LIBRARY
OF THE
University of California.
Class f\X^\
HOMERICA
EMENDATIONS AND ELUCIDATIONS
OF
THE ODYSSEY
BY
THOMAS LEYDEN AGAR, M.A.
Ea, ut potero, explicabo, nee tamen quasi Pythius Apollo, certa
ut sint et fixa quae dixero, sed ut homunculus unus e multis
probabilia coniectura sequens. — Cicero, Tusc. Bisp.
OXFORD
AT THE CLARENDON PRESS
1908
GENERAL
HENRY FROWDE, M.A.
PUBLISHEB TO THE UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD
LONDON, EDINBURGH
NEW YORK AND TORONTO
PA mui
KA/M
HUNC LIBELLUM QUALEMCUMQUE
MEO FRATRI
GULIELMO HENRICO
FILIOLOQUE MEO
EDVINO W. L. AGAR
D. D. D.
T.L.A.
175414
PREFACE
The language of the Homeric poems is Achaean, and
fairly represents the speech of the Achaean people. The
alternative idea that the epic dialect is an artificial poetical
medley, Ionic in the main with a liberal admixture of
the other Greek dialects, is frankly impossible. Certain
phenomena, which are supposed to favour this extra-
ordinary theory, admit of a simple and adequate explanation,
if we ask ourselves the question : — How in a non-critical
age would the language, whether originally written or not,
of an ancient literary work be treated during, and even
after, a prolonged period of very considerable linguistic
change among the various sections of the Greek race ?
One of the most eminent Homeric scholars of our time,
whose profound learning was guided by rare sanity of
judgement, the late Dr. D. B. Monro, in writing of the
influence of dialects on the Homeric text {Odyssey^
Xni-XXIV, Append., p. 476) has well remarked : * The
mixture of dialects in short was not in the original
Homeric poems, but supervened as a corruption, brought
about by the circumstances under which they were trans-
mitted. It is simply an example, on a peculiarly large
scale, of the modernising process which no literary master-
piece can quite escape, if it is to retain its hold on a people.'
In the main it may be taken as certain that the forms of
words in the traditional text are substantially identical with
those used by the poet. The metre alone affords a strong
guarantee that this is the case. If it were otherwise, the
most devoted study of the language of Homer would avail
little. As it is, a simple process of comparison often
AOAB a ^
Ti PREFACE
enables us to discriminate between the true Homeric form
and the later innovation. For notwithstanding this sub-
stantial integrity, all modem criticism recognizes, and it
may be accepted as an undeniable fact, that our text has
undergone much minor modification of its original form.
But while the reality of these changes is admitted, great
differences of opinion exist as to their nature and origin.
We have a perfect jumble of theories dealing with the
generation and growth of the two great epics.
I think I may say, without fear of contradiction, that
the obsolete had no attraction whatever for the ancients.
"EXXrjvis a€t 7rat8es eore, ye'/ocoz; 8e "EAAt^i; ovk €aTLv, said the
Egyptian priest (Plat. Tim. 22) with incisive truth to
Solon. Antiquarianism in literature is an Alexandrine
exotic, Hellenistic but not Hellenic. In what may be
called the prehistoric period of the Homeric tradition
alteration would be readily accepted and joyfully welcomed,
if it were reverently made with a view to the gentle elimina-
tion of archaism. It is neither necessary nor desirable to
assume that any early editor or ' Bearbeiter ' of the poems
deliberately set to work to remove the obsolete features and
to substitute the recognized forms in common use. Any
such assumption I deprecate strongly, though it would not be
a more violent hypothesis in itself than the current theory of
periodic enlargement. The change here assumed to have
taken place might be an almost imperceptible one. A slight
alteration here and there would bring about, as time went
on, a modification in the whole aspect of the poems parallel,
we might almost say, to the unnoticed and unnoticeable,
but not less real, changes that combine to alter the physical
feature of the earth's surface in the lapse of ages. The
introduction, for example, of ayporaL for iypoiwrai, tt 218,
would be looked upon not as a lawless violation of the
integrity of the Homeric text, but as a praiseworthy
PREFACE Yii
embellishment of the noblest monument of the national
literature.
Under these circumstances it is, I submit, perfectly futile
to infer from the presence of a word confessedly late, either
that the particular line or passage that contains it is
nothing but an interpolation, or, to take an extreme view,
Paley's, that the date of the composition of the Homeric
poems should as a consequence be moved forward a century
or two. Accordingly, more often than not the emendations
I have ventured to propose are strictly conservative in
effect, inasmuch as they maintain the essential integrity
and antiquity of lines or passages which have been assailed
by the disintegrating critics, who have brought to bear
upon these poems their visionary batteries of set recensions,
revisions, redactions, remaniements and all the other farrago
of the Higher Criticism.
Still though it is an error to shatter the poems to pieces,
it is equally an error in the opposite direction to believe
blindly in every letter of the tradition, and to refuse to
recognize even the possibility of detecting an innovation
or interpolation that has not been obelized to our know-
ledge by Aristarchus. If we can appreciate Homer at all,
if we can recognize the simplicity, nobility, and force of
his language, we are surely entitled, when we find these
entirely absent and perhaps other difficulties besides, to
pronounce judgement accordingly. The essential point is
that our reasons should be sensible, and able to sustain
adverse rational criticism in their turn.
The emendation of Homer is not by any means ordinarily
the same thing as the emendation of corrupt passages in
the works of later Greek authors, which have suffered from
defects of transcription by careless and ignorant scribes.
From errors of this kind I believe the text of the Homeric
poems is almost, if not quite, as free as that of Virgil.
viii PREFACE
Palaeographical considerations, therefore, are not supreme
here. The main sources of corruption in Homer are the
assimilation of antique forms and obsolete words to later
Greek usage, and the intrusion of later metrical rules and
grammatical canons, and to some extent also of new ideas
of what is right and proper (see Cobet on to airpeTres,
Miscdl. Crit., pp. 225 ff., though his strictures fall entirely
on the grammarians and philosophers, and not at all on
the nation at large). In illustration of this last I will
add here a curious instance of the evasion of an objection-
able, ill-omened expression, which seems to me instructive.
In the Iliad we read, 164,
€pp€, KaKY] yXrjvrj, —
The words are shouted by Hector after the retreating
Diomedes, and are usually understood to mean, ' Be gone,
slight girl,' ' Away, poor puppet' Here yXrjvr], which
means properly the pupil of the eye, denotes in the view
of all the authorities the small figure reflected in the
eye, &c., &c. I might illustrate this by two quotations from
Herrick, which are apt enough (Palgrave's Herriclc) : —
* 112 *
Clear are her eyes.
Like purest skies ;
Discovering from thence
A baby there
That turns each sphere,
Like an Intelligence.
* 216 *
It is an active flame, that flies
First to the babies of the eyes — .
But does y\rivr) bear this sense here ? Did the ancient
Greek poet really mean anything of this sort ? I think not.
It is almost inconceivable. Did he not rather say : —
ilpp€ kokt) ykrivrjy
PREFACE ix
* Be gone with the evil eye upon you* to the same effect as
the typical Irish, * Be off and bad cess to you ' ? Kaxf/
yXrivji is simply the opposite of the common formula ayaOfj
Tvxpi ruxo-yo-^V ' ^^^ *^^ superstitious feelings of the Greeks
could not bear to have a phrase like this bandied about
and dinned into the ears of themselves and their
children.
Again it is a recognized rule in Attic that the i of the
dative cannot be elided. The reason is simple. Lucidity
* demands that the confusion that would arise from having
■ more cases than one indistinguishable from the dative should
be avoided. Sooner or later this would lead to the evolution
of the rule as an indispensable condition of correct speech
and writing. But was it not later rather than sooner that
this occurred ? Was not the rule unknown to the earliest
writers ? It had no existence even for the earlier lambo-
graphi. It was unrecognized by the Elegiac and Lyric
poets of the earlier ages, and still more would it be ignored
by the primitive Epic poets. Strangely enough this free-
dom has never been fully allowed to Homer. Of course
it is quite impossible to avoid seeing that instances of this
elision do occur occasionally in the Iliad and Odyssey ;
but admission of the fact has always been grudgingly
made by scholars, who seem to have thought it would be
a serious disparagement to the great Epics, if their author
or authors had not in the main followed a salutary rule,
^ which in the later Attic is so imperative. So, doubtless,
thought the Greeks themselves.
Quite similar is the case of the personal pronouns, /ixoi,
o-oi, Toi, fot, which unquestionably were freely elided in
early Epic.
With regard to the vexed question of the digamma, it is
becoming increasingly probable that Bentley after all was
right in attributing to it the full force of a consonant.
X PREFACE
The mere fact that a certain number of passages, ever
becoming smaller, * fine by degrees and beautifully less/
resists its easy restoration, will hardly justify the conclusion
that in Homer's day it was a disappearing sound, if there
be any truth in the view stated above of the Greek method
of dealing with their ancient Epics.
It has not been my aim — it may be doubted whether it
is either practicable or desirable — to remove from the
traditional text what may be called the ordinary conven-
tional forms. We must, I think, be content for instance, as
the Greeks themselves were, to see opoco, the musical
diectasis of opcS, for opdcoy opdqs for o/jaet?, SetSta for bibFia or
bihFoa (Monro), ewpyet for eFcFopyci (though f 289, where
av0p<aTrovs is necessary, makes a difficulty), ewKet for iFeFoC^
Ket, krjvbave for kFavbave, also genitives in -eon for -ao (-a'),
in 'ov for -010, -00 (-0*) &c. Even ^los might be tolerated
for the more correct ^09, but surely not tm ; nor again ^fe
for eafe (iFa^e), clbvla for ibvla, etouvtai for ffft/cvtai, and
other similar forms, which not merely modify but destroy
both metre and language. Words of this class may be
banished without hesitation or remorse.
In respect of metre I confess myself convinced, though
I do not ask the reader to concede the point, that the
prevalent doctrine of hiatus licitus is an error. This
conclusion is primarily the result of a careful examination
of particular instances, and next of a general consideration
that the high numerical average of examples, on which
the doctrine rests, takes no account of the comparative
frequency of diaeresis in the Homeric hexameter. Diae-
resis is exceedingly common in just the very places where
hiatus licitus is supposed to exist. The usage of later
poets is not by any means identical with Homer's ; as
the author of one of the Lives of Homer (Pseud .-Plut.)
has said, to. bl 'Ofxripov iirq rd reKfLOTarov ^x^i fxirpov. I
PREFACE xi
hope I have contributed a little to confirm this opinion.
Even in 6 407 : —
€v6a (T eyoav ayayovcra 5/x' 'qoC <f>aivoyi€VY]^iv
where there is no verbal corruption in the line and the
hiatus seems inevitable, a good and valid reason could be
given for thinking that the passage originally ran in this
wise : —
€vOa <r' kytiiv ayayovcra — (ri> 8' eu KpCvaaOat eratpov?
rpct?, ot TOL irapa vrjvcrlv iva-a-cXjJLOKTLV &piaToi, —
i^eCrjs €Vvri(T<t) a/x' ^oC <f)aLvoix€vr}(f)LV.
It passes the power of all the daughters of Proteus together
to set one man in ambush k^eCrjSi ' in a row ' at any time of
day.
A minority of the criticisms contained in this volume,
about a fourth part I believe, have appeared in the Journal
of Philology, and a few in the pages of the Classical Review.
These have been revised, with slight additions and changes.
In one case, that of o 299, M. Victor B^rard, by his great
work, Les FhSniciens et FOdyssee, a brilliant investigation of
the geography of the Odyssey, has caused me to withdraw
a suggestion altogether. He has quite refuted the common
and natural assumption that much of Homer's geography is
altogether imaginary. Even if the narrative of Odysseus
is not absolutely to be ranked as a nautical guide-book,
a periplus of the Mediterranean, M. B^rard has amply
justified Strabo's pronouncement, ex firjb^vds be a\7}dovs
avcLTTTCLV Kevrjv TcpaToXoyCav ov^ 'OfxrjpLKov.
I have to thank the Delegates of the Press for their
kindness in publishing this volume. Prof. Bywater for
valuable advice, and the staff for their accurate work in
its production.
T. L. AGAR.
Manchester,
Julyy 1907.
ERRATA
Page 30, 1. 26, read iroTiSey/ieyot
„ 66, 1. 21, read Alo\lt}v
„ 70, 1/ 18, for I 151 read i 351
UNIVERSITY
HOMER'S ODYSSEY
BOOK I (a).
a 37] ctSws aiTTvv okeOpov i-n-el 7rp6 01 citto/acv rjix^vs,
In the latter part of this verse two solutions of the difficulty-
caused by the neglect of the digamma in ctTro/Acv hold the
field. The most popular deyice is to remove the adverbial vpo,
a course originally proposed by Knight, afterwards advocated by
Bekker (Hom. Blatt. ii. p. 21) and adopted by Nauck and others.
The other alternative is to omit the enclitic pronoun, ol, add the
augment to the verb and so reach, as a resultant reading, Trpocct-
TTOfxev. This is Hoffmann's emendation, though Bentley seems
to have anticipated him, v. Jour. Phil. No. xlii, Bentley's Notes
on the Odyssey, A. Piatt. However, the question of priority in
this case is not very important. The fact is, after due considera-
tion I am fully persuaded that neither alternative is right.
I deprecate the sacrifice of either Trpo or ot as wholly unnecessary.
The tradition is in the main correct. No omission is required
to restore the primitive form of the clause, but rather the
addition of one letter, thus : —
CTTCt irpo 1 c€Mro/>t€V i7/u,€t9, \r = roi).
It is noteworthy and not a little curious, that the expansion
of €t7ro/>L€v into iitTrofxev, thanks to the legitimacy of the elision of
the diphthong -ot even before a short syllable, actually enables
— w — to become — w w. The same phenomenon appears in ^ 392,
where for tTnreLov Si ol rf^e the Cambridge Homer, following
van Leeuwen and da Costa, rightly exhibits tinreLov Si F* eaie.
We may compare Z 289 ev$a F* ta-av iriirXoi for tv6' ea-av ol iriirXoi
in the same edition. It is, I fear, only out of profound disrespect
for the concluding books of the Odyssey, which Aristarchus
condemned, that Prof. Piatt allows (w 208) IvOa ol oTkos eev to
appear rather than €v6a F^ lev ot/co?, which pari ratione is
unmistakably the true reading.
AGAR B t
a 37 ODYSSEY
From this same little esteemed book, however, let me take
an excellent illustration of the above-mentioned conversion of the
cretic into the dactyl by the addition of a syllable. We now
find in our texts : —
o) 56 epx^rai ov TratSos reOvrjoroi di/rtooxra.
But, if we wish the line to scan at all, we certainly ought to read : —
tpxiG' kov iratSos.
The above facts are of some importance as evidence to determine
the nature of elision in Homer. The elided syllable was, it
seems, not slurred over in pronunciation, but removed altogether:
for a short syllable could hardly absorb, i.e. amalgamate with
itself, the longer diphthong and still retain, as it does, its original
quantity unaltered.
It is perhaps desirable to mention that the position of the
enclitic pronoun following the irpo in a 37 has been made the
subject of stricture. Unduly, because the emphasis upon the
adverb fully justifies the inverted order. Even a slight degree
of emphasis suffices to bring about such a deviation from the
general rule as to the place of the enclitic personal pronoun in
Homeric verse, e.g. with single words ; —
a 264 dAAct Trarrjp ol BtoKcv e/xos'
y 367 €i/ii', ev6a xpetos {xoi oKJiiXXeroUf
1278 €t fir] Ovp.o'i fxe kcXcvou
K 293 OTTTTOTC K€v K.LpKr} (T iX.d(rr] — .
X 471 lyvd) Se ^XV h'^ — •
/A 107 ov yap K€v pvaraiTO <r VTreK icaKOv— .
TT 371 r)/x€L^ S' evOdSe ol <f>pa^w/A€6a,
So with phrases : —
/i, 1 78 ot 8' €v vrjt fjL iSrfcrav — .
\f/ 16 KOL i^ VTTVOv fi avcyctpcis.
p 456 OS vvv aXkorpioLcri vap'^p.evos ov ti fiot erXr)^ — .
^492 <f>6ey^a.fJi.€V0<s 8' oXLyy ottl /a€ Trpos p.vdov tuirv
The same principle regulates the order of the words in ; —
8 78 TiKva <fiLX.\ ri TOL Zrjvl ^porwv ovk dv tis IpO^of
I will adduce from the Iliad one instance only out of many : —
I 474 oAX' oT€ 8^ hiKory) /jlol iTn^XvOt vv$ €p€^€vvy,
(of. Hym. Dem. 51) because it seems to me to show unmistakably
the error of altering the order of : —
1; 261 oAA* oT€ Srj oyBoov p.oL tTrnrkofAfvov ctos ^X^cf, (■■ ^287)
BOOK I a 37-40
either into dAA* ore 8^ /jlol iTnTrXo/xevov €T0? oySoov rjXOev with
van L. and da C. or into dXX' ore Srj fi oySoiov (v. Monro, H. G.
§ 365, note). I make no question as to the philological yalidity
of the new form of the adjective. Dindorf s oySoarov, however, is
amply sufficient without any transposition : —
oAA' oT€ 8r] oySoarov fioL iirnrXofxevov eros rjXOev.
The metrical effect is similar to the opening of : —
A 386 €t fiev 8r] ovtCPlov.
Dr. Monro in his note on ^ 287 still seemed to prefer oySwov;
but he underrated the resources of Greek civilization as applied
to the corruption of the early epic. In H 223, 246 we have
oySoo9, as easily convertible into a spondee, as ttAcovcs (o- 247).
To revert to a 37, we find a similar adverb preceding an
enclitic pronoun : —
B 258 €1 K €TL (T acfipcuvovra KL)(q(rofjLaif ws vv irep aiSc — .
In scansion there is nothing to choose between : —
€t K €TL (T
¥ f > * >
€L K€ a- €T .
The difference can only be one of emphasis, as already explained.
See also t 12 1-2 (Note).
a 40] ^'^ yoL/a 'Opeo-rao ti<ti^ t<r(T€Tai * Arp^iZao.
The singularity of the lengthening of the short vowel before
TtVis is undoubtedly a point in favour of Knight's condemnation
of the 11. 40-3, perhaps indeed stronger than his objection to the
change from indirect to direct narration, for the possibility of
such a change can hardly be denied, though the examples are not
very conclusive. I would suggest as a solution of the existing
difficulties that the original ran thus : —
€K yap 'Opco-Ttt' ecrcrecrOaL rtcnv 'ArpctSao.
Here we have a line with no metrical defect, possessing the
further slight advantage that tlo-lv and 'ArpetSao, which must go
together in sense, ^ vengeance for the son of Atreus,' are no longer
unduly separated from one another.
Let us examine the matter a little closer. In the dependent
clause that follows : —
OTnroT av yj^rjayj koi c^s IfXCLpcTaL atiys
the poet, not suddenly and harshly, but easily and naturally, falls
into a form, which would certainly imply strictly a preceding
oratio recta, as it is called.
B 2 3
a 40-50 ODYSSEY
The later Greeks probably felt this little anomaly rather
keenly. The Homeridae (v. Monro's Odyssey, App. iv, § 5) and
the rhapsodists may well have shared the popular feeling. In
any case they could not do otherwise than conform to it by
adopting the simple and effective remedy rto-ts eo-o-erat, under
which the text now suffers. Resistance, even if they were
inclined that way, would be unavailing. Here the grammatical
welfare of the rising generation was at stake. This anomaly
occurred at the very outset, in the first fifty lines, of the poem,
which was in a special sense the mental pabulum of the young.
Of course in the result the oratio recta, involving a slight
metrical strain, hardly felt to be a strain at all, would be
accepted, though there is still extant evidence which seems to
show that some were in favour of an alternative policy of
modifying the next line instead, vj^rjcrtu Cod. Vind. which
implies tlctlv ^a-a-co-Oai preceding. Homeric usage, however,
justifies the subjunctive, as the clause refers to a matter still
future at the time the warning was given (Monro, H. G. § 298).
The main difference made by the proposed reading is that the
lapse to direct narration is postponed to 1. 41. A distinct
metrical advantage is gained, and the phenomena of the MSS.
readings are made more explicable. Enough perhaps to warrant
this suggestion.
a 50] vrj(r(o ev dix<f>LpvTrj, oOt r 6fi<f>aX.6s iom 6aXaxr(T7f^,
v^<ro9 8ev8/My€(ro"a, $€.a 8' cv Sw/xara vaxUy
This remarkable anacoluthon is, I venture to say, merely the
outcome of a stringent grammatical purism misapplied. The
original reading was in all probability a simple iteration, an
epanalepsis, as it is called : —
vqa-t^ SevSpyjevTU
Compare for a double iteration B 671-3 ; —
Ntpcvs av ^vfxrjOev dye rpcts vrja^ ciVa?,
. Ntpeus, *Ay\air)^ vtos XapoTrov tc ava/cros,
Nipcvs, OS KctAAtoTOS dvrjp vtto "lAitov ^\6€ — .
Also a 23, B 850, 871, 2 399, X 128, Y 372, * 642.
The parallel passage, which supports the nominative here,
the fellow offender in fact (there are nearly always two at work
in these cases, cf. Note on fi 26), was long ago neatly corrected by
Bentley, Z 396 : —
4
BOOK I a 50-82
'AvSpo/Aa^V* Gvydrrjp /AeyoXiyropos *H€Tt(ovos,
*H€Tt(ov OS cvatev vtto IIAaACto) vXrjecrar],
He restored, and only our passage prevents its acceptance,
'HcTiwvos, o vat€ — .
In K 437 the case is totally different : we have no iteration, but
merely a new independent sentence. For the form of the fern. adj.
cf. a 246 = r 131 vXrjevTLy a 93 rjixaOoevTay B 503 7roi>yevTa, 5^1
d/xTreXocvTa. Many such have doubtless disappeared under the
hand of the orthodox reviser.
In a 70 it is quite possible that in spite of the preceding
relative clause, ov 6<f)6aXfjiov dXawo-cv, which offers some defence
for the ace. of the tradition, the original was in regular apposi-
tion to KvkXcuttos : —
avTiOeov TloXvffii^fWv, 60 Kpa.ro'i €(TK€ /xiyurrov.
At any rate the suggestion is worth making. It helps to account
for the bastard oov, as there would be no less than four o's
together in the most ancient writing.
ov TL KaTaKT€LV€L)
Here the hiatus is not defended by any theory of legitimacy.
Therefore it may be permissible to suggest that the line should
begin thus : —
€K TOV 8* OVK '08v0^a,
exactly as 1. 212 does. The emphatic repetition of the negative
is not uncommon, the usual form being ov — ovSc; but even
ov — ov occurs (y 27, w 251), so that any objection to ov — ov n
would be hypercritical. Cf. v 339 and Note on $ 222-3.
a 82] €t fJi€V 87] VVV TOVTO <f>L\oV fXaKaip€(T(TL OeoLo-iy
vooTTJcraL ^OSvaija 8aL<f>pova ovSe So/xovSc, — .
The second line is the exegesis of tovto in the first line, though
it cannot be said that tovto is particularly in need of any
explanation. It naturally refers to what Zeus has just said,
11. 76-9, that all the gods there assembled should consider
the means to be adopted to secure the return of Odysseus and
the abandonment of Poseidon's wrath against him.
The objection to 1. 83, which I regard as an interpolation,
is not however so much, if at all, the fitness or unfitness of the
explanation it gives of tovto. There was hardly a possibility for
any one to go wrong in this point, I rely upon two facts, firstly
5
«82 ODYSSEY
that the hiatus in the second foot is a violation of Homeric
prosody, and secondly that an examination of kindred passages
tends to show that the line is everywhere open to suspicion, and
has indeed generally been suspected and impugned. The passages
in question are : —
^422 oAA' o y dTrapx6fi€V(rs K€<f>aX.rjs rptxas €v Trvpi /idXXev
apyioSovTO^ vo9, koL i7r€v)(€TO ira<Ti Oeoia-i
voarrjaraL ^OBvaija 7roXv<f>pova ovSc SofxovSt.
The poet is here for the moment telling his hearers that Eumaeus
was strictly religious. The words immediately preceding the
above quotation are : —
ovSk arv^ijiyrris
X-qOer ap aOavdroiV <f>p€crL yap Ke^prjr ayaOrja-LV
The one important point is that in killing the swine he did not
omit to pray to the gods. The subject of his prayer is of
subordinate importance, and indeed if it were not, would tend
to distract attention from the real point, the strict piety of the
swineherd. Kirchhoff rejects the line (424).
V 238 ws 8' avTcos Ev/Attios eTreviaTO Tracri Oeouri
voaTTJ(TaL *OSv(ryja TroXxxjypova ovSe So/tovSc.
This couplet was regarded as of doubtful genuineness by
Duentzer and rejected without hesitation by Kirchhoff. Odysseus
is conversing with, and testing the loyalty of, Philoetius, the
herdsman. The intervention of Eumaeus is not to the point.
It is generally attributed to the influence of the remaining
passage : —
^203 ws 8' avTws Evyu,aios lir€v-)(ero iracri OeoLO-i
voarrrja-aL ^OSvcrrja 7roX.v<f>pova ovSi So/aovSc.
The second line is here at least superfluous, as ws airrws gives the
precise information that the prayer was to the very same effect
as that of Philoetius. Still, if voarrja-aL *08vcrrja iroXvf^pova ovSc
^p.ovhf. be everywhere an interpolation, whence did it come?
It is not an entirely new construction : it is drawn or adapted
clearly enough, I submit, from v 328-9 : —
6(fipaL fiev vfjiiv Ovfio^ evl (rr^OecrarLv cwAttci
vo(TTq<T€Lv *08v<Trja Trokv<j>pova ovSe SofjuovSe. —
where in a metrical shape it holds its place on an absolutely
secure tenure. It is there no removable formula like its adapta-
tion everywhere, and the reason for this difference is, that with
6
BOOK I a 82-143
voa-TTJo-ai and its accompanying hiatus the line is merely a later
rhapsodical addition.
a 127] eyxo'S fJ-ev p eoTrja-c <f>ip<iiv —
130 avTTjv 8' is Opovov ctcrev aywv, viro Xtra ircrao-o-as,
KoAov 8ai8aA.€oV inrb 8c OpTJws Trotriv ^ev.
The contrast between the goddess and her spear emphasized
by avrrjv seems somewhat frigid, but this is not the main ground
for taking exception to 130-1.
To convince ourselves that koXov SaiSaXeov agrees with Opovov
and not with Xlra, we have only to turn to : —
K 315 = 366 ture 8e /jl eia-ayayova-a IttX Opovov dpyvporjXov
KoXov SaiSaXeov' vtto 8k Opyjws ttoolv rjev
5 389 TTjv fikv CTTCtTa /ca^cicrcv ctti Opovov dpyvpoyXov
Kokov SaiSaXeoV vtto 8k Oprjw<s ttoctIv ^€V,
But these passages further suggest that originally the possibility
even of any doubt as to the concord was non-existent, that instead
of €s Opovov KaXov 8ai8dX€ov with its harsh ictus-lengthening of the
short syllable before the open vowel, Homer really said in all
three cases ctti Opovov KaXov SaiSaXeov, or to give the words their
more antique form and scansion cttI Opovo* — koXoo SaiSoAcot*. To
admit this our passage would require but little alteration, and
that almost suggested by 5 389. I would read thus : —
T^v 8 dp* €7rl Opovov ila-ev dyiav, vrro Xtra ircTcttrtras,
KaXov SaiSoAcov* vtto 8c Op^w<s Troarlv rjcv.
The motive for the corruption may have been the desire to do
greater honour to the goddess, to show more respect for her great
personality by using the emphatic avnyv instead of ttiv, cf. y8 127-8
(Note).
It may be noticed that ayo>v the pres. part, is probably * extra
constructionem 'OfirjpLKws' even in the traditional reading, cf.
)8 414 <f>€pOVT€S.
I am also inclined to think that the pres. part, should be
restored in k 315 thus : —
CIS 8e jji dyovaa Ka^ctacv cttI Opovov dpyvpoi^Xov — .
a 1433 KYJpvi 8' avTownv Odfx c7r<o;(CTO olvoxoeviov.
The pronoun could easily be written divisim av rola-LVy
which indeed in 109 KrjpvKes 8' ovtoIo-l is given as a variant (av
roia-L Nicias, U^). Cf. B 681. The wonder is that any trace of
resistance to the inevitable tendency, to which even Aristarchus
7
a 143-225 ODYSSEY
seems to have surrendered, should have survived. Here too
ev Toto-iv Y^. Cf. ^ 137.
a 1913 V O^ ftp(i>CriV T€ TTOCTLV T€
Traprridu., cvr* av fitv Kct/xaros Kara yuta Xd^rjcn — .
The middle form Tra/oTi^er {TrapriOeTai) is a metrical necessity
here, apart from natural doubts as to the validity of rt^ct for
rCOrja-L. See the Classical Review, February, 1900, pp. 2-4.
a 2123 €K rov 8' ovt' 'OSvcr^a cyu) tSov ovt ifxe kcivos.
Here the hiatus 'OSuo^a cyw is defended as legitimate ; but
the precisely similar case in t 185
evd* *OSv(r^a cyo) iSofirjv koI ^etVia Sw/ca
is condemned as vicious, and for a remedy Gerhard has actually
proposed the excruciating *OSv(r^ koI lywv for t 185.
Obviously both are equally wrong, and both equally need
restoration, if it be attainable. I suggest that the preposition
cs has dropped out before either verb, ea-Fihovj isFi^ofirpr, so that
we should read
'OSv(ry cyo) (litlSov
'08v(r^' iyu> ilarLSo/J^ypf
(cf. A. 582, 593, a 118) or the prep, might be separated from its
verb and stand before cyw in either case. This would certainly
make its disappearance an easier matter.
a 2253 Tts 8a6s, Tt9 Sat o/AtA.os 08' cttXcto ; tiVtc 84 o-c xpcw ;
elXaTTLVT) ^€ ya/Aos ; cttci ovk epavos raSc y iartv.
For the former of these two lines, I suggest as a possible
explanation of the curious 8cu,
Tts SatTvs, Tts o/1-tA.os 08* cttXcto ;
(X 496 €K SatTuos). If to tlie unusual form, SaiTvs, Sots were added
as an adscript gloss, the result might easily be read into Ws tis
Sot as now appears in the tradition. Possibly in a 369 the
unique ^orjrvs may reversely be for )8oi} Tts.
The latter line (226) is really past redemption, because it
probably merely incorporates extraneous matter. I take it that
we now have here an imperfectly versified comment on the
original line itself. The crasis or elision of rj of tiXairivrf is
incredible. Compared with this the lengthening of -os before
the vowel is a mere trifle. The question addressed to Tele-
machus may have stood for example in this form after the words
already discussed : —
BOOK I a 225-261
^ ydfwv 17 ipdvov 17 ctXaTra^s reOaXvLrj's ;
^What need hast thou either for wedding- feast or loYC- feast or
clan banquet ? '
A natural remark for a reader to make on this would be : * It
may be a clan banquet or a wedding- feast, but it certainly is
not a love-fea&t/ and this is exactly what is conveyed by the
traditional,
elXarnvrj rje ydixo<s ; cTrct ovk epavos raSe y cortv.
In this suggestion it will be seen that I have adapted
X 415 "^ ya/xo) 17 ipdvio rj elXaTrCvn reOaXvLy.
a 2593 ii *E(f)vprj^ avLOvra Trap* "IXov Mcp/xeptSao,
A transposition has occurred here. Read : —
i^aviOVT ^<l>vpr]s Trapa "iXov Mcp/AcpiSao..
a 261J <f>dpfJLaKov dvSpocfiovov Si^t^/acvos, ocfipa oi €Lr)
iovs ^(pUaOai ^(aXK'i^peas' dXX 6 fxev ov ot
B(OK€v, €7rct pa ^€ovs ve/MccrL^CTO alev eovra?,.
dAAa TraTrjp 61 hwKev c/aos* ^tXeecTKc yap atvws.
The general import of this passage is clear enough. The
difficulty lies in the causal sentence, iircl pa Oeovs v€fjL€(TL^€To aleu
covTtts. We are obliged to render ve/xco-t^ero he reverenced or he
dreaded, although really such a meaning is altogether at odds
with the regular sense of vefxea-L^ofiaL and its cognate ve/Aco-aw.
First as to the usage of vc/Aco-t^o/xat ; it means^ / am righteously
indignant f I am angry,
(i) Absolutely.
j8 138 v/x€T€po^ 8' el fxev Ovfibs v€/>t€o-t^€Tat avTwv,
E 872 Ziv TTttTcp, ov vefxea-L^e opwv rdSe Kaprepa cpya;
(2) With the cause of the feeling expressed by an ace.
and infin.
P 254 oAXa Tt5 avTOS iTO), v€/x€crLt,i(rO(ii 8' €vi Ovfiio
HdrpOKXov Tpioya-L kvo-Iv fxiXirqOpa yevea-Oai.
B 296 TW OU V€fJi€<rL^OfX *A)(aLOVS
d(rxoiXdav Trapa vr}V<rl Kopiovia-LV*
(3) With the object of the indignation, the person or persons
against whom it is entertained, expressed by the dative.
/S 239 vvv 8' oAAo) S-qfJuo v€ix€(rL^OfxaLf olov aTravrc?
170-^ avco).
9
a 261 ODYSSEY
© 407 *H/w; 8* ov Tt Tocrov v€/x€trt^o/xai ovBe xoXovfiai. So
also 421.
E 757 ^^^ Trdrep, ov v€fi€<rt^€ "Afyy rdSe Ka/orcpo, €/>ya,
ocTcraTtov tc /cat oiov aTrtuAco-e Xxiov 'A^aiiav — ;
These are all the passages which exhibit any form of vefxea-i^ea-Oai
in the Homeric poems. In no instance is there any room for
doubt as to the sense, though the last example, E 757-8, has
probably been damaged in transmission. However, this need
not detain us, as the meaning of the verb is not affected.
Now compare with the above passages the expression under
discussion : —
cTTct pa Oeov^ v€fi€alZ,€To aiev covras.
* Since he reverenced the gods, who live for ever ' is undoubtedly
the meaning intended. The sequence of thought will allow no
other. Otherwise, especially in view of E 757, who would
hesitate to accept as the most natural version of the words ' since
he was indignant that the gods should exist for ever \ implying,
of course — an unpardonable levity — some regret at not possessing
a <f>dpixaKov to curtail this prolonged existence? Compare also
N 352.
We are often told that Homer sometimes nods : but such
a startling incongruity as this, such a glaring misuse of words,
would seem to indicate a deeper slumber than has ever been laid
to his charge.
Whatever he really said here, I think we may at least feel
pretty sure he did not say : —
€7r€t pa Oeovs vc/xio-i^iTO aikv iovra?.
It is not as if there did not exist in the Homeric vocabulary any
verb that would fit the line and convey the sense, ' he reverenced,'
* regarded,' *had respect for.' wtti^cto and eTroTri^cro were at
command besides verbs of fearing in abundance, rpcev, Sicv, &c.,
which might readily be associated with convenient adverbs, kiriv,
aivds, /xeyoAa, &C.
From the facility with which a suitable substitute for
v€fjL€(riCiTo could be found, we may infer that v€fx.i<Ti^€To is not
really very far wrong, and that the error — for error there must be
— lies wholly or mainly in the accompanying words. Accordingly
I suggest as a likely original : —
CTTCt K€ BioX V€fX€(ri^OVT ulkv €0Kr€9,
10
BOOK I a 261-268
' since the gods, who liye for ever, would have been indignant.'
The imperfect, of course, implies the persistency of the feeling.
Their anger would have been lasting, cf. v 307, v. Monro, H. G.
§324-
So and so only can vc/xeo-t^ecr^at preserve its legitimate
meaning, while the general sense remains unimpaired. The
only difference is that the displeasure of the gods is explicitly
affirmed instead of being merely implied as in the anomalous
vulgate. The changes, though numerous, are but slight in
character ; Oeov^ — covra? becomes Oeol — covrcs, pa becomes kc and
vcfteo-i^cTo becomes vefxeai^ovr. The corruption would, I believe,
begin with vefxea-L^ovr. The spondee in the fourth place seems
less rhythmical than the dactyl. There is, however, no difficulty
in defending the rhythm given by this conjecture. Parallels are
abundant, e. g.
H 30 aryfiepov vanpov avrc fJLax^crovr, cis o k€ rc/c/xwp — .
^35^ €t /AC KOL €IS eViaVTOV dvwyOLT aVToOi /JU/XV€LV.
p 479 fiT] <r€ vioL 8ia 8(0 fia ipvcraroxTf oV dyopcveis. </> 184.
After the appearance of vefiea-L^eTo the other changes necessary to
produce the tradition are easy and inevitable. The nom. plur.
becomes the ace. and kc is displaced by pa.
The case then stands thus : the vulgate passes beyond all
reasonable licence of language : the emendation is after all not
such as to leave the origin of the traditional text an absolute
mystery. It gives the required sense and sacrifices no word of
the tradition entirely save pa. The most serious loss is that
of the hiatus licitus, a loss, if it be a loss, that the judicious may
condone ; I shall not myself pretend to regret the removal of that
notable and popular scholastic bulwark.
a 268] ^ K€V vo<rrq(ras dwoTio-CTai, ^€ kol ovkl,
ourLv ha /jLcydpourL'
In general it is the intrusion of the later article into the
Homeric text that we have to deplore, for the havoc so wrought
has been extensive (v. Note on 8 222, ad fin.), but occasionally
when serving as an anaphoric pronoun it has been driven from
the text, because the later usage suggested an entirely inappro-
priate meaning. This in all probability has been the case here,
for the pronoun is clearly required by the sense, and the rhythm
is improved by its insertion thus : —
o 268-343 ODYSSEY
T] K€V b vooTTyo-as atroTLcreraL — .
Compare N 11 koX yap 6 dav/Jid^uyv ^(TTO TTToXcfiov T€ fia)(7}v T€ — .
573 ^56 ruTTCts 7](nraLp€ fuvwdd Trep, ov n /AoAa Srjv — .
^ ^55 V ''■o'' ^ <f>opfXL^oiv dvi^aXXero koAoj' dctSctv — .
also y 309. A similar instance to the above (a 268), where
the pronoun is even more urgently needed, may be seen in
^112 : —
KOL 01 7rXr;cra^€Vos h(iiK€ (rKv<f>o<s, <S irep cttivcv,
Here the idea that ttX would necessarily lengthen the short vowel
may have operated prejudicially; but compare A 329 avrap
b irhfjCTLov €(rrqK€L and read : —
Kttt ol 6 TrXrjo'dfJLevo's — .
Another case of the loss of the pronoun, not however immediately
before a participle, is : —
V 136 oTvov /xev yap Tnve Ka^iy/Acvos, 6<f}p WeX avros,
where we may read with advantage : —
oTvov fi€V yap 6 ttlvc KaOrjfJLevo^ .
Compare v 92 (Note) and t 461 : —
ws ebruiv rbv Kpiov — ,
which probably represents ws o yc eiTrwv Kpiov — , or better ws
ctTTwv o yc Kpiov — . So perhaps y 270 8-^ totc tov fjiiv — for roO*
b TOV ft€V — .
a 325] Totct S* doi8os deiSe TrepLKXvros, ot Sc (nuyrry
etar aKOvovrcs. 6 8' *A;)(at(ov vootov dctSc — •
I suggest aKova^ov 6\ i. e. aKova^ov re as it would appear in
the earlier writing. The first stage of corruption would be
oLKovd^ovre (dual), corrected to aKovd^ovrc?, the plural being
obviously necessary. Then, of course, comes the dKovovrcs of
the tradition. For the verb compare : —
Hym. Herm. 422 Ov/x(o aKovd^ovra'
The Odyssey and Iliad show only the middle voice, t 7, v 9,
A 343.
a 343] TOLrjv yap K€<f>aX.rjv TroOid) fiefivrjiJievr} aUl
dvSpoSy TOV kXcos €vpv KaO' *EAXd8a koi fxicrov "A/jyos.
The athetosis of Aristarchus was laid upon 1. 344, and scholars are
still divided on the question of the correctness of this condemna-
tion. I take sides unhesitatingly with the defenders of the line,
not only because Aristarchus proceeded on the needless assumption
that *EAAds here denoted the whole of Greece instead of the
BOOK I a 343
Thessalian city or district, but because it seems impossible that
Penelope's speech should end with 1. 343, and toltjv K€<f>a\'i^v be
left without further indication of the person alluded to, viz.
her husband. So much seems to me certain from the parallel
passage : —
A. 549 Ton/v yap K€<f>aX^v evcK avrwi/ yatd Karco^cv
AtavO', OS Trept /jlcv cTSos Trept 8' cpya rervKTO,
where a similar Toirjv kcc^oAiJv has its epexegesis in Atavra. There
is therefore very fair reason for accepting 1. 344 as both genuinely
archaic and fully entitled to its place in this passage.
In one respect, however, the comparison with A 550 leads me
to suspect the presence of a slight later modification. There we
find not an appositionai genitive Atavros but a true apposition
Atavra. Here we have KecfyaXrjv dvSpos, which hardly strikes one
as quite a valid Homeric expression. We have for example
Tcv/cpc, <f>LX7j KecjiaXrj (0 281), but such an address as w TcvKpoio
<f>Lkr] K€</)aA>7 is not to be met with in the pages of Homer, although
w <f>L\ov TevKpov Kapa would be unimpeachable in Attic Tragedy.
Again there is a further complication in the undeniable possibility
of taking avhpo^ directly in construction with fjicfivrjfxevrj contrary
to the general usage of that participle, cf. 8 151, E 263, T 153,
Hym. Aphr. 283. All ambiguity is removed, an archaic usage
restored and the parallelism with X 549 f. made closer by reading : —
avSpa, TOO KXeois €vpv ktX.
It is easy to see that the archaic too, not being tolerable to the
ears of the later Greeks, would be the prime cause of the super-
session of the ace, avSpa, by the gen., dvSpos, which is indeed
rather a neat modification.
To forestall an objection — not perhaps a very weighty one —
that
8 '726 =: 816 iaOXov, Tov /cAeos €vpv kuO* 'E AAaSa kol fxia-ov "Apyos
supports the spondee in the first foot, I will suggest that there
also the opening rhythm was originally dactylic, thus : —
iaOXoVj 60 kAcos €vpv KaO* *EAAa8a koI /xeaov "Apyos,
so that all three passages might be included in the number of
those affording probable instances of the archaic genitive in -00,
V. Monro, H. G. § 98. A reference to Dr. Monro's list will show
that in B 325 00 has already been rightly reinstated before this
very word kAcos in place of the traditional extravagance oov.
13
a 383-403 ODYSSEY
a 383] "Tov 8* avT* *AvTiVoos irpocri^rj^ Ev7r€t'^€05 vios.
Here 7rpo<Te<f>rj should surely be corrected to Trpoa-iuir, as the
hiatus indicates. Even the most casual reader of Homer knows
that the regular formula is rov S' avrc 7rpo<r€€L7r€. On the other
hand rbv 8' avrc — 7rpo(r€(f>r) seems somewhat of a rarity.
This slight corruption is probably due to the fact that 7rpo(r€<^r; is
almost always found in this place in the line, divided between the
third foot and the fourth; but hiatus is carefully avoided as in o 325.
8 641, 660, TT 363, p 477, o- 42, 284, V 270, <f, 140, 256, N 768,
require the same remedy, -eeiTr' for -4<f>r]. These seem to be the
only passages affected, and it is curious to note the completeness
of the disappearance of irpocrUiTr (elided) from the tradition.
<* 403] f"-^ yap o y (X601 av-qpf OS tl<s (t deKovra ^Lr](f>L
KTyfjLaT airoppaicTiC *l6dK7}<s en vaLcraova-r)^ .
We need hardly be delayed in the consideration of this pas-
sage with the theory that fxr] — €\6ol should be regarded as a
concessive optative, uttered in a threatening tone (Ameis),
rather than as an ordinary optative of wish. 'Far be it that
he should come' may be taken with Dr. Monro, H. G. § 299 (a)
to be the expression of a prayer or wish. Of the three forms
vaiCTttowiys, vaL€TO<jt)(Trj<; (Aristarchus) and vateratoo-);? I am
content to give the preference to the first, and lastly instead
of the future dTroppaca-eL of the MSS., which is not only ano-
malous with OS Tts, but also metrically objectionable, I accept
as indispensably correct the optative in -etc with elision from
Bentley, Voss, Bekker and other editors.
The above points being disposed of or set aside, I challenge
the admissibility of the verb aTroppaLto here in any form what-
ever. In support of this protest the usage of pauu and its
compounds elsewhere in Homer requires examination. We find : —
€ 2 2 1 ci 8' av Tts pairyo-t $€U)V ivl olvottl ttovtw,
i/^ 234 S)v re noo-ct8aa)v cucpyca vrf ivl ttovtu) | paLcrrj,
V 151 (c^eXw v^a) paurai, iv* t^Stj <T)(Q)VTaL, aTroXki^^uxTi Sk tto/att^s
^ 569 {4*V *^^) pcL^o'€(rOai, fx4ya 8* ^/xtv opos ttoAci dfx<liLKaXvif/€LV,
V 1 7 7 {4*V ^^) poit'O'^ P'^vai, /Acya 8' y/xiv ktX.
(Leg. dfifjLiv, cf. O 355 below.)
^326 patoixivoVf oT€ fi €ppai€ kAvtos 'Ei/voo-tyaios.
L 459 (cyKc^oXos) 6iLvop,€vov paCoLTO irpos ov8€i,
n 339 <^d<ryavov ippaicrOrj.
H
BOOK I a 403
Siappaio) : —
fi 2 go vrja SiappaLOVct Ociov aiKrjTi dvdKTO)V.
I 78 vv^ 8' yjS' r]€ Siappaia-eL a-rparov r}k o-awo-ct.
j8 49 (o 8^ Tax« otKov ajravra) Trdy^ Siappaicrei,
a 2 5 1 oTkov Ijxov r<x)(a hrj fxc Siappai(Tov(Ti /cat avTOV. {= 't 1 2 8)
B 473j a 713) 733? ^ 7^7 ^ia-ppolo-ai /xc/^awTes.
H 355 ovhp opoo), Ta;(a 8' a/x/>t€ hiappaCcr^crOai olo).
aTToppaioi only recurs : —
TT 428 Toi/ p' c^eAoi/ cfiOlaaL /cat dTroppaicraL (jiiXov rjTop.
The meaning of the verb is clearly marked throughout, and is
established by a sufficient number of instances. * To break
by a blow/ 'to smite and shatter/ is the notion everywhere
conveyed. It is only when we get to the present passage that
this meaning becomes inapplicable. Here moreover diroppaLw,
* to break off/ appropriates to itself the construction as well as
the sense of diroaLp^ia-O ai {dcfiaipeXarOaL). So we are told : but is
the statement in any degree credible ? It requires a robust faith.
Is it not rather a comfortable delusion, in which distressed com-
mentators, ancient ones I admit, have found refuge from their
perplexity? For my own part I am convinced that neither
Homer nor any one else ever could or ever did speak of ' breaking
a man off his possessions 'or of ' breaking his possessions away
from a man \ Such an expression would indeed be a whimsical
linguistic oddity almost passing beyond the fairly wide limits of
latter-day American humour. Far short of this too falls even the
remarkable expression in Aesch. Eumen. 845
ttTTO yap fx€ TLfxdv Savatdv Oetov
hvcnrdXafioL Trap' ovSev rjpav SoAot.
The condemnation of the verb here would, I apprehend,
hold good even if no satisfactory solution of the difficulty were
forthcoming. It is surely better to recognize and frankly admit
an imperfection than to gloze it over and pretend to be uncon-
scious of its existence. But the puzzle seems by no means an
insoluble one. The original word here, I believe, was not oTrop-
paLU) at all but dTravpdo) (aTro/pew or diroFprjyiL), which supplies the
precise meaning and construction required : —
OS Tts or' diKovra ySoy^t
KTT^/JMT diToFpria-eC
15
a 403 ODYSSEY
Now in dealing with this verb the later Greeks after the loss of
the digamma from the language had two courses open, either to
let V represent the F or to drop the F altogether and make com-
pensation by doubling the p. Consequently we might expect to
find here either aTrovfxrja-eie or aTroppryo-cte. Either, I say, would
have served; but unfortunately neither could be for a moment
tolerated by Greek readers. Both forms involved for their ears
the suggestion of something dTrpcTres, which, though it need not be
particularized, rendered the presentation of the words impossible.
The Greeks of course were not troubled by any antiquarian
respect for the obsolete, and accordingly in searching about for
a respectable equivalent readily acquiesced in dTroppaio) in spite
of the shortcomings in respect of construction and meaning
already touched upon. For a parallel compare H 453, where, as
I have suggested, aOXrjcravre. has displaced avrXiqa-avTij also
O30.
It remains to see whether there is any trace in Homer of
this future and i aorist. We have a 2 aor. part, airovpas (a-TroFpas)
eight times, ainjvpa {anriFpa) twenty times, air-qvpaiv four times
(i pers. sing.), once (3 pers. plur.). The pres. dTravpdw is not
Homeric, and its diphthong -av for -oF is supposed by Buttmann
to be due to the analogy of cTravpto-Ko/xat. The future however
may, I think, be recognized even through its masquerading
disguise in : —
X 489 aXkoi yap ol aTrovpLorcrovcnv dpovpa?.
Such is the usual reading : but aTrovp-qa-ova-Lv is supported by
C Ven. B. Harl. Mosc. 2 Paris (La Roche), is adopted by
Buttmann, Bekker and others, and is doubtless correct. To
this I will add several passages, in which it may be permissible
to suggest that the more familiar alfyqa-m has superseded the
form under discussion. Of course axpim had an initial F, as is
clear from A 230, 275 (cf. B. 329, 2 260, K 235). In general
those instances of atpcw which reject F, admit of easiest correction,
e.g. P 67 •)(\o)pov ^€09 atpct and H 479 ;(Xa>po»' 8cos ^p«. These
are clearly Aiere thoughtless modifications of ■)(\oifK>v hio^ ctXev,
which may be found in its original integrity 77,x42><»>533>
Hym. Dem. 190. There are in all five such instances of aipct,
and no less than nine of ^pci. To these we may add one instance
of each from the Hymns.
16
BOOK I o 403
Consequently in A 453, where we now read
ocrcre KaOaLprja-ova-i Oavovrt irep
it is possible and even probable that the original stood : —
ocro-e KaraFpya-ova-L Oavovri Trep
Similarly in : —
A 1 6 1 KOL 8^ fiOL ycpas avros a^fiaip-qcrecrOaL aTrctXci?,
^544 /xeAAeis yap a<liaiprja-€cr6ai aeOXov,
<f> 261 ov fJLCv yap tlv dvatpT^a-ccrOai oLWy
;;( 9 ^ rot 6 koXov aXeurov avaLprjcrea-OaL c/acAAc,
the unfamiliar and obsolete forms aTroFpi^a-ecrOai and avaFprqa-ca-Oai
must readily have made way for the familiar and equally
convenient compounds of alpiw.
I come now to the more difficult case of the 1 aor. iFprjcra.
The rehabilitation of this tense, periculosae plenum opus aleae,
cannot be essayed with more than a moderate hope of success.
Nevertheless it seems worth while to suggest that the very form
I am seeking to restore to a 404, aTroFprja-eLe, may be the original,
from which has come by an easy metathesis of letters the much
debated aTroepcrete : —
^329 /xt; fXLv d7ro€po-€i€ fX€ya<s Trora/xos ^aOvSCvrj'S.
Indeed, Dr. Monro, in his note on tt 428, suggests that the
I aor. from this root Fpa {Fcp) would be tF^pcra or l/^eipa rather
than tFp-qcra.
From this form we cannot of course separate : —
$ 283 ov pa. r cvavXos airoipcni ^(eLfJLwvL xcptovra.
Z 348 evOa /A€ Kvp,' aTTOcpae Trapos raSc cpya yevicrOaL.
In favour of this identification it may be urged that the meaning
* take or carry off ' is more simple and satisfactory than any
other, the peculiar lengthening of the o of airo- is thus fully
accounted for, while the variation of quantity in dTropprjtrrj —
d7r6prj(T€ finds an exact parallel in the use of dvappoi^SeL and
di/apot/38ct in consecutive lines {/x 104-5).
There is more room for hesitation in recognizing our verb in
a different connexion of ideas : —
12 454 (cTTt^A^s) ClA-CtTlVOS, TOV Tp€t9 fXiV i7npp-qa-(T€(TK0V 'A)(aiOL^
456 *A)(lX€v<; 8* dp* kinppiq(r(ri<TK€ KaX otos* (8e /^')
So these verbs usually appear in our texts : but nearly all the
MSS. have the single, not the double sigma, iTnpp-^a-ea-Kov -/ct.
Editors seem to have unfortunately adopted a-a from a desire
AGAR c 1 7
a 403-P 26 ODYSSEY
to identify the word with the equally mysterious p^a-a-o) (5 57 1).
I submit that ImFpiqa-ia-Kov -kc, or more correctly iTnFpT^a-aa-Kov -k€,
adequately meet the requirements of these two passages.
If this be so, and if liriFpiiji may be taken to be the proper
expression for * putting to ' a bar, there seems every probability
that in another passage of this book : —
a 441 ^rj p tfjL€v CK OaXdfjLoio, 6vp7)v 8* iTripva-cre Kopoivrf
where the neglect of the F in cTrcpvo-crc has long been cause
of surprise, while the preposition can hardly be omitted, the
original was iireprjcre i.e. cTrefpryo-e, with a quantitative freedom
oimilar to that noticed above in the case of Z 348.
Compare also the note on v 262 where Fprja-ai seems a sound
correction of the anomalous crrepea-ai.
Lastly, it is at least within the bounds of possibility that
^134 pLvov air 6<rT€6<f)LV Ipvaai
conceals pwov oltt octcoo Fprja-aL.
BOOK II (P).
P 26] ovre iroO* rjyLeripr) ayopr] yever ovt€ ^owkos
0o(i)Kos is here explained as * session', * meeting', of the
^ovXrj, the council of chiefs or elders (yepovre?) ; so that Aegyptius
mentions here the two constitutional assemblies, named in
conjunction in y 127: —
ovT€ TTOT elv oLyopTJ Bl)^ €^d^ofJL€v ovT ivl /SovXfj,
But there is a difficulty about Ooiokos. Neither in form nor in
meaning is it satisfactory. The cognate verb is Oada-aoi *I sit'.
The form has the support of one other passage only, /u, 318 : —
ev6a S* €(rav Nv/x^cwv KaXot X*^P°^ V^^ 06(i>kol'
a verse which is possibly an interpolation, as Fick believes, cf.
V 103-4. But let 66o)Ko^ be entitled to whatever support this
second instance may afford. Illegitimate forms in Homer usually
run in couples like harriers. In other places, all of which
I subjoin, the form is Ou)ko<: : —
439 OvAv/ATTOvSc 8tWK€, OcWV S' i$LK€TO $U>KOVi.
/3 1 4 c^ero 8' iv Trarpos ^wkw, €l$av Sc ycpovrcs.
€ 3 OL Sf. Oeol OwKOvSe KadC^avoVy iv 8* apa toutl — .
o 468 ol fxkv dp €i 6u>KOV vpofjuokov hrjpjoio tc x^rjixiv — .
18
BOOK II P 26-33
Hym. Apoll. 345 ovre ttot l<s Owkov 7roX.v8ai8akov, ws to irdpo^
TTcp — .
It appears to me that we may fairly draw the inference that
06(x)Kos is a false archaism, formed by * SicKrao-ts ' from ^wkos, just
as we have opoo), opdas owing to the influence of the everyday
opto, opas-
When we come to consider the meaning, the case against
66(i)KO's here is still stronger. In all the other passages, even in
fi 318, the word means * sitting- place ', 'seat'. The other
meaning ' session ' is only required here, and could not without
some violence be introduced elsewhere.
We are now in this difficulty. We have very fair ground for
doubting the genuine character of the ending of this line, yS 26,
but unless some other passage of the Homeric poems can be found
to render assistance, we have no means of determining what the
original was that the later Greeks deliberately chose to abandon
in favour of this bastard, OoiOKo^,
I suggest that the difficulty is solved by t 112 : —
TotaLV 8 ovT dyopal ^ovXrjcfiopoL ovt€ Oipium^i — .
and that the original expression in y8 26 was : —
ovT€ TToG' r]iJL€T€prj y dyopr] yiver ovre Oipuxm'i.
It is easy to understand that the custodians of the Homeric
poems, the Greek nation at large, would hardly lift a finger in
defence of the almost incomprehensible ^eyottcrrc?, but would give
a ready welcome to the easily intelligible ^owko?, which seems
such a thoroughly Homeric enlargement of the neighbouring
^o>K09, and when confirmed by /x 318 would certainly meet with
universal approval and applause.
In support of my suggestion I may also note A 807 : —
t^€ Bi<jiv IlaTpoKXos, Iva cr(f> dyoprf t€ 04 fit's re — .
For the minor matter of the insertion of ye after rfjx^Ttprj^
compare : —
I 108 ov Tt KaO* rffiirepov ye voov,
M 166 crx'i^o'eLv rjixerepov ye fxivos kol ;(€tpas daTrrovs.
^ 215 w8e yap rjfxerepov ye voov rekeecrBat olw
and its use ordinarily with possessive pronouns, when they are
emphatic, as here.
P 33] ea-OXos fxoL SoKeX etvat 6vqfievo<s. eWe ol avrto
Zcvs dya^ov TcAccretev, —
C 2 19
P 33-53 ODYSSEY
For SoK€L with the contracted syllable shortened before a
vowel I have suggested SeW (SeWat). See Classical Review^ Feb.,
1900, pp. 2-4.
For avTw, which is wrongly emphatic here, as the contrast
could only be between the public interest and the individual
benefit of Telemachus, the true reading is probably ovrw, so
often found in prayers and invocations like the Latin sic,
Cf. 6 465 ovrcD vvv Zcvs ^co;, o 180, p 494 at^' ovrws avrov <r€
fiaXoL. Here ovro) would mean * accordingly ', ovrtos, w? iard\6<s icm.
P 45j oiXX.* ijxov avTOV p^pcto?, o /jlol KaKOV c/xttco-c oikw,
Soia, TO fjikv irarep* i(r6X6v ctTrcaXca-a, os ttot' ev v/ttv
TOLcrSea-a-iv ySacriAevc, irafrjp 8' ws ^109 ^ev*
vvv S' av Kttt TToXv fxcl^ovy o Srj rd)(a oTkov aTravra
irdyxo StappatVct, (^lotov 8' diro Trafxirav oXeVo-ci.
In 1. 46 dTTwXco-o/ should be read. The two calamities are
spoken of as operative agents bringing about the actual results.
The first caused the loss of his father, says Telemachus, the
second will soon cause the destruction of his home and all his
substance. The appearance of dTrwXeo-a is natural enough, but
it clearly disturbs the regularity and symmetry of the antithesis,
leaving the tell-tale to fxiv entirely in the air.
P 52] ot Trarpos fiev [cs] otKov dxcpptyatrt veea-Om
'iKaptov, ws K avTos icBvuxraiTO Ovyarpa,
Soir) 8' <S K iOeXoL Kai ot K€)(apL(rfx.€vo<s eXOoi.
The preposition must of course be removed as a metrical necessity
(Bekker). The change I have to advocate in 1. 53 is a very
slight one : —
OS K aVTOS €€8v<O0raiTO.
Inasmuch as in the oldest writing w and o were indistinguish-
able (Eur. Phoen. 682. Schol. Trpo apxovros yap EvkX«8ov fi-iprui
Tiiiv fxaKpiov evpr)fX€vo)v tol<s ftpa)(4(rLv SlvtI fiaKpiov i)(p(i>vTO tw E dvri
ToC H Kol TO) O dvTt Tov O), thcrc would be no objection palaeo-
graphically to this emendation. In 4> 127 os kc ^ayya-i Aris-
tophanes desired to introduce ws »c€— by no means an improvement.
From a grammatical point of view the question appears at first
sight to stand on a similar footing : for either the final conjunc-
tion or the relative pronoun may be defended as a legitimate and
recognized usage. For the former v. Monro, H. G. § 306 (i).
* In Final Clauses (after ws, ottcds, Iva) the Opt. may be used
ao
BOOK II p 52
either (a) to indicate that the consequence is not immediate or
certain (the governing Verb having a present or future meaning),
or (&) because the governing Verb is an Opt., or (c) a Secondary
Tense.' For the latter v. H. G. § 304 Relative Clauses — Final,
(i) (a) (b) 'The Opt. with kcv is especially common after a
principal Clause of negative meaning (in which case the con-
sequence is necessarily matter of mere supposition).'
It would only be, I take it, an expansion of Dr. Monro's
explanation to say that in the supposed case: —
09 K auTo? ieSvtoaaiTO Ovyarpa,
as in every other instance quoted under the rule, the optative
with K€ virtually stands as the apodosis to a suppressed protasis,
which might be represented generally by some such words as
* in that case ', ' under such circumstances,' ' if that were done '
(et ravra ovna^ ^xot). The relation existing between the relative
clause and the principal one may accordingly be one of parataxis
— a possibility distinctly contemplated in certain cases, H. G. § 304
' Sometimes the Opt. in a Relative Clause is used precisely as in
an independent sentence '. Elsewhere, it is true (Preface p. xiv
Ed. 2), Dr. Monro deprecates the too extended employment of
parataxis to explain the origin of subordinate clauses ; but this
warning applies not so much to simple relative sentences as to
those introduced by full-fledged conjunctions. Especially in
regard to conditional sentences with d this form of analysis
has been pushed to extremes, as far as Homer is concerned, by
L. Lange, against some of whose conclusions it is time a protest
was raised. Still within reasonable limits the explanation of
parataxis is valid, and it would not be treading on untenable
ground to say that in relative sentences such as the one now
in question the principle of parataxis is still visibly paramount,
and therefore the classification of such sentences as Final Clauses
is at least unnecessary, if not actually objectionable. Nothing
seems to be gained by such an arrangement, and its abolition, in
so much as it would be a simplification, would be a welcome
improvement. This applies also in an equal degree to those
relative clauses in which we have the subjunctive with k€,
V. H. G. § 282, whei-e the admission made is worthy of note,
* In other instances the notion of End is less distinctly conveyed,
so that the Subj. need only have the emphatic Future meaning.'
p 52-65 ODYSSEY
Would it not be preferable to say that in every case the notion
of End is accidental and separable, not inherent and essential ?
It is, I think, clearly not desirable that os kcV toi ctTnyo-t (k 539)
should be differentiated as non-final from os k ciTrot (A 64) as
final, when the former merely conveys a more positive assurance
than the latter. Teiresias (k 539) certainly can give the informa-
tion. Whether Calchas (A 64) can or not, is problematical. If
this be the only real difference, as I submit it is, it becomes easy
to see why either form can follow a primary tense. The optative,
as Dr. Monro points out, is naturally more common after a
clause of negative meaning, but is by no means precluded from
following a positive statement e. g. H 231. On the other hand,
and here we have an important side of the argument, the real
final clauses, in which we have the optative with ws, ottws, tva,
&c., after a verb of present or future meaning, seem to rest on
a very questionable and insecure basis. All the instances given
by Dr. Monro, H. G. § 306 («) readily admit, and some loudly
call for, correction. The first is A 344, where no one believes
in fmx^oLVTo. The next is our present passage y8 53. ImJ/ 135
<f>rjr] (Kirchhoff) may be read for <f}atr), /x 157 <^vya)/tev for ^vyotftcv,
p 250 aX(f>y (Hermann) for aA<^ot, v 402 (f>avrjr]^ (Schaefer) for
<f>av€LY}^ (the former indeed appears in the Oxford Homer, 1896),
TT 297 eXw/Ac^a (Kirchhoff) for iXoLfieOa, and lastly w 532 StaKpiv-
OrJT€ (but v. Note ad loc.) for SLaKpLvOetre is suggested in the
Hom. Gram, and adopted in the Oxford Homer. If these passages,
as little to be relied upon as Falstaff's ragged recruits, be all the
rule can appeal to for support, it does not require much courage
to bid it begone — -n-oXXa ;(cup€tv, and if the rule collapse, then
the vulgate ws loses its support and the emendation here proposed
becomes fairly certain.
P 65] aWov<; T alSearOrjT^ irepLKTiova^ dv^powrovs.
Here the metre imperatively requires that we should read
the gen. after dAAov?. The lengthening of the last syllable of
TTcptKTiova? is not to be thought of for a moment. No doubt the
genitive is an unusual form of expression, but its use after oAAos
in the singular number is fairly well established. We have : —
yS 331 oAAos 8* av €t7r€0"K€ veW virtprjvoptovruiv' = <j> 40 1.
^ 241 o<^pa KoX oAAo)
eiTTJ/S "qpdiHOV,
aa
BOOK II P 65-77
B 2 4 4 aXXov jJL^v K€V eyw ye Oewv ateiycvcrawv.
V 205 cyw 8c Kev aXXov VTrep/xeveoiV ^acriXridiv — . v 2 22.
B 231 aAAos 'A;(aio>v. I 39 1 6 8' *A;(aiojv oAAov iXicrOu).
The case must naturally be a rare one, in which, as here,
a plurality of persons, who are yet a portion of a larger whole,
has to be dealt with. The usage of hepo^j however, affords a fair
illustration. In v 132 we have
ifXTrX-qySrjv €T€p6v ye rUi fiepoTroyv avOpuyrroiV
but also in the contingency just described Y 210 ; —
Twv Srj vvv trepoi ye <f>LXov ircuha KkavcrovraL — .
We may accordingly read here without much hesitation : —
oAAovs r alSia-Orp-e irepiKTiovoiv av6p(i)7r(Dv.
P 73] TWV jX aTTOTLVV/JLeVOL KttKa p€^€T€ 8vO-/XeV€0|/T€S,
The gen. ro)v is contrary to the usage of Homer, if we may
judge from the following : —
A 1 1 8 oAA' rJTOL K€LV(j)v ye ftms aTroTtVeat ikOwV
TT 255 P'V TroXvTriKpa /cat alva ^wxs oLTroTLcreaL iX6(ov.
The original reading was almost certainly not twv but tw, fiac de
causa, ideo. v. v 331 and passim. See Note on y 206. How
any one can suppose that H 398 TroXiiov aireTLvvTo ttolvtJv is any
justification for twv here, is incomprehensible, TroAeW being
evidently the objective gen. after ttoivtJv.
P 77] To</>pa yap av Kara darv 7roTV7rTV(TaroLfi€6a fivOio
Xprjfxar dTratrti^ovres, ea>s k Sltto iravra hoOtiiq'
A most inopportune time for using a plural of dignity, when
the speaker was contemplating the plan of sueing in forma
pauperis (am^w) for compensation. But the really insuperable
objection to the plural is the quantity given to Iw? in 1. 78, which
nowhere else in Homer has the iambic scansion. There are minor
objections to these lines as they stand, the use of av for Ke(v) and
the occurrence of k€ with Ita's (elos) hoOeirj, which is unique ; but
evidently the main hope of being able to recover the original form
lies in the crucial point that the plural aTraiTt^ovres is untenable.
Accordingly van Leeuwen and da Costa read
a7raLTL^ovO\ rjos
explaining that Telemachus is speaking of himself and his
mother, and so the dual is properly applicable, v. also Monro,
H.G.§i73.
Surely this is quite impossible. If Telemachus had been a boy
33
^ 77 ODYSSEY
of tender age it might be conceivable that his mother acting for
him should play such a part, but now that he is capable of
acting for himself and is acting for himself, the supposition is
extravagant. The character of the heroic age and the character
of Telemachus himself are both against it. He is tenacious of
his rights, now that he has acquired them by age, even against
his mother. So far from being likely to allow his mother to
share in this public petition, this jxvdta, he has already specifically
declared of any ^v^og, a 358 : —
fjiv6os 8' a.v8p€(r(n fxeXi^crii
iracrt, fxaXurra 8' ifiOL.
Observe how, throughout this speech to the assembly, he con-
tinually insists on the wrong to himself. There seems to be,
as the saying is, a capital I in nearly every line. In making
the present supposition he begins — e/xol Se kc KipSiov elr) — and he
ends vvv 84 fxoi aTrprJKTOvs oSwas cft/JoAAcTC Ov/jh^.
I cannot therefore believe that Telemachus was made by the
poet to use dTram^ovTe, because he contemplated having the
assistance of his mother in importuning his fellow-countrymen.
Still I believe that the emendation, paradoxical as it may
seem, is accidentally correct, and that we undoubtedly ought
to read
T6<f>pa yap av Kara aarv Trornrrva-a-oi^JiiBa /xvOto
)(p-qfiaT OLTraiTL^ovO* ^os k diro iravra BoOeir].
r6ff>pa 8c K€v is probably better than To</)pa yap av; but this is of
very little importance. What is really necessary is that we
should understand aTrairi^ovO* to represent not dTram^ovrc but
airaLTL^ovri agreeing with fxvOta. The elision of the t of the dat.
is the stumbling-block once more.
* For so long I would accost you all over the town with
a petition begging back my property till all should be paid,'
cf. 8 647.
There is a sort of personification of the pJuOo^. That is all.
The /Av^os does the begging and everybody's self-respect is saved.
The petition of the Greeks to Achilles in the Iliad is spoken
of much in the same way: —
I 522 — Twv fir] (TV ye fxvBov ikiy^rjs — .
Cf. also I 62, and the well-known personification of the Aitcu,
I 502 K.T.X., o> 465 (Note).
24
ei
k
BOOK II j5 77-127
If to some this treatment of the fivOo'; as almost a personality
does not seem convincing, it would be quite possible and in full
accord with Homeric usage to punctuate thus : —
TQ(f)pa yap av koto, axrrv Trornrnxra-OLfjieOa fivOtOj
^(p-qfiaT aTraLTiCovO* ^09 k airo Travra BoOeirj.
*till to me begging back my goods all should be returned.'
The emphatic displacement of xpVH^'^* dTram^ovrt is comparable
with /x 49, and other passages quoted in the Note on /a 185.
P 127] rifi€LS S' ovT CTTt cpytt irapo's y tfxev ovt€ tttj aAAjy,
Trpiv y avrqv yrjixaa-Oai 'A^aiiov w k iOcXrja-LV.
The legitimacy of the use of avTrjvf or of any other case of
avTos, as an ordinary pronoun of the third person is a moot
point in Homer. In this very speech of Antinous avr^, * herself,'
occurs twice (114, 125) in emphatic contrast with -rrarrjp in the
first instance, with o-ot yc in the second. So strongly is the
necessity for some such emphasis instinctively felt, that many
scholars are not satisfied to translate here, * before she marry,'
but would render, ' before she herself marry,' ' she for her part,'
in contrast with the preceding r/fiits (Ameis-Hentze). Nothing
could be more absurdly and frigidly forced. Yet it seems a
strong measure in default of MSS, support, which is entirely
lacking, to pronounce avnjv a modernization and to propound
as the original reading: —
Trptv yi € T<u ytj/jMcrOaL *A)(aL<i>v <5 k iO^Xya-iv.
Neither would I adventure to do so with any confidence except
for the revelation made in a later book, where these lines recur
in a direct address to Penelope. There the pronoun being neces-
sarily of the second person, it was impossible for the most
enterprising improver to foist in avrqv. The passage is : —
(T 288 rip.€LS 8' OVT CTTi cpytt Trapos y' Ifiey ovt€ tttj oAAjy,
Trptv ye ere toJ yrjjxacrOaL 'A^^aiwv os ns apia-TO's.
far from believing with Kirchhoff that either of these couplets
is not genuine, I think we may feel sure that the expression
T<5 — 'A^atoiv, being of an archaic and obsolete cast, has been
the origin of the trouble and that the later Greeks were very
glad to be able to eliminate tw from /3 12S at least in favour
of the familiar avrrjv. For further assurance let me bring forward
two other passages, in which a precisely similar use of tw has
been so unfavourably regarded that another word, simple and
35
P 127-203 ODYSSEY
inoffensive in itself, but involving a bad hiatus, has displaced
it. The passages in question are : —
IT 76 -q i]8r] afjL iTiTyrat 'A;(ata>v os ns apitrros
T 528 ^ ^St) afx €7ru)ixai *A;)(aiaiv 05 Tts apLcrro^.
In both places read tw instead of a/xa.
It might seem possible to set up a defence for the hiatus after
rih-q by adducing the parallel of : —
n 438 r) ^8r) VTTO x^pcT' MevotriaSao 8a/Aa(rcra>.
But in this case also there is no reason v\rhy we should not
remedy the defect with a tolerable degree of certainty after
comparing : —
Z 368 ^ ^Brj jx VTTO X^P^^ ^^ol Sa/xooxriv 'Axaiwv,
by restoring the original thus : —
^ ■^Srj F^ VTTO X^P^^ McvoiTtaSao 8a/Aao"(r<i>.
Compare also X 179 : —
rj ^8r} fjLLV €yr}fi€v *A)(aL<av 09 Tts apitrros.
This position of the enclitic is remarked on in the Note on
a 37-
P 203] )(p'qfxaTa 8* avT€ kokcus yScySpwcreTai, ovSc ttot' wra
€(r(r€Tat, o<^pa kcv k.t.A.
The difficulty here is in the clause ovSc ttot' to-a Icro-cTat, ' nor
shall he ever have compensation ' or * fair treatment '. The
meaning given to To-a may possibly pass without serious objec-
tion, the neuter plural being used to express the abstract
condition or state of * equality ' : but it is clear that the
omission of the F from laa cannot be ancient. If the poet had
desired to use either Flao^ or cfto-os here, he could have done
so without the slightest difficulty by saying ovS' dpa Ta-a or
ovSi XL Ixra or even ovh^ In lara. None of these, however, is at
all likely to have been changed into ovhi ttot la-a. If then
Homer did not use either of the above expressions, which are
metrically correct, and moreover could not have given us the
unmetrical vulgate, from what original can this ovhi ttot wra
have been derived? Cauer has almost hit the truth by sug-
gesting ov8' dTTOTto-at with a very close adherence to the letters
of the tradition. The meaning, however, so attained is not quite
satisfactory. If we could translate the sentence thus, * there
shall be no paying-back,* we might acquiesce in the emendation.
But I venture to maintain that the only correct rendering of
a6
BOOK II P 203-204
ovS'' dTTOTLo-at co-o-cTttt would be 'it will not be possible to pay-
back'. This is apparent from every parallel passage that can
be quoted from Homer to illustrate the use of the impersonal ccrrt
with an infinitive. I adduce no examples. Less than all would
be useless : all would involve too large a demand on the reader's
patience.
Now after refusing to accept as satisfactory this gratuitous
confession of impecuniosity or at any rate of inability to pay,
which Cauer has introduced and Mr. Piatt has welcomed in the
Cambridge Homer, it is only fair that I should indicate what
seems to me a better way. It is this : —
^-^/xara 8' avT€ KaKtus ySc^pwo-crai, ov8' aTToriTa
eara-eraL, 6<f>pa K€V k.t.X.
' But (so far from heeding your warnings) his substance shall be
eaten despitefully, nor shall it be paid for, as long as, &c.'
Here aTrorira with the long penultimate supplies, as aTrorto-at
does not, an obvious and adequate reason for the corruption.
In general this verbal adj. has the penultimate short, e. g. ^ 144
TraAivTtTa, N 414 artTo?. At the same time the long quantity
is sufficiently defended by S 484 Srjpov ariros €rj. So we have
avovTaTO<s (A 54^)3 ^^^ avovrrjTL (X 371)'
As may be seen from the version above, I have taken airoTiTa
in the way Eustathius, I fear, erroneously wished to take tcra, as
an adjective agreeing with ;(p^/xaTa. This seems to me a material
simplification. At the same time, if we are so disposed, it is
obviously quite possible, in fact more easily possible than with
the traditional Tcra, to take the adjective substantivally, since
the analogy between airoTira and the parallels cvktcl (S 98),
tf>vKTd (0 299, n 128) and dvcKTtt (v 223) is really closer than
before. 'There shall be no repayment' is therefore open as
a valid rendering.
I have not thought it necessary to discuss other remedies
:that have been suggested, such as Bekker's or rather Bentley's
ato-a, accepted by Nauck, or Fick's adventurous novelty, the noun,
if it be a noun, dTrorctcra.
P 204 Jj 6(})pa K€V ^ y€ hLaTpif^rjcnv 'A;(aiov9
ov ydfxov Y}ix€is 8' av TroTiSey/x-evot yjfiara iravra
€LV€Ka r^s a.p€Trj<s ept8atVo/x€V, ovBe fxer aAAas
epxojxeO*, as hniLKes OTrvUjxey coTtv eKdcrro).
27
|3 304 ODYSSEY
We are told that Aristophanes doubted 1. 206 because of rrjq
dp€T^9 which he called * a modern expression ', vcwrcpiKoi/ wo/xa.
Aristarchus replied that ttJs was a pronoun here, as indeed it is,
a personal pronoun, 'of her.' There is no need to read ^9 or
€^<s with Bentley, van Herwerden and the Cambridge Homer.
Still, when we consider the fact that in Homer the pronoun of
the third person is usually 6 yc, rj yc, to yc, &c., rather than 6,
17, TO, &c., it is not unlikely that the original reading here
was : —
€?v€Ka T^5 y* apiTrjs — . (Cf. )8 109.)
Afterwards the yc could not be tolerated for a moment ; but the
idea that it once stood here with the substantival t^s receives
support from the fact that not only here but in the only other
similar instance of this use the following noun begins with a
vowel : —
I ^33 FV "^OTi T^s €vvrj^ iTn/Si^fievaL rjBk fityrjvai, (= I 275, T 176).
By reading t^? y* in these four passages we maintain an
archaic usage and at the same time remove all possibility of
ambiguity.
Now if Aristophanes rejected 1. 206, he must also, as
Didymus saw, have extended his condemnation to 11. 205 and
207. TTiOavbv §€ (rvva6€T€LV avTw kol tov irpo airrov koX tov fier
avTov. This is done by van Leeuwen and da Costa in their
edition (1897), but they credit Aristophanes with another reason
for the rejection *ob duplicem accusativum verbo hiarpipiiv
additum '. Whether Aristophanes urged this objection I cannot
say; but it is undoubtedly a sound one. No explanation of
BiaTpi^ya-Lv 'Axatovs ov yd/xov is, or is likely to be, at all
satisfactory, ov ya/Aov bears no resemblance to ' the ace. of nearer
definition ', rov ySoAc Kvqfirjv, &c. Neither is there sufficient, or
indeed any, resemblance between Siarpi^eLv and a<f}aLp€Lv to justify
the former borrowing the construction of the latter. The fact of
the matter is that ov ydfiov is totally impossible here, because
when rightly translated it makes absolute nonsense, ' during her
marriage.' In all probability ov ydfiov has been imported, so far
as its case, its grammatical case I mean, is concerned directly
from V 341 : —
ov Tt SLaTpi^fD /xrfTpos ydjxovy aXXa kcXcvo)
yrjfia<r6* a» k idiX-Qy
38
BOOK II 3 204-367
where it is simple and natural. In our passage what is required
is clearly enough the genitive, thus : —
6(f>pa Key tj ye SiaTpt^ycrLV *A;(atovs
ov yd/Jiov'
In ov ydfiov we have a regular ablatival genitive, v. Monro, H. G.
§ 152. SiaTpL/So) means to delay, to hinder, dvaftdWecrOaij KwXvetv,
as it is explained in the Schol., and naturally takes the common
construction of Travw : "E/cropa Slov irrava-e fJid^rjs (O 15) or, to
take analogous verbs, -TracSo? iepyrj /xmav(A 131), Tpwa? dfxvve vewv,
io-xovTo iJi^dxr]^' In fact we have this ablatival genitive with
^larpLpoi in this same book a little further on : —
^ 404 dAA,' lofiev, pit] 8r)6d StarptySco/xev 68oto.
where 68oto is not locative, as is sometimes stated, for they had
not commenced the journey, neither is it partitive, as y 476 may
be, but clearly privative or ablatival : —
^ Come, let us go, that we may not stay them long from their
voyage.' Compare also 8 380, a 195.
P 325] ^ p.dXa TrjXep.axo'S <fi6vov rfpXv p,€ppir)pL^€i.
T] TLva<s €K IIvA-ov d^€L dp.vvTopa'i ypiaOoevTO^
^ 6 y€ Koi ^TrdprrqOeVy cTrct vv -rrep icrat aivtus*
It is evident that Trcp is a corruption here. Read circt too,
viz. </)ov€vetv rjp.d<i. The pronoun can hardly be omitted without
as much detriment to the sense as Trcp inflicts on the metre.
P 358] M'^P ^'-^ VTTcpo)' dva/Srj koltov re /AcSr/rai.
Neither vTrep^o for VTrepwC nor dvafirj for dva/3rjrj can be
regarded as satisfactory epic forms. Perhaps originally : —
p-rjrrjp cs 6dXap,ov ^rjrj koltov T€ /xcSr/rat
The only other occurrence of vTrcpw' is in the stock phrase : —
€9 8* vTTcpo)' dvaftd(Ta (cis vwepio*)
(a 362, 8 751, &c.), where, though 0d\ap.6v8' might serve, a more
probable restoration is es 8' virepwLa /Sda-a. Elsewhere the forms
in use are vTrepwta, vireptoiov, vTrepwto) and vTrcpwto^ev {{nrepiOLOo).
P 367] O^ ^^ """O^ aVTLK loVTL KaKOL <jipd(T(TOVTai oTTLO-crw,
ws K€ 8oA(o (j>OLrj<s, rdSe 8' avrot irdvra hdcrovraL.
I propose here to read : —
ws K€ 8dXa) <j>6UaLy
The process of corruption I conceive to have been this. First the
form cfiOUai, which would hardly convey to the Greek mind in later
times the idea of a subjunctive mood at all, though it is clearly
29
P 367-430 ODYSSEY
the 2 aor. subj. midd. (from e<f>OCfir]v) as may be seen from :^
Y 173 T^y Tiva vicfivrj (Leg. ct riva)
avBpwVi ^ avTos i^dUrai Trpunta iv 6/>ttX(o'
B 87 dpyaXcovs TroXe/xovs, o<^pa <f>0L6fX€(r6a IfcacrTOS*
this <f)6L€ai, I say, would naturally and almost inevitably become
(jiOLrj. Indeed in our textus receptus, wherever the termination
-cat does not form the end of a dactyl in itself, we generally
find -y substituted, e.g. r 254, B 365, O 434, &c. From KfiOtrf
the development of (f>$Lr}<s is not a very extraordinary one, even if
no account could be given of the origin of the parasitic sigma.
Now the use of the present <j>Olu} in Homer rests solely on this
passage and on the equally doubtful imperfect e<f>6uv in : —
2 446 ^ Tot 6 T^s a;^€a>i/ <f>p€va<s ecfiOicv
where either a transitive or an intransitive use is admissible.
It is to the influence of this ecf>Oi€v that the final s of our <f>6Lr]^
here may be traced. The Greeks sympathetically wished to
give €cf>OL€v the comfort of a partner in misfortune. But €<t6l€v
(Blass) removes all difficulty. Elsewhere for the present <j>Oiv(ji> is
used. On such a weak foundation as this an intransitive use
of <f>6LUi can hardly be based with any assured confidence.
Dr. Monro, who suggested <f>6Lr}^ as an optative in the first edition
of his Homeric Grammar § 285 (2), has not repeated the proposal
in the second, v. on ^ 52 f. ad fin.
P 403] "^^"^ eTn^pcT/Aot, T^v crr)v TroriSeyfievoi bpfxriv-
One letter saves the situation, thus : —
8^v (rr)v TTOTLSeyfJieva op/x-qv [cf. v 1 89].
P 430 J SrjadfiivoL 8' apa OTrXa Oorjv dva vrja /xeXatvav — .
To remedy the harsh hiatus, which could only be defended
on the broad breezy ground that hiatus is permissible any-
where in Homer, Travra might be suggested instead of orrXa.
Naturally iravra would soon attract as a marginal explanation or
gloss oTrXa, and that ultimately the adscript noun should usurp
the place of the mere adjective, when the sense of epic metre was
becoming less keen in the Greek mind, need not be wondered at.
This view of the case, though hardly convincing, appears to me
far more likely than to suppose that here only oTrXa still retained
some trace of its very archaic initial sigma.
It might be suggested further that what the crew make fast
here is not to be limited to what is described by onXuiv in 1. 423,
30
BOOK III P430-YI30
the mast and sails with the ropes appertaining. They would
secure everything on the decks that was movable, especially the
oars, as is proved by ^ 37 : —
Sryo-a/xevot 8' iv Travrcs ctti kXt/lo-lv iperfxa — .
Before they would feel at liberty to refresh themselves, they must
make the ship and its equipment as trim and safe as if they were
temporally quitting the vessel altogether. Thackeray's poem
* The White Squall ' will reveal the barometrical reason for taking
such precautions.
Still it is impossible to deny that other remedies of the
distressed metre are open. If we may disregard apa — and its
frequent intrusion in the received text is a patent fact — some-
thing might be said in favour of 8* ev before oTrXa. Cf. B 253,
H162, n 191, O 269. Or again 8c rot (8' ap* ot) seems quite
admissible here. All that we can be fairly sure of is that the
traditional reading is erroneous.
BOOK in (y).
Y 64I 8C)K€ Be TrjXefxdxw KaXov ScTra? d/A^i/cvTrcAAov.
ws 8' avTcos TjpaTo '08vcrcr^o9 ^tXo9 vio?.
The second line may have stood thus in the original text : —
a)s 8' avTws ripaTO 6 ye, 'O8voro-7os <f>L\o<s vl6<s.
This might easily become rfparo y instead of rjpaO* 6 y ; and then
the y would necessarily be abandoned as worse than useless.
Read : —
0)5 8* avT(o^ rjpaO* 6 y', *08v(r(rrjo<s <^tA.os vl6<s.
Cf. I 109, &c., A 52 (Note).
Y 115-6] See Note on y 3 1 7 ff.
Y I22]| €t ireov ye
KiLVov eKyovos eo-trf
To write k€lvol here is not permissible, v. o 425 (Note), 77 67
(Note ad fin.). There seem to be two alternatives : either kclvoo
y (cf. f3 274), to which the preceding ye is adverse, or e/c KetVov
yovos may be read. The variant eyyovos rather suggests that the
y is the right remedy, having been allowed to amalgamate with
the noun following. See also Note on ^ 151.
Y 130] avrap iirei UpLafjiOLO ttoXlv Suirepa-afjiev annijv — .
Here and i' 316, where the line is repeated, the bastard form
atTTTJv should be removed in favour of anrvv, which indeed in the
31
Y 130-175 ODYSSEY
latter passage has the authority of two MSS. to support its claim.
See Note on 6 64.
y 140] ^vBov fivO€LcrOr)Vf rov civcKa Xaov aycipav
This line should be removed as an interpolation. The dual
TO) Sk KaXia-a-afiivoi then becomes an ordinary instance of a dual
nom. which is afterwards divided into its component parts. The
division is not made with absolute grammatical accuracy after-
wards, nor is it in other instances, as K 224 crvv re Sv ipxo/xivto.
to 483 opKLa Trurra ra/xovrcs. ft 73 oi 8k Svo) o-kottcXoi.
The line, I submit, does not mean ' told the people why they
had called them together', as is sometimes supposed, but
* delivered the harangues for the sake of which they had called
the assembly'. Each of the two made the statement of policy
which he wanted to lay before the people.
It seems probable also that the interpolator, misapplying
1. 138:—
fxd\f/j arap ov Kara Koa/xov, cs rjikLov KaraBvvTa —
intended to represent Agamemnon and Menelaus as maintaining
a disorderly wrangle from morning till night.
Y 145] W5 Tov ^AOr)vaLr]<s Seivov x^^ov l^aK€(rairo,
VJ$\ Tc/Avetv, o<^pa TayiaTa virkK KaKorrp-a </>vyoi/>i€v.
The reason for the juxtaposition of these entirely unconnected
lines will soon be made apparent. In 1. 145 it is impossible to
suppose that rov is anything other than the regular Attic article
of definition. If so, it is certainly not Homeric. The remedy
fortunately is, I venture to say, hardly doubtful : —
<Ss K€v *A6r]vaLr]^ Sctvov X'^^^^ c^aKccratTO,
This seems sufficiently indicated by : —
d 2 1 0)9 K€v ^aLT^K€(raL 0tXos 7rdvr€<T(TL yevotrOf
0) 83 ws K€v rr}\€cf)avr)s ck irovr6cf>LV avSpdcTLV ctrj.
Similarly of course there are several instances of ws av with the
optative : —
o 538 €$ i/x€Vy u)s dv T19 (re crvvavrofievo's jxaKapt^oi. {= p 165,
T31O
p 362 tarpvv'y (1)9 av irvpva Kara fivrforrjpa^ dyctpot,
T 331 0)9 av fioL rov 7rat8a — e^aydyois — Sei^€ta9 — .
But W9 K€v (dv) with the opt. really needs no array of passages : it
is no more anomalous after a historic tense (v. on yS 52 ff.) than
o>9 K€v {dv) with the subj. after a primary one. In the instance
3a
BOOK III Y 175-206
last quoted, one indeed of doubtful antiquity, the original was
perhaps : —
OTnrws K€i/ (av) [jlol iraiSa,
but in any case the rather subtle defence of the article there,
suggested by Dr. Monro, H. G. § 261, 3 (a) is not applicable to
the present passage, 7 145.
Again in 1. 175 I should hope few would deliberately refuse
to entertain on the dubious ground of hiatus licitus a similar
insertion of the particle kc, though in this case my proposal
involves something more considerable in the way of change than
the mere addition of the monosyllable : —
T€ftv€/x€V, 6(f}pa K€ 6a(r<T0V vrrkK KaKorrjTa ^vyot/Acv.
It is not difficult to imagine the later Greeks abandoning kc
Oacrorov in favour of the more familiar and emphatic rdxta-Ta, but
not vice versa. Therefore the utmost confidence may be felt in
the genuineness of : —
M 25 v€ 8* apa Zcvs
ot;v€;(€9, 6cf)pa k€ 6a(T<rov aA/irXoa ru)(€a OeCr].
Z 143 acrcrov W\ ws k€v Oacra-ov oXeOpov Trctpad' iKyjai.
(=Y429)
B 440 LOfxeVy 6<f)pa kc Oaacrov eyeipo/xev 6^vv''Apr)a.
I will not attempt to conceal the opinion I entertain in
respect of this substitution, that the abolition of the hiatus here is
a strong point in favour of my proposed reading. Furthermore
it is worth noticing that our line, y 175, supplies the solitary
instance in Homer of hiatus after (6<t>pa) Taxio-TUy a small matter
perhaps, but (fxavaev a-vveroia-iv. Compare also a> 532 (Note), where
again rdxicrTa has displaced an original Oaa-orov.
y 2063 TLdatrOaL fjivrj(rTrjpa<s vTrcp^acrtrys dXcyctnJs — .
The genitive here is in conflict with the regular usage of this
verb as exhibited in Homer. We have more than a dozen
passages in which, as here, the person or persons punished are in
the accusative. There is no occasion to quote these passages.
We have also a fair list of places where the accusative is used to
express the offence for which the punishment is inflicted : —
T 208 €7r€t TLcraLjJitda Xw/Jt^v. (Vulg. cthJv)
B 356 := 590 rt<racr6aL 8* 'EA.€v>ys opjxrjpxira. T€ a-rova\(is tc.
CO 470 <f>rj 8* o y€ Tia-eaOai TraiSos ^ovov,
O 1 1 6 TL<raxr6aL <f>6vov vlos — .
AQAB X> 33
Y 206 ODYSSEY
V 169 at yap 8>;, Ev/xat€, 6to\ rvcralaTO kw^rjv,
1/^31 6<f>p* avSpiov TtVaiTO ^ny v vTreprjvopcovTiov.
We should accordingly be maintaining a well-established and
unquestionable usage by reading in our passage : —
rta-aaOai /xvrja-Trjpas wrep^acriyjv aXeyeiVT^v
as also in its fellow offender, for here too the false construction
is in duplicate (v. on y8 26), V 366 : —
rj r i<f>d/jLrjv rta-acrOai 'AXe^avSpov KaKorrjTOS
we ought to accept the correction
rj T ecfidfirjv TicracrOaL *AXe^avBpov KaKonrfra.
Unfortunately in neither of these lines did the ace. receive
any protection from the metre; but fortunately there is still
intact an example of the two accusatives, that of the offender and
that of the offence, used together, where the metre has been of
service :
o 235 aAA 6 pxv €K<f}vy€ Ktjpa kol ^Xaa-e (3ov<s ipifxvKOvs
€S HvXov €K ^vXa/oys Kat ^Tiaaro Ipyoi' deiKcs
dLVTiQeov Nt]XTJa, Kao-iyvi/ro) 8e yuvatKa
^y ay €TO Trpos Soo/Aa^'.
This should be conclusive, especially when we consider that avo-
rCcrofuuj oTreTLadfxrjv exhibit like accusatives. Of the offenders : —
€ 24 ws 17 Tot K€tVov9 '08v(revs aTTOTtWrai iXOwv = to 480
V 386 aXX aye fi^tv v<f>'qvov ottws aTroTtcro/Aat avrovs* (Leg-
dv8pa<s)
Of the offence : —
X 1 1 8 dAA* ^ TOt Kuvinv ye )8tas diroTia-eai iXOwv
TT 255 jJ'r} TToXwriKpa kol aiva ^tas aTroTto-eat iXOtov.
p 540 ati/ra K€ (Tvv w TraiSt yStas aTroTtVeTai dvSpwv
y 2 1 6 Tts 8* ol8\ ei K€ TTore o-</>t ySias ctTroTtcreTat eX^civ.
Even in Theognis 205, where the old reading was afitrXaKi-qs
Bergk rightly has the ace. plur. dp,7rXaKia5 : —
ov yap €7r avrov
TLVOvrai jLtaKapes TrpiyyfiaTos dp,7rXaKias.
The usage of rCwfjiai also coincides, v. F 279, T 260 on the one
hand, w 326 on the other. There is, however, a ray of support
for the genitive afforded by ^ 73 : —
Tuiv fi aTTOTivv/Aevot KaKo, pi^(T€ Svo-p-eveovres
TovTous orpvvovrcs.
But it is easy to see that this twv Itself represents an original rw,
34
I
BOOK III 7206-231
propterea, quae cum ita sint, kac de causa, v. B 254 t<o vvv . . .
^o-ai oveiSt^wv. Z 224, tt I2I : —
TW yvv 8vO-/>l€V€€S /AttA-tt [XVpLOL €?0"' CVt OtKO).
O 138, B 296, 226, p 546, X 416, >y 25, ^ 233 and elsewhere.
In later Greek the genitive with TLo-aaOai may be found, Hdt. iv.
118.
I will add that Liddell and Scott's Lexicon is in error in
stating that tivw, to pay, takes a gen. of the thing for which one
pays. In the example given from Homer : —
yot 382 €t Se fiOL ov TL(rov(ri f^owv CTrtciKe a/xoi/S-qv
clearly powv depends on d/wi^-qv and has nothing to do directly
with Tto-ovo-i. So in the passage from Herodotus, vii. 134, the
genitive belongs to ttoivtJv just as in ij/ 312 we have iroLvrjv
[(ftOifxwv erdpoiv ; Aesch. Prom. 1 1 2 is precisely the same. The
remaining instance, Hdt. iii. 14, is merely an unfortunate slip, as
a reference to the passage will show at once. TtVcj takes an ace.
of the penalty and an ace. of the offence.
Y 231] p€ta ^€0? y ^Oikdiv KoX rriXoOev dvSpa <Ta<o<ra(,.
fiovXoLfjLTjv S* av eY<a ye koX oAyca ttoAAo, fxoyqaa^
OLKaSi T (XOifxevaL koX voaTifxov ^fxap ISicrOaL,
The omission of kc in 231 is remarkable. It duly appears in the
only other passage which conveys a similar assertion of the
potency of divine intervention : —
8 753 V y^P '^^^ f^'-^ iTTitra KOL €k OavdroLO (rawo-at.
Hence Naber would read ^cos k kOiXinv not without some
authority of MSS. Nauck evades rather than solves the difficulty
by changing a-auxrai into o-awcrci ; for even if the optative is not
assured by 8 753, there can be little doubt of its correctness,
when we add the comparison of : —
K 55^ pcta ^eos y* iOeXcov kol d/xctVovas 17c rrcp otSe
iTTTTOvs 8(j)prj(raLT, eTrel ^ ttoXv KJiiprepoL ela-cv.
Neither of these methods then gives an entirely satisfactory
result. It seems to me that the traditional reading may
in both cases be derived with greater probability from an
original : —
pea K€ 6e6s y iOiXoiv.
If this be so, the tenacity with which y has held its ground
highly creditable to what are called the conservative forces
ways operating to maintain the genuine text. The loss of k€
D 2 35
Y 331 ODYSSEY
would be due to the objection to keeping except from an insuperable
necessity the monosyllabic form pia, appearing in five passages
only, from which indeed it would require some ingenuity to
effect its removal without making ruin of the sense : —
M 381 KctTO /xcya? Trap hraX^tv VTrcpraros* ovSc k€ /xtv pia
Y lOI urov T€LV€L€V TToXifxov TcXos, ov K€ fioXa pea
N 144 pia Siekevaca-dai KXurtas /cat i^as *A;(aia)V
Y 263 pea BieXeijceaOaL fieyak-qropo^ Alvetao
P 461 pea /A€V yap <fi€vy€(TK€V vttck Tpwcov opvfJMyhw
In N 90, P 285, pcia fi€T€L(rdfji€vo^ is clearly pea fieraeLord'
/Lievos (Fick, who writes pa).
There is little cause for surprise that peta, which occurs ten
times to pea once and holds undisputed possession of the Odyssey,
should have settled down in the convenient place before Oeos and
shouldered out the little Ke altogether. Cf. e 169 at k€ OeoC ye.
Z 228 ov K€ ^eos ye — .
The above account of the matter is surely preferable to
maintaining the legitimacy of the pure optative, as some do. The
evidence for this usage is scanty, especially as regards affirmative
sentences. Four only are quoted, y 231, K 556, 247, O 197, v.
Monro, H. G. | 299 (f). The first two are here dealt with, and
no reliance can possibly be placed on : —
O 197 BvyaripearaLv yap re /cat vtatrt ^iXrepov iirj
CKTrayAois iTT^ea-a-Lv evLO-a-ifxev.
Dr. Leaf suggests yap kc doubtfully: but the dative after
mo-tre/Aev is not the case required. Read : —
^vyarepas /xev yap Ke Kat vtovs ^cXrepov itrj.
In K 246 perhaps roto ye Ke cnrofjLivoLO ktA.
But to return to our passage, I have a suggestion to make
on the concluding line : —
oiKaSe T iXOifxevai Kal vooTifWV ^/>tap ihia-Bai.
So it stands giving some countenance to the theory of the
in-and-out character of the digamma in Homer. It is supposed
to be present or absent according to circumstances, as the
speaker may decide, like the Irish members in the first Home
Rule Bill.
The original constitution of the line would not, however,
have allowed any such looseness. Read instead of the vulgate : —
otKaSc r' cX^c/xcvot xai vooTifwv rjiuip ap€(r6ai.
36
BOOK III Y 231-235
So also € 220, ^ 466, where the line is repeated. Of course
t 311 Lva v6(TTLfxov rjfjiap tSrjaL must follow suit. Probably also
€ 209 and Epigr. VII. 3. We may compare a 5 : —
dpvr/xcvos ^v T€ ifru)(r]v kol vocttov crat/owv.
For, as Curtius (Gk. Et.* p. 343) points out, dpcV^ai
(apaa-Oai) is to be referred to apwfiaL, and not with the lexicons
generally to aipo, a word which is not really Homeric at all,
though it appears once : —
P 724 TpoDtKo?, ws etSovTO viicw atpovras 'A^atovs,
where Brandreth^s ws efuSov v€kvv detpovras is probably the original
reading.
If further confirmation of the idea that dpia-Oai is the true
original rather than iSea-Oat in this collocation be required, it is
supplied by such an expression as : —
a 9 avrap 6 Toicriv a<f>€LX€TO voarifiov rjfJiap.
Here we have the same line of thought from the opposite
side. That which Odysseus' followers fail to win (apea-Oai) is
said to be taken from them by Eelios. Similarly we find
oLTrtoXecre vocTTLfjLOV yfxap (a 354) ^^^ coXero vooTLfwv rjpxip (a 1 68,
P 253)-
Y 235] wA.€^' VTT AlyLcrOoLo BoXw koI ^s oXoxolo,
The view usually taken of the construction here is that vtto
governs the two genitives, Alyta-OoLo and aXoxoiOj while BoXta
stands alone as a modal or instrumental dative.
With 86X(o in its present position intermediate between the
two genitives this construction is undoubtedly harsh. The
isolation of SoXw is too pronounced. It is suggested, however, in
favour of the accepted view, that it gives an improved rhythm,
which is not altogether certain, and that oXXvo-Oul and similar
verbs are not found with vtto with a dat. of the thing (v.
Ebeling's Lex. sub vtto). These arguments take me by surprise.
Certainly if the caesura or rhythm be objected to, we must take
exception to a great many lines which have hitherto escaped
without criticism in the Homeric poems, such as : —
A 132 TToXXa 8' iv ^ AvTifxaxpio SofxoLS KeifirjXia KilraL — .
V 424 ya-rai iv 'ArpctSao So/xots, Trapa 8' doTrcra Kctrat.
With regard to the second point, it seems to me on the contrary
that there is comparatively little in Homer of the construction so
common in later Greek, vtto with gen. of the agent, while vtto with
37
y 231 ODYSSEY
would be due to the objection to keeping except from an insuperable
necessity the monosyllabic form pea, appearing in five passages
only, from which indeed it would require some ingenuity to
efifect its removal without making ruin of the sense : —
M 381 KctTO /xcyas irap IttoA^iv vn€pTaTO<s' ovSc kc ftiv p€a
Y lOI T(TOV T€LV€L€V TToXiflOV TcXoS, OV K€ fXoXa pCtt
N 144 pea BL€\€V(r€(r$ai KXurtas koX vrja^ 'A)(aiS>v
Y 263 pea SuXevireaOai fieyaXrjropos Alveiao
P 461 pea /A€V yap KJuvyeaKtv vttck Tpwojv opvfiayhov
In N 90, P 285, pcia fi€T€i(rdfi€vo^ is clearly pea fieraeurd-
/Mci/os (Fick, who writes pa).
There is little cause for surprise that peta, which occurs ten
times to pea once and holds undisputed possession of the Odyssey,
should have settled down in the convenient place before ^eos and
shouldered out the little k€ altogether. Cf. e 169 at Ke OeoC ye.
Z 228 OV K€ Oeos y€ — .
The above account of the matter is surely preferable to
maintaining the legitimacy of the pure optative, as some do. The
evidence for this usage is scanty, especially as regards affirmative
sentences. Four only are quoted, y 231, K 556, 247, O 197, v.
Monro, H. G. ^ 299 (f). The first two are here dealt with, and
no reliance can possibly be placed on ; —
O 197 OvyaT€p€crcnv yap re koI vld(ri fiiXrcpov €irj
c/cTrayXois eTreeo-trtv cvLO-aefifV.
Dr. Leaf suggests yap Ke doubtfully: but the dative after
ivKTO'ip.ev is not the case required. Read : —
OvyaT€pas fiev yap k€ Kai viovs ^eXrcpov iirj.
In K 246 perhaps roto ye /ce cnro[X€voLo ktA.
But to return to our passage, I have a suggestion to make
on the concluding line : —
otKaSe T lX6iix€vai koX vooTLfwv rfpuap IhicOaL.
So it stands giving some countenance to the theory of the
in-and-out character of the digamma in Homer. It is supposed
to be present or absent according to circumstances, as the
speaker may decide, like the Irish members in the first Home
Rule Bill.
The original constitution of the line would not, however,
have allowed any such looseness. Read instead of the vulgate : —
oiKaSc r' cA.dc/xcvat #cai voarifiov ^p-ap dpcVdat.
36
I
BOOK III Y 231-235
So also € 220, ^ 466, where the line is repeated. Of course
^311 Lva v6(TTLfiov rjfiap tBrjaL must follow suit. Probably also
€ 209 and Epigr. VII. 3. We may compare a 5 : —
apvvfji€vo<s riv re ilrvxrjv kol vocttov crat/xov.
For, as Curtius (Gk. Et.* p. 343) points out, apiaOai
(apaa-OaL) is to be referred to apwfiaL, and not with the lexicons
generally to atpw, a word which is not really Homeric at all,
though it appears once : —
P 724 TpcDtKos, 0)5 elSovro viicw atpovrag *A^atovs,
where Brandreth^s ws efiSov veicw aupovras is probably the original
reading.
If further confirmation of the idea that apia-Oai is the true
original rather than IhicrOai in this collocation be required, it is
supplied by such an expression as : —
a 9 avrap 6 Toicnv d^etAcro vocmfiov ^fiap.
Here we have the same line of thought from the opposite
side. That which Odysseus' followers fail to win (dpeo-^ai) is
said to be taken from them by Eelios. Similarly we find
(XTrtoXeo-e voaTLfxov ■^fiap (a 354) ^^^ loXero vooTLfiov rj/JMp (a 1 68,
P 253)-
Y 235] wXc^' VTT AlyicrOoLo BoXw koX ^s dA.o;^oto.
The view usually taken of the construction here is that vtto
governs the two genitives, AlyiaOoLo and dA-dxoio, while BoXio
stands alone as a modal or instrumental dative.
With B6X(o in its present position intermediate between the
two genitives this construction is undoubtedly harsh. The
isolation of SoXio is too pronounced. It is suggested, however, in
favour of the accepted view, that it gives an improved rhythm,
which is not altogether certain, and that oXXvo-Oul and similar
verbs are not found with vtto with a dat. of the thing (v.
Ebeling's Lex. sub vtto). These arguments take me by surprise.
Certainly if the caesura or rhythm be objected to, we must take
exception to a great many lines which have hitherto escaped
without criticism in the Homeric poems, such as : —
A 1 3 2 TToXXa 8* cv 'Avrt/xd^oto Sofioi^ KecfiyjXia Kiirai — .
V 424 lyo-Tat iv ^ArpetSao SofiOLi, Trapa. 8' aa-irera KCtrat.
With regard to the second point, it seems to me on the contrary
that there is comparatively little in Homer of the construction so
common in later Greek, vtto with gen. of the agent, while vtto with
37
Y 235-255 ODYSSEY
dat. of the instrument is distinctively Homeric, especially with
verbs of killing , destroying, &c. With oXXvaOai itself I find —
n 489 wXcTo T€ areydxiav vttd yafi<f>rf\yari Xiovro^,
Numerous instances are supplied by Safirjvai, E 653 i/xio vtto Sovpii
Sa/jLorra. A 444, 749, 11 848, &c., &c., V. Note on M 117 (J. Phil.
xxiv).
cr 156 TrjXifidxov vtto X^P^^'- '^'^^ ^7X^' ^4*^ hafirjvat.
A 433 ifXiO VTTO Sovpl TVTTiU. M 25O, 11 861, 2 92.
n 708 (TW VTTO hovpi TToXlV TTCpOai T/MiKDV dy€p(i})((iiV .
This touches scarcely more than the fringe of possible illustration ;
but is sufficient to controvert the ordinary view, and to convince
any one whose mind is open to conviction that the true rendering
of our line is : —
* He perished beneath the craft of Aegisthus and his own wife/
Cf. O 613 T]8r) yap ol circopwc (xopaLixov rjpxxp
noAAas *A6rjvaLrj vtto UrfXtiSao /3ir)<fiL.
y 255]] rj TOL fifv ToSe KttvTos oUai, ws kcv ervxOrj.
Some ancient critics wrote here k avrd?, i. e. kc avros ; but
K€ must, in spite of Spitzner's opinion to the contrary, be pro-
nounced inadmissible. The crasis of koI avros, however, is by
no means an assured Homeric licence. It is indeed, to say the
least, very questionable. Hence G. Hermann proposed to read
here toSc y avros- But is not roSe itself objectionable in this
place? The matter referred to is not one that can readily or
naturally be regarded as immediately present. It is a speculative
contingency in the past — what would have happened if Menelaus
had arrived home earlier than he actually did. If we further
emphasize this roSe by the addition of ye, we only make the
objection to the word still stronger. To obviate this it would,
I think, be preferable to delete the last syllable of toSc and read
the Homeric, but un -Attic, to : —
rj TOL fikv TO KOL ttVTOS oi«ai, w« K€v irvxOrj.
There are in our texts but four instances of the crasis of koC
before avT09. The other three are : —
Z 260 TrpoiTOVi cTTCiTtt h\ KavTO^ oK7(r€at, at kc Triiyo^a.
N 734 'ftt'' "^^ TToXcas co-aoxre, fxaXurra §€ Kavros dveyvo*.
^ 282 ySeXTepov, €1 Kavrq Trip lirov)(Pfi€vrj ttoclv evptv \ aXXoBtv.
The first two of these may be briefly dismissed. In Z 260
K avTo? (kc avTos) would not be out of place, as is generally
38
BOOK III Y255
admitted, v. Monro, H. G. § 377, while in N 734 Hermann's 8c
T avTos is unquestionably better than 8e k (kc), which Aristarchus
with his couYenient * irepLo-a-o^ 6 /cev ' doctrine found no difficulty
in accepting.
The remaining passage from the Odyssey may be examined
more at length. Nausicaa is contemplating the possibility of
one of the baser sort making scandalous and defamatory
remarks, if Odysseus should be seen entering the city in her
company. The fellow is supposed to say : * Who is this tall and
handsome stranger with her ? Where did she find him ? Now
she'll soon have a husband for herself. Either she has brought
some vagabond sailor, a deserter from his ship, a man from
some far country, for we have no near neighbours, or some god
has descended from heaven in answer to her prayers to make
her his wife for ever and ever. It is all the better if she herself
has gone abroad and found a husband, for her Phaeacian suitors
here on the spot she scorns.'
Now we may disregard entirely the traditional athetosis of
fourteen lines, 275-88 {dOerovvTai (ttlxol i^ Schol. H. Q.) : but I
think a strong case, apart from this question of crasis, may be
made out for the removal of el Kavn/j — aXkoOev as a needless and
inaccurate later addition, so that 11. 282-3 would stand thus : —
(SiXrcpov rj yap TOvcrSe y drt/xa^ct Kara Brj/xov
^aLTjKa?, roi /jllv fjLvmrrax TroXces T€ koX icrOXoL
BeXrepov, * 'tis better so,' is a clause grammatically complete
in itself, and refers to what has been already stated, viz. that she
has either got hold of a deserter from a foreign ship or a god
straight from Olympus.
The pointed allusion to the fickleness of the gods in their
love-affairs is a delicately sarcastic touch. * Whichever alternative
be the true one, it is better it should be so,' says the supposed
Phaeacian scandal-monger. But here the interpolator comes in,
anxious to tell us what it is that is better so, and oblivious that
the poet himself has already told us clearly enough. Moreover he
blunders in giving us the needless information ; for the interpola-
tion, assuming it to be such, implies that the princess had gone in
person (avr)} -n-ep) abroad — to a foreign land — to find a husband,
an imputation altogether too much at variance with the facts of
the case even for a slander.
39
Y 255-260 ODYSSEY
That piXrepov may be used in this way in reference to a
previous statement is certain even without such illustrative
parallels as KctAAtov y 358, $ 543, cr 255, t 128, /ccpStov T 41,
aXyiov 8 292, IT 147 and passim. Again, it can hardly be disputed
that single-line interpolations are often of the same character
as this one. A probable instance is the much-vexed passage
)8 244-5. The excision of 245 would leave dpyaXeov Se intelligible.
See also a 82-3 (Note). Here is one more than usually flagrant : —
H 351 VVV 8* OpKM TTLOTa
i{/€V(r(XfX€V0L fJiaxofJi^ecrOa' tw ov vv tl KepSiov rifuv
IXTTO/xat e/cTeXeccr^at, Iva /xr} pi^ofxev wSc.
The strongest faith in the infallibility of the received text might
be shaken by the splendid imbecility of the last line. Even
were the metre as sound as the morality, imagination boggles at
the poetry.
Y 260] K€t/X.€VOV iv TTcStO) CKCLS ttOTCOS,
The reading of the majority of the MSS. "Apycos is almost
to a certainty an explanatory gloss, though a wrong one, on
a(rT€os. Obviously, if "'Apyeos had obtained from the first, ao-rcos
would never have come in for any such reason. As it is, "Apyeos
has almost succeeded in displacing a(rT€o<Sy and probably would
have done so altogether except that the knowledge that the city
was Mycenae was never quite lost.
Still, though cKtts "Apycos is not the original reading, neither
is CKOLS aoTcos entirely right. The most probable reading of the
line is: —
Kct/x€vov ev ireSwo airb aorcos.
Some confirmation of this view may be found in the condition
of a similar expression in the Iliad, O 320. Nearly all the MSS.
give :—
Sc^ios di^as vTckp aoreos.
The Bankes papyrus, however, shows Bia dorcos, and for Si* aorcos
we have S Cant. Mosc, 2. Vrat. b. A. Flor. Rom. yp. StaoTtos A.
(La Roche). The inference is that ha aorcos has been from
fear of hiatus displaced in the main by vTrcp. And for just
the same groundless apprehension, as I surmise, €Kas in y 260
has superseded dTro, for which compare M 70 (= N 227) dTroXca^ai
&jr "Apyeos.
40
BOOK III Y 296-317
Y 296] jJiiKpo'S Bl Xi6o'5 fxiya kv^ arroipyeL,
Read dTrcepyet : Y. ^ 41 1 (Note).
Y 317] aAA' €S fi€V MeveXaov cyw KiXofiai kol avwya
iXOiiv KCtvos yap veov dXXoOcv ciX-qXavdcv,
€K TWV avOpiOTTiDV oOcV OVK IXTTOtTO y€ 6vfX<^
iXOefjiev, 6v rtva Trpwrov d7roo-<^^X<o(rtv dcAAat
€S TreAayos /iteya Totov, oOev re ttc/o ov8' otwvot
avToercs ot;(V€vo-ti/, cttci /^eya t€ Scii/ov tc.
Bentley was doubtless right in changing avroercs into
avTO€T€Ls. The adverb is probably due in the first instance to
a natural error in the transliteration of rptcTij?, Trcvracr^?, e^acr^?,
iTTTaerrjs, ctvacnj?, all of which should probably be restored. For
instance, instead of (y 115): —
ov8' et TTCVTcteTC? yc kol e^dercs xapa/u/AVWV
e^cpeots, o(ra — .
the true reading should rather be
ov8' ct TTCi/Tacnys yc Kat c^acrJ^s Trapa/u/AVCDV
c^cpeot*, oo-a — .
There would also be a feeling in consequence of prevalent
usage that these adjectives seemed to imply rather the age of
the person than the mere duration of his particular actions.
In the second line I suggest as perhaps preferable either
to Nauck's iXOifjLcv, w? /cctvos viov, or to van Leeuwen and da Costa's
unmetrical suggestion IkOiiitvav os ydp, the simple remedy : —
iXOefJLcv ouTOS ydp — .
There is a needless remoteness and estrangement about Kctvos.
The chief difficulties, however, of our passage lie in the third
verse, 1. 319: ex tw avOp<xyiro}v seems of doubtful antiquity; it
is definite, whereas it ought to be indefinite and general : oOev
looks like an importation from 1. 321 : while cXttoito in spite
of attempted defences cannot be right without kc. Hence Nauck
and Cauer would read iXiroLTo kc as do van Leeuwen and da
Costa. But the position so given to Ke, is surely an impossible one.
Fick is constrained to reject 11. 319-22, a very harsh
proceeding indeed.
I would suggest the following : —
e^ wv avOp(i)7ro)V ov k€v eXTroiro ye $vfx<2
iXOefxev'
This gives a natural and easy sense, nor is the development
41
Y 317-421 ODYSSEY
of tbe vuIgate from it a difficult matter, wv would readily
become twv. ovk comes from ov k€v easily enough through the
stages of ov K€ and ov k; and so the intrusion of oOev from
the neighbouring line becomes a necessity.
With the position given to the relative and the noun
compare such expressions as : —
K 222 loTov iTTOLXOfxivr}^ fiiyav a/xySporov, ota OediDv
AcTTTa re kol xapievra /cat ayXxia cpya ircAovrat.
and so I think we should explain ^ 45 : —
cLW' ijxov avTOv XP^ios, o />tot KaKov 6/x,7r€(r€ oikw,
* an evil which '.
Y 3SS] oAA,' 6t€ hisiixaO* Xkovto ayaKXvra. rolo ayauro^*
One MS. Hamburgensis (T) reads dyaKActra, which points
unmistakably to a primitive and unexceptionable ending
dyaKAciTOto avaKTOS.
If we further change ucovro into Xkovov (cf. >; 3, o 216), even the
hiatus is avoided. For the similar toZo yipovro^ v. Note on w 387.
Perhaps in <^ 62 aeOXia rolo avaxros the article may also represent
the ending of a lost word
aeOy avTOio avaKTOS,
* the prize-gear of the king himself.
Y 4*^13 oiXX* dy' 6 fi(V TTcSiovS^ ctti ySow trw, o<f)pa ra^^Lara
tkOrjcriv^ eXacn] Se ySowv eTn/SovKoXo^ dvi^p'
If the second foot in 1. 421 can be defended as a legitimate
dactyl, then we may safely say that the Homeric poems fail to
convey a right impression of what a dactyl is and ought to be.
There can, however, be little doubt that the metre halts badly
in this passage. Now the mere scansion might easily be restored
in many ways, e. g. by prefixing Sevpo or wSc ; but the difficulty
is to find a solution which, while giving a satisfactory reading
in respect to metre and sense, at the same time exhibits a source
from which the degenerate tradition might reasonably and easily
be derived.
In this tradition is there any weakness apart from the metrical
defect ? The second final clause, iXdai^ 8k fiotov ctti^SovkoAos di^p,
comes in very feebly and awkwardly after 6<j>pa Td^KTra tkByaw.
So far as it adds anything to the first clause, it is not indeed final
at all. It merely deals with the means by which the real end,
o4>po- rd\ujTa iXOya-iv, was to be attained.
43
BOOK III Y 421-432
Such being the case I suggest as the original reading : —
€XOr] — TTjv 8 iXdcreie jSodv CTriySovKoXos avijp'
My view is that a parenthetical sentence, which palaeographically
is certainly not very remote from the tradition {iXaGrrj in archaic
writing is iXda-ei, the actual reading of Eustatli.), has through
neglect of a pause in recitation been forced into a false co-ordina-
tion with the preceding final clause. The virtual imperative,
polite possibly, but admitting of no denial, cf. 8 735 : —
dAAa TL<s orprjptos AoXlov KoA-ecrctt yepovra,
comes in more naturally in independent sequence after the final
clause, and yet affords sufficient temptation to the careless reciter
to make the slight changes necessary to produce the traditional
unmetrical reading, by the omission of the pronominal article
and the assimilation of the verb.
For the position of eXOy cf. v 60.
Y 427] o^ ^' oAAot ix€V€T avTov doAAccs, eorarc 8* cwro)
SlXOi-pCTLV.
Pick's ea-n-ere for etiraTi is not to be accepted. There is a deeper
error. Nestor sends several messengers on special errands. Each
commission is given to one individual, apparently one of his six
sons. One goes to the plain to tell the herdsman to bring the
victim for the sacrifice ; another goes to the ship of his guests ;
another to fetch a goldsmith. The rest are to stay where they
are and, if ctTrarc be right, are all required to join their voices to
tell the servants to prepare the feast. Of course, after 6 /x-eV, eh
8e, €15 8' av, the plur. is out of the question. What is required is
something like cts 8c KcXea-Oa), as before (425); but at any rate we
need not suppose that ctTrare is the original here.
Y 432] yjXOe 8€ xaA./c€vs
ottX' €V x^pcrt^ €)(<t>v -^aXKrjLa^ Treipara T€)(yr]<s,
aKfjiovd T€ (Ttfivpdv T ivTTOLrp-ov T€ irvpdyprjVy
oTcTLv T€ xpva-ov elpyd^cTO' ^XOe 8 AO-qvr] — ,
In this last line elpyd^cro has probably been secured from
criticism by the fact that the hiatus has, at any rate since Ahrens
promulgated his views, been regarded as 'licitus'. Such is
the present popularity of this doctrine that I refrain from
basing my objection to dpyd^ero here upon the hiatus at all.
First of all I will suggest an emendation of a simple
43
Y 433-490 ODYSSEY
character, not open to any formal objection save that it remoyes
the hiatus licitus : —
ourtV T€ xpvcroi/ epyo^craf ^XOc 8' *A6-qvrj — .
That the present is possible even after the aor. ^XOe cannot be
denied in face of the well-known lines O 343-4 (= c 47-8): —
ciAcTO Sk pd^Bov, r^ r avZpoiv o/x/jxiTa OiXyti.
uiv c^€A.€t, Tovs 8' avre kol vrrvioovras lyupw
That the present is necessary is, I believe, an inference — and an
inference of some importance — that may safely be drawn from
the presence of the distinctively Homeric tc that follows olo-iv.
This T€, for which, for the sake of brevity, I must refer the reader
to Dr. Monro's Homeric Grammar, § 332 and §§ 263, 266, is only
used in a relative sentence, if the clause, as he informs us, lays
stress on the general and permanent element in the fact stated;
but there is a further limitation, I believe, to this use, not
explicitly pointed out by Dr. Monro, and that is: the relative
must be followed by a verb in the present or aor. indicative, or
in the subjunctive mood. This passage is the solitary exception.
Consequently, unless tc is to be struck out, a course which
I should think no one will recommend, there is no hope for
the hiatus licitus here. We must read at any cost
Y 49^3 fvOa 8c vvKT aecav, 6 8' apa ^eivqLa 8o>k€v.
[Ludwich.]
o 188 €v6a Be VVKT accrav, 6 8c rots Trap ^etVta O^kcv.
[Ludwich.]
As the variants given by Ludwich on y 490 show {avea-av F ;
co-o-av P ; ctrav corrected from lo-o-av Y ; dtcra-av U with yp' Y. —
6 8' apa ^eivquL 8(uk€V most MSS. 6 8c TOt? Trap £7rapa P] ^ctVia Ot]K€V
[Su)K€v J K] ; 6 8c Tots ieLvrjia OrJKcv W) this line — and the case of
o 188, where also some of these variants are found, cannot be
separated from it — has suffered much at the hands of those
disposed to eliminate or soften older usages.
That we should have one reading here and another a little
more modernized in o 188 is not a result that should be accepted
without strong protest. Let each passage shift for itself is not
a sound canon of criticism here at any rate.
The evidence seems to me to condemn apa, irdp (irapa) and
44
BOOK IV Y 490-S 61
Totc decisively and to point with tolerable certainty to an
original : —
€v6a Bk vvKT a€(r<rav, 6 8c $€Lirqta Sw/ccv,
from which both the above forms of the line seem to have been
developed by various devices easily understood.
BOOK IV (8),
8 28] oAA' eiTT* rj a-fjuaiv KaraXva-Ofiev (OKeas LTnrovs
Read oAA' Ivctt': v. Note on ^ 273-5. ^^^ Leeuwen and da
Costa incline to reject the line with many others as well, a
preferable course doubtless to accepting either dAA' tanr or oAA,'
aye /^ctV y crcf>Lv, as they tentatively suggest.
8 61] ScLTTvov Tratraafjiivo) dprqcroixS* ol rive's ioTov.
Clearly Tracrcrafjiivovs is right, as ol tivcs practically shows :
for w Ttv€ is beyond toleration. The verb is a sufficient indication
that two persons only are involved. The MSS. give in some
instances the further debasement TravcrafjieviD, For the plural
adjective with dual noun compare ; —
^283 TOV T<6 y* C<TTaOT€5 TTCV^CtCTOV .
A, 211 ocfypa KOI €tv 'AtSao ^tXa? Trcpt x^^P* /SoXovrc
N 435 Oek^as 6(T(T€ <f>a€ivd, TrcSryo'e 8c KfxuSifia yvta
o) 397 ws ap' €<f>r), AoXios 8* iOvs kU X€tp€ ircTcuro-as
dfi<fiOT€pa9
The tendency to tamper with this freedom of usage could
hardly have a better illustration than is afforded by the Homeric
H}Tnn to Aphrodite, 1. 211: —
tTTTrovs dpcTLTToBas, TOL T dOavdrov^ ffiopiovcrw*
Here the sufferer is not the adjective so far as grammatical
number is concerned. The maltreatment of the adjective is at
the beginning, not the end of the word. For it is clear as noon-
day that the only correct reading here, whatever the MSS. may
perversely show, is necessarily : —
tTTTTO) dc/xnVoSa?, Tot T* dOavaxovi f^opiovaiv. (tw t probably.)
Dr. Monro (H. G. § 173. 2) says : 'The dual is never obligatory
in Homer, since the plural may always be used instead of it.
Hence we often have a dual noun or pronoun with a plural verb
or adjective and vice versa.'
45
8 93 ODYSSEY
8 93] ^5 o^ Tot xaipmv roicrht Krta.r€a'cnv avacraro),
Koi Trarepwv rdSe /acAAct* d/cove/Acv, ot TtV€5 vfuv
ctcriV, cTTCt fidXa ttoXXol irdOoVf kol diroyXeo-a oTkov
€v fxdka vateraoi/ra, Kc^avSora ttoAAo, kol ia-$\d,
wv 6<f)€Xov TpLTdrrjv Trip l^tov iv Sw/xao-t jxoLpav
vaxf.LV, 01 8* avSpcs troot ififxevaiy 01 tot' oXovto — .
The speaker, Menelaus, has just remarked that while he was
roaming in remote places, gathering riches, his brother was
treacherously slain at home. Then follow the words above
quoted. As far as the actual text is concerned there is no
variant of importance, unless we reckon ti for toi in 1. 93 as such
(tl F P, ante correctionem H) : but Schol. H. M. Q. give the
curious information that some read after 1. 93 ridiculously
(ycXotws) : —
ovSi Tt ^ov\6fX€vo<Sj oAAa Kpanprj^ vtt' dvayfoys.
Now this is a most amusing mock, an irresistible reductio ad
absurdum of the beautiful moral of 1. 93, and is worth attention.
Hitherto attention seems to have been directed solely to the lines
that follow, and it must be admitted that the result has not been
entirely satisfactory.
A large number of eminent scholars have ended by rejecting
altogether the three lines from Kat Traripiav to kol la-OXd. This drastic
view, which certainly simplifies matters, is taken by Bergk, Bekker,
Fick, Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, Seeck and Hennings. Apart
from getting rid of the several difficulties in the banished lines it
makes the relative oiv refer to Toto-Sc KTcaTco-o-i, as indeed Lehrs,
Ameis-Hentze and others make it do in spite of the proximity of
TToXka KOL la-OXd. I certainly agree that it is all but a third of
his present riches, not of his former and less valuable possessions,
that Menelaus says he would be content to lose, if he could recall
his dead friends to life. Dr. Merry and Messrs. Butcher and Lang
adhere to the natural reference of the relative, and actually
represent Menelaus as offering to sacrifice more than half of what
he had long ago ceased to possess. This is a sheer impossibility.
Dr. Merry is also clearly wrong in explaining aTrwAco-a oIkov as
alluding to damage sustained by the oTkos during the time
Menelaus was engaged in the war at Troy, as if his unsympathetic
neighbours then took the opportunity feloniously to appropriate
his unprotected furniture and effects. The reference is to the
4<i
BOOK IV S93
"well-known fact that Paris took away with him not only Helen
but all the yaluables he could lay his hands on. The loss of
Helen is always in the Iliad treated as part only of the wrong
done. The Greek claim against the Trojans is for the restitution
of Helen and the property as well.
The first suggestion I have to make with regard to this
Texed passage is that wv represents an original ws. The corrup-
tion is easy and seems to have arisen from the proximity of ttoXXol
Kttt ia-OXd. By reading dbs o<f}€Xovj the full stop after IcrOXd, a very
arbitrary punctuation at present, is justified, and one at least of
the recognized difficulties of the passage is removed without
wholesale athetesis.
To the condemnation of 11. 94-6 I am entirely opposed, not
that I maintain the absolute integrity of the passage, but because
I think the excisory knife has not fallen upon the true culprit.
There has been a miscarriage of justice. The real offender is the
innocent looking 1. 93 : —
ws ov Tot ^(atjpoov TotcrSc KT€dr€cr<Tiv dvd(r(TOi.
This is the villain of the piece, the Joseph Surface, which has
escaped all suspicion because it has imposed upon every one with
its * noble sentiment \ I make one reservation only in favour of
the author of the capital rider : —
ovSe TL /3ov\6fjL€vo<s, dWoL Kpanprj^ vrr avdyKr)^.
He seems to have seen through the smirking hypocrisy of 1. 93,
and his caustic addendum might have warned others and turned
their suspicions in the right direction. They would have found
enough to confirm their doubts. Nauck would have pounced
upon Toto-Sc, as indeed he does without any suspicion of the
doubtful character of the whole line, and proposes to read tolo-lv,
which is wrong. The composer of the line used the word he was
in the habit of using day by day and hour by hour, roto-Sc. He
did not know that Homer had a predilection for roio-tSe or roto-iVSc
as Nauck supposes. Again, the expression dvda-a-oi KTedrea-crL is
unique in this respect that the dative after dvdcra-o) is ordinarily
a locatival dative of persons (Monro, H. G. § 145 (7)) or places.
dvdara-it) and its synonyms always take a genitive of the thing
(H. G. § 151 (f)). Lastly ws may be taken exception to. It
means 'in this way' rather than 'for this reason'. Bekker's
substitution of ws really makes no improvement. The Homeric
47
S 93 ODYSSEY
idiom, in my opinion, rather requires tw in place of ws, v. Note on
y 206. Such are the objections to the phraseology of the line,
surely an ample and serious list : but the real question is what
effect would its removal have upon the whole of this troubled
passage. If the difficulties which beset it disappear with the
disappearance of 1. 93, the case is proved. The whole passage
from 1. 90 would read thus with the two changes I am advocating,
the excision of 1. 93 and the change of wv into ws in 1. 97 : —
elos eyw Trcpt Kiiva ttoXvv ^lotov crvvayctpwv
rjXwfirjv, TCtiws fioi a8e\<f>€bv oAAos Ittcc^fc
Xd6pr}y aviULori, SoXo) ovXofiivq^ dA,o;(Oto*
Kcu Traripdiv rdSe jxeXXer aKovcftcv, ot tivcs vfi/XLV
€t(rtV, €7r€t fjidXa ttoAAol TrdOov, kol aTrwXccra oTkov
tv fidXa vatcraovra, KC^avSora "ttoAAo, kol iirdXd.
ws 6<f>eXov rpirdrqv rrep €)((iiv iv Sw/Aacrt fwlpav
vaUiVj ol S* av8p€9 crooi l/A/Acvai, ot tot* 0A.0VTO
^poirj iv evpeirj €/cas "Apycos hnroftoroLO.
* While I was wandering in those distant lands amassing much
wealth, in the mean time another slew my brother by craft, at
unawares, by the treachery of his accursed wife. And belike you
have heard this my story from your own fathers whoever they be,
for (they would tell you how) I have had many things to suffer,
and I had my house despoiled, right- well stablished, filled with
goodly substance. Would that I dwelt in my halls with only
a third part of my possessions, but they were alive, the brave
men, who died in those days in the wide land of Troy far away
from Argos where the horses graze.'
The clause beginning with iint gives the reason why their
fathers probably told them the story, there was plenty in it to
interest them. Note how he passes the exact detail of his main
wrong. He vaguely says fidXa ttoXAA irdOov and turns the
thoughts of himself and his hearers away from the unpleasing
subject to the merely material loss he had sustained.
Surely this view is better than to make eirel — ia-OXd give the
reason for ov tol xaipmy — dvda-dta. In fact his previous material
losses would rather afford ground for a deeper satisfaction with
his present greater prosperity. Even Dogberry interpreted human
nature better when he made it his boast ' I have had losses '.
For the rest the translation above given renders further
48
BOOK IV 8 93-106
explanation needless : but some idea of the difficulties inherent
to the passage as transmitted may be gathered from the exami-
nation of proposed solutions in the Ameis-Hentze edition, Anhang
8 94-96.
8 106] /xv(oo/xev(i), cTTct ov TL<s 'A)(aLwv Tocror' ifioyrjcrev^
6(r<T 'OSvcrcvs i/xoyrjcre /cat ^paro.
' For none of the Achaeans laboured in so many ways as Odysseus
laboured and — ,' so far all is clear; but what is rjparo? We
may accept the explanation of Eustathius, virifxcLve koL ijSdcrraa-ey
as Dr. Merry does in his very seryiceable and well-known edition.
He renders ifjioyrja-e kol ^paro ' achieved and undertook \ thus
making the expression a sort of vcrrepov irporepov. Perhaps
' achieved ' a little overdoes ifioyrjarej and certainly objection may
be taken to the statement that ^paro comes from atpo), v. on
y 233 above. Ameis-Hentze reach the same sense, 'auf sich
nahm,' more correctly through apwfxau The later Greeks, no
longer possessing apwfjLat as a living word, doubtless preferred to
recognize the familiar atpw, and to this end wrote r/paro rather
than ^p€To with its unfortunate suggestion of epo/xat, 'I ask,'
which last Cobet (Misc. Crit. p. 400) would, I think rightly,
restore here and elsewhere.
Leaving these questions of orthography and grammar, let
us examine the usage of this aor. r/poixrjv or y^pafx-qv in order to
ascertain whether there is sufficient justification for attributing to
it this meaning of ' undertake ' in reference to toil and hardship.
It occurs most frequently, twenty-one times in all, with
KvSos as an object, Kvho^s dpea-Oac {rjpaTo, &c.), with xXeos seven
times and with cv^os four times, meaning clearly 'to win',
* acquire,' ' get.' * To win as a prize ' seems to be the proper and
primary sense, as appears from I 124 deOXta Troaarlv dpomoy
^ 592 {hrirov) r7]v dpofxrjv, H 510 dvhpdypta — ^paro, I 1 88
TTjv dper €$ ivdp(i)v, A 625 ttjv dpcr €k TcveSoto, v 137 oa —
TpOir]<s iiijpaT '08vo-a-€vs. Add to these M 435 fxio-Oov dpryrat
and a 390 TovTo — dpicrOai, i.e. the position of ySaoriAcvs. In
every case so far the object gained is a desirable one. In fact
the Homeric poems present but two exceptions to this usage,
exclusive of the passage under discussion : of these two one is
only an apparent, the other is a real, exception. The apparent
exception is : —
8 io6 ODYSSEY
H 129 €vOa S* Ittcit* avTol fiev c^w/Ac^a Sr}LOT^o<s
€K jSeXeuyv, firj ttov ti? e^' IA-kcI* IAkos aprp-ai.
Who can doubt that the verb is purposely chosen with more
playfulness but with the same ironical intent as we have seen
in the case of ko/xi^w, v. note on H 456 ? The reward they will
reap, the prize they will win will be — a second wound. Obviously
there is no such irony, either playful or serious, in i/xoyrja-e koX
rjparo.
The real exception, and the only remaining instance of this
aor. in Homer, is adduced by Dr. Merry on our passage : —
Y 247 ■n-oAAct fxaX, ov8' av vqv's c/caro^vyos dxOo<s apoiro.
Ineffectually ; for the change of one letter here will give us the
correct verb, which was not, and could not be, apoiro, but,
as usage will vouch, ayoiro; cf. H 467 v^es — oivov ayovcrai,
I 71 Tov v^es ayovcrt, O 396 rjyay^ v^vs, "q 9 v€€s -^ayov, 11 223
Oyjk iirl vT/os ayco-^ai, &c. The probability of this emendation
is further increased by the noun a^^o? itself, which is fittingly
joined with its cognate, or seemingly cognate, verb ; cf. t 415
wSiVwv oSvvya-Lv and Fick's ayptos ayprj, which may serve as an
example, though it be but a figment of the learned imagination.
Nor is the confusion between ayoiTo and apoiro elsewhere un-
known. In O 139 Koi v€Kpbv ayotTo, though ayotro is clearly
right, yet we find apotro S Flor. On the other hand in ^ 297
aa-TTCTov S>vov eXoiro the variant apoiro seems preferable. In
I 124 dcOkia "Troa-a-lv apovro we have an erroneous ayovro in a
good MS. L.
We have now ascertained that there is little or no support
for the idea, derived from Hesychius, that -^paTo can mean
* undertook '. It remains to be seen whether there is any other
possible way of understanding the word in this connexion
ifxoyrja-e Kal rjparo. With some harshness we might render it
* was successful \ * won,' the object being not the labour itself,
but that for which the labour was incurred. He secured the
fruits of his toil. Still this is far from being satisfactory, and
therefore I submit that if ^paro {rjparo) be retained, the sense
must be that Odysseus won the distinction of being selected for
these achievements, *he gained the quest.' He was chosen for
example out of all the Greek captains by Diomed as his companion
in the night attack on the Trojan camp. The idea was a familiar
50
BOOK IV 8106-141
one in the days of mediaeval chivalry. Here the two verbs
would form a vcrrepov irponpov. Otherwise we must fall back
on some such conjecture as
€fJi6yr](T€ KoX ^VVTOf
but as long as the traditional verb can be understood in the
sense suggested it has the prior claim.
8 141] ov yap TTW TLvd <f)r)fJiL ioLKora wSe ISco-Oat
ovT avSp* ovT€ yuvat/ca — cre^as ft e;)(€t el(rop6o)(Tav—
0)9 08' 'OSvcro-^09 ficyaXifropos vIl eoiKCy
Tr}\€iJL(i)((o — .
It may be that van Herwerden is right in changing 1. 143
into
'OSvcrcrrji fxeyaX-qropL Travra €olk€
and condemning the three following lines altogether. For obviously
it is the likeness to Odysseus himself that is the basis of the
identification.
But whether this view be accepted or not makes little
difference to the proposal I have to make with regard to the
reading of 11. 141-2. *For never yet, I vow, have I seen either
man or woman so like.' Like whom ? Either Odysseus or his son
necessarily. But if so, why the words * or woman '. Why should
it be suggested that a woman might be like either of them ? My
reply is that Homer never suggested any such possibility. What
he said was, as the metre shows, if we reject Ahrens's theory, some-
thing slightly different : —
ov yap TTUi TLve (f^rj/XL F€FoLK6Ta<s wSe FiSia-daL
OVT avSp* ovre yvvoLKe.
' I never yet saw, I declare, two people, either men or women, so
like,' i. e. like one another, the man to the man, and the woman
to the woman.
The superiority of this in both sense and metre is manifest at
a glance. Its applicability to t 380 is also confirmatory : —
dAA' ov TTw TLvd (ji-qpii ioLKora wSe iBea-Oat
0)9 (TV Sifxas (fioyvqv re 7ro8a9 r 'OSvcr^t €OLKa<s.
The likeness between the beggar-man and Odysseus is closer, not
than that between any one else and Odysseus — that might mean
little or nothing — but than that between any two people she
(Eurycleia) had ever seen. Therefore read : —
dAA,' ov TTio TLvi <f>r]ixL ioLKoras wSc tScc^at.
E 2 51
8 i62 ODYSSEY
8 1623 ccASero yap ere IhicrOai
6<f>pa ol ^ Tt Ittos V7ro6-q(T€aL rji tl tpyov.
With two slight changes the last line may be thus reconstructed : —
o<^pa ot rf Tl CTTia-a irrroO-qcreai rje tl €py<o.
The introduction of the dative brings the passage into line with : —
A 394 €t TTOTC 877 Tt
"^ CTTCt wvrjcra's Kpahi-qv Atos rj\ koX cpyw (<7€ Tt Bentley),
504 rj cTTCt rj ipy<o {6vr)(ra)y
E 879 TOLVT-qV 8' OVT€ €7r€t TTpOTLJSdkXeaL OVT€ Tt CpyO).
The combination of the plur. iTrctro-t with the sing. Ipyw may easily
be defended by such examples as Y 367 cireWcrt — cyxct S\ 396
c7r€€0'<Tt I /cat Scopo), n 630 TcAos iroXcfjMV, CTrecDV S' — .
For the elision see Note on e 328 ff.
The admissibility at least of the proposed emendation, so far as
Homeric usage is concerned, being granted, let us see whether this
metrical correction is, or is not, essential to the meaning of the
passage. The difficulty of the vulgate is this, that while vTroOrjaeaL
Ipyov must mean ' suggest an act ', ' suggest that something should
be done,^ it is equally certain that wroO-^a-eaL Ittos can only mean
* make a verbal suggestion ', * utter a suggestion,' * say something
by way of suggestion.' To put it another way, it is just as incon-
ceivable that vTToOrjaeaL tpyov should be translated * suggest by an
act ', ' do something by way of suggestion,' as that viroO-qa-eat Ittos
should convey the absurd idea * suggest that some one should say
something '. The absurdity is even more apparent if we add an
adjective. Who would venture to render viroOea-Oac ttukivov Ittos
' to suggest that some one should make a wise remark ', though
none would hesitate to translate viroOeardaL ttvklvov tpyov * to suggest
to some one a wise action ' ?
In technical language Ittos in this phrase is the accusative of
the internal object, Ipyov the accusative of the external object
(v. Monro, H. G. § 132). The combination of the two here, even
though the rather unepic figure zeugma be called to the rescue,
results in such an unmanageable complexity, that translators
have very properly preferred the bolder course of treating either
both as internal or both as external. Messrs. Butcher and Lang
(1879) adopt the second alternative and render: *that thou
mightest put into his heart some word or work,* in fact, suggest
something for him to say or do.
5a
BOOK IV 8162-222
* Dass du Rath ihm zu Worten ertheiletest oder zu Thaten ' (Voss).
On the other hand Worsley's verse translation gives elegant
expression to the other alternative: —
For he was fain to see thee and enquire
If word or work thou knowest to forward his desire.
These last words convey, I believe, the true meaning of the
passage, but also involve necessarily that the second line (163)
should be read as emended : —
6<f)pa ol ^ TL CTTCo'cr' v7ro6^<r€aL yi n c/yyo),
* that you may now suggest to him something either by word or
act,' i. e. generally * in some way or other ', or more definitely * by
advice and assistance \ both of which the speaker's father, Nestor,
had already given to Telemachus.
8 222]] 05 TO Kara^po^ctev, hr-qv KprjT^pL fxiyeirj,
Two MSS. have iTrei, which is of course right, and is read by
Thiersch, Bekker, van Leeuwen and da Costa. See also Monro,
H. G. § 362 on iirrjv. I think it is worth suggesting that iir-qv
has come in here not from an original cttcI av which would be
intermediate, but from cttcI iv, the true reading being : —
OS TO Kara^po^ct', CTret iv Kprjrrjpi fjnyeirj.
The full construction would be iv Kprjrrjpi oti/o) fJnycLr), as the drug
is mixed not with the bowl but in the bowl with the wine. We
have the preposition : —
A 259 178' ev SaLO\ ore Trip tc yepovcTLOv aldoTra oTvoVj
'Apyciwv ot apio-Tot, ivl KprjTTJpt K€pwvTai.
K 356 rj Sk rptrr] Kprp^pi /AcXt^pova oTvov iKipva
rjhvv iv apyvpi(o — .
V 252 iv Si T€ otvov
Kprfrrjpa-LV Kcpooivro'
a no ot pxv ap otvov ifiLcryov ivl Kprjrrjpa-i kol vSuip,
There is but one passage that supports KprjTrjpL as a locatival
dative : —
r 269 opKta TTttrra OeStv crvvayov, Kprjryjpi Sk otvov
/xtVyov — .
Even there it is quite possible that the original was : —
opKia Trtorra Oewv ayov, ev Kpryrqpi h\ otvov.
Indeed if I am right in my supposition that T 105 is an interpola-
tion (v. Note on \^ 233) the compound verb must be wrong.
As is well known, the later Greeks renounced the elision of the
53
8 283-349 ODYSSEY
was, instantaneous. But here the idea of a prompt reply,
a reply on the instant, is hardly admissible. No third person
could check such a thing, not even Odysseus, though we relieve
him of Anticlus here.
Consequently I submit that here also we should read ai}r and
not ati/^', nor do I think it quite unwarrantable to suggest that
Aristarchus himself did so.
As for the metre the third foot is simply intolerable. The
hiatus in the middle of it is bad enough, but nothing in com-
parison with the lengthening of rj in thesis before an open vowel.
I suggest : —
rj i^iXOifJiev [iTTTTOv], rj evBoOev a\f/ v7raKovo-at (cf. 6 515, X 531).
So or by some similar insertion only (avrtV, &c.) can the line be
made to scan at all. That it is an error to hold that ^ cannot
be shortened legitimately under such circumstances is proved by
the following incontrovertible examples : —
Z 367 ov yap T 0T8' 17 6Tt cr<f>LV VTroTpoiros t^ofixu avris,
K 451 ■^c 8t07rT€V(ro>v rj evavri/Siov iroXefu^oiv'
n 515 els rj ivl ^poiy' Svvacrai Sk (rv iravroa-* oKOViiv
<E> 113 17 o ye hovpX ^aXuiv 17 aTro vevp^<fiiv owrrw.
576 €t Trep yap KftOajxevos fiLV rj ovrdcrr] rjk ftaXy(nv,
^724 V 1^ avacip*, ^ cyo) <T€' ra 8* av Att Travra fJiiXrjarei.
y 94 6<f>6aXfWLcrL Teolanv 17 oAAov jxvdov aKovcra^
8 7 '^ 4 Tarpos kov 17 vootov 17 ov rwa Trorfxov hrifnrev.
t 497 €t 8c <f>6€y^afjL€yov rev 17 avSiyo-avros aKovo-c,
X 58 e(f>Or}^ Treves iwv ^ cyo) crvv vrjl fieXaivjj.
TT 2 1 7 <l>r]vaL rj alyxTTnol ya/xi/ra)vv;(€S, olcri T€ T€Kva
p 252 (rrjixepov ev p-eyapois, ^ vrro /xvrjaT^parL Safictr],
384 fidvTLV rj Irp^pa KOKOiv rj riKTOva SovpotVy
472 ^XiqeraL 17 ircpt /3ov(nv ^ dpyevr^Js oUcrcriv'
V 63 avTLKa vvv 17 Ittcitci ft* dvapird^axra Ov€XXa.
(I) 430 oAA* ay€T€, Trpiv tovtov 17 €S JlvXov wKa LKecrOaL.
These instances are sufficient to establish the prosody or metrical
usage illustrated by the proposed emendation. A law so simple
and harmonious one would scarcely expect to find unrecognized
among scholars, but even in the more recent edition by van
Leeuwen and da Costa the above shortening of rj is regularly
accompanied by the mistaken comment * rj insolite corripitur '.
^ 3493 See note on v 83.
66.
I
I
BOOK IV 8497-500
8 497] tv vdcTTO) dwoAovTO* iJid)(r) Se re koI crv iraprja-Oa.
What is re doing ' in this galley'? In the statement of
a particular definite fact this particle is entirely out of its
element, and it would be difficult to formulate a sentence less
general and indefinite than ' you also were present in the battle '.
The MSS. can hardly be held responsible, for re is only found in
one, the Harleian, and even there it is corrected by the second
hand into rt (Sc re H (l" superscripsit sec. man.) Se rt DTUK;
Si TOL post correcturam T'^; 8' In FGPJS Ludwich). Editors
desiring to escape the Scylla of 8' ert have blindly rushed into the
Charybdis of re.
However, though I believe the case for tc here is a bad one,
let me not overstate it. There is one defence open. It may be
said that fxaxr) is used here in a distributive sense, and that re is
found with a frequentative verb in three passages at least : —
€331 oAAoTC /A€V T€ NoTos BopcT^ TTpo^oXecTKe (f)ip€(r6aL
T 86 Kat T€ fi€ veLKcUcTKov' cyo) 8' ovK atTios etftt
Y 28 KOL Be re fxiv kol irpoa-Oev vrrorpopLeecrKOv 6p<i>vre<s
The case therefore against re with the imperfect is certainly not
so strong as that against os re with that tense : v. note on y 435.
I own I am not thoroughly satisfied however with the above
instances. In c 331 re might easily have superseded an original
€ (Fe). In T 86 veLKeCovcTLv, the present, seems to me required by
the sense, and almost indispensable. Again in Y 28
vTrorpofieovcT opotovres
is metrically (or perhaps I should say formally, for opwvrcs is
unique) and idiomatically much to be preferred, cf. t 448
ov Tt 7rapo5 ye keXeifJifJievos ep^eai oidv.
YI201: k 553, &C.
There appears now^ I submit, some reason for suggesting
that here, in 8 497, iiaxQ ^^^ ^®®^ wrongly assimilated in number
to voo-TO) and that the primitive reading was : —
eV VOOTTO) aTToXoVTO* fLOLXyO-L Sk KOL (TV TTttp^CT^a.
8 50^1 Tvprjaiv fXLv Trpwra TLoa-eihamv eireXacrcre
irerpya-LV fxeydkycn — .
The first line has clearly been modernized to a slight extent
in order to introduce the noun TvpaC instead of the adjective.
Read : —
Tvpaiyai e Trpiora UocreiSdoiv eTreXaa-ae ♦
57
8 500-673 ODYSSEY
The corruption is of course due to the false idea that irpCyra could
not but lengthen a preceding open vowel. The improved metre
is exactly similar to the movement of y 320 : —
iXOe/xev, 6v rtva 7rpu>Tov aTro(r<f}-q\(ii(rLV acAAai.
Lastly, if Homer had entertained any preference for the noun here,
he would, we may be sure, have said Tvpdoiv not Tvp^o-t)/, which
makes an awkward apposition.
8 514] <^^' OT€ 8r) rax efXiXXe MaXctawv opos atTrv
l^eaOaiy totc St/ fxiv dvapTra^aca OviXKa
TTOVTOV €7r' l)(9v6€VTa <j>ip€v jSapea a-Tevd^ovTa,
dypov €7r i(r)(aTirjv, o6l Stofxara vale 0vccm;s
TO rrptV, OLTap tot €vat€ ©vco-rtaSiys Atyttr^os.
dXA.' 0T€ Sr] Kol KiL$€V i<f)aLV€TO VOOTOS dTrrjfJUOVy
\a{f/ 8k diol ovpov crTp€if/av, kol otKaS' ikovtOjJ
^Toi 6 fjikv •)(aiptjiv €7r€y8iyo-€TO 7raT/3t8os ati/s,
Kol KVV€L aTTTO/ACVOS rjv TTttTptSa*
This much-vexed passage may be allowed to stand in the
order in which we have received it from tradition, if we remove
the bracketed line, 520. It is an utterly mistaken elucidation of
vdo-Tos dTrrjpMv. The expression, moreover, is confused, for ovpov
(rTp€i(/av quite fails to convey the meaning ' changed the wind to
a fair breeze ' ; the change of subject is at least harsh, and the
metre is also imperfect.
Without this absurd interpolation the passage may be easily
explained. Agamemnon has been driven by the storm to the
extremity of the promontory of Argolis. He is a long way from
Mycenae, but when he thought he saw a prospect of getting home
to Mycenae even from that remote spot (koX k€i6€v) without again
facing the perils of the sea (vootos dir-qpAav), he landed at once,
there and then, and was glad of the chance.
The attempt to reach Mycenae by land did not prove
aTrrjfXMv, but in my view this is just the grim irony of the poet, and
has only escaped notice through the misleading explanation
obtruded by 1. 520.
8 6733 ^? €<f>a6\ ol 8' dpa TrdvTts iTrgveov 178' iKiXevov
Read ws ckcAcvcv as we have it in * 539. The vulgate is due
to the influence of 7; 226, v 47. Similarly in 398 w? ckcAcvc is
preferable. In such cases the sense of the passage is of more
moment than the consensus of MSS.
«8
BOOK IV 8684
8 684] /xr] fjivr)(jT€vcravT€^ firjS* aXkoO* o/xiXyja-avTes
ivarara /cat Trvfxara vvv ivOdSe SenrvT^creLav.
The only question here, by no means an easy one, is the proper
Tinderstanding of 1. 684. There are apart from minor details
two main lines of interpretation, which it is necessary to
» mention : —
(i) ' that — neyer having wooed me, nor ever having met
here (alio tempore) — they may now eat their very last meal in
this place' (Merry). So Ameis-Hentze. This version resolves
the couplet into three separate wishes, of which it is the
agitated and somewhat indistinct expression, (a) Would that
they had never wooed me. {b) Would that they had never
met here at all on any occasion, (c) May they now eat their
last meal here. The two negative wishes may, of course, be
reckoned as one, the second being regarded as a repetition of
the first in more comprehensive terms. aXXod\ which may
represent either aWoOt or oXAorc, is a difficulty. The un-
desirability of either in this version is apparent; but while
oXXoOl admits of no explanation at all, being nothing less than
a flagrant contradiction, oAAore might refer to meetings held
at Odysseus' house previous to the commencement of the woo-
ing. As wdll be seen in the sequel, I believe oXXoOl to be
right and to stand in necessary contrast with ivddSe in the
next line.
(2) ' Nay, after so much wooing, never again may they come
together, but here this day sup for their last and latest time '
(Butcher and Lang). Similar is *No — these suitors — let them,
never meeting again, now eat their last meal' (Liddell and
Scott). So Hermann, Passow, Nitzsch, and we may add Monro
(H. G. § 361) *May they (after their wooing) have no other
meeting but sup now for the last time '.
In this view both negatives, firj and firjSe, are taken with
6/AtAiJ(ravT€s alone, the other participle, fivrjoTeva-avres, being treated
as parenthetical and, as it seems, almost equivalent to the noun
fivrja-TTJpc^. aAAore is again accepted rather than aAAo^t.
L. Lange's peculiar explanation, that Penelope merely sup-
poses the case that this might be the last meal of the suitors,
and then immediately, or even before, she has said it, for the
negatives precede, checks herself with a No ! No !, indicates at all
69
8 684 ODYSSEY
events that there is something unconvincing in the ordinary
versions of the passage. It shows moreover a very scrupulous
regard for Penelope's good name, making her exhibit a womanly
gentleness and kind feeling, which is quite in accord with
Eustathius' remark on ivOdSe (685) : — to Se ivOdSe cTrtciKois ippiOrf
o)<s iMY) aTrXois iTrapiajxivq^ r^s IIiyvcXoTnys tcr^arov tovto Scittvov rot?
fxvrja-TrjpariVf el kol oXXoOl ScLirveiv IBlkova-i. They may dine any-
where else, she is supposed to remark, but I hope they will not
dine here any more. I am sorry to say, in reference to a lady,
that I have no doubt whatever Penelope here frankly wishes
for the suitors nothing less than what actually overtook them in
the end — sudden death. The perusal of the opening scene of
Book XXIII of the Odyssey ought to convince any impartial
reader of the total absence of the modern humanitarian element
from the feminine mind in the heroic ages, whenever real injuries
have to be avenged.
I will now submit my own idea of the exact meaning of
this much vexed passage : — * Or ere they go a- wooing or consort
together elsewhere may they now here make their last and final
meal.'
I treat the two participles with absolute impartiality,
placing them fairly on an equal footing, not giving to one more
or less than I give to the other, yw,^ /xnyoTcvo-avres (lit. * not
having wooed'), ' without going wooing,' * before they go wooing
elsewhere ' (oAAo^i), refers to future time, a usage that may be
illustrated for the benefit of young scholars by such a sentence
as this : — t8u)v NcaTroAtv ^avois, * see Naples and then die,' * may
you die after seeing Naples.' Here tSwv refers to future time
absolutely, but to past time relatively to Oovol^. Now if we
desire to negative the participle, we can only do so, in a wish-
clause, by adding /a?}, as here, so that p.r) tSwv = ' before you see,'
* without seeing.'
The two participles considered in relation to one another
form a sort of va-repov tt/wtc/oov, for Penelope means to intimate
that the suitors would find themselves sooner or later in one
another's company in somebody else's house, ready to prosecute
another suit there, unless their career should come to an abrupt
termination here, as she prays it may. I confess I do not see
how this rendering can fairly be disputed. The only real
60
BOOK IV 8684-694
lovelty in it is the making o-XXoOl refer to both participles
tlike : but there is nothing so umisual in that as to constitute
serious objection. Both Greek and Latin, no less than our
>wn language, allow such a position for a word, when the
jcond participle, as here, is used to supplement the first.
*ossibly Eustathius, although his statement is not sufficiently
jxplicit to prevent misunderstanding, was in possession of what
hold to be the right yiew : rtves Bk 8vo reXeias ivvotag ivo-qa-av
€tcv Kttt e^s (perhaps ro jxrj /xvYjcrTcvoravTes -ciav, i.e. fxvrja-Teva-eiav),
erepav Sk to vcrTara SecTrvrjareLav. Eustathius in any case is not
responsible for the common error of supplying i/xe as object after
fjLvr)crT€v(TavTe^. There is no need for any object, but if one be
required, let us try aXXrjy, ^ another lady,' as aXXoOt suggests, and
the meaning will be apparent.
It is hardly possible in a discussion of this passage to leave
unnoticed the equally difficult but still very diiferent : —
A 6 1 3 IJL7] T€)(yrj(rdfX€vos fJ'rjBi' oAAo Tt re^-qcraLTo.
I do not think that even here firj is rightly separated from
T€xv>7ora/x€vo9 ; but for the sake of brevity without examining
other views I will content myself with offering a translation of
my own with just so much explanation as to make it intelligible.
Literally then : * Not having designed such another before,
neither may he design such another again.' In effect, 'I hope
this is the only one of the kind that he has ever made or ever will
make.' I take aXXo ri with both verb and participle, just as in
8 684 aXXoOi is taken with both participles. The work, the
TcXa/Awv, is so a-fxepSaXeo?, that it is devoutly to be wished that it
is, and will always remain, unique.
8 694] olXX' 6 fX€V vfX€T€po<s ^v/xos Kol aciKia epya
cfiaLveraLj ovSe rt? ea-rt X'^P'''* f-cTOTrwr^' evepyeoyv.
Penelope is drawing a contrast between the conduct of the
suitors and the example set by Odysseus in earlier days. He lived
with their fathers,
ovT€ Ttva pe^as c^atViov oure Tt ctTTwv
and again
Ketvos 8' ov iroTC TrdfXTrav drdadaXov dvSpa i(i)py€L
The point of the contrast is confined to the negative merit of
61
S 694-756 ODYSSEY
abstention from wrong in word and deed, and rightly so because
it is precisely in this respect that the conduct of the suitors is
complained of. But the last line, 695, goes further than the
argument requires : it constitutes an appeal for a grateful
recognition of good deeds (cve/yycwv) done by Odysseus.
In itself such an appeal would not be unnatural, but here it
is surely irrelevant, because it draws away the attention abruptly
from the main contrast.
When in addition to this we find a form eve/yycwv (gen. plur.
neut.) of €V€py>is =• well-made, well-wrought, used as equivalent
to ' good deeds ', we may fairly doubt the genuineness of this line,
which begins, in the manner usual with spurious additions, by
supplying a verb to the line preceding.
This argument will be quite conclusive, if a satisfactory
predicate can be found for 1. 694, which certainly cannot stand
by itself, and exhibits a doubtful noun Ovfios and a more than
doubtful 6. The latter is removable ; Ovfws may be a trans-
position of fjA)Oo<s (cf. 1. 690)
aXka jxev vfifi irepos fJLvOos kol dciKca cpya.
* But verily your way of speaking is other than his, and unseemly
your deeds.'
8 73*D ^^ y^P ^y^ TTvOofJLTjv ravrrjv ohbv bpfxatvovra,
The pronoun is here necessary, but cannot be inserted after
ravrriv as van Leeuwen and da Costa suggest. The only admissible
correction is ct 8e F' iyw. The supersession of 8e by yap is not
uncommon. In the one other example of this participial usage,
which is without a pronoun, N 353, we have a very suspicious,
though not unexampled, ending of the hexameter, rjxOiTo yap pa.
For this we might write rixOcro Se o-</)€a5, and thus correct both on
the same principle. For the construction v. Monro, H. G. § 245, 2.
8 755] Trdyx^ ^€019 jJiaKap€(r(TL yovrjv 'ApKctfrtaSoo — .
Nauck's Ta>9 fxaKapeara-L OeoLcn will not do. A better solution
would be : —
irdyxv yov7}v fxaKapca-a-i Oeota-* * ApKCLcndSao.
^ 756] oAA* €Tl TTOV TIS CTTCO-O-CTai, OS K€V ^XO^''
Bw/xard & v{f/€p€<f>€a Kal diroTrpoBL rrtovas dypovs.
Here van Leeuwen and da Costa ruin the verse by reading
v\l/6po<f)a for v\l/€p€<f>€a. An examination of Homeric usage gives
this result. Neither adjective is elsewhere used in the plural at
62
BOOK IV 8756-777
all. Next we find that v{l/6po<f>o^ is applied to two nouns only,
6dXafio<s and oTkos ; while vi{/€p€(l>'q<s is even more closely restricted
to 8w/xa and 8<o, in the eleven instances of its appearance. These
facts suggest, and fairly warrant, as the restoration here : —
hwfxa ToB' vi{/€p€cf}€<s Kal aTroTrpoOi irCovas dypovs-
The reason for the corruption is obvious. Moreover toSc beside
its palaeographic fitness has the support of the somewhat similar
vo(T<}>L(r(TafX€vr] roSe 8w/Aa of Penelope r 579, <^ 77, 104 ; cf. also
p 105, o- 37, $ 395.
8 777] fJivOov, o Srj Kot TTOLcnv IvX <f>p€aiv rjpapcv ffpXv,
Here we have one of the most remarkable instances of stead-
fast adherence to an impossible tradition in the face of conclusive
evidence that it is wrong. The MSS. unanimously give rjpap^v.
Only from the second hand of P and H do we get evaSev. The
question is can rjpapev mean ' pleased \ ' suited,' * commended
itself,' literally 'fitted' in the intransitive sense. To determine
this we have first to appeal to what we may call the general rule
that reduplicated aorists are transitive ; next there is the
usage of r}pa.pov itself, which is as under : —
€ 95 avrdp eTTct ScLTrvrja-e kol iQpape Ovfxbv iSwSfj = ^ III.
Alio KOL TO, fxkv d(rKrj(ra<s Kcpao^oos ijpape reKTiov
M 1 05 ol 8' CTTCt dAAiyXovs dpapov rvK-rrja-L ^oecrcri,
n 2 1 2 (OS 8' ore TOLXOV dvrjp dpapy TrvKLvotcri XlOolctl — .
^ 'JI2 <i)S Ot' djX€i/3oVTeS, TOV<S T€ kXvTOS r]pap€. TeKTWVy
€ 252 LKpia Sk arrja-as, dpapwv OajxicrL aTafjLLV€<T(Ti,
TT 169 ws av pLvrjaTrfpcriv ddvaxov koX lajp dpapovre — .
So far the instances are unmistakably transitive; but as
might be expected there is one supporter, a weak-kneed one, of
this rjpapev in 8 777. It is 11 214, and is particularly bad,
because it is only separated by one line from an example of the
correct transitive use.
ws dpapov KopvOe^ t€ kol dcnrLBcs oficfiaXoecrcraL.
The remedy is either to accept from Bentley
K6pv6d<s T€ KOL dcTTTiSas o/x<^aAo€<r(ras,
which serves well enough, or to read dpOev (dpOev Aristarch.) as
in 1. 211.
It seems to me pretty obvious that rjpapev here is really due
to the influence of c 95 ( = ^ iii). The expression in those two
lines, though grammatically entirely different, yet conveys the
63
/^^^^
f UNIVERSITY I
8 777-831 ODYSSEY
same general idea of satisfaction which is here attributed in a
different sphere to all the suitors. This approximation of ideas
would suffice to suggest, seeing that only a practically obsolete
word is concerned, the misuse of which could give offence to
none, that the passages might be even more closely assimilated
— in form as well as in substance — by introducing rjpapev into
8777 also, especially as nothing had to be sacrificed save a still
more derelict verb evaScv.
In any case it is clearly impossible to avoid condemning
T^papev, which miserably fails to justify itself, whether we try it
by the particular test of the usage of this form itself, or by the
more general test of its agreement with the very considerable
number of similar old reduplicated aorists in Homer, which are
all transitive in meaning, e.g. XiXaOovy XcA-a^ov, KCKaSw, kckvOov,
T€ray<i)Vj xewoXtuv, iri^vov (ttc^cvov), •^Ka;(€, oXoAxe, rervKOvro,
XckafSia-Oai, Ki-^apovTO^ KeKXero (KeKcXero), &C.
r/papev being disqualified we must, I submit, adopt the alterna-
tive which the tradition fortunately still presents, evaScv.
8 813] (oSvvawv) TToAAccov, at fx IpiOova-i Kara <f)p4va kol Kara 0v/x6v.
Read at TroAAat fx — . Cf. 160, « 323.
8 831^ ct ficv Sr) ^€0s icra-i, Oeoio re IkXvcs avSrj<s.
If, undeterred by the mysterious awe that hedges hiatus licitus,
of which the above line exhibits an excellent example, I
venture to restore for the concluding half of the line ; —
Oeov T€ T€* €kXv€s av8^s,
few will refuse to recognize the facility with which such an
original would first become Oeov re l/cXvc?, and next by an
equally easy modification for the metre's sake the Oeolo t€ €kXv€s
of the vulgate, cf. B 272 XapoTroio t' avaKTOS for XapoTrou re
amKTOs, r 140, &C.
No doubt T€ {t€o) might have been preserved in the form
T€v, and our MSS., if we are to follow with servility their
authority on such a point, give warrant for that form only of
the gen. of ns before a vowel. Hence we may write here Ocov
T€ T€v €kA.v€9. Should it be said, however, that rev must have
been retained, if the pronoun ever existed here at all, the argu-
ment, I submit, ought not to carry conviction, as it is one of
that peculiar character that admits neither of substantiation
nor of refutation. In any case the conjecture perhaps deserves
64
BOOK V 8831-655
to be mentioned for two reasons, firstly, because it strikingly
exemplifies a corruption arising from a simple lipography, and
secondly, because it indicates that even an apparently irre-
fragable instance of hiatus licit us may after all be a mere
debasement, instead of a genuine survival, of the archaic
original.
BOOK V (e).
e 55] oAA' 6t€ Brj T^v VTJcrov d<f>iK€TO rrjXoO' iovaav,
t 543 oAA' oT€ Srj rr]v if^aov d<f)iK6fJi€0\ tvda nep oAAat,
t 1 8 1 dAA* 0T€ 8^ Tov •)(pipov d<l>LK6/x€6' cyyus iovra.
The use of the article with vrjaos (x^^pos) here is commonly
counted as one of the marks whereby the Odyssey is adjudged
to be a more recent work than the Iliad. It would hardly be
possible to adduce from the Homeric poems a more apparently
unimpeachable example of the defining article of later Greek,
V. Monro, H. G. § 261, 3. It seems to me therefore quite worth
while to examine these passages with a view to discover what
amount of reliance can be placed upon them as evidence that
the article so used is genuinely Homeric.
Now the word vrjaos is by no means a rare word in Homer,
for it occurs some seventy times. The article is found with
it only in six instances, two of which are given above. This
number, six, is perhaps not inadequate for a budding usage
still in the early struggling stage of its development. But
there is one very peculiar feature about the combination. It
is only found in the accusative case singular — rather a suspi-
cious limitation, though the instances are but six altogether. —
With regard to x^pos indeed the case is somewhat different.
The above instance is unique so far as the accusative is con-
cerned; but there is one exa,mple of the genitive also, </> 142
dp^dfxivot TOV x<^pov. This, however, only makes the curious
deficiency noticed in the case of v^cros still more marked, unless,
we decide to athetize <^ 142 on the ground that the suitors needed
no explanation of lirihi^ia.
The stability of the article in our three passages is to a
certain extent weakened by these considerations. It begins to
wear the aspect of an intruder. Even so it would perhaps be
a bold, though hardly an unwarrantable, proceeding to dislodge
AOAu s 65
€ 55 ODYSSEY
it at once and to attempt to replace it by mere conjecture.
Fortunately, we can dispense with guessing and — a much safer
course — make appeal to Homer himself. Let us compare : —
X 22 yojxev, o<^p €S ;((upov d</>tKd/i,c^, ov <f>pd(r€ KipKr}.
A 446 01 B* OT€ S-q p' cs \oipov Iva ^vtorrc? XKo\rrOi = 60.
Here we see the original formula, fairly free from suspicion of
corruption or modernization. It may be noticed in A. 22 that
o^pa — and there is no easy method of rejecting the services of
this conjunction — presents an insurmountable metrical bar to
the introduction of the article, while in A 446 (=0 60) the sense
absolutely precludes the possibility of its appearance. Accordingly
we may restore in i 181 without much hesitation ; —
dXX* OT€ hrj p es ^iiipov d^iKO/xc^' eyyus coWa,
nor indeed need we fear to extend the analogy to the other two
passages, .€ 55, i 543. Clearly the trio must stand or fall together.
Read then :—
>\\i t <>/c», « f a.(biKero rnXoO* eovcrav,
aW 0T€ brj p cs vrja-ov^ , \
{ acpLKOfXiu , (.vua Trep oAAat.
So far as regards the usage of the verb (d<^tKca-^at) and the
preposition (es) in combination with this particular noun, v^o-ov,
it may be useful to compare : —
K I Aiairjv S' i<s v^(roi/ afjuKOfi^B^' tvBa 8' cvaie = k 135
yu, 1 2 7 ®pivaKLr]v 8* cs vrjcrov d^t^cat* evOa Sk TroAAat
261 avTLK €ir«Ta Oeov is apLvptpva vqcov
From these facts we get an insight into the general principle
which governed the introduction of the defining article into the
Homeric poems. The process may be regarded as coincident
with the development of the later usage. Wherever with a
delicate and loving regard for the credit of The Poet the article
could be introduced without detriment to the meaning and metre,
there it insinuated itself and was ultimately allowed to stand.
So the process went on of bringing Homer up to date. Now let
us look at the remaining four instances of rqv vrjcrov. These must
have an interest as tending either to confirm or invalidate the
hypothesis which is really an inference from the facts already
stated. We find then : —
fi 201 dXA* 6t€ Byj ttjv vrjaov cXctVo/xev, avriK iireira
403 dAA' 6t€ Bjj Tr)v vTJ(Tov iXfiirofJitVf ovSt Ti? oiXXrf
66
BOOK V €55-59
I 146 evO* ov TL'S TTjv vrjcrov iaiSpaKey 6<f>6ak/Jioc<riv'
/x 276 dAAo, Trap€$ Tr]v vrjaov iXavven vrja fjLekaivav.
In the first two examples aXX ore Srj vrjcrov /xev seems a probable
restoration, because //.eV in this position as an emphasizing particle
■without a corresponding 84 is quite Homeric, e.g. $ 301. In
later times, however, this particular usage became unfamiliar
and antiquated.
In the last two instances the remedy, if other than the
above, is not determinable from parallel passages. I will content
inyself with suggesting that the t^v vrja-ov in t 146 might have
come from rrplv vrjcrov, and that in fx 276 from rdxo. vrja-ov. It
is clear that either adverb could be readily dropped to make
accommodation for the article. The adverb would retire socialiter,
as Horace says, as an act of friendly politeness. Of course other
suggestions might be made as to the exact word supplanted by
rrjv, but neither passage, I submit, affords support of the slightest
value to the one-sided idea that the accusative case singular of
vTJa-os possessed in epic times a special and peculiar right to the
services of the defining article, a right apparently not conceded
to any other case of this substantive.
See also t 375 (Note),
c 59] 'rrp fxkv €7r' i(T)(ap6<f>LV fieya KaUro — .
Probably the archaic gen. Icrxapoo should be read here. The
later nom. was ia-x'^pVi ^"^ i^ the Odyssey, besides drr' i(Txap6<f>Lv
twice {ri 169, T 389), we have only iir icrxo-fyt) five times (^ 52, 305,
V i53> i 420, V 123) and Trap* la-xdprj once ^ "ji.
Clearly in these last six instances ka-xo-pov would serve better
in point of metre, for -ry of the dat. is not freely shortened before
a vowel. If we put side by side : —
e 59 "^P /^^ ^'J"* co-;(a/3d^tv /xeya KaUro
, V 123 dvc/catov €17 e(Txdprj aKoifjiaTOV irvp
it is difficult to believe that the so-called metaplastic form,
i(Txcip6<f>i, does not afford better evidence of the real Homeric
word than any number of repetitions of an inevitable moderniza-
tion, for such CTT ia-xd-py would be of iir ia-xo-pov {icrxapoo,
ia-xapo').
The only evidence the Homeric poems present against this
probable conclusion is afforded by the cui'ious line, in which the
noun occurs in the Iliad ; —
F 2 6>
€ 59-79 ODYSSEY
K 418 oo-cat jX€V T/)o>o)v Trvpos €(T\dpai, oTa-iv dvdyKr)^
ot 8* iyprfyopOacTL — .
Few, probably, will find this evidence convincing. It requires
a stalwart faith in the truth of tradition, far more than I can
claim to possess, to trust to such an anchor. