mvp-comment-289-1
καὶ πολύπους καὶ πολύχειρ
1
mvp-comment-290-1
λόχοις
2
mvp-comment-290-2
χαλκόπους
3
mvp-comment-291-1
ἄλεκτρ’ ἄνυμφα
4
mvp-comment-291-2
γάμων ἁμιλλήμαθ’
5
mvp-comment-291-3
ἐπέβα
6
mvp-comment-292-1
πρὸ τῶνδέ τοι … συνδρῶσιν
7
mvp-comment-292-2
Verses 495—497 (
πρὸ τῶνδέ τοι...τέρας
) answer metrically to vv. 479—481
ὕπεστί μοι...ὀνειράτων
, where the text is certain, save for the doubt whether
θράσος
or
θάρσος
should stand in 479. Here we must first decide two points.
mvp-comment-292-3
(1) Are the words
πρὸ τῶνδε
8
mvp-comment-292-4
(2) Could
ἔχει με, μήποτε τέρας πελᾶν
(etc.) mean, ‘
the belief possesses me, that’ etc.? Surely not. No real parallel for so strange a phrase has been produced. It is irrelevant to quote those impersonal verbs which directly express the
occurrence of a thought to the mind; as
Xen.
An. 6. 1. 17
εἰσῄει αὐτοὺς ὅπως ἂν καὶ ἔχοντές τι οἴκαδε ἀφίκοιντο
(‘the thought came to them, how they might,’ etc.):
Thuc. 6. 78.
§ 1
εἰ δέ τῳ ἄρα παρέστηκε, τὸν μὲν Συρακόσιον...πολέμιον εἶναι κ.τ.λ.
Either, then, the subject to
ἔχει
has dropped out, or the words
μ’ ἔχει
conceal a corruption.
mvp-comment-292-5
The following remedies are possible: I incline to the first, as involving least change. (1) Reading in 479
ὕπεστί μοι θράσος
, we may read here
πρὸ τῶνδέ τοί μ’ ἔχει
|
<θάρσος τι>, μήποθ’ ἡμῖν
etc. (It may be remarked that
τι
is in harmony with the tone of
ὕπεστί μοι
in 479.) Another available word is
ξύννοια
(cp.
Ant. 279
). (2) Or, reading in 479
ὕπεστί μοι θάρσος
, we could read here
πρὸ τῶνδέ τοι θάρσος ἴσχει με
. On either view, the
υ
of
ἁδυπνόων
in 480 is long (as several critics have assumed). It should be noted that (1) involves a different constitution of the verses: see p. lxxxii.
mvp-comment-292-6
In those MSS. which have
μή ποτε μή ποθ’ ἡμῖν
9
mvp-comment-293-1
ἀψεγές
10
ἀψεφές
11
mvp-comment-293-2
πελᾶν
12
mvp-comment-294-1
τοῖς δρῶσι
13
τοῖς συνδρῶσιν
14
mvp-comment-295-1
μαντεῖαι βροτῶν
15