Marissa Henry, Tulane University
This paper offers a new answer to the question of why Odysseus’ men eat the cattle of Helios despite warnings against doing so, leading directly to their deaths. Earlier readings of this episode tend to accept Odysseus’ judgments of his companions: that they act as they do because they are foolish and gluttonous (Nagler 1990; Scodel 2002; McInerney 2010; Bakker 2013), or because they are sacrilegious (Stocking 2017), or under the malicious influence of the instigator Eurylochus (Radcliffe 2021). These readings do not trouble Odysseus’ narrative, in which his own cleverness and restraint are always opposed to his crew’s short-sighted blunders.
These readings are unsatisfying for two reasons: first, Eurylochus is no fool, nor does he appear to act maliciously, but has been shown through his conduct up to this point to possess both foresight and a collectivist concern for the welfare of all members of the group. Second, Odysseus is no saint, but lacks restraint in his own heroic way, prioritizing the accumulation of treasure and stories over the bodily safety of his crew. Why, then, must we accept Odysseus’ moral judgment of the crew’s actions when we are aware that their interests are in fact opposed, since he is the negligent boss who has gotten so many of them killed already?
By reading against the grain of Odysseus’ inset narrative (as called for by Buchan 2004 and Radcliffe 2021) and applying anthropological theories about meat and power (Bloch 1992) as well as social class, food, and time (Bourdieu 1984), I suggest a more compelling reading that challenges Odysseus’ narrative authority and recognizes the violence implicit in social hierarchies.
If we view Eurylochus as a Promethean figure to Odysseus’ Zeus, the power dynamics of the episode come into clearer focus: Eurylochus advocates for access to meat for the hungry many, while Odysseus attempts to restrict that access. The crew, comprised of ordinary men of unheroic rank, has learned from their experiences to expect a swift death and make the most of comforts such as rest and food when they have them. They are, therefore, reluctant to defer the satisfaction of their hunger to the threat of disaster, since they know they are not entitled to a positive outcome even if they endure the famine. Odysseus, a hero and aristocrat, has learned from his own experiences that he can expect to be rewarded for strength and endurance. Eurylochus, playing the role of Prometheus, makes the meat of the forbidden cattle a site of contestation in his power struggle with Odysseus, using the crew’s hunger as a wedge to unsettle the captain’s authority. He persuades the crew to eat the cattle, not only because they are hungry, but in the hope that if they are punished, they might bring Odysseus down with them. Their unholy sacrifice is not in fact a blunder, but an attempted rebellion which, despite its failure, at least succeeds in liberating them from Odysseus’ employment.