ἀργὴς … πόκος: I follow Wunder and Lobeck in thus amending ἀργῆτ᾽ … πόκῳ. The latter reading, if sound, presents a dilemma. (1) ἀργῆτ̓=“ἀργῆτι”. But it is now generally recognised that the epic license of eliding datival “ι” was foreign to Attic Tragedy: the supposed examples all admit of easy remedy: see O. C., Appendix on v. 1436. (2) ἀργῆτα, agreeing with “πέπλον”: ‘white, glistering.’ This is possible; for, though τὸν ἐνδυτῆρα πέπλον precedes, a second epithet might follow: cp. n. on O. T.1199.But the effect of such an epithet, added at the end of the clause, would here be very weak. And if “ἀργῆτα” is taken as the proleptic predicate (‘anointed so as to make it shine,’ Wecklein), this does not suit the sense. On the other hand, the connection of “ἀργής” with “πόκος” is confirmed by Aesch. Eum.45“ἀργῆτα μαλλόν”. Blaydes suggests “ἀργῆς οἰὸς εὐέρου πόκῳ”: but the usage of “ἀργός” precludes this. A change of ἀργὴς … πόκος into ἀργῆτ̓ (meant for “ἀργῆτι”)...πόκῳ would easily have been induced by the preceding ᾧ.— εὐέρου, the Attic form, acc. to the schol. on Ar. Av.121(where metre requires “εὔερον”).
This text is part of:
Table of Contents:
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 United States License.