Telemachus' Rhetorical Education - UA Library · TELEMACHUS’ RHETORICAL EDUCATION THE GROWTH OF...
Transcript of Telemachus' Rhetorical Education - UA Library · TELEMACHUS’ RHETORICAL EDUCATION THE GROWTH OF...
1
TELEMACHUS’ RHETORICAL EDUCATION: THE GROWTH OF AN ODYSSEAN HERŌ
2
ABSTRACT
In this essay, I discuss Telemachus’ rhetorical growth, from despondent “ur-prig” to
capable and confident Odyssean herō. This study involves a detailed discussion of the
character’s speeches, dialogues and behaviour when interacting with his various
audiences. I also make detailed use of Telemachus’ adventures throughout the
Telemacheia, discussing the presence of tutoring figures including Athene, Nestor,
Menelaus and finally Odysseus himself, as well as the clear effects such “education” has
on the young prince.
As analytical tools, I examine the use of the epithets “pepnumenos” and “nēpios” as
critical guides to Telemachus’ growth, as well as examples of the character’s improved
rhetorical technique that is identifiable not just linguistically, but with regards to its
purpose, reception and success. I also make frequent use of, and occasional comment on,
the scholarship concerning this well examined, yet often inconclusive, area of Homeric
study. I am indebted to Clarke (1963), Heath (2001; 2005) and Martin (1989; 1993) in
this regard.
Through assessment of Telemachus’ rhetorical growth, I am able to conclude that Homer
used an early example of rhetorical theory to recreate the archetypical Odyssean herō
through Odysseus’ son, thus reinforcing the important status of persuasive speech in the
Epic. What is more, I argue that by adopting the mantle of the Odyssean hero,
Telemachus becomes a necessary character for the realisation of the Epic’s dénouement
and the redemption of Ithaca.
KEY WORDS
TELEMACHUS; ODYSSEY; EDUCATION; RHETORIC; HERO
WORD COUNT: 4999
3
To two of my heroes:
The Tiger, who always encouraged my creativity, and Grandpa, whose fondest wish
was to see me graduate and very nearly did.
4
TELEMACHUS’ RHETORICAL EDUCATION
THE GROWTH OF AN ODYSSEAN HERŌ
In this essay, I shall discuss Telemachus’ speeches, examples of his rhetoric and the
effects they have on his audiences. I shall also illustrate how there are significant markers
in Telemachus’ path to adulthood that clearly plot his rhetorical development to his
elevation as an Odyssean herō.
The character of Telemachus is pivotal: he is present in 16 of the 24 Books and, second to
Odysseus and Achilles, speaks more than any other character in the epics.1 Consequently,
it is possible to analyse his oratorical development and draw conclusions from his
maturation. Academics have considered this maturation to be a primitive form of
initiation, displaying the rites of social induction to adulthood.2 It will be argued that this
development is the reason Homer has Telemachus depart, leaving behind despondency,
his mother and a houseful of malevolent suitors. Thus his journey will allow the young
“ur-prig” to become an adult: an Odyssean herō of the epic, thrust into a society from
which he has been precluded as a result of his father’s absence.3
This is a popular theory among academics, as Telemachus’ maturation is necessary,
ultimately, for his father’s re-initiation into Ithacan society. 4 Many scholars have
expressed the idea that the journey is necessary for Telemachus’ psychological
development, his growth into manhood and to strengthen his initial weak character.5
It is Athena who decides to send Telemachus to Pylos and Sparta, imbuing him with
"µένος ἐν φρεσὶ”, and " καὶ θάρσος" (Od.1.321) so that “ ἵνα µιν κλέος ἐσθλὸν ἐν
ἀνθρώποισιν ἔχῃσιν" (Od.1.95). Therefore, not only is Telemachus emulating his father
by experiencing his own journey, he is also searching for what is absent on Ithaca:
1 Bassett (1920), 160 2 Eckhert (1963), 49 3 Scott (1918), 421, attributes this term “ur-prig” to Professor Gildersleeve, “a Teuton-English compound” referring to Telemachus’ despondent character. 4 Rose (1967), pg. 391: summarises the major scholarship regarding this issue. 5 Ibid 391, recommends Woodhouse (1930) and Clarke (1963) on this view. I have found Austin (1960) and Clarke (1963) to be fundamental, and I am indebted to Heath (2001), (2005).
5
experience, to which other herōes’ sons have been exposed through contact with the
heroic code. This herōic training appears to include, most of all, an education in manners,
speech and rhetoric.6 It becomes clear that, to assume his father’s mantle as Odyssean
herō, he must receive this rhetorical education.
Before Athene departs Olympus, the goddess announces that she will embolden
Telemachus, advising him to call an assembly and denounce the suitors publically, before
directing him on his journey (Od.1.88-94). She warns Telemachus that he can no longer
afford to be juvenile; he must establish himself as the authority on Ithaca while his father
is absent (Od.1.253-305). It is this position in which we find the youth at the beginning of
his education. Athena has been called, therefore, a Kourotrophos. 7 She introduces
Telemachus to the idea that language can lend authority and a mature use of language, i.e.
good rhetoric, will allow Telemachus to overcome his troubles. In the beginning, he
whines, “οὐδέ τί πω µύθοισι πεπείρηµαι πυκινοῖσιν” (Od.3.23), but it is necessary to
conquer this immaturity to change his position. Therefore, we are first introduced to the
important relationship between word and deed, something hinted at in the Iliad,8 but
taken further here in an epic more concerned with the power of speech. A controller of
speech is able to turn his words into action, through persuasion of others.9 It is no
coincidence, therefore, that doing and speaking are the only two concepts modified by the
epithet, “kudianeira”, throughout Homer.10 The fact that Athena requires Telemachus to
make a speech immediately in Book I places great emphasis on the spoken word in the
epic; it is the initial test of Telemachus’ rhetorical skill.
6 Belmont (1969), 110 7 Eckert (1963), 53 8 Il.9.443 9 See Heath (2001), (2005) 10 Thalmann (1984), 180, “machē” is qualified by the epithet eight times throughout Homer and “speech/assembly” once.
6
HOMERIC RHETORIC
We soon learn when reading Homer, that in order to be a great herō, it is not just fighting
well that brings honour, but good speech and counsel.11 This is Nestor’s position: a herō
too old to fight, but influential in speech. What lends Nestor much of his authority is his
experience; his autobiographical rhetoric allows him to fortify speech of the present with
deeds of the past, and all four of Nestor’s paradigmatic speeches in the Iliad refer to his
prior exploits (Il.1.254, 7.124, 11.656, 23.626).12 It is as much for this reason that Athene
places Telemachus on a journey of his own, for him to gain experiences, thus lending
authority to his speech.
What is more, a good speech is not simply eloquent or long; it seeks to attain a goal and
succeeds in its pursuit. Telemachus is immature in both word and deed, but he must
undergo a powerful transformation; he appreciates his goal at the beginning of the
Odyssey, and declares that he wants to rid the suitors from his home and to reestablish his
father as king (Od.1.115-17; 1.230-51), but he requires the means. Rhetorical
development, therefore, is an armament; a means of achieving this goal. However, the
power of speech is equally balanced with a command of silence and Telemachus must
also learn, like his father (perhaps more successfully), when to withdraw and hold his
tongue.13
As Scott argues, the character of Telemachus is least herōic when the audience is
introduced to him: a boy, surrounded by maternal control, attended by his childhood
nurse and, though despondently aware of his current condition, incapable of changing
it.14 He avoids public speech (Od.1.157) because he is afraid of the suitors; he is resigned
to a fate he feels is immutable and becomes so disheartened that even Athene doubts his
parentage (Od.1.206-7). It is a rather ironic, perhaps proleptic, that the first use of the
epithet, pepnumenos (Od.1.213), is used here; prophesising the character he must become
in order to validate his role as polymechanos Odysseus’ son. He must become
11 Heath (2005), 85 12 Ibid, 88, youth is associated with ineffectual speech, and with no skill or experience, the young speaker in Homer is devoid of effect. 13 Heath (2005), 91 14 Scott (1918), 421
7
authoritative; a public figure, to gain vengeance on the suitors.15 However, even after
Telemachus is convinced by Athene to speak, forced by the excesses of the usurping
suitors to complain in open court, he fails to convince; Antinous even argues back.
Telemachus admits his own weakness should the suitors wish to destroy him, and he is
unable to do anything but pray to the gods (Od.1.376).
Roisman and Martin, seconded by Heath, 16 present an advanced argument of
Telemachus’ development through the reoccurrence and transition of epithets pertaining
to his youth (at the beginning) and sagacity (continuous throughout). Epithets have
always been central to Homeric studies as noticeable semantic features. However,
contrary to Parry’s rejection of “contextually appropriate” epithets,17 scholars such as
Beck believe that epithets draw upon a multifaceted corpus of herōic stories about a
character.18 This being the case, the term, pepnumenos, is applied to Telemachus 46 times
throughout the epic,19 but we also find characters in Homer such as Antenor, Polydamas
and Antilochus qualified by the same word: characters that Roisman argues do not
hesitate to express bold views openly without prior thought or concern for pleasing their
audience.20
But, when one examines the meaning of the word, pepnumenos, as Heath does, it does
not mean rash or bold, but entirely the opposite. As Hainsworth states,
“it denotes one who observes the courtesies of life, especially in speech ... seldom used of
the great herōes... but is a regular description of youthful or subordinate characters…”21
Yet, Heath goes further in his interpretation of the word and explains its use here. It has
various possible etymologies, such as its verbal form πνέω, “breathing”, “living/being
conscious” and, consequently in the perfect tense, to be “prudent through consciousness 15 Heath (2001), 100ff and (2005) discuss the epithet in-depth, and Telemachus’ role supporting his father in his revenge and how his growth is crucial for the task. 16 Roisman (1994); Martin (1989), (1993); Heath (2001), (2005) 17 Parry (1987), 124ff 18 Beck (1999), 122, argues it would be impossible to reach this level of detail in one telling. Therefore, epithets have a greater impact on a character when one understands them as complex intratextual and intertextual references. 19 Heath (2001),130 20 Roisman (1994), 8, uses Cf. II. 3.203; 7.347 21 Heath (2001), 133, quoting Hainsworth 1(988) (ad Od. 8.388 and 77. 9.57-8)
8
and experience”. 22 Menelaus states that “ὁπλοτέρων ἀνδρῶν φρένες” always
“ἠερέθονται”, but “in whatsoever an old man takes part, he looks both before and after”
(Il.3.108–10).23 We therefore return to the idea that Telemachus must come to experience
the herōic code for his speech to develop, and it is no coincidence that the epithet is
applied further when he has developed through education and experience; his former
nēpieē discarded, and we see a dramatic shift in his speech’s success.
It becomes a term that marks a character’s attainment of mature judgement at a level
where he can turn his speech into appropriate action. Heath argues that Telemachus has
earned the epithet by the end of the epic by learning to speak in an Odyssean fashion.24
The term nēpios, however by contrast, is not just a word for child, but is synonymous
with ‘fool’, one who is unable to speak correctly or effectively. 25 Nestor, when
reprimanding the Greeks, accuses them of speaking in the assembly like “foolish
children” (Il. 2.337-8), and Menelaus equally addresses Eteoneus when rebuking him for
disallowing Telemachus entry to Sparta (Od.4.31-32). Therefore, we see a definite
connection between nēpieē and ineffective/odious speech. Consequently, Telemachus
cannot afford to be one whose speech is vacuous: he must abandon his nēpios status and
become pepnumenos.
22 Heath (2001), 134, references Dale (1982), 208-9, “who concludes that pepnumenos manifestly implies proficiency in speech ... She also points out that the possible etymology from a root meaning 'to investigate' would be especially appropriate for Telemachus...” 23 Heath (2005), 97 24 Heath (2001) 131 25 Heath (2005) 95-6, see also Janko (1992) (ad Il. 13.292-4, 15.362-4), who suggests the word is similar to the Latin infans, “One who cannot speak”, though as Heath notes, there is a semantic problem with the etymology, as the base meaning of ἠρύω is “to call or speak loudly”, and infants are certainly capable of this! Though with some interpretation, the correlation could still be valid if translated “to call or speak loudly as adults do”.
9
ITHACA: BOOKS I AND II
It is through his own mini-Odyssey that Telemachus becomes worthy of his heritage and
an Odyssean herō of the epic. The first part of Telemachus’ education is his meeting with
Athene, who arrives in disguise, alarmed by the youth’s despondency. Athena explicitly
commands Telemachus to discontinue his childish ways (Od.1.296-97), empowering him
with the knowledge that if he is his father’s son, he will be glorious in word and deed
(Od.1.270-72). She challenges him to live up to his father’s reputation of skill and
accomplishment with words (Od.1.274-75); tantalising him with the herōic qualities of
Odysseus (Od.1.271-72).26 The goddess uses a rhetoric of her own and it is likely that this
is the first time Telemachus has been introduced to good oratory. Athena’s activation of a
more optimistic Telemachus, together with her paradigm of his father, introduces
Telemachus both to his father and to the power of speech. She uses ring composition in
her words, and a technique noted by Aristotle as parataxis (threading multiple
alternatives together, rather than subordinating one idea to another) to trigger
Telemachus’ innate talents as a speaker.27
It is possible to measure the results of Athena’s lessons immediately through
Telemachus’ treatment of his mother and the suitors, and their reaction to his speech.
Significantly, he responds to Penelope’s request that Phemius sings a different song
(Od.1.337-44) and his later reply (Od.1.346-59) beginning with the introduction,
“πεπνυµένος ἀντίον ηὔδα”, reintroduces this epithet at an important stage of his growth.
Telemachus “barks” what some scholars have deemed a rude reply to his mother,
whereas others feel it is a clumsy, yet powerful, display of his newfound confidence in
speech.28 It could also be a rough-stab at mature speech as he addresses the person who
will be most patient with this outburst, in preparation for his ultimate speech denouncing
the suitors. Penelope herself is seized with wonder, “θαµβήσασα” (Od.1.360), and “she
laid to heart the wise saying of her son” (Od.1.361), approving her son’s fledgling
efforts.
26 Jones (1988), 500, notes the unambiguous link between son and father. 27 Belmont (1969), 112, gives a summary of Athena’s rhetorical techniques in the passage, explaining her use of parataxis. 28 I agree with Heath (2001), (2005), and Martin (1989) that it is a fledgling effort at authority in speech.
10
What Martin has found most interesting about this scene, however, is the technical use of
“muthos”. Martin draws a distinction between muthos and epos as words for speech; the
former referring to a speech that accomplishes or has importance, often delivered with
skill, and epos as a word that can denote any other utterance. 29 Homer marks
Telemachus’ words to Penelope as muthos in order to grant them some clout: imputing a
rhetorical strength.30 Yet, his authoritative command to his mother also displays his
unseasoned understanding of muthos. He tells his mother, “µῦθος δ ̓ ἄνδρεσσι µελήσει
πᾶσι, µάλιστα δ ̓ ἐµοί: τοῦ γὰρ κράτος ἔστ ̓ ἐνὶ οἴκῳ” (Od.1.359-60). These words carry
authority, or at least give this impression, and by stating that muthos is his particular
“care”, he ties the house of Odysseus, and he its “κράτος”, to speech.
The importance of this connection between household and muthos is made clear when
one examines this phrase-formula in another context. It is almost identical to two other
passages in Homer: in the court of Alcinous and on the walls of Troy in the Iliad.31
Alcinous, at 11.352-3, regarding Odysseus’ return preparations, states, “ποµπὴ δ ̓
ἄνδρεσσι µελήσει πᾶσι, µάλιστα δ ̓ ἐµοί: τοῦ γὰρ κράτος ἔστ ̓ ἐνὶ δήµῳ..” When one
considers the role of the Phaeacians in the epic, providing hospitality and a means for
Odysseus to continue his nostos, it is no surprise that Homer injects the importance of
hospitality into Alcinous’ words: connecting Scheria to the act of “ποµπὴ” and
consequently, guest-friendship. At Iliad 6.490-3, Hector argues with Andromache about
returning to the battle, “πόλεµος δ ̓ ἄνδρεσσι µελήσει πᾶσι, µάλιστα δ ̓ ἐµοί, τοὶ Ἰλίῳ
ἐγγεγάασιν”: using the same formulaic phrase. Homer draws on these references to lend
authority to Telemachus’ words. Telemachus, perhaps in his newfound exuberance for
oratory, makes this bold statement and inadvertently elects an attribute for himself, as
29 Martin (1989), 1-42 accounts for muthos implying authority, and epos simple speech. 30 Martin (1993), 235. This has been met with disagreement, particularly with scholars who disagree that women in the epics are unconcerned with muthos, as Telemachus implies. See West (1990) and Clark (2001). Clark, 340ff, argues extensively that muthos is used by women, most particularly in the Odyssey, and most of all by Penelope herself. However, in this context, he admits that muthos is a word not fully understood by the inept Telemachus, and so his comment is made in youthful exuberance, rather than full understanding. 31Martin (1993), 236-37, suggests a further misunderstanding by Telemachus here, once again undermining the apparent authority of his words: the formula used by Alcinous depicts his authority being undermined by Queen Aretē, who is the “real power on the island”, symbolized when Odysseus bypasses Alcinous, to beseech her directly 6.310-2. Therefore, in this formula there are overtones of “the powerless trying to assert its authority.”
11
Hector and Alcinous do, though truer than he could realise: it is the most prominent trait
of his father. Yet, where Hector and Alcinous have already come to understand war and
hospitality respectively, and are truly in this position of authority, though both learn to
regret it,32 Telemachus does not yet understand or control muthos as much as he thinks.33
To the suitors he is more confident than before, already displaying the teachings and
courage imparted by his divine tutor, as can be seen by his shift from responding to
comments passively, to opening the conversation actively for the first time (Od.1.367),
and later calling the assembly and speaking openly against them.34 They also marvel at
his speech for the first time, biting their lips and being astounded at his boldness
(Od.1.381).35 Antinous notices this change and remarks that he is a “ὑψαγόρης” orator
taught by the gods (Od.1.384-7).36
However, in the assembly in Book II, Telemachus is still youthfully ineffectual and
vainly tries to prove his authority: he pleads to the suitors’ sense of justice and piety
(Od.2.64-69): but of course, this has no effect, as the suitors are oath-breakers and
impious.37 They continue feasting and Antinous rebukes Telemachus for his daring
speech (Od.2.85-129). At the end of his speech to the assembly, Telemachus casts the
speaker’s baton down in tears (Od.2.80-1) and it echoes Achilles’ similar emotional
outburst in the Iliad (Il.1.246). This may be a ruse to elicit pathos, but the suitors are
unimpressed, and it gives the initial impression of a youthful lack of control for emotion,
particularly in contrast with his own father’s use of the “σκῆπτρον” to strike the weak
Thersites (Il.2.265) during their debate.
32 Hector dies in battle and Alcinous loses his ship and men by helping Odysseus. 33 Of course, Telemachus says these words without realising what he in fact means, as his muthos, used at 1.373 against the suitors, is far from authoritative and successful. He has much more to learn, and he will later use the formula again regarding the bow, which of course is his father’s tool of redemption which Telemachus is capable, but not allowed, to use. 34 Belmont (1969), 115, seems to think he blurts out this intention to speak against them in the assembly and attributes this to youthful excitement of being visited by a goddess, showing he is immature. It is better understood as an attempt to grasp maturity, not a display of youth. 35 Heath (2001), 140; Austin (1969), 54; Clarke (1963), 131ff provide ample discussion on the early scenes of Telemachus’ education and its effects on the suitors. 36 cf. 2.85; 2.303; 17.406; 20.200; 20.274 37 Clarke (1963), 133 notes, “without courtesy, regard, tact, restraint, they would utterly de-civilise Ithaca”: thus why Telemachus must leave to learn of the herōic life elsewhere.
12
However, could this emotional outburst be a means of deception: used to throw the
suitors off-guard?38 This certainly fits with the Odyssean trait of disguise, and suggests
Telemachus makes an open display of his youthful weakness (Od.2.60-1) so that when he
does make his escape in secret, the suitors are surprised and unable to prevent it.
Moreover, this deception is apparent when Telemachus says that he has gained
knowledge listening to “others” (Od.2.314), alluding to Athena, but not revealing her
identity to the suitors, even when Eurymachos asks explicitly who the guest was
(Od.1.405). In fact, both speeches delivered in Books I and II show a deceptive quality
one would expect from the son of wily Odysseus: he does not reveal Athena’s identity,
nor that the guest was a goddess, though he clearly knows himself of her divinity
(Od.1.319-23), which makes Antinous’ words at 1.384 heavy with unsuspecting irony.
Telemachus misleads multiple times in the speech, saying (Od.1.413-419): "Eurymachus,
surely my father's home-coming is lost and gone... this stranger is a friend of my father's
… he declares that he is Mentes...” Of course these are false words: Telemachus now has
it from divine authority that his father is alive and on his return, and he has taken more
than the messenger’s words to heart: but her lessons in rhetoric also.39 He maintains a
despair that he no longer feels, and he must continue the façade, so that he can lead them
into a false sense of security and fulfil the plans implanted in him by Athena.
38 Austin (1969), Clarke (1963) and Heath (2001), (2005) 39 Austin (1969), 54
13
ADVENTURES: III AND IV
Telemachus leaves Ithaca following the goddess’ advice, and goes in search of news for
his father. It is no surprise that he attends on Nestor and Menelaus, the former noted
throughout ancient epic as a fine speaker whose speech is “like honey” (Il.1.247–253),
and Menelaus, who in the Odyssey represents another fine rhetorician, sharing
Telemachus’ pepnumenos epithet. Where the suitors have polluted hospitality and courtly
life, Telemachus requires the opportunity to learn from the best orators, in schools for a
prince, travelling from a land devoid of princely learning.40
Upon reaching Nestor’s palace, Telemachus feels utterly inadequate to the task of
speaking to one so eloquent (Od.3.23–4). He is aware of his lack of training and
experience, and once more Athena reassures him. As Heath states, there is a delicate
balance between respect for seniority and participation/practise in this mature world.41
But Nestor puts the youth at ease with his compliments and comparisons to his father
(Od.3.124-25), though he tempers it with “if indeed thou art his son” (Od.3.121-3): this
last part echoing Athena’s doubt, making it a stock formula that will appear in each part
of Telemachus’ education. It is a phrase that catalogues his development, and at this
intermediate stage, denotes his immaturity.42 As Martin explains, Telemachus’ speech
was too blatant (Od.3.79-101), using imperatives such as “µειλίσσεο”, demanding he not
be treated like a child, leaves room in Nestor’s mind to doubt his words, because
Telemachus speaks too plainly to his host.43 Nestor is, of course, an Iliadic herō whose
aidōs relies on his ability to give good counsel and settle neikea, which requires a high
level of oratorical skill and understanding. The fact that Telemachus fails to ingratiate
himself as guest by not appreciating Nestor’s level of rhetorical skill shows that he
himself has much to learn.
When Athena leaves Telemachus, she is replaced by Nestor’s son, Peisistratus, a youth
40 Clarke (1963), 138. Though Rose (1967), 393, disagrees that Telemachus can simply absorb values from exposure to these places and people. Rather, Rose credits Telemachus with the courage for leaving Ithaca, his nostos and his herōic redemption of Ithaca. 41 Heath (2005), 102 42 Heath (2001), 141 43 Martin (1984), 42ff discusses the aidōs of Nestor, and Telemachus’ incapability of “respectful reticence”, which is in contrast to his words to Mentes prior to entering the court (3.23–4).
14
who has been raised and nurtured in an environment suitable for a young herō. He
teaches Telemachus as much by example as either host does, and when the two arrive at
Sparta, it is he who explains to Menelaus that Telemachus takes it ill to show
“ἐπεσβολίας” (Od.4.159) in the presence of one whose voice they both delight in “like a
god's”.44 As Heath notes, Pisistratus almost usurps Telemachus’ role as guest and also his
patronymic epithet, an honour that Homer reserves for his herōes.45 Telemachus does not
speak except for a whisper (Od.4.71) until the hosts have spoken at length, and it is
Pisistratus who subtly hints, in contrast to Telemachus’ blatant questioning of Nestor, that
their purpose in Sparta is to enquire after Odysseus.
Though in the Iliad, Menelaus is described as a man of action and few words (Il.312-15),
as a host in the Odyssey, he is described both by Nestor and Pisistratus as pepnumenos
(Od.3.328; 4.190). He battles fiercely in what many have deemed a “storytelling dual”
with Helen, who appears sharp-tongued (Od.4.138-154; 4.203-89). What is more,
commentators argue that there is such conflict underlying their words that Telemachus
can learn from these squabbling hosts.46 Schmiel has argued that Telemachus receives an
education in the varying levels of rhetorical success in the court. 47 He goes even further
to argue that Sparta is a warning to Telemachus, more subtle than the paradigm of
Agamemnon and Clytemnestra, of the dangers of an estranged marriage and the non-too
sweet resolution of parted spouses.48 This instils an even stronger urge for the son to help
his father’s claim for Penelope.
But ultimately, Menelaus comes to call Telemachus a herō (Od.4.312): the first time the
term is attached to the young prince.49 Telemachus’ refusal to stay (Od.4.593-608) after
Menelaus beseeches him (Od.4.587-92), garners him more praise from the king
(Od.4.611). In fact, he lies to Menelaus, Austin suggests, in order to ensure he may leave
44 Heath (2005), 103 notes Il. 2.275, “epesbolon” is used of Thersites; this reference perhaps signals Telemachus’ inability to construct an appropriate and pleasing speech. Speaking kata kosmon is important for an Odyssean herō. 45 Heath (2001), 141 46 Olson (1989), summarises the lessons taught by their ‘debate’. 47 Schmiel (1972), 465, 468 digests Helen’s speech at 235ff with Aristotelian rhetorical analysis. 48 Ibid, 472 49 Heath (2005), 104 states in De Jong’s Commentary (2001a) (ad 4.312) “Menelaus’ use of the epithet may reveal that the narrator notes Telemachus’ progress to maturity.”
15
directly, and when declining the hospitality, he opens with flattery, at (Od.4.595-599):
"...wondrous is the pleasure I take in listening to thy tales and thy speech." He suggests
that his friends are waiting for him; though friends are hardly more pressing than his
mission, and it is a simple lie to avoid insulting his host: showing he is learning the
complex guest-friendship code.50 When we return to Telemachus in Book XV, he tells
Menelaus that he fears some precious possession of his has been stolen back home
(Od.15.86-91). This hints at the truth, since it is strongly suggested that the possession is
his mother stolen by the suitors,51 and is a clever appeal directed to his host: a man who
more than any other would feel possessive over his wife. In fact, after the Telemacheia’s
hiatus, there remains no timidity in Telemachus’ words and in his farewell every
ingratiating word is directed to or from Telemachus, not Pisistratus, with the entirety of
the gifts offered to Telemachus and not his companion (Od.15.64-159).52 He also
persuades Pisistratus to allow him to leave without tarrying in Pylos (Od.15.195-201),
and finally returns to Ithaca, more mature than before and his rhetorical skills developing.
50 Austin (1969), 51ff accounts Telemachus’ lies. 51 21.106–107 culminates Telemachus’ ‘auctioning off’ his mother as some sort of “ἄεθλον”. 52 Scott (1918), 424
16
NOSTOS: BOOK XVI AND CONCLUSION
Modern scholarship usually restricts the development of Telemachus to the Telemacheia,
yet there is a final level of education before the final results of Telemachus’ maturation
become evident.53 The time he spends with his father, most notably in Eumaeus’ hut in
Book XVI, allows Telemachus to practise his rhetoric and plotting (Od.16.309 ff). There
is also the opportunity to question the swineherd for information (Od.16.461–3), and
even to interrogate his father about his journey (Od.16.222-24). In this regard, he now
acts as host and Odysseus plays the long-awaited guest.54 He debates battle plans and
even offers his father advice, showing a vast improvement from his youthful self at the
beginning by being able to discuss tactics with such an experienced warrior. He speaks
first when questioning Eumaeus (Od.16.460) and once more disregards his former role of
passive responder.
Odysseus’ repetition of an earlier doubt “εἰ ἐτεόν γ’ ἐµός ἐσσι καὶ αἵµατος ἡµετέροιο...”
(Od.16.300-304), is the final use of the phrase, and signifies the education is coming to
an end. Yet, where there was true doubt before, it is now a challenge, and the speech
introduction “προσεφώνεε φαίδιµος υἱός” (Od.16.308) proves Telemachus is worthy. The
significance of mentioning his role as “υἱός”, not his name, marks the relationship that
will be a focus henceforth. With the two reunited, it is time for Telemachus’ final
lesson.55 Telemachus is not to become a herō with a glorious name through war, but
instead he, like his father, must disguise himself, masking his true purpose to the suitors.
Telemachus, by emulating his father in this respect, fulfils what any son in the epics
strives to accomplish, but moreover is becoming a herō of this particular epic.56
Therefore, in Odysseus’ words at 16.300, he explicitly connects concealment and
deception with kinship to his son and “illustrious” affirms this connection.57 This lesson
must be taught by Odysseus himself and we see the results immediately as Telemachus
53 Roisman (1994), 22 54 Beck (1999), 131 55 Austin (1969), 57 stresses that Odysseus is the necessary, final teacher. 56 Heath (2001), 144. E.g. Hector’s comment (Il.6.479f) and Achilles’ joy that his son is preeminent (Od.11.534f). 57 Beck (1999), 132; Rose (1967), 136, suggests that Odysseus needs Telemachus as much as the boy needs his father; there may be such meaning in these words.
17
keeps his silence in front of Eumaeus (Od.16.476-7). They share a conspiratorial moment
together, father and son, represented by Telemachus’ smile, “µείδησεν δ’ ἱερὴ ἲς
Τηλεµάχοιο ἐς πατέρ’ ...” (Od.16.476f); the first mutual act of their relationship is based
on intrigue and the rhetorical skill of silence over speech. Odysseus’ challenge is not just
a test of his loyalty, therefore, but also a lesson in their familial trait.58
Consequently, by fulfilling his role as son and adopting fully the meaning of
pepnumenos, Telemachus has developed into a speaker worthy of his title, and his
familial heritage. His development is clearly shown throughout the epic, and he outgrows
the childish despondency that inhibits him at the poem’s opening. His skills in rhetoric:
knowing when to speak and when not to, speech loaded with purpose and persuasion, is
displayed by a complex combination of authority and deception directed both to his
audiences Though he does not overtake his father, neither as king nor as the supreme
polumetis trickster of the epic, he becomes an Odyssean hero, born through his tutelage
from the Iliadic heroes Nestor and Menelaus; his father and the goddess Athena.59 His
rhetorical maturity is necessary for the denouement of the epic and, consequently, his
development into an Odyssean hero fully catalogues the poem’s transferral of herōic
ideals from one epic to the other.60
58 Beck (1999), 133, “the unexpected use of answering language emphasizes Telemachus' self- control in keeping silent, an unusual ability that Odysseus also has." 59 Martin (1993), 240 60 Heath (2005), 155
18
BIBLIOGRAPHY
TRANSLATIONS: Homer. Iliad vol. 1 & 2. Rev. ed. Wyatt W. F., Murray A. T. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press (1924). Homer. Odyssey vol. 1 & 2. Rev. ed. Dimock G. E. & Murray A. T., Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press (1919).
BOOKS AND JOURNAL ARTICLES Austin N., ‘Telemachos Polymechanos’, CSCA 2, (1969) 45-‐63. Bassett S. E., ‘That Young Prig Telemachus’, The Sewanee Review, Vol. 28, No. 2 (Apr., 1920), pp. 160-‐171. Beck D., ‘Speech Introductions and the Character Development of Telemachus’, The Classical Journal, Vol. 94, No. 2 (Dec., 1998 -‐ Jan., 1999), pp. 121-‐141.
Belmont D. E., ‘Athena and Telemachus’, The Classical Journal, Vol. 65, No. 3 (Dec., 1969), pp. 109-‐116.
Clarke H.W., ‘Telemachus and the Telemacheia’, The American Journal of Philology, Vol. 84, No. 2 (Apr., 1963), pp. 129-‐145. Clark M., ‘Was Telemachus Rude to His Mother? "Odyssey" 1.356-‐59’, Classical Philology, Vol. 96, No. 4 (Oct., 2001), pp. 335-‐354.
Dale H.T., ‘Homeric ἐπητής/ἐπητύς: Meaning and Etymology’, Glotta, vol. 60 (1982), pp. 205-‐214.
Eckert W., ‘Initiatory Motifs in the Story of Telemachus’, The Classical Journal, Vol. 59, No. 2 (Nov., 1963), pp. 49-‐57.
Foley J. M., Homer’s Traditional Art, Pennsylvania University Press (1999).
Heath J., The Talking Greeks: Speech, Animals, and the Other in Homer, Aeschylus, and Plato, Cambridge University Press (2005); Chapter 2, pp. 79-‐118. Heath J., ‘Telemachus ΠΕΠΝΥΜΕΝΟΣ: Growing into an Epithet’, Mnemosyne, Fourth Series, Vol. 54, Fasc. 2 (Apr., 2001), pp. 129-‐157. Jones P. V., ‘The Kleos of Telemachus: Odyssey 1.95’, The American Journal of Philology, Vol. 109, No. 4 (Winter, 1988), pp. 496-‐506.
19
Martin R. P., ‘Hesiod, Odysseus, and the Instruction of Princes’, Transactions of the American Philological Association Vol. 114 (1984), pp. 29-‐48. Martin R.P., The Language of Heroes: Speech and Performance in the Iliad. Ithaca/London, Cornell University Press (1989). Martin R. P., ‘Telemachus and the Last Hero Song’ Colby Quarterly, Volume 29, no.3, (September 1993), pp. 222-‐240.
Olson S. D., ‘The Stories of Helen and Menelaus’, AJP 110 (1989), pp. 387-‐94. Parry M. and Parry A., (ed.), ‘The traditional epithet in Homer’, in The collected papers of Milman Parry, Oxford University Press (1987).
Roisman H. M., ‘Like Father Like Son Telemachus’ kleos’, Rheinisches Museum für Philologie, Neue Folge, 137. Bd., H. 1 (1994), pp. 1-‐22. Rose G. P., ‘The Quest of Telemachus’, Transactions and Proceedings of the American Philological Association, Vol. 98 (1967), pp. 391-‐398. Schmiel R., ‘Telemachus in Sparta’, Transactions and Proceedings of the American Philological Association, Vol. 103 (1972), pp. 463-‐472.
Scott J. A., ‘The Journey Made by Telemachus and Its Influence on the Action of the "Odyssey"’, The Classical Journal, Vol. 13, No. 6 (Mar., 1918), pp. 420-‐428. Scott J. A., ‘Did Homer Have an “Odyssey” in Mind while Composing the “Iliad”?’, The Classical Journal, Vol.13 No. 8 (May 1918) pp. 607-‐615.
Shewan R., ‘Telemachus at Sparta’, The Classical Journal, Vol. 22, No. 1 (Oct., 1926), pp. 31-‐37.
Thalmann W. G., Conventions of form and thought in early Greek epic poetry, Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press (1984).
Woodhouse J., The Composition of Homer's Odyssey, Oxford (I930).
ALL GREEK TEXT TAKEN FROM: http://perseus.uchicago.edu/
WEBSITES: http://www.jstor.org/
20
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/ http://perseus.uchicago.edu/ http://www.poetryintranslation.com/ http://www.typegreek.com/