The Iliad – the Poem of Zeus

Pietro Pucci

• Editore: De Gruyter
• Anno: 2018
• ISBN:
  9783110601541
• Edizione: 1
• Argomento: Literature
• Categoria: Ancient & Classical Literary Criticism

The scholarly tendency has too often weakened the conspicuous novelty and originality that characterizes Zeus in the Iliad. This book remedies that tendency and depicts the extraordinary figure of Zeus: lord (or impersonation) of lightning and thunders, exclusive master of human destiny --and therefore of human history—and chief of Olympus. This unique personality endowed with polyvalent powers represents itself the conflict between superhuman moral indifference for mortal destiny and anthropomorphic feelings for human beings: he both preordains the death of his son and weeps on his demise. Zeus embodies the Mysterium tremendum. This new Zeus cannot glance at the past image that the tradition painted of him without smiling at its simplicity and disrespect: a parodic or amusing tone surrounds him as he refers or is referred to aspects of his traditional image. The great characters of the Poem give two wise responses to Zeus, lord of destiny: "heroic death" or serene acceptance. We, the readers, are expected to react in the same way.

Chapter 1

1.1The “disastrous request” (XV. 597): Zeus and Thetis

“Les dieux helléniques sont des Puissances, non des personnes.”

Vernant 1965, 274

In the first book12 Zeus leads the gods as they all go together to Olympus (πρὸς Ὄλυμπον ἴσαν θεοὶ αἰὲν ἐόντες13 / πάντες ἅμα, Ζεὺς δ’ ἦρχε· I. 494–514): 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. 498–99):

she found the deep thunder-voicing son of Kronos sitting

apart from the others upon the highest peak of rugged Olympus.16

Confronted with Zeus’ 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, “on the highest peak of Olympus,” designates figuratively not only Zeus’ 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 “sitting” which in Homer often denotes metaphorically the individual’s separation from others’ activities (see for instance I. 421, 488, etc.).18

The diêgêsis (the Muses’ narrative in the hands of the Iliadic Narrator) at 498 defines Zeus as εὐρύοπα Κρονίδην, “son of Kronos with deep thundering voice”:19 both epithets deserve our attention, since this selection is the Narrator’s authorial choice in a non-epiphanic address line.

This epithet recalls Zeus’ 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 Zeus’ 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 Zeus’ polyvalent Might are here recalled.

The Narrator selects here Kronides and, immediately after, with the same freedom of choice, Δία Κρονίωνα ἄνακτα (“Zeus, lord, son of Kronos”)20 on line 502, and Κρονίων, “son of Kronos,” on line 528. Though these epithets are frequent in the Iliad, the emphatic repetition of Kronos’ 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 Kroniôn 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.

Kronos’ insistently and almost uniquely declared paternity of Zeus must also suggest Zeus’ stronger force and his greater religious and political dominance. Zeus defeated Kronos and keeps him prisoner (VIII. 478–81): accordingly, the insistent mention of Kronos functions also as an insistent assertion of Zeus’ unmatchable power.

The combination of Zeus’ “deep-thundering voice” 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 Thetis’ 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 Detienne’s 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 “as mist”: 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 “traditional” 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. 500–03).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 Achilles’ honor.28 Her arguments are emotionally grounded on this point (I. 503–510):

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

Thetis’ first argument refers, very discreetly, to the favor that Thetis, as Achilles has recalled (I. 396–406), 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, Thetis’ 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 Zeus’ amorous life are almost completely nonexistent in the Iliad: the large exception, in book XIV, is caused by Aphrodite’s magic erotic band and is intended to show its exceptionality (see Ch. 5.3). In the Iliad, Zeus’ 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.

Thetis’ strongest persuasive argument is that Agamemnon has dishonored Achilles and that therefore Zeus should help to re-establish Achilles’ honor. For Zeus can help, and his help would efficiently change the situation: “Come! Do him honor, Olympian clever and efficient Zeus!” (ἀλλὰ σύ πέρ μιν τῖσον Ὀλύμπιε μητίετα Ζεῦ). Out of the sixteen occurrences of the noun-epithet μητίετα Ζεύς, 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 “who will honor me and above all clever...

Indice dei contenuti

• Cover
• Title Page
• Copyright
• Dedication
• Preface
• Contents
• Introduction
• Chapter 1
• Chapter 2
• Chapter 3
• Chapter 4
• Chapter 5
• Chapter 6
• Appendix 1. δῖος Ἀχιλλεύς. The Notion of Divine as Applied to the Heroes
• Appendix 2. The Muses and the Poet
• Bibliography
• Index of Rhetorical and Critical Notions
• Index Locorum