previous next

[198] The variants “τ᾽ ἐσσεύαιτο” and “τ᾽ ἐσσεύατο” are relics of an original “τε σσεύαιτο”. This verb is always treated metrically as if it began with a double consonant, and this was expressed graphically. “ἐσσεύατο” is evidently the correction of a grammarian who was offended that an aor. opt. should have what he thought was an augment. If Heyne is right in conjecturing that there was a variant “ὕλην τε σεύαιντο”, it would mean start the wood a-burning; the aor. is both trans. and intrans. This would naturally go with “νεκρόν” in 197. For ὠκέα δ᾽ Ἶρις Bentley conj. “ὦκα δὲ Ϝῖρις”, which is strikingly confirmed by the reading of “παπ. λ”. But it is clear that the name, though it probably had the “ϝ”, lost it at a very early period. The only passage which requires it is 8.409 (= 24.77, 159); in all other cases where a hiatus precedes, it is in the diaeresis after the first or fourth foot. The very common “ὠκέα Ἶρις” at the end of a line is rather an argument against the “ϝ”; for “ὠκέα” is a most suspicious form for “ὠκεῖα” (“ὠκέϝια”), and practically without analogy. It would seem that we should rather read “ὠκέϊ᾽ Ἶρις”. (It would, however, then follow that the wrong form “ὠκέα” had crept in early enough to enable it to be introduced here.) In 5.353, 365, the “ϝ” is inadmissible; cf. also 11.27. This is the only case where Iris goes on an errand without being sent by a god.

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: