Alvis

Arend

Bakhtin

Benveniste

Bourdieu

Carlier

Clay

Cramer

Davidson

de Jong

Detienne

Dodds

Donlan

Easterling

Edwards

Ellsworth

Erbse

Finley

Fish

Foley

Ford

Gernet

Giddens

Goldhill

Graziosi

Griffin

Haft

Hall

Hammer

Heiden

Hölkeskamp

Iser

Janko

Knox

Kouklankis

Krischer

Leaf

Lincoln

Lowry

Mackie

Macleod

Martin

McGlew

Momigliano

Mondi

Morris

Morson

Murray

Nagy

Osborne

Owen

Page

Parks

Postlethwaite

Pucci

Raaflaub

Rabel

Redfield

Reinhardt

Richardson

Rose

Rosen

Ruzé

Said

Sale

Schadewaldt

Schofield

Seaford

Seibel

Snell

Strasburger

Taplin

Thalmann

Thornton

Todorov

Vernant

Vivante

Willcock

Williams

English

Barker, Elton

Open Research Online (Open)

Achilles' last stand: Institutionalising dissent in Homer's Iliad

Debate in theIliad– what form it takes, what significance that might have, whether or not it even exists – has been a matter of some controversy. One approach has been to examine debate in terms of a formal social context and to extrapolate from this some kind of political or – according to other accounts – pre-political community that theIliadpreserves. Scholars have, however come up with very different ideas about how to describe that society, how to interpret that depiction, or whether such attempts are even fruitful. An alternative approach focuses on the form of the speeches and analyses them as the production of thesis and antithesis: in these terms the cut-and-thrust of debate is understood as a form of proto-rhetorical theory.All this seems far removed from debate as it is represented in the narrative, which is the subject of this paper. I begin with four preliminary propositions. Previous approaches have tended to homogenise different scenes of debate, with little regard to differences in structure or context.</jats:p

Achilles' last stand: Institutionalising dissent in Homer's Iliad

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Open Research Online (Open)

Crossref