previous next

[51] This line introduces desperate confusion. If either it or 52-5 were away all would be clear; probably we have another instance of a double recension. With the reading of Ar., adopted by most edd., “μέγα” and “ὀλίγον” are irreconcilable; the explanation of Schol. A that “μέγα” is “χρονικόν” and “ὀλίγον τοπικόν” explains nothing. With μεθ᾽ for “μέγ᾽” we can at least make sense; they (the Greek footmen) were first (before the Trojans) to form line with the charioteers at the trench, and the charioteers went a little behind them — not an unnatural arrangement, so that the chariots might be able to pass freely in the rear from one point of the fighting line to another, as the attack was developed. This, however, involves taking “μετά” with gen. = with, a use which is almost entirely avoided not only by H. but by all early Greek poets; see H.G. § 196. 1, notes on 13.700 (17.149), 21.458 (24.400), and cf. Od. 10.320, Od. 16.140. On the other hand φθάνειν with gen. (on the analogy of the gen. of comparison, cf. 23.444 “φθάνειν ἤ”) is quite unexampled in Greek. On the whole, therefore, it is best to accept in so late a passage the prosy “μεθ᾽”, just as we accept the trench of which the rest of “Λ” knows nothing. The whole of the opening of the book is of a piece.

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 (6 total)
hide Display Preferences
Greek Display:
Arabic Display:
View by Default:
Browse Bar: