θανόντοιν is clearly required here, though our MSS. have “θανόντων”. So in El. 1297, where “νῷν ἐπελθόντοιν” is certainly right, L has “ἐπελθόντων” (with “οι” written over “ω” as a correction). A plur. noun can stand with “δύο” (Od. 12.73), and in Il. 16.428 we have “αἰγυπιοὶ γαμψώνυχες ...κλάζοντε”. But I have been able to find only one proper parallel for such a combination as “δυοῖν ἀδελφοῖν θανόντων”, viz., a verse of an unknown poet, fr. adesp. 153 in Nauck Trag. Frag. p. 679 “Αἴαντε δ᾽ ὁρμήσαντες ἐκ συνωρίδος”: and this has survived because Herodian cited it as a solecism (Anecd. Boiss. 3. 244): “ἔδει γὰρ ἐπενεχθῆναι δυϊκῷ δυϊκόν”. In that verse, too, the license had an obvious metrical motive, which did not exist here. Cp. 55 f. “ἀδελφὼ δύο...αὐτοκτονοῦντε;” 58 “λελειμμένα”; 62 “μαχουμένα”. διπλῇ χερί, i.e. each by the other's right hand (as in O. C. 1425 “θάνατον ἐξ ἀμφοῖν ῀ἐξ ἀλλήλοιν”): so 170 “διπλῆς μοίρας”, a doom given by each to the other. Cp. El. 206 “θανάτους...διδύμαιν χειροῖν”, a murder done by two right hands (that of Clytaemnestra and that of Aegisthus). Distinguish the use of the plur. “διπλοῖ” for “δύο”, as 51, 1233.
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.