Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-kwt9d Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-13T09:09:04.284Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Subjective Style in Odysseus' Wanderings1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 February 2009

Irene J. F. De Jong
Irene J. F. De Jong
Affiliation:
University of Amsterdam
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In his celebrated article on the narrative technique of Odysseus' Wanderings (‘Ich-Erzählungen’) W. Suerbaum concludes that this character's narration is not essentially (‘wesentlich’) different from that of the primary narrator of the Odyssey (p. 163). Even though Odysseus is a first-person narrator and hence is subject to certain restrictions, these are almost completely counterbalanced by his ex eventu knowledge. For example, he can even report a conversation which took place on Olympus (12.376–88), because it was afterwards reported to him by Calypso, who heard it from Hermes (12.389–90). He can also tell what went on in the minds of his companions (10.415–17), because they later told him what they had felt (10.419–21). Suerbaum's conclusion is shared by M. Fusillo (‘Ulysse contrôle toujours une vision panoramique avec focalisation zéro et ne la concentre pas en lui-même comme personnage’) and A. Heubeck, p. 11 (‘the form in which Odysseus is made to tell his story is entirely in harmony with the narrative style elsewhere’).

Information

Type
Articles
Information
The Classical Quarterly , Volume 42 , Issue 1 , May 1992, pp. 1 - 11
Copyright
Copyright © The Classical Association 1992

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

2 The following works are referred to by the author's name: Griffin, J., ‘Homeric Words and Speakers’, JHS 106 (1986), 36–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Heubeck, A., A Commentary on Homer's Odyssey, ii (Oxford, 1989)Google Scholar; de Jong, I. J. F., ‘Homeric Words and Speakers: an Addendum’, JHS 108 (1988), 188–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar (= de Jong, Addendum), Narrators and Focalizers. The Presentation of the Story in the Iliad (Amsterdam, 1987)Google Scholar (= de Jong, Narrators); Lexikon des frühgriechischen Epos (Göttingen, 1955–) (= LfgrE)Google Scholar; Suerbaum, W., ‘Die Ich-Erzählungen des Odysseus’, Poetica 2 (1968), 150–77.Google Scholar

3 Poétique 73 (1988), 114.Google Scholar

4 For other differences, see Richardson, S., ‘Odysseus, the Narrator’Google Scholar, forthcoming.

5 Griffin, de Jong, Addendum, and de, Jong, Narrators, pp. 136–46.Google Scholar

6 Although strictly speaking there are two primary narrators (one of the Il. and one of the Od.) I will, for the sake of convenience, refer to the primary narrator in the singular (see Richardson, S., The Homeric Narrator (Nashville, 1990), p. 6)Google Scholar. Likewise, I will use the narrator-text of both Il. and Od. when analysing the distribution of a word.

7 This does not mean that the primary narrator does not implicity make clear his judgement and feelings in various ways. Cf. Griffin, J., Homer on Life and Death (Oxford, 1980)Google Scholar, ch. 4, and Griffin, p. 38; de Jong, Narrators, ch. 3; Richardson, op. cit., pp. 140–66.

8 Cf. Bowra, C. M., Homer (London, 1972), p. 76Google Scholar; Suerbaum, p. 162, n. 21; Griffin, p.35; Clarke, H. W., The Art of the Odyssey (reprint, Bristol & Wauconda, 1989), p. 48.Google Scholar

9 Quotations are from the text of Allen, T. W. (Oxford, 2 1917).Google Scholar

10 See Lesky, A., Göttliche und menschliche Motivation im homerischen Epos (Heidelberg, 1961).Google Scholar

11 See for this question Jörgensen, O., ‘Das Auftreten der Götter in den Bücher ι–μ. der Odyssee’, Hermes 39 (1904), 357–82Google Scholar; de, Jong, Narrators, pp. 212–14Google Scholar; Friedrich, R., ‘Thrinakia and Zeus' Ways to Men in the Odyssey’, GRBS 28 (1987), 375–400Google Scholar; and Winterbottom, M., ‘Speaking of the Gods’, G&R 36 (1989), 33–41.Google Scholar

12 While Odysseus is enthusiastic about the possibilities for the economic exploitation of goat-island (cf. θανμζοντες in 153, the potential optatives in 131, 133, and 134–5, and the frequency of μλα in 133–5 (3 times in 3 verses)), the upshot of the description as a whole (which contains no less than 17 negations in 36 lines) is that the Cyclopes lack civilization (both in a material and in an immaterial sense). Rothe, C., Die Odyssee als Dichtung (Paderborn, 1914)Google Scholar has completely overlooked Odysseus' rhetorical strategy here: ‘Dies verschafft dem Dichter zunächst die Möglichkeit, Land, Sitten und Gewohnheiten der Kyklopen unauffällig zu schildern’ (my italics).

13 Cf. Ameis, K. F. & Hentze, C., Homers Odyssee (Leipzig, 13 1940)Google Scholar, and Heubeck.

14 Note that – impartial – Zeus had earlier referred to him as av ντθεον Πολϕημον (Od. 1.70).

15 Cf. Bergren, A., ‘Odyssean Temporality: Many (Re)Turns’ in Rubino, C. A. & Shelmerdine, C. W. (ed.), Approaches to Homer (Austin, 1983), pp. 38–77, pp. 46–7.Google Scholar

16 Cf. Stanford, W. B., The Odyssey of Homer (London, 2 1977)Google Scholar, ad loc.: ‘O. is unusually boastful in all this incident (cf. 281, 414, 475 ff., 502 ff., 525) presumably because it was the greatest triumph of his skill over tremendous physical force.’

17 Note that the whole Polites-episode (224–8) is not recorded by Eurylochus. Cf. Suerbaum, p. 155.

18 The variation between 231 and 313 – which is noted, but not discussed by Heubeck – is due to a difference in knowledge between Odysseus and the companions, not in ēthos, as Segal, C. suggests: ‘Circean Temptations’, TAPA 99 (1968), 419–2, p. 427.Google Scholar

19 See Race, W. H., The Classical Priamel from Homer to Boethius (Leiden, 1982), pp. 33–5.Google Scholar

20 Cf. Eisenberger, H., Studien zur Odyssee (Wiesbaden, 1973), p. 184Google Scholar. Heubeck has overlooked the rhetoric of Odysseus' presentation: ‘any chance of further contact is hindered by Od.’ θνμς’.

21 So Merry, W. W. & Riddell, J., Homer's Odyssey, i (Oxford, 1886), ad loc.Google Scholar

22 Heubeck's remark ad loc. ‘the grisly scene prompts Od. to a comparison with a scene from peaceful everyday life’, seems to miss the point. The simile does not stand in contrast to the context, but emphasizes, in a way similar to the fish comparison in 10.124, the horror of what is taking place. Odysseus' companions are helplessly caught by Scylla and then devoured. The sympathy in the simile lies with the fish (note the singular δόλον for ‘bait’ in 252 and θραζε in 254: the fish is thrown ‘outside’ its own element) rather than the fisherman.

23 Cf. also H. W. Nordheider in LfgrE s.v. κακς (B): κ. never means ‘schlecht = böse’.

24 For embedded focalization, see De, Jong, Narrators, pp. 34–5 and 101–48Google Scholar, Addendum, and ‘Narratology and Oral Poetry: the Case of Homer’, Poetics Today (forthcoming).

25 Heubeck considers it ‘merely a connective’ between two formulaic expressions.

26 Cf. M. Schmidt in the LfgrE, s.v. ρηρες*, ρηρος: ‘Trotz immanenter Kritik am Verhalten der ταροι ist das Beiwort . in μ 397 nicht bloß “formelhaft”, sonder Ausdruck der Trauer des erzählenden Odysseus um seine “Kameraden”.’

27 To the three passages mentioned in Addendum, p. 188 (Od. 1.134, 4.790, 20.12) should be added: Od. 13.373 and 14.27.

28 For a discussion of κρδος in Homer, see my paper in MH 44 (1987), 79–81Google Scholar, and Roisman, H. M. in ICS 15 (1991), 225–7.Google Scholar

29 Incorrectly Heubeck: ‘used only once in Homer’.

30 See Schmid, W. & Stählin, O., Geschichte der griechischen Literatur, i. 3 (Munich, 1961), p. 92Google Scholar, note 7, and De, Jong, Narrators, pp. x and 149.Google Scholar

31 Cf. e.g. Lintvelt, J., Essai de typologie narrative. Le ‘point de vue’ (Paris, 1981), p. 39Google Scholar: ‘La narration homodiégétique exclut…le type narratif neutre. Même si le personnage essaie de se limiter à un enregistrement pur et simple…, il s'agira néanmoins d'une perception individuelle’. For another (practical) demonstration of the subjectivity of first-person narration, see de Jong, I. J. F., Narrative in Drama. The Art of the Euripidean Messenger-speech (Leiden, 1991), ch. 2.Google Scholar

32 Other rhetorical devices are: his handling of time (see Bergren, op. cit.), and the structure of his story (see Most, G. W., ‘The Structure and Function of Odysseus' Apologoi’, TAPA 119 (1989), 15–30).Google Scholar

33 Ranging from the ancient scholiasts to Calvino, I. in La machine littérature – Essais (Paris, 1984), pp. 111–17Google Scholar. Contra Suerbaum, p. 175.