The Embassy and the Duals of "Iliad" 9.182-98 Segal, Charles Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies; Summer 1968; 9, 2; ProQuest pg. 101

The Embassy and the Duals of Iliad 
9.182-98 

Charles Segal 

CONFUSION about the use of the dual in Homer is at least as old 
as Zenodotus. He was the first to suggest that Homer some­
times used it interchangeably with the plural. From Aris­

tarchus on, Homerists have resisted this view and sought logical 
explanations for the supposed anomalies.! They have been successful 
for the most part, though difficult and stubborn instances remain 
eef Iliad 1.567, 3.279, 5.487). But even were one to grant a few isolated 
anomalies, there is nothing quite comparable, either in abruptness 
or extent of usage, to Iliad 9.182-98. 

Debrunner, who studied the flexibility of the Homeric use of the 
dual, finally declared this instance simply a case of syntactical error, 
<CSprachfehler des Dichters."2 Variant readings at 9.185, 196, 197, 198 
indicate the attempts even in antiquity to remove at least some of 
the offending forms. But neither this approach nor Debrunner's is 
satisfactory, and we are left with a dilemma concisely described by 
Leaf as follows 3 : 

The consistent use of the dual in speaking of the envoys in 
182-98 naturally puzzled the ancient critics. Two explana­
tions were offered-one, that the dual was identical in sense 
with the plural, a theory which is well known to have been 
held by Zenodotos; the other, that of Aristarchos, that Phoinix 
was not one of the envoys, but was sent beforehand to 
prepare for their coming afterwards (E7TEtTCt. 169). The former 
is naturally untenable (see on A 567, E 487); the latter, even if 
we admit that the departure of Phoinix could be passed over 

1 For the anomalous use of the dual in Homer see Pierre Chantraine, Grammaire Home­
rique II, Syntaxe (Paris 1953) 25ff; D. B. Monro, A Grammar of the Homeric Dialect (Oxford 
1882) 122; Jacob Wackemagel, Vorlesungen fiber Syntax I (Basel 1920) 77ff; A. Debrunner, 
"Zum erweiterten Gebrauch des Duals," Glotta 15 (1927) 14-25; further literature in E. 
Schwyzer and A. Debrunner, Griechische Grammatik II (Munich 1950) 46. 

II Debrunner (preceding note) Glotta 15 (1927) 17. 
3 WaIter Leaf, The Iliad (London 1900) 1.384 (ad II. 9.168). 

101 



102 THE EMBASSY AND THE DUALS OF ILIAD 9.182-98 

in silence, is refuted by the surprise with which Achilles re­
ceives the envoys (193). The only acceptable alternative is 
to regard the whole speech ofPhoinix (432--622) as an episode 
taken from some different but doubtless similar context, 
and adapted to the original story, in which Aias and Odysseus 
were the only envoys, by some probably slight alteration of 
the text here [168], in 223 and 622. Here as elsewhere we have 
good reason to be grateful for the conservatism which has 
preserved us the original dual. 

For D. L. Page, as for other Analysts, the dual here is <C exhibit 
number one" in the case against unitary authorship.' Unitarians, 
however, have insisted on the inseparability of Phoenix from the 
Iliad 5 and have followed up Aristarchus' line of solution: Phoenix is 
not really a member of the embassy and does not stand on the same 
footing as his two colleagues. Schadewaldt, Reinhardt and Van der 
Valk have been the most eloquent exponents of this view.6 For 
Wilamowitz, who (rather surprisingly) granted the artistic necessity 
of Phoenix, the duals were sheer puzzlement: H ••• Und die ratsel­
haft en Duale 182 vermag ich nicht aufzuklaren. Denn der Versuch, 
den Phoinix auszuscheiden, bricht den Edelstein aus der Krone dieser 
jungen Dichtung ersten Ranges."7 Other scholars, accepting neither 
the Aristarchan nor the Analytic approach, have left the duals as the 
problematical remnants of an earlier tale which Homer had in the 

• Denys L. Page, History and the Homeric Iliad (Sather Lect. 31, Berkeley and Los Angeles 
1959) 297ff. See also Theodor Bergk, Griechische Literaturgeschichte I (Berlin 1872) 596 with 
n.129; E. Bethe, Homer: Dichtung und Saga I, Ilias (Leipzig and Berlin 1914) pp.7&-77 with 
n.7; Willy Theiler, "Die Dichter der Ilias," in Festschrift Edouard Treche (Bern 1947) 127fT; 
Peter von der Miihll, Kritisches Hypomnema zur Ilias (SchweizBeitrAlt 4, Basel 1952) 168-69. 
Further literature in Page and in E. Drerup, Das HomerprobZem in der Gegenwart (WUrzburg 
1921) 350 nA. 

G For example, J. A. Scott, "phoenix in the Iliad," AJP 33 (1912) 68-77; W. W. Jaeger, 
Paideia, transl. G. Highet IS (Oxford 1954) 25ff; D. E. Eichholz, "The Propitiation of 
Achilles," AJP 74 (1953) 137ff. 

e W. Schadewaldt. Iliasstudien (AbhLeiPZig 43.6, 1938) 137-38; Karl Reinhardt, Die Ilias und 
ihr Dichter, ed. U. Holscher (Gottingen 1961) 233ff; M. van der Valko Researches on the Text 
and SchoZia of the Iliad II (Leiden 1964) 258-59, with n.773 on p.258. This line of approach has 
also been advocated by Carl Rothe, Die Ilias als Dichtung (Paderborn 1910) 229-31; Scott 
(supra n.5) 75; H. E. Sieckmann, "Bemerkungen zum neunten Buche der Ilias," BPW 
(1919) 424-32, esp. 425; P. Mazon, Introduction Ii l'IZiade (Paris 1948) 17&-77; F. Focke. "Zum 
I der Ilias," Hermes 82 (1954) 258fT. 

7 U. von Wilamowitz-Mollendorff. Die Ilias und Homer (Berlin 1916) 64-65. 



CHARLES SEGAL 103 

back of his mind.s Such compromises have not convinced many; and, 
as Schadewaldt said, the duals still belong among Hwohl den schwer­
sten Anstossen in der ganzen Ilias."9 

The lines present a problem of a different order from minor and 
easily granted slips like the resurrection in Book 13 of Pylaemenes 
who had been killed off in Book 5.10 Here five men are named 
(9.169-70), perform various actions described in plural verbs for over 
ten lines (9.171-81), and then suddenly and repeatedly appear in the 
dual. There are eight, perhaps nine,n dual forms in seventeen lines. 
The objections to Aristarchus' solution and its modern versions are 
already clear in Leaf's comment and have often been repeated, most 
recently by Von der Miihll and Lesky.12 The second type of solution, 
the influence of an earlier tale or earlier version where the embassy 
consisted of only two men, asks us to believe that a past tradition 
could make Homer fly in the face of grammar, the most primary 
requirement of even the simplest poet. 

Fifty years ago Franz Boll called attention to the close parallel 
between the embassy-scene of Book 9 and that of 1.327ff.13 Boll's 
essay is not easily accessible and has not generally received the atten­
tion it deserves.14 Though I risk putting myself in a minority (Wacker­
nagel is the only scholar I have found who approves Boll's view 
without reservations),15 I venture to suggest that this approach is 
perhaps correct and, in any case, bears further study. 

The repetitions which link the two scenes are striking and un­
mistakable: 

8 So Jaeger (supra n.5) 423-24 n.37; Cedric H. Whitman, Homer and the Heroic Tradition 
(Cambridge [Mass.] 1958) 344 n.25; C. S. Kirk, The Songs of Homer (Cambridge 1962) 218. 

t Schadewaldt (supra n.6) 137; A. Lesky, AnzAlt 8 (1955) 154, speaks of "den elenden 
Dualen." See also A. Heubeck's review of Page (supra nA), Gnomon 33 (1961) 119:" ... die 
beriihmten Duale des I, fUr die das entscheidende Wort, wie sie zu verstehen und zu 
verteidigen seien, noch nicht gesprochen ist." 

10 For this sort of minor contradiction see, for example, C. M. Bowra, Tradition and 
Design in the Iliad (Oxford 1930) 97ff, and J. A. Scott, The Unity of Homer (Sather Lect. 1, 
Berkeley 1921) 137ff. 

11 The ninth would be cf>t},.TI;:rw (for cpf)"TaTOt) in 9.198, which has strong manuscript 
support and is read by Leaf, Mazon, Bolling etc. In any case the dual here is an ancient 
varia Ieetio. 

12 Von cler Miihll (supra n.14) 168-70; Lesky, AnzAlt 8 (1955) 153-54. 
13 Franz Boll, "Zur homerischen Presbeia," ZostG 68 (1917/18) 1-6; "Noch einmal zur 

homerischen Presbeia," ibid. 69 (1919/20) 414-16. 
14 Boll's view is mentioned by Debrunner (supra n.l), Drerup (supra nA), Jaeger (supra 

n.5), and Schadewaldt (supra n.6) loee.cit., but not examined carefully. 
15 Wackernagel (supra n.1) 78-79. 



104 THE EMBASSY AND THE DUALS OF ILIAD 9.182-98 

1.322: £PXEUOOV KAtul"f}v ll"f}A"f}i:aoEw 'AXtA7]0S 

9.166: EAOWU' ES KAtUL"f}V JI"f}A"f}i:aOEw 'AXtA7]0S 

1 327 \~" I {3 I \ O~' ',\ \' I • : TW 0 aEKOVTE aT"f}v 7Tapa LV al\OS aTpvyETOLO 

9.182: TJJ oE {3aT"f}v 7Tapa O'iva 7TOAVc/>Aolu{30LO OaAauU"f}s 

1.328=9.185: MVpfl-L06vwv 0' E7Tl TE KALulas Kat v7Jas LK€UO"f}V 

1 329 \ s;,' ... I \' \ .. \' 
• : TOV 0 EVpOV 7Tapa TE KI\WL?1 KaL V"f}L fl-El\aLV?1 

9.186: TOV 8' €vPOV c/>p€va TEp7T6fl-EVOV c/>6pfl-tyyt ALYE{?1 

1 334 ' , LI \ " '\ ' s;, \ \' s;, ~ • : xaLpETE. K"f}PVKES. LOS ayyEl\oL "f}OE KaL avopwv 
9 197 ' 'l' A..'\ "s;, ., '" '\ , • : XatpETOV' "f} 'f'LI\O' avopES LKaVETOV' "f} n fl-al\a XpEW 

But these parallels only make the" error" more plausible. They do 
not in themselves explain it away. It is, however, perhaps possible 
to go beyond Boll and find a grammatically satisfactory explanation for 
the duals. My suggestion is that they refer to the heralds, at least as far 
as line 196. The two heralds are first mentioned in line 170: K"f}PVKWV 0' 
'O~' , E' {3' <I" '0Th h ., , • I 0 . 170 OLOS TE KaL vpv aT"f}S afl- E7TEU WV. e prase afl- E7TEU wv In 
could in itself be dual (this form of the third-person imperative is in­
distinguishable from the plural); and if so it would prepare for the 
later duals at 182ff. The parallel with 1.327ff would have influenced 
Homer to think of the heralds as the main actors here. In addition, the 
action preceding the duals is the ritual of a formal libation (174-78) 
led by the heralds (avTlKa K~PVKES /LEV ;;owp E7T;' x€'ipas EXEVaJl. 174). The 
office of the heralds naturally associates them with such ritual actions 
(compare the function of the heralds in 3.268ff and of Talthybios, one 
of the heralds in 1. 327ff, in 19.250ff). Hence their important role in 
174ff keeps them before our eyes for the necessarily ceremonious and 
solemn preliminaries to entreating a formidable, sensitive hero. To 
be sure, the shift from plural to dual at 182 is still awkward, as is the 
prayer to Poseidon in the next line,16 and the address of Achilles in 
197-98. But the difficulties of the first and third points may have an 
effect of their own, as we shall see; and, as for the prayer, it is perhaps 
not impossible to think of the heralds, who have been entrusted with 

16 It is unclear why the prayer at 183 is addressed to Poseidon. Leaf (supra n.3) 1.385 (ad 
loc.) suggests it is because "Poseidon is both chief patron of the Achaian cause, and lord of 
the element by which they are walking." Yet in 8.200-11 Poseidon refuses to help the 
Greeks against Zeus' command. Note too 9.362, where Achilles names Poseidon in con­
nection with his threat of departing, a motif which perhaps serves to balance the prayer 
of 183 and reflect on the fruitlessness of the embassy. 



CHARLES SEGAL 105 

the formal ceremonies of 174ff, now praying for the success of 
the entire group. In any case, if €7TEU()WV in 170 is dual, some of the 
abruptness is eased; and the heralds have the advantage of being the 
only pair designated as such (note ap.a, 170). They also recur later in 
Book 9 unambiguously in the dual (see infra). 

If this approach is correct, we must now ask about its effect and 
meaning. Why would a consummate poet (as we believe Homer to 
be) encumber his narrative with a difficulty of this nature? Homer 
has, I suggest, risked the strained, even if not ungrammatical, effect 
of using the heralds as subject in order to point up as vividly as possible 
the connection with Book 1. He thus recalls the original dishonor done 
Achilles at its most intense moment, namely the point when Aga­
memnon's heralds translate the verbal insult into reality by de­
manding and leading off Achilles' prize, the tangible mark of his 
TLP.7J. This echo comes at the very moment when Agamemnon is 
eager to make amends by means of another delegation, a delegation 
of a very different sort. To look at the situation from a different 
point of view, the ironic similarity of the two situations generates the 
repetition of the formulas, even at the expense of a certain strain. 

One can, of course, argue the reverse, namely that the duals of9.182 
are an error resulting from an improper use of a formula. Heralds, 
after all, are usually in pairs. But against this view stand (1) the extra­
ordinarily close parallel of both language and situation with 1.327if, 
which suggests that more than error or accident is involved, and 
(2) the continuation of the duals for seventeen consecutive lines. So 
long a nod is unlikely. I believe with Boll, then, that the repetition 
from Book 1 is conscious and artful.17 The formulaic poetry of the 
Iliad operates consistently by exploiting just this sort of parallelism. IS 

One of the greatest of Homer's problems in the composition of his 

17 Boll (supra n.13) 2. 
18 For the significance and possible artistry involved in such repetitions see G. M. Cal­

houn, "Homeric Repetitions," UCPCP 12 (1933) 1-25, esp. 5ff, 12ff; Bowra (supra n.10) 92ff 
and more recently his chapter "Style" in A. J. B. Wace and F. H. Stubbings, A Companion 
to Homer (London 1962) 34-36. The importance of repetition and subtle variation has come 
to be appreciated more and more as an essential part of Homer's art. See, for example, 
G. F. Else, "Homer and the Homeric Problem," Lectures in Memory of Louise Taft Semple= 
Univ. of Cincinnati Classical Studies I (Princeton 1967) 34Sff; M. W. Edwards, "Some Features 
of Homeric Craftsmanship," TAPA 97 (1966) 177; Douglas Young, "Never Blotted a Line? 
Formula and Premeditation in Homer and Hesiod," Arion 6 (1967) 311ff. For repeated and 
parallel themes see A. B. Lord, The Singer of Tales (HarvStCompLit 24, Cambridge [Mass.] 
1960) chap. 9, esp. 1ssff. 



106 THE EMBASSY AND THE DUALS OF ILIAD 9.182-98 

poem is to motivate the refusal of Achilles in Book 9.19 Achilles' own 
reasons are stated clearly enough in his reply to Odysseus. They appear 
again in the gulf between himself and the simple Ajax, who cannot 
see any but quantitative differences between the matter ofBriseis and 
Agamemnon's offer of seven girls besides (9.636ff). But the motive 
power behind Achilles' wrath lies seven full books and some four 
thousand lines behind us. We need to have brought home to us once 
more how deep an offense Achilles has suffered. By recalling at the 
outset of the embassy (182ff) that initial insult, Homer predisposes 
the entire embassy-scene (which is, after all, our first view of Achilles 
in action since Book 1) in Achilles' favor and makes his hero's refusal 
of Agamemnon's offer more plausible. 

Line 182 recalls not only 1.327. It is also the second occurrence in the 
poem of the full formula, 7Tapa (J'iva 7ToAv,pAota{3oLO (JaAaa07jS, which 
occurs first in 1.34 and again, at an intense moment, in 23.59, the 
appearance of Patroclus' ghost to Achilles. In 1.34 Chryses, treated 
harshly by Agamemnon, walks by the sea just before his fatefully 
efficacious prayer to Apollo. The recurrent formula reinforces the 
obvious parallel of situation with Achilles. It helps, therefore, to pull 
together the accumulated effects of Agamemnon's proud and selfish 
behavior (note too that 1.326b=1.25b). The parallels create the 
sense of a deeply-rooted characteristic of Agamemnon which has 
manifested itself on numerous other occasions. And it is now the 
tenth year of the war. 

There is another important echo of Book 1 in Agamemnon's 
speech, with its closing two lines about his being {3aatAEvn=pos and 
7TpoyEveanpos (9.160-61). The lines revive the still unresolved issues of 
the quarrel at its inception (compare Nestor's speech, 1.277-81). And, 
though Odysseus tactfully omits the two lines when he reports the 
king's offer, Achilles takes up the {3aatAEvTEpos-theme with an ironic 
echo (9.392) of the Atreid's word.20 

The parallels with 1.327ff serve not only to recreate the freshness 
of Achilles' resentment. They also provide a measure of the distance 
traversed by the hero since his initial encounter with Agamemnon's 
heavy authority in Book 1. His later replies, and especially 9.316-43, 
401-16, 607-10, will indicate far more fully the different plane upon 

19 See, for example, Whitman (supra n.8) 189ft'; Eichholz (supra n.5) 143fT; S. E. Bassett, 
The Poetry of Homer (Sather Leet. 15, Berkeley 1938) 19Sff. 

20 See Whitman (supra n.S) 192-93; also Foeke (supra n.6) 262. 



CHARLES SEGAL 107 

which he has shifted the quarrel. 21 But the opening passage too, by 
its divergences from the scene at 1.327ff, prepares us for these differ­
ences. 

In 1.320ff Agamemnon sends forth the heralds to the "tent of 
Peleus' son, Achilles" (1.322); and he ends his brief speech with a 
threat of force. In 9.165ff, when Nestor suggests that a select group, 
including the two heralds, should "go to the tent of Peleus' son, 
Achilles" (the line, "[go ... J KAtalrJV ITYjAr(i&oEw 'AXtA770s," occurs only 
in these two places, 1.322 and 9.166) his speech ends not with threats 
to Achilles, but with preparations for a prayer to Zeus: "Bring water 
for our hands and give orders for holy silence, that we may pray to 
Zeus, son of Cronos, if he [possibly Achilles?] may take pity" (9.171-
72). 

The heralds of Book 1 find Achilles sitting by the ships. There is no 
mention of his being engaged in any activity or taking any joy in life; 
and Achilles "rejoiced not when he saw them" (1.329-30): 

, ~, '7' I \' , .. \ I TOV U EVpOV 7Tapa TE Kl\tatT/ Kat VYJ t fLEl\atVTJ 
., ,~, " I ,~ , '8 'A \ \ I TJfLEVOV" ovo apa TW yE toWV YTJ TJaEV XtI\l\EVS. 

In 9.186-9, however, the heralds find Achilles enjoying his elaborately 
made lyre: T6V 0' EVpOV cppeva TEp7T6fLEVOV cp6pfLtyyt AtYElT/ (9.186; cf 
also 189, rfj 0 yE 8VfLoV ETEp7TEV). 

In Book 1 the first words come slowly and after painful hesitation: 

The two of them stood there (aT~T'T}v), frightened and with 
awe and respect for the king, nor did they address him or ask 
him anything; but he knew in his heart and he spoke: "Hail, 
heralds, messengers of Zeus and of men (1.331-34) ... " 

But in Book 9 Achilles responds immediately and vigorously: 

And they stood before him (aTdv o~ 7Tp6a{)' aVTOtO, 9.193; cf 

1.332); and in amazement he sprang up, still holding his lyre, 
leaving the place where he sat. And so also Patroclus, when 
he saw the men, rose up. Welcoming the two of them swift­
footed Achilles spoke: "Hail; friends indeed have you come; 
great need there was (upon you), you who are the dearest 
of the Achaeans to me, angry though I am (193-98)." 

21 For the change in the terms of the quarrel see Whitman (supra n.8) 187ff. 



108 THE EMBASSY AND THE DUALS OF ILIAD 9.182-98 

These differences stress the changes both in Achilles and in the situ­
ation which have occurred since Book 1; and they also show us an 
Achilles who is more in command of the situation, yet simultaneously 
more reasonable and more open to the warmth of human ties (c/>tAot, 
cptATaTOt, 9.197-98). 

The duals in lines 197-98 are clearly the most troublesome in the 
entire passage. Even though the duals in 182ff and 192 can easily be 
referred to the heralds as the symbols of the official, one might say 
plenipotentiary, character of the embassy, lines 197-98 obviously 
stress the personal relation. One can, of course, simply maintain that 
this strained effect is the price Homer was willing to pay for the paral­
lel with 1.327ff. But Homer could have conveyed that parallel with­
out the special difficulty of these two lines. If we follow the line of 
interpretation already suggested, it may be possible after all to keep 
the duals of 197-98 and still make sense of the passage. 

The greeting Xatp€T€ or Xatp€TOV, though common enough in the 
singular, occurs in the plural or dual only in the two passages under 
consideration, 1.334 and 9.197 (it also occurs once in the Odyssey, in 
the dual: 15.151). In Book 1, however, the greeting is entirely formal: 
the heralds are saluted solely in their official capacity as K7}PVK€5, L1t65 
aYY€AOt ~DE Kat avDpwv. Achilles here is in no mood for a more per­
sonal touch. He recognizes that the heralds are just doing their duty 
(1.335ff); they are simply instruments of Agamemnon and hence are 
not "responsible" (E7Tatnot, 1.335). Achilles, consequently, calls them 
to witness, again with a high degree of formality (1.339-40), and sends 
them forth without wasting another word. In Book 9 he is in a more 
delicate position. On the one hand he is receiving an official legation 
from Agamemnon, accompanied by the mark of that officiality, the 
heralds.22 The scholion on 9.170 is to the point: Kat K7}PVK€5 GVIL7Tapa­
ytvoVTat, iva D7JAWOfi OTt DYJf1-oata ~ 7Tp€afJda EaTt. On the other hand this 
embassy contains not merely the inconsequential heralds, but re­
spected fellow-warriors and the aged Phoenix, who is almost a foster­
parent. Achilles, then, is caught between his response to the embassy 
qua official legation and his response to the embassy qua old and dear 
friends. The duals of 197-98, I suggest, are Homer's way of handling 
this tension at the decisive point where Achilles has actually to 
address the envoys. 

ZB See Focke (supra n.6) 257-58. Bassett, too (supra n.19) 200, points out that Ajax and 
Odysseus come not just as friends but "in the official capacity of envoys from Agamemnon." 



CHARLES SEGAL 109 

The duals which immediately precede (lines 192-93) are much 
simpler, for here Achilles' personal relationship with the individual 
ambassadors lies further in the background: "The two (heralds) . 
advanced forward, and brilliant Odysseus led them; they stood before 
Achilles, and he rose up in wonder .... " Odysseus does not, of course 
lead only the two heralds here. At this moment the heralds stand 
for the entire embassy. Achilles' "wonder" may be due as much to 

the presence of an embassy per se as to the identity of the particular 
members. Heralds and friends, the" official" and personal sides of the 
drama tis personae, are still inextricable. But line 197 begins to separate 
them. With .ry cptl.m avopf:S tKeXVf:TOV, the formality of the situation 
(what one might call the formal fiction) is shattered: the envoys are 
no longer the insignificant underlings of Book 1, but Achilles' "dear 
friends," indeed the "dearest of the Achaeans." Yet the duals remind 
us still that Achilles is meeting his friends under strained circum­
stances. They come as the messengers of a man whom he nearly 
killed in anger. They have ties with both the Greek army and Achilles, 
while Achilles has abjured the former. Hence the content of his 
address is at variance with its form. 

The strain-or, to be more severe, the contradiction or grammatical 
error-need not, then, result from the careless conflation (by Homer 
or some "Bearbeiter") of variant legends. The difficulty is inherent in 
the dramatic situation itself. And the parallel with Book 1 in respect to 
the duals generally and the greeting locally (1.334, 9.197) enhances 
this dramatic tension. (Paradoxically 1.334, where the dual would 
have been appropriate, uses the plural, and vice versa for 9.197, though 
one can, of course, take refuge in the convenient excuse of metrical 
necessity; but metrical necessity alone will not do for 9.197). 

Using this interpretation as a tentative hypothesis, we may re­
examine the action of this first phase of the embassy. The embassy 
approaches Achilles in terms of its "official" and formal function in 
the two heralds, who vividly evoke the scene of 1.327ff. The initial 
TW oE /3aT'Y}v of 9.192 also points back to 1.327; but the rest of the line, 
~yf:tTO oE OtoS 'OOVGG€VS, alerts us to the realization that Odysseus has 
replaced Phoenix as leader (see 9.168, "Let Phoenix dear to Zeus lead 
first of all"). This change too may be part of the complex drama 
unfolding before us and not merely a contradiction, for it is con­
firmed by Odysseus' manoeuvre in 223ff: he hastens to speak before 
Phoenix or Ajax. 



110 THE EMBASSY AND THE DUALS OF ILIAD 9.182-98 

Of the three speakers, Odysseus is the most closely identified with 
Agamemnon: he is the one to report verbatim Agamemnon's terms. 
He is also the least close of the three to Achilles (see 9.312-13). Achilles 
and Odysseus are, in fact, antithetical personalities, as Book 19 will 
bring out even more fully. Yet in his opening formal address at 197-98 
Achilles must still respond to the embassy as a whole. He cannot 
single out individual members.23 Nor, of course, does he know what 
each of them will say, though he might easily guess that Odysseus 
will be more committed to Agamemnon's aims and the success of 
the expedition than, say, Phoenix. The duals in 197-98, as the form 
appropriate to the two heralds, continue the tone of distance and 
formality; and the strong reminiscence of 1.327ff (present also in the 
first word of 9.197) strengthens that tone. The dual in 197-98, there­
fore, allows Achilles to retain his formal stance vis a vis the embassy 
as an official instrument of Agamemnon's policy. But c/>t..\o£ and 
c/>t"\TaTo£ indicate the perplexing other side. The phrase p.0£ UKV{OP.I.VCfJ 
'TT€p in 198 also emphasizes the double nature of Achilles' relation to 
the embassy: they come to him as "dearest of the Achaeans" even 
though he is hurting the army as a whole by his angry, sulking 
withdrawal. The tension involved here is, in effect, the kernel of the 
tragic plot of the Iliad. The rather difficult phrase ~ TL p.a..\a XP€dJ in 
197 (feebly emended in antiquity to ~p.I.T€p6vS€) is both a sympathetic 
recognition of the "great need" of his friends and a reference back 
to his threat in the earlier "embassy" of 1.327ff when he called to 

witness the heralds of that {3au£..\fjos cX777Jvl.os (1.340-42)24: 
" (\\ l' 

• • • € £ 'TTOT€ 07] aVT€ 
" ... I , '\ ,' .... Xp€£w €P.€ £0 yEV7]Ta£ aEtK€a I\o£yov ap.vva£ 

TOLS a..\..\O£S • ••• 

Like many such episodes in Homer, the meeting of Book 9 is 
structured in terms of formalities (see 171-77, 197-200, 205-22, 
656-57, and the repetition 122-57=264-99). In view of the importance 
of these formalities,25 the previously noted shift from Phoenix 
(9.168) to Odysseus (9.192 and 223ff)26 may all be preparation for 

28 It would be, therefore, miSguided oversubtlety to argue that the duals of 197-98 
could apply only to the two closest friends, Ajax and Phoenix. 

1& The connection between the "need" of9.197 and 1. 340ff is noted by Boll (supra n.13) 3. 
15 On the formalities in general see Focke (supra n.6) 258. 
16 The change from Phoenix to Odysseus in 9.168, 192 and 223 is often cited as another 

piece of evidence for multiple authorship and "Umdichtung": see Bergk (supra n.4) 595 
n.128; Von der Miihll (supra 0.4) 168; Boll (supra 0.13) 5. 



CHARLES SEGAL 111 

Achilles' coldness of response to the "official" function of the em­
bassy, for that function, underlined by the formalities and by the 
heralds, comes to be embodied in Odysseus (or at least more fully in 
Odysseus than in the other two heroes). In so far as this side of the 
embassy transmits Agamemnon's regal position, Achilles must react 
negatively, not out of irrational violence (Achilles is in fact remarkably 
calm, from his first appearance with the lyre at 9. 186ff to the end of 
the book), but as part of his struggle and self-justification against 
Agamemnon's authoritarian power. The difficulties of 182-98, then, 
serve to portray the full complexity of Achilles' position and prepare 
for the later presentation of the gulf which separates him from the 
success-minded Odysseus, the crass Agamemnon, and the well­
meaning but bluntly insensitive Ajax. 

This interpretation of the duals gains support from the ending 
of the episode. The heralds, along with the duals, recur at the end of 
Odysseus' report to Agamemnon (9.688-92): 

So [Achilles] said; and there are these men, who followed 
along with me, to say the same thing, Ajax and the two heralds, 
intelligent both. (AZas Ka~ K~PVKES DVW, 7rE7rvvpivw CJ.fLcPW 689). 
But Phoenix spent the night there, for thus he [Achilles] 
ordered, that he might follow him in ships to his dear father­
land tomorrow, if he wishes; but by force he will not bring 
him. 

It is often remarked that Odysseus repeats neither of Achilles' more 
encouraging replies to Ajax and Phoenix, but only the last three lines 
of Achilles' first speech (9.427-29). This fact has sometimes been 
taken as further evidence that Phoenix is a later addition and that 
the «original" form of the book (the "Ur-I" of the Analysts) contained 
only Ajax and Odysseus. But in fact Odysseus' report, combined with 
his reference to the «official" heralds in 689, performs an important 
function. It reminds us, for the last time in the book, of the distance 
between Achilles and Agamemnon and, indeed, between Achilles 
and the rest of the army. 

This rather surprising report to Agamemnon is connected with the 
beginning of the embassy. Achilles' last pronouncement (9.652-54) is 
that he will remain by his ships until Hector comes to the tents and 
hi f h M ·d M r;, , " \' ,~., 8 s ps 0 t e yrm! ons: VPfLtDOVWV E7rL T€ KI\LULas KaL VTJas LK€U aL 



112 THE EMBASSY AND THE DUALS OF ILIAD 9.182-98 

(9.652). Line 652 repeats both 1.328 and 9.185 27 : that is, it points 
back to the cause of the wrath. Similarly 9.654 (&/L¢~ 8' TOt Tn €/Ln 
KALUln Kat Vl'}t /L€AalllTJ) points back to the heralds' arrival at Achilles' 
tent in Book 1 (329): TOV 8' €oPOV 7Tapa T€ KALaln Kat Vl'}t /L€AalllTJ. 
It will be recalled that the first phrase of this line was used at 
9.186: TOV 8' €oPOV ¢pEva T€P7TO/L€VOV ¢OP/LLyyL ALy€ln. The libations 
follow (a7T€LaaVT€S, 657), bringing us back to 174ff (aVTd-p €7T€t 
U7T€LaaV •.. , 177). And here at the dose "Odysseus led the way" 
(~PX€ S' '08vuu€vs, 657), just as at the beginning of the embassy 
(~y€tTO 8€ 8LOS '08vua€vs, 192). Immediately after this formal de­
parture, Patroclus gives instructions for the preparation of Phoenix' 
bed; and those in Achilles' tent retire for the night (9.658-68). The 
repetitions and the whole arrangement of the scene form an artful 
use of the familiar "ring composition." Through these formulaic 
repetitions Homer juxtaposes once more the authority and the aims 
of Agamemnon (as embodied in his heralds and in his spokesman, 
Odysseus) against Achilles' very different relation with Phoenix. The 
scene at 658ff serves to gather around Achilles, under the shelter of 
his own tent, those who are really dose to him, and to shut out those 
who are not. The mysterious privacy, indeed isolation, of Achilles, 
introduced in the famous scene which follows the heralds' departure 
in Book 1 (348ff), remains triumphant; and the division between 
individual and army, Achilles and Agamemnon, stands out more 
sharply and in broader perspective than before. 

It is appropriate, then, that the most" official" of the three ambas­
sadors should report only Achilles' response to the king's formal 
terms. Achilles' response to his ¢lAoL belongs only in the privacy of 
his own tent. It has no place and no meaning in the colder, more 
calculating, more public council-chamber of King Agamemnon. It 
is part of the irony and tragic foreshadowing that the embassy 
succeeds only in so far as Achilles is moved by personal ties. When 
Achilles is so moved again, in Book 16, it is to precipitate the tragedy. 

Agamemnon, however, has no claim to these personal replies of 
Achilles nor to the success of this personal side of the mission. As far 
as Agamemnon himself is concerned, the embassy is a failure. And, 
from the point of Achilles' heroism, this is as it should be. The develop­
ment of the tragic implications of Achilles' story requires absolutely 
that this failure of the embassy be completely clear, so that we may 

27 Boll (supra n.13) 2 notes the repetition 1.329=9.185=9.652, but without comment. 



CHARLES SEGAL 113 

experience Achilles' loss of Patroclus as part of his own choice and 
his own tragic conflict between self and human ties.28 Homer has 
used the means at his disposal to effect that end. What has been read 
as contradiction is in fact the subtle deployment of the characteristic 
devices of a highly stylized and formulaic poetry: the echo and vari­
ation of formulas which recall parallel situations and the significant 
omission of lines in verbatim repetitions. A poetic form which con­
centrates on the "outside" of things and men requires that the poet 
use such means to depict the complexity of the inner life and the 
relationships with which any significant and comprehensive literary 
work deals. 

Agamemnon, then, gets back only the response directed to him 
through his spokesman, Odysseus. Odysseus' mention of the heralds 
at this point (689) provides a final confirmation of the two levels on 
which Achilles' meeting with the ambassadors has operated. It is also 
another reminder, at a crucial point, of that initially disastrous 
embassy of 1.327ff. 

The duals of 197-98 are harsh, and there is no gainsaying it. But 
such harshness may have an effect of its own. So careful an exploitation 
of formalities, repetitions and tone in Homer may perhaps seem to 
some excessively subtle. But we have come to see aspects of Homer 
which the assumptions of many of our predecessors concealed from 
them. We are no longer subject to the Romantic view of the naive, 
artless Homer of the "Volksgeist" and "Naturgenie" school, nor can 
we fully accept Arnold's picture of Homer's austere plainness and 
simplicity. Even the all-formulaic Homer of the "hard" Parryists 
has been giving way to an artist of considerable sophistication.29 

The duals of 182-98, when understood in connection with the heralds 
and the "formal" side of the embassy, can give grammatical sense 

28 For the tragic conflict see Whitman (supra n.8) 187ff, 198-200. Wilamowitz (supra n.7) 
65 granted a high tragedy to the character and contradictions within Achilles in Book 9: 
"Auch die Widerspriiche in einem Menschen wie Achilleus zeigt er uns .... Nirgend ist 
Homer so sehr aPX7JYos 'Tpayw,Slas wie im 1." 

29 For example M. w. M. Pope, "The Parry-Lord Theory of Homeric Composition," 
Acta Classica 6 (1963) 1-21; J. B. Hainsworth, "Structure and Content in Epic Formulae," 
CQ N.S. 14 (1964) 155-64; A. Hoekstra, Homeric Modifications of Formulaic Prototypes (Amster­
dam 1965) esp. 7-30; T. G. Rosenmeyer, "The Formula in Early Greek Poetry," Arion 4 
(1965) 293-311; Adam Parry, "Have We Homer's Iliad?" YCS 20 (1966) 177-216, esp. 191-
201; Edwards (supra n.18) esp. 177-79; Young (supra n.18) 279-324, passim. Among the 
older literature see esp. G. M. Calhoun, "The Art of the Formula in Homer," CP 30 (1935) 
215-17. 

2--G.R.B.S. 



114 THE EMBASSY AND THE DUALS OF ILIAD 9.182-98 

and harmonize with other details of what I believe to be a unified 
design. That design includes the echo of 1.327ff in 9. 182ff and 9.652ff, 
the shift from Phoenix's leadership to Odysseus' in 192 and 223, the 
recurrence of the heralds in the dual in 689, and Odysseus' limited 
report to Agamemnon in 677-92. The duals, then, have their place in 
the dramatic situation and developing tragedy, a tragedy defined by 
a three-way tension between social position and obligation, passionate 
attachment to rfol)"o£, and fierce individual pride.30 

BROWN UNIVERSITY 

March, 1968 

80 I wish to thank Professor Cedric H. Whitman of Harvard University and Professor 
Henry Immerwahr of the University of North Carolina for helpful and friendly criticism.