1. On the ending, see e.g. Page, D., The Homeric Odyssey (Oxford 1955), 101–36Google Scholar; Kirk, G., The Songs of Homer (Cambridge 1962), esp. 244–52Google Scholar. (Page has extensive references to the analytic tradition on which he draws.) For a critique of Page, see Wender, D., The Last Scenes of the Odyssey (Leiden 1978)Google Scholar; Moulton, C., ‘The End of the Odyssey’, GRBS 15 (1974), 153–69Google Scholar (with bibliography 154 n. 7). See also n. 2 below.

2. It is notable that no reason for the deletion is given by the scholia, and as Apthorp, M., The Manuscript Evidence for Interpolation in Homer (Heidelberg 1969), 64ff.Google Scholar, writes (in agreement with earlier scholars), it is highly unlikely that there was any manuscript evidence for such deletion. For recent discussion and bibliography, see Erbse, H., Beiträge zum Verständnis der Odyssee (Berlin 1972), 166–77Google Scholar. Eustathius discusses this passage (1948–49 ad 23.296), where he seems to claim that peras/telos may not mean ‘final point’ so much as ‘a climax’. This argument was resuscitated first by Adam, but most famously by Neier in Hermes for 1894. The positions are rehearsed by Friedlander, P., ‘Retractiones’, Hermes 64 (1929), 376Google Scholar; Bethe, E., ‘Der Schluss der Odyssee und Apollonios von Rhodos’, Hermes 53 (1918), 444–6Google Scholar; and in English by Bury, J., ‘The End of the Odyssey’, JHS 42 (1922), 1–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar. What is perhaps the nicest comment on this debate is surprisingly rarely quoted. Plato Meno 75e: ‘Do you recognise the term “end” (teleutēn); I mean limit (peras) or final point (eskhaton)? – by all of these words I mean the same thing. Prodicus might disagree with us, but I assume you speak of something as having reached a limit (peparanthai) or having ended (teteleutēkenai). That is all I mean, nothing subtle.’ Not conclusive, of course, but Plato’s comment indicates the strain in Eustathius’ argument. The status of Aristarchus’ and Aristophanes’ deletion has been extensively discussed with regard to the end of Apollonius Rhodius’ Argonautica. As well as the works already cited above, see in particular Rossi, L., ‘La fine allesandrina dell’ Odissea e lo zēlos homērikos di Apollonio Rodio’, RFIC 96 (1968) 151–63Google Scholar; E. Livrea ad 4.1781, and most recently SH 947.4 with note. An echo between Apollonius 4.1761 and Od. 23.296 is denied out of hand by Page (n. 1 above), 130 n. 1, and by Pfeiffer, R., History of Classical Scholarship (Oxford 1968), 175–7Google Scholar. See now for the most recent survey of this material Fernandez-Galiano, M. and Heubeck, A.Omero: Odissea Libri xxi-xxiv (Verona 1986) ad 23.297–24.348Google Scholar.

3. Page (n. 1 above), 120.

4. Kirk (n. 1 above), 244f.

5. On further problems of chronology in this speech, see Page (n. 1 above), 132f. On the chronology of the weaving stories, see Fernandez-Galiano and Heubeck (n. 2 above) ad 24.128f. and 24.147–9; the best recent discussion is that of Heubeck, A. ‘Penelopes Webelist’, Wlirzburger Jahrbiicher 11 (1985), 33–43Google Scholar, which came into my hands after this piece was substantially finished. While he underplays the importance of the suitors’ failure of knowledge, he is right to emphasise the different points of view dramatised in the weaving ruse stories.

6. Wender (n. 1 above), 34f.

7. Page (n. 1 above), 120.

8. Page (n. 1 above), 120. An appeal to ‘the custom of universal folk-lore’ merely by noting similarities of motifs – a procedure enshrined by Thompson, S., Motif-Index of Folk-Literature (Copenhagen and Indiana 1955–8)Google Scholar – has been extensively challenged by modern anthropology. For a different view of the possibilities of universals in myth/folk-lore, see the still important statements of Lévi-Strauss, C., The Raw and the Cooked (New York 1969), 1–32Google Scholar. I do not base my criticisms of Page on his undoubtedly insufficient view of ‘folk-lore’.

9. Page (n. 1 above), 132 n. 24. It is noticeable that here Page refers to only one work, Crooke’s Folklore, published in 1898. On weaving, see n. 17 below.

10. From a vast bibliography, see e.g. on Finley, Homer M., The World of Odysseus (London 1954), 80–118Google Scholar; and for later attitudes Lacey, W., The Family in Classical Greece (London 1968)Google Scholar. For further bibliography and discussion, see Goldhill, S., Reading Greek Tragedy (Cambridge 1986), 69ffCrossRefGoogle Scholar.

11. See in particular Fenik, B., Studies in the Odyssey (Wiesbaden 1974), 1–58Google Scholar; Besslich, S., Schweigen, Versckweigen, Übergehen (Heidelberg 1966)Google Scholar.

12. Page (n. 1 above), 121.

13. Page (n. 1 above), 121.

14. So, too, Woodhouse, W., The Composition of Homer’s Odyssey (Oxford 1930), 118Google Scholar: ‘The account given by Amphimedon is a genuine fragment from the story of Return and Vengeance told among men generations before Homer was born.’

15. See Thalmann, W., Conventions of Form and Thought in Early Greek Epic Poetry (Baltimore 1984), 169Google Scholar; Segal, C., ‘Kleos and its Ironies in the Odyssey’, AC 52 (1983), 22–47Google Scholar; and see nn. 38, 81 and 87 below.

16. H. Foley’s term. See ‘“Reverse Similes” and Sex Roles in the Odyssey’, Arethusa 11 (1978), 7–26Google Scholar.

17. See Snyder, J., ‘The Web of Song: Weaving Imagery in Homer and the Lyric Poets’, CJ 76 (1981), 193–6Google Scholar; Jenkins, I., ‘The Ambiguity of Greek Textiles’, Arethusa 18 (1985), 109–32Google Scholar; Kennedy, G., ‘Helen’s Web Unravelled’, Arethusa 19 (1986), 5–14Google Scholar; Bergren, A., ‘Helen’s Web: Time and Tableau in the Iliad, Helios 7 (1979), 19–34Google Scholar. For a fascinating modern discussion, see Parker, R., The Subversive Stitch (London 1984)Google Scholar.

18. See e.g. Od. 4.678; 4.739; 5.356; 9.422; 13.303; 13.386. Also Il. 3.212; 6.187; 7.324; 9.93.

19. See e.g. Austin, N., Archery at the Dark of the Moon (Berkeley 1975), 181ffGoogle Scholar. esp. 231; O’Sullivan, J., ‘The Sign of the Bed: Odyssey 23.137ff.’, GRBS 25 (1984), 21–5Google Scholar; Emlyn-Jones, C., ‘The Reunion of Penelope and Odysseus’, G&R 31 (1984), 1–18Google Scholar; Amory, A., ‘The Reunion of Penelope and Odysseus’ in Taylor, C. (ed.), Essays on the Odyssey (Bloomington 1963), 100–136Google Scholar; Whitman, C., Homer and the Heroic Tradition (Oxford 1958), 303CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Beye, C., The Iliad, the Odyssey and the Epic Tradition (London 1968), 178Google Scholar; W. Thalmann (n. 15 above), 160–3, 170; Finley, J., Homer’s Odyssey (Cambridge, Mass. 1978), 3ff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar; van Nortwick, T., ‘Penelope and Nausikaa’, TAPA 109 (1979), 269–76Google Scholar; Russo, J., ‘Interview and Aftermath; Dream, Fantasy and Intuition in Odyssey 19 and 20’, AJP 103 (1982), 4–18Google Scholar; Harsh, P., ‘Penelope and Odysseus in Odyssey XIX’, AJP 71 (1950), 1–21Google Scholar. Against this material stands the brilliant analysis of Henderson, J., ‘Becoming a Heroine (1st): Penelope’s Ovid’, LCM 11 (1986), esp. 24 and 37–40Google Scholar.

20. See Bergren, A., ‘Language and the Female in Early Greek Thought’, Arethusa 15 (1982), 71fGoogle Scholar: Redfield, J., ‘Notes on the Greek Wedding’, Arethusa 15 (1982), 194fGoogle Scholar; Heubeck (n. 5 above), 39ff.

21. See Jenkins (n. 17 above), 109–12, with bibliography. Combellack, F. (‘Three Odyssean Problems’, CSCA 6 [1973], 17–46Google Scholar at 32) writes with extraordinary lack of awareness: ‘Of course, she [Penelope] weaves, like all Homer’s women, but nothing much is made of this.’ See now Fernandez-Galiano and Heubeck (n. 2 above) ad 24.128–46 for a more sensitive overview.

22. See also Detienne, M. and Vernant, J.-P., Cunning Intelligence in Greek Culture and Society, tr. J. Lloyd (Hassocks 1978), 237ff., 299–300Google Scholar.

23. See Fenik (n. 11 above), 1–130,,esp. 61ff; Austin (n. 19 above), 196f.

24. See in particular the fundamental article of Vidal-Naquet, P., ‘Land and Sacrifice in the Odyssey: A Study of Religious and Mythical Meanings’ in Gordon, R. (ed.), Myth, Religion and Society (Cambridge 1981)Google Scholar. Also Austin (n. 19 above) 81–238; Segal, C., ‘The Phaeacians and the Symbolism of Odysseus’ Return’, Arion 1.4 (1962), 17–64Google Scholar; Niles, J., ‘Patterning in the Wanderings of Odysseus’, Ramus 7 (1978), 46–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Taylor, C., ‘The Obstacles to Odysseus’ Return’, Yale Review 50 (1961), 569–80Google Scholar; Goldhill, S., Language, Sexuality, the Orestia (Cambridge 1984) 184–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Rutherford, R., ‘At Home and Abroad: Aspects of the Structure of the Odyssey,’ PCPS 31 (1985), 133–50Google Scholar.

25. See also Stewart, D., The Disguised Guest (Lewisberg 1976)Google Scholar; Keams, E., ‘The Return of Odysseus: A Homeric Theoxeny’, CQ 32 (1982), 2–8Google Scholar; Edwards, M., ‘Type Scenes and Homeric Hospitality’, TAPA 106 (1976), 187–210Google Scholar; Scott, M., ‘Philos, Philotēs and Xenia’, AClass 25 (1982), 1–19Google Scholar; Gunn, D., ‘Thematic Composition and Homeric Authorship’, HSCP 75 (1971), 17–22Google Scholar; Bader, F., ‘L’art de la fugue dans l’Odyssée’, REG 89 (1976), 18–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Stagakis, G., ‘Studies in Homeric Society’, Historia Einzelschr. 26 (1975), 94–112Google Scholar; M. Finley (n. 10 above), 109–14; and for a recent historical discussion which I find insufficient on Homer (though containing much important and interesting material and an extensive bibliography), see Herman, G., Ritualized Friendship and the Greek City (Cambridge 1987)Google Scholar.

26. Eustathius ad. loc. comments that the ghost hupopseudetai (‘misrepresents’, ‘lies a little’), since Odysseus did tell Penelope to go ahead with her plan.

27. But see 7f. and n. 35 below.

28. Kirk (n. 1 above), 251.

29. Kirk (n. 1 above), 245. It is precisely the explanation adopted by Stanford, W., The Odyssey of Homer (London 1958), ad 24.167–9Google Scholar: ‘Amphimedon, as van Leeuwen observes, has made a natural but incorrect surmise. Few would have credited O. with the superhuman restraint of not making himself known to his wife until after his revenge.’ So too Wender (n. 1 above), 35f., and earlier e.g. Lang, A., Homer and the Epic (London 1893), 317Google Scholar. A similar argument about Amphimedon’s guess-work is to be found in the scholia (Schol. M. to 24.Iff.) as discussed by Petzel, G., Antike Diskussionen über die beiden Nekyiai (Meisenheim-am-Glan 1969), 61Google Scholar.

30. Kirk (n. 1 above), 246.

31. Fenik (n. 11 above), 46.

32. See esp. Od. 13.332–8 (and cf. Agamemnon’s advice 11.441–61, esp. 455f.). See also Stanford’s remark (n. 29 above).

33. See in particular the underrated work of Besslich (n. 11 above).

34. Lesker, J., ‘Perceiving and Knowing in the Iliad and the Odyssey’, Phronesis 26 (1981), 2–24Google Scholar at 18, writes perceptively of ‘a dimension to the Odyssey which was lacking in the Iliad and its characters: a sense of the subtle and potentially dangerous powers of speech and the corresponding powers of intelligence and ingenuity needed to master them’. I should have talked, however, of an increased emphasis in the Odyssey, rather than a lack in the Iliad. See also Haft, A., ‘Odysseus, Idomeneus and Meriones: The Cretan Lies of Odyssey 13–19’, CJ 79 (1984), 289–306Google Scholar; Trahman, C., ‘Odysseus’ Lies’, Phoenix 6 (1952), 31–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and in more general terms Walsh, G., The Varieties of Enchantment (Chapel Hill 1984), 3–21Google Scholar.

35. See in particular Harsh (n. 19 above); Russo (n. 19 above); Amory (n. 19 above); Prier, R., ‘Sēma and the Symbolic Nature of Presocratic Thought’, QUCC 29 (1978), 95 n. 2Google Scholar.

36. Prier (n. 35 above) 95 n. 2.

37. Henderson (n. 19 above), 24–37.

38. See Walsh (n. 34 above), 3–21; Thalmann (n. 19 above), 160ff.; Marg, W., Homer überdie Dichtung (Munster 1957)Google Scholar; Lanata, G., Poetica Preplatonica (Florence 1963), 16ff.Google Scholar; Svenbro, J., Le Parole et le marbre (Lund 1976), 11–73Google Scholar; Griffin, J., Homer on Life and Death (Oxford 1980), 101fGoogle Scholar.

39. See in general the brilliant study of de Man, P., Blindness and Insight (New York 1971)Google Scholar.

40. The phrase ‘degree zero’ in this context is taken from Barthes, R., Writing Degree Zero, tr. Lavers, A. and Smith, A. (London 1967)Google Scholar.

41. See the preface to The Phenomenology of Mind.

42. Shlovsky’s most influential essays are collected and translated in Lemon, L. and Reis, M. (edd.), Russian Formalist Criticism (Lincoln, NE, 1965)Google Scholar.

43. For the term ‘Neoanalysis’, see Clark, M. ‘Neoanalysis: A Bibliographical Review’, CW79 (1986) 379–94Google Scholar.

44. Taking a cue from Kirchof’s edition of the Odyssey (Berlin 1879), esp. 238–74Google ScholarPubMed [Excurs 1], the attack on the Telemachy has been continued in different ways by Bethe, Schwartz, von der Mühl, Focke, Merkelbach and Page. Such an extreme position is less commonly followed at least in print today.

45. Which is not, so far, to claim that an author (or tradition) does not or cannot compose a structure or with a structure in mind; but that the perception of structure by readers or audience cannot expect to achieve any certainty in the recovery of that structure. Clearly here the argument touches on the major problems surrounding ‘intentionality’ and the literary text. Cf. my comments and bibliography in Goldhill (n. 10 above), esp. 283.

46. The absorption into classical studies of the anthropologically influenced work of Gould, Detienne, Lloyd, Loraux, Redfield, Segal, Vernant, Vidal-Naquet, Zeitlin, etc., should make it unnecessary to outline a bibliography on this point.

47. See the works cited at nn. 24 and 25 above. Also Schein, S., ‘Odysseus and Polyphemus in the Odyssey’, GRBS 11 (1970), 73–83Google Scholar; Mondi, R., ‘The Homeric Cyclopes: Folk-tale, Tradition and Theme’, TAPA 113 (1983), 17–38Google Scholar; Calame, C., ‘Mythe grec et structures narratives; le mythe des Cyclopes dans l’Odyssée’, ZAnt 26 (1976), 311–28Google Scholar; Kirk, G., Myth: Its Meaning and Function in Ancient and Other Cultures (Berkeley 1970), 162–71Google Scholar.

48. See Vidal-Naquet (n. 24 above), passim; Austin (n. 19 above), esp. 166–71.

49. On the nature of this social structure, see e.g. Scully, S., ‘The Polis in Homer: A Definition and Interpretation’, Ramus 10 (1981), 1–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Snodgrass, A., ‘An Historical Homeric Society’, JHS 94 (1974), 114–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar; M. Finley (n. 10 above). These last two have recently been criticised by I. Morris, who defends the surprising thesis that Homer’s poetry accurately reflects eighth century society (‘The Use and Abuse of Homer’, CA 5 [1986], 81–127Google Scholar, with extensive bibliography on the topic 130–8).

50. Cf. Bergren, A. ‘Odyssean Temporality: Many (Re)turns’, in Rubino, C. and Shelmerdine, C. (edd.), Approaches to Homer (Austin 1983)Google Scholar.

51. A similar playing with the idea of the desire ‘to see’ the fatherland is found at 10.28ff., where Odysseus reaches close enough to see the watchfires, only to have sleep close his exhausted eyes: the result is that the crew opens the bag of winds and they are all blown back to Aeolus’ island. The desire to see the fatherland is not simply fulfilled for Odysseus!

52. On this scene, see Rose, G., ‘The Swineherd and the Beggar’, Phoenix 34 (1980), 285–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and, most recently, Williams, F., ‘Odysseus’ Homecoming as a Parody of Homeric Formal Welcomes’, CW 79 (1986), 395–7Google Scholar. Lilja, S., Dogs in Ancient Poetry (Helsinki 1976), 20Google Scholar, has an extensive bibliography on the wisdom of Odysseus’ action.

53. Nagler, M., Spontaneity and Tradition (Berkeley 1974), 110Google Scholar, argues that to follow his servant into the house indicates Odysseus’ own lack of status.

54. So, indeed, Odysseus kills the suitors from the threshold (22.2), as Telemachus, approaching manhood, tries the bow at the threshold (21.124). See Goldhill (n. 10 above), 150.

55. His name is, of course, a ‘transposition au nom propre de l’epithète des chiens, marquant la vitesse’, Mainoldi, C., L’image du hup et du chien dans la grèce ancienne (Paris 1984), 113Google Scholar.

56. ‘As trees progressively mark his return, so do dogs …’ J. Finley (n. 19 above), 168.

57. See Williams (n. 52 above); also J. Finley (n. 19 above), 168.

58. See Rose, G., ‘Odysseus’ Barking Heart’, TAPA 109 (1979), 216–20Google Scholar.

59. Lilja (n. 52 above), 28, following Scott, J., ‘Dogs in Homer’, CW 41 (1947-8), 226–8Google Scholar, writes, ‘Odysseus never saw a dog in all his wanderings.’ This needs some more precision. Odysseus sees no dog of the sort that protect Eumaeus’ house: but Scylla, the gold and silver dogs of Scherie, the wolves like dogs at Circe’s house all offer distorted versions of (receptions by) dogs (much as Odysseus meets no ‘bread-eating humans’ in his travels but many distorted versions of human contact). Lilja (n. 52 above), 61f., notes that the unexpected absence of sheepdogs in the Cyclops’ cave was a question of Hellenistic dispute.

60. Redfield, J., Nature and Culture in the Iliad (Chicago 1975), 193Google Scholar. Wolves are noticeably absent from his categorising – on which see Mainoldi (n. 54 above), passim.

61. Redfield (n. 60 above), 193; hence dogs appear by the side of a hero even in non-hunting situations – for example, Telemachus on his way to the assembly in Od. 2.

62. Redfield (n. 60 above), 194.

63. See also Segal, C., The Theme of the Mutilation of the Corpse in the Iliad (Leiden 1971)Google Scholar.

64. Redfield (n. 60 above) 195–203.

65. Redfield (n. 60 above), 196.

66. See in particular Vidal-Naquet, P., Le Chasseur noir (Paris 1983)Google Scholar, who provides an interesting model for understanding hunting in both Homer and later Greek culture. Less instructive are Hull, D.Hounds and Hunting in Ancient Greece (Chicago 1964)Google Scholar; Merlen, R.De Canibus: Dog and Hound in Antiquity (London 1971)Google Scholar; Anderson, J.Hunting in the Ancient World (Berkeley 1985)Google Scholar.

67. See Köhnken, A., ‘Die Narbe des Odysseus’, A&A 22 (1976), 101–14Google Scholar.

68. Lilja (n. 52 above), 32–4. See on demos Clay, J. ‘Demas and Audē: The Nature of Divine Transformation in Homer’, Hermes 102 (1974), 129 n. 2Google Scholar, who notes that demas, ‘body’, is used of animals only for Argus and Odysseus’ men turned into pigs.

69. Redfield (n. 60 above), 260 n. 68. There are no other examples of animals or inanimate objects referred to with the root no-.

70. The monstrous Cyclops addresses his ram somewhat pathetically, but there is no sign of reciprocal affection. In the Iliad, Hector treats his horses as if linked by some reciprocal tie (8.185–91); on which, see Redfield (n. 60 above), 195–6.

71. This is brought out well by Rohdich, H. ‘Der Hund Argos und die Anfánge bürgerliches Selbst-bewusstseins’, A&A 26 (1980), 33–50Google Scholar and by Rose (n. 58 above).

72. Marg, W., ‘Zur Eigenart der Odyssee’, A&A 18 (1973), 9Google Scholar.

73. A conclusion reached by Rohdich (n. 71 above) and by Rose (n. 58 above), to whose articles I am indebted.

74. On the term ‘dog’ in English, see the amusing study of Empson, W., The Structure of Complex Mrds (London 1951), 158–84Google Scholar.

75. On this image, see Rose (n. 58 above), passim; also Moulton, C., Similes in the Homeric Poems (Gottingen 1977), 1.45Google Scholar.

76. Rose (n. 58 above), 223.

77. Mainoldi (n. 55 above), 113.

78. See above 14 and n. 69. When Athene arrives at Eumaeus’ hut, the dogs and Odysseus see (idon) her, but Telemachus doesn’t notice (oud’ enoēse), while Odysseus notices and understands (enoēse) the dogs’ reaction which is to run in fear. The following section benefited from discussions with John Henderson.

79. ‘It becomes perlucid that Home-r consists of a problematic of re-turn, re-cognition, re-union relayed through our reading.’ Henderson (n. 19 above), 37.

80. See e.g. Austin, N. ‘Telemachus Polymechanos’, CSCA 2 (1969), 45–63Google Scholar; Apthorp, M., ‘The Obstacles to Telemachus’ Return’, CQ 30 (1980), 1–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Eckart, W, ‘Initiatory Motifs in the Story of Telemachus’, CJ 59 (1963), 49–57Google Scholar.

81. See in particular Segal (n. 15 above); Nagy, G., The Best of the Achaeans (Baltimore 1979), esp. 13–65Google Scholar.

82. For one argument on the force of Athene’s timing, see Clay, J., The Wrath of Athena (Princeton 1983)Google Scholar.

83. See Fenik (n. 11 above), 61–88 and 153–8.

84. Or ‘during dinner’ as Stanford translates. The point seems to be that there is a proper place for mourning, and a feast should not be so marred.

85. See Walsh (n. 34 above), 18; Dupont-Roc, R. and Le Boulluec, A., ‘Le charme du recit (Odyssee IV.218–289)’ in Écriture et Théorie Poétiques. Lectures d’Homère, Eschyle, Platon, Aristote (Paris 1976), 37Google Scholar; Bergren, A. ‘Helen’s “Good Drug”: Odyssey IV.1–305’ in Kresic, S. (ed.), Contemporary Literary Hermeneutics and the Interpretation of Literary Texts (Ottawa 1981), 207fGoogle Scholar.

86. Plut. Quaest. Conviv. 614b-c; Macr. Sat. 7.1.18. See Dupont-Roc and Boulluec (n. 85 above), 35. It is a connection made easy by the common use of pharmakon for spoken spells.

87. See Segal (n. 15 above); Nagy (n. 81 above); Walsh (n. 34 above); Marg (n. 38 above); Thalmann (n. 15 above); Svenbro (n. 38 above); Lanata (n. 38 above); Detienne, M., Les Maîtres de verité dans la grèce archaique (Paris 1967)Google Scholar; Calame, C., Les Choeurs de jeunes filles en grèce archaique (Rome 1977)Google Scholar; Scully, S., ‘The Bard as Custodian of Homeric Society’, QUCC 37 (1981), 67–83Google Scholar; Treu, W., ‘Von der Weisheit der Dichter’, Gymnasium 72 (1965), 434–9Google Scholar; Kraus, W., ‘Die Auffassung des Dichterberufs im frühen Griechentum’, WS 68 (1955), 65–87Google Scholar.

88. See Anderson, Q., ‘Odysseus and the Wooden Horse’, SO 52 (1977), 5–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Eichorn, F., Homers Odysee (Göttingen 1965), 44Google Scholar; Erbse (n. 2 above) 96f.; Duckworth, G.Foreshadowing and Suspense in the Epics of Homer, Apollonius and Vergil (Princeton 1933), 25 n. 64Google Scholar; Weiniewski, I, ‘La technique d’annoncer les événements futurs chez Homerè’, Eos 27 (1924), 123fGoogle Scholar.

89. Bergren (n. 85 above), 208.

90. On kata moiran, see Walsh (n. 34 above), 16–9. The phrase is used by Odysseus of Demodocus’ song (8.496) and Eumaeus describes Odysseus as speaking oude ti pō para moiran (‘in no way contrary to what is fair and proper’, 14.509). Odysseus describes the Cyclops’ behaviour as ou kata moiran (‘not fair and proper’, 9.352), which suggests the strength of the expression.

91. J. Kakridis, Homer Revisited (Lund 1971), 40–9.

92. Bergren (n. 85 above). Her essay is a fundamental contribution.

93. Bergren (n. 85 above), 214.

94. Bergren (n. 85 above), 214.

95. Derrida, J., La Dissemination (Paris 1972), 71–197Google Scholar.

96. Bergren (n. 85 above), 209.

97. Bergren (n. 85 above), 210.

98. Bergren (n. 85 above), 210.

99. On the logic of the supplement, see Derrida, J., Of Grammatology, tr. Spivak, G. (Baltimore 1976), 141ffGoogle Scholar.

100. See 11.373–6. Cf. 17.514–20.

101. 1.325ff. Notice the song is not continued, however. Penelope gets her way indirectly?

102. Bergren (n. 85 above), 210.

103. See e.g. Notopoulos, J., ‘Parataxis in Homer’, TAPA 80 (1949), 1–23Google Scholar, and ‘Continuity and Interconnexion in Homeric Oral Composition’, TAPA 82 (1951), 81–101Google Scholar. Kirk (n. 1 above), 169, calls paratactic composition ‘unsophisticated’.

104. Stanford (n. 29 above), ad 6.149ff.

105. ‘Master of words’ is the translation of epētēs offered by Thornton, A., People and Themes in Homer’s Odyssey (London and Dunedin 1976), 92Google Scholar.

106. As a human parthenos (‘unmarried, virgin girl’), Nausicaa is both like and unlike Artemis, as she is like and unlike Calypso, Circe and Penelope.

107. On contrasting simile pairs, see Hubbard, T., ‘Antithetical Simile Pairs in Homer’, GB 10 (1981), 59–67Google Scholar; Moulton (n. 75 above), 19–49; Coffey, M., ‘The Function of the Homeric Simile’, AJP 78 (1957), 113–32Google Scholar.

108. Moulton (n. 75 above), 121.

109. See Moulton (n. 75 above), 145–53; Segal (n. 15 above), 24ff.; Walsh (n. 34 above), 19–21; Thalmann (n. 15 above), 157–84; Seidensticker, B., ‘Archilochus and Odysseus’, GRBS 19 (1978), 5–22Google Scholar.

110. Special thanks to John Henderson, who read a draft of this and made valuable suggestions, and who discussed dogs at length with me.