previous next

οὔτεγόοις οὔτε λιταῖσιν. The strophic verse (123) probably represents the true metre: “τάκεις ὧδ᾽ ἀκόρεστον οἰμωγάν”. On this point most modern critics are agreed, though they differ as to whether the verse should be considered glyconic or dactylic. But the correction of v. 139 remains quite uncertain. Many edd. have received Hermann's ingenious emendation, “οὔτε γόοισιν οὔτ̓ ἄνταις”. Doubtless “ΑΝΤΑΙΣ” could easily have generated “ΛΙΤΑΙΣ”. But the form “ἄντη” is most dubious. Hermann relies solely on Hesychius, “ἀντήσει, λιτανείαις, ἀντήσεσιν”. He supposes that “ἀντήσει” was corrupted from “ἄντῃσι”: though it might also have come from “ἀντήσε”(“ς”)“ι”,—the second “ἀντήσεσιν” being a later addition. There is no other vestige of “ἄντη”. Erfurdt's οὔτε γόοισιν οὔτ᾽ εὐχαῖς would be satisfactory; but then we should have to assume that “οὔτε λιταῖσιν” arose from a perverse view of the metre. See Appendix.

Creative Commons License
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.

hide Display Preferences
Greek Display:
Arabic Display:
View by Default:
Browse Bar: