[19] 19-20 were obelized by Ar. (and Zenod. included 18 also) on the ground that a warrior would not be arrayed with a bow and panther-skin if he were challenging heavily-armed foes to combat. But this objection would equally apply to “προμάχιζεν” above. Ar. and most of the other ancient critics also omitted the ὁ in 18, but Didymos for once ventures to disagree, remarking that Homer frequently employs phrases like “ὁ δέ”, etc., without any change of subject. He quotes Od. 9.374, which is not to the point; but see appropriate instances in H. G. § 257. 1. αὐτάρ is here merely a particle of transition; if the adversative sense is to be pressed it must mean that though he has the skin and bow of the archer, yet he has also the pair of spears of the hoplite. For the use of a skin in place of the shield cf. App. B, viii. Observe that Paris is not challenging to a duel properly speaking, but only to a combat in the midst of the general engagement; for this is the only admissible sense of “δηϊοτής”.
