Essay: The Iliad by Homer

The epic poem the Iliad by Homer is centralized around the conflict between Achilles and Agamemnon during the Trojan War. Besides Achilles, the main character shown to be defiant against someone of higher power, Homer depicts numerous instances where characters speak against the war and the leadership. However, the reactions these characters receive for their opposition vary, such as seen with Thersites who is beaten and laughed at for his tirade. In Thucydides’ History of the Peloponnesian Wars, he makes extensive use of speeches as a part of his historical account of the Peloponnesian Wars. Thucydides includes argumentative speeches between figures, such as seen in the Mytilenean debate, where Diodotus prevails over Cleon, despite Diodotus being against the decision previously made by the Athenian assembly. Homer and Thucydides each portray characters who express dissent, yet the contrasting reactions the characters receive allow the writers to dramatize the tension between freedom of speech and censorship to suggest issues of class structure and democracy.
In the Iliad, Homer’s depiction of Thersites’ disabilities and disgraceful appearance creates a negative perception of Thersites amongst the audience. The narrator describes Thersites as “a blathering fool/ And a rabble rouser” (Iliad 232-235), “the ugliest soldier at the siege of Troy” (Iliad 236). Homer’s diction conveys a derogative and dismissive description of Thersites, as “ugliest” and “blathering fool” have negative connotations. These words imply Thersites is unheroic and useless, especially in comparison to the many courageous and glory-seeking men, like Achilles and Agamemnon, that he is surrounded by. Before he even actually speaks, Homer has established how Thersites shall be perceived, indicating how even if there is truth or sense to what Thersites has to say, none of it will be taken seriously because of his status. This is further emphasized by Odysseus, who highlights Thersites’ low and commoner status while reprimanding Thersites for speaking against Agamemnon: “There’s no one lower/ in the Army […] You have no right to even mention kings in public […]” (Iliad 269-271). Odysseus’ anger is more so targeted at the fact that Thersites does not have the status to insult Agamemnon, yet he still dares to do so. In addition, Odysseus’ response to Thersites further draws the attention away from Thersites’ words and places emphasis on Thersites’ lack of authority to be criticizing anyone. Achilles had done a similar deed, but Achilles is a Greek hero which gives him more leniency and justification to speak against a king, whereas Thersites is a nobody. So throughout the scene with Thersites, Homer reiterates Thersites’ inferior status to convey how nonsensical Thersites’ words are.
Similarly to Homer, Thucydides is able to also establish how Diodotus shall be perceived by the audience, except Thucydides does so by creating contrast between Cleon’s harshness and Diodotus’ calmness, and not through a focus of individual status. Cleon opens his speech by criticizing the merits of democracy: “[A] democracy is not capable of ruling an empire […]” (Thucydides 3.37). Cleon then continues to urge for the Athenians to follow through with the murder and enslavement of the Mytileneans as revenge for the Mytileneans’ rebellion, demonstrating his brutality. With this rejection of democracy and support of annihilation, Thucydides portrays Cleon as a demagogue abusing the people for power, indicating that Cleon’s proposal should not be taken as completely credible or the best route of action. Having presented such a vicious and vehement character in Cleon first, it can be anticipated that the next speaker in this debate will be more favorable. So Diodotus is able to argue against the majority opinion and also note the irresponsibility of Cleon’s accusations while doing so, stating “[a] good citizen should not go about terrifying those who speak against him, but should try to look better in a fair debate” (Thucydides 3.42). In contrast to the method of Cleon who demands that the Athenians must respond to the Mytileneans with anger and passion, Diodotus accuses the assembly of being “short-sighted” because they are not “accountable to anyone” (Thucydides 3.43). So Diodotus instills the idea that it is in the assembly’s best interest, as a democratic body, that they listen and not act irrationally based on their emotions in the moment. Hence, Thucydides is able to highlight the rationality and composed demeanor of Diodotus when he speaks.
Diodotus is allowed the opportunity to openly oppose Cleon and the decision made by the Athenian assembly without facing the same repercussions as Thersites for his dissent. Diodotus does face a degree of danger for speaking against the majority opinion, as Cleon who spoke first suggests that anyone who favors leniency, that is anyone who opposes his proposal, is a “traitor” to Athens (Thucydides 3.40). In rebuttal, Diodotus responds that “anyone who contends that discussion is not instructive for action is either stupid or defending some private interest of his own” (Thucydides 3.42). Diodotus does not try to rile the people and invoke the nationalism in them so they can act; he encourages them to be practical and to embrace a fair debate without any fear or judgement. Diodotus adopts a moderate position; he is not arguing for pacifism, but instead is concerned with the future of Athens and “how the Mytileneans can be put to the best use for [the Athenians]” (Thucydides 3.44). This is still an improvement to Cleon’s plan of wanting to put the whole population to death and enslavement. So, Diodotus is able to convince the assembly to change their mind, which is crucial as this results in saving the Mytileneans from destruction and the punishment of only a select amount of men. Thus, Thucydides demonstrates the value of dissent as an aspect of freedom of speech. The concept of freedom of speech is quite fundamental to democracy, and thus the Athenians allowing such an assembly to be held to reconsider their decision and having speakers with opposing views highlights their efforts to embrace a democratic process.
Unlike Diodotus who speaks freely and actually succeeds in his dissent, Thersites gets beaten and humiliated for his troubles due to his commoner status. Thersites criticizes the Trojan War and insults Agamemnon for his greed: “‘Let’s sail home in our ships and leave him here/ To stew over his prizes […]’” (Iliad 2.257-258). Homer has already established Theristes as an obscene and foolish character that should not be taken seriously, however what Thersites does have to say is quite true. Thersites’ accusations of Agamemnon’s greed was likely shared by much of the army, as Achilles had made the same accusations of Agamemnon in Book 1: “‘It’s far more profitable/ To hang back in the army’s rear 一 isn’t it?’” (Iliad 1.241-242). Yet Thersites receives disgust from the Achaeans and is silenced by Odysseus for his outburst. These negative reactions can be explained by the skewed value system of the Achaeans, as they care more for who is speaking and not what is said. Homer seems to be supporting the glorification of aristocratic heroes, men who crave kleos and would rather die to defend their honor, as opposed to the common soldier who is seen as lame for having not accomplished any extraordinary deed. Thus, Thersites’ speech begins to appear to be more like a parody of Achilles’. Where Achilles seems courageous for speaking against a higher authority figure, Homer depicts Thersites to be more of a comedic figure, as Thersites looks ridiculous and crazed when he speaks out, as even “the troops […] had a good laugh/ At his expense […]” (Iliad 2.291-293). Homer does not necessarily suggest that free speech is a poor choice, but rather that the extent that one has freedom of speech depends on one’s own status and must always be coupled with respect for authority.
Homer in the Iliad and Thucydides in the History of the Peloponnesian Wars each present speeches made in dissent but to varying degree of effectiveness. Homer highlights the idea that dissent is only valuable when one has the status to warrant speaking back, resulting in the harsh truths that Thersites spouts to be diminished and unacknowledged, as Homer reinforces the archetype of the brave and glorious hero as being the one worthy of being taken seriously for their dissent, while the common man who speaks back is seen as crazy. In contrast, Thucydides depicts the encouragement of freedom of speech and shows how dissent is valuable even if speaking against the majority opinion may place on in a dangerous position. So though Diodotus’ intentions were not entirely moral, in speaking against Cleon, Diodotus does save the Mytileneans from total destruction. Both writers do demonstrate the power of free speech as each speaker does receive strong reactions from their audience. Ultimately, Homer and Thucydides convey contrasting ideas on expressing dissent and how valuable such action should be considered as, since Homer depicts Thersites as reckless and insane, while Thucydides shows Diodotus to be quite courageous and sensible.