1. DRINKING AND ABSTAINING

During the necromantic ceremony in Odyssey 11 Odysseus slits the throats of two sheep and then proceeds to drain their blood into the βόθρος, or pit, which he has dug in the ground (Od. 11.35–6). At this point in the ceremony the dead swarm up from the Underworld, displaying an innate attraction to the blood (Od. 11.36–7). Such is the overwhelming response of the dead that Odysseus must draw his sword in order to hold back the multitudes who clamour to drink the offering (Od. 11.48–50).Footnote ¹ Odysseus refuses to allow the dead to approach the blood until Tiresias has drunk the offering and offered a prophecy for the future (Od. 11.95–6). After Tiresias has concluded his prophecy for Odysseus some of the other dead step forward and drink the blood, but to what end? Odysseus does not seek prophecies from these figures, nor do they produce any, which means that their reason for desiring and drinking the blood must lie elsewhere.

This question has provoked numerous interpretations: Burkert suggests that the dead must drink the blood ‘in order to recollect themselves and speak’ as they are entirely without consciousness.Footnote ² Heubeck similarly states that the blood allows the dead to recall the memories of their previous existence and be able to give information.Footnote ³ Nilsson identifies the drinking of blood as the means through which memory and consciousness are restored to the dead.Footnote ⁴ Rohde, Vermeule and Hentze all posit that the blood awakens the senses of the dead which were lying dormant, but not extinguished.Footnote ⁵ Johnston speculates that the dead are incapable of ‘meaningful interaction with the living’ until they drink the blood.Footnote ⁶ Garland and Bouvier suggest that blood allows the dead to recognize the living, a concept also forwarded by Ogden who adds the power of speech to the restorative abilities of the blood, as does Büchner.Footnote ⁷ Heath examines this latter function and determines that the blood allows the dead to speak coherently with the living.Footnote ⁸ The common denominator of these theories is the belief that the blood restores something to the dead, be it awareness, recognition, speech, or a combination of all three. Tiresias supports this assumption when he responds to Odysseus' question as to how his mother might recognize him (Od. 11.140–4)Footnote ⁹ with the following declaration (Od. 11.147–9):

Tiresias’ words seem to draw a strong connection between the drinking of blood and the restoration of some faculty which allows the dead to interact coherently with Odysseus. Anticlea and Agamemnon maintain this connection as both immediately recognize Odysseus once they have drunk the blood (Od. 11.153, 390). Yet it is difficult unequivocally to accept this link between the blood and the return of recognition, awareness or even speech, as even though not all of the dead drink the blood they all have the ability to interact with Odysseus. Tiresias, Anticlea and Agamemnon explicitly drink the blood (Od. 11.98, 153, 390), and the fourteen women implicitly do so (Od. 11.231–4), but Elpenor, Achilles, Ajax and Heracles do not drink the blood and yet they display the same level of awareness and recognition.

Once again, this anomaly has generated numerous hypotheses: Sourvinou-Inwood considers the inconsistency to be indicative of the blending of earlier epic material and common belief in contemporary Homeric society.Footnote ¹⁰ Macchioro suggests that there are two distinct narratives at work in Odyssey 11. In the first of these, the dead respond to Odysseus’ summons by emerging from the Underworld but they are mere ‘ombre esangui’ that must drink the blood in order to speak. In the second, Odysseus looks into the Underworld where the dead look like the living and do not need to drink the blood.Footnote ¹¹ Büchner proffers a similar distinction between the dead who approach the blood and those whom Odysseus observes by peering into the Underworld.Footnote ¹² Clarke sees no reason to view the ‘minor inconsistencies’ in the drinking of the blood as overly problematic owing to the ‘shifting character of the death-lore of the Nekuia’.Footnote ¹³ Heath and Vermeule both attribute the inconsistency, in part, to literary considerations. Heath suggests that Homer may have intended his listeners to understand ‘typical’ actions and as such did not need to describe each new ghost as drinking the blood, a process which would have been ‘artistically clumsy’.Footnote ¹⁴ Similarly, Vermeule feels that the limitation of references to the dead drinking the blood served to prevent ‘boredom by repetition’.Footnote ¹⁵ Yet, as Sourvinou-Inwood points out, we cannot assume that the listeners would have taken the drinking of blood as a ‘typical’ action when it was not repeated.Footnote ¹⁶ It is not the purpose of this article to attempt a refutation of any of the above well-considered arguments but rather to offer another possible theory, one which adopts the position that it is the very inconsistency in drinking which reveals the purpose and importance of the blood to the dead.

Of those who converse with Odysseus Tiresias, Anticlea, Agamemnon and the fourteen women drink the blood offering while Elpenor, Achilles and Heracles abstain. Initially these appear to be two largely arbitrary groupings as Elpenor, for example, has little in common with the two superlative heroes, Achilles and Heracles. Yet, a consistent image begins to emerge if two factors are taken into consideration. First, the sacrificial blood acts as a source of honour for those who partake of it. Of all the offerings made to the dead by the living, animal or blood sacrifices seem to be the most honorific, as suggested in part by their prominent positions in the lavish funerals of Patroclus and Achilles (Il. 23.166–77; Od. 24.65–6).Footnote ¹⁷ Secondly, the dead participate in a hierarchically structured society in the Underworld and their position therein is determined by the manner of their death and the burial and honorific rites which they receive. If these two factors are taken into consideration then the distinction between the dead who do and do not drink the blood assumes a manner of consistency. Under the terms of this theory, the dead who share in the communal blood-offering are those with limited individual honour or a lowly social position in the Underworld while those who do not drink have extensive individual honour and a high social status. Elpenor of course does not fit into the same group of the honoured dead as Achilles and Heracles but his status and honour in the Underworld do play a role in his choice to abstain from the blood (this is examined in more detail in §3).

2. HONOUR AND STATUS IN THE UNDERWORLD

A problem immediately arises in that this theory is entirely dependent upon the consistent conscious awareness of the dead in the Underworld and their ability to take part in a social structure and to recognize the sacrificial blood as a source of honour. Homeric eschatology is characterized by a diversity of afterlife beliefs and the difficulties in attempting to find a consistent depiction of the deceased therein have been well documented.Footnote ¹⁸ On the one hand, the dead participate in a hierarchically structured society in the Underworld. They retain their memories and personalities and display a limited awareness of the actions of the living, most specifically the actions which directly impact upon their honour.Footnote ¹⁹ These various abilities rest upon a foundation of conscious awareness and, in turn, they define the extents and limitations of this awareness for the dead in the Homeric epics. On the other hand, the dead are witless, pitiful creatures with little or no awareness. They do not remember their past lives nor have the awareness to participate in a society of the deceased but rather ‘they flit about like shadows’ (σκιαὶ ἀίσσουσιν, Od. 10.495) and ‘utter shrill cries’ (τετριγυῖα, Il. 23.101; τετριγυῖαι, Od. 24.9). While it is certainly not the intention of this article to attempt to find a consistent depiction of the deceased in the Homeric epics, such consistency does exist in Odyssey 11 (and also in the later Nekuia of Odyssey 24) which offers a picture of the active and consciously aware dead. As the issue of blood-drinking is limited to Odyssey 11, it is possible to offer a theory as to its importance with reference to the consistent abilities of the dead within this one particular book.

The continuance of awareness characterizes the dead in Odyssey 11 and the overwhelming response of the dead to the blood poured by Odysseus offers the first indication of this awareness. Johnston suggests that the reaction of the dead to the blood is driven by a basic animalistic instinct which stops short of coherent awareness, but the actions of the dead throughout Odyssey 11 confirm the validity of this awareness.Footnote ²⁰ Thus, the dead seek judgments from Minos (Od. 11.568–71); Agamemnon knows that his son Orestes is not yet dead, presumably because he has not encountered him in the Underworld (Od. 11.461); and the dead fall back in terror from Heracles as he brandishes his bow and arrow (Od. 11.605–8). An important consequence of this awareness is the participation of the dead in a hierarchically structured society wherein they may continue in the occupations and positions of their former lives.Footnote ²¹ For example, Tiresias retains the ability to offer prophecies (Od. 11.95–137) while Minos continues to pass judgments (Od. 11.568–71). The most important example for the current discussion, however, is Achilles who successfully replicates his former high social position within the society of the deceased.Footnote ²²

When Odysseus encounters his former comrade in the Underworld he marvels at the continuance of Achilles’ elevated social position (Od. 11.484–6):

Odysseus’ words suggest an unbroken continuity of honour and high social status for Achilles from the world of the living to that of the dead. Schmiel opposes this view stating that ‘[i]f Homer had made Achilles lord of the dead, the greatness of Achilles’ decision to die young but with glory would be diminished’.Footnote ²³ He describes Odysseus’ words as a ‘consolation’ and suggests that the formula used by Achilles at 11.489–91 (βουλοίμην κε/ἄν + infinitive + ἤ + infinitive), in which he claims that he would prefer to be the hireling of a landless man than lord over all the dead, refers to a theoretical possibility and should be taken as hypothetical rather than as a declaration of leadership, as this is how the formula is used in its four other appearances in the Homeric poems.Footnote ²⁴ Yet Achilles’ status need not diminish his choice, for (as he points out to Odysseus) dominion over the deceased is a small compensation for being dead (Od. 11.488–91). Achilles certainly does not refute Odysseus’ statement and, as we see in Odyssey 24, he is a focal attraction for the other dead who flock around him (Od. 24.19). This all suggests that Achilles has accomplished the reduplication of his honour and status in the society of the dead. Unfortunately, such reduplication is not a certainty for all of the dead as it is dependent upon a number of factors, most importantly the manner of the deceased's death and the burial rites, or lack of the same, which he received.Footnote ²⁵

The genesis of this argument is found outside Odyssey 11 in the dream figure of the recently deceased Patroclus appearing to Achilles in Iliad 23 in order to request immediate burial (Il. 23.71–4).Footnote ²⁶ The importance and necessity of burial rites is highlighted throughout the Homeric epics, both in the ubiquitous threat of non-burial (for example, Il. 11.452–5; 13.829–32; 22.335–6) and in the identification of the rites as a γέρας for the dead (Il. 16.457, 675; 23.9; Od. 4.197; 24.190, 296). The term γέρας is used in the Homeric epics to indicate a prize of exceptional honour, a prize which is both a consequence of and an addition to the social status and honour of the receiver.Footnote ²⁷ The attainment of a γέρας equals honour and while only the greatest warriors of the highest social status can hope to receive a γέρας such as Briseis in Iliad 1, members of all social strata may attain the γέρας of burial. Conversely, the loss or denial of a γέρας must equal dishonour. Thus Agamemnon is willing to give back his γέρας Chryseis in Iliad 1 only if another is immediately provided to him, as it would be unfitting for someone in his position to be without such a prize (Il. 1.118–19). Equally, Patroclus appears to Achilles in response to the dishonour which he suffers while he is without the γέρας of burial.

The dishonour of non-burial manifests itself in a particular way in the Underworld. Patroclus informs Achilles that the dead will not allow him to cross the river and mingle with them while he remains unburied (Il. 23.73). This strongly suggests that the unburied dead cannot attain access to the Underworld proper but, while it is certain that his state of non-burial places Patroclus (and later, Elpenor) in a unique position, it is not certain that this is a physical position.Footnote ²⁸ Firstly, there is no indication that the unnamed river presents some manner of barrier in access to the Underworld proper, as the River Styx later came to represent. Secondly, Patroclus does not claim that the dead prevent him from joining their number but rather prevent him from mingling with them. As I have argued elsewhere, this raises the possibility that the dishonour occasioned by non-burial may become manifest in the social liminality of the dead in the Underworld. Arnold van Gennep's work on societal rites of passage forms the basis of this theory.Footnote ²⁹

Van Gennep theorizes that the progression from one socially distinct position to another (for example, from childhood to adulthood) is marked by a series of rites of passage which may be divided into the rites of separation (preliminal), transition (liminal) and incorporation (postliminal).Footnote ³⁰ As regards the progression from life to death, the rites of separation refer to the process of dying, those of transition are the burial rites and those of incorporation cover the assimilation of the deceased into the afterlife.Footnote ³¹ If we accept that van Gennep's rites of passage provide a suitable framework for the process of death in Homer then the dishonour occasioned by non-burial becomes a little clearer. If the rites of transition (burial rites) are not completed then the deceased cannot progress to the rites of incorporation and must remain in a state of liminality. Patroclus’ words to Achilles suggest that this liminality is essentially social but it is, admittedly, not easy to disregard the possibility that the unburied dead also occupy some manner of unique physical position. It seems unlikely that the unburied dead are completely denied access to the Underworld, especially as Patroclus states that he is already in the halls of Hades (Il. 23.74)Footnote ³² and the unburied Suitors have no admittance problems in Odyssey 24 (Od. 24.186–90), but they may have been relegated to a separate position therein.

The dishonour of non-burial is therefore most obviously manifest in the social liminality of the deceased but it is also possible to have dishonour without social exclusion in cases where the deceased has been buried but is denied a social position commensurate with that which he held during life.Footnote ³³ This incorporates the dead who are given the basic rites of burial but are dishonoured either by the corruption of those burial rites or by the manner of their death. Agamemnon is the most obvious example of this reduction in social status; he should theoretically enjoy an elevated position in the Underworld as he had a high social status during life, yet this is not the case. Agamemnon's dishonour and poor social position are flagged by a number of examples in Odyssey 11 and also Odyssey 24. In the latter book the dead gravitate towards Achilles, presumably because of his status, but the dead who gather around Agamemnon in Odyssey 11 are those who fell with him at the hands of Aegisthus and Clytemnestra (Od. 11.388–9; cf. Od. 24.21–2); there is no suggestion that they flock to Agamemnon as a consequence of any elevated social position which he may hold. Odysseus can offer no platitudes to Agamemnon concerning his elevated status, as he did with Achilles (Od. 11.484–6), but rather laments the troubles brought upon the house of Atreus by Helen and Clytemnestra (Od. 11.436–9). Achilles similarly laments Agamemnon's ignoble demise in Odyssey 24, wishing that he had fallen at Troy where he would have received a tomb and left a μέγα κλέος for his son to inherit (Od. 24.32–3).Footnote ³⁴ Achilles’ words suggest that the rites which Agamemnon did receive lacked any such honour, and this is evident in Odyssey 11 when Agamemnon claims that Clytemnestra neither closed his eyes nor his mouth as he journeyed into death (Od. 11.425–6). Finally, Agamemnon supports this theory himself when he states that the name and glory of Achilles were not destroyed by death (Od. 24.93–4) but then immediately contrasts this with his own situation (Od. 24.95–7). It may be concluded therefore that Agamemnon has received burial rites, however corrupt they may have been, as he has been integrated into the society of the deceased, but the ignoble manner of his demise does not allow him to replicate his former position within the society of the deceased. Agamemnon does not receive what Vernant names a kalos thanatos and so his honour and status must be jeopardized.Footnote ³⁵

In summary, the dead who approach Odysseus and his pit of blood in Odyssey 11 are consciously aware creatures who interact with one another within a hierarchically structured Underworld and have an awareness of the actions of the living which directly affect their honour. Taking these consistent abilities of the dead in Odyssey 11 into account, the question which hangs over the blood-drinking may not be why the dead instinctively need to drink but rather why they actively choose to drink or to abstain. Heath suggests that the inconsistency of the blood-drinking may rely in part upon the status of the deceased whereby it would be ‘pedantic and disruptive’ for Ajax to drink the blood and it would be a ‘bold rhetorical maneuver’ for Odysseus to describe himself as ‘allowing’ Heracles to drink.Footnote ³⁶ This idea of status is very important and if we expand it a little in order to accommodate not only the status of the deceased during life but also during death then a consistency begins to emerge. The dead who drink the blood are those who suffer some manner of dishonour in the Underworld or are the ‘common dead’ who would not be overburdened by individual sacrifices from the living. The dead who do not drink the blood are those who have no need for a share in a communal sacrifice as they enjoyed elevated social positions and continued fame and honour. It therefore remains to test this theory, starting with Elpenor and working chronologically through the list of the dead who interact with Odysseus in Odyssey 11.

3. THE INDIVIDUAL DEAD

Elpenor, the first of the dead to converse with Odysseus, immediately presents a problem. Elpenor died an ignoble death, falling from the roof of Circe's palace, and his corpse remains exposed and unburied (Od. 11.62–78). Taking Patroclus in Iliad 23 as a measure, Elpenor occupies a position of dishonourable social liminality when he steps forward to speak with Odysseus and, as such, clearly belongs to the first category of the dishonoured and ‘common dead’. Yet Elpenor does not drink the sacrificial blood. Perhaps the obvious and simplest reason for this is that Odysseus does not allow him to do so (Od. 11.82). Unfortunately this leaves too many unanswered questions, such as how Elpenor so easily accepts Odysseus’ denial of access to the blood when Anticlea, for example, shows a single-minded purpose to partake of the offering.

Traditionally, Elpenor's abstinence from the blood has been attributed to his state of non-burial: as long as Elpenor remains without burial he is caught in a liminal state between the worlds of the living and the dead and while he is in this state he retains his awareness and ability to converse with Odysseus without drinking the blood.Footnote ³⁷ If, however, we accept the premise of the current argument whereby the awareness of the dead is ubiquitous and the sacrificial blood is a source of honour rather than a conduit for recognition and cognizance, then this solution cannot be fully upheld. Nevertheless, we can maintain the basic argument if we shift the focus slightly. Elpenor undeniably occupies a unique position owing to his status as one of the non-buried dead. Yet non-burial does not necessarily provide a barrier in admittance to the Underworld. Rather, the unburied dead have access to the Underworld proper and thus have the same level of awareness as the buried dead but they do suffer social liminality. By this argument Elpenor is in a state of liminality when he approaches Odysseus and this does hold the key to his abstinence from the blood but not, it could be argued, in the traditionally accepted sense.

Elpenor seeks something quite specific from Odysseus: he desires burial and, more particularly, the erection of a tomb over his body so that he may be remembered by future generations (Od. 11.74–6). Remembrance is a key source of honour for the dead as the survival of an individual's deeds in societal memory assures the continuity of his status and a tomb effectively offers a visual stimulant for this remembrance.Footnote ³⁸ Therefore, in stepping forward to speak to Odysseus, Elpenor seeks both the solution to his liminality (by burial) and the continued honour of remembrance. It could be argued that neither of these would have been attained by Elpenor defying Odysseus’ refusal and partaking in the relatively transitory honour of the communal blood offering. Elpenor consciously chooses to forego the honour of the blood in order to secure the promise of burial, a far more important and comprehensive honour. Therefore, Elpenor's abstinence from the blood directly relates to his non-buried status but it is a result of his search for honour and social integration rather than his retention of awareness above and beyond that of the other, buried dead.

Tiresias, the next figure to converse with Odysseus, is the only one who has a clear purpose in drinking the blood. Tiresias says to Odysseus: ‘hold back your keen sword, so that I may drink the blood and speak infallible truths to you’ (ἅπισχε δὲ φάσγανον ὀξύ, | αἵματος ὄφρα πίω καί τοι νημερτέα εἴπω, Od. 11.95–6). Zaborowski raises the problem that if the drinking of blood allows Tiresias to speak νημερτέα then the function must be considered to be the same for the other dead.Footnote ³⁹ This seems especially pertinent as Tiresias tells Odysseus that the dead whom he allows to approach the blood will also speak νημερτέα (Od. 11.147–9). Nevertheless, it is difficult to accept that the blood holds the same function for both Tiresias and the other dead as the results are noticeably different. For Tiresias, the infallible truths have an obvious connection to the prophecy which he delivers to Odysseus immediately following his drinking of the blood. The other dead show no inclination towards prophecy and there is nothing to suggest that those who drink the blood speak more truthfully than those who do not. Perhaps then the term carries a suggestion of resolve as opposed to truth for the other dead as they are certainly desirous of speaking with Odysseus and there is no indication that any of the dead drink the blood without subsequently conversing with Odysseus. This, however, is just speculation and there is certainly room to consider in further detail the nature of the connection between how Tiresias and the other dead converse with Odysseus. It must, however, remain outside the remit of this argument, as Tiresias’ prophetic role and his drinking of the blood for this purpose places him in a unique position which cannot be given the attention it deserves within the boundaries of this article. Nevertheless, arguably Tiresias would not have needed to drink the blood in order to share in the honour of the offering, as Odysseus offered him an individual sacrifice upon his return to Ithaca (Od. 11.32–3).

Anticlea is the first of the dead to approach the blood following Tiresias’ prophecy. This is her second attempt, as she has previously been denied access to the pit by her son while he awaited the appearance of Tiresias (Od. 11.84–9). Anticlea provides one of the most important examples in the argument for the blood as a restorative device, as she is clearly unaware of the presence of her son until after she drinks the blood (πίεν αἷμα κελαινεφές· αὐτίκα δ’ ἔγνω, ‘she drank the dark blood and immediately recognized me’, Od. 11.153). The blood presents an overwhelming attraction for the dead; vast multitudes press around the pit in the hopes of sharing in the offering.Footnote ⁴⁰ Taking this into account, there is room to argue that Anticlea is distracted by her desire to share in the blood and the honour which it provides and as such does not recognize her son until she has fulfilled this craving. Anticlea is one of the ‘common dead’ as she is presumably the recipient of some, but not extensive, honorific rites considering her son's ignorance of her death (Od. 11.84–9), her husband Laertes’ grief and indifference to the world (Od. 11.187–96) and Penelope and Telemachus’ difficulties with the Suitors. In the absence of individual honour, the communal blood offering holds an irresistible attraction for Anticlea, blinding her to the presence of her son.

By a similar argument, the desire of the parade of women to drink the blood (Od. 11.225–32) may be attributed to the absence of extensive individual honour. Although the women are never explicitly described as drinking the blood, Odysseus does state that he would not allow all of the women to drink at once but rather held them back with his sword and only allowed them to approach the pit one at a time (Od. 11.225–34). As Eisenberger points out, Odysseus’ declaration removes the necessity of repeatedly describing the parade of women drinking the bloodFootnote ⁴¹ and so there is little room for doubt that the women do partake in the offering and that this is a result of their desire for a share in the honour of the blood offering.

Agamemnon, the next figure to converse with Odysseus, also seems to present a connection between the drinking of blood and the return of awareness. Just like Anticlea, Agamemnon recognizes Odysseus ‘when he drank the dark blood’ (ἐπεὶ πίεν αἷμα κελαινόν, Od. 11.390).Footnote ⁴² As with Anticlea, Agamemnon's desire to share in the blood sacrifice offers a reason for his delayed recognition of Odysseus and this desire finds its genesis in Agamemnon's low social position in the Underworld. Agamemnon lacks honour and a high social status in the Underworld owing to his ignoble death and burial. Unlike Achilles, Minos and Heracles, Agamemnon has not successfully replicated his elevated position within the society of the deceased. Rather, there are many indications that he is subject to a certain amount of dishonour and spends his time bitterly preoccupied with the manner of his death and burial, which led to his ignominy (Od. 11.404–56). Such is Agamemnon's reduction in status that he shows a singular desire to share in the honour of the blood offering and can only recognize his former companion once he has satiated that desire.

The next figure to converse with Odysseus is Achilles. Heath asks of Achilles’ abstinence from the blood: ‘can we imagine Homer wishing to depict the ever-proud Achilles kneeling before Odysseus to taste the blood? Do we really notice the absence of the blood at this point?’Footnote ⁴³ It would certainly be incongruous for Achilles to act in this manner but his abstinence from the blood is still conspicuous. The movement from Agamemnon who does drink the blood to Achilles who does not is jarring, especially as they were social equals during life and it would not be unreasonable to expect both of them to react to the sacrificial blood in the same manner. A logical explanation for this disparity is that Achilles has no need to react in the same manner as Agamemnon as, unlike his former comrade, he clearly holds an elevated social position in the society of the Underworld (Od. 11.484–6) and, as revealed in Odyssey 24, was offered extensive honour through his burial rites (Od. 24.35–84). As one of the socially elevated and honoured dead in the Underworld, Achilles does not need to partake in the honour of the communal blood and so he abstains.

Heracles stands alongside Achilles as another figure who has no need to partake in the blood owing to his honour and high status. Büchner and Heath both suggest that by the time Odysseus encounters Heracles in the Underworld, Odysseus has entered, or, at the very least, is now looking into the Underworld and as such the conversations no longer take place alongside the sacrificial blood.Footnote ⁴⁴ The blurring of the boundaries between an anabasis and a katabasis are certainly evident in Odyssey 11 but regardless of location there is no need for Heracles to drink the blood. Heracles has even greater honour than Achilles as only his εἴδωλον resides in the Underworld while he himself (αὐτός) has a place among the gods (Od. 11.602). It is therefore difficult to imagine Heracles needing to share in the honour of communal blood.

Ajax, our last figure, is anomalous in that he refuses to converse with Odysseus as he is still angry about the contest for the arms of Achilles. Tsagarakis theorizes that Ajax's anger in itself suggests that he has tasted the blood as the dead can only show emotion after they drink the offering.Footnote ⁴⁵ Yet, we are never told that Ajax drank the blood and Odysseus’ description of him standing apart from the other dead certainly suggests that he did not approach the pit (Od. 11.543–4). This suggests that Ajax actively chose not to speak to Odysseus which shows that he recognized his former enemy and retained his memories without needing to imbibe the blood.Footnote ⁴⁶ Unfortunately this means that we have no way of knowing whether Ajax would have attempted to drink the blood or not. Either possibility is plausible. Ajax was a superlative hero during life, second only to Achilles, and it is quite possible that he could have attained an equally honoured position in death, especially if he was offered lavish burial rites. Yet Ajax's unabated anger suggests that he did not attain such an elevated end. Certainly Ajax did not die a kalos thanatos as Vernant defines it, and if his suicide was viewed as dishonourable then his position in the society of the deceased may have been called into question.Footnote ⁴⁷ Death wears many faces in Homer but suicide is rarely one of these, which makes it difficult to measure the extent to which it was considered to be an honourable or dishonourable act. Epicaste's suicide is described as being part of the gods’ plan (θεῶν ὀλοὰς διὰ βουλάς, ‘according to the destructive design of the gods’, Od. 11.276), but this is obviously a very different situation from that which led to Ajax's death, although it could be argued that they shared the same level of shame. Nevertheless, Homer remains silent concerning Ajax's suicide and his honour or dishonour and consequently his desire to drink or not to drink must remain a matter for speculation, as his wrath would not allow him to approach Odysseus and the pit.

The evidence of the above argument suggests that the blood-drinking in Odyssey 11 is a consequence of awareness rather than a means of restoring the same to the dead. This theory helps to remove the inconsistency of those who do and do not drink the blood as it becomes a conscious choice made by each of the deceased as they approach Odysseus and the sacrificial pit. Undoubtedly, this interpretation is open to argument as it rests quite precariously upon a foundation of the conscious awareness of the deceased which is, in effect, almost impossible to prove consistently. Nevertheless, the evidence for a hierarchical society in the Underworld of Odyssey 11 is extensive enough to make this theory a viable possibility. Anticlea, the parade of women and Agamemnon all have relatively low or common positions within the society of the deceased and, as such, they are instinctively attracted to the communal blood offering. Achilles and Heracles, on the other hand, enjoy elevated positions of power within the society and therefore have no need of a share in the sacrifice. Elpenor must forgo the short-term honour of sharing in the blood in order to obtain the much greater honour of burial, while Ajax's anger overrules any desire which he may have had for Odysseus’ offering. Therefore, the drinking of the blood does not restore awareness or recognition to the witless dead but provides a measure of honour to those who consciously choose to partake of it.