previous next

[583] ἔχε MSS.; edd. generally read “ἔχων” from Eust., but that is not likely to have been corrupted, and it is more in the Homeric style to revert from the participial to the direct constr. The peculiarity here is that στάς is co-ordinate with ἁψάμενος and belongs to “ὄμνυθι”, not to the preceding “ἄγε δεῦρο”. This makes αὐτὰρ . . ἔλαυνες a parenthesis grammatically, but it does not follow that the poet felt it as such; to him “στάς” though subordinate in form was in feeling an imper. The dislike of the primitive linguistic instinct to a longcontinued subordination of clauses is expressed by the interpolation of a single independent term in the series. (It might be suggested that “στάς” is an imper. like “δός, θές”, lengthened by ictus; but the difficulties of such a supposition are obvious, as there is nothing to prevent the use of “στῆθι”.) Though Eust, reads “ἔχων” (in the lemma only, not in the text', his explanation evidently refers to “ἔχε. ἐν δὲ τῶι “αὐτὰρ ἱμάσθλην χερσὶν ἔχων” δοκεῖ περιττὸς εἶναι ὁ σύνδεσμος τεθεὶς ἀντὶ τοῦ δή”. This is intelligible only if we read “ἔχε” and put a colon after “ἔλαυνες”, as his text has.

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 Display Preferences
Greek Display:
Arabic Display:
View by Default:
Browse Bar: