min auton versus min autoi:
What is Athena hiding at Odyssey 13.190?

Benjamin S. Haller (University of Pittsburgh)

My contribution advocates a suggestion by Aristophanes of Byzantium that the text of Odyssey 13.190 be emended from min auton to min autoi, changing the meaning from “in order that Athena might make Odysseus himself unrecognizable” to “in order that Athena might make it [Ithaca] unrecognizable to him [Odysseus]”.  The problems of this passage have been discussed in passing recently by Clay (1983,192) and Hoekstra (1989), but no clear solution has emerged.

Hoekstra (1989) states the apparent problem with Aristophanes’ emendation succinctly:  “if min refers to Ithaca, me…gnoie (192) makes no sense.”  However, there are at least four good arguments against accepting the received reading, in which it is Odysseus whom the cloud renders unrecognizable:  (1) the gar of 189, which strongly suggests that the account of the cloud is meant to explain Odysseus’ failure to recognize Ithaca (188); (2) the clear specification of the things which are rendered alloeidea in the touneka clause of 194 as features of Ithaca’s landscape; (3) a superfluous doubling-up of disguises, inasmuch as Athena will later disguise Odysseus again (13.429ff.; nor will it help to explain the cloud as a means of concealing the actions of disguising and instructing Odysseus point by point, for, as noted by Ameis-Hentze 1895, ad 191, Athena dispels the cloud before she helps him don his disguise); (4) the context of 13.352, where the scattering of the cloud is unambiguously intended to allow Odysseus to recognize Ithaca.

A close reading will reveal that Hoekstra’s objection to the implications of Aristophanes’ text is not insurmountable, and that perfectly sound sense can be made of the passage without resorting to excising 192-193.  Ithaca becoming recognizable to Odysseus would give him an ill-timed incentive to rush recklessly home to his family (a fear made explicit later by Athena at 13.333-334), resulting in them recognizing him prematurely.  The me…gnoie clause of 192-193 hence expresses a logical fear of a foreseeable result of Odysseus recognizing Ithaca.  Disguising Ithaca from Odysseus eliminates this possibility (cf. Stanford on 13.189, who nevertheless reads auton) until Athena can test his resolve.  The precaution of the cloud ultimately proves to have been unnecessary, because, as Athena approvingly remarks, ouk ar’ emelles / oud’ en sei per eon gaiei, lexein apataon / muthon te klopion, hoi toi pedothen philoi eisin (13.293-295), but that is precisely the point:  it is part of the ordeal of mutual deception and testing to which Athena subjects Odysseus in order to allow him to prove that he is her counterpart in wits.

This reading has implications for our understanding of Athena’s relationship with Odysseus, suggesting that her behavior is both more duplicitous and more maternal than often intuited.  In her disguise as a shepherd she occupies the same role in the narrative as the skopos who betrayed Agamemnon at 4.524-27 (first to greet – and deceive -- the returning hero); yet she protects Odysseus from himself, allowing him to prove his common sense with a cautious Cretan lie, and enthusiastically takes his part once she has ascertained that he still has what it takes to trick and kill the suitors.