¹ For a thorough discussion of supplication and a bibliography of previous scholarship, see Naiden, F.S., Ancient Supplication (Oxford, 2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; for these three supplications: pp. 3–4 and 11. See also Dreher, M., ‘Die Hikesie-Szene der Odyssee und der Ursprung des Asylgedankens’, in Luther, A. (ed.), Geschichte und Fiktion in der homerischen Odyssee (Munich, 2006), 61–75Google Scholar, at 55–6; Crotty, K., The Poetics of Supplication: Homer's Iliad and Odyssey (Ithaca, NY and London, 1994), 121–9Google Scholar and 151–6; Pedrick, V., ‘Supplication in the Iliad and the Odyssey’, TAPhA 112 (1982), 125–40Google Scholar, at 133–4; Gould, J., ‘Hiketeia’, JHS 93 (1973), 74–103CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 80–1.

² Stanford, W.B., Homer: Odyssey Books XIII–XXIV (London, 1965 ²), 386Google Scholar, at line 362; Fernández-Galiano, M., Russo, J. and Heubeck, A., A Commentary on Homer's Odyssey, vol. 3: Books XVII–XXIV (Oxford, 1992), 282–3Google Scholar, at lines 362–3; de Jong, I.J.F., A Narratological Commentary on the Odyssey (Cambridge, 2001), 540CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at line 371.

³ A point noted by both Stanford (n. 2), 386, at line 371 and Fernández-Galiano (n. 2), 284, at line 371. Odysseus does smile at 20.301, but this smile, as Stanford remarks, is more of a ‘sardonic humourless grimace’ occasioned by Ctesippus' verbal and (attempted) physical abuse of Odysseus; see also Lateiner, D., The Sardonic Smile: Nonverbal Behavior in Homeric Epic (Ann Arbor, 1995), 193–5CrossRefGoogle Scholar, for more on this sardonic smile. For the meaning of Odysseus' smiles and how these smiles occur at important points in the action, mirroring the different stages of the hero's resumption of power on Ithaca, see Levine, D.B., ‘Odysseus’ Smiles: Odyssey 20.301, 22.371, 23.111’, TAPhA 114 (1984), 1–9Google Scholar (5–7 for an analysis of this particular grin).

⁴ Stanford (n. 2), 386, at line 362; Fernández-Galiano (n. 2), 283, at lines 362–3. The adjective νεόδαρτος, which is used in both scenes to describe the animal skins that conceal Menelaus and his men (4.437) and Medon (22.363), appears to be responsible for the focus on parallels with Menelaus. This is not to suggest that Menelaus' hiding under a seal's skin cannot be recalled here as well. Hiding under animals or animal skins and even inside animals (i.e. the Wooden Horse) is a common theme in a poem almost obsessed with the opposition of concealing and revealing (cf. Block, E., ‘Clothing makes the man: a pattern in the Odyssey’, TAPhA 115 [1985], 1–11Google Scholar, on clothing, disguise and lying). Note too Odysseus' earlier disguise as beggar to infiltrate Troy (4.242–9), and Calypso, whose very name suggests ‘concealing’ and ‘covering’, and Odysseus' clever adoption of the name that is ‘no-name’. The numerous references to the Cyclopeia in these scenes, I argue (see below for details), prepare us to view Medon's method of escape as belonging to this same series of allusions.

⁵ Powell, B.B., Composition by Theme in the ‘Odyssey’. Beiträge zur klassischen Philologie 81 (Meisenham am Glam, 1977)Google Scholar, 46 correctly sees a parallel here with Odysseus' escape from Polyphemus, but he simply mentions this in passing and does not develop the point further: ‘a variation of the ruse by which Odysseus saved himself and his men from Polyphemus’.

⁶ When Odysseus, enraged at Polyphemus' first meal of man-flesh, contemplates stabbing the monster, he suddenly realizes that to do so would mean their certain doom since they would not be able to remove the stone from the cave's entrance (9.299–305). For a thorough discussion of the similarities between these two situations, see Clay, J. Strauss, The Wrath of Athena: Gods and Men in the Odyssey (Lanham, MD, 1997 ²), 121–5Google Scholar.

⁷ Cf. also Odysseus' deliberation about how to respond to Melanthius' abuse at the spring of the Nymphs (17.204–38). There, too, he chose restraint to keep his true identity hidden.

⁸ This is not to suggest that Odysseus' situation and actions on Ithaca simply repeat Polyphemus' in the cave. Odysseus, as I will demonstrate below, reprises significant elements of the ogre's role there, but he also repeats some of his actions as Polyphemus' captive (e.g. he keeps the suitors from announcing their plight to the townspeople, which is parallel to Odysseus' assumption of a false name to render Polyphemus' cries for help useless). Odysseus, thus, combines in this action his former role as captive (keeping his enemy from seeking help) and Polyphemus' former role of captor (keeping his opponents shut in).

⁹ For an excellent but somewhat brief discussion of Odysseus as Cyclops, see Alden, M., ‘An intelligent Cyclops?’, in Σπονδὲς στὸν Ὅμηρο. Μνήμη Ἰ.Θ. Κακριδῆ (Ithaki, 1993), 75–95Google Scholar, who lists many of the following parallels between Polyphemus and Odysseus. Alden herself does not offer a convincing explanation for this pairing of hero and ogre other than to appeal (p. 76) to S. Fenik's discussion of doublets (Studies in the Odyssey. Hermes Einzelschriften 30 [Wiesbaden, 1974], p. 142Google Scholar), suggesting only that the Cyclopeia is a preparatory doublet for Odysseus' return to Ithaca as an intelligent ogre. While I agree with her characterization of Odysseus as an intelligent Cyclops, I offer a different solution to this unexpected pairing in the pages that follow. For additional discussion of the interconnectedness of Odysseus and Polyphemus, see particularly Magrath, W.T., ‘Progression of the lion simile in the “Odyssey”’, CJ 77.3 (1982), 205–12Google Scholar; Austin, N., ‘Odysseus and the Cyclops: who is who?’, in Rubino, C.A. and Shelmerdine, C.W. (edd.), Approaches to Homer (Austin, 1983), 3–37Google Scholar; and Bakker, E.J., ‘Polyphemus’, Colby Quarterly 38.2 (2002), 135–50Google Scholar. The suitors, too, act in many ways like Polyphemus, particularly in their eating and drinking and treatment of strangers. Ctesippus, a suitor described as knowing ἀθεμίστια (20.287), an adjective applied to Polyphemus' thoughts as well (9.189), even goes so far as to throw an ox's hoof at Odysseus as a ξείνιον (20.287–303), an obvious reference to Polyphemus' promise to eat Nobody last as a ξείνιον (9.355–70). For detailed discussion of this and other features shared between Polyphemus and the suitors, see especially Reece, S., The Stranger's Welcome: Oral Theory and the Aesthetics of the Homeric Hospitality Scene (Ann Arbor, 1993), 165–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Cf. also Alden (this note), 75–6, 89–94; Powell (n. 5), 43–6; and Saïd, S., ‘Les crimes des prétendants, la maison d'Ulysse et les festins de l'Odyssée’, in Études de littérature ancienne (Paris, 1979), 9–49Google Scholar. There is, of course, much more to be said about the poet's use of narrative repetition in general, and Odysseus' reprisal of the Cyclopeia on Ithaca in particular. Just such a study forms a chapter in my dissertation ‘Narrative patterns in the Odyssey: repetition and the creation of meaning’ (Diss., University of Virginia, 2008), 59–104, which I am currently revising for publication.

¹⁰ Both Saïd (n. 9), 40–1 and Reece (n. 9), 174–5 discuss this connection but to make a different point, that the poet is linking the punishment visited upon the suitors with that applied to Polyphemus.

¹¹ 22.381–2: πάπτηνεν δ᾽ Ὀδυσεὺς καθ᾽ ἑὸν δόμον, εἴ τις ἔτ᾽ ἀνδρῶν | ζωὸς ὑποκλοπέοιτο, ἀλύσκων κῆρα μέλαιναν ‘And Odysseus looked carefully throughout his home to see if any of the men, still alive, was concealing himself and escaping grim death.’

¹² Leodes' benign character and status as prophet are sufficient reasons to ponder the morality of Odysseus' action here; cf. Fernández-Galiano (n. 2), 276, at line 318. For the moral questions raised by the death of Leodes and the Mnesterophonia in general, see K. Crotty (n. 1), 151–6 and Svenbro, J., La parole et le marbre: aux les origines de la poétique grecque (Lund, 1976), 19–21Google Scholar.

¹³ Cf. also Demodocus' relationship with the divine as noted by both the narrator and Odysseus himself (8.62–4, 477–81, 487–91, 499). For a discussion of the difference in status between Demodocus and Phemius as poets and Odysseus' attitude to each, see Besslich, S., Schweigen-Verschweigen-Übergehen: Die Darstellung des Unausgesprochenen in der Odyssee (Heidelberg, 1966), 101–4Google Scholar. For the sacrosanctity of heralds and their function in Homeric epic, see R. Mondi, ‘The function and social position of the kêrux in early Greece’ (Diss., Harvard University, 1978), especially 1–5; Wéry, L.-M., ‘Die Arbeitsweise der Diplomatie in homerischer Zeit’, in Olshausen, E. and Biller, H. (edd.), Antike Diplomatie (Darmstadt, 1979), 13–55Google Scholar, at 29–34; van Wees, H., Status Warriors: War, Violence and Society in Homer and History (Amsterdam, 1992), 32–4Google Scholar and 277–80; Singor, H., ‘War and International Relations’, in Raaflaub, K.A. and van Wees, H. (edd.), A Companion to Archaic Greece (Malden, MA and Oxford, 2009), 585–603CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 588; and Thalmann, W.G., ‘Heralds’, in Finkelberg, M. (ed.), The Homer Encyclopedia, vol. 2 (Malden, MA and Oxford, 2011), 346–7Google Scholar.

¹⁴ 22.378–80: ὣς φάτο, τὼ δ’ ἔξω βήτην μεγάροιο κιόντε· | ἑζέσθην δ’ ἄρα τώ γε Διὸς μεγάλου ποτὶ βωμόν, | πάντοσε παπταίνοντε, φόνον ποτιδεγμένω αἰεί ‘So he spoke, and the two made their way out of the hall and sat down beside the altar of great Zeus. Both of them kept looking anxiously all about, death always in their thoughts.’ Phemius and Medon's constant expectation of impending doom, even after their supplications were successful, indicates their fear of Odysseus' ‘lawlessness’; see Naiden (n. 1), 122–9, for (divine) punishment visited upon a supplicandus who betrays his pledge. Ameis, K.F., Hentze, C. and Cauer, P., Homers Odyssee, vol. 2.2 (Leipzig and Berlin, 1911)Google Scholar, at line 380 suggest that the pair take a seat at the altar of Zeus precisely because they are not yet certain of their safety.

¹⁵ Noted also by Alden (n. 9), 86–7, and reiterated by Bakker (n. 9), 137. There are shades here too of Achilles' rejection of both Agamemnon's offer in Iliad 9 and of Hector's pleas for burial in Book 22; cf. Crotty (n. 1), 152.

¹⁶ We have already seen positive examples in the results of offers made to offended parties in Book 8: Poseidon to Hephaestus (347–58), and Laodamus to Odysseus (396–415). Cf. also Ajax's appeal to Achilles to accept the traditional compensation for loss (Iliad 9.632–6). And here, moreover, Eurymachus reminds Odysseus that many of these suitors are his very own people (22.54–5: σὺ δὲ φείδεο λαῶν | σῶν). See Crotty (n. 1), 151–6, for the poet's choice to put this request in Eurymachus' mouth.

¹⁷ See Bakker (n. 9), 137–43, for an insightful analysis of this epithet and its application here to Phemius.

¹⁸ It may be worth mentioning that, when πολύφημος first appears as an adjective to describe the Ithacan assembly (2.150), the narrator has just recently informed us that one of Aegyptius' sons, Antiphus, had the distinction of being the Cyclops' last meal of man-flesh (2.15–20). Likewise, in this adjective's second appearance, the scene is rich in Cyclopean themes.

¹⁹ Unlike the Iliad's over 40 examples, lion similes in the Odyssey are relatively rare. Of the seven that appear in our poem, five are applied to Odysseus, one to Polyphemus, and one to Penelope: of Odysseus: 4.332–40 = 17.124–31, 6.130–6, 22.401–7, 23.48 = 22.402; of Polyphemus: 9.291–2; of Penelope: 4.791. The lion similes applied to Polyphemus and Odysseus belong to the marauding lion type. The simile applied to Penelope is a beleaguered lion simile, a different class of lion similes than the aggressive lion type: Wilson, D.F., ‘Lion kings: heroes in the epic mirror’, Colby Quarterly 38.2 (2002), 230–54Google Scholar, at 231–2; see also Moulton, C., Similes in the Homeric Poems (Göttingen, 1977), 123–4Google Scholar, for analysis of 4.791. The single lion simile applied to Polyphemus emphasizes his animal savagery (Fränkel, H., Die homerischen Gleichnisse [Göttingen, 1921], 69–70Google Scholar), noting how he ate Odysseus' companions, bolting them down flesh, bones, guts and all. What clearly links Odysseus in this scene with Polyphemus, then, is not only the fact that both are compared to lions but that the emphasis in both similes is on the bestial nature of the two characters; for this interpretation of these shared similes, see also Magrath (n. 9). For a discussion of the importance of lion similes to the overall plan of the Odyssey, see Wilson (this note), 230–54; for a different interpretation of lion similes, see Redfield, J.M., Nature and Culture in the Iliad: The Tragedy of Hector (Durham, NC, 1994 ²), 186–92Google Scholar. Cf. also Scott, W.C., The Artistry of the Homeric Simile (Lebanon, NH, 2009), 115–18Google Scholar, for this lion simile. Scott's interpretation, that the lion simile here simply emphasizes Odysseus' role as a just king, applied as it is after the conflict, ignores the echo of the lion simile applied earlier to Polyphemus (9.291–2).

²⁰ 22.457–73 (maids) and 474–77 (Melanthius). In the latter case, Melanthius' genitals are actually fed to the palace dogs. It is unclear whether Eumaeus, Philoetius and Telemachus are mutilating his corpse, or whether they are torturing him first. See Fernández-Galliano (n. 2), 304–5, for comment on the ambiguity of these lines. Despite this ambiguity, such actions were clearly brutal, associated as they were with the activities of a certain Echetus, an ogre of sorts introduced as a threat by Antinous, first to Irus and then to Odysseus (18.78–87; 21.305–10).

²¹ See, for example, Fenik's discussion ([n. 9], 173–89) of Eumaeus and Philoetius, particularly his comments on p. 180, and also those on pp. 231–2. While Fenik does analyse contrasting elements in doublets, the doublets themselves are not viewed as the contrastive element. In other words, Eumaeus and Philoetius are not paired to point out an essential difference between the two, but to reinforce the portrayal of their loyalty. It is the juxtaposition of those two with the disloyal Melanthius and Melantho that Fenik points to as emphasizing important poetic themes. This is very different from the approach to repetition that I will discuss below.

²² Lowenstam, S., The Scepter and the Spear: Studies on Forms of Repetition in the Homeric Poems (Lanham, MD, 1993), 1–12Google Scholar is the best place to go for a review of previous work on the subject of narrative repetition and for a succinct and persuasive discussion of this principle of repetition with variation as a method of the presentation of ideas to an audience. Both of Louden, B.'s studies, The Odyssey: Structure, Narration, and Meaning (Baltimore and London, 1999)Google Scholar and The Iliad: Structure, Myth, and Meaning (Baltimore and London, 2006)Google Scholar, provide further evidence of this type of repetition as a structural and thought-provoking device.

²³ See n. 9.

²⁴ This polarity or opposition between μῆτις and βίη has attracted much commentary: for a discussion of μῆτις in Greek thought in general, see Detienne, M. and Vernant, J.-P., Cunning Intelligence in Greek Culture and Society, tr. Lloyd, J. (Chicago, 1978)Google Scholar, especially 57–105 for Zeus' successful wielding of both μῆτις and βίη; see also Nagy, G., The Best of the Achaeans: Concepts of the Hero in Archaic Greek Poetry (Baltimore and London, 1999 ²), 42–58Google Scholar, and Clay (n. 6), 95–132, for this opposition in Homeric epic. For more recent treatment, see also Cook, E., The Odyssey in Athens: Myths of Cultural Origins (Ithaca, NY and London, 1995), 149–52Google Scholar and 189–94, and ‘“Active’ and ‘passive’ heroics in the Odyssey’, CW 93.2 (1999), 149–67Google ScholarPubMed; and Wilson's (n. 19) discussion of the same.

²⁵ A threat made more palpable by all the repetitions of motifs from the Cyclopeia and especially by Odysseus' reprisal of Polyphemus' role in his own home.

²⁶ Segal, C.P., The Theme of the Mutilation of the Corpse in the Iliad (Leiden, 1971), 33–47Google Scholar and ‘The raw and the cooked in Greek literature: structure, values, metaphor’, CJ 69 (1974), 289–308Google Scholar, at 298–9; Redfield (n. 19), 192–223; Cook (n. 23, 1995), 151–2 and (n. 23, 1999), 130–4; and Wilson (n. 19), 238–48.

²⁷ In addition to Leodes, there is also Amphinomus (18.117–57, 394–42), who speaks kindly to Odysseus and at whose knees Odysseus takes refuge from Eurymachus' missile. And the crowd of suitors as a whole, Antinous and Eurymachus excepted, reply with anger and fear at Antinous' violent treatment of Odysseus (17.409–87).

²⁸ As far as Telemachus is concerned (22.356–60), though some scholars assert that Odysseus' response to Phemius characterizes that poet as not so pure: ‘Mitläufer’ Besslich (n. 13), 104, and ‘market poet’ Bakker (n. 9), 142.

²⁹ The ambiguity of the Odyssey's final scenes has received much attention: for recent discussion, see Clay (n. 6), 213–39; Nagler, M.N., ‘Odysseus: the proem and the problem’, Classical Antiquity 9.2 (1990), 335–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Crotty (n. 1), 130–59; Cook (n. 23, 1995), 151–2; Adkins, A.W.H., ‘Homeric Ethics’, in Morris, I. and Powell, B. (edd.), A New Companion to Homer (Leiden, 1997), 694–713CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 712–13; and de Jong (n. 2), 586, at lines 24.528–48.

³⁰ The suitors' status as a support or prop on which Ithaca could depend is reiterated by Agamemnon's address to Amphimedon in Hades (24.106–8): Ἀμφίμεδον, τί παθόντες ἐρεμνὴν γαῖαν ἔδυτε | πάντες κεκριμένοι καὶ ὁμήλικες; οὐδέ κεν ἄλλως | κρινάμενος λέξαιτο κατὰ πτόλιν ἄνδρας ἀρίστους ‘Amphimedon, what happened that you all came down under dark earth, select men that you all are and age-mates? Not otherwise could anyone, when selecting men, have made a better pick of the best men in a city.’ This statement, of course, also adds to the glory of Odysseus' feat.

³¹ Odysseus also fails to see problems ahead on two other notable occasions: (1) when he taunts Polyphemus after escaping from the cave (9.475–542), and (2) when he nearly destroys another large part of his populace on Ithaca in the final battle with the suitors' relatives (24.528–30), a scene discussed below.

³² These two lines appear in a similar form in the Iliad (4.15–6, 82–3). There they clearly refer to a war whose prolongation was, from a human perspective, certainly κακός. See also A. Heubeck (n. 2), 411–12, at lines 475–6.

³³ For the argument that restraint is an essential element of μῆτις, see Cook's (n. 23, 1999) analysis of the ‘active’ and ‘passive’ elements of heroism.

³⁴ First mentioned by Mentor to the assembled Ithacans (2.234).

³⁵ Polyphemus' conversation with his closest companion, his favourite ram (9.447–60), is proof enough of the importance of allies – see especially 456–7: εἰ δὴ ὁμοφρονεέοις ποτιφωνήεις τε γένοιο | εἰπεῖν ὅππῃ κεῖνος ἐμὸν μένος ἠλασκάζει ‘If you could think like me and be gifted with speech (you could) tell me where that man is escaping my might.’ For a discussion of the concept of homophrosyne in the Odyssey and this passage's connection with this theme, see Bolmarcich, S., ‘ΟΜΟΦΡΟΣΥΝΗ in the “Odyssey”’, CP 96.3 (2001), 205–13Google Scholar.

³⁶ This is a much debated topic. For some recent discussions with bibliography and summary of various views, see Raaflaub, K.A., ‘A historian's headache: how to read ‘“Homeric society”?’, in Fisher, N. and van Wees, H. (edd.), Archaic Greece: New Approaches and New Evidence (London, 1998), 169–93Google Scholar; Raaflaub, K.A. and Wallace, R.W., ‘“People's power” and egalitarian trends in Archaic Greece’, in Raaflaub, K.A., Ober, J. and Wallace, R.W. (edd.), Origins of Democracy in Ancient Greece (Berkeley and Los Angeles, 2007), 22–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 24–32; Thalmann, W.G., The Swineherd and the Bow: Representations of Class in the Odyssey (Ithaca, NY and London, 1998), 239–305Google Scholar; Morris, I., ‘The use and abuse of Homer’, in Cairns, D.L. (ed.), Oxford Readings in Homer's Iliad (Oxford, 2001), 57–91Google Scholar and ‘The eighth-century revolution’, in Raaflaub, K.A. and van Wees, H. (edd.), A Companion to Archaic Greece (Malden, MA and Oxford, 2009), 64–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and van Wees, H., ‘Homer and early Greece’, Colby Quarterly 38.1 (2002), 94–117Google Scholar, at 113–15.