ἂν . . ἐρύουσιν, a clear case of fut. indic. with “ἄν” if the text is right. The real suspicion attaches not to the mood, but to “ἄν” itself, for which we can here easily read “ἂρ” (van L.) or “αὖ” (Heyne). The case against “κεν” with fut. indic. is stated by van L. Ench. p. 310. It depends entirely first on the assumption (generally made tacitly) that because “ἄν” with fut. is not found (after a certain amount of gentle violence to the tradition) in Attic, therefore it must be forbidden in Homer; secondly on the fact that in most places where the construction is found in H. it can (again with more or less gentle violence) be conjectured away. A “γε” or “τε” can generally take the place of “κε, μέν” of “κεν, ἄρ” of “ἄν”. In cases where the fut. stem is identical with that of a known sigmatic aorist, we can always change -“εις, -ει, -ουσιν, -εσθε, -ονται”, into -“ηις, -ηι, -ωσιν, -ησθε, -ωνται”; the other cases are always ambiguous because of the short vowel of the Homeric aor. subj. There remain only verbs of which we can say with confidence that they have no aorist stem identical with the future. And as the number of these is even smaller in H. than later Greek (e.g. we have “ἀξέμεν, οἰσέμεν”, and perhaps “ὀψέσθαι” as aorists) we are almost reduced for crucial instances to the comparatively small number of futures which have not a sigmatic stem, with the addition of a few like “κείσονται” in 71, which we feel confident cannot be aorists. There are at least three such crucial passages — “δώσω” 14.267, “ἐρέει” 4.176 (cf. “ὥς ποτέ τις ἐρέει” 182), “κείσονται” 22.71. These passages, taken in conjunction with the general MS. tradition, undoubtedly make a strong prima facie case in favour of the construction; the stronger because it is hard to understand what can possibly have made copyists or “μεταχαρακτηρίζοντες” conspire to foist into the text a construction which, ex hypothesi, was never known to Greek; they cannot have been under the influence either of classical example or of a tendency to false archaism. We should more reasonably expect to find the fut. indic. regularly corrupted into the aor. subj., which to the classic period was doubtless an archaic construction (Pind. N. vii. 68 “μαθὼν δέ τις ἂν ἐρεῖ” looks like a reminiscence of 4.176). It certainly cannot be said that the fut. indic. is inconsistent with the meaning of “κεν”; on the contrary it seems so natural that surprise may be felt that it should have been allowed to drop out of use. There is therefore no ground for altering the ordinary tradition, which is consistent, and furnishes a large number of examples. On the use of the constr. see H. G. § 326. 1. πύματον, after living to see all my family slain. πρώτηισι θύρηισιν, at the street-door leading into the “αὐλή”.
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.