The Dispute between Achilles and Agamemnon (Iliad 1.57-257) as an Example of Oral Discourse and Egalitarian Mentality

Abstract

This paper aims to demonstrate how the characters of the Iliad use rhetorical strategies and how their hidden intentions would have been recognizable to an oral audience, using the dispute between Achilles and Agamemnon as a case study. Martin (1989) shows that the discourse of Homeric characters is performative and, in order to succeed, is subject to strict rules. He does not, however, adequately consider the social conditions specific to oral discourse. In fact, Achaean society was far more egalitarian than has generally been assumed. The key factor missing from Martin’s interpretation, then, is that the fight for prestige is inevitably bound up with the defense against exclusion, so that any individual who dares to enter a dispute has his position perpetually at stake. Norms of expression constitute a multilevel security system against the abuse of violence in the group, one that speakers must follow in order to win the support of the assembled community. In the dispute between Achilles and Agamemnon, the question of blame for the plague is deliberately left unresolved, and the two opponents’ responses are symmetrical in form. Agamemnon changes his strategy three times, losing the dispute to Achilles on each occasion; only Nestor’s intervention saves him from the reaction of the crowd. A comparison with disputes in contemporary Neolithic-level communities allows us to infer the underlying rules, since specific strategies recur across oral societies irrespective of spatial or temporal distance. Though the argumentation employed may not seem entirely rational, the discourse is nonetheless highly skillful and well suited to its adopted frame of reference (for example, in the way the speaker invokes tradition and adapts it to his own purposes).