Discuss the conception of the hero in the Pindaric odes, the Hippolytos and the Aias. Outline the themes centred around, and the qualities attributed to, the figure of the hero, compare that with your study of the Homeric poems, and analyse the continuities and discontinuities which may be found therein. How do Herodotos and Aristophanes reflect these patterns, if at all?
“Great risk does not take hold of a cowardly man.
But since men must die, why would anyone sit
in darkness and coddle a nameless old age to no use
deprived of all noble deeds?”[1]
The hero of Greek literature is a singular figure who by the very nature of his temperament inspires a certain fascination. Aggressive, single-minded, ruthless, combative, wilful and prone to self-destruction he, or indeed she if we consider Sophoclean heroines such as Antigone, bestrides the literary world and largely dominates the scenes in which he may be depicted. There is much that we can say about such figures, far too much to be covered in a single essay but nonetheless it is my intention to set forth some general themes, describe particular characteristics and, furthermore, provide an analysis of the reception of heroes within the Archaic and Classical Greek world. Primarily I shall be referring to Pindar, Euripides’ Hippolytos and Sophocles’ Aias but a great deal of the considerations thrown up seem impossible to talk about in any detail without explicitly linking them to the Homeric epics as well as the historical background of the time.
In talking about the heroic qualities we find in Pindar or Sophocles I feel it is necessary to first explain the importance of hero-cult before detailing particular themes. Hero cult in itself is something that would appear to have sprung up or at least become notably popular at around the same time that the Homeric poems would have been circulating around Greece, that is, in the eighth century BCE. From the early 1950’s onwards Carl Blegan, in exhuming Mycenaean chamber tombs found that out of fifty cases no fewer than fifteen of these tombs contained votive offerings that dated no later than the latter third of the eighth century. An excellent example of this phenomenon was located at the Mycenaean tholos tomb at Menidi in the ancient deme of Acharnai, which was found to contain a full sequence of burnt votive offerings beginning with LG kraters and continuing into the fifth century.[2] So too was the case at the shrine of Agamemnon located one mile south of the hill fort at Mycenae where offerings were found which dated from the eighth century down to 468BCE when the town of Mycenae was destroyed by the Argives[3]. Far from it being my intention to convert a literature question into an exposition on Aegean Archaeology I should hope to show that the Homeric epics and the heroes contained therein have a causal link with the development of hero-cult, which in itself is of high importance in any understanding of literary heroes. Coldstream sees Homer as the causal factor in the development of these fledgling cult movements
“The great size of a Mycenaean tomb, and the richness of the offerings, would fill [the Greek] with superstitious awe; so he would leave some offerings as a mark of respect, after his imagination had been stirred by the first Panhellenic circulation of Homeric epic.”[4]
Secondly, given that the ideal of the hero is something that finds its origin in Homeric epic, which in itself is strongly influenced by the political ideology of eighty century Greece it is vital to understand representations of a hero in light of the changing political and social circumstances which took place between the production of Homeric epic, and the staging of Euripides’ Hippolytos. Themes certainly persist but perspectives and representations may take on different meanings or convey varying messages according to the influences of the time.
As regards hero-cult, it seems a good place to begin with a look at some of the conceptions of the hero we find in Sophocles’ Aias. There seems little doubt that notions of hero-cult play an important role in the course of this play but we shall examine the eponymous hero before developing this point any further. Aias is a shining example of what Knox describes as the ‘Sophoclean hero’
“One who, unsupported by the gods and in the face of human opposition, makes a decision which springs from the deepest layer of his individual nature, his physis, and then blindly, ferociously, heroically maintains that decision even to the point of self-destruction.”[5]
When we first meet Aias he is greeted by Athena and when questioned if he has stained his sword with the blood of the Argive army, much rather than denying or worming his way round the accusation replies
“I have a right to boast, I shall not deny it!”[6]
Not just admitting to the murder he thinks he has committed but actively proud of what he has done. Aggression and violence are immediately apparent, even before he appears upon the stage Odysseus is terrified by the prospect of meeting him. His violence is blind, destructive and goes beyond simply killing but extends to torturing his enemies as he blithely whips and scourges what he thinks to be Odysseus. His anger is something that persists even in his shame and in his final speech he calls down destruction upon not just those who he believes have harmed him but the entire Argive host.
“I call for help upon those who are ever maidens and see ever all the sufferings of mortals, the dread Erinyes with long stride, so that they witness my destruction at the hands of the sons of Atreus. [And may they snatch them up, with evil that befits their evil, and utterly destroy them, as they see me fall by my own hand; even so may they perish by their own hands, through their most beloved offspring!]. Come Erinyes, swift to punish, take your fill, do not spare the host entire!”[7]
The theme of murderous rage is in no way peculiar to Aias, if we consider the brutal anger that Oedipus displays in unwittingly murdering his own father Laius, or the anger of Theseus in calling down a curse upon his own son Hippolytos, not to mention of course the rage of Achilles; we can quickly note that an obstinacy coupled with a taste for brute force is part and parcel of the heroic condition. The inspiration for Aias’ suicide is his shame at having butchered herds of helpless cattle thereby embarrassing himself not only in front of those he now calls enemies but in accordance with his own self-conception as Homeric man. Adkins in his article Homeric Values and Homeric Society[8] terms such a set-up as a “shame-culture and a results-culture”[9] and on both counts Aias has fallen foul of the program; he has destroyed the cattle and made himself look foolish and this is enough to inspire him to fix himself upon the idea of suicide no matter how much his family or friends may protest. There is heroism apparent in his single-minded determination and his complete refusal to compromise, a very Sophoclean characteristic.
“The Sophoclean hero refuses to compromise, he does not back down, he does not give up but remains determined, heroically so, to follow through his course of action in lonely rebellion against the gods, against his fellows, against his own sense of self-preservation.”[10]
We may compare this single-mindedness with that of Hippolytos who in a similar manner sticks to a course of action against all warnings and indeed all good sense, clearly he is not quite the Sophoclean hero but it is his resolution that leads him to his own destruction even if, unlike Aias, he is not aware that he is being undone by his determined stance. Perhaps we see a flicker of the heroic within Phaedra when she sets out to starve herself to death to avoid dishonouring her husband and her children but this is quickly turned aside by the cajoling of the nurse; an Aias or an Hippolytos would not, could not, be diverted once their mind was set and would stick to their decision with the same tenacity of a traffic warden to a timestamp.
Yet why Aias murdered the cattle in the first place allows us a deeper glimpse of the heroic mindset, it was the perceived dishonour dealt him by the Atridae in their decision to award the arms of Achilles to Odysseus rather than Aias that pushed him into a murderous rage. Denied his chance at punishing those who have dishonoured him Aias is left with little choice
“the noble man must live with honour or be honourably dead”[11]
Yet we see in Aias’ notion of what he is owed by his peers a very self-conscious idea of the self in relationship to others, which may seem a peculiar dichotomy within the lonely spirit of the hero isolated from others by virtue of his own uniqueness. In contrast to the inner strength, the indomitable physis of his nature, is a gaping insecurity so apparent that, “the Homeric hero not merely feels insecure, he is insecure.”[12] This insecurity and conception of what is owed leads us on to the theme of reciprocity, which is a strong idea throughout the literature under consideration and of considerable importance when talking about heroes.
In Reciprocities in Homer[13], Walter Donlan goes into considerable detail as to the nature of reciprocal relationships in regard to inter-tribal society, again not wanting to transform an issue of literature into an anthropological investigation I shall note briefly some of the more relevant ideas raised in the article. Donlan speaks of three distinct forms of reciprocity that appear in the Homeric epics, the first being that of ‘negative reciprocity’ in the form of raiding, plundering and general looting all of which abound in these poems. We then have ‘balanced reciprocity’ which can be further split into compactual or compensatory agreements and then the third form which is ‘generalised reciprocity’ most easily summed up as a form of magnanimity or altruism. We can see therefore that in the Aias, in the Hippolytos, in the Pindaric odes, even in the Thesmophoriazusae we are dealing with a form of balanced reciprocity. Aias seeks compensation for his dishonouring by the Argives, Aphrodite seeks compensation for her slighting by Hippolytos, Mica and her fellows seek compensation for the slander of Euripides and Pindar seeks a compactual relationship with the victors he lauds in his odes. In all cases there is the evaluative question of ‘what is owed’ and in the plays at least, this question gives rise to the drama. Where this relates to a discussion about heroes is in the very fine understanding that the heroic figure has as regards what may be his or her due and their reactions when this conception of the self is affronted. Aias, like Achilles, follows suit in that “the quid pro quo nature of compensatory reciprocity is seen in rewards for service”[14] Aias states this quite clearly soon after he realises his mistake.
“…if Achilles were alive and were to award the prize of valour in a contest for his own arms, no other would receive them but I. But now the sons of Atreus have made them over to an unscrupulous fellow, pushing aside this man’s mighty deeds.”[15]
Achilles too sees Agamemnon as breaching this sense of propriety.
“…you even threaten that you will yourself take from me the prize for which I toiled much, and the sons of the Achaeans gave it to me.”[16]
In both cases a furious rage has followed the failure to grant to the hero what he believes to be his due. We should also consider the compactual agreements that we find in Pindar, best summed up at the end of Olympian 1 when the poet sings
“May you walk on high for the time that is yours,
and may I join victors whenever they win
and foremost in wisdom
among Hellenes everywhere.”[17]
So we see that the relationship between Pindar and Hieron is not one in which the poet sings the athlete’s praises out of the goodness of his heart but a symbiotic relationship in which the epinikion poet is linked to the success of the individual he extols in verse and there exists a compactual agreement from which both laudatus and laudator gain some benefit. The nature of this agreement is perhaps best understood if we consider the famously unequal exchange between Glaucos and Diomedes in Iliad VI. Donlan provides an interesting perspective on the psychology of this exchange and in so doing leads us to the third form of reciprocity, magnanimity. Something we see in the Iliad and Odyssey is the idea of conspicuous consumption or more accurately the “competitive destruction of wealth as a means of ranking households.”[18] At the palace of Nestor and that of Menelaus we see how the host hero lavishes his guest by means of a veritable holocaust of livestock and it is not so much an act of philanthropy but a way in which to demonstrate the strength of a hero’s influence and effectively to put another person into their debt. Consequently one reading of the Glaucos and Diomedes passage and it’s slightly comical ending is that Glaucos “outgave Diomedes on purpose, and by so doing he demonstrated his superiority over the other”[19]. Pindar is careful to note the rewards of generosity when he makes mention of the Lydian king Croesus
“The kindly excellence of Croesus does not perish”[20]
Yet Homer’s language is reasonably clear in this matter and does not suggest any deliberation on Glaucus’ part.
“And then from Glaucus did Zeus, son of Cronos, take away his senses, in that he made exchange of armour with Diomedes, son of Tydeus, giving golden for bronze, the worth of one hundred oxen for the worth of nine.”[21]
Donlan’s conclusion is that this is “a contest of wit and will”[22] which Diomedes wins outright, that is he anticipates Glaucus’ own heroic code of conduct and by so doing dupes him into giving away his golden armour at a discount rate. Nonetheless this remains a compactual relationship between the two and so it is best to refer to Glaucus’ own words earlier in the dialogue.
“He [Hippolochus] sent me to Troy and earnestly charged me always to be bravest and preeminent above all and not bring shame on the race of my fathers.”[23]
The heroic code even in acts of co-operation retains its underlying axiom of going one better than the next man and so just as Diomedes outwits Glaucus and carries off his golden armour as a prize from their pact we may see the relationship that exists between Pindar and his subject as being one from which Pindar sees himself carrying off a prize of greater value than the victory of the athlete, the fame and reputation that his poetry will bring; even in alliance and friendship the heroic code demands pre-eminence.
In light of this undercurrent of reciprocal relationships that underpins the heroic temperament we should bear in mind the idea of chiefly due in the nature of the temenos in which a hero would usually find himself laid to rest. As Donlan notes the etymology of the word is of crucial importance in understanding the term for it comes from temno, ‘I cut’ or ‘I cut out’, we see the word appear in Iliad 12 as Sarpedon speaks to Glaucus.
“We possess a great estate by the banks of Xanthus”[24]
It is not the only mention of the word and Donlan sums up that
“in every instance it is stated or implied that the temenos, a substantial piece of choice agricultural land, is given, by the larger group, to a chief or other important figure”[25]
Thus the idea of reciprocity is carried on after the death of the hero and the idea of a temenos may retain the notion of chiefly or heroic due. In cases such as Aias’ when the hero has died in a terrible rage this ‘granting of what is due’ takes on considerable importance, I have already made mention of the link between hero-cult and the circulation of the Homeric epics and if the heroes were considered, like the gods, to have been real and we have no reason to doubt that they were, then the presence of spirit of the dead hero would have been seen to have some tangibility. As Coldstream observes “it was in his tomb that a hero’s strength was supposed to be concentrated”[26] and the archaeological record attests to offerings and votive gifts made to whatever hero was meant to have been buried at the site. We also see that in death the hero becomes slightly more than a man but slightly less than a god, sacrifices made to heroes are known as έναγιξειν whilst sacrifices to the gods are known as θυσιαι but the reciprocal relationship parallels with that between man and god in that offerings are granted to either propitiate or win the favour of the dead hero. So as the servant warns Hippolytos that “we should observe the honours due to gods”[27] the same would appear to apply to dead heroes lingering in the area; Pindar too speaks in tones of reverence.
“Any man is dumb who does not embrace Herakles with his speech.”[28]
This leads on to the idea of the hero as an individual and his place within the wider community and of course we could be forgiven for seeing the hero as essentially anathematic to the very idea of a cohesive society. Individuals such as Aias, prone to slaughtering his fellow Greeks in a fit of pique, are dangerous, uncontrollable characters who threaten the fabric of the community they attempt to live in. In Homeric epic we see that the tantrum thrown by Achilles places in jearpordy the entire Achaean army and it isn’t a sense of public duty that brings the warrior back into the fight but his own personal grief at the death of Patroclus; heroes don’t seem to benefit anyone but themselves. Nonetheless this is where we see in later literature a definite transformation in the hero as community benefactor rather than malefactor. It is understood that heroes are greater than the average man and that though they are commonly selfish and obstinate the potential for community service is nonetheless inherent
““In the epic conception of battle, then, no man is expendable, but a great warrior is held to be capable of contributing infinitely more than an average man to the outcome of the fight, and hence the survival of the army and all the community.”[29]
The issue lies in the harnessing of such potential and it is through death ritual and the cult of the hero that this power is reined in for the good of the community. We see the importance of heroes as regards the founding of colonies in Pindar
“Fame shines for him
in the colony of brave men founded by Lydian Pelops”[30]
So in Pindar we see the hero Pelops as being the founder of a colony and in a sense lending his power to the community that live there and almost doubtlessly ringing true with Seaford’s view that “the institution of the cult of the tribal hero would promote social cohesion.”[31]
Of course heroes such as the Sophoclean Aias do not instantly invoke the idea of people sitting in a circle holding hands, so we should look at the violent or aggressive aspects of hero-cult and how that may have been employed by individual poleis. Seaford is right to see that an example of hero-cult was “as deploying the hero’s anger against outsiders”[32] and we can see a good example of this in Herodotus’ Histories.
“Since they [The Spartans] were constantly being beaten by the Tegeans, they sent emissaries to Delphi to ask which god they should propitiate in order to start winning the Tegean War, and the Pythia replied that they had to bring the bones of Orestes the son of Agamemnon back home.”[33]
Two points of interest here, firstly that though the Spartans go looking to propitiate a god they appear to have to propitiate a dead hero, which supports the view that dead heroes had similar status to the gods though presumably lower down in the pecking order. Secondly we see how the Spartans are seeking to appease Orestes in order to defeat their enemy Tegea, the point being that the force or power of the hero could be used directly against an opponent, thereby benefiting one community over another.
So in brief: we have discussed the idea of the hero as an individual who, in nearly all cases, retains a sense of will in the face of all opposition be it mortal or immortal. Who understands their relationship to others by means of reciprocal acts in which they seek to gain pre-eminence in all situations, thus displaying that even in acts of co-operation there is an undertone of competition. We see how in Homeric epic they rarely if ever have a conception of the public interest and usually act with a degree of autonomy but that as the tradition develops their spirit or physis is propitiated and utilised by collective communities to either unify and develop social cohesion or in the hope of bringing the violence of the hero to bear upon enemies. I hope to have also shown that discussions regarding heroic mythology are inextricably linked with the development of hero-cult which, I believe, is closely connected with the circulation of Homeric epic in the eighth century and perhaps with the oral tradition that preceded it.
Bibliography
Adkins. A.W.H, Homeric Values and Homeric Society, JHS 91, 1-14 (1971)
Coldstream. J.N, Hero Cults in the Age of Homer, JHS 96, 8-17 (1976)
Donlan. W, The Unequal Exchange between Glaucus and Diomedes in light of the Homeric gift-economy, Phoenix 43, 1-15 (1989)
Donlan. W, Reciprocities in Homer, CW 75, 137-175 (1981-2)
Euripides, Vol II, Kovacs. D, Loeb Classical Library, HUP, 1995
Herodotus, The Histories, Waterfield.R, OUP, 1998
Homer, Iliad I-XII, Murray. A.T, Loeb Classical Library, HUP, 1999
Knox, B. M. W., The Heroic Temper, University of California Press, Berkeley 1964
Pindar, Vol I, Race.W.H, Loeb Classical Library, HUP, 1997
Seaford, R., Reciprocity and Ritual, Oxford UP, Oxford 1994
Sophocles, Vol I, Lloyd-Jones. H, Loeb Classical Library, HUP, 1994
Van Wees.H, Kings in Combat: Battles and Heroes in the Iliad, CQ 38, 1-24 (1988)
[1] Olympian 1.81-84
[2] Lolling
[3] Coldstream, 15
[4] Coldstream, 14
[5] Knox, 5
[6] Aias, 96
[7] Aias, 835ff
[8] JHS 91 (1971), 1-14
[9] Adkins, 5
[10] Knox, 10
[11] Aias, 479
[12] Adkins, 10
[13] CW 75, (1981-2) 137-75
[14] Donlan, 144
[15] Aias, 442ff
[16] Iliad, I, 160ff
[17] Olympian 1. 115ff
[18] Morris, I, 10
[19] Donlan, The Unequal Exchange Between Glaucus and Diomedes in light of the Homeric gift-economy’ Phoenix 43 (1989) 1-15, 1
[20] Pythian 1. 94
[21] Iliad, VI, 233ff
[22] Ibid, 15
[23] Iliad, VI, 207ff
[24] Iliad, XII, 313
[25] Donlan, CW, 159
[26] Coldstream, 8
[27] Hippolytos, 107
[28] Pythian 9, 87
[29] Van Wees, 17
[30] Olympian 1.23-24
[31] Seaford, 113
[32] Seaford, 129
[33] Herodotus, I, 67
