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/