Odyssey, Book 10

Greek Homeric Greek and Early Greek Poetry
1

Hello everybody, thanks for your help, as always. Here are my
questions with Book 10. I’m still waiting West’s commentary from
Amazon :frowning: I hope it arrives to Argentina before Odysseus arrives to
Ithaca, for I’ve just ordered the second volume. Still then, that is
not the end, but there are usually a lot of difficulties awaiting to
the at the post office. I’m reading with Merry’s commentary for the
moment.

    1. ἀλλ᾽ ὅτε δὴ καὶ ἐγὼν ὁδὸν > ᾔτεον ἠδ᾽ ἐκέλευον
  1. πεμπέμεν, οὐδέ τι κεῖνος ἀνήνατο, τεῦχε δὲ πομπήν.

How would you explain the imperfect here?
2. > 28. ἐννῆμαρ μὲν ὁμῶς πλέομεν νύκτας τε καὶ ἦμαρ

I’ve checked two translations, and it called my atention that the
singular of ἦμαρ seems to be neglected:

“For nine days we sailed, night and day alike”



Nine days and nine nights did we sail,

Couldn’t be just “nine nights and one day”?
3. > 65. ἦ μέν σ᾽ ἐνδυκέως ἀπεπέμπομεν, ὄφρ᾽ ἀφίκοιο

πατρίδα σὴν καὶ δῶμα καὶ > εἴ πού τοι φίλον ἐστίν> .’

I’d expect ὅτι instead of εἴ (introducing an indef. rel. clause).
4. > 100. δὴ τότ᾽ ἐγὼν ἑτάρους > προΐειν > πεύθεσθαι ἰόντας

προΐειν => προίην?
(imperf. 1st. sg.)
5. > 122. βάλλον: ἄφαρ δὲ κακὸς κόναβος κατὰ νῆας ὀρώρει

How would you explain the tense of ὄρνυμι here? I think that I’ve
already seen a similar use of the pluperfect before: I feel it as if
it were referring to something that happened so fast that the narrator
had no time to narrate its process, but only its
fulfillment. Something like “And just in a moment a dreadful din had
aroused”.

Something similar happens at 388 with βεβήκει:

  1. ‘ὦ Κίρκη, τίς γάρ κεν ἀνήρ, ὃς ἐναίσιμος εἴη,
  2. πρὶν τλαίη πάσσασθαι ἐδητύος ἠδὲ ποτῆτος,
  3. πρὶν λύσασθ᾽ ἑτάρους καὶ ἐν ὀφθαλμοῖσιν ἰδέσθαι;
  4. ἀλλ᾽ εἰ δὴ πρόφρασσα πιεῖν φαγέμεν τε κελεύεις,
  5. λῦσον, ἵν᾽ ὀφθαλμοῖσιν ἴδω ἐρίηρας ἑταίρους.
  6. ὣς ἐφάμην, Κίρκη δὲ διὲκ μεγάροιο > βεβήκει

“So I spoke, and Circe (by this time) had already gone and opened the
sties”. Note how the immediacy of her action is denoted by the
pluperfect.

Would you take the pluperfect this way?
6. > 128. αἶψα δ᾽ ἐμοῖς ἑτάροισιν ἐποτρύνας ἐκέλευσα

  1. ἐμβαλέειν > κώπῃς, ἵν᾽ ὑπὲκ κακότητα φύγοιμεν

Shouldn’t ἐμβαλέειν be passive? “I bade my comrades throw themselves
to the oars”.
7. > 179. > ἐκ δὲ καλυψάμενοι > παρὰ θῖν᾽ ἁλὸς ἀτρυγέτοιο

  1. θηήσαντ᾽ ἔλαφον: μάλα γὰρ μέγα θηρίον ἦεν.

The subject of the first clause are the comrades of Odysseus. He has
surprised them with a huge deer that he have just hunted. I don’t know
how to read ἐκ…καλυψάμενοι: why were they hidden in the first place?
8. > 199. κλαῖον δὲ λιγέως θαλερὸν κατὰ δάκρυ χέοντες:

  1. ἀλλ᾽ οὐ > γάρ > τις πρῆξις ἐγίγνετο μυρομένοισιν.

“They wept aloud […] but no profit became from their tears (lit. poured
[tears])”. But I don’t understand what explains γάρ.

I’ve tried to explain it thus: if μυρομένοισιν is metonymically
referring to their pains in general, and not their present tears, then
they are weeping because all their pains were in vain. What do you
think?

The verse is repeated on 568, but I’ve the same question there
likewise.
9. > 237. αὐτὰρ ἐπεὶ δῶκέν τε καὶ ἔκπιον, αὐτίκ᾽ ἔπειτα[fn:33]

  1. ῥάβδῳ > πεπληγυῖα > κατὰ συφεοῖσιν ἐέργνυ.

Why is πεπληγυῖα perfect, instead of aorist? “She struck them with her
bolt and put them into the sties”.
10. > 239. οἱ δὲ συῶν μὲν ἔχον κεφαλὰς φωνήν τε τρίχας τε

  1. καὶ δέμας, αὐτὰρ νοῦς ἦν ἔμπεδος, ὡς τὸ πάρος περ.
  2. ὣς οἱ μὲν κλαίοντες > ἐέρχατο> , τοῖσι δὲ Κίρκη

Could explain me the form of ἐέρχατο?
11. > 280. ἔν τ᾽ ἄρα μοι > φῦ > χειρί, ἔπος τ᾽ ἔφατ᾽ ἔκ τ᾽ ὀνόμαζε

Which is the meaning of φύω here?

A similar use appears in this book at 397:

  1. ἔγνωσαν δέ μ᾽ ἐκεῖνοι ἔφυν τ᾽ ἐν χερσὶν ἕκαστος.
    1. τῆ, τόδε φάρμακον ἐσθλὸν ἔχων ἐς δώματα Κίρκης
  1. ἔρχευ, ὅ κέν τοι κρατὸς > ἀλάλκῃσιν > κακὸν ἦμαρ.

Hermes gives to Odysseus a φάρμακον that will protect him from
Circe’s one. I’m not sure how to translate ἀλάλκῃσιν: I would expect
it to take a separative genitive, instead of an accusative, and I’d
expect a future indicative tense, instead of subjunctive.
13. > 290. τεύξει τοι > κυκεῶ> , βαλέει δ᾽ ἐν φάρμακα σίτῳ.

Could you explain the form of κυκεῶ?
14. > 297. ἔνθα σὺ μηκέτ᾽ ἔπειτ᾽ ἀπανήνασθαι θεοῦ εὐνήν,

  1. ὄφρα κέ τοι λύσῃ θ᾽ ἑτάρους αὐτόν τε κομίσσῃ:
  2. ἀλλὰ κέλεσθαί μιν μακάρων μέγαν ὅρκον ὀμόσσαι,
  3. μή τί τοι αὐτῷ πῆμα κακὸν βουλευσέμεν ἄλλο,

  4. μή σ᾽ ἀπογυμνωθέντα κακὸν καὶ ἀνήνορα θήῃ.

Hermes gives instructions to Odysseus about how he should behave with
Circe in order to free his comrades. I had problems with the last
verse: how should I take τίθημι + acc.?

The verse reappears at 341, where the facts actually take place, but
it doesn’t help.
15. > 320.‘ἔρχεο νῦν συφεόνδε, μετ᾽ ἄλλων > λέξο > ἑταίρων.’

λέξο => λέξεο / λέξου?
16. > 327. > οὐδὲ γὰρ οὐδέ > τις ἄλλος ἀνὴρ τάδε φάρμακ᾽ ἀνέτλη,

  1. ὅς κε πίῃ καὶ πρῶτον > ἀμείψεται > ἕρκος ὀδόντων.

How should I take the double οὐδέ?

I only know two meanings for ἀμείβω: to reply, and to exchange. But
neither seems to apply here.
17. > 338. ἥ μοι > σῦς > μὲν ἔθηκας ἐνὶ μεγάροισιν ἑταίρους

σῦς => σύας? (for it goes with ἑταίρους plural).
18. > θυμὸν ἔδων> , βρώμης δ᾽ οὐχ ἅπτεαι οὐδὲ ποτῆτος;

I’d like to read θυμὸν ἔδων as making a contrast with βρώμη: thus, he
would be so sorrowful that he consumes his own heart instead of the
food. I’ve seen ἔδω + θυμόν before referring to someone’s sadness, as
a formula, but maybe this is one case of “standard phraseology
modified” by Homer to fit the particular situation. Here the
“modification” would be just to put the formula near βρομή, making
certain humorous contrast. I’ve read this idea more than once, at Mark
Edwards’ book, and also on Garvie’s, but I’m never sure when it
applies and when not. For example here, I don’t know for sure if ἔδω +
θυμόν is actually a formula (I think I’ve only seen it twice).
19. > 431. ‘ἆ δειλοί, πόσ᾽ ἴμεν; τί κακῶν ἱμείρετε τούτων;

  1. Κίρκης ἐς μέγαρον καταβήμεναι, ἥ κεν ἅπαντας
  2. ἢ σῦς ἠὲ λύκους ποιήσεται ἠὲ λέοντας,
  3. οἵ κέν οἱ μέγα δῶμα > φυλάσσοιμεν > καὶ ἀνάγκῃ,

I’d expect φυλάσσω to be in the subjunctive mode, and with no κέν, as
a primary purpose clause.
20. > 447. οὐδὲ μὲν Εὐρύλοχος κοίλῃ παρὰ νηὶ λέλειπτο,

Why is λέλειπτο in the pluperfect tense?
21. > 465. θυμὸς ἐν εὐφροσύνῃ, ἐπεὶ ἦ μάλα πολλὰ > πέποσθε> .’

πέποσθε => πεπόνθατε?
22. > 469. ἀλλ᾽ ὅτε δή ῥ᾽ ἐνιαυτὸς ἔην, > **περὶ δ᾽ ἔτραπον ὧραι

  1. μηνῶν φθινόντων**> , περὶ δ᾽ ἤματα μακρὰ τελέσθη,

I didn’t understand the expression περὶ δ᾽ ἔτραπον ὧραι μηνῶν
φθινόντων. Which are the “decaying months”? Does this genitive go with
ὧραι or it is a separative genitive?
23. > 502. εἰς Ἄϊδος δ᾽ οὔ πώ τις ἀφίκετο νηὶ μελαίνῃ.’

εἰς + gen.? I’d expect ἐκ.
24. > πολλὰ δὲ γουνοῦσθαι νεκύων > ἀμενηνὰ κάρηνα> ,

How is γουνόομαι connected with its accusative? Is it the same as with
εὔχομαι + acc.?

I have the same question below with λίσσομαι:

  1. αὐτὰρ ἐπὴν εὐχῇσι λίσῃ > κλυτὰ ἔθνεα > νεκρῶν,
    1. Ἐλπήνωρ δέ τις ἔσκε νεώτατος, οὔτε τι λίην
  1. ἄλκιμος ἐν πολέμῳ > οὔτε φρεσὶν ᾗσιν ἀρηρώς> :

How should I read φρεσὶν ᾗσιν ἀρηρώς?
26. > 563. ἔρχεσθ᾽: ἄλλην δ᾽ > ἧμιν > ὁδὸν τεκμήρατο Κίρκη,

  1. εἰς Ἀίδαο δόμους καὶ ἐπαινῆς Περσεφονείης
  2. ψυχῇ > χρησομένους > Θηβαίου Τειρεσίαο.’

Should not χρησομένους be dative, since it is in apposition with ἧμιν?
27. > 571. τόφρα δ᾽ ἄρ᾽ οἰχομένη Κίρκη παρὰ νηὶ μελαίνῃ

  1. ἀρνειὸν κατέδησεν ὄιν θῆλύν τε μέλαιναν,
  2. ῥεῖα παρεξελθοῦσα: > **τίς ἂν θεὸν οὐκ ἐθέλοντα
  3. ὀφθαλμοῖσιν ἴδοιτ᾽ ἢ ἔνθ᾽ ἢ ἔνθα κιόντα;**

I didn’t understand the sense of the last verse.

2
  1. ἀλλ᾽ ὅτε δὴ καὶ ἐγὼν ὁδὸν > ᾔτεον ἠδ᾽ ἐκέλευον
  1. πεμπέμεν, οὐδέ τι κεῖνος ἀνήνατο, τεῦχε δὲ πομπήν.

How would you explain the imperfect here?

Verbs of asking, speaking and sending often are in the imperfect. I think the point is to make a connection with what follows, because asking, speaking and sending is the beginning of an action that takes some time.

  1. ἐννῆμαρ μὲν ὁμῶς πλέομεν νύκτας τε καὶ ἦμαρ

I’ve checked two translations, and it called my atention that the
singular of ἦμαρ seems to be neglected:

“For nine days we sailed, night and day alike”

Nine days and nine nights did we sail,

Couldn’t be just “nine nights and one day”?

As far as I understand, this means “for nine nights and nine days”. The Oxford commentary on 15.476 says something, but it is not very elucidating. This supposed to be very archaic. Perhaps it’s used adverbially, “by day”, as neuter nouns often are?

  1. ἦ μέν σ᾽ ἐνδυκέως ἀπεπέμπομεν, ὄφρ᾽ ἀφίκοιο
    πατρίδα σὴν καὶ δῶμα καὶ > εἴ πού τοι φίλον ἐστίν> .’

I’d expect ὅτι instead of εἴ (introducing an indef. rel. clause).

I suppose this literally means “and if anywhere it is dear to you”, that is: “or whatever place that suits you”. It is a bit strange.

  1. δὴ τότ᾽ ἐγὼν ἑτάρους > προΐειν > πεύθεσθαι ἰόντας

προΐειν => προίην?
(> imperf. 1st. sg.> )

I dunno :slight_smile:

  1. βάλλον: ἄφαρ δὲ κακὸς κόναβος κατὰ νῆας ὀρώρει

How would you explain the tense of ὄρνυμι here? I think that I’ve
already seen a similar use of the pluperfect before: I feel it as if
it were referring to something that happened so fast that the narrator
had no time to narrate its process, but only its
fulfillment. Something like “And just in a moment a dreadful din had
aroused”.

Something similar happens at 388 with βεβήκει:

  1. ‘ὦ Κίρκη, τίς γάρ κεν ἀνήρ, ὃς ἐναίσιμος εἴη,
  1. πρὶν τλαίη πάσσασθαι ἐδητύος ἠδὲ ποτῆτος,
  2. πρὶν λύσασθ᾽ ἑτάρους καὶ ἐν ὀφθαλμοῖσιν ἰδέσθαι;
  3. ἀλλ᾽ εἰ δὴ πρόφρασσα πιεῖν φαγέμεν τε κελεύεις,
  4. λῦσον, ἵν᾽ ὀφθαλμοῖσιν ἴδω ἐρίηρας ἑταίρους.
  5. ὣς ἐφάμην, Κίρκη δὲ διὲκ μεγάροιο > βεβήκει

“So I spoke, and Circe (by this time) had already gone and opened the
sties”. Note how the immediacy of her action is denoted by the
pluperfect.

Would you take the pluperfect this way?

This is a good question and one I’ve given myself some thought. Pierre Chantraine in his Grammaire Homérique, vol. 2 p. 199-200 more or less agrees with you. I think “immediacy” is the intended effect. It seems to me that not all specialists agree, and many translations seem to ignore this effect most of the time. Chantraine’s explanations are a bit complicated, I’m not sure I understand everything well enough to summarize them here. I’d like to find another treatment of the subject myself. Chantraine also distinguishes a use of the pluperfect he calls “résultatif”, and gives several examples from both the Iliad and the Odyssey with the verb βεβλήκει (Δ491-492, Ε661, χ274 ff., Ρ605-606). He uses this term “résultatif” also for some perfects on §296 p. 199; he says the “resultative” perfect is about equivalent to an emphatic aorist (e.g. Κ145, Κ172, Β264, Ε762, Χ497, κ238, π456).

  1. αἶψα δ᾽ ἐμοῖς ἑτάροισιν ἐποτρύνας ἐκέλευσα

  1. ἐμβαλέειν > κώπῃς, ἵν᾽ ὑπὲκ κακότητα φύγοιμεν

Shouldn’t ἐμβαλέειν be passive? “I bade my comrades throw themselves
to the oars”.

Again, a good point. Why not passive? Beats me!

[*]

  1. ἐκ δὲ καλυψάμενοι > παρὰ θῖν᾽ ἁλὸς ἀτρυγέτοιο

  1. θηήσαντ᾽ ἔλαφον: μάλα γὰρ μέγα θηρίον ἦεν.

The subject of the first clause are the comrades of Odysseus. He has
surprised them with a huge deer that he have just hunted. I don’t know
how to read ἐκ…καλυψάμενοι: why were they hidden in the first place?

Strangely, the new Oxford commentary is silent on this. If we believe Merry-Riddell, the point is that they had covered their heads with their cloaks because of their grief. Now they uncover their faces. Compare line 53.

  1. κλαῖον δὲ λιγέως θαλερὸν κατὰ δάκρυ χέοντες:
  1. ἀλλ᾽ οὐ > γάρ > τις πρῆξις ἐγίγνετο μυρομένοισιν.

“They wept aloud […] but no profit became from their tears (lit. poured
[tears])”. But I don’t understand what explains γάρ.

I’ve tried to explain it thus: if μυρομένοισιν is metonymically
referring to their pains in general, and not their present tears, then
they are weeping because all their pains were in vain. What do you
think?

The verse is repeated on 568, but I’ve the same question there
likewise.

You seem to have the line numbers wrong; the lines quoted are 201-202. Actually, 201-202 are absent from two manuscripts, which makes them probably interpolations (according to at least two scholars, Michael Apthorp and Richard Janko). 202 would be from 568, while 201 is constructed with bits from here and there. But the problem is, γάρ is a bit difficult even at 568. Perhaps the idea of γάρ in 202 = 568 is to turn the idea that weeping is useless into a commonplace? “But[, as always,] weeping was useless.” γάρ would then expand not so much the preceding line as the general realities that apply to crying.

3

I don’t have time to answer all your questions in one sitting (some are unanswerable), but just to start:

  1. I don’t think this requires a complicated explanation. Maybe the idea is “When I started asking, right away he granted it.”

  2. νύκτας τε καὶ ἦμαρ – “nine nights and one day” obviously doesn’t make sense. This is poetic license (or metrical convenience). Don’t be too literal.

  3. καὶ εἴ πού τοι φίλον ἐστίν – Greek often uses εἴ this way: “and if something is dear to you” = “and anything else that is dear to you.” Or maybe φίλον means “your own,” i.e., “and any other possessions of yours”.

  4. LSJ ἵημι:

thematic forms of the pres. (as if from ἱέω ) are also found, esp. in compds., cf. μεθίημι, σύνιημι:

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

However, Monro, Homeric Grammar (para. 18) writes that προΐειν here (and at 9.88) is an error in the traditional text for προίην. Apparently, these thematic contract forms don’t occur in the 1st sing. elsewhere.

  1. I think your explanation is correct.

  2. χεῖρας is understood

LSJ ἐμβάλλω:

  1. κώπῃς ἐ. (sc. χεῖρας) lay oneself to the oars, Od.10.129, cf. Pi.P.4.201; ἐ. alone, pull hard, Ar.Eq.602, Ra.206, X.HG5.1.13.

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3De)mba%2Fllw

That’s all for now. Maybe someone else could step up to the plate for a few more of these questions.

I see Paul has beat me to the punch, but I’ll leave what I’ve written anyway.

4

εἴ πού – I would just add that πού doesn’t mean “anywhere” here. It means something like “any” more generally.

See LSJ που II:

II. without reference to Place, in some degree, “καί πού τι” Th.2.87: freq. to qualify an expression, perhaps, I suppose, Hom., etc.; added to introductory Particles, “οὕτω π . . .” Il.2.116; “Ζεὺς μέν π. τό γε οἶδε” 3.308; “ὡς ὅτε π.” 11.292; ἤν π., εἰ μή π., X.Hier.3.2, Pl.R.372a: strengthd., “τάχ᾽ ἄν π.” S.OT1116; “ἴσως π.” E. El.518: attached to single words to limit their significance, “πάντως κ.” Hdt.3.73; τί π. δράσεις; what in the world? A.Pr.743; “οὐδείς π.” Pl.Phlb.64d; with numerals, ἔτεα τρία καὶ δέκα κ. μάλιστα about thirteen years, Hdt.1.119, cf. 209,7.22, etc.: οὔ τί που denies with indignation or wonder, surely it cannot be . . , “οὔ τί π. οὗτος Ἀπόλλων” Pi.P.4.87, cf. S.Ph.1233, Ar.Nu.1260, Pax 1211, Ra.522, Pl.R. 362d, etc.; οὐ δήπου adds a shade of suspicion, “οὐ δήπου Στράτων;” Ar.Ach.122, cf. Av.269, Pl.Smp.194b: for δήπου, ἦπου, v. sub vocc.—

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3Dpou2

5

Two more:

  1. Cunliffe explains ἐκ . . . καλυψάμενοι as “uncovering themselves,” i.e., “showing their faces.”

  2. LSJ ἀλλά:

  1. ἀλλὰ γάρ, freq. with words between, but really, certainly, as ἀλλὰ γὰρ Κρέοντα λεύσσω . . , παύσω γόους, but this is irreg. for ἀλλά, Κρέοντα γὰρ λεύσσω, παύσω γόους, E.Ph.1308, cf. S.Ant.148; for the reg. order cf. S. Ph.81, E.Heracl.480, Med.1067; freq. elliptical, the Verb being understood, Hdt.8.8, A.Pr.941, S.Ant.155: in Hom. only with negs., “ἀλλ᾽ οὐ γάρ” Il.7.242, Od.14.355, al., cf. S.OT1409; ἀ. γὰρ δή, ἀ. γάρ τοι, S.Aj.167, Ph.8

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3Da)lla%2F

6
  1. νύκτας τε καὶ ἦμαρ – “nine nights and one day” obviously doesn’t make sense.

Really? I was thinking when one goes to a hotel, for example, and makes a reservation for N nights and one day. There are N days (implicitly) corresponding to the N nights, and one day without its night (because one departs from the hotel before afternoon, or arrives to an island in this case). I’ve found it a common expression, but may be it sounds strange in English.

7

You may be right, but I wouldn’t be so categorical. I think this is one the instances where I think two interpretations are possible. I found a couple of authorities to agree.

Cunliffe does take this to mean “anywhere” (η 320 = κ 66):

που, enclitic.
[…]
2. In negative or conditional contexts, anywhere: οὐδέ τί που ἴδμεν ξυνήϊα Α 124. Cf. Ζ 330, Τ 327, etc.: εἴ που ὄπωπας γ 93. Cf. > η 320> , λ 458, ξ 44, etc.
[…]

Similarly, Ameis-Hentze translates η 320 “und wenn irgendwo, nämlich εἶναι: und wo sonst etwa zu sein dein Wunsch ist”

καὶ εἴ πού τοι φίλον ἐστίν

So we have two different interpretations for που:

  1. “Anywhere”, in which case the whole means “if indeed anywhere is dear to you” → “or whatever place you want”. (My own “and if anywhere it is dear to you” was a bit weak. I think καὶ εἴ would be better translated “if indeed”.)
  2. More vaguely, “perhaps”, “in any way”, “no doubt”. In that case, the meaning is “and whatever is dear to you” OR “whatever belongs to you” → (your fatherland, your home) “and whatever possessions you have” OR “and whatever is dear to you”.
8
  1. See above the note on the pluperfects. This is listed by Chantraine as a “resultative” perfect. In this particular case, according to Chantraine, “the perfect πεπληγυῖα expresses the magical, durable efficacity of a gesture”.

Chantraine is gold. Vol 1 is Qimmik’s favourite, vol 2 mine. Perhaps you should consider acquiring your copy? (If you know French… But this is a good reason to learn!) (Or, you could try control yourself before your Homer passion gets completely out of hand!)

  1. The answer is no doubt to be found in Chantraine, vol 1. My guess (without looking anywhere) is that the α in ἐέρχατο is originally derived from a vocalic n.

  2. φῦ “grow into” → grab.

  3. ἄλαλκον (the verb apparently has no present form): “keep off”. Translate 288: "which will keep off from your head the day of destruction (κακὸν ἦμαρ).
    I think an aorist is used because the pharmakon will save Odysseus once, at one very specific occasion. A future verb would be used, in my opinion, in a situation where one wants to express the idea something protects for a prolonged or indefinite period of time.

9
  1. θυμὸν ἔδων, βρώμης δ᾽ οὐχ ἅπτεαι οὐδὲ ποτῆτος;
    I’d like to read θυμὸν ἔδων as making a contrast with βρώμη

I like you idea and I think this is a good example how Homer isn’t just mechanically applying formulas, but uses them creatively for whatever effect he wants. A good remark, I think!

10

“Who could see a god who is unwilling [to be seen], as he goes this way and that?”
(or perhaps the aorist ἴδοιτ᾽ would be better translated “could catch sight of”)

11

εἴ πού τοι φίλον ἐστίν – He wants to go to a specific place, not just anywhere that happens to be dear to him. It’s what he wants to find there that that is indefinite.

θυμὸν ἔδων, βρώμης δ᾽ οὐχ ἅπτεαι οὐδὲ ποτῆτος; huilen has a makes a very perceptive point about the flexible use of formulaic expressions, but I’m not sure I would say it’s humorous here.

  1. I agree: the “durable efficacy”. The perfect is used because the effect of waving her wand remains after the wand has been waived.

10 and 15. These are both examples of a verb root that is normally declined “thematically”, i.e., with the suffix ε/ο added to the root to form the stem to which the personal endings are attached – an -ω verb – being treated athematically, with the endings added directly to the root.

Normally we would have λέχ+ε+σο > λέχεο > λέχου (with σ dropping out and contraction of εο), but here we have λέχ+σο, spelled λέξο.

ἐέρχατο, as Paul notes, is derived from ἐέρχ+ντο, with a syllabic ν that functioned as a vowel. The syllabic ν regularly became α in historically attested Greek, e.g., the “α privative” – the negative prefix, which is etymologically related to similar prefixes in English (un-) and Latin (in-), which have different realizations of the syllabic /n/. -ντο was a 3rd person plural athematic ending.

12

A few more answers; others will have to wait.

  1. As Paul notes, this is an idiom, to “take” or “grasp” someone’s hand.

  2. κυκεῶ I think this word is indeclinable.

  3. σῦς is the regular accusative plural. Smyth 268:

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Smyth+grammar+268&fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0007

  1. περὶ δ᾽ ἔτραπον ὧραι μηνῶν φθινόντων – “the seasons of the waning moons revolved”

  2. εἰς Ἄϊδος = εἰς Ἀίδαο δόμους (line 564). εἰς + genitive means “to the house of”. This idiom isn’t limited to Homer.

13

12 and 19 are both relative clauses of purpose. With regard to 12, see Smyth 2554:

Relative Clauses of Purpose (Final Relative Clauses) >
. . .

c. Homer uses the subjunctive (with κέ, except Γ 287) after primary tenses, the optative after secondary tenses. Thus, ““μάντις ἐλεύσεται, ὅς κέν τοι ἔπῃσιν ὁδόν” a seer will come to tell thee the way” κ 538, ““ἄγγελον ἧκαν δ̀ς ἀγγείλειε γυναικί” they sent a messenger to tell the woman” ο 458. The future also occurs (ξ 332). The present or aorist optative is rare in Attic (S. Tr. 903, Ph. 281).

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Smyth+grammar+2554&fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0007

With regard to 19, subjunctive after a future verb, with κέν, would seem more usual, but perhaps the optative conveys a flavor of potentiality. Maybe Chantraine has something to say about this. I don’t have my copy at hand right now.

14

Sorry, I miswrote line numbers.

Yes, I’d like more this interpretation, it would be more suitable to the
usual boasting of Odysseus :stuck_out_tongue: But then, I would expect ἀλλ᾽ without
γάρ (I’d really like to remove that γάρ).

[quote=“huilen”]
65. ἦ μέν σ᾽ ἐνδυκέως ἀπεπέμπομεν, ὄφρ᾽ ἀφίκοιο
πατρίδα σὴν καὶ δῶμα καὶ εἴ πού τοι φίλον ἐστίν.’

I’d expect ὅτι instead of εἴ (introducing an
indef. rel. clause).
[/quote]

[quote=“Paul Derouda”]
I suppose this literally means “and if anywhere it is dear to you”,
that is: “or whatever place that suits you”. It is a bit
strange.
[/quote]

[quote=“Qimmik”]
καὶ εἴ πού τοι φίλον ἐστίν – Greek often uses εἴ this
way: “and if something is dear to you” = “and anything else that is
dear to you.” Or maybe φίλον means “your own,” i.e., “and any other
possessions of yours”.
[/quote]

[quote=“Qimmik”]
εἴ πού – I would just add that πού doesn’t mean
“anywhere” here. It means something like “any” more generally.

See LSJ που II:
[/quote]

[quote=“Paul Derouda”]
You may be right, but I wouldn’t be so
categorical. I think this is one the instances where I think two
interpretations are possible. I found a couple of authorities to
agree.
[/quote]

[quote=“Qimmik”]
εἴ πού τοι φίλον ἐστίν – He wants to go to a specific
place, not just anywhere that happens to be dear to him. It’s what he
wants to find there that that is indefinite.
[/quote]

Reading again the passage, I wonder if instead of an indefinite
clause, it could be an hypothetical:

“in order that you might come to your fatherland and your home, if you are agree with that too [as I agree].”

The subject of τοι φίλον ἔστιν would be the action of sending him to
his home. που would be just “perhaps”, because it is an hypothetical
clause. And καί would be “you too”, because she is already agree with
that, and she is indirectly asking him if he is agree with that too.

Do you see any problem with this reading?

I’m really tempted, Paul. And yes, you both are very bad influences to my life.

I don’t believe you that you go to any where without your copy of Chantraine.

Thanks for the answers :slight_smile:, I’ll take my time to read them carefully.

15

εἴ πού is idiomatic Homeric Greek that means something akin to “any.” But I think here maybe it does refer to location: “and if there is some other place you want” = “or anywhere else you want to be/go,” as Paul and Ameis-Henze suggest. Or maybe just “if there is anything else you want.”

ἀλλ᾽ οὐ γάρ is an emphatic form of ἀλλ᾽ οὐ. It shouldn’t be broken down down into separate words ἀλλ᾽+οὐ+γάρ. Treat it as a unit.

  1. μή σ᾽ ἀπογυμνωθέντα κακὸν καὶ ἀνήνορα θήῃ.

LSJ τίθημι:

B. put in a certain state or condition, much the same as ποιεῖν, ποιεῖσθαι, and so often to be rendered by our make:

I. folld. by an attributive Subst., make one something, with the predicate in apposition, θεῖναί τινα αἰχμητήν, ἱέρειαν, μάντιν, etc., Il.1.290, 6.300, Od.15.253, etc.; “θ. τινὰ ἀρχέπολιν” Pi.P.9.54; θεῖναί τινα ἄλοχόν τινος make her another’s wife, of a third person who negotiates a marriage, Il.19.298 (for Med., v. infr. 3); ἥτε με τοῖον ἔθηκεν ὅπως ἐθέλει who has made me such as she will, Od.16.208; σῦς ἔθηκας ἑταίρους thou hast made my comrades swine, 10.338; so [“νῆα] λᾶαν ἔθηκε” 13.163, cf. Il.2.319, etc.; “ἕως ἂν θῶ τοὺς ἐχθρούς σου ὑποπόδιον” LXX Ps.109(110).1; but γέλων ἔθηκε συνδείπνοις caused them laughter, E.Ion1172; λόγους εἰς μέτρα τ. put them into verse, Pl. Lg.669d.

  1. with an Adj. for the attributive, θεῖναί τινα ἀθάνατον καὶ ἀγήρων make him undying and undecaying, Od.5.136; πηρόν, τυφλόν, ἀφνειὸν τ. τινά, Il.2.599, 6.139, 9.483; “τὸν μὲν . . θῆκε μείζονά τ᾽ εἰσιδέειν καὶ πάσσονα” Od.6.229, cf. 18.195, Pl.Prt.344d.

b. of things, ἅλιον πόνον, πόνον οὐκ ἀτέλεστον, πάντα μεταμώνια, Il.4.26,57, 363; “ὄλεθρον ἀπευθέα θῆκε Κρονίων” Od.3.88, cf. 11.274; “ἀποίητον θέμεν ἔργων τέλος” Pi.O.2.17; “ἀρὰν τ. ἀλαθῆ” A.Th.944 (lyr.); ἀναστάτους οἴκους τ. S.Ant.674; “τ. λεῖον τὸν τραχὺν ἐχῖνον” Ar.Pax1086; τὸ πραχθὲν ἀγένητον τ. Pl.Prt.324b.

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

16

Yes, you must be right about that. I actually looked up Denniston’s Greek particles under ἀλλὰ γάρ: ἀλλά…γάρ. The book is, as usual, very hard to understand. P. 98 states:

The two forms [ἀλλὰ γάρ and ἀλλά…γάρ] must be considered together, as their uses overlap to a considerable extent. Both are used in two ways. Either ἀλλά goes with the main clause, and γάρ with a dependent clause: or both go with the main clause. The first use I will style “complex”, the second “simple”. […] For the complex construction compare, in general, what has been said above regarding anticipatory γάρ.

I understand by this terminology that in “complex” case γάρ has anticipatory force (i.e. it means “as”, not “for”). ξ 355 is given as an example of ἀλλά…γάρ complex (bottom of p. 98): ἀλλ’ οὐ γάρ σφιν ἐφαίνετο κέρδιον εἶναι μαίεσθαι προτέρω, τοὶ μὲν πάλιν αὖτις ἔβαινον. Here apparently γάρ goes with τοὶ μὲν πάλιν αὖτις ἔβαινον, which is the dependant clause? Here, if I’m correct, ἀλλ᾽ οὐ γάρ is more than an emphatic form of ἀλλ᾽ οὐ.

The way the material is arranged is not very clear, but apparently (the passage under discussion) κ 202 ἀλλ᾽ οὐ γάρ τις πρῆξις ἐγίγνετο μυρομένοισιν is a case of ἀλλά…γάρ simple. It is listed as the first example in (I)(i) on p. 101. In this example, both ἀλλά and γάρ go with the same main clause. Like you say, then, in this case ἀλλ᾽ οὐ γάρ = emphatic form of ἀλλ᾽ οὐ.

Denniston’s book seems to be great resource, but it would definitely need a “For Dummies” version. (“Greek Particles for Dummies”, wouldn’t that be great!)

17

434 οἵ κέν οἱ μέγα δῶμα φυλάσσοιμεν καὶ ἀνάγκῃ,

Chantraine II 429, citing this verse, writes (if I understand him correctly) that in a relative clause with optative + κέ(ν) has a final (purpose) or consecutive (result) meaning, “the particle emphasizes the consequence that is anticipated and that seems probable.” I’m not sure that helps much, but it does confirm that a relative clause with an optative + κέ(ν) can occur after a primary tense. I don’t think there’s much question as to what this verse means or that it’s a relative clause of purpose. I wouldn’t worry too much about why it’s not subjunctive.

And on εἴ πού, Ameis-Henze notwithstanding (what did they know?), I’m still not entirely convinced this indicates an indefinite location or just “or if you want anything else.” Here are some search results from the Iliad alone that will show how frequent πού is with a conditional particle, without necessarily a connotation of “where” or “anywhere”:

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/searchresults?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0133&inContent=true&target=greek&all_words=&phrase=ei)%2F+pou&any_words=&exclude_words=&search=Search

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/searchresults?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0133&inContent=true&target=greek&all_words=&phrase=ei)%2F+pou%2F&any_words=&exclude_words=&search=Search

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/searchresults?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0133&inContent=true&target=greek&all_words=&phrase=e)a%2Fn+pou&any_words=&exclude_words=&search=Search

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.01.0133:book=13:card=788&highlight=e)a%2Fn+pou%2F%2C

You can work through these if you want to convince yourself; I didn’t. And I never got to the Odyssey, because the Iliad was already too tedious.

And the use of kai + a a conditional clause to express “and anything else” (or some similar indefinite phrase) is very common in Greek, not just in Homer. Take my word for it.

18

You’re likely right. I went through a number of examples where που might have a local meaning, but in none of them it was necessary. Actually, I now have a faint recollection of somebody writing somewhere that according to somebody, που never has a local meaning in Homer, but… I couldn’t find it. So that’s how much that recollection is worth… :wink: I also found out I have underlined που on Od 1.161 (ἀνέρος, οὗ δή που λεύκ’ ὀστέα πύθεται ὄμβρῳ), probably exactly because of this same ambiguity… No explanation, though I usually put some sort of gloss or bibliographical reference in the margin to explain my markings. Frustrating indeed.

It’s very probable that LfgrE will have this nicely sorted out. I’ll check next time I go to the library.

19

Typo: You meant Chantraine II 249.

20

I now have a faint recollection of somebody writing somewhere that according to somebody, που never has a local meaning in Homer, but… I couldn’t find it.

There’s at least this (Il. 16.514):

κλῦθι ἄναξ ὅς που Λυκίης ἐν πίονι δήμῳ
εἲς ἢ ἐνὶ Τροίῃ: δύνασαι δὲ σὺ πάντοσ᾽ ἀκούειν
ἀνέρι κηδομένῳ, ὡς νῦν ἐμὲ κῆδος ἱκάνει.