Agfdhyk

In the Odyssey, Penelope is courted by 108 suitors, who camp out in her house/royal court indefinitely, behaving badly, while she delays them. I'm having trouble understanding the historical and cultural context here. Is enough known about the culture of Homeric Greece to definitively explain what's going on, or is it subject to interpretation? It seems clear that the suitors have an understandable motive (to take over the kingdom of Ithaca). It's less clear to me whether their behavior is meant to be seen as a total violation of cultural norms, or what norms might be violated. Features of the story such as the great length of time and the large number of suitors seem like exaggerations for effect, but are the aberrations meant to excite horror in the listener, or are they just exaggerated versions of plausible events when a queen was widowed?

The suitors end up getting killed, which is seen as just. In this culture, do they deserve death simply because they persistently courted Penelope, or because they abused her hospitality, or because of their separate misdeeds, such as the plot led by Antinous to murder Telemachus?

Does Penelope fail to eject them because she lacks the physical power, because she lacks the legal and political authority, or because she's behaving as an exaggerated model of hospitality?

Hospitality is a virtue that was much admired in the ancient world and is modeled by Telemachus in his interaction with Athena. If great hospitality is seen as an obligation of a rich noblewoman, then is she enhancing her legitimacy by showing such extreme hospitality?

If her problem is lack of physical power, does this imply that the entire kingdom of Ithaca is completely undefended simply because one man, the king, is dead or absent? Wouldn't Odysseus have made provisions for the security of his kingdom, court, and family before leaving for Troy? If Penelope wanted to kick the suitors out, could she appeal to her slaves to help her with physical force, or would that be out of the question culturally (cf. Confederate horror at freedmen fighting for the Union)? Would the suitors have weapons, armor, and training that would make it difficult for non-nobles to eject them by force?

Xenia is a concept that represented the relationship between guests and hosts in Ancient Greece, and is a recurring theme in the Odyssey, Iliad, and other Greek works. Essentially, Penelope was fulfilling the expected cultural role of a generous host, whereas the suitors were breaking their role as courteous guests. For adhering to that culture's expectation of hospitality, Penelope and her family were rewarded, and for breaking the customs the suitors were justly punished.

Owners/caretakers of a home were expected to be hospitable to any guests or travelers that might show up at their door, offering them food and drink, a bath, and even gifts when they finally leave. It was the duty of a host to take care of guests, because the guest could be a god in disguise who would reward or punish the host's behavior. In the Odyssey, Penelope/Telemachus were fulfilling this custom as expected, such as offering the suitors endless food and drink and Telemachus being courteous to the disguised Athena.

As guests of a house, travelers were expected to be courteous to the hosts, offer a gift if possible, and not be a burden. The suitors clearly broke every part of this custom, and as punishment they were killed by Odysseus upon his return.

The host-guest relationship, and why you shouldn't abuse it, is demonstrated several times in the Odyssey: the cyclops Polyphemus was far from hospitable to Odysseus and his men, so none of the gods (except Polyphemus' father, Poseidon) cared when Odysseus broke his role as a courteous guest by blinding Polyphemus. Circe was turning guests into animals, so Hermes helped Odysseus confront her, showing that not even gods were above being hospitable to guests.

I ran this by my friend Matt Colvin, whose degree is in, and who teaches, classics. Here are his insights into the cultural context:

Mickey,

Missing from this discussion is the simultaneous second prong of the
suitors’ strategy: namely, if they cannot make Penelope marry one of
them, they can at least devour and waste so much of Odysseus’
household’s wealth as to diminish or cripple his family’s ability to
contract and reinforce ties of xenia with other noble families in the
Mycenaean world.

Also missing from that Stackexchange discussion is the function of
Agamemnon as a mirror-story that contrasts with the central plot of
the Odyssey. Agamemnon’s story comes up many times: Zeus’s first
speech in Odyssey book 1 is a complaint about how Aegisthus, the
successful seducer of Agamemnon’s wife Clytemnestra, has disobeyed the
gods. Aegisthus is described with many of the same epithets and
formulas as the suitors: both are “reckless” and disobey divine
warnings against their attempted usurpation. Clytemnestra is herself
the cousin of Penelope and both sister and sister-in-law of Helen of
Troy, wife of Agamemnon’s brother Menelaus. Agamemnon is of course
murdered by Aegisthus and Clytemnestra (Odysseus dialogues with his
shade in Hades), and the suitors threaten to kill both Telemachus and
Odysseus himself should he show up. Finally, Agamemnon’s son Orestes
is held up many times as a model for Telemachus to emulate.

The fragility of noble power in Homeric society is also evidenced by
the words that King Priam speaks to Achilles when he comes to his tent
to ransom the body of Hector:

"Remember your own father, great godlike Achilles-

as old as I am, past the threshold of deadly old age!

No doubt the countrymen round about him plague him now, 

with no one there to defend him, beat away disaster.

No one — but at least he hears you're still alive

and his old heart rejoices, hopes rising, day by day,

to see his beloved son come sailing home from Troy.” (Iliad 24.483-489)

Telemachus’ inability to use force to evict the suitors from his house
makes clear that their continued feasting is not merely bad etiquette,
but a political power play in a society where wealth and hospitality
were the means by which the noble families maintained their power —
and where insufficient wealth or strength could spell overthrow by
rival families. That Agamemnon was murdered and that Achilles’ father
was presumed to face “disaster” without his strong son there to “beat
away disaster” suggests that this sort of fragility was not unusual in
the society that produced the Homeric epics.

Actually, it is quite easy to understand even from today's perspective :

• Penelope still has presumably living husband. There is no definite proof that Odysseus perished, and Penelope refuses to declare him dead. It is entirely in her right to do so, even in modern times.




• Odysseus has a son and heir. Telemachus would legally be new king of Ithaca if his father is dead. Even if inhabitants didn't want him as a ruler, they didn't have right to rob him of his father property. Instead, as you mentioned, some of them even plan to kill him.




• Abusing hospitality. Suitors were living in Odysseus's home for a long time, essentially uninvited and unwelcome. This would be considered unappropriated and even illegal both then and now.




• Penelope was not attracted to anyone of them, and they were not worthy of her hand. It is given that suitors were nowhere near manly as Odysseus. Indeed, at the end of Odyssey, they were tested with Odysseus's bow, and none of them could draw it. Yet, they are forcing themselves to Penelope. Although the marriages were arranged at those times, woman of her social status could choose someone who would be a worthy husband, and none of them deserved her.

To sum it up, suitors acted dishonorable in many different ways, abusing customs and laws of their (and our) times because they had physical and political power to back them up. Purpose of whole epos was to show what is proper behavior, and what is abominable to gods and punishable by death.

Is enough known about the culture Homeric Greece to definitively explain what's going on, or is it subject to interpretation?

No. Enough is not known. All history is subject to interpretation. Here however the interpretation being requested is improper. The bow of conjecture is too great for History to be able to string it. Particularly in relation to a multiply redacted document making a claim about a purported single exceptional instance.

The interpretation of mythic cultural texts in the way you’re proposing is impossible to do historically. Other humanities may be able to assist you, classics and literary criticism off the top of my head.