previous next

[466] There is nothing to decide between the ἐυποιήτηισι of Zen. and “-οισι” of Ar.; in 16.636 we have “ἐυποιητάων”, while in Od. 3.434 the MSS. all give “ἐυποίητον” (“πυράγρην”). So “εὔξεστος” is used with both two and three terminations; in 6.266 Ar. and Zen. were similarly divided. We ought perhaps to read either “ἐὺ ποιητῆισι” or “ἐυποιήτοισι”. But no such possibility exists in 6.266, where there is a similar variation between “ἀνίπτηισι” and “ἀνίπτοισι”. It is apparently not possible to introduce uniformity into the practice of the Epic language in this respect. To avoid the harsh synizesis Nauck conj. “ἦ ἐς ὅ κ̓”, while Brandreth omits “ἦ” and the note of interrogation at the end of 465.

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 (3 total)
  • Commentary references from this page (3):
hide Display Preferences
Greek Display:
Arabic Display:
View by Default:
Browse Bar: