The Poetics of Consent: Collective Decision Making and the Iliad by David F. Elmer (review)

In this book, David Elmer takes a fresh approach to some large questions that have occupied Homeric scholarship: how and under what conditions the epics took shape, the political dynamics and relations of authority in the society they depict, the relation (if any) of that society to historical Greek society, the nature of performances of the poems and the relations between performer and audience, and, within the Iliad, how human action is related to decisions of the gods and the political and social implications of various characters’ conduct, particularly that of Agamemnon and Achilles. Any one of these questions is usually enough for a full-length study. But, drawing on such recent work as that of Gregory Nagy, Johannes Haubold, and Elton Barker, as well as on speech act theory and Indo-European linguistics, Elmer brings these questions together in a fresh and illuminating examination of the Iliad and its performative context.

The basis for his study is the observation that, whereas ainein / -os can have various meanings in and outside Homer (“praise,” “[coded] story”), in the Iliad the compound epainein (the noun does not occur in Homer but he uses it for convenience) is limited to contexts of collective deliberation. There it describes the approving response of the community to a proposal by a leader that normally translates the proposal into action. Such a scenario represents the formation of a speech act; one distinctive feature of the book is that it draws attention away from enunciation to its reception by an audience, which is crucial to the completion of a speech act and especially to its effectiveness in shaping reality. This usage of the verb, Elmer argues in an excellent chapter (2), is a vestige of the importance of speech to the creation and maintenance of social order (a prominent theme of the book) in Indo-European societies. It thus refers to socially efficacious and constructive speech. Conversely, the cognate anainesthai and apēnēs are associated with verbal behavior that is socially destructive.

The consent signaled by epainos results from consensus, which (following Egon Flaig) Elmer carefully distinguishes from majority rule, and which, he says in connection with the Thersites episode, seems egalitarian but is consistent with social hierarchy. Scholars have often depicted the role of the people (laos) in Homeric assembly scenes as limited to ratifying decisions actually made by their leaders (basilēes), but Elmer makes a strong case that the people’s epainos is necessary for a proposal to become action. The evidence is negative but telling: the many instances in which epainos does not occur and decisions are either not made or lead to failure. On the other hand, Elmer might have been more explicit about the relation between the authority of the basilēes and the need for consensus. Is a tension between them one of the fault lines of Iliadic society exposed by the narrative? Is the role of a good leader to see that both are somehow accommodated? At any rate, Elmer’s argument that a basileus cannot set aside the opinion of the community, and in particular that Agamemnon’s rebuff of Chryses, despite the people’s support of him at the beginning of the poem, cannot be taken as the norm is persuasive and welcome.

Strangely but significantly, an explicit statement of the norm of epainos comes only late in the poem, at Il. 23.539–42, when the Achaeans “express an epainos” at Achilles’ proposal to award the second-prize mare to Eumelos; this response would have been the basis of his doing so if not for Antilochos’s objection. These lines, Elmer argues, show the need for community approval to enact a proposal. The lines also show the power given to individual dissent in a system of consensus. It is a key point in Elmer’s overall argument that in the episode which shows the norm most clearly...