1. Two Summaries Read “Penelope’s Agnoia” and “Herakles, Odysseus, and the Bow,” then write a summar

Herakles, Odysseus, and the Bow: “Odyssey” 21.11-41

Author(s): Katherine Crissy

Source: The Classical Journal , Oct. – Nov., 1997, Vol. 93, No. 1 (Oct. – Nov., 1997), pp.
41-53

Published by: The Classical Association of the Middle West and South, Inc. (CAMWS)

Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/3298379

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at

The Classical Association of the Middle West and South, Inc. (CAMWS) is collaborating with
JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Classical Journal

This content downloaded from
�������������71.198.219.99 on Mon, 22 Nov 2021 20:38:23 UTC�������������

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

HERAKLES, ODYSSEUS, AND THE BOW:
ODYSSEY 21.11-410

Book 21 of the Odyssey might be termed “The Book on the
Bow.” It begins with the story of how Odysseus receives the
bow, follows through with an account of the contest, and

ends in the revelation of his attack by its means. Appropriately,
therefore, another mythological character famous for the bow,
Herakles, appears in the very same episode in which Odysseus
acquires his weapon of revenge. The inclusion of this most notable
example among mythical heroes is not some minor detail, but one of
striking effect. I will argue that not only does the anachronistic ele-
ment in his appearance highlight Odysseus’ place in an age of heroes,
but, in fact, a comparison is implied between the two which is both
consistent with Herakles’ other appearances in the poem and sig-
nificant for conveying the starker aspects of Odysseus’ final revenge.

The story of the bow’s acquisition is told at 21.11-41. We learn
that Odysseus, as a young man acting on behalf of his father and
community, visits the house of Ortilochos on an embassy to re-
trieve stolen animals. There he meets Iphitos, and the two exchange
weapons as the beginning of a guest-friendship. To Odysseus goes
the bow, to Iphitos a sword and a spear. The newly-founded alliance
is cut short, however, when Iphitos, continuing on his own mission
in search of missing horses, is killed by Herakles (21.22-30):

“Iqtoro;0 a0′ ‘nroug 8t~ljgvog, at oi 10ovro

86EKTa TXuetat, bnO 8′ itLiovot ,aCxEpyo7 o
aX 6irl oi Ki rtEEtoa (p6vog Koi Jto poX yEvovTo,
Eet~6i 0 At ; (Uv y(P iKETo KupTEp601tgOV,
p&0′ ‘HpKXi^O(Rx, pEyidXOv ~irntt’op(X EpyoV,
i; Iv Eivov 6vrX KtXTEKTaVEV i oi EVL K1,
axXhxo;, oi6~0O8E J ivrtv ai6~ax’ or0i tpdtnerav,

‘rtV IjV Oi aPxEOTJKEv EIMTE 6tv lTE(PVE Xvi a?iTO6v, Yirrou; 6’ ct iat ;EXE Ki(Xipwepdv-)Xa; Ev pEyUpoicn.

* I would like to thank Professor John Miller and the anonymous referee for
all their helpful comments on this paper. My thanks also go to Tamara Green, and
to Jacob Stern, Joel Lidov, Dee Clayman and Jorgen Meier for making the paper
possible in the first place.

The Classical Journal 93.1 (1997) 41-53

This content downloaded from
�������������71.198.219.99 on Mon, 22 Nov 2021 20:38:23 UTC�������������

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

42 KATHERINE CRISSY

Iphitos [came] there seeking horses which he had lost,
Twelve females, and hard-working mules nursing under them.
These indeed afterward became his doom and destruction,
At that time when he came to the strong-hearted son of Zeus,
The man Herakles, experienced in great deeds,
Who killed him although he was a guest in his own house-
Wretch!-and revered neither the face of the gods nor the table
Which he set before him: even then he killed him,

And was holding the strong-hooved horses in the halls himself.

As some have noted, Herakles’ appearance in this story would
seem to be an anachronism.1 He is a part of the pre-Trojan War era,
having even previously sacked Troy when Laomedon was king
(II. 5.638-42). Elsewhere in the Odyssey, he appears as a well-known
figure of past myth in Hades (11.601-14), and is referred to in a
speech as one of the great heroes of an earlier era with whom Od-
ysseus would not dare to compare himself, although he can defeat
“men of today” (8.221-24). With a stretch of the imagination, the
time factor could be overlooked to some extent, as in other cases of
the Odyssey and mythical tales in general: Odysseus is a young man
in the story and could therefore at least be of a later generation
than Herakles. Nevertheless, the contemporaneous appearance of
the two is striking. The main character is juxtaposed in time with
one of the most famous figures of old, when heroes were supposed
to be greater and stronger.2 The juxtaposition links Odysseus with
these figures and recalls the decline from the age of heroes as an
element in the Odyssey, for the Trojan War is now becoming a part
of the legendary past. Odysseus’ appearance in the time of Herakles
just before his confrontation with the suitors in the bow-competition
emphasizes his own status: He is on the borderline between the
older age of heroes of which he is a part, and the younger, post-
Trojan War generation who are much weaker, yet dare to challenge
him.

But at the same time, to quote Galinsky, it seems that “This is
one of the most devastating indictments of Herakles in literature….
Whereas earlier in the Odyssey Homer had relegated Herakles to

1 See, e.g., F. Prinz, “Herakles,” in RE Suppl. 14 (1974) 190; G. K. Galinsky, The
Herakles Theme: The Adaptation of the Hero in Literature from Homer to the Twentieth
Century (Oxford 1972) 12; J. S. Clay, The Wrath of Athena: Gods and Men in the Odyssey
(Princeton 1983) 91.

2 See, e.g., Od.8.221-25, referred to above; 11.1.259-72; and for an extensive
discussion of this point, C. E. Alexander, “Appeals to Tradition in the Iliad, with
Particular Reference to Achilles,” (diss. Columbia 1991) chap. 1.

This content downloaded from
�������������71.198.219.99 on Mon, 22 Nov 2021 20:38:23 UTC�������������

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

HERAKLES, ODYSSEUS, AND THE BOW 43

the mythological past, he now propels him into Odysseus’ own time
without softening his stone-age behaviour.”3 As Galinsky’s com-
ment indicates, the portrayal of the older hero in this scene focuses
on the more dubious, ferocious side that he is sometimes known
for. The peaceful reception that Odysseus receives at Ortilochos’
house on his mission to retrieve stolen animals provides quite a
contrast to Iphitos’ reception, when the mares that he is looking
for lead to his death by Herakles’ hand. As host, the latter appears
in a negative light not only for having cut down Odysseus’ friend,
but also for violating the laws of hospitality.

Iphitos’ bow is kept at home by Odysseus as a memorial of his
friend (21.38-41), with the result that, once he goes to Troy, it lies
dormant until the moment of Penelope’s decision to set the contest.
A sense of “unfinished business,” then, centers on the weapon and
the unavenged death of its donor.4 At first glance, it seems as if a
kind of transferral has occurred from Iphitos to Odysseus as owners
of the bow and injured parties in the code of hospitality. Likewise
Herakles seems to be associated with the suitors as the keeper of
stolen animals and violator of that code. Galinsky asserts that Her-
akles is meant to serve as a foil for Odysseus.5 Clay, too, maintains
that a contrast between the two is indicated by this in combination
with other passages in the Odyssey: “The relationship set up be-
tween the two heroes can be characterized by the contrast between
the dark violent brutality of Heracles, the Pi1 ‘Hp(aKlpcXiFEi, as he is
appropriately called in the formulaic language of the Epic, and the
metis and humanity of Odysseus.”6

Upon closer examination, however, a curious reversal comes
to light in this passage. Herakles’ deed bears a striking resemblance
to Odysseus’ act of revenge against the suitors. To begin with, it is
Herakles who kills Iphitos when the latter is a guest in his house
(26-27):

-pdO’ HpxciOc~c, cyiX’ov iEia-rop iipycov,

S; uvt ?Eivov E6vr’ K(XtEKT(XVEV () vv 0vlOK(p….

Odysseus, too, will commit the killing, and he will kill those who,
feasting in his own house, are technically supposed to be the guests

3 Galinsky 12.
4 Pointed out in discussion by G. P. Rose. Cf. Charles Segal’s view in “The Phae-

acians and the Symbolism of Odysseus’ Return,” Arion 1 (1962) 50.
5 Galinsky 11-12.
6 Clay 95; see also pp. 89-96 and the discussion below.

This content downloaded from
�������������71.198.219.99 on Mon, 22 Nov 2021 20:38:23 UTC�������������

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

44 KATHERINE CRISSY

despite their behavior. In combination with this most obvious factor,
a number of other details can be found to strengthen the impres-
sion of the comparison.
For example, it should be noted that while Odysseus will kill

the suitors in his house at dinner, Herakles’ crime is described in a
cryptic fashion that distinctly emphasizes the setting at dinner (28-29):

ayX~to;, or6~ 0E&v 65ntv ai&Uaw’ o & ?pai neav,

TTv Tijv o0 1rcpnEOTKEV E ltEUX 6c8 ‘E(PVE KCCt .WTv….

The poet feels no need to explain the motive for the murder, how it
was committed, what Herakles’ relation to Iphitos was, or how and
why he took the horses. We are not even told whether he himself
had them at the time when Iphitos visited him, or Iphitos had pre-
viously regained them. The poet does, however, make a point of
telling us that Herakles has provided Iphitos with the meal due to
a guest.

Thirdly, it should be remembered that Odysseus will kill the
suitors with the bow, which is the central concern of this passage.
Herakles, too, is famous for the bow. The poem itself makes this
point very clear. He is lauded for his great prowess at archery in
Book Eight along with Eurytos, the former owner of Odysseus’
weapon (8.219-25), and he wields the bow upon making his
climactic appearance in Hades (11.601-8).

Finally, Herakles kills Iphitos in what must be an unexpected
attack, since Iphitos is his guest. Surprise is also the primary feature
of Odysseus’ attack on his guests, the finishing touch in fact of this
very book. It is, moreover, a tactic particularly suited to Odysseus,
the man of trickery. Even the name of Ortilochos, at whose place
he receives the bow just before Iphitos’ death, can mean “the one
who stirs the ambush”7; and, as Edwards has shown, the hero’s

7 See P. Chantraine, Dictionnaire Etymologique de la Langue Grecque: Histoire des
Mots (Paris 1968-80), s. v. 6pvynrat (also Hans von Kamptz, Homerische Personenna-
men: Sprachwissenschaftliche und Historische Klassifikation [G6ttingen 1982] 66, 74).
On the apparently significant use of the name “Orsilochos” in the ambush story at
13.258-70, see W. B. Stanford, The Odyssey of Homer (New York 2nd ed. 1958) 2.209;
A. T. Edwards, Achilles in the Odyssey (K6nigstein 1985) 32-33; and A. J. Mariani,
“The Forged Feature: Created Identity in Homer’s Odyssey” (diss. Yale 1967) 287.
(On the confusion of the names “Ortilochos” and “Orsilochos,” see Fernandez-
Galiano in Joseph Russo, Manuel Fernandez-Galiano, and Alfred Heubeck, A Com-
mentary on Homer’s Odyssey [Oxford 1992] 3.150.) This is not to say that the name at
Od.21.16 is simply invented for the context. Ortilochos, the father of Diokles, is also
mentioned at 11.5.541-49. In the Odyssey, Telemachos visits Ortilochos’ son, Diokles,

This content downloaded from
�������������71.198.219.99 on Mon, 22 Nov 2021 20:38:23 UTC�������������

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

HERAKLES, ODYSSEUS, AND THE BOW 45

ruse is an ambush of sorts.8 Has Ortilochos been chosen in order to

emphasize this point? Certainly much attention is devoted to the
unexpected nature of the attack, while it is also apparently an
element in Herakles’ reception, then murder, of Iphitos.9

A recollection in this passage of the suitors’ violation of
hospitality does not hinder the similarity between Herakles and
Odysseus. Such cross comparisons, made through skewed or
reverse associations and avoiding exact parallels, are often found
in Homer. In particular, many of the similes “evoke … an inver-
sion of social role or a social theme with an equivalent difference
of focus or point of view.”’10 Men are compared to women, fathers
to children, Penelope to someone who would obviously be in
Odysseus’ place (e.g. 19.108-14; 5.394-98; 23.233-40). In the
third example just cited, when Odysseus is finally recognized by
Penelope, the sight of her husband appears as welcome to her as
“land appears welcome to men who are swimming, whose well-
built ship Poseidon has shattered on the sea” (233-35). Among the
Phaiakians, when Odysseus hears the bard sing of his Trojan
exploits, the famous city-sacker weeps like one of his former
victims, a captive woman before the walls of a fallen city being
driven away from her husband’s dead body and led off into
slavery (8.523-31).” In the story of Herakles, the suggestion of the
suitors’ violation of hospitality laws, shifting over into a distinct
recollection of Odysseus’ act through specific details, evokes the
mutual savagery of both parties in the revenge story. Various com-
mentators have remarked on the harsh nature of the suitors’ death,
and the portrayal of Herakles helps to bring this out.

Neither would Homer balk at such realism, nor does myth in
general shrink from including negative elements in the depiction
of its heroes.12 Other passages in the Odyssey itself confirm this
approach. Friedrich demonstrates how the lion simile at 22.401-406,
used to describe Odysseus after rather than during the battle, “con-

on a journey that is in many other ways parallel to that of Odysseus (3.487-90;
15.185-88).

s Edwards 35-38.
9 On the trick, see n. 19 below.
10 H. P. Foley, “‘Reverse Similes’ and Sex Roles in the Odyssey,” Arethusa 11

(1978) 7; see also 22 n. 1; and A. J. Podlecki, “Some Odyssean Similes,” G&R 18 (1971)
82, 88-90.

11 Foley 7.
12 See esp. Robin Hankey, “‘Evil’ in the Odyssey,” in ‘Owls to Athens’: Essays on

Classical Subjects Presented to Sir Kenneth Dover (Oxford 1990) ed. E. M. Craik, 92-95;
Hankey mentions Odysseus’ likeness to Herakles as he appears in Od.11.605-26.

This content downloaded from
�������������71.198.219.99 on Mon, 22 Nov 2021 20:38:23 UTC�������������

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

46 KATHERINE CRISSY

centrates exclusively on the abhorrent view of a blood-spattered
lion after his terrible meal,” rather than on the heroic splendor of
the animal so often projected in the Iliad.13 Upon seeing the dead
suitors, the nurse begins to raise the cry of victory but Odysseus
stops her with the words (22.411-13):

Ev 0ig4&, ypqii, XpCIF K(XI i’oXEo R718 ,X6Xi h’X

o)UX OGirl KtXI~EVOllV c’ Cv8pwvd 1 E1XEcZtd(waOC.
toiuO& 68 Ij 8Egoi1PI p’l 6 CIoCR EGc V KCXi ox tXlQhX EPYQC

Rejoice in your heart, old woman, and restrain your cry:
It is not pious to boast over the slain.
Destiny from the gods and their own savage deeds overcame

these men.

Odysseus describes his act as the gods’ fulfillment of justice rather
than his own heroic achievement, eschewing the vaunt over the
defeated enemy often made in the Iliad. His reaction “points to the

problematical nature of his &ptreFa. It is, after all, not taking place
in a war between enemies, but is rather the expression of the inner
strife of a community in which the king is pitted against the hybristic
nobility of his own country in mortal combat. It ends in the whole-

sale slaughter of the &(pt”rot iKolpov–a result not to be glorified as a
ya pyov. . …14 As the more problematic aspects of Odysseus’ deed
are suggested here by the poet, so his association with Herakles in
Book 21 contributes to the same effect.15

One final point should tentatively be considered regarding this
passage, a possible allusion to a motive on Herakles’ part similar
to that of Odysseus, namely, revenge over a bride. No clear reason
is given for Iphitos’ murder, only sparse details of missing animals.
The scholia give conflicting accounts on the matter. According to
one note, Odysseus’ grandfather Autolykos stole the horses and sold
them to Herakles.16 Another refers to a far more substantial and

13 Rainer Friedrich, “On the Compositional Use of Similes in the Odyssey,”
AJP 102 (1981) 125; see also W. T. Magrath, “Progression of the Lion Simile in the
Odyssey,” CJ 77 (1982) 209-12.

‘4 Friedrich 130-31.
‘5 One might recall Herakles’ slaughter of his children in his own halls. While

this is not a heroic endeaver but a pathos sent by Hera, the idea remains of the
destruction of what is closest to oneself through violence originally aimed at
dangers in the outside world. (Observations made by the anonymous referee and
Tamara Green respectively.)

16 Schol. ad 21.22, B.Q.

This content downloaded from
�������������71.198.219.99 on Mon, 22 Nov 2021 20:38:23 UTC�������������

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

HERAKLES, ODYSSEUS, AND THE BOW 47

well-known reason for the murder, telling how it happened and
possibily recollecting a link between Herakles and Iphitos’ father
as outstanding archers, as they have in fact already been linked
at 8.223-28 in this respect. Herakles was angry with Iphitos and his
father Eurytos “because after he had achieved the prize, they did
not give Iole [Eurytos’ daughter] to him to marry, but, having dis-
honored him, sent him away.”17 Apollodoros tells us that Eurytos,
king of Oichalia, had promised to give his daughter in marriage to
the winner of a bow contest with himself and his sons. Herakles

won, but did not receive the bride. Consequently he was later sus-
pected of stealing some animals from the household.18 The scholiast
and other sources tell us that Iphitos went to see him looking for
the lost animals, was lured to the top of a wall through trickery,
and then pushed off by Herakles.19

Fragmentary details on Iole can be found elsewhere. Evidence
exists for a poem called the Sack of Oichalia, attributed to Creophylos
(an alleged contemporary of Homer), in which Herakles attacks
Eurytos’ city in order to take her.20 An early painting of Iole can be
found on a Corinthian krater dated around 600 B.C. She is turning
away from Herakles as he takes notice of her at a banquet with her
father and brothers.21 Later vase paintings depict the bow contest
and Herakles slaying Eurytos and his sons with the bow.22 Accord-
ing to Sophocles’ Trachiniai, the tragedy in which Herakles destroys
Oichalia for the sake of Iole, Eurytos shouts angrily that Herakles
is inferior to his sons at archery as he insults the hero, who is his
guest, and throws him out of the banquet in disgrace. (Herakles
then murders Iphitos in the manner described by the scholiast above;

17 6uit TEXkuFiTa7TCV xtu6p u1v &Okov u1iv ‘I6XA11v yxcgiv o i00K c cCxv, I X’

dr~lgTaTv?E; R Enc~v. (Schol. ad 21.22, V., which cites Pherekydes.)
18 Apollod.2.6.1-2; cf. D.S.4.31.1-3.
19 Schol. ad 21.22, V.; Apollod.2.6.1-2; D.S.4.31.1-3; S.Tr.260-73. According to

Diodoros, the trick was that Herakles took Iphitos to the top of a tower in order to
have him look around and see if the animals happened to be grazing anywhere in
the vicinity.

20 See, e.g., Strabo 438, 638, Eust. ad 11.2.730 et al. in T. W. Allen, ed., Homeri
Opera, Vol. 5 (Oxford 1912) 144-47; Schol. ad Eur. Hipp.545-46; and Walter Burkert,
“Die Leistung eines Kreophylos: Kreophyleer, Homeriden und die Archaische Her-
akles-epik,” MH 29 (1972) 74-85. Panyassis is also supposed to have composed an
epic on the subject; see Victor J. Matthews, Panyassis of Halikarnassos: Text and
Commentary (Leiden 1974) 48-49, 77, 88, 98, 129-30.

21 K. Schefold, Myth and Legend in Early Greek Art (New York 1966) 39, 70-71
and pl. 60.

22 LIMC s.v. “Iole,” “Eurytos,” “Iphitos.”

This content downloaded from
�������������71.198.219.99 on Mon, 22 Nov 2021 20:38:23 UTC�������������

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

48 KATHERINE CRISSY

260-73) No mention is made of a contest for the king’s daughter, but
this may be expected since the herald Lichas is addressing these
words to Deianira and clearly wishes to withhold information from
her, including the identification of the captive Iole (307-28; 419-89).

Accounts vary as to the death of Eurytos and his sons.23 In the
Odyssey, Homer is consistent in saying that Eurytos is dead before
the episode of Book 21 (8.223-28; 21.32-33). In fact, only in this
way can Odysseus receive the bow. Prinz comments that the motive
for the story of Book 21 is clear, i.e. to bestow the lustre of fame on
the bow. He goes on to say that the anachronism of Herakles’ ap-
pearance is evidence of an intentional “blurring” of the tradition,
even invention on the poet’s part, for this very purpose.24 Did the
poet then invent, or at least select, a version in which Eurytos dies
early? The decidedly vague wording at 21.24-29, with its emphasis
on the host’s table just before the killing, when compared with the
murder at dinner of both the suitors and Agamemnon (11.409-20),
should likewise plant the suspicion in our minds that the poet was
shaping details to suit the Odyssey. At the same time, since later
accounts insist that Iphitos was pushed off of a wall despite Homer’s
presentation suggesting a link between the murder and the guest
table, they would seem to imply that some version of the story
existed independently and was alluded to by Homer, whatever
adjustments were made.

If the audience is meant to recall Herakles’ anger over Iole when
they hear of Iphitos, the Odyssey furnishes a particularly suitable
parallel. The primary concern of Book 21 is, of course, another bow
contest for a bride, Penelope.25 Herakles’ act may thus further
imply a cross connection of characters and themes. The suitors are
given promises, but do not get the bride, and so appropriate the
animals of the household. More importantly, Odysseus, who is
scorned, mocked as a contestant for Penelope, and almost thrown
out of the feast even though he is the real winner of the contest,

23 Roscher’s Lexikon s.v. “Eurytos”; Timothy Ganz, Early Greek Myth (Balti-
more 1993) 435-36.

24 Prinz 190.

25 Note that also no bride or wedding is mentioned in Antinoos’ account
of the Kentaur’s misbehavior at 21.288-304, though the marriage of Peirithoos and
Hippodameia may well have been the setting, and unlawful seizure of the bride
the cause (see, e.g., II. 2.740-46; Apollod. Epit.2.21; Paus. 5.10.8; Schol. ad Od. 21.298,
Q.). T. Krischer maintains that the bow contest for Iole is the model on which the
contest in the Odyssey is based, and that this is why Odysseus receives the bow of
Eurytos (Hermes 120 [1992] 19-25).

This content downloaded from
�������������71.198.219.99 on Mon, 22 Nov 2021 20:38:23 UTC�������������

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

HERAKLES, ODYSSEUS, AND THE BOW 49

claims a bride that is his by rights with violence and a surprise
attack, unforgiving in his anger.

Although we have no major epic left about Herakles, neverthe-
less the impression remains that he is the crowning example of
Greek heroes. Both Achilles and Odysseus are glorified through
comparison with him.26 In particular, he shares a number of traits
with Odysseus, including the quality of being a loner, the ability to
endure and survive, the presence of the patron goddess Athena
along with a deity who persecutes, a trip to Hades, and the bow.27
In the Odyssey itself, Herakles’ name appears in two other passages.
They, too, imply a likeness between the two characters which shows
no concern for shedding a complimentary light on Herakles, but
reminds us that he is one of the most powerful and violent heroes
of the past.

In Book 8, Herakles has already been linked with Eurytos as
one of the outstanding archers of previous times with whom Od-
ysseus says he would not dare to compare himself, although he is
“not bad at contests among men” (214):

E pNv ,6 ov ol a 8(Xoov &wpxacOurnP

olo; 86 RE DtXoKio’rtr d”EKaivu’ro ‘6?P
8igp vt Tp’yov, 6re rotaxoitLE ‘ ‘AXatoi.

trv Ov’ 11XXyov FL~ ‘t noi)( xpo0epoaiepov etvat,
6aooot viv 3poToi oiatv Tin xOovi irov i68ovES.

a&v6pdaot 6i ‘Lpo0r’pototyv ptEv olic EXlh0 a,
oiO’ ‘Hpaki’it oiSr’ Eplr(ph OiXaXt5’i,

of’ Pa aX dcoav&rottyov pit~rcov nEPI T6oWv.
r ta Ti aCx’ “Oavev Lyaq; E9Gpyro, o)6′ ~i ypaq
‘KET vi LE ypotot XoXooaadgEvo; yap ‘Ar6XkXow
lcrnavEv, o )VEa tyV poiakXiEo 0o~dI(o0at.

I know well how to handle the well-polished bow:

Philoktetes alone surpassed me at archery
In the land of the Trojans, when we Achaians would aim

our arrows.

But I say I am far better than the others,
However many bread-eating mortals are on the earth today.
Yet I will not wish to rival the men of previous times,
Neither Herakles nor Eurytos of Oichalia,

26 For Achilles, see 11.18.117-19.
27 Galinsky 12-14; Clay 92-96.

This content downloaded from
�������������71.198.219.99 on Mon, 22 Nov 2021 20:38:23 UTC�������������

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

50 KATHERINE CRISSY

Those who used to vie with even the immortals in the art
of the bow.

Indeed, for this great Eurytos died early, and did not
Reach old age in his halls; for in anger Apollo
Killed him, because he challenged the god at archery.

(8.215-28)

These words are addressed to the Phaiakian Euryalos, who rudely
presumes to challenge his guest Odysseus at the games. The young
man meets with a sharp rebuke, then a demonstration of the stranger’s
prowess at throwing the discus. The rebuke is reinforced by the
story of Eurytos’ presumptuous challenge to Apollo, and by Odys-
seus’ own deferential refusal to measure himself against his
betters, the heroes of old.

In this refusal there is both foreshadowing28 and paradox; for
Odysseus will soon accomplish a feat suggesting a likeness between
himself and these heroes after all. He will kill the suitors in a

challenge using the very bow belonging to Eurytos. The foreshad-
owing seems reasonably clear, given Odysseus’ choice of weapons
in the paradigm and the prominence of the bow in the climax of
the poem, not to mention the fact that the destruction of the suitors
is on the mind of all from the beginning of the Odyssey (e.g. 1.252-69;
2.161-76).

Clay traces two rival genealogies, so to speak, of the bows
passed on from Herakles to Philoktetes (mentioned at line 219) and
from Eurytos to Odysseus, in order to draw the contrast …

University of Pennsylvania
ScholarlyCommons

Departmental Papers (Classical Studies) Classical Studies at Penn

2009

Penelope’s Agnoia: Knowledge, Power, and Gender
in the Odyssey
Sheila Murnaghan
University of Pennsylvania, [email protected]

Follow this and additional works at: http://repository.upenn.edu/classics_papers

Part of the Classics Commons

This paper is posted at ScholarlyCommons. http://repository.upenn.edu/classics_papers/161
For more information, please contact [email protected]

Recommended Citation (OVERRIDE)
Murnaghan, Sheila. (2009). “Penelope’s Agnoia: Knowledge, Power, and Gender in the Odyssey.” In Lillian E. Doherty (Ed.), Oxford
Readings in Classical Studies: Homer’s Odyssey, pp. 231-244. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Penelope’s Agnoia: Knowledge, Power, and Gender in the Odyssey

Disciplines
Arts and Humanities | Classics

This book chapter is available at ScholarlyCommons: http://repository.upenn.edu/classics_papers/161