THE WRATH AND VENGEANCE OF SWIFT-FOOTED AENEAS IN ILIAD 13

Author(s): Jonathan Fenno

Source: Phoenix, Vol. 62, No. 1/2 (Spring-Summer/printemps-été 2008), pp. 145-161
Published by: Classical Association of Canada
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/25651702
Accessed: 10-11-2015 18:45 UTC

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/
info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content
in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.
For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Classical Association of Canada is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Phoenix.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 131.91.169.193 on Tue, 10 Nov 2015 18:45:51 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 THE WRATH AND VENGEANCE OF
SWIFT-FOOTED AENEAS IN ILIAD 13

Jonathan Fenno

Set against t?, ?ac o ?, the Teo,a. Wa., the

? foc?,s
attention on a specifichero, expanding tomonumental proportions two interwoven
incidents: the swift-footed son of a goddess, wrathful at the king who has
dishonored him, abstains from fighting the enemy; but after learning from a
messenger about the death in battle of someone near and dear to him, a death
initiated by divine intervention, he takes up arms, intent on revenge. Such a
brief summary does not, of course, represent the epic's true complexity, but
it nevertheless captures the basic outline. Angered by Agamemnon, Achilles
refuses to fightagainst theTrojans; later, however, afterAntilochus reports that
Patroclus has been killed in action,with Apollo actually having delivered the first
blow, our hero angrily enters battle to avenge that death on Hector. The basic
plot ingeniously interlaces two distinct themes: aggrieved withdrawal modulates
into vengeful return.1 The series of events constituting that larger design is
anticipated in striking detail by a minor episode from Book 13, what might be
called theWrath and Vengeance of Aeneas. As will be demonstrated below,
Achilles' character and actions, both past and future, are closely reflected and
meaningfully refracted at the center of the Iliad by theTrojan demigod Aeneas,
who functions as a kind of doublet, or rather antitype, of the epic's leading hero.
The extensive analogies that can be shown to exist between Achilles and Aeneas
reveal an underlying pattern that profoundly informed the poem's composition
and contributes to itsdepth, unity, and movement.

aeneas as an antitype of achilles

The notion that one Homeric figure might serve as doublet of another by
sharing a constellation of similar characteristics or by performing a sequence of
similar deeds is not new. The phenomenon, explored by Bernard Fenik in a book
on the
Odyssey, has been usefully reconsidered by Roberto Nickel, who observes
that such doublets "can serve as temporalmarkers in theprogression of the narrative

lrrhe expected resolution, where the aggrieved hero returns to battle once his honor has been
restored, is disrupted in the Iliad by Achilles' refusal to accept the king's gifts or to be persuaded by
that he does finally allow a companion to a
entreaty?except fight in his stead, which then initiates
second story-line of death and vengeance that will to his own doom. Evidence for
eventually lead
the traditional pattern of thewrath theme may be found, for
example, in the Iliadic tale ofMeleager
and theHomeric Hymn toDemeter. See M. L. Lord 1967; Nickel 2003; 1997: 239-320. For broad
treatment of traditional themes in the Iliad, see A. B. Lord 1960: 186-197,
esp. 190; Nagler 1974:
131-166, esp. 132. For thewithdrawn hero in Serbo-Croatian epic,
see A. B. Lord 1969.

145
PHOENIX, VOL. 62 (2008) 2.

This content downloaded from 131.91.169.193 on Tue, 10 Nov 2015 18:45:51 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 146 PHOENIX

and as focal points for the recapitulation and development of important themes."2
While the sets of "character doublets" thatmost attracted Fenik's attention are
relativelyminor figures (such as Euryclea and Eurynome, Mentor andMentes,
Eumaeus and Philoetius), those of interest toNickel arguablymirror the principal
hero of the Iliad? By contrast, in his earlierwork on the Iliad, Fenik tended
to be ambivalent or even skeptical about Achillean doublets, seeing only partial
parallels without larger significance for the poem.4 Aeneas' angrywithdrawal,
for instance, "may be nothing more than [a] typical but carelessly used" motif,
according toFenik; if itwas modeled afterAchilles' wrath, then itwould represent
"an especially clumsy example of themany ^Augenblicherfindungenof the Iliad"5
Nickel on the other hand recognizes that the poem presents "a concentration of
such doublets around the figure ofAchilles_ Character doubling allows for
the storyof the hero's withdrawal and itsdisastrous consequences to be developed
without the frequent intrusion of thewithdrawn hero into themain narrative."6
However, Nickel's brief survey of Achillean doublets does not treatAeneas as
part of that category, perhaps because of his observance of the supposed rule that
"all doublets ofAchilles in the Iliad function to give us a proleptic glimpse of the
hero's death."7 As I will argue, both the character and the actions of the Iliadic
Aeneas present, at times, remarkably close analogies to those ofAchilles, while

2
Nickel 2002: 221-222, relying primarily on Fenik's work on the Odyssey (1974: 142, 172-207).
3
As noted by Fenik (1974: 205), the eponymous hero of the Odyssey has a partial doublet
inMenelaus, whose postponed return home mirrors or anticipates in interesting respects that of

Odysseus. For detailed exploration of the parallels, see Powell 1970. One could also point to
Menelaus' brother, Agamemnon, who functions in the poem as an antitype to Odysseus: the one
returned immediately, only to be slain by the lover of his disloyal wife, while the other came home

years later to slay the unwelcome suitors of his faithfulwife. See, for example,West 1988: 54, 60,192,

218, 226; Heubeck 1989: 72.

4 reflects his
Fenik's attitude toward Achillean doublets (1968: 148-149, 206-207, 234-235)
unease with neoanalytic arguments that the Iliad was directly influenced by the Aethiopis. His
reservations essentially fall into three categories, (i) Achilles may not be the only model of this type
in the tradition or even in the Iliad. This discounts the fact that he is by far themost important such
model in the poem, (ii) The supposed doublet is a complex figure, apparently modeled after not only
not identical toAchilles,
theAchilles-like type but also other types.This amounts to saying that he is
(iii) Along similar lines, the parallel with Achilles may seem no stronger than thatwith other types.
This is debatable.
5
Fenik's comments (1968: 122) concern both Aeneas' wrathful abstention in Book 13 and Paris'
absence in Book 6 (a topic to be treated below, 151, 153).
allegedly angry
6
Nickel 2002: 221-223.
7
Nickel 2002: 224, cf. 216. He argues against the idea that Euphorbus, one of Patroclus' slayers,
is partly modeled on Paris, killer ofAchilles, proposing instead that Euphorbus is a doublet ofAchilles
I think). For the popularity of the former view, see Allan (2005: 1, n. 2), who asserts
(unpersuasively,
that "we should avoid thinking of doublets, sources, or 'intruders,' and focus instead on trying tomake
sense of the characters and their actions on their own terms" (16). Allan's objections carryweight
to identify doublets (and their supposed extra-Iliadic sources)
against any who might seek simply
without considering their contribution to the characterization, plot, and meaning of the poem as a
whole.

This content downloaded from 131.91.169.193 on Tue, 10 Nov 2015 18:45:51 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 THE WRATH AND VENGEANCE OF AENEAS 147

his destined survival of theTrojan War offers a poignant contrast to the other's
imminent fate.
Scholars have naturally noticed intriguing similarities between Aeneas and
Achilles in the Iliad, but there is no coherent study of the full extent towhich
theWrath and Vengeance of Aeneas in Book 13 proleptically compresses in
microcosm the plot of the monumental epic.8 Because the Trojan demigod's
wrath at being dishonored by his king is not further explained by the narrator
and does not surface elsewhere, except perhaps in hints at rivalrybetween the
house of his fatherAnchises and that of king Priam, the "curious" passage has
often been thought to point externally to pre-Iliadic legend.9 While Gregory
Nagy aptly connects this episode to the armed encounter between Achilles and
Aeneas in Book 20, in the final analysis he regards it as a distracting design
flaw in the Iliad that alludes to some lost epic tradition featuring the Trojan
hero. In contrast,Richard Janko, emphasizing the improvisational nature of oral
at the king's unexplained
composition, contends thatAeneas' temporarywrath
insult, as well as his vengeance for the death of his obscure brother-in-law
Alcathous, are essentially ad hoc inventions that serve immediate purposes in the
battle narrative, enabling him to confront Idomeneus at an appropriate time.10 In
any case, given the impossibility of proving categorically thatAeneas had never
been traditionally associated with the simpleWrath theme, or evenwith themore
distinctive configuration ofWrath transformed intoVengeance, I shall focus on
the broader poetic function of the episode from Book 13, arguing that it offers a
on or counterpoint to themain
meaningful and strategicallyplaced variation plot.
a
The Iliadic Aeneas is likely composite figure, not only drawn from the
strands of tradition, but also shaped to fit the specific artistic context of the
Iliad. Accordingly, David Cramer's attempt to relate this episode to larger ideas
found within the poem is commendable.11 Constructing a detailed comparison
ofAeneas toAchilles, Cramer highlights their unique wrath or menis, as well as
8 see Cramer
For parallels between the Iliadic Aeneas and Achilles, and for further bibliography,
2000.
9
Leaf 1902: ad II. 13.460. More recently, Nagy 1979: 266-267: "In short, the nature of the
themes attributed toAeneas in this passage [II. 13.459-461] suggests that they are central to another
epic tradition?this one featuring Aeneas rather than Achilles as its prime hero .... There is a
conflict going on here (77. 20.179-183) between Achilles and Aeneas as warriors in battle and also
between the epic traditions about each of the two heroes. Moreover, the Iliad here is actually allowing

part of theAeneas tradition to assert itself at the expense of theAchilles tradition."

10Janko (1992: ad 13.459-61): "Since we are not told how Priam is at fault, this must be an

improvisation to explain why Aineias is behind the lines, like Idomeneus' wounded comrade at 21 If.
In fact it balances that scene, as Michel saw (1971: 93)." Janko (ad 13.361-454, 463-467) also
concludes that Alcathous himself, along with the story that he raised Aeneas, is invented so as to
motivate the latter to attempt to avenge the former's death on Idomeneus.
11
Cramer (2000: 19), drawing on Slatkin (1991), argues that "the material from the Aeneas
tradition in the Iliad... a theme often
recapitulates emphasized in the poem, namely the displacement
of generational succession from the divine to themortal sphere." However, the role played byAeneas
and his mother in themyth of divine succession is unclear tome.

This content downloaded from 131.91.169.193 on Tue, 10 Nov 2015 18:45:51 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 148 PHOENIX

their swiftfeet and divine mothers.12 Another important contributionwas made

by Stephen Lowenstam, who interpreted themany references to angry heroes in
the Iliad not simply as haphazard echoes of a traditional theme, but rather as
on the
significant variations poem's prime subject, the anger of Achilles.13 In
particular, Lowenstam suggested that the episode involvingAeneas anticipates
or even foreshadows theway inwhich Achilles will
eventually return to battle:
just as thewrathful Trojan hero resumes hostilities upon learning of the fate of
Alcathous, so will the Greek join battle after hearing about Patroclus' death.14
But the analogy can be drawn evenmore fully.

PREPARATION FOR THE RETURN OF ACHILLES

After that brief and selective survey of the scholarship, attention may now
be refocused on the plot of the Iliad. In the opening lines the poet famously
announces thatAchilles' wrath will cause theGreeks much grief through Zeus'
will, once that hero quarrels with Agamemnon (//. 1.1-7). In fact, formost of
the poem, Achilles resentfullyabstains from battle. The long-awaited moment
of his eventual return is prepared, or at least prefigured, on various levels,
even
including narratorial prediction, divine prophecy, mythical paradigm, and
analogous narrative. The first three categories, to be illustrated below, involve
relatively straightforwardallusions to subsequent events: narratorial predictions
are delivered through the poet's persona, divine are uttered by gods or
prophecies
other figures of religious authority, and mythical paradigms are normally invoked
a lesson from the past might be applied in
by mortal characters, illustratinghow
the present and future. In contrast, the fourth category,which is unobtrusively
some
incorporated into the action, may require preliminary clarification. The
expression "analogous narrative" ismeant to refer to relativelyminor eventswithin
the plot that apparentlymirror the poet's preoccupation with a larger story-line.15
While the monumental narrative is largely composed of formulaic expressions,
typical scenes, and traditional themes repeated in various permutations, the
seems to have exerted a special
particular type embodied by the leading hero
influence, through tacit analogy, on the creation or adaptation of the careers of
certain other characters, Aeneas.
including
An early prophecy pointing toAchilles' return to battle is revealed inBook 1,
before he has even decided to refrainfrom fighting,when Athena urges him not

12
Cramer 2000, esp. 24 and n. 19.
13Lowenstam 1993, esp. 11, 60, and 86 with n. 69.
14Lowenstam 1993: 98-99, also 114.
15Lowenstam (1993: xiii), who refers to "narrative repetition," observes that theHomeric poems
make extensive use of "repeated antitheses," drawing "analogies between contrasting situations" and
theHomeric poems methodically
revealing "differences between analogous material." In other words,
a series of
"develop and elaborate upon ideas and motifs by putting them through permutations in
order to perceive at the end their true value and meaning" (Lowenstam 1993: 11). Alden (2001: vii,
15-16) employs the term "paranarratives" forminor episodes that, like mythical paradigms, repeat,
with variation, patterns found in themain plot.

This content downloaded from 131.91.169.193 on Tue, 10 Nov 2015 18:45:51 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 THE WRATH AND VENGEANCE OF AENEAS 149

to draw his sword in anger against Agamemnon: she assures him that eventually
he will be richly compensated for his having been treated so outrageously
(1.210-214). This divine prediction establishes the expectation thatAchilles will
ultimately be reconciled with Agamemnon and theGreeks, at great cost to them.
This impression is confirmed later in the same book, afterAchilles has secluded
himself in his camp, when Thetis asks, and Zeus nods assent, that theTrojans
should prevail until the Greeks properly honor her son (1.495-530). A more
explicit forecast ismade within the Catalog of Ships, when the poet announces
that swift-footed, divine Achilles was lying idle by his ships, angry about the
rouse himself
captive girl Briseis, but would soon again (2.688-689, 694). How
Achilles will be motivated to resume fighting is not specified, though one might
expect that at least Briseis would be returned to him first, along with substantial
recompense.
The hero's entry into battle is also predicted toward the end of Book 8,
with an important addition: Zeus tellsHera that theGreeks will undergo much
suffering and Hector will not cease from fighting until such time as Achilles
rouses himself on the day when battle rages around a slain Patroclus, as is fated
(8.473-477).16 Roughly one-third of the way through the Iliad, for the first
time in the poem, this divine prophecy unexpectedly links the hero's return to
the death of his beloved companion. The passage is admittedly problematic
in suggesting that the fight for Patroclus' body will take place near the Greek
ships (whereas later in the Iliad, about two-thirds of theway through, the battle
actually occurs closer to Troy); nevertheless, Zeus' prophecy here is consistent
with the poem's tendency to allude to future eventswith increasingly precise but
not always straightforwarddetails.17 Achilles' initial entry into battle in the Iliad
is furtherforeshadowed by an extended mythical paradigm in Book 9. When
Achilles willfully refuses to accept the many gifts proffered by Agamemnon,
showing no interest even in the promised return of an untouched Briseis,
Phoenix warns him that once in the past the indomitable hero Meleager also
resentfully refused to fight, but when he entered battle, he did so too
finally
late to receive any of the previously offered honors and rewards (9.524-605).
Whereas Meleager was finally persuaded to join battle by his tearful bed-mate

16
Before Patroclus'death is prophesied at 77. 8.476, previous references to the hero include 1.307
(Achilles, after his argument with Agamemnon, angrily returns to his
own camp,
together with
Patroclus and his men), and 1.337 and 345 (Achilles orders Patroclus to
bring Briseis from his tent
and surrender her toAgamemnon's men). After Patroclus' fate is foretold toward the end of Book 8,
he will play a prominent role in the following book as Achilles' closest
companion: 9.190, 195, 201,
202.
17
Before Patroclus actually enters battle inAchilles' place, Zeus even more detail that,
predicts in
inter alia, the one hero will be slain and the other will return to avenge his death (//.
by Hector
15.59-71). The authenticity of this passage has been questioned, but it, like 8.473-477, also fits the
pattern of evermore precise and accurate allusions to the future.Duckworth's study of foreshadowing
(1966: 53) shows how anticipation is intensified in the Iliad by various techniques, including gradual
development from vague premonition to detailed
prophecy. For the technique of false forecasting, see
Morrison 1992.

This content downloaded from 131.91.169.193 on Tue, 10 Nov 2015 18:45:51 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 '
150 PHOENIX

Cleopatra, Achilles will eventually be swayed inBook 16 by his tearful tent-mate

Patroclus, who asks not that his companion fight, but rather that he himself
be permitted to enter the fray in his stead, wearing his armor. This disastrous
plan will ultimately lead to Patroclus' death and consequently toAchilles' delayed
resumption of fighting. Of course, none of that has yet happened by the end of
Book 9, and the two heroes sleep safely together on opposite sides of the same
tent.

While Phoenix indicates that the theme of the angry hero who eventually
relentswas a commonplace (9.524-526), scholars debate the degree towhich the
tale ofMeleager has been transformed so as to correspond more closely to its
Iliadic context.18 If, as many believe, the poet has reshapedMeleager's biography
with wrathful Achilles inmind, improvising on the traditionalmotif of aggrieved
withdrawal, then it is not unreasonable to suppose thatAeneas' actions during the
subsequent day of fightingmight be subject to analogous modification. Phoenix's
didactic comparison of Achilles to angry heroes of old, primarilyMeleager,
establishes a clear precedent that authorizes the poem's audience to draw its own
lesson from the later incident ofAeneas' wrath.
On the day following Phoenix's unsuccessful appeal, as many Greeks return
summons his companion for an errand.Here inBook
injured frombattle,Achilles
11, as Patroclus emerges from their tent, the narrator ominously announces that
thiswas the beginning of his doom (11.602-604). When Patroclus obediently
sets out forNestor's camp, one might begin to fear, given Zeus' prophecy of his
death three books earlier, that he may not return alive. In fact, Patroclus stays

away formore than four books, finally coming back at the beginning of Book
16, bringing Nestor's suggestion that he be allowed to fightwearing Achilles'
armor. This foolish request, the poet remarks,will cause his death (16.46-47).
That death in fact occurs later in the book, but not before the key event has been
foreshadowed several more times.19

18 are essentially three: (i) the cholos ofMeleager was modeled, to at least some
The positions
on the menis ofAchilles; or (ii) vice versa, so that the plot of the Iliad echoes an earlier tradition
degree,
about Meleager; or else (iii) both tales arose independently from the same generic story pattern. For
the last option, see Hainsworth 1993: 132. Kakridis (1949: 60, n. 22), attempting to reconstruct a lost
not "dare to express a view" on the origin ofAchilles' wrath. In general,
Meleagris, admits that he did
see innovation in the Homeric
contemporary scholars are increasingly willing to tale ofMeleager:
for example, Willcock 1964; 1978: 281-283; March 1987: 27-46; Bremmer 1988; Swain 1988;
Morrison 1992: 119-124; Lowenstam 1993: 89-98; Alden 2001: 229-253. Willcock emphasizes the
return (at his
fact thatMeleager's anger (at his mother's curse), his refusal to fight, and his belated
wife's request) are not attested independently and are inconsistent with themore famous tale involving
the firebrand that magically represented the hero's life. Comparing other Iliadic passages, Willcock
concludes "that the poet was perfectly prepared to invent even the central details of his paradeigma, to
assimilate it to the situation towhich it is adduced as a parallel" (1964: 152). He also observes, 'When
Homer is inventing, he tends to use stock motifs" (1964: 147).
19The death of Patroclus is forecast at //. 8.473-477,11.604, 15.64-68, 16.46-47, 249

252, 685-693, (also see 1.240-244

18.9-11 [with 18.73-93], 16.91-100, 707-709, 17.406-409,
19.328-334). For foreshadowing of Patroclus' death, see Lowenstam 1981, esp. 31-32.

This content downloaded from 131.91.169.193 on Tue, 10 Nov 2015 18:45:51 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 THE WRATH AND VENGEANCE OF AENEAS 151

In the meantime, while Patroclus loiters among the ships for more than
four books, the circumstances of his imminent death and Achilles' subsequent
return to battle are prefiguredwithin the narrative itselfby an otherwise relatively
occurs inBook 13,
inconsequential incident involvingAeneas and Alcathous that
soon after the beginning of the second half of the Iliad. Roughly speaking, the
a inAchilles'
poem's middle third represents kind of inversion of theTrojan War:
absence, with Zeus' blessing, the besieged become temporary besiegers.20 The
Greeks find itnecessary for the first time to build a wall (at the very end of Book
7), while theTrojans venturewith unprecedented boldness far beyond their city's
fortifications to breach the enemy rampart (at the close of Book 12), threatening
even to set fire to their ships (at the conclusion of Book 15)?in contrastwith
the end of thewar, when Troy itselfwill be sacked and burned to the ground.
This reversal is nicely captured by a simile that compares the hard-pressed Greeks
to wasps or bees that stubbornly defend from attack their home and children
(12.167-172). An image that one might expect to find applied to inhabitants of
a city under siege is here, in themiddle of the Iliad, paradoxically employed to
describe soldiers of an invading army.Amid these inverted circumstances, then,
the episode of the Wrath and Vengeance ofAeneas presents aminor counterpoint
to the poem's major themes, featuring a Trojan demigod in place of a Greek
one. While the Iliad itselfbegan with (i) its hero's wrath against the king and
(ii) his consequent withdrawal, the episode in question will return to thosemotifs
mid-way through. It begins, however, at the verypoint beforewhich the sequence
of the poem's main plot has been suspended, namely, (iii) the death of a close
relative or companion initiated by divine intervention, (iv) the reporting of that
death to the hero, and (v) his vengeful entry into battle.
In Book 13 the role of the hero's relative or friend is played by a certain
Alcathous, who is identified, just before his death, as Anchises' son-in-law
(13.427-435), that is, as Aeneas' brother-in-law. His eyes bewitched and
his limbs immobilized by Poseidon, Alcathous is easily slain by Idomeneus
(13.436-444). The closest Iliadic parallel for such lethal divine intervention
is the death of Patroclus, who will first be stunned by a blow delivered from
Apollo's hand, then easily injured by thewarrior Euphorbus, and finally killed
by Hector (16.787-822). The two incidents do, of course, differ in certain
details, but this does not entirely negate their similarity,21which is enhanced
by the fact that the deaths ofAlcathous and Patroclus will correspond in other
interestingways aswell. For instance,much as news ofAlcathous' end is brought

