Homer: Poetics and Exegesis

There are two statements often made, in the literature, about the following famous Iliadic line:

ὃν πότμον γοόωσα λιποῦσ' ἀνδροτῆτα καὶ ἥβην (Il. 16.858, 22.364)

This paper demonstrates how a particular type of narrative formula functions in both the Iliad and Odyssey to create a suggestive thematic link between the two poems, centered around nearly limitless grief and the means by which it may be satiated. I argue that this link has significant meta-narrative implications: it discloses a revealing tension between the forward movement of epic storytelling and the arresting effect of unrestrained lament, which threatens to overwhelm narrative development altogether through sheer intensity at key points in the story.

At Odyssey 8.200, Odysseus ‘rejoices to see his gentle hetairos in the agon’ (χαίρων οὕνεχ' ἑταῖρον ἐνηέα λεῦσσ' ἐν ἀγῶνι). This use of hetairos is peculiar in two ways. First, the referent is Athena; and gods are not elsewhere called hetairoi. Second, the speaker is completely unknown to Odysseus; and it seems odd to use the term that captures the intimacy of Achilles’ relationship with Patroclus to describe a complete stranger.

By common consent, Odyssey 11 is one of the most fascinating books of the Homeric epics, yet it has puzzled scholars since antiquity. It has long been noted for instance that it is not perfectly clear why Odysseus has to visit Hades, the only trip of the Apologoi that Odysseus is told he must make (Od.10.490-1 χρή … ἱκέσθαι / εἰς Ἀίδαο δόμους) in order to learn from Teiresias the way back to Ithaca (Od.10.539 ὁδὸν καὶ μέτρα κελεύθου).

We know from the Poetics that Aristotle rated Homer far above other epic poets, largely on grounds of narrative economy. So under the rubric of unity Aristotle praises Homer for choosing a single tale while including elements of the larger myth as episodes (ch. 23, 1459a30-59b16).

In Homeric epic, the hero’s kleos is achieved through acts of extreme violence. His aristeia is manifested in the accounts of the bodies of the enemies left dead in his wake. But the justice of this violence, wrought to exact revenge, is also laden with a profound ambivalence that is a problem for the narrative. Certain narrative devices seem to have authorized the hero’s violence by placing it within a kind of ritualized context.