1.1The âdisastrous requestâ (XV. 597): Zeus and Thetis
âLes dieux hellĂ©niques sont des Puissances, non des personnes.â
Vernant 1965, 274
In the first book12 Zeus leads the gods as they all go together to Olympus (ÏÏáœžÏ áœÎ»Ï
ÎŒÏÎżÎœ ጎÏαΜ ÎžÎ”Îżáœ¶ αጰáœČÎœ áŒÏÎœÏΔÏ13 / ÏÎŹÎœÏÎ”Ï áŒ
Όα, ÎΔáœșÏ ÎŽâ ጊÏÏΔ· I. 494â514): they are returning from the land of the Aethiopians15 (where they enjoyed a feast). Zeus appears here as a primus inter pares, but when Thetis reaches him she finds him sitting apart from the others (I. 498â99):
she found the deep thunder-voicing son of Kronos sitting
apart from the others upon the highest peak of rugged Olympus.16
Confronted with Zeusâ leadership of the gods in the previous passage, his isolation on the highest peak of Olympus, where he sits apart from the other gods, is emphatically stressed. The geographical emphasis, âon the highest peak of Olympus,â designates figuratively not only Zeusâ uniquely preeminent position of authority among the gods, but also his clear separation from all the other gods17 and his privacy, expressed by that detail âsittingâ which in Homer often denotes metaphorically the individualâs separation from othersâ activities (see for instance I. 421, 488, etc.).18
The diĂȘgĂȘsis (the Musesâ narrative in the hands of the Iliadic Narrator) at 498 defines Zeus as ΔáœÏÏÎżÏα ÎÏÎżÎœÎŻÎŽÎ·Îœ, âson of Kronos with deep thundering voiceâ:19 both epithets deserve our attention, since this selection is the Narratorâs authorial choice in a non-epiphanic address line.
This epithet recalls Zeusâ control of the sky and specifically both the thunder by which Zeus often communicates his will to mortals, and the lightning by which he often terrorizes mortals. The text figuratively combines Zeusâ mastery in the sky with his monarchic power over gods and mortals: his descent from Kronos, the monarch of the Titans, qualifies him to hold such power. Finally, his uniqueness and isolation characterizes his function as master of destinies, since he will decide, in secret and apart from the other gods, the victory of the Trojans. All three functions of Zeusâ polyvalent Might are here recalled.
The Narrator selects here Kronides and, immediately after, with the same freedom of choice, Îία ÎÏÎżÎœÎŻÏΜα áŒÎœÎ±ÎșÏα (âZeus, lord, son of Kronosâ)20 on line 502, and ÎÏÎżÎœÎŻÏÎœ, âson of Kronos,â on line 528. Though these epithets are frequent in the Iliad, the emphatic repetition of Kronosâ paternity of Zeus in so few lines could be significant. As this paternity designates primarily not a biological relationship, but rather carries a social and religious connotation, these epithets celebrate Zeus as the supreme might among the gods, as Kronos once was. Kronides and KroniĂŽn are never used for any other gods, but only for Zeus, though of course some of the other Olympian gods (Hades, Poseidon, Hera, Demeter) are also sons and daughters of Kronos.21
In Hesiod, Zeus is basileus (king) and in the Iliad, Zeus is anax (king, savior, protector),22 never basileus. Wackernagel (see DELG s.v. basileus) assumed that basileus is a more recent word than anax.
Kronosâ insistently and almost uniquely declared paternity of Zeus must also suggest Zeusâ stronger force and his greater religious and political dominance. Zeus defeated Kronos and keeps him prisoner (VIII. 478â81): accordingly, the insistent mention of Kronos functions also as an insistent assertion of Zeusâ unmatchable power.
The combination of Zeusâ âdeep-thundering voiceâ with his unique religious and political dominance, both of which separate him from his brothers and sisters, decreases the anthropomorphic and familial features of Zeus. It projects his image up high as a natural phenomenon of the sky and simultaneously as the absolute holder of political and fatal power. The context, however, preserves some anthropomorphic color, since the ritual of supplication is essentially a human ritual, and Thetisâ request of honoring her son steeps her demand in a family-related context.23 The text keeps silent on the menace that Thetis could have been for Zeus, had he generated a child with her. This silence is preserved during the whole supplication scene.
With these remarks on the anthropomorphic features of the two gods in this scene, I intend to recall Detienneâs arguments about the impropriety and incorrectness of some of our understanding of the anthropomorphism of the Greek gods.24 Some of their typical behavior and characteristics contest what we understand about their human-likeness: the fact that the god was thought of as inhabiting his/her own statue or image should create some caution in using that definition. In the Iliad we see Thetis emerging from the sea âas mistâ: this is probably not a metaphor, but a form she takes to emerge from the waves. Athena descends from Olympus as a meteor and as such she reaches the ground. Accordingly, the epithets that describe Zeus as a sky and storm god, while he acts and speaks as a person, do not sound simply âtraditionalâ and passively employed: they attach to him a larger dimension that is not anthropomorphic. This larger dimension is present even if it is obscured or ignored in the necessary dramatization of family relationships, dialogues, and actions.25 I am aware of the complexity of the problem that I am here simply touching upon.
As Thetis, a sea goddess, suddenly reaches Zeus, the god of thunder, she crouches beside him and accomplishes ritual supplication by embracing his knees with her left hand and by grasping his chin from below with her right hand (I. 500â03).26
If Thetis displays such a dramatic and self-humiliating gesture, she must realize that she is going to require from Zeus an almost impossible decision, a crazy one, which will create troubles for him. Indeed, it implies the breaking of the traditional alliance of Zeus with the Achaeans. She has no powerful arguments to persuade him: she apparently knows of no ethical principle, justice for instance, into which she may inscribe the fact that Agamemnon has dishonored Achilles by stealing his prize.27 She only demands reparation, an action that may re-establish Achillesâ honor.28 Her arguments are emotionally grounded on this point (I. 503â510):
Zeus father,29 if ever before in word or action
I did you favor among the immortals, now grant me this wish:
honor my son, who has the shortest life among all.30
Agamemnon has dishonored him, has taken and holds his prize.31
Come! Do him honor, Olympian clever and efficient Zeus,32
grant victory to the Trojans33 until the Achaeans
give my son compensation and increase him in honor.34
Thetisâ first argument refers, very discreetly, to the favor that Thetis, as Achilles has recalled (I. 396â406), did to Zeus when she helped to save him from the plot organized by Hera, Athena, and Poseidon.35 She does not mention it explicitly, and thus Zeus can impute whatever value he will to her past assistance. She must conclude that the argument, grounded on the reciprocity of favors (do ut des), does not have great force, since when she repeats her supplication she alludes to it only very indirectly. She has no other explicit arguments with which to persuade Zeus, but the audience does, and the reader may detect some implicit innuendos. First, Thetisâ hint that Achilles has the shortest life among all may silently allude to the myth according to which Zeus saves himself by not marrying Thetis, as he was ready to do, and from whom he would have generated an immortal son stronger than himself.36 It is, however, important to notice that this allusion, if it is there, is remote: mentions or recalls of Zeusâ amorous life are almost completely nonexistent in the Iliad: the large exception, in book XIV, is caused by Aphroditeâs magic erotic band and is intended to show its exceptionality (see Ch. 5.3). In the Iliad, Zeusâ concerns are fully addressed to his fatal and monarchic roles.
Such an allusive hint would have no persuasive power, but rather would cause an emotional response by the audience, since they see Thetis as a pathetic and marginal goddess, mother of a mortal son, instead of the glorious one that she could have had.
Thetisâ strongest persuasive argument is that Agamemnon has dishonored Achilles and that therefore Zeus should help to re-establish Achillesâ honor. For Zeus can help, and his help would efficiently change the situation: âCome! Do him honor, Olympian clever and efficient Zeus!â (áŒÎ»Î»áœ° ÏÏ ÏÎÏ ÎŒÎčÎœ ÏáżÏÎżÎœ áœÎ»ÏÎŒÏÎčΔ ΌηÏίΔÏα ÎΔῊ). Out of the sixteen occurrences of the noun-epithet ΌηÏίΔÏα ÎΔÏÏ, the epithet enhances sometimes the intellectual value of metis, sometimes its connotation of efficiency. At I. 175 Agamemnon shouts to Achilles to leave the war, as he has threatened to do: I, he says, will not remain alone since there are other leaders with me âwho will honor me and above all clever...