Studia Religiologica 53 (3) 2020, s. 181–202 doi:10.4467/20844077SR.20.013.12753 www.ejournals.eu/Studia-Religiologica Odysseus – Trickster and the Issue of the Compatibility of the Image of the Hero with Its Function in the Traditions of the Oral Epic Karol Zieliński https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9518-935X University of Wrocław Institute of Classical, Mediterranean and Oriental Studies [email protected] Abstract In the Greek epic tradition associated with the Trojan cycle, the protagonists are played by Achilles and Odysseus, two heroes with contrasting characteristics. The Homeric poems endeavor to ap- proximate the character of Odysseus to Achilles. They cannot, however, break with his traditional image in which he represents the trickster type. Both preservation of the traditional image and its reinterpretation is typical of the oral tradition. Comparison with other traditions of the oral epic reveals a connection between the trickster character and the antagonist of the hero-protagonist. Both polarized characters represent two types of behavior assessed by the listening audience in terms of their usefulness for the survival of the community. In his readiness for sacrifice, the hero represents an altruistic attitude, positively valorized as moral behavior. The trickster’s egoistic behavior moves away from moral principles, but it can also ultimately bring benefit to the whole community. Similarly to the behavior of the trickster-antagonist, that of the hero-protagonist is also ambivalent, as it brings harm to the community, which – though temporary – often takes on the dimension of a disaster. Keywords: trickster, oral tradition, Odysseus, epic hero, Homer Słowa kluczowe: trickster, tradycja oralna, Odyseusz, heros epicki, Homer The idea of the paper is to present the character of Odysseus in the perspective of the fluidity of the oral tradition, a fluidity which enables the reconfiguration of the images of protagonists by way of permanent reinterpretation of their behaviors in subsequent performances. Comparative studies allow us to reconstruct a primordial opposition be- tween a hero-protagonist and his antagonist, who very often represents features which scholars link with the trickster figure. The Homeric poems display a tendency for both 182 antagonized characters to take over the features of each other. As a result, Odysseus may play the role of the hero-protagonist and resemble Achilles in his conduct, with- out entirely discarding elements of the trickster. What is crucial here is the relationship between the heroes and their community considering the benefits expected by the group as a result of the hero’s deeds. In effect both characters, Odysseus and Achilles, turn out to be ambivalent in their conduct. Just like the gods, they can bring harm or bestow benefits upon their communities.1 To understand this complex image I propose to begin the discussion from adaptive qualities of the oral tradition. From an adaptive point of view, the production of cultural patterns is associated with the struggle for existence.2 The significance of this element of the evolutionary process is evidenced by the role of narrative in the development of human culture, especially in oral culture, which covers an incomparably longer period than written culture in the history of mankind. Narratives in oral culture retain a certain durabil- ity, allowing us to recognize both the same story patterns and the same stories (we recognize the same story in different versions), while continually modifying them in subsequent performances according to the rules of homeostasis, the circumstances of their delivery, and the inventiveness – or rather the intentions – of the steward of the tradition: the bard or the teller of myths. Narrative, a flexible tool capable of con- stantly adapting to changing conditions, serves to unite a group around a tradition. This theory explains, in my opinion, the prevalence of characters such as the trickster in human cultures. Attempts to describe the process of diffusion as a cultural phenomenon will only be theoretical, and they allow for some organization of data from various regions of the world, but they will not correspond to the reality that generates the need for the origination of this process. They will, therefore, remain a deceptive illusion. The cre- ation of the character of the trickster in oral cultures – the shaping of his image, the attribution of certain permanent features to him – thus reflects the evaluation of atti- tudes adopted in those societies that condition their survival. What counts is not only the character himself and the character’s actions, but also the reactions it triggers. This must mean a certain gradation of features associated with the trickster: some features must be considered as primary, others as secondary, and resulting from the various associations so largely ensuing from reactions to the behavior attributed to this character. However, the trickster figure may turn out to be merely a product of academic discourse, resulting from the fact that these controversial and ambivalent figures, occurring in many cultures in a similar role, correspond to a repeatable prob- lem of adaptation of a group to changing circumstances. 