previous next

ὥστε μήτιν᾽ εἰσιδὼν στέρξει. After “ὥστε”, the negative of the infin. is “μή”, but of the indic., “οὐ”. Here the “μή” must be due to the final sense: i.e., the notion of result is merged in that of aim; as if it were “ὅπως μή”. I have not found any real parallel. Dem. or. 19 § 218 writes, “τοσαύτης ἀνανδρίας...ὁμολογεῖτε εἶναι μεστοί, ὥστε μήτ᾽ ἐν τῇ χώρᾳ πολεμίων ὄντων μήτ᾽ ἐκ θαλάττης πολιουρκούμενοι...ε<*>τα τὴν εἰρήνην ἐποιήσασθε”. But there the “μή” seems clearly ‘generic’: i.e., the sense is: ‘you are so weak as to have made peace at a time when there was no enemy in the country,’ etc. [Prof. Goodwin, Moods and Tenses, new ed., § 606, suggests that “ἐποιήσασθε” virtually depends on an “εἰ” further back, and that the force of “ὥστε” is lost. This would be conceivable if the “μή” came after “ἐποιήσασθε”: but it immediately follows “ὥστε”.] —The opposite anomaly occurs in El.780 f. “ωστ᾽ οὔτε”... | ...“στεγάζειν”.

ἀντὶ σοῦ, instead of the gen. after the comparat.: Ant.182 n.

Creative Commons License
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.

hide References (3 total)
  • Commentary references from this page (3):
    • Demosthenes, On the False Embassy, 218
    • Sophocles, Antigone, 182
    • Sophocles, Electra, 780
hide Display Preferences
Greek Display:
Arabic Display:
View by Default:
Browse Bar: