ἐγώ θ̓. After “πάρεστι μὲν Τεῦκρος”, the regular constr. would have been “πάρειμι δὲ ἐγώ”. But, having omitted to repeat the verb, the poet has written “ἐγώ θ̓”, since “ἐγὼ δ̓” would now have been awkward. Cp. Ant. 1162“σώσας μὲν”... | “λαβών τε” (n.). μηδ᾽ ἐπιθύνειν. The Ionic and Epic form “ἰθύνω”, though unknown to Comedy or classical prose, occurs in our MSS. of Aesch. and Eur. ,—and not in lyrics only. Some edd. now always give “εὐθύνω” in Trag.; unnecessarily, I think. After a verb of thinking or saying, “οὐ” is the ordinary negative with the inf.: but “μή” sometimes occurs ( O. T. 1455 n., 2nd ed.). Here the question is, why the second inf. should have μηδ̓, when οὐδὲν precedes the other. Two answers are possible. I place first that which seems to me right. (1) οὐδὲν belongs to κάκιον only, and not to κρατύνειν. Thus there is no incongruity between “οὐδέν” and “μηδέ”, since only “μηδέ” belongs to an inf. This may be seen by supposing an equivalent phrase substituted for “σοῦ κάκιον οὐδέν”: e.g., “οἶμαι ὅμοια σοὶ τούτων ἂν κρατύνειν, μηδὲ χεῖρον ἐπιθύνειν”. Schneidewin cp. Plat. Prot. 319B “ὅθεν δὲ αὐτὸ ἡγοῦμαι οὐ διδακτὸν εἶναι, μηδ᾽ ὑπ᾽ ἀνθρώπων παρασκευαστὸν ἀνθρώποις, δίκαιός εἰμι εἰπεῖν”: where, if “οὐ” belonged to “εἶναι”, the immediately following “μηδέ” would be extremely harsh; while there is no such harshness if “οὐ” belongs to “διδακτὸν” only, “οὐ-διδακτὸν” being equivalent to “ἀδύνατον διδάσκεσθαι”. (2) The less probable view is that οὐδὲν belongs to κρατύνειν, and, in using μηδ̓ instead of “οὐδ̓” before ἐπιθύνειν, the writer has merely used the other alternative which οἶμαι left to him. Now, idiom is partly governed by association, and can even be influenced by false analogy. The sequence of οὐ and μηδέ was most familiar to the Attic ear in a constr. which opposed their clauses to each other (“οὐ θᾶσσον οἴσεις μηδ᾽ ἀπιστήσεις ἐμοί”;). It seems unlikely, then, that an Attic writer would wantonly have used οὐ … μηδέ instead of οὐ … οὐδέ in a short sentence where the two negatives were simply coordinate.— Eur. Andr. 586(quoted by Schneidewin) is not apposite: “δρᾶν εὖ, κακῶς δ᾽ οὔ, μηδ᾽ ἀποκτείνειν βίᾳ”: where “ἔστι” is understood with “δρᾶν”, and again with “οὔ”: ‘they are thine to benefit, (but not to injure,)—and not to slay’: i.e., “μηδέ” contrasts “ἀποκτ”. with “δρᾶν εὖ”, and the words “κακῶς δ᾽ οὔ” form a parenthesis. Nauck's conjecture, ἠδ᾽ ἐπευθύνειν, is specious, but not necessary.
This text is part of:
Table of Contents: