Homeric Gods and the Values of Homeric Society

Author(s): A. W. H. Adkins
Source: The Journal of Hellenic Studies, Vol. 92 (1972), pp. 1-19
Published by: The Society for the Promotion of Hellenic Studies
Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/629970
Accessed: 31-12-2018 00:10 UTC

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.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

The Society for the Promotion of Hellenic Studies is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize,
preserve and extend access to The Journal of Hellenic Studies

This content downloaded from 168.176.5.118 on Mon, 31 Dec 2018 00:10:04 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
HOMERIC GODS AND THE VALUES OF HOMERIC SOCIETY

A RECENT article has observed, with particular reference to the Ho

'divine intervention <cannot> be simply removed from the poems to
sociological truths'.' I agree; though I should interpret the words in a man
their author. I shall endeavour to show in this article that not merely div
but divine behaviour as a whole in the Homeric poems, is governed by
human behaviour in the poems; so that the 'sociological truths'-or wh
be termed-can encompass divine as well as human behaviour in Homer
me, is this even prima facie surprising. True, the conversations on Oly
Homer are in one sense entirely free composition, since no bard in the
met an Olympian or attended an assembly of the gods. But the bards
which-like later Greek societies that we are better able to observe-believed itself able to
discern the hand of gods in the events which befell it or its several members; which, n
surprisingly, attributed pleasant events to the favour of its gods, unpleasant events to the
anger of its gods; enquired why the god or gods concerned was pleased or angry; and
ascribed reasons for divine pleasure or anger analogous to those for which a powerful huma
being in the society might have been expected to become pleased or angry. After all, apart
from the fact that mortals die and the gods do not, the only important difference between
gods and men mentioned in the Homeric poems is that the gods have more cpET-rr, -qur an
P/3 than men (Iliad ix 498).2 The gods have more; but more of the same-most importan
qualities or characteristics as men; so that the gods might reasonably be expected to b
endowed with similar motives by possessing them, and wishing to retain or, if possib
increase them.
I must now try to justify these generalisations by detailed discussion of texts. I shal
consider divine behaviour in the light of pEr'-qq,, rpq, to?pa and dytAo'nq, together with othe
words linked with these in usage. To avoid repetition, I shall have to refer my readers t
my discussions of these terms in the context of human behaviour.

jto Zpa

In Merit and Responsibility3 I argued that Homeric man's use of [koZpa to explain his own
situation took its overtones from the usage of ?to-tpa to denote an individual's 'share' in a
stratified society. Homeric man does not think abstractly: his share of the material goods
of the society is his position in society. In a stratified society, the shares, ~orpac, will differ
from each other. To speak or act Ka7A- apo pav is to speak or act 'in accordance with one's
share', which we render 'as is right', since 'in accordance with one's share' would be strange
English; but in so doing we inevitably misrepresent the Homeric situation. The most
powerful members of the society, the dyaOol, decide what is in accordance with one's share,
be one of high status or low. One's upotpa does not determine behaviour in a clockwork
manner, determine from the dawn of time that one should have eaten an egg for breakfast
this morning rather than a kipper, or that one should walk this way home rather than that;
but it does delimit one's sphere of behaviour, for the 'share' in society, and hence the way of

1 A. A. Long, 'Morals and Values in Homer' in some cases-fighters very much inferior to Diomedes,
JHS xc (1970) 122. to account for the fact that though Diomedes can
2 The problematical substance iXcap, which is only wound Aphrodite he cannot kill her, for gods and
mentioned twice in Homer (Iliad v 339 and 416), goddesses are different in some way. At all events,
may well be an ad hoc explanation, devised for iXacp does not affect divine values in Homer.
Book v, in which the gods not only come down and 3 (Clarendon, 196o) chapter ii 17 ff.
fight on the field of battle like humans, but are-in

This content downloaded from 168.176.5.118 on Mon, 31 Dec 2018 00:10:04 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 2 A. W. H. ADKINS

life, of a king is not the same as

KaKOs. In Merit and Responsibil
affects its behaviour in context
that is of less relevance here.4
Now the same modes of thought appear when divine behaviour is portrayed. In
Iliad xv 185 ff., Poseidon, who has been ordered by Zeus to return to Olympus or to the sea
forthwith, and not to meddle with the fighting, replies

ri OTdorLo, q p ayacs TEo EV p oVITTOvV Epo ELTEV,

Et ?r 1L-k LOJ6OV EOVca 1N EICOV KcqE E.V
TrpES ycdp 7- EK Kpovov EljLEV ~EAsEOl, oViS rEKETO ~'Ca,
ZES9 Ka ~yc, 7Tpt770, - Ao' 'At~l, vEpotorv avacTcoWv.
TPLXOa E' 7TCaV-ra Sav-rtc, ECKaaoTosg Eo_ rLqJOpE /)qg"
yjiot Eycov A'aXov voAt'v)v 4Aa VCUaE(EV alEd

ZaAok
Zs 'v 'vwv,
acX 'At" " ' dacLE
ovpavo pXObov
EKPV EVE EpL
'po'VTaK.' VEAL

ya8a 't tvvhoug h o dvremain tKah haKpS "OvrE on7Tog.

'76a o p Kait oa Y hr sth (o PE)o/ua opEntvh, A& iat Eer/s Ah

Kan Kpa-epd z-EP. EhV rLEVE-To) aPLth rarECT7 EVa t Oitp?.

XEPn orS m tL71 se xtE erayX KlCKOdv lO.n tEhLaCOoEUbW
OvyasnEeoEUeLV yap TE Kat y C wa V els A-EpOV E'ltd
EK7TyAOtLSg E7TEEetsLV EVELuLEV, OVS. .EstKEV vAToSo,
Ot EEV opVO VS aKOVUOVTao Kat avayLryKq.

Zeus, tyao'sg though he is, should remain within his own -otpa of shrj and control his own
sons and daughters who will be bound to obey him. Poseidon speaks exactly as might a
mortal who has inherited a third share (nopa) of his father's land, while his two brothers
have inherited the other two shares. Each brother may control what happens within his
own share, but not in the other two (and there are areas, like the ayopa in human affairs,
which are the 1-oZpa of no-one). A god's sphere of behaviour, like a man's, is delimited by
hiset oitpa. When Homeric man wished to explain the social relationships that obtain
among his numerous deities, he naturally used the concepts available in his own human
society, and used them in the same way: what else was he to do ?5
Nor is this use of po-pa to delimit the sphere of influence of deity confined to Homer.
When the Erinyes, Eumenides 169 f., say to Apollo

EIOoEtco 8E, 1LCLVTL5 'V ILWbL-kaart

ILvXov EXpava-r av-ro rosowg, av37-4KA~qoS,

-rapa volLov OVv9EV /3poEa Ec-poLa L'V,

7TaAcuyEVEZt S8 jkoCpas- 1oiag,

the thought is similar: Apollo has gone beyond his own -o'pa, sphere of influence, and
encroached upon that of the Erinyes. They may also be complaining that Apollo has
increased the Fo'gpa of human beings, and of Orestes in particular, by what he has done; an
idea which we find even in Plato's Protagoras-myth, 332A3, where as a result of Prometheus
theft of fire for mankind g cvOpoWos OElcS ILLETXE ClolpaS: men obtained part of the god
share, and thus increased their capabilities.

Both in Homer and in traditional Greek thought of a later period, then, o~pa delimit
4 But see below, 15 f. a human niece might have done, and Apollo shows
5 Similarly, Odyssey vi 329 f., Athena did not appear
aid6a which prevents him opposing Poseidon, his
visibly to Odysseus, aldero ydp paa/fza'poKacGyvVTov, as
taaTpoKacdlyvTov, Iliad xxi 469.

This content downloaded from 168.176.5.118 on Mon, 31 Dec 2018 00:10:04 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 HOMERIC GODS AND THE VALUES OF HOMERIC SOCIETY 3
not only the behaviour of humans, both in respect of the inevitable and also in re
what they may or may not do, but also the behaviour of the gods.6

The -oZlpa is a torpa of rl-kr, where human beings are concerned. For ex
Odysseus, in Alcinous' court in Phaeacia, gives a portion of meat to the minstrel Demo
saying, Odyssey viii 479 if.,

7Tat yap JvOpdwtvoa E57rnxOov1,otcnv J30ot0

rt-qLg s-fOt E.OOL Kat atV, OS.VEK
otat- Moicr' E J&EaE, /1A-qcrE 8 %YAov Jot8WJv.'

Minstrels have a I-o-pa of -rt-, for the Muse taught them songs. Other mortals' Cporpac are
also ko pac of rq'7 ; and we have just seen that the same may be said of the uow^pac of Zeus,
Hades and Poseidon.
I have argued elsewhere' that human -rtp' in Homer depends on and in a sense c
in the possession of material goods. Not that '-r7te is simply material goods:
'I am not of course maintaining that time is simply material goods, any more than
is simply courage. One cannot adopt an arithmetical approach to time, say that in Hom
society each man has a certain number of material goods which is his number, th
wrong done to his property diminishes that number, and that accordingly he atte
get compensation consisting of the same number of units in order to restore the statu
Time, though rooted in the material situation, is far more than this. A man's tim
position on that scale at whose top are the immortal gods, at the bottom the homeless b
To timan a man is to move him further from, to atiman him to bring him closer
homeless and the helpless, the man who is nothing. And time as a result commen
denotes all that differentiates the way of life of a prosperous chieftain from that of a wa
beggar-property, status, prestige, rights (in some sense) and so on. The emotive c
on this word can only be understood in terms of Homeric arete and Homeric society,
fact that in Homeric society as Homer depicts it-no matter what may or may not hav
the case in Mycenaean society--the property, prestige, status and rights of an agathos
strictly on his ability to defend them.'s
'That scale at whose top are the immortal gods'; for the gods have more Jper1-' and
than men. The loss of r-qgr naturally evokes a violent response in men: 'Accord
Achilles' attitude to the loss of Briseis is not childish but-until he refuses compensatio
all events-the natural attitude of an adult agathos in this type of society. The Ho
hero not merely feels insecure, he is insecure. To be deprived of time, even in the slig
degree, is to move so much nearer to penury and nothingness, to kakotes-a cha
condition which is aischron and, in the society depicted by Homer, quite possible.'9
But perhaps the gods have enough Jper- and rtqm not to feel insecure? H
Poseidon, Iliad vii 446 ff.:

(ZEUi 7"7EP, i2 T"S /3po'V arrpova yaCCav

o;s "7rt;s- E'7 auavCarotn yvoov atJtv EVt~/IEt;
oz;X opac&cL O't aV-'- Katp'q IO4LOWVTES' 'Axacot
6 See also below, I5 f. For discussion of S'
the"Honour" and "Punishment" in the Homeric
behaviour of the dyaOdg when the demands ofPoems'
dpeTj in BICS vii (1960) 23 ff.
conflict with what is Kartd upopav, see Merit8 andOp. cit. 29.
Responsibility, chapters ii and iii, and my 'Homeric
1 Ibid.
Values and Homeric Society' in JHS xci (1971) 13 f.

This content downloaded from 168.176.5.118 on Mon, 31 Dec 2018 00:10:04 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 4 A. W. H. ADKINS

TEXOS 0 ELX0~,(rravUTo VEOV TEp, lk t E a7Y

P WaaCtv., oME' OEO-Cat &0uaV KAELrcS EKCLT(KaLfOCkS;
708 8' OTOL KAEOS E"7rt (TOV 7T E'7LKL&'cTcLL 77 S'

r70o 8.' rTLUrovTratL " dYC8 Ka% )N oZios 'A'rrAAw

"jpp Aaotd80ovTt, 7roAlucrratlEvr a'0A-'LavTE.'

The Greeks have built a fine big wall, and they have not given hecatombs-material
goods as rqTp-to the gods. The fame of the wall will cause men to forget the wall which
Poseidon and Apollo toiled so hard to build; their fame will be diminished, and if men
discover they can build walls without offering hecatombs, they will not offer hecatombs, so
that the gods will lose r-tpr. Zeus replies, 455,

' 7Trorot, .vvouayaL' EtpvaOEVEs, otov EELTEES.

aAAos KEy TtLS ToiiO OEWV &'lcELE vo77/tca,

os- aUo 7ToAAOv a avpodEpoS XEpdaS -E I-JEVOS' 7E-

aUO 8'-77TO KAOS E7at ' OrOV T.7.LK8Va7L. 7'"S,'
and advises Poseidon to knock down the wall when the Greeks have left Troy. Some gods
might reasonably have such fears, says Zeus, but Poseidon is strong enough to make them
unnecessary, to take steps to ensure that his fame persists.
Here we are concerned with fame rather than Trtjtq (but an anxious concern with fame
is simply another respect in which divine and human behaviour coincide in Homer), though
the absence of hecatombs certainly deprives Poseidon of -r-t. Another passage, however,
prominently uses words of the rtq-group. In Odyssey xiii 128 ff., we find Poseidon, who
seems to be of all the gods the most touchy about his Trtt, saying

ZE T a'TEp, OVKET E)YC YE /LET' LOVraTOLt a EOL'UL

Tt/Z77EtS EUOJiCdtt, 0OTE (LE fpOTO OV TL TtOVUTL,

~'rcqKE, 7Ot rTo p To E/rLS Eo El y.t EVE hA?7s.

Kayp pv/v "0V77 ECLal77V KaK , 7ToAA', 7TaOov-cra
oKc8 EVUECuGL? vodarov 8EoU OC O0 '7TOTCTrqvpwv

7raOyxv, EITEL (UV 7TpTOV V-7TE0XEO Ktp KLTEVEVUCs.

o1 8'VE8ovT' , vt V7 ...Emo TvrovTo yOVTES
KCarOTOEa EV IOCLK?, EEo1aV O1C O, CaKE TETCa lpC,
XaAKdov TE XpvUv TE AtS E'Un' 6"' V0'vkavT'7V,
idAA', &r' v o08 omTE Tpol' s- Oa'0 OvoES,
E C aTE 7Tqt7Wv jAE, aXcWv a~d3 Aqt8os altav.'
Now TqCL4ELS does not mean 'honoured', 'highly-regarded', 'well-spoken-of', but 'possessed
of T-Eq' in the full sense of the word;1o and to T'ELV is either oneself directly to confer i-tpj
upon another or to create a situation in which other people will confer ~q-q upon him.u If
the Phaeacians are able to transport safely and prosperously over the sea a mortal whom the
sea-god had determined to allow home, but in misery, then mortals in general are less likely
to offer rTtj-sacrifice-to Poseidon to avert his anger expressed in the form of storm and
shipwreck. Zeus reassures Poseidon again, 140 ft.

, doo, , , oodya cpvcOevi, o ,ov ' ,e.

oVT Ut c"T a (ovut Eol" XaAEOYv 8E KEY E'l)

vy3pWy "'E ITEp 71S E p17 Klt KCpTEL. E)oV

oV TL TEL, rol0 0' EUTI KCl E orrlW(T Tls cTEl.
'pov oirws E~E'AELS KLL 70ToL "ov 7TETO vp."

10 Cf. especially Iliad ix 601 ff., discussed op. cit. 29. 11 Op. cit. passim, especially 31.

This content downloaded from 168.176.5.118 on Mon, 31 Dec 2018 00:10:04 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 HOMERIC GODS AND THE VALUES OF HOMERIC SOCIETY 5
Not 'it would be wrong', but 'it would be difficult, XahEITrdv' W plktv 1tEAAEL,
Poseidon is &pto-ros. But what is dJa'tpd%`nv 1'cMEtV ? According to LSJ, 'to assail h
insults'. But no insults have been expressed, and IdAAEV seems not to mean
anywhere else, but 'send forth' a person or thing (in Homer elsewhere a thing,
Theognis 573 we have dyyEAov idAAELv, and cf. Aeschylus, Choephori 45, PV
Choephori 497, where Orestes prays to the dead Agamemnon '~jotL 3&K-qV ZaAAE cGu4ax
where 8&Knq is at least partly personified). aitpLl is a hapax in Homer, but the a
rtipoS denotes someone who lacks -rtt-E in the full sense of the word rt-t. Now
mortals -rt7j (possessions, without at least a minimum of which it is impossible to liv
status) is a necessary condition of existence. -tyz can only be held in the context
oikos; and the later legal ditlda too is precisely loss of possessions and expulsion f
7IdT'A, the larger community of later times. In his speech, by using oKE'TL
Poseidon is referring to his 'r7LEt (possessions plus status) in the community of the go
expressing the fear that if mortals ceased to give him -r-LEtv in the form of sacrifi
offerings he might indeed be d~Tros. If Poseidon's rtt-q were reduced, the god
dii 'Etv him, treat him as one without i-rttk, and send him forth in a condition d
of '7-Lr (nLiqv ldAAELV), an &t[~i-ov /ETaLVrdT~yv (Iliad ix 618), who is precisely som
who wanders from place to place and has no -rte.
That this should actually happen to a god may be highly unlikely, as Zeus re
Poseidon; but divine -rtLq depends on the action of mortals, as Zeus and Poseidon
aware. Hence Poseidon on Zeus' advice turns the Phaeacian ship to stone on its wa
when it is within sight of Phaeacia. In response to which Alcinous says, xiii 172 ff.,

w rrorrot, ?i Ita 8j n [kraEAalqc-ra 40 ' u L?O

7traTpor- E[ov, tos cr-aKEl Hoeoa&lawv'v atyh eatL
P itleVs , OVVEKCa i TOLITO nTonfLOVES EtL EV c TTCahLvo.
- rro-r JnLa7KWV O V p6V 7TELKaAAa vE-qI-ar

EK 'TO-,J7T7oS cavtovcLrav Ev ~7EPopEttL T'VTov-r

pactuEJkva, ,JLEycaL 8 V OpOSo 7TOEL c/JLKcAV'EW.

6S. aiospOEV d0 Y)P/'?o ih oE 0s7 VV r aVTara rEcthe aL.

&AA' tyEh,0 CoS thV Ea ETLOr, 7TELtte mIrEoCa l7TmVTES..
tTOwL7TSd hsEVe 7TcWocLOE npOtpssV, tt TE KEY TLS e o t7'GTL
7dLErEPOV 7T'portw arIuV HmOuELytaLrVL o omravpovtS

8W" EKacKEK[pqLEVOVS LCEPEVrOLEV, ac K'? EAE)?,

?k7,LL q[ZV 7TEpt`Jk7nKES OPOS 7TOaEL 4kCL AVjbq.

Alcinous' father knew that Poseidon was likely to be angry, and to express his anger one
day, at the Phaeacians transporting travellers safely over the sea; for too high a success-rate
might diminish men's fear of the sea and of the sea-god; and if they did not fear the sea-god,
why should they offer him sacrifice, material goods as -rqt'? In both these passages,
Poseidon expresses a reasonable alarm, for in the case of both gods and men 'since the
strongest Homeric terms of value are not used to censure anyone who atiman an agathos, and
it is only foolish to do so in virtue of the reprisals which the agathos will probably take, it is
truer to say that in the last resort the Homeric hero'-and, let me now add, the Homeric
god-'employs his arete to defend, recover or increase his time, with all the implications that
the word has been shown to possess, than that time is an acknowledgment of arete'.12 Greek
gods are more powerful than men, but they are far from omnipotent (note here Poseidon's
emphasis on the hard work entailed by his building the walls of Troy, Iliad vii 452 f.): a god
may reasonably fear that if he does not assert himself and manifest his JpErT, he may not
receive his rqij, and become no longer rTqELS. among the immortal gods.
12 Op. cit. 31.

This content downloaded from 168.176.5.118 on Mon, 31 Dec 2018 00:10:04 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 6 A. W. H. ADKINS

For gods, as for human beings

derived from their importance
the actual presence or absence o
intentions or attitudes. So, wh
gods and goddesses but, 537, 4 A
deliberate in the slight, but Ar
the sacrifices which are themse
had Patroclus won so great a vic
Troy without Achilles, since
themselves 7rtpaj, though it wo
Similarly when Odysseus and hi
Sun, the fact that they would
point: to destroy the Sun's poss
intention are irrelevant. The Su

E 7TodaEp vi 4ov /tcpo s OEOK cv OV ESo,

-r7- t8 -q J-dpov- AacEp- oJ&W "v0cvanios-,
'A~EV KTLV V .L.v 7Tvp/L0, jV Yd oE.
XaLPEaKov /EV 1ov lsW ovpavov acrEpoEvc'a,
oSo' O7TCT / fl 1 ') L yaLav cL75opavpOEv Tporpa-roqrlv.

Et /EOL o 03 'tLOVCTL o30v .1.7TLELKE CtoL0Lqv,

8vaopCLt Es 'AtEGO Ktl EV VEKVEucTL bcEvw.'

The Sun has clearly lost rtm' by losing his cattle. Since he is, qua Sun (and he is here,
as elsewhere, only half personalised), unable to rlvEeOac Odysseus' crew, he asks Zeus to
use his pre-eminent dpEcr to rIvEaaLL, to take r-r-t' from them,14 to see that they rt'vEw an
EmTLELKE Oltpolv, return, for the eaten cattle. But so far as intentions are concerned the
situation is the same as if the Sun were to rlvEaUcL, get -C~rjt back, for himself: the -re--
balance must be restored, with a sufficient surplus to appease and restore the confidence of
the offended deity.
Now 7-rtE is not merely material goods, but the material goods on which one's mode of
life-or in the last resort one's life itself-depends; and it carries the kind of emotive charge
that is to be expected in these circumstances. Accordingly, even when restitution or
replacement of the -rqn is possible, the initial response of the person who has lost I-nTL is
likely to be violent. When Paris absconds with Helen and a large amount of Menelaus'
property, the immediate response is the declaration of the Trojan War, not a mere demand
for restitution. 'It is only under the formal rules of single combat that Menelaus' time may
be recovered by restitution-with the addition, it will be noted, of a considerable quantity
of material goods. . . . The surplus which Menelaus is given must placate, reassure and
restore prestige.", Again, Achilles' immediate response to the loss of Briseis is to wish to
kill Agamemnon. It is only when Athena, Iliad i 213, promises him that he will receive
7PS rdaoa . .. y dcAtd (Spa in due course that he refrains. Any attack on one's .eqg is an
attack on the basis of one's life and well-being, as the characters in the poems recognize.
Hence the initial response is always likely to be violent; and where irreparable destruction
of i-tpj has occurred, a violent response is certain to follow. (Sometimes violence will be
necessary in order to recover the 7-tte: it is incumbent upon the dyaOds, human or divine, to
defend and if need be recover his '-/t with his JpEi-.)
In the Sun's case, an irreparable loss of rtpj has occurred: Odysseus' companions have
la Iliad xvi 9o. I discuss the passage, op. cit. 31. usage, not etymology, that 'gives a word its meaning'.
14 Ztde and zivev are derived from different roots, '5 Op. cit. 30.
but Homeric usage closely associates them; and it is

This content downloaded from 168.176.5.118 on Mon, 31 Dec 2018 00:10:04 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 HOMERIC GODS AND THE VALUES OF HOMERIC SOCIETY 7
no means of replacing the Sun's cattle.16 The Sun cannot take vengeance him
Zeus on his behalf raises a storm and sinks Odysseus' ship with a thunderbolt; w
not restore his Cattle to the Sun, but deprives Odysseus' crew-now dead-of all th
and makes it less likely that anyone in the future will harm any of the Sun's cattle, w
part of his TreL. (Just so might one hang a human cattle-stealer, without inquiring
he was driven by hunger, to protect one's property for the future.) Similarly O
Odyssey xxiv 325 f., tells Laertes

/JLrIJUT7JpaS' KcLTEVrEfOV EP 7jq/.ETEpOLuta &JptLOL3t,

Awfv TrV~LE vOS g[vicacAyE'a KaI KaKc Epya.

Here too the sheep and cattle that the suitors have eaten have gone beyond reca
presumably the suitors could have replaced them,"1 for they were ordinary animals
those of the Sun; but the other aspects of their behaviour, and the fact that Odysse
only have recovered his rtn, his material possessions in Ithaca, the basis of his way
by defeating-and so presumably killing-them,18 renders violent rlut~ necessary.
If we now return to the Phaeacians and Poseidon, we can see more clearly h
evaluates the situation. Poseidon is afraid that if it is seen that the Phaeacians can tr
not only travellers in general safely over the sea-a hazardous enterprise for most-bu
Odysseus, bitterly hated by Poseidon, it will be concluded that Poseidon has not the
the power, to harm them; and if men conclude that Poseidon has little power, they
suppose him worth placating with offerings, rtq; so that he will become less rT
does not matter whether or no this is the Phaeacians' intention: it is the result, the
presence or absence of -rnj4, that counts. Alcinous, Odyssey xiii I8o ff., as an im
response to Poseidon turning the ship to stone, proposes that the Phaeacians s
longer convoy travellers, and that they should sacrifice twelve choice bulls to Po
the hope that he may not harm them further. He offers Poseidon immediate positiv
twelve bulls-and also a course of action, abandoning the safe convoy of others,
leaving travellers at the mercy of Poseidon in ordinary ships, which will ensure
the dread, and the consequent propitiatory and placatory sacrifices--t -of the
traveller. And this was, of course, Poseidon's purpose in sinking the ship.
Gods and men alike, then, seem to be motivated, and motivated in the same
considerations of rqpE. Nor should we be surprised: belief in the Olympians depends
ascription of certain events in the observable world to the action of personalised bei
motives for action. Since Homeric man knows only one system of values-his o
would surely be surprising if he were not to interpret the behaviour of his god
terms. There is a plague or a famine: some god must be angry. Why is he angr
would a human dyaOds be likely to be angry with his inferiors ? To deny him -
guarantee his anger:

El) U?7 TZl~7L? TjLLEV iCKIO~ 7-q KC~ EUCGEO03

is a situation of which to complain, as Achilles complains in Iliad ix 319, and of

respond to, either directly by exerting one's JpEr4 if one can, or more indirectly b
drawing one's labour as Achilles has done, in the hope that one's fellows will realise t
16 They speak of giving him a temple and
suitors
manywere inhabitants of Ithaca he might obtain
offerings on their return to Ithaca, Odyssey xiiiTat;
345 by
ff.;simply asking for restitution: Tiat; occurs
but the Sun's speech makes it clear that the cattle
when there is restitution, whatever means are used.
had such value in his eyes that only the death of 18 Leocritus, Odyssey ii 246 ff., makes it clear that
Odysseus' crew will suffice to compensate him for his
Odysseus could only have recovered his possessions
loss. by fighting for them.
17 Telemachus, Odyssey ii 76 ff., says that if all the

This content downloaded from 168.176.5.118 on Mon, 31 Dec 2018 00:10:04 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 8 A. W. H. ADKINS

strong right arm in battle is nee

to do, Iliad ix I 19 ff., offering
E) va0LdLEva r'roAIOtpa, where, 154

'Ev 8' avspE. valovot TroAvpplvE9s iroAvpoiorat,

oZ K E E oT7J(L EOdv W5 ( /L7jUaovat

Ka OL 1t 7o UaTK7p"TpW At apL "s TEOAEOVU ELO7-rac.

caaertXEs acquire-from their inferiors-more -rtl- than others, as we are informed by

Telemachus, Odyssey i 393, and by Glaucus and Sarpedon, Iliad xii 310 ff. They acquire
this /rqu in virtue of the JpErr`-functions that they discharge for the group of which they are
members; and would certainly be angry if, while vigorously discharging those functions,
they failed to receive adequate rEtiu. Now a god's anger is an empirical matter: it is
known-inferred-only when it expresses itself in action, in human disaster.19 The response
to the plague in Iliad i is to send for someone, 64 ff.,

O*9 K ElTOL~OT TOUOV E0XWcTO 0-Poos- 'Ao'A7ldAwv,

ELTI 4)p0 Y EVXWpAS E7L, tLE/J4Era ELO EKap r17s-q,

at' KEV 7TW5 C 9aUVV KVltori alcWov TE TEAELOV
PO5AE-rat div-rtaC~agS -qc~'v J3C76 Aotyov Jp31-vac.'

They assume that Apollo is angry because of 'vows'20 not discharged or sacrifices---r'-
not performed. Calchas tells them that this is not so, 93 ff.:

OVT
AA' VEK'ap3p o7"1poS.,
Y EVXWA7S. .E7Tt/JkE?t0Erat
V 94rqtta' AYaLtvvWV OV.O EAKaT[L7s,
o acS' TWAvcTE Ovyarpa Kat oVK laE "aT a"rotva.

Apollo, however, did not take an interest in the welfare of his priest simply because he was
his priest. Chryses prayed to him, Iliad i 37 ff.,

(KVAf0rh[EVa , fgpyvptro', uc ; Xp, o oralv Ac/hlleqscaso

Kt'AA))tav TE ?aO'Trlv TEVE'o5aO' E lt "UdUvaEt.S,

',LLVOEV5, ELt 7TOTET ooXaptV.' E'7TC v7o0V EPEVa,

EL 7Eon"E TOt Kara 7Lrova -7)Pt 6EK7)a
Tavpov '- ay6ov, do.E tkot KPr pqvov 'AMvP-
rELaLav Aavaot 4L/a &Scpva oiat 3EAEUcLV.'
He has furnished -rttk by means of gifts, such as the mortal Achilles was offered in Iliad ix 12 0o.
This is the manner in which a mortal without a divine parent must seek to obtain the favour
of his deity: by giving such r-q' which, as we shall see, is intended to render oneself the
?lAos of the deity whom he will LhtAEZv when one needs it. It is also the manner in which
the assistance of powerful human protectors must be gained. There is an exact analogy
with the situation reflected by Sarpedon's words in Iliad xii 310o ff.

'v ArVK., pnaaVTr. a. E VEOgS ws ETaYOp'oL,

1" It is doubtless for this reason that Poseidon, observable in very serious human catastrophes.
sea- and earthquake-god, is portrayed as being most 20 See my 'EiYXotat, esXo; and e3XwcoAn in Homer' in
CQ n.s. xix (1970) 20 ff.
'touchy' about his Tt"?': his anger is frequently

This content downloaded from 168.176.5.118 on Mon, 31 Dec 2018 00:10:04 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 HOMERIC GODS AND THE VALUES OF HOMERIC SOCIETY 9

KaTl oTEmLEVOS VEtOkjraEUia 1 Ftha "avOoto b7 ap' i xOa,

KCLAOv qvraAt-jS Kata Jpovp/s- irvpoqopoto;
-rj ontV Xivs Avantdoitn tETa tt 'P7TPLroV EOVoTaO

Ec'TrcLE.v I E'7XXTarh KaVOrTEIp7S JavrtfLoA-jaat,

6'pa -rtgs E'7T" AlvE Ov 'a WP-WV'
3 aL~av aKA EES AIaVKrTIV K aTa compavrovnvtV
qLLETEPOL ta3LLAq97EES, E'OV" L Ernova IT a

and Sarpedon and that of the gods is explicitly made.

But what of those whom Zeus Xeinios protects, the wanderer, the beggar, the suppliant,
the guest ? These are not in a position to offer material benei to him, and the beggar may
never be able to do so; and they stand in need of protection, for though it would be alXpo'dv
for any yao'ds who had accepted them under his protection to fail to protect them against
others, it would not be alaXpdov for him to harm them himself; and only its being alapodv
would be a sufficient restraint. Hence the hope that Zeus Xeinios will protect them, and
punish, T1vEOeaL, anyone who harms them; but it seems at first sight a strange function for
a Srtp-motivated Olympian. Here too, however, analogy with the human situation may be
illuminating. The human Jyado's too is motivated by considerations of &pEr- and 7-rtp, but
once he has taken under his protection a wanderer, a beggar, a suppliant, a guest, his JpETr
itself demands that he shall successfully protect him, for it would be alaXPdv not to do so.
Once there is a belief that a god-not simply Zeus, but Zeus Xeinios, Zeus god of guests,
wanderers and suppliants specifically-has the function of protecting such people, then they
become part of the group which he is responsible for protecting with his JPETr, so that it
would be alaXpdv for him to fail to do so, since it might be inferred that he had not done it
because he lacked the power, the JpE-r, to do it. Not even Zeus is omnipotent: even he
must be touchy about encroachments upon his powers by men. It would in this way be
possible to harmonize this function of Zeus with his other qualities: the human s yaOdo also
is a protector, and indeed derives much of his claim to be gyaro'd from the fact that he is a
protector against external enemies.
Once such a belief exists, it can be harmonized with the rest of Homeric beliefs and
values; and it is possible to see how Homeric society might come to possess the belief, in the
situation in which its members found themselves. It is not a question of experiencing a
disaster-plague, famine, shipwreck, and the like-and inferring divine anger; but it is
nonetheless a belief developed in the society, in this case in response to the needs of the
members of the society. The needs of the wandering beggar may be most apparent: when
Eumaeus says, Odyssey xiv 56 ff., to the disguised Odysseus

it is evident that a man who is both a stranger and a KKdo s has no right to lEd on his own
account: it is Zeus' relationship with him that should ensure his er ; and only the possession
of rne u will ensure one's continued existence in Homer. But not only beggars need Zeus'
protection; and it is ofLKs7i l and seevow in general that Zeus is the toess thWP, Odyssey ix 271,

This content downloaded from 168.176.5.118 on Mon, 31 Dec 2018 00:10:04 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Io A. W. H. ADKINS
the deity who 'puts i-rt upon' them that they

the god was extended not only to beggars,

needed it, for even the most dyaOo' had to be
stranger in a strange land where they had no
others for their survival when travelling;2
privations, the KaKdO'Tr , to which an dyado
Homeric (and later Greek) travel: a shipwre
the most beggarly beggar. Nor is it only the
himself, the prosperous Jyao'8d in his own o
an area of Homeric life in which co-operation
behaviour is governed by the expectations of
guard against the other members of the ot
circumstances, it is easier for him to be ch
transgresses the expectations of OtAo'rvr:
usually really-in a strong position, may some
has of course broken the bond of a co-operat
case of Paris and Menelaus; and Menelaus
avenge him.
'AyaOds and KaKds, guest and host, accor
human aid in relationships which involve t
aid might be sought in a variety of ways:2
objectified and endowed with a life of their ow
or anyone else in a similar helpless position, m
(Odyssey xvii 475) is unmoved by the threat.
beggar, might be a god in disguise (Odyssey xv
would be to court disaster, fear of which
wanderers. But men in such a precarious s
super-human sources as possible; and it
the functions of Homeric deity, whether
protection. Where all the members of the
circumstances I have described, any member
another the strongest possible inducement to
of good treatment for himself as suppliant
share the belief. This being so, it is not surpr
belief which we have in Homer in a societ
characteristics and values. One should not ove
of deliberate calculation of self-interest: it is
in a sense of the whole society, to the situati
the f~EvoS qua E6vos need exist, whether a
words, already quoted, show that it is Zeus
as it must be, for a KaKds has no claims in h
ment for him. It is true that one of Alcinous

''AAKvo', ot E/LV "rot 703E icX2tov oi3

%ELVOV La, xatzal oOJaE 7r' O t Xdp1 dv

24 Not all inducements need invoke

21 For the implications of EmnctuLcprwop, and forthe super-
the
other points raised here, see Odysseus
human. ' "Honour" and "Punish-
offers an argument from en-
ment" ', 23 ff. lightened self-interest to the Cyclops, Odyssey ix
22 See below. 35 f.: if the Cyclops treats his guests badly, he will
23 See my '"Friendship" and "Self-sufficiency" be in
left in isolation. The Cyclops is unmoved; but
Homer and Aristotle' in CQ n.s. xii (1963) 30 ff.others might feel the force of Odysseus' words.

This content downloaded from 168.176.5.118 on Mon, 31 Dec 2018 00:10:04 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 HOMERIC GODS AND THE VALUES OF HOMERIC SOCIETY II

o78E ~8 'ov jLOov o7To-rtsEyLevo loXavodovTraL.

&AA ' ayE &8q EtvoEV E mth PdVOV &CpyvpO-oV
EUov avCL7)Cgs, 9V (E K7)pVKErUUL KAEVUOV

ovov iVETtKpO Ltt, Zva K a L at L rEpTLKEpavvW

UITElaUoLLEv, 3.9 6' ~KE+17u7(qotv C4 al'olotov o7T?7SE1

Here, though Zeus appears, the use of KaACOV, "WLKE and alooz0os links the good treatment of
suppliants with other activities which it would be a mark of avac6el not to do (though it
would not be caUXpdv to do them).25 If-or when-this is accepted, it increases the security
of the suppliant; but it is the worthy Eumaeus who also says (Odyssey xvii 382 ff.)

yc Ytp &7 ELIvov ICaC7ET 4aYo6Ev aw'o'^ ETEAK6Zov

aAAov y', Et'/ /'?(v o't 8ruLLtOEPYO ECa(U,

avrtv -q 17rU7qpa KcKV TEK/rTOva ovpov,
KcLKa' &Ec7T c97 LaOL, 0 KEY TEfY7T(TLU cEtWVOy;

ovo70 yp K X-rrol E fporv T" En'CUTElpOVGa yaiav'

TTWrXwYv 8' oK VS 7 KaAEOL t7pLovra ' av' 7dv.'

This refers to inviting ~fEvot, not to treating well-or even accepting at all-those who
chance to arrive; but the speech taken with Eumaeus' other utterance shows that the head
of otKoS needed an inducement to accept ?Etvot at all; an inducement which is supplied by
the appropriate deity.
The protecting deity may well originally have been an independent function-deity,
Hiketesios or Xeinios, whose Ctorpa it was to protect guests and hosts from each other, as the
tpo-pa of the pE'dPte of the mother was to haunt matricides. The pLoipa of such a function-
deity simply exists as one of the totality of p/orpat, a situation which begins to pose problems
when an Aeschylean view of deity and values is taken; but if Hiketesios was originally such
a deity, the Olympocentric tendency of Greek religion has transformed him into a function
of Zeus; and this function, as I have tried to show, then fits into the value-system of a god
whose primary concern is his &dpE-r4 and rTL(L~, once the belief that hosts and guests, together
with those who aspire to become guests, are in a sense part of the household of Zeus and
under the protection of his &pEr4q.

Next we may discuss the btAd~o6-r of the Homeric god in his relationships with mankind.
The words l[Aol, tAEtv and tAo~id-r are undoubtedly used of gods' relationships with men
in the poems, as at Iliad ii 195 ff., where Odysseus, speaking of Agamemnon, says to the
other f TtAEcts',

/Lk - xoAwoaEvos f`iE KOLKKV vaos 'Axa Arv

7LLL7 E K Zqts EUTL, bdLEL & E (l7tEa ZE,

and at Iliad xvi 93 f., where Achilles advises Patroclus not to carry his attack right up to the
walls of Troy
LrS Ei " r' O6v'i3ArOto oEWV a3ELYEvETLWV

/t3f!" j$Aa Tou yE cALAEL ECK&EpYOS" 'A-noooAwV'"

25 See Merit and Responsibility chapter iii 40 ff., and 'Homeric Values and Homeric Society' 7 if-

This content downloaded from 168.176.5.118 on Mon, 31 Dec 2018 00:10:04 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 12 A. W. H. ADKINS

In such passages bLAE^v is frequ

love of God overtones in English d
appear that however much one mi
idea would still be utterly inapp
573 ff. Hephaestus says to his mot

8 7' AoU)tLa Epyca tr EUE1C

El 7q Co9% EVEICa GlJVTWV CpLo
~V U EOLuL KOA popV EAaVPET
EU60A)7S EUAETatL 7OS, ErTEL c

The gods should not strive among

it will spoil their feasting; and thi
concerned, as we have seen, with t
Evidently #LAE-'v is used of th
evidently 'love' is an inappropriate
in Homer. For the latter, tA~,hdq-
The Homeric dyao's, virtually aut
use the qualities commended by ci
strength alone, without tools, p
Homeric dyad's rely on? He has
weapons, possessions, and portion
dependants. On these he can rely
with whom he has entered into re
qua human beings in Homer,26 only
from birth, from direct economic
The rest of the world is indiffe
precisely to demarcate the perso
persons-and-things-in-general; an
is far more powerful than that of
dyado' are far more evident and
"friend" (in addition to the diff
different society and presuppositi
ship. The word is quite untranslata
To find someone bAGov, then, is
To put someone in a position in
can rely when one needs him, one
for him; and the element which
(To say this is not to say that emot
it is to say that emotion is not fu
the case of the man who leaves h
away from his own otKoS he has n

by
(or some member
suppliant, for of
all the new mu
comers so
status of fErvoS by some one suff
this relationship only subsists b
of power, the social unit, the econ
26 Cf. ' "Honour" and "Punishment" in the 28 Ibid.
Homeric Poems', passim. 29 Cf. ' "Honour" and "Punishment" ', 25.
27 ' "Friendship" and "Self-Sufficiency" in Homer
and Aristotle' in CQ n.s. xii (1963) 33.

This content downloaded from 168.176.5.118 on Mon, 31 Dec 2018 00:10:04 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 HOMERIC GODS AND THE VALUES OF HOMERIC SOCIETY 13

has no relationship of LXAodrJS with the remainder of the society into which h
When he is in the o'Ko0 of the man who LAE-C him, he is dependent on the actions
for his continued existence, outnumbered as he is in a land of potential enem
strong centralised government and no belief that human beings have certain
human beings. Furthermore, the comer, particularly if he comes by land, can
with him: this is a society with no coined money, no readily transportable w
he needs is not primarily sympathy or affection, which are luxuries for a man in
but actions: the provision of food, shelter, and protection if he needs it-in sh
'In Homer, then, there are two aspects of the tAodrl'T-relationship. Where the c
of the dyaOds is to secure his own continued existence, a LtAov object, whether
inanimate, is something he can rely on to use for his own preservation. But
quality of the adyaGds, is also shown in protecting one's dependants, whethe
residents or transients; and qLAEZv, which . . . includes giving food, lodging and
to transients, characterizes this activity, at all events in its less violent manifest
The mortal characters of the Homeric poems, then, inhabit a world in which
other human beings-the members of their own otKos, and those with whom
united by bonds of bLtAdrO-' or 6Evla-are lAot, and in which help-or the
-rTL1L-can only be expected from jlhot. The rest of the world is hostile or i
right to be helped, or even an expectation that one will be helped, and receive u-
on the existence of a definite relationship of practical co-operation: a relationshi
reciprocal. (I have already discussed the manner in which beggars and supp
protected.)
We may now return to PnAo'drT between god and man. In Iliad xxiv 56 ff
in reply to Apollo's proposal that Hector's body should be saved from Achilles

ELi7 KEV Kat "roioro TEOV E7TOS, apYvporo~E,

E ~ 87 c7jV 'AxVAX'Fi KaU "EK--opt -/1tETE TL/ ?7V.
"IEKTWp EIIY Ov7rTdOS TE yvvaLKc TE G4craTo acL odv"
aa'dap AXtAAEp ETL OwEsS dOVOS, t7)%V Ecoi abv,7

OpE'a 'TE Kal T"rrlTa aKt avSp TrdPOV rrapdaKOLLv,

'eAEp'i o"s c7EPe7T K7p.L trAos y'aVErt' deOavcLTo.
7TaVTrES a VrtaaC;L(eEcaOE b EOya, Yali ovf vS or onrot
Salvv` E`xw v qOpLtyyc, KOKWV ETap , atLEv aW7TLUTE.

Hector is a mere mortal; Achilles, as the son of a goddess, is virtually one of the family;
and evidently presence at the wedding-feast is held to constitute a bond, as it would were all
the persons concerned mortal. Zeus tries to placate Hera, 65 if.:

W"Hpr,
0)LA% A
8,qj 7
7TaFLrd7rav
f EU d7TroKV
Vi' a lcOKV
AA' OaVEo0GEOv"
Ka't'EK
cw / LEV yap TC/1j YE /U E~r~rEE L a a t cEKTWp
ObG\aros- EUfKE GEOitL /po-rov Ot E'V JAW)(0 ElUlvW
Ws. yp EOtY, Ey7TEl 0i TL 5AWvt 7 ApTaVE &AOpwV.
oi3 yap iOt 7TT0E / r W OS t E EVETv LLT/S EtU7`S,

o3 ~CL~V y~p -qz?1 YE CLI ib L 'a-; there can be no equality of status, or of expec
help, where Achilles and Hector are concerned: Achilles, through his mot
group in a sense in which Hector, who is not related to the gods, can
30o ' Friendship" and "Self-sufficiency"
31in Homer
'"Friendship", etc.', 36.
and Aristotle', 35. For rvy?, cf. '"Honour" and
"Punishment" ', passim.

This content downloaded from 168.176.5.118 on Mon, 31 Dec 2018 00:10:04 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
14 A. W. H. ADKINS
though he has always given due sacrifice;
will do the best he can for him without
Here too Homeric man-and not only Ho
side of others, in later Greece-is using
behaviour of human beings among thems
to the actions of deities. The mortal ciy
?b &os; his guest-friends are lIAot, and
receives food, shelter and protection when
members of the otKos partake of the tAod
/-orpa of -rq, and the protection whi
mankind does not come under the pro
protection and help must be based on t
service and assistance. One's lAot by bl
assistance; but if they do, their claim is
passages such as Iliad xiii 176, where it is
blood-relation, equally with his own c
Eurycleia, a purchased slave, taa KESV?
amount of -rtp' given to Imbrios and E
-rt-giving in which the children of t
characterize, in a somewhat different man
where Agamemnon says of Achilles:

aw'c vv r-oAA,,v
,Aa 6v E'.7.v
S/ Aa'v 'AXat.?j.p
- v.'v 7E ZE KfL OA

b LAE-v emphasizes that the transfer of -rtq fo

ship in which benefits are conferred; -iEtv emph
Human beings, then, who are the 0Aot< of an
whether they are or are not part of the imm
part of the family differ in status among them
dyaOds, is likely to be better treated than a
guarantee that the latter will receive some mea
fact that the wandering beggar Odysseus rec
Odyssey xx, 282 and 294,32 as something un
deities, the supreme dyaOot of their world, to
human dya0ol. Achilles' and Hector's respect
and expectation of rt- from them, are prec
dependent on a more powerful dya6ds with wh
We may now consider more generally the tAo
individuals-dyaol--are believed to enjoy w
Zeus says to Hera:

'ot La, oYdv, p" " t oL Caprr'rldva, ?b',r

/LOtPu Vro TacrpoKoLo MEVOLI-LCrSao &a

whether to save him or to allow him to perish.

assembled gods:

32 Ctesippus' whole speech,

KaKdg292 ff., is is
traveller ironical in Od
shown by
tone. (That it is Zeus who guarantees
discuss help to and
in ' "Honour" the "P

This content downloaded from 168.176.5.118 on Mon, 31 Dec 2018 00:10:04 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 HOMERIC GODS AND THE VALUES OF HOMERIC SOCIETY 15
w rOrT7Tot, - q1'Aov a'vpa 6LWKo1_EVo0 7TEP ,TEtXOS

0aA/o ZItv odpojua4" Ecv 6' dAo0v'EiatL Top

p"EK'topoS, o s n /ot c ThoAAai m oV E7TL 1 p-oLapL EcK'mEV
"I6 s E 'a anKOpVoori TnroAver rxov, VoTE aa9TE
"A rro'EL 'KPOi-ci-f Vfv aiT - E V 8- S 3AXtAAEiS
arv 7 TrEpt1 pta/.hOLt o7 ortv raXEOrT)E L OrLKEtL.

In both cases Zeus is proposing to save a c'1Aos: Sarpedon is his son, and Hector has
offered abundant sacrifice. Were there a clash of interests, Sarpedon would have the more
powerful claim; where there is no clash, the claims of each are powerful, as are the claims of
/aadLAEt and dyaOot in general, Iliad ii 196 f.:

c(v/,to?- 8E% [EcLYaS EUT' cSL OTPEE"WV /3ctutAWV,

6T E/ K A6o3 EU(TLT, L AEL SE' E' [/7T1EraZEVS3.

This is not a Homeric statement of the Divine Right of Kings, but a statement of the
Zeus-given prosperity, and hence ability to exert power, of kings. rtjuq is possessions-
conferring-status-and-security; and UAEuv requires beneficial action, whether god or man
SLAEZ. Since Homeric society ascribes successes and prosperity to the gift of the gods, and
/arLtAEs and yaOo/ in general have most success and prosperity, it is to them that most -Lrtl
is given by the gods; and since no one in Homer, whether god or mortal, would voluntarily
give ril- save to a OGlAo'" (in which category are to be included accepted suppliants, beggars
and wanderers), those who receive most rt1Ur from the gods manifestly most experience the
qOtAdrq3- of the gods, just as the person who received most rtlk voluntarily given to him by a
human dya6ds would be thereby shown to enjoy to a pre-eminent degree the tAodr'-r of that
Jya6os. The issue is, and must be, experimental: all that is pleasant and beneficial must
happen to a man in this life, in Homeric belief, and there is no possibility that the gods are
benefiting a man in life only to punish him after death, or vice versa: so long as he prospers,
the gods are showing that they OAoov^nv him. The prosperous man, the dya6ds, maintains
the relationship by abundant sacrifice, which renders him a #Aov object to the deity. LAEv
seems not to be used of offering sacrifice in Homer, but rtEtw is used, as we have seen. To
term it rIELv is to represent it as a transference of -7-Ll to the deity; and such transference of
-ri-kti is the cement of Homeric tAodrq7- and the ground for its existence.
The Homeric dyaOs, then, pre-eminently enjoys the tA&drq-3 of the most powerful beings
in his universe; and it is in the light of that belief that what is observed to happen to them
must be explained. Even kings die, and may die as miserably as Agamemnon died. If the
gods could keep death away from anyone, they would certainly keep it from their favourites;
and yet they do not, therefore they cannot-or should not. When Zeus proposes to save
Sarpedon and Hector, though it is evidently now their poipa to die, in the first case Hera
and in the second Athena express shock at the suggestion: not because it is impossible to act
against liotpa, for it is not;34 they say (Iliad xvi 443, xxii 181) to Zeus:

'Ep6'. caap o 0 rr' 70 LVEoETTaLVEO/.Ev &EoL AAoo.'

They will disapprove: it is in accordance with Sarpedon's and Hector's olpacu that they
should die now, so that it would be oi Ka7'a po pav for them to be saved; and nothing, it
seems--no amount of etdA-rl--can excuse one's divine #Aos for acting o3 Kai' ,Okopav in
respect of this aspect of one's poipa.
When disguised as Mentor, however, and hence behaving as a human being with a
human being's range of knowledge, Athena, Odyssey iii 236 ff., says:

33 See ' "Honour" and "Punishment" ', 32. 34 Above, 2 ff., and Merit and Responsibility, 17 ff.
B

This content downloaded from 168.176.5.118 on Mon, 31 Dec 2018 00:10:04 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
16 A. W. H. ADKINS

'&hAA' -o70t Oavardov rrEpo tOL

Kat . tA tVP 6v'vavElaL,,K
lorp' ,JAo)7 KaE`A7L 7-avr)Ey

Once again it is the Obogs Jvip w

says not that the gods should not
Differing beliefs on the same su
prefer simply to note this as one
speaking as a human being, says
/totpa serves little function in a
However, in the 'free composition
in the assembly of the gods as in a
one's 'share'-or some else's-to
whether 'ought' or 'must', the exp
O'Aot, and the explanation of the
concepts of tA~&hd7 , -r-lq and /
Finally we may consider anoth
In Iliad iv we see Zeus saying of t

'Ka ydp Eyw UOl 8WKa EKWK

at yap vn'r 7 Al 7TE Kat ovpa
vaterdova 7rdoA Es 7Tr 1wxovlw
TrawV /Lot TrEpt KpL 7tLUK
Ka ptap/.os Kat Aa~s E'3`/L[kEA
0ov yap AkOt TTOTE /3/IogLs
Aot/3fjs TE KVLUY/S' TE -TO Yap

Troy rE'dKETO by Zeus, it was 0

sacrifice. Yet he has said to Her

oEp or07TU OEt,"ELS 707TOV

UOt Kat EIOt I-LEY Epta/ka ILLE

He warns Hera, 39 ff., not to st

contains men who are YAot0 to h

ITOt E/JOt TPECS /1kEl)7ToAV #

"Apyds ~E Z 7TCprd7 TE Kat

rs tarrEpoSat, ioT' a'v 70Lt adrXWlwv1at 7rTEpt K7Tpt"
rTaOv o"o 70rot y rrpdo&' a7raat aot o 4& tLEyalpw.
E7' rr7 yap Cov w 7 Kat OVK EL tarrEpuat,
OvK vv' OFkOUw , V ETTE r roa pP7Epo~S EcrT.

Jha; 7,p 9 KlL E(oY E,,7LEcvot 7ToY OvK CLTAEUTaoY,

KCL yap Ey;J &EOs ELLL, EYiOS (E (L EY&EY OOEY UOL,
Kcl 4LLE 7TpEUIVTcL7 7EKET70 Kpdvos ayKUVOIA/jq7TS,

dy drEpov, YEVYE TE Kat oVEwKa U 7TapKKoLTS

KEK;A77t/aL, u 06 77-rul /r'LET a~aYCLTO'oLT) dVdaaUEtS.
&AA' 7r)oL /Lp ravol VrTOE14O/JEV aAAp7Aotcrt,

Uol 1L Eyw, ui 8' Eo01, d7l 80 E"OYraa OEol dAAot

aOdvarot..

This content downloaded from 168.176.5.118 on Mon, 31 Dec 2018 00:10:04 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 HOMERIC GODS AND THE VALUES OF HOMERIC SOCIETY 17
Even though sacrifice has been offered, these unfortunate mortals, Lra-rat though their
cities may be, are not to be allowed to stand in the way of the interests of their deities, and
those deities' own ctAdror'- and -ritt-based claims on each other. Hera is (a) a Oeds of
lineage equal to that of Zeus, (b) 7TrpE~o3vd-r?- daughter of Cronos, (c) married to Zeus, who
is the supreme ruler of the gods. So, though she cannot resist the strength of Zeus, who is
stronger than she, she has her status which, she claims, should be acknowledged. And
Zeus-at all events Zeus in this mood-is willing to acknowledge it, and to sacrifice his
lower-status 0Aot-human beings-lest there should be vEZKoS on Olympus between Zeus
and Hera and their respective supporters: a state of affairs which, as we have already seen,
Hephaestus deprecated in Iliad i 573 if.
Now here once again we have free composition, since no bard had ever been on Olympus;
but we have free composition in a context of actual belief. One fact that Homeric and later
Greek belief has to account for is that, though all cities sacrifice to the gods, some prosper
while others are defeated in war. Later, when deities are believed to be-sometimes-
concerned with justice, then the injustice even of an individual may account for divine
punishment (cf. Hesiod, Works and Days 240 f. for an early example); but even later this is
not the only belief about the gods' relationship to the cities that worship them; and in Homer
sacrifice is usually believed to suffice. But if it does suffice, the fall of the city that sacrifices
to its deities urgently needs explanation; the fall of Troy no less than that of other cities,
since the ancient Greeks regarded its fall as a historical event. In some cases it might be
believed that a city with stronger deities had overcome a city with weaker deities; but
according to the legend Hera had successfully opposed Zeus, a stronger god, to achieve the
destruction of Troy. It is surely not surprising to find such a debate as we have here,
accounting for Troy's fall in terms of the familiar concepts of i-rt and dtAo'7-r. We have a
situation analogous to that of a threatened quarrel between two members of the same family
of dyaOol over the appropriate treatment for a third person who, not being a member of the
family, even if he was linked to the otKos by tAhdo--r, evidently had less of a claim to receive
rqtEp than a member of the family. Such a person had little hope of equality of treatment
from human dyalol; it would be inappropriate, since he was not equal with them in the
relevant relationship. The dya6ds-0and indeed everyone in Homeric society-is 'a respecter
of persons'; he expects his gods likewise to be respecters of persons, and to regard as most
their #IAot, after those who are actually related to them, those who can give them most 7rLj-
in the form of sacrifice and offerings, so that the wealthy dyaldc has an advantage over the
KaKds; but even to have given abundant sacrifice does not entitle an individual or a city to
expect the gods to inconvenience themselves severely on his behalf.

CONCLUSION

The gods of the Homeric poems, then, in intervening or failing to intervene in the affairs
of men, and in their relationships among themselves, employ the same values and categories
as mankind: the society is in this sense one society, and presents a coherent set of 'sociological
facts'. Even were the whole, values included, a literary construct, there would be interest
in discussing the extent to which the values suited, or failed to suit, the society. But in fact
we find these values and beliefs, in circumstances in which there is no question of 'mere
fiction', in later authors. For example, Tyrtaeus says to the Spartans, I I, I f.,

6apcELT"" oTWrrco ZE)S alxvca Ao&dv E'XEL"

This content downloaded from 168.176.5.118 on Mon, 31 Dec 2018 00:10:04 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 18 A. W. H. ADKINS

and 2, I-4,
awrog yap Kpovt(wv, KaAAt
ZE)'g 'HpaKAEI3aS Tr'v7E SEW

ocrtv JpLx -apoAt-n-v-rs 'EptvEwv 7jVEbLO"EV-r

EvpEtaLV HI"oAo7o9S V77(OV wdbLKdOMEOa.

Zeus gave Sparta to the children of his son Heracles, from whom the Spartan kings traced
their descent; and the kings' relationship to Zeus is treated as an adequate reason for
expecting him to ensure the victory of Sparta. And this is not 'literature', but reassurance
on the basis of which the Spartans of his day are to take action. Many examples could be
given35 to illustrate different aspects of the beliefs I have discussed; but the case of Croesus
must suffice here. Croesus, the richest man known to the Greeks, gave great gifts to Apollo;
and after his defeat, rescue from the pyre, and capture by Cyrus, he thus replied to Cyrus'
offer to do him a favour, Herodotus i 90:

w (Eo7orOTa, EaCaCLSg LLE XaPLEL jJaCLa -CT T Er v 6EoV 'Eo AA vwv T ErLpl7aUc E~'o OEvWv
pL Latr-a E7cElpEUOat 7TE'CLJLavra rca .rCS g7T&catS, El E5.a7TacCV ollS E) 7TOLEVVTVCaS VdLLOS
EUTr0t ot;

Granted the favour by Cyrus, he tells his messengers to ask 'dEL XaplUroLot votkoS ELvaC rotiaL
'EAAJVtKOtL 6EOtor";' the oracle replies, i 91, 'r(jV rrE7TpWJLEV7JV vpotpa v "va E"rt dw7TOSVYEECV
OKa E-.' Croesus was paying the penalty for the Jd&apTrd8a of Gyges, five generations before,
who killed his king and took Tr2v E'KELVOvU 7TL7V OV8V OL 7TpoJojKOVaaV. Apollo wished to defer

the disaster so that it should fall upon Croesus' sons; but oVK O TE 'EVETO TopatycyEtV
,polpac to this extent, though he did persuade them to defer the fall of Sardis for three years.
Bacchylides too handles this incident. Croesus on the pyre cries, 3, 37 if-,

o O Y7TE-PtE &ti4Lov,
TITOl 6CEOOV E-Tv a LY pt;

now that Apollo has permitted the capture of Sardis. Bacchylides lays emphasis on the
storm of rain that was sent to quench the pyre, and adds that Apollo carried him off with his
daughters to the land of the Hyperboreans:

EsL EVU/3ELCLv, OTt LLyLuTca LVaLTWV

Es cTya6Eav Ct'cVE[7TELJE HvOw.

The hand of Delphi is apparent in these stories: Apollo's priests are making every effort
to exculpate themselves and their deity, faced with the unfortunate fact that the most
prosperous ruler known to them had shown himself EvUaEg/3s by the donation of abundant
gifts, but had yet come to disaster. Croesus in Herodotus complains that the Greek gods
show no gratitude to those who E ' roLErv, benefit, them, and says that he Edr'?lpuE Apollo
most of all; both of which must be understood in terms of munificent gifts to Apollo. In
both versions Croesus emphasizes the ingratitude of the gods. Both Herodotus and
Bacchylides insist that Croesus in fact benefited in return from the benefits he had conferred
upon Apollo; and the values and concepts in terms of which they evaluate the situation are

35 E.g. from a very much later period, Plato, dantly clear from extant Greek literature as a whole-
Republic 362C; and the 'purification of poetry' the beliefs that Plato reprehends were still widely
(prominently including the Homeric poems) of held in his day.
Republic ii and iii is inexplicable unless-as is abun-

This content downloaded from 168.176.5.118 on Mon, 31 Dec 2018 00:10:04 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 HOMERIC GODS AND THE VALUES OF HOMERIC SOCIETY 19
essentially similar to those of Homer.36 And this is not 'mere literature': Bacchy
immediately continues, 63 f-.:

OUOL YE jkv CEXAAa~'' "xov ot -n-t,

EYalV HPr , IpWV, OEjTE
?aUEv aEo -n-Etova Xpvaov

and 0EoXtA- appears (the text is defective) to be used of Hiero in 69. Hiero's expectations
of benefit from the gods, of being 6Eo!ojSg, rest on his munificence to Apollo. Hiero is the
recipient of the ode: the values must be those which he would find familiar; and they are
essentially similar to the values in terms of which Olympian behaviour is understood in
Homer. (There are certainly developments in Greek religion between Homer and
Bacchylides; but the undogmatic nature of Greek religion renders it possible for new beliefs
to arise while the old continue to be held.)
I conclude, accordingly, that not only do Homeric god and Homeric mortal inhabit the
same world of value and belief, but that these are the actual values and beliefs of the society
in which the poems reached the form in which we now have them.
A. W. H. ADKINS
University of Reading.

favours rendered to them by mankind, so far as they

36 The belief in inherited guilt appears in Delphi's
excuse in Herodotus, it is true; but none the less are able to do so.
Delphi maintains that the gods do show gratitude for

This content downloaded from 168.176.5.118 on Mon, 31 Dec 2018 00:10:04 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms