Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T05:29:20.428Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Return of Odysseus: A Homeric Theoxeny1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 February 2009

Emily Kearns
Emily Kearns
Affiliation:
St Hilda's College, Oxford
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

’Aυαγυώρισις γàρ διόλov, says Aristotle of the Odyssey,2 and throughout the poem's second half, with which we are here concerned, there is indeed a series of progressive recognitions as Odysseus reveals himself to Telemachos, Eurykleia, Eumaios, the suitors, Penelope and finally Laertes. So the importance of the opposite is not surprising; without concealment and deception there could be no eventual recognition. Concealment is of course necessary if Odysseus is to survive in the face of so many enemies, as Athena tells him (13. 307–10). But in addition, in any work of imaginative literature, so long as the reader or audience is aware of the truth, concealment and unperceived identity open the door to all sorts of half-truths and ironies – possibilities most obviously explored in tragedy and later comedy, but also made use of in the Odyssey. The irony which may be inherent in the arrival of the ‘nameless stranger’ has been most thoroughly explored by Fenik;3 here we examine a further implication.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Classical Quarterly , Volume 32 , Issue 1 , May 1982 , pp. 2 - 8
Copyright
Copyright © The Classical Association 1982

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.)

Footnotes

1

I am grateful to Dr N. J. Richardson for his comments on reading a first draft of this paper.

References

2 Poetics 1459B.

3 Fenik, B., Studies in the Odyssey, Hermes Einzelschriften 30 (Wiesbaden, 1974) especially pp. 5–61.Google Scholar

4 As well as 13. 256 ff., at 14. 192 ff., 17. 419 ff., 19. 165 ff.

5 See H. Kleinknecht, Gymnasium 65 (1958), 59 ff.

6 Lines 322–3 seem to imply that Odysseus was aware that it was Athena who guided him to the Phaeacian city, which was not the case in book 7; they fit rather ill here, and indeed Aristarchus rejected lines 320–3.

7 On this interesting simile see Moulton, C., Similes in the Homeric Poems, Hypomnemata 49 (Göttingen, 1977), 132–3.Google Scholar

8 γλυκερòν фáоς (23) implies that Telemachos represents hope and potential σωτηρίa, as from a rightful master; cf. Aesch. Pers. 169 for the connection.

9 Cf. on this type of statement Griffin, Jasper, Homer on Life and Death (Oxford, 1980), p. 121.Google Scholar

10 Müller, Marion, Athene als göttliche Helferin in der Odyssee (Heidelberg, 1966), pp. 109–10.Google Scholar

11 Even when there is no specific reason for fear, men are often afraid at the appearance of a god: see Griffin, op. cit. pp. 153–4. Some further examples are collected in Richardson, N. J., The Homeric Hymn to Demeter (Oxford, 1974), p. 208.Google Scholar

12 The Phaeacians were especially privileged, and the gods did not assume any disguise when associating with them. Alkinoos suggests, however, that Odysseus may be a god in disguise (a new device of the gods, then); but the suggestion finds no echo in the actual circumstance, as it does later.

13 See Hollis, A. S., Ovid: Metamorphoses VIII (Oxford, 1970), pp. 106–12Google Scholar; Bömer, F., Ovid: Metamorphosen (Heidelberg, 1977), iv. 190 ff.; L. Malten, Hermes 74 (1939), 176 ff.; J. Fontenrose, University of California Publications in Classical Antiquity 13(1945), 93 ff.Google Scholar

14 Oineus: Apollod. 1. 8. 1, Hyg. Fab. 129. Phytalos: Paus. 1. 34. 2. Diomos: Steph. Byz. s.v. Διóμεια. Dexion: Istros FGrHist 334 F 38, Etym. Mag. s.v. Δεξίων. The teaching of a skill in these stories is equivalent to, and usually implies, the institution of a cult and priesthood. See Deneken, F., De theoxeniis (Diss. Berlin, 1881). A. P. Burnett, ‘Pentheus and Dionysos: Host and Guest’ CPh 65 (1970), 24–5 n. 8, supplies a comprehensive list of gods entertained by mortals.Google Scholar

15 The failure is an interesting feature complicating the general success-story, resulting of course in Demophon's being deprived of immortality. The family's success in the basic hospitality was rewarded by the institution of the Eleusinian rites, in which the ‘daughters of Keleos’ played some part (Paus. 1. 38.3). Another Attic version (Ant. Lib. 24) relates a more spectacular failure: the boy Askalabos mocked Demeter for her eager draining of the bowl of κυκεών, and was turned by her into a lizard. Cf. Burnett, art. cit. p. 25 n. 9.

16 For instance, Paus. 2. 35. 4, Diod. 4. 2. 6, 3. 4.

17 Hera: in Ap. Rhod. 3. 66 ff. - not strictly a theoxeny but fulfilling the same purpose in the moral aspect. Cf. Richardson, op. cit. p. 182.

18 Cf. Dekker, Annie F., Ironie in de Odyssee (Leiden, 1965), p. 211; B. Fenik, op. cit. p. 224.Google Scholar

19 An earlier and less certain sign is given by the defeat of Iros in book 18; it is significant that this sign is followed by the warning speech of Odysseus to Amphinomos (18. 125 ff.). The leisurely pace of the palace narrative - too leisurely for some tastes - allows such elaborations on the basic theme.

20 See for instance 20. 393–4, 22. 39–40, and 23. 63–7 (what ought to happen). In the light of these and other explicit statements, I do not understand how Adkins can say ‘Though right triumphs in the main plot of... the Odyssey, it does not do so because it is right’ (Merit and Responsibility, p. 62). The all-pervasive ‘moral’ view of the Odyssey is expounded e.g. by Lloyd-Jones, Justice of Zeus, pp. 28 ff.. as now by Griffin, op. cit. pp. 164–5.

21 It is very significant that the divine enemy Poseidon is not mentioned after book 13, except in the context of the sacrifice ordered by Teiresias. The gods now seem to present a united front favouring Odysseus, and the divine will is made clear by omens and portents.

22 TAPA 94 (1963), pp. 145–56.