αὐτόστολον πέμψαντα, having sent with his own “στόλος”, i.e., having sent a ship of his own. Cp. Anthol. 7. 585 (on a fisherman who died by the burning of his boat at sea), “αὐτόστολος ἦλθεν” | “εἰς Ἀΐδην, νεκύων πορθμίδος οὐ χατέων”, ‘he went to Hades in his own ship’ [because it perished along with him],—not needing to use Charon 's bark. Musaeus Leandr. 255 “αὐτὸς ἐὼν ἐρέτης, αὐτόστολος, αὐτόματος νηῦς”, where, similarly, “αὐτόστολος” =‘providing his own “στόλος”,’ i.e. ‘selfwafted,’—answering to the word vector in Ovid's parallel v., Idem navigium, navita, vector ero (Ep. 18. 147).—If αὐτόστολον were understood as=‘setting forth in person’ (cp. “μονόστολος, ὁμόστολος”), then πέμψαντα would be best taken as ‘having escorted me’ (cp. 913, 1465), and would go closely with ἐκσῶσαι. Nauck, interpreting “αὐτόστολον” in this second way, substitutes πλεύσαντα (the conj. of Blaydes) for “πέμψαντα”. This would certainly make the v. easier; but it is not necessary. δόμους is a clearly true correction of δόμοις. The latter could not mean, ‘to my home,’ but only, ‘for the joy of the house’ (dat. of interest). On the other hand cp. Ant. 810“ἀλλά μ᾽ Ἅιδας...ἄγει” | “τὰν Ἀχέροντος ἀκτάν”: O. C. 1769“Θήβας δ᾽ ἡμᾶς” | ...“πέμψον”. 497 ff. After τὰ τῶν διακόνων we might have expected “ἠμελεῖτο” or the like (‘the messengers' part was neglected’), but ποιούμενοι follows, as if he had written “οἱ διάκονοι”. This is one of the irregularities which often arise from a change in the form of the writer's thought; it is not merely a case of constr. “κατὰ σύνεσιν” (like “τὰ...μειράκια...διαλεγόμενοι”, Plat. Lach.p. 180 E). Hence it is no objection to this view that “τὰ τῶν διακόνων”, for “οἱ διάκονοι”, would be unexampled. —Others take “τὰ τῶν διακόνων” as an adverbial parenthesis: ‘or (as is the way with messengers) they forgot me,’ etc. The objection to this is that, in such phrases, the sing. τὸ is used, never the plur. τὰ: e.g. Phaed. 77D “δοκεῖς σύ τε καὶ Σιμμίας...δεδιέναι, τὸ τῶν παίδων, μὴ...ὁ ἄνεμος αὐτὴν...διαφυσᾷ”: id. Soph. 261B “σχολῇ που, τὸ κατὰ τὴν παροιμίαν λεγόμενον, ὅ γε τοιοῦτος ἄν ποτε ἕλοι πόλιν”. ὡς εἰκός expresses that such neglect might have been expected, while οἶμαι conveys the belief that it was actually committed; tautology cannot be pleaded, then, as a ground for conjecturing οἴμοι. ἐν σμικρῷ: cp. 875: Her. 3. 154“ἐν ἐλαφρῷ ποιησάμενος” ( Tac. Ann. 3. 54 “in levi habendum”). μέρος. The reading μέρει would be tenable: cp. Dem. or. 2 § 18 “ἐν οὐδενὸς εἶναι μέρει”. And it is true that “τοὐμὸν μέρος” is usu. adverbial (quantum in me est, or quantum ad me attinet: cp. Soph. Ant. 1062 n.). But here “μέρος” gives a much finer verse. ἤπειγον, trans. (cp. 1451). When the act. “ἐπείγω” seems intrans., it is so because the acc., like “στόλον” here (e.g., “δρόμον, ὁδόν”) is understood: El. 1435“ᾗ νοεῖς, ἔπειγε νῦν”.
This text is part of:
Table of Contents: