τί δῆτ᾽ ἄνωγας; The division of the verse between the speakers (“ἀντιλαβή”) serves at once to mark the surprise of Neopt. and to introduce the words of Od.with a certain abrupt force: cp. O. C. 722 n. σε δεῖ κ.τ.λ. Two other examples of this constr. are extant: Ai. 556“δεῖ σ᾽ ὅπως πατρὸς” | “δείξεις ἐν ἐχθροῖς οἶος ἐξ ὅου ᾿τράφης”: Cratinus (the poet of the Old Comedy), “Νέμεσις” fr. 3 “δεῖ σ᾽ ὅπως εὐσχήμονος” | “ἀλεκτρυόνος μηδὲν διοίσεις τοὺς τρόπους”. In both these passages, as in this, the constr. is used by an elder, or superior, in giving a precept of conduct. The admonitory tone thus associated with the formula confirms the text, as against Matthiae's conjecture, “σε δεῖν ψυχὴν ὅπως λόγοισιν ἐκκλέψεις λέγω”. The acc. of the object (“σε”) is like that in “δεῖ σε τούτου”: while the “ὅπως” clause (answering to the genitive there) is like that in “ἐδέοντο Βοιωτοὺς ὅπως παραδώσουσι” ( Thuc. 5. 36§ 2). The partic. λέγων explains the instrum. dat. “λόγοισιν” more clearly; it is not instrumental (‘by speaking’), but temporal; i.e., literally, ‘as you go on speaking.’ It indicates that Neopt. is to converse alone with Phil. (cp. 70, “ὁμιλία”), and is to deceive him in the course of their conversation. The next verse makes this still clearer:—‘When he asks, say,’ etc. A similar use of “λέγων”, to denote the process of talk, is frequent in Herod. , when, after epitomising part of a speech, he gives the sequel in the speaker's own words; as 3. 156, ‘“νῦν τε,’ ἔφη λέγων”,... ‘And now,’ he went on to say,...(lit., said, as he went on speaking).—Other ways of taking λέγων, which seem less good, are:—(1) As instrum. partic., with which “αὐτούς” is to be supplied from “λόγοισιν”: ‘with words,...i.e., by speaking them.’ For this view, Schneidewin cp. Legg. 885 B “ὅσα λόγῳ καὶ ὅσα ἔργῳ περὶ θεοὺς ὑβρίζει τις λέγων ἢ πράττων”. (2) As instrum. partic., used absolutely, to emphasise “λόγοισιν”,—‘with words,—I repeat, by speaking.’ (3) As instrum. partic., to be taken closely with “λόγοισιν”, in the sense, ‘speaking vain words.’ This is Seyffert's view, who explains “λόγοις λέγειν” as meris verbis dicere: a sense which the phrase could not bear. ἐκκλέψεις: here related to “κλέπτειν”, fallere ( Tr. 243“εἰ μὴ συμφοραὶ κλέπτουσί με”), as “ἐξαπατᾶν” to “ἀπατᾶν”. Cp. 968. Il. 14. 217“ἥ τ᾽ ἔκλεψε νόον πύκα περ φρονεόντων”.
This text is part of:
Table of Contents: