Commentary on line 4
It would be easy here to read τιμήσει' with the edd., did not this involve ὀλέσαι, with the rare term. -αι (1.255, 7.129, 130, 12.334, 19.81 are the only clear cases in Il.; see van L. Ench.p. 291). On the other hand, the subj. after the historic tense is equally rare in H. though so common later (M. and T. 318-20, and particularly H. G. 298). A precisely similar question arises in 16.646-50, q.v. As between τιμήσηι, -ει, -ει', MS. authority is nil, but with ὀλέσαι and ὀλέσηι it counts for something. See also 1.558-60, which has, of course, had an influence on the present passage, only it seems impossible to say whether it was on the mind of the poet or of later copyists. In spite of its rarity in H. the subj. (or fut. ?) is a very natural and vivid way of representing what is passing through the mind of Zeus. The form πολῦς here attributed to Zen. is etymologically correct (for πολυνς, H. G. 100), and is probably preferable in all cases to πολεῖς or πολέας.
|
