεῖο χερσὶν ὕπο Τρώων λείψειν φάος ἠελίοιο. May the gods not accomplish vile sorrows upon the heart in me in the way my mother once made it clear to me, when she told me how while I yet lived the bravest of all the Myrmidons must leave the light of the sun beneath the hands of the Trojans.

The prophecy presented in indirect speech here is about twice as long as the order at Odyssey 21.350–353 that was discussed earlier, partly because of expressive elements of various kinds. It contains a superlative adjective (ἄριστον, “the bravest”), an adverb (ἔτι, “yet”), and a subordinate clause in the form of a genitive absolute that refers to the reporting speaker in the first person (ζώοντος ἐμεῖο, “while I lived”). These expressive features highlight both Patroclus and Achilles himself, and implicitly connect the two of them. This makes the prophecy that Achilles refers to—at a moment of great emotional intensity for him—significantly more expressive than the order that Telemachus tells Penelope to give to her maids. Thus we can see that although indirect speech presents speech in less detail and with different syntax than direct quotation, it can and does include expressive features. The structure of indirect speech in Homeric epic, however, means that the propositional content rather than these expressive features generally has the most important place. This overview of the most common structures and functions of indirect speech as presented by characters shows that in some respects, the consensus views of indirect speech are correct. For instance, the majority of indirect speech presents directives, and noticeable minorities of both directives and assertives that are given in indirect speech present speeches that are distillations or generalizations of several speeches by individuals in a group INDIRECT SPEECH

85

Beck-final.indb 85

6/26/12 7:56:30 PM

into a single utterance. However, the full range of Homeric indirect speech lies beyond current scholarly views of it. Perhaps most fundamentally, assertives constitute about one-third of the instances of indirect speech in Homeric poetry. These occur mainly in character speech, where indirect speech functions in ways not generally associated with the main narrators.

ov er a ll pat ter ns for indir ec t speech: m a in na r r ator s The distribution and characteristics of indirect speech presented by the main narrators look noticeably different from what we have seen in indirect speech presented by characters: the main narrators present a higher proportion of directives, and the assertives presented by the main narrators are not the same kinds as those we find in speech presented by the characters. The main narrators present 129 instances of indirect speech, which appear predominantly in the Iliad (85 instances, or 66 percent). These indirect speeches are almost exclusively directives (107 instances, 83 percent). Nearly half of the assertives (8 of 18) are songs,³¹ which are never presented in indirect speech by characters. Most of these references to song are addresses to the Muses, but all three songs of Demodocus also contain indirect speech. No other subtype of assertive speech appears more than twice in narratorpresented indirect speech. We also find two emotives (Iliad 2.597–598 and 8.253–255), one question (Od. 17.368), and one speech whose type is unclear (Od. 7.16–17, which presents a hypothetical speech act with κερτομέοι, “might speak . . . in a sneering way,” a verb that does not indicate any particular speech act type).³² Of the directives presented by the main narrators, a small number depict speeches with unspecified subtypes that might be either an order or some other subtype of directive, such as an invitation or a suggestion (10 examples),³³ and 18 present specific subtypes linked to particular introductory verbs, such as prayers, pleas, and messages. Aside from these examples, most directives presented by the main narrators in indirect speech depict what might be called presumptive orders. These are speeches like Odyssey 21.350–353 (discussed above). They are usually introduced by ἄνωγα (“command, order”), ἐπιτέλλω (“enjoin, prescribe”), or κελεύω (“urge, order”), where there are no specific details that unequivocally establish that the speech is an order, but the particular speakers and situation strongly suggest it. Indirect speech presented by the main narrators is much more strongly associated with orders than is indirect speech presented by the characters. The main narrators present 24 indirect speeches with a plural speaker (19 percent, slightly below the percentage in indirect speech presented by characters). While characters and the main narrators present basically the SPE ECH PR E SEN TAT ION in HOM ER IC EPIC

86

Beck-final.indb 86

6/26/12 7:56:31 PM

same proportion of indirect speech with plural speakers, the other characteristics of these speeches differ. Once again, the main narrators present directives much more often than characters do: 21 of the 24 plural-speaker indirect speeches are directives. The two assertives follow the common “They say X is Y” pattern already discussed for character speech;³⁴ the single indirect question (Od. 17.368)—one of only five questions presented by the main narrators in a non-direct format—seems to exploit the usual qualities of indirect speech for a specific narrative effect (on which see more below). Most of the directives with plural speakers also have plural addressees, and represent a distillation of several basically similar individual speeches into one indirect speech, as in the following example (Iliad 2.151–152): τοὶ δ’ ἀλλήλοισι κέλευον ἅπτεσθαι νηῶν ἠδ’ ἑλκέμεν εἰς ἅλα δῖαν. And the men were all shouting to one another to lay hold on the ships and drag them down to the bright sea.

One or two speeches present a single speech that represents a directive from a group spoken by one person ex officio,³⁵ but most of the time, the main narrators use directives with plural speakers to condense several individual speeches to more than one addressee. This differs from the patterns for character speech, in which directives spoken by one group to another are only one of several ways that directives with plural speakers appear in indirect speech. The main narrators, in contrast, use indirect speech for directives with plural speakers in this particular way so consistently that the few exceptions to this pattern automatically call attention to themselves. These exceptions, all of which occur in the Iliad, fall into two categories. One directive with a plural speaker presents a series of individual speeches in an assembly that are not interchangeable with one another, but that present a single conversation (Iliad 18.510–512),³⁶ and two others condense several basically similar speeches into one indirect speech, but with a singular, named addressee rather than the usual plural addressee (Iliad 19.303–304 and 24.23–24). The two instances of a singular instead of a plural addressee for a directive presented in indirect speech with a plural speaker concern the aftermaths of deaths of Patroclus and Hector, respectively.³⁷ At Iliad 19.303– 305, the Greek elders beg Achilles to eat, after the newly returned Briseis laments for Patroclus. This indirect speech distills a series of basically similar λίσσομαι speeches into one indirect presentation; but unlike the vast majority of indirect speeches by plural speakers that the main narrators preINDIRECT SPEECH

87

Beck-final.indb 87

6/26/12 7:56:31 PM

sent, the addressee is an individual rather than a group or several different people. Moreover, a directly quoted response follows the indirectly presented plea: αὐτὸν [Achilles] δ’ ἀμφὶ γέροντες Ἀχαιῶν ἠγερέθοντο λισσόμενοι δειπνῆσαι· ὁ δ᾽ ἠρνείτο στεναχίζων· “λίσσομαι, εἴ τις ἔμοιγε φίλων ἐπιπείθεθ’ ἑταίρων . . .” But the lords of Achaia were gathered about Achilleus beseeching him to eat, but he with a groan denied them: “I beg of you, if any dear companion will listen to me . . .”

The speech presented in verse 304 with λισσόμενοι δειπνῆσαι (“beseeching him to eat”) is unusual for indirect speech presented by the main narrators in several respects: besides having a plural speaker and a singular addressee, it begins a conversational exchange that continues with a direct quotation, and it is one of only eighteen speeches presented by the main narrators that is introduced or concluded by (or, sometimes, referred to with) λίσσομαι.³⁸ These λίσσομαι speeches are primarily formal supplication or powerful forms of appeal.³⁹ Indirect speech here, used in a manner unusual for the main narrators, has the effect of putting the elders’ appeal into the background and highlighting Achilles’ emotional refusal, the only example in the poems of a plea that is reactive rather than initial.⁴⁰ Achilles does not eat until his emotional meeting with Priam in Book 24, so his refusal to eat both dramatizes his emotions about his dead comrade and sets up a plot point that is important for the remainder of the poem. The other series of speeches to a named individual presented by the main narrators in indirect speech occurs at the beginning of Iliad 24 (22– 24), where the gods, indignant at Achilles’ mistreatment of Hector’s corpse, set in motion the train of events that leads to the ransoming of Hector’s body and Achilles’ return to the normal human appetites he shunned in the speech discussed in the previous paragraph. Most of the gods pity Hector, and although their idea of Hermes stealing his corpse is not adopted, their feelings do lead to the end of Achilles’ abuse of his body. ὣς ὃ μὲν [Achilles] Ἕκτορα δῖον ἀείκιζεν μενεαίνων· τὸν δ’ ἐλεαίρεσκον μάκαρες θεοὶ εἰσορόωντες, κλέψαι δ’ ὀτρύνεσκον ἐΰσκοπον Ἀργειφόντην. So Achilleus in his standing fury outraged great Hektor. The blessed gods as they looked upon him were filled with compassion and kept urging clear-sighted Argeïphontes to steal the body. SPE ECH PR E SEN TAT ION in HOM ER IC EPIC

88

Beck-final.indb 88

6/26/12 7:56:32 PM

Here, too, the speech is not only addressed to a single named addressee (Hermes), but it presents a series of explicitly emotional speeches (ἐλεαίρεσκον, “were filled with compassion,” 23) that advance a central plot point having to do with the death of Hector. Thus, not only are these two examples similar in structure and in the manner in which they vary from the otherwise consistent patterns of indirect speech presented by the main narrators, but in addition, these unusual features have similar effects in the narrative. They emphasize the strong emotions aroused by the two most important deaths in the poem, deaths that the narrative consistently links together. We have seen so far that characters use indirect speech to present a wider range of directives than we find in indirect speech presented by the main narrators; but at the same time, such directives are consistently both more vague about some features of the directive and less expressive than directives presented with direct speech. The most common Homeric verbs of ordering, κελεύω and ἄνωγα, provide a complementary view of directives in Homeric speech, and in particular of the way characters use indirect speech to present directives. A careful study of these verbs confirms that character-presented directives typically do not provide clear information about directive subtypes. These two verbs mainly present directives that do not offer details about subtype, but they also present a wide range of directives whose subtypes can be inferred. In cases where the subtype is clear, no one subtype appears to be more frequently presented than any other. Thus, these verbs (and the characters who most often use them) present directives without any particular subtype. This should not be taken to mean that characters leave out subtype information when they present directives. On the contrary, this feature of characters’ speech presentation is normal on its own terms; it is not a violation of, or departure from, patterns in speech presented by the main narrators. Indeed, directive subtypes offer a kind of detail that characters consistently show less interest in presenting than the main narrators do. Subtypes both capture and try to establish interactive features of the conversation, such as the power the speaker has (or tries to pretend that he has) over the addressee, the extent to which the speaker represents his interests as being the same as those of the addressee, and whether the addressee is offered an opening to refuse the directive. Because all of these features concern the relationship between the speaker and the addressee, they have an expressive value that the main narrators tend to present in direct quotation, but that characters are much less likely to include. At the same time, characters and the main narrators are fundamentally doing the same thing when they present directives, insofar as both of these verbs can present directive speeches across all narrative levels and speech presentation strategies, ranging from direct quotations by INDIRECT SPEECH

89

Beck-final.indb 89

6/26/12 7:56:33 PM

the main narrators (rarely) to indirect speech and speech mention by characters (most commonly). In other words, the way these two words are used encapsulates both the differences between different levels of speech presentation in Homeric epic and the fundamental similarities that unite directives across all narrative levels. κελεύω, which appears in some form 190 times to present speeches in the Homeric epics, can indicate a wide range of directive subtypes in addition to the many occasions when it presents a directive with no clear subtype. The main narrators use it more rarely than characters do (71 times, for various kinds of speech presentation), and they hardly ever use it as an introductory word for direct quotations (nine times, with an additional two uses that prepare for but do not actually introduce direct quotation).⁴¹ In the few cases where direct quotation of directives allows us to determine most clearly the subtype of the directive to which κελεύω refers, we find several orders (Iliad 15.717; and all three quotations in the Odyssey that are introduced by κελεύω: 6.198, 15.217, 21.175), three battlefield exhortations (an order in a specific context that has regular formulas associated with it, Iliad 5.463, 5.528, and 15.732), a suggestion (Iliad 14.363), and a request (Iliad 24.252). When characters use forms of κελεύω as cross-references to speeches that are directly quoted, they refer to messages (e.g., Iliad 2.11), a plea (Iliad 19.306), rebuke (e.g., Iliad 20.87), implicit directives (e.g., Iliad 24.669), threats (e.g., Iliad 8.35) and even occasional hypothetical directives (e.g., οὔ τι κελεύω, “I give no orders,” Iliad 4.286). κελεύω can also be used to invite competitors to an athletic contest (repeatedly in Iliad 23). Given the range of directive subtypes to which κελεύω refers in cases where we can be sure what the speech in question is about, if (as is often the case in character-presented speech) we have only κελεύω to identify the speech act type, it is impossible to know what the directive subtype is. Indeed, the vast majority of the 48 instances⁴² where κελεύω depicts indirect speech presented by characters render the speech so briefly that it is impossible to be sure what subtype of directive the speech is. This, indeed, is one of the features of the directive quoted at the beginning of this chapter as a typical example of indirect speech. Considered from the point of view of both narrative level and speech presentation mode, these character-presented indirect speeches constitute the largest subgroup of speeches introduced with κελεύω. Therefore, the way κελεύω appears in these speeches may be seen as the norm of how the word is used.⁴³ As these verbs show, characters presenting speech are focusing not on the intricacies of the social relations between the speaker and addressee whom they present, but on a fairly concise presentation of the propositional content of the speech. This is typical not simply of these two verbs as found in characters’ SPE ECH PR E SEN TAT ION in HOM ER IC EPIC

90

Beck-final.indb 90

6/26/12 7:56:33 PM

speech, but of character-presented indirect speech overall. It should be seen as normal on its own terms and as an important part of the narrative texture of the Homeric poems. To summarize, indirect speech at all narrative levels presents a given speech in a concise way, generally presenting the content of the speech with few or no expressive features. This is the norm for speech presented by characters, who use indirect speech more often than they use any other mode of speech presentation, and who present nearly 75 percent of all of the instances of indirect speech in Homeric epic. The expressive features generally absent from indirect speech include both language within the speech act itself, ranging from adverbs to superlatives to the speaker’s rationale for making a particular speech, and the emotional connection between speaker and addressee that conversational exchange entails. That is, only 6 percent of all speeches presented with indirect speech are reactive moves (33 out of 589 instances).⁴⁴ While directives are the most common kind of speech act in indirect speech at all narrative levels, characters present assertives with indirect speech nearly as often as they present directives. These features do not strongly support the usual characterization of indirect speech in Homeric poetry—namely, that it is used for orders and speeches that are somehow peripheral. While it is certainly true that directives are the most common kind of speech act in indirect speech, this is also the case for direct quotations presented by the main narrators.⁴⁵ Moreover, in character-presented speech—unlike speech presented by the main narrators—assertives run a close second to directives in indirect speech. If indirect speech is the single most common way to present speeches within characters’ speeches, it is too simplistic at the level of character speech to say that indirect speech presents speeches that are peripheral. That idea may be somewhat accurate in the case of indirect speech presented by the main narrators—although, as the next section will show, often it does not fully explain the effects created by using indirect speech rather than direct quotation—but it is not very useful for understanding most indirect speech in Homeric poetry. The right question to ask here is: What conclusions can we draw about the fact that this comparatively inexpressive mode of speech presentation is used mainly by characters—both because most of their speech appears in indirect speech, and because most indirect speech appears in their speeches? Perhaps most obviously, these usage patterns for indirect speech keep the expressive focus of the poem strongly on the characters themselves, because they consistently do not present the expressive features of speech and conversation (even when they are presenting their own speech) to nearly the same extent that the main narrators do. The narrative of Odysseus in OdysINDIRECT SPEECH

91

Beck-final.indb 91

6/26/12 7:56:34 PM

sey 9–12 shows that direct speech could form a much larger part of characters’ speech than it does—there does not seem to be some kind of Homeric prohibition against characters using direct quotation. Instead, characters use a less detailed and expressive mode of speech presentation because that forwards the overall narrative goals of the poems. The speech presentation norms of the characters keep speech as a fundamental part of the Homeric world, and generally in ways broadly similar to that found at the level of the main narrators. For instance, the same kinds of speech acts are the commonest at all narrative levels, and in similar proportions, even though these speech acts are presented differently by characters and by the main narrators. The characters’ interest in what other characters say, however, is conveyed without creating additional narratives whose expressive force competes with that of the main narratives of the Iliad and the Odyssey. R E GU L A R , L E S S C OM MON F E AT U R E S OF I N DI R E C T S PE E C H

The most common form of indirect speech at all narrative levels is a directive that uses a single verb of speaking to present the speech, and an infinitive to present the reported speech. However, departures from this typical arrangement beyond those already described regularly appear. These include indirect speech that uses a subordinate clause, indirect speech with multiple verbs of speaking, and conversations presented either partly or entirely with indirect speech. All of these features provide detail about the presented speech beyond what the most common form of indirect speech would offer.

indir ec t speech w it h a subor dinate cl ause The verb of speaking governs a subordinate clause rather than an infinitive in approximately 10 percent of indirect speech overall.⁴⁶ Unlike free indirect speech, which has no subordinating conjunction that relates it to a verb of speaking and which presents a subordinate part of the speech rather than the main speech act, indirect speech uses a subordinate clause governed by a conjunction to present the main act—and often the entirety— of a particular speech. In character-presented indirect speech, nearly half of the indirect speeches that use a subordinate clause present questions. This makes sense, since indirect questions in indirect speech can only appear with a subordinate clause and not with an infinitive. The predominance of indirect questions in indirect speech that governs a subordinate clause

SPE ECH PR E SEN TAT ION in HOM ER IC EPIC

92

Beck-final.indb 92

6/26/12 7:56:35 PM

rather than an infinitive also explains why most indirect speech presented with a subordinate clause in character speech appears in the Odyssey (27 of 37 instances), where questions are more common at every level of speech presentation than they are in the Iliad. Odyssey 3.113–116, as Nestor begins his νόστος narrative to Telemachus, provides a typical example of indirect question within a character’s speech: τίς κεν ἐκεῖνα πάντα γε μυθήσαιτο καταθνητῶν ἀνθρώπων; οὐδ’ εἰ πεντάετές γε καὶ ἑξάετες παραμίμνων ἐξερέοις, ὅσα κεῖθι πάθον κακὰ δῖοι Ἀχαιοί.⁴⁷ What man who was one of the mortal people could ever tell the whole of it, not if you were to sit beside me five years, and six years, and asked me about the evils the great Achaians endured there.

If Telemachus’ hypothetical question about the suffering of the returning Greeks is presented in indirect speech, it must use a subordinate clause. However, the larger context is clearly aimed at establishing the magnitude of what Nestor is going to tell Telemachus, and Telemachus’ question should be considered within that framework. The indirect question attributed to him complements Nestor’s rhetorical question at 3.113–114, which closely resembles the comment by the main narrator of the Iliad before the catalogue of ships that, unless the Muses helped him, he could not narrate the contingents of the Greek forces even with ten tongues, ten mouths, and a bronze heart (Iliad 2.488–492). Similarly, this hypothetical question by Telemachus illustrates the scope of the Greek suffering at Troy, partly because it is included at all and partly because the subordinate clause in this instance of indirect speech can include expressive features that otherwise would not appear. Speech mention, another common way to present questions within characters’ speeches, would not have the same expressive force. The clause structure itself highlights the Greeks, as subjects of a form of πάσχω; it modifies them with an epithet (δῖοι); and it includes the adverb κεῖθι, which concisely but evocatively distinguishes between the safety and comfort of the storytelling time and place and the sorrow of the different times and places in which Nestor’s tale unfolds. The main narrators, in contrast, use indirect speech with a dependent clause for only two questions. Odyssey 7.16–17 is hypothetical (part of a negative purpose clause, which would not be quoted directly). Odyssey 17.386 uses indirect speech for a question at an important juncture in the plot in

INDIRECT SPEECH

93

Beck-final.indb 93

6/26/12 7:56:35 PM

order to emphasize one part of a longer conversation at the expense of another part.⁴⁸ Instead, the majority of the main narrators’ subordinate clause indirect speeches present either the narrator’s own addresses to the Muses (five instances in the Iliad) or Demodocus’ songs (three instances in Odyssey 8).⁴⁹ This has created the misapprehension that clausal indirect speech is used only for song,⁵⁰ whereas in fact, clausal indirect speech is used primarily—not exclusively—for song only in speech presented by the main narrators. When character-presented speech is taken into account, the overall patterns for this kind of speech presentation show sharp differences between speech presented by the main narrators and speech presented by the characters, who present the bulk of indirect speech in the poems. Song, which we will continue to look at from various perspectives in the next two chapters, is the only speech act subtype that appears in a completely different way in speech presented by the main narrators than in speech presented by the characters. In contrast, while both free indirect speech and speech mention appear less frequently in speech presented by the main narrators than in speech presented by characters, the ways the main narrators use these techniques form a subset of the ways that characters use them. Only song appears differently at different narrative levels, not only in indirect speech but also in speech mention and free indirect speech. The main narrator’s address to the Muses before the catalogue of ships in Iliad 2 (484–487) thus provides a “typical” example of the main narrators’ use of a subordinate clause in indirect speech, even though it is anything but typical of the way subordinate clauses appear in indirect speech in the Homeric poems overall. ἔσπετε νῦν μοι, Μοῦσαι Ὀλύμπια δώματ’ ἔχουσαι— ὑμεῖς γὰρ θεαί ἐστε, πάρεστέ τε, ἴστέ τε πάντα, ἡμεῖς δὲ κλέος οἶον ἀκούομεν οὐδέ τι ἴδμεν— οἵ τινες ἡγεμόνες Δαναῶν καὶ κοίρανοι ἦσαν. Tell me now, you Muses who have your homes on Olympos. For you, who are goddesses, are there, and you know all things, and we have heard only the rumour of it and know nothing. Who then of those were the chief men and the lords of the Danaans?

Verse 484 is repeated three more times later in the Iliad (11.218, 14.508, 16.112; see Kirk 1985: ad loc.). These addresses to the Muses have been the subject of great scholarly interest, centering largely on what they do in their contexts and on the conspicuous difference between the Iliad ’s repeated invocations of the Muses and the Odyssey’s single invocation at the start of the SPE ECH PR E SEN TAT ION in HOM ER IC EPIC

94

Beck-final.indb 94

6/26/12 7:56:36 PM

poem.⁵¹ What is important for my purposes is not what these invocations are for, but the strong correlation in speech presented by the main narrators between song—both by the main narrator of the Iliad and by the character Demodocus—and indirect speech that governs a subordinate clause. This correlation is unique in the Homeric epics, both because no other speech presentation strategy has such a close association with a particular speech act subtype (even though this association is valid only at the level of the main narrators), and because no other component of the speech presentation spectrum functions so differently at different narrative levels. This marks out song as a unique kind of speech act, insofar as it uses speech presentation techniques that appear regularly in the Homeric epics overall in unique ways.

mu lt ipl e v er bs of spe a k ing As we have seen, direct quotations presented by the main narrators often have several parts, either a main move and subsidiary act(s) that reinforce or forward the main move (such as rationales for following a directive), or two complementary moves, such as a reply to a preceding question and then an initial question. In contrast, indirect speech most commonly conveys only the essential content of the main speech act using a single verb of speaking. Using several verbs of speaking to present a piece of indirect speech⁵² has several effects. It gives greater emphasis to the presented speech by giving it more length, and it distinguishes various components of the presented speech from one another. Most of the speeches presented in this way by characters contain directives that were spoken in the past but that are in some way relevant or necessary to a directive within which the extended indirect speech is presented. Messages form the largest group of these extended indirect speeches,⁵³ where relaying a directive through an intermediary is required, and for which it is important to present not simply the main speech act but the exact wording of the speech to the addressee. A typical example of this occurs at Iliad 7.386–397, where Idaeus brings the Greeks a message from the Trojans. ἠνώγει Πρίαμός τε καὶ ἄλλοι Τρῶες ἀγαυοὶ εἰπεῖν, αἴ κέ περ ὔμμι φίλον καὶ ἡδὺ γένοιτο, μῦθον Ἀλεξάνδροιο, τοῦ εἵνεκα νεῖκος ὄρωρε· κτήματα μὲν ὅσ’ Ἀλέξανδρος κοίλῃς ἐνὶ νηυσὶν ἠγάγετο Τροίηνδ’ — ὡς πρὶν ὤφελλ’ ἀπολέσθαι — πάντ’ ἐθέλει δόμεναι καὶ ἔτ’ οἴκοθεν ἄλλ’ ἐπιθεῖναι· κουριδίην δ’ ἄλοχον Μενελάου κυδαλίμοιο INDIRECT SPEECH

95

Beck-final.indb 95

6/26/12 7:56:36 PM

οὔ φησιν δώσειν· ἦ μὴν Τρῶές γε κέλονται. καὶ δὲ τόδ’ ἠνώγεον εἰπεῖν ἔπος, αἴ κ’ ἐθέλητε παύσασθαι πολέμοιο δυσηχέος, εἰς ὅ κε νεκροὺς κήομεν· ὕστερον αὖτε μαχησόμεθ’, εἰς ὅ κε δαίμων ἄμμε διακρίνῃ, δώῃ δ’ ἑτέροισί γε νίκην. Priam and the rest of the haughty Trojans have bidden me give you, if this message be found to your pleasure and liking, the word of Alexandros, for whose sake this strife has arisen. All those possessions that Alexandros carried in his hollow ships to Troy, and I wish that he had perished before then, he is willing to give all back, and to add to these from his own goods. But the very wedded wife of glorious Menelaos he says that he will not give, though the Trojans would have him do it. They told me to give you this message also, if you are willing; to stop the sorrowful fighting until we can burn the bodies of our dead. We shall fight again afterwards, until the divinity chooses between us, and gives victory to one or the other.

This speech of the Trojans is framed by their directive to the herald himself (ἠνώγει . . . εἰπεῖν, “have bidden . . . give [the word],” 286–287 ∼ 394). Within this ring structure, it presents several different components of the content of the message itself. The word μῦθον in 388, in apposition with the next several verses (389–391) and in a certain sense governing them, presents the part of the message with Paris’ offer in implied indirect speech. Indirect speech presents the part of the message that tells the Greeks what Paris refuses to do (οὔ φησιν δώσειν, “He says that he will not give,” 393). Thus, different verbs of speaking separate the what-is-offered part of the herald’s message from the what-is-not-offered part, and the message overall is framed between two pieces of indirect speech presenting the heralds receiving the message that they are now delivering to the Greeks. Other extended indirect speeches also depict speeches with several parts of equal importance, especially instructions or prophecy.⁵⁴ This kind of extended indirect speech appears almost exclusively in speech presented by characters, so that when it appears at the level of the main narrator, it perforce calls attention to itself.⁵⁵

con v er sat iona l e xch a nge using indir ec t speech Both characters and the main narrators occasionally present conversations that include indirect speech. Some of these conversations are presented enSPE ECH PR E SEN TAT ION in HOM ER IC EPIC

96

Beck-final.indb 96

6/26/12 7:56:37 PM

tirely with indirect (or non-direct) speech, and others combine an indirect speech with one or more direct quotations to depict the sequence of speeches exchanged. The main narrators present mainly conversations in which an initiating move is presented with indirect speech, followed by a reactive move quoted directly. There are six of these in both poems combined.⁵⁶ Just three conversations presented by the main narrators (all in the Iliad) use no direct quotation at all.⁵⁷ Meanwhile, the characters present four conversations that combine indirect speech and direct quotation,⁵⁸ but no single pragmatic or thematic quality unifies these different conversations. Most of the conversations presented by characters that include indirect speech are presented entirely with non-direct modes of speech presentation (eight instances).⁵⁹ In other words, the rarity of conversation that includes indirect speech has different explanations at different narrative levels. The main narrators present conversations almost entirely in direct speech. So, they rarely use any non-direct mode of speech presentation in a conversational context, and they combine direct quotation with indirect speech more often than they present a conversation entirely with non-direct modes of speech presentation. The characters, on the other hand, rarely present conversations, and thus they rarely use their most common mode of speech presentation (indirect speech) to depict conversations. Similarly, since characters use direct quotation less often than indirect speech, indirect speech appears in conversations primarily in combination with other non-direct speech presentations. The main narrators present the majority of conversations that include both direct quotation and indirect speech (the six instances cited in note 56, out of ten instances in notes 56 and 58 combined). Four of the six use indirect speech to depict a directive, and direct speech to present the addressee’s refusal or objection to it.⁶⁰ Although these moves are not as strongly conversationally embedded as problematic moves, which, as we have seen, are virtually always presented in direct speech, they are more interactive and less typical as a response than the usual obedience is. These pragmatic factors are important reasons for the use of direct quotation in combination with indirect speech, but at the same time, thematic considerations that will be explored in Chapter 6 explain why these conversations appear primarily in the Iliad. The character-presented conversations that include direct quotations all appear in the Odyssey. They generally use the direct quotation within the conversation to present either a problematic move⁶¹ or a deceptive speech,⁶² both of which, as we have seen, are strongly associated with direct quotation.⁶³ Characters use a combination of direct quotation and indirect speech to present conversations only rarely, and in relation to a variety of pragmatic considerations. In contrast, the main narrators use this INDIRECT SPEECH

97

Beck-final.indb 97

6/26/12 7:56:38 PM

combination of direct and non-direct speech to present a single conversation both more often and in more thematically and pragmatically consistent ways than the characters do. Characters present the bulk of the conversations that are depicted entirely with non-direct modes of speech presentation (the eight cited in note 59, out of eleven instances in notes 57 and 59 combined). Five of these conversations present question-and-reply exchanges that take place within Odysseus’ long narrative in Books 9–12. These conversations generally provide a backdrop for some nearby speech or conversation that is presented in more detail.⁶⁴ The clearest example of this phenomenon is the summary provided by Odyssey 11.233–234, where Odysseus briefly encapsulates all of his individual conversations with the various heroines whom he encounters in the underworld: αἱ δὲ προμνηστῖναι ἐπήϊσαν, ἠδὲ ἑκάστη ὃν γόνον ἐξαγόρευεν· ἐγὼ δ’ ἐρέεινον ἁπάσας. So they waited and came to me in order, and each one told me about her origin, and I questioned all of them.

This presentation condenses as one conversation several different exchanges, which are narrated individually and in much greater detail immediately afterward (11.235–327). The main narrators, on the other hand, use non-direct speech to present an entire conversation only three times, all in the Iliad. These conversations show the characteristics that indirect speech in the Homeric poems is generally thought to have: one indirect conversation condenses several individual exchanges into one representative conversation (between Hector and the Trojan women at Iliad 6.238–241); one presents a conversation that happened in the past (between Othryoneus, recently killed by Idomeneus, and Priam at Iliad 13.365–369); and one presents the famous legal dispute on the shield of Achilles, where direct quotation seems highly implausible (Iliad 18.499–500). Though the main narrators use an indirect speech very occasionally in conversation to highlight a nearby direct quotation more strongly, or because a directive presented in indirect speech is refused rather than obeyed, they virtually never present the inherently expressive force of conversational exchange with anything other than the most expressive mode of speech presentation available. Indirect speech within conversation provides another example of speech presentation that appears at all narrative levels with a consistent set of properties, but is used at different narrative levels in different contexts to create different effects.

SPE ECH PR E SEN TAT ION in HOM ER IC EPIC

98

Beck-final.indb 98

6/26/12 7:56:38 PM

NO TA BL E E X A M PL E S OF I N DI R E C T S PE E C H

Any indirect speech presented by the main narrator of the Odyssey stands out because there are comparatively few instances. Two examples show indirect speech simultaneously following and going beyond the patterns examined above. Detailed analysis of each passage will show the basic property of indirect speech—brevity—used in atypical ways to shape key events and themes in the Odyssey.

odyssey 17.368: t he su itor s When Odysseus enters his palace disguised as a beggar, he begs from each of the suitors (17.365–366).⁶⁵ The majority of the suitors react appropriately to him: they pity him, they give him something to eat, and they ask each other who he is, using language that appears regularly in hospitality contexts (but is usually addressed to the unknown guest himself).⁶⁶ These suitors are not quoted directly. In contrast, Melantheus, who does not know the beggar’s name, and Antinous, who abuses both the beggar and Eumaeus, are quoted. As a result, this conversation overall focuses attention on the suitor who behaves badly, even though he appears at this point to be in the minority of the suitors as a whole (Od. 17.367–379). οἱ δ’ ἐλεαίροντες δίδοσαν, καὶ ἐθάμβεον αὐτὸν, ἀλλήλους τ’ εἴροντο τίς εἴη καὶ πόθεν ἔλθοι. τοῖσι δὲ καὶ μετέειπε Μελάνθιος, αἰπόλος αἰγῶν· “κέκλυτέ μευ, μνηστῆρες ἀγακλειτῆς βασιλείης, τοῦδε περὶ ξείνου· ἦ γάρ μιν πρόσθεν ὄπωπα. ἦ τοι μέν οἱ δεῦρο συβώτης ἡγεμόνευεν, αὐτὸν δ’ οὐ σάφα οἶδα, πόθεν γένος εὔχεται εἶναι.” ὣς ἔφατ’, Ἀντίνοος δ’ ἔπεσιν νείκεσσε συβώτην· “ὦ ἀρίγνωτε συβῶτα, τίη δὲ σὺ τόνδε πόλινδε ἤγαγες; ἦ οὐχ ἅλις ἧμιν ἀλήμονές εἰσι καὶ ἄλλοι, πτωχοὶ ἀνιηροί, δαιτῶν ἀπολυμαντῆρες; ἦ ὄνοσαι ὅτι τοι βίοτον κατέδουσιν ἄνακτος ἐνθάδ’ ἀγειρόμενοι, σὺ δὲ καὶ προτὶ τόνδ’ ἐκάλεσσας;” And they took pity and gave, and they wondered at him; they asked each other what man he was, and where he came from. But now Melanthios, the goat-herding man, said to them: “Hear me now, you suitors of our glorious queen, concerning this stranger; for I have seen him before; know then

INDIRECT SPEECH

99

Beck-final.indb 99

6/26/12 7:56:39 PM

that it was the swineherd who guided him here, but I do not know clearly who the man is himself, or what race he claims to come of.” So he spoke. Antinoös spoke then and scolded the swineherd: “O most distinguished swineherd, why did you bring this fellow to the city? Do we not already have enough other vagabonds, and bothersome beggars to ruin our feasting? Or, now that men gather here to eat up your master’s substance, is that not enough, but you had to invite this one in also?”

The underlined speech could equally well have appeared as a direct quotation introduced by the formula ὧδε δέ τις εἴπεσκεν ἰδὼν ἐς πλησίον ἄλλον (“And thus they would speak, each looking at the man next to him”), which is regularly used in exactly this kind of context to present as a single quotation a variety of similar speeches made by a group of people on a particular occasion.⁶⁷ Using indirect speech, when both the speech act type and the presenter of the speech are otherwise strongly not associated with indirect speech, affirmatively puts this question into the background of the conversation overall. In contrast, the direct quotations highlight people who act rudely toward the disguised Odysseus. Melantheus is less guilty in this regard than Antinous, since he only fails to know the beggar’s identity rather than explicitly advocating inhospitable behavior. At the same time, because his comment that Eumaeus brought the beggar leads to Antinous’ directly quoted speech (375–379), in which he abuses both Eumaeus and beggars as a class, Melantheus is closely associated with Antinous’ abuse. The main narrator presents Antinous’ speech as a reproach (ἔπεσιν νείκεσσε, “spoke . . . and scolded,” 374). It abuses beggars as a group (πτωχοὶ ἀνιηροί, δαιτῶν ἀπολυμαντῆρες, “bothersome beggars to ruin our feasting,” 377),⁶⁸ and it ironically criticizes Eumaeus for bringing the beggar among the suitors by using a rhetorical question (378–379). This irony can only appear in direct quotation, because its force depends on the gap between the literal content of Antinous’ speech and his intentions. This kind of gap consistently requires direct quotation to be presented; indeed, the condescension and arrogance of Antinous that the irony conveys may be seen as the main point of this conversation. The unusual indirect speech question immediately before Antinous’ speech underlines that Antinous behaves in a particularly nasty way here by depicting him against the background of the majority of suitors who do feed the beggar and feel pity for him. As the final act of the suitors’ lives gets under way—that is, when Odysseus meets them face to face for the first time—indirect speech used in an unusual context helps SPE ECH PR E SEN TAT ION in HOM ER IC EPIC

100

Beck-final.indb 100

6/26/12 7:56:40 PM

to highlight Antinous, the leader of the suitors, as he displays all the insolence and lack of proper ξενία that will ultimately lead to the deaths of all the suitors.

odyssey 23.310 – 343: odysseus The longest piece of indirect speech in Homeric epic presents the version of Odysseus’ adventures that he tells to Penelope when they are lying in bed together after their reunion. Analysis of Odyssey 23.310–343 is somewhat complicated by the fact that it falls after the τέλος of the poem that Aristarchus placed at 23.296;⁶⁹ the uniquely long indirect speech here is one of the objections that scholars have consistently raised to the post-τέλος section of the poem.⁷⁰ This discussion treats this passage as though it makes sense within the same speech presentation spectrum that operates throughout the Homeric poems. This is not done in order to avoid the issue of whether this part of the poem was composed at the same time as the rest of the Odyssey, or to offer spurious and circular proof that it was part of the same composition as the rest of the poem by assuming that it was and then offering a fruitful analysis based on that idea as proof of the original assumption. Instead, I assume that this passage can be analyzed using the idea of indirect speech that I have developed from studying the rest of the Homeric poems partly because it seems to me that the status of the post-τέλος section of the Odyssey cannot be definitively settled on the basis of our existing knowledge. Moreover, if this indirect speech makes sense within the speech presentation spectrum that I am developing for the Homeric poems overall—as I believe it does—that fact makes a modest contribution to the debate on the status of this speech. This speech of Odysseus includes both repeated verbs of speaking (ἄρξατο, 310; κατέλεξε, 321) and subordinate clauses to present the speech itself. Each verb of speaking governs a long series of subordinate clauses (whose subordinating conjunctions are underlined below). In addition, pieces of unsubordinated free indirect speech repeatedly crop up between clearly subordinate clauses.⁷¹ These features are at least as noteworthy as the length of the speech; both the length and the form of the speech make it unique in Homeric epic. The passage is quoted in its entirety here, because otherwise the length and the series of subordinate clauses dependent on a single verb of speaking will not be fully clear. ἄρξατο δ’ ὡς πρῶτον Κίκονας δάμασ’, αὐτὰρ ἔπειτα ἦλθ’ ἐς Λωτοφάγων ἀνδρῶν πίειραν ἄρουραν· ἠδ’ ὅσα Κύκλωψ ἔρξε, καὶ ὡς ἀπετίσατο ποινὴν INDIRECT SPEECH

101

Beck-final.indb 101

6/26/12 7:56:40 PM

ἰφθίμων ἑτάρων, οὓς ἤσθιεν οὐδ’ ἐλέαιρεν· ἠδ’ ὡς Αἴολον ἵκεθ’, ὅ μιν πρόφρων ὑπέδεκτο καὶ πέμπ’, οὐδέ πω αἶσα φίλην ἐς πατρίδ’ ἱκέσθαι ἤην, ἀλλά μιν αὖτις ἀναρπάξασα θύελλα πόντον ἐπ’ ἰχθυόεντα φέρεν βαρέα στενάχοντα· ἠδ’ ὡς Τηλέπυλον Λαιστρυγονίην ἀφίκανεν, οἳ νῆάς τ’ ὄλεσαν καὶ ἐϋκνήμιδας ἑταίρους πάντας· Ὀδυσσεὺς δ’ οἶος ὑπέκφυγε νηῒ μελαίνῃ. καὶ Κίρκης κατέλεξε δόλον πολυμηχανίην τε, ἠδ’ ὡς εἰς Ἀΐδεω δόμον ἤλυθεν εὐρώεντα, ψυχῇ χρησόμενος Θηβαίου Τειρεσίαο, νηῒ πολυκλήϊδι, καὶ ἔσιδε πάντας ἑταίρους μητέρα θ’, ἥ μιν ἔτικτε καὶ ἔτρεφε τυτθὸν ἐόντα· ἠδ’ ὡς Σειρήνων ἁδινάων φθόγγον ἄκουσεν, ὥς θ’ ἵκετο Πλαγκτὰς πέτρας δεινήν τε Χάρυβδιν Σκύλλην θ’, ἣν οὔ πώ ποτ’ ἀκήριοι ἄνδρες ἄλυξαν· ἠδ’ ὡς Ἠελίοιο βόας κατέπεφνον ἑταῖροι· ἠδ’ ὡς νῆα θοὴν ἔβαλε ψολόεντι κεραυνῷ Ζεὺς ὑψιβρεμέτης, ἀπὸ δ’ ἔφθιθεν ἐσθλοὶ ἑταῖροι πάντες ὁμῶς, αὐτὸς δὲ κακὰς ὑπὸ κῆρας ἄλυξεν· ὥς θ’ ἵκετ’ Ὠγυγίην νῆσον νύμφην τε Καλυψώ, ἣ δή μιν κατέρυκε λιλαιομένη πόσιν εἶναι ἐν σπέεσι γλαφυροῖσι, καὶ ἔτρεφεν ἠδὲ ἔφασκε θήσειν ἀθάνατον καὶ ἀγήρων ἤματα πάντα· ἀλλὰ τοῦ οὔ ποτε θυμὸν ἐνὶ στήθεσσιν ἔπειθεν· ἠδ’ ὡς ἐς Φαίηκας ἀφίκετο πολλὰ μογήσας, οἳ δή μιν περὶ κῆρι θεὸν ὣς τιμήσαντο καὶ πέμψαν σὺν νηῒ φίλην ἐς πατρίδα γαῖαν, χαλκόν τε χρυσόν τε ἅλις ἐσθῆτά τε δόντες. τοῦτ’ ἄρα δεύτατον εἶπεν ἔπος, ὅτε οἱ γλυκὺς ὕπνος λυσιμελὴς ἐπόρουσε, λύων μελεδήματα θυμοῦ. He began with how he had beaten the Kikonians, and then gone to the rich country of the men who feed on the lotus. He told all that the Cyclops had done, and how he took vengeance on him for his strong companions he had eaten, and showed no pity. How he came to Aiolos, who generously received him and gave him passage, but it was not fated for him to come back yet to his country, so the stormwinds caught and carried him out again on the sea where the fish swarm, groaning heavily; and how he came to Telepylos of the Laistrygones, SPE ECH PR E SEN TAT ION in HOM ER IC EPIC

102

Beck-final.indb 102

6/26/12 7:56:41 PM

and these men had destroyed his ships and strong-greaved companions all; but Odysseus only got away with his black ship. He told her of the guile and the many devices of Circe, and how he had gone into the moldering home of Hades, there to consult the soul of Theban Teiresias, going in his ship with many benches, and there saw all his companions, and his mother, who had borne him and nursed him when he was little. He told how he had heard the song of the echoing Sirens, and [how he]⁷² made his way to the Roving Rocks and dreaded Charybdis and Skylla, whom no men ever yet have escaped without damage. He told how his companions ate the cattle of Helios, then told how Zeus who thunders on high had struck his fast ship with the smoky thunderbolt, and all his noble companions perished alike, only he escaped the evil death spirits; and how he came to the island Ogygia and the nymph Kalypso who detained him with her, desiring that he should be her husband, in her hollow caverns, and she took care of him and told him that she would make him ageless all his days, and immortal, but never so could she persuade the heart that was in him; then how, after much suffering, he reached the Phaiakians, who honored him in their hearts as if he were a god, and sent him back, by ship, to the beloved land of his fathers, bestowing bronze and gold in abundance on him, and clothing. And this was the last word he spoke to her, when the sweet sleep came to relax his limbs and slip the cares from his spirit.

The speech presentation here has noticeable similarities to the use of extended indirect speech in Demodocus’ songs (Kelly 2008: 178–179). But it also has important differences. Indeed, the most striking feature of the speech, from a speech presentation point of view, is the way it presents so many subordinate clauses one after the other, in contrast to either the shorter indirect speeches we have looked at in the bulk of this chapter, which generally have either up to four infinitives or a single subordinate clause dependent on a given verb of speaking, or longer indirect speech. The most comparable example of extended indirect speech appears at Odyssey 8.499–520, in Demodocus’ song about the Trojan horse.⁷³ In Demodocus’ song, length is achieved not by myriad clauses whose subordinating conjunctions underline the presence of a reporting speaker, but by extended passages of free indirect speech where the reporting narrator (the main narrator of the Odyssey) meshes with the speaker whose words are being reported (Demodocus). INDIRECT SPEECH

103

Beck-final.indb 103

6/26/12 7:56:41 PM

On the one hand, the speech lacks the vividness of direct quotation, and it firmly subordinates Odysseus to the main narrator as the presenter of the speech in a way that neither direct quotation nor free indirect speech could achieve. On the other hand, the unique way of presenting indirect speech in our passage here means that it contains a level of detail similar to what it would have if it were presented with direct quotation. The combination of detail and distance provided by this mode of presenting Odysseus’ speech has several different functions.⁷⁴ From one point of view, this speech draws on one of the regular narrative functions of indirect speech, putting a speech into the background. However, indirect speech is used here to put the entire conversation in some sense into the background because it takes place in the bedroom.⁷⁵ Odysseus presents his pillow talk with Circe in a similar way: when the two are reunited after he returns from the underworld, he presents the conversation in which he tells her about his adventures in indirect speech (12.34–35). In contrast, he directly quotes the long speeches of instruction that she makes to him about how to complete his journey home (37–110 and 127–141), which are presumably less intimate and personal than the speeches that he presents with indirect speech.⁷⁶ In fact, lovers in Homeric poetry are never quoted directly, even though there are plenty of scenes of lovemaking that could include direct quotation. The extensive detail in our passage provides an entertaining opportunity for the audience to compare Odysseus’ version of his story here with the rather different version he tells to the Phaeacians, and with the main narrator’s version of some of the same events,⁷⁷ but at the same time, providing these details with indirect speech and not direct quotation draws a kind of veil between the characters and the audience that is entirely consistent with the way that sexual scenes are handled elsewhere in Homeric poetry. The use of indirect speech here rather than free indirect speech also has a link to the subject matter of the speech. As we will see in more detail in Chapter 5, the Odyssey never presents a narrator who is retelling events that overlap with the main storyline of the Odyssey using the most vivid and independent modes of speech presentation, either direct quotation or free indirect speech. Of Demodocus’ three songs, the one about Ares and Aphrodite stands out because it includes direct quotation and it blurs the identities of Demodocus and the main narrator the most. This is because it is the only song of the three where Odysseus and the Trojan War are not subjects. The songs of Demodocus that deal with Odysseus and the Greeks, in contrast, consistently highlight the main narrator’s presence the most emphatically in places where the subject matter comes closest to the subject matter of the Odyssey itself. Odysseus’ speech to Penelope here in Odyssey 23 SPE ECH PR E SEN TAT ION in HOM ER IC EPIC

104

Beck-final.indb 104

6/26/12 7:56:42 PM

stresses the main narrator’s presence even more insistently than Demodocus’ songs do, through the repeated subordinating conjunctions governing the different parts of the speech. In both Demodocus’ songs and Odysseus’ speech to Penelope, extended forms of speech presentation depict detailed versions of Odysseus’ story. The Odyssey focuses as strongly as it does on narrative and storytelling partly because it presents multiple versions of its central story, Odysseus’ homecoming, in different versions told by various narrators throughout the poem. At the same time, these narratives consistently emphasize that a mediating narrator is reporting these speeches to the audience, not the character whose speech is being reported. This means that the main narrator is depicted as the controlling force behind all of the stories that are told about Odysseus and the Trojan War, even the ones that are told by characters. Extended indirect speech in these contexts relates not to the nature of the narrator,⁷⁸ but to the nature of the subject matter: the main narrator, and no one else, will present the story of Odysseus and his homecoming.⁷⁹

C ONC LUS IONS

The consensus view of indirect speech in Homeric poetry is accurate in a limited and selective way, in that it describes only a small portion of the indirect speeches in the poem. If characters are taken as the norms for the presentation of indirect speech in Homeric epic, we see that indirect speech is not associated with directives any more strongly than direct quotation is: characters use indirect speech to present nearly as many assertives as directives, and indirect speech overall presents a proportion of directives similar to what we find in direct quotation. Moreover, indirect speech does not simply present speech that is objectively peripheral. Often, it affirmatively depicts certain kinds of speeches as less important than other parts of the narrative, sometimes in favor of a nearby speech, and sometimes because a whole class of speech (such as those presented by characters) would distract from larger narrative aims if it were presented with direct quotation. A truer picture of indirect speech found in the Homeric epics would say that it presents the basic content of a particular speech rather than the wide range of expressive features found in direct quotation. This mode of presenting speech appears in a limited set of circumstances at the level of the main narrator, but it is the norm for speech presented by characters. The most notable features that usually fall outside of indirect speech are long speeches with significant expressive detail about such features as speakers’ own opinions about their speeches, rationales for actions, and so on; the INDIRECT SPEECH

105

Beck-final.indb 105

6/26/12 7:56:42 PM

strongly conversational or expressive speech act types of questions, emotive speech acts, or reactive moves; singular addressees, who appear as addressees in a much smaller proportion of indirect speech than of direct quotation; and the specific subtype of directive speech acts, which are expressive because they often depend on aspects of the relationship between the speaker and the addressee. But indirect speech does allow expressive features to be presented, and when an indirect speech includes several kinds of expressive detail, this effect can be just as striking and vivid in its own way as direct quotation. Indirect speech plays an important role in shaping the narrative in the Homeric epics, a role that has been neglected because it plays out largely within character speech.

SPE ECH PR E SEN TAT ION in HOM ER IC EPIC

106

Beck-final.indb 106

6/26/12 7:56:43 PM

c h a p t e r f ou r

SPE EC H M E N T ION

The most basic quality of speech mention is a lack of specificity. It is not, as one might think, brevity, since indirect speech—at least as characters present it in their speech—is often nearly as brief as speech mention. Rather, speech mention leaves unstated or vague many aspects of speech that other speech presentation techniques pin down more specifically. The most important of these, of course, is the content of the speech. Probably because speech mention does not depict the content of a speech, most scholarly treatments of it assume either explicitly or implicitly that it is used for those speeches in a narrative that are least important.¹ These discussions generally describe speech mention without analyzing any individual examples of it before going on to examine more specific modes of speech presentation in greater detail. This widespread assumption that speech mention presents only unimportant speech (which, as we will see, is not entirely accurate) has led to the further assumption that speech mention itself is not important for understanding Homeric speech presentation and narrative construction. In fact, speech mention is a particularly suitable mode of speech presentation for several kinds of speech, such as speeches that are hypothetical because they did not happen (rather than because they might happen, or will happen in the future). Moreover, it is the most common mode of presentation for some speech act subtypes for which speech mention has no obvious affinity, including songs and promises. We gain a better understanding of these kinds of speeches if we consider how the qualities of speech mention as a mode of speech presentation mesh with the pragmatic features of the speech act subtypes in question, and why speech mention rather than a more detailed mode of speech presentation most commonly presents these kinds of speeches. This chapter challenges common assumptions about speech mention in several ways. First, it takes characters as the norm for speech mention, since

107

Beck-final.indb 107

6/26/12 7:56:43 PM

they present two-thirds of the speech mention found in the Homeric epics (307 instances out of 460). Second, it connects the lack of specificity in speech mention with positive qualities of speeches that are presented this way, rather than assuming that lack of specificity reflects a lack of importance in the speech being presented. For example, some kinds of speech mention lack specificity because the speech never happened; but the fact that a nonexistent speech is referred to at all contributes to the narrative. Other speeches draw on the basic qualities of speech mention either to highlight a neighboring quotation, as we saw with indirect speech, or to depict speeches that have some kind of secrecy associated with them. Moreover, conversations that include both speech mention and direct quotation tend to depict key themes of the poem in which they appear. In all these cases, speech mention is hardly a fallback way of presenting an unimportant speech. Rather, the qualities of speech mention help to shape the conversations in which it appears in particular ways. The first part of this chapter describes the common patterns for speech mention, including unspecified speech act types, unspecified speech act subtypes, and unspecified move types. All of these features are sometimes unspecified for other kinds of speech presentation as well, but only speech mention is characterized by this lack of specificity: over half of the occurrences of speech mention (292 of 460 instances) have one of these characteristics, or some combination of them. The last section of this chapter discusses examples of speech mention where its lack of specificity makes a clear and pointed contribution to the episode in which it appears.

B A SE L I N E PAT T E R NS FOR SPE E C H M E N T ION

The basic properties and effects of speech mention are broadly similar for narrator-presented speech and for character-presented speech. At the same time, the characters use speech mention much more than the main narrators do: they use it more times absolutely, as a greater proportion of their speech presentation overall, and for more different kinds of speech acts. This part of the chapter will explore this general statement in more detail, focusing successively on speeches where the speech act type, subtype, and move type are unspecified. Speech mention appears primarily in speeches presented by characters (307 of 460 instances, 67 percent). The main narrators present 126 instances of speech mention (27 percent).² From a different perspective, 9 percent of speech presented by the main narrators appears as speech mention (126 of 1,473 instances), whereas 36 percent of speech presented by characSPE ECH PR E SEN TAT ION in HOM ER IC EPIC

108

Beck-final.indb 108

6/26/12 7:56:44 PM

ters is speech mention (307 of 856). Although speech mention appears quite often in characters’ speeches, it is not the most common mode of presenting speech at any narrative level. Both the characters and the main narrator most regularly use a mode of speech that allows the content of the speech to appear to at least some degree. As with other modes of speech presentation, directives comprise the largest group of speech acts presented in speech mention (215 instances, 47 percent). Unspecified speech act types form the next largest category of speech act type (104 instances, 23 percent), followed closely by assertives (98 instances, 21 percent). Seven percent of speech mentions present questions (31 instances, all but four of which appear in the Odyssey), and just 3 percent present emotives (12 instances). For speeches with unspecified speech act types, directives, and assertives, these proportions are broadly similar across both narrative levels.³ Questions, however, are three times as likely to appear in speech mention presented by characters as they are in speech mention presented by the main narrators.⁴ The proportion of various kinds of moves in speech mention is quite consistent across narrative levels. The majority of speech mentions present an initial move (55 percent, 253 instances). One-third of speech mentions do not have a specified move type (156 instances). Over 10 percent have a reactive move (50 instances), which is twice the proportion of reactive moves found in indirect speech (33 of 589, 6 percent). This is because speech mention is regularly used to present expected replies that are not made. With that exception, the kinds of speeches that are least common in speech mention are the same ones that are least common in indirect speech, namely, those that have particularly strong conversational ties (questions, reactive moves) or expressive force (emotive speech acts). We will see that the characters use speech mention in a broader range of ways than the main narrators do. In addition, characters consistently minimize or do not include the expressive qualities of the speeches they present in contexts where the main narrators would emphasize these very qualities.

u nspecified speech ac t t y pe In several contexts, the speech act type of a speech presented with speech mention is consistently not specified. For instance, as with indirect speech, some speech act subtypes may appear as either of two speech act types: a rebuke may be a directive if it specifies a different course of action that the addressee should take, and an emotive if it does not.⁵ Such speeches may have a clear speech act subtype without having a clear type. If the speech mention presents a hypothetical speech, it may lack any specifying information beyond that it did not happen, as with the common formula ὣς SPEECH MENTION

109

Beck-final.indb 109

6/26/12 7:56:44 PM

φάτο· τὸν [or τὴν] δ᾽ οὔ τι προσέφη [name-epithet formula] (“He/she spoke thus. But [name-epithet formula] made no answer”), which occurs six times in the Iliad, once in the Odyssey. Finally, speech mention may be vague about the speech act type because it is generalizing several different speeches into one representative speech.⁶ This phenomenon is much more common in character-presented speech than in speech mention presented by the main narrators. This generalizing effect is analogous to the way the main narrators use τις speeches. These categories are not mutually exclusive (e.g., a given speech mention may present a rebuke that is also hypothetical, as in Iliad 1.578–579), but they provide an overview of the range of qualities commonly associated with speech mentions that lack a specified speech act type. Both the main narrators and characters regularly use speech mention to present both message deliveries (ἀγγελ-),⁷ which, depending on their content, might be either assertive or directive, and assembly gatherings (ἀγορ-), where the individual speeches that make up the assembly as a whole might include several different speech act types.⁸ The main narrator also presents two greetings (which might be either directive or emotive).⁹ All of these kinds of speech mention present conversations where the key feature of the conversation is the process of exchanging information rather than the content of the information exchanged. Some speech mentions that do not specify the type of the presented speech are presenting hypothetical speech, where in an important sense there may be no content to present. The main narrators use the formula ὣς φάτο· τὸν [or τὴν] δ᾽ οὔ τι προσέφη [name/epithet formula] to indicate—using the verb προσέφη, which is strongly associated with reactive moves in particular—that a character does not reply to a speech when, we infer, it might have been expected that he would do so.¹⁰ In other words, these non-replies are in some sense problematic moves, since in the vast majority of cases where someone does not reply to a speech, the conversation is simply over, and the lack of further speech does not call for any particular comment. For example, when Thetis first supplicates Zeus and asks him to honor Achilles by giving strength to the Trojan forces (Iliad 1.503–510), the formula just noted states that he says nothing (1.511–512). Thetis then gives the same directive again (514–516), a rare example of a second speech that repeats the move of a previous speech.¹¹ In Odysseus’ long narrative in Od. 9–12, he presents non-speech much as the main narrators do. Perhaps most famously, Odysseus addresses the shade of Ajax when he visits the underworld and gets no answer (ὣς ἐφάμην· ὁ δέ μ’ οὐδὲν ἀμείβετο, “So I spoke. He gave no answer,” Od. 11.563 = 9.287). There is by definition no content and no speech act type for a speech presented as “X did not anSPE ECH PR E SEN TAT ION in HOM ER IC EPIC

110

Beck-final.indb 110

6/26/12 7:56:45 PM

swer.”¹² What is important in these cases is that an expected response did not materialize. Once again, these speech mentions depict a particular kind of conversational interaction rather than the content of a speech. The last common characteristic of speech mentions that do not specify a speech act type is that they generalize several different speeches into one representative speech. As a result, the speech mention may comprise speeches of different types, making it impossible to present all of them in any detail with a single speech presentation. The main narrators do this rarely,¹³ whereas the characters regularly use speech mention in this kind of context.¹⁴ They often use it to present multiple speeches by the same speaker, as when Athena tells the rest of the gods that Calypso is continuously bewitching the captive Odysseus (αἰεὶ δὲ μαλακοῖσι καὶ αἱμυλίοισι λόγοισι / θέλγει, “And ever with soft and flattering words she works to / charm him,” Od. 1.56–57); they also use it for generalizing relative clauses that do not describe any particular person, but rather a set of circumstances (e.g., ὃς δέ κ᾽ ἀνήνηται καί τε στερεῶς ἀποείπῃ, “But if a man shall deny them, and stubbornly with a harsh word / refuse,” Iliad 9.510, as Phoenix describes any person who slights the Litae). As we have seen in Chapter 1, the main narrators tend to generalize many different speeches into one representative speech not with speech mention to present several speeches by one speaker, but with one τις quotation to present a summary or overview of what a group of characters said on a particular occasion. Speech presented by the main narrators to capture more than one speech aims at the same time to present expressive features of these different utterances, while the characters pay comparatively little attention to the expressive value of such speeches. Some of their speech mentions, like πάντας . . . μύθους (“all . . . thoughts,” Iliad 1.545) for Zeus’ speeches, pay no attention to expressive features of the presented speech, while a few do give some expressive coloring to generalizing speech mentions (e.g., Athena’s description of Calypso’s enchantments above as μαλακοῖσι καὶ αἱμυλίοισι, “soft and flattering,” quoted above). Overall, though, non-mimetic representative speech presented by character narrators has fewer expressive features than the τις quotations that commonly present such speeches at the level of the main narrators. Characters present a broader range of speeches in speech mention whose speech act type is unclear than the main narrators do. These include speeches conveying information in circumstances that leave vague whether the speech contained only information (a statement) or also conveyed a directive to the addressee;¹⁵ refusals (ἀναίνομαι, not a subtype per se, but a regularly occurring conversational turn for which specific vocabulary exists);¹⁶ and one interrogative speech act that might be either a question or SPEECH MENTION

111

Beck-final.indb 111

6/26/12 7:56:46 PM

a request (αὐτίκα δ᾽ Ἰδομενῆα μετάλλα ἄστυδ᾽ ἀνελθών, “He went up to the town at once, and asked for Idomeneus,” Od. 19.190). Characters also report rebukes with speech mention, which, like messages and assembly speeches, have specific vocabulary that identifies them as rebukes. Of the ten rebukes presented by characters, eight are speech mention.¹⁷ They can be classified as either directives or emotives, depending on whether they propose an alternative course of action to the addressee in addition to blaming him or her for their current course of action. Most of the rebukes presented by characters with speech mention use forms of νεικέω (“quarrel, chide”) or ἐνίπτω (“reprove, upbraid”).¹⁸ For example, when Sarpedon exchanges taunts with Tlepolemus in Iliad 5, he mentions Laomedon: ὅς ῥά μιν [Heracles] εὖ ἔρξαντα κακῷ ἠνίπαπε μύθῳ (“who gave Herakles an evil word in return for good treatment,” 650). This formulation leaves vague whether Laomedon simply abused Heracles (an emotive), or he also told him to do something (a directive). In contrast, 57 rebukes are presented in the Homeric poems overall,¹⁹ of which more than three-quarters (46) are direct quotations by the main narrators. Moreover, no rebukes presented by the main narrators appear in a non-direct mode of speech presentation. This difference between the main narrators and the characters as presenters of rebukes highlights a key difference between character narrators and the main narrators: any speech act type with a strong expressive quality, such as rebuke, is highly likely to be quoted directly in speeches presented by the main narrators. Characters, in contrast, generally have comparatively little interest either in the emotional lives of other characters (hence the much smaller number of rebukes presented by characters, since a rebuke presents the emotions of the speaker) or in presenting those emotions (hence speech mention rather than a mode of presentation that could convey some expressive features of the speech itself in addition to the speech act subtype). Similarly, characters use speech mention to show conflict in a conversational exchange, including both quarreling and refusing. When such moves appear as speech mention, it is unclear whether the person refusing simply says “no”—an assertive—or issues some kind of reactive directive.²⁰ As we have seen, conversation itself has an expressive force in speech presented by the main narrators, particularly problematic moves, which are presented with direct quotation a greater percentage of the time than any other move type. This expressive dimension does not trigger direct quotation in character-presented speech the way it does in speech presented by the main narrator. Characters, in other words, present various kinds of expressivity differently from the main narrators. They present less of it as an overall proportion of their speech, and when they do present it,

SPE ECH PR E SEN TAT ION in HOM ER IC EPIC

112

Beck-final.indb 112

6/26/12 7:56:46 PM

they use less expressive modes of speech presentation than the main narrators do. This means that the poems focus strongly and consistently on the emotions of the characters from the perspective of the main narrators, rather than on the characters’ views of either their own emotions or those of other characters.

u nspecified speech ac t subt y pe From the point of view of speech act type, directives constitute the largest fraction of speech mentions (215 of 460, or nearly half); and directives have the most extensive and clear system of subtypes among the different speech act types. Thus, conclusions about directives describe a large proportion of speech mention overall, and the detailed typology of subtypes for directives means that drawing comparisons between directives with and without a clear subtype is fairly straightforward. Assertives are the only other speech act type presented at all frequently with speech mention,²¹ and, as I will note as I go along, they follow the same general tendencies as directives do when they appear as speech mention with an unspecified speech act type. Where speech mention does make the subtype of a directive clear,²² specific vocabulary for the particular subtype being presented makes it possible to identify the subtype without any notion of the content of the speech. The most common examples of such type-specific speech mention verbs are εὔχομαι (“boast, vaunt”) and λίσσομαι (“beg, entreat”).²³ λίσσομαι, used for strongly emotional directives in which a speaker tries to get his addressee to do something based on an emotional connection or appeal, appears regularly for speech mention in character-presented speech,²⁴ but just once in speech presented by the main narrators (Iliad 10.454–455, referring to an attempted supplication that never takes place).²⁵ As with rebukes, characters are much more likely than the main narrators to use speech mention for highly expressive speech acts. Where the main narrators strongly prefer direct quotation for particularly emotional speech types, such as rebuke and λίσσομαι speeches, the characters do the exact opposite: of the 39 speeches of supplication or plea that they present, more than half are presented with speech mention (20), and only four, all in Odysseus’ long narrative in Odyssey 9–12, are quoted directly. As with rebukes, the characters use speech mention more often than any other mode of speech presentation to depict strongly expressive speech, while the main narrators use speech mention hardly at all to present the same types of speech. For all directives, regardless of what kind of speech presentation mode is used to depict them, characters are much more likely than the main nar-

SPEECH MENTION

113

Beck-final.indb 113

6/26/12 7:56:47 PM

rators to present a directive without a clear subtype. The main narrators present 839 directives, of which over 90 percent (791) have a clear subtype. The characters, in contrast, present more than one-quarter (128 of 436) of their directives without a specified subtype. Instead, they simply indicate that a directive occurred, using a common verb of ordering like κελεύω or καλέω. Characters devote less attention than the main narrators to presenting the subtype of directives for several reasons. First, as I noted in the previous chapter, the subtype of a speech, especially the subtype of directives, entails various expressive features of the situation, features in which characters consistently show less interest than the main narrators across all modes of speech presentation. With speech mention in particular, directives narrated by characters often focus attention more on the effect of the directive on the addressee—usually persuasion or obedience—than on the directive itself. For instance, when Paris responds to Hector’s rebuke that urges Paris to go out to fight (Iliad 6.326–331), he says that Helen has “persuaded” him to enter the battle: νῦν δέ με παρειποῦσ’ ἄλοχος μαλακοῖς ἐπέεσσιν / ὅρμησ’ ἐς πόλεμον (“But just now with soft words my wife was winning me over / and urging me into the fight,” 337–338). Paris is concerned here with the persuasive effect of Helen’s speech on himself, not with the exact content or nature of the speech that she used to achieve that effect. The main narrators, too, regularly report the effects of directives,²⁶ but the directives themselves generally overshadow these comments. In other words, just as speech mention whose speech act type is unspecified consistently presents conversations where the exchange process rather than what was exchanged is paramount, so, too, characters consistently use speech mention to present directives for which the effect of the speech on the addressee is much more relevant than what the speaker said.

u nspecified mov e t y pe This section focuses on speech mentions where the speech act type and subtype are specified, but the move is not. That is to say, these are speeches where the lack of specificity about the move is not related to or caused by any other sort of non-specificity. The main narrators and character narrators differ markedly in what speech act subtypes they present using speech mention with unspecified move. Unlike speeches whose speech act type or subtype are unspecified, where narrators at different levels resemble each other fairly closely, the main narrators and the characters use speech mention to present speeches whose move is unspecified in ways that hardly overlap at all. Indeed, speech mention without a specified move regularly presents only

SPE ECH PR E SEN TAT ION in HOM ER IC EPIC

114

Beck-final.indb 114

6/26/12 7:56:48 PM

two kinds of speech acts, song and promise: over half of the 64 speech mentions without a clear move are either song (21, comprising over two-thirds of the 27 songs presented in the Homeric epics) or promise (13, nearly onethird of 40 promises). For narrator-presented speech mentions with unspecified move type, the most common speech act type is song.²⁷ Characters, on the other hand, most commonly present promises with unspecified moves. Neither songs nor promises have clear default expectations about what their moves are likely to be, as distinct from prayers, which are virtually always initial moves, or replies, which are usually reactive. Songs are classified as a conversational speech type because a group is always present when a song is performed, so some kind of verbal exchange takes place between people when a song is sung. However, songs do not take part in a conversational exchange in the same way as other speech genres do. This means that the default expectation for song, unusually, is that it does not have a specified move. Promises, on the other hand, may be offered either as a response to some kind of directive (reactive) or spontaneously as the start of a conversational exchange (initial). Similarly, promises that lack both content and a surrounding conversational context often lack a clear move type. Noting the association between speech mention without a specified move type and these particular speech act subtypes emphasizes that this lack of strong conversational involvement is a normal part of these types of speeches. Promises overall are distributed broadly among different kinds of moves. Forty promises are presented in Homeric epic, of which 10 are initial, 6 are reactive, and 23 have unspecified moves.²⁸ Unsurprisingly given how rarely direct quotation has an unspecified move, only five promises are directly quoted,²⁹ and nearly half are presented with speech mention (19); three-quarters (31) are presented by characters. In other words, characterpresented speech mention without a specified type is not an aberration for promises, but the norm. Such promises focus primarily on the person who promised something, and secondarily—if at all—on what he promised. Some promises use an accusative object to state the content of the promise.³⁰ Others make some reference to a previous speech, or to their own immediate conversational context, as when Hector angrily rebuffs Poulydamas partly by contrasting his craven advice with promises made by Zeus (Iliad 12.235–236). ὃς κέλεαι Ζηνὸς μὲν ἐριγδούποιο λαθέσθαι βουλέων, ἅς τέ μοι αὐτὸς ὑπέσχετο καὶ κατένευσε. You who are telling me to forget the counsels of thunderous Zeus, in which he himself nodded his head to me and assented.

SPEECH MENTION

115

Beck-final.indb 115

6/26/12 7:56:48 PM

μοι αὐτός in this example strongly underlines the basic thrust of the promises presented by characters: some important person guarantees a particular statement. What is guaranteed—the content of the promise—is often either implied by the context or not stated at all. Characters regularly present promises in such a way as to privilege the authority of the speaker of a promise over what the promise actually said. The main narrators, in contrast, rarely present promises as a main speech act,³¹ and when they do, they do not use speech mention. Insofar as the main narrators present promises at all, they present the content as well as the authority for the statement. Characters present promises as part of their ongoing conflicts with each other about authority and who has the power to compel others to do what he wants,³² a conflict that the main narrators present through the characters and to which they do not often refer in their own voices. In this way, the main narrators depict rather than explicitly take sides in these disputes. Songs differ not only from promises but from all other genres of speech in two ways. Although songs always happen in groups, they lack a strong connection to conversational exchange. Moreover, although songs are presented mostly by the main narrators, they are at the same time presented almost entirely with non-direct speech presentation techniques. The main narrators use the same vocabulary (primarily forms of ἀείδω) to refer both to their own singing as the narrators of the Iliad and the Odyssey and to the songs of characters within the poems, clearly showing that the songs have some essential similarity. At the same time, the narrators’ own songs and the songs of characters look entirely different as presentations of speech. Furthermore, the presentation of characters’ songs by the main narrators differs fundamentally from the main narrators’ presentation of any other kind of speech. The fact that speech mention is the most common way for the main narrators to present characters’ songs encapsulates many of the unique features of song as a speech act subtype in the Homeric poems. No scholar has previously pointed out that song is the only kind of speech presented by the main narrators where the default presentation strategy is speech mention. We find 27 references to songs in the Homeric poems, four of which are presented by characters.³³ Of the 23 songs presented by the main narrators,³⁴ 16 are presented with speech mention. Most of these references simply state that singing took place, just as the bulk of the promises presented by characters omit the content in order to focus on the act of promising. Songs occur regularly in the Homeric poems, and clearly the main narrator of the Odyssey in particular is keenly interested in the songs of other singers. But songs of characters, unlike any other kind of speaking, are rarely quoted directly by the main narrators, and they never do so in the same manner that they directly quote other kinds of speech. SPE ECH PR E SEN TAT ION in HOM ER IC EPIC

116

Beck-final.indb 116

6/26/12 7:56:49 PM

For the most part, characters’ songs have a performance context but little or no content. As we have seen, this approach to speech presentation is common for characters, but unparalleled for other genres of speech regularly presented by the main narrators. At all narrative levels—including the characters’ references to other characters’ songs, the main narrators’ presentation of character poets, and the main narrators’ references to their own songs—speech mention presents song in similar ways: song is presented primarily with speech mention alone, but speech mention also appears in combination with indirect speech and/or free indirect speech to present certain songs in more detail. For instance, the first reference to Phemius in Odyssey 1 simply says that “he was singing,” focusing more on the performance context—the instrument Phemius uses, the audience who hears the song—than on what the song is about (1.153–155). κῆρυξ δ’ ἐν χερσὶν κίθαριν περικαλλέα θῆκε Φημίῳ, ὅς ῥ’ ἤειδε παρὰ μνηστῆρσιν ἀνάγκῃ. ἦ τοι ὁ φορμίζων ἀνεβάλλετο καλὸν ἀείδειν. A herald put the beautifully wrought lyre in the hands of Phemios, who sang for the suitors, because they made him. He played his lyre and struck up a fine song.

In this case, Phemius is described at a specific time where he sang a particular song (or songs),³⁵ but other speech mentions for song describe generalized or habitual singing whose topics presumably varied from instance to instance, so no specific content appears.³⁶ Some songs presented with speech mention also include relative clauses, which otherwise rarely occur in conjunction with speech mention,³⁷ to give some idea of the content of the song. Such relative clauses occur for both the main narrators’ own songs and those of poems presented by characters. Indeed, the openings of both the Iliad (quoted below, 1.1–2) and the Odyssey take the form of an imperative to the Muse to sing about the topic of the poem, framed as speech mention, which is then expanded with a relative clause.³⁸ Μῆνιν ἄειδε, θεά, Πηληϊάδεω Ἀχιλῆος, οὐλομένην, ἣ μυρί’ Ἀχαιοῖς ἄλγε’ ἔθηκε. Sing, goddess, the anger of Peleus’ son Achilleus and its devastation, which put pains thousandfold upon the Achaians.

This invocation is a speech mention (μῆνιν ἄειδε, “Sing the anger”) followed by a relative clause that expands on what exactly μῆνιν entails. The SPEECH MENTION

117

Beck-final.indb 117

6/26/12 7:56:49 PM

narrative then stops referring to the Muse as the source of the poem in favor of a narrative spoken by the narrator. This structure differs from the opening of Phemius’ song above only in that the Iliad keeps going after the relative clause, whereas Phemius’ song does not. What is the effect of consistently omitting the presentation of both the content and expressive features for characters’ songs, as speech mention does? It is insufficient to attribute this to a desire to avoid “distract[ing] from the scenes giving rise to”³⁹ the songs, since no other genre of speech appears predominantly in non-direct modes of presentation at the level of the main narrators. Nor does it seem likely, as Edwards (1987: 40) suggests, that clarity about whose poem is being sung is the goal, since the second song of Demodocus derives its considerable effect partly from the sustained sense that the voices of Demodocus and the main narrator have merged into one ambiguous voice. Generally speaking, the main narrators prefer to hand over the speaking in the poems to the characters, but apparently not when the characters are speaking as poets.⁴⁰ The poets whose words are presented most faithfully in the Iliad and the Odyssey are the main narrators themselves, not the characters who are poets. Whatever expressive force belongs to song as a genre attaches mainly to the main narrators’ own songs and not to those of the characters.⁴¹ Song “belongs” to the main narrators and not to the characters, both because they and not characters present the vast majority of songs that occur within the poems and because characters who make songs—unlike characters who perform virtually any other kind of speech act—are presented mainly with the speech presentation technique that avoids as much as possible giving any content or expressive features of the speech in question. The main narrators use speech presentation strategies for song that differ almost completely from the norms of any other kind of speech presentation, in order to privilege their own songs without ignoring the existence or importance of song in the world of the characters. This effect becomes much clearer if we understand the degree to which song differs from other kinds of speech not so much in using different speech presentation strategies, but in using commonly found strategies in unique ways.⁴² NO TA BL E E X A M PL E S OF S PE E C H M E N T ION

speech mention pr esented by bot h t he m a in na r r ator s a nd ch a r ac ter s Some ways of using the typical qualities of speech mention to shape an episode can be found in speech presented by both the characters and the main

SPE ECH PR E SEN TAT ION in HOM ER IC EPIC

118

Beck-final.indb 118

6/26/12 7:56:50 PM

narrators. As with indirect speech, discussed in Chapter 3 above, both levels of narrators use speech mention in combination with direct quotation in a single conversation to focus stronger attention on the directly quoted speech. For example, the moment when Achilles calls for Patroclus to find out what is happening on the battlefield in Iliad 11 (602– 606) represents a crucial turning point in the story, beginning the sequence of events that ultimately leads to the death of Patroclus.⁴³ προσέειπε appears here as a speech mention to introduce Achilles’ first speech to his companion. αἶψα δ’ ἑταῖρον ἑὸν Πατροκλῆα προσέειπε, φθεγξάμενος παρὰ νηός· ὃ δὲ κλισίηθεν ἀκούσας ἔκμολεν ἶσος Ἄρηϊ, κακοῦ δ’ ἄρα οἱ πέλεν ἀρχή. τὸν πρότερος προσέειπε Μενοιτίου ἄλκιμος υἱός· “τίπτέ με κικλήσκεις, Ἀχιλεῦ; τί δέ σε χρεὼ ἐμεῖο;” At once he spoke to his own companion in arms, Patroklos, calling from the ship, and he heard it from inside the shelter, and came out like the war god, and this was the beginning of his evil. The strong son of Menoitios spoke first, and addressed him: “What do you wish with me, Achilleus? Why do you call me?”

Verse 11.602 is the only time that προσέειπε (“he spoke to”) introduces non-direct speech in over 200 appearances of the verb. That being the case, Achilles’ speech here almost certainly uses words rather than being some kind of nonverbal summons,⁴⁴ but at the same time, speech mention presents his words in such concise and vague terms that it is impossible to decide whether Patroclus’ directly quoted question in verse 606 is a response to what Achilles said that asks for clarification, or an initial move that starts a new exchange.⁴⁵ A question presented in direct quotation by the main narrator whose move type is unspecified appears only here in the Homeric poems.⁴⁶ In contrast, Patroclus’ response to Achilles’ summons is quoted directly, and he is described with the adjective πρότερος, implying that he was the first to speak. In fact, he was only the first to be quoted directly, and his speech—just one verse in which he asks why Achilles has called him—is no more or less important or interesting than Achilles’ request that precedes it. By using both speech mention and direct speech in one conversation, the narrator presents Patroclus as the “first” speaker, although in fact he is responding to a summons. This mode of presentation implies that in a larger sense, Patroclus actively takes the initiative in his own doom.⁴⁷ The presentation of speech here, in fact, serves an analogous function to

SPEECH MENTION

119

Beck-final.indb 119

6/26/12 7:56:50 PM

the narrator’s unusually expressive aside in verse 604. In this conversation, speech mention de-emphasizes one speech in order to make another speech more prominent. Because both speeches appear to be equally important (or unimportant) from an objective point of view, we can see this effect particularly clearly in this conversation. Perhaps unsurprisingly, given how rarely most characters use direct quotation to present speech, the only character to combine quotation with speech mention is Odysseus. When he and Telemachus make plans for dealing with the suitors after Odysseus reveals himself to his son in Odyssey 16, Odysseus instructs Telemachus to remove some weapons from the hall at his own signal. As part of these instructions, he presents a hypothetical conversation between Telemachus and the suitors in which the suitors’ question about Telemachus’ behavior is presented with speech mention and his deceitful reply is quoted directly (Od. 16.286–294). αὐτὰρ μνηστῆρας μαλακοῖς ἐπέεσσι παρφάσθαι, ὅτε κέν σε μεταλλῶσιν ποθέοντες· “ἐκ καπνοῦ κατέθηκ’, ἐπεὶ οὐκέτι τοῖσιν ἐῴκει οἷά ποτε Τροίηνδε κιὼν κατέλειπεν Ὀδυσσεύς, ἀλλὰ κατῄκισται, ὅσσον πυρὸς ἵκετ’ ἀϋτμή. πρὸς δ’ ἔτι καὶ τόδε μεῖζον ἐνὶ φρεσὶ θῆκε Κρονίων, μή πως οἰνωθέντες, ἔριν στήσαντες ἐν ὑμῖν, ἀλλήλους τρώσητε καταισχύνητέ τε δαῖτα καὶ μνηστύν· αὐτὸς γὰρ ἐφέλκεται ἄνδρα σίδηρος.” And beguile the suitors with soft words when they miss [the weapons] and ask you about them:⁴⁸ “I stored them away out of the smoke, since they are no longer like what Odysseus left behind when he went to Troy land, but are made foul, with all the smoke of the fire upon them. Also, the son of Kronos put into my head this even greater thought, that with the wine in you, you might stand up and fight, and wound each other, and spoil the feast and the courting, since iron all of itself works on a man and attracts him.”

This passage highlights what Telemachus says within this hypothetical conversation in multiple ways. Although the suitors begin the exchange with their question, presented in Odysseus’ speech with speech mention at 287, their initial speech comes after Telemachus’ reactive move. Moreover, the imperatival expression μαλακοῖς ἐπέεσσι / παρφάσθαι (“Beguile them with soft words,” 286–287), which introduces the reply that Odysseus SPE ECH PR E SEN TAT ION in HOM ER IC EPIC

120

Beck-final.indb 120

6/26/12 7:56:51 PM

wants Telemachus to make, would be sufficient to present his reply from the point of view of narrative clarity. Instead, Odysseus directly quotes the answer he wants Telemachus to give, which focuses extra attention on it partly by means of its length and partly through the vividness and expressivity provided by the words of the direct quotation. The end of the speech is addressed directly to the suitors (ἀλλήλους τρώσητε καταισχύνητέ, “You might . . . wound each other and spoil . . . ,” 293), a form of language that would be impossible without direct quotation. The speech overall depicts the gap between Telemachus’ intentions toward the suitors and what he says to them. Although this plan about hiding the weapons does not work out the way Odysseus intends,⁴⁹ Telemachus consistently deceives the suitors in the last third of the poem, sometimes by maintaining the pretense that Odysseus is simply a beggar, and memorably in the bow contest when he fakes an inability to string the bow just as he was on the verge of doing so (Od. 21.124– 139). Odysseus’ speech here in Book 16 highlights—albeit in hypothetical prospect rather than in reality—the point when Telemachus begins to help his father regain his footing in Ithaca by demonstrating maturity and the family capacity for deception toward the suitors. After Odysseus returns home, he has a marked effect on Telemachus, who shows greater maturity and a greater resemblance to his father than he has earlier in the poem. Indeed, this development in Telemachus’ character is one of the important themes of the poem.⁵⁰ Odysseus himself speaks the words that dramatize that theme as it gets under way, in a combination of speech mention with direct speech that highlights Telemachus deceiving the suitors. Both the main narrator (Iliad 16.693) and Hector (Iliad 22.297) use καλέω to present speech mention in connection with thematically linked important deaths in the poem. In both of these scenes, καλέω presents a directive in speech mention with an unclear subtype, which as we have seen is common for speech presented either by the main narrators or by characters. In both cases, however, the subtype is unspecified because the directive in question is in some sense metaphorical rather than literal and therefore cannot have a subtype. The general characteristics of these καλέω speeches are familiar, but both scenes use these familiar patterns in unexpected ways that highlight the striking nature of the sentiments expressed at a crucial moment in the overall narrative. Toward the end of Iliad 16, a long passage of narrative offers an unusually large amount and variety of expressive content from the narrator, as a transition from the death of Sarpedon to the death of Patroclus. The narrator’s comments strongly mark the point in the poem when Patroclus’ death is imminent (16.684– 693). SPEECH MENTION

121

Beck-final.indb 121

6/26/12 7:56:52 PM

Πάτροκλος δ’ ἵπποισι καὶ Αὐτομέδοντι κελεύσας Τρῶας καὶ Λυκίους μετεκίαθε, καὶ μέγ’ ἀάσθη νήπιος· εἰ δὲ ἔπος Πηληϊάδαο φύλαξεν, ἦ τ’ ἂν ὑπέκφυγε κῆρα κακὴν μέλανος θανάτοιο. ἀλλ’ αἰεί τε Διὸς κρείσσων νόος ἠέ περ ἀνδρῶν· ὅς τε καὶ ἄλκιμον ἄνδρα φοβεῖ καὶ ἀφείλετο νίκην ῥηϊδίως, ὅτε δ’ αὐτὸς ἐποτρύνῃσι μάχεσθαι· ὅς οἱ καὶ τότε θυμὸν ἐνὶ στήθεσσιν ἀνῆκεν. Ἔνθα τίνα πρῶτον, τίνα δ’ ὕστατον ἐξενάριξας, Πατρόκλεις, ὅτε δή σε θεοὶ θάνατόνδε κάλεσσαν; But Patroklos, with a shout to Automedon and his horses, went after Trojans and Lykians in a huge blind fury. Besotted: had he only kept the command of Peleiades he might have got clear away from the evil spirit of black death. But always the mind of Zeus is a stronger thing than a man’s mind. He terrifies even the warlike man, he takes away victory lightly, when he himself has driven a man into battle as now he drove on the fury in the heart of Patroklos. Then who was it you slaughtered first, who was the last one, Patroklos, as the gods called you to your death?

νήπιος (“childish, silly,” here “besotted,” 686) is an unusual example of an evaluative word that regularly appears in narrator text,⁵¹ and conditions with affirmative protases appear elsewhere almost exclusively in direct speech.⁵² The question in 692– 693 is not a true desire for information, but has the force of an “expressive statement.”⁵³ The expressive power of this question includes not only the question form, but also the direct address to Patroclus⁵⁴ and the unusual phrase σε θεοὶ θάνατόνδε κάλεσσαν (“The gods called you to your death”). The basic structure “[nominative] [form of καλέω] [accusative]” regularly occurs to present directives in speech mention. Directives that call an assembly may also include information about the place to which the addressee is summoned.⁵⁵ Here, θάνατόνδε remakes a common pattern into a striking expression that presents not a literal directive but a vivid, metaphorical representation of the death awaiting Patroclus as some kind of inexorable divine assembly or message of which he is the recipient.⁵⁶ Hector voices a similar sentiment at the beginning of his soliloquy, at the moment when he has realized that he is about to die. He asks the figure he thinks is Deiphobus to give him another spear (Iliad 22.294–295), and when he turns and finds Deiphobus gone,⁵⁷ he knows that his death is SPE ECH PR E SEN TAT ION in HOM ER IC EPIC

122

Beck-final.indb 122

6/26/12 7:56:52 PM

at hand. The first thing he says in his soliloquy grappling with imminent death is exactly what the main narrator says about Patroclus in the same situation: “The gods call me deathward.” Ἕκτωρ δ’ ἔγνω ᾗσιν ἐνὶ φρεσὶ φώνησέν τε· “ὢ πόποι, ἦ μάλα δή με θεοὶ θάνατόνδε κάλεσσαν· Δηΐφοβον γὰρ ἔγωγ’ ἐφάμην ἥρωα παρεῖναι· ἀλλ’ ὃ μὲν ἐν τείχει, ἐμὲ δ’ ἐξαπάτησεν Ἀθήνη. νῦν δὲ δὴ ἐγγύθι μοι θάνατος κακός, οὐδ’ ἔτ’ ἄνευθεν, οὐδ’ ἀλέη.” And Hektor knew the truth inside his heart, and spoke aloud: “No use. Here at last the gods have summoned me deathward. I thought Deïphobos the hero was here close beside me, but he is behind the wall and it was Athene cheating me, and now evil death is close to me, and no longer far away, and there is no way out.”

(Iliad 22.296 –301) Hector speaks here about his own death in terms essentially identical to those that the main narrator uses about Patroclus.⁵⁸ Moreover, the expression “call [someone] deathward” appears only in these two passages, parallel moments in the two most important deaths in the Iliad.⁵⁹ It is particularly striking that the same unusual expression that has essentially the same role in its immediate context is presented in one case by the main narrator and in the other by a character talking about—and indeed, to—himself. Considering the two passages together underlines the expressive value of the narrator’s apostrophe to Patroclus, since character language and Hector’s reflections about himself in particular are more overtly emotional than the narrator’s language tends to be. Speech mention across multiple narrative levels exploits common patterns to create striking expressive effects in telling the most central story in the Iliad. In light of the sophistication and power of speech mention in these passages, it is impossible to claim persuasively that speech mention is a peripheral mode of speech presentation that is used only for speeches that are objectively unimportant to the narrative.

effec ts fou nd only in na r r ator-pr esented speech The basic quality of speech mention, its lack of specificity, occurs often enough in character-presented speech to be considered a regular feature of SPEECH MENTION

123

Beck-final.indb 123

6/26/12 7:56:53 PM

it. In narrator-presented speech, on the other hand, this lack of specificity is unusual compared to the detail normally provided by direct quotation. Because speech mention constitutes a small proportion of narratorpresented speech, its rarity calls attention to any passage in which speech mention is found. This is particularly true when speech mention occurs not simply alongside a single direct quotation to present a conversation, as we saw in the previous section, but when speech mention appears in a context that creates a strong expectation of a more detailed mode of speech presentation. Several instances of speech mention presented by the main narrator function in this way. Some, once again, relate to the deaths of Patroclus and Hector in the Iliad; others use speech mention to create a sense of secrecy. The only speech mention in Iliad 22 occurs when Hector, having thrown a spear at Achilles and failed to wound him, asks Deiphobus for a fresh one. This speech mention simultaneously focuses attention on the directly quoted expressive soliloquy immediately following the request, discussed above, and creates a sense of distance between Hector and the supposed Deiphobus, who disappears at this critical moment, leaving Hector to face his death alone (Iliad 22.294–295). Δηΐφοβον δὲ κάλει λευκάσπιδα μακρὸν ἀΰσας· ᾔτεέ μιν δόρυ μακρόν· ὁ δ’ οὔ τι οἱ ἐγγύθεν ἦεν. But lifting his voice he called aloud on Deïphobos of the pale shield, and asked him for a long spear, but Deïphobos was not near him.

Although at first glance this speech seems to follow common patterns for speech mention, it has many unusual features. Besides being the only example of speech mention in a part of the poem with a great deal of direct quotation,⁶⁰ the narrative has two speech mentions, one after the other, to describe Hector’s speech, separating into two pieces what we might imagine as one speech saying something like, “Hey, Deiphobus!” (294), “Give me a spear, won’t you?” (295). As we have seen in Chapter 3, characters may present a long speech that contains multiple acts with more than one type of speech presentation, but the main narrators rarely do so. When the main narrators use non-direct speech modes, they sometimes give more than one infinitive depending on a given verb of ordering to indicate a directive that presents several desired actions (e.g., Od. 7.335–338), or a speech mention may include several characters’ names as the object of a directive (e.g., Il-

SPE ECH PR E SEN TAT ION in HOM ER IC EPIC

124

Beck-final.indb 124

6/26/12 7:56:54 PM

iad 2.404–407). We find no parallel for such a choppy, asyndetic linkage of two speech mentions to present one speech act, and very few instances of speeches presented by pairing speech mentions with a second non-direct mode of speech presentation of any sort.⁶¹ Moreover, μακρὸν ἀΰσας (“lifting his voice”) appears only here to present non-direct speech. It appears 13 times in the Iliad to introduce direct quotation for battlefield exhortation to a group, and only here for either a speech that is not quoted directly or a speech to just one person. These unusual features of the speech mentions that present Hector’s speech to Deiphobus call attention to the speech, even while the non-specific properties of speech mention cast the speech into the background relative to the soliloquy that immediately follows. In particular, they vividly convey Hector’s isolation from comrades or help not simply as a fact, but as a cruel surprise to him. This makes his death more pathetic and affecting to the audience. The vagueness inherent in speech mention depicts secrecy in several scenes involving the transmission of messages. Messages, as is well known, are usually quoted directly both when they are given to the messenger by the person who originates the message and when the messenger delivers the directive to the intended addressee.⁶² Occasionally, the main narrators do not quote these message-originating speeches directly.⁶³ Speech mention presents a secret message when Penelope receives the news that Telemachus has returned from his travels in Odyssey 16. Two different people are sent to Penelope to tell her that Telemachus has returned. One, a herald, comes from Telemachus’ shipmates after Telemachus himself has left the ship. This messenger speaks to Penelope surrounded by maidservants, and his news—which is not very revealing—is quoted directly. At the same time, Telemachus has sent Eumaeus to Penelope to bring her the same information. Eumaeus, unlike the herald, stands close to Penelope, and his report is presented with speech mention (16.328–340). αὐτὰρ κήρυκα πρόεσαν δόμον εἰς Ὀδυσῆος, ἀγγελίην ἐρέοντα περίφρονι Πηνελοπείῃ, οὕνεκα Τηλέμαχος μὲν ἐπ’ ἀγροῦ, νῆα δ’ ἀνώγει ἄστυδ’ ἀποπλείειν, ἵνα μὴ δείσασ’ ἐνὶ θυμῷ ἰφθίμη βασίλεια τέρεν κατὰ δάκρυον εἴβοι. τὼ δὲ συναντήτην κῆρυξ καὶ δῖος ὑφορβὸς τῆς αὐτῆς ἕνεκ’ ἀγγελίης, ἐρέοντε γυναικί. ἀλλ’ ὅτε δή ῥ’ ἵκοντο δόμον θείου βασιλῆος, κῆρυξ μέν ῥα μέσῃσι μετὰ δμῳῇσιν ἔειπεν· “ἤδη τοι, βασίλεια, φίλος πάϊς εἰλήλουθε.”

SPEECH MENTION

125

Beck-final.indb 125

6/26/12 7:56:54 PM

Πηνελοπείῃ δ’ εἶπε συβώτης ἄγχι παραστὰς πάνθ’ ὅσα οἱ φίλος υἱὸς ἀνώγει μυθήσασθαι. αὐτὰρ ἐπεὶ δὴ πᾶσαν ἐφημοσύνην ἀπέειπε . . . But they sent a herald on his way to the house of Odysseus to take a message to circumspect Penelope, saying Telemachos was in the country now, but had told them to sail the ship back to the city, so the magnificent queen would not be terrified within her heart, and shed the soft tears. The two of them met, the herald and noble swineherd, going by reason of the same message, to report to the lady. But when they had come to the house of the sacred king, the herald stood in the midst of the serving maids and delivered his message: “Now, O queen, your beloved son is back in this country.” But the swineherd stood very close to Penelope and told her all the message that her beloved son had entrusted to him to tell, but when he had given her all the message . . .

This passage combines several different speech presentation techniques in such a way that the fact of sending messengers to Penelope is strongly emphasized, and the audience knows the content of what was said, but the actual speech presentations—one direct quotation and one speech mention— in different ways seem to conceal the speeches themselves more than they present them to the audience. Indeed, concealing information from those who should not know it, while finding out as much as possible oneself, runs throughout the Odyssey as a concern of all the central characters. This scene is an example of this concern. It is striking first of all because two different messengers are coming to Penelope at the same time to give her the same message, which happens nowhere else. This emphasizes the increasing sense at this point in the story that the different strands of the action are converging on the palace of Ithaca. The narrative highlights the two messengers in various ways, some of which liken them to each other and some of which seem to distinguish them. The two messengers meet on the way to performing the same task (333–334). At the same time, the two messages are presented differently, first because the two sentences that depict the two speeches begin with μέν (336) and δέ (338), and second because the first messenger’s speech is directly quoted and the second is not. As mentioned earlier, 36 instances of message-delivery speeches are presented by the main narrators, of which 11 are not quoted directly. Eight of these are presented with non-direct speech either because they are presenting speech that did not happen⁶⁴ or because they are generalizing repeated or habitual SPE ECH PR E SEN TAT ION in HOM ER IC EPIC

126

Beck-final.indb 126

6/26/12 7:56:55 PM

message-delivery speeches.⁶⁵ The two non-direct message-delivery speeches besides this one that are neither generalizing nor presenting speech that never happened appear by themselves.⁶⁶ They do not appear in conjunction with another direct speech, let alone a direct speech that duplicates the content of the message with a second message. Thus, specific contextual features motivate most examples of message-delivery speeches that are presented by the main narrators with something other than direct quotation, but those considerations do not apply to this episode. Various aspects of speech presentation create this sense of secrecy about a message whose purport is clear to the audience. The main narrator includes free indirect speech via the purpose clause in 16.331–332, which identifies the rationale for the directive as preventing Penelope from weeping or being afraid on Telemachus’ behalf. This could be the main narrator’s comment on the situation, not expressed as part of the message sequence by any of the characters, or it could be what Telemachus’ comrades told their herald to say, or it could be what they thought but did not say aloud. This herald, after meeting Eumaeus, gives a one-verse directly quoted speech to Penelope (337) that sounds surprisingly dispassionate after the free indirect speech presentation of concern for Penelope’s emotional welfare. Without the free indirect discourse, this quotation might simply seem matter of fact, but with it, the quotation seems oddly brief and lacking in specifics. The detail at verse 336 that the herald speaks surrounded by maids (who are not directly involved in the speech either as speakers or as addressees, so need not be mentioned at all) suggests a reason why he might not want to speak at length—the maids might repeat what he says to the suitors, who come to the fore shortly after these messages are delivered (342). This direct quotation, paradoxically, creates a sense of things left out, both because it is so short and because its lack of detail contrasts with the expressive details provided with free indirect speech when the main narrator describes the sending of the messenger. The unfriendly audience of maids, whose presence seems somewhat irrelevant, gives a plausible reason for this. Eumaeus delivers his message with even fewer details than the comrades’ herald does, in that his speech is presented with speech mention, although it includes an unusual relative clause explaining that he said what Telemachus told him to.⁶⁷ Eumaeus, unlike the herald, stands close to Penelope, implying that he directs his words to her alone and not to the crowd of maids.⁶⁸ These features of his speech, particularly when it directly follows a quotation that provides essentially the same information, give it a strong sense of privacy or secrecy. This scene overall consistently uses speech presentation to put expressive details into the background, not because they are not important, but because there are people present from whom such SPEECH MENTION

127

Beck-final.indb 127

6/26/12 7:56:55 PM

details must be hidden. At this point in the poem, all three members of Odysseus’ family are once again on Ithaca, and as the story gains momentum toward its denouement, the need to keep various kinds of information secret from various kinds of people is paramount. The way that speech mention combines with other forms of speech presentation to depict this message to Penelope contributes to that pervasive idea of lively information exchange combined with the pressing need for secrecy. This scene also emphasizes that speech presentation shapes rather than reflects the tone of an episode: by not presenting the content of these speeches, speech mention helps the audience to imagine that the hostile maids and suitors do not hear these messages, even though logically, speech mention presents “a speech” just as much as direct quotation does.

C ONC LUS IONS

Characters embody the norms for speech mention, as they do for free indirect speech and indirect speech. They present most of the speech mention in the Homeric poems; they present a greater proportion of their own speech in speech mention than the main narrators do; and for the most part, the ways that the main narrators use speech mention form a subset of—rather than a set distinct from—the ways that the characters use speech mention. We have seen that speech mention consistently depicts features of the speech or conversation it presents other than the content of the speech. These features include who else said something that the speaker wants (promises, for which speech mention is the most common mode of speech presentation), or the effect of a particular speech on the addressee (directives with an unspecified subtype), or the process of conversational exchange rather than the content of the exchange. This does not mean that these speeches themselves are unimportant. It means that something else about the speech is more important than the content. Speech mention does depict various speeches as unimportant compared to their contexts, but in these cases, this particular mode of speech presentation actively casts a speech into the background (or, analogously, gives it a sense of secrecy) rather than passively reflecting an objective lack of importance. Moreover, this phenomenon consistently appears in conversations that relate to central themes of the poems, so that speech mention is making a positive contribution to telling the story in a particular way. Characters consistently present expressive features of speech differently than the main narrators do, not only with speech mention, but with all modes of speech presentation. They present fewer particularly expressive SPE ECH PR E SEN TAT ION in HOM ER IC EPIC

128

Beck-final.indb 128

6/26/12 7:56:56 PM

speech phenomena, such as rebukes and problematic moves, than the main narrators do. Moreover, when they do present expressive features of speech, or expressive kinds of speech, they tend to do so in less vivid ways than the main narrators do. Hence, the characters not only present fewer rebukes than the main narrators, but they tend to present them with speech mention—which without content does not easily depict the expressive language of a speech—whereas the main narrators use predominantly direct quotation. It is telling that the main narrators use non-direct forms of speech to present rebukes mainly when the rebukes are either hypothetical or representative of several similar speeches. The characters’ style of speech presentation, when viewed on its own terms and not as a deviation from the main narrators’ style, constitutes an alternative and complementary narrative style that forms an important thread of the overall narrative texture of the Homeric poems. I will return to this idea later, in the Conclusion. While characters and the main narrator overlap less in how they present rebukes than they do in some other ways that they both use speech mention, they overlap hardly at all in the use of speech mention—or any other type of speech presentation—to depict song. Song, in fact, differs fundamentally from any other speech act type in the Homeric poems. One, but by no means the only, indication of this is the use of speech mention as the default mode of presentation of song by the main narrators. The next chapter draws together the various discussions of song in earlier chapters into a comprehensive analysis of how speech presentation contributes both to the unique status of song as a speech act type and to its central narrative importance in the Odyssey.

SPEECH MENTION

129

Beck-final.indb 129

6/26/12 7:56:56 PM

chapter five

SPE EC H PR E SE N TAT ION in the ODY S SE Y

The first four chapters analyzed each of the major techniques for presenting speech in the Iliad and the Odyssey, with the goals of exploring the properties of each mode of speech presentation and finding out what contribution each technique makes to the narratives, and giving characters their due as presenters both of a significant proportion of speech overall and of the majority of all forms of speech presentation except direct quotation. The last two chapters apply the results of the first four chapters to the Odyssey (Chapter 5) and the Iliad (Chapter 6). They integrate the individual speech presentation techniques that were the focus of Chapters 1 through 4 into an overall speech presentation spectrum for each Homeric poem, once again comparing the main narrator and the characters, but as presenters of the full range of speech presentation techniques rather than as presenters of one particular technique. The Odyssey presents speech more consistently across multiple narrative levels than the Iliad does. This means that in some sense, the Iliad spans a wider range of approaches to speech presentation than the Odyssey, and so I have put it after the Odyssey in order to move from the speech presentation spectrum that covers the smallest set of options (the Odyssey) through increasingly broader spectrums in the last two sections of the book (the Iliad in Chapter 6, and the Homeric poems overall in the Conclusion). Speech presentation strategies in the Odyssey have basically the same effects across different narrative levels, and the proportions of most kinds of speech acts are similar at different narrative levels as well. At the same time, while a given speech presentation technique has more or less the same effect wherever it occurs, as we will see, different kinds of narrative contexts and different kinds of narrators draw more heavily on some parts of this spectrum than on others. Furthermore, a small amount of speech is presented in the Odyssey by third-level narrators; this will not be discussed in detail because there is no analogue for it in the Iliad, but the existence of

130

Beck-final.indb 130

6/26/12 7:56:57 PM

this level of narrative subordination—and the effort required for the audience to keep track of the narrative structure entailed by multiple layers of embedded speech—helps to make narrative an important theme in the Odyssey. While gender has not been a consistent focus of earlier chapters because the Iliad does not have enough prominent female characters to create a reliable body of data on how women’s speech is presented, the Odyssey includes a female mortal character who speaks often enough to provide a body of data that can be usefully analyzed alongside speech patterns for male characters. To complement this account of speech in the Odyssey as a whole, the second part of this chapter analyzes in detail a single key theme in the poem: the presentation of song. When songs are presented, the full range of speech presentation techniques, each complementing the others, works together to make song uniquely prominent and engaging for the audience. At the same time, speech presentation techniques for song stress the notion of narration and keep the character poets who narrate at a distance from the external audience compared to the main narrator of the Odyssey itself.

S PE E C H PR E SE N TAT ION S PE C T RU M I N T H E ODY S S E Y

Many aspects of speech presentation in the Odyssey emphasize the interactive and expressive features of conversation. As we will see in Chapter 6, this is a key difference between the Iliad and the Odyssey. The Odyssey has a higher proportion of direct quotation than the Iliad does at the level of both the main narrator and the characters. Compared to the Iliad, the Odyssey presents more assertives, more questions, and more of both problematic and reactive moves, all of which in different ways either require or strongly imply an interactive conversational exchange.

ov er a ll pat ter ns of speech pr esentat ion We find 1,158 presentations of speech in the Odyssey, divided relatively evenly—at least in comparison to the Iliad—between speech presented by the main narrator (628 instances, 54 percent) and by the characters (453, 41 percent).¹ In terms of speech presentation mode, 676 (58 percent) of the speeches presented in the Odyssey use direct quotation, 285 (25 percent) use indirect speech, and 207 (18 percent) use speech mention. Forty-two more (4 percent) include free indirect speech along with other form(s) of speech presentation. Each individual technique for speech presentation, however, belongs primarily to the main narrator or primarily to the characters. SPEECH PRESENTATION in the ODYSSEY

131

Beck-final.indb 131

6/26/12 7:56:57 PM

Eighty-one percent of direct quotations are presented by the main narrator (545 instances); conversely, 71 percent of indirect speech (202 instances), 69 percent of free indirect speech (29 instances), and 67 percent of speech mention (138 instances) are presented by characters. While directives are the most common type of speech act in the Odyssey, they constitute less than half of the moves in the poem. The poem overall contains 547 (47 percent) directives, 411 (35 percent) assertive speech moves, 140 questions (12 percent), 83 emotives (7 percent), and 71 speeches (6 percent) with an unspecified speech act type. We can also see the conversational orientation of the Odyssey in the distribution of different kinds of moves. Nearly one-third of the poem’s speech consists of moves firmly embedded in conversation, either reactive moves (333 instances, 29 percent) or problematic moves (42, 4 percent). Sixty-two percent of speeches contain an initial move (716), and 14 percent do not have a clear move type (162). Looking at these individual axes in various combinations, some common kinds of speech acts usually have a particular move type in a conversational exchange, generally in a way that intuitively makes sense. Directives tend to be initial (85 percent, or 467 of 547 instances); conversely, 65 percent of initial moves are directives (467 of 716 initial moves). An even greater proportion (91 percent) of questions are initial (128 of 140 instances), whereas 18 percent of initial moves are questions (128 of 716 initial moves), even though questions appear in only 12 percent of speeches. Assertives, in contrast, are predominantly reactive: 54 percent of assertives are reactive (220 of 411 assertives), and 66 percent of reactive moves are assertives (220 of 333 reactive moves), because over half of assertives are replies. A significant minority of assertives have an unspecified move (24 percent, 100 of 411 instances), due to the tendency of characters to present vague unattributed assertives in non-direct forms of speech presentation. Emotives are the only speech act type in the Odyssey that have no strong association with any particular position in a conversational exchange: they are split approximately equally between initial moves (41 of 83, 49 percent) and reactive moves (38 of 83, 46 percent).² This pattern, which applies to both the main narrator of the Odyssey and to characters, implies that the expressive force of emotive speeches is closely bound up with conversational exchange. As we will see in Chapter 6, this is not true of emotive speeches in the Iliad. Similarly, some move types and speech act types are much more likely than others to use particular kinds of speech presentation. In all of these cases, forms of speech that have the greatest conversational role or the strongest expressive quality are those most likely to appear as direct quotation. At one end of this spectrum, neither unspecified speech act types nor unspecified moves appear in direct quotation. At the other end, 80 of SPE ECH PR E SEN TAT ION in HOM ER IC EPIC

132

Beck-final.indb 132

6/26/12 7:56:58 PM

83 emotives (96 percent) and 41 of 42 problematic moves (98 percent) appear in direct quotation. Emotives are, obviously, the most strongly and consistently expressive kind of speech act; problematic moves are the most strongly conversational kind of move, since they require both a preceding initial move and a following reactive move. We can indirectly see the fundamental similarity of conversation and expressivity in the Odyssey in the strong association with direct quotation of these two apparently unrelated features of speech. In comparison to problematic moves, both questions and reactive moves in the Odyssey are strongly (but not quite as strongly) conversational. Accordingly, they are presented with direct speech significantly more often than speech overall, but not as often as emotives and problematic moves. Seventy-two percent of questions (102 of 140 instances) and 86 percent of reactive moves (287 of 333 instances) are presented in direct speech.³ Indeed, they represent opposite sides of the same conversational coin: questions demand an answer,⁴ and replies provide the answers so demanded. As a group, these various outliers from the norms of speech presentation show that speech that has a very loose connection to conversational exchange will not be presented as direct quotation, whereas speech with a particularly strong involvement in conversation—or, in the case of emotives, a strongly expressive character within the speech itself—is almost always presented with direct quotation.

fem a l e spe a k er s Female characters, both mortal and divine, speak nearly one-quarter of the speeches presented by the main narrator in the Odyssey (151 of 628, 24 percent), and 21 percent of speeches presented by characters (93 of 453). Unsurprisingly, Penelope makes the largest number of these (52).⁵ This gives us a body of female speech that is large enough to permit us to draw some conclusions about how women’s speech is presented and characterized compared to men’s speech, with the proviso that some features of women’s speech probably have to do with the specific plot lines in which these particular women find themselves at least as much as with the gender of the speakers. Women’s and men’s speeches are presented in similar ways, with one exception. The main narrator presents 83 percent of women’s speeches as direct quotation (126 of 151 instances), 9 percent as indirect speech (14 instances), and 6 percent as speech mention (11 instances). This is essentially the same as the breakdown for all speech presented by the main narrator.⁶ The slightly higher proportion of indirect speech for women’s speech comSPEECH PRESENTATION in the ODYSSEY

133

Beck-final.indb 133

6/26/12 7:56:59 PM

pared to speakers overall has to do not with the gender of the speakers but with their social status: more than one-third (5 of 13) of indirect speeches by women speakers are spoken by maids or unnamed servants, whose speech is disproportionately presented in indirect speech (Beck 2008b: 368–369). Thirty-six percent of women’s speeches contain an assertive (53 instances), 52 percent contain a directive (78 instances), 15 percent contain a question (23 instances), 10 percent contain an emotive (14 instances), and 1 percent have no specified move type (3 instances, all speech mention).⁷ The biggest difference between these percentages and the analogous figures for all character speakers is the higher proportion of question moves found in the speech of women characters compared to characters overall.⁸ Penelope asks more than half of the questions that women speak (14 of 23), although she speaks only about one-third of the speeches made by all women. Penelope, of course, repeatedly asks her household for news about Telemachus, and she persistently questions Odysseus himself, both when they first meet in Book 19 and after their reunion in Book 23. Her five questions to Odysseus constitute one-third of her questions, and more than 20 percent of the questions asked by women. Penelope, indeed, tends to ask speaker-oriented questions, insofar as she frames half of them as directives (7 of 14). In comparison, 26 questions directly quoted by the main narrator are presented as directives (36 percent), and 44 are presented as interrogatives (60 percent).⁹ These features of Penelope’s questions both result from and depict the extended fencing between husband and wife that gives the last third of the poem much of its drama and interest. The only difference between women and men speakers that seems to relate to gender, rather than to either the social status of the speaker or thematic considerations, concerns the move types of their speeches. The move types of women’s speeches suggest that women are less involved in conversational interchange than are characters overall: 75 percent of women’s speeches include an initial move (113 instances), 34 percent contain a reactive move (51 instances), 5 percent contain a problematic move (7, of which 4 are spoken by Penelope), and 3 percent do not have a clear move type (4 instances).¹⁰ Whereas 44 percent of all speeches presented by the main narrator of the Odyssey contain a move that requires conversational exchange (either a reactive move or a problematic one), less than 40 percent of women’s speeches contain such a move. Conversely, as a proportion of their speech overall, women make noticeably more initial moves than do all characters as a group (74 percent versus 65 percent). This creates a subtle yet vivid picture of women as less engaged in the social interchange of conversation than men are, and so, implicitly, as a less engaged part of the social fabric of society. SPE ECH PR E SEN TAT ION in HOM ER IC EPIC

134

Beck-final.indb 134

6/26/12 7:56:59 PM

compa r ison of ov er a ll pat ter ns for t he m a in na r r ator a nd for t he ch a r ac ter s If we compare these overall patterns to the speech presentation spectrum for the main narrator of the Odyssey and for the characters, respectively, it turns out that the only significant difference between the two is that direct quotation presents a much larger proportion of speech given by the main narrator. Although the main narrator and the characters use different proportions of the various speech presentation strategies (which in turn leads to different proportions of move types), they present comparable proportions of most of the various kinds of speech acts. The main narrator relies heavily on direct quotation, to the almost complete exclusion of non-direct modes of speech presentation.¹¹ The characters, meanwhile, use the different presentation techniques much more even-handedly.¹² The most important difference in move types between the main narrators and the characters is that one-quarter of the moves that characters present are unspecified (25 percent, 118 instances), whereas hardly any of those presented by the main narrators are (3 percent, 20 instances).¹³ Alongside the different proportions of speech presentation techniques in speech presented by the main narrator compared to speech presented by the characters, the proportions of different kinds of speech acts are similar across different narrative levels. For all narrators, approximately one-third of speeches contain an assertive move,¹⁴ about one-half contain directives,¹⁵ one-eighth contain questions,¹⁶ and the remaining eighth are divided between emotives¹⁷ and unspecified speech act types.¹⁸ If we divide the unspecified speech acts presented by the characters roughly equally between assertives and directives, since these are the two most common speech act types and appear in similar proportions across various narrative levels, we end up with a consistent picture of how much of each kind of speech act appears in the poem across different narrative levels.¹⁹ Since the characters and the main narrator use very different modes of speech presentation to present fundamentally similar ranges of speech act types, the Odyssey overall shows a dynamic combination of sameness (what kind of speeches are presented) and variation (how the speeches are presented). Where the patterns of character speech presentation differ noticeably from the main narrator’s, this is because the main narrator is much more likely to use direct quotation than the characters are. Conversely, highly interactive or expressive kinds of speech appear at disproportionately low rates in non-direct forms of speech. For instance, directives make a much greater proportion of indirect speech in the Odyssey (55 percent, 158 of 285 instances) than do either directives as a proportion of other modes of SPEECH PRESENTATION in the ODYSSEY

135

Beck-final.indb 135

6/26/12 7:57:00 PM

speech presentation or any other kind of speech act as a proportion of indirect speech. At the same time, however, assertives form basically the same proportion of indirect speech as they do both of speech overall and of direct speech.²⁰ This suggests that the explanation for the high proportion of directives in indirect speech is not so much an affinity between directives and indirect speech as it is an anti-affinity between indirect speech and the strongly conversational or expressive speech types, namely emotives (none in indirect speech) and questions (4 percent of indirect speech, 11 of 285 instances).²¹ From the perspective of speech act type, the main difference between characters and the main narrator as presenters of speech is that the main narrator presents many more emotives than the characters do. Emotive speeches are of course characterized by their highly expressive nature, but as we have seen in Chapters 2 through 4, characters’ speech presentation is comparatively inexpressive. The rarity of emotive speech acts presented by characters adds another dimension to this picture of character-presented speech as less expressive than speech presented by the main narrator. With this one exception, the speakers in the Odyssey present the same kinds of speech acts, regardless of what level of narrator is presenting their speech to the audience or what kind of speech presentation technique is used to present the speech. Within these overall patterns, differences can be found between the characters and the main narrator that shed light both on the characteristics of each group as narrators and on the overall speech presentation spectrum in the Homeric poems. I focus in depth on differences between the main narrator and the characters of the Odyssey in order to integrate these two levels of narration into one unified speech presentation spectrum. While characters and the main narrator present comparable proportions of assertive speech acts, they most commonly present different subtypes within the larger category of assertives. The various subtypes of assertives have consistent characteristics across all narrative levels; what changes about these subtypes is how commonly they appear at various narrative levels. Neither the characters nor the main narrator regularly present all the subtypes comprised by the speech act category of “assertive.” The main narrator presents a wider range of assertive subtypes compared to the characters, but the main narrator barely uses the type of statement that is most commonly presented by characters. The subtypes of assertive that are less frequently found, such as statement and song, are found at different rates at different narrative levels, but the most common subtype of assertive, namely reply, appears in a fairly consistent way across all narrative levels. Which kinds of statements characters (rather than the main narrator) SPE ECH PR E SEN TAT ION in HOM ER IC EPIC

136

Beck-final.indb 136

6/26/12 7:57:01 PM

are most likely to present are related to the issue of getting reliable information, central both as a theme of the Odyssey and as a key difference between different types of narrators. Both the main narrator and the characters most commonly quote replies, which are likely to appear as direct quotations because they are reactive moves. The main narrator quotes 150 replies out of 211 directly quoted assertives, while characters quote 35 replies out of 39 directly quoted assertives. The difference arises because characters quote mainly replies when they quote assertives, whereas the main narrator also quotes 53 statements, along with a smattering of oaths, prophecies, and so on. Statements quoted by the main narrator tend to be comments about the current situation that are given on the speaker’s authority, such as Nestor’s statement to Telemachus at Od. 3.375–379 that Athena is his companion.²² Statements within characters’ speech, on the other hand, are presented primarily as indirect speech, because characters’ statements (59 instances, of which 49 are indirect speech) prominently feature unattributed “[Someone] says that X is Y” statements that attribute authority for a fact to someone other than the speaker.²³ These assertions do not function as part of a conversational exchange and generally lack expressive features, and so are not quoted directly. The main narrator of the Odyssey uses just one of these hedges, to refer to Mount Olympus,²⁴ but this example functions the same way that characters’ hedges do: it refers to something beyond the knowledge of the speaker and attributes the information to an unspecified “they.” The omniscient narrator is not overtly concerned with the reliability of his information,²⁵ but the characters—particularly the characters in the Odyssey—are keenly interested in whether the information they are given will turn out to be reliable or not. Given the number of lies that Odysseus tells, this is a well-founded concern. The differences in how the assertive subtype “statement” is presented by characters compared to the main narrator illustrate both an important difference between these two kinds of narrators concerning their access to accurate and reliable information²⁶ and an important theme of the poem. In contrast, statements that concern a character’s identity in particular (often, but not always, his genealogy) form a comparatively small proportion of the statements that characters in the Odyssey present. Out of the 83 instances of assertives in indirect statement, just ten concern identity of the type “[form of εὔχομαι (to boast, profess)] X is Y.”²⁷ The main narrators do not present this kind of statement; conversely, the characters in the Iliad, for reasons to be discussed in more detail in the next chapter, present a greater proportion of genealogy statements (and a smaller proportion of “They say X is Y” statements) than the characters in the Odyssey do. SPEECH PRESENTATION in the ODYSSEY

137

Beck-final.indb 137

6/26/12 7:57:01 PM

In the Odyssey, the speech acts presented by characters that use εὔχομαι to describe someone’s identity refer to one of two kinds of situations, both of which are central and unique to the Odyssey. These consistently present questions related to ξενία, when one character asks a newly arrived stranger questions about himself (e.g., Od. 1.171–172). Four assertions of someone’s identity refer specifically to the identity of Odysseus.²⁸ These statements depict the problems about Odysseus’ identity that lie at the heart of the poem, largely as a result of his disguise. Indeed, all four of them occur in the last third of the poem, when the question of Odysseus’ identity takes center stage in the story. The last and in some sense the most affecting of these is Odysseus’ lie to Laertes, in which he tells the sorrowful old man that he met “Odysseus” on his travels: εὔχετο δ’ ἐξ Ἰθάκης γένος ἔμμεναι, αὐτὰρ ἔφασκε / Λαέρτην Ἀρκεισιάδην πατέρ’ ἔμμεναι αὐτῷ (“He announced that he was by birth a man of Ithaka, / and said that his father was Laertes, son of Arkeisios,” 24.269–270). In other words, the few statements about genealogy that occur in the Odyssey consistently refer to one of the central problems in the poem. These genealogical statements do not appear at the level of the main narrator, and they appear in quite different ways in the Iliad. Thus, the characters in the Odyssey present this particular kind of assertive speech differently from both the main narrators and the characters in the Iliad. Perhaps the most striking difference between characters and the main narrator is the almost complete absence of song from character-presented speech. While song makes up the majority of assertives that the main narrator presents in non-direct forms of speech (12 of 21, ten of which include speech mention), characters present just four songs out of 152 assertives.²⁹ Moreover, as shown in the previous chapter, song presented by the main narrator is depicted only with non-direct modes of speech. Demodocus’ second song, the only time that direct quotation appears in a song, is also notable because the identity of the narrator is blurred for one hundred verses. Indeed, song forms as prominent and engaging a part of the poem as it does largely because of the unusual way that song is presented compared to other speech acts, as discussed below. In sum, the main narrator of the Odyssey and the characters draw on the same range of assertive subtypes, and they use the same kinds of speech presentation techniques for these subtypes. At all narrative levels, reply is the most common assertive subtype, and it is predominantly or exclusively presented with direct quotation. The subtype “statement” includes both the conversational, interactive statements that are regularly presented by the main narrator (but not by the characters),³⁰ and the attributions of authority that are used mainly by characters. When a character quotes a statement, SPE ECH PR E SEN TAT ION in HOM ER IC EPIC

138

Beck-final.indb 138

6/26/12 7:57:02 PM

or the main narrator uses a hedge, they do so according to the norms for that kind of statement at the other narrative level. These subtypes of statements have consistent characteristics across narrative levels, even though they are found primarily at one particular narrative level. Across all kinds of speech presentation, both characters and the main narrator are drawing on a unified set of speech presentation strategies that function consistently, although narrators at different narrative levels use different parts of this set. What differs at different levels of narration are not the qualities of a particular kind of speech, such as a reply or a question or a song, or the properties of a particular technique of speech presentation. Instead, speech presentation techniques and some speech act types appear at very different rates at different narrative levels. A single consistent set of speech presentation possibilities underlies the speech presentation of both the main narrator and the character narrators in the Odyssey, none of which draw on the full range of available possibilities. This range of techniques extends beyond any individual narrator. It is part of the narrative fabric of the Odyssey overall.

S PE E C H PR E SE N TAT ION A N D S ONG I N T H E ODY S S E Y

Song is one of the most thoroughly studied features of the Odyssey.³¹ In this section, the overall patterns for speech presentation in song are described, with attention to the striking differences between these patterns and those for other speech in the Homeric poems. An analysis of speech presentation in the three songs of Demodocus in Odyssey 8 follows, showing that each mode of speech presentation has a complementary role to play in depicting these songs that simultaneously is consistent with the usual functions of that particular technique and creates unique effects in these songs. Direct quotation presents features of speech that are inextricably linked to conversational exchange; speech mention gives a kind of overview or title of the song, or presents a speech act where exchange of information rather than the content of the information is the critical point; indirect speech presents what might be considered the main speech act of the song; and free indirect speech presents a wide range of expressive features that flesh out the songs into unique speech acts where the idea of “narrator” is simultaneously very important and extremely ambiguous.

ov erv iew of speech pr esentat ion for song Speech presentation for song in the Odyssey overall has two highly unusual features. First, characters present almost no song in their speeches, and secSPEECH PRESENTATION in the ODYSSEY

139

Beck-final.indb 139

6/26/12 7:57:02 PM

ond, the main narrator uses direct quotation for song only in the second song of Demodocus, where it is unclear who the “real” narrator is. Singing, unlike other kinds of speech acts, is never referred to with any general verb of speaking, such as προσέφη or προσέειπε. The most common verb for song, ἀείδω (“sing of, chant”), appears in the Odyssey almost exclusively to refer to the song of professional poets.³² As with verbs of ordering like κελεύω (“order, urge”), ἀείδω presents the same kind of speech at all narrative levels: both the main narrator and the characters in the Odyssey³³ use it primarily to refer to the poetry of Demodocus and of Phemius. The only named individuals in the poem whose speech is presented with ἀείδω but who are not professional poets are Circe and Calypso, goddesses whose speech has a magical effect on their addressees that might be considered analogous to the enchantment produced by song.³⁴ But song differs from any other kind of speech act subtype in being essentially absent from character speech while being well represented in speech presented by the main narrator.³⁵ Song presented by the main narrator of the Odyssey is unusual for narrator-presented speech because it consistently avoids direct quotation and because it regularly combines multiple speech presentation techniques to depict extended passages of speech.³⁶ Speech presentation firmly limits the audience’s experience of any songs other than the Odyssey itself: only the main narrator presents songs of professional bards, and those bards are almost never quoted directly when they are depicted.³⁷ These features of song derive their force largely because they contrast so markedly with the patterns of speech presentation for all other kinds of speech in the Odyssey. As we will see, the three songs of Demodocus—the longest and most detailed songs presented in the poem—consistently maintain this sense of separation or limitation while also drawing effectively on the expressive capacities of non-direct forms of speech presentation. At the same time, each of the three songs presents speech in slightly different ways that correspond partly to differences between its own subject matter and that of the other songs, and partly to specific features of the individual speeches that take place within the songs. A separation between song and other kinds of speech exists in a complementary way at the level of individual characters. No professional poet is directly quoted by the main narrator both when speaking in ordinary conversation and when singing. Phemius is quoted when speaking,³⁸ but never while singing; conversely, Demodocus is quoted when singing, but not when speaking, even when he is directly participating in the feasting among the Phaeacians and the audience might well expect to hear his speaking voice. For instance, when Odysseus asks a herald to offer the singer a portion of SPE ECH PR E SEN TAT ION in HOM ER IC EPIC

140

Beck-final.indb 140

6/26/12 7:57:03 PM

meat (and praise) at 8.477–481, Demodocus receives it with pleasure (χαῖρε δὲ θυμῷ, “He rejoiced in his heart,” my translation, 483), but does not reply. In contrast, when Telemachus orders Eumaeus to bring food to the disguised Odysseus at 17.345–347, both Eumaeus’ speech to Odysseus (350– 352) and Odysseus’ thanks (354–355) are directly quoted. This creates a very strong separation between poetic and non-poetic speaking, contributing to the distinction that the Odyssey consistently maintains between first-person speech and narrative.³⁹ The main narrator of the Odyssey directly quotes both first-person speech and first-person narrative throughout the poem, but third-person narrative (song) is almost never quoted directly.

t he songs of demodocus Both of the two shorter songs of Demodocus (Od. 8.73–83 and 8.499–521) combine indirect speech with free indirect speech⁴⁰ to depict songs about the Trojan War in which Odysseus plays some role. Both songs balance expressivity with avoiding direct quotation for song by using two techniques that are generally rare in speech presented by the main narrator, namely indirect speech that includes clause syntax and free indirect speech. Free indirect speech creates a kind of audience involvement that differs from the vividness of direct speech, in that it forces the audience to think about who the presenter of the narrative is. This effect is particularly striking and apposite for song, because song has a professional narrator. Thus, speech presentation makes the songs quite expressive and engaging, while also maintaining a kind of distance between the songs and their audience(s) that is emphatically not felt in relation to the main narrator’s own poem (the Odyssey itself), full as it is of direct quotation. The first song describes a conflict between Odysseus and Achilles that is otherwise unknown from our sources (Finkelberg 1987). While the details of the quarrel—where and when it happened, and what it was about—are unstated, the song nevertheless presents these vague happenings in fairly detailed and expressive language. These expressive features include both the structure of the song (in particular, the way it uses γάρ clauses) and the specific vocabulary it contains. Some of these expressive features are characteristic of the main narrator, and some are found mainly or exclusively in character speech. All of these features contribute to the sense that the narrating voices of Demodocus and the main narrator merge once the song gets under way. . . . νεῖκος Ὀδυσσῆος καὶ Πηλεΐδεω Ἀχιλῆος, ὥς ποτε δηρίσαντο θεῶν ἐν δαιτὶ θαλείῃ SPEECH PRESENTATION in the ODYSSEY

141

Beck-final.indb 141

6/26/12 7:57:03 PM

ἐκπάγλοις ἐπέεσσιν, ἄναξ δ’ ἀνδρῶν Ἀγαμέμνων χαῖρε νόῳ, ὅ τ’ ἄριστοι Ἀχαιῶν δηριόωντο. ὣς γάρ οἱ χρείων μυθήσατο Φοῖβος Ἀπόλλων Πυθοῖ ἐν ἠγαθέῃ, ὅθ’ ὑπέρβη λάϊνον οὐδὸν χρησόμενος· τότε γάρ ῥα κυλίνδετο πήματος ἀρχὴ Τρωσί τε καὶ Δαναοῖσι Διὸς μεγάλου διὰ βουλάς. . . . The quarrel between Odysseus and Peleus’ son, Achilleus, how these once contended, at the gods’ generous festival, with words of violence, so that the lord of men, Agamemnon, was happy in his heart that the best of the Achaians were quarreling; for so in prophecy Phoibos Apollo had spoken to him in sacred Pytho, when he had stepped across the stone doorstep to consult; for now the beginning of evil rolled on, descending on Trojans, and on Danaans, through the designs of great Zeus.

(Od. 8.75– 82) The song begins in verse 75 with an accusative object of the infinitive ἀειδέμεναι (“to sing,” 73), the νεῖκος (“quarrel”) of Odysseus and Achilles. This accusative develops not with a relative clause, as in the song of Phemius at 1.325–327 and the beginning of both the Iliad and the Odyssey,⁴¹ but with an indirect statement that uses a subordinate clause (ὥς ποτε δηρίσαντο, “How these once contended,” 76). The song refers only in the briefest terms to features of the story that would be developed in detail by the main narrator: for instance, the words of the quarrel (76–77) are presented with speech mention. However, free indirect speech, in the two γάρ clauses found at verses 79 and 81, gives two different but complementary perspectives on why these events happened. The lack of any subordinating conjunction for these clauses creates the ambiguity about narrative level characteristic of free indirect speech. Moreover, this kind of γάρ clause is a common expressive component of characters’ speeches, which often include a directive followed by a γάρ clause explaining why the addressee should go along with what the speaker is saying. The concluding verse of the song, ταῦτ’ ἄρ’ ἀοιδὸς ἄειδε περικλυτός (“These things the famous singer sang for them,” 83), strongly suggests that even without clear indications about who the narrator is during the song, the entire passage consists of the words of the character Demodocus. These γάρ clauses commenting on the significance of the story should be attributed to Demodocus, despite the unusual lack of any subordinating syntax for them. Individual words and phrases that appear in the song generally belong SPE ECH PR E SEN TAT ION in HOM ER IC EPIC

142

Beck-final.indb 142

6/26/12 7:57:04 PM

to character speech, although the naming expressions for Agamemnon and Apollo are found primarily in narrative. As de Jong notes, the word πῆμα (“misery, calamity”) and the image of destruction “rolling toward” people are strongly associated with character language.⁴² Similarly, the adjective ἔκπαγλος (“terrible, violent”) appears primarily in character speech, and a majority of its occurrences in narrative are found in a speech-introductory formula for a strongly expressive speech act type, the vaunt.⁴³ At the same time, the noun-epithet formulas ἄναξ ἀνδρῶν Ἀγαμέμνων (“the lord of men, Agamemnon”) and Φοῖβος Ἀπόλλων (“Phoibos Apollo”), like most noun-epithet combinations,⁴⁴ appear mainly in narrative. ἄναξ ἀνδρῶν Ἀγαμέμνων, found only here in the Odyssey, appears almost exclusively in the Iliad in narrative;⁴⁵ the epithet Φοῖβος is found regularly in character speech but is still mainly used by the main narrator.⁴⁶ The mixture of vocabulary associated with the main narrators and with characters gives rise to an effect similar to the narrative ambiguity that free indirect speech creates. Taken together, these features distance the audience from a song that is not the work of the main narrator, and at the same time highlight in an effective and unusual manner the notion of beginnings and causes, which is the main point of the song in relation to the broader narrative context.⁴⁷ The specific details of the quarrel are not what gives the song its impact in relation to the larger contexts of either Odyssey 8 (as a set-up for Odysseus’ long tale in Books 9–12) or the Odyssey overall. Rather, the key feature of this song in its broader context is what the quarrel represents within the tale of the Trojan War. This is the part of the song that is depicted in the two γάρ clauses that appear in free indirect speech. For the purposes of the Odyssey, these γάρ clauses are in some sense what this song is about. The expressive language that is distributed evenly throughout the song, such as adjectives and metaphors, complements the narrative ambiguity inherent in free indirect speech by creating a vocabulary drawn both from character speech and from narrative. These different kinds of ambiguity and multiplicity are given compelling unity as the product of Demodocus by the speech-introductory and concluding expressions that bracket the song (verses 73 and 83) and name him as the speaker. Demodocus sings his third song (8.499–521) at the request of Odysseus, who asks to hear about the Trojan horse (8.487–498). This tale resembles the first song both in its subject matter and in the way it presents speech: it tells of the Trojan War, and it contains no direct quotations. Unlike either the first or second songs of Demodocus, however, this song regularly reminds the audience that the main narrator is presenting the speech of another character by including forms of ἀείδω in its second part (514, 516). SPEECH PRESENTATION in the ODYSSEY

143

Beck-final.indb 143

6/26/12 7:57:05 PM

This song does not have any accusative speech mention construction at the beginning that sums up briefly what the song is about, as the first song does, because Odysseus has already specified the topic of the song in his request to Demodocus. Instead, it begins with indirect speech in the form of a dependent clause (500–501). ὣς φάθ’, ὁ δ’ ὁρμηθεὶς θεοῦ ἄρχετο, φαῖνε δ’ ἀοιδήν, ἔνθεν ἑλών ὡς οἱ μὲν ἐϋσσέλμων ἐπὶ νηῶν βάντες ἀπέπλειον, πῦρ ἐν κλισίῃσι βαλόντες, Ἀργεῖοι, τοὶ δ’ ἤδη ἀγακλυτὸν ἀμφ’ Ὀδυσῆα ἥατ’ ἐνὶ Τρώων ἀγορῇ κεκαλυμμένοι ἵππῳ· αὐτοὶ γάρ μιν Τρῶες ἐς ἀκρόπολιν ἐρύσαντο. ὣς ὁ μὲν ἑστήκει, τοὶ δ’ ἄκριτα πόλλ’ ἀγόρευον. He spoke, and the singer, stirred by the goddess, began, and showed them his song, beginning from where the Argives boarded their well-benched ships, and sailed away, after setting fire to their shelters; but already all these others who were with famous Odysseus were sitting hidden in the horse, in the place where the Trojans assembled, for the Trojans themselves had dragged it up to the height of the city, and now it was standing there, and the Trojans . . . talked endlessly.

(Od. 8.499 – 505) After the indirect speech, the song abandons subordinating syntax in favor of free indirect speech, first in the form of a γάρ clause explaining the previous indirect statement (αὐτοὶ γάρ μιν Τρῶες ἐς ακρόπολιν ἐρύσαντο, “For the Trojans themselves had dragged it up to the height of the city,” 504). As with the first song, it is unclear from the form of this independent clause whether this is part of Demodocus’ song or the main narrator’s comment on Demodocus’ song. But the story here becomes more independent than the story in the first song, in which only γάρ clauses commenting on the action (but not the actual events) are presented without subordinating syntax of any kind. While the Trojan horse is standing at the gates of the city, the song focuses on the deliberations of the Trojans about what to do with it. These discussions are presented at some length in free indirect speech, without explicit references to the main narrator (8.505–513).

SPE ECH PR E SEN TAT ION in HOM ER IC EPIC

144

Beck-final.indb 144

6/26/12 7:57:06 PM

ὣς ὁ μὲν ἑστήκει, τοὶ δ’ ἄκριτα πόλλ’ ἀγόρευον ἥμενοι ἀμφ’ αὐτόν· τρίχα δέ σφισιν ἥνδανε βουλή, ἠὲ διαπλῆξαι κοῖλον δόρυ νηλέϊ χαλκῷ, ἢ κατὰ πετράων βαλέειν ἐρύσαντας ἐπ’ ἄκρης, ἢ ἐάαν μέγ’ ἄγαλμα θεῶν θελκτήριον εἶναι, τῇ περ δὴ καὶ ἔπειτα τελευτήσεσθαι ἔμελλεν· αἶσα γὰρ ἦν ἀπολέσθαι, ἐπὴν πόλις ἀμφικαλύψῃ δουράτεον μέγαν ἵππον, ὅθ’ ἥατο πάντες ἄριστοι Ἀργείων Τρώεσσι φόνον καὶ κῆρα φέροντες. And now it was standing there, and the Trojans seated around it talked endlessly, and three ways of thought found favor, either to take the pitiless bronze to it and hack open the hollow horse, or drag it to the cliffs’ edge and topple it over, or let it stand where it was as a dedication to blandish the gods, and this last way was to be the end of it, seeing that the city was destined to be destroyed when it had inside it the great horse made of wood, with all the best of Argives sitting within and bearing death and doom for the Trojans.

First, the Trojans discuss what they should do (505–509),⁴⁸ depicted with the generalizing iterative imperfect πόλλ’ ἀγόρευον (“talked endlessly,” 505). Although their speech is presented very briefly, their perspective emerges vividly from the story. The second half of the passage (510–513)⁴⁹ contains a γάρ clause of the same sort that we saw in the first song, but this one is much longer and more detailed than the two γάρ clauses that appear as part of the quarrel of Achilles and Odysseus. Demodocus, or the main narrator, or both, use this γάρ clause to summarize not only the story of the Trojan horse, but one might say the entire Trojan War story. This γάρ clause again uses character language, such as the word αἶσα (“one’s lot, destiny”), which appears almost exclusively in direct quotation.⁵⁰ Once again, song draws effectively on free indirect speech and character language to create an engaging vividness without direct quotations. Here, that vividness tells the story of what the Trojans did when the horse entered their city; it does not simply reflect on the reasons for what happened in the story. Once the Greeks enter the story, however, the structure of the narrative repeatedly underlines that the main narrator is presenting Demodocus’ speech as he sings. The main narrator, it seems, is most emphatically referred to as a narrator in the parts of the third song that most directly involve the experiences of Odysseus himself and the story that the Odyssey

SPEECH PRESENTATION in the ODYSSEY

145

Beck-final.indb 145

6/26/12 7:57:06 PM

tells. The beginning of line 514 strongly marks the mediated reporting of this part of the song, beginning with a general view of all the Greeks sacking Troy and gradually homing in on Odysseus in particular (8.514–518). ἤειδεν δ’ ὡς ἄστυ διέπραθον υἷες Ἀχαιῶν ἱππόθεν ἐκχύμενοι, κοῖλον λόχον ἐκπρολιπόντες. ἄλλον δ’ ἄλλῃ ἄειδε πόλιν κεραϊζέμεν αἰπήν, αὐτὰρ Ὀδυσσῆα προτὶ δώματα Δηϊφόβοιο βήμεναι. He sang then how the sons of the Achaians left their hollow hiding place and streamed from the horse and sacked the city, and he sang how one and another fought through the steep citadel, and how in particular Odysseus went . . . to find the house of Deïphobos.

Unlike the instances of indirect speech in song that we have looked at thus far, here the second ἄειδε (“he sang,” 516) introduces infinitives rather than subordinate clauses. Thus, while Odysseus is in some sense the “subject,” he is also in the accusative case as the subject of the infinitive βήμεναι (“[he] went”), which provides a further—albeit subtle—dimension of indirectness and subordination compared to a subordinate clause in which the subject is in the nominative. The song concludes with a different kind of indirect speech, a report of what Odysseus himself said about the fighting at Deiphobus’ house that has just been narrated (519–521). κεῖθι δὴ αἰνότατον πόλεμον φάτο τολμήσαντα νικῆσαι καὶ ἔπειτα διὰ μεγάθυμον Ἀθήνην. ταῦτ’ ἄρ’ ἀοιδὸς ἄειδε περικλυτός· αὐτὰρ Ὀδυσσεὺς . . . And there, he said, he endured the grimmest fighting that ever he had, but won it there too, with great-hearted Athene aiding. So the famous singer sang his tale, but Odysseus . . .

It is very clear here that Odysseus and not Demodocus is the speaker— forms of φημί are never used to present song—and that the speech of Odysseus, when presented by a narrator other than himself or the main narrator of the Odyssey, is not given the vividness of direct quotation.⁵¹ On the one hand, no explicit verb of speaking governs φάτο in 519, so it is ambiguous whether we are to imagine “[Demodocus said that] Odysseus said . . .” or “[the main narrator commented, a propos of Demodocus’ song, that] OdysSPE ECH PR E SEN TAT ION in HOM ER IC EPIC

146

Beck-final.indb 146

6/26/12 7:57:07 PM

seus said. . . .” On the other hand, this instance of free indirect speech falls right between two forms of ἀείδω that separate Demodocus, as the subject of these verb forms (516 and 521), from the main narrator. This means that the audience is unlikely to feel a sense of ambiguity about who narrates this speech of Odysseus, even though the form of the speech itself allows that possibility. Thus, the song ends with Odysseus speaking about his own experiences in the Trojan War in a way that paradoxically combines song’s regular sense of ambiguity about who the narrator of a speech is with contextual cues that defuse that ambiguity in relation to Odysseus in particular. Immediately after Odysseus’ speech, the regular concluding formula appears that ends all three of Demodocus’ songs. In these two songs, the subject matter consistently affects the speech presentation techniques that appear. The first and third songs of Demodocus, unlike his much longer second song (8.266–367), narrate events from the Trojan War cycle that overlap to some extent with the events of the Odyssey itself, or at least with the experiences of Odysseus that include but are not limited to the events in the Odyssey.⁵² Moreover, within the third song, the part that deals with subjects other than Odysseus is presented with free indirect speech, while the part about Odysseus himself—unlike most of the rest of this song, or the first song—has almost no narrative ambiguity because of the repeated forms of ἀείδω. The repeated verb forms here, and even more so in the long passage of indirect speech where Odysseus narrates his tale to Penelope (Od. 23.310–342), show that repeating forms of subordinating verbs of speaking can be used to clarify who the narrator is. Conversely, the absence of subordinating verbs is one option among several, not a default. We may say that less vivid modes of speech presentation are used for topics that most closely approach Odysseus himself, in order to draw a line between the main narrator’s presentation of Odysseus and anyone else’s presentation of him. At the same time, free indirect speech gives vividness both to causes of events that involve Odysseus, where the causes are not specific to Odysseus (both songs), and to narration of events that do not involve Odysseus personally (the Trojan part of the third song). But these features of the first and third songs do relate to Odysseus’ story, and so no direct quotation appears, in order to keep the main narrator’s own presentation of Odysseus separate from his appearance in the narratives of other characters. The second song, in contrast to the other two, features a number of direct quotations, and not coincidentally, its subject has nothing at all to do with Odysseus’ story.⁵³ The second song of Demodocus (8.266–367) begins and ends like his other two songs, but the middle section, uniquely, includes a long scene of SPEECH PRESENTATION in the ODYSSEY

147

Beck-final.indb 147

6/26/12 7:57:08 PM

conversation between the gods that is directly quoted. As the song begins, we are told the topic of Demodocus’ song with an object noun in a speech mention construction (267) that leads to indirect speech (268–269), which in turn leads to free indirect speech where the narrative in the song continues without any subordinating conjunctions or clear indication of just who is narrating. αὐτὰρ ὁ φορμίζων ἀνεβάλλετο καλὸν ἀείδειν ἀμφ’ Ἄρεος φιλότητος ἐϋστεφάνου τ’ Ἀφροδίτης, ὡς τὰ πρῶτα μίγησαν ἐν Ἡφαίστοιο δόμοισι λάθρῃ· πολλὰ δ’ ἔδωκε, λέχος δ’ ᾔσχυνε καὶ εὐνὴν Ἡφαίστοιο ἄνακτος· ἄφαρ δέ οἱ ἄγγελος ἦλθεν Ἥλιος, ὅ σφ’ ἐνόησε μιγαζομένους φιλότητι. Ἥφαιστος δ’ ὡς οὖν θυμαλγέα μῦθον ἄκουσε . . . Demodokos struck the lyre and began singing well the story about the love of Ares and sweet-garlanded Aphrodite, how they first lay together in the house of Hephaistos secretly; he gave her much and fouled the marriage and bed of the lord Hephaistos; to him there came as messenger Helios, the sun, who had seen them lying in love together. Hephaistos, when he had heard the heartsore story of it . . .

(Od. 8.266 – 272) The speech mention opening of the song (267) takes the form of a prepositional phrase rather than the accusative direct object νεῖκος (“the quarrel,” 8.75) that opened the first song, but the basic effect is the same. Then a subordinate clause in indirect speech amplifies this brief statement of the song’s subject (268–269), followed by independent sentences of free indirect speech (270–272 and continuing throughout the song).⁵⁴ The excerpt quoted above includes a speech within Demodocus’ song, the message from Helius telling Hephaestus about the misbehavior of Aphrodite and Ares (270, ἄγγελος ἦλθεν, “came as messenger,” referred to as a μῦθον, “story,” in 272). This speech—unlike many that follow later in the song—does not derive meaning from gaps between the literal content of the speech and an unstated or implied intention of the speaker, either for Helius’ addressee, Hephaestus, or for the audience(s) of Demodocus’ song. As a result, a nondirect mode of speech presentation includes all the information that is necessary for the audience to understand what is happening.⁵⁵ Aside from these informational messages brought by Helius, the other

SPE ECH PR E SEN TAT ION in HOM ER IC EPIC

148

Beck-final.indb 148

6/26/12 7:57:08 PM

speeches in the song are quoted directly because their specific language and not simply their propositional content creates their meaning. The first quotation in the song, Ares’ suggestion to Aphrodite that they take advantage of Hephaestus’ absence to go to bed together, provides a clear example (8.291–295). ἔν τ’ ἄρα οἱ φῦ χειρὶ ἔπος τ’ ἔφατ’ ἔκ τ’ ὀνόμαζε· “Δεῦρο, φίλη, λέκτρονδε τραπείομεν εὐνηθέντες· οὐ γὰρ ἔθ’ Ἥφαιστος μεταδήμιος, ἀλλά που ἤδη οἴχεται ἐς Λῆμνον μετὰ Σίντιας ἀγριοφώνους.” ὣς φάτο, τῇ δ’ ἀσπαστὸν ἐείσατο κοιμηθῆναι. He took her by the hand and spoke to her and named her, saying: “Come, my dear, let us take our way to the bed, and lie there, for Hephaistos is no longer hereabouts, but by this time he must have come to Lemnos and the wild-spoken Sintians.” So he spoke, and she was well pleased to sleep with him.

The introductory verse at 291 consistently introduces affectionate or emotional speech, often but not always between a man and a woman who have some kind of love relationship.⁵⁶ Thus, even before the speech begins, the formulaic introduction to the direct quotation (a formula that would not be used if the speech were not quoted) creates expectations about what Ares says. The speech itself includes several features that are typical of direct quotation, such as the vocative φίλη (“my dear,” 292), the subjunctive used for a suggestion (τραπείομεν, “let us take our way,” 292), and the γάρ clause offered as an inducement to go along with the directive (293–294). A non-direct presentation of Ares’ directive would leave out all these features (with the possible exception of the γάρ clause, which might appear in free indirect speech), and would therefore in an important sense not present the directive accurately. From one point of view, the speech is quoted directly because to do otherwise would not present the speech appropriately, but from another perspective, direct quotation is possible here but not in the other two songs of Demodocus because the content of this story— unlike the other two songs—does not overlap with the main narrator’s own tale about Odysseus. In the second half of the song, the story focuses on the aftermath of the liaison between Ares and Aphrodite, as the gods discuss and ultimately resolve the issues that the affair has created. All the speeches that occur in this part of the story are quoted directly, for the same combination of reasons as the speech of Ares (292–294): the conversational exchange that is a

SPEECH PRESENTATION in the ODYSSEY

149

Beck-final.indb 149

6/26/12 7:57:09 PM

key aspect of the story here would not come across effectively unless it were quoted directly, and direct speech is compatible with this tale because the subject matter does not overlap with the subject matter of the Odyssey itself. The conversation proceeds as follows. First Hephaestus makes a long angry speech (306–320) to the gods that—in addition to expressive features, like vocatives, that we find in Ares’ speech at 292–294—contains multiple moves as well as subsidiary moves to support the main moves. Multiple moves within a single speech, as well as subsidiary moves in support of a main move, appear almost exclusively in direct quotation. Hephaestus’ speech here includes a directive to the gods as a group (307, and an imperative at 313), a purpose clause (307) explaining the rationale behind the directive, and a subsidiary comment about who is responsible for the current state of affairs (310–312). The end of the speech presents a threat, that Hephaestus will not release the lovers until Zeus pays back the gifts Hephaestus gave for Aphrodite (317–319). Non-direct speech occasionally presents a single subsidiary move,⁵⁷ but most often, non-direct speech presents a single concise move. Thus, like Ares’ suggestion to Aphrodite, Hephaestus’ speech has many features important to its meaning and function in the larger conversational context that can only be presented in direct quotation. In the remainder of the conversations that the song presents, we see a similarly wide range of expressive and interactive features in the speeches that are quoted directly. The male gods comment in surprise that the lame Hephaestus has captured the swift Ares (329–332); Apollo and Hermes exchange a lubricious question and (emotive) response that results in general laughter (335–343); Poseidon makes a plea to Hephaestus (347–348), who makes a problematic reply (350–353) that elicits a promise from Poseidon (355–356) and agreement from Hephaestus (358).⁵⁸ The freed lovers each hasten to leave the scene of their embarrassment, the conflict is resolved, and the song is over (ταῦτ’ ἄρ’ ἀοιδὸς ἄειδε περικλυτός, “So the famous singer sang his song,” 367). All of these speeches have features that cannot be presented without direct quotation. Plea (347–348) is strongly associated with direct quotation when presented by the main narrator of the Iliad,⁵⁹ although characters normally present it non-directly, using a form of λίσσομαι (“pray, entreat”) to indicate that the directive is a plea.⁶⁰ Similarly, emotive speeches (335–343), questions (335–337), and problematic moves (350–353) are all strongly associated with direct quotation. The last two speeches, Poseidon’s promise and Hephaestus’ agreement, appear in direct quotation not because these speech act types generally require direct quotation, but to present in direct quotation the entire conversation, including the resolution of Hephaestus’ grievance. These last two speeches are not themselves problematic or expressive speech act types, but they are part of SPE ECH PR E SEN TAT ION in HOM ER IC EPIC

150

Beck-final.indb 150

6/26/12 7:57:10 PM

an overall conversation that is quite expressive and problematic. Thus, the individual speeches that are quoted in the second half of the song, as well as the entire conversation between Hephaestus and Poseidon, have prominent features that require direct quotation to present them effectively. The second song merges the narrating voices of the main narrator and of Demodocus in a quantitatively different way from the other two songs of Demodocus. First, the sense of dislocation or confusion about who the narrating voice belongs to persists over a much longer stretch of the Odyssey than it does in either the first or the third song. Although the song is 100 verses long, after ὡς . . . μίγησαν (“how . . . they lay together”) in verse 268, no subordinating syntax of any kind reminds the audience that the main narrator is presenting a song of Demodocus. This is the main reason for the much-noted sense in this song that the main narrator has effectively vanished as an intermediary between Demodocus and the external audience. During the first quarter of the song (through verse 290), the song has the form of a narrative in free indirect speech. Once direct quotations start appearing, the same sense of merging between Demodocus and the main narrator persists, although it is inaccurate to call a direct quotation a piece of free indirect speech. The quotations unambiguously present the speech of the quoted speaker; what is unclear is who presents the quotations. In other words, who says τὸν δ’ ἠμείβετ’ ἔπειτα διάκτορος ἀργειφόντης (“Then in turn the courier Argeïphontes answered,” 8.338), a type of formula that is common in the Iliad and Odyssey but that hardly appears in the speech of any non-poet character? Is it the main narrator, or Demodocus, or both? The parts of the song that connect the directly quoted speeches together meet the main criterion for free indirect speech, namely, a piece of narrative where it is unclear whether the narrating voice belongs to the presenting narrator or the character whose speech is being presented. Moreover, this song is unique not only because it uses direct quotation, but also because it uses quotation as the most usual way to present speech, with the same kinds of speech-introductory verses and conversational structures that the main narrator uses.⁶¹ The combination of this approach to direct quotation with the use of free indirect speech to present basically the entire song almost completely effaces the main narrator (or, one might equally say, effaces Demodocus, whose reappearance in the concluding verse, ταῦτ’ ἄρ’ ἀοιδὸς ἄειδε, “So the singer sang his song” [367], comes as something of a surprise). While this song temporarily pushes aside the main narrator, it does not push aside the Odyssey itself, since it has a completely different subject from the song in which it occurs. This important difference in subject explains why, so much more than the other two songs of Demodocus SPEECH PRESENTATION in the ODYSSEY

151

Beck-final.indb 151

6/26/12 7:57:10 PM

do, the second song takes on an independent life of its own. If the other two songs had been presented in the same way the second song is, they might appear in some sense to become the Odyssey. Many different features of speech presentation for song combine to make song unique among speech act types found in the Homeric poems. Overall, speech presentation techniques make the songs presented by characters in the Odyssey both very engaging and slightly removed from the audience(s). Song consistently features speech presentation strategies that highlight the figure of the narrator precisely at points where the narrator is a singer like the narrator of the Odyssey. Yet no other kind of speech act subtype entails the kinds of limitations in speech presentation that song does. Song is presented only by poets or poet characters, virtually never by non-poet characters. Similarly, poet characters can be directly quoted either as poets or as regular speakers, but not as both. Moreover, the main narrator of the Odyssey presents song almost exclusively with non-direct modes of speech presentation. Although both indirect speech that uses a subordinate clause and free indirect speech are found outside of song,⁶² no other kind of speech act except song consistently relies on these modes of presentation—particularly on free indirect speech—as its primary modes of presentation. Indeed, when Demodocus is directly quoted, it is only when he is singing a song whose subject is far removed from the subject of the Odyssey. As a result, this song, and this song only, becomes extraordinarily vivid for the audience, yet with no possibility that it will take the place of the Odyssey. Paradoxically, the myriad limitations on how song is presented make song stand out among modes of speech in the Odyssey. The distancing effect of many of these limitations creates not a sense of disengagement, but an even livelier vividness and interest than more commonly used speech presentation strategies would have created. A fascinating but ultimately unanswerable question is why these distancing strategies of speech presentation appear. One result of the sense of distance between the external audience and poetry in the Odyssey is that while the poem strongly directs our attention to scenes involving poets, the external audience is not entirely sure what the Odyssey thinks about poets and poetry. The topic is, nonetheless, one of the liveliest interest to untold generations of scholars and readers; hence the enormous bibliography on poets and song in the Odyssey. A recent treatment argues that the main narrator feels competitive toward Odysseus, and discusses speech presentation strategies for song in connection with this idea;⁶³ Edwards thinks that Demodocus’ songs are presented the way they are in order to avoid confusion between the Odyssey and Demodocus’ poetry (Edwards 1987: 40). It is certainly true that Demodocus models what an interesting story, and the reSPE ECH PR E SEN TAT ION in HOM ER IC EPIC

152

Beck-final.indb 152

6/26/12 7:57:11 PM

action of its audience, should look like (Minchin 2001: 206–209), but this does not fully explain the nature of the poet, the story, or the audience. The Odyssey presents song as it does not simply to avoid confusion, but in order to mark song out as a unique and somehow privileged kind of speech that is not as easily available to the external audience as other forms of speech are, and in particular to separate the Odyssey itself from other songs that appear within the poem. The motivation for doing this remains ultimately unknowable, even while its effects have fascinated audiences for millennia.

C ONC LUS IONS

The speech act subtype of song uses each of the different modes of speech presentation for particular effects. Each mode of speech presentation has a consistent role to play within a typical song—speech mention gives the title, as it were; indirect speech briefly depicts the main subject of the song; and free indirect speech (where it is present) develops the subject at greater length, adding various expressive details to the more concise presentation of the song provided by speech mention and indirect speech. Direct quotations within song, though rare, depict the same interactive and pragmatic features of speech that direct quotation depicts throughout the Homeric poems. At the same time, individual songs use these different modes of speech presentation differently, depending on what the song is about and, in some cases, on what specific portion of the story in a particular song is being told. This creates subtle differences between one song and another, and it highlights the idea of narrative while keeping a kind of barrier in place between poet narrators and the audience. Thus, even though in some ways song is an extremely idiosyncratic part of the overall speech act landscape in Homeric epic, it provides a microcosm of the speech presentation spectrum in the poems overall: song uses speech presentation techniques in ways that are consistent both internally within song and with the way these speech presentation techniques function throughout the Homeric poems; it uses them to complement one another; and it uses them to create varied, subtle narrative effects that depict one of the key themes of the Odyssey, namely, song and narrative. More generally, speech in the Odyssey is presented consistently across various narrative levels, except that direct quotation appears so much more often at the level of the main narrators than it does in speech presented by characters. This difference drives most of the other differences between how speech is presented across narrative levels. On balance, the similarities are more notable than the differences. For instance, it is quite strikSPEECH PRESENTATION in the ODYSSEY

153

Beck-final.indb 153

6/26/12 7:57:12 PM

ing how similar women’s speech is to men’s, despite the very different social roles that men and women play in the poem. Generally speaking, the specific differences between narrative levels, such as speech act types that appear at one narrative level but not at another, or the different subtypes of assertives that characters present compared to the main narrator, relate not only to the comparatively small amount of direct quotation in character speech, but also to key themes of the poem. Moreover, this chapter provides a speech presentation spectrum for characters that complements that of the main narrator rather than simply being subordinate to it. Speech presented by the characters is not a subset of what the main narrators do. Rather, it includes most of the same kinds of speech presentation that the main narrator uses (albeit in different proportions). At the same time, it also includes types of speech that are specific to speech presented by characters and yet make an important contribution to the overall narrative texture of the Odyssey. The next chapter continues the process of developing overall speech presentation spectrums of different sorts by studying the Iliad in the same way that this chapter has studied the Odyssey. It will show a picture of speech presentation that differs in many ways from what we saw in the Odyssey, but at the same time, one that draws on fundamentally the same set of speech act types, speech presentation techniques, and conversational pragmatics to create the very different story told in the Iliad.

SPE ECH PR E SEN TAT ION in HOM ER IC EPIC

154

Beck-final.indb 154

6/26/12 7:57:12 PM

c h a p t e r si x

SPE EC H PR E SE N TAT ION in the IL I A D

The Iliad has a speech presentation spectrum that in many ways closely resembles that of the Odyssey. From various perspectives, however, the Iliad is less conversational than the Odyssey is: compared to the Odyssey, the Iliad has a lower proportion of direct quotation (particularly as presented by characters), a smaller percentage of reactive and problematic moves, and less than half as many questions in a larger number of speeches presented. The Iliad is not on this account a less expressive poem than the Odyssey. Where the Odyssey creates its expressive effects largely through the characters’ speeches to and with one another, the Iliad relies much more heavily on emotive speech acts. These create expressive effects, but in such a way that the emotions generated—usually on the battlefield, or after a loved one has died—emphasize individual characters’ bereavement or alienation from one another rather than their connection. The first part of this chapter draws a speech presentation spectrum for the Iliad, partly through a broad descriptive overview of it, and partly by contrasting this overview with the speech presentation spectrum in the Odyssey. Both of these approaches will show that the Iliad uses the same basic speech presentation spectrum as the Odyssey, but it presents speech in a much less interactive way than the Odyssey does. The second part of the chapter discusses the story of Patroclus in the Iliad, where every mode of speech presentation contributes to telling the story of an essentially minor character in such a way that he powers much of the impact of the poem. Largely through speech presentation, Patroclus’ relationship with Achilles and his death at Hector’s hands become not simply the central story of the Iliad on which the other plot lines depend, but also the emotional linchpin of the poem.

S PE E C H PR E SE N TAT ION S PE C T RU M I N T H E I L I A D

The Iliad, unlike the Odyssey, contains two very different approaches to speech presentation, at the level of the main narrator and at the level of 155

Beck-final.indb 155

6/26/12 7:57:12 PM

the characters who present speech within their speeches. Although the characters in the Iliad present speech fundamentally differently from any other kind of Homeric narrator, the extremely strange way that they depict speech draws on the same effects of different modes of speech presentation and speech act types that we have seen with other narrators. Moreover, emotives are presented very differently in the Iliad than they are in the Odyssey, highlighting the moods and themes that characterize the Iliad. Counterintuitively, the wide range of specific effects comprised by the speech presentation spectrum in the Iliad strongly emphasizes the existence of this speech presentation spectrum as a consistent, cohesive, and powerful set of tools for building narrative.

ov er a ll pat ter ns of speech pr esentat ion The Iliad presents 1,253 speeches across all narrative levels. The main narrator presents two-thirds of these (845), and the characters present onethird (403). Thus, characters in the Iliad, unlike those in the Odyssey, present a clear minority of the speeches in the poem overall. A negligible five speeches occur at a third level of narrative subordination (presented by a character within a character’s speech).¹ The overall breakdown of speeches according to the mode of speech presentation is quite similar to what we find in the Odyssey: 698 speeches are quoted directly (56 percent), 304 are presented in indirect speech (24 percent), 253 are speech mention (20 percent), and 38 (3 percent) of speeches include free indirect speech along with some other mode of speech presentation. However, direct speech in the Iliad is used almost exclusively by the main narrator: the characters present just 20 of the direct quotations in the poem.² Characters present the majority of both indirect speech and speech mention in proportions nearly identical to what we find in the Odyssey.³ The main narrator of the Iliad presents a noticeably larger proportion of the speeches in the poem than the narrator of the Odyssey does, as measured both by the percentage of speeches overall presented by the main narrator and by the proportion of non-direct speech modes that are presented by the main narrator.⁴ Seven percent of the speeches in the Odyssey (77 examples) are presented either by a narrator that is unclear (most notably in Demodocus’ songs) or by a character narrator at a third level of narrative subordination. Because these additional levels of narration are essentially not found in the Iliad, its main narrator presents a greater proportion of speeches and a greater proportion of nondirect speech than does the main narrator of the Odyssey. Directives are by far the most common kind of speech act in the Iliad, making up 61 percent of all the speeches presented (764 instances). Every SPE ECH PR E SEN TAT ION in HOM ER IC EPIC

156

Beck-final.indb 156

6/26/12 7:57:13 PM

other kind of speech act, except emotives (10 percent of speeches, 123 instances), constitutes a smaller proportion of speech in the Iliad than it does in the Odyssey. Questions form just 5 percent of the speeches in the Iliad (58 instances), and assertives are 27 percent (336 instances). In other words, the sum of the percentages of questions and assertives in the Iliad is less than the percentage of assertives alone in the Odyssey. Four percent of the Iliad speeches have no specified speech act type (50 instances). As these figures suggest, the Iliad in some fundamental sense is about getting other people to do what you want them to do, whereas the Odyssey is about trying to get other people to tell you what you want to know.⁵ The kinds of moves we find in the Iliad strongly emphasize the comparatively nonconversational nature of speech in the poem. Initial moves appear in 71 percent of speeches (893 instances), whereas less than a quarter of speeches include a move that follows up in some way on a previous move (19 percent reactive moves, 243 instances; 4 percent problematic moves, 38 instances). Thirteen percent (165 instances) of moves do not have a clear move type. The Iliad has a noticeably smaller percentage of follow-up moves than the Odyssey, which has more reactive moves (29 percent) than the Iliad has follow-up moves of any sort (23 percent). It is quite striking that the Odyssey has more problematic moves (42 instances) than the Iliad does, even though the Iliad has more speeches overall and is rightly seen as the more quarrelsome of the two poems. This is because the Odyssey develops its major conflicts largely through conversation, which entails problematic moves, rather than through warfare or other nonverbal means; in contrast, the conflicts in the Iliad often have a conversational component,⁶ but in an important sense, these conflicts cannot be either depicted or resolved through conversations alone. The association of directives and assertives with certain move types in the Iliad is, broadly speaking, the same as it is in the Odyssey: directives are mainly initial,⁷ and assertives are mainly reactive.⁸ Broadly speaking, the Iliad and the Odyssey share the same associations between particular modes of speech presentation and particular types of either speech act or move. In both poems, unspecified speech act types are never quoted directly, and unspecified move types are quoted either never (Odyssey) or hardly ever (four examples in the Iliad).⁹ Conversely, problematic moves are either always (Iliad) or almost always (Odyssey)¹⁰ directly quoted. In the Iliad, reactive moves and question and emotive speech acts all have a noticeably conversational or expressive quality, and all appear predominantly in direct quotation reactive moves.¹¹ The presentation of song in the Iliad is responsible for a noticeable difference between the Iliad and the Odyssey, namely the much greater percentSPEECH PRESENTATION in the ILIAD

157

Beck-final.indb 157

6/26/12 7:57:14 PM

age of assertives presented by the main narrator of the Odyssey as speech mention. While the Odyssey narrator presents 40 percent (17 instances) of speech mentions as assertives, the Iliad ’s main narrator presents just 13 percent (11 instances) of speech mentions as assertives. In both poems, approximately one-half of these speech mention assertives are song, but the kind of song differs. In the Odyssey, 11 of 17 speech mention assertives presented by the main narrator depict song. One of the 11 is the invocation to the Muse in the first verse of the poem, and the rest present songs by various characters.¹² The main narrator of the Iliad, on the other hand, depicts song in 6 of the 11 assertives presented with speech mention, half of which involve either the Muses or the main narrator as the presenter of the song in question rather than a character within the poem.¹³ Character singers appear in only the briefest possible terms: the young Greek warriors sing a paean after the plague in the camp is halted (1.472–474);¹⁴ Achilles is singing a song when the Greek embassy arrives (9.189);¹⁵ the young harvesters on the shield of Achilles sing a λίνος (18.569–571), a word appearing only here in Homeric poetry.¹⁶ The Iliad has no references to the professional singers who play such a prominent role in the Odyssey, except for the professional mourners who sing for Hector as a backdrop to his female relatives (ἀοιδοὺς . . . οἵ τε στονόεσσαν ἀοιδὴν / οἱ μὲν ἄρ’ ἐθρήνεον, ἐπὶ δὲ στενάχοντο γυναῖκες, “The singers / chanted the song of sorrow, and the women were mourning beside them,” 24.720–722). When the Iliad depicts characters singing, they perform genres of song for which no occasion arises in the Odyssey.¹⁷ Conversely, the Odyssey makes just one appeal to the Muses in the entire poem, whereas the Iliad repeatedly addresses the Muses.¹⁸ All these individual kinds of songs behave consistently across both poems. The differences between the two poems in the presentation of song arise because of differences in the main themes of the two poems, not differences in the way a particular speech act type is presented. Similarly, while emotive speech acts appear very differently in the Iliad than they do in the Odyssey, the basic characteristics of the underlying speech act types are the same in both poems. Although emotive speeches represent a comparatively small overall percentage of the speeches in the Iliad, it is striking that they are the only kind of speech act except for directives that is more common in the Iliad than in the Odyssey. Moreover, the bulk of the subtypes of emotive speeches most commonly found in the Iliad—challenge, vaunt, lament—appear rarely (vaunt, lament)¹⁹ or not at all (challenge) in the Odyssey. The conversational and expressive qualities of these subtypes differ in various ways from the most common emotive subtypes in the Odyssey (wishes, and greetings or farewells). Because the Iliad uses different emotive subtypes than the Odyssey, emotives in the Iliad are SPE ECH PR E SEN TAT ION in HOM ER IC EPIC

158

Beck-final.indb 158

6/26/12 7:57:14 PM

predominantly initial (78 percent of emotives, 96 instances), whereas the emotives in the Odyssey are divided approximately equally between initial and reactive moves, and hence participate more actively in conversational exchange. Moreover, a smaller proportion of emotive speeches are quoted directly in the Iliad than in the Odyssey. Emotive speeches in the Iliad, unlike those in the Odyssey, often belong to subtypes (analogous to prayer or supplication as subtypes of directives) that can be captured by a single word.²⁰ All but two of the non-direct emotives in the Iliad belong to the subtypes of challenge, lament, or vaunt that can be presented in this way. Hence, the modest but noticeable difference between the two poems in the proportion of emotive speeches that are directly quoted has to do with differences in what subtypes of emotive speeches are presented. It does not result from different approaches to the same subtypes of emotives. In the Iliad as in the Odyssey, direct quotation is almost always used for emotive speech acts, but the emotive speeches in the Iliad draw on the expressive force of direct quotation not to depict the relations of characters to one another, but to dramatize the conflict of battle and the loss it often creates. On the one hand, then, the two most common speech act types, directive and assertive, line up similarly with particular move types in the two poems, which yields a largely consistent approach to much of the speech found in each poem. On the other hand, different kinds of emotives commonly appear in the Iliad than in the Odyssey, which highlights the more confrontational and less interactive tenor of speech in the Iliad. The kinds of emotives that are most commonly found in the Iliad generally do not appear in the Odyssey because they are not relevant to that poem’s plot. Combative emotive subtypes, like challenge and exhortation, function consistently across both poems, but they appear more or less often in one poem or the other because of differences in the stories and themes. Similarly, the different narrative levels in the Odyssey draw on the same set of speech presentation techniques in different ways to create different effects. The speech presentation spectrum for the Iliad overall, then, is broadly similar to the one in the Odyssey; where it differs from the Odyssey, it consistently does so in ways that both stem from and depict the different kind of story it tells. Individual phenomena, such as directives, reactive moves, or particular subtypes of emotive speeches, function consistently across different narrative levels and different poems. What differs is how often particular techniques are used. This shows us the outlines of what we might call a “Homeric” speech presentation spectrum: a set of tools that have fairly clear and consistent effects in the narrative, and that are used in different poems and at different narrative levels in varied ways to create a range of different effects suitable to particular storylines, themes, and narrators. In SPEECH PRESENTATION in the ILIAD

159

Beck-final.indb 159

6/26/12 7:57:15 PM

many respects, the kinds of speech acts that occur in the Iliad focus primarily on the actions of others and the negative feelings of characters that relate to battle.

t he speech pr esentat ion spec tru m for ch a r ac ter s The characters in the Iliad have a very different overall speech presentation spectrum from the main narrator, almost entirely due to the lack of direct quotation in character-presented speech. Eighty percent of the speech presented by the main narrator appears in direct quotation (678 instances), with the remaining 20 percent divided equally between indirect speech and speech mention (85 and 83 instances, respectively).²¹ One percent of speeches presented by the main narrator (10 instances) include free indirect speech in addition to one of the non-direct modes of speech presentation. The characters, in contrast, present just 5 percent of their total speeches with direct quotation (20 instances). Fifty-four percent of characterpresented speeches appear in indirect speech (219 instances) and 42 percent as speech mention (169 instances), with 7 percent of speeches (27 instances) adding free indirect speech to either indirect speech or speech mention. These figures for character-presented speech in the Iliad are similar in their overall proportions to what we find for characters in the Odyssey, except for the drastically lower percentage of direct quotation presented by characters in the Iliad. Speech presented by the main narrator of the Iliad has a lower percentage of direct quotation than speech presented by the main narrator of the Odyssey, too, but the difference is much smaller. The characters in the Iliad provide a glimpse of a fundamentally different way of presenting speech, where the words of the presenting narrator rather than direct quotations tell the story. Although this way of narrating does not characterize the Homeric poems overall, it does fall within the compass of the poems. In other words, this narrative option is available, but it is not used except in a very specific and limited part of the Iliad. The Conclusion will explore the ramifications of this idea in more detail. The distribution of speech acts, and assertive subtypes in particular, in the Iliad highlights the oddity of the characters’ speech presentation spectrum. These speech acts depict naming and status as key themes in the poem. As in the Odyssey, individual subtypes of assertives behave consistently across all narrative levels, but tend to appear predominantly either in speech presented by the main narrator or in speech presented by characters. Characters in the Iliad present a higher proportion of their speech as assertives than the main narrator does; this is the only speech act type that is more plentiful in character speech than in speech presented by the main SPE ECH PR E SEN TAT ION in HOM ER IC EPIC

160

Beck-final.indb 160

6/26/12 7:57:15 PM

narrator. In particular, characters in the Iliad present a high proportion of statements of identity that explore and (try to) establish the genealogies and the relative statuses of the people described.²² For example, in Book 1, Achilles reassures Calchas that he should speak honestly about why the Greeks are falling ill with the plague, even if the cause is Agamemnon, ὃς νῦν πολλὸν ἄριστος Ἀχαιῶν εὔχεται εἶναι (“who now claims to be far the greatest of all the Achaians,” Iliad 1.91). This statement shows the most common features of such speeches: a superlative, here ἄριστος (“the greatest”), and the main verb εὔχομαι with an infinitive εἶναι dependent on it.²³ This basic pattern appears in different contexts to create varied effects, sometimes by subverting the expectations created by the usual contexts in which such statements appear. Statements in indirect speech form the largest group of characterpresented assertives in the Iliad, as they do in the Odyssey. Characters present 59 statements, of which 41 appear in indirect speech. Seven appear as speech mention and 11, strikingly, as direct quotation.²⁴ Characters in the Iliad most commonly present statements about identity, rather than the statements that attribute the authority for a particular statement to a third party that are so common in the Odyssey. Hedging statements like “They say X is Y” do appear in the Iliad,²⁵ but they appear much less often than in the Odyssey. Slightly over half (30) of the statements presented by characters in the Iliad make claims of various kinds about where the subject of the statement stands in an overall hierarchy, most commonly of merit but also of genealogy. The largest group of assertions about identity includes a form of superlative to state that the subject of the assertion is on top of some important heap, as in Iliad 1.91. This, of course, is a key theme of the poem beginning from the first assembly of the Greeks in Iliad 1; more generally, it is a fundamental cultural concern underlying the whole of the Iliad.²⁶ The Iliad depicts a world where anxiety about status relative to others is pervasive, and the particular kind of statement that characters in the Iliad most often present dramatizes this. Characters in the Iliad are concerned with their status not only relative to others on the same side, as Achilles and Agamemnon so often are, but also relative to their opponents. Statements about genealogy appear regularly on the battlefield as part of a warrior’s arsenal,²⁷ and may be hurled at an opponent alongside spears.²⁸ Statements that identify a person in this way tend to be presented by characters rather than by the main narrators. They appear much less often in the Odyssey than they do in the Iliad because the two poems have different themes, but when they do appear, they have similar forms in both poems. The most extensive, and in some ways the most interesting, example of this occurs when two warriors with diSPEECH PRESENTATION in the ILIAD

161

Beck-final.indb 161

6/26/12 7:57:16 PM

vine mothers, Achilles and Aeneas, meet in Book 20.²⁹ After Achilles challenges Aeneas (178–198), Aeneas replies at length (200–258), focusing almost exclusively on lineages, mostly his own but also that of Achilles.³⁰ At the same time, he speaks repeatedly about the limits of speech as a method of attack, so that the speech both draws on and questions the use of genealogy as an attack strategy. An excerpt from near the beginning of the speech (20.206–212)³¹ shows in brief the key features of the speech overall. φασὶ σὲ μὲν Πηλῆος ἀμύμονος ἔκγονον εἶναι, μητρὸς δ’ ἐκ Θέτιδος καλλιπλοκάμου ἁλοσύδνης· αὐτὰρ ἐγὼν υἱὸς μεγαλήτορος Ἀγχίσαο εὔχομαι ἐκγεγάμεν, μήτηρ δέ μοί ἐστ’ Ἀφροδίτη· τῶν δὴ νῦν ἕτεροί γε φίλον παῖδα κλαύσονται σήμερον· οὐ γάρ φημ’ ἐπέεσσί γε νηπυτίοισιν ὧδε διακρινθέντε μάχης ἒξ ἀπονέεσθαι. For you, they say you are the issue of blameless Peleus and that your mother was Thetis of the lovely hair, the sea’s lady; I in turn claim I am the son of great-hearted Anchises but that my mother was Aphrodite; and that of these parents one group or the other will have a dear son to mourn for this day. Since I believe we will not in mere words, like children, meet, and separate and go home again out of the fighting.

In this quotation, the genealogy of Achilles comes across slightly less forcefully than Aeneas’ own, since he uses the less emphatic φασί (“they say,” 206) for Achilles’ parentage, but εὔχομαι (“I claim,” 209) for his own. He states the name of his mother in the strongest terms of all, simply saying μήτηρ . . . ἐστί (“My mother is . . . ,” 209). The lack of a reporting verb of speaking or subordinate clause to present what was said depicts the identity of Aeneas’ mother as a fact, not as a statement that—however proud and authoritative³²—is subject to the authority of the speaker. In other speeches where a character talks about the lineage of his opponent in battle, he speaks in clearly negative terms about the other fighter,³³ but here, Aeneas draws no comparison between himself and Achilles except the one implied by the different verbs of speaking he uses to present his divine parentage and Achilles’. Indeed, 20.211–212 cast doubt on the point of speaking during battle at all, even while Aeneas’ speech is the longest example in the Iliad of genealogy as a verbal assault on one’s opponent. In the rest of the speech, Aeneas goes through all the generations of his descent from Zeus (213–241); almost

SPE ECH PR E SEN TAT ION in HOM ER IC EPIC

162

Beck-final.indb 162

6/26/12 7:57:17 PM

immediately afterward, he scouts the idea of talking on the battlefield instead of fighting (244–257) before finally suggesting that he and Achilles fight with weapons (257–258). This paradox at the heart of the speech highlights the idea of genealogy as a way of attacking an opponent more effectively and more engagingly than simply using lineage in this way without commenting on it would have done, at a moment when the two combatants are particularly evenly matched because each of them is the child of a goddess mother and a mortal father.

dir ec t quotat ion pr esented by ch a r ac ter s Overall, characters in the Iliad—as in the Odyssey—present speech less expressively than the main narrator does, but this gap between characters and the main narrator is consistently larger in the Iliad than it is in the Odyssey. A similar but smaller expressive gulf exists between the characters in the Iliad and the characters in the Odyssey. Characters in the Iliad, unlike either the main narrator of the Iliad or characters in the Odyssey, present hardly any of the most expressive forms of speech: 5 percent of their speech is direct quotation (20 instances), a difference that drives all the others; 6 percent of speech presented by characters in the Iliad includes either a reactive or a problematic move (23 reactive moves, 1 problematic move at 19.107–111);³⁴ just 3 percent presents either an emotive or a question.³⁵ Conversely, one-third of character-presented speech has no specified move type (129 of 403 instances), and thus no clear role in conversational exchange. The characters in the Iliad present speech less expressively than the characters in the Odyssey, who present nearly a fifth (18 percent, 78 instances) of their speeches as reactive moves and over 10 percent (59 instances) as questions. At the same time, the proportions of initial moves are similar for character-presented speech in the two poems,³⁶ which suggests that Iliad characters present speeches as conversationally detached (that is, as unspecified moves) that in the Odyssey would be reactive moves clearly located within a conversational exchange. Moreover, the Odyssey shows that nondirect speech does not necessarily lead to speech that is detached from conversational interchange, given the large proportion of questions that characters in the Odyssey present with speech mention. While a comparative lack of various kinds of expressive features typifies the speech presentation spectrum for characters in the Iliad overall, the relatively inexpressive nature of speech presented by characters in the Iliad is most visible and most extreme in the way that they use direct quotation. Direct quotation is nearly absent from speech presented by characters in

SPEECH PRESENTATION in the ILIAD

163

Beck-final.indb 163

6/26/12 7:57:17 PM

the Iliad, with only 20 examples found in over 400 instances of characterpresented speech. Moreover, the specific speech act types presented in direct quotation by characters differ substantially from the overall breakdown of speech act types found at any other narrative level or in any other mode of speech presentation. Studies that do not take a panoramic view of all kinds of speech presentation in both poems fail to see this as the anomaly that it is. Direct quotation is used regularly by characters in the Odyssey, mainly but not exclusively by Odysseus; non-direct modes of speech are used consistently across all narrative levels in both poems, predominantly but by no means exclusively by characters. The particular kinds of speech acts that characters in the Iliad quote directly form an extremely idiosyncratic set that resembles nothing found anywhere else in Homeric poetry. Taken together, these features highlight as a unique aspect of the poem the way that characters in the Iliad use (or rather, do not use) direct quotation. Direct quotation as the characters in the Iliad use it is an almost completely nonconversational medium. This strongly contrasts with direct quotation as it is used by every other narrator or group of narrators previously discussed. Although 11 of 20 direct quotations presented by characters in the Iliad are assertives, none of the quotations are questions, and none of the assertives are replies. Instead, one assertive is a prophecy, and the rest are statements.³⁷ Normally, a large proportion of assertives in direct quotation shows a strongly conversational cast to the speech being presented, but for characters in the Iliad, the reverse is true. The eight directives are primarily orders (6 instances), with one each of message delivery and suggestion.³⁸ The remaining direct quotation is an emotive (a wish, Iliad 4.178– 181). Similarly, no reactive moves are found among the 20 direct quotations that characters present. Nineteen of the 20 are either initial (16) or unspecified (3) moves, and the one clearly conversational move that any character quotes is a problematic move in the Ate story that Agamemnon presents in Book 19.³⁹ Overall, then, character-presented direct quotation in the Iliad takes the comparatively nonconversational approach to speech in the poem overall to an extreme. Direct quotation—normally the most strongly conversational form of speech presentation—depicts speech that is almost completely lacking in any kind of conversational exchange. In fact, quotations presented by characters in the Iliad do not depict any conversations that are based on more or less harmonious exchanges of information, given that the one unambiguously conversational move directly quoted by a character in the Iliad is problematic rather than reactive. If direct quotation as presented by characters is not used for conversation, for what is it used? In brief, it dramatizes the emotions of characters concerned with their own reputations; it offers reasons why an addressee SPE ECH PR E SEN TAT ION in HOM ER IC EPIC

164

Beck-final.indb 164

6/26/12 7:57:18 PM

should obey a directive; and occasionally, it is used because the presented speech is a lie, which is best presented as direct quotation for reasons unrelated to the conversational context of the presented utterance. All the functions that direct quotations serve when presented by characters in the Iliad appear elsewhere, too. What is unique about characters’ direct quotations is not what they present, but rather, the kinds of speech that these characters do not use direct quotation to depict. This tells us that—as with many other forms of speech presentation we have already looked at—direct quotation has a consistent set of functions across poems and narrative levels. Despite the extreme strangeness of characters’ direct quotations in the Iliad compared to direct quotation presented by other narrators, these speeches are drawing on the same speech presentation spectrum as all the rest of the direct quotations in Homeric poetry do. They simply do it in an idiosyncratic way, thereby dramatizing key features of the story of the Iliad: the main preoccupations of both Greeks and Trojans; the comparative lack of harmonious conversational interchange; and the consistent use of emotive speeches rather than interactive conversation to dramatize characters’ feelings, which depicts simultaneously their emotions and their isolation from one another.⁴⁰ The Greek speakers who include direct quotations in their speeches most commonly do so in order to persuade their addressee(s) to go along with a directive.⁴¹ The authority of the quoted speaker in these situations augments that of the presenting speaker. In one of these examples, Agamemnon quotes the exact words of a message he received (2.60–70) as he reports the message to the Greeks and proposes a course of action based on it (2.56–75). Indeed, messages provide a model for invoking the authority of someone else when giving any subtype of directive, in the sense that messages are a kind of directive in which the authority of a third party is regularly not simply an augment to, but the main source of, the authority for a desired course of action. While no exact parallel can be found in the Odyssey for characters using direct quotations that they present as having actually happened to persuade someone to do something, Odysseus uses both speeches presented in non-direct modes that actually happened⁴² and invented direct quotations to convince his addressees to obey his directives.⁴³ Moreover, directives regularly make use of various kinds of inducements to persuade the addressee to comply, most commonly purpose clauses (the goal at which the directive aims) and γάρ clauses (the rationale for the directive). Direct quotations attributed to someone of undisputed authority make good sense as such an inducement, particularly for the Greeks of the Iliad, for whom the identity and the clout of authority figures is a key issue throughout the poem. SPEECH PRESENTATION in the ILIAD

165

Beck-final.indb 165

6/26/12 7:57:18 PM

Trojan fighters, on the other hand, primarily Hector, consistently present hypothetical quotations from unnamed speakers to dramatize concerns about reputation in emotive speeches about battle and death.⁴⁴ Although the quoted speeches in these contexts are usually statements rather than emotive speech acts, the quoting speakers use them for expressive purposes. These speeches have a close parallel in the regularly occurring anonymous speeches attributed to τις speakers that the main narrator of the Iliad presents (see Chapter 1). At both narrative levels, these anonymous speakers make statements about a situation—for the main narrator, the current state of affairs; for Hector, a hypothetical future—in order to convey someone’s feelings about the situation that the hypothetical speaker is talking about. The main narrator’s τις speakers convey the speakers’ feelings, and perhaps secondarily the sympathies of the main narrator, whereas Hector uses his τις quotations to convey his own emotions. Thus, hypothetical speeches as used by Hector draw on a pattern that the main narrator uses, but with an important difference that illustrates a central feature of Hector’s personality. Whereas the main narrator uses τις speeches to include the feelings of larger groups in addition to those of the main actors in the poem as a way of broadening the scope of the action, Hector quotes anonymous speakers to focus on himself and his own feelings about reputation, battle, and death. This inward orientation of Hector, sometimes to the detriment of those closest to him, is one of the key features of his personality (Mackie 1996: 115). This tendency vividly emerges from his exchange with Andromache in Book 6, where he views her inevitable enslavement and misery after his death not on its own terms, but in relation to his own reputation (6.459–461). καί ποτέ τις εἴπῃσιν ἰδὼν κατὰ δάκρυ χέουσαν [sc. Andromache] “Ἕκτορος ἥδε γυνή, ὃς ἀριστεύεσκε μάχεσθαι Τρώων ἱπποδάμων, ὅτε Ἴλιον ἀμφιμάχοντο.” And some day seeing you shedding tears a man will say of you: “This is the wife of Hektor, who was ever the bravest fighter of the Trojans, breakers of horses, in the days when they fought about Ilion.”

Although Hector shows some awareness of and concern for Andromache, since he ends his speech by wishing to be buried in the earth before he hears her cries as a slave (464–465), this quotation clearly shows that he views Andromache’s enslavement primarily in relation to himself and not SPE ECH PR E SEN TAT ION in HOM ER IC EPIC

166

Beck-final.indb 166

6/26/12 7:57:19 PM

with any real sympathy for her plight.⁴⁵ From the point of view of speech act patterns, just as the Iliad overall uses single emotive speech acts to dramatize the emotions of characters more than the Odyssey does, so Hector uses individual direct quotations to dramatize his own emotions in a way that isolates him from his family and countrymen rather than connecting him with them. A third category of direct quotations presented by characters in the Iliad consists of lying speeches uttered by female speakers. These speeches are quoted directly because direct speech most effectively presents the gulf between the words and the intentions of the speaker. Similarly, much of the Odyssey consists of dramatizing the gulf between how Odysseus appears on the surface—both his physical appearance and the things he says—and his true nature. These lying quotations by women relate not to a major theme of the Iliad, but to the properties of different kinds of speech presentation strategies, which in the case of lying speeches concern no particular group of characters or theme of the poem. When a particular speech⁴⁶ contains multiple speeches that include lying speeches among several others, only speeches that depict a speaker’s deception are quoted directly, not the surrounding speeches whose words match up more closely to the speakers’ intentions. This is particularly clear in Glaucus’ long tale about his own lineage, in which the single direct quotation he presents (6.164–165) is Anteia’s order to Proetus to kill Bellerophon, based on a false claim that Bellerophon tried to rape her. Glaucus presents four more speeches in the course of his speech, three as part of the story of Bellerophon and one from his own past.⁴⁷ None of these is quoted directly, and none is deceptive. Overall, then, the character-presented quotations in the Iliad depict kinds of speech that direct quotation depicts regularly elsewhere in the Homeric epics. But they do not present the most common kinds of speech found in direct quotation as presented by all other narrators, and for this reason, direct quotation presented by characters in the Iliad stands out as atypical. In a sense, this simply takes to a logical extreme the general tendencies both of character narrators, who in both poems present speech less expressively than the main narrators do, and of the Iliad, which in many ways depicts speech as less interactive and expressive than it is in the Odyssey. From this perspective, characters in the Iliad use direct quotations in a way that is entirely consistent with both their qualities as presenters of speech and the general characteristics of speech in their story. Conversely, the strange aspects of character-presented direct quotation both highlight and convey some of the prominent characteristics of the Iliad overall. Speech presentation in the Iliad, across all narrative levels, draws on the same set of tools for presenting speech that the Odyssey does. Similarly, SPEECH PRESENTATION in the ILIAD

167

Beck-final.indb 167

6/26/12 7:57:19 PM

speech presentation by the main narrator and by the characters of the Iliad is based on a unified and consistent speech presentation spectrum. Yet this set of tools is used in one way to depict strongly interactive and conversational speech in the Odyssey, and in a different way to show the characters in the Iliad speaking to each other in ways that emphasize their conflict and isolation from one another at least as much as their connections. The Iliad presents more directives, less direct quotation, and fewer interactive moves than the Odyssey does. It also presents a higher proportion of emotive speech acts, particularly those that portray feelings of sadness or conflict. These general patterns of conveying conflict and isolation through speech presentation are even more marked in speech presented by characters in the Iliad. The idiosyncratic way that the characters in the Iliad present speech highlights important themes of the poem, such as concern about where ability or parentage places one in a hierarchy of merit, or the differences between the Greeks and Trojans. From a different point of view, the unique speech presentation spectrum for characters in the Iliad points to a kind of alternative narrative reality, where direct quotation is rarely used and the presenting narrator takes a much more commanding and explicit role than do the main narrators in either the Iliad or the Odyssey. If we see that many kinds of narrative coexist within the Homeric poems, we understand that dominant narrative patterns represent choices rather than default values. We must explore the effects and the implications of these choices in order to understand Homeric narrative. The story of Patroclus offers a fertile field for such an exploration. PAT RO C LUS

Previous work on Patroclus has focused largely on neoanalytical questions about the traditional antecedents of this character.⁴⁸ Essentially, scholars have seen Patroclus in two different but related ways. One line of inquiry argues that Patroclus’ death is a stand-in for the death of Achilles later in the Trojan War,⁴⁹ while a related argument draws on parallels between Patroclus in the Iliad and Antilochus in the Aethiopis to claim that Patroclus is a doublet of Antilochus, whose death after the events of the Iliad causes Achilles to slay his killer, Memnon.⁵⁰ This work tends to presuppose, rather than to explore or explain, the close emotional relationship between Patroclus and Achilles and the major role it plays in the poem.⁵¹ Some work has been done on isolated aspects of the emotional force that Patroclus has in the Iliad. Ancient readers⁵²—and modern ones too, for that matter⁵³— wonder whether Achilles and Patroclus are lovers; they note the sympathy

SPE ECH PR E SEN TAT ION in HOM ER IC EPIC

168

Beck-final.indb 168

6/26/12 7:57:20 PM

the narrator has for Patroclus, most clearly visible through the vocatives the main narrator addresses to him;⁵⁴ but a systematic study is lacking that looks comprehensively at the various scenes in which Patroclus has an important role, both during his life and after his death, in order to understand how that importance is depicted and exactly what kind of importance he has. The remainder of this chapter proposes to do just that by exploring the various ways that speech presentation puts a minor figure at center stage in the story of the Iliad. Patroclus becomes the focal point for much of the emotional power of the poem without going beyond the limits of a subordinate who played a peripheral role overall in the story of the Trojan War. At the same time, as with song in the Odyssey, studying one key theme or storyline allows us to see all the different modes of speech presentation working together as a unified spectrum in which each technique has a role to play in creating the whole narrative. In one sense, Patroclus has a basically minor part in the Iliad: he serves as Achilles’ companion and charioteer (Krischer 1994), a role that normally means that the speech spoken both by and to the character is given in nondirect modes of speech presentation that cast the speaker into the background.⁵⁵ Indeed, for most of the first half of the poem, Patroclus speaks in ways consistent with his subordinate status. For instance, as the embassy to Achilles is drawing to an end at 9.658– 659, Patroclus speaks for the first time in the Iliad. Πάτροκλος δ’ ἑτάροισιν ἰδὲ δμωῇσι κέλευσε Φοίνικι στορέσαι πυκινὸν λέχος ὅττι τάχιστα. Now Patroklos gave the maids and his followers orders to make up without delay a neat bed for Phoinix.

He gives an order to Achilles’ companions and maids that is rendered in indirect speech, typical both for orders to groups of servants and for speech by most individual servants. At the same time, this order contains a superlative (ὅττι τάχιστα, 659), an expressive feature that makes the order more vivid and individual without highlighting Patroclus noticeably more than a servant would normally be in this kind of context. Thus, this speech follows the usual convention for the presentation of speech to or by servants, but at the same time, it places Patroclus above Achilles’ servants, since he gives orders to them on behalf of Achilles. In addition, the superlative ὅττι τάχιστα gives more individual expressivity to Patroclus’ order than it would otherwise have; as the order itself is the most routine form of household maintenance when guests are visiting and the addressees are

SPEECH PRESENTATION in the ILIAD

169

Beck-final.indb 169

6/26/12 7:57:21 PM

nameless, this must be due to the identity of the speaker. Patroclus never goes beyond the parameters of his role as a subordinate, even while his actions and the emotions he both feels himself and creates in others are central to the story of the Iliad.

patroclus in book 11 For most of the first half of the poem, Patroclus plays a peripheral role. Achilles gives him various orders (9.202–204, directly quoted, and 219– 220, presented in indirect speech), but he remains almost entirely in the background. Once Achilles sends Patroclus to visit Nestor in Book 11, however, his importance for both the action and the emotional impact of the story rapidly escalates.⁵⁶ Several conversations involving Patroclus feature non-direct forms of speech presentation combined with direct quotation in such a way as to highlight Patroclus. In all of these conversations, he plays an essentially reactive part, carrying out the commands of others as a servant might. At the same time, non-direct speech for the speeches of the other characters in these conversations implies that Patroclus takes the initiative. Thus, Patroclus does not do anything particularly noteworthy or uncharacteristic of a subordinate in these scenes, but the way the speeches are presented creates the impression that he is much more central to the action than he really is. After an exchange between Patroclus and Achilles (11.602– 615), the first of several conversations involving Patroclus that use both direct quotation and non-direct speech in order to focus attention on him rather than on his interlocutor(s),⁵⁷ Patroclus goes to visit Nestor in obedience to Achilles’ order to him (given at 11.611– 612). When he arrives at Nestor’s hut, a combination of direct and non-direct speech within one conversation depicts him as taking the lead in a conversation that in fact Nestor dominates.⁵⁸ Patroclus enters Nestor’s hut amid a scene of drinking and conversation (μύθοισιν τέρποντο πρὸς ἀλλήλους ἐνέποντες, “And [they] began to take pleasure in conversation, talking with each other,” 643). Nestor takes him by the hand and invites him to sit down, but Patroclus refuses (646– 648). . . . ἐς δ’ ἄγε χειρὸς ἑλών, κατὰ δ’ ἑδριάασθαι ἄνωγε. Πάτροκλος δ’ ἑτέρωθεν ἀναίνετο εἶπέ τε μῦθον· “οὐχ ἕδος ἐστί . . .” . . . And took him by the hand, led him in and told him to sit down, but Patroklos from the other side declined, and spoke to him: “No chair . . .” SPE ECH PR E SEN TAT ION in HOM ER IC EPIC

170

Beck-final.indb 170

6/26/12 7:57:21 PM

The real initial move—Nestor’s invitation—is presented in non-direct speech, while Patroclus’ response is cast as the first speech in the conversation rather than as a response to an invitation.⁵⁹ As in the earlier conversation with Achilles, Patroclus appears to take the initiative when he asks Nestor for help. In fact, as in his earlier conversation with Achilles, he is responding to the behests of characters whose social standing within the Greek camp is higher than his own. Nestor directs this conversation in several ways: besides making the speech that starts the conversation between himself and Patroclus, he speaks by far the majority of the time in the conversation. He both has a larger number of the speeches (two of three) and speaks more than Patroclus (measured by the length of his speeches). Indeed, he makes a very long speech to Patroclus (656–803), even after Patroclus has said that he sees that the injured man he has come to ask about is Machaon, and so he will return with this information to Achilles (650– 654). Nestor’s speech stands out in the conversation both because it is so long—in the Iliad, only Phoenix’s speech to Achilles in Book 9 (434– 605) is longer—and because, strictly speaking, it is unnecessary, since before it begins, Patroclus has already found out what he came to Nestor’s hut to learn. Among this speech’s striking features,⁶⁰ it contains an implicit directive, conveyed by optatives in 791 (εἴποις, “you might speak”) and 792 (ὀρίναις, “you might trouble”), that Patroclus should try to rouse Achilles to some kind of action on behalf of the Greeks.⁶¹ Implicit directives like these optatives are rare, both in the Iliad (15 of 526 directives presented by the main narrator) and in Homeric epics overall (25 instances out of 1,309 directives). Generally speaking, characters use an implicit directive when they are speaking to someone of a status equal to or higher than their own, as a way of giving a directive without seeming to assert the (nonexistent) authority to tell the addressee what to do.⁶² Only here does an implicit directive appear in a speech addressed by someone who has a clearly superior position to an inferior. This subtly exaggerates Patroclus’ role in this conversation by implying that he has more social standing relative to Nestor than he really does.

patroclus’ a r istei a, book 16 After Patroclus returns to Achilles’ hut with the wounded Eurypylus (11.806–848), the action turns for a long time to the battlefield, where the outlook for the Greeks becomes more and more dire. By the end of Book 15, the Greeks are fleeing from Hector in terror, and their ships are in danger of being burnt. At this desperate moment, Patroclus steps into his most acSPEECH PRESENTATION in the ILIAD

171

Beck-final.indb 171

6/26/12 7:57:22 PM

tive role in the Iliad, namely, the fighting in which he meets his death at the hands of Hector after killing several Trojan fighters, most notably Zeus’ son Sarpedon. Several features of speech presentation in Book 16 focus attention on Patroclus as he prepares to fight, as he kills important Trojans, and finally, as Hector kills him. These include the large number of direct quotations given to Patroclus; several apostrophes from the main narrator to Patroclus, which are themselves a kind of speech act; and the presence of extensive and numerous speeches in battle contexts where normally speech is either minimal or absent. All of these strategies in different ways highlight emotions felt both by and toward Patroclus. Book 16 contains 32 speeches presented by the main narrator, of which 24 are direct quotations. Patroclus is either the speaker (6 instances) or the addressee (6 instances) of 12 of these direct quotations.⁶³ He is the speaker or addressee of four more speeches in non-direct speech,⁶⁴ so that he is involved in over half of the speeches presented by the main narrator in Book 16. In comparison, Patroclus is either the speaker or the addressee of just 16 speeches presented by the main narrator in the entire Iliad up to this point. The speeches involving Patroclus that the main narrator quotes directly in Book 16 cluster around two important developments, which are directly related to one another: first, the interplay between Achilles and Patroclus that leads to his going out to fight at the head of the Myrmidons dressed in Achilles’ armor;⁶⁵ and second, the unusually long exchange of speeches Patroclus has with Hector as he lies fatally wounded by him (a conversation of three speeches at 16.830–861, in which Hector addresses his final speech to Patroclus’ corpse). All of these conversations include unusual features that either explicitly or implicitly create emotional involvement with Patroclus. The conversation between Achilles and Patroclus in which Achilles agrees to send Patroclus out to battle (16.7–101) shows Achilles taking the initiative to begin the conversation. He sees Patroclus weeping (2– 6) and is moved by pity to ask him why he is crying (7–19). This speech contains the famous simile of the weeping little girl, one of several similes that refer to Patroclus and Achilles and include a parent-child motif.⁶⁶ The conversational thrust of Achilles’ question is simply “Why are you weeping?” but the memorable and unusual image in the simile emphasizes the essentially gentle, unwarlike nature of Patroclus at the point when he is about to begin his doomed fight on the battlefield.⁶⁷ The verse introducing Patroclus’ reply, τὸν δὲ βαρὺ στενάχων προσέφης, Πατρόκλεις ἱππεῦ (“Then groaning heavily, Patroklos the rider, you answered,” 16.20), contains a vocative form, which may create further sympathy for him.⁶⁸ The speech itself contains both a reply (21–37) and an initial plea to be sent into battle SPE ECH PR E SEN TAT ION in HOM ER IC EPIC

172

Beck-final.indb 172

6/26/12 7:57:22 PM

wearing Achilles’ armor (38–45, with the new move marked by verse-initial ἀλλά); the verses immediately following the speech (46–48) strongly focus on its expressive aspects. ὣς φάτο λισσόμενος μέγα νήπιος· ἦ γὰρ ἔμελλεν οἷ αὐτῷ θάνατόν τε κακὸν καὶ κῆρα λιτέσθαι. τὸν δὲ μέγ’ ὀχθήσας προσέφη πόδας ὠκὺς Ἀχιλλεύς. So he spoke supplicating in his great innocence; this was his own death and evil destruction he was entreating. But now, deeply troubled, swift-footed Achilleus answered him.

(Iliad 16.46 – 48) The verb λίσσομαι (“pray, entreat”) appears only fourteen times with speeches presented by the main narrator, so that any speech so identified— especially with two forms of the verb in two successive verses—is automatically noteworthy. The majority of λίσσομαι speeches presented by the main narrator are formal supplications,⁶⁹ but some contain pleas connected with moments of strong emotion related to Patroclus.⁷⁰ The narrator’s own views here include both the evaluation in the word νήπιος and the explicit statement that Patroclus is seeking his own death. These two expressive features are particularly striking because they fall between two speeches, and they are followed by a single-verse formulaic speech introduction. A singleverse speech-introductory formula is by far the most usual way to introduce a reply to a preceding speech. Thus, these verses are even more striking and emphatic than they might be otherwise because they violate audience expectations about how replies are usually introduced. Achilles replies at length with a series of orders for Patroclus (49–100). This speech gives vivid expressive coloring to the essentially routine matter of giving a fighter instructions, both because it is so long and because of the striking wish⁷¹ at the end of the speech that only Achilles and Patroclus might survive to sack Troy (97–100).⁷² The follow-up order that Achilles gives to Patroclus (126– 129), which concisely tells him to put on his armor, gives a sense of how different the effect would have been if Achilles had simply given his comrade a brief and business-like directive to send him off to fight the Trojans. While this conversation has many unusual and expressive features, it occurs in a normal conversational context insofar as it involves an exchange of information and directives between comrades. The conversation between Hector and Patroclus as the latter lies dying at the end of Book 16, on the other hand, not only contains a number of similar expressive feaSPEECH PRESENTATION in the ILIAD

173

Beck-final.indb 173

6/26/12 7:57:23 PM

tures, but it calls even greater attention to the speakers because it occurs in a context where we normally find either no speech at all or a single vaunt by a killer over his dead enemy.⁷³ Among the (possibly) expressive aspects of this exchange between Hector and the dying Patroclus are two speechintroductory verses with a vocative address to Patroclus, which in some sense present a speech act where the speaker is the narrator and Patroclus is the addressee. For reasons already alluded to (see above, note 68), it is not clear what the rationale is for the vocatives within speech-introductory formulas, but these are in any case a minority of all the apostrophes for Patroclus in Book 16. As a group, the other five apostrophes to Patroclus in Book 16⁷⁴ clearly do create a direct connection to—and thus sympathy for—him as he moves ever closer to death. All of these apostrophes fall in the last half of Book 16, and two of them are combined with similes that increase the expressive power of the apostrophes.⁷⁵ The most striking combination of these different emphatic and expressive features in speech-framing language occurs at 16.751–761, immediately after Patroclus vaunts over the dead Cebriones, Hector’s charioteer (745– 750). Hector and Patroclus then struggle fiercely over Cebriones’ corpse, which the main narrator emphasizes with two similes and an apostrophe to Patroclus. ὣς εἰπὼν ἐπὶ Κεβριόνῃ ἥρωϊ βεβήκει οἶμα λέοντος ἔχων, ὅς τε σταθμοὺς κεραΐζων ἔβλητο πρὸς στῆθος, ἑή τέ μιν ὤλεσεν ἀλκή· ὣς ἐπὶ Κεβριόνῃ, Πατρόκλεες, ἆλσο μεμαώς. Ἕκτωρ δ’ αὖθ’ ἑτέρωθεν ἀφ’ ἵππων ἆλτο χαμᾶζε. τὼ περὶ Κεβριόναο λέονθ’ ὣς δηρινθήτην, ὥ τ’ ὄρεος κορυφῇσι περὶ κταμένης ἐλάφοιο, ἄμφω πεινάοντε, μέγα φρονέοντε μάχεσθον· ὣς περὶ Κεβριόναο δύω μήστωρες ἀϋτῆς, Πάτροκλός τε Μενοιτιάδης καὶ φαίδιμος Ἕκτωρ, ἵεντ’ ἀλλήλων ταμέειν χρόα νηλέϊ χαλκῷ. He spoke so, and strode against the hero Kebriones with the spring of a lion, who as he ravages the pastures has been hit in the chest, and his own courage destroys him. So in your fury you pounced, Patroklos, above Kebriones. On the other side Hektor sprang to the ground from his chariot, and the two fought it out over Kebriones, like lions who in the high places of a mountain, both in huge courage and both hungry, fight together over a killed deer.

SPE ECH PR E SEN TAT ION in HOM ER IC EPIC

174

Beck-final.indb 174

6/26/12 7:57:23 PM

So above Kebriones these two, urgent for battle, Patroklos, son of Menoitios, and glorious Hektor, were straining with the pitiless bronze to tear at each other.

(Iliad 16.751– 761) First Patroclus alone is compared to a lion (752–753) brought down by his own strength, just as Patroclus will soon die because he exceeded the instructions of Achilles by trying to attack the Trojans.⁷⁶ The narrator directly addresses Patroclus in the concluding verse of the first lion simile (754) before giving another lion simile (756–758). The second simile includes two lions evenly matched⁷⁷ in a fight over a dead deer. It is not clear which lion, if either of them, actually slaughtered the deer—it is simply killed (κταμένης, 757). But while the two lions in the second simile are depicted in an inconclusive fight, the situation of the lion in the first simile has already implied that Patroclus will get the worst of it sooner or later. The combination of the two similes, therefore, creates suspense: is this the fight in which Patroclus will be destroyed by his own ἀλκή? In fact, it is not, but the sequence of similes leads to that question and to the inevitable personal involvement for the asker that posing a question entails.⁷⁸ This passage combines several different kinds of expressivity leading up to Patroclus’ death. The sequence of two similes bracketing an apostrophe, following a directly quoted vaunt, heaps multiple mutually reinforcing expressive techniques onto one another, all focusing on Patroclus and his fierce attacks. At the same time, the subject matter of the first simile strongly implies that the moment is coming soon when Patroclus’ strength will lead to his own doom rather than to the death of his opponent. This creates an additional, complementary expressive force by opening an ironic distance between what the audience knows (or suspects) about Patroclus’ fate and what Patroclus himself knows.

a f ter t he de at h of patroclus Speech presentation shows that even after Patroclus is killed by Hector, he continues to play a key role in the Iliad, perhaps an even more important part than when he was alive. The main narrator presents seven speeches either to or by the dead Patroclus. Characters present the same number within their speeches, ten of which are spoken by Achilles.⁷⁹ By comparison, 25 speeches either to or by Patroclus are presented at all narrative levels in Books 1–15. Many more speeches in Books 17–24 focus on Patroclus

SPEECH PRESENTATION in the ILIAD

175

Beck-final.indb 175

6/26/12 7:57:24 PM

but do not directly involve him as either an addressee or a speaker. The speeches related to Patroclus after his death show many unusual features that call attention to his death as a unique, important, and emotional event in the poem. Speech presentation techniques highlight the process of delivering the sad news to Achilles that Patroclus has died and depict the message itself with a range of expressive features. In the final part of the poem, the many laments for Patroclus, which consistently refer to his death in terms of its inevitable connection to Achilles’ death, are one of the main reasons that Patroclus’ death assumes the significance that it does.⁸⁰ Similarly, the structure of the last part of the Iliad intertwines scenes of lament for Patroclus with the death of and mourning for Hector, ending the poem with a heart-rending vision of the universal costs of war.⁸¹ Speech presentation techniques play a key role in shaping the narrative this way.

Non-Directive Messages The process of sending Achilles a message that Patroclus has died relies mainly on normal patterns of speech presentation, such as the use of nondirect speech for hypothetical speeches. It combines these normal patterns with unusual and/or particularly expressive language so as to give this message great vividness and poignancy within the normal parameters of Homeric speech presentation. When the Greeks and Trojans fight over Patroclus’ corpse in Book 17, Hector is able to take the armor, but for a long time the Greeks fight to reclaim the corpse even though its armor is gone. Achilles, still absent from the fighting, has yet to be told that his comrade has died, and both the characters and the main narrator show concern about this even while the fighting continues to rage. The difficult task of giving Achilles the bad news leads to the presentation of several speeches of a rare type in the Iliad, namely a message that is assertive rather than directive.⁸² The first and last of the five references to this message are presented by the main narrator. First, as the fighting over the corpse in Book 17 is at its height, the main narrator says that although Thetis often tells Achilles things that other mortals do not know, she does not tell him that Patroclus has died (17.408–411). This speech presentation is unusual not only because it refers to a message that is not a directive, but also because the main narrator so rarely presents speech that was not actually spoken.⁸³ πολλάκι γὰρ τό γε μητρὸς ἐπεύθετο νόσφιν ἀκούων, ἥ οἱ ἀπαγγέλλεσκε Διὸς μεγάλοιο νόημα. δὴ τότε γ’ οὔ οἱ ἔειπε κακὸν τόσον ὅσσον ἐτύχθη μήτηρ, ὅττι ῥά οἱ πολὺ φίλτατος ὤλεθ’ ἑταῖρος. SPE ECH PR E SEN TAT ION in HOM ER IC EPIC

176

Beck-final.indb 176

6/26/12 7:57:25 PM

For often he had word from his mother, not known to mortals; she was ever telling him what was the will of great Zeus; but this time his mother did not tell Achilleus of all the evil that had been done, nor how his dearest companion had perished.

The content of the message that she does not give is presented in two different ways, first as speech mention (direct object κακὸν τόσον, “of all the evil,” 410) with a relative clause elaborating on it (ὅσσον ἐτύχθη, “that had been done”),⁸⁴ and then as a subordinate clause in indirect speech containing both a strongly expressive superlative, πολὺ φίλτατος (“dearest,” 411) and the third-person pronoun οἱ that explicitly links this catastrophe to Achilles. Direct quotation would be out of place here, since what is being presented is a speech that does not happen. Indeed, pathos arises from the fact that although Thetis often tells Achilles things unknown to other mortals, she does not tell him this supremely important information that so nearly concerns him. The speech presentation uses several different expressive features—a relative clause, a superlative, a personal pronoun—to make the speech vivid and affecting without quoting it directly. The need to deliver this message, which in fact will not reach Achilles until the beginning of Book 18, hangs over the fighting Greeks throughout Book 17. Amid the Greeks’ concern for their own fates and for the corpse of Patroclus, they do not lose sight of the fact that Achilles needs to be told the news of his death. First, Ajax includes this among the various kinds of plans that the Greeks need to make, given that Ajax sees Zeus helping the Trojans (17.634, 640– 650). Due to Zeus’ interference, Ajax cannot see his comrades, and he tearfully prays that Zeus draw back the mist now clouding his vision. This prayer refers once again to the message that the Greeks must send to Achilles about Patroclus’ death. “ἀλλ’ ἄγετ’ αὐτοί περ φραζώμεθα μῆτιν ἀρίστην . . . εἴη δ’ ὅς τις ἑταῖρος ἀπαγγείλειε τάχιστα Πηλεΐδῃ, ἐπεὶ οὔ μιν ὀΐομαι οὐδὲ πεπύσθαι λυγρῆς ἀγγελίης, ὅτι οἱ φίλος ὤλεθ’ ἑταῖρος. ἀλλ’ οὔ πῃ δύναμαι ἰδέειν τοιοῦτον Ἀχαιῶν· ἠέρι γὰρ κατέχονται ὁμῶς αὐτοί τε καὶ ἵπποι. Ζεῦ πάτερ, ἀλλὰ σὺ ῥῦσαι ὑπ’ ἠέρος υἷας Ἀχαιῶν, ποίησον δ’ αἴθρην, δὸς δ’ ὀφθαλμοῖσιν ἰδέσθαι· ἐν δὲ φάει καὶ ὄλεσσον, ἐπεί νύ τοι εὔαδεν οὕτως.” ὣς φάτο, τὸν δὲ πατὴρ ὀλοφύρατο δάκρυ χέοντα· αὐτίκα δ’ ἠέρα μὲν σκέδασεν καὶ ἀπῶσεν ὀμίχλην, ἠέλιος δ’ ἐπέλαμψε, μάχη δ’ ἐπὶ πᾶσα φαάνθη. SPEECH PRESENTATION in the ILIAD

177

Beck-final.indb 177

6/26/12 7:57:25 PM

“Therefore let us deliberate with ourselves upon the best counsel. . . . But there should be some companion who could carry the message quickly to Peleus’ son, since I think he has not yet heard the ghastly news, how his beloved companion has fallen. Yet I cannot make out such a man among the Achaians, since they are held in the mist alike, the men and their horses. Father Zeus, draw free from the mist the sons of the Achaians, make bright the air, and give sight back to our eyes; in shining daylight destroy us, if to destroy us be now your pleasure.” He spoke thus, and as he wept the father took pity upon him, and forthwith scattered the mist and pushed the darkness back from them, and the sun blazed out, and all the battle was plain before them.

Like the presentation of Thetis’ hypothetical message to her son 200 verses before, this would-be message first presents the speech as a mention (λυγρῆς ἀγγελίης, “ghastly news,” 642, which includes the very expressive adjective λυγρός, “baneful, mournful”)⁸⁵ and then indirect speech in the form of a subordinate clause whose phrasing closely resembles that of 17.411. Both the main narrator and Ajax give this impending news strong expressive force without quoting it directly, which would make no sense for a hypothetical speech of this kind. Indeed, referring repeatedly to the message before it is actually delivered creates the sense that the message is looming over both the sorrowful Greeks and the ignorant Achilles, further adding to the force it has in the narrative. Immediately after Zeus clears the obscuring mist away from the battlefield in response to Ajax’s prayer (648– 650), Ajax orders Menelaus to find Antilochus and send him to Achilles with the news that Patroclus has been killed (652– 655). No obvious reason would prevent Ajax from using a directive like this in the first place—“Menelaus, go find Antilochus”—but Ajax’s first and longer speech at 629– 647 adds greatly to the emotional power of this scene: it includes many expressive features that depict not only the great sorrow that the message’s purport will cause Achilles (e.g., 642), but also the pity that the speech elicits from Zeus himself. Both characters and the main narrator use speech presentation that simultaneously follows some typical patterns while departing from others. Speech presentation gives vividness and poignancy to the process of informing Achilles that his beloved comrade is dead. This plot development begins the last part of the story, which moves inexorably toward the deaths of Hector within the poem and Achilles after it ends. SPE ECH PR E SEN TAT ION in HOM ER IC EPIC

178

Beck-final.indb 178

6/26/12 7:57:26 PM

Laments Once Achilles learns that Patroclus is dead (18.18–21), an interlocking series of laments for Patroclus and (later) for Hector plays a key role in structuring the remainder of the poem. As a complement to the considerable expressive force of the directly quoted emotive laments themselves, which I will not explore in any detail here,⁸⁶ both non-direct speech as a way of highlighting nearby direct quotations and free indirect speech regularly shape the conversational exchanges that include laments. These techniques maximize the expressive force of non-direct speech presentation strategies, so as to give these speeches as much emotional impact as possible while allowing the laments themselves to take center stage in the story. Different kinds of speech presentation techniques and different kinds of narrators create complementary kinds of expressivity that, together, give these laments their emotional force. Two conversations involving Achilles as he grieves for Patroclus use both direct and non-direct forms of speech presentation to give particular expressive power to speeches of lament and sorrow, rather than highlighting other kinds of speeches that also appear as part of conversational exchanges involving Achilles. In Book 19, Briseis and Achilles make speeches of lament to Patroclus after Briseis has returned from Agamemnon’s tent. First Briseis laments, a speech that is presented with direct quotation (287–300). Then the Greek elders beg Achilles to eat, but he mournfully refuses. Both of the speeches in the exchange between Achilles and the elders are identified in different ways as pleas, but whereas the elders’ initial speech is presented as indirect speech, Achilles’ refusal is quoted directly (19.303–309).⁸⁷ αὐτὸν [Achilles] δ’ ἀμφὶ γέροντες Ἀχαιῶν ἠγερέθοντο λισσόμενοι δειπνῆσαι· ὁ δ’ ἠρνεῖτο στεναχίζων· “λίσσομαι, εἴ τις ἔμοιγε φίλων ἐπιπείθεθ’ ἑταίρων, μή με πρὶν σίτοιο κελεύετε μηδὲ ποτῆτος ἄσασθαι φίλον ἦτορ, ἐπεί μ’ ἄχος αἰνὸν ἱκάνει· δύντα δ’ ἐς ἠέλιον μενέω καὶ τλήσομαι ἔμπης.” ὣς εἰπὼν ἄλλους μὲν ἀπεσκέδασεν βασιλῆας. But the lords of Achaia were gathered about Achilleus beseeching him to eat, but he with a groan denied them: “I beg of you, if any dear companion will listen to me, stop urging me to satisfy the heart in me with food and drink, since this strong sorrow has come upon me. I will hold out till the sun goes down and endure, though it be hard.” So he spoke, and caused the rest of the kings to scatter. SPEECH PRESENTATION in the ILIAD

179

Beck-final.indb 179

6/26/12 7:57:26 PM

Achilles’ reply is directly quoted partly because it is a reply, which, as we have seen, is associated with direct quotation. A more concise version of this conversation can be imagined in which Achilles’ entire response was ἠρνεῖτο στεναχίζων (“He with a groan defied them,” 304), but instead, his reply is quoted directly. This quotation of Achilles’ answer emphasizes him and his feelings more strongly than a reply presented with speech mention would have done, regardless of the specific content of his reply. Moreover, the specific words in the speech include several expressive items: λίσσομαι (“I beg of you,” 305), which forms a strong pair with λισσόμενοι at the beginning of the previous verse and which makes Achilles’ answer into a plea, not simply a reply; the description of the elders, in the same kind of affectionate language used repeatedly for Patroclus, as φίλων . . . ἑταίρων (“of the dear companions,” 305); and ἄχος αἰνόν (“strong sorrow,” 307), an expression used mainly in character speech but occasionally by the main narrator to refer to a fighter’s grief for a dead comrade.⁸⁸ So, the specific language in this direct quotation adds greatly to the emotional power of the conversation. Furthermore, the elders recede somewhat into the background, since they are not quoted directly and most of them leave as soon as Achilles refuses to eat. Achilles then makes a long speech (315–337) that is not introduced as a formal lament, but that ends with the formulaic concluding verse that regularly accompanies laments (ὣς ἔφατο κλαίων, ἐπὶ δὲ στενάχοντο γέροντες, “So he spoke, mourning, and the elders lamented around him,” 338). Here, as is usual with laments, the group that accompanies and responds to a mourner speaks, but it is not quoted directly. Achilles, alone and distraught, has the starring role in this scene of sorrow, partly because speech by other characters is not directly quoted even when it is part of a conversation.⁸⁹ Four examples of free indirect speech occur together at the end of Book 22 and the beginning of Book 23.⁹⁰ A sequence of four instances of free indirect speech in such close succession gives them force as a group, especially the last three, which are presented by the main narrator⁹¹ and which have some clear similarities. Taken together, this cluster of free indirect speech connects the death of Hector—particularly its effect on Hector’s nearest relations—with the funeral rites of Patroclus and Achilles’ grief at his death. It gives vivid expressive force to the sorrow of the bereaved who are left behind, a central theme of the end of the Iliad. Two of the four instances of free indirect speech center on Achilles as he prepares for Patroclus’ funeral rites. The first, 23.40–41, depicts the rationale for an order the Greek elders give to the heralds to heat a bath for Achilles. This gives expressivity to their order and movingly depicts their concern for Achilles, without drawing attention away from his directly quoted refusal SPE ECH PR E SEN TAT ION in HOM ER IC EPIC

180

Beck-final.indb 180

6/26/12 7:57:27 PM

that immediately follows. The other example of free indirect speech related to Achilles’ feelings about Patroclus’ funeral appears in connection with his prayer to the winds to kindle the funeral pyre (23.192–198). οὐδὲ πυρὴ Πατρόκλου ἐκαίετο τεθνηῶτος· ἔνθ’ αὖτ’ ἄλλ’ ἐνόησε ποδάρκης δῖος Ἀχιλλεύς· στὰς ἀπάνευθε πυρῆς δοιοῖς ἠρᾶτ’ ἀνέμοισι, Βορέῃ καὶ Ζεφύρῳ, καὶ ὑπίσχετο ἱερὰ καλά· πολλὰ δὲ καὶ σπένδων χρυσέῳ δέπαϊ λιτάνευεν ἐλθέμεν, ὄφρα τάχιστα πυρὶ φλεγεθοίατο νεκροί, ὕλη τε σεύαιτο καήμεναι. But the pyre of dead Patroklos would not light. Then swift-footed brilliant Achilleus thought of one more thing that he must do. He stood apart from the pyre and made his prayer to the two winds Boreas and Zephyros, north wind and west, and promised them splendid offerings, and much outpouring from a golden goblet entreated them to come, so that the bodies might with best speed burn in the fire and the timber burst into flame.

Although Achilles is the only directly quoted speaker in this section of the poem, even he is not quoted directly when he makes speeches that have no explicitly sorrowful content.⁹² This highlighting effect—non-direct speech modes are used not only for other speakers, but even for Achilles himself when his speeches are not particularly expressive—strongly emphasizes the grief of Achilles as he prepares to say goodbye to Patroclus. This prayer to the winds, therefore, is not quoted directly because it lacks strongly emotional content. At the same time, the free indirect speech rendering of Achilles’ intentions makes the prayer more vivid and engaging than a simple indirect speech presentation would have. Similarly, the unusual word λιτάνευεν (“entreated,” 196), in addition to the more usual ἠρᾶτ(ο) (“made his prayer”) at 194, gives the prayer expressive force by casting it as a supplication,⁹³ a more expressive speech act type than prayer. Both of these features make Achilles’ prayer unusually emotional for this kind of speech act type, while keeping it in the background relative to the more strongly expressive laments and similar speeches in this section of the poem. The examples of free indirect speech that concern Achilles’ grief about Patroclus, both presented by the main narrator, give extra vividness to otherwise routine directives. Both instances of free indirect speech for speeches by Trojan characters in relation to the dead Hector, on the other hand, SPEECH PRESENTATION in the ILIAD

181

Beck-final.indb 181

6/26/12 7:57:28 PM

are strongly expressive. In Priam’s first speech after Hector’s death (22.416– 428), his thoughts turn immediately to the idea of going to the Greek camp so that he can supplicate Achilles to return Hector’s body. Free indirect speech presents his idea of what he might say to Achilles, hoping to appeal to Achilles through his own old age and the similarity between himself and Peleus (22.418–421). λίσσωμ’ ἀνέρα τοῦτον ἀτάσθαλον ὀβριμοεργόν, ἤν πως ἡλικίην αἰδέσσεται ἠδ’ ἐλεήσῃ γῆρας· καὶ δέ νυ τῷ γε πατὴρ τοιόσδε τέτυκται, Πηλεύς, ὅς μιν ἔτικτε καὶ ἔτρεφε. I must be suppliant to this man, who is harsh and violent, and he might have respect for my age and take pity upon it since I am old, and his father also is old, as I am, Peleus, who begot and reared him.

The clause beginning with ἤν might present what Priam intends to say to Achilles as part of a λίσσομαι speech to him—and in fact it closely resembles the main points of the shattering appeal he makes at 24.486–506—or he might be thinking out loud to his fellow Trojans about how best to approach Achilles. In the beginning of the speech, Priam consistently devotes expressive language to Achilles rather than to himself or to Hector. His description of Achilles in verse 418 vividly evokes him for the addressees: although Achilles is not named, he is called before the Trojans with the demonstrative τοῦτον (“this”),⁹⁴ and both of the adjectives that describe him are highly unusual. ἀτάσθαλος (“reckless, presumptuous”) appears two other times in the Iliad, but not to describe a person,⁹⁵ and ὀβριμοεργός (“doing strong deeds”) appears just one other time in the Homeric epics.⁹⁶ Priam wonders how he might rouse emotions (αἰδέσσεται ἠδ’ ἐλεήσῃ, “He might have respect . . . and take pity,” 419) in this unnamed and terrifying man. Not until the word Τρωσί (422) does Priam begin to speak of emotions that affect anyone other than Achilles. In a way, it is more moving to see Priam talk in this manner than to see him speak more straightforwardly about his grief for Hector. The only thing Priam can still do for his child as a father is to rescue him from the maltreatment of Achilles, and so the first thing he thinks about is how best to appeal to Achilles, even though he hates and fears him. His own fatherhood first appears in the speech not in relation to the death of his child, but as a way to gain his point when he goes to supplicate Achilles (420–422). Then the idea of fatherhood leads Priam to his own grief for the death of Hector in the remainder of the speech (422–428), which ends with a lament concluding forSPE ECH PR E SEN TAT ION in HOM ER IC EPIC

182

Beck-final.indb 182

6/26/12 7:57:28 PM

mula (429). But it is striking that Priam does not begin the speech with his own sorrow, and the free indirect speech at the beginning of his words effectively dramatizes how entirely his concern for his child—even when that child has died—pushes aside considerations about himself and his feelings. After this speech, Hecuba makes a more conventional speech of lament (22.431–436).⁹⁷ We might expect that Andromache would speak next, but instead, we learn that she does not yet know of Hector’s death.⁹⁸ This passage contains several non-direct speech forms that bring Andromache vividly and poignantly before the audience of the Iliad, often in language similar or identical to that used elsewhere in relation to Achilles and Patroclus, yet without taking attention away from the episode’s speeches of lament by using direct quotation (22.437–446). ὣς ἔφατο κλαίουσ’ [Hecuba], ἄλοχος δ’ οὔ πώ τι πέπυστο Ἕκτορος· οὐ γάρ οἵ τις ἐτήτυμος ἄγγελος ἐλθὼν ἤγγειλ’ ὅττι ῥά οἱ πόσις ἔκτοθι μίμνε πυλάων, ἀλλ’ ἥ γ’ ἱστὸν ὕφαινε μυχῷ δόμου ὑψηλοῖο δίπλακα πορφυρέην, ἐν δὲ θρόνα ποικίλ’ ἔπασσε. κέκλετο δ’ ἀμφιπόλοισιν ἐϋπλοκάμοις κατὰ δῶμα ἀμφὶ πυρὶ στῆσαι τρίποδα μέγαν, ὄφρα πέλοιτο Ἕκτορι θερμὰ λοετρὰ μάχης ἒκ νοστήσαντι, νηπίη, οὐδ’ ἐνόησεν ὅ μιν μάλα τῆλε λοετρῶν χερσὶν Ἀχιλλῆος δάμασε γλαυκῶπις Ἀθήνη. So she spoke in tears but the wife of Hektor had not yet heard: for no sure messenger had come to her and told her how her husband had held his ground there outside the gates; but she was weaving a web in the inner room of the high house, a red folding robe, and inworking elaborate figures. She called out through the house to her lovely-haired handmaidens to set a great cauldron over the fire, so that there would be hot water for Hektor’s bath as he came back out of the fighting; poor innocent, nor knew how, far from waters for bathing, Pallas Athene had cut him down at the hands of Achilleus.

The first piece of speech in this passage (438–439) closely resembles the hypothetical speech of Thetis at 17.410–411, where she does not tell Achilles that Patroclus has died. Here the content of the message not received is that Hector is outside the gates rather than within the city, but as at 17.410–411, the short hypothetical speech contains expressive language about the relationship between Andromache and the subject of the speech, here via the word πόσις (“husband,” 439). This is one of the two references in the Iliad SPEECH PRESENTATION in the ILIAD

183

Beck-final.indb 183

6/26/12 7:57:29 PM

to a non-directive message that does not concern sending news to Achilles that Patroclus is dead. The form and content of this assertive message that has not yet reached Andromache strongly evoke the similar message that eventually does reach Achilles in Book 18, thereby connecting these two grief-stricken characters, even though Andromache, ironically, is not yet aware of the sorrow that is about to befall her. Instead of lamenting for Hector following the speeches of Priam and Hecuba, Andromache is preparing in cheerful ignorance to receive him when he returns from battle. She orders the maids to heat his bath, presented with indirect speech, as such routine orders to servants usually are (442–443).⁹⁹ But the purpose clause in free indirect speech immediately after the order adds expressive force to her preparations. λοετρόν referring to a bath¹⁰⁰ appears almost exclusively in the Iliad in connection either with Hector in this scene (22.444 and 445) or with Achilles in the following scene, where he refuses to bathe (23.44).¹⁰¹ This heightens the expressive force of the purpose clause, and it suggests that a bath has an element of comfort and emotional nourishment, in addition to its obvious function of cleaning.¹⁰² The narrator strongly emphasizes the pathos and irony of Andromache’s behavior by repeating the word λοετρόν in 445 as part of a statement about her ignorance of the true state of affairs. Moreover, as Segal points out (1971: 41), the formula μάχης ἒκ νοστήσαντι (“As he came back out of the fighting”) “is used mainly of warriors who do not return” (emphasis original), so that while this idea seems unremarkable to Andromache, the language used to present it may convey to the audience yet another way in which her expectations of seeing Hector again are tragically wrong. Shortly after this, Andromache is quoted directly speaking to her maids, when she hears the wails of the Trojans outside the city (447). In terror, she orders them to accompany her to find out what the cries are about. This speech is full of expressive language about fear¹⁰³ and includes an apotropaic wish that her fears not come true (αἲ γὰρ ἀπ’ οὔατος εἴη ἐμεῦ ἔπος, “May what I say come never close to my ear,” 454). Thus, the content of this speech has a strong expressive force that Andromache’s domestic orders to her maids do not, which is why it is quoted while her earlier order to them is presented in indirect speech. At the same time, her routine management of household affairs is presented with expressive forms of non-direct speech that show with great vividness and effect how far from routine Andromache’s domestic duties are here, when she is performing them for the last time for a husband who will never benefit from them. It is both ironic and fitting to end a discussion of how speech presentation helps to tell the story of Patroclus by analyzing a scene in which Andromache is the key figure. The deaths of Patroclus and Hector, and the SPE ECH PR E SEN TAT ION in HOM ER IC EPIC

184

Beck-final.indb 184

6/26/12 7:57:30 PM

laments of their bereaved friends and relatives, are intertwined throughout the last third of the poem. This unites the grief of Greeks and Trojans and universalizes the experiences of those left behind when a warrior dies. Speech presentation plays an important role in telling the stories of both Hector and Patroclus, and as we have seen, sometimes that role is similar in both stories, thereby linking them together. The story of Patroclus offers a particularly illuminating case of speech presentation helping to tell a story effectively, because Patroclus himself is a fairly minor character. The Iliad makes him into a major character, and through him, it tells a story that is at least as much about love and loss as it is about battle and victory. All the different kinds of speech presentation techniques discussed in this book contribute to the telling of Patroclus’ story in such a way that he is one of the most important characters in the Iliad without having more importance in the events of the poem than an audience familiar with the traditional story and characters would expect. Speech presentation emphasizes Patroclus’ initiative in the early parts of his story without giving him more control over his actions than Achilles’ subordinate would be likely to have. It highlights his central role during his aristeia and death in Book 16, creating sympathy for him and suspense for the audience as it does so. The extensive conversations that occur at the moment of Patroclus’ death mark it as unique among warriors’ deaths in the poem.¹⁰⁴ Patroclus continues to be the subject of many speeches even after he dies. These speeches consistently use non-direct speech incorporating expressive features that are regularly but not uniformly found with nondirect speech. In this way, non-direct speeches bring forward the emotions of Achilles, and of Hector’s loved ones after his death, without drawing attention away from the direct quotations—especially laments—that most vividly convey the grief and anger of Achilles and of other bereaved characters. Patroclus’ story shows the tremendous range and power of speech presentation techniques in the Homeric epics, and how they work together as a system in which the effects of each technique complement the effects of the others to create the matchless subtlety and emotional vividness of the Iliad and the Odyssey.

C ONC LUS IONS

Speech in the Iliad is consistently less interactive and conversational across all narrative levels than it is in the Odyssey. This quality appears in every dimension of speech presentation. Emotive speech acts often express conflict with others or feelings of loss when loved ones die. Speeches with clearly inSPEECH PRESENTATION in the ILIAD

185

Beck-final.indb 185

6/26/12 7:57:30 PM

teractive move types are much less common in the Iliad than in the Odyssey. Direct quotation presents a smaller proportion of speech in the Iliad than it does in the Odyssey, strikingly so for speech presented by characters. Characters, indeed, have a speech presentation spectrum that differs in several key respects from that of the main narrator. We might say that the way characters in the Iliad present speech takes the overall nonconversational tendencies of speech presented by the main narrator of the Iliad much further, so that in one part of their speech presentation spectrum (direct quotation), characters are presenting speech that is almost entirely nonconversational. A single speech presentation spectrum comprises the widely different approaches to speech that we find across different narrative levels in the Iliad, and between the Iliad and the Odyssey. The individual components of this system—the properties of direct quotation, the way a reply tends to be presented, and the different subtypes of emotive speech acts— work in essentially the same way wherever they are found. The different portraits of speech, and so of human interactions, that the Homeric poems include result from putting together these components in different ways. What underlies the depiction of speech throughout both Homeric epics is a single, cohesive speech presentation spectrum, not one for each poem, nor several that each apply to different kinds of narrators, still less no speech presentation spectrum at all. The story of Patroclus shows every component of this speech presentation spectrum at work: each level of narrative, speech presentation technique, speech act type, and conversational exchange complements the others to tell the story of the Trojan War largely as a story of loss: not only Achilles’ loss of his beloved companion, but the loss the Trojans experience when Achilles kills Hector to avenge the death of Patroclus. Many different techniques are used to highlight Patroclus without giving him greater power or importance than such a companion would realistically have. These include conversations that combine direct and non-direct modes of speech presentation; free indirect speech that gives non-direct speeches extra vividness and expressive force in contexts where direct quotation is highlighting the most important speeches in a particular conversation; rare implicit directives; direct speech and conversational exchanges in contexts where normally there would be no speeches at all; and speech acts by the main narrator to Patroclus in the form of apostrophes. The story of Patroclus gives a wide view of the Homeric speech presentation spectrum in action across both narrative levels and shows what that spectrum can do. Because the full range of techniques that comprise the Homeric speech presentation is fundamental to telling the story of Patroclus, and this story is central to the Iliad, we see how basic the full speech presentation spectrum is to Homeric epic. SPE ECH PR E SEN TAT ION in HOM ER IC EPIC

186

Beck-final.indb 186

6/26/12 7:57:31 PM

C ONC LUSION

We are now in a position to describe a “Homeric” speech presentation spectrum, a unified and consistent set of tools for presenting speech that operates in both the Iliad and Odyssey as well as across all narrative levels. While there are many variations in how speech is presented at different narrative levels, or between the Iliad and the Odyssey, none of these differences entails multiple speech presentation spectrums, or even different views of the fundamental properties of a given speech presentation technique. The many variations that we see in speech presentation in the Homeric poems result from the different themes and preoccupations of the various stories that the poems contain, and/or from the different ways that characters present speech in comparison to the main narrators. In no case does an individual poem, or a particular kind of narrator, present speech in ways that are unprecedented or unparalleled elsewhere in the Homeric poems. For example, the unique features of speech presentation for song in the Odyssey come about because song uses the consistent features of speech mention and free indirect speech in an unusual way, not because song is depicted with modes of speech presentation that are used just for song. Song appears often in the Odyssey but rarely in the Iliad because of the different concerns of the two stories, not because the two poems have fundamentally different approaches to presenting speech. In just the same way, the Odyssey has only three vaunts, whereas the Iliad has 31. This is because there are few occasions in the Odyssey where vaunts are likely to be spoken, not because of fundamentally different speech presentation techniques in the two poems. The remainder of this section describes the consistent properties and the common uses of each speech presentation technique in the Homeric poems. Taken together, these different modes of speech presentation complement one another. Each has a necessary and unique job to do in creating the narratives of the Iliad and the Odyssey. Direct quotation offers vividness, expressivity, and length. Although it

187

Beck-final.indb 187

6/26/12 7:57:31 PM

is used for the majority of speeches presented by the main narrators (1,223 of 1,473, 83 percent), and the vast majority of speeches in direct quotation are presented by the main narrators (1,223 of 1,374, 89 percent), direct quotation presents a much lower proportion of the speeches presented in the Homeric poems overall (1,374 of 2,410, 57 percent). Since direct quotations are much longer on average than other modes of speech presentation, direct quotation takes up by far the most room in the Homeric epics, yet it presents a smaller majority of the total instances of speech in the poems than one might expect. Direct quotation is most closely associated with very expressive or strongly conversational kinds of speech, such as emotive speech acts, reactive moves, and questions. The vividness and detail provided by direct quotation is also used when the propositional content of the speech and the intent of the speech differ markedly, as in lies or implicit speech acts. When direct speech presents speech acts or move types that are not themselves strongly expressive or conversational in character (such as initial orders), even the most apparently brief and colorless orders virtually always contain expressive features. These include vocatives, rationales for obeying the order, adjectives describing something in the order, and so forth. A directly quoted order differs from one presented in indirect speech or speech mention because it includes such expressive features. These basic characteristics have powerful implications. First, expressivity and conversational interchange are closely related in Homeric epic, since they are the two qualities that are conveyed most consistently by direct quotation. Second, given the range of ways to present speech, the prevalence of direct quotation for speech presented by the main narrators should be seen as a choice, not as a necessity or a default. The oral medium of the Homeric poems and the different norms of character-presented speech partially explain how much direct quotation the main narrators use. At the same time, what appear to be approximately contemporary oral hexameter poems have very different approaches to speech presentation. The Homeric Hymn to Demeter has nearly as many instances of indirect speech as it does of direct quotation;¹ in Hesiod’s Theogony, non-direct forms of speech presentation decisively outnumber the eight direct quotations.² Moreover, if we look at direct quotation presented by the main narrators as one part of the Homeric speech presentation spectrum, it is clear that the poems overall include many kinds of narrative where the vivid expressive force of direct quotation is used much more sparingly and with very different effects. This suggests that the pervasive expressivity that direct quotation presented by the main narrators gives to the Homeric poems represents a preferred option rather than a default assumption or a requirement of the genre. The first important conclusion that this book has reached about free inSPE ECH PR E SEN TAT ION in HOM ER IC EPIC

188

Beck-final.indb 188

6/26/12 7:57:32 PM

direct speech in Homeric poetry is that it exists. Free indirect speech depicts expressive features of a speech whose main act is presented in either indirect speech or speech mention. Free indirect speech is rare at all narrative levels, but it appears in a markedly greater proportion of character speech (56 of 856 speeches, 7 percent) than of speech presented by the main narrators (21 of 1,473 speeches, 1 percent). Similarly, characters present the bulk of free indirect speech (56 of 80 instances). The majority of free indirect speech is at most two or three verses long, but some examples can be much longer, most notably the second song of Demodocus, the bulk of which is presented with free indirect speech. While short purpose or relative clauses presented by characters with free indirect speech may do nothing more than make that particular speech more vivid, free indirect speech that departs from its usual norms—especially norms of length or narrative level—calls attention to itself and its context simply by being there. The basic qualities of free indirect speech are similar across all narrative levels, but the effects and implications of those qualities differ substantially for characters and for the main narrators because the basic norms of speech presentation for characters differ from the norms for the main narrators. For characters, free indirect speech is one of several techniques that add expressivity to the non-direct modes of presenting speech that they use most often. Free indirect speech in character speech regularly, although not often, depicts features of a speech that the main narrators would quote directly, such as the rationale for a directive or a relative clause that elaborates on something referred to in the main speech act. When the main narrators use free indirect speech, on the other hand, they depart in an important way from their norms of speech presentation, since the main narrators predominantly use direct quotation to present expressive features of a speech that are not the main speech act itself. The surprise and novelty when free indirect speech is used instead makes free indirect speech an inherently emphatic mode of speech presentation for the main narrators. As we saw above in Chapters 5 and 6, both the Iliad and the Odyssey use free indirect speech at the level of the main narrator largely to present expressive features of speeches that relate to central themes of the poem. This is true for the main narrators but not for characters because of different norms at various narrative levels, not because free indirect speech has different properties for characters and for the main narrators. Indirect speech, the most common way for characters to present speech, is characterized by brevity. It presents the content of a speech without the length or (often) the expressive qualities of direct quotation. Although the most common form of indirect speech does not include expressive features, various additions or adaptations of the most common form can accomCONCLUSION

189

Beck-final.indb 189

6/26/12 7:57:32 PM

modate both expressivity and length where those would make a positive contribution to the narrative. Common expressive features include—in addition to free indirect speech—using a subordinate clause instead of an infinitive to present the reported speech, and including adjectives or adverbs to modify the actions or actors in the presented speech. The characters present the majority of indirect speech in the Homeric epics (417 of 589 instances, 71 percent), and they also present the largest proportion of their own speech with indirect speech (417 of 856 instances, 49 percent). Since indirect speech generally does not present expressive features of the speech it depicts, it rarely presents the forms of speech that are strongly emotional or conversational, such as questions, emotives, or problematic moves. This, and not a positive affinity between indirect speech and directives, explains why indirect speech presents mainly directives. Moreover, unlike the main narrators, characters use indirect speech to present assertives nearly as often as directives. This is because they present a range of assertive subtypes that are not found (or are rarely found) in speech presented by the main narrators. In such speeches, neither expressive force nor conversational interchange is the main point. These include hedging statements that assign authority for a particular fact to a third party, as well as statements about the identity, merit, or genealogy of another character. Speech mention is used to present speeches in a manner that is more vague than other modes of speech presentation about the speech act type, the subtype, the move, or some combination thereof. As with all non-direct modes of speech presentation, characters present the majority of speech mentions (307 of 460 instances, 67 percent). Speech mention presents a large, but not the largest, proportion of character-presented speeches (307 of 856, 36 percent). Thus, the lack of specificity that characterizes speech mention provides a way to leave out features of a speech that more commonly used modes of speech presentation would include to at least some degree. These aspects include, but are not limited to, the content of the speech in question. In some circumstances, such vagueness has a clear association with the kind of speech being presented, such as hypothetical speeches (which may not have any content to omit), a speech presentation that generalizes several similar speeches into one representative speech presentation, and/or speeches that are not tightly linked to conversational exchange. In some cases, however, the brevity and/or vagueness offered by indirect speech and speech mention depict the speech as either brief or vague for reasons related to the specific narrative context, not to the kind of speech being depicted. For both indirect speech and speech mention, the right conclusion to draw about speeches presented that way is not “this speech is unimportant according to some objective measurement,” but “the asSPE ECH PR E SEN TAT ION in HOM ER IC EPIC

190

Beck-final.indb 190

6/26/12 7:57:33 PM

pects of this speech that are important are not primarily its expressive features.” Both of these non-direct modes of speech presentation are regularly used to cast a speech into the background in relation to a nearby speech (or speeches) presented in direct quotation. These direct quotations may not be objectively any more or less important to the narrative than the speech presented non-directly, but the use of both modes of speech presentation for one conversation highlights the greater vividness of the direct quotation and puts the less vivid and expressive non-direct speech into the background. In the story of Patroclus in particular, but in many other kinds of contexts as well, indirect speech and speech mention make a positive and important contribution to shaping the stories of the Iliad and Odyssey. A story that is all vividness, and no vagueness or brevity, would not have the different shades and subtle dynamics that the Homeric poems display.

T H E S PE C T RU M OF N A R R ATOR S A N D N A R R AT I V E S

The main narrators of the Iliad and the Odyssey differ from one another slightly in how they present speech; the characters in the two poems differ substantially both from one another and from the main narrators as presenters of speech. These various narrators constitute a kind of “spectrum” of narrators that can be organized, like the different modes of speech presentation, according to their approach to expressivity. The expressive power of direct quotation—and, similarly, of conversational exchange—is fundamental to the style of the main narrators in both poems. The large proportion of direct quotation that makes up both the speech presented by the main narrators and the poems overall orients the strongly expressive aspects of the poem toward the characters, not toward the narrators. But the main narrator of the Odyssey presents a larger proportion of speech in direct quotation, and within conversational exchange, than the main narrator of the Iliad does. In this sense, then, the main narrator of the Odyssey presents speech more expressively than does the main narrator of the Iliad. I do not mean in the least to say that the Iliad overall is less expressive than the Odyssey. But direct speech in the Iliad is a less interactive medium than it is in the Odyssey, and a smaller proportion of the speech presented by the main narrator of the Iliad is quoted directly. As I have argued, this difference is inextricably linked to the different stories that the two poems tell: the Odyssey shows its characters constantly talking to and engaged with one another, focused largely on information as a source of power, whereas the Iliad ’s characters are often isolated from their comrades and families and achieve their aims not by finding things out, but by inducing other characCONCLUSION

191

Beck-final.indb 191

6/26/12 7:57:33 PM

ters to do what they want. The differences in how the main narrators in the Iliad and the Odyssey present direct quotation show us two subtly different versions of the relationship between speech presentation and expressivity. The characters in the Iliad and the characters in the Odyssey present two more versions of this relationship, albeit with similarities to one another and to the main narrators. The characters present speech so as to focus on themselves and their own expressivity rather than on other characters and speakers, but they accomplish this in a different way from the main narrators. This is why indirect speech rather than direct quotation or speech mention presents the largest proportion of characters’ speeches: it provides the content of a speech, but either it does not include expressive features, which might direct attention toward the speaker whose speech is being presented, or it orients the expressive features it depicts toward the reporting character. Thus, the speech presentation spectrums of the main narrators complement the speech presentation spectrum for the characters: these different presenters of speech draw on different modes of speech presentation to accomplish the same result, which is to focus the expressive force of the narrative mainly on the characters themselves, rather than on the main narrators, or the plot, or the process of narration. The characters in the Odyssey fall between the main narrators and the characters in the Iliad in how their speech presents expressivity. Characters in the Odyssey do present expressive features of speech, insofar as they use a noticeable proportion of direct quotations and they regularly present not simply individual speeches, but conversations. But the speech presentation of the characters in the Odyssey—even of Odysseus himself, the character who most closely resembles the main narrators in the modes of speech presentation and speech act types that he presents—is much less expressive than the speech presentation of either of the main narrators. The speech presentation spectrum for the characters in the Odyssey is less expressive not only in the comparatively low proportion of direct quotation that it includes, but also in the lower rate of strongly expressive or conversational kinds of speech, such as emotive speech acts and replies. The characters in the Odyssey occupy a middle ground on the expressivity spectrum of Homeric narrators. Characters in the Iliad occupy the “not very expressive” end of this spectrum. They use a speech presentation that differs substantially from that of any other kind of narrator, insofar as they present virtually no direct quotations or conversations. Speech as presented by the characters in the Iliad provides an occasional accent to narration, rather than an important vehicle through which the narration or the story develops. Still less does it offer a consistent or significant way to depict the emotions of characters or their interactions with one another. SPE ECH PR E SEN TAT ION in HOM ER IC EPIC

192

Beck-final.indb 192

6/26/12 7:57:34 PM

The norms of speech presentation for these different narrators, with the main narrator of the Odyssey presenting the most expressive forms of speech and the characters in the Iliad the least expressive, give us a sense of several different kinds of narratives that lie within the compass of the Homeric epics. Both poems, albeit in different ways, focus on the speech and expressivity of the characters themselves and hardly at all on the narrators. In contrast, an entire poem narrated the way the characters in the Odyssey present speech would use speech in expressive ways, but speech would be less strongly and consistently expressive, and it would mainly present expressive features related to the presenter of the speech rather than to the character who spoke the speech. A strong orientation toward the narrator himself characterizes first-person narrative,³ but the comparatively weak expressive force of the modes of speech presentation used by characters in the Odyssey is also found in various third-person early hexameter narratives belonging to other genres of Greek poetry. A different kind of hypothetical Homeric epic can be seen in the speech presentation spectrum of characters in the Odyssey as well as in the kinds of speech presented in the Theogony or the Homeric Hymn to Demeter. Alternatively, an entire narrative that presented speech as the characters in the Iliad do would give expressive force almost exclusively to the main narrator rather than to the characters. In this kind of “Homeric” narrative, speech presentation techniques with strongly expressive features would be used rarely and for specific pragmatic goals. These hypothetical narrative strategies do in fact exist within the Homeric poems, and they can be found in somewhere between half (Iliad) and two-thirds (Odyssey) of the poems, which is the proportion of each poem that consists of characters’ speech. These two hypothetical narratives can be seen as options not taken for presenting speech in the Homeric poems overall. The main narrator and the characters, both within a single poem and across both Homeric epics, draw on the same speech presentation spectrum to create complementary effects that together create the texture of Homeric speech presentation and Homeric narrative.

BROA DE R I M PL IC AT IONS

I have argued that a single speech presentation spectrum can explain the way speech is presented throughout both Homeric poems. Within each poem, the main narrator and the characters present speech in complementary but quite different ways, both of which are necessary to create the narratives of the Iliad and the Odyssey. From the point of view of speech preCONCLUSION

193

Beck-final.indb 193

6/26/12 7:57:34 PM

sentation, the Homeric poems have a fundamental unity and consistency of which the main narrator forms only one part. Rather than assigning narrative control of the poems to the main narrator’s voice, I am positing a third narrative force that lies beyond both of these different kinds of narrative voices and harmonizes them with one another. An implied author⁴ best explains both the overarching unity of this spectrum and the significant part of the spectrum that differs markedly from the norms of the main narrators’ own speech presentation. The neglect of the implied author of the Homeric poems is one more result of underemphasizing character-presented speech in the Homeric poems. However, accepting the existence of an implied author, even one who seems to wield similar tools for both the Iliad and the Odyssey, does not lead to a reliable way to decide where the implied author comes from. It might arise from the workings over time of the traditional oral poetic system, or it might arise (as it does in modern fiction) as the byproduct of the storytelling activities of the actual author. There is no way to know, but the existence of this kind of unity, both within each poem and between the Iliad and the Odyssey, is a key implication of the speech presentation spectrum. The existence of an implied author draws the Homeric epics closer to ideas applied mainly to modern fictional narratives, where the implied author is the subject of ongoing scholarly interest.⁵ The existence of a Homeric speech presentation spectrum has a similar effect, especially a spectrum that includes free indirect speech, still widely seen as invented by and characteristic of modern literary fiction. A view of Homeric poetry that gives these supposedly modern aspects of narrative their due changes our understanding of how Homeric narrative relates to the later fictional narratives of Western literary history. It is undeniably true that modern fiction has achieved narrative complexity and variety that far exceeds anything we find in the Iliad and Odyssey, but at the same time, the roots of the important features of modern fictional narrative can be found in Homeric poetry. A clear understanding of Homeric speech presentation, which is fundamental not only to Homeric epic but to all kinds of narratives, shows that Homeric poetry presents speech in ways very similar to what we find in modern fictional narratives. The Homeric speech presentation spectrum implies that Homeric poetry should be considered an integral part of, not the prelude to or precursor of, the history of Western fictional narrative. Thus, the existence of a basically modern-looking speech presentation spectrum in Homeric poetry draws the Iliad and Odyssey more closely into the theoretical fold of modern fiction. From a somewhat different point of view, it suggests that the speakers in the poems can be profitably understood using current linguistic theories that have been developed for underSPE ECH PR E SEN TAT ION in HOM ER IC EPIC

194

Beck-final.indb 194

6/26/12 7:57:35 PM

standing the talk of living, non-fictional people. Pragmatic factors, including both the speech act type of the speech being presented and the details of the conversational context in which the speech appears, consistently affect the way a given speech is presented. The speech presentation spectrum captures Homeric speakers involved in conversational exchanges whose broad outlines (if not the length and detail of the direct quotations) reflect speech patterns documented in the conversations of “real” people. This makes the poems themselves more accessible to us as modern readers, whose own conversations can be understood using the same pragmatic principles that underlie important aspects of the Homeric speech presentation. The last implication of this work, then, is that the Homeric poems are best understood by taking them as depicting recognizably and realistically human patterns of speech that make sense according to existing theories of linguistics and literary theory. The astonishing uniqueness of the poems has sometimes been a real stumbling block to understanding them: readers have difficulty using familiar models of poetic composition or literary criticism to make sense of poems that in many respects seem so overwhelmingly different from anything our modern sensibilities find familiar or accessible. And yet, as this study shows, existing theoretical frameworks can explain both the way that the characters talk and the way that the poems present speech. Using these tools, rather than assuming that the unique features of the poems mean that the tools are not applicable, or are irrelevant or flawed, allows us to understand the unity of the poems in a new and powerful way. It shows us, in a sense, a fuller view of the humanity of the poems, given how fundamental speech presentation is to the Homeric poems, to fictional narrative, and to human beings.

CONCLUSION

195

Beck-final.indb 195

6/26/12 7:57:35 PM

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

NOT E S

I N T RODU C T ION

1. For example, de Jong 2004b: 269 n. 41—the most extensive study of Homeric speech presentation, although it ranges over many narratological concepts beyond speech presentation—dismisses the idea of a full speech presentation spectrum in Homeric poetry as “irrelevant.” Putting this remark in a footnote shows how selfevident the point is considered to be by the foremost narratologist working on Homeric poetry. 2. Semino and Short (2004: 2–3) use “present[ation]” rather than “represent[ation]” or “report” to talk about the depiction of speech because it is “helpfully neutral” (3). 3. Throughout this book, the word “use” in contexts like this means “is found in the speech presented by.” It does not imply conscious agency by the narrator in question. 4. Except for noteworthy character narrators such as Odysseus, on whom see, e.g., de Jong 1992 and Suerbaum 1968. Mackie (1997) touches on various aspects of character narration in her treatment of Odyssean storytelling; similarly Scodel 1998a, on bardic performance. Steinrück (1992) is unusual in offering a detailed treatment of a character narrator who is not Odysseus. 5. Chatman 1978: 148. Chatman also asserts that “there is always an implied author, although there might not be a single real author in the ordinary sense” (149), mentioning a fi lm written by committee and folk ballads as examples. See also Booth 1961: 74; and Kearns 1999: 87– 99. 6. Richardson (1990: 4) equates the main narrator and the implied author. De Jong (2004a: 3–4) dismisses the need for an implied author from the perspective of “the moral evaluation of the story,” but this leaves out other viewpoints from which the implied author might be a fruitful concept. The term “implied author” is infelicitous for an orally based poem, but since “implied author” is a well-established critical term, I retain it. 7. Besides the works of de Jong and Richardson already cited, see Griffin 1986 on the different words used by characters as compared to the main narrator. 8. An influential treatment is Finnegan 1977, whose broad survey of oral poetry demonstrates the huge range of forms and possibilities in the world’s oral poetic traditions. 9. See, for example, Tsagarakis 1990: 123; Latacz 1996: 2–15; Shive 1987. 10. Many of the most important conclusions in Shive (1987), in particular the extent of formulas that he characterizes as violating economy, fall to the ground if—for

197

Beck-final.indb 197

6/26/12 7:57:36 PM

example—“son of Peleus” is not equivalent to “swift-footed Achilles” for artistic or contextual reasons. Similar problems with the idea of “economy,” in particular what constitutes “equivalent meaning,” occur in a more recent study that reaches conclusions similar to Shive’s, Friedrich 2007. 11. These include Fenik 1968; Nagler 1967 and 1974; Segal 1971; Reece 1993; Beck 2005a. 12. The discussion in this section overlaps substantially with Beck 2008b: 351–353. 13. De Jong 2004b: 115. Contrast Collins 2001: 50, on the idea of a “default” option for speech presentation: “The notion of default modes is at best an oversimplification and often an illusion; putatively ‘basic’ modes have pragmatic rationales.” 14. De Jong (2004b: 114–118) says that direct speech is used to summarize, usually because the speech in question is unimportant for some reason or occurs before the main story of the poem. 15. Richardson (1990: 76) concludes that direct speech is used where the specific wording is necessary and indirect where the narrator wants only the upshot or action of the speech. 16. Richardson 1990: 71– 74 and 77– 78. Richardson’s index makes the point more strongly than anything else about the book—the entry for “command” reads “see indirect speech.” 17. Genette 1980: 171–174. For a slightly different three-pronged model composed of direct speech, indirect speech, and free indirect speech, see McHale 1978: 250. Laird 1999 also uses such a model (see Chapter 3), with record of speech act (which I call speech mention) and free direct discourse as additional categories. 18. McHale 1978 distinguishes three different categories of what I call indirect speech based on the degree of mimesis in each one. Bers (1997: 3) states that “compared to oratio obliqua, direct ‘reports’ may carry a stronger flavor of undiluted mimesis.” Richardson (1990: 86) uses the expression “imperfect quotation” to refer to indirect speech. 19. Sternberg 1982b is a superb analysis of the range of meanings that mimesis has in criticism and the lack of a clear and consistent connection between mimesis and any one mode of presenting speech. 20. Semino and Short (2004: 166–167), in contrast, want to retain faithfulness as a criterion for evaluating speech presentation. 21. Laird 1999: 90. Leech and Short (1981: 324–325) organize their overall speech presentational spectrum according to the degree to which the narrator is “apparently in control” of the speech being presented. They recognize the limits of this approach with their adverb “apparently.” 22. For the appearance of an original utterance, see Fludernik 1993: 30. For audience as interpreters, see Collins (2001: 74) who calls this phenomenon “methexis,” explicitly contrasting it with mimesis as the defining characteristic of direct speech. 23. Sternberg (1982a: 110) and Li (1986: 34) provide definitions of deixis in direct and indirect speech. Coulmas 1986 is a useful discussion of issues of deixis in direct and indirect speech, primarily from a linguistic point of view. 24. It is important to note here that indirect speech is not a derivative or copy of a direct speech “original,” or vice versa. Banfield (1982: 25–37) demonstrates that neither can be derived from the other. 25. Leech and Short 1981: 318–336, largely affirmed by Semino and Short 2004. For other useful discussions of speech presentation categories, see McHale 1978; Genette

NOT E S to PAGE S 

198

Beck-final.indb 198

6/26/12 7:57:37 PM

1980: 171–175; Rimmon-Kenan 2002: 109–110 (largely following McHale); Fludernik 1993: passim; Laird 1999: 87–100; Collins 2001: 92–150. 26. I use this term in preference to Leech and Short’s more cumbersome “narrative report of speech act” (1981: 323). This technique is also called “diegetic summary” (Rimmon-Kenan 2002: 110) or “narratized speech” (Genette 1980: 171). 27. All Greek quotations are from the Oxford editions of Allen and Munro; translations are from Lattimore 1951 and Lattimore 1965 unless otherwise noted. 28. Fludernik 1993 is the most thorough and comprehensive study of free indirect discourse (her term). For a survey of terminology, see McHale 1978: 249 n. 1. I use the term “speech” rather than “discourse” because I will be focusing on the use of this technique to present speech, not thought. 29. Most influentially, Banfield 1982: e.g., 228–230. Banfield states that “the claim that instances of the style can be found in Greek and Latin finds little credence . . . and no plausible examples have been proffered to support this claim” (228). 30. Vol. 2, ch. 16 (Austen 1988: 290). 31. Fludernik 1993: passim, e.g., 91– 98 (primarily on medieval French and Chaucer); Collins 2001: 133–150, on medieval Russian court records. See also Leech and Short 1981: 332, on seventeenth-century British court records. Sternberg (1991: 65 and passim) asserts that FID appears in the Hebrew Bible, but Miller (1996: 81– 90) disagrees. 32. This arises from Fludernik’s examination of Chaucer, who uses free indirect speech almost exclusively for speech rather than thought (1993: 93– 94), alongside the general observation of Leech and Short (1981: 344–347) that techniques for presenting both speech and thought—like free indirect speech—are distributed quite differently as presentations of speech versus presentations of thought. 33. Richardson (1990: 71) identifies free indirect speech as “a late invention.” 34. Fludernik 1993: 291, following Leech and Short 1981. 35. Pace Banfield 1982, ably refuted on this point by Fludernik 1993. Collins (2001) and Laird (1999: e.g., 99) both detach free indirect speech from any specific defining feature at all. Collins connects it instead to “the very fact of a heteroglossic source” (134). 36. E.g., Létoublon 1983: 41, “Quand il rapporte des paroles au style direct, il fait semblant de croire et de vouloir faire croire qu’elles ont été réellement prononcées telles quelles” (“When he [the poet] quotes speeches in direct style, he pretends to believe, and to want to make others believe, that they were in fact said like that”). This is also implied by Richardson (1990: 197): “Homer presents his narratees with something like the view of the story they would have if they were to watch it directly.” 37. Sternberg 1982b: 149 and passim. Collins (2001: 51) suggests that direct speech has to do with an intention of “verbatimness” rather than the actual achievement of it. 38. Most famously, How to Do Things with Words (1962). 39. Noted by Searle 1976; see also Alston 2000: 85–89. 40. See Austin 1962, Lecture XII in particular. 41. He concludes rather unhappily that his most problematic category, expositives, “seem both to be included in the other classes and at the same time to be unique in a way that I have not succeeded in making clear even to myself. It could well be said that all aspects are present in all my classes” (Austin 1962: 151). This gives a clear sense of the limitations of Austin’s terminology. 42. Risselada (1993: 32 n. 18) provides references for a number of these. 43. This typology is based on Risselada 1993: 32–45, which organizes speech acts along two main axes, namely, what the speech is about and whether it is oriented to-

NOT E S to PAGE S 

199

Beck-final.indb 199

6/26/12 7:57:37 PM

ward the speaker or the addressee. Risselada provides a clear speech act typology, a persuasive justification for her overall approach to constructing a system of speech acts, and a useful overview of the different kinds of speech act systems that other scholars have suggested. Givón (1990: 779–818) provides a hugely detailed description of the permutations of these, although he does not include emotives in his typology, presumably because he is talking about sentence types rather than speech act types. 44. Searle calls emotive speech acts “expressives,” but here and elsewhere, I use the term “emotive” to avoid confusion with the use of “expressive” to mean “subjective features of a particular utterance.” 45. The next several paragraphs closely resemble Beck 2008b: 358–360. 46. My discussion of “move” derives mainly from Kroon 1995: 58– 95. Other useful studies include Edmondson 1981; Roulet 1984; and Risselada 1993: 49– 62. 47. This kind of move has been called by a number of different names: “problematizing reaction” (Risselada 1993: 58); “challenging” (Burton 1980: 142 and 150–152, where she explains the different reactions that a challenging move can entail); “nonpreferred” (Kroon 1995: 91). 48. This is the most context-dependent move type of the three: a refusal to follow a directive is a reactive move if the refusal is not challenged by the person who issued the directive, but problematic if it leads to a discussion of the refusal. 49. For instance, when Priam asks an initiating question (Iliad 3.192–198), there are two reactive moves that follow it: Helen replies by identifying Odysseus (200–202), and then Antenor talks about Odysseus at length (204–224). 50. As when Idaeus orders Ajax and Hector to cease their duel in Iliad 7 (279– 282, initiating), and Ajax and Hector each react individually (284–286 and 288–302, respectively). 51. E.g., Od. 3.331–336, where Athena accedes to a previous directive (331, reactive assertive), and then makes a new directive (332, initiating directive) with several subsidiary assertive acts explaining why this directive is a good idea (333–336). 52. See also Beck 2008b: 352–353. 53. Benveniste (1971: 224) coins the term “subjectivity” for “the capacity of the speaker to posit himself as ‘subject,’” that is, to shape his utterance according to his own emotions and perceptions. Most other scholars use the term “expressive” for those features of language and speech that are related to or depict the consciousness of the speaker; e.g., Banfield 1982: passim; Fludernik 1993: esp. ch. 4; and Collins 2001: 35, which identifies expressivity with emotion. 54. Fludernik 1993: 228. Her focus in her chapter about expressivity is primarily on linguistic and syntactical indications of expressivity, such as hesitation, repetition, emphatic preposing of words, and so on. 55. For example, Searle (1976) lists 12 dimensions that distinguish different illocutionary acts from one another (although he does note that just three of them are the most important of the group [5]). This approach, however useful it may be in thinking about the theory of speech acts, seems to me to be too extensive to be useful in understanding a large corpus of actual speech acts. 56. I use the term “question” for “interrogative speech act” and “interrogative” for “interrogative sentence type.” Risselada 1993: 63– 78 discusses the relationship between sentence type and speech act type. 57. Commissives appear just four times in speech presented by the main narrator: Iliad 13.368–369 (indirect speech), 14.233–241, 21.369–376 (both direct quotation); Od.

NOT E S to PAGE S 

200

Beck-final.indb 200

6/26/12 7:57:38 PM

4.6– 7 (indirect speech). Both of the directly quoted instances accompany a directive. Alston (1994: 40–45) suggests that the speaker of such a speech act takes responsibility for a particular state of affairs rather than committing himself to accomplishing it. 58. This contrasts with the common practice of making promises and similar speaker commitments to future actions a separate category of speech act (Searle 1976). 59. Promises within characters’ speech are discussed in Chapter 4. 60. A similar but less detailed discussion of directive subtypes appears at Beck 2008b: 356–357. Risselada 1993: 48 provides a diagram of directive subtypes arranged by degree of “bindingness” and whether the main interest in having the desired action accomplished belongs to the speaker or the addressee. 61. E.g., Iliad 11.313–315 (Odysseus to Diomedes). 62. E.g., Od. 5.173–179 (Odysseus to Calypso). 63. E.g., Iliad 9.464–465 (Phoenix’s kinsmen to him, reported by Phoenix). 64. E.g., Iliad 15.486–499 (Hector to Trojans). 65. Od. 4.60– 64 (Menelaus to Telemachus and Peisistratus). 66. Gould (1973) argues for the importance of physically touching the addressee, about which there has been substantial disagreement. Alden (2000), in an excellent discussion at 198 n. 52, agrees, but Pedrick (1982), Crotty (1994: 16–21), and Naiden (2006: 44) do not. 67. Iliad 24.486–506 (Priam to Achilles); note 477–478, ἄγχι δ’ ἄρα στὰς / χερσὶν Ἀχιλλῆος λάβε γούνατα καὶ κύσε χεῖρας (“[Priam] . . . stood close beside him / and caught the knees of Achilleus in his arms, and kissed the hands”). 68. E.g., Iliad 3.414–417 (Aphrodite to Helen). 69. E.g., Od. 19.71–88 (Odysseus to Melantho). A warning, similar to a threat except that the speaker does not control the negative consequences that may follow the addressee’s actions, appears just twice (also Iliad 22.358–360, dying Hector to Achilles). Either a threat or a warning may be an assertive if the speaker does not say what the addressee should do instead of whatever he is currently doing. 70. E.g., Od. 5.339–350 (Ino to Odysseus). Recipes, although not found in Homeric epic, are a useful way to think about what instructions are for. 71. E.g., Iliad 4.25–29 (Hera to Zeus). 72. E.g., Iliad 15.372–376 (Nestor to Zeus). 73. E.g., Iliad 8.399–408 (Zeus to Iris). 74. E.g., Iliad 8.413–424 (Iris delivers the message cited in the previous note to Hera and Athena). Informational messages are surprisingly uncommon in Homeric poetry (18 instances out of 141 speeches that include a message speech act); Chapter 6 discusses them in more detail. When the content of a message is an assertive, the origin of the message is still a directive to the messenger to go to the addressee, but the delivery of the message is an assertive. 75. For example, when Thetis brings Achilles a message from Zeus, she urges him to return the body of Hector to Priam partly on the grounds that her message comes from Zeus (Iliad 24.128–137). 76. E.g., Iliad 22.101–102, where Hector presents a directive given him by Polydamas (ἐκέλευε . . . ἡγήσασθαι, “He ordered [me] to lead” [my translation]). This might present an order, a request, or a rebuke, to name three possibilities. 77. E.g., Iliad 5.421–425 (Athena to Zeus), where the speech itself is simply a statement describing the current state of affairs, but contextual features like the main narrator’s introductory language (419) and Zeus’ response identify the speech as a directive.

NOT E S to PAGE S 

201

Beck-final.indb 201

6/26/12 7:57:38 PM

For the term “implicit” rather than “indirect” (the more common word for speech acts whose form and contextual meaning differ substantially), see Risselada 1993: 90– 92. 78. Odysseus’ wily words provide notable examples of this. For instance, the narrator explains that Odysseus’ story to Eumaeus about gaining a cloak from “Odysseus” at Troy was intended to test Eumaeus and see whether he would give a cloak, too (14.459– 461). Probert and Dickey (2005) point out that imperatives are surprisingly common (by contemporary standards) in Athenian tragedy, suggesting that this is a consistent feature of ancient Greek, at least as far as implicit directives are concerned. 79. E.g., Od. 3.212–213 (Nestor presents a statement by an unspecified “they” about Penelope’s suitors). 80. E.g., Od. 19.27–28 (Telemachus to Euryclea). Occasionally, replies may be expressive (e.g., Iliad 22.233–237, Hector to Athena disguised as Deiphobus, where Hector’s speech responds to the previous speech by describing his feelings), or even unspecified speech act types (always in character-presented non-direct speech, such as Od. 3.265–266, where the verb ἀναίνετο shows that Clytemnestra spoke a reply, but not what kind of speech act it was). 81. Kitts (2005: 97– 99) discusses the speech act dimension of oaths. 82. Iliad 19.258–265. When Agamemnon originally offers to swear the oath at 9.132, he says μέγαν ὅρκον ὀμοῦμαι (“I will swear a great oath”). 83. As when Telemachus extracts a promise from Eurycleia not to tell Penelope about his intended trip in search of information about Odysseus until he has been gone for a while, or until Penelope asks about him: ὄμοσον μὴ . . . τάδε μυθήσασθαι (“Swear to tell . . . nothing about this,” Od. 2.373). Telemachus does not mention the gods as guarantors of the oath, but the main narrator does when reporting that Eurycleia did as she was bidden (γρηῢς δὲ θεῶν μέγαν ὅρκον ἀπόμνυ, “The old woman swore to the gods a great oath,” Od. 2.377). 84. Iliad 23.43–47 contains an oath invoking Zeus, identified as an oath (ὅρκον ὄμοσσεν, “swore an oath,” 42, to introduce direct quotation), in relation to an utterance that is unambiguously an assertive. 85. E.g., Od. 13.173–177 (Alcinous presents a prophecy from the past by his father, Nausithous). 86. E.g., Od. 1.154–155 (Phemius among the suitors). 87. E.g., Penelope to Phemius, πολλὰ γὰρ ἄλλα βροτῶν θελκτήρια οἶδας / ἔργ᾽ ἀνδρῶν τε θεῶν τε (“Phemios, since you know many other actions of mortals / and gods, which can charm men’s hearts,” Od. 1.337–338). 88. E.g., Odysseus to Demodocus, ὥς τέ που ἢ αὐτὸς παρεὼν ἢ ἄλλου ἀκούσας (“As if you had been there yourself or heard it from one who was,” Od. 8.491). 89. The bard that Agamemnon left to guard Clytemnestra, who is banished by Aegisthus to a lonely island as part of his campaign of seduction (Od. 3.267–271), is the lone exception to this. 90. Minchin 2002 surveys some of these patterns in the Odyssey. 91. E.g., Od. 15.167–168 (Peisistratus to Menelaus). This is the most common variation from the prototypical question, which combines an interrogative sentence type with a question speech act. Approximately one-quarter of questions are presented this way (48 of 198). 92. E.g., Od. 1.222–229 (Athena to Telemachus), 21 of 198 questions. 93. Minchin (2002: 26–31) discusses these questions under the heading of “control questions.”

NOT E S to PAGE S 

202

Beck-final.indb 202

6/26/12 7:57:39 PM

94. Risselada calls it “a convenient wastebasket for a number of quite heterogeneous speech act types” (1993: 40). Emotives are also the only speech act type that is not associated with a particular sentence type. 95. E.g., Iliad 5.277–279 (Pandarus to Diomedes). 96. E.g., Iliad 4.184–187 (Menelaus to Agamemnon). 97. E.g., Iliad 22.331–336 (Achilles to Hector). In contrast, de Jong (2004b: 201) classifies these as assertives because “the speaker tells how (he thinks) things are.” 98. E.g., Od. 1.133–134 (Telemachus to Athena) and Od. 8.461–462 (Nausicaa to Odysseus), respectively. 99. E.g., Iliad 24.725– 745 (Andromache to Trojan women, for Hector). 100. E.g., Od. 17.496–497 (Eurynome to Penelope). 101. E.g., Iliad 8.352–356 (Hera to Athena). 102. At Iliad 23.439–441, Menelaus complains about Antilochus’ driving during the chariot race without specifying an alternative course of action. Here I differ from Minchin (2007a: 23–51), who argues that a directive element always occurs as part of a rebuke. See in particular her final element for rebukes, “a proposal for amends: new action on the part of the addressee” (28). 103. E.g., Iliad 16.422–425, where Sarpedon begins a rebuke by saying to the Lycians, αἰδώς, ὦ Λύκιοι· πόσε φεύγετε; νῦν θοοὶ ἔστε (“Shame, you Lykians, where are you running to? You must be fierce now”). He rebukes them with the question and then tells them what to do instead. 104. This formula appears eleven times (7 times in the Iliad, 4 times in the Odyssey). 105. Most extensively by Pelliccia 1995. Edwards (1987: 94) argues that the introductory verbs “indicat[e] that they are thought of as uttered aloud rather than as simply the unspoken thoughts of the character.” Létoublon (2001: 247) calls these speeches “discours intérieur.” 106. Od. 17.306–310, where the disguised Odysseus makes a comment about his dog Argus that is introduced with verb ἐρεείνετο (“ask, inquire”) and functions as an implicit question. 107. Semino and Short (2004) make clear that this is an inevitable part of constructing such a database. They worked on theirs for much longer than I did with a team of several researchers to assist them, and nonetheless, they wryly note in their conclusions, “We have . . . been left with a certain amount of frustration that, in spite of all the time we (and others) have devoted to it, our corpus still contains mistakes and inconsistencies, which, in an ideal world, we should correct” (226–227). They go on to say that the database overall is accurate and useful as a research tool, which the review by Hardy (2007) and frequent citations by other authors confirm. My database is available online at http://www.laits.utexas.edu/DeborahBeck, along with a more detailed discussion of these issues. 108. So, a speech in the first half of one verse and the second half of the next counts as two verses long. This is not a very exact measurement, but the length of speech presentations does not feature prominently in my analysis, so a more exact measurement is not needed. 109. Plural speakers and addressees were tallied as a variant of gender, so the options for gender are three. This is not the way I would have done it if I were designing the database from scratch, since gender and number are not (as it turns out) particularly similar in their patterns and effects, but the accuracy of my figures on the num-

NOT E S to PAGE S  

203

Beck-final.indb 203

6/26/12 7:57:40 PM

ber and gender of speakers and addressees is not affected by this suboptimal design feature. 110. This clause is slightly adapted from Lattimore, who renders it “See to it that . . .” 111. Pelliccia 1995: 37–57 provides an excellent overview of the uses of προΐημι.

C H A P T E R ON E

1. Used synonymously with “direct speech.” 2. These include Tannen 1989: ch. 4; Fludernik 1993: 30; Collins 2001: 49– 74. 3. Fludernik (1993: 414) lists non-mimetic functions of speech presentation, not all of which appear in Homeric poetry. 4. E.g., the views of Richardson 1990 and Bers 1997. 5. Beck 2005a: 1. 6. This is broadly similar to the conclusion at de Jong 2004b: 171 (quoting Willcock 1977: 45), that embedded quotations in the Iliad “are directly related to the occasion on which they are made and to the particular circumstances of the person who is being addressed.” I focus on specific linguistic features of the contexts in defining what it means to be “related to the occasion,” whereas de Jong uses a more impressionistic set of criteria that does not give a very clear sense of when and why direct quotation is used by characters, or what functions it has in the narrative overall. 7. Specific examples of this phenomenon are discussed in Chapters 3 and 4. 8. Beck 2005a: 280–283. 9. This falls to an average of just over 11 verses per speech if Odysseus’ tale in Od. 9– 12 is omitted from consideration. 10. These statistics, and many similar groups of figures throughout this book, add up to more than 100 percent because some speech presentations—especially direct quotations—contain more than one move. 11. Iliad 11.606, an unusual speech in various respects that also plays a crucial role in the development of the narrative. This speech will be discussed at more length later on. 12. Beck 2008b explores these conclusions at greater length. 13. For instance, Suerbaum offers a brief discussion of Menelaus at the end of his study of Odysseus (1968: 171–172), distinguishing the homecoming narratives of both Menelaus and Nestor from Odysseus’ on the grounds that they do not belong to the “proper theme of the Odyssey” (172, “eigentliche Thema der Odyssee”); Powell (1970) offers a structural analysis of the story elements of Menelaus’ tale in order to show how closely it resembles Odysseus’ adventures in the underworld. 14. Telemachus does not ask a straightforward question of Menelaus in order to elicit this information. The conversation begins when Menelaus asks Telemachus why he has come (4.312–314). Telemachus replies that he seeks information (4.316–331, in a complex speech that contains elements of directive, question, and assertive speech act types); in response, Menelaus tells his tale (4.333–592). Telemachus, who expresses αἰδώς (“embarrassment,” 3.24) about questioning his elders at the start of his journey, asks an implicit question here in order to minimize the appearance of making a claim on Menelaus while still seeking the information for which he has come.

NOT E S to PAGE S  

204

Beck-final.indb 204

6/26/12 7:57:40 PM

15. Minchin (2002: 28) cites this as an example of a “control-question,” one that is asked not in quest of information but to manipulate the addressee. 16. Here I mean “indirect” in the syntactical, grammatical sense. For a discussion of “metadirectives” (directive words that reinforce an assertive or a question), see Risselada 1993: 45. 17. Proteus’ first words to Menelaus are τίς νύ τοι (“Which . . . now?” 4.462). 18. In addition to the example already quoted, Menelaus asks Eidothea a second question introduced with φράζευ (“show,” 4.395); in the conversation with Proteus, Menelaus asks him three questions (εἰπέ . . . ὅς τίς, “Do tell . . . which one,” 4.468– 469; εἰπὲ καὶ ἀτρεκέως κατάλεξον / ἢ . . . , “Tell and give an accurate answer, / if . . . ,” 4.486–487; ὀνόμαζε /. . . ὅς τις, “Do you tell me the name . . . , / whoever it is,” 4.551–552). 19. Thalmann (1984: 170–179) argues that in the Odyssey, “the hero is represented as a poet,” but also that this “never amounts to literal identity” (170); Murnaghan (1987) connects “Odysseus’ successive experiences of acting as his own poet” (152) with moments of recognition. 20. Suerbaum (1968) argues in favor of such a resemblance; de Jong (1992) lists the features of Odysseus’ narrative style that are specific to first-person narrative. 21. Most (1989) argues that the overall structure of the tale emphasizes the dangers of staying too long with one’s hosts because Odysseus wants to make that point to the Phaeacians. Biles (2003: 205–206) suggests that through Odysseus’ narrative, “the poem effectively places itself before the tradition on which it depends, banishing the Muses to an undefined future” (205). 22. Olson 1995: 43– 64, a thorough discussion of both Odysseus’ narrative and the other scholars who have treated it, argues that Odysseus wants to establish the companions’ responsibility for their own deaths. Van Nortwick (2009: 25–26) asserts that through his tale, Odysseus is seeking a ride home to Ithaca. 23. Scully (1987: 411), a rare exception, notes in passing that an unusual single-verse direct quotation (11.80) emphasizes the burial of Elpenor. 24. E.g., Friedrich 1987 and Cook 1999. 25. Biles (2003: esp. 205–206) presents a particularly interesting version of this argument, insofar as he conflates the reputation Odysseus gets as a narrator of this tale with the stature the narrative lends to the Odyssey itself (which is his main point). 26. This total does not include ten instances of free indirect speech, since that never presents the main speech act of a given speech. 27. Characters in the Odyssey, other than Odysseus in Odyssey 9–12, depict just 31 of their 310 speech presentations as direct quotations. Thirteen of these quotations appear in Menelaus’ narrative in Book 4. 28. The main narrator of the Odyssey presents directives in 265 of the 545 direct quotations (49 percent), questions in 73 speeches (14 percent), assertives in 211 speeches (39 percent), and emotives in 72 speeches (13 percent). 29. In contrast, the episodes of the Cicones (9.39– 61) and the Laestrygonians (10.81–132) contain no direct speech; Odysseus does not speak to supernatural figures in either one. Although Odysseus speaks repeatedly with Aeolus during his two visits to him (10.1– 76), Odysseus gains neither repute nor information from talking to Aeolus, and so he quotes directly from their conversations only when the particular conversation at issue has a strongly expressive cast (10.63– 76; see, e.g., ἀχνύμενος κῆρ, “sorry

NOT E S to PAGE S  

205

Beck-final.indb 205

6/26/12 7:57:42 PM

at heart,” 67; σχέτλιος, “pitiless,” 69; ἐλέγχιστε ζωόντων, “least of living creatures,” 72; βαρέα στενάχοντα, “groaning heavily” 76). 30. Fifteen of 24 speeches between Odysseus and Circe are quoted directly. Several of the nine non-direct speeches involving Circe are speech mentions so brief that they may present semi-verbal calls for attention (10.229, 10.311). Moreover, at 12.33–35 (as elsewhere), direct quotation is not used in a bedroom scene. 31. Pucci (1998: 125–130) offers a lively appreciation of the Οὖτις trick and of naming in the Cyclops episode in general. 32. Across all narrative levels in both poems, 92 percent (190 of 206) of emotive speech acts are directly quoted. 33. Half of the moves in the Circe speeches are directives. 34. Two conversations in direct speech between Odysseus and Circe depict Odysseus overpowering her by resisting her ability to turn men into animals (10.320–344, where he prevents her from turning him into an animal; and 10.378–405, where he persuades her to return his companions to their human form). Two further conversations show Odysseus receiving instructions about returning home safely (10.483–540 and 12.37–141). Thus, direct speech involving Circe depicts Odysseus both manipulating a hostile adversary and getting instructions for going home. 35. Odysseus speaks with the companions 14 times in Book 9, only two of which are quoted directly. 36. ἐρήτυον is used in the same speech-introductory verse at 10.442 for another speech by the companions, also directly quoted. 37. Another implicit directive is quoted directly at 10.562–565, in which Odysseus states in an assertive what Circe told them to do as a way of ordering the companions to do it. Similarly, 12.154–164 and 12.271–276 both give orders by stating what other characters have said the companions must do, although both of these move from assertive statements of “X ordered us to do Y” to direct orders to the companions in the form of imperatives. 38. For similar reasons, Odysseus directly quotes suggestions to the companions that involve action by both himself and them at 10.174–177, 10.189–197, 10.251–260, 10.423–427, 10.456–465, 10.472–474, 10.548–549, 12.21–27, and 12.320–323. 39. Glenn (1971: 171) suggests that this speech to the ram is “Homer’s creation,” not found in other versions of the same story pattern; at 180–181, he mentions the humanity and pathos associated with the Cyclops as one of the distinctive contributions of this particular version of the Cyclops story. 40. Odysseus not only does not quote the companions’ grief for their comrades who have been eaten, but actively forbids them to mourn (9.466–470). Suerbaum (1968: 162) rightly notes that the simile at 10.410–417 depicts the emotions of the companions, but their emotions here are about Odysseus himself. 41. I disagree with the argument of Olson (1995: 43– 62) that the main point of Odysseus’ narrative is to put the blame on the companions for their deaths and deflect it away from himself. 42. Three problematic moves by Eurylochus, each followed by a reacting speech, are quoted directly: 10.266–269 (when Eurylochus reacts problematically to a directive from Odysseus at 10.263, presented with indirect speech) and Odysseus’ reactive move (10.271–273); 10.431–437, followed by the rest of the companions’ reply (10.443–445); and his problematic suggestion at 12.279–293, followed by Odysseus’ reply (12.297–

NOT E S to PAGE S  

206

Beck-final.indb 206

6/26/12 7:57:42 PM

302). The driving force behind these quotations relates to the pragmatics of the kind of speech being presented, not to anything specific to the companions or their concerns. 43. These include Iliad 6.164–165, 19.107–111 and 121–124; Od. 2.96–110, 15.440–453, 16.288–284, 19.7–13 and 141–147, 24.131–137. 44. Banfield (1982: 264) says that “a lie . . . can only be told in direct speech.” 45. Scodel (1998a: 177–178) notes this among many other examples of characters who become more “omniscient” (177) than is normally allowed in character narration, but she does not distinguish omniscient speeches that are lies from those that are not. 46. See below for opinions about Agamemnon’s quotation of gods in his Ate story. 47. De Jong 2004b: 172, on the lying speech of Anteia quoted by Glaucus at Iliad 6.164–165. 48. Mueller (1984: 130–131), Taplin (1990), and Rabel (1991) all think that Agamemnon makes the story up to suit the needs of the moment. 49. This discussion is adapted from Beck 2008a: 177–180. 50. τὸν δέ δολοφρονέουσα προηύδα πότνια Ἥρη, “Then in guileful intention the lady Hera said to him,” Iliad 19.106. This is the only instance of a speechintroductory formula in character speech that is regularly used by the main narrator (as at Iliad 14.197, 300, and 329 in the Διὸς ἀπάτη). 51. Similarly, during Glaucus’ story about Bellerophon, he quotes Anteia when she tells a lie (Iliad 6.164–165), the only direct quotation among many speeches presented non-directly. 52. The otherwise illuminating discussion in Olson 1995: 135–137 does not discuss the extent to which Eumaeus’ narration makes the nurse responsible for what happened to him. Doherty (1995: 151) states that the nurse’s “gender would not seem to be a significant factor in the story” unless Eumaeus had highlighted it in his narrative. In fact, the narrative does depict the female nurse rather than the male Phoenicians as mainly responsible for the idea of kidnapping Eumaeus. 53. Od. 2.87–88, σοὶ δ’ οὔ τι μνηστῆρες Ἀχαιῶν αἴτιοί εἰσιν, / ἀλλὰ φίλη μήτηρ, ἥ τοι περὶ κέρδεα οἶδεν, “And yet you have no cause to blame the Achaian suitors, / but it is your own dear mother, and she is greatly resourceful.” 54. Felson-Rubin (1994: 27), who surveys the context-specific differences among the three different versions of this quotation at 26–27. Minchin (2007b: 28) notes, appositely and entertainingly, that “Penelope schemes, even as she talks of a failed scheme.” 55. Disapproval is evident also in the direct quotation in Glaucus’ story of Bellerophon in Iliad 6, Anteia’s lying speech to Proteus about Bellerophon’s supposed advances to her (164–165). 56. Doherty (1995: 133) points out that Penelope does the same thing when she talks about Helen’s behavior, assigning responsibility for it to the gods (Od. 23.218–224). 57. The verb ὀνομάζω regularly introduces direct quotations in the formula ἔπος τ᾽ ἔφατ ἔκ τ᾽ ὀνόμαζε(ν) (“spoke a word and called by name”), so the introducing verb is not responsible for the non-direct mode of presentation. 58. As do Reece (1993: 85–86) and Thalmann (1984: 166). 59. Iliad 2.60– 70, 2.323–339, 9.254–259, 11.786– 789, 16.203–206, 23.576–578. The following discussion is adapted from Beck 2008a: 165–168. 60. Haubold (2000: 33) says that Greek social structures are “not on the whole depicted as successful . . . not permanent” [emphasis original]. See also Hammer 1997. 61. The exception is Menelaus’ directive at Iliad 23.570–585 (which is not obeyed).

NOT E S to PAGE S  

207

Beck-final.indb 207

6/26/12 7:57:43 PM

The differences between his way of using direct quotation and the way other Greeks generally use it depict him as an ineffective speaker in this instance. 62. Opinion is divided as to whether these quoted speeches “actually” took place, whatever that may mean in a fictional context. De Jong (2004b: 174–175) makes a very important point when she argues that these speakers would be unlikely to invent a conversation at which their current addressee was present and then expect quotations from these invented conversations to “have the authoritative ring they intend them to have” (175). 63. Both Agamemnon, who wishes to test his authority here, and Odysseus, who wishes to prevent disaster from resulting, appeal to divine sources of authority in order to persuade the Greek troops to follow their directives. 64. De Jong (2004b: 173 and 178) notes that direct quotation serves a persuasive purpose here. 65. Lohmann (1970: 235–236), Willcock (1977), and Andersen (1990) all think that 9.254–258 (Peleus to Achilles, quoted by Odysseus) is invented for the context. I suspect that the father quotations both here and at 11.786– 789 (Nestor quotes Menoetius to Patroclus) present speeches that Peleus and Menoetius did make to their sons, because the poem is generally quite explicit about identifying hypothetical quotations as inventions even when the speaker is a specific person (e.g., when Diomedes introduces a hypothetical quotation by Hector with ποτε φήσει [8.149], both the particle and the verb tense identify the speech as invented). 66. Thus fabricated persuasive quotations are not, in fact, mimetic, since their aim is to create the impression of a speech where none existed. They are included in this section on mimetic quotations nonetheless, both because Odysseus’ speech makes most sense as a variant of other ways of using direct quotation that are mimetic and because they establish a transition to the next section, which discusses various nonmimetic uses of direct quotation. 67. The test function of the story is widely known, but it has generally been assumed rather than analyzed. Pratt (1993: 89) calls the story “edifying rather than merely deceptive.” See also Doherty 1995: 157–158; and de Jong 2001: 359–360. 68. Walcot (1977: 15–16) connects this incident with stories and myths invented by the poet and “exploited to serve as paradigms.” 69. Newton (1998: 144–145) notes that Od. 14.495 is a repetition of Iliad 2.56, in which Agamemnon reports to the Greek assembly the dream that has just come to him. I disagree with his suggestion that these dreams are parallel, however: in our passage, the existence of the dream is a fiction, whereas in Iliad 2, the dream did in fact occur. It is the accuracy of what the dream says that is illusory. 70. Thalmann (1984: 172) notes the multiple levels of deceitful speech in the story. He concludes, “The swineherd understands just what Odysseus intends him to (that the beggar is in need of a cloak), but misses the real point (that the beggar is really Odysseus), which the audience perceives.” 71. On the persuasive function of characters’ stories, see N. Austin 1966, especially 300–306; for an in-depth study of a particularly well-known example of a paradigmatic story, Nestor’s speech to Patroclus (Iliad 11.656–803), see Pedrick 1983. 72. The bibliography on Odysseus’ deceptions is enormous. Among the work that focuses specifically on telling lies, Walcot 1977 gives an illuminating and concise discussion of how this is viewed positively both in the Odyssey and in contemporary soci-

NOT E S to PAGE S   

208

Beck-final.indb 208

6/26/12 7:57:44 PM

eties. Similarly, Pratt (1993: 65) notes that “the art of lying, as Odysseus skillfully deploys it, seems to have a positive characterization within the context of the poem.” 73. De Jong (2001: 221–222) persuasively argues that Odysseus’ narrative in Books 9–12 is not one of his lying tales. 74. For this aspect of Odysseus’ style of narration, see, e.g., Beck 2005b. 75. E.g., de Jong (2004b: 176–178) looks at instances of hypothetical speech presented by characters in the Iliad, where she calls them “invented” speeches. 76. There are ten examples in the Iliad (2.271, 3.297, 3.319, 4.81, 5.201, 7.178, 7.201, 17.414, 17.420, 22.372); and 13 examples in the Odyssey (2.324, 2.331, 4.769, 13.167, 17.482, 18.72, 18.111 [although there is some disagreement in the manuscripts about this], 18.400, 20.375, 21.361, 21.396, 21.401, 23.148). 77. The one apparent exception, Od. 10.37 (a speech that Odysseus presents his companions as having made while he was asleep), in fact does not introduce the speech on its own. It is paired with an earlier verse that uses a plural speaking verb for the companions (10.34): οἱ δ᾽ ἕταροι ἐπέεσσι πρὸς ἀλλήλους ἀγόρευον, “But my companions talked with each other.” De Jong (2001: 252) connects this with the anonymous τις speeches regularly found in the Iliad; she does not note that this is the only place in either poem where a character uses a τις verse to introduce a speech like this. 78. I consider emotive monologues to be actual speeches rather than hypothetical, following the interpretation of Edwards (1987: 94). The objection of Létoublon (2001: 268), “On ne peut imaginer qu’un personnage à la dérive sur une poutre de navire en plein tempête déclame à voix haute un discours aussi long” (“One can’t imagine a character adrift on a beam of a ship in the middle of a storm uttering such a long speech in a loud voice”), applies equally well to some of the speeches in the Homeric epics that are unambiguously spoken aloud to an addressee. 79. Occasionally a plural verb of speaking introduces a representative speech (Hentze 1905: 255–256): Iliad 3.155 (ἀγόρευον, “they uttered”); Od. 22.26 (νείκειον, “they scolded”). Wilson (1979: 2) provides a useful overview of the introductory and concluding language for τις speeches in Homeric poetry. 80. Od. 4.770– 771. Conversely, sometimes we are told explicitly that the addressee paid no attention to the content of a τις speech (Od. 17.488 and 20.384). Most often, τις speeches elicit either a nonverbal response or no response at all. 81. Exceptions: prayers (Iliad 3.298–310, 3.320–323, 7.179–180, 7.202–205), other directive subtypes (Iliad 17.421–422; Od. 20.376–383 [a directive acting more as an ironic comment than a true directive], 21.362–365 [an implicit directive, in which a question and a wish serve as an order to Eumaeus to drop Odysseus’ bow]), and one question (Od. 13.168–169). 82. De Jong 1987: 82, although the expression “the mind of the masses” is more suited to the Iliad than to the Odyssey. 83. Hentze 1905: 256. While in many ways de Jong 1987 is more up-to-date and provides more useful commentary on the speeches it discusses than Hentze 1905 does, the absence of the Odyssey material from de Jong 1987 limits the force of its conclusions in light of the marked differences between the two poems. 84. Iliad 3.298–301 and 320–323, 4.82–84. 85. I disagree with the claim of de Jong (1987: 73– 74) that this speech should be seen as an exhortation to fight. An exhortation is a battlefield directive that explicitly recommends a particular course of action to the addressee, whereas this speech (an

NOT E S to PAGE S    

209

Beck-final.indb 209

6/26/12 7:57:45 PM

emotive) lacks the imperative or subjunctive found in other exhortations and does not propose any specific action to prevent the sorrow of losing Patroclus’ corpse. The supposed parallel of Menelaus’ monologue earlier in the book (17.91–105) is not an exhortation either, because it is not addressed to someone else. Rather, it is a presentation of an internal thought process. 86. ὣς εἰπὼν (or εἰποῦσα) ὄτρυνε μένος καὶ θυμὸν ἑκάστου (“Thus he [or she] would speak, and stir the spirit in each one”) appears 11 times in the Homeric epics after speeches of battlefield exhortation, Beck 2005a: 291. 87. Od. 4.770– 771, 13.168–169, 23.149–151. 88. I have omitted Achilles’ quotation of the Myrmidons at Iliad 16.203–206 from consideration here because he is quoting them to themselves, which changes the context for such a quotation significantly. 89. Odysseus directly quotes groups of people: his companions (9.494–499, 10.419– 421, 10.443–445, 10.472–474); the Cyclopes (9.403–406 and 410–412); Aeolus and his family (10.64– 66); and the Sirens (12.184–191). Introductory verbs include εἴροντο (“they asked,” 9.402), ἀγόρευον (“they spoke,” 9.409), ἐρέοντο (“they asked,” 10.63), προσηύδων (“they spoke,” 10.418), and ἔφαν (“they said,” 10.471). These are the same verbs of speaking that the main narrators use to present speech. 90. Discussed in Beck 2005b: 223–224. 91. Analysis of τις speeches in the Iliad is adapted from Beck 2008a: 168–176. 92. Hector: 6.460–461, 6.479, 7.89– 90, 7.301–302, 22.107; Sarpedon, 12.318–321; Andromache, 22.498. 93. Iliad 4.178–181 (Agamemnon), 8.149 (Diomedes). 94. Od. 6.276–284, 21.325–328. 95. For discussions of this hypothetical quotation, see de Jong 2004b: 177; de Jong 1987: 77; and Martin 1989: 136. Mackie (1996: 99) cites this passage to support the claim that Hector’s hypothetical quotations “distance him from the people with whom he converses.” 96. Cairns (1993: 72– 73) suggests that Diomedes, because he is a young person, is showing an “intense fear of public criticism” here, insofar as the taunt he fears does not reflect accurately the opinion that the Trojans hold of him. I suggest that his youth also affects the particular circumstances in which he talks this way. 97. Winkler (1990: 149n) connects Penelope and Nausicaa via the verb νεμεσάω (286), expressing their shared concern for what other women will say about them if they behave immodestly toward their suitors. Penelope is unusual in being a fully adult woman with suitors. 98. In comparison, the rather similar concerns that Eurymachus voices at 21.322– 329 about his own reputation as a suitor of Penelope implicitly characterize him in an uncomplimentary way.

C H A P T E R T WO

1. Another common approach to free indirect speech has been to characterize it as direct quotation, as do Garvie (1994: 295), Richardson (1990: 85), and the editions of van Thiel, which use quotation marks for free indirect speech at Iliad 9.685– 687 and Od. 1.40–41. 2. Bonifazi (forthcoming) lends support for this combination of oral performance

NOT E S to PAGE S  

210

Beck-final.indb 210

6/26/12 7:57:46 PM

and free indirect speech. No standard performative signals, conventions, or changes mark presented speech in the Milman Parry archive of recordings (D. F. Elmer, personal communication, September 2, 2010). 3. See the Introduction above for a more detailed discussion of studies of free indirect speech in both ancient and modern narrative. 4. The Latin text is that of Mynors’ Oxford Classical Text; the translation is by Mandelbaum (1961). 5. This discussion can be found at Laird 1999: 106, where the author notes that “if this were a third-person account, the second verse . . . taken alone would read without doubt as FID [free indirect discourse].” This example from the Aeneid presents a thought rather than speech, but this is not significant for my larger point about the existence of free indirect speech in Homeric poetry. 6. Od. 9.88–89, 9.100–102, 9.331–333, 9.376–377, 9.488–490, 10.100–102, 10.128– 129. These seven examples constitute nearly 10 percent of the 80 instances of free indirect speech in the poems overall, and one-eighth of all the free indirect speech presented by characters. 7. Just 45 of 748 directly quoted directives (6 percent), for instance, are shorter than three verses, and even these short speeches often contain expressive details, e.g., Od. 3.475–476. 8. Out of 589 instances of indirect speech, 72 include free indirect speech as well (12 percent), 59 use clause syntax rather than an infinitive to present the content of the speech (10 percent), and 46 include a subordinate clause that is clearly not free indirect speech (8 percent). Iliad 6.170, part of Glaucus’ story about Bellerophon, gives a clear example of this: δεῖξαι δ’ ἠνώγειν ᾧ πενθερῷ, ὄφρ’ ἀπόλοιτο (“And told him to show it to his wife’s father, that he might perish”). Obviously the Lycian king would not tell Bellerophon that this was his intention, so the purpose clause is Glaucus’ comment as the narrator and not part of the order being presented. 9. It is also inappropriate to argue that these kinds of clauses are due to the poet’s disposition toward direct speech and a supposed inability to sustain longer passages of indirect discourse, as Cantilena (2002: 29) does. 10. Free indirect speech overall: 38 times in the Iliad, 42 times in the Odyssey; free indirect speech presented by the main narrators: 10 times in the Iliad, 11 times in the Odyssey; free indirect speech presented by characters: 27 times in the Iliad, 29 times in the Odyssey. 11. Seventy percent (56 instances) of free indirect speech appears in speeches narrated by characters. As we will see, this is roughly comparable to the proportion of indirect speech and speech mention that appears in character speech. There are 32 instances of free indirect speech presented by the main narrators; the remaining two instances appear at a third level of subordination. 12. Of speech presented by the main narrators, 1.5 percent includes free indirect speech (21 instances out of 1,471 speeches presented by the main narrator), compared to character speech, which contains 6.5 percent (56 instances out of 856 speeches presented by characters). 13. For instance, only characters use free indirect speech to present indirect interrogatives (Iliad 3.92– 93; Od. 9.89 ∼ 10.101, 9.332–333). Conversely, there are no clause types that appear exclusively in free indirect speech presented by the main narrators. 14. The presentation of song will be discussed at greater length in Chapters 4 and 5.

NOT E S to PAGE S  

211

Beck-final.indb 211

6/26/12 7:57:46 PM

15. Overall: 53 directives (out of 80 instances of free indirect speech, 66 percent); main narrators: 14 directives (out of 21, 67 percent); characters: 38 directives (out of 56, 68 percent). 16. Overall: 25 assertives (out of 80 instances of free indirect speech, 31 percent); main narrators: 6 assertives (out of 21, 29 percent); characters: 17 assertives (out of 56, 30 percent). 17. Od. 23.301–305, the non– direct presentation of Penelope narrating her experiences to Odysseus after their reunion. This passage will be discussed further in the next chapter. 18. Cretan lies: Od. 14.327–330, 16.64 (by Eumaeus), 17.524–525 (by Eumaeus), 19.296–299; Troy: 8.519–520, 18.263–264. 19. Most scholarship on the Niobe story focuses on how it relates to the situation between Achilles and Priam, and/or whether lines 24.614– 617 are genuine. Schmitz 2001 is a representative example. 20. With the partial exception of the hedging function served by φασί at 24.615– 616: ὅθι φασὶ θεάων ἔμμεναι εὐνὰς / νυμφάων (“Where they say is the resting place of the goddesses / who are nymphs”). This expression attributes a particular fact about the landscape to an anonymous “they.” Such statements will be discussed in detail in the next chapter. 21. Two speeches in the Odyssey depicting the sorrow and loneliness of Laertes show similar patterns (1.187–193 and 16.142–145). Niobe’s speech also resembles the one emotive speech that includes free indirect speech, the foolish challenge that Thamyris addresses to the Muses (Iliad 2.597–598). Niobe’s speech is considered a statement (assertive) rather than a boast (expressive) because the main speech act presented is a statement. 22. This is the same as the overall percentage of free indirect speech presented by the main narrators (21 of 80 instances). 23. The one exception, Iliad 10.454–455, probes the rule because it presents a hypothetical supplication that Dolon was on the verge of making when Diomedes killed him instead. Pleas, which are introduced with the verb λίσσομαι but lack the accompanying physical gestures that supplication has, can be seen as less expressive than supplications, insofar as they are not always directly quoted by the main narrators (9 of 11, 82 percent in direct quotation, slightly below the overall 83 percent of speeches presented by the main narrators with direct quotation). 24. Nine percent of message speeches that include free indirect speech are messageoriginating (5 of 53: Iliad 2.28–32, 7.394–397, 24.175–187, Od. 5.112–114, 21.381–385), and 11 percent of directives presented with free indirect speech are message-delivery speeches (6 of 53: Iliad 2.11–15, 2.65– 70, 7.372–377, 24.113–115 and 145–152, Od. 21.235– 239). In comparison, 4 percent of directives overall are message-originating speeches (52 of 1,309), and 7 percent are message deliveries (90 of 1,309). 25. De Jong (2004b: 181–182): “The verbatim repetition is intended by the characters and functional on the level of their communication” (182). 26. The dream messenger that Zeus sends to Agamemnon in Iliad 2, which appears in three different speeches (11–16, 28–32, and 65– 69), is the most extensive example of this. 27. For the elaborations on the basic lament type that emphasize and draw out this speech, see Beck 2005a: 260–263. 28. Fludernik 1993: 227–228, which includes superlatives in the category of “emo-

NOT E S to PAGE S  

212

Beck-final.indb 212

6/26/12 7:57:47 PM

tion, evaluation, and judgement, including intensifiers” (228); de Jong (2004a: 143) notes the character focalization of ὅττι τάχιστα. 29. Od. 8.433–434 has a very similar description of orders given for a bath to be quickly heated, but without the free indirect speech component: ὣς ἔφατ’, Ἀρήτη δὲ μετὰ δμῳῇσιν ἔειπεν / ἀμφὶ πυρὶ στῆσαι τρίποδα μέγαν ὅττι τάχιστα (“So he spoke, and Arete going to her maidservants told them / to set the great caldron over the fire, as quickly as might be”). 30. Iliad 2.267, 5.82, 7.425, 13.393, 13.617, 13.640, 16.459, 16.486, 17.298, 17.542, 19.313, 22.369; Od. 22.405 (13 out of 19 occurrences). 31. Such as Iliad 16.459, describing the tears of blood that Zeus weeps for the impending death of Sarpedon, or 17.542, a simile describing Automedon as a lion immediately after his vaunting speech to Aretus. 32. Iliad 9.326, 9.650, 14.7, 16.841; it is found in free indirect speech at Iliad 23.41 (a very similar description of washing blood off of someone, this time Achilles after he returns from killing Hector), as well as here. 33. Scodel 1982 explores the ways that Phoenix uses his autobiographical narrative to persuade Achilles to rejoin the Greeks. 34. Only one λίσσομαι speech spoken by females does not include free indirect speech (9.584–585, spoken by Meleager’s female relatives); no λίσσομαι speech spoken by male speakers does include it. 35. That is, there are 28 speeches introduced with or referred to using forms of λίσσομαι within characters’ speeches. There are eight such speeches in Phoenix’s speech (451–452, 464–465, 574–576, 499–501, 511–512, 520–522, 584–585, 590–594), and two more speeches that are clearly λίσσομαι speeches that either are introduced with a synonym (λιτανεύω, 9.581) or lack a verb of speaking entirely (9.585–586). 36. λίσσομαι does not introduce or refer to this particular speech, but at the end of the embassy, Diomedes says to Agamemnon, μὴ ὄφελες λίσσεσθαι ἀμύμονα Πηλεΐωνα (“I wish you had not supplicated the blameless son of Peleus,” 9.698); Aubriot 1984b: 352. 37. Gould (1973: 76– 77) discusses the centrality of touching the knees to supplication, also argued by Alden (2000; see especially the long note at 198 n. 52). Those arguing that gesture is not determinative include Pedrick 1982; Crotty 1994: e.g., 16–21; and Naiden 2006: 44. 38. Corlu (1966: 293) defines λίσσομαι as “solliciter instamment (quelqu’un), en faisant appel à sa bienveillance, de (faire quelque chose)” (“to call upon [someone] insistently, by calling on his benevolence, to [do something]”). 39. Aubriot (1984a) takes this approach when she links Chryses’ approach to Agamemnon in Book 1 and Priam’s supplication to Achilles in Book 24 as two instances of “le thème . . . des implorations pour racheter un proche” (“the theme of entreaties for redeeming a relation,” 20 n. 60). 40. Iliad 9.451–452 (λίσσομαι speech from Phoenix’s mother to Phoenix) includes a free indirect speech purpose clause; 9.453–456 (Amyntor addresses the Furies to curse his son Phoenix); 9.464–465 (λίσσομαι speech from Phoenix’s kinsmen to him). 41. Lattimore translates λισσέσκετο as “entreating,” but the context suggests that “supplicating” is more appropriate. 42. γέρων in the Iliad refers to specific, prominent old men, such as Nestor and Priam; to characters who are important mainly as fathers, such as Peleus, or as fatherlike figures, such as Phoenix himself; and to characters who are not important but who

NOT E S to PAGE S  

213

Beck-final.indb 213

6/26/12 7:57:48 PM

appear briefly in the narrative as fathers, such as fathers of warriors in danger, 5.24, or slain, 13.666. These usage patterns make it probable that γέρων here implies “father” and not simply “old man” (the connection of the two meanings is noted in the entries in the Lexicon of Early Greek Epic [LfgrE]), but also make it impossible to determine whether this implication occurs at the level of the speaking characters or the narrating Phoenix. 43. This section of the speech overall presents six speeches, most of which feature generalized, typical speeches rather than individual speeches spoken on one particular occasion. These are 499–501 (presented with a form of λίσσομαι), 509, 510, and 511– 512, the Litae offering a plea (λίσσομαι) to their father Zeus. Two speeches at the end of this section depict specific rather than generalized speeches (517–518 and 520–522). 44. Alden (2000: 192 and elsewhere) translates Λιταί as “Prayers,” and she offers both “entreaty” and “prayer” as meanings of λίσσομαι, even though in her chart of all the instances of λίσσομαι in the Iliad, none of the examples except this one is addressed to gods by mortals. On a somewhat different note, Aubriot (1984b: 354) suggests that the Litae are the “pivot” around which the whole speech is organized, with two sections referring to past events on either side of a central panel making statements about the present time, which in turn centers on the Litae. 45. Fludernik (1993: 26) notes that Plato’s treatment of μίμησις and διήγησις in Republic 3.392d–394e conflates the grammatical features of speech presentation with its narrative effects, and she stresses the importance of resisting this. 46. I am indebted to Ruth Scodel for this observation. 47. Several scholars have noted the complex nature of this exemplum, which seems to start out as a positive example but winds up as more of an object lesson. Willcock’s discussion (1964: 147–153) is very useful on the Meleager story, which he calls “the paradeigma of paradeigmas” (147); Crotty (1994: 53–54) notes the tension and ambiguity in Phoenix’s speech on several levels. 48. This sequence of appeals includes the elders (574–580), Meleager’s father Oeneus (581–583), a group of his female relatives (584–585), his companions (585–586), and finally his wife Cleopatra (590–594). Kakridis (1949: 20–25) calls this “the ascending scale of affection” (20), a term widely used by later scholars to talk about the episode. 49. In addition, Lohmann (1970: 260) points out that Cleopatra is the only individual speaker in a series of speeches delivered in every other case by groups of people. 50. Cf. μητέρ᾽ ἐμήν (“my mother”), 451; ἔται καὶ ἀνεψιοί (“kinsmen and cousins”), 464; υἱόν (“son”), 583; κασίγνηται καὶ πότνια μήτηρ (“honored mother and sisters”), 584. 51. Nagy (1979: 111) notes connections between Cleopatra and grief in this scene, linking various aspects of her character and behavior to motifs of formal lamentation. 52. Moreover, this quasi-indirect speech construction developing from a relative clause that modifies a speech mention is rare (12 out of a total of 460 instances of speech mention [Iliad 1.1, 1.85, 9.263, this passage, 13.219–220, 17.260–261; Od. 1.1, 1.325–327, 2.30–32, 8.492–493, 16.338–339, 23.301–305]; in four of them, the speaker is either the Muse or a poet character [Iliad 1.1; Od. 1.1, 1.325–327, 8.492–493]). Most of these relative clauses explain the source of the information rather than describe its content (e.g., Iliad 13.219–220, ποῦ τοι ἀπειλαὶ / οἴχονται, τὰς Τρωσὶν ἀπείλεον υἷες Ἀχαιῶν; “Where are those threats you gave / now, that the sons of the Achaians uttered against the Trojans?”). 53. Andromache alludes to it in her famous appeal to Hector not to go out to fight

NOT E S to PAGE S  

214

Beck-final.indb 214

6/26/12 7:57:49 PM

against Achilles (Iliad 6.407–409). The main narrator draws on the same idea in a simile depicting Odysseus’ emotions in response to Demodocus’ song about the Trojan horse (Od. 8.521–531). Gaca (2008) discusses the pervasive association in Homeric poetry between warfare and violence against women and children. 54. The formula ὣς εἰπὼν (or εἰποῦσα) ὄτρυνε μένος καὶ θυμὸν ἑκάστου appears ten times in the Iliad as a speech conclusion, Beck 2005a: 291. 55. The only λίσσομαι speech spoken by women speakers that does not include free indirect speech, the appeal of Meleager’s female relatives (9.584–585), essentially appears as one of a series of speeches building up to the climactic appeal from Cleopatra, so it is not surprising that their speech is presented only with speech mention. 56. Phoenix notes that when he cared for Achilles as a youngster, Achilles used to spit up on him (9.485–491), an almost maternal kind of care for a young child. Aubriot (1984b: 348) argues that Phoenix must have the status of a family member to give Achilles the “admonestation” that he does here. 57. E.g., Burkert 1960; Braswell 1982; Alden 1997. 58. I have found Scodel 1998a and Minchin 2001: 206–209 particularly useful. 59. In addition to the scholars just cited, speech presentation in Demodocus’ songs is mentioned by Goldhill (1991: 50–53), Bakker (1999: 12–14), and Kelly (2008: 178 n. 4). The main points of these works range widely, but in all of them, speech presentation is a side note rather than the focus. 60. Richardson 1990: 82–88, a partial exception to this characterization, surveys the range of ways of presenting song in a book chapter about various speech presentation phenomena in the Homeric poems. This treatment does not provide the depth and focus of an analysis whose main focus is song; in addition, it seems to me to reach incorrect conclusions. 61. Od. 1.325–327 (Phemius), 8.73–82, 8.267–366, and 8.500–520 (all Demodocus). 62. I am not suggesting that either the audience(s) or the poet(s) were conscious of these differences among the various formulas that appear in the song, rather that the language that we find in this song is distinguished not only for the ambiguity of narrating voice, which many scholars have already noticed, but also for the inclusion of language that is typically found at various narrative levels. 63. Athena’s intentions: Od. 18.347 = 20.285; Od. 22.189, describing the bonds of Melantheus, offers the only instance of θυμαλγής at the level of the main narrator, but this may be explained by suggesting that it depicts Eumaeus’ and Philoetius’ attitude toward Melantheus’ bonds. 64. Griffin 1986 remains a useful overview of this issue. 65. N. Austin 1975: 40– 61, which studies how different characters in the Odyssey do or do not use epithets to refer to Odysseus, Penelope, and Telemachus. 66. These include not only verses whose essential meaning is “X answered him,” e.g., τὸν δ᾽ αὖτε προσέειπε Ποσειδάων ἐνοσίχθων (“Then in turn Poseidon, shaker of the earth, answered,” 8.354; see also Iliad 7.445, 13.231, 15.205, 20.132, 21.287; Od. 13.146), but also common full-verse speech-introductory formulas that do not include a character’s name, such as ἔν τ᾽ ἄρα οἱ φῦ χειρὶ ἔπος τ᾽ ἔφατ᾽ ἔκ τ᾽ ὀνόμαζε (“Then he took her by the hand and spoke to her and named her, saying,” Od. 8.291 plus ten times for the main narrator’s presentation of speeches, six times in the Iliad and four times in the Odyssey [Beck 2005a: 287]). 67. Most of these formulas are attested mainly or entirely in the Iliad, since the gods play a much more active role in that story than they do in the Odyssey. Only Po-

NOT E S to PAGE S 

215

Beck-final.indb 215

6/26/12 7:57:49 PM

seidon has a role in both the song of Ares and Aphrodite and the main storyline of the Odyssey. 68. Iliad 3.374 ∼ 5.312, 5.131 (spoken by Athena) ∼ 5.820 (spoken by Diomedes), 14.193 (speech introduction), 14.224, 21.416, 23.185. 69. Iliad 2.510, 505, 545, 469. 70. Iliad 4.33 (spoken by Zeus), 8.288 (Agamemnon), 21.433 (Athena). 71. Iliad 5.725 (narrator), 10.439 (Dolon), 18.83 (Achilles), 18.377 (narrator); Od. 6.306 (Nausicaa), 7.45 (narrator), 8.366, 13.108 (narrator).

CHAPTER THR EE

1. Richardson 1990: 71– 77, which focuses mainly on orders. Richardson’s conclusion about indirect speech in general is that “when the words of a speech are significant, Homer quotes them directly. When the utterance is important only as an action like any other action, he reports it as such” (76). De Jong (2004b: 116) makes a similar point about orders in particular. Neither study offers detailed criteria for understanding when and why specific wording is not important. 2. See De Jong 2004b: 114–118. She states that “indirect speech forms the exception to the rule of direct speech” (115). 3. Richardson (1990: 71) notes this fact in passing. 4. This discussion will primarily complement, rather than overlap with, my discussion of the functions of indirect speech as used by the main narrators in Beck 2008b. 5. Coulmas 1986: 6. See also Li 1986: 34, in the same volume of essays. 6. E.g., Leech and Short 1981: 318–321; Banfield 1982: 23–25; Sternberg 1991: 67– 68; Fludernik 1993: 116. 7. E.g., McHale 1978, whose approach is reproduced in a widely used introduction to narratological theory, Rimmon-Kenan 2002: 110–111. 8. Banfield (1982) argues that no expressivity of the reported speaker is possible in indirect speech, whereas Sternberg (1991) claims that indirect speech can perform the same functions as any other form of speech presentation. 9. Collins (2001), focusing on a limited and fairly homogeneous set of texts, sees a specific role for indirect speech, while once again, Sternberg (1991) makes a wideranging argument that does not see roles or characteristics that are specific to indirect speech. 10. Directives occur in 355 of 589 instances of indirect speech at all narrative levels (60 percent). 11. Assertives occur in 165 of 417 instances of indirect speech presented by characters (40 percent). The main narrators, in contrast, present 18 assertives out of 129 instances of direct speech (14 percent). There are a total of 202 assertives presented in indirect speech, if third-level narration is taken into account as well. 12. Reactive moves are found in 33 of 589 instances of indirect speech. 13. Monro (1998: 207–208) implausibly seems to imply that the accusative/infinitive construction represents a statement of purpose rather than a “true” indirect statement (which he characterizes as one with a subordinate clause, 245). He also overstates how rare the so-called true indirect statement is, since he does not count examples in character speech. In contrast, Chantraine distinguishes the origins of these two constructions, insofar as the infinitive derives from a purpose construction (1986: 301) and

NOT E S to PAGE S  

216

Beck-final.indb 216

6/26/12 7:57:50 PM

the subordinate clause from a causal one (288–291), but he does not distinguish the Homeric uses of these constructions. 14. There are 42 directly quoted directives addressed to Eurycleia, Eumaeus, or groups of servants. Thirty of these direct quotations—the only kind of speech presentation that consistently gives enough information to be sure of the subtype of a speech—are orders. 15. Iliad 5.119–120 and 21.476–477. 16. Iliad 11.611– 612; Od. 3.115–116, 4.60– 62, 8.133–134, 10.109–110, 15.423, 17.120– 121, 17.509–511, 24.262–264. 17. Similarly a response (assertive or directive, Iliad 1.376–377), threat (assertive or directive, Iliad 14.45–47), greeting (which could be either expressive, as in “Happy to see you!” or directive, as in “Please sit down,” Od. 15.158–159), prayer (expressive or directive, Od. 15.353–354), or message delivery (assertive or directive, Od. 16.349–350). 18. Iliad 14.501–502; Od. 8.101–103 ∼ 8.251–253, Od. 16.378–379. 19. Indirect speech used for speech with a plural speaker is slightly less common in speech presented by the main narrators, where 23 of 129 instances (18 percent) of indirect speech have plural speakers. Overall, 115 of 589 (19 percent) instances of indirect speech have a plural speaker. 20. That is, these speeches have a plural addressee but do not also have a plural speaker. 21. Od. 4.826–827, a generalized reference to habitual prayer: ἥν [sc. the escort] τε καὶ ἄλλοι / ἀνέρες ἠρήσαντο παρεστάμεναι, “One that other / men would have prayed to have standing beside [them].” 22. E.g., Od. 224–228, a single speech presenting several similar speeches addressed to Odysseus by his men. 23. Greeks: Iliad 1.376–377, 2.286–288, 8.229, 14.126–127, 15.295; Od. 3.173. Trojans: Iliad 10.419, 14.501–502. Suitors of Penelope: Od. 18.55–57, 20.213–214, 21.265–266, 24.173–174. Heralds: Iliad 7.284, 8.517–519, 9.171, 11.685– 686. Two Ajaxes: Iliad 4.287. Other smaller groups who make speeches include the sons of Nestor (Od. 3.427–429), the Phaeacian youths playing games (Od. 8.133–134), and Odysseus’ retinue of loyal servants and Telemachus (Od. 22.437–439, 23.132). 24. “Plural” here means either a clearly defined group, like the Greeks or the Trojans or a pair of heralds, or an unspecified addressee that implies more than one person, as with representative τις quotations. 25. The percentage is the same for direct quotation presented by the main narrators (269 of 1,222 instances, 22 percent). The characters’ direct quotations are addressed to groups 22 percent of the time (31 out of 139 instances). 26. The main narrators present 41 percent of speech mentions (52 of 126 instances), compared to 29 percent of speech mentions presented by characters (91 of 307 instances). 27. The characters present 159 speeches to plural addressees out of 417 total instances (38 percent). 28. There are 34 instances of a speaking verb with a plural subject governing an infinitive form of εἰμί (either stated or implied) or a form of γίγνομαι. 29. For a discussion of the roles played by genealogy in battle scenes, see Létoublon 1983: 34–36. 30. These examples all use the unmarked φημί; for a discussion of the meaning and usage of φημί versus εὔχομαι, see Muellner 1976: 76–84. Muellner notes that φημί, in

NOT E S to PAGE S 

217

Beck-final.indb 217

6/26/12 7:57:50 PM

contrast to εὔχομαι, can be used for “false or speculative” statements about someone’s lineage (78). 31. Iliad 2.484–487, 2.761– 762, 11.218–220, 14.508–510, 16.112–113 (all addressed to the Muses, or a single Muse); Od. 8.73–82, 8.267–366, 8.500–520 (all songs of Demodocus). 32. Lloyd (2004: 83) suggests that κερτομία, his umbrella term for various formations from the root κερτομ-, “encode[s] an offense or provocative meaning in a form of words which is less overtly offensive or even ostensibly polite.” 33. Iliad 1.22–23, 3.19–20, 11.641, 11.646, 16.657– 658, 18.510–512, 24.24; Od. 2.384– 385, 22.433–434 and 495–496. 34. Iliad 17.674– 675 (part of a simile comparing Menelaus to an eagle) and Od. 6.42–43 (a description of Olympus). Ruth Scodel (personal communication) suggests that Nausicaa may suspect that her dream visitor was a god, and her perspective influences the speech presentation here. 35. Iliad 23.39–41, a directive from the Greek βασιλῆες to heralds; probably Od. 6.216, where a group of maidservants tells Odysseus to bathe. This could also be several individual maids telling him to do various different things related to bathing, but that seems less likely than a single maid giving Odysseus directives on behalf of all of them. 36. The assembly in Iliad 18 occurs on the shield of Achilles, where direct quotation is never used, although many different kinds of activities are going on that involve speaking. 37. The way that speech presentation techniques shape the story of Patroclus in particular will be discussed at length in Chapter 6. 38. The characters, in contrast, use λίσσομαι to present speech more often than the main narrators, even though they present much less speech overall (28 times, eight of which appear in Phoenix’s speech to Achilles in Iliad 9). 39. Formal supplication: Iliad 1.502, 6.45, 10.455, 15.660, 20.469, 21.71 and 98 (both about Lycaon), 24.485; Od. 22.311, 22.343. Od. 7.145 introduces a direct quotation with λιτανεύω. Besides this appeal to Achilles, the linked pair of pleas from Hector’s parents at the beginning of Iliad 22 are twice referred to with forms of λίσσομαι (22.35, 22.91). 40. Contrast de Jong (2004b: 115–116), who cites this as a representative example of indirect speech with a plural speaker. 41. Iliad 5.463, 5.528, 14.363, 15.717, 15.732, 24.252; Od. 6.198, 15.217, 21.175. As prelude to direct quotation: Iliad 13.91 and 15.545. 42. Some of these depictions are not counted in my overall statistics on speech presentation because they are cross-references, but they are useful here for thinking about the range of directive subtypes to which κελεύω can refer. 43. ἄνωγα presents the largest number of character-presented indirect speech directives (56 indirect speech directives presented by characters are introduced with a form of ἄνωγα, out of a total of 132 instances of the verb), but it is used fewer times overall in Homeric poetry than κελεύω is (130 instances). It shows the same usage patterns as κελεύω does to an even greater extent. 44. The proportion for character-presented indirect speech is almost identical: 23 reactive moves out of 417 instances of indirect speech (6 percent). 45. In a similar proportion, in fact: 228 directives out of 417 indirect speeches pre-

NOT E S to PAGE S   

218

Beck-final.indb 218

6/26/12 7:57:51 PM

sented by characters (54 percent), compared to 750 directives of 1,374 direct quotations at all narrative levels (55 percent). 46. This occurs in 59 out of 589 instances of indirect speech. The main narrators present 13 instances of indirect speech with clause syntax (out of 129 instances of indirect speech, 10 percent), and the characters present 37 instances (out of 417 instances of indirect speech, 9 percent). 47. The relative ὅσα rather than the indirect interrogative ὁπόσ(σ)α is used. ὁπ(π)όσ(σ)ος appears six times in the Homeric poems (Iliad 23.238 ∼ 24.792, 24.7; Od. 14.47, 139, 22.220). Of these, only Od. 14.47 introduces an indirect question. 48. These two questions are simply noted here as exceptions to the ways that the main narrators usually present questions; Od. 17.368, which uses indirect speech to create important narrative effects, will be discussed in more detail below. 49. Cited above at note 31. 50. Richardson 1990: 82–88, which will be discussed in more detail in Chapter 5. 51. Minchin (1995, with a comprehensive overview of previous scholarship) argues that these invocations have a performative rather than a narratological function. 52. Multiple verbs of speaking are found in four speeches presented by the main narrators (Iliad 17.356–360, 23.194–198; Od. 8.499–520, 23.310–341), and in 21 presented by characters (5 percent of characters’ indirect speeches). 53. Iliad 7.386–394, 9.679– 688 (which has a speech-concluding expression, ὣς ἔφατ’, at 688), 15.176–183; Od. 5.99–112, 17.350–352. See also Iliad 9.574–580 (an embassy to Meleager), and 24.287– 95 (Hecuba refers to Priam’s prayer to Zeus, where she hopes that Zeus will send an ἄγγελος [296] in response). 54. Iliad 10.392–395, 12.235–238; Od. 5.357–359, 12.158–160, 13.173–177, 23.267–284. 55. The most extensive example of this phenomenon in the Homeric poems, which is presented by the main narrator of the Odyssey, will be discussed below. 56. Iliad 11.646– 654, 19.304–308, 23.39–53, 23.203–211; Od. 6.216–222, 17.368–373. Pragmatic considerations affect all of these conversations except Iliad 11.646– 654 and Od. 17.368–373. I will discuss the Odyssey passage in more detail below; several of the Iliad examples will appear in Chapter 6. 57. Iliad 6.238–241, 13.365–369, 18.499–500. 58. Od. 10.249–274, 15.423–453 (discussed in Chapter 1 above), 16.286–294, 17.120–146. 59. Iliad 4.379–380, 18.448–450; Od. 10.14–18, 10.109–111, 10.311–313, 11.233–234, 12.34–35, 24.337–343. 60. See the four Iliad examples cited in note 56. 61. Od. 10.249–273, a conversation that begins with a series of questions from the companions to Eurylochus presented in indirect speech, to which he replies in direct quotation. This leads to a directly quoted confrontation between Odysseus and Eurylochus in which Eurylochus refuses to follow Odysseus’ instructions. 62. Od. 15.423–453 (discussed in Chapter 1 above) and 16.286–294, where Odysseus directly quotes a deceptive speech that he wants Telemachus to make to the suitors in reply to a question of theirs presented with indirect speech. 63. The other example of a conversation presented by a character that combines direct quotation and indirect speech occurs when Telemachus reports his conversation with Menelaus to Penelope (Od. 17.108–149). This speech retells a character’s speech that contained many direct quotations when Telemachus himself heard it.

NOT E S to PAGE S  

219

Beck-final.indb 219

6/26/12 7:57:52 PM

64. Two of them, 10.109–111 and 10.311–313, include one or more “speeches” that might be some kind of noise or call rather than a verbal speech, an additional reason not to quote them directly. 65. This discussion is an expanded version of Beck 2008b: 371–372. 66. De Jong (2001: 425) calls this “a variation of the ‘identification of the guest’ ritual.” 67. Compare in particular Od. 13.167–169, where this verse introduces a direct quotation in which the Phaeacians ask each other what happened to the ship that Poseidon has just turned into stone. 68. This verse is almost identical to 17.220 (πτωχὸν ἀνιηρόν, δαιτῶν ἀπολυμαντῆρα), where Melantheus abuses Eumaeus as he and Odysseus approach the palace. This similarity of language is marked, both because the verses are quite close together and because the vocabulary they have in common does not appear elsewhere. ἀνιηρός appears only at Od. 2.190 (in the comparative form) outside of Book 17; ἀπολυμαντήρ is found only in these two passages. This similarity may remind the audience that although in this particular conversation Melantheus speaks in a fairly innocuous way, he has quite recently abused both Eumaeus and the beggar. 69. Russo, Fernandez-Galiano, and Heubeck (1992: 342–345) provide a comprehensive review of the “quite indigestible mass” (342) of bibliography on the τέλος. 70. Kelly (2008: 177 n. 2) lists the scholars critical of the use of indirect speech here. My discussion relies heavily on Kelly for background on the speech, because his treatment is both recent and very thorough in its engagement with previous discussions. Even though I have benefited greatly from this article, I disagree with some of its central conclusions. 71. Some of these are marked with double underlines, but the structure of this speech—in particular, the repeated ἠδ᾽ ὡς conjunctions—greatly increases the difficulty of determining whether a particular part of the speech is or is not free indirect speech. Some readers may feel that none of this speech should be considered free indirect speech; others may feel that much more than I have marked is free indirect speech. I think the speech admits both of those viewpoints. 72. Here Lattimore omits the coordinating conjunction, but I have restored it because the quantity of coordinating words is part of my argument. 73. This song is discussed in detail in Chapter 5. 74. These suggestions go beyond the interpretation of de Jong (2001: 562–563) that “the narrator was obviously loath to have Odysseus’ Apologue in Books 9–12 and his own narrative of Odysseus’ arrival at and stay with the Phaeacians (Books 5–8 + 13) repeated.” This is a sound starting point, but further reasons and payoffs for the speech presentation choices made here can and should be considered. 75. Beck 2008b: 372–373 makes this point at greater length. 76. A similar effect appears in the seduction scene between Zeus and Hera in Iliad 14, where direct speech presents Hera’s seduction (297–345), but no speech is presented while the seduction is consummated (346–353). 77. For such comparisons, de Jong 2001: 563 and Kelly 2008 are particularly useful. 78. Here I disagree with Kelly 2008, who calls this speech an example of a consistent semi-poetic competition between Odysseus and the main narrator. I agree that the main narrator in some sense appropriates all the stories about Odysseus and the Trojan

NOT E S to PAGE S 

220

Beck-final.indb 220

6/26/12 7:57:53 PM

War that are told by characters, but to me it does not follow either that Odysseus is a poet-like narrator or that the main narrator has a rivalry with him. 79. Although Odysseus’ extended narrative in Books 9–12 may appear to disprove this claim, in fact it does not. The pervasive first-person features of his narrative (on which see de Jong 1992), and the consistently fantastic nature of his adventures, strongly distinguish his part of his story from the more panoramic and human-oriented story told by the main narrator.

C H A P T E R F OU R

1. This assumption can be seen both in the little time devoted to speech mention and the range of different terms for it. See, e.g., Leech and Short 1981: 323–324; Richardson 1990: 77– 78; de Jong 2004b: 114. Collins (2001: 124–132) is a partial exception to this general tendency. 2. The remaining 27 instances of speech mention appear either at a third level of narrative subordination (22 instances) or in speech where it is ambiguous whether the presenter is the main narrator or a character (Od. 8.79–80, 270–271, 302, and 505–506; 19.414–415). 3. Unspecified speech act type: 24 percent of speech mention presented by main narrators (30 instances) versus 21 percent by characters (63 instances). Directives: 47 percent of speech mention presented by main narrators (59 instances) versus 48 percent by characters (148 instances). Assertives: 22 percent of speech mention presented by main narrators (28 instances) versus 21 percent by characters (65 instances). 4. Eight percent of speech mention presented by characters are questions (26 instances, 23 of which appear in the Odyssey) compared to 3 percent of main narrators’ speech mention (four instances: Iliad 6.238–240, Od. 1.135, 3.77, 17.70). 5. E.g., Hephaestus to Hera about Zeus, ὄφρα μὴ αὖτε / νεικείῃσι πατήρ (“So that no longer / our father may scold her,” Iliad 1.578–579). 6. E.g., Menelaus describes Helen calling out the names of the Greek warriors inside the Trojan horse (ἐκ δ᾽ ὀνομακλήδην Δαναῶν ὀνόμαζες ἀρίστους, “And you called out, naming them by name, to the best of the Danaans,” Od. 4.278). 7. The message deliveries presented by characters with something other than speech mention include one direct quotation (the dream whose message Agamemnon reports in Iliad 2) and 22 indirect speeches. The main narrators, in contrast, directly quote 25 of 36 message-delivery speeches, with just six presented in speech mention (Iliad 7.416, 15.639– 640, 17.409 and 701; Od. 16.338–339, 18.7). The majority of non-directly presented message-delivery speeches depict messages that in some way are hypothetical (Iliad 15.639– 640, 17.409, 17.410–411, 17.701, 22.438–439; Od. 18.185–186, 22.433–434). 8. Assemblies presented by main narrators: Iliad 1.54, 2.404 and 788, 10.194–195, 18.506, and 19.34. Assemblies presented by characters: Iliad 19.34, Od. 1.90– 91 and 272– 273, 3.137. See also Od. 8.505–506 (in Demodocus’ third song). 9. Greetings presented by main narrators: Iliad 10.541–542 and 24.101–102. The one clear example of character-presented greeting is at Od. 15.151–153, where Menelaus tells Telemachus to bring greetings to Nestor on his way back to Ithaca. It seems probable that this is an expressive, not a directive. 10. The main narrators present speech that did not happen a total of 14 times. In

NOT E S to PAGE S 

221

Beck-final.indb 221

6/26/12 7:57:53 PM

addition to this formula, the main narrators use similar language for “X did not speak,” such as οὐδέ τί μιν προσεφώνεον οὐδ᾽ ἐρέοντο (“And did not speak a word at all nor question him,” for Hera and Athena, Iliad 1.332 and 8.445) or ἀκέων ἦν οὐδέ τι εἶπε (“Stayed silent and said nothing,” Iliad 4.22, 8.459). 11. There are 18 instances of repeated moves in direct quotations presented by the main narrators; one presented by Odysseus (Od. 8.153, a cross-reference to a direct quotation presented earlier by the main narrator); and one by Ajax (Iliad 7.284, see below). 12. In contrast, there may be both content and speech act information for a speech presented as “X did not say [that (infinitive), indirect speech].” 13. Iliad 15.639– 640 and Od. 18.7. 14. Iliad 1.545, 8.373, 9.115, 9.510, 11.703, 19.85, 24.768; Od. 1.56, 4.278, 4.349, 12.392, 19.98– 99. 15. Od. 2.108 and 24.144 both present Penelope’s maids telling on her to the suitors about the ruse of Laertes’ shroud; see also Od. 22.132–133 and 22.428–429. 16. Iliad 9.510, 9.585; Od. 3.265. A similar problematic kind of move appears in quarrels, which characters present with speech mention at Iliad 1.230 (ἀντίον εἴπῃ, “speaks up against”), 2.342 (ἐπέσσι’ ἐριδαίνομεν, “We do our fighting with words only”), and 2.377–378 (μαχεσσάμεθ’ . . . ἀντιβίοις ἐπέεσσιν, “[We] fought together . . . in words’ violent encounter”). 17. All in speech mention, unless otherwise specified: Iliad 1.578–579, 2.276–277, 3.411–412, 5.650, 9.34–35 (indirect), 15.197–198, 24.768– 770; Od. 12.392, 19.121–122 (indirect) and 155. 18. Exceptions: μωμήσονται (Iliad 3.412, Helen says that the Trojan women will rebuke her for going to bed with Paris); ὁμόκλησαν ἐπέεσσιν (Od. 19.155, Penelope says that the suitors rebuked her for her deception with Laertes’ shroud). 19. This differs from the figures in the table at Minchin 2007a: 151, which lists 58 rebukes at the level of the main narrator. As I explained in the Introduction, my definition of a rebuke differs from Minchin’s, so she counts more rebukes than I do. 20. Quarreling: Iliad 1.230, 2.342, 2.377–378. Refusal: Iliad 9.510, 9.585; Od. 3.265 (all three of which use forms of ἀναίνομαι). 21. There are 98 assertives in speech mention, 31 interrogatives (28 of which appear in the Odyssey), and just 12 expressives. 22. Approximately half the time: 102 of 215 directives presented with speech mention have a clear subtype. 23. Similarly, assertive speech mentions with clear subtypes are usually either promises (presented with, e.g., ὑπίσχομαι, “undertake, promise”) or songs (ἀείδω). 24. Sixteen pleas and supplications are presented with forms of λίσσομαι; five additional speeches, pleas, and supplications are presented with synonymous verbs such as λιτανεύω (Iliad 9.581) or with general verbs of speaking and a reference to physical gestures of supplication (Iliad 1.555–57, παρείπῃ . . . λάβε γούνων, “urge . . . took hold of [your] knees,” my translation). 25. The main narrators present 24 speeches of either plea or supplication, of which two are indirect speech and one is speech mention. 26. E.g., the common speech-concluding formulas ὣς ἔφατ’, οὐδ’ ἀπίθησε(ν) [name/epithet formula] (“So he/she spoke, nor did [name/epithet formula] disobey him/her,” found 21 times in the Iliad, twice in the Odyssey) and ὣς ἔφαθ’, οἳ δ’ ἄρα τοῦ [or τῆς] μάλα μὲν κλύον ἠδ’ ἐπίθοντο (“So he/she spoke, and they listened to

NOT E S to PAGE S  

222

Beck-final.indb 222

6/26/12 7:57:54 PM

him/her with care, and obeyed him/her,” found 7 times in the Iliad, 6 times in the Odyssey); Beck 2005a: 290. 27. Characters present four instances of song (Iliad 22.391; Od. 1.339, 8.492, 10.221). The only other speech act subtype presented as speech mention with unspecified move by both the main narrators and characters is threat (Iliad 1.319 [main narrator] and Iliad 13.219 [presented to Idomeneus by Poseidon]). Other speech act types that occur regularly as speech mention with unspecified move, but less often than song or promise, include prophecy, which has some pragmatic similarities with promise (Iliad 1.106– 108, 1.384–385; Od. 2.184, 23.251); statement (Iliad 4.374, 20.348, 24.490–491; Od. 1.302, 3.92); and λίσσομαι speech (Iliad 1.555, 9.499–501, 9.520, 11.609– 610). All of these occur only in character-presented speech. 28. The remaining instance of a promise is a subsidiary speech act that is referred to in a cross-reference (Iliad 10.392–393). 29. Two at the level of the main narrators (Iliad 14.233–241, 21.369–376), one by a character (Od. 12.385–388), and two whose narrative level is ambiguous (Od. 8.355–356 and 19.406–412). 30. E.g., Iliad 13.376: ὁ [Priam, named at the end of the preceding clause] δ’ ὑπέσχετο θυγατέρα ἥν, “who in turn promised you his daughter.” 31. Promises presented by main narrators as a main speech act: Iliad 13.368–369, 14.233– 241, 21.369–376; Od. 4.6– 7. 32. The Iliad, which is more concerned with this issue than the Odyssey is, contains about two-thirds of character-presented promises, whether computed overall (23 of 31 promises presented by characters), as a proportion of promises presented with speech mention (13 of 18), or as a proportion of the promises in speech mentions that lack a specified move (8 of 13). 33. Iliad 22.391 (ἀείδοντες παιήονα, similar to the main narrator’s description of the Greeks at Iliad 1.473; here Achilles tells the Greeks to sing the paean after Hector’s death, but if they do, it is never reported by the main narrator); Od. 1.339 (ἄειδε; Penelope tells Phemius to sing a different song), 8.492 (ἄεισον, Odysseus orders Demodocus to sing about the Trojan horse), 10.221 (ἀειδούσης; Odysseus describes Circe singing as his companions approach her house). In addition, Iliad 24.720– 722 describes the song of professional mourners for Hector, which I have classified as lament rather than song even though the speakers are described as ἀοιδοί (720). 34. I omit here three of the ten examples listed in Richardson 1990: 224 n. 33 of songs “treated simply as one event in the plot . . . reported as such with at most only a hint as to the genre of the song” (83). ἄρχετο μολπῆς used of Nausicaa (“led in the dancing,” Od. 6.101) seems unlikely to refer to song as opposed to dance. Young girls do not present bardic songs, and elsewhere μέλπομαι for song appears in conjunction with other words that unambiguously refer to song (such as Od. 4.17–18, where the subject of ἐμέλπετο is ἀοιδός). ἐπαοιδῇ, a ἅπαξ λέγόμενον (Od. 19.457), is a medicinal incantation, not a bardic song. Od. 23.143–145 relates that a singer used his lyre to stir up a desire for μολπή and ὀρχηθμός, and while this might mean singing, the narrative describes the other people present dancing rather than listening, so it seems more likely to be dancing. 35. Similarly, the Spartan bard at Od. 4.17–18, Demodocus at Od. 13.27–28, Phemius at Od. 17.261–263 and 17.358. 36. E.g., the description of the Muses on Olympus at Iliad 1.604, αἳ ἄειδον ἀμειβόμεναι ὀπὶ καλῇ (“The antiphonal sweet sound of the Muses singing”).

NOT E S to PAGE S 

223

Beck-final.indb 223

6/26/12 7:57:55 PM

37. There are twelve instances of relative clauses that elaborate on the speech’s content, among the 460 instances of speech mention. 38. Ford (1992: 19–23) points out that poetic openings in Homeric epic have similar structures across different narrative levels. 39. Richardson 1990: 83. De Jong (2001: 34–35) notes various features of Phemius’ song in Book 1 that are closely linked with, and add to, the surrounding narrative content. 40. When Phemius speaks as a character rather than sings, he is directly quoted (Od. 22.344–354, supplicating Odysseus not to kill him); Achilles, whom speech mention depicts making poetry at Iliad 9.189, is of course quoted extensively when he speaks rather than sings. 41. This provides a strong argument against viewing Odysseus’ narrative in Odyssey 9–12 as a song. Character poets present no direct quotations, with the single exception of Demodocus’ second song. 42. This idea will be the focus of the second half of Chapter 5. 43. I have discussed this conversation previously in Beck 2008b: 369–370 and Beck 2009: 145–146. The analysis here draws on these earlier publications. 44. Instances of a participial form of φθέγγομαι (“to utter, speak of ”) with a common verb of speaking to introduce direct quotation include Iliad 24.169– 170 (προσηύδα . . . φθεγξαμένη, “[Iris] spoke to him in a . . . voice”); Od. 14.492 (φθεγξάμενος . . . πρὸς μῦθον ἔειπε, “He spoke . . . and said a word”); Od. 21.192 (φθεγξάμενος . . . προσηύδα, “[Odysseus] spoke . . . in words”). 45. In that case, Patroclus’ “response” to Achilles’ speech in 602 would be his coming out of the hut, not the speech he makes when he meets Achilles face to face. 46. Two characters in the Iliad present questions in speech mention whose move type is unclear, but in both cases, these refer to presentations of hypothetical speech: Iliad 1.550 (Zeus orders Hera not to ask questions) and 1.553 (she says that she did not ask too many questions). 47. Nagy (1979: 293–294) connects Patroclus’ doom with the expression “equal to Ares,” which describes Patroclus both here (ἶσος Ἄρηϊ) and at 16.784 (ἀτάλαντος Ἄρηϊ). 48. The first two verses are adapted from Lattimore. 49. This speech and the similar scene in Odyssey 19—where Odysseus quotes the same hypothetical speech to Telemachus at Od. 19.7–13, who then makes it the basis of his directive to Eurycleia at 16–20—have seemed to many critics to be a confused mishmash of poorly motivated or downright unintelligible behavior. Scodel (1998b) provides both a sensible analysis of Odysseus’ behavior and a useful review of earlier treatments. See also de Jong 2001: 460–461. 50. This idea is ably explored by Austin (1969), who rightly calls the arrival of Odysseus (rather than Telemachus’ travels) the most important event in Telemachus’ gradual maturation: “Telemachos’ journey had been the largely theoretical side of his education; in Ithaka comes the chance for practical education, in Telemachos’ observation and imitation of il maestro [sic], Odysseus himself ” (57). 51. Griffin (1986: 40) attributes this partly to the nonjudgmental meaning of “infant, child” that νήπιος has, as distinct from apparently similar words like σχέτλιος (“unflinching, merciless”) that have no nonjudgmental meanings. See also Bakker 1997: 35–36. 52. Conditions with affirmative protases in direct speech present “a kind of wishful

NOT E S to PAGE S  

224

Beck-final.indb 224

6/26/12 7:57:55 PM

thinking,” according to Lang (1989: 6). Later on, she says of this passage in particular, “The poet seems to speak personally, like a character, and thereby involves his audience in this expression of regret and wishful thinking” (15). 53. De Jong 2004b: 49. For questions whose goals are something other than gaining information, see also Minchin 2002. 54. Discussed particularly sensitively by Parry (1972). 55. E.g., Athena’s words to Telemachus at Od. 1.272–273, εἰς ἀγορὴν καλέσας ἥρωας Ἀχαιοὺς / μῦθον πέφραδε πᾶσι (“Summon the Achaian warriors into assembly / and publish your word to all”). 56. Achilles’ vaunts at the end of the poem, when he is at the height of his battle fury, provide a useful parallel for these unusual ways of using common directive conventions that underlines the expressive force of our passage. See, e.g., Iliad 20.389–390 (κεῖσαι, Ὀτρυντεΐδη, πάντων ἐκπαγλότατ’ ἀνδρῶν· / ἐνθάδε τοι θάνατος, “Lie there, Otrynteus’ son, most terrifying of all men. / Here is your death”) and 22.365 (Achilles’ first word in his vaunt over the dead Hector is τέθναθι, “die”). 57. This speech, too, draws on the usual properties of speech mention for a particular effect, to be discussed below. 58. N. Richardson (1993: ad 22.297) notes the parallel without comment. 59. Among the many treatments of thematic connections between the deaths of Hector and Patroclus, one of my favorites is Watkins 1995: 499–504. 60. The main narrator presents 27 direct quotations comprising 77 verses (54 percent of the 515 verses of Book 22). The Iliad overall contains 7,067 verses of direct speech within the 15,724 total verses, or 45 percent. Two instances of indirect speech present utterances by or to Andromache at the end of the book (22.438–439, which presents a message that did not reach Andromache about Hector’s death, and 22.442– 444). In comparison, Odyssey 19, another highly dramatic episode (the first meeting between Odysseus and Penelope) with a strong interpersonal component, contains only direct quotations at the level of the main narrator. It also has an extremely high percentage of direct speech verses (423 of 604, or 70 percent). All figures are from Beck 2005a: 281–283. 61. The repeated expression οὐδέ τί μιν προσεφώνεον οὐδ’ ἐρέοντο (“And did not speak a word at all nor question him,” Iliad 1.332 = 8.445; compare Od. 10.109) says that the would-be speakers did not offer two different kinds of speech acts. The closest parallel to our passage is Iliad 11.15–16, in which Agamemnon both calls to his addressees and orders them to do something particular: Ἀτρεΐδης δ’ ἐβόησεν ἰδὲ ζώννυσθαι ἄνωγεν / Ἀργείους, “And Atreus’ son cried out aloud and drove the Achaians / to gird them.” See also Iliad 13.365–367: ᾔτεε . . . Κασσάνδρην . . . ὑπέσχετο δὲ μέγα ἔργον, “Othryoneus had asked . . . for the hand of . . . Kassandra . . . but had promised a great work for her.” 62. Létoublon 1987 provides a detailed discussion of various aspects of messenger speeches, including several ways of understanding the repetitions they entail. 63. See de Jong 2004b: 181 for a list of places where the main narrator of the Iliad does not quote both the originating and delivering speeches for a message. 64. Iliad 17.410–411, 17.701, 22.438–439; Od. 18.185–186. 65. Iliad 15.639– 640, 17.409; Od. 18.7. 66. Iliad 7.416 (a message from Agamemnon is quoted directly at 7.406–411, followed at 7.416 by Idaeus returning to Troy to deliver the message); Iliad 20.5– 6 (indirect speech, following an indirect message-originating speech).

NOT E S to PAGE S   

225

Beck-final.indb 225

6/26/12 7:57:56 PM

67. The message that Telemachus gives to Eumaeus for delivery to Penelope, quoted directly at 16.130–131, is almost as brief and lacking in expressive features as the herald’s speech at 337: ἄττα, σὺ δ’ ἔρχεο θᾶσσον, ἐχέφρονι Πηνελοπείῃ / εἴφ’ ὅτι οἱ σῶς εἰμι καὶ ἐκ Πύλου εἰλήλουθα, “Father Eumaios, go quickly now, and tell the circumspect / Penelope that I am safe and have come from Pylos.” 68. Other speeches where the speaker is described as ἄγχι παραστάς (“standing close beside”) are Iliad 23.304, and Od 9.345 and 20.190. Compare the explicitly secretive speech-introductory formula ἄγχι σχὼν κεφαλήν, ἵνα μὴ πευθοίαθ’ οἱ ἄλλοι, “Leaning / his head close to his [or hers], so that none of the others might hear him,” Od. 1.157, 4.70 [both spoken by Telemachus], 17.592 [spoken to Telemachus by Eumaeus]).

CHAPTER FIVE

1. Seventy-seven speeches are not accounted for in these percentages. Fifty-eight speeches are presented at two levels of subordination. The only instance of direct quotation at this level of narration is Poseidon’s speech to Tyro (Od. 11.248–252). The remaining 19 speeches are ambiguous as to whether the main narrator or a character is focalizing them (these speeches are found in Demodocus’ song in Book 8 and in Eurycleia’s flashback about Odysseus’ scar in Book 19). 2. Two expressive speech acts are problematic (presented as direct quotation by the main narrator, 18.327–336 and 18.366–386), and two have an unspecified move (presented with speech mention by characters, 15.151–152 and 24.60– 61). 3. In non-direct forms of speech presentation, reactive moves appear more often in speech mention than they do in indirect speech because both for the main narrator and for characters, one-third of speech mention reactive moves are hypothetical speeches such as “X did not reply,” found only in speech mention. 4. This is why Searle (1976), among others, classifies them as directives, and it also explains why 24 percent of questions in Homeric epic are posed in the form of directives (48 of 198 instances). 5. In comparison, Athena makes 39 speeches. 6. Direct speech accounts for 87 percent of speech presented by the main narrator; indirect speech and speech mention are 7 percent each. 7. This is similar to the proportions for speakers in the Odyssey overall: 37 percent assertive, 50 percent directive, 12 percent question, 11 percent emotive, 2 percent unspecified. 8. The main narrator presents 79 questions for all characters (of 628 instances, 13 percent). 9. The missing 4 percent of questions are framed as assertives (3 instances). This proportion of directive questions is basically the same as for women speakers overall, who present nine directive questions (of 23, 39 percent). 10. For all speeches presented by the main narrator: 65 percent initial, 39 percent reactive, 6 percent problematic, 3 percent unspecified. 11. Direct quotation constitutes 87 percent of speech presented by the main narrator (545 of 628 instances), indirect speech and speech mention are 7 percent each (44 and 43 instances, respectively), and in 2 percent (11 instances), free indirect speech is included with indirect speech or speech mention.

NOT E S to PAGE S  

226

Beck-final.indb 226

6/26/12 7:57:57 PM

12. Of character-presented speeches, 26 percent are directly quoted (119 of 453 instances), 44 percent include indirect speech (202 instances), and 30 percent include speech mention (138 instances). Six percent include free indirect speech (29 instances). 13. Other proportions are more broadly similar across different narrative levels. In speeches presented by the main narrator, 65 percent contain an initial move (410 of 628 instances), 39 percent contain a reactive move (244 instances), and 6 percent contain a problematic move (35 instances). In character-presented speech, 58 percent contain an initial move (265 of 453 instances), 17 percent contain a reactive move (78 instances), and 1 percent contain a problematic move (5 instances). 14. Assertive moves: 37 percent of speeches by the main narrator (231 instances), 33 percent of speeches by characters (152 instances). 15. Directives: 50 percent of speeches by the main narrator (314 instances), 44 percent of speeches by characters (201 instances). 16. Questions: 12 percent of speeches presented by the main narrator (77 instances), 13 percent of speeches presented by characters (59 instances). 17. Emotives: 11 percent of speeches presented by the main narrator (72 instances), 2 percent of speeches presented by characters (9 instances). 18. Unspecified: 2 percent of speeches presented by the main narrator (10 instances), 11 percent of speeches presented by characters (48 instances). 19. The main narrator’s total percentage of speech act types (112) is larger than the characters’ (104) because the main narrator uses primarily direct quotation, which is much more likely than a non-direct mode of presentation to contain two different moves within a single speech. 20. Assertives are found in 35 percent of speech in the Odyssey overall (411 of 1,158 instances), 38 percent of direct quotations (256 of 676 instances), and 37 percent of indirect speeches (106 of 285 instances). 21. A small number of indirect speeches do not have a clear speech act type (13 instances, 5 percent). 22. This statement is then followed by Nestor’s prayer to Athena, Od. 3.380–384. 23. In indirect speech, 21 of 49 statements have unspecified plural subjects; eight others attribute present-tense authority for a fact to a specific third person rather than to a generalized “they.” 24. Od. 6.42–43, Οὔλυμπόνδ’, ὅθι φασὶ θεῶν ἕδος ἀσφαλὲς αἰεὶ / ἔμμεναι, “To Olympos, where the abode of the gods stands firm and unmoving / forever, they say.” 25. The omniscience of the Homeric narrators, attributed to the Muses, has been frequently discussed. Thalmann (1984: 126–129) provides an influential and representative treatment of the issue. 26. On this topic, I have found Mackie 1997; Scodel 1998a; and Biles 2003 particularly useful. 27. Od. 1.172, 1.220, 14.189, 16.58, 16.67, 16.223, 17.373, 20.192–193, 21.335, 24.269–270. 28. Od. 16.67, 17.373, 21.335, 24.269–270. The fifth, rather poignantly, presents Telemachus’ doubts about his own parentage, using φημί (“to say, affirm”) instead of the more emphatic εὔχομαι to depict his lack of confidence that Odysseus is his father: τοῦ [Odysseus] μ’ ἔκ φασι γενέσθαι (“whose son they say I am”), 1.220. 29. Iliad 22.391; Od. 1.339, 8.492, 10.221. 30. The characters directly quote three statements, at Od. 10.617– 626 (Hera-

NOT E S to PAGE S 

227

Beck-final.indb 227

6/26/12 7:57:58 PM

cles’ shade speaks), 19.546–550 (the eagle in Penelope’s dream), and 21.325–328 (a τις speech). 31. Exhaustive bibliographic surveys on the topic are provided by Goldhill 1991: 57 n. 98; Doherty 1995: 17 n. 23; and de Jong 2001: 191 n. 2. 32. Usually ἀείδω refers to speech by Phemius and Demodocus in particular (24 instances of 32 uses of ἀείδω), but sometimes it depicts a generalized singer. Twice, forms of ἀείδω present the sounds of non-humans: a nightingale singing (19.519) and the “voice” of Odysseus’ bow when he successfully strings it before killing the suitors (21.411). 33. This is not the case in the Iliad; see Chapter 6. 34. Walsh (1984: 14–15) compares the enchantment created by song with the negative effect of enchantment created by other means. See also Marg 1957: 16, for connections between magic and song. 35. Just two greetings are presented in character speech, but as only ten greetings occur in Homeric epic, this is insignificant. 36. In contrast, the directives presented by the main narrator that include a clause in free indirect speech are never more than three verses long in total (Od. 7.226–227, 8.370–371, 13.47–48, 14.26–28, 17.59– 60). 37. Ford (1992: 16) characterizes “the singer’s activity . . . as a kind of speaking that is somehow set apart.” 38. At Od. 22.344–353, when he successfully pleads with the rampaging Odysseus to spare his life. 39. See Mackie 1997; Scodel 1998a; and Biles 2003. 40. Od. 8.73–83 also uses speech mention. 41. Discussed in Chapter 4. 42. De Jong 2001: 197. She points out that of its 47 occurrences, πῆμα appears 45 times in direct speech; the “rolling” metaphor appears three times besides this passage, always in direct speech. 43. There are 25 instances of ἔκπαγλος, of which seven are found in narrative. Four of the seven are the speech-introductory formula found repeatedly in Iliad 13 and 14, ἔκπαγλον ἐπεύξατο, μακρὸν ἀΰσας (“He vaunted terribly over him, calling in a great voice,” 13.413 and 445; 14.453, and 478). 44. Austin (1975: 47–53) persuasively discusses this phenomenon in relation to Odysseus in particular. 45. It is found in narrative in 31 of 35 occurrences. The exceptions are Iliad 1.442 and 506 (both spoken by Thetis), 18.111 (Achilles), and 19.172 (Odysseus). 46. There are 38 instances of Φοῖβος Ἀπόλλων (36 in the Iliad), of which 12 are in character speech. The other instance of Φοῖβος Ἀπόλλων in the Odyssey besides 8.79 appears in Nestor’s tale about the fates of Menelaus and Agamemnon (3.279). Of the 12 instances of the epithet Φοῖβος in the oblique cases, either in combination with Ἀπόλλων or alone, all but one appear in character speech. 47. Here I am taking up the position of Finkelberg (1987) that the reason for mentioning this particular incident is to tell a story about Odysseus from the beginning of the Trojan War that does not depict him in a disreputable light. 48. This is identified as embedded focalization by de Jong (2001: 215). 49. Goldhill (1991: 53) notes that it is unclear what narrator presents these verses and whether they should be considered speech by Demodocus or commentary by the main narrator.

NOT E S to PAGE S  

228

Beck-final.indb 228

6/26/12 7:57:58 PM

50. αἶσα occurs in direct quotation in 38 of 41 examples. The exceptions are two contrary-to-fact conditions in narrative (Iliad 16.780 and 17.321), and Odysseus’ narrative to Penelope that is presented by the main narrator with indirect speech (Od. 23.315). See also Griffin (1986: 49), on the wide range of superlative adjectives (such as ἄριστοι, “best,” in 512) that appear only or predominantly in character speech. 51. At the same time, the speech does incorporate Odysseus’ perspective. See de Jong 2001: 216, on κεῖθι (“there”) and αἰνότατον (“the grimmest”) as examples of character language. 52. This relates to the fascinating but unanswerable question of the relationship between the Iliad and the Odyssey. Concerning the first song of Demodocus in particular, Nagy (1979: 20–21) discusses the lack of overlap between the material covered by the two poems. Pucci (1987: 17–19) gives a brief sketch of his view that the Odyssey intentionally avoids the Iliad, acknowledging the difficulty of reconciling this kind of allusiveness between the poems with the theories of Milman Parry. 53. This is not to deny the various attempts to draw thematic connections between the tale of Ares and Aphrodite and that of the Odyssey. But Odysseus is not a character in the second song, nor is any mortal character, and this is an important difference between the second song of Demodocus and his other two songs. 54. Garvie (1994: 295), in contrast, calls this direct discourse. Similarly, Richardson (1990: 86) says of the second song, “The intention to render the song by quoting the singer’s words indirectly has given way to what must be taken as direct speech.” 55. The same pragmatic factors apply to the second message that Helius brings to Hephaestus, that the lovers have been caught in Hephaestus’ trap: Ἡέλιος γάρ οἱ σκοπιὴν ἔχεν εἶπέ τε μῦθον, “For Helios had kept watch for him, and told him the story,” 302. 56. This verse appears 11 times, five times in the Odyssey (Od. 2.302, 8.291, 10.280, 11.247, 15.530; Iliad 6.253 and 406, 14.232, 18.384 and 423, 19.7). The glaring exception to this general tendency is Od. 2.302, which presents a derisive speech by Antinous to Telemachus. 57. For example, Odysseus refers in passing to something Alcinous said, ἀπείλησας . . . εἶναι (“You boasted that . . . were,” 8.383), which in its original directly quoted context (8.236–255) is a subsidiary part of the speech. 58. Scodel (2008: 106–107), analyzing this episode as an example of apology, notes that Ares does not speak in this part of the song, that no one thinks Ares is sorry for what he has done, and that the whole notion of repayment given the gods’ infinite wealth is absurd. 59. We find 11 examples of pleas in narrator-presented speech in the Iliad, nine of which are quoted directly: 1.17–21, 5.359–362, 10.378–381, 12.49–50 (indirect speech), 14.233–241, 16.21–45, 19.304 (indirect speech), 19.305–308, 22.38– 76, 22.82–89, 22.338– 343. The main narrator of the Odyssey does not present any pleas. 60. Thus, the use of direct quotation here is one of the main narrator-like features of Demodocus’ song. 61. See Beck 2005b on aspects of Demodocus’ speech presentation that, uniquely among characters in the Odyssey who present direct quotation, resemble the main narrator’s. 62. Contra Richardson 1990: 82–88, which argues that “song” is a category of Homeric speech presentation. 63. Kelly 2008. I find this argument unpersuasive, because the ways of speaking

NOT E S to PAGE S 

229

Beck-final.indb 229

6/26/12 7:57:59 PM

that Kelly claims are associated with, and defining of, poets seem to me to be characteristic not only of poets but also of many other kinds of speakers.

CH A PTER SI X

1. Iliad 2.65– 70, 6.93– 94, 10.55, 15.57–58, 17.655. 2. This anomaly will be discussed in more detail below. 3. Characters present 71 percent of indirect speech in the Iliad (219 instances) and 67 percent of speech mention (169 instances). 4. In the Iliad, 28 percent of indirect speech (85 instances) and 33 percent of speech mention (83 instances) are presented by the main narrator. 5. For this idea, see also Beck 2008b. 6. The conflict between Achilles and Agamemnon is an obvious example. Martin (1989: 113–119) notes the features of Agamemnon’s speech that portray him as “conscious of his lack of skill, and threatened by others’ speech” (113). 7. In the Iliad, 87 percent of directives are initial (664 of 764 directives), while 74 percent of initial moves are directives (664 of 893 initial moves). 8. In the Iliad, 47 percent of assertives are reactive (154 of 336 assertives), and 64 percent of reactive moves are assertives (154 of 243 reactive moves). 9. Iliad 6.460–461, 6.479, 11.606 (the only instance presented by the main narrator), 12.318–321. 10. Od. 10.297 is a problematic move presented with speech mention. 11. In the Iliad, 85 percent of reactive moves (207 of 243 reactive moves), 91 percent of questions (53 of 58 questions), and 89 percent of emotive speeches (110 of 123 emotives) are directly quoted. 12. Od. 1.1, 1.154–155, 1.325–327, 4.17–18, 5.61, 8.73– 75, 8.90– 91, 8.266–267, 13.27–28, 17.262–263, 17.358. 13. Iliad 1.1 (invocation of Muse as speaker), 1.318–319, 1.472–474 (song), 1.604 (Muses), 7.185, 9.189 (song), 12.176 (main narrator is speaker; very unusually, the verb ἀγορεύω, “speak, say,” presents song), 14.278–279, 17.260–261, 17.701, 18.569–571 (song). 14. Similarly, after Hector dies, Achilles suggests that the Greeks sing a paean while they bring his corpse to their ships (22.391–392). 15. This is the only instance in the Homeric epics where ἀείδω (“sing”) presents speech by an individual nonprofessional character who is mortal. 16. These are the only references to characters singing in the Iliad. As in the Odyssey, no song that is sung by a character is directly quoted by the main narrator. 17. Ford (2006) provides an engaging and useful overview of the paean as a genre. Marg (1957: 15–16) suggests that a similar context-related explanation lies behind the lack of professional song in the Iliad: the lack of time spent waiting around in the Iliad means that there is no time that needs song to fill it. 18. Minchin (1995) offers a compelling argument connecting this to performance considerations rather than narratological ones. 19. Vaunt: Od. 9.475–479, 22.195–199, 22.287–291. Lament: Od. 24.60– 61. 20. Most importantly, εὔχομαι (“pray, vow, boast”) is consistently used to present vaunts, both as part of an introduction to a direct quotation and on its own for nondirect speech (e.g., Iliad 12.390–391). Lament can be presented either by a single word,

NOT E S to PAGE S  

230

Beck-final.indb 230

6/26/12 7:58:00 PM

as with the professional mourners accompanying Hector’s female relatives at 24.722 (ἐθρήνεον, “were mourning”), or by a more general word that the context colors with the specific meaning of “lament” (e.g., 23.9, κλαίωμεν, “We must . . . mourn”). κλαίω (“cry, wail”), although more general than a word like θρηνέω (“sing a dirge”), is closely associated with cries of mourning for the dead in particular (the first definition in LfgrE, which also notes the association of κλαίω with γόος, “weeping, wailing”). 21. This is comparable to the Odyssey, in which 87 percent of speech presented by the main narrator is directly quoted, and the remainder is split evenly between indirect speech and speech mention. 22. Létoublon (1983: 46–48) notes that hierarchies and classifications of this kind are generally presented by the characters and not as “réalités objectives” (46). 23. Other instances of the same kind of statement: Iliad 2.82, 3.430–431, 4.264, 5.173, 8.229 (φημί), 15.181–182 (φημί), 17.26–27 (φημί), 19.95– 96 (φημί), 19.416 (φημί), 20.102, 24.546 (φημί). 24. This is one of the clearest indications of how odd character-presented direct quotation in the Iliad is. For every other narrator and narrative level, reply comprises by far the majority of directly quoted assertives. In character-presented quotations in the Iliad, in contrast, replies are not found, and statements are a majority both of assertives and of direct quotation overall. 25. Just 12 of 82 indirect assertives presented by characters in the Iliad are statements that are about something other than identity, and only four of those are hedges about the authority for a statement (4.374, 9.401–403, 11.831, 16.14). 26. Higbie (1995: 5–12) provides an overview of issues of naming in Homeric epic. 27. Iliad 5.246, 5.247–248, 5.635– 636, 5.638– 639, 20.105–106, 20.206–207, 21.159– 160, 21.186. 28. Parks (1990: 25–32) discusses the parameters for this kind of conflict. 29. Fenik (1968: 67) notes that only in the conflict between Aeneas and Achilles does the hero of more illustrious divine parentage, in this case Aeneas, not defeat his opponent. 30. Austin (1966: 301) characterizes this as an “apologetic paradigm,” which offers a reason why the speaker does something, here in particular to “defend the speaker’s honor in war.” 31. Aristarchus athetized Iliad 20.205–209 because the heroes’ genealogies are known and do not need to be repeated. 32. Muellner (1976: 99) defines εὔχομαι in secular contexts as “say (proudly, accurately, contentiously).” 33. E.g., Tlepolemus, who says that the people lie who say that Sarpedon is the son of Zeus because he does not meet the standards of previous descendants of Zeus (5.635– 637), implicitly but unmistakably contrasting this with his own descent from Heracles (638– 639). 34. Just 4 percent of speech presented by the main narrator has no specified move type (35 of 845 instances). In the Odyssey, 26 percent of speeches presented by characters have an unspecified move type (118 of 453 instances). 35. Emotives: 4.178–181, 5.119–120, 11.431, 13.447, 21.475–477, 22.451, 23.8– 9. Questions: 1.550, 1.553, 7.127–128, 11.611– 612. 36. Iliad: 247 initial moves are found in 403 speeches presented by characters (61 percent); Odyssey: 265 initial moves occur in 453 speeches presented by characters (58 percent).

NOT E S to PAGE S  

231

Beck-final.indb 231

6/26/12 7:58:01 PM

37. Quoted assertives: Iliad 2.323–329 (prophecy), 6.460–461, 6.479, 7.89– 90, 7.301– 302, 8.149, 12.318–321, 19.101–105, 19.121–124, 22.107, 23.576–578. 38. Quoted directives: Iliad 2.60– 70 (message delivery), 6.164–165, 9.254–258, 11.786– 789, 16.203–206 (suggestion), 16.839–841, 19.107–111, 22.498. 39. Unspecified: 6.460–461, 6.479, 12.318–321 (all hypothetical τις speeches). Problematic: 19.107–111. 40. Beck 2008a provides an in-depth discussion of character-presented direct quotations in the Iliad. I summarize those results in the remarks that follow. 41. Iliad 2.60– 70, 2.323–329, 9.254–258, 11.786– 789, 16.203–206. 42. E.g., within a speech to his companions (Od. 12.271–276), Odysseus uses indirect speech to present Circe and Teiresias’ order to him (οἵ μοι μάλα πόλλ’ ἐπέτελλον / νῆσον ἀλεύασθαι τερψιμβρότου Ἠελίοιο, “Both have told me many times over / to avoid the island of Helios who brings joy to mortals,” 12.273–274) in order to bolster his command to them. This speech is probably presented with non-direct speech because it is at a third level of narrative subordination, where direct quotation is found only once in the Homeric epics. 43. Odysseus uses invented direct quotations repeatedly in the invented story he tells Eumaeus in quest of a cloak (Od. 14.462–506; see Chapter 1 above for a discussion of direct quotation in this speech). 44. Iliad 6.460–461, 6.479, 12.318–321 (Sarpedon), 16.839–841, 22.107, 22.498 (Andromache). Such quotations are occasionally presented by Greek speakers: 4.178–181 (Agamemnon), 8.149 (Diomedes). 45. In Beck 2005a: 128–129, I argue—against the influential discussion to the contrary of Schadewaldt (1959: 207–232)—that the pattern of speech exchange in this scene shows no substantive connection between the two spouses during their conversation. 46. Glaucus to Diomedes, Iliad 6.145–211; Agamemnon’s story about Ate, told to the Greeks to excuse his own behavior toward Achilles, 19.78–144. 47. Iliad 6.170, 6.176–177, 6.179–180, 6.207–210. 48. Kakridis 1949: 65– 96 remains a useful overview of this line of argument. 49. E.g., Reinhardt 1961: 367–368. 50. A concise recent overview of this question, with bibliography, is provided by Krischer (1994: 152–153). Burgess (1997) argues that this tenuous claim has drawn attention away from the more persuasive connections between Achilles and Patroclus. 51. E.g., Nagy (1979: 110–113) probes the fascinating web of associations of etymology, theme, and grief that tie together Patroclus and Achilles with Meleager and his wife Cleopatra in Phoenix’s tale in Iliad 9. 52. For example, Plato (Symposium 179d–180b). 53. See Clarke 1978. 54. I find Parry 1972 the most useful study of these direct addresses. Parry notes, very perceptively, “The character and function of Patroclus in the poem as we have it [italics original] have been elaborated with great fineness and consistency” (11). 55. Beck 2008b: 368. Several parts of my discussion about Patroclus are adapted from this article. 56. Krischer (1994: 153) notes that the gravity of Nestor’s appeal to Patroclus seems out of proportion to Patroclus’ role as Achilles’ charioteer; similarly, in an otherwise not entirely convincing argument, Finlay (1980) makes the valid point that Achilles’ reaction to Patroclus’ death does not seem matched by Patroclus’ importance in the

NOT E S to PAGE S  

232

Beck-final.indb 232

6/26/12 7:58:01 PM

poem before he dies. Burgess (1997: 14) suggests that Patroclus’ sudden prowess and importance in battle in Book 16 derives from similar feats of Achilles. 57. This conversation was discussed above, in Chapter 4. 58. For this idea, see Beck 2008b: 370. 59. Note that invitations like Nestor’s are directly quoted elsewhere: compare Od. 16.44–46, where Telemachus’ directly quoted invitation to the disguised Odysseus receives no verbal response. Instead, the addressee simply sits down. 60. Pedrick 1983 and Austin 1966: 301–303 provide useful analyses of Nestor’s speech. 61. If Achilles cannot be moved to return to battle, Nestor uses third-person imperative forms (προέτω, “Let him send [you] out” and ἑπέσθω, “Let them follow,” 796; δότω, “Let him give,” 798) to say that Achilles should send Patroclus himself out to fight instead (796–803). 62. The only clear exception to this occurs at Iliad 10.204–217, where Nestor uses the optative to give a directive to the Greeks as a group (οὐκ ἂν δή τις ἀνήρ πεπίθοιθ’ . . . ἐλθεῖν, “Is there no man who, trusting . . . would go . . . ?” 204–206). I tentatively suggest that he uses a potential optative here, and when addressing Agamemnon at 10.111 (εἴ τις . . . καλέσειεν, “But if one were to . . . call”), because in this episode overall, Agamemnon takes the lead and may be seen as the proper organizer of the group’s actions. Probert and Dickey (2005) note how common imperatives rather than more circumlocutory directives are in Euripides, suggesting that a lack of implicit directives characterizes Greek poetry beyond Homeric epic. Possibly it characterizes the pragmatics of ancient Greek more generally. 63. Speaker: Iliad 16.21–45, 269–274, 556–561, 627– 631, 745– 750, 844–854. Addressee: Iliad 16.7–19, 49–100, 126–129, 707– 709, 830–842, 859–861. 64. Iliad 16.145 (indirect speech, speaker), 684– 685 (speech mention, speaker), 686, 693 (both are speech mention, addressee). 65. A conversation of three speeches, 16.7–101, plus a further directive from Achilles to Patroclus at 16.126–129; and Patroclus’ exhortation to the Myrmidons at 16.269– 274, before they go out to fight. 66. Moulton 1977: 99–106. Moulton also notes that Achilles speaks more similes than any other character in the Iliad does (100). 67. Scott 2009: 158–159. Parry (1972), from a different point of view, also emphasizes gentleness as a key feature of Patroclus’ character. Gaca (2008) calls this view into question by interpreting the simile as an image of defeated noncombatants fleeing their would-be enslavers. 68. In the context of speech-introductory verses in particular (the vocative for Patroclus is found in speech introductions at 16.744 and 843 as well as 16.20), it is unclear whether the vocative form is used because of the context-specific participles the verses all contain, or to create sympathy for Patroclus; see Beck 2005a: 181–182. 69. Nine instances: 1.502, 6.45, 10.455, 15.660, 20.469, 21.71 and 98, 22.35 and 91. 70. In addition to this verse, 19.304 and 23.196–197. 71. This wish is not counted as a speech act in my statistics, since it is a subsidiary act and not one that has a central role to play in the conversational exchange. 72. This wish was athetized because of various concerns about suitability, either on the grounds that the verses imply a sexual relationship between Patroclus and Achilles (A scholion) or because the prayer itself is “childish and impossible” (παιδιώδης καὶ ἀδύνατος ἡ εὐχή, T scholion).

NOT E S to PAGE S  

233

Beck-final.indb 233

6/26/12 7:58:02 PM

73. Beck 2005a: 178–184 provides a detailed discussion of the various elaborations and expressive features of this conversation. 74. Iliad 16.582–585 (includes a simile), 16.692– 693 (a rhetorical question addressed to Patroclus), 16.751– 761 (includes two similes with an apostrophe between them), 16.787, 16.812. 75. Unlike other analyses, Parry 1972 distinguishes between the vocatives that make part of speech introductions and those that are free-standing. Parry does not talk about the similes that accompany some of the apostrophes to Patroclus. 76. The next apostrophe, at 16.787, says just this. 77. Implied by repeated dual forms: δηρινθήτην (“the two fought”), 756; πεινάοντε (“both hungry”) and φρονέοντε μάχεσθον (“both in . . . courage . . . fight”), 758. 78. Balthes 1983 is an outstanding analysis of the relationship between the various similes in Iliad 16 and how they contribute to the way the story is told here. 79. Main narrator: 23.69– 92 (the only speech by rather than to Patroclus), 19.315– 337, 23.19–23, 23.94– 98, 23.179–183, 23.221, 24.592–595 (all spoken by Achilles). Characters: 19.297–299 and 23.107 (both spoken by Patroclus); 18.13–14, 18.452, 23.20–23, 23.180 (all spoken by Achilles), 23.90 (spoken by Peleus). 80. Kakridis (1949: 65– 75) presents an extreme and more literal version of this position when he argues that the scenes of lament for Patroclus are taken from mourning scenes for Achilles in the Aethiopis. 81. Edwards (1986) makes this point in a particularly clear and effective way. 82. Eight assertive messages are presented out of 88 messages in the Iliad. Six of these refer to this message to Achilles about the death of Patroclus (17.410–411, 17.640– 642, 17.655, 17.692– 693, 17.701, 18.18–21); one, tellingly, depicts a hypothetical message to Andromache in Book 22 that Hector has left the city to fight, leading inexorably to his death (438–439). The last, 5.389–390, involves only gods. 83. The main narrator of the Iliad presents 18 examples of speech that did not happen, half of which use either the formula οὔ τι προσέφη (“He/she made no answer”) or similar variants that accommodate features like plural speakers. None of these are quoted directly. 84. These, as noted in Chapter 2, are in themselves unusual as expansions on speech mention. 85. Not only does λυγρός carry a strongly judgmental meaning, it appears primarily in character speech. In the Iliad, 21 of 30 instances of λυγρός appear in characters’ speeches, while in the Odyssey, just five of 30 instances of the word appear in narrator text, always with strongly expressive force (Od. 1.327, modifying νόστος as a subject of song; 4.230, for Helen’s φάρμακα; 16.457, 17.203, and 17.338, for Odysseus’ clothing while disguised as a beggar). 86. See Beck 2005a: 245–269. 87. Unusual features of the elders’ indirect speech at 304 are discussed above, in Chapter 3. 88. There are 13 occurrences of ἄχος αἰνόν, of which 11 are in the Iliad. In character speech: Iliad 4.169, 8.147, 15.208, 16.52, 16.55, 19.307, 22.43; Od. 16.87 and 18.274. Used by the main narrator, always for the grief of Trojan fighters: Iliad 8.124 = 8.316 ∼ 17.83 (all Hector), 16.508 (Glaucus’ grief for Sarpedon immediately after he dies). 89. Similar expressive features appear in an exchange between the elders and Achilles at 23.38–45. 90. Iliad 22.419–422 (spoken by Priam), 22.443–444, 23.40–41, and 23.197–198.

NOT E S to PAGE S 

234

Beck-final.indb 234

6/26/12 7:58:03 PM

91. The main narrators in both poems, as we have seen above in Chapter 2, use free indirect speech less often than the characters do. 92. I.e., this prayer to the winds to kindle the pyre, and an order to the Myrmidons to equip their chariots (23.128–131), both presented in indirect speech. 93. λιτανεύω (“pray, entreat”) appears six times in the Homeric epics (in addition to the citation here, at Iliad 9.581, 22.414, 24.357, Od. 7.145, 10.481), but only here for a prayer to a divinity. Od. 10.481 is addressed to Circe, but it takes the usual form of a supplication even though she is a goddess, in that she is physically present and Odysseus touches her as part of his appeal. 94. Bakker (1999) characterizes οὗτος (“this”) as referring to “what is really there, here and now” (6), as opposed to the pronominal use of ὁ (“this, he”), which refers to something in a different time or place. This point makes Priam’s reference to Achilles here even more vivid and engaging. 95. Iliad 11.694 (a neuter plural substantive) and 13.634 (modifying μένος, “fighting strength”). 96. It appears in a similar context: Dione describes Diomedes, the man who has wounded her daughter Aphrodite, this way at Iliad 5.403. 97. Hecuba’s speech, in contrast to Priam’s, begins with τέκνον, ἐγὼ δειλή (“Child, I am wretched,” 22.431). 98. The superb analysis in Segal 1971 is fundamental to appreciating this scene. Segal’s points complement but do not duplicate the following analysis. 99. Segal (1971: 41) describes these verses as “more heavily formulaic” than the verses immediately preceding them. 100. Rather than, as at Iliad 18.489, to the ocean. 101. The one bath that occurs somewhere else in the poem, at 14.6, is offered both to clean and to comfort, as the three baths referred to in Books 22 and 23 all seem intended to do. 102. Ginouvès (1962: 157–159) notes various functions other than literal cleanliness that private bathing at home can have, including relaxation and refreshment. There may also be an ironic contrast between the intended function of the bath (refreshment) and another function of bathing discussed by Ginouvès, to prepare a corpse for burial (239–244), a context in which the word λοετρόν is regularly used in later Greek. 103. E.g., πάλλεται ἦτορ (“My own heart . . . beats”), 452; δείδω (“I fear”), 455. 104. Hector’s death in Book 22, which is treated similarly, also includes a conversation.

C ONC LU S ION

1. It contains 15 direct quotations and 12 indirect speeches; Beck 2001: 55–56. 2. The Theogony contains 7 indirect speeches and 10 speech mentions. I have included all the examples of speech in Solmsen’s OCT text; I have not omitted those that fall in bracketed verses. 3. For the application of this idea to Homeric narrative in particular, see, e.g., de Jong 1992; Mackie 1997; Scodel 1998a. 4. For a fuller discussion of how narratological studies of Homeric poetry have treated the idea of an implied author, see the Introduction, above. 5. For example, in several articles in Phelan and Rabinowitz 2005.

NOT E S to PAGE S  

235

Beck-final.indb 235

6/26/12 7:58:03 PM

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

BI BL IOGR A PH Y

Alden, M. 1997. “The Resonance of the Song of Ares and Aphrodite.” Mnemosyne 50 (5): 513–529. ———. 2000. Homer beside Himself: Para-narratives in the Iliad. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Allen, T. W., ed. 1917. Homeri Opera Vol. III: Odysseae Libros I–XII (2nd ed.). Oxford: Clarendon Press. ———. 1919. Homeri Opera Vol. III: Odysseae Libros XIII–XXIV (2nd ed.). Oxford: Clarendon Press. Alston, W. P. 1994. “Illocutionary Acts and Linguistic Meaning.” In Foundations of Speech Act Theory: Philosophical and Linguistic Perspectives, edited by S. L. Tsohatzidis, 29–49. London and New York: Routledge. ———. 2000. Illocutionary Acts and Sentence Meaning. Ithaca, NY, and London: Cornell University Press. Andersen, Ø. 1990. “The Making of the Past in the Iliad.” Harvard Studies in Classical Philology 93: 24–45. Aubriot, D. 1984a. “Les Litai d’Homère et la Dikè d’Hésiode.” Revue des études grecques 97: 1–25. ———. 1984b. “Remarques sur le personnage de Phénix au chant IX de l’Iliade.” Bulletin de l’Association Guillaume Budé 43: 339–362. Austen, J. 1988. Emma. Edited by R. W. Chapman. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Austin, J. L. 1962. How to Do Things with Words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Austin, N. 1966. “The Function of Digressions in the Iliad.” Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies 7 (4): 295–312. ———. 1969. “Telemachos Polymechanos.” California Studies in Classical Antiquity 2: 45– 63. ———. 1975. Archery at the Dark of the Moon: Poetic Problems in Homer’s Odyssey. Berkeley: University of California Press. Bakker, E. J. 1997. “Storytelling in the Future: Truth, Time, and Tense in Homeric Epic.” In Written Voices, Spoken Signs: Tradition, Performance, and the Epic Text, edited by E. Bakker and A. Kahane, 11–36. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. ———. 1999. “Homeric ΟΥΤΟΣ and the Poetics of Deixis.” Classical Philology 94: 1–19.

237

Beck-final.indb 237

6/26/12 7:58:04 PM

Balthes, M. 1983. “Zur Eigenart und Funktion von Gleichnissen im 16. Buch der Ilias.” Antike und Abendland 29: 36–48. Banfield, A. 1982. Unspeakable Sentences: Narration and Representation in the Language of Fiction. Boston: Routledge and Kegan Paul. Bassett, S. E. 1938. The Poetry of Homer. Berkeley: University of California Press. Beck, D. 2001. “Direct and Indirect Speech in the Homeric Hymn to Demeter.” Transactions of the American Philological Association 131: 53– 74. ———. 2005a. Homeric Conversation. Vol. 14, Hellenic Studies. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. ———. 2005b. “Odysseus: Storyteller, Narrator, Poet?” Classical Philology 100: 213– 227. ———. 2008a. “Character-Quoted Direct Speech in the Iliad.” Phoenix 62 (2): 162– 183. ———. 2008b. “Narratology and Linguistics: An Interdisciplinary Perspective on Homeric Speech Representation.” Transactions of the American Philological Association 138: 351–378. ———. 2009. “Speech Act Types, Conversational Exchange, and the Speech Representational Spectrum in Homer.” In Narratology and Interpretation, edited by J. Grethlein and A. Rengakos, 137–151. Berlin: de Gruyter. Benveniste, E. 1971. Problems in General Linguistics. Translated by M. E. Meek. Coral Gables, FL: University of Miami Press. Original edition, 1958. Bers, V. 1997. Speech in Speech: Studies in Incorporated Oratio Recta in Attic Drama and Oratory. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield. Biles, Z. 2003. “Perils of Song in Homer’s Odyssey.” Phoenix 57 (3–4): 191–208. Bonifazi, A., and D. F. Elmer. Forthcoming. “The Meaning of Melody: Remarks on the Performance-Based Analysis of Bosniac Epic Song.” In Child’s Children: Ballad Study and Its Legacies, edited by J.a.B.H. Harris: WVT. Booth, W. 1961. The Rhetoric of Fiction. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Braswell, B. K. 1982. “The Song of Ares and Aphrodite: Theme and Relevance to Odyssey 8.” Hermes 110 (1): 129–137. Burgess, J. 1997. “Beyond Neo-Analysis: Problems with the Vengeance Theory.” American Journal of Philology 118: 1–19. Burkert, W. 1960. “Das Lied von Ares und Aphrodite.” Rhenisches Museum 103: 130–145. Burton, D. 1980. Dialogue and Discourse. New York and London: Routledge. Cairns, D. L. 1993. AIDOS: The Psychology and Ethics of Honour and Shame in Ancient Greek Literature. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Cantilena, M. 2002. “Sul discorso diretto in Omero.” In Omero tremila anni dopo, edited by F. Montanari, 21–39. Rome: Edizioni di storia e letteratura. Chantraine, P. 1986. Grammaire homérique. Vol. 2: Syntaxe. Paris: Éditions Klincksieck. Chatman, S. 1978. Story and Discourse: Narrative Structure in Fiction and Film. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. Clarke, W. M. 1978. “Achilles and Patroclus in Love.” Hermes 106 (3): 381–396. Collins, D. 2001. Reanimated Voices: Speech Reporting in a Historical-Pragmatic Perspective. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Cook, E. 1999. “‘Active’ and ‘Passive’ Heroics in the ‘Odyssey.’” Classical World 93 (2): 149–167.

SPE ECH PR E SEN TAT ION in HOM ER IC EPIC

238

Beck-final.indb 238

6/26/12 7:58:05 PM

Corlu, A. 1966. Recherches sur les mots relatifs a l’ idée de prière, d’ Homère aux tragiques. Paris: Klincksieck. Coulmas, F. 1986. “Reported Speech: Some General Issues.” In Direct and Indirect Speech, edited by F. Coulmas, 1–28. Berlin: de Gruyter. Crotty, K. 1994. The Poetics of Supplication: Homer’s Iliad and Odyssey. Edited by G. Nagy, Myth and Poetics. Ithaca, NY, and London: Cornell University Press. de Jong, I. J. F. 1987. “The Voice of Anonymity: tis-Speeches in the Iliad.” Eranos 85: 69–84. ———. 1992. “The Subjective Style in Odysseus’ Wanderings.” Classical Quarterly 42 (1): 1–11. ———. 2001. A Narratological Commentary on the Odyssey. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ———. 2004a. “Introduction: Narratological Theory on Narrators, Narratees, and Narratives.” In Narrators, Narratees, and Narratives in Ancient Greek Literature: Studies in Ancient Greek Narrative, Vol. 1, edited by I. J. F. de Jong, R. Nunlist and A. M. Bowie, 1–10. Leiden: Brill. ———. 2004b. Narrators and Focalizers: The Presentation of the Story in the Iliad. 2d ed. Bristol: Bristol Classical Press. Doherty, L. E. 1995. Siren Songs: Gender, Audiences, and Narrators in the Odyssey. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Edmondson, W. 1981. Spoken Discourse: A Model for Analysis. London and New York: Longman. Edwards, M. W. 1986. “The Conventions of a Homeric Funeral.” In Studies in Honor of T. B. L. Webster, edited by J. H. Betts, J. T. Hooker, and J. R. Green, 84– 92. Bristol: Bristol Classical Press. ———. 1987. Homer: Poet of the Iliad. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press. Felson-Rubin, N. 1994. Regarding Penelope: From Character to Poetics. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Fenik, B. 1968. Typical Battle Scenes in the Iliad: Studies in the Narrative Techniques of Homeric Battle Description. Vol. 21, Hermes Einzelschriften. Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner Verlag. Finkelberg, M. 1987. “The First Song of Demodocus.” Mnemosyne 40 (1–2): 128–132. Finlay, R. 1980. “Patroklos, Achilleus, and Peleus: Fathers and Sons in the Iliad.” Classical World 73 (5): 267–273. Finnegan, R. H. 1977. Oral Poetry: Its Nature, Significance, and Social Context. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press. Fludernik, Monika. 1993. The Fictions of Language and the Languages of Fiction. London and New York: Routledge. Ford, A. 1992. Homer: The Poetry of the Past. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. ———. 2006. “The Genre of Genres: Paeans and Paian in Early Greek Poetry.” Poetica 38 (3–4): 277–295. Friedrich, R. 1987. “Heroic Man and ‘Polymetis’: Odysseus in the ‘Cyclopeia’.” Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies 28 (2): 121–133. ———. 2007. Formular Economy in Homer: The Poetics of the Breaches. Vol. 100, Hermes Zeitschrift für klassische Philologie. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag. Gaca, K. 2008. “Reinterpreting the Homeric Simile of Iliad 16.7–11: The Girl and Her Mother in Ancient Greek Warfare.” American Journal of Philology 129: 145–171.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

239

Beck-final.indb 239

6/26/12 7:58:06 PM

Garvie, A. F., ed. 1994. Homer, Odyssey Books VI–VIII. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Genette, G. 1980. Narrative Discourse: An Essay in Method. Translated by J. E. Lewin. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. Ginouvès, R. 1962. Balaneutikè: Recherches sur le bain dans l’antiquité Grecque. Paris: Éditions E. de Boccard. Givón, T. 1990. Syntax: A Functional-Typological Introduction. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamin’s Publishing Company. Glenn, J. 1971. “The Polyphemus Folktale and Homer’s Kyklopeia.” Transactions of the American Philological Association 102: 133–181. Goldhill, S. 1991. The Poet’s Voice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Gould, J. 1973. “Hiketeia.” Journal of Hellenic Studies 93: 74–103. Griffin, J. 1986. “Homeric Words and Speakers.” Journal of Hellenic Studies 106: 36–57. Hammer, D. C. 1997. “‘Who Shall Readily Obey?’ Authority and Politics in the Iliad.” Phoenix 51(1): 1–24. Hardy, D. E. 2007. “Review of Semino and Short, Corpus Stylistics.” Literary and Linguistic Computing 22 (4): 489–490. Haubold, J. 2000. Homer’s People: Epic Poetry and Social Formation. Cambridge Classical Studies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hentze, C. 1905. “Die Chorreden in den homerischen Epen.” Philologus 64: 254–268. Higbie, C. 1995. Heroes’ Names, Homeric Identities. New York: Garland Publishing. Kakridis, J. Th. 1949. Homeric Researches. Lund: C.W.K. Gleerup. Kearns, M. 1999. Rhetorical Narratology. Lincoln, NE, and London: University of Nebraska Press. Kelly, A. 2008. “Performance and Rivalry: Homer, Odysseus, and Hesiod.” In Performance, Iconography, Reception: Studies in Honour of Oliver Taplin, edited by M. Revermann and P. Wilson, 177–203. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Kirk, G. S. 1985. The Iliad: A Commentary. Vol. 1: Books 1–4. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kitts, M. 2005. Sanctified Violence in Homeric Society: Oath-Making Rituals and Narratives in the Iliad. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Krischer, T. 1994. “Patroklos, Antilochos und die Ilias.” Mnemosyne 47 (2): 152–165. Kroon, C. 1995. Discourse Particles in Latin: A Study of nam, enim, autem, vero and at. Edited by A. Rijksbaron, I. J. F. de Jong, and H. Pinkster. Vol. 4, Amsterdam Studies in Classical Philology. Amsterdam: J. C. Gieben. Laird, A. 1999. Powers of Expression, Expressions of Power: Speech Presentation and Latin Literature. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Lang, M. 1989. “Unreal Conditions in Homeric Narrative.” Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies 30 (1): 5–26. Latacz, J. 1996. Homer: His Art and His World. Translated by J. Holoka. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Lattimore, R., trans. 1951. The Iliad of Homer. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. ———, trans. 1965. The Odyssey of Homer. New York: Harper Collins. Leech, G. N., and M. H. Short. 1981. Style in Fiction: A Linguistic Introduction to English Fictional Prose. English Language Series. London and New York: Longman. Létoublon, F. 1983. “Défi et combat dans l’Iliade.” Revue des études grecques 96: 27–48.

SPE ECH PR E SEN TAT ION in HOM ER IC EPIC

240

Beck-final.indb 240

6/26/12 7:58:06 PM

———. 1987. “Le Messager fidele.” In Homer: Beyond Oral Poetry, edited by J. M. Bremer, I. J. F. de Jong, and J. Kalff, 123–144. Amsterdam: B. R. Grüner. ———. 2001. “Le Discours et le dialogue intérieur chez Homère.” In Eranos: Proceedings of the Ninth International Symposium on the Odyssey, edited by M. PaïsiApostolopoulou, 247–269. Ithaca: Centre for Odyssean Studies. Li, C. N. 1986. “Direct and Indirect Speech: A Functional Study.” In Direct and Indirect Speech, edited by F. Coulmas, 29–45. Berlin: de Gruyter. Lloyd, M. 2004. “The Politeness of Achilles: Off-Record Conversation Strategies in Homer and the Meaning of kertomia.” Journal of Hellenic Studies 124: 75–89. Lohmann, D. 1970. Die Komposition der Reden in der Ilias. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Mackie, H. 1996. Talking Trojan: Speech and Community in the Iliad. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield. ———. 1997. “Song and Storytelling: An Odyssean Perspective.” Transactions of the American Philological Association 127: 77– 95. Mandelbaum, A., trans. 1961. The Aeneid of Virgil. New York: Bantam Dell. Marg, W. 1957. Homer über die Dichtung. Münster: Aschendorff. Martin, R. P. 1989. The Language of Heroes: Speech and Performance in the Iliad. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. McHale, B. 1978. “Free Indirect Discourse: A Survey of Recent Accounts.” Poetics and Theory of Literature 3: 249–287. Miller, C. L. 1996. The Representation of Speech in Biblical Hebrew Narrative. Atlanta: Scholars Press. Minchin, E. 1995. “The Poet Appeals to His Muse: Homeric Invocations in the Context of Epic Performance.” Classical Journal 91 (1): 25–33. ———. 2001. Homer and the Resources of Memory: Some Applications of Cognitive Theory to the Iliad and the Odyssey. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ———. 2002. “Verbal Behaviour in its Social Context: Three Question Strategies in Homer’s Odyssey.” Classical Quarterly 52 (1): 15–32. ———. 2007a. Homeric Voices: Discourse, Memory, Gender. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ———. 2007b. “The Language of Heroes and the Language of Heroines: Storytelling in Oral Traditional Epic.” In Politics of Orality: Orality and Literacy in Ancient Greece, Vol. 6, edited by C. Cooper, 3–38. Leiden and Boston: Brill. Monro, D. B. 1998. Homeric Grammar. London: Bristol Classical Press. Monro, D. B., and T. W. Allen, eds. 1920. Homeri Opera Vol. I: Iliadis Libros I–XII (3rd ed.). Oxford: Clarendon Press. ———. 1920. Homeri Opera Vol. II: Iliadis Libros XIII–XXIV (3rd ed.). Oxford: Clarendon Press. Most, G. 1989. “The Structure and Function of Odysseus’ Apologoi.” Transactions of the American Philological Association 119: 15–30. Moulton, C. 1977. Similes in the Homeric Poems. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht. Mueller, M. 1984. The Iliad. London: George Allen and Unwin. Muellner, L. C. 1976. The Meaning of Homeric ΕΥΧΟΜΑΙ through Its Formulas. Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft der Universität Innsbruck. Murnaghan, S. 1987. Disguise and Recognition in the Odyssey. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

241

Beck-final.indb 241

6/26/12 7:58:07 PM

Nagler, M. N. 1967. “Towards a Generative View of the Oral Formula.” Transactions of the American Philological Association 98: 269–311. ———. 1974. Spontaneity and Tradition: A Study of the Oral Art of Homer. Berkeley: University of California Press. Nagy, G. 1979. The Best of the Achaeans. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press. Naiden, F. N. 2006. Ancient Supplication. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Newton, R. 1998. “Cloak and Shield in Odyssey 14.” Classical Journal 93 (2): 143–156. Olson, S. D. 1995. Blood and Iron: Stories and Storytelling in Homer’s Odyssey. Leiden: Brill. Parks, W. 1990. Verbal Dueling in Heroic Narrative: The Homeric and Old English Traditions. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Parry, A. 1972. “Language and Characterization in Homer.” Harvard Studies in Classical Philology 76: 1–22. Pedrick, V. 1982. “Supplication in the Iliad and the Odyssey.” Transactions of the American Philological Association 112: 125–140. ———. 1983. “The Paradigmatic Nature of Nestor’s Speech in Iliad 11.” Transactions of the American Philological Association 113: 55– 68. Pelliccia, H. 1995. Mind, Body, and Speech in Homer and Pindar. Edited by A.e.a. Dihle. Vol. 107, Hypomnemata. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht. Phelan, J., and P. J. Rabinowitz, eds. 2005. A Companion to Narrative Theory. Malden and London: Blackwell. Powell, B. 1970. “Narrative Pattern in the Homeric Tale of Menelaus.” Transactions of the American Philological Association 101: 419–431. Pratt, L. H. 1993. Lying and Poetry from Homer to Pindar: Falsehood and Deception in Archaic Greek Poetics. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Probert, P., and E. Dickey. 2005. “Giving Directions in Euripides’ Hecuba.” Omnibus 49: 3–4. Pucci, P. 1987. Odysseus Polutropos: Intertextual Readings in the Odyssey and the Iliad. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. ———. 1998. The Song of the Sirens: Essays on Homer. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield. Rabel, R. J. 1991. “Agamemnon’s Iliad.” Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies 32(2): 103–117. Reece, S. 1993. The Stranger’s Welcome: Oral Theory and the Aesthetics of the Homeric Hospitality Scene. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Reinhardt, K. 1961. Die Ilias und ihr Dichter. Edited by U. Hölscher. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht. Richardson, N. 1993. The Iliad: A Commentary. Vol. 6: Books 21–24. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Richardson, S. 1990. The Homeric Narrator. Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University Press. Rimmon-Kenan, S. 2002. Narrative Fiction: Contemporary Poetics. 2d ed. London: Routledge. Risselada, R. 1993. Imperatives and Other Directive Expressions in Latin: A Study in the Pragmatics of a Dead Language. Amsterdam: J. C. Gieben. Roulet, E. 1984. “Speech Acts, Discourse Structure, and Pragmatic Connectives.” Journal of Pragmatics 8: 31–47.

SPE ECH PR E SEN TAT ION in HOM ER IC EPIC

242

Beck-final.indb 242

6/26/12 7:58:07 PM

Russo, J. A., M. Fernandez-Galiano, and A. Heubeck. 1992. A Commentary on Homer’s Odyssey. Vol. 3: Books XVII–XXIV. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Sadock, J. M. 1974. Toward a Linguistic Theory of Speech Acts. New York and San Francisco: Academic Press. Schadewaldt, W. 1959. Von Homers Welt und Werk. 3d ed. Stuttgart: K. F. Koehler Verlag. Schmitz, C. 2001. “‘Denn Auch Niobe . . .’: Die Bedeutung der Niobe-Erzählung in Achills Rede (Ω 599– 620).” Hermes 129 (2): 145–153. Scodel, R. 1982. “The Autobiography of Phoenix: Iliad 9.444–495.” American Journal of Philology 103: 128–136. ———. 1998a. “Bardic Performance and Oral Tradition in Homer.” American Journal of Philology 119: 171–194. ———. 1998b. “The Removal of the Arms, the Recognition with Laertes, and Narrative Tension in the Odyssey.” Classical Philology 93: 1–17. ———. 2008. Epic Facework: Self-Presentation and Social Interaction in Homer. Swansea: The Classical Press of Wales. Scott, W. C. 2009. The Artistry of the Homeric Simile. Hanover, NH, and London: University Press of New England. Scully, S. 1987. “Doubling in the Tale of Odysseus.” Classical World 80 (6): 401–417. Searle, J. R. 1976. “A Classification of Illocutionary Acts.” Language in Society 5: 1–23. Segal, C. 1971. “Andromache’s Anagnorisis: Formulaic Artistry in Iliad 22.437–476.” Harvard Studies in Classical Philology 75: 33–57. Semino, E., and M. Short. 2004. Corpus Stylistics: Speech, Writing and Thought Presentation in a Corpus of English Writing. Edited by A.a.M.H. McEnery, Routledge Advances in Corpus Linguistics. London and New York: Routledge. Shive, D. 1987. Naming Achilles. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Steinrück, M. 1992. “Der Bericht des Proteus.” Quaderni Urbinati di Cultura Classica 42 (3): 47– 60. Sternberg, M. 1982a. “Point of View and the Indirections of Direct Speech.” Language and Style 15: 67–117. ———. 1982b. “Proteus in Quotation–Land: Mimesis and the Forms of Reported Discourse.” Poetics Today 3 (2): 107–156. ———. 1991. “How Indirect Discourse Means: Syntax, Semantics, Poetics, Pragmatics.” In Literary Pragmatics, edited by R. Sell, 62– 93. London: Routledge. Suerbaum, W. 1968. “Die Ich-Erzählungen des Odysseus.” Poetica 2: 150–177. Tannen, D. 1989. Talking Voices: Repetition, Dialogue, and Imagery in Conversational Discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Taplin, O. 1990. “Agamemnon’s Role in the Iliad.” In Character and Individuality in Greek Literature, edited by C. Pelling, 60–82. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Thalmann, W. G. 1984. Conventions of Form and Thought in Early Greek Poetry. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press. Tsagarakis, O. 1990. “Das untypische bei Homer und literarische Komposition.” In Der Übergang von der Mündlichkeit zur Literatur bei den Griechen, edited by W. Kullmann and M. Reichel, 111–124. Tübigen: Gunter Narr Verlag. van Nortwick, T. 2009. The Unknown Odysseus. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. van Thiel, H., ed. 1991. Homeri Odyssea. Hildesheim, Zurich, and New York: Georg Olms Verlag.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

243

Beck-final.indb 243

6/26/12 7:58:08 PM

———, ed. 1996. Homeri Ilias. Hildesheim, Zurich, and New York: Georg Olms Verlag. Walcot, P. 1977. “Odysseus and the Art of Lying.” Ancient Society 8: 1–19. Walsh, G. B. 1984. The Varieties of Enchantment: Early Greek Views of the Nature and Function of Poetry. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press. Watkins, C. 1995. How to Kill a Dragon: Aspects of Indo-European Poetics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Willcock, M. M. 1964. “Mythological Paradeigmata in the Iliad.” Classical Quarterly, n.s. 14 (2): 141–154. ———. 1977. “Ad Hoc Invention in the Iliad.” Harvard Studies in Classical Philology 81: 41–53. Wilson, J. R. 1979. “ΚΑΙ ΚΕ ΤΙΣ ΩΔ’ ΕΡΕΕΙ: An Homeric Device in Greek Literature.” Illinois Classical Studies 4: 1–15. Winkler, J. J. 1990. “Penelope’s Cunning and Homer’s.” In The Constraints of Desire, 129–161. New York and London: Routledge.

SPE ECH PR E SEN TAT ION in HOM ER IC EPIC

244

Beck-final.indb 244

6/26/12 7:58:09 PM

I N DE X

Achilles: as addressee of Iris, 12–13; as addressee of lissomai speech, 87–88; as addressee of Phoenix, 67, 69– 70; connection of to Patroclus, 168–169, 176– 179; conversation of with Priam, 182– 184; free indirect speech used by, 62– 63, 64– 65; genealogy of, 162; indirect speech used by, 85; lamentation by, 179; speech mention used by, 119 addressees: and the classification of speeches, 11; of emotives, 16–17; individuals as, 83–84; plural, 87; speech oriented toward, 14–16 Aeneas: free indirect speech concerning, 58–59; genealogy of, 162 Aeneid, free indirect speech in, 58–59 Agamemnon: and Ate, 38–39; oath of, 16 aims: of character narrators, 38, 55; of Menelaus’ narration, 37–38; of Odysseus’ narration, 32, 34, 36–38, 46 Alden, M., 201n66, 213n37, 214n44 alienation. See isolation Alston, W. P., 201n57 Amphimedon, as narrator, 41 Andromache, and Hector’s death, 184 anōga, and directives, 89, 96. See also keleuō; orders Antinous: indirect speech used for, 100– 101; as narrator, 41 Aphrodite, in Demodocus’ second song, 73– 77, 147–153 apostrophes, to Patroclus by main narrator, 172, 174

Ares, in Demodocus’ second song, 73– 77, 147–153 assertives (speech act type): characters’ use of, 137, 190; defined, 11, 14; in direct quotation, 26; in female speech, 134; in free indirect speech, 61, 62– 63; in the Iliad, 157, 158, 159, 160–161; in indirect speech, 81, 82, 83, 84, 86, 91, 105, 190; main narrators’ use of, 86; messages as, 176–179; Odysseus’ use of, 31–32; in the Odyssey, 132, 135, 136– 138, 159; in speech mention, 109, 110, 113; subtypes of, 16 Ate, 38–39 Aubriot, D., 213n39, 214n44, 215n56 Austen, Jane, 8– 9 Austin, J. L., 11, 199n41 Austin, N., 55, 76, 208n71, 215n65, 224n50, 228n44, 231n30, 233n60 authority: characters’ assertions of, 42– 44, 56, 116, 137–138, 165, 190; of fathers, 44; as problematic, 43–44; of prophets, 42–43; public and private, 43–44. See also genealogy; identity Bakker, E. J., 224n51, 235n94 Balthes, M., 234n78 Banfield, A., 198n24, 199n29, 207n44, 216n8 Bassett, S. E., 11 Bellerophon, 167 Benveniste, E., 200n53 Bers, V., 198n18 Biles, Z., 205nn21,25, 227n26

245

Beck-final.indb 245

6/26/12 7:58:09 PM

Bonifazi, A., 210–211n2 brevity: of indirect speech, 80–81, 90– 91; of non-direct speech, 58, 61; of speech mention, 107 Briseis, lamentation by, 179 Burgess, J., 232n50, 233n56 Burton, D., 200n47 Cairns, D. L., 210n96 Calchas, quoted as authority, 42–43 Cantilena, M., 211n9 Chantraine, P., 216n13 character narrators and speakers: and authority, 56; contrasted with main narrators, 2–3, 5, 21, 24, 37–38, 47, 56, 92, 94, 97– 98, 111–115, 116, 118, 124, 128–129, 135–140, 142–143, 154, 189, 192; direct quotation by, 24–25, 27– 38, 42–44, 56, 92; expressivity of, 91– 92, 112–113; free indirect speech by, 61– 62, 78; in the Iliad, 156; indirect speech by, 79–80, 82–86, 91; move types used by, 27–28; in the Odyssey, 130; speech mention by, 107–109, 123– 128; speech presentation spectrum for, 21, 160–163; statistics concerning, 160–161, 162; tis speeches used by, 47–48. See also levels, narrative; main narrators; narration Chatman, S., 197n5 Circe: as addressee of Odysseus, 104; Odysseus’ narration concerning, 32–33 Clarke, W. M., 232n53 Cleopatra, in Phoenix’s speech, 70– 72 Collins, D., 198nn13,22, 199n37, 216n9 commissives, as absent from Homeric speech, 14 companions, as marginal to Odysseus’ story, 32, 34–37 content: in indirect speech, 8, 80–81, 95; of songs, 117; in speech mention, 107, 111, 128 context. See moves; pragmatics conversation: and deception, 39; in Demodocus’ second song, 149–151; and direct quotation, 26, 28–30, 56, 83–84, 97; embedded, 24; and expres-

sivity, 188; and free indirect speech, 60; in the Iliad, 155, 157, 159, 164–165, 167–168, 173–174, 185, 191; and indirect speech, 96– 98, 163; in Menelaus’ narration, 28, 29–30; and non-direct speech, 163; and nostos, 37–38; Odysseus’ skill in, 32–34; in the Odyssey, 22, 132–133, 157, 159; pragmatics of, 1– 2, 10–12, 24, 195; and song, 115–116; and speech mention, 108–109, 112, 128; by women, 134 Corlu, A., 213n38 Coulmas, F., 198n23, 216n5 Crotty, K., 214n47 Cyclops: emotive speech by, 36; Odysseus’ conversations with, 33–34, 36, 51–52; Odysseus’ narration concerning, 32, 33–34 deception: depictions of, 24, 38–42, 44– 47, 121; direct quotation used to depict, 38–42, 56; by female speakers, 38–42, 167 Deiphobus, as Hector’s addressee, 124–125 deixis: defined, 7; in free indirect speech, 7; in indirect speech, 7–8, 80 de Jong, I. J. F., 55, 57, 65, 82, 143, 197nn1,6,7, 198nn13,14, 203n97, 204n6, 205n20, 207n47, 208nn62,64, 209nn73,77,82,85, 212n25, 213n27, 216n1, 218n40, 220nn66,74, 224n39, 225nn53,63, 228nn42,48, 229n51 Demodocus: free indirect speech used by, 73– 78; indirect speech used by, 86; indirect speech used for, 94, 103; as narrator, 57, 73– 77, 104–105, 140; quotation of, 140–141; second song of, 147–153; songs of, 139–140, 141–153; treated as main narrator, 76, 118 Dickey, E., 202n78, 233n62 Diomedes: direct quotation used by, 53– 54; reputation of, 53–54 directives (speech act type): defined, 11, 14–15; in direct quotation, 15, 26, 42– 44, 90; in female speech, 134; in free indirect speech, 59– 61, 63– 65; in the Iliad, 156–157, 159, 164–165; implicit, 45–46, 171, 181; in indirect speech, 15,

SPE ECH PR E SEN TAT ION in HOM ER IC EPIC

246

Beck-final.indb 246

6/26/12 7:58:10 PM

81–82, 83, 85, 86–87, 89, 91– 92, 95– 96, 105; lissomai speeches as, 67; move types for, 13; in the Odyssey, 132, 135, 159; and power, 15, 33, 67– 68, 89; in questions, 29–30; in speech mention, 109–114, 121–122; statistics concerning, 19, 63– 64; subtypes of, 1–2, 16, 89– 90; used by Odysseus, 31–33; used by Penelope, 134. See also assertives; emotives direct quotation, 23–56; of Achilles’ lamentation, 180–181; of Andromache, 184; assertives in, 26; combined with speech mention, 119; compared with free indirect speech, 78; compared with indirect speech, 105; and conversation, 26, 56, 83–84, 97, 139; and deceptive speech, 38–42, 44–47, 56, 167; as default option, 2, 5– 6; directives in, 15, 26, 42–44, 90; and emotional content, 181; and emotives, 26, 56, 159; expressivity of, 13, 26–27, 132– 133, 188; as faithful to supposed “original,” 10; functions and qualities of, 21, 23, 24–25, 27, 187–188; of hypothetical speeches, 47–48; in the Iliad, 155– 156, 160–161, 163–168; and irony, 100; and mimetic quotations, 25–38; move types in, 13, 26, 44–45, 150; and the narration of nostoi, 56; nonconversational, 164–165; non-mimetic, 47–55; in the Odyssey, 131, 132–133, 153–154; of Patroclus, 172; of poets, 152; and song, 140–141, 153; statistics concerning, 23–24, 25–26, 27–28, 31–32, 163, 164, 188; of the suitors, 99–101; used by character narrators, 24, 25, 27– 28, 37–38, 47, 55–56, 92, 156, 163–168; used by Demodocus, 149–151; used by Diomedes, 53–54; used by Eumaeus, 39–40; used by Hector, 52–53; used by main narrators, 23, 37–38, 47, 48–50, 56, 124, 135, 137; used by Menelaus, 28–30; used by Nausicaa, 54–55; used by Odysseus, 31–32, 34–35, 36–38, 44– 47; used by Patroclus, 170–171; vividness of, 10, 23, 26, 30, 56 Doherty, L. E., 207nn52,56

Edwards, M. W., 118, 152, 203n105, 209n78, 234n81 Elmer, D. F., 211n2 emotion: and directives, 67– 68; in free indirect speech, 73; in indirect speech, 88–89; in lissomai speeches, 68– 69, 70. See also emotives; expressivity emotives (speech act subtype): defined, 14, 16–17; in direct quotation, 26, 56, 159; and expressivity, 136; in female speech, 134; in free indirect speech, 61– 62; in the Iliad, 155, 156, 158–159, 163, 165, 167; Odysseus’ use of, 31–32, 36; in the Odyssey, 132–133, 135, 136, 155; in speech mention, 109, 112. See also emotion; expressivity epithets: as characteristic of main narrators, 76; Demodocus’ use of, 76 euchomai statements, 20, 113, 137–138, 161, 162 Eumaeus: address to Penelope by, 125– 126; conversation of with Odysseus, 44–46; direct quotation used by, 39– 40; as messenger to Penelope, 127– 128; narration by, 38 exchange. See conversation expressivity: in Achilles’ lamentation, 180; as character-oriented, 91– 92; concerning Patroclus, 169–170, 173, 178, 185; in conversation, 13, 188; defined, 2, 10–11, 13; in Demodocus’ songs, 141, 143, 150; in direct quotation, 26– 27, 58, 112, 132–133, 188; and emotives, 136; of free indirect speech, 9, 59– 60, 64– 65, 66, 73, 78, 127, 180–181, 189; in hypothetical speech, 183–184; in the Iliad, 136, 155, 163; in indirect speech, 85, 89, 91, 93, 105–106, 184, 190; of lissomai speeches, 67; of narrators, 191–192; in non-direct speech, 13– 14; in the Odyssey, 132–133; in Priam’s speeches, 182; in speech mention, 76, 93, 111, 112–113, 118, 122–123, 128– 129; of supplications, 64, 181; spectrum of, 191, 192–193. See also emotion; emotives

GENERAL INDEX

247

Beck-final.indb 247

6/26/12 7:58:10 PM

farewells, as emotive subtype, 17 fathers, as authority figures, 44 Felson-Rubin, N., 207n54 Fenik, B., 84, 231n29 fiction, modern, compared with Homeric poetry, 58, 194 Finkelberg, M., 141, 228n47 Finlay, R., 232–233n56 Finnegan, R. H., 197n8 Fludernik, M., 6, 20, 65, 198n22, 199nn28,32, 200n54, 204n3, 212– 213n28, 214n45 Ford, A., 224n38, 228n37, 230n17 formulas, speech-introductory, 75– 76 free direct speech, 7 free indirect speech, 57– 78; ambiguity of, 60, 143; causal clauses in, 60; character narrators’ use of, 60, 78, 94; compared with direct quotation, 78; compared with indirect speech, 92; compared with speech mention, 58; conditions in, 60; definition and parameters of, 6, 8– 9, 58– 62; deixis in, 7; dependent clauses in, 60, 78; and directives, 59– 60; and embedded speech, 58; existence of in Homer, 9–10, 57–58, 77– 78, 189; expressivity of, 9, 59, 66, 73, 78, 127, 189; functions and qualities of, 21, 60, 189; gar clauses in, 59; in the Iliad, 62, 156, 160, 186; independent clauses in, 61, 75, 78; irony in, 9–10; in lamentation for Patroclus, 179–181; main narrators’ use of, 78, 94; in messenger speeches, 127; and non-direct modes of speech, 60; in the Odyssey, 61– 62, 131–132; origins of, 8– 9; purpose clauses in, 69– 70; in reporting the death of Hector, 181–184; and song, 117, 139, 152; and speech mention, 58; statistics concerning, 59– 60, 61– 62, 63– 64, 74, 189; temporal clauses in, 60; used by Demodocus, 73– 78, 103– 104, 141–142, 144, 146–148, 151; used by female speakers, 66; used by Phoenix, 78; used by Priam, 182–183; vividness of, 147 Friedrich, R., 198n10

functions, of speech presentation techniques, 1, 22 Gaca, K., 215n53, 233n67 gaps: between words and intentions, 24, 44–45, 46, 100, 167; between words and reality, 50. See also irony gar clauses, 60, 142, 143, 144, 145, 149; and directives, 165; in free indirect speech, 59; in song, 141 Garvie, A. F., 210n1, 229n54 gender: in the Odyssey, 131, 133–134; and social status, 134. See also women, as speakers genealogy, assertives concerning, 84, 137– 138, 161–163, 168, 190. See also authority; identity generalizations, of multiple speeches: in indirect speech, 82–83, 85–86; in speech mention, 110–111 Genette, G., 6 Ginouvès, R., 235n102 Givón, T., 200n43 Glenn, J., 206n39 Goldhill, S., 228n49 Gould, J., 201n66, 213n37 greetings, as emotive subtype, 17 Griffin, J., 197n7, 215n64, 224n51, 229n50 groups, speeches by, 47, 50–52. See also plural speakers, in indirect speech; tis speeches Hardy, D. E., 203n107 Haubold, J., 207n60 Hector: Achilles’ treatment of, 88; conversation of with Patroclus, 173–175; death of, 181–185; direct quotation used by, 52–53; hypothetical quotations used by, 47, 166; reputation of, 53, 166–167; speech mention used by, 122–123; speech mention used for, 124–125 Hecuba, lamentation by, 183 Helen: as audience for Menelaus, 30; deceptive speech by, 40–42; as object of Menelaus’ narration, 40–42 Hentze, C., 209n83 Hera, trickery of, 39

SPE ECH PR E SEN TAT ION in HOM ER IC EPIC

248

Beck-final.indb 248

6/26/12 7:58:11 PM

Higbie, C., 231n26 highlighting, through use of contrasting speech types, 64– 65, 71, 98, 100, 108, 119, 121, 123, 124, 126, 179, 181–182 Homeric Hymn to Demeter, speech presentation in, 188, 193 hypothetical speeches, 47, 52–56, 108, 177–178, 183–184, 190; in indirect speech, 82; in speech mention, 109– 110; used by Hector, 47, 166; used by Nausicaa, 55. See also tis speeches identity: assertives concerning, 137– 138, 161, 190; of Odysseus, 37. See also authority; genealogy, assertives concerning Iliad: compared with the Odyssey, 25, 155, 157–159, 160–161, 163, 167–168, 185– 186, 191–193; free indirect speech in, 61; isolation and conflict in, 22, 155, 159, 167–168, 191; speech presentation in, 155–186; statistics on speech in, 156, 157–158, 159, 160–161, 163, 164; tis speeches in, 48–49, 52–53 imitation. See mimesis implied authors, 3–4, 22; defined, 3; and the speech presentation spectrum, 194 independent clauses, in free indirect speech, 71– 72, 75, 78 indirect speech, 79–106; brevity in, 80– 81; compared to free indirect speech, 92; compared to speech mention, 107; content in, 80–81; in conversation, 96– 98; and the death of Patroclus, 177; defined, 6, 8, 81; deixis in, 7–8; directives in, 15; functions and qualities of, 21, 79, 84, 189–190; in the Iliad, 156, 160–161; moves in, 13, 82; multiple verbs in, 95– 96, 101; in the Odyssey, 131; seen as peripheral, 79, 91; and song, 117, 139, 153; statistics concerning, 79, 81, 82–83, 84, 86, 87, 90, 91, 97, 98, 190; subordinate clauses in, 101, 148; used by character narrators, 82–86, 90– 91, 137; used by Demodocus, 141, 146–147, 148, used by Eumaeus, 39; used by female

speakers, 134; used by main narrators, 86, 87, 93– 94; used by Menelaus, 41–42; used by Odysseus, 36; used by Patroclus, 169; used by Phoenix, 68; used for Demodocus by main narrator, 74; used for plural speakers, 83 information: Odysseus’ quest for, 31, 33, 37; Telemachus’ quest for, 30; as theme of the Odyssey, 137 initial moves: defined, 12–13; in direct quotation, 26; by female speakers, 134; in the Iliad, 157; used by Odysseus, 32; in the Odyssey, 132; in speech mention, 109. See also moves instructions, as directives, 15 invitations, as directives, 14–15 Iris, and Achilles, 12–13 irony: in direct quotation, 100; in free indirect speech, 9–10. See also gaps isolation, as theme of the Iliad, 22, 155, 159, 167–168, 191 Kakridis, J., 214n48, 232n48, 234n80 kaleō, used in speech mention, 121–123 keleuō, and directives, 15, 89– 91 Kelly, A., 103, 220nn70,78, 229–230n63 Kirk, G. S., 94 Krischer, T., 169, 232nn50,56 Kroon, C., 12, 200nn46,47 Laird, A., 58, 198nn17,21, 199n35, 211n5 lamentation, 176, 179–181, 183 Lang, M., 225n52 Leech, G. N., 7, 198nn21,25, 199nn26,32 Létoublon, F., 199n36, 203n105, 209n78, 217n29, 225n62, 231n22 levels, narrative: 2–3, 19, 20–21, 94; blurred, 75, 77, 104, 118, 141–142, 151– 152; in free indirect speech, 65; in the Odyssey, 130–131; separated, 104–105, 140–141, 143–144, 145–147, 152–154; third, 130–131, 156. See also character narrators and speakers; main narrators; narration Li, C. N., 216n5 lies. See deception linguistics, as approach to Homer, 2, 5– 6, 10–14, 194–195

GENERAL INDEX

249

Beck-final.indb 249

6/26/12 7:58:11 PM

205n15, 207n54, 219n51, 222n19, 225n54, 230n18 Monro, D. B., 216n13 Most, G., 205n21 Moulton, C., 233n66 moves: defined, 2, 12–13; in direct quotation, 13, 27–28; in free indirect speech, 61– 62; and gender, 134; in the Iliad, 22, 157; in indirect speech, 13, 82, 91, 97; in Menelaus’ narration, 28; multiple, 150; in Odysseus’ narration, 33; in the Odyssey, 22, 132; in speech mention, 109; unspecified types of, 26, 114–118. See also initial moves; problematic moves; reactive moves Muellner, L. C., 217–218n30, 231n32 Murnaghan, S., 205n19 muses, invocations of, 86, 94– 95, 117– 118, 158

lissomai speeches, 67– 68, 70, 71, 72– 73, 87–88, 113, 150, 173, 180, 182; as directive subtype, 66– 67; by female speakers, 72; free indirect speech in, 72 Litae, Phoenix’s allegory of, 67, 69– 70 Lloyd, M., 218n32 Lohmann, D., 214n49 Mackie, H., 52, 166, 197n4, 210n95, 227n26 main narrators: absent from Demodocus’ second song, 74– 75, 151; compared to Odysseus, 31–32; contrasted with character narrators, 2–3, 5, 21, 24, 37–38, 47, 56, 92, 94, 97– 98, 111– 115, 116, 118, 124, 128–129, 135–140, 142–143, 154, 189, 192; control exercised by, 104–105; use of direct quotation by, 23, 48–50, 56; use of epithets by, 76; use of free indirect speech by, 61– 62, 78; use of indirect speech by, 79–80, 83, 86– 92; use of messenger speeches by, 64; use of speech mention by, 108–109, 124. See also character narrators and speakers; levels, narrative; narration Marg, W., 228n34, 230n17 Martin, R. P., 230n6 McHale, B., 6, 8, 9, 198nn17,18, 199n28 Meleager, as exemplum in Phoenix’s speech, 70– 72 Menelaus: audiences for, 30; as narrator, 25, 28–30, 37–38; use of direct quotation by, 28–30; use of indirect speech by, 41–42; use of questions by, 29 messages: to Achilles, 183–184; to Andromache, 183–184; as assertives, 176– 179; and authority, 165; as directives, 15; direct quotation used for, 125; in the Iliad, 165; speeches reporting, 64, 126–127, 148–149; statistics concerning, 126–127 mētis, of Odysseus, 31, 33 mimesis, 6– 7; by main narrators, 25–27; as persuasive, 42–44; in quotations, 25–38; in speech, 23–24 Minchin, E., 153, 202nn90,93, 203n102,

Nagy, G., 214n51, 224n47, 229n52, 232n51 naming, in the Iliad, 160 narration: alternative types of, 22, 27; as theme of the Odyssey, 77, 131. See also character narrators and speakers; levels, narrative; main narrators narratology, as approach to Homer, 1–2, 4–5, 13–14 narrators. See character narrators and speakers; levels, narrative; main narrators Nausicaa: hypothetical speech by, 54–55; reputation of, 55; use of direct quotation by, 54–55 Nestor: conversation of with Patroclus, 170–171; as narrator, 93 Newton, R., 208n69 Niobe, free indirect speech concerning, 62– 63 non-direct speech: brevity of, 58, 61; expressive features of, 58; Odysseus’ use of, 33, 37. See also free indirect speech; indirect speech; speech mention nostoi: and conversation, 37–38; direct quotation used to narrate, 56; and knowledge, 30; speech presentation concerning, 60; as theme of the Odyssey, 60

SPE ECH PR E SEN TAT ION in HOM ER IC EPIC

250

Beck-final.indb 250

6/26/12 7:58:12 PM

168–176; statistics concerning, 175– 176; subordinate status of, 169–170 Pedrick, V., 208n71, 233n60 Pelliccia, H., 203n105, 204n111 Penelope: as addressee of messenger speeches, 125–126, 127; as addressee of Odysseus’ nostos story, 101–105; as addressee of Telemachus’ directives, 19; deceptive speech by, 41–42; questions asked by, 134; speech by, 41–42, 133–134 persuasion: in character narrators’ use of speech mention, 114; mimetic quotation as, 42–44 Phaeacians, as addressees of Odysseus, 31–32, 37, 104 Phemius: quotation of, 140; songs of, 117 Phoenicians, in Eumaeus’ story, 39–40 Phoenix: direct quotation avoided by, 66; free indirect speech used by, 67– 73, 78 pleas, as directives, 14. See also lissomai speeches; supplication plural speakers, in indirect speech, 86– 87, 88–89 poets, quotation of, 152 Polyphemus. See Cyclops Powell, B., 204n13 pragmatics, 1–2, 11; of quotations, 47, 195; and real-life speech, 2, 195. See also linguistics, as approach to Homer; moves Pratt, L., 208n67, 209n72 prayers: free indirect speech in, 64; indirect speech in, 181. See also lissomai speeches; pleas, as directives; supplication Priam: conversation of with Achilles, 182–184; free indirect speech used by, 182–183 Probert, P., 202n78, 233n62 problematic moves: defined, 12–13; in direct quotation, 26; by female speakers, 134; in the Iliad, 157; in the Odyssey, 133; in speech mention, 110 proiēmi, use of, 20 promises: as assertives, 14; move types of, 115–116; in speech mention, 107

oaths: as assertive subtype, 16; sworn by Zeus, 39 Odysseus: conversation of with Eumaeus, 44–46; identity of, 34; in the Iliad, 2, 42–43; indirect speech used for, 101– 105; as narrator, 25, 30–38, 92, 98, 110, 120–121, 147, 152–153, 192; nostos told to Penelope by, 101–105; quotation of plural speakers by, 33; as rival of main narrator, 152–153; use of direct quotation by, 24, 31–32, 46–47, 120–121; use of free indirect speech by, 59, 62; use of non-direct speech by, 33; use of speech mention by, 120–121 Odyssey: compared to the Iliad, 25, 155, 157–159, 160–161, 167–168, 185–186, 191–193; consistency of speech in, 130; as conversational, 22; free indirect speech in, 61– 62, 131–132; speech presentation in, 130–154; statistics concerning, 131–133, 135–136, 137; tis speeches in, 48–49, 50, 52 Olson, S. D., 205n22, 206n41, 207n52 oral poetry: aesthetics in, 3–4; and the implied author, 194; and narrative, 3–4 orders: as directive subtype, 14; free indirect speech in, 64; in indirect speech, 86. See also anōga, and directives; keleuō Parks, W., 231n28 Parry, A., 225n54, 232n54, 233n67, 234n75 Parry, M., 229n52 Patroclus: Achilles’ connection with, 168–169; aristeia of, 171–175; audience’s emotional involvement with, 172, 175; conversation of with Achilles, 119, 172–173; conversation of with Hector, 173–175; conversation of with Nestor, 170–171; death of, 121–122, 176, 184–185; direct quotation used for, 170–172; indirect speech used by, 169, 191; lamentation for, 176; as minor character in the Iliad, 169, 185; speech mention used for, 191; speech presentation concerning, 48–49, 155,

GENERAL INDEX

251

Beck-final.indb 251

6/26/12 7:58:12 PM

Searle, J. R., 200nn44,55, 201n58, 226n4 secrecy, speech mention used for, 124, 125–126, 127–128 Segal, C., 184, 235nn98,99 Semino, E., 197n2, 198nn20,25, 203n107 Shive, D., 197n10 Short, M., 7, 197n2, 198nn20,21,25, 199nn26,32, 203n107 soliloquies, as emotive subtype, 17 song: as absent from character speech, 138, 139–140; as assertive subtype, 16; and clausal indirect speech, 94– 95; and conversation, 116–117; Demodocus as narrator of, 141–153; depictions of, 61, 115, 117–118, 152; and direct quotation, 140; free indirect speech used for, 117–118, 152; in the Iliad, 157–158; indirect speech used for, 86, 117; main narrators’ control of, 118; in the Odyssey, 131, 139–153, 187; speech mention used for, 107, 116– 118, 129; speech types in, 153; statistics concerning, 74; as theme of the Odyssey, 77; as unique speech act type, 94– 95, 129 spectrum, for speech presentation, 1, 3, 5– 7, 21–22, 80, 130, 139, 153–154, 191; and direct quotation, 165; and the implied author, 194; in the Iliad, 155– 170, 186; in the Odyssey, 130, 136; and the presentation of song, 153; as unified for both poems, 187 speech acts: in conversation, 12; defined, 1–2, 10–11, 20; distinguished from sentence types, 17–18; implicit, 15, 24, 46; subsidiary, 19; types and subtypes of, 11, 14–18; unspecified types of, 82, 86, 109–114. See also assertives; directives; emotives; linguistics, as approach to Homer; moves; pragmatics speech mention, 107–129; characters’ use of, 94; compared to free indirect speech, 58; compared to indirect speech, 93; defined, 7–8; and Demodocus’ songs, 74, 148; expressivity of, 76, 93, 111, 112–113, 118, 122–123, 128–129; functions of, 21; in the Iliad, 156, 158, 160; main narrators’ use of,

prophecies: as assertives, 16; in indirect speech, 85 prophets, as source of authority, 42–43 Proteus, and Menelaus, 29–30 Pucci, P., 206n31, 229n52 purpose clauses, in free indirect speech, 59– 60, 65, 69– 70 questions: addressee-oriented, 14; as assertives, 17–18; defined, 11, 14; as directives, 16, 17–18; in direct quotation, 26–27; by female speakers, 134; in the Iliad, 157, 163; in indirect speech, 82, 86, 92– 93; Menelaus’ use of, 28–29; in Odysseus’ narration, 31–32, 35; in the Odyssey, 132, 135; speaker-oriented, 16; in speech mention, 109 quotation. See direct quotation reactive moves: defined, 12–13; in direct quotation, 26; by female speakers, 134; in the Iliad, 157; in the Odyssey, 132; pleas as, 88; in speech mention, 109–110; used by Odysseus, 132 rebukes: as directives, 17; as emotives, 17; use of speech mention for, 112, 129 relative clauses, in free indirect speech, 60, 71 reputation: character speeches concerning, 48; of Diomedes, 53–54; of Hector, 53, 166–167; of Nausicaa, 55 requests, as directives, 14 Richardson, N., 225n58 Richardson, S., 5, 197n6, 198nn15,16, 199nn33,36, 210n1, 215n60, 216n1, 219n50, 223n34, 224n39, 229nn54,62 Rimmon-Kenan, S., 6 Risselada, R., 16, 17, 199–200n43, 200nn47,56, 201n60, 203n94, 205n16 Sadock, J. M., 14 Schadewalt, W., 232n45 Schmitz, C., 212n19 Scodel, R., 197n4, 207n45, 213n33, 214n46, 218n34, 224n49, 227n26, 229n58 Scott, W. C., 233n67 Scully, S., 205n23

SPE ECH PR E SEN TAT ION in HOM ER IC EPIC

252

Beck-final.indb 252

6/26/12 7:58:13 PM

94; in the Odyssey, 131; and Patroclus’ death, 177; and secrecy, 124, 125–126, 127–128; and song, 139, 153; specificity in, 107–108; statistics concerning, 108–109, 112, 113, 115, 116, 190; types of, 107; used by Eumaeus, 39; used by Phoenix, 71 statistics, on Homeric speech presentation, 18–20, 23–24, 25–26; collection methods for, 18–20; concerning assertives, 138; concerning character speech, 135–136, 160–161; concerning conversations, 97, 98; concerning directives, 63– 64, 90, 171; concerning direct quotation, 27–28, 31–32, 163, 164, 186, 188; concerning female speech, 133–134; concerning free indirect speech, 59– 60, 61– 62, 63– 64, 74, 189; concerning the Iliad, 157–158, 159, 160–161, 163, 164, 172, 175–176, 186, 191; concerning indirect speech, 79, 81, 82–83, 84, 86, 87, 90, 91, 190; concerning messenger speeches, 126– 127; concerning the Odyssey, 131–133, 134, 137, 138, 191; concerning questions and replies, 29, 137; concerning song, 74, 116; concerning speeches involving Patroclus, 172, 175–176; concerning speech mention, 108–109, 112, 113, 115, 116, 190 status, assertions of in the Iliad, 160, 161–162 Sternberg, M., 6, 198nn19,23, 216nn8,9 subordinate clauses: in free indirect speech, 57, 78; in indirect speech, 92– 95, 101, 103–104, 148 Suerbaum, W., 204n13, 205n20, 206n40 suitors, varying speech types used for, 99–101 supplication: character narrators’ treatment of, 64; as directive, 15; expressivity of, 181; in free indirect speech, 63; main narrators’ treatment of, 63–

64, 88; Phoenix’s treatment of, 68; as theme of the Iliad, 72– 73. See also lissomai speeches Telemachus: as addressee of Menelaus, 28, 30; as addressee of Nestor, 93; as addressee of Odysseus, 120–121; directives given by, 19; indirect speech by, 81–82, 85; return of, 125–127 Thalmann, W., 205n19, 208n70, 227n25 Theogony, speech presentation in, 188, 193 thought, presentation of, 9, 20 tis speeches, 24, 47, 48–50, 52–53, 110–111, 116. See also hypothetical speeches unity, of the Homeric poems, 194 Van Nortwick, T., 205n22 van Thiel, H., 210n1 vaunts: as emotive subtype, 17; in free indirect speech, 63; in the Iliad, 187 vividness: in Demodocus’ songs, 145, 152; of direct quotation, 10, 23, 26, 30, 56, 191; of free indirect speech, 147. See also emotives; expressivity vocatives. See apostrophes Walcot, P., 208nn67,72 Walsh, G. B., 228n34 Watkins, C., 225n59 Willcock, M. M., 204n6, 214n47 Wilson, J. R., 209n79 Winkler, J. J., 210n97 wishes, as emotive subtype, 17 women, as speakers, 133–134, 154; deception by, 38–42, 167; directives used by, 134; free indirect speech used for, 66, 68– 72; move types used by, 134; statistics concerning, 133–134. See also gender xenia, 138

GENERAL INDEX

253

Beck-final.indb 253

6/26/12 7:58:13 PM

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

I N DE X L O C ORU M

12.235–236, 115–116 16.7–129, 172–173 16.46–48, 173 16.684– 693, 121–122 16.751– 761, 174–175 16.830–861, 172 17.408–411, 176–177, 178, 183 17.414–423, 48–49 17.634– 650, 177–178 18.8–11, 85 18.18–21, 179 18.170–201, 12–13 18.243–355, 64 18.343–346, 65 18.510–512, 87 18.569–571, 158 19.78–144, 38–39 19.287–300, 179 19.303–309, 87– 88, 179–180 19.315–337, 180 20.178–258, 162–163 20.206–212, 162 22.294–301, 122–124 22.416–428, 182–183 22.431–446, 183–184 22.486–506, 182 23.40–41, 180–181 23.43–47, 202n84 23.192–198, 181 23.439–441, 203n102 24.22–24, 87, 88– 89 24.477–478, 201n67 24.601– 619, 62– 63 24.720– 722, 158

Homer Iliad 1.1–2, 117–118, 142 1.91, 161 1.458, 8 1.472–474, 158 1.503–516, 110 2.56– 75, 165 2.110–141, 43 2.151–152, 87 2.303–330, 43 2.484–492, 93– 94 4.178–181, 54 6.164–165, 167, 207n51 6.170, 211n8 6.459–465, 52–54, 166–167 7.386–397, 95– 96 8.139–150, 53–54 9.189, 8, 158, 224n40 9.202–204, 170 9.219–220, 10, 170 9.254–258, 208n65 9.274–276, 9–10 9.434– 605, 66– 73, 171 9.448–452, 68– 69 9.510–512, 69 9.522–523, 69 9.574–580, 71 9.590–595, 70– 72 9.658– 659, 169–170 11.602– 615, 119, 170, 204n11 11.646– 648, 170–171, 219n56 11.656–803, 171 11.786– 789, 208n65

255

Beck-final.indb 255

6/26/12 7:58:14 PM

10.249–273, 219n61 10.266–269, 206n42 10.320–344, 33, 206n34 10.378–405, 33, 206n34 10.410–417, 206n40 10.431–437, 206n42 10.504–540, 33, 206n34 10.562–565, 206n34 11.233–234, 98 12.34–141, 33, 104, 206n34 12.154–164, 206n37 12.271–276, 206n37 12.279–293, 206–207n42 12.320–323, 37 12.340–351, 36–37 13.168– 69, 52, 220n67 13.170–183, 50 14.462–506, 44–46 14.486–489, 45 14.495–498, 45–46 15.381–484, 39–40 15.420–423, 40 15.423–453, 219n62 16.130–131, 226n67 16.144–145, 62 16.286–294, 120–121 16.328–340, 125–127 17.108–149, 219n63 17.306–310, 203n106 17.367–379, 99–101, 219n56 17.386, 93– 94 19.141–147, 41 21.124–139, 121 21.350–353, 19, 81, 85– 86 23.149–152, 50 23.301–305, 212n17 23.310–343, 101–105, 147 24.131–148, 41 24.269–270, 138

Homer (continued) Odyssey 1.153–155, 117 1.325–327, 142 1.391–393, 62 2.6– 7, 8 2.96–102, 41 3.113–116, 93 4.274–279, 41–42 4.312–331, 204n14 4.333–592, 28–30, 204n14 4.371–372, 29 4.376–381, 29 4.543–547, 30 4.770– 772, 50 6.255–315, 54 6.275–288, 54–55 7.16–17, 93 8.73–83, 141–142 8.266–272, 74– 76, 148 8.266–367, 73– 77, 147–151 8.291–295, 149–150 8.306–353, 150–151 8.487–521, 103–4, 141, 143–144 8.505–513, 144–145 8.514–518, 146 8.519–521, 146–147 8.548–586, 31 9.100–102, 59– 60 9.171–178, 35–36 9.252–286, 33 9.345–370, 34 9.401–413, 34, 51–52 9.447–460, 33, 36 9.466–470, 206n401.1–2, 142 9.475–479, 33–34 9.492–500, 34–35 9.502–525, 34 9.528–535, 34 10.38–46, 36–37 10.63– 76, 205–206n29 10.226–228, 36 10.231, 37

Vergil Aeneid 2.655– 656, 58–59

SPE ECH PR E SEN TAT ION in HOM ER IC EPIC

256

Beck-final.indb 256

6/26/12 7:58:15 PM