previous next

[39] For the non-Homeric ἤν Heyne and Brandreth read “εἴ”. But “κε” or “ἄν” seem to be never omitted in this common constr. “ἤν” is probably only a mark of the late origin of this transitional passage. Cf. also 22.419. οἰόθεν οἶος, which recurs l. 226, is, with “αἰνόθεν αἰνῶς”, 97, a phrase peculiar to this book, and hard to explain. Of “αἰνόθεν αἰνῶς” we can only say that it is a case of emphasis produced by the familiar resource of reduplication, as in “μέγας μεγαλωστί, ὄψιμον ὀψιτέλεστον”: no one has succeeded in explaining why the local suffix “-θεν”, with its very definite signification, should be used for the purpose. In “οἰόθεν οἶος” the meaning seems to be ‘man to man,’ and the repetition will then have a ground beyond mere emphasis. Bentley suggested “οἶον”, Döderlein “οἴωι” (with “μαχέσασθαι”), and either of these would make the phrase a little more intelligible. The closest analogy is perhaps to be found in “αὐτὸς ἐφ᾽ αὑτοῦ, αὐτὸς καθ᾽ αὑτόν”. Phrases like 2.75 “ἄλλοθεν ἄλλος” have only a superficial resemblance, as in them each word has its distinct and separate meaning.

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 (2 total)
  • Commentary references from this page (2):
hide Display Preferences
Greek Display:
Arabic Display:
View by Default:
Browse Bar: