Many times I see the imperfect when I would use the aorist. Here is an example:
Then he changes to the aorist again. I should understand it as a vivid description of what he was doing at certain moments?αὐτὰρ ὁ ἐκ ποταμοῦ χρόα νίζετο δῖος Ὀδυσσεύς
ἅλμην, ἥ οἱ νῶτα καὶ εὐρέας ἄμπεχεν ὤμους·
ἐκκεφαλῆς δ´ ἔσμηχεν ἁλὸς χνόον ἀτρυγέτοιο.
Here is another example of this:
--ἔζετ´ ἔπειτ´ ἀπάνευθε κιὼν ἐπὶ θίνα θαλάσσης,
κάλλει καὶ χάρισι στίλβων· θηείτο δὲ κούρη.
Another thing that always have confused me from the beginning is why the perfect and the pluperfect are so rarely (in opossition to the imperfect and the aorist). Many times when I would use in English "have" or "had", I see that Homer uses the imperfect or the aorist. Here is an example:
In english I would say: he put on the clothes that the unwedded maiden had given to him.ἄμφι δὲ εἵματα ἕσσαθ´ ἅ οἱ πόρε παρθένος ἀδμής,
--
Here is another doubt about voice:
Why is not ἄλειψεν in the middle too? Is it because is understood that it is his own body?αὐτὰρ ἐπεὶ δὴ πάντα λοέσσατο καὶ λίπ´ ἄλειψεν,
--
And the last doubt, if there is one:
I understand the conjuntion αὐτὰρ as a contrastive one, but I don't see which is the contrast that the conjuntion is introducing here. I have already had this doubt many times too, and I am always inclined to translate it as "then". It would be right?
αὐτὰρ ἐπεὶ δὴ πάντα λοέσσατο καὶ λίπ´ ἄλειψεν,
αὐτὰρ ὁ ἐκ ποταμοῦ χρόα νίζετο δῖος Ὀδυσσεύς