Classics and the Western Canon discussion
Discussion - Homer, The Odyssey
>
The Odyssey through Book 10
The story of the cyclops is one of my favorites, and it is one of the points in which I begin to have some problems with Odysseus. As far as I am concerned Odysseus was in the wrong here and I think that the Cyclops was treated unjustly in this instance. I have always been inclined to be sympathetic towards him. I do not think Odysseus acted very wisely nor very well in this circumstance. For one thing I have always had a problem with the way in which Odysseus decides to just invite himself into the Cyclops' cave and start helping himself to his stuff. He is acting a bit like a trespasser and a thief here. And I know in past discussions I have had on this subject before that people try to defend the actions of Odysseus by invoking the guest/host relationship and argue that Odysseus was entitled and acting according to the custom.
But I take a couple of issues with that argument in this instance. For one as seen in the example of Penelope and the suitors, the guest/host law does have its exceptions and does not apply in all situations, and seems in part dependent upon the way in which the guests conduct themselves.
Odysseus has the full intent of wanting to take advantage of the guest/host law, not to try and force the Cyclops to give over to him and his men as much of his stuff as they can wrangle out of him. When his men want to leave he insists they stay, it is just so he can try and get more goods for himself. He is not truly in need here, but seems to be acting out of greed and self-interest.
And when the Cyclops appears to discover Odysseus and his men inside of his home, he does not present himself as a very gracious quest. For one thing he starts out by lying to Cyclops to deceive him into thinking they were in greater need than there were by telling him there ship had wreaked, and than he includes a threat of the wrath of the gods should the Cyclops fail to comply in helping them.
It was our luck to come here; here we stand,
beholden for your help, or any gifts
you give-as custom is to honor strangers.
We would entreat you, great Sir, have a care
for the gods courtesy; Zeus will avenge
the unoffending guest
A not so veiled threat of what will befall the Cyclops if he fails to offer his help and his own possessions and goods to Odysseus and his men. I cannot blame the guy for being a bit irked by this.
The next problem I have with this encounter is that Odysseus describes the Cyclops as thus:
In the next land we found were Cyclops,
giants louts, without law to bless them.
In ignorance leaving the fruitage of the earth mystery to the immortal gods, they neither plow
nor sow by hand, nor till the ground, thought grain
wild wheat and barley grows untended, and
wine-grapes, in clusters, ripen in heaven's rain.
Cyclopes have no muster and no meeting,
no consultation or old tribal ways
A prodigious man
slept in this cave alone, and took his flocks
to graze afield remote from all companions,
knowing none but savage ways, a brute
so huge, he seemed no man at all of those
who eat good wheaten bread; but he seemed rather
a shaggy mountain reared in solitude
a wild man ignorant of civility
So Odysseus whom is supposed to be the wise one, acknowledges that the Cyclopes are savages, and know no law, and describes him as being this wild man, more akin to nature, looking more like a mountain than a man, and yet somehow he still thinks that it would be a good idea to wait around in his cave demand of him of obey the guest/host law?
That seems like very faulty logic, it would be akin to strolling into a lions den, and than expecting the lions to comply with the guest/host law.
In addition to the fact that I think the Cyclops got a raw deal here, I hold Odysseus fully responsible for the death of his man. He displayed both bad judgement as well as very bad leadership.
Yet he is applauded for the great cleverness he showed in getting them out of the situation of which it if it was not for him they never would have gotten into in the first place.
If Odysseus acted wrongly with the Cyclops, isn't it odd that it only comes out in his own narrative? He could easily have changed the story. Has he learned something?
Roger wrote: "If Odysseus acted wrongly with the Cyclops, isn't it odd that it only comes out in his own narrative? He could easily have changed the story. Has he learned something?"I am not certain if Odysseus or Homer concur that he was in the wrong, but that is just how I myself have always viewed it. I cannot bring himself to see how Odysseus was truly the hero in this circumstance, but I am not sure if the original Greek audience would concur with that assessment.
It seemed to me that it wasn't just the greed of wanting guest/host gifts that kept Odysseus in the cave, but some kind of circus-like craving to view the cyclops up close. "Their wholesome counsel rashly I declined,
Curious to view the man of monstrous kind"
I'm thinking of the stories I've read that involve some kid (sometimes adult) who is so obsessed with seeing a side-show attraction all sense goes out the window. In this perhaps Odysseus is wanting to draw his audience in wanting them to know he saw the Cyclops himself. Essentially Odysseus is the bard now and feels the need to entertain. It's not as cool if he saw the Cyclops from a distance.
Everyman wrote: "One is, how reliable a narrator is Odysseus?..."Was Odysseus the only source? I know his comrades are dead, but some stories in plays and myth come from dreams, oracle, the Gods, sometimes by the dead (we are going to Hades in the next book), and there are some witnesses. The inhabitants of the different islands, Circe, Polyphemos....
While Odysseus is the only source in the book, is he the only source for the tale period?
At the city of the Cicons, Odysseus learned that sacking cities is pretty risky. He blames his men for not letting hom leave promptly--seems self-serving. With the lotus-eaters, he manages to master his men without too much difficulty.With the Cyclops, Odysseus learns not to walk right in like you own the place, trusting in just behavior from those there. That's a lesson that maybe came in useful later.
Roger wrote: "With the Cyclops, Odysseus learns not to walk right in like you own the place, trusting in just behavior from those there. That's a lesson that maybe came in useful later. .."Yes, this can be seen as parallel to the situation of the suitors, whose behavior is seen as being lawless and they themselves act as brutes and like savage creatures. Just as he describes the Cyclops as being, and yet he just barges in without seeming to really consider his actions, as he has an expectation that those whom are lawless will yet still act according to the guest/host law, believing that because it is demanded by the gods, the Cyclops must obey regardless that all evidence suggests the reaction will be contrary to that presumption.
Nonetheless he ends up being given a rather rude awakening, and so maybe he does take something of what he leaned of this experience to apply to situations later on in the book.
I also think that perhaps his own curiosity had played a role in this as we see other examples of his being compelled by his curiosity to take certain risk, because of his need to experience first hand that which others have not.
So maybe his overwhelming need to see the Cyclops up close and personal skewed his better judgement. I think it also displays another example of his arrogance.
It is quite curious how though on the one hand he is noted for this wisdom and cleverness, he has a way of frequently acting out rather rashly.
As in the example when they are making their escape from the Cyclops, and he cannot keep himself from boasting over what he had done. Though his men beg him to keep his big mouth shut, he cannot stop himself from declaring himself, which serves to bring him about more trouble with Poseidon.
Earlier in our reading I raised the point about how the poem focuses on eating / feasting (good and bad). This episode is crucial in that regard since the reception that Polyphemus offers O. is a complete travesty of the guest-host relationship. Instead of offering O. and his men a proper meal, he eats Odysseus' men themselves. When O. asks him for a guest-gift, Polyphemus says "your guest-gift will be that I eat you last."Polyphemus is the embodiment of lawlessness, disorder, isolation. He explicitly rejects the worship of the gods. He lives in a cave. Homer intends this character to represent everything that is monstrous, abnormal, and utterly at odds with civilized (Greek) life.
And yet Homer, with characteristic brilliance, humanizes Polyphemus and shows him in a sympathetic light when he addresses the big male ram that is carrying O. out of the cave. Even monsters have feelings.
max wrote: "Polyphemus is the embodiment of lawlessness, disorder, isolation. He explicitly rejects the worship of the gods. He lives in a cave. Homer intends this character to represent everything that is monstrous, abnormal, and utterly at odds with civilized (Greek) life...."
Odysseus himself recognizes that Polyphemus is all of these things, and describes him in such terms as being lawless and thoroughly uncivilized, and yet he still in all of his alleged wisdom thinks it will be a good idea to hang around in his cave. Does Odysseus honestly expect Polyphemus to act in a civil way toward him? When himself can see that the Cyclops is more like a beast then a man.
Odysseus places himself, and his men in a situation in which even his men can recognized as a dangerous one, as they themselves just want to grab a ram and take off, but he insists they stick around to get the full guest/host treatment.
This displays an extreme lack of good judgement and his men died needlessly and completely because of the bad choices Odysseus made, of which it should have been obvious that it was a bad decision. He was thoughtless driven either by his own curiosity or his own greed in wanting more stuff, or a combination of both.
I absolutely agree that in this episode O. comes up very short in the leadership dept. His companions offer the wiser counsel, which he rejects. He rejects it because of his insatiable curiosity, which defines his character. Why grab a few sheep and some gourmet cheese and split when you can wait and see the big guy himself? It is interesting how Vergil (whose hero is a Roman rewrite of Odysseus) revisits this episode in the Aeneid (Book 3). There he creates a character called Achaemenides, who was left behind by Odysseus and whom the Trojans, on their way to Italy, take in when they pass Sicily, where the story was understood to have taken place. Of course, Vergil demonizes O. at every turn in the Aeneid, showing him to be a master of cunning, treachery, and deceit.
O. is basically a Bronze Age pirate. In the very beginning of his great narrative in Book 9, when he encounters the Cicones, he says: "I sacked their city and killed their people, / and out of their city taking their wives and many possessions / we shared them out so none might go cheated of his proper portion."
One other item: I have long been fascinated by the two back to back similes that Homer saves up for the climactic moment when the Cyclops is blinded. Any thoughts on their significance?
max wrote: "I absolutely agree that in this episode O. comes up very short in the leadership dept. His companions offer the wiser counsel, which he rejects. He rejects it because of his insatiable curiosity,..."I find it interesting, that more in more I am starting to come to the conclusion that the majority of Odysseus struggles and problems are predominately the fault of Odysseus himself.
A lot of the troubles he encounters are the result of his men not obeying him, and the first couple times I read the book I initially took the view that it was the fault of the men themselves, and that they were driven by their own greed, and if they had only obeyed Odysseus than things would have gone better. But reading it now, I am coming of the opinion that the lack of obedience of his men might be reflective of his own leadership skills, as well he does have a way of consistently getting them killed, I can understand why they may become less inclined to obey him and why their displeasure with him and or suspicions of him might lead them to disobedience.
Odysseus exercises a very lax sort of leadership. At the disastrous visit to the Laestrygonians, where he loses all his ships save the one he sails on, all the others make the rash decision to moor inside the cliff-encircled harbor, where they are destroyed by rocks cast from above. If Odysseus was the leader, why didn't he tell them where to moor? Why didn't they follow his example? Or did he come up last? Not much like a leader! I get the feeling that his degree of authority is adjusted to suit the needs of the story.
Silver wrote: " reading it now, I am coming of the opinion that the lack of obedience of his men might be reflective of his own leadership skills, as well he does have a way of consistently getting them killed, I can understand why they may become less inclined to obey him and why their displeasure with him and or suspicions of him might lead them to disobedience. Indeed. It is a reflection of the Homeric ethos, where personal glory is valued far more highly than what we might call "people skills." It is also a mark of Homer's remarkable honesty as a story teller. Even as he celebrates O. and hold him up as a model of cleverness, athleticism, and nobility, he reveals a troubling lack of leadership. He is not a perfect character.
The leadership issue reminds me of Agamemnon, whose disastrous command brings about the deadly quarrel at the inception of the Iliad. He is vividly portrayed as arrogant, greedy, insecure and incompetent.
max wrote: "The leadership issue reminds me of Agamemnon, whose disastrous command brings about the deadly quarrel at the inception of the Iliad. He is vividly portrayed as arrogant, greedy, insecure and incompetent..."What was society like at the time of the telling of these stories? Is there something about it that might give us insight to why an audience might enjoy a leader that is both heroic and weak?
Archaic Greek society at the time the poems were composed was in flux. The Bronze Age palace centers are gone; trade has begun to open up and the rough beginnings of political organization can be seen in such scenes as the assembly at Ithaca in Book 2. Individual kings or "basileis" controlled territorial areas that later developed into poleis or city-states. Homer's subjects are Bronze Age figures from 500 years before his own time, but the poems also reflect contemporary living conditions at the end of the 8th century B.C. In the Odyssey this is especially apparent. The fully developed democratic institutions of Athens, for example, are still a long way off. One senses that in this kind of environment, social status and political power had to be maintained by physical strength, martial valor, cunning, and an out-sized personality. I believe that O. actually existed, as did others whom Homer mentions in his poems, but their lives were embellished and embroidered to give them the heroic, semi-divine qualities they have in the poems. Certainly the classical Greeks believed that the Trojan War occurred as a historical fact and that O. and other heroes were as real as the guy who lived across the street.
The "character issue," I believe, makes for first-rate storytelling. What could be more captivating than hearing of a character who possesses preternatural intelligence and similar godlike capacities but who is, in the end, merely mortal and therefore subject to all of the vicissitudes of human life?
But O., of course, manages to escape disaster time and time again. He is a survivor. The main point of the Cyclops story is that human intelligence trumps brute strength, and no character is more the archetypal embodiment of "smarts" than O.
How reliable a narrator is Odysseus? His stories change as he goes on.First the Cicones: A perfectly mundane story, nothing supernatural at all. I imagine his audience is starting to nod off.
Next the lotus-eaters: A little more imaginative, with that magical food that makes people want to stay. Maybe his audience perks up a little. But really, wanting to stay is something that could happen with ordinary food.
So then the cyclops: Man-eating monster! Gore! Odysseus saves them all with a clever strategem! But almost loses it all when the monster comes roaring back throwing boulders! Now he's got the audience's attention. He's figured out what they want. They want supernatural adventures, and he'll give them some.
max wrote: "One other item: I have long been fascinated by the two back to back similes that Homer saves up for the climactic moment when the Cyclops is blinded. Any thoughts on their significance? ."I hadn't noticed how odd those similes are, but they are. The first simile, "like a man with a brace-and-bit who bores into a ship timber" is something that a shipwright does. The second one, "as when a man who works as a blacksmith plunges a screaming great ax blade or plane into cold water, treating it for temper," is an everyday blacksmithing procedure. It makes the attack on Polyphemus sound like a job, rather than a desperate act of courage. It fits with Odysseus' calculating character though.
I'm curious to know what you make of it yourself. And thanks for pointing it out!
It certainly completes the objectification of Polyphemus.
Thomas wrote: I'm curious to know what you make of it yourself. And thanks for pointing it out! Thank you, Thomas, for inviting me expand on this point. I think it is intriguing how the two similes are both drawn from technological aspects of Greek (read: civilized) life. I don't think it is at all coincidental that Homer has employed them in this scene. Ship building and blacksmithing are illustrative of the arts that distinguish the advanced culture of the Greeks. At the basis of those arts is an intelligence and skill level, the same intelligence that Odysseus is relying upon to defeat the Cyclops, who exists without even the benefit of agriculture. It is as if Homer were bringing to bear upon the drunken, brutish Cyclops the entire weight of an advanced, highly intelligent and sophisticated culture to defeat the monster.
The Cyclops episode is far longer than O.'s narrative of any other adventure, except the trip to Hades. On the surface it is a delightful adaptation of a folk tale, but underneath I believe it goes to the heart of what the entire poem is all about. At its deepest level, the poem is a celebration of all that embodies civilized life. That is the nature of epic: to serve as a repository for the Greeks' most cherished values: family unity, justice, personal loyalty, reverence for the gods, and good manners. And of course the glory that attends heroic achievement, the fame that allows one's life to be remembered for all time.
Speaking of good manners, there is a significant episode in Book 8 where Laodamas, the son of Alcinoos, taunts O. by challenging him to participate in athletic contests. He insults O. by saying he seems like no athlete, but just a greedy merchant. O. rebukes with with a speech in which he says that there are some men who are not fair in outward appearance, but whom the gods have bestowed with eloquence (Odysseus), and others who are handsome to look at but with a worthless mind (Laodamas). He then hurls the discus farther than any other contestant, as the Phaeacians duck for cover. In a charming Homeric touch, Athena assumes the appearance of a Phaeacian man where the discus lands and says that Odysseus has thrown it the farthest. And yet even this moment is not the right one to reveal his identity!
max wrote: "Ship building and blacksmithing are illustrative of the arts that distinguish the advanced culture of the Greeks. At the basis of those arts is an intelligence and skill level, the same intelligence that Odysseus is relying upon to defeat the Cyclops, who exists without even the benefit of agriculture. It is as if Homer were bringing to bear upon the drunken, brutish Cyclops the entire weight of an advanced, highly intelligent and sophisticated culture to defeat the monster."Really nice, Max. I'll be thinking of this as we read on. I hesitate to comment too much because your post makes me think of extraneous but related matters -- I'm thinking back to Plato and the great number of technological metaphors that Socrates uses, and even more remotely, the way that Heidegger uses technology to explain being. Perhaps it all starts here, or there, with civilized life.
Juliette wrote: "It seemed to me that it wasn't just the greed of wanting guest/host gifts that kept Odysseus in the cave, but some kind of circus-like craving to view the cyclops up close. "I sort of agree. Partly, I think, it's just the natural response of a natural adventurer, wanting to see what's behind the next mountain. Sure he wants to go home, but he's also a warrior with curiosity.
Another aspect may be that part of the cult of the Greek warrior, as we saw in the Iliad, is the looting of cities that are available even when your main goal is something else. So on the way to Troy, or as a diversion from the Trojan war, the Greeks went out to prey on cities (which is presumably how Agamemnon got the woman who caused all the trouble -- she certainly hadn't been in their camp from the beginning of the war). And we saw this when the winds first blew Odysseus to Ismarus, where instead of just keeping on going, or asking for guest welcome, they "sacked the town and put the people to the sword. We took their wives and also much booty..." (Book 9, Butler translation). So perhaps he was just following the ethos of looking for whatever booty he could steal here, too.
max wrote: "Polyphemus is the embodiment of lawlessness, disorder, isolation. He explicitly rejects the worship of the gods. He lives in a cave. Homer intends this character to represent everything that is monstrous, abnormal, and utterly at odds with civilized (Greek) life.And yet Homer, with characteristic brilliance, humanizes Polyphemus and shows him in a sympathetic light when he addresses the big male ram that is carrying O. out of the cave. Even monsters have feelings.
"
That's a nice pair of points.
"Juliette wrote: "It seemed to me that it wasn't just the greed of wanting guest/host gifts that kept Odysseus in the cave, but some kind of circus-like craving to view the cyclops up close. "It also seems to be curiosity that inspires Odysseus to explore Aiaia. He wants to find out what life there is on Circe's island, but he doesn't go himself -- he sends his companions, with the memory of the Lestrygonians and Cyclops fresh in their minds. He claims that the sun could not be seen, "where dawn lies, and the west...of these we know nothing." And so off to Kirke's house they go.
Homer makes a point of telling us that they had food enough, with the stag jumping out and practically giving itself up, and this business about the sun is extremely suspicious.
After visiting the man-eating cyclops, and the cannibal Laestrygonians, the Ithacans land on Aeaea and immediatelyt bring down a stag and eat it. This is the island of Circe, who changes men into animals. I wonder who that stag really was.
Juliette wrote: "What was society like at the time of the telling of these stories? Is there something about it that might give us insight to why an audience might enjoy a leader that is both heroic and weak? "
I think this is what our audiences today want and even demand as well! If a character is all heroic or all weak, he/she is referred to as "flat" (E.M. Forster's term, I think, as opposed to "round") or a stereotype.
I was really struck by the fact that O. has been through so many horrific experiences, yet the one that prompts him to consider suicide is the blowing back of the ship from their home shores, where "we were so close we could see men tending fires" (Fagles, 10:34). This disappointment is more devastating, apparently, than any of the prior losses he's suffered. I have to say, though, that the fact that he then spends a whole year hanging out with Circe--great food, great sex--kind of calls that desperate homesickness into question, doesn't it.
Kathy wrote: "I was really struck by the fact that O. has been through so many horrific experiences, yet the one that prompts him to consider suicide is the blowing back of the ship from their home shores, where..."Oh I think Odysseus got homesick all right. Eventually.
Roger wrote: "This is the island of Circe, who changes men into animals. I wonder who that stag really was..."Good one, LOL!
Kathy wrote: "I was really struck by the fact that O. has been through so many horrific experiences, yet the one that prompts him to consider suicide is the blowing back of the ship from their home shores ..."This is an astute observation. And here again the leadership issue that we have been discussing is front and center. O. claims that he fell asleep, because, as he says, "I was always worn out with handling the sheet myself, and I would not give it to any other companion, so we could come home quicker to our own country..."
This is the classic problem of the micromanager. What, only O. knew the quickest way back to Ithaca? Why not hand over the sailing to a trusty companion and tell his men that there will be booty enough for all when they reach Ithaca? Instead of touching upon his cherished homeland, O. is dealing with men who are grumbling about how they are being excluded from their share of what they suppose is silver and gold in the bag from Aeolus.
The more I read this poem the more convinced I am that Homer (with his usual insight into human nature) is showing us a man that makes a lot of mistakes on his way back home, and is far from a successful leader.
Kathy, as for your comment about great food and sex, let's stay true to the text. In Homer, food is food (usually steak, bread, wine) and sex is sex (the poet is too tasteful to say anything other than "they made love.") As we say today, "it's all good."
max wrote: This is the classic problem of the micromanager. What, only O. knew the quickest way back to Ithaca? Why not hand over the sailing to a trusty companion and tell his men that there will be booty enough for all when they reach Ithaca? Instead of touching upon his cherished homeland, O. is dealing with men who are grumbling about how they are being excluded from their share of what they suppose is silver and gold in the bag from Aeolus.Yes, that is a very good point, it seems that Odysseus has a way of consistently withholding critical information from others, and such often has a way in the end of working against him. This seems in part to be another example of how crafty and deceptive he is. And has I believe has been mentioned before, with himself being such a skilled liar and deceiver, this may lend to his own mistrust of others.
In part as well maybe Odysseus does not trust any of his other man because he never really inspires their confidence, he does not confide in them, and though he does not seem to directly mistreat them, he is certainly the cause of a lot of their own sufferings.
Greek culture does seem to be very individualistic. And it is every man for himself it seems. There else seems to be a bit of the ends justifying the means as well.
These are good points. It is surely no credit to Odysseus's leadership that he lost all his ships, all his loot from Troy and Ismarus, all his men, all his possessions, and all his clothes, washing up stark naked on the shores of Phaeacia.
Roger wrote: "These are good points. It is surely no credit to Odysseus's leadership that he lost all his ships, all his loot from Troy and Ismarus, all his men, all his possessions, and all his clothes, washin..."Absolutely. This is not a successful military commander. I compare him with, say, Earnest Shackleton, the Antarctic explorer, who underwent incredible hardships, had his ship crushed in the ice, made one of the most extraordinary small boat voyages in history, (look up Shackleton's Boat Voyage sometime), crossed South Georgia island in winter (a feat never accomplished before, and very seldom since), and yet never lost a single man. Now that's a leader.
Silver wrote: "Greek culture does seem to be very individualistic. And it is every man for himself it seems. There else seems to be a bit of the ends justifying the means as well. ."Is there a conflict here between the glory of the individual and the need for team work and leadership? Is there an "aristeia" associated with leadership like the one associated with the warrior in battle? I'm having a hard time coming up with an example of a good leader in either the Iliad or the Odyssey. Hector seems the best candidate, but his leadership qualities do not save him or Troy.
Thomas wrote: "Is there a conflict here between the glory of the individual and the need for team work and leadership? ..."I would say yes and no. On the one hand in the grander scheme of things, and speaking in general terms than the quest for personal glory probably is in direct conflict with good leadership and teamwork, after all that might also mean having to share credit, and if you are thinking only of yourself, it will be a lot easier to thus fulfill your own needs, putting others ahead of you would interfere with that.
Yet at the same time in looking at The Odysseus, though he does eventually make it home, if he had been a better leader and if he had more teamwork and was not so individualistic, he may have had a few less hardships and gotten home a bit sooner. In addition, when he does reach home, he does in fact rely upon the help of others and does not act solely alone.
In fact during this entire journey he does receive help from others along the way through various different means. Heck if it was not for Athena he would probably still be with Calypso. Odysseus does not in fact accomplish what he does purely upon his own means and merit. His cleverness helps him, but he receives a lot of assistance along the way.
"Silver wrote: "Greek culture does seem to be very individualistic. And it is every man for himself it seems."I think both the Iliad and the Odyssey can be understood as Homer's critique of the heroic code. In the Iliad, for example, Achilles causes catastrophic losses to the Greeks because of an affront to his honor. In essence, the code is a zero-sum game where one individual's honor or fame or glory is enhanced by the killing of another individual, albeit an enemy. There do not seem to be other ways for men to acquire glory except in combat killings. And the lack of a leadership structure that favors consensus is also glaringly apparent. Homer, it could be argued, seems to be asking us, "How long can civilization be expected to survive with such a value system?"
What makes Homer so intriguing is the remarkable objectivity he maintains as a narrator. Unlike Vergil, who intervenes now and then in the narrative to "editorialize" and offer his own comment on characters (one thinks of his judgment of Dido after she "marries" Aeneas in the famous cave scene) we get no such thing in Homer. He leaves us to draw our own conclusions about what he tells us.
Everyman wrote: "I compare him with, say, Earnest Shackleton, the Antarctic explorer, who underwent incredible hardships, had his ship crushed in the ice, made one of the most extraordinary small boat voyages in history, (look up Shackleton's Boat Voyage sometime), crossed South Georgia island in winter (a feat never accomplished before, and very seldom since), and yet never lost a single man. Now that's a leader. "Read "Endurance" by Afred Lansing!
max wrote: "Kathy, as for your comment about great food and sex, let's stay true to the text. .."OK, admittedly I was attempting to inject a bit of levity. But on the other hand, he doesn't seem to be suffering in his year with Circe or to be in a very big rush to leave, while poor Penelope is at home weaving and fending off the suitors.
Kathy wrote: OK, admittedly I was attempting to inject a bit of levity."mea culpa ... I didn't mean to gun down your comment. Homer clearly makes a point of telling us that these relationships were anything but Platonic. One year with Circe, and seven with Calypso, who, as I enjoy telling my students, is a "nymph with benefits."
No worries! Just thinking Odysseus got the better end of this deal by far!
Thomas wrote: "Is there a conflict here between the glory of the individual and the need for team work and leadership? Is there an "aristeia" associated with leadership like the one associated with the warrior in battle? "That's a great question! It seems, from Homer, the answer is mostly there isn't much focus on teamwork. Most of the battles we see are one-on-one, or few-on-few when people rush to a comrade's aid. I haven't seen much organization in leadership in the modern sense.
My understanding of Greek military history is that they didn't really develop a sense of a unified military approach until the development of the phalanx, which wasn't until well after the Trojan war. The era of the Iliad and Odyssey (which we should keep in mind is 500 years before Homer, so it's like somebody today writing a poem about the time of Columbus) was considered the Age of Heroes, and heroes sort of implies individualism, doesn't it?
I don't recall any passages either in the Iliad or so far in the Odyssey where a commander is praised for being able to plan an execute a battle plan or an organized and coordinated movement of a large group of men.
Kathy wrote: "No worries! Just thinking Odysseus got the better end of this deal by far!"To give Odysseys the benefit of the doubt, which I am not often given to do, in the instance with Crice, she did kind of have him over a barrel. The rest of his men had already been transformed to swine, and there really was not much he himself could do, he struck a bargain with Crice agreeing to become her lover to spare himself the same fate as the rest of his men:
Crice, am I boy,
that you should make me soft and doting now?
Here in this house you turned my men into swine;
now it is I myself you hold, enticing
into your chamber, to your dangerous bed,
to take my manhood when you have me stripped.
I mount no bed of love with you upon it.
Or swear me first a great oath, if I do
you'll work no more enchantment to my harm
While on the one hand it might seem as if he is not faring too poorly in this arrangement on the other hand, he is still ultimately being held prisoner, and he had entered into this relationship as an act of self-preservation, because if he had himself been made swine than there would be no hope for him. And he is not in a position where he can just up an leave at any time, because if he does no longer uphold his end of the bargain than Crice may no longer be bond to the oath not to work her magic against him.
Roger wrote: "...It is surely no credit to Odysseus's leadership that he lost all his ships, all his loot from Troy and Ismarus, all his men, all his possessions, and all his clothes..."Were all things equal, yes. But he was under a severe curse from Poseidon. It is intriguing how in some of these episodes, there is no avoiding the catastrophe.
max wrote: "..I think both the Iliad and the Odyssey can be understood as Homer's critique of the heroic code..."Why does your thought give me such pause, Max? I wonder -- isn't there still victory and heroism in the Iliad? And, while Odysseus errs plenty, he has a strong character and intelligence at the same time. I would not bet against him, despite his human foibles and failures.
Michael wrote: "max wrote: "..I think both the Iliad and the Odyssey can be understood as Homer's critique of the heroic code..."Why does your thought give me such pause, Max? I wonder -- isn't there still victory and heroism in the Iliad? And, while Odysseus errs plenty, he has a strong character and intelligence at the same time. I would not bet against him, despite his human foibles and failures.
Sorry if this gets off the Odyssey track somewhat....
There is no question that Homer's characters fundamentally define themselves with reference to the heroic code; many passages in both poems can be cited to support this. My question is simply: does Homer subscribe to the code and promote it, or does he suggest, however obliquely, that it may be outmoded or even destructive?
In seeking an answer, the difficulty is trying to read between the hexameters and delve into the mind of the poet himself with respect to his view of how the code shapes events and their outcomes in his poetry.
Achilles' refusal of Agamemnon's lavish compensatory gifts in Iliad Book 9 is the most persuasive passage where the heroic code is being called into question. In a society where status and honor are measured by material possessions, the slight against Achilles has been more than amply addressed by the total package offered to him by the offending commander.
And yet Achilles rejects it, calling into question the whole basis of his being at war in Troy. He says: " Fate is the same for the man who holds back, the same if he fights hard. We are all held in a single honor, the brave and the weaklings. A man dies still if he has nothing, as one who has done much..." (Il. 9.318-20). Hardly a rousing exhortation to rush into battle and die gloriously!
To this I would add an extremely important scene that comes up in Od. Book 11, when Odyssey encounters Achilles in the underworld.
Again, apologies it this is tangential to our discussion of the Odyssey. I start with the premise that the best literature, in any age, is somehow always at least somewhat subversive of the status quo. Homer is so incredibly brilliant as a poet because of his extraordinary honesty. There are no good guys and bad guys; this is not melodrama, and the characters, contrary to what inexperienced readers may sometimes conclude, are fully drawn and not one dimensional cardboard cutouts. Homer celebrates the mind-bending thrill of battlefield carnage, yes; but he also shows us over and over again the terrible costs that war exacts on its victims. He is a war poet; he is arguably also an anti-war poet.
Michael wrote: "ere all things equal, yes. But he was under a severe curse from Poseidon. It is intriguing how in some of these episodes, there is no avoiding the catastrophe. "That's an excellent point, though the curse didn't come until after he blinded Polyphemus, so the problems that occurred before that can't be traced to the wrath of Poseidon, can they?
As we had to in the Iliad, we also must here decide to what extent we believe that there actually was divine intervention, and to what extent we believe that the gods are blamed for events that are entirely human or nature caused. Though at the same time, I personally do accept that the Greeks believed implicitly in the direct intervention of the gods.
Everyman wrote: "As we had to in the Iliad, we also must here decide to what extent we believe that there actually was divine intervention, and to what extent we believe that the gods are blamed for events that are entirely human or nature caused. ..."Personally I like to read with the mind of the gods literal presence within the story, and the thought they are actively intervening in the events. Though that does not mean that absolutely everything is the work of the gods, or that the men do not have some choice in their actions. But accepting the Greek's view of the actuality of the gods makes things a little more interesting and fun for me. Plus they do make some of my favorite characters.
Though it can also be interesting to consider the possible metaphoric/symbolic meaning of the gods as well.
Everyman wrote: "That's an excellent point, though the curse didn't come until after he blinded Polyphemus, so the problems that occurred before that can't be traced to the wrath of Poseidon, can they?"There weren't too many problems before then, were there? There were the losses after sacking the Cicones, and hanging around partying too long. I suppose that was really Odysseus's original sin. Even that outcome he ascribes to the willfulness of his crew, not his own leadership, although our discussion has questioned the accuracy of his possibly self-serving version. He also says they were "cursed by Zeus," although that reference seems a catch-all explanation.
As we had to in the Iliad, we also must here decide to what extent we believe that there actually was divine intervention, and to what extent we believe that the gods are blamed for events that are entirely human or nature caused. Though at the same time, I personally do accept that the Greeks believed implicitly in the direct intervention of the gods.
I didn't get far into the Iliad discussion, joining here late in the reading. But how can we extract one major element, like the role of the gods, and try to consider the work without it? One part we would take as true -- the most physically clear actions -- and one part as false, the motivations that led, or heavily contributed, to those actions? Would we still be reading the book Homer wrote? Clearly part of the function of the gods in ancient Greece WAS to bear the blame for aspects of human conflict and misbehavior. It's an ingenious way of handling our failings, I think.
Unless Homer were more far-sighted than I think, he wasn't rejecting that belief system. So I must be reading this the way Silver explains so well in post 48 -- accepting the belief structure and trying to understand the work as it seems to have been composed; while also reading along a parallel track of my inevitably modern understanding.
"Clearly part of the function of the gods in ancient Greece WAS to bear the blame for aspects of human conflict and misbehavior. It's an ingenious way of handling our failings, I think."And, unfortunately, one they still seem to be practicing.
Max, I appreciated your thinking in post 46. You are making me go back to both those scenes and reread.
Agamemnon's apology to Achilles in Iliad 19 is relevant to this discussion.He states in an important speech: "This is the word the Achaeans have spoken often against me and found fault with me in it, yet I am not responsible but Zeus is, and destiny, and Erinyes the mist-walking who in assembly caught my heart in the savage delusion on that day I myself stripped from him the prize of Achilleus." (9. 85-89).
In concluding the same speech (a good example of ring technique) he states "But since I was deluded, and Zeus took away my wits from me, I am willing to make all good and give back gifts in abundance." (9.137-38).
It is especially interesting how at Od. 1.32 ff., in Zeus' first speech, a kind of key note address, he expressly says that mortals like to blame the gods but they themselves have evils in abundance beyond what is allotted to them on account of their own reckless folly.
This seems to be a strong statement that, in the Odyssey, "the gods made me do it" will now be only a qualified defense against bad acts by mortals. The fate of the suitors is of course wrapped up in this.
Several questions come immediately to mind.
One is, how reliable a narrator is Odysseus? Keep in mind that all his other companions are dead, so there is nobody who can challenge his version of events. We can't forget that Odysseus is known as a master deceiver. And, does Homer give us a hint back late in Chapter 7, when Odysseus tells the story of how he came to the shore of Scheria, it has, to put it mildly, some significant departures from truth. He claims that Calypso commanded him to sail. False. He claims that she gave him craft he made, and gave him stores. False. He leaves out the assistance that Ino gave him and claims it was all his own prowess that brought him safely to shore. False. And at the end of this he says, according to Fitzgerald, "These are the facts." (Not fully trusting Fitzgerald, I wonder, but Butler confirms this with his translation "Now, therefore, though it has pained me to do so, I have told you the whole truth.") False, false, false.
Is Homer giving us a "heads up" here not to trust Odysseus when it comes to his telling the story of his adventures? If he can't tell the truth about a simply raft voyage of seventeen days, how can we trust his version of far wilder adventures of ten years?
The second interesting question, for me at least, is what these adventures show about the character of Odysseus. Why, for example, did he feel it necessary to ignore his companions' advice to steal the sheep from the Cyclops cave and run, preferring to stick around and see what this guy was like, a decision that was tragic for a half-dozen of his crew -- what more ignominious fate can there be for a warrior than to be cooked and eaten by a monster? What else do his (purported?) adventures tell us about his character, his leadership skills, etc.?
And, finally, of course, there is a wealth of psychological meaning in the adventures. But I'll leave those points to others to explore.