1 Introduction
Ov. Met. 12.159â1631sed noctem sermone trahunt, virtus que loquendimateria est: pugnam referunt hostis que suam que,in que vices adita atque exhausta pericula saepecommemorare iuvat. quid enim loqueretur Achilles,aut quid apud magnum potius loquerentur Achillem?
But they lengthen the night with talk, and courage wastheir theme; they related the battles of the foe and their own.Each in turn often delights to recount the dangers they hadmet and overcome. For what else would Achilles speak about,or what else would they speak about before great Achilles?2
Achilles is one of the most notable, if ambiguous, mythological heroes in Classical and late antiquity.3 As Ovid suggests above, the exploits of Achilles and his Achaean comrades naturally would be the subject of speech after a dayâs battle at Troy. Indeed, the speeches of Achilles form a notable component of classical and late antique literature, including epic, and are essential in defining his character. This discussion not only traces the evolution of the basic themes and emotions in the direct and embedded speeches of Achilles from Homerâs Iliad to the poetic and prose texts of late antiquity, including epic, but also identifies the various âswervesâ and âmini-swervesâ that occur before and during late antiquity in the representation and characterization of Achilles as revealed in his speeches.4 Poets and prose writers after Homer occasionally make swerves or mini-swerves in their narratives by representing Achilles through his speeches in a manner different from recent depictions of him in one of two ways. The first type of swerve (or mini-swerve) occurs when a poet or prose writer portrays Achilles either positively or negatively in comparison with recent depictions of him, while the second type occurs when a poet or writer adds a new dimension to his characterization or emphasizes an aspect that has been only hinted at in previous works.5
The speeches of Achilles in Homerâs Iliad, which have already been the subject of much scholarship, form the first part of this discussion.6 My brief focus is on the themes and emotions of Achillesâ speeches in the Iliad, after which the development of these aspects in Achillesâ direct and embedded speeches is examined and tracked in other classical epics, namely Ovidâs Metamorphoses and Statiusâ Achilleid,7 and in non-epic texts, specifically the tragedies of Euripides and Senecaâs Troades. While there are numerous speeches by Achilles in Greek and Latin texts before late antiquity,8 speeches by Achilles appear in extant epic of late antiquity only in Quintus Smyrnaeusâ Posthomerica; in addition, Achilles makes direct and (mainly) embedded speeches in various extant non-epic texts, of which the Heroicus and Vita Apollonii of Philostratus are the most significant in terms of understanding his character.9 Thus, while the speeches of Achilles in late antiquity are few, they are essential in tracking the vicissitudes in the representation of his character throughout antiquity.
The issue of the different genres of the works in which the speeches of Achilles appear is not predominantly one of generic taxonomy but rather of dynamic speech composition; that is, from the point of view of analyzing Achillesâ character, the genre in which a particular speech occurs is less significant than the actual content and style of the words themselves. In an article-length overview of the function of the speeches in the three complete Flavian epics (Statiusâ Thebaid, Valerius Flaccusâ Argonautica, and Silius Italicusâ Punica), I conclude (in part):
One of the most important functions of the speeches is the representation of the personalities of the various characters, which are distinguished by lexical, syntactical, grammatical, rhetorical and occasionally metrical features that combine to create distinctive voices in the minds of the listener and reader. Especially important is the critical role played by the speeches, which function to explore and clarify thematic issues, create tone and mood, establish a sense of dramatic immediacy, vary the level of emotional intensity in the narratives, emphasize the epic circumstances, vary the pace of the narratives, present and treat the causes of events, provide motivation for subsequent action, and present information.10
As for the speakers themselves, as Irene de Jong observes in regard to those in the Iliad, â[i]n their speeches characters themselves verbalize their perceptions, emotions, interpretations, in short their focalization of events, persons, objects, etc.â11 The aforementioned comments apply equally to an analysis of Achillesâ speeches in archaic, classical, and late antique literature, irrespective of the genre, as well as to Achilles himself as a speaker.
2 Archaic and Classical Greek Literature: The Context of the First Major Swerve
While Achilles famously declares in the Iliad that there are others who are better at speaking in council (18.106), he speaks far more than any other figure in the Iliad. Achilles makes eighty-seven of the 678 speeches in the Iliad totalling 984 lines,12 while there is one hypothetical embedded speech.13 The speeches of Achilles are notable for their emotional energy and convey his character as a heroic figure disposed to an early death with glory as opposed to a long but staid life (Il. 9.410â416, esp. 412â413). Ten major sequences of speeches by Achilles occur in ten different books of the Iliad.14 The first grouping of speeches shows Achilles losing his temper (Il. 1.149â171), insulting Agamemnon (1.225â244), and informing him that he will be killed if he attempts to take more than just Briseis (1.293â303). While it is possible to construe Achilles as a figure who confidently stands up in the midst of an assembly and argues his case effectively, in the view of Cicero the mind of the hero is in vitio (Tusc. 3.9.18, âin a defective stateâ).
The second major sequence of speeches by Achilles further highlights his feelings regarding Agamemnonâs violation of the heroic code. Achilles welcomes the Achaean leaders (Il. 9.202â204), but rejects Agamemnonâs offer of gifts (9.308â429) and Phoenixâs plea to re-enter the battle (9.609â619), then responds to Ajax by suggesting he may return to the battle (cf. 9.644â655, esp. 650â655). Although Achilles represents the heroic ideal for the noble class âalways to be best and eminent above all othersâ (11.784,
Various facets of the Iliadic theme of the heroic code receive attention in later literature among late antique poets and prose writers, as discussed below. One of the less exemplary aspects arises as a consequence of the relationships of Achilles with Patroclus and Hector in sets of speeches in Iliad 16 (7â298), 18 (6â428), and 23 (19â183). While the first two sets of speeches reveal the affection of Achilles for Patroclus and his grief over his loverâs death, respectively, Achillesâ first speech in the latter set shows him demonstrating a less exemplary side to his character when he describes his mistreatment of the corpse of Hector and his violation of the code of heroic civility by not allowing it to receive the socially obligatory funeral honors (23.19â26). An exemplary feature of this theme emerges in the last set of speeches in the Iliad when Achilles talks to Priam about returning the corpse of Hector (24.486â670). Aspects of this exchange that stand out are Achillesâ attempt in his famous âtwo jarsâ speech to console Priam (518â551; cf. 527â533) and his display of humanity when he informs Priam that he will return Hectorâs corpse (599â620), in between which is juxtaposed his expression of anger and threat against Priam (560â570, esp. 560, 568â570; cf. 559).
In Aeschylusâ fragmentary Myrmidons of the first half of the fifth century BCE,18 the followers of Achilles address him as âgloriousâ (
In the opening scene of Euripidesâ Hecuba, which takes place after the Trojan War, Polydorus describes the arrival of the Greek fleet on the Thracian coast (35â36), after which the chorus relates how Achillesâ ghost appears (110â112). The chorus recounts the eidolopoiia of Achilles demanding that Polyxena should be delivered to his tomb, which should not remain unhonored: â
Despite Euripidesâ undercutting of the heroic ideal in the speeches of Achilles, he still represents Achilles as a man of action rather than mere words or speeches. In a fragment from Euripidesâ Telephos, Achilles declares himself a man of action (fr. 727c, col. ii, 46â48) after declaring the Greeks to be mere speechifiers and slow to act (43â45), specifically in terms of setting sail for Troy:
E. Teleph. fr. 727c, col. ii, 43â4825αἰεί ÏοÏ᾿ á¼ÏÏá½² νÏÏελεá¿Ï καὶ μέλλεÏε ,ῥήÏÎµÎ¹Ï Î¸á¾¿ á¼ÎºÎ±ÏÏÎ¿Ï Î¼Ï Ïá½·Î±Ï ÎºÎ±Î¸á½µÎ¼ÎµÎ½Î¿Ï Î»á½³Î³ÎµÎ¹ ,Ïὸ δ᾿ á¼Ïγον [ο ]á½Î´Î±Î¼Î¿á¿¦ ÏεÏαίνεÏαι .κἠ[γ ]á½¼ μέν ,á½¡Ï á½Ïᾶ [Ï ]ε ,δÏᾶν á¼ÏÎ¿Î¹Î¼Î¿Ï á½¢Î½ á¼¥ÎºÏ ,ÏÏÏαÏá½¹Ï Ïε Î [Ï Ï ]μιδών ,καὶ ÏÎ»Îµá½»Ï [ομαι
You are forever slothful and delaying;each of you remains seated and makes countlessspeeches, while nothing is ever achieved.For my part, as you see, I am here and prepared foraction, and my army of Myrmidons with me; I shallsail without waiting for the delays of Atreusâ sons.26
In Iphigeneia at Aulis, Achilles imputes his impatience to act to the Myrmidons (817â818). The aforementioned sentiments of Achilles are distinctively reminiscent of Aeneasâ speech to the Achaean hero just prior to their duel on the battlefield in the Iliad (20.200â258), where the Trojan condemns the words of humans (244â258), including of children (244) and women (251â255), as opposed to engaging in martial action (256â258). This contrast between speech and action in regard to Achilles is one that emerges again in late antiquity, as discussed below.
3 Republican and Imperial Latin Literature: The Background of a Mini-Swerve and the Second Major Swerve
Although there are references in Latin literature to Achillesâ greatness as a hero (e.g., Ov. Met. 8.309, 12.163, 13.30, 13.133â134; Ars Am. 2.711; Tr. 1.9.29) and courage (e.g., Hor. Sat. 1.7.14â¯f., Epist. 2.3.120â122; cf. Ars P. 120â122), the major characteristic of his speeches is his warlike fury. Euripidesâ disparagement of Achilles because of his brutality continues to be a marked feature of his characterization in Latin literature of the late republican and Augustan ages (e.g., Cic. Tusc. 1.44.105; Verg. Aen. 2.29, 1.30, 3.87; Catull. 64.343â370; Prop. 2.8.29â30; Ov. Ars Am. 1.681â704, Met. 12.102, 128, 582; Hor. Carm. 4.6.17â20).
The most significant speech of Achilles in Ovidâs Metamorphoses occurs in book 13 when his ghost rails at the Greeks in a threatening manner reminiscent of the heroâs challenge of Agamemnon in the Iliad (cf. Ov. Met. 13.441â444, 449; Hom. Il. 1.188â195, 223â224, 302â303):27
Ov. Met. 13.445â44828âinmemoresâ que âmei disceditisâ, inquit âAchivi,obrataque est me cum virtutis gratia nostrae?ne facite! ut que meum non sit sine honore sepulcrum,placet Achilleos mactata Polyxena manes.â
âAnd you are leaving, Achaeans, forgetful of meâ, he cried,âand your gratitude for my courage has been buried with me?Do not do this! And so that my tomb may not lack its honor,let Polyxena be slain and so appease Achillesâ shade.â
This speech appears in a scene that seems inspired by Euripidesâ Hecuba.29 As in Euripidesâ drama (Hec. 114â115; cf. 40â41), what is at stake from the perspective of Achilles is the honor that should be paid to his tomb through the Greeksâ sacrifice of Polyxena. The overriding sentiment expressed by Achillesâ ghost in Ovidâs rewriting of this eidolopoiia is the same egoistic anger and fierce brutality evident in Euripidesâ version.
In Senecaâs Troades, the Greek herald Talthybius recounts the eidolopoiia of Achillesâ ghost demanding the sacrifice of Polyxena. This peremptory claim of Achillesâ ghost occurs in the Troades, as it does in Euripidesâ Hecuba, in a speech within a speech:
Sen. Tro. 191â19630ite, ite inertes, manibus meis debitosauferte honores, solvite ingratas ratesper nostra ituri maria. non parvo luitiras Achillis Graecia et magno luet.desponsa nostris cinceribus PolyxenePyrrhi manu mactetur et tumulum riget.
Go, go, slothful ones, carry away the honors due myshade; launch your ungrateful ships to sail off over myseas. Greece paid no small price to appease the wrathof Achilles, and she will pay a great cost to avert it.Let Polyxena, betrothed to my ashes, be sacrificedby the hand of Pyrrhus and drench my tomb.
The main Homeric motifs of this speech, honor and anger, which are evident in both the Euripidean (Hec. 114â115; cf. 40â41) and Ovidian (Met. 13.445â448) versions, appear yet again, but with a notable twist, thereby providing a mini-swerve, as it were, in the presentation of Achillesâ storyline. For in Senecaâs dramatic account, it emerges that Polyxena is not merely to be sacrificed to honor Achillesâ tomb but to marry him (Tro. 942â944; cf. 202, 361â365). After Pyrrhus slays Polyxena (1154â1157), the saevus tumulus (1164, âsavage tombâ), which is synonymous with Achillesâ shade himself, immediately sucks her body down and drinks its gore in a macabre display of perverse savagery (1162â1164). Nowhere in the Troades does Achillesâ shade make any mention of either love for Polyxena31 or revenge for being slain by Paris (cf. 347) as a motivation for demanding her death; rather, we are left mainly with this single speech of Achillesâ shade in which he alludes to Polyxenaâs bloody sacrifice on his tomb, which seems motivated by an innate barbarous cruelty on his part.
As discussed above, a first notable poetic swerve is evident in the forty-nine speeches of Achilles in Euripidesâ Iphigeneia at Aulis, which reveal inter alia Achillesâ moral shortcomings and thereby undermine the heroic ideal represented by him in the Iliad. A second major poetic swerve occurs in the late first-century CE in Statiusâ incomplete Achilleid, in which Achilles not only is a hero, a son of a god, and a fierce warrior, as in the Iliad, but he also emerges as a paramour. This potential quality of Achilles as an amorist is hinted at but never fully developed in much earlier representations of Achilles as a lover (Bacchyl. 13.133â137, Epithalamium of Achilles and Deidameia, Ov. Her. 3),32 and especially in Senecaâs Troades, which, as mentioned above, makes various references to marriage (202, 361â365, 942â944). But in the revisionist Achilleid Statius maintains the violent aspect of Achillesâ personality in his rape of Deidamia even as he portrays the hero as a cross-dresser and as a lover.
The six speeches of Achilles in the Achilleid are integral to his characterization and unfolding of the plot. Achilles delivers a soliloquy and a deliberative speech to Deidamania when he forces himself upon her (Achil. 1.624â639 and 1.650â660, respectively); a deliberation to Lycomedes when he is discovered after he selects armour from an array of gifts offered by Ulysses and Diomedes to the maidens of the court (1.892â898, 909â910); a prayer to Thetis during his departure from Scyros (2.17â19); a deliberative speech to Ulysses when the king of Ithaca diverts his thoughts from Deidamia and recites the origins of the Trojan War (2.43â48); and a long narrative speech in which he relates the story of his youth (2.96â167).
In terms of Achillesâ characterization, the first direct speech of Achilles is especially revealing. After raping Deidamia (Achil. 1.642â643), which causes her to weep (645), Achilles appeals to her:
Stat. Achil. 1.650â66034ille ego (quid trepidas?) genitum quem caerula materpaene Iovi silvis nivibusque inmisit alendumThessalicis. nec ego hos cultus aut foeda subissemtegmina, ni primo te visa in litore: cessite propter, tibi pensa manu, tibi mollia gestotympana. quid defles magno nurus addita ponto?quid gemis ingentes caelo paritura nepotes?sed paterâ: ante igni ferroque excisa iacebitScyros et in tumidas ibunt haec versa procellasmoenia, quam saevo mea tu conubia pendasfunere: non adeo parebimus omnia matri.[vade sed ereptum celes taceasque pudorem.33]
I am heâwhy do you fear?âwhom my sea-green mother almostbore to Jove and sent to Thessalian woods and snows to be raised.Nor would I have endured this dress and shameful clothes, if I hadnot first seen you on the seashore. I yielded on your account;for you I spin wool in my hand and bear female tambourines.Why do you weep to be counted as the daughter-in-law ofthe great sea? Why do you moan, you who will give birth to mightygrandsons for the sky? But as for your father, Scyros will bedestroyed by fire and sword, and these walls will be overturned andovercome by swollen storms before you pay for my marriagewith a cruel death. Not entirely do I obey my mother.[Go, but hide and be silent about your defiled chastity.]
What is remarkable here is not only the absence of empathy on the part of Achilles for Deidamia in her position of being sexually violated by him but also his self-absorbed emphasis upon his own lineage. Such references are characteristic of Homeric heroes, including Achilles (cf. Il. 21.187â189), on the battlefield,35 whereas in this speech he boasts about his genealogy to the woman he has raped. Later when Achilles addresses Lycomedes (Achil. 1.892â908, 909â910) and appeals to him to accept the situation, the Greek hero again stresses his ancestry (892â899). In the Achilleid the poetic swerve in the representation of Achilles extends further than his portrayal as a cross-dresser and lover: as revealed in the aforecited speech (1.650â660), he is also a rapist (cf. 645) and destroyer.
Just before Achillesâ address to Lycomedes, the identity of Achilles is exposed when he is drawn to a shield and spear among the proffered gifts (Achil. 1.866â882). Deidamia lets out a wail at the ruse being discovered (885â886), whereupon Achilles pauses and in the words of the narrative, his courage yields to his hidden passion (888, haesit e occulto virtus infracta calore est). In his placatory words to Lycomedes (1.892â908, 909â910), Achilles even suggests that he is willing to set aside his arms and stay in Scyros: me luere ista iube; pono arma et redo Pelasgis et maneo (906â907, âOrder me to atone for this; I put my arms down, return them to the Pelasgians, and will remainâ). These lines suggest on the surface that Achilles is, at the least, willing to stay in Scyros with Deidamia instead of pursuing his traditional role as a fierce warrior who is destined to experience glory on the battlefield before an early death. But this is the last mention of this proposal in the incomplete Achilleid.
4 Late Antique Greek and Latin Literature: The Final Stage Leading to the Third and Greatest Swerve
After the appearance of the Achilleid in the late first century CE, there are no clearly marked out speeches by Achilles in extant Greek and Latin literature until the third century CE.36 Two Greek works, Philostratusâ Heroicus and Vita Apollonii,37 composed in the first half of the third century CE, include six and seven embedded speeches, respectively, of Achilles.38 Here it must be acknowledged that an analysis of Achillesâ role and character in Philostratus must be based partly upon speeches that are âembeddedâ into the direct speeches of the vinedresser and of Apollonius in Heroicus 45â51 and Vita Apollonii 4.16, respectively. As Verhelst observes, âembedded speech has to be analyzed both in itself and for its function in the speech in which it is inserted. A character is, moreover, not always a trustworthy secondary narrator but may represent the words of another character âvery much from his own point of viewâ or may even âpretend to quoteâ, while actually inventing the otherâs words â¦â.39
The short embedded speeches in the Heroicus show Achilles expressing more interest in battle than its spoils (48.5â6); venting characteristic anger (48.7,
The Vita Apollonii presents an account of Apolloniusâ interview with Achilles (4.16). Notwithstanding the seven embedded speeches by Achilles, it is an embedded oratio obliqua of the Greek hero that is of most significance not just for its content but also for its mode of discourse. After Apollonius meets Achilles, the Greek hero first complains of the Thessaliansâ neglect of his tomb by failing to present propitiatory offerings, then bids Apollonius to go to the Thessalians as his envoy and to appeal to them in council to make such offerings.
When Achilles anticipates in the Vita Apollonii that Apollonius is going to ask about the Trojan War, the hero indicates that he will allow five questions to be asked. While the first question (the burial of Achilles), third question (the location of Helen during the Trojan War), and fifth question (Palamedesâ participation in the War) are all of narrative interest, it is Achillesâ answers to the fourth question (the bravery of the Greeks and Trojans) and especially the second question (the sacrifice of Polyxena) that are the most meaningful in terms of Apolloniusâ characterization of Achilles. For his fourth question Apollonius wonders whether Greece has ever produced as many great heroes as Homer says were arrayed against Troy, which prompts the following response (in the form of an embedded speech) from Achilles:
Philostr. VA 4.16
ὠδὲ á¼ÏÎ¹Î»Î»Îµá½ºÏ âοá½Î´á½² οἱ βάÏβαÏοι âá¼Ïη âÏολὺ ἡμῶν á¼Î»Îµá½·ÏονÏο ,οá½ÏÏÏ á¼¡ γῠÏᾶÏα á¼ÏεÏá¿Ï ἤνθηÏε â.40
But Achilles said, âNor were the barbarians much our inferiors, so much did the whole world teem with virtueâ.
Achillesâ response is not only an acknowledgement of the
In the Vita Apollonii it is Achillesâ answer in indirect speech to the second question of Apollonius regarding whether Polyxena had been slaughtered over his tomb that is the most meaningful of all his responses:
â¦
Philostr. VA 4.16ὠδὲ á¼Î»Î·Î¸á½²Ï μὲν á¼Ïη ÏοῦÏο εἶναι ,ÏÏαγá¿Î½Î±Î¹ δὲ αá½Ïὴν οá½Ï á½Ïὸ Ïῶν á¼Ïαιῶν ,á¼Î»Î» âá¼ÎºÎ¿á¿¦Ïαν á¼Ïὶ Ïὸ Ïá¿Î¼Î± á¼Î»Î¸Î¿á¿¦Ïαν καὶ Ïὸν á¼Î±Ï Ïá¿Ï Ïε κá¼ÎºÎµá½·Î½Î¿Ï á¼ÏÏÏα μεγάλÏν á¼Î¾Î¹á¿¶Ïαι ÏÏοÏÏεÏοῦÏαν ξίÏει á½Ïθῷ .
⦠and he [Achilles] said this was true, though she had not been sacrificed by the Achaeans but had come willingly to the sepulchre, and had deemed their mutual passion to be of such worth that she fell upon an upraised sword.
The first aspect that stands out about this passage in the Vita Apollonii is the claim of Achilles that Polyxena sacrificed herself out of their love for each other. In the Heroicus Philostratus also mentions the mutual love of Achilles and Polyxena (51.3) and Polyxenaâs act of throwing herself upon a sword (51.6). The effect of this claim, which is not contradicted elsewhere in the Vita Apollonii and Heroicus, is to absolve Achilles of culpability for her death. This absolution results in yet another potential major swerve in the representation of Achilles since at first glance it poses an exception to the negative aspect of Achillesâ image in classical and late antique literature.
But there is another startling aspect of Philostratusâ narrative about the suicide of Polyxena, especially in the Vitae Apollonii: unlike Achillesâ answers to the other four questions, all of which are expressed in oratio recta, Philostratus couches the response of the Achaean hero to the second question in oratio obliqua. While the tale of Polyxenaâs requited love for Achilles and her suicide seems unattested prior to Philostratus,42 he does not exploit the full narrative potential inherent in Achillesâ claim in the Vita Apollonii that Polyxena is solely responsible for her own death by directly conveying his words in direct speech. Various neuro-linguistic studies have shown that direct speech leads to a stronger mental representation of the exact wording of a sentence than indirect speech does and therefore leads to an enhanced sense of vividness and perceptual engagement on the part of the reader or listener.43 If Philostratus had presented Achillesâ words in direct speech, it would naturally have created a more forceful image in the mind of the implied reader than merely reporting them in indirect speech. The rendering of Achillesâ claim of non-culpability for Polyxenaâs death in oratio obliqua has the effect of detracting from both its force and significance in comparison with his responses in oratio recta to the other four questions of Apollonius. The fact that Achillesâ indirect speech is cited within the embedded speech of Apollonius further diminishes the force and therefore the dramatic effect of the heroâs self-exculpatory comments over the death of Polyxena.
In the Posthomerica, a Greek epic possibly of the third-fourth century CE,44 Quintus Smyrnaeus relates what occurs at Troy after the death of Hector until the departure of the victorious Greeks. Quintusâ characterization of Achilles oscillates around the concept of
The narrative from the perspective (or focalization) of the Myrmidons cites Achillesâ gentleness (cf. Q.S. Posthom. 3.424,
When the Amazons come to the aid of the Trojans after the burial of Hector (Q.S. Posthom. 1.18â¯ff.), Achilles meets and slays Penthesileia on the battlefield (508â674). Achilles mocks and scorns Penthesileia in extreme anger for challenging him to combat not just before he slays her (575â591) but also afterward (644â653), including emphasizing her female sex being more appropriate for womenâs work than for war (cf. 652â653).
Achillesâ speech to Thersites (Q.S. Posthom. 1.757â765), who berates the hero for his grief at the sight of the corpse of the beautiful Penthesileia (723â740; cf. 718â721), is consistent with his violent display of anger when he attacks and kills Thersites (cf. 741â745). Achilles moves instantly (742,
In the third scene featuring a speech and slaying by Achilles, the hero meets and confronts Memnon (Q.S. Posthom. 2.388â548). In quasi-Homeric fashion (cf. Il. 21.187â189), Achilles spends almost all of his one speech to Memnon (Q.S. 2.431â451) stressing his superior lineage (433â450) before promising to drive his spear into his opponentâs liver with his divinely engendered strength (445â456). Achilles issues his martial challenge (â
In the final scene that features Achilles in combat, the hero rages across the battlefield slaughtering numerous Trojans, whereupon he confronts and engages with Apollo (Q.S. Posthom. 3.21â185). In this scene Achilles delivers three speeches (46â52, 68â82, 167â169), of which the most important in terms of his characterization is his angry threat to Apollo to back off or be struck down. After Apollo wounds Achilles (without the agency of Paris) with an arrow in his heel before the Scaean Gate, Achilles collapses to the ground (61â66), whereupon he issues a challenge to his assailant to confront him openly (68â82). As he lies dying, Achilles issues a threat to the Trojans that they will all die at the hands of his avenging spirits (3.167â169). As with all the other speeches prior to Achillesâ death, even at the moment of his death Achilles does not refrain from expressing rage against his enemies (147â174).
Achilles makes an appearance in the final book of the Posthomerica when he appears to Neoptolemus in a dream (14.179â225) and makes a speech to him (185â222). This speech of Achilles evokes obvious reminiscence of his interview with Apollonius in Philostratusâ Vita Apollonii, with which it contrasts notably regarding the cause of Polyxenaâs death. Both passages, however, stress Achillesâ egoistical grievances over the failure of the Thessalians to present offerings to him (Philostr. VA 4.16) and his demand to Neoptolemus that the Greeks must pay sacrifice to his tomb (Q.S. Posthom. 14.210â215). The dual ambiguity apparent in Quintus Smyrnaeusâ characterization of Achillesâ martial prowess (cf. Posthom. 1.741,
Q.S. Posthom. 14.189â20945αἰεὶ δ âá¼ÏγείÏν ÏÏá½¹Î¼Î¿Ï á¼µÏÏαÏο μηδενὶ εἴκÏν ἠνοÏá½³á¿Î á¼Î³Î¿Ïῠδὲ ÏαλαιοÏá½³ÏοιÏι βÏοÏοá¿Ïι 190ÏείθεοΠκαί νύ Ïε ÏάνÏÎµÏ á¼á½»ÏÏονα Î¼Ï Î¸á½µÏονÏαι .Ïá¿Îµ δ âá¼Î¼á½»Î¼Î¿Î½Î±Ï á¼Î½Î´ÏÎ±Ï á½ ÏÎ¿Î¹Ï Î½á½¹Î¿Ï á¼Î¼ÏÎµÎ´á½¹Ï á¼ÏÏινΠá¼Ïθλῷ Î³á½°Ï Ïá½·Î»Î¿Ï á¼ÏÎ¸Î»á½¸Ï á¼Î½á½µÏ ,ÏαλεÏá¿· δ âá¼Î»ÎµÎ³ÎµÎ¹Î½á½¹Ï .ἢν δ âá¼Î³Î±Î¸á½° ÏÏονέá¿Ï ,á¼Î³Î±Î¸á¿¶Î½ καὶ Ïεύξεαι á¼ÏγÏν .κεá¿Î½Î¿Ï δ âοὠÏÎ¿Ï âá¼Î½á½´Ï á¼ÏεÏá¿Ï á¼Ïὶ Ïá½³Ïμαθ âἵκανεν 195ᾧ Ïινι μὴ Î½á½¹Î¿Ï á¼ÏÏὶν á¼Î½Î±á½·ÏιμοÏΠοá½Î½ÎµÎº âá¼Ï âαá½Ïá¿Ï ÏÏέμνον δύÏβαÏόν á¼ÏÏι ,μακÏοὶ δέ οἱ á¼ÏÏÎ¹Ï á¼Ï âαἴθÏá¿ á½Î¶Î¿Î¹ á¼Î½Î·á½³Î¾Î· â¨Î½ â©Î¸ âÎ á½Ïá½¹ÏοιÏι δὲ κάÏÏÎ¿Ï á½Ïηδεῠκαὶ Ïá½¹Î½Î¿Ï ,á¼Îº καμάÏÎ¿Ï ÏÎ¿Î»Ï Î³Î·Î¸á½³Î± καÏÏὸν á¼Î¼á¿¶Î½Ïαι Îµá¼°Ï á¼ÏεÏá¿Ï á¼Î½Î±Î²á½±Î½ÏÎµÏ á¼Ï ÏÏεÏá½±Î½Î¿Ï ÎºÎ»Ï Ïὸν á¼ÏÎ½Î¿Ï .200á¼Î»Î» âá¼Î³Îµ Îºá½»Î´Î¹Î¼Î¿Ï á¼ÏÏο .καὶ á¼Î½ ÏÏεÏὶ ÏÎµÏ ÎºÎ±Î»á½·Î¼á¿Ïι Î¼á½µÏ âá¼Ïὶ ÏήμαÏι ÏάγÏÏ Î´Î±á¿Î¶ÎµÎ¿ Î¸Ï Î¼á½¸Î½ á¼Î½á½·á¿ ,Î¼á½µÏ âá¼Ïθλῷ μέγα Ïαá¿Ïε .Î½á½¹Î¿Ï Î´á½³ Ïοι ἤÏÎ¹Î¿Ï á¼ÏÏÏ á¼Ï Ïε Ïá½·Î»Î¿Ï Ï á¼Ïá½±ÏÎ¿Ï Ï á¼Ï θ âÏ á¼±á½³Î±Ï á¼Ï Ïε Î³Ï Î½Î±á¿ÎºÎ±Ï μνÏομένῳ καÏá½° Î¸Ï Î¼á½¸Î½ á½ Ïι ÏÏεδὸν á¼Î½Î¸Ïá½½ÏοιÏιν 205οá½Î»Î¿Î¼á½³Î½Î¿Î¹Î¿ Îá½¹Ïοιο Ïύλαι καὶ δώμαÏα νεκÏῶνΠá¼Î½Î´Ïῶν Î³á½°Ï Î³á½³Î½Î¿Ï á¼ÏÏὶν á½Î¼Î¿á½·Î¹Î¿Î½ á¼Î½Î¸ÎµÏι ÏÎ¿á½·Î·Ï ,á¼Î½Î¸ÎµÏιν εἰαÏινοá¿ÏιΠÏá½° μὲν Ïθινύθει ,Ïá½° δ âá¼á½³Î¾ÎµÎ¹Î Ïοá½Î½ÎµÎºÎ± μείλιÏÎ¿Ï á¼ÏÏο .
Be foremost of the Argives always; yield in courageto no one. But be led by your elders in council.190Then all will speak to your sound disposition.Revere noble men who are of sound mind, for good men aredisposed to be friends with the good, wicked men with the bad.If your thoughts are good, you will perform good deeds.That man never achieved the heights of Virtue,195whose mind is not righteous. For her trunk is difficultto climb and her long branches stretch high intothe sky. To as many as courage and hard workattend, they reap from their labor delightful fruit,climbing up the renowned tree of well-crowned Virtue.200So be glorious and in your sagacious mind do not cleaveasunder your soul wholly with grief because of misfortune;nor rejoice exceedingly in good fortune. Be kind toyour beloved companions, your sons and your wife,bearing in mind that near men are the gates of205accursed Destiny and the houses of the dead.The human race is like the grass that flowers,the blossom of spring. Some wither, while others bloom;for that reason be kind.
Here Achilles stresses a number of quasi-philosophical concepts, including the importance of combining bravery with virtue, of maintaining an emotional constancy and equilbrium despite the vagaries of human existence, and of being gentle with oneâs family and friends.46
This first part (14.189â209) of Achillesâ speech in the Posthomerica is reminiscent in tone to the part of his embedded speech in Philostratusâ Vita Apollonii in which he claims to resort to gentle counsel in advising the Thessalians not to prove themselves worse men than the Trojans by neglecting his tomb:
â¦
Philostr. VA 4.16Î¾Ï Î¼Î²Î¿Ï Î»á½·á¾³ δὲ á¼ÏιεικεῠÏÏῶμαι ,μὴ á½Î²Ïίζειν ÏÏá¾¶Ï á¼Ï Ïá½° νόμιμα ,μηδὲ ÎºÎ±Îºá½·Î¿Ï Ï á¼Î»á½³Î³ÏεÏθαι ÏÎ¿Ï ÏÏνὶ Ïῶν ΤÏá½½Ïν â¦
⦠so then I furnished gentle counsel and advised [the Thessalians] not to insult established customs, nor to prove they are worse than these Trojans â¦
But in the Vita Apollonii, Achilles precedes this claim of gentle advice with a threat of anger (in embedded speech) against the Thessalians that would result in more deaths than the Greeks had experienced:
Philostr. VA 4.16
ÎεÏÏαλοὶ Î³á½°Ï Ïá½° á¼Î½Î±Î³á½·ÏμαÏα ÏÏόνον ἤδη Ïολὺν á¼ÎºÎ»ÎµÎ»Î¿á½·ÏαÏá½· μοι ,καὶ μηνίειν μὲν οá½ÏÏ á¼Î¾Î¹á¿¶ ,μηνίÏανÏÎ¿Ï Î³á½°Ï á¼ÏολοῦνÏαι μᾶλλον á¼¢ οἱ á¼Î½Ïαῦθά ÏοÏε á¼Î»Î»Î·Î½ÎµÏ â¦
For the Thessalians have been remiss already for a long time in making offerings to my tomb, and I do not yet deem it worthy of myself to be angry against them, for they would be destroyed more comprehensively than the Hellenes ever were here â¦
Whereas in the Vita Apollonii Achilles combines potential wrath with purportedly gentle counsel in his speech, in the Posthomerica he shifts abruptly from dispensing quasi-Stoical advice to Neoptolemus to demanding that Polyxena be sacrificed on his tomb:
Q.S. Posthom. 14.209â22247καὶ á¼ÏγείοιÏιν á¼Î½Î¹ÏÏε ,á¼ÏÏείδῠδὲ μάλιÏÏ âá¼Î³Î±Î¼á½³Î¼Î½Î¿Î½Î¹Î εἴ γέ Ïι Î¸Ï Î¼á¿· 210μέμνηνθ âá½ ÏÏ âá¼Î¼á½¹Î³Î·Ïα ÏεÏὶ Î Ïιάμοιο Ïόληα ἠδ âá½ Ïα ληιÏάμην ÏÏὶν ΤÏώιον οá½Î´Î±Ï ἱκέÏθαι ,Ïῶ μοι νῦν ÏοÏὶ Ïύμβον á¼ÎµÎ»Î´Î¿Î¼á½³Î½á¿³ ÏÎµÏ á¼Î³á½¹Î½ÏÏν Î»Î·á½·Î´Î¿Ï á¼Îº Î Ïιάμοιο Î Î¿Î»Ï Î¾Îµá½·Î½Î·Î½ εá½ÏεÏλον ,á½ÏÏα Î¸Î¿á¿¶Ï á¿¥á½³Î¾ÏÏιν ,á¼Ïεί ÏÏιÏι Ïώομαι á¼Î¼ÏÎ·Ï 215μᾶλλον á¼Ï âá¼¢ Ïὸ Ïá½±ÏÎ¿Ï ÎÏιÏηίδοÏÎ á¼Î¼Ïὶ δ âá¼Ï âοἶδμα κινήÏÏ ÏόνÏοιο ,βαλῶ δ âá¼Ïὶ ÏείμαÏι Ïεá¿Î¼Î± ,á½ÏÏα καÏαÏθινύθονÏÎµÏ á¼ÏαÏθαλίá¿Ïιν á¼á¿Ïι μίμνÏÏ âá¼Î½Î¸á½±Î´Îµ Ïολλὸν á¼Ïὶ ÏÏόνον ,Îµá¼°Ï á½ Îº âá¼Î¼Î¿Î¹Î³Îµ Î»Î¿Î¹Î²á½°Ï á¼Î¼ÏιÏá½³ÏνÏαι á¼ÎµÎ»Î´á½¹Î¼ÎµÎ½Î¿Î¹ μέγα νόÏÏÎ¿Ï Î 220αá½Ïὴν δ â,εἴ κ âá¼Î¸á½³Î»ÏÏιν ,á¼Ïὴν á¼Ïὸ Î¸Ï Î¼á½¸Î½ á¼Î»ÏνÏαι ,κούÏην ÏαÏÏá½»ÏαÏθαι á¼Ïá½¹ÏÏοθεν οὠÏι μεγαίÏÏ .
Now say this to the Argives,most of all the son of Atreus, Agamemnon. If really210they recall in their hearts all my toil around Priamâs walls,and all that I raided before I reached the land of Troy.Now let them meet my wish by leading to my tomb,from Priamâs spoils, beautifully robed Polyxena,to sacrifice her quickly, since my wrath against them is215even greater than it was before over Briseis. The swellof the sea I will set in motion, hurling storm upon storm,so that through their own recklessness they waste away.Here they tarry a long time, until to honor me theypour libations, longing greatly to return home.220As for the girl, if they choose to do so, after takingher life, I do not object to her burial far from me.
The contrast between the two parts of Achillesâ speech, which shifts suddenly halfway through from quasi-Stoic philosophy to fierce brutality, could not be starker. The shift in sentiment far exceeds in dramatic effect the mere combination of potential anger and gentle advice in Achillesâ speech in the Vita Apollonii (4.16).
The second part (14.209â222) of Achillesâ speech in the Posthomerica is reminiscent of the eidolopoiia of Achilles demanding the sacrifice of Polyxena in Euripidesâ Hecuba (114â115), Ovidâs Metamorphoses (13.447â448), and Senecaâs Troades (195â196). Achillesâ demand for Polyxena as his share of the spoils in the Posthomerica (14.213â214) and threat that he would be even more angry than he was over Briseis (215â216,
Scholars have been puzzled by the incongruity of Achillesâ moralizing stance with his subsequent demand that Polyxena be sacrificed upon his tomb.48 For the ethical precepts that Achilles promotes in the first part (Q.S. Posthom. 14.189â209) of his speech to Neoptolemus he is shown to violate in the second part (209â222) in the expression of his macabre demand. While the characterization of Achilles may not change substantially overall in Quintusâ Posthomerica and he may be essentially the same hero, there is something more disturbing that is occurring here in this speech than Achilles just exhibiting his philosophical and moralizing limitations. Indeed, the speech of Achilles to Neoptolemus in Quintus constitutes the third and greatest swerve in the heroâs characterization among all the poets in terms of the gap between what he espouses in ethical and philosophical terms and what he actually seeks to make happen. In the Iliad Phoenix mentions his mentoring of Achilles to be âa speaker of words and a doer of deedsâ (Il. 9.443,
5 Conclusion
The foregoing discussion has briefly traced the development of Achillesâ representation in his speeches from Homer to late antiquity and delineated what I describe as the poetic and prose âswervesâ and âmini-swervesâ in his characterization as revealed in his direct and embedded speeches. A diachronic analysis of Achillesâ direct and embedded speeches shows that major swerves in Achillesâ characterization occur in his speeches in the Iphigeneia of Aulis and Hecuba of Euripides, Statiusâ Achilleid, and Quintus Smryaneusâ Posthomerica, while there is a mini-swerve in Achillesâ speeches in Senecaâs Troades that becomes a major swerve in the Achilleid. Notwithstanding an oratio obliqua of Achilles in Philostratusâ Vita Apollonii that presents the Achaean hero favorably through his claimed lack of culpability for the death of Polyxena, these swerves in Achillesâ direct and embedded speeches ultimately serve to bring into question his Homeric characterization as a hero and even to undermine the nature of the heroic ideal itself.49 Ultimately, as Liliana Pégolo so aptly explains, Achilles becomes a human and ethical model to be dismissed because of a lack of what Foucault famously calls âself-cultivationâ.50
Acknowledgements
This study was financed by national funds through the FCT (Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia), Portugal through the project âLate Achilles in the Classroom and Courtâ (PTDC/LLT-LES/30930/2017) of the Centre of Classical Studies at the University of Lisbon. This chapter is one of a number of publications to be produced on Achilles as a result of the research undertaken by the projectâs participants. I express my gratitude to Berenice Verhelst (Amsterdam), Christopher Forstall (Mount Allison), Deborah Beck (Texas) and Fotini Hajdjittofi (Lisbon) for their insightful feedback on earlier drafts of this chapter. I also wish to thank the participants for their helpful comments at the first and second DICES workshops held at the University of Rostock (2022) and Mount Allison University (2023). Finally, I acknowledge with appreciation the financial assistance of the Centre for Classical Studies at the University of Lisbon that made it possible for me to attend both of these workshops.
Ed. Anderson 1981.
All English translations of Latin and Greek texts are my own; lines of Greek and Latin dactylic hexameter (thirteen to seventeen syllables) have been translated into English verses of eleven to fifteen syllables (with five or six stresses per line).
It is not my aim here to treat at length what constitutes a hero (or anti-hero). Marks (2009, 529) describes an epic hero as âthe character around whom the action of the epic principally revolves, and in what we may call the ethico-cultural sense, i.e. âheroâ defined as the character who best represents the ethical and cultural ideals of his societyâ. The first half of this definition obviously applies to Achilles in the Iliad, while the second half is problematic, since Achilles does not necessarily âbest represent the ethical and cultural ideals of his societyâ, at least insofar as various writers in antiquity perceive him, as discussed in this chapter.
A âswerveâ refers to a deviation or shift from previous portrayals in the representation of Achilles. This change manifests in various ways, including a contrasting positive or negative portrayal of Achilles compared to earlier depictions or the introduction of a new dimension to his characterization. A âswerveâ can be viewed as a âcorrectiveâ movement that branches off from an established representation of Achilles and thereby reshapes the readerâs understanding of him. A âmini-swerveâ refers to a smaller or subtler deviation in the portrayal of Achilles compared to a âswerveâ. The âminiâ aspect of the mini-swerve arises from a shorter length of change (in the sense of a less dramatic shift) whose impact upon the characterization of Achilles is therefore less significant than a âswerveâ.
My use of the term âswerveâ may bring to mind the use of the word by Bloom (1971, 14) to refer to the way a poet deviates from the path of his precursor in the form of a âcorrective movementâ in his poem; the idea originates with Lucretius (DRN 2.217â219), who describes the arbitrary swerve of atoms (clinamen) that makes a change of motion possible. A recent scholar who employs this term is Greenblatt (2011, 7), who describes the reappearance itself of Lucretiusâ De Rerum Natura as a âswerve, an unforeseen deviationâ from its ostensible pathway toward oblivion.
My purpose is not to discuss the style of Achillesâ speeches in archaic, classical and late antique literature; for an analysis of the style of Achillesâ speech in Homerâs Iliad, see Friedrich, Redfield 1978. On the language of Achilles in the Iliad, see, e.g., Parry 1956; Scully 1984; and Martin 1989; on Achilles and his characterization in the epic, see, e.g., Schein 1984 and Zanker 1994.
For this study epic speeches were located using the DICES database (
The dates of late antiquity suggested by scholars vary greatly (cf. Brown 1971, passim, esp. 206â209; Clark 2011, esp. 10; Pazdernik 2015, 375â406); for the purposes of this discussion, 200 to 800 CE are considered to be the boundaries of the dates of the texts examined.
Only literary works that contain speeches of Achilles are discussed in this chapter. I endeavour to cite all Greek and Roman works from Homer to late antiquity that include speeches of Achilles, but due to the limitation of space I have had to set aside my discussion of his less significant speeches in the Tusculan Disputations (1.44.105, 3.9.18â19), the Ilias Latina (989â995; ed. Kennedy 1998), and the Ephemeris Belli Troiani (3.25, 4.11; ed. Eisenhut 1973)âgratias to Roberto Chiapiniello (Manchester) for this practical suggestion. In addition, the many scholastic ethopoiiai of Achilles, which are deserving of their own treatment, are excluded from consideration for the same reason. For a list of preserved ethopoiiai of Achilles by Libanius of Antioch, Severus of Alexandria, Dioscorus of Aphrodito, and Pseudo-Nicolaus of Myra, as well as those that appear in the Anthologia Latina and Anthologia Palatina (and elsewhere anonymously), see Amato and Ventrella 2005.
Dominik 2002, 192. My monograph study (Dominik 1994) on speeches in Statiusâ Thebaid examines the background and formulation of the speeches, their role in the narrative and thematic design of the epic, and other matters pertaining to their form, function and meaning, including rhetorical- and nonrhetorical-type speeches, the revelation of character in the speeches, and elements of style in the speeches.
De Jong 2004, 149. Although this study does not explicitly utilize narratological methodology, it engages with narratological theories of characterization by examining how the evolution of Achillesâ speeches influences our understanding of his character across different texts and periods. An analysis of Achillesâ speeches highlights the dynamic interplay between narrative, character development, and thematic transformation, a connection that underscores the role of narrative structure in shaping his portrayal. In doing so, this study demonstrates the broader implications of narrative choices on character interpretation, a process that can be described as narratological. See De Temmerman, Van Emde Boas 2018 for narratological theory on characterization.
In comparison, Hector makes forty-nine speeches and Agamemnon forty-seven.
Iliad 16.839â841. For a recent systematic treatment of the speeches in Homeric epic, see Beck 2012.
Iliad 1 (eleven speeches), 9 (five speeches), 16 (six speeches), 18 (six speeches), 19 (nine speeches), 20 (seven speeches), 21 (seven speeches), 22 (six speeches), 23 (twenty-three speeches), and 24 (seven speeches). Figures are based upon the speeches cited in the prototype of the DICES database (
Ed. Allen 1931.
In this Homeric sense Achilles represents the âheroic idealâ, though some of his actions do violate the principles of the heroic code, as mentioned just below in respect of his initial refusal to permit the burial of Hector. On Achilles and heroic values, see, e.g., Sale 1963; for a recent discussion of Homer and the heroic ideal, see Kirichenko 2022, 27â62. My sense of Achilles as a hero is similar to that of Kirichenko (2022, 18, 27â40), who contends that Achilles epitomizes the heroic ideal (cf. p. 40) and that âthe Iliad conceives of the status of Achilles as a shared object of emulation ⦠by presenting his success in battle as an index of his heroic essenceâ (p. 18).
Cf. Griffin 1980, 74.
I thank Martina Delucchi (Naples) for bringing the speeches of Achilles in the fragments of Aeschylusâ Myrmidons, Euripidesâ Telephos (see below, this section), and Pap. Oslo 1413 (see below, p. 334, n. 36) to my attention.
Ed. Sommerstein 2009, 136â137 (fr. 131); 140â143 (132c).
On Achilles in the tragedies of Euripides, see Michelakis 2022, 58â143, 150â162.
Ed. Murray 1902, Vol. 3.
Ed. Murray 1902, Vol. 1.
This theme of Achilles demanding (verbally or by textual implication) the sacrifice of Polyxena on his tomb appears frequently in Greek and Latin literature (e.g., Hyg. Fab. 10, Catull. 64.366â371, Dio Chrys. Or. 11.153, Daretis Phrygii de Excidio Troiae Historia 43, Auson. Epitaph. 27, Serv. ad Verg. Aen. 3.321) beyond the works mentioned below, but only those scenes that feature actual speeches of Achilles are examined here.
The Greek texts appear as indicated in the editions cited in the footnotes, except that any upper-case letters at the beginning of sentences have been altered to the lower case; a proper noun is always printed with an upper-case letter regardless of its position in the sentence; and any iota adscripts in the Greek texts cited have been changed to iota subscripts.
Ed. Collard, Cropp 2009, 222.
All Latin and Greek hexametric verses (13â17 syllables per line) have been translated into English lines of eleven to fifteen syllables.
In Metamorphoses 12 Achilles also delivers four speeches (80â81, 106â114, 120â121, 177â181) that are replete with bellicose anger (cf. 102, 128) during his duel combat with Cycnus, the son of Neptune.
Ed. Anderson 1981.
See Papaioannou 2007, 207â251.
Ed. Peiper, Richter 1902.
Since the motifs of the dead unmarried woman as a bride of Hades and of the sacrifice as a marriage have their roots in Greek tragedy, for example, in Euripidesâ Iphigeneia at Aulis (Seaford 1987, esp. 108â110), it can be argued that we would not necessarily expect Achillesâ love to be a reason for her betrothal (cf. desponsa, 195), but nonetheless the absence of such motivation is significant in purely human terms.
Cf. Fantuzzi 2012, esp. 39â59, 125â145.
A spurious line (661) left out of most manuscripts.
Ed. Marastoni 1974.
Cf. Heslin 2005, 165; Edwards 1991, 313â315 ad Il. 20.200â258.
Almost as an accompaniment to (and bridge between) imperial Latin and late antique literature, a Greek fragmentary papyrus of unknown provenance known as Pap. Oslo 1413 (see Eitrem, Amundsen, in Eitrem et al. 1955; Pöhlman, West 2001, 124â130), perhaps from the late first or second century CE (Eitrem, Amundsen, in Eitrem et al. 1955, 4; cf. Pöhlman, West 2001, 128), features musical notation and poetic text of what is possibly the opening scene of a Hellenistic drama about Philoctetes based upon the version of Sophocles (Eitrem, Amundsen, in Eitrem et al. 1955, 24). The fragment includes an epiphany of Achillesâ ghost (no. 39 = lines 1â15), whose appearance frightens the Trojan women who seemingly are lying in wait to slay Neoptolemus at Achillesâ tomb (lines 6â15): Eitrem, Amundsen, in Eitrem et al. 1955, 11â13; Pöhlman, West 2001, 129. Unfortunately the fragments are not complete enough to permit a conjecture as to the content of Achillesâ words (cf. Eitrem, Amundsen, in Eitrem et al. 1955, 12).
I thank Berenice Verhelst (Amsterdam) for bringing the passages featuring the speeches of Achilles in Vita Apollonii 4.16 to my attention as well as for her helpful remarks on this section.
Excluded for the reason of space is my discussion of the speeches in the fourth-century Latin novel Ephemeris Belli Troiani (3.25, 4.11; ed. Eisenhut 1973).
Verhelst 2017, 34â35.
Ed. Kayser 1870.
Cf. Grossardt 2009, 88 and n. 44, who maintains that Apollonius is ânot simply being generous but rather corrected a misguided interpretation of the Iliadâ, by which he means âthe Greek scholiasts with their famous but erroneous claim
Grosshardt 2009, 85 and n. 37.
E.g., Yao et al. 2011; Eerland et al. 2013.
On the dating, see Baumbach, Bär 2007, 2â8.
Ed. Vian 1969.
A number of scholars (e.g., Byre 1982; Maciver 2012, 79â83; Scheijnen 2018, 324â329; Greensmith 2020, 264â268) have commented upon the parallel of this passage with the allegory of the mountain of Arete depicted on Achillesâ shield.
Ed. Vian 1969.
E.g., King 1987, 138.
Similar studies of major mythological figures such as Heracles and Odysseus that endeavour to trace their speeches from Homer to late antiquity (or beyond) could prove useful in assessing the import of the vicissitudes of their representations as heroes throughout literary history.
Pégolo 2013, 278; cf. Foucault 1984, passim for his discussion of âle souci de soiâ.
Bibliography
Allen, T.W., ed. (1931). Homeri Ilias, Vols. 2â3. Oxford.
Amato, E., and Ventrella, G. (2005). Lâéthopée dans la pratique scolaire et littéraire. In: E. Amato and J. Schamp, eds., Ethopoiia. La représentation de caractères entre fiction scolaire et réalité vivante à lâépoque impériale et tardive, Salerno, pp. 213â231.
Anderson, W.S., ed. (1981). P. Ovidii Nasonis Metamorphoses. Leipzig.
Baumbach, M., and Bär, S. (2007). Quintus Smyrnaeus. Transforming Homer in Second Sophistic Epic. Berlin.
Beck, D. (2012). Speech Presentation in Homeric Epic. Austin, TX.
Bloom, H. (1973). The Anxiety of Influence. A Theory of Poetry. New York.
Brown, P. (1971). The World of Latin Antiquity. AD150â750. London.
Byre, C. (1982). Per Aspera (et Arborem) ad Astra. Ramifications of the Allegory of Arete in Quintus Smyrnaeus Posthomerica 5.49â58. Hermes 110, pp. 184â195.
Clark, G. (2011). Late Antiquity: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford.
Collard, C. and Cropp. M., eds. and trs. (2009). Euripides VIII. Fragments: Oedipus-Chrysippus, Other Fragments. Cambridge, Mass./London.
De Temmerman, K. and Van Emde Boas, E., eds. (2018). Characterization in Ancient Greek Literature. Studies in Ancient Greek Narrative IV. Leiden.
Dominik, W.J. (1994). Speech and Rhetoric in Statiusâ Thebaid. Hildesheim/Zürich/New York.
Dominik, W.J. (2002). Speech in Flavian Epic. In: P. Defosse, ed., Hommages à Carl Deroux, Vol. 1: Poésie, Brussels, pp. 183â192.
Edwards, M.W. (1991). The Iliad. A Commentary. Volume V: Books 17â20. Cambridge.
Eerland, A., Engelen, J.A.A., and Zwaan, R.A. (2013). The Influence of Direct and Indirect Speech on Mental Representations. PLoS One 8.6, e65480. (https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.006548)
Eisenhut, E., ed. (1973). Dictys Cretensis Ephemeridos Belli Troiani Libri a Lucio Septimio ex Graeco in Latinum sermonem translati. Leipzig.
Eitrem, S., Amundsen, L., and Winnington-Ingram, R.P. (1955). Fragments of Unknown Greek Tragic Texts with Musical Notation. Symbolae Osloensis 31.1, pp. 1â87 (Eitrem, S., and Amundsen, L., The Text, pp. 1â29; Winnington, R.P., The Music, pp. 29â87).
Fantuzzi, M. (2012). Achilles in Love. Intertextual Studies. Oxford.
Foucault, M. (1984). Histoire de la sexualité, Vol. 3: Le souci de soi. Paris.
Friedrich, P., and Redfield, J. (1978). Speech as a Personality Symbol. The Case of Achilles. Language 54.2, pp. 263â288. (https://doi.org/10.2307/412947)
Greenblatt, S. (2011). The Swerve. How the Renaissance Began. New York.
Greensmith, E. (2020). The Resurrection of Homer in Imperial Greek Epic. Cambridge.
Griffin, J. (1980). Homer on Life and Death. Oxford.
Grossardt, P. (2009). How to Become a Poet? Homer and Apollonius Visit the Mound of Achilles. In: K. Demoen and D. Praet, eds., Theios Sophistes. Essays on Flavius Philostratusâ Vita Apollonii, Leiden, pp. 75â94. (https://doi.org/10.1163/ej.9789004171091.i-408.14)
Heslin, P. (2005). The Transvestite Achilles. Gender and Genre in Statiusâ Achilleid. Cambridge.
De Jong, I.J.F. (2004). Narrators and Focalizers. The Presentation of the Story in the Iliad. 2nd ed. London.
Kayser, C.L., ed. (1870). Flavii Philostrati Opera, Vol. 1. Leipzig. Repr. 1964.
Kennedy, G.A., ed. and tr. (1998). The Latin Iliad. Introduction, Text, Translation, and Notes. Fort Collins.
King, K.C. (1987). Achilles: Paradigms of the War Hero from Homer to the Middle Ages. Berkeley.
Kirichenko, A. (2022). Greek Literature and the Ideal. The Pragmatics of Space from the Archaic to the Hellenistic Age. Oxford.
Maciver, C.A. (2012). Quintus Smyrnaeusâ Posthomerica. Engaging Homer in Late Antiquity. Leiden.
Marastoni, A., ed. (1974). P. Papini Stati Achilleis. Leipzig.
Marks, R.D. (2005). Silius Italicus. In: J.M. Foley, ed., A Companion to Ancient Epic, Oxford, pp. 528â537. (https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470996614.ch39)
Martin, R.P. (1989). The Language of Heroes. Speech and Performance in the Iliad. Ithaca, NY/London.
Michelakis, P (2022). Achilles in Greek Tragedy. Cambridge.
Murray, G., ed. (1902) Euripidis Fabulae, Vols. 1, 3. Oxford.
Papaioannou, S. (2007). Redesigning Achilles. âRecyclingâ the Epic Cycle in the âLittle Iliadâ (Ovid, Metamorphoses 12.1â13.622). Berlin.
Parry, A. (1956). The Language of Achilles. TAPhA 87, pp. 1â7. (https://doi.org/10.2307/283867)
Pazdernik, C.W. (2015). Late Antiquity in Europe c. 300â900 CE. In: C. Benjamin, ed., The Cambridge World History, Vol. 4: A World with States, Empires, and Networks, 1200 BCEâ900 CE, Cambridge, pp. 375â406. (https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139059251.016)
Pégolo, L. (2013). Immitis Achilles. Sexualidad y violencia en los Commentarii de Servio a la Eneida. Habis 44, pp. 269â279.
Peiper, R. and Richter, G., eds. (1902). L. Annaei Senecae Tragoediae. Leipzig.
Pöhlmann, E. and West, M.L. (2001). Documents of Ancient Greek Music. Oxford.
Seaford, R. (1987). The Tragic Wedding. JHS 107, pp. 106â130.
Scheijnen, T. (2018). Quintus of Smyrnaâs Posthomerica. A Study of Heroic Characterization and Heroism. Leiden.
Schein, S.L. (1984). The Mortal Hero. An Introduction to Homerâs Iliad. Berkeley.
Scully, S. (1984). The Language of Achilles. The ÎΧÎÎΣÎΣ Formulas. TAPA 114: 11â27.
Sommerstein, A.H., ed. and tr. (2009). Aeschylus III. Fragments. Cambridge, Mass./London.
Verhelst, B. (2017). Direct Speech in Nonnusâ Dionysiaca. Narrative and Rhetorical Functions of the Charactersâ âVariedâ and âMany-Facetedâ Words. Leiden.
Vian, F., ed. and tr. (1969). Quintus de Smyrne. La suite dâHomere, Vol. 3. Paris.
Yao, B, Belin, P., and Scheepers, C. (2011). Silent Reading of Direct Versus Indirect Speech Activates Voice-selective Areas in the Auditory Cortex. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 23, pp. 3146â3152. (https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn_a_00022)
Zanker, G. (1994). The Heart of Achilles. Characterization and Personal Ethics in the Iliad. Ann Arbor.