The Odyssey - Manual of Secret Teachings?

[SethianSeth]

Re: The Odyssey - question for all!

So glad you are reading these Louden books right now, Myrddin Awyr! Every time something is posted up from one of them something clicks.

Also, finishing Laura's amazing article 'The Golden Age, Psychopathy, and the Sixth Extinction,' seem to be bringing a lot into focus as far as how this could have potentially played out. That article really maps it out flawlessly, as well as states the areas that will need work examining and fleshing out. I can't believe the state of "mind racing" puzzle piecing it has put me in over the last couple of days. It takes a few hours to read, but it is mind-blowing context for this Odyssey exercise, imo. Here's the link: http://www.sott.net/articles/show/227222-The-Golden-Age-Psychopathy-and-the-Sixth-Extinction


The paradise scenario makes sense because in that context, the mode of Kalypso's "concealment" IS sex (as Johnno elaborated). Reading based on the Gnosis material, Kalypso (STS mode immortal) is concealing human access to the higher centers through a manipulation (drain) of the sexual center. This vectoring the energy of the sexual center (which could be used to reconnect Odysseus with his wife) straight to 4DSTS keeps things mechanical and static - unable to evolve, esoterically speaking.

Further, if the narrative convention to enter mid-story (for this time only) part of the clue system of the "unstuck in time" nature of true reality, an important question could be: is this apparent "materialization" of the title character supposed to represent the subtleties of a souled body regaining (or giving birth to) permanent consciousness (which exists at first only in potential)? This structural element looks at this point to be a storytelling technique divorced of linearity and defined by endlessly shifting relationships in specific symbolic contexts which revolve around one another cyclically at varying speeds through space-time (Phew! ). Further, this technique could then have been used to point at both the "why" and the "how" of the whole STS agenda of absorbing and enslaving the creative principle, as well as existing as a literal piece of the technology they may have been utilizing to access higher realms (!?). Maybe by mastering this way of thinking, disconnected from linear time and able to subtly navigate the very elusive ins and outs of the gods and their doings, the Greek master storyteller was able to reconnect to the higher centers capable of extremely abstract and unified thinking, and we are lucky enough to have found a relatively well preserved example in Homer (whoever he or she was) and his/her assemblages. Could Homer have been a Master Alchemist like Fulcanelli, before there was such a thing as a master alchemist? Maybe the early Greeks and Celtics were able to preserve a 'Way' and a teaching from the Golden Age before Atlantis and the Deluge, from their ancestors, passed down through 'Storytelling Technology" and once this was discovered a disinformation campaign was launched in Judeo-Christianity and the Bible. Obviously I am just bringing up ideas from Laura's article and trying to put them in context of the Odyssey, these things would need to be backed up by text and multiple tests from multiple angles.

Perhaps through Odysseus on Kalypso's island, we see that the permanent part of a human (father) can exist in a sort of veiled timelessness as hostage, yet has the option of "withdrawing the light" (manifested as physical death or even loss of hope) animating the lower body (the son/wife), and returning to home-base or 5D. Odysseus is miserable! All he desires is to be engaged in a loooong-scale re-integration with the other centers. Why? Well, because once upon a time, before deliberate separation and slavery, they were a FAMILY! They are supposed to be working together. Odysseus couldn't be happy in Kalypso's paradise because it is a static paradise and thus a cage. It is built on an illusion of "the real deal." In order to truly attain paradise (as he once knew it) he acknowledges that he would have to be whole again.

How did this whole ordeal get underway? It seems once upon a time there was a variably physical STO realm with beings naturally connected to the creative higher centers ("The Fifth Planet??"). This connection manifested itself as free access to the boundless realm of geometrical archetype (non-material), as conscious experience in ways we can't even imagine. This is way before the bi-cameral mind. This is before the physical brain itself. It seems like this is being depicted during "A Gathering of Shades" in Book 11. Is this the exact timeless center of the "story" or intermezzo? At some point, 3D/4D STO got the con job and agreed to the strictly 3D mortal material life in an STS zone (threat of a large scale apocalypse? Promise of STS sex pleasure? Both and more?). Because we agreed to "jump in," we welcomed physical limitation (which is really a "breaking up the family" when it comes to a previous access to timelessness/the limiting of genetic codes). Perhaps we became amnesiacs of the whole thing (as if from suffering severe head trauma I think the C's said) because we "jumped in" via a genetic virus to the Cro-Magnon physical bodies (prepared by 4D STS as soul-vehicles). This genetic material was deposited on earth as a cometary fragment from the previously destroyed "Fifth Planet" after it interacted electrically with Venus (4D STS comet missile?!), and/or was utterly destroyed and propelled into its own orbit, creating the astroid belt as well as condemning earth to cyclical battles of the angry gods (or broken up comet body showers). Pre-Adamic Neanderthal man is brought low and is "replaced" by Cro-Magnon upgrade, setting the stage for the slow infiltration of Neanderthal genes and birth of "essential psychopath." A complicated web of events, indeed!

If we take the Skheria realm as semi-paradise (we could maybe say mini-golden age), as you pointed out we could potentially place it in the context of former 3D/4D STO now existing and trying to function according to STO in strictly 3D STS zone Earth (and succeeding to some degree, although with some slip ups). This is Cro-Magnon/Adamic man, and for a while peaceful society is allowed to thrive. Because of the element of their genetics that allows a "soul connection," they are able to come up with a peaceful, hospitality based society which accounts for the "third force" of context with regards to the gods and mortals - they can be STS and they can be STO, it is our job to "give respect" or "give the gods their due" as a way of determining this dynamic in each instance. This technique is developed so effectively that the Cro-Magnon societies must be infiltrated slowly by memes that appear to be positively oriented, but are actually destructive and limiting in nature.

Which brings us to the Ithaka realm, which is a 3D STS overrun society, a former paradise now disgraced. Telemachos is caught in a "last good man" negative theoxeny. The whole landscape is overrun with STS constraints, manipulations, and violations of the hospitality myth "technology." AKA prime time for a balancing move!

The only way lost or obscured unity can be attained is through the action of the "time bound" STO candidate rejecting the feeding scenario. Telemachos must declare violent intent on the insolent suitors, he has to clean his house up, and he has to do it BEFORE he knows for sure that his father even exists anymore. There is no promise: only a hospitality myth to function as a roadmap "home" to STO existence.

And again, the cyclical structure illustrates the subtleties of these dynamics FAR better than a linear description ever could!

Sorry for the ramble, I got excited with ideas. Obviously, it all needs a lot of backing up. I never realized the Odyssey could be so mysterious...

 

[Psalehesost]

Re: The Odyssey - question for all!

In reading The Vegetarian Myth after reading The Odyssey, I started thinking of an idea that those who do agriculture - squeezing the very life out of the Earth - are analogous to the suitors in global terms. Apart from psychopaths and their doings, perhaps an agricultural system of civilization is so inherently entropic all by itself as to guarantee by itself a cometary visit or two?

Maybe all who support such a system would be targeted by the "balancing mechanism"?

 

[Laura]

Re: The Odyssey - question for all!

I was just thinking too about possible parallels between Odysseus and Jacob of the bible, both having similar "thigh wounds" and then there is the olive tree symbolism, which appears to be of Hebrew origin.

Don't you think you want to rephrase that considering all the evidence presented in this thread that the Bible plagiarized everything available at the time to write a fake history of a non-existent Israel?

 

[Laura]

Re: The Odyssey - question for all!

So glad you are reading these Louden books right now, Myrddin Awyr! Every time something is posted up from one of them something clicks.

Also, finishing Laura's amazing article 'The Golden Age, Psychopathy, and the Sixth Extinction,' seem to be bringing a lot into focus as far as how this could have potentially played out. That article really maps it out flawlessly, as well as states the areas that will need work examining and fleshing out. I can't believe the state of "mind racing" puzzle piecing it has put me in over the last couple of days. It takes a few hours to read, but it is mind-blowing context for this Odyssey exercise, imo. Here's the link: http://www.sott.net/articles/show/227222-The-Golden-Age-Psychopathy-and-the-Sixth-Extinction

All of ya'll who are getting brain zooms from this exercise, please feel free to take the Golden Age article, format it in a doc, and start inserting some notes where expansion is needed. Do it with the "track changes" function and we can pass it around and keep building on the foundation.

 

[Laura]

Re: The Odyssey - question for all!

In reading The Vegetarian Myth after reading The Odyssey, I started thinking of an idea that those who do agriculture - squeezing the very life out of the Earth - are analogous to the suitors in global terms. Apart from psychopaths and their doings, perhaps an agricultural system of civilization is so inherently entropic all by itself as to guarantee by itself a cometary visit or two?

Maybe all who support such a system would be targeted by the "balancing mechanism"?

Going in a useful direction, I think. Also what about what the Cs said about those that accept torture having taken "the mark of the beast"??? And what happens to all those with the "Mark" in Revelation???

 

[Maia]

Re: The Odyssey - question for all!

You can get a free copy here. http://www.4shared.com/document/jEUsvrRs/The_Odyssey_by_Homer.htm (2,415 KB)

Before commenting, I need to reread sections as I found the text beautifully written but the couple of times I've read it, I found it difficult to get through.

But, read something one year and it means nothing, go back a few years later and sometimes things that went over ones head previously, begin to click into place.

I do remember it was beautifully written.

 

[Meager1]

Re: The Odyssey - question for all!

I was just thinking too about possible parallels between Odysseus and Jacob of the bible, both having similar "thigh wounds" and then there is the olive tree symbolism, which appears to be of Hebrew origin.

Don't you think you want to rephrase that considering all the evidence presented in this thread that the Bible plagiarized everything available at the time to write a fake history of a non-existent Israel?

Reading what I wrote, is clear that I did not express that very well at all.
I should have said, I wondered about the similarity of the "thigh wounds" of both Odysseus and the Jacob of the bible, which could mean that this too was another parallel to an older story, added to the bible later.

Also, the "Hebrew olive tree" appears to be only a new take on the much older "world tree" symbolism, now thought by many, to be of Hebrew origin.

Added..and that the "guests" in the story, who were consuming the pig herd, would be those who are considered to be, just taking the fat.


Seems I still have the same old problem expressing what I mean to say, by using to few words and expecting others to just fill in the blanks, even though this particular "problem" has been pointed out to me and explained numerous times, already. I see myself doing the very same thing in conversation, I`ll be saying something then sort of wave a hand in the air and stop speaking, expecting the other person to fill in the blanks..I don`t know why I do that, but have caught myself doing this over and over again.

I know exactly what I want to say, but seem to stop short and leave it swirling in the "air" as if that explains everything!

 

[Alana]

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.

I am still catching up with the tread here, but i'd like to point out that whether Zeus's request to the Poseidon is do=δέ or don't=μή δέ, the ancient Greek verb that is used: ἀμφικαλύψαι, doesn't mean to bury or destroy. It means to envelop/surround. So Poseidon does not want to kill all the Pheaken, but to build huge mountains around their land, and keep them hidden there.

So it is more along the lines of Palinorus quote:

Furthermore, the Greek-Dutch translation I'm using at the moment (by Dr Aegidius W. Timmerman) signals in the introduction to Book 13:

The courteous farewell that Odysseus bids to Alkinoos and -last but not least- to Aretee, the hostess, and the words used suggest to us the thought as if at the current moment, somewhere far away, the mysterious island of those blissful Pheaken would still exist and as if the illustrious past were mirrored by a future of peace and prosperity.
Would this be precisely the reason why Homer wanted the island to be hidden in a ring of mountains, just in order to make us think that the ideal-country still exists, but never can be regained. And maybe that is precisely why he let us in uncertainty whether or not Poseidon indeed surrounded the island with mountains so that to find it would be an even bigger impossibility.
According to this view the attempts by later scholars to locate the petrified ship in a Boulder off Corfu seem a total nonsense.

It also makes sense if we take Poseidon's previous words in that sentence:

ἵν᾽ ἤδη σχῶνται, ἀπολλήξωσι δὲ πομπῆς
ἀνθρώπων, μέγα δέ σφιν ὄρος πόλει ἀμφικαλύψαι

the bolded part meaning roughly: so that they can't welcome guests in their country anymore
the rest of it: to raise a mountain to surround/envelop their city.

Now, concerning Zeus's do or don't to Poseidon: I unfortunately don't have actual ancient Greek book copies of the Odyssey with me, but a search on the internet reveals more texts with the do request, than the don't. It seems that the debate about exactly what Zeus is saying there has been ongoing since ancient Greece. See here for example (pdf file, the discussion about this subject starts at page 18): http://www.clas.ufl.edu/users/jmarks/homer-grad/odyssey/ZIO/MarksCH02_pp2.pdf

Apparently, there are three different words that could be before that little δε that give the sentence a different meaning:

μὴ δέ = and don't (envelop their city with a mountain)
μέγα δε = and with a big (mountain envelop their city)
μετά δε = and afterwards (envelop their city with a mountain)

I'll have a look around to see what else can i find.

Oh, and I love this discussion, and everyone's input. Thank You Laura :D

 

[Alana]

Re: The Odyssey - question for all!

This is from a scholarly paper from the Center of Hellenic Studies of Harvard University, that deals with the passage about what Zeus told Poseidon, and might provide some food for thought:

The passage in question is Odyssey xiii 146-184. As we join the narrative, we find that the god Poseidon is very angry at the Phaeacians for providing Odysseus {82|83} with one of their ships to convey the hero back to his home in Ithaca. The god now plans to take revenge, and he asks Zeus to approve his plan, which has two parts: (1) to smash the ship as it sails back home to the Phaeacians and (2) to make a huge mountain "envelop" their city:

νῦν αὖ Φαιήκων ἐθέλω περικαλλέα νῆα
ἐκ πομπῆς ἀνιοῦσαν ἐν ἠεροηδέι πόντῳ
ῥαῖσαι, ἵν ἤδη σχῶνται, ἀπολλήξωσι δὲ πομπῆς
ἀνθρώπων, μέγα δέ σφιν ὄρος πόλει ἀμφικαλύψαι

So now I want to smash the very beautiful ship of the Phaeacians
when it comes back, in a misty crossing of the sea, from its conveying mission,
so that these people [= the Phaeacians] will hold off, at long last, and stop their practice of conveying humans. And I want to make a huge mountain envelop [63] their city. Odyssey xiii 149-152

Before Zeus gives his approval, he modifies the terms of Poseidon's two-part plan for vengeance. In the case of the first part, as we are about to see, the Will of Zeus is not that the ship be smashed but only that it be turned into a rock at the very moment that it sails into the entrance to the harbor - a rock destined to be a famous landmark for all time to come. In the case of the second part of the sea god's plan, it seems that Zeus will indeed allow Poseidon to make a huge mountain "envelop" the city. Here is the precise wording of these two parts of the Will of Zeus, addressed as commands to Poseidon:

ὁππότε κεν δὴ πάντες ἐλαυνομένην προίδωνται
λαοὶ ἀπὸ πτόλιος, θεῖναι λίθον ἐγγύθι γαίης
νηὶ θοῇ ἴκελον, ἵνα θαυμάζωσιν ἅπαντες
ἄνθρωποι, μέγα δέ σφιν ὄρος πόλει ἀμφικαλύψαι

When all the people of the city look out and see the ship sailing in,
turn it into a rock, just as it is about to reach land.
Make it look like a swift ship, so that people will look at it with wonder
- all of humanity will do so; and make the huge mountain envelop their city. Odyssey xiii 155-158

I print the last verse here, xiii 158, as it is printed in most modern editions of Homer. [64] In this verse, the god Poseidon is commanded to seal off the Phaeacians forever within the confines of the epic past.

There is another version of this verse, however, adduced by the Alexandrian editor Aristophanes of Byzantium, which reads: {83|84}

ἄνθρωποι, μηδέ σφιν ὄρος πόλει ἀμφικαλύψαι
- all of humanity will do so; but do not make the mountain envelop their city.Odyssey xiii 158 (variant) [65]

This different version was disputed by the later Alexandrian editor Aristarchus of Samothrace: he preferred the version of xiii 158 that I printed earlier above, which is the one that survives in the medieval manuscript tradition. [66]

According to the version that survives only by way of Aristophanes, the future of the Phaeacians is not at all closed off. It remains open-ended, extending into the "present" when the epic is being narrated.

Two questions immediately come to mind. First, how could this different version fit the overall narrative of the Homeric Odyssey? Second, is the textual basis of this version "legitimate"?

Addressing the first question first, I start by taking a close look at how the immediate narrative proceeds from here.

Complying with the reaction of Zeus to the original two-part plan of revenge, Poseidon proceeds to turn the returning ship into a rock (xiii 160-164). The first part of Poseidon's two-part plan has now been accomplished, although in modified form, in compliance with the Will of Zeus. [67] The ship has been petrified at the approach to the harbor, instead of being "smashed" at midsea. [68]
At this midpoint in the ongoing narrative about the fate of the Phaeacians, we hear their reaction to the petrifaction of their ship. They are in shock: they cannot understand how this disaster could have happened to them (xiii 165-169). But Alkinoos, their king, has comprehended what is still in the process of happening. He explains to the Phaeacians that he now understands a prophecy that his father Nausithoos had once told him: it must have been this present disaster, Alkinoos says, that his father had prophesied to him - along with that other disaster still waiting to be narrated in the Odyssey. Here is the precise wording of the explanation given by King Alkinoos:

φῆ ποτε Φαιήκων ἀνδρῶν περικαλλέα νῆα
ἐκ πομπῆς ἀνιοῦσαν ἐν ἠεροηδέι πόντῳ
ῥαισέμεναι, μέγα δ᾿ ἧμιν ὄρος πόλει ἀμφικαλύψειν [69]

He [my father] once said that he [Poseidon] will smash the very beautiful ship of the Phaeacian men when it comes back, in a misty crossing of the sea, from its conveying mission,
and that he will make a huge mountain envelop our city. Odyssey xiii 175-177

The audience of the Odyssey already knows this prophecy as recapitulated in xiii 173-177, because Alkinoos had already "quoted" it to Odysseus {84|85} at viii 565-569. [70] At that earlier point in the narrative, however, Alkinoos had said something in addition, which he does not say now:

ὣς ἀγόρευ᾿ ὁ γέρων. τὰ δέ κεν θεὸς ἢ τελέσειεν,
ἤ κ᾿ ἀτέλεστ᾿ εἴη, ὥς οἱ φ¤λον ἔπλετο θυμῷ
That is what the old man said. And the god [Poseidon] could either bring these things to fulfillment or they could be left unfulfilled, however it was pleasing to his heart. Odyssey viii 570-571

Now, instead of "repeating" this part of the old man's prophecy, Alkinoos commands the Phaeacians to take immediate action:

ὣς ἀγόρευ᾿ ὁ γέρων. τὰ δὲ δὴ νῦν πάντα τελεῖται.
ἀλλ᾿ ἄγεθ᾿, ὥς ἂν ἐγὼ εἴπω, πειθώμεθα πάντες.
That is what the old man said. And now you and I see that all these things are being brought to fulfillment. [71]
But come, let us all comply with exactly what I am about to say. Odyssey xiii 178-179

When Alkinoos had first "quoted" the prophecy of his father at viii 570-571, the "quotation" had left a loophole: Poseidon may or may not bring "these things" to fulfillment, as he wishes. But now at xiii 178-179 there is the greatest urgency, and Alkinoos exclaims hyperbolically that "all these things are being brought to fulfillment." The rhetorical point of this hyperbole is to motivate the Phaeacians to take immediate action. Even though the half-hopeful words of Alkinoos at viii 570-571 are not repeated but are replaced by the increasingly desperate words of xiii 178-179, there is still a trace of hope - provided that the Phaeacians take immediate action by following the emergency orders of Alkinoos, which are formulated in the verses that immediately follow, xiii 180-182.

King Alkinoos orders the Phaeacians to do two things without delay: to resolve never again to engage in the otherworldly pompê 'conveying' (xiii 180) of mortals back to their real world and to offer a sacrifice of twelve bulls to Poseidon (xiii 180-182). [72] The Phaeacians must do these two things before the second of the two disasters should happen. The hope, Alkinoos says, is that Poseidon may still take pity and stop his plan:

αἴ κ᾿ ἐλεήσῃ
μηδ᾿ ἥμιν περίμηκες ὄρος πόλει ἀμφικαλύψῃ
… in hopes that he [Poseidon] will take pity
and will not make the tall mountain envelop our city. Odyssey xiii 182-183

{85|86}The Phaeacians immediately proceed to make sacrifice to the sea god, supplicating him (xiii 184-187). At this sacrifice, we may presume that they do indeed resolve never again to engage in the otherworldly "conveying" of mortals back to their "real" world. [73] Such a resolution by the Phaeacians would of course cancel their own otherworldly status as mediators between the inner world of the narrative and the outer world of "reality" as implicit in the "present" time when the narration of epic is actually happening.

In terms of the mythological hermeneutics developed by J. Gordon Howie, the Phaeacians are hereby being shifted from the "Spatium Mythicum" to the "Spatium Historicum." [74] But questions remain. Are they being shifted merely in the sense that they have been removed, as of now, from the narrative? If the price of their survival is the loss of their status in the "Spatium Mythicum," will we ever get to see them again in the so-called "Spatium Historicum"?

But the most basic of all remaining questions is really this: what will happen to the Phaeacians according to the narrative? We cannot be completely certain. The Homeric narrative about the Phaeacians breaks off at Odyssey xiii 187, at the very moment when they are offering sacrifice and praying to Poseidon to take pity on them. As Peradotto points out, the narrative break takes place most abruptly, dramatically, and even exceptionally—at mid-verse. [75] In the first part of the verse at xiii 187, the Phaeacians are last seen standing around the sacrificial altar; in the second part of the verse, Odysseus has just woken up in Ithaca. A new phase of the hero's experiences has just begun in the "real" world of Ithaca. [76]

The narrative, then, ultimately leaves it open whether the Phaeacians will or will not be enveloped by the huge mountain. [77] Peradotto describes this uncertainty as a way for Homeric poetry "to avoid saying 'yes' to one system and 'no' to another, in a higher and more complicated system, the poem, that only precariously maintains them both." [78] For Peradotto, the two competing systems that are subsumed "precariously" by the overriding Homeric system are, on the one hand, the element of fairy-tale or "Märchen" and, on the other, the element of "tragically oriented myth." [79]

In what follows, I offer a different explanation for whatever competing "systems" may be at work in this narrative. To anticipate my conclusions: Homeric poetry has left here an opening not only for two different outcomes but also for two different ways of thinking of an outcome.

I start my explanation by stressing again the importance of the loophole of viii 570-571, as formulated by Alkinoos: the god Poseidon may or may not bring his threat to fulfillment: he may do as he pleases. Moreover, we have already seen that even the first disaster did not quite happen in the way that the father of Alkinoos had prophesied - or the way that the god Poseidon had originally wanted it to happen before Zeus went ahead and modified the original terms in the process of formulating the eventual Will of Zeus.

Still, despite such tentatively hopeful signs, the plot of the Odyssey {86|87} accumulated many other signs that point toward the inevitability of disaster for the Phaeacians. [80] Can we really be sure, then, that there is still a way out? It all depends ultimately on whether Zeus had modified the terms for the second part of Poseidon's plan, not just for the first part. And that depends on whether we read the version featuring the variant μηδέ = mêde as adduced by Aristophanes instead of the variant μέγα δέ = mega de as preferred by Aristarchus and as transmitted by the medieval manuscripts.

Here I return to the second of my two initial questions about Odyssey xiii 155-158: is the textual basis of this different version featuring mêde really "legitimate"? We can now add a related question: if it is legitimate, then does that delegitimize the version featuring mega de?

For Erwin Cook, the outcome of the epic narrative depends on our making an actual choice between two variants, mega de vs. mêde at xiii 158, and he proceeds to choose μηδέ = mêde in line with his interpretation of the epic narrative's treatment of Poseidon's interactions with Zeus. [81] I agree with Cook's interpretation, but it leaves unanswered the question of legitimacy. How can we justify the textual transmission of the form mêde in this context? [82] Further, how can we justify the meaning of this variant in terms of Homeric poetry?

The actual need to choose one or the other variant depends on the way we look at Homeric poetry. If this poetry is merely a static text, then we are indeed forced to make a choice. If, however, we view Homeric poetry as a living system - an oral tradition that evolves ultimately into the textual tradition inherited by the Alexandrian editors - then we do not have to choose whenever we see a variation. Rather, as I will now go on to argue, the choices were already being made by Homeric poetry itself, which could opt for different variants in different phases of its own evolution.

My reasoning here derives from an overall "evolutionary model" that I have worked out as a general way to account for the making of Homeric poetry. [83] In terms of this model, as I now plan to argue, the living and evolving oral tradition of Homeric poetry itself allowed for a choice either to seal off its own past from the present time of narration or to reach into this present time and thereby make its presence fully manifest.

According to the narrative option linked with the first of our two variants from Odyssey xiii 158, mega de, the outlook is hopeless for the Phaeacians, since Poseidon's plan to seal off the city of the Phaeacians has been restated by Zeus and is therefore tantamount to the Will of Zeus, which the Homeric tradition conventionally equates with the way things ultimately turn out in epic narrative, as in Iliad I 5. [84] At the beginning of the Odyssey, however, Zeus himself undercuts the equation of epic plot with the Will of Zeus (i 32-34). [85] That is, there are {87|88} differences in shades of meaning between the Iliadic and the Odyssean perspectives on the Will of Zeus as the plot of epic. [86]

According to the narrative option linked with the second variant mêde, the outlook is still hopeful. After all, at an earlier point in the narrative, xiii 144-145, we can see a way out when Zeus tells Poseidon to exact any punishment he pleases "if any human dishonors you not at all" (ἀνδρῶν δ᾿ εἴ περ τίς σε . . . | οὔ τι τίει xiii 143-144). The context is this: Poseidon has been angrily questioning Zeus, calling on him to explain the Will of Zeus (Διὸς δ᾿ ἐξείρετο βουλήν xiii 127) - that is, to explain the overall plot of the narrative - now that the Phaeacians have conveyed Odysseus back home to Ithaca. How can I be honored among the gods, Poseidon plaintively asks Zeus, "when the Phaeacians do not honor me at all?" (ὅτε με βροτοὶ οὔ τι τίουσι | Φαίηκες xiii 129-130). But then, as we have already seen, the story goes on to say that the Phaeacians will indeed initiate a remedy after the first disaster by proceeding to honor Poseidon with sacrifice in order to avert the second disaster.

The narrative option that I link with the variant mêde, according to which the Phaeacians are to be spared the second disaster of an all-enveloping mountain, depends on whether this variant as adduced by Aristophanes of Byzantium in place of mega de at xiii 183 is a genuine formulaic variant or only a textual variant. If it is the latter, then mêde may be just an editorial conjecture. [87] That possibility would severely reduce the chances for arguing that mêde is a genuine alternative to mega de. In what follows, however, I will argue against that possibility on several levels.

From an analysis of the formulaic system in which mêde is embedded, this form can be justified as a functioning element in that system, just as the form mega de is a functioning element: in other words, mêde and mega de can be considered compositional alternatives in the formulaic system of Homeric diction. [88]

Moreover, there is immediate contextual as well as formulaic evidence to support the argument that mêde is a functioning compositional variant in the formulaic system. Let us consider the wording of Zeus in his answer to Poseidon's angry questioning:

ἔρξον ὅπως ἐθέλεις καί τοι φίλον ἔπλετο θυμῷ
Do as you wish and as was pleasing to your heart. Odyssey xiii 145

This open-ended wording of Zeus matches formulaically the wording of Alkinoos, when he had originally "quoted" the prophecy of his father:

ὣς ἀγόρευ᾿ ὁ γέρων. τὰ δέ κεν θεὸς ἢ τελέσειεν,
ἤ κ᾿ ἀτέλεστ᾿ εἴη, ὥς οἱ φίλον ἔπλετο θυμῷ {88|89}
That is what the old man said. And the god [Poseidon] could either bring these things to fulfillment or they could be left unfulfilled, however it was pleasing to his heart. Odyssey viii 570-571

The formulation of Zeus, then, in leaving it still undecided whether or not the Phaeacians are to be "enveloped," can be used as evidence to argue that mêde is indeed a genuine compositional alternative to mega de.

As for the possibility that mêde is an emendation based on an editorial conjecture, my own cumulative work on Homeric variants as adduced by the three great Alexandrian editors of Homer (Zenodotus, Aristophanes, and Aristarchus) leaves me skeptical, since I find that these editors normally do not make emendations without manuscript evidence. [89]

In making the specific argument that both variants mega de and mêde are genuine compositional alternatives, I return to my general argument that Homeric poetry is not a static text but a slowly evolving system. [90] In terms of this general argument, the variant mega de produces a narrative closure for the Phaeacians: their fate is sealed. The variant mêde, however, produces an outcome that is open-ended. [91]

These two variants, I contend, reflect different phases in the evolution of Homeric poetry. Let us begin with the variant mega de, the context of which can be linked with a relatively more Panhellenic phase of epic. [92] I have defined this phase elsewhere as one that "concentrates on traditions that tend to be common to most locales and peculiar to none." [93] The Panhellenic phases of epic make contact with the "present" time of narration by shading over any "local color" that might distract from the widest possible range of ways to visualize this "present." [94] A Panhellenic version, then, will tend to universalize the concerns of the present.

But there are also other, less Panhellenic, ways for epic to make contact with the "present" time in which narration happens: the "local color" can be highlighted, though only at the cost of narrowing the range of ways to visualize this "present." The context of the variant mêde can be linked with such a relatively less Panhellenic phase of epic. This variant makes contact with the epic "present" in a less universalized and more localized way. The focus of localization is historical Corcyra, modern-day Corfu.

The fact is, the Corcyraeans of the Classical period claimed to be the descendants of the Phaeacians, as we know from a remark of Thucydides (1.25.4); from another remark of his, we know also that they worshipped King Alkinoos as their local cult hero (3.70.4). [95] As Howie surmises, "the value of the Phaeacians for the Corcyraeans was that they gave them a stake in the mythical past independent of their mother-city [Corinth], which was famous as a centre of the worship of the sea-god [Poseidon] and as site of the panhellenic Isthmian Games in the god's honour." [96]

In Odyssey xiii 155-158, we hear how the Phaeacians will one day look out at {89|90} their harbor and see their returning ship suddenly turn into a rock, and we hear also how that fabulous petrified ship will continue to be a most wondrous sight for future generations of humanity to see and to keep on seeing for all time to come. These epic verses of Homeric poetry, one commentator surmises, may be providing an aetiology "for the fact that the rock which rises from the sea just outside the harbour of Corfu was taken to be 'Odysseus' ship'." [97] There are references to this "real-life" rock in Pliny (Natural History) 4.53 and Eustathius (Commentary on Odyssey vol. II p. 44 line 27), and to this day the "petrified ship" remains a most celebrated tourist attraction for visitors to Corfu. [98] But the essential point is, the reference to this rock is already there in the Odyssey - that is, in a version of the Odyssey that says mêde instead of mega de at xiii 158.

The identity of the Corcyraeans as descendants of the Phaeacians depends on the Will of Zeus as he formulates it in Odyssey xiii 155-158, and it depends especially on the variant mêde of xiii 158, which yields an open-ended narrative that reaches directly into the "present" of the Classical period and beyond.

As a political and cultural fact of life, the self-identification of the Corcyraeans with the Phaeacians has been dated as early as the third quarter of the eighth century BCE. [99] The variant represented by mêde at xiii 158 may be just as early, and in fact it may be the vehicle for expressing just such a political and cultural fact of life. This is not to say that the other variant represented by mega de at xiii 158 may not be just as early. It is only to say that both variants were still available to the Homeric tradition of epic as it evolved during the pre-Classical period. In such an early period, the affirming - or the denying - of a claim of descent from the Phaeacians was essential not just poetically but also politically and culturally. [100] It really mattered then, and it continued to matter well into the Classical period of the fifth century and beyond, as we have seen from the remark of Thucydides (1.25.4, 3.70.4) about the Corcyraeans' claim to be descended from the Phaeacians of King Alkinoos, whom they worshipped as their local hero. [101]

In the Hellenistic period of the Alexandrian editors of Homer, by contrast, the question of choosing mega de or mêde would have mattered purely from a poetical rather than a political or cultural point of view. The question of the Corcyraeans' claims of descent from the Phaeacians would not be a major concern any more, at least not politically. But it would still really matter in another way: was the petrified ship of the Phaeacians a figment of the poetic imagination, walled off in the "Spatium Mythicum" of the epic past, or is it the same thing as the real-life rock at the entrance to the harbor of Corcyra, accessible to all humanity in the "Spatium Historicum" of the contemporary Hellenic world? The disagreement between Aristarchus and Aristophanes over the choice of mega de or mêde respectively must have centered on such questions. One way, we see a beautiful snapshot from the enchanted imaginary world of the epic past. The other way, we see a comparably beautiful vista in the enchanting touristic world of the non-epic present, still anchored in the {90|91} permanence of the epic past. Either way, petrified ship or scenic rock, what we see is a beloved cultural landmark of Hellenism.

All this is not to say that we must ultimately choose between these two versions of seeing things Homeric. It is only to say that both variants were still available to the Homeric tradition of epic as it evolved into the Classical period and beyond. And it is to ponder the power of epic - and of the Classical - either to close down or to open up its pathways to the present. The fate of the Phaeacians in conveying the heroic past to the present depends on that power of Homeric dimensions.

Of course the author considers Corfu as the land of the Phaeacians. In Where Troy Once Stood, Wilkens proposes that they actually lived on the Canary Islands, which is interesting considering the strange things that happen there, and Homer's description of the inhabitants as the people who are friends to Gods.

As a side note, looking at Corfu maps, a small village came to my attention at the North of the island, with the name Cassiope. It's named apparently after the ancient ruins of the temple of Cassiopous Zeus in the area, upon which a church is now built. I thought it was interesting :)

 

[Palinurus]

Re: The Odyssey - question for all!

Thank you Alana for your elucidating contributions and the serious digging for explanations on the different versions that went with it. Great work! Alas I'll have to chew on it all though, before commenting anything further.

Still, I have one thought to share off the cuff and that concerns the developments of narrative technology as a complement of the evolution of content, context and interpretation of Homer.
As I have understood, the contrast between the Iliad and the Odyssey as far as the Will of Zeus is concerned consists mainly of an evolution of a fatality based world view ( the will of the gods is decisive) into a world view of feasibility of society via human endeavor and personal initiatives (impressive deeds of heroes and the like, usually assisted by their favorite god who conceives of the ideas they carry out. Might be a reflection of the workings of a bicameral mind, as I come to think of it.).

We then would end up with conversations like 'Jacques the Fatalist and his Master' (by Diderot, see: _http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacques_the_Fatalist) or 'Candide: or, Optimism' (by Voltaire, see: _http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Candide) as a sort of belated rehash of those ancient developments. I hope I'm not too busy creating anachronisms by the dozen with this one...

Another reference that immediately comes to mind in this context is the book 'The Great Transformation: The Beginning of Our Religious Traditions' (by Karen Armstrong, see: _http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karen_Armstrong and _http://www.amazon.com/Great-Transformation-Beginning-Religious-Traditions/dp/0375413170) which seems to allude to a similar 'shift of paradigm' in those days and ages around 700-600 BCE (I'm paraphrasing from memory at this point as it was some time now that I read it).

Just some thoughts to keep us going.

 

[Odysseus]

Re: The Odyssey - question for all!

Oops, joining veery late this exciting thread:
Yes, I had read both Odyssey and Iliad back in school in ancient greek over 20 years ago (ancient greek was a school subject).

Both, the connection of Odyssey and biblical texts (with Odyssey being the older text) and the possible hints lying in the Odyssey tale regarding the hyperdimensional reality are intriguing! Reading the Odyssey again with these in mind should be an eye opener.

I am still catching up with the entire thread, but here are a few notes/thoughts so far from me:

- I'm wondering about the Theoxeny theme a lot, which seems to be a positive intervention of the mentor diety (4D STO) in human appearance. I cannot recall any negative/deceptive examples of a mischievous god (4D STS) in human appearance in Odyssey or greek mythology in general (it's always some direct and immediate punishment without a prior scheming using human forms). It's most likely me, maybe I am trying to interpret to much into the Odyssey in this particular point...

- I had a glimpse at Samuel Butler's english version of the Odyssey, but the usage of latin names for the gods confuses me completely. I think I'll stick to a modern greek version of the Odyssey for a re-read. I found the following excelent PDF version with both ancient and modern greek side by side:

_http://www.uni-leipzig.de/~organik/giannis/Philosophie/OMHROU_ODYSSEIA_OLD_NEW_OLO_20_01_2008.pdf

Boy, am I missing those old school times with the ancient greek polytonic accentuation still in use! :D

 

[3DStudent]

Re: The Odyssey - question for all!

I've started listening to the Butler audio files. I'm done book 3 now. I too find that the Latin names are a little confusing, but I know the basic ones.

I also have some trouble understanding what's going on when a bunch of names are called out, or a bunch of cities. It often seems long-winded in that manner.

And something weird I felt when I started listening to book one. I kept having emotional urges to cry. Like when Athena was talking about Telemachos's journey. I wonder if I felt the excitement of the adventure after reading this thread, or if I identified with Telemachos.

 

[mkrnhr]

Re: The Odyssey - question for all!

Actually keeping the Greek names is not totally superfluous. The names have meanings. For example Calypso (to hide, the same root for apocalypse (revelation, uncovering...). Odysseus, Telemachus, and even when he says to the Cyclops "my name is nobody" (strategic enclosure?). All that gives some weight to the story.
The characters in the Odysseus are very few, so the Greek names are bearable. I remember that the Iliad is far worse, especially when people on the ships are described one by one (that's even more boring than the hobbit songs in the LOTR).

 

[Harold]

Re: The Odyssey - question for all!

I've read the Oddysey 2 maybe 3 times, The Illiad once or twice. The Aneaid once at least. I took a university course 'The Western Tradition' that started with the Oddysey. It is one of my favorite books.

This is a great thread, I don't have much to add. Except the Gods are pretty much like us... and that the Roman, Greek and Christian gods seem to have the same teams of 12 players etc. That the story of David and Goliath is a metaphor for monotheism replacing polytheism.

 

[thorbiorn]

Re: The Odyssey - question for all!

In reading The Vegetarian Myth after reading The Odyssey, I started thinking of an idea that those who do agriculture - squeezing the very life out of the Earth - are analogous to the suitors in global terms. Apart from psychopaths and their doings, perhaps an agricultural system of civilization is so inherently entropic all by itself as to guarantee by itself a cometary visit or two?

Maybe all who support such a system would be targeted by the "balancing mechanism"?

Going in a useful direction, I think. Also what about what the Cs said about those that accept torture having taken "the mark of the beast"??? And what happens to all those with the "Mark" in Revelation???

What happens to them is that they get to suffer diseases and more. Here is what the Revelation has to say:

The Three Angels
6 Then I saw another angel flying in midair, and he had the eternal gospel to proclaim to those who live on the earth—to every nation, tribe, language and people. 7 He said in a loud voice, “Fear God and give him glory, because the hour of his judgment has come. Worship him who made the heavens, the earth, the sea and the springs of water.”
8 A second angel followed and said, “‘Fallen! Fallen is Babylon the Great,’[a] which made all the nations drink the maddening wine of her adulteries.”
9 A third angel followed them and said in a loud voice: “If anyone worships the beast and its image and receives its mark on their forehead or on their hand, 10 they, too, will drink the wine of God’s fury, which has been poured full strength into the cup of his wrath. They will be tormented with burning sulfur in the presence of the holy angels and of the Lamb. 11 And the smoke of their torment will rise for ever and ever. There will be no rest day or night for those who worship the beast and its image, or for anyone who receives the mark of its name.” 12 This calls for patient endurance on the part of the people of God who keep his commands and remain faithful to Jesus.
13 Then I heard a voice from heaven say, “Write this: Blessed are the dead who die in the Lord from now on.”
“Yes,” says the Spirit, “they will rest from their labor, for their deeds will follow them.

If thos e with the mark of the beast will receive the wine of God’s fury, it could mean all the kinds of fury or it could mean that they will get the diseases that are distributed by the first angle as seen below.

The Seven Bowls of God’s Wrath
1 Then I heard a loud voice from the temple saying to the seven angels, “Go, pour out the seven bowls of God’s wrath on the earth.”
2 The first angel went and poured out his bowl on the land, and ugly, festering sores broke out on the people who had the mark of the beast and worshiped its image.
3 The second angel poured out his bowl on the sea, and it turned into blood like that of a dead person, and every living thing in the sea died.
4 The third angel poured out his bowl on the rivers and springs of water, and they became blood. 5Then I heard the angel in charge of the waters say:
“You are just in these judgments, O Holy One,
you who are and who were;
6 for they have shed the blood of your holy people and your prophets,
and you have given them blood to drink as they deserve.”
7 And I heard the altar respond:
“Yes, Lord God Almighty,
true and just are your judgments.”
8 The fourth angel poured out his bowl on the sun, and the sun was allowed to scorch people with fire. 9 They were seared by the intense heat and they cursed the name of God, who had control over these plagues, but they refused to repent and glorify him.
10 The fifth angel poured out his bowl on the throne of the beast, and its kingdom was plunged into darkness. People gnawed their tongues in agony 11 and cursed the God of heaven because of their pains and their sores, but they refused to repent of what they had done.
12 The sixth angel poured out his bowl on the great river Euphrates, and its water was dried up to prepare the way for the kings from the East. 13 Then I saw three impure spirits that looked like frogs; they came out of the mouth of the dragon, out of the mouth of the beast and out of the mouth of the false prophet. 14 They are demonic spirits that perform signs, and they go out to the kings of the whole world, to gather them for the battle on the great day of God Almighty.
15 “Look, I come like a thief! Blessed is the one who stays awake and remains clothed, so as not to go naked and be shamefully exposed.”
16 Then they gathered the kings together to the place that in Hebrew is called Armageddon.
17 The seventh angel poured out his bowl into the air, and out of the temple came a loud voice from the throne, saying, “It is done!” 18 Then there came flashes of lightning, rumblings, peals of thunder and a severe earthquake. No earthquake like it has ever occurred since mankind has been on earth, so tremendous was the quake. 19 The great city split into three parts, and the cities of the nations collapsed. God remembered Babylon the Great and gave her the cup filled with the wine of the fury of his wrath. 20 Every island fled away and the mountains could not be found. 21 From the sky huge hailstones, each weighing about a hundred pounds,[a] fell on people. And they cursed God on account of the plague of hail, because the plague was so terrible.

The texts were found on _http://www.biblegateway.com/