[39] For the non-Homeric ἤν Heyne and Brandreth read “εἴ”. But “κε” or “ἄν” seem to be never omitted in this common constr. “ἤν” is probably only a mark of the late origin of this transitional passage. Cf. also 22.419. οἰόθεν οἶος, which recurs l. 226, is, with “αἰνόθεν αἰνῶς”, 97, a phrase peculiar to this book, and hard to explain. Of “αἰνόθεν αἰνῶς” we can only say that it is a case of emphasis produced by the familiar resource of reduplication, as in “μέγας μεγαλωστί, ὄψιμον ὀψιτέλεστον”: no one has succeeded in explaining why the local suffix “-θεν”, with its very definite signification, should be used for the purpose. In “οἰόθεν οἶος” the meaning seems to be ‘man to man,’ and the repetition will then have a ground beyond mere emphasis. Bentley suggested “οἶον”, Döderlein “οἴωι” (with “μαχέσασθαι”), and either of these would make the phrase a little more intelligible. The closest analogy is perhaps to be found in “αὐτὸς ἐφ᾽ αὑτοῦ, αὐτὸς καθ᾽ αὑτόν”. Phrases like 2.75 “ἄλλοθεν ἄλλος” have only a superficial resemblance, as in them each word has its distinct and separate meaning.
