Odyssey 21.45

Here's where you can discuss all things Ancient Greek. Use this board to ask questions about grammar, discuss learning strategies, get translation help and more!

Odyssey 21.45

ἡ δ’ ὅτε δὴ θάλαμον τὸν ἀφίκετο δῖα γυναικῶν
οὐδόν τε δρύϊνον προσεβήσετο, τόν ποτε τέκτων
ξέσσεν ἐπισταμένως καὶ ἐπὶ στάθμην ἴθυνεν,
ἐν δὲ σταθμοὺς ἄρσε, θύρας δ’ ἐπέθηκε φαεινάς,
αὐτίκ’ ἄρ’ ἥ γ’ ἱμάντα θοῶς ἀπέλυσε κορώνης,
Od. 21.42-46; Von Der Mühll

ἡ δ᾽ ὅτε δὴ θάλαμον τὸν ἀφίκετο δῖα γυναικῶν
οὐδόν τε δρύϊνον προσεβήσετο, τόν ποτε τέκτων
ξέσσεν ἐπισταμένως καὶ ἐπὶ στάθμην ἴθυνεν,
ἐν δὲ σταθμοὺς ἄρσε, θύρας δ᾽ ἐπέθηκε φαεινάς·
αὐτίκ᾽ ἄρ᾽ ἥ γ᾽ ἱμάντα θοῶς ἀπέλυσε κορώνης,
OCT

I understand the punctuation at the end of line 45 in Von Der Mühll's text, but the OCT's punctuation confuses me. If one places a semicolon after φαεινάς, then what is the main clause of this utterance? I would say οὐδόν τε δρύϊνον προσεβήσετο, but the τε makes me think that this is just a continuation of the temporal clause introduced by ὅτε. Is there some usage of τε about which I am forgetting? Isn't the epic τε only used in generalizing statements?
vir litterarum
Textkit Zealot

Posts: 721
Joined: Sat Sep 24, 2005 4:04 am
Location: Oberlin, Ohio

Re: Odyssey 21.45

Good question! I had to read that three or four times, and changed my mind with almost every reading But my current opinion, which I think I'm sticking with, is that the main clause is οὐδόν τε δρύϊνον προσεβήσετο, and the τε is introducing the first half of a coordination. The relative clause and the description of the τέκτων's work delays this for a while; then you finally get the second half when αὐτίκ᾽ ἄρ᾽ ἥ γε resumes the narration of Penelope's actions.... It's not strictly parallel with what the τε might have led you to expect; I don't think this is uncommon in Homer after digressions of several lines.... But even so, that's probably what led Von Der Muhll to punctuate the text as he did. Stanford's commentary follows the OCT punctuation, and doesn't have anything to say about it in this passage.

EDIT: PS: I just noticed that Stanford puts a comma at the end of line 42, which helps to set that off as the end of the temporal clause.
Dic mihi, Damoeta, 'cuium pecus' anne Latinum?
Damoetas
Textkit Member

Posts: 197
Joined: Thu Mar 12, 2009 6:31 pm
Location: Chicago

Re: Odyssey 21.45

What is your objection to taking οὐδόν τε δρύϊνον προσεβήσετο as an extension of the temporal clause introduced by ὅτε?
vir litterarum
Textkit Zealot

Posts: 721
Joined: Sat Sep 24, 2005 4:04 am
Location: Oberlin, Ohio

Re: Odyssey 21.45

I wasn't really thinking about that question as much; I was trying to understand how you have to construe everything if you go with the OCT (or Stanford's) punctuation.... But now that you mention it.... That could certainly work (and evidently Von Der Muhll liked it). But one drawback I see with it is that it gives you four lines of complex subordinate clauses before you get to a main clause, and that seems kind of uncommon for Homer. As I read through it with that punctuation, it starts to have a very run-on feel: "When she did this, and she did this, which the craftsman had done this with, and he also did this and he did this, then finally she did this..." It seems more typically Homeric to have main clauses loosely linked, with short digressions interspersed. And since it is possible to take the text that way, maybe that makes me lean towards the OCT/Stanford punctuation.
Dic mihi, Damoeta, 'cuium pecus' anne Latinum?
Damoetas
Textkit Member

Posts: 197
Joined: Thu Mar 12, 2009 6:31 pm
Location: Chicago

Re: Odyssey 21.45

Good point. It does seem distinctly un-Homeric to suspend the completion of the thought for so long.
vir litterarum
Textkit Zealot

Posts: 721
Joined: Sat Sep 24, 2005 4:04 am
Location: Oberlin, Ohio