The End of the "Odyssey" Moulton, Carroll Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies; Summer 1974; 15, 2; ProQuest pg. 153

The End of the Odyssey 
Carroll Moulton 

THE REPORT of the scholiasts at Odyssey 23.296 has made for lively 
comment since at least the twelfth century. For it is here, we 
are told, that the best Alexandrian critics of Homer, Aristo­

phanes and Aristarchus, considered the Odyssey to end. The two 
versions of the report are as follows: TOtiTO TI.'\OC TfjC '08vcc£tcxc cp'Y}dJl 

'A' "A..I..' 'A ..1..' ~\ "A' , ptcTCXPXOC KCXt. ptCT0'f'CX1lTJC... ptcT0'f'CXJl'T}C o£ KCXt ptcTCXpxoe 7T£pcxe 

Tfje '08vcc£lcxc TOUTO 7TOtOUJlTCX"l Eustathius reproduces the informa­
tion thus, with apparent prejudice in his concluding phrase: 'leTloJl 8~ 
., \, A \ A' , 'A' \ 'A ..I.. ' • OTt KCXTCX T7JJI TWJI 7TCXI\CXtWJI tcTOptCXJl ptcTCXpxoe KCX' ptcT0'f'aJl'Y}e, 0' 

..I.. A A , A' , • , '0 ' I \ I KopV'f'a,o, TWV TOTE 'YpappaT'KWV, £/.c TO. WC £pp£ 'Y}. aC7TaCLo, I\£KTpO'O 
-- '\ A 0 \., A "0 ~ , , '..I.. t. A" '\ 7TaI\CX,OV ECP.OJl 'KOJlTO, 7TEpaTovCL T7JV OVCCELCXV, TCX E'f'Er:;7Je Ewe TEI\OVC 

TaU P,fJAtov VOOEVOJlTEC.2 He immediately suggests an interpretation, 
to explain the Alexandrians and save the end of the Odyssey: £t7TO£ «tv 

.,. "'A ' , 'A ..I.. ' • • 0' ., R R\ , A OVV Ttc, OTt ptcTCXPXOC KCX£ ptcTO'f'a1lTJC 0' P7J £JlTEC OV TO I"£I"I\'OV T7JC 

'O~ , , \ \ ' " " "AO \ , 0 ..I.. '3 ovee£/.cxc, CXI\I\CX tcwe Ta KCXtpLa TCXVT'Y}e EVTCXV CX eVVTETEI\£e at 'f'CX"V' 

What did the ancient critics mean by 71.'\oe and 7Tlpcxe? Whatever 
they meant, their reputation in antiquity' and our scattered informa-
tion about their critical methods forbid us to take the judgement 
lightly.1) Modern scholars, most recently Merkelbach, Page and Kirk, 
have assembled an impressive case to support that judgement; sup­
posed peculiarities of diction and narrative structure have been held 
by many to substantiate the theory that originally the Odyssey cannot 
have ended as we have it.6 The Unitarians have hardly been slow to 

1 Schol. H M Q: 'TOVTO T'>'OC .pTJclv; schol. M V Vind. 133: roVTO '"'pac ,"oLoMaL. Cf. V. 
Ludwich, Aristarchs Homer Textkritik II (Leipzig 1885) 630. 

I Eustathius, Comm. 1948.49. 

3 ibid. 1949.1ff. 
'Aristarchus earned three nicknames: ·OP.TJPLICOC, ypap.p.aTLlCcfrraToc, and p.&.VTLC. 
I G. M. A. Grube provides a brief summary of our knowledge in The Greek and Roman 

Critics (London 1965) 128-32. For a more extensive treatment, see R. Pfeiffer, History of 
Classical Scholarship (Oxford 1968) 105-233; he discusses the end of the Odyssey at 175-77, 
rejecting Page's view (177 n.4). 

II See R. Merkelbach, Untersuchungen zur Odyssee (Munich 1951) 142-55 (hereafter: 
MERKELBACH); D. L. Page, The Homeric Odyssey (Oxford 1955) 101-36 (hereafter: PAGE); 
G. S. Kirk, The Songs of Homer (Cambridge 1962) 204-08, 244-52 (hereafter: KIRK). 

153 



154 THE END OF THE ODYSSEY 

attempt rebuttals. As long ago as 1913, Shewan, prompted by Mon­
ro's rejection of the final scenes, attempted a lengthy defense, and he 
has not lacked successors.7 

This essay will endeavor to reexamine the main problems in terms 
of both evidence and method, since it appears that under both 
headings some clarification is needed of the types of criticism and 
conclusions that are legitimate. It will be convenient to arrange the 
following discussion in three parts: problems raised by the scholium 
itself, linguistic questions concerning the diction, and literary analysis 
of the narrative structure. 

I. The Scholium 

Of7T'pac there can be little doubt: it nearly always means physical 
limit or end, or final point in a figurative sense. The word TlAoc, how­
ever, is used occasionally to denote consummation or result or pur­
pose (Ziel), and modern commentators sympathetic to Eustathius 
have eagerly seized on such cases.S The most recent discussion, that of 
H. Erbse, focuses on TlAoc, and instances Aristotle's usage in his dis­
cussion of the p:u(}oc in epic (Poet. 1459aI7fI). Erbse believes that, 

7 See A. Shewan, "The 'Continuation' of the Odyssey," CP 8 (1913) 284-300, CP 9 (1914) 35-
48,160-73. More exclusively literary arguments were presented by J. Scott, "The Close of 
the Odyssey," CJ 12 (1917) 397-405, and S. Bassett, "The Second Necyia," CJ 13 (1918) 521-26, 
and "The Second Necyia Again," AJP 44 (1923) 44-52. J. B. Bury defended the lines, and 
tried to explain anomalies by the theory that Homer died before he was able to finish the 
poem; his intentions for the conclusion, however, were clear, and were in the main carried 
out by a rhapsode, acting as his "literary executor"; cf. "The End of the Odyssey," JHS 42 
(1922) 1-15 (hereafter: BURY). More recently, W. B. Stanford adopts a Unitarian position, 
both in his commentary, IT (London 1965) 404-31, and in "The Ending of the Odyssey: an 
Ethical Approach," Hermathena 100 (1965) 5-20. So, too, H. Erbse, who considers many of 
Page's objections in a detailed analysis; see BeitTage zum Verstiindnis der Odyssee (Berlin 
1972) 166-244 (hereafter: ERBSB). Cf. also D. Wender, "The End of the Odyssey" (diss. Har­
vard, 1965; summary in HSCP 70 [1965] 274-76); S. Bertman, "Structural Symmetry at the 
End of the Odyssey," GRBS 9 (1968) 115-23; W. F. Hansen, The Conference Sequence in the 
Odyssey (Berkeley 1972) 56-57. Unfortunately, the dissertation of K. Fiedler, "Der Schluss 
der Odyssee" (Marburg 1957) has not been available to me. 

I B.g. II. 3.291; Plato, Gorg. 499B8, Protag. 35402; Isoc. 4.5, 6.50; cf. E. Bethe, "Odyssee­
Probleme," Hermes 63 (1928) 83; Shewan (supra n.7), CP 9 (1914) 161; J. Armstrong, "The 
Marriage Song-Odyssey 23," TAPA 89 (1958) 38; Erbse 166-77; Stanford, "Ending" (supra 
n.7) 5 (citations of Aristotelian usage in n.2). The discussion ofM. H. van der Valk, in Textual 
,Criticism of the Odyssey (Leiden 1949) 238-40, is balanced but unilluminating. Van der Valk 
argues against the rejection being Aristarchan in Researches on the Text and Scholia of the niad 
II (Leiden 1964) 261~2. 



CARROLL MOULTON 155 

though Aristotle regarded the sections of the Odyssey after the death 
of the suitors as €7T€tc68ta (see 1455bI6ff), he surely recognized their 
authenticity (since he appears to refer to Od. 23.310-41 at Rhet. III, 
1417aI2).9 Thus Erbse supposes that the Alexandrian critics used the 
word in an Aristotelian sense (consummation' rather than <end'), and 
signified by their comment that the lines after 23.296 constituted epi­
sodes. Erbse further suggests that 7Tlpac was a grammarian's subse­
quent paraphrase of TD .. oc, which he found in his copy; he misinter­
preted T/Aoc, and so distorted the Alexandrians' original meaning.10 

But it remains open to question whether Aristophanes (ca. 257-180 
B.C.) and Aristarchus (ca. 217-145) judged matters by Aristotelian 
standards, formulated at least a century before them; and Erbse's 
theory involves postulating a mindless grammarian who could not 
distinguish between the two words. The unhappy fact, which should 
be admitted, is that we have no basis for deducing on what grounds 
the Alexandrians made their judgement;l1 we cannot even say if they 
were related to the narrative's literary merit or were based on anoma­
lies of diction or meter. 

Some further problems are entailed, however. At Republic 387 A, 

plato quotes four lines from the opening of Odyssey 24 (6-9). This cita­
tion, together with Aristotle's reference in the Rhetoric to 23.310-41, 
should not be basis for argument that the lines were originally 
Homeric, or belonged to the period of the Odyssey's monumental 
composition; they could easily have been sung, or written, much 
later, e.g. in the period 700-550. An equally trifling objection to the 
scholium is that, if the Alexandrians' verdict be accepted, the last 
sentence of the poem would start with an uncorrelated oi p.~v €7T€tTa 
(23.295). A continuator, however, could easily have changed the last 
line to lead into his continuation. The bounds set by sense and meter 
could readily be surmounted in such a change; long ago, Kirchhoff 
suggested that the last line might originally have been oi S' /J.p' 
E7T€tTa.12 

A more serious problem arises when we examine the scanty com­
ments of the scholiast on the rest of the poem. It is odd that the 

8 Erbse 174-75. 
10 ibid. 176-77. 
11 Except for the scholiasts' summary on the athetesis of 24.1-204; see Stanford, Com­

mentary (supra n.7) 409-10. 
12 A. Kirchhoff, Die Homerische Odyssee und ihre Entstehung (Berlin 1859) 124; cf Stanford, 

Commentary 404. 



156 THE END OF THE ODYSSEY 

scholia report Aristarchus to have athetized Odyssey 23.310-43 (Odys­
seus' long narrative of his adventures, reported in indirect discourse) 
and 24.1-204 (the second nekuia), if Aristarchus thought the text was 
spurious beginning at 23.297.13 Page goes to some lengths to argue for 
an unparalleled athetesis within an athetesis.14 A simpler solution is 
available: the inconsistency could have crept into the scholia at many 
places in the tradition, and is not at all improbable, given the likeli­
hood that Aristarchus made two editions, the second of which was 
more independent of Aristophanes than the first.11) It is possible that 
Aristarchus could have held differing opinions on the final lines of the 
Odyssey at different times; thus, for example, he may have athetized 
the two passages in question in his first fu6p8wCLC, and later decided 
that all 623 lines from 23.297 onward were spurious, recording his 
opinion in a subsequent edition. Or he may have started with a full­
scale athetesis, and later restricted it to certain passages. In either case, 
it is easy to see how both opinions could have been "Aristarchan" for 
later commentators. 

There remains the curious theory supported by E. Meyer, with 
which Wilamowitz concurred and which has lately been resurrected 
by Merkelbach. Meyer thought that the last line of Apollonius' 
Argonautica (4.1781) 

, , , \ rr ,~ • 'R 
aC1TacLWC aK'TaC llayac'lJLoac E£ca1TEtJ'lJ'TE 

was an echo of Odyssey 23.296 

and that Apollonius had closed his epic with an elegant reference to 
his great model. He must, therefore, have considered the Odyssey to 
end at the same point as the grammarians.16 From a story preserved 
in Stobaeus, in which Demetrius of Phaleron is supposed to have ad­
mired 23.296 for its sophrosyne, Meyer concluded that Demetrius also 
thought of that verse as the finalline,17 E. Bethe soundly refuted the 

11 See Stanford, "Ending" (supra n.7) 17. 
u Page 131 n.l0. 
16 See schol. Il. 10.397 and Ludwich, op.cit. (supra n.l) I 16ff; compare the interpretation 

of Pfeiffer, op.cit. (supra nS) 214-17. 
II E. Meyer, "Apollonios von Rhodos und der Schluss der Odyssee," Hermes 29 (1894) 

478-79; so too, recently, Merkelbach 144 n.l. 
17 Stob. Flor. 5S9; cf. Meyer, op.cit. (supra n.16) 479. 



CARROLL MOULTON 157 

logic of this last conclusion in an article of 1918, and sensibly dis­
counted the parallel with the Argonautica on the basis of aC7TCfc,oc. He 
pointed out that if one were to detect echoes, Odyssey 23.238 might be 
more suitable: 

, , "',. 'R ' , ,1..' 18 aC7TaCWt 0 E7TE,...av ya'71C, KaKoT71Ta 't'VYOJITEC. 

Meyer's arguments thus provide no secure basis for a consensus on 
the question in Hellenistic times. 

The strongest argument for those who would discount the Alex­
andrians' judgement undoubtedly rests on the influence of Aristo­
telian literary criticism. But, as we have seen, the theory that the 
grammarians meant T€Aoc in the sense of 'chief goal' must remain 
doubtful, without firm evidence that they habitually used Aristotle 
as a guide in literary questions;19 similarly, lexicography will leave us 
with a non liquet. With such inconclusive arguments, there is not much 
point in supposing, for this discussion, that Aristophanes and Aristar­
chus meant anything other than what they seem to say: at 23.296, the 
Odyssey ends. It has been left to more modern critics to supply argu­
ments for and against the poem's final lines, and to them we now 
turn.20 

II. The Language 
Page compiled a list of roughly fifty anomalies in diction in these 

disputed lines, and his comments can be supplemented by turning to 
Berard's edition and the works of Stanford and Kirk.21 I only summar­
ize here the principal categories of irregularity: 

18 E. Bethe; "Oer Schluss der Odyssee und Apollonios von Rhodos," Hermes 53 (1918) 444-
446, with references to Wilamowitz. 

111 On Aristarchus, see Pfeiffer, op.cit. (supra n.5) 231-32. 
20 Stanford ("Ending" 16) has proposed a theory to explain the Alexandrians' judgement 

which relies on the prevalently erotic and romantic character of Alexandria in the second 
century B.C. He cites the increasing importance of women, due to the influence of the 
strong-willed queens Berenice and Arsinoe, and also refers to the hedonists in philosophy, 
the connubial harmony of Isis and Osiris in religious cult, and the tendency in literature 
(e.g. Theocritus) toward domestic themes and personal sentiment. Thus, the normally 
cautious Alexandrian critics may have been seduced into judging the Odyssey to end with 
Odysseus and Penelope in bed at 23.296. Stanford, however, sees here an emphasis on the 
sexual aspect of marriage which is quite uncharacteristic of the rest of the poem. Stanford's 
suggestion is not susceptible to proof; one may argue that the poet, supposing that his end 
were to be 23.296, withheld the sexual emphasis until just this point, to give the climax 
stronger effect. 

21 See Page 102-11; V. Berard, ed. L'Odyssee III (Paris 1963) 163-92; Stanford, Commentary 
404 and passim; Kirk 204-08, 244-52. 



158 THE END OF THE ODYSSEY 

(a) FORMS: iJ"1v at 23.316, the contraction 'Epp:ijc at 24.1, the subjunc­
tive ,wvvvvra, at 24.89, JLaXEo&JL€VOL at 24.113, 4>tJ..twv as compara­
tive at 24.268, the unparalleled infinitive 8,8wCEW at 24.314, 
irreducible crasis in 7TPOV7TEJLl/I' at 24.360, '08VCEVC at 24.398, 7TEpatW­
(UVTEC at 24.437, the contraction ElnrEt8Et at 24.465 

(b) USAGE: a8w&wv at 23.326, tP0AOEV'TL KEpavvip at 23.330 and 24.539, 
€7TOPOVCE at 23.343, ~PLy'vELav as noun at 23.347, av-rov at 24.241, 
gELV'I]La as adjective at 24.273, £7TLaAJLEVOC at 24.320, JLoyloVTEc at 
24.388, ot at 24.497, 7TOALOl at 24.499, the exclamation 8EOl 4>{)..OL at 
24.514 

(c) PROSODY: the scansion of £7TL"rEAAW at 23.361, unusual lengthening 
in E7TlECCtV at 24.240, synecphronesis in 24.247, rare synizesis in 
TE&XEa at 24.534 

(d) SYNTAX: the optative at 24.237, the idioms at 24.244 and 245 
(e) Hapax legomena at 23.296, 321; 24.208, 229-30, 252, 261, 279, 288, 

307, 394,485, 528. 

In addition, Page notes the mention of the nine Muses at 24.60, which 
he calls "alien to the Homeric tradition"; they are first so numbered 
in Hesiod, Theogony 50ff.22 

Webster, in his figures for the distribution of 'post-migration forms' 
in the Iliad and Odyssey, appears to supplement the case against 
Odyssey 24. He includes forms marked by irresolvable vowel contrac­
tions, synizesis, singular -cfJL, and overrun digamma, and finds that the 
general average for the Odyssey is 13 per hundred lines (for the Iliad, 
it is 11 per 100 lines, while for Hesiod, Erga, 30 per 100). Individual 
books in both Homeric poems show about the same tolerance on 
either side of the average (the lowest figure for the Iliad is 7.9 per 100 
lines for II. 14, the highest 14.1 for II. 24; Od. 18 and Od. 1 have 9.8 and 
9.9, while Od. 21 and Od. 24 have 16.5 and 17.2). The last book of the 
Odyssey is at once the 'latest' on Webster's criteria, and exhibits the 
furthest departure from the average.23 Shipp has now provided an 
even longer catalogue than Page of linguistic anomalies.24 

Against this impressive linguistic case, one must weigh the follow­
ing considerations. First, it is necessary to emphasize that 'late lan­
guage', by itself, is not sufficient to prove a given passage ungenuine. 
The term 'late' is altogether too imprecise. Webster's observations, 

II Page 103. 
Ia T. B. L. Webster, "Early and Late in Homeric Diction," Branos 54 (1956) 34-48. See my 

comments below for the relevance of his criteria. 
1& G. P. Shipp, Studies in the Language of Homer· (Cambridge 1972) 358-64. 



CARROLL MOULTON 159 

for example, while valuable for the investigation of relatively late 
strata of diction, must be interpreted using the time scale of Mycen­
aean-pre-migration-post-migration (the last approximately post-
900 B.C.). This span is obviously early with respect to the later stages of 
the oral tradition, which most assume to have culminated in Homer, 
or in the <monumental composition' of the epics. If the epics under­
went such monumental composition only at a relatively late stage of 
the tradition (eighth century), Webster's figures cannot bear directly 
on our problem. A phenomenon such as neglect of digamma, for 
example, is likely to have occurred before oral composition came to 
an end, though perhaps so shortly before that point that few newly 
created expressions became formulaically fixed. 25 Hoekstra has also 
assigned quantitative metathesis to this point in the time scale, 
though it is «probably among the most recent linguistic features of 
Homeric language."26 If the formulaic diction in the later stages of the 
tradition simultaneously underwent a process of decomposition and 
also incorporated new, modern elements, it will not be sufficient, as 
Kirk has pointed out, to focus on a passage's <untraditional' or un­
paralleled elements in order to prove it spurious.27 As Hoekstra has 
warned: "There is not the slightest indication . " that (increasing 
Ionicisation and modernisation) set in only after the Iliad and the 
Odyssey had reached their final form."28 Kirk has urged that our cri­
terion for identifying interpolation should be the 'anti-traditional', 
rather than the untraditional, in the poems' diction; if we can deter­
mine that fixed elements of the tradition have been misunderstood, 
or if we can show the presence of organic Atticisms, we can legiti­
mately conclude that a passage is the product of significantly late 
interpolation.29 

From this it follows that many anomalies noticed by Page and 
others may be no more than reflections of the changes in the oral 
tradition in its later stages. In particular, hapax legomena, which have 

15 See A. Hoekstra, Homeric Modijications of Formulaic Prototypes (Amsterdam/London 
1964) 70. 

28 ibid. 31-41. 70. 
17 See Kirk 201-03 in connection with similes, and also "Objective Dating Criteria in 

Homer," MusHelv 17 (1960) 189-205. 
18 Hoekstra, op.cit. (supra n.25) 28. 
It See Kirk, "Objective Dating Criteria in Homer" (supra n.27) and, for discussion and 

examples of organic Atticisms, Songs of Homer 193. 



160 THE END OF THE ODYSSEY 

frequently been used, together with 'late' or untraditional language, 
to impugn the genuineness of similes,30 prove little, since in similes 
and in certain types of narrative the requirements of context should 
lead us to expect such oddities. About one-third of the irregularities 
in the Odyssey listed at the beginning of this section fall squarely into 
this category. Erbse has recently examined in detail Page's major lin­
guistic objections and can find no parallel or analogue in epic diction 
for only four of them: &cSwawv at 23.326 (which appears anti-tradi­
tional), 7T6C'TOV at 24.288 (hapax), the contracted genitive 'OcSVCEVC at 
24.398, and the contracted dative in the unstressed half of a dactyl 
ElJ7TE{f)EL at 24.465.31 The more skeptical critic will still be disturbed by 
the optative at 24.237, the idiom with EXW at 24.245 (not before the 
fifth century), and the usage of €7T6poVCE at 23.343, which appears anti­
traditional (though compare the odd usage at Il. 5.793). Even allowing 
for several other oddities (p,OylovTEC meaning 'fatigued' instead of 
'working hard' at 24.388, and the striking use of E7T£a>'I-'Evoc at 24.320, 
which may, however, not be anti-traditional so much as the purpose­
ful suggestion of a martial context at an intensely emotional mo­
ment), the list of irregular expressions hardly amounts to 
overwhelming evidence in favor of condemning 623 lines. 

With regard to both our problem and the more general question of 
criteria for the relative dating of passages in Homer, it may be of some 
interest to conclude this section by referring to a recent investigation 
of K. A. Garbrah, whose results tend to a salutary skepticism.32 Gar­
brah selected for analysis three groups of passages from the Odyssey, 
of unequal length, which by a consensus of scholars represent three 
different strata of composition: 'old', 'intermediate' and 'late' lan­
guage. The passages were: 5.44-6.331, 9.1-11.225, 11.385-565, and 12 to 
represent the old portions; 3.1-4.619 to represent intermediate com­
position; 11.226-384,566-640, and 23.297-24.548 to represent the late 
sections. Garbrah then applied four linguistic tests to the passages: the 
frequency of irresolvable contraction, the proportion of neglected to 

80 Contra Shipp, op.cit. (supra n.24) 221, 215, see P. Chantraine in RevPhil29 (1955) 7.3; Kirk 
200-08; and my article "Similes in the Iliad," Hermes (forthCOming). Regarding the Odyssey, 
the hapax legomena were already discounted by Shewan, CP 8 (191.3) 284. 

81 Erbse 177-229; cf. Shewan in CP 8 (1913) 284-300. 
81 See K. A. Garbrah, "A Linguistic Analysis of Selected Portions of the Homeric Odyssey," 

Glotta 47 (1%9) 144-70. My thanks to Professor J. Peradotto for bringing this article to my 
attention. 



CARROLL MaUL TON 161 

observed digamma, the proportion of sure cases of -ou to cases of -ow 

in the genitive singular, and the proportion of short to long forms in 
the dative plural of -0- and -a;- stems. Two of these criteria (contrac­
tion and digamma) failed to produce significant differences among the 
selected passages. The test of short datives showed an increase in the 
<late' passages, but the <old' passages also had a higher proportion of 
these forms than the 'intermediate' sections. Only in the genitive of 
-0- stems did the late sections show a marked difference from the 
others.33 With reference to the end of the Odyssey, we should remem­
ber that such an analysis is only a quantitative measure of certain, 
specific phenomena; it cannot take account of isolated peculiarities, 
such as Page and others have noted. But it may serve as a useful indica­
tion of the difficulty, in the current state of our knowledge, of at­
tempting to locate epic diction in any specific phase of a long tradition. 

III. The Narrative Structure 
As with the linguistic evidence, it is important to weigh carefully 

the structural arguments against the authenticity of the end of the 
Odyssey. We shall start with a consideration of Book 24, which clearly 
falls into three sections: the second nekuia (24.1-204), the visit to 
Laertes (205-411), and the attempt of their relatives to avenge the 
suitors (412-548). 

A. THE SECOND Nekuia (24.1-204). A relatively strong objection to 
this passage is that of Page (following Monro and the scholia to 24.1), 
who complains that the ghosts of the suitors enter Hades without its 
being said that they have been buried.34 Yet, as Stanford points out, 
the shades are not said to have crossed the river into Hades at the be­
ginning of Odyssey 24 (contrast the explicit mention of the river by the 
shade of PatrocIus at II. 23.72-73).35 There is thus no flat contradiction 
with Homeric practice or belief. A little later in the second nekuia, 
Page compares 24.15, where the suitors, led by Hermes,36 are said to 
come upon the shades of Achilles, Patroclus, Antilochus and Ajax, 
with 24.99, where it is mentioned that Hermes "leading the souls of 
the suitors laid low by Odysseus drew near" Agamemnon and 

33 For a summary table of results and conclusions, see Garbrah 167-68. 

84 Page 118; cf. II. 23.71ff. 
86 See Stanford, Commentary 410, and Shewan, CP 9 (1914) 167-69. 
81 On Hermes' function here as .pvX0'TT0p/1T6c, see Shewan. CP 9 (1914) 163-67. 



162 THE END OF THE ODYSSEY 

Achilles, just after these two finished their conversation (24-97). On 
the basis of this minor inconsistency, Page maintains that the entire 
conversation has been "transferred wholesale hither from some other 
source," and that the poet has betrayed himself through the "faulty 
join."37 But it need hardly be said that such language as we have in 
24.98-100 is not foreign to oral composition; one might as well call the 
digression on Odysseus' scar a wholesale insertion from another 
source because the text seems to say that Eurycleia recognizes it 
twice.3s 

Page is also wrong to affirm that Amphimedon's claim of collusion 
between Odysseus and Penelope in the test of the bow and the subse­
quent slaughter (24.167ff) proves that there was a conflation of two 
traditions, one involving a recognition before the mnesterophonia, the 
other a recognition afterwards.39 The Odyssey as we have it, of course, 
focuses on the post-revenge recognition. But Amphimedon's speech 
does not involve a contradiction of our version of the poem. Due to 
Odysseus' careful planning and some help from Athena, the revenge 
is effected in Book 22 with clockwork efficiency; how can Amphi­
medon know that it was not accomplished through prior collusion 
between husband and wife? After all, Odysseus deals the first fatal 
shot with his own bow. To the mind of a suitor, lately dead almost be­
fore he knew what hit him, collusion would appear the most rational 
explanation. Page and Kirk are surely right, however, in their general 
proposition that two traditions are involved in the Odyssey, one pre­
and one post-revenge. Amphimedon's remarks on the weaving trick 
(24.129-50) do not correspond with the two previous accounts of the 
device (2.93-110, 19.13Q--61). And no one has yet solved the illogicali­
ties surrounding the test of the bow in Books 18-21. Penelope has 
more reason at this time than ever before to believe that her husband 
will return, and yet she proceeds to arrange a contest that will lead 
directly to marriage with the victorious suitor.'O Undoubtedly there 
has been some remodeling of an earlier version. Yet we cannot say 

37 Page 119. 

380d. 19.392-93, 467-{)8. For a scene with parallel structure, if. Od. 4.3 «(vpov) with 24.15 
«(Vpov) and 4.2()-22 with 24.98-100. See B. C. Fenik, Studies in the Odyssey (Wiesbaden 1974) 
78-80. 

3. Page 122; cf. Kirk 245. 
'0 See Page 12()-21, 123-24 and Kirk 246-47. For the theory that Homer has subtly indi­

cated a pre-revenge recognition in Book 19, see R. Fitzgerald. "Postscript" to his translation 
(Garden City 1961). 



CARROLL MOULTON 163 

when the remodeling took place; and the structural anomalies in­
volved, with the exception of Amphimedon's account of the web, do 
not occur in Odyssey 24.41 

The final objection to be considered here is that the second nekuia 
contains unprecedented geographical details: e.g. the White Rock, the 
gates of the Sun and the land of Dreams (24.11ff).42 These details are 
simply unparalleled in the poems, but do not comprise a strong, posi­
tive argument for the rejection of the passage. It may be pure co­
incidence that Elpenor has not mentioned such details; it is also well 
to remember, in connection with Book 11, that Odysseus is not ex­
plicitly presented as traveling through Hades, but is made rather to 
dig a trench at its threshold, where the ghosts may come to him. 
Once again, the untraditional, or the unparalleled, must not be 
equated with the spurious.43 

B. THE LABRTBS SCENE (24.205-411). Eustathius was particularly 
shocked that this recognition of father and son had been athetized.44 

The lying tale with which Odysseus tests his father has repelled some, 
including Page, who calls the scene an "aimless and heartless guessing­
game."45 In this event, modern bards have not improved in kindness 
on ancient interpolators: Lord maintains that in the South-Slavic epic 
presentations of the hero's recognition by one of his parents, omission 
of a lengthy deception would be unthinkable.46 For the episode in the 
Odyssey, I venture to put forward the following rationale, with which 
I think the action can be understood and appreciated. Odysseus has 
earlier been maneuvered by Athena into a comically excessive lying 
tale at 13. 256ff; possibly his test of his father is supposed to be re­
garded as a contrasting, harsh excess. But what Odysseus does not 
count on is the overpowering emotion displayed by Laertes at the 
thought of his son dead (24.315-17). All the others in the household, 

41 Page (128) ascribes both 18.158-304 and 19.335ff to the tradition of pre-revenge recogni­
tion. 

n Page 117-18. 
43 On the geography of Hades seeShewan, CP9(1914) 169-71. On the symbolism of some 

of the elements in 24.1-14, see the recent comment of C. Nagy, "Phaethon, Sappho's 
Phaon, and the White Rock of Leukas," HSCP 77 (1973) 137-77. 

" Comm. 1948.59. 
UPage 112 . 
.. A. B. Lord, The Singer of Tales (Cambridge [Mass.] 1960) 178. For a discussion of the 

Laertes scene which centers on the similarities and differences between this recognition 
and other related scenes in the Odyssey, see Fenik. op.cit. (supra n.38) 47-53. 



164 THE END OF THE ODYSSEY 

though most hope that Odysseus may still be alive, have become 
resigned to the probability that he is dead. At this point, one sup­
poses, Odysseus realizes that he has gone too far, to no purpose; his 
previous tales were motivated, of course, by the necessity of caution. 
But there has been no need of caution here; his identity no longer 
needs to be concealed from his enemies. The great age and sullied 
dignity of his father overwhelm him, and thus we have the strange and 
powerful language, usually employed in martial contexts, to describe 
his own emotion at 24.318-19.47 

As in Books 19 and 23, Odysseus is recognized conclusively through 
a special sign, here as thematically important as the scar or the mar­
riage-bed. The orchards given him by Laertes may certainly be held 
to symbolize his inheritance, his K7'~fJ-a7'a, which have been a major 
theme in the whole story of the return.4S And there can be no doubt 
that the previous references to Laertes in the Odyssey should lead an 
audience to expect some account of his meeting with Odysseus.49 It is 
of course possible that we possess only a later version of this meeting, 
but this cannot be established through criticism of our version's lying 
tale or actual recognition.60 

C. THE FINAL BATTLE (24.412-548). This section consists of three 
short episodes: the council in Ithaca, the council on Olympus, and the 
final struggle and reconciliation. Here, the main problem is connected 
not with the details of the narrative but with its structure, particu­
larly at 24.472, where there is a swift change of scene from Ithaca to 

'7 Page (106) regards the language as anti-traditional. The foregoing analysis of the Laer­
tes scene entails the supposition that Odysseus has miscalculated, and seriously; if it is ob­
jected that this is not in character for such a resourceful, self-possessed hero, the answer 
must be that Homer has portrayed Odysseus as making several dangerous mistakes in the 
course of the poem (e.g. in the Cyclops episode). See the comment of Fenik, op.dt. (supra 
n.38) 44-45. 

"See Stanford. "Ending" 7-8,13; the scholiasts are squeamish here, but for the import­
ance of possessions in Homeric society and values, see A. W. H. Adkins, Merit and Responsi­
bility (Oxford 1960) 32-36. 

"This is emphasized by Bury (6) and by Stanford, "Ending" 9-11. Major references to 
Laertes: Od. 1.188-93, 430-33; 2.99-102; 4.110-11, 735-40; 1l.187if; 15.347if; 16.137-45; 
22.184-86. 

60 The problem of Dolius' identity (is the servant at 24.222 the same man as the Dolius at 
4.735.17.212, and 18.3221) seems incapable of resolution; it is as likely that we are dealing 
with one person as with two or three. In any case, there is no good argument for condemn­
ing his presence in the last book: see Stanford. Commentary 420. For another case of a father 
with good and bad children, note Aegyptius at Od. 2.17-22. Cf Fenik, op.dt. (supra n.38) 192. 



CARROLL MOULTON 165 

Olympus. 51 Yet two scenes in the Iliad suggest that we are, to some 
extent, dealing both with typical material and a typical arrangement 
of the narrative. 

First, Heubeck has pointed out the broad parallels between Odyssey 
24.472-88 and the council at the beginning of Iliad 4.52 The Odyssey 
scene is devoted to the planning of oaths and the coming of peace; the 
Iliad scene plots the breaking of oaths and the resumption of war 
(compare Od. 24.482ff with It 4.68ff). More specifically, one may com­
pare the journey of Athena in both poems (Od. 24.487-88=11. 4.73-74) 
and her disguise (ef Od. 24.503 with It 4.86ff). In the Odyssey, Athena 
tells Laertes to pray to her for success in his spear-cast (24.517-19); in 
the Iliad, she instructs Pandarus to pray to Apollo when he launches 
his arrow (4.1O(H)3). The alternatives posed by Athena to Zeus at 
Odyssey 24.475-76 are reminiscent of the Trojans' exclamation about 
Zeus at Iliad 4.82-84. 

Yet the parallels here are less striking than in the scene between 
Athena and Zeus at Iliad 22.166-87, suggested by Theiler for compari­
son with our passage.53 Note that both scenes on Olympus occur just 
as battle is about to be joined on earth (It 22.186-87=Od.24.487-88); 
in the Iliad, there are three short speeches, in the Odyssey two, with 
Zeus each time yielding to Athena. The transitions leading to these 
scenes are slightly different. In the Iliad, there is a line and a half of 
summary, describing Achilles' pursuit of Hector around the walls 
(22.165-66). Then we have (166-67): 

II 't'" , .-IlE'Ot 0 E'C 7TaVTE'C OPWVTO' 

'Totn 8~ p.vOwv ~PXE' 7TatiJp av8pwv 'TE' OE'WV 'TE" 

In the Odyssey, the heavenly council follows a summary comment on 
Eupeithes' leadership of the relatives (24.469) and the poet's predic­
tion of his fate (470-71). Then comes the single line (472): 

, \ 'All I z- J7 I Is:, avrap rrfJvatTJ TJva .n..povtwva 7TpOCTJVOa' 

It may still be thought that the transition in the Odyssey is slightly 
more abrupt; one may note, however, that the switch in the Iliad is 
signaled in the middle of a verse, and also that we are specifically told 

51 Cf Page 112-13. Erbse defends the scene (241ft), citing the transitions at II. 16.430-32. 
18.355-56,22.165-67 (cf also II. 8.198-200); for the use of a?n-dp, Erbse compares II. 20.75, 
21.520,22.7.23.1, Od. 6.2. 

U A. Heubeck, Der Odyssee-Dichter und die Ilias (Erlangen 1954) 44. 
63 W. Theiler, "Vermutungen zur Odyssee," MusHelv 7 (1950) 109. 



166 THE END OF THE ODYSSEY 

on neither occasion that the new scene is on Olympus: the mention of 
(hot in the Iliad (22.166) and the naming of the gods in the Odyssey 
(24.472) are sufficient indications. 

Such a one-line transition as at 24.472, then, is not a strong objection 
to genuineness. Possibly, in fact, the speed is intentional, and the 
singer wants to suggest through the structure of the last 125 lines of 
the poem that events are rushing to a climax. The battle itself, fore­
shadowed in Odysseus' concern about the consequences of the 
slaughter at 23.117-22 and 130-40,54 provides the occasion for a grand 
finale, not only in terms of the plot, but also in terms of the father­
son motif so pervasive in the Odyssey (cf Laertes' exclamation at 
514-15).55 Page's objections to the battle, centering around the killing 
of some of the relatives,56 seem to ignore the long partnership of 
Athena and the family of Odysseus. Though Zeus has willed an end to 
bloodshed, it is hardly out of character for Athena to circumvent him 
temporarily, and to cheer on Laertes, inspiring him with strength 
(516-20). It is similarly in character for Odysseus, who has recognized 
Athena's protection in the battle (504), to continue to fight after her 
cry to stop (537-38); one may compare his precipitate arming to fight 
Scylla, where he also ignored instructions (if. 12.112-20, 226-30). It is 
understandable, then, that Zeus' thunderbolt, Signaling the end of 
the battle, lands at the feet of Athena (539-40). She must delay no 
longer to carry out his plan; the final verses (546-48) show that she 
accomplishes it. 

So far, we have dealt in this section with the structural questions 
posed by Odyssey 24, since aside from Odysseus' narration to Penelope 
at 23.310-43, where the long indirect narrative is unusua1,57 Book 23 
presents no anomalies. It remains to consider two more speculative 

USee Heubeck, op.cit. (supra n.52) 40. He also notes interesting parallels between the 
council of the relatives (24.412-71) and the council in ad. 2 (op.cit. 39): 2.9=24.421; 2.24= 
24.425; cf 2.15 with 24.422 and 2.16-23 with 24.423ff. Halitherses appears in both meetings 
(2.157=24.451; 2.160ff=24.453ft'; if. 2.158ff with 24.452). At 24.456 he refers to his earlier 
speech (2.161). The people's reaction in both cases involves ollC'Toc, for Telemachus at 2.81ff, 
for Eupeithes at 24.438. 

66 It is interesting to note the emphasis on this theme in the similes of the Odyssey; father 
(mother) similes comprise 10% of all the similes in the poem: cf 1.308,2.47 and 234, 5.12 
and 394, 8.523,10.410,14.175,15.152,16.17 and 216,17.111,126 (=4.335) and 397, 20.14. 

64 Page 113-14; he finds the thunderbolt disturbing. 
67 Cf Shipp, op.cit. (supra n.24) 359. But see J. Notopoulos, "Continuity and Intercon­

nexion in Homeric Oral Composition," TAPA 82 (1951) 93-95, for the argument that 
Odysseus' summary and the second nekuia constitute examples of a typically Homeric 
narrative technique of "retrospection." 



CARROLL MOULTON 167 

questions. The first is the extent to which the events in Book 24, par­
ticularly in the second nekuia, form a thematically harmonious con­
clusion to the whole poem, and perhaps also to the narration of the 
Iliad. Heubeck has remarked on the general parallels in structure 
between the two poems. The development of both epics runs from 
revenge to reconciliation; they both begin with councils/assemblies; 
Iliad 2 and Odyssey 2 present assemblies of the people at the start of a 
new day; in the last third of the poems, the decisive battles occur in 
Book 22, but there is no end there: the lytra and spondai must come in 
Book 24.58 The second nekuia, in particular, seems to round out the 
Homeric picture of Achilles, and explicitly to emphasize his kleos.59 In 
this episode, we see Agamemnon and Achilles, the two great adver­
saries of the Iliad, for the last time. Achilles rues his premature death, 
while Agamemnon contrasts his own fatal homecoming with the 
funeral honors paid Achilles at Troy. One need not refer to the Iliad 
here, of course. The conversation thoroughly accords with the thema­
tic structure of the Odyssey: Odysseus' homecoming has often been 
contrasted with Agamemnon's.6o And the nostalgic tone of Achilles 
and Agamemnon is also in agreement with the 'Trojan theme' of 
mixed bitterness and pleasure that runs throughout the Odyssey, e.g. 
in the long narratives of Nestor and Menelaus in Books 3 and 4, or in 
the songs of Phemius and Demodocus.61 These literary considerations 
can justifiably playa role in favor, if not of authenticity, at least of 
composition by someone who knew the Iliad and the Odyssey remark­
ably well and had a sensitive appreciation of each epic's themes. 

The second problem regarding Book 24 concerns its source, if it be 
judged an interpolation. It will be recalled that twice before in the 
poem, at 11.119ff and 23.264ff, the poet has given an elaborate ac­
count of Odysseus' future death. In fact when Odysseus repeats 
Teiresias' description in Book 23, it is singled out for a special narra­
tive apart from the account of his adventures, which are told at 310ff. 

68 See Heubeck, op.cit. (supra n.52) 37ff; cf]. Scott, op.cit. (supra n.7) 403-04. 
" This has been well pointed out by Bassett, AJP 44 (1923) 49-51. 
80 See Od. 1.32-43, 298-300; 3. 194ff, 303ff; 4.524ff; 1l.385ff; 13.383-85. Bury strangely 

criticizes the conversation as irrelevant (2). But Bassett (supra n.7) presented in two articles 
a strong literary case for the details of the contrast between Agamemnon and Odysseus as 
thematically integral to the Odyssey. On the general importance of this theme in the poem, 
see F. Klingner, Studien zur griechischen und rOmischen Literatur (Zurich/Stuttgart 1964) 75-79, 
and U. Holscher, "Die Atridensage in der Odyssee," in Festschrift Alewyn (Cologne 1967 
1-16. 

81 See 1.325-37 and the moving scene at the Phaeadan court in 8.477-534. 



168 THE END OF THE ODYSSEY 

Merkelbach, reviving a suggestion of E. Schwartz, has argued that the 
later interpolator to whom we owe the end of the Odyssey used as a 
main source the Telegony, the final poem of the Epic Cycle, tradition­
ally ascribed to Eugammon of Cyrene and composed in the first half 
of the sixth century.62 The later poet, designated B by Merkelbach, 
fashioned 23.310-43, the second nekuia, and other sections from this 
source; he probably found the Laertes episode in a short lay devoted 
to the recognition.63 Proclus' summary makes it clear that the Teleg­
ony related in two books the" death from the sea" which was proph­
esied for Odysseus. The hero travels to Thesprotia, where he has 
an illegitimate child, Polypoietes, by a woman named Callidice. The 
poem also presents another illegitimate son by Circe named Teleg­
onus; the latter kills Odysseus when he returns to Ithaca, and mar­
ries Penelope, while Telemachus ends by marrying Circe. If in fact 
Odyssey 24 was fashioned from this poem or was composed as an 
introduction to it,64 a date in the early sixth century would ntake it 
far too late to be included in the monumental composition of the 
Odyssey, and we should surely be right in judging the end of the poem 
a substantially later continuation. There is no way to prove the Teleg­
ony theory, however, and I think there are two strong arguments 
against it: (a) the oppressive atmosphere of illegitimacy and incest 
which must have pervaded the Telegony could not be more foreign to 
the Odyssey, and (b) the repetition of the "death from the sea" proph. 
ecy, an important link in the theory, is not part of the end of the 
Odyssey, but rather occurs before 23.296. 

In conclusion, it will be apparent that I am not convinced that either 
linguistic or structural considerations demand our rejection of Odys· 
sey 23.297-24.548. As with almost all other lines in both epics, there is 
no authoritative case for proving these lines genuine. But one can 
only conclude, where there is room for doubt (and such is certainly 
created by the Alexandrians' note), that the critic who favors rejection 
assumes the burden of proof. The various arguments advanced in this 
cause are of disparate quality and weight; as we have seen, certain 
elements of the linguistic case and details of the narrative (principally 

.. Merkelbach 144ff, with references to B. Schwartz, Die Odyssee (Munich 1924) 14Sff; if. 
A. Hartmann, Untersuchungen uber die Sagen vom Tode des Odysseus (Munich 1917) 44ff, and 
G. L. Huxley, Greek Epic Poetry from Eumelos to Panyassis (Cambridge [Mass.] 1969) 168-73 . 

.. Merkelbach 153. Page in the main endorses this suggestion (129). though with some 
reservations (136). 

sa Cf Berard, op.cit. (supra n.21) 192. 



CARROLL MOULTON 169 

in the second nekuia) constitute the most telling objections.65 But 
many arguments, upon closer analysis, are of little or no consequence. 
The cumulative effect of warranted objections to the end of the 
Odyssey falls far short of demonstrating that rejection is necessary. 
Whatever the historical truth about when the lines were actually 
composed, we may well pause again to admire them as literature. 
For us they may as well be Homer's since they contain, in addition to 
their blemishes, virtues as well.66 

PRL"1 CETON UNIVERSITY 

January, 1974 

65 Cf pp. 160 and 161 supra. 
66 I am happy to thank Professors B. C. Fenik and G. S. Kirk for suggestions and en­

couragement.