Author’s Preface In the past seventeen years the so-called “mixed aorists” have not exactly mounted the chariot of controversy. There are, however, a few articles which should be mentioned now that this thesis is being published, without change except for the addition of this preface. [1] In 1971, M. I. Slavyatinskaya published a short article in Russian on “The Meaning and… Read more
Introduction The Homeric poems provide some of the easiest reading in Greek literature, as well as some of the most rewarding, and so we are introduced to them at an early stage in our study of the language. But when we learn more, we discover that Homeric Greek is not so simple after all. Some of its phenomena remain unexplained after two millennia of scholarship. For instance,… Read more
1. The History of the “Mixed Aorist” Problem The “mixed aorist” forms have been a subject for scholarly dispute as long as Homeric scholarship has existed. Aristarchus considered the problem of determining the correct spelling. At K 513, the scholia of Venetus A tell us that Aristarchus read ἐπεβήσετο but others ἐπεβήσατο. At Γ 262, Aristarchus preferred βήσετο, but refrained from altering the text, which had βήσατο:… Read more
2. Οἵσετε One class of “mixed aorists” consists of the imperatives ἄξετε and ἄξεσθε, οἶσε οἴσετε and οἰσέτω, ὄψεσθε (the singular imperative ὄψεο· ἰδέ often cited as from Hesychius is actually a conjecture of Cobet’s, which Latte does not accept in his edition [1] ); the secondary tense form ἄξοντο; and the infinitives ἀξέμεν and ἀξέμεναι, οἰσέμεν and οἰσέμεναι. [2]… Read more
3. Δύσετο and Βήσετο The “mixed aorists” are by no means a homogeneous group. If οἴσετε, ὄψεσθε, ἄξετε, and ἄξοντο were created by certain processes within the epic language, we cannot therefore assume, as Leumann does, that the same explanation is valid for ἐβήσετο, βήσεο, ἐδύσετο, δύσεο and their compounds. [1] The reading with thematic vowel was upheld by Aristarchus against the… Read more
Chapter 4. Ὄρσεο and Λέξεο In order to say anything useful about the “mixed aorist” imperative ὄρσεο, we must see it in relation to the other forms of the verb ὄρνυμι as they are used in the epic. The basic usage is in the middle and perfect, with intransitive sense; compare the middle forms of the Latin cognate orior. Nearly all the forms of ὄρνυμι attested in… Read more
5. Ἷξον There remains to be considered the aorist ἷξε (second person singular ἷξες, third person plural ἷξον). This verb has given scholars particular difficulty; Wackernagel in 1925, for example, called ἷξον das einzige unerklärte Beispiel des Aoristus mixtus. [1] This is the only “mixed aorist” which is both active and indicative. Some scholars state that ἷξε would be a regular… Read more
6. Conclusions If we try to summarize our findings on the “mixed aorists,” the most evident fact is their heterogeneity. The problems appear to be morphological; and yet the first set of forms treated (οἴσετε, ἄξετε, ὄψεσθε, etc.) could not be explained on the morphological level. It was necessary to move to the syntactical level to show how οἴσετε was created by a transformation of a phrase… Read more
List of Works Cited Ahrens, Heinrich Ludolf. 1839. De dialectis aeolicis et pseudoaeolicis. Vol. 1, De graecae linguae dialectis. Göttingen. Bamberg, Albert von. 1885. Homerische Formen. Vol. 3, Griechische Schulgrammatik, 5th ed. Berlin. Bechtel, Friedrich. 1914. Lexilogus zu Homer. Halle. Benveniste, Emile. 1966. Problèmes de linguistique générale. Paris. Bers, Victor. Read more
Prologue [In this on-line version, the page-numbers of the printed version are indicated within braces (“{” and “}”). For example, “{69|70}” indicates where p. 69 of the printed version ends and p. 70 begins. These indications will be useful to readers who need to look up references made elsewhere to the printed version of this book.] Homeric Responses builds on two earlier books, Homeric Questions (1996)… Read more
