Odyssey 1.

1-21
The passage chosen is the introduction to the Odyssey, it’s themes, and what is, in essence a
brief plot synopsis. Contextually we are at the head of the text, with the remainder of the
poem to follow. In this context it performs a clear function, opening with the famous
invocation of the Muse, and to introduce to the listener to the story that they are about to sit
down for. It introduces us to our main character, Odysseus, and hints to us the following:
a. that we are to see Poseidon’s desire for vengeance;1
b. that a driving factor in this story is a loyalty to his men,2 and to his wife3, and a
desire to return home for them all; and
c. that we are likely to follow a tragic tale where the journey is frought with
struggles.
A theme arguably missing from this introduction, is the notion of hospitality, and whilst
there is hint to those he will meet, it does not find itself laid forth so clearly. It is with this
synopsis we can go on to analyse the text with a finer comb, and with this introduction in
mind I wish to continue.

The opening invocation bears similarity to the Iliad, invoking the divine Muse. This is the
first part of what Snider recognises as a tripartite organisation, 4 and this is where we also see
the first major decision in translation. Snider discusses the potential of translating the
adjective ascribed to Odysseus as ‘resourceful’ where as Wilson’s choice is ‘complicated’.
This decision is also contrary to other translations, such as Murray, in his Loeb edition, who
chooses ‘man of many devices’.5 This immediately sets forth an adjusted interpretation by
Wilson, that one could argue leans more in line with the ‘wrath of Achilles’ laid forth in the
initial invocation of the Iliad. For Wilson’s edition, it lament’s the struggles of Odysseus,
rather than celebrates a characteristic that sets forth a notion of resourcefulness. The reason I
argue that this feels more in line with the tone found most abundant within the Iliad, is that
it recognises the flaws of the centrepoint of the plot and certainly serves well the underlying
theme of struggle.

1 Odyssey 1.21
2 Odyssey 1.6-7
3 Odyssey 1.15
4 Snider, 2008, 5
5 Odyssey 1.1
This initial invocation continues with the discussion of how Odysseus was wandered lost
after the sack of Troy. The choice of wording within the translation seems somewhat
standard here, similar to the proposals made within Snider’s commentary, and the Loeb
Edition.6 The function fulfilled by Lines 2-3 is, in essence, the classical equivalent of ‘last
time on the Epic Cycle’ outlining how Odysseus finds himself in his current predicament.
Worthy of note is the statement that it was Odysseus who destroyed the city of Troy, with
Wilson explicitly describing it as a ‘holy town’. Similarly, the Loeb edition uses the verb
‘sacled’, Wilson uses the comparable verb of ‘wrecked’, this leaves no doubt in our mind
that the fall of Troy was a brutal and violent affair, something that must be almost
sacrilegous when considering the descriptor of holy. A clear development beyond the Iliad
which ends with Troy uncaptured. The great war that the Greeks set off on, has been ended
with success, and now the only remaining question is how to return home. Something that
the Odyssey certainly suggests was no mean feat.

Following these lines, we see further exposition, that throughout his journey, Odysseus will
see many people, many cities, and know the minds of many with whom he interacts. This is
clear in the Loeb edition, though curiously the Wilson translation does not offer this same
clarity. In the Loeb editions rendition of Line 4, Odysseus is explicitly called out as learning
the minds of those he met. This is yet another aspect where it appears that Wilson is
interested in humanising Achilles. This notion of knowing their minds is called out by
Snider as Sage-like,7 and its exclusion absolutely lowers the godlike heroism of Odysseus’s
status. The following lines (5-7) then discuss the tragic loss of Odysseus’s companions,
despite his best attempts to save them. It is interesting that both Wilson’s translation, and the
Loeb translation mitigate any fault of Odysseus.

Here we find a secondary invocation,8 once again calling upon a divine figure, the daughter
of Zeus. Within the Loeb translation the invitation is to start from wherever the divine may
desire, though for Wilson it indicates ‘the beginning’. This choice certainly makes more
sense from the perspective of telling a story, but remains interesting nontheless. The

6 Snider, 2008, 5
7 Snider, 2008, 6
8 Odyssey, 1.9-11.
divergences continue from here, with the focus of Wilson’s translation remaining on the
sack of Troy as the primary thing that hindered the return of the Greeks,9 rather than the
shipwrecks noted in the Loeb edition. This, I would argue is also thematically appropriate as
it ties back to the inciting incident. In both cases, Odysseus remains to be the sole man who
has failed to return.

Here we are introduced to what has slowed him so greatly, Calypso. Here we see the theme
of loyalty exemplified, something discussed by Snider.10 Calypso, the unmarried has set her
eyes on Odysseus, and his refusal, his continued desire to return to his wife causes him
years worth of imprisonment. This introduces us to a very human presentation of
Odysseus’s struggle, whilst he may be a hero, he longs for his wife, he longs for his home, 11
and he was willing to endure great struggle rather than betray that. There is a certain interest
to the introduction of a struggle against the Divine as well. Divine intervention is a theme
that permeates the Epic cycle, and that is no less true in the Odyssey. In this initial incident
he is held by the ‘great goddess’ by Wilsons reckoning (this offers us a minor difference to
the Loeb translation, which omits ‘great’). The usage of great not only refers to her status,
but arguably refers to her as obstacle. She is a great obstacle who holds him detained for
years, so severely that the gods convene to assist him.

This theme of divine intervention also defines the second major obstacle. Despite the gods
pity, despite their decree that he must return home,12 Poseidon refuses to align with that, and
sets forth to continue persecution. This reasoning is not made abundant or apparent here yet,
but it is later revealed that it is caused by the blinding of Poseidon’s son in, referenced in
Book 9. This is where the passage ends, though the introduction continues on to an
assembly of the gods, the final part of the tripartite nature discussed by Snider. 13

9 Odyssey, 1.12-13.
10 Snider, 2008, 8.
11 This longing is made far more plain in the Loeb edition, that explicitly talks of a ‘longing to return to his wife
and country’.
12 This order is interestingly reversed by the Loeb editions, the settlement that Odysseus must be returned
comes before the pity in the Loeb tranlation. Contextually I would argue this makes less sense, as it deprives
us of a clear causal relationship.
13 Snider, 2008, 9.
With our summary laid forth, there is certainly room for some more precise analysis on a
more overarching level. As previously suggested, I would argue that this translation remains
more focused than some of the others, with the Loeb translation being my primary
reference. I would suspect that this is by opting to stay true to the intent of the Odyssey, but
willingly sacrificing a more literal translation. This is made clear by Wilson’s notes on
translation,14 where she aimed to keep a poem of the same length, rather than a prose that
expands upon a more literal translation that reflects the freedom offered by Classical
Greek’s reduced constraints regarding rhythm and word order. This focus is found by opting
to cut out much of the Homeric repetitivity, something Wilson once again expands upon.
This decision explains some of the interesting diversions, and is one that I think renders the
poem in a far more accessible, and simple manner, that leans on simplicity in English
syntax, rather than the most literal translation of what can be very tangled Greek syntax.
This also confers a distinct and more focused tone.

In conclusion, this rendition of the Iliad offers a distinct, and focused direction. One with a
set of decisions that appears to recognise Odysseus’s humanity in a manner that makes him
more relatable, rather than his godlike heroism of other translations. Within this passage
these decisions help create a simplistic synopsis of what has happened before the poem
takes place, and will offer us a brief synposis of what will happen during the poem. It serves
its place well as an introduction, and bears certain similarities to the invocation of the Iliad
as a consequence of its decisions, similarities that are lost in the Loeb edition.

14 Wilson, 2018, pp. lxv – lxvi.

Homer, and Emily R. Wilson. The Odyssey: A New Translation, Contexts, Criticism. First
edition. A Norton Critical Edition. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2020.

Snider, Denton Jaques. Homer’s Odyssey: A Commentary, 2008.