ᾧ ἔπι πολλὰ μόγησα, δόσαν δέ μοι υἷες Ἀχαιῶν. [1.162]
Is ‘δέ’ here to be understood as in opposition to what was said in the previous line?
καὶ δή μοι γέρας αὐτὸς ἀφαιρήσεσθαι ἀπειλεῖς, [1.161]
Unless there is some metric reason for it, I wonder if line 1.162 would make sense without the ‘δέ’.
I think δέ indicates a change of subject: μόγησα first person singular, δόσαν third person plural. Greek requires a connective here, and does English (“and” is probably best).
Come think about it, δε is probably also required because the construction changes in other respects as well: μόγησα has ἔπι + dative ᾧ, while δόσαν would have its object in the accusative, if it were expressed.
Here is the meter of the line:
ᾧ ἔπι πολλὰ μόγησα, δόσαν δέ μοι υἷες Ἀχαιῶν
ᾧ ἔπι (_ u u) πολλὰ μό- (_ u u) -γησα, δό- (_ u | u) -σαν δέ μοι‿ (_ u u) ‿υἷες Ἀ- (_ u u) -χαιῶν (_ _)
Six feet, with a caesura “|” in the third. Notice the ‿, which is epic correption. μοι is short, probably a glide similar the shortening of “ay” in the English phrase “play on.”
So no, the δέ couldn’t just drop out.