1 About the ambivalence of the Greek gods see J. Gould, Myth, Ritual Memory, and Exchange. Es- says in Greek Literature and Culture, Oxford 2001, pp. 203–234. 2 The question is, though, how to understand culture as a result of evolution. For the discussion on this issue, see D.S. Wilson, Darwin’s Cathedral. Evolution, Religion, and the Nature of Society, Chicago– London 2002, pp. 31–37, whose attitude is closest to me. The article does not give me enough scope for considering the issue of group selection and the possibility of this principle functioning in human cultures. Two polarized positions are presented by R. Dawkins, The Selfish Gene, Oxford 1976 and D.S. Wilson, op. cit. 183 The trickster figure is characterized by ambivalence of his actions, because it is difficult to assess whether his deeds bring about good or bad results. His “usefulness” manifests itself in actions identifying him with a cultural hero who bestows basic cultural goods upon mankind, or even with the demiurge-creator of the world.3 At the same time he seems to be very selfish and unprofitable for any human society. I propose to look at this complex problem in terms of the functioning of oral epic traditions, bearing in mind that oral tradition is prone to constant changes: individual songs and even their performances subject the traditional material to reinterpretation. The character of the trickster can be recognized by certain traits: malice, sly- ness, cunning, greed and an inclination to cheat and use spells or illusion. Owing to this, on the one hand he is avoided by others as he incites hatred motivated by fear, while on the other he is the object of derision or mockery. All these reactions to the trickster’s deeds mean that they are perceived as improper, and incompatible with the recognized rules of behavior. He is recognized as an individual who opposes the community and shuns it, demonstrating hatred or contempt, which can also be ex- pressed through laughter or may be interpreted as an effort to isolate such an indi- vidual and to stigmatize what he represents. Understandably, such distancing must result from the group’s adherence to other behaviors that can be explicitly or implic- itly referred to in the story of the trickster. The sources of stories about this character, disseminated in various cultures, lie – in my opinion – in the axiology of communal behavior. What other end could a story serve if not to convey the models of expected and unacceptable behavior? Ethological evaluation in oral culture, however, is not diametrically opposed as good or bad. What counts is the ultimate benefit which the community derives from the behavior of individuals. The morally ambivalent con- duct of epic heroes illustrates how difficult it is for a group to temper selfish needs and the behavior of individuals. Every performance of the oral epic indicates how tra- ditional patterns of behavior should or may be adapted to the current situation. Epic heroes do not repeat such desirable patterns in their conduct because they are unable to follow common rules – very often they have to break these rules. They are in- dividualists, although they accept the rules of the collective mentality. Hence, the oral epic cannot be perceived as didactic in a moral sense. We might say that the people of oral cultures may seem more sincere than those of written culture because they openly admit they do not always know what kind of conduct may be beneficial to the community: paradoxically, sometimes the rejection of rules suppressing the egoism of individuals may bring good results to the commu- nity (epic heroes often – consciously or unconsciously – break a taboo, which turns out to be advantageous for the hero and for the community).4 This is because from an adaptive point of view, only actions can be evaluated, and not the motivations behind them. 3 Because this volume contains an article by Prof. A. Szyjewski which discusses all the conundrums resulting from the acceptance of the term “trickster” in science, I feel it unnecessary to present the history of research on this issue. 4 For example, in all hunter-gatherer societies there is a law of sharing food, especially meat, with other members of the group (see Wilson, op. cit., pp. 24–27). 184 Egoism and altruism In this regard, ethology refers to game theory and introduces two models of strategies that allow the individual to survive and to preserve his or her genes:5 Mathematical theory allows two broad classes of stable solution to “games” of this kind. “Al- ways be nasty” is stable in that, if everybody else is doing it, a single nice individual cannot do better.