The founding novel of literature is the one that will inspire all future narratives. We know the story of Ulysses; we have read a few episodes and seen a film, but read the whole work, with these long chapters, the Homeric epithets, and the lengthy descriptions of the marine world with its monsters and demons. One has the impression of attending a closed session on the sea. Yet, Ulysses only berths to better take to the sea as if the mainland forbade him and harmful as if his condemnation to wandering on the sea was more beneficial on the water than on land. And then there are the episodes worthy of an adventure novel, the Sirens, symbols of literary song, the author's voice who takes us where we want and can destroy us (hey, Bovary), and monsters like Charybdis and Sylla.
Finally, this is surprising; we talk more about the others, Telemachus, her son looking for him, and Penelope waiting for her than about him, who wants to return. The novel has almost everything: the search for the other, the quest, the song of words, and the pleasure of returning home. It is as enjoyable to study and understand, so full of symbols, as reading.

I immensely enjoyed reading The Iliad, and since everyone said that The Odyssey is even better, I was expecting to love it. That didn't happen. I liked The Odyssey, but I found it to be a lot less compelling than The Iliad, both narratively and thematically. This is strange, I usually prefer adventure tales to war stories, but The Odyssey didn't have the grandeur, the atmosphere of despair, the philosophical undertones, or even the literary beauty of The Iliad.

The Odyssey reads almost like a long folk tale, not an epic. Every translation of the Odyssey that I consulted was considerably simpler and less eloquent than the same translator's edition of The Iliad. I had highlighted many similes and beautiful lines in The Iliad, but my highlights in the Odyssey weren't that many at all.

Of course, I enjoyed parts of it. The adventures are fun to read and they reverberate interesting details about ancient myths of the Bronze Age Greek-speaking world and its surrounding lands. The parts about Odysseus' adventures (which are, sadly, only a very short section of the poem from books IX to XII, told in a flashback by Odysseus himself) are full of wonder, whimsy, and excitement. I would've enjoyed The Odyssey a lot more if those parts weren't washed over and occupied a larger portion. Everyone praises the mythical creatures and whimsy and wonder in the book but they forget to mention that those interesting creatures are present only in a very short section of the book. The second half only focuses on how Odysseus plans to kill all 118 of his wife's suitors and regain his “masculine prowess”.

Misogyny, Slavery, and the Necessity of Taking Context into Account:
This brings me back to my usual problem with ancient texts: I have to shut my whole system of moral judgment (with modern standards) to engage with these stories. This was much easier to do in the Iliad because the setting was a battlefield, and war is never "nice and moral", but Odyssey's most violent parts happen in Odysseus' own home, in times of peace, and at least partly out of sheer lust for vengeance (in contrast with the sense of duty in warriors). In this regard, the Odyssey was harder to put up with for me. Every problem I had with the Iliad is present here too, just harder to look past.
There's a scene where Telemachus hangs twelve slave women (who'd slept with the suitors, thus "dishonoring" Odysseus and his family). He says he doesn't want to grant them an easy death by stabbing them, but make them suffer to death. To me, this abhorrent devilry sounds excessive even within the context. Misogyny in the Odyssey is expressed in different ways than the Iliad, but it's still very much present, and it's even more unsettling. Slavery is also a lot more visible and taken for granted in the Odyssey. Even so, I won't make a hassle out of it because of the obvious reason of context. The Odyssey begs to be read, enjoyed, and understood within its ancient, alien context, and I acknowledge that.

Intricate Details
Now, that doesn't mean that I won't give the book the credit it deserves. Many parts of it are interesting, i.e. the delicate attention to detail: Fingers of women weaving carpets are described as "quick rustling poplar leaves". The scene where Odysseus suddenly aims his bow at Antinous describes the latter as "mindlessly twirling the wine in his goblet", ignorant of what's about to happen. There are many examples of meticulous attention to detail that make the book astonishing.

The Gods Are Missing
The less serious downside of the Odyssey is that the gods, comic, irreverent, and hilarious as they are, don't get the well-deserved spotlight they had in The Iliad. Athena is present throughout and we see glimpses of Zeus, Poseidon, and Hermes, but there are none of the stupid bickerings on top of Olympus that gave the Iliad a comical edge. The absence of the dear old ox-eyed Lady Hera and her hilarious scheming is quite unfortunate.

The Unreliable Narrator
Interestingly, Odysseus is an unreliable narrator. Contrary to what is assumed about ancient heroes, he's not black or white, but a complicated man, "a man of many ways" that is capable of bravery, resilience, and love as well as deceit, vengeance and pure evil. His quick wits allow him to lie to everyone and conjure up interesting stories (which are totally false). It looks like most people take it for granted that he's truthful when recounting his adventures, They may as well be fabrications like the rest of his lies. The 'narrator' never testifies for his stories. He says he encountered the Sirens and sea monsters Charybdis and Scylla, but when have we ever seen Odysseus tell the truth?
I think this bit about the unreliability of Odysseus makes the whole story a lot more intriguing. The whole story is open to interpretation, you take from it what you will.

:فرهنگ هلنیستی vs فرهنگ بایبلی

تقریباً این گزاره‌ مورد قبول همگان است که آنچه"فرهنگ غرب" می‌نامیمش، بر دو ستون فرهنگ هلنیستی و فرهنگ بایبلی استوار است. و بطور اخص، ادبیات غرب را زیر سایه‌ی الیاد و اودیسه‌ی هومر و کتاب مقدس می‌بینند.

اما آیا این اهمیت آثار هومر و بایبل بر اروپا، به تصویرسازی و ارجاعات فراوان ادبیات و هنر اروپا به تصاویر و داستانک‌های متنوع و موقعیت‌های متعدد داخل این کتاب‌ها، برمی‌گردد؟
جواب این سوال، بله‌ است، اما قطعا دلیلی ناکافی‌ست برای اینکه این آثار را ستون‌هایی برای ادبیات و هنر و فرهنگ اروپایی بدانیم.

در واقع، به نظرم عهد عتیق و حماسه‌های هومر، حاملان دو تا سنت متفاوت فلسفی-الهیاتی هستند که سنت فکری/ادبیات/هنر/فرهنگ غرب بر روی آنها بنا می‌شود و گرچه این دو سنت‌هایی متضاد یکدیگر می‌باشند، اما در طی قرون متمادی، سنت هلنیستی و بایبلی به همزیستی با یکدیگر ادامه می‌دهند جالبه که اینا توی اروپا، با هم همزیستی پیدا میکنن و در فرهنگ غرب ریشه می‌دوانند.



اودیسه vs سفر خروج:

بیایید این بحث را با یک مثال، با مقایسه حماسه اودیسه و کتاب سفر خروج تشریح کنیم:

اودیسئوس در میان دریاها، برای رسیدن به خانه خودش (ایتاکا) دست به سفر می‌زند که شرح آن در اودیسه آمده است.
بطور مشابه‌ای، بنی‌اسرائیل هم برای رسیدن به خانه خودش (کنعان)، دست به سفری در میان بیابان‌ سینا می‌زند.
در هر دو، مسافرانی در سفر طولانی، فرسایشی و حماسی، از منزلی به منزل دیگری حرکت می‌کنند، و پس از تحمل دشواری‌های فراوان، به خانه‌شان می‌رسند.


اما در اسطوره‌شناسی تطبیقی، تفاوت‌ها و چرایی آنها بسیار بسیار مهم‌تر و قابل توجه‌تر از این شباهت‌های ظاهری می‌باشند.
حال، چه تفاوتی بین این دو حماسه وجود دارد:

در بایبل، این یهوه (قدرت الوهی) است که با برانگیختن بنی‌اسرائیل و دادن وعده‌ی بازگشت به "ارض موعود" (=خانه)، تبدیل نیروی محرکه‌ی آنها برای سفر می‌شود‌. و در واقع خود یهوه هم به نوعی با آن‌ها همراه می‌شود؛
بنابراین این سفر حماسیِ جمعی، یک بعد مذهبی رو پیدا می‌کند و تبدیل به سفری زیارت‌گونه می‌شود که افراد با قدم گذاشتن در آن و تلاش برای به پایان رساندنش، در حالت محقق ساختن وعده‌ی الهی می‌باشند.
بنابراین وقتی یک فرد مذهبی که بعدها بایبل را می‌خوانده، احتمالا سفر موسی و بنی‌اسرائیل را به مثابه‌ سفری می‌دیده که با انگیزش و پشتیبانی یهوه انجام می‌گیرد‌، همچون یک ماموریت تاریخی-مذهبی (اگرچه جاهایی بنی‌اسرائیل با تنبیه یهوه هم روبرو می‌شود، اما در مقابل طرح عظیمی که یهوه به آن می‌اندیشد، اهمیتی ندارد).
بدین ترتیب است که حتی رویدادهای تاریخی‌ای مثل سفر صلیبی، سفر مؤمنان کالوینی به اولین مستعمرات امریکا، و سفر تبعیدگونه یهودیان به امریکا به دنبال استیلای نازی‌ها بر اروپا هم معنایی بایبلی به خود می‌گیرند و با سفر خروج بنی‌اسرائیل این همانی می‌شوند.

اما در اودیسه، اودیسئوس از همان ابتدای سفر بازگشت به خانه، موجبات خشم خدایان (قدرت الوهی) را فراهم می‌کند، و همین باعث می‌گردد که این قدرت‌ها بکوشند که از رسیدن او به خانه‌اش جلوگیری کنند.
در واقع سفر رجعت اودیسئوس و یارانش (که آنها خیلی زود حذف می‌شوند تا سفر قهرمانی، سفر انفرادی باشد)، انگار تبدیل می‌شود به یک سفر حماسی-قهرمانی و به تعبیری یک مبارزه‌ی یک انسان تنها برای غلبه بر خواست الوهیت (گرچه گاها کمک‌هایی از آسمان هم به او می‌رسد).
شاید همین تنهاییِ قهرمان اودیسه در مقابل خدایان/سرنوشت/طبیعت و تلاش برای پس زدن آنها است که این حماسه هومری را برای انسان اومانیستی که بعد از رنسانس در اروپا سر بر می‌آورد، جذاب می‌کند و چنین حس همذات‌پنداری‌ای را در او برمی‌انگیزد.




پ‌ن: اگر این حماسه خوانده شد، به لطف دوستانی بود که در همخوانی آن شرکت کردند.
پ‌ن۲: ریویوی من بر سفر خروج:
https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...

how do you rate one of the oldest, greatest pieces known in literature. I'll just compt out and give it 5 stars. if for no other reason than respect. i hate that Penelope had to be pure while Odysseus went whoring around the Aegean Sea. my modern sensibilities were confounded. LOL! i have read this many times. this time i did audible read by Master actor Ian McKellen. he made up for the awful weird music. Very good tale worth a read if you have not read it.

Audiobook read by Claire Danes ..

I finished this Audiobook weeks ago - but the physical book - I’m throwing in the towel. I own the physical book - but I just couldn’t get myself to stay with it.

I liked listening to Claire Danes ... I was fully engaged at the time ...(she was helpful for me staying interested )...but I’m already forgetting everything...

I need to borrow another person’s brain!

As you set out for Ithaka
hope your road is a long one,
full of adventure, full of discovery.
Laistrygonians, Cyclops,
angry Poseidon—don’t be afraid of them:
you’ll never find things like that on your way
as long as you keep your thoughts raised high,
as long as a rare excitement
stirs your spirit and your body.
Laistrygonians, Cyclops,
wild Poseidon—you won’t encounter them
unless you bring them along inside your soul,
unless your soul sets them up in front of you.

Hope your road is a long one.

Ithaka By C. P. Cavafy Translated by Edmund Keeley

Κι αν πτωχική την βρεις, η Ιθάκη δεν σε γέλασε. Έτσι σοφός που έγινες, με τόση πείρα, ήδη θα το κατάλαβες η Ιθάκες τι σημαίνουν.

Η ψυχή μου το ξέρει, πόσο μεγάλη ανάγκη το είχα να το κάνω ξανά αυτό το μεγάλο ταξίδι μαζί με τον πολύπαθο Οδυσσέα. Και διάλεξα τη μετάφραση εκείνη, την πρώτη, απο τα σχολικά μου χρόνια, του Ζήσιμου Σίδερη, αλλά είχα από δίπλα και το αρχαίο κείμενο για να παίρνω διπλή χαρά, από τη γλώσσα μου αυτήν την πανάρχαια, τις λέξεις που ακόμα μιλούμε και που με αυτές ακόμα και σήμερα, εκφράζουμε τις χαρές, τους πόνους, τις αγωνίες και τις ελπίδες μας.

Και η αγαπημένη μου η Αθηνά... Κάθε μέρα, καθώς το λεωφορείο παίρνει τη στροφή στη διασταύρωση της Βασιλίσσης Σοφίας, στην Πλατεία Συντάγματος, στρέφω το βλέμμα για μια στιγμή, να δω μέσα από τα τσιμέντα και το καυσαέριο, πάνω απ' τους βιαστικούς διαβάτες, τον Ιερό της Βράχο, κάτω από τον ίδιο ουρανό, που είτε γκρίζος είτε καταγάλανος και ηλιόλουστος, είναι ο ίδιος ουρανός κάτω από τον οποίο αιώνες τώρα στέκει ο τόπος μου και μιλιέται η γλώσσα μου. Κι όταν μου σώνεται καμιά φορά ο αέρας, από τις δυσκολίες της ζωής, έχω ανάγκη σε αυτόν το βράχο να καταφεύγω, ικέτιδα, για να ανασάνω. Και παίρνω δύναμη από τις παλιές πανανθρώπινες ιστορίες κι έτσι κατηφορίζω πάλι ξανά μέσα στην γκρίζα πόλη, γιατρεμένη.



Η Αθηνά με την μορφή του Μέντη του αρχηγού των Ταφιωτών πάει στην Ιθάκη στο παλάτι του Οδυσσέα, βρίσκει τον νεαρό του γιο, τον Τηλέμαχο και τον συμβουλεύει να μην κάθεται άλλο ανάμεσα στους μνηστήρες, αλλά να πάρει ένα καράβι και να επισκεφτεί το Νέστορα στην Πύλο και τον Μενέλαο στην Σπάρτη, για να μάθει νέα για τον χαμένο του πατέρα, που είκοσι χρόνια τώρα λείπει από την Ιθάκη, και δεν ξέρει κανένας αν ζει ή αν πέθανε. Ο νέος φεύγει κρυφά, κι όταν το πληροφορούνται οι μνηστήρες σχεδιάζουν στην επιστροφή να τον σκοτώσουν, αλλά το θράσος τους δεν θα τους βγει σε καλό καθώς άλλες είναι οι βουλές των θεών.



Ξανά με παρακίνηση της Αθηνάς, φτάνει ο Ερμής στη νησί της Ωγυγίας, εκεί που η Καλυψώ κρατάει, από έρωτα, αιχμάλωτο τον Οδυσσέα και της δίνει εντολή να τον αφήσει να φύγει, για το νησί των Φαιάκων. Εκεί παρουσιάζεται μια από τις ωραίες περιγραφές που δεν χόρταινα να διαβάζω παλιά, όταν ήμουν ακόμη μαθήτρια στο Γυμνάσιο:

"όσο που βρήκε μια σπηλιά μεγάλη, όπου η νεράιδα
καθόντανε η λαμπρόμαλλη και μέσα εκεί την ήβρε.
Φωτιά μεγάλη είχε στη στια και μια ευωδιά απ' αλάργα
μοσκοβολούσε στο νησί, κέδρου κι αφράτης θούγιας
που καίγουνταν. Κι η Καλυψώ, μ' ολόχρυση σαΐτα
στον αργαλειό της ύφαινε και γλυκοτραγουδούσε.
Φούντωνε γύρω στη σπηλιά δροσολουσμένο δάσος
με κυπαρίσσια ευωδιαστά, με πεύκες και με σκλήθρα,
όπου πλατύφτερα πουλιά φωλιάζανε εκεί πάντα,
γεράκια κι ανοιχτόφωνες κουρούνες, βαρδολούπες
θαλασσοπούλια που αγαπούν τα πέλαγα να σκίζουν.
Κι ολόγυρα στην κουφωτή σπηλιά ήταν απλωμένη,
κληματαριά πολύβλαστη σταφύλια φορτωμένη.
Τέσσερεις βρύσες στη στεριά γλυκό νερό αναβρύζαν,
κοντά-κοντά, κι άλλη απ' αλλού κυλούσε τα νερά της.
Κι ανθούσαν γύρω στη σειρά λιβάδια με γιοφύλια
και σέλινα, που αν τα 'βλεπε κι αθάνατος ακόμα,
θα σάστιζε και μέσα του θα ξάνοιγε η καρδιά του".



Έτσι φεύγει, γεμάτος χαρά ο Οδυσσέας, μέσα σε μια σχεδία, αλλά έμελλε να φτάσει στο νησί των Φαιάκων ναυαγός, καθώς ο Ποσειδώνας σήκωσε θαλασσοταραχή για να τον πνίξει, αλλά η Ινώ του έδωσε το αθάνατο μαντήλι της και τον έσωσε. Κι όταν η κόρη του βασιλιά Αλκίνοου και της σεβάσμια Αρήτης, η Ναυσικά, τον βρίσκει ναυαγό, δεν αργεί ο ήρωας να φτάσει στο παλάτι και να βρει βοήθεια. Εκεί διηγείται όλες τις περασμένες του περιπέτειες (η αφηγηματική τεχνική του in medias res).

Και αν πέρασε περιπέτειες ο θαλασσοδαρμένος ήρωας... Από τους Κίκονες και τους Λωτοφάγους, στη χώρα των Κυκλώπων όπου με τέχνασμα (Ούτις εμοί γ' όνομα) ο ήρωας και οι σύντροφοί του σώζονται από τον ανθρωποφάγο γίγαντα, αφού πρώτα τον μεθύσουν και τον τυφλώσουν:

«Τι σου 'τυχε, Πολύφημε, και μεγαλοφωνάζεις
μες στην αθάνατη νυχτιά και μας χαλάς τον ύπνο;
Μην άθελά σου σ' άρπαξε κανένας το κοπάδι;
Μήνα σου παίρνει τη ζωή μ' απάτη και μ' αντρεία;».
Κι ο φοβερός Πολύφημος απ' τη σπηλιά απαντούσε·
«Αδέρφια, μ' έφαγε ο Κανείς μ' απάτη, όχι μ' αντρεία».
Κι εκείνοι τ' απαντούσανε με πεταχτά τους λόγια
«Αφού κανείς δε σ' έβλαψε και μέσα είσαι μονάχος,
απ' την αρρώστια ποιος μπορεί του Δία να σε σώσει;
Δεήσου στον πατέρα σου το σείστη Ποσειδώνα».



Κι από εκεί στην Αιολία, όπου ο Αίολος έκλεισε σε έναν ασκό όλους τους ανέμους κι άφησε μόνο την πνοή του Ζέφυρου να τους γυρίσει στην πατρίδα, και πράγματι μετά από δέκα μέρες θαλασσινής πορείας έφτασαν τα καράβια να βλέπουν από μακριά τη στεριά της Ιθάκης. Αλλά οι ανόητοι σύντροφοι του Οδυσσέα άνοιξαν τον ασκό και επέστρεψαν στο νησί του Αιόλου. Κι από εκεί αποδιωγμένοι έφτασαν στην Τηλέπυλο, τη γη των Λαιστρυγόνων, από όπου μόνο το καράβι του Οδυσσέα γλίτωσε. Κι από εκεί στο νησί της Αίας όπου η Κίρκη μεταμόρφωσε τους συντρόφους του σε γουρούνια.

Κι από εκεί διασχίζοντας τον Ωκεανό, φτάνει ο ήρωας να κάνει ζωντανός (δίταφος - δισθανής) ο ίδιος, κατάβαση στους νεκρούς του Άδη, για να πάρει χρησμό από τον Τειρεσία για το πώς θα επιστρέψει στην πατρίδα. Και τον συμβούλεψε ο σοφός μαντης να μη φάνε τα βόδια του Ήλιου σαν βρεθούν στο νησί της Θρινακίας. Κι έπειτα πέρασε από τις Σειρήνες, τη Σκύλλα και τη Χάρυβδη κι έφτασε στο νησί του Ήλιου, όπου οι σύντροφοί του σπρωγμένοι από την πείνα παραβίασαν τον χρησμό και έτσι όλοι χάθηκαν εκτός από τον ίδιο τον Οδυσσέα που κατέληξε ναυαγός και αιχμάλωτος, εραστής της Καλυψώς που ήθελε να τον κάνει αθάνατο.

Κι από εκεί στο νησί των Φαιάκων επιστ��έφει ο ήρωας στην Ιθάκη γεμάτος δώρα, αλλά οι περιπέτειές του δεν τελειώνουν εδώ. Αρχικά δεν αναγνωρίζει τον ίδιο του τον τόπο καθώς έχουν περάσει τόσα χρόνια. Με την παρέμβαση της Αθηνάς που τον μεταμορφώνει σε γέρος επαίτη, φτάνει, αγνώριστος στην καλύβα του Εύμαιου του χοιροβοσκού.

Ο Εύμαιος, ο πιστός, ο αφοσιωμένος, ο σοφός και φιλόξενος, δεν είναι ένας απλός δούλος του Οδυσσέα. Σαν ήταν μικρό παιδάκι, γιος βασιλιά, τον απήγαγαν κι έτσι βρέθηκε να υπηρετεί την οικογένεια του Λαέρτη στην Ιθάκη. Γι' αυτόν ο Όμηρος επιφυλάσσει μια ιδιαίτερη τιμή, κάθε φορά που μιλάει στο έργο, ο ποιητής απευθύνεται σε αυτόν στο β ενικό (τον δ’ απαμειβόμενος προσέφης, Εύμαιε συβώτα):

Τότε, Εύμαιε χοιροβοσκέ, τ' απάντησες κι έτσι είπες·
Δεν το 'χω, γέρο, σε καλό τον ξένο ν' αψηφήσω,
χειρότερός σου κι αν ερθεί. Γιατί σταλτοί απ' το Δία
είναι όλοι οι ξένοι και οι φτωχοί. Το δόσιμό μας λίγο
μα πρόσχαρο.

Έτσι μεταμορφωμένος, καθώς επιστρέφει και ο Τηλέμαχος από το ταξίδι του, φτάνει στο παλάτι του, ζητιάνος, υπόκειται σε ταπεινώσεις και εξευτελισμούς από τους μνηστήρες, ώσπου, ξανά με την ενθάρρυνση της Αθηνάς, πετάει τα κουρέλια του και αρχίζει μια μάχη που θα ήταν άνιση χωρίς την παρέμβαση της θεάς, καθώς πολεμάνε τέσσερις από τη μια (Οδυσσέας, Τηλέμαχος, Εύμαιος και ο βοσκός Φιλοίτιος) και πάνω από εκατό από την άλλη πλευρά:

Δεν είναι μια, δεν είναι δυο δεκάδες οι Μνηστήρες
μόν' είναι ακόμα πιο πολλοί, κι άκου να τους μετρήσω.
Απ' το Δουλίχι διαλεχτοί πενήντα δυο λεβέντες,
μ' έξι μαζί τους παραγιούς. Κι όσοι ήρθαν απ' τη Σάμη,
είναι όλοι είκοσι τέσσερεις. Κι είκοσι βάλε ακόμα,
όσοι ήρθαν απ' τη Ζάκυνθο, και δώδεκα απ' το Θιάκι,
ατρόμητοι όλοι στην καρδιά. Κι ο Μέδοντας ο κράχτης,
κι ο θεϊκός τραγουδιστής, πόχουν κι αυτοί μαζί τους,
δυο παραγιούς, στο μοίρασμα των φαγητών τεχνίτες.

Μετά τη δολοφονία των μνηστήρων, κι αφού τακτοποιήσει τα του οίκου του ο Οδυσσέας ξανασμίγει με την Πηνελόπη (το θηλυκό πολυμήχανο έτερον ήμισυ του ήρωα, μια γενναία, πανέξυπνη, ευγενική και πιστή σύζυγος και μητέρα) και την επομένη πηγαίνει να συναντήσει τον γέρο πατέρα του, τον Λαέρτη. Και αφού, ξανά με την παρέμβαση της Αθηνάς, αποτρέπεται, την τελευταία στιγμή, η εμφύλια σύγκρουση ανάμεσα στους συγγενείς των μνηστήρων με τον οίκο του Οδυσσέα, η ιστορία τελειώνει, όχι όμως το ταξίδι. Και η ζωή συνεχίζεται...



Τα ηρωικά τραγούδια της μυκηναϊκής εποχής, που διηγούνταν τις περιπέτειες των Αχαιών, ανάμεσα σε αυτά κι η διήγηση της πολιορκίας της Τροίας, και η περιπλάνηση του Οδυσσέα, διαμορφώθηκαν μέσα από επαγγελματίες τραγουδιστές με τη συνοδεία ενός έγχορδου οργάνου (αοιδοί) και τους κατοπινότερους ραψωδούς (που έκαναν απαγγελία των ποιημάτων κρατώντας στο δεξί τους χέρι ένα ραβδί) και κάπως έτσι γίνεται το πέρασμα από την αρχαιότερη προφορική παράδοση στα καταγεγραμμένα έπη (ακολουθώντας τον ρυθμό του δακτυλικού εξαμέτρου), όπως αυτά σώζονται ως σήμερα. Στην Οδύσσεια παρουσιάζονται δύο αοιδοί ο Δημόδοκος στους Φαίακες και ο Φήμιος στους Ίθακες.

Από εδώ κατέβασα την μετάφραση του Σίδερη, από το σχολικό βιβλίο όπως την διδάχτηκα για πρώτη φορά, στο σχολείο ολάκερη:

http://e-library.iep.edu.gr/iep/colle...

Από εδώ διάβασα διάφορες σχετικές με τα έπη μελέτες τις οποίες βρήκα ιδιαίτερα χρήσιμες:

http://www.greek-language.gr/digitalR...

odysseus having a mental breakdown in every single chapter is truly the most relatable part of this epic poem

I appreciated The Odyssey when I read it in college - especially after decoding the ornate, padded stanzas with the help of a class. But this reading was totally different! Emily Wilson's new crystal-clear translation and Claire Danes' audio interpretation create an electrifying experience. And so suspenseful! I glided through this book (or rather walked, cleaned and drove). It seems to me that this is the way Homer is meant to be read - oral poetry delivered straight to the heart. I did have the print book on hand, thinking I might need it, but only referred to it at the end, for the excellent introduction and translator's note.

Second review
introductory
I think, oh muse, that Odysseus and me go back to the first year of Junior School, when I was, let me see, eleven minus four years old, anyway it was long ago and far away then, we still had the half penny a tiny coin of hardy bronze. We had a project at school about the Odyssey even though it didn't take ten years for any of us to get to school and at no point did we naked have to cling to branches of wood to make sure landfall, in the way of school projects at the age of eleven minus four years it seemed to mostly involve drawing and my vision of the story required me to shade most of my pictures black with a fat pencil, this you will understand not because the story was dour, but because of all the fine detailing required with a fat, blunt pencil. At the end of the project all our drawings and accompanying text (no oral project this) were bound together, mine in a fine red comb - not from the hair of some snorting eager horse but from plastic once free flowing, now still. All of which stands by way of introduction to say, we go back some way together, but still rereading thanks to a wily invitation to a cunning group in honour of a new translation, some things caught my wandering, roving eye, maybe for the first time or in a new way:
unity of thought and deed Once upon a time I believed that with the Homeric heroes there was a unity between thought or word and action, everything pure and direct. This however proves to be nonsense in the Odyssey, the necessary course of events is that there is thought which needs to be expressed in conversation maybe three times before somebody commits the action and then not very efficiently necessary, perhaps monotheism has spoiled us. When God speaks unto us we are it seems more apt to leap to action, back then when their were so many gods, and demi- gods, semi-gods and quasi-gods, I suppose people were that much more casual about the divine.
violation of order I remember badly from Aeschylus that the downfall of his house was due to his own hands pollution, or something like that, of course he was speaking about Agamemnon, but the same principle applies. Paris steals Helen in violation of how a guest ought to behave, causing the Trojan war of glorious memory. Odysseus omits the proper ceremonies and so is punished by Poseidon. In a sense, the ending of the Odyssey is curious, from the beginning we are reminded of the story of Orestes and Agamemnon's return violation of the moral universe requires counter violation and so until the moral order of the universe itself is changed - Eumenides. However Odysseus can slaughter sixty odd suitors apparently without starting another cycle of vengeance  or in modern parlance - sequels
Guests proper and improper In the Odyssey we see two modes of guest behaviour contrasted proper and improper, Telemachus demonstrates proper: you visit, introduce yourself, have a manly cry with your host, receive rich presents, then go (repeat elsewhere) The suitors for the hand of Penelope violate this, they come and stay everyday, they eat and eat  I didn't set up a spreadsheet to check, but Odysseus's herds and flocks seem to be doing surprising well considering this has it's parallel in the divine realm Odysseus' men eat the Sun God's cattle - result death, the suitors eat Odysseus' pigs - result death. The moral arc of this universe bends inevitably towards death. This all reminds me of the Bible specifically Genesis 19. There is a proper way to treat strangers. Violation of this duty means death from above. However duty is mutual and if the host happens, in a moment of hunger, to eat your companions, you are within your rights to punish him, though if he happens to be the son of a God, you might be best advised not to. However there is also piracy, but piracy is within the bounds of acceptable heroic behaviour, it violates no moral order. Early on a travelling Telmachus is asked if he is a pirate, as if the expected answer could have been ' why yes, old man, and I intend to drive off your flocks and sell your women folk into slavery'. Indeed raiding the Cicones apparently doesn't violate the moral boundaries of accepted behaviour, indeed one notes when Odysseus has to throw himself at the mercy of the Phaeacians Athena does hide his approach to the royal personage - perhaps fearing a certain degree of hostility towards announced strangers?
Manly emotion The Odyssey I once thought is a story of adventure - wrong, it is mostly the story of men sitting together and crying. The story can find no better way to show the depth and strengths of relationships between men than the tears shed over death and injury. There's a lot of crying and weeping, but not so much as a single handkerchief mentioned.
authority and power The world of men mirrors the divine realm  or the other way round depending on your theology  as such we see that power and authority are not absolute, they are negotiable, nobody commands, persuasion is everything.
as an epic in the context of epics The comparison is made from early on with the story of Orestes. This isn't a free standing story, we are meant to be experiencing it with other stories i n mind. In the realm of the Dead Odysseus meets Agamemnon (among others) in case we had forgotten that Telemachus has been reminded of Orestes - this is the model established for us: man returns, his wife betrays him, the son must avenge the father. The Odyssey subverts the expectations that it sets up - the wife's loyalty will be absolute, the son obedient, the traditional patriarchal order will be restored, everyone will live happily ever after apart from the suitors, and their families. Also thee are parallels with the voyage of the Argo and the Labours of Hercules, Odysseus we are shown must be a great hero, not because he is especially heroic - most of the story in terms of time he spends weeping on the beach near to the Nymph Calypso - but because he goes to the same places as other heroes have and he would rub shoulders with them as an equal but for the fact that they happen to be dead already.
repetition and redundancy
The basic structural element is repetition, a character human or divine is never more than a sum of its epithets, is Odysseus really so very cunning? Just how clever would he be without Athena? Without divine assistance our heroes would be pretty lost, Telemachus sulking among the suitors, Odysseus weeping on the beach, though of course without those pesky Gods there would have been no
judgement of Paris, no Trojan war and Odysseus could have stayed home with his herds and flocks. It's a curious thing about the most ancient literature - the Hebrew Bible, Gilgamesh, Homer, it is all so thoroughly steeped in a Divine realm intersecting with the human that it encourages not atheism but anti-theism, all those gods just cause trouble for themselves and for long suffering mortals, in life, and then in death too. Then again, these days when things go wrong we are encouraged to blame immigrants, back then everybody when it was some God who stole your exam grades, fixed the elections, or caused your ship to be turned to stone. And the structure of the Odyssey reinforces this sense of the Divine realm as something ever present and ever in need of placating. The Homeric universe is an angry one, man (and woman) can accomplish nothing without supernatural help.

first review
The translation is important, but don't forget that translation is the art of failure.

Much that arises out of the Greek imagination is hostile: the Cyclops, Circe and her ability to reveal your inner pig, the Sirens. Even the gods can't be relied upon, but play favourites, your own gods are dangerous and worse - fickle  save for Athene of course . By contrast the real life Phoenicians are friendly and inhabit a similar cultural universe to the Greeks - they play the same sports, they honour guests, they give gifts, they speak a common language, they are helpful, they inquire politely if one is a pirate before arranging for you to have a bath. The wide world is both hostile and welcoming, but the worst things come of out the mind of the traveller.

I wonder why (how!) Samuel Butler decided that it was written or better said maybe composed by a Sicilian woman (not that I wish to imply that Sicilian women can't compose epic poetry it just seems a wayward guess to place his Lady Homer in Scilly), in translation there is a blankness there seems to be little to suggest that it was dreamt up in any particular place let alone first sung by man, woman, or Tiresias. The story of its composition is itself an epic and helps ensure that we approach the story as a pilgrim treading carefully towards the holy sanctuary of the mythic past.

I read this in a prose translation on account of being a prosaic person, my inclination is to imagine that a verse translation is more an exercise of ego than of sense, but that probably only means I haven't been confronted with one that blows away critical thought like a sack full of all the winds.

n  n    Book Reviewn  n
4 out of 5 stars to The Odyssey, published around 800 BC and written by Homer. I was tasked with reading this epic work as part of an Advanced Placement English course in between my junior and senior years of high school. I loved literature back then as much as I do now, and my reading habits probably grew from everything my teachers encouraged us to read during the summer hiatus and mid-year breaks. We sampled literature from all over the world, and this Greek tome was one of the many we read. We only read certain sections, as it's over 500 pages long, but I finished it on my own over winter break that year. It often depends on the translation version you read, as it might make it better or worse for you. I don't recall which one the teacher selected, but it must have been good as I did my quarterly papers on both this book and Homer's other work, The Iliad. The Odyssey was an amazing tale of a journey through the famed Trojan Wars in ancient Greece. Meeting all the gods and goddesses, understanding the genealogy and family structure, the plots between all their shenanigans and games... for someone with my hobbies and interests, this was perfect. The only part I found a bit dull was when it truly went into war-time battle descriptions, as reading details about fighting is not typically something I enjoy. But the soap opera-like quality of these characters cum deity realities was just absorbing fun. The lyrics and the words fly off the pages. The images and the metaphors are pretty. And if you know enough about Greek history, you almost feel as if you're in the story.

n  n    About Men  n
For those new to me or my reviews... here's the scoop: I read A LOT. I write A LOT. And now I blog A LOT. First the book review goes on Goodreads, and then I send it on over to my WordPress blog at https://thisismytruthnow.com, where you'll also find TV & Film reviews, the revealing and introspective 365 Daily Challenge and lots of blogging about places I've visited all over the world. And you can find all my social media profiles to get the details on the who/what/when/where and my pictures. Leave a comment and let me know what you think. Vote in the poll and ratings. Thanks for stopping by.

What can I say about this book that hasn't been said already? I'm sure that the influence and importance of it has been discussed to death already, so I won't even get started on that.
My reading experience was surprisingly pleasant: I didn't expect to get so invested! I found the language a bit hard at first, but once I got used to it (which didn't take all too long), I was able to fully enjoy the story. I'm glad that I finally read this classic piece of work, and it's definitely understandable that it's as famous as it is.

Not ready to write a review yet but Claire Danes did a great job with this.