previous next

[466] A very obscure line. δέελον does not occur again in Greek, except in the gloss of Hesych. “δέελος: δεσμός, ἅμμα”. The word looks like an older uncontracted form of “δῆλος” (which recurs only Od. 20.333, and 5.2 “ἔκδηλος”) for “δήελος”, cf. Od. 2.167 “εὐδείελος”. But if it is an adj. agreeing with “σῆμα”, the position of “τε” is hardly to be explained. Von Christ and others join “δέ τε”, but for this there is no sufficient analogy. Heyne, after Bentley, conj. “δέελον δέ τε σῆμ᾽ ἐπέθηκεν”, but there is no reason why this should have been corrupted. We cannot omit the “τ᾽”, so as to get the sense he put up a conspicuous sign, for the hiatus would be intolerable. (There are only two cases of hiatus in this place, both in “ω”, 209 and 430, and both easily corrected. In Od. 5.135 read “ἠδέ ϝ᾽ ἔφασκον”.) We may follow Hesych. and translate he put up a bundle and a mark, i.e. a mark consisting of a bundle. But this is not satisfactory. I suggest as the possible original “θῆκεν, ἀνὰ μυρίκην δὲ ἑλὼν ἐπὶ σήματ᾽ ἔθηκεν”, took and set marks on the tamarisk. This at least involves a minimum of change in the letters (“ω” for “ο”, Lips. omits “δ᾽”). “ἀνὰ μυρίκην” must then be supplied to the first clause from the second. “ἑλών” is virtually superfluous like “φέρων” 7.304.

The Iliad, edited, with apparatus criticus, prolegomena, notes, and appendices. Walter Leaf. London. Macmillan. 1900.

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 (5 total)
  • Commentary references from this page (5):
hide Display Preferences
Greek Display:
Arabic Display:
View by Default:
Browse Bar: