Literature Humanities 07-08

The Gods' Hearts

In book I of the Odyssey, Zeus counsels the Olympians with the words “Oh for shame, how the mortals put the blame upon us gods, for they say evils come from us, but it is they, rather, who by their own recklessness win sorrow beyond what is given” (I, 32-34). I find it odd not only that this is the king of Olympos admitting he is not omnipotent, but also that humans are responsible for their own actions. The gods begin to appear fallible, as “the heart in me [Athena] is torn” (I, 48), or when she asks Zeus “is the heart in you heedless?” (I, 60). The Olympians are beginning to show emotion beyond their typical petulance. On the first page of the Odyssey, “all the gods pitied him” (I, 16), the gods pitied Odysseus, as if there was nothing they could do to assist him, and when they did assist him it took them over ten years to set things as Odysseus desired. Even the mortals referred to as godlike, such as “godlike Telemachos sat...his heart deep grieving within him” (I, 113-114). This could be the repercussions of the Trojan war on the Gods, a case of the “what ifs”, the immortals started questioning their own divine plans, and realized that all they do is not perfect. Almost as if reading between the lines of the Odyssey relays the trials of the gods reflected upon Odysseus. Why would Homer choose to anthropomorphize the Olympians, and raise the humans like Odysseus and Telemachos to a “godlike” status?

-Tyler

Rethinking the Telemachia

Many characters in Homer’s works do not evolve over the course of
the story. However, in the Iliad, Telemachos begins to mature into
a man.

Telemachos first displays qualities of a strong, confident leader in
Book 1 when he addresses his mother. “Go therefore back in the
house, […] but the men must see to discussion, all men, but I most
of all. For mine is the power in this household” (I.356-359).
Telemachos gives an order to his mother in an authoritative tone
and relays to her and the suitors that he is a man and he is in
control of the house.

Nonetheless, in Book 2, Homer includes a passage in which Telemachos
exhibits qualities that contradict the maturity expressed earlier.
In his speech to the suitors, Telemachos says, “But now you are
heaping me with troubles I cannot deal with” (II.79) Then, he
“dashed to the ground the scepter in a stormburst of tears”
(II.80-81). The suitor issue is too much for this young, immature
Telemachos to handle who cries in frustration at his inability to
rid his household of pesky guests.

Why does Homer choose to show the two contradictory sides of
Telemachos’ personality? Perhaps it is to convey to the reader that
Telemachos has the potential to be a superb leader but is still
young and has not fully developed his leadership abilities. Perhaps
it is the case of the unreliable narrator or another reason
entirely.

Later in the book, Telemachos once again seems like a leader and is
even likened to his father for his looks and reasoning. One has to
ponder why Homer chooses to develop Telemachos instead of Odysseus
or another character. Why does The Odyssey begin with detailed
stories of Telemachos and his journeys? Does the inclusion of
Telemachos’ adventures detract from or enhance the story? Was this
section a part of the original version of The Odyssey?

-Jennifer

Pacts between Gods and Men?

Men as well as the Gods submit to a universal honor code. When
Polyphemos eats Odysseus’ men, he violates the guest-host
relationship.  After he blinds the cyclops and escapes to his ship,
Odysseus says:

“Cyclops…your evil deeds were to catch up with you, and be too
strong for you, hard one, who dared to eat your own guests in your
own house, so Zeus and the rest of the gods have punished you” (IX.
475-479)

The Gods allow Odysseus to blind Polyphemos because of his
dishonorable display of xenia.  The Olympians permit men to seek
revenge to restore their honor; however, Odysseus displays hubris
when he continues to insult Polyphemos: “I only wish it were
certain I could make you reft of spirit and life, and send you to
the house of Hades, as it is certain that not even the Shaker of
the Earth will ever heal your eye for you” (IX. 523-525).  Reckless
action on Odysseus’ part challenges Poseidon’s honor. As
Polyphemos’s father, Poseidon has a responsibility to protect his
offspring and their honor.  Since the blinded cyclops is unable to
achieve vengeance on his own behalf, Poseidon punishes Odysseus for
violating Polyphemos’ honor.  Zeus explains Poseidon’s position on
Odysseus: “For his [son’s] sake Poseidon, shaker of the earth,
although he does not kill Odysseus, yet drives him back from the
land of his fathers” (IX. 74-75).  Poseidon must make an example of
Odysseus or risk a loss of face for him among both Gods and men. 
When one fails to protect one’s honor, one loses his power and
legitimacy.  Rather pragmatically, although the other Gods do not
want to prevent Poseidon’s proper pursuit of revenge, they need to
find a compromise with Poseidon because they need Odysseus alive to
defeat the suitors and become a hero for mankind to admire. Could it
be that the Gods respect honor debts among men as much as those
among Gods?

--Eric R. 

Kleos, Evolution, and the Meaning of It All

The search for kleos presents itself as an omnipresent theme in Greek classical literature and, although it seems a bit superficial, can be understood when taking into account the powerful human desire for social acceptance, which is deeply rooted in our evolutionary past. A passage I found especially interesting regarding kleos was Telemachos’ conversation with Athene (I.234-240), in which he selfishly states how he would have preferred that his father died in the war, displaying the most glorious form of kleos for himself as well as for Telemachos, instead of just disappearing without a trace and leaving Telemachos in a state of pain and ambiguity. Although I could sympathize with Telemachos’ predicament, what I could not understand upon my first reading of this passage was how Telemachos could wish death upon his father for any reason. To say such a thing in society today would constitute unofficial heresy. However, after thinking more about this matter and about the evolutionarily adaptive reasons for selfish behavior, it became clearer to me why Telemachos could have thought this way.

 

Human nature is essentially the way it has been for thousands of years; I feel that the only thing keeping us from acting out some of our baser impulses and desires today is the development of moral enlightenment, which comes with time and intellectual progress. Therefore, Telemachos’ statement may seem unbelievably cruel to us at first, but upon closer examination, we may realize that his words have much relevance to us, but that we are often too proud to acknowledge the somewhat crude evolutionary origins of our humanity.

 

With that being said:

 

1. How do we derive meaning from a world that can be persuasively (and often depressingly) explained by the selfish mechanism of evolution?

 

2. In comparison to Homer’s time, do you feel that glory (or popularity, fame, etc) in our society is just as dominating an influence, or do you think that time and enlightenment have served to diminish this influence?

 

-Christine