Odysseus upon returning to Ithaca was first recognized by his dog and then by the woman who took care of us upbringing. She recognized the scar he got when young during a hunt. Others did not recognize him similar to many of us not recognizing people when they get older. As a teacher for many years, I often do not recognize a student I had thirty years ago; we change. As far as his wife, many do not recognize their husbands in later years as opposed when they were more virile and young. They will say where is the person I married? This goes for recognition of wives by husbands as well but not as much.
“Never mentioned” - Odysseus’ scar story is recounted twice in Odyssey Book 19 lines 393 to 508, a long section to ensure we understand the account of his being gored by a boar above the knee. First Eurycleia, his old nurse speaks and recounts the details of his visit to his grandfather when he was injured. Sorry this does not fit your argument – but it cannot. Please correct. All the best.
never mentioned in Iliad: Homer tells us several times that Ulysses, the real one, was an excellent runner: he had in fact won the race with the other Achaeans during the games in honor of Patroclus (Iliad, book XXIII); he had managed to chase and capture the Trojan Dolon, gifted with great speed (Iliad, book X); and also boasted about it with the young Phaeacians (Odyssey, VIII, 206). Moreover, a legend, not collected by Homer, told that Ulysses was able to marry the beautiful Penelope after winning a running competition among all her suitors, organized by her father, the mighty Icarius. All this is logically incompatible with the severity of the wound suffered as a boy, the "great strip of flesh" torn just above the knee. ) and in the rest of the Odyssey (where the young Phaeacians compete in various contests of strength and skill, and invite the guest to participate noting that:
He is certainly not frail in body,
and legs and thighs... (VIII, 134-135)
Halt, let's stop for a moment. When Ulysses arrives in Ithaca, he will be recognized by the old nurse Eurycleia for a deep scar above his knee, caused by a wild boar that had torn a large strip of flesh from him when he was a boy.
It is a little strange that now the Phaeacians do not notice such a disability. Indeed, Ulysses prides himself on being an expert in various disciplines:
... boxing, or wrestling, or even running (VIII, 206)
Difficult, if he really had suffered such a deep wound in that very spot. But here is the fundamental revelation, from the living voice of Ulysses:
Only Philoctetes surpassed me with the bow
in Trojan land, when we Achaeans were shooting our arrows. (VIII, 219-220)
Yes, in fact, only Philoctetes. After having listed other famous warriors, such as Hercules, now deceased, here is Ulysses himself providing us with an indication of who could be worthy of replacing him.
I am not toppling the rest of your argument only correcting the particular detail when you said Odysseus’s scar is not mentioned in the Odyssey which it is, twice.
This theory sounds like the real-life drama, recorded in an inquisition in France, where a man, Martin, returns from several years of war to a village where his wife awaits him, and is welcomed back by her and the village but suspicions arise that he is not the real Martin but an imposter. This account from the archived transcripts of the inquisition and trial was made into a 1982 film starring Gerard Depardieu in the title role of “The Return of Martin Guerre.
One bit of evidence agains the imposter mercenary on Ithaca hypothesis is that Odysseus’ loyal hound Argos, on one of the most beautiful scenes in the return, recognizes his returned master and promptly dies happy.
I had never heard this theory before. One of the (many) problems with it is that it makes the entire Odyssey thematically and emotionally incoherent. The poem is about homecoming and persistence of identity amid time and change. The recognition scenes are crucial (as another commenter noted, Odysseus' dog recognizes him).
(Also, I'm not sure how this relates to the "Homeric question" at all).
Homer as the ultimate unreliable narrator - what a delicious inversion! The Philoctetes theory brilliantly weaponizes the very trope of identity confusion that permeates the Odyssey. If we accept that Odysseus repeatedly disguises himself and tests recognition throughout the epic, why not extend that meta-narrative to include Homer himself deceiving us readers? The lameness clues are particularly compelling, transforming what we dismiss as symbolic limp into literal forensic evidence. Though I suspect scholars will balk at reading the epic quite this literally, there's something deeply satisfying about treating Homer's "messages in bottles" as actual encrypted historical accounts rather than literary devices. The real genius might be that both readings can coexist - the poem works as heroic myth AND as a coded political thriller about succession crises and mercenary contracts. Ancient Mediterranean noir, indeed.
Odysseus upon returning to Ithaca was first recognized by his dog and then by the woman who took care of us upbringing. She recognized the scar he got when young during a hunt. Others did not recognize him similar to many of us not recognizing people when they get older. As a teacher for many years, I often do not recognize a student I had thirty years ago; we change. As far as his wife, many do not recognize their husbands in later years as opposed when they were more virile and young. They will say where is the person I married? This goes for recognition of wives by husbands as well but not as much.
Homer Drops many hints that Penelope DOES recognize the beggar and the ruse, then plays along to destroy the suitors.
“Never mentioned” - Odysseus’ scar story is recounted twice in Odyssey Book 19 lines 393 to 508, a long section to ensure we understand the account of his being gored by a boar above the knee. First Eurycleia, his old nurse speaks and recounts the details of his visit to his grandfather when he was injured. Sorry this does not fit your argument – but it cannot. Please correct. All the best.
never mentioned in Iliad: Homer tells us several times that Ulysses, the real one, was an excellent runner: he had in fact won the race with the other Achaeans during the games in honor of Patroclus (Iliad, book XXIII); he had managed to chase and capture the Trojan Dolon, gifted with great speed (Iliad, book X); and also boasted about it with the young Phaeacians (Odyssey, VIII, 206). Moreover, a legend, not collected by Homer, told that Ulysses was able to marry the beautiful Penelope after winning a running competition among all her suitors, organized by her father, the mighty Icarius. All this is logically incompatible with the severity of the wound suffered as a boy, the "great strip of flesh" torn just above the knee. ) and in the rest of the Odyssey (where the young Phaeacians compete in various contests of strength and skill, and invite the guest to participate noting that:
He is certainly not frail in body,
and legs and thighs... (VIII, 134-135)
Halt, let's stop for a moment. When Ulysses arrives in Ithaca, he will be recognized by the old nurse Eurycleia for a deep scar above his knee, caused by a wild boar that had torn a large strip of flesh from him when he was a boy.
It is a little strange that now the Phaeacians do not notice such a disability. Indeed, Ulysses prides himself on being an expert in various disciplines:
... boxing, or wrestling, or even running (VIII, 206)
Difficult, if he really had suffered such a deep wound in that very spot. But here is the fundamental revelation, from the living voice of Ulysses:
Only Philoctetes surpassed me with the bow
in Trojan land, when we Achaeans were shooting our arrows. (VIII, 219-220)
Yes, in fact, only Philoctetes. After having listed other famous warriors, such as Hercules, now deceased, here is Ulysses himself providing us with an indication of who could be worthy of replacing him.
I am not toppling the rest of your argument only correcting the particular detail when you said Odysseus’s scar is not mentioned in the Odyssey which it is, twice.
This theory sounds like the real-life drama, recorded in an inquisition in France, where a man, Martin, returns from several years of war to a village where his wife awaits him, and is welcomed back by her and the village but suspicions arise that he is not the real Martin but an imposter. This account from the archived transcripts of the inquisition and trial was made into a 1982 film starring Gerard Depardieu in the title role of “The Return of Martin Guerre.
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0084589/?ref_=ext_shr_lnk
An Americanized version of the story, “Somersby” (1993) was also made starring Jody Foster as the wife and Richard Gere as the returning husband:
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0108185/?ref_=ext_shr_lnk
One bit of evidence agains the imposter mercenary on Ithaca hypothesis is that Odysseus’ loyal hound Argos, on one of the most beautiful scenes in the return, recognizes his returned master and promptly dies happy.
I had never heard this theory before. One of the (many) problems with it is that it makes the entire Odyssey thematically and emotionally incoherent. The poem is about homecoming and persistence of identity amid time and change. The recognition scenes are crucial (as another commenter noted, Odysseus' dog recognizes him).
(Also, I'm not sure how this relates to the "Homeric question" at all).
no, contrary, all became coerent!
This is a good point in that Penelope shows more deception than her husband. could this ever be the case?
Sounds like a fun experiment to read it again with this theory in mind. Thanks!
i started in 2002...
Is this the last we hear of Philoctetes?
Homer as the ultimate unreliable narrator - what a delicious inversion! The Philoctetes theory brilliantly weaponizes the very trope of identity confusion that permeates the Odyssey. If we accept that Odysseus repeatedly disguises himself and tests recognition throughout the epic, why not extend that meta-narrative to include Homer himself deceiving us readers? The lameness clues are particularly compelling, transforming what we dismiss as symbolic limp into literal forensic evidence. Though I suspect scholars will balk at reading the epic quite this literally, there's something deeply satisfying about treating Homer's "messages in bottles" as actual encrypted historical accounts rather than literary devices. The real genius might be that both readings can coexist - the poem works as heroic myth AND as a coded political thriller about succession crises and mercenary contracts. Ancient Mediterranean noir, indeed.