Last updated 10th July 2024: Online ordering is currently unavailable due to technical issues. We apologise for any delays responding to customers while we resolve this. For further updates please visit our website https://www.cambridge.org/news-and-insights/technical-incident
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 28 February 2013
It remains an open question what sort of structure, or what kind and degree of unity, the reader may legitimately expect to find in the Homeric epics, or in oral poetry in general. More specifically, when critics identify long-range correspondences, symmetrical patterns and precise correlation of speeches, scenes, similes and events, they are often confronted with considerable scepticism. Here it may be that excessively schematic attempts, such as those of the late Cedric Whitman, have shown such patent weaknesses that the whole approach has fallen into undeserved disrepute. Yet it is not unreasonable to suppose that any story-teller, oral or literate, improvising or premeditating, should desire and be able to connect his ending with his beginning, to develop themes in a recognisable and coherent sequence, and to draw attention to related scenes by direct repetition or allusive resemblances. Homeric scholarship has not been blind to such considerations, but they have yet, I think, to be systematically and sensitively applied. Much remains to be done, especially perhaps for the Odyssey.
In this paper I intend principally to argue that there is a significant resemblance (embracing equally important differences) between the finale of Odyssey 8 together with the opening of book 9, and the finale of book 21 and opening of 22. The situation in the later scene is modified, indeed reversed and distorted; the earlier scene presents the norm, the later scene the unusual and extraordinary; and these differences are stressed in such a way as to reinforce the development of major themes which run through the poem: themes such as hospitality, feasting, self-revelation, and the hero's status as both man of action and poet.
I refer to the following modern works by author's name alone: B. Fenik, Studies in the Odyssey, Hermes Einzelschriften 30 (1974); J. Griffin, Homer on life and death (1980); D. L. Page, The Homeric Odyssey (1955); W. B. Stanford, The Ulysses theme 2 (1963).
1. Whitman, C. H., Homer and the heroic tradition (1958) chh. 5 and 11CrossRefGoogle Scholar; critiques by Kirk, G. S., The songs of Homer (1962) 261–5Google Scholar, West, M. L. on Hesiod, Works and Days 764Google Scholar.
2. For the Iliad see above all Schadewaldt, W., Iliasstudien (1938)Google Scholar; Macleod, C. W., Homer: Iliad 24 (1982) 16–35Google Scholar.
3. Kirk, 337, al.
4. In his introduction to Milman Parry, , The making of Homeric verse (1971) lviiGoogle Scholar.
5. It is, for instance, noteworthy that the horses of Rhesus, captured in Iliad 10, never reappear and are never mentioned in the rest of the poem; contrast the horses taken by Diomedes from Aeneas in book 5, which are used by their new master in the Funeral Games (23.290-2; cf. also 8.105-8). Further examples of long-range allusion: in Il. 21.390-9 Ares reminds Athene of Diomedes' attack on him in 5.835-63; in Il. 19.47-53 we are reminded by the poet that Agamemnon, Odysseus and Diomedes are still suffering from the wounds inflicted on them in book 11 (Agamemnon's assailant, Coon, is actually named, 53); Il. 16.61-3 refers to 9.649-55 (pace Page, D., History and the Homeric Iliad (1959) 329)Google Scholar; Il. 9.33-6 refers to 4.368-419 (that 9.33-6 are ‘intruded’, as argued by Reeve, M. D., CQ n.s. 22 (1972) 2–3Google Scholar, seems to me a possible but not a necessary assumption); Il. 9.709 prepares for Agamemnon's aristeia in book 11; Od. 20.41-3 and 23.137 anticipate danger from the suitors' kinsmen, and in 23.138 Odysseus plans a visit to Laertes (?) on his farm. These last passages therefore provide some support for the integrity of the socalled ‘Continuation’ of the Odyssey (further, Moulton, C., GRBS 15 (1974) 153–169Google Scholar, with bibliography).
6. In particular, note the prophecies of Zeus which gradually reveal more of the future and make explicit his plan (8.470-83, 15.54-77, 24.65-76). For résumés, see esp. Il. 1.365-92,18.429-57; Od. 23.306-43 (defended by Wender, D., The last scenes of the Odyssey, Mnemosyne Supplem. 52 (1978) 15–18)Google Scholar.
7. For the concept of ‘mirror-scene’, see esp. Taplin, O., The stagecraft of Aeschylus (1977) 100–3Google Scholar; id., Greek tragedy in action (1978) ch. 8.
8. The closest rival is the scene of Sarpedon's death, which provides another set of parallels to Hector. Both are pitied by Zeus, who considers saving them, but is answered by one of the anti-Trojan goddesses in parallel speeches (16.431-458, 22.166-86). But in book 16 Hera concedes that Sarpedon, the son of Zeus himself, should be rescued from the battlefield and buried in state in his native Lycia. In book 22 there is no such concession for the mortal Hector.
9. For further analogies between these scenes see Fenik, B., Typical battle scenes in the Iliad, Hermes Einzelschriften 21 (1968) 217Google Scholar.
10. Cf. esp. Schadewaldt, W., Von Homers Welt und Werk ed. 4 (1965) 240–67Google Scholar; Griffin 163; JHS 102 (1982) 152, 157–8Google Scholar.
11. See 12.60-80, 210-50, 13.725-53 (in which Polydamas already foresees the return of Achilles, 746-7). Polydamas' interventions as ‘wise adviser’ whose warnings are ignored find a parallel in the role of Theoclymenus in the Odyssey. In both cases, the most dramatic and significant warning is reserved for the last appearance of the character.
12. For the gradual progress of Hector's egotism and illusion, see 6.447-9 (in contrast with 476-81, 526-9); 8.526-1, 12.230-50, 13.824-32, 16.861-2, 17.183-208, 18.243-313, 20.366-72, 434-7; JHS 102 (1982) 157Google Scholar. It would be wrong, however, to see this as contemptible or hybristic; rather, Hector cannot but hope and fight on, and his final dilemma in facing a hopeless situation is one which has faced many generals and kings. The proper response here is not disapproval but pity.
13. See esp. Macleod (n. 2) 32-5; my only qualification would be that more might be made of the analogies with book 18.
14. Achilles' words echo the arrogant and erroneous boast of Agamemnon in book 1; but by this point in book 9, Achilles' claim too may begin to look more doubtful. Later, Achilles can speak of both himself and Agamemnon as subject to delusion sent by Zeus (19.270).
15. His defiance paves the way for his eventual destruction by Apollo, whom he abuses here and who condemns him in the divine council in book 24.
16. Fenik 180-87.
17. See esp. Segal, C., The theme of the mutilation of the corpse in the Iliad, Mnemosyne Supplem. 17 (1971)Google Scholar.
18. Contra Bassett, S., TAPA 64 (1933) 41–65Google Scholar; Vermeule, E., Aspects of death in, early Greek art and poetry (1978) ch. 3Google Scholar. These and other authors have seen modern criticism of Achilles' actions as sentimental and anachronistic: against this view see Segal (n. 17) 9-17. It is true that Agamemnon and others do maim or decapitate their victims (cf. Fenik [n. 9] 57, 84, on Agamemnon's penchant for grisly slayings), but this is in the heat of battle. It is the soulless, and seemingly endless, repetition of his actions which gives a special horror and enormity to Achilles' behaviour (note the frequentatives in 24.12-18, 23).
19. Fathers and sons: cf. Griffin 123-5, Macleod on 24.495-7.
20. The term ‘formulaic’ covers an important ambiguity (in general against casual use of this term see Hainsworth, J. B., Homer, G & R New Surveys 3 (1969) 18–9Google Scholar). Does fixed repetition of lines imply that they are simply part of the tradition, or has the poet himself invented formulae which are suited to his needs and convey part of his message?
21. For the tension between Telemachus and Penelope see 1.214-16 (with Athena's reproof, 222-3); perhaps 2.373-6, and esp. 15.7-42, where Athena appeals to Telemachus' fears. This scene explains Telemachus' curtness and unfriendliness toward his mother upon his return to Ithaca: see 16.68-77 (contradicted by what Eumaeus has just said, 37-9); 126-7; 17.36-60 (Penelope's resentment of his bluntness is indicated by her comment at 101-6); 18.215-42, 19.157-61, 524-34, 23.97-103. Page 85,87-88 ignores this theme, and so finds Telemachus' behaviour inexplicable. Similarly in the scene of book 15 in which Theoclymenus interprets an omen, line 520 and Telemachus' general pessimism spring again from Athena's misleading hint that Penelope is inclining to favour Eurymachus. The words of the prophet answer this half-voiced fear, especially in 533 
i.e., Eurymachus will not gain the 
of Odysseus (522; cf. the exchange at 1.383-419), for Penelope will not remarry and degrade Telemachus (contra Page 84-7). For further defence of Theoclymenus, see Fenik 233-44 (240 on this point).
22. An important theme, which I hope to discuss elsewhere. Note esp. 10.49-54, 13.253-5, 16.190-1 (contrast the openness of Eumaeus' affection, 16.14-29), 19.203-12, 20.10-30.
23. Conta Harsh, P. W., AJP 71 (1950) 1–21Google Scholar, Amory Parry, A., in Essays on the Odyssey, ed. Taylor, C. H. Jr. (1965) 100–21Google Scholar, and many others. See Fenik 39-46, and now the admirable essay by Emlyn-Jones, C., G & R n.s. 31 (1984) 1–18Google Scholar, with whom I warmly agree.
24. On Odysseus' response here, and the subtle word-play of 23.110, 188-9, 202-7, see Stanford's commentary and id. (1963) 57–9. The successful test here is a reprise of her failure in 19.215-50 (note esp. the correspondence between 19.249-50 and 23.205-6, another careful and significant use of repeated formulae).
25. See 11.442-3, 454-6, 13.336, 14.459, 15.304, 16.304-5, 17.363, 19.45 (?), 19.215, 23.109-14, 181, 24.216, 235-40. Again I defer fuller discussion to a future paper.
26. For further examples, see the sequence of bird omens in the Odyssey, discussed by Thornton, A., People and themes in Homer's Odyssey (1970) 56Google Scholar; also the series of scenes in which the suitors meet and debate their actions as regards Telemachus: 4.658-74, 16.342-408 (cf. Fenik 163), where they bar all others from the assembly – the iron hand of an incipient oligarchy is evident here (Page 180 misses this point, and so finds the scene absurd) –; and 20.240-6. This sequence (combined with the assembly scene of book 2, where the suitors are in command and Telemachus is humiliated) shows how the suitors gradually lose control of the situation. See further the examples of ‘triplets’ (not all equally significant or convincing) given by Fenik 181 n.84. Also, the recognition scenes culminate in the reunion with Penelope (with Laertes as pendant?).
27. Marg, W., Homer über die Dichtung ed. 2 (1971)Google Scholar; Griffin 97-102; Macleod, C. W., Collected essays (1983) ch. 1Google Scholar. See also Moulton, C., Similes in the Homeric poems, Hypomnemata 49 (1977) 145–53Google Scholar.
28. Margin, W.Navicula Chiloniensis, Festschrift F. Jacoby (1956) 16–29Google Scholar; Burkert, W., RhM 103 (1960) 130–4Google Scholar; Macleod (n. 27).
29. See most recently A. Hoekstra's note on 13.90; cf. W. B. Stanford on 13.90-2. This seems to have influenced Virgil, who begins the second half of his epic with a proem which is placed not at the opening of the book, but some distance into it (Aen. 7.37-45); for other possible reasons see Fraenkel, E., Kleine Beiträge zur klassischen Philologie II (1964) 144–9Google Scholar.
30. See esp. Fenik 167-71, an analysis of the tale told to Eumaeus.
31. See e.g. Hölscher, U. in Festschrift R. Alewyn (1967) 1–16Google Scholar; D'Arms-K, E. F.. Hulley, TAPA 77 (1946) 207–13Google Scholar; Clarke, H. W., The art of the Odyssey (1967) 10–12Google Scholar. But almost all critics touch on this theme.
32. For Odysseus see 5.173-9, 219-24, 6.172-4, 325, 7.208-14, 8.154-5, 182-3, 231-2, 478, 9.12-3. For Telemachus, 2.80-1 (contrast 14-15), and his lack of reaction to Halitherses' favourable interpretation of the omen (2.146-76; contrast later 15.180-1, 535-8); 3.225-8 (rebuked by Athene, 230-1), 4.291-3. For his passivity before Athene's arrival see esp. 2.305 
, and context.
33. Richardson, N. J., Papers of the Liverpool Latin seminar, ed. Cairns, F., 4 (1983) 223–5Google Scholar.
34. Σ Od. 1.93 and 284, traced to Porphyrio by Schrader, H., Porphyri quaestionum Hom, ad Od. pertinentium reliquiae (1890) 15–6, 175–6Google Scholar; cf. Clarke, H. W., AJP 84 (1963) 129–45Google Scholar.
35. Cf. Mattes, W., Odysseus bei den Phaiaken (1958) 123–40Google Scholar; compare Fenik 12-16.
36. Klingner, F., Studien zur griechischen und römischen Literatur (1964) 39–79Google Scholar; Fenik 26–7.
37. Menelaus is already regarded as a slightly vulnerable hero in the Iliad, at least by the protective Agamemnon (4.148-91, 7.103-21). For later developments of this see, e.g., Pl. Symp. 174c; Eur. Helen, where Menelaus is a self-important buffoon, and Orestes, where he is a craven villain (cf. Arist. Poet. 15.1454a29-31). The description by Clarke, H. W., The art of the Odyssey (1967) 27Google Scholar (‘The glory and the dream [of Troy] have fled, and what is left is the slightly bourgeois scene of Colonel and Mrs. Menelaus at home in the manor house’) takes this view to extremes, rather underestimating the sadder undercurrents of the book.
38. Cf. Anderson, W. S. in Essays on the Odyssey, ed. Taylor, C. H. Jr. (1965) 72–86Google Scholar.
39. 1.234-3 (Telemachus), 5.306-11 (Odysseus), 14.365-72 (Eumaeus). Cf. Achilles to Agamemnon, 24.30-34. Formal burial by one's peers means glory and fame: cf. Griffin 46 n. 118, and esp. Iliad 7.84-91 (Griffin 23, 96); Beowulf 2S02-8. Further, Aesch. Cho. 345-71, Eur. Andr. 1182-5, etc.; Alexiou, M., The ritual lament in Greek tradition (1974) 178Google Scholar.
40. On Antilochus see further Nisbet-Hubbard on Hor. Odes 2.9.14, Mayor on Juv. 10.253, Willcock, M. M., BICS 20 (1973) 4–9Google Scholar.
41. See esp. 4.120-46 with 219-305, a locus conclamatus. Cf. Schmiel, R., TAPA 103 (1972) 464Google Scholar; Kakridis, J., Homer revisited (1971) ch. 1Google Scholar; Griffin 77, who is, I feel, too harsh on earlier and more ‘psychological’ interpretations.
42. See esp. Klingner (n. 36).
43. Segal, C. P., Arion 1.4 (1962) 17–63Google Scholar and PP 116 (1967) 321–42Google Scholar; conclusions summarised and accepted by, e.g., Fenik 54-5, Vidal-Naquet, P., in Myth, Religion and Society, ed. Gordon, R. L. (1981) 90–4, 248 n. 58Google Scholar.
44. Cf. N. J. Richardson on h. Dem 93, 98ff.; Kearns, E., CQ n.s. 32 (1982) 2–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
45. We note here another parallel with Agamemnon, who also kisses the ground (4.522, the only other use of this phrase). But Agamemnon's joy and satisfaction are short-lived.
46. Some of these parallels are seen and discussed in the neglected work of Rüter, K., Odysseeinterpretationen (1969) 228–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
47. The feast is also the setting of Agamemnon's downfall: he is struck down by an ambush in the house of Aegisthus, who offers him hospitality on his return (4.514-37). Thus the myth is adapted to the thematic needs of the poem: treachery and deception, the ties of hospitality violated. In book 22 Odysseus turns the tables. His success reverses the downfall of Agamemnon: instead of being ambushed by many men, he himself is the surprise attacker; and instead of being tricked by his host, he himself is the unrecognised host. In the Oresteia, the focus is much more on the evil and self-destructiveness of the house of Atreus, and the palace of Agamemnon becomes the scene of his death. Further, the morality and imagery of the feast becomes less important in Aeschylus than that of sacrifice: contrast e.g., Od. 20.390-4 with Aesch. Ag. 1391-2, and see Vidal-Naquet, in Vernant, J.-P. and Vidal-Naquet, P., Tragedy and myth in ancient Greece (1981) ch. 8Google Scholar; Macleod, C. W., JHS 102 (1982) 137–8Google Scholar = Collected essays (1983) 33–4Google Scholar.
48. 
in 411 recalls the theme of the simile, by ‘transfusion’. Other details are of more thematic interest: the allusion to the swallow in the same line may perhaps be connected with 22.240 (of Athena: thus Odysseus and his bow are associated with the authority of the goddess and with divine punishment). Further, the bird commonly forecasts the return of spring (West on Hes. Op. 568, Ar. Th. 1, PMG 848, D'Arcy Thompson, W., Glossary of Greek birds (1895) 319–20, 324)Google Scholar, and Odysseus' home-coming is chronologically and symbolically associated with that season: see the ingenious and largely persuasive discussion by Austin, N., Archery at the dark of the moon (1975) 240–53Google Scholar. In line 418 
gives a novel twist to the ‘testing’ theme (n. 25 above); contrast 410, where Odysseus tests the bowstring, as he has his servants and the rest. His testing is an active process based on superiority of knowledge and power; the suitors will ‘test’ the arrows, but only in a passive sense, as victims. For grim metaphors and black humour of this kind cf. 1.266, 20.390-4, Il. 7.241, 13.291; Vermeule (n. 18) 99-105, Fraenkel on Aesch. Ag. 437ff., 1391-2; Collard on Eur. Supp. 390.
49. E.g. Il. 4.141-7, 12.421-4, 433-8, 15.362-6, 22.126-8. Further, Taplin, O., G & R n.s. 27 (1980) 14–15Google Scholar.
50. Cf. 17.219-20, 446, 18.401-4. What was jocular and contemptuous in the suitors' earlier abuse of Odysseus thus becomes horrifyingly true.
51. Cf. esp. 17.482-7, 23.63-8; Kearns (n. 44).
52. On the circumstances of Odysseus' death see further the summary of the cyclic Telegoneia (OCT Homer Vol. 5,143-4); Soph. Odysseus Acanthoplex frr. 453-61 Radt; Arist. Poet. 14.1453b33; Apollod. Epit. 7.34-40, with Fraser's notes; Stanford 86-9.
53. Cf. Kakridis, J., Homer revisited (1971) 54–67Google Scholar. Griffin 3-9 makes too much of the pro-Hellenic bias, largely because he sees Paris as ‘the archetypal Trojan’ (5). But the Trojans loathe and despise Paris (3.56-7, 6.281-2, 523-5, 7.390).
54. Despite great strides forward in recent criticism, the last word on the differences between Iliadic and Odyssean theology has not, I think, yet been written. Here I can do no more than point to the cruelty of Poseidon to the Phaeacians, his own descendants and protégés (cf. 7.35, 56, 13.130; also 6.203, 7.201 on their closeness to the gods). Compare the gods of the Iliad, who angrily defend their 
(e.g. Il. 7.442-63, again Poseidon). On the ambiguities of the ‘sin’ of Odysseus' companions see Fenik 208-32.
55. Denigration of the Odyssey by comparison with the Iliad began early: see above all [Longinus] 9.11-15, with Bühler, W., Beiträge zur Erklärung der Schrift vom Erhabenen (1964) 44–76Google Scholar. Cf. Pl. Hipp. Min. 363b, Hor. Odes 4.6, [Heracl.] Alleg. Hom. 60, Eustath. pr. in Od. 1379.40: 
(‘it is the poem which has more 
– that is, it is more charming and has a greater delicacy of style’); Evanthius, de fab. 1.5 (p. 63 Kaibel): Homerus, … qui fere omnis poeticae largissimus fons est … Iliadem ad instar tragoediae, Odysseam ad imaginem comoediae fecisse monstratur. From these comparisons there is a direct line to Jasper Griffin's trenchant contrast: ‘in the Iliad, tragedy; in the Odyssey, a touching but gentle pathos’ (61; cf. 67, 69).
This paper was read to a meeting of the Cambridge Philological Society on 7th February, 1985; I am grateful to those present for encouragement and criticism, and especially to Mrs P. E. Easterling for her 
