|
|
Michael
Murrin, "Athena and Telemachus," IJCT 13 (2006-2007),
pp. 499-514.
The argument of this article is that, once one tries to interpret
the Homeric poems, major deities like Athena will invite allegorical
readings and that, in fact, Athena in the Odyssey should
be seen as polyvalent. A close reading of the initial discussion
between Athena and Telemachus reveals three distinct functions of
the goddess, which carry over into other scenes: her psychological
role as prudence, especially when one considers Telemachus and his
development towards manhood; her function as family daimon
or goddess of the household, when one wishes to understand why she
intervenes when she does; and finally the military goddess, when
one realizes what her true intent had been throughout the poem.
The scholiasts provide support for all three interpretations but
especially stress the first. These interpretations also appear in
the work of modern academics, both critics and historians of religion.
They show that the scholiasts, who do not show how they came to
their interpretations, and modern scholars who are more explicit
and certainly hold different assumptions and have different methodologies,
nevertheless, have provided accounts for these same three roles
of Athena in the poem. They show that the scholiasts were not erratic
readers of the poem. I simply present their readings, but the claim
for polyvalency is my own.
|
|