This thesis argues that the defining characteristic of intra-familial relationships in both the Iliad and the Odyssey is inequality. Homeric relationship pairs that are presented positively are strongly marked by an uneven distribution of power and authority, and when family members do not subscribe to this ideology, the result is a dysfunctional relationship that is condemned by the poet and used as a negative paradigm for his characters. Moreover, the inequality favoured by the epics proceeds according to strict role-based rules with little scope for innovation according to personality, meaning that determination of authority is simple in the majority of cases. Wives are expected to submit themselves to their husbands, sons to their fathers, and less powerful brothers to their more dominant siblings. This rigid hierarchy does create the potential for problems in some general categories of relationship, and relations between mothers and sons in particular are strained in both epics, both because of the shifting power dynamic between them caused by the son’s increasing maturity and independence from his mother and her world, and because of Homeric epic’s persistent conjunction of motherhood with death. This category of familial relationships is portrayed in the epics as doomed to failure, but others are able to be depicted positively through adhering to the inequality that is portrayed in the epics as both natural and laudable. / I will also argue that this systemic pattern of inequality can be understood as equivalent to the Homeric concept of homophrosyne (“like-mindedness”), a term which, despite its appearance of equality, in fact refers to a persistent inequality. Accordingly, for a Homeric relationship to be portrayed as successful, one partner must submit to the other, adapting themselves to the other’s outlook and aims, and subordinating their own ideals and desires. Through this, they are able to become “like-minded” with their partners, achieving something like the homophrosyne recommended for husbands and wives in the Odyssey.

From its outset, the Iliad stitches women into the fabric of its story with purpose. How women relate to men is of paramount concern to the poem from the theft of Briseis in Bk. 1 to the closing laments of Bk. 24. Yet studies of men and women’s relationships have largely focused on relative positions of power or on the separation between male and female worlds. This study of male-female relationships of the Iliad takes its inspiration from Odysseus’ exhortation to Nausicaa in Odyssey 6. There the hero endorses ὁμοφροσύνη (“like-mindedness”) between a man and woman as an ideal for a successful relationship and well-maintained household. At its core, Odysseus’ recommendation calls for harmony between two people’s minds and thoughts; however, it does not provide a prescription for how that harmony may be achieved. This dissertation examines how Iliadic women interact with their men and discovers an array of relationships exhibiting what may be called a form of ὁμοφροσύνη, even amid disagreement and strain in a time of stress. In the Iliad, male-female relationships at their best are marked by a way of listening and communicating that helps to absorb or move past conflict and division, that expresses shared understanding, and that seeks out some form of resolution, even if that resolution proves ultimately impermanent. Since each pairing of characters is unique, so too is the manner in which characters attempt or express harmony with their partners. This like-mindedness (ὁμοφροσύνη), however, is not guaranteed to last, or even be present, nor does the poem give it the same compass in every pair. Sometimes we are shown a potential for ὁμοφροσύνη that does not or will not fully actualize, and sometimes we are made privy to the resonance or echoes of a past like-mindedness that is now in crisis. The chapters of this dissertation are arranged by the Iliad’s four central women. Chapter 1 discusses Hekabe’s interactions with Priam and Hector. Chapter 2 investigates Helen’s relationships with Priam, Paris, and Hector. Chapter 3 considers Andromache’s complex relationship with Hector. And Chapter 4 looks at Briseis’ relationships with Achilles and Patroclus. / 2020-11-07T00:00:00Z