ποτὶ … γαίῃ. The Homeric rule appears to require that we should not regard “γαίῃ” as directly governed by the preposition “ποτί”, but rather consider “ποτί” as used adverbially (or, possibly, in tmesis) with “βάλε”, and “γαίῃ” as an addition, serving to define the general direction of “ποτὶ . . βάλε” more closely. It seems right to say that according to Homeric usage no real separation is possible between the preposition and its noun, so that the Herodotean phrase (lib. 7. 149) “πρὸ δύντος ἡλίου” would be inadmissible in Homer, because “δύντος” expresses a direct predicate. In such collocations as “περὶ κταμένης ἐλάφοιο” Il.16. 757, “σὺν οὐλομένῃ ἀλόχῳ” Od.11. 410, “ἅμ᾽ ἀγρομένοισι σύεσσι” Od.16. 3, the participles must be regarded as simply equivalent to adjectives. Particles and enclitic pronouns can stand between the preposition and its case, as “πρὸς γὰρ Διός” Od.6. 207, “μετ᾽ ἄρα δμῳῆσιν” Od.17. 493, “ἐπὶ καὶ τῷ θῆκε” Il.24. 538, “μετά γε κλυτὸν Ὠρίωνα” Od.11. 310, “πὰρ δ᾽ ἄρα μιν Ταφίων πρίατο” Od.14. 452.So may the attributive genitive depending on the noun, as “περὶ δ᾽ ἔγχεος αἰχμῇ” Il.16. 315.The preposition may also be separated from its noun by stronger words when a peculiar emphasis is produced by the collocation, as “πρὸ ὁ τοῦ” Il.10. 224, “παρ᾽ οὐκ ἐθέλων ἐθελούσῃ” Od.5. 155.But in the present passage and in similar ones, as infra v. 427 “ἀμφὶ δὲ κῦμα στείρῃ . . ἴαχε”, or “ἀνήλυθεν ἐκ δόρυ γαίης” Od.6. 167, or “δῄεις δ᾽ ἐν πήματα οἴκῳ”, it is better to give an adverbial force to the preposition and to take the appended noun as an epexegesis. See on the whole question Schnorr, de verb. colloc. apud Homerum.
This text is part of:
Table of Contents:
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.