Recovering Pindar's Metre
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
The Classical Review VOLUME 50 NO. 2 2000 ODYSSEUS’ RETURNS G. D: Epos und Zitat: Studien zu den Quellen der Odyssee. (Wiener Studien, Beiheft 22.) Pp. viii + 526. Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1998. Paper, DM 92. ISBN: 3-7001-2720-0. The Odyssey is arguably the µnest tale in Western literature, and the telling of it skilful in narrative detail and subtle in psychological understanding; yet it contains more apparent incoherences than the Iliad. These are not particularly familiar to English-speaking readers, as few Homerists of the analytical persuasion have written on the Odyssey in English. However, in Germany there has been a great deal of work, arguing that the Odyssey as we have it contains relics, echoes, or hints of other versions of the tale of Odysseus’ return. Even Schadewaldt, who was convinced himself and convinced others of the unity of composition of the Iliad,thus e¶ectively bringing an end to a century of German scholarship, was nevertheless driven to an analytical explanation of the Odyssey, specifying two successive composers. There have been other authoritative analysts in recent years, in addition to the old style analysis contemporary with that of the Iliad, of, for example, Kirchho¶, who in·uenced D. L. Page’s The Homeric Odyssey (Oxford, 1955). Georg Danek is a scholar at the University of Vienna, where Professor Hans Schwabl has continued the µne tradition of Albin Lesky. D. has been known up to now especially for his doctoral dissertation Studien zur Dolonie (published in 1988), in which he solved the problem of Iliad 10, or at least came as near to a solution as seems possible at this time (see CR 39 [1989], 178–80); he has now produced a huge book on the Odyssey, which may turn out to be just as important. His model is Kullmann’s Die Quellen der Ilias (Wiesbaden, 1960), for he too is dealing with the material behind his epic; but his method is di¶erent. Almost the whole of the book, from p. 29 to p. 505, consists of a running commentary on the Odyssey book by book, discussing issues as they occur. He has read very widely, especially in the numerous contributions that have appeared in the last few decades. He is also, from proximity, extremely well informed about the South Slavic heroic poetry which has since Milman Parry acted as comparative literature to Homer, though his extensive bibliography surprisingly omits the µnal contributions of A. B. Lord in this µeld: Epic Singers and Oral Tradition (Ithaca, 1991) and The Singer Resumes the Tale (Ithaca, 1995). Epos means the Odyssey, but also previous epic versions of Odysseus’ return, and Zitat means, not verbal quotation, but a habit of the author to allude to (‘cite’) alternative versions, whether actual (i.e. known to him and in many cases to his audience also) or potential. D. considers it probable that in other tellings of the tale Odysseus and Penelope got together at an earlier stage than in our poem and together © Oxford University Press, 2000 Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. University of Basel Library, on 10 Jul 2017 at 16:48:43, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1093/cr/50.2.405 394 planned vengeance on the Suitors, that Laertes elsewhere played a larger rôle than we see in the Odyssey, perhaps taking the place occupied for us by Eumaeus, that the false tales of Odysseus, involving Crete and Thesprotia, re·ect other versions in which they were real, that Telemachus had on occasion included Crete in his itinerary (this on the strength of Zenodotus’ readings at 1.93 and 285), that in other songs Odysseus arrived back in the nick of time, on the very day in spring when the Feast of Apollo µxed the adulthood of Telemachus and the immediate remarriage of Penelope. These and other alternative versions are (often casually) ‘cited’ in our text, thus occasioning uncertainty about the course of the story, and involving the instant making of key decisions especially by Odysseus—an explanation more acceptable than that of Marylin Katz (Penelope’s Renown [Princeton, 1991], reviewed in CR 42 [1992], 250–2), who introduced the narratological concepts of ‘indeterminacy’ and ‘deferral of closure’. In all of this D. is a convinced unitarian, seeing the poem as the uniform conception of a single mind. In connection with the ‘citation’ of other versions he frequently uses the slightly cryptic phrase Die Thematisierung von Alternativen (e.g. in the title of his introductory chapter, pp. 7–23). What he seems to mean is the bringing in as topics (‘themes’, as in Lord’s concept of ‘Composition by Theme’) alternative possibilities for the development of the story. In the quite common situations when a character, usually Odysseus, considers ‘in his heart and mind’ two alternative lines to follow (e.g. several times in the Circe episode) and then either chooses one of them or sometimes takes a third course, D. considers that the unselected procedures have thus been presented to Homer’s audience, and in a way become topics; they may have appeared in other versions, or could potentially so appear, or µnally may be ‘impossible variants’, which could not be realized without introducing unacceptable deviation. A special case of apparent ‘Zitat’ has been much in the minds of German-speaking Homerists—the question of whether the Odyssey shows particular debts to the Iliad. For the most part D. is against this, seeing even the 4ξδσεττι νεµ τει complex (Od. 1.358, 11.352, 21.352) as a general reference to men’s reaction to women in the oral tradition rather than speciµcally derived from Hector’s words to Andromache at Il. 6.492. He summarizes the Odyssey’s view of the Trojan war as non-Iliadic: it sees the killing of Memnon, not Hector, as the greatest deed of Achilles, the rescue of Achilles’ body as the greatest of Ajax, and the Agamemnon who talks to Achilles in 24 as the Agamemnon of the Trojan war, not the Agamemnon of the Iliad. On the other hand, the Odyssey poet knew the Iliad: Patroclus, not Antilochus, was Achilles’ greatest friend; and Eurybates in 19.247 comes from Il. 2.184. On the question how much of the Odyssey is new invention and how much comes from earlier versions, D. has a useful criterion: where the telling of a story contains all the detail needed for full understanding, it may be original composition by the poet; where it is allusive and assumes prior knowledge in the audience, it comes from his sources. Thus he can argue that the Odyssey’s hearers knew of Odysseus, Telemachus, Polyphemus, and the Suitors, but not of Calypso; that they knew of Autolycus, Odysseus’ grandfather, but not of the scar and the boar-hunt. There is a vast amount of discussion of almost all major issues in the narrative, though hardly ever of the small textual or linguistic problems which also worried the analysts; perhaps the latter only at 13.158. It may be of some interest to list the most extensive treatments: 1. Pp. 66–73 Penelope’s web. 2. Pp. 142–50 The quarrel between Odysseus and Achilles referred to at 8.73–82. D. Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. University of Basel Library, on 10 Jul 2017 at 16:48:43, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1093/cr/50.2.405 395 has the interesting suggestion that some extended version of the later stages of the war began with a dispute of this kind in the Greek army. 3. Pp. 165–70 The apparent duplication of the storm at 9.67–81. D. explains most precisely that the µrst storm (67–73) was the general one that a¶ected almost all the Greek ships on their way home, for which the poet has a clear and chronological conception in his mind; the second (80–1) was just the usual inclement weather round Cape Malea. 4. Pp. 310–20 The removal of the weapons from the great hall. 5. Pp. 347–55 Penelope’s appearance before the suitors in 18.158–303. This has become the most discussed di¸culty in the Odyssey. How could Penelope behave in that way, and why was Odysseus secretly pleased? D. tells us that the episode suggests four possible motifs and that we are wrong to try to explain it simply in terms of Penelope’s motivation in the tale that we have; she could be (a) cheating the Suitors; (b) desperately continuing her delaying tactics, if only for a short time; (c) planning their death in collusion with her husband; or (d) µnally giving up her resistance. Each of these might be thematic in some other version of the tale. He makes the important point that 283 ξ οΚ δ ο 4µµα νεξοξα, the awareness of which explains Odysseus’ satisfaction, does not mean that she was duping them, but that it was not her wish to remarry (cf. 2.92, 13.381 in the same context); thus (b) is the case in our Odyssey. 6. Pp. 374–82 The foot-washing scene. Here he makes the excellent point that, although the sequence almost leads to recognition by Penelope as well as Eurycleia, and after it Penelope even acts as if there has been recognition by setting up the contest of the bow, thus providing her husband with an opportunity and a weapon, nevertheless it would have been decidedly ·at in the Odyssey situation to have her recognize him through the agency of a third party.