Classics and the Western Canon discussion

Sing through me, Muse, the opening post of the Odyssey discussion and the posts tenthousandfold which will bring joy and wisdom to all those discussing here...

The opening of the Odyssey, like that of the Iliad, purports to say that the tale of Odysseus is not Homer’s invention, but that he is merely the conduit through which the Muses tell the story. So these gods – the nine Muses are daughters of Zeus, goddesses of literature, science, and the arts – are invoked in the very first words of the Odyssey.

In the first few pages we learn many things. And we see how intimately the gods lives are intertwined with human lives.

We learn that Odysseus is the only Greek warrior who has not yet returned home from the victory over Troy. We learn that during his trip home he saw many cities and learned the minds of many men. We learn that he is the only survivor of his comrades, all the rest of whom perished not through any fault of Odysseus but through their own folly. And we return to the Muse: “Of these things, goddess, daughter of Zeus, beginning where thou wilt, tell thou even unto us.” [All textual quotations are from the Perseus Murray translation.]

We learn that Odysseus is being held basically captive by the nymph Calypso, that his journey home has been hampered by Poseidon because Odysseus blinded the Cyclops, Poseidon’s son, but that Poseidon has gone off to Ethiopia leaving the other gods to act without him. From this brief item we see two of the differences between the Greek concepts of the gods and modern assumptions about the gods: one, that Greek gods are not all benign and loving, and two, since Poseidon doesn’t see from Ethiopia what is going on back home, that the Greek gods are not omnipotent.

But the Gods had decreed that Odysseus should eventually return home, so with Poseidon away, Athena persuades Zeus to send out Hermes, the messenger god, to tell Calypso that she must let Odysseus go.

Athena will meanwhile go to Ithaca, Odyssey’s home island [a small island off the west coast of Greece] to send Odysseus’s son Telemachus on a trip to learn more of his father’s history and plight.

So Athena goes to Ithaca in the form of Mentes, or in some translations Mentor (and yes, that’s where our usage of the term mentor comes from). As soon as Telemachus sees this unknown guest standing in his doorway, he goes to her. And here is a cultural tradition of the Greeks: any stranger, no matter who they are, must be treated as an honored guest, welcomed, fed, bathed if needed, etc., all before the stranger is eventually asked who he or she is. The duty of hospitality to any stranger who shows up at your door is a key duty enforced by Zeus. (We’ll see this again in future books.)

So we have the basic players and their locations introduced in the first few pages of the Odyssey, and now it’s time for the action to start.

I haven't read The Odyssey in a decade, and the first book really blew me away. The divine dialogue on whether the gods are to blame for men's fate is a perfect way to open.

I'll be trying to keep in mind as I go the Neoplatonic (allegorical) readings discussed in Lamberton's Homer the Theologian: Neoplatonist Allegorical Reading and the Growth of the Epic Tradition . It's a subject that interests me.

I know its early, but I have to nominate this quote in defense of the gods as the best quote of the book.

[37]“Mortals! They are always blaming the gods For their troubles, when their own witlessness causes them more than they were destined for!
Stanley Lombardo translation

Keeping things apart seems to be a family trait. While Atlas keeps heaven and earth apart, the daughter keeps a husband and wife apart.

. . .Atlas , whose dread mind knows All the depths of the sea and who supports [ 60 ] The tall pillars that keep earth and heaven apart. His daughter detains the poor man in his grief , Sweet - talking him constantly , trying to charm him Into forgetting Ithaca.
Stanley Lombardo translation

Everyman wrote: "So Athena goes to Ithaca in the form of Mentes, or in some translations Mentor (and yes, that’s where our usage of the term mentor comes from). . ."

Interesting that some translations use Mentor here. I was checking my facts before saying something about Mentes/Mentor and the origin of the word mentor when I finally realized that Mentes and Mentor are actually two different characters. From Wikipedia:

Mentes (Μέντης) is the name of the King of the Taphians and the son of Anchialus. n Book I, the Goddess Athena disguises herself as Mentes, an old family friend of Odysseus, when she goes to visit his son, Telemachus. Athena, disguised as him, tells Telemachus that he is sailing to the city of Temese with his own crew, claiming that he is in search of copper. "Mentes" (truly Athena) recommends that Telemachus should call a counsel to try to remove the suitors. Then he should see King Nestor at Pylos and King Menelaus of Sparta, to make inquiries as to the whereabouts of his father. Upon his return, but he should kill the suitors, either by stealth or publicly.

