Ἠετίων seems to be attracted to the case of the following relative; see H. G. § 271, where 10.416, 14.75, 371, are quoted; Bekker, H. B. i. 314, adds others, e.g. Od. 8.74, Od. 11.122. Thus Bentley's “Ἠετίωνος ὃ ναῖε” is not necessary. A similar epanalepsis in a different case is to be found in Od. 1.50-1 —“νήσωι ἐν ἀμφιρύτηι, ὅθι τ᾽ ὀμφαλός ἐστι θαλάσσης, νῆσος δενδρήεσσα, θεὰ δ᾽ ἐν δώματα ναίει”. For “Ἠετίων” cf. also 1.366, 22.479, 23.827.
This text is part of:
Table of Contents:
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.