The audience expects: Odysseus and Penelope

© 2012 Koninklijke Brill NV ISBN 978 90 04 21774 4

Orality, Literacyand Performance inthe Ancient World

Orality and Literacy in the Ancient World, vol. 9

Edited by

Elizabeth Minchin

LEIDEN • BOSTON2012


CONTENTS

Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . viiNotes on Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ixIntroduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xi

Elizabeth Minchin

PART I

POETRY IN PERFORMANCE

The Audience Expects: Penelope and Odysseus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3Adrian Kelly

The Presentation of Song in Homer’s Odyssey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25Deborah Beck

Comparative Perspectives on the Composition of the HomericSimile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55Jonathan Ready

Composing Lines, Performing Acts: Clauses, Discourse Acts, andMelodic Units in a South Slavic Epic Song . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89Anna Bonifazi and David F. Elmer

Works and Days As Performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111Ruth Scodel

PART II

LITERACY AND ORALITY

Empowering the Sacred: The Function of the Sanskrit Text in aContemporary Exposition of the Bhagavatapura .na . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129McComas Taylor

Prompts for Participation in Early Philosophical Texts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151James Henderson Collins II

Performing an Academic Talk: Proclus on Hesiod’sWorks and Days 183Patrizia Marzillo


vi contents

The Criticism—and the Practice—of Literacy in the AncientPhilosophical Tradition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 201Mathilde Cambron-Goulet

Reading Books, Talking Culture: The Performance of Paideia inImperial Greek Literature. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 227Jeroen Lauwers

Eumolpus Poeta at Work: Rehearsed Spontaneity in the Satyricon . . 245Niall W. Slater

Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 265


THE AUDIENCE EXPECTS:PENELOPE ANDODYSSEUS*

Adrian Kelly

Abstract

The relationship between composition and performance lies at the heart ofHomeric poetics, for scholars have long understood that the moment of perfor-mance is crucial for the generation, indeed realisation, of early Greek oral tradi-tional epic.This paper proposes to analyse the recognition sequence(s) betweenOdysseus and Penelope in Odyssey from this perspective, arguing that theepisode can only fully be understood by recapturing the narrative’s performa-tive strategies: that is, those strategies designed to engage the attention of anaudience specifically at the moment of performance.

I propose to elucidate this dynamism, for want of a better term, by settingout the structural ‘grammar’ underlying the construction of the scene, and thenshowing how the poet manipulates his audience’s familiarity with that grammarin order to create uncertainty, excitement and meaning, to direct, misdirectand control their response, and on the smallest scales of narrative. When weappreciate the presence and pervasiveness of this interaction, not only can wefeel the poetry’s immediacy and vividness in a manner like that enjoyed by anArchaic Greek audience, but we can also apply amore nuanced understanding ofHomeric technique to textual and scholarly zetemata, as with the famous (andso-called) ‘interruption’ to the recognition sequence (–) in the currentexample.

Aside from these two advantages, the demonstration of such a specifically‘orally-derived’ strategy can only help further to illustrate the origin of Homer’saesthetic within a tradition of recomposition in performance, and so the inter-dependence of the conference’s twin themes.

This paper subscribes to an ‘oralist’ model of Homeric interpretation, onethat seeks to understand the many ways in which the oral background to

* I would like to thank, firstly, Elizabeth Minchin for both her assistance with thisarticle and for organising the Orality and Literacy IX conference at which the paper onwhich it was based was presented, and Christopher Ransom for reading that paper inmy enforced absence. I would also like to thank Ruth Scodel and Deborah Beck for theirstimulating comments and questions. Thanks, too, to Chris Pelling and Bruno Currie, atwhose seminar in Oxford in Michaelmas Term the material underlying this articlewas first presented, and also to the audience at that seminar for their questions, doubtsand discussion. Sophie Gibson and Bill Allan very kindly read both the paper and thisarticle, and improved both—as always—tremendously.


adrian kelly

the Iliad andOdyssey should be factored into our readings of, and interac-tions with, these texts. For such a perspective and, indeed, for the themeof this volume, the relationship between the terms ‘composition’ and‘performance’—usually, for Homerists, enshrined in the phrase ‘recom-position in performance’—is of central importance, but these are all con-ceptswhich seem to be under assault inmuch contemporary scholarship.The Trends in Classics conference inThessaloniki, for example, wit-nessed a large number of participants who either did not believe in theutility of these notions, or would invoke them only in order to get themout of the way as soon as possible.1 Several of my own colleagues fromOxford seem to think that orality is a hindrance to the proper businessof scholarship,2 and if someone of Douglas Cairns’ standing can writethat

the onus is now on oralists to demonstrate that there is any significant wayin which the status of the Iliad as an oral-derived text precludes or limitsthe application of familiar interpretative strategies3

then we have a problem—or perhaps a challenge. And that is to demon-strate to an increasingly sceptical audience the continuing relevanceof composition and performance to an understanding of Archaic epicpoetry. In this paper I intend to affirm the importance of this relation-ship—and for both the textual and ‘higher’ criticism of the Homericpoems. I hope to show that the starting point for any interaction withHomermust be the fact that his style evolved specifically in order to dealwith, and react to, the presence of an informed audience at the momentof creation.

Of course, we cannot say with absolute certainty that Homer himselfwas dealing with such an audience when he came to compose the poemswe know under his name; that is an unknown, as indeed is the very pro-cess by which the Iliad and Odyssey came into being. As far as possi-ble, therefore, we should avoid basing the method on such easily under-

1 Entitled ‘Homer in the st century: Orality, Neoanalysis, Interpretation’, its pro-ceedings are to be published (edited by the organisers Antonios Rengakos and ChristosTsagalis) by de Gruyter in .

2 For instance, West (: ) wants “to shake the oralists off our backs”, whilstCurrie () places literary dynamics (allusion, intertextuality) at the heart of hisinvestigation into Homer’s epic context.

3 Cairns (: ). Such scepticism is not uncommon; Lateiner (: ) speaksslightingly of “bean-counting, Parryistical scholarship” whilst Dowden (: ) con-siders the question of ‘interaction’ between Homeric and other early poetry as “an issuewhich has been obscured by scholarly discourse in terms of oral poetics.”


the audience expects: penelope and odysseus

minable predicates. But scholarship since (indeed before) Milman Parryhas shown thatHomer’s style, the stuff of his poetry, originatedwithin thecontext of recomposition in performance.When we understand that, wecome as close as we ever will to experiencing the contour of Homericnarrative, to understanding its structure and its direction, and thus to anappreciation of its dynamism.

To this end, this paper will examine the recognition scene betweenPenelope and Odysseus inOdyssey , partly because Aristotle famouslycharacterised the entire poem as complex on the grounds that it contains“recognition throughout”,4 but mostly because this example is, as Nor-man Austin saw, “the great recognition scene of the poem”.5 If the studyof typicality—one of the characteristic concerns of oralist scholarship—has any interpretative pay-off, then it should be particularly visible here.Accordingly, this paper will try to show how the poet manipulates thestructural ‘grammar’ of that typical sequence in order to create uncer-tainty, excitement and meaning for his audience as they experience thenarrative.

An important factor in the process was the fact that Homer’s audi-ence was not composed of first-timers: they knew that Odysseus wouldbe recognised by Penelope, and they were—to varying degrees—familiarwith the theme of recognition itself as a traditional narrative sequence.When we factor in the presence and pervasiveness of the interactionbetween the poet and this group, not only can we feel the narrative’simmediacy and vividness in the same way as an Archaic Greek audi-ence, but we can also apply a more informed understanding of Home-ric technique to textual and scholarly zetemata, in this case with regardto the famous (and so-called) ‘interruption’ to the recognition sequence

4 Poetics b: κα� γ�ρ τν π�ιημ�των �κ�τερ�ν συν�στηκεν � μ�ν �Ιλι�ς �πλ��νκα� πα�ητικ�ν, � δ� �!δ"σσεια πεπλεγμ�ν�ν (#ναγν$ρισις γ�ρ δι�λ�υ) κα� %�ικ&.

5 Austin (: ). There have been, unsurprisingly, many studies of this scene; cf.Kirchhoff (: –); Blass (: –); Wilamowitz-Moellendorff (: –); Hölscher (: –); von derMühll (: –, esp. ); Focke (: –); Page (: –); Armstrong (: –); Schadewaldt ( [= ()]:–); Besslich (: –); Bona (: –); Müller (: –); Merkel-bach (: –, –); Kakridis (: – esp. f.); Erbse (: –); Eisenberger (: –); Fenik (: – but esp. –, –); Emlyn-Jones (: –, – (= () –, –); Murnaghan (: –, –); Hölscher (: –); Katz (: –); Goldhill (: –, esp. ff.);Schwinge (: –); Danek (: –); Foley (: –); de Jong(: –); Heitman (: –); Minchin (: –). For further bib-liography, cf. Heubeck (: –).


adrian kelly

(–).6 In combining these two aims—literary and text-critical(though I shall place much of my emphasis on the latter, especially asthe paper proceeds)—Ihope to demonstrate that an oralist interpretationis not only useful, but fundamental to an informed reading of Home-ric poetry. It does not ‘preclude or limit’ the interpretative strategies towhich Douglas Cairns wishes us to return; on the contrary, it helps tomake them better.7

From a certain—admittedly somewhat boyish—point of view, the open-ing of Book comes after all the exciting stuff: Odysseus’ reception intohis own household, the battle with the suitors, retribution against the dis-loyal members of that household, and so on. The first -odd versesof this book do, nonetheless, describe a series of memorable scenes.Firstly, Eurykleia fetches a disbelieving Penelope from her bedroom (–); then there is the initial encounter between blood-stained husbandand rather taciturn wife, during which Telemakhos rebukes his motherfor not recognising Odysseus (–a); this is followed by an interrup-tion or digression (apparently) from the recognition process in whichOdysseus and Telemakhos take thought for what they should do now(b–a); followed in turn by the carrying out of their deliberations(b–), Odysseus’ bath (–), and finally the resumption ofthe recognition process in which Odysseus rebukes Penelope before shetricks him with the riddle of their bed (–).

In coming to grips with this narrative, a first step is to remember thatthe summoning of Penelope, and so the beginning of the recognition, isalready motivated by the instructions which Odysseus gave before theend of the preceding book, where he told Eurykleia to fetch Penelopeand her servant women (.–) and then the rest of the householdmaids (). In a rather pleasant chiastic arrangement, the latter groupis fetched first and they immediately recognise Odysseus and greet him(–). Consider the arrangement as follows:

6 On the precise parameters of this passage, see below, n. .7 As Foley (: n. ) notes, “the kind of approach Griffin champions and the

perspective from oral tradition are not wholly incompatible and in fact overlap andreinforce one another at many points, and . . . traditional referentiality adds significantlyto (rather than detracts from ormars) what we customarily think of as the literary qualityof the Homeric epics and other oral-derived works”; cf. also Kelly (b: –) forthe same approach with regard to textual criticism.



A Odysseus orders Eurykleia to get Penelope and her servants (.–)B Odysseus orders Eurykleia to get the other serving women ()B Eurykleia gets the others; they immediately recognise Odysseus

(–)A Eurykleia gets Penelope; she (finally) recognises Odysseus (.– and

ff.)

The much larger and more important fetching of Penelope and herrecognition of her husband (A) will take up the first several hundredverses of Book , andundergo prolonged retardation, butwill eventuallyreach the same goal.8 Penelope, as we shall see, will not be so easy topersuade, and the structural disparity here throws tremendous emphasisboth on the coming episode and specifically her role within the narrative.But what it does not do is suggest any doubt about the eventual successof the process: the audience’s expectations are at every stage cushionedby the poet’s structural intimations, within which he strives to achievehis effects.9 However, these effects are clear not just from the individualor actual patterns and comparisons, within the narrative, to which thepoet seeks to draw his audience’s attention as the performance proceeds.There is also a more abstract level of composition, the typical, in whichan independent sequence, with its own associations and meaning, maybe generated andmanipulated within the narrative.This is not to say thatthe two strategies of communicating meaning—specific and generic—are unrelated; for every typical pattern is also an individual scene, withits own semantic relationships to the context, to other scenes and to thegeneral demands of the performance.

. Eurykleia and Penelope (.–)

Asmentioned above, the typical pattern evident in Book is the recog-nition scene,10 which occurs several times throughout the Odyssey but

8 As Foley (: ) says: “But against that background and that certainty . . .Homer and his tradition create actions and relationships peculiar to these characters,this place, this singular story”; cf. also Schwinge (: ).

9 Felson-Rubin (: passim but esp. n. ) sees the poem’s hints about otheroutcomes as a suggestion of uncertainty about Penelope’s constancy; cf. also Katz (:–). But these hints need imply no such thing, any more than the many parallelsbetween Odysseus’ nostos and Agamemnon’s suggest uncertainty about the former’seventual success; contra Olson ().

10 Cf. esp. Emlyn-Jones () = () and Gainsford () for studies of thestructure of these scenes.


adrian kelly

nowhere elsewith the same fullness or complexity.This becomes particu-larly clear when we apply a range of the current schemata to the openingexchange between Eurykleia and Penelope, for we see that this passagecontains almost every element possible in the sequence, and in an appar-ently jumbled order (as set out in the diagram below):

Emlyn-Gainsford11 Jones12

– Eurykleia reveals (~ foretells) Od.’s presence R – Penelope denies its truth R, R – Eurykleia repeats Od.’s presence, and gives

evidenceR, R

– Penelope swoons in joy (and disbelief) R (R*) – Eurykleia repeats Od.’s presence (again) R – Penelope wishes it were true; asserts Od. is

deadR–R

– Eurykleia repeats Od.’s presence, givesevidence, swears oath

R, R, R

–a Penelope expresses caution and determinationto see

(R) ()

But the impression of randomness, at least, is deceptive, and gives thelie (for example) to Irene de Jong’s claim that the “conversation has noformalized structure”.13 In fact, the poet has generated two consecutivesequences of recognition, leading from the initial breaking of the newsall the way to the acceptance or denial of its truth (as below):

11 Sigla (Gainsford [: –]), from the Recognition ‘move’ of the recognitionsequence (the other three being Testing, Deception, Foretelling): (R) the protagonist’sappearance is enhanced by Athene, thus adding impact to his revelation (often involvinga bath); (R) the protagonist reveals him/herself; (R) the addressee expresses disbelief;(R): the addressee wishes it were true; (R) the addressee asserts that Odysseus is dead;(R) the protagonist is willing to swear an oath that Odysseus has returned; (R) theaddressee requests evidence; (R) the protagonist gives evidence; (R) joy and weepingat recognition.

12 Sigla (Emlyn-Jones [: – (= [: –])]): () Odysseus in disguise; ()A conversation in which Odysseus is pressed for his identity, in reply to which he tellsa false story in which he claims to have seen Odysseus on his travels and predicts hisearly return. The other speaker refers frequently in conversation to Odysseus, usuallyintroducing the topic very shortly after him; () Odysseus tests the other’s loyalty; thetest is passed (or, in the case of the suitors and disloyal servants, failed); () Odysseusreveals himself; () The other refuses to believe; () Odysseus gives a sign (σ'μα) as aproof of identity; () Final recognition, accompanied by great emotion on both sides; ()‘On to business’.

13 de Jong (: ).



A Eurykleia states Od.’s presence (–)B Penelope denies it (–)C Eurykleia offers proof (–)D Penelope swoons/hesitates (–/–)A Eurykleia states Od.’s presence (–)B Penelope denies it (–)C Eurykleia offers proof (–)D Penelope non-committal (–)

Each of these sequences is begun (A) by a firm statement from Eurykleiaof Odysseus’ return (– | –), which is then followed (B) by anequally firm denial of its possibility from Penelope (– | –). To aresponse (C) in which Eurykleia offers proof of its truth (– | –),we see contrasting reactions (D): in the first sequence an initial swoon ofjoy (–) is followed by a question of disbelief (‘how did he kill all thesuitors?’ –: a source of wonderment to Odysseus himself when hewas planning it at the start of Book [–]), in the second Penelopehas now become much more restrained after her initial unguarded (butswiftly qualified) reaction, and expresses simply her determination to goand see (–a).

In other words, we have two complete—but frustrated—recognitionsequences, arranged one after the other in a doublet.14 Note the dynamicuse of this traditional structure, as the poet tempts his audience twiceinto thinking that the actual recognition is going to happen now, that is,away from Odysseus himself.15 This dynamism, and the excitement anduncertainty it produces in the verymoment of experiencing thenarrative,is vitally important to a proper appreciation of the poet’s artistry inthis scene. We have become used to reading a very still Odyssey; butancient audiences, or at least the really early ones who formed one sideof the performance, would have experienced this and similar narrativesorally, or more accurately aurally, in performance. For such a group,familiar with the stories as well their manner of telling, the poet’s carefulconstruction enlivens the unrolling of the narrative as it gets to whereeveryone knows it has to go: the happy reunion of husband and wife.However, at the start of Book Homer seems to be about to end the

14 Cf. Schadewaldt (: – [= (: –)]); Besslich (: ); Erbse (:); Hölscher (: –); Katz (: –); Schwinge (: –); Danek(: –).

15 Katz (: –) pairs this with the displacement, once again involving Euryk-leia, of the foot-washing scene in Book ; cf. also Schwinge (: –).


adrian kelly

recognition too soon, away fromOdysseus, and so he carries his audienceright to the brink of recognition only to draw back from completing thesequence at the last moment.

Aside from the inherent interest in creating and then diffusing narra-tive expectations, the fact of displacement puts great emphasis on Pene-lope’s role within the recognition process to be played out with Odysseus,and in several respects. Firstly, it is generally Odysseus who controls themoment and manner of his revelations on Ithaca: he chooses when toreveal himself to Eumaios and Philoitios in Book , to Telemakhos inBook (with some prompting fromAthene), and to Laertes in Book .Eurykleia’s fondling of the scar (.–) is a useful countercase,for once again here in Book she is involved in pre-empting him(and we might remember similar anticipation of his disguise in Helen’sstory .–).16 This reversal necessitates another, in that Penelope isunique in the Odyssey’s reception scenes in being brought to Odysseus(.–f.): usually Odysseus comes to others (taking Philoitios andEumaios outside in Book , coming back into the hut to Telemakhos inBook , going to Laertes’ orchard in Book , and returning to Penelopeafter his bath at .–). Whatever it may say of gender relationshipsin the poem, this certainly goes to show that our particular recognitionscene is constructed—initially at least—from her viewpoint; it is, to usean exceedingly well-worn term,17 focalised from Penelope’s perspective.

So this introductory displacement gives the poet the opportunity tofocus on Penelope’s motivations and worries well before the decisiveencounter.18 Her individuality in these terms is furthered by the con-comitant failure, for instance, of the typical token (invoked by Eurykeia at.–), which is elsewhere always directly offered and then accepted:Athene describes or reveals Ithaka to Odysseus (.–); Odysseusexplains Athene’s wiles to Telemakhos, who seems at that point unwill-ing to credit his father’s return (.–); Eurykleia feels Odysseus’scar (.–); Odysseus shows the scar to Philoitios and Eumaios(.–) and Laertes (.–).19 The scar may have been seen

16 It is noticeable that female figures are frequently involved in this type of anticipation,presenting to my mind rather well the anxiety about female fidelity which the nostospattern particularly poses; cf. Foley (: –); Bonifazi () on the pattern ingeneral.

17 For recent caution about the overuse of this term, cf. Nünlist ().18 Cf. van der Valk (: –).19 Compare the way in which Odysseus as the stranger tries to provide a token in his

description of Odysseus’ clothes and companions (.–); cf. de Jong (: ).



by, exhibited to and accepted by Eurykleia and the rest of the household,but not yet by itsmistress: shewill not simply be presentedwith the reportof tokens for her passively to accept.20

Her status is also reinforced by the doublet, for it throws great empha-sis on the question of its successful fulfilment, as Penelope is presentedprogressively with well nigh every conceivable recognition element, andalmost gives in at the end of the first sequence before checking her reac-tion. This heaping up of typical elements, which elsewhere do lead torecognition, stresses even more the fact that she is the one to reject theirintimation at the final step of the second sequence.

. Penelope and Odysseus

That Book opens with a doublet recognition should, therefore,make itless of a surprise when I contend that the next part of the narrative—theactual recognition between Odysseus and Penelope—is also constructedas a doublet connected by the so-called ‘digression’ or ‘interruption’(–). In this passage Odysseus turns aside from Penelope’s stalledrecognition, and introduces the rather pressing matter of the suitors’families, and the need to keep the slaughter secret from the rest of thecommunity. He devises a fake wedding ceremony, which keeps randompassers-by guessing at what is happening in the house, before having abath to clean off the various bits of suitor still clinging to his tunic. Hereinwe find our first real textual difficulty, though it must be said that thedoubts raised over the authenticity of this passage are entirely those ofmodern scholarship, for there is no sign either in theMS tradition or thescholia that anyone in antiquity suspected a large-scale interpolation inthis passage. Though almost no two scholars can agree on the extent orparameters of the interruption,21 there can be no doubt that to removethis passage would create a smoother narrative, a cleaner process ofrecognition. If, for instance, we were to remove – as a whole,as Wolfgang Schadewaldt inter al. would have us do,22 then Odysseus’

20 Studies of Penelope are legion: cf., e.g., Thornton (: –); Katz ();Felson-Rubin (); Heitman (); cf. also Felson and Slatkin ().

21 Heubeck (: –).22 Schadewaldt (: – [= (: –)]) following the path set by Kirchhoff

(: –, esp. ff.); Blass (: –); Wilamowitz-Moellendorff (:–); von der Mühll (: ); Focke (: – esp. –); Page (:–); also Merkelbach (: –, –). For the many and varied excisions(inter al. –, –, –, –, –, –) proposed by these


adrian kelly

suggestion that Penelope’s refusal to accept his identity is predicated onhis current unwashed state (–) would be immediately addressedin the opening verses of her speech (–), leading straight into hertest of Odysseus ( and ff.), as follows:23

(ς )�τ�, με*δησεν δ� π�λ"τλας δ+�ς �!δυσσε"ς,α,ψα δ� Τηλ�μα/�ν 0πεα πτερ�εντα πρ�ση"δα·Τηλ�μα/’, 1 τ�ι μητ�ρ’ 2ν� μεγ�ρ�ισιν 0ασ�νπειρ�3ειν 2μ��εν· τ�/α δ� )ρ�σεται κα� 4ρει�ν.ν�ν δ’ 5ττι 6υπ�ω, κακ� δ� /ρ�7 ε8ματα ε9μαι,

τ�:νεκ’ #τιμ�3ει με κα� �: π$ )ησι τ;ν ε,ναι. τ;ν δ’ α<τε πρ�σ�ειπε περ*)ρων Πηνελ�πεια·

δαιμ�νι’, �> γ�ρ τι μεγαλ*3�μαι �>δ’ #�ερ*3ω �>δ� λ*ην 4γαμαι, μ�λα δ’ ε< �,δ’ �9�ς 0ησ�α

2? �Ι��κης 2π� νη;ς @Aν δ�λι/ηρ�τμ�ι�.#λλ’ 4γε �B στ�ρεσ�ν πυκιν;ν λ�/�ς, Ε>ρ"κλεια,2κτ;ς 2ϋστα��ς �αλ�μ�υ, τ�ν 6’ α>τ;ς 2π�*ει·

But was Homer aiming at a ‘cleaner’ or ‘leaner’ text, and for that mat-ter did his audience expect such a thing?Many scholars since Zenodotoshave thought so, but our Iliad andOdyssey are anything but neat, as bothSiegfried Besslich and Bernard Fenik amply showed in their defences ofthis passage,24 pointing out that interruptions to themain line of the nar-rative are very common in Homeric epic. This unevenness, if we want to

scholars, cf. esp. Erbse (: – nn. –); Heubeck (: – [and –on Analytical treatments of the Odysseymore generally]); Fenik (: –); Heubeck(: –).The lack of agreement is, as Schadewaldt (: [= (: )]) pointsout, “für die analytische Lösung einigermaßen kompromittierend”. I concentrate on hisexcision (also that of Wilamowitz and Focke) because Schadewaldt’s treatment is widely,if tomymind a little puzzlingly, regarded as themost important; cf. Heubeck (: ).

23 This reduced text is not without its problems, of course: Blass (: ), forinstance, noted that it would leave Odysseus still splattered in blood and gore whenhe goes to bed with Penelope (“das ist doch monströs, wirklich raubtiermäßig”); simi-larly Hölscher (: –, esp. ): “man denke sich: nach zwanzigjähriger Tren-nung, einem trojanischen Krieg und einer ganzen Odyssee von Irrfahrten als Bettlerheimkehrend, besudelt jetzt mit dem Mortblud von hundert Freiern—und kein Bad?”;cf. also Besslich (: –); Erbse (: –); Eisenberger (: –).

24 Besslich (: –) on this scene, – on other examples of the ‘Einschub’ or‘Zwischenstück’; Fenik (: –); also Danek (: ). The other chief responsesto the Analytical approach on this passage may be found in the work of Erbse (),Eisenberger () andHölscher (: esp. f [see above, n. ]). For further points, cf.van der Valk (: n. ): “the side-action in ψ is not inconvenient, but aptly dividesthe scene into two parts”; Marks (: esp. –) suggests that another purpose ofthe passage is to ‘de-authorize’ other versions of Odysseus’ story, by suggesting and thendenying the possibility of Odysseus’ exile, but that seems to me an over-reading of –; cf. also Heubeck (: –).



term it that, directly reflects the poet’s technique and its origins in thecontext of performance, where it is not so much a question of what hap-pens in the narrative (for the audience already knows that) but how thatnarrative happens.Misdirection, prolepsis, analepsis, false starts, prema-ture ends, even when the results seem to us awkward—these are the stockin trade for those dealing with such an informed performative dynamic.

First, however, let us not neglect the ‘interruption’s’ most obviousconnections with its surrounding narrative. I set out below a scheme ofthe entire scene:

Emlyn-A –a Displaced recognition sequence(s) (failed) Gainsford25 Jones26

– Eurykleia reveals (~ foretells) Od.’s presence R – Penelope denies its truth R, R – Eurykleia repeats Od.’s presence, and gives

evidence R, R – Penelope swoons in joy (and disbelief) R (R*) – Eurykleia repeats Od.’s presence (again) R – Penelope wishes it were true; asserts Od. is dead R–R – Eurykleia repeats Od.’s presence; gives evidence,

swears oath R, R, R –a Penelope expresses caution and determination to

see (R) ()

B b– First recognition sequence (failed)

b– Penelope hesitant, wondering whether to accept ortest T ()

– Telemakhos rebukes Penelope for not recognisingOd. R ()

– Penelope deflects his abuse, heralding the test T ()

C – ‘Interruption’

– Odysseus deflects the test T ()– Odysseus introduces their difficulties – Telemakhos defers to his father – Odysseus gives instructions – instructions are carried out – Odysseus has a bath (〈Hospitality sequence)

25 For the R- prefixed sigla in Gainsford’s scheme, see above, n. . The relevant T-prefixed sigla (from the Testing ‘move’) are: (T) the protagonist decides to test theaddressee; (T) the protagonist questions the addressee with a view to testing him/her;(T) the relationship is shown to be intact, or the loyalty of the addressee is revealed.

26 For sigla, see above, n. .


adrian kelly

Emlyn-D – Second recognition sequence (successful) Gainsford Jones

– Odysseus rebukes Penelope for not recognisinghim R ()

– Penelope deflects his abuse, gives the test T ()– Odysseus explodes, passing the test T ()– Penelope swoons, recognising Odysseus R (and etc.) (and ff.)

Following the first doublet (A –a, examined above), and sandwichedbetween two combined sequences of Testing and Recognition (B b– and D –f.), the interruption (C) is in fact introduced withOdysseus’ opening instruction to his son to let his mother be (–),in terms which herald at least the need for him to have the bath whichcloses the ‘interruption’ (–). Bathing is in itself typical in recog-nition sequences, where other elements from the hospitality sequencecan often intrude, as Marilyn Katz has shown,27 and the poet explicitlyprepares for it by having Odysseus ascribe the failure of the recogni-tion sequence to the lack of a bath (– ν�ν δ’ 5ττι 6υπ�ω, κακ�δ� /ρ�7 ε8ματα ε9μαι, /τ�:νεκ’ #τιμ�3ει με κα� �: π$ )ησι τ;ν ε,ναι),which strikes me rather powerfully as something approaching a metapo-etic comment on the narrative. Furthermore, as J.M. Foley reminds us,these actions are always elsewhere associated with a feast,28 thus allow-ing us to see the traditional linkage between his bath and the preced-ing preparation and description of the false wedding feast (–).Moreover, the trip to the fields and subsequent battle foreshadowed here(–) is eventually carried out (. and ff.), though the appar-ently dubious status of the end of the Odyssey itself would suggest (asseveral scholars have argued) that we simply remove both the interrup-tion and the ‘continuation’, as Denys Page famously called the rest of thepoem after ..29 But such cavalier violence is neither necessary norwarranted, particularly whenwe see (as we shall in amoment) the typicalfunction of such passages in the recognition sequence.

In terms of its structural progression, the recognition pattern in thissection of theOdyssey is realised in two sequences of three speeches each,

27 Katz (: –).28 Foley (: –).29 Page (: –), following, e.g., Kirchhoff (: –); cf. Kelly (a)

for recent discussion and bibliography. It is no coincidence that most of those who damnthe ‘interruption’ are also in the lists against the ‘continuation’; see above, n. and Erbse(: n. ), Hölscher (: –); Danek (: –).



in which (B) Penelope is rebuked by a member of the house for failingto recognise Odysseus, then (C) she deflects the rebuke and heralds oruses a sêma or testing point, before (D) Odysseus reacts to that sêma.Initiated (A) by one member of the marital pair sitting down ‘facing’ theother (– | –a), this scheme may be represented as below:

A Penelope takes position before A Odysseus takes position beforeOdysseus (–) Penelope (–a)

B Telemakhos rebukes Penelope B Odysseus rebukes Penelope(–) (b–)

– – = – – – = –– ~ – ~

C Penelope deflects rebuke; heralds a C Penelope deflects rebuke; promptssêma (–) sêma (–)

– = – = D Odysseus accepts the postponed sêma D Odysseus denies the sêma (–)

(–)

The several phraseological parallels between the sections make the dou-blet’s progression relatively clear, and the whole structure places greatstress on the delayed sêma introduced by Penelope at C and acknowl-edged by Odysseus at D; its emphasis is increased by the fact thatOdysseus is completely deceived at D, as opposed to his rather smuggrin atD, and he explodes with an anger which contrasts quitemarkedlywith the self-control and foresight he displayed atD and in his followingspeech.

We also note, once more, Penelope’s prominence within this progres-sion. Aside from the fact that she now resumes the usual place withinsuch scenes at the start of the second sequence (so thatOdysseus comes toher, and not vice versa as at the start of the first sequence), neither her sonnor her husband can shame her out of her caution (B and B).Whilst itis usually Odysseus who confirms his identity to his interlocutor, deploy-ing the formula Eλυ��ν ε@κ�στι 0τει 2ς πατρ*δα γα+αν (. (Tele-makhos), . (Eurykleia), . (Eumaios and Philoitios), .(Laertes)), the only reflex of that expression here in Book comes inthe repeated verses at B and B (– = – 5ς �B κακ� π�λλ�μ�γ&σας | 0λ��ι 2εικ�στι 0τει 2ς πατρ*δα γα+αν), where the expres-sion marks out the failure of this (usually self-)identification to convincePenelope.30 Furthermore, she is the onewhodetermineswhen andwhere

30 Katz (: ); Eisenberger (: –); Schwinge (: –); contraKirchhoff (: ): “eine blosse, nichts Neues hinzufügende Wiederholung”.


adrian kelly

the sêma (also of her choosing, as Odysseus seems to concede, at –, Τηλ�μα/’, 1 τ�ι μητ�ρ’ 2ν� μεγ�ρ�ισιν 0ασ�ν | πειρ�3ειν 2μ��εν·τ�/α δ� )ρ�σεται κα� 4ρει�ν) is to be deployed.31 In other scenes, as wesaw above, Odysseus is generally the one who possesses and controls thetoken: only Penelope here in Book deploys a false sêma at themomentof recognition, and she does so by picking up on her husband’s instruc-tions to Eurykleia to prepare a bed for him –. In all these ways,her uniqueness, her agency is underlined.32

Any operation to remove – (or any part therein) would cutright across this carefully constructed structure.33 Its second sequence(–ff.) actually requires Odysseus (or Penelope) to be physicallyremoved from the scene so that he can take his place ‘facing his wife’(A). It also requires something to have changed from the first sequence,where Odysseus was simply content to let matters lie until Penelopedecided that he waswho he said hewas.34 Here he barely sits down beforelaunching into a rebuke. It may seem as though his change of attitude istoo swift,35 but its motivation is in fact the substance of the ‘interruption’:the bathing, which is elsewhere so handy a means for revealing the hero’strue beauty and power (as Telemakhos in Book , Odysseus in Book ,even Laertes in Book ; cf. Eurykleia in Book ), has failed to workits magic on Penelope, as Odysseus had predicted it would (–above).36 His earlier explanation for her failure to recognise him was offthe mark, and he is not particularly happy about it.37

31 Wilamowitz-Moellendorff (: ) well interprets her delay: “[w]enn sie so redet,hat sie diese Dinge bereits bedacht, und wir werden nicht zweifeln, daß sie vor hat, vondieser entscheidenden Prüfung Gebrauch zu machen”; somewhat differently, Schwinge(: –) suggests a reactive and almost knowing co-operation betweenOdysseusand his wife.

32 Hölscher (: ) (cf. also id. [: –]): “Penelope hat hier durchaus denCharakter des Odysseus bekommen, sie ist die Vorsichtige, Misstrauische, Listenreiche.Man kann daraus sehen, daß alles um der Szene und der Handlung willen geschieht,die Charaktere sich zuweilen ihr fügen müssen. Der Typ der Szene hat sich aus demCharakter des Odysseus entwickelt, gibt aber diesen Charakter jetzt an Penelope weiter”.

33 Eisenberger (: ).34 Focke (: ) feels that at this point the conversation “steht . . . auf des Messers

Schneide”, but Erbse (: ) seems closer to the mark: “sondern ist es festgelegt”.35 So, e.g., Kirchhoff (: ); Wilamowitz-Moellendorff (: –); contra

Erbse (: –).36 Similarly, Erbse (: ) argues from the intimacy of .– (μ�λα δ’ ε<

�,δ’ �9�ς 0ησ�α | 2? �Ι��κης 2π� νη;ς @Aν δ�λι/ηρ�τμ�ι�) that “irgendetwas muß nochgeschehen” from her initial scepticism; cf. also Schwinge (: –).

37 Heitman (: ) may be right to find his expectation ‘condescending’.



One could say that this only really argues for the authenticity orintegrity of the bathing material at – and –, leaving therest of the exchange with Telemakhos and the fulfilment of his father’sinstructions out of account. However, this part of the passage expressesOdysseus’ authority within the household, and so is an important the-matic precursor to the attempt to reassert his authority over his wife.38Notice, first, the acquiescent attitude of Telemakhos in their exchange,39the son’s readiness to defer automatically to his father, in contrast to ear-lier disagreements over strategy in Book , when he had first questionedOdysseus’ intention to fight the suitors alone (–), and then hisplan to go around the landholdings making trial of his retainers (–). Here in Book , by contrast, Odysseus has proven himself to hisson, their alignment being evident also in the way that the father in Bnow takes on the rebuking role of the son from B. But now Odysseushas to prove himself to his wife, which is an altogether different matter.

This is underlined by the fact that not only does Telemakhos clearlyaccept the fact of Odysseus’ identity (π�τερ )*λε ), but everyoneelse does as well: witness the alacrity with which his instructions arecarried out by the servants ((ς 0)α�’, �B δ’ 4ρα τ�� μ�λα μ�ν κλ"�ν%δ’ 2π*��ντ� ), and the success of his ruse to conceal the deathof the suitors with the sounds of a wedding (– 〉 –). Sothe ‘interruption’ between the two sequences of the doublet confirmsOdysseus’ resumption of power in his household,40 over his son andservants—but not yet his wife. What builds up in this passage, therefore,is an abundance of evidence which should be enough, in Odysseus’ eyes,to persuade Penelope of something which everyone else has alreadyaccepted.

These thematic advantages are crucially bolstered by the realisationthat the substance of the ‘interruption’—planning for the future—is a

38 Cf. Besslich (: ); Boni (: ): “ma, oltre a preparare esternamentel’azione, sono realmente l’annuncio dell nuove nozze di Penelope e Odísseo, la conclu-sione della gara dell’arco, in cui Odísseo è entrato in lizza comemendico per uscirne eroee sposo”; similarly optimistic (toomuch so? cf. Segal [: ]) is the view ofThornton(: ), that the passage changes the “mood and atmosphere from battle and slaugh-ter to the happiness of Odysseus and Penelope at last reunited”; cf. also Besslich (:–); Hölscher (: ); Danek (: ).

39 Erbse (: ).40 Erbse (: ): “jetzt erhält er Gelegenheit, vor Penelope alsHausherr zu schalten,

seine unübertreffliche Klugheit vorzuweisen, und ‘sein Wesen zu aktualisieren’ ” (thequote from Besslich [: ]); cf. also Besslich (: –); Eisenberger (: –); Schwinge (: –).


adrian kelly

repeated element in the recognition sequence. I have left this argumentuntil nowbecause Iwanted to be able to examine the substance of the pas-sage without recourse to typicality, not because the two types of analysisare mutually exclusive, but because the poet expresses himself throughtypicality. That is, repetition in itself is never a sufficient explanation forany textual phenomenon: both the poets and their audiences expectedsomething individual to be done with traditional resources, and so wehave to ask what the typical element is trying to express in a given sit-uation. So, once more, an oralist analysis helps bolster what one mightthink of as a more ‘literary’ interpretation.

Just to begin with the simple fact of typicality, we could compare forinstance the post-revelation conversations to a similarly practical endbetween Athene and Odysseus in Book (–), Telemakhos andOdysseus in Book (–), Eumaios, Philoitios and Odysseus inBook (–), and even between Odysseus and Laertes in Book (–). These strategy sessions lead the audience forward into thenext action or series of actions, binding the current recognition with thefuture narrative that is thereby enabled.These are, of course, all successfulsequences, and both recognisor and recognisee immediately join forcesin implementing the strategy. But here in Book recognition has not yettaken place, and so Odysseus excludes Penelope from his strategising.Yet this uniqueness, once more, throws great emphasis on her refusalto recognise her husband, and adds to the several indications that sheis exercising an unusual influence over the success and direction of thenarrative.

In effect, the poet has completed his recognition sequence withoutachieving recognition, so that the ‘interruption’ itself, and its exclusionof Penelope from the process, is a vital signal of that failure. It willtake another restarted sequence, with another unusual version of thesêma element deployed by Penelope, before recognition is complete.Thatsecond sequence is unravelled in close combination with the first, and,as it proceeds, the audience look forward (and not just from the merefact that recognition always happens in a relatively established way)41 tothe parallel developments within the sequences—repetition of rebuke,

41 Hence it is a misguided question to wonder when, precisely, Penelope recognisesher husband (and I waste no time here on the ‘early recognition’ theory; cf. Emlyn-Jones() = () for its demolition).That the poet does not complete the sequences, eitherbefore Eurykleia or Odysseus himself, is sufficient indication that the recognition bothin performance and in her mind is not finished. When the pattern is concluded, theprocess is complete, and only then does Penelope know that her husband has returned.



deflecting of the rebuke and so on. Indeed, it only now becomes apparentthat we drew the earlier scheme too narrowly: we should instead see the‘interruption’ in a parallel dialogic structure with the rest of the narrativeof Book , as follows:

A Penelope takes position before A Odysseus takes position beforeOdysseus (–) Penelope (–a)

B Telemakhos rebukes Penelope B Odysseus rebukes Penelope(–) (b–)

– – = – (A) – – = – (A)– ~ – ~

C Penelope deflects rebuke; heralds a C Penelope deflects rebuke; promptssêma (–) sêma (–)

– = (B) – = (B)D Odysseus accepts the postponed sêma D Odysseus denies the sêma (–)

(–)[E Recognition] E Recognition (–)F Discussion /Practicalities (and bath) F Discussion /Practicalities

(–) (lovemaking) (–)

After the actual moment of recognition (E) fulfilling or responding tothe postponed moment at the end of the first sequence (E), the poetnow returns once more to the matters at hand, with a lengthy exchangebetweenhusband andwife onOdysseus’ future travels (–), the endof the false celebrations Odysseus had earlier set up (–) and thereciprocities between husband and wife (–) before Athene leadsthemen out to face the suitors (–).These post-recognition actions(F) mirror the concerns and complete the actions of the ‘interruption’(F): Odysseus’ bath (F) and the reunited pair’s lovemaking (F), forinstance, are intensely domestic activities, not least because the hostessnormally has at least some role in arranging or conducting the bathing,and they signal the affirmation of the hero’s place within his home.42

Moreover, these parallel F passages, both of which open with aninstruction speech from Odysseus (–/–) about his futuretoils, also bring the narrative further towards the final confrontation:(F) Telemakhos accedes to his father’s greater wisdom and carries outhis instructions to confute the suitors’ families’ knowledge of what hashappened (–); (F) when Penelope has been summarily placed

As Hölscher (: ) remarks, with characteristic insight, “[d]as Verhalten epischerPersonen ist nicht zuerst auf das psychologischeWahrscheinlicheberechnet, sondern aufden erzählerischen Hergang”.

42 On the symbolism of the bath, cf. Müller (: –); Hölscher (: –).


adrian kelly

back into the female quarters (–) for the same reason, Telemakhosjoins his father (and Eumaios and Philoitios) in gathering their resourcesagainst the suitors’ families (–). So, in both passages, Odysseusgives an order to his family and/or retainers about the coming troubles,which is then carried out (cf. (ς 0)α�’, �B δ’4ρα τ�� μ�λαμ�ν κλ"�ν%δ’ 2π*��ντ� ~ �B δ� �B �>κ #π*�ησαν). This complex of reasonsand interconnections, thematic and structural, demonstrates from anoralist perspective the integrity and purpose—indeed, necessity—of thepassage formerly known as the ‘interruption’ within the larger sequenceof recognition between Penelope and Odysseus.

However, an argument for authenticity in these terms is merely anancillary benefit to an oralist analysis of this portion of the Odyssey’snarrative. For we have seen that the theme of recognition actually struc-tures the entirety of Book , from the first two sequences betweenEurykleia and Penelope (–a), to this second doublet between Pene-lope and Odysseus (b–), making up the longest and most com-plex such example of recognition in Homeric poetry.The pairing of thesesequences is not simply an enjoyable exercise in diagram drawing, but amethod of tracing, predicting and guiding the audience’s response; justas the first pair uses a doublet structure to throw emphasis on Penelope’sagency and caution, so the second enormously expands on, in fact putsinto effect, the qualities she had shown in the first sequence.43The empha-sised sequence set in this pair is the larger, as usual in Homeric poetry,and the audience is encouraged to experience that process of recognitionthrough the prism, or with the preparation, of the smaller, earlier one.44Typical and repeated patterns of composition, in short, have thematic sig-nificance, and are not simply the unconscious operation of a traditionalmonolith on an unthinking poet.

Conclusion

What I have tried to demonstrate in this paper is the reason why anincreasing number ofHomerists, particularly in theUnitedKingdomandEurope, are wrong to doubt the usefulness and interrelatedness of oralperformance and oral composition in Archaic epic poetry. Orality makesa tremendous difference to the way we read Homer, and decidedly not

43 Cf. Schadewaldt (: – [= (: –)]).44 On such increasing doublets, cf. Kelly (a: –).



as a background or inheritance which the master poet has transcended.An oralist perspective leads us to look for the structures underlyingthe narrative, the language of the poet in its broadest sense, to give usthereby something approaching the knowledge and experience of anoriginal audience. When we are sensitive to the poet’s building blocks,we can observe him building up his audience’s expectations through themanipulation of his inheritedmaterial, anddoing so in a dynamic processwhich unfolds meaning as the narrative progresses. We can also essayinformed judgements about the integrity or status of suspected passages,principally because we are not looking for the smoothest version of thenarrative, but one which was designed to be (re)generated within anaesthetic of performance.This situation, whether real or ideal, demandsa particular type of control from the poet composing before an audiencewho knew that Penelope would be reunited with her husband, but werelooking towards the individual manner in which this particular versionof that tale would achieve that end.

To sum up: connected closely with a chiastic sequence at the endof Book detailing Odysseus’ recognition by his slave women, whichintroduces the focus on Penelope’s agency, the narrative of Book begins with a displaced recognition between Eurykleia and Penelope,constructed in a doublet which throws great emphasis on Penelope’sviews and perspective. The immediately following actual recognitionbetween husband and wife is also constructed in a doublet, which oncemore privileges Penelope’s role in the process and, like the first sequences,requires two almost complete runs of recognitionmotifs before Penelopemakes her decision. This time, however, in keeping with their greaterimportance and complexity, the two sequences are joined by an entirelytypical passage which concludes the first sequence, underlines its failure,renews the emphasis onPenelope as agent, and looks forward to the seriesof actions required to confirm that recognition in the rest of Book ,which serves as the true corresponding element in the second sequenceof that major set. Hardly justifying Denys Page’s condemnation as “themost inartistic of all the interpolations in the Odyssey”,45 it thereby helpsto motivate and explain the narrative developments from one sequenceto the other, to achieve the juncture between the two sequences (not tomention the two characters) and to draw the recognition into its placewithin the continuation of the story, and the end of the poem.

45 Page (: ).


adrian kelly

In Book of theOdyssey, Homer has created a memorable, very longand very complex series of recognitions as the climax to his primarystory.46 It is the most important of several such scenes in the poem, andhe lavishes everything on it. The consequent challenge it presents to itsaudience(s) is well captured by Hartmut Erbse: “diese ganze, vom Hörerdes Epos seit langem mit Spannung erwartete Szene hat einen gewunde-nen, nicht in allen ihren Kehren leicht verständlichen Verlauf ”.47 If weignore the dynamic between composition and performance in the evolu-tion of the technique behind this sequence, and simply read the Iliad andOdyssey as we would almost any other ancient narrative text, then thescene’s intricacies become obstacles, and almost none of the text’s rich-ness is visible or, should I say, audible. We, the poet, and his works, wouldbe much the poorer for it.

Bibliography

Armstrong, J.A. (). ‘The Marriage Song—Odyssey .’ TAPA : –.Austin, N. (). Archery at the Dark of the Moon: Poetic Problems in Homer’s

Odyssey. Berkeley: University of California Press.Blass, F. (). Die Interpolationen in der Odyssee: eine Untersuchung. Halle:

Niemeyer.Besslich, S. (). Schweigen, Verschweigen, Übergehen: die Darstellung des

Unausgesprochenen in der Odyssee. Heidelberg: Winter.Bona, G. (). Studi sull’Odissea. Torino: Giappichelli.Bonifazi, A. (). ‘Inquiring into Nostos and its Cognates.’ AJP : –

.Currie, B. (). ‘Homer and the Early Epic Tradition.’ In Epic Interactions:

Papers in Honour of Jasper Griffin. M. Clarke, B. Currie and R.O.A.M. Lyne,eds.: –. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Danek, G. (). Epos und Zitat: Studien zur Quellen der Odyssee. Vienna:Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften.

Dowden, K. (). ‘Homer’s Sense of Text.’ JHS : –.Emlyn-Jones, C. (). ‘The Reunion of Penelope and Odysseus.’ Greece and

Rome : – (also in () Homer. I. McAuslan and P. Walcot, eds.: –. Oxford: Oxford University Press).

Eisenberger, H. (). Studien zur Odyssee. Wiesbaden: Steiner.Erbse, H. (). Beiträge zum Verstandnis der Odyssee. Berlin: de Gruyter.Felson-Rubin, N. (). ‘Penelope’s Perspective: Character from Plot.’ In Read-

ing the Odyssey: Selected Interpretative Essays. S. Schein, ed.: –. Prince-ton: Princeton University Press.

46 Hölscher (: ).47 Erbse (: ).



Felson, N. and Slatkin, L. (). ‘Gender and Homeric Epic.’ InThe CambridgeCompanion to Homer. R. Fowler, ed.: –. Cambridge: Cambridge Uni-versity Press.

Fenik, B. (). Studies in the Odyssey. Stuttgart: Steiner.Focke, F. (). Die Odyssee. Berlin: Kohlhammer.Foley, J.M. (). Immanent Art: From Structure to Meaning in Traditional Oral

Epic. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.———. ().Homer’s Traditional Art. Philadelphia: Pennsylvania State Univer-

sity Press.Gainsford, P. (). ‘Formal Analysis of Recognition Scenes in theOdyssey.’ JHS

: –.Goldhill, S. (). The Poet’s Voice: Essays on Poetics and Greek Literature.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Heitman, R. (). Taking Her Seriously: Penelope and the Plot of Homer’s

Odyssey. Michigan: University of Michigan Press.Heubeck, A. (). Die Homerische Frage. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche.———. (). In A Commentary on Homer’s Odyssey, Volume III: Books xviii–

xxiv. J. Russo, M. Fernández-Galiano and A. Heubeck, eds. Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press.

Hölscher, U. (). Untersuchungen zur Form der Odyssee. Szenenwechsel undgleichzeitige Handlungen. Berlin: Weidmann.

———. (). Die Odyssee: Epos zwischen Märchen und Roman. Munich: Beck.de Jong, I. ().ANarratological Commentary toHomer’s Odyssey. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.Kakridis, J.Th. (). ‘The Recognition of Odysseus.’ In Homer Revisited.

J.Th. Kakridis, ed.: –. Lund: Gleerup.Katz, M. (). Penelope’s Renown: Meaning and Indeterminacy in the Odyssey.

Princeton: Princeton University Press.Kelly, A. (a). ‘How to End an Orally-Derived Epic Poem.’ TAPA : –

.———. (b). A Referential Commentary and Lexicon to Homer, Iliad VIII.

Oxford: Oxford University Press.Kirchhoff, A. (). Die Homerische Odyssee. nd ed. Berlin: Hertz.Lateiner, D. (). ‘The Iliad: An Unpredictable Classic.’ In The Cambridge

Companion to Homer. R. Fowler, ed.: –. Cambridge: Cambridge Univer-sity Press.

Marks, J. (). Zeus in the Odyssey. Washington: Harvard University Press.Merkelbach, R. (). Untersuchungen zur Odyssee. nd ed. Munich: Beck.Minchin, E. ().Homeric Voices: Discourse, Memory Gender. Oxford: Oxford

University Press.von der Mühll, P. (). ‘Odyssee.’ In Paulys Real-Encyclopedädie der classis-

chen Altertumswissenschaft: Supplement Band VII: –. Stuttgart: Met-zler.

Müller, M. (). Athene als göttliche Helferin in der Odyssee. Heidelberg:Winter.

Murnaghan, S. (). Disguise and Recognition in the Odyssey. Princeton:Princeton University Press.


adrian kelly

Nünlist, R. (). ‘Some Clarifying Remarks on “Focalization”. ’ In OmeroTremila Anni Dopo. F. Montanari, ed.: –. Rome: Edizioni di Storia eLetteratura.

Olson, S.D. (). ‘The Stories of Agamemnon in Homer’sOdyssey.’ TAPA :–.

Page, D. ().The Homeric Odyssey. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Richardson, N.J. (). ‘Recognition Scenes in the Odyssey and Ancient Liter-

ary Criticism.’ PLLS : –.Schadewaldt, W. (), Neue Kriterien zur Odysseeanalyse: die Wiedererken-

nung des Odysseus and Penelope. nd ed. Heidelberg (Sitzungsberichte derHeidelberger Akademie der Wissenschaften, Philosophisch-historisches Klasse,No. ) (also in id. (), Hellas und Hesperien I: Gesammelte Schriften zurAntike und zur neueren Literatur: –. Stuttgart: Artemis).

Schwinge, E.–R. (). Die Odyssee—nach den Odysseen: Betrachtung zu ihrerindividuellen Physiognomie. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.

Segal, C. (). ‘Kleos and its Ironies in the Odyssey.’ In Reading the Odyssey:Selected Interpretative Essays. S. Schein, ed.: –. Princeton: PrincetonUniversity Press.

Thornton, A. (). People andThemes inHomer’s Odyssey. Dunedin: Methuen.West, M.L. (). ‘Iliad and Aethiopis.’ CQ : –.von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, U. (). Die Heimkehr des Odysseus. Berlin:

Weidmann.

The audience expects: Odysseus and Penelope

Documents

Transcript of The audience expects: Odysseus and Penelope