¹ See, for example, the compelling arguments of P. Pucci, who rejects the assumption of a ' sharp polarity between oral and written literature (Odysseus Polutropos [Ithaca and London, 1 1987], pp. 26–30).Google Scholar

² This may be particularly true in the case of the Odyssey. C. Moulton notes that the Odyssey contains far fewer similes than the Iliad, and that many of them are much shorter. Further, in the Odyssey, as compared with the Iliad, a higher proportion of the developed similes are directly related to the important themes of the poem (Similes in the Homeric Poems [Gottingen, 1977], p. 117). One might expect this to be true, therefore, of the shorter or 'undeveloped' similes as well. In any case, the relative scarcity of similes in the Odyssey is, in itself, an argument for giving every simile sufficient consideration, even a short one.Google Scholar

³ Translations of the Iliad and the Odyssey are from Lattimore, R., The Iliad of Homer (Chicago and London, 1951) and The Odyssey of Homer (New York, 1965). I have taken the liberty of making a few very minor changes. Translation of the verbs aveppaxev and eflpaxe in this passage poses a bit of a problem, since 'bellow' in English immediately suggests a bull, whereas the Greek verb is different and is not elsewhere used of bulls. See the discussion of below.Google Scholar

⁴ See Duckworth, D. E., Foreshadowing and Suspense in Ancient Epic (Princeton, 1933), p. 14 and n. 46.Google Scholar

⁵ I am following M. S. Silk in his understanding of the distinction introduced by I. A. Richards. Silk explains tenor’ as the underlying idea in a poetic image and ‘vehicle’ as ‘the other idea, the one brought in from outside, the one to which the tenor is, in logical terms, compared’ (Interaction in Poetic Imagery: With Special Reference to Early Greek Poetry [London, 1974], p. 6).Google Scholar

⁶ Coffey, M., ‘The Homeric Simile’, AJP 78 (1957), 117Google Scholar. Coffey is following the view of Frankel, H., Die homerischen Gleichnisse (Gottingen, 1921, reprinted 1977Google Scholar. Austin, N. explains the simile as ‘a composite picture, an assimilation of one unified structure into another’ Archery at the Dark of the Moon [Berkeley, 1975], p. 115)Google Scholar. Snell, B. notes that Homer′s similes ‘constitute his only mechanism of describing the essence or the intensity of an event’ (The Discovery of the Mind: The Greek Origins of European Thought, translated by Rosenmeyer T. G. [Cambridge, 1953], pp. 199–200).Google Scholar

⁷ N. Austin, op. cit., p. 118.Google Scholar

⁸ Nimis, S., Narrative Semiotics in the Epic Tradition (Bloomington and Indianapolis, 1987), p. 42. Nimis maintains that 'coherence at more than one level of linguistic organization would seem to be characteristic of all literature. It is likely that many of Homer′s similes perform narrative functions beyond the usual “decorative” ones' (p. 42). He discusses several examples in the Iliad in which the element of a preparatory meal before a great battle is taken up in the similes (pp. 22–73).Google Scholar

⁹ Muellner, L., ‘The simile of the cranes and pygmies: a study of Homeric metaphor’, HSCP 93 (1990), 66.Google Scholar

¹⁰ N. Austin, op. cit, p. 129.Google Scholar

¹¹ The exception occurs in Iliad 8. Hector strikes a direct blow with a rock to the KXrjts of Teucer, that is, to the most fatal spot (8.326), but Teucer survives and is carried to safety. Hector′s distinction as the only warrior ever to strike another in the and yet fail to kill him may be an important element in his characterization.

¹² Russo, J., Fernandez-Galiano, M. and Heubeck, A., A Commentary on Homer′s Odyssey, vol. Ill: Books 17–24 (Oxford, 1992), p. 153, who cite 21.421 as an example.Google Scholar

¹³ Pre-figuring and substitution for events outside the scope of the epics apppear to be commmon to Homeric technique. One might compare, for example, the way in which the breaching of the Greek fortifications in Iliad 12 prefigures and substitutes for the breaching of the Trojan wall itself, which will not occur in the poem, or the way in which the description of Achilles' extravagant mourning for Patroclus prefigures and substitutes for a depiction of Achilles' own death, which similarly does not occur within the poem. For the latter, see e.g. Edwards, M., Homer Poet of the Iliad (Baltimore and London, 1987), pp. 270–271;Google ScholarJanko, R., A Commentary on the Iliad, vol. IV: Books 13–16 (Cambridge, 1992), pp. 408–417Google Scholar

¹⁴ I concur with Lattimore′s translation of as ‘both mother and children’. Although 'both fawns' is possible, no mention has been made of two fawns. Perhaps there were three. (Deer can have triplets.)

¹⁵ Penelope's description of her dream (Od. 19.535–53) also includes the detail of the geese eating, although the verb is (19.536) and not Bookw

¹⁶ L. Muellner, discussing the simile likening Hector to an eagle attacking a flock of grazing birds (II. 15.688–95), compares Od. 4.534–5 = 11.411–12 with Ii. 5.161–4 and concludes that the passages have different connotations. The description of Agamemnon's slaughter implies that it was 'a perversion: unsuspecting, he was butchered like an animal being sacrificed for a dinner such as the one he was attending at the time (not an inappropriate return for the crime of Atreus). In the battle narrative of the Iliad, however, the implications are not the same: that the cow or calf is feeding when killed by a predator is a pathetic detail marking its unsuspecting defenselessness–though the pathos is perhaps distanced and the scene ennobled by an ironical contrast of herbivorous bovine with carnivorous predator, each in the process of getting food' (L. Muellner, HSCP 93 [1990], 69–70)

¹⁷ L. Muellner identifies similarly associated groupings of animals and argues that 'The traditional poet worked with a system of groups, each comprising not more than three members: geese, cranes, and swans; eagle, vulture, or falcon; jackdaws, starlings, or rock-dove; bees or wasps; lions or boars. Each associative group has conventional characteristics in common that suits it to certain contexts; some member of the group may have distinctive characteristics that: suit it to some contexts but not others' (L. Muellner, HSCP 93 [1990], 72). Aeschylus, at least: seems to have understood the Odyssean function of the bull as a sacrificial animal as an; appropriate image for Agamemnon's story. In the Agamemnon, envisioning Agamemnons; murder, Cassandra refers to him as a bull (Ag. 1125–6).

¹⁸ Magrath, W., ‘Progression of the Lion Simile in the Odyssey’, CJ 77 (1982), 210–211. Magrath argues that the similes in Odyssey 22 remind the audience that Odysseus 'is the hero both of harmony and of violence, of culture as a figure of charts and of nature as a beast' (p. 212).Google Scholar

¹⁹ Scott, W C., The Oral Nature of the Homeric Simile, Mnemosyne (Leiden, 1974), suppl. 28, p. 122Google Scholar. Scott also cites 21.48, 21.406, and 21.411 as examples of this.Google Scholar

²⁰ Bloch, M., Prey into Hunter (Cambridge, 1992), p. 26. Bloch argues for a cross-cultural view of sacrifice as dependent on political, economic, and military circumstances. The re-consuming of the sacrificed animal′s vitality could be seen as a 'legitimation of outwardly directed aggression' (pp. 24–5).Google Scholar

²¹ Detienne, M., ‘Culinary Practices and the Spirit of Sacrifice’, in Detienne, M. and Vernant, J.-P. (eds; trans, by Wissing, P.), The Cuisine of Sacrifice Among the Greeks (Chicago and London, 1989), p. 3. Detienne maintains that 'political power cannot be exercised without sacrificial practice. Any military or political undertaking–a campaign, engagement with the enemy, the conclusion of a treaty, works commissioned on a temporary basis, the opening of the Jassembly, or the assumption of office by the magistrates–each must begin with a sacrifice 'followed by a meal' (p. 3).Google Scholar

²² See P. Vidal-Naquet, who understands Ithaca as a society in crisis and explains that sacrifice is 'both the sign of the crisis and the means of its resolution'. He argues that the suitors do not, in fact, actually sacrifice ('Land and Sacrifice in the Odyssey: A Study of Religious and Mythical 'Meanings', inGordon, R. L. [ed.], Myth, Religion, and Society [Cambridge, 1981], p. 90).Google Scholar

²³ Sacrifice might have added implications for Penelope. Ritually slaughtered meat may have fbeen the only meat available for consumption. Detienne argues for 'the absolute coincidence of meat-eating and sacrificial practice. All consumable meat comes from ritually slaughtered 'animals' (M. Detienne, op. cit., p. 3). If women, lacking political power, were consequently excluded from sacrifices and only entitled to eat meat as a result of their husbands' or fathers' participation, Odysseus' successful deployment of the bow would turn Penelope back into a carnivore after 20 years of vegetarianism. But see R. Osborne, who rejects Detienne's arguments and maintains that 'women were not as a rule excluded from sacrificial meat' ('Women and Sacrifice in Classical Greece', CQ 43 [1993], 392–405).

²⁴ E. K. Borthwick identifies the sound of Odysseus' bowstring and its comparison to the note of a swallow as 'one of the series of sound omens which at important junctures confirm the impending return of Odysseus'. He lists Telemachos' sneeze at 17.541, Zeus' thunder at 20.103 and 21.413, the mill-grinder's prayer at 20.120, and the thunder bolt at 24.539, which concludes the conflict ('Odysseus and the Return of the Swallow', Greece and Rome 35 [1988], 15–16). Surprisingly, Borthwick does not, however, also include the sound of the storeroom doors opening at 21.48ndash;9.

²⁵ One may contrast the first mention of Helen which emphasizes her physical appearance (Od. 4.121ff.)

²⁶ A. Amory notes that the tears are otherwise unexplained and that at other times when Penelope weeps, reasons are given in the text. Amory suggests that seeing the bow reminds Penelope of Odysseus, and that she feels the strain of nervous tension because she is starting a course of action that is irrevocable and its outcome uncertain (The Reunion of Odysseus and Penelope', in Taylor, C. H., Essays on the Odyssey [Bloomington, 1963], pp. 113–14)Google Scholar. N. Felson-Rubin, who provides useful bibliography on the question, similarly concludes that Penelope weeps because the weapon reminds her of Odysseus and also 'at the implications of her decision to wait no longer' ('Penelope's Perspective: Character from Plot in Homer, in Bremer, J. M. [eds], Homer Beyond Oral Poetry [Amsterdam, 1987], p. 65 and n. 22).Google Scholar

²⁷ Levy, H. discusses the harsh slaughter of suitors and its incongruity with the tone of the rest ' of the poem. He posits the existence of an ancient Greek folktale about the guest′s obligation not to abuse the host′s generosity (‘The Odyssean Suitors and the Host-Guest relationship’, TAPA 94 [1963], 147–53).Google Scholar