What has gone wrong in Odysseus’ household and estates in his absence? (Catherine Project 10)

 Catherine Project, Spring 2024, Homer -- Od. 17-20

To my eyes Odysseus’ household and estates are surprisingly well-run in his absence. Eumaeus and the oxherd Philoetius continue to serve Odysseus and make his flocks prosper (20.211f); Odysseus’ slaves continue the brutal, knee-breaking work of grinding grain (20.106f); Eurycleia continues to serve as the chief female slave, issuing orders to the other slaves (20.149). Overall the picture is of relatively well-run prosperity, almost like the vision Odysseus sketches of the good king and his bountiful estate (19.114).

So what has gone wrong? Basically, it’s just the suitors. Characters point to three basic problems the suitors are causing (16.107-111 for all three):

• The suitors’ consumption of the house’s food and wine (17.535, 20.315, etc.)
• Mistreatment of guests (19.313-5, 20.317-9), manifested in the times the suitors throw things at beggar Odysseus, the fight between Iros and Odysseus (criticized by Penelope at 18.221-4), and the suitors’ proposal to sell the beggar Odysseus and Theoclymenus into slavery in Sicily (20.383)
• Mishandling of female slaves (i.e. having sex with them) (20.317-9), e.g. Melantho and Eurymachus (18.325). Possibly this sex is what Eurycleia means by which women have “dishonored” Odysseus (19.497)

Arguably these are all moral faults: these characters are criticizing the suitors’ greed for food and women and their selfishness in refusing hospitality. Characters attribute these faults to the lack of a “man” who can, by physical force (17.540) or by orders (19.314), punish these faults and force correct behavior (cf. Penelope’s criticism of Telemachus at 18.215-225). The absence of a dominant man able and willing to correct misbehavior means the suitors can indulge their greed.

We get a glimpse of a different idea of what has gone wrong in the image of the dog Argos. Argos lies in the manure dung in front of the house covered in ticks (17.297-300); it’s not clear where an elderly dog should be, but this dunghill is apparently a bad location. Eumaeus claims that the women are careless and that the serving men, in the master’s absence, no longer work (17.318-321). Eumaeus’ claim and Argos’ condition might make us think that many of Odysseus’ slaves are slacking and that the whole of Odysseus’ house is rundown in his absence; but as far as I can tell, Argos’ sad condition is the only place where the house isn’t working well because of the slaves. Eumaeus’ claim points toward a possible household that doesn’t actually exist.

So overall, it seems like the Odyssey gives us a vision where good slaves continue to work in their master’s absence for decades; even the “bad” slaves, the female slaves having sex with the suitors, continue to do their work. In the Odyssey’s depiction, a household doesn’t need a master to keep the slaves in check and productive; it needs a master to keep out parasites (or “plague”) who will greedily consume what the slaves produce. Overall it seems like a pretty ideologically driven and falsely rosy view of slavery.

Some key passages for other questions

• What do we lose as we age, in the Odyssey?
• 17.21 – Od. no longer of age to work on farm
• 18.130 – no man fears misfortune while young, but in old age must suffer
• 18.21 (cf. 69) Od. old but muscular
• Why is there so much emphasis on how all the suitors need to die, even the good ones? Why must they die?
• 17.362-4 – Athena sends Od. to test the suitors, but even so all will die
• 18.155 – Amphinomus doomed to die, despite seeing the evil
• Does Penelope recognize Odysseus in 19?
• 380, 467 – Eurycleia
• 19.572 – P organizes bow contest
• 19.602 – P still weeps for Od (because she doesn’t recognize him?)
• 20.94 – Odysseus thinks Penelope recognized him