What do you think?
Rate this book
Agamemnon, the Pathetic Despot: Reading Characterization in Homer
Agamemnon led a ten-year-long struggle at Troy only to return home and die a pathetic death at his wife’s hands. Yet while Agamemnon’s story exerts an outsize influence―rivalled by few epic personalities―on the poetic narratives of the Iliad and Odyssey , scholars have not adequately considered his full portrait. What was Agamemnon like as a character for Homer and his audience? More fundamentally, how should we approach the topic of characterization itself, following the discoveries of Milman Parry, Albert Lord, and their successors?
Andrew Porter explains the expression of characterization in Homer’s works, from an oral-traditional point of view, and through the resonance of words, themes, and “back stories” from both the past and future. He analyzes Agamemnon’s character traits in the Iliad , including his qualities as a leader, against events such as his tragic homecoming narrative in the Odyssey . Porter’s findings demonstrate that there is a traditional depth of characterization embedded in the written pages of these once-oral epics, providing a shared connection between the ancient singer and his listeners.
Andrew Porter explains the expression of characterization in Homer’s works, from an oral-traditional point of view, and through the resonance of words, themes, and “back stories” from both the past and future. He analyzes Agamemnon’s character traits in the Iliad , including his qualities as a leader, against events such as his tragic homecoming narrative in the Odyssey . Porter’s findings demonstrate that there is a traditional depth of characterization embedded in the written pages of these once-oral epics, providing a shared connection between the ancient singer and his listeners.
264 pages, Paperback
Published September 17, 2019
2 people want to read
About the author
Andrew Porter
62 books4 followersAndrew Porter (born 26 August 1928), is a British music critic, scholar, organist, and opera director.
Librarian Note: There is more than one author in the GoodReads database with this name. See this thread for more information.
This is the profile for the music critic.
Librarian Note: There is more than one author in the GoodReads database with this name. See this thread for more information.
This is the profile for the music critic.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 of 1 review
October 20, 2019
Meh.
The title probably should have warned me that this wasn't the book that would provide me with a complex analysis of the character that I was so hoping for, but I bought it anyway because I thought even if it takes the route of painting Agamemnon as some kind of evil villain, at least it’ll be amusing. However, this book was at best boring and at worst incorrect, though perhaps a better word would be disingenuous. It read to me as though the author wanted to depict Agamemnon as a one dimensional character, made up of nothing but flaws, and was determined to make the text he was interpreting fit that view no matter what. At the same time, I was also disappointed at how very little the author extrapolated from the text. There is a lot of time spent on quoting passages from the Iliad/Odyssey, or reiterating details from their stories that anyone who’s read them would already know well-- and I assume anyone reading this book already does-- and not nearly as much time given to actually interpreting what those passages might actually say about the character (as an aside, the first fifty-some pages are barely even about Agamemnon specifically, and in my opinion, added little to the book). By the end of it, I found myself wondering why anyone would write nearly 300 pages about a character they seemed so dispassionate about. If you want to write a book purely about how much Agamemnon Totally And Completely Sucks, at least lean into it! At least give me your well thought out analysis, even if it’s biased, or involves wild stretches-- give me something that adds something to the discussion of this character. This book contributed little more than a mumble.
So, on the subject of biases, I'll write my own disclaimer here. Agamemnon is my favorite character from these series of stories. I’ve read just about every book and essay available on him. I say this because I know, as a result, that it is possible to convey a portrait of this character with much more complexity than is seen in this book. When I bought this book, I was expecting the level of deep and thoughtful analysis seen in several papers I will be quoting later in this review, but expanded into full book size. Agamemnon isn't a character who has nearly as much written on him as ones like Achilles, Helen, or Odysseus. Furthermore, it’s even rarer for his Homeric appearances to receive much in depth focus-- it tends to be his role in Euripides’ Iphigenia in Aulis, or Aeschylus’ Agamemnon that gets more attention. All the more reason I was excited to read this book. Much to my surprise, I quickly found myself eager to be done with it, and that it was actually a challenge not to begin skimming about halfway through.
All right, so here are some of the many things that bothered me about this book.
-It claims that it touches on how Homer's ancient audience would have reacted to Agamemnon's character, something I was very interested to read about. However, all I can recall the author saying on the subject is that the audience would have had the same problems with Agamemnon that a modern audience does-- and not a whole lot of evidence as to why. Question: if an ancient audience was so unified in their disdain for this character as the modern one tends to be, why was there an epithet of Zeus named Zeus Agamemnon, worshiped in Sparta? Would they associate a character they viewed entirely negatively with the ruler of the gods? Certainly they could have disapproved his actions in Book 1, but does that paint a complete picture of their interpretation of the character? I would have liked to at least see some of that discussed, yet despite it being a central element of the book summary, there is very little said about ancient vs modern audiences
-The author seems to at times confuse a character’s opinion of Agamemnon with Homer’s opinion of Agamemnon. For example, he mentions how, in Book 24, Achilles warns Priam that if Agamemnon were to find out about his visit, he would make it very difficult for him to recover Hector’s body-- and thus that “the book assumes an Agamemnon who is selfishly despotic”. Is this the book/poet’s assumption, or is it Achilles’? Relatedly, I am disappointed that the author didn’t go into any detail regarding the importance of dividing the characters’ opinions in the story from the actual facts. Craig Russels' paper, Quarreling Heroes, Quarreling Narrators is an excellent piece on how, due to Book 1 being primarily from Achilles’ perspective, the reader’s opinion of the events that took place is accordingly shaped by this. To quote a piece from it:
That side is precisely what I hoped this book would go into. After all, one doesn’t even need to study the text that closely to see discrepancies between Achilles’ opinion and fact; consider how in Book 1 Achilles claims that Agamemnon is ‘always far from the fighting’, despite the fact that Agamemnon's aristeia in Book 11 shows otherwise, not to mention how often his strength in battle is praised by Homer. Still, the author never touched on any of this, and tended to use the other characters’ negative opinions of Agamemnon as pure fact, while at the same time discrediting any good ones expressed-- which brings me to my next point.
-This is something which really annoyed me about the tone of this book. Determined as the author seemed to be to create the most negative picture possible of Agamemnon, he somehow twisted even the character’s positive traits into negative ones. The author (reluctantly, it seems) admits that Agamemnon’s single undeniably ‘positive’ quality is his martial prowess. Naturally, Book 11 is mentioned here, how he charges into battle, yet even this action the author claims is ‘indicative of his thoughtlessness’. Conversely, the author criticizes Agamemnon for not having enough of a role in Book 10-- stating that because he only sends Odysseus and Diomedes on their mission but, due to having no further of a role in this scene, it is evidence that he is a ‘weak leader’. So the author is neither impressed when the character is written as leading on the front lines, or when he remains behind for scenes there is absolutely no reason he should be any further part of anyway. All right.
-For someone who wrote a book entirely about Agamemnon-- supposedly studied the character closely-- some of his conclusions just left me outright baffled. He mentions how in Book 10, that it is rather ‘out of character’ for Agamemnon to tell Menelaus to address Nestor respectfully, due to him being ‘rash and thoughtless’ normally. Yet there are several examples of Agamemnon either deferring to Nestor or at least addressing him respectfully pre-Book 10. It is comments like this which really began to indicate to me the author seems to see the character of Agamemnon more like a trope than an individual, one who would have different relationships with different characters.
-But I saved the worst, most egregious problem for last. In the entirety of this book, 0% of it is dedicated to Agamemnon’s relationship with Menelaus. I kept waiting for the section on it, absolutely sure it had to be coming, but it never did. This is particularly baffling because the author outlines all the scenes Agamemnon has a medium to large role in, and while he includes the scene that Nestor talks to a wounded Agamemnon (not a very lengthy nor character building scene), he makes next to no mention at all of the scenes where Menelaus is wounded in book 4, nor the scene Menelaus volunteers to fight Hector. In both scenes, Agamemnon expresses worry and concern for his brother, and a desire to protect him. Thus, I could only arrive at one conclusion for the author’s decision to skip these scenes: were they left out because it wouldn’t fit the book’s narrative of Agamemnon being a man with absolutely no redeeming qualities? His concern for his younger brother is one of the more interesting, and very few sympathetic qualities about his character. Not to mention, the brothers’ relationship is a cornerstone for the whole overarching plot of the Iliad. The fact the author would leave what is such a considerable hole in a portrait of this character plainly made no sense to me. I know it’s certainly not because there is no material here to work with. Benjamin Sammons' essay, Brothers in the Night, does a fantastic job of explaining all the complexity of their relationship as well as the two characters individually, and it is primarily only in regard to Book 10’s beginning. Surely a book entirely dedicated to the study of Agamemnon’s character could have gone into similar, if not even more depth.
In addition, even what small fragments still exist of the lost books of the Epic Cycle are worth analyzing in this regard. As mentioned in Sammons’ essay The Quarrel of Agamemnon and Menelaus, in book 3 of the Odyssey an unknown quarrel between the brothers is mentioned, and how it is possible this is a reference to a scene in one of the lost books, particularly Cypria and Nostoi. Sammons further points out how “the quarrel of the Atreidae (and the characterization of the brothers it implies)” is worth noting. Again, these are the sort of tidbits I was expecting a book entirely devoted to ‘Characterization in Homer’ to touch on.
Overall, I think this book was such a huge letdown to me because I was so invested in it being good. I was expecting a nuanced portrait of a character who rarely receives extensive analysis. Certainly, some of the words used in the book to describe Agamemnon are entirely on point. Lacking in interpersonal skills, foolish, arrogant, brutal. Yet there is nearly no discussion at all about the depth behind some of his flaws, especially when it might cast him in an even mildly sympathetic light. Walter Donlan’s excellent essay, Homer’s Agamemnon makes solid points for these more complex qualities, and I will now share a few excerpts from it to contrast the author’s complete omission of them.
Again, there is no discussion at all about his close relationship with his brother.
There is little acknowledgement that, while at times thoughtless and insulting, he also shows capability for realizing he is not infallible.
The author has much to say about what a ‘weak leader’ Agamemnon is, apparently thought lowly of by the entire cast, yet fails to acknowledge that this characterization is a product of the conflict of the Iliad--and how he is written near the end of the Iliad.
The last point, I believe, summarizes what I think is one of the greatest shames when it comes to being able to fully understand really any of the characters in the Iliad: the Iliad is only 1 portion of the Epic Cycle. It is the ninth year of the war, and covers just a matter of days. Yet what we see in those few days-- where an extreme inner-conflict takes place-- cannot provide us with an accurate snapshot of the characters completely. I highly doubt the Greeks would have rallied behind Agamemnon as their leader for nine years if he was nothing but, as the author puts it, a ‘pathetic despot’. I think it is much more likely that the way Agamemnon acts and is regarded in those final books is more indicative of what was ‘normal’ for his character, as well as the way he was treated by those around him. Some insight of this kind is what I was expecting from this book, but never received.
I give it 2 stars instead of 1 because I can see a lot of effort definitely went into compiling all the information in this book. It is, unfortunately, just not presented in a way that is ever very interesting and brings nothing new to the table when it comes to the discussion of Agamemnon’s character. If anything, I think reading this would set people’s understanding of the character back (a problem that is already being created in spades by the shallow depiction featured in a lot of modern adaptations).
I will conclude with one more quote from Donlan’s essay, which in one paragraph provides 100% more nuance and thought than anything I read in this book, and what is I so greatly wanted this book to be.
The title probably should have warned me that this wasn't the book that would provide me with a complex analysis of the character that I was so hoping for, but I bought it anyway because I thought even if it takes the route of painting Agamemnon as some kind of evil villain, at least it’ll be amusing. However, this book was at best boring and at worst incorrect, though perhaps a better word would be disingenuous. It read to me as though the author wanted to depict Agamemnon as a one dimensional character, made up of nothing but flaws, and was determined to make the text he was interpreting fit that view no matter what. At the same time, I was also disappointed at how very little the author extrapolated from the text. There is a lot of time spent on quoting passages from the Iliad/Odyssey, or reiterating details from their stories that anyone who’s read them would already know well-- and I assume anyone reading this book already does-- and not nearly as much time given to actually interpreting what those passages might actually say about the character (as an aside, the first fifty-some pages are barely even about Agamemnon specifically, and in my opinion, added little to the book). By the end of it, I found myself wondering why anyone would write nearly 300 pages about a character they seemed so dispassionate about. If you want to write a book purely about how much Agamemnon Totally And Completely Sucks, at least lean into it! At least give me your well thought out analysis, even if it’s biased, or involves wild stretches-- give me something that adds something to the discussion of this character. This book contributed little more than a mumble.
So, on the subject of biases, I'll write my own disclaimer here. Agamemnon is my favorite character from these series of stories. I’ve read just about every book and essay available on him. I say this because I know, as a result, that it is possible to convey a portrait of this character with much more complexity than is seen in this book. When I bought this book, I was expecting the level of deep and thoughtful analysis seen in several papers I will be quoting later in this review, but expanded into full book size. Agamemnon isn't a character who has nearly as much written on him as ones like Achilles, Helen, or Odysseus. Furthermore, it’s even rarer for his Homeric appearances to receive much in depth focus-- it tends to be his role in Euripides’ Iphigenia in Aulis, or Aeschylus’ Agamemnon that gets more attention. All the more reason I was excited to read this book. Much to my surprise, I quickly found myself eager to be done with it, and that it was actually a challenge not to begin skimming about halfway through.
All right, so here are some of the many things that bothered me about this book.
-It claims that it touches on how Homer's ancient audience would have reacted to Agamemnon's character, something I was very interested to read about. However, all I can recall the author saying on the subject is that the audience would have had the same problems with Agamemnon that a modern audience does-- and not a whole lot of evidence as to why. Question: if an ancient audience was so unified in their disdain for this character as the modern one tends to be, why was there an epithet of Zeus named Zeus Agamemnon, worshiped in Sparta? Would they associate a character they viewed entirely negatively with the ruler of the gods? Certainly they could have disapproved his actions in Book 1, but does that paint a complete picture of their interpretation of the character? I would have liked to at least see some of that discussed, yet despite it being a central element of the book summary, there is very little said about ancient vs modern audiences
-The author seems to at times confuse a character’s opinion of Agamemnon with Homer’s opinion of Agamemnon. For example, he mentions how, in Book 24, Achilles warns Priam that if Agamemnon were to find out about his visit, he would make it very difficult for him to recover Hector’s body-- and thus that “the book assumes an Agamemnon who is selfishly despotic”. Is this the book/poet’s assumption, or is it Achilles’? Relatedly, I am disappointed that the author didn’t go into any detail regarding the importance of dividing the characters’ opinions in the story from the actual facts. Craig Russels' paper, Quarreling Heroes, Quarreling Narrators is an excellent piece on how, due to Book 1 being primarily from Achilles’ perspective, the reader’s opinion of the events that took place is accordingly shaped by this. To quote a piece from it:
[Multiple translations/versions] simplify Agamemnon’s motivations by omitting any reference to instigations by Achilles; both make Achilles a victim rather than an instigator, mirroring Achilles’ own simple picture of Agamemnon as an erratic autocrat rather than the Homeric Narrator’s more nuanced portrait of an insecure commander under pressure. That readers of the Iliad have often been left with such a picture is indicative of the degree to which Achilles’ version becomes dominant within the poem; that there is another side of the story there to be teased out is indicative of the multiformity to be found in Homeric storytelling.
That side is precisely what I hoped this book would go into. After all, one doesn’t even need to study the text that closely to see discrepancies between Achilles’ opinion and fact; consider how in Book 1 Achilles claims that Agamemnon is ‘always far from the fighting’, despite the fact that Agamemnon's aristeia in Book 11 shows otherwise, not to mention how often his strength in battle is praised by Homer. Still, the author never touched on any of this, and tended to use the other characters’ negative opinions of Agamemnon as pure fact, while at the same time discrediting any good ones expressed-- which brings me to my next point.
-This is something which really annoyed me about the tone of this book. Determined as the author seemed to be to create the most negative picture possible of Agamemnon, he somehow twisted even the character’s positive traits into negative ones. The author (reluctantly, it seems) admits that Agamemnon’s single undeniably ‘positive’ quality is his martial prowess. Naturally, Book 11 is mentioned here, how he charges into battle, yet even this action the author claims is ‘indicative of his thoughtlessness’. Conversely, the author criticizes Agamemnon for not having enough of a role in Book 10-- stating that because he only sends Odysseus and Diomedes on their mission but, due to having no further of a role in this scene, it is evidence that he is a ‘weak leader’. So the author is neither impressed when the character is written as leading on the front lines, or when he remains behind for scenes there is absolutely no reason he should be any further part of anyway. All right.
-For someone who wrote a book entirely about Agamemnon-- supposedly studied the character closely-- some of his conclusions just left me outright baffled. He mentions how in Book 10, that it is rather ‘out of character’ for Agamemnon to tell Menelaus to address Nestor respectfully, due to him being ‘rash and thoughtless’ normally. Yet there are several examples of Agamemnon either deferring to Nestor or at least addressing him respectfully pre-Book 10. It is comments like this which really began to indicate to me the author seems to see the character of Agamemnon more like a trope than an individual, one who would have different relationships with different characters.
-But I saved the worst, most egregious problem for last. In the entirety of this book, 0% of it is dedicated to Agamemnon’s relationship with Menelaus. I kept waiting for the section on it, absolutely sure it had to be coming, but it never did. This is particularly baffling because the author outlines all the scenes Agamemnon has a medium to large role in, and while he includes the scene that Nestor talks to a wounded Agamemnon (not a very lengthy nor character building scene), he makes next to no mention at all of the scenes where Menelaus is wounded in book 4, nor the scene Menelaus volunteers to fight Hector. In both scenes, Agamemnon expresses worry and concern for his brother, and a desire to protect him. Thus, I could only arrive at one conclusion for the author’s decision to skip these scenes: were they left out because it wouldn’t fit the book’s narrative of Agamemnon being a man with absolutely no redeeming qualities? His concern for his younger brother is one of the more interesting, and very few sympathetic qualities about his character. Not to mention, the brothers’ relationship is a cornerstone for the whole overarching plot of the Iliad. The fact the author would leave what is such a considerable hole in a portrait of this character plainly made no sense to me. I know it’s certainly not because there is no material here to work with. Benjamin Sammons' essay, Brothers in the Night, does a fantastic job of explaining all the complexity of their relationship as well as the two characters individually, and it is primarily only in regard to Book 10’s beginning. Surely a book entirely dedicated to the study of Agamemnon’s character could have gone into similar, if not even more depth.
In addition, even what small fragments still exist of the lost books of the Epic Cycle are worth analyzing in this regard. As mentioned in Sammons’ essay The Quarrel of Agamemnon and Menelaus, in book 3 of the Odyssey an unknown quarrel between the brothers is mentioned, and how it is possible this is a reference to a scene in one of the lost books, particularly Cypria and Nostoi. Sammons further points out how “the quarrel of the Atreidae (and the characterization of the brothers it implies)” is worth noting. Again, these are the sort of tidbits I was expecting a book entirely devoted to ‘Characterization in Homer’ to touch on.
Overall, I think this book was such a huge letdown to me because I was so invested in it being good. I was expecting a nuanced portrait of a character who rarely receives extensive analysis. Certainly, some of the words used in the book to describe Agamemnon are entirely on point. Lacking in interpersonal skills, foolish, arrogant, brutal. Yet there is nearly no discussion at all about the depth behind some of his flaws, especially when it might cast him in an even mildly sympathetic light. Walter Donlan’s excellent essay, Homer’s Agamemnon makes solid points for these more complex qualities, and I will now share a few excerpts from it to contrast the author’s complete omission of them.
In [Book 4], Agamemnon is also pictured as the commander concerned for his army, who goes about exhorting and chiding. Here the king is truly the " shepherd of the people," fretful and peevish. These are nice touches, for they help provide the motivation for the king's behavioral pattern. We see him most clearly now as the leader whose responsibilities must be borne alone, expressive of the modern military phrase, "the loneliness of command.”
Again, there is no discussion at all about his close relationship with his brother.
A new dimension is added to the portrait of Agamemnon in Book 4 - his concern for his brother Menelaus. The king appears as the worried older brother whose job is made more difficult because of the burden of protecting Menelaus
[...]
Agamemnon's brotherly affection for Menelaus is reflected again in two charming vignettes [in Book 10] that also reveal a sympathetic understanding of his brother's shortcomings
There is little acknowledgement that, while at times thoughtless and insulting, he also shows capability for realizing he is not infallible.
In Book 19, Agamemnon appears a chastened, wiser man. Through the long period of Achilles' sulking he has seen his position and his dignity shake. At the end of Book 23 the king appears for the last time, in a rather touching scene with Achilles, that captures perfectly the new sense of conciliation and understanding between the two heroes.
The author has much to say about what a ‘weak leader’ Agamemnon is, apparently thought lowly of by the entire cast, yet fails to acknowledge that this characterization is a product of the conflict of the Iliad--and how he is written near the end of the Iliad.
Significantly, when Agamemnon appears or is mentioned in the last two books, we note that he is once again the regal figure of Book 1: the leader in all enterprises, treated with respect and deference - especially by Achilles.
The last point, I believe, summarizes what I think is one of the greatest shames when it comes to being able to fully understand really any of the characters in the Iliad: the Iliad is only 1 portion of the Epic Cycle. It is the ninth year of the war, and covers just a matter of days. Yet what we see in those few days-- where an extreme inner-conflict takes place-- cannot provide us with an accurate snapshot of the characters completely. I highly doubt the Greeks would have rallied behind Agamemnon as their leader for nine years if he was nothing but, as the author puts it, a ‘pathetic despot’. I think it is much more likely that the way Agamemnon acts and is regarded in those final books is more indicative of what was ‘normal’ for his character, as well as the way he was treated by those around him. Some insight of this kind is what I was expecting from this book, but never received.
I give it 2 stars instead of 1 because I can see a lot of effort definitely went into compiling all the information in this book. It is, unfortunately, just not presented in a way that is ever very interesting and brings nothing new to the table when it comes to the discussion of Agamemnon’s character. If anything, I think reading this would set people’s understanding of the character back (a problem that is already being created in spades by the shallow depiction featured in a lot of modern adaptations).
I will conclude with one more quote from Donlan’s essay, which in one paragraph provides 100% more nuance and thought than anything I read in this book, and what is I so greatly wanted this book to be.
The figure of Agamemnon is much more than simply a foil to Achilles' greatness; he is a character of subtle dimensions, who, as the poem progresses, becomes more sympathetic and understandable. By masterful accretion of detail successively added scene by scene, Homer created a psychologically coherent portrait of a proud man whose responsibilities are sometimes greater than his ability to cope with them, and who, because of lack of strength, is sometimes cruel and overbearing, sometimes weak and pathetic- but, like all men, able to learn, able to become better.
Displaying 1 of 1 review