Beidelman on Simmel and Mauss

8/8/2019 Beidelman on Simmel and Mauss

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/beidelman-on-simmel-and-mauss 1/34

!"#$%&'%()*+(,-$"./)0#1.2%()3.(%42#(%'5)-$6)',.)0.2%'-".)#7)8%11.9)-$6):-;&&

!;',#2<&=/)>?)@?)A.%6.91-$8#;2(./)B;9';2-9)!$',2#4#9#"5C)D#9?)EC)F#?)G)<!;"?C)HIJI=C)44?)KKLMKNIO;P9%&,.6)P5/)A9-(QR.99)O;P9%&,%$")#$)P.,-97)#7)',.)!1.2%(-$)!$',2#4#9#"%(-9)!&&#(%-'%#$8'-P9.)S3T/)http://www.jstor.org/stable/656460

!((.&&.6/)HEUVHUKVVI)HV/EJ

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless

you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you

may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained athttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=black.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed

page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1995 to build trusted digital archives for scholarship. We work with the

scholarly community to preserve their work and the materials they rely upon, and to build a common research platform that

promotes the discovery and use of these resources. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Blackwell Publishing and American Anthropological Association are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize,

preserve and extend access to Cultural Anthropology.

http://www.jstor.org

http://www.jstor.org/stable/656460?origin=JSTOR-pdf

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

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

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

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

http://www.jstor.org/stable/656460?origin=JSTOR-pdf



Agonistic Exchange: Homeric Reciprocityand the Heritage of Simmel and Mauss

T. 0. Beidelman

Faculty ofArts andSciences, Departmentof AnthropologyNew YorkUniversity

Whatevertmaybe,Ifear heGreeks, venwhen heybring ifts.-Virgil, Aeneid

Greekswouldneverproduce Jewish-typeomedian.To laughatyourselfs to givesomethingway ornothing.

-A Greek riend

Thirty-fiveyearsago the late M. I. Finley (1962) called attention o the in-

sights thatanthropologyand sociology could provide classicists seeking to un-

derstandHomericsociety. Finley drewuponthe work of Mauss to describeHo-mericexchange. Today manyclassicists cite not only Mauss and Durkheimbut

examplesof Melanesianbig-men, the Nuer, the Dinka, questionsabout the rise

of the nation-state,andthe predictable tructuralistegerdemainof Levi-Strauss

and Leach (Finley 1985:xiv). Yet one must searchfar for references to ancient

Greek material n currentAmericanandBritishsocial anthropology.'So far, in-

terdisciplinaryertilizationbetween classics and social anthropology ppearsone-

sided. This articleaims to bringsome classical issues intosharper nthropologicalfocus. I furtherhopeto show how these datamayinformandrefine hinkingabout

key anthropologicalssues. To do so I continuealong the pathset by Finley andvaluablyadvancedby Donlan, Qviller, Morris,Segal, Gould, and other contem-

poraryclassicists influencedby social anthropology.For this article thatpathin-

volves the topicof exchangeor reciprocityand its relationto the constructionof

thesocial person.

Finley clearly owed his insights to Mauss, and I begin with that seminal

thinker. I thenproceedto an equally powerfulandoriginalanalystof exchangeignoredby classicists andmost anthropologists,Georg Simmel. I brieflyreviewbothMauss and Simmeland thenapplytheirinsightsto some Homericmaterial.

To do so I firstprovidea brief overview of Homericsocietyandbeliefs regardingexchangeandthen consider four specific examples in moredetail, two fromtheIliad and two fromtheOdyssey.I conclude witha few suggestionsas to what this

maytellusaboutexchangeand thepersonand the valueof Mauss's andSimmel's

insights.

227



228 CULTURALANTHROPOLOGY

Mauss and Simmel

Maussargued or a broader onstruction o ournotionsaboutexchange, ob-servingthatit should be viewed in termsof totalsocial phenomena.What is less

generallyrecognized s that Mausssaw prestationsof thingsas integral o the so-cialconstruction f theperson(1954:2). Unfortunately,Maussdichotomizedmis-

leadinglybetweencontrasting ategoriesof completetrustanddistrust n archaic

societies, maintaining hatexchanges such as gift giving were pursuedbecause

they successfully domesticatedwarfare nto benevolent trade.Mauss's concep-tionof "agonisticexchange," which he laterapplied o Melanesiansandpotlatch-ing Amerindians,appears o have developed from an earlierpaperon exchange

devotedto Greek material.Yet Maussappearsawarethat even duringseeminglycordialreciprocity,tensions remain:"The form usuallytakenis that of the giftgenerouslyoffered;butthat the accompanyingbehaviour s formalpretenceandsocial deception" (1954:1). Perhaps f Mauss had remained onger with Greekmaterialhis modelwould havegainedmoreambiguityandambivalence.Hisbest

insighton thatscore is a remarkaproposof the one case he cites fromtheIliad,6:230-236. There, one hero exchangesgold armor or bronze on account of hismindbeingbefuddledby Zeus: "Ainsi les Grecs l'epopee homeriqueavaient vu

ces moeurs onctionner t les consideraient omme folles" (1969:38;see Redfield

1983:234).Farfromreflectingalienatedudgment,Homer's account s consistentwithGreek concernthatsupposedlyegalitarianreciprocation ould lead to hier-archicalrelationsstemmingfromtrickery,errorsof judgment,or coercion. It is,as Benvenisterightlyobserves, a "sociological illustration" 1973:81).

Simmel'smasterpieceon exchangeprecededMauss'sby over twenty yearsandrepresentsmoresustainedandcomplex analysis(1978[1904]), even thoughit promptedmisgivings from Weber (1972; Altman 1904). I devote dispropor-tionatelymoretime to it than to Mauss's work both because it is less well known

andbecauseit seemsparticularly ertinent o theGreekmaterial.Simmel's inter-

pretation onjuresup a sense of pathoscharacterizingproblematicrelationsbe-

tween personsand the objects which they exchange (1971:64). For Simmel nomannerof exchangeentirelyexpungesthetensionandstruggle nvolved in social

interaction.

For Simmel, economic exchange always involves both sacrifice(1971:45,

57) and resistance(1971:48); indeed, value derives from them. In this, Greek

trophiesresemble heantiquesand raregoods of whichSimmel writes: "It comes

to appear hatthey cost what they are worth" (Simmel 1971:65). Simmel, like

Mauss, connectsexchange and the objects involved to the personhoodof those

concerned.ExchangesbetweenGreek warriorsnicely characterizeSimmel's re-

alization hatcommerce, an attempt o objectifyvalue, wouldbe particularly e-pugnantto aristocratswho view properexchanges as profoundlypersonalized(1971:64). Greekexchange was between households(oikoi)centeredaboutpar-ticularpatriarchsoikodespotes).This is theoriginalmeaningof economy(oikon-

omia).Simmel stresses that reciprocalactivities of aristocratsmust be "survey-

able" (1950:90). Of course, this hardlymeans that such operationsare "open"



AGONISTICEXCHANGE 229

in termsof candor.Simmel, more thanmost social theorists,appreciates heman-

agementof publicimageor "face," so vital to Greeks,and withthis, theorches-

trationof cunningand deceit. "The personwho knowscompletelyneednottrust;while thepersonwho knowsnothingcanon no rationalgrounds,affordeven con-

fidence" (1950:318). Homer'sGreeks, andfor that mattermodemJapanese,tryto surmount his dilemma involving every nonkin and especially strangers,byinvolved prestationsand complex etiquette(see Simmel 1971:64). Such public

performances ncrease the social risks involved and consequentlythe need to

cloakoneself withdeception.Simmelrecognizesthat social exchange(sociation)

requires act(1950:45), but likeMauss he mayhaveunderplayedhe needforrisk.

Yet Simmel forcefully notes an element of sheer power adheringto exchange

(1950:392). LongbeforeMauss,Simmelsaw a giftas "an impositionof identity"(Schwartz1967:1), thoughnotingthateven in the most unevenexchangesthetwo

partiesmutually nfluenceone another.Simmel, like Mauss, recognizesthat be-

neathall exchangelies some agonisticsense: "exchangeis nothingmore thanthe

causally connected repetitionof the fact that an actor now has lost somethingwhichhe previouslydid have" (Simmel 1971:46). This requiresa reckoningof

values to determinewhetherwhat one has gained would be worthmore to one

thanwhat one has lost. Of course, deception, ignorance,andcompelling force

complicatesuchmattersas indeedtheydo for cases from Homer. Insomeof these

cases, the winnergains all and loses nothing, thoughhe mayhave risked much.

Homeric Greece: A Background

Theconstitutionof Homericsociety hasbeen intensivelydebatedsince Fin-

ley's famousstudy(1962), rangingfrom works arguingthatHomerportraysanunreal ocial worldto thosestruggling oresolve contradictions ndvagariesman-ifest in the epics so as to prove that Homeric society actuallyexisted (Adkins1963, 1969, 1971, 1972, 1975, 1982, 1987;Basset 1934;Calhoun1934;Donlan

1980, 1981, 1985;Finley 1957;Gargarin1987;Garland1984-86; Gates 1971;Geddes 1984; Held 1987; Lacy 1966; Lloyd-Jones 1987; Long 1970; Morris

1986a, 1986b;Murray1983;Post 1939;Qviller 1981;Redfield 1983;Schofield

1967;Snodgrass1974). Wheresome of these interpretations aveerred,this has

been particularlydue to projecting"modern" Western values and morals ontothismaterial,apointwell criticizedby Finleyand Adkins.2In thisarticleI assumethat Homerwrotewithdeep sociological insight. His workswere continuallyes-teemedby subsequentgenerationsof Greeksbecause he toucheddeeplyheld, en-

duringGreekvalues andideals that continue n parteven today(see Walcot 1970

and Plato'sRepublicX:606e). Some of thesevalues, involvingtensionsbetweenegalitarianism ndranking domination),characterizea social predicamentn allsocieties. The broad features of Homericsociety arefairlyclear. A few generalbeliefs andvalues accountfor the strategiesanddilemmasanimating he epics'protagonists.

Homericsociety is composedof myriadhouseholds(oikoi)headedby eldermales possessing allotted land (kleros), livestock, and treasureand comprising




subordinatekin, attachedfollowers, and slaves. Heads of various households

stroveto remainautonomousyet also strove to make advantageousalliances be-

tweenthemselvesandother households of comparablepoweranddignity, either

throughmarriageor prestations of goods, usually termed gift-host relations

(xeinie)orfriendship philotes).Alliances wereworthwhile f theyinvolved com-

parablehouseholds.3Men could bind outsidersto their householdsthroughgiftsof goods, slaves, land, or by marriage.Such prestationsconstitutedsigns (se-

mata)of the household's worth. Exchangefacilitated inks between equals at a

distance,but it also providedmeansby which seeming equalscould be subordi-

nated,by whichstrangers ould be domesticatedand dominatedand workersand

men-at-arms ecruited.

A household's wealth, land, warriors,and workersformed an interlinked

systemof production.Wealthand land supportedand attractedpeople. People

producedmore goods, and warriorsnot only defendedwhat one possessed but

allowed one to seize more. A small householdmightbe subordinatedo larger,richer,moreaggressiveneighborseitherthrough heassertionof a morepowerfulunitor because the head of the weakergroupthoughtit expedientto become a

client. Classicistshave developed a useful pictureof Homeric society that ap-

proximates he accretive and dissolving kin and client groupsmade famous in

ethnographies f Evans-PritchardndLienhardtwritingabout he Nuerand Dinka

of the southernSudan. Such households were unitedunderone male authority,but domestic affairsweremonopolizedby women. Furthermore,hereappears o

havebeenpotentialcontentionbetweenbrothersand some suggestionsof conflict

between womensuch as a wife anda concubine.

In Homericsociety therewere the aristocratsaristoi) meritingrespect(ai-

dos)4commensuratewith their excellence (arete). There were noble men (aga-

thos, good, brave).They were attractive esthlos), which was good or beautiful

(kalos).Not living upto these standards onstituted ailure(aischron)whichwas

ugly orbad(kakos),producingoverpowering hame(elencheie)anddeep, angry

emotion(thumos).Suchmen stroveto increase heirrespectthroughhonor(time)fromothers,hoped for divinely bestowed illustriousness(kudos), and sought a

shareof rewards geras) markingsocial acknowledgmentof their worth.

The termaristoishouldnotmisleadone to assumethatHomericsocietyhad

classes. Calhounrightlyobservesthatsucharistocratswerenotablesonly in "the

loosest sense of the word" (1934:308). These were open groupswhererankingwas constantlyup for challenge. One's ancestorscounted as did one's material

resources,but one's standingcouldbejeopardized, ost, orenhancedby victory,

defeat,improvidence, uck, orunacceptable onduct.Some writersreferto Ther-

sites, thesingle ugly andmean-spiritedwarriorn the Iliad (exceptingDolon), asa commoner.In fact, he was an aristes and son of a leader(basileus) who failed

to conducthimselfhonorably Feldman1947).Attachedto these aristocraticmen were subordinatekin and also unrelated

adherentsheterai)who, while aristocratic,wereautomatically ess distinguishedthantheirleader.There were also servantsand slaves. In this world work(erga)was not in itself bador shameful,yet it was demeaning o toil for another,espe-




cially for paymentsince this involved loss of autonomy.It was also demeaningto seek goods in commerce, though it was beautifuland noble to exchange re-sourcesvoluntarilyas in giving or receiving gifts, especially in celebratoryhos-

pitality Herman1987). Goods couldalso be obtained notherways besideslaboror gifts. Best of all was taking goods by force, as booty by sacking a town orhousehold andenslaving its inhabitantsor by strippinga slain opponent. Agon-isticcompetitioncould also involve trophies romathleticcontests, viewed as do-mesticatedcombat. Struggle (agon) demonstrated hat a winnerwas due greaterrespect(aidos) thana rival on account of his being powerful(karteros).Finally,resourcescould be honorablyobtainedby theft or trickery.These indicatedthatthetakerwas abetterman,at least so long asthe theft orswindle wasnotavenged.Aristocratic or heroic Greeks secured wealth through competitive freedom

(eleutheria),and the respecteach received was proportionateo the standingofthose with whom one contended.Each hero strove to win fame (kleos)befittinghis particular stimatedworth. Such strugglealso measuredmen's powerto pre-serve the sexual integrityof the women to whom they were connected, or to as-sault the integrityof competitors'women (Friedrich1977). One knew what re-

spectone was dueonly by contendinguntilmeetingone's match. Inthatway onediscoveredwhat one's allotment moira, fate)was worth. Bornanaristocrat,onestill hadto contendto maintainand definethatstanding.Of course, one vied only

withthosejudgedequalsor superiors n order o provethatone mightactuallybetheirbetter.Riffraff,slaves, andhangers-onhadno rightfulpart n suchagonisticchoreography.

It was extremely important o recognize with whom one exchangedfoods,

people, and deeds. Involvement within one's proximate social range insured

maintaining ankor its possible escalationat the expense of a competitor.Esca-lationwas proportionateo the reputationof a fallen protagonist.Consequentlyaristocratswere likely to be takenon by personswho considered hemselvestheir

equalsor betters.This was tacticallyacceptableprovidedthat the spectators n-

volved (and witnesses were vital) conceded that such rankingwas sufficientlyproximatehatanupsetmight ustifiablyoccur.No onecontendedpromiscuously,butpeople were forced to contend more often thanthey wished and with more

personsthanthey mighthave thoughtdecent. Contentionwas inevitablya resultof a compromisebetweenneed forpublicapprovalandneed forlowly contendersto be silenced. The public natureof the arena of contentionwas crucial. If onewasconfrontedby a manifest nferior,contentiononly demeanedone's standing.Consequently, he despised Thersites was denied any contest by Odysseus who

merelystruckhim with a scepterandthreatened o uncoverhis genitals(aidos,

respect, shame). Oftenwhen confrontedwith an inferior,the Homerichero lim-ited exchange to glowering at an opponent, to staringhim down (upodraidon,lookingdarkly,Holoka 1983).

Homeric Greeks drew their personhood, their social identity, from ex-

change, agonisticandotherwise. One knewone's rankandstandingby knowingwithwhomone received andgave women, with whom one exchangedgifts and

hospitality,what was bestowed to one from othersas rewards,andwith whom




one contended n warandsport.5To know oneself one hadto know responsiveothers.Eachbattleengagement n the Iliad constitutesa kind of personalrite de

passage in which each warriorannouncedhis name, lineage, and deeds to the

other.This insured hat one was not demeanedby contendingwith a patent nfe-

rior,butit also guaranteed hat one would know whatreputationand honor one

appropriated y slaying or, less often, capturingandransoming he other(Sale

1963;Schein 1984). In thissecondcase, keepinga hostageforransom nevitablyinvolvedlong-termhospitalityandpossiblegift-guestfriendship hatshouldonlyinvolve a worthyperson.

Given these difficulties,encounteringappearancesand identities that were

misleadingcould have grave consequences.ForAchilleusto have his friend Pa-

troklos slain while wearinghis, Achilleus's, armor,and thento contemplate he

slayer,Achilleus's archrival, Hektor,donningthatsame armor,involved more

problemsand loss thansimplythe deathof a friendandlover. The armor,inci-

dentally,originallybelongedto Achilleus's fatherso that t wasdoublyassociated

with a fatherly igure,Patroklosand Peleus (Finlay 1980). Similarly,lack of in-

formationabout someone's identity posed even more severe problems.This ex-

plainsthe difficulties nvolved in confronting trangers,whether heybe foreign-ersof seemingrankor beggars. Onecould not be sure whatrespect(aidos) theywere due. They could even be gods in disguise andindeedstrangerswere under

the protectionof Zeus (Bolchazy 1978; Levy 1963; Podlecki 1961). Theoxonywas auniversallyurgedbeliefandpractice.Lyinganddeceptionaboutone's iden-

tityand worthconstituted eriousdangers hathadto be reckonedwithif thepro-

tagonistswere to make shrewd udgmentsaboutwhat strategies o take (Walcot

1977a). The fate of Penelope's suitors illustrateswhere bad judgments about

seeminglypowerlessstrangersmightlead.

Much literatureon Homeric social organizationcontrastswell-knownand

less-knownpersons ntermsof "ours" and "others." Withina householdall free

membersarephiloi, meaningthose one loves or likes, friends, kin, or even in-

directlyone's possessions (Benveniste 1973:277-288). Yet conflict and deathwerepresenteven here, as biographiesof Agamemnon,Phoenix, and Patroklos

demonstrate Schlunk 1976; Scodel 1982). Outsidersare notphiloi unless theyaredistantkin, affines,orguest-giftfriends(xeinoi) (Herman1987). Greekswere

not supposedto contendwithphiloi. Yet Hermanobserves that the wordphiloicould mean"clients" as well.

For HomericGreekskinship nvolveddeep solidarityandrevelationof iden-

titybut also involvedrankedrelationsof age andgender.In the oikos thepeckingorderwas clear-cut. Outsidetheoikosproperagathoi were moreor less equal. It

is in this external, egalitarianspherethatone engaged in agonisticexchange inorder o maintainandaugmentone's name, one's dignity(aidos), throughaccu-

mulationof esteem (time). Exchangeinevitablyinvolved alteringequals to un-

equals.Both warlikeandpeacefulcompetitioncould leadto winnersor losersand

to clienthoodtakingon connotationsof parent-child r older-youngerbrotherre-

lationsresemblingrankwithin the household. Thus the termphiloi held impli-cationsof solidaritybutalso possible rankingas well. Not surprisingly,anthro-




pologists reportcomparableplay with kin termsamongNuerpatronsandDinka

clientsin settlements n the southernSudan.

I have so far describeda social worldof limited resourceswhereone protag-onist'sgainis another's oss. Unrelated qualsareperpetually ikely to be locked

in contentionwhere someone wins and anothermustlose. One must contendfor

honors anddignity, and to refuse to contend, if one is noble andyoung, is auto-

matically o lose. Incontrast, hosewho are related thoughconsequentlyranked)all share n a victory againsta memberof the othergroup.The subordinates, ol-

leagues, hangers-on,and even slaves of Odysseus'shouseholdriskloweringtheir

commonrespectandrightswith their master'sabsenceandthehumiliationof his

wife andson. Correspondingly, ll share n the benefitsof Odysseus'sreturnwith

victoryand wealth-except those who betrayedhim. To be sure, slaves at thebottom of the heap can expect meager measureof identityand recognition, as

comparedo his retainersor his son, buteven the slaveof a householdhasidentityandenjoys protectionvis-a-vis theoutsideworld, incorrespondenceo the house-

holdhe is in. Thus when Achilleus is conjuredupfromthe deadby Odysseus, the

worst status thathe can imagineto comparewith death is a transient aborer's

(thetes),unattached o a household and thereforedependentuponpayments rom

indifferent,unprotective trangers,Odyssey11:488-491. This remindsme of ex-

amples in Evans-Pritchard'sthnographywhere one Nuer criticizes anotherbe-

cause his fellow has beaten "his Dinka" client, whereas the patronNuer aloneclaims the rightto pickon such a dependent.For HomericGreeks a roguewould

bepanourgos, one who does everything. Only someone whose volition and thus

whose autonomyhas been erodedis forced so low. Boundto a particularhouse-

hold, even the slave has expectations, and a properhousehold would upholdthese.

Sucha systemof contentionrates riskhighly. Such honors arerelatedto the

rankand power of those one confronts, one maintainsor gains honor only by

confronting hose as highly rankedas possible yet so within strikingrangethat

one hopes one mightbeat them. No one gains by besting an utter inferior.Onegets somewhereonly by aiming high anddangerously, thougha miscalculation

wouldbe shameful,subordinating, reven fatal.Still, thehigher he rankof one's

vanquisher, he less disgracefulone's defeat will be. Obviously,one needs all theinformation necangetto estimatewisely one's prospectsat eachencounter.Riskis linkedwithsecrecy anddeception. Within a householdwhereeveryonesharesacommon ot, informations freelydisclosed. Outside,oneputs upa closed front

revealingonly whatis favorable. The problemof risky exchangemeansthatpro-tagoniststry to withholdas much unfavorable nformationabout themselves as

possible andseek to learnall that is unfavorableaboutoutsiders. Lying andde-ceptionareacceptable actics.Theyare forms of cunning(dolosormetis),another

weaponin the battleof contentiousexchange.

Despitethe importanceof eloquence, cunning, anddeception, none of this

contendingandposturingcounts for muchunless it is public. There must be wit-nesses to attestto the outcome. One's fame (kleos)dependson acknowledgmentandpraisefrom others, especially peers, those very personswith whom one is




mostlikely to contend. The good opinionsthat countmost would necessarilybemost grudginglybestowed. Praise from one's kin and underlingsis taken for

grantedunless one transgressed, or kin andfollowers share in one's glory-orloss. This public natureof exchanges, at assemblies, in battles, at great feasts,contestsandceremonies,addsconsiderably o the riskattendingattempts o score

pointsin thegameof honor and shame. To count, agonistic exchangesshould be

enactedbefore the mostcriticalaudienceandin such a waythatanyfailurewould

be so well knownthat enormouseffort wouldbe required if indeedit were pos-sible) to undoanyharmdone.

Envy (phtonos)andjealousy (zelos) arekey aspectsfor this system (Walcot

1978;cf. Schoeck 1987:146-152, 214). Envy involves the ill feeling we have

aboutwhat anotherpossesses. Jealousyinvolves rancoraboutlosing what we al-

readyhave to someone else. Greeks also sometimesemployedzelos moreposi-

tively, referring o strong feeling aboutlosing a possession to someone else on

accountof how valuable t was. Thisresembledboastingaboutwhat one had. All

thesenotions reflect the deep concernthat Greeksfelt regarding he good thingswhichthey mightwinorlose fromothersclaimingto be theirsuperiors.Envyand

jealousy were rootedin agonistic exchange among supposedequals whom one

hoped to put down. The Homericepics are essentiallyaristocraticn theirpre-

vailingvalues. Yet these and otherworks in latercenturiesdisplaya deepconflict

in all Greeksociety thatpits aristocraticanddemocraticprinciplesagainsteachother. Mencken could have been referring o ancientGreeks rather han modern

Americanswhen he remarked hat envy is an essential featureof democracy

(Mencken1955).The precedingaccountprovides little on Homericwomen. This is because

theydo notappeardirectly nvolved in thetopicathand,publicexchange. Leav-

ing aside variousgoddesses, women figureweakly in theIliad. Helen, Hecuba,

Kassandra,Brisseus,and Andromachearefiguresfor whom men contend.With

thedefeat of the men withwhomthey arelinked, they will ceremoniouslymourn

or will numberamongthe rewards(geras) bestowed to the victors. As womentheyarenot allowedpublicconductandconsequentlycannotengageinanyformal

exchange. Even in the Odyssey where more women appear, no fully mortal

women occur (can one considerHelen fully mortal?)outsideIthaka.While Pe-

nelopeandEurykleaarekey figuresthere, they aregrantedno publicexchange.

Penelope'sanomalousmaritalpositionmeritsconsiderableanthropological om-

ment but not in termsof this article.

The Homeric Epics

Literaturen theIliad andOdyssey s staggeringlyvast. SourcesthatI found

useful are Atchity (1978), Austin (1982), Claus (1975), Edwards (1987),

Eichholz(1953), JohnH. Finley (1978), Moses 1. Finley (1955), Gould(1975),

Griffin 1980), Heubecket al. (1988), Hohendahl-Zoetelief1980), King(1987),Kirk(1985), Motto and Clark(1969), G. Nagy (1979), Pedrick(1982), Pucci

(1987), Redfield(1975), Schein (1970, 1984), Stanford 1968), Stewart 1976),




Walcot(1977a, b), and Whitman 1965). Classicistswill findlittleinformationn

my articlethatis not alreadyconveyed in these works. Whatthis articlecontrib-

utes is castingsuch material nto a social anthropological ramework,as well as

developingarguments aisedby Mauss andSimmel.

The Homericepics maybe explained n termsof definingthepersonandthe

reciprocity mployedto do so.6 TheIliad opens proclaiming he wrathof theherowhose name,father,and social background reimmediatelymade clear. Heroes'

identities derive from those they defeat and the consequentrewardsthey reap.Achilleus'swrathstems frombeing insufficientlyrewardedas the hero hejudgeshimselfto be. He is sure thatthe respect(aidos) he is due exceeds the tokensof

recognition geras) which he receives, consequentlyimpairing he glory (kleos)he seeks. He believes thatneitherright-mindedmennorthegods couldcreditthistreatmentas justice (dike). The Iliad is aboutconflict and the demand for retri-

butivepayment poine) negotiatedto rectifyunjustrecognitionfor the person. Itis a poem of force (bie) (Weil n.d.) employedto seek fame at the priceof a safereturn nostos)home. Trouble arises because the protagonistsdiffer in assessingwhateach is dueandin theircapacitiesto enforcesuchjudgments.Itstragedy iesintheimplicitacknowledgment hatthegreatesthero mustdie to securethegreat-est glory.

Complementarily, he Odyssey is about a jeopardizedname and identity.

Truepersonhoodcan be achievedonly within the seeker'senrichedandglorifiedhouseholdfrom which he has been separatedand which outsiderstry to usurp.The unnamedhero wandersin a worldwhere he is unrecognized n both sensesof the term. To makemattersworse the regionshe visits presentvalues andsitu-ationsmaking t difficult for him to succeed. Unlike theIliad, the Odysseyopenswithholding hehero's identity.He is describedas a he-man(andros), multireac-tive (polytropos)and a navigator.Ittakes 21 lines beforewe learnhis name.Sub-

sequentadventuresreveal him as multireactive polytropos), infinitelycunning(polymetis)n lying and deceit (dolos), qualitieson whichhe is complimentedby

hisdisguisedmentor,thegoddessAthena,daughter f Metis(cunning).Odysseusboastfullyreveals his name to Polyphemus,the Cyclops, and he suffersthroughmuchof theepic on accountof thishubris.He reveals his name to thePhaeakians

only afterhe hasgood reason to trustthemandthey have promisedhim a shiptoreachIthaka.He returns o his familyandhome as a stranger,revealinghis iden-

tity in a bloodbath hatreclaims his rule andavenges his dishonor.TheOdyssey s anepic abouta herowhose identity s unknownandproblem-

atic andwhose social being is reattainedgradually hroughhis treatmentor mis-treatmentas a gift-deserving,nameless strangerat the mercyof others. "Odys-

seus'adventures re his lineage" (Benardete1963:13). Inthenegativereciprocityof his exploitsOdysseusearnshis namemeaning"causer of trouble"because his

aggressiverelationswithothersmake him remembered.7This is an epic about asuccessfulreturn nostos) securedby force andcunning.

Withthese broadcontrastsestablished, I examine in moredetail two situa-tions in each of the two epics. Besides illustratinghow complex and manifoldHomericreciprocitymay be, andhow closely it is tied to definitionsof person-




hood, these cases provideme with an opportunity o fill in furtherethnographicdetailson Homericbeliefs andvaluesgoverningstrategiesof reciprocity.If spacepermitted, extual illustrationscould be greatlyincreasedfor both epics aboundin suchmaterial.

The Iliad

My firstexamplerelatesto the crucialtheme of theIliad, Achilleus's wrath.

Achilleushasdemonstrated hat he is thebravest,most forcefulAchaean,at leastto his own satisfaction.After his victories,bootyhas beengiven to Agamemnon,

kingor leader(anax or basileus)of the armywho as custodianof divine custom

(themis)will divide and bestow wealth to the variousmen. Eachbestowal(geras)

is a rewardof honorrecognizinga man'saccomplishments r incitinghim to fu-ture deeds. In eithercase, the gift leads to obligation(chreios). Throughout he

Iliadindividualheroes strive to achieve honorthroughdeeds, butAgamemnon s

theacknowledgedpublicsourceforcreditingAchaeanexploits. Just as some Af-

ricanchiefs receive tribute hatthey then dole out in hospitalityandgifts to fol-

lowers, so too the Homeric leader assembles men at a communalfeast (dais) to

distributehonors o theoutstanding nes (exochoi). Thisprovidespublicfocus for

acknowledgmentand discredit. While Agamemnonis proclaimed eader of the

assembledwarriors laos) because he has the most and best numberof adherents,

Iliad 2:277, 380, events bear out that Achilleus and not he is the greatesthero,albeita "loner." Ideally, Agamemnonwouldpossessnotonly thewordsforjudg-ment andconferringhonor but also comparablebraveryand force.

Wordsand deedsshouldcoincide.Wordsare mportant ecognitionbutmust

be backedby deeds andgoods wherewrongsand rewardsare concerned. Charis

means both verbalgratitudeandmaterialreward.Payment,notjust verbalapol-

ogy, is vital as recompense(poine) to injury.Thus, Greeks, like Nuer, observe

thatbloodwealth s necessary;but like Nuertheyalsorecognizethatcompensationnever actuallymakes up fully for losses such as death, suffering, and shame.8

Payment s all thatis culturallyavailableif one rejectsviolence andseeks delib-eratedagreement euboulia)(Schofield1967).

Achilleus is wrathfulbecauseAgamemnonhastaken a captivewomanfrom

him in order o replaceanothercaptivethatAgamemnonwas forced to relinquishon account of the supernaturalnterferenceof Apollo. Agamemnon reminds

Achilleus thathe, Agamemnon,mustreplacehis own loss or be without a sub-

stantivesign(geras)of his paramount ankamongthe assembledwarriors laos):"thatyou mayknow well how muchI am honored pherteros) hanyou, andthat

anotherman too mayshrink romdeclaringhimselfmy peerandlikeninghimself

to me to my face" Iliad 1:185-187. Achilleuslatercomplainsthatsuchinjusticeoccurs "whenever aman wishes to despoil(amerdo)anequal(homoios)andtake

back his geras becausehe is superior n power (kratos)"Iliad 16:52. He rejects

Agamemnonas betterthan he. He claims that Agamemnonis neitherjust nor

braveandprevailsonly becausehe has the armybehindhim. Achilleus hasearlyon complainedaboutAgamemnon hat"there was no gratitude charis)given for

fighting ncessantlyforeveragainst yourenemies" Iliad 9:316-317.




Agamemnon has offered to replace the woman with other wealth, now or in

the future, but Achilleus has rejected this and sulks, refusing to fight, which seems

likely to lead to military disaster for the Achaeans and consequently proving to

everyone that indeed he is matchless as a warrior. Achilleus implies that because

he has at one time possessed the woman she is now incomparable, irreplaceable.After many difficulties, Achaeans put pressure upon Agamemnon to make a fur-

ther effort to assuage Achilleus's anger (thumos) by offering greater compensa-tion (poine). Agamemnon's speech nicely epitomizes the profound ambivalence

of such reciprocation. The payment itself is handsome, but the terms with which

it is conveyed continue guerilla warfare between the two men by still asserting

Agamemnon's superiority.Below is Agamemnon's speech to Nestor and the other Achaeans outlining

his terms of compensation to Achilleus:

Yet seeing I was blind, andyielded to my miserablepassion, I am minded to makeamends(apoina), and to give requitalpast counting. In the midstof you all let mename the glorious gifts (dor anomeno):seven tripodsthat the firehath not touched,and ten talents of gold andtwentyof gleamingcauldrons,and twelve stronghorses,winners n the race, that have won prizesby their fleetness. Not withoutbooty werea man,norunpossessedby previousgold, whoso hadwealth as greatas theprizesmysingle-hoovedsteedshave won me. And I will give seven women, skilled in goodly

handiwork,women of Lesbos, whomon theday when himself [Achilleus]took well-builtLesbos I chose me fromout of the spoil, and that in beautysurpassall women-folk. These will I give him and amidthem shallbe she thatI took away, the daughterof Brisseus;and I will furthermore wear a greatoath that never went I up into herbedneitherhad I dalliancewith her as is the appointedway of mankind,even of menandwomen. All these thingsshall be readyto his handforthwith;andif thereafter tso be the gods grantus lay waste the city of Priam,let him thenenterin, what timewe Achaeansbedividingthespoil, andheapuphis shipwith storeof goldandbronze,andhimself choose twenty Trojanwomen thatbe fairestafterArgive Helen. And ifwe return o AchaeanArgos, the richestof lands,he shall be my son, and I will honorhim even as Orestes that is rearedin all abundance,my son well-beloved. Three

daughters aveI inmy well-buildedhall, Chrysothemis,andLaodice,andIphianassa;of theselet him takeawaythe one he wouldlike as wife (phile) in thehouseof Peleus,withoutgifts of wooing (anahednon)andI will furthermore ive a dower(doso) full

rich, such as no man ever yet gave with his daughter.And even well-peopledcitieswill I give him, Cardamyle,Enope, andgrassyHire, and sacred Pheraeand Antheiawith deep meadows, andfair Aepeia andvine-cladPedasus.All arenigh to the sea,on the uttermostborderof sandyPylos and in them dwell men richin flocks andrichin kine, men thatshall honor him with gifts (dotines)as thoughhe were a god, andbeneathhis sceptreshall bringhis ordinances o prosperous ulfilment.All this will Ibringto pass for him, if he but cease from his wrath.Let himyield-Hades, I wean,is not to be soothed, neitherovercome, whereforehe is most hated of all gods. And

let himsubmithimself(upostitu)untome, seeing I am morekingly(basileuteros)andavow me his elder in years. [Iliad9:119-161 ]

At first glance Agamemnon appears to be stupendously magnanimous. Yet

more careful consideration makes it clear that Achilleus could never accept such

a subordinating compensation.9 To begin, the goods, especially the loot from Les-

bos, represents booty that was gained mainly because of Achilleus's own hero-




ism. Agamemnonhimself points out that althoughthe goods were attainedbyAchilleus,he, Agamemnon,has hold of them on accountof his rightas supremecommander.Second, in praisinghis horses,Agamemnon akesanopportunity orelatehisownnumerous acingvictoriesandthefame that hey broughthim. Even

the returnof the captivewoman, Brisseus'sdaughter, s not whatit first seems.

Afterall, since Agamemnonhas not sleptwithher, she cannot be so desperatelydesirable. Even if she were all these things andhe is not lying, she is now vol-

untarilygiven up;she would be far more desirableif Achilleus could seize her

againstAgamemnon'swill. Agamemnonoffers Achilleus lands and one of his

owndaughters s wife. The lands wouldpossiblyplaceAchilleusin subservience

to Agamemnon; hedaughterwouldcertainlydo so. This is underscoredby Aga-

memnonremarking hatno paymentsof hednaneed be made. As I notedearliersuch paymentswere vital in establishingthe parityof affines, so that Achilleus

wouldbe receivinga binding, demeaningfavor(see note 3 and Moses 1. Finley1955;Lacy 1966). To underscorehesituation,Agamemnondescribeshimselfas

willingto become a father o Achilleus, askingonly that he be recognizedas the

older andleader. The seductiveoffer reallyconstitutesa fatherly,engulfingem-

brace, an offer of becomingphiloi (friends-kin) n a way acknowledginglittle

autonomyandequalityfor theyoungerman.Finally, theentirespeechappears o

seta calculable,materialvalue to Achilleus'smerit(arete)and this is perhaps he

keenest insultof all. The Greek aristocrat aces a dilemma in reckoninghonorwiththingsyet claimingthat t transcendshings.Reference o bloodwealth nthis

samesectionechoes this notionin thatgoods areincommensurateo life but are

socially equatedwith it.

