The old reading, unsupported apparently by the better MSS., though one or two have ‘adoret,’ was ‘adorat—inponat.’ Heins. and Heyne recommended, and later editors have restored, ‘adorat—inponet’ from Med., Rom., and other MSS. Some MSS. however, including Gud. originally, have ‘inponit;’ and this would appear to be the true reading, both from the instances quoted by Wagn. in support of the indicative against the subjunctive ( Ov. 3 Am. 8. 1, 2, “Et quisquam ingenuas etiamnum suspicit artis Aut tenerum dotes carmen habere putat?” and Consolatio ad Liviam Incerti Auctoris, 7, 8), and from the nature of the case. ‘Et quisquam adoret’ would be, ‘can it be that any one will or is likely to do it?’ ‘et quisquam adorat,’ ‘can it be that any one is doing it?’ If then the subjunctive is less forcible than the indicative, it is precisely because the future is less forcible than the present. Those who read ‘inponet’ explain the change of tense by saying that ‘adorat praeterea’ = “adorabit.”—‘Et’ couples the presents ‘adorat’ and ‘inponit’ with ‘gero’—‘I am proving my imbecility, and yet I have worshippers!’ ‘Praeterea’ then will express, not so much sequence in time, as a logical relation, like ἔπειτα. We may still however comp. “praeterea vidit,” G. 4. 502. ‘Honorem’ G. 3. 486. ‘Inponere,’ of offerings, 4. 453., 6. 246, 253, G. 3. 490. The general thought seems to be from Poseidon's complaints in two distinct passages of Hom., Il. 7. 446 foll., Od. 13. 128 foll.
This text is part of:
Table of Contents:
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.