Tutor HuntResources English Resources
Why Does The Odyssey Open With The Story Of Telemachus?
Analysis of Homer`s Odyssey and it`s use of deuteragonal primacy.
Date : 18/11/2018
Author Information
Uploaded by : Andrew
Uploaded on : 18/11/2018
Subject : English
The
Odyssey s opening dramatic structure,
of outlining its subject in the form of Odysseus, and then promptly silencing
him through non-agency until book 5, may appear to suggest a primary focus on
the supposed secondary characters. However, it can be argued that this absence
is not only necessary to the thematic and literary potency of the work[1],
but integral to framing the Odyssey as
a poem centred on its protagonist. It is in this absence that two fundamental
dramatic elements are established& the role of the household in achieving kleos, through the nostos of the hero, and the crystallization of the central theme of
storytelling. It is within these two elements that the need for a secondary,
yet linked, character becomes apparent due to the need for both a household to
return to, and an audience for the aforementioned stories& thus we are provided
with the figure of Telemachus. Although there is much to be said for the
inclusion and agency provided to Penelope[2],
as a secondary and revelatory character to Odysseus, it is the context of
performance, and society at large, which instils particular potency to
Telemachus and demands the immediacy of his presentation in the work. It is the
context of both a patriarchal political system and male dominated mode of
cultural dissemination[3],
in conjunction with the desired dynamic relationship between audience and
author[4]
that demands the figure of Telemachus, and equally afford him his primacy over
his mother Penelope. It is therefore of no surprise, that woven into the
character of Telemachus are several essential dramatic elements which only he
could form the vehicle for, the significance of which shall now be further
explored. To
properly analyse the significance of Telemachus and his primacy within the
dramatic structure, the full context of the oikos
must be established, and subsequently Telemachus role within this. As
outlined in Hesiod s Work and Days[5]
what is stored up at home is not a source of worry for what is outside is
at risk , and this in many ways summarises the problem at the heart of the Odyssey. Through the inclusion of
Telemachus, we are presented with two literary spheres, one of Odysseus and his
travels primarily revealed through analeptic storytelling, and a current
dramatic unfolding of events within the household offered through the filter of
Telemachus daily dealings with the Odysseus oikos in absentia. Some academics, such as Bently, go so far as to
suggest the Odyssey was written for
the other sex , standing in stark comparison to the Iliad, made for men [6]. However,
in feminising the Odyssey and its
central theme of return to the household, oikos,
this denies the integral male role in both creating and maintaining the
household. In fact, it can be ventured that the oikos, although maintained by feminine presences during absence, is
a solely male creation. Prime evidence for this can be found in the symbol of
Odysseus bed[7]
in book 23, a centralized symbol of the household, both in its concrete and
conceptual form. The bed, being one he himself built [8]and
simultaneously immovable save for a god coming to help in person [9]
demonstrate both the permanency of the oikos,
and its heart being a male creation despite its required female occupation, as
illustrated by the Odysseus pursuit of not only the bed, but the wife he
wishes to lay besides& going so far as to consistently reject divine partners,
despite the fact that circumspect Penelope can never match the impression for
beauty and stature [10]
given by divine figures such as Calypso. In this, the significance of the oikos, and in particular the oikos made by no other man [11]
than Odysseus, is given superseding authority, over even the Divine. It is at
the heart of this all-important oikos,
that we find both the bed and the product of it& Telemachus. As such,
Telemachus carries within his character both the symbolism the bed[12]
and the unique weight of Odysseus idealized patrilineage[13],
serving as a dynamic and enfranchised representation of these integral elements
of Odysseus nostos. In line with
this reading, it is simply a matter of dramatic structure as to Telemachus
preceding presentation to Odysseus, standing in as a necessary dramatic
representation of what Odysseus pine(s) for [14]
in his absence& an absence which is crucial to the basic plot of the Odyssey. Although
touched upon above, the prevalence of Telemachus over Penelope is a matter of
great importance, and worthy of further exploration. In essence this dominance
stems from the key aspect& Goldhill s suggestion of dynamic reader-response[15].
Inherent within this reading is the necessity for a sympathetic and,
fundamentally, relatable character& a reference point within the literary
construct through which the audience gains access to the conceptual relevance
of the character s tribulations. Greece at this point in its development was
firmly a male dominated society, with both political agency and scholarly
activity reserved exclusively for the male population[16],
it therefore follows that to provide the deeply ruminative and subversive
qualities exhibited in the Homeric epics[17],
a characterised reference point to normalcy, or generic features[18],
must first be established. To this end Telemachus is both archetypical and
simultaneously deeply problematized. In his initial portrayal we see both a
typical son of a hero, and the deeply subverted son of Odysseus& a character
aspect which is facilitated by Telemachus interaction with his surrounding
context, principally his mother, the suitors and Odysseus through his absence.
Upon Athene s visitation of Telemachus in book 1 he is described as godlike ,
and possessing a heart that would be scandalized by the knowledge that a
guest should still be standing at the doors .[19]
It is in these qualities that we see the staples of an archetypical Greek
elite, one who adheres to the principles of xeinosune
outlined in Hesiod s Works and Days[20],
summarised aptly by the line invite him to dinner who is friendly and expanded
upon by Goldhill[21]
among many others. This principle of guest friendship, or xeinosune, is something we see throughout epic tradition, and of
great importance both culturally and academically within Archaic and Classical
Greece. In essence, xeinosune is the
human element of the later coined justice of Empedocles[22].
This is a principle which pervades all things and emphasises the necessity of
reciprocity, due to this being an offshoot of the natural justice, successive
supremacy and egalitarianism found in nature. Once again we look to Hesiod s Works and Days to see the foundational
nature of this principal, outlined by Zeus rejection of the progenitor humans
for their failings to treat each other with the reciprocity inherent within xeinosune, simply summarised as give
whoso gives, and give not whoso gives not (Hesiod, Works and Days& lines 97-204)[23].
With this literary and social context in mind, Telemachus is perfectly in line
with the contemporary expectations of the son of a ruling lord, and equally
provides an immediate and stark contrast to the presentation of the suitors& Characters
that both divinely disapproved of by Athene for their disgraceful behaviour [24]
and consistent pernicious rejecters of tradition and reciprocity, as self-proclaimed
men who fear no one, and surely not Telemachus [25].
In this, the dominance of these subversive figures could only be construed as
such a complex affront when yoked with the archetypical nature of Telemachus&
it is in his dynamic representation of the traditional principles and role as a
reader reference point, against the dramatic context of Odysseus absence, that
allow the suitors threat to tradition and justice[26]
to become so apparent. In
addition to Telemachus role as a reader reference point, it is important not
to neglect his most readily apparent role& the son of Odysseus. This role is
crucial in its own right, but further pertinence is granted by the exploration
of actions against words[27]
embedded within the themes of the Odyssey.
In this there are two critical roles made apparent& Telemachus representation
and initial establishment of idealized patrilineage[28],
and his subsequent role in the cycle of kleos,
a concept which is consistently presented as inheritable and mutual[29].
Both of these roles are crystallized in books 3-4, through the contexts which
we see Telemachus placed& Pylos and Sparta, the houses of Nestor and Menelaus
respectively. These are decidedly civilized and exemplary contexts, which offer
ample examples of orderly and kleos
laden households, whilst also presenting a didactic element to the typically
sung nature[30]
of kleos bestowing stories. Most
pertinently, we see a clear contrast between the troubled household of Odysseus
and the ordered households of Nestor and Menelaus, both of whom have achieved
their nostos, in which a better time
to interrogate our guests is displayed, framing exchange of information as a
reciprocal action following the pleasure of eating . In Telemachus inquiries
of Nestor and Menelaus within this reciprocal context, the mutual nature of kleos is revealed, alongside the dynamic
relationship between the audience, those who effectively bestow kleos, and the bard who disseminates the
kleos worthy deeds. Through the act
of investigative inquiry, Telemachus demonstrates the audience s role in both
consumption of epic poetry and in bestowing kleos.
Once again this relates to the consistently demonstrated testing seen in all
acts of recognition[31],
naturally a precursor to fame and kleos:
a thematic premise which could not be aptly set up by Odysseus himself, this
would rather simply elicit the question of authorial intent and interaction
with one s own stories. Furthermore we see a repeated and expanded-upon parallel
or alternative version of inheritance of kleos,
through the story of Agamemnon s murder, and subsequent avenging at the hands
of his son, Orestes. In Agamemnon s preclusion from complete nostos detailed in lines 258- 261 book
3, we are shown a broken example of the cycle of kleos, one which must hence be restored by his son and heir,
Orestes. In many ways, this is perfectly in line with the inherent test
attached to recognition[32]
and achieving kleos, but it also
demonstrates both the role of the son within this cycle and the necessity of
action to facilitate the inheritance of this kleos. To this end, Orestes and Telemachus can be seen as parallels,
however this breaks down upon the consistent assertion by both storytellers,
Nestor and Menelaus emphasising the return of Odysseus. It is here that
Telemachus is shown to be the facilitator of an idealized patrilineage of kleos with the death of the father
absent from the cycle[33]&
one in which the reciprocity based true blood [34]of
Odysseus s linage will conquer evil of the suitors. This is subsequently
emphasised structurally by the juxtaposition of the two scenes& Menelaus
recognition of Telemachus and the murder plot of the suitors. It is uniquely
through the filter of Telemachus that these aspects of kleos and its linage can be explored& once again it is Telemachus
dual role as a generic reference point[35]
and unique son of Odysseus, which allows this idealized patrilineage of kleos to be revealed. Telemachus serves
as both an archetypical and interchangeable character within traditional
stories of kleos, such as that of
Orestes, and simultaneously wildly rejects this notion of a traditional cycle
as the only character who could present this idealized patrilineage, as the son
of Odysseus& an integral thematic backdrop through which the anchor points for
questioning of Odysseus actions and stories are established. It can thus be seen
that Telemachus, and the opening of the Odyssey
with the Telemachy, are integral aspects of the thematic backdrop of the work.
It is Telemachus duality of roles, contextually a reference for dynamic reader
response and dramatically the unique character of Odysseus son, which makes
the Odyssey s opening so effective in
outlining the inherent dramatic questions, and fundamentally facilitates these
questions pertaining to storytelling and the conflict between words and
actions& without the Telemachy and Telemachus as a provider of thematic agency,
Odysseus and his actions could not be analysed in such a complex manner whilst
still maintaining his absence. Crucially, it is this absence which elevates the
thematic focus from a question solely of authorial intent, to a complex network
of dramatic questions relating to kleos,
nostos, and the possible forms of
patrilineage within the contemporary context.
[1] Marilyn A. Katz 1991: 20-53
[2] P. Marquardt 1985: 32-48[3] A. Dalby 1995: 269-279[4] S. Goldhill 1991: 24-68[5] M. L. West 1988/ Hesiod, Works and Days lines 364-366[6] R. Bently 1713[7] F. I. Zeitlin 1995[8] R. Lattimore 1991/ Homer, Odyssey, Book 23 line 178[9] R. Lattimore 1991/ Homer, Odyssey, Book 23 lines 184-88[10] R. Lattimore 1991/ Homer, Odyssey, Book 5 line 217[11] R. Lattimore 1991/ Homer, Odyssey, Book 23 line 189[12] F. I. Zeitlin 1995[13] S. Goldhill 1991: 1-24[14] R. Lattimore 1991/ Homer, Odyssey, Book 5 line 219[15] S. Goldhill 1991: 24-68[16] R. Osborne 2009: Chapter 6 [17] S. Goldhill 1991: 1-24[18] J. L. Ready 2009: The Cambridge companion to Archaic Greece, Chapter 5[19] R. Lattimore 1991/ Homer, Odyssey, Book 1 lines 119-120[20] M. L. West 1988/ Hesiod, Works and Days lines 355-364 S. Goldhill 1991: 24-68
G. Vlastos 1984
M. L. West 1988/Hesiod,
R. Lattimore 1991/ Homer,
R. Lattimore 1991/ Homer,
G. Vlastos 1984& the justice referred to here is the philosophical justice of
Empedocles
S. Goldhill 1991
S. Goldhill 1991: 24-68
C. Segal 1994: 85-109
A. Dalby 1995: 269-279
S. Goldhill 1991: 24-68
C. Segal 1994: 85-109
S. Goldhill 1991: 1-24
R. Lattimore 1991/ Homer,
J. L. Ready 2009: The Cambridge companion to Archaic Greece, Chapter 5
This resource was uploaded by: Andrew