ὦ̣ Κ̣ή̣υξ, ἀλλ’ ἤν με θέλῃς συμφράδμονα θέσθαι,
..]ν.. τελευτήσεις ὅρκια θυγατέρος·
ἀργύρῳ οὐ μόλιβον γὰρ Ἀκόντιον, ἀλλὰ φαεινῷ
ἤλεκτρον χρυσῷ φημί σε μειξέμεναι.
These lines are a prophesy by Apollo to the father of Cydippe. I want these lines to mean something like, "For I say that Acontius will be mingled with you not as lead with silver, but as amber with gleaming gold." However, isn't μειξέμεναι the future active infinitive, and , if the preceding translation is correct, shouldn't σε be in the dative to correspond with ἀργύρῳ and χρυσῷ? If we do take μειξέμεναι as the future active infinitive, I don't understand with what the σε is being mixed.
Callimachus 75.30-31
-
- Textkit Zealot
- Posts: 722
- Joined: Sat Sep 24, 2005 4:04 am
- Location: Chicago, IL
-
- Textkit Zealot
- Posts: 789
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:14 am
- Contact:
Re: Callimachus 75.30-31
[Edited my initial question, because I've found an answer in Smyth.]
I think that σε is the subject [indirect discourse], the father, and Acontius is the direct
object of the verb, with implied indirect object, Cydippe. Middle-liddell has μ. τί τινι,
to mix one thing with another.
"I say that you will join Acontius [with her] not as lead with silver, but as amber with gleaming gold."
I think that σε is the subject [indirect discourse], the father, and Acontius is the direct
object of the verb, with implied indirect object, Cydippe. Middle-liddell has μ. τί τινι,
to mix one thing with another.
"I say that you will join Acontius [with her] not as lead with silver, but as amber with gleaming gold."
Nate.
-
- Textkit Zealot
- Posts: 722
- Joined: Sat Sep 24, 2005 4:04 am
- Location: Chicago, IL
Re: Callimachus 75.30-31
Your translation makes sense; it just seems strange to me that the indirect object would be omitted in this case.