previous next

[42] The anacoluthon is surprising, the two relatives ὅς and ἐπεί having only one principal verb between them. We have similar but less violent cases in 8.230ἃς ὁπότ᾽ ἐν Λήμνωι ἠγοράασθε”, and in 17.658, where see note. But there, as is pointed out, a verb is supplied for “ὅς” after all in 664, the original construction having only been interrupted by the internal growth of the description. Here we must supply “ἄγρια οἶδεν” from the preceding line — an unnatural artifice. Probably 42-5 are all interpolated. The last line undoubtedly is; 42-3 have all the appearance of an imitation of the simile in P by a late hand who regarded the “ἐπεί” as ‘redundant’ on the apparent analogy of the “ὅτε” in the familiar “ὡς ὅτε”. If, as Athenaios states, Ar. held that “ἐπὶ μόνων ἀνθρώπων δαῖτας λέγει ποιητής, ἐπὶ δὲ θηρίων οὐκέτι” (see on 1.5), he must have obelized this couplet, though the scholia give no hint of it; it is impossible to believe that he took “βροτῶν δαῖτα” together, as Lehrs would have. (See, however, Ludwich, ii. 88, note.) βροτῶν is a strange expression but possible in a god's mouth. Compare “οὗτος μὲν Φόβος ἐστὶ βροτῶν” on the chest of Kypselos (notes on 11.28, 37). The variant “βοτῶν” seems to be an old conj. Nikanor suggests “εἴξηισ᾽” for “εἴξας”, ingeniously but not rightly; the lion's ‘yielding to his impulse’ cannot be made the subject of a distinct clause as though it were quite separate from his attacking the herds, but is only in place in the subordinate participial construction.

Creative Commons License
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.

hide References (2 total)
  • Commentary references from this page (2):
hide Display Preferences
Greek Display:
Arabic Display:
View by Default:
Browse Bar: