the polyphemus folktale and homer's kyklôpeia

American Philological Association

The Polyphemus Folktale and Homer's KyklôpeiaAuthor(s): Justin GlennSource: Transactions and Proceedings of the American Philological Association, Vol. 102 (1971),pp. 133-181Published by: The Johns Hopkins University PressStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2935942 .

Accessed: 14/11/2014 06:32

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

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

.

American Philological Association and The Johns Hopkins University Press are collaborating with JSTOR todigitize, preserve and extend access to Transactions and Proceedings of the American PhilologicalAssociation.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 78.156.107.182 on Fri, 14 Nov 2014 06:32:14 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=jhup

http://www.jstor.org/stable/2935942?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


THE POLYPHEMUS FOLKTALE AND HOMER'S KYKLOPEIA

JUSTIN GLENN

University of Georgia

In his contemptuous reply to the suppliant Odysseus, Polyphemus made an impious but prophetic boast (Od. 9.275-76):

ov ydp KvKAcoTEs AtoSg ayto/xov a'AE'yovorv vn8E GEWYv /lcaKapWv, ETEL ?7 IOAV 9EpPTEpOl ECLEV.I

As Cook once observed, events in a strange way have vindicated the giant.2 In the folktales of many lands the Cyclopes have lived on, long after the extinction of Zeus and the Olympians. In studying this widespread folktale, our task is twofold. First, we shall review its general characteristics and the problem of precedence: are the folktales dependent on or independent of Homer? Second, we shall examine twenty-five details of the Homeric story in the light of the folktales.

I I am grateful to Professors George E. Duckworth and Bemard Fenik of Princeton University for their many helpful comments on this paper.

The following abbreviations will be used: Bona: G. Bona, Studi sull'Odissea (Turin I966). Brown: C. S. Brown, " Odysseus and Polyphemus. The Name and the Curse," Comparative Literature i8 (I966) I93-202. Cook (I): A. B. Cook, Zeus I (Cambridge I9I4). Cook (II): A. B. Cook, Zeus II Pt. 2 (Cambridge I925). Dawkins: R. M. Dawkins, More Greek Folktales (Oxford I955). Frazer: SirJ. G. Frazer (ed.), Apollodorus: The Library (LCL: London and New York I92I). Germain: G. Germain, Genese de l'Odysse'e (Paris I954). Grimm: W. Grimm, "Die Sage von Polyphem," Abhandlungen der Kinigl. Akad. der Wiss. zu Berlin (I857) I-30=Kleinere Schr ft. 4 (Giitersloh I887) 428-62; all references below are to the latter. Hackman: 0. Hackman, Die Poly- phemsage in der Volksuberlieferung (Helsinki I904). Mundy (I): C. S. Mundy, "Polyphe- mus and Tepeg6z," Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies (Univ. of London) I8 (I956) 279-302. Mundy (II): C. S. Mundy, "The Cyclops in Turkish Tradition: A Study in Folktale Transmission," in Internationaler Kongress der Volkserzahlungsforscher in Kiel und Kopenhagen. Vortrage und Referate (Berlin I96I) 229-34. Page: D. L. Page, The Homeric Odyssey (Oxford I955). Rohrich: L. Rohrich, "Die mittelalterlichen Redaktionen des Polyphem-Marchens (AT II37) und ihr Verhaltnis zur ausserhomeris- chen Tradition," Fabula 5 (I962) 48-7I.

2 Cook (I) 32I.



134 JUSTIN GLENN [I97I

It should become evident that the value of these tales does not hinge on their being independent of Homer, although this is, in fact, the position which will be presented as highly probable. Their main value is simply that they show how other storytellers have treated essentially the same story. Thus, by comparing their attempt with Homer's, we frequently receive unexpected insights into the problems which the storyteller faces and the brilliant ingenuity of Homer's solutions.

I

We begin with a brief survey of the geographical scope of the Blinding of the Ogre. In I857 Wilhelm Grimm presented and analyzed ten versions of the tale (including Homer's) from such widely scattered countries as France, Finland, Arabia, and Turkey.3 In the years that followed, numerous other versions came to light, until in 1904 Hackman was able to collect and publish 221 versions in his Die Polyphemsage in der Volksiiberlieferung. Still by far the most complete collection, this monograph includes approximately twenty-five nations extending in a wide arc from Iceland, England, and Portugal to Arabia, Turkey, and Russia. Since 1904 many more versions have been recorded, but unfortunately no new attempt at a complete collection has been made. Frazer, however, has collected thirty-six versions, which serve well "to illustrate the wide diffusion of the tale and the general simi- larity of the versions."4 Further, two important bibliographies have appeared since Hackman's work. Bolte and Polivka have surveyed the period from I857 to I9I8, citing many versions not found in Hackman and expanding the boundaries of the tale to include Ireland and Korea.5 Finally, Rohrich recently has done the valuable service of providing a bibliography from I9I8 to i962.6 In addition to approximately twenty nations already represented, R6hrich gives references to the first known versions from Africa.7

3 Grimm 428-62. 4 Frazer 405, note 2. The thirty-six versions are found in Frazer 404-55. 5J. Bolte and G. Polivka, Anmerkungen zu den Kinder- und Hausmdrchen der Bruder

Grimm 3 (Leipzig i9i8) 375-78. 6 R6hrich 58-6o. 7 For still more recent reports of this folktale, as well as a few items apparently over-

looked by R6hrich, see J. Glenn, Polyphenutis and Mezentius: A Study in Homeric and Vergilian Characterization (Diss., Princeton Univ. I970) 266-67.



VOI. 102] HOMER S KYKLOPEIA I35

Turning to the chronological span of these tales, we find that the vast majority were recorded in the nineteenth century, although a few are earlier and a few still more recent. After the Odyssey itself comes a huge lacuna of about I500 years. The earliest of the modern versions are two tales from The Arabian Nights, which itself is a compilation of tales whose dates and origins are often difficult to determine. Of the two tales which concern us, that closer to Homer's version occurs in the Third Voyage of Sindbad. On this story J. L. Comhaire recently has written:

Sindbad's story is usually recognized as a collection of travellers' tales translated from the Persian, which took their definitive form in either Baghdad or Basra.. . during ... the tenth century A.D. The name of Sindbad himself is Iranian. On the other hand, as the seventh and last voyage was found to be of Cairo Jewish origin, the possibility of non- Iranian elements in the other journeys must be kept in mind.8

The next version occurs in the Dolopathos, "a mediaeval collection of tales which was written in or soon after A.D. II84 by a monk, John, of the Cistercian Abbey of Haute-Seille (Alta Silva) in Lorraine."9 Next, to give two final examples, the tale was incorporated into two widely separated sagas of the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries: the tale of Tepegoz in the Turkish cycle of Dede Korkut Io and the Icelandic Hrolfssaga Gautrekssonar.II

Clearly the first question posed by these and the many more recent versions of the Polyphemus folktale is that of precedence: are they derived from Homer or are they independent representatives of a folktale shared by Homer? The latter alternative is supported by a clear majority of scholars; I2 still, since there has been a small but

8 J. L. Comhaire, "Oriental Versions of Polyphem's Myth," Anthropological Quarterly 3I (I958) 22. Still more recently, B. E. Perry ("The Origin ofthe Book of Sindbad," Fabula 3 [I959] 27) suggested that the date of the composition of the Book of Sindbad "might be deferred to the last quarter of the eighth century or the first decade of the ninth." The version in the Third Voyage of Sindbad is #30 in Frazer's collection; the other version in The Arabian Nights is Frazer #3 I.

9 Frazer 405. 10 See Frazer 452-53 and Mundy (I 279-89. "I See Hackman 42-45. 12 See, e.g., L. Radermacher, Die Erzdhlungen der Odyssee (Vienna I915) I3-I6; W.

Aly, " Marchen," RE 27 (I928) 969; K. Jax, " Odysseemotive in der Sage des Nordens,"



I36 JUSTIN GLENN [I97I

steady number of skeptics,13 perhaps the question deserves to be considered once again. To do this we must have some idea of the differences and similarities between the Homeric and the later versions. I propose, then, to give detailed summaries of three of our earliest versions-sufficient material, I believe, to confirm the high degree of probability in Grimm's argument that the post-Homeric tales are independent versions of a common folktale shared by Homer. The three versions summarized are from " The Third Voyage of Sindbad," I4

the Dolopathos,'5 and the Dede Korkut.I6

I. SINDBAD

In the course of his third voyage Sindbad and his companions landed on an island, and while exploring it they found a huge house. There they went to sleep but were soon awakened and captured by the returning giant, a black monster with two blazing eyes, tusks like boars, and claws like lions. Seizing the fattest of the men, he broke his neck, roasted him on a spit, and devoured him ravenously. This was repeated two more days, until on the third night Sindbad and the other survivors took two spits and put them in a fire until they glowed. With these weapons they blinded the ogre in his sleep. After groping for them in vain, he came to the door, opened it, and thus the captives were able to escape to their ship. Soon the giant appeared, accompanied by a giantess taller and uglier than himself. By this time the men were rowing away as fast as they could, but they were still within range of the rocks now thrown by the giants. The

Blatterftir dasBayerisch Gymnasial-Schulwesen 65 (I929) 200; 0. K6rner, "Das Urbild des Kyklopen Polyphem," Humanistisches Gymnasium 46 (I935) 34-35; F. von der Leyen, Die Welt der Marchen II (Dusseldorf I954) I67; Page 7; R6hrich 68.

13 See F. Bender, Die marchenhaften Bestandtheile der homerischen Gedichte, Gymn.- Progr. 4 (Darmstadt I878) 29-30; A. Wiedemann, "Zur Polyphem-Sage," Am Ur- Quell S (I894) 85-86; A. Van Gennep, Religions, Moeurs, et Le'gendes (Paris I908) I63-64; K. Meuli, Odyssee und Argonautica (Berlin I92I) 65-70; A. Shewan, HomericEssays (Oxford I935) 267; F. Peachy, The Story of the HIomeric Cyclops (Diss., Harvard Univ. I948) 47-50; Mundy (I) 279-80 and (II) 229.

14 Abridged from Frazer 444-45. IS Abridged from ibid., 408-I0. 16 Abridged from Mundy (I) 284-87; cf. Frazer 452-53.



Vol. I02] HOMER S KYKLOPEIA I37

deadly barrage killed most of the men, and still more died later from exposure, but Sindbad and two companions finally reached another island.

2. THE DOLOPATHOS

In his old age a famous robber resolved to live a virtuous life and was regarded with wonder by those who recalled the wild adventures of his earlier career. In fact, the queen once invited him to relate his greatest adventures, and he told the following tale.

Once he and his fellow bandits heard that a giant with great treasures was living in a remote place. In quest of the treasures ioo robbers made their way to his lair. Finding it empty, the men helped themselves to all the treasure they could carry. On their way back they suddenly encountered the giant and nine others like him, who soon captured all the men and kept ten apiece. The narrator of the story fell to the lot of the giant whom they had just robbed. Back in his lair, the giant cooked and devoured his ten captives one at a time until finally only the narrator was left. When it came his turn, he pretended to be a physician who could heal the ogre's eyes, which happened to be suffering from some malady. His captor accepted his offer, whereupon the robber made a noxious, boiling brew out of oil, sulphur, arsenic, and every destructive ingredient he could find. He poured this over the giant's head, blinding him completely. The ogre bellowed horribly and groped all around for the robber. Finally the captive thought of a way to escape. Covering himself with a sheepskin he tried to crawl out with the sheep. The trick worked, and eventually he made good his escape. Once outside, he began to mock the giant, who then threw him a magic golden ring and told him to take it as a reward. The robber put it on his finger, but he immediately began to shout uncontrollably, "Here I am!" The giant followed his voice, and at last the hero barely managed to save himself by cutting off his finger.

3. THE "DEDE KORKUT' (TEPEG6Z)

Once there grew up among the Oghuz a huge monster named Tepegoz, who had only one eye and that was on the top of his head.




The Oghuz attempted to punish his outrages by sending an entire army against him, but he proved invulnerable and invincible. In desperation the Oghuz agreed to provide him with a daily ration of two men and 500 sheep. Finally a hero arose to put an end to this tragic and shameful situation; his name was Basat. He first attacked the monster with arrows, but when these proved useless he was captured. The giant made plans to cook Basat for a meal, but in the meantime the hero learned from the servants that the giant had one vulnerable spot, his eye. So, as the monster slept, Basat took a spit,'7 heated it in a fire until it was red-hot, and then thrust it into his eye. The blinded giant stationed himself at the entrance and called to his sheep to leave the cave. Meanwhile, Basat slaughtered and skinned one of the sheep; covering himself with the sheepskin, he tried to sneak past the giant. But he guessed that the hero was inside the skin and tried to seize him. Basat slipped away, leaving Tepeg6z holding the sheepskin, and he escaped. When the giant realized what had happened, he tried to trick Basat with various magical gifts, but each attempt failed. Eventually the hero used the giant's own sword to slay him.

Following the argument presented by Grimm,'8 I believe that we may find in these tales strong evidence that they are independent of Homer. First, we readily observe that some of the most memorable parts of the Homeric story are absent, especially the trick with the name "Nobody" and the inebriation of the giant. In the I25 versions of this folktale which I have consulted, 9 none presents the hero himself contriving to inebriate the giant, and in only two versions does drunkenness play even a slight part.20 Of these same I25 versions only two include the "Nobody "-trick, and these quite possibly are exceptional cases which have been influenced by the Homeric account.2' Second,

'7 The text is not certain here. Frazer, following the early translation of Diez, reads "knife." Mundy (I) 258, note i, discusses the text and renders the disputed word ' spit."

18 Grimm 444-4S. 19 See below, pp. I45-46. 20 Versions 23 and 26 in Frazer's collection. 21 The two versions are Hackman #30 (= Frazer #i2) and Dawkins #4a. As for the

former, both Hackman 36 and Page i8, note 6 suspect that it has been influenced by



A

VoI. I02] HOMER S KYKLOPEIA I39

in addition to omissions, there are equally prominent alterations. The most obvious are the changes in the method of blinding and escape. In the Arabian version, the use of sheep in the escape is missing altogether. In the other two, the heroes escape by hiding under sheep- skins, instead of clinging to live sheep as in the Odyssey. It is most important to note that precisely this same change is found in a large majority of the folktales.22 As for the blinding, the hero in the Dolopathos pretends to be a physician and blinds the giant with a boiling brew which he claims is a medicine. This alternate method of blinding also occurs in numerous folktales.23 If we grant for a moment that for some strange reason storytellers (or the recorders of such tales) from Iceland to Turkey and beyond have seized upon this particular section of Homer and have decided to camouflage it con- sciously or have distorted it subconsciously-even granting this, is it not amazing that their omissions and changes are identical in so many cases ?

This argument, based on the omissions and alterations that we find in the post-Homeric versions, is essentially that advanced by Grimm over IOO years ago, and, as noted earlier, it has been accepted by most scholars.24 Of those who have disagreed and believed that the modern versions are mostly derived from Homer, only Bender and Meuli appear to have made some attempt to answer Grimm's argument.25 Bender, writing at a time when only a comparatively few versions were known, attempted to explain how both the drunkenness and the " Nobody"-trick could have dropped out.26 The wine, he suggested, could have disappeared in some versions, e.g., the Turkish story of Tepegoz, because wine may have been unknown or uncom- mon. This is perhaps true for a very few cases, but of the scores of

literary sources. Dawkins I4 believes that his version is "a genuine survival." It is not impossible that the two storytellers involved-the former from Lappland, the latter from Greece-should have had independently the same idea as Homer. But such a remarkable coincidence in an age of widespread literacy and good communications is highly suspicious.

22 See below, p. i6o. 23 See below, note I28, where "F.I,2," etc., refer to versions I, 2, etc., in Frazer's

collection. This abbreviation is explained below, note S4. 24 See above, note i i. 25 Other dissenters are cited above, note I3. 26 Bender (above, note I3) 29-30.




tales which have come to light since Bender's time the vast majority are from Europe, where Bender's objection is not valid. In fact, this objection is not even valid in the case of the Arabian version (Sindbad), for, as Comhaire has pointed out, "As to wine, though it is true that good Moslems do not drink it, there is plenty of drunkenness all through the Arabian Nights."27 In the case of the "Nobody "- trick, Bender proceeds to suggest that this may have been considered too undignified for the Turkish saga (Tepegoz) and the tales of heroes in other lands. This argument is untenable, however, since even in the Turkish saga (as well as in the Dolopathos and many folktales) the hero does not hesitate to perform such singularly undignified acts as crawling on his hands and knees under a sheepskin.

Next we turn to Meuli's reply to Grimm.28 First he singles out the Dolopathos' version and states that it is obviously based on Homer since its author at one point actually mentions Polyphemus. This non sequitur has been answered effectively by R6hrich.29 He admits, as we must, that the author of the Dolopathos knew Homer's Polyphemus, whether directly or through a Latin intermediary such as Vergil. We should note, however, that the monk John does not apply the name Polyphemus to the giant of this particular tale. The real question, as Rohrich emphasizes, is whether the version as found in the Dolopathos gives us any reason to believe that it is based on Homer (or some Latin model). Rohrich finds no such indication, nor do I. The writer John says at the outset that he was following an oral tradition, that one of his objectives was to preserve legends which adhuc scriptoribus intacta vel forsitan incognita permanebant.30 Since the most striking discrepancies between the Dolopathos and the Odyssey also occur in a large number of folktales,3I it is much more reasonable to suppose that the monk John actually was following an oral tradition than to suspect him of mala fides. Second, Meuli addresses himself to the disappearance of the drulkenness in the folktales. It is not

27 Comhaire (above, note 8) 22. 28 Meuli (above, note I3) 69-70. 29 R5hrich 54-55. 30 H. Oesterley (ed.), Iohannis de Alta Silva Dolopathos sive de Rege et Septem Sapienti-

bus (Strassburg and London I873) 3, line 36. 3' Most notably the Dolopathos' lack of the wine- and "Nobody "-trick, and its use of

a sheepskin for the escape and of a pretended cure for the blinding of the giant.




surprising, he suggests, that this has fallen out, since it would be too difficult for the storyteller to brush over the coincidence that the hero happened to have some strong wine on hand. We may reply that the reading of many of these folktales should soon convince one that even highly unlikely coincidences are no embarrassment to most of the storytellers. In many versions the giant just happens to have aching eyes, so that the hero can pretend to cure him and proceed to blind him. Similarly, all the ingredients for a noxious brew happen to be lying around; and when the episode of the magic ring occurs at the end, the hero always happens to have a knife handy to cut off his finger. The facts remain, then, that the drunkenness forms a memorable part of the Homeric story and that there is no good reason to explain its total extinction if we try to assume that the folktales are modelled on the Odyssey.

But while the omissions and alterations are strong arguments against deriving the modern versions from Homer, there is no doubt that he and these stories share a common tale. Undoubtedly the idea of man-eating ogres (with one or more eyes) has occurred independently to storytellers all over the world. But when we find a consistent sequence of motifs-men trapped by an ogre, the cannibalism, the blinding (usually with a red-hot spit or stake, sometimes with a boiling liquid), and the escape with the help of sheep-then we immediately see that Homer and the much later folktales and sagas are sharing a common story. Now, if the modern versions of the tale are independent of Homer (as has seemed most probable), yet at the same time they share a common plot, it follows that Homer shared this tale, borrowed and adapted it, rather than invented it. This conclusion, which is almost unanimously accepted,32 is confirmed by (i) apparent slips in Homer's own version which suggest that he knew alternatives which have survived in later versions,33 (2) the many other

32 See, e.g., G. Calhoun, "Homer's Gods-Myth and Marchen," AJP 6o (I939) 4; E. Samter, Volkskunde im altsprachlichen Unterricht. 1. Teil: Homer (Berlin I923) II;

W. R. Halliday, Greek and Roman Folklore (New York I927) 98; Korner (above, note I2) 34-35; Page I-I0; R6hrich 68; C. M. Bowra, "The Homeric Poems: Composition," in A Companion to Homer, ed. A. Wace and F. Stubbings (London I962) 52-53.

The only dissenters, to my knowledge, are Meuli (above, note I3) 70 and Shewan (above, note I3) 267.

33 Cf. Page i-io and Bowra, ibid.



142 JtJSTIN GLENN [I971

widespread motifs common to the Odyssey and to folktales,34 and (3) the universally recognized fact that Homer's poems are deeply rooted in oral tradition.

There is considerable evidence, then, to suggest that the Kyklopeia of the Odyssey represents the oldest known version of a folktale which was current in Homer's time and which has survived independently in a widespread tradition. While this general conclusion holds true for the vast majority of the post-Homeric versions, a few are suspect. This is to be expected since most known versions were recorded in modern Europe, when literacy and communications were well advanced. It is not surprising, then, that Grimm, Hackman, and Page have coupled their arguments with occasional suspicions about literary influences in a few versions.35

We may note in passing that the search for the place of the tale's origin has proved quite fruitless. Hackman inclined toward Asia Minor, and he was followed by Van Gennep.36 Halliday was confident that the tale originated in Europe and travelled from west to east,37 while Dawkins has suggested just the opposite.38 Comhaire favored the Caucasus; 39 Woodhouse suggested a Cretan origin.40 Obviously, a consensus (much less a solution) is nowhere in sight.

To gain a more general view of all the modern versions, we turn now to the excellent arrangement found in Hackman's monumental Die Polyphemsage in der Volksuberlieferung. The book itself is very scarce, but fortunately Hackman's findings have been reviewed by Van Gennep4' and summarized very conveniently by Cook.42

34 E.g., the return of the husband just in time to prevent the remarriage of his wife; this particular motif is #974 in A. Aarne and S. Thompson, The Types of the Folktale (Helsinki I964). For general treatments of the many folktale motifs in Homer, see Samter (above, note 32) passim, and R. Carpenter, Folk Tale, Fiction, and Saga in the Homeric Epics (Berleley and Los Angeles I946) passim.

35 See above, note 2I, and Grimm 448. 36 Hackman 22I-22; Van Gennep (above, note I3) i6i. 37 Halliday (above, note 32) 82, and also his Indo-European Folk-Tales and Greek Legend

(Cambridge I933) 3I-32.

38 Dawkins I4. 39 Comhaire (above, note 8) 26. 40 W. J. Woodhouse, The Composition of Homer's Odyssey (Oxford I930) 42, note i. 4I Van Gennep (above, note t3) I55-64. 42 Cook (II) 988-89; I am especially indebted to Cook for my own summary which

follows.




Hackman presents 22I versions divided into three groups as follows.

Group A (I24 versions): The Blinding of the Man-Eating Giant. Nearly all of these include two motifs, and often add a third: (i) The blinding of the giant, either

(a) with a red-hot spit (rarely a stake, etc.), while the giant is asleep, or

(b) with boiling water (lead, etc.), while the giant is awake, as a pretended cure for his sore or deficient eye(s).

(2) The escape of the hero, either (a) by covering himself with a sheepskin (rarely oxhide, etc.), or (b) by clinging to live sheep (rarely oxen, etc.).

(3) The attempt of the giant to recapture the hero with the help of a magic ring (magic ax, etc.).

Group B (50 versions): The Trick with the False Name. The hero injures a devil (or fairy, etc.), usually by burning him, and

then avoids harm by giving his name as "(My-) Self" (or, very rarely, " Nobody ").

Group C (47 versions): A combination of Group A-ib (the blinding of the man-eating ogre by

means of a pretended cure) and Group B (the trick with the false name). Of these three groups, we have seen three examples of Group A

above, and its over-all characteristics should become clear in the "folktale commentary" below. Group C is found only in Finland, Lettland, and Estonia; Hackman has regarded it as a late conflation of Group A-ib and Group B. We are left, then, with Group B (the trick with the false name). Its most obvious and important characteristic is that it is almost never incorporated into Group A (blinding of the man-eating ogre, escape with the help of sheep, and, very often, magic ring ending). Apparently there are only three exceptions: the Odyssey itself, Hackman #30 (= Frazer #I2), and Dawkins #4a. Hackman and Page are probably correct in their suspicion that Hackman #30 has been influenced by literary sources at some point.44 Dawkins

43Hackman 206-2I. 44 See above, note 2I.



I44 JUSTIN GLENN [1971

believes that the version which he collected is a true folktale, 45but the almost unparalleled incorporation of this separate motif leads one to suspect some literary influence. At any rate, it is clear that with very few possible exceptions only Homer's tale represents an independent conflation of two otherwise separate motifs which we summarized above as Hackman Group A and Group B. There are two possible explanations: either Homer's story is the original version (or a repre- sentative of it) or it is a conflation of two stories current in Homer's time. The fact that the trick with the false name persists today as an independent folktale motif undoubtedly points to the correct alternative: Homer (or his immediate source) conflated two tales. This alternative is universally accepted, and for an obvious reason: it is much easier to conceive of a storyteller's adding a theme from a separate tale than to suppose that an original and presumably well- established tale should now appear dissected in modern versions and should thrive virtually without a trace of the former connection.46

With this background we now begin our folktale commentary on Homer's story of Polyphemus (Od. 9.I05-566). In attempting to compare and to elucidate Homer's version in the light of the folktales, I must acknowledge some special debts to my predecessors in this field. D. L. Page made the initial, and, on the whole, highly successful steps in this new approach to the Kykldpeia in the first chapter of his The Homeric Odyssey. Here he subtly treats seven aspects of the story: the name-trick, the inebriation of the giant, the magic ring, the weapon used in the blinding, the survivors' casting lots, the method of escape, and the single eye. While giving us numerous insights into Homer's art as a storyteller, Page also presents strong arguments for his general conclusion: "Many of the well-known inconsistencies in the narrative are, in my opinion, more easily explained in terms of one author and

45 Dawkins I4. 46 We may note that Homer's apparent conflation of two separate folktales has a

parallel in the myth of Alcestis as found in Euripides' version. Albin Lesky, in his study Alkestis, der Mythus und das Drama (Vienna and Leipzig I925) esp. pp. 34-3 5, has shown convincingly that the myth as found here is a conflation of two otherwise separate folktales: (i) a wrestling match with Death, and (2) a lover offering himself (or herself) to Death in the place of his (or her) beloved.



VoI. I 02] HOMER S KYKLOPEIA I45

several stories than in terms of sevcral authors and one story."47 To Page's general approach and to many of his particular arguments I am much indebted.

It is surprising that Page's promising lead has not stimulated other scholars to explore this interesting new approach. G. Germain, writing shortly before Page, briefly surveys six aspects of the story, but his main emphasis is on the Berber versions he collected and, ultimately, on his unconvincing theory that the tale is a blurred recollection of an initiation into a ram cult.48 As a result, Germain makes much less use of Hackman than Page did, and he sheds much less light on Homer's own story. A much more sustained use of folklore material will be found in Rohrich, who surveys no fewer than twenty aspects of the story.49 The focus of his article, however, is entirely on the medieval tradition of the tale; as a result, this comparative study utilizes only a few of the available folktales. The most original part of Rohrich's study is his observation that early artistic representations of Polyphemus sometimes differ from Homer's account in precisely the same way as the modern folktales.50 A more detailed and rigorous study of this particular phenomenon could yield important results, but would be outside the scope of this paper.

In the folktale commentary which follows, our focus will be fixed as closely as possible on Homer's version, and it will deal with twenty- five incidents or characteristics in approximately the order in which they appear. For comparative purposes I shall use I25 folktales. This figure requires clarification, since Hackman's collection alone contains 22I versions. We shall recall, however, that only Group A of Hack- man (I24 versions) generally follows the over-all plot of Homer's story. Hackman's remaining versions pertain only to the name-trick (Group B) and the name-trick combined with blinding by means of boiling liquid as a pretended cure (Group C). Unfortunately, Frazer compiled his collection independently of Hackman and the two often overlap; as a result, twenty-four of Frazer's thirty-six versions are duplicates of Hackman Group A.5I Since Frazer's accounts are invari-

47 Page I7. 48 Germain 67-76. 49 R6hrich 6o-68. 50 ibid. 51 For a concordance of these duplicates, see Glenn (above, note 7) 268.




ably more detailed than Hackman's, I have used the former whenever possible. Next, we must reduce Hackman's I24 tales (Group A) still further. As Dawkins rightly observes,52 Hackman at times casts his net too wide; indeed, even a few stories in Group A have very little to do with Homer's tale. For this reason I have thought best to exclude from consideration sixteen generally irrelevant versions of Hackman Group A. Except for the name-trick, then, we are left with 35 versions from Frazer,54 84 versions from Hackman,55 and, to include some of the more recently recorded tales, four from Germain,56 and two from Dawkins.57

I. The Maritime Setting (Od. 9.I46-49, etc.) The Odyssey shares this setting with only twenty-three other ver-

sions.58 Rarely-as in the Odyssey, F.3I, 32, and H.38, 39-the tale has been incorporated into the saga or extended adventures of sea-going heroes. In the remainder, the heroes are humble fishermen or merchants. Magic plays a notable role in several of these tales: the victims are drawn mysteriously to the giant's island by a huge fish (F.33, H.iio) or by a magic storm caused by the giant (H.3 8). Homer, on the other hand, introduces his story with a touch of mystery which avoids magic and fantastic elements (9.I42-48):

0vOa Kac-7ETAEV01xEV, KaL TLS oEOS 77yEVyOVEVE VVKTa & l' opfvaL7v, ovE 7TpovkacLvET' L'EUOat-

arqp yap 7TEpL V7VUl /aOEl NV, OVE UEA77V7

OVfPOOEv 7TpovckaLvE, Ka-ELXE-O oE VEEEUUlV. 0 av x -r 5 % voc

'\

EVO' OV TLS T7gV V7oroV EoE`paKEv ok6aAvuouorv ovS oiv KvKLc-taTa VtaKpa KVALV JEva 7Tpol Xporov EUl SquEv, 7TpV v-aS EVororAVovS EILKEAoraL.

52 Dawkins 13. 53 Nos. 3, I3, 83, and 91-103. 54 Frazer 404-55. Of Frazer's thirty-six versions we omit i i because it contains

only the name-trick and the blinding by means of a pretended cure (corresponding to Hackman Group C).

N.B.: versions will be cited as "F.I, 2," etc. 55 This equals Hackman Group A minus both the twenty-four duplicates in Frazer

(see above, note 5i) and the sixteen largely irrelevant versions cited above, note 53. 56 Germain 57-64; these will be cited as "G.a, b, c, d," following Germain's own

arrangement. 57 Dawkins I9-24; these will be cited as "D.4a, 4b," following Dawkins' arrangement. 58 D.4a; F.i6, 25, 28, 30-33, 35; H.14, 36, 38, 39, 43, 45, 46, 49, 6i, 62, 77, IIO, II2,

II5.




2. The Giant is One of a Group (9.I06 if., I7, 2$ if., etc.) On this point the folktales fall into two fairly distinct groups:

(i) The giant is a completely solitary figure: 94 versions. (2) The giant is a member of a group or community, consisting of either

(a) his family (or rarely servants, etc.): I8 versions.59 (b) or neighboring giants: I3 versions.6o

The Odyssey represents an apparently unique compromise between these two alternatives. Essentially, Polyphemus is one ofa group of Cyclopes (9.I06 if., II7, I25 f., etc.); yet Homer nevertheless chooses to depict him as something of a "loner" (9.I87-92), as we find in the vast majority of folktales. How are we to explain this? As early as Miilder,6I analysts seized upon it as an indication of a later reworking of an earlier poem. Page, on the other hand, preferred to conceive of a conflation of two stories by one poet.62 I incline toward Page's view, but we should realize that we are not dealing here with two extreme poles of opinion: both sides recognize a conflation of traditional material. Further, both sides (it seems) have failed to consider the possible artistic implications of the conflation.

In considering this problem we may best begin on a path which Page has pointed out. The "Nobody"-trick, which makes such an effective contribution to the story, demands neighbors. Allusions early in the story inform us that other Cyclopes live in the general vicinity. As Page continues:

This is easily understood, for the Cyclopes have their own place in Greek mythology, and it was well known that they were numerous. In the First Book of the Odyssey, indeed, we are told of avTrOEov HoAvi57q,0ov oov KpcTLl -cO-t ~UE-yWTOV / i7niov KVKAC7EroEUL (I.70 f), god-like Poly- phemus, whose power is supreme among all Cyclopes": there is a whole community of them, and Polyphemus is their lord and master; when he cries out in the night it is very natural that his loyal and sympathetic subjects should emerge in their nightgowns to ask if he is in pain.

In the folk-tale, on the other hand, the giant's position is entirely different.

59 F.2, 4, 20, 26, 27, 34; H.iS, i8, 34, 43, 45, SI, 64, 79, 8i, 82, 86, iii. In a few of these-F.26, 36: H.iS, 8i, 82-the giant's wife, maid, or servants help the hero.

60 D.4a, 4b; F.i, I2, 21, 28, 30, 32, 35; H.44, 65, 69, II5. 61 D. Miulder, "Das Kyklopengedicht der Odyssee," Hermes 38 (I903) 426-27. 62 Page 5-6.



I48 JUSTIN GLENN [I971

He is a solitary rogue, living remote from men and even from giants; and our poet, who knows very well that this is so, does not hesitate to speak in these terms when it suits his purpose.63

On the whole, I suspect that Page is correct in his belief that the conflation initially resulted from differences in the oral tradition about the Cyclopes. His position, however, calls for certain qualifications. First, Page is misleading in his implication that all the folktales depict the giant as a "loner," although if intended as a generalization it is valid.64 In fact, the divergence of the folktales on this particular point may well contribute to Page's over-all theory of one author and several stories. Second, Page is overstating the communal aspect of the Cyclopes. His attempt to interpret Od. 9.70-7I as indicating that Polyphemus is "lord and master" over a community of subjects is quite dubious. Bona has argued convincingly that Polyphemus' Kpacrog ,uEytcrTov probably means simply that he was the strongest and mightiest of the Cyclopes, without implying that he was their king or recognized leader.65 Bona adduces a number of parallels,66 of which I would mention only Od. 11.485. Here Odysseus in the underworld says to Achilles: vv-v aviTE/Eya KpaTEEtSs VEKVEcTcTV. As Bona observes:

Ma Achille non e il re dei morti; ne Odisseo vuol dir questo, ma soltanto alludere alla possanza che 1' ombra del Pelide pare ancora spirare tra i morti. Analogamente in a [sc. lines 70-7I] Zeus vuol semplicemente dire che Polifemo, il figlio di Posidone, ha vigore e possanza smisurata nella terra dei Ciclopi in cui abita.67

Bona similarly questions Page's remark that the Cyclopes' exchange with the blinded Polyphemus is that of "his loyal and sympathetic subjects."68 On the whole, however, Bona's and my reservations qualify but do not contradict Page's basically sound view that Homer's version conflates a "loner" with a mighty figure in some sort of group.

We return now to that important question which apparently no one has asked: what was Homer's purpose in depicting Polyphemus as a

63 Page 6. 64 For the thirty-one exceptions, see above, notes 59 and 6o. 65 Bona 72-77. 66 Cf. II. 9.38 and II. I3.484, cited by Bona 73-74. 67 Bona 74. 68 Bona 75-76.




"loner," when the story as it stands demands that he be part of a group? The folktales suggest one approach to this question. As we saw in the Dolopathos, and as often happens in the folktales (incident 4, below), the hero is captured along with a number of companions, but they are eaten one by one until only he remains. The tendency, then, is to isolate the hero,69 and thus (I suppose) to focus more closely our attention and sympathy upon him. It is striking that Homer does just the opposite: he isolates Polyphemus. Already depicted as a "loner" at the outset, this isolation becomes crushing, complete, and humiliating through the " Nobody"-trick. Combined with the blindness itself, this lays the foundation for a touch of pathos and sympathy which are later aroused when the blinded giant affectionately addresses his ram. We shall return to this address in incident 21 below.

3. Odysseus lands at a near-by island, where he leaves most of his men (9.I49-76)

The folktales offer no exact parallel to this detail, which is obviously a response to the problem of adapting the tale to the saga of a sea-going hero with a fleet of ships. One alternative would have been to include the episode after the rest of the fleet had been destroyed; Homer chose the other. Clearly, the crews of all the ships would have been an intolerably large number for the adventure, especially the escape.

This same problem faced the author of the fourteenth-century Icelandic Hrolfssaga Gautrekssonar,70 and it may be of some interest to compare his solution. King Hrolf becomes separated from the rest of his fleet by a great storm. His ship reaches an island, whereupon Hrolf, his friend Asmund, and ten others set out to explore it. They reach a huge house; everything in it is giant-sized. To expose fewer men to danger, Hrolf sends away six and waits with the rest. When the giant returns, he tells the men that it was he who caused the storm, and that he now will take vengeance on Hrolf for killing his brother Grima. The giant devours two men on two successive days until he

69 Rohrich 64 notes the isolation of the hero as typical in the medieval versions, though he does not consider the reversal of roles between hero and giant that we find in the Odyssey on this point. As we shall see below in incident 4, the isolation of the hero is characteristic of the folktale versions as a whole.

70 See above, note i i.



I50 JUJSTIN GLENN [1971

is blinded and eventually killed. Here the magical storm takes the place of Homer's near-by island. The difference is typical of what seems to be a consistent effort on Homer's part to avoid supernatural elements, or at least to tone them down. This characteristic, which was observed by Page,7' is apparent in many of the details considered below.

4. Odysseus begins the adventure with twelve companions; six are eaten, the rest escape (9.I93 ff., 287 ff., 311, 344, 437 ff.)

Here the folktales offer an amazing variety. Listed in order of frequency, the variations are:

(i) I captured, he escapes: 49 versions.72 (2) 2 captured, I eaten, I escapes: 26 versions.73 (3) 3 captured, 2 eaten, I escapes: I5 versions.74 (4) 2 captured, both escape: 5 versions (F.27; G.b; H.I4, 36, 4I). (5) 3 captured, all escape: 3 versions (F.3I; H.5i, 86). (6) "crew" captured, number unspecified: 4 versions.

(a) I eaten, the rest escape: F.i6; H.49. (b) 3 eaten, the rest escape: F.30. (c) all escape: H.43.

(7) 7 captured, 5 eaten, 2 escape: F.I7, 33. The following occur only once each: (8) 2 captured, both killed: 75 H.9. (9) 3 captured, I eaten, 2 escape: F.28.

(Io) 4 captured, all escape: F.I2.

(II) 4 captured, I eaten, 3 escape: H.70. (I2) 4 captured, 3 eaten, I escapes: H.48. (I3) 5 captured, all escape: H.ii. (I4) 6 captured, 4 eaten, 2 escape: H.38. (IS) 6 captured, 5 eaten, I escapes: H.ii6. (I6) 7 captured, I eaten, 6 escape: F.23.

7I Page 9. 72 F.2-4, I3, I5, I8, 20, 24, 26, 29, 34, 36; H.iS, 27, 29, 3I-35, 37, 40, S6, 57,

60-62, 64-67, 69, 7I, 72, 76, 77, 79, 80, 82, 84, 87, 90, I04-7, III, II4, I2I. 73 D.4a, 4b; F.5, 7, 9, IO, 2I (here the devoured victim is later restored to life

miraculously), 22, 35; G.a, c; H.5-7, 9, I6, 39, 52, 53, 63, 75, 78, 85, IO8, II5, II9. 74 F.6, 8 (victims decapitated, but no mention of cannibalism), 25; H.26, 45-47, 50,

54, 59, 68, 73, 74, 89, I I2. 75 See Hackman I6, note I: "Der Schluss dieser Variante ist offenbar verderbt.

Urspriinglich hat jedenfalls der Tod des Unholdes, nicht des Monches [the hero in this particular version] die Erzahlung beschlossen."



4 A VOl. IO2,] HOMER S KYKLOPEIA I5I

(I7) 7 captured, 3 ki1led,76 4 escape: H.55. (I 8) 7 captured, 5 eaten, 2 escape: F.I7.

(I9) 7 captured, 6 eaten, i escapes: G.d. (20) 8 captured, all escape: H.8I. (2I) 8 captured, 6 eaten, 2 escape: H.IIO. (22) IO captured, 9 eaten, i escapes: F.I.

(23) 2I captured, 2 eaten, I9 escape: F.32. (24) 24 captured, 23 eaten, I escapes: H.io. (25) 4I captured, i eaten, 40 escape: H.I2o. (26) x-number captured:

(a) all escape: H.i8. (b) i eaten, the rest escape: H.II. (c) unspecified number eaten, the rest escape: H.42.

Amid this extraordinary diversity at least three points call for comment. First, the arrangement of the Odyssey-thirteen men captured, six eaten, seven escape-is nowhere duplicated in the folktales. Second, by far the most common version is a lone hero who escapes. Third, in the remaining versions one tendency is prominent amid all the variations, and that is the ultimate isolation of the hero. This occurs in 47 of the 76 versions which contain more than one captive at the outset.

5. Odysseus does not know whom he will meet (9.I73-76)

This is generally the case in the Odyssey, although Odysseus does say that he had a premonition that he would encounter some savage and lawless man (9.2I3-I5). The folktales are generally quite vague on this point. Sometimes they begin with a stock formula, such as " once a man set out to learn about Evil (or Fear)."77 In a vast majority of cases, however, the victims are simply innocent travellers who come upon a giant.

In a few cases the hero knows of the giant and intentionally seeks out his lair; his motives vary as follows:

(i) to steal the giant's treasure: F.i, 20, 2I. (2) to rescue the king's daughter(s): F.I4; H.84. (3) to rescue a beautiful maiden: H.3I, 4I.

(4) to rescue his (the hero's) wife: H-IS- (5) to kill the giant: F.36.

76 In this version the giant drains off their blood to drink, but apparently does not devour them.

77 See F.io; H.46, 48, 50, 53, 63-66, 7I, 73, IO8.




Although Odysseus sets out not knowing just what he would meet, he too has rather precise motives. Stanford has summarized these neatly as a combination of "inquisitiveness and acquisitiveness, 78 i.e., curiosity about the inhabitants of the near-by island, and the desire for a guest-gift. An assessment of these motives is best postponed until our consideration of incident 7 below, when Odysseus refuses to leave the cave.

6. The setting: a cave (9.I82, 2I6, etc.) This is hardly a crucial point, and a number of folktales (at least in

Hackman's very abbreviated versions) are vague on this detail. Still, it may be of some interest to note that the Odyssey does not follow the most common setting found in the folktales. When they are clear on this point, they present the following variants:

(i) hut or house: 5I versions.79 (2) cave: 4I versions.80 (3) castle: ii versions.8' (4) stall or barn: 4 versions (F.4, 28; H.33, 34). (5) mill: F.i8; H.9.

The choice of abode often seems to be determined by regional habits. Thus, for example, Germain's four Berber versions (G.a-d) are set in caves, while huts or houses are the rule in northern Europe. In the case of the Odyssey, the choice of a cave is unquestionably felicitous, and it is perhaps the result of personal decision rather than random tradition. The cave is especially well suited to the graphic description of the primitive existence of the Cyclopes (9.106-30), a memorable touch which is completely unparalleled in the folktales. Second, of the various alternatives the cave probably makes the most efficient, realistic, and challenging trap. Third, houses and castles (as opposed to caves) sometimes attract magical elements in the folktales. Thus, in several versions (H.7I, 75, 89) the giant's house has a magic

78 W. B. Stanford (ed.), The Odyssey of Homer2 2 (London and New York i959) ad 9.229; cf. also his The Ulysses Theme2 (Oxford I963) 76-77.

79 D-4b; F.5, 6, 10, I3, I9, 23-26, 28, 32, 33, 35; H.io, 14, I6, i8, 35, 36, 38, 45, 46, 48, 49, 53, 56, 6o, 6i, 63-66, 68, 70, 72-76, 78-8I, 85, 86, 89, io6-8, I2I.

80 D.4a; F.I-3, 7, 9, I2, I4, I6, 2I, 22, 24, 27, 29, 31, 34, 36; G.a-d; H.5, i5, I6, 37, 39, 42, 43, 50, 55-57, 59, 84, 87, 90, III, II4, iI6, II9, I20.

81 F.8, I5, 20, 25, 30; H.26, 5I, 52, 54, 7I, 88.




door which opens and shuts upon his command or as soon as the victims have entered.

7. Odysseusfinds the cave empty; he waitsfor the giant to return (9.2I6-33)

The folktales very often skip over the details of the capture. Quite frequently, for example, we are told merely that " one day a lad fell into the hands of a giant." In the following list of variation, then, I have not attempted a thorough analysis; the versions are provided merely exempli gratia as giving a general idea of their relative frequency:

(i) The giant entices the hero into his lair: 28 versions.82 (2) The giant catches the hero abroad: i6 versions.83 (3) The hero finds the cave empty and waits for the giant to return: ii

versions.84

(4) The hero enters, only to find a giant: 9 versions.85 (5) The hero intends to leave before the giant returns, but he lingers too

long: explicit in F.I2, probably implicit in at least several others (F.25, 30; H.64, IO8).

In comparison with the most common variant, group (i), Odysseus obviously comes out much better. This group of folktale heroes not only allow themselves to be enticed into the ogre's lair, but sometimes they even ask him to let them in. While Odysseus does not share their gullible weakness, his behavior here is still far below his usual performance. Scholars have long been puzzled about Odysseus' recklessness and imprudence in this episode.86 Most notably, he twice fails to heed very sensible advice. The first is on this occasion, when he refuses to leave the cave; the second is when he insists on provoking

82 D.4b; F.5-9, I9, 26, 27, 3I; G.a-d; H.9, Io, I6, 26, 5I, 52, 54, 59, 68, 7I, 78, 88, I07, III.

83 F.3, 4, 2I, 23, 33; H.I4, 42, 49-5I, 69, 72, 80, II0, II5, ii6. 84D.4a; F.io, I2, i6, 24, 25, 30, 32; H.38, 73, II4 (the last two, however, are not

entirely clear on this point). 85 F.2, 22, 28; H.52, 65, 7I, 85, io6, I2I. 86 See, e.g., A. Lang, Modern Mythology (London I897) 33-34;J. A. Scott, "The Sources

of the Odyssey," CJ I2 (I916) I26; L. G. Pocock, Reality and Allegory in the Odyssey (Amsterdam I959) 97; Stanford, Theme (above, note 78) 76-77.

Peachy (above, note I3) II5-2I argues that Odysseus' behavior in the Polyphemus episode is consistent with his characterization throughout the entire epic. Finally, K. Reinhardt, Tradition tind Geist (Gottingen I960) 65, sees Odysseus' behavior here as part of an evolution in his character.




Polyphemus as his men are rowing away after the escape.87 Com- menting on the latter of these incidents, Stanford has suggested that " perhaps the explanation is that this particular episode retains much of its pre-Homeric shape and ethos. It may have been fairly fully worked out before Homer incorporated it into his poem." 88 As we shall see below in discussing incident 23 (provoking the giant), the folktales offer some support for Stanford's suspicions. These tales, however, offer no parallel to Odysseys' refusing his men's urgent pleas to flee while there was still time. Odysseus' "inquisitiveness and acquisitiveness" proved appallingly costly to his crew; if the other versions of the story suggest anytlling it is the great contrast between Odysseus' imprudence and Hrolf's solicitude for his men in the Icelandic saga.89 The guest-gift, an important motive behind Odysseus' behavior, is a very central theme in Homer's story and will call for further comments below in incidents 1 l and 25.

8. The gianit has one eye (implicit in 9.3 82-97) Antiquity, says Servius, knew of one-, two-, and three-eyed Cyclo-

pes.90 In the folktales one- and two-eyed giants abound, and Frazer gives one example of a four-eyed giant (two eyes in front, two in back: F.27). I find no three-eyed villain in the collections which we have been using, although Faure refers to such a giant as prevalent in the folktales of modern Crete.9' Of our I25 versions, 74 depict one-eyed ogres92; the remainder are two-eyed with the following exceptions:

(i) completely blind from the outset: Io versions.93

87 Od. 9.473ff.; see below, incident 23. 88 Stanford, Theme (above, note 80) 77. 89 See above, incident 3. 90 Servius ad Aen. 3.636: "Multi Polypheinumn dicunt unum habuisse oculum, alli

duos, alii tres." 9' P. Faure, "Le mythe du Cyclope dans la Crete contemporaine," REG 78 (1965)

xxvii-xxviii. 92 D.4a (eye on top of head), 4b; F.3-5, 7, 9, IO, I4-I9, 2I, 24, 26, 28, 32-36 (last with

eye on top of head); G.c, d; H.5-7, 9-II, i6, 3I, 39, 45, 47,48, 5I-53 (in 52 the eye is in middle of giant's chest), 55, 56, 59-69, 73, 76-82, 84, 85, go, io6, I07, IIO-I2, II4, I15, II7, II9, I20.

93 F.25, 29; H.9, I4, I5, 36, 7I, 75, 87, I2I.




(2) two-eyed, but one eye is blind (or bad) from the outset: 7 versions.94 (3) four-eyed: F.27.

Page has an excellent treatment of the single eye ;95 as he notes in his conclusion: ". . . the one-eyed giant has always been the most popular; and it is easy to see why-not only because the mechanics of blinding him are so much simpler, but also because he is so hideous and appal- ling, among the most alarming and memorable creatures of universal folk-lore." It is universally recognized tlhat, although Homer never explicitly says that Polyphemus has only one eye, the poet and his audience understood this as part of the tradition.96 Only Butler, to my knowledge, imagined Polyphemus with two eyes,97 although Pocock makes this ambiguous comment: "In the Polyphemus story Homer must, it seems, have been using the wide-spread folk-tale of the one-eyed cannibal ogre... Yet he wisely never actually commits himself to the absurdity of the single centrally situated eye.'98 If Pocock means to imply that we are perhaps to think of the Cyclops as having two eyes, I must agree with the consensus just cited and reject this proposal. Pocock may be pointing, however, to a view which I consider very likely: Homer's failure to state explicitly that the giant had only one eye is no randoim oversight or mere confidence that tradition will clarify the details. Rather, it may well be interpreted as part of a trend that often characterizes Homer's version, viz., the suppression or deemphasis of magical or supernatural elements, while striving for a convincing and gripping realism. In the 74 versions which have one-eyed giants, I note only three (G.b; H.I8, go) where, like the Odyssey, there is no explicit reference to the single eye, but this detail is clear enough in the unfolding of the story. The Odyssey, however, is probably clearer than the three folktales on this point, since the Cyclopes were almost certainly understood to have only one eye.99 We may compare other languages which have a special word for one-eyed giants: the Basque Tartaro (a man-eating giant with one

94 F.2, 8; G.a; H. 46, 77, 86, 88. 95 Page I4-I6. 96 See, e.g., B. Sauer, "Polyphemus," Myth. Lex. 3.2 (1902-9) 2699; S. Eitrem,

" Kyklopen," RE 2I (I922) 2334; Page I4. 97 S. Butler, The Authoress of the Odyssey2 (London I922) I90-9I. 98 Pocock (above, note 86) 97-98. 99 See Page I4 with note 22.




eye in the center of his forehead: sec H.79) and the Greco-Turkish Tepekozis (a man-eating giant with a single eye on the crown of his head I00).

9. Additional description of the giant (9.I9I-92, 240-43, etc.) In a few folktales the height of the giant is stated in an exact figure:

"his stature exceeded thirteen cubits" (F.I), "twelve feet high, six feet broad" (F. I7), and "seven fathoms tall" (F.2I). Those storytellers deprive themselves of one of their greatest assets: their appeal to their listeners' imagination. Homer wisely chooses instead to describe the giant only with vivid similes. Polyphemus is first compared to a mountain peak (9.I9I-92), an image which, as Stanford well observes,i'i effectively conveys both his huge size and his solitary way of life. Next, he easily handles a huge rock which twenty-two wagons could not budge (240-43). His staff is as big as the mast of a large merchant ship (32I-24). Finally, in two hyperboles at the conclusion of the episode, the enraged giant hurls a huge rock described as a mountain peak (48i) and he later throws a "much bigger rock" (537).

A few folktales provide analogues to Homer's similes. The giant is as tall as a tower (F.i6), and his staff is as tall as trees (F.2I) or as thick as a pillar (F.33). Sometimes the use of the simile is extended to the giant's eye, which is compared to a cheese-bowl (F.I7) and a platter (H.47). Here we begin to notice the folktales' delight in dwelling on the fantastic and repulsive appearance of the giant. His eye is in the middle of his chest (H.52); he has a horn on his head (H.84); he has a horn where his left eye belongs (H.65); he is black and has long ears, tusks like boars, claws like lions, and blazing eyes (F.30) I02; and this list of examples could be extended considerably.I03 Thus, by way of comparison, Homer's failure to comment on the single eye of Poly- phemus seems to be characteristic of his avoiding the fantastic details which the giant tends to accumulate in the folktales and which he sometimes retains in even literary versions such as The Arabian Nights

100 See Dawkins I4 and Mundy (I) 287-88. IOI Stanford, Odyssey (above, note 78) ad 9.I92. 102 Frazer does not mention all of these details in his compressed version (F. 30), but

they may be found in any translation of the story (e.g., Burton's or Lane's). 103 See, e.g., F.5; G.b; H.I4, I5, 54, 55.



A VoI. 102] HOMER S KYKLOPEIA 157

(F.3o). In this connection we may also recall that while Polyphemus is a giant (TEA 'pLos),IO4 he and his brethren are also described as men (aV8pC60V).I05

io. The giant traps the men with an immovable rock (9.240-43) This is a detail which readers of Homer's story are apt to take for

granted. Indeed, this is precisely what most folktales do. There the storytellers usually assume this as part of the tradition and make at most only a casual reference to the huge door or rock which imprisons the victims.I06 Sometimes, as in the tale of Sindbad (F.30) which we saw at the outset, this detail is missing altogether.I07 Only a few versions agree with Homer's in emphasizing the huge rock or door by some sort of comparison: iOO men could not move it (F.7, 9); it weighs ioo hundredweights (F.21); i6 men could not move it (F.28).I08 This list would perhaps be larger if many of Hackman's versions were not so abbreviated. Apparently the only emphatic reference to a trap in Hackman is H.IO7, where the giant cries after he has been blinded, " You can't escape; the gate is shut and the fence is too high! " The very few cases of emphatic traps in Frazer's full versions are a good indication that few storytellers bother to emphasize the desperate situation into which the hero has fallen. By stressing this aspect of the story, Homer is likewise stressing the resourcefulness of the leader who manages to free himself and his surviving men.

ii. The giant scorns the gods and rejects a plea for hospitality and a guest- gft (9.259-78)

Turning first to Polyphemus' contempt for the gods, we find extremely few and very faint parallels in the folktales. These are all details added for the edification of Christian and Moslem audiences. Thus, in F.2I the ogre has a special fondness for eating Christians, and the story is punctuated with numerous prayers of the victims. At the first sound of prayers the ogre becomes enraged and starts to roast the

104 wEACZ'ptosg (9.I87, I90); -9,EAwpov (9.257). I05 Cyclopes = &v8pCov (6.5); Polyphemus = v'p (9.I87, 494). 106 See 4a, 4b; F.I2, I9, 24, 25; H.s, 9, i6, 52, 53, 73, 90, Io6, III, II4, IIS. 107 See (in addition to F.3o) F.8, I4, I7, 26, 32; H.7, I4, 26, 40, 4I, 43, 49, 8o, ii6. 108 In F.28 three men are trapped, and they are soon reduced to one-hence the rather

small number (" I6 men") in the simile.




praying captive. Other pious victims-but not a corresponding explicit contempt for God on the part of the giant-are also found in H.39, S4, and 75. The Moslem versions are more interesting parallels because, as in Homer, piety is connected with hospitality to strangers. In G.a and G.d the victims approach the cave of the ogre and ask for che "hospitality of God." In both cases he tells them that they are welcome and invites them in. In G.a the detail of piety becomes something of a motif. When the ogre announces his intention to eat his " guests," one of the captives admonishes him that " God does not permit this; if you are a Moslem, God does not allow you to eat human flesh." The ogre merely replies, "It must be as I say; enough talking." Thereupon he devours one of his two captives and goes to sleep. That night the survivor prays for divine guidance and help. Then comes the blinding, and more prayers precede the escape. Sever- al times, both before and after the escape, the ogre is described as "the enemy of God." The theme of piety and impiety, then, clearly plays no part in the original folktale, and it is represented in only a very few Christian and Moslem versions. In Homer's story, on the other hand, contempt for the gods has become quite central to the giant.'09

The request for a guest-gift occurs only in the Odyssey. Like the motif of piety and impiety, it marks a distinctively Greek response to the folktale. The theme of the guest-gift is subtly woven through both the entire episode and indeed the entire Odyssey. This subject lies outside the scope of our folktale commentary, and has been treated in the excellent studies of PodleckilIo on this episode and of Belmont'II on the Odyssey as a whole. We shall have to return to this subject once again, however, in incident 25.

12. Odysseus protects his absent men by deceiving the giant (9.279-86) This is unique among all the versions. As we noted in incident 3,

the division of the hero's forces is paralleled only by the Icelandic Hrolfssaga Gautrekssonar (H.38). There Hrolf shows foresight and

109 See Glenn (above, note 7) II4-28. IIO A. J. Podlecki, "Guest-Gifts and Nobodies in Odyssey IX," Phoenix iS (i96i)

125-33. III D. Belmont, Early Greek Guest-Friendship and its Role in Homer's Odyssey (Diss.,

Princeton Univ. I962) esp. pp. II4-76.



A

Vol. I 02'] HOMER S KYKLOPEIA 159

concern for his men by sending some away so as to expose fewer to danger. Granted that Odysseus' "inquisitiveness and acquisitiveness" have endangered himself and many of his men, he nevertheless quickly recovers his shrewdness here in the first of several crucial and successful bouts with the giant. In comparison with the ogres of the folktales, Polyphemus shows himself uncommonly crafty in trying to trick Odysseus into revealing whether he may have companions still at large.

I3. Odysseus is tempted to kill the giant, but he restrains himself and decides instead to blind him (9.299-305)

Here the folktales serve to heighten considerably our respect for Homer's treatment of the story. In the former the hero practically never decides to blind the giant-he seems to do it automatically. The tradition was there, and the storyteller follows it unthinkingly. The only exception, to my knowledge, is H.i6; here we are told explicitly that the heroes could not kill the giant, for then they would never escape from the cave. In contrast to the folktales, then, Homer skillfully arouses much tension in his presentation of Odysseus' dilemma. The hero almost yields to the impulse to kill Polyphemus and thus to enjoy instant revenge. Suddenly he fully grasps his terrible predicament: he cannot kill his captor without killing all hope of escape; but if he does not do something quickly, he and his men will soon meet the same grisly fate. We sense all of this running through Odysseus' mind in his terse account (9.299-305):

Trv ,UEv yu fov'AEvua Kara JeyaA77'ropa Gvpuv x5 5 ft I %f0 5 % aduov lt)v, uftos Of) EpVUUva/LEvo0 irapa W7pov0,

v, a,va XT -0, o'O op

,

,, oVTa/LEVa TrpsUT)0,qO ~ bEVE ipTap EXOVUL,j

XELP EmflLaccaqEvos. E'TEpOS' /LE oVjLLOS EpVKEV.

avihov yap KE Kat a/pEg a7 TWAo4LE0' a7iivv 5AEGpov ov yap KEV SvVacqLEUa Ovpacov 60n7Aacov XEpULv crdcrau6Oat At'Oov O1fptplov, OV 7TpOCE`0qKEV.

As when Homer depicted Odysseus shrewdly misleading Polyphemus to protect the rest of his crew, here again he shows the hero of this adventure as a thinking leader, whom we recognize at once as the hero of the Odyssey.



i6o JUSTIN GLENN [I971

I4. The Greeks cast lots (9.33I-35) Page found this part of Homer's story particularly unsatisfactory,

and he asks, "is not this business of the drawing of the lots an odd and ineffective affair?"II2 The result of casting lots is that those who were thus singled out were the very men whom Odysseus would have chosen. Page objects:

Then why not choose them? They are probably waiting for you to ask for volunteers; and here you take the risk of having four incompetent cowards thrust upon you by the hazard of the lot.

This episode is definitely below the level of realism attained by the poet throughout the narrative.1 3

Page finds it much easier to believe "that in some earlier version of this story the casting of lots decided not who should help Odysseus, but who should be eaten next.""I1 Finally, he suggests that in the original and normal version (i) the leader would not "nominate four assistants, with the presumable implication that no action will be taken until the remainder have been devoured," and (2) all the survivors would take part in the blinding.II5

On this point the folktales offer scanty and inconclusive evidence. Only three versions depict the victims casting lots (F.7; G.b, d). In all three the object is to determine the order in which the men will be eaten, not the men who will take part in the blinding. This much lends support to Page's theory. On the other hand, ten versions repeat the situation of the Odyssey in having only part of the survivors participate in the blinding.Ii6 On the whole, we may say only that (i) tales which have some survivors not taking part in the blinding are extremely rare, (2) tales which have the survivors cast lots are even rarer, and (3) when the casting of lots does occur, it determines the order in which the victims are to be eaten, not those who will take part in the blinding. This folktale material is so scanty that it is of little if any help in assessing the effectiveness or suitability of these

112 Page I2. 113 Ibid. "14 Ibid. "r5 Page I3. 116 F.I2, 28, 32; G.b; H.38, 4I, 49, 70, 8i, I20. Cf. H.84, where the three daugh-

ters of the king are mentioned as captives at the outset, but play no role in the rest of the story.



A

VoI. 102] HOMER S KYKLOPEIA i6i

particular situations. We must consider Homer's version practically in vacuo.

One of Page's objections to the Homeric story may be dismissed at once. We are told explicitly at the beginning of the adventure that Odysseus took with him to the cave his twelve best men (9.I95); we may safely conclude that these did not include "four incompetent cowards." Why then cast lots at all? Page prefers to think that the men would be waiting for Odysseus to call for volunteers. Bona, in his reply to Page, offers another reading of the situation, and finds Homer's version completely plausible and convincing:

Anche nell'episodio di Polifemo Odfsseo e il capo audace e valoroso, pronto ad accorrere in difesa dei compagni e sua. Di fronte stanno i compagni, pavidi dopo le terribili avventure vissute, dopo aver visto ben quattro di loro divorati dal Ciclope. Necessaria mi par dunque 1'estra- zione a sorte, che deve indicare senza parzialita chi dovra agire con lui; significativa, in quanto vengono indicati proprio quelli che Odisseo si sarebbe scelti: la protezione delgi dei e con lui."17

This entire question entails a subjective response to the text which each reader must make for himself. On the whole, Bona's interpre- tation seems to me much more plausible than Page's attempt to see the incident as an aberration of an earlier and more satisfactory version.

i 5. The drunkenness of the giant (9.345-74) Page points out that "this episode is not found in the folk-tale

versions of our story," and that it was presumably borrowed from "a relatively small circle of folk-tales, fundamentally different from our story."9 8 We should note, however, that drunkenness does play a role in two versions of the tale. In F.23 the giant just happens to become drunk; there is no trickery. In F.26 we do find deception; here, however, the giant's wife helps the captives escape by inebriating him. Two other stories also deserve mention, if only for contrast. In

117 Bona 82. 118 Page 6, citing Meuli (above, note 13) 71 f. It would appear, however, that Meuli

was incorrect in describing this smaller group of tales as the overcoming of a Nature- Demon with the help of wine. S. Thompson, Motif-Index of FolkLiterature2 3 (Blooming- ton, Indiana 1956) 360 (=motif G.521) classifies it simply as "Ogre made drunk and overcome."




F.3 I the giant uses a drink to trick his victims; he offers them magic milk which immediately causes blindness. Also, Cook cites a Poly- phemus folktale in which the hero has a magic potion which induces a deep sleep.119 The two latter versions again show an incident which has much more of a magical aura in the folktales than the analogous element in Homer's story, viz., Maro's wine.

We might still ask, however: what is the precise function of the wine? Homer gives us only one clue, which comes in the giant's address to his ram (9.452-54):

r1 Uav y avaK'os-

oq6aA)40v voOOEEtEs, TOV aV7p KaKOS EeaAaWUE aivv Avypos- EJ-crpotcrt, &a,UaaaducEvos cbpEVa otvp ...

What does this phrase mean? The simplest and most likely answer is that Polyphemus is convinced that he would not have been overcome had he not been drugged into a deep stupor. Also, Odysseus naturally would wanit to give himself and his men every possible advantage in their dangerous attack, even though on the two previous nights the giant had fallen asleep promptly after his grisly meal. There is, however, probably another reason for the wine trick: if the giant had been sober, he presumably would not have shouted out, "Nobody is killing me!" (9.408), thus ruining his one chance to secure help.120

The introduction of the drunkenness-motif is unquestionably a bold and highly successful innovation. One of the most memorable parts of the adventure, it is another example of Homer's using new material which is perfectly suited to his resourceful hero.

i6. Odysseus tricks the giant by calling himself " Nobody" (9.364-67) As we noted earlier, this trick too is alien to the Polyphemus folktale.

There are only two exceptions (F.12 and D.4a), and we should observe again that both quite possibly have been influenced by literary sources.'2I

119 Cook (II) 99I. I20 It is true that even the next morning (when he is presumably sober), he still believes

that Odysseus' name is Outis (9.455). The effect of the wine, then, seems to have consisted not in temporarily convincing Polyphemus that his enemy's real name was Outis, but rather in causing the giant to phrase his cry for help so foolishly that it was sure to fail.

121 See above, note 2I.



Vol. 102] HOMER S KYKLOPEIA I63

Of all the stories using this motWIfz22 only three (D.4a, F.I2, and H.I28) use "Nobody"; all the rest use "(Me-) Myself."

In Homer's story, this scene marks the second time that the giant has been deceitful in his interrogation of Odysseus. On the first occasion, Odysseus cleverly misled the giant to protect his crew, but that trick was essentially defensive. Here once again he meets the giant's trick with one of his own. Now, however, the hero is on the offensive; Polyphemus is playing right into his hands. Odysseus must not only render his huge opponent helpless, but must also isolate him from outside aid. The presence of a near-by group of giants, as we noted in incident 2, constitutes a rather rare alternative in the folktales, and it is potentially a very challenging obstacle to escape. The "Nobody"-trick allows Homer's hero to meet the challenge with a resourcefulness and foresight practically unparalleled in the folktale as we know it. Thus, like the wine-trick, the name-trick makes two notable contributions: memorably enriching the traditional story, aiid highlighting the tale's hero as an exceptionally clever leader.123

17. The giant announces that he will eat Odysseus last-as a "guest-gift" (9.368-70)

This grim humor gives a most peculiar and effective twist to the motif of the guest-gift, which, as we noted in incident 11, occupies a very prominent place in the story. We may compare the contemptuous humor in the giant's earlier reply to the suppliant Odysseus (273):

Nktog Es Ws, coEV', X7 '7AOGEV ELA'ovOas

"You're a fool, stranger-or else you've come from a long way off."

Later the blinded giant makes a bitter play on OV'Trt, when, in his address to his ram, he talks of ov'-tav0s. ... Oirts, "that no good Nobody" (460). The over-all effect is to give a much more human, though admittedly not humane, picture of Polyphemus.

In no folktale version does the hero ask for a gift, other than food and 122 D.4a; F.I2 (=H.3o) and Hackman Groups B and C (97 versions). I2 For some excellent observations on this trick, see Podlecki (above, note iio)

I29-3 1.




lodging for the night. There is one story, however, which is some- what reminiscent of the grim humor in Polyphemus' "gift." In Grimm's account of a Rumanian tale, we hear of three brothers who are caught by a giant, who takes them to his house:

Als sie in das Haus des Riesen entreten, spricht der Alteste: "Guten Abend!" Der Riese antwortet: "Gut wirst du sein fur heute Abend." Daraufspricht der Mittlere: " Guten Abend! " Der Riese erwidert: " Gut wirst du sein fir morgen Abend." Zuletzt derJiingste: " Guten Abend! " Der Riese dankt mit den Worten: "Gut wirst du sein fur ulbermorgen Abend." I24

There are extremely few parallels in the folktales to Polyphemus' announcement that he will eat Odysseus last. Germain, however, evidently has overlooked two examples when he implies that this Homeric detail is unique.'25 We have just seen one exception; the other is F.I2, a remarkably, even suspiciously close parallel to Homer, although in some respects it is a clever tale in its own right.I26

i8. The tveaponfor the blinding: a stake (9.3I8-30, 375-80) In the use of a stake the Odyssey follows a rare alternative found in

only eight versions. In all, we find eleven different weapons employed; in order of frequency they are:

(I) spit: sI versions.I27 (2) boiling liquid: 29 versions.I28 (3) staff or stake: 8 versions.I29

124 Grimm 455, abbreviated in F.6. 125 Germain 70. He does cite (70, note I), however, a more distant parallel, H.I I4,

where there is only one captive, and the giant says, "I'll eat you tomorrow." 126 The captive (a Lapp) cleverly manages to convince the giant that the latter's eyes

are defective. The Lapp promises to "heal" the giant, provided that he is rewarded. The story continues: "'You shall live with me fourteen whole days,' says the giant, 'till I have eaten up your friends. But you must tell me your name, lest I eat you up instead.' The Lapp said that his name was Nobody, and the giant repeated it ten times to make sure that he would not forget it." The story then tells how the Lapp blinded the giant while pretending to cure him. In the end, the hero and his companions escape disguised under goatskins.

127 D.4a, 4b; F-3-5, 7, I4, i6, I7, 22, 23, 27, 30-35; H.6, 9, II, i6, 36-43, 45, 46, 48, 51, 52, 59, 67, 73, 74, 78-8i, 84-86, iio, II4, II5, II9, I20.

128 F.I, 2, 6, 8, IO, I2, I3; H.i8, 26, 27, 29, 33-35, 60-62, 66, 68, 69, 76, 77, 87, 90-92, 104, I05, I2I.

129 F.9, 24; G.a, b, d; H.47, 52, I09.



VOI. I02] HOMER S KYKLOPEIA i65

(4) awl: F.io; H.53, 63. (5) firebrand: F.2I, 28. (6) knife: F.I8; H.55.

(7) sword: H.5, 50. (8) hot coal: F.26. (g) hot rock: G.c.

(io) chisel: H.64. (ii) pistol: F.I9.I30

By far the most common weapon, then, is a spit. Page has plausibly argued that Homer's story has one detail which suggests that his source did in fact use a spit:

As if it were a metal spit Odysseus puts it into the embers of the fire cjos Oep/atvot-o, until it should grow hot (376), and takes it out when 'green though it was'-how conscious our poet was of the point at issue !-" it was about to catch fire, and glowed all through terribly," St&E4at'vero 8' alVJ5. The metal spit will turn red-hot and white hot, it will glow all through terribly: the fresh-cut log of green olive-wood will turn black and smoke and smoulder; in the end it may burst into flames, but there is one thing you may wait in vain for it to do-to glow all through like a white-hot poker.I3I

Page has been followed by Bowra,I32 and he is most probably correct. He leaves solid ground, however, when he proceeds to speculate on the reason for the change of weapon. His argument may be summarized as follows:

(i) " If the spit was to be used, the human victims must be cooked [italics mine], as they so often are in the folktales, and as they are in the Cyclops of Euripides."

(2) But the cooking tends to be a disgusting detail which the poet may well have wished to avoid.

130 The total falls considerably short of i25 because a number of versions do not include the blinding. The reasons for this vary considerably: (i) the giant is blind from the outset (see incident 8) or has such bad eyes that the blinding can be omitted; (2) the hero kills the giant (F.2, 5, 6, 9, I4, 3I, 36; H.i8, 26, 29, 3I-36, 38-42, 49, 5i, 69, 70, 78, 79, 8i, 84, 89, I05, III, II7, II9); (3) the giantisblindedbythehandofGod(H.75); (4) the hero escapes in the giant's absence (F. 20).

I3I Page io-ii. 132 Bowra (above, note 32) 53.



i66 JUSTIN GLENN [1971

(3) Therefore, it is quite likely that the poet decided to omit the cooking and this quite naturally, in turn, led to a change in weapon (from spit to stake).I33

This is, of course, a much simplified summary, but I believe that it preserves accurately the outline of Page's argument. The fallacy is quite clear: a storyteller who wishes to omit the cooking of the victims is in no way compelled to omit the spit. It is quite conceivable that a story which depicted the giant eating his victims raw could also have had a spit in the cave. Conversely, F.9 presents a clear case where a victim is cooked on a spit, and yet the survivor later sharpens a wooden stake for a weapon.

Instead of trying to explain the choice of weapons in terms of cooking or not cooking the victims, we might better approach the problem by considering the differences entailed by the choice of weapons. As Page himself points out, the stake poses many more difficulties to the poet. The spit is a perfect, ready-made weapon, which requires neither pre- paration nor concealment.'34 In this simple fact, I suspect, lies the key to the choice of weapons. Quite simply, Homer did not want an economical and easy solution. Rather, he seems to have go-ne to some lengths in putting Odysseus in a particularly challenging situation. The absence of a spit demands a resourceful leader to find, or, as in the Odyssey, actually to fashion a suitable weapon, and to conceal it for the proper moment. Thus, just as when Homer (or his source) provided Polyphemus with neighbors, so too in his choice of a weapon he follows a rare alternative which seems admirably calculated to elicit and to display the ingenuity of his hero.

I9. The blinded giant criesfor help (9.399-412) Only seven of the I25 folktales subject their heroes to this added

danger; they fall into three categories:

(I) Other giants come, but they arrive too late to prevent the hero's escape: S versions (F.20, 28, 32, 35; H.iI5).

(2) Other giants come and search the cave, but they fail to find the hiding hero: F.21.

33See Page ii. '34 Page 9.



A

VOI. I02] 14HOMER S KYKLOPEIA i67

(3) As in the Odyssey, other giants come but they leave when they hear that "Nobody" is causing all the harm: F.I2.I35

The advantages of Homer's version over (i) and (2) are, of course, quite obvious. The latter will do when the hero is a single small boy (as is the case in F.2 i), but hardly when seven men are hiding in the cave. Even so, this alternative presumes unusually stupid or near-sighted neighbors. Similarly, group (i) presumes a giant who is stupid enough to let his captives slip through his fingers in the short time required for the neighbors to arrive. Homer, on the other hand, uses the "Nobody"-trick most successfully to extricate his hero from a tight trap in the very midst of a host of enemies who seem quite willing to come to Polyphemus' aid.

20. The method of escape: the men tied to sheep, the hero clinging to a ram (9.424-63)

It has often been observed that the method of escape in Homer's story is quite rare in the folktales; there the usual method is for the captives to throw a sheepskin over themselves and to crawl out on their hands and knees.'36 A unique point in Homer's version, however, apparently has gone unnoticed: only here do we find two methods of escape in the same story: (i) clinging to sheep and (2) being tied to sheep. Before going further, we should note all the variations in the folktales on this point:

(i) covered with an animal skin (nearly always a sheepskin): (a) sheepskin (rarely goatskin): 6i versions.'37 (b) oxhide: H.66, io6. (c) dog's skin: F.i8. (d) pigskin: H.36.

(2) clinging to live animals: (a) sheep: 9 versions.I38 (b) ox: H.86.

13S Cf. D.4a, where we fuid the "Nobody"-trick, but no cry for help; here the other giants simply happen to come upon the scene, but they walk away when the blinded giant tells them that "Nobody" injured him.

136 See Germain 74-75, Page I3, and Rohrich 63. I37 F.I, 2, 4-7, 9, I2, 2I-23, 25, 27, 32-36; G.a-d; H.s, 6, 9-II, I5, i6, I8, 27, 29,

33, 34, 37, 45-48, 63-65, 68, 7I, 72, 78-82, 85, 89, 90, I04, I05, I07, IIO, II2, II5, II9,

I20. I38 F.I9, 24, 28; H.50, 52, 57, 59, 67, 75.



i68 JUSTIN GLENN II97I

(3) crawling under live sheep: 6 versions.I39 (4) tied to sheep: 6 versions (F.I6, H.6o-62, 76, ioi). (S) wearing a sheepskin coat: S versions (F.io; H.47, 48, 53, 73). (6) riding on the back of sheep: D.4b; H.77, 87 (cow).

We may readily accept Page's explanation for Homer's not following the common method of the folktales.I40 Most of these versions which use the sheepskin, as he points out, have the hero himself skin the sheep; this is an awkward detail, to say the least, since he supposedly is hiding from the giant all this time. We might also note that while Homer's method of escape has been called undignified,I4I it is im- measurably more dignified than having the hero take the usual posture of crawling out on his hands and knees under a sheepskin. All the methods, in various degrees, presume considerable stupidity on the part of the giant. On the whole, Homer's story in this respect is less flagrant than any other alternative except probably group (3). The poet might well have followed this much simpler device and had the Greeks crawl out under the sheep. Why not? Any answer we attempt, of course, is pure speculation. One ever-present possibility is simply that his method was part of the story as he found it. Another is that he again chose an alternative that would display the ingenuity of his hero. Presumably this is also the point in taking the precaution of tying three sheep together, a detail absent in all of the folktales. Similarly, the unique combination of two methods of escape illustrates a quality of leadership in Odysseus which is missing in the folktales. Odysseus makes the ordeal considerably easier for his men, while he undergoes much more hardship in his arduous task of clinging to the ram without support.

Finally, we may note that a few folktales explicitly refer to the prodi- gious size of the sheep, while Homer is silent on this point. We find the sheep described as being as big as colts (F.I9), asses (F.28), and oxen (F.34). In the Odyssey the sheep are obviously huge, since they carry out a man with no trouble at all. But by not making their size explicit Homer gives a freer rein to his audience's imagination and at

'39 D.4a; F.29; H.42, 64, 88, II4 (apparently). 140 Page I3-14. '4' Peachy (above, note I3) 133.




the same time he follows his usual practice of deemphasizing the supernatural aspects of the story.

While Page has pointed to a very likely motive for Homer's avoiding the sheepskin alternative, we should also note that the Homeric method of escape has a very positive literary advantage. It makes possible one of the most memorable scenes in the story, Polyphemus' address to his ram, to which we now turn.

2I. The giant addresses his ram (9.446-60) This detail deserves special attention, since it is not discussed by Page,

Germain, or R6hrich. In all, nine folktale versions contain addresses to animals (usually a ram, rarely a goat), and three versions (F.4, 34, 36) contain more than one. These addresses fall into three categories:

(i) The giant thinks that the hero (under a sheepskin) is a real sheep and addresses him gently: 7 versions.'42

(2) The giant realizes that the hero is under the sheepskin and mocks him: F.2I, 36; H.37.

(3) As in the Odyssey, the giant addresses an animal gently: F.2, 24, 36. Finally, there are two special cases which do not strictly relate to Poly- phemus' address to his ram, but which perhaps deserve mention here:

(4) The giant goes around asking his animals where the hero is hiding; one ram reveals the hiding place, "but the giant does not understand him:" H.76.

(5) The ram addresses the hero, warning him that the giant will eat him (the hero) on the next day and advising him to cling to his fleecy belly and escape: H. II 7.

On the whole, these addresses are very brief. The most elaborate in group (i), for example, is F.34, which runs:

"You are Gurshi," said the giant to the supposed ram as he felt him, "go my clever beast, go and guard the flock till evening, and drive them home. Alas! I'm blind, but I'll punish him who has outwitted me." So saying he stroked the back of the supposed ram and let him out. Thus Urysmag [the hero] escaped and he waited till the whole flock was out. Then he cried "And here I am after all, you blind donkey!"

At first glance this may show certain affinities to the address in Homer.

142 F.2, I2, I3, 25, 34, 36; H-39.




Both are delivered in an affectionate tone, and both close with the theme of revenge. These similarities, however, are only superficial, for the function of the address in the two stories is completely different. In the Homeric version, where the giant really is addressing his pet ram, there is a clear element of pathos which is undoubtedly inten- tional. In the folktale, on the other hand, the whole scene is simply ludicrous and designed to make the giant appear more stupid than ever. This is equally true of all the other six versions in group (i) above.

Group (2) is more straightforward: the giant is aware that the hero is lurking under the sheepskin, and he mocks him in one of two ways. The first, of which F.36 provides the most detailed example, portrays the giant mocking the hero as if he were a ram:

The giant guessed that Basat [the hero] was inside the skin, and he said, " 0 white-faced ram, you found out what part of me had to be attacked to bring about my ruin. I shall strike you against the cavern wall so hard that the cavern will be greased with the fat of your tail." Basat pushed the ram's head forward into the giant's hand. Tepegoz [the giant] seized it firmly by the horns and jerked it upwards. The horns and skin came away from his hand, and Basat slipped out between his legs and escaped from the cave.I43

The other way, exemplified only by F.2I, is much more direct and briefer. The giant becomes suspicious and notices that the sheepskin is loose. Then he says: "Ah, little Christian, ah, you cur! Just wait a bit." Here, as in the former example, the hero slips away leaving the giant holding the sheepskin. While this group of addresses does not reduce the scene to ludicrous levels, it still makes no attempt at pathos. It is simply a device to heighten the tension of the escape.

The third group, like the Odyssey, depicts the giant making a gentle address to a real animal. F.2, like most of the addresses, is very brief. Here the hero lets the goats out one by one; the giant caresses one and says, " There you are, you shaggy white goat, and you see me, but I see you not." Here, of all the folktales, we probably do have a half- hearted attempt at pathos. I say "half-hearted" because this brief

'43 Quoted from the more detailed version of this story given by Mundy (I) 286.



A VoI. I02] HOMER S KYKLOPEIA I7I

glimpse is immediately followed by the ludicrous scene which we quoted above: the giant addresses the disguised hero in the mistaken belief that he is a ram. The second case of a gentle address to a real animal comes in F.34. Here, uniquely, the brief address comes at the beginning of the story. The hero tries at the outset to capture one of the giant's huge grazing rams, but the animal instead draws him to the giant. As the ogre captures the hero, he says to his ram, " 0 Bodsol, I thank you for procuring me a right good roast." Obviously, there is nothing approaching pathos in this scene of the successful giant and his overgrown collaborator. Finally, F.36 is very similar to F.2. Here again we first have a very brief, gentle address to real animals: " 0 he-goats, leaders of the flock, come and pass one by one," followed by "0 lambs, and you, 0 white-faced ram, my pride, come and pass." 144 There is again a superficial resemblance to Homer in that there is a single ramwhichwas thegiant's favorite. But any chance for pathos in this scene is immediately lost in the sarcastic and much lengthier address to the disguised hero Basat, which was just quoted above.

On the whole, I think it most likely that Polyphemus' address to his ram is, in fact, Homer's creation. But we should not exclude the possibility that Homer's source, like the nine folktales we have just considered, had included already some sort of address to an animal. The interest and value of the folktales are that they show what sort of address tends to be incorporated into those few versions where it appears at all. The address is almost always ludicrous or sarcastic, and directed to the hero disguised in a sheepskin, not to the animal itself. A reasonable conclusion would be: (i) the address is very rare in the folktales and is most likely Homer's creation in the Odyssey; (2) but if the address was already a part of Homer's traditional material, it probably took the form there of a ludicrous or sarcastic address to the disguised hero. In any event, the address to the ram in the Odyssey stands out in strong contrast to the folktales by its skillful and memorable touch of pathos, its truly human glimpse of the giant who utters it.

I44 Here I follow my usual practice of taking F.36 not from Frazer, but rather from Mundy's much fuller and more recent account of the same story (Mundy [I] 283-87); this particular scene is found on p. 285.




22. Odysseus drives off the giant's flock (9.462-66) Two completely conflicting views of this incident have been advan-

ced independently by Page and Merkelbach. The former remarks:

We notice further that the original purpose of Odysseus' expedition had been to obtain provisions for the fleet (225 ff.): the device employed here to extricate the survivors fulfils at the same time that expectation; they take back to the fleet the sheep which had rescued them. The entire story of Polyphemus is most carefully constructed and most firmly settled in its place among the adventures of Odysseus.145

Merkelbach, on the contrary, thinks that this incident is entirely unsatisfactory. In our version, he argues, the Greeks have no reason to take time to herd the sheep to the ship. This delay was dangerous and completely pointless: the near-by island to which they were returning offered them plenty of food.146

The folktales offer only eight examples of the escaped hero(es) driving off the giant's flock.147 While they are hardly conclusive evidence on this point, in none of them do the escaped men have a particularly evident need of supplies. Turning to Page's and Merkel- bach's arguments, I believe that we may reject them both as they stand. Page cites 9.225 ff. as evidence that Odysseus and his men were seeking provisions for the fleet, but the text does not bear out Page's point. The scene here occurs when the men have already reached the cave. It is true that here they plead with Odysseus to scoop up the cheese and drive off the herd, and not to wait for the cave's resident to return. This is the natural behavior of the type of freebooters who had plun- dered the Cicones. But this food came into the picture only after the men reached the cave; there is no indication whatsoever that their original objective was supplies for the fleet.148 Merkelbach, on the other hand, is quite right in pointing out that there was evidently an abundance of food on the island, but in his excessively rigid logic he has neglected the psychological situation of the hero. Odysseus, we recall, publicly told his men that he was setting out to see what sort

I45 Page I4. 146 R. Merkelbach, Unterstichungen zur Odyssee (Munich 195I) 2I3. '47 D.4b; F.9, I9, 23, 33, 34; H.IO4, IIO. 148 Cf. E. Abrahamson, "The Adventures of Odysseus," CJ 5i (I956) 3i6, and Rein-

hardt (above, note 86) 65.



, A Vol. 102] HOMER S KYKLOPEIA 173

of men lived in the near-by land (9.173-76). He admitted later to the Phaeacians that he was also in search of a guest-gift (9.229). In the first instance, it was bad enough to return to the main body of his men after he had lost six of their companions in the process of satisfying his curiosity. And further, to have done this and then to have returned empty-handed would have been doubly disgraceful and disappointing. Finally, the description of the escape to the ship with the flock is very brief and everything goes quite smoothly. If there was any additional danger incurred, the poet gives us no chance to dwell on it.

23. Odysseus provokes the giant, who throws rocks at the ship (9.475-543) Mocking the giant after the escape occurs in thirty folktales, and it

is usually accompanied by some sort of retaliation which is harmful or at least dangerous to the fleeing hero:

(i) The giant throws a magic ring (or ax, etc.) to the hero: iS versions.'49 (2) No retaliation: IO versions.I50 (3) The giant throws rocks at the ship: F.i6, 33; H.iio. (4) The giant sends a huge dog after the hero: H.I6. (S) The hero is killed: H.9.

If we restrict ourselves to the twenty-three stories with maritime settings,'5' we find that in six of these the giant (often with the help of other giants) throws stones at the departing heroes. In three of these (F.i6, 33; H.i io) the heroes provoke the giant by mocking him; in the other three (F.3o, 32; H.I4) there is no provocation.

In summary, thirty of the I2S versions depict the hero provoking the giant after he has escaped, and usually he has cause to regret it later. This suggests a clear possibility that, as Stanford cautiously has suggested, this incident was part of the tradition that Homer was following. This would then be at least part of the explanation for Odysseus' rather puzzling imprudence.I52 Our task now is to step back and to view a large and complicated problem which centers on the possible relationship between several Homeric and folktale motifs: the rocks thrown by the giant, the guest-gift, and the magic ring (or

'49 F.I, 2, 6, 7, 9, io; H.s, IO, II, 26, 5o, 6i, 62, 64, 77. N.B.: the magic ring (ax, etc.) will be considered below in incident 25.

I50 F.I3, 34; G.a; H.27, 33, 39, 42, I04, I07, II3.

'5' See above, note 58. 152 See above, note 86.




ax, etc.). This problem perhaps may best be approached from two different ends: the curse of Polyphemus in the Odyssey and the magic ring in the folktales.

24. Polyphemus curses Odysseus (9.526-36) C. S. Brown'53 has treated this subject recently in some detail and

with considerable attention to the folktale versions, so that we may best begin with a summary of his findings and conclusions. As he points out, the name and the curse have gone virtually unnoticed in discussions of the story, and they both play almost no role in the folktales. Brown finds only three cases where the hero gives his name and I have not been able to add to these:154

(i) After the hero Basat has escaped, the giant asks him his parents' name, his own name, and his home. Basat complies, but nothing harmful results (F.36). (2) and (3): Two nearly identical versions (F.33; H.iio) relate that two heroes escape to their ship and then call out their names to the giant. Once again, no curse follows.

After showing the uniqueness of the Homeric version in this regard, Brown proceeds to argue convincingly that the name and the curse in Homer are to be associated closely. He cites numerous anthropological parallels in Frazer's Golden Bough illustrating a widespread name- tabu, which holds that to tell one's name to someone is to put oneself into the hands of that person.155 Brown thinks that this is precisely the same phenomenon that is at work in Homer's story: Odysseus " reveals his name, and thus makes it possible for Polyphemus to lay a curse on him. In pronouncing this curse, the Cyclops even pedanti- cally repeats the name, the father's name, and the address, in Odysseus' exact words, to make sure that his imprecation is viable and accurately aimed." I56 This general observation was made independently by C. R. Beye:

I53 See above, note i. I54The following are all from the group of tales corresponding to Hackman Group

A. Brown I98 also notes that in the "Nobody"-"Self" group (=Hackman Groups B and C) there is another tale which makes use of the hero's name (H.I94), but here too the curse is lacking.

I55 See Brown i95-99. I56 Brown I96; on the question of the authenticity of Od. 9.53 I, see Brown 200-20I.



A

VoI. I 02] HOMER S KYKLOPEIA I75

As a man of many turns no one can lay a hand on him. When he is asked to identify himself by his host after having been received hospitably, he generally contrives a fake identity, which he will often offer in a lengthy and embellished form. The primitive attitude behind this is that the man who knows your name has power over you. The clearest manifestation of this in the Odyssey is the Polyphemos episode. Odysseus tells the Cyclops his name is Nobody, thereby rendering Polyphemos' cry for help futile ... but once Odysseus truly identifies himself, Polyphemos can pray to Poseidon to ruin Odysseus, which the god almost does.I57

Before I966, when Brown's and Beye's studies both appeared, the connection between the name and the curse seems to have been suggested only vaguely, such as in Stanford's comment "perhaps... Polyphemus needed to know O.'s name to curse him effectively." I58

The sequence of events in the exchange between Odysseus and Poly- phemus-as well as the actual wording of the curse-strongly incline me to agree with Brown's and Beye's attempt to link closely the name and the curse. Learning Odysseus' name, then, seems to have enabled the Cyclops to call upon Poseidon to punish this particular enemy. In contrast to the concept of the name-tabu, however, the giant himself did not obtain personal, magic control over the man who revealed his identity. Further, this by no means rules out additional factors behind Odysseus' shouting his name to Polyphemus. Aristotle suggests an often-cited reason for this action (Rhetoric 2.3.13 8oB22): C0S oV TET'q-t-

p77(LEVO& El /i)9 7UETO KaL v+' oi5 KaL dvO' o'rov. Among modern scholars Peachy also suggests a psychological reason: ". . . after being under such pressure of resonsibility and almost unendurable restraint, the man has to let off steam and reassert himself, even if he gambles with his safety." I59 Finally, Clarke recently has taken a slightly different psychological approach, citing the distinctive heroic mentality of Homer's world:

That "My name is Nobody" ploy was fine to help Odysseus escape, but though Greek heroes may exist by their wits they live by their reputations. With a hazy view of the next world, they preferred to think that true immortality was provided by the songs and stories told of what one

I57C. R. Beye, The Iliad, the Odyssey, and the Epic Tradition (New York I966) i8o-8i. I58 Stanford, Odyssey (above, note 78) ad 9.504. I59 Peachy (above, note I 3) 120.



176 JUSTIN GLENN [1971

achieved in this life. So Odysseus now does everything but spell his name ... Usually we think of Odysseus as tricky, cautious, prudent ... This is true, but more important is his hard egoism, his sense of identity, his pride in being himself and making sure everyone, particularly his defeated enemies, knows it. In the heroic ethic pride is a great virtue, and here Odysseus risks all to exercise it.160

All of these views, ancient and modern, are not contradictory or mutu- ally exclusive; on the contrary, we may reasonably regard each of them as containing part of the truth and shedding light from different angles on the behavior of Odysseus at this point and the relation between the name and the curse.

Unfortunately, Brown carries his conclusion to an extreme when he attempts to explain the violation of this primitive name-tabu in terms of the Greek concept of hybris:

The idea of hybris and the punishment that follows it is a basic one in the Odyssey ... It is usually assumed that Odysseus' jeer to the effect that not even Poseidon will heal Polyphemus' eye (9.523-25) is an act of blasphemy for which he is punished, though Antisthenes and some scholiasts attempt to explain the statement away as a jurisdictional quibble based on the fact that Poseidon is not a god of healing. If the power of the name is assumed, however, then for Odysseus to give his name to Poseidon is, though not an act of blasphemy, an instance of hybris even more outrageous than the belittling of Poseidon.I6I

In his concluding sentence Brown goes so far as to say, "In the same way that the Iliad is about the wrath of Achilles, the Odyssey is about the hybris of Odysseus." I62 This startling attempt to equate hybris with a primitive superstition and then to propose them as the kernel of the Odyssey seems to me completely misguided; there is nothing in the text of the epic to support it. Also highly dubious is the view of Belmont that the sufferings of Odysseus are mainly the consequence of a breach of xenia in the Cyclops episode:

... if Polyphemus has violated his obligations as host, so has Odysseus shown less than proper regard for his role as guest, and it is this one 'violation' of xenia by Odysseus-one for which he is responsible only

160 H. W. Clarke, The Art of the Odyssey (Englewood Cliffs, N.J. I967) 57. 161 Brown I99-200. 162 Brown 202.




because of the neccssary turn of events-which keeps him from home for so many years, due to the wrath of Poseidon of which we are advised as early as I.20.163

These theories, I believe, go needlessly far afield. There is absolutely no indication in Homer that the wrath of Poseidon stems from any moral consideration (boasting, breach of xenia, hybris, etc.). On the contrary, when Athena gives Odysseus some "straight talk" upon his return to Ithaca, she tells him explicitly (I3.34I-43):

aAAa -rot OV3K EcWE'A7cra IToIEtWaYvt ptaXEcYOat 7TaTpOKaortyv-LTCY , 05 Tot IOTOV EVOETO OV/,

XCouIEV0 Os oTt vtovLoY cfJt'Aov E'caAcaW s.

According to the poet himself then-for at this point there is no reason to suppose that Athena is misleading Odysseus-Poseidon is angry simply because Odysseus blinded his son.'64 This straightforward

acAAa HoacEta6v yat7-oXos- a7KEAEs aiEv KvKAw7ToS- KEXoA'Af-rat, ov dq0aApkoi aAacaevE...

statement undermines, I believe, all attempts to seek elsewhere for a justification of Odysseus' sufferings. Finsler is on solid ground when he observes:

[Poseidon's wrath] wird auch nicht mit jenern vermessenen Worte [sc. 9.5251 sondern mit dcr Blcndung selbst motiviert, einer personlichen Beleidigung des Gottes in seinem Sohne, wic Apollon in der Person des Chryses beleidigt wird.I65

25. The giant throws the hero a magic object which nearly destroys him; is there a trace of this in the Odyssey ?

Many of the folktales conclude with an episode which is apparently absent from the Odyssey. After the hero has escaped, he frequently mocks the giant and draws a strange reply. The ogre pretends to admit defeat graciously and throws a gift to the hero. This usually takes the form of a ring or ax, and in all cases it is magical and almost

I63 Belmont (above, note I I i) I72. In fairness to Belmont, however, we should note that he qualifies this immediately by assigning Odysseus' sufferings also to "the hero's arrogance at the end of the story" and to "Polyphemus' prayer and curse."

I64 Cf. Od. I.68-69: I65 G. Finsler, Homer3 2 (Leipzig and Berlin I924) I79.



178 JUSTIN GLENN [197I

leads to the hero's destruction. Once he has put the ring on his finger or has taken hold of the object, he finds himself forced by its magic either to return to the giant as if drawn by a magnet, or to yell "Here I am! " thus guiding the giant to him. In desperation he finally uses a knife to cut off his finger(s) and thus escapes. In all, thirty-eight folktales end with this magic-ring episode (as it is called); the object takes several forms, but its magical effect is always the same:I66

(i) ring: i8 versions,I67 (2) ax or hatchet: i5 versions.I68 (3) staff: F.9; H.54. (4) sword: H.6o, 62. (5) white stone: H.I2I.

The first question which this episode raises is whether it is to be regarded as an original or at least very ancient part of the story. A few folklorists have attempted to supply an answer by studying the geographical distribution of the versions, their dates, etc., but unfortunately no consensus has emerged. HackmanI69 and RdhrichI70 have regarded the magic-ring motif as an original part of the tale, while Van Gennep'7' and MundyI72 have considered it to be a late addition. Neither side's position strikes me as clearly convincing, and so I reluctantly leave this important question under a verdict of non liquet.

We now turn to the three attempts which have been made to connect the magic-ring ending of the folktales with some part of the ending of Homer's story. First, CookI73 and R6hrich'74 cautiously have suggested that Homer may have transformed the magic gift into the rocks which Polyphemus throws at Odysseus' departing ship. It is extremely difficult, however, to find a clear trace in the text to confirm such a strange metamorphosis; Cook and Rohrich, at any rate, do not

166 In two exceptional cases (F.36; H.37), however, the magic ring appears in a different and distorted context; on F.36 see Mundy (I) 289-90.

167 F.i, 2, 4-8, IO; H.5, 6, IO, II, 26, 50, 78-8I. 168 F.io; H.46, 47, 53, 6i, 63, 64, 68, 72-77, io8. 169 Hackman I77 ff. 170 Rbhrich 65. 171 Van Gennep (above, note I3) I6I-63. I72 Mundy (I) 289-94. 173 Cook (II) 989, note 5. 174 Rbhrich 65.



Vol. 102] HOMER S KYKLOPEIA 179

cite any. Second, Page derives at least some support from the text for his cautious suggestion that the magic-ring ending may have been known to Homer and may have left a trace in Polyphemus' second promise of a guest-gift:

In Dolopathos the giant drew a ring from his finger and said 'Take that for a reward, for it is not meet that a guest should go without a gift from a man like me.' In Frazer's no. 8 the giant says 'Come here and fear not; at least take a keepsake.' Compare with these (and others of the same kind) the unlikely words assigned to the Cyclops (5I7, cf. 229, 356): 'Come hither Odysseus, that I may set guest-gifts before you.' Odysseus is at this moment on the high seas; there is not the faintest possibility that he will put back to shore for a souvenir, and his reply ignores the invitation. It is an obvious possibility that the Cyclops' words are a rudiment of the ring-sequel, included here because everybody knew that the giant always said something like this at this moment of the story.'75

Third, Brown has proposed that Polyphemus' curse is Homer's equiva- lent of the magic ring:

Like the ring, the curse enables the giant to pursue his escaped tormentor and to inflict new perils upon him. The rings leads to the immediate dangers and quick resolution required by the short tale: the hero cuts off his finger and gets away, often throwing the ring and finger into the sea or a chasm and thus leading the giant to destroy himself in his pursuit of it. The curse is more appropriate to the epic. It cannot be removed by any physical means, but must work itself out to the point of death or reconciliation. 176

Page's theory seems to me by far the most convincing attempt to relate the magic-ring ending to Homer's own version. Even here, however, we should use caution and note that Page himself prudently refers to his suggestion as only a possibility.

In summarizing our findings, we should keep in mind Carpenter's warning that when dealing with folklore we generally can strive only for probability, not certainty.'77 We restrict ourselves, then, to those

75 Page I9, note 15. 176 Brown 20I-2. 77 Carpenter (above, note 34) I52.



I8O JUSTIN GLENN [1971

trends in Homer's version which seem especially well established by the contrasting light of the folktales.I78

i. Page was obviously correct in his general observation that in Homer's tale "the supernatural element is deliberately suppressed and obscured."I79 This was most notably evident in the description of Polyphemus (8 and 9) and the absence of the magic ring (25). It was also evident to some extent in the approach to the land of the Cyclopes (1), the device for separating the hero from the rest of his fleet (3), the description of the cave (6) and the size of the sheep (20), and the absence of a magic potion (15).

2. In comparison with the folktales, Homer depicts a hero unusually resourceful in unusually difficult circumstances. This was evident in the unparalleled guile which the giant employs in attempting to capture the rest of Odysseus' crew(l 2); the hero is faced with a seemingly inescapable trap and insoluble dilemma (1 0 and 13); the wine-trick, never used by the hero of the folktales, immobilizes the Cyclops during the attack (1i): the weapon for the blinding is not, as in most folktales, ready-made, but must be fashioned and concealed (1 8): there is a group of giants in the vicinity, apparently ready and willing to help Poly- phemus, but they are cleverly removed by the "Nobody "-trick (1 6). Finally, Odysseus' clinging to a ram, after making his men's plight easier, is unparalleled and marks him as a solicitous, resourceful, and strong leader (20).

3. Turning to Polyphemus himself, we find two features deserving special attention. First, his contempt for the gods is a peculiarly Homeric (or at least peculiarly Greek) addition to the story. In the folktales this element is present only in extremely few and obviously late versions (11). In Polyphemus this trait is a distinctive and memo- able aspect of his character. Second, Homer notably adds a new dimension, a touch of pathos and humanity, to the giant; this was lacking completely in his folktale counterpart. At the moment of his agony, Polyphemus is completely isolated by the "Nobody"-trick; this is a reversal of the usual roles of the hero and giant in the story (2 and 16). The stage is then set for a touch of pathos in the later scene where

178 N.B.: all italicized numbers in parentheses below refer to the twenty-five incidents treated above.

179 Page 9.



Vol. 102] HOMER S KYKLOPEIA i8i

this " loner," now even more isolated, addresses his ram, the one thing in the world which he loves and which in some way reciprocates his affection (21). These distinctively Homeric contributions to the giant allow us to speak of Homer's Polyphemus as a convincing literary character, as opposed to the monotonous, pasteboard ogre who con- stantly recurs in the folktales.



the polyphemus folktale and homer's kyklôpeia

Documents