Commentary on the Odyssey (1886)


Commentary on the Odyssey (1886)
By W. Walter Merry
Oxford Clarendon Press 1886-1901



Perseus Documents Collection Table of Contents



Book 1 (α)

Book 2 (β)

Book 3 (γ)

Book 4 (δ)

Book 5 (ε)

Book 6 (ζ)

Book 7 (η)

Book 8 (θ)

Book 9 (ι)

Book 10 (κ)

Book 11 (λ)

Book 12 (μ)

Book 13 (ν)

Book 14 (ξ)

Book 15 (ο)

Book 16 (π)

Book 17 (ρ)

Book 18 (ς)

Book 19 (τ)

Book 20 (υ)

Book 21 (φ)

Book 22 (χ)

Book 23 (ψ)

Book 24 (ω)


Funded by The Annenberg CPB/Project

Book 4 (δ)

 
Commentary on line 3

dainu/nta ga/mon, compare δαινύναι τάφον Od.3. 309.Doubtless this was not the actual wedding-day, but rather, as Athen. loc. cit. says, συνεχοῦς οὔσης τῆς ἑστιάσεως καὶ τῶν ἀκμαίων ἡμερῶν παρεληλυθυιῶν ἐν αἷς παρείληπτο μὲν γαμουμένη πρὸς τοῦ νυμφίου, but it is doubtful if Nitzsch can be right in inferring, from v. 8, that Hermione was already gone. The tenses (πέμπε and ἐξετέλειον) would rather suggest that preparations were just being made for her departure, and, similarly, that the daughter of Alector was on her way from Sparta to join Megapenthes. Thus Telemachus comes in upon the end of the feasting, for there is no sign of it when he enters the palace (assuming vv. 15-19 to be an interpolation, on which see below), nor on the next day. Nevertheless, the hesitation of Eteoneus (28, 29), about admitting Telemachus indicates that the bustle and confusion of the occasion had not subsided.

e)/th|sin. The Schol. explains this word by πολίταις. Apoll. Lex. Hom. renders it by ἑταίροις, and Nitzsch understands by it near relations or dependents of the family, comparing Il.6. 238ἄμφ' ἄρα μιν Τρώων ἄλοχοι θέον ἠδὲ θύγατρες


εἰρόμεναι παῖδάς τε κασιγνητους τε ἔτας τε, and Il.9. 464ἔται καὶ ἀνεψιοί, whence we learn two facts; (1) that the word excludes kinsmen, and (2) that it expresses a relation in which the female sex shared. Again from Il.7. 293ὡς σύ τ' ἐυφρήνῃς πάντας . . Ἀχαιοὺς,
σούς τε μάλιστα ἔτας καὶ ἑταίρους οἵ τοι ἔασι we learn that ἔται are distinct from the body of the citizens or the whole nation, and again distinct from ἑταῖροι. It is difficult to see how Nitzsch can regard them as being in a nearer relation than ἑταῖροι. On the contrary, the relation seems a wider one, as we see that men could stand in that relation to women, but not in the relation of ἑταῖροι. So Hector is described, Il.6. 262, as ἀμύνων ἔτῃσιν Il., i.e. helping the ἔται in the fight, and not, in a general sense, fighting for countrymen and countrywomen. So then ἔται are neither kinsmen, nor ἑταῖροι, but stand between these on the one hand, and the whole body of the citizens on the other. They are perhaps aequales, persons of the same generation, who have been known to each other (often slightly) all their lives. ἔτης was originally σfέτης, from stem sva of 3rd Pron., and so = Lat. sui.