ἐᾶτέ μ̓, ἐᾶτε … εὐνᾶσθαι. A restoration of this corrupt passage turns chiefly on the following points. (1) The corresponding verses of the antistrophe (1016 f.) may be taken as showing the true metre. (2) L's variant for εὐνᾶσαι in 1005, viz. ὕστατον, may therefore be received. εὐνάσαι (“α^”), from “εὐνάζω” is impossible, since, like “εὐνᾶσαι” (“εὐνάω”), it could only be transitive. (3) In 1006 the MS. δύστανον is clearly wrong; it may have been either a gloss on δύσμορον, or a corruption of ὕστατον. (4) Hermann's reading in 1006, ἐᾶθ᾽ ὕστατον εὐνᾶσθαι, is strongly confirmed by the metrical correspondence with 1017, μολὼν τοῦ στυγεροῦ; φεῦ φεῦ,—a verse of undoubted soundness.
This text is part of:
Table of Contents:
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.