[208] αἰόλον, glistening or wriggling, see on 167. ὅπως: Brandreth conj. “ἐπεί”, which has some support from quotations, and is certainly right; see on 11.459. ὄφιν: the word does not recur in H., and the irregular lengthening is unexplained. Tzetzes quotes from Hipponax ( fr. 49. 6) a choliambic “ἢν αὐτὸν ὄφις τὠντικνήμιον δάκνηι”, and Antimachos ( fr. 78) has “Τήνου ὀφιοέσσης” in a hexameter — the latter, however, is excused by metrical necessity. The same is true of “ὀφιόδειροι”, in an oracle quoted by Aristotle mir. ausc. 24. G. Meyer (Gr. § 210) compares the frequent cases of “κχ, πφ, τθ” written for simple “χ, φ, θ”: “ὄκχον” Pind. O. vi. 24, “ὀκχέω” ii. 67, “σκύπφος” Hes. fr. 194(Rzach), and on inscriptions. The same lengthening is found but not expressed in letters, in “βρο?χος” Hes. Theog.1099, “φιλόσο_φον” Ar. Eccl. 571, “φαιο_χίτωνες” Aisch. Cho. 1049.Schol. Heph. explains it “διὰ τὴν σφοδρότητα τοῦ πνεύματος, ὡς καὶ Ἡλιοδώρωι δοκεῖ τῆι δασείαι πλέον τι νέμειν”, i.e. the breathed element of the aspirate makes position. Demetrios de eloc. thought that Homer purposely made a “στίχος μείουρος” for the sake of effect (to express the serpent's tail?). Brandreth conj. “ὕδρον” (cf. 2.723); but the analogies given are sufficient to defend the text, whatever the explanation. See Schulze Q. E. p. 431 and App. D (C 3).
