Dolios in "Odyssey" 4 and 24: Penelope's Plotting and Alternative Narratives of Odysseus's νόστος Author(s): BENJAMIN S. HALLER Source: Transactions of the American Philological Association (1974-2014) , Autumn 2013 , Vol. 143, No. 2 (Autumn 2013), pp. 263-292 Published by: The Johns Hopkins University Press Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/43830263

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

The Johns Hopkins University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Transactions of the American Philological Association (1974-2014)

This content downloaded from 128.95.104.109 on Thu, 04 Feb 2021 19:01:05 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms Transactions of the American Philological Association 143 (2013) 263-292

Dolios in Odyssey 4 and 24: Penelope's Plotting and Alternative Narratives of Odysseus's vógtoç*

BENJAMIN S. HALLER Virginia Wesleyan College

summary: The abortive messages that Dolios almost but never conveys from Penelope to Laertes and from Laertes' farm to Penelope in Books 4 and 24 of the Odyssey allude to alternative versions of Odysseus s vóaToç in which Odys- seus returned to Ithaca with an armed band and expelled the suitors with the knowing collusion of Penelope and Laertes. By referencing these epichoric variants, Homer creates a narrative opening for his original audience to infer that Penelope and Laertes conspire to use the palace and Laertes' farm as power centers from which to lead the insurrection against the suitors upon Odysseuss return, while at the same time articulating norms of licit and illicit means of trickery through the divergent fates of Dolios and his "bad seed" offspring Me- lanthios and Melantho.

INTRODUCTION

IN THE PAGES THAT FOLLOW, I ARGUE THAT THE RECURRENCE OF THE SLAVE Dolios at key junctures of the narrative can shed light on the Odyssey in two distinct ways. The first is by illuminating the contours of lost regional (epi- choric) alternative versions of Odysseuss homecoming that were familiar to Homer and his audience. Such versions, work by Reece and Marks has shown, may be provisionally reconstructed from "fossils" in our Odyssey , such as Odysseus's lying tales of less supernatural travels, and passing allusions to a version of Odysseus's slaying of the suitors through open force assisted by armed warriors rather than through the disguise and bow contest. Homer not only preserves traces of, but also purposefully alludes to, these epichoric variants in our Odyssey in order to guide how the audience fills in gaps and

* The author would like to thank the Editor of TAPA , the anonymous referees, and Andrew M. Miller for reading drafts of this article and for offering much thoughtful and useful criticism.

© 2013 by the American Philological Association

This content downloaded from 128.95.104.109 on Thu, 04 Feb 2021 19:01:05 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms 264 Benjamin S. Haller inconsistencies in the tale, such as the message that Dolios never gets a chance to deliver from Penelope to Laertes in Book 4. Familiarity with a variant tale in which Dolios actually assists in bringing about the slaying of the suitors might well have prejudiced listeners to infer that an arrangement exists be- tween Odysseus, Penelope, and Laertes: if something should go wrong in the palace during Odysseus s absence at Troy, Laertes will maintain the farm as a fallback position to which Odysseus will repair upon his return. Second, the choices that Homer makes among variant versions of the story of Odysseus s homecoming help to illuminate his narrative strategies and audience. In particular, unlike variants that emphasize Odysseus s recapture of the palace by force, the canonical Odyssey emphasizes Athena s providential good counsel, or (ifjTic;, and Odysseus's initiation of Telemachos into its proper use, as father teaches son to outwit the tricks, or ôóXoi, of social inferiors like Melanthios and Melantho.1 Dolios and his children Melanthios and Melantho thus also function synchronically in "our" vulgate version of the Odyssey as ways of exploring the licit and illicit uses of deceit and trickery, the root meaning of the father s name (Dolios ~ ôóXoç), in the poem.2 The version of the tale that has come down to us in the vulgate as our Odyssey is more suited to a Panhellenic audience: Homer rejects and elides from his narrative the many-branched tree of progeny that Odysseus sires in epichoric and cyclic tales, which assert shared descent from Odysseus to bolster contemporary dynastic claims and alliances. In place of these, the poet instead opts for a more universal tale underscoring the continuity of a legitimate Arceisiad dynasty whose power is supported by the gods.3

1 Our Odyssey thus offers homecoming by the clever stratagem of the bow trick (a Pióç-vóotoO, while earlier variants had Odysseus employ a more Achilles-like brute force (a ßii]-v0crro<;). 2 Critics have suggested two distinct etymologies for Dolios s name. While some author- ities - including Lambertz 1914; Erbse 1972; and Frisk 1954-73 - derive his name from ôoOXoc;, slave, this etymology has proved problematic in the light of Mycenaean dohelos. Heubeck 1992 on Od. 24.222 accordingly favors a derivation from ôóXoç, "trick, strata- gem." See also Pauly- Wissowa s.v. "Dolios"; von Kamptz 1982: 1 15 (§39bl); Thalmann 1 998: 69n54. For Homeric wordplay and the deliberate use of redende Namen by the poet, see Peradotto 1990: 94-95, 102-4; the first chapter of O'Hara 1996; and Louden 1995. 3 See Marks 2003: 2 1 0, 22 1-22 and my discussion below of Marks's work and of Reece 1994. For other alternative vcxjtoi, see Proclus 's summary of the Telegony, Hyginus 126, Epit. 7.34-40; as well as Odysseus's "Cretan lies" and Amphimedon 's account of Odysseus's return at Od. 24.167-68. For the one glancing allusion to Telegonos in our Odyssey , see 11.134-38.

This content downloaded from 128.95.104.109 on Thu, 04 Feb 2021 19:01:05 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms Dolios in Odyssey 4 and 24 265

METHODOLOGY

Objections might be raised to my assertion that a contemporary audience would have read Penelope s abortive plan to send Dolios to Laertes as indica- tive of the existence of more extensive plotting between daughter-in-law and father-in-law: this interpretation asks the audience to fill in much missing background material to Book 4 of our Odyssey based on their knowledge of other versions of the epic. Nevertheless, two recent scholarly trends offer grounds for regarding this approach as plausible: ( 1 ) narratological work on the role of audience expectations in shaping narrative, and (2) Neoanalytic scholarship on the role of alternative vóatoi of Odysseus, partially recon- structable from hints in our Odyssey and other sources, in shaping these same audience expectations.4 Narratological theory helps to illustrate how it serves Homer s dramatic purposes to court ambiguity and to suggest outcomes, some likely familiar to the audience from alternative tales of Odysseus s vócnroc;, which do not actu- ally transpire. Felson-Rubin emphasizes this performative aspect of Homeric poetry, in which the cioiôóç fashions his narrative in collaboration with his audience, alternatively teasing, gratifying, and frustrating their expectations.5 Homer offers hints, but no explicit determination regarding the motives and personal histories of a number of characters like Dolios. By their very internal contradictions, such characters provide invitations to speculation, jumping- off places for audiences to instantiate the Penelope or the Dolios of their choice through imaginative engagement with the data provided by the poet.6 Second, work by Marks and Reece, supplemented with observations drawn from Lord 1960, reminds us that audience members would not engage in such speculation in a vacuum, but in the light of other iterations of the story

4 For Neoanalytic approaches to the Odyssey , which, as Reece 1994: 157-58 observes, are reconcilable with Oral Theory, see further Kullmann 1984 and M. W. Edwards 1990. 5 Felson-Rubin 1994: 10. Felson-Rubin proposes a strategy of discourse analysis pio- neered by Bakhtin 1981, 1986 and Vološinov 1986, in which narrative is "dynamic and interactive, like a courtship dance" (Felson-Rubin 1994: 10). For compatible interpreta- tions of ambiguity and indefinite alternative points of interpretation in the Odyssey , see Doherty 2002 on narrative openings; Peradotto 1990: 59-93, who demonstrates how Teiresias's prophecy of an "inland journey" and Odysseus 's lying tales of homecomings via Thesprotia (14.314-33, 19.269-307) serve as plot matrices mapping out potential hypothetical narrative directions available to the aoióóę; and Richardson 2006. 6 Felson-Rubin 1994: 16-18 observes that Penelope s machinations vis-à-vis the suitors can be interpreted variously as instantiations of a Bride Prize, Adultery, Frigidity and Tease, and/or Loyalty and Cunning plot pattern. See also Felson-Rubin 1994: 125-28 (esp. her reading of Bal 1987: 107-8).

This content downloaded from 128.95.104.109 on Thu, 04 Feb 2021 19:01:05 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms 266 Benjamin S. Haller of Odysseus s travel and returns current at the time. The poet could allude to these alternative plotlines, presuming upon the audience s familiarity with details not explicitly voiced in our Odyssey in order to condition the manner in which listeners fill in the semantic interstices of the oral text. Lord 1960 had already reconstructed from an Oralist perspective some of the founda- tions of the alternative vócjtoç for which I argue, but in more recent years Reece and Marks have fleshed out other details of such narratives. In the less supernatural, more mundane alternative version of Odysseus s vcxrroc; that Reece and Marks reconstruct, Odysseus returns via Crete after visiting many cities (Od. 1.3-4; Reece 1994: 159-60), 7 bringing much wealth and a warrior band (Od. 14.385; cf. Marks 2003: 219-20); Odysseus is reunited first with Laertes and then enters the palace (cf. 16.237-39, 256-57, 260-61), perhaps disguised as a prophet,8 and conspires with Penelope; together, they use the bow contest (Od. 24.167-68) or mere open force to set up the suitors' demise. The Dolios episodes of Books 4 and 24 add a key element to the preexist- ing alternative mundane homecoming postulated by these scholars: Dolios is the intermediary who runs to Laertes for help when Penelope finds herself overwhelmed by the suitors and who brings back news to her of Odysseus s return and impending arrival to kill the suitors with an armed band. In the course of this battle, Dolios's children Melanthios and Melantho aid the suitors (Melantho presumably tipping off her lover, and Melanthios bringing more tangible aid), and must be punished. In the canonical Odyssey , however, Dolios s role must be altered to accommodate the disguise and bow contest, and the suitors' ambush against Telemachos becomes the focus of Dolios's introduction in Book 4. Even in the Odyssey as we have it, though, Homer's narratological aims are still served by the Dolios subplot: the fact that Penelope and Laertes actively maintain a network of loyal retainers helps to establish Penelopes characterization as loyal and as capable of constructive forms of deceit analogous to those practiced by her husband, and the consequences of the unsteady loyalties of Dolios's offspring permit Homer to sound a note of caution about what happens when non-elites attempt to benefit from Odyssean trickery.9

7 Cf. also Zenodotus on Od. 1.93 and 1.285-86 and Reece's discussion (1994: 166-68). For Reece's assertion that the Cretan Odyssey was abandoned with the rise of colonization and trade in South Italy, and the Thesprotian vócjtoç of Odysseus in general, see Malkin 1998, esp. 151-53. 8 I.e., Theoclymenos; see Lord 1960: 169-77 (Theoclymenos), 177-85 (reunion with Laertes); Reece 1994: 158. 9 For this aspect of Dolios's characterization, see Thalmann 1998: 49-74. The ambi- guities of Penelope's character and hints of machinations on her part have been exten- sively explored in recent scholarship. To cite but one example, in Book 24 the suitors'

This content downloaded from 128.95.104.109 on Thu, 04 Feb 2021 19:01:05 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms Dolios in Odyssey 4 and 24 267

THE DOLIOS PROBLEM

Dolios resurfaces in the Odyssey in such contradictory roles that some have hypothesized that there are actually two or three separate slaves named Dolios (Page 1955: 109, among others)10: virtually every aspect of his character appears to exist in doublet, in a "city" version and a "country" version. He is introduced in Odysseus's palace at Od. 4.735-41, but in Odyssey 24 (24.223, 492, 497) he has six dutiful sons who live with him on Laertes' farm, the offspring of a Sicilian woman. Complicating matters further, a potentially different Dolios is named as the father ofMelanthios (17.212,22.159) and Melantho (18.322).

THE TWO MESSAGES NEVER SENT

Examination of Dolios s introduction in Book 4 reveals evidence to support and expand upon Marks's and Reece's reconstruction of earlier versions of his tale presented above. Dolios is first introduced in Book 4 by Penelope to resolve a pressing crisis. She has just learned from Medon that Noemon son of Phronios has told the suitors of Telemachos s journey, and that the suitors have set an ambush. In consequence, Penelope considers using Dolios to send a message to Laertes with the intent of inciting Odysseuss father to complain to the people and thereby to save Telemachos's life (Od. 4.735-41): ghosts believe that Penelope and Odysseus conspired together to set the bow contest ("but Odysseus bade his wife with clever craft to set up the bow for the suitors, and gray iron, as contests for us who were doomed to a sad end, and the start of our slaughter," 24. 167-68). For Penelope's character in the Odyssey , see above all Katz 1991 and Felson-Rubin 1994; for the complex issue of her complicity with the suitors and/or with the disguised Od- ysseus, see Page 1955; Wender 1978; Russo 1982; Marquardt 1985; Murnaghan 1987; Winkler 1990: 129-61; Rozokoki 2001; Haller 2009. For early recognition in the Odyssey , see Harsh 1950; Amory 1966; Winkler 1990; Haller 2009; Floyd 201 1; Vlahos 201 1 (and respondents). For this scene, see von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff 1884: 59; Heubeck 1992 on 24.167-77. Page's explanation (1955: 1 19-29) that the audience will excuse the ghost of Amphimedon's slip as the result of non-omniscient narration requires at least as great a leap of faith as regarding it as evidence for the existence of a significantly different multiform of Penelope's and Odysseus's reunion. 10 Cf. Pauly- Wissowa s.v. "Dolios." Ameis and Hentze 1872: 222 argue for three separate characters named "Dolios." Bekker 1863: 1 10 similarly argues that Melanthios, Melantho, and Dolios seem unaware of one another's existence, and that Odysseus seems not to worry that his slaying ofMelanthios and Melantho might jeopardize his relationship with Dolios, his Sicilian wife, and his other six sons. Stößel 1975: 93 tentatively favors two slaves named Dolios; in support of identifying the Dolios of Book 4 with the father of Melanthios and Melantho, Eisenberger 1973: 315-16 notes that the close relationship suggested between Dolios and Penelope at 4.735 explains the care Penelope lavished on Melantho at 18.322-23. Wender 1978: 54-56 concludes that"Dolius ... is carelessly handled throughout the Odyssey ' (56). Heubeck 1992 on 24.222 favors one Dolios; he is followed by Thalmann 1998.

This content downloaded from 128.95.104.109 on Thu, 04 Feb 2021 19:01:05 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms 268 Benjamin S. Haller

àXXá tiç òxpripdx; AoXíov KaXéaeie yépovta, ô(iã)' è(ióv, ov (ioi Ô(I)K£ TTaxfjp en ôsupo Kiouarj, Kai ļioi KfļTtov e'ei TtoXuôévôpsov, öcppa Táxicrra AaépTí] táSe Trávra 7rapeÇó(ievo<; KataXéí;r|, ei 6r| Ttoú riva keIvoç èvl cppeal ļifj tiv ūcpiļvac; èÇsXGíbv Xaolaiv óóúpexai, oī ļi£[idaaiv öv Kal Oôuaafjoç 90elaai yóvov àvTi0éoio.

But let someone swiftly call the old man Dolios, my servant, whom my father gave me when I was just setting forth to here, and who keeps a garden with many trees for me, in order that he may very quickly sit by Laertes and tell him all these things, in the hope that he may perhaps weave some contrivance in his mind and go out and lament to the people, who are eager to destroy his and godlike Odysseus 's offspring.

Penelope almost immediately abandons the plan to send Dolios to Laertes when Euryclea bids her to "grieve not a grieved old man" (|ir|ôè yépovra kcikou K£KaKü)|iévov, 4.754) and to pray rather to Athena (4.752). The message is never sent. Nor is this the only instance in which this happens: Dolios reap- pears twice in Book 24, and there, too - far too late for both Penelope and for his two children Melanthios and Melantho, whom Telemachos has already mutilated or killed - offers to send an urgent message (24.403-5). This time, Dolios offers to run to the palace to inform Penelope of Odysseus's return, but Odysseus coyly demurs, laconically observing that she already knows.

ARGUMENT FOR A SINGLE DOLIOS

The intimation in Books 4 and 24 that Dolios may regularly travel between Odysseus's city palace and the country farm of Laertes, and the fact that Dolios s son Melanthios does so as well, provide evidence for the inference that the Dolios whom we meet in Book 24 is actually the same person as the one in Book 4. Other shared attributes invite the identification of all characters named Dolios who appear in the narrative. ( 1 ) The Dolios of Book 4, like the Dolios of Book 24, is a gardener.11 (2) A slave ( ôficõoç, 4.736 ~ 24.223) given

11 4.737: Kal ^ioi KfļTiov exei TioXuôévÔpeov ("and he keeps a garden of many trees for me"). Cf. 24.222-25: oùô' eupev AoXíov, |iéyav öpxatov eaKaTaßaivcov, / oùôé riva ô|iií)a)v oùô' uiã)v, àXX' apa toí ye / aifiaaicu; XéÇovxec; àXcpfjc; ēļiļievai ëpKoç / cpxovt' ("and Odysseus did not find Dolios when he went down into the great orchard, nor any of the slaves or his sons, but they were going to collect stones which were to become the boundary wall of the garden/orchard"); see West 1988 on 4.735ff. At 17.299 we will find that Eumaios regularly carts off dung from his pigs to a "réfievoq of Odysseus," which it is reasonable to associate with Laertes' garden; Odysseus refers to Laertes' garden using the same word that Penelope uses, KfjTtoç, at 24.247; it is mentioned also by Odysseus at 13.139,359-60.

This content downloaded from 128.95.104.109 on Thu, 04 Feb 2021 19:01:05 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms Dolios in Odyssey 4 and 24 269

Penelope as a gift by Icarios when she first came to Ithaca, the Dolios of Book 4 has been with Penelope since her arrival, and thus has the familiarity with his mistress prerequisite for the sort of trust implied by the sensitive nature of her message; the Dolios of Book 24 gives similar evidence of an inveterate close relationship with Laertes, suggesting that, from Laertes' perspective, too, this Dolios would be ideally suited for the carrying of Penelopes secret message inciting Laertes to revolt.12 (3) Dolios is introduced in Book 4 to set in motion a "trick" (the root meaning of his name) to counter the suitors' ambush, and Melanthios and Melantho, the offspring of the "second" Dolios, are involved in negative "tricks" against Penelope and Odysseus, suggesting that Homer is interested in establishing normative expectations for Odysseus's and other characters' use of deception through its consequences within this low-status family.

CONSEQUENCES OF A SINGLE SLAVE DOLIOS: ALLUSIONS TO EPICHORIC VARIANT HOMECOMING NARRATIVES

Read in isolation, the Book-4 episode is strangely unsatisfying: Homer first intimates secret communication between Penelope and Laertes via Dolios and then abandons this subplot entirely, only to have Athena, rather than Laertes or Dolios, rescue Telemachos from the pressing danger of the suitors' ambush much later (15.27-30; cf. Euryclea's advice to Penelope at 4.752). Why would Homer represent Penelope as believing that Laertes had it within his power to initiate a violent uprising against the suitors - one which never transpires? Why would Penelope turn to Dolios as a go-between? Why is she so easily persuaded by Euryclea's vague assurances of divine intervention not to follow through in sending to Laertes for help? While Penelope's belief that Laertes could possibly help Telemachos appears poorly founded to a modern reader of the Odyssey , it would likely have rung much truer to an original audience if they and the poet were both aware of versions of the retaking of the palace in which Odysseus actually does visit Laertes to gather the loyal retainers who live in the vicinity of the family farm (the original import of Penelope's hope for Laertes, el òr] noi) riva keívoç évi (ppeal ļifļTiv iKprļvac; / èÇeXBcbv Xaolaiv òÔúpetai, at Od. 4.735-41), much as Reece and Marks suggest. Only later, with the aid of Laertes and his retain-

12 Note further that the poet emphasizes Dolios 's status as leader of the other servants on Laertes' farm in laying stones for a wall: aùxàp ó rolai yép^v óôòv i^eļjoveue ("but the old man led the way," 24.225); soon thereafter, Dolios and his six country sons prove their loyalty by shaking hands with Odysseus (24.410), arming themselves, and entering the fray alongside Odysseus and Laertes (24.496-99).

This content downloaded from 128.95.104.109 on Thu, 04 Feb 2021 19:01:05 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms 270 Benjamin S. Haller ers, would Odysseus have fought the suitors. At the same time, in this earlier version of the tale, Odysseus would have sent a messenger like Dolios to alert Penelope in the palace to his return (an echo of which survives in our Odyssey in the form of Dolios's implied offer to carry news to Penelope at 24.403-5), so that she could (as the suitors' ghosts accuse her of doing at Od. 24. 167-69) aid him in conspiring to effect their overthrow in the city. The existence of such an early version, in which Odysseus s reunion with Laertes occupied the position currently held by the reunion with Eumaios, was suggested long ago by Lord 1960: 181. This helps to make sense of Dolios s role in Book 4 in two ways. First, it explains why the audience would believe Dolios's message capable of help- ing Telemachos: they had heard tales in which, before departing for the war, Odysseus had made arrangements to rally the troops from his fathers farm should anything be amiss in the palace when he returned. Penelope in our Book 4 would thus be considering activating a familiar band of stock charac- ters, loyal retainers whom the audience had already seen in action conquering the suitors. While her original plan would be to convoke these retainers when Odysseus returns (as she indeed had done in other variants), the unexpected circumstance of the suitors' plot against Telemachos would prompt her to call upon Dolios in Book 4. Second, it helps to make sense of the battle against the suitors' families in Book 24: in our Odyssey , the final battle of Odysseus, Dolios, Telemachos, and Laertes against the suitors' families is actually an adaptation of what was originally the narrative of the battle against the suitors themselves. In these other, older, versions, the Dolios plot of Book 4 and that of Book 24 were part of a continuous narrative of Odysseus's return to Laertes' farm, reunion with his father, dispatch of Dolios to alert Penelope, and defeat of the suitors with the aid of an armed band of loyal rural Ithacan retainers.

LAERTES' FARM

What then of Laertes' farm? What about its description in Book 24 indicates that it would represent an ideal spot from which Odysseus might lead his armed companions against the suitors and reclaim Ithaca? Crucial to the interpretation which I tender here is Marks's and Reece's observation that Odysseus's lying tales represent Odysseus as moving in a much less Mycenaean, more "contemporary" milieu of Archaic-Age Greece - a world of charisma- fueled ßaaiXelc; and bands of retainers jostling for influence in mundane places like Dodona and Elis. This intrusion of contemporary political assumptions into the heroic world of the Odyssey helps to explain the important position of Laertes' almost em- barrassingly humble farm in Odysseus's plot to retake Ithaca. Commentators

This content downloaded from 128.95.104.109 on Thu, 04 Feb 2021 19:01:05 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms Dolios in Odyssey 4 and 24 271 often treat the Arceisiad kingship of Ithaca as a static, hereditary institution, but anthropological work like that of Hall 2007 and Finkelberg 1991 raises the possibility that Odysseus s kingship in the city palace of Ithaca was not an inveterate or entirely secure institution even before his departure for Troy. Indeed, Odysseus s use in Book 24 of his having planted trees with Laertes on the family farm as an intimate token of recognition (Od. 24.336-44) implies perhaps that this farm, rather than the city, was the family home and main support base before the Arceisiads acquired the kingship of all Ithaca. 13 In this case, Laertes' choice to retire thither represents a sensible retreat to a region from which he can be sure to muster support in the event that Penelope and Telemachos encounter difficulties in the newer Arceisiad bastion of the city palace. 14 The farm, rather than the city palace, is the original focus of Arceisiad power and influence on the island.

13 For the competitive and relatively insecure "Big Man" model of the ßaaiXeix; in Dark- Age Greece and for the question of Laertes' status, see Wender 1978: 53-54; Halverson 1 986: 1 1 9-2 1 ; West 1 988 on 1 . 1 88-93; Dimock 1 989: 329; Falkner 1 989: 40-4 1 ; Finkelberg 1991; Jones 1992; Raaflaub 2004: 30-33; Hall 2007: 1 19-44; cf. Scodel 2001: 313. By paint- ing the Arceisiads as social climbers, Homer merely reflects the political situation of the period preceding the eighth century. Halverson 1986: 1 19-21 questions the existence of a unified kingdom or polity of Ithaca, conceding only that "Odysseus has indubitably been the leading man of his region, but this is a position of status, not an office, a position based above all on wealth ... and secondarily on personal ability and charisma." Finkelberg 1991 and Westbrook 2005 have both hazarded that kingship was transmitted via mar- riage during the heroic age. Finkelberg removes the kingship from Laertes by suggesting that in the heroic world kingship is regularly transmitted through dowry (i.e., from Icarios to Odysseus through Penelope); for Near Eastern models for Penelope's dowry, see Westbrook 2005. Hall 2007: 120-28 observes that the status of ßaaiXetc; at this time fluctuated depending on charisma and wealth, and that, as connections and political ties developed across the "newly enlarged communities that the archaeological record attests for the eighth century" (128), ßaaiXeu; of now-combined regions would be forced either to share power or to yield power to one preeminent ßaaiXeix;. 14 The audience knows from the recognition of Book 23 that Odysseus himself was responsible at the very least for the construction of the palace bedchamber, if he did not in fact aid Laertes in constructing the entire palace. The exact nature of the farm has been a subject of some debate: Homer refers to it as a t¿|íevo(; at 17.299, and, while Donlan's work (1982, 1989, 1996) emphasizes the status of the TEļievoc; as a plot of uncultivated land set aside for the king for cultivation (a meaning not suitable for an ancestral home), during the process of urbanization offerings begin to appear at Mycenaean tombs, giving rise to the word's later meaning of "temple sanctuary" (de Polignac 1995: 128). Homer's use of this term for Laertes' farm plays on the word's older and newer meanings: Laertes brought into cultivation and farmed a stretch of land (xéfievoi; in the former sense); was perhaps, according to a tradition, buried there; upon which it became a sanctuary and locus of hero cult (t£|1£vo<; in the latter sense).

This content downloaded from 128.95.104.109 on Thu, 04 Feb 2021 19:01:05 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms 272 Benjamin S. Haller

LAERTES* COORDINATION WITH ODYSSEUS AND PENELOPE IN ALTERNATIVE VÓOTOi: LAERTES AND ODYSSEUS'S ARMED BAND

Albert Lord had speculated as early as 1960 that there must have been variant versions of Laertes' role in oral allomorphs of the Odyssey in which Odysseus is reunited with his father, is recognized, and, with the help of Dolios and his sons, enlists some of the rural characters to help in the battle against the suitors.15 Support for Lord s reconstructed version appears in Odysseus s false tale that Odysseus went to Dodona to ask whether he should return openly, or (as he actually opts to do in Book 13 of our Odyssey under Athena s guid- ance) in secret (14.330). Since this is a false tale in our Odyssey , the audience never learns what Dodona told Odysseus to do. However, the "armed band" that Odysseus claims to have at his disposal (14.332) suggests that in earlier performances Dodona instructed Odysseus to return openly. Later, in Book 16, we find echoes of this same armed band: Odysseus, while plotting with Telemachos, twice contemplates whether they should enlist the role of other helpers beyond himself and his son (ļiepļirļpi^ac; / 9páaao¡iai, fļ kev v<íh ói)vr|aó|i£0> àvTupépeaOai / (íoúvco avsuO' aXXtov, řj Kal ôiÇí]aó|i£0' aXXouç, "and I will ponder and take counsel, whether the two of us alone apart from others will be able to attack them, or whether we shall seek others," 16.237-39 ~ àXXà au y', ei ôúvaaaí tiv' àjiúvropa ļiepļirļpi^ai, / (ppáÇeu, ö Kév tic; vcoïv àjiúvoi Ttpócppovi 0u|i(í), "but think, if you are able to think of some cham- pion, who might give us martial aid with an eager heart," 16. 256-57 ~ Kal 9páaai, rļ kev víIhv Â0r|vr| ai)v Ail natpl / àpKéaei, řjé tiv' aXXov àjiùvropa ļiepļirļpi^co, "and think, if Athena with Zeus Father will suffice for us, or if I should consider some other champion," 16.260-61). If Dodona told Odysseus to return openly with an armed band in some Odysseys, where would he have obtained this armed band? Lord provides one possible answer: he speculates that Eumaios "is a duplication of the group of Laertes, Dolius, et al., or that in some songs of the tradition we would find him either completely absent or a member of that group."16 In other words, Odysseus had originally gone to Laertes' farm to gather his band of warriors. In this case, in our Odyssey the Eumaios episode has displaced parts of the

15 In addition to textual evidence from the Odyssey , much of which is discussed below, Lord 1960: 178 draws on comparative data, observing that, "[t]he order of recognitions in the Yugoslav songs ... gives support to the placing of the recognition by the parent after that by the wife." 16 Lord 1960: 181.

This content downloaded from 128.95.104.109 on Thu, 04 Feb 2021 19:01:05 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms Dolios in Odyssey 4 and 24 273 reunion, such as the episode beginning at 24.205, to a "second" reunion be- tween father and son in Book 24. 17 The battle of the rejuvenated Laertes with the suitors' families (24.365-71), too, which has struck some commentators as an ill-timed, otiose afterthought, is thus likely displaced from its proper place in the narrative as part of the battle against the suitors. Homer s rather puzzling use of inappropriate heroic diction like ôpxajioç, "champion," of Eumaios and Philoitios (14.22, 121; 20.185, 254; see Hoekstra 1989 on 14.3), vr|Xéi xciXkco ("unpitying bronze," 14.418), and TtEvtaeTrļpov ("five-year-old," 14.419) would also be better motivated if Laertes had once filled Eumaioss function in another version of the homecoming, or at least led the country folk in a decisive battle to take back Ithaca.18 Some of the odd stylistic quirks of Book 24 can also be accounted for by its displacement from its original position in the slaying of the suitors. We perhaps meet Odysseus s armed band again at 24.205. Here, Homer abruptly breaks off the second Nekuia with an echo of II 24.329, which abruptly shifts the narrative track to the arrival of Odysseus and his companions at Laertes' farm (see Heubeck 1992 on 24.205). Oddly, the passage as transmitted never

17 For the question of the authenticity of Book 24 of the Odyssey , see Aristophanes and Aristarchus on Od. 23.296 (touto téXoc; Tfjç 'Oôuaaeíac; cprļalv Àpícrrapxoc; Kal ApiaT09Apollo offers strong evidence that the author of this work "knew not only our Odyssey , but also the extant ending of it." The appearance of Dolios, in particular, in both 4 and 24 demonstrates that whatever the origins of Book 24, it has been inseparably woven into the fabric of the canonical Odyssey (as seen by Kirchhoff 1859, who placed the Dolios sections of both Book 4 and Book 24 among the Zusätze der jüngeren Bearbeitung , the last phase of his reconstruction of the redaction of the Odyssey). While acknowledging its peculiarities, I therefore accept the likelihood that Book 24 was incorporated into the Odyssey early on, perhaps during the final process of textualization and by the final redactor of the poem, and that the Laertes episode represents an imper- fect transposition of material from the alternative "armed band" version of Odysseus's homecoming to the end of the epic in order to preserve the dramatic father-son reunion. See also Heubeck 1992 on 23.296. 18 For the question of "epic parody" in these and other aspects of the diction of Book 14 (e.g., Eumaioss "much-wooed" wife), see Reece 1993: 151-55 and the bibliography cited there; Reece relies on the formulaic character of such phrases and the relative late- ness of certain grammatical and metrical forms to conclude that "faced with the need to adapt his inherited diction when describing a nonheroic setting, Homer relied more than usual on his own linguistic vernacular" (1993: 164), a conclusion that neither rules out nor confirms Lord s hypothesis.

This content downloaded from 128.95.104.109 on Thu, 04 Feb 2021 19:01:05 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms 274 Benjamin S. Haller actually specifies who the subjects of this new action are: oi ó' èrre I £K ttóXioç Kcrreßav, taxa ô' àypòv ïkovto ("but they, when they had gone down from the city, swiftly arrived in the countryside," 24.205). The failure to indicate who "they" are makes the transition almost incoherent at first hearing, an inconcinnity that may be symptomatic of the imperfect repurposing of this arrival scene from the ßirj-voaroc; version of the Odyssey as the denouement of the newly-minted canonical ßi0c;-vc>(JTO<;. In the original version, I would offer, the lines preceding 24.205 described the progress of Odysseus and some of his armed companions to muster more troops at the farm preceding the confrontation with the suitors. This is but the first of a series of anomalies in Laertes' reunion with Odysseus observed by Page and by Lord that cohere better with an earlier reunion between father and son. Laertes' inability to recognize his son is more suited to a point in the tale when Odysseus is still disguised, and Odysseus s "aimless and heartless guessing game" (Page 1955: 112) is better motivated if it originated as a test of Laertes' resolve before father and son rallied the loyal troops to retake the palace. Finally, Dolios appears a second time in Book 24 at Od. 24.386-412, offering to run to inform Penelope of Odysseus s return. This is the second message that the poet places in Dolios's hands only to frustrate the actual delivery of the message. Homer s odd insistence that Dolios convey a message between Penelope and Laertes' farm, which he in neither case has the chance to deliver, could be accounted for if the Book-24 message represents yet another vestige from other homecoming narratives in which Odysseus returned first to Laertes' farm, and only later to the palace. In such scenarios, news of Odysseus's return would have been conveyed to Penelope by way of Dolios in the expectation that she would assist Odysseus in killing the suitors. The message never sent in our Odyssey would thus have originally served a vital purpose.

THE LOOM TRICK AND LAERTES* SHROUD

The manner in which Homer narrates the loom trick provides evidence that the loom trick and the Dolios plot are both structural allomorphs of the same underlying narrative plot pattern involving Penelope and Laertes pulling the wool over the suitors' eyes. Indeed, Penelope even introduces Dolios by stat- ing that he is to instruct Laertes to "weave" a ļifjTic; (ei ôr| ttoú riva Kãvoç évi 9peai ļifļTiv ūcprļvcu; ...,"if indeed he, by weaving a contrivance in his heart ..." 4.739), much as she "weaves" a plot in the form of a shroud in the loom trick, suggesting that the story of both tricks could have arisen as poetic plays, with

This content downloaded from 128.95.104.109 on Thu, 04 Feb 2021 19:01:05 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms Dolios in Odyssey 4 and 24 275 varying degrees of literalness, on the metaphorical expression ļifļtiv íxpaívo).19 Such similarities are evidence that Dolios likely played a more active role in variant Odysseys, actually using the trickiness implicit in his name to help bring down the regime of the suitors. In our Odyssey , however, these similari- ties also dispose listeners to regard Penelope s instructions to Dolios in Book 4 as part of a broader strategy of anti-suitor insurgency, and thereby character- ize Penelope as more doggedly loyal to Odysseus than she would otherwise appear if the loom trick were her only attempt to undermine their authority. This point is underscored by Homer s use of plurals in the narration of the loom trick, implying a plurality or a series of plots. At 2.89-1 1 0, Antinoos says that for a while Penelope kept leading different suitors on, and then came up with "this other plot" (r) ôè ôóXov tóvô' aXXov évi (ppeaì ļiEpļirļpi^e, "but she conceived this other plot in her mind," 2.93), referring to the loom trick, to put them off. Penelope herself says that she has employed plural tricks, before citing the loom as a specific example: èytb ôè ôóXouc; roXvnevœ ("and I wind out tricks [like wool onto a clew]," 19.137).20 The loom trick shares with the Dolios episode the theme of the contest of trickery between Penelope and her suitors: thus in the loom trick, Homer uses the word ôóXoç to describe the unweaving of the shroud at 2.89-1 10, and in the Dolios episode Penelope instructs Dolios to sneak out to the countryside to work on Telemachos s behalf. A new dimension is added to this contest of wits when Homer reveals that Penelope is contending not only against the

19 Although this formula is used elsewhere with Odysseus, the suitors, and others as subject, given Laertes' peculiar association with this particular trick, the word "weaving" may carry more semantic freight at 4.739. This elevation of the metaphorical to the literal level of plot is not unexampled in Homer: see Louden 1995, and the attempt in Haller 2009 to represent the Gates of Horn and Ivory of Book 19 as a similar concretization of a metaphor. 20 The suitors' odd description of Penelope's role in the trick of the shroud in Book 24 similarly implies that she has been engaged for a long time in multifarious plots (ÔóXoi) against them, culminating in the trick of Laertes' shroud: q Ô' out' iļpvelTo aTuyepòv yá[iov out' ¿TeXeÚTa, / r''íív cppa(o[iévr| OávaTov Kal Křjpa |iéXaivav, / àXXà ôóXov tóvô' äXXov èvi 9peal [iepļiTļpi^e ("She, though, neither refused the hateful marriage nor brought it to pass, contemplating death and a black fate for us. But she conceived this other trick in her mind," Od. 24.126-28). For the meaning of ToXuTieúto, see LSJ s.v. The suitors twice refer to the loom trick as a ôóXoç (2.106, 24.141; see Heubeck 1992 on 24.128-46). Penelope refers to a (ifļTic; when speaking to Odysseus (vuv Ô' out' eiapuyeeiv ôúvafiai yáfiov oute Tiv' áXXr|v / ļifļTiv ë0' eûpiaKto, "now I am able neither to escape marriage nor do I discover yet any other contrivance," 19. 1 57-58). When Athena intervenes, it thus represents a sort of mythological pun (the daughter of Metis supplies the "contrivance" that Penelope is unable to find).

This content downloaded from 128.95.104.109 on Thu, 04 Feb 2021 19:01:05 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms 276 Benjamin S. Haller suitors, but with a member of the servant class whom she has indoctrinated into the art of trickery. It is generally agreed by Homeric commentators that the most likely candidate for the traitorous maid who betrays the loom trick to the suitors is Melantho, daughter of Dolios.21 If this is true, the loom trick, like the Dolios plot of Book 4, represents Penelope using trickery to grapple with an embodiment of trickery by upstart lower-status characters. Proficiency in ôóXoç is thus a key attribute in maintaining political control of social in- feriors. It is also key to successful management of ones peers, since Penelope employs it to maintain a network of loyal retainers: Penelope in all iterations of the loom trick implies that the weaving of a shroud for Laertes is crucial to retaining the approval of the Achaean women (2.101, 19.146, 24.137), and the loom trick thus shares with the Dolios plot the implication that Laertes carries prestige with the people, which could be channeled against the suitors. Laertes mobilizing Odysseus s retainers was likely a central feature of his original function in the tale of his son s return. Indeed, the very etymology of Laertes' name hints that his original purpose in the myth was as a "rouser of the people"22: at Aelian 10.42, the XaépTi1c; is a kind of ant and wasp. The name is presumably applicable to both these species because of their unique facility for organizing and rousing (opvuļii) their people (Xaóç) in collective enterprises. The proper name Laertes, then, would seem to denote "he who incites the people," and Penelope s hope for Dolios s message (èÇeXGtov Xaoiaiv òôúpetai, 4.740) gives the appearance of being an attempt at a play on this etymology, swapping in the similar-sounding òSúpetai (-öpvirrai) as a gloss explaining how Laertes is to stir up (öpvujii) the people.23 Penelope, Telemachos, and Laertes are several times described as "lamenting" in concert,24 and Anticléa accounts for Laertes' seemingly inexplicable failure to come to the city and

21 Cf. von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff 1884: 50; Winkler 1990: 149; Floyd 2011: 153; Vlahos 2011:38. 22 For figures whose names reflect their function in myth, see also Nagy 's discussion (1979: 78-102) of the etymology of Achilles, and Louden 's of wordplay on the understood etymology of Odysseus's name (1995, esp. 34-35). 23 See LSJ s.w. Xaóç, öpvu[ii, XaépTî]c;; for the e-grade of opvuļii in XaépTqc;, see the forms from Hesychius cited in LSJ s.v. opvujii and von Kamptz 1982: 77 (§24: "*er- 'in Bewegung setzen, antreiben'"). For the meaning of òôúp£Tcu,"wail or lament to or before," see LSJ s.v. òôúpojiai 3. It is of course possible that Laertes is intended to indicate a war leader who "drives on the people," as perhaps suggested by his wish at 24.376-82, but, as Scodel 1998: 14-15 observes, there has been no mention of Laertes' heroic role in com- manding the Cephallenians against Nerikon anywhere prior in the epic. 24 At 4.111-12, Telemachos characterizes this lamentation as an activity shared by Laertes, Penelope, and Telemachos collectively.

This content downloaded from 128.95.104.109 on Thu, 04 Feb 2021 19:01:05 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms Dolios in Odyssey 4 and 24 277 exercise the rights of kingship by employing another word for "lament": ëv0' ö ye k£ít' àxécov, (iéya Se 9peai TîévOoc; àéÇei / aòv vóaxov noOéœv ("there he lies grieving, and increases the great mourning in his heart longing for your homecoming," 1 1 . 195-96). 25 While critics have tended to regard Laertes' beds of leaves and lament in the countryside as a token of despairing submis- sion, Alexiou 2002 has demonstrated that in modern Greek village life and ancient Greek culture, lamentation often mobilizes kin and social networks to revenge against enemies - the very purpose Penelope suggests for Laertes' mourning in Book 4. In summation, such considerations adumbrate the existence of other vócrroi in which Odysseus s defeat of all opposition on Ithaca and reunion with Penelope hinges on support from Laertes and from a group of partisans who rally around the rural outpost of Laertes' répevoç. If the audience was familiar with such stories, Laertes even in our version of the Odyssey is less susceptible to being read as simply biding his time or punishing himself by retreating to his farm as Anticléa s words in Book 1 1 indicate.26 Rather, Laertes, with each appearance of an artifact of his other poetic careers as anti-suitor insurgent, tantalizes the audience into wondering how his scheming will be manifested in this telling of the tale. Such an audience would be not unlikely to read Penelopes urgent message to Dolios as part of a broader program of active insurgency against the suitors, and Laertes himself as safeguarding a refuge for his rendezvous with his son at a vantage point that permits him to stay abreast of developments in the palace through Dolios, while simultane- ously keeping Odysseus fresh in the memories of longtime country éraipoi. By preserving traces of these alternative Odysseys in which Laertes and Penelope play a more active role, the poet of the canonical Odyssey can still create the impression for those familiar with these versions that Penelope and Laertes are laboring faithfully to prepare for Odysseus s return. At the same time, our Odyssey permits more nuanced characterization through the addition of

25 For the question of Laertes' status as king, see the bibliography in nl3 above; even if we are to presume that Laertes is too feeble and old to challenge the suitors, his playing no role in the assembly of Book 2 is strange: this strangeness is mitigated if the audience believes that his presence is required in the countryside to rally the rural opposition to the suitors. 26 She says that Laertes "remains there in the country, and does not come down to the city" ( 1 1.187-88). Taken together with the warning by the ghost of Agamemnon not to go directly to the palace, this misdirection could represent a plot detail intended to steer Odysseus to the farm to rescue Laertes in alternative versions of the Odyssey , where one would have to imagine Laertes' magical rejuvenation occurring before the defeat of the suitors.

This content downloaded from 128.95.104.109 on Thu, 04 Feb 2021 19:01:05 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms 278 Benjamin S. Haller individualized tokens of recognition, which highlight Ó|i09p0aúvr| between husband and wife and father and son.

THE COMPETITIVE FEAST: CITY AND RURAL ECONOMIC NETWORKS

Recent scholarly work on feasting and exchange helps to further illustrate how a slave such as Dolios could plausibly serve as the keystone in a plot by Penelope and Laertes to mobilize Ithacans loyal to Odysseus against the suitors. This scholarship indicates that, to Homer's audience, the suitors' feasts would have represented not merely a wasteful misuse of property that does not belong to them, but a form of social climbing through the mecha- nisms of (1) competition for status within the hierarchy of the feast and (2) the assertion of control over the economies and networks of exchange that supply the feasts. If the suitors' feasts are not merely gluttony, but a strategy for dominating the power structures and networks of exchange on Ithaca through conspicuous consumption, Penelope's and Laertes' efforts to maintain control of such networks from the alternative power center of Laertes' farm comprise an aggressive form of coordinated resistance: Laertes' farm would represent nothing less than an economic and military counter-balance to the economy of feasting and exploitation of Odysseus's former flocks and fields by the suitors in the palace. Within Big Man economies like that prevailing in Homeric Greece, as Brian Hayden observes, feasts represent "mechanisms for converting surpluses in subsistence economies into wealth and power" (1996: 144). 27 Such feasts

27 In Maya areas, for example, "[t]he highest-ranking members of the political system held feasts among themselves, and they required prospective candidates trying to advance in the political hierarchy to hold more public feasts. The success of the candidates in pro- curing and organizing supporters, including financial support, was used as an important criterion for determining who would obtain higher political positions" (Hayden 1996: 144). For other similar systems of exchange in archaic societies, especially potlatch, see Mauss 1954 and Bataille 1997. Similar models appear to have existed in Bronze- Age Greece, Cyprus, and the Near East as well, where feasts "establish and maintain social relations and ... forge alliances," afforded "major occasions for the presentation of offerings to the king and the gods, and indeed ... played a central role in the palatial redistribution economy" (Steel 2004: 263 with n20, where she paraphrases Schmandt-Besserat 2001). For a recent summary of models of distribution at Mycenaean palaces, see Halstead 2007 and the bibliography cited there, esp. Hamilakis 1996 and Moody 1987 for feasting as a mecha- nism of redistribution; Galaty and Parkinson 2007a, esp. 7-8; Shelmerdine and Bennet 2008: 291-92. See Donlan 1982 and Seaford 1994 for reciprocity as represented in Homer, and Hayden 2001 and Wright 2004a for other functions of feasting in ancient societies.

This content downloaded from 128.95.104.109 on Thu, 04 Feb 2021 19:01:05 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms Dolios in Odyssey 4 and 24 279 could function as "entrepreneurial" occasions for the renegotiation of status and prestige, and conspicuous feasting often represents an attempt at social climbing.28 In a similar fashion, comparative anthropological interpretations of the position of the ßaaiXeix; in Homer emphasize its highly competitive nature, and the necessity for both holders of and aspirants to this position to expend "wealth ... personal ability, and charisma" in order to retain or gain control of a band of retainers.29 An attempt to outclass Odysseus in personal magnetism, rather than gluttony, may thus be the real reason for the suitors' revels. The suitors would then be employing feasting to control networks of exchange.30 While it is true that Homer in the suitors' first appearance at Odyssey 1.144-65 represents them as excessive feasters par excellence , the impression that gluttony is their prime transgression is modified when we reach the feasts of Books 19-22. It is not so much their excess as their con- sumption of goods belonging to the master that offends. Thus in the palace Dolios s "city" children both transfer Odysseus s goods to the suitors: goats, in Melanthios's case (17.212-14), and sexual favors, in Melantho's (18.325), both flow steadily from venues once reserved for the sole enjoyment of the lord of the household. Finally, in Books 20-22, before Odysseus's very eyes his former slave Melanthios obeys detailed orders by Antinoos (21.175-85) and finally runs to the room in which weapons were stored in an attempt to bring arms for the dying suitors, thereby transferring the one prerogative they have not yet successfully usurped - the licit use of force - from Odysseus to the suitors (22.135-60). Clay 1994 has even observed that both the seating order and the slaying order at the suitors' feasts follow a regular (and therefore implicitly hierarchical) order: consistent with Steel's model of entrepreneurial feasting (2004), Homer represents control both of feasting and of killing as belonging to the winner of the great contest in charisma to be ßacnXevx;. All these incidents during the revels reveal ways in which the suitors' feasts have

28 Steel 2004: 163; cf. Wright 2004b: 170-71. 29Halverson 1986: 121. 30 Murray 1995: 223 finds an essentially moral use of commensality in the Odyssey to contrast "the simple feasting of the swineherd ... with the evil feasting of the suitors, who despoil the house of the absent hero." Sherratt 2004: 184-85, who treats Homeric feast- ing from an archeological and anthropological perspective, also emphasizes the moral transgression of the suitors' feasts: these meals stand outside the two normal categories represented by Homer of hosted feasts and communal feasts, they consume animal re- sources at a faster rate than Ithaca's landscape can sustain, and the suitors abuse Odysseus's servants and Odysseus himself in his disguise. Cf. Seaford 1994: 53-65.

This content downloaded from 128.95.104.109 on Thu, 04 Feb 2021 19:01:05 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms 280 Benjamin S. Haller surreptitiously transferred prerogatives from Odysseus to the suitors within the palace. Feasting within a redistributive economy like that on Homer s Ithaca pre- sumes the existence of a center (in Homer s case, the palace) and an agrarian periphery (Laertes' farm). Tandy 1997: 101-2 describes a model in which goods are produced on the periphery, sent to the center as "deference," and redistributed to the periphery through feasting as an act of "benevolence." It is therefore no surprise that the suitors' feasts establish and expropriate hier- archies not only at the social center of the city, but in the countryside as well, as illustrated by the enthusiastic deference shown by Melanthios in giving the suitors Odysseus s goats.31 Indeed, the suitor-occupied palace actively diverts the produce of the countryside (e.g., 1.160), and during Odysseus's sojourn across Ithaca with Eumaios, the aging swineherd reveals that the suitors have asserted control of a network of agrarian holdings and of reciprocal rela- tionships with herdsmen stretching all the way to the mainland (14.81-82, 96-108; Sherratt 2004: 197). Within the social hierarchy of Archaic Greece, competitive feasting by the suitors would thus have represented a savvy means of establishing a hierarchy among themselves even as they took control of all Ithaca, eliminating competition from those outside the palace by keeping the megaron firmly at the center of Odysseus s old agrarian networks of recipro- cal exchange until such a time as one suitor emerged as victorious.32 Dolios s offspring arguably import the root meaning of their father s name into this struggle to control the city and the periphery. By helping to divert the feast- ing economy from the Arceisiads to the suitors, Melanthios and Melantho embody the danger to the social fabric that a Dolios becomes when he turns his clever ôóXoi against his masters. Against Melanthios's and Melantho s malignant ôóXoç is arrayed Penelopes and Laertes' Athena-protected [ifjric;. Though neither Penelope nor Telemachos can effectively put a stop to the suitors' feasts in the palace, they exercise more control in the countryside, where the Arcesiads have deep roots, both literally and metaphorically (cf. the importance that Odysseus and Laertes ascribe to the planting of trees there at Od. 24.336-44). That Laertes retains some control of rural economic networks is shown by the circumstance that Homer represents goods and produce moving throughout two overlapping and intermeshed economies in Ithaca, one, Laertes' farm, associated with the Arceisiad line, the other with the suitor-occupied palace. At 17.299 we

31 Tandy 1997: 108 has pointed out this economic aspect to the suitors' feasts on the periphery. 32 See n 1 3 above.

This content downloaded from 128.95.104.109 on Thu, 04 Feb 2021 19:01:05 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms Dolios in Odyssey 4 and 24 281 will find that the same Eumaios whose goods are taken by the suitors also regularly carts off dung from his pigs to a "téjiEVOc; of Odysseus," which it is reasonable to associate with Laertes' garden, and attempts to withhold animals from the suitors.33 Considered in the light of Lords hypothesis that Eumaios s role was played by Laertes himself in earlier allomorphs of the tale of Odysseus s homecoming, these hints scattered throughout the Odyssey of the existence of a pro-Arceisiad shadow economy help lay the foundation for the uprising first foreshadowed by Penelopes abortive order to summon Dolios in Book 4. The existence of this network centered upon Laertes' farm would arguably have indicated to the "original" Archaic-Age audience of the poem that, had Odysseus in fact opted to return with his band of armed retainers, this téjievoc; would have been the bastion from which Odysseus would have sallied forth to take back Ithaca. Speaking of the exercise of power in the Homeric polity, Raaflaub cautions (2004: 30-33, at 30):

Community and king cannot expect from [the individual noble] more than voluntary cooperation ... At the same time an individual or oikos that is threat- ened by others cannot expect help from the community; they have to help themselves or seek protection under a more powerful patron.

In such a world, Laertes' farm serves as a power center whence to effect the continuation of the ties of reciprocity without which Laertes, Penelope, and the returned Odysseus would be entirely without means - a small concern in the canonical Odyssey , where Athena's and Zeus's help are sufficient bulwark (16.260-61), but a crucial foundation for alliances in an alternative home- coming in which Laertes' country network actively aids the companions with whom Odysseus would return (14.332) in fighting the suitors.

MELANTHIOS AND MELANTHO AS LOWER-STATUS FOILS FOR TELEMACHOS

Thus far I have suggested that our Odyssey alludes to versions of Odysseus's homecoming in which Odysseus used the country outpost of Laertes' farm from which to retake his palace by open force. Further, I argue that even in the canonical Odyssey , the audience's background knowledge of these alternative tales would for some auditors indicate a preexisting arrangement whereby Odysseus would rendezvous with Penelope and Laertes on Laertes' farm, and that the existence of this arrangement imbues Penelope and Laertes with a

33 For the TÉjievot; in Homer, see Donlan 1989 and 1997; for its status as a "farm," see Hanson 1999: 47-88.

This content downloaded from 128.95.104.109 on Thu, 04 Feb 2021 19:01:05 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms 282 Benjamin S. Haller greater mastery of the quality that is the root meaning of the name of the slave Dolios who serves as their go-between: ôóXoç, or deceit.34 Dolios's message not only aids in the characterization of Laertes and Penelope as energetically engaged in duplicity: it also marks aptitude in ôóXoç as a key benchmark of Telemachoss development and self-realization as sole legitimate heir to Odysseus across the Telemachy. As Marks observes, this is one of the key differences between the canonical Odyssey and epichoric (regional) variant versions of the homecoming of Odysseus: in the former, Panhellenic work it behooves the poet to present Telemachos as Odysseuss sole heir, whereas it is useful in epics directed at a regional audience for Odysseus to have many offspring, since such poems provide charters for local dynastic lines.35 Proficiency in ôóXoç is thus singled out as key to Telemachos s evolution as hero early on. Athena at 1.295-96 has told Telemachos that he should ponder two means by which to kill the suitors: guile and open force (r|è ôóXco fļ à|i(paôóv; cf. 1 1.120). The introduction of a slave named Dolios in Book 4 to rescue Telemachos from an ambush by the suitors highlights Telemachos's continuing youthful dependence upon his mother for schooling in duplicity, and establishes a baseline from which he must progress. Other circumstances of Dolios's appearance in Book 4 underscore the theme of Telemachos s dependence on Penelope for schooling in deceit. First,

34 Recent scholarship emphasizes that Homer is aware of the power and social dynam- ics of the slave-master relationship, if in a very biased fashion. Schmidt 2006: 441-42 has demonstrated that Homer's interest in articulating the nature of the relationship between servants and masters extends even to the use of more archaic terms like àjicpÌTtoXoi in preference to ôficpaí to mean "maidservants" in order to show closeness and affection with Penelope. See further Thalmann 1998: 62-63. Thalmann 1998: 50-52 has suggested that the divergent fates of Dolios s two sets of offspring reflect the "view from the top" perspective on slaves: the aristocratically-oriented epic ignores their status as sentient agents and stereotypes them as "good slaves" (the six Sicilian offspring) or "bad slaves" (Melanthios and Melantho). Cf. Thalmann 1998: 68: "Through his two sets of children, Dolios represents the possible positions for a slave in the Ithakan situation: loyalty to the legitimate master or cooption by the suitors who dominate in his absence." See also Garlan 1988: 17-18 (the servus callidus in Greek comedy), 24-37. 35 For the implied marginalization of Telegonos and other "cyclic" offspring of Odysseus in our Odyssey , see Reece 1994: 169-71 and Marks 2003. For Arceisiad unilineal geniture, see Od. 16.117-20: d)ôe yap īļļietepīļv yeveqv (ioúvcoae Kpovítov- / ļioūvov Aaepxrjv Àpiceíaioç inòv etikte, / ļiouvov Ó' auT'Dôuafja Tīcmļp tekev- aùtàp 'Oôuaaeíx; / (loüvov ēļi' èv [ieyápoioi tekcov Xíhev, oùÔ' ànôvr'TO ("for thus the son of Kronos made our line single: / as only-begotten, Arceisios sired his son Laertes, / as only-begotten, Laertes as father sired Odysseus in turn; but Odysseus / as only-begotten sired me and left me behind in the megaron , but had no joy of it").

This content downloaded from 128.95.104.109 on Thu, 04 Feb 2021 19:01:05 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms Dolios in Odyssey 4 and 24 283 soon after the introduction of the character Dolios, the word ôóXioç, the adjectival form of ôóXoç, recurs when Penelope goes to sleep and dreams (at 4.791-92, Penelope "pondered such worries as a lion of men in the press of battle does in his fear when [the enemies] close in a duplicitous - ôóXioç - circle about him"). The dream paints Penelope and Telemachos as the vic- tims of unjust uses of ôôXoç, and casts Penelope as the party responsible for generating a counter-trick, embodied in Dolios, to save Telemachos.36 At the same time, another redender Name relating to |if)Tic; and cleverness appears in the description of the beginning of the suitors' plot to ambush and mur- der Telemachos just before Dolios appears: Noemon son of Phronios, whose name (< voûç, 9povéo)/(ppr1v) demonstrably connotes cleverness, either very stupidly or very disloyally approaches the suitors demanding to know when Telemachos will be bringing his ship back (4.630).37 Austin has observed that Homer deliberately plays with the semantics of "intelligence" in his use of Noemon s name, having earlier referred to Telemachos as oùô' ctvorļļicov and the suitors as ou ti vorļļiovec; (2.270, 278, 282). 38 The antithesis between oùô' ctvorļļitov Telemachos and the oi3 ti vor||iov£<; suitors privileges the develop- ment of Telemachos s skills in negotiating ôóXoç as the main criterion by which his maturation into a son worthy of Odysseus is to be judged.39 Telemachos initially seems to require rescue at the hands of a character who represents the externalization of Penelope s ÔóXoc; - Dolios - but will eventually be revealed, like his father, to be under the protection of the divine (if) tiç of Athena. Dolios s own family is the mirror image of Odysseus s.40 As more informa- tion about Dolios s family is revealed, the bifurcated paths taken by Melanthios, Melantho, and the six sons of the Sicilian slave establish Melanthios and Melantho as foils for the young Telemachos in several key ways. First, whereas

36 The word occurs elsewhere in the Odyssey at 4.437 (Proteus), 4.529 (Aegisthus),and 9.282 (Odysseus fooling Polyphemus), all situations in which one character is attempting to lay an ambush. 37 For Noemon's name as ironic, see Higbie 1995: 12. 38 Austin 2009: 91. 39 Telemachos's father indeed faced an analogous ambush situation in Iliad 10 in his confrontation with another character whose name appears to derive from ÔóXoc;: AóXüjv Eù^iî1Ôeoc; uióç ("Trickster, son of 'Good Counsel'"). For Dolon's name, see von Kamptz 1982: 239-40 (§68c2), who connects it to "List, Tücke" (like the name "Dolios," which he glosses "listig, verschlagen"); von Kamptz indicates the possibility that Dolon is a shortened form ( Kurzform ) of AoXo[ir)ôr|(;. Cf. Higbie 1995: 12, who treats Dolon of the Iliad as an ironically redender Name. 40 As Thalmann 1998: 68 notes, the analogy between Dolios's family and Odysseus's is not the only such: Aegyptios 's two sons represent a similar bifurcation of a family into pro- and anti-Arceisiad branches; see also A. Edwards 1993: 50.

This content downloaded from 128.95.104.109 on Thu, 04 Feb 2021 19:01:05 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms 284 Benjamin S. Haller the Odyssey takes pains to emphasize Telemachoss lineage and worthiness as heir to Odysseus (contrast Telemachoss problematization of his descent at 1.215-16 with Helens recognition of Telemachos before he is introduced at 4.141-46), the poet makes it clear that the aberration of Melanthios and Melantho from their father s character is one of their defining characteristics. When the audience first meets Melanthios, whom Homer introduces paired with his fathers name at 17.212 ("the son of Dolios, Melanthios"), he is disloyally leading goats for consumption at the suitors' feasts. His first words to Odysseus and Eumaios provide crucial insights into his character while touching on the theme of fathers and sons: ox; aie! ròv ójiolov ayei 0eòc; coc; tòv oļiolov ("God always leads like to like," 17.218). 41 Melanthios intends his words to insinuate that Eumaios and Odysseus are low characters who deserve one another's company, but, coming fast upon Melanthioss identification in terms of Dolios, this maxim serves as an ironic commentary on Melanthioss relationship with his father: as his hubristic behavior unfolds (he abuses the disguised Odysseus at 17.212, wishes Telemachos dead at 17.251-53, calls Odysseus to the attention of the suitors at 17.370, and at 22.160-62 runs to fetch weapons for the suitors when they are battling Odysseus), Melanthios demonstrates that, at least when it comes to fathers and sons, the god does not lead like to like. Melantho s introduction similarly invokes and complicates the principle of "like to like." She has turned out to be a bad seed despite being Dolios s daughter.42 She had many causes to be faithful - Penelope personally cared for her, reared her like her own child, and gave her toys - but never- theless she had intercourse with Eurymachos. In the sketch of Melanthios and Melantho, there is thus a perceptible attempt by the poet to indicate the existence of a moral chasm separating the father from his children, the virtuously deceptive slave from his perilous offspring, and, as in the case of Telemachos, it is the use and abuse of ôóXoç that is the criterion by which the character of offspring is judged.43

41 For Melanthios s and Melantho 's introduction, and the importance of first appear- ances of characters, see Race 1993: 96-98. 42 Cf. 18.321-25: tòv ô' aiaxpdx; èvévirce MeXav0

This content downloaded from 128.95.104.109 on Thu, 04 Feb 2021 19:01:05 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms Dolios in Odyssey 4 and 24 285

If Dolios is a foil for Odysseus as Thalmann avers,44 by insinuating them- selves into both the maternal affections of Penelope (18.321-25) and the good graces of the suitors, Dolios s children Melanthios and Melantho become virtual step-siblings to Telemachos - stand-ins for Telegonos, Polypoites, and the other variegated parade of competitors offered up by epichoric dy- nastic legends. Much as Telegonos proves a competitor to the Arceisiad line on Ithaca in Procluss summary of the Telegony and a potential subverter of the unilineal geniture of the Arceisiads insisted upon by the Telemachos of our Odyssey , so too Telemachos must defeat the "uppity" scions of "Tricky," Melanthios and Melantho, to assert his status as controller of legitimate de- ceit on Ithaca. Rather than the convoluted epichoric family tree of Odysseus found in the kyklos , Homer in the Odyssey presents only one legitimate heir of Odysseus - and the unworthy slaves who betray him.

