Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-7drxs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-17T04:27:24.890Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Threatening, Abusing and Feeling Angry in the Homeric Poems

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 December 2013

A. W. H. Adkins
Affiliation:
The University, Reading.

Extract

At other times and in other places I have tried to show, by means of a study of the manner in which Homer uses words, the nature of the Homeric field of values. I have also tried to show the effect of that field of values on the concepts of punishment, honour and friendship. In this paper I wish to develop the enquiry in a rather different direction, but using the same tools and method of approach. I shall begin by discussing some peculiarities of behaviour of certain Homeric words, leave, at first, the questions I shall ask hanging in the air, and then attempt at the end to show how these peculiarities fit together into a pattern, a pattern imposed (or encouraged) by Homeric values and the structure of Homeric society.

I begin with the word νεικείειν. LSJ renders this as ‘quarrel, wrangle with’ or transitively ‘chide, rail at, upbraid’, Ebeling, Lexicon Homericum, as increpo. Ebeling's rendering I find unhelpful, since I am as unsure of the implications of increpo as of νεικείειν. I understand the words LSJ uses, but (as presumably we all do) regard wrangling with someone as a different activity from chiding or rebuking him, and each as distinguishable from railing at him. What induced Homer to use the same word in Greek was presumably that he saw a resemblance between these activities stronger than their differences: at all events, the likelihood that this was the reason is strong enough to make it worth while to look for the resemblances by studying some examples of the usage of νειείειν.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for the Promotion of Hellenic Studies 1969

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Merit and Responsibility chapters ii and iii.

2 BICS vii (1960) 23 ff.

3 CQ n.s. xii (1963) 30 ff.

4 See p. 17 n. 6 below.

5 Cf. ὢ μοι in Iliad xi 404, Odyssey v 299, ὢ πόποι in xxi 249, quoted above.

6 For this reason, Hector, χώσατο, Iliad xxii 289 ff.Google Scholar, the natural response to missing with a spear-cast. Hector knows what he wishes to do, and has tried to do it; buthis purpose has been frustrated, in that he has missed his target. His becoming downcast, κατηφήσας, 293, is subsequent on his realisation that he has no other spear with him. (I take οὐδ' ἄλλ' ἔχε μείλινον ἔγχος as the explanation of κατηφήσας.)

7 Apollo would naturally be pleased by the sacrifice; but he would then be obliged to aid Teucer, and Homeric gods regarded it as an imposition to have to exert themselves for mankind, cf. Iliad i 573, xxi 462 ff.

8 Cf. Merit and Responsibility chapter iii.

9 There is no space in this paper to discuss αἰνεῑν whose behaviour is similarly affected by Homeric society.