previous next

[75] The omission of the Ϝ of ἀποϝειπόντος is strange after the emphatic trace of it in 35. Heyne therefore conj. “ἀποειπόντος ἀγαυοῦ Π”. Bentley preferred to reject the line, which is quite superfluous. Cf., however, Od. 1.91μνηστήρεσσιν ἀπειπέμεν”, and “παρείπηι1.555.

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 United States License.

An XML version of this text is available for download, with the additional restriction that you offer Perseus any modifications you make. Perseus provides credit for all accepted changes, storing new additions in a versioning system.

hide References (2 total)
  • Commentary references from this page (2):
hide Display Preferences
Greek Display:
Arabic Display:
View by Default:
Browse Bar: