Check the introductory thread for a description of how the group works.
We’re working from Geoffrey Steadman’s Odyssey Books 6-8, a freely-available pdf
The text says αἰδέομαι γὰρ / γυμνοῦσθαι κούρῃσιν ἐυπλοκάμοισι μετελθών "I'm emberassed of being naked in the presence of fair-tressed young girls". As mwh pointed out, Odysseus is not really feeling shame about "being seen naked" by the girls, but he's embarrassed in an awkward situation. Furthermore, although he claims to be embarrassed, I think he is conscious that the situation is even more embarrassing to the slave girls, and he just wants to be tactful and show that he also is embarrassed and represents no threat at all.seneca2008 wrote: ↑Sat Aug 10, 2019 1:35 pm The slaves here seem to tell Odysseus to wash himself thus not obeying the instructions given by Nausicaa. There then follows a totally unnecessary and to my mind disingenuous speech by Odysseus about his shame at being seen naked by the slaves.
I don't agree with this. I think both you and MWH are importing your own sensibility into the text. Its not clear to me why here "αἰδέομαι" should mean "embarrassment" rather than "shame" which its more usual dictionary definition. Nor is it clear to me exactly the distinction that is being drawn between the two English words. Surely embarrassment and shame are implicated in each other so I am not sure what point is being made. "I am ashamed to stand naked in front of you" and "I am embarrassed to stand naked in front of you" have the same meaning to me. The reason for embarrassment is the shame involved.Paul Derouda wrote:The text says αἰδέομαι γὰρ / γυμνοῦσθαι κούρῃσιν ἐυπλοκάμοισι μετελθών "I'm emberassed of being naked in the presence of fair-tressed young girls". As mwh pointed out, Odysseus is not really feeling shame about "being seen naked" by the girls, but he's embarrassed in an awkward situation.
Have you had a chance to finish reading the article? From what I gather, Jones rejects the modesty argument and proposes that Odysseus says the lines 221-2 to rescue Nausicaa from the potentially embarrassing situation of her slaves not obeying her orders by giving him what he needs to bathe himself and then leaving him to it, rather than actually bathing him, as ordered. So he claims he's embarrassed in their presence and tells them to stay where they are and that he will wash himself, thus preventing loss of face for Nausicaa.seneca2008 wrote: ↑Sat Aug 10, 2019 1:35 pm Since beginning this I have discovered "Odyssey 6.209-223: The Instructions To Bathe", P.V.Jones Mnemosyne, Vol. XLII, Fase. 3-4 (1989). So before continuing I will read it but post my thoughts as they stand now.
Just a quick reply. Jones does argue that Odysseus is motivated by trying to ensure that Nausicaa doesn't lose face but he doesn't think Odysseus is in any way embarrassed.Aetos wrote:So he claims he's embarrassed in their presence and tells them to stay where they are and that he will wash himself, thus preventing loss of face for Nausicaa.
I haven't read the article, but I don't think the reflexive reading of the middle here is right. I think they're inviting him to bathe (possibly/probably with them helping), not to wash himself .seneca2008 wrote: ↑Sat Aug 10, 2019 5:19 pm The slaves are confused and don't know what to do so they tell Odysseus to wash himself.
I have looked at "Aidos: The Psychology and Ethics of Honour and Shame in Ancient Greek Literature" Douglas L Carins 1993. He is not very helpful on 6.221-2 (p 125-6) where he simply elides many of the issues teased out by Jones. Clearly there is a sexual element here but why would Odysseus be ashamed or even embarrassed to be naked in front of slaves? Cairns has no solution.mwh wrote: I’m surprised at you relying on an English “dictionary definition.”
Jones accepts that "λοῦσθαι at 216 cannot be forced of itself to bear the meaning "wash himself". But λούομaι can (obviously) bear that meaning in Homer. At 23.131-2 Odysseus makes a clear distinction between what the men must do (λούσασθε) and what the slaves must do meanwhile (εἵμαθ᾿ ἑλέσθαι). Consequently, there can be no objection to translating 216 "they ordered him to wash himself" if there are other reasons for believing that this is what it must mean. I believe there are."seanjonesbw wrote:I haven't read the article, but I don't think the reflexive reading of the middle here is right. I think they're inviting him to bathe (possibly/probably with them helping), not to wash himself .
I've read the whole article now so this makes more sense - Jones is effectively saying that it doesn't matter whether λοῦσθαι explicitly has the sense of 'to wash himself' vs 'to wash' because the ἀμφίπολοι make clear through their actions that they're not going to do it even before he tells them not to.seneca2008 wrote: ↑Sat Aug 10, 2019 7:13 pm Jones accepts that "λοῦσθαι at 216 cannot be forced of itself to bear the meaning "wash himself". But λούομaι can (obviously) bear that meaning in Homer. At 23.131-2 Odysseus makes a clear distinction between what the men must do (λούσασθε) and what the slaves must do meanwhile (εἵμαθ᾿ ἑλέσθαι). Consequently, there can be no objection to translating 216 "they ordered him to wash himself" if there are other reasons for believing that this is what it must mean. I believe there are."
Thank you for your summary and for you additional ideas which I think show the richness of this episode and the variety of possibilities which it can inspire through close readingseanjonesbw wrote: If you were really pushing the reading, you could even say that Odysseus' reaction isn't just to save Nausicaa's blushes but to save face for δῖος Ὀδυσσεύς himself after being refused a bath by slaves.
Shame has a connotation of wrongdoing or of not being up to a standard, which embarrassment does not. If someone sees you in the toilet, it's not shameful, just embarrassing; you did nothing wrong. If you get caught defecating on the carpet in your mother-in-law's living room, you are likely to be not only embarrassed but ashamed as well.seneca2008 wrote: ↑Mon Aug 12, 2019 3:36 pm I continue to be perplexed by this distinction being made between "embarrassment" and " shame". Perhaps it is simply one of degree? I will continue to read about this and think further as clearly my understanding is wanting..
Thanks for that. More formally, in shame based cultures, shame is the result of offending the cultural mores of the group, whereas embarrassment is a personal inward reaction not necessarily so related.Paul Derouda wrote: ↑Mon Aug 12, 2019 4:25 pmShame has a connotation of wrongdoing or of not being up to a standard, which embarrassment does not. If someone sees you in the toilet, it's not shameful, just embarrassing; you did nothing wrong. If you get caught defecating on the carpet in your mother-in-law's living room, you are likely to be not only embarrassed but ashamed as well.seneca2008 wrote: ↑Mon Aug 12, 2019 3:36 pm I continue to be perplexed by this distinction being made between "embarrassment" and " shame". Perhaps it is simply one of degree? I will continue to read about this and think further as clearly my understanding is wanting..
Are you sure about this? English is not my native language, but I think there is a difference of emphasis: it seems to me that "he was ashamed", like I said earlier, puts more emphasis on the idea of not being up to a standard, while on the other hand, I feel that "he was embarrassed" is a more situational thing. But I agree that there is a lot of overlap.seanjonesbw wrote: ↑Mon Aug 12, 2019 8:27 pm First of all, it’s important to say that I think Seneca is completely right that in British English at least (I can’t speak for American and other usage) “she felt ashamed” and “she felt embarrassed” are often used interchangeably not to refer to two distinct feelings experienced at the same time but to a single feeling. “He was ashamed to have wet himself in front of his classmates” and “He was embarrassed to have wet himself in front of his classmates” refer to the same feeling of shame/embarrassment (hot behind the ears, desperate to be somewhere else). To use one or the other is not to make some kind of meaningful distinction about the boy's personal experience (in English).
Like I say, I can't speak for American usage here, but if an editor saw “He was ashamed and embarrassed to have wet himself in front of his classmates” they would tell me it was a gross tautology and have me remove one.
"Senator Fluffelfoofer's slave-holding past is particularly embarrassing for him in light of his progressive policies" - cf. The Guardian headline "Ben Affleck admits embarrassment led him to try to hide slave-owning ancestor"jeidsath wrote: ↑Mon Aug 12, 2019 11:03 pm A person would be ashamed of his family's slave-holding past, unless he thought slavery wasn't really so bad of a thing, in which case he might simply be embarrassed about it.
A person would be embarrassed that his mother had sent him a care package during his Freshman year at college, but not ashamed of it.
I thought that they are subjunctive with ὄφρα in a purpose clause. LSJ says the following about temporal ὄφρα:Jeidsath wrote:In support of this, are ἀπολούσομαι and χρίσομαι really future? If they are aorist subjunctive, then Odysseus is saying "stay back until..." not "stay back in order that..."?
Well you are in good company as this is the view taken by Stanford and Hainsworth.jeidsath wrote:Regardless, the reason that Odysseus vocalizes for being embarrassed to strip is that he has not cleaned or oiled himself for some time. We have to add something unstated if we think he's worried about his nudity.
I think that the comparison with Nestor's daughter isn't quite as you represent it. There is no question of Nausicaa washing Odysseus, she orders her slaves to do it. Although its not explicit presumably Nestor tells Polycaste to wash Telemachus just as Menelaus orders slaves to do the same at Sparta. Nausicaa is imitating these actions by a head of a household.Paul Derouda wrote:I read Jones' article, which has some interesting insights, and his idea that Odysseus is refusing the bath to save Nausicaa's face is attractive. But in the same time I think Jones is not giving proper consideration to the context where the washing takes place. He says: "The conclusion must be that it was not modesty on Nausicaa's part that prevented her bathing Odysseus. It was her youth, her immaturity: she did not know how to act properly in the circumstances." But Nestor's daughter washing Telemachus in the safety of her father's palace is altogether different from this scene, which takes place in the wilderness. The element of danger is evident when a naked man surges upon a group of teenage girls on a lonely beach; at 130ff. Odysseus is even compared to hungry lion when he approaches them. It's true enough that Odysseus lied to Alcinous that Nausicaa had washed him in the river. But when he says this, they are all in the security of the palace, where the normal rules of hospitality are back in place and where the threat that Odysseus posed to the girls is already forgotten.
I think we should bring up γίγνωσκε δ’ ἄρα φρεσὶ πάσας and the context before deciding the two dramatic conceptions couldn't fit one poet.seneca2008 wrote: ↑Thu Aug 15, 2019 10:10 amIf gore was no barrier to embraces in book 22, grime should be no barrier to slaves bathing a man under their mistress' instructions in Book 6."
Well, when Jones writes "The conclusion must be that it was not modesty on Nausicaa's part that prevented her bathing Odysseus", the way I understand this is specifically that he is referring to why Nausicaa didn't personally wash Odysseus but gave the task to the slave girls.seneca2008 wrote: ↑Thu Aug 15, 2019 10:56 am I think that the comparison with Nestor's daughter isn't quite as you represent it. There is no question of Nausicaa washing Odysseus, she orders her slaves to do it. Although its not explicit presumably Nestor tells Polycaste to wash Telemachus just as Menelaus orders slaves to do the same at Sparta. Nausicaa is imitating these actions by a head of a household.
It is right to draw attention to the liminal space in which Nausicaa operates. (I have done this from the outset of the laundry episode).
Nausicaa's authority in this space is uncertain as is her grasp of the operation of Xenia. As Jones says " ... the young Nausikaa shows how they treat xenoi in Sheria, and we are amused as the young princess offers the grimy nude (of all people) a bath (of all things) on a beach (of all places). Telemachus was welcomed by Nestor on the beach in book 3, but his bath came later on in the palace." So Nausicaa has good intentions but gets it all wrong. The slaves are uncertain what to do because bathing a stranger at the beach doesn't seem the correct procedure.
I think its wrong to elide with this as you do the sexual element. I think that this threat has been neutered (!) by Odysseus entreaty to Nausicaa at 149 onwards. As previously mentioned Jones argues that Odysseus covers his genitals to make it clear that he is not a sexual threat.