ἀλλὰ … μέντοι, ‘nay, but...’: cp. Ph. 524“ἀλλ᾽ αἰσχρὰ μέντοι σοῦ γέ μ᾽ ἐνδεέστερον ι ξένῳ φανῆναι.” ἥδε μὴ λέγε, say not ‘“ἥδε”,’ speak not of her as still with thee, for she is already numbered with the dead. “οἵδε” are “οἱ ἐνθάδε”, the living (75), as “κεῖνοι” (525) are “οἱ ἐκεῖ”, the dead (cp. 76). The peculiarity is that we should have expected either (a) “τήνδε”, acc. to “λέγε”, or (b) “τῆσδε”, as a direct quotation from the last verse: cp. Dem. or. 18 § 88 “τίς ἦν...; ὑμεῖς, ὦ ἄνδρες Ἀθηναῖοι. τὸ δ᾽ ὑμεῖς ὅταν λέγω, λέγω τὴν πόλιν”. If (e.g.) “ὑμῶν” had preceded “ω ἄνδρες”, Dem. would doubtless have said “τὸ δ᾽ ὑμῶν”, or else “ὑμᾶς δ᾽”. Here, however, no fair objection would remain if we had “ἀλλὰ τὸ ἥδε μὴ λέγε”, i. e. ‘never use the word “ἥδε” about her,’—which makes the sense more general than if he said, “ἀλλὰ τῆσδε μὴ λέγε”, i. e. ‘do not say (that you cannot live without) “ἥδε”.’ The question, then, seems to resolve itself into this:—Wishing to give the more general sense just indicated, could the poet say “ἥδε” instead of “τὸ ἥδε”? To show that the art. was not always required in such quotation, it is enough to cite Aristoph. Eq. 21 “λέγε δὴ μόλωμεν”, by the side of “τὸ μόλωμεν” ib. 26. While, then, I cannot produce any exact parallel for this “ἥδε”, I think it reasonable to suppose that colloquial idiom would have allowed it. Those who deny this have two resources. (1) To point thus: “ἀλλ᾽ ἥδε μέντοι—μὴ λέγ᾽:” i.e. instead of adding “οὐκ ἔστιν ἔτι” after “μέντοι”, he breaks off his sentence—‘do not speak of her.’ So Bellermann. (2) Semitelos reads “ἀλλ᾽ ἥδε μέν σοι μὴ λέγ᾽ ὡς ἄρ᾽” [for “οὐ γὰρ] ἔστ᾽ ἔτι”, ‘do not say that you have her any longer.’ As to “σοι”, see cr. n. above. Neither of these readings gives such a forcible sense as the vulgate.
This text is part of:
Table of Contents:
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 United States License.