Gallery  |  The Famous Ones  |  The Myths Pages

.

Hektoros

To your average shmoe, (read, me, before I started taking Greek 201), the difference between "hippodamoio" and "androphonoio" is just diction - the author's choice of how to characterize his heroes. But after a couple months learning about just how limited an author's diction can be, my argument is a little different. Milman Parry would have you believe that there's no choice involved at all. In his words, "Here we need do no more than point out the obvious impossibility of inferring from it any theory of analysis whatever." (Parry 187) But, after explaining just how he came to that conclusion, I will disabuse you of it with my own stunning explanations.

In "The Traditional Epithet in Homer," Parry makes an argument that epithets are used mostly, if not purely, for a sort of filler in the stanzas of dactylic hexameter. He says that they lose their meaning as descriptions, and can never be fully understood by the modern reader. Sometimes, he says, they are used merely as signifiers of a particular hero (and only that one hero), and sometimes they are just general epithets, which also have no actual meaning, but are generally seen as "the epithet that fits." The first example of "hippodamoio" Parry explains as the natural filler at a bucolic dieresis. (Parry 66) Then, he explains how "hippodamoio" is used in conjunction with many things other than Hektor, and that this is "a characteristic example of the bard's tendency to use the same epithets economically." (Parry 100) Later he seems to struggle a bit with this when he talks about the two epithets being equivalent forms, but after deciding that it's not "themed" by section (Homer doesn't stick with one epithet then switch to the other and stick to it - they are actually interchangeable), he concludes that no analysis can be done about it.

This seems a terrible leap over far too many possibilities, and a real underestimation of the poetic ability and brilliance of this poem (by Homer or by a bunch of Homers). I would argue, instead, that while not every description is available, of these two, at least, there is a clear choice being made. "Androphonoio," which I will translate as "manslayer," has the obvious, and unforgotten (despite Parry's protestations) meaning of violence against men. It is death and action. This is only the word itself. "Hippodamoio," which I will translate as "horse-breaker," is, on the other hand, a reference to an action that doesn't involve the lives of other men. It is a far gentler, though still estimable, description. The word meanings are a base for the meanings of the epithets in context, but in context, they go even deeper than that. Throughout the poem, "manslayer" is used to remind us of the action of the characters to bring on their own doomed fate, most specifically, Hektor and Achilles, and "horse-breaker" shows the foil: a less unique Hektor, without control over his fate. The choice, though often obvious, is just as obviously a choice.

The reader is introduced to Hektor Manslayer in Book One during Achilles' bashing of Agamemnon. Achilles has just reached the point of being so angry that he makes an oath that the Achaeans will long for his presence when they are "able to do nothing, when in their numbers before Hektor, slayer of men, they fall and die." (1.242) This oath is really the driving force behind the Iliad; without it, there would be no story. It is also the driving force behind "manslayer." This image, as the inescapable inflictor of pain upon the Achaeans and, simultaneously, the active character in the fate of Achilles, is used for the rest of the poem.

The next use of Hektor Manslayer is with Andromache in Book Six. After their touching scene, he reminds her to go to her own work, and that he needs to go to his. The separation is clear between the gentle family man Hektor and the warrior. The "manslayer." It should be no surprise, then, that as she returns home in line 498, it is Hektor the slayer of men, not the breaker of horses, who the women mourn.

But before Hektor's scene with Andromache there were two other uses of "manslayer," only they didn't feature Hektor as the direct recipient of the epithet. In 4.441, it is used with Ares in describing how he drove on the Trojans from many places. This is a weak excuse for using an epithet that is almost exclusively Hektor's in the Iliad, and perhaps there is another reason for it. Obviously there is the Trojan connection, but there is also a noteworthy description of Eris, the constant companion of Ares, who is sowing bitterness and pain on both sides. In connection with the epithet, this is another foreshadower of the poem: Patroklos, Hektor, and eventually even Achilles will all fall to this equal opportunity doom. Hektor might bear the active name, but he will not escape its consequences. The second use is even more useful for defining Hektor. In fact, it seems this section exists only to clarify the epithet's meaning for our hero. In Book Six, less than five lines after Hektor's departure from the scene in line 118, Diomedes describes an ancestor, Lykourgos, who fought in opposition of a god (in his case, Dionysus). Dionysus subsequently went to Thetis' breast for protection, consolation, and retribution, and Thetis went to Zeus, who blinded Lykourgos, and then Lykourgos died abandoned by all the immortals. Bit by bit, this is exactly the story that "manslayer" tells.

The next usage, in Book Nine, is a replay of that first injury we saw in Book One. Achilles has withdrawn from battle and Odysseus, Aias, and Phoenix go to try to bring him back. But here Achilles reminds them of his oath and of that Agamemnon "cannot check the strength of Hektor Manslayer." Achilles has been wounded and has gone to Thetis who has gone to Zeus.

Before the next part of Diomedes' story comes into play, we return to the idea of fate and death in Book 16. Patroklos, pitying the Achaeans, has begged to be allowed to return to the battle in Achilles' place. This means that Hektor has already done his job of fulfilling Achilles' oath - he has become the inflictor of pain with whom no one else can compare. And when Achilles responds to Patroklos, this is just how he describes him. (16.77) But there is more. Achilles' fate needs a push, he can't just say, okay you've suffered enough, and saunter back in. Patroklos is that push. In lines 46 and 47 we are reminded that Patroklos "was destined to pray for his death and his evil fate." What could be a clearer cue for the use of "manslayer"?

Now the choices of Homer become less necessary, and to show their importance, it becomes needful to understand his other option. "Horse-breaker" has already come into play as a Hektor epithet, back in Book Seven. He was killing all these Achaeans and Athena got worried and so she and Apollo, who was backing the Trojans, made a deal that they should calm things down. So they decided that Hektor would fight in single combat with an Achaean instead of all out war, at least for a while. Of course, this person was not Achilles, and had almost nothing to do with anyone's ultimate fate. Hektor is clearly being maneuvered here. He is not in an active role, nor is he affecting anyone's fate. It isn't even particularly important that he is Hektor, so long as he's noble. Calling him "manslayer" would be out of place, but calling him "horse-breaker" works perfectly. Now he is only one of the many others who carry that name, and that name is decidedly not bloody.

When it comes up again in Book 16, just after Patroklos has taken the field, we are expecting that same usage. But here, Hektor is about to kill Patroklos, clearly affecting his fate, Patroklos' fate, and Achilles' fate. So why is he called "horse-breaker"? Well, Hektor is not "horse-breaker" while he's fighting Patroklos. "Horse-breaker" comes in line 717, in his discussion with the disguised Apollo, who is again maneuvering Hektor into a battle he might not have chosen. And here, there are no words of fate or really of Achilles. We are meant to see that this is an action from above. This is a choice of the poet. Another such choice is made about 100 lines later when Hektor stands vaunting over Patroklos' dying form. He claims the responsibility for the death and for the decision and even for the connection to Achilles by calling himself "manslayer." It is Patroklos who responds that he saw Apollo's hand in it.

When "manslayer" is used next it is preceded by the idea of how Patroklos' death pushes Achilles' fate, as well as mention of Zeus and Thetis. From an outside perspective, Hektor is clearly a "manslayer" among "horse-breakers."(17.401-428) And on the battlefield, Achilles' divine horses substitute him for emotion causing a pitying Zeus to let the Trojans win so that Hektor won't capture the horses and so that Patroklos' body can be returned to Achilles, inspiring the next phase of his fate. Then Hektor becomes a "manslayer" in earnest. It would be silly to say that Hektor Horse-breaker "hit [Koiranos] under the jaw by the ear, and the spear pushed out his teeth by the roots from the base, and split the tongue through the middle."(17.616-619) Plainly, that is the work of a "manslayer." In line 638, Aias realizes the same thing and rightly refers to Hektor again as "manslayer." Soon after, in Book 18, Achilles is injured again and the motif of the injured god-man going to Thetis resurfaces. His scream brings back Patroklos' body and is the beginning of the end for Hektor. Here, Hektor has actively, denying the advice of Poulydamas, accomplished that last important thing in bringing about his fate. Again, the epithet of "man-slayer" is illustrative and clearly chosen.(18.149) In Book Twenty-Two, Hektor runs from Achilles. He is running from his fate. He is running from his glory, his power. Of course, he cannot be called "manslayer."(22.161, 22.211) And it is here that, just as Diomedes foretold, the other gods (especially Apollo) forsake him.

During his burial, however, Andromache first calls him "manslayer." (24.724) This is to be expected as she has experienced him last as a warrior, and sees him as having actively changed her life and the life of Astyanax though the deaths he accomplished. But Helen's experience is the lasting one, the one which led the song of sorrow among the people. She spoke of his gentleness and kind heart, and how she experienced him, not as a warrior, but as a friend and a gentleman. This is the last image, the last phrase, and the last word: Hektor, not alone and active, but resting, among the Trojans, defeated (without agency) and gentle. (24.804)

Clearly, these epithets are effective; they shape and connect the poem in a fuller form. To say that these epithets do not have meaning simply because they are epithets is absurd, rather they have meaning alone, but grow in new ways simply because they are epithets. Because of their flexible usage, they unite otherwise disparate ideas. If these are not choices, as Parry suggests, then they are a set of pretty successful accidents.

Read some more of Ailia's essays

Homepage | The Famous Ones | Major Goddesses | Minor Goddesses | Humans | Nymphs | Monstresses & Monstrosities | The Myths Pages | Amazons | Men | Terms | Gallery | Dreambook | References & Links

Contact me at [email protected]

Written November 18, 2002 at Oberlin College

Last Updated April 19, 2005

privacy policy

{ezoic-ad-1}

{ez_footer_ads}