previous next

[189] The neglect of the “Ϝ” of ἕκαστος is very rare. “δέδαστο” Bentley, “τριχθὰ δέδασται πάντα” van L. ἔμμορε is generally regarded as a perf., and to this the ο points. But it may possibly be an aorist (cf. “ἔ-πορ-ον”, etc., H. G. § 31. 5). In 1.278 the aor. is as well suited to the context as the perf., and in Od. 5.335, Od. 11.338, it seems to be admissible. These are the only other places in H. where the word occurs — always in the phrase “ἔμμορε τιμῆς”. The gnomic aor. suits Hes. Opp. 347, and Ap. Rhod. took it in the same way, as he writes “ἔμμορες” (iii. 4) , and Et. Mag. “ὅτι δὲ δεύτερος ἀόριστος ἐστί, δῆλον: καὶ τὸ τρίτον τῶν πληθυντικῶν “ἔμμορον ἐκεῖνολ”.” On the other hand, Hesych. quotes “ἐμμόραντι” (Doric 3rd plur.). For the explanation of the form as a perf. see Curtius Vb. ii. 131, H. G. § 23. 2, G. Meyer Gr. § 545. The normal Ionic form “εἵμαρτο” is also found in 21.281, Od. 5.312, Od. 24.34.

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 (8 total)
  • Commentary references from this page (8):
hide Display Preferences
Greek Display:
Arabic Display:
View by Default:
Browse Bar: