previous next

[54] The correlation of subj. and opt. is the same as in 11.386-7 —

“εἰ μὲν δὴ ἀντίβιον σὺν τεύχεσι πειρηθείης, οὐκ ἄν τοι χραίσμηισι βιὸς καὶ ταρφέες ἰοί”.

In both there is an apparent logical inconsistency, for the subj. expresses confident anticipation (H. G. § 276), which is however based upon a condition considered as less probable; we are accustomed to observe the strict rule of thought, and to make the conclusion as supposititious as the condition on which it is based. But the confidence expressed in these two passages is relative rather than absolute; if the condition be once granted, then the result is certain. See also on 22.42. As far as the lines before us are concerned, indeed, we might say that Hector, though he chooses to put the case of Paris' fall as hypothetical only, yet at any rate for rhetorical purposes clearly means to intimate that he does expect it; but this explanation would not apply so well to 11.386. That passage proves that we must not alter the text by reading either “χραίσμοι” with some critics, or “μιγείηις” (subj.) with others. See also note on 2.488. P. Knight remarked, as an illustration of the deictic use of the article, that it is added to what can be pointed at, “κόμη” and “εἶδος”, but not to “κίθαρις”, which Paris has not with him.

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 (1 total)
  • Commentary references from this page (1):
hide Display Preferences
Greek Display:
Arabic Display:
View by Default:
Browse Bar: