[311] αἲ γὰρ … ἐχέμεν. The most perfect parallel to this construction is Od.24. 376“αἲ γὰρ Ζεῦ τε πάτερ καὶ Ἀθηναίη καὶ Ἄπολλον”,
“οἷος Νήρικον εἷλον . . τοῖος ἐών τοι χθιζὸς ἐν ἡμετέροισι δόμοισι”,“τεύχἐ ἔχων ὤμοισιν, ἐφεστάμεναι καὶ ἀμύνειν”
“ἄνδρας μνηστῆρας”. The regular construction in such passages is either that of a wish, Od.4. 341“αἲ γὰρ . . τοῖος ἐὼν οἷός ποτ᾽ . . ἐπάλαισεν ἀναστάς . . τοῖος ἐὼν μνηστῆρσιν ὁμιλήσειεν Ὀδυσσεύς”, or that of a prayer, as Il.7. 179“Ζεῦ πάτερ, ἢ Αἴαντα λαχεῖν ἢ Τυδέος υἱόν”. Our text, and the parallel, Od.24. 376, mingle the two constructions; the wish becomes the prayer under the influence of vehement emotion. Bernhardy, Synt. 357, quite unreasonably ascribes the infinitive to the effect of τοῖος. A sort of similarity exists in Il.19. 258 foll. “ἴστω νῦν Ζεὺς . . μὴ μὲν ἐγὼ κούρῃ Βρισηίδι χεῖρ᾽ ἐπενεῖκαι”, which is a confusion between the form of an oath and the calling of Zeus to witness.
