<<

and the ? 22.361-7

Opinion is nearly universal among commentators (e.g., Stanford 1965, Fernández- Galiano 1992, de Jong 2001) that the discovery of Medon under an oxhide at Odyssey 22.362ff. is intended to evoke humor and provide relief from the high tension and drama of the mnesterophonia. Indeed, himself smiles when Medon hastily throws off the newly flayed skin and grasps by the knees in supplication (22.371). More motivates this scene, however, than simply a desire to lend humor and provide respite to the audience at a crucial point in the narrative. This deeper significance derives from an earlier incident, one to which Medon’s escape alludes. Although some (Stanford 1965, Fernández-Galiano 1992) have noted that the herald’s method of concealment hearkens back to the seals’ skins under which and his men hide in order to ambush (4.436-40), it is far more likely that Medon’s escape is an allusion to Odysseus’ own and more recently narrated escape from the cave of the Cyclops. There are several factors that favor the latter reading. Book 20 opens with two explicit references to the Cyclopeia (18-21, 37-43). Medon’s situation corresponds more closely to Odysseus’ in the cave than to Menelaus’ on the beach: Odysseus hides under a sheep to escape a menacing monster, Menelaus lies under a skin to ambush a god. One is passive, the other aggressive. It is the focus on the shared detail of the animal skin rather than on the shared predicament of both Odysseus and Medon that accounts for the failure to see here a reference to Odysseus’ escape from the cave. Moreover, the hide with which Medon is concealed is the byproduct of the suitors’ depredations on Odysseus’ herds. Thus, Medon attempts to escape detection under the hide of an animal that belongs to Odysseus just as Odysseus escaped death beneath an animal that belonged to .

This particular recollection of the Cyclops’ cave is actually only one of numerous references to the Cyclopeia in the Ithacan sequence, references which equate Odysseus with Polyphemus (Alden 1993, Bakker 2002). For example, Odysseus comes home to find his house occupied by strangers, who are slaughtering his animals, drinking his wine and eating his food. Odysseus locks the strangers in his house, keeps them from escaping, and, unlike Polyphemus, successfully eliminates them as a threat. In taking on Polyphemus’ might and combining it successfully with his cunning, our hero thoroughly defeats his enemies. Once Odysseus has conquered the suitors, there would appear to be no further need for a reference to the Cyclopeia. There is, however, in Odysseus’ assumption of Cyclopean bie an implicit threat of becoming too violent, too monstrous. The danger of the hero crossing or, rather, blurring the boundary between the human and bestial worlds is a concern in both Homeric epics (Segal 1974, Redfield 1975, Wilson 2002). In sparing Medon and , Odysseus demonstrates that he, unlike the implacable and violent Polyphemus, can wield great power yet, because of his , is able to temper that power with mercy and restraint. In fact, after ’ unsuccessful supplication of our hero (22.310-29), Medon and Phemius are the first petitioners to be granted clemency. In this humorous moment, at least, Odysseus rejects the bestial side of bie.

Bibliography

Alden, M. 1993. “An Intelligent Cyclops?” π . . . , 75-95. Ithaki.

Bakker, E.J. 2002. “Polyphemus.” Colby Quarterly 38.2: 135-150.

Fernández-Galiano, M., J. Russo and A. Heubeck. 1992. A Commentary on ’s Odyssey. Volume III: Books XVII-XXIV. Oxford.

Jong, I.J.F. de. 2001. A Narratological Commentary on . Cambridge.

Powell, B.B. 1970. “The Narrative Pattern in the Homeric Tale of Menelaus.” TAPA 101: 419-31.

Redfield, J.M. 1975. Nature and Culture in the : The of . Chicago.

Segal, C. 1974. “The Raw and the Cooked in : Structure, Values, Metaphor.” CJ 69 289-308.

Stanford, W.B. ed. 1965. Homer, Odyssey, vol. 2. London.

Wilson, D.F. 2002. “Lion Kings: Heroes in the Mirror.” Colby Quarterly 38.2: 230- 54.