¹ See e.g. the plan in Delebecque, E., Télémaque et la structure de l'Odyssée (Aix-en-Provence, 1958), facing p. 12Google Scholar; or in Hellwig, Brigitte, Raum und Zeit im homerischen Epos, Spudasmata 2 (Hildesheim, 1964), pp. 42–4.Google Scholar

² cf. Rothe, C., Die Odyssee als Dich tang (Paderborn, 1914), p. 119;Google ScholarShewan, A., ‘Telemachus at Sparta‘, CJ 22 (1926-1927), 31–7Google Scholar, repr. in his Homeric Essays (Oxford, 1935), pp. 393–9 (subsequent page-references will be to this reprint);Google ScholarFocke, F., Die Odyssee (Stuttgart and Berlin, 1943), pp. 1–12, 20, 22, 58;Google ScholarHeubeck, A., Der Odyssee-Dichter und die llias (Erlangen, 1954), pp. 58–63;Google ScholarDelebecque, , op. cit., esp. pp. 18–30;Google ScholarEisenberger, H., Studien zur Odyssee, Palingenesia 7 (Wiesbaden, 1980), pp. 84–7,92.Google Scholar

³ The Homeric Odyssey (Oxford, 1955), pp. 66–7,77–9.Google Scholar

⁴ California Studies in Classical Antiquity 2 (1969), 46–52.Google Scholar

⁵ This phrase, and the title of my paper, are intended to recall the illuminating article by Taylor, Charles H. Jr., ‘The Obstacles to Odysseus’ Return', Yale Review 50 (1960-1961), 569–80Google Scholar, repr. in his Essays on the Odyssey: Selected Modern Criticism (Bloomington, Indiana, 1963), pp. 87–99 (subsequent references will be to this reprint).Google Scholar

⁶ Untersuchungen zur Form der Odyssee, Hermes Einzelschriften 6 (Berlin, 1939), pp. 2–3Google Scholar; but as has been noted by Friedrich, R., Stilwandel im homerischen Epos (Heidelberg, 1975), p. 175 n. 36, Hölscher's denial here of the possibility of simultaneity in Homer is inconsistent with his emphasis elsewhere in his monograph on the importance of simultaneity for the structure of the Odyssey.Google Scholar

⁷ ‘Die Zeitauffassung in der frühgriechischen Literatur’, first published in 1931 but most readily available in his Wege und Formen frühgriechischen Denkens ² (Munich, 1960), pp. 1–22.Google Scholar

⁸ Op. cit. (above, n. 3), p. 67, cf. p. 65.

⁹ Loc. cit. (above, n. 4), pp. 48–9.

¹⁰ Formale Konventionen der homerischen Epik, Zetemata 56 (Munich, 1971), pp. 100–1.Google Scholar

¹¹ Page, op. cit., p. 65.

¹² Op. cit., p. 101.

¹³ See further Dörpfeld, W., Die Heimkehr des Odysseus i (Munich, 1924), 172–6;Google ScholarBassett, S. E, The Poetry of Homer (Berkeley, 1938), pp. 33–9;Google ScholarHölscher, , op. cit. (above, n. 6), pp. 30–85;Google ScholarHellwig, , op. cit. (above, n. 1), pp. 97–107, 120–5.Google Scholar One should note the simultaneity implicit in paratactic transitions of the type discussed by Hölscher, on pp. 40–1Google Scholar and by Hellwig, , locc. citt.:Google Scholarcf. Delebecque, , op. cit., p. 78.Google Scholar

¹⁴ Cf. Zielinski, T., ‘Die Behandlung gleichzeitiger Ereignisse im antiken Epos’, Philologus Suppl. 8 (1899-1901), pp. 407–49;Google ScholarBassett, , op. cit., pp. 38–45;Google ScholarDelebecque, and Hellwig, , opp. citt.Google Scholar

¹⁵ For what follows in this paragraph am heavily indebted to Delebecque, op. cit., pp. 42–55.

¹⁶ Od. 4. 624–5, or 620 + 625 if we believe, with many, that 621–4 are an inter polation.

¹⁷ For a masterly discussion of the characterization of Noemon and its purpose see Delebecque, op. cit., pp. 46–52.

¹⁸ Op. cit., p. 67.

¹⁹ Loc. cit., p. 50.

²⁰ Cf. Shewan, , op. cit. (above, n. 2), pp. 394–5Google Scholar; Focke, , op. cit. (above, n. 2), pp. 10, 58;Google ScholarHeubeck, , op. cit. (above, n. 2), pp. 62–3.Google Scholar

²¹ Cf. Focke, , op. cit., pp. 2, 10, 58;Google ScholarHeubeck, , op. cit., pp. 62–3;Google ScholarDelebecque, , op. cit., pp. 26–7.Google Scholar

²² Od. 2. 63, 7. 159, 8. 166, 17. 381, 460, 483, 18. 287, 20. 294, 21. 312; Il. 6. 326, 8. 400, 13. 116, 17. 19, 21. 439–40, 24. 52.

²³ Od. 7. 159, 8. 166, 17. 483 and 21. 312 rebuke offences against the guest-friendship code; at Od. 17. 381 Eumaeus expostulates with Antinous about his unreasonable verbal belligerence (cf. 388–9,394–5); and at Il. 6. 326 Hector rebukes Paris (325 ) for not joining in the fighting while Trojan warriors are dying for his sake (326–31). The (possible?) exception is Il. 17. 19.

²⁴ At Il. 13. 116 Poseidon rebukes the Achaeans for hanging back from the fighting and at Od. 2. 63 Telemachus criticizes the suitors' consumption of his estate: in the former passage we again find as in Od. 15. 10, and in the same position in the line, and in the latter passage we find . The third example is Il. 24. 52, where Apollo criticizes the behaviour of Achilles towards the body of Hector (33–54: note the strong moral condemnation in 40–5).

²⁵ Od. 18. 287 and 20. 294: the insincerity in the latter passage does not affect the issue.

²⁶ Il. 8.400 and Od. 17. 460: in both places the phrase is followed by a future verb and the meaning is ‘It will not be a pretty sight [or: a pleasant matter] when …‘, the allusion being to physical pain.

²⁷ See below, pp. 6–7.

²⁸ Loc. cit., p. 50.

²⁹ Op. cit., p. 394, though in what follows some of my details go beyond Shewan.

³⁰ Loc. cit., p. 50, cf. 48–9.

³¹ Cf. Shewan, , op. cit., p. 395;Google ScholarFocke, , op. cit., p. 2;Google ScholarDelebecque, , op. cit., p. 25.Google Scholar

³² e.g. Il. 18. 104, Od. 9. 78 = 14. 256 almost = 12. 152, Od. 9. 162 = 557 = 10. 184 = 468 = 477 = 12. 30, Od. 16. 145.

³³ Cf. in the frequent feasting-formula of Od. 9. 162 etc. (above, n. 32).

³⁴ Shewan, , op. cit., p. 395.Google Scholar

³⁵ The quotation is from Austin, , loc. cit., p. 49, but the position is also that of Hölscher and Page: see above, pp. 1–2.Google Scholar

³⁶ Cf. Shewan, , op. cit., pp. 393–4;Google ScholarDelebecque, , op. cit., p. 24.Google Scholar

³⁷ Cf. Rothe, , op. cit. (above, n.2), p. 119;Google ScholarShewan, , op cit., pp. 294–5;Google ScholarFocke, , op cit., pp. 2, 20;Google ScholarDelebecque, , op. cit., p. 27.Google Scholar

³⁸ Cf. Shewan, , op. cit., p. 394;Google ScholarFocke, op. cit., p. 2 n. 1, p. 22;Google ScholarDelebecque, , op. cit., pp. 28–9.Google Scholar

³⁹ Cf. Shewan, , op. cit., pp. 395–6;Google ScholarDelebecque, , op. cit., pp. 27–8.Google Scholar

⁴⁰ Loc. cit. (above, n. 4).

