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

Andrew

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

& lines 97-204

Book 1 line 229

Book 2 lines 199-200

Book 4 line 611

This resource was uploaded by: Andrew