previous next

[249] The critical questions raised by this line are complicated and difficult, though the general sense is clear enough. Most of the readings recorded above are no more than interpretations of an original “αλλοτεη”（“ι”）“επινυσσενεφετμη”（“ι”): the only actual variants are “αλλοτεση, αλλοθεη”, and “επενυσσεν”. But of all the alternatives none can be right. Those which read “ἄλλοτε”, with the pause at the end of the third foot, are metrically intolerable, while those with “ἄλλο” give no satisfactory sense. Ar. indeed assumed in his reading (that of the text) an ellipse of “κατά”, in another respect a command of thine taught me a lesson; but this use of “ἄλλο” is without analogy, for 22.322 and 23.454 which are quoted prove nothing. As an alternative we might assume for “πινύσσω” the constr. of “διδάσκω”, thy command taught me another lesson; but then we must take another lesson to mean ‘a lesson on another occasion,’ which goes beyond all reasonable limits of looseness of expression. The same objections apply to the reading “ἄλλο τεῆι . . ἐφετμῆι”, in another respect Zeus taught me a lesson through a command of thine. Besides, the parallel passages 1.590, 20.90, shew that the right phrase is “ἤδη καὶ ἄλλοτε”. It appears then that there must be a very ancient corruption of the text, to be emended by conjecture. Van L. transposes, “ἄλλοτ᾽ ἐφετμῆι σῆι ἐπίνυσσας” (remarking with truth that the aor. is needed). Very ingenicus and less violent is Brugmann's “ἄλλοθ᾽ ἑῆι ἐπίνυσσες” (leg. -“σας”) “ἐφετμῆι”, once before thou didst teach me a lesson by a command of thine, for which see App. A (vol. i. p. 564). This he suggests was the reading of Zen., who used “ἑός” freely of other persons than the third sing. (the scholia only say “Ζην. σὺν τῶι ι”, i.e. -“ῆι ., ἐφετμῆι”). The first part of this conj. has now some MS. support; if there ever existed a variant “ἐπίνυσσες” (or -“ας”) we should have expected to find some notice of it, but in the fragmentary state of our excerpts this objection is not fatal. The whole context (to say nothing of “Διός” in the next line) shews that the “ἐφετμή” is that of Hera, not of Zeus, and that Zeus cannot be the subject of “ἐπίνυσσεν”: so that we cannot read any form of “ἑός”, in view of its reflexive sense, except with “ἐπίνυσσες”. There is thus good ground for supposing that the passage may have been altered in order to avoid the application of “ἑῆι” to the second person. πινύσσειν, to make wise, “σωφρονίζειν, παιδεύειν”, as the scholia render it, occurs only here; cf. 15.10. The reading “ἐπένυσσεν” of Syr.suggests the deriv. from “ἐπι-νύσσω”, pricked me on; but such a metaphorical use of “νύσσω” seems to be without analogy in Greek. Hesych. appears to have read “ἐπίνυσκεν”, and this form is used by Aisch. Pers. 830.

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 References (6 total)
  • Commentary references from this page (6):
hide Display Preferences
Greek Display:
Arabic Display:
View by Default:
Browse Bar: