ὡς μή μ᾽ ἄτιμον … οὕτως ἀφῇ με. The objection to ἀφῇ γε is that a second γε (though possible, see on 387) is here weak after θεοῦ γε. As to its place after ἀφῇ, that is paralleled by 1409. On the other hand a repeated με, in the utterance of impassioned entreaty, may be defended by 1407 ff. “μή τοί με... μή μ᾽ ἀτιμάσητέ γε”: cp. Tr. 218 “ἰδού μ᾽ ἀναταράσσει ι εὐοῖ μ᾽ ὁ κισσός”:
. Elmsley's conjecture “οὕτως ἀφιῇ”, which Hartung adopts, is unmetrical. “ἵημι” has ι^ always in pres. subj. and opt.: Il. 13.234 “μεθίῃσι μάχεσθαι”: Hom. Hymn. 4.152 “προίῃ βέλεα στονόεντα”: Theogn. 94 “γλῶσσαν ἱῇσι κακήν”: Od. 2.185 “ὧδ᾽ ἀνιείης”. In Aristoph. Lys. 157 “τί δ̓; ἢν ἀφίωσιν ἄνδρες ἡμᾶς, ὦ μέλε” (so the MSS.), Kuster brought in a gratuitous error by writing “ἀφίως᾿”, which Dindorf has adopted. (As Chandler says, “ἀφίωσι” is a false accent for “ἀφιῶσι”. Accent., 2nd ed. § 794, cp. § 820.) In the pres. indic., imper., inf., and part., ι_ is normal, but Homeric verse usually has ι^ in thesis (as when “ἵενται” ends a line); and the part. “ἱείς” (“ι_” in Aristoph. Eq. 522) occurs with “ι^” in Trag. (Aesch. Th. 493, etc.). Cp. El. 131 n. ἀφῆται (Blaydes) would mean “"let go hold of"” (with gen., O. T. 1521 “τέκνων δ᾽ ἀφοῦ”), not “"dismiss."” τοῦ θεοῦ γε, Poseidon (1158): γε emphasises the whole phrase, to which “ὄντα” would usu. be added (cp. 83): cp. O. T. 929 “ὀλβία … ι γένοιτ;, ἐκείνου γ᾽ οὖσα παντελὴς δάμαρ.” προστάτην: cp. on 1171. οὕτως, so contemptuously: cp. O. T. 256, Ant. 315.“ἐμοὶ μέν, εἰ καὶ μὴ καθ᾽ Ἑλλήνων χθόνα
τεθράμμεθ᾽, ἀλλ᾽ οὖν ξυνετά μοι δοκεῖς λέγειν
”
