It is gratifying to see the authenticity of Od. 10.475–9 defended anew by the late, Professor Alfred Heubeck; in 1974 I put forward a rather similar defence of the lines myself. However, Heubeck's correct conclusion – that the passage is genuine – stands in startling contrast to some gross exaggerations, in both the Italian and the English versions of his work, about the extent of the manuscript evidence against the passage.

It is gratifying to see the authenticity of Od. 10.475–9 defended anew by the late, Professor Alfred Heubeck; in 1974 I put forward a rather similar defence of the lines myself. However, Heubeck's correct conclusion – that the passage is genuine – stands in startling contrast to some gross exaggerations, in both the Italian and the English versions of his work, about the extent of the manuscript evidence against the passage.

The old Analytical view that the union between the Journey of Telemachus and the rest of the Odyssey is post-Homeric, superficial, and incompetently effected is nowadays widely rejected, and rightly so. However, although many defences cumulatively, I believe, successful–of the content of the second divine assembly have been put forward in recent years, no adequate answer has yet been given to the objections raised against the allegedly anomalous language of Athene's speech of 5.7–20.

If we divide up the action of the Odyssey into days,1 we find that we leaveTelemachus with Menelaus in Sparta on Day 6 and only return to him, still in Sparta, during the pre-dawn hours of Day 36 , although at 4. 593–9 he told Menelaus he did not want to stay long.