previous next

[56] 56-77. This passage was athetized by Aph.and Ar.; Zen. entirely omitted 64-77, saying that they were ‘like an Euripidean prologue.’ Most edd. agree in the condemnation, though some would exempt 56-63 and 72-77. The first eight lines contain no serious cause of offence: beyond the general grounds that the whole passage is a needless recital and inferior in composition, the only argument brought by Ar. against this part of it is that “ὡς ἐπίπαν πρὸς τὸ δεύτερον πρότερον ἀπαντᾶι, νῦν δὲ πρὸς τὸ πρότερον ἀπήντηκενὄφρ᾽ μὲν μετὰ λαὸν Ἀχαιῶν”” (i.e. “ μέν” means the former, not as often the latter of two persons mentioned; but this is by no means universal, see for instance 15.7). Against 64-71 the objections are decisive. In the first place the prophecy of the course of the war is not in accordance with Homeric practice, and is quite unnecessary. Then it does not accord with facts; the rout of the Achaians does not come on the ships of Achilles; and it is not Achilles who stirs up Patroklos, but vice versa. ἐκ τοῦ in 69 is awkward; it must mean not, as the words imply, from the time of Hector's death, but from the time of the sending of Patroklos (64). The twicerepeated form κτενεῖ is not Homeric, nor is “Ἴλιον” as a neuter (but for this see note on 71). The last six lines do not interfere with the context, and might be left, though suspicion attaches to the use of τὸ πρίν (see note) and the form κάρητι for “καρήατι”.

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 (1 total)
  • Commentary references from this page (1):
hide Display Preferences
Greek Display:
Arabic Display:
View by Default:
Browse Bar: