From Villain to Hero: Odysseus in Ancient Thought

Chapter One: “Odysseus was not . . .”: Antisthenes’ Defense of an Abused Hero

chapter 1 “Odysseus was not . . .”: Antisthenes’ Defense of an Abused Hero Tell me, Muse, the man of many turns (Od. 1.1) versatile, but also wise Our inquiry begins with Antisthenes (circa 445–365 BC), Socrates’ disciple, to whom we owe the first extensive endorsement of Odysseus’ actions and character . Antisthenes probably inherited his appreciation for Odysseus from his teacher. Socrates’ admiration for Odysseus indeed cannot be doubted,1 and in a later period was contrasted with Anytus’, his accuser’s, negative view of the Homeric character: a “wondrous man” for Socrates, “the worst” of those who fought at Troy for Anytus (Libanius 1.125). Socrates apparently criticized Homer for having inflicted countless undeserved sufferings on that wonderful man (ibid. 123–26).2 Socrates might have been quite daring in endorsing Odysseus’ behavior. He seems to have given a disconcerting reading of the episode in Iliad 2 in which Odysseus, to restore order in the assembly, applies double standards, gently exhorting the “kings”and beating the “men of the people.”Xenophon tells us that Polycrates, the author of an “accusation of Socrates,” charged the philosopher with interpreting Odysseus’words in a way that entailed that the poor (the “men of the people”) had to be chastised (Mem. 1.2.58–59). Xenophon denies this, and instead claims that Socrates interpreted the lines as advocating punishment of idle and useless men. The passage is likely to be historically founded, for why would the accuser make up something so specific?3 Other sources indeed confirm Socrates’ predilection for that episode and Polycrates’ charge against him for expounding 20 on it.4 Moreover Socrates’ reported interpretation of those lines fits his elitism (though, admittedly, it clashes with his idealization of poverty).5 His reading of Odysseus’ behavior in Iliad 2 must have struck his contemporaries as so scandalous that his accuser thought it worthwhile mentioning it. It certainly did not agree with the tenet of Athenian democratic ideology that poverty bore no stigma, as voiced most famously in Pericles’ Funeral Oration (Thuc. 2.37.1–2; 40.1). Its outrageousness matches another bold argument Socrates allegedly made concerning Odysseus: that he deserved praise for stealing the Palladium (Libanius 1.105).6 Antisthenes follows in Socrates’ footsteps. He resolutely attacks the prejudice against Odysseus that we have seen widespread in his time.7 He rebuffs criticisms of Odysseus’ alleged impiety toward Poseidon in the Cyclops episode; praises his choice to reject Calypso’s offer of immortality; and, above all, rushes to defend his versatility, πολυτροπία, and his inventiveness and serviceability as a leader in war and life. Antisthenes’ special concern with Odysseus’ πολυτροπία and other talents as a leader is related to his philosophical convictions as a disciple of Socrates, as such unwilling to accept received opinion at face value: Odysseus, because of the creativity and intelligent originality of his methods, is entitled to serve as moral reformer in a world marred by preconceptions. His unconventional behavior puts our conventional judgments to the question. At the same time, however, Antisthenes’ engagement with Odysseus’ unusual methods and qualifications as a leader bears witness to the prominence of those features in contemporary assessments of our hero. Since Odysseus’ versatile intelligence and its applications in the political realm were meeting with harsh and pervasive criticism, it seems safe to assume that Antisthenes felt the urgency to rescue Odysseus first and foremost from accusations in those areas. Antisthenes’defense of Odysseus’πολυτροπία is known to us through a gloss by the third-century Neoplatonic philosopher Porphyry on Odyssey 1.1: it could be thought, Antisthenes says, that Homer does not praise Odysseus more than he blames him, when he calls him πολύτροπος. Indeed, Homer did not make Agamemnon and Ajax πολύτροποι but simple and noble. Nor, by Zeus, did he give the wise Nestor a deceptive and changeable character: quite to the contrary, Nestor was sincere when he consorted with Agamemnon and everyone else, and if he knew something good for the army, he advised them without hiding it away. Achilles was so far from approving that kind of character (τρόπον) that he held that man as hateful as death “who hides one thing in his heart and speaks another”(Il. 9.313). “Odysseus was not . . .” 21 Antisthenes solves the difficulty by saying: What then? Is Odysseus bad because he is called πολύτροπος? Is it not because he is wise (σοφός) that Homer has given him that name? τρόπος sometimes designates character, sometimes the use...