Odysseus: Hero or Villain?

[JaeYu1]

Although, I am looking foward to your upcoming The Odyssey, I do take exception to your characterization of Odyesseus as "the epitome of everything Greek culture considers vile." If he was so vile, how could he, above all other characters in The Iliad, get his own epic? Nor, is he the villain of the story. If anyone is the villain, than the title rightly belongs to Paris (or Alexandros) the true instigator of the Trojan War!

The prophecy before Paris birth was that he was the firebrand that would destroy Troy. Not Odysseus. Not Achilles. Not Agamemnon.

And as for Achilles' character: Sure he was the greatest warrior blessed with perfect physical beauty... He was a demigod for pete sake's! And he was unbeatable because he had the gods literally fighting at his side! Give me Great Aias, the rock-steady soldier who fight on his own rather than that petulant hot-tempered, murderous man-god who cares for almost nothing but his own personal glory and treacherously prays for victory to the Trojans against his own Greek comrades... Just to show the Greeks how much they need him!

And I can't see how you consider Odysseus extracting a non-violence vow from all of Helen's suitors as anything but noble. He was trying to prevent a blood-bath. And as for his reluctance to participate in the Trojan War, considering your stance on the current Iraqi War, I find it surprising. Why should Odysseus abandon his wife, son and kingdom and risk his own life and that of his men to chase after an unfaithful, adulterous wife that is not even his?!? And considering what happened to Ithaca during his 20-years absence, I think his attempt to sit out the war was more than justified, especially since he was responsible for the ultimate victory for the long-haired Akhaians.

And as for the Trojans, they were almost as morally culpable as Paris himself. They knew that harboring Paris and Helen was wrong in the sights of gods and men, but their arrogant belief in their superiority kept them from returning Helen, even after Meleneus clearly defeated Paris in one-on-one combat. Let me also point out: Everyone, and I mean EVERYONE, hated Paris and repeatedly wished that he died at birth; including Hector and Helen. And while Hector gains a tragic nobility fighting against fate, gods and unfairly superior opponent (I'm not including Aias who beat Hector twice!), he was still fighting an immoral war, which he clearly knew...

And I hardly think the Homer, a Greek (or whatever collective poets composed both epics) would consider an Oriental civilization as more heroic than their own people. The genius of Homer was that he could bring to life the full expression of humanity to both sides of the war, but let’s be clear: the Poet clearly sided with his own people.

And as for Odysseus himself: Yes, he was tricky, sometime treacherous, violent. But he was also cunning, brave, pragmatic (when almost no one else was), efficient, loyal, and wanted nothing more than to get himself and his men back home quickly and safely as possible. He got trapped in a war not of his own making, battling the fates and gods themselves and finally made it back home, to restore order to his kingdom. Odysseus might not fulfill all the requirements of a modern hero, but he was a hero in the Classical sense and is a hero for all times...

[plainbrownwraper]

Uh, no. Odyesseus has to go to war because of the pledge he suggested be exacted, when he could have just minded his own business and let everybody kill each other over Helen.

Odyesseus' position as the antithesis of Greek virtue is referring to the fact that he acts in ways that emphasize cunning rather than straightforeward heroics - treachery of any sort has been historically considered to generally be a method of the weak rather than the strong.

Paris is an example of this - he sneaks off with Helen rather than confronting Menelaus, thus forcing the war, and bringing ruin upon his people - he is also portrayed as somewhat inept and less than heroic fighter - so, a perhaps even less admirable character than Odyesseus, and is eventually abandoned by the gods.

It is Achilles that epitomizes the pure warrior, a soldiers soldier: all his cunning is confined to his sword arm, he's the opposite of the politician - remember that we are talking about Greek martial/cultural values specifically.

Still, your jaundiced view of Achilles is not an entirely unpopular one, and Odyesseus has fared better since - "Myrmidon" has had long use as a slander, representing the mindlessly obedient zealot.

Anyway, sounds interesting, I'd never thought about it like that.

[Brenz]

I just love this passage:

Achilles and Odysseus are opposites throughout; if Achilles abandons a safe and long domestic life for a quick death and eternal glory on the battlefield, Odysseus wants nothing but a long and safe domestic life, and is willing to do pretty much anything to achieve it. He's practically the epitome of the ignoble in Greek life. He runs neck and neck with Job for first antihero in Western literature.

Is it any wonder I love the guy?

Hear, hear!

As for the sleeping around...they were demigoddesses. It was his evolutionary advantage to aim for children with strange powers and immortality.

[cfutino]

Although, I am looking foward to your upcoming The Odyssey, I do take exception to your characterization of Odyesseus as "the epitome of everything Greek culture considers vile." If he was so vile, how could he, above all other characters in The Illiad, get his own epic? Nor, is he the villain of the story. If anyone is the villain, than the title rightly belongs to Paris (or Alexandros) the true instigator of the Trojan War!

I also take exception to that. Many times on The Odyssey, Odysseus' cunning is refered to as a virtue. While the Trjan Horse maneuver sounds coward for today's standards, it was totally acceptable by Ancient Greece's standards.


And as for the Trojans, they were almost as morally culpable as Paris himself. They knew that harboring Paris and Helen was wrong in the sights of gods and men, but their arrogant belief in their superiority kept them from returning Helen, even after Meleneus clearly defeated Paris in one-on-one combat. Let me also point out: Everyone, and I mean EVERYONE, hated Paris and repeatedly wished that he died at birth; including Hector and Helen. And while Hector gains a tragic nobility fighting against fate, gods and unfairly superior opponent (I'm not including Aias who beat Hector twice!), he was still fighting an immoral war, which he clearly knew...

Now, there I have a problem. You seem to be using only Homer's version of the Trojan War, which had the greeks as heroes and the trojans as villains. On Virgil's version, the Trojan royal family was painted as heriocal and Odysseus, Achiles, Jason and Aias were refered to as villanous and treacherous. So, It's hard to automatically say it was a immoral war.

[JaeYu1]

Now, there I have a problem. You seem to be using only Homer's version of the Trojan War, which had the greeks as heroes and the trojans as villains. On Virgil's version, the Trojan royal family was painted as heriocal and Odysseus, Achiles, Jason and Aias were refered to as villanous and treacherous. So, It's hard to automatically say it was a immoral war.

Considering that Virgil's Aeneid describes the Trojan Prince Aeneas' founding of Rome, it's no wonder that the Greeks comes off appearing as villains. But considering Aeneas callous abandonment of Queen Dido to establish his own kingdom as well as his own bloodties, I really can't consider Aeneas' viewpoint of the Greek as unbiased or valid. Besides, I found Virgil's Aeneid to be fairly boring not to mention overtly propogandaistic...

[JaeYu1]

This is for Steven and everyone else: Which translations have you read and which do you prefer and why?

My first introduction to Homer was in Junior High when I was taking Ancient Greek (and barely passing!)... I read Richard Lattimore's translations and I still have my copy. His translation is very beautiful and poetic, but can be somewhat stilted and archaic at times. But still his version of Hektor's Farewell to Andromache moves me the most: "But may I be dead and the earth pile me under before I hear you screaming and know by this that they drag you captive..."

Robert Fritzgerald's is very good also, but it lacks the grandeur and majesty of Lattimore's language. More down-to-earth and modern language.

Overall, I think my favorite is Robert Fagles' translations: Very muscular, heroic and fast-paced, while still managing to maintain the painful beauty of Homer's epic.

I've only read Allen Mandelbaum's The Odyssey, which also quite good.

Overall, I'd recommend Fagles' overall, but Lattimore's are very good as well...

I'm eager to hear from everyone else's favorite.

[JaeYu1]

Okay, first off I want to make clear that I'm a big Steve Grant fan ever since I first read his CHALLENGERS OF THE UNKNOWN series. So this is by no means a Steven Grant bash thread. I just wanted to clarify my disagreement in regards to Steven's description in regards to one of my favorite characters in Greek Mythology: Odysseus.

This is what Steven wrote in his most recent column: "...and here Odysseus again displays his foul characteristics, as (in contrast to young Achilles, greatest of Greek heroes, who ignores prophecies of doom and parental machinations to rush eagerly to war and glory) he tries to feign madness to get out of his duty. This is eventually rewarded on the battlefield when the armor of Achilles, killed by Hector (the Trojan who's inexplicably the real hero of THE ILIAD if anyone is), is awarded to Odysseus as sort of a political payoff, and the book makes it pretty clear that both the act and recipient are vile. "

Let me clarify couple of points:

1) Achilles didn't eagerly rush off to the Trojan War. His mother, the sea goddess Thetis fearing the prophecy of her son's early death, disguised him as a girl and he lived among King Lycomedes' daughters until Odysseus tricked him into revealing his true identity. Basically, Odysseus shamed Achilles telling it's time to quit dressing like a girl and start behaving like a man and go out kill as many complete strangers as possible! (BTW, this is post-Homeric tradition, so I'll leave it up to all of you whether this story should be considered canon or not.)

2) Hektor didn't kill Akhilles. Akhilles killed Hektor, who in turned got killed by that gutless womanizer Paris aka Alexandros.

3) The rewarding of Akhilles' armour to Odysseus was not some "political payoff". During Akhilles' funeral game, the entire Greek assembly stood in judgement to award the armour to the bravest living Greek warrior. Only Odysseus and Telamonian Aias could lay claim to it. Both gave long speeches to why each deserved it and the Greeks decided that Odysseus was more deserving. (Yes, it could be argued that Odysseus won simply because he was a better orator, but that still doesn't make him some vile low-life) And this was before the Trojan Horse stratagem, so Odysseus was nominated and won on his previous merits, which was quite long and distinguished!

4) Nothing in the 3 different translations of The Iliad that I have read, Lattimore's, Fritzgerald & Fagles, ever stated explicitly or implicitly that Odysseus and the rewarding of Akhilles armour to Odysseus was ever considered vile. This is something vastly new to me and quite a shock. If anyone can provided a passage from a translation of The Illiad to corroborate such statement, I will be more than happy to apologizes but until then...

5) When Odysseus traveled to Hades to consult the shade of Tiresias for guidance, he displayed keen remorse toward Telamonian Aias for being the inadvertent cause of his suicide. (Aias was so enraged at losing the armour, he went mad and slaughtered a herd of sheeps, believing them to be the Greeks, especially Odysseus and Agamemnon. When he regained his sanity, Aias was furthered ashamed and fell on his own sword.) Odysseus never realized that Aias would feel so dishonoured and wished he had lost the armour and not Aias: Not a reaction one would expect from a vile, duplicitous, foul villain...

[Gordon Smith]

I've read a good number of translations of the Iliad and Odyssey. I like Lattimore's the best, although I'll concede certain passages don't always flow as smoothly as they might. Fagles did an excellent job as well. I'm going to pick up his edition of the Aeneid when it comes out in paperback.

[Subotai]

With you on that one. I've always enjoyed Lattimore's more, although Fagles' seems to be the more popular translation nowadays.

[bartl]

OK, I must admit that I haven't read the Iliad since college, but IIRC, Achilles is still alive at the end, Hector is dead, and the Trojan Horse never makes an appearance. It's about a single episode during the Trojan War where Achy gets into a huff, leaves the battlefield, has his friend impersonate him, has his friend die, and goes back into battle to avenge his friend, killing Hector, and finally allowing Hector's fathdr to give im a decent burial. The Achy vs. Oddy is more the Spartan heroic ideal vs. the Athenean heroic ideal. It was by ROMAN standards that Oddy was vile and dishonorable.

[berk]

I don't think the terms hero and villain, in theri modern sense, really apply to the Iliad or the Odyssey at all. But maybe Steven Grant might have been using those words for rhetorical purposes, in order to make his point, which does I think have a basis in the poems. I don't think Odysseus is a villain, but he does subvert the value system of the world in which he lives, precisely by being devious and repeatedly "holding one thing in his heart and speaking something else" as Achilles pointedly remarks in the embassy scene. So in this sense he subverts the code of behaviour that underlies the entire culture in which he exists, although in other ways he continues to act according to its tenets. Interestingly, Achilles himself subverts the code in a completely different sense: by talking it to its logical extreme and thereby making its internal contradictions manifest. This is related to something I think a lot of readers miss when they read the Iliad: the value-system in which these characters and their story takes place is very different from ours and within that value system, Achilles' behaviour is not nearly as negative as it looks from our POV. That value-system placed huge, I'd even say primary importance on personal honour, and failing to assert yourself and do everything you could to maximize and maintain that honour would be considered in a very negative light. That's why, for example, Odysseus shouts out that boast to Polyphemus as he escapes from the Cyclops' island. What in our value-system seems a foolhardy, childish action, makes total sense in the code under which Odysseus is operating. And that's why Achilles' withdrawal from the fighting, which seems to us completely disloyal and selfish, also makes sense.

[JaeYu1]

I don't think the terms hero and villain, in theri modern sense, really apply to the Iliad or the Odyssey at all... That value-system placed huge, I'd even say primary importance on personal honour, and failing to assert yourself and do everything you could to maximize and maintain that honour would be considered in a very negative light. That's why, for example, Odysseus shouts out that boast to Polyphemus as he escapes from the Cyclops' island. What in our value-system seems a foolhardy, childish action, makes total sense in the code under which Odysseus is operating. And that's why Achilles' withdrawal from the fighting, which seems to us completely disloyal and selfish, also makes sense.

I agree with everything you say... Achilles' withdrawal of himself and his forces from combat was understandable since Agamemnon's abduction of Briseis shamed him in front of all the Greek generals. But what I find dishonorable about Achilles behavior was his prayer afterwards to Zeus that the Trojans would wreck havoc on the Greeks just to prove how much they needed him! Achilles isn't just anyone. He is favored of the gods and he knew it! Achilles knew Zeus would answer his prayer and have the Trojans slaughter the Greeks, whom many were obstensibly his friends! That's not a very honorable behavior no matter what time period...

[berk]

I'd say even his prayers to Zeus to punish the Achaeans for their slight to him is understandable within the value-system of the Iliad, and at the same time is quite horrifying. That's what I was getting at earlier when I said that Achilles subverts the accepted moral code by showing its inherent contradictions. By following it to its logical end, he becomes someone who is praying for disaster to come to his allies, which of course contradicts other parts of the moral code - personal loyalty, most obviously. The reconciliation comes about when both sides in the dispute acknowledge, to themselves and to one another, that they have gone too far, and the moral code remains intact - for now. Only for now, because there's no urning back from the awareness brought about by Achilles' actions, actions that have called into question the entire morality of his culture. And Achilles himself expresses some of these questions explicitly on more than one occasion in the epic. All this is just one of the many facets that make him so intriguing a figure and one of the great characters of world literature. The paragon, the most perfect exemplar of a particular code of existence at the same time subverts it, tests it to its limits and beyond.

Odysseus, as said above, does the same thing from a completely oppisite direction, subverting the conventional morality by demonstrating other ways to act, other ways to make decisions, other ways to live. And in doing so he helps usher in a new morality, one in which intelligence and adaptability is as valued as strength and aggression. I see his suggestion to Tyndareus to bind the Achaeans in an oath to defend Helen's husband in this light. This kind of unity and co-operation weren't really part of the then-current morality; all these different Achaean kings spent most of their time raiding each other's cattle and generally trying to get the better of one another - another reason Achilles' political disloyalty isn't as negative as it might seem. Odysseus' suggestion of the oath basically invents the idea of unity and loyalty among the kingdoms, IWO, it helps move the Greeks from the heroic, legendary age of individual prowess into the modern age of collective action and co-operation. The fact that he does so for selfish motives shows that he is an ambivalent character who moves within both moralities and from one to the other. IOW, like the very different Achilles, he's a figure of great complexity and not easy to sum up in a few phrases.

I find characters like this, who challenge the prevailing moral order, inherently fascinating. In a way, it's the ultimate heroism, the ultimate in "moral" courage, to dare to question the very basis of right and wrong, of good and evil shared by your peers, your society, the very world in which you exist. Not that such a Nietzschean 'revaluation of all values' is necessarily going to be an heroic act, let alone beneficial, or a good thing in itself - but heroism, in the Homeric sense, doesn't refer to good guys vs bad guys. Anyway, it's in this sense, if any, that I'd take Mr Grant's description of Odysseus as a villain - in that he calls into question the morality of his world, its concept of right and wrong. Anyone who does that is in a way a "villain" in the terms of the morality which is being questioned.

[Brenz]

Berk, you should, if you're not already, be a teacher. That made me thirsty to read the story.

[berk]

Thanks very much, but no I'm strictly an amateur. But of course amateur is derived from "lover" and maybe it's that love of the subject matter that's making the impression. I could go on and on about the Iliad and the Odyssey; they're so rich in meaning, such fertile subjects for interpretation and analysis, and the bits I've brought up here touch on only one aspect of a multitude of possibilities. In a way, though, I'm not sure I should be saying any of this, because I don't want to mess with Steven Grant's idea, which I think is pretty cool and original, and I'd like to see him bring it to fruition. Not that what I've said here contradicts it, I think, but I don't want to screw with the creative process. Anyway, it's just one interprtetation.

[cfutino]

Considering that Virgil's Aeneid describes the Trojan Prince Aeneas' founding of Rome, it's no wonder that the Greeks comes off appearing as villains. But considering Aeneas callous abandonment of Queen Dido to establish his own kingdom as well as his own bloodties, I really can't consider Aeneas' viewpoint of the Greek as unbiased or valid. Besides, I found Virgil's Aeneid to be fairly boring not to mention overtly propogandaistic...

Aeneid was obviously biased, I'll give you that. But the same can be said of the Illiad or the Odyssey. My point was: It's hard to discuss the morality of the Trojan War based only on the epics, given they are all biased.

On that topic, did you really find Aeneid boring? I think it's even a more fun (funnier?) reading the the Odyssey.

This is for Steven and everyone else: Which translations have you read and which do you prefer and why?

I really don't remember who translated the versions I read. Nonetheless, I'm not sure you'll guys would know them, because I've read portuguese translations.

[JaeYu1]

Aeneid was obviously biased, I'll give you that. But the same can be said of the Illiad or the Odyssey. My point was: It's hard to discuss the morality of the Trojan War based only on the epics, given they are all biased.

Well, with Homer, at least he was dealing with the stories of his own people (well at least the Greek part). With Virgil, he had his own personal agenda: 1) He wanted to out-do Homer as the greatest epic poet (Yeah, right! :rolleyes: ) 2) He wanted to create a Mythological origin for the Roman people and made Prince Aeneas of Troy as the founding father. Somehow, that meant making the Greeks look like well the Greeks in TROY, dirty, barbarous, murderous, rapine looters, killers and thieves. And maybe it was the translation, but I found Virgil's Aeneid really boring. Although, after this, I might go back and re-read it...

[Gordon Smith]

I don't have a huge love for the Aeneid myself. I consider it to be state-sponsored propaganda in many ways, glorifying a specific Roman dynasty and striving to justify Roman imperialism. Those criticisms aside, as a literary accomplishment, I find it far inferior to the Homeric epics.

[berk]

I don't have a huge love for the Aeneid myself. I consider it to be state-sponsored propaganda in many ways, glorifying a specific Roman dynasty and striving to justify Roman imperialism. Those criticisms aside, as a literary accomplishment, I find it far inferior to the Homeric epics.Those are pretty much my feelings as well. There's a neat little anecdote that Ezra Pound tells somewhere or other, about an illiterate Irishman who was in the process of learning to read (I might be garbling this a little) by going through the Aeneid, and when his teacher asked him what he thought of the hero, he said "Who?" And when the teacher said he meant Aeneas, the guy said "Him, a hero? I thought he was a priest!"

Basically, to go back to the terminology I was using in my earlier posts, the Aeneid is written from a moral viewpoint closer to our modern day one than is Homer's stuff, but in the negative sense that Virgil, like the Romans in general, did see things from a black and white, good vs evil, us vs them POV. The Romans and Aeneas are good and anyone against them is pretty much bad, although of course Virgil's desire to emulate Homer means that some of Homer's infinitely more sophisticated and ambiguous worldview creeps in her and there. This difference extends even to the contrast b/n Greek and Roman historians. Compare Livy to Greeks historians like Thucydides or Herodotus or Polybius. It's amazing how much more partisan Livy is to his own people than the Greeks.

[Steven Grant]

And maybe it was the translation, but I found Virgil's Aeneid really boring. Although, after this, I might go back and re-read it...

Like most of these things, THE AENEID's readability depends entirely on the translator. For a long time, very stiff translations were mandatory because it was felt the material was worthy of a certain weight, given its status as a great classic. The Victorian viewpoint, really. But there have been fairly breezy translations too - read one in college when I read the book, don't remember whose now - that turn it into much livelier writing.

Geoffrey Of Monmouth also creates a line to antiquity for the British people by having Brutus, who I think is a grandson of Priad, mimic the travels of Aeneus and escape the fall of Troy to lead a group of Trojan to the British Isles in HISTORY OF THE KINGS OF BRITAIN. Good fun.

- Grant

[Steven Grant]

I don't have a huge love for the Aeneid myself. I consider it to be state-sponsored propaganda in many ways, glorifying a specific Roman dynasty and striving to justify Roman imperialism. Those criticisms aside, as a literary accomplishment, I find it far inferior to the Homeric epics.

It was state sponsored propaganda.

- Grant