Mentor (Greek: Μέντωρ, Méntōr; gen.: Μέντορος) was the son of Alcimus. In his old age Mentor was a friend of Odysseus who placed Mentor and Odysseus' foster-brother Eumaeus in charge of his son Telemachus, and of Odysseus' palace, when Odysseus left for the Trojan War.
(view spoiler)[When Athena visited Telemachus she took the disguise of Mentor to hide herself from the suitors of Telemachus's mother Penelope.[2] As Mentor, the goddess encouraged Telemachus to stand up against the suitors and go abroad to find out what happened to his father. When Odysseus returned to Ithaca, Athena appeared briefly in the form of Mentor again at Odysseus' palace. (hide spoiler)]

Everyman wrote: "And here is a cultural tradition of the Greeks: any stranger, no matter who they are, must be treated as an honored guest, welcomed, fed, bathed if needed, etc., all before the stranger is eventually asked who he or she is. The duty of hospitality to any stranger who shows up at your door is a key duty enforced by Zeus. (We’ll see this again in future books.).."

I think this is one of the fundamental issues raised in the Odyssey. As you said, the rule of hospitality requires all strangers must be welcomed, bathed, fed, etc. etc. before they are asked to identify themselves and/or tell their stories. It's a nice rule because it assumes a stranger walking into your home is probably tired, dirty, and hungry and that you have an obligation to make him comfortable before you bombard him with a lot of questions.

But the thing about this rule is that it is a two-way street. It assumes the stranger understands he has to fulfill his part of the bargain by not out-staying his welcome. He is offered food and rest with the understanding that he will eventually leave and/or compensate his host in one way or another.

The problem is the suitors won't leave. They have out-stayed their welcome. Telemachus tells Athena (as Mentes) they are eating him out of hearth and home, depleting his resources, etc. etc. In other words, they are not fulfilling their part of the hospitality bargain. They behave like a rowdy bunch of kids who flippantly dismiss the cultural traditions of their parents. They refuse to play nice. The conflict with the suitors, therefore, may be seen as a conflict between youth and old age with youth rebelling against the traditions upheld by their elders.

The rule of hospitality--how to treat a stranger and how a stranger should reciprocate comes up several times in the Odyssey.

Its been so long since I read it that it feels like the first time!
What took me by surprise is that part of the plot is already revealed. Even while Telemachus is wondering over the fate of his father and inquires about it, we are told of his detention by Calypso and that he had blinded the Cyclops. Not that I had any specific expectations, but somehow I assumed these events would be revealed separately.

This means Odysseus is "out there somewhere", that there is hope of his returning. So the suspense isn't whether or not he is alive, but will he return in time to prevent the impending tragedy to his marriage, family, and estate. We hear of what happened to Agamemnon. Will his fate be the same?

Just as a point of comparison:

In Book 1, Telemachus reacts to his mother's criticism of the bard for singing about the return from Troy. Fitzgerald's translation of Telemachus' words and tone is subdued.

Here is no reason for reproof: to sing
the news of the Danaans! Men like best
a song that rings like the morning on the ear.
But you must nerve yourself and try to listen.

In Emily Wilson's translation, on the other hand, Telemachus comes across as a petulant little boy who is trying to assert his manhood in front of the suitors by bossing his mother:

So steel your heart and listen to the song.
Odysseus was not the only one
who did not come back home again from Troy.
Many were lost. Go in and do your work.
Stick to the loom and distaff. Tell your slaves
to do their chores as well. It is for men
to talk, especially me. I am the master."

Those last few lines in the Wilson translation are completely absent from the Fitzgerald translation. Wilson's inclusion of the lines present a different image of Telemachus. He comes across as a young boy not strong enough to fight the suitors but desperate to prove his manhood. He thinks the way to do it is to flex his muscles at a woman--someone who is weaker than him in the social scale.

Tamara wrote: "Those last few lines in the Wilson translation are completely absent from the Fitzgerald translation. Wilson's inclusion of the lines present a different image of Telemachus.."

Fitzgerald leaves lines out? What? Any idea what his justification is?

Thomas wrote: "Fitzgerald leaves lines out? What? Any idea what his justification is?..."

I have no clue why Fitzgerald left lines out.

Fagles' translation of the passage is closer to Wilson's:

Courage, mother. Harden your heart, and listen.
Odysseus was scarcely the only one, you know,
whose journey home was blotted out at Troy.
Others, so many others, died there too.
So, mother,
go back to your quarters. Tend to your own tasks,
the distaff and the loom, and keep the women
working hard as well. As for giving orders,
men will see to that, but I most of all:
I hold the reins of power in this house.”

Thomas wrote: Fitzgerald leaves lines out? What? Any idea what is justification is?..."

The other translations I've consulted (Murray, Lattimore, Fagles) all read more-or-less like Wilson, albeit less "petulant" in tone, so Fitzgerald definitely failed to translate the passage in full.

Why? He may not have liked the verses. It is worth noting that Fitzgerald is sometimes singled out as being "very free" in his translations of Homer.

However, there *is* some question of the authenticity of the lines, e.g., some editors and commentators have wanted to reject them, so he may have been following an edition he was using. (Information on the textual issue is from Henry Hayman, editor, The Odyssey, volume I, 1866, page 24 -- the only commentary to the Greek text that I've turned up on-line which is in English.)

The German translation I am reading has the "longer version" as well.
Curious.

Homer's description of Ithaca, in the first book and elsewhere, seems pretty clear to the careful reader -- that is, it is not full of internal contradictions, unlike the layout of Odysseus' palace.

Unfortunately, it fails to match up with the island currently (and since Classical antiquity) known as Ithaca (Modern Greek Ithaki). And it doesn't quite match any of the surrounding islands, either, so the theory that the names have been shifted around, although plausible, doesn't help much.

The confused description has sometimes been accounted for by the assumption that Homer (or whoever was responsible) was an East Greek (from the coast of Asia Minor), and was unfamiliar with the western coast of the Greek mainland, except by report. The introduction of the Oral Formulaic approach provided another explanation -- that Homer was working with a tradition that favored the metrically convenient over the geographically realistic.

And the two explanations are not mutually exclusive, but rather support each other. It is definite that Homer didn't understand the geography of Peloponnesus: The Odyssey has a chariot road crossing impassable mountains.

Not everyone has been satisfied with these explanations. About a dozen years ago, a new theory was advanced, based on the fact that the geography of the islands may have changed drastically since Homer's time, so that the Homeric Ithaka is now a peninsula of one of the other islands. There is some support from geology for this; what may have been a narrow channel between two of the islands seems to have been filled in by a series of landslides (in an area that is earthquake-prone to begin with, although that is true of the rest of Greece.) The big question is whether this took place recently enough to have anything to do with the Odyssey.

For early popular discussions available on-line see:

Finding Ithaca, by Megan Sever, Geotimes, January 2007

http://www.geotimes.org/jan07/feature...

and

Odyssey’s End?: The Search for Ancient Ithaca, by Fergus M. Bordewich. Smithsonian Magazine, 2006, updated 2009

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/histor...

I don't know the current status of the theory -- on-line searches keep turning up irrelevant landslides elsewhere, and I haven't taken the time to do a new search before posting this.

There is a school of thought that argues a translation of a work can never substitute for the actual work because each translator has his/her agenda, views the work through his/her set of lenses, and imposes his/her perspectives on the work.
I think we can see examples of this coming into play by comparing the different translations of the short passage above.

Since I am online, haven't started my Lattimore, here is William Cowper's version:

Then answer thus Telemachus return’d.
My mother! wherefore should it give thee pain
If the delightful bard that theme pursue
To which he feels his mind impell’d? the bard
Blame not, but rather Jove, who, as he wills, 440
Materials for poetic art supplies.
No fault is his, if the disastrous fate
He sing of the Achaians, for the song
Wins ever from the hearers most applause
That has been least in use. Of all who fought
At Troy, Ulysses hath not lost, alone,
His day of glad return; but many a Chief
Hath perish’d also. Seek thou then again
Thy own apartment, spindle ply and loom,
And task thy maidens; management belongs 450
To men of joys convivial, and of men
Especially to me, chief ruler here.
She heard astonish’d; and the prudent speech
Reposing of her son deep in her heart,
Again with her attendant maidens sought
Her upper chamber. There arrived, she wept
Her lost Ulysses, till Minerva bathed
Her weary lids in dewy sleep profound.

http://www.gutenberg.org/files/24269/...

Tamara wrote: "The problem is the suitors won't leave. They have out-stayed their welcome. "

But the other side of that problem is that Penelope won't choose a second husband from among the suitors. Being the only Greek who hasn't gotten home from Troy, Odysseus is assumed to be dead. So his wife should remarry and give Ithaca a new king, since at that point Telemarchus is too young to rule. But she won't. If she did, the suitors, all but the chosen one, would be gone. But until she does, they feel they have the right to stick around until she's no longer available. (This is, after all, a highly patriarchal society, where a wealthy attractive woman should be married.)

Everyman wrote: "Tamara wrote: "The problem is the suitors won't leave. They have out-stayed their welcome. "

But the other side of that problem is that Penelope won't choose a second husband from among the suitor..."

Yes, but isn't the problem they don't know for sure if Odysseus is dead? Even Athena tells Telemachus in Book 1 that he needs to learn from Nestor and Menelaos if his father is still alive. She even advises him to hold out for another year if he learns his father is alive. But if he learns his father is dead, he should marry his mother off to one of the suitors. So the issue is not so much Penelope's refusal to choose a second husband. The issue is no one knows definitively whether Odysseus is dead or alive. All they have to go on is speculation.

And without getting too far ahead, doesn't Penelope receive lavish praise because she remains loyal to Odysseus by refusing to take on another partner?

Hello, I’m new to discussing on GR, hope it’s okay for me to join this conversation as I’m also reading Wilson’s new translation (I’ve read Fagles’ a very long time ago.)

Tamara wrote: "Just as a point of comparison:

In Book 1, Telemachus reacts to his mother's criticism of the bard for singing about the return from Troy. Fitzgerald's translation of Telemachus' words and tone is ..."


Thanks for comparing them, Wilson also singled this part out in the introduction as significant catch-22 situation of a household without a father:

Telemachus is an only child; his lack of brothers is emphasized in the poem and was presumably unusual in the context of archaic Greek society[...] Unable to stand up to the suitors by himself, Telemachus instead practices masculine self-assertion by putting down his mother.
The relationship between Penelope and Telemachus is painful, full of conflict and secrecy. She sees his vulnerability too clearly and worries for him, which makes him all the more eager to distance himself from her. Penelope cannot do for her son what a father could do, which is introduce him to the world of male power. Under the instructions of Athena, Telemachus pointedly keeps his journey from Ithaca a secret from his mother. Underlining his emotional distance from his mother by insisting that her feelings matter only insofar as they might affect her looks, he tells Eurycleia, who is in on the secret,
“Promise me you will not tell
Mother, until she notices me gone.
Say nothing for twelve days, so she will not
start crying; it would spoil her pretty skin.” (2.373–76)
Eurycleia is an alternative mother-figure for Telemachus, and a preferable one, in that—being a slave—she always does exactly what he tells her to do. Athena is a second and even better mother-figure: she enables him to succeed on his trip away from Ithaca, proving his ability to act independently of his human parents, albeit always under her watchful eyes.
Telemachus makes several attempts to put his real mother in (what he regards as) her place. In Book 1, Penelope tries to stop the singer Phemius from telling of the disastrous homecoming of the Greeks from Troy, because it makes her cry too much; Telemachus roughly intervenes...

So it is interesting that some texts omit this.

It is a tricky subject though. The way Telemachs rebukes his mother is a fill-in-the-blank like speech pattern that showed up (almost word for word) in Illiad, and again in later chapter in Odyssey. It sounds really rude to modern readers, but it’s basically how you assert male adult authority in social situations — made awkward in this scene because Telemachus is too young (typically adult males use this speech pattern on their wives).

Penelope had been playing the male authority role up until this point, since Odysseus is absent. Athena just told Telemachus to stop being a child — that typically requires some kind of initiation by older males so that he will be publicly accepted into the male adult group — but his father is not here, and his mother can’t initiate him into male ranks.

It is worth noting that line 356-59 were absent in some ancient editions of Odyssey, and Alexandrian scholar Aristarchus flagged this passage as suspect.

I think it’s interesting that some other translations seem to deliberately make it out to be less confrontational (between Telemachus and Penelope) but Wilson seems to highlight the tension.

Lia wrote: "Penelope cannot do for her son what a father could do, which is introduce him to the world of male power."

Why only 'male power'? Shouldn't we look a little deeper? Sometimes I get a little frustrated with such generalizations. Wouldn't the absence of a father first and foremost indicate the absence of a male role model? And not just any male, but his biological father. Odysseus is not here to teach Telemachus how to be a man, to be a provider and protector, a loving husband and father. In all these years has Telemachus even learned how to run and oversee an estate, his inheritance?

Tamara wrote: "He comes across as a young boy not strong enough to fight the suitors but desperate to prove his manhood. He thinks the way to do it is to flex his muscles at a woman--someone who is weaker than him in the social scale..."

I don't think it was so much to prove his manhood at his Mother's expense, but to help keep the peace. Look at what Telemachus is forced to deal with as the result of his mother and her attendants making an appearance:

[385] All through the shadowy halls the suitors Broke into an uproar, each of them praying
To lie in bed with her. Telemachus cut them short:
“Suitors of my mother—you arrogant pigs—
For now, we’re at a feast. No shouting, please!
Lombardo Translation

The situation that Telemachus and Penelope find themselves in is really a very dangerous and volatile one and it seems no outside source is willing to step up to protect them from it.

Kerstin wrote:Why only 'male power'? Shouldn't we look a little deeper? Sometimes I get a l..."

I can’t speak for Wilson, but I think in this specific scene (Athena instructs Telemachus to stop being a child, immediately he puts his mother down), the nature of the crisis is that of male power.

In the absence of Odysseus, Penelope can fudge a lot of things with tricks — like undoing the weaves at night to stall the suitors — she’s in a difficult position but rises up to the challenge for most parts. But initiating Telemachus into the world of male power is something she cannot resolve.

Other that that, I agree with you. With Odysseus being absent for so long, Telemachus’ initiation crisis is just the final straw, not the totality of their plights. I think the details of all the domestic possibilities they missed out on as a family, as father and son, husband and wife, will turn out to be the major pathos of the epic.

I also think Wilson’s introduction is meant to differentiating her translation by pointing out the details that (she claims) tend to get glossed over in other translations, especially the gender specific awkward issues. At least that’s my interpretation.

Lia wrote: "Hello, I’m new to discussing on GR, hope it’s okay for me to join this conversation as I’m also reading Wilson’s new translation (I’ve read Fagles’ a very long time ago.)

I'm sure everyone will welcome you.

Thanks for specifying Aristarchus as the authority for deleting the lines.

Hayman, on whom I'm relying for textual details, mentions in his commentary (page 24) unnamed critics who reject 356-359, but (after you pointed it out) I had to increase the size of the PDF to read the Latin "delevit Aris." in the textual notes. (The size I was using displayed complete pages, instead of part of them -- which isn't as useful as I thought it would be.)

However, Hayman does point out something else about the passage, in Appendix E (3), page LXXI:

"[Homer] shows the young man recently emancipated from female control by constantly stating the fact {Greek phrase}, sometimes by patronising his mother, sometimes by being rather severe upon her, and parading his independence, authority, &c., at any rate by not indulging much fondness of matter."

He then rather apologizes for Telemachus' treatment of his mother, as in concealing his departure from her so she won't worry about him -- which doesn't match my reading at all.

Thank you Ian! The Internet can be a very scary country, and I want to make sure I’m not overstaying my “guest-right” D: (Still figuring out the rules and etiquette here.)

Ian wrote: "He then rather apologizes for Telemachus' treatment of his mother, as in concealing his departure from her so she won't worry about him -- which doesn't match my reading at all."


Sometimes I think classics scholars must be really really bored — apparently there has been on-going debates about whether Telemachus is blamelessly performing the traditional Greek male adult role (and since it’s oral poetry, what he said should not be seen as a “direct quote”, but a kind of performance in front of an audience that conveys embodiment of male-power). Still, others argue Penelope violated etiquette by participating in conversations that exclusively belong to “male sphere,” and therefore earned the “fair rebuke,” and then they go over every instances of female speaking up and how often they end up getting rebuked in Homeric tales.

I personally haven’t made up my mind about that; maybe he’s being a jerk, maybe it’s just an oral poetry performance quirk, I just don’t know.

However, I definitely don’t get the sense that Telemachus is being considerate and conciliatory when he concealed his departure — if anything that seems dismissive to me.

Consider the passage another way. What Homer may be doing is defending his art from "impure critcism."

My mother! wherefore should it give thee pain
If the delightful bard that theme pursue
To which he feels his mind impell’d? the bard
Blame not, but rather Jove, who, as he wills, 440
Materials for poetic art supplies.

Penelope comes out and says, no, no, I don't want to hear about the return of the Achaeans, that's a humiliating theme.

Telemachus says, "art for art's sake." This is a BARD. He sings what he's divinely inspired to sing.

I think it comes up much later that the bard is not 'complicit' with the suitors, as it says even here that he performs at their banquets under compulsion.

Christopher wrote: "Telemachus says, "art for art's sake." This is a BARD. He sings what he's divinely inspired to sing."

This gets us into form (or performance) vs content debate. Is this scene significant because of how he said what he said (i.e. claiming male authority), or is the content (bards freedom of speech?) the point?

The other way to look at it is, who has hope, and who is despairing?

Telemachus has just been 'picked up' by his chat with Mentes, while Penelope is depressed.

At any rate, Homer is a 'don't shoot the piano player' kind of guy, always.

I heard from somewhere that the hospitality rules in the home were analogous to justice in the state.

You must treat your guests fairly as the state should treat its citizens. Otherwise the host can be labeled a tyrant. Of course when the guests or the citizens become unruly, then a punitive course of action, up to and including capital punishment, may be suggested, as Athena, in her guise as King Mentes suggests to Telemachus.

I wonder if guests had to take off their shoes on pain of death when visiting, or if that is that more of a Canadian thing than a Greek thing? :)

Cphe wrote: "Also i get the impression there might have been more male than female in that world..."

I don't think it is so much that there were more males than females. I think it is more a question of private space vs. public space.

Private space is the domain of the female; public space is the domain of the male. So far, we have only been in public space. That's why the men dominate and outnumber the women.

If women appear at all in public space, they usually appear as servants. The exception here is Penelope. She intrudes on public space, speaks her mind, and is promptly shushed by her son. Notice, also, she enters public space with two maids as her attendants, i.e. she won't enter public space unaccompanied.

Cphe wrote: "Question:

Have I read the text correctly? Is there a question mark over the parentage of Telemachus?

He may not be the son of Odysseus."

You know, when Mentes asks him if he is Odysseus' son, he says "my mother says I am," which, oddly enough, does more to prove he is Odysseus' son than anything else he could have said.

It's a 'wily' answer to a simple question.

Christopher wrote: "Cphe wrote: "Question:

Have I read the text correctly? Is there a question mark over the parentage of Telemachus?

He may not be the son of Odysseus."

You know, when Mentes asks him if he is Odysseus' son ... It's a 'wily' answer to a simple question...."

It may also reflect that Telemachus has, at best, very few memories of his father, and those from the perspective of a small child. More likely he was an infant, and so with no memories of him, if the chronology is to be taken seriously. His putative father is, in fact, a complete stranger to him, and he has no way of knowing how much, or how little, he resembles him. One reason for the journey suggested by Mentes/Athena is a chance to meet some non-Ithacans who actually knew his father well.

While this is the story of Odysseus' journey, for me it is much more the hero journey of young Telemachus. A few of you commented on the youthful behaviors of Telemachus, and I think he is just now being called on his coming of age journey (by Athena in disguise). When he says:

"My mother says I am his son; I know not
surely. Who has known his own engendering?
I wish at least I had some happy man
a father, growing old in his own house-
but unknown death and silence are the fate
of him that, since you ask, they call my father"
(Fitzgerald translation)

I interpreted Telemachus' refusal of the call to action. He doesn't remember Odysseus, he's certainly not a father figure. As far as Telemachus is concerned, they might as well not even be related. It may be hard then, to convince Telemachus to journey to find someone with whom he feels no connection.

Yet he wakes up at the start of book 2 as "Odysseus' true son" (Fitzgerald) and is ready to go on a journey of his own.

Everyman wrote: "But the other side of that problem is that Penelope won't choose a second husband from among the suitors. Being the only Greek who hasn't gotten home from Troy, Odysseus is assumed to be dead. So his wife should remarry and give Ithaca a new king, since at that point Telemarchus is too young to rule. But she won't. If she did, the suitors, all but the chosen one, would be gone. But until she does, they feel they have the right to stick around until she's no longer available. (This is, after all, a highly patriarchal society, where a wealthy attractive woman should be married.) "

This is true if you ask Antinoos (one of the suitors):
What high and mighty
talk, Telemachus! No holding you!
You want to shame us, and humiliate us,
but you should know the suitors are not to blame-
it is your own dear, incomparably cunning mother.
For three years now- and it will soon be four-
she has been breaking the heart of the Akhaians,
holding out hope to all, and sending promises
to each man privately- but thinking otherwise"
(Fitzgerald translation)

He accuses her of leading people on intentionally, not just merely staving off incorrigible suitors.

Ashley wrote: "He accuses her of leading people on intentionally, not just merely staving off incorrigible suitors.
..."

That’s true, and he’s not wrong. She is deliberately deceiving them, manipulating them, because they (Penelope, Telemachus) are in a position of weakness. She has no hard power, she is devoted to her family, to Odysseus, to Telemachus, even if the chance of Odysseus returning is slim she wants to commit to waiting for his return. Which clashes with her duty to the State.

Everybody is behaving badly for good (?) reasons, suspended in some kind of horrible, mutually antagonizing, mutually devouring equilibrium.

Kerstin wrote: "We hear of what happened to Agamemnon."

For those for whom this reference might have slipped by without understanding, Agamemnon was the leader of the Greek forces in the Trojan war, but while he was away his wife, Clytemnestra, took a lover, Aegisthus. When he got home, he was welcomed by his wife, but then murdered by her, some versions of the myth say in his bath. Agamemnon's so later killed Aegisthus, which is the reference at line 30 of Book 1 and the event which causes Zeus to declare that men bring their troubles on themselves.

Everyman wrote: "For those for whom this reference might have slipped by without understanding, Agamemnon was the leader of the Greek forces in the Trojan wa..."

Some interesting trivia: Clytemnestra is Penelope’s cousin.

I’m also under the impression that Clytemnestra plotted to kill Agamemnon at least partly because he sacrificed (as in killed, slaughtered) their daughter, Iphigenia.

Christopher wrote: "Since I am online, haven't started my Lattimore, here is William Cowper's version:...Of all who fought
At Troy, Ulysses hath not lost, alone,
His day of glad return; but many a Chief
Hath perish’d also.."

Interesting that Cowper uses the Roman name for Odysseus, Ulysses (which Tennyson also used). I wonder whether this was standard in the 18th and 19th centuries.

Everyman wrote: "Interesting that Cowper uses the Roman name ... I wonder whether this was standard in the 18th and 19th centuries. ..."

Yes. A move to using Greek instead of Roman names seems to have started very slowly around the middle of the nineteenth century -- Bulfinch rejected it in compiling "The Age of Fable," for a long time the standard text on mythology in American schools, and still in print.

The Roman names were still going strong toward the end of the century. For example: Andrew Lang* collaborated with S. H. Butcher in a prose translation (1879) of "Homer's Odyssey," and again with E. Myers and Walter Leaf in a prose version (1883) of the "Iliad." These were very popular for quite some time (Modern Library at one time used them in a "Complete Works of Homer" volume). Both translations used Latin names for all the characters.

Lang explicitly defended the practice for much the same reasons as given by Bulfinch decades earlier.

They were, after all the names used in the tradition of English poetry, going back to Chaucer (his little-known predecessors hardly count in this), were well-known to Shakespeare and Milton, and had settled English pronunciations (however unclassical). Whereas using the Greek forms only caused confusion over who the names referred to, and even how to say them, and made references embedded in all that English literature difficult to recognize.

They had a point, but the Greek names help avoid the smothering influence of Virgil and Ovid on the reception of truly Greek myths and texts -- Homer's Zeus is NOT identical to Virgil's Jupiter, nor Hera to Juno, and it is a disservice to both poets to claim otherwise.

A lot of more recent translators have compromised, using Greek names where they are clearly different, but using some of the Latinized forms (not substitutes) where available. Hence, "Akhilleus" is often still "Achilles," and both heroes named "Aias" may be called Ajax, and "Circe" still appears instead of "Kirke." And there are various other compromises. No modern translation I have encountered is completely consistent, although it might be interesting to see transliterated Greek for all the proper names.

*Lang was a prolific historian, journalist, folklorist and armchair anthropologist, etc. (he disclaimed sermons and epics -- and novels, before writing one in collaboration with H. Rider Haggard), best known today for the long series of "Color" Fairy Books he edited together with his wife. He has a longish Wikipedia biography, which is worth reading.

I know this is really background, but apropos of Andrew Lang: he wrote many enjoyable books, but Homer and His Age is a real dog, not helped by the poor formatting of the e-book.

Christopher wrote: "I know this is really background, but apropos of Andrew Lang: he wrote many enjoyable books, but Homer and His Age is a real dog, not helped by the poor formatting of the e-book."

There are several copies (of various degrees of legibility) available as pdfs on archive.org -- and also both parts of a much less than enthusiastic contemporary review in the Classical Weekly. (Search under "Homer and His Age," not "Andrew Lang".) It immediately points out that the very title is misleading, and goes on from there.

Everyman wrote: "Agamemnon's son later killed Aegisthus, which is the reference at line 30 of Book 1 and the event which causes Zeus to declare that men bring their troubles on themselves. "

It's interesting that Mentes/Athena leaves out the fact that Orestes also kills his mother, Clytemnestra. Later on when Telemachos is addressing the assembly, he says that he will not throw his mother out for a number of reasons, one of which is that she would call down the furies upon him. (This is what happened to Orestes -- the furies drove him mad until he took refuge in the temple of Apollo (according to Aeschylus) and a trial was held. The deciding vote in favor of acquittal was cast by Athena... )

But it is still within Telemachos' power to send his mother to Ikarios, her father, to decide whom she should marry. The suitors could also go to Ikarios for a decision, but they lack the nerve. Or Penelope could decide for herself, and she does, by choosing none of them. The power belongs to Penelope while the men blow steam.

Thomas wrote: "But it is still within Telemachos' power to send his mother to Ikarios, her father, to decide whom she should marry. The suitors could also go to Ikarios for a decision, but they lack the nerve. Or Penelope could decide for herself, and she does, by choosing none of them. The power belongs to Penelope while the men blow steam...."

As Lia said (#37), Penelope has no hard power.
Since Telemachos can exercise power over her by sending her to her father, and since the suitors can exercise power over her by going to her father for a decision, they have power over her. But they choose not to exercise that power.
Penelope, on the other hand, chooses to exercise what little power she has because of her loyalty to Odysseus, as Lia said. And she has to exercise it through the only means available to her--subterfuge and manipulation.

Lia wrote: "She has no hard power, she is devoted to her family, to Odysseus, to Telemachus, even if the chance of Odysseus returning is slim she wants to commit to waiting for his return. Which clashes with her duty to the State..."

Your description of Penelope's dilemma as a choice between loyalty to family vs. duty to the state is interesting and one that hadn't occurred to me in quite that way before.

It reminds me of another character in Greek mythology who also had to choose between loyalty to family vs. duty to the state--Antigone. In both cases, the females choose loyalty to family over duty to state.

Cphe wrote: "Is there a specific reason why one of the suitors hasn't put his case towards her father - why do they continue to wait?..."

A good question. I don't think we're ever given a clear answer. I suspect it has to do with what Thomas suggested above (#44): they lack the nerve.

Cphe wrote: ""Since Telemachos can exercise power over her by sending her to her father, and since the suitors can exercise power over her by going to her father for a decision,"

Is there a specific reason why..."


I'm wondering wether Telemachos does have the power to send his mother to her father. In line with the discussion above I agree that Telemachos is struggling to assert his power over his posessions (if Odysseus would be that, I'm assuming his fathers posessions are his now). I think the remark one of the suitors (?) is making in book 2 (i.e. send your mother to her father and let him choose a new husband for her), can also be read as: you claim you are in power, but you can't even control your mother, a woman

Telemachus says:

It would not be fair [II.145] If I had to pay a great price to Icarius, As I would if I sent my mother back to him On my own initiative. And the spirits would send me
Other evils, for my mother would curse me
As she left the house, and call on the Furies.
Lombardo Translation

I think Telemachus wants to respect his own wishes and those of his mother not to remarry, but I am puzzled also by the price he would have to pay to Icarius in his statement above. What is this price? would he have to pay the dowry back?

The suitors are clearly afraid to do this themselves:

Suitors have latched on to my mother, [II.55] Against her will, and they are the sons Of the noblest men here. They shrink
From going to her father Icarius’ house
So that he could arrange his daughter’s dowry
And give her away to the man he likes best.
Lombardo Translation

Why they are afraid is another question. I suppose the bad guys must always show themselves as cowardly?

Also, were Greek women considered property? If Odysseus is assumed dead, does she become Telemachus' property?

Tamara wrote: "[description of Penelope's dilemma as a choice between loyalty to family vs. duty to the state] ... reminds me of another character in Greek mythology who also had to choose between loyalty to family vs. duty to the state--Antigone. In both cases, the females choose loyalty to family over duty to state. "

Great comparison. I had Clytemnestra in mind when I made the remark. At first I thought, how extremely opposite Clytemnestra and Penelope turn out; despite being cousins.

But then the more I think about it, the more I see them as actually very similar (assuming Clytemnestra killed Agamemnon to avenge Iphigenia.) They are both aware of, and competent about, state level affairs, public rituals, etc. But in actions, they are primarily, exclusively, insanely defensive of the oikos. There is nothing they won’t do to defend the only sphere that matters to them — the home.

Cphe wrote: ""Since Telemachos can exercise power over her [...] Is there a specific reason why..."

From a story telling point of view, I think of this as the precarious situation at home that highlights the urgency for Odysseus to hurry up.

It’s not a stable situation that can stay that way forever. The King is gone, there’s a power vacuum, the assembly has not met for 20 years (2.26 - 27). They aren’t passively waiting, they are jockeying for public recognitions as they cajole and feast and pressure them in their home. That’s the opening of the story, and the meat of the story is about how this “game of thrones” will turn out: is Telemachus going to step up and earn recognition of authority? Is Odysseus going to come home and somehow still hold political authority?

I don’t think they want to marry Penelope because she’s some kind of trophy, what they’re after is public recognition of new leadership role. Presumably that means they have to do it the “right” way, by respecting public rituals, conventional performances of ... oh I don’t know, waiting, courtship, wooing, hosting feasts, competing, verbal cajoling etc etc. I’ve always assumed they didn’t know Penelope was undoing the tapestry until recently, recently as in the beginning of this epic poem. So that signals urgency, something needs to change. Telemachus needs to grow up, or Odysseus needs to come home, or Poseidon needs to get over himself, or something like that.

David wrote: "Also, were Greek women considered property? If Odysseus is assumed dead, does she become Telemachus' property? .."

Yes, Greek women were considered property. They are the property of the father until they marry. They then become the property of the husband. If the husband dies and his male heir is old enough to inherit his property, the woman technically becomes the property of her son. In reality, though, she becomes somewhat of a free agent because of the influence she exerts over her son.

The situation is complicated in this case because Telemachus is too young and unable to adequately claim his inheritance. I'm guessing that's why Penelope reverts to being the property of her father and suitors need to seek his permission to marry her.

David wrote: "I think Telemachus wants to respect his own wishes and those of his mother not to remarry, but I am puzzled also by the price he would have to pay to Icarius in his statement above. What is this price? would he have to pay the dowry back?"

I wonder if he would forfeit his inheritance. A new husband and possibly a new heir - to whom would the inheritance go? I assume the step-father would be taking over the estate and subsequently his son inherit. So Telemachos forfeits his position as heir and gets "demoted" within the order of the estate, becomes the first servant or something like that. This was common practice in the Middle Ages and figures prominently in the fairy tale of Cinderella. So the question is, did the ancient Greeks have similar practices?

Tamara wrote: "As Lia said (#37), Penelope has no hard power.

True, but hard power is not the only power, and ultimately it's a lesser power than intelligence and resourcefulness. I think we'll see that played out over and over again in the coming chapters. Odysseus will find hard power useless in most of the situations he faces as he tries to get home. Penelope finds herself in the same kinds of situations, just in a domestic setting.