[14] “ν̂ηας ἔπ᾽ ἂψ ἰέναι ἐν ἐνίαις φαύλως”, says Did. But there is no obvious reason for preferring the reading of Ar., “ἂψ ἐπὶ νῆας ἴμεν”, unless on the ground that it is more euphonious; compare the similar variety in 21.535 “αὖτις ἐπ᾽ ἂψ θέμεναι”. The doubts raised by van L. against the validity of the form “ἴμεν” (Ench. § 126) appear to me entirely fallacious. Note that “ἴναι”, given by “παπ. κ”, is not a mere blunder; reference to the App. Crit. on 21.297 will shew that it is a genuine variant. It is, on the analogy of the later “διδόναι” etc., more correct than “ἰέναι”: but the only Homeric forms are those in which -“ναι” (apart of course from -“μεναι”) is preceded by a long vowel or diphthong (“δοῦναι” etc.). On this ground van L. writes “ἴμεναι” for “ἰέναι. ἴναι” is in fact found on an inscription from Rhodes (“παρίναι”) and in a fragment of Machon (Ath.580 c, “ἐξίναι”); and appears to have been not uncommon in the time of Phrynichos (Rutherford p. 65, see G. Meyer Gr. p. 667).
