When should one quit? Give up and literally go home? (Catherine Project 1)

 Catherine Project, Spring 2024, Homer -- Response 1, Il. 1-4

When should one quit? Give up and literally go home? The idea of quitting is a prominent one in Iliad 1 and 2. While nobody actually quits in these books, the different reasons for quitting and persisting offer some thoughts to a contemporary audience.

Among his threats in Il. 1 Achilles threatens once to go home: “Now I will go to Phthia… I do not think that I will be dishonored here and draw up money and wealth for you” (1.169-171). In Achilles’ telling, the Greeks have been successful at raiding Trojan towns and acquiring Trojan wealth to be distributed among the Greeks. Achilles has already been angry that his share of the proceeds has been less than he deserves; Agamemnon’s threat to reclaim another pushes him to threaten in response to leave. If he doesn’t receive what he thinks is appropriate compensation – or worse if the army’s leadership claws back what it has already given – he will leave, or at least consider leaving.

The war’s progress in Iliad 2 seems much worse than in Il. 1. In Il. 1, the war against the Trojans seems to be more or less successful – it’s not clear how long it has been going on, but it continues to yield wealth (1.163-4: “whenever the Greeks sack…”), with the promise of the big motherlode if the Greeks take Troy (1.19, 1.125-9). By contrast in Il. 2 the war has been going on for 9 long years (2.134, 2.295), with little to show for it (2.121: ‘a fruitless war’). 

Speakers in Il. 2 acknowledge this unpromising context and encourage quitting or persistence. Agamemnon takes the first option and (falsely) urges the Greeks to go home; his speech dwells on the negative consequences of their failure (shame, dishonor; maybe really trying to persuade the Greeks to fight), but ultimately his argument rests on how the Greeks have tried for nine years and not succeeded (2.134-138: “our work is unaccomplished”). Further attempts are pointless (2.141: “no longer will we take Troy”). Better to go home to their “beloved” homeland and their waiting wives and children (2.136-140). Agamemnon argues that if there is no hope of taking Troy, better to go home, despite the shame.

After the troops are restored to order Odysseus and Nestor by contrast offer speeches encouraging the Greeks to stay. Odysseus acknowledges the army’s desire to go home – even after just a month away from his wife a man grows impatient (2.291-4) – but promises them that according to Calchas’ prophecy in the end they will take Troy (2.330-2). Nestor similarly promises ultimate victory based on a favorable omen from Zeus, and mixes in threats against anyone who considers quitting and leaving independently (2.346-59). For these speakers, leaders can choose to quit, but the rank and file are compelled to fight (cf. ‘shirking,’ Agamemnon’s epipolesis in book 4). The positive arguments to fight offered by Odysseus and Nestor are limited to prophecies of ultimate success; admittedly, these promises are apparently convincing to the army, which praises Odysseus’ speech (2.333-5).

What can we learn? Both these positions seem self-evident: if you have the freedom to choose, it’s reasonable to consider quitting if you are poorly compensated or there’s no hope of success. The tough questions are what is reasonable compensation and how does one assess the likelihood of success. ‘Reasonable’ is in the eye of the beholder, and the future is impossible to know: even when they speak to us directly the gods can lie (2.35-40, 2.114).