271. It is characteristic of the relative clause that the verb to be is often omitted.
Il. 8. 524 μῦθος δʼ ὃς μὲν νῦν ὑγιής, εἰρημένος ἔστω
οἵ περ ἄριστοι
ἥ τις ἀρίστη
ὅς τʼ αἴτιος ὅς τε καὶ οὐκί, etc.
Hence we should write in Il. 11.535, 20.500 ἄντυγες αἵ περὶ δίφρον, in ll. 21.353 ἰχθύες οἵ κατὰ δίνας. So with the adverbs.
Od. 10.176 ὄφρʼ ἐν νηῒ θοῇ βρῶσίς τε πόσις τε
sο lοng as there is fοοd and drink in the ship
- This ellipse leads to a peculiar attraction into the case of the antecedent, found chiefly with ὅσος τε, as
Od. 10.113 τὴν δὲ γυναῖκα
εὗρον ὅσην τʼ ὄρεος κορυφήν
which is equivalent to τόσην ὅση ἐστὶ κορυφή; and so ὅσον τε, Od. 9.322, 325; 10.167, 517; 11.25; also οἷόν τε, Od. 19. 233.
The only instance in the Iliad is somewhat different
Il. 1.262 οὐ γάρ πω τοίους ἴδον . . .
οἷον Πειρίθοον κτλ.
The later attraction of the relative into the case of the antecedent is not found in Homer. Κϋhner gives as an example ll. 5.265-6.
τῆς γάρ τοι γενεῆς ἧς Τρωΐ περ εὐρυόπα Ζεὺς δῶχʼ
But there the genitive is partitive: "the brood from which Zeus gave" (§ 151.e). Sο Il. 23.649 (§ 153).
- Another effect of this omission may be found in the use of double relatival forms, especially ὡς ὅτε as (it is) when; which again may be used without any verb following.
Il. 13.471 ἀλλʼ ἔμενʼ ὡς ὅτε τις σῦς οὔρεσιν ἀλκὶ πεποιθώς,
ὅς τε μένει κτλ.
So ὡς εἰ and ὡς εἰ τε as (it would be) if.
Il. 5.373 τίς νύ σε τοιάδʼ ἔρεξε . . .
ὡς εἴ τι κακὸν ῥέζουσαν
A similar account is probably to be given of the pecαliar double Relative
Il. 8.229 πῇ ἔβαν εὐχωλαί, ὅτε δὴ φάμεν εἶναι ἄριστοι,
ἃς ὁπότʼ ἐν Λήμνῳ κενεαυχέες ἠγοράασθε
whence once (whenever it was) yοu made boast
- The want of a finite verb also leads to the construction of οἷος, ὡς, etc., with the infinitive. This is only beginning in Homer: see § 235. It arises by a kind of mixture or "contamination" of two simple constructions
(1) The ordinary infinitive with the demonstratives τοῖος, τηλίκος, etc. (§ 232).
Od. 2.60 τοῖοι ἀμυνέμεν
of the kind to defend
Od. 17.20 μένειν ἔτι τηλίκος
of the age for remaining
(2) The correlative form.
Il. 5.483 τοῖον
οἷόν κʼ ἠὲ φέροιεν Ἀχαιοὶ ἤ κεν ἄγοιεν
Il. 7. 231 ἡμεῖς δʼ εἰμὲν τοῖοι οἱ ἂν σέθεν ἀντιάσαιμεν
Thus (e.g.) Od. 21.172-3
τοῖον . . .
οἷόν τε ῥυτῆρα βιοῦ τ ἔμεναι καὶ οἴκτων
combines the forms τοῖον ἔμεναι of the kind to be and τοῖον οἷός τε (ἐστί) of the kind that (is). In other words, the construction of τοῖος is transferred to the correlatives τοῖος . . . οἷος. Then τοῖος is omitted, and we get οἷος with the infinitive. The same may be said of ὥς τε with the infinitive, which is post-Homeric.
272. Double Relative Clauses. When a relative introduces two or more clauses connected by καί or δέ, it need not be construed with any clause after the first.
Il. 1.162 ᾦ ἔπι πόλλʼ ἐμόγησα, δόσαν δέ μοι υἷες Ἀχαιῶν
for which I tοiled, and which the sons of the Greeks gave me
Od. 2.114 τῷ ὅτεῳ τε πατὴρ κέλεται καὶ ἁνδάνει αὐτῇ
and who is pleasing to herself
The relative is not repeated in any clause of this form; but its place is often taken by another pronoun (usually an enclitic, or an unemphatic αὐτός).
Il. 1.78 ἦ γὰρ ὁΐομαι ἄνδρα χολωσέμεν, ὃς μέγα πάντων
Ἀργείων κρατέει καί οἱ πείθονται Ἀχαιοί
Od. 9.19 εἴμʼ Ὀδυσεὺς Λαερτιάδης, ὃς πᾶσι δόλοισιν
ἀνθρώποισι μέλω, καί μευ κλέος οὐρανὸν ἵκει.
This idiom, it should be observed, is not peculiar to Homer, but prevails in all periods of Greek (Κuhner, Il. p. 935).
On the same principle, when a succession of clauses is introduced by a relatival adverb, the first verb may be in the subjunctive or optative, while the rest are in the indicative. This is especially noticeable in similes.
Il. 2.147 ὡς δʼ ὅτε κινήσῃ Ζέφυρος βαθὺ λήϊον ἐλθών,
λάβρος ἐπαιγίζων, ἐπί τʼ ἠμύει ἀσταχύεσσι
Il. 4.483 ἥ ῥά τʼ ἐν εἰαμενῇ ἕλεος μεγάλοιο πεφύκῃ
λείη, ἀτάρ τέ οἱ ὄζοι ἐπʼ ἀκροτάτῃ πεφύασι
Successive relative clauses not connected by a conjunction are frequent in Homer. The relative may be repeated for the sake of emphasis.
Od. 2.130 δόμων ἀέκουσαν ἀπῶσαι
ἥ μʼ ἔτεχʼ ἥ μʼ ἔθρεψε.
Or the second clause is epexegetic of the first.
Il. 5.453 σχέτλιος, ὀβριμοεργός, ὃς οὐκ ὄθετʼ αἴσυλα ῥέζων,
ὃς τόξοισιν ἔκηδε θεούς (so 6.131, 17. 674, etc.)
Or it marks the return to the main thread ob the narrative.
Od. 14.288 δὴ τότε Φοῖνιξ ἦλθεν ἀνήρ, ἀπατήλια εἰδώς,
τρώκτης, ὃς δὴ πολλὰ κάκʼ ἀνθρώποισιν ἐώργει,
ὅς μʼ ἄγε παρπεπιθὼν κτλ.
Cp. Il. 15.461-3. Where different pronouns are used as relatives in successive causes, the reason of the variety may often be traced. Thus in
Il. 16.157 οἱ δὲ λύκοι ὣς
ὠμοφάγοι, τοῖσίν τε περὶ φρεσὶν ἄσπετος ἀλκή,
οἵ τʼ ἔλαφον . . .
the article τοῖσι gives a characteristic of all wolves, the relative οἴ passes to the wolves of the particular simile. In both the meaning is general, accordingly τε is used.
Again, we find ὅς τε introducing a general assertion, while ὅς relates to a particular fact
Il. 4.442-4 ἥ τʼ ὀλίγη μὲν πρῶτα κορύσσεται . . .
ἥ σφιν καὶ τότε κτλ.
Il. 5.545 Ἀλφειοῦ, ὅς τʼ εὐρὺ ῥέει Πυλίων διὰ γαίης,
ὃς τέκετʼ Ὀρσίλοχον
and Il. 18.520 in the reverse order.
οἱ δʼ ὅτε δή ῥʼ ἵκανον ὅθι σφίσιν εἶκε λοχῆσαι
ἐν ποταμῷ, ὅθι τʼ ἀρδμὸς ἔην
The difference between ὅς τις and ὅς τε appears in Od. 6.286.
καὶ δʼ ἄλλῃ νεμεσῶ ἥ τις τοιαῦτά γε ῥέζοι,
ἥ τ ἀέκητι φίλων πατρὸς καὶ μητρὸς ἐόντων
Here ἥ τις insists on the inclusion of all members of the class (any one who—), ἥ τε prepares us for the class characteristics (one of the kind that—).