Phoenix · 1989 · 164 citations · 0 references
HumanitiesClassicsLiterary CriticismLiterary StudiesPoetryEpic PoetryHomeric EpicEpic HeroesEqual OpportunityGrossly Unequal ExchangeMomentsMythic HeroesSociological CriticismSociological ModelUnequal Exchange Theory
Critics have long found the Iliad’s ending odd, arguing that Glaucus’s extravagant gift to Diomedes contradicts expectations of a prudent Lycian chief and has puzzled scholars seeking a credible motive. Calder argues that Glaucus deliberately outgave Diomedes to demonstrate his superiority within the epic’s gift‑economy. Power.
This ending has always struck critics as odd; many have thought it intentionally humorous. ' Conventionally, epic heroes are crafty and cunning, no more so than when they are protecting their wealth and their honor. Glaucus especially, as a direct descendant of Sisyphus, would be expected to have his wits about him in any transaction involving these.2 Therefore, the idea that the Lycian chief would so miscalculate his giving is inherently incongruous. But, if that is all the point, that Zeus deluded Glaucus into outgiving outrageously when he should have given only equal value, then the poet is charged with putting a clumsy and inappropriate ending to one of the great moments of the Iliad. Since antiquity, scholars have puzzled over these three lines in an effort to supply a credible motivation for Glaucus' act. In his recent article, Calder (34) proposes a sociological explanation: Glaucus outgave Diomedes on purpose, and by so doing he displayed his superiority over the other. Calder's explanation stems from the recognition that the epics describe an exchange system whose purpose was not the maximization of material profit but the establishment and maintenance of personal relations. In such gift economies, the highest premium is placed on generosity and display; superiority in gift-giving equates to superiority in social prestige. Power,