BMCR 2008.10.06, Claire-Franc, oise de Roguin, "...et recouvre d'une montagne leur cite/!"

Claire-Franc,oise de Roguin, "... et recouvre d'une montagne leur
cite/!" La fin du monde des he/ros dans les e/pope/es home/riques.
Hypomnemata, 169.  Goettingen:  Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2007.  Pp. 295.
ISBN 978-3-525-25280-2.  EUR 78.90.

Reviewed by C. Michael Sampson, University of Michigan
([email protected])
Word count:  2232 words
-------------------------------
To read a print-formatted version of this review, see
http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/bmcr/2008/2008-10-06.html
To comment on this review, see
http://www.bmcreview.org/2008/10/20081006.html
-------------------------------

For all their unity of plot--the kind so exuberantly praised by
Aristotle--the Homeric epics nonetheless allude to (and sometimes
suppress) a wider mythological tradition.  As its title indicates, R.'s
monograph examines a particular aspect of this tradition, and in doing
so expands upon arguments previously laid down by Scodel and Slatkin
(amongst others).[[1]]  R. is particularly interested in the
interactions of mortals and gods, and the monograph, which is a
revision of the dissertation she wrote at the Universite/ de Gene\ve,
proposes that there occurs over the course of the two epics an
evolution resulting both in the gods' withdrawal from personal
associations with mortals and in human beings' understanding of their
limited position--in other words, an 'ancient' regime is replaced by a
'new' one and the world of heroes is brought to an end.  This crude
sketch does not do justice to the depth of her literary analyses, which
offer many intriguing interpretations of Homeric heroism, society, and
religion, but despite the valuable insights contained in its arguments,
the work as a whole struggles to uphold its lofty schematization.

In the first chapter, which comprises an extended discussion of the
quarrel in Iliad 1 and 9, R. argues that Achilles' withdrawal reflects
a belief that, as a demigod, he is equal to Agamemnon and that he is
entitled to a unique honor.  By distinguishing between the time^ of a
warrior and that of a basileus, R.'s terminology neatly encapsulates
the essence of the quarrel, but she goes further in positing a third,
divine time^, which Agamemnon enjoys by virtue of his position and
which Achilles equally seeks to attain in his request (via Thetis) to
Zeus.  For R., Achilles' relationship with Zeus is 'personal', as
opposed to, for example, the 'ritual' relationship with Apollo that
Chryses enjoys, but there are crucial differences: unlike Apollo,
Achilles' anger cannot be ritually appeased until the time^ he yearns
to enjoy as a preeminent warrior is recognized.  The need for
recognition explains the failure of the embassy in Book 9: for R.,
Achilles interprets the presence of his friends in Agamemnon's service,
not to mention the basileus' generosity, as a mark that there has been
no change in regard and that Agamemnon persists in treating him as an
inferior (80).  Thus, Achilles persists in his withdrawal.  The failure
of 'ritual' means to appease this anger, Achilles' relationship to
Zeus, as well as his attachment to a kind of time^ that is not widely
recognized, all suggest to R. his attachment to an 'ancient' world
order that either does not exist or only existed in the past.

The second chapter contains the heart of the book's argument.  Taking
up the work of Slatkin on Thetis, R. argues that Zeus' nostalgia for
their personal history reflects an early, unstable mythological stage
of his cosmic regime.  For not only was Zeus subject to threats from
the other Olympians, but Thetis herself also represented a threat to
his rule, inasmuch as an Achilles fathered by Zeus (according to
Isthmian 8 and Prometheus Bound, at least) was fated to overthrow him.
The threat of further succession links the Olympians' insubordination
and the danger that Zeus' liaisons present for his regime in the Iliad:
for R., it is Hera's anger at her husband's philandering (specifically,
the favor he grants Thetis) that clashes with her personal hatred of
Troy and underlies her resistance.

Here we come to the centerpiece of R.'s argument, which consists of an
analysis of the Dios apate^.  R. argues that the episode constitutes a
gateway to a new cosmic order.  The state of Hera and Zeus' marriage
becomes an image of the state of the cosmos: all of Hera's complaints,
the threat of rebellion they pose, as well as the punishments that she
and her supporters endure all revolve around what she feels are her
rights both as spouse and as a daughter of Cronus.  R.'s thesis is that
this 'ancient' regime (which is defined by philandering, divine
involvement in mortal affairs, and the threat of succession) is drawn
to a close by the Dios apate^, an argument she bases largely on the
catalogue of past liaisons offered by Zeus (14.315-28).  For R., the
list is a priamel comprising a vow of future fidelity (112ff.), and the
union that follows appears as a hieros gamos resulting in a new world
order.  So while Zeus is angry with his wife upon waking (15.16ff.), in
return for fidelity he gains her obedience (or at least her acceptance
of his will).  The 'new' regime appears in Zeus' subsequent plan
(15.59-77), which unites the promise made to Thetis in Book 1 with
Hera's desire for the destruction of Troy, and reveals as well Zeus'
own desire to destroy the race of heroes: Achilles' withdrawal,
Patroclus' death, and the slaughter of Hector coalesce to bring about
Achilles' honor as well as pave the way for the destruction of Troy and
the end of the demigods.

The second half of the chapter's argument describes the new regime
created out of the Dios apate^.  R. demonstrates how Zeus' new bond
with Hera results in an increasing distance from mortals and other
divinities, divine sympathy for humans, and Achilles' ultimate
acceptance of his mortality.  The privileged, 'personal' connection by
means of which Achilles gained his request for time^ disappears in his
prayer for Patroclus (16.236ff.), as does the influence of Thetis, who
reappears later in the epic only as a grieving mother.  Zeus'
disaffection further manifests itself as he leaves Sarpedon--at Hera's
urging--to his mortal fate, and Achilles himself comes to recognize his
mortal station and the sufferings proper to it though his interaction
with Priam (though he first quests for glory, nearly dying at the
river-god's hands and descending to unspeakable savagery).  This new
order is characterized by the separation of mortals and immortals--the
latter recognizing their limits, the former no longer personally
involved.  Achilles' recognition of his mortal limitations symbolizes
one end of the race of heroes.

In the third chapter, R. turns to the Odyssey and contrasts the
relenting of divine anger against Odysseus with the situation of the
Iliad.  By means of a binary of good (e.g. <greek>ai)/simos, di/kaios,
qe/mis, no/os, qeoudh/s</greek>) and bad qualities (e.g.
<greek>a)ta/sqalos, u(bristh/s, a)/grios, a)qe/mistos</greek>), R.
distinguishes Odysseus from Hector, Achilles, and the various
'reckless' figures in the Odyssey.  Odysseus' mental capacities and his
understanding of his mortal station allow him to survive while the
others suffer death.  The most interesting aspect of the argument is
the use of near-eastern parallels: taking up the argument of Scodel, R.
finds parallels for the divine anger against Odysseus in near-eastern
deluge-myths, but points out that Odysseus, unlike Gilgamesh or
Utnapishtim, rejects immortality outright.  For R., the flood-motif
brings the heroic world (or 'ancient' regime) to an end and brings
Odysseus to a new, mortal existence with which he is at peace, where
the gods' involvement in human matters is limited by ritual and the
anger which characterized the 'ancient' regime ceases.

The arguments contained in the book are many and complex, and this
reviewer regrets that the preceding summary, despite its length,
unavoidably compresses them.  This limitation is all the more
regrettable since these provocative analyses are the book's real
strength.  R.'s readings of the quarrel and of Achilles' desire for
recognition as an equal are both carefully developed and so well in
tune with the text that they almost seem self-evident.  In particular,
the argument about Achilles as a staunch defender of the heroic code
(75-85) deserves the attention of all who would argue for the hero's
disillusionment.[[2]]  R.'s literary analysis is at its best when
tracing parallels and parsing their significance.  So she compares
Chryses' prayer to Apollo and Achilles' request to Zeus at great length
(49ff.), demonstrating the two mortals' contrasting relationships to
the divine and the time^ each receives in return.  The third chapter's
discussions of Hector, Achilles, and Odysseus' respective responses to
divine favor (or the lack thereof) also tidily encapsulate their
attitudes toward the gods, especially as productive of the ends they
respectively meet; and so too is its analysis of the near-eastern
deluge-motif, while grounded in established scholarship, similarly
insightful in pointing out important differences in how the Odyssey
handles the end of the race of heroes.  The questions raised by her
analyses regularly deserve further attention.

The major criticism of the book lies in a single interpretive
objection: R.'s analysis regularly crosses the line from explicating
the poems' allusions to a mythological tradition of 'ancient regime
gives way to new' or 'end of the world of heroes' and goes so far as to
have them actually inform the poems.  By the end of the book, for
example, she proposes that the Iliad and Odyssey are the two parts of a
cosmogonic poem (276ff.).  But despite the insights of the book's
individual analyses, this larger, schematizing argument remains
unconvincing.  The case of the apate^ Dios is most striking: since this
episode is the hinge upon which R.'s thesis concerning the end of an
'ancient' regime depends, its success is critical to the work as a
whole.  Initially, R. outlines well the source of Hera's dissent in
Zeus' philandering and failure to respect her rights as spouse, and
also how the tradition of succession and the previous punishments doled
out by Zeus lend cosmic weight to the situation.  The aftermath, which
R. interprets as invoking the hieros gamos of Heaven and Earth, is also
well argued.  But Homer is not Vergil, and the problem rears its head
with respect to the significance of the Dios apate^ in the epic itself.
For even if one accepts R.'s argument that Zeus' catalogue of
mistresses (14.315-28) constitutes an oath that Hera will be the sole
object of his affections in the future, one is hard pressed to see how
this constitutes a transition away from the 'ancient' regime within the
narrative.  For one thing, Zeus is motivated only inasmuch as he is
overwhelmed by Hera's appropriation of Aphrodite's charms.  The poet
may very well be anticipating or outlining a 'new' relationship between
the two, but there is no indication that Zeus has anything other than
fulfilling his desire in mind.  For a change of such cosmic
significance, it lacks motivation and is only allusively marked in the
narrative.  Furthermore, the suggestion that the scene marks a
transition away from the 'ancient' regime strikes me as unlikely since
Hera's intentions are to undermine Zeus' will--in precisely the fashion
of that 'ancient' regime!  Even R. admits that "[l'union] est le
re/sultat d'une ruse d'He/ra et dissimule mal l'hostilite/ de celle-ci
envers Zeus" (115).  Others who are more accepting of subtlety in Homer
may disagree, but the transition on which R. focuses appears unmarked
for the kind of prominence her schematizing thesis demands, and
moreover, is actually inconsistent with the thrust of the scene.

The need to demonstrate how divine anger is characteristic of the
'ancient' regime also complicates the larger argument: R. refers to the
cole\re de Zeus in the Iliad (52ff.), but this is a bit of a misnomer:
the anger of which she writes is actually the wrath of Achilles, into
which she has collapsed an anger of Zeus.  But Zeus' willingness to
agree to Achilles' request does not imply that he is angry or that his
anger "e/volue paralle\lement a\ celle d'Achille" (55).  What is more,
by R.'s own admission, the anger and appeasement of Apollo in Book 1 is
more characteristic of the 'new' regime, where ritual means provide the
basis for mortal interaction with the divine.  The third chapter
capably treats the relenting of divine anger as characteristic of the
'new' regime in the Odyssey, but the discussion of an earlier stage in
the Iliad is vexed and would be better limited to Hera's yearning for
the destruction of Troy.  R.'s schema for the transition from old to
new falters: while the individual analyses succeed in tracing the
poet's numerous allusions to a larger mythological tradition, they fail
to demonstrate that the allusions rigorously inform the structure of
the poems at a larger level.  The Iliad is simply too complex.

Further criticisms are less pressing.  For one thing, the work is
disproportionately concerned with the Iliad; less than a quarter of the
volume pertains to the Odyssey, and even then much of the discussion is
comparative.  The impact of this imbalance on the argument as a whole
is cause for concern.  So too could individual arguments be adjusted
for length: the importance of the second chapter, for example, is
belied by the comparable length of the first and third chapters, which
comprise the buildup and denouement to the central argument.
Similarly, while R. has meticulously organized the work, the abundance
of sections and subsections is at times distracting.

The above criticisms do not detract from the overall strength of the
volume, which both addresses and raises many questions into particular
aspects of Homeric heroism, society, and religion.  The book will be of
obvious value to scholars interested in the epics' tendency towards
allusion (and suppression) of a wider sphere of mythological material.
Its analyses are literary and based firmly in the epics and
mythological tradition, and even if the larger argument falls short of
its mark, the work nonetheless provides a rich investigation of how the
epics invoke the tradition of the disappearance of the heroes, and will
be most useful for subsequent studies.

------------------
Notes:


1.   Scodel, Ruth, "The Achaean Wall and the Myth of Destruction." HSCP
86 (1982): 33-50; Slatkin, Laura, The Power of Thetis: Allusion and
Interpretation in the Iliad.  Berkeley: University of California Press,
1991.

2.   Given the mass of bibliography on Homer, it is unfair to complain
about minor shortcomings in this respect, but R.'s argument on time^
treads on such familiar ground that it would benefit from references to
Wilson, Donna F., Ransom, Revenge, and Heroic Identity in the Iliad.
Cambridge: CUP, 2002 (37ff.), and as against Achilles' disillusionment,
from reference to Gill, Christopher, Personality in Greek Epic,
Tragedy, and Philosophy: The Self in Dialogue.  Oxford: OUP, 1996
(125ff.).