[106] See a judicious note of Paley's.
[107] I have borrowed Griffiths' translation. It seems impossible that ἁγνὸν τέλος could ever be a personal appeal, while σύ τε evidently shows that the address to Pallas Onca was unconnected with the preceding line. As there is probably a lacuna after Διόθεν, it is impossible to arrive at any certain meaning.
[108] See Stanley. Ὄγκα is a Phœnician word, and epithet of Minerva.
[109] The boys, girls, etc.
[110] Cf. Eur. Hippol. 1219, sqq.
καὶ δεσπότης μὲν ἱππικοῖς ἐν ἤθεσι πολὺς ξυνοικῶν ἥρπασ' ἡνίας χεροῖν, ἕλκει δὲ κώπην ὥστε ναυβάτης ἀνήρ.
[111] I.e. to adore the images placed at the head of the vessel. See Griffiths.
[112] This far-fetched interpretation of an absurd text is rightly condemned by W. Dindorf in his note, who elegantly reads with Lud. Dindorf ὕδασί τ᾽ Ἰσμηνοῦ. Paley has clearly shown the origin of the corruption. Linwood is equally disinclined to support the common reading.
[113] Blomfield reads ἐγὼ δέ γ᾽ ἄνδρας, the change of ΔΕΓ to ΔΕΠ being by no means a difficult one. Linwood agrees with this alteration, and Dindorf in his notes. But Paley still defends the common reading, thinking that ἐπ᾽ ἐχθροῖς is to be taken from the following line. I do not think the poet would have hazarded a construction so doubtful, that we might take ἐπὶ either with ἄνδρας, ἐχθροῖς, or by tmesis, with ἄξω.
[114] The construction of the exegetical accusative is well illustrated in Jelf's Gk. Gr. § 580, 3.