ὃν refers, not to “μόρος”, but back to “Ἔρως” (354), verses 356 f. being parenthetical; just as in 997 “ἣν” refers to “κρηπὶς” in 992, and not to “λώβαν” in 996. The conjecture ὃ would enfeeble the passage. ὃν … παρώσας expresses that the divine agent, who should have been placed in the foreground of the story (cp. 862), has been thrust out of sight. Cp. Eur. Andr.29“Ἑρμιόνην γαμεῖ”, | “τοὐμὸν παρώσας δεσπότης δοῦλον λέχος.—ἔμπαλιν λέγει”, speaks in a contrary sense. Her.1. 207“ἔχω γνώμην̔...τὰ ἔμπαλιν ἢ οὗτοι”. Il.9. 56“οὐδὲ πάλιν ἐρέει” (‘gainsay’).
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.