No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Although it is theoretically possible (and has been asserted) that the Iliad followed the Odyssey, or that the two poems were composed quite independently, with no influence from one to the other, majority opinion ancient and modern puts the Odyssey later, and assumes it to be in important respects a successor, even a sequel, to the Iliad. This position can be maintained in two main forms: those who believe in a single master-poet as the creator of both epics may assign the Iliad to Homer's youth, the Odyssey to his riper years (a position memorably expressed by Longinus); those who follow the ancient separatists can regard the Odyssey as a rival work, composed by a poet who immensely admired the Iliad but whose own poetic and moral concerns lay elsewhere. This view is now much more common. It may be difficult, however, in a tradition which involved so much use of conventional themes and formulaic material, to decide firmly in favour of common or separate authorship. Whichever view one prefers, the important point seems to be that the Odyssey is later, and that it is conceived as a poem on the same scale as the Iliad, but differing strikingly in content and ethos.
The standard commentary for scholars is now Heubeck et al. (originally published with a text, and in a more attractive format, in Italian (6 vols, 1981–6); now translated and published in 3 vols by Oxford University Press (Heubeck et al. 1988; Heubeck and Hoekstra 1990; Russo 1992). The first volume is the most valuable, with important introductory essays. See also Jones 1991, for Books 1 and 2; more advanced, Garvie 1994 on Books 6–8; D. Steiner 2010 on Books 17 and 18; R. B. Rutherford 1992 on Books 19 and 20. Jones 1988 is an unpretentious and informative guide to the poem aimed at readers of Lattimore's translations. For book-length studies see Clarke 1967; Thornton 1970; Eisenberger 1973; N. Austin 1975; Griffin 1987; Hölscher 1989; Tracy 1990 (rather elementary); Thalmann 1998; Louden 1999; and especially Saïd 2011. Dimock 1989 is a book-by-book reading, sometimes rather disappointing: see R. B. Rutherford 1991. Page 1973a is an enjoyable essay on the adventures of Books 9–12 (cf. Page 1955: ch. 1). Hölscher 1939 and especially Fenik 1974 are indispensable on the thematic structure. A good deal of the material in part 1 of M. L. Edwards 1987a concerns both epics.
2 For a fuller treatment of the topics covered in this section see R. B. Rutherford 1991–3; also Heubeck 1954; Burkert 1960; Griffin 1987: 63–70; and (most fully) Usener 1990 (reviewed in Griffin 1991).
3 Sen. De brev. vit. 13.2 refers to the argument over priority as one of the pointless debates of Greek scholarship. The narrator of Lucian's parodic True History meets Homer's ghost in Hades, and the bard denies having written the Odyssey before the Iliad (Ver. hist. 2.20); this at least implies a continuing controversy. Page 1955: 149–59 argued for complete independence, but has not generally been followed.
4 For the problems of the conclusion of the Odyssey, see pp. 97–102 below.
5 On Odysseus in the Iliad, see further Stanford 1963: chs. 2–5.
6 The scholiastic tradition of commentary on the Odyssey is much thinner than that on the Iliad, and there are far fewer manuscripts and papyri. Nevertheless, F. Cairns 1990: ch. 8 attempts to argue that the Odyssey had a higher status in some periods of antiquity than the Iliad.
7 Cf. Goldhill 1991: 1–68; R. B. Rutherford 1991–3: 48–9; Segal 1995: chs. 6–8.
8 See further Olson 1995.
9 On Odysseus' lies, see Emlyn-Jones 1986; Most 1989; Goldhill 1991: 36–48; R. B. Rutherford 1992: 69–73; Kelly 2008c.
10 Juv. 15.13–26; Luc. Ver. hist. 1. 3; Dio Chrys. 11.34; cf. Goldhill 1991: 47–8.
11 Indeed, the narrative itself contradicts this interpretation as far as the Cyclops tale is concerned: see esp. 1.20–1 with 68–75; 5.282–90. That the hero may give us a slanted or self-glorifying view of these episodes remains a possibility: see pp. 122–3 below.
12 See Marg 1956; Macleod 1982: 1–8, 1983; Danek 1998: 142–59; differently Nagy 1979: 42–58.
13 See further Burkert 1960; Braswell 1982; and the notes in Garvie 1994.
14 Mattes 1958, esp. 129 ff.; reservations in Fenik 1974: 13–18. See also Garvie 1994: 26–30.
15 Cf. G. Steiner 1967: 221: ‘it reminds one of the performance of an air from “The Marriage of Figaro” in the last act of “Don Giovanni”’.
16 Danek 1998: see e.g. 106–111 on the tales of Helen and Menelaus in Book 4; 255–7 on the Argo reference at 12.55–72; 247–50 on Heracles in Hades; 293–6 on Theoclymenus' introduction at 15.223–56. See also the same author's shorter treatment in Danek 2002. More generally on the audience, see Scodel 2002 (more briefly in Scodel 2004).
17 Arte allusiva: Pasquali 1942. Euripides: Dover 1971: lxvii. Pindar: N. J. Richardson 1985, and much subsequent work. Currie 2006 is a valuable survey of the issues.
18 On the importance of naming and anonymity in the Odyssey, see N. Austin 1972; Fenik 1974: 5–60; Goldhill 1991: 24–36; de Jong 1993.
19 Rüter 1969: 228–46; Rutherford 1985; Garvie 1994: introduction.
20 See further Hölscher 1939: 37–50; Heubeck 1954.
21 Apthorp 1980b; Hoekstra in Heubeck and Hoesktra 1990 on 15.1–3.
22 Scenes such as Il. 15.142–261 provide a partial precedent, but on a much shorter time-scale. See Zielinski 1901; Krischer 1971: 131 ff.; Whitman and Scodel 1981; Janko 1992 on Il.14.1–152.
23 Odysseus' self-description on two occasions in the Iliad as ‘the father of Telemachus’ is abnormal procedure in that epic, and seems to imply that this relationship was already important in earlier poetry (Il. 2.260; 4.354). It is probably relevant that Telemachus is the only son of an only son (Od. 16.118–20).
24 Schol. 1.93 and 284. For doubts, see S. West 1988: 54–5.
25 Note also the fate of the lesser Ajax, described at 4.499–511. See further Klingner 1944.
26 S. West 1988: 56–7, 60; Olson 1990.
27 Müller 1966.
28 For the novelty of the sentiments expressed see Finley 1979: 140–1. More generally on the morality of the Odyssey, see Redfield 1983, esp. 239–44; R. B. Rutherford 1986: 156.
29 Dodds 1951: 28–37; contrast Fenik 1974: 208–30. For other views, see bibliography in S. West 1988 on 1.32 ff.; Kullmann 1985; Erbse 1986: 237–41; R. Friedrich 1987; Winterbottom 1989; Hankey 1990; Segal 1992; Allan 2006.
30 Clay 1983 perversely argues that Odysseus' misfortunes are the result of Athena's anger with her protégé. This has not been generally accepted, but her book contains many good observations on Homer's gods.
31 On most of these episodes, see Radermacher 1915; Page 1973a; also the works cited in n. 39 below.
32 As already remarked by Eratosthenes ap. Strabo 1.2.15–7. See further Walbank 1979 on Polyb. 34.2–4; Luce in Stanford and Luce 1974: 118–38; Wolf and Wolf 1968; and see Haller 2011.
33 Reinhardt 1948.
34 For the importance of Agamemnon see p. 83 above; for the silent departure of Ajax see p. 121 below.
35 See e.g. Jacoby 1933; Rüter 1969: 251 ff.; Wender 1978: 41–4; Griffin 1980: 100–1; Clay 1983: 108 ff.; Goldhill 1991: 104–6. Some aspects of the differences of outlook between the Odyssey and the Iliad are discussed further in R. B. Rutherford 1991–3.
36 On the question of Odysseus' death (violent or peaceful?), see Hartmann 1917; Stanford 1963: 86–9; Heubeck in Heubeck and Hoekstra 1990 on 11.134b–7. An ingenious solution is offered by M. L. West in his commentary on the Epic Cycle, 2013: 307–15.
37 For what follows see esp. Vidal-Naquet 1981.
38 Cf. Segal 1962, 1967; Fenik 1974: 54–5; Garvie 1994: 22–5. For the hedonism see esp. 8.246–9; Dickie 1983.
39 Crooke 1898, 1908; Calhoun 1939; Page 1955, 18 n. 1; S. Thompson 1955–8: N681, H331; Zhirmunsky 1966; Hansen 2002: 201–11; S. West 2012b. For different analogies, see Burkert 1973.
40 See R. B. Rutherford 1992 on 19.380–1 on the question whether Odysseus is recognizable or not.
41 See further Radermacher 1915; Page 1973a: 55, 69, etc.
42 See Fenik 1974: 5–60; Stewart 1976; Murnaghan 1987.
43 Steiner's commentary (2010) on Books 17 and 18 includes much useful comment on this aspect of the poem.
44 N. J. Richardson 1983; Cave 1988 (a superb survey); Gainsford 2003; Kelly 2012a.
45 See further Whitman 1958: 300–5; Wender 1978: 60–2. For a semiotic reading of Odysseus' bed, see Zeitlin 1995.
46 Thornton 1970: ch. 6; N. Austin 1975: 162–71. This aspect seems to me understated by S. West 1988: 59–60; contrast R. B. Rutherford 1992: 13–15.
47 Cf. Stanford 1963: note especially the well-known claim by Joyce that Odysseus was a truly rounded character, more so even than Hamlet or Faust (quoted in Ellmann 1982: 435–6; see also Ellmann 1974; Kenner 1980).
48 The fertile field of classical scholarship on women cannot be sifted here: see e.g. G. Clark 1989; Peradotto and Sullivan 1984; and Helen King in OCD s.v. ‘women’. On the Odyssean women, see Doherty 1995; also n. 59 below on Penelope.
49 Butler 1897; see also Graves 1955. Butler's outlook is discussed satirically from a modern standpoint by Winkler 1990: 129 ff. Another enjoyable essay is Whitmarsh 2002.
50 The admiration of Taplin (which in most respects I endorse) for the Iliad goes much too far when he claims that the sympathetic treatment of women in that poem make it more likely than the Odyssey to be a woman's work (1992: 32).
51 See further Detienne and Vernant 1974.
52 See especially Crane 1988, with ample references to older discussions.
53 See also Griffin 1980: 59–61, esp. 59 n. 17.
54 See Garvie 1994: 29–30.
55 Woodhouse 1930, H. Petersmann 1981.
56 See esp. Stanford 1963: 51–5, against the sentimentality of Woodhouse 1930: 64.
57 E.g. with the queen of the Thesprotians in the Cyclic Telegony.
58 Woodhouse 1930: 201.
59 The secondary literature is enormous (see n. 48). In general on the mythical figure of Penelope, see Mactoux 1975. On her presentation in Homer, see Büchner 1940; Harsh 1950 (an enjoyable but misguided attempt to prove that Penelope did indeed recognize her husband on his return); Amory 1963 (important for moving the debate on to a more subtle psychological level); Vester 1968; N. Austin 1975: ch. 4; Emlyn-Jones 1984; Russo's introduction to the English edition of his commentary on Odyssey 17–20 (Russo 1992: 3–16); Winkler 1990; Katz 1991 (deconstructive reading); Felson-Rubin 1987, 1993 (combining psychology and narratology); Doherty 1995; Murnaghan 1995; Zeitlin 1995; Felson and Slatkin 2004. I had my say in R. B. Rutherford 1992: 27–38.
60 Winkler 1990.
61 See further H. Foley 1978 on ‘reverse-sex similes’.
62 Felson-Rubin 1987: 82.
63 23.218–24, defended by Heubeck in Russo 1992 ad loc. but by few others. See Fredericksmeyer 1997.
64 The cynical view that Penelope was not faithful to Odysseus was already current in antiquity: see e.g. Hor. Sat. 2.5.78–83; Sen. Ep. 88.8 (the latter passage also refers to the debate about whether she recognized her husband or not).
65 For other parallels between husband and wife, see R. B. Rutherford 1986: 160 n. 77.
66 See esp. Eur. Hipp. 85–6, 1389–1401, 1437–41 (Vernant 1965: ch. 14). Even the Odysseus–Athena relationship is given something of this chilly remoteness in the prologue to Sophocles' Ajax.
67 See e.g. Kirk 1962: 365, 378–9.
68 Cf. Fraenkel 1950, note on Aesch. Agam. 811; Mikalson 1983: ch. 2.
69 For comparison between Athena and Penelope, see also Murnaghan 1995.
70 19.108, kleos; and cf. 19.128 = 18.255. See further H. Foley 1978; Segal 1983; A. T. Edwards 1985: 78–82; Goldhill 1991: 93–108, arguing for ‘revisionist’ use of the vocabulary of fame.
71 That Arete does have some say in these matters is another oddity about the Phaeacian community; but it is notable that in fact she does little to justify her reputation, and that when she does initiate a proposal she is told firmly by Echeneus that ‘On Alcinous here depends deed and word’ (11.346; see also Finley 1979: 89; Garvie 1994 on 6.310–15).
72 See Heubeck in Russo 1992 on 23.296 for basic arguments and bibliography. The modern assailants are best represented by Page 1955: ch. 5 (overstating his case, and with many purely rhetorical arguments); S. West 1989; Oswald 1993. Defenders include especially Heubeck in his commentary in Russo 1992; Erbse 1972: 97–109, 166–244; Moulton 1974; Stössel 1975; Wender 1978.
73 Their views are quoted by the scholia and Eustathius; see e.g. S. West 1989: 118 for the relevant passages.
74 So Pfeiffer 1968: 175; see now S. West 1989: 118–19.
75 S. West 1989 argues that they did not even think it spurious, but saw it as a separate lay by the poet. This does not, however, much affect the modern debate.
76 B. H. Smith 1968 is a classic treatment in English literature; for classicists, D. P. Fowler 1989 is seminal; see also D. P. Fowler 1997 and the other essays in Roberts et al. 1997, and S. West 2007.
77 See Kelly 2007a, esp. 384–7 on the Odyssey. He argues that early epic characteristically concludes with a kind of diminuendo. One may still feel that the poet of the Odyssey might have achieved this effect more skilfully.
78 See further Petzl 1969; Sourvinou-Inwood 1986; S. West 2012a.
79 Older views e.g. in Rohde 1925: ch. 1; Page 1955: 21–7. More flexibility: e.g. Vermeule 1979: 29, 34–5, 218 n. 49 (cf. S. West 1989: 138 n. 51); see also M. Clarke 1999, esp. chs. 5 and 6.
80 Sourvinou-Inwood 1995: ch. 2, esp. 94–107. In the first edition of this survey, fresh from a reading of her work, I endorsed this conclusion, but I am now inclined to treat it with more reserve. For more recent discussions, see M. Clarke 1999: 225–8; Albinus 2000: 67–86; Tsagarakis 2000: 110–19.
81 S. West 1989 argues that these are all interpolated by the author of this section, but this is not the most persuasive part of her article.
82 See Rutherford 1986: 162 n. 87.
83 See Walcot 1977.
84 Hence I do not agree with S. West 1989: 125, who writes that ‘We should of course all like to avoid this conclusion’ (i.e. that Odysseus is now habitually a deceiver).
85 Wender 1978: 15–8 attempts to defend it, but succeeds only in some small details. S. West 1989: 121 points out that Odysseus' narrative here (24.310–43) is the longest piece of indirect speech in all of Homer (though see Dover 1968: 96 for the limited value of such arguments). In view of the almost universal modern dissatisfaction with this passage, it is amusing that Aristotle appears to have considered it a model of concise narration (Rh. 3.16.7).
86 Thus Sourvinou-Inwood 1995: 101.
87 See S. West 1989: 120. On the Doloneia, see p. 35 above.
88 Modern readers are repelled by the mutilation of the disloyal Melanthius (on which see Davies 1994) and by the hanging of the maids. By contrast with the momentous significance which the Iliad attaches to the issue of mutilation (Segal 1971b), the Odyssey seems remarkably casual (cf. G. Murray 1934: 126–8, who surely misinterprets the tone of 22.473). Perhaps one simply has to accept that Homer's audience would have thought any punishment justifiable for such treachery within the household.