πόθι μοι πόθι παῖς. In the MS. reading, “πόθι μοι πόθι μοι παῖς”, either the second “μοι”, or “παῖς”, must be omitted: the antistrophic words are “βλεφάρων πόθον, ἀλλ̓” (107). The strong reason for retaining πα<*>ς is that, as the constr. would have been so clear without it, it is very unlikely to have been inserted; while the repetition of μοι would have been a most easy error. For τὸν Ἀλκμ., followed by παῖς in the relat. clause, Schneidewin cp. Eur. H. F.840“γνῷ μὲν τὸν Ἥρας οἷός ἐστ᾽ αὐτῷ χόλος”, and id. fr. 1039. 3 “ὁρᾷς τὸν εὐτράπεζον ὡς ἡδὺς βίος”. Porson is cited by Wunder and other editors as the authority for omitting “παῖς”. But Porson (on Hec.1030) said only that it is possible to omit “παῖς”,—adding that it is better to retain it (omitting the second “μοι”):—‘potes ejicere “παῖς” et legere “πόθι μοι πόθι μοι”. Sed alterum melius.’
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.