We are in Scheria, where the Phaiakians live. The book starts with a brief history of the Phaiakians, who seem to be peace-loving people. They used to live "near the Cyclopes" in a different place called Hypereia, but because of their "overbearing" neighbours, were forced to migrate to Scheria, "far away from men who eat bread" (l. 8). This last bit may be a device to introduce any kind of unbelievable element to the story, e.g. "it all happend in a far away place, where people have three ears". I'm not sure how much ink has been spilled over the next passage on settling down in a new land (ll.6-10), but I guess everybody who is anybody in Homeric studies has felt obliged to comment. As I have come to Homer with no or very little previous knowledge (mainly based on the Odyssey Study Guide in "Resources" in the blog sidebar), the only thing I can say is that everything seems to have been well-organised. The story continues in the bedchamber of the Phaiakian princess, Nausikaa, where Athene finds her asleep with her two handmaidens. All three of them have been endowed with beauty by the Graces (Kharites), with Nausikaa especially looking like an immortal goddess. She is the daughter of the Phaiakian king, Alkinoös (not to be confused with Antinoös) so it's no surprise that her surroundings are also very pretty ("ornate chamber", l. 15, thalamos polydaidalos in Greek, the adjective polydaidalos meaning high-skilled [workmanship], esp. connected to metal working; Homer is obsessed with metal!). Now Athene's idea this time is to persuade Nausikaa, posing as her best friend, to go on a washing trip. Her argument is that as Nausikaa is soon to be married (although the lucky man hasn't been picked yet), she should make a point of wearing clean clothes (!). She hastens to add it's not because there is any shortage of suitors, though. It turns out there is quite a bit of washing to be done - to be carried by mules and wagon to the washing place, which is some distance away. Nausikaa, being a princess, has to think of the attire of her attendants as well.
0 Comments
Odysseus makes a raft with Kalypso handing him the tools and the material. At the same time, it is made clear that Odysseus is the one to make it: he has both the mental skills to design it and the craftsmanship to build it. I think Kalypso is needed to explain where Odysseus got some of the things from, e.g. the cloth to make the sail. I'm sure many people have written pages about Odysseus' raft-making skills, and there must be similar episodes in other epics, but I find it difficult to comment further. On the other hand, in an oral culture these things may be important to include (although it is more poetry than instruction manual, I think). Kalypso gives some parting gifts to Odysseus: clothing, wine and water and a bag full of food. I wonder how all this (not the clothes though, as Odysseus is wearing them - but they will be a problem too a bit later) can stay on the raft. Even if you tie them to the beams, won't the food get soaked, the skins bashed about and burst? It's well-meaning, I'm sure, but Kalypso is not a very practical woman. She lives in her own little world on her own little island with her own little toys. Minus one from now on.
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..."
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.
There has been an interesting thread going on in OUSA Classics on First Class about colour perception in different languages and what Homer meant by epi oinopa ponton ("over the wine-faced sea"). How is the sea like wine? Is it the same colour? Book 3 is full of colours or words that seem to refer to colours - but the question whether Homer understood the concept of "blue" or "red" has not been settled yet. Some translators (e.g. my Hungarian version) goes for "blue-haired" Poseidon (logical: god of the sea), while Lattimore is more cautious and has "dark-haired" (kyanokhaitē, l. 6). The bulls sacrificed to him are described as pammelanas ("all black", l. 6). Well, dark. Later, when Nestor and his family sacrifice a cow to Athene, they let flow its "black blood" (melan haima, l. 455). OK, so the sea is like wine (not necessarily red, it seems, but dark? dense? murky? opaque?) and blood is black (dark?). I'm looking forward to some future references of blue or red to be able to formulate some kind of theory. Another interesting issue in Book 3 (in Books 1-2 as well) is the belief that your success is partly due to your actions and partly to the god(s) helping you. When Telemachos is approaching the feasting party on the seashore, Athene tells him not to worry too much about how to address Nestor: "some of it you yourself will see in your own heart, / and some the divinity will put in your mind" (ll. 26-27). Crediting only yourself with your success was rather unwise in the Iliad, if I remember correctly; the gods detest boasting and arrogance and will take action if some fool deludes themselves. In Book 3, fortunately, everybody knows how to behave properly and they show the gods due respect: all through the book they keep pouring the first portion of the mixed wine as libation to the gods (Poseidon, in this instance) and burning bones and fat for them. On the other hand, I personally feel that Athene is meddling in things all the time. She is such a dominant character and is always there manipulating. This, I think, is a very good picture of her. Having watched the course introduction video (and realised we are not required to read the whole of the Odyssey!), I am inclined to say the Odyssey is mainly about nostalgia (a Greek word, but did they invent it?), a fantasy about restoring the past. The Iliad is a lot more comfortable about showing life as it is, so I suggest that the Odyssey was written much later, looking back to the Iliad as a model, with a desire to conjure that world up again. There is quite a bit of 'cosmetic surgery' going on, idealisation of characters (I've lost count of the good fathers / kings / old men / wives / servants), and all that eating... In Book 2, Telemachos dashes his sceptre to the ground in the assembly, an action clearly intended to remind us of the same scene in the Iliad (the Odyssey Study Guide drew my attention to this - link on the side bar underneath "Other stuff"). The Iliad begins with a big quarrel, which is mirrored in the assembly episode here. I feel this is very deliberate, but one can't help noticing the difference: in that scene everybody was a king, there was a multitude of them (also heroes), now there is a huge absence, a kinglessness - and no heroes either, they have been replaced by young men who don't work, don't fight, just party all the time at somebody else's expense, wooing a woman past child-bearing age. Everything seems to be just the opposite of what it should be. Everything’s out of order. I must confess I took one look at Lattimore's introduction - read a few sentences about how the punishment of the suitors is too harsh. I do not share this sensitivity; I'm looking forward to the bloodbath! (Source: Index) Read the article on Archaeology Daily. Note: This is the first time I've heard that Pericles died of typhoid fever. He died in the 'plague' (an unidentified disease according to my course books and the lectures I've heard) that swept through Athens during the Peloponnesian War, killing many. The Archaeology Daily article mentions that it was identified as typhoid in 2006. Apparently my A275 coursebook (The World of Athens) and A219 coursebook (The Oxford Companion to Classical Civilisation) are 4 years behind! |
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 |