ἐρῶ μέν: for “μέν” cp. n. on 11. It merely gives a slight emphasis to “ἐρῶ.” συγκατηυξάμην: “κατά” expresses that the prayer is solemn; “σύν”, that it sums up his desires. (For this force of “σύν” cp. 1202.) Cp. O. C. 585 “ἐνταῦθα γάρ μοι κεῖνα συγκομίζεται” (‘by that boon I reap all the rest’).—Nauck thinks that L's reading, ἀλλ᾽ ὧν ἐρῶ, ταῦτα συγκατηυξάμην, is sound, and that in the corresponding verse, 1314, we should perh. read, “ποίῳ δὲ κἀλύετ᾽” (for “κἀπελύσατ᾽”) “ἐν φοναῖς τρόπῳ”; He refers to the scholium on 1314: “τίνι τρόπῳ, φησίν, ἐλύετο, καὶ ἐφέρετο εἰς φονάς; ἀντὶ τοῦ, ποίῳ τρόπῳ εἰς φόνον ἔπεσεν”; Now, this does not point, I think, to the Scholiast's having “ἐλύετο” in his text, though it suggests that he had “εἰς φονάς”. He used the simple verb in his paraphrase in order to bring out the literal sense (as he took it) of “ἀπελύσατο”. This is shown by “ἐφέρετο” and “ἔπεσεν”: he understood, ‘she was set free (as a runner in a race is dismissed from the starting-post), and rushed (“ἐφέρετο”) to bloodshed.’—Further, the origin of L's reading is manifest. ἐρῶ μὲν had become ἐρῶμεν (as it actually is in at least one later MS.). Then the plur. “ἐρῶμεν” seemed too harsh with the sing. “συγκατηυξάμην” immediately following (though, in fact, it would have been quite defensible, cp. 734 n.), and was changed to ἐρῶ (μεν disappearing). Semitelos would read with L here, and yet leave 1314 unaltered. He refers to Ai. 905 where L has “τίνος ποτ᾽ ἆρ᾽ ἔπραξε χειρὶ δύσμορος” corresponding with 951 “ἄγαν ὑπερβριθὲς ἄχθος ἤνυσαν”. But there “ἔπραξε” is surely corrupt: Hermann gives “ἔρξε”, and Wecklein “ἔπαθε”.
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.