δίας Ἀθάνας. The genitive, if sound, is best taken as depending on “ἀντιφωνεῖ” in the sense of “ἀντίον λέγει”, ‘says to her face.’ In Ph. 1065, however, this verb takes an acc. of the person, “μή μ᾽ ἀντιφώνει μηδέν”: and no verb of ‘accosting’ affords a parallel to such a constr. as “ἀντιφωνεῖν τινος”. Such phrases as those in Aesch. Pers. 694 f. “ἀντία λέξαι ι σέθεν” (‘in thy presence’), Hom. Od. 15. 377“ἀντία δεσποίνης φάσθαι”, are not relevant. (In Hom. Il. 1. 230, “ὅστις σέθεν ἀντίον εἴπῃ”, the sense is, ‘against thee.’） Other explanations are the following. (1) The poet meant to add something to the effect of “ἠτίμασε τὴν παραίνεσιν”, but changed the form of the sentence. (2) “Ἀθάνας, ἡνίκα..ηὐδᾶτο” stands for a gen. absol., “Ἀθάνας αὐδωμένης”. (3) The gen. depends on “ἔπος” in 773, ‘a saying about her,’ like “μῦθος..φίλων” ( Ant. 11). The most attractive remedy is Mehlhorn's, δίαν Ἀθάναν, so that the verb shall have the same constr. as in Ph. 1065.But, if this be right, how did the genitive arise? Possibly some annotator, who thought that after “ηὐδᾶτ̓” in 772 the subject of “ἀντιφωνεῖ” might be obscure, wrote “ΑΙΑΣ” in the margin, and this, mistaken for “ΔΙΑΣ”, led to “ΔΙΑΣ ΑΘΑΝΑΣ” supplanting “ΔΙΑΝ ΑΘΑΝΑΝ” in the text. The occurrence of the same words in 757 may have helped. [The Homeric fem. is “δῖα, δῖαν”. But “δία_” occurs in Rhes. 226 “Ἄπολλον, ὦ δία κεφαλά”.] If, on the other hand, δίας Ἀθάνας be genuine, then corruption may lurk in δεύτερον: e.g. the poet may have written “εἶτα δ᾽ ἀντίον”.
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.