Honorand fame are vital to Achilleus since he sees them asjust recompenseforbeingmortaldespitebeing the son of an immortalgoddess:"Since you [The-

tis] boreme to be shortlived, Zeus oughtto give me honor(time)" Iliad 1:352.

Achilleus faces an insoluble situation: "he must be paid, but he cannot be

bought"(Claus 1975:24;see Reeve 1973). He requirescompensationyet no ma-

terialgoods can entirelymitigatedishonor.Much has been made of Achilleus'ssupposedalienation.This is misleading.Achilleus cannot be assuagedthroughthe traditionalmeansavailable, buthis reactionstemsfrom that same traditional

systemof conflictingvalues.

WhenNestor sends Odysseus to relate Agamemnon's terms to Achilleus,

Achilleusrejectsthembecause he has been treatedas an "unhonoredoutsider"

(atimitonmetanastin), liad 9:648, a notionthatso rankles hathe repeats t later,

Iliad 16:59.Achilleus remains uriousandsulks,causingneardisaster o thearmyuntilhis friendandlover, Patroklos, s slainwearingAchilleus's own armor and

alsohis father'sarmoras well). Onlythisgreaterassaulton his personhooddrawsAchilleusoutto fight.

My secondillustrationromthe Iliad involves the chariotrace thatAchilleus

sponsorsas partof the funeralgamesheldto honorPatroklos.Honoringhis dead

friendwithconspicuousexpenditures,Achilleusconsequentlyhonors himself as

his friend's chief mournerand alterego. Achilleusannounces he race to Mene-

laos, Agamemnon'sbrother:




Son of Atreus,andyet otherwell-greavedAchaeans,for the charioteers hese prizeslie waitingin the list. If for some other'shonor we Achaeans were now holdingcon-

tests, surely t wereI that should win the firstprize,and bear t to my hut;forye knowhow far my horses twin surpass n excellence, seeing they are immortal,and it was

Poseidonthatgave them to my fatherPeleus, and he gave to me. [Iliad23:272-278]

Before the race commences Achilleus proclaims that his superiority would

outshine anyone whom he may honor with a prize. He regrets that he cannot enter

because he and his horses are mourning Patroklos, but, of course, he cannot both

give and receive prizes and his present role is that of grand gift-giver (Motto and

Clark 1969:120).

Achilleus then announces theprizes:

For swift charioteersfirsthe sets forth goodly prizes, a woman to lead away, one

skilled in goodly handiwork,and an earedtripodof two andtwentymeasure or him

that should be first;and for the second he appointeda mare of six years, unbroken

with a mule foal in herwomb;and for the thirdhe set forth a cauldronuntouchedbyfire,a fair cauldron hatheld fourmeasures,white even as the first;and for the fourth

he appointed wo talentsof gold;andfor the fifth a two-handedurn,yet untouchedof

fire. [Iliad 23:262-270]

There are five prizes and it turns out that there are five contestants so each

contender will receive a prize, an unusual situation (Willis 1941). The contenders

are Eumeleus (son of Admetus), Diomedes (son of Tydeus), Menelaos (son of

Atreus and brother of Agamemnon), Antilochus (son of Nestor, Achilleus's old

friend and mentor), and Meriones. The most distinguished and ablest charioteers

with the best horses are Eumeleus, Diomedes, and Menelaos; Antilochus and

Meriones are less experienced and have slower horses. Given these prospects,Nestor counsels his son to use cunning to win. For Greeks, winning is all that

counts; sportsmanship and being a good loser are worth little.

Nestor tells Antilochus:

-yet arethy horses slowest in the race: therefore deem there will be sorrywork forthee. The horses of the others areswifter, butthe men know not how to devise more

cunning(metin)counsel than thine own self. Whereforecome, dearson, lay thouupin the mindcunning(meti)of every sort, to the end thattheprizesescapethee not. Bycunning,thouknowest, is a woodman far betterthanby might, by cunningtoo dotha helmsmanon the wine-darkdeep guidearighta swift shipthatis buffetedby winds;andby cunningdoth charioteerprovebetter hancharioteer.Anotherman,trusting nhis horses andcar, heedlesslywheelethto this side andthat,and his horses roam overthe course, neitherkeepethhe them in hand;whereas he that hath a crafty(kerdea)profitablemind, albeit he drive worse horses, keepethhis eye even on the turning-post and wheeleth close thereby, neither is unmindfulhow at the first to force hishorses with the ox-hide reins, butkeepeththem even in hand,and watcheth he manthat eadethhim in the race. lliad 23:311-326; see G. Nagy 1983]

One should remember that Athena, daughter of Metis, cunning, taught man-

kind how to navigate the seas, to fashion ships of wood, and to harness and race

horses. The turning-post of a racecourse is her domain. The huge wooden horse



240 CULTURALNTHROPOLOGY

that brings the Achaeans victory over Troy is Athena's trick (dolos). Yet cunningwithout bravery and strength does not suffice (see G. Nagy 1979; Vemant 198 la).

During the first half of the race, the lead goes to Eumeleus with Diomedes

gaining so that he seems sure to overtake him. Apollo interferes and tries to ob-

struct Diomedes. This angers Athena who favors Diomedes, and she causes Eu-

meleus, Apollo's favorite, to have an accident. This leaves Diomedes in the lead

with Menelaos and Antilochus contending for second place. Menelaos seems sure

to overtake Antilochus when Antilochus forces Menelaos's chariot into a muddyhole. "For that by guile (kerdesin, cleverness, bent on gain in a bad sense), and

nowise by speed, had he outstripped Menelaos" Iliad 23:515. Diomedes comes

in first, Antilochus second, with Menelaos close behind, then Meriones, and Eu-

meleus last.

Shocked, Achilleus exclaims:

Lo, in the last place drivethhis single-hoovedhorses the man [Eumeleus]thatis farthebest(aristos). Butcome, let us give him a prize,as is meet, a prizefor the second

place;but the first et the son of Tydeus[Diomedes]bearaway. [Iliad23:536-538]

Rewards here are based on personhood as well as luck and skill. The supposedbest cannot be last nor may the undistinguished prevail over the better.

Those assembled concur with Achilleus, except brash Antilochus who insiststhat the second prize is properly his. He suggests that Achilleus pay Eumeleus out

of his private wealth but not bestow the second prize already consecrated to the

race:

Thereofdo thou hereafter akeandgive him even a goodlier prize,oreven now forth-

with, that the Achaeansmay applaud hee. But the mare will I not yield; for herlet

anyman thatwill, essay to do battle withme by mightof hand. [Iliad23:551-554]

And so Achilleus gives Eumeleus a valuable bronze corselet out of his own

possessions. Then Menelaos denounces Antilochus for having to cheat becausehis horses were slow. Antilochus has put Menelaos's merit (arete) to shame, Iliad

23:571. He challenges Antilochus to swear an oath that he did not practice trickery

(dolos), suggesting that Antilochus dare not defy Zeus in this way.Antilochus immediately "eats crow":

Bearwith me, now for faryoungeram I thanthou, king (anax) Menelaos, andthou

artthe elder (proteros)and the better(areion, of merit)man. Thou knowestof what

sortare the transgressions f a manthatis young, for hastyis he of purpose,and but

slender s his wit. Wherefore et the heartbe patient; he mare thatI have won will I

give theeof myself. Aye, and if thoushouldstasksome othergoodlierthingfrom outmy house, forthwithwereI fain to give thee out of hand. [Iliad23:587-593]

Antilochus refers to the power of Menelaos as a leader of others but also to

his elderhood, conjuring up philoi notions of parenthood. Yet Antilochus still re-

fers to his gift as one that he has won and in offering to give it to Menelaos he still

attempts to take credit in the exchange.




Menelaos will not be outwitted in this game of shifting definitions of auton-

omy and generosity.

Verilynot soon shouldanotherof the Achaeanshavepersuadedme but thouhastsuf-feredgreatlyandtoiledgreatly,thou andthybravefatherandthybrother ormy sake,whereforeI will hearken o thy prayer(lissomai), aye, andto the end that these too

mayknowthatmy heart s neverover-haughtyneitherunbending. Iliad23:606-611 ]

Menelaos continues to observe that it was rightfully his mare from the start.

He has now categorized Antilochus as well as Antilochus's brother and father as

subordinates to be rewarded for their long suffering subservience to his needs. He

redefines what Antilochus had hoped would be a gesture of noblesse oblige in giftgiving into a supplication, a prayer (lissomai) such as one would offer to a pow-erful being. Even while commending himself as generous and reasonable, Me-

nelaos closes by signaling that he has good grounds for being proud because he is

powerful. Menelaos has now made the mare a "poisonous" gift. Menelaos then

takes the third prize. Meriones takes the fourth. This leaves the fifth prize un-

claimed. Achilleus turns this to good advantage for his own strategies. Through-out, Homer implies that Achilleus favors Antilochus and Nestor. Achilleus cer-

tainly has reasons to dislike Menelaos, the younger brother of Agamemnon.

Achilleus awards the final gift to Nestor who did not race at all, but whose factioncan thus be soothed. He does so in a manner that redounds to his own aura of

generosity and grandeur by making it clear that Nestor cannot reciprocate:

This, agedsir, is yoursto lay awayas a treasuren memoryof theburialof Patroklos;since neveragain will you see him amongthe Argives. I give you this prizefor the

giving [expectingno return]; ince neveragainwill you fightwithyourfists norwres-tle, norenteragainthe field for spear-throwing,nor raceon yourfeet; since now the

hardship f old age is upon you. [Iliad23:618-623]

Nestor tries to salvage dignity by conjuring up his glorious past when hewould have been able to reciprocate. He couches his thanks in philoi terms of

parent-child relations:

Aye, verily, my son (tekos,child), all thishastthouspokenaright; ormy limbs, evenmy feet, are no morefirm,o my friend(philos), as of old, nordo my armsas of olddartout lightly frommy shoulderson either side. Would thatI were young, buryinglordAmarynausat Buprasium,and his sons appointedprizes in honorof the king.Thenwas there no menthatprovedhimself my peer, neither he Epeiansnor the Py-liansthemselvesnorof the great-souledAetolians. [Iliad23:626-633]

These passages underscore the importance of speaking eloquently and

shrewdly to define terms of receiving and giving gifts. Yet such oratory would befutile were one not also to command public attention through reputation (deeds)and a powerful circle of followers. Speech about reciprocity is empty without thewherewithall both to provide the riches and services at dispersal and the power to

compel their acceptance, even on one's own terms that may be painful to the re-




ceiver. 10 The pedigrees of the trophies bestowed are also crucial (see Zarker

1965).

The Odyssey

The two illustrations that I provide from the Odyssey are linked, mirror-im-

ages of one another. " This is clear both from stated kinship between the Phaeak-

ians and the Cyclopes, and because the successful outcome of the first situation

(Odysseus's successful supplication of the Phaeakians) leads directly to his sing-

ing of the second (his unsuccessful supplication of a Cyclops):12

Odysseus is cast naked and bruised upon the shores of the Phaeakian king-

dom of Scheria, ruled by king Alkinoos and queen Arete. He is befriended bytheir daughter, Nausikaa, who instructs her maids to clothe Odysseus and shows

him to the palace:

Nay, this is some helplesswanderer hathas come hither.Him must we now tend;for

fromZeus are all strangers xeinoi) and beggarsand a gift (doris), thoughsmall, is

welcome. [Odyssey6:206-208]

Guided by Athena who conceals him in a miraculous cloud, Odysseus finds

his way through the palace to the center of the royal court where a feast is about

to begin. There "about the knees of Arete Odysseus cast his hands" Odyssey

7:142. Then Odysseus makes a prayer:

"Arete, daughterof godlike Rhexenor,to thy husbandand to thy knees am I come

afterso many toils,-aye, and to thesebanqueters, o whommaythe gods granthap-

pinessin life, andmayeachof themhanddownto his children hewealthin his halls,and the dues of honorwhich the people have given him. But for me do ye speedmy

sending,thatI may come to my nativeland, and thatquickly;for a long time I have

beensufferingwoes far frommy friends." So sayinghe satdownon thehearth n the

ashesby thefire,andtheywereall hushed n silence. But at lengththerespokeamong

them theold lordEcheneiis. [Odyssey7:146-155]

Echeneiis addresses the king:

Alkino6s, lo, this is notthe betterway, noris it seemlythata strangerxeinon)should

sit uponthe groundon the hearth n the ashes;butthese othershold backwaitingfor

thy word. Come, makethe stranger o ariseandset him upona silver-studded hair,

and bid theheraldsmix wine, thatwe may pourlibations o Zeus, who hurlsthethun-

derbolt; orhe ever attendsuponreverend uppliants hiketisin).And let thehousewife

give supper o the strangerof the store thatis in the house. [Odyssey7:159-166]

To understand Odysseus's behavior one must grasp two important concepts:

first, xeinia or guest-friendship, and second, hiketia or supplication (Bolchazy

1978; Gould 1975; Herman 1987; Hohendahl-Zoetelief 1980; Levy 1963; Pedrick

1982;Podlecki 1961;Schlunk1976;Scodel 1982).1. Xeinia:I havealreadynoted thatone establishedkinlikerelations philoi)

with strangers (xeinoi) by prestations and that this could lead to alliance or even




marriagebetweenequals. One was obliged to extend some hospitalityandgiftsto helplessstrangerswho wereunder he divineprotectionof Zeus(Zeusxeinion).Of course, one did not make welcome (philesei)a dignifiedandpowerful princeor warriorn the way one helpeda miserablebeggar.Theproblem ay in the fact

that appearancesare deceiving. Ideally, one would want to extend prestationscommensuratewith therespect(aidos) duea stranger.Yet strangersmightnot be

whatthey seem. Strangersmight even be gods in disguise, as happensseveral

times in the Odyssey. This is probablyone reason why Odysseus's concealed

identity ascinatedGreeks.It touchesuponthe dilemmaof strategicprestation,of

correctlygaugingthe social person.Greeks wereconcernedaboutpublicappear-

ance, buttheyalso recognizedthatthis importanceof publicface would leadto it

being assiduouslycosmeticizedandmanipulated.A trueappraisal f apersonwasnotalways easy, except amongone's own kin where interpersonalace was not

at issue. In the Phaeakian ituation,Odysseus is from the starttreated n exem-

plaryfashion as a stranger.Yet we shall see that he must still do and say even

more beforeconfirming he positionhe seeks.

2. The notion of hiketia involves self-abasement,placing oneself at the

mercyof the one who is supplicated.It is done by crouchingandclutchingthe

knees (associatedwith sexual generation,see Onions 1951:176-186) of the su-

perordinate ne. 3 This is sometimesaccompaniedby chucking hechinorkissing

the hands. A kiss (philema)on the face was howphiloi mightgreetone another.IntheIliad supplication s made, often unsuccessfully, by a vanquishedwarrior

seeking mercy. Were a foe spared, he would be expected to reciprocatewith a

ransom n order o be freed. Perhaps he most moving scene in theIliad involves

kingPriamvisitingAchilleusundersupernatural rotection norder o redeemhis

sonHektor'sbody. SeeingPriam,Achilleus becomeshostile, but Priamperformshiketiaand Achilleustakeshimby thehands,raises himup, winesanddineshim,

and releaseshim next day with Hektor'sbody.14 Agamemnon'simproperrejec-tion of a father's(Chriseus's)hiketiafor his captivedaughtereventuallytriggers

off theriftbetweenAgamemnonandAchilleus,and Achilleus's nobleacceptanceof Priam'ssupplicationheralds he epic's close.

Thepassagescited aboutOdysseus's conductamongthe Phaeakiansneatlyillustratehiketia. Odysseus graspsthe queen's knees. He does this on the advice

of Athena.15He thencrouchesat the hearth n the ashes. Clutchingthe knees is

conventionalsupplication,but it is also intimatecontact with a sexually signifi-

cant, protectedportionof the body. Similarly, the hearth s recognizedas dirtywithashes, but it is also themoralandphysicalcenterof thehome, a placesacred

to the oikos. Odysseus's hiketiaconfounds abasement with an invasion of the

host. The invasionhere is assumedto be harmlessbecause the supplicant s alsotacitlystatingthat he is "nothing" andthereforeno threateven to such intimate

sectors. By performinghiketia the supplicantabnegatesall equalityof status;he

becomes aidoioi (withoutaidos, without respect). Reciprocationof hiketia in-

volves takingthesupplicantby thehands,drawinghimupandincorporating im

commensally. Depending uponjust how low or scruffythe supplicant s, this in-

corporateshim as some kindof philos (friend-kin), o be in a parent-child r fra-




temal, protectiverelation. In Odysseus's case, he literally replaces Alkino6s's

favoriteson at the table.

Trueto the xeiniarelationship, t is notlongbeforeAlkinoos offers Nausikaa

to Odysseus, suggestingthat he become his son-in-law. Yet AlkinoosrecognizesthatOdysseusis justifiedin decliningin orderto hasten home. The next day the

Phaeakianspreparea ship for Odysseus, and while this is being done, Alkinoos

and his courtentertainhimby holdingvarious athleticgames so that the strangercan tell his old friends(philoi)at homehowthePhaeakians,his newphiloi, excel.

Aftersome contests, Laodamus,the king's son, asks Odysseusto enter the con-

tests. Odysseusdeclines claimingthat he is too depressedfrom having suffered

much and on account of longing for home. Then Euryalus,the warrior-athlete

secondonly to Laodamus n skill andbravery,mocks Odysseus suggestingthathe is no gentleman-athlete utonly a tradermindfulof "gains of greed" (kerdeon

tharpaleon, shrewd profit eagerly grasped) Odyssey 9:164. Euryalus accuses

Odysseusof dishonorablereciprocity, suggesting thathis voyages were not for

adventure ndacquiringglory but for commerce.Odysseus respondswith a lec-

ture on the dangersof confusing externalappearanceswith hiddenpower and

worth.16 Odysseusthenthrows he discussurpassing veryone by a longdistance.

He thenchallengesall thePhaeakians o a wide rangeof contests,remarking hat

he wouldcompetewith any butLaodamus,for he cannot contendwith a guest-

friend. He is not takenup on his challenge. Instead,he is placatedandcompli-mentedby Alkinoos who entertainshimat a feastfor his assembledfollowers, all

of whom are askedto contribute o Alkino6s's guest-giftto Odysseus.Alkinoosannounces hemany "gifts of friendship"(domonxeinion) thathe

and his followers will give to fill Odysseus's new vessel. Euryalusthen gives

Odysseus a silver-studdedsword in recompensefor his harsh words. The gift,

appropriateo a valiant(agathos) aristocrat aristos), not to a merchant rader,

confirmsEuryalus'sacceptanceof Odysseus's self-definition.

Whenthe celebrationsandgift giving havegone on for some time and Alki-

noos has affirmedhis philoi relationshipwith Odysseus, the court bardsings oftheTrojanwar.Odysseusweeps.17 Questionedby Alkinoos, Odysseusfinally(at

Odyssey9:19) revealshis namebecausehe is now amongphiloi. Now he boasts

of both his wiles (dolos) and fame (kleos) and sings his adventures,includingthose with the Cyclops, my final illustrative ase.

The encounterbetween Odysseus and the Cyclops Polyphemus s the most

famouspassageintheOdysseyandperhaps he mostintensively analyzed(Austin

1982, 1983;Bergren1983; C. Brown 1966;J. Finley 1978;Glenn 1971, 1978;

Kirk 1970;Mills 1981;Pucci 1987; Schein 1970, 1984; Stanford1968; Stewart

1976;Sullivan1987). Despite its popularity, ts significanceappears ost to mostnonclassicistsand some of those influencedby folklorismand psychoanalysisseem strikingly nept.

Even before Odysseus andhis crew reach the landof the Cyclopes we are

told thatthey arearrogantandlawless (athemis)beings who neitherplantcropsnor plough. Yet they have plentiful foodstuffs that grow without cultivation,

muchas foods were got by humansbeforethey fell from the gods' favor andbe-




came mortal.Althoughtheirlandhasexcellent harbors, he Cyclopes fashionno

ships by which to visit others. Each Cyclops lives in his own cave without so-

cializingwith otherCyclopes, Odyssey9:105-141. TheCyclopes displaynone of

the needs andconsequentsocial artificeby whichordinaryhumanscope.

Odysseustakes a smallgroupashoreon theCyclopes' island even thoughhe

andthe mainpartyarequite safe andcomfortableon nearby,uninhabitedGoat

Island(Bremmer1986;Clay 1980). He takes this chance in order o

make rialofyondermen, olearnwho heyare,whetherheyarecruelandwild,and

unjust, r whetherhey ovestrangersnd ear hegodsintheir houghts.Odyssey9:173-175]

Odysseusgoes becausehe is humanandcurious, the very oppositereasons from

thosethat eadtheCyclopes notto travelorpracticecrafts,each to mind his own

separateaffairs.

Odysseustakesalonga large goat-skinof verypotentwine becausehe has a

foreboding hatit would be useful when he meets what he suspectswill be a sav-

age (agrios, nottilling) personwitha powerfullydangerousheart(thumos,emo-

tion)who knows neither ustice (dike)nor law (themis,custom), Odyssey9:212-

215. Odysseusreceived thiswine as a gift, alongwith otherwealth,from a priest

of Apollo who was suitably gratefulfor Odysseus's help when Odysseusvisitedhim.

Even beforewe actuallyencounter he Cyclops, Odysseushas warnedus to

expectsomeonewho is the antithesisof whata moral(social)humanbeingshould

be. The Cyclops's lack of morals andhis lack of crafts(techne) are interrelated

(see Mills 1981). Their very size and disproportion ake the Cyclopes beyond

proper ocial measure.

To appreciateHomer'sapparentdigressionin describing he underdevelop-mentof the Cyclopes' island, despite its riches, we must understand omething

abouthow Greeksdistinguishedbetween mortalsand divinities.Greeksbelieved thathumanity'sskills (techne)are thegiftswe got from Pro-

metheus(Prometis,fore-cunning)who stole them, as epitomized by fire, from

Zeus for us. The gods in turnpunishedhumanswith a false gift, Pandora giverof all, or gift fromall the gods), who broughthumanitymisery andsexual mor-

tality(Vernant1981b). Humanitywas punishedwith both sexual andalimentary

appetites hatwere linked to mortality, hepangsof sexuallongingandchildbirth,and thepangsof hungerandtoil to secure food. Consequently,humanity'sskills

arerooted n ourorectic needs andlimitationsandultimatelyourvulnerabilityn

death.Humans'artificestemming romfirerelates ometis(cunning)andincludesthecapacity o developsocial rulesandrelations,as well as arts. The social (both

customaryand technological) bases of humanity's activities (exchanges) arerooted n bothwhat makes humans nventive like gods (culture,thepossession of

fire)butstill not divine butmortal,for deceptively it was not actuallydivine firethatwas permitted o be stolen. Culturestems from negative exchanges (theftsandfalsegifts)butproducesproperexchanges(lawsandsociability),withall their




fragility and ephemerality. This scenario also accounts for the rites of sacrifice

(reciprocity with the gods), but that is another story.As a human, Odysseus is puny when compared to the Cyclops. Yet Odysseus

is polymetis (infinitely crafty) and polytropos (multiadaptive). He has trickery

(dolos). What we are set up to expect is an exchange between a cultured mortal,in the cunning but vulnerable sense, and a powerful, semidivine brute lacking

guile since he does not ordinarily need it.

When Odysseus and his men reach the island, they see a gigantic, one-eyed

Cyclops who resides apartand does not live by bread as men would (eating bread

and drinking wine are human traits, based on agriculture). Rather, the Cyclopslives by herding, standing between agricultural, civilized humans and gods who

need not work and beasts that comprehend neither labor nor leisure (Kirk 1970:

162-171). Odysseus and his men enter the Cyclops's cave and eat some of his

food. (Bad guests, they enter and help themselves whereas they had all the food

they needed on Goat Island.) When the monster returns, they are trapped within.

Odysseus identifies himself and his party as heroes from Agamemnon's army re-

turning from sacking Troy but now

come as suppliants o thyknees[in themanner hatOdysseus supplicatedqueenArete

successfully]inhopethatthou wilt give us entertainmentxeinion,guest-gifts)oroth-

erwise make some presentsas is due

(themis,customary)o

strangers xeinoi). Nay,mightiestone, reverence the gods; we are thy supplicants hiketai)and Zeus is the

avengerof suppliantsand strangers-Zeus, the strangers' god-who ever attends

uponreveredstrangers. Odyssey9:266-271]

In terms of sociable, cultured humanity, Odysseus knows that it is customary

(themis), proper (epeikes), just (dikaion), and attractive (kalon) to help strangers

and to provide guest-gifts. Indeed, all such adjectives are applied to such practices

elsewhere in the Odyssey. Such treatment is compulsory when strangers behave

properly as supplicants. Zeus himself was thought to protect strangers and to send

avengers, the Erinyes, to punish those who disregarded this command. Odysseusvoices all these references, identifying himself and his men as heroes of the proper

agathos category. Yet being wily, he does not reveal his actual identity.