20
For the inversion of narrative motifs in the central third of the Iliad, see Louden 2006: 80-111.
21
For comparison of the deaths ofAlcathous and Patroclus, see Fenik 1968: 217. Rough parallels
can
perhaps be found in Book 5: Athena guides Diomedes' spear to kill Pandarus (77. 5.290) and
to wound Ares (5.856); and Ares acts in concert with Hector to slay several Greeks (5.704) and
no details are
apparently kills Periphas (5.842-848), though given. Elsewhere divine intervention
leads only indirectly to a hero's death, as when a disguised Athena persuades Pandarus or Hector to
follow a risky course of action (4.86-104, 22.226-247).

This content downloaded from 131.91.169.193 on Tue, 10 Nov 2015 18:45:51 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 152 PHOENIX

toAeneas at the far side of the battlefield by Deiphobus (13.456-467), so the

report of Patroclus' death will eventually be relayed to Achilles' distant camp
by Antilochus (18.15-21). Both heroes lose someone near and dear: while
Aeneas is reminded by Deiphobus thatAlcathous had raised him in his home
since childhood (xox06v eovxa, 13.466), Achilles will be reminded later by his
companion's ghost thatPeleus had raised Patroclus in theirhome since childhood
(xuxOov sovxa, 23.84-90). Furthermore, whereas Deiphobus urges Aeneas to
join battle in order to protect Alcathous' corpse, Antilochus will be entrusted
with the task of informingAchilles in the express hope that the great hero might
somehow rescue Patroclus' body (17.691-693). The situations are admittedly
not identical: Aeneas begins fighting immediately,whereas Achilles will have to
wait, since his armor has been lost; all the same, he will contribute decisively
to the rescue of Patroclus' body merely by shouting the battle cry (17.708-714,
18.170-180, 228-236). Thus the relativelyminor episode involvingAeneas closes
on Achilles is furtherextended.
fairlyquickly,whereas the largerplot centering

ANTICIPATION OF THE VENGEANCE OF ACHILLES

While the resumption of hostilities by theTrojan demigod inBook 13 closely

an important difference in
anticipates that ofAchilles later in the Iliad, there is
the degree of vengeance exacted by each hero. Upon returning to battle,Achilles
slaysdozens of victims in succession, including finally inBook 22 Patroclus' slayer,
Hector.22 By contrast,Aeneas fails to killAlcathous' killer, Idomeneus, though in
the ensuing fighthe does indirectlyavenge his relative's death by killingAphareus
(13.541-544). Aeneas' victory here actually represents the second occasion in the
poem on which he seems to have killed for revenge. In the earlier incident, he
slew the twin brothers Crethon and Ortilochus immediately afterAgamemnon
had slain a certain Deeicoon, identified as Aeneas' companion (5.534). Once
a or relative of
again, vengeance is only indirect.23Such pattern (A killsX, friend
Y, who then kills B, not A) is evident throughout the Iliad, beginning with the
scene a
programmatic that opens the poem's fighting (4.457-535), where leading
Greek (Odysseus) angrily avenges the death of his companion (Leucus) at the
hands of one of Priam's sons (Antiphus) by killing another son of the Trojan
to exact vengeance
king (the bastard Democoop). Here and elsewhere, attempts
almost never succeed directly?apparently by poetic design. In effect,Hector
is the only Iliadic hero expressly slain for having slain another.24Whatever the
it reflects the reality
explanation for the rarityof this kind of vengeance?whether
22
Euphorbus, too,will have been killed byMenelaus (//. 17.9-71).
23 is identified as the hetairos of Lycomedes
Similarly, Aeneas' final named victim, Leocritus, (II.
17.345); moved by his good friend's death, Lycomedes casts his spear and kills the Trojan Apisaon

(not Aeneas).
24 a handful of the hundreds ofwarriors killed in the Iliad have earlier killed an identifiable
Only
foe, so that surprisingly few could be considered as possible victims of direct vengeance: only Peiros,
on the and Patroclus
Sarpedon, and Hector Trojan side, and apparently also Antiphus and Acamas;

This content downloaded from 131.91.169.193 on Tue, 10 Nov 2015 18:45:51 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 THE WRATH AND VENGEANCE OF AENEAS 153

of ancientwarfare, a traditional habit of oral composition, or a peculiar technique

of the monumental Iliad, as I suspect?the end result,which has not always
been fully appreciated,25 is to exalt Achilles' accomplishment in finallykilling
Patroclus' killer. Thus every Iliadic instance of battlefield vengeance, or rather its
relative failure, serves to increase the glory of the poem's greatest hero. Achilles is
extraordinaryfor both his wrath and his vengeance.
The general motif of fighting to avenge a slain friend or relative is doubtless
traditional26 All the same, despite its typical nature, battlefield revenge may
at times assume thematic significancewithin a poem that hinges, after all, on
Achilles' vengeance of Patroclus' death on Hector. The motif is applied in
not onlyAeneas, the primary
interestingways to various Iliadic figures, including
focus of this article, but also (a) Paris, (b) Patroclus, and (c)Hector, each ofwhom
Iwill discuss in turn.The incidents summarized below, like the Wrath-Vengeance
of Aeneas, can be profitably understood, not as random extracts from the epic
or as significant
cycle meaningless collocations of traditional elements, but rather
components of the Iliad that enhance its dynamic movement and monumental
structure.

(a) Paris. The themes of angrywithdrawal and battlefield vengeance are, in

isolated incidents, each paradoxically associated with Paris, who is portrayed by
the Iliad as something of an antihero. Like Achilles, Paris is absent from part

on the Greek side. Of these slain slayers, Peiros falls immediately after felling Diores; and Patroclus'
finalvictim, Cebriones, is the half-brother and charioteer of his killer,Hector. But vengeance or anger
is not mentioned in either case (though in the latter at least itmight be assumed). And, of course,
as a as revenge.
dying Hector predicts, Achilles will finally be slain by his brother Paris, presumably
To a less heroic category belongs thewarrior killed by the very man whom he has recentlywounded:
for example, theTrojans Pandarus, Coon, Socus, and Asteropaeus. For reliable accounting of Iliadic
victors and victims, as well as a blow-by-blow list of casualties, see Stoevesandt 2004, esp. 388-412.
25
Fenik's introduction misleadingly, ifnot mistakenly, includes among typical battle scenes in the
Iliad the fighter who "avenges himself on the slayer of his friend" (1968: 3). Later, Fenik indicates
that, while "it is common for a man to avenge his slain friend" (139), "it often happens ... that a
not have the effect that one might expect .... [T]he reaction of the man
particular slaying does
... whose friend has been struck, is not directed
against the enemy who made the attack but against
to such instances of indirect battlefield vengeance as
somebody else yet uninvolved" (57). Fenik refers
the "slaying of a man by mistake" or simply the "a-b-c pattern" (cf. 57, 126-128, 138-141, 174).
26
For example, in the lost Aethiopis, which may reflect pre-Homeric material, many scholars

suppose that Achilles had temporarily withdrawn from battle, respecting his mother's predictions
about the mighty Ethiopian demigod Memnon; but when his friend Antilochus was killed by
Memnon, he vengefully resumed fighting. See Edwards 1991: adII. 18.95-96. However, because the

summary outline of theAethiopis in the Proclan Chrestomathia is rather bare, interpretation remains
controversial. The assumptions that Achilles had withdrawn from battle and even that he slew
Memnon to avenge Patroclus are called into question by Burgess (1997). For what it isworth, the late
and quirky Posthomerica does not mention any prophecy thatmight have caused Achilles to hold back
from battle. On the other hand, this "Posthomeric" Achilles does not immediately engage Memnon
and does so only afterNestor brings word thatAntilochus has been slain; angered by his death (and
that of many others), the hero advances against the Ethiopian and finally kills him (Q^S. 2.388-401;
cf. 3.10).

This content downloaded from 131.91.169.193 on Tue, 10 Nov 2015 18:45:51 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 154 PHOENIX

of the poem's fighting, though for less than laudable reasons. After disappearing
mysteriously from a duel with Menelaus (having been rescued by Aphrodite),
Paris remains inhis bedroom with Helen for several books, untilHector comes to
rouse him, suggesting that he has been holding back from battle because of anger
(//.6.325-331)?conceivably an honorable excuse invented by one brother for the
other. Paris replies that he has been sitting idle out of grief, and apparently denies
or
feeling any anger indignation at theTrojans; furthermore,he claims to have
already been persuaded to resume fighting by Helen (6.335-339).27 The heroic
narrativewhich Hector has begun to construct about his brother is immediately
dropped as inappropriate. Paris is no Achilles: the poet even has him deny a tacit
parallel with that other hero. The contrastwith themain plot is pointed: while
the proud Greek angrily isolates himself in the camp fromwhich his woman has
been unjustly taken, themoody Trojan soon returns from an ignominious respite
in the palace with awoman whom he was wrongly stolen.28 Several books later, in
an unrelated incident that is not without irony,when a certainHarpalion attacks
Menelaus but is slain byMeriones, Paris becomes enraged at his guest-friend's
death and in turn kills theGreek Euchenor (13.649-672).29 Paris' concern for a
formerhost, particularly an antagonist ofMenelaus, strikes an incongruous chord
in the context of theTrojan War, which he himself had notoriously instigated
by abusingMenelaus' hospitality and stealing his wife?offences which that hero
has just loudly reiterated (13.620-639).30 Following soon afterAlcathous' death
(which itself anticipates Patroclus' fate), the successive deaths ofHarpalion and
Euchenor together prefigure in certain respects the interconnected fates ofHector
and Achilles. Much as Harpalion's body is taken back to Troy in a chariot,
accompanied by his weeping father Pylaemanes, king of the Paphlagonians
(13.657-658), so in the poem's final book will Hector's corpse be returned in a
cart led by his father Priam, king of Troy. Each death is avenged by Paris on
a man with a double fate, a motif not otherwise employed in the Iliad: much

27Kakridis (1949: 43-49) compares wrathful Paris in Book 6 toMeleager ("both, though they
a war, near their wives and away from battle"), suggesting that Homer has briefly
provoke keep
and ineffectively drawn from a lost tradition about the Calydonian hero. In contrast, Nickel (1997:
239-320, esp. 310-320) argues that a generic story pattern of wrath, withdrawal, and return shapes
the scene between Paris and Hector in Book 6, though he also suggests that Paris may have been
associated with the theme. Focusing instead on the poem's leading hero, Lowenstam
traditionally
(1993: 85-89) directly links Paris here to Achilles, asserting that "there are so many references to
... [because the is the anger ofAchilles."
angered heroes in the Iliad poem's] announced subject...
28
Gordon (1967: 46) broadly compares Achilles to the biblical figure Samson, "who, because his
Philistine wife had been taken from him and given to another man, flew into a rage and wreaked
havoc on the Philistines by burning their crops and orchards. Nor did his wrath subside until it had
taken a heavy toll of Philistine lives (Judg. 15.1-8)."
29
For Paris' violations ofMenelaus' hospitality and the irony implicit in the incident ofHarpalion's
death, see Louden 2006: 187, 190, 192-193.
30 name seem related, at least to the root of the verb
Harpalion's might through folk etymology,
("to snatch, steal"), which was used for the first time in the poem by Paris to describe his
harpazo
see von
stealing ofMenelaus' wife (77. 3.444). For the name, Kamptz 1982: 130, 237.

This content downloaded from 131.91.169.193 on Tue, 10 Nov 2015 18:45:51 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 THE WRATH AND VENGEANCE OF AENEAS 155

as Euchenor, destined to die either of a disease at home or in battle at Troy

(13.665-668), is the onlyGreek in the Iliad to be slain by an arrow shot by Paris,
so too Achilles, destined to die either of old age at home or with glory at Troy,
will eventually fall by Paris' arrow, soon after slaying his brotherHector.31 The
parts played here by Harpalion, Pylaemenes, Paris, and Euchenor, marking the
last fatalities inBook 13,will be re-enacted in the futurebyHector, Priam, Paris,
and Achilles.
(b) Patroclus. Another interesting instance of anticipatory vengeance punctu
ates the important battle over the demigod Sarpedon, slain by Patroclus.32 Angry
about Sarpedon, Hector firstkills theMyrmidon Epegeus; in turn, grieved and
angered by the death of his hetairos, Patroclus manages to slay Sthenelaus and
drive back Hector (16.552-588). Here the typicalmotif of battlefield revenge
would attract little attention,were itnot for certain intriguing similaritiesbetween
no
Epegeus and his companion Patroclus. Identified as "by means theworst of the
had come as to Peleus after slaying a kinsman
Myrmidons," Epegeus suppliant
and was then sent toTroy to accompany Achilles, details found also inPatroclus'
biography (cf. 23.83-90). In crafting theminor incident of Epegeus' death, the
poet appears to have had in mind both the imminent death of Patroclus?who
will actually be Hector's next victim?and the consequent vengeance ofAchilles.33
Patroclus, who has attempted to take his companion's place in battle, going so
far as towear his armor, is fighting to avenge a Patroclus-like Epegeus, much as
Achilles himselfwill soon enter battle to avenge anAchilles-like Patroclus.34
(c) Hector. The recurrentmotif of battlefield vengeance reaches another high
point in the very last casualty to occur before the leading hero returns to avenge
his friend (17.575-619). The final named Trojan killed by a Greek other than
Achilles, Podes (slain byMenelaus), is identified as a dear companion ofHector;
when Apollo inmortal guise rebukesHector for allowing the killer to drag off the
body, theTrojan hero angrily advances, routs the enemy, and eventually achieves
ameasure of vengeance by slaying the lastGreek to die in the Iliad, Coeranus. In
31
For Achilles' destiny as described above, cf. //. 9.410-416, 18.95-98, 22.358-360. For Euchenor
as a doublet of Achilles, see, for
example, Strasburger 1954: 75-76; Janko 1992: 127-128; Nickel
2002: 225-226; also Fenik 1968: 148-150, 234-235.

32Janko (1992: ad II. 16.317-329) proposes that the death of Sarpedon's hetairos Atymnius
anticipates the effect of Patroclus' death on Achilles, pointing out that in various legends an Atymnius
is beloved by Sarpedon or Apollo. The connection is suggestive, but tenuous.
Atymnius' death at the
hands ofAntilochus does not immediately provoke the Lycian instead, the victim's brother
demigod;
angrily attacks the killer but is slain by another (317-329). The death here of two companions has
no apparent effect on
Sarpedon, who will later be moved by the sight of numerous companions felled
by Patroclus (419-420)?not by Antilochus. Finally, after his therapon or attendant Thrasydemus is
slain by Patroclus (463-466), Sarpedon attacks the killer in
presumed retaliation, striking the horse
Pedasus but falling himself.
33
For Epegeus as a Patroclan doublet, see
Strasburger 1954: 30; Janko 1992: ad II. 16.57-74. For
a more
skeptical view, see Fenik 1968: 206-207.
34For Patroclus as an Achillean doublet, see, for example, Whitman 1958: 199-203; Lowenstam
1981; Burgess 1995: 252-260; 1997: 14-16.

This content downloaded from 131.91.169.193 on Tue, 10 Nov 2015 18:45:51 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 156 PHOENIX

this episode from Book 17, a disguised Apollo plays a role roughly analogous to
the one played byDeiphobus inBook 13 and about to be played byAntilochus in
Book 18: to reportbad news that incites the hero to seek vengeance. Furthermore,
much as theGreeks are routed here inBook 17when Hector advances, "wrapped
in a black cloud of grief and clad in flashing bronze (the armor of Achilles),
while Zeus lightens, thunders, and shakes the aegis (17.591-596), so toowill the
Trojans soon be confounded when Achilles, also "wrapped in a black cloud of
grief (17.591=18.22), eventually emerges from his camp, while Athena sets the
aegis over his shoulders, a golden cloud round his head, and a blazing fireabout
his person (18.203-214).35 The parallels are strikingand extensive, and come at a
crucial moment. Thus theminor incident of Podes' death, featuring yet another
avenging hero dressed inAchilles' armor, partly anticipates the outcome of the
larger story involvingPatroclus.

THE WRATH OF SWIFT-FOOTED AENEAS

After that selective survey of battlefield revenge in the Iliad, we may return
to comparison of Aeneas to Achilles. In summary, the sequence of parallel
events adduced above from Book 13?the death of a close friend or relative
initiated by a god, the reporting of that death to the hero, and his vengeful
entry into battle?closely prefigure the second part of the poem's two-fold plot.
Even closer correspondences between Aeneas and Achilles become evident upon
consideration of motifs that have already been established within the Iliad as
especially characteristic of the leading hero, namely, his persistentwrath against
a king who shows him no honor, his swiftness of foot, and his descent from a
goddess. While the episode of theWrath-Vengeance ofAeneas has struck some
as inappropriate or clumsy, it appears to have been carefully prepared at least
two books earlier toward the beginning of the poem's third day of fighting in
Book 11, where Alcathous is introduced for the firsttime as one of the leaders
of the second company ofTrojans, and where Aeneas is said to lead the fourth
company (11.93, 98-99). Neither hero ismentioned again until the episode under
consideration, when Deiphobus findsAeneas at the far end of the host, always
wrathful against Priam, who never honored him a bit (13.459-461). Priam's
lack of respect forAeneas here stands in stark contrast to theworshipful honor
accorded the demigod by the people of Troy, which had been mentioned two
books earlier at the very beginning of that day's fighting (Aivsiav 6', oq Tpcoai
0s6(; cog T18TO5r|pcp, 11.58), again in apparent preparation forAeneas' wrath.
Priam's disrespectful treatment ofAeneas also stands in polar opposition to the
privileges enjoyed by the latter's aptly chosen adversary: Idomeneus happens to
be honored more than any other Greek by Agamemnon, as we learn shortly
before fightingbegins in the Iliad (T5opevs6 7C?pi uiv as xico Aavaiov, 4.257).

35 armor as a kind of doublet

For Hector in Achilles' for the Greek hero, see, for example,
as a kind of suicide.
Lowenstam (1981: 123), who interprets the slaying ofHector

This content downloaded from 131.91.169.193 on Tue, 10 Nov 2015 18:45:51 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 THE WRATH AND VENGEANCE OF AENEAS 157

Such a juxtaposition of heroes?one especially respected, the other unappreciated

by his king?assumes thematic significance in the context ofAchilles' aggrieved
withdrawal.

The attribution of menis to Aeneas in Book 13 is remarkable, since the

emotion is otherwise reserved, from the poem's opening word, almost exclusively
forAchilles among mortals.36 Various verbal echoes suggest a certain affinity
between the two heroes. Aeneas' wrath against godlike Priam (npidpcp 87tepr|vis
8up, 13.460) seems to mirror Achilles' wrath against godlike Agamemnon (cf.
Ayapquvovi pr|vie 5up, 18.257). The last two metrical feet of both lines are
identical, a verse ending found only here. Thus in this one instance the aged
Trojan king becomes dios, corresponding to theGreek king who regularly enjoys
the epithet.37 Moreover, much as Priam never showed any honor to Aeneas,
though he was noble among men (saQXov eovxa psx' dv5pdaiv ou xi xiecncev,
13.461), so tooAgamemnon showed no honor toAchilles, best of theAchaeans
(cf.dpiaxov 'Axoucovo65sv sxiaa^/exiasv, 1.244, 412, 16.274; also cf. ou88 pe
xuxOov sxiasv, 1.354)7^ Such references to a dishonored but great hero are
used only ofAeneas and Achilles.39 Angry withdrawal from battle is of course a
typical theme that, if found in isolation, would merit little attention. However,
a hero's abstention motivated bywrathful resentment at a
king who fails to pay
him any honor comprises a distinctive combination ofmotifs that is emphatically
characteristic of the Iliadic Achilles and is applied by the poet to no one else
but Aeneas.40 Admittedly, other anonymous Greeks are said to be on the verge
of sharingAchilles' resentment against Agamemnon and refusing to fight: such
claims aremade not only immediately afterour hero's withdrawal (2.235-240), but
also more than once at the beginning of the second half of the Iliad (13.109-114,
14.49-51, 131-132), both before and after the episode in question. In the first
of these later instances, some three hundred lines before Aeneas' wrath at Priam
ismentioned, the god Poseidon complains that certainGreeks seem unwilling to
fend off the enemy, since they are upset with Agamemnon forhaving dishonored
Achilles. The raising of the theme at thisparticular point in the narrative provides
a
background or frame for theAchilles-like abstention ofAeneas; or rather, seen

36
For explorations of the meaning of menis, seeWatkins 1977; Nagy 1979: 73-74; Slatkin 1991:
86-93; Muellner 1996.
37 as dios: II. 2.221, 3.120, 4.223, 7.312, 11.251, 18.257, 23.36.
Agamemnon
38
Similar vocabulary thematically describes
Agamemnon's dishonoring of Achilles: atimao (II.
1.356, 507, 2.240, 9.111), apatimao (13.113), atimetos (9.648, 16.59).
39
Wounded honor is not explicitly associated eitherwith theWrath ofMeleager, who withdraws
because of his mother's curses; or with theWrath of Demeter, who is overcome with grief at the loss
of her daughter. Nickel (2003: 67, 72-75 ) argues that Zeus' offense against Demeter is equivalent to
a loss of honor. In theHomeric to
Hymn Apollo, the goddess Hera angrily withdraws on the grounds
that Zeus dishonored her (ep' dxiua^eiv, 312).
40
The specific grounds of contention are of course different: while the families of Aeneas and
Priam are potential rivals for theTrojan throne,Achilles is angry at for taking his prized
Agamemnon
slave-girl.

This content downloaded from 131.91.169.193 on Tue, 10 Nov 2015 18:45:51 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 158 PHOENIX

from a different perspective, Aeneas' wrath in Book 13 represents yet another

evocation of orminor variation on themain plot.
Further comparison ofAeneas toAchilles inBook 13 becomes inevitablewhen
the Trojan hero is described by Idomeneus as "swift-footed" (Aiveiav STtiovxa
TioSaq xa%6v ..., 13.482), a quality elsewhere applied mostly toAchilles. In fact,
this particular form (accusative singular, noSaq xa%uv) happens to be used only
forAeneas and Achilles, including an instance earlier in this book that referredto
the great Greek hero (kvjSouvcov 'AxiAija TcoSaq xaxov ..., 13.348).41 Even in
his absence from action, Achilles cannot be forgotten. Furthermore, Idomeneus
has recently remarked, also in this book, that no one can compete with Achilles
for foot-speed (13.325).42 Aeneas may be wrathful and swift-footed, but he is
no Achilles, aswill become clearwhen the two heroes an
ultimately finallymeet,
encounter to be discussed below.
a
Why Aeneas among Trojan heroes should play role in Book 13 analogous
to that ofAchilles may perhaps be explained in part by his semi-divine lineage:
they are the only two Iliadic heroes born from a goddess. At any rate, in an
important incident later in Book 20, when Achilles firstenters battle, Apollo
over
goads Aeneas into facing him by pointing to the superiority ofAphrodite
Thetis (20.104-107). Thus the divinity of the heroes' mothers literallybrings
them together in a nicely balanced antithesis.43 Although the narrative in Book
13 does not overtly linkAeneas with Achilles, the episode featuring theTrojan's
wrath does at times seem to be recalled by the incident inBook 20. For instance,
the confrontation between Aeneas and Achilles is introduced by three lines that
resemble those initiating the encounter between Aeneas and Idomeneus: "And
two men far the best, ... Aeneas and ..." (20.158-160) echoes "And two men
warlike above others, Aeneas and ..." (13.499-501).44 As the firstTrojan in

41
Most Iliadic terms denoting swift-footedness belong almost exclusively to Achilles among
heroes: TtoSaq ookuc;, 7io5coK-r|(;/-80Q/-8a, and no8apKr\q. The expression nodaq xa%-u<;/-Dv/-6,
which always occurs after a feminine caesura in the third foot, is applied toAchilles in four of eight
instances (//. 13.348, 17.709, 18.354, 358; cf. 18.69). Otherwise it applies toMeriones (13.249),
Aeneas (13.482), Antilochus (18.2; cf? ttogiv Gdaacov, 15.570), and an Antilochus-like hare (17.676).
The accusative form is used only for Achilles and Aeneas, the vocative forMeriones, and the
nominative forAntilochus and the hare. The dative plural expression "with swift feet" shows a similar
distribution: four or five of six instances apply to Achilles. The variant Tiomv xa%&?aai belongs to
Achilles (22.8, 173, 230) and a Hector-like hound (8.339); while xaxeeaai 7i65eaai(v) belongs to
Achilles (21.564) and perhaps also toAeneas (20.189). For Aeneas as a fastwarrior, also cf. 5.571.
42The older hero Idomeneus appears in Book 13 to be an expert judge of swiftness (//. 13.249,
325, 348, 482). Moreover, at the funeral games for Patroclus, Idomeneus will be the first to see that
Diomedes has taken the lead in the chariot race (23.450-498).
43 in the epic cycle: both are mortal
The closest parallel is the duel between Achilles andMemnon
sons of wear armor made by Hephaestus, and both drive magnificent chariots and
goddesses, both
horses (as does Aeneas inBook 5 of the Iliad). See Fenik 1968: 149-150. Whether Achilles' biography
influenced that ofMemnon or vice versa is unclear. Also see Burgess 2006: 159-160.
44 /
See Edwards 1991: ad loc. for comparison of //. 20.158-160 (56o 5' dvepeq s^o% apiaxoi
x 'AyxiaidSriq Kai
psaov du(|)ox8p(ov auvixnv |aeixacbx? pdxsaGai /Aivsion; Sloq 'AxiAAsuq) with

This content downloaded from 131.91.169.193 on Tue, 10 Nov 2015 18:45:51 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 THEWRATH AND VENGEANCEOF AENEAS 159

the Iliad who dares to confrontAchilles, Aeneas confirms after the fact inBook
20 his worthiness to have temporarily played the part of the wrathful hero in
Book 13. But Achilles mocks Aeneas for standing out so far from themultitude,
never gain on the battlefield the honor of king Priam
asserting that he will
(20.178-183). Achilles might seem to be projecting onto his opponent some
of his own frustration at the Greek king, but his oblique reference to feuding
amongst Trojan royalty also recalls thewrath ofAeneas toward Priam that had
been mentioned by the narrator inBook 13.
Achilles furthermocks Aeneas by reminding him of a previous encounter
when he had chased or caused theTrojan to flee rapidly "on swiftfeet" (xax&crai
TtoSeaai, 20.188-194). On the one hand Achilles admits that Aeneas once
an "accomplishment" which recalls theTrojan's swift
managed to outrun him,
footedness in Book 13. On the other hand, Achilles' reference here to swiftfeet
functions tomark the other man's relative cowardice rather than his bravery.As
fortunewill have it,Aeneas effectivelystands as a kind of antitype toAchilles: he
survived the sack ofLyrnessus with divine assistance in the past; he will be rescued
to survive the fall ofTroy in the future.
by the gods also now; and he is destined
By contrast theGreek hero is
a more tragic figure,doomed to die soon in battle.
References in the Iliad toAeneas' relatively fortunate destiny probably reflect a
pre-existing tradition about the Trojan hero. However, it remains impossible
to determine whether that demigod was notably swift-footed, or wrathful, or
manner of the Iliadic Achilles. In any case, in his most famous
vengeful in the
instantiation, inVergil's Aeneid, the eponymous hero closes the poem by again
playing the part of an Achilles-like avenger, angrily killing Turnus for having
slain his young friendPallas.45
In conclusion, as we have seen, the approximate roles played by Achilles,
Agamemnon, Patroclus, Apollo, and Antilochus in the Iliad are temporarily
assumed by a different cast of characters in Book 13, namely, Aeneas, Priam,
Alcathous, Poseidon, and Deiphobus. The Wrath and Vengeance of Aeneas,
which belongs to a specific context within the Iliad, is not some accidentally
nor is it an isolated variation on traditional
preserved epic fragment, story-lines.

13.499-501 (86o 8' dvSpec; dpri'ioi e^oxov dAAcov I Aiveiac; xe Kai 15o|U?veuc; dxdA,avxoi "Apni /
i'evx' aXXr\X(ov xauieiv %poa vr\Xei %aX\c(p).
45
For the anger of Vergil's Aeneas, see Galinsky 1988, esp. 345. For comparison of the Vergilian
Aeneas to theHomeric Achilles, see Gransden 1984: 138-154 (esp. 125-126, 142-143), 192. Both
heroes leave and return to battle leading relatively fresh troops (in Iliad 20 axi&Aeneid 10), but under

very different circumstances: the one acts out of highly personal motives, while the other heeds military
necessity, having gone to recruit Etruscan allies, and having returned before Pallas' death. Gransden
understandably contrasts Vergil's Aeneas with the leading hero of the Iliad, full of pride and wrath at
his king, but one might also point in particular to the Iliadic Aeneas, who himself plays, for a time,
the role of "the sulking Homeric hero." Vergil explicitly identifies as a second Achilles the Latin hero
Turnus, another son of a goddess: alius Latio iampartus Achilles, / natus et ipsedea (Verg. Aen. 6.89-90,
cf. 9.741-742). Turnus will become enraged when his king gives to another man a woman that had
been promised to him.

This content downloaded from 131.91.169.193 on Tue, 10 Nov 2015 18:45:51 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 160 PHOENIX

Rather than distracting attention from theWrath and

Vengeance of Achilles,
the episode recapitulates the poem's central themes while
preparing for further
development of themonumental plot.
Department of Classics

University of Mississippi

Oxford, Mississippi 38677

U.S.A.
jfenno@olemiss.edu

bibliography

M. 2001. Homer Beside

Himself: Para-narratives
Alden, in the Iliad. Oxford.

Allan, W. 2005. "Arms and theMan: Euphorbus, Hector, and the Death of Patroclus,"
n.s. 55:1-16.
CQ
Bremmer, J. 1988. "La plasticite du mythe:
Meleagre dans la poesie
homerique,"
in
C. Calame du en Grece 37-56.
(ed.), Metamorphoses Mythe antique. Geneva.
Burgess, J. 1995. The Death ofAchilles
in the Iliad. Diss.,
University of Toronto.
-
1997. Problems with the Vengeance AfP 118:
"Beyond Neo-Analysis: Theory,"
1-19.
-2006. "Neoanalysis, Orality, and Intertextuality: An Examination of Homeric Motif

Transference," Oral Tradition 21: 148-189.

Cramer, D. 2000. "The Wrath of Aeneas: Iliad 13.455-67 and 20.75-352," Syllecta
Classica 11: 16-33.
G. E. 1966. and in the and
Duckworth, Foreshadowing Suspense Epics ofHomer, Apollonius,
New York.
Vergil.
Edwards, M. W. 1991. The Iliad: A 5: Books 17-20.
Commentary Cambridge.
Fenik, B. C. 1968. Typical Battle Scenes in the Iliad: Studies in theNarrative Techniques of
Homeric Battle Hermes Einzelschriften 21. Wiesbaden.
Description.
-1974. Studies in theOdyssey. Hermes Einzelschriften 30. Wiesbaden.

Galinsky, K. 1988. "TheAnger ofAeneas," AJP 109: 321-348.

C. H. 1967. Homer and Bible: The Origin and Character
Gordon, ofEast Mediterranean
Literature. Ventnor, NJ.
K. W. 1984. An on Narrative.
Gransden, Virgil's Iliad: Essay Epic Cambridge.
Hainsworth, B. 1993. The Iliad: A 3: Books 9-12. Cambridge.
Commentary
Heubeck, A. 1989. "Books IX-XII," inA. Heubeck and A. Hoekstra (eds.), A Commentary
onHomers 2: Books IX-XVI. Oxford. 3-143.
Odyssey
Janko, R. 1992. The Iliad: A 4: Books 13-16.
Commentary Cambridge.
Kakridis, J.Th. 1949. Homeric Researches. Lund.
von H. 1982. Homerische Personennamen: und historische
Kamptz, Sprachwissenschaftliche
Klassifikation. Gottingen.
Leaf,W. 1902. The Iliad 2: BooksXIII-XXIV2. London.
Lord, A. B. 1960. The
Singer of
Tales. Cambridge, MA.
-
1969. "The Theme of theWithdrawn Hero in Serbo-Croatian Oral Epic," Prilozi
za knjizevnost, jezik, istoriju, ifolklor 35: 18-30.
Lord, M. L. 1967. "Withdrawal and Return: An Epic Story Pattern in theHomeric
Hymn
toDemeter and in the Homeric Poems," Cf 62: 241-248.

This content downloaded from 131.91.169.193 on Tue, 10 Nov 2015 18:45:51 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 THE WRATH AND VENGEANCE OF AENEAS 161

Louden, B. 2006. The Iliad. and

Structure, Myth, Baltimore.
Meaning.
Lowenstam, S. 1981. The Death Patrok/os. Konigstein.
of
-
1993. The and the Studies on Forms ofRepetition in theHomeric Poems.
Scepter Spear:
Lanham, MD.
on the Treatment
March, J. R. 1987. The Creative Poet: Studies ofMyths
in Greek
Poetry.
BICS 49. London.
Suppl.
Michel, C. 1971. zum Nder Ilias.
Erlauterungen Heidelberg.
Morrison, J. V. 1992. Homeric Misdirection: False Predictions in the Iliad. Ann Arbor.

Muellner, L. 1996. TheAnger of

Achilles:Meriis inGreekEpic. Ithaca.
Nagler, M. N. 1974. Spontaneity and Tradition: A Study in the Oral Art ofHomer. Berkeley
and Los Angeles.

Nagy, G. 1979. The Best the Achaeans: Hero inArchaic Greek

of Concepts of the Poetry.
Baltimore.

Nickel, R. 1997. Paris in the Tradition: A Study inHomeric Characteriza

Epic Techniques of
tion. Diss., University of Toronto.
-2002. "Euphorbus and the Death of Achilles," Phoenix 56: 215-233.
"
-2003. "The Wrath of Demeter: in the toDemeter,
Story Pattern Hymn QUCC 73:
59-82.

Powell, B. 1970. "Narrative Patterns in the Homeric Tale of Menelaus," TAPA 101:
419-431.
L. 1991. The Power and Los
Slatkin, ofThetis. Berkeley Angeles.
Stoevesandt, M. 2004. Zur der Troianer in den
Feinde?Gegner?Opfer. Darstellung
der Ilias. Basel.
Kampfszenen
Strasburger, G. 1954. Die kleinen Kampfer der Ilias. Frankfurt.
Swain, S. C. R. 1988. "A Note on Iliad 9.524-99: The n.s.
Story ofMeleager," CQ 38:
271-276.

Watkins, C. 1977. "A propos de larjvic;," Bulletin de la societe de de Paris 72:

linguistique
187-209.

West, S. 1988. "Books I-IV," in A. Heubeck, S. West, and J. B. Hainsworth (eds.), A

onHomers 1: Introduction and Books I?VIII. Oxford. 51-245.
Commentary Odyssey
Whitman, C. H. 1958. Homer and theHeroic Tradition. New York.

Willcock, M. M. 1964. in the Iliad? n.s. 14: 141-154.

"Mythological Paradeigma CQ
-1978. Homer: Iliad Books I-XII. London.

This content downloaded from 131.91.169.193 on Tue, 10 Nov 2015 18:45:51 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions