Ἀτρείδην Ἀγαμέμνονα ποιμένα λαῶν
The epithet ποιμένα λαῶν ‘shepherd of the warriors’ is used most often of Agamemnon, to whom it is applied twelve times in the Iliad and three times in the Odyssey. But the phrase is also used of Nestor (three times in the Iliad; three in the Odyssey), Menelaos (two times in the Iliad; one in the Odyssey), and a number of other heroes, including Diomedes, Hektor (see on 10.406), and, in the Odyssey, Odysseus. The traditional epithet is the subject of the first of Milman Parry’s two doctoral theses published in 1928, theses which would revolutionize Homeric studies. Parry’s early work on the Homeric poems focuses on the traditional nature of the diction. L’Épithète traditionelle dans Homère; Essaie sur un problème de style homérique (= The Traditional Epithet in Homer) does not propose that the Homeric poems were composed orally, but theorizes that their traditional diction was the result of a system that had developed over a long period of time. Parry demonstrates both the utility of noun-epithet combinations in the composition of hexameter verse and the economy of Homeric diction, which rarely has more than one way of conveying what Parry calls “an essential idea” in the same metrical configuration. The principle of economy is so pervasive that Agamemnon can be called “shepherd of the warriors” even in instances where his leadership is not being stressed. This type of epithet is what Parry calls “ornamental” (MHV 21, 123–127). Since the epithet is applied to multiple heroes, it is also in Parry’s terms a generic epithet (MHV 64, 84–95). With respect to generic epithets, Parry says that the quality they express is one associated with heroes in general, rather than a hero in particular, and that the language is traditional and thus has a larger meaning for a traditional audience (MHV 137–138). Albert Lord has expanded on that idea: “The tradition feels a sense of meaning in the epithet, and thus a special meaning is imparted to the noun and to the formula … I would prefer to call it the traditionally intuitive meaning” (1960/2000:66; see also below on 10.144).
Therefore we need not make a choice between Parry’s groundbreaking revelations about the workings of Homeric diction and our appreciation of the beauty of this highly compressed metaphor, which names Agamemnon with reference to his role as the leader of the Achaean forces at Troy. As Parry’s student Albert Lord later shows, singers working within an oral composition-in-performance tradition can expand and compress their narratives under the influence of variety of factors. (See especially Lord 1960/2000:99–123.) In Homeric poetry, noun-epithet combinations are the ultimate compression of a hero’s story. (See Nagy 1990b: “A distinctive epithet is like a small theme song that conjures up a thought-association with the traditional essence of an epic figure, thing, or concept” [23], as well as Danek 2002:6.) For a traditional audience, these phrases conjure not just the present use but all previous performances, imbuing the language with what John Foley has discussed as “traditional referentiality” and “immanent art” (see especially Foley 1991 and 1999): “‘Grey-eyed Athena’ and ‘wise Penelope’ are thus neither brilliant attributions in unrelated situations nor mindless metrical fillers of last resort. Rather they index the characters they name, in all their complexity, not merely in one given situation or even poem but against an enormously larger traditional backdrop” (Foley 1999:18). Similarly, the metaphor of the shepherd is part of a traditional system of expanded associations whose more expanded implications are evoked even in this extremely compressed usage. (See Muellner 1990 and Edwards 1991:48–55.) For more on Parry’s work on generic epithets, see our extended discussion of them in connection with the epithet βοὴν ἀγαθός at 10.283.
This particular traditional metaphor of the shepherd juxtaposes, as we so often find in Homeric similes, peaceful pastoral life and war. When the epithet is used of Agamemnon and other heroes, it places them in a category of warriors who are also leaders and rulers. When we consider the poetics of shepherds from traditional Homeric similes, we can see that the metaphor emphasizes their responsibility to the warriors who follow them. Note, as an interesting contrast, that the dream that Zeus sends to Agamemnon in Book 2 tells him that a man who is responsible for the laoi and has so many concerns should not sleep all night long (2.24–25), while here that same shepherd of the laoi is indeed lying awake and cannot sleep.
By bringing their leadership into focus, this epithet also connects the heroes to other war narratives in which they play the leadership role. We can see why Agamemnon’s position as overall leader of the coalition at Troy attracts this particular formula twelve times in the Iliad. In the Odyssey, a poem that holds Agamemnon up as a negative exemplum for Odysseus throughout its narrative, the formula is only used of Agamemnon three times, and in all three of those cases Agamemnon is being remembered in his role as the leader of Achaean forces at Troy. Used of Diomedes, the epithet likely evoked for an ancient audience his role in the capture of Thebes as one of the Epigonoi; when it is used of Nestor, an association is made to the battles of the past that Nestor himself narrates at various points in the poem (see e.g. Iliad 11.668ff.). In this way the epithet has both paradigmatic significance, in that it places the hero in the category of leader, and syntagmatic meaning, in that it connects to specific expanded narratives about the hero in the larger epic tradition. (For more on the terms paradigmatic and syntagmatic, see Dué 2002:5–13.)