Throughout history, literary scholars have debated on the subject of Penelope and whether or not she recognized Odysseus at first sight after his returning. Bruce Louden’s article, “Is There Early Recognition between Penelope and Odysseus?; Book 19 in the Larger Context of the Odyssey”, begins by acknowledging John B. Vlahos’ argument of Penelope’s complete recognition of Odysseus from the beginning. Louden goes on to give his rebuttal and position on Vlahos’ claim using supporting evidence from the epic as a whole. He claims that the “epic’s own thematics suggest a greater likelihood that Penelope does not recognize Odysseus in Book 19, but in Book 23” (Louden 78). Louden supports his argument with details from various recognition scenes, comparisons between the intricacies of Joseph and Odysseus, and ends with parallels between Odysseus’ negotiations with Arete and Penelope.
Louden utilizes the motif of recognition scenes as they pertain to Odysseus and various characters amongst The Odyssey to support his claim. A recognition scene as described by Louden is a series of events where the protagonist becomes separated from his family for an extended period of time. Then most often a god will assist in reuniting the protagonist with his family, who usually think he is dead, resulting in a recognition scene (Louden 78). Odysseus has a variety of these scenes with the people he left behind in Ithaca, including Telemachus, his hound Argos, Eurycleia, Eumaeus, Philoetius, and finally with Penelope. For the sake of his argument Louden stresses the scenes between Athena and Eumaeus. In the epic, Athena, “directs so many of the plot’s chief scenes” (Louden 80) and even more specifically, she oversees many of the recognition scenes. Not only does she direct these scenes, but she also has a hand in Odysseus’ disguise as a beggar. Louden brings up an important question here asking if a mortal can see through a disguise created by an immortal. He then answers his question with a resounding no, therefore laying the foundation of truth that no mortals in the preceding parts of the poem are able to see through a disguise made by Athena. That is unless they see a certain give away, which in Odysseus’ case is the scar on his leg. Such was the case with Eurycleia who was unaware of the beggar’s true identity until she saw the scar on his leg and announced it with vigor. Noticing that Penelope was near, Athena asserted her power and guarded Penelope from understanding in full what Eurycleia was talking about. This is an example of how Athena inserts herself where she sees fit in order to direct the scenes.
With the example of Eumaeus, Louden introduces the use of a postponed recognition scene that is later seen with Penelope. Eventually Odysseus finds himself at the home of his servant Eumaeus, the swineherd. Odysseus, still clad in rags and a broken face, lives in Eumaeus’ quarters for quite a while. Eumaeus comes to develop a relationship with this stranger that knocked on his door and it isn’t long before they start talking about Odysseus. This theme is seen often through the poem where the person these characters are longing for is standing right in front of them, but they are mortal and therefore cannot see it. It isn’t until a later scene that Eumaeus learns of Odysseus’ true identity. This type of recognition scene as Louden describes it is a postponed recognition scene, “the same subtype in which Penelope participates in Book 19” (Louden 81). Both Eumaeus and Penelope are presented in the poem as loyal but vulnerable thus describing why they were involved in postponed recognition.
In Genesis, the story of Joseph and his brothers bears many comparisons to that of Odysseus’ story in The Odyssey. Louden determines that the comparison of Odysseus to Joseph provides enough similar evidence between the two to conclude that, whether in The Odyssey or in the Bible, no supporting characters are able to see through the main character’s disguise. Louden presents somewhat of a cross examination of this theory by introducing an outside source similar enough to The Odyssey to provide an accurate comparison. The first similarity seen in both literary pieces is the motif of postponed recognition. With Joseph it is seen between his encounters with his brothers. The brothers meet Joseph at an earlier time, completely unaware of who the person standing in front of them really is. It isn’t until later when Joseph reveals himself to the brothers, who before thought that he was dead. This is when we see the postponed recognition come to fruition. Like with Eumaeus and Penelope, the brothers were in the dark for a while about Joseph’s true identity. Louden points out a similarity between the two postponed recognition scenes, saying that they were both “set within a hospitality scene” (Louden 91). The brothers were invited by Joseph to a feast and in The Odyssey the servant set forth a basin to wash Odysseus’ feet. Another comparison is seen when Joseph and Odysseus both have to put forth much effort to control their emotions as they keep their identity from ones they love. Louden uses these similarities between the texts to construct a case saying that there is “considerable ancient evidence that no family members are able to penetrate the protagonist’s identity” (94). This can be said because the narratives take place under the same circumstances and repeatedly use the same types of motifs.
Finally the last feature of The Odyssey that is relevant to supporting Louden’s argument is found in the parallel between Odysseus’ encounters with Arete and Penelope. Louden states a claim that just as Odysseus needed to come to terms with Arete on Scheria in order to reach his homecoming, the same was true of Penelope. Arete took her time in responding to Odysseus’ request for home, this time his identity unveiled, yet unnoticed. It wasn’t until books later when Arete announces Odysseus as her guest and therefore allows the process of Odysseus’ homecoming. The same delayed reaction was seen with Penelope as both initially did not recognize who was present in front of them . Arete’s understanding and acceptance of Odysseus throughout books 7 to 11 could not be more similar to that of Penelope’s complete grasp of Odysseus’ identity which spans books 19-23.
Throughout his article Louden gives examples and evidence of why Penelope did not recognize Odysseus until the 23rd book. In a counter argument by John B. Vlahos he says that the claim for Penelope’s postponed recognition displays her character as “simple-minded and inconsistent with the cunning she displays throughout the poem” (Louden 95). Louden counters this saying that much of Vlahos’ claims such as this one has no basis in the text. He takes on a “reading between the lines” (Louden 97) approach that cannot be fully proven. In contrast to Vlahos, Louden gives specific evidence for his argument by highlighting the motif of recognition scenes throughout the poem, by providing a parallel between Genesis and The Odyssey, and finally by stating the similarities between encounters with Arete and Penelope.