[539] There are two ways of punctuating here. We may either put a stop after τυτθόν, which will then qualify μετόπισθε, as “τυτθὸν ὀπίσσω” Il.5. 443(Aristarch. ); or we may put a stop after κυανοπρῴροιο, so that τυτθόν may go with ἐδεύησεν, like “τυτθὸν ἅμαρτε” Il.17. 609.In the latter case, δέ will stand as the third word in the sentence, which is only allowable when the first two words have a very close connection together. See crit. note on Od. 6.100. If then we join τυτθὸν ἐδεύησεν δέ we must treat “τυτθόν” as making a sort of close combination with “ἐδεύησεν”, and this is the decision of Eustath. and the older commentators generally. The other way of punctuating is supported by Il.10. 345“παρεξελθεῖν πεδίοιο”
“τυτθόν”, and Il.13. 184“ἠλεύατο χάλκεον ἔγχος”“τυτθόν”, in both of which passages a clause follows introduced by “δέ”. This seems the preferable way. For the use of ἐδεύησε (=“ἐδέϝησε”) without any qualifying adverb Bekk. quotes Alciphr.3. 5. 3“ἐδέησα κινδύνῳ περιπεσεῖν”. Translate, ‘And he threw it down a little astern of the dark-prowed ship, but he failed to reach the end of the steeringpaddle.’
