That is the new title of my revised paper (formerly titled “Homer’s Hellenic Humanism“); it’s posted in full below the fold:

Achilles and Patroclus. Hector and Sarpedon. The Iliad is full of memorable warriors and celebrated heroes on both sides of the Trojan War who fight to the death in man-to-man combat. But what are we to make of Thersites, the only “common man” (Willcock 1976, 20) to grace Homer’s great epic? The standard interpretation is to write him off as a weakling or coward. After all, he urges his fellow comrades-in-arms to stop fighting and return to their homes (2.225-242), and he is described as “the most repellant man” in the Achaean army, “a dragger of feet, lame in one leg” with “humped-over shoulders” and a pointy head to boot (2.217-219). To add insult to these physical deformities, Homer doesn’t even bother to mention the name of Thersites’ father. I, however, will present a more flattering picture of this peculiar figure, deformed though he may be. Although Homer is too great a poet-artist to tell us point blank whether war is good or bad, if one reads the Iliad as a critique of war, then Thersites–not Achilles–is the unsuspecting hero of this Trojan War chronicle!

For starters, what is the worst thing about Thersites? Is it his physical deformity? His willingness to call it quits? Or his failure to show his commanding officer King Agamemnon any deference when he confronts him? Alas, all these possibilities pale in comparison to Achilles, who commits the most “shocking deed” (22.395) of the entire Iliad, “the most outrageous and unholy of actions, more suitable … for barbarians than for Greeks” (Kucewicz 2016, 425). To the point, after avenging the death of Patroclus by slaying Hector, Achilles desecrates the corpse of his slain adversary by mounting the dead man’s ankles to his chariot and dragging the body through the dirt (22.395-404; see also Pietro Testa, “Achilles Dragging the Body of Hector” above). By contrast, the worst one can say about Thersites is that he is ugly and insolent and refuses to fight.

But that said, Thersites is not the only Greek warrior to question King Agamemnon’s authority or lay down his spear (2.225-242). In fact, it is none other than Achilles–not Thersites–who first declares his decision to return home (1.169-171) as well as his intention to defy military orders (1.293-303). Now, it is true that Achilles’ refusal to fight is not motivated by fear or cowardice but rather because he feels slighted by his commander Agamemnon for taking away his most cherished war prize, lovely Briseis, but if one reads the text of the Iliad closely, one will notice that the actual timing of Achilles’s decision is amiss. Specifically, it is only after Achilles has announced his intention to abandon the battlefield and return home (1.169-171) that Agamemnon, in reprisal, decides to take Briseis for himself (1.180-187). So, why does Achilles first decide to sit out the rest of the war? Because Agamemnon had threatened to take away a yet-to-be-named prize from one of three specific men inside his camp: Ajax or Odysseus or Achilles (1.135-140). Which member of this martial triumvirate would be the unlucky one, and what thing of value would he have to relinquish? Agamemnon leaves those questions open: “We shall consider these things later” (1.140).

Worse yet, Achilles’ initial decision to lay low is not only based on pure emotion–his profuse anger at the mere possibility of being slighted by his commander–it is also rash and premature, since he feels insulted that Agamemnon would even consider taking something away from him. Thersites’ refusal to fight, by contrast, is based on principle. Instead of making an emotional appeal, he presents a well-reasoned, compelling, and logical argument for calling it quits. First off, he points out that Agamemnon has already accumulated more than enough treasures from his military exploits thus far: “Your huts are full of bronze, many choice women are within your shelter …” (2.226-227) Next, he rightfully questions Agamemnon’s leadership skills, calling his commander out for “dishonor[ing] Achilles, a man far better than him.” (2.239) Why should Thersites or any other Greek warrior, for that matter, fight for such a bad leader who would stoop so low? But most importantly, when Thersites delivers his short anti-war speech Achilles had already announced that he was sitting out the rest of the war. Simply put, if Achilles has decided to lay down his own spear, why should the rest of the Achaeans continue fighting? Thersites may be ugly and deformed, but his is the voice of reason.

The best piece of evidence in favor of my thesis, however–the notion that Thersites is an unsung hero of the Iliad–resides precisely in his physical ugliness and lowly station. Simply put, the only man among the Achaeans who is brave enough to float the idea of packing up and returning home en masse and to openly question the wisdom of continuing a futile war is none other than Thersites. That it is the most repellant, ugly, and incoherent man on the Greek side to make the case against war should not detract from the substance of his argument. To argue otherwise is to commit the ad hominem fallacy.

Works Cited

Kucewicz, C. (2016) Mutilation of the dead and the Homeric gods, Classical Quarterly, 66(2): 425-436.

Willcock, M. M. (1976) A Companion to the Iliad.