J^S MM mm THIS BOOK IS PRESENT IN OUR LIBRARY THROUGH THE GENEROUS CONTRIBUTIONS OF ST. MICHAEL'S ALUMNI TO THE VARSITY FUND THE LOEB CLASSICAL LIBRARY FOUNDED BY JAME8 LOEB, LL.D. EDITED BY t T. E. PAGE, C.H., LITT.D. E. CAPPS, ph.d., ll.d. W. H. D. ROUSE, litt.d. L. A. POST. m.a. E. H. WAPvMINGTON, ma. HOMER THE ODYSSEY I TO MY WIFE HOMER . BUST IN THE NATIONAL MUSEUM . NAPLES HOMEK THE ODYSSEY WITH AN ENGLISH TRANSLATION BY A. T. MUItRAY PROFESSOR OF GREEK, STANFORD UNIVERSITY, CALIFORNIA IN TWO VOLUMES 1 CAMBRIDGE, MASSACHUSETTS HARVARD UNIVERSITY PRESS LONDON WILLIAM HEINEMANN LTD UCMXXV First printed 1919 Reprinted 1924, 1927, 1930, 1938, 1945 AUG 2 4 1946 PRINTED IN GREAT BRITAIN CONTENTS FADE INTRODUCTION vii IUBLIOGRAPIIY xiii BOOK I 1 BOOK II 36 BOOK III 68 BOOK IV 106 BOOK V 170 BOOK VI 206 book vii 232 book vin 258 book ix 302 book x 344 book xi o 386 book xii 432 INTRODUCTION The name "Homer" brings before the mind a definite picture of the blind minstrel, roaming from or of the city to citv and singing chanting portions ascribed to him. great poems that are traditionally Such a type is splendidly represented by the bust of Homer in the Naples Museum, and almost all that tradition tells of the save in so far as it is poet, — made up of statements regarding his date which in turn rest upon combinations often demonstrably false — groups itself about such a typical figure, and is plainly without historic worth. " " The ancient lives of Homer which have come down to us are all later than the beginning of the Christian era, and from them we can gather little that has any claim to attention except the two statements that Homer was an Ionian—Chios and Smyrna being the cities most uniformly given as his and that in Chios there was a or birthplace ; guild — of clan of Homcridae that is, "sons Homer." The first mention of the Chian Homeridae occurs Pindar in the geographer Strabo (about 18 a.d.). VU A 2 INTRODUCTION uses the term apparently of those devoted to Homeric poetry without any reference to the Chian clan, and the word is similarly used by Plato. As for the name "Homer" itself it is most naturally taken as that of a teal individual —a poet to whom by the middle of the sixth century b.c. the great mass of epic poetry which survived from the early age of Greece had come to be attri- as time went on all buted ; although poems save the Iliad and Odyssey were rejected, and in later antiquity there were those who referred these to separate authors. The earliest author to mention Homer is Callinus of Ephesus (about 660 b.c.) and the earliest quotation from the Homeric poems is found in Simonides of Amorgos, of the same date, unless it is possibly to be attributed to the later Simonides of Ceos (about 480 b.c). Modern scholars have, however, made many attempts—all uncon- " " vincing — to interpret the word Homer in other ways than as the name of an actual person. The word itself means "hostage." It has been thought that the Homeridae may have been "sons of hostages"—not trusted to fight but allowed to serve as custodians of traditional poetry—and that " " is their ancestor Homer merely imaginary ; others, seeking a different etymology for the word, viii INTRODUCTION have held that it denotes merely the legendary of tradi- fitter-together or harmonizer (6/xrj + ap) the word means tional poetical material. That " " hlind was assumed in antiquity, but is believed by no one. whose name If the personality of the poet, under is thus the Odyssey has come down to us, vague and shadowy—even the most familiar elements being drawn perhaps from his own portrayal of the blind bard, Demodocus—so too there has seemed to many scholars to be a like obscurity regarding the early history of the poem itself. Regarding this the evidence is as follows : The oldest manuscripts of the Odyssey date from the tenth and eleventh centuries a.d. Papyrus fragments whose dates range from the third cen- our tury b.c. to the fourth century a.d. carry know- ledge still further back, and the evidence afforded by our acquaintance with the work of the Alexan- drian grammarians is invaluable in tracing the of the text we have history ; while, finally, quota- tions from Homer in classical authors, and some- what vague and not wholly convincing evidence of the constitution of an authoritative text at Athens in the sixth century b.c. Certain facts stand out prominently. First, our modern text is remarkably ir INTRODUCTION well established—far better established than is, for example, the text of Shakespeare. Secondly, this text seems to have been fixed as the result of a purging or pruning process. We know, for example, that the critical work of the Alexandrians was con- cerned largely with the rejection of lines held on one ground or another to be spurious, that the text of the papyri differs widely from our vulgate text, and that the quotations in ancient authors show many lines not found in our Homer. From this evidence the conclusion has been drawn " " that in antiquity Homer meant the whole mass of epic poetry— for this there is definite evidence— and that our Iliad and Odyssey, both as regards text and content, were in a more or less fluid state until they gradually crystallized into the forms familiar to us. On this view it is impossible to speak of a poet, Homer, as the author either of Iliad or Odyssey. It should be stated, however, that while much of modern Homeric criticism has been analytic and destructive, in many important respects recent studies have shown that both the methods and the results of destructive criticism are misleading, and have given stronger and more convincing grounds for a belief in the essential integrity of both poems, each as the work of one supreme artist. INTRODUCTION The most notable Homeric critics of antiquity were Zenodotus of Ephesus, librarian of the great library at Alexandria under Ptolemy Philadelphus (who reigned 285-247 b.c), Aristophanes of By- zantium, a pupil of Zenodotus, and like him, librarian Aristarchus of at Alexandria (about 200 B.C.), and Samothrace, pupil of Aristophanes and his successor as librarian (about 160 B.C.). Other scholars cited in the critical notes are Rhianus (about 225 b c.\ and Callis- the poet, Onomacritus (about 550 B.C.), tratus, a follower of Aristophanes. The aim of the translator has been to give a faithful rendering of the Odyssey that preserves in so far as possible certain traits of the style of the a should be smooth original. Such rendering and flowing and should be given in elevated but not in stilted language. In particular the recurrent lines and phrases which are so noticeable in the original should be preserved. Hence even when in a given context a varying phrase would seem has to preferable, the translator felt bound use the traditional formula. This has in some instances necessitated the use of a more or less colourless In phrase, adapted to various contexts. the case of doubtful renderings, alternatives are sometimes given in a footnote. xi INTRODUCTION The Greek text of this edition is in all essentials the modern vulgate. The notes under the text give occasionally the name of- the ancient critic whose reading is adopted and note the lines re- jected by the Alexandrians. Variants, if cited, are marked off by colons. vii BIBLIOGRAPHY The manuscripts of the Odyssey have been most carefully studied and classified by Mr. T. W. Allen, the results of whose studies are given in the Papers of the British School at Rome, vol. v., pp. 1-85, and briefly in his Oxford— text of the Odyssey. Chief among the manuscripts are : Laur. 32, 24 and Laur. 52, both of the tenth century, in the Laurentian Library at Florence. Harl. 5674, of the thirteenth century, in the British Museum. B. 99 sup., of the thirteenth century, in the Ambrosian Library at Milan. Marc. 613, of the thirteenth century, in the Library of St. Mark's in Venice. Pal. 45, written in 1201, in the Palatine Library at Heidel- berg. Printbd Editions Editio Princeps, by Demetrius Chalcondyles, Florence, 1519 1488 ; Aldine, 1504 and 1507 ; Juntine, ; Bekker, Bonn, 1859 and 1856; Kirchhoff, Berlin, 1879 ; La Roche, Leipzig, 1867-8; Fick, Gottingen, 1883; Ameis-Hentze, Leipzig (in editions since 1866-82 many 1856) ; Hayman, London, ; Merry and Riddell, Books I. -XII., Oxford, second edition, 1889-91 1886 ; Ludwich, Leipzig, ; van Leeuwen and da Costa, Leyden, 1890 ; Monro, Books XIII.-XXIV., Oxford, 1901 a critical ; Hennings, commentary without text, Berlin, 1903. The most convenient text editions are those in the Oxford series that and the Teubner ; by Monro (Homeri Opera et Oxford that and that Reliquiae), ; by Cauer, Leipzig ; by Piatt, Cambridge. There are editions of the Greek Scholia by Buttmann, Berlin, 1821, and by Dindorf, Oxford, 1855, and of Eusta- fchius' Commentary, Berlin, 1825-6. xiii BIBLIOGRAPHY English Translations Besides the older versions of Chapman, Pope, and Cowper, there may be cited the verse translations by P. S. Worsley, Edinburgh and London, Win. Blackwood and Sons; William and Turner J. W. Lon- Morris, London, Reeves ; Mackail, A. S. Macmillan ; and don, John Murray ; Way, London, H. B. Cotterill (in hexameters), Boston, Dana, Estes and Co. There are prose versions by Butcher and Lang, London, Mifflin and Macmillan ; G.