previous next

[19] 19-20 were obelized by Ar. (and Zenod. included 18 also) on the ground that a warrior would not be arrayed with a bow and panther-skin if he were challenging heavily-armed foes to combat. But this objection would equally apply to “προμάχιζεν” above. Ar. and most of the other ancient critics also omitted the ὁ in 18, but Didymos for once ventures to disagree, remarking that Homer frequently employs phrases like “ὁ δέ”, etc., without any change of subject. He quotes Od. 9.374, which is not to the point; but see appropriate instances in H. G. § 257. 1. αὐτάρ is here merely a particle of transition; if the adversative sense is to be pressed it must mean that though he has the skin and bow of the archer, yet he has also the pair of spears of the hoplite. For the use of a skin in place of the shield cf. App. B, viii. Observe that Paris is not challenging to a duel properly speaking, but only to a combat in the midst of the general engagement; for this is the only admissible sense of “δηϊοτής”.

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