An ancient Greek proverb declares: ‘beautiful things are difficult’.Footnote 1 One obvious difficulty arises from their almost limitless variety: sights, sounds, people, natural phenomena, man-made objects and abstract ideas may all be beautiful, but what do these things have in common? It is not just beauty's breadth of application, then, that makes it difficult, but the way in which its meaning varies depending on context. The beauty of a child may mean something quite different from the beauty of an old and wizened face, let alone the beauty of a supermodel. In common parlance, beautiful may be used as a general term of approbation alongside others like lovely or fine, while in academic discourse, the word beauty has a life of its own: since the emergence of aesthetics as an independent discipline in the mid eighteenth century, beauty has been constantly theorized and responded to in different ways that have laden the term with its own peculiar historical baggage.Footnote 2 And although some of these philosophical reflections on beauty may have trickled into the common cultural consciousness, in general they seem a far cry from beauty's most ubiquitous incarnation in modern Western society, in the cosmetics industry; to put it another way, if you go into a beauty salon in search of a Kantian ideal of disinterested contemplation, I suspect you will be disappointed.
All this goes to show that beauty is a protean beast, notoriously slippery in the hands of those who try to define it. The lack of a clearly defined concept of beauty certainly poses a challenge to those wishing to explore ancient attitudes to beauty, but it is not insurmountable. The enquiry calls for an approach that is attentive to the historical contingency of our ideas and the potential discrepancies between ancient and modern conceptual categories.Footnote 3 From our brief sketch of beauty's various modern uses and permutations, it is clear that we should not expect to find a Greek concept that bears precisely the same range and depth of meanings. But what common features make beauty identifiable across time and place? In general terms, beauty pertains to the attractive way in which things appear. At the most basic level of perception, beauty pleases: beautiful things attract and demand our attention because they please us. Yet, beyond this basic element of pleasure, any number of emotional and cognitive responses to beauty is possible: delight, desire, wonder, sadness, even fear.Footnote 4 The important point is that beauty is affective. To call something ‘beautiful’ is to make a claim not just about how something appears but about how it makes you feel. What is at stake is a special kind of relationship between appearance and experience, between the properties of perceptual objects and the effects they have. Nowhere is this clearer than in Homer's representation of Helen, whose beauty is conveyed not just by her appearance ‘like the immortal goddesses’ but by its extraordinary agency over the Greeks and the Trojans: her appearance is a justifiable cause, so the Trojan elders say, for ten years suffering in war.Footnote 5
This paper investigates some of our earliest literary evidence for Greek views on beauty: the Iliad and the Odyssey. How does Homer express beauty? What words, if any, does he have for ‘beauty’ and ‘beautiful’? How else does the poet express beauty without an explicit word for ‘beauty’ or ‘beautiful’? Semantic studies on Greek beauty have focussed almost exclusively on the adjective καλός, though David Konstan's recent work has brought its cognate noun κάλλος into the picture.Footnote 6 The Greek terminology for beauty, however, was far from limited to a single semantic family. What we find in the Iliad and the Odyssey is a rich and diverse terminology for expressing beauty in nuanced ways. To achieve a well-rounded understanding of Homeric and early Greek attitudes to beauty, therefore, we must interrogate these various ways of expressing beauty, their relationship with one another and with our own ideas about beauty. Exploring ancient attitudes to an unstable concept such as beauty must begin as an exercise in translation, ever attentive, in Matthew Arnold's words, to ‘the shade, the fine distinction’ of semantic meaning.Footnote 7
I. ‘BEAUTY’ AND ‘BEAUTIFUL’
As the most prolific word in Homer's terminology for beauty, καλός seems an appropriate place to begin. With over three hundred appearances, καλός is one of the most common adjectives in the Homeric poems, applied to everything from people, animals and armour, to songs, buildings and natural phenomena.Footnote 8 In most cases, ‘beautiful’ is an apt translation of καλός in its denotation of a general attractive aspect of appearance common to such a broad spectrum of visible and audible objects. The same applies to the cognate adjective περικαλλής, which intensifies the meaning of καλός and is only applied to visible objects in Homer; in signifying attractive physical appearance, it may be rendered as ‘most beautiful’ or ‘exquisite’ in each case.Footnote 9
Significantly, however, καλός also shades towards meaning simply ‘good’: ‘it is kalos to do this’, for instance, is a standard way of saying ‘it is good/appropriate to do this’.Footnote 10 Whether καλός designates an aspect of appearance or quality, therefore, is often hard to disentangle, especially for material objects: does τεύχεα καλά mean ‘beautiful armour’ or ‘good armour’ in the sense of ‘well-made’?Footnote 11 The semantic range of καλός seems to imply that if something looks good, then it is good. As a result, some scholars have wondered whether the Greeks were even able to differentiate between (say) a person's beauty and their moral virtue, or between a material object's beauty and its quality of manufacture.Footnote 12 The latter case—to which we will return—is certainly difficult, but when it comes to people, Homer clearly shows that καλός can denote beauty without implying moral virtue or excellence of character.
The obscure Greek soldier Nireus is described as ‘the most beautiful [κάλλιστος] man that came to Troy … after the blameless son of Peleus [Achilles]; but he was weak [ἀλαπαδνός] and few people followed him.’Footnote 13 That Nireus was κάλλιστος, ‘most beautiful’, clearly does not imply that he was also especially excellent in character, for he lacks the heroic essentials of strength and a large following.Footnote 14 In another instance, however, καλός signifies precisely the kind of appearance that manifests nobility and prowess. At the sight of Agamemnon, Priam eulogizes: he comments how he is ‘good and big’ (ἠΰς τε μέγας τε) and claims: ‘never have I seen with my eyes a man so kalos, nor so majestic; for he has the look of a king.’Footnote 15 The emphasis on regal and majestic appearance suggests that καλός here means something closer to ‘noble in appearance’ than ‘beautiful’.
The examples of Nireus and Agamemnon show that (in Homer at least) καλός connotes no single claim to the relation between appearance and character: the adjective can convey both the superficial beauty of Nireus and the noble and distinguished appearance that affirms Agamemnon's status as the most powerful Achaean king.Footnote 16 Ranging from ‘beautiful’ to ‘noble in appearance’ for people, and from ‘beautiful’ to ‘good’ for objects and ideas, καλός both subsumes and surpasses the range of the English word beautiful.Footnote 17
To understand how καλός relates to other Homeric terms and expressions for beauty, we must explore the common properties of things that are καλός and what responses they evoke. Priam's description of Agamemnon introduces one of the most common properties: bigness. In his own words, Achilles is ‘beautiful and big’ (καλός τε μέγας τε), just like Ares and Athena on his shield, ‘beautiful and big in their armour (καλὼ καὶ μεγάλω σὺν τεύχεσιν).Footnote 18 Throughout Homeric epic, men and women described as καλός are often big, and this also applies to animals and material objects:Footnote 19 Rhesus’ horses are ‘the most beautiful … and biggest’ (καλλίστους … ἠδὲ μεγίστους);Footnote 20 Hecuba's peplos for Athena is ‘most beautiful in its embroideries and biggest’ (κάλλιστος … ποικίλμασιν ἠδὲ μέγιστος).Footnote 21
Radiance is another outstanding quality of things that are καλός, like Hecuba's peplos, which ‘shone like a star’ (ἀστὴρ δ’ ὣς ἀπέλαμπεν).Footnote 22 The Homeric lexicon contains a panoply of terms to convey the radiance often possessed by things that are καλός:Footnote 23 Hera's tresses are ‘shining, beautiful’ (φαεινοὺς καλούς);Footnote 24 her ‘beautiful veil … was white like the sun’ (κρηδέμνῳ … καλῷ … λευκὸν δ’ ἦν ἠέλιος ὥς);Footnote 25 ‘the brightness of Achilles’ beautiful, cunningly wrought shield reached heaven’ (Ἀχιλλῆος σάκεος σέλας αἰθέρ’ ἵκανε | καλοῦ δαιδαλέου).Footnote 26
Achilles’ shield exemplifies another feature characteristic of καλός objects: skilful manufacture, illustrated most often by the juxtaposition of καλός with δαιδάλεος, derived from δαιδάλλω, ‘to work cunningly’, ‘embellish’.Footnote 27 Like its cognates δαίδαλος and πολυδαίδαλος, δαιδάλεος contains not only a sense of craft but also quality, intricacy and skill in craftsmanship.Footnote 28 Their common association with καλός objects therefore underpins the slippage between an object's beauty and excellence of kind implied by the semantic range of καλός. Similar to δαιδάλεος in its range of application, association with καλός objects, and connotation of intricate, skilful manufacture is the adjective ποικίλος, which also variously denotes polychromy, elaborate adornment and embroidery.Footnote 29 Antinous gives Penelope, for instance, ‘a big, most beautiful peplos, intricately embroidered in many colours’ (μέγαν περικαλλέα πέπλον, | ποικίλον).Footnote 30
In addition to bigness, radiance and skilful manufacture, the precious metals gold, silver and bronze have an important place in the catalogue of common properties of things that are καλός.Footnote 31 Menelaus’ ‘most beautiful’ (κάλλιστον) treasure is a mixing-bowl ‘all of silver, its rims finished with gold’ (ἀργύρεος … ἅπας, χρυσῷ δ’ ἐπὶ χείλεα κεκράανται).Footnote 32 Encapsulated by the prolific expression καλός χρύσειος, ‘beautiful, golden’, the association of καλός with gold is particularly strong.Footnote 33
So much for the physical properties of things that are καλός. What about their effects? Desire and wonder stand out. Hermes ‘desired’ (ἠράσατ’) Polymele, ‘beautiful in the dance’ (χορῷ καλή), just as Tyro ‘desired’ (ἠράσσατ’) Enipeus, ‘the most beautiful of rivers’ (κάλλιστος ποταμῶν).Footnote 34 The sight of Athena's ‘most beautiful light’ (φάος περικαλλές) is a ‘wonder’ (θαῦμα) to Telemachus, while Hephaestus assures Thetis that he will make for Achilles ‘beautiful armour [τεύχεα καλά], such that any mortal man will wonder at [θαυμάσσεται]’.Footnote 35
Pleasure and delight are pervasive responses to mousikē in Homer and, although music, dance and song need not be καλός to have this effect, the connection is discernible on a number of occasions.Footnote 36 Apollo ‘took pleasure’, ‘delighted as he listened’ (τέρπετ’ ἀκούων) to the Achaeans singing ‘the beautiful paean’ (καλὸν … παιήονα).Footnote 37 Likewise, the Sirens sing to Odysseus in their ‘beautiful voice’ (ὄπα κάλλιμον) that if he stay with them a while, he will go on his way ‘having delighted … and knowing more’ (τερψάμενος … καὶ πλείονα εἰδώς).Footnote 38 Allied with the promise of knowledge, the ‘beautiful’ quality of the Sirens’ song—otherwise described as ‘clear’ (λιγυρός) and ‘sweet-voiced’ (μελίγηρυς)—seems to contribute to its power to please and ‘charm [θέλγουσιν] all men’.Footnote 39 In other words, it is at least part of what makes the Sirens’ song so deadly—attracting, pleasing and luring men to their deaths.Footnote 40 The immediate context might suggest the pleasing effect of the Sirens’ ‘beautiful voice’, but the broader narrative complicates and enriches the picture: the pleasing effect of their song is the Sirens’ weapon of deception.Footnote 41
A good point of comparison is Odysseus’ tearful response to Demodocus’ song about the Trojan horse, which prompts Alcinous to interrupt the song, ‘for it is not pleasing [χαριζόμενος] to all’, and to ask Odysseus who he is.Footnote 42 Odysseus reassures his host that there is ‘nothing more pleasing’ (οὐ … τέλος χαριέστερον) than precisely his present situation: when ‘good cheer’ abounds among people as they dine, listen to a bard, and enjoy food and wine in plenty. ‘To me’, Odysseus says, ‘this seems to be the most beautiful thing’ (τοῦτό τί μοι κάλλιστον ἐνὶ φρεσὶν εἴδεται εἶναι).Footnote 43 But because of his personal investment in the subject of Demodocus’ song, Odysseus’ response to this ‘most beautiful’ situation is not unalloyed pleasure but intense sadness. This inversion of the expected affect is underscored by Odysseus’ reference to his ‘grievous troubles’ (κήδεα … στονόεντα) immediately after his portrayal of ‘this most beautiful thing’.Footnote 44 So although pleasure may be the expectation, narrative context—in this case, Odysseus’ personal story—conditions and complicates the response to καλός.Footnote 45
Desire, wonder, pleasure, even sadness: the adjective καλός is tied to an affective register in Homer and closely associated with a set of physical properties, namely bigness, radiance, skilful manufacture and precious metals. In their range of effects, καλός things present no great discrepancies with how beautiful things may affect us now, though there is no question that καλός is broader than the English adjective in its range of signification from ‘beautiful’ to ‘good’. By contrast, its cognate noun κάλλος is far more limited than our notion of beauty.
This is true for both its range of application and its meaning. While we may speak of the beauty of people, objects, ideas and practically anything else, for fifteen of its sixteen appearances in Homer, κάλλος is applied to anthropomorphic appearance. The exception is a ‘well-made silver mixing-bowl’ (ἀργύρεον κρητῆρα τετυγμένον) presented as a prize in the funeral games for Patroclus: ‘it could hold six measures, and surpassed in beauty [κάλλει ἐνίκα] all others in the whole world, since Sidonians, skilled in crafts, fashioned it well [πολυδαίδαλοι εὖ ἤσκησαν].’Footnote 46 The large size of the mixing-bowl, the fact that it is silver, and the emphasis on its expert manufacture—denoted by τετυγμένον and πολυδαίδαλοι εὖ ἤσκησαν—recall the outstanding properties of objects that are καλός. The effect of the mixing-bowl's ‘beauty’ is not explicit. But since it is presented as first prize in the contest, it seems reasonable to infer that its pre-eminent ‘beauty’ enhances its desirability as a possession for the victor.
