ὡς … ἕξειν. Against the tempting conjecture θεοὶ … ἕξουσ᾽, remark that in some other passages, where our MSS. give this mixed construction, the acc. and inf. could not be eliminated without strong measures: thus Xen. Hellen. 6.5.42 “ἐλπίζειν δὲ χρὴ ὡς ἄνδρας ἀγαθοὺς μᾶλλον ἢ κακοὺς αὐτοὺς γενήσεσθαι”: Cyr. 8. 1. 25 “πρὸς δὲ τούτοις ἐλογίζετο ὡς εἰ πάντες οἱ κοινῶνες θεοσεβεῖς εἶεν, ἧττον ἂν αὐτοὺς ἐθέλειν”: where the least violent remedy would be to delete ὡς—a course not possible here. In some other such places, indeed, the inf. can be very easily corrected (as Hellen. 3. 4. 27 “εἴη” for “εἶναι”, 7. 4. 39 “δεῖ” for “δεῖν”). ὡς … θεοὺς ἕξειν may be sound. Harsh as it seems to us, usage had perhaps accustomed the ear to hearing the speaker's own view introduced by ὡς, even when the corresponding construction did not follow. ὧδ᾽ ἐμοῦ would be weak. But ὥστ᾽ ἐμοῦ (against which the presence of “ὥστε” in 386 is not conclusive, cp. on 544) is worth weighing: cp. Eur. Or. 52 “ἐλπίδα δὲ δή τιν᾽ ἔχομεν ὥστε μὴ θανεῖν”.
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.