previous next

[295] Ἰλιόφι seems to be used as a pure gen. after “τείχεα”. It must then be a false archaism, the original locative or instrumental force of the termination being forgotten when the functions of the old locative had been divided among the other cases. See on 3.3, 8.561 (where “Ἰλιόθι πρό” may have assisted the misuse), 11.350, and H. G. § 158. It is more probable, in so late a passage, that this mistake was made than that we should restore “Ἰλίοο” with L. Meyer; this would have been changed to “Ἰλίου” as in 104, q.v. ἐέλσαι with prothetic “ε” before “ϝ” also suggests the mistaken analogy of “ἐελμένος” (“ϝεϝελμ”.), but can be paralleled by “ἐεισάμενος, ἐέλδομαι, ἐείκοσι”, and others.