Great Works of Literature I (Fall 2016)

1. 439: Book X, Lines 53-60

“The winds rushed out and bore them far out to sea, weeping

As their native land faded on the horizon.

When I woke up and saw what had happened

I thought long and hard about whether I should

Just go over the side and end it all in the sea

Or endure in silence and remain among the living.

In the end I decided to bear it and live.”

At this point in Odysseus’ tale, he’s semi-humorously questioning whether or not committing suicide is the best route to take given his current situation. For a long time now, Odysseus has been travelling from place to place, out at sea with a disappearing crew, and unsure of his ultimate fate. He had been fighting his hardest to get back home, warding off all of the immortal-sent obstacles that were in his way, but his efforts just didn’t seem to substantiate. “Sleep” got the best of him in the end, and caused the ship to be pushed off of its path. This passage is a perfect combination of comedic relief through hyperbolized anger and a serious look into the prospect of the life or death binary.

The passage is striking not only because of its poetic nature, but also because of its presentation of an internal existential argument, contemplation about such a grandiose subject. Odysseus, in a comedic context, considers the most polarized and seemingly concrete binary – being alive, or not being alive – and what side he should chose to align with. Paradoxically, though, it’s at this moment that the reader is given the opportunity to realize how accessible either one of those sides is, and how being alive is also being dead, because of the ability to do the latter at any time.

This is not like other binaries that are based on a scale, that have a gradual change from one end of the spectrum to another, or that allow the option of floating in the middle. It’s a fact that you are only alive, or you are only dead. The destruction of this binary, however, comes with the inevitability of each outcome; by being alive, you are destined for death. This whole scene complicates the spectrum of existing by introducing the idea of literal “sudden death” coupled with bodily autonomy. It almost suggests that the gray space in the black and white is the realization of one’s presence in the middle – the mental state of being aware of the life/death choice.

It also incorporates the role of the Fates and the humans on a larger scale. When looking at a scene like this in Greek mythology, its hard not to wonder if the Fates plan such a change in the inter-weavings, or if the human makes the spontaneous decision to snip their string then and there.

“I spoke, they obeyed. But I didn’t mention

Scylla. There was nothing we could do about that,

And I didn’t want the crew to freeze up,

Stop rowing, and huddle up together in the hold.”

231-234, Book XII

This passage was so striking to me because our “Godlike Odysseus” actually grants himself a godly power. He knows more about the situation than his crew does, and so he decides what that their options are and which will be chosen. He could have told the crew everything he knew from the beginning just as Circe told him about the monsters and the rocks and the dangers so they could decide what they wanted to do, but he did not. What if the crew would have preferred to give up, and live with Circe forever? Instead, Odysseus decided for them that they did not want that because it was in his best interest that they comply. According to him, their only options were to either remain oblivious and keep rowing, or be informed and freeze up. He decided their fate for them by leading them to believe they had no reason not to continue.

This is similar to the way the Gods throughout the epic so far have told Odysseus of his fate, they give him options saying either this or that will happen depending on your actions here on out. (Hermes, Circe) But, Odysseus strips his crew of their options and so they are left in the dark while he holds onto powerful information. He navigates and directs them and they have no choice but to follow like sheep. Through all the godly intervention Odysseus has been privy to he, in this moment, is selfish and has detached his crew from their humanity. They are like pawns, the same way Gods arguably make a game of mortal existence when they’re bored. They are just rowers to get him where he needs to go, to protect the more important piece(s) on the board. Their fate is in stone, not etched particularly by anyone on Mount Olympus, rather by a man stranded at sea.

However, “Godlike” and not “God” is fitting to Odysseus because if he had told his crew the dangers to come and let them decide what to do about the risk he could have very well changed all of their fate because they could have made decisions for themselves potentially unforeseen by the rest of the Gods. So, now, is he or is he not powerful beyond mortal extent?

Though the Iliad portrays the Trojan War in a thorough fashion, War and Peace is undoubtedly a major structuring binary in the Odyssey. Upon first glance, those who participated in the Trojan War, such as Odysseus, Achilles, and Agamemnon, witnessed first-hand the valor, companionship, and glory that the battlefield brings forth, as evident in their conversations in Hades; the Greeks who did not participate in the war, devoid of the heroic experience, continued to feast, host one another, and conduct other ordinary Greek activities. The surviving Ithacan soldiers, sickened by the bloodshed and the long journey home, longed to return to the ordinary lives that they led on at home before this war took place, to reunite with family and walk on Ithacan soil. Those who lived in peace, like the Phaeacians, admired and yearned the bravery and cunning nature of the soldiers from the tales of the epic battle.

 

He had made twelve sties, one next to the other,

As beds for the swine, and in each were penned

Fifty wallowing swine—breeding females.

The boars slept outside, and were far scarcer,

Their numbers depleted by the godlike suitors

Who feasted on them.

(The Odyssey, Book XIV, lines 15-20)

The excerpt above exemplifies the breakdown of the war-peace binary at Ithaca. On the surface, Ithaca itself is at peace: suitors feasts in Odysseus’ residence, where Penelope and Telemachus take the roles of hosts. Unlike the Trojans, there is no outside enemies for the Ithacans at home to worry about. However, the excerpt from Book XIV conjures a powerful imagery that compares the most common livestock – hogs, to the soldiers that fought at the Trojan War. Like those solders, who entered the war in great numbers, the hogs were decimated through the hands of the enemy – the suitors who occupy Odysseus’ house. Through the exploitation of the host tradition in Greek culture, the suitors declared an economic war against Odysseus’ family, threatening to exhaust all its resources in order to force Penelope into re-marrying. In a sense, these pigs, which represents the larger idea of Penelope’s economic resources, are her soldiers in this war. Penelope, much like the Trojans with their impenetrable defense, cleverly dance around the suitors and stall for as much time as she can, while Telemachus seeks the aid of his father. Time is running out, however; like an army that lost all its soldiers, Penelope and Telemachus will no longer be able to defend against the suitors once their economic resources, such as these hogs, are depleted.

Book 13, Lines 132-143
“I lose face among the gods, Zeus,
When I am not respected by mortal men
The Phaeacians yet, my own flesh and blood!
I swore that Odysseus would have to suffer
Before getting home- I didn’t say
He would never get home, because you had already
Agreed that he would- and now they’ve brought him
Over the sea while he napped on their ship,
And set him down in Ithaca, and given him
Gifts of bronze and clothing and gold,
More than he ever would have taken out of Troy
Had he come home safely with his share of the loot.”

Through this passage in which Poseidon displays his displeasure towards Odysseus’ advancements home, we can use these characteristics to see the god/mortal oppositional pair. From Poseidon’s complaining to Zeus, we can see that gods are somewhat similar from mortals. Poseidon is afraid of what his mortal Phaeacians will think of him if he did not keep his promise of getting revenge on Odysseus. Even within the gods, there is a chain of command that can also be broken. Even if Zeus allowed Poseidon to get revenge on Odysseus, Poseidon abuses his power and keeps delaying Odysseus for a long twenty years. I’m not sure if it is because he is a god but he seems to hold a grudge for quite a long time.

The gods’ power to control certain aspects of life bring up the oppositional pair of fate and free will. Poseidon speaks as is Zeus planned for Odysseus to get home after Poseidon is able to get his revenge. Poseidon says, “because you [Zeus] had already Agreed that he would [return home]’ and is mad that it is happening so soon. It appears that it is within the gods’ control to get the mighty hero back to Ithaca. However, we previously saw Athena begging her father to help Odysseus and not delay his return home. Is suggested that Odysseus was fated to return home but when he would return would be determined by the willingness of the gods, except for the revengeful Poseidon.

I question the relationship between Zeus, Athena and Poseidon. When Athena asks Zeus to send Hermes to help Odysseus, he says that mortals are at fault but proceeds to listen to his daughter. When Poseidon mentions it, he is free to do as he wish, as long as Odysseus will return home someday. When Athena makes progress to get Odysseus home, Poseidon will hold him back. Even though he seems to side a bit more with Poseidon, he cannot disregard what his daughter wants. I wonder what the relationship between Athena and Poseidon are like, considering the fact they they are at ends with helping Odysseus but have never come face-to-face about it. I think that a lot of Odysseus’ long journey is due to the ‘neutral’ position that Zeus takes on it.

“Then came the ghost of Achilles, son of Peleus,

And those of Patroculus and peerless Antilochus

And Ajax, who surpassed all the Danaans,

Except Achilles, in looks and build.”

(11.486-489).

You would be hard pressed to find a strong, brave warrior who isn’t some sort of peerless beauty. Even in this passage, where Odysseus is talking to ghosts, we need to still be reminded of how physically attractive they are.

This is an interesting clash of beauty and brawn. As warriors and soldiers going in and out of wars, there is a valid justification for why these men should look beaten, sweaty and unshaven. Earlier in the above passage, Odysseus even describes how the men who died in battle still look the way they died as ghosts, blood stains and all (11.38-39). However, somehow their beauty is not tarnished. Ajax and Achilles are apparently some pretty sexy ghosts despite their potentially looking like skewered shish kebabs.

Continue reading →

Book IX

‘A cheerful gathering of all the people

Sitting side by side throughout the halls,

Feasting and listening to a singer of tales,

The tables filled with food and drink’

v.s.

‘They headed out and made contact with the Lotus-Eaters,

Who meant no harm but did give my men some lotus to eat.

Whoever ate that sweet fruit lost the will to report back,

Preferring instead to stay there, munching lotus, oblivious of home.

Food plays a very important role in The Odyssey, in some ways it almost as if it is a character on its own. In The Odyssey, food means so much more than simply food. Food is sustenance, togetherness, tradition and survival.

In The Odyssey, food is often used as a means to get from point A to point B. For example, when Odysseus lands on the Island of Scheria, King Alkinoos holds a feast in his honor. It is during this feast that Odysseus tells his saga, and Alkinoos offers to help get him home. In book 4, when Telemachus arrives in Sparta, Menelaus serves him food. It is over this meal that Telemachus reveals that he is in Sparta in search of his father. Both Odysseus and Telemachus had very specific end goals in mind when engaging in these feasts. They took part in them because of tradition, but also as a means to an end. The end being getting Odysseus back to Ithaka.

The role of lotus flowers differs from the role of food in The Odyssey, while lotus-eaters play the role of drug addicts. When Odysseus and his men landed in Libya, they were met by beautiful, flowering lotus plants and their eaters. The lotus-eaters offered Odysseus’s men the lotus flower. Once Odysseus’ men ate some of the plants, getting home became of decreasing importance to them. Odysseus had to force them to get on the ship as they wailed and wept for more lotus plant. The lotus plant forces people to forget who they are and what they want. The numb and forgetful effects of the lotus plant go directly against usage of food as a means to an end in this instance.

The lotus plant and food are both pleasurable and objects of temptation, respectively. The lotus plant represents individual pleasure – as those who consume it are able to escape into their own mental paradise. However, feasting on food represents communal pleasure and togetherness. For Odysseus, the lotus plant detracts from his mission to get home, while feasting on food assists him in his journey.

“They went through the woods and found Circe’s house In an upland clearing. It was built of polished stone And surrounded by mountain lions and wolves, Creatures Circe had drugged and bewitched. These beasts did not attack [Odysseus’] men, but stood On their hind legs and wagged their long tails, Like dogs fawning on their master who always brings Treats for them when he comes home from a feast” (Book 10, Lines 226-233).

In this passage, the working binary is of civilization/domestication and the wild. Circe’s house is representative of a domesticated place, which is surrounded by the wilderness: the woods. In civilized life, people alter their surroundings from its natural state of being. One way the land was altered in this case was by building a permanent structure: Circe’s stone house. Also, the fact that Circe’s house was found in an upland clearing shows how the land has been altered to make a suitable living space for her. In addition to the setting, Circe’s house is also surrounded by wild animals: mountain lions and wolves. These animals complicate the working binary in a few ways. In the passage, these wild animals are compared to domesticated dogs; they do not act as wild and savage as they should. Domesticated animals only exist where there is human civilization. So, the fact that these beasts were found in the one place in the woods that was not wild challenges the binary. Part of the reason why the beasts acted this way is because they were most likely men who were transformed into beasts by Circe. This would explain why they stood on their hind legs instead of all fours and why they were compared to domesticated animals: because they were originally civilized people. So, essentially these beasts were men who were transformed into wild animals by Circe and lived with her, domesticated in her stone dwelling, which is surrounded by the woods.

“Meanwhile, her serving women were busy,

Four maidens who did all the housework,

Spirit women born of the springs and groves

And of the sacred rivers that flow to the sea.

………

In the glowing bronze, she set me in a tub

And bathed me, mixing in water from the cauldron

Until it was just how I liked it, and pouring it over

My head and shoulders until she washed from my limbs

The weariness that had consumed my soul.”

(Book X Lines 371-374 and 382-386)

Thus far throughout the book we have read about many instances where a host has accepted a guest without questioning them. Often times the guest is invited to feast with them, after being bathed by women of the city. It is only after being bathed and having eaten, that it is acceptable to question the visitor on who they are and why they have arrived. We can call this the structured visitor and host relationship. The host doesn’t question the visitor’s motives and the visitor in return, holds no evil motives. Another structured relationship that we have heard of, just as often is the immortal and mortal relationship. With the exception of Odysseus’ mistrust in Calypso that results in rudeness, every one else that is mortal is expected to worship the immortal, listen to their instructions and sacrifice offerings to them. It is quite unheard of that an immortal god would present a mortal with a feast at their house and basically “worship” them.

Circe’s house to me is a place where immortal vs. mortal and host vs. visitor kind of collide. Circe becomes the host even though she is a goddess. This hasn’t occurred in the story thus far, or hasn’t explicitly been told. This moment to me seems a bit off since Odysseus is the visitor and an immortal goddess is the host. Even the people who bathe Odysseus are described as “spirit women born of the springs and groves and of the sacred rivers that flow to the sea” showing a hint of immortality. They are definitely not mortal, and yet they are washing Odysseus’ dirty skin and pouring oils on him. The mortal man in this scene is being “worshipped” by immortal women. Although it’s not the worship we’ve previously heard of, such as sacrificing, there’s something to be said about washing another person, especially someone you just met.

In this scene, Homer brings together immortal and mortal, as well as host and visitor. The host and visitor relationship is expected to be followed no matter who the host is and no matter who the visitor is.

“‘There you go again, always the hero.

Won’t you yield even to the immortals? She’s not mortal, she’s an immortal evil,

Dread, dire, ferocious, unfightable.

There is no defense. It’s flight, not fight.

If you pause so much as to put on a helmet

She’ll attack again with just as many heads

And kill just as many men as before.’”

The above passage can be found in Book 12, Lines 120-127, of The Odyssey, or on page 469 in the Norton Anthology 3^rd Edition. It is dialogue. In this passage, Circe is talking to Odysseus. She warns Odysseus about dangers he will face on his journey. Charybdis, who “sucks down the black water,” is one such danger. She poses a potentially fatal obstacle on Odysseus’ journey back to Ithaca. Charybdis is a sea monster and somewhat resembles a whirlpool—though a very powerful and dangerous one. If Odysseus fails to navigate the water correctly and by the manner in which Circe instructs, his ship could drift too close to Charybdis and be sucked down into the sea.

The binary addressed in this passage comes from the contrasting yet intermingled concepts of mortality and immortality, or man and god, which thread throughout The Odyssey. Many times in the epic, the narrator refers to Odysseus as “godlike Odysseus,” which sparks the idea that Odysseus toes the line between god and man. He is not a god per se, but he exhibits godlike qualities and abilities which distinguish him from other human beings who are less renowned than he. His cunning, physical strength, and endurance all make Odysseus mightier and somehow better than his fellow men. Gods like Athena and Zeus tend to have a soft spot for Odysseus, partially due to the drastic circumstances which he faces and his continued rise to meet them. This passage makes the binary much more complicated, because it challenges the idea that anyone (but specifically Odysseus) could somehow be a godlike man. The passage addresses a potential hard truth: that, at the end of the day—or at the end of the epic—Odysseus may just be a man, just like everyone else, and nothing special or superior.

In the passage, Circe chastises Odysseus for what she may view as his conflated ego, though readers are meant to see it as Odysseus’ godlike character. Here Odysseus is met with a difficult situation (he must avoid Charybdis) and must himself participate in this question posed by the binary between man and god. It is a crossroads of sorts, as Odysseus is forced to come face-to-face with the reality of his existence: Is he just a man, after all? Can he possibly be godlike?

It is interesting to focus on whom Odysseus is talking with in this passage: Circe, who is herself a goddess. Odysseus lived for a long time on Circe’s island Ogygia. This itself is not typical for a mortal, though spending time and having excessive close contact with gods seems to be regular for Odysseus during his journey. It is understood that the gods involve themselves in many areas of human life, but they themselves admit to taking a particular liking to Odysseus and being more concerned about him than other mortals. His intimate ties with the gods, seen in action here during this conversation with Circe, still suggest that Odysseus is godlike regardless of the weaknesses about which Circe confronts him. In addition, Circe specifically says, “Won’t you yield even to the immortals?” Though her tone seems frustrated by what she views as Odysseus’ stubbornness, it can also be said that this is just another example of Odysseus’ godlike ability to persevere in the face of danger without showing fear.

The complication of this binary seems intentional. It is ever-fluctuating throughout the epic; one minute Odysseus is crying and entirely human, and the next he is devising a brilliant plan to aid him on his journey home that only a god could think up. It seems as if Homer plays with the idea of “godlike” Odysseus to keep readers engaged, only to be resolved at the very end of the epic, or maybe not at all in the text.

Passage analyzed: Book 9, Lines 505-514 (p 437 in The Norton Anthology, 3rd ed.)

In this passage, the Cyclops Polyphemus recalls the prophesying of Odysseus’ visit to his cave. His speech both exemplifies the binary of fate and free will and blurs the line between the two. The seer Telemos Eurymides warned him long ago a man would come to take his sight. Despite his awareness of the danger, the one-eyed giant falls for Odysseus’ clever tricks and can only grumble and groan as the man sails away, just as Eurymides foretold. We watched with bated breath as Odysseus puzzled through his escape and executed it against all odds. By all accounts, it seemed to be his own mind and will at work—all accounts except Polyphemus and anyone else who knew of the prophecy, that is. If Odysseus’ success was prophesied before he even landed on that island, were there any real stakes at all? Did the Fates slip him out of danger, easy as can be?

The passage gives the impression it does not matter either way. Fate and free will complement and substitute one another. Fate is simply a time-skewed rendition of decisions made through free will. Looking back, we do not doubt Odysseus’ freedom of choice. It is only when looking forward we get uneasy. In the Cyclopes scenario, there is actually no significant difference between the two.

You would think knowing the future would be helpful, changing the choices you make and thus affecting your will. But Polyphemus’ knowledge of the future only added to his regrets after the prediction came true. If a stake in his eyeball was inevitable either way, would he not have been better off ignorant?

The knowledge of what was to come did not hamper Polyphemus’ free will. However, it is important to consider the conveniently curated information in the prophecy. The time frame is vague and a name is given without a proper physical description, both of which support Odysseus and leave Polyphemus at a disadvantage. It is almost as if the god who inspired Eurymides to speak was already rooting for the hero and sent down a few select words simply to frustrate the Cyclops. The scenario of fate versus free will would have been further complicated if it were Odysseus who knew of his future exploits, as occurs later when he receives detailed warnings from Circe and the dead Tiresias.