Object Lesson...Literally

The men and women, gods and goddesses, and servants and kings and soldiers of the Iliad all play their roles in the unfolding of a hierarchy in the ancient Greek epic.  They do so in their words so eloquent, or their actions often brave, yet what can we say about how the objects around them have a say in their story?  For example, let's take a look at King Agamemnon's staff.

Why would a staff be so important as to be repeatedly associated with the word "imperishable," as well as referred to as "ancestral," and "golden"?  Why would it be included in the text, there during speeches and corrections, being wielded by men of power?  It's history is even included within the text: having been made by Hephaestus, Zeus's blacksmith, it was passed down in an often patriarchal descent from Zeus to Hermes to Pelops to Atreus to Thyestes to, finally, Agamemnon.

A student from last year mentions the "social power" the staff often indicates, and how Odysseus even went to receive the staff from Agamemnon before going to persuade the soldiers to refrain from departing and, instead, stay and fight.  It was used to deliver a beating to Thersites, who had tried to break the social hierarchy by publicly speaking against Agamemnon.  The staff itself is an act of persuasion, simply by its representation of power, whether in wisdom or in strength.  It was actually used throughout ancient Greek culture and texts to convey such meaning, being a symbol in aid to speeches or presentation.  Though we are the secondary audience in the Iliad, the first being those who physically saw the staff and the power behind it, we, too, can identify such rhetorical usage in the writings of ancient Greeks by examining the text with a critical mind.

Will you let them die in vain?

Rhetoric is the art of persuasion.  In order to effectively prompt a specified audience to action, the one doing the persuading must understand, and use to his or her advantage, these three things:

1.) the audience's background
2.) the current setting/situation the audience is in
3.) the timing of the attempt

We see a great example of this in lines 166-183 in Book 2 of the Iliad of Homer.  Minerva was given the assignment to convince the army to stay.  She sought out Ulysses.  Why?  Because she understood these three things:

1.) Ulysses was one of the most trusted counselors in the Greek army, and was in favor of the Achaen cause.
2.) The army had been stationed in the area for nine years and had yet to sack the city.  They had just been ordered to get on their ships and return home.
3.) Ulysses was "standing alone", and he "had not as yet laid a hand upon his ship, for he was grieved and sorry".  I think from this we can infer that the decision to return home instead of completing the initial goal of conquering left Ulysses feeling dissatisfied. 

Because Minerva knew the kairos and understood her audience, she was able to capitalize by using a rhetoric still common today.  In essence she said if you leave now, those who fought this ward will have died in vain.  We see this rhetoric "if you make this particular choice, people will have died in vain" being used today in movies and books. 

In this article published not too long ago, a student used a similar "power phrase" to try to win over her intended audience.  Will it work?  I guess it depends on the three points I presented.  Know your audience.

Another interesting post about the exchange between Minerva and Ulysses is "Are YOU talking to me?" where the author also learned about the importance of audience.

The Persuasiveness of a Name

At first, like most, I began to notice the similes and metaphors that were so compelling. I saw the comparisons of people to animals and groups of animals; I saw the comparison to children or men. These all initially struck me as very persuasive techniques. These techniques invite deeper thought and cohesiveness. They invite a sense of purpose. They encourage behavior through praise and insult alike, but this is not what I found most persuasive about the writing.
The more that I read and the more that I got tangled up in names of people and places, the more I realized how motivating those names and places could be. Like the people and places mentioned in The Bible and the Book of Mormon, they were included for a certain purpose. Not only do they help the reader (or listener) to become familiar with the times, places, and people, but they also carry a heavy message with each name. Again and again I saw names of people leading troops and commanding armies. I saw familiar names of warriors and mighty men. I saw names of Gods. I saw powerful cities and leadership. Of course, there were a lot of people and places that I did not know, but to the people of that time, those names would have stood for more than a person, place, or thing. These names were enough to prove power, strength, and plenty. To someone of that day, hearing that a certain god was siding with a certain leader, and that one city just joined the ranks would be enough to encourage any man to choose a side to fight on. I don't know about everyone else, but if I knew that a son of Hercules was fighting on my side, I would be much more inclined to enlist myself. These types of logos and pathos are subtle but powerful. Not only does he use logic (showing how beneficial it would be to have such strong people on your side), but the pathos plays on peoples' loyalty to an individual or a city.

Speeches and Persuasion—The Greeks Get Convinced

Hello all!  I hope you are having a fantastic Friday! Homer’s Iliad is chock-full of intriguing examples of successful and unsuccessful rhetoric.  In the second book, gods and mortals alike use both rhetoric and figurative language to convince people of their own opinions.  For example Zeus (or Jove) sends a deceitful dream to Agamemnon to get the Achaeans to fight Troy.  The messenger is Nestor, a close friend of Agamemnon.  Thus, knowing that Agamemnon trusts Nestor, Zeus considers the audience of his dream, Agamemnon, when sending his false, persuasive dream.  Another successful use of audience, as well as kairos, comes when Agamemnon convinces his men to return home despite the false dream.  This brings up a question that maybe one of you could answer: why, if Agamemnon and Nestor trusted the dream, did Agamemnon want to send the men home?  However, Agamemnon does want to send the men home and cunningly mentions the men’s wives and children who are anxiously awaiting their return.  Kairos is thus implemented in this case because the Achaeans have been away from their families for nine long years without much success.  If Agamemnon attempted to use the “family card” in the first month of the voyage, for example, the men would not care as much and it would not be the opportune moment that kairos is.  


Agamemnon also speaks with great Greek decorum as he does not accuse the men, which would be rude, but rather speaks holding his “imperishable staff” and talks of pride and bravery, important aspects of Greek tradition and custom.  Homer uses fantastic figurative language to describe the common soldiers who flocked to hear Agamemnon speak.  Homer writes that “the people swarmed like bees that sally from some hollow cave and flit in countless among the spring flowers” in order to create an intriguing image in the minds of the people listening to the oratory.  Not only do the readers/listeners understand that Agamemnon was a great orator because of the flocking, but also that the people worked in a community as bees work in a community.  Furthermore, once the people are convinced to return home, “they surged to and fro like the waves of the Icarian Sea with loud cries towards the ships.”  This simile thus keeps listeners interested because they can picture the swarms of people gathering at the ships and the great, chaotic happiness of the people to return home.

Odysseus is also as successful a persuader as Agamemnon when Athena and Hera tell him to convince the others to fight against Troy despite Agamemnon’s commands.  Odysseus is most successful in his use of decorum and audience.  He speaks to the chiefs and the kings with great respect but consistent pushing toward the fight—“the flight is cowardly…we do not know Agamemnon’s mind.”  He thus maintains respect and control over the kings’ minds.  However, to the common soldier he is much more brusque and rude.  He tells them to “hold your peace” and “you are a coward and no soldier.”  Because of his knowledge of decorum and audience, Odysseus convinces all, even Agamemnon, to sack Troy. 

Homer also gives an example of someone who does not know the basic rules of rhetoric, kind of like how I don’t really know the rules of rhetoric yet.  Thersites rudely accuses Agamemnon of loving gold and women and having more treasure than the others.  However, Homer convinces us that Thersites should not be listened to by describing him as having “a glib tongue,” a shrill, squeaky voice, and being the ugliest man in the army.  Greeks prized beauty, so a man who was extremely ugly would also, by Greek customs, be extremely inappropriate and not worth listening to.  He broke decorum so much that Odysseus beat him up.  Thersites is a clear example of the problems with not knowing how to argue.

This blog post went well over 300 words, but the Iliad and especially book two, have so many intriguing examples of successful and unsuccessful rhetoric aided by figurative language that I felt I could not squeeze in most of it in only 300 words.  I would love to hear all of your thoughts, especially if you think that it was fair for Thersites to be beaten for his opinion and if you know the reason why Agamemnon wanted to go home after Zeus promised him, however falsely, victory against the Trojans.

-Katie Johnson