τὸν δ᾽ ἐπιμειδήσας προσέφη πολύμητις Ὀδυσσεύς
The detail of a facial expression within this formulaic reply introduction raises important questions about how such formulas work. We can compare 10.382 and see the same line with only the change of ἐπιμειδήσας for ἀπαμειβόμενος: if the singer uses this facial expression in this context, we have the opportunity to ask what meaning it brings with it. (See Beck 2005 for speech and reply introductions in general. It is important to note that p425 records ἀπαμειβόμενος in this line: see our textual commentary on that papyrus.)
Smiles that are not spontaneous reactions of joy carry particular meanings within a culture and within a context, and our task in interpreting this line is to decode the meaning of Odysseus’ smile. We might start by asking whether Dolon can see him smile in the dark or whether this smile is for the audience’s “view” only. Another question is whether this verb here means ‘smiling’, or ‘laughing’ (as some have translated it). One potential problem with such translations is that our own cultural expectations as to what is appropriate to the situation may affect what we interpret as smiling and what as laughing, while the traditional audience may have had different expectations. Halliwell (2008:520–529) has recently argued that ancient Greek has separate words for smiling (those with roots in μειδ[ι]ᾶν) and laughing (γελᾶν). He notes that there can be complications in classification of these verbs, but he nevertheless maintains a greater distinction between them than other scholars have, with an emphasis on the vocalization and therefore sound accompanying laughter. Following his distinctions, then, Odysseus’ smile here is silent, and because it occurs in the dark, as we interpret its meaning in this context, we must wonder whether Dolon himself sees it.
To investigate what the smile means, we can look to other complete instances of this formulaic line, and also at other uses of the verb and its non-compound form μειδάω or μειδιάω, paying particular attention to Odysseus’ other smiles. Why take such an approach? Since oral poetry is composed in performance within a system of specialized grammar and specialized vocabulary (Lord 1960/2000:35–36), accounting for all the examples of how that vocabulary is deployed demonstrates how it operates within the system. The Iliad and Odyssey constitute our surviving “database” of the traditional language of this poetry, so we examine what data we have, while being cognizant of the fact that what has survived is a limited “data set” from a larger tradition (see e.g. Parry MHV 4, 9; Lord 1960/2000:47).
When we examine the fifteen instances of μειδάω, the three instances of μειδιάω, and the four instances of ἐπιμειδάω in the two epics combined, we find that the gods smile eleven times and mortals eleven times. Odysseus smiles most often among mortals, although his status as the hero of the Odyssey may skew the frequency. As we might expect, many of these cases can be understood as smiles of affection between loved ones, whether mortal or immortal. But the complexity of the multiple possible cultural meanings of smiles can also be seen when Hera smiles twice, once at Aphrodite and once to herself (Iliad 14.222–223) after successfully obtaining the alluring zōnē from Aphrodite without revealing her true purpose for it. These smiles seem to indicate deception and self-satisfaction, respectively. In another example, Ajax combines a smile with a grim expression (Iliad 7.212) as he enters a duel with Hektor, presenting us with a menacing smile that reveals a desire for victory in battle. Halliwell (2008:55–58) describes this smile as one of “bloodlust” and cites Odysseus’ smile here as the closest parallel to it. And, of course, Odysseus’ famously described “sardonic smile” after he dodges the ox foot that Ktesippos throws at him (Odyssey 20.301–302) conveys a nexus of emotions including contempt and a desire for revenge.
These last two examples give us good comparisons for the context of this smile: instead of a smile between loved ones, we have also in this case a smile between or about enemies. When we look at the syntactical context of these verbs, we also see that they are used in speech introductions or reactions to speeches (five of the smiles happen in speech introductions; in thirteen cases, the smile comes in reaction to the words of another, either with no speech following or another line introducing the response; in four cases, the smile occurs in narrative between speeches). When we narrow our focus down to the compound form ἐπιμειδάω, which we have in this line, all four instances of this verb are part of the formula τὸν δ᾽ ἐπιμειδήσας προσέφη + epithet + name (Iliad 4.356, Iliad 8.38, and Odyssey 22.371, the last of which matches exactly the line we have here). So smiling at someone within this specialized vocabulary is associated directly with speaking to that person.
As we noted, Odysseus is the mortal who smiles most often in these two epics: here in this line and then three times in the Odyssey. All other mortals who smile with these verbs (Agamemnon, Hektor, Achilles, Menelaos, Telemakhos, Ajax, and Antilokhos) do so only once in our “database.” Odysseus is also most often the mortal smiled at (by Agamemnon, Telemakhos, Athena, and Kalypso) and is once the cause of the smile (Antilokhos). Again, this frequency may be a coincidence of having the Odyssey, Odysseus’ story, as one of the two epics we have to examine. But it does also seem to be part of his characterization, especially that he smiles at foes: the sardonic smile toward the suitors and the smile at Medon (Odyssey 22.371), as well as his smile at Dolon here. In Levine’s (1984) analysis of Odysseus’ three smiles in the Odyssey, his argument is framed explicitly in terms of disproving “Parry’s insistence on economy as a basic principle of composition”; instead his approach, he claims, will show how to “determine one among a series of different meanings which could be attached to traditional language” (1). In other words, Levine sets up an opposition between Parry’s concept of thrift and the idea that a formula such as the one we see in this line can generate meaning in context. He concludes, “Since the psychology behind Odysseus’ smiles changes in accordance with the development of the narrative, we see how Homeric formulaic language can be charged with thematic meaning” (Levine 1984:8–9). Levine is focused in that article especially on the smiles of Odysseus at Odyssey 20.301, 22.371, and 23.111, but his arguments have been influential about smiles in Homeric epic in general, giving us an opportunity to reexamine Parry’s concept of thrift and how exactly formulaic language does generate meaning in context.
Taking Parry’s idea of economy or thrift to mean that a formula does not respond to context is an all too common misunderstanding of it. Here is how Parry defines thrift: “The thrift of a system lies in the degree to which it is free of phrases which, having the same metrical value and expressing the same idea, could replace one another” (MHV, 276). We have already seen that ἐπιμειδήσας has the same metrical value as ἀπαμειβόμενος, so according to this definition, they do not express the same idea if they adhere to the principle of thrift. But the idea of thrift does not at all imply that the meaning of any one word is diminished, and that is what Levine seems to be arguing against. All Parry’s argument about the thrift of system is saying is that the system would not include another metrically equivalent word or phrase to mean ‘smiling’, not that smiles cannot mean different things in different contexts. (As discussed above at 10.41, if such a metrically equivalent word or phrase for smiling did exist, we would expect it to carry with it a difference in “idea,” such as tone, theme, or meaning).
Levine explicitly says he is following those critics who have demonstrated “Homer’s relative freedom from the shackles of a traditional system” (1984:1). Yet Albert Lord has demonstrated in clear and straightforward terms that the singer is not shackled by the tradition, because he is the tradition. Formulas are the singer’s craft and he uses them in service to the song: “Indeed, it is easy to see that he employs a set phrase because it is useful and answers his need, but it is not sacrosanct. What stability it has comes from its utility, not from a feeling on the part of the singer that it cannot or must not be changed. It, too, is capable of adjustment. In making his lines the singer is not bound by the formula. The formulaic technique was developed to serve him as a craftsman, not to enslave him” (Lord 1960/2000:53–54). And as John Foley has persuasively argued throughout his work (1991, 1995, 1999, 2002), in oral traditional poetry such formulas accrue more meaning through time, not less, and, importantly, a particular instance is not limited to one among a series of meanings. A traditional singer and a traditional audience bring to the interpretation of this smile their recollections of all other instances of Odysseus smiling and of similar smiling situations, as represented by the formula of this speech introduction, in their understanding of what kind of smile it is. Because Levine’s arguments are based on false premises about thrift and how the formulaic, traditional language creates meaning, his distinctions about cases that exhibit “a greater sensitivity to plot movement and sophisticated composition” (Levine 1984:7) are deeply flawed. As Lord reminds us about oral traditional singing, “The complexity and artistry of the result are often surprising to anyone who feels that illiterate singers can produce only simple structures” (Lord 1960/2000:54).
With an acknowledgement of the possibility of such artistry and complexity, then, we can return to our attempt to discover the traditional meaning underlying this particular smile. So far we have seen that within the system of Homeric poetry this smile should be interpreted in terms of Odysseus’ relationship (one of enmity) with and reaction to Dolon, and that it may be characteristic of Odysseus to smile in this way, but that we have to understand all of this from the standpoint of oral poetics. The closest parallel is the same speech introduction formula used in Odyssey 22.371, when Medon is asking Odysseus to spare his life and Odysseus smiles at him before reassuring him that he will do so. In an earlier article, Levine argues that reassurance is the meaning of this formulaic speech introduction: “The words τὸν/τὴν δ᾽ ἐπιμειδήσας προσέφη always introduce speeches of reassurance. The essential meaning of this formula is ‘He smiled reassuringly at him/her.’ The facial expression so described is meant to have a calming effect” (Levine 1982:101). In the case of Medon, this seems to be so, as the speech that follows does indeed reassure him that he will live.
In the case of Odysseus’ interrogation of Dolon, such an interpretation might make Odysseus the “good cop” to Diomedes’ “bad cop” (see below on 10.446 for Diomedes’ very different facial expression). Levine applies such a meaning to this case as well: “Odysseus smiles at a fearful Dolon (10.400) in order to calm his fears and have him continue his report” (Levine 1982:101). This interpretation assumes, of course, that Dolon can see Odysseus’ smile. Such a characterization of the speech that follows the introductory formula, as a speech of reassurance, applies better to Odysseus’ previous speech, when he does indeed begin by telling Dolon to take courage and put thoughts of death from his mind. That speech is introduced without the smile, however (10.382–383). Here, the beginning of the speech is Odysseus’ reaction to the thought of Dolon driving Achilles’ horses, and any reassuring Odysseus does is to assure Dolon that he has reached too far in thinking that he is worthy of such a prize.
Should we take this smile to be one of amusement or derision, then, or what else might this tell us about Odysseus’ character? Levine compares Odyssey 22.371 with this line in asserting that both of these smiles express Odysseus’ “security and confidence in his superior position” (1984:6) and notes in his earlier work that victory and amusement are not mutually exclusive, but that a smile can, in fact, indicate both (1982:102). The smile as a sign of confidence seems to come closer to the situation in this line than does a notion of reassuring Dolon. Lateiner argues that Odysseus’ “smiles (especially the sardonic one [Odyssey 20.301–302]) characterize menacing resources and mark each context as a significant, if ambivalent, moment” (1995:42). If that is so, what, then, would be the significance of this moment? Does Odysseus’ smile indicate that from Dolon’s initial response Odysseus knows he will get the information he wants from him? One more possible characterization: Corrine Pache, while agreeing with Levine’s argument that it is a speech of reassurance, focuses on Odysseus in the Iliad alone, and she notes that he is unlike other heroes in that he does not cry in this epic. That observation leads her to conclude that this smile “reveals gleeful indifference to the other man’s fate” (Pache 2000:19) and that Odysseus’ intentions when he smiles are “of the coldest and cruelest kind” (2000:20). In other words, if Odysseus can smile while Dolon begs for his life and blames Hektor for his predicament, does that indicate an emotional disengagement?
In a traditional song culture, these varying interpretations are not necessarily mutually exclusive. Let us remember that this smile carries with it associations from past performances for the audience. So Odysseus’ smile could show his confidence that he has Dolon right where he wants him in terms of getting information out of him, his derision at the prospect of Dolon receiving the prize of Achilles’ horses, and an overall characterization of one who smiles at his enemies before taking vengeance upon them. The traditional nature of this introductory line can imbue it with greater meaning, yet for a singer singing in performance, the immediate context, what Dolon just said and what Odysseus was about to say, may have called for a smile from Odysseus related to these many meanings. (See Lord 1960/2000:54 for the reminder that “lines cannot be isolated from what precedes them.”) The meaning here combines this immediate context with that from the larger tradition. That combination and its resulting complexity of meaning does not contradict Parry’s concept of thrift.
As we mentioned at the beginning of this discussion, however, p425 does not include the smile at all, but rather has the common formula including ἀπαμειβόμενος ‘answering’. Thus in a performance, a singer may not include this detail, as revealing as we may find it. We may think that a better singer would include it, but there are so many factors involved, including the experience and training of the singer, the versions of this episode he has heard from others, and the pressures of rapid composition-in-performance, that we cannot make this judgment for certain. What is important to keep in mind is that these performance variations do exist, even in our textual record.