⁴¹ Something has already been said of this above, and we shall be returning to itbelow. The pressing nature of Menelaus' hospitality is well documented by Rose, G. P., ‘Odyssey 15. 143–82: a Narrative Inconsistency?‘Google Scholar, TAPA 102 (1971), 509–14.Google Scholar

⁴² See CQ N.S. 27 (1977), 7–8.

⁴³ Op. cit., p. 397.

⁴⁴ e.g. Dörpfeld, , op. cit. (above, n. 13), p. 23.Google Scholar

⁴⁵ My exegesis of 17. 148 owes something to Delebecque, , op. cit., p. 26Google Scholar, Stawell, F. M., Homer and the Iliad (London, 1909), pp. 171–2,Google Scholar and Woodhouse, W. J., The Composition of Homer's Odyssey (Oxford, 1930), p. 51.Google Scholar

⁴⁶ Op. cit. (above, n.2), p. 85.

⁴⁷ Op. cit., pp. 6–8, rejected by Page (op. cit., p. 78 n.) and Bona, G. (Studi sull'Odissea (Turin, 1966), pp. 220–1).Google Scholar

⁴⁶ Op. cit., pp. 84–6.

⁴⁹ Loc. cit. (above, n. 47).

⁵⁰ It is wrong to assume, as Hellwig, does (op. cit., p. 117),Google Scholar that because Menelaus invites Telemachus to stay for eleven or twelve days, Telemachus therefore actually stays for eleven or twelve days and no longer. The alternative numbers contained in the phrase give it a certain vagueness which would facilitate a later attempt by Menelaus to prolong the period – an attempt which 15. 80–5 shows would be in character. See also Focke, , op. cit., pp. 4–5. One must accept in principle Hellwig's judgment (loc. cit.) that in the Odyssey events in the foreground correspond in duration to those in the background only approximately, but the correspondence between a month and eleven days could hardly even be called approximate; and as the poet himself explicitly counts a single eighteen-day period (5. 278–9) within the Return of Odysseus, he would surely realize that the total duration of this Return (Books 5–14) – and thus of the synchronous stay of Telemachus in Sparta – must be considerably more than eighteen days.Google Scholar

⁵¹ Op. cit. (above, n. 45), p. 121.

⁵² Op. cit., p. 10, cf. pp. 8–9,58.

⁵³ See e.g. Seitz, E., ‘Die Stellung der “Telemachie” im Aufbau der Odyssee’ (Diss. Marburg, 1950), pp. 131–7;Google ScholarHeubeck, , op. cit., pp. 56–7;Google ScholarClarke, H. W., AJP 84 (1963), 138–45Google Scholar and The Art of the Odyssey (Englewood Cliffs, N.J., 1967), pp. 40–4;Google ScholarRater, K., Odysseeinterpretationen, Hypomnemata 19 (Göttingen, 1969), pp. 141–2, 238–40;CrossRefGoogle ScholarAustin, N., Archery at the Dark of the Moon (Berkeley, 1975), pp. 181–200;Google ScholarPowell, B. B., Composition by Theme in the Odyssey, Beiträge zur klassischen Philologie 81 (Meisenheim am Glan, 1977), pp. 50–6.Google Scholar

⁵⁴ Cf. Taylor, ‘Obstacles’ (above, n. 5).

⁵⁵ For the authenticity of 475–9, omitted by a few manuscripts, see Acta Classica 17 (1974), 23–34.Google Scholar

⁵⁶ Cf. Anderson, W. S., CJ 54 (1958–1959), 8–10, = Taylor, Essays (above, n. 5), pp. 835. Note further that once Calypso has consented to Odysseus‘ departure he can once again enjoy making love to her: 5. 227 (their last night together?) in contrast to the unwilling lover of 154–5. Thus 227 arguably reinforces the implications of . (153) about the past.Google Scholar

⁵⁷ However, I do not mean to implyacceptance of Delebecque's tasteless view (op. cit., pp. 25–6) that Helen flirts with Telemachus, and flirts successfully: ‘Instinctivement elle exerce sa coquetterie sur le fits d'Ulysse qui, dans son ravissement, oublie si naturellement I'objet de son voyage …' Delebecque supports his view by referring to Athene's words at Od. 13. 412–13 , but the epithet is a formulaic one (Il. 2. 683 and 9. 447 3.75 = 258 9nd varia lectio at Il. 11.770 always at the end of a line), and it must therefore be doubtful whether the poet had Helen in mind here (cf. Bona, , op. cit., p. 223),Google Scholar though even if he did it need not follow that the word carries the erotic overtones demanded by Delebecque's interpretation. Of course Helen must have made an impression on Telemachus, as the tone of awe in his report to his mother shows (17. 118–19: cf. Delebecque, loc. cit.), and it is interesting that he says goodbye to her in the same reverent words that Odysseus uses in saying goodbye to Nausicaa (15. 180–1 = 8. 465, 467: cf. Seitz, , op. cit., p. 132Google Scholar), but Delebecque's interpretation surely goes beyond the bounds of Homeric propriety, and anyway the text shows that Helen, at any rate, regards her role towards Telemachus as closer to that of a mother (or aunt?) than to that of a seductress: see 15. 125–9, esp. 125 , while 4. 143–4 and 235–6 also emphasize the generation-gap. Delebecque's view is also rejected by Sartori, F., Athenaeum 38 (1960), 148Google Scholar and by Austin, , loc. cit. (above, n. 4), p. 48.Google Scholar However, the remarks of earlier critics on the attractions of Helen for Telemachus keep within the limits of good taste: Stawell, , op. cit., p. 121:Google Scholar ‘…the splendid home where Helen was the hostess …'; Rothe, , op. cit., p. 119;Google ScholarShewan, , op. cit., p. 396:Google Scholar ‘…the hostess charming beyond compare …'

⁵⁸ Thus Beye, C. R. (The Iliad, the Odyssey, and the Epic Tradition (Garden City, N.Y., 1966Google Scholar, repr. Gloucester, , Mass., 1972), p. 177)Google Scholar is wrong in saying that ‘Helen … is … a sorceress, a witch, which she reveals as she puts a magical potion of forgetfulness into the wine’; so too Powell, (op. cit., pp. 17, 52–3)Google Scholar, who calls Helen's drug ‘baneful’ (without qualification) and ‘magic’.

⁵⁹ Stawell, (op. cit., p. 121)Google Scholar, Rothe, (op. cit., p. 119)Google Scholar and Shewan, (op. cit., pp. 394, 396) all see Telemachus' troubles back home as a factor tending to lessen his enthusiasm for returning there, but none of them relate this point to his consumption of Helen's drug.Google Scholar

⁶⁰ Seitz, , op. cit., p. 132;Google ScholarSegal, C. P., Anon 1. 4 (Winter 1962), 27;Google Scholar Rüater, locc. citt. above, n. 53; Austin, , Archery (above, n. 53), pp. 184–5;Google ScholarPowell, , op. cit., p. 52.Google Scholar

⁶¹ See further above, pp. 5, 12–13.

⁶² See above, n. 55.

⁶³ Austin, (loc. cit. (above, n. 4), pp. 51–2) stops just short of asserting this, though he calls Telemachus' statement about not missing his family ‘an unequivocal lie’.Google Scholar

⁶⁶ e.g. Od. 1. 346–55, 369–71, 8. 43–5, 62–4, 474–83, 487–91, 496–8, 9. 211, 17. 385, 518–21, 22. 344–8.

⁶⁵ I do not regard the omission of 15860 in a single ‘edition‘ – that of Rhianus – as sufficient to condemn the lines (pace Bolling, G. M., The External Evidence for Interpolation in Homer (Oxford, 1925, repr. 1968), pp. 230–1).Google Scholar If the omission is not due to excision by Rhianus, it maymerely be an isolated slip. The hypothesis that this single recorded omission is only the tip of an iceberg is not supported by the fact that Rhianus' predecessor Zenodotus, so ready to omit lines, retained these (the scholia cite a reading of his in line 159). There is no internal evidence against them of any weight: for in this sense cf. Od. 1. 119, 2. 64, 138, 4. 195 and see Nitzsch, G. W., Erkldäende Anmerkungen zu Homer's Odyssee ì (Hanover, 1826) ad loc.Google Scholar

⁶⁶ ‘Nausicaa: a Feminine Threat’, CW 69 (1975–6), 311–17, esp. 315–16.

⁶⁷ Op. cit., p. 316.

⁶⁸ See Segal, loc. cit., pp. 27–9.

⁶⁹ Cf. Rüter, op. cit., pp. 235–8.

⁷⁰ Cf. Rüter, op. cit., pp. 237–8.

⁷¹ Stanford, W. B., The Odyssey of Homer ² (London, 1958–1959).Google Scholar

⁷² The hypnotic power of the Sirens' song are called Oporam 12. 40, 44 is really only a special instance of a power possessed by song in general: in Od. 1. 337 the songs of a bard are called

⁷³ This parallel has been noted by (among others) Seitz, (op. cit., p. 132)Google Scholar and Stanford, (op. cit., on 7. 82 ff.).Google Scholar

⁷⁴ See further Delebecque, , op. cit., p. 26;Google ScholarRose, , op. cit., esp. pp. 511–13.Google Scholar

⁷⁵ C. P. Segal seems to have overlooked this passage when claiming that Circe (unlike Calypso) ‘never intends to replace Penelope‘ (TAPA 99 (1968), 424) – unless he is tacitly following Woodhouse (op. cit. (above, n. 45), pp. 49–50), who argues that ‘no such proposal was ever made by her, but Odysseus for his own glorification wilfully misrepresents her, by ascribing to her a desire that belonged to Kalypso alone’. Some sympathy with this view has recently been expressed by Hogan, J. C., TAPA 106 (1976), 199. Woodhouse seems to assume that 9. 29–33 is a comment by Odysseus whereas Books 10 and 12 contain the poet's own narrative of the Circe episode; but in reality Books 10 and 12 come from Odysseus' mouth no less than Book 9, and all three have the same status as ‘evidence’ for what ‘actually’ happened. And there is no real contradiction: if Circe raises no objection when Odysseus emphatically states his desire to return home immediately (10. 483–9), that is not incompatible with earlier efforts on her part to persuade him to remain with her, efforts made while his desire to leave was less in evidence. When Odysseus now firmly insists on departing she has no option but to consent, being bound by a previous promise (10. 483–4).Google Scholar

⁷⁶ In Telemachus' case, an earlier and similar but less insistent plea.

⁷⁷ See Woodhouse, , op. cit. (above, n. 45), pp. 57–9;Google ScholarStanford, , op. cit., on 6. 276–88;Google ScholarGross, , op. cit., pp. 313–14.Google Scholar

⁷⁸ Op. cit., p. 513. The same point was made (but at a more general level) by Seitz, , op. cit., p. 133: ‘… diese Gastfreundschaft [trial] … in Sparta wie in Scheria dem Zur-Heimatdrängen der Gäste entgegen …’Google Scholar

⁷⁹ Cf. Merkelbach, R., Untersuchungen zur Odyssee, Zetemata 2 (Munich, 1951, 2nd edn. 1969), p. 168: ‘Odysseus sehnt sich nach dem Sinken der Sonne (v 28 ff.), denn die Wunderschiffe können nur nachts fahren.’Google Scholar

⁸⁰ However, I would be reluctant to press even this limited parallel because of the distinct possibility that 13. 28–39 belong to a post-Homeric section of the poem: see e.g. Page, op. cit., pp. 32–5, esp. p. 33 with p. 49 n. 16.

⁸¹ etc.: Od. 2. 175, 16. 206, 17. 327, 19. 222, 484, 21. 208, 23. 102, 170.

⁸² Op. cit., p. 83.

⁸³ Op. cit., pp. 215–17.

⁸⁴ Cf. Woodhouse, ibid., on Calypso, and Rothe, loc. cit. (above, n. 82), on both Calypso and Circe.

⁸⁵ Acta Classica 17 (1974), 11–23. 641a 7–14.Google Scholar

⁸⁶ P.A. 640^a 10–22, cf. 640b 4–15,