The Odyssey - Manual of Secret Teachings?

[Zadius Sky]

Re: The Odyssey - question for all!

Their ship, after escorting Odysseus to his home, was turned to stone and plummeted to the bottom of the sea may be seen as a "less" punishment for the Phaiakians than a thunderbolts/fire/brimstone that the crew endured and a death by arrows/spears that the suitors received because they were more "civilized" and "more open relations with the gods" (e.g., connection). That the Phaiakians have not taken "the Mark of the Beast," either actively or passively?

I've been thinking about the Phaiakians since my last post above and while I was continuing reading Louden's first book. A few things jumped out at me.

I suggest that Eumaios and Alkinoös are contracting models of an internal audience, and that, as such, they imply different connections with audiences external to the poem. We noted above that both have associations with paradise. In the case of Alkinoös, commentators have noted many parallels between Skheria and the paradisaic afterlife, Elysium. Because of their paradisaic associations the Phaiakians function as a timeless, idealized audience. We first see this in Odysseus' experience as audience to Demodokos, hearing his own exploits made famous. As Murnaghan notes, Odysseus "experiences the reward that heroes die for but do not themselves normally experience: he witnesses and participates in the transmission of his own fame" (153). That Odysseus as audience is able to hear his heroic exploits being made immortal suggests an underworld or Elysian environment.

Alkinoös and the Phaiakians are a privileged audience in many ways. For Alkinoös, whose inquiry prompts the Apologue, Odysseus can step off the canvas, so to speak, as a previously known epic entity, and deliver a privileged account. As does no one else in the poem, except Penelope, the Phaiakians hear from the hero's own lips the central matter of the poem itself. Demodokos, the Phaiakian singer, also in the audience, gets privileged exposure to his craft. His own songs about Odysseus had referred only to Trojan exploits. There is no suggestion that he (or Phemios) is already aware of any of the deeds Odysseus will relate in the Apologue. Odysseus' narration of his exploits to an audience which includes a gifted singer thus depicts the tradition in action. That is, this is the Odyssey's only portrayal of a singer being informed in his craft, hearing new instances of the subject matter of epic poetry. The motif of "the singer looks at his source," wherein a bard observes the epic protagonist at firsthand, also occurs in Beowulf, and the Odyssey may implicitly offer a second instance of the motif in Odysseus' interview with Phemios (22.330-56). As the Phaiakians receive the fullest most privileged account, they are closer to the hero himself and less like us than other internal audiences. Their privileged status is evident in other ways. Alkinoös notes their special relations with the gods (7.201-6), again suggestive of paradise or a golden age environment. Yet they will never again enjoy such intimate narrative interaction, since Poseidon prevents any further access to Skheria (13.125-65), and Odysseus is never represented as giving a full-scale reiteration of his exploits.

And...

The poem further suggests that the Phaiakians have a close relationship not only with Poseidon but with the gods in general, Zeus declaring (5.35) "the Phaiakians who are near the gods in origin." Nausikaa in her portrait of her people affirms that the Phaiakians "are so very dear to the immortals" (6.203). Alkinoös offers the fullest articulation of a remarkably close relationship between his people and the immortals:

for always in time past the gods have shown themselves clearly
to us, when we render them glorious grand sacrifices,
and they sit beside us and feast with us in the place where we do,
or if one comes alone and encounters us, as a wayfarer,
then they make no concealments, as we are very close to them.
(7.201-5)

Such a relationship is so close that it precludes even the possibility of a theoxeny. Such a relationship, especially the sharing of the feast, generally betokens the relationships that prevails in a golden age, an era when both races, mortals and immortals, trust each other fully. In that case, the breaking of Poseidon's implicit divine interdiction especially parallels those broken by Epimetheus and Pandora, and Adam and Eve, as it results in the sundering of once close relations between a whole race of mortals and the gods. The conclusion of the sequence implies a further profound sundering of relations. The Phaiakians, never again to ferry mortals across the waters, are themselves now cut off from the outside world. Inasmuch as Poseidon will apparently never again trust the Phaiakians as before, they will lose a key part of their golden-age status, becoming more remote from the gods, more like most other mortals.

It does sound like Skheria (the land of the Phaiakians) was a "Golden Age" environment and their breaking the divine interdiction by escorting Odysseus home leads to their "Fall." Immediately, I am reminded from The Secret History of the World where Laura said:

The adamic race with its full set of DNA, with its connection to the higher centers in place and functioning, is what the C's describe here as 3D density STO living in a "semi/sort of" 4D state aligned with 4D STO. That sounds very much like a "Golden Age" when man "walked with the gods."

In making the choice to experience greater physically, the consciousness unit fractures and "Falls" from the STO state, loses its connection with the higher centers, and find itself more or less at the same level as the pre-adamic race, those who have no possibility of reaching the higher centers because the DNA hardware isn't in place.

It's also interesting to note that Phaiakians have ships that can be steered by thoughts as evident in Book VIII of the Odyssey where King Alkinoös said:

Therefore, Sir, do you on your part affect no more concealment nor reserve in the matter about which I shall ask you; it will be more polite in you to give me a plain answer; tell me the name by which your father and mother over yonder used to call you, and by which you were known among your neighbours and fellow-citizens. There is no one, neither rich nor poor, who is absolutely without any name whatever, for people's fathers and mothers give them names as soon as they are born. Tell me also your country, nation, and city, that our ships may shape their purpose accordingly and take you there. For the Phaeacians have no pilots; their vessels have no rudders as those of other nations have, but the ships themselves understand what it is that we are thinking about and want; they know all the cities and countries in the whole world, and can traverse the sea just as well even when it is covered with mist and cloud, so that there is no danger of being wrecked or coming to any harm.

Which could be their certain abilities that "most other mortals" don't have (due to a "connection with the divine," possibly - just a thought).

There's another thing about the Phaiakians that interests me is the "contained apocalypse" (actually, it's more that got me confused). In other two sequences, Helios threatened to "shine among the dead" because of the lack of self-control as evident in Odysseus' crew, Zeus chose a lesser destruction which was of the ship and crew. And, for Athena, the destruction of the suitors was the contained apocalypse and Zeus directed her to prevent any further violence, which is a lesser destruction.

And, regarding the destruction for the Phaiakian people, here's the dialogue between Poseidon (Neptune) and Zeus (Jove) from Samuel Butler's translation (my book is also Butler's translation):

And Jove answered, "What, O Lord of the Earthquake, are you talking about? The gods are by no means wanting in respect for you. It would be monstrous were they to insult one so old and honoured as you are. As regards mortals, however, if any of them is indulging in insolence and treating you disrespectfully, it will always rest with yourself to deal with him as you may think proper, so do just as you please."

"I should have done so at once," replied Neptune, "if I were not anxious to avoid anything that might displease you; now, therefore, I should like to wreck the Phaecian ship as it is returning from its escort. This will stop them from escorting people in future; and I should also like to bury their city under a huge mountain."

"My good friend," answered Jove, "I should recommend you at the very moment when the people from the city are watching the ship on her way, to turn it into a rock near the land and looking like a ship. This will astonish everybody, and you can then bury their city under the mountain."

Notice that last line: "you can then bury their city under the mountain?" That tells me that Zeus didn't choose a "lesser" destruction but gave a "go-ahead" for both destructions (which immediately brought to my mind of an imagery of a mountain/comet destroying Skheria and their ship being turned to stone and plummeted to the bottom of the sea which may symbolize a flood). This would be the only thing that Zeus didn't focus on the lesser destruction like he did for the other two sequences. The last thing that we read of the Phaiakians was that they were "afraid" after being astonished at their sunken ship and then getting ready the bulls for the sacrifices to Poseidon and stood around the altar. That was it. No mention of a "mountain" being atop the city or if that was ever prevented by the sacrifices being given. It was implied that they were hoping that Poseidon would have mercy on them and not bury their "city under the high mountain."

That is what bugs me because that last line is very different from what Louden is quoting here (from Laura's quote of Louden's latest book):

Oh good brother, this is what seems best to me,
when everyone from the city beholds the ship
driving by near the land, turn her into a stone
like a ship so all the people marvel;
but don't obliterate the city with a mountain.
Odyssey 13.154–8

That is a contradiction. "Do or Don't," which is it?

I don't have Homer's Odyssey and the Near East on hand yet, but in the Introduction's notes of his first book (page 136, n. 11), Louden wrote: "Translations of the Odyssey are those of Richmond Lattimore, though I occasionally adjust his renderings when I feel an important point has been obscured." Herakles earlier pointed out that Lattimore's translation is "closer to the original Greek." If that is true, that makes me to question Samuel Butler's translation of The Odyssey, which I would need to read Lattimore's.

Regardless, the Phaiakian people in The Odyssey may be a likely representation of the people living during an era of "Golden Age" before "the Fall."

 

[SethianSeth]

Re: The Odyssey - question for all!

Beautifully illustrated when Odysseus manages to stay awake for 9 days, steering, making sure that no wind goes unharnessed. When he finally succumbs to sleep again, what happens? The gods whip up a storm which blows him to the next place where his little 'i's' can get him caught up in the next lesson in seeing clearly in every moment.

In Fitzgerald's translation, we get:

"Odysseus, Canniest of men, replies:"

"The great tactician carefully replied:"

"To this the strategist Odysseus responded:


How wonderful is that? Being awake takes skills!

 

[go2]

Re: The Odyssey - question for all!

Beautifully illustrated when Odysseus manages to stay awake for 9 days, steering, making sure that no wind goes unharnessed. When he finally succumbs to sleep again, what happens? The gods whip up a storm which blows him to the next place where his little 'i's' can get him caught up in the next lesson in seeing clearly in every moment.

In Fitzgerald's translation, we get:

"Odysseus, Canniest of men, replies:"

"The great tactician carefully replied:"

"To this the strategist Odysseus responded:


How wonderful is that? Being awake takes skills!

Yes it is beautiful, the greedy little "I's" open the leather bag looking for gold on the spiritual Way and release wild winds of accident.

 

[SethianSeth]

Re: The Odyssey - question for all!

Regardless, the Phaiakian people in The Odyssey may be a likely representation of the people living during an era of "Golden Age" before "the Fall."

I think this makes a lot of sense, when thinking about the ring structure. To read in this light, I think it is so brilliant that Odysseus can only find himself in the land of the Phaiakians after he has experienced what has been designated in the ring structure as "intermezzo" (11-333-382). The "intermezzo" is so much more in this context. It would be the point in the story most unbound by linear time, and seems to represent the cleansing moment in Odysseus' journey where he must confront all death as his own: so many important archetypes in the life of Odysseus visit him here (only after a sacrifice of blood, certainly resembling the dismembering and boiling of shamanic initiation). It is because of this journey to the land of the dead that Odysseus is able to arrive in the "Golden Age" of the Phaiakians. That is how the sequence is rendered linearly, but we don't learn about the "intermezzo" until after he has been with the Phaiakians for some time. Only after they learn of this event in the life of Odysseus (tellingly not after they discover his known identity as a war hero), do they see the true honor of hosting such a journeyman.

It seems this would also cast new light on the fact that it is now Odysseus' duty to honor the people of the Golden Age by telling their story and preserving their way for the outer, less balanced, rings of human interaction/experience. He must bring that experience home.

I also find your ideas about Zeus allowing a larger apocalypse with the Phaiakians due to an "Adam and Eve" style betrayal of the gods very intriguing (if I understood correctly). Again, given the ring structure, it makes sense to me that the inner-most apocalypse would be a larger/more substantial one: like ripples in a pond. I will think on this more today, but this is what comes to mind first.

Thanks for the observations, Myrddin Awyr!

 

[StrangeCaptain]

Re: The Odyssey - question for all!

Romance

THE ODYSSEY AND THE MYTH OF JOSEPH

There are several different subtypes of recognition scenes, depending on a few key variables. Are both parties ignorant of each other’s identities, or just one? How long does it take before the other member learns the protagonist’s identity? Does the scene take place before the protagonist has regained his identity, or after? Which family member takes part in the recognition scene? We can construct a typology based on these variables, thereby ascertaining which particular scenes exhibit the closest parallels with each other, belong to the same subtype, and serve as the most reliable guides for understanding the dynamics of a given instance. Two of the variables situate The Odyssey and the myth of Joseph among other romances; two variables set The Odyssey and Joseph’s myth apart from other romance; and one variable is operative only within The Odyssey itself.

All of the recognition scenes in The Odyssey are delayed, except Athena’s and Argos’ immediate recognitions of Odysseus in Books 13 and 17. There are also whole scenes in which Odysseus’ identity is never disclosed while he tests a family member. I call such scenes (in which an unrecognized Odysseus interrogates a family member or servant, and receives proofs of loyalty) postponed recognition scenes. The same type is found in the myth of Joseph. Each protagonist tests his relatives or servants, and only after they have passed the tests does he, in a later meeting, reveal his identity. This type of recognition scene is a hallmark of each character, as Athena declares of Odysseus (Od. 13.296–9), and a tacit form of self-identification for the audience. There is a different context and different rhythm for each family member, a different sense of when is the right moment for the disclosure of identity. The Odyssey thus employs three cadences for disclosure of Odysseus’ identity, immediate, delayed, and postponed. In an immediate recognition the other party recognizes Odysseus as soon as the encounter begins. In delayed recognition the other party learns Odysseus’ identity by the end of the scene. In a postponed recognition the other party only learns Odysseus’ identity in a later scene.

...

In a fourth variable, two recognition scenes feature Odysseus being tested by the other party, Athena in Book 13, and Penelope in Book 23. I call such episodes reversed recognitions.

A fifth and final distinction in The Odyssey’s recognition scenes is whether they occur before or after Odysseus slays the suitors. If they occur before, they are preparatory to defeating the suitors, and are, to some degree, involved in the conclusion of The Odyssey’s use of theoxeny. These scenes, except that with Argos, involve characters who can in some way assist Odysseus in defeating the suitors. Thus Athena, Telemachos, Philoitios, and Eumaios all take part in the suitors’ destruction, while Eurykleia assists by locking the doors, keeping everyone within (Od. 21.380–7). But if the recognition scenes occur after the suitors’ destruction, such as those with Penelope and Laertes, they conclude The Odyssey’s use of romance.

The Odyssey also employs recognition scenes in conjunction with larger structural concerns. Most recognition scenes have a specific counterpart, a complementary scene constructed in closely parallel fashion. Athena’s scene in Book 13 is paired with Penelope’s in Book 23 in being reversed recognitions, and in having Odysseus bestow a kiss. To a lesser degree Athena’s scene is also paired with Argos’ in being immediate recognitions. The episodes with Eumaios (Books 14–15) are closely connected with the recognition scene with Telemachos (Book 16),42 just as in Book 19 the recognition with Eurykleia is related to the postponed recognition with Penelope. These two pairs of symbiotic recognition scenes frame the scenes of the suitors abusing Odysseus in the two books in between, Books 17 and 18. The final two recognition scenes, with Penelope in Book 23, and the Laertes scene in Book 24, also complement each other, forming a unit after the destruction of the suitors.

If I understand this correctly, this commentary above hearkens again to the symmetry in The Odyssey. And it seems it is this symmetry which makes it different than the other myths. Could it be this symmetry went unnoticed by those who changed elements of myths for political purposes? As has already been mentioned this symmetry could be the stamp that tells us of authenticity of The Odyssey.

If I have understood these commentaries correctly, it seems the destruction of the suitors is the center of the symmetry, which it might be useful to ponder upon. All in all, really fascinating... Still reading The Odyssey myself, but at the moment I am catching up on these commentaries Laura posted.

 

[mcb]

Re: The Odyssey - question for all!

...If I understand this correctly, this commentary above hearkens again to the symmetry in The Odyssey. And it seems it is this symmetry which makes it different than the other myths. Could it be this symmetry went unnoticed by those who changed elements of myths for political purposes? As has already been mentioned this symmetry could be the stamp that tells us of authenticity of The Odyssey....

That is what I am understanding. When you see all these parallels in the Bible, but the various pieces don't fit together into a whole there the way they do in The Odyssey, you start to suspect that they were borrowed from it. I can't speak for the other works besides the Bible.

Back in the days when these books were written you couldn't just order up a copy of a book on your Kindle. There was room for all sorts of shenanigans if you had a sufficiently captive audience, and who would know? And why worry about symmetry?

If I have understood these commentaries correctly, it seems the destruction of the suitors is the center of the symmetry, which it might be useful to ponder upon. All in all, really fascinating... Still reading The Odyssey myself, but at the moment I am catching up on these commentaries Laura posted.

Still absorbing it myself, and thinking about reading the story yet again. The comments in this thread have been very helpful.

 

[Laura]

Re: The Odyssey - question for all!

Yes, when I understood the extremely complex ring structure of the Odyssey, it struck me that this might very well be the evidence of its great antiquity. Also that, despite the fact that some details might have been modernized, the essentials of the story had been handed on intact and we might very well learn a great deal about our true history by deciphering it.

The writers of the Bible had no real structure at all as far as I can see; things just borrowed and arranged for polemical and political purposes with details and line of force changed again and again.

Once again, I'm really glad that some of you are coming along on this journey with me and seeing the same things I'm seeing.

 

[Palinurus]

Re: The Odyssey - question for all!

That is a contradiction. "Do or Don't," which is it?

I hope this can settle it once and for all: My translation (from Greek to Dutch) gives the 'do' sentence - (paraphrasing) ...this will astonish everybody, and after that you can then bury their city under the mountain as well... So according to my source Butler has it right and Louden is misquoting.

 

[Laura]

Re: The Odyssey - question for all!

That is a contradiction. "Do or Don't," which is it?

I hope this can settle it once and for all: My translation (from Greek to Dutch) gives the 'do' sentence - (paraphrasing) ...this will astonish everybody, and after that you can then bury their city under the mountain as well... So according to my source Butler has it right and Louden is misquoting.

That may not settle it. We need to see it in Greek. After all, the translation from Greek to Dutch may have followed an already established convention.

 

[Palinurus]

Re: The Odyssey - question for all!

Good point. Could well be the case.

I have the Greek text next to me. It reads: "... , μή δέ σφιν őρος πόλει άμφικαλύψαι!"

According to this I gather it's the other way around than what I stated previously. I looked up every word and particle to get to this conclusion but I have to caution: it's been a long time since I personally translated Greek into any language.

So unless a native Greek reader says otherwise, Butler got it wrong and Lattimore's translation is "closer to the original Greek" (Herakles' statement) since μή δέ implies a negation.

 

[Zadius Sky]

Re: The Odyssey - question for all!

I hope this can settle it once and for all: My translation (from Greek to Dutch) gives the 'do' sentence - (paraphrasing) ...this will astonish everybody, and after that you can then bury their city under the mountain as well... So according to my source Butler has it right and Louden is misquoting.

That may not settle it. We need to see it in Greek. After all, the translation from Greek to Dutch may have followed an already established convention.

The sacred text website have it in Greek here (Unicode browser-support). The passage that is being looked at is Book 13, line 154–8.

I've been looking around the bookstores today, looking at several translations that was available on this passage. Lattimore and Fitzgerald are the "don't" translators while Butler/Fagles/Murray/Lombardo/Rieu are the "do."

ADDED:

The earliest person who translated The Odyssey into English was in 1615 by George Chapman (1559–1634), whose work that I cannot find online (especially the Book 13, which is a part of volume two).

The next person was Thomas Hobbes (1588–1679) who translated it in 1675 and the passage is shown here:

To Jupiter then Neptune answer’d this:
I could, O Jove, have been reveng’d with ease,
But that I fear’d you would offended be.
And now I’ll tell you what I mean to do.
As soon as I the ship returning see,
I’ll fix it, that they may no more do so;
Besides, their city with a hill I’ll hide.

O but, said Jupiter, were it my case,
When from the city people all espied
The ship hard by, I would a rock there place
In likeness of a ship not far from land,
To make men wonder, and then round about
The city make a mighty mountain stand.

The other person is Alexander Pope (1688–1744) who translated it in 1725 and can be read here:

The shaker of the earth replies:
"This then, I doom: to fix the gallant ship,
A mark of vengeance on the sable deep;
To warn the thoughtless, self-confiding train,
No more unlicensed thus to brave the main.
Full in their port a Shady hill shall rise,
If such thy will."--" We will it (Jove replies).
E'en when with transport blackening all the strand,
The swarming people hail their ship to land,
Fix her for ever, a memorial stone:
Still let her seem to sail, and seem alone.
The trembling crowds shall see the sudden shade
Of whelming mountains overhang their head!"

Well, the last one there sure described an overhead comet(s).

 

[Palinurus]

Re: The Odyssey - question for all!

This is getting a little weird.

The online text referenced above gives at this particular spot: "... , μέγα δέ σφιν ὄρος πόλει ἀμφικαλύψαι." Not μή δέ as in my textbook.

So it seems to be a case of corrupted texts which allow for and explain the discrepancy in translations.

Who is to decide what is which? I'm at a loss with this one.

 

[mcb]

Re: The Odyssey - question for all!

...So it seems to be a case of corrupted texts which allow for and explain the discrepancy in translations...

I guess that's what happens when your text isn't "infallible." :)

 

[Zadius Sky]

Re: The Odyssey - question for all!

This is getting a little weird.

The online text referenced above gives at this particular spot: "... , μέγα δέ σφιν ὄρος πόλει ἀμφικαλύψαι." Not μή δέ as in my textbook.

So it seems to be a case of corrupted texts which allow for and explain the discrepancy in translations.

Who is to decide what is which? I'm at a loss with this one.

Yeah, it brought me to an "either or:" two different analytic thoughts on this passage. One is, of course, Louden's analysis (the "don't") is that there are three contained apocalypses with Zeus directing for a lesser destruction.

The other is the "do" tells a very different thing as like I wrote earlier that a mountain atop the city may equal an asteroid/comet impact with a sunken ship equaling to a flood, and Zeus gave a "go-ahead" on both destructions for the Phaiakians (who are "more nearer to the gods") due to their breaking of a divine authority (not "respecting" Poseidon). And, the two other destructions were on the crew/suitors who are not "nearer to the gods." Two contained apocalypses with one full local apocalypse.

 

[Approaching Infinity]

Re: The Odyssey - question for all!

Now, why would Zeus made "a race of only sons?" So, the son can't look to his brothers for supports, only to his father and grandfather?

Maybe as a safeguard against those pesky, fictional "brother-usurpers" that pop up so often in the Bible. You know the routine, "And Telemachus really wasn't all that. Trust us (we mean, trust God). His brother was way cooler and corrected his evil brother's evil ways. Now we will all follow the correct religion approved by our board of directors, which is actually very old and was just discovered on this fancy scroll. In it, it is made perfectly clear that Telemachus was a blight on God's eye. Blah Blah." In other words, a message in a bottle to always be wary of 'brothers' men claiming supremacy (over the body of their dead brothers), e.g. the Bible.