Here is the amended text, in almost the Lobel-Page version:

ἀμφὶ ‹δ'› άβροισ‹ιν› λασίοισ' εὖ ‹ϝ'› ἐπύκασσεν

The ‹δ'› is a correction from the tradition's λάβροις, the ‹ιν› fills in a hole in the meter which Lobel-Page leaves as a lacuna1, and the ‹ϝ'› is added in. My question here is:

Why is that ‹ϝ'› translated to "her" in both Campbell and Edmonds' editions, and as "la" (again "her", or maybe an object of feminine grammatical gender) in safopoemas (THAT Spanish edition I commented on elsewhere)? WHat in the text suggests it's not a male?

1 The lacuna is probably posited to avoid lengthening a syllable with a euphonic nu, which seems to be a problem for reasons unclear to me, but I think I've already asked about this, so I'll leave this out of this question.

Yes, Aeolic /we/ means either "him" or "her". But the question is further muddied by the fact that ‹ϝ'› is a conjecture.

  • So is there anything in the text to argue for one gender or the other of that conjectured we? – MickG Oct 8 at 15:36
  • 1
    Not as far as I can see. – fdb Oct 8 at 16:24

Your Answer

By clicking "Post Your Answer", you acknowledge that you have read our updated terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy, and that your continued use of the website is subject to these policies.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.