previous next

[71] “ἴδῃς” (x) is of course wrong, and “ἀτιμήσω, ἀτιμήσῃ” are evidently corrections which further require a conjunction in 73. Such an insertion, whether after “καταστρέψας” (Franke), or after “ὤσῃ” (Giphanius) is not a legitimate critical proceeding. The two participles, though ungraceful, seem original, and are defended by Matthiae. There is a similar, though easier, example in Il. 12.113 f. “νήπιος οὐδ᾽ ἄρ᾽ ἔμελλε, κακὰς ὑπὸ κῆρας ἀλύξας”,

ἵπποισιν καὶ ὄχεσφιν ἀγαλλόμενος παρὰ νηῶν
ἂψ ἀπονοστήσειν”. Theog. 521 f. a second participle “δήσας” is well attested.
The construction is not uncommon in later Greek: cf. Nub. 937 f. with Teuffel's note, Eur. Or.656 f., Troad. 643 f.

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 Display Preferences
Greek Display:
Arabic Display:
View by Default:
Browse Bar: