[138] κε goes with κεκλήσηι (fut. indic.); to him who conquers thou shalt (then) be assigned. The order of the words is the same as in 7.41 “οἱ δέ κ᾽ ἀγασσάμενοι” .. (42) “ἐπόρσειαν”. It seems unnatural to us here, because we are accustomed to the Attic use of the art. with the participle, where no word from another part of the sentence can be interposed. But here τῶι is still an independent pronoun, lit. ‘to him, having conquered,’ etc. The difficulty arises of course from the reference being not to one definite person, but to either of two (cf. H. G. § 260). This shews that the Attic use has practically been reached in all but the stereotyped order, cf. “τοῦ βασιλῆος ἀπηνέος”, etc. There are very few other instances in H., perhaps only 21.262, 23.325, 663, 702, beside the parallel 255 below (q.v.). It has been proposed, on the analogy of “ὁππότερος δέ κε νικήσηι” (71), to take “κε” with the participle here; but in practice the “κε” (“ἄν”) is inseparable from the relative in such sentences for H. as for later Greek, and no analogous case has been quoted. At best we could refer to the instances of a repeated “ἄν” where the first often attaches itself to a participle representing a conditional clause, but is not construed with it (instances in M. and T. § 224). There seems to be no case of “ὁ νικήσας ἄν”, and even if it were found it could only mean ‘the man who would have conquered.’ Van Leeuwen evades the difficulty by reading “γε” for “κε”, with P; but this is intolerable. κεκλήσηι, i.e. “κεκλήσε᾽”（“αι”).
