?HE USE OF ABs1[RA(;T NOUNS IN HOMERIC

DESCRIPTIONS OF ‘CHARACTER’

By Michael Coffey

Onc of the func t ions of t he a b s t r a c t noun i n Homer i s t o expres s va r ious q u a l i t i e s of men and women. Some of these q u a l i t i e s seem t o be p a r t of what marks them a s i n d i v i d u a l s , d i f f e r e n t from o t h e r s i n the poems. There are two ways of p r e s e n t i n g ‘ cha rac t e r ’ i n Homer. The ind iv idua l i s presented e i t h e r indirectly i n t he n a r r a t i v e by h i s own a c t i o n s or directly by what i s s a i d about him; the p re sen t s tudy i s concerned f o r t h e most p a r t with t h e l a t t e r method. Direct d e s c r i p t i o n i s e i t h e r included i n t h e t h i r d person n a r r a t i v e of t h e poems or pu t i n t o the mouth of some speaker . I n t h e Iliad and t h e Odyssey d e s c r i p t i o n s i n t h e n a r r a t i v e of t h e q u a l i t i e s of an i n d i v i d u a l are r a r e the most noteworthy example i s t h e d e s c r i p t i o n of T h e r s i t e s (11. 2 1 6 f f . ) : ’ ‘he was t h e bases t man who went t o Troy’ , and the d e s c r i p t i o n of h i s phys ica l u g l i n e s s and moral dep rav i ty i s p a r t o f t h e n a r r a t i v e . 2 Much more f r equen t ly however such d e s c r i p t i o n s occur i n speeches i n Oratio Recta which con ta in some comments on t h e behaviour and n a t u r e of t h e person who is being addressed. and the Odyssey t h e r e are n e a r l y s i x times as many a b s t r a c t nouns i n the speeches as i n t h e n a r r a t i ~ e . ~ Almost a l l t h e a b s t r a c t nouns which desc r ibe the q u a l i t i e s of i n d i v i d u a l s occur i n t h e speeches.

I n a s s e s s i n g t h e use o f t he a b s t r a c t noun as p a r t of a d e l i b e r a t e technique of p re sen t ing t h e i n d i v i d u a l , a s with a l l o t h e r words and ph rases used f o r t h i s purpose,’ i t is necessary t o i n q u i r e whether t h e q u a l i t y a t t r i b u t e d t o him is confined t o a s i n g l e a c t i o n , or &ethe r i t has s i g n i f i c a n c e a s a gene ra l des- c r i p t i o n beyond t h e immediate contex t . Fu r the r , as such a d e s c r i p t i o n i s u s u a l l y addressed t o him by some one e l se i n t h e poem, it i s a l s o necessary t o cons ider t h e temper of t he speaker , and t o ask whether t he comment i s coloured by anger or some o t h e r pass ion t h a t a r i s e s out of t h e immediate s i t u a t i o n , or h e t h e r ’ i t i s a judgement wi th some measure of o b j e c t i v i t y . Th i s procedure i s p a r t i c u l a r l y necessary i n speeches of abuse, where the speaker ’s comments a r e o f t e n more r e l evan t t o h i s own anger than t o the o b j e c t of h i s abuse. An o b v i m s example of t h i s is Agamemnon’s abuse of Diomedes f o r cowardice (IV. 3 7 0 f f ) ; here both Sthenelus’ r e p l y and the sequel show t h a t Agamemnon’s speech does n o t c o n t r i b u t e t o t h e ‘ c h a r a c t e r i z z t i o n ’ of Diomedes. A l l t hese cavea t s must be considered i n examining passages i n which a b s t r a c t nouns a r e used t o d e s c r i b e t h e behaviour of i n d i v i d u a l s ; each example must be judged independ- e n t l y , as so much depends on t h e d a t a i l e d i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of words i n r e l a t i o n t o t h e i r contex t .

An i n t e r e s t i n g s tudy by Per Krarup has shown t h a t i n t h e I1 iad

There i s however no d i s t i n c t i o n i n phraseology whether something e s s e n t i a l i s being s t a t e d about a person a s a unique i n d i v i d u a l o r n o t . Nor is any d i s - t i n c t i o n made between s i n g u l a r and p l u r a l i n t h e use of a b s t r a c t nouns t o des- c r i b e human behaviour; t he c t i t e r i o n he re seems t o be no th ing o t h e r ihan

31

m e t r i c a l convenience, and t h e p l u r a l s should n o t be expla ined as ‘ a sum o f qua l i - f i e d a c t s amounting t o a q u a l i t y ’ . Only nouns i n - t q and - 0 6 v q a r e r e l e v a n t t o t h i s s tudy .

Nouns i n -(q

I n t h e p h r a s e n p o e u k i y a L nEnoL€& (11.5881, used o f Menelaus u r g i n g h i s t r o o p s t h e a b s t r a c t noun does n o t s i g n i f y a q u a l i t y t h a t marks ou t Menelaus a s a on

unique i n d i v i d u a l . The q u a l i t y could be a sc r ibed t o any h e r o i c w a r r i o r , and t h e whole phrase seems modelled on t h e m e t r i c a l l y condi t ioned formula khxt n s n m h c . The a b s t r a c t noun xappoviq d e s c r i b e s a s i n g l e a c t i o n . One of t h e t w t v occur rences o f t h e word i n Homer may be e l imina ted immediately, a s i t does n o t r e f e r t o a p a r t i c - u l a r person (XXIII.661). I n the o t h e r i t i s pu t i n t o t h e mouth of Hector, who i s addres s ing A c h i l l e s (XXII.257): a; X E V . !$poi Z E ; ~ / 8&q xappov&qv. T h i s i s n o t t o be regarded a s an i n n e r q u a l i t y of Hector , but something e x t e r n a l g ran ted by an o u t s i d e power, namely, Zeus. The meaning i s ‘endurance’ , o r r a t h e r , a s s t a t e d i n t h e A S c h o l i a ( a . l . 1 , ‘ v i c t o r y by endurance’ , i . e . , an e x t e r n a l c i rcumstance and n o t a psychologica l s t a t e ; t h e form of t h e sen tence i n which t h e noun occur s i n both i n s t a n c e s seems t o be based on sen tences such a s FaipLwv ... 8&q 8 ’ & & p o i o l YE vlxqv (VI I .291f . ) . The noun xappovlq t h e r e f o r e does n o t s i g n i f y a pe r sona l q u a l i t y . S i m i l a r l y ApqxavCq used of Odysseus’ p l i g h t when t h e Cyclops seizes two o f h i s companions and ea t s them (9.295) r e f e r s t o t h e immediate event on ly , r e p r e s e n t i n g ?he man a t t h e mercy of t h e s i t u a t i o n . Here a l s o t h e a b s t r a c t noun does n o t s i g n i f y a pe r sona l q u a l i t y .

Sometimes the a b s t r a c t noun i n t h e d a t i v e seems equ iva len t t o an adverb. The ghos t o f Amphimedm complains t h a t Odysseus bade h i s wi fe o f f e r t h e wooers t h e bow ‘out of g r e a t c r a f t i n e s s (noXuxsp8Elqobv - 24.16’). The a b s t r a c t noun d e s c r i b e s t h e a l l e g e d a c t i o n , bu t n o t n e c e s s a r i l y a q u a l i t y of’ Odysseus.6 I n t h e same way Euryc le i a t e l l s Penelope t h a t she has recognized Odysseus, but t h a t he prevented h e r from r e v e a l i n g t h e t r u t h t o h e r mistress o u t o f h i s g r e a t c r a f t of mind ( ~ T O X U X E P ~ E C ~ O ~ V ~ O L O - 23.77 ; v.1. T C O ~ U ~ ~ ~ E ~ ~ U L ) . Again the a b s t r a c t i s almost e q u i v a l e n t t o an adverb. The noun nohupqxav iq i n i t s only occurrence i n Homer d e s c r i b e s an a c t i o n r a t h e r than a q u a l i t y . Odysseus t e l l s of t h e w i l e s and con- t r i v a n c e s of C i rce ( 8 6 x 0 ~ noxupqxaviqv T E - 23.321 ) ; t h i s occurs i n t h e n a r r a t i v e o f a ser ies of a c t i o n s , and i n t h i s r e c a p i t u l a t i o n of Odysseus’ adven- t u r e s Circe i s mentioned i n t h i s l i n e only. The word r e f e r s t o h e r a c t i o n s , and does n o t d e s c r i b e h e r q u a l i t i e s . 7

I n t h e q u a r r e l scene i n Iliad I A c h i l l e s asserts to Athene t h a t Agamemnon w i l l soon l o s e h i s l i f e f o r h i s arrogance (hnEponh&qoL - 1 .205 j . The a b s t r a c t noun r e f e r s t o a s i n g l e example of a r rogan t behaviour; i t i s equ iva len t t o c p p b v i n l i n e 203. I ts presence impl i e s no more than a r rogan t behaviour i n t h e con tex t o f t h e q u a r r e l scene. I n a d d i t i o n A c h i l l e s i s p a s s i o n a t e l y angry (188) ; and so t h e word may n o t even be taken a s an o b j e c t i v e comment on Agamemnon’s behaviour i n t h i s scene.

I n c o n t r a s t wi th a l l t h e examples given so f a r i s t h e noun zohuY6pe;aL used R ~ V T ’ .!$cpdXaoaE V ~ O U

It is aga in p o s s i b l e t o t ake t h e a b s t r a c t noun a s equiv- i n a d e s c r i p t i o n of t h e nurse Euryc le i a i n t h e n a r r a t i v e : nohu’itipsiqoev (2 .346) . a l e n t to. an adverb; but he re i t denotes a genera l q u a l i t y of Euryc le i a . The

32

d e s c r i p t i o n does n o t a r i s e ou t of a p a r t i c u l a r s i t u a t i o n , a s i t occurs a t t h e beginning of a scene, i n p rov i s ions f o r h i s voyage. Elsewhere e a r l y i n t h e O d y s s e y Eurycle ia is des- c r ibed c a r e f u l l y ; a t t he f i r s t mention of h e r ( 1 . 4 2 9 f f . ) i t is s t a t c d how she came t o be i n t h e household, and t h a t Lae r t e s never s l e p t with he r . Though a minor f i g u r e , she has an important p a r t i n t he O d y s s e y , and is more than once p laced i n a p o s i t i o n o f t h e h i g h e s t t r u s t .

The word I;qcTvopiq (14.217) i s used i n a speech of Odysseus i n d i s g u i s e , h i s mendacious account t o Eumaeus of h i s e a r l y l i f e , thc autobiography of t h e Cretan p i r a t e . He says t h a t Athene gave him t h e a b i l i t y t o break thraugh ranks , j u s t as Ares gave him e&pooc; t h e fo l lowing s i x l i n e s d e s c r i b e h i s i n t r e p i d vigour on a l l occas ions i n b a t t l e , The a b s t r a c t noun hqgqvopdq denotes a genera l q u a l i t y t h a t he showed whenever he f-ought.’ The whole o f t he speech (14.192) f . ) is an e l a b o r a t e r h e t o r i c a l a t tempt t o convince Eumaeus of t h e t r u t h o f t h i s completely bogus p o r t r a i t ; it con ta ins t h e most concen- t r a t e d use i n the whole of Homer of terminology of a l l k inds f o r d e s c r i b i n g thd: q u a l i t i e s of an i n d i v i d u a l .

Agamemnon i n r e p l y t o Nes to r ’ s cri t icisms of Menelaus comments:

which Telemachus g ives h e r i n s t r u c t i o n s t o make

The word &cppa66;1 is used with a nega t ive t o d e s c r i b e Menelaus (X.122).

~ O X X ~ ~ L y&p ~ E ~ L S C TCE x a t o t x A e g x E ~ n o v g e a e a i ,

&hh’&p& T ’ E ~ ~ O P ~ W V x a t Ap+v I T O Z L S & ~ ~ C E V O ~ b p p i v . OcT’8XV(fl E’ixWV OC‘C’ &cppCXF;?JoL V 6 O b 0 ,

(X. 121-3).

He then adds t h a t on t h i s occasion hcwever Menelaus has taken t h e i n i t i a t i v e h imsel f . Here it i s clear from t h e use of t he word nohh&x~ t h a t t h i s i s a genera l judgement on Menelaus, t h a t he i s n o t cowaTdly or l a c k i n g i n sense , bu t i s l ack ing i n i n i t i a t i v e . The word Acppa8l-q denotes a nega t ive q u a l i t y , and i s i t s e l f negat ived. Other examples of a b s t r a c t nouns denot ing nega t ive q u a l i t i e s t h a t a r e themselves nega t ived a r e iound i n t h e Twentyfourth Book of t h e Odyssey, i n which Odysseus i n d i s g u i s e comments on Lae r t e s ’ s k i l l i n gardening ( & 6 a q p o v t q - 24.244) and h i s lack of i d l e n e s s ( h e p y l q - 24.251).

The noun &yqvopiq , which occurs t h r e e times i n the I l i a d , is important a s a means of d e s c r i b i n g t h e ind iv idua l . I t i s used i n t h e s i m i l e i n which Hec to r ’ s f i e r c e n e s s is compared t o t h a t of a wi ld animal t h a t t u r n s on t h e p r e s s o f hounds and h u n t e r s t h a t surround i t ; i t s f i e r c e n e s s d e s t r o y s it:

&yqvopiq 6 6 ~ L V gxTa

(‘XII. 46) .

In Book XXII of t h e I l i a d Andromache h e a r s t h e sound of lamenta t ion from t h e wa l l s , and f e a r s f o r Hector. She i s a f r a i d t h a t A c h i l l e s has c u t him o f f on t h e p l a i n and p u t an end t o t h e f i e r c e n e s s t h a t would possess him:

C. .....I xai S? ~ L V x a z a n a G q &yqvopiqc & h c y c ~ u . ~ i ~ , y p L v ; X E m ’

( ~ ~ 1 1 . 4 5 7 - 8 ) .

33

She then e x p l a i n s how Hector used t o show t h i s q u a l i t y o f f i e r c e n e s s : ' f o r he would n e v e r remain i n t he t h r o n g o f men, bu t would rush o u t f a r i n f r o n t , y i e l d i n g t o none i n h i s ~ & L o s ' . Both t h e l i n g u i s t i c e x p r e s s i o n ( t h e f r e q u e n t - a t i v e v e r b s ) and t h e sequence of thought ( t h e grounds fo r Andromache's d r e a d ) show t h a t t h i s is a g e n e r a l judgement about Hector , a p p r o p r i a t e t o i t s o c c a s i o n but having a wider r e f e r e n c e . H e c t o r ' s f i e z z e n e s s i s mentioned i n a n o t h e r scene i n which Andromache i s anxious f o r him. t h e i r meet ing on t h e w a l l i n R o ~ ~ i c V I . Here he r f i r s t words t o Hector are:

S C L L ~ ~ V L E , C ~ O ~ O E L (SE T'S a ' s v pdvo<

( V I 407)

Hector r e p l l e s t h a t h i s h e a r t r e f u s e s t o l e t him be cowardly, a s he h a s l e a r n t t o be brave on a l l o c c a s i o n s ( & ' E ' , ) and t o f i g h t i n t he f o r e f r o n t o f t h e T r o j a n s (444-5). I n b o t h these p a s s a g e s b a l d f i e r c e n e s s i s a c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of Hector i n t h e immediate c o n t e x t and a l s o w i t h r e f e r e n c e t o what i s beyond, and i n Book XXII t h e a b s t r a c t noun & y q ~ s p l q i s used t o c o d i f y t h i s q u a l i t y .

by Diomedes i n I l i a d I X a f t e r t he f a i l u r e of t h e embassy t o A c h i l l e s ; i n t h i s i n s t a n c e t h e word seems t o have t h e f u r t h e r n o t i o n of hauteur . ' Diomedes t e l l s Agamernnon t h a t he wishes he had n e v e r t r i e d t o win A c h i l l e s o v e r :

The word & y q v o p l q is used o f A c h i l l e s i n a speech a d d r e s s e d t o Agamemnon

b F'&y{vwp k a ~ ; xa:, & h h w g . Vu"V p b V EOh; @.hhOW &y'r lVSp~TJOLv & V q X a S

(IX.699-100).

Here a d i s t i n c t i o n i s made between Achi l les ' acd t h e i n t e n s i f i c a t i o n o f i t i n t h e p r e s e n t c o n t e x t .

q u a l i t y o f b e i n g A y i m p i n genera l

I n t h e f i g h t o v e r t h e body o f P a t r o c l u s Menelaus e x h o r t s Meriones and t h e A j axes :

V U ' V 'TbS & V ' ? l E : & q < 11IY.'KpOX~<O< 8EL~O"LO - pV'rl(S&Oew* I&LV y&p 6 7 1 $ 0 * K C t ' K 0 p & l h b X O < E E V U L

LA, b & v .

( X V I I . 670-2)

The a b s t r a c t q u a l i t y ~ V T E I ~ ( t h e word d o e s n o t o c c u r e l s e w h e r e i n Homer) i s e x p l a i n e d by t h e s e n t e n c e t h a t fo l lows: a l i v e ' . T h i s i s t h e f i r s t mention of P a t r o c l u s ' g e n t l e n e s s , a c h a r a c t e r i s t i c unusua l f o r a h e r o i c w a r r i o r . T h i s p a s s a g e by i t s e l f may be t a k e n a s a p i e c e of r h e t o r i c €or t h e o c c a s i o n , p a r t of a speech o f e x h o r t a t i o n w i t h no f u r t h e r r e f e r e n c e . However t h e cognate a d j e c t i v e A v q < c i n t h r e e o f i t s f o u r o c c u r r e n c e s i n t h e Iliad d e s c r i b e s P a t r o c l u s , t he g e n t l e companion of A c h i l l e s . The p h r a s e : &*ra;pov ... & v q & x TE xpaTep6v TE o c c u r s twice, once on t h e l i p s o f Zeus ( Y V I I 204) and once spoken by Lycaon, a son of Pr iam (XXI 9 6 ) . The former of these p a s s a g e s may be taken a s an o b j e c t i v e comment w i t h o u t any rhe tbr ic . The word i s a l s o used i n t h e d e s c r i p t i o n o f P a t r o c l u s ' t h e whitened bones o f h i s g e n t l e companion' (XXIII 2 5 2 ) . The word ; i n e o < a l s o o c c u r s i n t h e Funera l Games o f P a t r o c l u s (XXIII 281) i n a speech i n which A c h i l l e s s ays t h a t the b r s e s lament f o r P a t r o c l u s , t h e i r g e n t l e c h a r i o t e e r ,

' f o r he w a s k i n d l y t o a l l w h i l e he was

f u n e r a l : ' 'weeping t h e y g a t h e r e d '

34

who very o f t en bathed t h e i r manes in pure water and poured F i n a l l y B r i s e i s concludes he r lament f o r Pa t roc lus :

o n them.

T G ~ ’ ~ ~ ( L O T O V x h a l w . rEevq6-ra1 k ~ i ~ t , X o v a s L E i

(XIX 30C)

The sen tence con ta ins the e p i t h e t ( L E ~ ~ L X O G t h a t was used of P a t r o c l u s i n Menelaus’ speech. In h e r lament she r e f e r s t o something t h a t i s o u t s i d e t h e events n a r r a t e d i n t h e Iliad: when h e r k in were k i l l e d , i t was P a t r c c l u s who at tempted t o console h e r , and promised h e r t h a t she would become the wife of Ach i l l e s .

The evidence f o r t he sys t ema t i c p o r t r a y a l of P a t r o c l u s a s g e n t l e has a cumulative weight. I t i s s t a t e d e x p l i c i t l y i n a speech by Menelaus t h a t P a t r o c l u s had the q u a l i t y of A v q ~ l q , because he was g e n t l e i n h i s l i f e t i m e . The B Scho l i a (on XVII 670) g ive some examples of t h i s from h i s a c t i o n s i n the Iliad: he l i s t e n s cour t eous ly t o Nes tor , t ends t h e wounded Eurypylus wi th s o l l i c i t o u s ca re and weeps before Ach i l l e s . Thus d i r e c t and e x p l i c i t d e s c r i p t i o n of t h e t r a i t of gen t l eness corresponds t o Pa t roc lus ’ ac t ions i n t h e Iliad. After Menelaus’ exhor t a t ion t h e r e a r e r e fe rences t o Pa t roc lus ’ gen t l eness towards both Briseis and h i s ho r ses ; i n both examples the c i r - cumstances of h i s gen t l eness a r e s p e c i f i e d . I n a d d i t i o n he i s given t h e e p i t h e t & v q i s t h r e e times.

U n t i l he i s s e n t t o v i s i t Nes tor i n Book X I he i s a c o l o u r l e s s lackey with- ou t recognizable c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . A t two p l a c e s t h e r e a r e r e fe rences forward t o h i s f a t e (VI I I 476 and X I 604) , but t hese a r e concerned with the shape of t h e s t o r y and no t with h i s i nd iv idua l q u a l i t i e s . I n XI he suddenly becomes i n t e r e s t i n g , when Nes tor reminds him of t h e day when Menoit ius gave him i n s t r u c t i o n s t o be Ach i l l e s ’ a d v i s e r ( 7 8 5 f f . ) . Th i s r e fe rence t o something o u t s i d e t h e s t o r y of t h e Iliad has an immediate r h e t o r i c a l purpose, namely, t o persuade him t o h e l p win over A c h i l l e s , a purpose which i s no t without some success (see 804). In t h i s scene Pa t roc lus is given p o s i t i v e q u a l i t i e s f o r t h e f i r s t t i m e . Then fo l low t h e even t s r e f e r r e d t o i n the Scho l i a men- t i m e d above. I n h i s aristeia P a t r o c l u s i s j u s t a h e r o i c w a r r i o r without

1 0 i n d i v i d u a l t r a i t s , bu t aga in a f t e r h i s dea th , a s Professor Gomme says , ‘ h i s gen t l eness i s s t r e s s e d ’ . T h i s t r a i t of gen t l eness i s f i r s t r e f e r r e d t o e x p l i c i t l y i n t h e t e x t by t h e use of t he a b s t r a c t noun L v q e l q i n i t s only occurrence i n the Homeric poems.

The method by which P a t r o c l u s i s p resen ted i n the IZiad i s noteworthy.

Nouns in - a G v q

The most important example o f an a b s t r a c t noun i n -oGvq t h a t d e s c r i b e s an i n d i v i d u a l i s &yavoypoaGvq, which occurs i n t h e lament f o r Hector (XXIV 772) .11 The e l a b o r a t e scene of lamentat ion i s i n t h r e e p a r t s . F i r s t Androm- ache begins the lament ( 7 2 3 f f . ) ; she has f e a r s f o r h e r c h i l d a t t he hands of some Greek angry w i t h Hector f o r having s l a i n a kinsman:

06 ykp ~ E i h L X Q S tiop naT+ TEbG L v 8a.i huypfi

(739)

35

T h i s s e n t i m e n t i s r e l a t e d t o her f e a r s f o r Hector on account, o f h i s f i e r c e n e s s i n b a t t l e , a q u a l i t y t h a t h a s been c o n s i d e r e d above. The second p a r t o f t h e lament i s t h a t o f Hecuba f o r h e r f a v o u r i t e son. The t h i r d p a r t i s by Helen, who s a y s t h a t i n a l l t h e y e a r s s i n c e s h e l e f t home s h e n e v e r h e a r d a bad o r r a s h word from H e c t o r ( 7 6 5 f f . ) . If e v e r any o t h e r o f h i s k i n e x c e p t Pr iam, who w a s always g e n t l e t o h e r , a t t a c k e d h e r , he u s e d t o r e s t r a i n them by h i s k i n d l i n e s s and k i n d l y words:

& I & o'u T'OV LnEeoa L napai,q?.ksvog xa.rkpuxeg, of T' A y a v o y p o a C v v xa'i oois d r y a v o ~ g k n d e o o . ~ , *

(77 1.-2

The word A y a v o y p o o c v q o c c u r s here o n l y i n t h e I1 tad. l 2 H i s k i n d l i n e s s was towards Helen, who g i v e s a s an i n s t a n c e of i t h i s i n t e r v e n t i o n whenever s h e was b e i n g i n s u l t e d . Such an i n t e r v e n t i o n does n o t t a k e p l a c e i n t h e Iliad. The o n l y meet- i n g of t h e two i s t h e b r i e f c o u r t e o u s c o n v e r s a t i o n i n VI, when Helen i n v i t e s Hector t o s i t down ( e s p . 3 5 4 f f . l . So t h e d e s c r i p t i o n of Hector by Helen a s p o s s e s s i n g & y a v o y p o o G v q towards h e r i s n o t based on a n y t h i n g i n t h e poem, b u t i t i s q u i t e c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h e one s h o r t meet ing o f t h e two t h a t i s r e l a t e d i n t h e Ibtad. H e l e n ' s speech o f lament c o n t a i n s r h e t o r i c , f o r i t e x p r e s s e s h e r own sorrow, and t h e lament a s a whole p r e s e n t s the l o s s o f Hector a s i t a f f e c t s t h e t h r e e mourning women. The p a s s a g e c o n t a i n s t he o n l y explicit s t a t e m e n t o f H e c t o r ' s k i n d l i n e s s i n t h e Iliad, a q u a l i t y t h a t i s r e p r e s e n t e d a s i n d i v i d u a l and u n i q u e , i n t h a t w i t h t h e e x c e p t i o n of Priam he a l o n e among the T r o j a n s showed i t towards Helen. I t would o f c o u r s e be p o s s i b l e t o f i n d i n s t a n c c s o f H e c t o r ' s k i n d l i n e s s ~ r n p l ~ c ~ t l y i n h i s a c t i o n s i n t h e Iliad, a s , f o r example, h i s concern f o r h i s w i f e and c h i l d i n V I ( e s p . 3 6 5 f f . ) . What i s e x p l i c i t l y s t a t e d about H e c t o r else- where i n t h e poem i s t o t he c o n t r a r y , such a s Andromache's f e a r s i n consequence of h i s f i e r c e n e s s i n b a t t l e . Once a g a i n however t h e u s e o f a r a r e a b s t r a c t noun c o d i f i e s a permanent q u a l i t y o f an i n d i v i d u a l , i n t h i s example towards a par - t i c u l a r person .

Other nouns i n -oGvq t h a t d e s c r i b e i n d i v i d u a l human behaviour a r e o f l e s s impor tance . cpbhocppoo6vq (IX 256) o c c u r s i n a gnomic s t a t e m e n t : cprhocppooGvq yap ~ ~ L E ~ V ( I ) L J . & e o ~ c p p o o 6 v q (15 ,470) i s u s e d i n t h e d a t i v e a s e q u i v a l e n t t o an a d v e r b of Eumaeus kidnapped a s a c h i l d ; t h e meaning i s ' i n c h i l d i s h t h o u g h t l e s s n e s s ' (Prlonro). We may compare t h e o c c u r r e n c e s o f x s p S o o 6 v q (XXII 247) 4.251, 1 4 - 3 1 ) , and a l s o t h e u s e o f o a o y p o o C v q i n t h e d a t i v e of a p r u d e n t a c t i o n by Telemachus ( 2 3 3 0 ) ; i n i t s o t h e r o c c u r r e n c e ( 2 3 , 1 3 ) oaocppooGvq i s p a r t o f a gnomic s t a t e - ment, l i n e 1 4 ) . ~ a h ~ c p p o o 6 v q (16.310) o c c u r s i n a speech of Telemachus, i n which he e x p l a i n s t h a t he w i l l r e v e a l t h e r e t u r n of h i s f a t h e r t o no-one, a s s e r t i n g t h a t h i s f a t h e r w l l l know h i s m e t t l e a t a l a t e r s t a g e too:

f ,

though E u r y c l e i a i s r e f e r r e d t o by i m p l i c a t i o n ( see e s p

06 JLSV y&p Z L X a X L y p o o 6 v a L yd ~ ' ~ X O U U L U .

Telemachus' beyond t h e immediate c o n t e x t ( x a i '&%FLT& y 8 -309) , b u t n o t h i n g s p e c i f i c i s men- t i o n e d . ( 1 9 . 3 9 6 ) . T h i s comment o c c u r s i n t h e n a r r a t i v e , and seems t o be i n t e n d e d a s a d e s c r i p t i o n o f a permanent c h a r a c t e r i s t i c o f Auto lycus , a s t h i e v i s h n e s s i s c a l l e d a g i f t from Hermes.

l a c k o f f o l l y i s a q u a l i t y which a c c o r d i n g t o h i s promise h e r e o p e r a t e s

xhsn . roo6vq i s one o f t h e q u a l i t i e s i n which Auto lycus o u t d i d a l l men

The a b s t r a c t noun is thus used t o desc r ibe e x p l i c i t l y q u a l i t i e s of an ind iv idua l which have s i g n i f i c a n c e beyond the s i t u a t i o n i n th:: passage i n which they occur . Examples have been examined i n which some q u a l i t y , such a s f i e r c e n e e s or gen t l eness , i s a t t r i b u t e d t o one person i n t h e poems by another with re ference t o a repea ted a c t i o n . Usual ly such a c t i o n s correspond t o t h e kind of a c t i o n s t h a t t he same person performs i n t h e n a r r a t i v e : & y q v o p i q i s a t t r i b u t e d t o Hector ; t h i s i s c o n s i s t e n t wi th such a c t i o n s a s h i s l eade r sh ip i n a t t a c k i n g t h e Greek defences. I n t h e lament of Hector however h i s k i n d l i n e s s towards Helen i s based on a c t i o n s t h a t a r e n o t n a r r a t e d wi th in t h e Iliad.

How f a r t h e formulat ion of t hese q u a l i t i e s imp l i e s c o n s i s t e n t ‘ c h a r a c t e r - i z a t i o n ’ i s a d i f f i c u l t ques t ion . A s noted above, Pa t roc lus ’ gen t l eness i s mentioned a f t e r h i s dea th i n a number o f passages. On t he o t h e r hand modern work on Homeric psychology13 has shown t h a t e x t e r n a l f o r c e s such a s d i v i n e i n t e r v e n t i o n s have a l a r g e in f luence on the psychologica l l i f e of Homeric man, and t h e r e f o r e t h e assumption of abso lu t e c o n t i n u i t y of p e r s o n a l i t y i n a Homeric ‘ cha rac t e r ’ needs q u a l i f i c a t i o n . I n a d d i t i o n i t i s neccssary t o pay a t t e n t i o n t o t h e c r i t e r i a formulated by Miss A.M. Dale i n h e r admirable d i scuss ion of c h a r a c t e r s and a c t i o n i n Greek drama: t h e ‘ t r e n d of t h e a c t i o n and t h e r h e t o r i c of the s i t u a t i o n ’ . l 4 These c r i t e r i a are va luab le f o r e p i c a l s o , even though Homeric e p i c by i t s s c a l e a l lows a l e i s u r e l y d i s p l a y of a h e r o ’ s a c t i o n s through n a r r a t i v e and d e s c r i p t i o n s of h i s Le- haviour by o t h e r s i n speeches t o an e x t e n t t h a t i s n o t p o s s i b l e i n drama. The trend of the action is r e l e v a n t t o the d e s c r i p t i o n of A c h i l l e s as posses s ing &yqvoplq a t the end of I X , f o r i t is t h a t q u a l i t y which p reven t s a r e c o n c i l i a t i o n a t t h e meeting wi th t h e Embassy, and s o is one of t he main f a c t o r s i n the development of t h e s t o r y . Helen’s r e fe rence t o Hec to r ’ s kind- l i n e r s towards h e r i s coloured by the rhetoric of the situation: she laments t h a t t h e r e i s now no-one who w i l l be kind t o h e r ; s i m i l a r l y i n d e s c r i b i n g Hec to r ’ s f i e r c e n e s s i n b a t t l e Andromache f e a r s f o r h e r s e l f and f o r h e r c h i l d .

However w e i n t e r p r e t t h e cumulative e f f e c t of t h e s e e x p l i c i t d e s c r i p t i o n s of var ious men and women i n the poen of t h e i r nar ra ted a c t i o n s , i t is c l e a r t h a t a b s t r a c t nouns, u s u a l l y words which occur once or twice i n the Iliad and t h e O d y s s e y , a r e important 8 3 a means of desc r ib ing human q u a l i t i e s . They are used t o cod i fy a s p e c t s of t h e behaviour and n a t u r e of t h e i n d i v i d u a l , and a r e o f t e n found i n speeches p laccd a t p o i n t s of t he h i g h e s t t ens ion i n the n a r r a t i v e . They show t h e de l - i b e r a t e u se of a l i n g u i s t i c form as p a r t o f t h e technique of Homeric poe t ry .

when taken i n conjunct ion with t h e sum

1 5

Unive r s i ty Col lege London.

Notes: ( 1 ) Books of the Iliad are c i t e d by Roman numcrals , t h o s e o f t h e Odyssey by Arabic numerals . ( 2 ) Even i n t h i s example p a r t o f t h e d e s c r i p t i o n of T h e r s i t e s i n the n a r r a t i v e corresponds t o t h e abuse o f him by Odysseus ( I I . 2 4 6 f f . l .

( 3 ) There are e x c e p t i o n s , such a s N e s t o r ’ s comments t o Agamemnon on Menelaus ( X . 1 1 4 f f . I and P a t r o c l u s ’ comments t o N e s t o r on A c h i l l e s ( X I . 6 4 9 f f . ) . ( 4 ) Per Krarup, ‘Verwendung von Abstracta i n der d i r e k t e n Rede b e i Homer’, Class. et Med. 1 0 . 1 ( 1 9 4 8 ) p p . l f f . On a b s t r a c t nouns i n g e n e r a l i n Homer s e e : E . R i s c h , Wortbildung der honeris hen Sprache ( B e r l i n 1937) e s p . p p . l O 6 f f . and p p . 1 3 8 f . ; P . Cauer, Grundfragen der H o n e r b r i t i j ( 1 9 2 3 ) p p . 4 3 6 f f . ,

37

J e n s H o l t , L e s noms d’action en -UL< /-TI,<) ( A a r h u s 1 9 4 0 ) p p . 6 7 f f . ; Denys P a g e , The Homeric Odyssey ( O x f o r d 1 9 5 5 ) p . 1 5 0 and p . 1 6 1 n . 1 3 . p r e s e n t i n g ‘ c h a r a c t e r ’ ( f o r e x a m p l e , t h e u s e o f a d j e c t i v e s , p s y c h o l o g i c a l terms and d i v i n e g i f t s ) i s by W . Marg , Der Charakter in der Sprache der frzhgriechischen Dichtung ( W c r z b u r g 1 9 3 8 ) . One may however r e j e c t t h e e x t r e m e s c e p t i c i s m o f some o f M a r g ’ s c o n c l u s i o n s , see t h e r e v i e w by H . F r a n k e l ( A J P 6 0 , 1 9 3 9 , p p . 4 7 5 f f . ) . Marg d o e s n o t d i s c u s s t h e u s e o f a b s t r a c t n o u n s . ( 6 ) The c o r r e s p o n d i n g a d j e c t i v e ~ o X U X E ~ ~ ~ < i s u s e d o f O d y s s e u s ’ t e m p e r ( 1 3 . 2 5 5 ) a s d e s c r i b e d t o him by A t h e n e i n a p a s s a g e wh ich c o n t a i n s many d e v i c e s f o r p o r t r a y i n g O d y s s e u s . ( 7 ) Though t h e a b s t r a c t noun n 0 1 ~ p q p ~ h l is n o t u s e d o f O d y s s e u s , t h e c o r r e s p o n d i n g a d j e c t i v e i s v e r y f r e q u e n t i n b o t h t h e Iliad a n d t h e Odyssey a s a s t o c k e p i t h e t i n t h e f o r m u l a i c l i n e : ~ L O Y E V E G AaEp.r:L&Gri, .rrohup~Xav’ ’OGU~~JEG t o g e t h e r w i t h t h e m i n o r v a r i a n t a t 2 4 . 1 9 2 . T h e r e i s however o n e e x c e p t i o n t o t h e f o r m u l a i c u s e . A thene -Men tes p r o m i s e s T e l e m a c h u s t h a t O d y s s e u s w i l l d e v i s e a way t o r e t u r n : C ~ P ~ U E T ~ L GG XE v&q‘taL, &‘L noXup{xav6< & L V ( 1 . 2 0 5 ) . Here t h e s t o c k e p i t h e t i s t r a n s - fo rmed i n t o a p r e d i c a t i v e a d j e c t i v e , e x p r e s s i n g s o m e t h i n g t h a t may be c a l c u l a t e d u p o n , i . e . , a p e r m a n e n t c h a r a c t e r i s t i c . Compare t h e u s e o f t h e p r e d i c a t i v e a d ‘ e c t i v e t o e x p r e s s a p e r m a n e n t c h a r a c t e r i s t i c a t 1 3 . 3 3 2 . f o r m u l a i c e p i t h e t o f A c h i l l e s f o u r t i m e s i n t h e Iliad a n d o n c e i n t h e Odyssey. ( 9 ) The m e a n i n g o f t h e noun may be s e e n f rom t h a t o f t h e a d j e c t i v e . The A S c h o l i a t o I X 699 s t a t e - t h a t t h e word may d e n o t e a p r a i s e w o r t h y or b lamewor thy q u a l i t y . The a r e a o f m e a n i n g seems t o be ’ p o s s e s s i n g r u t h l e s s c o u r a g e i n p a r t i c u l a r a c t i o n s ’ u s e d i n t h e l a t t e r s e n s e o f L a o m d o n (XXI 4 4 3 ) , who r e f u s e d t h e g o d s payment f o r t h e i r h e l p i n b u i l d i n g t h e w a l l s o f T r o y , p o s i t i o n s o f t h e w o o e r s i n t h e Odyssey. ( 1 0 ) A.W. Gomme, The Greek Attitude t : Poetry :nd History ( B e r k e l e y and Los A n g e l e s , 1 9 5 4 ) p . 2 0 . ‘pLhqpoa;vq. w o r l d , where i t r e f e r s t o O d y s s e u s ’ k i n d l i n e s s t o w a r d s h e r i n g e n e r a l w i t h o u t a n y i n s t a n c e s b e i n g g i v e n . ( 1 3 ) On o u t s i d e i n t e r v e n t i o n see E . R . Dodds , The Greeks and the Irrational ( B e r k e l e y a n d Los A n g e l e s , 1 9 5 1 ) p p . 8 f f . , and H . S c h w a b l , ‘ Z u r S e l b s t a n d i g k e i t d e s Menschen b e i Homer ’ , Wiener Studien 67 ( 1 9 5 4 ) p p . 4 6 f f . On Homer ic man i n g e n e r a l see B. S n e l l , The Discovery of the Mind ( O x f o r d 1 9 5 3 ) c h a p t e r s 1 a n d 3 , and H . F r E n k e l , Dichtung u n d Philosophie des frl’hen Oriechentums (New York 1 9 5 1 ) p p . 9 l f f . ( 1 4 ) A . M . D a l e , Euripides Alcestis ( O x f o r d 1 9 5 4 ) p p . x x i i f f . ( 1 5 ) I am g r e a t l y i n d e b t e d t o P r o f e s s o r T .B .L . W e b s t e r f o r h e l p i n t h e p r e p a r a t i o n o f t h i s a r t i c l e .

(5) The mos t i m p o r t a n t s t u d y o f t h e l i n g u i s t i c means o f

4 ( 8 ) The c o r r e s p o n d i n g a d j e c t i v e pqlgivop i s u s e d s o l e l y a s a

a n d a l s o ‘ a r r o g a n t o f d i s p o s i t i o n ’ . I t i s

a n d i n t h i s s e n s e a l s o w i t h weakened f o r c e i n v a r i o u s f o r m u l a i c

( 1 1 ) See H e s y c h i u s , s . v . : & y o t e q g , n p a T < , ( 1 2 ) I t i s a l s o f o u n d a t 1 1 . 2 0 3 i n a s p e e c h by O d y s s e u s ’ m o t h e r i n t h e u n d e r -

38