οὔτε †γόοις 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.
This text is part of:
Table of Contents:
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 United States License.