Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-767nl Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-10T17:28:03.659Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Second Assembly of the Gods in the Odyssey

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 May 2015

M. Dyson
M. Dyson*
Affiliation:
University of Queensland
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Odyssey v opens with an assembly of the gods which has been much criticized, because one of the main speeches it contains is composed of whole sentences found elsewhere in the early books of the Odyssey, and because the entire assembly appears to repeat the assembly of the first book in a way that is unnecessary and alien to epic practice. I shall argue that some of the objections raised (including the most important) cannot be sustained, and that there are strong reasons for holding that this second assembly is not detachable from our existing Odyssey. That is, though not perhaps flawless, the opening of the fifth book is an integral part of the whole poem and cannot be a late addition.

Type
Research Article
Information
Antichthon , Volume 4 , 1970 , pp. 1 - 12
Copyright
Copyright © Australasian Society for Classical Studies 1970

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. The case against the second assembly is argued very forcefully by Page, D.L., The Homeric Odyssey (Oxford, 1955), Chapter iii. The treatment of the problem in this essential book is the starting point and stimulus of my discussion.Google Scholar

2. For this conclusion cf. Delebecque, E., Télémaque et la structure de l’ Odyssée (Aix-en-Provence, 1958),Google Scholar for which reference I am indebted to the editors of Antichthon. Within the wider scope of his persuasive book Delebecque covers the subject of this article, but does not deal with the point which is the centre of my discussion, namely that epic convention requires not a second assembly but a simple statement that Zeus sent off Hermes (Page, loc. cit.; Kirk, G.S., The Songs of Homer [Cambridge, 1962], pp. 233–4).Google Scholar He remarks, pp. 63–4, that the theoretically logical solution of a simultaneous departure of Odysseus and Telemachus on their respective journeys is ruled out by the epic law which allows only successive events. This is, I believe, correct, but it does not meet Page’s criticism.

3. The behaviour of Athena and the conclusion of the assembly are markedly different from what one would expect, to judge from similar assemblies in the Iliad. Hence the need to insist that no decision is reached. See below, p. 9, and a different interpretation of the same observations, Delebecque, op. cit., pp. 65–6.

4. Zielinski, T., Philologus, Supplementband 8 (1901), 407 ff.Google Scholar

5. To be precise, 2,126 lines from i 96 to iv 847.

6. Especially in the Cyclops episode, where there are four nights, five dawns, three meals for Odysseus’ men and three for the Cyclops (ix 145–560).

7. For a description of the time series of the Odyssey and its use in connecting scenes see Delebecque, op. cit., pp. 13 ff. and 120 ff.

8. There are some curious features of language in these lines; see Page, op. cit., p. 69. Although they make the transition clearer, 621–4 a r e n o t essential, and can be dispensed with.

9. Cf. Page, op. cit., pp. 78–9.

10. Cf. also another curious passage, Il. ii 72–87. Agamemnon suggests that the Achaean leaders try to arm their men, but says that first he will test them by giving an order to flee in the ships. Nestor replies, in effect, ‘Yes, let us try to arm the men’ (ignoring Agamemnon’s second idea, which is the one put into effect in the following lines).

11. See Leaf, ad. loc. Two other passages are perhaps relevant. First, Achilles gives Agamemnon and the Achaean chiefs orders to put out Patroclus’ pyre and collect his bones, Il. xxiii 236 ff. But here the circumstances are understandable, and the order is formally acknowledged, 249. Second, in the extended Achaean assembly of Il. xix40 ff. both Odysseus and Achilles take the initiative out of Agamemnon’s hands. After Achilles and Agamemnon have professed willingness for a reconciliation, Odysseus proposes that the army eat before battle and that the king formally recompense Achilles, 155–83. Agamemnon approves (in general terms) and bids Odysseus fetch the gifts, 185–97. Achilles however observes that there is more pressing business, and would urge fighting before eating; he at any rate will not eat, 199–214. Odysseus reiterates his opinion that an army fights best on a full stomach, 216–37, and without waiting for Agamemnon’s nod, goes and fetches the gifts. Next the king swears publicly that he has laid no hand on Briseis, 258–65; then Achilles acknowledges that Agamemnon’s insult to him proves that Zeus sends madness abroad among mankind, and bids the soldiers go to their meal. ‘So he spoke, and quickly broke up the assembly’, 270–6. The by-passing of the king is certainly odd, but he has expressed approval in general terms earlier and the rest is perhaps explicable in terms of Achilles’ ascendancy of the moment. In any case there is a formal conclusion to this assembly, unlike that of Odyssey i.

12. Cf. Delebecque, op. cit., pp. 64–7. It is the stated aim of this book to interpret the Odyssey from itself, and direct comparisons with the Iliad are avoided.