The scansion of ἄτιτος with “ι_” is entirely contrary to all analogy; see 13.414, and compare “παλίντιτος, ἄντιτος, λυτός, στατός”, etc. always with a short stem-vowel. Hence Clarke transposed and wrote “ἔηι ἄτιτος”. This, however, is almost too simple — there is no reason why it should ever have got wrong. I strongly suspect that the original reading is that of R, “ἄτιμος”, in the sense unassessed. When a man's next-of-kin was gone, he had lost the avenger who exacted the price for the blood shed. Compare Od. 16.431 “τοῦ νῦν οἶκον ἄτιμον ἔδεις”, whose house thou eatest up with no price set on it, i.e. without retribution, and note on “ἀτίμητον μετανάστην” 9.648. The sense assess is of course quite familiar in the verb “τιμάω”: and even if Schulze is right in referring “τίμη” to a different root (“τι_ω” = honour） from that of “τίσις” (“τι?ω” = exact), the two had been completely confused at a very early date, as he admits (see App. D, vol. i. p. 595). — The vulg. “καί κέ τις” is clearly impossible. For καί τέ τις Monro (H. G. § 82) writes “καί τίς τ᾽”, the regular order, which may be indirectly supported by the entire omission of the particle in a few MSS. But there seems to be a certain tendency of “τε” in this generalizing sense to cohere with “καί”, cf. 1.521 and other instances in H. G. § 332, so that the text may be accepted.
This text is part of:
Table of Contents:
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 United States License.