Looking at the paragraph 754 table, I see multiple comparative and superlative forms of ἀγαθός, as even φέρτερος, which is across from κρατερός, is listec as a comparative of ἀγαθός on Wiktionary, and κρείσσων is listed as a comparative of both words. So is that the case? And are there any distinctions I should make between the various comparative and superlative forms of ἀγαθός and κακός? And what’s the distinction between κρατύς and κρατερός, and what’s the situation with comparatives and superlatives listed to their right being the same with ἀγαθός?
It is indeed the case and there are distinctions. Here is Smyth:
a. ἀμείνων, ἄριστος express aptitude, capacity or worth (able, brave, excellent); βελτί_ων, βέλτιστος, a moral idea (virtuous); κρείττων, κράτιστος, force and superiority (strong) (ἥττων is the opposite of κρείττων); λῴων means more desirable, more agreeable (ὦ λῷστε my good friend); κακί_ων, κάκιστος express moral perversity, cowardice; χείρων, χείριστος, insufficiency, lack of a quality (less good) (worthless, good for nothing is φαῦλος).
He doesn’t mention φέρτερος here, if you look in Logeion, you’ll see it’s mostly associated with strength:
https://logeion.uchicago.edu/φέρτερος
I think the problem here is that there is an overlap in meaning between ἀγαθός and κρατερός. While it might be easy to distinguish between them in some cases clearly someone ( in Homer) who is “noble and good” is also going to be “powerful and strong”.
κρατύς is used (twice) in the Iliad as an epithet of Hermes. κρατερός is used much more often. I am sure the reason for this is metrical.
As to the distinctions between the various comparatives of ἀγαθός and κακός this is what the Cambridge Grammar of Classical Greek says:
“Note 1:The various comparatives and superlatives of ἀγαθός(each translatable by better and best) and κακός (each translatable by worse and worst) have different nuances of meaning: broadly speaking, ἀρείων/ ἄιστος refer to capability/prowess, βελτίων/βέλτιστος to (moral) suitability, λῴων/ λῷστος to usefulness, benefit. χείρον/χείριστος refer to lack of worth, ἥττων/ ἥκιστος to weakness. ἀμείνων and κακίων share the range of meanings of ἀγαθός and κακός. These shades of meaning are not always fully clear in individual examples.” p.81
Although this is referring to Classical Greek I think it probably applies to Homer too. So often in Homer particular forms are adopted because of metrical considerations.
I think perhaps you should just learn to recognise the forms and not worry too much about shades of meaning.
edit Cross posted with Aetos. I will let my post stand but he knows more about Homer than I do
Seneca offers some good information and makes an excellent point about not dwelling too much on the shades of meaning. As you read, you’ll pick up the distinctions from the context.
Thanks for all the advice. I won’t dwell too much on memorizing the shades of meaning, but it’s nice to know how to conceptualize these new words, that is, as variable comparatives and superlatives with differing shades of meaning.
I try to approach these things through looking at the etymologies or what English words they’re cognate with, so that I don’t have to memorize.
Re φέρτερος, it’s cognate with φέρω and English “to bear.” So right away that tells you that it’s going to apply to people, not things. (Cunliffe lists one exception where it’s used for a non-person.) Beekes says that people disagree on the details of the semantic connection, with some saying it’s something like “most helpful” and others that it’s like “physically strongest.” But either way, it connects pretty clearly to the idea of being physically powerful and having leadership qualities, which are the two main Homeric meanings that Cunliffe lists. And these are both inherent qualities of the person, which makes sense. It connotes merit.
On the other hand, κράτος/κρείσσων is broader and can describe someone who simply possesses a position of power. That’s what would be expected if you think of English cognates like democracy.