previous next

[7] The whole of Athena's address is a cento from earlier books of the Odyssey. The words “μή τις ἔτι . . ἤπιος ἦεν” (8. 12) are borrowed from Mentor's speech to the Ithacensians. The conversation of Menelaus with Proteus (4. 230-234) supplies the lines “νύμφης ἐν μεγάροισι . . θαλάσσης” (13-17); and the concluding lines are taken almost verbatim from the address of Medon to Penelope (4. 700-702). It is possible to consider this as an intentional recapitulation, in words with which the hearers of the earlier part of the poem were familiar. Against this we may quote the canon maintained by Gottf. Hermann, ‘de iteratis apud Homerum,’ that repetitions of the same words are only admissible in Homer under two circumstances; (1) ‘quae per ipsum rerum narrandarum ordinem saepius redeunt, per se patet rectius iisdem quam aliis verbis dici, ut “ἀράβησε δὲ τεύχἐ ἐπ᾽ αὐτῷ”, etc.;’ (2) ‘mandata iisdem verbis quibus accepta sunt perferuntur, quod ut antiquae simplicitatis est, ita eo quoque commendatur quod alioqui parum fidus esse nuntius videretur.’ This would limit Homeric iterations to regular epic formulae and to the delivery of messages. All other kinds of repetitions Hermann holds to be proofs of the work of composers of different dates, unless the one passage is an avowed and distinct reflection of the other. This seems a needlessly hard and fast line to draw, especially in dealing with poetical composition. Nor is there anything unnatural in such a general resumption of the thread of the story, that has been broken by the change of place and scene.

Those who find two distinct poems in the Odyssey, viz. a “Τηλεμαχία” and a “Νόστος Ὀδυσσέως”, blended or pieced together with more or less skill (see Od.4. 594), describe the opening of the fifth book as a palpable attempt to cover a gap between the two stories. They maintain that the narrative of the journeyings of Telemachus ends with the close of b. 4, only to be resumed in bb. 15, 16; and that the Nostos properly begins with b. 5. The introduction of the second council of the gods in Olympus is, according to this view, an awkward necessity, caused by the insertion of the Telemachia after the former council of the gods in b. 1. It is maintained, that when the earlier council had determined, in the absence of Poseidon, to bring Odysseus safe home, we ought to have had at once the despatch of Hermes with his warning message to Calypso—in short, an immediate transition from b. 1. 87 to b. 5. 30, with some such connecting line as “ὣς φάθ̓, ὁ δ᾽ Ἑρμείαν προσέφη νεφεληγερέτα Ζεύς”. This view may be seen briefly stated in Köchly, de Odys. carm. diss. I (pp. 11 foll.), Turici 1862; and more fully in C. SchmittJ. , de 2^{ndo} in Odys. deorum concilio interpolato, eoque centone, Freiburgae 1852, or P. Hennings Ch., die Telemachie (pp. 151 foll.), Leips. 1858. But, this treatment, it may be argued, betrays a want of appreciation of the main conception of the poem. The proposed rearrangement may simplify the mere sequence of facts, but it does so at the expense of the artistic construction of the plot in the Odyssey. Nothing can be more effective, it might be urged, than the break at the end of the fourth book, where the perils of Telemachus, waylaid by the suitors, produce not only a keen interest but a painful suspense. This is the moment chosen for a change. We should say, in modern language, that it is the end of one volume of the novel, which closes with an exciting situation. The next volume —to continue the illustration—opens with an entirely new scene. The length at which the poet has narrated the circumstances connected with Telemachus' departure from Ithaca will be found sufficient justification for the unusual iteration of lines from earlier parts of the poem. Each repetition is a sort of reminiscence to bring the mind back to the story of the principal hero. But, after all, the main difficulty remains untouched that in this second council of the gods Athena makes no reference whatever to the proposal for sending Hermes to Odysseus, which she had made in b. 1; but speaks as if there was no intention of doing anything for him.

23, 24. Athena had not expressed this “νόος” in her address in b. 1; she speaks there only of the return of Odysseus. The thought is first suggested in Nestor's words of comfort to Telemachus (3. 216), and reappears in the answer which Teiresias gives to Odysseus (11. 118).

Homer's Odyssey. W. Walter Merry. James Riddell. D. B. Monro. Oxford. Clarendon Press. 1886-1901.

The National Endowment for the Humanities provided support for entering this text.

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 United States License.

An XML version of this text is available for download, with the additional restriction that you offer Perseus any modifications you make. Perseus provides credit for all accepted changes, storing new additions in a versioning system.

hide References (1 total)
  • Commentary references from this page (1):
hide Display Preferences
Greek Display:
Arabic Display:
View by Default:
Browse Bar: