Odyssey, Book 14

Greek Homeric Greek and Early Greek Poetry
1

By the way of this chapter of the swineherd, what an imagination has
Odysseus for making false tales!

    1. πυκνοὺς καὶ θαμέας, > τὸ μέλαν δρυὸς ἀμφικεάσσας:

How works the accusative here?
2. > ἐξαπίνης δ᾽ Ὀδυσῆα ἴδον κύνες ὑλακόμωροι.

  1. οἱ μὲν κεκλήγοντες ἐπέδραμον: αὐτὰρ Ὀδυσσεὺς
    ἕζετο > κερδοσύνη> , σκῆπτρον δέ οἱ ἔκπεσε χειρός.

I don’t get the meaning, why κερδοσύνη? What was the clever thing that
Odysseus did against the dogs? He sat down? I don’t understand. The
next verses are indeed a contrafactual of what would have happened if
the swineherd were not there (so it was thanks to the swineherd and not to his cunning that he was saved):

ἔνθα κεν ᾧ πὰρ σταθμῷ ἀεικέλιον πάθεν ἄλγος:
33. ἀλλὰ συβώτης ὦκα ποσὶ κραιπνοῖσι μετασπὼν
ἔσσυτ᾽ ἀνὰ πρόθυρον, σκῦτος δέ οἱ ἔκπεσε χειρός.

    1. ὑπέδεξο

ὑπεδέξω?
4. > 55. τὸν δ᾽ ἀπαμειβόμενος προσέφης, Εὔμαιε συβῶτα:

Is this common in Homer? I don’t remember any other instance where he
refers to a character in the second person (excepting the muse). I can
see that the nominative of Εὔμαιος would not feet the meter, but still
then… couldn’t he just choose another name for the swineherd :stuck_out_tongue:? Or
just change the whole verse by:

τὸν δ᾽ ἠμείβετ᾽ ἔπειτα συβώτης, ὄρχαμος ἀνδρῶν:

Or, if I can inspire myself:

τὸν δ᾽ ἀπαμειβόμενος προσέφη Εὔμαιος ἄπιστος

Just joking :stuck_out_tongue: (the swineherd shows himself very skeptic about the
returning of Odysseus through all the chapter).
5. > 61. οἱ νέοι. ἦ γὰρ > τοῦ γε θεοὶ κατὰ νόστον ἔδησαν> ,

  1. ὅς κεν ἔμ᾽ ἐνδυκέως ἐφίλει καὶ κτῆσιν ὄπασσεν,

The speaker is the swineherd. τοῦ is Odysseus. I don’t understand the
grammar connection between ἔδησαν and κατὰ νόστον, I would expect the
genitive.
6. > 62. ὅς κεν ἔμ᾽ ἐνδυκέως ἐφίλει καὶ κτῆσιν ὄπασσεν,

  1. οἶκόν τε κλῆρόν τε πολυμνήστην τε γυναῖκα,
  2. οἷά τε ᾧ οἰκῆϊ ἄναξ εὔθυμος ἔδωκεν,
  3. ὅς οἱ πολλὰ κάμῃσι, θεὸς δ᾽ ἐπὶ ἔργον ἀέξῃ,
  4. ὡς καὶ ἐμοὶ τόδε ἔργον ἀέξεται, ᾧ ἐπιμίμνω.
  5. τῷ κέ με πόλλ᾽ ὤνησεν ἄναξ, εἰ αὐτόθ᾽ ἐγήρα:

The whole passage is a contrafactual given by the swineherd, about
what his lord Odysseus would do (in contrast with his current lords,
the suitors) if he were there. But I didn’t understand 65-66: ὅς seems
the antecedent of ἔμ᾽, οἱ refers to Odysseus, but I’m not sure about
θεὸς δ᾽ ἐπὶ ἔργον ἀέξῃ…ἐπιμίμνω. How should I read it?
7. 78. κίρνη

κίρνα? (contraction of αε)
8. > 96. ἦ γάρ οἱ ζωή γ᾽ ἦν ἄσπετος: οὔ τινι τόσση

  1. ἀνδρῶν ἡρώων, οὔτ᾽ ἠπείροιο μελαίνης
  2. οὔτ᾽ αὐτῆς Ἰθάκης: οὐδὲ ξυνεείκοσι φωτῶν
  3. ἔστ᾽ ἄφενος τοσσοῦτον: ἐγὼ δέ > κέ > τοι καταλέξω.

How do you explain κέ?
9. > καί μιν φωνήσας ἔπεα πτερόεντα προσηύδα:

  1. ‘ὦ φίλε, τίς > γάρ > σε πρίατο κτεάτεσσιν ἑοῖσιν,
    ὧδε μάλ᾽ ἀφνειὸς καὶ καρτερὸς ὡς ἀγορεύεις;

How would you explain γάρ inside an interrogation?

(Context: Odysseus inquiring the swineherd about his master,
i.e. about himself).
10. > 122. ‘ὦ γέρον, οὔ τις κεῖνον ἀνὴρ ἀλαλήμενος ἐλθὼν

  1. ἀγγέλλων > πείσειε > γυναῖκά τε καὶ φίλον υἱόν,
  2. ἀλλ᾽ ἄλλως κομιδῆς κεχρημένοι ἄνδρες ἀλῆται

  3. ψεύδοντ᾽> , οὐδ᾽ ἐθέλουσιν ἀληθέα μυθήσασθαι.

All the vagabonds that come to Penelope/Telemachus, say to them that
they have seen Odysseus, in order to be well received by them.

a. I think that the first clause is a potential optative. Then, should
not be there an ἄν particle? (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0074%3Asection%3D13%3Asubsection%3D34%3Asmythp%3D434).

b. Should not ψεύδοντ᾽ be active?
11. 176. χέρηα

χερείονα (from χερείων)?
12. > 180. ἐς Πύλον ἠγαθέην: τὸν δὲ μνηστῆρες ἀγαυοὶ

  1. οἴκαδ᾽ ἰόντα λοχῶσιν, ὅπως ἀπὸ φῦλον ὄληται
  2. νώνυμον > ἐξ Ἰθάκης > Ἀρκεισίου ἀντιθέοιο.

How should I read ἐξ Ἰθάκης?
13. > εἴη μὲν νῦν νῶϊν ἐπὶ χρόνον ἠμὲν ἐδωδὴ

ἠδὲ μέθυ γλυκερὸν κλισίης ἔντοσθεν > ἐοῦσι> ,

ἐόντι? (dat. of advantage, in apposition with νῶιν)
14. > 207. ἀλλ᾽ ἦ τοι τὸν κῆρες ἔβαν θανάτοιο φέρουσαι

  1. εἰς Ἀΐδαο δόμους: τοὶ δὲ ζωὴν > ἐδύσαντο
  2. παῖδες ὑπέρθυμοι καὶ ἐπὶ κλήρους ἐβάλοντο,

By the context, it seems that the meaning of ἐδύσαντο here is that
they “divided” the property (ζωή) of his father after he died. But as
far as I know, δύω has not that meaning…
15. > 220. ἀλλὰ πολὺ πρώτιστος ἐπάλμενος ἔγχει > ἕλεσκον

  1. ἀνδρῶν δυσμενέων > ὅ τέ μοι εἴξειε πόδεσσιν> .

ἕλεσκον [τόν]? I’m not sure about the use of αἱρέω here in the context
of a battle: does it mean “to capture” the enemy? Neither I understand
the general clause (ὅ τέ μοι εἴξειε πόδεσσιν), what is the meaning of
εἴκω here?
16. > 365. μαψιδίως ψεύδεσθαι; ἐγὼ δ᾽ εὖ οἶδα καὶ αὐτὸς

  1. νόστον ἐμοῖο ἄνακτος, ὅ τ᾽ ἤχθετο πᾶσι θεοῖσι
  2. πάγχυ μάλ᾽, ὅττι μιν οὔ τι μετὰ Τρώεσσι δάμασσαν
  3. ἠὲ φίλων ἐν χερσίν, ἐπεὶ πόλεμον τολύπευσε.

“I myself know well about the return of my lord, who was much hated by
all the gods, that (ὅττι) they didn’t slay him among the Trojans, nor
in the arms of his friends, when he endured then war”.

a. This doesn’t seem to have any sense. If the gods hate him, why they
let him live? How should I take ὅττι here?

b. Maybe here is another puzzle for Ruijgh? (I’m referring to ὅ τ᾽
ἤχθετο πᾶσι θεοῖσι).
17. 459. συβώτεω

συβώτου?
18. > τὸν δ᾽ ἀπαμειβόμενος προσεφώνεε δῖος ὑφορβός:

‘ξεῖν᾽, οὕτω > γάρ > κέν μοι ἐϋκλείη τ᾽ ἀρετή τε
εἴη ἐπ᾽ ἀνθρώπους ἅμα τ᾽ αὐτίκα καὶ μετέπειτα,
ὅς σ᾽ ἐπεὶ ἐς κλισίην ἄγαγον καὶ ξείνια δῶκα,
405. αὖτις δὲ κτείναιμι φίλον τ᾽ ἀπὸ θυμὸν ἑλοίμην:
πρόφρων κεν δὴ ἔπειτα Δία Κρονίωνα λιτοίμην.
νῦν δ᾽ ὥρη δόρποιο: τάχιστά μοι ἔνδον ἑταῖροι
εἶεν, ἵν᾽ ἐν κλισίῃ λαρὸν τετυκοίμεθα δόρπον.’

Odysseus had just proposed to the swineherd to send to kill him if it
comes to be that he is lying about his master. So the swineherd
answers with this kind of ironic potential optative (οὕτω γάρ μοι
ἐϋκλείη τ᾽ ἀρετή τε εἴη…).

But I don’t see any place to γάρ here. Merry explains it as a γάρ with
an unexpressed apodosis, but he doesn’t say too much. I imagine that
the swineherd had regarded that the proposal of Odysseus was so
obviously scandalous that it not even deserves to be refused, so he
just interrupt himself with νῦν δ᾽, leaving the refusal sentence
elliptical(?)
19. > εὐξάμενός τι ἔπος ἐρέω: οἶνος γὰρ ἀνώγει

Should not be a present participle? (Since it express in which way he
speak to him: i.e. praying.
20. > 460. εἴ πώς οἱ ἐκδὺς χλαῖναν πόροι, ἤ τιν᾽ ἑταίρων

ἄλλον ἐποτρύνειεν, ἐπεί ἑο κήδετο λίην:

How should understand πειρητίζω here? In which sense is he going to
test the swineherd?

Indeed, I’m a little confused about all this αἶνος of Odysseus
(462-506), what it has to do with his purpose of acquiring some
clothes (or his purpose of “test” the swineherd)? And why he ends the
story with:

  1. ὣς νῦν ἡβώοιμι βίη τέ μοι ἔμπεδος εἴη:

(Which is repeated on 468), when it was not thanks to his force nor
his empedos that he acquired the clothes, but because of the cunning
of Odysseus.

Here is the whole passage:

νὺξ δ᾽ ἄρ᾽ ἐπῆλθε κακὴ σκοτομήνιος, ὗε δ᾽ ἄρα Ζεὺς
πάννυχος, αὐτὰρ ἄη Ζέφυρος μέγας αἰὲν ἔφυδρος.
τοῖς δ᾽ Ὀδυσεὺς μετέειπε, συβώτεω πειρητίζων,
460. εἴ πώς οἱ ἐκδὺς χλαῖναν πόροι, ἤ τιν᾽ ἑταίρων
ἄλλον ἐποτρύνειεν, ἐπεί ἑο κήδετο λίην:

‘κέκλυθι νῦν, Εὔμαιε καὶ ἄλλοι πάντες ἑταῖροι,
εὐξάμενός τι ἔπος ἐρέω: οἶνος γὰρ ἀνώγει
ἠλεός, ὅς τ᾽ ἐφέηκε πολύφρονά περ μάλ᾽ ἀεῖσαι
465. καί θ᾽ ἁπαλὸν γελάσαι, καί τ᾽ ὀρχήσασθαι ἀνῆκε,
καί τι ἔπος προέηκεν ὅ περ τ᾽ ἄρρητον ἄμεινον.
ἀλλ᾽ ἐπεὶ οὖν τὸ πρῶτον ἀνέκραγον, οὐκ ἐπικεύσω.
εἴθ᾽ ὣς ἡβώοιμι βίη τέ μοι ἔμπεδος εἴη,
ὡς ὅθ᾽ ὑπὸ Τροίην λόχον ἤγομεν ἀρτύναντες.
470. ἡγείσθην δ᾽ Ὀδυσεύς τε καὶ Ἀτρεΐδης Μενέλαος,
τοῖσι δ᾽ ἅμα τρίτος ἄρχον ἐγών: αὐτοὶ γὰρ ἄνωγον.
ἀλλ᾽ ὅτε δή ῥ᾽ ἱκόμεσθα ποτὶ πτόλιν αἰπύ τε τεῖχος,
ἡμεῖς μὲν περὶ ἄστυ κατὰ ῥωπήϊα πυκνά,
ἂν δόνακας καὶ ἕλος, ὑπὸ τεύχεσι πεπτηῶτες
475. κείμεθα. νὺξ δ᾽ ἄρ᾽ ἐπῆλθε κακὴ Βορέαο πεσόντος,
πηγυλίς: αὐτὰρ ὕπερθε χιὼν γένετ᾽ ἠΰτε πάχνη,
ψυχρή, καὶ σακέεσσι περιτρέφετο κρύσταλλος.
ἔνθ᾽ ἄλλοι πάντες χλαίνας ἔχον ἠδὲ χιτῶνας,
εὗδον δ᾽ εὔκηλοι, σάκεσιν εἰλυμένοι ὤμους:
480. αὐτὰρ ἐγὼ χλαῖναν μὲν ἰὼν ἑτάροισιν ἔλειπον
ἀφραδίῃς, ἐπεὶ οὐκ ἐφάμην ῥιγωσέμεν ἔμπης,
ἀλλ᾽ ἑπόμην σάκος οἶον ἔχων καὶ ζῶμα φαεινόν.
ἀλλ᾽ ὅτε δὴ τρίχα νυκτὸς ἔην, μετὰ δ᾽ ἄστρα βεβήκει,
καὶ τότ᾽ ἐγὼν Ὀδυσῆα προσηύδων ἐγγὺς ἐόντα
485. ἀγκῶνι νύξας: ὁ δ᾽ ἄρ᾽ ἐμμαπέως ὑπάκουσε:

‘διογενὲς Λαερτιάδη, πολυμήχαν᾽ Ὀδυσσεῦ,
οὔ τοι ἔτι ζωοῖσι μετέσσομαι, ἀλλά με χεῖμα
δάμναται: οὐ γὰρ ἔχω χλαῖναν: παρά μ᾽ ἤπαφε δαίμων
οἰοχίτων᾽ ἔμεναι: νῦν δ᾽ οὐκέτι φυκτὰ πέλονται.’

  1. ὣς ἐφάμην, ὁ δ᾽ ἔπειτα νόον σχέθε τόνδ᾽ ἐνὶ θυμῷ,
    οἷος κεῖνος ἔην βουλευέμεν ἠδὲ μάχεσθαι:
    φθεγξάμενος δ᾽ ὀλίγῃ ὀπί με πρὸς μῦθον ἔειπε:
    ‘σίγα νῦν, μή τίς σευ Ἀχαιῶν ἄλλος ἀκούσῃ.’

ἦ καὶ ἐπ᾽ ἀγκῶνος κεφαλὴν σχέθεν εἶπέ τε μῦθον:
495. ‘κλῦτε, φίλοι: θεῖός μοι ἐνύπνιον ἦλθεν ὄνειρος.
λίην γὰρ νηῶν ἑκὰς ἤλθομεν: ἀλλά τις εἴη
εἰπεῖν Ἀτρεΐδῃ Ἀγαμέμνονι, ποιμένι λαῶν,
εἰ πλέονας παρὰ ναῦφιν ἐποτρύνειε νέεσθαι.’

ὣς ἔφατ᾽, ὦρτο δ᾽ ἔπειτα Θόας, Ἀνδραίμονος υἱός,
500. καρπαλίμως, ἀπὸ δὲ χλαῖναν θέτο φοινικόεσσαν,
βῆ δὲ θέειν ἐπὶ νῆας: ἐγὼ δ᾽ ἐνὶ εἵματι κείνου
κείμην ἀσπασίως, φάε δὲ χρυσόθρονος Ἠώς.
ὣς νῦν ἡβώοιμι βίη τέ μοι ἔμπεδος εἴη:
δοίη κέν τις χλαῖναν ἐνὶ σταθμοῖσι συφορβῶν,
505. ἀμφότερον, φιλότητι καὶ αἰδοῖ φωτὸς ἑῆος:
νῦν δέ μ᾽ ἀτιμάζουσι κακὰ χροῒ εἵματ᾽ ἔχοντα.’

2

The Muses are not the only ones who know how to tell lies like the truth.

  1. Object of the pple. “the dark (part)”
  2. Ancient exegetes take it as an attempt to placate the dogs by appearing non-threatening. Well, maybe; but as you point out, we’re told it wouldn’t have worked. I’m more inclined to see it as a test of Eum’s character. Od as Od could no doubt have easily enough have dealt with the dogs himself, but he doesn’t want to blow his cover, and “cunningly” makes himself vulnerable to see how Eum will react.
  3. This seems to be the epic form. I expect Chantraine will help.
  4. Frequent with Eumaios, similarly Patroklos and others in Iliad. Endlessly discussed, but metrical expediency seems to be the answer, or most of it.
  5. Tmesis.
  6. ος picks up ᾧ οἰκῆϊ. “the sort of things a lord gives a household slave who does much labor for him (οι) and a god fosters his work in addition (επι), just as this work of mine is fostered for me too, (this work) which I continue in.”
  7. I don’t have a text in front of me, but presumably this is the athematic impf.
  8. Kind of halfway between “I would (if you wanted …)” and “I shall.” A polite future. Chantraine will explain better.
  9. γαρ often used with interrogatives picking up on something previous, as we might say “So who …?”. “(In light of what you told me in 61ff.,) who was it that …?”
  10. a. Yes, potential. Often goes without αν/κε in Homer.
    b. Middle, very common.
  11. A tormented form, with variants.
  12. Construes with the verb, colored by νωνυμον. The phylon will be “destroyed out of Ithaka and left nameless” (proleptic). By killing the last of the line they aim to obliterate the family name so that it has no further existence on the island.
  13. Yes, εουσι dat.pl. in agreement with νωιν. “If only there were .. for us (being) inside the κλισιη,” “I wish the two of us had …”. I wouldn’t get hung up on classification of datives.
    <14.> Should this be εδασαντο?
  14. “Taking” implies killing. Homer passim.
    “he yielded to me with (his) feet” I take to mean “ran slower than me” rather than “ran away” (yielded to me by taking to his heels), as I think some take it.
  15. οττι inasmuch as, in that, since. The fact that they didn’t have him killed at Troy is adduced as evidence of the extent of their hatred.
    Why did they let him live? So that he would suffer more! It deprived him of a glorious death and honorable burial. Ignominious to die in a storm at sea, without proper funeral rites.
    Would Ruijgh have difficulty with ο τε? I’m puzzled.
  16. Common epic form. Πηλιαδεω Αχιληος!
    Out of time, sorry.
3

I humbly beg to disagree… I don’t have anything really to add to the endless discussion, but we sure have lines that are in the third person, like τὸν δ᾽ ἀπαμειβόμενος προσεφώνεε δῖος ὑφορβός. I think there’s much to the idea that it’s the most “sympathetic” characters that are addressed like this – Eumaios, Menelaos, Patroklos. But of course we’ll never know.

That’s what van Thiel has and no variant is recorded.

I think it’s a bit similar to 9, you could almost put a question mark at the end of the sentence. “My friend! So (γάρ) that’s how (οὕτω)…”

A difficult one I think, good question.

The first important thing to note is that εὔχομαι isn’t just praying. The word’s basic meaning is “speak in a solemn manner”. From there come the different meanings, which are “pray”, “boast”, and “declare” among others. Here I think the idea is boastfulness, not praying.

But why the aorist? I’m not completely sure. My interpretation is that εὐξάμενός refers to the content of the speech as a whole. “I’ll tell you something, and what I’m going to tell will come out, as a whole, somewhat (τι) boastful.” It’s as if Odysseus were considering in advance the overall effect his speech is going to make and noting that it will be somewhat boastful. If someone has a better theory, please tell me!

4

The test Odysseus is making is whether Eumaios will be smart enough to understand that Odysseus wants a cloak and kind enough to strangers to give it.

ἔμπεδος means “standing firmly on two feet”. The subject is βίη. “If only I were as young [as then] and my strength were firm in me [as then]!”

5
  1. ευξαμενος. Present would express simultaneity, “I’ll speak while in the process of making a prayer/wish/boast.” The aorist suggests he makes/conceives/forms the prayer/wish/boast before giving utterance to it. In other words, I agree with Paul.
6

Hello, thanks for the answers! Somehow I’ve missed your posts, I think I’ve never received the email notification.

I see, I had missed the gnomic clause, now it has more sense (though I’m not really sure why the god fosters his work).

That makes sense. Surely this is a typo: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0135%3Abook%3D14%3Acard%3D191

I think I like more your reading. So you take the verb as εἴκω = to be like? “Whoever equal me with respect to the feet” => “Whoever run like me” => “Whoever run slower than me”.

But how is this τε explained then? I don’t see that τε has here any observable meaning. (Sorry, maybe this is an obvious one, but I just don’t see it).

I think I see it now! So it would be more like a concessive participle (“though this would be a little boastful”). Were it present, it would express simultaneity, like mwh said, but the aorist makes possible the concessive meaning here.

7
  1. No, I don’t think Ruijgh would have problems with this case. It still has the permanent-digressive value, meaning that the relative case is a digression of the main sentence, but the content of the relative clause is permanent: he was, is, and will always be hated by all the gods.
8

The idea is that if someone works well, that implies that god is supportive of the work. He’s modestly assigning responsibility for his good work to a god (which however takes nothing away from the credit he can claim himself).

No, εικω not “to be like” but “yield, give way to”, very common in Iliad. I’m taking “he yielded to me with feet”, an unusual expression, as meaning that he was inferior to me in the use of his feet, i.e. he ran more slowly than I did (so I caught up with him and killed him).

ευξαμενος. I don’t see anything concessive about this.

9

I don’t think this τε is an “epic” te (i.e., with permanent-digressive force). Many editions actually print ὅτ᾽ without a space. The meaning is something like “seeing that”, I think. However, I suppose this τε might be somehow etymologically related to the epic τε. I haven’t looked up Ruijgh now, but I think for him epic τε always shows that something is a permanent, universal truth – not just a recurrent or permanent fact about one individual’s life, but something that is universally true. It might be used to say that “women are always so and so” or “the winter is always so and so” but not “John is always so and so”.

But I suppose I should look up what Ruijgh says.

10

τε in etymological terms is literally just the descendent of the PIE copula (cf. Sanskrit ca and Latin que etc etc - Greek is funny with the inherited labiovelar sounds if that looks silly to you lol), if anything και is more poetic in origin since it’s completely absent from the Lin. B. tablets .

If you’re going to go around chasing Ruijgh’s work on the τε start with Anna Morpurgo Davies review in the CR journal.

11

That wasn’t mwh, that was huilen. I didn’t think it would puzzle Ruijgh. Nothing does. My own makeshift homemade scheme, which may be quite untenable but seems to work well enough, distinguishes τε = τε (copulative, PIE) and τε = τοι (as here), which latter in my simple-minded way I would like to etymologize as metrically induced τε < τοι. But I’ve never tested this. If it’s wrong my alternative would be to posit semantically void instances of τε by extension from semantically operative ones; then τ’ can be used merely as a hiatus-breaker. Either idea acknowledges the normally underestimated potency of meter.