previous next

ὡςἕξειν. Against the tempting conjecture θεοὶἕξουσ᾽, remark that in some other passages, where our MSS. give this mixed construction, the acc. and inf. could not be eliminated without strong measures: thus Xen. Hellen. 6.5.42ἐλπίζειν δὲ χρὴ ὡς ἄνδρας ἀγαθοὺς μᾶλλον κακοὺς αὐτοὺς γενήσεσθαι”: Cyr. 8. 1. 25πρὸς δὲ τούτοις ἐλογίζετο ὡς εἰ πάντες οἱ κοινῶνες θεοσεβεῖς εἶεν, ἧττον ἂν αὐτοὺς ἐθέλειν”: where the least violent remedy would be to delete ὡς—a course not possible here. In some other such places, indeed, the inf. can be very easily corrected (as Hellen. 3. 4. 27εἴη” for “εἶναι”, 7. 4. 39δεῖ” for “δεῖν”).

ὡςθεοὺς ἕξειν may be sound. Harsh as it seems to us, usage had perhaps accustomed the ear to hearing the speaker's own view introduced by ὡς, even when the corresponding construction did not follow. ὧδ᾽ ἐμοῦ would be weak. But ὥστ᾽ ἐμοῦ (against which the presence of “ὥστε” in 386 is not conclusive, cp. on 544) is worth weighing: cp. Eur. Or. 52ἐλπίδα δὲ δή τιν᾽ ἔχομεν ὥστε μὴ θανεῖν”.

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 (5 total)
  • Commentary references from this page (5):
    • Euripides, Orestes, 52
    • Xenophon, Cyropaedia, 8.1.25
    • Xenophon, Hellenica, 3.4.27
    • Xenophon, Hellenica, 6.5.42
    • Xenophon, Hellenica, 7.4.39
hide Display Preferences
Greek Display:
Arabic Display:
View by Default:
Browse Bar: