Page 1 of 1

Od. 7 61-77

PostPosted: Sun Apr 27, 2014 1:04 am
by huilen
τὸν μὲν ἄκουρον ἐόντα βάλ᾽ ἀργυρότοξος Ἀπόλλων
νυμφίον ἐν μεγάρῳ, μίαν οἴην παῖδα λιπόντα
Ἀρήτην: τὴν δ᾽ Ἀλκίνοος ποιήσατ᾽ ἄκοιτιν,


Which is the meaning of βάλλω here? Is "to be striked by Apollo" some kind of euphemism for death?

ὣς κείνη περὶ κῆρι τετίμηταί τε καὶ ἔστιν
ἔκ τε φίλων παίδων ἔκ τ᾽ αὐτοῦ Ἀλκινόοιο
καὶ λαῶν, οἵ μίν ῥα θεὸν ὣς εἰσορόωντες
δειδέχαται μύθοισιν, ὅτε στείχῃσ᾽ ἀνὰ ἄστυ.


How would you explain ἔστιν here? Is τιμοῦσα understood? "τετίμηταί τε καὶ (τιμοῦσα) ἔστιν"?

I am in doubt with ἐκ. I would expect ὑπό + genitive of agent. Maybe ἐκ means something like "beyond" here: "beyond his childs and Alcinous himself, she was hounored by the people too"? But then I am not sure if the agent of a passive verb can be expressed by the genitive alone (λαῶν) without ὑπό.

How would you translate δειδέχαται μύθοισιν? "She has been received with words" sounds rear.

Re: Od. 7 61-77

PostPosted: Sun Apr 27, 2014 2:47 am
by Qimmik
τὸν μὲν ἄκουρον ἐόντα βάλ᾽ ἀργυρότοξος Ἀπόλλων -- You're right: when men suddenly drop dead (i.e., by a heart attack), they are said to be shot with an arrow by Apollo. (Apollo never misses when he shoots, by the way, just as Zeus always begets a child when he ravishes a woman, nymph or goddess.) Men are suddenly shot dead by Apollo; women, by Artemis. (Note that the English preterite/past participle of "strike" is "struck".)

τετίμηταί τε καὶ ἔστιν -- In the Oxford commentary, Hainsworth describes this as a "puzzling expression." Just as you thought, he suggests that the meaning should be supplied by τετίμηταί, and that τιμητή or τιμήεσσα should be understood. Garvie, in the Cambridge Green and Yellow series, rejects this interpretation, suggesting that ἔστιν is a textual corruption.

ἐκ -- Garvie cites a few other examples in the Homeric poems where ἐκ + genitive is used instead of ὑπό with the agent. LSJ ἐκ has a number of cites in various authors for this usage:

5. with the agent after Pass. Verbs, by, Poet. and early Prose, ἐφίληθεν ἐκ Διός they were beloved of (i.e.by) Zeus, Il.2.669 ; κήδε᾽ ἐφῆπται ἐκ Διός ib. 70; “προδεδόσθαι ἐκ Πρηξάσπεος” Hdt.3.62; “τὰ λεχθέντα ἐξ Ἀλεξάνδρου” Id.7.175, cf. S.El.124 (lyr.), Ant.93, Th.3.69, Pl.Ti.47b; “ἐξ ἁπάντων ἀμφισβητήσεται” Id.Tht.171b; “ὁμολογουμένους ἐκ πάντων” X.An.2.6.1 ; “τὰς ἐκ θεῶν τύχας δοθείσας” S.Ph.1316, cf. Pl.Ly.204c : with neut. Verbs, “ἐκ..πατρὸς κακὰ πείσομαι” Od.2.134, cf. A.Pr.759 ; “τλῆναί τι ἔκ τινος” Il.5.384 ; “θνήσκειν ἔκ τινος” S.El.579, OT854, etc.; “τὰ γενόμενα ἐξ ἀνθρώπων” Hdt.1.1


http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3De%29k

δειδέχαται μύθοισιν -- must mean something like "they welcome her with greetings". The odd form δειδέχαται is thought to be an athematic (μι-verb) present tense, not a perfect.

Re: Od. 7 61-77

PostPosted: Mon Apr 28, 2014 6:29 pm
by huilen
Thanks, Qimmik.

The odd form δειδέχαται is thought to be an athematic (μι-verb) present tense, not a perfect.

It has sense now in the present (although I don't see in Cunliffe the athematic variant of δέχομαι that you mention). I had mistaken it with the perfect of δείκνυμι, which is also δειδέχαται, but neither the perfect nor the sense of δείκνυμι would have any sense here.

Re: Od. 7 61-77

PostPosted: Mon Apr 28, 2014 7:55 pm
by Qimmik
LSJ relates δειδέχαται to δειδίσκομαι, not δέχομαι or (although perhaps related to δέχομαι and/or δείκνυμι). δειδίσκομαι seems to be a fossilized verb, surviving only in a few forms, perhaps in more or less fixed expressions.

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3Ddeidi%2Fskomai