Psychological Activity in Homer: A Study of Phren 9780773573512

Citation preview

PSYCHOLOGICAL ACTIVITY IN HOMER A Study of Phren

This page intentionally left blank

PSYCHOLOGICAL ACTIVITY IN HOMER A Study of Phren

SHIRLEY DARCUS SULLIVAN

Carleton University Press Ottawa Canada 1988

©Carleton University Press Inc. 1988 ISBN

0-88629-077-5 0-88629-079-1

paperback casebound

Printed and bound in Canada Canadian Cataloguing in Publication Data Sullivan, Shirley Darcus, 1945Psychological Activity in Homer ISBN 0-88829-077-5 1. Homer—Criticism and interpretation. 2. Phren (The Greek word). 3. Psychology in literature I. Title PA103.S841988 Distributed by:

883'.01

C88-090238-8

Oxford University Press Canada, 70 Wynford Drive, Don Mills, Ontario. Canada 416-441-2941

Acknowledgements This book has been published with the help of a grant from the Canadian Federation for the Humanities using funds provided by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada. Carleton University Press gratefully acknowledges the support extended to its publishing programme by the Canada Council and the Ontario Arts Council. Cover photograph reproduced by Courtesy of the Trustees of the British Museum. Cover design: Robert Chitty

Dedication

for *Dicf^ bdovtd husband od 8e teat ^cooucnv arj86vec;, fjaiv 6 TIOCVICOV apTtaKTHq 'A(8ri(; OVK e;d %eipa paXet. Callimachus

This page intentionally left blank

Ta/5& of Contents Chapter One: Chapter Two: Chapter Three: Chapter Four:

Approaches to Homeric Psychology The Original Meaning of Phren Phrenes within the Person Phrenes as Location, Instrument, Accompaniment Chapter Five: A Person Relates to Phrenes Chapter Six: Phrenes as Object and Specific Location Chapter Seven: Chief Features of Phren Preface to Appendices Appendices Appendix One: All Passages with Phren Appendix Two: Descriptive Adjectives with Phren Appendix Three: Related Verbs, Adjectives, Nouns Appendix Four: Prapides Bibliography Index of Passages Discussed General Index

1 21 37 71 113 133 177 207 209 273 276 283 285 292 297

Preface This work focuses upon one word among several that make up Homer's psychological terminology. By its wide range of meaning, phren illustrates many aspects of psychic activity in Homer, including emotion, volition, and different forms of thought. Psychological terminology poses a challenge for examination, but it is important and warrants close study. The book adopts a systematic method of analysing each passage where this term appears in Homer and the Homeric Hymns. Even though not all instances are discussed in the text, it nonetheless treats a large number of them in order to show the full breadth of meaning of phren. The analysis of these instances forms the central portion of the book. Chapter Seven offers a summary of the chief features of phren, based upon this analysis. Although the book can be read continuously, it readily lends itself also to consultation on specific features of phren (as described in Chapter Seven) or of particular passages that may interest the reader. The Appendices form the basis from which the conclusions about phren are drawn. In providing full information on this term, these Appendices allow the reader to assess the evidence and to pursue it further. The aim of the book is to provide a comprehensive treatment of this term in order to shed light on how psychological activity was regarded in Homer and the Homeric Hymns, and to make an important stage in the history of ideas accessible to a variety of readers. As mentioned above, the present study concentrates on Homer and the Homeric Hymns. Occurrences of phren in later authors I treat as follows: those in Hesiod, in RBPH 67 (1989) and those in the Greek lyric poets, Pindar and Bacchylides, in Glotta 66 (1988).

vm

Preface

My thanks to the Social Sciences and Research Council of Canada for the grants that allowed me to do research at Oxford. My thanks also to the University of British Columbia for the Humanities Research Grants that supported my research. I thank too the Thesaurus Linguae Graecae for supplying computer print-outs of relevant material. My thanks also to the Canadian Federation for the Humanities for the grant that helped with publishing costs. To the late Leonard Woodbury I express gratitude for the encouragement he gave me in my work. Also, in particular, I thank the two anonymous readers chosen by the Federation for the Humanities for their careful reading of the manuscript and their helpful remarks and suggestions. To Christine Graham who worked with great patience and zeal in typing the manuscript I express my deep appreciation. My husband Dick I thank for the strong support he gave me during this project. To him it is dedicated with deep affection. Shirley Darcus Sullivan University of British Columbia Vancouver 2 September, 1988

IX

This page intentionally left blank

Chapter One APPROACHES TO HOMERIC PSYCHOLOGY I. PSYCHOLOGICAL ACTIVITY In the language of Homer, terms indicating psychological activity occupy a position of particular importance because they give an indication of how Homeric man functioned inwardly. Such words also figure prominently in later Greek literature; certain of them (e.g., noos and psyche) become key terms in Greek philosophy. This study will focus on one such term, phren, examining both its role in Homeric psychology and the way in which it was regarded by Homeric man. A preliminary point, however, should be made concerning the use of the expressions "Homeric psychology" and "Homeric man." Such expressions involve conclusions drawn specifically from an analysis of the Iliad, the Odyssey, and also the Homeric Hymns. They should not be extended to include assumptions made about the Greeks in general, either those living in the time of Homer or those living in the period in which the events of these poems take place. These poems may accurately reflect society, but they may not necessarily represent it completely. Homer, in particular, used a language that had distinctive features. It had a long history; it was formulaic in nature; it included only words suited to a specific metre.1 Many features of this language may have already seemed archaic to Homer himself. What we find, therefore, in the Homeric poems should be regarded as more specifically than generally valid. We can speak only of what applies to the persons involved in these particular pieces of literature. In an examination of Homeric psychology understood in this way, one feature becomes immediately apparent: several words

1

Approaches to Homeric TsychoCqgy

exist to indicate psychological activity carried on within a person. These terms include the following: noos, phren, thumos, kradie, etor, ker, prapis, and psyche.2 For the modern reader this "pluralistic soul" may appear somewhat unusual, but caution must be exercised in drawing certain conclusions from its existence.3 What is lacking in Homer is a single word for soul, one that would signify the seat of thoughts, emotions, and will: in short, personality. Psyche, as is well-known, becomes such a term by the time of Plato, if not somewhat earlier.4 The absence of such a word with this meaning in Homer should not, however, be taken as evidence that the concept of a unified soul or self was lacking. By concept I do not mean a carefully workedout theory of soul or self by which these terms could be precisely defined, but rather a general notion or awareness of soul or self which might not yet lend itself to definition or explanation.5 Such a concept may have been present in Homeric times and simply taken for granted.6 The persons involved might not have been able adequately to explain or to define such a concept, but they might have had one nonetheless. II. BRUNO SNELL Here we touch on a subject that has received much attention in recent years. Bruno Snell's book, Die Entdeckung des Geistes, has had particular influence.7 He argues that Homeric man has no concept of a body but only of the parts that compose it.8 Similarly he argues that Homeric man lacks a knowledge of a psychic whole because there are no terms in Homeric Greek comparable to our abstract terms for "soul" or "self." Man's psychic activity is seen in terms of the function of separate entities. These act in analogy with physical organs or members. Words such as noos or thumos denote either these separate entities or their functions. They do not act as portions of a psychic whole but are simply parts, along with other physical members, of the individual person. According to this view, Homeric man is described as having no awareness of a psychic whole but only of parts which themselves reflect his complete psychic nature imperfectly and incompletely. His psychic nature, therefore, is fragmented. This view of Homeric man has been accepted, in full or in part, by several other scholars.9

2

PsycfwCogicat Activity in Corner

Associated with this view of Homeric man is one concerning his capacity for decision and the responsibility that he takes for his actions. Snell denies that Homeric man makes decisions. Instead, external forces, and especially the gods, act upon humans and bring about the choices they make.10 In adopting such a view, Snell also removes responsibility from the Homeric hero for his actions: he merely responds to those external factors which remain outside his control. These views of Snell have greatly affected recent work on Homeric psychology. They have not, however, gone unchallenged.11 It is outside the scope of the present study to examine all Snell's views in detail, but three points are important for our discussion of phren: the notion of self, psychic parts as analogous to organs, and the possibility of decision in Homeric man. These will be discussed under three separate headings as follows. III. NOTION OF SOUL OR SELF Snell's argument rests on the absence of a word for self in Homer. On this basis he argues as well for the absence of such a notion among the people of Homer's time and before. On these two points, we have already suggested above that even without a single word for "soul" or "self," a general notion or concept of self may well have been present in the time of Homer and simply taken for granted. We noted too that generalisations concerning the Greeks as a whole cannot be validly drawn from the works of Homer alone because of the nature of epic language. More now on this language. Its long history might lead to the view that generalisations about common usage could be drawn from it, but its specific nature makes any such generalisations open to question.12 This is the language of oral poetry, in large measure formulaic and repetitious in nature.13 The diction is stylized, and the vocabulary restricted. The language has evolved over centuries of use by bards seeking primarily to entertain. Homer's works contain only words that fit into dactylic hexameter. Thus it may well be that Greek vocabulary in the time of Homer was far greater than the words we encounter in his poems. Even the Iliad and the Odyssey display differences in vocabulary: many words in one work do not appear in the

3

Approaches to Homeric 'Psychology

other.14 How much greater, then, may have been the range of spoken language. To argue, therefore, on the basis of this language that man in Homeric times lacked a particular concept seems most precarious. To these statements, however, an objection might be made. Every psychological term that writers soon after Homer use to signify aspects of "soul" or "self," he already employs in that sense. Psyche, although it does not function as a psychological term in Homer, is mentioned by him and becomes later the chief term for "soul" or "self." Did Homer's language include all psychic terms of his time and before? This we cannot know, since the epic formulas he used did not necessarily match the wider vocabulary and range of meaning available in the spoken language. Snell's views, therefore, concerning the soul should be considered applicable only to man as he appears in the poems of Homer. But even then, the absence of a word for "self" or "soul" does not necessarily mean the absence of a general notion of self, and in Homer, as scholars have pointed out, evidence exists that such a notion may have been present. This evidence indicates that Homeric man had an awareness not only of the parts within him but also of himself as a whole, and that he had some sense of self, even though it may have been ill-defined. Some of this evidence includes the following points. First, linguistic usage suggests that Homeric man had some awareness of self.15 The use of both the first personal pronoun and the first singular reflexive shows that a person distinguished his experiences from those of another.16 In being able to speak of "I" or "me," a person clearly perceives himself as a separate individual. Verbal expressions in which the first person is the subject (e.g., "I ponder," or "I hope") likewise suggest some notion of personal identity.17 Such linguistic usage points to a capacity for self-awareness, even though this may not have been accompanied by conscious reflection about the self.18 Other linguistic usage similarly suggests some awareness of self on the part of Homeric man. Particularly important in this context is the use by Homeric heroes of the term autos, "self."19 One passage, //. 1.1-5, in which Achilles' anger is said to have sent many "souls" (psychas) to Hades, but to have left

4

'Psychological Activity in ttomer

"themselves" (autous) a prey for animals, shows that autos could refer to "body." Other passages, however, suggest a wider use of the term in which a reference is found to the person as a whole, to both his physical and psychological natures (e.g., //. 1.271, Od. 9.421). In one vivid example, Agamemnon, explaining how he came to be angry with Achilles, admits: "I myself (autos) took away his prize" (II. 19.89). In its reference autos crosses the borders of clearly-defined modern categories that would treat the awareness of the "physical" separately from that of the "psychological."20 The term seems fluid in its reference, comprehending both categories.21 Its use shows that Homeric man could separate his existence from that of other individuals. Its use may also indicate that there was some awareness in Homeric man of the ways in which one person could be distinct from another, both physically and psychologically. Second, the portrayal of character suggests that people had some knowledge of themselves as a whole. Homeric heroes are strong personalities with distinctive traits. It may be that their psychic parts (phren, thumos, noos etc.) function in similar ways within them, but these entities also belong to separate individuals and become a person's possessions. Thumos becomes "his" or "her" thumos; phrenes become "his" or "her" phrenes.22 The sum total of the activity of such entities, or the ways in which they function within a person, also leads to different behaviour and to distinctive features of personality. A person was likely aware of how he, as a whole, differed from another person. Further, the names of heroes and heroines—"Achilles," "Menelaus," "Agamemnon," "Helen," "Penelope"—point also to separate individuals relating to their inner structure. The very existence of differences among names suggests that these people had some notion of personal identity.23 Such an identity may have been simply "lived" by the people in Homer, and not analysed or understood as designating something separate. Nonetheless, it must have been experienced by them as something vividly real. Third, both the description of psychological processes and the way in which a person engages in these suggest some awareness of a whole. Even within his own being, the Homeric hero seems able to separate his identity from the psychic parts

5

Approaches to y-fomeric 'Psychology

that he finds there. Thus, for example, he addresses kradie, etor, and thumos in a way that clearly suggests that some opposition can exist between him and them.24 Further, some psychic entities (e.g., thumos, and etor) can carry on independent activity within a person, but he still appears to remain distinct from this activity. In //. 11.407, for example, thumos discusses alternatives with Odysseus but he, as he says, already knows how he should act (see below on this passage in Chapter Four). There seems to be a distinction between "person" and "parts" in which "person" is more than "parts." Fourth, the frequent use in Homer of the "accusative of part" suggests an awareness of a whole on the part of Homeric man.25 In this construction something affects a person both as a whole and specifically in one of his parts. For example, ate seizes a person in phrenes (II. 16.805); pain and wine also affect him there (//. 8.124, Od. 18.331). Similarly, grief and weariness come to a person in his thumos (II. 2.171,11.88); love can conquer him there (II. 14.315). Related to this use of the accusative is that of "respect," which likewise suggests some knowledge of a whole.26 A person as a whole undergoes some experience but a part is mentioned as specifically involved. For example, a person rejoices in respect to phren; he fears or grows angry there (//. 13.493, 15.627, Od. 6.147). Similarly, a person is sorrowful in respect to his thumos; he feels delight or anger there (Od. 21.318, //. 21.45, 13.660). Both constructions show that, even though one part may have been particularly affected, the whole person was involved in different experiences. In such situations a person either acts or is affected both as a whole and as a part and is apparently aware of these two aspects of his involvement. All these factors suggest that Homeric individuals had some knowledge of themselves as a "whole" or as distinct persons. This knowledge may perhaps have been tentative and unexamined, but it seems nonetheless to have been present.27 The absence of a single word in Homer to designate a "self" or "whole" does not indicate the absence of such a notion, however vague and ill-defined this notion may have been. For the present study of phren in Homer, then, some such unreflective awareness of "self" or "whole" will be assumed to be present in the Homeric person. Further, the awareness that a person has

6

fsycfioCogicai Activity in Corner

of phren will be treated as distinct from this more comprehensive, though less well-defined, sense of self. Homeric man will be thought to have some notion of self joined with a clearer awareness of the psychic entities within him, of which phren is one. IV. "ORGANS" The second feature of Snell's work that is important for our treatment of phren is his description of psychic terms as "analogous to organs."28 In interpreting the specific nature of psychic terms, other scholars have argued somewhat differently from Snell, suggesting that these terms are not simply analogous to organs but instead refer to specific physical organs.29 Both views are arguable because psychic terms appear to differ from organs in several important ways. It may be that Snell's description of them as "analogous to organs" rather than simply as "organs" themselves allows for these differences. But even then the use of the word "organ" itself may not be the most appropriate one in reference to such terms. Some ways in which these psychic terms differ from organs include the following. Unlike physical organs, they are "fluid": they change location.30 Thumos, for example, can appear either in stethea or in phrenes.31 Etor can appear in phrenes, stethea, or kradie;32 noos is found in phrenes, stethea, or thumos.33 Unlike physical organs, phrenes in the living person can "depart" or "be removed."34 Thumos too can apparently be scattered in some way, causing the person to faint; etor likewise can be somehow involved in the same process.35 Further, thumos, unlike physical organs, can increase; it can also be spoken of as though it were more than one in number.36 Psychic terms appear to differ from physical organs in these ways but more importantly still in their ability to exhibit a range of psychological activities. The crucial question in regard to such activities is whether psychic terms in Homer still designate primarily physical entities that carry on these activities, or whether they have themselves become somewhat less concrete in nature in relation to .these activities. We may note that, with regard to these psychological activities in Homer, agent and function are not distinguished in the use of psychic terms.37 Phrenes, for example, can signify "that which thinks"

7

Approaches to Homeric Psychology

and also "that which is thought," i.e., "thoughts" or "ideas." Thus we may ask: with such a range of meaning, have these psychic terms themselves come to be seen somewhat differently from physical ones? A supposition is being made of a gradual change from a predominantly physical meaning to one more abstract. Even though such a supposition has been opposed,38 it is, I believe, basically sound and particularly valid for the term phren.39 What stage is present, then, in Homer? The use of "organ" tends to emphasize, in particular, the physical basis of these psychic terms. An examination of the texts of Homer, however, and of their language, which evolved over an extended period of time,40 suggests that a different emphasis would be more correct. Certain of the psychic terms (in particular noos, thumos, phren) seem to have lost their predominantly physical connotation, and to have become more what we would term faculties.41 This is not to say that the physical connotation has been completely lost, but only that a different range of meaning has predominated. It is not a case of these terms having once designated something physical and having come to designate something psychological. On the contrary, in Homer, there is a blurring of the distinctions between the two types of activity, physical and psychological. His world, in fact, exists as one that is to a greater or lesser degree material.42 The distinctions we draw between immaterial and material, incorporeal and corporeal, were not made. But however much this is the case, terms in Homer that we call "psychic" appear to exhibit a range of meaning that seems closer to the "less material" than others. Homeric man, in his use of such terms, may perceive them somewhat differently from others. In so doing, he probably does not reflect upon or examine any such difference, but it may be present nonetheless. Since some such distinction between psychic terms and others seems discernible in Homeric language, the choice of "organ" to describe the nature of these psychic terms tends to obscure a range of meaning that they may very well have been assumed to exhibit.43 In light of such a distinction, I suggest a different expression to describe such terms (and phrenes in particular): "faculties in-

8

TsychoCogicat Activity in Homer

determinately corporeal." The phrase "indeterminately corporeal" indicates the physical aspects that these terms can exhibit and the degree to which they appear to do so. The person in Homer still seems to view these psychic terms as having some physical nature, but one that is indeterminate. "Faculty" indicates that these terms engage primarily in what we would call psychological activities. "Faculty" also suggests both the agent that acts and the activity that takes place. It thus seems an appropriate designation for these terms, in respect to which, as we have mentioned, an ambiguity between agent and function is to be found. This description, "faculty indeterminately corporeal," also takes into account the nature of Homeric language.44 Psychic terms have long been familiar and used by generations. Over the course of time they have come to exhibit a wide range of meaning. Traces of their original physical meaning may remain, but they appear in Homer to be more what we would call faculties than organs. It is likely that Homer used these terms without consciously reflecting upon them, or analysing them. To a large extent, he probably simply repeated the formulaic expressions in which such terms appeared. He shows us a stage in their meanings, one that will itself give place to another. The description of such terms as "faculties indeterminately corporeal" seems most apt, in my view, to designate them at this stage of language. V. DECISION Snell's views concerning decision in Homer are the third feature of his work which is important for the present study of phren.45 His denial of its presence has been convincingly challenged by scholars, especially by A. Lesky.46 Snell suggests that the gods or the impact of circumstance cause the choices made by Homeric heroes. Analysis of certain passages, however, suggests that some form of free choice involving moral responsibility for that choice was possible for the Homeric person.47 No one would deny the degree to which the Homeric hero was open to external influences. H. Frankel has aptly termed Homeric man "ein offenes Kraftfeld," an "open-field of energy," that divine forces can readily enter or leave.48 But even

9

Slpproacfies to Homeric 'Psychology

though Homeric man is very open to outside influences, he still seems to have some sense of his personal responsibility and freedom of action. Like the concept of self discussed above, this sense is probably not something that he analysed or examined, but it seems, nevertheless, to have been present as a factor in his behaviour. His ability to make choices may have been something that he simply took for granted. Homeric man does not seem merely to be moulded by external factors or by inner psychic entities influenced by such factors. Thus, for example, in wishing to make some choice, he may address his thumos, but thumos itself does not then completely take over and provide the decision.49 The person himself seems to be somehow involved in both the process of choice and the resulting action. This process is certainly both complicated and obscure in nature, but it still suggests Homeric man's ability to share in it. He can, apparently, consider possibilities, and his power to choose among them seems assumed by others. Decision or choice, therefore, does not appear to be totally outside his range.50 VI. THE PRESENT STUDY The present work studies in some detail the term phren51 in Homer52 and in the Homeric Hymns.53 Chapter Two examines the question of the precise physical identity of phren. It also briefly discusses its etymology. Chapters Three to Six consider the passages in which phren appears. These Chapters examine the context of certain occurrences of phren in order to make clear the range of usage of this term. The study considers who is involved, what is the situation, and what are the results. Since there are so many instances to be considered, not all are discussed in full in the text, but are printed in Appendix One. Passages selected for discussion illustrate as far as possible the full range of meaning of phren. The study considers three broad aspects of psychological activity: emotional, intellectual, and volitional.54 In some cases an instance of phren obviously falls within one of these; in others the situation is less clear. Judgement of these passages, therefore, may prove necessarily subjective. In addition, for each instance of phren its possible moral involvement is considered. The time factor is also examined: at what stage in a

10

'Psychological Activity in Corner

situation does the involvement of phren become important? Does its function usually precede action or is phren generally involved in a response to a situation? After this examination of passages and based on it, Chapter Seven treats the chief features of phren. This Chapter may thus serve as a summary of the detailed material discussed in Chapters Three to Six. The work concludes with four Appendices. Appendix One provides all the instances of phren in Homer and the Homeric Hymns. Appendix Two summarizes the descriptive adjectives appearing with phren. Appendix Three lists verbs, adjectives, and nouns related to phren with their meanings. Appendix Four gives all instances of prapides, a term often associated with phren. A study of phren in Homer and the Homeric Hymns must take into account the formulaic nature of the poems' oral composition.55 Recent work has moved from the extreme position that certain words act merely as portions of formulas without having a particularly appropriate meaning in the context, to a less severe one in which the choice of words in formulaic expressions is assumed to be appropriate to some degree in the context.56 In the case of phren, it is possible to assume that, even though its position in a line may be formulaic, its presence in the formula itself was originally conceived of as appropriate. For example, formulaic expressions appear with the verbs meaning "to ponder," hormaino and memerizo, but the activity of these two verbs with phren must have seemed apt in the original composition of the formula itself. In some instances, too, the use of phren, though formulaic, appears to fit the context well and may suggest that some attention had been shown to meaning and that more than mere formulaic repetition was involved. But however true this may be, the formulaic nature of Homeric language prevents a study of context that is possible with other literature. It makes the conscious choice of terms only a possibility, and precludes any insistence on precise terminology. The present study may suggest in the case of certain passages the possibility of the conscious choice of the term phren instead of another, but will recognise the tentative nature of such a suggestion.

11

Approaches to Homeric 'Psychology

As we noted above, phren is simply one term among several in Homer that exhibit a range of psychological activity. With these terms in Homer there is much overlapping in function. No precise distinctions in meaning can be made among them. It may be that some terms show emphases different from others (and we will suggest that such are present in the case of phren),57 but the fluid and versatile nature of the terms and their activities remains their predominant feature. The present work treats the term phren only. We will attempt to show the widest range of meaning of this term in the Iliad, the Odyssey, and the Homeric Hymns. In so doing, we will try to avoid the dangers that arise when one term only is studied. These include both overemphasis on its role within an author's works and unfounded generalisations about its meaning outside the specific works studied. The latter danger is very real in the case of Homer, where the nature of epic language is in essence restrictive with regard to meaning. It should not be forgotten that phren may have had a much wider range of meaning in the spoken language, both in the time of Homer and before. In this study we will strive to keep a broad perspective. Our chief aim will be to show the features that phren has as a psychic term. It shares some of these with other psychic terms; some are exclusive to it. We hope that this study will prove useful for an understanding of phren and its role in psychological activity in Homer and the Homeric Hymns.

12

Psychological Activity in Corner

Notes: T

More will be said below on Homeric language. See especially notes 12, 55-56. For prapis, often treated as a synonym of phren, see Chapter Seven, Section II and Appendix Four. Menos could perhaps be added to this list as it is, for example, by D. B. Claus, Toward the Soul: An Inquiry into the Meaning of \irv%ri before Plato (New Haven and London 1981) 13, and A. Giacomelli, "Aphrodite and After," Phoenix 34 (1980) 1-19. It seems more correct, however, to place the term in a separate category, since it is not a permanent part of humans, as pointed out by M. L. West, "Review: J. Bremmer, The Early Greek Concept of the Soul," CR 35 (1985) 57. As we will see, menos is found in phrenes. Further on its nature see E. R. Dodds, The Greeks and the Irrational (Berkeley 1951) 8-10; P. Vivante, "Sulle designazione omeriche della realta psichica," AGI 41 (1956) 117120; H. Frankel, Dichtung und Philosophic des frtihen Griechentums2 (Munich 1962) 86 n. 8; W. J. Verdenius, "Archai'sche denkpatronen 3," Lampas 5 (1972) 103; J. M. Redfield, Nature and Culture in the Iliad: The Tragedy of Hector (Chicago 1975) 171-185; A. Dihle, The Theory of Will in Classical Antiquity (Berkeley 1982) 34-36; J. Bremmer, The Early Greek Concept of the Soul (Princeton 1983) 57-61; A. Cheyns, "Le 9i)|i6v) which harass (Teipoxxn) him in his phrenes." As in //. 6.285 (1.11), where phren forgets grief, and in Od. 10.557 (111.90), where Elpenor forgets in his phrenes, here phrenes are also associated with forgetting. Both the nature and function of Hector's phrenes may be damaged by "pains." If he can forget these, he may be able to fight well again. In this passage, as we saw elsewhere (IV.9, 17, VI.1314), the condition of phrenes is associated with a hero's readiness to fight. VIII.7. //. 19.125. In this passage, pain or distress strikes Zeus in his phren: "Sharp pain (a%o