Stories in Disguise: On Odysseus' Ithacan Lies and Their Relevance ...

The storyteller, the aoidos, opens by presenting in his own words a motif: a character, Ktesippos,
"versed in villainy." Then he tells the psychological motives that push this man to dare courting
Odysseus' wife in her husband's absence. This is done in rather a summarizing style and could be
understood as directions as to the kind of situation he is going to represent. After that he leaves
the scene to the man himself, dramatizing his words, and then ends by mentioning an action.
These two represented actions are rendered in a scenic mode.
Let us suppose that the diegesis (or part of a more complex one), communicated here by a
mixture of diegetic and mimetic techniques, should be understood as an "act of villainy," then it
is evident that the storyteller has adopted three means to convey this: direct outlining of the
situation or characterization, speech, and action, the two latter contributing indirectly to the same
portrayal. So, the storyteller's choosing to communicate the representation of such an act directly
by "telling" or his indirectly doing so by using a dramatic mode seem to be equivalent actions
from his side, separated only in style. The significance of the represented will come to the same
end. If the aoidos prefers to render the whole episode directly in his own words, then the diegetic
content, i.e. the representation of the "villainous act," will have to be implied from his speech. If,
on the other hand, he chooses to dramatize the whole episode, then the directions as to what kind
of scene is represented (an "act of villainy") will have to be implied. For the receiver is in need of
both direction and drama.
Sometimes the storyteller presents as a motif a person telling of events in a world where he
himself is an actor, a so-called homodiegetic narrator. It is not easy to say what significance this
device has for the story presented. Sometimes at least it strikes one as being of little consequence.
Compare this episode from the homodiegetic story of Odysseus' encounter with the Cyclops in
song IX.272-291:
So I spoke, but he answered me in pitiless spirit:
"Stranger, you are a simple fool, or come from far off,
when you tell me to avoid the wrath of the gods or fear them.
The Cyclops do not concern themselves over Zeus of the aegis,
nor any of the rest of the blessed gods, since we are far better
than they, and for fear of the hate of Zeus I would not spare
you or your companions either, if the fancy took me
otherwise [---]."
[---]
So I spoke, but the pitiless spirit answered
nothing, but sprang up and reached for my companions,
caught up two together and slapped them, like killing puppies,
against the ground, and the brains ran all over the floor, soaking
the ground.
Suppose that we are ready to regard even this gift from the aoidos as a representation of an "act
of villainy," very much resembling the example above. What is new is the pronoun "I" which
mixes with third person pronouns. This indicates the device of the "homodiegetic narrator." But
as to the rest, the episode seems to be rendered by the same three means used in the Ktesippos
scene: direct outlining of the situation or characterization, dramatized speech in accord with the
characterization, and action illustrating both. So there is evidently no considerable difference in
narrative effect whether a diegesis (or part thereof) is assumed to be presented by a homodiegetic
narrator or by the storyteller in person. The idea of the narrator device here is that the character
4