Beidelman On Simmel and Mauss

!"#$%&'%()*+(,-$"./)0#1.2%()3.(%42#(%'5)-$6)',.)0.2%'-".)#7)8%11.
9)-$6):-;&&
!;',#2<&=/)>?)@?)A.%6.91-$
8#;2(./)B;9';2-9)!$',2#4#9#"5C)D#9?)EC)F#?)G)<!;"?C)HIJI=C)44?)KKLMKNI
O;P9%&,.6)P5/)A9-(QR.99)O;P9%&,%$")#$)P.,-97)#7)',.)!1.2%(-$)!$',2#4#9#"%(-9)!&&#(%-'%#$
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 at
http://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 support@jstor.org.
Blackwell Publishing and American Anthropological Association are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize,
preserve and extend access to Cultural Anthropology.
http://www.jstor.org
Agonistic Exchange: Homeric Reciprocity
and the Heritage of Simmel and Mauss
T. 0. Beidelman
Faculty of Arts and Sciences, Departmentof Anthropology
New YorkUniversity
Whatever it maybe,
I feartheGreeks,evenwhentheybringgifts.
-Virgil, Aeneid
Greekswouldneverproducea Jewish-typecomedian.To laughat yourselfis to give
awayfornothing.
something
-A Greekfriend
Thirty-fiveyears ago the late M. I. Finley (1962) called attentionto the in-
sights that anthropologyand sociology could provide classicists seeking to un-
derstandHomeric society. Finley drew upon the work of Mauss to describe Ho-
meric exchange. Today many classicists cite not only Mauss and Durkheimbut
examples of Melanesianbig-men, the Nuer, the Dinka, questions about the rise
of the nation-state,and the predictablestructuralistlegerdemainof Levi-Strauss
and Leach (Finley 1985:xiv). Yet one must search far for references to ancient
Greekmaterialin currentAmericanand British social anthropology.'So far, in-
terdisciplinaryfertilizationbetweenclassics andsocial anthropologyappearsone-
sided. This articleaims to bringsome classical issues into sharperanthropological
focus. I furtherhope to show how these datamay informandrefinethinkingabout
key anthropologicalissues. To do so I continue along the path set by Finley and
valuablyadvancedby Donlan, Qviller, Morris, Segal, Gould, and othercontem-
poraryclassicists influencedby social anthropology.For this articlethatpath in-
volves the topic of exchange or reciprocityand its relationto the constructionof
the social person.
Finley clearly owed his insights to Mauss, and I begin with that seminal
thinker.I then proceed to an equally powerful and original analyst of exchange
ignoredby classicists and most anthropologists,Georg Simmel. I briefly review
both Mauss and Simmel and then apply their insights to some Homericmaterial.
To do so I firstprovidea brief overview of Homericsociety and beliefs regarding
exchange and then consider four specific examples in more detail, two from the
Iliad and two from the Odyssey. I conclude with a few suggestionsas to what this
may tell us aboutexchangeand the personandthe value of Mauss's and Simmel's
insights.
227
228 CULTURALANTHROPOLOGY
Mauss and Simmel

Mauss arguedfor a broaderconstructionto our notions aboutexchange, ob-
servingthat it shouldbe viewed in termsof total social phenomena.What is less
generallyrecognizedis thatMauss saw prestationsof things as integralto the so-
cial constructionof the person(1954:2). Unfortunately,Maussdichotomizedmis-
leadinglybetween contrastingcategoriesof complete trustand distrustin archaic
societies, maintainingthat exchanges such as gift giving were pursuedbecause
they successfully domesticatedwarfareinto benevolent trade. Mauss's concep-
tion of "agonisticexchange," which he laterappliedto Melanesiansandpotlatch-
ing Amerindians,appearsto have developed from an earlierpaperon exchange
devotedto Greekmaterial.Yet Mauss appearsawarethateven duringseemingly
cordialreciprocity,tensions remain: "The form usually taken is that of the gift
generouslyoffered;but that the accompanyingbehaviouris formalpretenceand
social deception" (1954:1). Perhapsif Mauss had remainedlonger with Greek
materialhis model would have gained more ambiguityand ambivalence.His best
insighton that score is a remarkaproposof the one case he cites from the Iliad,
6:230-236. There, one hero exchanges gold armorfor bronze on account of his
mindbeing befuddledby Zeus: "Ainsi les Grecs l'epopee homeriqueavaientvu
ces moeursfonctionneret les consideraientcomme folles" (1969:38; see Redfield
1983:234).Farfromreflectingalienatedjudgment, Homer'saccountis consistent
with Greek concern that supposedlyegalitarianreciprocationcould lead to hier-
archicalrelationsstemmingfrom trickery,errorsof judgment, or coercion. It is,
as Benvenisterightlyobserves, a "sociological illustration"(1973:81).
Simmel's masterpieceon exchange precededMauss's by over twenty years
and representsmore sustainedand complex analysis (1978[1904]), even though
it promptedmisgivings from Weber (1972; Altman 1904). I devote dispropor-
tionatelymore time to it thanto Mauss's work both because it is less well known
andbecause it seems particularlypertinentto the Greekmaterial.Simmel's inter-
pretationconjuresup a sense of pathos characterizingproblematicrelationsbe-
tween persons and the objects which they exchange (1971:64). For Simmel no
mannerof exchangeentirelyexpunges the tension and struggleinvolved 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
trophiesresemblethe antiquesand raregoods of which Simmel writes: "It comes
to appearthat they cost what they are worth" (Simmel 1971:65). Simmel, like
Mauss, connects exchange and the objects involved to the personhoodof those
concerned.Exchangesbetween Greek warriorsnicely characterizeSimmel's re-
alizationthatcommerce, an attemptto objectify value, would be particularlyre-
pugnantto aristocratswho view proper exchanges as profoundly personalized
(1971:64). Greek exchange was between households (oikoi) centeredabout par-
ticularpatriarchs(oikodespotes).This is the originalmeaningof economy (oikon-
omia).
Simmel stresses that reciprocal activities of aristocratsmust be "survey-
able" (1950:90). Of course, this hardlymeans that such operationsare "open"
AGONISTICEXCHANGE 229
in termsof candor.Simmel, morethanmost social theorists,appreciatesthe man-

agementof public image or "face," so vital to Greeks, and with this, the orches-
trationof cunninganddeceit. "The personwho knows completely need not trust;
while the personwho knows nothingcan on no rationalgrounds,affordeven con-
fidence" (1950:318). Homer's Greeks, and for that mattermodem Japanese,try
to surmountthis dilemma involving every nonkin and especially strangers,by
involved prestationsand complex etiquette (see Simmel 1971:64). Such public
performancesincrease the social risks involved and consequently the need to
cloak oneself with deception. Simmel recognizes that social exchange (sociation)
requirestact (1950:45), but like Mausshe may have underplayedthe need for risk.
Yet Simmel forcefully notes an element of sheer power adheringto exchange
(1950:392). Long beforeMauss, Simmel saw a gift as "an impositionof identity"
(Schwartz1967:1), thoughnotingthateven in the most unevenexchangesthe two
partiesmutuallyinfluenceone another.Simmel, like Mauss, recognizes that be-
neathall exchange lies some agonistic sense: "exchange is nothingmorethanthe
causally connected repetition of the fact that an actor now has lost something
which he previously did have" (Simmel 1971:46). This requiresa reckoningof
values to determinewhether what one has gained would be worth more to one
than what one has lost. Of course, deception, ignorance, and compelling force
complicatesuch mattersas indeedthey do for cases from Homer. In some of these
cases, the winnergains all and loses nothing, thoughhe may have risked much.
Homeric Greece: A Background

The constitutionof Homericsociety has been intensively debatedsince Fin-
ley's famous study (1962), rangingfrom works arguingthat Homer portraysan
unrealsocial worldto those strugglingto resolve contradictionsandvagariesman-
ifest in the epics so as to prove that Homeric society actually existed (Adkins
1963, 1969, 1971, 1972, 1975, 1982, 1987; Basset 1934; Calhoun 1934; 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; Snodgrass 1974). Where some of these interpretationshave erred, this has
been particularlydue to projecting "modern" Western values and morals onto
this material,a point well criticizedby Finley andAdkins.2In this articleI assume
thatHomerwrote with deep sociological insight. His works were continuallyes-
teemedby subsequentgenerationsof Greeksbecause he toucheddeeply held, en-
duringGreekvalues and ideals thatcontinuein parteven today (see Walcot 1970
and Plato's RepublicX:606e). Some of these values, involving tensions between
egalitarianismand ranking(domination),characterizea social predicamentin all
societies. The broadfeaturesof Homeric society are fairly clear. A few general
beliefs and values account for the strategiesand dilemmas animatingthe epics'
protagonists.
Homericsociety is composed of myriadhouseholds (oikoi) headedby elder
males possessing allotted land (kleros), livestock, and treasureand comprising
subordinatekin, attachedfollowers, and slaves. Heads of various households

stroveto remainautonomousyet also strove to make advantageousalliances be-
tween themselves and otherhouseholdsof comparablepower and dignity, either
through marriage or prestations of goods, usually termed gift-host relations
(xeinie)or friendship(philotes). Alliances were worthwhileif they involved com-
parablehouseholds.3Men could bind outsidersto their householdsthroughgifts
of goods, slaves, land, or by marriage. Such prestationsconstitutedsigns (se-
mata) of the household's worth. Exchange facilitatedlinks between equals at a
distance, but it also providedmeans by which seeming equals could be subordi-
nated,by which strangerscould be domesticatedand dominatedand workersand
men-at-armsrecruited.
A household's wealth, land, warriors,and workers formed an interlinked
system of production.Wealth and land supportedand attractedpeople. People
producedmore goods, and warriorsnot only defended what one possessed but
allowed one to seize more. A small household might be subordinatedto larger,
richer,moreaggressiveneighborseitherthroughthe assertionof a morepowerful
unit or because the head of the weaker group thought it expedient to become a
client. Classicists have developed a useful picture of Homeric society that ap-
proximatesthe accretive and dissolving kin and client groups made famous in
ethnographiesof Evans-Pritchard andLienhardtwritingaboutthe NuerandDinka
of the southernSudan. Such households were united underone male authority,
but domesticaffairswere monopolizedby women. Furthermore,thereappearsto
have been potentialcontentionbetweenbrothersand some suggestionsof conflict
betweenwomen such as a wife and a concubine.
In Homeric society there were the aristocrats(aristoi) meritingrespect (ai-
dos)4 commensuratewith their excellence (arete). There were noble men (aga-
thos, good, brave). They were attractive(esthlos), which was good or beautiful
(kalos). Not living up to these standardsconstitutedfailure(aischron) which was
ugly or bad (kakos), producingoverpoweringshame (elencheie) and deep, angry
emotion(thumos).Such men stroveto increasetheirrespectthroughhonor(time)
from others, hoped for divinely bestowed illustriousness(kudos), and sought a
shareof rewards(geras) markingsocial acknowledgmentof their worth.
The termaristoi should not mislead one to assume thatHomericsociety had
classes. Calhounrightlyobserves thatsuch aristocratswere notablesonly in "the
loosest sense of the word" (1934:308). These were open groups where ranking
was constantlyup for challenge. One's ancestorscounted as did one's material
resources,but one's standingcould be jeopardized,lost, or enhancedby victory,
defeat, improvidence,luck, or unacceptableconduct. Some writersreferto Ther-
sites, the single ugly and mean-spiritedwarriorin the Iliad (excepting Dolon), as
a commoner.In fact, he was an aristes and son of a leader(basileus) who failed
to conducthimself honorably(Feldman 1947).
Attachedto these aristocraticmen were subordinatekin and also unrelated
adherents(heterai)who, while aristocratic,were automaticallyless distinguished
thantheirleader. There were also servantsand slaves. In this world work (erga)
was not in itself bad or shameful, yet it was demeaningto toil for another,espe-
cially for paymentsince this involved loss of autonomy. It was also demeaning
to seek goods in commerce, though it was beautiful and noble to exchange re-
sources voluntarilyas in giving or receiving gifts, especially in celebratoryhos-
pitality(Herman1987). Goods could also be obtainedin otherways besides labor
or gifts. Best of all was taking goods by force, as booty by sacking a town or
householdand enslaving its inhabitantsor by strippinga slain opponent. Agon-
istic competitioncould also involve trophiesfrom athleticcontests, viewed as do-
mesticatedcombat. Struggle(agon) demonstratedthat a winner was due greater
respect(aidos) than a rival on accountof his being powerful (karteros). Finally,
resourcescould be honorablyobtainedby theft or trickery.These indicatedthat
the takerwas a betterman, at least so long as the theftor swindle was not avenged.
Aristocratic or heroic Greeks secured wealth through competitive freedom
(eleutheria), and the respect each received was proportionateto the standingof
those with whom one contended. Each hero strove to win fame (kleos) befitting
his particularestimatedworth. Such strugglealso measuredmen's power to 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-
spect one was due only by contendinguntil meeting one's match. In thatway one
discoveredwhat one's allotment(moira, fate) was worth. Born an aristocrat,one
still had to contendto maintainand define thatstanding.Of course, one vied only
with thosejudged equals or superiorsin orderto prove thatone might actuallybe
theirbetter.Riffraff, slaves, and hangers-onhad no rightfulpartin such agonistic
choreography.
It was extremely importantto recognize with whom one exchanged foods,
people, and deeds. Involvement within one's proximate social range insured
maintainingrankor its possible escalation at the expense of a competitor.Esca-
lation was proportionateto the reputationof a fallen protagonist.Consequently
aristocratswere likely to be takenon by personswho consideredthemselves their
equals or betters. This was tactically acceptableprovidedthat the spectatorsin-
volved (and witnesses were vital) conceded that such ranking was sufficiently
proximatethatan upsetmightjustifiablyoccur. No one contendedpromiscuously,
but people were forced to contend more often than they wished and with more
personsthan they might have thoughtdecent. Contentionwas inevitably a result
of a compromisebetween need for public approvaland need for lowly contenders
to be silenced. The public natureof the arenaof contentionwas crucial. If one
was confrontedby a manifestinferior,contentiononly demeanedone's standing.
Consequently,the despised Thersites was denied any contest by Odysseus who
merely struckhim with a scepter and threatenedto uncover his genitals (aidos,
respect, shame). Often when confrontedwith an inferior, the Homerichero lim-
ited exchange to glowering at an opponent, to staring him down (upodraidon,
looking darkly, Holoka 1983).
Homeric Greeks drew their personhood, their social identity, from ex-
change, agonistic and otherwise. One knew one's rankand standingby knowing
with whom one received and gave women, with whom one exchanged gifts and
hospitality, what was bestowed to one from others as rewards, and with whom
one contendedin war and sport.5To know oneself one had to know responsive
others. Each battleengagementin the Iliad constitutesa kind of personalrite de
passage in which each warriorannouncedhis name, lineage, and deeds to the
other. This insuredthatone was not demeanedby contendingwith a patentinfe-
rior, but it also guaranteedthat one would know what reputationand honor one
appropriatedby slaying or, less often, capturingand ransomingthe other (Sale
1963;Schein 1984). In this second case, keeping a hostage for ransominevitably
involved long-termhospitalityand possible gift-guest friendshipthat should only
involve a worthyperson.
Given these difficulties, encounteringappearancesand identities that were
misleadingcould have grave consequences. For Achilleus to have his friend Pa-
troklosslain while wearing his, Achilleus's, armor,and then to contemplatethe
slayer, Achilleus's arch rival, Hektor, donning that same armor,involved more
problemsand loss than simply the death of a friend and lover. The armor, inci-
dentally,originallybelongedto Achilleus's fatherso thatit was doubly associated
with a fatherlyfigure, Patroklosand Peleus (Finlay 1980). Similarly, lack of in-
formationabout someone's identityposed even more severe problems. This ex-
plainsthe difficultiesinvolved in confrontingstrangers,whetherthey be foreign-
ers of seeming rankor beggars. One could not be sure what respect(aidos) they
were due. They could even be gods in disguise and indeed strangerswere under
the protectionof Zeus (Bolchazy 1978; Levy 1963; Podlecki 1961). Theoxony
was a universallyurgedbelief andpractice.Lying anddeceptionaboutone's iden-
tity and worthconstitutedseriousdangersthathad to be reckonedwith if the pro-
tagonistswere to make shrewdjudgments about what strategiesto take (Walcot
1977a). The fate of Penelope's suitors illustrates where bad judgments about
seeminglypowerless strangersmight lead.
Much literatureon Homeric social organizationcontrastswell-known and
less-knownpersonsin termsof "ours" and "others." Withina householdall free
membersarephiloi, meaning those one loves or likes, friends, kin, or even in-
directly one's possessions (Benveniste 1973:277-288). Yet conflict and death
were presenteven here, as biographiesof Agamemnon, Phoenix, and Patroklos
demonstrate(Schlunk 1976; Scodel 1982). Outsidersare not philoi unless they
aredistantkin, affines, or guest-giftfriends(xeinoi) (Herman1987). Greekswere
not supposedto contend with philoi. Yet Hermanobserves that the word philoi
could mean "clients" as well.
For HomericGreekskinshipinvolved deep solidarityandrevelationof iden-
tity but also involved rankedrelationsof age and gender. In the oikos the pecking
orderwas clear-cut.Outsidethe oikos properagathoi were more or less equal. It
is in this external, egalitariansphere that one engaged in agonistic exchange in
orderto maintainand augmentone's name, one's dignity (aidos), throughaccu-
mulationof esteem (time). Exchange inevitably involved alteringequals to un-
equals. Both warlikeandpeacefulcompetitioncould lead to winnersor losers and
to clienthoodtakingon connotationsof parent-childor older-youngerbrotherre-
lations resemblingrank within the household. Thus the termphiloi held impli-
cations of solidaritybut also possible rankingas well. Not surprisingly,anthro-
pologists reportcomparableplay with kin terms among Nuer patronsand Dinka

clients in settlementsin the southernSudan.
I have so far describeda social world of limited resourceswhere one protag-
onist's gain is another'sloss. Unrelatedequals are perpetuallylikely to be locked
in contentionwhere someone wins and anothermust lose. One must contend for
honorsand dignity, and to refuse to contend, if one is noble and young, is auto-
maticallyto lose. In contrast,those who are related(thoughconsequentlyranked)
all sharein a victory againsta memberof the othergroup. The subordinates,col-
leagues, hangers-on,andeven slaves of Odysseus's householdrisk loweringtheir
commonrespectand rightswith their master'sabsence and the humiliationof his
wife and son. Correspondingly,all sharein the benefitsof Odysseus's returnwith
victory and wealth-except those who betrayedhim. To be sure, slaves at the
bottom of the heap can expect meager measure of identity and recognition, as
comparedto his retainersor his son, but even the slave of a householdhas identity
andenjoys protectionvis-a-vis the outside world, in correspondenceto the house-
hold he is in. Thus when Achilleus is conjuredup fromthe dead by Odysseus, the
worst status that he can imagine to compare with death is a transientlaborer's
(thetes), unattachedto a householdand thereforedependentupon paymentsfrom
indifferent,unprotectivestrangers,Odyssey 11:488-491. This remindsme of ex-
amples in Evans-Pritchard'sethnographywhere one Nuer criticizes anotherbe-
cause his fellow has beaten "his Dinka" client, whereas the patronNuer alone
claims the rightto pick on such a dependent.For HomericGreeksa rogue would
be panourgos, one who does everything. Only someone whose volition and thus
whose autonomyhas been eroded is forced so low. Bound to a particularhouse-
hold, even the slave has expectations, and a proper household would uphold
these.
Such a system of contentionratesrisk highly. Such honors are relatedto the
rank and power of those one confronts, one maintainsor gains honor only by
confrontingthose as highly rankedas possible yet so within strikingrange that
one hopes one might beat them. No one gains by besting an utter inferior. One
gets somewhereonly by aiming high and dangerously, though a miscalculation
wouldbe shameful,subordinating,or even fatal. Still, the higherthe rankof one's
vanquisher,the less disgracefulone's defeat will be. Obviously, one needs all the
informationone can get to estimatewisely one's prospectsat each encounter.Risk
is linked with secrecy and deception. Withina householdwhere everyone shares
a commonlot, informationis freely disclosed. Outside, one puts up a closed front
revealingonly what is favorable.The problemof risky exchange means that pro-
tagonists try to withhold as much unfavorableinformationabout themselves as
possible and seek to learn all that is unfavorableabout outsiders. Lying and de-
ceptionareacceptabletactics. They areformsof cunning(dolos or metis), another
weapon in the battleof contentiousexchange.
Despite the importanceof eloquence, cunning, and deception, none of this
contendingand posturingcounts for much unless it is public. There must be wit-
nesses to attestto the outcome. One's fame (kleos) dependson acknowledgment
and praise from others, especially peers, those very persons with whom one is
most likely to contend. The good opinions that count most would necessarilybe
most grudgingly bestowed. Praise from one's kin and underlings is taken for
grantedunless one transgressed,for kin and followers share in one's glory-or
loss. This public natureof exchanges, at assemblies, in battles, at great feasts,
contestsandceremonies,addsconsiderablyto the risk attendingattemptsto score
points in the game of honorand shame. To count, agonistic exchanges should be
enactedbeforethe most criticalaudienceand in such a way thatany failurewould
be so well known thatenormouseffort would be required(if indeed it were pos-
sible) to undo any harmdone.
Envy (phtonos)andjealousy (zelos) are key aspects for this system (Walcot
1978; cf. Schoeck 1987:146-152, 214). Envy involves the ill feeling we have
aboutwhat anotherpossesses. Jealousy involves rancoraboutlosing what we al-
readyhave to someone else. Greeks also sometimes employed zelos more posi-
tively, referringto strong feeling about losing a possession to someone else on
accountof how valuableit was. This resembledboastingaboutwhatone had. All
these notions reflectthe deep concern that Greeks felt regardingthe good things
whichthey mightwin or lose fromothersclaimingto be theirsuperiors.Envy and
jealousy were rooted in agonistic exchange among supposed equals whom one
hoped to put down. The Homeric epics are essentially aristocraticin their pre-
vailing values. Yet these and otherworks in latercenturiesdisplay a deep conflict
in all Greek society that pits aristocraticand democraticprinciplesagainst each
other. Menckencould have been referringto ancient Greeks ratherthan modern
Americans when he remarkedthat envy is an essential feature of democracy
(Mencken 1955).
The precedingaccount provides little on Homeric women. This is because
they not appeardirectlyinvolved in the topic at hand, public exchange. Leav-
do
ing aside variousgoddesses, women figure weakly in the Iliad. Helen, Hecuba,
Kassandra,Brisseus, and Andromacheare figures for whom men contend. With
the defeatof the men with whom they are linked, they will ceremoniouslymourn
or will numberamong the rewards(geras) bestowed to the victors. As women
they arenot allowedpublicconductandconsequentlycannotengage in any formal
exchange. Even in the Odyssey where more women appear, no fully mortal
women occur (can one consider Helen fully mortal?)outside Ithaka. While Pe-
nelope and Eurykleaare key figuresthere, they are grantedno public exchange.
Penelope'sanomalousmaritalposition meritsconsiderableanthropologicalcom-
mentbut not in termsof this article.
The Homeric Epics

Literatureon the Iliad and Odysseyis staggeringlyvast. SourcesthatI found
useful are Atchity (1978), Austin (1982), Claus (1975), Edwards (1987),
Eichholz (1953), John H. Finley (1978), Moses 1. Finley (1955), Gould (1975),
Griffin(1980), Heubecket al. (1988), Hohendahl-Zoetelief(1980), 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). Classicists will find little informationin

my articlethat is not alreadyconveyed in these works. Whatthis articlecontrib-
utes is casting such materialinto a social anthropologicalframework,as well as
developingargumentsraisedby Mauss and Simmel.
The Homericepics may be explainedin termsof definingthe personand the
reciprocityemployedto do so.6 The Iliad opens proclaimingthe wrathof the hero
whose name, father, and social backgroundare immediatelymadeclear. Heroes'
identitiesderive from those they defeat and the consequent rewardsthey reap.
Achilleus's wrathstems from being insufficientlyrewardedas the hero he judges
himself to be. He is sure that the respect (aidos) he is due exceeds the tokens of
recognition(geras) which he receives, consequentlyimpairingthe glory (kleos)
he seeks. He believes thatneitherright-mindedmen nor the gods could creditthis
treatmentas justice (dike). The Iliad is about conflict and the demand for retri-
butive payment(poine) negotiatedto rectify unjustrecognitionfor the person. It
is a poem of force (bie) (Weil n.d.) employed to seek fame at the price of a safe
return(nostos) home. Troublearises because the protagonistsdiffer in assessing
whateach is due and in theircapacitiesto enforce suchjudgments. Its tragedylies
in the implicitacknowledgmentthatthe greatesthero mustdie to securethe great-
est glory.
Complementarily,the Odyssey is about a jeopardized name and identity.
Truepersonhoodcan be achieved only within the seeker's enrichedand glorified
household from which he has been separatedand which outsiderstry to usurp.
The unnamedhero wandersin a world where he is unrecognizedin both senses
of the term. To make mattersworse the regions he visits presentvalues and situ-
ationsmakingit difficultfor him to succeed. Unlike the Iliad, the Odysseyopens
withholdingthe hero's identity. He is describedas a he-man(andros), multireac-
tive (polytropos)and a navigator.It takes 21 lines before we learnhis name. Sub-
sequent adventuresreveal him as multireactive(polytropos), infinitely cunning
(polymetis)in lying and deceit (dolos), qualitieson which he is complimentedby
his disguisedmentor,the goddess Athena, daughterof Metis (cunning).Odysseus
boastfullyreveals his name to Polyphemus, the Cyclops, and he suffers through
muchof the epic on accountof this hubris. He reveals his nameto the Phaeakians
only afterhe has good reasonto trustthem and they have promisedhim a ship to
reachIthaka.He returnsto his family and home as a stranger,revealinghis iden-
tity in a bloodbaththatreclaimshis rule and avenges his dishonor.
The Odysseyis an epic abouta hero whose identityis unknownand problem-
atic and whose social being is reattainedgraduallythroughhis treatmentor mis-
treatmentas a gift-deserving, nameless strangerat the mercy of others. "Odys-
seus' adventuresarehis lineage" (Benardete1963:13). In the negativereciprocity
of his exploits Odysseus earnshis name meaning "causerof trouble" because his
aggressive relationswith others make him remembered.7This is an epic about a
successful return(nostos) securedby force and cunning.
With these broadcontrastsestablished, I examine in more detail two situa-
tions in each of the two epics. Besides illustratinghow complex and manifold
Homericreciprocitymay be, and how closely it is tied to definitionsof person-
hood, these cases provide me with an opportunityto fill in furtherethnographic

detailson Homericbeliefs and values governingstrategiesof reciprocity.If space
permitted,textual illustrationscould be greatly increasedfor both epics abound
in such material.
The Iliad
My firstexample relatesto the crucialtheme of the Iliad, Achilleus's wrath.
Achilleushas demonstratedthathe is the bravest,most forcefulAchaean, at least
to his own satisfaction.After his victories, booty has been given to Agamemnon,
king or leader(anax or basileus) of the army who as custodianof divine custom
(themis)will divide and bestow wealthto the variousmen. Eachbestowal (geras)
is a rewardof honorrecognizinga man's accomplishmentsor inciting him to fu-
turedeeds. In either case, the gift leads to obligation (chreios). Throughoutthe
Iliad individualheroes strive to achieve honorthroughdeeds, but Agamemnonis
the acknowledgedpublic source for creditingAchaeanexploits. Just as some Af-
ricanchiefs receive tributethat they then dole out in hospitalityand gifts to fol-
lowers, so too the Homeric leader assembles men at a communalfeast (dais) to
distributehonorsto the outstandingones (exochoi). This providespublicfocus for
acknowledgmentand discredit. While Agamemnon is proclaimedleader 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, Agamemnonwould possess not only the wordsforjudg-
mentand conferringhonorbut also comparablebraveryand force.
Wordsanddeeds shouldcoincide. Wordsareimportantrecognitionbut must
be backedby deeds and goods where wrongs and rewardsare concerned. Charis
means both verbalgratitudeand materialreward.Payment, not just verbal apol-
ogy, is vital as recompense(poine) to injury. Thus, Greeks, like Nuer, observe
thatbloodwealthis necessary;but like Nuerthey also recognizethatcompensation
never actually makes up fully for losses such as death, suffering, and shame.8
Paymentis all that is culturallyavailable if one rejects violence and seeks delib-
eratedagreement(euboulia) (Schofield 1967).
Achilleus is wrathfulbecause Agamemnonhas takena captive woman from
him in orderto replaceanothercaptive thatAgamemnonwas forced to relinquish
on account of the supernaturalinterference of Apollo. Agamemnon reminds
Achilleus that he, Agamemnon, must replace his own loss or be without a sub-
stantivesign (geras) of his paramountrankamongthe assembledwarriors(laos):
"thatyou may know well how much I am honored(pherteros)thanyou, and that
anothermantoo may shrinkfrom declaringhimself my peer and likeninghimself
to me to my face" Iliad 1:185-187. Achilleus latercomplainsthat such injustice
occurs "whenevera man wishes to despoil (amerdo)an equal (homoios)andtake
back his geras because he is superiorin power (kratos)" Iliad 16:52. He rejects
Agamemnonas better than he. He claims that Agamemnon is neitherjust nor
braveand prevailsonly because he has the armybehindhim. Achilleus has early
on complainedaboutAgamemnonthat "there was no gratitude(charis) given for
fightingincessantlyforeveragainstyour enemies" 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, and yielded to my miserablepassion, I am mindedto make

amends (apoina), and to give requitalpast counting. In the midst of you all let me
name the glorious gifts (dor anomeno): seven tripodsthat the fire hath not touched,
and ten talentsof gold and twenty of gleaming cauldrons,and twelve stronghorses,
winnersin the race, that have won prizes by their fleetness. Not withoutbooty were
a man, nor unpossessedby previousgold, whoso had wealth as greatas the prizes my
single-hoovedsteeds have won me. And I will give seven women, skilled in goodly
handiwork,women of Lesbos, whom on the day when himself [Achilleus]took well-
built Lesbos I chose me from out of the spoil, and that in beauty surpassall women-
folk. These will I give him and amid them shall be she that I took away, the daughter
of Brisseus; and I will furthermoreswear a great oath that never went I up into her
bed neitherhad I dalliancewith her as is the appointedway of mankind,even of men
and women. All these things shall be ready to his hand forthwith;and if thereafterit
so be the gods grantus lay waste the city of Priam, let him then enter in, what time
we Achaeansbe dividingthe spoil, andheapup his ship with storeof gold andbronze,
and himself choose twenty Trojanwomen that be fairest after Argive Helen. And if
we returnto AchaeanArgos, the richestof lands, he shall be my son, and I will honor
him even as Orestes that is reared in all abundance, my son well-beloved. Three
daughtershave I in my well-buildedhall, Chrysothemis,andLaodice, andIphianassa;
of these let him take away the one he would like as wife (phile) in the house of Peleus,
withoutgifts of wooing (anahednon)and I will furthermoregive a dower (doso) full
rich, such as no man ever yet gave with his daughter.And even well-peopled cities
will I give him, Cardamyle,Enope, and grassy Hire, and sacredPheraeand Antheia
with deep meadows, and fair Aepeia and vine-clad Pedasus. All are nigh to the sea,
on the uttermostborderof sandy Pylos and in them dwell men rich in flocks and rich
in kine, men that shall honor him with gifts (dotines) as though he were a god, and
beneathhis sceptreshall bring his ordinancesto prosperousfulfilment.All this will I
bringto pass for him, if he but cease from his wrath. Let him yield-Hades, I wean,
is not to be soothed, neitherovercome, whereforehe is most hated of all gods. And
let him submithimself (upostitu)unto me, seeing I am more kingly (basileuteros)and
avow me his elder in years. [Iliad 9:119-161 ]
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 although the goods were attainedby
Achilleus, he, Agamemnon,has hold of them on accountof his right as supreme
commander.Second, in praisinghis horses, Agamemnontakes an opportunityto
relatehis own numerousracingvictoriesandthe fame thatthey broughthim. Even
the returnof the captive woman, Brisseus's daughter,is not what it first seems.
After all, since Agamemnonhas not slept with her, she cannotbe so desperately
desirable.Even if she were all these things and he is not lying, she is now vol-
untarilygiven up; she would be far more desirable if Achilleus could seize her
against Agamemnon's will. Agamemnonoffers Achilleus lands and one of his
own daughtersas wife. The landswould possibly place Achilleus in subservience
to Agamemnon;the daughterwould certainlydo so. This is underscoredby Aga-
memnonremarkingthat no paymentsof hedna need be made. As I noted earlier
such paymentswere vital in establishingthe parity of affines, so that Achilleus
would be receiving a binding, demeaningfavor (see note 3 and Moses 1. Finley
1955;Lacy 1966). To underscorethe situation,Agamemnondescribeshimself as
willing to become a fatherto Achilleus, asking only that he be recognizedas the
older and leader. The seductive offer really constitutesa fatherly, engulfing em-
brace, an offer of becoming philoi (friends-kin)in a way acknowledging little
autonomyandequalityfor the youngerman. Finally, the entirespeech appearsto
set a calculable, materialvalue to Achilleus's merit(arete) and this is perhapsthe
keenest insult of all. The Greek aristocratfaces a dilemma in reckoning honor
with thingsyet claimingthatit transcendsthings. Referenceto bloodwealthin this
same section echoes this notion in that goods are incommensurateto life but are
socially equatedwith it.
Honorand fame are vital to Achilleus since he sees them as just recompense
for being mortaldespite being the son of an immortalgoddess: "Since you [The-
tis] bore me to be short lived, Zeus ought to 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 entirely mitigatedishonor. Much has been made of Achilleus's
supposedalienation. This is misleading. Achilleus cannot be assuaged through
the traditionalmeans available, but his reactionstems from that same traditional
system of conflictingvalues.
When Nestor sends Odysseus to relate Agamemnon's terms to Achilleus,
Achilleus rejects them because he has been treatedas an "unhonoredoutsider"
(atimitonmetanastin),Iliad 9:648, a notionthatso ranklesthathe repeatsit later,
Iliad 16:59. Achilleus remainsfuriousandsulks, causingneardisasterto the army
untilhis friendand lover, Patroklos,is slain wearingAchilleus's own armor(and
also his father'sarmoras well). Only this greaterassaulton his personhooddraws
Achilleus out to fight.
My second illustrationfrom the Iliad involves the chariotrace thatAchilleus
sponsorsas partof the funeralgames held to honorPatroklos.Honoringhis dead
friendwith conspicuousexpenditures,Achilleus consequentlyhonorshimself as
his friend's chief mournerand alter ego. Achilleus announcesthe race to Mene-
laos, Agamemnon'sbrother:
Son of Atreus, and yet other well-greavedAchaeans, for the charioteersthese prizes
lie waiting in the list. If for some other's honor we Achaeanswere now holding con-
tests, surelyit were I that should win the firstprize, andbearit to my hut;for ye know
how far my horses twin surpassin excellence, seeing they are immortal,and it was
Poseidonthatgave them to my fatherPeleus, and he gave to me. [Iliad 23:272-278]
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 the prizes:
For swift charioteersfirst he sets forth goodly prizes, a woman to lead away, one
skilled in goodly handiwork,and an eared tripodof two and twenty measurefor him
that should be first; and for the second he appointeda mare of six years, unbroken
with a mule foal in her womb; and for the thirdhe set forth a cauldronuntouchedby
fire, a fair cauldronthatheld four measures, white even as the first;and for the fourth
he appointedtwo talentsof gold; and for 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 are thy horses slowest in the race:thereforeI deem there will be sorrywork for
thee. The horses of the others are swifter, but the men know not how to devise more
cunning(metin)counsel thanthine own self. Whereforecome, dear son, lay thou up
in the mindcunning(meti)of every sort, to the end thatthe prizes escape thee not. By
cunning, thou knowest, is a woodmanfar betterthanby might, by cunning too doth
a helmsmanon the wine-darkdeep guide arighta swift ship that is buffetedby winds;
and by cunningdoth charioteerprove betterthancharioteer.Anotherman, trustingin
his horses andcar, heedlessly wheelethto this side and that, and his horsesroamover
the course, neitherkeepeth he them in hand; whereas he that hath a crafty (kerdea)
profitablemind, albeit he drive worse horses, keepeth his eye even on the turning-
post and wheeleth close thereby, neither is unmindfulhow at the first to force his
horses with the ox-hide reins, but keepeththem even in hand, and watcheththe man
thatleadethhim 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 CULTURAL
ANTHROPOLOGY
that brings the Achaeans victory over Troy is Athena's trick (dolos). Yet cunning
without 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 muddy
hole. "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-hooved horses the man [Eumeleus]that is far
the best (aristos). But come, let us give him a prize, as is meet, a prize for the second
place; but the firstlet the son of Tydeus [Diomedes] bearaway. [Iliad 23:536-538]
Rewards here are based on personhood as well as luck and skill. The supposed
best cannot be last nor may the undistinguished prevail over the better.
Those assembled concur with Achilleus, except brash Antilochus who insists
that 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 hereaftertake and give him even a goodlier prize, or even now forth-
with, that the Achaeans may applaudthee. But the mare will I not yield; for her let
any man thatwill, essay to do battlewith me by might of hand. [Iliad 23:551-554]
And so Achilleus gives Eumeleus a valuable bronze corselet out of his own
possessions. Then Menelaos denounces Antilochus for having to cheat because
his 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":
Bear with me, now for far younger am I than thou, king (anax) Menelaos, and thou
artthe elder (proteros)and the better(areion, of merit) man. Thou knowest of what
sort are the transgressionsof a man that is young, for hasty is he of purpose, and but
slenderis his wit. Whereforelet the heartbe patient;the mare that I have won will I
give thee of myself. Aye, and if thou shouldstask some othergoodlier thing from out
my house, forthwithwere I fain to give thee out of hand. [Iliad 23:587-593]
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.
Verily not soon should anotherof the Achaeanshave persuadedme but thou hast suf-
feredgreatlyandtoiled greatly, thou andthy bravefatherandthy brotherfor my sake,
whereforeI will hearkento thy prayer(lissomai), aye, and to the end that these too
may know thatmy heartis neverover-haughtyneitherunbending.[Iliad 23:606-611 ]
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 gift
giving 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 faction
can 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, aged sir, is yours to lay away as a treasurein memoryof the burialof Patroklos;
since never again will you see him among the Argives. I give you this prize for the
giving [expectingno return];since never again will you fight with your fists nor wres-
tle, nor enter again the field for spear-throwing,nor race on your feet; since now the
hardshipof old age is upon you. [Iliad 23:618-623]
Nestor tries to salvage dignity by conjuring up his glorious past when he

would have been able to reciprocate. He couches his thanks in philoi terms of
parent-child relations:
Aye, verily, my son (tekos, child), all this hastthou spokenaright;for my limbs, even
my feet, are no more firm, o my friend (philos), as of old, nor do my arms as of old
dartout lightly from my shoulderson either side. Would that I were young, burying
lord Amarynausat Buprasium,and his sons appointedprizes in honor of the king.
Then was there no men thatproved himself my peer, neitherthe Epeiansnor the Py-
lians themselves nor of the great-souledAetolians. [Iliad 23:626-633]
These passages underscore the importance of speaking eloquently and

shrewdly to define terms of receiving and giving gifts. Yet such oratory would be
futile were one not also to command public attention through reputation (deeds)
and a powerful circle of followers. Speech about reciprocity is empty without the
wherewithall 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 by
their daughter, Nausikaa, who instructs her maids to clothe Odysseus and shows
him to the palace:
Nay, this is some helpless wandererthathas come hither.Him must we now tend;for
from Zeus are all strangers(xeinoi) and beggars and a gift (doris), though small, 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 manytoils,-aye, and to these banqueters,to whom may the gods granthap-
piness in life, and may each of them handdown to his childrenthe wealth in his halls,
and the dues of honor which the people have given him. But for me do ye speed my
sending, that I may come to my native land, and that quickly; for a long time I have
been sufferingwoes far from my friends." So saying he sat down on the hearthin the
ashes by the fire, andthey were all hushedin silence. But at lengththerespoke among
them the old lord Echeneiis. [Odyssey7:146-155]
Echeneiis addresses the king:
Alkino6s, lo, this is not the betterway, nor is it seemly thata stranger(xeinon) should
sit upon the groundon the hearthin the ashes; but these others hold back waiting for
thy word. Come, make the strangerto arise and set him upon a silver-studdedchair,
andbid the heraldsmix wine, thatwe may pourlibationsto Zeus, who hurlsthe thun-
derbolt;for he ever attendsuponreverendsuppliants(hiketisin).And let the housewife
give supperto the strangerof the store that is 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; Schlunk 1976; Scodel 1982).
1. Xeinia: I have alreadynoted thatone establishedkinlike relations(philoi)
with strangers (xeinoi) by prestations and that this could lead to alliance or even
marriagebetween equals. One was obliged to extend some hospitalityand gifts

to helpless strangerswho were underthe divine protectionof Zeus (Zeusxeinion).
Of course, one did not make welcome (philesei) a dignified and powerful prince
or warriorin the way one helped a miserablebeggar. The problemlay in the fact
that appearancesare deceiving. Ideally, one would want to extend prestations
commensuratewith the respect(aidos) due a stranger.Yet strangersmight not be
what they seem. Strangersmight even be gods in disguise, as happens several
times in the Odyssey. This is probablyone reason why Odysseus's concealed
identityfascinatedGreeks. It touches upon the dilemmaof strategicprestation,of
correctlygauging the social person. Greekswere concernedaboutpublic appear-
ance, but they also recognizedthatthis importanceof public face would lead to it
being assiduouslycosmeticizedand manipulated.A trueappraisalof a personwas
not always easy, except among one's own kin where interpersonalface was not
at issue. In the Phaeakiansituation, Odysseus is from the starttreatedin exem-
plary fashion as a stranger.Yet we shall see that he must still do and say even
morebefore confirmingthe position he seeks.
2. The notion of hiketia involves self-abasement, placing oneself at the
mercy of the one who is supplicated. It is done by crouching and clutching the
knees (associated with sexual generation, see Onions 1951:176-186) of the su-
perordinateone. 3 This is sometimesaccompaniedby chuckingthe chin or kissing
the hands. A kiss (philema)on the face was how philoi might greet one another.
In the Iliad supplicationis made, often unsuccessfully, by a vanquishedwarrior
seeking mercy. Were a foe spared, he would be expected to reciprocatewith a
ransomin orderto be freed. Perhapsthe most moving scene in the Iliad involves
king Priamvisiting Achilleus undersupernaturalprotectionin orderto redeemhis
son Hektor'sbody. Seeing Priam,Achilleus becomes hostile, but Priamperforms
hiketiaandAchilleus takes him by the hands, raises him up, wines anddines him,
and releases him next day with Hektor'sbody. 14 Agamemnon's improperrejec-
tion of a father's(Chriseus's)hiketia for his captive daughtereventuallytriggers
off the riftbetweenAgamemnonand Achilleus, andAchilleus's noble acceptance
of Priam'ssupplicationheraldsthe epic's close.
The passages cited about Odysseus's conduct among the Phaeakiansneatly
illustratehiketia. Odysseus grasps the queen's knees. He does this on the advice
of Athena.15He then crouches at the hearthin the ashes. Clutchingthe knees is
conventionalsupplication,but it is also intimatecontact with a sexually signifi-
cant, protectedportionof the body. Similarly, the hearthis recognized as dirty
with ashes, but it is also the moraland physical centerof the home, a place sacred
to the oikos. Odysseus's hiketia confounds abasementwith an invasion of the
host. The invasion here is assumedto be harmlessbecause the supplicantis also
tacitly statingthat he is "nothing" and thereforeno threateven to such intimate
sectors. By performinghiketia the supplicantabnegatesall equality of status;he
becomes aidoioi (without aidos, without respect). Reciprocationof hiketia in-
volves takingthe supplicantby the hands, drawinghim up and incorporatinghim
commensally. Dependinguponjust how low or scruffy the supplicantis, this in-
corporateshim as some kind of philos (friend-kin),to be in a parent-childor fra-
temal, protective relation. In Odysseus's case, he literally replaces Alkino6s's

favoriteson at the table.
Trueto thexeinia relationship,it is not long before Alkinoos offers Nausikaa
to Odysseus, suggestingthathe become his son-in-law. Yet Alkinoos recognizes
thatOdysseus is justified in declining in orderto hasten home. The next day the
Phaeakianspreparea ship for Odysseus, and while this is being done, Alkinoos
and his courtentertainhim by holding variousathleticgames so that the stranger
can tell his old friends(philoi) at home how the Phaeakians,his new philoi, excel.
After some contests, Laodamus,the king's son, asks Odysseus to enter the con-
tests. Odysseus declines claiming that he is too depressedfrom having suffered
much and on account of longing for home. Then Euryalus, the warrior-athlete
second only to Laodamusin skill and bravery, mocks Odysseus suggesting that
he is no gentleman-athletebutonly a tradermindfulof "gains of greed" (kerdeon
tharpaleon, shrewd profit eagerly grasped) Odyssey 9:164. Euryalus accuses
Odysseus of dishonorablereciprocity, suggesting that his voyages were not for
adventureand acquiringglory but for commerce. Odysseus respondswith a lec-
ture on the dangers of confusing external appearanceswith hidden power and
worth.16 Odysseusthenthrowsthe discus surpassingeveryoneby a long distance.
He then challenges all the Phaeakiansto a wide rangeof contests, remarkingthat
he would compete with any but Laodamus,for he cannot contend with a guest-
friend. He is not taken up on his challenge. Instead, he is placated and compli-
mentedby Alkinoos who entertainshim at a feast for his assembledfollowers, all
of whom are asked to contributeto Alkino6s's guest-gift to Odysseus.
Alkinoos announcesthe many "gifts of friendship"(domonxeinion) thathe
and his followers will give to fill Odysseus's new vessel. Euryalusthen gives
Odysseus a silver-studdedsword in recompense for his harsh words. The gift,
appropriateto a valiant (agathos) aristocrat(aristos), not to a merchanttrader,
confirmsEuryalus'sacceptanceof Odysseus's self-definition.
Whenthe celebrationsand gift giving have gone on for some time and Alki-
noos has affirmedhis philoi relationshipwith Odysseus, the court bard sings of
the Trojanwar. Odysseus weeps.17 Questionedby Alkinoos, Odysseus finally (at
Odyssey9:19) reveals his name because he is now amongphiloi. Now he boasts
of both his wiles (dolos) and fame (kleos) and sings his adventures, including
those with the Cyclops, my final illustrativecase.
The encounterbetween Odysseus and the Cyclops Polyphemusis the most
famouspassage in the Odysseyandperhapsthe most intensivelyanalyzed(Austin
1982, 1983; Bergren 1983; C. Brown 1966; J. Finley 1978; Glenn 1971, 1978;
Kirk 1970; Mills 1981; Pucci 1987; Schein 1970, 1984; Stanford 1968; Stewart
1976; Sullivan 1987). Despite its popularity,its significanceappearslost to most
nonclassicists and some of those influenced by folklorism and psychoanalysis
seem strikinglyinept.
Even before Odysseus and his crew reach the land of the Cyclopes we are
told that they are arrogantand lawless (athemis) beings who neitherplant crops
nor plough. Yet they have plentiful foodstuffs that grow without cultivation,
much as foods were got by humansbefore they fell from the gods' favor and be-
came mortal.Althoughtheir land has excellent harbors,the Cyclopes fashion no

ships by which to visit others. Each Cyclops lives in his own cave without so-
cializing with otherCyclopes, Odyssey9:105-141. The Cyclopes display none of
the needs and consequentsocial artificeby which ordinaryhumanscope.
Odysseustakes a small groupashoreon the Cyclopes' islandeven thoughhe
and the main party are quite safe and comfortableon nearby, uninhabitedGoat
Island(Bremmer1986; Clay 1980). He takes this chance in orderto
maketrialof yondermen,to learnwhotheyare,whethertheyarecruelandwild,and

unjust,or whethertheylove strangersandfearthe gods in theirthoughts.[Odyssey
9:173-175]
Odysseusgoes because he is humanand curious, the very opposite reasons from

those thatlead the Cyclopes not to travelor practicecrafts, each to mind his own
separateaffairs.
Odysseustakes along a large goat-skinof very potentwine because he has a
forebodingthat it would be useful when he meets what he suspects will be a sav-
age (agrios, not tilling) person with a powerfullydangerousheart(thumos,emo-
tion) who knows neitherjustice (dike) nor law (themis, custom), Odyssey9:212-
215. Odysseusreceived this wine as a gift, along with otherwealth, from a priest
of Apollo who was suitablygratefulfor Odysseus's help when Odysseus visited
him.
Even before we actuallyencounterthe Cyclops, Odysseus has warnedus to
expect someone who is the antithesisof what a moral(social) humanbeing should
be. The Cyclops's lack of morals and his lack of crafts (techne) are interrelated
(see Mills 1981). Their very size and disproportiontake the Cyclopes beyond
propersocial measure.
To appreciateHomer's apparentdigression in describingthe underdevelop-
ment of the Cyclopes' island, despite its riches, we must understandsomething
abouthow Greeksdistinguishedbetween mortalsand divinities.
Greeksbelieved thathumanity'sskills (techne) arethe gifts we got fromPro-
metheus (Prometis, fore-cunning)who stole them, as epitomized by fire, from
Zeus for us. The gods in turnpunishedhumanswith a false gift, Pandora(giver
of all, or gift from all the gods), who broughthumanitymisery and sexual mor-
tality (Vernant1981b). Humanitywas punishedwith both sexual and alimentary
appetitesthatwere linkedto mortality,the pangs of sexual longing andchildbirth,
and the pangs of hungerand toil to secure food. Consequently,humanity'sskills
are rootedin our orectic needs and limitationsand ultimatelyour vulnerabilityin
death.Humans'artificestemmingfromfirerelatesto metis (cunning)andincludes
the capacityto develop social rules and relations, as well as arts. The social (both
customary and technological) bases of humanity's activities (exchanges) are
rootedin both what makes humansinventive like gods (culture,the possession of
fire) but still not divine but mortal, for deceptively it was not actuallydivine fire
that was permittedto be stolen. Culturestems from negative exchanges (thefts
andfalse gifts) butproducesproperexchanges(laws andsociability), with all 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 apart and does not live by bread as men would (eating bread
and drinking wine are human traits, based on agriculture). Rather, the Cyclops
lives 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 suppliantsto thy knees [in the mannerthatOdysseus supplicatedqueen Arete

successfully] in hope thatthouwilt give us entertainment(xeinion, guest-gifts)or oth-
erwise make some presentsas is due (themis, customary)to strangers(xeinoi). Nay,
mightiestone, reverencethe gods; we are thy supplicants(hiketai) and Zeus is the
avenger of suppliantsand strangers-Zeus, the strangers'god-who ever attends
upon reveredstrangers.[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. Odysseus
voices 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 is
alone 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 guest
who should provide wine.) As Odysseus plies the Cyclops with the potent wine,
he says,
Cyclops, thou askest me of my glorious name, and I will tell thee; and do thou give
me a stranger'sgift (xeinion)even as promised.No man(outis)'8 is my name, Noman
they call 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 gift
for another. (This constitutes another reversal, for one should not ask a stranger's
name 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 his
men 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.
But when I was as far away as a man's voice carrieswhen he shouts, then I spoke to
the Cyclops with mocking words: "Cyclops, that man, it seems, was no weakling,
whose comradesthou wast minded to devour by brutalstrengthin thy hollow cave.
Full surelywere thy evil deeds to fall on thine own head, thoucruel wretch, who didst
not shrinkfrom eating thy guests in thine own house. Thereforehas Zeus taken ven-
geance on thee, and the othergods." IOdvssev9:373-3801
While his comrades plead with him to stop so they will not be sunk, Odysseus
continues to bait the monster on account of his great emotion (thumos). Odysseus
"answered him again with angry heart (thumos)":
Cyclops, if any one of mortalmen shall ask thee aboutthe shamefulblindingof thine
eye, say thatOdysseus, the sackerof cities blindedit, even the son of Laertes, whose
home 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 puny
one 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:
248 CULTURAL
ANTHROPOLOGY
Yetcomehither,Odysseus,thatI mayset beforetheegiftsof entertainment

(xeinia),
andmayspeedthysendinghence,thatthegloriousEarth-shaker LPoseidon]
maygrant
it thee. For I am his son. [Odyssey9:517-520]
The Cyclops reveals that his name is Polyphemus (reputeeverywhere but also
curseeverywhere).Odysseusinsultsthe Cyclops even more, andPolyphemusen-
vokes his powerfulfatherto preventOdysseus from ever reachinghome.
This exchange makes good sense if we rememberthat Odysseus owes his
very identity("Giver of troubles," odyssasthai)to the harmhe causes others. His
respect(aidos) was threatenedwhen he was deniedgift-guesthoodafterhe himself
hadreducedhis own dignityby supplication.Odysseuscan recoverhis threatened
personhoodby announcinghis name to his victim, who is, afterall, Polyphemus
(reputeabounding).Odysseus's revelationto Polyphemusparallelsthe exchanged
announcementsof identityand reputationthatprecedecombatbetween heroes in
theIliad. One can get no honoror glory for a deed if one's name is unknown.The
name is the peg to which the deed is attached.It is one's name that will be sung
by bardsin epics. Nor is Odysseus at all deterredby the fact that Polyphemus,
havinghis name, can now envoke his stupendouslypowerful fatheragainsthim.
ThatPolyphemusis attachedto Poseidon simply increasesthe Cyclops's danger-
ous importance as a victim and consequently the magnitude of Odysseus's
triumph.Even the subsequentsufferingfrom Poseidon will only augmentOdys-
seus's personhood,providedthat Odysseus eventually prevails over these risks,
which he does with Athena's help.
Conclusion
Both the Iliad and the Odyssey present aristocraticallyoriented plots with
subversivethemes. These recognize that claims to authorityare discrepantfrom
personalattributesand that even the centralnotions of compensationand heroic
interactionarethemselvesimplicitlyquestionable.In theIliad, Agamemnonleads
the attackingarmyyet is inferiorto Achilleus in courage, militaryskill, and no-
bility. Achilleus repeatedlythreatensto outshineAgamemnon,but the epic ends
with Agamemnonstill more politically establishedthan Achilleus. Yet the Od-
yssey revealsAgamemnonignominiouslydead and while Achilleus does die with
imperishablefame, even he seems bitterly discontent when his shade is inter-
viewed by Odysseus. In the Odyssey, Odysseus is continuallytreatedin a manner
unbecominghis statusas a princeof Ithakaand a hero. Odysseus's inherentqual-
ities enable him to triumpheventually over those who denigrate him. Unlike
Achilleus, Odysseuscannotprevailwith braveryalone, but needs every trickand
deceit he can muster.The mechanismsof sociability, as epitomized in guest-gift
relations,appearas sources of abuse and dangeras much as means to advantage
andorder.
Whatlinks these epics togetheris agonistic exchange, which works out dis-
crepanciesbetween the "inner" individualand the socially recognized "outer"
person.These strugglesdeterminewhethera 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 their

aidos. To sustaina high vision of oneself, one must be able to compel others to
accept this view. These heroes' reputationsare never free fromjeopardyso long
as they live. What makes them superiorto the gods is that they can be heroes
becausebeing mortalthey risktheirlives. One continuesto assertnew claims until
broughtshort, if not by anothermortalhero, then by old age or by a god.
For Homeric Greeks, exchange is inseparablefrom personhood.The latter
defines the former. When Homeric Greeks speak of honor and shame, of their
strugglesto maintainor enlargetheirrespect, they referto problemsof autonomy,
and exchange simply assertsand underminesthis.
The values attachedto these exchanges are proportionateto the risks in-
volved. In challengingone's equal or those claimingto be superior,one augments
one's own respect. One loses simply by failing to put mattersat risk. One cannot
dropout claiming to be above such struggles. One must remainagonistically in-
volved. The public natureof exchanges, the need for validationby others, is in-
tense for Homeric Greeks. Respect, dignity, honor, shame, are attributescon-
ferredor denied by others. One needs an audience. Need for others as witnesses
characterizesall social phenomena,yet for HomericGreeks this extends even to
the grave, ever compromisingautonomy. Furthermore,systematic exclusion of
Homericwomen from the public arenaprofoundlydiminishedtheir autonomy.
Existenceafterdeathfor heroes centerson whetherone is famed and praised
afterbeing physically gone (Garland1984-86; Vermeule 1976:203-205).19 Yet
even Achilleus, whose fame seems assured,has misgivings concerningthe worth
of fame when life is gone. Aristocraticnotions of fame constitutea mystification
of a more prosaicstrugglefor power and resources.
Mauss presentedexchange as a powerful mechanismby which societies are
welded togetherand conflict subdued, even though coining the term "agonistic
exchange," presumablyfrom the Greeks. In contrast, Simmel stressedthe divi-
sive strategiesof exchange, the motives separatinganddefiningprotagonists.For
him, these involve assertionof gain and loss. He would have secondedRousseau:
To speakof a mangivinghimselfin returnfornothingis to speakof whatis absurd,

unthinkable;suchan actionwouldbe illegitimate,void, if onlybecauseno one who
didit couldbe in his rightmind.[1968:54]
Mauss pointedout how aspects of the person inherein things so that the so-
cial self or groupsare passed along with the objects conveyed and in a sense this
could facilitate their retrieval (see Weiner 1985). In contrast, Simmel stressed
how thingsbecame freed from those who made and processedthem. Simmel por-
trayspower. For him, objects' value was due to the risk and pathos surrounding
loss. In the Homeric case we need both analysts to make sense, for reciprocity
divides as much as it unites, ranksas much as it levels, and producesconflict as
muchas effacing it. While objects of exchange circulate,there is a profoundrisk
of loss. This sense of risk enhances value. The "highest" goals of exchange in-
volve intangiblessuch as honor and fame, yet the power to sustain and compel
250 CULTURAL
ANTHROPOLOGY
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 article is a sketch from a broaderprojectemploying Homer and

Hesiod to illustratesocial anthropologicalteachingand theory. I rely upon the Loeb Clas-
sical Librarybilingualeditions for most of my citationsof Homer, with alterationsof Brit-
ish spelling. I cite a small portionof the vast relevantmaterialdealing with Homer, con-
finingmyself mainly to works in English. I have, however, read far more materialthan I
cite.
Interplaybetween classical Greek studies and social anthropologypermeatesthe his-
tory our field. Emile Durkheim'sworks arerootedin those of the classicist Numa Fustel
of
de Coulanges, especially The Ancient City; Lewis Henry Morganborrowedmany of his
termsandconceptsfrom writingson Athens and Rome; and Sir HenryMaine's greatwork
AncientLaw, from which so much of British functionalismstems, surveys classical law.
Even today I consult key Greek texts edited by Sir James Frazerwhose Golden Bough
begins with the classics.
In my own case I first saw the pertinenceof anthropologyfor classics when, as a
student,I heardGeoffrey Lloyd lecture on Sophocles's Antigone at an anthropologycol-
loquiumat Oxfordin 1959. My conviction that social anthropologistsshould comprehend
the classics derives from intellectualheroes outside anthropology.My teacher, the soci-
ologist Alvin Gouldner,publishedbrilliantlyon classical Greece (1965) providinga the-
AGONISTIC
EXCHANGE251
oretical watershedfor constructionof his influentialtheories. The great Nigerian play-

wright Wole Soyinka pointed out striking parallels and insights drawn from comparing
African and classical Greek religious experiences (1976:15-16) and made a superbren-
deringof Euripides'Bacchae. Similarly, the writingsof the fine Nigeriannovelist Chinua
Achebe alertedme to importantparallelsin problemsof explaining the interplaybetween
fate and free will both for Greeks and Igbo (see Chukwukere1971; Nwoga 1971). I also
am indebtedto JohnCampbellwhose excellent studyof contemporaryGreekpeasantscon-
firmsthe continuityin many aspects of honor, shame, and agonistic reciprocity(1964; see
Walcot 1970). He appearsto be the firstscholarof Greece to appreciateSimmel.
Earlierversions of this article were delivered as lectures at the Johns Hopkins Uni-
versity, the Universityof Virginia, the Universityof Minnesota,and in Washingtonat the
1988 meetingsof the Society for CulturalAnthropology.
While the topic of this articleis exchange, I ignore well-knownrecentsurveys (Bour-
dieu 1977; Ekeh 1974; Sahlins 1972; Sevret 1981, 1982). I found these unhelpfulin terms
of the issues with which I am here concerned. In any case I make no claim to a broad
appraisalof Greekexchange thatwould requireconsiderationof Aristotle.
I want to thankIvan Karp, John Middleton, Rodney Needham, and Annette Weiner
for commentingon earlierdraftsof this article. I owe a special debt to AnnetteWeinerwho
encouragedme to complete this when I was temptedto put it aside.
'I admirethe analysesof Paul Friedrichand the writingsof Sally Humphreyswho attempts
to bridgethe gap between classics and anthropology.MauriceGodelier subjectsAthenian
economy to his Marxistanalysis. GraceHarrisand Roger Justhave writtenessays on clas-
sical Athens, and Terence Turner,Michael Carroll, and Dorothy Willner have continued
the structuralistanalysis of Oedipus initiatedby Levi-Strauss. I have been impressedby
the Frenchcontemporaryclassicists who employ structuralistmethodsandanthropological
concepts for new understandingof Greek materials,for example, Vernant,Detienne, Vi-
dal-Naquet,SergentandLoraux.These writersare surelythe exceptions thatprove the rule
ratherthan confirmingany prevailingnew trendconvertingEnglish-speakinganthropolo-
gists into consideringthe Greekclassics.
2Benveniste'swritingshave been invaluablein 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).
3Exchangesin early Greekmarriagereveal tactics wherebytwo groupsstrive to asserttheir
equality(or the superiorityof one over the other). Negotiationsfor marriageinvolved pro-
tectedexchangeof gifts on both sides. This was neitherdowry nor bridewealth,but means
to demonstratethe wealth and power of the two groupsseeking affinity. Wealthwas given
also to endow the new couple and their prospectivehousehold and offspring, but this too
was bilateral(Lacy 1966; Redfield 1982).
4Gouldcomparesthe Greek concept of aidos with the Nuer concept of thek. I find this
questionable(Gould 1975:87).
5Centuriesafter Homer such notions still apply for Greeks. Plato has Glaukon describe
perfecthappinessfor an unjustmanas being able to have sexual intercoursewith whomever
one wants, taking whatever goods one likes, and harming or helping whomever one
chooses (RepublicII:360bc).
6Positiveand negative exchanges characterizebroadfeaturesof Greek thought. The Ho-
meric epics spin out from an initially complex situationof debts. A marriage(between
divine Thetis and mortalPeleus) demeans a goddess who is compensatedby making her
252 CULTURAL
ANTHROPOLOGY
mortalson, Achilleus, destined for imperishablefame. This unequalwedding is attended

by an uninvited guest, Eris or Discord, who brings a false gift (a golden apple). Paris
awardsthis to Aphroditewho repays him by bestowing Helen, the wife of Menelaos. Her
gift is accomplishedby theft and deception while Paris is a guest but false friend to his
host, Menelaos. This is avenged by Menelaos, his elder brotherAgamemnon, and others
includingAchilleus and Odysseus, who stormTroy. As everyone knows, Troy is eventu-
ally taken and Helen recovered throughanotherfalse gift of cunning, the great, hollow
wooden horse. Hera and Athena give aid to the siege since they are offended that Paris
gave the appleto Aphroditeand not to them (see Davies 1981; Walcot 1977b).
Greek myths and legends are filled with examples of such negative and dubious re-
ciprocities,thefts, and vengeance throughfalse gifts and false friendships(J. Nagy 1981).
The myths of Hermes and Apollo, Pelops and the house of Atreus, Prometheus,Epime-
theus and Pandora,and Persephone, Hades and Demeter, all illustratethis (see Vernant
1981a, 1981b, 1981c).
7TheOdysseyis crammedwith namemagic surroundingpersonhood.Names are signs (se-
mata) (G. Nagy 1983). Odysseus received his own name from his grandfatherAutolycus
(lone-wolf), a notoriousthief andliar, sponsoredby Hermes, god of thieveryandexchange
(N. Brown 1947). Autolycus wants to memorialize the fact that he had "odysseused"
(caused trouble)many people in his day. Odysseus visited the old man in hopes of gifts
and was woundedduringa hunt, receiving his scar crucial to his identificationat the end
of the epic. Odysseus's motherAntiklea(againstfame) had wantedto name Odysseus Po-
lyaretus(meriteverywhere).When Odysseus finally returnshome, he is helped by his old
nurse,Euryklea(fame everywhere),who recognizeshim throughhis scar. Afterkilling the
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
(mightyrecognition).This allows Odysseus to recoup his losses from the evil suitors led
by Antinoos(againstrecognition)(see Austin 1972; Bergren1983;Dimock 1956;G. Nagy
1979). Penelope's nameappearsto derive frompena (woof of cloth) andrefersto her cun-
ning at weaving (an arttaughtby Athena, daughterof Cunning)which she uses to forestall
the suitorsand to provide a cloth for Odysseus's new identity (Marquardt1985; Whallon
1960). The cloth turnsout not to be Laertes's shroudas she deceptively maintains.
8"'Lo, a man acceptethrecompense(poine) from the slayer of his brother,or for his dead
son;andthe slayerabidethin his own landfor the paying of a greatprice, andthe kinsman's
heart(thumos)and proudspiritare restrainedby the taking of recompense" Iliad 9:632-
634.
9Theemissariesrealize how offensive this speech would be to Achilleus and consequently
cunninglymodify it when they confronthim. Even so, he rejectsthe offer (see also Nimis
1986; Roberts1981-82).
l?Quincy(1966) points out that Greeks were keen to repay gifts as soon as possible. The
unreciprocatedgift was a veritable"hot potato." Even where the gift was trivial, the form
of thanksimmediatedelivered was an expression of praise, seen as a ready payment of
intangiblegood. For Greeks, praise(ainos) shouldearngifts and vice versa. One of Odys-
seus's attributesis to be polyainos, Iliad 11:430.
"Ironically, Alkinoos wonderswhetherOdysseus might himself be a god in disguise, but

ponderswhy the gods would conceal themselves fromthe Phaeakianswhen the Phaeakians
are as nearkin to the gods as are the Cyclopes, Odyssey7:201-206. Surelythis is a device
AGONISTIC
EXCHANGE253
by Homer to underscorethe mirrorimagery between the hospitable Phaeakiansand the

Cyclopes.
'2It is surely importantthat the two heroes of the two epics are both themselves highly
regardedbardicpoets. Not only can they enact deeds to endurein humanmemory, but they
have the special powers to conjureup such deeds throughsong. The ultimatereciprocal
payment,fame (kleos), providesa kind of immortalitythatis recompensefor struggleand
death.The Iliad reiteratesthese aristocraticsentimentsthroughout;the Odyssey, however,
seems ambivalentabout heroism which it repeatedly contrasts with survival. The Iliad
stresses the personalattributesof honor (time) leading to imperishablefame whereas the
prevailingpersonalattributestressedby the Odysseyis cunning (metis or dolos).
13The psychological processes at work here uncannilyresemble the Japaneseconcept of
amae, especially in its more passive-aggressivephase thatcan be comparedto Odysseus's
conduct in Scheria. In both cases, to put oneself in total subordinationmakes a superior
responsiblefor one's fate. It is a process that would have intriguedSimmel (Doi 1973).
Manyyears ago Post (1939) drew insightful parallelsbetween Homeric and Samuraival-
ues.
'4Antinoosis describedas the most vicious of Penelope's suitors who is depleting Odys-
seus's estate. He is an evil guest in a hospitable home (philon hiketo doma), Odyssey
18:421. Homermakes Antinoosdespicableby having Penelope observethatOdysseus had
once helpedAntinoos's fatherwho had been a supplicant-fugitiveguest, Odyssey 16:418-
433.
'SNewton(1984) arguesfor a more complicatedsymbolic meaningrelatedto rebirth.Cer-
tainly this supplicationseems a peremptoryand restrainedone when compared, say, to
Thetis's entreatyto Zeus for Achilleus. In any case, the generally benevolent picture I
presentof the Phaeakiansis 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(Braswell 1982). This obviously pleases Odysseus who admitsnot being fleet-
footed.
70Odysseus actually is confronted with his own fame as though he were actually dead
(which, in a sense, he is, socially). This occurs at Alkinoos's court when a bardsings of
Odysseus's valor and the braveryof the army at Troy. This repeatedlymakes Odysseus
weep and finally leads him to reveal his true identityand tell his adventuresto the court.
'Outis (no one) alludes to metis (cunning), see Austin (1983).
'9FriedrichandRedfield(1978) considerspeech in the constructionof Achilleus's individ-
uality. However suggestive, this is far from my argumentaboutpersonhood.
References Cited
Adkins, A. W. H.
1963 "Friendship"and "Self-Sufficiency" in Homer and Aristotle. Classical Quar-
terly 63:30-45.
1969 Threatening,Abusing andFeeling Angry in the HomericPoems. Journalof Hel-
lenic Studies 84:7-21.
1971 HomericValues and Homeric Society. Journalof Hellenic Studies 91:1-14.
254 CULTURAL
ANTHROPOLOGY
1972 Truth,KosmosandArete in the HomericPoems. Classical Quarterly65:5-13.

1975[19601 MeritandResponsibility.Chicago:Universityof Chicago Press, Midway
Reprint.
1982 Values, Goals and Emotionsin the Iliad. Classical Philology 77:292-326.
1987 Gargarinand the "Morality" of Homer. Classical Philology 82:311-322.
Altman, S. P.
1904 Simmel's Philosophyof Money. AmericanJournalof Sociology 9:46-68.
Atchity, KennethJ.
1978 Homer'sIliad. Carbondale:SouthernIllinois UniversityPress.
Austin, Norman
1972 Name Magic in the Odyssey. CaliforniaStudies in Classical Antiquity5:1-19.
1982 Archeryat the Darkof the Moon. Berkeley:Universityof CaliforniaPress.
1983 Odysseusandthe Cyclops:Who Is Who. In Approachesto Homer.CarlA. Rubi-
no and CynthiaW. Shelmerdine,eds. Pp. 3-37. Austin: Universityof Texas Press.
Basset, Samuel E.
1934 The Hamartiaof Achilles. Transactionsof the AmericanPhilological Associa-
tion 65:47-69.
Benardete,Seth
1963 Achilles and the Iliad. Hermes91:1-16.
Benveniste, Emile
1971 Gift and Exchange in the Indo-EuropeanVocabulary.ElizabethPalmer, trans.
In Problemsin General Linguistics. Pp. 271-280. Miami Linguistics Series No. 8.
CoralGables:Universityof Miami Press.
1973 Indo-EuropeanLanguageand Society. ElizabethPalmer,trans. Miami Linguis-
tic Series No. 12. CoralGables:Universityof Miami Press.
Bergren,Ann L. T.
1983 OdysseanTemporarily:Man(Re)Turns.In Approachesto Homer. CarlA. Rubi-
no and CynthiaW. Shelmerdine,eds.Pp. 38-73. Austin:Universityof Texas Press.
Bolcazy, L.
1978 Xenophobiato Altruism. Ancient World 1:45-63.
Bourdieu,Pierre
1977 Outline of a Theory of Practice. RichardNice, transl. Cambridge:Cambridge
UniversityPress.
Braswell, Bruce K.
1982 The Song of Ares and Aphrodite.Hermes 110:129-137.
Bremmer,J.
1986 A HomericGoat Island. Classical Quarterly36:256-257.
Brown, Calvin
1966 Odysseus and Polyphemus.ComparativeLiterature18:193-202.
Brown, Norman0.
1947 Hermesthe Thief. Madison:Universityof Wisconsin Press.
Calhoun,George W.
1934 Classes and Masses in Homer. Classical Philology 29:192-206, 301-316.
Campbell,John
1964 Honour,Family and Patronage.Oxford:ClarendonPress.
Chukwukere,B. I.
1971 Individualismin an Aspect of Igbo Religion. The Conch 3:109-117.
Claus, D.
1975 Aidos in the Languageof Achilles. Transactionsof the AmericanPhilological
Association 105:13-28.
AGONISTIC
EXCHANGE255
Clay, JennyS.
1980 Goat Island. Classical Quarterly30:261-264.
Davies, Malcolm
1981 The Judgementof ParisandIliad Book xxiv. Journalof Hellenic Studies 101:56-
62.
Dimock, G.
1956 The Name of Odysseus. HudsonReview 9:52-70.
Doi, Takeo
1973 The Anatomy of Dependence. John Bester, trans. Tokyo: Kodansha Interna-
tional.
Donlan, Walter
1980 The AristocraticIdeal in Ancient Greece. Lawrence, Kan.: CoronadePress.
1981 Scale, Value, and Functionalismin the HomericEconomy. AmericanJournalof
AncientHistory6:101-117.
1985 The Social Groupsof DarkAge Greece. Classical Philology 80:293-308.
Edwards,MarkW.
1987 Homer. Baltimore:Johns HopkinsUniversityPress.
Eichholz, D.
1953 Propitiationof Achilles. AmericanJournalof Philology 74:137-148.
Ekeh, PeterP.
1974 Social ExchangeTheory. Cambridge:HarvardUniversityPress.
Feldman,Abraham
1947 The Apotheosisof Thersites. The Classical Journal42:219-220.
Fenik, B.
1974 Studies in the Odyssey. Wiesbaden:HermesEingelschriften30.
Finlay, Robert
1980 Patroklos, Achilleus and Peleus: Fathersand Sons in the Iliad. The Classical
World73:267-273.
Finley, JohnH.
1978 Homer'sOdyssey. Cambridge:HarvardUniversityPress.
Finley, Moses I.
1955 Marriage,Sale and Gift in the Homeric World. Revue internationaledes droite
de l'antiquit62:167-194.
1957 Homerand Mycenae:Propertyand Tenure. Historia6:133-159.
1962[1954] The Worldof Odysseus. Harmondsworth:PenguinBooks.
1985 Introduction.In Greek Religion and Society. P. E. Easterlingand J. V. Muir,
eds. Pp. xiii-xx. Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.
1986[1985] Max Weber and the Greek City-State. In Ancient History. Pp. 88-103.
New York:Viking Books.
Friedrich,Paul
1977 Sanity and the Myth of Honor. Ethos 5:281-305.
Friedrich,Paul, and James Redfield
1978 Speech as a PersonalitySymbol: the Case of Achilles. Language54:263-288.
Gargarin,Michael
1987 Moralityin Homer. Classical Philology 82:285-306.
Garland,R. S. J.
1984-86 Geras Thanonton:An Investigationinto the Claims of the Homeric Dead.
Ancient Society 15-17:5-22.
256 CULTURAL
ANTHROPOLOGY
Gates, H. P.
1971 The KinshipTerminologyof HomericGreek. IndianaUniversityPublicationsin
Anthropologyand Linguistics27. Baltimore:WaverlyPress.
Geddes, A. G.
1984 Who's Who in "Homeric" Society. Classical Quarterly34:17-36.
Glenn, Justin
1971 The PolyphemusFolktaleandHomer'sKyklopeia.Transactionsof 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, George F.
1987 Phoinix, Agamemnonand Achilleus. Classical Quarterly37:245-251.
Herman,Gabriel
1987 Ritualised Friendshipand the Greek City. Cambridge:CambridgeUniversity
Press.
Heubeck,Alfred, StephanieWest, and B. Hainsworth
1988 A Commentaryon Homer's Odyssey, Volume 1. Oxford:ClarendonPress.
Hohendahl-Zoetelief,J. M.
1980 Mannersin the HomericEpic. Leiden:Brill.
Holoka, J.
1983 "Looking Darkly" (Upodraidon):Reflections on Status and Decorum in Ho-
mer. Transactionsof the AmericanPhilological Association 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 and Penelope's Kyrios. Journalof Hellenic Studies 86:55-68.
Levy, Harry
1963 The Odyssean Suitors and the Host-Guest Relationship. Transactionsof the
AmericanPhilological Association 94:145-153.
Lloyd-Jones,Hugh
1987 A Note on HomericMorality. Classical Philology 82:307-310.
Long, A.
1970 Moralsand Values in Homer. Journalof Hellenic Studies 90:121-139.
Marquardt,Patricia
1985 Penelope's Polytropos. AmericanJournalof Philology 106:3248.
Mauss, Marcel
1954[1925] The Gift. Ian Cunnison, trans. Glencoe, Ill.: Free Press.
1969[1921] Une forme anciennede contratchez les thrace.In OeuvresIII. Pp. 35-43.
Paris:Les editions de minuit.
Mencken,H. L.
1955[1920] A Blind Spot. In Mencken. A. Cooke, ed. Pp. 75-77. New York:Vintage
Books.
Mills, Donald H.
1981 Odysseus and Polyphemus.The Classical Outlook58:97-99.
Morris,Ian
1986a Gift and Commodityin ArchaicGreece. Man (n.s.) 21:1-17.
1986b The Use and Abuse of Homer. Classical Antiquity5:81-138.
Motto, Anne Lydia, and John R. Clark
1969 Isa Dais: the Honorof Achilles. Arethusa2:109-125.
Murray,Oswyn
1983 EarlyGreece. Stanford:StanfordUniversityPress.
Nagy, Gregory
1979 The Best of the Achaeans. Baltimore:Johns Hopkins UniversityPress.
1981 Benveniste's Contributionto Homeric Studies: A Case in Point. In Polyphonic
Linguistics. Sylvere Lotringerand Thomas Gora, eds. Pp. 39-46. The Hague:Mou-
ton, Semiotica Supplement.
1983 Sema andNoesis: Some Illustrations.Arethusa16:35-55.
Nagy, JosephF.
1981 The Deceptive Gift in GreekMythology. Arethusa 14:191-204.
Newton, R. M.
1984 The Rebirthof Odysseus. Greek, Romanand ByzantineStudies 25:5-20.
Nimis, Steve
1986 The Languageof Achilles. The Classical Outlook 79:217-225.
Nwoga, D. I.
1971 The Chi, Individualismand Igbo Religion. The Conch 3:118-120.
Onions, R. B.
1951 The Originsof EuropeanThought. Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.
Pedrick,V.
1982 Supplicationin the Iliad and the Odyssey. Transactionsof the AmericanPhilo-
logical Association 112:125-140.
Podlecki, A.
1961 Guest-Giftsand Nobodies. Phoenix 15:125-133.
Post, L. A.
1939 The MoralPatternsin Homer. Transactionsof the AmericanPhilological Asso-
ciation 70:158-190.
Pucci, Pietro
1987 Odysseus Polutropos.Ithaca:Cornell UniversityPress.
Quincy, J. H.
1966 GreekExpressionsof Thanks.Journalof Hellenic Studies 86:132-158.
Qvilier, Bjorn
1981 The Dynamics of the HomericSociety. Symbolae Osloenses 56:109-155.
Redfield,James
1975 Natureand Culturein the Iliad. Chicago: Universityof Chicago Press.
1982 Notes on the Greek Wedding. Arethusa15:181-201.
1983 The Economic Man. In Approachesto Homer. CarlA. Rubino and CynthiaW.
Shelmerdine,eds. Pp. 218-247. Austin: Universityof Texas Press.
Reeve, M. D.
1973 The Languageof Achilles. Classical Quarterly23:193-195.
Roberts,JenniferT.
1981-82 Portraitsof a Neurosis, Agamemnonin Book IV of the Iliad. The Classical
Outlook59:33-37.
258 CULTURAL
ANTHROPOLOGY
Rose, G. P.
1969 The UnfriendlyPhaeacians.Transactionsof the AmericanPhilological Associ-
ation 100:387-406.
Rousseau,Jean-Jacques
1968[1762] The Social Contract.MauriceCranston,trans. Harmondsworth:Penguin
Books.
Sahlins, Marshall
1972 Stone Age Economics. Chicago: Universityof Chicago Press.
Sale, W.
1963 Achilles and Heroic Values. Arion 2:86-100.
Schein, Seth
1970 Odysseusand Polyphemusin the Odysseus. Greek, Romanand ByzantineStud-
ies 11:73-83.
1984 The MortalHero. Berkeley:Universityof CaliforniaPress.
Schlunk,Robin R.
1976 The Theme of the SuppliantExile in the Iliad. AmericanJournalof Philology
97:199-207.
Schoeck, Helmut
1987[1966] Envy. Indianapolis:LibertyPress.
Schofield, Malcolm
1967 Eubouliain the Iliad. Classical Quarterly36:6-31.
Schwartz,B.
1967 The Social Psychology of the Gift. AmericanJournalof Sociology 75:1-11.
Scodel, Ruth
1982 The Autobiographyof Phoenix. AmericanJournalof Philology 103:119-136.
Sevret, Jean-Michel
1981 PrimitiveOrderand ArchaicTrade, Part 1. Economy and Society 10:423-450.
1982 PrimitiveOrderand ArchaicTrade, Part2. Economy and Society 11:22-59.
Simmel, Georg
1950 The Sociology of Georg Simmel. KurtH. Wolff, ed. and trans. Glencoe, Ill.:
Free Press.
1971 On Individualityand Social Forms. Donald N. Levine, ed. and trans. Chicago:
Universityof Chicago Press.
1978[1900] The Philosophyof Money. Tom Bottomoreand David Frisby, trans.Lon-
don: Routledge& Kegan Paul.
Snodgrass,A.
1974 An HistoricalHomericSociety? Journalof Hellenic Studies 94:114-125.
Soyinka, Wole
1976 Myth, Literatureand the African World. Cambridge:Cambridge University
Press.
Stanford,W. B.
1968 The Ulysses Theme. Ann Arbor:Universityof MichiganPress.
Stewart,Douglas J.
1976 The Disguised Guest. Lewisburg, Pa.: Bucknell UniversityPress.
Sullivan, James
1987 Observationson the Kyklopeia. Symbolae Osloenses 62:5-24.
Vermeule,Emily
1976 Aspects of Death in Early Greek Art and Poetry. Berkeley:University of Cali-
forniaPress.
AGONISTIC
EXCHANGE259
Vernant,Jean-Pierre
1975 Categoriesde l'agent et de l'action en Grece ancienne. In Langue, Discourse,
Societe. Julia Kristeva, Jean-ClaudeMilner, and Nicolas Ruwet, eds. Pp. 365-373.
Paris:Editionsdu Seuil.
1981a[1974] The Union of Metis and the Sovereigntyof Heaven. JanetLloyd, trans.
In Myth, Religion and Society. R. L. Gordon,ed. Pp. 1-16. Cambridge:Cambridge
UniversityPress.
1981b[1977] The Myth of Prometheusin Hesiod. JanetLloyd, trans. In Myth, Reli-
gion and Society. R. L. Gordon, ed. Pp. 43-56. Cambridge:CambridgeUniversity
Press.
198 c[1977] Sacrificialand AlimentaryCodes in Hesiod's Myth. JanetLloyd, trans.
In Myth, Religion and Society. R. L. Gordon,ed. Pp. 57-79. Cambridge:Cambridge
UniversityPress.
Walcot, Peter
1970 Greek Peasants, Ancient and Modern. Manchester: Manchester University
Press.
1977a Odysseus and the Art of Lying. Ancient Society 8:1-19.
1977b The Judgementof Paris. Greece and Rome 24:31-39.
1978 Envy and the Greeks. Warminster:Aris and Philips.
Weber, Max
1972[1906] Georg Simmel as Sociologist. Donald N. Levine, ed. and trans. Social
Research39:155-163.
1978[1909] The AgrarianSociology of AncientCivilization. R. L. Frank,trans. Lon-
don: New Left Books.
Weil, Simone
n.d.[1940-41] The Iliad or the Poem of Force. Mary McCarthy,trans. Wallingford,
Pa.: Pendle Hill Press.
Weiner, Annette
1985 InalienableWealth. AmericanEthnologist 12:210-227.
Whallon, W.
1960 The Name of Penelope. Greek, Romanand ByzantineStudies 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 AmericanPhilological Asso-
ciation 72:392-417.
Zarker,JohnW.
1965 King Eetion and Thebe as Symbols in the Iliad. The Classical Journal61:110-
114.

Beidelman On Simmel and Mauss

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originalbeschreibung:

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Beidelman On Simmel and Mauss

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

!"#$%&'%()*+(,-$"./)0#1.2%()3.(%42#(%'5)-$6)',.)0.2%'-".)#7)8%11.

Mauss and Simmel

in termsof candor.Simmel, morethanmost social theorists,appreciatesthe man-

Homeric Greece: A Background

subordinatekin, attachedfollowers, and slaves. Heads of various households

pologists reportcomparableplay with kin terms among Nuer patronsand Dinka

The Homeric Epics

Walcot(1977a, b), and Whitman(1965). Classicists will find little informationin

hood, these cases provide me with an opportunityto fill in furtherethnographic

Yet seeing I was blind, and yielded to my miserablepassion, I am mindedto make

At first glance Agamemnon appears to be stupendously magnanimous. Yet

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

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

Nestor tries to salvage dignity by conjuring up his glorious past when he

These passages underscore the importance of speaking eloquently and

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

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

Echeneiis addresses the king:

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

marriagebetween equals. One was obliged to extend some hospitalityand gifts

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

came mortal.Althoughtheir land has excellent harbors,the Cyclopes fashion no

maketrialof yondermen,to learnwhotheyare,whethertheyarecruelandwild,and

Odysseusgoes because he is humanand curious, the very opposite reasons from

come as suppliantsto thy knees [in the mannerthatOdysseus supplicatedqueen Arete

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

Yetcomehither,Odysseus,thatI mayset beforetheegiftsof entertainment

1973:277; Vernant 1975). Homeric Greeks were likely to overestimate their

To speakof a mangivinghimselfin returnfornothingis to speakof whatis absurd,

Acknowledgments.This article is a sketch from a broaderprojectemploying Homer and

oretical watershedfor constructionof his influentialtheories. The great Nigerian play-

mortalson, Achilleus, destined for imperishablefame. This unequalwedding is attended

"Ironically, Alkinoos wonderswhetherOdysseus might himself be a god in disguise, but

by Homer to underscorethe mirrorimagery between the hospitable Phaeakiansand the

1972 Truth,KosmosandArete in the HomericPoems. Classical Quarterly65:5-13.

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen