Cálculo Estructural mediante CYPE

TTfiSdpev dsperd. rxxoi SOcry I B u m z r a etna.

T hat there is m ore than one degree o f fairness in this system is clear from the expression 'S Ck t j v I Q ^ v r a r d (508); Sl'k t j that is very fair, reaso n ab ly fair, slig h tly u n fair, g rossly u n fair, and so on. T h ere is ev en a p riz e fo r the ’m o st s tra ig h t' ju d g e m e n t to encourage the elders to be as fair as possible and possibly even to co u n te ra c t b rib ery . It is a strik in g ly re a lis tic acco u n t o f the institution o f ju stic e w ith no id ealistic hero-king present. It is a d escrip tio n o f a n o n -h ero ic so ciety p o ssib ly c o n te m p o ra ry w ith the poet.

The heroic society, o f course, is not free fro m the conflict betw een ju s t and unjust. W hen A ntilochus has claim ed his right ( Si'k x j I I . 23. 542) to the second p rize o f the c h ario t race w hich A ch illes in ten d s to give to E um elus, M enelaus claim s h is right because he has finished third only due to A n tilo ch u s’ cheat. He can no longer tolerate the situation since A ntilochus h im self does

not to lerate the unfair degrading o f prizes. M enelaus reveals the c h e a tin g o f A n tilo c h u s and firs t c a lls fo r ju d g e m e n t by the A ch aean s (5 7 3 -4 ):

dXX dyef, 'hpyeCuw fjyifrcpes' ipk pidovres, tsyjkrov d^Kpor^DOLOi Sucdouare, fir)8 h t dpuryj)

Then he changes his m ind and decides to be a ju d g e h im self (579- 85) know ing that the m atter is crystal c le ar:8

elS d? iydvainfcSudfcwKalfl o$md<f>iju

d X X o ^ e m n XuL avaa^ Weia ydp iarau 580

’AwiXotf, el 8 dye deipo, Storrpe<p& j)Balls' krri anas' Ivmju TTpondpotOe Kal dppavos, axrrap IpdoBX ry yepoiy iyefnSLivp, f] vep rd vpdoQev iXawes,

Ittttcjw dipdpevos you tPX9 v dwootyaiov

(pvifo litiph' bah/ t6 fy fo86X(pdfaia vedfpaL

It is indeed a straight ((Beta 580) ju d g em en t. W ith o u t b u llying with his authority, he puts A ntilochus in a dilem m a, confession of his m isconduct or a false oath w hich is a serious offence against the god and w ould in any case decisiv ely rem ove him from the fa v o u r o f M en elau s. T h ere is no re a l c h o ic e. A n tilo c h u s apologizes, offers com pensation and returns the p rize to M enelaus ( 5 8 7 - 9 7 ) .

T his d isso lv es M enelaus' anger and he reg ain s his typical g en ero sity . He forgives the young m an saying th at his youthful re c k le ssn e ss tem p o rarily o v ercam e his w isd o m (6 0 4 ), e x p resses his ap p reciatio n o f his and his fam ily ’s cred it (6 0 7 -8 ) and gives the p rize back to him (609-11):

7ij 7xx XionqidAp^TTLTTebofiai, tf&ml Imrw

8 F or this interpretation o f SiKdaaj (579), see J. H. K ells, ’E uripides, E lectra

Sauu fyify TPEp £owup, fra yvuuxji m l dSe u s tyds ov mrre Oufids vneppCaXos k c lI dmjirfs.

This is his final judgem ent. It is not strictly a 'straight' judgem ent in the sen se o f 'an eye fo r an e y e '. H e d o e s n o t tak e c o m p e n sa tio n , no r the p riz e he is e n title d to , b u t fo rg iv es A ntilochus for nothing. Only a short lecture is enough: 'Y ou were not yourself at that tim e. D on't do it again.’ It is not a punitive sentence, but co rrectiv e enough through the en h an cem en t o f the good relatio n sh ip betw een the tw o. A fter all, M enelaus is m ore c o n cern ed ab o u t w hat o th ers w ill th in k o f him (5 7 5 -8 ). H is re la tio n w ith o th e r A c h ae an s is as im p o rta n t as th a t w ith A ntilochus. So he chooses to show his g en ero sity 'so th at they m ay know my heart is not arrogant {dneptfL'aXos) or harsh' (610- l l ) . 9 He m ust not look as if his heart is 'Oneptpi'aXos', an adjective for n o n- Sl'k c l l o s people like the Cyclopes and the suitors w ho do not know Sl'k t j. By doing so, M enelaus restores the com plete harm ony in the com m unity. This is the typical Sl'k t j of H om eric heroes. Its aim is not to pursue exacting punishm ent fo r crim e, b u t m ost o f all to seek the good fo r both p a rties in v o lv e d and the w hole s o c i e t y . 10 T he sharp c o n tra st b etw een j u s t and u n ju st does ap p ear in a b itte r d isp u te, b u t is k ep t sh o rt-liv e d . M en elau s' c o n sid era te w ay o f h a n d lin g this m atter is the so rt o f S l'k t j

9 I. M. H ohendahl-Z oetelief, in M anners in the H o m e ric E p ic (L eiden 1980) p. 53 and pp. 143-4, thinks th at th is explanation m ay appear to be

M enelaus' 'd ip lo m a tic, perh ap s even a lo g ic a l, m ista k e ,' fo r he looks lacking m odesty. H ow ever, from the p o e t’s point o f v iew , th is com m ent is necessary to show th at M enelaus' u ltim ate c o n cern is to c o n so lid a te his re la tio n sh ip w ith th e w hole co m m u n ity , n o t only w ith A n tilo c h u s. 10 It is in terestin g to com pare w ith this o bservation th e account o f K. J. D over on the concern o f a later G reek ju ry in G re ek P o p u la r M o ra lity in the Time o f P lato and A risto tle, (O xford 1974) p. 158: '... the question which a law suit o r an indictm ent posed to a G reek ju ry w as ... 'W hat action in respect o f this situation is likely to have the b est co n seq u en ces fo r the stre n g th o f th e co m m u n ity ? '

approved and praised in the H om eric society. E xtenuation is by no m eans a m odern invention.

If we look fu rth er around, we see m any such exam ples of Sl'k t j, judgem ent, in the funeral gam e, a rare occasion on w hich we see the 'm orality in peace' at w ork in the I l i a d .

A ch illes' in itial d ecisio n to give the second p riz e fo r the c h ario t race to E u m elu s, w ho lo st by an a cc id e n t, is a good exam ple (23. 536-8):

AourOos' dvtp djpLoros' iAafrei fjufruxa? Imrov?

6AX dye Sij cl Sajieu tedAiov, d s £meuc&,

S evT eft drrdp rh . irpajTU (pep& rfkoT u Sdo? d f c .

It is not a 'straight' ju d g em en t at all. It is far from our idea of 'fair play'. W e find it unfair as A ntilochus does. A loser is a loser. N ev erth eless, all others applaud A ch illes' d ecisio n (539). W hy? B ecause it estab lish es the best social unity. It can certain ly be argued from th is p assag e th at a m an is v alu ed fo r w h at he i s rath er than w hat he d o e s in the H om eric so ciety , and th erefo re d esp ite his failu re in th is p a rtic u la r p e rfo rm an c e E u m elu s gets the prize for his unchanged value. It m ay be so. B ut if so, there is little point in the com petition to begin w ith. The m otivation for A c h ille s’ d e cisio n is sim p le. H e p i t i e s th e b e st c h a rio te e r hum iliated and disap p o in ted by the accid en t (tpKreipe 534). The sen tim en t seem s to be shared by o th ers, too, ju d g in g by th eir reaction to his suggestion. E um elus does n o t get the p rize exactly for being w hat he is — otherw ise he should have received the first p rize in stea d o f the seco n d , b u t fo r th e sake o f g o o d social relatio n sh ip am ong heroes, each w ith som e share o f honour. In their society, A chilles' slightly 'bent' Sl'k t j is far m ore w elcom e than A n tilo c h u s ’ 's tra ig h t' Sl'k t j b ased on sh arp d ich o to m y betw een

su ccess and failu re. E ven A ntilochus is not o p posed to giving som e o t h e r p rize to E um elus and know s th at A ch illes w ill be p raised fo r doing so (548-52).

The same S l ' k t j is in function when the superfluous prize goes to N estor. A chilles gives it to the old m an not because he is a g re a t a th le te , b u t p re c ise ly b ecau se he is n o t (6 2 1 -3 ), and n ev erth eless deserves honour fo r other reasons, nam ely his d p e r r f

especailly in counsel, his status as dyaQ d?, and his age. He him self know s the reason for the aw ard and that he is entitled to it (647- 5 0 ):

toO tv 8 tyd) vpdppow Styapai, xqipEL SipoL ffmp

0S'pev(klp411/rPm o£8 £ o € \T p c t)

nuff? riU foiKE TETUifpSoLL fie f 'kxctLds: a d 8£ d e d tu v S d v r i x d p a 'jia ^ o e L K ^ a S o fa t11

A c h ille s ' c o u rtesy even d eserv es b lessin g s o f th e gods. The o b serv atio n o f the so cial stru ctu re and re sp e c t to eld ers is the heart of S l ' k t j of Hom eric heroes.

T he extrem e case o f such co n sid eratio n fo r social harm ony is the last and aborted com petition o f spear-throw ing. The only v o lu n te ers are A gam em non and M eliones. T hen A ch illes gives the first p rize to A gam em non w ith no co m p etitio n , saying th at everybody know s that he is the best (891 cfpi crros*)12 in this game.

11 H o h en d ahl-Z oetelief, op. cit.p. 116, thinks th at this is only N esto r's in te rp re ta tio n and A chilles gives the p riz e in fac t as a c o n so la tio n rath er

than an honour. W hen w e consider, how ever, th a t th is episode

im m ed iately follow s M en elau s' final speech to A n tilo ch u s in w h ich he e sp ecially m entions the credit to N estor and h is sons as th e reason to let A ntilochus go w ith the second prize, there is no d o ubt about A ch illes' (and audien ce's) aw areness o f h o n o u r due to the old m an, w h a te v er th e face v alue o f A ch illes' w ords m ig h t be.

12 N ote th at this is an adjective he in sisten tly reserves fo r h im se lf in the b itte r qu arrel w ith A gam em non in Book 1 (244, 4 12), becau se the question w hich o f the tw o is th e b est o f the A chaeans w as the real issue o v er which

Is it, then, a good exam ple o f a m an valued fo r w hat he is? It m ay be so. B ut if A gam em non's superiority is beyond doubt and his v icto ry 100% sure, the p e rfo rm an c e w o u ld n o t a ffe c t the distribution o f the prizes. H ow ever, if they do play, it may affect the social harm ony. If by any chance A gam em non loses, his pride w ill be h u rt and, tem p eram en tal as he is, he m ay sp o il the occasion. On the other hand, even if he w ins, M eliones m ay not p lease A gam em non if he challenges the king w ith high spirit. It is above all A chilles' precaution fo r M eliones and the rest o f the com pany know ing w hat the great king's tem per is like. W e m ay not call it a 'straight' judgem ent, but if it does not lead to the good o f the so ciety w ith ev ery o n e happy w ith his d e serv e d honour, w hat is the point o f m aking it straig h t?13

There is little doubt in that this sam e principle is applied in kings' ju d icial Si'tcai, too. The fallen Sarpedon is rem em bered as a king who has protected (eCpvro) Lycia with his ’<5iVat' and 'vd^vo?' (II.

16. 542). crd^vosr m ust be his defence fo rce to keep his people p h y sically safe and Sl'k o l m ust be his ad m in istratio n to m aintain good order and social unity w ithin his kingdom w hich is indeed the best defence for any countries.

M inos is the king and ju d g e am ong the dead ( O d . 11. 569- 70). B ut his ju d g e m e n ts are n o t th e 'L ast Ju d g e m e n t’ as in C h ristian esch ato lo g y . H e is acting e x actly lik e a liv in g king, settling d isp u tes to resto re social harm ony am ong the dead. W e

th e ir quarrel flared up. cf. J. G riffin, H o m er on life a n d d ea th (O x fo rd 1980), p. 53.

13 W e know how u n fo rtu n a te an in co n sid e ra te 'stra ig h t' ju d g e m e n t can be through the ju d g em en t in the contest betw een O dysseus and A jax (O d . 11. 545-7). The Slkt} o f A thena and some T rojans ruined the life o f a suprem e hero. T he w in n e r O dysseus h im se lf regrets it m o st b itterly and w ishes he had never w on (548). W hat hurts m ost is that th e ju d g em e n t d estro y ed not only A jax' life, but his friendship w ith O dysseus fo r ever.