The themistEs of Zeus (Od. 16.400-5)

C. Michael Sampson (University of Michigan)

At Odyssey 16.400-5, Amphinomos suggests that the suitors inquire whether the themistês of Zeus support their plan to murder Telemachos. Scholarship is unanimous that the themistês in question refer to unspecified oracles of Zeus, but in this paper, I argue both that the themistês cannot mean ‘oracles’ and that Amphinomos’ rhetoric—which aims at dissuading the suitors—underlies the confusion produced by the novel usage of the term. The arguments of the paper are threefold: there is no evidence in the epics that themistês carry oracular force, despite the arguments of scholars such as Ehrenberg (1921) and Hirzel (1907), who hold—in no small part on the basis of this passage—that the oracular connotations of themis and themistês are early, if not primary and essential to the terms’ semantic range. On this basis, even though the mortal capacity for delivering themistês is granted exclusively by Zeus, I argue that themistês in Homer are delivered exclusively by mortals to a mortal audience. Finally, I turn to Amphinomos’ rhetoric and argue that because its intention is to dissuade the suitors, it frames the murder of Telemachos not only as ill-advised, but as wholly inconceivable—like the idea that there are themistês of Zeus. Reevaluating the meaning of themistês in this passage helps pinpoint the state of divination and of the term’s semantic range in the archaic period: while clearly established by the time of the Homeric Hymn to Apollo and Pindar, themis and themistês’ relation to oracles is a semantic and divinatory development that has no basis in epic.

Bibliography

Ehrenberg, V. 1921. Die Rechtsidee in frühen Griechentum. Leipzig.

Hirzel, R. 1907. Themis, Dike und Verwandtes; ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der Rechtsidee bei den Greichen. Leipzig.