previous next

[314] οἶκον δέ κ̓. This reading (see crit. note), though not an absolutely necessary correction, makes the construction much clearer. If it is still preferred to retain “δέ τ᾽”, we must either regard “δοίην” as the independent optative in apodosis (cp. “κόμην ὀπάσαιμι φέρεσθαι Il.23. 151), or as a continuation of the wish expressed, ‘and O! that I might give thee a house.’ Köchly, Dissert. de Od.1. p. 34, rejects the whole passage with great contempt: ‘ipsi versus a lyticorum machinis alienissimi solitam compilatorum artem redolere videntur. . . . Itaque non dubito quin aliquis — idem fortasse qui 6. 245 adscripsit — totum locum composuerit eo consilio ut quae Nausicaa Od., 6. 244, 277 sqq. de Ulixe sponso leviter iactavisset, patris auctoritate quasi confirmaret, memor simul eorum quae Menelaus Od., 15. 68 sqq. Telemacho respondet.’ This is most arbitrary criticism.

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 (4 total)
  • Commentary references from this page (4):
hide Display Preferences
Greek Display:
Arabic Display:
View by Default:
Browse Bar: