Classics and the Western Canon discussion

Time to get things started!

As is usual in classical epic, we start with the invocation to the Muse, since it is not Homer singing the poem, but the Muse using him as the vessel to sing through.

And also as is usual in classical epic, we start in media res, in the middle of things.

It will be interesting to see whether the gods are presented as they were in the Iliad, as squabbling, sometimes almost infantile, not "godlike" at all in the contemporary understanding of the term. At least initially, they seem to be, except for Poseidon, unified in thinking it's time for Odysseus to come home.

I was fascinated, in Book 2, by Hilitherses, interpreting the omen of the eagles, claiming that "at the time the Argives took ship for Ilion [Troy]," Lattimore 2.173, which was 20 years ago, that he had back then foretold that Odysseus would be away 19 years, and in the 20th year come home. And he gives fair warning to the suitors that

In fact, Homer lays out much of the Odyssey in these first two books -- he obviously wasn't concerned with spoilers! We know that Odysseus is alive and where he is, we know that all his companions are dead, we know that the gods are going to bring him home, and we have the warning from the best man in reading the portents of the eagles that "a great disaster is wheeling down on [the suitors]," and that Odysseus is nearby and is "working out the death and destruction of all these men." Lattimore 2.163-5. So the mystery of the Odyssey is not so much the outline of what will happen, since the Greeks were very familiar with the story, but in how Homer will present the story and what twists he will put into it.

A note on citation.

It is a challenge in the Odyssey to cite to the line numbers from which one is quoting.

A few translations -- Lattimore and Mandelbaum, for example -- try to track the Greek line by line, so that a line citation from these texts will be the same as to the original Greek lines. But most translations don't try to track the Greek so exactly, so it is harder to give an exact citation of where a passage occurs. Most (though not all) translations do have their own line numbering, and some give a general idea of where the Greek lines would be.

It helps if you can give a reasonably close approximation of the Greek line numbers for a quotation so people can try to match up the quotation with their own translations, but it's not something to fret over. I would much rather people quote lines with only approximate line numbers (always, though, at least a book number!) than that people avoid quoting because they can't give exact line numbers.

Also, when you quote it's nice to identify the translation you're using, but if you forget to, again, don't fret about it. The point you are making or the question you are asking or addressing is the key thing. So do your best, but don't make it a big deal.

I love the fact that Athena has to tell Telemakhos to man up. I have to say I was always struck by the fact that for the son of the great Odysseus, Telemakhos always comes off as seeming rather incompetent and useless nor does he seem to be very brave. In the quest to find out information about his father Athena has to hold his hand, quite literally every step of the way. He certainly did not seem to inherit his fathers cleverness nor his heroism, courage and strength.

I was always perplexed by the way in which both Telemakhos and Penelope seem to be rendered completely powerless in the absence of Odysseus, and while granted one his a woman and the other was an infant when his father left and jest newly coming into manhood, but I would have presumed that in the absence of his father, his son would have automatically inherited his fathers place and been seen as such by the people of Ithaca, nor is Penelope treated very much like a queen.

As I recall within The Oresteia, Clytemnestra in the absence of Agamemnon seems to wield the authority of her husband, and was obeyed by the people and maintained command over her husbands estates. Certainly her own hall was not over run by the rabble.

It seems to me that for being allegedly such a great leader in the way in which his people treat his son and his wife, and his property during his absence, they do not act as if they truly held much respect for Odysseus.

Patrice wrote: "Silver, I didn't get the feeling that the suitors were "rabble". They certainly acted like rabble but I thought they must be of noble birth to be admitted to the palace in the first place. Perhaps these were all men who had missed male guidance while their fathers were off at war?"

I consider them rabble because of the way in which they are conducting themselves. But I do not know if they necessarily have to be of noble birth, as it did not seem as if they exactly waiting for an invitation into the hall, but rather in the absence of Odysseus it seems that the people have free reign to do whatever they please because no one is asserting any control or authority over the people.

I never really cared for Telemachus because to he is too much of a weakling. It almost feels as if Homer was making a point about what happens when boys grow up without their fathers, and are raised only by their mothers, they loose their masculinity and do not become strong leaders.

Penelope finds a passive way in which to prevent herself from remarrying, but she does not exert any queenly authority over the people, she just evades them.

In the examples that are given of other characters and other stories, it just does not seem like it is the common thing, that whenever a man goes out to war, he comes home to find in his absence his hall has been completely over run by the people.

It seems Ithaca is made up of a particularly unruly group of people which does make it appears as if it has suffered from rather poor leadership, as well it seems to say something about what they people truly thought of Odysseus, and makes one wonder how good of a king he really was. For even when they acknowledge he might still be alive, they still are still rallying to oust his wife.

And I think that in Athena emphasizing to Telemachus the story of Orestes, and that she points out that he was the same age as Telemachus is, she is making the point that Telemachus ought to be fully capable of taking charge. Others his own age have achieved great things, yet he does nothing.

Silver wrote: "
I never really cared for Telemachus because to he is too much of a weakling. It almost feels as if Homer was making a point about what happens when boys grow up without their fathers, and are raised only by their mothers, they loose their masculinity and do not become strong leaders.
"

I agree partly with Patrice that T has the problem of being raised without a father example, without, as far as we have seen so far, any strong male figure to look up to. Also, it must have been terribly stressful knowing that all the other Trojan war fighters came back ten years ago but not knowing anything about your father, whether he's dead or alive, how you stand in life, whether he will come back to reassert control over the house, etc.

The one I fault is Mentor. Per Fitzgerald, at about line 2.225,
"Next to stand
was Mentor, comrade in arms of the prince Odysseus,
and old man now. Odysseus lelft him authority
over his house and slaves, to guard them well."

He hasn't done a very good job, has he?

But Penelope isn't helping things any. She isn't, for example, saying definitively "I'm not going to marry anybody until I have proof that Odysseus is dead, so you might as well all go away until we know that." Nor does she say definitively that when she is ready to get remarried she will go to her father's house and let him choose her new husband, and if they really want to be in the husband sweepstakes they'll have to go impress him, not her. Rather, by saying that she will consider remarrying when she finishes the shroud, she implicitly encourages the suitors to stick around, each one hoping that once the shroud is finished he will be the one chosen as her new husband, and probably afraid to go away because out of sight would be out of mind and would reduce his chances of being chosen.

It isn't as though they've been hanging around for 20 years. I can't find the passage at the moment, but I think I read that they had only been there for about three years. So this is sort of like a frat house during the years of college, isn't it, only not having to attend classes. (But they do go home at night.)

Everyman wrote: "But Penelope isn't helping things any. She isn't, for example, saying definitively "I'm not going to marry anybody until I have proof that Odysseus is dead, so you might as well all go away until we know that." Nor does she say definitively that when she is "

You make a good point about Penelope. This is like my 3rd time reading The Odyssey, though it has been a while since the last time, and it is interesting to see how my perspectives on some of the characters are different than it had formally been.

I had always held a certain admiration for Penelope in the past, in the way in which she uses her cleverness, and interesting to see that she shares some of her husbands own wit, as a way of adverting the suitors and staying faithful to her husband.

But in reading it now, I am more struck by the completely lack of control and authority she has over the people as queen. How she does choose to hide herself away and does not look after her husbands estates very well. It is true that in her deceiving her schemes as a way of stalling the suitors she is also working to further encourage them and give them a false sense that she would in fact come to choose one soon.

As just how long did she think she could put them off with the weaving and unweaving of the shroud, even if a servant had not told, I think eventually they would figure out it should not take that long to complete the task and grow suspect or get tired of waiting.

Silver wrote: "I have to say I was always struck by the fact that for the son of the great Odysseus, Telemakhos always comes off as seeming rather incompetent and useless..."

I'm not sure Homer agrees with you. After all, right at the start of Book 2 Homer says that when he got up, he had "a god's brilliance upon him." Fitzgerald about 2.5. Or "left his room looking like an immortal god." Murray. Did this just mean that Athena put brilliance on him, or did it mean that he in his own person had godlike brilliance?

And at about 2.129 he is called "clear-headed" (Fitzgerald) or "thoughtful" (Lattimore) or "wise" (Murray) or "thoughtful, wise" (Mandelbaum) or, to add one more, "with calm good sense," Fagles. (He is called the same a few lines later, when he speaks again at 2.208, probably Homer using the same term).

And let's keep in mind that with Mentor being an old man, and Odysseus away, and as far as we know no uncles or others to help train him in the use of arms, but being raised apparently mostly by his mother and a nurse, and living on a small island which may not have had any wild animals he could learn to use weapons by hunting, how was he to get the training in weapons and fighting?

But time will tell how Telemarchus turns out.

Though Tennyson does agree with you to a large extent, when in his poem Ulysses he has Odysseus say:
This my son, mine own Telemachus,
To whom I leave the sceptre and the isle—
Well-loved of me, discerning to fulfil
This labour, by slow prudence to make mild
A rugged people, and through soft degrees
Subdue them to the useful and the good.
Most blameless is he, centred in the sphere
Of common duties, decent not to fail
In offices of tenderness, and pay
Meet adoration to my household gods,
When I am gone. He works his work, I mine.

So Tennyson also sees him as a thinker, a teacher, a moral leader rather than an explorer, military leader, or battle commander.

Silver wrote: "I love the fact that Athena has to tell Telemakhos to man up. I have to say I was always struck by the fact that for the son of the great Odysseus, Telemakhos always comes off as seeming rather inc..."

Thought this passage was relevant to your comments on Telemachus:

"Few sons are the equals of their fathers;
most fall short, all too few surpass them.
But you, brave and adept from this day on--
Odysseus' cunning has hardly given out in you--
there's every hope in that you will reach your goal."
-- Athena, Book ii, 309-313 (Fagles)

My thoughts on the suitors and Penelope and Telemakhos was that they (Penelope and T) were in a sense protecting Telemakhos.
If Penelope gave a difinitive answer either way, Telemakhos' life is in danger. For if she does remarry, the new husband will want his own child to be king. If she refuses to marry then Telemakhos' life is in danger because removing her heir may make her change her mind. With the shroud she is sending out a conflicting message and for the time being T has time to grow into a man because no one really wants to kill him until they are pressed into it or can benefit from it directly.

Which leads me to wonder, how did Aigisthos overlook killing Orestes as soon as he had Clytemnestra? The Greeks made sure they killed Astyanax who was just a baby and hardly a threat, but Orestes is certainly a threat.

Phillip wrote: "Silver wrote: "I love the fact that Athena has to tell Telemakhos to man up. I have to say I was always struck by the fact that for the son of the great Odysseus, Telemakhos always comes off as see..."

That is an interesting passage and quite apt.

Everyman wrote: "Silver wrote: "I have to say I was always struck by the fact that for the son of the great Odysseus, Telemakhos always comes off as seeming rather incompetent and useless..."

I'm not sure Homer ag..."

Yes you are probably right, but I am sure I do not agree with Homer on a lot of his characters. In regards to Telemachus though it just does not seem as if he truly does anything for himself or thinks on his own. When Athena appears to him, she arranges everything, plans everything, tells him everything to do, accompanies him. And he simply follows her instructions.

With Odysseus, Athena would sometimes give him a little nudge in the right direction, than he would take things from there. But with Telemackhos, well it seems as if he would be at a complete loss of what to do without her constant guidance.

I don't think we should think of Penelope as a "queen." Homer never calls her such. Though Odysseus is called "king," this is not a monarchy as we know it. For one thing, Odysseus's father is still alive--obviously he didn't inherit the title. There seems to be no government in Ithaca to speak of. The council of elders hasn't met in 20 years. There's no authority Penelope can appeal to to clear her home of these gate-crashers. Odysseus seems to have his title by force of personality, not as head of an organized state. Now he's been gone for 20 years, wherabouts unknown for 10, and people are finally ready to accept that there's a power vacuum. By remarrying, Penelope would publically and irrevocably declare that he's never coming back. That's what the suitors really want, I think.

Silver wrote: "Yes you are probably right, but I am sure I do not agree with Homer on a lot of his characters."

I look forward to hearing more of this as the reading progresses. Homer, after all, wasn't creating fictional characters as novelists do, but is telling the story of people who existed, or at least who he believes existed, though he's telling it about 500 years after the events. (Still, we have lots of people writing biographies or stories or plays about people who died 500 or more years ago.)

So the way he presents the people, and the way we look at the people based on what he says they did and said, may indeed be different.

The Odyssey is an interesting change in focus after spending so many weeks with the Iliad. The warriors of the Iliad leave their homes to seek glory in battle and avenge an insult to a king. But in the Iliad Homer doesn't show us what these warriors leave behind: women, boys too young to fight, and men who have nothing better to do but victimize the families of warriors who aren't around to defend them. By the end of the Iliad we have seen the glories of war and also its great price, but there is another price to be paid by the families who are left behind.

Patrice wrote: "The change in tone feels very strong to me. What do people think of the theory that the Odyssey had a different author? Right now I'm thinking it makes sense."

That is an interesting thought, it would probably be easier for me to compare in that sense if I were to read the two books by the same translator, because than I would have the same narrative voice telling the two stories which would make seeing the differences of tone within the story a bit easier. But there are some notable differences in the way in which each of the stories are told.

Thomas wrote: "The Odyssey is an interesting change in focus after spending so many weeks with the Iliad...."

I recently heard a Homeric scholar remark that the Iliad and Odyssey are so strikingly different in tone, in structure, and in theme that it quite clear they are the work of the same author. I thought this was an amusing take on an age old question.

@max yes, that what my introduction tells me too and I have heard that theory somewhere else too. Many scholars believe that homer was a name given to travelling bards and that there were many of these. They even say that some of these were women. I can see their point. But, it misses a crucial point - a writers style changes with age, time and subject matter.

Telemachus displays good manners and courtesy when Athene arrives disguised as Mentes. His behavior is in stark contrast to the suitors, whose boorish gluttony is on full display. Hospitality is a major theme of the poem; in connection with this I have always found especially intriguing the way in which the poet deals with feasting. There are many examples of "good feasting," i.e., well ordered banquets that are connected with a guest's reception. These often also involve solemn sacrifices to the gods. There are, however, instances of "bad feasting," where gluttony occurs, or a blatant disregard of the rules of hospitality. The basic problem with the suitors is their willful violation of acceptable social norms. Their feasting is disordered and not connected with any of the normal occasions where feasting would occur (marriage, sacrifices, guest-receptions). They are not even eating their own food, but instead devouring the stores of Odysseus as they try to make love to his wife. Stay tuned for other instances of proper v. improper feasting throughout the poem.

I've always thought of the suitors as a (I'm sure not intentional) play on the Achaeans arrayed against Troy; Odysseus' household is under siege and a woman is again at the center of it, though not by her choosing. Of course, that's about as far as the analogy can go, I guess. The suitors are in gross violation of ritualized friendship; there is a particular passage that I think underscores this and points to the repercussions of their lawlessness as being offensive not only to men but to the gods. However, I haven't yet started rereading the book (I apologize for commenting without doing so, but Max's comment interested me because I had a professor once who disagreed about the suitors and xenia) and I can't recall where the passage is; I don't want to quote it out of sync with the reading schedule.

max wrote: "Stay tuned for other instances of proper v. improper feasting throughout the poem.
..."

I was wondering about that. Is there only a one time for "guest-receptions"? Why aren't the suitors considered guests? Where is the line between being a good host and being a host taken advantage of?

I hope by "stay tuned" some of these questions will answer themselves as we read along.

One of the things I am noticing is the way in which disguise, deception, trickery seems to be a rather common motif in Greek literature. Within the Iliad Aphrodite appears before Helen in a disguise and if I recall in the battle of Hector and Achilles a god appeared before Hector in a disguise as well.

Now Athena appears to Telemakhos in disguise, as well Penelope uses a deception to try and stall her suitors. And of course we all know the story of the Trojan horse which also employed a form of disguise. This is a device that will appear many times in various different ways throughout this story and it is not only here but in many of the Greek myths and stories employ the use of various different forms of deceptions.

In a way I find it interesting that a culture that seems to be so war like and prizes bravery, heroism, physical ability and skill, also often times has their heroes use their wits to defeat stronger enemies, instead of winning just through sheer physical prowess.

Silver wrote: "One of the things I am noticing is the way in which disguise, deception, trickery seems to be a rather common motif in Greek literature. Within the Iliad Aphrodite appears before Helen in a disguis..."


(view spoiler)[ Great point. The best example I think is Odysseus disguising himself as a beggar to infiltrate his own house. (hide spoiler)]

Michael wrote: "Silver wrote: "One of the things I am noticing is the way in which disguise, deception, trickery seems to be a rather common motif in Greek literature. Within the Iliad Aphrodite appears before Hel..."

It seems the Greeks valued both brains and brawn

One of the other things which had occurred to me while reading, is the fact that while on the one hand Telemachus did not have much authority or ability to do very much in the way of protecting his mother or his father's estate at the same time when Athena had convinced Telemachus to go in search of new of his father, I couldn't help but think, would not that leave Penelope even more vulnerable?

With the absence of her son it would seem that she would be completely without any form of a male protector present.

Michael wrote: "One of the things I am noticing is the way in which disguise, deception, trickery seems to be a rather common motif in Greek literature. ..."

Yes. Look at how, according to the tradition, Menelaus and Palamedes tricked Odysseus (who was feigning insanity by plowing with an ass yoked to an ox as way to avoid serving at Troy) when they threw the infant Telemachus before his plow.

Look at how Odysseus next tricked Achilles at the court of King Lycomedes (where Achilles was pretending to be a girl at his mother's urging, also to avoid serving at Troy) by disguising himself as a merchant and pulling weapons out of a chest that was filled with women's finery (thus exposing Achilles, who reached for them at once).

Then, at Aulis, where the Greek fleet was stranded with no wind, when the prophet Calchas said that Agamemnon's daughter must be sacrificed, Odysseus came up with the idea that Iphigenia could be tricked into coming to Aulis by telling her that she was going to marry Achilles.

Many other examples could be cited. And, of course, the greatest trick of all, the Trojan Horse. Trickery and disguise are part and parcel of the Odyssey, as we have seen with Penelope herself and her own deception of weaving the funeral shroud for Laertes.

In the case of mortals, tricks are a way of accomplishing something that might otherwise be difficult to pull off, a way to "get over" on your opponent by sheer craftiness, a personality trait the Greeks obviously valued. In the case of gods -- Athene's disguise, for example, as Mentes -- why do they sometimes come undisguised among mortals, as Aphrodite's disastrous trip to the battlefield in the Iliad, but more often as someone else?

max wrote: "-- Athene's disguise, for example, as Mentes -- why do they sometimes come undisguised among mortals, as Aphrodite's disastrous trip to the battlefield in the Iliad, but more often as someone else?
..."

I have wondered about that myself. Because of the fact that it seems often that the disguise of the gods are seen though and that it is soon guessed what their true identity is, I am given to think that maybe the reason why the gods disguises themselves because it would be too shocking for mere mortals to look upon the true form of the god. If Athena just popped up before Telemachus in her true divine form, I can only imagine what his reaction might be. But by coming in a guise, and often as someone that person knows, I think it sort of eases them into it, and provides them with comfort, and is not such a shock to the system.

max wrote: "Telemachus displays good manners and courtesy when Athene arrives disguised as Mentes. His behavior is in stark contrast to the suitors, whose boorish gluttony is on full display. Hospitality is a major theme of the poem;..."

Excellent point. Also, it's interesting to note that when Mentes/Athena first shows up, Telemachus doesn't immediately ask "who are you" or other personal questions: first the unexpected and uninvited guest gets fed, no matter who they are or why they have come, and only after they have been fed (and sometimes even bathed) so that their immediate needs are taken care of, are they asked who they are and why they have come. This is the traditional way of Greek hospitality; we should look for it again as the poem goes on.

It's very much at odds with most other Western cultures, where the first instinct if somebody rings the bell or knocks at the door is to find out what they want and who they are before inviting them in for a meal.

Silver wrote: "One of the things I am noticing is the way in which disguise, deception, trickery seems to be a rather common motif in Greek literature. Within the Iliad Aphrodite appears before Helen in a disguis..."

It's mostly the gods who show up disguised, isn't it? Though I suppose we could call Patrocles wearing Achilles's armor as an example of disguise. But I'm not sure that disguise was a common part of the ordinary Greek's life.

The Trojan Horse is, as you say, an example, but that was a plan of Odysseus, who is the master of trickery. Will he use disguise/trickery again in future? And does this suggest that he is being godlike?

Everyman wrote: "Silver wrote: "One of the things I am noticing is the way in which disguise, deception, trickery seems to be a rather common motif in Greek literature. Within the Iliad Aphrodite appears before Hel..."

It is true there are not many examples of humans using disguise but there are some.

Patrice wrote: "When I think of all of the trickery it reminds me that the society was not ruled by law. There was no protection under law, no protection for the weak, no real system of fairness and justice. It was might makes right."

Yes; and could that absence of legal bounds also have produced the system of hospitality? One of its byproducts was a kind of "law" of reciprocity and protection. And it was certainly a response to strangers that mitigated any possibility of antagonism, which could in its turn have produced even greater conflict.

Things I liked in the first book -- the Lombardo translation opens with "Speak, Memory" as its invocation of the muse. Of course, we know that one from Nabokov, but that doesn't hurt it any (for me). It brings the story very close, I felt.

As Everyman said in the first post, so much is quickly sketched in -- like cinematic cuts, or one of those multi-story TV series, from Odysseus on the island, to Zeus and Athena, to Telemachus and the suitors. It gets you into the story lines immediately, a pleasant sensation for today's readers, I would think. As someone commented, this reading seems so easy; easier than I was expecting. I don't know if I've read this since I was a college freshman; it is a great treat to be reading it again. Maybe Lombardo's highly colloquial translation makes it seem a little easier, too.

It is hard not to feel great sympathy for Odysseus, stuck on that island with the beautiful nymph Calypso as "the seasons rolled by." But I hope to read how he recovers from that misery.

Was Telemachus simply feeling his oats after the pep talk from Athena, when he scolds his mother so sharply for asking the singer Phemius to switch to another song? He was so harsh with her; I assumed this was part of his making it clear he was, after all, the master of his household.

It was also interesting to see that Penelope, even after at least 20 years of marriage, could simply have been returned to her father for a new assignment. And still need a new dowry, too.

Everyman wrote: "I was fascinated, in Book 2, by Hilitherses, interpreting the omen of the eagles, claiming that "at the time the Argives took ship for Ilion [Troy]," Lattimore 2.173, which was 20 years ago, that he had back then foretold that Odysseus would be away 19 years..."

This scene reminded me of the exchange in book 12 of the Iliad where Hector disagrees with Polydamas' interpretation of the bird omen. Bird omens add an element of uncertainty and introduce a dramatic tension, and it seems to be a fairly common narrative device.

max wrote: "Telemachus displays good manners and courtesy when Athene arrives disguised as Mentes. His behavior is in stark contrast to the suitors, whose boorish gluttony is on full display. Hospitality is ..."

And it's interesting that Athena first appears to Telemachus as Mentes, a stranger, but then later as Mentor, who Telemachus knows very well. Is there a reason why the names Mentes and Mentor are so similar?

Thomas wrote: "And it's interesting that Athena first appears to Telemachus as Mentes, a stranger, but then later as Mentor, who Telemachus knows very well. Is there a reason why the names Mentes and Mentor are so similar?
.."

I just always thought that it symbolic of the way in which Athena was acting as a mentor to Telemachus

Silver wrote: "Thomas wrote: "And it's interesting that Athena first appears to Telemachus as Mentes, a stranger, but then later as Mentor, who Telemachus knows very well. Is there a reason why the names Mentes a..."

Our word "mentor" comes from the character.

Patrice wrote: If you think of Athena as a personification of wisdom then there is nothing wrong with Telemachos or anyone else, being guided by her. You could think of Athena coming to the door as Telemachos' light bulb moment. ..."

Yes, if one perceives Athena as being a personification of wisdom and reason than one could presume that Telemachos is acting upon his own accord, and that Athena's direction is that of his own mind.

But the Greeks did have a very literal belief in their gods. So would the Greeks have seen Athena as simply being symbolic of Telemachos' own mind? Or would they have seen it as the goddess herself, an actual divine being speaking to him? And if we view Athena as truly being an entity separate from Telemachus, than he is only doing what is being dictated to him and than he is not truly using his own intelligence.

Roger wrote: Our word "mentor" comes from the character.
..."

After I posted that, I hat thought of that.

Silver wrote: "Roger wrote: Our word "mentor" comes from the character.
..."

After I posted that, I hat thought of that."

Mentor as a positive example and teacher is based more on Fénelon's tale of Telemachus than on Homer's, I understand. Here's a bit about Fénelon's book, from Wikipedia:

Les aventures de Télémaque (The adventures of Telemachus) is a didactic French novel by Fénelon, Archbishop of Cambrai and tutor to the seven-year-old Duc de Bourgogne (grandson of Louis XIV and second in line to the throne). It was published anonymously in 1699 and reissued in 1717 by his family. The slender plot fills out a gap in Homer's Odyssey, recounting the educational travels of Telemachus, son of Ulysses, accompanied by his tutor, Mentor, who is revealed at the end of the story to be Minerva, goddess of wisdom, in disguise. Fénelon described his book as a prose "epic": oddly, for such an admirer of the humanism of the ancient world, he was so much a product of the age of reason as to believe that poetry was obsolete. Yet his choice of simple vernacular prose as a means of spreading morality and enlightened ideas to the widest possible audience, including women and children, was very much in the spirit of the 18th-century age of Enlightenment.

No doubt many of the Greeks took their myths literally. I think many others did not. Certainly that was true in the Classical period. I wonder what Homer's attitude was. Certainly he tells the story as I suppose he heard it, gods and all, but the story doesn't seem to depend on divine action. The plot could proceed essentially unchanged with the gods symbolized away. They seem to be there just for ornamentation.

Patrice wrote: "Roger wrote: "And when you think of the introduction, how the gods on Olympus are laughing at mortals for not taking responsiblity for their own actions, for blaming the gods for their troubles,it seems we may have moved on from the time of the Iliad where the gods seem to be more active. ..."

Than again the whole story resolves around the Odysseus attempts to get home and the many misfortunes he has in that effort, and the very thing which is keeping him from getting home is the fact that he has angered the gods, or specifically Poseidon. It is the direct work of the gods that is keeping him from returning, so I do not think they can be seen as altogether passive or insignificant here. If the gods were taking a backseat, than Odysseus would have made it home when the rest of his companions had returned.

The way I see it, most of Odysseus's delay coming home came from shacking up with a beautiful goddess. It took him a while to get tired of it and ask to be released, didn't it?

Roger wrote: "The way I see it, most of Odysseus's delay coming home came from shacking up with a beautiful goddess. It took him a while to get tired of it and ask to be released, didn't it?"

I believe it was Athena who was the one whom eventually told Calypso that she had to let him go. It was not so simply as Odysseus simply saying, ok, I want to go now, she would have kept him I think eternally, but she was told by a higher authority as it where that it was to be allowed to go.

Patrice wrote: "Yes and no. The cause cited for his crew not returning home was their "recklessness" in eating the cattle of the sun god.
..."

But that is not the sole cause of Odysseus himself being prevented from reaching home sooner, that is just one episode, but he meets with many other delays and obstacles of which are the doings of the gods.

Patrice wrote: ".The important point, to me, is that Telemachus is becoming wise. He's become a different person already."

My translation [George Herbert Palmer]generally refers to Telemachus as "discreet Telemachus." I haven't decided yet how to interpret that.

Silver wrote: "Patrice wrote: If you think of Athena as a personification of wisdom then there is nothing wrong with Telemachos or anyone else, being guided by her. You could think of Athena coming to the door as..."

It's interesting when thinking about gods as personifications of abstract concepts to see Athena personify Telemachos himself when she goes out to procure a ship and crew for his voyage. For a moment Telemachos is more than "god-like" -- he is the god, appearances to the contrary.

Adelle wrote: "Patrice wrote: ".The important point, to me, is that Telemachus is becoming wise. He's become a different person already."

My translation [George Herbert Palmer]generally refers to Telemachus as..."

Think of his careful and subtle planning for his departure. He doesn't even tell Penelope. He plies the suitors with wine. Wisdom Herself goes through the town and quietly asks his friends to meet him at the dock at nightfall. He knows that some people have it in for him, and he means to escape them.

Patrice wrote: "Not telling her what he was doing, it seemed to me, was a huge step towards becoming a man."

Maybe. Although it's what our teenagers did a lot, too. : )

Patrice wrote: "I thought it was interesting, as the mother of a grown son, how Telemachus has to separate from Penelope in order to become a man. Not telling her what he was doing, it seemed to me, was a huge st..."

I was surprised at the implication that it would take Penelope 10 to 12 days to notice that Telemarchus was gone.


Towards the end of Book II: "Courage, good nurse!......But swear to speak no word of this to my dear mother until the eleventh or twelth day comes, or until she shall mee me and hear that I am gone..." (Palmer).

In Book 1, Penelope had come down the stairs to ask the singer to sing a different song, and she carefully covered her face. Perhaps the noble women were usually segregated from the men???

Patrice wrote: "I thought it was interesting, as the mother of a grown son, how Telemachus has to separate from Penelope in order to become a man. Not telling her what he was doing, it seemed to me, was a huge st..."

Yes. Telemachus is stepping forward as a man. And he's issuing orders and taking action. Prior to Athene's entrance, Telemachus only had day dreams, perhaps.

The suitors are feasting and drinking away and Telemachus "sat despondent in the hurly, fancying to himself his honest father's sudden arrival from somewhere, somehow: and the scatter there would be, throught the palace, of these waters when they saw him stride in to regain men's respect and king it honourably one more over his household" (Shaw; about a third of the way into Book I).

Patrice wrote: "Telemachus calls an assembly, the first assembly since Odysseus left. I think he made a very quick turn around! He took charge as soon as Athena (wisdom) came to him and told him he could and should. "

That's a nice point. Athena bringing her attributes with her. And she is not only the goddess of wisdom, but also of courage. So is it that he suddenly finds both wisdom and courage?