previous next

[212] 212-6 are to be compared with Od. 16.99-103, where 214 is not only repeated, but stands also in exactly the same position, as an apodosis with two protases, one preceding, the other following. It is possible to take νοστήσω and ἐξόψομαι as aor. subjunctives; compare, for another instance of an aor. form *“ὠψόμην,” 24.704, where “ὄψεσθε” is more natural if it be taken as aor. imper. than as fut. indic. But there is no valid reason against regarding them as fut. indic. except that such a constr. is not In Attic. any case there is no appreciable difference in sense. The second protasis has the opt. under the influence of the pure wish τάμοι: we might equally have had fut. indic. as 2.259 “μηκέτι .. εἴην, εἰ μὴ .. δύσω”, where again the constr. of the sentence is the same. ἀλλότριος: a foreigner is of course an inferior, and therefore defeat from such is the deepest degradation.

The Iliad, edited, with apparatus criticus, prolegomena, notes, and appendices. Walter Leaf. London. Macmillan. 1900.

The National Endowment for the Humanities provided support for entering this text.

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 United States License.

An XML version of this text is available for download, with the additional restriction that you offer Perseus any modifications you make. Perseus provides credit for all accepted changes, storing new additions in a versioning system.

hide References (3 total)
  • Commentary references from this page (3):
hide Display Preferences
Greek Display:
Arabic Display:
View by Default:
Browse Bar: