A critical review and comparison of two new, posthumously published, Odyssey-editions

Abstract

In this article, I will compare two new, posthumously published, Odyssey-editions, that by Martin West (2017) and Helmut Van Thiel (2021). I cannot delve into every issue in detail (discussing every linguistic peculiarity underlying each editorial choice would be tantamount to rewriting the Grammaire homérique or to reediting the text myself), nor is it possible to reference each and every work on the problems discussed here. I therefore only sparingly refer to other works and editions (there are obviously also other useful editions, commentaries, articles and grammars dealing with (epic) Greek, but citing them all would make the article surpass the acceptable limits). I first summarise both editors’ guiding principles, make some general observations on the differences between the editions, and then discuss some differing passages in more detail: the augment and more specifically its absence or presence, 1 instance of a verse that was missing and/or added (depending on the standpoint one takes) in the manuscripts, 3 instances in which 2 different metrically equivalent speech introduction formulae were both attested in the manuscripts, 2 observations on how the oldest alphabet could have influenced or obscured the exact mood or aspect, a passage in which one verb form was twice attested both in the aorist and in the imperfect, 2 instances in which two different moods were transmitted and that could shed some noteworthy new light on the historical syntax of Greek (and in which West and Van Thiel differed), and finally 2 passages in which the modal particle was used in a rather unexpected manner.