Odyssey 24, 191 – 202: A Reconsideration Author(s): CHRISTOS C. TSAGALIS Source: Wiener Studien , 2003, Vol. 116 (2003), pp. 43-56 Published by: Austrian Academy of Sciences Press Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/24751424

REFERENCES Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article: https://www.jstor.org/stable/24751424?seq=1&cid=pdf- reference#references_tab_contents You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at https://about.jstor.org/terms

Austrian Academy of Sciences Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Wiener Studien

This content downloaded from 128.95.104.109 on Mon, 28 Dec 2020 05:39:39 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms CHRISTOS C. TSAGALIS / ATHEN

Odyssey 24,191 -202: A Reconsideration

One of the main arguments of those who think that ends in 23,296 (since both the brief recounting of ' adventures to and the whole of Book 24 are considered to be later additions) is that of 's speech to Amphimedon in 24,192-202. The aim of this article is to scrutinize this particular passage and examine thoroughly all the problems related to it in an attempt to reconsider its function within the second Nekyia and the Odyssey as a whole.1 Before embarking on this scrutiny test I would like to forestall any objections raised in respect of the fact that the above passage forms part of a larger thematic unit, the second Nekyia, and therefore cannot be examined in isolation. This is certainly so, but my focusing on this passage has emanated from both the need to explore it in full depth and the lack, at least in my knowledge, of any convincing suggestion facing what has been

1 Both this problem (dating from the age of Aristophanes of Byzantium and Arist archus) and the bibliography on it are vast. The aim of this article is not to examine the whole question of the authenticity of Od. 23,296ff. but to focus its attention on a less ambitious, albeit important, aspect of it: Agamemnon's speech to Amphimedon in 24,192-202. This is one of the strongest arguments of those who maintain that the last part of the epic (23,296ff.) is not authentic. See A. Heubeck (A Commentary on 's Odyssey, vol. Ill, Oxford 1992, 353/354) who summarizes excellently the history of the authenticity problem by offering a brief outline of previous research. Three additions should be made to Heubeck's bibliographical survey: (a) R. Oswald, Das Ende der Odyssee. Studien zur Struktur epischen Gestaltens, Graz 1993 (Dissertationen der Karls-Franzens-Universitat Graz 93), and (b) W. Kullmann, Homerische Motive. Beitrage zur Entstehung, Eigenart und Wirkung von Ilias und Odyssee, Stuttgart 1992, and (c) by the same author, The two Nekyiai of the Odyssey and their oral sources, Εύχήν Όδυσσεί. Από τα Πρακτικά του Ζ' Συνεδρίου για την Οδύσσεια, 3-8 Σεπτεμβρίου 1993, επιμέλεια Μάχη Παίζη-Αποστολοπούλου, Κέντρο Οδυσσειακών Σπουδών, Ιθάκη 1995. Oswald belongs to the group of scholars who believe that the epic as we know it is the outcome of the reworking of an older, more brief version by a compiler coined the B-poet or redactor; Kullmann on the other hand adopts a Unitarian stance accepting that the last part of the epic (23,296ff.) formed always part of the original Odyssey which is the work of a single poet.

This content downloaded from 128.95.104.109 on Mon, 28 Dec 2020 05:39:39 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms 44 Christos C. Tsagalis considered an unsurpassable difficulty against its authenticity and, con sequently, of the second Nekyia as a whole.2 The examination of Od. 24,191-202 will deal with the following problems which are associated with the doubts about the authenticity of this passage raised by both soft and hard core Analysts: (i) the connection between the formulaic introduction to Agamemnon's speech and the first two lines where he addresses Odysseus in the second person; (ii) the praise of Penelope and its relevance to the Odyssean plot, and (iii) the function of this passage for the poetics of the Odyssey.

(i) Physical and notional presence: addressing an absent addressee

In Od. 24,191 the speech of Agamemnon to Amphimedon is introduced by the standard formulaic expression: τόν δ' αΰτε ψυχή προσεφώνεεν Ατρεί δαο which is attested 5x in Book 24 of the Odyssey.3 The oddity of this formulaic speech introduction lies in its connection with the two first lines of the ensuing speech which is addressed to Odysseus despite the fact that Agamemnon is speaking to Amphimedon and Odysseus is not in the Underworld but in Ithaca. The fullest account of this textual oddity has been given by Sourvinou Inwood who adopts an analytical stance against the authenticity of this speech.4 Sourvinou-Inwood refers in a footnote5 to the comments of

2 See C. Sourvinou-Inwood, 'Reading' Greek Death: To the End of the Classical Period, Oxford 1996, 100/101, who argues that "[t]here is no plausible reading that can in any way explain away the more serious difficulty involved in vv. 191 -202. Aga memnon is supposed to be addressing Amphimedon; in fact he addresses Odysseus in the second person singular and praises Penelope's virtue and again compares his own case, having a treacherous wife, to that of Odysseus who was happy to have married such an excellent woman and faithful spouse." 3 See Od. 24,23.35. 105.120. 191. Lines 35, 105 and 191 are occupied by the formula τόν δ' αύτε ψυχή προσεφώνεεν Ατρείδαο; line 23 τόν προτέρη ψυχή προσεφώ νεε Πηλείωνος and line 120 by τόν δ' αύτε ψυχή προσεφώνεεν Άμφιμέδοντος. 1 consider all this to be allomorphs of the same formula since they constitute manifestations of the same metrical and syntactical pattern and realizations on the synchronic level of the same pre-verbal Gestalt. For the notion of pre-verbal Gestalt in Homeric poetry, see M. Nag ler, Towards a Generative View of the Homeric Formula, TAPhA 98 (1967), 269-311 and by the same author, Spontaneity and Tradition: Α Study in the Oral Art of Homer, Berkeley 1974, 8ff. 4 See Sourvinou-Inwood (1996), 100/101; cf. also footnote 2 above. For relevant scholia from ancient authorities on the two Nekyiai, see G. Petzl, Antike Diskussionen über die beiden Nekyiai, Meisenheim am Glan 1969 and, in particular for the passage under discussion, pp. 65/66. 5 Cf. Sourvinou-Inwood (1996), 100 n. 254.

This content downloaded from 128.95.104.109 on Mon, 28 Dec 2020 05:39:39 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms Odyssey 24,191 -202: A Reconsideration 45

Heubeck concerning this particular problem: "Even Heubeck who believes in the authenticity of Odyssey 24 acknowledges the difficulty (Heubeck, 1992, 380 ad 24,191), though he very much underplays it: 'the formulaic line is unusual here because it names Amphimedon (τον) as the listener to whom the speech is addressed, whereas in fact it introduces a speech directed to the absent son of '; nonsensical rather than unusual would have been a more apposite description. In addition, the address to the absent Odysseus is in itself not unproblematic, especially in this particular context." Heubeck's term "unusual" refers to the lack of regularity in respect of the pair 'introductory formula vs. initial speech-address' whereas Sour vinou-Inwood's "nonsensical" pertains to the absurdity of the situation. In other words, Heubeck thinks that such a phenomenon is unusual, not regularly observed while Sourvinou-Inwood argues that it does not make sense. Before committing ourselves to one of these two sides, I think that it is worthwhile examining whether such or an equivalent phenomenon is attested anywhere else in the Odyssey. Lines 10,456 (διογενές Λαερτιάδη, πολυμήχαν' ΌδυσσεΟ) and 10,504 (διογενές Λαερτιάδη, πολυμήχαν' Όδυσσεΰ) are omitted by the majority of manuscripts (10,456 is also missing in Eustathius). 10,456 seems to be an interpolation based on 10,400/401 (ή δέ μευ άγχι στδσα προσηύδα δΐα θεάων / Διογενές Λαερτιάδη, πολυμήχαν Όδυσσεΰ); but whereas in 10, 400/401 is speaking in the presence of Odysseus and nobody else, in 10,456 she is speaking to a group of people (cf. ήμΐν) and so her address to Odysseus seems odd, to say the least. Now, the reverse phenomenon can be observed in 10,504 where Circe is indeed addressing only Odysseus (cf. μελέσθω [505], στήσας [506], πετάσσας [506] etc.) but the introductory formula διογενές Λαερτιάδη, πολυμήχαν' Όδυσσεΰ is also missing from a large number of manuscripts. Early critics like Ameis-Hentze6 and Ludwich7 favored the omission of the introductory formula but Heubeck8 made a brilliant point when he revealed the whole pattern of thought the poet is employing in the three speeches of Circe to Odysseus. In his own words "... 456 is prepared by μευ άγχι στάσα, and the poet wanted to underline the parallelism between Circe's three speeches (456-465, 488 495, 504-540) by beginning them all in the same way (456 + μηκέτι νΰν ... 457; 458 + μηκέτι νΰν ... 489; 504 + μή τί τοι ... 505)." Through this

6 Cf. Κ. F. Ameis - C. Hentze, Anhang zu Odyssee, Leipzig 1889 (31895). 7 Cf. A. Ludwich, Homeri Odyssea, Lipsiae 1889. 8 Cf. Heubeck (1992), 67, ad 10,456.

This content downloaded from 128.95.104.109 on Mon, 28 Dec 2020 05:39:39 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms 46 Christos C. Tsagalis parallelism one can see that the correspondence between an introductory formula and the first line of an address is not always typically observed; some flexibility is allowed when the poet is attempting to pigeonhole a speech within a larger framework (like that of Circe's encounter with Odysseus). In the same manner we can draw a line between the physical addressee of a speech designated by the introductory formula and the notional addressee, the character whom the speaker has in his mind when uttering the speech. It is now time to turn to 24,191 where we encounter an equivalent, albeit more odd, situation since in 10,456 Odysseus is present (although being member of the group of his comrades) whereas in the second Nekyia he is physically absent from the Underworld. But at least now we have paved the way towards the notion of irregularity as opposed to that of absurdity and senselessness. The text to be discussed runs as follows (24,191-202):

τόν δ' αύτε ψυχή προσεφώνεεν Άτρείδαο' "όλβιε Λαέρταο πάι, πολυμήχαν' Όδυσσεΰ, ή άρα σύν μεγάλη άρετη έκτήσω άκοιτιν ώς άγαθαί φρένες ήσαν άμύμονι Πηνελοπείη, 195 κούρη Ίκαρίου, ώς ευ μέμνητ' Όδυσηος, άνδρός κουριδίου. τώ οί κλέος οϋ ποτ' όλεΐται ής άρετης, τεύξουσι δ' έπιχθονίοισιν άοιδήν αθάνατοι χαρίεσσαν έχέφρονι Πηνελοπείη, ούχ ώς Τυνδαρέου κούρη κακά μήσατο εργα, 200 κουρίδιον κτείνασα πόσιν, στυγερή δέ τ' άοιδή εσσετ' έπ άνθρώπους, χαλεπήν δέ τε φήμιν όπάσσει θηλυτέρησι γυναιξί, και ή κ' εύεργός εησιν."

The formula πολυμήχαν' Όδυσσεΰ is attested 7χ in the Iliad and 16x in the Odyssey, localized always in the second hemistich after the penthemimeral caesura. It is preceded by the phrase διογενές Λαερτιάδη thus forming a one-line formulaic address to Odysseus. Od. 24,191 is the only case where the formula πολυμήχαν' Όδυσσεΰ is not preceded by διογενές Λαερτιάδη but by the phrase όλβιε Λαέρταο πάι.9 So here we have a deviation from a formulaic pattern that is widely attested in both the Iliad and the Odyssey.10 I think that the reasons for this irregularity are

9 R. Β. Rutherford, in his commentary ad loc., Cambridge 1992, 52 argues that only in 24,191 "is Odysseus in a situation where that epithet [sc. όλβιος] could be used without absurdity." 10 Probably an ad hoc invention by the poet of the Odyssey.

This content downloaded from 128.95.104.109 on Mon, 28 Dec 2020 05:39:39 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms Odyssey 24,191 -202: A Reconsideration 47 connected with the other irregularity, that of the 'non sequitur' between 24,191 and 24,192 which Heubeck" has characterized as "unusual" but Sourvinou-Inwood12 as "nonsensical". 24,191 (όλβιε Λαέρταο πάι, πολυμήχαν' Όδυσσεΰ) recalls 24,36 (δλβιε Πηλέος υιέ, θεοΐς έπιείκελ' Άχιλλευ)13 which seems to be the pattern upon which the former line has been composed. There are striking correspon dences between these two lines which constitute a praise to the όλβοι of and Odysseus respectively. It is clear that the poet of the Odyssey wants to compare the fate of Achilles to that of Odysseus as he had com pared throughout the epic, and especially in the two Nekyiai, the negative fate of Agamemnon to the positive and happy fate of Odysseus.14 In fact, in the last part of the first speech of Agamemnon to Amphime don in the second Nekyia (Od. 24,106-119, esp. 114-119), the name of Odysseus creeps twice on the surface. Amphimedon in his answer to Aga memnon's questions about how he got to Hades mentions Odysseus no less than 7 times. This high frequency of Odysseus' name makes Odysseus notionally present in this scene through his reactivation in the minds of the audience. This point needs further elaboration: It has been argued that in the Iliad Patroclus "is the character whose actions are preordained and determined by forces stronger than himself".15 I think that this acute observation is of extreme importance for under standing a superficially unexplained phenomenon of the older epic, namely the interchangeability of Patroclus as audience of Achilles (e. g. II. 9,184 - 191) with the audience of the Iliad.16 This process is, I argue, at work in the

11 Cf. Heubeck (1992), 67, ad 10,456. 12 Cf. Sourvinou-Inwood (1996), 100 n. 254. 13 Cf. Heubeck (1992), 381, ad 24,191. 14 The adjective όλβιος when used for Achilles and Odysseus in the vocative means 'blessed' (2x in the Odyssey). In the nominative case, όλβιος can mean both 'blessed' and 'wealthy' (6x in the Odyssey) whereas in the accusative it always means 'blessed' (5x in the Odyssey). 15 Cf. E.J. Bakker, Poetry in Speech: Orality and Homeric Discourse, Ithaca-Lon don 1997 (Myth and Poetics), 172. 16 See F. Frontisi-Ducroux, La cithare d'Achille: Essai sur la poetique de l'"Iliade", Rome 1986, 23-25 and G. Nagy, Pindar's Homer: The Lyric Possession of an Epic Past, Baltimore 1990, 202 and by the same author, Poetry as Performance: Homer and Beyond, Cambridge 1996, 72. Cf. also J. A. Russo - B. Simon, Homeric Psychology and the Oral Epic Tradition, Journal of the History of Ideas 29 (1968), 483-498 and R. Martin's discussion (The Language of Heroes: Speech and Performance in the Iliad, Ithaca-London 1989 [Myth and Poetics], 235-237) of the function of the narrator's tendency to address Patroclus in the second person. On apostrophe in general and its effects, see A. Kahane, The Interpretation of Order, Oxford 1994, 153-155.

This content downloaded from 128.95.104.109 on Mon, 28 Dec 2020 05:39:39 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms 48 Christos C. Tsagalis second Nekyia as well; and instead of trying to adduce some metrical explanation for the 21,191/192 non sequitur or explain it as a gap in the formulaic system (as the dictional by-product of some ambiguous rework ing of an older version where Odysseus would have been physically present in Hades), it is preferable to look for a poetic motivation explaining the problem. Odysseus is the par excellence hero of the Odyssey; as such his epiphany does not require a staging formula since he is already present in the performance constituting the notional internal audience of this particular scene. Consequently, the voice of Agamemnon who is the physical speaker in 24,192-202 becomes the poet's own voice addressing his audience. Odysseus is a listener in the performance like ourselves. Odysseus cannot, of course, make a normal appearance at this point, for he is, after all, physically absent; his summoning is unusual, especially since he is addressed in a victorious, triumphant way. But as the pronoun tov in 24,191 becomes an allusive starting point (as it designates Amphi whereas, in fact, it refers to Odysseus), so the staging formula ac quires a new function: it is not so much the soul of Agamemnon that speaks, but the poet of the Odyssey who is actually addressing its main hero, Odysseus, whose omnipresent identity is notionally in the Under world. To put it briefly: by addressing Odysseus, the poet absorbs the per sonae of Agamemnon and Amphimedon and resumes the Odyssey because he summons on stage not the narrative Odysseus but the Odysseus of all time, the one who has surpassed the limits of the action and has become the trademark of the collective consciousness of the tradition. In Agamemnon's last speech the speaker's voice does not become the poet's, but gets to be understood as such by the audience. Agamemnon serves here as the mouthpiece of the poet who, through this device, is able to make a comment about his own work. In order to corroborate this point a bit more, we should keep in mind that it is significant that the inter changeability phenomenon discussed above occurs in the very last of the speeches belonging to the scene in the Underworld. After this speech the second Nekyia will be over and we will be transferred back to Ithaca. This observation is, I maintain, a valid one; for the picture would have been very different indeed if there were other speeches to follow in the Under world. It seems that the poet of the Odyssey has intruded into the narrative and made explicit what was implicit in the whole of the second Nekyia, namely the presence of Odysseus. Alluded by the Achilles-Agamemnon speeches, foreshadowed by the Agamemnon-Amphimedon dialogue, the fate of Odysseus is slowly but carefully revealed by the poet who has been artfully moving towards his goal: the presentation of his hero's happy fate

This content downloaded from 128.95.104.109 on Mon, 28 Dec 2020 05:39:39 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms Odyssey 24,191 -202: A Reconsideration 49 in comparison to that of his epic comrades. Now, at the end of the whole scene it is time for him to remove the curtain and make the shadows cease to speak; it is the moment for his own voice, the voice of the monumental poet to be heard at last.

(ii) The song of praise: Penelope and the encomium of the Odyssey

The basic problem of this passage refers to the multiple addressees of the speech: uttered by the shadow of Agamemnon at the presence of Amphimedon, it is surprisingly addressed to the absent Odysseus while most of its content (but the first two lines) is "a (long overdue) encomium of Penelope (192-202)".17 Three different addressees? Is it not plausible to discern behind this variety the hand of a continuator who influenced by "the taste of the archaic age for more katabasis literature [was] led to the desire to add a second Nekyia at the end"?18 The undoubtable kernel of this speech is the eulogy of Penelope who is praised for her άρετή but the high sophistication of this encomium is due to the most explicit statement in the whole poem about her κλέος as the subject of a χαρίεσσα άοιδή in opposition to the χαλεπή φήμις of Clytaemestra that will form the subject of a στυγερή άοιδή. Before embarking on a discussion pertaining to the function of this speech in relation to the figures of Odysseus and Penelope, we should begin with a detailed structural analysis of this passage so that we can later on examine its constituent parts.

Structure of the Speech

I. Introduction (192/193) 192: (address to Odysseus) όλβιε Λαέρταο πάι, πολυμήχαν' ΌδυσσεΟ 193: (link between Odysseus and Penelope) η ίχρα σύν μεγάλη άρετη έκτήσω άκοιτιν19

17 Cf. St. West, Laertes Revisited, PCPhS 35 (1989), 113- 143 (123). 18 Cf. Sourvinou-Inwood (1996), 102. West (1989, 132) places the addition of the Epilogue (23,297-24,548) by the continuator (who is not to be confused with the B poet or final redactor) at the Panathenaic festival in Athens in an effort to cater for new tastes and beliefs such as those concerning the impunity of a king (Odysseus) who had slaughtered those trying to usurp his power in his absence as well as the question of final harmony. 19 According to West (1989, 124) who follows G. P. Shipp (Studies in the Language of Homer, Cambridge 1972, 360) we must take σύν μεγάλη αρετή with άκοιτιν and not with έκτήσω. In that case we have an unparalleled Homeric feature. Other abnormalities found in the passage under discussion are the Attic brachylogical comparison in 24,199 (ούχ ώς Τυνδαρέου κούρη) and the genitive Τυνδαρέου which is considered by Shipp

This content downloaded from 128.95.104.109 on Mon, 28 Dec 2020 05:39:39 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms 50 Christos C. Tsagalis

II. Praise of Penelope (194-198) 194: ώς αγαθού φρένες ήσαν άμύμονι Πηνελοπείη, 195:κούρη Ικαρίου, ώςεΰ μέμνητ' Όδυσήος, 196:άνδρός κουριδίου. τώοϊ κλέος οίί ποτ' όλεϊται 197: ής άρετής, τεύξουσι δ'έπιχθονίοισιν άοιδήν 198: αθάνατοι χαρίεσσαν έχέφρονι Πηνελοπείη,

III. Blame of Clytaemestra (199-202) 199: ούχ ώς Τ υ ν δ α ρ έ ο υ κούρη κακά μήσατο εργα, 200: κ ο υ ρ ί δ ι ο ν κτείνασα πόσιν, στυγερή δέ τ' άοιδή 201: εσσετ' έ π' άνθρώπους, χαλεπήν δέ τε φήμιν όπάσσει 202: θηλυτέρπσι γυναιξί, και ή κ' εύεργός εησιν.

The parallelism between the fate of Penelope and that of Clytaemestra is highlighted throughout the speech in the following ways:

(a.) The encomium of Penelope is juxtaposed to the blame of Clytaemestra (b.) Parts II and III of the speech have almost the same length (5:4 verses) (c.) Parts II and III are symmetrically developed: 1. κούρπ Ίκαρίου Τυνδαρέου κούρη 2. ευ μέμνητ κακά μήσατο εργα 3. άνδρός κουριδίου κουρίδιον ... πόσιν 4. oi κλέος ου ποτ όλεΐται χαλεπήν δέ τε φήμιν 5. έπιχθονίοισιν έπ άνθρώπους 6. χαρίεσσαν άοιδήν στυγερή δέ τ άοιδή

The thematical units corresponding to the above structural analysis are the following:

1. Characterization of both women by their patronymics to emphasize the family element 2. Good mneme of Penelope vs. evil metis of Clytaemestra 3. Connection to their husbands 4. Imperishable κλέος vs. evil reputation 5. Impact on mortal men 6. Song of pleasure vs. hateful song

By presenting Penelope's άρετή as paragonal and by linking it specifi cally with memory, the memory of her husband Odysseus, the poet of the

(1972, 55) a late feature and by P. Chantraine (Grammaire homerique: Phonetique et Morphologie, I, Paris 1958, 197) "une couche recente de la langue epique". It is out of the scope of this study to examine peculiar linguistic features in 24,191 -202 since this would entail a general study of the linguistic abnormalities of the second Nekyia. Here, it suffices to say that 'late' features do not necessitate 'late' composition.

This content downloaded from 128.95.104.109 on Mon, 28 Dec 2020 05:39:39 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms Odyssey 24,191 -202: A Reconsideration 51

Odyssey (see my analysis above) makes the daughter of Icarius gain κλέος that will never perish (196). The expression ου ποτ όλεϊται has a temporal dimension20 as it refers to duration: Penelope's κλέος will last forever. At the same time, the poem defines itself retrospectively as a divine deed and also as a song of Penelope whose persona has literally become the un failing memory of Odysseus.21 Memory is of prime importance for Odyssean poetics. It is through memory that Odysseus becomes an αοιδός, it is through the memory of Penelope that he seeks his νόστος, that he manages to escape from 's world, the world of forgetfulness. Throughout his adventures Odysseus is faced with various perils whose common denominator is the danger of oblivion, of forgetting Ithaca and Penelope. His quest is both external and internal: he has to fight against strange beings, to employ his polytropic νόησις, his μήτις, in order to survive; but what his adventures represent stands beyond external physical danger. They also symbolize the danger of forgetting who he really is, of losing his identity. It is the memory of Penelope that helps him recover himself and return home. At the same time, Penelope is faced with equivalent dangers. If she married one of the suitors she would forget Odysseus and abandon her past. By remaining loyal she makes the Odyssey possible and saves her husband, giving meaning to his return.22 On a poetic level, Penelope

20 The expression οϋ ποτ' όλείται refers to time whereas ούρανόν ϊκει (the other modifier of κλέος) to extent. See A.T. Edwards, Achilles in the Odyssey. Ideologies of Heroism in the Homeric Epic, Meisenheim am Glan 1985 (Beitrage zur klassischen Philologie 171), 76 citing R. Schmitt (Dichtung und Dichtersprache in indogermani scher Zeit, Wiesbaden 1967, 8) who has argued that duration and extent conventionally modified kleos in Indo-European heroic poetry. 21 Cf. I. Papadopoulou-Belmehdi, Le chant de Penelope. Poetique du tissage femi nine dans I'Odyssee, Paris 1994,40. 22 M. A. Katz (Penelope's Renown: Meaning and Indeterminacy in the Odyssey, Princeton 1992) maintains that "Agamemnon endeavors to stabilize the indeterminacy of the narrative around a polarity of good and bad woman ... But Penelope resists conformity to the conventions of both sexual fidelity and character representation" and "[her] kleos ... is never fully stabilized" (194). Katz deliberately underplays the fixity of Penelope's figure by suggesting that only on the denotative level of meaning Penelope's kleos is based on her loyalty to Odysseus; on the connotative level, her kleos is a problematic concept. This seems unreasonably vague to me, the more since Katz fails to explain satisfactorily the 'Problematik' of Penelope's kleos. Pucci (Odysseus Polytropos: Intertextual Readings in the Odyssey and in the Iliad, Ithaca 1987, 217) puts the problem on the right track: "Such a limited concession to Penelope's husband is set against the preceding celebration of Achilles' kleos in its Iliadic splendor ... The contrast is striking: Odysseus' kleos is debased to a generic reputation for his share and merits in Penelope's domestic virtues."

This content downloaded from 128.95.104.109 on Mon, 28 Dec 2020 05:39:39 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms 52 Christos C. Tsagalis resembles the Odyssean Muse "non seulement parce qu'elle inspire en Ulysse le desir du nostos mais aussi parce que la Muse est une expression metaphysique de la memoire du poete epique."23 Memory in archaic poetry generates the creation of poetry itself24 and in this way it is Penelope's memory of Odysseus that generates "a most pleasing song" (χαρίεσσα άοιδή) offered by the gods to mortal men.25 Likewise, Penelope's memory of Odysseus is the source of immortal κλέος, a new type of κλέος (not based on glorious deeds as in the Iliad) which produces "enchantment (θέλξις), or a song-tale (μυθολογεύειν 12,450. 453)".26 The κλέος of both Odysseus and Penelope has its basis not only on memory but also on δόλοι (cf. Od. 9,19/20; 19,137) that they both employ to overcome the dangers they are faced with; Clytaemestra uses δόλοι as well (11,422; 11,439) but she "poured down shame on herself and on all women after her" (= 11,433/434a). Thus, Odysseus and Penelope comple ment each other and it is in the second Nekyia that the complementarity of their δόλοι and κλέος becomes clear. Odysseus and Penelope have cooperated not through a common plan but through poetic direction in making possible Odysseus' final revenge against the suitors. The faithful wife used her μητις in order to put the suitors off and give Odysseus the opportunity to become once again her husband and the king of Ithaca. As Edwards27 has neatly put it, "[t]he κλέος of each is dependent upon the action of the other." The expression κακά μήσατο έργα (24,199) used for Clytaemestra28 points to her δόλος by which she murdered Agamemnon

23 Papadopoulou-Belmehdi (1994), 170. 24 See J. - P. Vernant, Mythe et pensee chez les Grecs, Paris 1965, 80-107. 25 Cf. Kullmann (1995, 51) who argues that "the entire second Nekyia amounts to the prophecy of a famous song about Penelope. This is the only reason for its composition that can be found, unless we mean to understand it as a weak duplicate of the first Nekyia, for which we have no cause." This careful statement epitomizes the importance of Penelope's encomium and, consequently, of the passage we are discuss ing as a whole. 26 P. Pucci, The Song of the Sirens. Essays on Homer, Lanham-Boulder-New York-Oxford 1997, 168. 27 Edwards (1985, 81). The author, later on, argues that "[t]he Odyssey incorporates lliadic κλέος within its narrative as the κλέος from a hero's death. The λόχος for the killing of the suitors has demonstrated that the Odyssey appropriates the Iliad's view of that strategy" (90). What Edwards says is certainly true/but at the same time it is significant that Odysseus' λόχος against the suitors takes place within the house which is associated with women acquiring as a result something of a female guile which makes it very different from the paragonal δόλος of Odysseus in the epic tradition, namely the Wooden Horse; his δόλος has become entirely Odyssean. 28 G. Nagy (The Best of the Achaeans: Concepts of the Hero in Archaic Greek

This content downloaded from 128.95.104.109 on Mon, 28 Dec 2020 05:39:39 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms Odyssey 24,191 -202: A Reconsideration 53 upon his return from Troy. The Odyssey uses the doom of Agamemnon not simply as the negative reflection of Odysseus' fate but also as the basis upon which it will define both heroism and happiness. In the passage we are discussing the separate δόλοι of Odysseus and Penelope are united in restoring their οίκος as well as their κλέος.29 In this way, the Odyssey redefines κλέος, it gives it a new dimension and creates a marginalized, Odyssean version deviating from its Iliadic predecessor.30 It is exactly this new, Odyssean κλέος generating the χαρίεσσα άοιδή, the song of pleasure that announces the perennity of the Odyssey. This song is opposed, as the structural examination has shown, to that of Clytaemestra whose μήτις was a destructive one as she killed her husband Agamemnon upon his return from Troy. She will therefore have no κλέος for herself but χαλεπήν φήμιν for women and her song will be a hateful one (στυγερή άοιδή). This direct and emphatic opposition between the fate of Penelope and Clytaemestra is consonant with the general picture we get in the Odyssey about the comparison of the fates of Agamemnon and Odysseus.31 Penelope is not simply the model of the loyal wife, the good queen who waits for Odysseus to come home; she is the vehicle that redefines κλέος in such a way that it becomes a condition for the creation of the poem's own subject-matter. As a result, in this highly sophisticated passage Penelope emerges in a metapoetic cloth becoming the emblem for the poetics of

Poetry, Baltimore 1979, 37, § 13 η. 3) is right in observing that "[t]hese themes cor respond to the actual name Klutaimestre, a form indicating that the wife of Agamemnon is 'famed' (Klutai-, from the same root *kleu- as in kleos) on account of what she 'devised' (-mestre, from verb medomai). The element mestre, from medomai 'devise', corresponds to the theme of κακά μήσατο έργα 'she devised [medomai] evil deeds' at line 199. As for the element Klutai- 'famed', it corresponds to the theme of στυγερή ... άοιδή 'hateful song' at line 200. This hateful song will be not simply about the wife of Agamemnon. Rather, the song is being presented as the very essence of Klytaimestre." 29 See C. Segal, Singers, Heroes, and Gods in the Odyssey, Ithaca - London 1994 (Myth and Poetics), 94/95. 30 C. Segal (1994, 88) maintains that Odysseus "is not creating his kleos by fighting but rather re-creating it by the Ich-Erzahlung (first-person telling) of the long, bardlike narrative that is to occupy the next four books." 31 N. Felson-Rubin (Regarding Penelope: From Character to Poetics, Princeton 1994, 106) is right in arguing that Agamemnon makes Clytaemestra "a fitting scapegoat for his own (supposedly) undeserved destiny" but she makes, I think, too much out of "the folly and narrowness of his [Agamemnon's] male gaze" (107). After all the song of blame for Clytaemestra exists just because there should be a song of praise for Penelope; it is because the Odyssey desires to praise itself that the Nostoi must be undermined (cf. A. Bernabe, Poetarum Epicorum Graecorum testimonia et fragmenta, I, Leipzig 1987, 93).

This content downloaded from 128.95.104.109 on Mon, 28 Dec 2020 05:39:39 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms 54 Christos C. Tsagalis

Odyssean κλέος;32 since the poet's voice absorbs that of Agamemnon's shadow, he is able to offer his own point of view, his own focalization. In this focalization as the husband is saved by his wife, so the Odyssey, the χαρίεσσα άοιδή, is saved from oblivion through redefining its own subject matter: not the unfailing fame conveyed by Iliadic κλέος άφθιτον but the Odyssean unfailing memory of enchanting and pleasing song.

(iii) The supremacy of the Odyssey

This highly sophisticated passage (24,192-202) has a special import ance for the poetics of the Odyssey as it deals with κλέος which "entails not only a relationship between heroes, but one between poems as well".33 From this comparison which transcends the limits of the plot and reaches the level of song and poetry Odysseus cannot be absent. The poet of the Odyssey wants him there, that is why the whole idea of the souls of the suitors flocking Hades has been presented in such detail; the suitors symbolize the Odyssean tradition that meets the non-Odyssean (Iliadic, that of the Aethiopis and that of the Nostoi).34 It is significant that what Achilles

32 J. Η. Finley, Jr. (Homer's Odyssey, Cambridge/Mass. - London 1978, 3) has argued that "Agamemnon's statement in the second Nekyia comes near making our Odysseia a Penelopeia" and S. Murnaghan (Disguise and Recognition in the Odyssey, Princeton, N. J. 1987, 124) repeating the same view maintains that "[n]ot only does Penelope provide the most powerful potential threat to Odysseus' enterprise, but she threatens to usurp his poem as well." I would not go that far as Finley and Murnaghan; Penelope's role is no doubt crucial in redefining κλέος but from 24,192-202 it is clear that her encomium is subjugated to her husband's praise; Odysseus is όλβιος, among other things because he had a wife of great virtue (σύν μεγάλη αρετή). Likewise, Agamemnon's doom is determined by his wife, Clytaemestra. The presence of the wives in this passage is a means for one more comparison not only between Odysseus and Agamemnon but also between two potential epics in which these figures would form part of the plot (see Kullmann, 1992,298). Edwards, 1985, 90. Nagy (1979, 37, § 13 n. 4) has even traced within this passa ge an allusion to an audience listening to poetry: "... instances of epi + accusative in the sense of'among' are restricted in Homeric diction to anthr6pous 'humans' as the object of the preposition. This syntactical idiosyncracy can be correlated with an interesting thematic association: the expression ep' anthropous 'among humans' is conventionally linked with kleos (x 213, i 299, xix 34, xxiv 94) and its derivatives (xxiv 202, xiv 403). It is also linked with aoide 'song' at xxiv 201. Because of this parallelism between kleos and aoide, and because kleos designates the glory conferred by poetry ..., I infer that ep' anthropous 'among humans' in these contexts indicates an audience in general listening to poetry in general." 34 lliadic and Aethiopic tradition are represented by the presence of Achilles, Patroclus and Antilochus in the Underworld; that of the Nostoi by Agamemnon. See Kullmann, 1992,298.

This content downloaded from 128.95.104.109 on Mon, 28 Dec 2020 05:39:39 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms Odyssey 24,191 -202: A Reconsideration 55 and Agamemnon are talking about is their deaths.35 This is natural for a scene in the Underworld but at the same time it points to the narrative of Amphimedon who is only a 'vehicle' for presenting Odysseus' fate to his Trojan comrades. The placement of this whole scene in the Underworld (where the Odyssey meets a significant part of the epic tradition) becomes a metaphor for the death, i. e. the crystallization of this older part of the tradition which seems to be firmly established at the moment of the completion of our epic. The poet of the Odyssey is trying to achieve a twofold goal: first, to put his hero in the highest position among the other epic heroes in respect of his όλβος creating a three-level climax with Agamemnon in the bottom level, Achilles in the middle and Odysseus in the top position; second, by putting its hero in the highest position, the Odyssey is making a profound statement: not only is it aware of the rest of the tradition but it places itself in a superior standing by having as its hero Odysseus, who has survived the hardships of life and has been reinstated as a king in his palace. Agamemnon has neither won κλέος άφθιτον by dying in the battlefield nor has he fulfilled his νόστος since when he arrived in he was murdered by his wife, Clytaemestra. Achilles won κλέος άφθιτον by dying at Troy but did not fulfill his νόστος. Odysseus, the poem's hero, both won κλέος άφθιτον because he was responsible for the sack of Troy and fulfilled his νόστος since he returned home, found his wife Penelope waiting for him and was reestablished as a king in Ithaca. In particular, the presentation of Penelope and Clytaemestra does not postulate a distinction between praise vs. blame poetry, as Nagy has argued;36 the difference consists rather in the content of the poems and its evaluation by the audience.37 The comparison that takes place in the

35 See S. Ε. Bassett, The Proems of the Iliad and the Odyssey, AJPh 44 (1923), 49 51; Moulton (1974, 167) maintains that "[t]he second nekuia, in particular, seems to round out the Homeric picture of Achilles, and explicitly emphasize his kleos. In this episode, we see Agamemnon and Achilles, the two great adversaries of the Iliad, for the last time. Achilles rues his premature death, while Agamemnon contrasts his own fatal homecoming with the funeral honors paid Achilles at Troy." On the contrast between the homecoming of Odysseus and Agamemnon that seems to preoccupy the poet of the Odyssey from beginning to end, see Od. 1,32-43, 298-300; 3,194ff., 303ff.; 4,524ff.; ll,385ff.; 13,383-385. On the importance of this topic for the whole poem, see F. Klingner, Studien zur griechischen und romischen Literatur, Zurich - Stuttgart 1964, 75-79 and U. Holscher, Die Atridensage in der Odyssee, Festschrift Alewyn, Cologne 1967,1-16. 36 SeeNagy, 1979, 36-38; 222-242; 254-256. 37 G. Danek, Epos und Zitat. Studien zu den Quellen der Odyssee, Wien 1998, 486.

This content downloaded from 128.95.104.109 on Mon, 28 Dec 2020 05:39:39 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms 56 Christos C. Tsagalis, Odyssey 24,191-202: A Reconsideration

Underworld deals more, as Danek has neatly put it,38 with "poetischem Stoff' than "poetischer Form" and becomes a pretext for the poet to praise his own work, his own version of the poem vs. other competitive versions as well as other competitive poems which the Odyssey had to rival. The poet of the Odyssey inscribes the contrast between Penelope and Clytaemestra and, therefore, between Odysseus and Agamemnon within a larger framework, that of contrasting his song with other epic songs. In Agamemnon's reply to Amphimedon self-reference and intertextuality are combined39 making this passage emblematic not only for the Odyssean plot but also for the place the Odyssey wants to occupy within the epic tradition. This line of interpretation is in agreement with the high pro bability that epic singing was competitive and this would have inevitably resulted in making heroes of epic poetry compete and rival one another. Thus, the Odyssey not only joins the rest of the epic tradition but surpasses it by becoming the poem of poems; the one that is aware of the whole epic tradition which it has incorporated and absorbed to such an extent that it can place itself at a level superior to the already shaped and established epic poems. Like its hero, the Odyssey proves itself to be a truly πολύτροπος (multileveled), πολυμήχανος (of many devices) and most of all a χαρίεσσα άοιδή (pleasing song) whose κλέος οι) ποτ όλεΐται (fame will never perish).40

38 Danek (1998), 487. 39 Cf. Kullmann (1992), 297: "Eine Selbstreferenz ist also mit einem intertextuellen Bezug gekoppelt." 4 W. Marg (Das erste Lied des Demodokos, in: Navicula Chiloniensis, FS F. Jaco by, Leiden 1956), Holscher (1967), 9/10, K. Riiter (Odysseeinterpretationen. Untersu chungen zum ersten Buch und zur Phaiakis, Gottingen 1967, 253) and Nagy (1979), 39 all think that the Odyssey places itself at the same level with the Iliad. They all fail to consider that the key element in this comparison is the κλέος of Achilles and the way it is related to that of the rest of the heroes (Agamemnon and Odysseus). See Edwards (1985, 91 and especially footnote 39) following Pucci (The Song of the Sirens, Are thusa 12 [1979], 121-132 [= 1997, 1-9]) who thinks that the Odyssey expresses its disavowal towards the authority and prestige of the Iliad since it describes it as a song of death.

This content downloaded from 128.95.104.109 on Mon, 28 Dec 2020 05:39:39 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms