Jonathan S. Burgess
Abstract
Aristotle’s Constitution of the Ithacans is lost, but testimony of it survives. Most interesting is an account by Plutarch (Quaest. Graec. 14; fr. 507 Rose) of the exile of Odysseus after the slaughter of the suitors. In both Aristotle and Apollodorus political intrigue in the area of the Ionian Islands seems to underlie the exile. The acceptance of a story of Odysseus’ exile by the Constitution suggests that historical Ithacans claimed descent from families of the suitors. Of further interest is reference to clans descended from Eumaeus and Philoetius, which would seem to reference promises by Odysseus at Odyssey 21.213–300. The Constitution would thus seem to be a historical document that reflects Ithacan historicization of Archaic Age myth and literature, including both Homeric and Cyclic epic.
An intriguing passage in Plutarch, apparently based on the lost Aristotelian Constitution of the Ithacans, tells of the exile of Odysseus after the murder of the suitors. This contradicts the establishment of peace on Ithaca at the end of the Odyssey. But the Aristotelian Constitution also speaks of clans descended from the swineherd Eumaeus and the herdsman Philoetius, which would seem to be based on a brief passage in the Odyssey. That Ithacans would make use of the Odyssey when recounting their heroic origins is not remarkable; what may seem surprising is the acceptance of the exile of Odysseus. But the ancients often mixed and matched Homeric and Cyclic material. The Aristotelian Constitution is not ‘Cyclic’, but its exile narrative suggests that historical Ithacans of the Classical period employed both Homeric and non-Homeric material when constructing their heroic past. I will argue that Ithaca’s construction of its mythological past reflects not only contemporary events but also earlier narratives about Odysseus.1 These narratives reflect long-standing issues for Ithaca and its region, as already apparent in the Odyssey. The exile narrative found in Plutarch therefore may, in some flexible, multiform manner, go back to the Archaic Age.
Following is the passage by Plutarch, with my translation.2 Capital letters are inserted before sections for reference in my subsequent argument.
τίνες οἱ παρ᾽ Ἰθακησίοις Κολιάδαι καὶ τίς ὁ φάγιλος; [A] τῷ Ὀδυσσεῖ μετὰ τὴν μνηστηροφονίαν οἱ ἐπιτήδειοι τῶν τεθνηκότων ἐπανέστησαν, [B] μεταπεμφθεὶς δ᾽ ὑπ᾽ ἀμφοτέρων διαιτητὴς Νεοπτόλεμος [C] ἐδικαίωσε τὸν μὲν Ὀδυσσέα μεταναστῆναι καὶ φεύγειν ἐκ τῆς Κεφαλληνίας καὶ Ζακύνθου καὶ Ἰθάκης ἐφ᾽ αἵματι, τοὺς δὲ τῶν μνηστήρων ἑταίρους καὶ οἰκείους ἀποφέρειν ποινὴν Ὀδυσσεῖ τῶν εἰς τὸν οἶκον ἀδικημάτων καθ᾽ ἕκαστον ἐνιαυτόν. [D] αὐτὸς μὲν οὖν εἰς Ἰταλίαν μετέστη: τὴν δὲ ποινὴν τῷ υἱεῖ καθιερώσας ἀποφέρειν ἐκέλευσε τοὺς Ἰθακησίους. [E] ἦν δὲ ἄλφιτα οἶνος κηρία ἔλαιον ἅλες ἱερεῖα πρεσβύτερα φαγίλων: φάγιλον δὲ φησιν Ἀριστοτέλης τὸν ἀμνὸν εἶναι. [F] τοὺς δὲ περὶ Εὔμαιον ἐλευθερώσας ὁ Τηλέμαχος κατέμιξεν εἰς τοὺς πολίτας, καὶ τὸ γένος ἐστὶ Κολιαδῶν ἀπ᾽ Εὐμαίου καὶ Βουκολιδῶν ἀπὸ Φιλοιτίου.
Who are the Coliadai among Ithacans and what is the phagilos? [A] After the slaughter of the suitors the relatives of the dead rose up against Odysseus, [B] and Neoptolemus, summoned by both sides as arbiter, [C] ruled that Odysseus depart in exile from Cephallenia, Zakynthus, and Ithaca for homicide, and that the companions and the relatives of the suitors convey compensation to Odysseus for wrongs against his household each year. [D] Odysseus himself therefore went away to Italy; sanctifying the compensation for his son, he bid the Ithacans pay it. [E] The compensation consisted of barley, wine, honey, olive-oil, salt, and sacrificial animals older than phagiloi; Aristotle says a phagilos is a lamb. [F] Telemachus freed Eumaeus and his oikos and placed them among the citizens; the clan of the Coliadai stems from Eumaeus and the Boucolidai from Philoetius.
Plutarch’s testimony for the Aristotelian Constitution has appeared intermittently in Homeric studies. Hartmann discussed it when surveying non-Homeric local legends about Odysseus.3 More recently the Constitution served Malkin’s argument for connectivity between Ithaca, the region of the Ionian Islands, and beyond.4 It was also a key text for Marks’ coherent examination of the hero’s post-Odyssey adventures.5 The most extensive analysis of the Plutarch passage was made by Halliday.6 I reject his thesis that the exile story was invented as etiological explanation of cult ritual for Telemachus. A cult of Telemachus is nowhere attested – not even in Plutarch’s account. Also, very debatable is the assumption that the exile is necessitated by blood pollution, a concept dubiously dated by Halliday to the Greco-Roman Hellenistic period7 or at least after Homer.8
It may be that Ithacan religious officials presiding over an annual rite were a source for details in the Ithacan constitution. Thomas convincingly argues that the lost Aristotelian Constitutions reflect such on-site, local information.9 The verb employed in reference to Odysseus’ transfer of payment to Telemachus (D), καθιερόω, has religious implications, though it can be used to indicate public sanctification of an agreement. The compensation paid to Telemachus (E) seems typical for ritual libation and sacrifice. Particularly noticeable is its specificity: Plutarch needs to reference Aristotle (presumably the Aristotelian Constitution) to answer his initial question, “What is a phagilos?” Such ritual aspects may reflect an annual public remembrance of the exile story; it certainly appears that the compensation in the narrative is correlated to ritual practice. But this need not question the independent and early existence of the story itself.
The cult of Odysseus of Ithaca is well known, but its evidence is rather late.10 Morgan is skeptical about supposed earlier evidence, including a dozen or so tripods from the so-called cave at Polis Bay that have sometimes been linked to the gifts given to Odysseus by the Phaeacians.11 As elsewhere, it seems that archaeological work on Ithaca “has been seriously constrained by its Homeric focus.”12 Malkin points out that there is no evidence that Odysseus was believed to be buried in Ithaca.13 Some sources actually claim that Odysseus was buried on the mainland or in Italy.14 All this suggests caution should be taken in regard to Halliday’s thesis of a cult of Telemachus on Ithaca.
In the Constitution a revolt arises against Odysseus after the slaughter of the suitors (A). But this does not turn violent, as in Odyssey 24. Ready has demonstrated that the aborted skirmish at the end of the Odyssey is idiosyncratic:15 it is not found in other accounts, including the Telegony (according to the summary by Proclus), or in the ‘Homecoming Husband’ tale type.16 Perhaps the revolt was absent even in early forms of the Odyssey. Already in antiquity some (Aristophanes and Aristarchus: schol. 23.296) apparently thought that the Odyssey most naturally ends with Odysseus and Penelope happily in bed together.17 Because the Telegony begins with the burial of the suitors, although this also occurs in the Odyssey (24.417–419), Davies18 concludes that the Telegony “was intended to follow on from a sequel to an Odyssey lacking the Continuation,” that is, everything after pillow talk between the reunited couple.19 Seaford trenchantly argues that reconciliation in the ‘continuation’ reflects polis culture of the later archaic age.20 The exile narrative in the Constitution arguably does this as well, only more so. Arbitration and exile (C, D) contrast starkly with the divine proclamation of peace and the continuing rule of Odysseus at the end of our Odyssey.
An arbitrated exile for Odysseus would not necessarily be post-Homeric. There are multiple examples of exile for murder in the Homeric epics,21 and the shield of Achilles contains a famous scene of public arbitration for homicide (Iliad 18.497–508). Odysseus himself expects that he will need to go into exile after the slaughter of the suitors (Odyssey 20.42–43, 23.117–22; cf. 24.430–431, 437). In heroic epic convention the consequence for murder in a domestic, civil environment is exile. But more important than the date of different narratives about the consequences of the return of Odysseus is their perspectives. An external – that is, non-Ithacan – narrative might prefer narrative closure, as in the tale type called ‘Homecoming Husband’. But an internal or Ithacan perspective would be more attentive to the messiness of real-word conflict. Historical Ithacans probably found a narrative of political arbitration more plausible than divinely inspired forgetting of murder (24.485).
Multiform narratives about the consequences of Odysseus return may stem from relatively local frames of reference. It is especially interesting that both in Plutarch (B) and in Apollodorus (Epitome 7.40) Neoptolemus acts as an arbitrator between the hero and the families of the slain suitors. In Apollodorus Neoptolemus is described, rather vaguely, as king of the islands of Epirus.22 Molossians of Epirus in the late Classical and Hellenistic periods claimed descendance from Neoptolemus (Epitome 6.12–13) and his prominence in the Constitution would surely have contemporary significance.
Already in the Archaic Age the Nosti of the Epic Cycle has Neoptolemus travel to the Molossians, on the evidence of the very concise summary of the lost poem by Proclus (“Neoptolemus having reached the Molossians is recognized by Peleus”). It is not clear why Neoptolemus passes through northwest Greece before reaching Phthia in the Cyclic Nosti. In later accounts, notably in Pindar (Nem. 5.50–52), the return of Neoptolemus variably includes Andromache, Helenus, defense of Peleus and death at the hands of Orestes.23 A controversial fragment of the Cyclic Little Iliad (21 Bernabé) indicates that Neoptolemus chose Andromache as a captive (as well as Aeneas, for whom Epirus was often featured in accounts of his migration westwards).24
The key point for my argument is that a connection between Neoptolemus and Epirus apparently did exist in an early Greek epic.25 That means that the significance of Neoptolemus in the region precedes the expansive role of Molossians at a later date. Epirus in general may have been peripheral in the Greek world, but it was of long-standing and continuing importance. Notable was the very ancient oracle of Dodona, mentioned several times in Homer,26 and variously linked to Deucalion, the Pelasgi, the first Hellenes, the Argo and the journey of Hyperborean maidens to Delos.27
In the Constitution (C) and in Apollodorus (Epitome 7.40), Neoptolemus decides to exile Odysseus. Of interest are the variant destinations for Odysseus in the Constitution and Apollodorus, Italy and Aetolia respectively (D; Epitome 7.40). Some, like Hartmann,28 have wanted to change Italy to Aetolia in Apollodorus’ text. Other testimony for the Constitution reports an oracle of the hero in Aetolia.29 But as we saw above, there are connections between Odysseus and Italy,30 and not just in the localization of the hero’s wanderings. The variance in destination for the exiled hero is not surprising given the flexibility of narratives of Odysseus’ post-return adventures. The inland journey mandated for Odysseus by Tiresias in the underworld could be seen as a cryptic version of the exile motif, as could Odysseus’ travel in the Telegony to Thesprotia of Epirus, where he marries the queen and has a child before returning to Ithaca.31
The ulterior motivations of Neoptolemus in Apollodorus are of great interest. With Odysseus out of the way, Neoptolemus would be able to take over Cephallenia. Does this mean the island Cephallenia, that is, modern Cephalonia?32 Hartmann thinks so, arguing that Apollodorus simply forgets to mention Ithaca and Zakynthus, from which Odysseus is banned, along with Cephallenia, in the Constitution.33 I think that the wording of Apollodorus reflects the early sense of Cephallenia as broadly regional. In Homer Cephallenia is an ethnym, not a toponym.34 The Homeric Cephallenians in the Catalogue of Ships (Iliad 2.625–637) are led by Odysseus and come from Ithaca, Zakynthus and Samus (probably modern Cephalonia), as well as from a coastal part of the mainland. The Odyssey uses Cephallenia several times as an ethnym, as when Laertes claims to have led Cephallenians on a mainland raid (24.378) and when Eupeithes complains that Odysseus has killed the best of the Cephallenians, that is, the suitors from the region of the Ionian Islands (24.429).35 Cephallenia as an ethnym persisted, no doubt under the influence of epic. For example, in Euripides’ Cyclops (line 103) Odysseus identifies himself as king of the Cephallenians. Apollodorus might preserve this archaic and broad sense of Cephallenia, perhaps employing an early source for the exile story.
Whatever the motivations of Neoptolemus, his decision is balanced. Odysseus is forced to leave in punishment for the slaughter of the suitors, but the suitors must pay compensation. Whereas the Odyssey justifies Odysseus in a heavy-handed manner, the Constitution’s exile narrative seems sensitive to conflicting political viewpoints. Homer’s Ithaca is portrayed as having hegemonic political and economic power in its region,36 but the Constitution (and especially Apollodorus) suggests an Ithaca that is vulnerable to expansive mainland powers. That may indeed reflect the status of Ithaca in the late Classical period. But Ithaca’s vulnerability is an ongoing theme for Ithaca down through time, even as the dynamics of interconnectivity in the region changed. As Morgan well demonstrates on the basis of material culture, Ithaca was long a minor, if plucky, player in the area. Ithaca may seem dominant in the Odyssey, but even Odysseus and Telemachus have to concede that their island is small, rocky and limited in resources (4.601–608, 9.27).37 As Pomponius Mela (2.110) points out, Ithaca was “mainly famous for the name of Ulysses.”
Historical Ithacans could not condone monarchal immunity as readily as Homer does. And the Constitution’s exile narrative may have found favor among those who claimed genealogical links to the suitors. After all, as Eupeithes points out, Odysseus has wiped out a whole generation of aristocrats (24.429). On the other hand, only twelve of the one hundred and eight suitors were from Ithaca.38 Ithacans would not necessarily be sympathetic to the genealogical claims of inhabitants of other islands. The Odyssey’s story of foreign suitors on Ithaca might have triggered their insecurity as much as the alleged ambitions of a mainland Neoptolemus. Hence the need for a balanced judgment in which the suitors are held accountable for their consumption of goods.
The Constitution states that Telemachus will receive the compensation on Ithaca, but it is not stated whether he rules or even stays. There is no clan descended from Telemachus or Odysseus specified in the Constitution, or in any ancient sources. Children of Odysseus are reported elsewhere in Italy, Aetolia and Thesprotia, not to mention Telegonus at Aeaea.39 Even though the Odyssey ends with the maintenance of Odysseus’ rule and stresses the single-son patriarchal line of Arcesius – Laertes – Odysseus – Telemachus (16.117–120; cf. 14.181–182, 24.514–515), the poem does not quite predict a continuing dynasty. In the Telegony Telemachus and Penelope leave Ithaca to reside with Circe and Telegonus at Aeaea (perhaps localized in Italy, where Odyssean progeny like Latinus were to thrive). Eusthathius claimed that the Constitution of the Ithacans and Hellanicus stated that Neoptolemus married Nausicaa,40 which perhaps indicates a Corcyran claim to Neoptolemus or Athenian interest in the region.41 In the Telegony Odysseus sires a child Polypoites with the Thesprotian queen; Apollodorus (Epitome 7.35) adds that Odysseus returned home to Ithaca to discover another son of his by Penelope, Poliporthes. From Eustathius we learn that in the Telegony (fr. 3 Bernabé) this extra Ithacan son was called Arcesilas. That name is clearly designed to grant Odyssean lineage to the Battiad dynasty at Cyrene, the homeland of the poet of the Cyclic epic. It seems, then, that this second son of Odysseus led to descendants in Cyrene, not Ithaca. None of this various evidence points to descendants of Odysseus on Ithaca. In fact, it suggests quite the opposite. This is all harmonious with the general tendency in nostoi traditions for the Greek heroes to travel elsewhere than home and produce children elsewhere.42
If the Odyssey is aware of local legends about Odysseus, whether Ithacan, mainland Greek, or Italian, it chooses to mystify them. Removed as it was from epichoric concerns, the Homeric epic may have been happy to leave its audiences with the misleading impression that the Laertid line would continue to thrive on Ithaca. If original audiences knew better, a temporary suspension of disbelief, in a contract between performance and reception, would always be possible.43 But historical Ithacans apparently did not, or perhaps could not, subscribe entirely to the Odyssey’s rather forced justification of Odysseus.
Of course, Ithaca would very much want to associate itself with its hero, who eventually was honored by coinage and cult attention in the later classical and Hellenistic periods. One assumes that the Odyssey was celebrated at Ithaca, whether in performance, or, to a lesser degree, as a text – much depends on social class and literacy. Some might even suspect that the exile motif found in post-return narratives (like the Constitution) is based on minor details found in the Odyssey, for example, Odysseus’ musings about exile.44 But current scholarship is less inclined to assume that cyclic poems mined details in the Homeric epics. I would instead argue that the Odyssey acknowledges the exile of Odysseus as a pre-Homeric motif. But the Odyssey eventually became very influential, which led to reception of it. It is a plausible hypothesis that the Constitution’s report of Ithacan clans of Eumaeus and Philoetius (F) is based on a minor passage in the Odyssey.
In Odyssey 21 (213–216), Odysseus promises the two slaves wives, property and homes centrally located. It is specified that their homes will be near the palace of Odysseus and that the two herdsmen will be ‘companions and brothers’ of Telemachus. In Book 14 (61–71), Eumaeus claims that Odysseus would have provided him with a home, land and a wife, should he have survived.45 The short passage in Book 21, which promises spatial and familial integration of the two slaves, is likely the origin of the concept of clans descended from these two characters. It is unlikely that the passages are alluding to pre-Homeric material, or that Eumaeus and Philoetius were even traditional characters.46 Eumaeus is memorably characterized in the Odyssey, but one can imagine versions of Odysseus’ return without him. Odysseus’ promise to the two slaves is motivated by the need for help against over a hundred suitors. The story of Odysseus’ return would make more sense if there were just a dozen Ithacan suitors, as M.L. West suggested.47
Does the compensation of the Constitution also have roots in the Odyssey? Compensation by the suitors is offered spontaneously by Eurymachus when Odysseus reveals himself (22.55–59). Odysseus later (23.356–358) states his intention to seize or receive compensation. But neither scenario involves adjudication and both passages imply forcible taxation of the populace in general. The descendants of Eumaeus and Philoetius, reasonably seen as Homeric inventions, provide a stronger case for reception of the Odyssey.
The Homeric epics, with their expansive detail and nuanced approach, were probably more realistic than other early epics. But the Odyssey’s unusually favorable view of Odysseus and its insistence on divine justification of his actions produced a conclusion unsuitable for the real world of Ithaca. It is no surprise, then, that the Aristotelian Constitution, as manifested in the Plutarch passage, indicates some very non-Homeric conceptions of Ithaca’s mythological past. As admirers of the Odyssey, we might find this shocking. But my argument also assumes that the Odyssey would have also been central to the Ithacan construction of the past, at least as far as was acceptable. On the whole, the Constitution seems to have a carefully balanced acceptance of both the Homeric and non-Homeric mythological past. Its spirit of political compromise, with granular detail, is very different from the heavy-handed theological justification of Odysseus in the Odyssey. The slaughter of the suitors with impunity leads to punishment of Odysseus, but the suitors must provide restitution. Neoptolemus of Epirus represents even-handed justice but also the threat of mainland encroachment.
If the Aristotelian Constitution of the Ithacans represents the perspective of Classical Age inhabitants of the island, they accepted the exile of Odysseus, perhaps because many considered themselves descendants of the families of the suitors. They also would be bound to a civic form of political rule that would favor legal arbitration and not accept murder with impunity. On the other hand, the values of the Odyssey are respected to a degree. Compensation is exacted on the heirs of the suitors and freedom is provided to the loyal slaves Eumaeus and Philoetius, with the resulting clans Koliadai and Boukolidai surviving into historical times.48 For most Ithacans, Homeric reception may have been nothing more than a vague sense that their local hero was celebrated by the famous poet Homer. But the existence of clans descended from Eumaeus and Philoetius suggests that some Ithacans, at least, could employ details of minor episodes in the epic as part of their construction of the past. The balanced mix of Homeric and non-Homeric elements in the Constitution indicates that the Odyssey was a key part, but just one part, of Ithacan conception of its heroic past.
My argument assumes that the exile motif existed in multiforms that would vary in both spatial and temporal details. In Apollodorus (Epitome 7.40) Odysseus is exiled to Aetolia, whereas in Plutarch’s account of the Constitution he travels to Italy. Tiresias does not specify exile as motivation for the ‘inland journey’, but I have described it as a reflection of the exile motif, though with the hero eventually returning to Ithaca. The Telegony featured an apparently prolonged stay on the mainland, specifically Thesprotia, but Odysseus also here returns to Ithaca. In this respect the Cyclic poem, despite its apparently non-Homeric ideology, corresponds to the Odyssey’s ‘inland journey’. It should also be noted that in the lying tales told by Odysseus featuring Thesprotia ‘Odysseus’ is hosted by king Pheidon, whereas in the Telegony the hero married Callidice, queen of Thesprotia. Other reports of Odysseus founding cities, dying and becoming an oracle apart from Ithaca49 provide further incompatible details. Such variances, large and small, cannot be harmonized into a single, unified traditional narrative. What I am calling the ‘exile motif’ is represented by various multiforms involving Odysseus leaving Ithaca after his return to Ithaca, with different motivations, geography and duration.
It is common to view these multiforms as constituting ‘Cyclic’ reception of the Odyssey, that is, inventive sequels that mine the Homeric poem, at times in a perverse fashion. This is a textualist, authorial approach, whereas I prefer to see these post-return narratives as essentially traditional. Their variance suggests local motivation in the arrangement of traditional elements in order to construct the past, which also seems to be at play in the Ithacan constitution. If myth provides a long-standing langue out of which historical narratives could be collectively constructed,50 then we can well view the Constitution as a late classical Ithacan narrative that employs aspects of traditional myth, including post-return adventures of Odysseus, to provide a mythological history that speaks to contemporary, as well as long-standing, concerns of the small Ionian island.
Bibliography
Bakker, E.J. 2020. How to End the Odyssey. Trends in Classics 12: 48–68. →
Bittlestone, R., Diggle, J., and Underhill, J. 2005. Odysseus Unbound: The Search for Homer’s Ithaca. Cambridge. →
Bonanni, M. 1992. Il cerchio e la piramide: L’epica omerica e le origini del politico. Bologna. →
Burgess, J.S. 2017. Land and Sea in the Odyssey and the Telegony. In Time and Space in Ancient Myth, Religion and Culture, eds. Bierl, A., Christopoulos, M., and Papachrysostomou, A., 27–42. Berlin. →
Danek, G. 1998. Epos und Zitat. Vienna. a, b, c
Danek, G. 2015. Nostoi. In The Greek Epic Cycle and Its Ancient Reception, eds. Fantuzzi, M. and Tsagalis, C., 355–379. Cambridge. →
Davies, M. 1989. The Greek Epic Cycle. Bristol. →
Fowler, R. 2013. Early Greek Mythography, vol. 2. Oxford. a, b, c
Gehrke, H.-J. 2001. Myth, History and Collective History. In The Historian’s Craft in the Age of Herodotus, ed. Luraghi, N., 286–313. Oxford. →
Hall, J. 2007. Politics and Greek Myth. In The Cambridge Companion to Mythology, ed. Woodard, R.D., 331–334. Cambridge. →
Halliday, W.R. 1927. A Local Version of a Sequel to the Odyssey and the Cult of Telemachos in Ithaka. Annals of Archaeology and Anthropology 14: 3–12. a, b, c
Halliday, W.R. 1928. The Greek Questions of Plutarch. Oxford. a, b
Hansen, W. 2002. Ariadne’s Thread. Ithaca, NY. →
Hartmann, A. 1917. Untersuchungen über die Sagen vom Tod des Odysseus. Munich. a, b, c
Heubeck, A. 1992. Books XXIII – XXII. In A Commentary on Homer’s Odyssey, vol. 3, ed. Heubeck, A. Oxford. →
Hornblower, S. and Biffis, G. 2018. The Returning Hero: Nostoi and Traditions of Mediterranean Settlement. Oxford. →
Jones, C.P. 1999. Kinship Diplomacy in the Ancient World. Cambridge, MA. →
Kanavou, N. 2015. The Names of Homeric Heroes: Problems and Interpretations. Berlin. →
Le Chevalier, J.B. 1829. Ulysses Homer: Or a Discovery of the True Author of the Iliad and Odysssey, by Constantine Koliades. London. →
Malkin, I. 1998a. The Returns of Odysseus. Colonization and Ethnicity. Berkeley. a, b, c, d, e
Malkin, I. 1998b. Ithaka, Odysseus and the Euboeans in the Eighth Century. In Euboica: L’Eubea e la presenza euboica in Calcidica e in Occidente, eds. Bats, M. and Agostino, B.D., 1–10. Naples. →
Marks, J. 2008. Zeus in the Odyssey. Washington, DC. a, b
Merkelbach, R. 1969. Untersuchungen zur Odyssee. Munich. →
Meyer, E.A. 2015. Molossia and Epeiros. In Federalism in Greek Antiquity, eds. Beck, H. and Funke, P., 297–318. Cambridge. →
Morgan, C. 2007. From Odysseus to Augustus. Ithaka from the Early Iron Age to Roman Times. Pallas 73: 71–86. a, b, c, d
Morgan, C. 2016. A Closed Sea? Archaeological Evidence for Mobility in the Central Ionian Islands. In Sulle sponde dello Ionia: Grecia occidentale e greci d’Occidente, eds. Sestito, G.D.S. and Intrieri, M., 29–47. Pisa. a, b
Morgan, C. 2018. Nostoi and Material Culture in the Area of the Classical-Hellenistic Adriatic Seas: Questions and Approaches. In Hornblower and Biffis 213–244. a, b, c
Perry, T.P.J.P. 2010. Exile in Homeric Epic. (Unpubl. Ph.D. Diss. University of Toronto). →
Petrakis, V.P. 2006. History versus the Homeric ‘Iliad’: A View from the Ionian Islands. CW 99: 371–396.
Phillips, E.D. 1953. Odysseus in Italy. JHS 73: 53–67. →
Piccinini, J. 2017. The Shrine of Dodona in the Archaid and Classical Ages. A History. Macerata. →
Ready, J. 2019. Odysseus and the Suitors’ Relatives. In Yearbook of Ancient Greek Epic 3, ed. Burgess, J.S., 117–135. Leiden. →
Rutherford, I. 2001. Pindar’s Paeans: A Reading of the Fragments with a Survey of the Genre. Oxford. →
Sammons, B. The Space of the Epigone. In Yearbook of Ancient Greek Epic 3, ed. Burgess, J.S., 48–66. Leiden.
Scodel, R. 2002. Listening to Homer. Ann Arbor. →
Seaford, R. 1994. Reciprocity and Ritual: Homer and Tragedy in the Developing City-State. Oxford. →
Thalmann, W.G. 1998. The Swineherd and the Bow: Representations of Class in the Odyssey. Ithaca, NY. →
Thomas, R. 2019. Polis Histories, Collective Memories and the Greek World. Cambridge. a, b
West, M.L. 2013. The Epic Cycle. A Commentary on the Lost Troy Epics. Oxford. a, b
West, M.L. 2014. The Making of the Odyssey. Oxford. →
Notes
1
On collective construction of the past, see Gehrke (2001); Thomas (2019) 22–28.
2
Moralia, Quaest. Graec. 14; fr. 507 Rose, 511,1 Gigon.
3
Hartmann (1917) 140–144.
4
Malkin (1998a) 101–102, 127–133.
5
Marks (2008) ch. 4.
6
Halliday (1927/1928).
7
See Halliday (1927) 11.
8
See Halliday (1928) 81.
9
See Thomas (2019).
10
Coins with Odysseus date to the fourth century BCE; an inscription referencing a festival and sanctuary of Odysseus and the famous sherd inscription ‘a prayer to Odysseus’ date to the late third or early second century BCE. See Morgan (2007) 75–76; (2016) 39–40; (2018) 237–244.
11
See Morgan (2007) 75–79; (2018) 241–242. Cf. Malkin (1998b) for a trenchant linkage of the tripods to the Odyssey, unusual in its claim that a ninth-century Odyssey preceded the placement of tripods in the ‘cave’.
12
Morgan (2007) 75.
13
Malkin (1998a) 107–108.
14
Cf. Lycophron 799–800, 805–806, with scholia ad 799 = Aristotle fr. 508 Rose, 513 Gigon; ps.-Arist. Peplos 12, 13 lemmata; Hyg. Fab. 127. See in general Phillips (1953).
15
Ready (2019).
16
Hansen (2002) 201–211.
17
Cf. Heubeck (1992) 342–345; Seaford (1994) 38–41, 71–73; Danek (1998) 451, 454, 457, 500–502; Marks (2008) ch. 3; Bakker (2020).
18
Davies (1989) 88.
19
Cf. Hartmann (1917) 144; Danek (1998) 500–502. West (2013) 292, citing analytical scholarship, differently states that “it is unsafe to infer … that Eugammon [poet of the Telegony] did not know the last portion of our Odyssey.”
20
Seaford (1994) 38–41, 71–73; See also Bonanni (1992) 173–193 on the political underpinnings of the Odyssey.
21
See Perry (2010).
22
Halliday (1927) 5 blames the ‘stupidity’ of the epitomizer. Cf. Hes. Theog. 1013, where the children of Circe and Odysseus, Agrius and Latinus, rule the Tyrsenians in the ‘recesses of the holy islands’.
23
On the chronology of the Cycle poem, see Sammons (2019) 49–51; on myth featuring Neoptolemus, cf. Jones (1999) 44–48; Rutherford (2001) 152, 162, 305–306, 313–314.
24
E.g. Hellanicus fr. 84 Fowler: Aeneas went from the Molossians to Italy with Odysseus. See further Fowler (2013) 565–566.
25
Cf. Malkin (1998a) 136–138; Danek (2015) 369–370. West (2013) 264 doubts that Neoptolemus visited the Molossians in the Nostoi (“it would be the first appearance of the Molossians in Greek literature”).
26
Il. 2.749–750, 16.234–235; Od. 14.327–328 = 19.296–297.
27
On Molossia, Epirus and Dodona cf. Meyer (2015); Piccinini (2017).
28
Hartmann (1917) 142–144.
29
See schol. Lycophron 799 = fr. 508 Rose, 513 Gigon.
30
Burgess (2017).
31
Merkelbach (1969) 147 argued that exile motivated Odysseus’ travel to Thesprotia in the Telegony, though this required a textual change in Proclus to eliminate a return to Ithaca after visiting Elis before proceeding to Thesprotia. Danek (1998) 500–502 is particularly insightful about variant endings/sequels of the Odyssey.
32
‘Cephallenia’ is first used of the island in Thuc. 1.27. See Fowler (2013) 556 for the scholiastic story, attributed to the late sixth-century mythographer Akousilaos, that Ithakos and Neritos, two of the three ancestors of Ithaca mentioned at Od. 17.207, are from ‘Cephallenia’, which I do not take to be the island Cephalonia. I do not see that Bittlestone (2005), which argues that part of Cephalonia was the pre-historic Ithaca, provides any light on this issue.
33
Hartmann (1917) 142–143.
34
Petrakis (2006).
35
Cf. Od. 20.209–210 (Philoetius recalls Odysseus having him manage his cattle in the district of the Cephallenians), 24.354–355 (Laertes worries that messages are to be sent by the suitors’ relatives to cities of the Cephallenians), 24.378 (Laertes recalls ruling ‘Cephallenians’ after capturing Nericus on the mainland).
36
Malkin (1998a).
37
See Morgan (2007); (2016); (2018).
38
Od. 16.247–251; see also 1.245–248 = 16.122–125 = 19.130–133; 1.394–396; 21.346–347.
39
E.g. Hes. Theog. 1011–1016, Apollod. Epit. 7.40, Telegony, Proclus.
40
Arist. fr. 506 Rose, 512 Gigon; Hellanic. fr. 156 Fowler.
41
Fowler (2013) 557.
42
Malkin (1998a); Hornblower and Biffis (2018).
43
Scodel (2002).
44
See above.
45
Neither passage specifies freedom: Thalmann (1998) 90–91.
46
See Kanavou (2015) for etymological possibilities of the two names (128–130), with the observation that “Eumaios … may have sounded too obscure to be used in name-giving, though it is not entirely unattested” (166). Note is also made of the Coliadai and Boucolidai in the Constitution (167).
47
West (2014) 104.
48
The archaeological traveller Le Chevalier, with a pretense that periodically fools readers (1829), employed the pseudonym ‘Constantine Koliades’ and claimed to be an Ithacan descended from Eumaeus.
49
Notably, Lycophron 799, with scholia.
50
Hall (2007) 333.