previous next

[298] The idea of a marriage between Achilles and a captive is alien not only to the rest of the Iliad but to all the manners of the heroic age. This no doubt led Ar. to athetize 295-300, as we may safely conclude that he did from the obeli appended in T and U (see Nicole Scol. Gen. i. p. xliv'. The lines may be due, as van L. suggests, to the prevalent misunderstanding of 9.336 (where see note). But considering the character of the context we have no right to leave them out. κουριδίη ἄλοχος again is always used elsewhere of “τὰς ἐκ παρθενίας γεγαμημένας” (Schol. V on Od. 13.45). The non-Homeric character of this passage weakens the argument of Buttmann Lexil. S.V. to the contrary. Compare the Latin use of virgo; “quae tibi virginum, sponso necato, barbara serviet,” Hor. C. i. 29. 5 , etc. ἄξειν, ‘that he (Achilles) should take me.’ This explanation is necessary, as otherwise δαίσειν also would have Patroklos as subject. But it would not be his business to give the wedding-feast. Most MSS. have “ἄξειν τ᾽”, which would not admit this explanation; but δ has good authority. For the constr. “δαίσειν γάμον” see Od. 3.309 “δαίνυ τάφον”.

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 (3 total)
  • Commentary references from this page (3):
hide Display Preferences
Greek Display:
Arabic Display:
View by Default:
Browse Bar: