Greek mythology: The Cyclopes

[Kyriakos]

Characteristics of the myth of the Cyclopes

The ninth chapter of the Odyssey is the beginning of Odysseus's narration of his journeys. It is dominated by the story of the Cyclops Polyphemus. I recently re-read it and here are some of my notes on it:

The cyclops is described in little detail. The description of the environment precedes any reference to the actual form of the creature, although the island is already named as "the island of the Cyclopes". It is interesting that the description begins with a rather thorough depiction of the geography of a nearby island, which is argued to have natural qualities to serve as a dock, but due to the Cyclopes's lack of interest or knowledge to be involved in improvement creation, or in agriculture, their lands remain wild.
In the cyclopic island life is sustained mainly from sheep-herding, and also foraging. Therefore it is a pre-agricultural society.

Although Odysseus did not see any other cyclopes (infact other cyclopes take part in the story only from their questions which are asked behind the closed boulder-door of Polyphemus's cave) his narration nevertheless begins with this summary of their way of life, which is portrayed as barbaric (here i am noting mostly that the narrative has some gaps; that pre-agricultural societies and barbaricism had obvious connections is not argued against).

Polyphemus does not have any respect for the gods, or at least Zeus. It has to be pointed out that Odysseus makes an obvious use of the law of "The hostpitable Zeus" who in was a custom for a foreigner to allude to, so as to ask the natives to show him hospitality, or to even exchange gifts with him. Polyphemus declines that law, and argues that the cyclopes are stronger than the gods and are free to do as they please without thinking of them.

The Cyclopes are said to be living in family cells. They have no organised law, and "each cyclops is the sole lord of his family". Here, again, there is no background as to how this information was acquired.

The size of the cyclops, and his one eye, are the only mentioned descriptions of him. The words "monstrous", "savage", "wicked" also are used, but they are sentimental descriptions, and not material ones.

The most striking moment in the narrative about Polyphemus has got to be the point where, after Polyphemus has asked Odysseus if they are alone or have other comrades, Odysseus cunningly distorts the truth and claims that they are alone and have no ship since they have shipwrecked, upon which reply Polyphemus instantly loses interest in asking more questions and picks up two of Odysseus's men, throws them violently onto the ground, crushing them (their brains are spilled out), and then starts devouring them, breaking their legs and arms from the rest of the body as if they were pieces of paper.

It is interesting that this has the immediate result of making Odysseus's other men cry. The general pattern of general descriptions, be it of form or of psychological state, is continious in this as well.

However the narrative has some very intricate parts as well. In my view the most impressive is the description of the plan of how to leave the cave. The goats are tied in threes, and below the central goat one comrade is tied, so that they would not be noticed by the blinded Cyclops as he is letting his herd leave the cave. Odysseus is left last, so no one can tie him, which is why he chooses to hang on to the fur of the ram.
When the ram reaches Polyphemus, he starts touching it gently and speaks to it. He is surprised that the ram now is leaving last, whereas it always used to leave first of the herd, and also always return first. He is very sad about the tragedy of his blinding, and so wonders to the ram whether it has sensed that his master is in such a poor condition, and out of sympathy to him it now has chosen to leave the cave last.

Definately the range of emotions presented by Polyphemus is wide, since they begin with self-assured cruelty, escalate to being cold blooded murderous, but then he is humbled and weakened.
Also in the end of the story, after Odysseus has yelled his real name back to Polyphemus, we are being told that the cyclops had known of a prophesy according to which he would indeed be blinded by someone named Odysseus, but that he always thought that this Odysseus would have been a fierce giant, and not an "insignificant weakling". This prophesy undercurrent however gives more importance to Odysseus ploy to not name himself when Polyphemus had asked him inside the cave, since had he done so we should guess that the result would have been immediate death. On the contrary, after Odysseus names himself as "no one", or "noman", Polyphemus replies that his gift to him (for having given him some of his wine) would be to eat him last.

A final element in the life of Polyphemus, which is critical to the plot of the Odyssey, is that he is the son of Neptune. After Odysseus has revealed his idenity, and mocked him about his claim that perhaps Neptune would cure his eye, Odysseus himsself effectively commits hubris, and Polyphemus now raises his hands to the sky and asks of his father to prevent Odysseus from ever returning to his home, or that even if this cannot be eternally prevented that at least all of his men should perish and that he would have to face other difficulties upon reaching Ithaka.



It must be noted that the violence against Polyphemus was not what is argued to have caused Odysseus's punishment. Chapter nine beings with the sacking of the land of the Cicons, with a massacre of one of their towns being narrated in disspationate way by Odysseus. The Cicons, however, are not part of the mythological order of creatures, but are just another kingdom, which has organised towns and armies, and even retaliates with its own army against that of Odyseeus's, causing the latter to retreat after bearing some losses. On the contrary whereas it was Polyphemus himself who started the violence, by devouring six of Odysseus's men, the act of mocking him (and indirectly mocking Poseidon) was more detrimental.

 

[Squonk]

Check out my Cyclop frog at Frog Thread 2 at Apolyton's OT

 

[Mott1]

Very entertaining narration Varwnos. You focused a bit on the morality of Homer's characters that I found interesting. I myself am rereading the Illiad and what struck me from the begining was the childish and narcissistic behavior of the kings of the Greeks and Troy.
For example in the very first chapters king Agamemnon is distraught and angry for having to give up his slave girl whom his men have gifted him after raiding a nearby settlement. The slave girl was a daughter of a priest of Apollo who prayed for the god to intervene. Apollo answered his prayer and began raining arrows of plague on the Greek host. Agamemnon finally and reluctantly gave in and returned the "captured booty" safely to her father. Homer made it quite clear that Agamemnon only released the girl because he realized that his army would have been decimated and he would not be able to take Troy. To him his precious prize and his pride was worth more than the lives of his men.

It became more entertaining when king Agamemnon began to throw a fit and demanded that Achilles, king of the Myrmidons, give up his captured slave girl to him. His argument was that he was the king of all kings of Greece and that he of all should not be without war booty. They both began heatedly arguing, boasting of their manly deeds and status, until Achilles became so enraged that he began reaching for his sword to smite the king. Just then the Goddess Athena came down from Olympus unseen by all except Achilles and restrained his hand, she counciled Achilles to give up his booty to the king for it was unwise to smite the king favored by Zeus. Achilles then left fuming, he found a place on the beach and began crying for his mother to listen to the injustice that has been done to him.

Now as a modern reader of this great fantasy epic, one would view this as Homer's clever humor poking fun at human behavior. However what I noted was that Homer's humor was only evident with the gods. The squabbles between Zeus and Hera were reminiscent of a husband giving in to the an over bearing wife but only to a certain point, or Zues chiding Aphrodite for meddling in the buisness of war which clearly is not her field of expertise, was all very funny. But there was a stark difference when Homer wrote about the mortals on earth. Homer wrote with seriousness when relating the affairs of mortals. Human emotions were without humor, the conflicts and interactions were realistic, graphic, and urgent. It's as if the gods were put in as a comic relief to lighten up the seriousness of the book.
Although Homer's epics are viewed as ancient fantasy entertainment, I fully believe that the moral society and human behavior which Homer portrays in his books is an accurate representation of the ancients who lived in that time period.

 

[jonatas]

Now as a modern reader of this great fantasy epic, one would view this as Homer's clever humor poking fun at human behavior.

I would say that's a banal and uninformed way of reading and drawing conclusions from the text.

Although Homer's epics are viewed as ancient fantasy entertainment, I fully believe that the moral society and human behavior which Homer portrays in his books is an accurate representation of the ancients who lived in that time period.

Why do you keep referring to it as fantasy? That's a bit misleading, isn't it? In any case, what you are referring to is the Homeric code of honour which certainly existed among the nobility.

 

[Mott1]

I would say that's a banal and uninformed way of reading and drawing conclusions from the text.

I was drawing a conclusion one could easily reach based on the moral conduct and childish interaction between the kings. I did not say that it was my conclusion as I explained at the end of my post. If you feel there is a deep and profound meaning to that particular scene that I missed please enlighten me.

Why do you keep referring to it as fantasy? That's a bit misleading, isn't it?

The Iliad is a story about the past, but it's certainly not a believable story about the past in the sense that a historian would find it believable. I view the Iliad as fantasy because mush of it does not seem plausable. However I wish to aviod offending the sensiblities of the ardent Homerist's, would classifying the Homerian epics as mythical poems be more appropriate?
That would then beg the question if the original author intended his work to be considered poetry, or simply relating a story of actual events he believed to be true at the time. In fact the author who wrote The Iliad and The Odyssey is open to debate, and whether some guy named Homer actually ever existed.

In any case, what you are referring to is the Homeric
Homeric code of honour which certainly existed among the nobility.

Understood, but I was focusing on the behavior of the kings. These are leaders and elders of nations with the wieght and responsiblities of leading thousands of men in war. Yet here they are bickering over booty like children fighting and crying over toys.

 

[jonatas]

I don't think there is much value in over-analyzing and drawing pseudo-philosophical and rhetorical conclusions about the works, especially if the reader is working from a modern basis. There are many ideas being presented (hubris is just one of them)and then there is the pleasure of the language itself (in Ancient Greek). It's really far too rich to reduce to just modern considerations of how foolish so and so was. There is more to be said about it than just that.

Understanding the background and concepts such as the Homeric code of honour helps people from misjudging it and makes it a lot more interesting IMO.

 

[Kyriakos]

My own interest is from a literary point of view, since i write myself
I am very much enthousiastic about comparing greek and hebrew myth. Some elements are darker in one, while others in the other tradition.
For example whereas in hebrew myths (like the golem) most of the myth is rather hinted at and not described (the process of making the golem alive is not explained, and neither is god discussed at lenght) in the case of greek myth the larger part of the story is being presented in the foreground. Also violence is more common in greek myth, and it is attributed to hierarchy of being ussually (the gods can pretty much do as they please) whereas in judaic myths violence is presented as something which was caused by fault of man, against the higher law of god. Although in greek myth there exists too some sense of moral mistake on the part of the humans (irrational anger in the case of Ajax, hubris in the case of Odysseus and other heroes, other reasons) the gods are not presented at all as bound by human standards of morality, and similarily humans can also choose to not be bound by them, by likening themselves to gods. In the judaic myths that is strictly forbidden, creating a great gap between the notion of a god, and the notion of man.

 

[Mott1]

I don't think there is much value in over-analyzing and drawing pseudo-philosophical and rhetorical conclusions about the works, especially if the reader is working from a modern basis. There are many ideas being presented (hubris is just one of them)and then there is the pleasure of the language itself (in Ancient Greek). It's really far too rich to reduce to just modern considerations of how foolish so and so was. There is more to be said about it than just that.

Understanding the background and concepts such as the Homeric code of honour helps people from misjudging it and makes it a lot more interesting IMO.

I don't think I was drawing a conclusion from a modern basis, on the contrary I was drawing my conclusion from the ancient perspective. From a modern perspective their is no denying that the Homerian epic is a great literary work, but from an ancient perspective how was it considered?
So from my observation, the hubris or the "Homeric" code that is depicted in Homers epics is not something he just concocted for the sake of beautful poetry, but was probably a very real moral structure that was in place at that time.
If that qualifies as over-analyzing, then I guess I am guilty as charged.

 

[jonatas]

That's fine. You ask me how it was considered in Ancient times? Well we read it today in a book. But it was an oral work from a pre-literate culture. As such the power of the spoken word is especially important. This is important, because this is probably an aspect of appreciation that we have largely lost in literate culture. We do not wonder at words with the same intensity. I would say this is probably an unfortunate result of being literate. Here is a post I made a long time ago about the transition from pre-literacy to literacy (seen through the eyes of Plato and Socrates) in Greek society:

At the same time as you have emergence of a literate society, you have the teachers of virtue (sophists), something which relates to the idea of reading as an act of submission (Can virtue be taught?). The older, oral society is that of the Homeric heros. Strong, powerful, honor among equals, action etc.... Plato's Socrates and Plato are reactionaries in 5th Athens who look back despairingly to this golden age, while surrounded by Sophists and a decaying society, in their eyes. As Verbose brings out, the paradox is that Plato is in many ways is the master of literary form... I vaguely remember a quote paraphrased as "Plato wrote Greek like the gods would have...". But, was Plato a Sophist?

Another interesting point is that for almost all Greeks, whatever the time period, the greatest literature was Homer's, produced in an oral society. The level of sophistication is unmatched by the literates They could only look at it and wonder. Part of this is due to the extreme attention paid to the language, and the ability to improvise within a set framework, with recurring themes. There is a level of sophistication to that kind of language, which allows for improvisation while respecting an overarching structure, that produces a high degree of aesthetic pleasure. It's more akin to performance. It's so real.... The written word was undoubtedly viewed as secondary. The brilliance is not just the stories that are told, but how they are told in the Ancient Greek.

The classic contrast would be between Homer and the later Hellenistic "bookworms". These later guys were literally librarians and scholars, while Homer was a visionary bard. So, in terms of art, I would not assume that a literate society was necessarily an improvement over a pre-literate. The word can hold a kind of magical power in pre-literate societies, which even we marvel at.

For the Ancient Greeks, Homer was the master. Of course he came from a different age.

The actual language is quite important too. Unfortunately we lose that in translation, but I feel much of what is said is actually beautiful. Poetic language, basically. The moral code you speak of is definitely there. It is the Homeric code of honour, and I don't think anyone can begin to understand the works without taking it into account. It includes many concepts: such as nobility, courtesy, honour, strength, loyalty, bravery and negative correlatives such as pride, violence, lust, treachery, cowardice etc. It honours powerful individuals. Homer's characters embody these qualities. My basic point is that we should be careful to not judge everything we read on our own terms, or else we will probably lose something.

 

[Zuffox]

I don't think there is much value in over-analyzing and drawing pseudo-philosophical and rhetorical conclusions about the works, especially if the reader is working from a modern basis. There are many ideas being presented (hubris is just one of them)and then there is the pleasure of the language itself (in Ancient Greek). It's really far too rich to reduce to just modern considerations of how foolish so and so was. There is more to be said about it than just that.

Understanding the background and concepts such as the Homeric code of honour helps people from misjudging it and makes it a lot more interesting IMO.

I wasn't sure if you by the entirety of the post were refering to Homer, but in case you are, using hubris as an interpretation of homeric epics would be an anachronistic analysis, since the term was invented - coined, put in focus, or what have you - by Herodot at a later time in Ancient Greek history.

 

[jonatas]

I'm just talking about pride ie. how some of Homer's characters are proud. Not necessarily a bad thing I suppose. I think that's what was brought up earlier and how to interpret the apparent childishness/pettiness of some of the characters.

The greek word just popped into my mind - I suppose I shouldn't have used it due to its background (Thank you for your clarification btw). In any case I agree with you about the whole traditional interpretation of hubris and how it doesn't really apply to Homer. I think the code of honour and ideals present in the epics are quite different from what came later in Greek society, of course, though it still served as a kind of model or was revered from a distance. That's what I was trying to say: my impression was that sometimes the proud behaviour of powerful men in the epics was part of the code.

 

[Zuffox]

I'm just talking about pride ie. how some of Homer's characters are proud. Not necessarily a bad thing I suppose. I think that's what was brought up earlier and how to interpret the apparent childishness/pettiness of some of the characters.

The greek word just popped into my mind - I suppose I shouldn't have used it due to its background (Thank you for your clarification btw). In any case I agree with you about the whole traditional interpretation of hubris and how it doesn't really apply to Homer. I think the code of honour and ideals present in the epics are quite different from what came later in Greek society, of course, though it still served as a kind of model or was revered from a distance. That's what I was trying to say: my impression was that sometimes the proud behaviour of powerful men in the epics was part of the code.

Make no mistake; I whole-heartedly agree with you, as I also viewed Homer's works like you, until I accidently used the term hubris in front of my Ancient History teacher... Never again will I do that.