2

The fragment is reported by the tradition as:

Ἦρος ἄγγελος ἱμερόφωνος ἀήδων

Or sometimes with ἡμερόφωνος. It would seem we just need to fix a psilosis for the third word. However, Edmonds and safopoemas amend the last word to ἀήδω, and Lobel-Page and Campbell put all but the first word in cruces, with Lobel-Page adding «Aut ἀήδω aut ἄγγελον ἰμερόφωνον scribendum», as if the accusative was the only form in -nu. Voigt says that is "praeter necessitatem". So, what gives?

What reasons do we have to amend or to not amend this?

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.