previous next

[398] The critical questions raised by this line are very important. It will be seen that the text involves taking σφίσιν = yourselves. There is no other case of this in H., the ‘free’ use of the stem sva being confined to the possessive “ἑός, ὅς”: see App. “α. καὶ γραπτέον οὕτως” (sc. “-ουσι”) “καὶ ἀθετητέον τοὺς τρεῖς στίχους” (397-9) “εἴ τι χρὴ πιστεύειν Ἀμμωνίωι τῶι διαδεξαμένωι τὴν σχολὴν” (the successor of Aristarchos in the School at Alexandria) “ἐν τῶι περὶ τοῦ μὴ γεγονέναι πλείονας” (sc. more than two) “ἐκδόσεις τῆς Ἀρισταρχείου διορθώσεως τοῦτο φάσκοντι. καὶ παρὰ Ἀριστοφάνει δὲ ἠθετοῦντο”, Didymos. “ὅτι οὕτως γραπτέον “βουλεύουσι” καὶ “ἐθέλουσι.” τὸ γὰρ “σφίσιν” ἐν τῶι περί τινών ἐστι λόγωι” (sc. belongs to the third person), “ἀντὶ τοῦ αὐτοῖς, ὧι ἀκόλουθα δεῖ εἶναι τὰ ῥήματα”, Ariston. Other later scholia quote statements that there was no explanation to be found in the “ὑπομνήματα” of Ar. of the obelos which he put against these lines. Ammonios is further stated to have said that Aristarchos first marked the lines with “στιγμαί” — apparently a sign of hesitation — and afterwards obelized them. The question is an important one from the light which it throws on the tradition of the Aristarchean school. With regard to the reading of the line, it seems to shew that the tradition in favour of the second person was so strong that Ar. was prepared to reject the line altogether rather than read the third. There can be little doubt that the text is original and “σφίσιν” = “ὑμῖν” by a false archaism, the extension to the personal pronoun of the free use still traditionally surviving in the possessive — an extension very common in the later imitative poets. It is a mere accident that this use should in fact be a reversion to the older stage, apparently forgotten in Greek before the Epic period, when the personal pronoun was used as freely as the possessive adjective. There is no serious internal objection to be raised against “βουλεύουσι” and “ἐθέλουσι”: it is natural enough for Dolon to speak in the third person to Odysseus and Diomedes of the other Greeks from whom they are separated; and the indic., not the opt., is the regular Homeric mood in such a phrase. This all emphasizes the improbability of the corruption of the third person to the second, while it makes the converse intelligible.

The Iliad, edited, with apparatus criticus, prolegomena, notes, and appendices. Walter Leaf. London. Macmillan. 1900.

The National Endowment for the Humanities provided support for entering this text.

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 Display Preferences
Greek Display:
Arabic Display:
View by Default:
Browse Bar: