As discussed above (3.3), it is a moot point when and where to place the political and judiciary institutions of the Homeric epics. What the epics do tell about political organisation is that the institutions of the Homeric world were rather similar in outline to those known from archaic and classical poleis. As mentioned already, the society of Cyclopes is described as uncivilised, having neither laws nor assemblies.341 This must
mean that there were societies with laws and assemblies in the time of Homer. Assemblies, councils, and magistrates have a place in the communities in the epics, and the kings are part of these institutions. Some settlements are urbanised, Troy being an obvious example, with institutions for collective decision-making
conducting their sessions in urban contexts.342 The political institutions of epic appear
as amalgams with no exact historical model. Therefore, the connection between these institutions and those of historic poleis will not be discussed further. Rather, in the following, what will be investigated are the epics as sources to political ideologies in the archaic period. I will first investigate the so-called Thersites episode of the Iliad (2.53-277) as an example of aristocratic values, before I look at the attitudes to power that can be found in the epics of Hesiod, a rather different world from that of Homer (3.3.2).
341 Od. 9.112 342 Il. 2.788-789
An important aspect of the political culture in the Homeric epics is the consistent dichotomy of the heroes and the host, between the basileis and the laoi. The basileus leads and the laoi follows, and the laoi is never acting independently of the basileus. Johannes Haubold points out that “the single agent has to keep the people safe”.343 This is a good observation. The people are constantly in an inferior position. Their leaders, the nobility, belong to a different class of beings. There are isolated
statements in Homer where the heroes claim that their power and prestige comes from the people and that they owe them to fight for their protection.344 Fritz Gschnitzer
finds evidence that the people owned the land the basileis ruled over and had granted them their geras, their privileged place in society.345 However, it must be pointed out
that any respect for or gratitude towards the masses is seldom translated into practice. The heroes are constantly defined as over and above any of the rank and file in deed or counsel. As will be discussed in the following, relations of power between the hero and the multitude is quite consistent with élite sentiments towards the masses in the archaic period. The emphasis in Homer on egalitarian relations between the basileis and the inferiority of the laoi points towards the differentiation of status in archaic
poleis between the élite and the masses. The differences in status between the basileis
and the laoi can be seen in the Second Song of the Iliad, when Agamemnon wishes to test the resolve of the Achaeans and Odysseus chastises the commoner Thersites (Il.2.53-277). This example will be examined in detail in the following.
The situation leading up to the Thersites episode is a crisis in the Achaean camp. Agamemnon gathers the foremost heroes to a council (boulē) to tell them about a recent dream of his: the fall of Troy is imminent and he will be victorious that very
343 Haubold, Homer’s people, 2000, 28 344 E.g.. Il. 17.248-255
day. He has full confidence that this is a true omen, but decides to test the Achaeans, by encouraging them to break the siege and go home. Then, the other basileis are supposed to talk them out of fleeing.346 At the summons, the Achaean host rushes to
the agora. Heralds strive to silence the noisy agora and make it listen to the
basileis.347 The crowd finally falls silent, and Agamemnon rises to speak wielding a
sceptre. He claims Zeus has told him they will not be able to take Troy after all.348
Their task being futile, they might as well go home. The laoi are more than willing to do so. The entire assembly breaks up and the host storms down to the ships to leave Troy for good. According to the plan of Agamemnon and the basileis, the basileis try to stop them, to no avail, until Athena inspires Odysseus to take the sceptre of Agamemnon and go rally the troops. When Odysseus meets any basileus or excellent man, he tries to stop him with words, by arguing how unworthy it is for such a man to be afraid, saying that “all do not know the scheme of Agamemnon; it was a scam to test your loyalty, and who knows how he will punish the Achaeans for their
cowardice”.349 However, when Odysseus meets a commoner, he hits him with the
sceptre and rebukes him, bidding him to shut up and listen to his betters, saying “the commoner is nobody in battle or in council; indeed not all can rule the Achaeans. There is no good in the rule of many (polykoiraniē). There must be one ruler, one king, to whom Zeus gave the sovereignty”.350 At last the laoi return noisily to the agora, like the waves of the sea.351
346 Il. 2.53-83 347 Il. 2.95-98 348 Il. 2.86-115 349 Il. 2.188-197 350 Il. 2.198-205 351 Il. 2.207-9
The dichotomy between basileis and laoi is brought to the fore in this episode, as Odysseus claims that the commoners are of no worth at all in council or battle, whereas the basileis rule by the will of Zeus. The council of the heroes has devised a stratagem to test the laoi, who have no knowledge of what goes on in the council. This suggests a broad élite strategy, where an exclusive, but internally egalitarian decision-making group hides its decision-making processes and keeps other groups, including the majority of the people, out of the process. Odysseus calls the masses to silence by pointing to their inferiority, not to the egalitarian relations between the fighters. Rational argument and kind words are reserved for those Odysseus considers worthy, whereas the masses are treated like animals.
At the word of Odysseus, the assembly falls silent, except for one man, Thersites, who clamours and shouts abuse at the basileis. He is described as a notorious slanderer, who argues with the basileis in rude language and tries to make the Achaeans laugh with his irreverent talk.352 He is further described as the ugliest man of the entire host who went to Troy, a bandy-legged, hunchbacked pinhead whose only talent is to badmouth his betters.353 Thersites reviles king Agamemnon and accuses him of wishing to continue the war for the sake of personal gain. He further mocks the Achaeans, calling them weaklings and women for not abandoning the greedy
Agamemnon, arguing that the king then would see whether the common soldiery was useful or not. Finally, he calls Achilles a phlegmatic coward for not killing
Agamemnon when he took away his prize, the girl Briseïs.354 Odysseus brings an end
to Thersites’ tirade by making it known that if he ever hears him hurling such abuse again he will strip him of his clothing and cane him soundly, whereupon he treats him
352 Il. 2.211-216 353 Il. 2.216-220 354 Il. 2.221-242
to a few blows with the sceptre. The unhappy Thersites falls silent and weeps, whereat the rest of the Achaeans laugh heartily, calling this the best of all the feats of Odysseus.355
The clash between the commoner Thersites and the basileus Odysseus is a fine illustration of the differences in rank and status and their implication for public participation in the assemblies in the Homeric world. Clearly, there is a gulf between the leaders of the army and the rest. Marcel Detienne argues that the Homeric heroes were formally equal and that the middle, to meson, was an important principle in dividing booty and in speaking to the assembly.356 In his interpretation, the social group of this egalitarian warrior class became the polis and their reciprocal relations are found again in the agora of Greek poleis.357 As seen in the Thersites-episode, however, commoners were excluded from the circle of peers, although they evidently belonged to the group of fighting men. Some scholars argue that Thersites is an egregious character. Kurt A. Raaflaub claims that the Thersites-episode does not indicate that the basileis were superior to the laoi, but is an example of bad behaviour from the rank and file.358 This interpretation overlooks the ideological bias of Homer,
however: Thersites is described as insolent and ugly exactly to highlight his inferiority to the basileis and to bring home the message of the divine right to rule for the
basileis over the laoi and by extension, the archaic aristocracy, over the commoners.
What does this tell us about the social structure of the archaic polis? It seems evident that only a small minority could call themselves equals, i.e. the aristocrats (cf. 1.5.2;
355 Il. 2.244-277
356 Detienne, Les maîtres de vérité dans la Grèce archaïque, 1973, 83-89 357 Detienne, Les maîtres de vérité dans la Grèce archaïque, 1973, 95-97 358 Raaflaub, “Athenian and Spartan Eunomia,” 2006, 394
1.5.2). Thus, popular power in the polis cannot plausibly be claimed to originate in this closed circle of élite members.
Detienne’s analysis of the beginnings of the polis does not explain the transition from a limited circle of heroes to a supposedly broadly defined egalitarian civic body. In the Thersites-episode, aristocratic arrogance is more evident than anything else and the community is completely dominated by the heroes. This reveals a fundamental difficulty in supposing egalitarian relations as the basis for polis society. However, the episode is not unequivocal and is open to different interpretations. It can be interpreted as an élite assertion of superiority and a criticism of popular involvement in decision-making. It can also be read as a protest against arrogant leaders. Arnaldo Momigliano points out that the intervention of Thersites is “clearly considered scandalous (yet it does happen)”.359 Kurt A. Raaflaub interprets the harangue of
Thersites as an expression of general dissatisfaction with kings or big men.360 Criticism of the leaders is no doubt an important aspect of what Thersites is saying, but the reaction to his harangue is just as interesting and appears as the main focus in the Iliad’s narration of the episode: nobody defends Thersites’ criticism and Odysseus can punish him at will. Thus, seeing Thersites as somehow a popular voice against the élite is to read modern notions of freedom of speech into the episode. Rather, this episode appears designed to highlight the contrast between the heroes and the host, and by extension, the archaic élite and the masses. However, the Thersites-episode can be read in different ways: the criticism against the basileis is quite explicit and can be plausibly argued to express feelings harboured by many of the rank and file of archaic Greek societies.
359 Momigliano, “Freedom of speech in antiquity,” 1973, 257
The evidence from the Thersites-episode is ambiguous: Thersites is described as hideously ugly, and is hardly an ideal to anyone, yet, he does gainsay the basileis. Likewise, the assertion that everyone supported Odysseus is perhaps exaggerated. Indeed, the bullying necessary to underpin the respect for the basileis may indicate that their status was not secure. The irreverent speech of Thersites can be said to represent a broad corporate strategy for power against the dominance of the basileis, a strategy for popular power, shared among the laoi: Thersites does not only say “to hell with the war”, he points out how the war benefits the powerful and harms the
commoners. Conversely, the humiliating corporal punishment meted out by Odysseus reveals a broad élite strategy of marking off a distinction between the circle of
basileis and good men on the one hand and the masses on the other. In the ideology
that informs this strategy for power, the basileis are supposed to do the talking, they are the best in council and in battle, whereas the rest should hold their peace and do as they are told. The rule of many is a bad thing, whereas the rule of one king is the will of the gods. As will be discussed further below (3.4.4; 3.4.5), this fundamental difference between the élite and the masses can be found in some of the archaic poets. First, however, the political ideology of Hesiod will be investigated.