장음표시 사용
431쪽
504 are a cloavi connecte Wit the precedin that the cannot et beaeparato from them Perhapa in origina connoctio might o restore is placae 506 directi alter M. Se Lehra, De Aristarchi 436 Κayaer, Hom. Ab riviunoen 20 Nisae, Exuwωkeiuno d. mm meaeis 60, 79; Ηonmann ii. 99; an Leas' notea. Caver und -- 271 mem to admit that in description lacina ropriato in the present altuation, ut dente the conclusion thaline pamam is not original in this place. 48s Tho malin ἀπουρέσσουσιν rem e theria maris is a Miter sum porte by the ΜSS., ut o spe is a mero curtatiment of his bolidarie lales appropriate in thia exaggerate description of the fato of Astyanax inanthe refereno in the complete los of hi landa involvet in in v. l. ἀπουρήσουσιν. The mading of Aristarchua is uncertain, for Whilo in Schol. o 489 supporta ἀπουρίσσουσιν, et in Schol. o 487-499 HVes M a paraphras ἀφαιρεῖσθαι as ἀποτετμημένα ἀρωρατ, hic minis directi in ἀπουρήσουσιν. onmann LaRoche, Leas, and onro rea ἀπουρέσσουσιν, ut Besther, Nauch, Christ, and
Μan scholara conside it to e extremelndo tru Whether the wontPthir and wenty4o th Book of ouralia belonge to the originia oom. The two Booka have been vieme a representing tW disserent, is no antagonistic conceptions of the cloae of the poem. Neither of them is reali essentialto in planis tho Nisi muttine at the Nonning of A. Tho μηνι is broughtto ita natura conclusion hen in revenge of Achilles is fuit accomptishinand e returna victorious to the cam Wit the od of hia fallen enomy X 3943. the other hand the vivi an natura description es the funeralgamea ha been admired by ali critica, and the picture es Achilles a the irati hoat paying Ouru honor in his late enem Agamemnon, is ne which, shouldio Ioatha apare. The wen QUAE Boo falla naturali into tW divialona, in Brat 1 57 describing the funera os atroclus and the aeconi 258 973, in gamea held in his honor. The criticiam of the firs par has been directe toWard a largo number of detalla hic ahom inconsistenc os conception Thus tho protestion inorde to the od of Hector is Apollo 18 seem to come to late,
432쪽
attor the outrage in the precedin Book X 403 1i. . Theiod os atroclus isno longe conceived a lying in the tent of Achilles T 210 f. 3, butin the beach, Where the solemn processionis themyrmido incircle it 1 153. The Woris ἀδινο ἐξηρχε γόοιο 17 Me no followed a me expect by the lamentationa fAchilles and of the Myrmidona in responso. In sin the funerat eas is prepare in the tent of Achilles for allo pari e in common 113, ut in 35 Achilles is taken to the tent of Agamemnon, here hecioin the ther princ in thoi ferat, Whil a feW linea elow 593, Wit no explanation halaver me 1in Achillesin the beach ami the weeping Μyrmidona. In the descriptionos in visit of the had os atroclus 62 110 the belle occura unknown to the res of the Iliari that the ouis of theonburie mere nable to rosa the Styx though in 76 the contrar seem to e implied. In 122 13 it is the Myrmidona Who forin the procession, ut in 15 160 the wholo arm Mems o
All this has bes thought to indicate that me have in his passage the Minos ome later poet, of eas imaginatio an poetic kill Who et dissatisfodwit the origina close of tho Iliad perhapsint X 394 and wishe to ovo the
poem a more format an satisfactor conclusion. The description of the mmea hoWa a far igher degre os poetic merit, thoum here, Oo, ome di vities have been noticed. The long speec of stor in his son 30 348 interrupta the enumeratio of the arriora hocame forWard a contestanta in the chariot-race, anxit doe not in the semel, exercise in Aliotest innuenc on the result of the race. The description fine thres combata containe in 798 83 is generali concede to e interpolated. heso contesta are not anticipate in the orda of Achillea 621 ff. 3, nor ar the mentione by estor in his enumeration 634 383, and theyoffer man dissiculties in both languam an senae. A number of these are polato out in the Critical olea below, and taken together, the afford suffcient nound for assigning thia passage to a later period even is the Ἀθλα as Whole o concede a place in the origina poem. CRITICA NOTEs Φ. 13. The siluation of the corpse of Patroclus in the house of Achilles T 211 f. in Would hardly have allowed the yrmidon to mali thei solem circuit aroundit. The poet in either forgetam ignore this. oreoVer, there is nothin in the whole folloming Acen to indicate that the poet conceivea the λισέ to esurrounde is an αὐλή With an incloaure an gale M in II 231, Ω 452 ff. Onthe contrary the evenis,hich follofare thoughtis a taking place in an open apo near in κλισίη an Ahi of Achilles, an clos to the ea. f. 15, 28 f., 59 f. an 69, here a simila Procession moves about the funera pyro Mon
433쪽
Whic in corpae is lying. The change of placeris perhapa assumed by the poet,
but passe ove in the narrative κατὰ τι σιωπώμενον.
21 3. Theae Verses Aeem to have been adde by an interpolator, ho feliine nee of an explanation for τὰ πάροιθεν ejέστην. I the were not originalty in the teri, then Achilles in τελέω has in mine only what he promise ii 334, vis that he would bring in Hector' hea an hi armor es e the funera os Patroclus. his he loea in substanc in 24 1. Nauc marks these verae ius spurious, an Fic iuscribes them to the lani revision. M. δρέχθεον is more osten explainexa an intensiVerior from ὀρέγομαι, and SO equiv. in ἐξετεινοντο, cf. τανύοντο 33. ut σφαι μενοι 31 seem to indicate that the poet is thinring of the moment of Alaughter, and therefore in interpretation in the notoris preferred, though the queation is a doubiful one. 43. Thia uae of s τις illi a dennite antecedent is unusual, and the additiono the indefinite τέ to δε τι occura noWhere else, though Christ compares Aeach. o. 160 εος ωτι πον ἐστίν. The ni Other cases here et is refers to a definite person are E 175, ρ 53, ut in ac of theae placea theindef. et is appropriate, since the person referre t is unknown to the speiser. Here, omine contrary, it is notis naturat, especiali mit the indef. σέ added, forcit is hardi sate to assume in omer a though like that in Aeschylus. mahol therefore conjecturea 3στ ἐστέ. ut the continuation Ofthe et milhἈριστos Potnis regularint the ellipsis of ἐστιν.
434쪽
170. Roscher Nehta u. Ambrosia 65 f. explain the offering of honenio the fovis of the dein fromine ac that the departe Warrior is meWod a abero or demigod, and ence Ahould receivo divine honora an ala from themidesprea customos estoWing upo the dea suo objecta, speciali laod, asino had used inque an miratis expecte to nee in the the worid. ut se Helaig 53 ff. Who holis that he honentia a cloae connection it thevery ancient practice of exposing an embalming the odies of distinguishod men, a custom hic ma aftemaro supersede by the practice of burning. 184. The following statementa in regare to the protectionis Hector' bodyby the goda anticipato the narrative inra. oreover, it is strange that Aphrodite, Wh does no elaeWhere stan in a cloae relation illi Hector, Ahould bethmon to underialis his ossico, hic tam 18 ff. ia entiate in Apollo alone. Nauc an Fic rejec 187, and the lauer schola is incline to Hec 185 f. FF. objectri verae 18 191: 1 that the referri mattera concerning Whichtho reade is no informe illi lator 187 referring tora 15'. 100 to the ansomo Hector; 2 that the relation here disclosed etween Aphrodito an Hectoris noWhere else mentioned; 3 that the effect ascribe to the ou is inexplicabis;
435쪽
σημα could properi be applied.
436쪽
358. onro translatea μεταστοιχί, in sile, one b in the ther, a more consistent With the etymolog of the mord, and as auiting the languam os 354 ff. Thia explanation Mem toto that of Aristarchus, anxia folio et is L Rocho an othera, ut the viewtaken in the note is more natura an more generally
462 64. Suspecte by many editore. The statemen that in Meed os Eumelus ere theirstrio circle the matris inconsistent Wit 465 f., and accord- incto 359 474 the goa is to far distant for accurato observation. 471. his verse a re ected by Aristarchus o the round that auo amoliminar description o Diome mouid sui in me speisin in his omnperson, ut is no appropriate in the mouin o Idomeneus. So Lehrs, ich, and F.
437쪽
439쪽
presentis many aerious di vities, both in alter an expression that theycan carcet de the or of the writer of the res of the Book. omouer, thes three areio include in the lis o customar conteata eithor is Achillea
Laur. 16, and apparenti Waa rejected by ancient critica See Scholi ed. Dim doricii 271. ut it an carcet be pared, and a Roche alone, o modern editora, brachetiit. 806. His is evidenti inserted from K 298, and ἐνδίνων is inconsistent Withtho idea of inuchinissesh in 806.824 f. here is haesi suffcient remon for tho beato es of the amor MonDiomed, and the wholo statement lacri clearnem It is dissiculi in refer ρωsto Achilles, who hamno been mentione since 811. These versos more rejectinis Aristarchus, followed by Beiser, Dimiser, and FF. 826. αὐτοχωνον is an unknown ord, and la suspecte is auis. Leo
851. Since theae axes areissere M a prigerio archera, Aristarchus conjΘctured that inermere tot employed in the fame manner A the axes inis 573 ff., Where the serve a a mean o displayin init in archem. ut tho umof the axes in His extremel obscure, and the note of Aristarchus tu ita presentior is scarces intelligibio. 854 f. Cauer Grun rasten 267 compar as illustratin the poet)astron preferencerior the livetier formis direct discourae, even a the expenseos logical consistency. 857 1. Aristarchus - ἡ διπλῆ a mar indicatin that in verae is not
440쪽
Worthy μι βέλτιον ν τουτο- προλέγεσθαι -δ Αχιλλέωs, σπερ προγιγνώσκοντων ἀπὸ τύχης συμ σεμνον Scholis in Dindorii. 2733. 870. The explanation in the note is necessar Wit this text. ut Nauin prefera the reading of themamilia edition. ἐπωηκα δαντδ τἀν ἐν ἁρχωσιν, accordinga Whic eac contestant hal his own bow.871. Nauc prefers ἰθύνοι the conj of VOM. 875. It is perhapa possibi tori e -δ πτέρυγος With δινεύουσαν, - e res in the accompanyin or cooperatin cause, as in Φοῖβε, σὲ ἐν Η κύκνος πιπτερύγων re ἀείδει mm. mn xi. 1. ut the caesura is against his interpretation. 8M. Venetus A an severat ther ΜSS. ea ἐθέλοιε, ut the prevallingminin is ἐθέλεις, hic La Roche accepta Lange i. 4433 docide in favor of the optative.
Ilias Hready been stated in the introduction to , that in authenticit of the wentydourin Book a a par of the originalatiaci, is generali do ted. Both in languam an in thought it ho many maris of assinit mit thoodvaam, and theae an other indications Oin to a later origin tha that ofino res of the Ni . Some of the more striking coincide ea in languam mith in Odysse are potnted ut in the notea, speciali on 8 38 73 99, 197, 256 4943 283, 323, 330 46, 476 688 636 f. 644 47, 759 765 1. 802. The uae ofine articis in thia Book M in , hoWa traces of approximation to Attic sageses 801 - 2573, an hiatu mem tote more Widely tolerate than elaeWhere in the Nicia. See Μ. 382. The vocabulam containa many Odyssean Woros and
os Herme a guido an conductor 333 ff. . Tho Wholerator of the ranaomingos Hector Mars the maris of a later periodis civiligation in the more developedite os courtes an generosi , hic could nolleat content Without sonening the picture of the invago venMance of Achilles a presentel in X and Φ. The auctor of the account of the meetin belWee Achilles an Priam possessed poeticinitis of the hiraest order, ut, as in the me of the ' λα Πατρόκλου themerit of the passage cannot falalyrae sed as an argument for ita place among the older portiona of the Iliad.λ