[27] οὐ … οὐ. See supra 14, Od.8. 159; Il.17. 641“οὔ μιν ὀίομαι οὐδὲ πεπύσθαι”. The repetition is justified by a distinct purpose, namely, of determining the negation to a particular part of the proposition; for the second οὐ belongs closely to θεῶν ἀέκητι, a familiar phrase; cp. Od.6. 240.Notice the litotes, ‘not under the disfavour of heaven.’ Other commentators describe the second negative as “οὐ” solitarium and punctuate, “οὐ γὰρ ὀίω, οὔ, σέ”, etc., comparing
But the former will explain better the majority of passages. Cp. Il.5. 22“οὐδὲ γὰρ οὐδέ κεν αὐτὸς ὑπέκφυγε”, with the commentary ad loc. of Eustath. “ἐστὶ δὲ τῶν δύο ἀρνήσεων ἡ μὲν μία τοῦ ῥηματικοῦ πράγματος ἡ ἑτέρα δὲ τοῦ προσώπου”, meaning that the first “οὐδέ” serves to negative the verb with its accessories, and the second attaches itself closely to “αὐτός”.
