The Cyclopes’ island: Odysseus loses the trust of his hetairo

After leaving Troy, Odysseus’ hetairoi first die in a surprise counter-attack and then lose sight of their homecoming, thanks to the mind-altering effects of the lotus fruit, forcing Odysseus

first to flee and then to compel the hetairoi back to sea. In the third episode on the return from Troy, the disappointment is reversed: on the Cyclopes’ island, Odysseus catastrophically lets

down his hetairoi. As the lotus-eating hetairoi proved themselves poor companions to the hero, so the Cyclops-seeking hero proves himself a poor commander to his hetairoi. After this episode the trust implied by Iliadic hetaireia is severely eroded in both directions.

The erosion of trust begins as a spiral. Among the Lotus-Eaters, Odysseus sent some

hetairoi to investigate the inhabitants (Odyssey 9.88). They did not come back on their own; they have earned Odysseus’ distrust. Accordingly, when the group next makes landfall, Odysseus

leads the investigative expedition himself:

ἄλλοι μὲν νῦν μίμνετ’, ἐμοὶ ἐρίηρες ἑταῖροι·

αὐτὰρ ἐγὼ σὺν νηΐ τ’ ἐμῇ καὶ ἐμοῖσ’ ἑτάροισιν

ἐλθὼν τῶνδ’ ἀνδρῶν πειρήσομαι, οἵ τινές εἰσιν, ἤ ῥ’ οἵ γ’ ὑβρισταί τε καὶ ἄγριοι οὐδὲ δίκαιοι,

39 _{Insofar as the lotus-fruit significantly affects the mind (λάθηται), Odysseus’ hetairoi are not fully responsible for} their actions (at least not in some strong Kantian moral sense). But this does not mean that eating the lotus-fruit is not self-destructive, nor that Odysseus is unjustified in applying the stern discipline of physical force: see Shay 2002, chapter 4 (drawing an analogy between the lotus-fruit and “chemical attempts to forget with alcohol or drugs”).

156 ἦε φιλόξεινοι, καί σφιν νόος ἐστὶ θεουδής. (Odyssey 9.172-176)

Odysseus’ opening address appeals to hetaireia explicitly, and even includes a rare vocative of

hetairoi.40 The bond has twice been weakened, so he twice appeals to the link between himself and his hetairoi (ἐμοὶ ἐρίηρες ἑταῖροι… ἐμοῖσ’ ἑτάροισιν). But Odysseus does not allow these

hetairoi the autonomy he gave his hetairoi at Ismarus. He tells most of them to stay put (μίμνετ’) while he leads his own special group of “my ship and my hetairoi” (σὺν νηΐ τ’ἐμῇ καὶ ἐμοῖσ’

ἑτάροισιν)41 _{on the same sort of investigation.}42 _{But even the sub-group designated as “mine” is} not good enough. The next time he mentions hetairoi, he picks out the twelve best to accompany him to the Cyclops’ cave:

δὴ τότε τοὺς ἄλλουςκελόμην ἐρίηρας ἑταίρους

αὐτοῦ πὰρ νηΐ τε μένειν καὶ νῆα ἔρυσθαι·

αὐτὰρ ἐγὼ κρίνας ἑτάρων δυοκαίδεκ’ ἀρίστους

40 _{For direct address to hetairoi in the vocative in the Iliad (Achilles and Patroclus only) see Chapter 2, under} “Paragons of hetaireia: Achilles, Patroclus, and the Myrmidons.” For the role of direct address to vocative hetairoi in the disaster at Thrinakia see below, under “From dissention to death: Eurylochus and the hetairoi destroy themselves.”

41 _{ἐμοῖσ’ ἑτάροισιν appears four other times in the Odyssey. In three cases, ἐμοῖσ’ ἑτάροισιν refers either to} Odyseus’ hetairoi in general or to a subgroup selected for a specific, temporary purpose. In one case (Odyssey 10.128), it refers to the hetairoi on Odysseus’ ship. Odysseus presumably does distinguish the hetairoi on his ship from the hetairoi on other ships (simply out of nautical necessity), but uses the same term to refer to both the general group and also the specific subgroup. For more on the significance of ἐμοῖσ’ ἑτάροισιν see below, under “The Laestrygonian incident: Odysseus abandons all but ‘my hetairoi.’”

42 _{He tweaks the objective slightly: whereas on the previous island the object of inquiry was the “land and people”} (ἀνέρες εἶεν ἐπὶ χθονὶ), here the object is the people’s moral character and mind (νόος). The word νόος recalls the proem, where Odysseus learned about the cities and minds of many men (πολλῶν δ’ ἀνθρώπων ἴδεν ἄστεα καὶ νόον ἔγνω). The absence of noos from the first, hetairoi-led investigation subtly hints at the difference between Odysseus and his men.

157 βῆν…

(Odyssey 9.193-196)

The stratification of hetairoi into those who stay and those who come along, on the one hand, and the further distinction (κρίνας) of hetairoi into the “best” (ἀρίστους) who venture with Odysseus and the “rest” (ἄλλους) who do not, is already a sign of the shakiness of the

relationship between king and hetairoi. Some he can trust, to varying degrees. Others he cannot. The foolishness of the hetairoi during the lotus-eating episode perhaps justifies this division. But foolishness does not belong to hetairoi alone. When Odysseus and his picked twelve finally reach the Cyclops’ cave and steal his cheese, Odysseus’ own recklessness is

directly opposed by the prudence of the hetairoi:

ἔνθ’ ἐμὲ μὲν πρώτισθ’ ἕταροι λίσσοντ’ ἐπέεσσι τυρῶν αἰνυμένους ἰέναι πάλιν… ἀλλ’ ἐγὼ οὐ πιθόμην, ἦ τ’ ἂν πολὺ κέρδιον ἦεν, ὄφρ’ αὐτόν τε ἴδοιμι, καὶ εἴ μοι ξείνια δοίη. οὐδ’ ἄρ’ ἔμελλ’ ἑτάροισι φανεὶς ἐρατεινὸς ἔσεσθαι. (Odyssey 9.224-225, 228-230)

The hetairoi are now cautious: they want to return immediately after stealing cheese from the cave. This time Odysseus is foolish and the hetairoi are wise. But he will not be persuaded (οὐ πιθόμην), despite their entreaty (λίσσοντ’). The word πιθόμην recalls and negates a common Iliadic response to commands and particularly Patroclus’ response to his hetairos Achilles. In the

158

response is thus not a lovely sign for his hetairoi (οὐδ’ ἄρ’ ἔμελλ’ ἑτάροισι φανεὶς ἐρατεινός) in two ways: first, many of them will die; and second, there is no trust (ἐγὼ οὐ πιθόμην) between

them. In the episode at Ismarus, Odysseus was forced to play autocrat to incompetents; but on

the Cyclopes’ island he proves himself an erring autocrat over wiser men as well, as the narrator-

Odysseus clearly admits (ἦ τ’ ἂν πολὺ κέρδιον ἦεν). When the king is in error, as Odysseus soon

proves to be, the hetairoi can do nothing to save either him or themselves. As trust broken in one direction leads to trust broken in the other, the dissolution of hetaireia begins to spiral out of control.

Ignored by their commander at the moment of decision, Odysseus’ hetairoi remain passive for the rest of the episode. But Odysseus again proves himself unable to save some of

them from his foolish decision. When Odysseus fails to smooth-talk his way to safety, the

Cyclops kills and eats two hetairoi.43 When the Cyclops falls asleep, Odysseus prays to Athena and a boule suddenly appears to him—not a suggestion from hetairoi, as they had offered before he ignored them (λίσσοντ’...ἰέναι πάλιν).44 Instead of mutually beneficial deliberation and

persuasion among hero and hetairoi (which, in the absence of mutual trust, is now impossible), the hero saves the hetairoi through a plan conceived without mortal aid and received after a prayer to a god. The plan offers a brief glimpse of good hetaireia, encapsulated by the image of

43 _{The terms that refer to the human group change subtly throughout this scene. Odysseus introduces himself and his} men as the ‘laoi of Agamemnon’ (λαοὶ δ’ Ἀτρεΐδεω Ἀγαμέμνονος εὐχόμεθ’ εἶναι: Odyssey 9.263), not as hero and hetairoi. He presents the group as xenoi (ἱκόμεθ’, εἴ τι πόροις ξεινήϊον ἠὲ καὶ ἄλλως / δοίης δωτίνην, ἥ τε ξείνων θέμις ἐστίν: 267-268), hoping that the appeal to themis and Zeus (270) will persuade Polyphemus to treat them well. Polyphemus does see the group as hero plus companions, as he threatens Odysseus and hetairoi using separate substantives (πεφιδοίμην / οὔτε σεῦ οὔθ’ ἑτάρων: 277-278), and narrator-Odysseus calls the men hetairoi again when Polyphemus kills and eats the first two (ἀλλ’ ὅ γ’ ἀναΐξας ἑτάροισ’ ἐπὶ χεῖρας ἴαλλε: 288). See Haubold 2000, 128-133 for the terminology in this scene (making the point that ‘hetairos’ is focalized, as I argue in non-

narratological terms in Chapter 1).

44 _{The plan is not directly attributed to Athena, but the juxtaposition at Odyssey 9.317-318 is suggestive: εἴ πως} τεισαίμην, δοίη δέ μοι εὖχος Ἀθήνη / ἥδε δέ μοι κατὰ θυμὸν ἀρίστη φαίνετο βουλή.

159

Odysseus commanding the hetairoi to sharpen the Cyclops’ club (καὶ παρέθηχ’ ἑτάροισιν, ἀποξῦναι δ’ ἐκέλευσα) while he himself sharpens the tip (ἐγὼ δ’ ἐθόωσα παραστὰς / ἄκρον). As on the Iliadic battlefield, here in the Cyclops’ cave the hero is the spearhead for a violent attack

that requires the participation of nearby hetairoi.

For all the leadership that Odysseus displays in the deployment of the sharpened stake,

the quasi-Iliadic character of this hetaireia is strongly undercut by the aspects of Odysseus’ trickery that actually bring the remnant hetairoi to safety. Whereas in the Iliad the hero leads as the most visible among hetairoi, here in the Cyclops’ cave Odysseus leads the escape under the name of Nobody—a self-erasing naming that ultimately isolates Polyphemus from his Cyclopean

companions and allows the Ithacan ship to escape.45 _{But the hetairoi themselves remain Iliadic} even as their commander begins to rely on mind rather than strength. Odysseus encourages them

(ἔπεσσι δὲ πάντας ἑταίρους / θάρσυνον: 376-377). They stand around him (ἀμφὶ δ’ ἑταῖροι /

ἵσταντ’: 380-381), recalling the common combination of amph- with hetairoi in the Iliad. But again the causal root of the hetaireia-group is reassigned: while Odysseus encouraged (thars-) the hetairoi five lines earlier, here a daimon is given credit for the “great courage” that inspires the union of hero with hetairoi (αὐτὰρ θάρσος ἐνέπνευσεν μέγα δαίμων: 381), a divine

anonymity that contrasts with the careful individuation of Olympian helpers in the Iliad.46 _Both the centrality of the hero to hetaireia and the role of the gods in hetaireia are altered even as hero and hetairoi work together to escape a monster.

45 _{Polyphemus promises to eat Odysseus-Nobody “last, after his hetairoi” (Odyssey 9.369): οὖτιν ἐγὼ πύματον} ἔδομαι μετὰ οἷσ’ ἑτάροισι. For the significance of the name ‘Outis’ see especially Austin 1972.

46 _{The anonymous daimon is never the agent of encouragement in the Iliad; the word appears most commonly in the} phrase δαίμονι ἶσος. For gods in the Iliad versus the Odyssey see Chapter 4, discussion and bibliography under “Post-war hetairoi fleeing the gods” and “Cosmic justice and Odysseus’ nostos: Athena-hetairos’ twofold mission.”

160

Whatever traces of Iliadic hetaireia appear in the collaboration against the Cyclops, the bond between hero and hetairoi continues to fall apart. Sailing away from the island, Odysseus reverts to his former recklessness and proclaims his name to the danger of the entire group.

Again the hetairoi know better than Odysseus:

ἀλλ’ ὅτε δὴ δὶς τόσσον ἅλα πρήσσοντες ἀπῆμεν, καὶ τότε δὴ Κύκλωπα προσηύδων· ἀμφὶ δ’ ἑταῖροι

μειλιχίοισ’ ἐπέεσσιν ἐρήτυον ἄλλοθεν ἄλλος·

σχέτλιε, τίπτ’ ἐθέλεις ἐρεθιζέμεν ἄγριον ἄνδρα;… (Odyssey 9.491-494)

In rebuking Odysseus they surround him (ἀμφὶ δ’ ἑταῖροι) and speak from alternating sides

(ἄλλοθεν ἄλλος), forming their own group in prudence apart from his foolishness (σχέτλιε). The

first time they rightly opposed a decision of his, they addressed him directly—but he was not

persuaded (ἐγὼ οὐ πιθόμην: Odyssey 9.224-230), and they disastrously entered Polyphemus’ cave. Now they speak together against him; and although Odysseus hears them this time as well,

he ignores them a second time—again in an act of negated persuasion/trust (peith-): ὣς φάσαν, ἀλλ’ οὐ πεῖθον ἐμὸν μεγαλήτορα θυμόν

161

The entire Cyclops incident destroys the trust Odysseus’ hetairoi have for their commander, but especially his two refusals of their sensible advice.47

The result of Odysseus’ insensibility to the persuasion of his hetairoi is the Cyclops’ curse. As a result of Odysseus’ self-revelation, his hetairoi are subject to the curse as well. Although the Cyclops is angry primarily at Odysseus, the hetairoi are named as object of his curse (ὀλέσας ἄπο πάντας ἑταίρους: 534) in the lexical unit (ὄλλῡμι+hetair-) that first describes the destruction of the hetairoi in the proem (ἀλλ’ οὐδ’ ὧς ἑτάρους ἐρρύσατο, ἱέμενός περ / αὐτῶν γὰρ σφετέρῃσιν ἀτασθαλίῃσιν ὄλοντο: Odyssey 1.6-7) and that is repeated as a refrain for the central disaster of the Odyssey. The same phrase closes Book 9 (φίλους ὀλέσαντες ἑταίρους: 9.566). It is now justified that the hetairoi should not trust Odysseus to keep them safe, for Odysseus too makes foolish decisions that bring destruction on the hetairoi.48