This is underpinned by κάλλος’ application to people, where it has a strong connection with desire, as Konstan has highlighted.Footnote 47 The desire inspired by κάλλος is often either implicitly or explicitly sexual. Homeric women are courted and married ‘for the sake of their kallos’, and men like Ganymede and Cleitus abducted by the gods ‘on account of their kallos’.Footnote 48 And like other desirable human attributes, κάλλος is presented as a divine blessing: heroes and heroines are said to have ‘beauty from the gods’ (θεῶν ἄπο κάλλος).Footnote 49
In Odyssey Book 18 Homer envisages a very literal take on this epic formula, as Athena endows Penelope with ‘immortal gifts in order that the Achaeans would marvel [θηησαίατ’] at her’;Footnote 50 Athena's motivation for this ploy is that Penelope ‘win greater honour from her husband and son’.Footnote 51 Athena washes Penelope's face with ‘immortal beauty’ (κάλλεϊ … ἀμβροσίῳ), presented here like a physical ointment that Aphrodite uses when ‘she joins the desirable [ἱμερόεντα] dance of the Charites’.Footnote 52 And ‘she made her bigger and fuller in appearance, and whiter than sawn ivory’ (μακροτέρην καὶ πάσσονα θῆκεν ἰδέσθαι, | λευκοτέρην δ’ ἄρα μιν θῆκε πριστοῦ ἐλέφαντος).Footnote 53 The erotic power of Penelope's divinely endowed κάλλος is palpable: at the sight of her, the suitors went ‘weak at the knees, their hearts charmed by eros [ἔρῳ δ’ ἄρα θυμὸν ἔθελχθεν], and they all prayed to go to bed with her’.Footnote 54
So the Achaeans marvel at Penelope as Athena intended, while the deceptive potential of Penelope's erotic beauty is suggested by the use of the verb ἔθελχθεν, ‘charmed’, ‘beguiled’. In this state of erotic enchantment, the suitors are easily exploitable, as Penelope coaxes from them a shower of gifts vainly hoped to win her affection—much to Odysseus’ delight, for he recognizes Penelope's ulterior motives.Footnote 55 And so Athena achieves her aim of enhancing Penelope's honour in the eyes of her husband. The narrative sequence therefore reveals how the goddess harnesses the erotic agency of κάλλος to manipulate the suitors and benefit Odysseus and Penelope. The suitors’ immediate response and the narrative sequence underline the noun's strong connection with desire. Unlike its cognate adjective καλός, the noun κάλλος in Homer is limited in its range of meaning and application: it unambiguously signifies ‘beauty’ in the narrow sense of desirable physical appearance.Footnote 56
Yet, something of the conceptual breadth of the modern notion of beauty is approximated by the Greek noun χάρις, derived from the Indo-European ancestor *gher- meaning ‘pleasure’, ‘delight’.Footnote 57 χάρις has two essential spheres of meaning. On the one hand, it refers to an ideal of social reciprocity, of ‘pleasure’ from favours given and received.Footnote 58 On the other, χάρις signifies an aesthetic quality possessed by people, objects and immaterial things that attracts, charms and pleases. In this context, χάρις approximates the modern notion of beauty, as some scholars have recognized.Footnote 59 The relationship between χάρις and κάλλος as Greek words for ‘beauty’, however, has been neglected. So how do they compare and what can this tell us about Homeric and early Greek attitudes to beauty?
After Odysseus’ supplication of Nausicaa in Odyssey Book 6, Athena steps in as his personal beautician: she pours ‘charis on his head and shoulders’, makes his hair like flowers of hyacinth and, as she did for Penelope, makes him ‘bigger and stouter’ (μείζονά … καὶ πάσσονα).Footnote 60 Just as bigness reappears, so too gold and silver: Athena enhances Odysseus’ appearance with χάρις like a craftsman overlaying silver with gold in the creation of ‘pleasing works’ (χαρίεντα … ἔργα).Footnote 61 Odysseus thus appears κάλλεϊ καὶ χάρισι στίλβων, ‘glistening with kallos and charis’; evidently a seductive sight, as Nausicaa ‘marvelled’ (θηεῖτο) at him, quietly longing for such a man to be her husband.Footnote 62 The synonymity of κάλλος and χάρις here is remarkable: ‘glistening with desirable beauty and pleasurable beauty’ (though an ugly translation) perhaps best conveys their similarity and subtle distinction.Footnote 63 Yet, when Athena beautifies Odysseus to facilitate his long-awaited reunion with Penelope, even that distinction is blurred. Introduced with Athena pouring ‘much kallos’ on Odysseus, the passage concludes with ‘so she poured charis on his head and shoulders’.Footnote 64 κάλλος and χάρις thus appear interchangeable as Homeric words for ‘beauty’.
The difference between the two nouns becomes clear, however, when Athena pours χάρις on Odysseus before the assembled Phaeacians. Again she makes him ‘bigger and stouter’ (μακρότερον καὶ πάσσονα), and here the goddess’ purpose is explicit: she enhances his appearance with χάρις ‘in order that he would be philos to all the Phaeacians and deinos and aidoios’.Footnote 65 As before, Odysseus’ χάρις has a pleasing effect, the sort that may make the Phaeacians ‘marvel [θηήσαντο] at the sight of him’, and make him φίλος—‘dear’, ‘welcomed’, ‘loved’.Footnote 66 But this pleasing effect is untouched by the erotic overtones that characterized the appearances of χάρις alongside κάλλος in the episodes with Nausicaa and Penelope. In contrast, this χάρις may engender the perception of Odysseus as δεινός τ᾽ αἰδοῖός τε, ‘respected and revered’, two qualities that in Homer underline social authority.Footnote 67
Though at times interchangeable, therefore, χάρις differs from κάλλος in its greater freedom from desire. Both nouns point to an attractive aspect of appearance that pleases and inspires aesthetic admiration: signified by the verb θηέομαι, beholders ‘marvel’, ‘gaze in wonder’ at χάρις and κάλλος.Footnote 68 Furthermore, they are both connected with gold, silver and impressive stature, and both represented as forms of radiance: like Odysseus, Paris ‘glistens with kallos’ (κάλλεΐ τε στίλβων), and ‘charis shone from’ (χάρις δ’ ἀπελάμπετο) the earrings of Hera and Penelope.Footnote 69 But while κάλλος is bound to desirability, the ‘pleasurable beauty’ denoted by χάρις embraces a broader spectrum of pleasing and compelling appearances, both those that are erotically attractive and those that provoke reverence and respect.Footnote 70 In this way, Homer's use of χάρις is closer to the modern notion of beauty than his use of κάλλος. Just as the beauty of a supermodel and of an old and wizened face may come together despite their differences under beauty's broad conceptual wing, so might χάρις embrace such a range of appearances, all endowed with the power to please our eyes and mind but for very different reasons.Footnote 71
χάρις’ greater range of application than that of κάλλος in Homer reaffirms its greater proximity to the modern notion of beauty. With one exception (Achilles’ mixing-bowl), κάλλος is exclusively applied to anthropomorphic appearance in Homer. By contrast, χάρις denotes a kind of ‘beauty’ possessed not just by people and objects but by words and deeds as well.Footnote 72 It seems then that χάρις signifies an aesthetic property comparable to the modern notion of beauty in both its conceptual breadth and its range of application. At their core, Homeric χάρις and modern beauty share a broad sense of pleasure-bearing power.
The same power to please characterizes the noun's derivative adjective χαρίεις. Although something may be χαρίεις—‘pleasing’, ‘attractive’—for any reason, the adjective is most often applied to visible objects such as clothes and human features, where the sense is ‘physically attractive’, that is, the conventional meaning of beautiful. As we might expect, therefore, the adjectives χαρίεις and καλός sometimes work in tandem as equivalent aesthetic terms like their cognate nouns:Footnote 73 Helenus recommends the ‘most attractive’ (χαριέστατος) peplos as an offering for Athena, and Hecuba duly chooses the peplos that is ‘most beautiful’ (κάλλιστος).Footnote 74 As Homeric terms for ‘beauty’ and ‘beautiful’, the καλός–κάλλος and χάρις–χαρίεις semantic families demonstrate a high degree of conceptual overlap and interconnection, discernible in their range of meanings, associated affects and physical properties. That said, each term has its own peculiar aesthetic connotations, whether it is the ontological associations of the adjective καλός, the noun κάλλος’ connection with desire, or the broad idea of pleasure-bearing power conveyed by χάρις and χαρίεις.
Yet, Homer has a further set of words meaning ‘beauty’ and ‘beautiful’ in nuanced ways: the adjective ἀγλαός and its derivative noun ἀγλαΐη. The adjective ἀγλαός is applied to a variety of visual objects: gifts, prizes, people, Achilles’ limbs, women's handiwork, water and sacred groves.Footnote 75 What common feature denoted by ἀγλαός do these diverse things possess? Although it is often interpreted as connoting radiance, the range and the distribution of its application suggest rather that ἀγλαός points to affect.Footnote 76 It is noteworthy, for instance, that ἀγλαός is the most common Homeric word to qualify objects given from one person to another in order to delight and honour the recipient. Above all, this applies to ‘gifts’ (ἀγλαὰ δῶρα) but also to ‘ransom’ (ἄποινα) and ‘prizes’ (ἄεθλα).Footnote 77 That ἀγλαός designates a general delightful quality is underpinned by its likely derivation from ἀγάλλομαι, ‘to delight in’, ‘exult in’, ‘be proud of’.Footnote 78 It seems that, like the use of beautiful in colloquial expressions such as ‘what a beautiful day’, ἀγλαός is a general term of approbation with a nuance of delight.
In many cases, such as water, sacred groves, Achilles’ limbs and women's handiwork, it is evidently the physical appearance of objects that makes them ἀγλαός, and here ‘beautiful’ makes an apt approximation.Footnote 79 The adjective's appearance in conjunction with καλός and χαρίεις reinforces this sense. Circe's ‘big web’ is one of those ‘delicate and attractive and beautiful works’ (λεπτά τε καὶ χαρίεντα καὶ ἀγλαὰ ἔργα) that goddesses make;Footnote 80 the evocation of their bigness and affective power to please (χαρίεις) and delight (ἀγλαός) underscores the expression of their beauty. Likewise, Achilles’ old armour is described as ‘massive, a wonder to behold, beautiful’ (πελώρια θαῦμα ἰδέσθαι | καλά); such were Peleus’ ἀγλαὰ δῶρα—‘glorious/delightful/beautiful gifts’—from the gods.Footnote 81
In this instance, the aesthetic properties of the armour seem instrumental to why they are ἀγλαός. But we cannot always be sure. Like the potential ambiguity of objects that are χαρίεις—which may be ‘pleasing’ aesthetically or otherwise—we may wonder whether ‘gifts’ can be ἀγλαός, ‘delightful’, ‘splendid’, simply by virtue of being given rather than because of their appearance.Footnote 82 Like καλός and χαρίεις, therefore, ἀγλαός does not unambiguously signify ‘beautiful’. All three adjectives intersect with and diverge from the word beautiful in different ways—a relationship which, if nothing else, may clarify the cultural contingency of what we deem worthy of the label beautiful.
The cognate noun ἀγλαΐη, by contrast, is more specific as a Homeric word for ‘beauty’. For five of its eight occurrences in Homeric epic, ἀγλαΐη refers to a general feature of physical appearance which only living beings—humans and animals—may possess, unlike κάλλος and χάρις which apply both to people and to material objects. Unlike them, moreover, ἀγλαΐη has a special association with pride in appearance—further support, it seems, for its derivation with ἀγλαός from ἀγάλλομαι, ‘to delight in’, ‘exult in’, ‘be proud of’.Footnote 83 This association with pride is best illustrated by Homer's simile of a horse to analogize the charge into battle of Paris and Hector respectively.Footnote 84 The poet likens each to a horse that races across the plain κυδιόων, ‘exulting’, ‘bearing himself proudly’. The sense of pride in appearance continues in the description of the horse as ‘he holds his head high, and his mane streams around his shoulders’. All this amounts to the horse ἀγλαΐηφι πεποιθώς: ‘trusting in his splendour’ or ‘confident in his beauty’.Footnote 85
Allied with this element of pride, ἀγλαΐη has a connotation with superficial good looks. At the sight of his old dog Argus, the disguised Odysseus wonders whether the hound has speed to match his ‘fine form’ (καλὸς … δέμας) or is like one of those ‘table dogs’ that ‘masters tend for the sake of their aglaïē’, that is, ‘for their [superficial] beauty’, ‘for the sake of show’.Footnote 86 Is Argus the canine equivalent of Nireus, beautiful only in appearance, or, like Achilles, is his beauty matched by excellence? In contrast to the sort of appearance that manifests ability, ἀγλαΐη is here used to denote a superficial kind of beauty.Footnote 87
When applied to women, ἀγλαΐη betrays the same set of nuances. The ‘beautiful-cheeked’ (καλλιπάρῃος) housemaid Melantho is warned by Odysseus that someday ‘you may lose all the beauty [ἀγλαΐην] in which now you surpass the other housemaids’.Footnote 88 Abusive, ungrateful and deceitful, Melantho is one of the most detestable characters in the Odyssey; conveyed with the noun ἀγλαΐη, her beauty is clearly only skin deep. This connotation is reaffirmed by the noun's link with cosmetics. When Eurynome encourages Penelope to wash and anoint her cheeks before presenting herself to the suitors, Penelope says that it is no use because ‘the gods destroyed … [her] beauty’ (ἀγλαΐην … θεοὶ … ὤλεσαν) when Odysseus left for Troy.Footnote 89 So Penelope believes she has lost the ἀγλαΐη, ‘the glamorous beauty’, she had twenty years ago, but thanks to Athena she has enough κάλλος, ‘desirable beauty’, to weaken the suitors’ knees.
For both Penelope and Melantho, moreover, ἀγλαΐη is represented as a quality one loses, perhaps suggesting the noun's association with youthful good looks: just as Penelope believes she has lost her ἀγλαΐη of twenty years ago, so Melantho's ἀγλαΐη may soon fade.Footnote 90 In sum, ἀγλαΐη primarily denotes a superficial glamorous kind of beauty marked by a certain pageantry, which corresponds with the use of the word beauty in the modern cosmetics industry.Footnote 91
Rather than one word for ‘beauty’ and one for ‘beautiful’, Homer has three sets of alternatives which are conceptually interconnected yet distinguished by their various semantic and aesthetic idiosyncrasies: κάλλος and καλός; χάρις and χαρίεις; ἀγλαΐη and ἀγλαός. Yet, Homer's terminology for beauty does not stop there for the simple reason that expressing beauty does not depend on an explicit word for ‘beauty’ or ‘beautiful’.
II. IMPLICIT EXPRESSIONS
The Homeric lexicon contains a variety of terms and formulaic expressions that convey beauty without one of the more obvious lexical suspects so far discussed. Let us begin with the nouns ἄγαλμα, κόσμος and μορφή. Derived from ἀγάλλομαι, the noun ἄγαλμα follows naturally from the preceding discussion of ἀγλαΐη and ἀγλαός.Footnote 92 What an ἄγαλμα is varies considerably: a horse, an ivory cheekpiece, the Trojan horse, a necklace, a brooch, and gold and woven goods are all ἀγάλματα in Homer.Footnote 93 What an ἄγαλμα does, however, remains consistent: as its etymology suggests, it is an object that is a source of simultaneous pride, pleasure and delight to its owner. In other words, an ἄγαλμα is defined by its pleasing effects, and this explains why for five of its eight occurrences in Homer the noun describes gifts, both for humans and for gods—a notable similarity with the common application of ἀγλαός to δῶρα, ‘gifts’. It is clear, moreover, that the pleasing effects of ἀγάλματα are inseparable from their aesthetic properties.
Nestor employs a goldsmith to gild the horns of a sacrificial heifer for Athena ‘in order that the goddess might look at the agalma and be pleased’ (ἵν’ ἄγαλμα θεὰ κεχάροιτο ἰδοῦσα).Footnote 94 The gilded heifer is an ἄγαλμα because of the pleasure—signified by χαίρω, cognate with χάρις—it may give Athena's eyes and the honour and pride she may experience as its recipient. As gold beautifies the beast for the deity's aesthetic pleasure, the passage recalls Athena's beautification of Odysseus when she pours χάρις on him like a craftsman pouring gold on silver in the creation of ‘pleasing works’.Footnote 95
The description of Odysseus’ ‘shining brooch’, which Penelope gave to him ‘to be an agalma’, similarly instantiates forms and affects common to other Homeric terms and expressions for beauty.Footnote 96 Not just golden and radiant, it is also δαίδαλον, ‘cunningly wrought’, depicting a ‘dappled fawn’ (ποικίλον ἐλλόν), and inspires the ‘wonder’ of all onlookers (τὸ δὲ θαυμάζεσκον ἅπαντες).Footnote 97 The beautiful visual properties of the brooch are instrumental to its status as an ἄγαλμα, ‘an object of delight’, ‘a pride and joy’, for Odysseus.
It is noteworthy that the brooch is an ἄγαλμα specifically for Odysseus, not his admiring onlookers. In other words, an ἄγαλμα is a possession, whether of gods or of humans.Footnote 98 This sense is clear when Homer envisages a woman who ‘stains ivory with crimson dye … to make a cheekpiece for horses; it is kept in a chamber, and many horsemen pray to wear it. But it is kept there as an agalma for the king, both an ornament [κόσμος] for a horse and an honour [κῦδος] for the rider’.Footnote 99 The ἄγαλμα is an ‘ornament’, ‘adornment’ (κόσμος) for a horse by enhancing its attractiveness, and confers ‘honour’, ‘glory’ (κῦδος) on its owner because of its attractive appearance and the admiration it inspires. It is fair to say then that the noun ἄγαλμα makes its own peculiar contribution to Homer's terminology for beauty: it denotes an object that by virtue of its beautiful visual properties is a source of pride, pleasure and delight for its owner, and is therefore invested in the social dynamics of honour mediated by desirable material possessions.Footnote 100
Without this notion of ownership, the ἄγαλμα of the ivory cheekpiece would be simply a κόσμος, an ‘ornament’, ‘adornment’, as it is for the horse. κόσμος, then, is something that enhances physical attractiveness, as does Hera's κόσμος in her seduction of Zeus. The scene of Hera's toilette is perhaps the most emphatic representation of any character's beauty in Homer. This is conveyed not just by the repetition of καλός four times in short succession—her skin, hair, veil and sandals are all ‘beautiful’—and the fact that ‘great beauty [χάρις] shone from’ her earrings but also by the appearance of some familiar physical properties: her hair, veil and feet are radiant; her dress is decorated with ‘many cunning embellishments’ (δαίδαλα πολλά); the pins fastening her dress are golden.Footnote 101 The sum total of these beautiful adornments is πάντα … κόσμον, ‘all her finery’—fit for seducing and deceiving Zeus, just as Aphrodite's ‘beautiful, golden’ and radiant κόσμος seduces Anchises in her Homeric Hymn.Footnote 102
The examples of Hera and the horse suggest that κόσμος is more than conceptually contiguous with other terms and expressions for beauty: it denotes material adornment that has a beautifying effect. For the majority of its occurrences in Homer, however, κόσμος is used in adverbial expressions to mean ‘in order’, either in a physical sense of orderly formation and arrangement, or in an abstract sense of what is right and proper.Footnote 103 The semantic range of κόσμος, from ‘proper order’ to ‘adornment’, bears a telling resemblance to the semantic range of καλός, which also embraces everything from beautiful appearances to appropriate behaviour.Footnote 104 This semantic parallel is reaffirmed by their implicit assimilation in Odysseus’ response to Euryalus’ derisive comments. Odysseus tells Euryalus that he has ‘not spoken well’ (οὐ καλὸν ἔειπες), gives him a lecture on the different blessings of eloquence and physical appearance, then reasserts that Euryalus has ‘spoken in no due order’, ‘out of order’ (εἰπὼν οὐ κατὰ κόσμον).Footnote 105 Like καλός, the semantic range of κόσμος echoes the slippery and complex relationship between what is beautiful in appearance and what is right, proper and good.
Such semantic range may suggest the slippage between these qualities, but poetic narrative problematizes their relationship, at least for human beauty: Nireus is ‘most beautiful’ but also ‘weak’ and a leader of few.Footnote 106 Euryalus is another prime example of the potential dissonance between physical beauty and excellence of character. In his lecture to Euryalus, Odysseus imagines two hypothetical men: ‘one man is weaker in appearance [εἶδος ἀκιδνότερος], but god crowns his words with shapeliness [μορφήν]’; ‘the other is like the immortals in appearance [εἶδος … ἀλίγκιος ἀθανάτοισιν], but beauty [χάρις] does not crown his words’.Footnote 107 Euryalus is like the latter, blessed in looks but deficient in mind and eloquence: ‘so too’, Odysseus concedes, ‘your appearance is outstanding [εἶδος μὲν ἀριπρεπές] … but your mind is empty [ἀποφώλιος]’.Footnote 108
The words of the second man lack ‘beauty’ (χάρις), unlike the words of the first man which possess μορφή. For its only other appearance in Homer, the noun μορφή is again a quality of words: it signifies the ‘shapeliness’ of Odysseus’ words according to Alcinous.Footnote 109 Although in later use μορφή can mean simply ‘form’, ‘shape’, for both its appearances in Homer it has a positive aesthetic sense: not the ‘form’ of words but ‘the beauty of their form’, their ‘shapeliness’.Footnote 110 The use of μορφή and χάρις together, moreover, exemplifies a familiar trope in Homer's aesthetic terminology: the use of discrete but conceptually interconnected and mutually supportive terms to convey beauty. The same is true for the expression of physical beauty in the passage: Euryalus’ ‘outstanding appearance’ is assimilated with his hypothetical counterpart who is ‘like the immortals in appearance’. Here, then, we have two more common Homeric methods of expressing human beauty. We will return to divine analogy shortly. First, let us explore the use of phrases with the physical properties εἶδος, δέμας, μέγεθος and φυή.
Piqued by Odysseus’ endless desire for his wife Penelope, the nymph Calypso points out that she can ‘claim to be no worse than her, neither in form nor in build’.Footnote 111 Calypso asserts her superior beauty according to a common Homeric formula: by combining an adjective—‘worse’ (χερείων)—with a word or words denoting general aspects of physical appearance—‘form’ (δέμας) and ‘build’ (φυή). In his reply, Odysseus adopts the same idiom, adding two further terms to the list: he acknowledges that Penelope is ‘weaker in appearance and size’ (εἶδος ἀκιδνοτέρη μέγεθός τ᾽). But Odysseus’ desire ‘to go home’ and reunite with his wife exceeds the seductive allure of Calypso's physical beauty.Footnote 112 Much like his tearful response to Demodocus’ song, Odysseus’ personal story defies the expected response to beauty, in this case the goddess’ superior appearance, size, form and build.
These four physical properties provide the basic standards by which Homeric individuals are physically differentiated: εἶδος (‘appearance’, ‘looks’); δέμας (‘form’, ‘shape’); μέγεθος (‘size’, ‘height’); φυή (‘form’, ‘build’).Footnote 113 Though inherently neutral terms, when combined with various adjectives like ‘better’ (ἀμείνων), ‘best’ (ἄριστος) and ‘admirable’ (ἀγητός), they are used to denote positive aspects of appearance.Footnote 114 But is a ‘best appearance’ a beautiful one in Homer? The potential ambiguity of such phrases is mitigated by their common appearance alongside other expressions for beauty. In Iliad Book 3, for instance, Paris has a ‘beautiful appearance’ (καλὸν εἶδος), ‘glistens with beauty’ (κάλλεΐ τε στίλβων) and is ‘best in looks’ (εἶδος ἄριστε).Footnote 115
Perhaps the best example of how Homer layers these various terms and expressions for beauty is in the episode with Penelope and the suitors. Enchanted by the sight of Penelope endowed with ‘immortal kallos’, Eurymachus exclaims: ‘you excel all women in appearance and height’ (περίεσσι γυναικῶν | εἶδός τε μέγεθός τε).Footnote 116 Yet, Penelope rejects his praise with the same idiom she used to convey her loss of ἀγλαΐη: ‘Eurymachus, the immortals destroyed my excellence in appearance and form [ἐμὴν ἀρετὴν εἶδός τε δέμας τε], when the Argives made for Ilium.’Footnote 117 In a single sequence, therefore, the poet uses four distinct yet overlapping expressions for Penelope's beauty. Whether it is the moralizing tone of ‘excellence in appearance and form’, the relativizing formula of excelling ‘all women in appearance and height’, the erotic lure of κάλλος or the glamour of ἀγλαΐη, each expression brings its connotations to bear in this nuanced portrait of Penelope's beauty.
In addition to this layering effect, phrases with εἶδος, δέμας, μέγεθος and φυή stand out as Homer's favourite way of defining relative beauty. More often than he employs a word for ‘beauty’ or ‘beautiful’, Homer compares how beautiful people are in terms of their ‘appearance’, ‘form’, ‘height’ and ‘build’.Footnote 118 Penelope excels ‘all women in appearance and height’, just as Calypso knows she must be no worse than Penelope in ‘neither form nor build’. As the standard criteria by which people are physically differentiated in the Homeric poems, it makes perfect sense that these four properties also provide the physical criteria by which the relative beauty of people (and gods) is assessed, calibrated and understood. The earliest evidence for Greek beauty-contests reaffirms this tendency outside Homeric epic: Alcaeus refers to women on Lesbos κριννόμεναι φύαν, ‘being judged in form’.Footnote 119 Likewise, in Hesiod's Catalogue of Women, phrases with εἶδος are a pervasive means of both expressing and relativizing beauty: this past age abounded with women ‘lovely in appearance’, who ‘rivalled the immortal goddesses in appearance’.Footnote 120
As in the Catalogue, so in Homeric epic, the gods are paradigms of anthropomorphic beauty. Calypso clearly articulates this assumption when she points out that ‘it would by no means be right for mortal women to rival immortal goddesses in form and appearance’.Footnote 121 Gods are more beautiful than humans, and it is for this reason that divine analogy provides a common method of expressing beauty. Of course, not every comparison of a human to a god emphasizes beauty. Exceptional strength, power and wits also assimilate humans to gods, but physical beauty has an important place in this catalogue of godlike attributes, as it represents the outstanding difference between human and divine appearance.Footnote 122 Generalized comparisons are prolific: phrases such as ‘godlike in appearance’ (θεοειδής), ‘resembling a god’ (θεῷ ἐναλίγκιος), ‘looking like the goddesses’ (ἐϊκυῖα θεῇσιν) and ‘in form like the immortals’ (δέμας ἀθανάτοισιν ὁμοῖος) emphasize both the beauty of Homer's heroes and heroines and their remarkable proximity with the gods.Footnote 123
And just as these general comparisons highlight a defining feature of Homer's mythical world—the proximity of gods and heroes—so comparisons with specific deities highlight defining features of particular individuals at the same time as emphasizing their beauty. Homer expresses Nausicaa's beauty in various ways: she is both ‘like the immortal goddesses in form and appearance’ (ἀθανάτῃσι φυὴν καὶ εἶδος ὁμοίη) and ‘has beauty from the gods’ (θεῶν ἄπο κάλλος).Footnote 124 Her lengthy comparison to Artemis elaborates and refines the portrait of her beauty. She is likened to Artemis roving the mountains in pursuit of wild beasts, accompanied by her nymphs: ‘high above them all [Artemis] holds her head and brow, and easily is she recognized [ἀριγνώτη], though all [the nymphs] are beautiful [καλαί]. Just so did the unmarried maiden [παρθένος ἀδμής] stand out amid her handmaids.’Footnote 125 Nausicaa is distinguished by her height and beauty like Artemis, whose appearance in this wild guise mirrors Nausicaa's premarital status, as she too is ἀδμής, ‘untamed’, ‘unmarried’. But the simile also suggests Nausicaa's desirability as a bride by highlighting her outstanding beauty. The analogy thus helps define Nausicaa's peculiar social position in the epic: unwed though ready for marriage.Footnote 126
Similarly, Penelope's appearance ‘like Artemis or golden Aphrodite’ tells us something special about her.Footnote 127 Like Artemis, she is a model of chaste female beauty, renowned for her fidelity in her husband's twenty-year absence.Footnote 128 But she is also desirable like Aphrodite, drawing a host of suitors to her door.Footnote 129 In these specific divine analogies, Homer draws on his audience's knowledge of clearly differentiated divinities to enrich his mortal characters at the same time as illustrating their beauty.Footnote 130
Like all Homeric terms and expressions for beauty, therefore, divine analogy is distinguished by certain uses, connotations and implications which the poet harnesses for particular effects. Nowhere is this clearer than when Priam and Achilles are reconciled through their common mortality and suffering, which defines humans in contrast to the gods, who, Achilles says, ‘are free from sorrow’.Footnote 131 Yet, even in this moment of intense grief, Achilles and Priam are able to appreciate one another's beauty: ‘Priam wondered [θαύμαζ’] at Achilles, so big and such as he was; for he was like the gods to look at [θεοῖσι γὰρ ἄντα ἐῴκει]. And Achilles wondered [θαύμαζεν] at Dardanian Priam … and when they had taken pleasure [τάρπησαν] in looking at one another, the old man Priam, godlike in appearance [θεοειδής], spoke to him.’Footnote 132
At once indicative of his characteristic sensitivity to beauty, the passage demonstrates how Homer creatively exploits the particular connotations of divine analogy as a way to express beauty.Footnote 133 Both Achilles and Priam may look beautiful like gods, but this physical similarity only serves to underscore their essential difference from the gods which has framed their reconciliation. For unlike gods, suffering and death await them both; yet it is from this sad fact that compassion between two mortal enemies may emerge. The divine assimilation of Achilles and Priam simultaneously conveys their beauty and intensifies the poignancy of their realization of common suffering and humanity.
III. PHYSICAL PROPERTIES AND AFFECTS
In addition to a cluster of words for ‘beauty’ and ‘beautiful’, therefore, the Homeric lexicon contains a variety of implicit expressions of beauty. And like the various words for ‘beauty’ and ‘beautiful’, these implicit expressions are conceptually interconnected but marked by certain individual uses and connotations. Testimony to that interconnection is their common application to single objects: Homer frequently layers multiple terms and expressions for beauty, both for emphasis and for variety. The particular connotations of these various terms and phrases also allow the poet to enrich his representations of beauty with great subtlety and depth of nuance.
All very well, the reader may think, but is it not problematic to bring diverse ancient terms and phrases together under the modern conceptual umbrella of beauty? Does that not smack of anachronism? To group these diverse terms and phrases together is not to efface their differences or force them into a modern mould of beauty. Rather, it is to show that they share conceptual common-ground both with each other and, in various ways, with modern ideas about beauty, however elusive and mutable. What we are dealing with is a series of relationships: relationships between ancient terms, and relationships between ancient and modern ideas.
As for the latter, their inevitable discrepancies make these ‘beautiful things’ even more ‘difficult’ for modern interpreters, surrounded as they are by potential pitfalls of anachronism. But it is precisely this complex relationship between ancient and modern aesthetic ideas—their simultaneous similarity and difference—that makes them such intriguing and valuable objects of enquiry.Footnote 134 As for the relationships between ancient terms, these are in part discernible in their mutual association with certain physical properties and affects that have recurred throughout this paper. In other words, the expression of beauty in Homer is tied to a spectrum of affects—notably desire, wonder, admiration and pleasure—and a catalogue of physical properties—notably radiance, bigness, skilful manufacture and precious materiality, especially gold and silver.
The final part of this paper argues that such physical properties and affects can in themselves evoke a sense of beauty. Divine analogy works in a similar way: the representation of beauty by divine comparison is entirely oblique; the audience infers the mortal analogue's beauty because gods are known to be exceptionally beautiful. Likewise, their connection with beauty is such that at times these physical properties and affects can convey beauty too.
A simple example is the epithet ‘white-armed’ (λευκώλενος) for women and goddesses.Footnote 135 That the epithet suggests female beauty is indicated by Athena's beautification of Penelope, when she makes her ‘bigger and fuller in appearance and whiter than sawn ivory’.Footnote 136 Of course, it does not follow that everything white is beautiful; it is the aesthetic significance of whiteness for women in particular that gives the epithet its meaning.
But this is a quite specific case, and for others the sense may be less clear. Just because, say, bigness and wonder are often associated with beauty does not mean everything big and wonderful is beautiful: Polyphemos ‘was a massive wonder’ (θαῦμ’ ἐτέτυκτο πελώριον) but hardly beautiful.Footnote 137 ‘Wonder’ in Homer is not an exclusive response to beauty; surprising and lamentable things are also ‘wonders’, and it seems that for Polyphemos the latter sense prevails.Footnote 138 Sensitivity to context is therefore essential. For in another instance a ‘wonder’ appears synonymous with ‘beauty’: Neleus’ daughter, Pero, was ‘a wonder to mortals, whom all the men in the neighbourhood courted’ (θαῦμα βροτοῖσι, | τὴν πάντες μνώοντο περικτίται), much like her mother, ‘most beautiful [περικαλλέα] Chloris, whom Neleus married on account of her beauty [κάλλος]’.Footnote 139 In the context of courtship, then, the ‘wonder’ inspired by Pero is indicative of her beauty. Similarly, when eros and wonder combine in the representation of Aphrodite's ‘lovely/desirable clothes, a wonder to behold’ (εἵματα … ἐπήρατα, θαῦμα ἰδέσθαι), we can be fairly confident that this expresses their beauty.Footnote 140
Desire may be a common response to beauty, but this does not mean that every appearance of a word for ‘lovely’ or ‘desirable’—such as ἐπήρατος, ἐρατεινός, πολυήρατος and ἱμερόεις—evokes beauty. But it is important to acknowledge that on occasion they do—like Aphrodite's ‘lovely clothes’—and that they therefore have a place in Homer's terminology for beauty alongside words like χάρις and ἄγαλμα that also have the effect of beauty (pleasure and delight respectively) written into their semantics. The characterization of Hermione as Helen's ‘desirable daughter’ (παῖδ’ ἐρατεινήν), for instance, underlines the peculiar nature of her beauty, which is also implied by her assimilation to ‘golden Aphrodite’.Footnote 141 Beauty and desirability often appear as two sides of the same coin in Homer.Footnote 142 In some contexts, therefore, the former can be inferred from the latter: the ‘desirable dance’ (χορὸν ἱμερόεντα) of the Charites testifies to its beauty, just as in Alcman's choral lyric, the erotic impact of Astymeloisa is testimony to hers.Footnote 143
The appearance of Hagesichora in Alcman's first Partheneion echoes another familiar Homeric topos of aestheticization: Hagesichora's hair ‘blooms like undefiled gold, her face like silver’ (ἐπανθεῖ | χρυσὸς [ὡ]ς ἀκήρατος· | τό τ’ ἀργύριον πρόσωπον).Footnote 144 So, too, Rhesus’ ‘chariot well worked [εὖ ἤσκηται] with gold and silver’ suggests its beauty by virtue of the aesthetic connotations of gold, silver and skilful manufacture.Footnote 145 His ‘golden, massive armour, a wonder to behold’ (τεύχεα δὲ χρύσεια πελώρια θαῦμα ἰδέσθαι) demonstrates the same technique: the association of gold, bigness and wonder with material beauty is such that their depiction together aestheticizes Rhesus’ armour.Footnote 146
Dolon's comment that it is only appropriate for gods to wear such armour underscores this impression; such heights of beauty and magnificence are a divine preserve. No wonder, then, that gold is the divine material par excellence.Footnote 147 But more than any other deity, gold is associated with Aphrodite: her most common Homeric epithet is ‘golden’.Footnote 148 Is it coincidence that she is also distinguished by her beauty? And it is perhaps down to more than chance or the demands of versification that whenever she is compared with mortal women to emphasize their beauty, she appears as ‘golden Aphrodite’: Hermione had ‘the looks of golden Aphrodite’ (ἣ εἶδος ἔχε χρυσῆς Ἀφροδίτης), while Achilles would not marry Agamemnon's daughter ‘even if she rivalled golden Aphrodite in beauty’ (οὐδ’ εἰ χρυσείῃ Ἀφροδίτῃ κάλλος ἐρίζοι).Footnote 149
As far as physical properties are concerned, only radiance can claim a stronger connection with Homeric beauty than gold: the beauties of κάλλος and χάρις are themselves forms of radiance.Footnote 150 When gold and radiance appear together, therefore, the inference of beauty is hard to resist, let alone if skilful craftsmanship is added to the list: ‘expertly crafted … golden, strung with amber beads, like the sun’ (πολυδαίδαλον … χρύσεον, ἠλέκτροισιν ἐερμένον, ἠέλιον ὥς)—the physical properties of the necklace Eurymachus gives Penelope are all evocative of its beauty.Footnote 151 For the aestheticization of Odysseus’ tunic, by contrast, radiance combines with a common affect of beauty—aesthetic admiration—denoted by the verb θηέομαι: his ‘glittering tunic … was soft, and radiant like the sun; many women marvelled at it’ (χιτῶν’ … σιγαλόεντα … ἔην μαλακός, λαμπρὸς δ’ ἦν ἠέλιος ὥς. | ἦ μὲν πολλαί γ’ αὐτὸν ἐθηήσαντο γυναῖκες).Footnote 152
Radiance is fundamental to beauty in Homer, as it is in much archaic poetry:Footnote 153 Aphrodite's ‘immortal beauty’ (κάλλος … ἄμβροτον) shines from her cheeks in her Homeric Hymn;Footnote 154 to ‘have the sparkle of the Charites’ (Χαρίτων ἀμαρύγματ᾿ ἔχο[υσαν) is a recurrent formula for female beauty in the Catalogue of Women;Footnote 155 the ‘bright sparkle’ (κἀμάρυχμα λαμπρόν) of Anactoria's face is a mark of the beauty Sappho's speaker loves and longs for.Footnote 156 So where do we draw the line? Does everything radiant in Homer connote beauty?
Achilles is a case in point. The sight of Achilles, radiant in his armour like the star Orion—the ‘brightest’ (λαμπρότατος) star, an ‘evil sign’ (κακὸν … σῆμα) to mortals—terrifies Priam, who fears for his son's life.Footnote 157 Achilles’ ominous radiance recalls Athena's descent from heaven ‘like a star … a shining portent [τέρας … λαμπρόν] to sailors or a large army of people’.Footnote 158 And when Hector sees Achilles in his brazen armour shining ‘like the light of blazing fire or the rising sun’, he is overcome with ‘trembling’; the death and destruction presaged by Achilles’ godlike radiance is aimed squarely at him.Footnote 159 Ominous, godlike and terrifying, Achilles’ radiance is a far cry from the seductive sight of Paris or Odysseus ‘glistening with beauty’.Footnote 160 Perhaps it would be safer, then, to set Achilles’ brightness outside the realm of Homeric beauty.
And yet the culmination in this series of radiant apparitions should make us think twice.Footnote 161 At precisely the moment when he is at his most deadly and terrifying—in his final encounter with Hector—Homer emphasizes Achilles’ radiant beauty in arms: his shield is ‘beautiful, cunningly wrought’ (καλὸν δαιδάλεον); the plumes of his ‘shining helmet’ are ‘beautiful … golden’ (καλαί … χρύσεαι); most striking of all, his spear, with which he is about to kill Hector, is ‘like the evening star, the most beautiful star in heaven’ (οἷος δ’ ἀστὴρ … ἕσπερος, ὃς κάλλιστος ἐν οὐρανῷ … ἀστήρ).Footnote 162 Reminiscent of Demeter's and Aphrodite's epiphanies in their Homeric Hymns, Achilles’ radiance here is godlike, terrifying and beautiful—no less than sublime.Footnote 163 The passage therefore invites the possibility that his radiant manifestations leading up to this climactic moment similarly connote a sense of terrifying divine beauty.
Achilles is a good example, then, of the challenges we face in attempting to access that peculiarly Homeric sense of beauty. Bound to a culture of visual theology foreign to our own, the representation of Achilles’ terrifying divine beauty may seem alien to modern aesthetic expectations.Footnote 164 More than that, this series of apparitions highlights how the lines between what is radiant and what is beautiful are not always clearly drawn. Nor are those between what is beautiful and what is wonderful, desirable or admirable. Sensitivity to context is therefore essential for determining where the outer boundaries of Homeric beauty lie. They may be more fluid and less clear than perhaps we would like, but this kind of complication does not mean that we should ignore all those cases where things radiant, wonderful, desirable or admirable are expressive of beauty.Footnote 165 For however hermeneutically challenging, they have an integral place in the broad semantic field of Homeric beauty.
When the common physical properties and affects of Homeric beauty converge, then we are on firmer ground.Footnote 166 The choral scene of boys and girls on Achilles’ shield offers a well-known example. The rare use of the verb ποικίλλω to signify Hephaestus’ skilful and intricate manufacture of the image; the radiance of the boys’ ‘tunics glistening with oil’ (στίλβοντας ἐλαίῳ); their gold and silver daggers and baldrics; the ‘beautiful garlands’ (καλὰς στεφάνας) of the girls; the description of the audience ‘taking pleasure in the desirable chorus’ (ἱμερόεντα χορὸν … τερπόμενοι): the aesthetic connotations of these physical properties and affects work together to conjure an atmosphere of choral beauty.Footnote 167
In short, the common ingredients of Homeric beauty—its physical properties and affects—have an aestheticizing power of their own. This has two important consequences for our understanding of beauty in Homer. The first effect is a significant expansion of the semantic field of Homeric beauty; the second, more challenging effect is that Homeric beauty appears more nebulous, therefore underlining the necessity of attentiveness to context and contingency in clarifying ‘the shade, the fine distinction’ of aesthetic and semantic meaning.
The terminology for beauty in the Iliad and the Odyssey is profoundly rich: the expression of beauty is bound to a plethora of terms and phrases, physical properties and affects. Any reader of Homer will know that hardly ten verses go by without the appearance of one or other of these words or phrases. It is true that there is a danger in over-expanding the reach of beauty; the challenge for us is to be sensitive to ancient modes of aesthetic expression, to interrogate their relationships with one another, and to pursue their consequences for understanding ideas about beauty foreign to our own. For there is also a danger in shying away from beauty's potential vastness and complexity in Homer. The poet envisages a world where beauty matters: the aestheticization of everything from people and gods to household objects and natural phenomena is an essential element of what elevates Homer's mythical past above and beyond the historical present of the poem's performance and reception.
