[225] ἐπιδευεῖς, sc. “ἐσμέν”: but, to say nothing of the contraction of “-έες”, the omission of both subject and verb is excessively harsh. Hence some would adopt Ar.'s reading “ἐπιδεύει” and explain it as = thou lackest (it should be “ἐπιδεύεαι”), others “ἐπιδεύεις” in the same sense (so Platt J. P. xix. 41; the active is defensible, see on 18.100). This may be supported if 226-7 are omitted; but there is no ground for this, and the mention of the huts of Agamemnon shews that Odysseus must be speaking of the envoys, not of Achilles. It is perhaps possible to read “εἰμέν” or “ἦμεν” for “ἠμέν” as the ancient critics did; but the position of the word is unnatural and “ἠδὲ καί” calls for “ἠμέν”. There is something to be said for Fick's “ἐπιδευές” (also 13.622), there is no lack, but no exactly parallel use can be adduced. 19.180 “ἵνα μή τι δίκης ἐπιδευὲς ἔχηισθα” is really different owing to the presence of the pronoun; and in a phrase like “οὔ τοι” “ἀεικές” (l. 70), there is no disgrace, a vague subject is easily supplied from what precedes. Here it has to be evolved from the inner consciousness, ‘the state of things in general is not lacking’ (see H. G. §§ 162 (5), 378 * d). Perhaps the simplest alternative of all is to read “ἐπιδεύει” with Ar., but to take it as an impersonal verb, the Epic form of the Attic “δεῖ”, so that the phrase is simply “δαιτὸς οὐδὲν δεῖ”. So far as the scholia go this may have been Ar.'s own explanation.
