Il 1 560

Are you reading Homeric Greek? Whether you are a total beginner or an advanced Homerist, here you can meet kindred spirits. Besides Homer, use this board for all things early Greek poetry.
Post Reply
User avatar
Constantinus Philo
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 1403
Joined: Tue Mar 05, 2019 1:04 pm

Il 1 560

Post by Constantinus Philo »

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?
Semper Fidelis

Vasile Stancu
Textkit Member
Posts: 125
Joined: Wed Jan 20, 2021 5:59 pm
Location: Timisoara, Romania

Re: Il 1 560

Post by Vasile Stancu »

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)."

User avatar
Constantinus Philo
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 1403
Joined: Tue Mar 05, 2019 1:04 pm

Re: Il 1 560

Post by Constantinus Philo »

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)."
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.
Semper Fidelis

Post Reply