ἀθανάτοις is made necessary by similar formulas: e.g. 11, 21, 45, 403; hence Stoll's “ἀθανάτων” must be rejected. There remains the difficulty of “ὄνειαρ”, which can scarcely be a disyllable with synizesis; in Hes. Op.462 the MSS. have “εἴαρι πολεῖν”, but Pollux (i. 223) rightly gives “ἔαρι” (“ε_α_”). The synizesis of “ηε” is no authority for that of “εια” (see on 137). It seems best therefore to remove the diphthong, with Ilgen, and read “ὄνεαρ”, the form accepted by Schulze Quaest. Ep. p. 228 and Solmsen K. Z. 32, 292, who calls it “sprachlich tadellos.” This could be a trisyllable by the correction of “θνητοῖσιν” to “θνητοῖς τ̓”; but it is nearer to the manuscript to read “θνητοῖσί τ᾽ ὄνεαρ”. For the synizesis compare (besides Hes. Op.462 quoted above) Hes. Op.492“μήτ᾽ ἔαρ γιγνόμενον”, Mimnerm. 2 and Chaerem. fr. 42 (“ἔαρος” a trochee). If “ὄνειαρ” is to be retained, with its full value u--, it must contain the whole of the fourth foot; this involves the lengthening of the last syllable by position, as is done by the conjectures of Ruhnken and others. The legitimacy of this use was the subject of a discussion in the Class. Rev. Dec. 1896, Feb.-Apr. 1897. The result was entirely to justify the use in Homer and Hesiod, although undisputed examples are not common in early epic, and very rare in later hexameters. For the most recent discussion on the subject see Leaf Il.vol. ii. App. p. 634 f.
This text is part of:
View text chunked by:
Table of Contents:
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 United States License.