Meter wouldn’t allow εμοι δε at the beginning, of course. But the fronting of παιδα is understandable in any case. The υμιν μεν … εμοι δε contrast is slightly displaced for the sake of giving prominence to the object of his prayer. It’s still εμοι not μοι, so there’s emphasis on both παιδα and εμοι (εμοι in correspondence with υμιν, the parallelism doesn’t need to be exact). Didn’t my first post satisfy you on this?
For what it’s worth, Timothée is right about the intended syntax of the impossible λῦσαί τε. Here’s Eustathius’ note that informs us of the proposed rearticulation:
Ὅτι τὸ «παῖδα
δέ μοι λύσατε φίλην, τὰ δ’ ἄποινα δέχεσθε, ἁζόμενοι Διὸς υἱόν» Ἀπίων καὶ
Ἡρόδωρος, ὧν βιβλίον εἰς τὰ τοῦ Ὁμήρου φέρεται, διδόασι καὶ ἀπαρεμφάτως
γράφεσθαι· «παῖδα δέ μοι λῦσαί τε φίλην, τὰ δ’ ἄποινα δέχεσθαι» λαμβανομένου,
φασίν, ἀπὸ κοινοῦ τοῦ δοῖεν, ἵνα λέγῃ, ὅτι δοῖεν θεοὶ τήν τε παῖδα λῦσαι καὶ τὰ
δῶρα λαβεῖν.
(No doubt Eustathius misarticulated δεμοι, and it looks as if in the ApH commentary τα δ’ was actually τα τ’.)
ταρ. As Paul will remember, there was an earlier thread on this. http://discourse.textkit.com/t/topic/13143/1