Τριοπέῳ Γένος: the person intended by “τριόπω γένος” of the MSS. might be another “μνηστή”, in which case “γένος” would be objective acc., “child” (an echo of which might be “τριόπεω γόνον”, the reading of one MS. Callim. h. Dem. 24). But as Phorbas was the son of Triopas ( Paus.viii. 26. 12, Hyg. Astr. ii. 14) “γένος” is certainly acc. of respect, “by descent,” for which cf. Il. 5.544, 5.896 etc. The two words therefore balance “Ἐλατιονίδῃ” in 210, and the dative of a patronymic form must be extracted from “τριόπω” or “τριοπόω”. The latter points to a synizesis, and the couditions are satisfied by “Τριοπέῳ”, which must be the dative of “Τριόπεος”, formed direct from “Τρίοψ” (=“Τριόπας”, Apollod.i. 7. 4. 2“Τρίοπα”, 3 “Τρίοπος” gen.), since the actual adj. in use from “Τριόπας” is “Τριόπειος”; cf. C. I. Sic. et It. 1890, no. 1389. This would be parallel to “Ἀγαμεμνονέην ἄλοχον γ 264, Δεινομένειε παῖ” Pind. Pyth.2. 18 and other formations; see Leo B. B. iv. 1-21 die homer. Vaternamen, Kuhner-Blass l.c., Zacher in Diss. Phil. Hal. 1878, p. 59 f.Phorbas is here the rival of Apollo; according to l.c., Plut. Num.4 he was beloved by the god. Schneidewin's alteration of “ἅμα” to “ὡς” is not justified. Ἐρευθεῖ: nothing is known of an Ereutheus, and there is much probability in y's “ἀμαρύνθω”, which has nearly all elements in common with “ἅμ᾽ ἐρευθεῖ”. But any connexion of Apollo and Amarynthus is merely a matter of inference from this passage (Wernicke in Pauly-Wissowa 28 denies it). D'Orville conjectured and some of the earlier editors printed “Ἐρεχθεῖ”, after M; but this is not supported by any known myth of Erechtheus.
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.