I'm surprised at how casually people talk about murdering other people. They practically brag about their intentions to kill people. I think this speaks to what happens when there is no functioning state. This society is ruled by warlords, essentially: there is no authority higher than the individual warlord on his estate, with his household of family and slaves. If he wants to kill somebody, who's going to stop him or punish him later?
So the suitors (elite men) and Odysseus and Telemachus (elite men) can plot to kill each other without much to worry about except whether the other party will kill them first.
This reminds me of something Jared Diamond wrote about in one of his books. I think it was "The World Until Yesterday." He says that in New Guinea, well into the 20th century, there were warring tribes more or less constantly at war, and people were even afraid to go outside to pee in the night lest they might be murdered by a neighboring group. An enormous number of people had arrow wounds or had died from them. But now New Guineans can go to the airport, for example, and not kill each other, because there is a state. It's a kind of miracle.
Thriller fans should be enjoying this. Our hero is literally in the midst of his enemies, and loved ones, disguised, hiding out as it were. Tension is high and violence feels inevitable to break out at any time. The set up feels so timeless.
Yes - what is Christopher Nolan going to do with this scene?!!
[Is there any way Stefania/APS might organise a group viewing of the movie when it comes out? Can you imagine the fun we'd all have dissecting it afterwards...]
“But now Antinous has wounded me because I came here hungry; hunger brings such suffering. “. Odysseus could have tested the suitors for loyalty in other ways. But Homer has chosen to present him as a beggar. I do like these chapters for highlighting the themes of kindness to strangers, the cost of hunger, the brutal treatment of outsiders and slaves—probably issues that resonated with audiences of that time.
Antinous is thoroughly detestable. The other suitors may not be as bad, some protest A's behavior, yet their guilt by continued association with this a**hole, along with their freeloading and indolence make the suitors as a group worthy of their comeuppance.
Ah yes, I just included a similar point, thinking first about Telemachus's statement to Odysseus that testing the men is a waste of time, and now Athena thinking it would even be futile to do so.
On some days, I follow along with the text—the 2020 Norton Library reprint in my case, and listen to the audiobook, which I assume is based on the 2018 first edition of Wilson's translation. Even then, there is the occasional revision or dropped line in the translation. For example, line 17.172 in my text refers to Medon as the "suitors' favorite herald", while the audiobook calls him their "favorite slave boy." It doesn't change the meter, but it sure is a different choice.
I know this was yesterday's reading, but poor old Argos. Perhaps because my beloved Rosie began life on the streets as a pup before she was rescued, I find the pain and loss of Odysseus's absence through Argos's eyes profoundly felt; his long suffering and innocence rewarded only by brief recognition and then death.
I’m reading Wilson daily, dipping occasionally into my copy of Fagles, and sometimes enjoying the superb audiobook of Fagles as read by Ian McKellen. He sounds just like Patrick Stewart. Such a treat.
I agree, it's very rewarding to have the ability to read while checking other translations, and also hearing the spoken text. Clare Danes does nice work performing the Wilson translation in my opinion, which is what I'm listening to from time to time.
although there are several passages that reveal an intent by the bard to identify Odysseus with the cause of the poor and the homeless and the enslaved ("if there are gods of the poor"....), I was a little surprised by Stefania's comment about Odysseus' antagonizing of Antinous, drawing him out into angry abuse of himself. When Odysseus and Telemachus were first plotting together, Odysseus had warned Telemachus that, if he saw his father being abused and suffering at the hands of the suitors, he should remain silent and not intervene. It doesn't seem like a ploy to appear somehow righteous in revenge (that has always been assumed to be a righteous cause), but rather one to play to the suitors' stereotypical vision of the old and beggarly, to set them up by feigning weakness. But then comes the scene of comic relief that starts Book 18, which comes close to giving away the ruse.
Oh, and I was further surprised by Stefania's reaction to Telemachus's sneeze, i.e. to be drawn into a closer feeling. I had quite the opposite reaction because Penelope's reaction to the sneeze reminded me that the ancients viewed a sneeze as an omen sent by the gods, an action that brought one close to death (which modern medical science proves true, I believe!)
I think it can be both things. Penelope herself says that the sneeze is an omen. At the same time, she has just finished talking about her desire for bloody vengeance, punctuated by a sneeze screaming around the house which makes her laugh. I mean, it's a visceral thing...could have been any bodily noise. ;)
I was struck by her considering it an omen too. And now that you say it was viewed as an action that brought one close to death, I am reminded of how many infections that are easily treatable now carried people off then, even those in their prime. A sneeze might be ominous indeed.
As Stefania raises in her notes, I'm wondering about Athena's lines:
"to find out which of them were bad or good— / although she had no thought of saving any / out of the massacre which was to come," which make me reconsider Telemachus's disagreement with his father in the previous book (16.311-315):
"I am tough. / But it would take too long to go around / and test each man like that, and all the while, / the suitors would be sitting in your house, / wasting your wealth with heedless partying."
They both suggest, implicitly or explicitly, to divine the guilt of men is a waste of time and/or futile. However, it is worthwhile to take the time to test each woman's loyalty (though Athena isn't the one to state this.) Therefore, does it mean that it may not be inevitable that all women suffer the coming violence and could be worthy of saving, but men are presumed to be guilty and deserving of their fate? I think the insufferable Antinous and his extreme rejection of xenia, further infuriating the gods I'm sure, underscores this. Even Odysseus's old friends are what we would consider accessories to the crimes committed here over the years. It might also suggest the power imbalance—the men are all guilty since they have the power to stop this pillaging, yet none have done. The women don't have this power, so must be allowed due process.
Hmmm… I think Telemachus was referring to the various herdsmen and farmers on Odysseus’s estates. The men feasting in the hall are already presumptively guilty.
Oh you're right. That turns my comment on its head somewhat. Though the question remains, why interrogate only the women? After all, Odysseus is looking to determine "who has respect / and fears me in his heart, and who does not, / and who looks up to you as you deserve." Perhaps Telemachus is urging calm or leniency, while Odysseus sees suspects everywhere.
isn't there a confusion in some of the comments between testing the suitors (some of whom may be "good" in the sense of being kind to beggars, though still "bad" for their behavior toward Penelope and/or silence about Antinous and the worst of them) and testing for their loyalty the "men" (i.e. the slaves, servants, men of the household, farmers, etc.) who would fight with and for Odysseus and Telemachus? This is two different groups of men I think, and two different purposes for the "test." But maybe I'm missing the various points. (Maybe a function of having read ahead, too -- biting my tongue to avoid spoilers regarding some ultimate fates.)
Might be a stretch but the power of classic works comes in part from their relevance to present issues. The suitors' behavior resonates with many aspects of our times- the sense of entitlement we perceive and dislike in some, the other-phobia exhibited by others and the increasing presence and tolerance of boorishness in public life. To what degree are we the "good" suitors?
Hitler's People ends with an epilogue about an Aryan German woman recounting her emigration to Denmark in response to the Nazi's treatment of her Jewish employer who had treated her kindly.
While emigration has been a topic of conversation in our social circles, the suitors did not have to make such a drastic choice; all they had to do was to go home and find another way of making a life.
The prevailing ethic in Odysseus' society seems to be take what you can until someone stops you. Penelope notes that the suitors "have untasted food and wine [in their homes], which their house slaves devour, while they are flocking to our house each day to slaughter oxen, sheep, and goats, to feast and drink our wine with no restraint...There is no man here like Odysseus, who could defend the house." But in the meantime, their servants, left to their own devices, are presumably feasting at their expense. There are the gods and the laws of hospitality, but the gods' rewards and punishments are so erratic that they don't necessarily amount to encouragement or deterrent. Fear/respect for the gods is not universal.
The suitors' method of courtship is so unappealing. I wonder if they started out more respectfully and over time resorted to aggressive insistence, as she continued to refuse all. How could she bear to choose any of them now? Of course, marriage wasn't so much about affection or attraction then, and whomever she chooses (in that hypothetical) would immediately acquire the responsibility of defending this house. The others would become his enemies and might not automatically retreat. And yet, no one seems to want to give up.
Meanwhile, as Jesus, noted, the poor are always with us/them/everyone. "Do we not have already plenty of homeless people coming here to spoil our feasts?" Antinous' awful jeer is telling indeed. There is much want.
I'm surprised at how casually people talk about murdering other people. They practically brag about their intentions to kill people. I think this speaks to what happens when there is no functioning state. This society is ruled by warlords, essentially: there is no authority higher than the individual warlord on his estate, with his household of family and slaves. If he wants to kill somebody, who's going to stop him or punish him later?
So the suitors (elite men) and Odysseus and Telemachus (elite men) can plot to kill each other without much to worry about except whether the other party will kill them first.
This reminds me of something Jared Diamond wrote about in one of his books. I think it was "The World Until Yesterday." He says that in New Guinea, well into the 20th century, there were warring tribes more or less constantly at war, and people were even afraid to go outside to pee in the night lest they might be murdered by a neighboring group. An enormous number of people had arrow wounds or had died from them. But now New Guineans can go to the airport, for example, and not kill each other, because there is a state. It's a kind of miracle.
Thriller fans should be enjoying this. Our hero is literally in the midst of his enemies, and loved ones, disguised, hiding out as it were. Tension is high and violence feels inevitable to break out at any time. The set up feels so timeless.
Yes - what is Christopher Nolan going to do with this scene?!!
[Is there any way Stefania/APS might organise a group viewing of the movie when it comes out? Can you imagine the fun we'd all have dissecting it afterwards...]
“But now Antinous has wounded me because I came here hungry; hunger brings such suffering. “. Odysseus could have tested the suitors for loyalty in other ways. But Homer has chosen to present him as a beggar. I do like these chapters for highlighting the themes of kindness to strangers, the cost of hunger, the brutal treatment of outsiders and slaves—probably issues that resonated with audiences of that time.
Not to mention setting the suitors up for their comeuppance.
... and still resonates today.
Antinous is thoroughly detestable. The other suitors may not be as bad, some protest A's behavior, yet their guilt by continued association with this a**hole, along with their freeloading and indolence make the suitors as a group worthy of their comeuppance.
and yet the greater opprobrium is reserved for the large majority who sat around, watched, and said or did nothing. Properly
Ah yes, I just included a similar point, thinking first about Telemachus's statement to Odysseus that testing the men is a waste of time, and now Athena thinking it would even be futile to do so.
On some days, I follow along with the text—the 2020 Norton Library reprint in my case, and listen to the audiobook, which I assume is based on the 2018 first edition of Wilson's translation. Even then, there is the occasional revision or dropped line in the translation. For example, line 17.172 in my text refers to Medon as the "suitors' favorite herald", while the audiobook calls him their "favorite slave boy." It doesn't change the meter, but it sure is a different choice.
I know this was yesterday's reading, but poor old Argos. Perhaps because my beloved Rosie began life on the streets as a pup before she was rescued, I find the pain and loss of Odysseus's absence through Argos's eyes profoundly felt; his long suffering and innocence rewarded only by brief recognition and then death.
I’m reading Wilson daily, dipping occasionally into my copy of Fagles, and sometimes enjoying the superb audiobook of Fagles as read by Ian McKellen. He sounds just like Patrick Stewart. Such a treat.
I agree, it's very rewarding to have the ability to read while checking other translations, and also hearing the spoken text. Clare Danes does nice work performing the Wilson translation in my opinion, which is what I'm listening to from time to time.
Beowulf, read by Seamus Heaney! Kind of off topic, but wonderful.
Wow, I'll check that out.
although there are several passages that reveal an intent by the bard to identify Odysseus with the cause of the poor and the homeless and the enslaved ("if there are gods of the poor"....), I was a little surprised by Stefania's comment about Odysseus' antagonizing of Antinous, drawing him out into angry abuse of himself. When Odysseus and Telemachus were first plotting together, Odysseus had warned Telemachus that, if he saw his father being abused and suffering at the hands of the suitors, he should remain silent and not intervene. It doesn't seem like a ploy to appear somehow righteous in revenge (that has always been assumed to be a righteous cause), but rather one to play to the suitors' stereotypical vision of the old and beggarly, to set them up by feigning weakness. But then comes the scene of comic relief that starts Book 18, which comes close to giving away the ruse.
Oh, and I was further surprised by Stefania's reaction to Telemachus's sneeze, i.e. to be drawn into a closer feeling. I had quite the opposite reaction because Penelope's reaction to the sneeze reminded me that the ancients viewed a sneeze as an omen sent by the gods, an action that brought one close to death (which modern medical science proves true, I believe!)
I think it can be both things. Penelope herself says that the sneeze is an omen. At the same time, she has just finished talking about her desire for bloody vengeance, punctuated by a sneeze screaming around the house which makes her laugh. I mean, it's a visceral thing...could have been any bodily noise. ;)
I loved the sneeze. A bit of comic relief.
I was struck by her considering it an omen too. And now that you say it was viewed as an action that brought one close to death, I am reminded of how many infections that are easily treatable now carried people off then, even those in their prime. A sneeze might be ominous indeed.
As Stefania raises in her notes, I'm wondering about Athena's lines:
"to find out which of them were bad or good— / although she had no thought of saving any / out of the massacre which was to come," which make me reconsider Telemachus's disagreement with his father in the previous book (16.311-315):
"I am tough. / But it would take too long to go around / and test each man like that, and all the while, / the suitors would be sitting in your house, / wasting your wealth with heedless partying."
They both suggest, implicitly or explicitly, to divine the guilt of men is a waste of time and/or futile. However, it is worthwhile to take the time to test each woman's loyalty (though Athena isn't the one to state this.) Therefore, does it mean that it may not be inevitable that all women suffer the coming violence and could be worthy of saving, but men are presumed to be guilty and deserving of their fate? I think the insufferable Antinous and his extreme rejection of xenia, further infuriating the gods I'm sure, underscores this. Even Odysseus's old friends are what we would consider accessories to the crimes committed here over the years. It might also suggest the power imbalance—the men are all guilty since they have the power to stop this pillaging, yet none have done. The women don't have this power, so must be allowed due process.
Hmmm… I think Telemachus was referring to the various herdsmen and farmers on Odysseus’s estates. The men feasting in the hall are already presumptively guilty.
Oh you're right. That turns my comment on its head somewhat. Though the question remains, why interrogate only the women? After all, Odysseus is looking to determine "who has respect / and fears me in his heart, and who does not, / and who looks up to you as you deserve." Perhaps Telemachus is urging calm or leniency, while Odysseus sees suspects everywhere.
isn't there a confusion in some of the comments between testing the suitors (some of whom may be "good" in the sense of being kind to beggars, though still "bad" for their behavior toward Penelope and/or silence about Antinous and the worst of them) and testing for their loyalty the "men" (i.e. the slaves, servants, men of the household, farmers, etc.) who would fight with and for Odysseus and Telemachus? This is two different groups of men I think, and two different purposes for the "test." But maybe I'm missing the various points. (Maybe a function of having read ahead, too -- biting my tongue to avoid spoilers regarding some ultimate fates.)
For my part, my comment relates not to male servants, but to the suitors, some of whom are described as old friends of Odysseus.
I also thought it referred to the slaves et al.
I did as well … the men Telemachus doesn’t want to take the time to check are workers in the fields… slaves, probably.
My comment, yes...my mistake. However, it still seems fine to take time to question the women, so, why, I wonder.
Might be a stretch but the power of classic works comes in part from their relevance to present issues. The suitors' behavior resonates with many aspects of our times- the sense of entitlement we perceive and dislike in some, the other-phobia exhibited by others and the increasing presence and tolerance of boorishness in public life. To what degree are we the "good" suitors?
Hitler's People ends with an epilogue about an Aryan German woman recounting her emigration to Denmark in response to the Nazi's treatment of her Jewish employer who had treated her kindly.
While emigration has been a topic of conversation in our social circles, the suitors did not have to make such a drastic choice; all they had to do was to go home and find another way of making a life.
Two distinctly different evocations of dawn:
"... newborn Dawn appeared with hands of flowers."
"... come back at dawn with animals for meat."
And, Eumaeus "went back (once again) to his pigs ..."
The prevailing ethic in Odysseus' society seems to be take what you can until someone stops you. Penelope notes that the suitors "have untasted food and wine [in their homes], which their house slaves devour, while they are flocking to our house each day to slaughter oxen, sheep, and goats, to feast and drink our wine with no restraint...There is no man here like Odysseus, who could defend the house." But in the meantime, their servants, left to their own devices, are presumably feasting at their expense. There are the gods and the laws of hospitality, but the gods' rewards and punishments are so erratic that they don't necessarily amount to encouragement or deterrent. Fear/respect for the gods is not universal.
The suitors' method of courtship is so unappealing. I wonder if they started out more respectfully and over time resorted to aggressive insistence, as she continued to refuse all. How could she bear to choose any of them now? Of course, marriage wasn't so much about affection or attraction then, and whomever she chooses (in that hypothetical) would immediately acquire the responsibility of defending this house. The others would become his enemies and might not automatically retreat. And yet, no one seems to want to give up.
Meanwhile, as Jesus, noted, the poor are always with us/them/everyone. "Do we not have already plenty of homeless people coming here to spoil our feasts?" Antinous' awful jeer is telling indeed. There is much want.