This book begins with Dawn (Ēōs) and her deified mortal consort, Tithonos, who is mentioned in passing. The next thing we know, there is another council of the gods, where Athene is discussing her favourite topic, Odysseus. She describes Odysseus as a good king, and reproaches the gods for not looking after nice people properly - this will encourage others to misbehave (ll. 8-12), and it is also unfair. "What are you on about, we've discussed this before" says Zeus, and he has a point. The only "new" information here is the plot to kill Telemachos (and even that is not new to us). I have a suspicion that in Homer there is a lot of talk just for the sake of it (cf. heroes in the Iliad, who tell their opponents stories before taking them on in the guise of "introducing" themselves), and this particular scene is included to take us back where we left off in Book 1. "Previously on the Odyssey..."
13 Comments
Menelaos finishes his nostos tale. Having sailed back to Egypt, he sacrificed a hecatomb, and when he "had ended the anger of the gods" (l. 583), he "piled a mound for Agamemnon, so that his memory / might never die". That is an interesting concept - a kind of memorial in the absence of an actual burial site or tomb. Agamemnon, however, had not died at sea, and even though he was brutally murdered, he surely must have a grave somewhere in Argos. (In Aeschylus' play Agamemnon, performed 456 BC, his daughter Electra visits the grave. I'm not sure whether he was buried with the proper funeral rites though.) Menelaos then offers Telemachos, among other things, a "fine (golden?) goblet" as parting gift; whenever Telemachos uses it in future, he will remember Menelaos (ll. 591-92). Telemachos refuses the (other?) gifts, the chariot and three horses: Ithaka and the other islands have no plains, where the horses could graze; they are "all sea slopes" (l. 608), "a place to feed goats" (l. 606). Is this a way of favourably comparing your host's land to yours? Is it a practical consideration? Is it wise to turn down presents? Menelaos is not offended, he accepts Telemachos' arguments and offers him some other stuff: a mixing bowl made by the god Hephaistos. He mentions that it is a gift from another guest-friend of his, which he is now passing on to Telemachos. Is it OK to do this? Is it supposed to make it more valuable? On the othe hand, Telemachos has nothing to do with Phaidimos, the Sidonians' king. Isn't it strange to offer the token of another guest-friendship to a third person?
Next morning, Telemachos and Menelaos tell each other their stories. Telemachos briefly explains the situation in Ithaka and inquires after his father. Menelaos replies to the first part of Telemachos' news with an extended simile concerning a deer with her fawns vs. a lion, the rightful owner of the den (= suitors vs. Odysseus, although who the suitors' 'mother' is supposed to be remains unclear - Antinoös maybe?). I think this is a rather strange simile as the deer and fawns don't do what the suitors do (eating the lion's food supplies), and the simile actually emphasises this fact (the fawns are "newborn and still suckling" l. 336, and the deer "wanders out into the foothills and grassy corners, / grazing there" ll. 337-38). Is this image here to show the massacre of the suitors in a different light? I'm not sure, it may just state how the suitors are no match to Odysseus - mere babies compared to the Trojan hero. All the same, these lines seem to inject some brutality into the story which feels disproportionate and unnecessary (and this might be an accurate description of what is going to happen). A few chapters before I mentioned enjoying the great reckoning at the end of the Odyssey, but somehow I don't feel the same way now. Killing your enemies is one thing - it can be necessary - but also humiliating them (e.g. torturing them or mutilating their [dead] body) is quite another (one of the themes of the Iliad). To be specific, I refer to Book 22, ll. 473-76 in the Odyssey.
In the next few lines, Menelaos turns to his other guest, Peisistratos, and takes the opportunity to praise his brother Antilochos, killed in Troy, his father, Nestor, Peisistratos himself and their whole bloodline really. Is it just Homer reminding us that we are dealing with heroes, or was it the thing to do on these occasions? I think it must be the former, it would be too embarrassing for the guests. Or I'm out of touch with Mediterranean culture maybe. Or, as I suspected earlier in Book 3, it is part of social bonding, reinforcing ties, reminding each other that you are connected through all these people (cf. Menelaos' frequent allusions to the young men's fathers, although he isn't supposed to know first who they are). We know from the Iliad (and A Brief History of Ancient Greece, p. 55, second paragraph from the top) that guest-friendships were hereditary, which may be a good reason for Menelaos to mention the family tree. Oral cultures seem to be obsessed with genealogies, who is related to whom, and basically keeping in mind all your family members, dead or living. Also, where you come from is your identity in Homer's world, who your father is tells people who you are. If your father is Nestor, who is very wise, you must be wise too.
This book is much longer than the ones before (847 lines compared to between 434-497), so I'm going to break it down into smaller bits. Telemachos and Peisistratos arrive in Lakedaimon, and knock on Menelaos' door. There is a double wedding being celebrated in the palace between illustrious and royal partners. The palace itself is truly magnificent, glittering with bronze, amber, gold, silver and ivory (the spoils from Troy plus generous gifts from kind friends, as we learn later) but there is a subtle hint at all not being well. The henchman of Menelaos, Eteoneus (I like the way the Odyssey gives names even to minor characters and servants) catches sight of the strangers at the door, but instead of welcoming them, thinks it wise to check with his boss first. His wariness of strangers goes against the Homeric ethic, and Menelaos is quick to retort. His reply reflects the old values and the principle of reciprocity (cf. in Book 1, Athene-Mentes promises Telemachos to give him a gift in exchange for the one she has been given by him when he returns the visit). Next, when Telemachos and Peisistratos are eventually invited to join the celebration, Homer indulges in yet another description of a royal feast. There is (obviously) an 'inspired singer' (l. 17) and some acrobats to entertain the guests. All this sounds great, but it feels a bit different after the scene with Eteoneus whispering to Menelaos. Why was Eteoneus so distrustful of strangers? What has happened here? From the outside, everything is as it should be: a king giving a feast in his big palace, which is full of treasure, and everybody's having a good time.
|
AuthorHave studied A219 Exploring the Classical World and A275 Reading Classical Greek at the Open University. Currently studying for a Psychology degree. ImagesPlease click on any image to be taken to its source.
Archives
August 2014
Categories
All
Resources |