The Wound of Philoctetes
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 9338495 |
|---|---|
| Authors | J Ceri Stephens (corresponding author) |
| Year | 1995 |
| Volume | 48 |
| Issue | 2 |
| Pages | 153-168 |
| Publication date | 1995-01-01 |
| Open Access | No |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Mnemosyne (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 0026-7074 • E-ISSN: 1568-525X |
| Publisher | Brill (PUBLISHER • NL) |
| DOI | 10.1163/156852595x00103 |
| OpenAlex | W4313164717, W2070128372 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 2 |
The purpose of this article is to offer some defense for Odysseus as he is presented in the Philoctetes. In doing so I fly in the face of the vast majority of modern critics who between them all have placed him in a spectrum ranging from Mephistopheles to the most ruthless, self-aggrandizing sophist. Perhaps it is the uncompromising moralistic tone of so many analyses that persuades me of their imbalance; this generally grants Odysseus no credit whatsoever for any plan or action in the play, while Philoctetes and Neoptolemus correspondingly usually benefit from approval that they do not always fully earn1). The main problem is polarization of the play
Action (physics · Art · Literature · Physics · Sophist · Tone (literature · Ancient Mediterranean Archaeology and History · Classical Antiquity Studies · Historical and Literary Studies · Historical, Religious, and Philosophical Studies · Organic Chemistry Synthesis Methods · Philosophy
| Citations per year | 0.23 |
|---|---|
| Citation span | 2013 - 2014 (2) |
| Highly cited | No |