Odyssey Commentaries (Books 2 & 6)

        We can perhaps see Nausikaä as somewhat of a ‘feminine doublet of Telemachus’: yet-to-mature, slightly perplexing but courteous and promising. Indeed, Odysseus describes her virtually as such when he compares her to a ‘young palm-tree shooting up’ at Delos (6.161–167). The obvious point of comparison is her youth and beauty, but it is also true that this is where Leto gave birth to Apollo and, most interestingly, Artemis. This helps to characterise Nausikaä as a figure of innocence and seemingly great descent (and thus potential), akin to Telemachus. Odysseus saw this young palm on his way to Troy. His meeting with Nausikaä now, on his homecoming, therefore has a cruel irony: we may be prompted to think back to the beginnings of Odysseus’ journey and him leaving Ithaka and his then recently-born son Telemachus who is likely to still be subconsciously in our minds after having been characterised so strongly in the first four books (even attempting his own ‘mini-Odyssey’ in Pylos and Sparta). Comparisons between Nausikaä and Telemachus, and so Phaiacia and Ithaka, may thus be both worthwhile and hard to resist.

        Another significant much-recurring motif displayed in this passage concerns gaining hospitality, which Odysseus greatly requires travelling from land to land. Importantly, in order to do so he needs, to some extent, to reappraise his heroic ideals and quest for kleos (glory) that served him so well at Troy: the Iliad may require brawn, but the Odyssey requires brains. He has to be cautious and astute when landing anywhere in order to leave with his life. In this case, there is comic effect as we are aware that ‘mighty Odysseus is apprehensive [only] of a playful group of ladies’, but when we learn of his earlier encounters (for example, with Polyphemos) caution seems to be no laughing matter. Similarly, the issue of supplication (6.141–148) can be seen as a ‘test of Odysseus’ vaunted intelligence’: by not grasping Nausikaä’s knees, he shows an ability to adapt to the situation and favour words over action. Such an attitude will be required to its greatest degree when Odysseus returns home, slowly identifying himself to those closest to him (e.g. 16.187–212).

        Our passage, then, explicitly contains little more than Odysseus discovering Nausikaä and her servants in what seems to be an exotic utopia, allowing him to reach her parents and consequently be escorted home. On further inspection, one may note how the strife in Ithaka is contrasted well with the harmony of Phaiacia. Further, one’s appreciation of the poem may be increased by certain subtexts and themes that I have argued lie underneath the narrative: these motifs arguably give this scene its true depth and sense of unity with the rest of the poem.

---

Commentary II (2.35–145)

The passage opens with Telemachus taking the sceptre to speak in the assembly. In response to Aigyptios, Telemachus tells us that it was he who called the assembly, there is no enemy advancing and the matter is ‘business of his own’ (2.40–47). We know, however, that it was Athene (positioning herself as Telemachus’ mentor in the guise, for now, of Odysseus’ friend Mentes) who told Telemachus to call an assembly in her earlier visit to him; it was at this time, also, that she ordered him to thereafter journey to Pylos and Sparta (1.270–288).

        Telemachus asserts his troubles (and himself): the Suitors are consuming his inheritance with little regard. His family does not, he argues, have the strength to overpower them without Odysseus, who would certainly defend the house. Telemachus indirectly entreats the Ithakans for assistance by saying emotively that they are his enemy by encouraging the Suitors; surely Odysseus did them no wrong. He throws the sceptre to the ground, crying in anger while pity overcomes the onlookers.

        No one but Antinoös has the gall to attack Telemachus, diverting the blame from the suitors to Penelope, whom they are courting. She is, in more senses than one, ‘stringing them along’: she nightly unpicked the thread that she, by day, wove for Laertes’ burial shroud, as she had promised to pick a suitor when it was complete. Antinoös orders Telemachus to ask Penelope’s father to arrange her marriage—or the Suitors shall continue to ‘consume your substance’ (2.122). He replies, simply, that he will do no such thing.

        This scene most patently concerns the development and characterisation of Telemachus. We first met him helplessly pining for his father (1.113–118), but he seems more assertive after the intervention of Athena-Mentes. ‘Calling an assembly implies kingship’. To what extent Telemachus assumes this role is, however, debatable. He is poised as he starts to speak, but soon after this composure cracks. His throwing down of the sceptre, to highlight one example, may be seen as an externalisation of his frustration to match up to Odysseus’ oratory (and thus a reminder of his relative shortcomings in strength and courage also): his gesture is feeble, he weeps as he throws. Indeed, Telemachus’ denunciation turns into an admission of weakness. His throwing of the sceptre may also remind us of the scene in the Iliad in which Achilles does the same at the Trojan assembly since both men are young and isolated. At the same time, both characters earn great honour through their deeds by the end of the Iliad and Odyssey respectively. The assembly thus sets the scene for Telemachus’ maturation as a character; for that, he needs now to be portrayed as impotent. This distinct theme links this episode to the whole of the Telemachy (books 1–4).

        The scene also raises important issues regarding Penelope. Her wiliness in delaying the suitors (with the shroud trick) is redolent of Odysseus, and his epithetical ‘much resource’ (1.1). Penelope is thus perhaps so faithful to her husband because of their similarity. On a deeper level, her shroud trick is reminiscent of the Morai (Fates) who spin the threads of people’s lives: as she is delaying the production of the shroud, so she is delaying her very life, waiting for Odysseus. However, there does not seem any reason why Penelope could not complete the shroud after choosing a suitor. It appears, though, that this ploy may be folkloric in origin: one can suspect that the funeral shroud was originally a wedding dress (the substitution binding Laertes to the narrative), thereby necessitating completion before marriage. There is further subtle characterisation of Penelope as Antinoös compares her to Tyro and Alcmena. On the face of it, the correspondence is in the women’s intelligence, but both women are also famous for being seduced by gods into sexual relationships. This could refer to Penelope’s internal torment as she attempts to stave off what seems like her inevitable seduction; gods are often used to symbolise abstract ideas. Also, it could even allude to the fact that in other traditions Antinoös does seduce Penelope. However, in this poem she sees him as repellent (e.g. 16.418–421), and so any undertones that may exist can be said to do so only to retain suspense. Penelope here, importantly, is vicariously characterised as a strong-minded, intelligent woman: an honourable equal to Odysseus.

        Antinoös in this passage is primarily a foil for Telemachus, he emphasises Telemachus’ shortcomings by contrasting with them. Antinoös’ speech is ‘cool, sophisticated and uncompromising’. In it, we see an interesting literary device that is used throughout the poem: Telemachus is told of Penelope’s shroud trick when he would surely be already well aware of it, leading one to infer that this information must be for the listeners’/readers’ benefit. This further characterisation of Penelope allows one subsequently to better appreciate her emotions and thought processes upon reuniting with Odysseus. Antinoös, in this passage especially but also throughout the poem, can be said to symbolise the suitors as a whole. He is the most vocal and imperious, and via his and words, and actions, we are therefore most clearly incited to hate them. This groundwork arguably allows for later, more subtle, characterisation of the suitors: for example, Amphinomus may be seen as a more nuanced, ambivalent figure, who is not wholly malevolent (e.g. 18.124–126).

        To conclude, one could see this passage, and book 2 as a whole, as adding little to the narrative. In one sense, that view holds weight: Telemachus still goes on to take the trip that was planned for him, by Athene, in book 1. However, in another sense it certainly does not: Telemachus’ maturation requires this scene, emerging from his childhood timidity showing the rumblings of boldness that will later be instrumental in his relationship with his father (on whom, ultimately, the poem is focused) as they regain control of both the family house and kingdom. The assembly also elucidates many of the complex and multifaceted relationships in Ithaka; the audience is now able to track their subsequent development or, like Penelope and her love for Odysseus, constancy. This passage may not be seen as the most enthralling part of the narrative, but its reverberations can definitely be felt greatly through the poem as a whole.

---

Bibliography

• Ahl, F & Roisman, H.M (1996). The Odyssey Re-formed. New York: Cornell University Press
• Clarke, H. (1963). “Telemachus and the Telemacheia”. The American Journal of Philology 84: 129–140.
• Cohen, B. et al. (1995). The Distaff Side: Representing the Female in Homer’s Odyssey. New York: Oxford University Press
• Dawe, R.D. (1993). The Odyssey: Translation and Analysis. Sussex: The Book Guild
• Finley, J.H. (1978). Homer’s Odyssey. Cambridge: Harvard University Press
• Finley, M.I. (1977). The World of Odysseus. London: Chatto & Windus
• Gaunt, D.M. (1971). Surge and Thunder. Oxford: Oxford University Press
• Heubeck, A. (1988). A Commentary on Homer’s Odyssey: Volume I. Oxford: Oxford University Press
• Jones, P. (2007). Homer’s Odyssey: A Commentary Based on the English Translation of Richard Lattimore. Bristol: Bristol Classical Press
• Morrison, J. (2003). A Companion to Homer’s Odyssey. Westport: Greenwood Press
• Moulton, C. (1977). Similes in the Homeric Poems. Göttingden: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht
• Powell, B.B (1977). Composition by Theme in the Odyssey. Germany: Hain
• Thorpe, M. (1973). Inside the Ancient World: Homer. Worcester: Macmillan Education

---