[124] ἐοικότες … ἐοικότα. Is the sense, ‘thy manner of speech is like what it should be;’ or, ‘thy manner of speech is like to his’? There is yet a prior question; must both the words be taken in one of these senses, or may we understand “ἐοικότες” in one sense, and “ἐοικότα” in another? On this prior question we must agree with Nitzsch, that except where well-defined custom has impressed different meanings on a word according as it occurs in this or that grammatical form, or in this or that phrase, we are not warranted in giving it different senses in the same context.
The claims of the two renderings are not far from being evenly balanced. In the only other passage where the participle “ἐοικ”. stands without a dative following, it means ‘like what it should be,’ Od.4. 239“καὶ μύθοις τέρπεσθε: ἐοικότα γὰρ καταλέξω”. On the other hand, our passage, occurring as a hurried and parenthetical explanation of “σέβας μ᾽ ἔχει εἰσορόωντα”, may very well be one in which the dative would be understood, when a familiar sentiment, such as ‘you are marvellously like him,’ was being enunciated. A presumption on this side is also afforded by “ὧδε”, for while it is possible to imagine one thing resembling another in greater or less degree, it would not be worth while to describe it as ‘like what it ought to be,’ otherwise than absolutely. Nitzsch contends for the meaning ‘like what it ought to be’ because of the generalising expression “νεώτερον ἄνδρα”, and the analogy of Od.4. 204 foll. and 239. But, prima facie, we are led to the other view by two passages; Od.4. 140“ψεύσομαι ἦ ἔτυμον ἐρέω; κέλεται δέ με θυμός”. “οὐ γάρ πώ τινά φημι ἐοικότα ὧδε ἰδέσθαι”.“οὔτ᾽ ἄνδρ᾽ οὔτε γυναῖκα— σέβας μ᾽ ἔχει εἰσορόωσαν”—
“ὡς ὅδ᾽ Ὀδυσσῆος μεγαλήτορος υἷι ἔοικε”, and 19. 380 “ἀλλ᾽ οὔ πώ τινά φημι ἐοικότα ὧδε ἰδέσθαι”,
“ὡς σὺ δέμας φωνήν τε πόδας τ᾽ Ὀδυσῆι ἔοικας”. In both these passages there is no doubt about the meaning of “ὧδε ἐοικότα”, and the former passage has other close resemblances to ours; so that if the Poet means something different, he has misleadingly made use of phrases in which he elsewhere clothes a more familiar sentiment. Nor, further, are Nitzsch's arguments for his rendering conclusive. For, (1) as to the passages he alleges—in Od.4. 239 the absence of “ὧδε” makes the whole difference; and Od.4. 204-206 “τόσα εἶπες ὅσ᾽ ἂν πεπνυμένος ἀνὴρ”
“εἴποι καὶ ῥέξειε, καὶ ὃς προγενέστερος εἴη:”
“τοίου γὰρ καὶ πατρὸς, ὃ καὶ πεπνυμένα βάζεις”—looks equally both ways. But, (2) if we set out the meaning of the two clauses and fill in the second, we have no difficulty in “νεώτερον ἄνδρα”, thus—‘Thy manner of speech is like his;’—this is the first approximation between the two men. But, when the difference of age is considered, there arises an approximation beyond this, which can only be accounted for by the relationship assumed to exist, i. e. (filling in the second clause) ‘You would not expect a young man to speak so like his elder, unless the two were father and son.’
