We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 11 February 2009
I print the text as given in Pearson. I agree with Jebb and Sheppard that the strophe is sound, and therefore I would retain 
at 866–7. The problem now lies with the antistrophe, where with the manuscript reading at 877 we lack either or-to give proper responsion with 867.
The manuscript text can be vindicated if we detect that simplest of scribal errors, haplography. Thus for 876–7 I would read
1 I am most grateful to my colleague, Mr. A. S. McDevitt, for his assistance in matters of metre. Ultimate responsibility is mine.
1 I can find no exact parallel for γε emphasizing a superlative in the lyric portions of Tragedy, but the well-instanced use of γε ‘with adjectives and adverbs expressing number, size and intensity, corresponding to the far more frequent use of 
(Denniston) and the common use of 
ye both in prose and verse (e.g. Eur. Hel. 851, I.T. 580) should afford sufficient justification for the usage here.
1 
Aristarchus 
but in view of Iliad 18. 68 and the fact that ‘the construction of 
without a genitive and with a bare accusative of the terminus ad quern is very harsh’ (Leaf), the reading is surely 
.
2 As for the omission of the definite article, neither 
here nor 
in the Hymn need be interpreted as ‘the highest’, but simply ‘very high’.
3 
(i.e. Doric for 
a word of limited usage in the classical period, cf. LSJ, s.v. 
) would give an impossible responsion since, although long elements in the ‘aeolic base’ may be resolved to double- short, two successive elements may not take the single-short form. Thus 
might be regarded as a resolved form of 
but not as a variation of a form with 4 base-elements.
