previous next

[553] Though the line is generally rejected (see crit. note), Eustath. thinks that the question may be the natural doubt of a despondent man like Menelaus; or the words of one who has lost his head, as we say, through grief, “συγχυθεὶς ὑπὸ λύπης”. Yet this attempt at justification seems insufficient. Nitzsch quotes from Lobeck, Phryn. 754, to show that such combinations as “ζωὸς ἠὲ θανών” are only loose ways of speaking: ‘His formulis, “εἴτε παρὼν εἴτε ἀπών, ζῶν καὶ θανών, ζῶντες καὶ νεκροί”, crebra consuetudine tantum de sua potestate detritum est ut postremo etiamtum usurpentur ubi mortui aut absentes nulli intelligi possunt. In Soph. Antig.1109“οἵ τ᾽ ὄντες οἵ τ᾽ ἀπόντες”, quis non videt hoc tantum dici “quotquot sunt.”’ But Löwe rightly judges, ‘tot ambagibus non opus est;’ and he rejects the line, seeking the cause of the interpolation in sup. 109, where Menelaus says “οὐδέ τι ἴδμεν”

“ζώει ὅ γ᾽ ἦ τέθνηκε”.

Homer's Odyssey. W. Walter Merry. James Riddell. D. B. Monro. Oxford. Clarendon Press. 1886-1901.

The National Endowment for the Humanities provided support for entering this text.

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 References (1 total)
  • Commentary references from this page (1):
    • Sophocles, Antigone, 1109
hide Display Preferences
Greek Display:
Arabic Display:
View by Default:
Browse Bar: