σ᾽ ὀΐω κατανεῦσαι ἐτήτυμον ὡς Ἀχιλῆα
τιμήσῃς, ὀλέσῃς δὲ πολέας ἐπὶ νηυσὶν Ἀχαιῶν.
In some editions, they are in Fut ind but here in subj. Which is confusing, whether this clause is final or indirect discourse.
NB is it possible that here, as elsewhere in Homer, the subjunctive is equivalent to F ind?
Il 1 560
- Constantinus Philo
- Textkit Zealot
- Posts: 1404
- Joined: Tue Mar 05, 2019 1:04 pm
Il 1 560
Semper Fidelis
-
- Textkit Member
- Posts: 125
- Joined: Wed Jan 20, 2021 5:59 pm
- Location: Timisoara, Romania
Re: Il 1 560
Perhaps the quotation below from CAMBRIDGE GREEK AND LATIN CLASSICS, ILIAD, BOOK I will help.
"558-559 σ' ὀΐω κατανεῦσαι ... ὡς ... | τιμήσεις, ὀλέσεις δὲ: σ' is subject of κατανεῦσαι in indirect discourse, and κατανεῦσαι introduces a subordinate clause best understood as an additional indirect statement expressing Zeus's purpose; the unusual future indicatives convey Hera's objective, emphatic certainty that Zeus really will act as he promised with his "nod." The text, however, is problematic: first, nowhere else does κατανεύω introduce a subordinate clause or an indirect statement; at 10.393, 13.368-9, and Od. 4.6-7 it is followed by a complementary future infinitive; second, only one MS (before correction) and one papyrus have the future forms, and all the others have subjunctives, τιμήσηις, ὀλέσηις δὲ: ... ; cf.2.3-4. These subjunctives, where optatives might be expected after the aorist κατανεῦσαι, would also be unusual but could be understood as vividly expressing Hera's subjective sense of Zeus's will or desire. For similar textual uncertainty, see 17.144 ... (Willmott 2007: 75-6)."
"558-559 σ' ὀΐω κατανεῦσαι ... ὡς ... | τιμήσεις, ὀλέσεις δὲ: σ' is subject of κατανεῦσαι in indirect discourse, and κατανεῦσαι introduces a subordinate clause best understood as an additional indirect statement expressing Zeus's purpose; the unusual future indicatives convey Hera's objective, emphatic certainty that Zeus really will act as he promised with his "nod." The text, however, is problematic: first, nowhere else does κατανεύω introduce a subordinate clause or an indirect statement; at 10.393, 13.368-9, and Od. 4.6-7 it is followed by a complementary future infinitive; second, only one MS (before correction) and one papyrus have the future forms, and all the others have subjunctives, τιμήσηις, ὀλέσηις δὲ: ... ; cf.2.3-4. These subjunctives, where optatives might be expected after the aorist κατανεῦσαι, would also be unusual but could be understood as vividly expressing Hera's subjective sense of Zeus's will or desire. For similar textual uncertainty, see 17.144 ... (Willmott 2007: 75-6)."
- Constantinus Philo
- Textkit Zealot
- Posts: 1404
- Joined: Tue Mar 05, 2019 1:04 pm
Re: Il 1 560
If the subjunctive here is ok, then this is a final clause, and everything is clear. Your adding 'as vividly expressing Hera's subjective sense of Zeus's will or desire' only complicates things because, unlike Latin, the subjunctive in Greek does not express someone else's thought.Vasile Stancu wrote: ↑Sat Mar 04, 2023 6:14 am Perhaps the quotation below from CAMBRIDGE GREEK AND LATIN CLASSICS, ILIAD, BOOK I will help.
"558-559 σ' ὀΐω κατανεῦσαι ... ὡς ... | τιμήσεις, ὀλέσεις δὲ: σ' is subject of κατανεῦσαι in indirect discourse, and κατανεῦσαι introduces a subordinate clause best understood as an additional indirect statement expressing Zeus's purpose; the unusual future indicatives convey Hera's objective, emphatic certainty that Zeus really will act as he promised with his "nod." The text, however, is problematic: first, nowhere else does κατανεύω introduce a subordinate clause or an indirect statement; at 10.393, 13.368-9, and Od. 4.6-7 it is followed by a complementary future infinitive; second, only one MS (before correction) and one papyrus have the future forms, and all the others have subjunctives, τιμήσηις, ὀλέσηις δὲ: ... ; cf.2.3-4. These subjunctives, where optatives might be expected after the aorist κατανεῦσαι, would also be unusual but could be understood as vividly expressing Hera's subjective sense of Zeus's will or desire. For similar textual uncertainty, see 17.144 ... (Willmott 2007: 75-6)."
Semper Fidelis