previous next

[192] The sense of the line is clear, the grammar very puzzling. ἄλλου τευ might seem to be dependent on τεύχεα in the next clause, as though the poet meant to say “ἄλλου δέ τευ οὐκ ἂν τεύχεα δύω”, and changed the form of the sentence as it went on. But then the use of the direct interrogative τεῦ instead of “ὅτευ” is without a real parallel, and the contraction is itself suspicious, recurring only in Od. 15.509, Od. 24.257 (“τευ” encl. is commoner, but see van L. Ench. § 99; “τέο” or “τἐ” can be written in all places but B 388, Od. 19.371, Od. 24.257). It is perhaps better to take “ἄλλου τευ” (with Monro) as gen. after “οἶδα” (cf. 11.657 “οὐδέ τι οἶδε πένθεος”) and then to assume a sudden change of thought — With respect to any other I know not — Whose arms can I wear? Compare 24.197 “τόδε εἰπέ, τί τοι φρεσὶν εἴδεται εἶναι”, where the direct question takes the place of the indirect. “ἄλλον δ᾽ οὔ τινα οἶδα, ὅτευ” (Nauck) is too plain to be corrupted.

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 (5 total)
hide Display Preferences
Greek Display:
Arabic Display:
View by Default:
Browse Bar: