Wissmann


Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 49 (2009) 413–452 
© 2009 GRBS 

 
 
 
 

Athena’s “Unreasonable Advice”:  
The Education of  Telemachus in 
Ancient Interpretations of  Homer 

Jessica Wissmann 

“I, too, dear child, have here a gift for thee,” as Helen says in 
Homer when she is giving Telemachus a parting gift. You are cele-
brating your first birthday since reaching man’s estate, and of all 
festive events this is the one which I enjoy and prize most highly. 

ITH THESE WORDS Dionysius of Halicarnassus dedi-
cates his treatise On Literary Composition to the young 
Rufus Metilius.1 Which mythological parallel could 

be more apt to someone who has just reached adulthood than 
Telemachus when about to return to Ithaca? If we look at our 
age, Telemachus is generally perceived as the educatee par 
excellence of all mythological characters. As Kipf has shown in a 
recent article, whenever Telemachus is the subject-matter in 
modern literature for the young (which is, however, not as 
often the case as one might expect),2 he is presented as a young 
man in search of his identity, undergoing an education under 
the guidance of Athena in disguise. Much of this is owed to the 
influential novel Les aventures de Télémaque by Fénelon, the tutor 
of the then dauphin. Printed in 1699, it is an account of 

 
1 “δῶρόν τοι καὶ ἐγώ, τέκνον φίλε, τοῦτο δίδωμι,” καθάπερ ἡ παρ’ Ὁμήρῳ 

φησὶν Ἑλένη ξενίζουσα τὸν Τηλέμαχον, πρώτην ἡμέραν ἄγοντι ταύτην 
γενέθλιον, ἀφ’ οὗ παραγέγονας εἰς ἀνδρὸς ἡλικίαν, ἡδίστην καὶ τιμιωτάτην 
ἑορτῶν ἐμοί (Comp. 1; transl. S. Usher [Loeb]). 

2 In many modern paraphrases of the Odyssey tailored to young readers, 
Telemachus does not appear at all: S. Kipf, “Eine mythische Gestalt mit 
pädagogischer Kraft oder nur Odysseus’ Sohn? Telemach in der neu-
zeitlichen Kinder- und Jugendliteratur,” in A. Luther (ed.), Odysseerezeptionen 
(Frankfurt am Main 2005) 95–105, at 101–103. 

W 



414 ATHENA’S “UNREASONABLE ADVICE”  

Telemachus’ travels in search of his father, accompanied by 
Minerva disguised as Mentor, resulting in a finally grown-up 
Telemachus returning to Ithaca. This novel was so obviously 
educative that it was part of French reading, e.g., in German 
high-schools for much of the 19th century.3 But how important 
was Telemachus as a prototype of an educatee in antiquity? In 
his review, Pontani criticises that Kipf neglects to mention that 
“the ancients had already a clear sense of the paedagogical pur-
port of Telemachus’ adventures as is certified by several scholia 
focusing on Telemachus’ paideia and psychology.”4 

The question whether the ancients perceived the character of 
Telemachus as useful for, or examplary of, the education of the 
young, is the more significant as Homer’s poetry was abun-
dantly used in ancient education (as the number of school-
papyri and numerous literary references show), and as the 
educational aspect formed an important part of Homeric 
criticism in antiquity. 

As regards the school-texts, it is a long-known fact that they 
show a clear preponderance of the reading of the Iliad, while 
the Odyssey is represented by a mere handful of texts. There is 
always a good chance that copies were used in school that do 
not show the typical markers of school-texts, and for this reason 
our idea of what was read in ancient classrooms will never be 
complete. But the school-texts reflect the predilections of an-
cient readers in general: papyri on the whole show the same 
imbalance, with texts taken from the Iliad outnumbering those 
from the Odyssey by far.5 Not only was the Odyssey studied less 
extensively in the schools; there was an even further narrowing 
down to passages culled from only a very few books, and none 

 
3 Kipf, in Odysseerezeptionen 98. 
4 F. Pontani, BMCR 2005.10.18. 
5 On the frequencies of school-texts taken from the Iliad and the Odyssey 

see R. Cribiore, Gymnastics of the Mind. Greek Education in Hellenistic and Roman 
Egypt (Princeton 2001) 194–196; T. Morgan, Literate Education in the Hellenistic 
and Roman Worlds (Cambridge 1998) 105–115. Regarding Homeric papyri in 
general, too, “the Iliad is constantly favored over the Odyssey by 2:1 or 
better”: M. Haslam, “Homeric Papyri and Transmission of the Text,” in I. 
Morris and B. Powell (eds.), A New Companion to Homer (New York 1997) 60–
61. 



 JESSICA WISSMANN 415 
 
of the passages copied on school-papyri reflects any specific in-
terest in Telemachus. 

But what about the evaluation of Homer’s poetry with a view 
to its educational utility? Do not Homeric scholia profusely 
point out all the things we can learn from Homer, or, as it is 
frequently put, all the things that Homer “teaches us”?6 The 
areas covered range from politics, religion, and philosophy, to 
sciences, ethics, and skills such as farming or fishing. In some 
cases even the education a character undergoes or has under-
gone is discussed. The speech of Phoenix, for instance, in Iliad 
9 has triggered ample discussion of this “teacher’s” relationship 
with his “student” Achilles, all the way to details such as which 
subjects Achilles was taught by Phoenix and which he was 
taught by Cheiron.7 Considering the numerous instances in the 
Odyssey in which Telemachus is given advice, is depicted as 
young and naive, or shows signs of coming of age, one should 
expect ancient commentators of Homer to have a comparable 
(if not greater) interest in these passages.  

Compared with the scholia on the Iliad, the scholia on the 
Odyssey, as we have them, show little tendency to draw didactic 
lessons from the poem. It is indicative (though by no means the 
only indication) of this lack of interest that the phrase “the poet 
teaches us” occurs only a few times. And yet, as a potentially 
important text, Antisthenes’ Ἀθηνᾶ ἢ περὶ Τηλεμάχου, is lost 
and known only by title, the scholia on the Odyssey remain one 
of the central texts in which the education of Telemachus is 
discussed. The other is a passage from the Homeric Questions of 
Heraclitus (61–63).8 

 
6 This thought is usually expressed by διδάσκω or (less frequently) παι-

δεύω, as in phrases like διδάσκει/παιδεύει ὁ ποιητὴς/ Ὅμηρος ὅτι… 
7 Schol. bT Il. 9.443a ex.: εἰ ὑπὸ Φοίνικος οὖν πεπαίδευται, τί παρὰ 

Χείρωνος ἐδιδάχθη; δηλονότι δικαιοσύνην καὶ ἰατρικήν (“if now he has been 
educated by Phoenix, what was he taught by Cheiron? Obviously, justice 
and the art of healing”). Needless to say, the heroic motto of Il. 9.443 (“to 
be a speaker of words and a doer of deeds”) was interpreted with a certain 
eagerness as a kind of rhetorical instruction (schol. T Il. 9.443a ex.; schol. A 
Il. 9.443b ex.). 

8 The scholia on Books 1 and 2 of the Odyssey are quoted after F. Pontani, 
Scholia graeca in Odysseam I (Rome 2007); occasionally, reference will also be 
 



416 ATHENA’S “UNREASONABLE ADVICE”  

But even though the education of Telemachus is discussed by 
these texts to a significant degree, I shall argue that it is not the 
primary focus, but rather contributes to a particular under-
standing of Athena. The concern is with the representation of 
the goddess rather than with the development of the young 
man. This is not to say that the “education” of Telemachus 
and his coming of age are ignored by the scholia altogether. 
But it is significant that the question of Telemachus’ education 
is raised in the context of the question why Athena sends him 
on a journey in the first place. 
Telemachus’ conventional education 

Although this paper is not about what is said in the Odyssey 
itself about Telemachus’ education, it is expedient to recall 
those three passages of the Odyssey in which the goddess gives 
her reasons for sending Telemachus on a journey. In the as-
sembly of the gods, she mentions inquiries about his father and 
the winning of fame (1.93–95); next, speaking directly to 
Telemachus, Athena (disguised as Mentes) gives what in es-
sence is practical advice and addresses the notion of fame not 
with regard to the journey but in reference to taking revenge 
on the suitors, for which Orestes serves as a paradigm (1.267–
302). Finally, when she brings Odysseus up to date in Od. 13, 
she explains to him that Telemachus went out to search for 
“your fame, if you are still somewhere” (13.415); she then as-
suages Odysseus’ worries and points out that Telemachus is 
supposed to “win fame.” In none of these passages does she ex-
pressly mention an educative intention, although when speak-
ing to Telemachus she once uses the verb ὑποτίθεσθαι (1.279), 
a word often used when an older person gives advice to a 
younger one.9 
___ 
made to A. Ludwich, Scholia in Homeri Odysseae Α 1–309 (Königsberg 1888–
1890). For the scholia on the other books of the Odyssey, quotations follow 
W. Dindorf, Scholia Graeca in Homeri Odysseam I–II (Oxford 1855). The scholia 
vetera on the Iliad are cited from H. Erbse, Scholia Graeca in Homeri Iliadem I–
VII (Berlin 1969–1988); Erbse’s marker of the exegetical type of scholia (ex.) 
is part of the reference. The D-Scholia after H. van Thiel, Scholia D in 
Iliadem, www.ub.uni-koeln.de/digital/fachinfos/altertum/volltexte/index_ 
ger.html. 

9 For the educational aspect of ὑποθῆκαι, especially that in father-son 
 



 JESSICA WISSMANN 417 
 

The scholia on the two passages from Book 1 start out with a 
criticism of Athena’s advice: it is “preposterous” (ἄτοπος) to 
send Telemachus on his journey, dangerous for both Telema-
chus and the house, especially as the suitors might take action 
(presumably against Telemachus) or use violence against Penel-
ope, there being no man in charge of the house; moreover, the 
journey is fruitless.10 Much of this criticism might derive from 
Odysseus’ dismay in Book 13 (417–419) when he first hears of 
his son’s travel abroad, such as the danger involved for 
Telemachus, or the fact that the house is left unattended.11 The 
“problem” that some unnamed critics of Homer identified is 
the question how such poor advice could be appropriate to a 
goddess, especially since Athena herself commends it as given 
“shrewdly” (πυκινῶς, 1.279).12 

The question whether Athena’s advice is reasonable con-
stitutes the starting point for the two most extensive discussions 
of Telemachus’ education in the scholia; two types of “solu-
tion” are suggested. The first type pertains to literary tech-
nique; it can be found in schol. HMaO Od. 1.284c and schol. 
DE Od. 1.284d. The journey provides an opportunity for 
variety (ποικιλία), with regard both to the narrative mode (i.e., 
by interspersing the narrative with direct speeches) and, “as the 
Odyssey does not offer sufficient variety,” to the subject-matter, 
with Nestor and Menelaus telling stories about the events at 
Troy (Helen is not mentioned in either scholion); schol. Od. 
1.284d refers to these stories by the technical term παρεκβά-
σεις, “digressions.”13 But within the logic of the plot, these 

___ 
relationships or those similar to them, see e.g. J. Kroll, Theognisinterpretationen 
(Leipzig 1936) 98–99; K. Bielohlawek, Hypotheke und Gnome. Untersuchungen 
über die griechische Weisheitsdichtung der vorhellenistischen Zeit (Leipzig 1940) 5–6. 

10 Schol. DEJMaO Od. 1.93b; schol. DH(O) Od. 1.284a. The texts of 
schol. Od. 1.93b as well as the relevant portions of schol. Od. 1.1l1 and of the 
scholia on Od. 1.284 are given with translation in the Appendix. 

11 Athena’s account, potentially providing some ammunition for the 
scholia, is at 13.412–415 and 421–428. 

12 Schol. DHO Od. 1.284a (pp.150.53–151.55). 
13 In a similar manner, schol. bT Il. 24.804a ex. (preceding the hypothesis c 

Od. 1 in cod. O; printed by Ludwich as part of this hypothesis [p.5.19–23], 
but not by Pontani) reports the view of Menecrates (for possible identifi-
 



418 ATHENA’S “UNREASONABLE ADVICE”  

explanations do not save Athena from the charge of giving 
unsound advice.14 

The second type of “solution,” found in schol. Od. 1.284b1, 
b2, and c, remains figurenimmanent:15 Telemachus is sent on his 
journey to Nestor in order to be educated (παιδευθησόμενον) 
and to Menelaus in order to gather the most recent informa-
tion about Odysseus.16 As regards the latter point, the lack of 
response Telemachus shows in Od. 4.594 ff. after listening to 
Menelaus’ report of what Proteus has told him about Odys-
seus17 could have induced commentators to regard the journey 
as pointless or, at any rate, not to pursue this aspect any further 
in their attempt to justify Athena’s actions. 

Whether owing to a lack of interest in that matter, or to the 
haphazardness of transmission, not much else is said by the 

___ 
cation see Erbse ad loc.) that “the poet sensed his own weakness and that he 
could not pass over in silence the events after Hector’s death”; for this 
reason, and because the plot about the house of Odysseus alone would be 
too small, he has characters in the Odyssey narrate stories of the events sub-
sequent to Hector’s death. Erbse gives more parallels for this view of the 
Odyssey as “completing” the Iliad in his annotations on this scholion. In the 
scholia on the Odyssey, this view is expressed by schol. E Od. 3.248; see also 
R. Nünlist, The Ancient Critic at Work. Terms and Concepts of Literary Criticism in 
Greek Scholia (Cambridge 2009) 48. 

14 In the long explanation of schol. DH Od. 1.284a, the idea is rejected 
that Homer has Athena send Telemachus on the journey in order to bring 
about his meeting with Odysseus at Eumaeus’ farm in Book 16, as Telema-
chus could go there just as well without having returned from a journey; the 
scholion does acknowledge, however, that Athena orders Telemachus to 
hurry back home (Od. 15.10–42) so that he will meet with Odysseus (schol. 
Od. 1.284a, p.153.18–23). 

15 Schol. HTVY Od. 1.284b1 and schol. E Od. 1.284b2 also point out that 
Telemachus will gain glory in searching for his father. 

16 As the last to have returned home, Menelaus could provide informa-
tion about Odysseus’ whereabouts—which is essentially a paraphrase of the 
Homeric text (Od. 1.286). The same distinction is also made by Heraclitus at 
62.7, on which more will be said below. Cf. also schol. DEJMaO Od. 1.93d1 
and schol. M Od. 3.317. 

17 Telemachus responds to Menelaus’ invitation to stay longer at his 
house; his only reaction to Menelaus’ report is the more or less conventional 
praise of the pleasure derived from it. He does not make any mention of the 
information he has received about his father. 



 JESSICA WISSMANN 419 
 
scholia about the education Telemachus received from Nestor. 
No “educational” interpretation of Nestor’s lengthy speeches 
addressed to Telemachus in Od. 3 has come down to us. Only 
his exhortation to Telemachus to be brave “in order that his 
descendants speak well of him” (3.199–200) is duly noted as 
such (προτροπή); the scholion adds that future fame is the best 
incentive for noblemen.18 His mention of Orestes as an 
example for Telemachus is, at any rate in the extant scholia, 
not seen as an educative tool; all that is said is that the story of 
Orestes has gripped Telemachus so much that he praises 
Orestes and therefore neglects the thought of his father.19 So 
one is left essentially with the rather general observation in 
schol. DE Od. 1.284b2 that Nestor has an educative influence 
on account of “experience that comes with old age.” 

The thought that such experience “rubs off” occurs also in 
schol. DEHMaOT Od. 1.279a, and this time Menelaus is 
included: the commentator suggests that Telemachus would 
benefit from the journey because he meets the older men (i.e. 
Nestor and Menelaus). Again, this is rather unspecific and does 
not venture any information as to what it is that Telemachus 
would learn from them; moreover, the notion that the mere 
company of other, especially older, persons has an educative 
effect was a commonplace.20 Phoenix and Achilles are a good 

 
18 Schol. MQ Od. 3.199.200, ἐν συντόμοις ἡ προτροπή. μάλιστα γὰρ τῶν 

εὐφυῶν ἅπτεται ἡ ἐπὶ ταῖς καλαῖς πράξεσιν ἐσομένη δόξα, “The exhortation 
in a nutshell. For future glory on account of fine deeds has the strongest grip 
on nobles.” Cf. also schol. HJMaTe Od. 1.302e (on Athena’s exhortation): 
ἵνα τίς σε καὶ ὀψιγόνων ἐὺ εἴπῃ] … ταῦτα λοιπὸν εἰδυῖα τὸ φιλότιμον τῶν 
νέων λέγει, “‘In order that one of your descendants will praise you’: … She 
says this knowing that the ambition of the young is aimed at the future.” 

19 καὶ λίην κεῖνος μέν] οὕτως ἥψατο ὁ λόγος τοῦ Τηλεμάχου, ὡς τὰ περὶ 
τὸν πατέρα ἀφεὶς μακαρίζειν Ὀρέστην (schol. EQ Od. 3.203). 

20 Strangely, though, Telemachus appears in Aelian (VH 12.25) in a list of 
mythical and historical characters who benefited from someone else as 
having profited from Menelaus, not Nestor. This may be due to the fact that 
Nestor expressly sent Telemachus to Menelaus. Another explanation could 
be that Nestor has been mentioned as part of the preceding pair, Agamem-
non with Nestor as his advisor, so that Menelaus was chosen rather than 
Nestor, who would otherwise have been part of two pairs. In general, 
Aelian’s distribution into pairs seems not to be based on the principle of 
 



420 ATHENA’S “UNREASONABLE ADVICE”  

example from the Homeric world that (as mentioned at the 
outset of this paper) is discussed extensively in the Iliad scholia, 
especially regarding the question what it was that Achilles was 
taught by Phoenix. They occur as a model in the treatise On the 
Education of Children (transmitted among Plutarch’s writings). Its 
author discusses the very principle of good or bad company 
that influences a young person and urges parents to choose 
their servants carefully because children could become “con-
taminated by barbarians and persons of low character, and so 
take on some of their commonness.” Contrasting them with 
Homer’s Phoenix and Achilles, the author specifically warns 
against choosing a “wine-bibber and glutton” as slave in charge 
of one’s son.21 

The suitors both as represented in the Odyssey and as dis-
cussed by the scholia are precisely this: wine-drinkers and glut-
tons.22 It does not come as a surprise, therefore, that a scholion 
also identifies them as a potentially harmful influence (schol. 
Od. 1.284a; for the Greek text, see the Appendix): 

___ 
older advisor and younger advisee, although Achilles and Cheiron are 
among them. 

21 Mor. 3F–4B; transl. Babbitt (Loeb). 
22 See, e.g., commenting on Antinoüs, schol. DEHMa Od. 2.305, ἄκρως 

ἀπομιμεῖται φωνὰς ἀσώτου μειρακίου. τὰ μὲν γὰρ ἄλλα πάντα ἀπορρῖψαι 
τῆς ψυχῆς παρακελεύεται, μόνῃ δὲ τῇ γαστρὶ σχολάσαι. τοιαῦτα δὲ τὰ τῶν 
παροίνων ῥήματα, Homer “ably represents the utterances of a profligate 
young man. For he [i.e. Antinoüs] urges to cast away everything else from 
one’s soul and to devote one’s time to the stomach alone. Such are the 
words of the drunken.” Schol. Ma Od. 2.310c explains (quite uniquely, it 
seems; see Pontani ad loc.) the suitors’ epithet ὑπερφίαλος (“heedless, reck-
less”) as derived from the word for drinking vessel (φιάλη), in that in the old 
days at symposia the drinking-cup was used by all participants; these “called 
those hyperphialos who insolently and in an uneducated manner hung on to 
the drinking-bowl,” τοὺς δὲ ἀναισχύντως καὶ ἀπαιδεύτως {ἐν} τῇ φιάλῃ 
προσκαθημένους ὑπερφιάλους ὠνόμαζον. For a similar portrayal of Antin-
oüs see Dio Chrys. 55.20–21. There is another, more common explanation 
of ὑπερφίαλος given by schol. DEJ Od. 1.134g, as having to do with break-
ing an oath, as in the case of Priam’s sons; the oath was sworn with a holy 
drinking-vessel and accompanied by the words “just as water pours from the 
drinking vessel, so also does the soul of the one that has broken an oath,” 
ὥσπερ τὸ ὕδωρ χέεται ἐκ τῆς φιάλης, οὕτω καὶ ἡ ψυχὴ τοῦ ἀθετήσαντος τὸν 
ὅρκον; see also the parallels given by Pontani on this scholion. 



 JESSICA WISSMANN 421 
 

Homer seems to have thought that a man who has been raised 
by a woman—even if she were exceedingly prudent—who has 
been confined in a house with a great number of licentious men, 
who has grown up among wanton maid-servants on an insig-
nificant island that has been without a king for a long time, and 
who has not experienced dangers abroad and has not had his 
share of unpleasantness and has struggled in as many troubles as 
Telemachus was when about to travel to Nestor and Menelaus 
and Helen, [Homer] now seems to have thought that he could 
not have got his share of aretê in any other way. 

According to this interpretation, it is not only bad company 
(the suitors and the maid-servants who have sex with them) that 
endangers Telemachus’ development; it is also a lack of the 
right company. The scholion points out that even the most 
prudent woman is not the appropriate person to guide the 
young man to aretê; schol. DEJMaO Od. 1.93b also sees the fact 
that Telemachus has grown up among women (implying the 
lack of beneficial male influence) as a major factor in his stalled 
development.23 What prevents him from being properly edu-
cated is a lack of role models. But the journey can compensate 
for this; schol. DH 1.284a states that if it was Telemachus’ 
education that Athena had in mind, then her advice was in-
deed appropriate to a goddess (p.151.73–79): 

but remaining in Ithaca without an education he would either 
attach himself to the suitors and betray the house, or he would 
get killed in an attempt to attack them, when Odysseus with his 
superior intelligence and experience is only just able to attack 
them with trickery, and he [Telemachus] would not have be-
come worthy of his father had he not heard from his [father’s] 
companions in arms about his deeds. For this reason, even 
though he is being prevented from being with him upon his re-
turn, he is already educated and knows how to behave towards 
his father, on the basis of the stories he has heard about him. 

 
23 ἐν γυναιξὶ τεθραμμένον (p.65.56). Philodemus, without making a refer-

ence to the environment (at least not in the surviving text), characterizes 
Telemachus as someone who has not seen, has no information, and is 
inexperienced in frank speech on equal terms; the same sentence mentions 
that someone “educates,” but it is not clear who (ἐπεὶ καὶ ἀθέατο[ν] ἀνάγκη 
καὶ ἀνιστόρητον εἶναι πολλῶν καὶ [π]αρρησίας ἄπειρον ἰσηγόρου πολλάκις 
[ἐξ]επαίδευσεν: De bono rege col. 23.14–19 Dorandi). 



422 ATHENA’S “UNREASONABLE ADVICE”  

In this interpretation, both Nestor and Menelaus enable him to 
take his father as his role model, as they are the most com-
petent to tell him stories about Odysseus the hero, the warrior 
at Troy and sacker of this city. Stories about exemplary char-
acters were a common educational tool, mentioned e.g. in 
Plato’s Protagoras (326A): but these are stories about men of old 
that were supposed to incite emulation. One’s own father as 
role model appears in Isocrates’ Ad Demonicum (9–12). As 
Strauss points out, with Demonicus’ father, Hipponicus, re-
cently deceased, the son “is urged to compete not with a living 
father but with the memory of a dead one.”24 And although 
Odysseus is not dead (at least not for certain), Strauss sees 
Telemachus and Odysseus as the ancestors of this constellation. 
The competitive aspect is indeed emphasized by Isocrates: 
Hipponicus is not only the “model” (παράδειγμα, 9), Demoni-
cus not only the “imitator” but the “emulator” (μιμητὴν … καὶ 
ζηλωτὴν τῆς πατρῴας ἀρετῆς γιγνόμενον, 11).25 I cannot de-
tect a similar competition between father and son in the case of 
Telemachus and Odysseus, nor do the scholia; but Isocrates’ 
exhortation to imitate one’s father follows the same principle as 
do those scholia that see it as the objective of Telemachus’ 
education to become, essentially, like his father.26 

Telemachus’ own experiences will contribute to this end. 
Schol. Od. DEJMaO 1.93b writes about this “method”: 

But the one who had been raised among women, had been 
abased by sorrows, and had never tried his skill in speeches, had 
to become polytropos in a manner similar to his father, and had to 
achieve this through his wandering and share with his father in 
the achievements in the Slaughter of the Suitors. 

In other words: Telemachus must undergo the same ex-
perience as his father in order to become like his father—
πολύτροπος. The ancient debate about the meaning of this 
notorious epithet of Odysseus reflects the changing attitudes 

 
24 B. Strauss, Fathers and Sons in Classical Athens (Princeton 1993) 80. 
25 Cf. also ὅπως ἐφάμιλλος γενήσει τοῖς τοῦ πατρὸς ἐπιτηδεύμασιν (Isoc. 

Ad Dem. 12). 
26 Cf. αἰσχρὸν γὰρ … τοὺς δὲ παῖδας μὴ μιμεῖσθαι τοὺς σπουδαίους τῶν 

γονέων (Ad Dem. 11). 



 JESSICA WISSMANN 423 
 
towards Odysseus in Greek literature. Schol. HM1Z Od. 1.1l1 is 
an important testimony to this, as it reports the views of the 
philosopher Antisthenes. He argues that πολύτροπος implies 
both character and rhetorical skill.27 Throughout antiquity, 
Odysseus was indeed regarded as one of the Homeric proto-
types of an orator, together with Nestor and Menelaus.28 The 
passage about Odysseus usually referred to in this context is 
Antenor’s description of his rather idiosyncratic style (Il. 3.216–
24); a scholion on the Odyssey quotes this description of Odys-
seus as part of its argument that Telemachus, in the assembly 
he has summoned in Od. 2, imitates his father’s style.29 

There are some traces outside of the scholia of a Telemachus 
in his father’s oratorical footsteps. Favorinus, a pupil of Dio 
Chrysostom, addresses a young man with comparisons to other 
famous young and beautiful men: “Speak, young man; speak, 
Antilochus: you will speak more sweetly than Nestor; speak, 
Telemachus; you will speak more forcefully than Odysseus.”30 

 
27 Text and translation in Appendix. Antisthenes’ views are reported by 

Porphyry. It is perhaps no coincidence that in schol. DEJMaO Od. 1.93b the 
notion of being πολύτροπος is introduced immediately after the description 
of Telemachus as “unskilled in words,” which may indicate a “rhetorical” 
understanding of the term. 

28 The passages naming Odysseus as one of the Homeric prototypes of 
oratory are too numerous to be listed here exhaustively; see e.g. Ps.-Plutarch 
De Homero 172 (the three heroes as the representatives of genres of style) and 
Prolegomenon Sylloge 5, p.51 Rabe (the three heroes as representatives of the 
three genera dicendi; cf. also schol. AbT Il. 2.283 ex.). Philostratus even calls 
Odysseus “most rhetorical and eloquent” (ῥητορικώτατος καὶ δεινός, 
Heroicus 34.1). See L. Radermacher, Artium Scriptores (Reste der voraristotelischen 
Rhetorik) (SBWien 227.3 [1951]) 3–9, for more examples. 

29 Schol. DEHJMaO Od. 2.15a, ἅμα δὲ τῷ γέροντι τοῦ δημηγορεῖν ὁ Τη-
λέμαχος ἤρξατο. καὶ οὐκ ἐπῆρται τῇ τιμῇ τῶν γερόντων ὁ νέος, ἀλλὰ μιμεῖται 
τὸ ἠθικὸν τοῦ πατρός. τοιοῦτος γὰρ καὶ ὁ Ὀδυσσεὺς ἐν τῷ λέγειν, οὐ ταχέως 
ἀρχόμενος, ἀλλὰ “στάσκεν, ὑπαὶ δὲ ἴδεσκε κατὰ χθονὸς ὄμματα πήξας”: 
“Telemachus began the speaking in the assembly together with the old man 
[Aegyptius]. The young man is not elevated by the honour of the gerontes but 
imitates his father’s style. For Odysseus too was such in speaking: not one to 
begin quickly, but he ‘would just stand and stare down, eyes fixed on the 
ground beneath him’ (Il. 3.217, transl. Lattimore).” 

30 Favorinus ap. Stobaeus Ecl. 4.21.8; his next example is Alcibiades, won-
derfully drunk. 



424 ATHENA’S “UNREASONABLE ADVICE”  

This obviously reflects the Homeric “orators” as representa-
tives of the types of style, with the third, Menelaus, missing. 
Telemachus’ development as an orator is used as an example 
by Aelius Aristides in his defence of oratory as something nat-
ural and thus god-given (2.93–95). He refers to the passage at 
the beginning of Od. 3 where Telemachus confesses that he 
feels too shy and not sufficiently skilled to address Nestor while 
Athena/Mentor tries to boost his confidence.31 Aristides ex-
horts Telemachus, with his lack of experience (ἐμπειρία), not to 
be impressed by “Sophistic” criticism but rather to rely on his 
natural and god-given inspiration; after all, it is the wisest god-
dess and that of phronesis and the arts who is guiding him. 
According to Aristides, it becomes clear from Nestor’s praise—
someone who should know—that Telemachus is in fact a good 
speaker, and Menelaus shares Nestor’s positive judgement 
when he commends Telemachus for being of “good blood, the 
way you are speaking” (Od. 4.611). All this, Aristides continues, 
goes to show that rhetoric comes from the gods and that art 
and training are secondary; this is also the case with Odysseus, 
whom Homer has say that a god gives beauty to someone’s 
words (Od. 8.169–170). 

Even though this passage of Aristides is a rather extensive 
(and unique)32 treatment of Telemachus as becoming an 
orator, it seems that the Homeric depiction happened to fit (or 
to be made to fit) Aristides’ specific message; in addition, the 
tradition of Odysseus as prototype of an orator looms in the 
background. At any rate, advocating the view that Telemachus 
did not really need to “learn” oratory, Aristides does not pro-
vide any clues as to what exactly Telemachus was supposed to 
learn during his journey abroad, as claimed by the scholia. If 
one tries to sum up what the scholia say about Telemachus’ 
learning process, it is essentially common-places of traditional 

 
31 Plato quotes these lines (Od. 3.26–28) to illustrate that the young will be 

told by their daimon when and to which god they should present dances (Leg. 
804A). Maximus uses the lines once to explain Socrates’ daimonion (Diss. 8.5) 
and once as a testimony to the benignity of the gods (38.1). 

32 To the best of my knowledge, the lines in question are not used by any 
other writer on rhetoric as exemplification of a budding orator. 



 JESSICA WISSMANN 425 
 
education that are not very specific: the company of older men, 
the father as a role model, a coming of age, also as an orator. 
But there is no specification as to what it is that Telemachus is 
supposed to learn from the older men, nor does it seem reason-
able to assume that a rhetorical training was the purpose of the 
journey. Apart from the mention of being πολύτροπος—what-
ever this may comprise—no details are given as to which of his 
father’s traits Telemachus was supposed to adopt from this role 
model. 
Athena and φρόνησις 

There is, however, another type of interpretation of Athena’s 
influence on Telemachus, which appears to be connected with 
the one represented by schol. DEJMaO Od. 1.93b and DH(O) 
284a. One group of scholia in particular, when commenting on 
other passages from the Odyssey, displays an interest in one of 
the typical characteristics of Odysseus, and applies it also to 
Telemachus. In addition to being πολύτροπος, Odysseus is 
credited with such qualities as endurance,33 self-control,34 or 
 

33 His endurance is pointed out in connection with the story about the 
Wooden Horse and as the poet’s “preparation” for Odysseus’ endurance 
toward the suitors (schol. Q Od. 4.245), or during the storm (schol. PQ Od. 
5.439). The author of De Homero summarizes the proem of the Odyssey as 
describing “how many toils and dangers Odysseus encountered and over-
came all through his intelligence in his soul and endurance” (ὅσοις πόνοις 
καὶ κινδύνοις περιπεσὼν ὁ Ὀδυσσεὺς πάντων τῇ τῆς ψυχῆς συνέσει καὶ 
καρτερίᾳ περιεγένετο, 163.1). The same writer mentions that the Stoics 
regarded Odysseus’ “intelligence and endurance in his soul” (συνετὸν … καὶ 
καρτερὸν τῇ ψυχῇ) as his main virtues (136.5). W. B. Stanford, The Ulysses 
Theme (Oxford 1968) 121, argues that Odysseus was one of the Stoic proto-
types for virtues such as endurance, but the evidence does not warrant a 
special position of Odysseus within Stoic philosophy proper. P. De Lacy, 
“Stoic Views of Poetry,” AJP 69 (1948) 241–271, at 264, simply mentions 
Odysseus as one among other heroes that the Stoics regarded as examples 
of virtue (and vices). 

34 See e.g. schol. HPQT Od. 5.81 (his ἐγκράτεια in resisting the tempta-
tion of Calypso), schol. HQ Od. 9.98 (the ἐγκράτεια displayed in dealing 
with the Lotus-Eaters; cf. also Hclt. Homeric Questions 70.1–4, quoted in 
schol. T Od. 9.89); curiosity and self-control are combined in Odysseus’ 
listening to the Sirens while bound to the mast (schol. Q Od. 12.160), but his 
begging to be unbound shows that pleasure defeats even the rather self-
controlled (schol. BHV Od. 12.193). There were differing views as to how 
 



426 ATHENA’S “UNREASONABLE ADVICE”  

wisdom and intelligence.35 Especially often, however, Odysseus 
is seen as φρόνιμος or associated with φρόνησις.36 This is also 
reflected in a sentence from schol. DH Od. 1.284a, which 
mentions Odysseus’ “superior φρόνησις and experience” in the 
context of Telemachus’ education. Telemachus is about to 
emerge from the status of being νήπιος, which means “not 
grown-up” in terms of both age and lack of sense, thus “child-
ish.”37 His youth is emphasized both in the Odyssey itself and in 
the scholia.38 A good example is the beginning of Telemachus 
and Peisistratus’ stay with Menelaus (who addresses both as 
“dear boys,” τέκνα φίλ’, Od. 4.78): having just arrived, the 
young men stop to marvel at the palace; the scholion (E Od. 
4.44) sees this as an indication that the poet depicts them as 
“uneducated” and “inexperienced.”39 

It is not only when obviously “foolish” characters, such as 
___ 
much of this quality can also be found in the son. According to schol. 
DEHMaT Od. 1.132a, Telemachus’ hospitality is interpreted as indicating 
“the self-control of the young man.” But contrast Plutarch’s interpretation: 
Odysseus, even though he is himself enraged, not only restrains himself but 
also the equally enraged Telemachus (Mor. 31C–D, quoting Od. 16.274–
277). 

35 Schol. E Od. 5.211 reports Antisthenes’ view (commenting on Odys-
seus’ dealing with Calypso) that Odysseus, as σοφός, knows “that lovers tell 
many lies and promise the impossible”; Odysseus’ σύνεσις is paired with 
Achilles’ ἀνδρεία in schol. HQV Od. 8.75. 

36 Although other human characters are mentioned in conjunction with 
φρόνησις or are called φρόνιμος (such as Echeneos, Arete, Penelope), none 
is as often as Odysseus. 

37 See LfgrE s.v. νήπιος. 
38 Telemachus characterizes himself in the past with the formula ἐγὼ (or 

πάρος) δ’ ἔτι νήπιος ἦα, (Od. 2.313, 18.229, 19.19, 20.310; used by Antinoüs 
in 21.95: πάις δ’ ἔτι νήπιος ἦα). But he also acknowledges his youth and the 
resulting difficulty to accommodate the stranger at Eumaeus’ house (αὐτὸς 
μὲν νέος εἰμί, Od. 16.71), and plays with the notion of being “too young” to 
bend Odysseus’ bow (21.132–133).  

39 Athenaeus focuses on the youth of Telemachus and Peisistratus when 
he writes that “the young lads arriving at Menelaus’ … keep quiet, as they 
ought to, when Helen sits next to them, stunned by her famous beauty” 
(188B–C). That their silence is not (only) due to the effect of Helen’s beauty, 
but is expected of young men, becomes clear from his statement a little later 
that “they eat in silence, as young men ought to” (188F). 



 JESSICA WISSMANN 427 
 
Odysseus’ companions, are called νήπιος in the Odyssey that the 
scholia gloss this by words that denote “senselessness”;40 the 
same is done also in the case of Telemachus. The Homeric 
(con)text may already suggest this meaning; still, the explana-
tions given by the scholia are interesting. When Athena/ 
Mentes says to Telemachus that he no longer ought to “cling to 
childish thoughts” (νηπιάας ὀχέειν, Od. 1.297), the scholia gloss 
this rather extensively, explaining it, among other things, as 
ἄφρων and ἀφροσύνη induced by youth (schol. Od. 1.297a–c). 

Do then the scholia see a development from ἀφροσύνη to 
φρόνησις? On the face of it, they do not seem to give a very 
clear picture. It is here that Athena’s initiative comes into play. 
The scholia describe her activity not as actual παιδεύειν, but 
only in terms that can typically, though not exclusively, denote 
educational speech acts such as ὑποτίθεσθαι/ὑποθήκη, 
παραινέω, προτρέπειν/προτροπή, παρορμᾶν, παροτρύνειν, 
ἐγείρειν.41 Only once do the scholia expressly point out a 
“didactic” strategy in her advice.42 What Athena seems to do is 

 
40 E.g. schol. Od. 1.8c: νήπιος ὁ νέος, D  ἀπὸ τοῦ νοῦν ἤπιον ἔχειν. DN  

νήπιος ὁ γέρων, ἀπὸ τοῦ νοῦ ἄπο ⟨ἰέναι⟩, ὡς καὶ ἐνταῦθα. D  / ἤγουν οἱ ἀπὸ 
τοῦ νοός N (“nepios is the young, from having a gentle mind; nepios is the old 
man, from <going> away from sense / i.e., those away from sense”); schol. 
Od. 1.8 b1 and b2 also list a number of synonyms. Cf. also the explanation 
of Eidothea rebuking Menelaus (νήπιός εἰς) as ἀμαθής, ἔτι τὰ παίδων 
φρονῶν (“ignorant, still having the thoughts of children,” schol. EQP Od. 
4.371). 

41 For instance, hyp. a–c Od. 1; schol. DEHMaT Od. 1.268a; schol. DEJs 
Od. 1.270a; schol. DH(O) Od. 1.284a; schol. DEHMaOT/HJMaOTs Od. 
1.298a. Her more or less educative influence in the Odyssey, as seen by the 
scholia, is not restricted to Telemachus, as e.g. in schol. DEJMc Od. 1.100d 
(on the Homeric phrase “the spear … with which she subdues the ranks of 
the heroes”) “subdues” is glossed as “educates” (παιδεύει). Nor is Athena the 
sole divinity to exercise an educational activity. To give but one example: 
Hermes, not succeeding in persuading Aegisthus to abandon his evil plans, 
is explained in schol. DE2HJMa Od. 1.43e as “trying to educate” (παιδεύων). 
Cf. the description of Hermes’ educative influence in general in schol. DE2e 
Od. 1.38b. 

42 Schol. MaY Od. 1.305d observes that Athena/Mentes’ concluding in-
junction “pay attention to my words” (ἐμπάζεο μύθων) takes up the same 
thought at the beginning of the exhortatory part of her speech (Od. 1.271) 
 



428 ATHENA’S “UNREASONABLE ADVICE”  

to give Telemachus a push towards growing up. She appears to 
be not so much an educator herself as a facilitator of education 
who puts Telemachus in situations that foster his growing up. 

The second type of interpretation of Athena’s influence on 
Telemachus is especially advocated by Heraclitus in the ac-
count he gives of Telemachus’ “education” in his Homeric 
Problems.43 It is not only the fullest account; it is also interesting 
for its “psychological” approach, which is set out more sys-
tematically than in the scholia, but traces of which can be 
found there as well. 

“Psychological” does not mean that the focus is on Telem-
achus. The aim of the Homeric Problems is to defend Homer 
against the charge of disrespect for the gods by means of al-
legorical interpretation: “if he meant nothing allegorically, he 
was impious through and through” (1). Clearly, then, Hera-
clitus’ main concern is with the depiction of the gods, not of 
human characters in the Homeric epics.44 Just as the scholia 
argue that Athena’s advice is not “unreasonable” (ἄλογος), 
Heraclitus seeks to show that it is “reasonable” (εὐλόγως, 61.1) 
that Athena is sent to Telemachus by Zeus. To prove his point, 
he sees in Athena not the goddess but “the developing ration-
ality (λογισμός) in Telemachus” (61.3). The terminology is 
anything but consistent: in the following paragraphs, Heraclitus 
uses several words to describe the reason that develops in 
Telemachus: λογισμός (61.2, 61.3, 62.3, 63.2), νοῦς (62.1), 
φρόνησις (62.2, 62.6, 63.5). But this does not make the 
principle that underlies Telemachus’ development less distinct.  

What makes Heraclitus’ account so interesting is that Athena 
is not a universal φρόνησις, rationality, or reason, but that of 
an individual, Telemachus, and that, at the same time, it is yet 
presented as another person who exerts an influence on him, or 
rather, teaches him: “So what did reason (νοῦς), when it ar-

___ 
“in a didactic manner”: διδασκαλικῶς ἐπιλέγει πάλιν περὶ τῶν αὐτῶν, ἀντὶ 
τοῦ ἐπιστρέφου, φρόντιζε. 

43 Text and translation of D. A. Russell and D. Konstan: Heraclitus: 
Homeric Problems (Atlanta 2005). 

44 As also indicated by the subtitle (whether genuine or not) εἰς ἃ περὶ 
θεῶν Ὅμηρος ἠλληγόρησεν. 



 JESSICA WISSMANN 429 
 
rived, teach Telemachus—reason, not a goddess sitting down 
beside him and giving him her advice as he plays at dice?” 
(62.1). As Russell and Konstan point out, in the Odyssey it is the 
suitors who play dice, not Telemachus.45 I think that this is not 
a lapse of memory but that Heraclitus deliberately distorts the 
Homeric account and fleshes out the notion of Homeric νήπιος 
by portraying Telemachus as the prototype of the idle young 
noble who wastes his time in folly.46 This is also indicated by 
his description of how Telemachus conceived the idea to get a 
ship ready and search for Odysseus: “The first pious and just 
thought to emerge from the deep folly (ἀφροσύνη) of Telem-
achus’ youth is that it is unworthy of him to spend time idly in 
Ithaca with no thought of his father” (62.3), clearly implying 
that Telemachus was little concerned with his father’s fate until 
Athena’s arrival. This is yet another misrepresentation: in the 
Odyssey, one of the first things Telemachus tells Mentes/Athena 
is a rather mournful imagining of his dead father’s rotting 
bones (1.161–168). But in Heraclitus’ view, it is about time that 
someone talk some sense into Telemachus: “His reason (λο-
γισμός), you see, behaved as a tutor or father and aroused in 
him a readiness to undertake responsibility” (63.2).  

But as “external” as this reason may seem, Heraclitus uses 
the same words also for the result of this awakening reason. This 
lack of distinction is especially obvious in 63.1–2: here, the ad-
monishing words spoken by Mentes/Athena follow a depiction 
of Telemachus as giving himself a tap on the shoulder; as 
Russell and Konstan observe, this identification works only if 
we are to picture Telemachus’ reason reproaching himself.47 
However unsystematic this may seem to us, the underlying 
principle is that of interpreting a divinity as a personal faculty, 
 

45 Heraclitus p.101 n.1 (Od. 1.106–107). 
46 One is reminded of the young good-for-nothing Kottalos in Herodas’ 

Mimiamb 3.19–21, about whom his mother complains that he is playing dice 
rather than going to school and learning to read and write. 

47 Heraclitus p.101 n.5. Cf. 63.8, where Athena meets Telemachus on the 
ship resembling “Mentor, a man who brings intelligence, the mother of 
wisdom, to bear on his anxieties (πρὸς φροντίδας τὴν διάνοιαν ἔχοντι, 
μητέρα φρονήσεως)”; 63.2: Reason exhorts Telemachus “to show the same 
good sense (φρόνησις)” as Orestes. 



430 ATHENA’S “UNREASONABLE ADVICE”  

an interpretation that foreshadows the modern view of the 
Homeric gods as externalized psychological processes.48 

Much of this is reflected in the scholia, even though they take 
a more positive view of Telemachus’ character. In one in-
stance, the scholia too see Telemachus as a typical young 
noble: in his appearance at the assembly in Od. 2, where he is 
accompanied by his dogs and looks like a hunter.49 But this is a 
far cry from the idler as Heraclitus characterizes him. Hera-
clitus’ view of Athena/Mentes/Reason acting like a father also 
has only one parallel in the scholia, and this is already sug-
gested by the Homeric text itself. At Od. 1.308 Telemachus 
remarks that “Mentes” speaks to him “as a father to his son,” 
and the scholion on this line points out that “in her [Athena’s] 
imitation of the father’s guest-friend, she uses castigation” (as 
though this were something to be expected from a “fatherly” 
friend) and that Telemachus takes this quite well.50 

There is, then, a difference in the views that Heraclitus and 
the (extant) scholia hold of Telemachus’ character: the idle 
young aristocrat as opposed to the thoughtful one who is easily 
roused to an ambition befitting his status. Accordingly, Hera-
clitus does not mention the suitors as a backdrop against which 
Telemachus’ character shines more positively, which is exactly 
what one scholion does: Telemachus is the first to behold the 
arriving Athena “because he alone is more intelligent (φρονι-
μώτερος) than the others, with the suitors being occupied with 
the drinking-party, according to allegory.”51 One can only 

 
48 For a critical discussion of such views see A. Schmitt, Selbständigkeit und 

Abhängigkeit menschlichen Handelns bei Homer (AbhMainz 1990.5), esp. 72–76 on 
Athena’s interaction with Telemachus (focusing especially on Od. 15). 

49 Schol. DEHMaO Od. 2.10c. A contrasting interpretation, perhaps 
more in agreement with Heraclitus, is given by schol. Ma and H Od. 2.11g1 
and g2: the dogs are an allegory of Telemachus’ shamelessness or boldness. 

50 μιμουμένη γὰρ πατρικὸν ξένον ἐπιτιμήσει ἐχρήσατο. ὁ δὲ συνετῶς οὐκ 
ἐδυσχέρανεν, ἀλλὰ καὶ χάριν ὁμολογεῖ (schol. DEHMaOT Od. 1.308a). 

51 καλῶς πρῶτος Τηλέμαχος Ἀθηνᾶν ἐφορᾷ ὡς αὐτὸς μόνος ἀπὸ τῶν 
ἄλλων φρονιμώτερος, τῶν μνηστήρων περὶ συμπόσια ἀσχολουμένων DEJ,  
κατὰ τὸ ἀλληγορικόν DJ (schol. Od. 1.113c). There is an alternative ex-
planation (schol. Ma Od. 1.113a): Telemachus saw Athena first because he 
was constantly looking at the door in the hope that he might see his father. 



 JESSICA WISSMANN 431 
 
guess what this allegory is supposed to be; perhaps it is indeed 
Telemachus’ own φρόνησις. Precisely this more positive view 
of Telemachus as being φρονιμώτερος gives the clue here: the 
one who is intelligent more easily recognizes (the goddess of ) 
intelligence. And this is where the scholia and Heraclitus meet, 
in spite of differences in detail. 
Athena, φρόνησις, and Telemachus 

The meeting-point is the identification of Athena with φρό-
νησις, (practical) intelligence. This identification, or allegory—
whichever one wishes to call it—was pervasive throughout 
antiquity and beyond, from Democritus to Tzetzes. Its long 
tradition originates with the mythological account of Athena’s 
birth from Zeus’ head, and with Metis, “Shrewdness,” her 
mother as in Hesiod’s Theogony.52 Plato mentions an interpre-
tation according to which Homer “has presented intellect and 
thought (νοῦν τε καὶ διάνοιαν) as Athena,” backed up by the 
etymology of her epithet Theonoe (Cra. 407B). Another epithet 
of the goddess, Τριτογένεια, is interpreted by Democritus as 
referring to her as φρόνησις, since three things derive from 
φρόνησις/φρονεῖν: “to think well, to speak flawlessly, and to do 
what is necessary.”53 

 
52 Hes. Th. 886–900, 924–929; fr. dub. 343 Merkelbach-West. 
53 Τριτογένεια ἡ Ἀθηνᾶ κατὰ Δημόκριτον φρόνησις νομίζεται. γίνεται δὲ 

ἐκ τοῦ φρονεῖν τρία ταῦτα· βουλεύεσθαι καλῶς, λέγειν ἀναμαρτητῶς καὶ 
πράττειν ἃ δεῖ. There are multiple versions of this fragment (68 B 2 D.-K.), 
varying not in regarding Athena Tritogeneia as φρόνησις, but in the exact 
phrasing of the three things derived from it. Cf. schol. bT Il. 8.39a ex. (with 
Erbse’s remarks in the apparatus), which discusses the epithet in the context 
of Athena’s birth. For other interpretations of Τριτογένεια see schol. E Od. 
3.378 (referring to the three parts of the soul), and Cornutus (see below). 
According to Athenaeus, Sophocles made a similar identification (fr.361 
TrGF). Schol. A Il. 20.67 (from Porphyry; 8.2 D.-K.) gives examples of 
allegorical interpretations of individual gods, among them Athena = φρό-
νησις, and remarks that “this manner of defence, being very ancient and 
originating with Theagenes of Rhegium, who first wrote about Homer, is 
such as is based on the diction” (οὗτος μὲν οὖν ⟨ὁ⟩ τρόπος ἀπολογίας 
ἀρχαῖος ὢν πάνυ καὶ ἀπὸ Θεαγένους τοῦ Ῥηγίνου, ὃς πρῶτος ἔγραψε περὶ 
Ὁμήρου, τοιοῦτός ἐστιν ἀπὸ τῆς λέξεως). But this does not necessarily mean 
that Theagenes made exactly these identifications. F. Buffière, Les mythes 
d’Homère et la pensée grecque (Paris 1956) 288, points out the significance of 
 



432 ATHENA’S “UNREASONABLE ADVICE”  

Athena, without epithet, is equated with φρόνησις specifi-
cally by Theophrastus, who also equates Zeus with νοῦς.54 
Unfortunately, this fragment does not allow for conclusions as 
to the further implications this equation had, e.g., in literary 
criticism. 

Among the Stoics, Diogenes of Babylon wrote a treatise 
entirely on Athena, in which he defends the position of his 
teacher, Chrysippus, that Athena = φρόνησις was actually 
born from Zeus’ chest, not head, because that is where the 
“ruling element of the soul” (ἡγεμονικόν) is located;55 Diogenes 
tries to reconcile this with the myth of Athena’s birth from 
Zeus’ head by pointing out that the mouth issued the voice so 
that people thought that φρόνησις was located in the head.56 In 
his Compendium of the Tradition of Greek Theology, Cornutus reports 
the same identification in a similar vein, where Athena as 
φρόνησις καὶ ἀγχίνοια is contrasted with the “craftsman” 
Hephaestus.57 

Undeniably, the Stoics were fond of identifying Athena with 
φρόνησις. This is not surprising, considering that it was an im-

___ 
epithets in ancient allegorical interpretations of Athena. Perhaps Strabo’s 
expression ἡ ῥητορικὴ φρόνησις τοῦ λόγου (1.2.5) is a late echo of Democ-
ritus. 

54 ἐν δὲ / [...]ι ̣[...]τ ̣ι̣ο ̣[.]ο[.]ι ̣αις / [τ]ὸ τ̣ὴν μὲν Ἀθηνᾶν / [φ]ρόνησιν εἶναι, τὸν̣ / 
[Δ]ία δὲ νοῦν. ἐν δὲ τοῖς Ἐγκωμίοις / τῶν θεῶν πά ̣μ/πο̣λλ̣α ὅσα καὶ μ[.] 
(Theophrastus fr.581 Fortenbaugh = Philodemus, De pietate 7c, P.Herc. 1428 
fr.23.3–9; cf. A. Henrichs, GRBS 13 [1972] 67–98, at 94–97). 

55 SVF III Diogenes 33 (partly also SVF II Chrysippus 910) = Philodemus 
De pietate, P.Herc. 1428 cols. 8.14–10.8. Text with translation in D. Obbink, 
Philodemus: On Piety I (Oxford 1996) 19–20. 

56 See also SVF II Chrysippus 908; 909 = Galen De Hipp. et Plat. plac. 3.8. 
Text and translation in P. De Lacy, Galen: On the Doctrines of Hippocrates and 
Plato I (Berlin 1978) 222–226. 

57 Theol.Graec. 19. In 20 she is equated with “the intelligence of Zeus” (ἡ 
δὲ Ἀθηνᾶ ἐστιν ἡ τοῦ Διὸς σύνεσις), and her birth is also discussed with re-
gard to the seat of the “ruling element and the essence of intelligence” (ὅπου 
τὸ ἡγεμονικὸν αὐτοῦ ἐστι καὶ τῆς φρονήσεως οὐσία). Cornutus goes on to 
discuss the etymology of her name (Ἀθρηνᾶ as derived from ἀθρέω, observe), 
and her epithets, among which he mentions an interpretation of Τριτο-
γένεια as “fear-inducing” (derived from τρέω); see also schol. E Od. 3.378. 



 JESSICA WISSMANN 433 
 
portant concept in their philosophy,58 and that it was almost as 
important to back up their notion of the term by references to 
poets such as Homer and Hesiod. But the equation was by no 
means exclusive to Stoic thought. In the Orphic Hymn to Athena 
(32.9), the goddess is addressed as “frenzy-inspiring to the bad, 
intelligence to the good,” φίλοιστρε κακοῖς, ἀγαθοῖς δὲ φρόνη-
σις. Both Middle Platonists and Neoplatonists draw on this 
tradition, too. Arguably the most famous equation of Athena 
with φρόνησις is in Porphyry’s On the Cave of the Nymphs, an 
interpretation of the cave near which the Phaeacians leave 
Odysseus after taking him to Ithaca (Od. 13.102–112). Por-
phyry interprets the olive-tree that is said to stand at the head 
of the harbor and next to the cave (102–103) as a symbol of a 
god’s wisdom, for “it is the plant of Athena, and Athena is φρό-
νησις.”59 He goes on to argue that Athena’s birth from Zeus’ 
head is reflected in Homer’s positioning the olive-tree at the 
“head” of the harbor, which in turn signifies that the universe 
is the work not of “irrational chance” but “the product of in-
tellectual nature and wisdom.” Thus, “the world is governed by 
intellectual nature, being guided by an eternal and ever-flour-
ishing intelligence (φρόνησις).” In the concluding part of the 
essay, Porphyry also praises Homer himself for his “φρόνησις 
and exactitude in every virtue” (36). 

As tempting as it may be to assume Neoplatonic traits in 
identifications of Athena with φρόνησις in the scholia, it seems 
better not to do so. It is true that Schrader attributes the two 
scholia that are central to Athena’s interaction with Telema-
chus (schol. DEJMaO Od. 1.93b and schol. DH(O) Od. 1.284a) 
to Porphyry, and Pontani in his recent edition of the scholia 
accepts this attribution.60 But not everyone shares their con-

 
58 Cf. SVF III Chrysippus 103 = Stob. Ecl. 2.7.5c; SVF I Apollophanes 

406 = Diog. Laert. 7.92, ὁ μὲν γὰρ Ἀπολλοφάνης μίαν λέγει (sc. ἀρετήν), τὴν 
φρόνησιν. 

59 De antro 32, σύμβολον φρονήσεως θεοῦ ἡ ἐλαία. Ἀθηνᾶς μὲν γὰρ τὸ 
φυτόν, φρόνησις δὲ ἡ Ἀθηνᾶ. Cf. Apuleius’ important reading of Athena as 
“prudence” that accompanies Odysseus (De deo Soc. 24): nec aliud te in eodem 
Ulixe Homerus docet, qui semper ei comitem voluit esse prudentiam: quam poetica ritu 
Minervam nuncupavit. 

60 In fact, H. Schrader, Porphyrii quaestionum Homericarum ad Odysseam per-
 



434 ATHENA’S “UNREASONABLE ADVICE”  

fidence; Erbse in particular has pointed out the potential sub-
jectivity of such attributions.61 

Even though there are numerous scholia on the Odyssey, and 
quite a few on the Iliad, in which Athena is identified with φρό-
νησις, I shall concentrate on those that concern Telemachus, 
but, at the same time, try to position them in a wider context.62 
The reason for this lies in the hypothesis suggested at the begin-
ning of this paper: that the scholiasts’ interpretation of Athena’s 
influence on Telemachus as educational is part of an apologetic 
argument. To give a brief recapitulation: Athena’s advice to 
Telemachus was criticised as “preposterous” and even entailing 
multiple kinds of dangers, and both schol. DEJMaO Od. 1.93b 
and schol. DH Od. 1.284a respond to this criticism by arguing 
that Athena sends out Telemachus for his education. This 
“education” is then fleshed out by drawing both on the 
common-places of traditional Greek education and on some 
prominent traits of Odysseus. Heraclitus, quite to the contrary, 
it seems, gives a detailed account of this “education” by al-
legorising Athena as Telemachus’ awakening reason. In doing 
so, he combines the idea of Telemachus’ education and the 
identification of Athena with φρόνησις and related concepts. In 
the scholia, these two aspects are transmitted as two different 
strands of interpretation. 

___ 
tinentium reliquiae (Leipzig 1890), regards schol. Od. 1.93b as belonging with 
schol. 1.284a and consequently prints it as part of Porphyry on Od. 1.284.  

61 H. Erbse, Beiträge zur Überlieferung der Iliasscholien (Zetemata 24 [1960]) 17–
77, pertaining mainly to the Quaestiones on the Iliad, but see 29 n.3 on 
Schrader’s attribution of schol. DH(O) Od. 1.284a to Porphyry. I shall, 
however, point out what I feel to be echoes or similarities. 

62 For a list of such scholia as well as relevant observations of Eustathius 
and other allegorical readings, see M. van der Valk, “Ἀθηναίη, Ἀθήνη,” 
LfgrE I 207–221, at 209–211. A comprehensive corpus of allegorical iden-
tifications of Athena is provided by G. Jöhrens, Der Athenahymnus des Ailios 
Aristeides (Bonn 1981) 393–407 for “ethical allegories,” 414–430 for “per-
sonal phronesis.” On Plato’s interpretations of Athena and their Nachleben, see 
H. Schwabl, “Athena bei Platon und in allegorischer Tradition,” in H.-C. 
Günther and A. Rengakos (eds.), Beiträge zur antiken Philosophie. Festschrift für 
Wolfgang Kullmann (Stuttgart 1997) 35–50. Buffière, Les mythes 279–289, dis-
cusses ancient interpretations of Athena as goddess of intelligence in the 
Homeric poems. 



 JESSICA WISSMANN 435 
 

Neither schol. Od. DEJMaO 1.93b nor schol. DH(O) Od. 
1.284a identifies Athena with φρόνησις. But they belong to a 
group of scholia that is characterized by an interest in a certain 
type of interpretation that often includes the identification of 
Athena with φρόνησις. This corpus, which Pontani calls the 
“famiglia orientale” or ramus Constantinopolitanus,63 consists of 
the MSS. D, E, X, s, and C; the more recent MSS. J, W, and e 
are descendants of this family. Pontani characterizes this group 
as having a particular interest in ethical matters and allegorical 
readings, including a view of Odysseus as a wise and temperate 
philosopher; many interpretations of Porphyry, Heraclitus, Ps.-
Plutarch, Hermogenes, and Tzetzes are incorporated.64 Tze-
tzes’ contribution is based on his Allegories on the Odyssey, on 
which more will be said below. 

The interest of this group in ethical matters and its tendency 
towards allegorical readings is also clear in those manuscripts 
that discuss Athena’s interaction with Telemachus. Of course, 
not all manuscripts of this group are represented in each of the 
explanations, but enough do to imply a specific interest in, and 
a particular view of, these two characters.65 This is especially 
indicated by a particular phrase that occurs only in this group: 
“<XY> hints at nothing other than that …” (οὐκ ἄλλο 
αἰνίττεται ἢ ὅτι). It occurs five times in the scholia on the 
Odyssey (never in the scholia on the Iliad); in four instances it 
refers to Athena as φρόνησις, while one instance is completely 
different.66 Of those cases in which it refers to Athena, three 

 
63 F. Pontani, Sguardi su Ulisse. La tradizione esegetica greca all’ Odissea (Rome 

2005), e.g. 277; also in his edition, Scholia xii. 
64 Pontani, Sguardi 273–274. 
65 To give a brief overview of the various MSS. and traditions: schol. Od. 

1.93b is transmitted by DEJMaO; schol. Od. 1.284a by DH; 284b2 by E; 
284d by DE. From different branches are 284b1 (HTVY); 284c (HMaO). 

66 It is schol. E Od. 4.188, explaining the Homeric “Antilochus, whom the 
shining son of bright Eos had killed” (Od. 4.187–188): “this means that 
Antilochos was killed by Memnon. It hints at nothing other than that he 
died young and before his time” (τοῦτο λέγει, τὸν Ἀντίλοχον φονευθῆναι 
ὑπὸ Μέμνονος. οὐκ ἄλλο αἰνίττεται ἢ ὅτι νέος καὶ παρὰ τὸν καιρὸν τὸν 
δέοντα ἐτελεύτησε). In this instance, it becomes quite obvious that αἰνίτ-
 



436 ATHENA’S “UNREASONABLE ADVICE”  

pertain to her interaction with Telemachus. 
The first of these is that of hypothesis c Od. 1, given only by 

codex D and, from a different branch, H3. It begins with a 
summary similar to that of hypotheseis a and b, stating that the 
gods wished to bring Odysseus home to Ithaca and that Athena 
went to Telemachus and advised him to travel to Nestor and 
Menelaus. It then continues: 
τοῦτο δὲ τὸ τὴν Ἀθηνᾶν εἰς Ἰθάκην παραγενέσθαι διὰ τὸ 
ὀτρῦναι τὸν Τηλέμαχον ἀναζητῆσαι τὸν ἑαυτοῦ πατέρα, οὐκ 
ἄλλο αἰνίττεται ἢ ὅτι Ἀθηνᾶ λέγεται ἡ φρόνησις, παῖς δὲ ὢν ὁ 
Τηλέμαχος, εἶτα ἀνατραφεὶς καὶ εἰς γνῶσιν ἐλθὼν διηγέρθη διὰ 
τῆς Ἀθηνᾶς, ἤτοι διὰ τῆς οἰκείας φρονήσεως, ἀναζητῆσαι τὸν 
πατέρα αὑτοῦ. DH3 
The fact that Athena goes to Ithaca for the sake of exhorting 
Telemachus to go in search of his father hints at nothing other 
than that “Athena” means phronesis, and as Telemachus is a 
youth, then having grown up and come to his senses, he has 
been stirred up by Athena, that is, by his own phronesis, to go in 
search of his father. 

The first few sentences of Heraclitus’ account of Telemachus’ 
development are then added to the actual hypothesis,67 almost as 
if Heraclitus were quoted in support. But it goes beyond Hera-
clitus in emphasizing that it is “by his own phronesis” (οἰκείας 
φρονήσεως). Heraclitus does speak of Athena’s appearance as a 
representation of “the rationality developing in Telemachus” 
(61.3); but for lack of distinction between Telemachus and his 
reason, the underlying notion is still that of, to some degree, 
external influence, like that of a tutor or father (63.2). Interpret-
ing Athena as a psychological faculty within an individual is yet 
another step to take. 

The second instance in which Athena is interpreted as 
Telemachus’ own φρόνησις is schol. DEJ Od. 1.96, comment-
ing on Athena’s departure for Ithaca (Od. 1.96–101): 

___ 
τεσθαι does not simply mean “to allegorise,” as is sometimes assumed, but 
generally “to hint at,” which of course can include allegorisation. 

67 Homeric Questions 60.2–61.4. Ludwich prints it preceding the hypothesis in 
question; as becomes clear from Pontani’s apparatus criticus (he does not 
print the quotation), the quotation followed hyp. c. 



 JESSICA WISSMANN 437 
 
τὸ λέγειν τὴν Ἀθηνᾶν καλὰ πέδιλα φορεῖν οὐκ ἄλλο δηλοῖ ἢ ὅτι 
τῆς φρονήσεως αἱ ἐνεργητικαὶ δυνάμεις στιβαραὶ καὶ ἄλκιμοι 
λίαν εἰσί. τὸ δὲ ἐπέχειν ἔγχος ἐν ᾧτινι δαμάζει τοὺς ἥρωας τὸ 
πληκτικὸν ὑποσημαίνει τῆς φρονήσεως· ὁ γὰρ φρόνιμος διὰ τοῦ 
οἰκείου λόγου πλήττει τὸν ἀτακτοῦντα. τὸ δὲ τὴν Ἀθηνᾶν ἐξ 
οὐρανοῦ κατελθεῖν οὐκ ἄλλο αἰνίττεται ἢ ὅτι ἡ φρόνησις ἐκ τοῦ 
νοὸς κατέρχεται. 
To say that Athena wears beautiful sandals indicates nothing 
other than that the energetic forces are very sturdy and strong. 
The fact that she holds a spear with which she subdues the 
heroes intimates the striking quality of phronesis. For the intel-
ligent man (phronimos) strikes the one that lacks discipline through 
his own reasoning. The fact that Athena comes down from 
heaven hints at nothing other than that phronesis comes from the 
nous. 

Hardly any opportunity to interpret each aspect of this passage 
as indicating the identification of Athena with φρόνησις is left 
out in this scholion. Athena coming down from heaven is in-
terpreted in almost the same way in schol. D Il. 1.195 (on 
which more will be said below). The spear as representing the 
capacities of φρόνησις has a parallel in another scholion that 
explains it as λόγος.68 The sandals, however, are indeed 
puzzling.69 But they were probably the best one could come up 

 
68 ἤγουν τὸν λόγον (schol. Ma Od. 1.99e). The spear as part of Athena’s 

weaponry is also discussed by Proclus, reporting the allegorical interpreta-
tions of Porphyry and Iamblichus (In Ti. I 156.12–157.23 Diehl). 

69 Cf. van der Valk, LfgrE I 211: “eigenartig die Bedeutung von Athenes 
Sandalen als Attribut der φρόνησις.” He refers to Eustathius (In Od. p. 
1395.5 ff.), who among other things interprets the sandals and other at-
tributes as indicating the swiftness of φρόνησις. See also Buffière Les mythes 
288. The only other interpretation of the sandals in conjunction with φρό-
νησις is in Tzetzes’ Allegories on the Odyssey; but it differs considerably. As part 
of the “pragmatic” interpretation (i.e., in the tradition of Euhemerus or 
Palaephatus, interpreting gods and heroes as human beings of elevated 
status; see H. Hunger: “Allegorische Mythendeutung in der Antike und bei 
Johannes Tzetzes,” JÖBG 3 [1954] 35–54, at 47), Athena represents the 
letter sent to Telemachus by Mentes, not as part of a “psychological” al-
legorical reading. Tzetzes calls the composition of the letter “sandal of 
phronesis,” seeing the spear as the letter’s exhortative force, and Athena’s epi-
thet obrimopatre as denoting phronesis as being the “daughter” of nous: τὴν δὲ 
συνθήκην τῆς γραφῆς πέδιλα ταύτης λέγει / ἀμβρόσια καὶ χρύσεια, φέροντα 
 



438 ATHENA’S “UNREASONABLE ADVICE”  

with if one wanted to superimpose the notion of φρόνησις on 
all possible aspects of this passage.70 

The phrase “hints at nothing other than that” is used a third 
time in an interpretation of Athena’s advice to get rid of the 
suitors in a manner very similar to the hypothesis just quoted: 
τὸ τὴν Ἀθηνᾶν παροτρύνειν τὸν Τηλέμαχον εἰς ἀποσόβησιν τῶν 
μνηστήρων οὐκ ἄλλο αἰνίττεται ἢ ὅτι Ἀθηνᾶ λέγεται ἡ φρόνησις, 
ὑπὸ δὲ τῆς οἰκείας φρονήσεως ὁ Τηλέμαχος παρωτρύνθη τοὺς 
μνηστῆρας ἀποσοβῆσαι (schol. DEJs Od. 1.270a). 
The fact that Athena exhorts Telemachus to scare away the 
suitors hints at nothing other than that “Athena” means phro-
nesis, and Telemachus is exhorted by his own phronesis to scare 
away the suitors. 

As in hypothesis c, Athena’s influence is interpreted as Telema-
chus’ own psychological faculty. 

One might think that this association of Telemachus with 
Athena = φρόνησις is closely related to those instances in 
which the scholia speak of Odysseus’ “own phronesis” with re-
gard to Athena’s interaction with him. There are several cases 
in which this interpretation occurs. When in the Odyssey, after 
receiving directions from Nausicaa, he “is stirred to go towards 
the town” and Athena pours mist around him, the scholion 
explains: “i.e., his own phronesis advised him to go by night.”71 
Arriving at the palace of Alcinous, Odysseus is still clouded in 
___ 
πάντα ταύτην. / ἡ δὲ γραφὴ φρονήσεως πέδιλόν ἐστιν ὄντως. / τὴν δέ γε 
παροτρύνουσαν δύναμιν τῶν γραμμάτων / ἔγχος χαλκοῦν ὠνόμασε δαμάζον 
ἐναντίους· / δύναται γὰρ ἀμύνασθαι, ὃς πρῶτος χαλεπήνῃ, / ὀβριμοπάτρη 
φρόνησις οὖσα νοὸς θυγάτηρ· / καὶ τί γὰρ ἰσχυρότερον νοός ἐστιν ἀν-
θρώποις; (All.Od. 1.216–223, followed by an elaboration of the last point). 
The text of Tzetzes has been edited by H. Hunger, “Johannes Tzetzes, 
Allegorien zur Odyssee, Buch 13–24,” BZ 48 (1955) 4–48, and “Johannes 
Tzetzes, Allegorien zur Odyssee, Buch 1–12,” BZ 49 (1956) 249–310. 

70 It is perhaps significant in this respect that Tzetzes draws attention to 
exactly this, writing that Homer “calls not only Athena phronesis, and every-
thing that happens to her either as writing or as action, but also her in-
struments, as in countless others”: οὐ μόνον δὲ τὴν φρόνησιν Ἀθήνην 
ὀνομάζει, / καὶ ὅσα γίνεται αὐτῇ γραφαῖς εἴτε καὶ πράξει, / ἀλλὰ καὶ ὄργανα 
αὐτῆς, ὡς κἂν μυρίοις ἄλλοις (1.230–232). 

71 ἤτοι ἡ οἰκεία φρόνησις ὑπέθετο αὐτῷ κατὰ νύκτα ἰέναι (schol. E Od. 
7.14). 



 JESSICA WISSMANN 439 
 
mist by Athena, who is simply explained as “his phronesis,” with 
slightly less emphasis than expressed by the phrase “his own 
phronesis.”72 When Demodocus sings of the Wooden Horse that 
Odysseus was victorious “on account of great-hearted Athena,” 
the scholia explain: “i.e., on account of his own phronesis and 
resourcefulness.”73 Clearly, since Odysseus is regarded as the 
prototype of intellectual faculties anyway, the identification of 
Athena with φρόνησις reinforces this characteristic. 

But there are two major differences from the instances 
involving Telemachus which indicate that the association of 
Odysseus with Athena = φρόνησις has, at best, only partly in-
fluenced such interpretations of Athena’s dealings with Telem-
achus. The first difference is that two of the identifications 
Athena = φρόνησις are in another group of manuscripts; the 
second, and probably more significant, difference is that the 
phrase “hints at nothing other than that” is absent. This makes 
it difficult to see a close connection made in the DEJ group (or 
its source) between father and son as guided by Athena = 
φρόνησις. In other words: the principle behind an interpreta-
tion of Athena as φρόνησις is not that of “like father, like son.” 
The identification is not used as re-enforcement of qualities for 
which Telemachus already has a reputation, as in the case of 
Odysseus. The focus is on Athena, not Telemachus. 
Defending Athena = φρόνησις 

This focus on Athena becomes especially clear from the 
fourth instance of “hints at nothing other than that.” It is said 
not with regard to Odysseus but to a character with a much 
weaker relation to Telemachus than Odysseus: Phemius. The 
scholion interprets Athena’s command to sing of the home-
comings of the Achaeans: 
φησὶν ὅτι ἡ Ἀθηνᾶ προσέταξε τῷ Φημίῳ ἵνα τὸν ἐκ Τροίας 
νόστον τῶν Ἀχαιῶν εἰς οἰκείαν ἀοιδὴν ἔχῃ. οὐκ ἄλλο δὲ τοῦτο 
αἰνίττεται ἢ ὅτι Ἀθηνᾶ λέγεται ἡ φρόνησις, ὑπὸ δὲ τῆς οἰκείας 
φρονήσεως συνῆκεν ὁ Φήμιος τὸ ἀείδειν τὸν νόστον τῶν 
Ἀχαιῶν. ἀποροῦσι δέ τινες λέγοντες· διὰ τί ὁ Φήμιος τοῦτο ποιεῖ, 

 
72 ἡ φρόνησις αὐτοῦ (schol. P Od. 7.140). 
73 ἤτοι διὰ τὴν οἰκείαν φρόνησιν καὶ πανουργίαν (schol. Q Od. 8.519 and 

schol. P Od. 8.520). 



440 ATHENA’S “UNREASONABLE ADVICE”  

καὶ ταῦτα τῆς Πηνελόπης ἐπὶ τῇ τοιαύτῃ ᾠδῇ δακνομένης; καὶ 
φαμὲν ὅτι οἰκονομικῶς ὁ Φήμιος τοῦτο ποιεῖ, ἵνα τῆς τοιαύτης 
ἀοιδῆς τοῦ Φημίου ἡ Πηνελόπη ἀκροωμένη τοῦ οἰκείου ἀνδρὸς 
μνημονεύῃ καὶ ἀποσοβῇ τοὺς μνηστῆρας (schol. DE Od. 1.327j). 
He [Homer] says that Athena ordered Phemius to put the 
homecoming of the Achaeans from Troy into his own song. This 
hints at nothing other than that “Athena” is phronesis, and Phem-
ius understood by his own phronesis to sing of the homecoming of 
the Achaeans. Some raise the following problem: why does 
Phemius do that, especially as Penelope is deeply distraught by 
such a song? Our answer is that Phemius does this with a view 
to the plot, in order that Penelope, while listening to such a song 
from Phemius, be mindful of her own husband and scare away 
the suitors. 

Here, as in two other instances where οὐκ ἄλλο αἰνίττεται ἢ ὅτι 
is used, Athena is first established as φρόνησις, and then, in 
another step, this φρόνησις is established as the character’s 
own φρόνησις that guides his actions.74 There is reason to 
believe that this is a principle of interpretation applied to the 
Homeric text. This two-step principle is another indication of 
the DEJ group’s specific interest in Athena = φρόνησις in 
addition to the mere phraseology, especially as the identical 
phrase or very similar ones seem to have been commentary-
jargon.75 But even though the phrase is not unique in Greek 
scholarship, it is striking that it occurs in the scholia on the 
Odyssey, not the Iliad, that it is used by a particular group of 
scholia, that four out of five instances pertain to Athena = 
φρόνησις, and that three of these involve Telemachus.76 

 
74 The other two instances are hyp. c Od. 1 and schol. DEJs Od. 1.270. 
75 A TLG search shows that it is used especially frequently in ancient 

commentaries on the Bible, first and foremost by John Chrysostom. But 
even though it does not seem to appear in scholia on pagan authors other 
than those on the Odyssey, it is not necessarily a phrase restricted to Chris-
tian commentators. Maximus of Tyre once asks τί γὰρ δὴ ἄλλο αἰνίττεται ἢ 
(Diss. 5.1); a similar phrase is μήποτε οὖν ἔοικέν τι Ὅμηρος αἰνίττεσθαι ἄλλο 
κρεῖττον ἢ (Diss. 22.2). 

76 The Phemius scholion and schol. DEJs Od. 1.270a are also linked 
through the notion of “scaring away” (ἀποσοβεῖν) the suitors. In schol. Od. 
1.270a, this is seen as part of Athena’s exhortation and thus represents what 
Telemachus’ own φρόνησις tells him to do. In the note concerning Phem-
 



 JESSICA WISSMANN 441 
 

The scholion about Phemius combines two types of explana-
tion, one within the logic of the plot and one that pertains to 
literary technique.77 The latter addresses the problem why 
Phemius does something that causes Penelope such anguish, 
and seeks the answer in the “greater good” of the development 
of the plot. It seems that the two explanations were unrelated 
and joined together in the process of commenting on the pas-
sage. Exactly this is interesting, however, and sets this scholion 
a little apart from the other three of the group. By itself, the 
identification of Athena with φρόνησις is not apologetic or 
“defensive,” just as it is not in the case of the other scholia of 
that group. But it seems that whoever combined the two ex-
planations felt that perceiving Athena as φρόνησις did not 
solve the problem why Phemius did such a hurtful thing but 
perhaps even made the problem more acute. For the obvious 
question is: if Athena is φρόνησις, how could she (or it) cause 
such a harmful action? 

A problem very similar to this is seen in ancient discussions of 
the Pandarus episode in Iliad 4. Pandarus violates the oaths 
taken by the Achaeans and the Trojans by shooting an arrow 
at Menelaus. The difficulty of this passage is that Athena in dis-
guise, dispatched by Zeus, induced him to do so. One scholion 

___ 
ius, it is seen as part of the purpose of his song. The word is used for scaring 
away birds (LSJ s.v.). 

77 Another possiblity is that the second explanation is text-internal also, 
using the idea of an educative role of the bard, as in the case of the bard left 
behind by Agamemnon to monitor Clytaemestra in his absence (Od. 3.267–
272, with schol. EM Od. 3.267 commenting on the bard’s function). It is 
conceivable that Penelope, although she never gives any reason to be 
thought unfaithful, is seen as being in need of such a monitor; cf. the (rather 
far-fetched) view of Timolaus (a pupil of Anaximenes) that the brother of 
the bard in Agamemnon’s service was Phemius, who followed Penelope to 
Ithaca to “guard her, therefore sang for the suitors only against his will” 
(Τιμόλαος δὲ ἀδελφὸν αὐτόν φησιν εἶναι Φημίου, ὃν ἀκολουθῆσαι εἰς 
Ἰθάκην πρὸς παραφυλακὴν αὐτῆς· διὸ καὶ βίᾳ τοῖς μνηστῆρσιν ᾄδει, schol. 
EHMQR Od. 3.267). On the other hand, οἰκονομικῶς is a term referring to 
the arrangement of the plot (see Nünlist, The Ancient Critic ch. 1), which 
rather suggests that the commentator seeks the solution in Homer’s nar-
rative technique. 



442 ATHENA’S “UNREASONABLE ADVICE”  

reports the following view:78 
οὐκ ἀσεβεῖ δέ, φασίν, ὁ Πάνδαρος, εἰ ἡ Ἀθηνᾶ συνεβούλευσεν 
καὶ ὁ Ζεὺς ἀπέσταλκεν. ῥητέον οὖν ὅτι ὁ μὲν Ζεὺς εἰδὼς τοὺς 
ὅρκους κακῶς γεγενημένους (οὐδὲν γὰρ ἕτερον Τρῶες ἢ ἐπὶ τοῖς 
ἀλλοτρίοις ὤμοσαν), διὰ τοῦτο ἐσπούδασεν λυθῆναι τὰς ἀδίκους 
συνθήκας. Ἀθηνᾶν δὲ νῦν ὑποληπτέον τὸν λογισμὸν αὐτοῦ τοῦ 
Πανδάρου, καὶ ὅτι αὐτὸς πρὸς ἑαυτὸν ταῦτα ἐλογίζετο. ἄπιστοι 
γὰρ Λυκάονες, καὶ Ἀριστοτέλης μαρτυρεῖ (fr.151 Rose). ἄλλοι δὲ 
καὶ αὐτοῖς τοῖς Ὁμήρου λύοντές φασιν προειρηκέναι τὸν 
ποιητὴν “πειρᾶν” (Il. 4.71), αἴ κε θέλῃσιν οὐχὶ πείθειν (schol. D 
[ZYQXAR] Il. 4.88). 
Pandarus, they say, does not commit a sacrilege, if Athena gave 
him the advice and Zeus has sent [her]. One should respond 
that Zeus, knowing that the oaths had come into existence in a 
bad way (for the Trojans did nothing other than to swear by for-
eign terms), for this reason hastened to have the unjust treaties 
dissolved. One should understand Athena here as the reasoning 
(logismos) of Pandarus himself, and that he himself debated these 
things with himself. For the Lycaones are untrustworthy; Ari-
stotle too testifies to that (fr.151 Rose). Others, finding a solution 
even in Homer’s [text itself ], say that the poet has beforehand 
spoken of “to try” (Il. 4.71), whether he perhaps is not willing to 
obey. 

The scholion rejects the idea that Pandarus is more or less “ex-
cused” for violating the oaths because he was induced by the 
gods to shoot at Menelaus. Athena is seen as the “reasoning” 
part of Pandarus, as she is the one to induce him to act fool-
ishly. Exactly this alleged contradiction—the “reasoning” part 
causing a foolish action—is discussed by Proclus. He tries to 
show that just as the causes of surgery and cautery are not with 
the physicians but with the illnesses, so it is not the gods that 
are responsible for the violation of the oaths but the “dis-
positions of those who are acting” (αἱ ἕξεις τῶν ποιούντων).79 
Consequently, Athena is not an instigator but “tries” Pandarus; 

 
78 It has been included by H. Schrader in his edition (Porphyrii Quaestionum 

Homericarum ad Iliadem pertinentium reliquiae I–II [Leipzig 1880–1882]), but 
without manuscript evidence. On Pandarus as “problem” see also Buffière, 
Les mythes 286. 

79 Procl. In Rem Publ. I 104.4–7 Kroll. 



 JESSICA WISSMANN 443 
 
his own deficits, especially his foolishness (ἄνοια), are the de-
cisive factor. As in the scholion, the responsibility is ascribed to 
Pandarus’ own character, but this interpretation leads to the 
question that Proclus himself poses: “How could it not be 
astonishing if Athena is the cause not of phronesis, but of foolish-
ness?”80 The answer is that everything is moved by the gods in 
accordance with its suitability (ἐπιτηδειότης).81 Essentially, for 
the greater good of the punishment of the Trojans and in order 
to make them see their own baseness,82 the goddess of φρό-
νησις exercises her influence in the same category to which 
φρόνησις belongs, with foolishness being its counterpart. 

The case of Pandarus thus raises the problem of how the 
goddess of φρόνησις can initiate an action that seems to be the 
opposite of her usual positive characteristic. The solution is 
found in the very domain of hers.83 But the identification is not 
made with an apologetic or defensive intention. Rather it is 
itself being defended against anything that might endanger its 
validity. The identification itself remains positive. 

Yet the positive identification can also be used in a wider de-
fensive context. Concerning Athena’s intervention during the 
quarrel between Agamemnon and Achilles in Iliad 1, schol. D 

 
80 καίτοι πῶς οὐ θαυμαστόν, εἰ Ἀθηνᾶ μὴ φρονήσεως αἰτία, ἀλλὰ ἀνοίας; 

(I 105.1–2). 
81 I 105.9–10. 
82 I 103.20 ff., cf. 102.19 ff. See also schol. bT Il. 4.66a ex. for the idea of 

punishment that the Trojans deserve. 
83 In my view, it can be argued that Proclus did not broach the notion of 

Athena = φρόνησις just in order to counterbalance a negative interpretation 
of Athena’s actions. Not only is the identification pervasive in Neoplatonic 
philosophy, and especially Proclus himself (cf. In Ti. I 157.24–160.5); he has 
also presented a positive conception of Athena earlier in his In Rem Publ., in 
a syncrisis of Athena and Bendis, where he emphasizes Athena’s role as 
“guide of souls and choregos of the nous and true phronesis, being powerful in 
the heavenly regions, perfecting from above all the sublunar world” (ἀναγω-
γὸς ψυχῶν καὶ νοῦ χορηγὸς καὶ φρονήσεως ἀληθοῦς καὶ ἐν τοῖς οὐρανίοις 
μειζόνως, ἄνωθεν δὲ τελειοῦσα πᾶσαν τὴν σεληναίαν διακόσμησιν, I 18.28–
19.2). He is referring to the shine radiating from Diomedes’ armour (Il. 5.4) 
and Athena’s removing the darkness from his sight (5.127), interpreting it as 
indicating the “light-bearing” quality of Athena (I 18.21–25; taken up by 
Anonymus, De incredibilibus 20 [Festa, Myth.Gr. III.2 98]). 



444 ATHENA’S “UNREASONABLE ADVICE”  

Il. 1.195 explains that Athena arrives from heaven in her 
capacity as phronesis (ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ παρεγένετο, φησίν, ἡ 
Ἀθηνᾶ, ὅ ἐστιν ἡ φρόνησις), and that she pulls Achilles’ hair 
because the head is the seat of the “reasoning part of the soul” 
(τὸ λογικὸν τῆς ψυχῆς μέρος), and connects this with the story 
of Metis as Athena’s mother and her birth from Zeus’ head. 
Here Athena = φρόνησις exerts a restraining and reasonable 
influence, as one would expect of her.84 Heraclitus, however, 
uses it as part of his defence of Homer’s representation of the 
gods (17–20). He sees the origin of Plato’s division of the soul 
into the rational and the irrational parts as actually being 
“stolen” from this Homeric passage (17, νοσφισάμενος). He 
also conceives of Athena as an allegory of φρόνησις (19.7, 20.5) 
and other forms of reason and wisdom. In a lack of distinction 
similar to that in his interpretation of her influence on Telema-
chus, Athena is both the “wisdom in perfection” (τελέως φρό-
νησις, 20.1) and a “human reasoning” (λογισμὸς ἀνθρώπινος, 
20.10) and thus not able to assuage Achilles’ anger, only to act 
as a “mediator” and restrain him from exercising violence.85 
Still, as Russell points out, this does not create a “need for al-
legory as a defence of impropriety”; rather—whether or not 
Heraclitus was aware of it—“to show allegory in innocent 
contexts … strengthens the case for seeing it where it is needed 
to counter the charge of impiety.”86 In this way, the positive 

 
84 The popularity of this interpretation emerges, e.g., from Max. Tyr. 

Diss. 4.8 
85 Contrast the much more “personal” approach in schol. D Il. 1.198: οἴῳ 

φαινομένη: μόνῳ αὐτῷ ὁρωμένη· / μόνος γὰρ αὐτὸς τὸν οἰκεῖον δαίμονα καὶ 
τὴν ἐν αὐτῷ φρόνησιν ἑώρα (=Ati) ZYQ(X), “appearing to him alone: being 
seen only by him; for he himself alone was seeing his personal daimon and 
the phronesis contained in him.” In a discussion of the various appearances of 
the Homeric gods, Proclus points out that Athena, undisguised, is visible 
only to Achilles, and contrasts this with her appearance disguised as Mentor 
and visible to all (In Rem Publ. I 113.28–114.6). 

86 D. A. Russell, “The Rhetoric of the Homeric Problems,” in G. R. Boys-
Stones (ed.), Metaphor, Allegory, and the Classical Tradition. Ancient Thought and 
Modern Revisions (Oxford 2003) 217–234, at 220. P. T. Struck, Birth of the 
Symbol. Ancient Readers at the Limits of their Texts (Princeton 2004) 14–16, ex-
presses his doubts about the validity of a strict distinction between “positive” 
and “defensive” allegory (following J. Tate’s opinion that the origins of 
 



 JESSICA WISSMANN 445 
 
identification is in the service of a defence. 

The identification of Athena with φρόνησις, being in itself 
positive, could, therefore, both solve and create problems. It is 
also clear that it is firmly established in the DEJ group as part 
of their view of Athena’s interaction with Telemachus.87 As to 
its origins, especially with regard to its ubiquity in the scholia 
on the Odyssey, one can only guess. The Allegories of Tzetzes 
show the same ubiquity, but it is difficult to decide whether his 
interpretations were used in the scholia or Tzetzes draws on 
older material that has been used in the scholia too.88 Tzetzes 
not only applies ad nauseam the allegorical reading of Athena as 
φρόνησις:89 he is also quite fond of the concept of “personal” 
φρόνησις, as part of his “psychological” interpretation. He uses 
___ 
allegorical interpretation do not lie in attempts to defend poetry: “On the 
History of Allegorism,” CQ 28 [1934] 105–114). But I think that in cases 
where the author makes clear what his intention is, one is allowed to speak 
of “positive” or “defensive” allegorical reading, where it is usually more ob-
vious. The passage of Heraclitus is interesting in that respect, as the general 
intention is defensive, but a positive interpretation is used. Russell observes 
that the words with which Heraclitus concludes the passage (“The episode 
of Athena, whom Homer represents as the mediator in Achilles’ anger 
against Agamemnon, may thus be seen to merit an allegorized interpre-
tation,” 20.12), betray some unease and need for justification. 

87 Another example is schol. E Od. 5.5 (on Athena raising again in the as-
sembly of the gods the issue of Odysseus’ return to Ithaca), which states that 
“the phronesis above is different from that of humans. For the one of humans 
often misses what is necessary, the one above, or that of providence, never 
does” (ἄλλη ἡ ἄνω φρόνησις καὶ ἄλλη ἡ τῶν ἀνθρώπων. ἡ μὲν γὰρ τῶν 
ἀνθρώπων πολλάκις ἁμαρτάνει τοῦ δέοντος, ἡ δὲ ἄνω ἤτοι τῆς προνοίας 
οὐδέποτε). Outside of this group, other attempts to find φρόνησις in all 
aspects of Athena are, e.g., schol. Q Od. 16.207 (her epithet ἀγελείη, “driver 
of spoil,” is explained as “carrying off the booty,” “for phronesis knows how 
to do this”: τῆς ἀγούσης τὰς λείας ἤτοι τὰς λαφυραγωγίας. ἡ γὰρ φρόνησις 
τοιαῦτα δρᾶν οἶδε) or schol. M1 Od. 1.365c (Athena throwing sleep on Pe-
nelope’s eyes is glossed, as an alternative to physical allegory, as φρόνησις). 

88 See Pontani, Sguardi 168. One codex (Y) clearly takes much of its ma-
terial from Tzetzes (Pontani 236), but as I focus on a different group of 
codices, this is not relevant for the matter discussed here. 

89 Even the editor of the Allegories acknowledges: “Diese Allegorie gehört 
zu den häufigsten, man muß schon sagen, abgedroschensten des Tzetzes,” 
amounting to 10 times in the All.Il. and 56 in the All.Od. (Hunger, JÖBG 3 
[1954] 49). 



446 ATHENA’S “UNREASONABLE ADVICE”  

the phrase οἰκεία φρόνησις or φρόνησις with the genitive of a 
person that occurs so often in the scholia on the Odyssey.90 On 
the other hand, the general concept is considerably older, as 
can be gathered from Heraclitus, whom Tzetzes mentions 
among his predecessors.91 It is even more significant that the 
passages that are so prominent in the DEJ group do not have a 
parallel in Tzetzes; he does not identify Athena with φρόνησις 
with regard to her interaction with Telemachus, as the scholia 
do in hyp. c and schol. Od. 1.270a, nor, for that matter, with 
regard to Phemius as in schol. Od. 1.327j.92 Only schol. DEJ 
Od. 1.96 shows some proximity to Tzetzes in interpreting 
Athena’s sandals in conjunction with φρόνησις. But in Tzetzes, 
Athena is already allegorized as the letter sent by Zeus/Mentes. 
Conclusion 

A consequence of the DEJ group’s emphasis on the iden-
tification of Athena with φρόνησις is that it looms so large in its 
interpretation of the Odyssey that it even overshadows the char-
acteristics of individual humans. Telemachus is such a case. 
Even in instances where there is no need to justify Athena’s 
actions, the primary focus is on the goddess, not on Telem-
achus.93 The identification does not serve to link Telemachus 
 

90 With genitive, e.g. All.Od. 2.80 ἡ Μέντου φρ., 6.24 ἡ φρ. … τῆς Ναυ-
σικάας, 8.14 Παλλὰς Ἀθήνη φρ. τανῦν τοῦ Ὀδυσσέως, 8.22 ἡ φρ. αὐτοῦ, 
8.32 ἡ Ὀδυσσέως φρ. With οἰκεία, e.g. 7.59, 9.79, 10.84 (not about Athena). 
On the whole, he seems to use the φρόνησις + genitive formula more often 
than attributive οἰκεία.  

91 The others being Demo, Cornutus, Palaephatus, and Psellus (All.Od. 
prooem. 35–36). 

92 In the latter instance, he uses a physical allegory instead (All.Od. 1.315). 
Most of the instances in which the scholia speak of Odysseus’ own φρόνησις 
(which are in a different MSS. tradition) do have a parallel in Tzetzes (e.g. 
schol. P Od. 7.140, schol. Q Od. 8.519; schol. P Od. 8.520, but not schol. E 
Od. 7.14). 

93 Cf. Erbse’s explanation that the complexity of the plot of the Odyssey 
necessitates the aid of the gods, and that the exceptional subject-matter 
determined also the character of Athena (“Die komplizierte Handlung er-
forderte die Mithilfe der Götter, und die Besonderheit des Stoffes bestimmte 
auch Athenes Charakter”): H. Erbse, Untersuchungen zur Funktion der Götter im 
homerischen Epos (Berlin/New York 1986) 8. But this alone does not explain 
the tenacity with which Athena was interpreted as φρόνησις. 



 JESSICA WISSMANN 447 
 
to his father, as sharing with him in the guidance of Athena = 
φρόνησις. This would indicate that the focus is on human char-
acters. Instead, Telemachus is linked with Phemius, in the 
manuscript group containing the phrase “hints at nothing other 
than that Athena is φρόνησις.” But since nothing else links 
these two human characters, this can only mean that the focus 
is on the sole factor that is common to both: Athena as φρό-
νησις. 

Yet the question remains where to position this positive 
identification with regard to the problem posed by Athena’s 
actions. Was it an existing notion of Athena as φρόνησις that 
created the problem of her giving advice that is ἄλογος in the 
first place? Or is the idea of Athena as φρόνησις used in order 
to solve the problem of a goddess as giving “unreasonable ad-
vice” by finding practical wisdom in it? 

The evidence of the scholia on the Odyssey appears to be 
somewhat inconclusive. In schol. DEJMaO Od. 1.93b and 
schol. DH(O) Od. 1.284a, the question of Athena’s unreason-
able advice is raised independently from her identification with 
φρόνησις, and the same is true of the solutions that are dis-
cussed there. The line pursued in these passages—that of attrib-
uting a traditional education to Telemachus—differs in many 
aspects from the other line that explains Athena as φρόνησις. 
Where the one sees the journey as instrumental in acquiring 
traditional skills and reputation, the other emphasizes concrete 
actions (such as dealing with the suitors) as being induced by 
φρόνησις. Whereas the one includes the father as a role model, 
the other virtually excludes him. Whereas the one is expressly 
defensive, the other is clearly positive. 

Yet, with all due caution, it may have been a positive al-
legory in the service of a greater defensive context. Heraclitus 
shows that a combination of the “education” branch and that 
of Athena as φρόνησις and related notions existed, in which 
Reason is the educator. It is true that the education is rather 
metaphorical, illustrated by a comparison with a father or 
tutor. But how “real” is a goddess as educator, as suggested by 
the scholia? What the Athena of this type of interpretation does 
is to confront Telemachus with individuals, situations, and 
events that make him grow up. In essence, this supposed pur-
pose of Telemachus’ journey matches Heraclitus’ concept of a 



448 ATHENA’S “UNREASONABLE ADVICE”  

foolish young man coming to his senses, awakened by his own 
φρόνησις. In the scholia, too—namely in the hypothesis c Od. 1—
φρόνησις already exists in the young man and induces him to 
grow up by means of going on the search for his father. It is 
only a small step from there to fleshing this process out with 
elements of traditional education, as presented by the scholia 
on Od. 1.93 and 1.284. 

But both in those interpretations in which Athena exerts her 
influence as φρόνησις, and in those where she is simply the 
deity, the focus is on the goddess.94 It is indicative of such a 
tendency that the work of Antisthenes mentioned at the be-
ginning of this paper dealt not with Telemachus alone but with 
Athena and Telemachus.95 

This may have to do with the fact that ancient educators did 
not, as modern educators would do, make more frequent use 
him as a role model. Modern readers would be interested in 
ideas about the various steps in Telemachus’ development, that 
is, in the process rather than the starting point and result, and 
read it like a Bildungsroman to give some guidance to readers of 
Telemachus’ age. But ancient schooling appears not to have 
been interested in using material tailored to the age of the 
students, at least as we would understand it. Telemachus was, 
of course, the prototype of a young man coming of age, but 
only in a very limited way: as a comparatively short, illustrative 
reference.96 But he was apparently not regarded as role model 
 

94 The fact that both branches of explanations appear only in scholia on 
Od. 1 may support this possibility that the concern is with Athena and her 
sending Telemachus on his journey. Still, here too, the influence of chance 
(or lack of the scholiasts’ stamina or interest) may have been the decisive 
factor. 

95 The title is not uniformly transmitted in the manuscripts containing the 
list of works given by Diogenes Laertius. Instead of Ἀθηνᾶ ἢ περὶ Τηλεμά-
χου, cod. B has Ἀθηνᾶ ἢ περὶ τῆς …, with a lacuna of approximately 7–8 
letters, most likely a noun (F. Decleva Caizzi: Antisthenis Fragmenta [Milan 
1966] 83–84). Could it have been φρονήσεως? 

96 A typical instance of this is when Philodemus uses Telemachus as an 
example in his treatise On the Good King according to Homer, pointing out both 
his youth and presumably some virtues of a (future) ruler: παράδ[ει]γμα δ’ 
ἡμῖν ὁ [Τ]η ̣λέμαχος γενέ̣σ ̣θω· τοῦτον γὰρ καὶ νέον ὑπ[ά]ρχοντα καὶ (a long 
lacuna follows): “Let Telemachus be our example, for him being both young 
 



 JESSICA WISSMANN 449 
 
material. The comparison with Achilles makes this very appar-
ent: although the scholia take a considerable interest in this 
hero’s education, he first and foremost is the result of that edu-
cation—a finished product, so to speak. This is what makes him 
more suitable as a role model than Telemachus, as becomes 
clear from one of the most famous formulations of this educa-
tional concept: “The teachers … set before them [the students] 
on their benches the poems of great poets and compel them to 
memorize them, poems in which are contained many ad-
monitions, many narratives and praises and encomia of noble 
men of old, in order that the boy zealously imitate them and 
strive to become like them” (Plato Prt. 325E–326A). Heroes 
were chosen with a view towards the life of a grown-up—not 
even an ordinary and contemporary life—rather than towards 
a young man in search of his identity, outgrowing his doubts 
with the help of a goddess.97 
 

APPENDIX 
(Texts after Pontani’s edition) 
Schol. Od. 1.1l1 (p.8.14–25) (Porphyry): λύων οὖν ὁ Ἀντισθένης φησί· τί 
οὖν; ἆρά γε πονηρὸς ὁ Ὀδυσσεὺς ὅτι πολύτροπος ἐρρέθη; καὶ μήν, διότι 
σοφός, οὕτως αὐτὸν προσείρηκεν. μήποτε οὖν τρόπος τὸ μέν τι σημαίνει τὸ 
ἦθος, τὸ δέ τι σημαίνει τὴν τοῦ λόγου χρῆσιν· εὔτροπος γὰρ ἀνὴρ ὁ τὸ ἦθος 
ἔχων εἰς τὸ εὖ τετραμμένον. τρόποι δὲ λόγων †αἴτιοι αἱ† πλάσεις· καὶ χρῆται 
τῷ τρόπῳ καὶ ἐπὶ φωνῆς καὶ ἐπὶ μελῶν ἐξαλλαγῆς, ὡς ἐπὶ τῆς ἀηδόνος “ἥτε 
θαμὰ τροπῶσα χέει πολυηχέα φωνήν” [τ 521]. εἰ δὲ οἱ σοφοὶ δεινοί εἰσι δια-
λέγεσθαι, ἐπίστανται καὶ τὸ αὐτὸ νόημα κατὰ πολλοὺς τρόπους λέγειν· 
ἐπιστάμενοι δὲ πολλοὺς τρόπους λόγων περὶ τοῦ αὐτοῦ, πολύτροποι ἂν εἶεν. 
εἰ δὲ οἱ σοφοί, καὶ ἀγαθοί εἰσι, διὰ τοῦτό φησι τὸν Ὀδυσσέα Ὅμηρος σοφὸν 
ὄντα πολύτροπον εἶναι, ὅτι δὴ τοῖς ἀνθρώποις ἠπίστατο πολλοῖς τρόποις 
συνεῖναι.  
Antisthenes’ solution: What then? Is it that Odysseus is wicked because he is 
called polytropos? On the contrary: because he is wise, he [Hom.] has thus 
expressed himself in reference to him. Tropos perhaps partly indicates the 
character, partly the use of speech. For a man is eutropos who has a character 
that is turned towards the “well.” The various styles are responsible for the 

___ 
and” (col. 22.36–37 Dorandi). It is quite significant, that the text is ad-
dressed to Philodemus’ patron, Piso—not to a schoolboy. 

97 I would like to thank David Konstan and René Nünlist for their critical 
and helpful comments. 



450 ATHENA’S “UNREASONABLE ADVICE”  

mode of speeches, and he [Hom.] uses the word tropos with regard both to 
voice and to diversity of songs, as in the case of the nightingale “that, vary-
ing the manifold strains of her voice, pours out the melody” [Od. 19.521, 
transl. Lattimore]. If the wise are skillful speakers, they also know to express 
the same thought in many ways; knowing many ways of speaking about the 
same thing, they could well be polytropoi. If the wise are also noble, it is 
because of this that Homer says that Odysseus, being wise, is polytropos, be-
cause [in Homer’s opinion] he knew to associate with people in many ways. 
Schol. Od. 1.93b: πέμψω δ’ ἐς Σπάρτην: ἄτοπος εἶναι δοκεῖ Τηλεμάχου ἡ 
ἀποδημία πρῶτον μὲν κίνδυνον προξενοῦσα τῷ νέῳ, δεύτερον ἐπανάστασιν 
τῶν μνηστήρων ἀπειλοῦσα, τρίτον οὐκ ὠφελοῦσα τὴν ζήτησιν τοῦ πατρός. 
ἀλλ’ ἔδει τὸν ἐν γυναιξὶ τεθραμμένον, λύπαις τεταπεινωμένον, ῥητορειῶν οὐ 
πεπειραμένον οὐδεπώποτε, πολύτροπον γενέσθαι παραπλησίως τῷ πατρί, καὶ 
τοῦτο κερδᾶναι τῇ πλάνῃ, καὶ κοινωνεῖν τῷ πατρὶ τῶν κατορθωμάτων ἐν τῇ 
μνηστηροκτονίᾳ. ἀσφαλίζεται δὲ τὰ κατ’ οἶκον πρῶτον μὲν ἐπαναστήσας τὸν 
δῆμον κατὰ τῶν μνηστήρων ἐν τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ, δεύτερον δὲ ταῖς ὑποσχέσεσιν 
ἀνεξικακεῖν διδάξας τοὺς μνηστῆρας εἰπὼν “καὶ ἀνέρι μητέρα δώσω” [β 
223]. DEJMaO  ἔτι μᾶλλον καὶ τῆς ἐπιβουλῆς τῶν μνηστήρων ὁ κίνδυνος 
ἠκόνησεν αὐτοῦ τὴν προθυμίαν. MaO 
“I will send him to Sparta”: The journey of Telemachus seems preposterous 
as first it puts danger upon the young man, second threatens the suitors’ 
taking action, third does not further the search for his father. But the one 
who had been raised among women, had been abased by sorrows, and had 
never tried his skill in speeches, had to become polytropos in a manner similar 
to his father, and had to achieve this through his wandering and share with 
his father in the achievements in the Slaughter of the Suitors. He safe-
guards the affairs at the house first by making the people take a stand 
against the suitors in the assembly, second by teaching the suitors through 
his promises to be patient, saying “and I will give my mother to a husband” 
(Od. 2.223). DEJMaO The danger of the suitors’ plot has even further 
goaded on his eagerness. MaO 
Schol. Od. 1.284a (pp.150.48–151.79). πρῶτα μὲν ἐς Πύλον ἐλθὲ καὶ εἴρεο 
Νέστορα δῖον: οὐκ ἀποδέχονταί τινες τῆς Ἀθηνᾶς τὴν ὑποθήκην ἐκπεμ-
πούσης Τηλέμαχον, ὅτε ἦν ἐν μεγίστοις κινδύνοις ἡ οἰκία, πρὸς τὴν ἄπρακτον 
ζήτησιν τοῦ πατρός, τῶν μὲν μνηστήρων ἑτοίμων ὄντων καὶ βίαν προσφέρειν 
τῇ Πηνελόπῃ διὰ τὴν πολυχρόνιον μνηστείαν, τῆς δὲ οἰκίας οὐκ ἐχούσης τὸν 
προϊστάμενον ἄνδρα· καὶ ὅμως ὑπαιτίας οὔσης τῆς συμβουλῆς οὐκ ὀκνεῖ ἡ 
Ἀθηνᾶ λέγειν “σοὶ δ’ αὐτῷ πυκινῶς ὑποθήσομαι, αἴ κε πίθηαι” [α 279], 
ἐπαινοῦσα ὡς σοφὴν τὴν τοιαύτην παραίνεσιν. ἢ οὖν δεικτέον τὸ σοφὸν τῆς 
εἰς ἀποδημίαν ἀποστολῆς, ἢ ἀλόγου οὔσης ὑποθήκης ἄτοπος ὁ τοιαῦτα θεοῖς 
ἀνατιθεὶς νοήματα. DHO 
φαίνεται τοίνυν Ὅμηρος ἀδύνατον νομίσαι ἄνδρα ὑπὸ γυναικὶ τεθραμμένον, 
εἰ καὶ σωφρονεστάτη εἴη, καὶ ἐν οἴκῳ κατακεκλειμένον πλήρει ὑβριστῶν 
ἀνθρώπων, ἐν θεραπαίναις τε ἀσελγέσιν ἐναυξόμενον καὶ νήσῳ μικροπρεπεῖ 
καὶ ἀβασιλεύτῳ πολὺν χρόνον, κινδύνων τε ξενικῶν μὴ εἰληφότα πεῖραν, 
μηδὲ μετασχόντα ἀηδιῶν καὶ ἀγωνιάσαντα ἐν ὅσαις ἀδημονίαις γέγονε Τη-
λέμαχος προσιέναι μέλλων Νέστορί τε καὶ Μενελάῳ καὶ Ἑλένῃ, φαίνεται οὖν 



 JESSICA WISSMANN 451 
 
μή τοι ἂν δυνηθῆναι νομίσαι ἀρετῆς ἄλλως γέ πως μετασχεῖν. διὸ πρόφασιν 
μὲν ἔχει ἡ ἀποδημία περὶ ἐξετάσεως τοῦ πατρός, σκοπὸς δέ ἐστι τῇ συμβου-
λευούσῃ Ἀθηνᾷ παίδευσις, ἀφ’ ἧς ἤμελλεν ἔσεσθαι ὃ προὔθετο μάλιστα ἡ 
θεός· καὶ ἐρεῖ “πέμψω δ’ ἐς Σπάρτην τε {παρὰ ξανθὸν Μενέλαον} καὶ ἐς 
Πύλον ἠμαθόεντα / νόστον πευσόμενον πατρὸς φίλου, ἤν που ἀκούσῃ, / ἠδ’ 
ἵνα μιν κλέος ἐσθλὸν ἐν ἀνθρώποισιν ἔχῃσιν” [α 93–95]. εἰ μὲν ⟨οὖν⟩ ἡ πρό-
φασις ἐξέτασιν εἶχε πατρὸς ἐπανόδου, σκοπὸς δ’ ἦν ταύτης παίδευσις, ἀφ’ ἧς 
τὸ “κλέος ἐν ἀνθρώποισι” γίνεται, εἴη ἂν θεία ἡ παραίνεσις καὶ τῇ Ἀθηνᾷ 
πρέπουσα· μένων δ’ ἐν Ἰθάκῃ ἀπαίδευτος ἢ τῶν μνηστήρων εἴχετο καὶ προὔ-
δωκεν ἂν τὸν οἶκον, ἢ ἐπιτιθέμενος αὐτὸς ἀπώλετο ἄν, μόλις τοῦ Ὀδυσσέως 
δι’ ὑπερβολὴν φρονήσεως καὶ ἐμπειρίας δυνηθέντος αὐτοῖς δολίως ἐπι-
θέσθαι, ἄξιός τε οὐκ ἂν τοῦ πατρὸς ἐγένετο μή τί γε παρὰ τῶν συστρατευ-
σάντων πυθόμενος περὶ τῶν ἐκείνου πράξεων. διὸ καὶ συνεῖναι αὐτῷ ἐλθόντι 
κωλυόμενος πεπαίδευται ἤδη, καὶ οἶδε πῶς προσενεχθῇ τῷ πατρὶ ἀφ’ ὧν 
ἀκήκοε περὶ αὐτοῦ διηγημάτων. DH 
“First go to Pylos and ask divine Nestor”: Some do not accept the advice of 
Athena as she sends Telemachus off, when the house was in greatest 
danger, to a fruitless search for his father, while the suitors are ready even to 
use force against Penelope because of the protracted wooing with the house 
lacking the man in charge. And yet Athena, in spite of this questionable ad-
vice, does not hesitate to say “But for yourself, I will counsel you shrewdly, 
and hope you will listen” (Od. 1.279, transl. Lattimore), commending such 
exhortation as wise. Either one has to show what is wise about sending him 
on the journey; or, if the advice is unreasonable, it is preposterous to at-
tribute such thoughts to gods. DHO 
Homer seems to have thought that a man who has been raised by a woman 
—even if she were exceedingly prudent—who has been confined in a house 
with a great number of licentious men, who has grown up among wanton 
maid-servants on an insignificant island that has been without a king for a 
long time, and who has not experienced dangers abroad and has not had 
his share of unpleasantness and has struggled in as many troubles as 
Telemachus was when about to travel to Nestor and Menelaus and Helena, 
[Homer] now seems to have thought that he could not have got his share of 
areté in any other way. For this reason the pretext for the journey is the 
inquiry about his father, but for Athena, who is advising it, the aim is 
education, from which would result that which the goddess had in mind 
most; she will say “I will convey him to Sparta {to fair-haired Menelaus} 
and to sandy Pylos to ask about his dear father’s home-coming, if he can 
hear something, and so that among people he may win a good reputation” 
(Od. 1.93–95, transl. Lattimore). Now if the pretext was the inquiry into his 
father’s return, but its aim was education, from which “good reputation 
among people’ results, the exhortation would be divine and appropriate to 
Athena; but remaining in Ithaca without an education he would either 
attach himself to the suitors and betray the house, or he would get killed in 
an attempt to attack them, when Odysseus with his superior intelligence and 
experience is only just able to attack them with trickery, and he [Tel.] would 
not have become worthy of his father had he not heard from his [father’s] 



452 ATHENA’S “UNREASONABLE ADVICE”  

companions in arms about his deeds. For this reason, even though he is 
being prevented from being with him upon his return, he is already edu-
cated and knows how to behave towards his father, on the basis of the 
stories he has heard about him. DH 
Schol. Od. 1.284b1: πρῶτα μὲν ἐς Πύλον: πέμπει αὐτὸν παιδευθησόμενον 
καὶ ἅμα ἔνδοξον ἐσόμενον, ἐπεὶ διὰ πατέρα ἀπεδήμησεν. HTVY 
She sends him in order to be educated and at the same time to gain glory, 
because he went on a journey on account of his father. HTVY 
Schol. Od. 1.284b2: πρῶτα μὲν ἐς Πύλον: πέμπει αὐτὸν παιδευθησόμενον 
παρὰ τὸν Νέστορα (οὗτος γὰρ εἶχε τὴν ἀπὸ γήρως ἐμπειρίαν), εἶτα εἰς 
Σπάρτην πρὸς Μενέλαον (οὗτος γὰρ ἀπὸ τῆς ὀκταετοῦς πλάνης ἐπανήλυθε 
νεωστί), DE  κοινῶς δὲ δοξασθησόμενον διὰ τὴν ἀναζήτησιν τοῦ πατρός. E 
She sends him to Nestor for education (for he had the experience that 
comes with age), then to Sparta, to Menelaus (for he has recently returned 
from eight years of roaming) DE; in general, in order to gain glory through 
his search for his father. E 
Schol. Od. 1.284c: πρῶτα μὲν ἐς Πύλον ἐλθέ: διὰ τί δὲ πρῶτον αὐτὸν ἐς 
Πύλον πέμπει; παιδευθησόμενον αὐτὸν ὡς Νέστορα πέμπει. περὶ δὲ τῆς 
ἀποδημίας Τηλεμάχου εἴπομεν ⟨εἰς τὸ⟩ “πέμψον δ’ ἐς Σπάρτην τε” [α 93]. καὶ 
νῦν δὲ λεκτέον ὡς ὑπόθεσιν αὐτὴν πεποίηκεν ὁ ποιητὴς ποικιλίας λόγων καὶ 
ἐξαλλαγῆς ἰδεῶν, ἵνα μὴ μονότροπος ᾖ τῆς ποιήσεως ὁ τρόπος. HMaO 
Why does she first send him to Pylos? She sends him to Nestor for edu-
cation. We have dealt with Telemachus’ journey on line 93. Here, one 
should state that the poet has made it an occasion for variety of speeches 
and variation of forms, lest the poetic mode be uniform. HMaO 
Schol. Od. 1. 284d: ἐς Πύλον: τῆς Ὀδυσσείας οὐκ ἐχούσης ἐξ αὑτῆς ποι-
κιλίαν ἱκανήν, τὸν Τηλέμαχον ἐξελθεῖν εἰς Σπάρτην καὶ Πύλον ποιεῖ, ὅπως ἂν 
τῶν Ἰλιακῶν ἐν παρεκβάσεσι πολλὰ λεχθείη διά τε τοῦ Νέστορος καὶ τοῦ 
Μενελάου. DE 
As the Odyssey does not offer sufficient variety by itself, he [Hom.] has 
Telemachus travel to Sparta and Pylos, in order that in digressions many of 
the Trojan events are narrated by Nestor and Menelaus. DE 

 
January, 2009  Department of Classics 
  University of Iowa 
  Iowa City, IA  52242 
  jessica-wissmann@uiowa.edu