...there are holes in the claims of Magnasco and Baikouzis big enough to drive a wooden horse through!
If that isn't mixing metaphors :wink:
They
claim - on the day of Odysseus's return (to Ithaka? to his home?), a new moon is allegedly mentioned,
- 6 days earlier, Venus is allegedly mentioned as visible (during the day?),
- 29 days earlier, both the Pleiades and Bootes constellations are allegedly mentioned as visible as sunset,
- 33 days earlier, Mercury is allegedly mentioned in a particular location.
But if you try to find the actual passages you will begin see trouble right away: Homer really isn't concerned with the appearance of the evening sky but with emotion and high drama. This isn't an astronomer's notebook with dates, times, or dry but precise descriptions.
As I read the physorg article, Magnasco and Baikouzis believe Odysseus and Telemakhos returned (to Ithaka? to their home?) the day before the famous bloodbath which is the climax of the story. But if you look into scholarly articles, you'll find controversy concerning the "precise timing" (bah!) of events once the pair land on Ithaka. Homer simply isn't crystal clear about things like dates, not even
relative dates. Frankly, this "n days earlier" stuff is simply a hopeful fiction on their part.
And Homer's descriptions of nature are often wonderfully evocative, but sometimes "formulaic". This is a story told by a master teller, not an astronmer's dry but precise notebook. Are we to take the famous "wine dark sea" and "rose fingered dawn" literally, each time they occur? Homer uses such phrases to evoke emotions in his auditors, just the way Spielberg used the music of John Williams (sorry, classicists, if I presume!), just the way Wagner used leitmotifs to help structure a complex tale. Homer was concerned that the arc of his narrative should enthrall his listeners--- he wasn't narrating historical events, much less personally witnessed events.
If you want to argue otherwise you have to explain such implausible incidents as the loyal dog dying at the moment he alone recognizes his returning master! Not to mention all that vivid stuff about various superhuman feats of the Gods.
Even worse, while the date they come up with is in the expected range (shouldn't that be a tad suspicious right there?), let's not forget that Homer is generally believed to have lived centuries later than the presumably historical events upon which the Odyssey is very loosely based. He was not an eyewitness to the more or less legendary events he
invokes (not "narrates"), he was drawing on a rich oral tradition which had grown up around stories about this foreign war. Indeed, many details of armament, warship construction, and so on which Homer so vividly evokes are
appropriate to his own time but wildly anachronistic for the time of the presumed historial Trojan war centuries earlier. This alone is a very strong reason for concluding that Magnasco & Baikouzis simply cannot be taken seriously.
But let's pretend for the sake of argument that the Odyssey can be treated as a precise narrative of actual events narrated by someone who was present when they occured. And let's stipulate further that Magnasco and Baikouzis are correct in their assertions about the convenient unicity of the four events they claim are noted in the Odyssey at the relative times they claim.
The real kicker is that it is pretty absurd to claim, as it seems they do, that the climax of the story occurs during a solar eclipse which is noticed by no-one but the blind seer. Yes, that would richly ironic, and perhaps something Shakespeare would have written, but Homer is not Shakespeare.
I have no idea what this website is but they make the same points:
http://www.world-science.net/otherne...23_odyssey.htm
[EDIT 7 July 2008: here is a
story from
Science News mentioning the point I made about Homer writing centuries after the semi-historical Trojan War and pointing out that various classical scholars have expressed doubts about the claims of Baikouzis and Magnasco.
Knight Science Journalism Tracker describes coverage here
here and
here.)