Joseph R. Watkins (Boston University)
This paper aims to explain the position of Ajax’ speech as last in the embassy to Achilles in Book Nine of the Iliad. Prior to Ajax’ speech, Phoinix, recounting the myth of Meleager, mentions a sequence of suppliants at Ι.575-85. The order presented in Phoinix’ speech has been identified as having parallels in the embassy scene itself, and is normally discussed in relation to Kakridis’s “ascending scale of affection” (Kakridis, 1949; Willcock, 1964; Rosner, 1976; Alden, 2000; Burgess, 2017; inter alia), which I intend to challenge in this paper. The surprisingly late mention of Meleager’s ἑταῖροι in the order of suppliants in Phoinix’ story contradicts Kakridis’ scale, in which friends sit towards the bottom of the scale of affection, and therefore would be expected early in such ascending sequences. The position of Meleager’s ἑταῖροι is often taken as an intentional subversion of the order of affection to parallel the entire embassy to Achilles (Kakridis, 1949; Willcock, 1964). Other scholars have since nuanced the parallels between the embassy and Meleager’s suppliants, identifying Odysseus with the gift-bearing priests, Phoinix with Oineus and Meleager’s family, and Ajax with the ἑταῖροι, but do not explain the position of either ἑταῖροι or Ajax’ speech (Rosner, 1976; Alden, 2000).
While a few interpretations for the placement of Ajax’ speech have been proposed (Ebel, 1972; Nagy, 1999), both offer only vague thematic reasons why Ajax should speak last. I propose that the persuasive strategies of the speakers and their social position accounts for the order both in Meleager’s suppliant scene and the embassy to Achilles. Ajax’ final position is justified not only by his effective rhetorical strategy, but also by his position as the second-best of the Achaeans (Il.2.768-70), making him the closest thing to a peer Achilles has. Ajax tries to persuade Achilles, not with gifts or models for behavior, the standard vehicles of persuasion unsuccessfully attempted by Odysseus and Phoinix, but through his status as a peer, acceptance, and honor among equals.
The degree of affection between the addressee and the speaker, while relevant, does not sufficiently explain the dynamics of persuasion in the embassy. Ajax’ ability, as a peer, to recognize Achilles’ honor and validate his decisions elevates his persuasive power above even Phoinix’ impassioned plea. A similar dynamic is observed in Hector’s frequent imagining of “someone” (τις) to judge or reproach him (Il.20.106, inter alia). This imagined peer proves more persuasive than his parents as they beg him not to meet Achilles’ in battle. For Hector, Meleager, and Achilles, peers enjoy a particular persuasive power which renders the penultimate placement of Meleager’s ἑταῖροι and Aiax’ speech not only understandable but natural.