[646] ἤ σε βίῃ ἀέκοντος ἀπηύρα νῆα. Cp. Il.1. 430“γυναικὸς”
“τήν ῥα βίῃ ἀέκοντος ἀπηύρων”. A common explanation of this line is to join “βίῃ ἀέκοντος” = ‘in spite of your unwillingness,’ as “φρενῶν βίᾳ” S. c. T. 612, “νόμου βίᾳ” Soph. Ant.59; but this is described as a distinctly posthomeric construction. Monro however Il.1. 430, note, joins “βίῃ ἀέκοντος”, and renders ‘doing violence to his unwillingness.’ ἀπαυρᾶν is found with an accusative ( Od.11. 203; Il.20. 290) or a dative ( Il.17. 236; 21. 296) of the person: for in “Ἀχιλλῆος γέρας αὐτὸς ἀπηύρων” Il.19. 89, and “τῆς τε Ζεὺς ὄλβον ἀπηύρα” Od.18. 273, the genitive probably follows the noun, as latter of two substantives. But in Il.1. 430“τήν ῥα βίῃ ἀέκοντος ἀπηύρων”, it is reasonable to take “ἀέκοντος” as gen. after “ἀπηύρων”, on the analogy of “ἀφαιρεῖσθαι”, cp. Od.22. 219“αὐτὰρ ἐπὴν ὑμέων γε βίας ἀφελώμεθα χαλκῷ”. So in the present line we may have a mixed construction between “ἀπαυρᾶν σε νῆα”, the double accusative, and “ἀπαυρᾶν ἀέκοντος νῆα”. La Roche (Homerisch. Stud. 233) would read here “ἀέκοντα”, for which a later correction in Cod. August. gives some authority. The hiatus is not an insuperable objection, and the form of sentence would be parallel to “ὅς τίς σ᾽ ἀέκοντα βίηφι”“κτήματ᾽ ἀπορραίσει” Hom. Od.1. 404, or “οὐ γάρ τίς με βίῃ γε ἑκὼν ἀέκοντα δίηται” Hom. Il.7. 197.Ameis prefers to take “ἀέκοντος” as a genitive absolute, = ‘though you were loath;’ and Classen, though not going so far as to admit the completely developed stage of this construction, accepts it as the last stage but one. For instances of the genitive case detaching itself, as it were, from the construction, and so tending to the absolute usage, cp. Hom. Il.20. 413“τὸν βάλε μέσσον ἄκοντι ποδάρκης δῖος Ἀχιλλεὺς”
“νῶτα παραΐσσοντος”, where the Schol. A. gives as a v. l. “παραΐσσοντα”: compare also Il.14. 25“σφι . . νυσσομένων Il., 16. 531 οἱ . . εὐξαμένοιο”, Od.6. 157“σφισι . . λευσσόντων Od., 9. 256 ἡμῖν . . δεισάντων”, ib. 458 “οἱ . . θεινομένου Od., 14. 527 οἱ . . νόσφιν ἐόντος Od., 17. 231 οἱ . . βαλλομένοιο Od., 22. 17 οἱ . . βλημένου”.
On ἀπηύρα (“ἀπαυράω”), see Monro, H. G. § 31, note 1, who remarks, ‘Putting together the indic. act. “ἀπηύρων” took away (1 sing. and 3 plur.), “ἀπηύρας, ἀπηύρα”, mid. ἀπ-ηύρα^-το (read before Wolf in Od.4. 646), the part. “ἀπούρας” (mid. “ἀπουράμενος” in Hes. Sc. 173), and the aor. “ἐπ-αυρεῖν”, and adopting (from Ahrens) the division ἀπούρας, which seems necessary to account for the ο, we have (1) a stem “-υρα^-” (in its short form); (2) a stem “-αὐρα^”, in which “αυ” is for original [ucaron]; (3) forms as if from *“αὐρά-ω”; (4) a thematic stem “αὐρε” or -ο, alternating with “αὐρα^”.’
