Episodes Of Extreme Violence In The Story Of Niobe In Homer’s "Iliad"
The story of Niobe, as told by Achilles in book twenty-four of the Iliad, is related to Priam for the purpose of making the latter eat, though he is grieving the loss of Hector, whose body he has come to ransom. This tale can be compared with the various retellings of the murder of Agamemnon which are repeated throughout the Odyssey.
The accounts of Niobe and Agamemnon, though they both depict episodes of extreme violence, are, ostensibly quite different, as Niobe, unlike Agamemnon, is not killed. It is not the myths themselves, however, which contain similarities, but rather it is the way in which they are told which makes them comparable. Agamemnon’s death is recounted by a number of different individuals throughout the Odyssey, such as Zeus, Nestor, and by Agamemnon himself. In each of these versions, the narrative is slightly different: Zeus focuses on Aigisthos’ role in the affair, and his own attempted intervention (Od. 1. 80-91); Nestor emphasises the fact that Klytaimnestra would not have taken part in such a terrible act had she not been seduced by Aigisthos (Od. 3. 263-72); Agamemnon tells the story of his own death twice, both times taking particular care to mention the details of his wife’s betrayal, and to compare her to Penelope (Od. 11. 410-46, 24. 191-202). Each retelling of Agamemnon’s tale gives the same broad outline of events, but includes details specific to each teller, which are included by Homer in order to subtly steer the external audience towards certain ideas or beliefs, as well as to influence the decisions and actions of the listener within the story (Olson 1990: p. 59).
Achilles’ account of the tragedy of Niobe follows the same pattern as each of the retellings of Agamemnon’s death. Niobe’s plight very clearly mirrors that of Priam, and so it is a fitting parallel to draw. Achilles, however, much like Zeus, Nestor, and Agamemnon in the Odyssey, makes changes to the original story of the slaying of the Niobids. Achilles’ mentioning of the fact that Niobe continued to eat even after she lost twelve children is, as Willcock says, not relevant to the actual tale itself, as the myth revolves around, and concludes with, Niobe being turned to stone (Willcock 2002: pp. 435-36). By pointing out the fact that Niobe continued to eat, though her loss was greater than that of Priam, Achilles succeeds in convincing Priam to dine with him (Il. 598-620). This is where Achilles’ storytelling manages to be both similar and dissimilar to that of the characters in the Odyssey, as Achilles’ inclusion of these particulars appears to come from his own feelings of pity for Priam, and from his own desire to have Priam eat with him.
The sharing of a meal implies a sort of guest-friendship between the two men, but the Niobe story does not create any sense of suspense or tension for the audience in the moment, nor does it greatly further the plot other than to allow Priam to sit down with Achilles, which results in the return of the body of Hector. The Oresteia within the Odyssey, on the other hand, does, as it serves as an example of how things might have turned out for Odysseus upon his return, had Penelope not been such a paragon of virtue, and had Odysseus not been so clever or so favoured by the gods.
