φέρε … μάθῃς, L's reading, presents an unexampled construction. Elsewhere the subjunctive after “φέρε” occurs only in the first person, sing., as 1452, Nub. 787 “φέρ᾽ ἴδω”: or plur., as id. Vesp. 1516 “φέρε νυν...ξυγχωρήσωμεν”. On the other hand, “φέρ᾽ εἰπέ” occurs eight times in Soph. (433; Soph. O. T. 390, Soph. O. T. 536, Soph. O. T. 1142: Soph. Ant. 534: Soph. El. 310, Soph. El. 376: Soph. Tr. 890). In Her. 4. 127“φέρετε, τούτους ἀνευρόντες συγχέειν πειρᾶσθε αὐτούς”, the 2nd verb is imperat., not subj. If “φέρε...μάθῃς” be retained, it can be defended only as an irregular equivalent for “φέρε...φράσω” or the like (cp. Her. 2. 14“φέρε δὲ νῦν καὶ αὐτοῖσι Αἰγυπτίοισι ὡς ἔχει φράσω”). Several recent editors (see cr. n.) cut the knot by reading μάθε. It is, however, improbable that, if μάθε had been the genuine reading—giving so plain a construction—it would have been corrupted to the unparalleled μάθῃς. A more attractive conjecture is Seyffert's κἂν … μάθοις. If κἂν had once become καὶ (a most easy change), then μάθοις might have been altered to μάθῃς by a postclassical corrector. For the optat. with “ἄν” in courteous proposal or request, cp. 674: El. 637“κλύοις ἂν ἤδη”. τὸ τῆς νήσου, its case, condition: cp. Thuc. 8. 89“οὐκ ἐδόκει μόνιμον τὸ τῆς ὀλιγαρχίας ἔσεσθαι”: Legg. 712 D “τὸ γὰρ τῶν ἐφόρων...τυραννικὸν...γέγονε”: id. Gorg. 450C “τὸ τῆς τέχνης”: Eur. Alc. 785“τὸ τῆς τύχης”. Hence τὰ is a needless conjecture.
This text is part of:
Table of Contents: