Reckless Rationalism and Heroic Reverence in 's Author(s): Darrell Dobbs Source: The American Political Science Review, Vol. 81, No. 2 (Jun., 1987), pp. 491-508 Published by: American Political Science Association Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1961963 Accessed: 10/12/2010 23:52

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=apsa.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission.

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].

American Political Science Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The American Political Science Review.

http://www.jstor.org RECKLESS RATIONALISMAND HEROICREVERENCE IN HOMER'S ODYSSEY DARRELL DOBBS Universityof Houston

A decision-theoretic analysis of the central incident of Homer'sOdyssey revealsthe insufficiencyof rationalcalculation as a guide for political prudence.Surprisingly, the poet distinguishesbetween two rationaland formally iden- tical calculations in no uncertain terms; he condemns one as utter recklessnessand praises the other as consummatewisdom. I maintainthat this discrepancyis neitheran artifact of sloppy editorial patchwork nor the result of a "homericnod" but instead points towarda politicallysignificant distinction as yet obscuredby a merelyrationalis- tic perspective. The recklessnessof ' crewmen, who deliberatelyslaughter sacred cattle to forestall starvation, consists in their rationalistictransgression of the limits of reason. These limits are most evident in the defianceof commensurabilitythat characterizesthe sacred. The wisdom of Odysseus, by contrast, is manifestin his learn- ing to temperreason with respectfor.the sacred. By virtue of reverence,Odysseus wins his struggle to preservehis psyche, home and regime.

Former's epic as having "no bearing on [democratic] poems have attracted little attention social and political needs," but tending among modem students of politics for rather to lead its enthusiaststo "perturb many reasons, not the least of which is the the state in the name of the Greeksand the argument that these works are adverse or, Romans, instead of enrichingit with their at best, irrelevant to contemporary liberal productiveindustry." Thus the greatcom- democracy. To be sure, Homer's polities mentator on the American polity would are tribal, localized, and monarchical, question the vitality of any democratic while our own is pluralistic, continental, regimebent on nursinga race of would-be and democratic. Moreover, certain quali- Achilleis. In response to this legitimate ties of character celebrated in the poems, and public-spiritedconcern, I intend to which consequently stimulate emulation expound a central, though neglected, in the reader, may be of dubious value as lesson of Homer's Odyssey that is both equipment for democratic citizenship. relevant and beneficial to liberal democ- One thinks instantly of the magnificent racy. I hope to do so, moreover,in a man- thirst for glory that virtually epitomizes ner that Tocqueville, one of the great the Homeric hero but which in modem critics of rationalism in politics, would times has come to be regarded as nothing himself find persuasive. less than political dynamite. Tocqueville As I see it, the contribution of the (1945, 2:63), for example, warns against Odyssey to liberal democracy consists the study of such "aristocratic" literature, principally in its critique of rationalism.

AMERICAN POLITICAL SCIENCE REVIEW VOL. 81 NO. 2 JUNE 1987 American Political Science Review Vol. 81

By rationalismI mean the presumptionof never give a sufficient reason for a par- the ultimate hegemony of reason in the ticularrule because any calculationof its constitution of wisdom.' Hayek (1960, consequences must make assumptions chap. 4), Oakeshott (1962, 1-36), and concerningthe contextualpractices that in Gilder (1981, pt. 3) have made significant part determineits utility. The same point contributionstoward identifyingthe pre- applies to Pascal's wager: apart from a cise character of the threat posed by priorfaith in a divine providencethat has rationalism to liberal democracy. But preparedHeaven as a place of rewardfor their common root lies in Tocqueville's the righteousand Hell as a place of pun- (1945, 1:12) trenchant observation that ishment for the unrighteous(and not the "[political]liberty cannot be established' reverse),the wager-and moral propriety without morality, nor morality without -is by no means compellinglyrational. It faith." Despite such warnings, contem- appears that there is something to porary rationalists remain undaunted. Tocqueville'scontention after all. Much of the Law and Economicsmove- This result will not surprisestudents of ment, for example, is directed toward politicalphilosophy. In lecturespublished establishinglegal principleson groundsof posthumously, Leo Strauss (1979, 1981) efficiency, as if economic calculationsof cogently argues that "philosophy has social wealth had more authority than never refuted revelation." He identifies "self-evident"inalienable rights (Posner the conflict between Greek philosophy 1977; Rubin 1977; cf. Aranson 1984). The and biblicalrevelation as "thesecret of the philosophicalunderpinning of this ration- vitality of Western civilization" and alistic counteroffensive is most power- recommends that philosophers remain fully expressed by Rawls (1955). Rawls "open to the challenge of theology." If attempts simultaneously to vindicate Straussis correct, there is no warrantfor morality and to establish the ultimate assuming the comprehensivesovereignty authorityof reasonby subsumingthe par- of reason. One wonders, however, how ticular instance (or "act")of moral pro- the Greek philosophers, whom Strauss priety, in which utilitarianconsiderations holds in the highest regard, might have are agreed not to be decisive, under a lived up to his standard,lacking as they generalpractice ("rule") which, he claims, did access to the biblical revelation. In enjoys a utilitarian authorization. The Homer'scritique of rationalism,I believe, pious acts of a believer whose faith is we shall find a nonbiblicalinfluence that securedby Pascal'swager would, I think, may help account for the recognition perfectly exemplify Rawls's argument. If among subsequentGreek philosophers of pious acts are tenableon this rationalistic the limits of reason. basis, it would follow that the last link in In Homer intends2to ele- Tocqueville's contention is false. But vate Odysseus to a rank at least equal to Hayek's (1976, 17-23) critique of rule that of the illustriousAchilles, the hero of utilitarianismmay be understoodas call- the Iliad. He presents the case for ing Pascal's bluff. Hayek notes that the Odysseus' superiority by recounting the consequences of observing a particular harrowing, though ultimately successful, rule will vary as the constellationof other return of Odysseus to home and throne practicesobserved in society varies-even after the . Odysseus' adven- at the margin. But the utilitarianwarrant tures, the obstacleshe confrontsand over- for one such constellation of contextual comes in winning his return,summon the practicesover anotheris by no means evi- special excellences that define him as a dent. Owing to the sheer complexity of hero. The most celebratedof these excel- society, Hayek argues, utilitarians can lences is, of course, Odysseus'remarkable

492 1987 Homer's Odyssey intelligence.But the most criticalof these must do more than simply catalogue the excellences,I shall argue, is reverence.By furtherexploits of the wily Odysseus. A reverenceI mean the correctperception of fresh study of this work will, I believe, and respect for the sacred, which by its revealthat Homerdoes not rest Odysseus' nature defies rational commensuration. heroic credentialsupon a twice-told tale As we shall see, it is by virtue of reverence of brains versus brawn. In the Odyssey, that Odysseus resists certain temptations he takes a differenttack. Homer chroni- to rationalisticexcess that would other- cles the development in Odysseus of wise arresthis heroic return. reverence, which moderates and thus The commentators have not, in my guides his remarkableintellectual prow- view, paid sufficient attention to the ess. Thus, in contrast to the view cur- important strain of antirationalismim- rently prevalentamong homericscholars, plicit in the poet's celebration of I hope to show that it is not chiefly the Odysseus'heroic reverence.On the con- resourcefulnessof Odysseus' intellect but trary, they regardOdysseus' greatness as ratherhis recognitionof its limits that set- consisting exclusively in his intellectual tles the Ithakan'sclaim to an epic poem of resourcefulness.Even the most insightful his own. resolve the age-old controversy-as to who, or Odysseus, is the "bestof the Achaians"-in simple terms of brains Up from Rationalism: versus brawn, shrewdnessversus honor, Odysseus as Epic Hero or guile versus force (Clay 1983, 96-112; Nagy 1979, 35-58; Stanford 1985, chap. To appreciateOdysseus' development 5). It is a commonplaceamong homeric into a hero of truly epic calibre,one must scholars that one finds crafty intelligence first of all reckon with the poet's opening first elevated to heroic respectabilityin allusion to Odysseus' sacrilegious plun- the Odyssey. It is true that Odysseus' dering of the sacred temples of Troy characteristicreliance on wily tricks and (1.1-2). Evidently, the resourceful clever deceitsis scornedin the earlierIliad Odysseus proves to be very much the (see, e.g., 9.312-13), but this scorn "typical hero" at Troy, employing the reflects the view of Odysseus' peers at most brutal force for the sake of self- Troy more than that of the poet. But if aggrandizement.Odysseus' outrage calls Odysseus' intelligence is not unappreci- to mind Achilles' mutilation of Hector's ated in the Iliad, neither does it provide corpse, which likewise manifested a the basis for his heroic elevation in the heroic spiritednessunquenchable even in Odyssey. The most pervasive evidence final victory (Iliad 24.14-22). As a hero suggests that Odysseus is unable by of this conventional sort, however, clevernessalone to compete successfully Odysseus cannot surpass the glorious for heroic honors with the less versatile Achilles. Indeed, Odysseus' name is not but nobler Achilles. Odysseus' extra- even mentionedin the poet's prologue(cf. ordinary intelligence is amply evident Iliad 1.1). Only in the Odyssey, which throughout the Iliad, and yet the poet recounts Odysseus' experiencesafter his devotes that work to the heroic pre- departure from Troy, does the Ithakan eminenceof Achilles.3It would seem that king truly come into his own. The poet insofar as Odysseus' distinctiveness de- prefaces this disclosure, however, by pendsexclusively on the scope of his intel- introducing the Odysseus that was-an lect he must remaineclipsed by Achilles. Odysseuswho was, if anything,the oppo- To rival the Iliad, that is, to reveal the site of reverent. superiorityof its own hero, the Odyssey As the prologue continues, we learn

493 American Political Science Review Vol. 81 that Odysseus did not persist in this of flashback.As a consequenceof this re- irreverence.On the island of Thrinakia, ordering,the poet achieves a literary"hat in the course of his return to , trick": the tale of the Thrinakiancrime Odysseus stood alone against his mates' and punishmentis positioned literally at violation of the sacred cattle of the sun the center of the poem, at the rhetorical god, . As a result the men perish, climax of Odysseus'tale to the Phaiakians we are told, while Odysseus alone suc- and at the threshold of his return to ceeds in returning to Ithaka. If, as the Ithaka. Thus the architecture of the Thrinakian episode suggests, Odysseus' Odyssey indicates a remarkable poetic late-blossomingreverence is an important investment in the Thrinakianadventure component of his heroic excellence, then and, accordingly,in the lesson that we are Odysseus'full claim to rival Achilles will meant to draw from it. come to light only as the narrationof the Nevertheless, the importance of Odyssey unfolds. Only there, and Thrinakia is commonly depreciated by nowhere else, will we learn how the the commentators.Even the most scrupu- irreverent swashbuckler from Ithaka lous, whose watchword is "to interpret came to be remarkableabove all for his Homer out of Homer,"find it difficult to godly reverence. It is, accordingly, in take Helios'cattle seriously.Jenny Strauss hope of better understandingthis surpris- Clay (1983), for example, holds against ing developmentthat the poet invokes his Homer and in favor of the "fundamental divine Muse (1.1-10): innocence" of Odysseus' shipmates (p. 230). She maintains that the poet's judg- Sing through me, Muse, of that versatile man, who so far ment that the crewmen lost their lives strayed when he ravaged Troy's holy citadel. through their own responsibility is not Though he saw the cities and came to know the "borneout by the account of the destruc- mind of many men, tion of Odysseus' men later in the in his heart he suffered many pains at sea as he strove to win his soul and his mates' Odyssey" (p. 36). Perhapsit is supposed return. that by acts of recklessness(atasthaliai) But he could not save his mates, though he Homer necessarilyrefers to conduct lack- longed to. ing deliberateand rationalconsideration. On their own they perished on account of their When one discovers that the crewmen's own recklessness, the fools. The cattle of exalted Helios slaughter of the sacred cattle does not they devoured, and He took away the day of issue from thoughtless impulse but is their return. startingly well reasoned, it is natural to Tell us of these things, from somewhere, question the validity of Homer's indict- Goddess, daughter of .5 ment. In my view, the best response to Odysseus'return to Ithakais not mere- this tendency is to make the Thrinakian ly a topographicalachievement. As we episode the centerpieceof a fresh exam- gather from the prologue, Odysseus ination of the Odyssey. On this, basis I undergoesa radicalchange of heart in the shall try to show how Homer'saccount in course of his wanderings.This change, I fact establishes the culpable recklessness suggest, is the focal issue of the Odyssey. of the crewmen and substantiates the It is significant that Homer's Muse dawn of reverencein Odysseus. responds to his prayer to begin "from Doubt will remain, however, as to the somewhere"by guiding him in a reorder- heroic standing of Odysseus'reverence- ing of episodes that breaks with strict which sets him in opposition to his crew- chronology(cf. 23.310-38). Homerbegins men-as long as it remains unclear that "in the midst of things," narratingsome the crewmen'sdecision to slaughtersacred events as they unfold and othersby means cattle, despite its rationality, is utterly

494 1987 Homer's Odyssey reckless.Our task is furthercomplicated, tity of Helios' cattle, Teiresiasprophesies however, by the discovery that Odysseus doom. Teiresias' warning admonishes later arrives at a similarly rational deci- Odysseus unmistakably to control his sion, inducing -the goddess of appetite. But this interpretationdoes not wisdom-to certify and praise his good exhaust the significanceof the prophecy. judgment (13.290-98). As we shall see, The full range of meaning of the word Odysseus and his shipmates adopt for- thymos requires a more comprehensive mally equivalentdecisions, each choosing interpretation.Thus, Odysseus must not what game theorists call the dominant merely control his desire for food but, strategy. Nevertheless, Homer distin- more importantly, his furor, or love of guishesbetween the two identicallydomi- fame. What Teiresiasdemands is literally nant strategiesin no uncertainterms, con- an all-encompassing"change of heart." demningone as recklessand praisingthe Odysseus' conduct on the island of other for its wisdom. As matters stand, Thrinakia is the acid test of a more therefore, we understand neither the encompassing change of heart that grounds upon which the poet condemns Teiresias prophecies as the key to the recklessnessof the crewmen'srational Odysseus'final return. choice nor those upon which he makes It is after an especiallyharrowing day's Athena commend Odysseus' good judg- sailing that Odysseus and his men finally ment. If we are to learnwhat, in Homer's disembark at Thrinakia. Although the estimation, makes the man Odysseus Ithakansescape the Sirens'treachery un- truly heroic, it is necessary to probe scathed,6they are not nearly so fortunate deeperinto the details of each of the deci- in their subsequentnavigation of the nar- sions to determine on what basis they row straitbetween Skylla and Kharybdis. might properlybe distinguished. In order to skirt the lethal vortex of Kharybdis, the relentless whirlpool, the an oppos- Homer'sAmbivalence Ithakansmust sail close under unspeakably toward Rational Choice ing cliff, the dwelling of the monstrous Skylla. Skylla snatches six Odysseus' shipmateslearn of the pro- men from the deck of the passingship. As hibitionagainst slaughtering Helios' cattle the ship races on, the crewmen witness from Odysseus, who heard it first from what Odysseus calls the most grievous the prophet Teiresias and then from the spectacle of their journey: the writhing sorceress Kirke, the daughter of Helios and screamingof their helpless comrades (11.110-15; 12.137-41). It was by direc- as Skylla devours them alive (12.255-59). tion of Kirkethat Odysseusset out for the At last achieving a safe distance, underworldto consultwith the soul of the Odysseus' haggard crew compel him to departedTeiresias concerning the neces- make for port (12.297). The nearestisland sary provisions for his return to Ithaka is Thrinakia. As he submits, Odysseus (10.490-95). At the brink of Hades, he informs his men of the warnings of encountersthe famous seer. Teiresiastells Teiresiasand bids them to swear an oath Odysseus that if he hopes to win his under no circumstancesto violate Helios' return he must above all be willing "to sacred cattle. The men vow to leave the check [his] heart" (thymon erykakeein, herds unmolestedand go ashore. 11.105). Teiresias specifically cautions That very night a tremendous storm Odysseus about Thrinakia. No matter sweeps across Thrinakia. Inauspicious what, Odysseus and his men must leave winds trapthe Ithakanson the islandfor a unmolested the herds of Helios, which month. It takes considerably less time roam there. Forany who violate the sanc- than that, however, for the men to

495 American Political Science Review Vol. 81

Table 1. The Rational Choice of Odysseus' Comrades

Circumstances The gods fail to cooperate: The gods cooperate: Strategies Crimegoes unpunished Crimeis punished Violate the sacredcows Feastscot-freea Die (quickly)at sea Respectthe sacredcows Slow death by starvation Slow death by starvation

Note. Significantly,there is no text to supportthe compositionof a similardecision matrixfor Odysseus. aEurylochosassuages any guilt feelingsthe men might otherwiseassociate with this outcomeby promisingto erectand equip a templeto Helios when they returnto Ithaka(12.345-47). exhaust their meagerstores. They turn in they do not. What makes Eurylochos' desperationto fishing and hunting fowl, argument so persuasive is his revealing but without success. Hunger wears them that, in either of these possible circum- down. Acknowledging finally his own stances, breakingthe oath and slaughter- lack of resource-a critical step for "the ing the cattle is the superiorchoice. This is man of many ways" (andra . . . poly- perhapsmost easily seen with referenceto tropon, 1.1)-Odysseus leaves his men to the decision matrix in Table 1, which is seek guidance from the gods (12.333-34; constructed directly out of the alterna- cf. 12.38). In his absence, the crewmen tives and consequences as they are for- "Hatch a wicked plot" to satisfy their mulated in the text. hunger by slaughtering Helios' cattle. It is Eurylochos' contention that the Eurylochos, Odysseus' second in com- men will be better off acting as he recom- mand, addresses the men in terms they mends, regardlesswhether the other gods find irresistiblypersuasive (12.339-52): honor Helios' claim against them, as we see from the table. If the gods should fail "Heed my words, mates, for you have been to cooperate in punishingthe men-such ill-used! All deaths are hateful to wretched mortals, divisiveness among the gods is not un- but to die of hunger is the most piteous way precedented,as any veteranof the Trojan to meet one's fate. campaign knows-then slaughteringthe Let us, then, carry off the best of Helios' cattle is clearly preferable to the alter- cattle... native. In this case, the men will satisfy But if, in his rage for his straight-homed cattle, their hunger and pay no penalty what- He would have our ship destroyed, and other ever. But if, on the other hand, the gods gods back him up, should cooperate in their punishment, then I heartily prefer to die at once inhaling a then slaughteringthe cattle is still prefer- wave than to waste to death on a desert island." able to the alternative; for then their So said Eurylochos, and the other mates agreed. violation can be expected to result in a quick death, aftera fine meal, insteadof a Eurylochos'speech invites his mates to slow death "by inches."No matterwhich compare the respective consequences of circumstance actually comes to pass, reverencingand of violating Helios' cat- then, the crewmen are better off slaugh- tle. Whateverthe men decide, Eurylochos tering the sacred cattle. Whenever any notes that there are two, and only two, strategyenjoys this superiorityover all its possibilities. Either the other gods make alternatives in every possible circum- common cause and honor Helios'claim to stance, game theorists describe it as punish anyone who harms his cattle or "dominant" (Owen 1982, 22-23). Of

496 1987 Homer's Odyssey course, dominant strategies are not takes 's advice to heart. always available, but when one is avail- Odysseus grows exceedingly careful, able it would appear almost unthinkable manufacturingthe most artful deceits in to choose anything else.7 responding to questions concerning his In the case of the crewmen's choice, whereabouts. In his first encounter with however, the poet of the Odyssey would strangers(the Phaiakians)after convers- seem to disagree. Homer condemns their ing with Agamemnon,Odysseus is extra- rational choice as utterly reckless (1.7, ordinarilyreticent and evasive concerning 12.300). By what right can one assert the his true identity-notwithstanding the "utterrecklessness" of a rationally domi- remarkable hospitality being extended nant strategy? Or are we simply to dis- him (cf. 7.237-39; with 8.28, 8.548-55, miss the poet as a rank misologist? The and 9.19-21; see also 9.504-5). A short answer to this question is emphatically time later, after his hosts have graciously no. Homer's sympathetic treatment of conductedhim to Ithaka,Odysseus meets clearreasoning is manifestthroughout the the goddess Athena in the guise of a work. But perhaps nowhere is it so evi- young shepherd.When asked who he is, dent as when Athena praisesOdysseus as Odysseusagain dissembles,concealing his "by far the best of all mortalsin counsel" identity to gain an advantagein informa- for his resolve in concealing his identity tion (13.375-97). Athena, who has kept (13.297-98). The significance of her distance from Odysseus since his Odysseus' ironic dissimulation, par- sacrilege at Troy, at last reveals herself ticularly in its departure from the cus- and, as we have seen, praises Odysseus' tomary behavior of the "typical hero," good judgment in keeping himself con- should be carefully noted. As against his cealed. earlierpreoccupation with glory and self- Athena brings Odysseus up to date on aggrandizement,Odysseus now contrives the situation in Ithaka. Suitors for the all manner of means, even adopting the hand of have establishedthem- guise of a beggar, to remain hidden. selves in Odysseus' home and recklessly Odysseus evidently arrives at his deci- consume his property. Odysseus, of sion to conceal himself upon learning course, is put in mind immediately of from the shade of Agamemnon,which he Agamamnon,whose fate he is determined encountersin Hades after his consultation not to share. Instead, he resolves to keep with Teiresias, of the extraordinary his identity hidden. He poses as an old dangers that may attend a hero's home- beggar,returns secretly to his palace, and, coming (11.387-466). Agamemnon'shor- with the advantageof surprise(and a little rific tale of betrayaland murderdiscloses help from his son Telemachos and two the full dimensions of the danger that loyal herdsmen), kills all 108 suitors. Odysseus, too, may face. Agamemnon's Odysseus' mission is one of the most wife, Klytemnestra, was seduced by thrillingin all literature,owing largely to Aigisthos while Agamemnon fought at the overwhelming odds he faces and, Troy. Although Klytemnestra initially hence, to the nearlyunendurable suspense resisted Aigisthos' advances, she finally that attends every stage of his operation. yielded and conspiredin a plot to murder The elementof surprise,and thus secrecy, her husband upon his return. Agamem- is absolutely imperative for his success. non's shade recounts the awful details to Clearly, then Odysseus' heroic return to Odysseus and bitterly urges him to keep home and throne depends on his willing- his identity a secret, not to reveal himself ness to conceal his identity. The good completelyeven to Penelope. sense of his decisionto do so is nearlyself- It is clearfrom the sequel that Odysseus evident, though it should be noted that

497 American Political Science Review Vol. 81

Table 2. Odysseus' Rational Choice

Circumstances Strategies Penelopefaithful Penelopeunfaithful Remainconcealed Maintainselement of surprise Maintainselement of surprise Revealidentity Loseselement of surprise Betrayaland murder such self-effacingconcealment is at odds shipmates. Nevertheless,while Odysseus with the customarybehavior of homeric is praised for his good judgmentin mak- heroes. Table 2, constructedexclusively ing his choice, the crewmen are con- from alternatives and consequences de- demned for theirs. On strictly rational scribed in the text, indicates the rational grounds, however, it is evident that the superiorityof Odysseus'choice. crewmen'sdecision is as legitimateas that It is clear that Odysseus'best choice is of Odysseus. What, then, is the basis of to conceal his identity. WhetherPenelope Homer'sdivergent judgmentsof rational remainsfaithful or is unfaithful,Odysseus choice? In what, exactly, does the crew- will bettermaintain the crucialelement of men'srecklessness consist? If we returnto surprise by not divulging his where- the poem'sopening, we shall discoverthat abouts. In the event that Penelope has it is precisely the meaning of such reck- betrayedhim, Odysseuscan expectto suf- lessness that occupies Homer's attention fer the same fate as Agamemnon if he immediately upon pronouncing his in- announceshis presence;but he can guard vocation. against this by concealing his identity rather than walking directly into the RecklessCommensuration suitors' trap as Agamemnon did and the Limitsof Reason (11.409-15). Of course, it is most likely that Penelope has remained faithful The Odyssey opens, as we have (11.444-46), so one might suppose that, noticed, with an implicit comparison of by adopting a strategy of concealment, Odysseus with his recklesscrewmen and Odysseus suffers in forestalling his an invocation for divine assistancein ex- reunionwith a faithful and beloved wife; poundingthis contrast.In responseto this but this supposition underestimatesthe invocation, the poem's scene shifts im- mortal danger posed to Odysseus by the mediately to Olympus, the home of the suitors, for they are preparedto murder gods. Presumably, Homer's Muse can Odysseus if he should turn up, even with best answerhis prayerby beginningthere. no encouragementfrom Penelope-a fact On Olympus we find Zeus about to Odysseus correctly perceives (2.246-51; speak, as he has been reflectingupon the 17.561-65). In view of this danger, life of Aigisthos, Klytemnestra'sseducer Odysseusis better off keepinghis identity and Agamemnon'smurderer. In his dis- a secreteven if Peneloperemains faithful. course on Aigisthos, the first speech It follows that Odysseus'decision to con- deliveredin the Odyssey, Zeus revealsthe ceal his identity, like that of the crewmen meaning of recklessness.Beginning with to slaughterthe sacredcattle, is the domi- the story of Aigisthos, we learn that nant strategy.8 rational choice is no safeguard but can It is evident, then, that Odysseus'deci- even be the instrumentof recklessness. sion is logically identical to that of his It is with Aigisthos in mind that Zeus

498 1987 Homer's Odyssey formulateshis renowned theodicy. Zeus alistic recklessnessconsists in his reckon- holds that it is not the gods who are to ing with Zeus's law as if it were merely a blame if mortals suffer beyond their lot; price tag. Aigisthos elects to murder on the contrary,mortals have only them- Agamemnon and marry Klytemnestra selves to blame or rather"their own reck- because his desire to supplant Agamem- lessness"(spheisin atasthalieisin, 1.34; cf. non is so great that even Orestes'divinely 1.7). Aigisthos is the object lesson in mandated vengeance is not sufficient to Zeus'sinstruction in the meaningof reck- deter him. Presumably,Aigisthos knows lessness. Zeus observesthat Aigisthoshad better than anyone how much enjoyment been warnedin advance of the vengeance sitting on the throne of will of Orestes, Agamemnon's son, if he bring him and what the vengeance of should seduce Klytemnestra and slay Orestes will cost. Thus, his calculation Agamemnon.Zeus emphasizesthat Aigis- that the benefits of adultery and murder thos knew (eidos, 1.37) that he would pay outweigh the costs is rational, to be sure. the penalty for his deeds, yet he did them But his recklessness,in the poet's view, I anyway. Evidently,the sheer intensity of suggest,consists in his treatmentof Zeus's Aigisthos'desire to supplantAgamemnon prohibitionin termsthat even permitsuch is sufficientto settle his choice to commit commensuration. Fundamental to this adultery and murder. Even the certain contention is an understandingthat legal vengeance of Orestes does not outweigh sanctions do not establisha price for the his satisfactionin stealing Agamemnon's commissionof proscribedbehavior. They wife and throne. rather manifest, in this case, Zeus's un- We recoil in horror at hearing of conditional condemnation of such con- Aigisthos'crimes. We have not, however, duct. A penalty for infractionsexists to sufficientlyunderstood the significanceof directattention to this condemnation,not this reactionof horroruntil we have come to invite deliberationas to its relativecost to termswith the fundamentalrationality comparedto that of unsatisfiedand illicit of the crime that incites it. Homer'sjudg- desires (Berns1979; Feinberg1965). Ulti- ment that such rational decisions are mately, the respect that such laws prop- nevertheless utterly reckless points the erly command does not derive from any way. So we must explore further the possible aggregationof carrotsand sticks. characterof Aigisthos' rational choice to It derivesrather from the sacredtask that break the laws proscribingadultery and is the highestand essentialfunction of law regicide.In this connectionit is helpful to and punishment,namely education. note that Zeus's discussion of Aigisthos In view of the educationalfunction of anticipates in some important ways the law-where education is understood as approach of recent studies of criminal the proper cultivation of the human soul behavior pioneered by the economist -it is evident that a proscriptivesanction Gary Becker (1968). Like Zeus, Becker is not adequatelyreckoned as a price. In does not acknowledgeany incompatibil- its deepestsignification a sanctiontestifies ity between criminalbehavior and ration- to the existenceof the sacred. The sacred ality. Moreover, the notion underlying is, above all, that which commands Becker's analysis, that a legal sanction respect on its own terms, not in virtue of essentiallyestablishes a price for a given comparison or analogy with something sort of misbehavior,isolates preciselythe else. By its very nature, the sacred defies recklessness inherent in the criminal's commensuration.10Ultimately, the privi- conception of law as conceived in the leged status of the educationaldimension Odyssey.9 of statecraftderives from the sanctity of On Homer'saccount, Aigisthos'ration- the human soul, which it aims to im-

499 American Political Science Review Vol. 81 prove. It is an insight into the sanctity of Along with Aigisthos, Eurylochosand the soul, as we shall see, that proves to be his mates are the unreconstructable Odysseus' major learning experienceand rationalists in Homer's Odyssey. the triggerof his change of heart;but for Eurylochos' speech to the crewmen our immediate purposes, the sanctity of shamelesslydisplays an utter indifference the soul is most readily illuminatedby a to the sanctity of Helios' cattle. He treats familiar biblical passage: "What will it the divine sanction proscribing Helios' profit a man," Jesus asks, "if he should cattle as though it were simply a signal of gain the whole world but forfeit his soul?" the price charged by the gods for I take it that this question is a rhetorical Thrinakianroast beef. With Eurylochos one. The point is that nothingin the entire showing the way, the crewmen thus world can compensate one for, or make reckon the relative costs and benefits of one indifferent toward, the loss of his their crime with faultless logic. As we soul. Thus no worldly thing can "takethe have seen, they determinethat it is best to measure"of man'ssoul. The soul, we may slaughter the cattle because even in the say, defies commensurationwith worldly worst case, they heartily prefer a quick things. death at sea to slow starvation. Because Rationalism, however, upholds the this reckoning is fundamentallyheedless limitless possibility of commensuration of the educationalsignificance of punitive because it presumes the ultimate heg- sanctions,I suggest, Homercondemns the emony of reason in the pursuit of wis- men as "utterlyreckless." dom. If everythingwere commensurable, Homer condemns the crewmen's ra- reason would indeed be sovereign in dis- tional choice not because it is rational, cernment.But Homer'sOdyssey indicates then, but because it is rationalistic.The that even a perfectly operating rational crewmen carelessly transgressthe limits faculty, as in the cases of Aigisthos and of imposedby the sacredupon rationalcom- Odysseus' shipmates, fails utterly at dis- mensuration. We should carefully note cerning what is necessary for wisdom, that in condemning such rationalistic namely the fundamental difference be- excess, Homer proves to be not a misolo- tween the sacredand the profane. Where gist but a friend to reason. To appreciate reason accepts such a distinction, it does Homer'sstance, one must understandthat so on the authority of something higher rationalismis not an alien influence that than reason. Therefore, the consistent infects reason with some foreign con- rationalist cannot accept (even axiomat- tagion. Rationalism is rather a form of ically) a sacred "value" as given. In licentiousness;it works its influencefrom propounding a universal hegemony for within. Perhapsthis can be clarifiedmost reason, the rationalistjuggernaut inescap- effectively with the aid of a political ably collideswith the sacred.The strategy analogy. Rationalismis to reason as ma- of the rationalists' thrust against this jority tyranny is to democracy.Friends of obstructionis simply to ignorethose char- reason, like James Madison's (Federalist acteristics of the sacred that are not No. 10) "friendof popular government," expressible in terms common with the must take care to guardespecially against principalobjects of their interest. This is the vicious propensities that inhere in accomplishedmost easily in the case of their favorites. Just as we learn from the the law by disregardingthe educational framersof the U.S. Constitutionthat the significanceof penalties and interpreting fluorishing of democracy depends upon them simply as prices. As the rationalist institutions that limit the rule of majori- sees it, laws do not educate, they merely ties (Diamond1959), so too we learnfrom regulate. Nothing is sacred, everything Homer that the flourishingof reason into has its price. wisdom requires a recognition of its

500 1987 Homer's Odyssey limits. This recognition is implicit in length of life and how much pain and respectfor the sacred, such as that which pleasureis felt during its span. Questions determinesOdysseus' refusal to join his of "how long"and "how much"obviously crewmen in their rationalistic smorgas- admit a common measure;only commen- bord. It remains, of course, to consider surablesare involved. Hence, as we have how it is that Odysseus develops this life- seen, Eurylochos'appeal to his shipmates enhancing reverence while his crewmen rests simply on the superiorityof a quick are condemned to a self-destructive death to a slow death. rationalism. The obscurantist tendencies of the crewmen'shatred of mortalityengender a of universal com- Etiology of Rationalism mistaken conviction The consequently, of the and the Roots of Reverence mensurabilityand, sovereigntyof reason. The hatredof mor- Careful consideration of Eurylochos' tality as such conceals utterly the dif- speechon Thrinakiawill reveal the under- ference between the sacred and the pro- lying sourceof the crewmen'srationalism. fane, the noble and the base. It is'this lack The key premisein Eurylochos'argument, of discrimination that, in turn, truly which facilitates the commensurationof accountsfor the wretchednessEurylochos death by starvation and death by divine attributesto mortals.The root meaningof punishment,is that "alldeaths are hateful Eurylochos'word for "wretched,"deiloisi, to wretched mortals" (pantes men literallydenotes "cowardice." The wretch- stygeroi thanatoi deiloisi brotoisi, edness of the coward consists, above all, 12.341). This is a surprisingcontention. in a blindnessto the qualitativedifference One supposesthat death might sometimes betweenwhat is and what is not worth the appearto be a blessed releaserather than risking of one's life. The hatred of mor- something indiscriminatelyhateful, par- tality as the cause of cowardly wretched- ticularly to a "wretch."But Eurylochos ness and its consequent lack of discrim- maintainsthat all deaths are hateful. This ination is indeed the great leveler. Once it is because, in his view, wretchednessis has thus accomplished its work, the not the cause of man's indiscriminate horizon of reason appearslimitless. If we orientationtoward death, but (as we shall wish to account for the crewmen'sration- see) its effect. Eurylochos'contention, by alism, then, we must considerthe genesis itself, still appears to be a logical non of their hatred of mortality. While sequitur,however. Why then is it so per- Eurylochosand his mates evidently sup- suasive to his audience? The answer is pose that this hatred is simply in the that Eurylochos'argument is an enthy- nature of man, Homer suggests a some- meme, not simply a syllogism. In other what different and certainly more com- words, its cogency depends upon a sup- plex view. As the poet shows, all men are pressed premise that his auditors supply not haters of mortality. Odysseus stands on their own. Only if we take it that out as an exception. human beings are haters of mortality in Unlike his crewmen, Odysseus is not a itself, does it follow that they will be hater of mortality. Nevertheless, neither indiscriminatehaters of death. The influ- is he altogether dissimilar to his mates. ence of this premise in making possible Odysseus, too, has been guilty of reck- Eurylochos'subsequent commensuration lessness, as we have seen (cf. 18.139 with is decisive. For a hatred of death per se 1.1-2; 10.437). Odysseus' recklessness will obscure the qualitative differences derives from a source Homer recognizes among various ways one may come to as deep within the human soul, namely die. Then all that remainsis to reckon the the thymotic, or "hearty," longing to

501 American Political Science Review Vol. 81 accomplish great things, to win reputa- first triggeredOdysseus' change of heart, tion and glory. Among the crewmen, a his new appreciationof death and mor- rather ordinary bunch unable to vent tality, it is necessaryabove all to ponder themselves heroically, this spirited pas- the significanceof his journey to the land sion has soured into a bitter and self- of the dead. It is there that Odysseus destructivehatred of mortality. It is not encountersthe shades of his comradesat surprising that such men would blame Troy, the celebratedheroes Agamemnon and grow to hate theirown mortality.For and Achilles. it is mortality that sets the ineluctable We have already consideredthe influ- limits that finally prevent mediocrities ence of Odysseus' interview with the from accomplishinggreat feats-if only shade of Agamemnon upon his decision because time runs out. In Odysseus, by to forego heroic self-aggrandizementand contrast,this heartypassion issues first of conceal his identity. But it is Achilles, all in a typically heroic (one could say, more than anyone, who may be con- "Achillean")competitiveness. The path of sidered the expert witness on human heroic competitivenesshas its own short- thymos and the heroiclonging for immor- comings, of course. By itself, such com- tality. We expect that Odysseus' conver- petitiveness knows no bounds. In its sation with him will be particularlyen- purestform, it is directedagainst the gods lightening. Achilles appears just as themselves,as the hero rivals the immor- Odysseus and Agamemnon are conclud- tals in his own attainment of immortal ing their tearful exchange of tales, glory. Thus, Odysseus recklesslyravages Agamemnon of his betrayal and murder Troy's sacredcitadel, the image of Olym- at the hands of Aigisthos and Klytem- pus. He gloats, recklessly,over his defeat nestra, and Odysseus of his harrowing of 's son, Polyphemos the experiencesat sea (11.465-67). Achilles, . Nevertheless,what distinguishes who is weeping himself, approachesand Odysseus from the likes of Achilles, asks how Odysseus dareswhile still living Diomedes, and Ajax-to say nothing of to come to Hades. In response, Odysseus his crewmen-is that he overcomes this recounts to Achilles the purpose of his reckless heroic competitivenessbefore it mission and bemoans the evils that seem destroys him. perpetuallyto obstruct his homecoming. The poet underscoresthe importanceof Then he addresses himself to Achilles' this developmentin a remarkablemanner. condition. Though deeply moved by Our first directglimpse of Odysseusin the Agamemnon'ssuffering, Odysseus finds it poem occurs as he is refusingthe goddess most surprising that the illustrious Kalypso's offer of immortality(1.58-59, Achilles should have any reason to 5.206-24). In fact, we are told that lament. Odysseus contrasts his own suf- Odysseus "longs to die" (thaneein feringswith what he maintainsis Achilles' himeiretai,1.59), so great is his desire to unprecedented blessedness. What is see hearth smoke leaping from his native death, wonders Odysseus, compared to Ithaka once again. From this point the the glory of Achilles?Achilles, Odysseus narrationof Odysseus' story retraceshis declares, is the happiest (makartatos, steps by way of flashbackin an effort, I 11.483) man of all time-in life he was suggest, to account for the remarkable honored "as an equal to the gods," and choice he has made. Odysseus' reverent now he rules magnificentlyover all the self-controlon Thrinakiais presentedas dead. In response, Achilles crisply orders the acid test of the change of heart that Odysseus not to make light of death. In ultimately makes possible his refusal of one of most famous passages in the Kalypso'soffer. If we wish to learn what Odyssey, Achilles bitterly proclaims his

502 1987 Homer's Odyssey preferencefor mortal life-even the least even the meanestmortal life over his god- glorious life imaginableas the slave of a like station in Hades is unintelligibleas nobody-over being the illustriousmon- the counsel of a coward, how can it be arch of the underworld(11.489-91). To understood? The key to answering this rule the underworld is the station of a question, it seems to me, is the recogni- god, yet Achilles suggests that Odysseus tion that Achilles' preferencereflects the is badly mistaken in supposing that the sanctity of mortal life, its fundamental exchangeof mortallife is a good tradefor incommensurabilitywith even a godlike such an apotheosis. The greatestAchaian immortality. One can reconcile Achilles' hero, who vied with the gods in his wrath speechand deeds only by recognizingthat and in his longing for glory, evidently life is sacred and thus that his preference regretshis success. It would be an under- of the mortal over the immortalis lexico- statement to say that the effect of this graphic." speech on Odysseus is considerable. Odysseusfinds a greattruth in Achilles We will entirelymiss the significanceof bitterness.Achilles representsbetter than this speech for Odysseus, however, if we anyone man's heroic longing to be some- merely look to the most famous com- one. Immortality seems the way to be mentary upon it for its interpretation.In becausebeing would appearto entail per- Plato's Republic, Socrates does not ap- manence. This is certainly the case with proach the interpretation of Achilles' the gods, whose being is distinguished speech from Odysseus' perspective but above all by theirimmortality. For mortal from the standpoint of young, impres- man, though, thereis a difference.A mor- sionable cadets. To be sure, Achilles' tal's being consists in what Homer calls speech could sap the courage of callow psyche, which means both life and soul. youth (Plato 1972, 386a6-c7; cf. 378d5- We have no assurance, however, that el). Someone young in character and psyche, even as soul, is immortal;nor is understanding might hastily infer, on even the possession of psyche to be taken the basis of Achilles' preferencefor slav- for granted. In the Homeric perspective, ery to death, that no cause warrantsthe man must "win his soul" (arnymenosh~n risk of one's life. But surely it would be a te psychen, 1.5). Only then will he come great error to mistake Odysseus for a into his own. For a humanbeing, striving callow youth. His reception of Achilles' for immortalityis simply beside the point speech is different.If we attemptto inter- (cf. Matthew 16:25). Profiting from pret Achilles' speech as Odysseus under- Achilles'experience, Odysseus learns that stands it, we must begin by squaring it mortal men become godlike at the cost of with what Odysseus knows of Achilles' their own souls. Achilles' shade is not a character. Above all, Achilles is un- true soul but merely a "witless repoachably courageous. So Odysseus, and exhausted phantom" (11.473-76; who fought besideAchilles for 10 years at 10.492-95). In his attempt to rival the Troy, would know better than to inter- gods, Achilles lost the most divine thing prethis speechas the counselof a coward. in himself. This is the paradoxicaltruth Next, we must keep in mind that Achilles beneath Achilles' bitter and easily mis- intends his speech as a rejoinder to construeddenunciation of his position in Odysseus' unwarranted congratulations Hades. Of courseit is too late for Achilles on his supposed blessedness. Odysseus to benefit from this lesson, but it is not makes light of death because he supposes too late for Odysseus. Achilles' godlike immortality is worth Beginningwith his refusalto participate more than mortal life. Achilles obviously in his crewmen's slaughter of Helios' disagrees. But if Achilles' preferencefor sacredcattle, Odysseus resistson his own

503 American Political Science Review Vol. 81 repeatedtemptations to treat mortalsand battle, which is incited by the suitors' immortals as commensurable. He con- angry relations, Odysseus soon wins the sistently rebutsany comparisonsbetween upperhand. If Odysseuswere to press his himself and the gods (e.g., 5.208-24, advantageto the point of decimatingthe 7.208-21, 16.186-91). In his choice of suitors'relatives, however, a peacefulset- women, Odysseusprefers Penelope to the tlement would become untenable.A pro- goddess Kalypso-despite the fact that on tractedand bloody vendettawould result any common dimension of comparison instead. All the same, justicewould seem Kalypso is superior(5.211-18). He rejects to authorizethe punishmentof those who Kalypso'soffer of immortalitywithout a have attemptedto murderOdysseus and second thought. Where,earlier, Odysseus who for three years stood by without a had been inclined to praise and even to word as theirown sons and brothersreck- envy Achilles for being esteemedequal to lessly abused his household. But at pre- the gods, he now draws a strictline in his cisely the point when Odysseus' advan- own ambitions. He will vie only with tage is clear, Athena intervenes. Athena mortals (8.221-25). Rivalry with the commandsOdysseus in the name of Zeus gods, Odysseus comes to understand,is to yield. Homer notes that Odysseus merelyreckless commensuration in heroic obeyed but did not merely obey-he guise. Death, the most tangible dividing rejoicedin his heart (epieitheto,chaire de line between mortals and immortals, thymoi, 24.545). With this statement becomes something for which Odysseus Homerindicates that Odysseus'change of urgesrespect. He refusesto glory over the heart is complete. For his rejoicing in dead bodies of even his most hated Zeus's command is not a merely ritual enemies, the recklesssuitors of Penelope; piety before a more powerful god. he declares that to do so would be "un- Odysseus' joy reveals that his heart, his holy" (22.410-13). Where his crewmen's thymos, is in full accord with the de- hatred of mortality issues in the rational- limitationof commensuration,even in the istic violation of the sacred cattle, difficult case when such commensuration Odysseus'appreciation of mortal life dis- is in the service of distributive justice. poses him to respect especially the cattle Justice, as should already be evident, is of Helios. For it is Helios, the sun god, not the highest virtue in the Odyssey. On who is sovereign over the days and the contrary, it is thanks to his reverence seasons that measure the limits of our that the fierce spirit of Odysseus in the mortality (Flaumenhaft1982). Genuine end fully internalizesthis gentle lesson in reverenceto the sun god is to be found in moderation. It is by means of his com- a respectful appreciation of these limits prehensivechange of heart that Odysseus rather than in the belief in universal comes into his own, at last winning his enlightenment. soul. This achievement, which even Homer does not permit Odysseus to Achilles cannot match, establishes the resume the throne of Ithaka without a heroic superiorityof Odysseus. With this final recognition of his newly developed the Odyssey comes to a close. reverence,so importantit is to his claim to heroic status. The political consumma- tion of Odysseus'return to Ithaka, a set- Conclusion tlement between his house and the familiesof the suitorswhom he has killed, We began by noting that the study of dependsupon his respectingcertain limits Homer has fallen into a state of neglect to the satisfaction of vengeance and the and even disrepute among modern stu- execution of justice. In the poem's final dents of politics and by suggesting that

504 1987 Homer's Odyssey perhaps, upon consideration, the man becomes more godlike at the cost of Odyssey might be found to be both rele- his own soul-the most divine thing in vant and beneficentin view of the special him. From this paradoxical insight into needs of our own polity. This considera- the fundamental incommensurabilityof tion focused on Odysseus' adventure on men and gods, Odysseus gains an appre- the island of Thrinakia, where he dis- ciation of the excellencethat is specificto tinguishes himself most decisively from human beings. Odysseus'appreciation of his recklessly rationalisticshipmates. At human mortality contrasts most sharply first glance, the basis of this distinction with the hatred of mortality of his appeared untenable. Homer condemns cowardlyshipmates. While their hatred of the crewmen for their recklessness in mortality urges them on to recklessness, electing a strategy that is logically iden- Odysseus'appreciation of humanmortal- tical to a subsequentstrategy of Odysseus ity accompaniesa sobering divination of that earns him praise for his good judg- the limits that properly constrainhuman ment. We resisted the temptation to reason. By virtue of this change of heart, attribute this discrepancy to a host of Odysseus breaks with the customary externalfactors and attemptedinstead to behavior of the "typicalhero." Odysseus' look furtherwithin the poem to discover reverence, therefore, should not be con- the basis upon which the poet would dare fused with a merely blind observanceof to condemn the crewmen'sundoubtedly custom in whatever guise that custom rational choice. Finally, we sustained may present itself. On the contrary, Homer'scharge of recklessnessand attrib- Odysseus' reverenceis above all inclined uted it to the crewmen'sheedlessness of to political moderation,as the conclusion the limits of rational commensuration. of the poem indicates. These limits are dictated by the sacred, Homer'scriticism of rationalismcould which warrants respect in itself, not by be studied with profit at any time. But virtue of analogy or comparison with perhaps nowhere does this lesson have anything else. In accordance with their greater political importance than in a rationalisticpresumption of the boundless modem commercial republic like our powers of reason, however, the crewmen own. Harbored within this ordinarily treat the divine sanction of Helios' cattle mild polity is a dangerouspropensity that as if it were a mere price tag. threatens to underminethe very liberty Odysseus,by contrast,does not violate that is its hallmarkand preciousheritage. the sacred cattle. His intelligence (like Commercialism,taken to excess, holds Achilles'courage) is beyond reproach;but nothing sacred, not even the moral and Homer'selevation of Odysseus to heroic political principlesthat make free trade, status does not simply rest upon that to say nothing of our other freedoms, intelligence.Odysseus' heroic excellence, possible. To the unbridledcommercialist, which truly sets him above the other everythinghas its price. This rationalistic Achaian kings, consists in his combina- propensity of the commercial republic tion of godliness and resourcefulintelli- provides its adversariesacross the range gence. Odysseus comes to accept this of the political spectrum with "fruitful reverentialconstraint on his intelligence topics"for their "speciousdeclamations." as he learns that human beings, however Solzhenitsynjoins Lenin,if in little else, in they may long for immortality, cannot scorn for capitalistswho one day will sell rival the gods. Such a competitionis out the rope their enemies will use to hang of the question because man simply can- them. In this regard,it is most fitting and not "take the measure"of the gods. As highly satisfying that Odysseus, whom Odysseus learns from Achilles, mortal some have disparagedas "the acquisitive

505 American Political Science Review Vol. 81 hero,"provides a choice lesson for friends Homer that most endangerstheir favored of the commercialrepublic. political order. A much more pressing The unboundedpursuit of commercial threat is posed by the irreverentconvic- maximizationis, after all, nothing if not a tion of the hegemony of reason, to which variety of rationalism. Like Odysseus' commercialism itself inclines us. If, in crewmen, Lenin's hypothetical capitalist opposition to this inclination, we recom- reduces fundamental constitutional or mend that such moderateand moderating legal principlesto mere price tags. But the first principles as those to which our substance of such fundamentallaws and nation is dedicatedbe respectedas sacred, rights is formulated with a view to the we are following a trailblazed by our own human soul and its propercultivation; to foundingfathers, but chartedoriginally, I disregardtheir sanctity is an errorHomer suggest, by the poet of the Odyssey. reveals as the height of recklessness. In light of Homer's Odyssey, we see more clearly the significanceof Strauss'sargu- Notes ments on the need to remain open to the 1. Is reason, as we understandit, sufficiently claims of revelation and Hayek's argu- recognizablein the understandingof the ancientsto ments against rule utilitarianismand the accommodatethe intelligibilityof a claim designat- presuppositions of "Posnerian judges." ing Homeras a criticof rationalism?This is a com- plex issue, but one that can perhapsbe addressed We also gain a deeperappreciation for the sufficientlyfor presentpurposes. The semanticrange wisdom of our founders. Natural rights, of reason (logos) among the ancients is best indi- they proclaimed, are "unalienable"and cated by the denotationof the word itself. In Greek "self-evident"-which is to say that their logos literally means a reckoning or giving of authority is not dependentupon rational accounts, principallyby ratio or analogy. At the heart of this complex of meaningsis the notion of demonstrationand that they are not to be commensuration.Thus an "irrational"number-the rearranged merely to promote "social usage has survived intact from the earliestdays of wealth." The "genius of American poli- ancientmathematics-is so termedprecisely because tics"lies not in a dedicationto rationally of its incommensurability.One is not able to give an accountof such a numberin termsof othernumbers, demonstrablefirst principlesbut ratherin that is, as a ratio. Whatevertheir other differences, a solemn respect for the "givenness"of ancients and modernsalike acknowledgecommen- common-lawliberties and the equal rights suration as the characteristicmodus operandi of with which we are endowed by our reason. It is againstthe limitlesshegemony of reason creator (see Boorstin 1953, chap. 1). In thus conceivedthat I understandHomer's attack in the Odyssey to be directed. maintainingthe "self-evidence"of natural 2. Thanks largely to Austin's (1975) contribu- rights, the founders disagreed decisively tion, it is again admissiblein academic circles to with Thomas Hobbes, himself an ex- speak of Homer's intention. Let us grant to the pounder of a doctrine of natural rights. "analytic"and "oralist"schools of Homeric inter- pretationthat the manuscripttradition is imperfect Hobbes, however, does not settle for the and that the most ancientbards performed without self-evidenceof naturalrights. Instead,he benefit of a written text. But let us also note that presents an impressively rationalistic those who object to the presumptionof composi- derivation of these rights. We must not tional integrity in the Odyssey typically rest their fail to note, however, that this derivation case on the dubious assumption that textual dis- crepancynecessarily implies a lack of design. As I culminatesin the institutionof an authori- endeavor to show in this essay, such discrepancies tarian state, the Leviathan. Absolutism, may well play an essentialrole in the poet'spresenta- the antithesisof liberty, would seem to be tion of even his most importantteachings. the consequenceof rationalismin politics. 3. David Davies's (1985) perceptiveaccount of the remarkabledelicacy of judgmentdisplayed by Friendsof the commercialrepublic might Odysseus in wrestingand then returningAgamem- rightly conclude, then, that it is not the non'sscepter (Iliad 2) leavesno doubtas to the poet's emulouszeal of impressionablereaders of respectfor the excellenceof Odysseus'mind in the

506 1987 Homer's Odyssey

Iliad. Stanford (1985, 74-76) holds that all of J. Brams (1976, 194-203). In the present case, we Odysseus' "untypical" excellences, except one, are may easily point to evidence of such independence manifest in both poems. He maintains that only the (see, e.g., 12.382-87). But it is also clearthat the two intellectual curiosity of Odysseus appears uniquely decision rules converge here anyway because the in the Odyssey. In my view, however, Odysseus' men's preferencesacross the alternativesare quite desire to see peoples and places along his route back intense. Satisfying one's hunger with impunity is to Ithaka does not issue so much from a novel love much preferredto starvation,as goes without say- of learning as from his accustomed swashbuckling ing. But even the preferencefor a quick death to a adventurism. It is significant that once he is cured of slow death is describedby Eurylochosas "hearty" these swashbuckling tendencies, Odysseus is inter- (apo thymon, 12.350). ested in seeing one sight alone-hearth smoke rising 8. One might, in an expandedmatrix, consider from his native Ithaka (1.58-59). This new concern Odysseus'options to revealhis identityto particular for hearth and home is evidence of the dawn of individuals. The dynamics driving his decision reverence in Odysseus. toward concealmentwould be the same, however, 4. Careful attention to the epithets used of even in the difficultcase of Penelopeherself. Grant- Odysseus will uncover an interesting pattern that ing that Penelopeis faithful,Odysseus still fearsthat further substantiates this change. Prior to the pres- in her joy at discoveringhe is home she will alarm ent time of the narration of the Odyssey, particular- the suitors and inadvertentlycause his destruction ly during the extended flashback of books 9 through (13.192-93, 16.301-3, 19.476-86). Of course, 12, Odysseus' most common epithets consistently Odysseus eventually does make himself known to refer to his intelligence (polymetis, polymechan'; see Telemachosand to Eumaiosand Philoitios. In each Dunbar's Concordance to the Odyssey). But from of these cases, Odysseuschooses to dissembleuntil the time of the poem's narration, which commences he is satisfied that the consequencesof revelation, with Odysseus' refusal of Kalypso's offer of immor- whatever Penelope'sfaithfulness, will not lose him tality, no epithet is used of Odysseus more frequent- the elementof surprise(see, e.g., 16.151-68, 454-49; ly than dios, or godly. Odysseus, as we shall see, is 21. 192-229). adamant from this time on in his opposition to any 9. Becausethe economist'sinterest in formulat- suggestion of comparison or rivalry with the gods. It ing a "productionfunction" for crime compels him follows that those translators who render dios as to adopt the perspectiveof the criminal,it is only "godlike"-implying a blurring of the distinction fair to note that this is not necessarilyBecker's own between Odysseus and the immortals-have it understandingof sanctions.Still, it is significantthat exactly wrong. Like our word godly, dios evidently it is the poet, not the economist,who can go on to has another significance besides godlike. A godly reveal the rationalismimplicit in such a conception man is one "devoutly observant of the laws of god" as itself a root cause of criminalrecklessness. (Oxford English Dictionary 4:273). 10. The defianceof commensurationessential to 5. My translations in this essay are based on W. the sacredis furthersubstantiated by the comic con- B. Stanford's edition of the Odyssey (Macmillan & sequencesof callingit into question.Henny Young- Co., London, 1965). Citations are keyed to book man tells the story of a salesmanwhose customer and line number. innocentlyasks "How'syour wife?""Compared to 6. It is worthwhile to consult Jon Elster's (1979) what?" is the salesman's snappy response. The analysis of Odysseus "strategy of precommitment" razor's edge of Youngman'sjoke results from his in dealing with the Sirens' temptation. I would sup- opposite and preciselybalanced strokes of rational- plement Elster's account with the observation that ism and reverence,the formerevident in the sales- Odysseus' strategy is exercised against a desire for man'sproverbially exclusive orientation to "bottom- universal knowledge, which the Sirens expressly line"comparisons, the lattermanifest in our expecta- promise to satisfy (12.184-91; also cf. 12.49 with tions concerningthe sanctity of marriage.Spouses, 12.160). In this sense, Odysseus' strategy can be after all, are loved in themselves-not merely by understood as a preliminary means for resisting the comparisonwith others. song of rationalism. The moderation ulti- 11. A lexicographic order ranks alternatives mately necessary in such a case, however, would accordingto a primarycriterion without regardto involve not merely an external control of the appe- their rank on a secondarycriterion. In the case of a tites but a change of heart that itself recognizes the tie, the tied alternativesare ranked accordingto a peculiar limits of a human wisdom. second criterionwithout regardto their rank on a 7. Except, perhaps, in the rare case when this third, and so on-the way words are orderedin a decision rule appears to conflict with the maximiza- dictionary. Achilles' preference, like all lexico- tion of expected utility, as contrived in Newcomb's graphic orderings, does not violate transitivity. Problem. The clearest statement of the controversy Lexicographicpreferences are rationalin this purely surrounding this problem, its political relevance, ordinal sense, though they precluderational com- and its resolution-by recasting its gaming elements parisonsin the more meaningfulsense of reason as into independent decisions-is presented by Steven commensuration.Riker and Ordeshook(1973, 43),

507 American Political Science Review Vol. 81 who observe that the fundamentalaims of politics Feinberg,Joel. 1965. The ExpressiveFunction of typically resist commensuration,are instructivein Punishment.Monist 43:397-423. this regard.These authors, to theircredit, accept the Flaumenhaft,Mera. 1982. The UndercoverHero: existence of such incommensurability,which they Odysseusfrom Dark to Daylight. Interpretation representwith lexicographicpreferences, as defining 10:9-41. limits to theirrational-choice theory of politics. See Gilder, George. 1981. Wealth and Poverty. New also the excellent discussionof Elster(1979, 125), York:Basic Books. who rightlynotes that the lexicographiccharacter of Hayek, F. A. 1960. The Constitutionof Liberty. such incommensurablesis best understoodas con- Chicago:University of ChicagoPress. stituting "constraintson decision-makingrather Hayek, F. A. 1976. Law, Liberty,and Legislation. than as criteriafor decision-making." Vol. 2. Chicago:University of ChicagoPress. Homer. 1963. Iliad. 2 vols. Ed. D. B. Monroe. Oxford:Oxford University Press. Homer. 1965. Odyssey. 2 vols. Ed. W. B. Stanford. References London:MacMillan. Nagy, Gregory. 1979. The Best of the Achaens: Aranson, Peter H. 1984. Judicial Control of the The Concept of the Hero in Archaic Greek Political Branches:Public Purpose and Public Poetry. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Law. Cato Journal4:1-64. Press. Austin, Norman. 1975. Archeryat the Dark of the Oakeshott, Michael. 1962. Rationalismin Politics Moon: Poetic Problems in Homer's Odyssey. and OtherEssays. New York:Basic Books. Berkeley:University of CaliforniaPress. Owen, Guillermo. 1982. Game Theory. 2d ed. Becker, Gary. 1968. Crime and Punishment:An New York:Academic Press. EconomicApproach. Journalof Political Econ- Plato. 1972. Republic.In PlatonisOpera, vol. 4, ed. omy 76:169-217. John Burnet. Oxford: Oxford UniversityPress. Berns, Walter. 1979. For Capital Punishment. Posner, Richard A. 1977. Economic Analysis of New York:Basic Books. Law. 2d ed. Boston:Little Brown. Boorstin, Daniel. 1953. The Genius of American Rawls, John. 1955. Two Concepts of Rules. The Politics. Chicago:University of Chicago Press. PhilosophicalReview 64:3-32. Brams,Steven J. 1976. Paradoxesin Politics. New Riker,William H., and Peter C. Ordeshook.1973. York:Free Press. An Introductionto Positive Political Theory. Clay, Jenny Strauss. 1983. The Wrathof Athena: EnglewoodCliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Gods and Men in the Odyssey. Princeton: Rubin, Paul H. 1977. Why is the Common Law PrincetonUniversity Press. Efficient?Journal of LegalStudies 6:51-63. Davies, David 0. 1985. Iliad 2: Sceptreand Cata- Stanford,W. B. 1985. The Theme. 2d ed. logue. Paperpresented at the annualmeeting of Ann Arbor:University of MichiganPress. the Midwest Political Science Association, Strauss, Leo. 1979. The Mutual Influence of Chicago. Theology and Philosophy. The Independent Diamond, Martin. 1959. Democracy and "The Journalof Philosophy3:111-18. Federalist":A Reconsiderationof the Framers' Strauss, Leo. 1981. Progressor Return?The Con- Intent. American Political Science Review 53: temporary Crisis in Western Civilization. 52-68. ModernJudaism 1:17-45. Elster,Jon. 1979. Ulyssesand the Sirens:Studies in Tocqueville,Alexis de. 1945. Democracyin Amer- Rationalityand Irrationality.Cambridge: Cam- ica. 2 vols. Translatedby Henry Reeve. New bridgeUniversity Press. York: Knopf.

DarrellDobbs is Assistant Professorof Political Science, Universityof Houston, TX 77004.

508