Week II Update (Summaries, quotes, comments on readings)

This week mostly focused on reading secondary scholarships related to the trial scene in Book 18 of the Iliad. The focus for my research (this week) is lines 18.497 - 508.

I. THE AGONY OF HOMER: WHAT IS THE SHIELD OF ACHILLES TO US? Summary

"The important point to bear in mind is that one elder will speak the straightest δίκε, [dike] not by agreeing with one litigant or the other, but by finding the most acceptable settlement (δίκε) somewhere between the two opposing claims (δίκαι) [dikai]. This may be difficult for us to understand since our judges usually decide either for the plaintiff or for the defendant, but Homeric judges normally declared compromise settlements (as they had to in noncompulsory litigation). The purpose of the trial here is to find the best compromise, and thus the one who speaks the straightest δίκε receives two gold talents as a fee." p. 13-14.

Who, however, gets to speak the "straightest dike"?  "One could also assume that it is not left to the judges to decide amongst themselves who has reached the best decision as this too could result in argument and
each judge asserting the justness of his claim." (p.14) According to the author, it is the PEOPLE, their 'reaction' who 'influence' the decision. I'm using influence lightly here.

In the end, the dispute is never resolved. We are left wondering with the results of the case.

"We are instead left with the moment of contestation as an ongoing action, and not the narrative certainty of resolution. The litigants are forever engaged in bitter dispute. The judges are ever deliberating and competing with each other to be the one to speak the straightest dike. The heralds are always striving to keep the crowd in check and prevent strong emotions from bubbling into violence (p.15)."

"Indeed, the moment of narrative resolution is denied, and the story of the trial left open to many possible outcomes. The Iliad itself does not stand in judgment, nor does it seek to establish closure. It instead asks one to contemplate the many possible outcomes and to ponder their significance. It is not left to the bard to stand in judgment regarding right and wrong. Furthermore, if the legal system and the rule of law are viewed as forming the heart of the polis then the city at peace has competition at its heart. As Taplin notes, “Here is no vendetta or the perilous exile which Homer and his audience associated with the murder were in the age of heroes. We have, rather, arbitrators, speeches on both sides, and considered judgments.” The peaceful city, governed by the rule of law, and here characterized by the attempt to settle disputes through the law rather than customs of vendetta, is dependent on contestation (p.15)."

II. LISTENING TO THE SHEILD OF ACHILLES: SOUND AND MOVEMENT IN ANCIENT EKPHRASIS Summary

""Although there is no direct speech involved, there are implied speeches embedded in the narrative. The one man making a promise in a public statement clearly implies an audience and invites us to take part in listening. The “speaking” of the two men has a dynamic quality that invites the audience to hear the speech." (p.18) This would backup the argument of Gagnon in The Shield of Achilles, which states that dike would be awarded to the right applier (judge), by the people.

The author does not write about the quarrel that much, ventures into the work of Homer as a whole, by using the sheild as her foundation, but she does write about the cinematic nature and composition of the quarrel. She argues that the scene is an allusion to the argument that begin the epic--that of Achilles and Agamemnon--and then again with Achilles and the embassy.

Quote (on the nature of why Homer would leave out the result of the trial):

"The shield’s integration with the fabric of the poem through the multiple connectionswith scenes from the larger narrative is crucial in contextualizing the ekphrasis. The choice to not be explicit in the scenes on the shield mirrors the significance of the inconclusive scenes at the end of the Iliad. Homer does not give us a conclusion to the trial scene and he does not tell us what happens to the defenders and attackers of the city. Likewise for the rest of the poem,“The price that Achilles must pay for [killing Hektor] is merely intimated – not narrated – at the end of the poem, and the fate of the besieged city remains untold.” Indeed these are different degrees of closure, as the audience would be familiar with the fate of Achilles and the Fall of Troy, as opposed to the fates of the defenders and attackers of the city on the shield.But what both share in common is that the scope of the Iliad requires the reader (or viewer) to visually imagine (or interpret) their conclusions, whether they know the end or not." p. 33.

III. THE TRIAL SCENE IN HOMER Summary

The dispute of the quarrel is "whether a certain blood price had been paid--'one affirming that he paid in full, the other denying that he received anything'."

Arbitration is sought/supported (ἀρωγός [18.502]) between the two parties.

The ending is: (18.506-508)

τοῖσιν ἔπειτ᾽ ἤϊσσον, ἀμοιβηδὶς δὲ δίκαζον.
κεῖτο δ᾽ ἄρ᾽ ἐν μέσσοισι δύω χρυσοῖο τάλαντα,
τῷ δόμεν ὃς μετὰ τοῖσι δίκην ἰθύ[Note 1] ντατα εἴποι.

But the question is, who do the 'two talents of gold' go to? The author notes that it either goes to a) the judge who gives the best judgment, or b) the litigant who pleads his cause best. According to the author, ὃς μετὰ τοῖσι δίκην, "could not grammatically represent a litigant [see the usage of it in Il. 1.516, Ody. 3.362]--the usage of the preposition tends more naturally to suggest one of the judges.

Note 1: the adverb "is more appropriate to the delivery of a judicial decision than to the pleading of a cause." Compare it to Hesiod's WD 1.36

The authors translation of the lines: "The elders in the sacred circle, holding in their hands staves recieved from the herald, with which they start up and declare right and justice each in turn, while a gleam of gold shows the fee for arbitration, which will go as a prize to the elder who carries the majority of the court with him."

IV. THE TRIAL SCENE IN THE ILIAD Summary
This article provided the most legal/judicial analysis on the trial scene.

"Although there are frequent references to homicide, revenge and ransom in the Homeric poems, they give no hint of the exercise of such judicial powers." P. 55.

Compare the judicial system of Homer and archaic Greece to that of the model in the ancient near east. He points out, "Thus far, the criminal law gives the impression of being very much a private affair between the affected families. How did it fit into the structure of a coercive judicial system? The answer is that REVENGE was conceived of as a legal remedy, not the mere expression of a personal vendetta...The court's role was therefore to limit revenge to what was just in the circumstances of the case." p. 58-59

"There are many other references to homicide in the Homeric poems and the consensus among scholars is that the underlying legal system reflected in them is one of arbitration. Disputes were submitted voluntarily to the court, whose judgments could not be binding against the will of the parties. In this context, the law of homicide was one of private vendetta. The relatives of the victim were entitled to revenge, and although they might accept ransom instead, they were in no way obliged to do so. Once ransom had been accepted, however, they could not continue the vendetta. If they did so, they committed a wrongful act which justified a new vendetta. The external constraints in this system of private vengeance were not legal but at most social, through the expression of public opinion. The killer, therefore, could not look to the courts for protection, but if the offer of ransom were unacceptable, his only safety lay in flight, a course of action frequently mentioned in Homer in connection with homicide." P. 67-68.

The issue is whether ransom was  paid or not rather than whether it is payable or not, that best fits this system.

Ajax and ransom: Il. 9.632-636 -- "Ajax's point is that even for the most serious of crime, deliberate murder, ransom is an honorable alternative that is voluntarily accepted, and therefore Achilles should voluntarily accept ransom for Agamemnon's offense." p. 70

Looking at lines 18.499-500 again:

The one was claiming (eukheto) to pay (apondounai) all (panta)
expounding (piphauskon) to the dmos; the other was refusing
(anaineto) to take (helesthai) anything.

The breakdown of the passage:

1.  eukheto, is used in a legal sense, and has a direct parallel in what appears to be a record of litigation over land in a Linear B tablet from Pylos. Ep. 704.5-6
2. The killer in the Homeric passage is claiming the right to pay ransom (poin) in full (panta)
1. This cannot refer simply to any amount that the killer chooses to offer. 
3. The killer thus expounds his case to the "village," represented by the college of elders who in lines 503-508 are called upon to give judgment in the case.
1. The reason why the killer and not the other party is said to be arguing before the court is that the burden of proof is upon him to establish the existence of mitigating circumstances. 
2. The other party has the right to RANSOM or REVENGE.
4. THE DISPUTE THEREFORE IS ABOUT WHAT LIMIT THE COURT SHOULD IMPOSE ON THE RIGHT OF REVENGE OR RANSOM IN ORDER TO ENSURE THAT ITS EXERCISE WILL BE APPROPRIATE TO THE GRAVITY OF THE WRONG.
5. The author arrived to his conclusion, in the context of other legal systems, Mycenaean and Near Eastern. 

V. THE SHIELD OF ACHILLES: ENDS OF THE ILIAD AND BEGINNINGS OF THE POLIS Summary

According to Nagy, the trial scene "lays the conceptual foundations for the beginnings of the polis," however noting that it was way before the polis comes to be in Greece.

Interesting argument: "In the separate world of the Sheild of Achilles, a group of arbitrators must compete with each other in rendering justice, until one winning solution can at last be found. Such a winning solution is also needed for the Iliad as a whole, which does not formally take a position on who is aitios [guilty, responsible in the narrative. The question is left up to a figure who is beyond the Iliad, that is, to the histor [18.501], whose function it is to render dike 'judgment.'"

VI. THE TRIAL SCENE IN ILIAD XVIII Summary

Line 500 is the most controversial, as to its interpretation. Had it been paid or not?

The author also wonders why would Homer devout a passage to this trial, that legally, could've been solved through "oaths and witnesses." It didn't need the overexposure, but somehow, it appears to the author, that Homer is trying to get at something else.