previous next

[537] οὐκ ἐνόησεν can hardly be distinguished from λάθετ᾽ (“τὸ μὲν ἐλάθετο, ἑκὼν παρέπεμψεν, τὸ δὲ οὐκ ἐνόησεν, οὐδὲ τὴν ἀρχὴν κατὰ νοῦν ἔσχεν” of the schol. is purely artificial). Zen.'s reading is apparently an attempt to evade this difficulty. Probably Brandreth and Platt (J. P. xix. 39) are right in omitting the οὐ altogether, so that the sense is whether he forgot, or knew what he was doing, i.e. neglected Artemis deliberately. The “οὐ” may have been inserted from motives of piety, see note on 453; in any case the synizesis is very suspicious. Perhaps we have here another legend of the struggle between the Dionysiac (“Οἰνεύς” = Wine-man: Apollod.i. 8. 1 “Οἰνεὺς δὲ βασιλεύων Καλυδῶνος παρὰ Διονύσου Φυτὸν ἀμπέλου πρῶτος ἔλαβε”) and older religions, here represented by the savage Artemis Laphria of Kalydon (see Paus.vii. 18. 8 and note on 6.130). ἀάσατο: see note on 8.237.

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 (2 total)
  • Commentary references from this page (2):
    • Pseudo-Apollodorus, Library, 1.8.1
    • Pausanias, Description of Greece, 7.18.8
hide Display Preferences
Greek Display:
Arabic Display:
View by Default:
Browse Bar: