Symbolae Osloenses 75, 2000

Climax and Structure in S Y 8.492-520:

Further Reflections on Odysseus and the Wooden Horse
Malcolm Davies

The signiŽ cance of Demodocus’ reference back in time to Odysseus’ device

of the Wooden Horse and its rôle in the sack of Troy is examined. In keep-
ing with recent work on story-telling in Homer, the reference’s details and
emphases are shown to be subtly programmatic for Odysseus’ presentation in
the remainder of the epic.

The past two decades have seen valuable work done on the topic of Homer’s
use of story-telling within his epics. Reacting against earlier interpretations
that presupposed a preservation of traditional material, Øivind Andersen in
particular has shown that such story-telling, in the earlier part of the Iliad
and in connection with the achievements of Diomedes, is exploited to intro-
duce themes and motifs which will later receive more central treatment in
connection with Achilles. And the same scholar has illustrated, in an article
(Andersen 1977) entitled ‘Odysseus and the Wooden Horse’, how the vari-
ous references early on in the Odyssey to that particular story similarly preŽ g-
ure themes which will be given greater prominence in the second part of the
epic. Thus, for instance, when Menelaus in the Telemachy is made to recall
(4.279ff.) how Helen, outside the Trojan Horse, imitated the voices of the
wives of all the Greeks hiding within, and Odysseus presses his hand over
Anticlus’ mouth to prevent him from revealing their hidden presence, ‘there
is a playing with motifs that will later be essential in the action of the poem’
(Andersen 1977 p.10). In particular, the scene at 19.479ff., where Odysseus
similarly claps his hand over Eurycleia’s mouth, is foreshadowed (Andersen
1977 p.12). Or again, if we consider 8.502ff., with its picture of Odysseus and
the Greeks lurking inside the belly of the Horse, we realise that ‘the theme of
the unknown hero pervades the whole of the poem. The Wooden Horse has
to do with the fundamental motifs of the Odyssey … as a symbol of the return
of the hero’(Andersen 1977 p.14; cf. ib. p.7: ‘the Odysseus of the Wooden
horse is a hero hidden amongst enemies, like the Odysseus who will eventu-
ally return to Ithaca’).
Andersen has shown, then, that the relevant stories featuring the Trojan
Horse look forward, in an extraordinarily subtle and sophisticated manner,

56
 Odysseus an d th e Wooden Horse

to episodes much later on in the Odyssey, after the hero’s return home to
Ithaca. This leaves it to me to enquire whether the same stories may not
also preŽ gure episodes rather nearer to them in the narrative. (On the use
of myths for preŽ guration in general see Davies 1989a). That would be espe-
cially likely, because the reference to the Wooden Horse at 8.500ff. ranks as
the last summary of events in Odysseus’ past before he himself begins his
Ž rst-person account of his wanderings, an account skilfully dovetailed to fol-
low on (without overlapping) the poem’s previous allusions to Odysseus’ rôle
in the sack of Troy. Now the longest and most important episodes in this
Ž rst-person narrative involve Polyphemus and Circe. And surely the picture
of Odysseus with his e„ tai‚roi enclosed inside the dark belly of the Trojan
horse, the men dependent upon his cunning and forethought for their pres-
ervation, looks forward to the later episode of Odysseus and his e„ tai‚roi in-
side the dark cavern of the Cyclops’ cave.1 As for the earlier of the epic’s
principal two allusions to Odysseus and the Wooden Horse, 4.271ff., Helen
here circles round the creature the magical number of three times2 and magi-
cally mimics the voices of the wives of the warriors inside, warriors whom
Odysseus, as Menelaus stresses (288), rescues from the deception: does this
not preŽ gure the sinister sorceress Circe3 from whom Odysseus rescues his
men at 10. 189ff.? Before Helen and Menelaus record their respective remi-
niscences of Telemachus’ father, we are told how she puts a magical drug
into the wine to banish grief (220ff.). A drug of much more sinister potential,

1 The issue of names plays an important part in the first of the Odyssey’s allusions to the
Wooden Horse and in the story of Polyphemus. At 4.278 Helen calls each of the hiding
Greeks by name (oƒnomaklh€dhn) , while the real and pretended names of Odysseus are crucial
for the Cyclops narrative. Note that in the Nekyia’s reference to the Wooden Horse (11.524ff.:
see Andersen 1977 p. 14) Odysseus recalls how he was charged with the responsibility of open-
ing or shutting the door to the Horse’s belly. This may be meant to remind us of the impor-
tance of the door to Polyphemus’ cave in the narrative at 9.304ff.
2 See Enzyklopädie des Märchens s.v. ‘Drei, Dreizahl’ (3, 851 ff.). It is well-known (see e.g.

Griffin, 1977, pp. 39ff.) that in both epics Homer plays down or omits folk-tale motifs from
the main narrative. But they feature more conspicuously in the stories within the main story
(cf. n. 8 below, ad fin.).
3 It is notoriously difficult to reconcile the Helen who tries to betray the Greeks lurking

within the Wooden Horse with the Helen self-confessedly eager to return home from Troy;
cf. Andersen 1977 p. 10f., who plausibly supposes the former concept to be Homer’s own in-
vention, designed to prefigure Penelope’s relationship with the ‘hidden’ Odysseus of Book 19.
But this ‘ambiguous’ Helen (as Andersen rightly calls her) may also be meant to foreshadow
the similarly ambivalent Circe, who, for instance, sends Odysseus to the Underworld to find
his way home (10.539f.), a way she herself knew all along (12.25). The ‘ambiguous’ Helen may
also be meant to prepare us more generally for the numerous ‘opaque’ and mysterious female
figures of the poem (see, e.g., Griffin, 1980 pp. 56ff.).
57
 Malcolm Davies

but with a comparable power of inducing oblivion (236), is mixed into the
food and drink of Odysseus’ men by Circe at 10. 235ff. (cf. 10. 276: Ki€rkhc
polufarma€kou) prior to their transformation into swine (a more benevolent
drug reverses the process at 392). This may be the poet’s way of encouraging
association of the two female Ž gures.4
The remainder of what I have to say regarding the Odyssey’s Wooden
Horse relates to Demodocus’ song at 8.486ff. on which Andersen has rela-
tively little comment. In the Ž rst place, it is likely to be signiŽ cant that, in
contrast with the bard’s earlier two efforts (8.73ff. and 266ff.), Odysseus here
guides Demodocus in the choice of subject-matter. As observed above, this
is the last of the poem’s stories within the story before Odysseus’ own Ž rst-
person narrative, and so it may rank as a transitional passage leading us on to
the long stretch where the hero himself is totally in command of the story’s
subject-matter. Some of the language used by Odysseus to indicate his choice
of topic is odd and unexpected:
†i ppou ko€cmon a…eicon
dourate€ou, ton ƒEpeioc eƒ poi€hcen cun ƒAyh€nhi,
o†n potƒ eƒ c aƒkro€polin do€lon h…gage di‚ oc ƒOducceu€c
(492-4)
But the phrases are very carefully chosen, as the word-play5 ƒEpeioc eƒpoi€hcen
at 493 makes clear. The phrase †ippou ko€cmon in the previous line is strange:
as Garvie ad loc. points out, ko€cmoc in Il. 4.145 ‘describes a decoration worn
by a horse’. Perhaps, as Dr Y. Sano has suggested to me, there is a multi-
plicity of meanings, with ko€cmoc signifying ‘the orderly or beautiful shape’
of the Horse (cf. LSJ s.v., I. 3), its preparation or construction (cf. 7.13 do€r-
pon eƒ ko€cmei), and the process of its building (cf. kocmei‚n used of ‘marshal-
ling’ a troop). And again, even without Demodocus’ later reminder (504)
of the Trojans’ responsibility (auƒtoi ga€r min Trv‚e c eƒ c aƒkro€polin eƒ ru€canto),
494’s claim that Odysseus himself brought the Horse on to their acropolis
is strange.6 Perhaps the ancient dictum qui facit per alium facit per se 7 is rele-

4 Circe’s use of magical drugs is, in a sense, superfluous, since the mere striking of Odysseus’
men with her magic wand seems to suffice for metamorphosis (10.238: cf. 319.389 and Page
1973 p. 57). Perhaps the poet wishes to bring the two figures of Helen and Circe closer together
by sharing this motif between them.
5 Not noted by commentators or by L. Ph. Rank 1952.

6 As Garvie observes ad loc. ‘the phrase is odd. Odysseus was inside the horse (502) … the lines

prepare us for the leading part played by Odysseus in Demodocus’ telling of the story’.
7 See Pearson on Sophocles fr. 620 (The Fragments of Sophocles 2. 257).

58
 Odysseus an d th e Wooden Horse

vant. The previous verb eƒ poi€hcen, in the phrase ƒEpeioc eƒpoi€hcen cun ƒAyh€nhi,
has, of course, alerted us to the complexities of responsibility on the human
level (Epeius ‘made’ the Horse, but with Athena’s help). The emphasis on
Odysseus’ achievement is certainly appropriate, bearing in mind the story’s
function, and, given that the poet has decided to make Epeius the mortal
builder of the Horse, it is important to give Odysseus some counterbalancing
emphasis at the start.
The story proper told by Demodocus begins with the Greek  eet’s ap-
parent embarkation (500). Since the stress here is upon the bard’s divinely-
guided decision about where to take up his narrative,8 it should prove en-
lightening to ask at which point the actual climax of this narrative lies. In fact
the issue is one of climax within climax, since the tale of Troy’s sack must
always have been in some sense the climax of any account of the Trojan War,
although the Iliad notoriously declines to pursue its narrative that far. And a
predictable climax in this obvious sense of the word is provided by vv. 514ff.:
h…eiden dƒv„c a…ctu die€prayon uiŠe c ƒAxaiv‚n
„i ppo€yen eƒ kxu€menoi, koi‚lon lo€xon eƒkprolipo€nte c.
a…llon dƒa…llhi a…eide po€lin kerai>ze€men aiƒph€n,
auƒtar ƒOducch‚a proti dv€mata Dhi>fo€boio
bh€menai, hƒu€tƒ …Arha, cun aƒntiye€vi Menela€vi.
kei‚yi dh aiƒno€taton po€lemon fa€to tolmh€canta
nikh‚cai kai e…peita dia mega€yumon ƒAyh€nhn.
This is an obvious climax, inasmuch as it appears to mark the end of Demo-
docus’ song and contains at v.519 an impressive superlative in its account
of Odysseus’ explicitly supreme achievement. Now the logical climax of the
story of Troy’s siege is reached when Menelaus recovers that siege’s object,
his wife Helen, having killed her latest consort, Deiphobus. Such an episode
occurred in the cyclic Iliupersis, as Proclus’ prose summary reminds us (p. 62

8 On this (and the formal similarity with Od. 1. 10) cf. Uvo Hölscher, 1988 p. 43. The language
at 492–4 is likewise calculated to remind us of the style typical of the opening of an epic: †ippou
ko€cmon gives us the basic subject-matter just as do the first words of the Iliad (mh‚nin), Odyssey
(a…ndra), Little Iliad (ƒ Ilion), etc. Then comes an imperative, a…eicon, reminiscent of the ap-
peal to the Muse in Iliad (a…eide) and Odyssey (e…nnepe) . Then the epithet belonging to the
initial noun, postponed until the start of the next line like the Iliad’s ouƒlome€nhn. Finally the
idiomatic relative clause ton ƒEpeioc eƒpoi€hcen equivalent to the Iliadic mh‚nin ... h† and Odyssean
a…ndra … o†c. A strikingly unHomeric divergence, however, comes with the second relative
clause in 494 (o†n potƒ) which employs the immemorially primeval ‘once upon a time’ formula
(cf. BICS 36 (1989) p. 18 n. 4) carefully avoided in the proems of Iliad and Odyssey (contrast
Cypria fr. 1.1).

59
 Malcolm Davies

of my EGF: Mene€lao c deƒ aƒneurvn „Ele€nhn eƒ pi tac nau‚c kata€gei, Dhi€fobon
foneu€cac). And this episode is surely what underlies the passage’s Ž nal cou-
plet. But here the complications begin. As I have just stated, the original
logic of the story leads us to suppose that Menelaus will have played the
key rôle in killing Deiphobus and recovering his wife. But this jars with
the new function of the story which is slanted, as usual in the Ž rst half of
the epic, to give prominence to Odysseus. The last couplet is therefore studi-
ously vague, giving (on Demodocus’ own authority: note fa€to in v.519) an
obscure but impressive account of Odysseus’ (unspeciŽ ed) achievement at
Deiphobus’ house. The Ž nal stress on Athena’s continued support looks for-
ward, of course, to her protecting rôle in the rest of the poem.
Here, then, is one possible climax to the story. But another way of locat-
ing its climax would be to begin by counting lines. And that simple process
leads us to an earlier portion of the narrative, vv.502–513. This is easily the
longest episode within Demodocus’song. It is also the most carefully elabo-
rated, being set off from what comes before and after by ring-composition
(502f. ƒArgei‚oi ... / h†atƒ eƒ ni Trv€vn aƒgorh‚i kekalumme€noi †ippvi, 512f. †ippon,
o†yƒ h†ato pa€nte c a…rictoi / ƒArgei€vn Trv€e cci (fo€non kai kh‚ra fe€ronte c)). This
is the climax of the story from Odysseus’ own viewpoint, representing as it
does the triumph of his cunning ruse. That triumph is brought out all the
more clearly by the paradoxical language of v.503, which takes the primeval
form of an initial riddle followed by its solution:9 the Greeks sit in the Trojan
agora … safely concealed in their horse. The Trojans likewise sit, in their
case around (and outside) the Horse, and deliberate as to its fate. Three ap-
proaches to the problem occur to them (v.506) and each of these approaches
is outlined in one hexameter, (507–9). The third is approved (510). All this
is conveyed with characteristic epic fullness and clarity, in strongest contrast
to the allusive brevity (and obscurity) of 519-20. And the section is rounded
off (before the ring is closed) with an impressive and solemnly oracular pro-
nouncement (511ff. ai‰ca gar h‰n aƒpole€cyai, eƒ phn po€li c aƒmfikalu€chi / doura€-
teon me€gan †i ppon, o†yƒ h†ato pa€nte c a…rictoi / ƒArgei€vn Trv€e cci fo€non kaikh‚ra
fe€ronte c) reminiscent of the close of the earlier song of Demodocus at 8.81f.
to€te ga€r r„a kuli€ndeto ph€matoc aƒrxh / Trvci€te kai Danaoi‚ci Dioc mega€lou
dia boula€c.
That earlier story, as various scholars have observed, 10 establishes a con-
trast between Achilles and Odysseus, the two greatest of the Greek heroes.

9Cf. my commentary on Soph. Tr. 572ff. (p. 161).

10I cannot here go into the numerous problems this passage raises (I shall deal with them in
detail elsewhere). For the present see e.g. Taplin, 1990 p.111f. with bibliography in p.111 n.4 (to
which add e.g. Braswell, 1982 p.130 n.5).

60
 Odysseus an d th e Wooden Horse

This contrast is kept alive, as it were, by the intervening story of Ares and
Aphrodite (where the seemingly unimpressive Hephaestus triumphs over the
superŽ cially impressive Ares).11 And it reaches its own climax in the present
passage12, where the fruits of Odysseus’ inimitable cunning are laid out with
paradigmatic clarity (and nothing, of course is said of the dangers that beset
the Greeks inside the Horse: such negative details, perfectly at home in the
context of a story showing how Odysseus can cope with a cunning and sin-
ister woman, would have a jarring and undermining effect here). Unlike
vv. 519–20, this passage shows us something beyond Achilles’ achievement.
Where Achilles failed, Odysseus has succeeded; the cunning that will stand
the latter in such good stead in the wanderings that he himself is shortly to
recount is here magniŽ cently exempliŽ ed: ‘a very “Odyssean” Odysseus’, in-
deed 13 (Andersen 1977 p.7).

References
Andersen, Ø. 1978: Die Diomedesgestalt in der Ilias, (SO Suppl. 25), Oslo.
Andersen, Ø. 1977: “Odysseus and the Wooden Horse”, SO 52, 5–18.
Braswell, B.K. 1982: “The Song of Ares and Aphrodite; theme and relevance to Odyssey 8”,
Hermes 110, 129–37.
Davies, M. 1989a: “Anticipation and foreshadowing: a use of myth”, SIFC 7, 7–11.
Davies, M. 1989b: “Sisyphus and the invention of religion”, BICS 36, 16–32.
GrifŽ n, J. 1977: “The Epic Cycle and the uniqueness of Homer”, JHS 97, 39–53.
GrifŽ n, J. 1980: Homer on Life and Death, Oxford.
Hölscher, U. 1988: Die Odyssee: Epos zwischen Märchen und Roman, Munich.
Page, D.L. 1973: Folktales in Homer’s Odyssey, Cambridge, MA.
Rank, L.Ph. 1952: Etymologiseering en verwante Verschijnselen bij Homerus, Assen.
Taplin, O. 1990: “The Earliest Quotation of the Iliad ?”, in: Owls to Athens, Dover Festschrift,
109–112, Oxford.
St. John’s College, Oxford

11 Again it would be inappropriate (and unnecessary) to go into all the divergent views on
the significance of the Song of Ares and Aphrodite. See, for instance, Braswell 1982 pp.129ff.
(cf. Andersen 1977 p.18 n.24). Note that in 8. 518, where Odysseus is carrying out a more
‘Achillean’ and simply heroic task, he is compared to Ares (hƒu€teƒ Arha).
12 The effect of the three separate songs of Demodocus in Book 8 may, in this context, be

viewed as both interactive and cumulative; the first establishes the theme of Achilles and
Odysseus as the greatest heroes of the Trojan War; the second reminds us that cunning can
surpass brute strength; and the third shows the triumph of cunning, but concludes with an
instance of Odysseus’ capacity for mere strength as well.
13 The contrast between the heroism of Achilles and of Odysseus can be shown to run through-

out the Odyssey (e.g. at Odyssey 11.530ff. where it involves Neoptolemus, the inheritor of his
father’s type of heroism).
61