If in 1090 we keep οὐκ ἔσει τὰν αὔριον, it is best to read here with Arndt. ἢ σέ γ᾽ εὐνάτειρά τις. On the view that in 1090 τὰν ἐπιοῦσαν ἔσει was a probable emendation （see Appendix on that verse）, I proposed to read here, ἢ σέ γ᾽ ἔφυσε πατὴρ ι Λοξίας; If the σε of ἔφυσε had once been lost （through a confusion with the preceding σέ）, ΓΕΦΥΠΑΤΗΡ might easily have become ΓΕΘΥΓΑΤΗΡ: the τις （which is not in L） would have been inserted for metre's sake, and the change of Λοξίας to Λοξίου would have followed. （It cannot be objected that a mention of the mother is required here, since, as the context shows, the foremost thought is, “what god was thy sire? ”） It would be a very forced way of taking ἢ σέ γέ τις θυγάτηρ to make θυγάτηρ depend on μακραιώνων, and Λοξίου on πελασθεῖσ᾽ （i.e., “some daughter of the Nymphs wedded to Pan, or haply to Loxias ”）. Nor does it seem easy to take θυγάτηρ with τᾶν μακραιώνων in both clauses （ “some daughter of the Nymphs, wedded to Pan, or perhaps to Loxias ”）. On the whole, I now prefer Arndt's correction. -For σέ γε in the second alternative, cp. Soph. Phil. 1116 “πότμος σε δαιμόνων τάδ᾽, ι οὐδὲ σέ γε δόλος ἔσχεν.” Hdt. 7.10 （ad fin.） διαφορεύμενον ἤ κου ἐν γῇ τῇ Ἀθηναίων ἢ σέ γε ἐν τῇ Λακεδαιμονίων.
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.