ὡς ταῦτ᾽ ἐπίστω δρώμεν̓. Where “ὡς” occurs in such phrases with an imperative, it regularly belongs to the partic.: cp. 253 “ὡς μηδὲν εἰδότ᾽ ἴσθι μ̓” (n.). But here “ὡς ταῦτα...δρώμενα” could not strictly stand for “ὡς δρώμενα...ταῦτα”. The suspicions which the text has excited are, so far, natural. Yet I think that it is sound. The irregularity seems to have arisen from the fact that “ὡς”, prefixed to an assurance, could either (a) belong to a partic. (as in 253, 415, etc.), or (b) introduce the whole sentence, as 117 “ὡς τοῦτό γ᾽ ἔρξας δύο φέρει δωρήματα”. Thus the Attic ear had become accustomed to “ὡς” as the first word of such an assurance in either type. And so “ὡς” could be given that place in a sentence of type (a), even though the partic, did not immediately follow. That is, I do not suppose that “ὡς ταῦτ᾽ ἐπίστω δρώμενα” is for “ὡς δρώμεν᾽ ἐπίστω ταῦτα”: but rather that, instead of saying simply “ταῦτ᾽ ἐπίστω δρώμενα”, he can prefix “ὡς”, because the associations of type (b) had blunted the feeling for what was essential in type (a),—viz., that the partic. (or partic. with “μή”) should immediately follow “ὡς”.
This text is part of:
Table of Contents: