[212] 212-6 are to be compared with Od. 16.99-103, where 214 is not only repeated, but stands also in exactly the same position, as an apodosis with two protases, one preceding, the other following. It is possible to take νοστήσω and ἐξόψομαι as aor. subjunctives; compare, for another instance of an aor. form *“ὠψόμην,” 24.704, where “ὄψεσθε” is more natural if it be taken as aor. imper. than as fut. indic. But there is no valid reason against regarding them as fut. indic. except that such a constr. is not In Attic. any case there is no appreciable difference in sense. The second protasis has the opt. under the influence of the pure wish τάμοι: we might equally have had fut. indic. as 2.259 “μηκέτι .. εἴην, εἰ μὴ .. δύσω”, where again the constr. of the sentence is the same. ἀλλότριος: a foreigner is of course an inferior, and therefore defeat from such is the deepest degradation.
