It’s been a long time since I first joined and introduced myself. Since, I have done my first complete read-through of both the Iliad and Odyssey, and now I am on my second read-through, going more slowly and trying to deepen my understanding.
So that at the same time both the first (nearest) and last (furthest) sons of Achaeans could hear the word …
The second τε, of course, is correlative with the καὶ and is easy enough.
The first τε can’t be linking a word or phrase, so “and” won’t work. Nor is it part of gnomic phrase, in which it marks the expression as general or indefinite. I would like to call it a “transitional particle,” but Monro’s grammar says that use is not Homeric, though common in later Greek.
Since it is post-positive, could it be that it should be read with ὡς and thus becomes ὥστε?
I know, I’m probably over-thinking this, but any guidance will be appreciated.
In the two commentaries I have to hand, only Leaf’s mentions the τε after ἅμα in line 281. Leaf thinks it was probably introduced to avoid hiatus, but acknowledges that hiatus is allowable at the end of the first foot. He suspects it may not be genuine, but if so perhaps is attracted by ἅμα while πρῶτοι still takes a τε for emphasis. Willcock has nothing concerning this. EDIT: Ameis indicates that it’s not unusual to often place the τε after the ἅμα and cites Α417,Ι519,Ν85, 669, ξ403, τ376, although this is the only case where a τε…καί follows.
Too intricate a question for me, but I don’t see how a hearer could understand ωστε. To me it looks like a very normal τε…τε και with πρῶτοι and ὕστατοι.
τε gets moved up to the αμα often enough.
Α417 νῦν δ’ ἅμα τ’ ὠκύμορος καὶ ὀϊζυρὸς περὶ πάντων
So I read “ἅμα θ᾽ οἳ πρῶτοί” as the first half. The τε is telling the hearer that there is another τε (or here τε και) upcoming. I guess that people usually translate that as “both”.
After reading Smyth, I would think ἀνώγει…ὡς…ἀκούσειαν καὶ ἐπιφρασσαίατο would be a purpose clause as indicated by the pluperfect ἀνώγει plus the optatives. As such, ὡς does not require the τε. As a consecutive clause, I believe the verbs would either have to be infinitives or be in the indicative, plus the use of ὡς in consecutive clauses is rare, at least according to Smyth (S2260).
ἅμα τε: the position of “τέ” is free, cf. “Α 417, Ι” 519; it seems to be intended here to unite the two verbs, and properly has its place after the first of the ideas which it connects. It is the more remarkable here since a combination with “τε καί” follows.—“οἱ πρῶτοι κτλ”.: i.e. the most remote as well as the nearest.
Seymour, T. D. (1891). Homer’s Iliad, Books I-III. Medford, MA: Ginn and Company.
Here’s what Walter Leaf says, in his commentary from 1900:
[281] The “θ᾽” is perhaps inserted to prevent hiatus; which is probably allowable at the end of the first foot (see on 87), without the necessity of taking “οἱ” for the pron. “ϝοι”, with Nauck. If “θ᾽” is to be kept, Döderlein’s explauation seems the most satisfactory, viz. that there is a confusion between “ἅμα τε πρῶτοι καὶ ὕστατοι”, and “ἅμα πρῶτοί τε καὶ ὕ”.: in other words, “ἅμα” has, as often, attracted a “τε” into its neighbourhood from its proper place in the sentence, e.g. 9.519, Od. 14.403; but the word is again repeated, just as we sometimes find “ἄν” occuring twice, once in its right place, and once following a word which it is desirable to emphasize. πρῶτοι and ὕστατοι are used in a local sense, those in front and those behind.
In more recent parlance, Homerists would call this a formulaic slip or something.
I think this is different - I think this is a nested construction of sorts, the first τε not being “parallel” with the others (whatever the correct grammatical term is): “and those who held Hyperesie and steep Gonoessa and Pellene, as well as inhabited Aigion”.
I don’t have a copy of Ruijgh’s legendary tome on Epic τε at home. However I do know that he lists and categorizes every single instance of the word in Homer. So I’d look up what Ruijgh’s take on this case is. Somehow they’ve managed to keep a 1971 PhD dissertation offline…
I can’t help mentioning that Ruijgh is a very special case. Because of the war and family circumstances he only started G and L when he was fourteen years old, and then he went like a rocket and became as good at Greek as he was.
Thanks for looking up Ruijgh for us, Joel! But I was confident that sooner or later someone would do it… There’s something, well, epic about a thousand page book on just one particle! But it’s a great book, though I have of course only read short passages from here and there.
Let me congratulate the original poster Tom for finishing the Iliad and Odyssey! I hope to see more of you for some more discussion on all things Greek!
Ruijgh’s suggestion appears to be that ἅμα τε is a “fixed” combo serving as an adverb. But he’s not sure either.
Ruijgh was also a great amateur classical pianist. In an obit his neighbours said they’d switch off radio or tv when he started playing, and enjoy his music making.
The way I read it, the θ’ (not τε!) has no proper syntactical function, but it slips in easily after αμα, obviating the hiatus, which may have been felt as acceptable but not desirable.
Is this what Ruijgh meant by calling it a "construction contaminée?—not so much that it’s actually corrupt, but rather a contamination of plain αμα and αμα θ’ (both familiar locutions)? That would fit the textual data.
