– – ⏓ τουτονὶ:
and if τὸν ἀγῶν(α) is a cretic, it must be scanned
– ᴗ – τὸν ἀγῶν|α!
There are, no doubt, many cases of abnormal lengthening in Homeric versification (e.g. φίλε κασίγνητε at the beginning of a line, Il. iv. 155), but not to such an extent as would satisfy ‘Eucleides the elder’: οἷον Εὐκλείδης ὁ ἀρχαῖος, ὡς ῥᾴδιον ποιεῖν, εἴ τις δώσει ἐκτείνειν ἐφ’ ὁπόσον βούλεται, ἰαμβοποιήσας ἐν αὐτῇ τῇ λέξει,—“Ἐπιχάρην εἶδον Μαραθῶνάδε βαδίζοντα” (Aristot. Poet. c. xxii.).
11. μήτε ἰαμβικὸς ... τροχαίων μηδείς: it is obvious that we could discover some of these feet in the passage if we were to choose our own way of dividing it. If in Latin, for example, we were to take such a sentence as quonam igitur pacto probari potest insidias Miloni fecisse Clodium? (Cic. pro Milone 12. 32), we could extract dactyls, spondees, trochees, iambi, cretics, anapaests, etc. from the various section into which we chose to divide it: e.g.
– ᴗ ᴗ – – – ᴗ – – ᴗ – – ᴗ ᴗ– ᴗ – – – – ᴗ – ᴗ⏓ (1) quonam igi|tur pac|to pro|bari | potest | insi|dias | Milo|ni fe|cisse | Clodium? – ᴗ ᴗ – – – ᴗ – – ᴗ – – ᴗ ᴗ– ᴗ – – – – ᴗ – ᴗ⏓ (2) quonam i|gitur | pacto | proba|ri po|test in|sidias | Milo|ni fe|cisse Clo|dium? – ᴗ ᴗ – – – ᴗ – – ᴗ – – ᴗ ᴗ – ᴗ – – – – ᴗ – ᴗ⏓ (3) quonam igi|tur pac|to proba|ri potest | insidi|as Milo|ni fe|cisse Clo|dium?
And so with several other possible scansions (cp. Laurand Études sur le style de Cicéron p. 138).
19. For Hegesias cp. Introduction, pp. [52]-5 supra.
20. μὰ τὸν Δία ... λέγειν: reminiscent of Demosth. Philipp. iii. 54, Fals. Leg. 220.