I've been reading Odyssey's books 6 and 7 with Cambridge Greek and Latin commentary. I had already read both books, but reading them again with this commentary was very useful, on one hand because there I've encountered many interesting discussions for most of the questions that I had, and on the other, many of the discussions got that I started to pay attention to some poetic effects, metrical issues and certain arrangment of words that I had overlooked before. Moreover, there is a lot of interesting bibliography.
I write here some questions that I couldn't resolve with the commentary. And I'd like to ask for some aid for reading the next books (from Book 9 to Book 12, for I'll have to wait until Book 13 for the next available commentary of G&L). Is there anything similar to G&L series? Also, I'd like to know more about matters of language and formulaic composition.
40. ἔρχεσθαι: πολλὸν γὰρ ἄπο πλυνοί εἰσι πόληος.
Why ἄπο is throwing back its accent? It goes with πόληος, which is after the preposition.
2) What form would be ξύμβλητο (6.54)?
138. ᾧ πυμάτῳ σπένδεσκον, ὅτε μνησαίατο κοίτου.
I liked very much this verse, but I would like to be sure that I'm taking it correctly, because G&L doesn't say anything about it. Should I take the optative as the protasis of a general past condition, or as a purpose secondary clause?
a) If a past gral. cond., I would read: 'They made their last libation once and again whenever they reminded of sleeping'. (This interpretation I like more).
b) If a secondary purpose clause: 'They made their last libation once and again in order that they could sleep'. Or maybe 'until they fall asleep'.
Anyway, I liked very much this verse. I think that the iterative form of σπένδω together with the adverb ᾧ πυμάτῳ makes an effective oxymorron. And with the first interpretation I like it even more, because the protasis of the gral. clause reinforces this: it explains the apparent paradox: they reminded of sleeping once and again, which implies that they also forget it once and again. So they were in a vicious circle: they reminded of sleeping and thus said "well, time to go, let's make the last libation', and they forgot that immediatly and went ahead with the feast, and that once and again. I think it is effectively expressed, (if I can read it this way).
215. ἀλλ᾽ ἐμὲ μὲν δορπῆσαι ἐάσατε κηδόμενόν περ:
216. οὐ γάρ τι στυγερῇ ἐπὶ γαστέρι κύντερον ἄλλο
217. ἔπλετο, ἥ τ᾽ ἐκέλευσεν ἕο μνήσασθαι ἀνάγκῃ
218. καὶ μάλα τειρόμενον καὶ ἐνὶ φρεσὶ πένθος ἔχοντα,
219. ὡς καὶ ἐγὼ πένθος μὲν ἔχω φρεσίν, ἡ δὲ μάλ᾽ αἰεὶ
220. ἐσθέμεναι κέλεται καὶ πινέμεν, ἐκ δέ με πάντων
221. ληθάνει ὅσσ᾽ ἔπαθον, καὶ ἐνιπλησθῆναι ἀνώγει.
Just to know your opinion, would you take it like a comic speech? Is there any instance of something like this in Homer? He repeats the idea of his stomach commanding to be filled one time and another till make it ridicule, at least to me it seemed very funny, and I could imagine an audience laughing while listening this. According to G&L this preoccupation of his stomach is characteristic of Odysseus, even in the Iliad.
246. ναίει ἐυπλόκαμος, δεινὴ θεός: οὐδέ τις αὐτῇ
I've already seen this many times: why is θεός masculine when referriing to a goddess? For the meter here would be the same, right?
285. ἐκβὰς ἐν θάμνοισι κατέδραθον, ἀμφὶ δὲ φύλλα
286. ἠφυσάμην: ὕπνον δὲ θεὸς κατ᾽ ἀπείρονα χεῦεν.
Has κατέδραθον any other meaning than "fell sleep"? It just called my attention that he first "fell asleep" and then covered himself with the leaves.
289. δείλετό τ᾽ ἠέλιος καί με γλυκὺς ὕπνος ἀνῆκεν.
310. μαψιδίως κεχολῶσθαι: ἀμείνω δ᾽ αἴσιμα πάντα.
The neuter plural of ἀμείνων (califying αἴσιμα) would be ἀμείνονα. The neuter singular (if an adverb) would be ἀμείνον. But what would be ἀμείνω? It seems the contraction of something.
329. ὣς φάτο, γήθησεν δὲ πολύτλας δῖος Ὀδυσσεύς,
330. εὐχόμενος δ᾽ ἄρα εἶπεν, ἔπος τ᾽ ἔφατ᾽ ἔκ τ᾽ ὀνόμαζεν:
331. ‘Ζεῦ πάτερ, αἴθ᾽ ὅσα εἶπε τελευτήσειεν ἅπαντα
332. Ἀλκίνοος: τοῦ μέν κεν ἐπὶ ζείδωρον ἄρουραν
333. ἄσβεστον κλέος εἴη, ἐγὼ δέ κε πατρίδ᾽ ἱκοίμην.
I didn't understand something that G&L says about this:
this kind of language is more likely to be found when it is the deity addressed who is asked to do the 'fulfilling'; e.g. 3.56, 21.200
But, it is not Zeus who is addressed by Odysseus? ζεῦ πάτερ is in the vocative case, and then comes an optative construction of wish in third person. Why then G&L says that here Odysseus is not addressing a deity?