But the Cyclops answers Odysseus that he does not care about Zeus and will

not spare them. Yet he still expects Odysseus to tell him where his ship is harbored

and whether he has left any more men behind, presumably so he can destroy it

and them. Immediately, Odysseus realizes that the Cyclops may be awesomely

powerful and fierce but he is not clever. Odysseus observes that the Cyclops failed

to trick him because of "my great cunning and I made answer again in crafty

(doliois) words" Odyssey 9:281-282. Odysseus lies, saying that his group isalone and without a ship, which was sunk. The monster responds by eating two

of Odysseus's men, confirming their worst fears about his moral inversion from

humanity. (He eats them raw, including even the bones.)

At dawn the Cyclops goes out with his goats, as is his habit, and leaves Odys-

seus and his men trapped within the cave. Odysseus sharpens an olive-stick (the

olive being a cultivatable gift to humanity from Athena, daughter of Metis, cun-




ning) and he hardens this in the fire. When the Cyclops returns that night, Odys-seus gets him drunk with the wine that he brought. (The Cyclops drinks his wine

neat, an uncivilized practice.) Here the true gift from the earlier, good host is used

as a false gift against the bad host who gives no good gifts but only suffering, who

feeds on his guests rather than feed them. (Properly, it is the host and not the guestwho should provide wine.) As Odysseus plies the Cyclops with the potent wine,he says,

Cyclops, thou askestme of my gloriousname, andI will tell thee; and do thougivemea stranger'sgift (xeinion)even as promised.No man(outis)'8 is my name, Noman

theycall me. [Odyssey9:364-366]

The Cyclops replies, "Noman will I eat last among his comrades and the others

before him; this shall be my gift (xeinion)," Odyssey 9:369-370-one false giftfor another. (This constitutes another reversal, for one should not ask a stranger'sname before giving him hospitality.)

The Cyclops then collapses drunk from the bad gift, and Odysseus and his

comrades blind him with the sharpened olive-shaft. The other Cyclopes hear the

blinded one screaming and ask him what has happened. He replies, "My friends

(philoi), it is Noman that is slaying me by guile (dolos) not by force," Odyssey

9:408-09. Consequently they do not bother to help him. Later Odysseus and hismen escape from the blinded Cyclops by cunning (dolos), clinging beneath the

goats when they leave the cave the next morning.

Odysseus and his men successfully board their ship and set sail.

Butwhen I was as faraway as a man's voice carrieswhen he shouts, then I spoke tothe Cyclops with mocking words:"Cyclops, thatman, it seems, was no weakling,whose comradesthou wast mindedto devourby brutalstrength n thy hollow cave.Fullsurelywerethyevil deedsto fall on thineown head,thoucruelwretch,who didstnot shrink romeatingthy guests in thine own house. ThereforehasZeus takenven-

geanceon thee, and theothergods." IOdvssev9:373-3801

While his comrades plead with him to stop so they will not be sunk, Odysseuscontinues to bait the monster on account of his great emotion (thumos). Odysseus"answered him again with angry heart (thumos)":

Cyclops, if anyone of mortalmen shallask theeaboutthe shamefulblindingof thineeye, say thatOdysseus, the sackerof cities blindedit, even the sonof Laertes,whosehome is in Ithaka.[Odyssey9:500-505]

The Cyclops replies that a soothsayer had earlier predicted all this but that he, the

Cyclops, had looked for someone tall, comely and mighty, not for such a punyone as Odysseus. The Cyclops had misjudged the relation between outward ap-pearance and someone's real power. This was because the Cyclops lacked true

cunning.The Cyclops now foolishly asks Odysseus:




Yetcomehither,Odysseus,hat maysetbefore heegiftsof entertainmentxeinia),andmay peed hysending ence, hat hegloriousEarth-shakerPoseidon]aygrant

it thee. For I amhis son. [Odyssey9:517-520]

The Cyclops reveals that his name is Polyphemus(repute everywherebut alsocurseeverywhere).Odysseus nsults theCyclopseven more,andPolyphemusen-

vokes his powerfulfather o preventOdysseusfromever reachinghome.

This exchange makes good sense if we remember hatOdysseus owes his

veryidentity "Giverof troubles,"odyssasthai) o the harmhe causesothers.His

respect aidos)wasthreatenedwhenhe was deniedgift-guesthoodafterhe himself

hadreducedhis own dignityby supplication.Odysseuscanrecoverhis threatened

personhoodby announcinghis nameto his victim, who is, afterall, Polyphemus(reputeabounding).Odysseus'srevelation o Polyphemusparallels heexchangedannouncements f identityandreputation hatprecedecombat between heroesin

the Iliad. Onecanget no honororgloryfora deedif one's nameis unknown.The

nameis thepeg to which the deed is attached.It is one's name that will be sung

by bards n epics. Nor is Odysseus at all deterredby the fact thatPolyphemus,

havinghis name, can now envoke his stupendouslypowerfulfatheragainsthim.

ThatPolyphemus s attached o Poseidonsimply increasesthe Cyclops's danger-ous importance as a victim and consequently the magnitude of Odysseus's

triumph.Even the subsequent ufferingfromPoseidon will only augmentOdys-seus's personhood,providedthatOdysseuseventually prevailsover these risks,which he does with Athena'shelp.

Conclusion

Both the Iliad and the Odysseypresentaristocratically rientedplots with

subversive hemes. These recognize thatclaims to authorityarediscrepant rom

personalattributesand thateven the centralnotionsof compensationand heroic

interaction rethemselves mplicitlyquestionable.In theIliad, Agamemnon eads

the attackingarmy yet is inferiorto Achilleus in courage, militaryskill, and no-bility. Achilleusrepeatedly hreatens o outshineAgamemnon,but the epic ends

with Agamemnonstill morepoliticallyestablishedthan Achilleus. Yet the Od-

ysseyrevealsAgamemnon gnominiouslydeadandwhile Achilleusdoes die with

imperishable ame, even he seems bitterlydiscontentwhen his shade is inter-

viewed by Odysseus.IntheOdyssey,Odysseusis continually reated n a manner

unbecominghis statusas a princeof Ithakaanda hero.Odysseus's inherentqual-ities enable him to triumpheventually over those who denigratehim. Unlike

Achilleus, Odysseuscannotprevailwithbraveryalone, but needsevery trickand

deceit he can muster.The mechanismsof sociability,as epitomizedin guest-giftrelations,appearas sourcesof abuse anddangeras much as meansto advantageand order.

What inks these epics together s agonisticexchange, which worksout dis-

crepanciesbetween the "inner" individualandthe socially recognized "outer"

person.Thesestrugglesdeterminewhethera protagonist'sestimationof himself,

of his respect, is commensurate with that held by others (see Benveniste




1973:277; Vernant 1975). Homeric Greeks were likely to overestimate theiraidos. To sustain a high vision of oneself, one mustbe able to compel othersto

acceptthis view. These heroes' reputationsareneverfree fromjeopardyso longas they live. What makes them superiorto the gods is that they can be heroesbecausebeingmortal heyrisktheir ives. One continues o assertnew claimsuntil

brought hort, if notby anothermortalhero, thenby old age or by a god.ForHomericGreeks, exchange is inseparable rompersonhood.The latter

defines the former. When HomericGreeks speak of honor and shame, of their

struggles o maintainorenlargetheirrespect,theyrefertoproblemsof autonomy,andexchangesimply asserts andundermines his.

The values attached to these exchanges are proportionate o the risks in-

volved. Inchallengingone's equalor thoseclaimingto be superior,one augmentsone's own respect.One loses simplyby failingto putmattersat risk. One cannot

dropoutclaimingto be above such struggles.One must remainagonisticallyin-volved. The publicnatureof exchanges, the need for validationby others, is in-

tense for HomericGreeks. Respect, dignity, honor, shame, are attributescon-ferredor deniedby others. One needs an audience. Need for others as witnessescharacterizes ll social phenomena, yet for HomericGreeksthis extends even tothe grave, ever compromisingautonomy.Furthermore, ystematicexclusion ofHomericwomen from the public arenaprofoundlydiminished heirautonomy.

Existenceafterdeathforheroes centerson whetherone is famedandpraisedafterbeing physicallygone (Garland1984-86; Vermeule 1976:203-205).19 Yeteven Achilleus,whosefame seems assured,hasmisgivingsconcerning he worthof fame whenlife is gone. Aristocraticnotionsof fame constitutea mystificationof a moreprosaicstruggleforpowerandresources.

Mausspresentedexchangeas a powerfulmechanismby whichsocieties arewelded togetherandconflict subdued,even thoughcoining the term "agonisticexchange," presumably romthe Greeks. In contrast,Simmel stressedthe divi-sive strategiesof exchange, the motivesseparatinganddefiningprotagonists.For

him, theseinvolveassertionof gainandloss. He wouldhavesecondedRousseau:

Tospeakof a mangivinghimselfnreturnornothings tospeakof what s absurd,unthinkable;uchan actionwouldbeillegitimate,oid,if onlybecausenoone whodid tcouldbe in hisrightmind. 1968:54]

Mausspointedout how aspectsof thepersoninhere n thingsso thatthe so-cial self or groupsarepassedalong withthe objectsconveyed and in a sense thiscould facilitatetheirretrieval(see Weiner 1985). In contrast, Simmel stressed

howthingsbecamefreedfromthose who made andprocessedthem. Simmelpor-trayspower. Forhim, objects' value was due to the riskandpathossurroundingloss. In the Homericcase we need both analyststo make sense, for reciprocitydivides as muchas it unites, ranks as muchas it levels, andproducesconflictasmuch as effacing it. Whileobjectsof exchangecirculate,thereis a profoundriskof loss. This sense of riskenhances value. The "highest" goals of exchange in-volve intangiblessuch as honor and fame, yet the power to sustainandcompel




such values derives from material things that may be taken or given away. This

article has underscored one point so far not made sufficiently clear by classicists.

Exchange is the central mechanism by which the social self is established and

defined by Homeric Greeks. Furthermore, this social self is under constant threat

or promise of reconstruction. For Greeks, this self is a profoundly other-defined

entity.This article began by saluting Finley and his recognition that Mauss provides

insights into the analysis of Homeric exchange. While Finley pointed the way, he

failed to recognize how essential agonistic exchange is for creating social self. In

this respect my article more clearly articulates what was implicit in his brilliant

directions. To this end Simmel provided complementary interpretations. These

relations link to themes of force and domination neglected by Mauss. Greek ex-

change poses a dilemma over freedom in the Simmelian sense. One values auton-

omy yet one measures this only by one's capacity to dominate others. To strive

for freedom is to risk defeat and subjection but also never to be allowed to stand

idly alone. Egalitarian, agonistic exchange may turn into ranking and eventual

hierarchy. Such changes may be enacted through aristocratic oligarchy or through

demagogues and tyrants. These processes engage the next step in Greek devel-

opment, and again Finley has signaled the way to map this, by reexamining We-

ber. It was Weber who, while admiring Simmel's views on exchange, grasped

their analytical weaknesses. In a paper written shortly before his death (1985,

republished in 1986), Finley reminded us of Weber's insights on force, domina-

tion, and the city's growth as likely keys to the next step in confirming hierarchy

and social integration (Weber 1978). If Finley is again right, cross-fertilization

between social anthropology, sociology, and classics has a promising future.

Notes

Acknowledgments.This articleis a sketchfrom a broaderprojectemployingHomerand

Hesiod to illustrate ocial anthropologicaleachingandtheory.I rely uponthe LoebClas-

sicalLibrarybilingualeditionsfor mostof my citationsof Homer,with alterationsof Brit-

ish spelling. I cite a small portionof the vastrelevantmaterialdealingwith Homer,con-

fining myself mainlyto works in English. I have, however, readfar morematerial hanI

cite.

InterplaybetweenclassicalGreekstudiesandsocial anthropologypermeates he his-

toryof our field. EmileDurkheim'sworks arerooted n those of the classicistNumaFustel

de Coulanges, especially TheAncientCity; Lewis HenryMorganborrowedmany of his

termsandconceptsfromwritingson AthensandRome;andSirHenryMaine'sgreatwork

AncientLaw, fromwhich so muchof Britishfunctionalismstems, surveysclassical law.

Even today I consult key Greektexts edited by Sir James Frazerwhose GoldenBough

beginswith theclassics.

In my own case I first saw the pertinenceof anthropology or classics when, as a

student,I heardGeoffreyLloyd lectureon Sophocles'sAntigoneat an anthropologycol-

loquiumat Oxford n 1959. My convictionthat social anthropologists houldcomprehend

the classics derivesfrom intellectualheroesoutside anthropology.My teacher, the soci-

ologist Alvin Gouldner,publishedbrilliantlyon classical Greece(1965) providinga the-



AGONISTICXCHANGE251

oretical watershedfor constructionof his influentialtheories. The great Nigerian play-

wrightWole Soyinka pointedout strikingparallelsand insights drawn from comparing

African and classical Greekreligious experiences(1976:15-16) and made a superbren-

deringof Euripides'Bacchae. Similarly,the writingsof the fineNigeriannovelist Chinua

Achebe alertedme to importantparallels n problemsof explainingthe interplaybetween

fate and free will both for GreeksandIgbo (see Chukwukere1971;Nwoga 1971). I also

amindebted o JohnCampbellwhose excellentstudyof contemporaryGreekpeasantscon-

firms hecontinuity n manyaspectsof honor, shame, andagonisticreciprocity 1964; see

Walcot 1970). He appears o be the first scholar of Greece to appreciateSimmel.

Earlierversions of this article were deliveredas lectures at the Johns HopkinsUni-

versity,theUniversityof Virginia,the Universityof Minnesota,and in Washingtonat the

1988meetingsof the Society for CulturalAnthropology.

Whilethe topicof this article s exchange, I ignorewell-known recentsurveys(Bour-dieu 1977;Ekeh 1974;Sahlins 1972;Sevret 1981, 1982). I found theseunhelpful n terms

of the issues with which I am here concerned. In any case I make no claim to a broad

appraisal f Greekexchangethat wouldrequireconsiderationof Aristotle.

I want to thankIvanKarp,JohnMiddleton,RodneyNeedham,and Annette Weiner

forcommentingon earlierdraftsof thisarticle.I owe a specialdebt to AnnetteWeinerwho

encouragedme to completethis when I was tempted o putit aside.

'I admire heanalysesof Paul Friedrichand thewritingsof Sally Humphreyswho attemptsto bridge he gapbetween classics andanthropology.MauriceGodeliersubjectsAthenian

economyto his Marxistanalysis.Grace HarrisandRogerJust have writtenessays on clas-sical Athens, andTerenceTurner,MichaelCarroll,andDorothyWillnerhave continued

the structuralist nalysisof Oedipusinitiatedby Levi-Strauss.I have been impressedbytheFrenchcontemporary lassicistswho employstructuralistmethodsandanthropological

conceptsfor new understanding f Greekmaterials,for example, Vernant,Detienne, Vi-

dal-Naquet,SergentandLoraux.Thesewritersaresurelytheexceptionsthatprovethe rule

rather hanconfirmingany prevailingnew trendconvertingEnglish-speakinganthropolo-

gists intoconsidering he Greek classics.

2Benveniste'swritingshave been invaluable n this (1971, 1973, especially 1973:32-39,

53-65, 71-83, 243-245, 252-260, 273-288, 318-326, 327-370; see also G. Nagy 1981).

3ExchangesnearlyGreekmarriage evealtacticswhereby wo groupsstriveto asserttheir

equality(orthe superiority f one over theother).Negotiationsformarriagenvolvedpro-tectedexchangeof gifts on both sides. This was neitherdowrynorbridewealth,butmeans

to demonstrate he wealth andpowerof the two groupsseekingaffinity.Wealthwas givenalso to endow the new couple and theirprospectivehousehold andoffspring, but this too

was bilateral Lacy 1966;Redfield 1982).

4Gouldcomparesthe Greekconcept of aidos with the Nuer concept of thek. I find this

questionable Gould 1975:87).

5Centuries fter Homersuch notions still apply for Greeks. Plato has Glaukondescribeperfecthappiness or anunjustmanasbeingable to havesexualintercoursewithwhomeverone wants, taking whatever goods one likes, and harmingor helping whomever onechooses (Republic I:360bc).

6Positiveandnegativeexchangescharacterizebroadfeatures of Greekthought.The Ho-mericepics spin out from an initially complex situation of debts. A marriage(betweendivine ThetisandmortalPeleus) demeansa goddess who is compensatedby makingher



252 CULTURAL NTHROPOLOGY

mortalson, Achilleus, destined for imperishable ame. This unequalweddingis attended

by an uninvitedguest, Eris or Discord, who brings a false gift (a golden apple). Paris

awards his to Aphroditewho repayshimby bestowingHelen, the wife of Menelaos. Her

gift is accomplishedby theft and deceptionwhile Parisis a guest but false friend to his

host, Menelaos. This is avenged by Menelaos, his elderbrotherAgamemnon,andothers

includingAchilleus andOdysseus, who stormTroy. As everyoneknows, Troyis eventu-

ally takenand Helen recoveredthroughanotherfalse gift of cunning, the great, hollow

wooden horse. Hera and Athenagive aid to the siege since they are offended that Paris

gave the appleto Aphroditeand not to them(see Davies 1981;Walcot 1977b).Greekmythsand legends are filled with examplesof such negativeand dubious re-

ciprocities,thefts, andvengeance through alse gifts and false friendships J. Nagy 1981).The mythsof Hermes andApollo, Pelops and the house of Atreus, Prometheus,Epime-theus andPandora,and Persephone,Hades and Demeter, all illustrate his (see Vernant

1981a, 1981b, 1981c).

7TheOdyssey s crammedwith namemagicsurrounding ersonhood.Names aresigns (se-

mata)(G. Nagy 1983). Odysseusreceivedhis own name from his grandfatherAutolycus

(lone-wolf), a notorious hief and iar, sponsoredby Hermes,godof thieveryandexchange

(N. Brown 1947). Autolycus wants to memorializethe fact that he had "odysseused"(causedtrouble)many people in his day. Odysseus visited the old man in hopes of giftsandwas woundedduringa hunt, receivinghis scarcrucial to his identificationat the end

of theepic. Odysseus'smotherAntiklea(againstfame)had wanted o nameOdysseusPo-

lyaretus meriteverywhere).WhenOdysseus finallyreturnshome, he is helpedby his oldnurse,Euryklea fameeverywhere),who recognizeshimthroughhis scar.Afterkillingthe

evil suitors,Odysseuscan establishhis household'sprosperitywith the wealth he received

in the kingdom of Scheria whose queen is Arete (merit) and whose king is Alkinoos

(mighty recognition).This allows Odysseusto recouphis losses from the evil suitors led

by Antinoos(againstrecognition) see Austin 1972;Bergren1983;Dimock 1956;G. Nagy

1979). Penelope'snameappears o derivefrompena (woof of cloth)and refersto her cun-

ningatweaving(anarttaughtby Athena,daughterof Cunning)which she uses to forestall

the suitorsand to providea cloth for Odysseus's new identity(Marquardt 985;Whallon

1960). Thecloth turnsout not to be Laertes's shroudas she deceptivelymaintains.

8"Lo, a manacceptethrecompense(poine) from the slayerof his brother,or for his dead

son;andtheslayerabideth nhis own landfor thepayingof agreatprice,andthe kinsman's

heart thumos)andproud spiritare restrainedby the takingof recompense"Iliad 9:632-

634.

9Theemissariesrealize how offensive this speechwouldbe to Achilleus andconsequently

cunninglymodifyit whenthey confronthim. Even so, he rejectsthe offer (see also Nimis

1986;Roberts1981-82).

l?Quincy 1966) pointsout that Greekswere keen to repay gifts as soon as possible. The

unreciprocatedift was a veritable"hotpotato." Even wherethegift was trivial,the formof thanks mmediatedeliveredwas an expressionof praise, seen as a ready paymentof

intangiblegood. ForGreeks,praise(ainos) shouldearngifts and vice versa. One of Odys-seus's attributess tobe polyainos, Iliad 11:430.

"Ironically,AlkinooswonderswhetherOdysseusmighthimselfbe a god in disguise, but

ponderswhythegods would concealthemselvesfromthe Phaeakianswhen the Phaeakians

are as nearkin to the gods as are theCyclopes, Odyssey7:201-206. Surelythis is a device



AGONISTICXCHANGE253

by Homer to underscore he mirror magerybetween the hospitablePhaeakiansand the

Cyclopes.

'2Itis surely important hat the two heroes of the two epics are both themselves highly

regardedbardicpoets. Not only cantheyenact deeds to endure n humanmemory,buttheyhave the special powers to conjure up such deeds throughsong. The ultimatereciprocal

payment,fame (kleos), providesa kind of immortality hatis recompense or struggleand

death. The Iliad reiterates hese aristocratic entiments hroughout;heOdyssey,however,seems ambivalentaboutheroism which it repeatedlycontrasts with survival. The Iliad

stresses the personalattributesof honor(time) leading to imperishable ame whereasthe

prevailingpersonalattribute tressedby the Odyssey s cunning(metisor dolos).

13Thepsychologicalprocesses at work here uncannilyresemble the Japaneseconcept of

amae, especiallyin its morepassive-aggressivephasethatcanbe compared o Odysseus'sconductin Scheria. In both cases, to put oneself in total subordinationmakes a superior

responsible or one's fate. It is a process thatwould have intriguedSimmel (Doi 1973).

Many yearsago Post (1939) drewinsightfulparallelsbetween HomericandSamuraival-

ues.

'4Antinoos s describedas the most vicious of Penelope's suitors who is depletingOdys-seus's estate. He is an evil guest in a hospitablehome (philon hiketo doma), Odyssey18:421.Homermakes Antinoosdespicableby havingPenelopeobserve thatOdysseushad

once helpedAntinoos's fatherwho had been a supplicant-fugitive uest, Odyssey16:418-

433.

'SNewton 1984) arguesfor a morecomplicatedsymbolic meaningrelated o rebirth.Cer-

tainly this supplicationseems a peremptoryand restrainedone when compared, say, to

Thetis's entreatyto Zeus for Achilleus. In any case, the generally benevolentpictureI

presentof thePhaeakians s not held by Rose (1969).

'6Theobservationsabout false personhoodare later reinforcedby the Phaeakianbard's

song about beautiful Ares and Aphroditebeing humiliatedby crafty but ugly and lame

Hephaestus Braswell1982). ThisobviouslypleasesOdysseuswho admitsnotbeing fleet-

footed.

70Odysseusctually is confronted with his own fame as though he were actually dead

(which, in a sense, he is, socially). This occurs at Alkinoos's courtwhen a bardsings of

Odysseus'svalor and the braveryof the armyat Troy. This repeatedlymakes Odysseus

weepandfinallyleadshim to reveal his trueidentityand tell his adventures o the court.

'Outis (no one) alludes to metis(cunning),see Austin(1983).

'9Friedrichnd Redfield(1978) considerspeechin theconstruction f Achilleus's individ-

uality.Howeversuggestive, this is far frommy argumentaboutpersonhood.

References Cited

Adkins,A. W. H.

1963 "Friendship"and "Self-Sufficiency" in HomerandAristotle. ClassicalQuar-

terly63:30-45.

1969 Threatening,AbusingandFeelingAngryin the HomericPoems. Journalof Hel-lenic Studies 84:7-21.

1971 HomericValues and HomericSociety. Journalof Hellenic Studies 91:1-14.




1972 Truth,KosmosandAretein the HomericPoems. ClassicalQuarterly 5:5-13.

1975[19601 MeritandResponsibility.Chicago:Universityof ChicagoPress,Midway

Reprint.1982 Values, Goals andEmotions n the Iliad. ClassicalPhilology77:292-326.

1987 Gargarin nd the "Morality"of Homer.ClassicalPhilology 82:311-322.

Altman,S. P.

1904 Simmel's Philosophyof Money. AmericanJournalof Sociology 9:46-68.

Atchity,KennethJ.

1978 Homer'sIliad. Carbondale: outhern llinoisUniversityPress.

Austin,Norman

1972 NameMagic in the Odyssey.CaliforniaStudies in ClassicalAntiquity5:1-19.

1982 Archeryat the Darkof the Moon. Berkeley: Universityof CaliforniaPress.

1983 OdysseusandtheCyclops:Who Is Who. InApproaches o Homer.CarlA. Rubi-no andCynthiaW. Shelmerdine,eds. Pp. 3-37. Austin:Universityof Texas Press.

Basset,Samuel E.

1934 The Hamartiaof Achilles. Transactionsof the AmericanPhilologicalAssocia-

tion65:47-69.

Benardete,Seth

1963 Achilles andtheIliad. Hermes91:1-16.

Benveniste,Emile

1971 Gift and Exchangein the Indo-EuropeanVocabulary.ElizabethPalmer,trans.

In Problems n GeneralLinguistics. Pp. 271-280. Miami LinguisticsSeries No. 8.

CoralGables:Universityof Miami Press.1973 Indo-European anguageandSociety. ElizabethPalmer,trans.MiamiLinguis-

tic Series No. 12. Coral Gables:Universityof MiamiPress.

Bergren,Ann L. T.

1983 OdysseanTemporarily:Man(Re)Turns. nApproaches o Homer. CarlA. Rubi-

no andCynthiaW. Shelmerdine,eds.Pp. 38-73. Austin:Universityof Texas Press.

Bolcazy, L.

1978 Xenophobia o Altruism.AncientWorld 1:45-63.

Bourdieu,Pierre

1977 Outlineof a Theoryof Practice.RichardNice, transl.Cambridge:Cambridge

UniversityPress.Braswell,Bruce K.

1982 The Song of Ares andAphrodite.Hermes110:129-137.

Bremmer,J.

1986 A HomericGoat Island.ClassicalQuarterly 6:256-257.

Brown,Calvin

1966 OdysseusandPolyphemus.ComparativeLiterature18:193-202.

Brown,Norman0.

1947 HermestheThief. Madison:Universityof WisconsinPress.

Calhoun,GeorgeW.

1934 Classesand Masses in Homer. ClassicalPhilology 29:192-206, 301-316.Campbell,John

1964 Honour,FamilyandPatronage.Oxford:ClarendonPress.

Chukwukere,B. I.

1971 Individualismn anAspectof IgboReligion. The Conch3:109-117.

Claus, D.

1975 Aidos in the Languageof Achilles. Transactionsof the AmericanPhilologicalAssociation105:13-28.



AGONISTICXCHANGE255

Clay, JennyS.

1980 Goat Island.ClassicalQuarterly30:261-264.

Davies, Malcolm1981 TheJudgement f ParisandIliad Bookxxiv. Journal f HellenicStudies101:56-

62.

Dimock,G.

1956 The Name of Odysseus. Hudson Review 9:52-70.

Doi, Takeo

1973 The Anatomyof Dependence. John Bester, trans. Tokyo: KodanshaInterna-tional.

Donlan,Walter

1980 The Aristocratic dealin AncientGreece.Lawrence,

Kan.:CoronadePress.1981 Scale, Value, andFunctionalism n the HomericEconomy.AmericanJournalof

AncientHistory6:101-117.

1985 The Social Groupsof DarkAge Greece. ClassicalPhilology 80:293-308.

Edwards,MarkW.

1987 Homer. Baltimore:JohnsHopkins UniversityPress.

Eichholz,D.

1953 Propitiation f Achilles. AmericanJournalof Philology74:137-148.

Ekeh,PeterP.

1974 Social ExchangeTheory. Cambridge:HarvardUniversityPress.

Feldman,Abraham1947 The Apotheosisof Thersites. The Classical Journal42:219-220.

Fenik,B.

1974 Studies in the Odyssey. Wiesbaden:HermesEingelschriften30.

Finlay,Robert

1980 Patroklos,Achilleus and Peleus: Fathers and Sons in the Iliad. The Classical

World73:267-273.

Finley, John H.

1978 Homer'sOdyssey. Cambridge:HarvardUniversityPress.

Finley, Moses I.

1955 Marriage,Sale and Gift in the Homeric World. Revue internationale es droitede l'antiquit62:167-194.

1957 HomerandMycenae:PropertyandTenure.Historia6:133-159.

1962[1954] The Worldof Odysseus. Harmondsworth: enguinBooks.

1985 Introduction. n GreekReligion and Society. P. E. Easterlingand J. V. Muir,eds. Pp. xiii-xx. Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.

1986[1985] Max Weber and the GreekCity-State.In Ancient History. Pp. 88-103.New York:VikingBooks.

Friedrich,Paul

1977 Sanityandthe Mythof Honor.Ethos5:281-305.

Friedrich,Paul, andJames Redfield

1978 Speechas a PersonalitySymbol:the Case of Achilles. Language54:263-288.

Gargarin,Michael

1987 Morality n Homer.ClassicalPhilology 82:285-306.

Garland,R. S. J.

1984-86 Geras Thanonton:An Investigation nto the Claims of the HomericDead.AncientSociety 15-17:5-22.




Gates,H. P.

1971 TheKinshipTerminologyof HomericGreek. IndianaUniversityPublications n

AnthropologyandLinguistics27. Baltimore:WaverlyPress.Geddes,A. G.

1984 Who's Who in "Homeric" Society. ClassicalQuarterly 4:17-36.

Glenn,Justin

1971 ThePolyphemusFolktaleand Homer'sKyklopeia.Transactions f the American

PhilologicalAssociation 102:133-181.

1978 The PolyphemusMyth. Greece and Rome 25:141-155.

Gould,J.

1975 Hiketia. Journalof Hellenic Studies 93:74-103.

Gouldner,Alvin

1965 EnterPlato. New York: Basic Books.Griffin,Jasper

1980 Homeron Life and Death. Oxford:ClarendonPress.

Held, GeorgeF.

1987 Phoinix,AgamemnonandAchilleus. ClassicalQuarterly 7:245-251.

Herman,Gabriel

1987 RitualisedFriendshipand the Greek City. Cambridge:Cambridge UniversityPress.

Heubeck, Alfred, StephanieWest, and B. Hainsworth

1988 A Commentary n Homer'sOdyssey, Volume 1. Oxford:ClarendonPress.

Hohendahl-Zoetelief, . M.1980 Manners n the HomericEpic. Leiden:Brill.

Holoka,J.

1983 "Looking Darkly" (Upodraidon):Reflectionson Status and Decorumin Ho-

mer.Transactions f the AmericanPhilologicalAssociation 113:1-16.

King, KatherineC.

1987 Achilles. Berkeley:Universityof CaliforniaPress.

Kirk,G. S.

1970 Myth.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.

1985 The Iliad:A Commentary,Volume 1. Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.

Lacy, W. K.1966 HomericHedna andPenelope'sKyrios.Journalof Hellenic Studies86:55-68.

Levy, Harry1963 The Odyssean Suitors and the Host-Guest Relationship.Transactionsof the

AmericanPhilologicalAssociation94:145-153.

Lloyd-Jones,Hugh1987 A Note on HomericMorality.ClassicalPhilology82:307-310.

Long, A.

1970 MoralsandValues in Homer.Journalof Hellenic Studies 90:121-139.

Marquardt, atricia

1985 Penelope'sPolytropos.AmericanJournalof Philology 106:3248.Mauss,Marcel

1954[1925] The Gift. IanCunnison,trans.Glencoe, Ill.: FreePress.

1969[1921] Une formeanciennede contratchez les thrace.In OeuvresIII. Pp. 35-43.

Paris:Les editionsde minuit.

Mencken,H. L.

1955[1920] A BlindSpot.In Mencken.A. Cooke, ed. Pp. 75-77. New York:VintageBooks.




Mills, DonaldH.

1981 OdysseusandPolyphemus.The ClassicalOutlook58:97-99.

Morris,Ian1986a Gift andCommodity n Archaic Greece. Man (n.s.) 21:1-17.

1986b The Use andAbuse of Homer.ClassicalAntiquity5:81-138.

Motto,AnneLydia, and JohnR. Clark

1969 Isa Dais: the Honorof Achilles. Arethusa2:109-125.

Murray,Oswyn1983 EarlyGreece. Stanford:StanfordUniversityPress.

Nagy, Gregory1979 The Best of the Achaeans.Baltimore:JohnsHopkinsUniversityPress.

1981 Benveniste'sContributiono Homeric Studies: A Case in Point. In Polyphonic

Linguistics. SylvereLotringerand ThomasGora,eds. Pp. 39-46. The Hague:Mou-ton, SemioticaSupplement.

1983 SemaandNoesis: Some Illustrations.Arethusa 16:35-55.

Nagy, JosephF.

1981 The DeceptiveGift in GreekMythology. Arethusa 14:191-204.

Newton, R. M.

1984 The Rebirthof Odysseus. Greek,Roman andByzantineStudies25:5-20.

Nimis, Steve

1986 The Languageof Achilles. The Classical Outlook79:217-225.

Nwoga, D. I.

1971 The Chi, IndividualismandIgbo Religion. The Conch3:118-120.

Onions,R. B.

1951 The Originsof EuropeanThought.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.

Pedrick,V.

1982 Supplication n the Iliad andthe Odyssey.Transactionsof the AmericanPhilo-

logical Association 112:125-140.

Podlecki,A.

1961 Guest-GiftsandNobodies. Phoenix 15:125-133.

Post, L. A.

1939 The MoralPatterns n Homer.Transactionsof the AmericanPhilologicalAsso-

ciation 70:158-190.

Pucci, Pietro

1987 OdysseusPolutropos.Ithaca:CornellUniversityPress.

Quincy,J. H.

1966 GreekExpressionsof Thanks. Journalof Hellenic Studies 86:132-158.

Qvilier,Bjorn1981 The Dynamicsof the HomericSociety. SymbolaeOsloenses56:109-155.

Redfield,James

1975 Natureand Culture n the Iliad. Chicago:Universityof ChicagoPress.

1982 Notes on the GreekWedding.Arethusa 15:181-201.

1983 The Economic Man. In Approaches o Homer.CarlA. Rubino andCynthiaW.

Shelmerdine,eds. Pp. 218-247. Austin:Universityof Texas Press.

Reeve, M. D.

1973 The Languageof Achilles. ClassicalQuarterly 3:193-195.

Roberts,JenniferT.

1981-82 Portraits f a Neurosis, Agamemnon n Book IV of theIliad. The Classical

Outlook59:33-37.



AGONISTICXCHANGE259

Vernant,Jean-Pierre

1975 Categoriesde l'agent et de l'action en Grece ancienne. In Langue, Discourse,

Societe. JuliaKristeva,Jean-ClaudeMilner,and Nicolas Ruwet, eds. Pp. 365-373.

Paris:Editionsdu Seuil.

1981a[1974] The Unionof Metis and the Sovereigntyof Heaven. JanetLloyd, trans.

In Myth, ReligionandSociety. R. L. Gordon,ed. Pp. 1-16. Cambridge:Cambridge

UniversityPress.

1981b[1977] The Mythof Prometheus n Hesiod. JanetLloyd, trans.In Myth, Reli-

gion andSociety. R. L. Gordon,ed. Pp. 43-56. Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.

198 c[1977] SacrificialandAlimentaryCodes in Hesiod's Myth. JanetLloyd, trans.

InMyth, ReligionandSociety. R. L. Gordon,ed. Pp. 57-79. Cambridge:Cambridge

UniversityPress.

Walcot,Peter

1970 Greek Peasants, Ancient and Modern. Manchester:Manchester UniversityPress.

1977a Odysseusand the Art of Lying. AncientSociety 8:1-19.

1977b TheJudgementof Paris. Greece andRome 24:31-39.

1978 Envyand the Greeks. Warminster:Aris andPhilips.Weber,Max

1972[1906] Georg Simmel as Sociologist. Donald N. Levine, ed. and trans. Social

Research39:155-163.

1978[1909] TheAgrarianSociology of Ancient Civilization. R. L. Frank, rans. Lon-

don: New Left Books.

Weil, Simone

n.d.[1940-41] The Iliad or the Poem of Force. MaryMcCarthy, rans.Wallingford,Pa.: PendleHill Press.

Weiner,Annette

1985 InalienableWealth. AmericanEthnologist12:210-227.

Whallon,W.

1960 The Name of Penelope. Greek,Roman andByzantineStudies 53:57-74.

Whitman,Cedric H.

1965[1958] Homerand the HomericTradition.New York:Norton.

Willis, William H.

1941 Athletic Contests in the Epic. Transactionsof the AmericanPhilologicalAsso-

ciation72:392-417.

Zarker,John W.

1965 King Eetion andThebe as Symbols in the Iliad. The ClassicalJournal61:110-114.

Beidelman on Simmel and Mauss

Documents

Transcript of Beidelman on Simmel and Mauss