Odysseus, ingestive rhetoric, and Euripides' Cyclops. (2024)

There is an ancient tie between the feast and the spoken word.

M. Bakhtin

If Odysseus has a sophistic and mercenary bent in tragic depiction,comic fragments suggest that he also comes to be associated with greedy,all-belly figures. (1) W. B. Stanford has noted this evolution inOdysseus's character, connecting his later profile as a glutton tohis food-oriented arguments in Iliad 19 and especially to his focus onthe belly's needs in the Odyssey. (2) But neither Stanford norother scholars have considered that Odysseus's attention to thefair portion in the Iliad and to the belly's urgings in the Odysseymight especially mark the persuasive style of this circ*mspect, hungryhero; nor have they associated Odysseus's fair-sharing attitudes inHomer with the sophistic type he plays in tragedy, where his persuasivetactics tend to incorporate both the aggressivity of the hungry man andthe calculating civility of the politician. (3) While the more fullyextant depictions in epic and drama do not portray Odysseus as greedy,his strategies often betray a focus on the fair sharing that ideallygoverns both the dinner table and the persuasive setting. (4) Thisdistinction between the greedy feaster and his calculating counterpartis important in ancient hospitality scenes, the proper handling of whichinvolves both equal apportionment and genial persuasive tactics. Howeverobvious the connection between the needy guest and the glutton may be(the one being the intemperate extention of the other), in archaic andclassical depictions Odysseus usually embodies either the diplomaticpresence who promotes the orderly influences of the fairly apportionedfeast, or the hungry, bartering type who is sensitive to practical need.Only rarely is he a creature of excess, tending instead to recognize thepotential for rapacious violence in others. His pragmatic, expeditiousstrategies for insuring that his (and his companions') needs aremet stand in explicit contrast to the aggressively gluttonous attitudesof the suitors in the Odyssey, the grim cannibalism threatened by themourning Achilles in the Il iad, or the gleefully profligate ingestionof the Cyclops in Euripides' satyr play.

This pragmatic outlook does, on the other hand, contribute to thefifth-century perception of Odysseus's type as utilitarian ratherthan noble and, therefore, sometimes as mercenary and calculating. Hisbeggarman's bartering techniques and his use of thesea-trader's disguise in the Odyssey, together with hisexchange-oriented attitudes in the Iliad, suggest that the wanderinghero had been associated from early on with an expedient practicality.Indeed, in fifth-century representation both sophists and seamen arefrequently portrayed as displaying this mercenary bent, which conformswith the fact that archaic and classical depictions tend to denigratethe type who trades goods or skills. In Odyssey 8, for example, Odysseustreats as a gross insult Euryalus's assumption that he is asea-trader, although elsewhere (e.g., Book 14) he disguises himself asthis type. Tragedy traces such connections more emphatically andnegatively: in the Philoctetes, Odysseus's use of the sea-trader(emporos) figure to deceive t he wounded hero further associates hischaracter with mercenary expediency and indirection. (5)

The bartering Odysseus also employs stylistic strategies thatinvolve a similar attention to pragmatic exchange. Capitalizing on thefamiliar rituals of apportionment, Odysseus sometimes associates himselfwith charisdeserving heroes, thereby reaffirming the well-balanced anddeserving qualities of his own character. (6) The Philoctetes playsrepresent a more negative strain of this tradition, highlightingOdysseus's capacity for lying, and showing how his aggressivetechniques became allied with sophistic strategies and (occasionally) arapacious brutality. In oratorical set speeches, Odysseus uses similarlyaggressive tactics, turning the tables on his opponents by appropriatingtheir character types and techniques and sometimes projecting his ownnegative profile onto them. (7) Elsewhere in the tradition, depictionsof the orator's style in verbal contestation tend to highlight moreconsistently the excesses that underlie such aggressive techniques,although these often also include some form of character appropriationor projection. Odysseus himself ultimately emerges as the milder type ofgreedy sophist, one whose aims are more practical than overweening andwhose tactics are more often appropriative than voracious.

Euripides' Cyclops captures a key interaction between thesecharacter types in the connections it forges between gluttonousingestion and sophistic trickery. In this Dionysiac context thegruesomely voracious Polyphemus shows a penchant for an elaboraterhetorical style, while a hungry and trade-oriented Odysseus ultimatelythwarts him. Odysseus appropriates the giant's sophistic tacticsand encourages the monster in his solitary greed by arguing againstprecisely the ritualized fair sharing that marks the hero's owntypical focus. While scholars have tended to regard Odysseus'scharacter in the Cyclops as quite heroic, both the monster and the heromanifest in their appropriative rhetorical maneuvers an aggressivesophistry that reduces men to meat, and fine talk to deceptive barter.In treating the monstrous Polyphemus as the greedy sophist that Odysseusthen mirrors in the dolos scene, the play refracts and interrogatesHomeric and tragic scenes that portray Odysseus as a calculating,mercenary type.

In the discussion below, I first situate features ofOdysseus's signature style in the context of poetic depictions thatassociate eating and speaking, in order to demonstrate how the argumentand imagery of appetite coalesce in conventional settings around ideasof excess and/or deceit. I then consider how the Cyclops responds tothese conventions, particularly as they shape Odysseus'stechniques. Polyphemus's sophistic response in the supplicationscene effectively reconstitutes Odysseus's arguments, while thenecessities of his solitary komos call for an inversion of the famouspreoccupations of the fair-sharing Odysseus.

Hungry Talk in Archaic Representation

The greedy kings of archaic poetry, who feed on the people andtheir goods, clearly transgress the careful fair sharing that shouldorganize communal rituals. Their greediness extends from their belliesto their governing strategies, which include how they speak in disputes(e.g., [LANGUAGE NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] cf. ([LANGUAGE NOTREPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] Op. 22O-21). (8) Agamemnon is the most famousexample of this kind of rapacious, verbally aggressive leader. In Iliad1, Achilles depicts him as an inveterate grabber of others' fairallotments, while the king himself snaps angrily at those who challengehim and repeatedly leaves the diplomatic Odysseus to defend his greed.Other figures in archaic depiction show a tendency to be driven by theirbellies, but often out of a need to fill them rather than from anunfettered gluttony. Poets and storytellers fall into this category:Hesiod's all-belly shepherds ([LANGUAGE NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]Theog. 26) and Odysseus in the Odyssey both suggest a connecti onbetween the belly's demands and speaking to please. There, aselsewhere, the idea is that appetite will drive the indigent man toflatter and deceive. In Hesiod, the Muses insult the narrator as aprelude to their announcement that they may lie, and to their conferralof the poet's staff and inspired voice. Their patronage is thuscouched in terms that warn him against the excesses and deceits thatnaturally tempt such voluble types. The figure of the hungry, needy poetalso turns up in Hipponax (e.g., Frags. 32, 34, 39, 42 W), as does thatof the greedy man, whose violent belly ([LANGUAGE NOT REPRODUCIBLE INASCII]) and rude eating style ([LANGUAGE NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII])render him a fit target for stoning (Frag. 128 W; cf. 118 W). (9)

The beggar-storyteller in the Odyssey repeatedly excites anawareness in his interlocutors of the trade-off between the good mealand the good story, which may involve the worry that such characterswill say anything for warm food or a thick cloak (e.g., Od. 14.127-32,362-65, 395-97, 508-17; 17.415-18, 559-60). The belly takes on anominous presence in the language of the beggar and those who confronthim (e.g., Od. 17.228, 502, 559; 18.2, 53-54), suggesting not only thatit is a spur to deceit but even that it may spoil those very ritualsthat are meant to sate it (Od. 17.2 19-20) and thus lead to destruction.(10) For instance, as the beggar Odysseus and Eumaeus pause before thehero's own halls, he declares that he can smell and hear that feastand song are being enjoyed within (17.269-71). But then he notesominously that the gaster is irrepressible ([LANGUAGE NOT REPRODUCIBLEIN ASCII] 286) and drives men to war. The belly's urgings thus notonly provide the genial context for song, they may also threat en itsrituals. The scene suggests dangers in the connections between eatingand speaking (or singing) that go beyond the image of the lyingbeggar-poet. While the greedy suitors consume the hero's wealth andmenace his philoi verbally, the belly of the scheming Odysseus alsourges him to violence.

The most pointed intersection of violent feasting and aggressivespeaking occurs in the exchange between Odysseus and Antinoos in Book17. The beggar initiates the confrontation by calling on the ritualtrade-off that should govern the aristocrat's response to thehungry man. "Give, friend," Odysseus says, "since you donot seem to me to be the worst of the Achaeans, but rather thebest" ([LANGUAGE NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII], 17.415-16). He thenassures the would be giver that he will receive in return, since asbeggar-poet he will sing the aristocrat's praises throughout thelands ([LANGUAGE NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] 17.418). When Antinoosresponds harshly, Odysseus remarks that his temperament does not matchhis noble form ([LANGUAGE NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII], 17.454), whichearns him a blow from a footstool, a piece of furniture that istypically brought out for guests of high status (e.g., Od. 1.131;10.367; 17.409-10). When brandished by the haughty Antinoos, the stoolreinforces not only the contrast between his stature and his ignobletype, but also the violent potential of his greedy arrogance. (11)Instead of the peaceful fair sharing of food and well-balanced words,the scene is marked by physical and verbal aggressivity, in which therequest for an alimentary gift is answered by a "gift" ofquite another sort. Antinoos insultingly reconstitutes the fair exchangeinvoked by Odysseus as the beating that beggarmen deserve. (12)

In the Odyssey in general, eating is a cause for concern in that itis frequently hard to come by, and it ultimately drives Odysseus to singfor his supper in a number of dining scenes. In the more outlandishsettings, eating tends to involve some kind of threat, transgression, orneed for careful negotiation. Many of the adventures that Odysseusrelates to the Phaiacians in the Odyssey include dangerous types ofeating: the ill-advised feasting after the Kikonian battle, thelethe-inducing Lotus Eaters, the cannibalistic Cyclopes andLastrygonians, and the transmogrifying kukeon of Circe. Perhaps mostcrucially, transgressive eating also drives the narrative of the deadlyCattle of the Sun, the significance of which episode the poet signals atthe opening of the poem. But neither these scenes, nor those in whichthe beggar-poet tells his tales for food, depict Odysseus arguing forfair exchange in a formal persuasive setting. Instead his responses tothe necessities and dangers of eating include flattery, fl ight,trickery, and careful circ*mspection.

In the Iliad, Odysseus occupies a more diplomatic role, one thatemphasizes the normal (and normalizing) rituals of hospitality andexchange in the face of Achilles' angry isolation. (13) Thecalculating henchman who encourages adherence to communal ritual isactually less concerned with eating per se, and more with the meal as amedium for group cohesion. (14) Odysseus's repeated emphasis on thefair portion has rhetorical as well as social implications, and centersaround his struggles with Achilles. Odysseus tries to persuade Achillestwice (Il. 9.225-306 and 19.155-83, 216-37), both times deploying theimagery of fair sharing. As a member of the embassy to Achilles in Iliad9, Odysseus begins by filling Achilles' up with wine and greetinghim; he remarks on the food they have enjoyed together and sketches thepleasures of such shared repasts (9.225-29). (15) Achilles would enjoythe same pleasures at Agamemnon's table, Odysseus asserts, therebysharing the concept of the balanced, fitting feast ([LANGUAGE NOTREPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]) between the two leaders. Either man's tentwould welcome guests with strength-suiting meals ([LANGUAGE NOTREPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]). (16) This is, of course, precisely the balancedexchange that Odysseus will claim Agamemnon is prepared to offerAchilles; he emphasizes the king's gifts as eminently suited toAchilles' stature and offered in exchange for his anger (e.g.,[LANGUAGE NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII], 9.261; [LANGUAGE NOT REPRODUCIBLEIN ASCII], 9.299).

In Book 19 Odysseus attempts to persuade Achilles to eat (and allowhis men to eat) before returning to battle. His speech is punctuated byreferences to sustenance (e.g., [LANGUAGE NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]160) and body parts; (17) he visualizes the hungry versus the sated bodyon the battlefield, comparing the ability of each to fight. Echoing hiswell-mannered proem from the earlier speech, Odysseus asks now thatAchilles allow similar appeasem*nt, so that he might not lack his due[LANGUAGE NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII], l79-80). (l8) The rituals ofapportioning food and drink and dividing spoils are again closelyassociated by Odysseus, now as fulfillment of his earlier speech'spromise. Here he focuses attention on the ability of sustenance toembolden the heart [LANGUAGE NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII], 169) in amanner that is healthier--both physically and emotionally--than themorbid fire that feeds Achilles' fury. (19)

Achilles' response deserves some brief consideration here, inthat it shares some interesting features with the Cyclops'sresponse to Odysseus in Euripides' play. Achilles declares that hewould rather fight immediately than eat, and in bitter tones he linksthe division of food to the "divided" bodies of the Greekdead, and especially to that of Patroclus [LANGUAGE NOT REPRODUCIBLE INASCII], 211). (20) He swears that no food or drink will pass down histhroat while his friend lies unavenged; he is focused instead onkilling, carnage, and the anguished groaning of men (214). That is,rather than employ his own mouth for eating, Achilles causes the mouthsof others to emit cries of despair, as in a kind of emotionalcannibalism he feeds his grieving heart on their slaughter. (21) Hisresponse thus transforms the ritual apportioning of meat into an actthat savagely repeats the dismemberment of human bodies by the enemy.Odysseus counters by representing this grim exchange of Trojan for Greekcorpses as a mism atch of dead and living bodies, which fatally ignoresthe necessary feeding of one's own belly. He argues that a warriorquickly has his fill of battle [LANGUAGE NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII],221), and that the troops should not mourn the dead by fasting [LANGUAGENOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII], 225). Answering Achilles' imagery ofretributive dismemberment with that of war's deadly harvest,Odysseus emphasizes that the only balance that humans may effect is thealimentary kind--a sharing of strength while Zeus ultimately mans thescales (221-24). Soon after this exchange, the narrator describes howinstead of sharing food with the Greek leaders, Achilles mourns hisfriend (315-37) while they all stand witness, his heart unassuaged untilhe enters "the mouth of bloody war" ([LANGUAGE NOTREPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII], 313). This gruesome image is matched byAchilles' own oral savagery: after voicing grief for his friend, hearms himself, gnashing his teeth ([LANGUAGE NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII],365) and raging for Trojans ([LANGUAGE NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII], 367).

This second formal exchange between Odysseus and Achilleshighlights in more morbid terms the interaction between two uses of themouth: ingestion and the emission of sounds (especially those oflamentation). Both exchanges, then, link speaking and eating, but thelatter exchange shows Odysseus responding to Achilles' bloodthirstyequations with the imagery of apportionment, opposing the reaper'sgrim compensation to the cannibalizing warrior's feast of bodies.This scene in particular demonstrates how two powerful speakers mayemploy an appropriative and combative alternation among oral activities,which also structures the exchanges between Odysseus and Polyphemus inthe Cyclops.

Rapacious Tongue-Wagging in Classical Representation

Fifth- and fourth-century writers invigorate the connection betweenspeaking and eating in order to portray a certain kind of publiccharacter: the rapacious, violent, sophistic politician. Pindar employsimagery that allies immoderate eating and speaking, when hecharacterizes the slanderous speaker as a snappish, greedy type who"fattens" himself ([LANGUAGE NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII], Pyth.2.56) on envious talk. (22) Although Pindar's depictions of suchspeakers predate sophistic influence, Odysseus is one of the centralcharacters who displays this oral aggressivity. Odysseus is singled outby later tradition as the Homeric hero who engages in mercenarysophistic strategies; Pindar's portrait of him "biting"and "skewering" Ajax with his arguments as if the latter werea side of beef ([LANGUAGE NOT REPRODUCIBLE N ASCII], Nem. 8.23) directlyforeshadows the representation of his character as the rapacioussophist. For this kind of speaker, words are a "tasty treat"([LANGUAGE NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII], 8. 21); his envy of his bettersis manifested by the relish with which he engages in blaming speech.(23)

In fifth-century drama, one of the most notorious examples of thistype is the Cleon character in Aristophanes' Knights. In atransparent series of metaphors for Cleon's putatively aggressive,voracious, and violent attitude toward the demos, the demagogue"Paphlagon" expends most of his energy yelling and eating. Alatter-day version of the greedy kings of archaic poetry, Cleon isdepicted as intent on consuming the city's citizens and its wealthalike. His rapaciousness extends to words as well: whatever he eats--ashe himself claims--gives him the power to argue in the food's mostsuitable idiom (e.g., eating fish makes him swear like a sailor:[LANGUAGE NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] Eq. 352-55). Both Paphlagon-Cleon(a tanner by trade) and his opponent the Sausage-Seller contend thattheir abilities to swallow down food and drink, spew out venomous prose,and violently flay their enemies make them best suited to run the city.(24)

The image of the rapacious politician was also employed in oratory.Aeschines and Demosthenes both make use of imagery that connects theopponent's speaking style with his salesmanship and his appetites.(25) They charge each other with being sophists and logographers, thatis, those who write for pay (e.g., Aeschines 2.180, 3.16; Demosthenes19.246, 250; 18.276), and each suggests that the other treats his bodyas something to be sold (e.g., [LANGUAGE NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]Aeschines 2.23; Demosthenes 18.131, 262). Demosthenes places moreemphasis on how Aeschines has sold his vocal talents in both the theaterand public speaking, while Aeschines suggests that Demosthenes'oral activities extend to even more debasing practices (2.23, 88).Aeschines' profligate tactics, according to Demosthenes, alsoinclude excessive imbibing and physical force; Demosthenes tells a storyin which Aeschines, while drinking heavily, beats a well-born femalecaptive to induce her to sing (19. 196-98). (26) The portrait Demosthenes presents of his enemy thus associates his booming voice andflowing speaking style [LANGUAGE NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] 19.207) withslander, bribe-taking, violent revelry, and a generally mercenaryattitude toward his own mouth. Demosthenes himself emerges as amoderate, careful, even timid speaker (e.g., 19.207); reputedly ateetotaller (6.30; 19.355), he represents his speaking style as equallyadhering to this measured oral mode. In response to these insultingcontrasts, Aeschines represents Demosthenes as a high-pitched squawker(2.157) and calls him a kinaidos, a term that encapsulates the kind ofsoft, degenerate life he repeatedly charges Demosthenes with living[LANGUAGE NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] 2.88; cf. [LANGUAGE NOTREPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] 2.99 and [LANGUAGE NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII],2.151). Both orators attempt to divest themselves of these associations,and to foist onto each other their debasing connotations, a rhetoricalmaneuver in itself aggressively defamatory. (27)

We may also consider Callicles from Plato's Gorgias, thebrutal, daring sophist with whom scholars have associatedEuripides' Cyclops for his hedonism and lawlessness. (28) In adiscussion that treats pleasure as "filling up" [LANGUAGE NOTREPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII], Callicles declares that he is "speakingfreely" [LANGUAGE NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII], 491e6) when he arguesthat it is unnatural to rein in one's pleasures. Socrates respondswryly that he certainly is speaking freely [LANGUAGE NOT REPRODUCIBLE INASCII], 492d2), since he is arguing in such a bold manner; and herequests that he not "let up in any way" [LANGUAGE NOTREPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII], 492d4). Callicles accordingly persists in hissupport of unchecked pleasure, and soon claims that to live happily isto have "as much as possible flowing in" [LANGUAGE NOTREPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII], [LANGUAGE NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] 494b2; cf.491e5-92a3). This inspires Socrates to compare the life he envisions tothat of the "torrent bird" [LANGUAGE NOT REPRODUCIB LE INASCII], 494b6), who eats and excretes simultaneously. He inquireswhether Callicles means that one should always eat when hungry and drinkwhen thirsty, and even scratch when itchy--a low-brow example that winsSocrates the label of "mob orator" [LANGUAGE NOT REPRODUCIBLEIN ASCII], 494d1) from the irritated sophist. Ultimately Socrates likensthis voracious style of living to that of the kinaidos (6 [LANGUAGE NOTREPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII], 494e4). This final comparison apparently shocksCallicles, and he asks Socrates whether he is ashamed to bring up suchexamples. Since the kinaidos in particular is a figure of weakness andexcess, the comparison is useful for countering Callicles' equationof unchecked pleasure with happiness. The young man's"free" and dashingly aggressive style only highlights theproblems with the open-mouthed pleasure he advocates: that any pleasurein excess (even speechifying, perhaps) is morally and often alsophysically degrading.

Odysseus's character, while it suffers some equally degradingassociations in literary representations of this period, is not usuallydepicted as quite so excessive. Calculating and mercenary, he keeps hisappetites and rhetoric both firmly in check, in the service of his goodreputation. This careful calculation does not, however, prevent othersfrom characterizing him as a rapacious, poisonous, and aggressive foe.He receives the most bitter condemnation of his talents inEuripides' Trojan Women, when He-cuba discovers that she has beenallotted by the Greek leaders to serve Odysseus. Hecuba connects hisduplicitous tongue([LANGUAGE NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]) with a ravenouscriminality ([LANGUAGE NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII])and depicts the tricksof his speechifying in phrases that sound like charges levelled at thesophists (e.g., [LANGUAGE NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII], 285-86). Intragedy Odysseus repeatedly receives the moniker panourgos, a label thatassociates an omnivorous inclusivity with profligacy ( that is,"all-doing" becomes "evil-doing"). (29) Inrhetorical set pieces the label is one that Odysseus projects onto hisopponents as a means of divesting himself of this slander; (30) we mightalso note here that he charges the equally sophistic Polyphemus withpanourgia in the Cyclops.

Like the Trojan Women, Sophocles' Philoctetes depicts Odysseusas firmly wedded to this aggressive sophistic mode. He urges Neoptolemusto "play the sophist" ([LANGUAGE NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII],77), a main aspect of which is deploying a negative version of his(Odysseus's) character as a means of deceiving the wounded hero(64-65). Accordingly, in the third episode of the play, afterNeoptolemus has convinced Philoctetes that he himself is also an enemyof Odysseus and therefore trustworthy, the "merchant" andNeoptolemus embark upon a performance that casts Odysseus'scharacter in a grim and violent light, as per the orchestrator'sown instructions. For instance, Neoptolemus asks whether Odysseus'smen intend to lead him back to Troy by force or persuasion ([LANGUAGENOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]; 563), the same question that framesOdysseus's treatment of Philoctetes ([LANGUAGE NOT REPRODUCIBLE INASCII], 592; cf. 618-19). The merchant also abuses Odysseus toPhiloctetes, calling him [LANGUAGE NOT REPRODUCI BLE IN ASCII] and"one who hears all sorts of shameful and slanderous words"([LANGUAGE NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII], 607-08); and he puts words in themouth of Odysseus that make him appear brutal. He claims, for instance,that Odysseus declared that he would stake his own head forPhiloctetes' return, which echoes the bold threat the hero had usedto menace the hideous but glib Thersites in the Iliad (618-19; cf. Il.2.259). (31) Earlier in the play Philoctetes had depicted Odysseus as"touching all slanderous talk and profligacy with his tongue"([LANGUAGE NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII], 407-08); now he responds to themerchant's provocative portrait with outrage, terming Odysseus"a thorough harm" ([LANGUAGE NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]. 622).(32) He then declares that he "would sooner hear that the mosthated serpent" were to take him ([LANGUAGE NOT REPRODUCIBLE INASCII], 631-32) than that Odysseus lurked somewhere nearby.

While a few tragedies cast Odysseus in a milder, more Iliadicrole--that of the strategist who promotes balance and fairexchange--they also indicate an awareness of the caustic effects of histongue. (33) Sophocles' Ajax in particular traces the emotionsaroused by Odysseus's speech. The chorus of Salaminian sailorsimagine bitterly his whispered report ([LANGUAGE NOT REPRODUCIBLE INASCII], 148) of Ajax's downfall as he ranges through the troops;they also warn against the secret tales ([LANGUAGE NOT REPRODUCIBLE INASCII], 188) and the raving talk ([LANGUAGE NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII],198-99) that Odysseus seems to incite. Although Odysseus ends updefending a fair and fitting burial for the hero once he is dead, whilestill alive Ajax chafes at the thought of Odysseus disseminatingslanderous reports. When Ajax's vision clears, he moans in horroras he imagines the pleasure this "keen-eyed tool of evil"([LANGUAGE NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]) might get from his downfall(379-82). To the suffering hero Od ysseus is a wheedler ([LANGUAGE NOTREPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII], 388) and an irritant ([LANGUAGE NOT REPRODUCIBLEIN ASCII], 381, 389). Similarly, the chorus in Euripides' Hecubapoints out that the arguments of Odysseus--that "sweet-talking,crowd-pleasing wrangler" ([LANGUAGE NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII],132)--persuaded the Greek army to sacrifice Polyxena at Achilles'tomb. While Odysseus's arguments all revolve around the visibledisplay of honors to suit the status of the warrior, his overly cleverrejection of Hecuba's pleas and his craven recoiling fromPolyxena's supplicatory touch call to mind the mercenary traitsattributed to the sophists.

What we have, then, in these portraits of Odysseus and otheraggressive sophistic types is a series of overlapping associations thatrange from the violently ravenous, snappish wrangler to the diplomatbent on a careful (but often grasping) apportionment. Most of theimagery suggests some connection between sophistic speechifying andeither appetite or calculating trade-offs--the one sometimes clearlyrepresented as the excessive extention of the other. The mouth and itsneighbor organs together serve as the metonymic focus for many of theseassociations, with the depiction of its immoderate uses suggesting afundamental confluence between rapacious habits and verbal abuse ortrickery. While essential Homeric distinctions between the heroicaristocrat and the clever salesman still linger in the fifth-centuryimagery, these are frequently complicated by the recognition thatneither may have a very firm hold on moderation. In the Cyclops,Odysseus and Polyphemus each embody one end of this set of connections:t he hero shows a shrewd concern for fair sharing, and the monstercounters with a gluttonous aggression that envisions his interlocutor asa tasty meal.

Sophistry and Supper in the Cyclops

In his commentary on Euripides' Cyclops, Richard Seafordhighlights the anomalies of the satyric context by clarifying thenastier details of Polyphemus's culinary habits and by keepingtrack of how Euripides' text responds to the Cyclops scene inOdyssey 9. (34) In his introduction Seaford remarks on Polyphemus'ssophisticated rhetoric in the supplication scene, arguing againstUssher, who thinks Polyphemus a simple country cannibal, but rejectingPaganelli's suggestion that his character reflects a kind ofGorgianic (and Sicilian) decadence. (35) David Konstan has emphasizedthe triangulation of Polyphemus, Odysseus, and Silenus around food,arguing that Polyphemus is not really a cannibal--insofar as he does noteat his own kind--and noting that Silenus does not eat at all, being afigure symbolic of the komos and Dionysiac celebration. (36) ButEuripides certainly depicts the Cyclops as if he were some form ofcannibal, and this is an important aspect of Odysseus'ssupplication of him. The monster is, as Konstan notes, also entirelyignorant of symposiastic custom (i.e., of both wine and its divinity).(37) In alimentary terms he thus precisely opposes the satyrs; andinsofar as the satyrs serve as the representatives of the genre,Polyphemus would seem to embody its inversion. (38) But theCyclops's penchant for gnawing on human flesh is ultimatelysupplemented by his equally voracious gulping of wine, which makes him awould-be symposiast--giddy with drink and ready for love. Thefair-sharing table (dais eise) that Odysseus promoted in the Iliad andthat turns up in this play as his attempt at barter is thus offset firstby the Cyclops's engorging of his guests and then by his lonelykomos, as the monstrous reveler swallows down wine with abandon, withthe satyrs pressed into service as his reluctant entertainers.

Mikhail Bakhtin has argued that depictions of character centeringaround a gleefully aggressive, omnivorous consumption embrace anopen-mouthed attitude toward the world in general. According to Bakhtin,this attitude has its roots in the ancient symposium, where gustatoryand garrulous urges might both be accommodated. The ingestive body wasalso a talking body, the exchange of food and conversation or jestsconstituting a tactile communication with, or absorption of, the worldaround one. (39) For Bakhtin, the vitality of this omnivorous attitudesignals an irreverent revolt against elevated representations of thebody as noble in form and unified in its parts. (40) So debasing a partas the belly, for example, could not be depicted among the uniformglories of the noble body. The laughter of ancient satyric depictionfocuses in on precisely these ignoble parts-and especially on thoseincluded in what Balthtin terms the lower bodily stratum. (41) Writersof both satyr plays and satire describe the grotesque body in piecemealfashion, with its most disreputable parts foregrounded especially whenbeing beaten, abused, denied, or threatened with a dismemberment thatreiterates the representational scheme. (42) The rhetorical ploys of thegreedy character thus intersect schematically with his all consuminginterest in his belly's satisfaction, the activities of speakingand eating creating a counterpoint between aggressive verbal strategiesand the threat of cannibalism. Bakhtin himself points to ancientprecedents for this grotesque physique, including the satyric Odysseus.(43) Odysseus's association with both the gaster and the verbalglissades of the smooth talker similarly forges connections between usesof the mouth. Euripides' Cyclops in particular centers aroundrituals of speaking and eating (or transgressive combinations thereof),with the witty and voracious Cyclops as Odysseus's challenginghost. (44) Polyphemus himself is the violent extention of this satyricOdysseus, his open-mouthed attitudes clearl y etching a type similar towhat Bakhtin describes.

The imagery of grotesque ingestion surfaces almost immediately inthe play. As Odysseus and his men approach the cave of Polyphemus,Silenus announces their arrival as "approaching the Cyclopianjaw" ([LANGUAGE NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]. The very settingappears voracious, (45) and Silenus matches this metonymic image ofPolyphemus's cannibalism with a comment that Odysseus and his menapproach with empty vessels. Odysseus, when he arrives on stage, affirmsthat the Greeks are both thirsty and hungry. His entrance is thusstructured by references to consumption; he brings with him on stage thebelly's demands, in which emphasis he is matched only by Polyphemusand his yawning cave. Before the monster arrives, Odysseus inquiresabout how the Cyclopes stand in relation to guest-host rituals([LANGUAGE NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]), to which Silenus archly replies,"They say that strangers have the sweetest flesh" ([LANGUAGENOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII], 25-26). Silenus is thus the first to reportthe Cyclops's moc king perversion of the rhetoric of xenia (inwhich Odysseus excels), foreshadowing the monster's techniques inthe supplication scene. When Odysseus discovers that the Cyclops is awayfrom the cave, he barters for the meat and dairy products thatconstitute Polyphemus's standard diet, offering Silenus his ownfavorite sustenance, wine. Douglas Olson (1988) has argued ratheringeniously that in so doing Odysseus effectively brings Dionysus onstage with him, and thereby embodies the trader-pirate in whosecaptivity the god languishes. Odysseus's role would thus alsorecall the more brutal players in the merchant-seaman stories he deploysso cleverly in Homeric epic and Sophoclean tragedy.

The exchange between Odysseus and Silenus is followed by the chorusleader's cynical questioning of Odysseus about the Trojan War, inwhich the former takes up an attitude that again foreshadows that ofPolyphemus. The juxtaposition of this discussion of the war to themockery of guest-host and bartering language denigrates it as a waste oftime carried out for worthless people. Minus the tense ambivalence thatsurrounds it in tragedy, the Trojan War emerges as merely one moremercenary scenario that recontextualizes the Homeric Odysseus in thenegative manner that is familiar from oratorical set pieces and, infact, from tragedy. Earlier in the Cyclops, in a phrase that echoesthose uttered by both Ajax and Philoctetes in Sophocles' plays,Silenus had referred to Odysseus as a "poisonous chatterer"([LANGUAGE NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII], 104; [LANGUAGE NOT REPRODUCIBLEIN ASCII], Frag. 913; [LANGUAGE NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]', Rhes.498). In this next scene the coryphaeus further underminesOdysseus's statu s as a war hero by deriding the war prize. Heechoes the tradition of Helen's susceptibility to glitter,reiterating Hecuba's characterization of her in the Trojan Women asbedazzled by Persian riches (991-92) and, as Seaford notes, humorouslyrefracting lyric language to cast both her and Menelaus in the worstpossible light. (46) Sandwiched in between the bartering over food andwine, the statements about the war revolve around debased bodies.Helen's own body is highlighted as one that attracts sexual abuse([LANGUAGE NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]', 180) (47) and Paris'sas the overdressed one that fluttered her shameless heart (i.e., theparamour's body from lyric poetry, 182-85). (48) Menelaus himselfis referred to dismissively as a "little man" ([LANGUAGE NOTREPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]) who is nonetheless the best ([LANGUAGE NOTREPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]) of the bunch (185-86). Thus when Odysseusdeclares at the approach of the Cyclops that the monster must be facednobly and invokes his own former bravery in th e war, the chorus leaderhas already emptied the war record of its noble tenor and refashioned itto focus on physical debasem*nt and bodily urges--a more suitable framefor the wily hero's reduced stature as the hungry barterer.

The focus on bodies and their ignoble treatment is sustained byPolyphemus. If this attitude appears to be a signature of the satyrplay, both the greedy Cyclops and the mercenary Odysseus whose traditionI have traced above are well matched for heightening its resonance inthe scenes that follow. When Polyphemus asks if pirates or robbers havebeen snatching his goods, Silenus devilishly introduces the Greeks aspirate types out to collar and eviscerate Polyphemus. The monsterresponds to the supposed light fingers of these "pirates" withthe first of many detailed descriptions of his culinary techniques,envisioning how the villains will be snatched in their turn and thusmake for fine dining (241-49). Odysseus intervenes and asks the Cyclopsto hear "the strangers' part" ([LANGUAGE NOT REPRODUCIBLEIN ASCII], 253), thus calling attention to the give-and-take of properlyconducted spoken exchanges. He takes this opportunity to describe thebalanced exchange of food for wine that he transacted with Silenus,emphasizing its fair and contractual nature by repeating words andphrases for profit and trade ([LANGUAGE NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII],254-57), and by underscoring that it was entered into willingly andwithout force on both of their parts ([LANGUAGE NOT REPRODUCIBLE INASCII], 259). He thus attempts to cast his and Silenus's activitiesas mercantile rather than violently heroic, setting aside his warringpersona in favor of the good barter.

But like the chorus, Polyphemus wants to know Odysseus'sidentity and inquires about the Trojan War, dismissing Helen as the"worst of women" ([LANGUAGE NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII], 280)and the army as shameful ([LANGUAGE NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII], 283) forgoing after her. Commentators note that Polyphemus knows the familiar(i.e., the tragic) line about the war, and that Odysseus's responsesomewhat ridiculously casts the motivation for the expedition as theultimate piety, since he declares that it was carried out in order toinsure the continued protection of Greek temples (285ff.). But becausethis argument is in fact aimed at establishing a crucial point ofcommonality between the Greeks and the Cyclops, it is important to takenote of how Odysseus builds up to this claim, and why it is so centralto his argument. Odysseus introduces this argument very formally andgenially (cf. iliad 9), addressing the Cyclops as "child born fromthe sea god" ([LANGUAGE NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII], 286)--afamilial con nection he had just gleaned from Silenus (262) (49)--andintroducing the concept of the suppliant's right to free speech([LANGUAGE NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]). (50) In a grotesque inversion ofthe scenes from the Iliad in which he foregrounds the sharing of food asmeans of enacting community solidarity, Odysseus urges Polyphemus not tokill those approaching him as friends ([LANGUAGE NOT REPRODUCIBLE INASCII], 288) and put this impious food between his jaws ([LANGUAGE NOTREPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII], 289). He then gives the central reason why heand his men would not make good food: they are returning from fightingthe war in defense of Greek places of ritual practice (such asPoseidon's temples), a practice he claims that Polyphemus shares([LANGUAGE NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII], 297). Underscoring the idea thatit is impious to eat one's own, Odysseus seeks to demonstrate thatthe Cyclops would be engaging in an un-Hellenic act were he to gobble upthe Greek soldiers.

To maintain the allegiance that he has forged, Odysseus next arguesthat the customary treatment of suppliants includes the performance ofguest-host duties and the furnishing of clothes, rather than theroasting of strangers' naked limbs on spits to fill one'sbelly and jaws [LANGUAGE NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] 303). Returningagain to the war, he reminds the Cyclops of the horrible loss of lifethere, where "the earth drank much blood" [LANGUAGE NOTREPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII], 304-05). He urges Polyphemus not to exacerbatethe cruel effects of this vampiric imbibing by finishing off theremaining Greeks in a "bitter feast" [LANGUAGE NOTREPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]. This he follows with a further exhortation(306-11) of the Cyclops to be persuaded [LANGUAGE NOT REPRODUCIBLE INASCII] to "put aside the mad fury of [his] jaws" [LANGUAGE NOTREPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] and thus "to take reverence in exchange forirreverence" [LANGUAGE NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]. He finishes thiscrescendo of references to verbal contracts, consumption, and barter bystating that many men receive painful punishment in exchange forill-gotten gains [LANGUAGE NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] 312). Warnings ofthis sort are common in Greek literature, of course, but the image ofexchange is not necessarily so highlighted. (51)

Silenus intervenes at this point with a warning for the Cyclops,one that credits the supplicator with fearsome technique. (52) "Ifyou eat his tongue," Silenus says, "you will become eloquentand most glib" [LANGUAGE NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII], 314-15). (53)It is a pivotal remark for this discussion, in that Silenus'smocking recognition of both Odysseus's persuasive talents and theCyclops's voracious attitude conflates the tongue with rhetoricalpower. The body part itself is thereby treated as a metonymic objectthat concretely encapsulates the speaker's smooth strategies, sothat its ingestion would effectively make the eater a cannibalizingsophist. Suggesting with ironic aptness that Polyphemus might grab thispolished chatter for himself by taking the man for meat, Silenus'sremark encapsulates the central conceptual zeugma in the play: thatwhich joins a balanced, exchange-oriented verbal style to properguest-host relations, and an appropriative style to the greedy ingestionof one's interlocutors.

Polyphemus's response to Odysseus's call for fairbehavior cleverly and obnoxiously dismantles the careful connectionsthat Odysseus has sought to forge among those who would share in xeniaexchanges. The monstrous sophist gives a reply that systematicallycoopts and reconstitutes the speech delivered by one he views as afuture meal. Setting up his dismissive tone by addressing Odysseus as"little man" ([LANGUAGE NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII], 316), theCyclops begins with a transformation of divinity that many commentatorshave argued shows a sophistic influence: (54) "Wealth," themonster declares, "is a god for the wise" ([LANGUAGE NOTREPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]); that is, to Odysseus's warning about thedangers of gain, Polyphemus opposes a rationalizing irreverence thatcasts the hero's bartering skills in a modem light, stripping themof the pious rituals that cloak them as aristocratic politesse. Hecounters Silenus's jest about Odysseus's rhetorical powerswith a punning scorn: "The rest is only bluster and prettywords" ([LANGUAGE NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] 317). The verbaldexterity that Silenus has deemed eloquent ([LANGUAGE NOT REPRODUCIBLEIN ASCII]) becomes boastful blather ([LANGUAGE NOT REPRODUCIBLE INASCII]) in the self-serving lexicon of the Cyclops.

Having dismissed the hero's carefully balanced speech as mereverbiage, the Cyclops responds to his emphasis on xenia strategies byboasting that he does not fear Zeus (presumably Zeus Xenios, 320). Nor,he says dismissively, does he care about "the rest" ([LANGUAGENOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII], 322) of what follows from such respect. ToOdysseus's attempts to curb his ravening jaws by making him subjectto the bonds of Greek piety (297), he opposes a picture ofproto-sympotic, solitary pleasure ([LANGUAGE NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII],326; [LANGUAGE NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII], 327), with milk for hisbibulous needs and his own belly as god of the feast (329-35).Odysseus's invocation of guest-host bonds as the "law formortals" ([LANGUAGE NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII], 299) he spits backas overly complicated and fancy ([LANGUAGE NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII],339 (55)). With a final gesture of sarcastic appropriation, whichresponds to Odysseus's argument that one should offer strangersclothing, Polyphemus instead s uggests as a gruesome cloak fire and the"inherited bronze," that is, the caldron ([LANGUAGE NOTREPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] 343 (56)), lest he be blamed for ignoring xeniarituals entirely [LANGUAGE NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] [LANGUAGE NOTREPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII], 342), and he invites his guests in to standaround the altar "to the god of the cave." Thus, rather thanwitnessing in ritual formation the salute to some divinity like ZeusXenios who would oversee the proper sharing of food, the monster exhortsOdysseus and his men to encircle the caldron in which they will beboiled, and thereby to revere the belly that will consume them.

Polyphemus's speech in the supplication scene thusaggressively converts Odysseus's emphasis on the rule-governedrituals of proportionate exchange into a lawless consumer'sparadise. Seaford and others have compared Polyphemus's "mightmakes right" attitudes to those of Callicles in Plato'sGorgias; and, as I have noted above, Paganelli (1979) likens his fulsomestyle to that of Gorgias himself. Odysseus, who in tragedy often playsthe mercenary sophist, thus far resembles more strongly his ownfair-sharing Iliadic type. But when the time comes for him to practicehis signature deceit, Odysseus agilely deserts his earlier stance,tailoring his arguments to the Cyclops's greedy amorality andcautioning the monster against his new-found urge to share. By thislater point in the action, the mercantile language of the barteringOdysseus has been transferred to the body of the Cyclops (whose fullbelly is twice described as a loaded merchant ship: 361-62, 505-06), andOdysseus has slapped the Cyclops with his own famous label panourgos(442). Moreover, in his "messenger speech" to the satyrs,Odysseus has described his stratagem of the wine as godlike ([LANGUAGENOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII], 411), and then called the wine itselfgodlike ([LANGUAGE NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII],. . . 415). The vocabularyis reminiscent of that used of consummate handlers of logos, includingpoets, philosophers, and orators; (57) this is precisely the power thatthe Cyclops had rejected in favor of his belly's divinity. Thus, inthe action leading up to the deception scene, the imagery indicates thatthe hero and the monster are trading roles, that the uses of the mouth(here drinking and speaking) continue to converge, and that Odysseus isassuming more forcefully his familiar function as the sophistic andappropriative speaker--but with a twist. (58) This time his trickinvolves a direct rejection of his own signature emphasis on fairsharing, in favor of a similarly appetitive but less social mode.

Odysseus persuades Polyphemus to stay alone in his cave byinvolving him in another debate about the nature of divinity, but nowthe hero's ruse demands that he use the more mercenary andantisocial argument. Coopting the Cyclops's gourmandizing claimthat his belly is the greatest god ([LANGUAGE NOT REPRODUCIBLE INASCII], 335), Odysseus now transfers the label to Dionysus, declaringthat he is the greatest god "in respect to life'spleasures" ([LANGUAGE NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII], 522). He thusserves up a divinity to suit the Cyclops's hedonistic emphasis: ifthe monster's god is his belly, then he must perforce honor a godhe can ingest. Their exchange revolves at first around this embodieddivinity, with Polyphemus asking why the god would be satisfied to livein a flask and wear skins (525-27). The gluttonous Cyclops does not likethe skin of any food--bestial, human, or divine--and just as hisculinary habits focus on getting at the tender bits (cf. 302-03,343-44), here he wants only what is inside ([ LANGUAGE NOT REPRODUCIBLEIN ASCII] 529). Odysseus responds by encouraging him to stay (alone) anddrink up ([LANGUAGE NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] 530).

While in his cups, however, Polyphemus wants to seek out hisbrothers for a genial komos, and so now Odysseus must argue againstsharing, against the rituals of wine and the feast that he usuallypromotes. He does so first by declaring ironically that one appears morehonorable when one keeps the wine to oneself ([LANGUAGE NOT REPRODUCIBLEIN ASCII] 532), in response to the Cyclops's drunken magnanimity([LANGUAGE NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] 531). This argument in favor ofkeeping up appearances is typical of the sophistic Odysseus, and thushighlights his move to take up his own more aggressive strategies. (59)Polyphemus, in contrast, insists on his nascent notions of fair sharing,maintaining that giving to friends is more "fitting"([LANGUAGE NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] 533). Odysseus now bluntly rejectsthe niceties so necessary in polite society that cloak the obligatoryrituals of exchange, as the monstrous sophist (the very one who nowhappily mouths their conventions) had done before him. (60) Odysseusnext invokes the image of the wise man ([LANGUAGE NOT REPRODUCIBLE INASCII] 538), repeating the term of approbation that Polyphemus earlierused of those (like himself) who value wealth (cf. 316). By conjoining,then, the wise with the mercenary type--and thus revisiting thesophistic attitude he displays elsewhere in tradition--Odysseus supportsPolyphemus in his antisocial habits. It seems to be this last equationof the clever man with the one who stays at home and resists the urge toshare that convinces the Cyclops to remain where he is, arguing over thewine with his cupbearer and misbegotten eromenos Silenus.

Conclusion

Odysseus and Polyphemus both demonstrate a grotesquely humorousattention to the belly, the consumer ethic of which is reflected intheir appropriative argumentative strategies. Each tries to outfox theother by mockingly refiguring the other's imagery, and whilePolyphemus combats Odysseus early in the play with his sophistic andcynical responses, Odysseus tricks him later by reappropriating arhetoric more rightly his and tailoring it to his greedier interlocutor.Throughout their interaction their language revolves around food andexchange--guest-host, mercantile, and finally symposiastic activities.Those settings of fair exchange that Odysseus positively promotes in theIliad and that his character in tragedy tends negatively to exploit arereplayed here as a series of confrontations between the hungryman's emphasis on the shared feast and the cannibal'somnivorous rejection of such balanced trade. Odysseus's cleverplying of the liquid sacred to Dionysus brings an end to this standoff,so that the god himself effectively forges the escape of his followers(cf. [LANGUAGE NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII], 411).

The careful strategies of the hero and the half-hearted efforts ofthe satyrs to assist him make both ill-sorted but necessary alliesagainst the monstrous Polyphemus, whose solitary imbibing marks him outfor ruin. The satyrs do, of course, play a role in the action distinctfrom that of Odysseus. They embody the defining elements of the genreand thus operate as the essential framing device in the play; theirinteractions with the central characters serve to taint familiarcultural narratives with their irreverent interpretations of them. Thesatyrs repeatedly highlight the strategies of both hero and monster interms of the debased atmosphere of the genre; here, xenia is a form ofcannibalism, heroes fight for worthless causes, and rhetoricians resortto grotesque tricks of the tongue. The bibulous rituals with whichSilenus worships his god and the abusive slavery in which the satyrs areentrapped together serve to frame as crucially satyric the oral rapacityof Polyphemus and the careful bartering of Ody sseus, as well as thephysical debasem*nt that threatens every character on stage at one pointor another in the action. As I emphasize above, this same connectionbetween the voracious mouth and physical degradation repeatedlydistinguishes the excesses and brutality that characterize certainsophistic types. Both Callicles in Plato and Cleon in Aristophanesdisplay an aggressive hedonism, the rapacious qualities of which extendalso to how they conduct themselves in argument.

I should reiterate, however, that both archaic poets and classicalwriters indicate some distinctions among these types. Euripides'Cyclops is clearly more a figure of proto-Rabelaisian excess than isOdysseus, whose character tends to promote a practical, calculatingapproach to others. Polyphemus's pleasures center around his mouth:he likes to talk, he likes to eat, and he likes best of all to combinethese activities--to talk about eating, or to try to eat those who talkto him. He thus embodies in a grotesquely literal fashion Bakhtin'sportrait of the gleeful, omnivorous type, his open-mouthed presenceprecipitating not only these central connections between eating andspeaking but also the piecemeal representation of the body. The Cyclopsdepicts both his own body and those of his prisoners in this way, agrimly humorous dismantling of body parts to which the satyrs andOdysseus respond in kind. Polyphemus himself is the most exaggeratedlyappetitive character; he describes his solitary consumption in lovingdetail, together with the onanistic pleasure that naturally follows(325ff.). (61) He and the satyrs make repeated references to his bellyand its satisfaction, and all of the other characters are envisioned invarious states of dismemberment, on their way to gratifying thisinsatiable gaster: Odysseus and the Greek soldiers become limbs on aspit; the satyrs are pictured as hooves dancing in the Cyclops'sstomach; even Dionysus is viewed as one whose (wine) skin only gets inthe way of the monster's gleeful consumption.

Faced with this yawning threat, Odysseus, resorting to a mercenarysophistry familiar especially from the Philoctetes plays, ultimatelyforsakes his emphasis on fair exchange in favor of his infamous talentfor deception. Again, in Homeric epic Odysseus's charactermanifests both bartering and deceptive inclinations, and these are theaspects of his type that come to be associated in the classical periodwith the traits of the mercenary sophist. But only in Euripides'Cyclops does his character trade in this fair-sharing mode in order totrick his interlocutor--the ruse itself thus encapsulating both strainsof his type. In a witty play on the traditions forged around thebartering and deceitful Odysseus, the drama shows the hero taking up themonster's greedy rhetoric (which is merely a more aggressive formof the hungry man's tactics) in order to trick him. His clevertradeoff succeeds also in taking food from the monster's mouth, sothat the Cyclops, effectively persuaded by his own gluttonous attitudes,l oses out on the tasty treat he was saving for last. (62)

(1.) This strain of Odysseus's character culminates in thesecond-century C.E. Deipnosophistai of Athenaeus. See Lukinovich, whoexplores the intersection of the imagery of greed and more delicatepleasures in relation to both food and words in Athenaeus.

(2.) Stanford; see also Pucci 173-87, who argues that gaster is the"secret force" that drives Odysseus's adventures. Cf.Lohmann, Svenbro, Arnould, Rose; and Nagy 222-32 regarding greed and thelanguage of blame.

(3.) Analyses of the fifth-century Odysseus often relegate hischaracter to an ignoble class, however ill-defined. The Philoctetesplays have been particularly singled out for this treatment, since thisis the narrative in which Odysseus is represented most fully as adeceitful, sophistic type. See, e.g., Podlecki, Segal, Blundell, Muller;cf. Falkner, and Ringer for the connections between sophistry andmetatragedy.

(4.) On the significance of the dais eise in Homer, see Nagy 127-41and Said. Said emphasizes that the Homeric banquet constitutes a socialnorm, the transgressions of which are recognized as monstrous("inhumain," 13) and leading to destruction. Cf.Schmitt-Pantel 3839 on the parallels between the aristocratic feast andsocial order.

(5.) Historians have recognized that the proxenia system may havearisen as a response to the tense but interdependent relations betweenaristocrats and merchant-traders, and that denigrations ofmerchant-traders in archaic and classical depiction may point toattempts of aristocrats to distance themselves from the group upon whichthey depended for the luxury goods that furnished the public display oftheir status: see Lehman.

(6.) Cf., e.g.. Sophocles' Ajax and Euripides' Hecuba,and see below.

(7.) For a more detailed discussion of this tactic, see Worman1999.

(8.) Cf. also Alcaeus, Frag. 129 L-P and the"pot-bellied" ([LANGUAGE NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]) Pittacus.Note that all of these phrases are used in scenes that involve verbalcontestation, especially the passing of judgments or oath taking.

(9.) In the Odyssey, [LANGUAGE NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII], itsnegation, and related phrases usually involve Odysseus and refer tospeaking style (8.179, 489; 14.363, 509). Cf. also Hymn. Horn. Merc.433, 479; and see the discussion in Worman, Forthcoming, chap. 1.

(10.) Cf. Rose 108-12 on the belly's demands; Said on violencein the banquet setting; Pucci 181-82 on the gaster and thanatos; alsoNagy 222-32 and Slater.

(11.) Cf. also Eurymachus, Od. 18.394-97; and see Said 31, whopoints out that Antinoos's refus du don effectively brings war intothe feast and thus perpetrates the intermingling of the two settingsmost opposed in the Homeric world.

(12.) This is an assessment shared by the suitors and theirhenchman; it is first formulated by the goatherd Melanthius, whopredicts that the beggar's "insatiable belly" ([LANGUAGENOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII) will spur the suitors to throw footstools athim (17.217-32); cf. Eurymachus at 18.357-64.

(13.) See Motto and Clark for the significance of the dais eise forAchilles; also Redfield 1975: 107-08.

(14.) Scholars (esp. Sutton) have argued for the connection betweenthe satyric genre and the themes of the Odyssey, which I would notcontest. But the Iliad, for all its proto-tragic tone, contains scenesthat set up Odysseus as the bartering, smooth-talking type found in theCyclops. Euripides' Polyphemus is not, at any rate, a purelysatyric type; see Seaford 56-58.

(15.) "Cf. Il. 4.343-46 for the suggestion that Odysseus isparticularly concerned with the feast, and Od. 14.193-95 for a moreintimate version of this rhetorical pleasantry.

(16.) Cf. Il. 9.90, where the menoeikes dais in Agamemnon'stent is specifically mentioned. Again, see Nagy 127-41. I am arguingthat the imagery of the dais eise focuses the differences between thetwo heroes; but Nagy also notes that the famous neikos of Achilles andOdysseus (Od. 8.72-82) happened at a dais of the gods, and relates thedais especially to Achilles' heritage and fate. We might add thatin the Odyssey Odysseus is characterized by his "well-balancedmind" ([LANGUAGE NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII], 11.337), as is his son(14.178). The imagery suggests a connection between the balanced socialpractices that Odysseus promotes in the Iliad and the balanced qualityof his disposition in the Odyssey.

(17.) "E.g., [LANGUAGE NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] (164, 178,229), [LANGUAGE NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] (169, 174, 178), [LANGUAGENOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] (169), [LANGUAGE NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII](19.225), [LANGUAGE NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] (165, 169), [LANGUAGE NOTREPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] (233). The attention to the body and thepracticalities of living seems almost Hesiodic (cf. Stanford 68-70 andArnould).

(18.) 9.225-27: [LANGUAGE NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII].

(19.) Lohmann 66 notes the gnomic quality of Odysseus'sspeech, articulating the central maxim here as "Ein guter Soldatmull auch gut essen" and regarding it as suitcd to the pragmatismof Odysseus's outlook.

(20.) See Said 16. who points out that some dai- cognates alsodescribe violent partition.

(21.) Achilles' bitterly cannibalistic imagery has itsculmination at the death of Hector, where he declares, "If only myfury and passion would somehow drive me to cut up your raw flesh and eatit"[LANGUAGE NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII], II. 22.346-47). See Nagy136, who compares the passage to II. 24.41-43, where Achilles is likenedto a lion whose thumos drives it to making a "feast" (dais) ofsheep. Cf. also Motto and Clark 112 on Achilles' monstrous images,such as the simile of the ravenous sea monster [LANGUAGE NOTREPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII], 11. 21.22-23): and Redfield 1975: 197-99 oncannibalistic imagery in the Iliad and its implications.

(22.) This was noticed by Nagy 224-32; cf. also the discussion ofSteiner, Forthcoming.

(23.) Cf. Sophocles, Ajax 118-19 for similar imagery. See Davidson20-26 on the nature of the opson as the savory supplement to grains, andits significance in relation to ideas about moderate social behavior.

(24.) Wilkins 1997: 258-60 notes that both the tanner and thesausage-seller trade in animal products and are themselves representedas rapacious, bestial types. Cf. the expanded discussion in Wilkins2000.

(25.) See Rowe on Demosthenes' use of comic imagery;Easterling on the characterizations of the voice in these speeches.

(26.) Note again the connections between consumption, vocalexpression, and physical abuse in this scene.

(27.) Again, this technique is a specialty of Odysseus (Worman1999).

(28.) Cf. Dodds 306-07: and Thrasymachus at Resp. 336b, whom Platodepicts as throwing himself into the discussion like a wild beast[LANGUAGE NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII], and yelling at his startledinterlocutors (336b5-8).

[LANGUAGE NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]

(29.) E.g., Philoctetes uses the label of Odysseus in Euripides,Phil. (Dio Chrysostom, Or. 59.9) and Sophocles, Phil. 408, 448, 927, asdoes Ajax in Aj. 445. Cf. also Philoctetes, [LANGUAGE NOT REPRODUCIBLEIN ASCII] in Phil. 1357, and Achilles, [LANGUAGE NOT REPRODUCIBLE INASCII] in Sophocles, Frag. 567 Radt Lloyd-Jones (from the Sundeipnoi,Scholia ad Aj. 190).

(30.) Cf. Gorgias, Pal. 3; Antisthenes, Od.; Alcidamas, Od. 13; andsee Worman 1999.

(31.) Note that the merchant's references also recallNeoptolemus's earlier confusion of Thersites with Odysseus, whenPhiloctetes inquired after "that worthless man, redoubtably cleverwith his tongue" ([LANGUAGE NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]), 440-41).

(32.) [LANGUAGE NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] can have the connotation"deceive" when it refers to mental injury, so that the wordmay also point to Odysseus's famous tactics.

(33.) See Worman 1999: 45-49 for a discussion of the imagery offair exchange in Sophocles' Ajax and Euripides' Hecuba.

(34.) For obvious reasons, this has long been the primary sceneadduced by way of comparison; see, e.g., Masqueray.

(35.) Seaford 55, who comments that Odysseus "is in Euripideantragedy so associated with crafty self-interest" that the audiencemight have enjoyed seeing him defeated by Polyphemus in the agon. Cf.also Biehl 21-23 regarding the contemporary coloring of the charactersof Polyphemus and Odysseus.

(36.) Cf. Conrad 177-79 and Olson.

(37.) This is in contrast to Homer; cf. Konstan 90 and Seaford 54.

(38.) Cf. the Erinyes, the demons of tragedy whose predilectionsalso invert those of the bibulous stock characters of the satyr play. AsPierre Vidal-Naquet so succinctly remarks, "Elles ne boivent pas devin. mais elles mangent les hommes" (Vernant and Vidal-Naquet 156).The satyrs may have had a strong connection not only to the underworldbut also to the Keres, particularly in the context of the Anthesteria(e.g., Aristias's Keres, Frags. Snell).

(39.) Bakhtin 281-84. In discussing the history of banquets,Bakhtin argues that the ancient feast enacts "man's encounterwith the world and tasting the world, the relation of food andspeech" (281-82). "Prandial speech," he says. "isfree and jocular speech" (284). Cf. Schmitt-Pantel 30-38 regardingthe interaction of the three elements of the banquet: food, drink, and"diverses formes de communication" (30), including mostimportantly poetry.

(40.) Bakhtin 29, 317-18, 320-22. Cf. the Arethusa special volumeVile Bodies (31.3), the contributions of which make use of these ideasin the analysis of Roman satire.

(41.) Bakhtin 28 et passim.

(42.) Ibid. 195, 347ff.

(43.) See ibid. 30-3 1 for a discussion of the comic Odysseus andsatyric drama, and 148, where a scene in Aeschylus's lost satyrplay Ostologol (Frags. 279, 180 TGF) is mentioned in which Odysseusappears as a figure of abuse; cf. also 168-69. Edwards 104, in anarticle that considers how Bakhtin's notion of the populargrotesque identifies a stance coopted by the elite in Attic Old Comedy,notes that Aristophanes denigrates the demos as a "doulocracy orrepublic of tradesmen," which suggests a connection between thisprandial attitude and the barterer-both aspects of the Odysseancharacter type. Wilkins 258 notes that the "exuberant hawkers"of Aristophanic comedy challenge civic order in a Bakhtinian fashion.

(44.) Bakhtin 343, in discussing sources for Rabelais' mammothconsumers, notes that the writer was familiar with the Cyclopes, andthat they turn up twice in Gargantua and Pantagruel.

(45.) Bakhtin 317 remarks: "[T]he most important of all humanfeatures for the grotesque is the mouth. It dominates all else. Thegrotesque face is actually reduced to the gaping mouth; the otherfeatures are only a frame encasing this wide-open bodily abyss."Seaford ad Cyc. 92 notes the image, and suggests that it may be lessmetaphorical than actual.

(46.) Alcaeus, Frag. 134 Page; Sappho, Frag. 31. Seaford ad Cyc.177-87 also suggests that the reference to Helen by the satyrs may echoa satyric tradition, and cites Sophocles' Helenes gamos asevidence.

(47.) That is, a treatment that threatens the satyric body. Themeaning of [LANGUAGE NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] is obscure; it probablymeans something like "pierce" and thus would imply rape, butit also seems to have been used in the sense of "beat" (cf.Plutarch, Mor. 2.304b) Bakhtin 196-205 uses the Catchpole scene fromRabelais' Gargantua and Pantagruel to delineate satire'swittily abusive attitude toward the body, remarking that the Catchpolesrepresent the old order and are connected to fertility rituals. Bothmight be said of Helen (see, e.g., Clader).

(48.) Cf, above, note 46.

(49.) Seaford argues that the Cyclops's paternity was probablycommon knowledge, but Odysseus seems quite ignorant of the Cyclopes ingeneral, and Polyphemus's name is rarely used in the play.

(50.) Like any good gentleman, according to Ussher (ad Cyc. 287);like an Athenian, according to Biehl (ad Cyc. 287).

(51.) As an example, Seaford compares [LANGUAGE NOT REPRODUCIBLE INASCII] ("Menander," Mon.).

(52.) As a Euripidean chorus may do in an cf., e.g., Tro. 966-68,Med. 576-78, Phoen. 497-98.

(53.) A similarly witty and cruel conflation of the speaker'stalents with his tongue occurs in 3.229. Ussher argues that this kindof conflation is "typical of primitive belief," and citesGuepin's 1968 discussion of how Ezekiel ingested a book in order tobecome a prophet. But surely Silenus's joke is more pointed andhistorically meaningful here, since it joins sophistic effect andcannibalistic tendencies. Seaford 313-15nn suggests a connection to theritualistic significance of eating the animal's tongue insacrifice, but he does not seem to regard this focus on the tongue as awitty cannibalizing of Odysseus's sophistic talents, [LANGUAGE NOTREPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] can indicate verbal excess and usuallycharacterizes the speech of women and certain sophists (e.g.. Prodicus);this glib style became associated with the [LANGUAGE NOT REPRODUCIBLE INASCII] (Cicero, Orat. 62-64 and Dionysus of Halicarnassus, Dem. 2).Hesychius glosses [LANGUAGE NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]--meaningsomething like "well-dress ed elegance" and associated withthe [LANGUAGE NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] a fastidious, omamental chatter(cf. O'Sullivan 131-33). See the remarks of Bourdieu 1991: 81-89 onverbal style and "bodily hexis" (visible deportment).

(54.) They particularly compare Callicles in the Gorgias (cf. alsoabove and below).

(55.) Note that poikilos is traditionally a characteristic ofOdysseus's mental type ([LANGUAGE NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]: Il.11.482; Od. 3.163; 7.168; 13.293; 22.115, 202, 281). Cf. also Euripides,Or. 823, where the word is coupled with impiety ([LANGUAGE NOTREPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]) and Phoen. 469-70, where the "simple taleof truth" ([LANGUAGE NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]) is opposed to theintricate interpretation ([LANGUAGE NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]). InSophocles the outcast Oedipus accuses Creon of managing to extract somefancy trick from every just claim ([LANGUAGE NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII],OC 762-63). Lukinovich notes Athenaeus's emphasis on poikilia as anecessary element in both the banquet and the discourse that attends it.

(56.) There is a textual crux here: the MSS read [LANGUAGE NOTREPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII], which does not scan properly; Jackson 91 solvesthe problem by reading [LANGUAGE NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII], with[LANGUAGE NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] as a gloss,

(57.) famously uses such terms to describe the powers of speech inthe Encomium of Helen ([LANGUAGE NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII], 8;[LANGUAGE NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII], 10). Cf. Il. 4.192; Od. 4.17;Plato, Resp. 331e6, Menex. 99c11-dl, Phdr. 234d6; also Philostratus, VS1.18.3, of Aeschines ([LANGUAGE NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII].

(58.) Hamilton has called attention to a number of reversals in thesymposium scene, especially regarding the imagery of eating anddrinking, and the shifting of roles among Silenus, the Cyclops, andOdysseus. I should note that many earlier commentators found this scenebadly motivated, if humorous: Schmid, Masqueray 179, duch*emin xvii.

(59.) He employs it throughout the Philoctetes, articulating itopenly ([LANGUAGE NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] 82) when trying to persuadeNeoptolemus to trick the wounded hero out of his bow. Cf. Plato, Resp.Book 1, on what famous wise men say is just ([LANGUAGE NOT REPRODUCIBLEIN ASCII] 336a2; [LANGUAGE NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] 336a9), ratherthan what justice really is.

(60.) Cf. Mauss on the obligatory nature of gift exchange, andBourdieu 1977: 5 on the meconnaissance necessary to the sustaining ofsuch rituals. Mauss bases his discussion on the understanding that giftexchange is transacted in an atmosphere of formal pretense and socialdeception, while Bourdieu notes that the very obligatory character ofthe exchange must he "misrecognized" as voluntary and genialby the participants for the economic system to be maintained. I owe thisobservation to Mark Griffith. Cf. also Schmitt-Pantel 55-57 on theambiguities of the xenia exchange.

(61.) Seaford ad Cyc. 327-28 argues that [LANGUAGE NOT REPRODUCIBLEIN ASCII] and [LANGUAGE NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] are images ofmasturbation rather than farting, as other commentators have thought.

(62.) A version of this paper was read at the University ofCalifornia, Berkeley in the spring of 1999. I would like to thank DonaldMastronarde and Kathleen McCarthy for their helpful remarks, andespecially Mark Griffith for his extensive comments on a later draft.

WORKS CITED

Arnould, D. 1989. "Le chauve et le glouton chez Homere:Remarques sur le personnage d'Ulysse." REG 102: 510-14.

Bakhtin, M. 1984. Rabelais and His World. Trans. H. Iswolsky.Bloomington.

Biehl, W. 1986. Euripides: Kykiops. Heidelberg.

Blundell, M. W. 1989. Helping Friends and Harming Enemies: A Studyin Sophocles and Greek Ethics. Berkeley.

Bourdieu, P. 1977. Outline of a Theory of Practice. Trans. R. Nice.Cambridge.

-----. 1991. Language and Symbolic Power. Cambridge, MA.

Conrad, G. 1997. Der Silen: Wandlungen einer Gestalt desgriechischen Satyrspiels. Trier.

Davidson, J. 1997. Courtesans and Fishcakes: The Consuming Passionsof Classical Athens. London.

Dodds, E. R. 1959. Plato: Gorgias. Oxford.

duch*emin, J. 1945. Le Cyclope d'Euripide. Paris.

Easterling, P. 1999. "Actors and Voices: Reading Between theLines in Aeschines and Demosthenes." In S. Goldhill and R. Osborne,eds., Performance Culture and Athenian Democracy. Cambridge. 154-66.

Edwards, A. 1993. "Historicizing the Popular Grotesque:Bakhtin's Rabelais and Attic Old Comedy." In R. Scodel, ed.,Theater and Society in the Classical World. Ann Arbor. 89-117.

Falkner, T. M. 1998. "Containing Tragedy: Rhetoric andSelf-Representation in Sophocles' Philoctetes." CA 17.1:25-58.

Hamilton, R. 1979. "Euripides' Cyclopean Symposium."Phoenix 33.4: 287-92.

Jackson, J. 1995. Marginalia Scaenica. London.

Konstan, D. 1981. "An Anthropology of Euripides'Cyclops." Ramus 10: 87-103.

Lehmann, C. M. 1994. "Xenoi, Proxenol, and Early GreekTraders." Helios 21.1: 9-20.

Lohmann, D. 1970. Die Komposition der Reden in der Ilias. Berlin.

Lukinovich, A. 1990. "The Play of Reflections Between LiteraryForm and the Sympotic Theme in the Deipnosophistae of Athenaeus."In Murray, 263-71.

Masqueray, P. 1902. "Le Cyclops d'Euripide et celuid'Homere." REA 4: 165-90.

Mauss, M. 1925. Essai sur le don, forme archaique del'echange. Paris.

Motto, A. L. and J. R. Clark. 1969. "I[SIGMA]H[DELTA]AI[SIGMA]: The Honor of Achilles." Arethusa 2:109-25.

Muller, C. W. 1990. "Der Palamedesmythos im'Philoktet' des Euripides." RhM 133.3-4: 195-209.

Murray, O., ed. 1990. Sympotica. Oxford.

Nagy, G. 1979. The Best of the Achaeans: Concepts of the Hero inAncient Greek Poetry. Baltimore.

Olson, D. 1988. "Dionysus and the Pirates in Euripides'Cyclops." Hermes 116: 502-04.

O'Sullivan, N. 1992. Alcidamas, Aristophanes, and Early GreekStylistic Theory. Hermes Einzelschriften, 60. Stuttgart.

Paganelli, L. 1979. Echi storicho-politici nel 'Ciclope'euripidea. Proagones, 18. Padova.

Podlecki, A. J. 1966. "The Power of the Word inSophocles' Philoctetes." GRBS 7: 233-50.

Pucci, P. 1987. Odysseus Polutropos: Intertextual Readings in theOdyssey and the Iliad. Ithaca.

Redfield, J. 1975. Nature and Culture in the Iliad: The Tragedy ofHector. Chicago.

-----. 1983. "The Economic Man." In C. A. Rubino and C.W. Shelmerdine, eds., Approaches to Homer. Austin. 218-47.

Ringer, M. 1998. Electra and the Empty Urn: Metatheater andRole-Playing in Sophocles. Chapel Hill.

Rose, P. W. 1992. Sons of the Gods, Children of Earth: Ideology andLiterary Form in Ancient Greece. Ithaca.

Rowe, G. 1966. "The Portrait of Aeschines in the Oration onthe Crown." TAPA 97: 397-406.

Said, S. 1979. "Les crimes des pretendants, la maisond'Ulysse et les festins de l'Odyssee." Etudes delitterature ancienne. Paris. 9-49.

Schmid, W. 1896. "Kritisches und exegetisches zuEuripides' Kyklops." Philologus 55: 46-61.

Schmitt-Pantel, P. 1992. La cite au banquet: Histoire des repaspublics dans les cites grecques. Rome.

Seaford, R., ed. 1984. Euripides: Cyclops. Oxford.

Segal, C. P. 1981. Tragedy and Civilization: An Interpretation ofSophocles. Cambridge, MA.

Slater, W. J. 1990. "Sympotic Ethics in the Odyssey." InMurray, 213-20.

Snell, B. 1971. Tragicorum graecorum fragmenta. Vol. 1. Gottingen.

Standorf, W. B. 1954. The Ulysses Theme: A Study of theAdaptability of a Traditional Hero. Oxford.

Steiner, D. Forthcoming. "Decorous Dining, Indecorous Speech.Pindar's First Olympian and the Poetics of Consumption."Arethusa.

Sutton, D. 1974. "Satyr Plays and the Odyssey." Arethusa7: 161-85.

Svenbro, J. 1975. La parole et le marbre. Lund.

Ussher, R. G. 1978. Euripides: Cyclops. Rome.

Vernant, J.-P. and P. Vidal-Naquet. 1973. Mythe et tragedie engrece ancienne. Paris.

Wilkins, J. 1997. "Comic Cuisine: Food and Eating in the ComicPolis." In G. Dobrov, ed. The City as Comedy: Society andRepresentation in Athenian Drama. Chapel Hill. 250-68.

-----. 2000. The Boastful Chef: The Discourse of Food in AncientGreek Comedy. Oxford.

Worman, N. 1999. "Odysseus Panourgos: The Liar's Style inOratory and Tragedy." Helios 26.1: 35-68.

-----. Forthcoming. The Cast of Character: Style in GreekLiterature. Austin, TX.

NANCY WORMAN is Assistant Professor of Classics at Barnard College,Columbia University. She has published articles on tragedy and oratory,and is author of The Cast of Character: Style in Greek Literature(Austin 2002). She is currently working on a study entitled TheRhetor's Mouth: Character Assassination and Oral Imagery inAthenian Public Performance.