Abstract

There are two ways in which the text as it stands has been construed: Cypris came sweet and smiling ; sweet Cypris also came smiling. Of these is at least grammatical. The order of words, too, can be paralleled. But what I think cannot be paralleled is this curious conjunction of adj. and partic. is frankly ungrammatical. Yet Legrand adopts it, adding: ‘Il faut reconnaitre une construction incorrecte au moins dans ces quatre passages: 1. 95…; 1. 109 ραîος ξδωνις ; 4. 49 οικον τ λαγωβΌλον ; 29. 33 τàν γνυν νδρειαν. Of the last three we can with confidence say that ραîος and νδρειαν are to be taken as predicative; in 4. 49 Legrand himself now accepts the emendation τι for τΌ, as he does in the similar 15. 145 passage. There is not, in fact, sufficient, or indeed any, evidence to convict Theocritus of this solecism. Emendation has been rife, but unhappy. ‘Nescio an ipse rem acu tetigerim, legens νӨ γε μν, νíα δ, καì K. γ.,’ writes Briggs. We think he has not.