For ἠνώγεον Spitzner and most subsequent edd. read “ἠνώγει”（“ν”). In form it must be the imperf. of a secondary present “ἀνωγέω” (like “γεγωνέω” by the side of “γέγωνα”), of which, however, there is no further evidence, “ἠνώγει” (386, unless we read “ἤνωγε” with van L.) being plupf. to “ἄνωγα”. Bentley's “ἤνωγον” (as 9.578, etc.) is therefore preferable, as an aorist; see note on 1.313 (“καὶ τόδε μ᾽ ἤνωγον” Brandreth). It may be observed that the change to the 3rd plur. is natural, in order to shew that the subject is not the same as that of “οὔ φησιν”.
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.