Classics and the Western Canon discussion

Lots happening here to talk about!

Telemachus visits first Nestor (my favorite character from the Iliad!), then Menelaus. We see clearly the correct process of welcoming a guest, and also get confirmation from Menelaus, as was suggested in the Books 1-2 discussion, that the suitors are no longer considered honored guests but are abusing the guest-host relationship.

Since Homer told us early on that Odysseus is still alive, I'm curious why people think that Homer keeps this concealed from the characters so far, so that not even Athena, in any of her guises (including that of Iphthime) makes clear that he is alive. Is this just to heighten the drama, or is there a concern that if it became public that Odysseus was alive, there would be a concerted effort to kill him, or that the suitors would be more on their guard?

It's interesting that Homer here has Menelaus tell the story not only of his own adventures, but also of the time in the Trojan Horse, where we find out some of the heroes who waited inside the horse and how Odysseus was critical to the success of their remaining secreted.

Having gotten through the first four books, is it time now to ask why Homer starts the Odyssey with these journeys of Telemachus?

Finally, talk about cliffhangers. Here at the end of Book 4 we are left with the suitors going out to intercept and kill Telemachus. Will Penelope's prayers get Athena to act to protect Telemachus? Will he get home safely? Will there be a sea battle? Stay tuned!

Everyman wrote: "Lots happening here to talk about!

Telemachus visits first Nestor (my favorite character from the Iliad!), then Menelaus. We see clearly the correct process of welcoming a guest, and also get c..."

Though I know in general the gods are not all seeing or all knowing, and yet, a part of me could never help but to wonder if Athena, being the goddess of wisdom and war strategy, had not seen where the tide was heading and knew it was only a matter of time before an attempt was made upon the like of Telemachus and thus her true intent of sending him on the journey was to get him safely in the home of Menelous and away from his intended killers.

I think that if it was declared outright that Odysseus was alive it may possibly increase the danger for both himself and his family as well as put the suitors more on their guard, as mentioned in the pervious discussion we see much of guile and trickery used when the odds or numbers are against one, and so maybe Athena figures it is best that it not be known to others in order to keep them in their ignorant state.

I wonder of the journey of Telemachus is not also intended to be a sort or right of passage for him, she is trying to push him into manhood and taking on his responsibilities and duties as a man so he will be prepared and willing to do what needs to be done and at last take charge of his household again. It seems that Athena does quite frequently drill the story of Orestes into him.

Athena never inspires a thought that couldn't have arisen by itself.

Silver wrote: "I wonder of the journey of Telemachus is not also intended to be a sort or right of passage for him, "

This is a concept that Eva Brann proposes in her book. You're in excellent company when you come up with ideas that she also has!

Everyman wrote: "Silver wrote: "I wonder of the journey of Telemachus is not also intended to be a sort or right of passage for him, "

This is a concept that Eva Brann proposes in her book. You're in excellent co..."

Interesting.

In a way I can see the voyage that Telemachus goes on as being a parallel to the voyage of his own father, though presumable the voyage of Telemahcus will be a good deal shorter than his father's and not wrought with as many hardships, we are alerted to the danger already stirring of the plot against his life. As well perhaps it is important for him in order to finally become the man he needs to be to establish some independent from his mother, since she had been his sole parental figure since his infancy. As already been discussed he has had no strong male influences in his life which might have some affect upon his lack of ability to take command of his father's house. So now he must set out upon his own, away from the apron strings, and meet up with some of his father's old cronies to hear stories of war and adventure.

Roger wrote: "Athena never inspires a thought that couldn't have arisen by itself."

Very interesting thought, Roger.

Patrice wrote: "So Athena isn't holding back the truth about Odysseus. He is alive. Is it that Telemachus doesn't believe her/him because of her disguise as Mentes? "

Telemachus figured out right away, like in book one I think that Mentes was in truth Athena, so he knows all along that he is dealing with the goddess.

I could not recall if Athena ever outright told Telemachus that Odysseus was still alive, as the whole reason, or the reason she gives for his journey is to see what news he can find of his father and discover if he were alive or dead. If Athena just said to him, that he was alive than there would be no need or reason to go upon this journey. Unless it just seems so remarkable that he cannot bring himself to believe it even if he has it on the word of Athena herself.

Patrice wrote: "That's just what I was wondering. When athena says "i tell you your father is alive" isn't that clear? I would think if he knew it was Athena (I'd forgotten that he'd guessed) then he would beli..."

I could not remember if she was that direct about it, if she had told him such than yes, it is a bit curious. I thought when she first sent him on this journey she told him that he was supposed to be finding news about his father, and whether he was alive or dead, if she than told him outright that he was alive, it would seem she was contradicting herself.

At 5 Silver wrote: "... As already been discussed he has had no strong male influences in his life which might have some affect upon his lack of ability to take command of his father's house"

Oddly enough, Telemachus is still under the influence of a woman...Athene. "Pallus Athene led the way in haste, and he walked in the footsteps of the goddess" (Palmer).

I'm still intrigued with that descriptive, "discreet Telemachus." Yes, as someone, I think, had pointed out in the Book 1/2 postings, Telemachus would have had to learn discretion. As a youth he wouldn't have had the physical power to counter those who opposed him. Mmm...same situation as a woman.

Wirh no father at home, Telemachus is differently focused. Perhaps Athene is the representative sent to him from the gods because he has an affinity for female reasoning over brute force?

I found it fascinating, actually, that the sacrifice/feast at Pylos is to honor Poseiden! Poseiden, whose continuing anger is what is forestalling Odysseus's return home!

I slowed down my reading, wanting to find out what Athene and Telmachus prayed for. I had thought that Athene, knowing that it was Poiseden keeping Odysseus from his home, might have prayed for Oydsseus' return home (and she could add the words "if he's still alive" for public consumption if she didn't want everyone to know she thinks he is alive).

What...?... Irony... For Telemachus to feast and pray in honor of Poiseden. And he didn't pray for the return of his father. Telemachus prayed he might find out what had happned to his father.

Mmm. He's not looking for his father; he's looking for answers.

Anyway...that just grabbed my attention.

There's some sort of magical realism going on with Athena as Mentes and Mentor. Telemachus somehow knows it's Athena he's dealing with, and also that it's still just a man. In Book III, at the end of the first day's feast, Athena/Mentor turns into a bird and flies away. Everyone gasps in awe and realizes that it was the goddess. But the next day Mentor is back, and they go on as if nothing had happened. So when Mentes tells Telemachus that his father is alive, I think he takes it as from the man, and therefore a doubtful story he daren't trust.

The inconsistencies do not seem to me to be those that would come from artlessly stitiching together different stories. There's unity of voice, theme, and action in this story. But Homer might have heard different versions of the story, maybe with and without Athena, and is combining them because the combination suits his purpose.

Yes, everything you put forward might be true: might be quid pro quo... Given Poseiden's power in the wine dark seas, it would be wise to keep him happy. I take your point.

Nonetheless, I find there to be such irony-- if that's the word I'm looking for. At this point Telemachus doesn't know, doesn't solidly know, whether or not his father is alive. Nor does anyone else. So it would seem to follow that Telemachus doesn't know that his father's journey home as been inordinately lengthened because of Poseiden. Telemachus knows nothing of this when he participates in the feast. First the odds would have been great against their landing there the day of such a large feast...81 bulls! And there are so many gods that might have been given a feast. But it's not for just any god. And it's a feast for Poseiden! IF Telemchus knew P was responsible for his father's woes, would he take part? Or, might he use the opportunity to ask for the safe return of his father?

That stuck with me, too. I would have thought the safe return of his father would have been the most important thing in the world for Telemachus and that therefore THAT would have been what he would have asked for.

Why ask that he finds out what happened to his father?
Why not, I wonder, ask directly for the safe and speedy return of his father?

Adelle wrote: "Why ask that he finds out what happened to his father?
Why not, I wonder, ask directly for the safe and speedy return of his father?..."

Perhaps part of the reason he does not ask for his father's return is because he is still not completely certain/convinced if his father is alive. Maybe he fears for requesting his father's return would be like giving up his hopes too much. His doubt of his father's still being alive could in part be a way of protecting him from disappointment if such should prove not true, even if the information was granted to him from a seemingly reliable source, being Athena (and yet we know the gods are anything but reliable) so he cannot fully allow himself to believe in his father being alive, or in the prospects of his father's return. He must prepare himself for the worse.

It also may have to do with the fact that, if this journey is a passage of manhood for him, than this journey has to be about himself and what he can accomplish and achieve. To ask for his father's return, I think would revert him back to a child-like state in just wanting his dad to come home and solve all the problems for him, and while a part of him might indeed desire that, he has to assert himself and so in asking for answers of his father, it is him taking an independent step, not just waiting to depend upon his parent.

Patrice wrote: How can he miss someone he's never known, much less loved. What he's really missing is knowledge of who his father is and going to people who have known him is the path to "finding" his father in that way, if not literally.
..."

I thought that was kind of interesting, in the first book I think it was when Athena asked him if he was the son of Odysseus and his response was, "that is what I am told." Though it is true he has never known his father, that struck me as a curious response, that he would express any doubt that Odysseus might actually be his father. Presumably his mother would have told him who his father was, but instead of declaring, yes, I am his son, he says, well so I am told I am his son.

Hmm, this seems to be a pattern for him, being skpetical of information told to him by others.

Roger wrote: "In Book III, at the end of the first day's feast, Athena/Mentor turns into a bird and flies away. Everyone gasps in awe and realizes that it was the goddess. But the next day Mentor is back, and they go on as if nothing had happened."

Yes, that was fascinating, wasn't it? Thanks for highlighting it.

at 18 Silver wrote: "as..."

YES!on both of those paragraphs. especially the 2nd.

at 20Patrice wrote: "..."

YES!




Sorry. cant write. cat sitting on my arm.

I wonder what the relationship is/was between Telemachus and the suitors. I mean it's obvious now that they are a pain in the butt now, however, they've been around for a while, 3-4 years. So when they first arrived T was 16 or 17 years old. Probably at that age where a kid likes to look cool to the other guys who look cool to him. The way they speak to him it just seemed overly friendly and almost like "hey we've been your buddies for a while, why the sudden turn around?".
Maybe I'm reading too much into it, but I look at it as another sign of growing up.

I just have to say that one thing I found quite amusing in these Books, as the way in which Menelaus and Helen seem to have simply gone back to their daily lives together as if nothing happened. They act as if the fact that she ran away with or was kidnapped by (depending upon ones interpretation) another man, and started a massive war which lasted 10 years, was just a lover's spat, and all is forgiven and forgotten.

The way in which they have so easily returned into their daily routine with each other, they act as if it is one of the things that someday they would all sit around the fire and tell the story to their children and have a good laugh over it. "Remember that time your mother was the cause of a major war, yeah those were the good old days"

Another striking thing is that the Trojan War is always lamented. There's no celebration of victory, no vaunting over the humbling of a great city, no bragging about all the plunder they came away with--just sorrow over the many lost and over how long it took the survivors to get back. It's like they're singing about a defeat, not a victory.

Roger wrote: "Another striking thing is that the Trojan War is always lamented. There's no celebration of victory, no vaunting over the humbling of a great city, no bragging about all the plunder they came away..."

Perhaps part of this is because the war was caused on account of the manipulation of the gods. They had not prior to this, had any desire or need to go to Troy, and had not been enemies of the Trojan's, but because of the gods interference in their lives, and because of the gods own pettiness, they were driven into doing this thing, against there will. So they lament the loss of life that occurred because men were made to play the puppetries of the gods.

Silver wrote: "Roger wrote: "Another striking thing is that the Trojan War is always lamented. There's no celebration of victory, no vaunting over the humbling of a great city, no bragging about all the plunder ..."

Do they every say that in the text?

Roger wrote: Do they every say that in the text?
"

No I do not believe it is ever stated as such, it is just what I infer as a possibility. And within the Iliad we do see how much the gods do directly manipulate the war and than there is the original myth in which it is because Aphrodite promised Helen to Pairs that led to the war happening. As well in the play Trojan woman Helen in her defense gives her speech about being victim to the gods and how they are all at the hands of the gods.

The war does seem to be a product of the work of the gods, and Greek mythology is filed with stories in which humans are brought to tragedy because of the gods whims, and the gods anger, and spite and so I can see how they might lament this war and all the loss of life opposed to rejoicing in it, because in a sense, it seems that the war was not truly their own choice, but brought upon them by the work of the gods.

But in Book I, Jove says (Butler trans.): "Look you now, how ready mortals are to blame the gods. It is from us, they say, that evils come, but they even of themselves, through their own blind folly, have sorrows beyond that which is ordained."

Roger wrote: "But in Book I, Jove says (Butler trans.): "Look you now, how ready mortals are to blame the gods. It is from us, they say, that evils come, but they even of themselves, through their own blind fol..."

Yet we see in the stories examples of just how the gods do interfere in the lives of men.

There isn't anything to suggest that the Greeks would have gone to war with Troy had not Pairs ran off with Helen, and it was the work of Aphrodite that this event took place. While theoretically perhaps Pairs could have chosen Athena, or Hear instead, or refused to accept the gift of Helen at the risk of offending Aphrodite, and we do not know just how much free will Helen herself had in the matter and if it would have at all been in her power to refuse Paris. And theoretically I suppose Menelaus could have just let Pairs keep his wife.

But the war would nonetheless not have occurred if the gods had not nudged it along and decided to draw mortals into their own affairs.

It is easy for the gods after the fact to than sit back and try and claim that had no hand or responsibility in what happened, but than the gods do tend to contradict themselves as well, so they are not altogether reliable as in dealing with them it does seem as if you are dammed if you do and dammed if you don't. If you do as they say, it may still yet lead to some negative consequence, and if you decide not to do as they say, you are equally at risk of incurring their wrath and being punished for it.

Among the Greeks it seems there is a very murky gray area between free will and fate/the gods

Patrice wrote: "When Nestor says in line 361 that Telemachus should ask Menelaus for the truth about his father he says "he'll never lie, the man is far to wise."
Now what does that mean? I thought lying was wise..."

Quite ironic that you mention this now. I was going to wait until we entered the later books to mention this, though it is not a spoiler or anything, but I try to wait to bring things up in the same place in which they first occurred to me. But as I had been reading I was just reflecting upon the fact that I found it interesting the way in which lying seems to be regarded as an admirable trait. It is praised within Odysseus, and as you said part of what is said to make him so clever. And while in some instances in may be understandable why he does lie or use trickery, I found it curious that instead of being seen as a sort of necessary evil, it is instead seen as praiseworthy.

It is a strange contradiction, that apparently both honesty and deceit are regarded as sings of wisdom. Maybe it is circumstantial?

It is wise to lie when you are in a situation in which the odds are against you, but it is equally wise to tell the truth when there is in fact no reason for you to lie. Or maybe it is because Odysseus is particularly gifted in lying, thus it is wise for him to make the most of this talent of his, but Menelaus was does not possess that particular talent for lying so his wisdom lies in telling the truth.

Patrice wrote: "When Nestor says in line 361 that Telemachus should ask Menelaus for the truth about his father he says "he'll never lie, the man is far to wise."
Now what does that mean? I thought lying was wise..."

It's not Homer that's saying honesty is wise. It's Nestor, that pompous old windbag.

Roger wrote: "It's not Homer that's saying lying is wise. It's Nestor, that pompous old windbag...."

It is the other way around. Nestor is saying that honesty is wise, not lying.

From the quote provided by Patrice:

"he'll never lie, the man is far to wise."

These are Nestor's words.

But it is Homer whom frequently describes Odysseus as being wise for his various forms of deceit and trickery.

Patrice wrote: "When Nestor says in line 361 that Telemachus should ask Menelaus for the truth about his father he says "he'll never lie, the man is far too wise."
Now what does that mean? I thought lying was wis..."

Before Nestor tells Telemachus to visit Menelaos, Athena tells Telemachus to visit Nestor for the same reason: "he will not tell you any falsehood; he is too thoughtful." (Lattimore) The line uttered by Athena at 3.20 is identical to the one later spoken by Nestor about Menelaos : ψεῦδος δ᾽ οὐκ ἐρέει: μάλα γὰρ πεπνυμένος ἐστίν. (Curiously, πεπνυμένος, "thoughtful" is an epithet of Telemachos.)

One of the interesting things about Nestor is that he sees through Athena's disguise -- when she flies away as a vulture he recognizes her, and later on he says that she "came plainly" to him when she first arrived (as Mentor) on Pylos with Telemachus. (If this is true, he must have found her prayer to Poseidon rather amusing.)

Silver wrote: "Roger wrote: "It's not Homer that's saying lying is wise. It's Nestor, that pompous old windbag...."

It is the other way around. Nestor is saying that honesty is wise, not lying.

From the qu..."

Right, my typo. Corrected.

When Athena says that Nestor will not lie, she's in the character of Mentor encouraging Telemachus to go ahead and talk with him. She's not necessarily telling the truth. But maybe she is--about Nestor.

Juliette wrote: "I wonder what the relationship is/was between Telemachus and the suitors. I mean it's obvious now that they are a pain in the butt now, however, they've been around for a while, 3-4 years. So whe..."

That's a great question.

One wonders how the suitors got to this point. Did one or two start to woo Penelope when Odysseus had not been heard of for many years, and the others decided they needed to make their case too? Was this a case of the frog and the boiling water, it started out innocently enough but just developed?

Unanswerable questions, of course, but still perhaps interesting to mull over late at night.

Patrice wrote: "But these are the guys who want to steal his mother, his kingdom, his future, so I can't imagine that he feels they are in any way his friends. "

Hmmm. Does every son feel that every potential second husband wants to steal his mother? It seems that even he agrees that if his father really is dead, his mother should remarry. And of course we don't know whether, if she did remarry when her son was an adult and her husband's father still alive, the family wealth would go with her, with the son, or back to the father.

Silver wrote: "I just have to say that one thing I found quite amusing in these Books, as the way in which Menelaus and Helen seem to have simply gone back to their daily lives together as if nothing happened. Th..."

Nice point. Especially given the very different way in which Euripides seems to have viewed the Helen-Menelaus reunion in the Trojan Women.

Patrice wrote: "Do you think it might be an idiomatic expression? "

It appears to be a formulaic phrase, like "rosy fingered dawn" or the like. What is striking about it is that it is used in reference to two different characters, in a chain like fashion. Athena uses it of Nestor, and then Nestor uses it of Menelaos. I'm not sure if that is meaningful or not.

There is a related formulaic phrase in Book 4: Eidothea repeats "See, I will accurately answer all that you ask me" twice, and the epithet of her father, the "devious" Proteus, is "ever truthful." There seems to be a lot of concern for the truth, or an anticipation of falsehood which needs reassurance that what is said is true.

Roger wrote: "It's not Homer that's saying honesty is wise. It's Nestor, that pompous old windbag.
"

Ahem. You're talking about a man I greatly admire. Care to meet me with drawn Greek Lexicons at dawn?

[g]

Everyman wrote: Nice point. Especially given the very different way in which Euripides seems to have viewed the Helen-Menelaus reunion in the Trojan Women. "

Haha yes, even though I know they are two different interpretations by different writers as I was reading I was trying to imagine the transition between Menelaus going from in the verge of wanting to kill Helen, to them sitting down to a nice family dinner together.

Everyman wrote: "Roger wrote: "It's not Homer that's saying honesty is wise. It's Nestor, that pompous old windbag.
"

Ahem. You're talking about a man I greatly admire. Care to meet me with drawn Greek Lexicons ..."

That's a future more vivid for sure! How about optatives at eighty paces?

Back in Book I, Athena starts the lying with a pledge to tell the truth. Her first words to Telemachus are, “I will tell you truly and particularly all about it. I am Mentes, son of Anchialus . . . ."

With all this lying going on, when can you trust anyone? Telemachus sets a limit to lying in Book II when he asks Euryclea to conceal his departure from Penelope: ". . . swear that you will say nothing about all this to my mother, till I have been away some ten or twelve days, unless she hears of my having gone, and asks you." He does not want her to tell a direct lie.

There is a nice turn of phrase at the end of Book 4, when Penelope summons her servant Dolios to

go with speed to Laertes and sit beside him and tell him
all, and perhaps he, weaving out the design in his heart,
may go outside and complain to the people of those who are striving
to waste away his own seed and that of godlike Odysseus.
(Lattimore, 4.738)

"Weaving" is in the Greek. Fitzgerald doesn't pick up on it, but Lattimore (and several others) do.