Note 114 — Chapter V

Ὡς ἀπολωλέκατε.] Jacobs interprets ὡς by quàm, as equivalent to quàm turpiter! quàm impiè! But such exclamations belong rather to modern writers than to the ancients. * * * Others have conjectured ἀθέως, ἀνοσίως, ὠμῶς, ἵσως, ὅλως, οὕτως. In one manuscript ὡς is omitted; an omission approved by Larcher, Porson and some others. Some, too, think that the sentence is ἀνακόλουθος, and that the author, forgetful how he commenced it, goes on with ὡς for ὅτι. Dindorf supposes that Cleanor must be regarded as too much provoked and agitated to mind the exact arrangement of his words. For my own part, I consider that those have the most reason on their side who think that we should read οὕτως, interpreting it, with Bornemann, so rashly, so unjustifiably. From οὕτως, written compendiously, ὡς might easily have sprung. Kühner.