ORIGINS OF ATHENA'S DISGUISE STRATAGEM IN OLDER STORIES OF ODYSSEUS'S RETURN BY FORCE

Athena is usually the mechanism invoked by Homer to safeguard the suc- cession from Odysseus to Telemachos, and her interventions in the narrative often coincide with places where Homer appears to be invoking and then discounting the open-force variant of Odysseus s homecoming in favor of the Athena-aided disguise and bow contest. This happens in the Dolios plot of Book 4: Euryclea instructs Penelope to pray to Athena at 4.752 instead of calling Dolios. Tellingly, Athena then sends a dream to Penelope to assuage her worries, as Penelopes mind is anxious like that of a lion when men are leading

Cf. McCarthy 2000: 34: "The doubleness of the comic slave himself, his ability to be seen as both 'different' and 'same,' allows this figure to allay each audience member's anxieties about his/her relations downward in hierarchical scales (distancing oneself from the clever slave as different, as a charming but ultimately infantile trickster) and upward (identifying with the clever slave as same, as a smart subordinate who sees through the pretensions of those who claim superiority)." Melanthios and Melantho, like the stage slave described by McCarthy, exercise betrayal and deceit against their social superiors and aspire to a higher station in life: they sleep with Penelope's suitors (Melantho) and first abuse and then in the bow contest betray Odysseus (Melanthios; 1 7.2 1 2-53, 369-73; 20. 1 73-84; 22. 1 35-200; 474-77). During the lead-up to the bow contest Melanthios slavishly follows Antinoos's orders (21.175-87, 265-66), vividly demonstrating the extent to which the suitors and slaves have simply supplanted Odysseus as ruler of the ô<ï)|ia; the status quo is reasserted when both siblings are (probably) mercilessly killed by Telemachos (22.465-77). See Hölscher 1988: 259; Winkler 1990: 149; Fernández-Galiano 1992 on 22.474-77; Davies 1994; Floyd 2011: 153; Vlahos 201 1: 38. For Dolios's six other sons in Odyssey 24, see Floyd 201 1: 153 and Wender 1978: 54-56. 44 See discussion in Thalmann 1998: 50-68.

This content downloaded from 128.95.104.109 on Thu, 04 Feb 2021 19:01:05 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms 286 Benjamin S. Haller an entrapping circle about him (ôóAiov ... kúkXov, 4.792): the echo of Dolios's name in the word for "entrapping circle" may be a semi-conscious allusion by the poet to the "trick" of Penelope s conspiracy with Laertes. Athena's ap- pearance in the dream discounts this narrative path for the Odyssey , assuring Telemachoss mother that he is safe and preventing her from activating her band of armed warriors to counter the suitors' plot. Tantalizing traces of a narrative pattern in which Dolios s message, rather than Athena's divine providence, initiated the final war to expel the suitors appear in Book 15. Here, Penelope's message through Dolios emerges on the other end of a Homeric game of Whispering Down the Lane when not the slave of Book 4 whose name means "Tricky," but the goddess who is the daughter of Metis, warns Telemachos about the ambush. She advises him of the trap (15.27-30), tells him how to use his own skill at sailing to avoid it (permitting him in the process to come into his own as an Odysseus-like hero rather than relying on Penelope, 15.31-35), and then urges him to undertake the same course of action that Penelope's message would have prompted Laertes to effect had it been sent through Dolios: to rouse up a band of war companions in the city (vfja (ièv ¿ç ttóXiv ótpüvai Kal TcávTaç èraípouc;, 15.37) and to activate in person a network of the loyal in the countryside (aurcx; ôè 7tpd)Tiaxa außürrrjv eiacupiKéaOai, / oç roi úcov èmoupoç, ójidx; ôé toi fļTtia oîôev, 15.38-39). The fruition of the Dolios plot will come full circle with no aid from Dolios whatsoever when Eumaios will bring news to Penelope of Telemachoss return ( 15.40-42), just as Dolios offers to bring news to Penelope of Odysseus's return at 24.403-5.45 This revision, or rather deselection, of the Penelope-Dolios-Laertes con- spiracy version offers several advantages to the poet when it appears trans- mogrified into an Athena-Telemachos-Odysseus plot in Book 15: it implies a political situation and role for the ßaaiXeuc; more nearly approximating that familiar to the poem's audience; it elevates the role of the Panhellenic - and especially, Athenian - goddess Athena and reinforces her direct intervention to protect Odysseus and the family of Odysseus (note that the aid of Athena and Zeus is an alternative to amassing a large armed band at 16.260-61, when Telemachos and Odysseus contemplate how to take back the palace); and,

45 Theoclymenos himself is a doublet of Odysseus and tantalizes the audience with what appears to be an allusion to variant homecomings in which Odysseus was disguised as a prophet and not a beggar; cf. Page 1955: 83, Lord 1960: 170. Elements of a variant in which Odysseus was disguised as a prophet even intrude into the episode of Odysseus's disguise in Book 19 when Penelope asks him to interpret her dream of the Geese and Eagle ( 1 9.535-5 1 ): a strange request to make of an unknown beggar, but not of a prophet.

This content downloaded from 128.95.104.109 on Thu, 04 Feb 2021 19:01:05 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms Dolios in Odyssey 4 and 24 287 by reducing Dolios's family to a near-allegory for deception used for and against the house of Odysseus, it also allows the poet to make deceit (ôóXoç) the prerogative of only the legitimate heir of the Arceisiad line, as seen when Telemachos justly punishes Dolios s disloyal children. The introduction of Book 19 also represents this diversion of the narra- tive from armed conflict to disguise and ambush, and does so in an almost programmatic fashion through the problematic removal-of-the-arms scene. Here, Athena appears in person (19.2, 32-35) to scheme with Odysseus and to light the way for father and son to remove the weapons that might have figured in the more open battle-fought-by-armed-band (ßir|-v0aTO<;) variant, thereby preparing the stage for Odysseus's testing of Penelope and bow contest (cf. 19.44-45). Odysseus even assures both Telemachos, who wonders at the sudden irruption of illumination, and perhaps the audience as well, that this is the justice of the (Panhellenic) Olympian gods (auTīļ toi Ôíkí] earl 0e<ï)v oï 'OXujJTTOv e^ouaiv, 19.43), again identifying divine sanction with the bow contest plotline.46 This artfully deployed selection and deselection of narratives thus gives the Odyssey an especially strong Panhellenic focus - consistent with Marks s reading of Homer s use of variant traditions - in at least two distinct ways: ( 1 ) by eliminating the thorny tree of offspring grafted onto Odysseus in the cyclic and epichoric traditions, adding renewed emphasis to the satis- fying poetic theme of the restoration of the family of Odysseus; and (2) by foregrounding Athenas direct intervention in the poem, indicating possible links between an increasingly Panhellenic emphasis in evolving versions of the Odyssey and its growing association with festivals like the Panathenaia.47

CONCLUSION

If I am correct that the poet of our Odyssey has incorporated into the epic that has come down to us fragments from earlier narratives in which Odysseus returned with an armed band and took the island back by force, he did so in a sophisticated fashion. These narrative fragments ( 1 ) invite the audience, in keeping with the narratological theory of Felson-Rubin, to imagine a plot between Laertes, Penelope, and Odysseus in which the Arceisiads will retain

46 See Russo 1992 on these lines: Odysseus s ambiguous statement at 19.45 that he wishes to "provoke" (èpe0í(o)) Penelope has a point if the poet has in mind a plotline in which Odysseus sends Dolios from the countryside to provoke Penelope to prepare to help him to defeat the suitors: the word may refer to both this provocation and, as Russo takes it, to the testing to which Athena advises Odysseus subject Penelope in Book 13. 47 Discussion of the so-called Peisistratean or Panathenaic Recension is beyond the scope of this paper. See Cook 1995 and Nagy 1996.

This content downloaded from 128.95.104.109 on Thu, 04 Feb 2021 19:01:05 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms 288 Benjamin S. Haller control of Ithaca from two power bases during Odysseus s absence: (a) the palace in the city, and (b) Laertes' farm, where Odysseus will rendezvous with his father if he returns to find the palace occupied. (2) The plot relies on economic and social norms of competitive feasting that would have likely been familiar to the poems original audience; this audience would have quickly recognized the political implications of the suitors' co-emption of Odysseus s palace and of the networks of economic exchange through which Odysseus had controlled the countryside. (3) The slave Dolios is key to this plot linguistically (his name means "Tricky"), logistically (he will communi- cate between Penelope and Laertes), and thematically (his offspring serve as the opposition to Dolios and to Odysseus, representing what happens when "trickiness" is used to subvert rather than to support the legitimate ruler). (4) The plot is ultimately made unnecessary in our Odyssey when Odysseus and Telemachos conspire independently in the bow contest. Instead of the "tricky" Penelope acting through the tricky slave Dolios familiar to the audience of other variants of the poem, the poet chooses a path of song that underscores that Telemachos has become his fathers match in battle, which permits him to eliminate the bad offspring of "Tricky" (Dolios), demonstrating that he is now proof against the sorts of plots and ambushes with which the suitors had tried to destroy him, and hence ready to be Odysseuss sole heir.

WORKS CITED

Alexiou, M. 2002. The Ritual Lament in Greek Tradition. 2nd ed. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield. Ameis, K. F. and Hentze, C. 1872. Anhang zu Homers Odyssee. Leipzig: Teubner. Amory, A. 1966. "The Gates of Horn and Ivory." YCS 20: 1-57. Austin, N. 2009. "Name Magic in the Odyssey ." In Doherty, L. E. ed. Oxford Readings in Classical Studies: Homer's Odyssey. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 91-110. Bakhtin, M. M. 1981. The Dialogic Imagination: Four Essays by M. M. Bakhtin. Trans, by C. Emerson and M. Holquist. Austin: University of Texas Press.

University of Texas Press. Bal, M. 1 987. Lethal Love: Feminist Literary Readings of Biblical Love Stories. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Bataille, G. 1997. "The Gift of Rivalry: 'Potlatch.'" In Botting, E and Wilson, S. eds. The Bataille Reader. Maiden, MA: Wiley- Blackwell. 199-209. Bekker, I. 1863-72. Homerische Blätter. 2 vols. Bonn: Adolph Marcus. Clay, J. S. 1994. "The Dais of Death." TAPA 124: 35-40. Cook, E. E 1995. The Odyssey in Athens : Myths of Cultural Origins. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. Davies, M. 1994. "Odyssey 22.474-7: Murder or Mutilation?" CQ44: 534-36.

This content downloaded from 128.95.104.109 on Thu, 04 Feb 2021 19:01:05 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms Dolios in Odyssey 4 and 24 289 de Polignac, F. 1995. Cults, Territory, and the Origins of the Greek City-State. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Dietler, M. and Hayden, B. eds. 2001. Feasts: Archaeological and Ethnographic Perspectives on Food, Politics, and Power. Washington: Smithsonian Institution Press. Dimock,G. E. 1989. The Unity of the Odyssey. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press. Doherty, L. E. 2002. "The Narrative 'Openings' in the Odyssey ." Arethusa 35: 51-62. Donlan, W. 1982. "Reciprocities in Homer." CW75: 137-75.

to Homer. Leiden: Brill. 649-67. Edwards, A. 1993. "Homer's Ethical Geography: Country and City in the Odyssey ." TAPA 123: 27-78. Edwards, M. W. 1990. "Neoanalysis and Beyond." ClAnt 9: 31 1-25. Eisenberger, H. 1973. Studien zur Odyssee. Wiesbaden: Steiner. Erbse, H. 1972. Beiträge zum Verständnis der Odyssee. Berlin: de Gruyter. Falkner, T. M. 1989. "'Ettì y^paoc; oúôq): Homeric Heroism, Old Age and the End of the Odyssey ." In Falkner, T. M. and de Luce, J. eds. Old Age in Greek and Latin Literature. Albany: SUNY Press. 21-67. Felson-Rubin, N. 1994. Regarding Penelope: From Character to Poetics. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Fernández-Galiano, M. 1992. "Books XXI-XXII." In Russo, Fernández-Galiano, and Heubeck. 129-310. Finkelberg, M. 1991. "Royal Succession in Heroic Greece." CQ 41: 303-16. Floyd, E. D. 2011. "Linguistic, Mycenaean, and Iliadic Traditions behind Penelope's Recognition of Odysseus." College Literature 38.2: 131-58. Frisk, H. 1954-73. Griechisches etymologisches Wörterbuch. 3 vols. Heidelberg: Winter. Galaty, M. L. and Parkinson, W. A. 2007a. "2007 Introduction: Mycenaean Palaces Rethought." In Galaty and Parkinson, eds. 1-17.

of Archaeology. Garlan, Y. 1988. Slavery in Ancient Greece. Trans, by J. Lloyd. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. Hall, J. M. 2007. A History of the Archaic Greek World, ca. 1200-479 bce. Maiden, MA: Blackwell. Haller, B. 2009. "The Gates of Horn and Ivory in Odyssey 19: Penelope's Call for Deeds, not Words." CP 104: 397-417. Halstead, P. 2007. "Toward a Model of Mycenaean Palatial Mobilization." In Galaty and Parkinson, eds. 66-73. Halverson, J. 1986. "The Succession Issue in the Odyssey." G&R 33: 1 19-28. Hamilakis, Y. 1 996. "Wine, Oil and the Dialectics of Power in Bronze Age Crete: A Review of the Evidence." OJA 15: 1-32. Hanson, V. D. 1999. The Other Greeks: The Family Farm and the Agrarian Roots of Western Civilization. 2nd ed. Los Angeles: University of California Press. Harsh, P. W. 1950. "Penelope and Odysseus in Odyssey X IX." A/P 71: 1-20.

This content downloaded from 128.95.104.109 on Thu, 04 Feb 2021 19:01:05 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms 290 Benjamin S. Haller

Hayden, B. 1996. "Feasting in Prehistoric and Traditional Societies." In Wiessner, P. and Schiefenhövel, W. eds. Food and the Status Quest : An Interdisciplinary Perspective. Oxford: Berghahn Books. 127-48.

and Hayden, eds. 23-64. Heubeck, A. 1992. "Books XXIII-XXIV." In Russo, Fernández-Galiano, and Heubeck. 311-418. Higbie, C. 1995. Heroes' Names, Homeric Identities. New York: Garland. Hoekstra, A. 1 989. "Books XIII-XVI." In Heubeck, A. and Hoekstra, A. eds. A Commentary on Homer's Odyssey. Volume 2: Books IX-XVI. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 145-287. Hölscher, U. 1988. Die Odyssee: Epos zwischen Märchen und Roman. Munich: Beck. Janko, R. 1982. Homer, Hesiod and the Hymns: Diachronic Development in Epic Diction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Jones, P. V. 1992. "The Past in Homers Odyssey ." JHS 112: 74-90. Katz, M. A. 1991 . Penelope's Renown: Meaning and Indeterminacy in the Odyssey. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Kirchhoff, A. 1859. Die Homerische Odyssee und ihre Entstehung. Berlin: Hertz. Kullmann, W. 1984. "Oral Poetry Theory and Neoanalysis in Homeric Research." GRBS 25: 307-23. Lambertz, M. 1914. "Zur Etymologie von öoüXoc;." Giotta 6: 1-18. Lord, A. B. 1960. The Singer of Tales. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Louden, B. 1995. "Categories of Homeric Wordplay." TAPA 125: 27-46. Malkin, 1. 1998. The Returns of Odysseus: Colonization and Ethnicity. Berkeley: University of California Press. Marks, J. 2003. "Alternative Odysseys: The Case of Thoas and Odysseus." TAPA 133: 209-26. Marquardt, P. 1985. "Penelope TIOAYTPOnOE.'" AJP 106: 32-48. Mauss, M. 1954. The Gift: Forms and Functions of Exchange in Archaic Societies. Glencoe, IL: The Free Press.

McCarthy, K. 2000. Slaves, Masters, and the Art of Authority in Plautine Comedy. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Moody, J. 1987. "The Minoan Palace as a Prestige Artifact." In Hägg, R. and Marinatos, N. eds. The Function of the Minoan Palaces : Proceedings of the Fourth International Symposium at the Swedish Institute in Athens, 10-16 June, 1984. Stockholm: Svenska Institutet i Athen. 235-41. Murnaghan, S. 1987. Disguise and Recognition in the Odyssey. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Murray, 0. 1995. "Forms of Sociality." In Vernant, J.-P. ed. The Greeks. Trans, by C. Lambert and T. L. Fagan. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 218-53. Nagy, G. 1979. The Best of the Achaeans: Concepts of the Hero in Archaic Greek Poetry. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

O'Hara, J. J. 1996. True Names: Vergil and the Alexandrian Tradition of Etymological Wordplay. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Page, D. L. 1955. The Homeric Odyssey. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

This content downloaded from 128.95.104.109 on Thu, 04 Feb 2021 19:01:05 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms Dolios in Odyssey 4 and 24 291

Peradotto, J. 1990. Man in the Middle Voice: Name and Narration in the Odyssey. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Raaflaub, K. A. 2004. "Homer and the Beginning of Political Thought in Greece." In Robinson, E. W. ed. Ancient Greek Democracy: Readings and Sources. Maiden, MA: Blackwell. 28-40. Race, W. 1993. "First Appearances in the Odyssey ." TAPA 123: 79-107. Reece, S. 1993. The Strangers Welcome: Oral Theory and the Aesthetics of the Homeric Hospitality Scene. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

Richardson, S. 2006. "The Devious Narrator of the Odyssey C/ 101: 337-59. Rozokoki, A. 2001. "Penelope's Dream in Book 19 of the Odyssey." CQ 51: 1-6. Russo, J. 1982. "Interview and Aftermath: Dream, Fantasy, and Intuition in Odyssey 19 and 20." AJP 103: 4-18.

Odyssey. Volume 3: Books XVII-XXIV. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Schmandt-Besserat, D. 2001. "Feasting in the Ancient Near East." In Dietler and Hayden, eds. 391-403.

Schmidt, M. 2006. "Some Remarks on the Semantics of avaÇ in Homer." In Deger- Jalkotzy, D. and Lemos, I. S. eds. Ancient Greece : From the Mycenaean Palaces to the Age of Homer. Edinburgh: University of Edinburgh Press. 440-47. Scodel, R. 1998. "The Removal of the Arms, the Recognition with Laertes, and Narrative Tension in the Odyssey." CP 93: 1-17.

Seaford, R. 1994. Reciprocity and Ritual: Homer and Tragedy in the Developing City State. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Shelmerdine, C. W. and Bennet, J. 2008. "Mycenaean States: Economy and Administration." In Shelmerdine, C. W. ed. The Cambridge Companion to the Aegean Bronze Age. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 289-309. Sherratt, S. 2004. "Feasting in Homeric Epic." Hesperia 73: 301-37. Steel, L. 2004. "A Goodly Feast ... A Cup of Mellow Wine: Feasting in Bronze Age Cyprus." Hesperia 73: 281-300. Stößel, H. A. 1975. "Der letzte Gesang der Odyssee: Eine unitarische Gesamtinterpretation." Diss. Erlangen-Nürnberg. Tandy, D. W. 1997. Warriors into Traders: The Power of the Market in Early Greece. Berkeley: University of California Press. Thalmann, W. G. 1 998. The Swineherd and the Bow: Representations of Class in the Odyssey. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. Vlahos, J. B. 2011. "Homer's Odyssey. Penelope and the Case for Early Recognition." College Literature 38. 2: 1-75. Vološinov, V. N. 1986. Marxism and the Philosophy of Language. Trans, by L. Matejka and I. R. Titunik. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. von Kamptz, H. 1982. Homerische Personennamen: Sprachwissenschaftliche und historische Klassifikation. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, U. 1884. Homerische Untersuchungen. Berlin: Weidmannsche Buchhandlung.

This content downloaded from 128.95.104.109 on Thu, 04 Feb 2021 19:01:05 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms 292 Benjamin S. Haller

Wender, D. 1978. The Last Scenes of the Odyssey. Leiden: Brill. Westbrook, R. 2005. "Penelope's Dowry and Odysseus' Kingship." In Wallace, R. W. and Gagarin, M. eds. Symposion 2001. Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. 3-23. West,S. 1988. "Books I-IV."In Heubeck, A., West, S., and Hainsworth, J. B . A Commentary on Homer's Odyssey. Volume 1 : Introduction and Books I-VIII. Oxford: Clarendon Press. 49-245.

Winkler, J. J. 1990. The Constraints of Desire: The Anthropology of Sex and Gender in Ancient Greece. New York: Routledge. Wright, J. C. 2004a. "The Mycenaean Feast: An Introduction." Hesperia 73: 121-32.

133-78.

This content downloaded from 128.95.104.109 on Thu, 04 Feb 2021 19:01:05 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms