Martijn
CUYPERS Homeric
pepnumenos
In
this paper I offer a description of Homeric
pepnumenos
(and pepnumai)
that better accounts for its distribution than the
standard approach, typical of which are the following
commentary notes by Hainsworth:
—
On Od.
8.388 (where pepnumenos
qualifies Odysseus): “p.
denotes one who observes the courtesies of life,
especially in speech (Il.
9.58 [&] - all other occurrences are in
formulae). It is seldom used of the great heroes (cf.
4.190 of Menelaus), but is a regular description of
youthful or subordinate characters.”
— On Il.
9.57-8 pepnumena bazeis:
“p. is
applied to subordinate or youthful characters who know
their place. Nestor’s point is that Diomedes has
spoken to the Lord of Men frankly but as a young man
should. [&] Agamemnon [&] is
mollified into generosity by this respect for protocol.”
— On Il.
9.689: “p. [&]
commends one who knows how to behave towards his elders
or betters.”
While
is true that pepnumenos has
a fixed connection with speech and frequently (though not
always) qualifies youthful characters, the emphasis that
this description lays on hierarchy and respect is
misleading. I will argue that p. basically
means ‘possess(ing) intelligence’ and is used
of (the words, counsels) of (human) characters who
distinguish themselves through their ability to correctly
interpret social situations (cognitive) and say what is
right (moral connotation). As is understandable from the
fact that, in Homer, speech is the touchstone of
intelligence, characters are commended with p. by
the narrator when they are about to speak (speech
introduction) or because speaking is their ‘profession’
(epithet phrases of heralds and counselors), by other
characters because they have just spoken (or in some
cases, are reputed to speak) wisely (direct speech and
secondary focalization). The evidence can be divided into
five categories:
1.
Professional speakers (common to the Iliad,
7x, and the Odyssey,
6x): the heralds Talthybios, Idaios, Odios, Eurybates,
Peisenor, and Medon; the counselors Antenor and
Poulydamas; the seer Teiresias. It is attractive to see
this category, where p. mostly
figures in larger formulaic phrases and where what is at
issue is doubtless eloquence, not respect, as
traditional, i.e. as p.’s
‘home base’.
2.
Young men, p.’s
only other use in the Iliad
(5x; Odyssey
52x). The Iliadic instances qualify youngsters who are
exceptional thinkers and speakers for their age, i.e.
despite their lack of life experience; they are far from
deferential: Diomedes (9.58), Antilochus (23.440), and
the ‘young noble’ impersonated by Hermes
(24.377). This use has become the dominant one in the
Odyssey,
where p. is
a key term with Telemachus (46x) and also qualifies his
peer Peisistratos (3x). It forms the point of comparison
for p.’s
other applications in the Odyssey
(apart from 1), namely:
3.
The father figures whose social intelligence and eloquence
Peisistratos and Telemachus are trying to emulate:
Nestor, Menelaus, Odysseus, and Laertes (8x).
4.
The suitors Eurymachos, Antinoos, and Amphinomos, who are
foils of Telemachus (2x): irony.
This
leaves a very small rest category, 5:
5a.
The gnomai
in Od.
8.586, Hes. Op.
731
5b.
Il.
13.254, a key passage for Hainsworth’s
qualification “subordinate characters”, where
p. proves
to be an ad hoc
substitution for Meriones’ usual epithet
douriklutos.
It draws attention to the absence of his spear, broken in
159ff. and the very reason for his presence behind the
lines (cf. 255ff.).
Finally,
I argue that the father-son theme, prominent with p.
in
the Odyssey,
is already prefigured in the Iliad,
where, for example, Poulydamas and the ‘young noble’
(sons) are opposed to Antenor and Priam (fathers), and
where Antilochus (son of Nestor) and Diomedes (‘could
have been the youngest son of Nestor’) are
explicitly compared (Peisistratos, Nestor’s true
youngest son, inherits the qualification in the
Odyssey,
4.204-6, with explicit mention of Antilochus and verbal
echoes of the Iliad).