Homeric misdirection: False predictions in the Iliad.

Abstract

Homer uses two techniques to create audience expectation: typical sequences and predictions. I show how typical sequences are manipulated to achieve suspense and surprise, and argue that the knowledge of the audience is repeatedly challenged and put into doubt by misleading and false predictions. At times the poet's strategy is to deliberately mislead the audience. In chapter one I analyze false anticipation and the issue of retardation. I examine the prelude to the start of battle and the preparation for the final meeting between Achilles and Hector. The audience expects battle to begin and Hector to die at the hands of Achilles, but is led to expect these events well before they actually occur. Chapter two presents a detailed examination of books 3 and 6. The climax of these episodes (Aphrodite's rescue of Paris, and Hector's meeting with Andromache) is not anticipated, as Homer withholds information from the audience. Chapter 3 presents the argument for authorial misdirection. We find predictions anticipating the burning of the Greek fleet, and the mutilation of Hector's corpse, yet the audience receives no information contradicting these expectations. In fact, prophecies of Zeus and comments by the poet (which are normally reliable) are used to mislead the audience. In chapter four I consider the complicated situation of Hector's victory on the third day of battle, where we find all three types of misdirection. In the conclusion I consider the broader implications of these three narrative situations and the way in which the audience's various epistemological positions are reflected in the narrative. Homeric misdirection depends upon the audience knowing how this traditional story will come out. Homer's art lies in the processes by which those conclusions are misdirected or delayed. Homer induces the audience to rely upon the words of the poet (or providential deity), but then makes that hypothesis untenable. I have incorporated ideas from narrative analysis and reader-response criticism, while making extensive use of ancient criticism (Aristotle and the scholia).