previous next

If δ̓ is omitted (with Wecklein) after κομπεῖν, we must either make κομπεῖν οὐχὶ βούλομαι a parenthesis (as he does), or else point thus: “κλύειν:

” etc. The abruptness would add a certain spirit to the words. But the δ᾽ after κομπεῖν may well be genuine, if we conceive him as checking the impulse to remind Oed. of the prowess already shown: — "however, I do not wish to boast." “σὺ δὲ
σῶς ἴσθι

” could not mean, "know that you are safe": ὤν is indispensable: and the choice lies between (1) “σὺ δ᾽ ὢν
σῶς ἴσθ᾽

”, and (2) “σὺ σῶς
ὢν ἴσθ᾽

”. For (2) it may be said that the MS. σῶν is more easily explained by it, and that δὲ might have been added to complete v. 1209: for (1), that it is nearer to the actual text (in which σῶν may have sprung from ὤν superscript), and that σῶς is more effective if it begins the verse in which σώζῃ follows.

Creative Commons License
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.

hide Display Preferences
Greek Display:
Arabic Display:
View by Default:
Browse Bar: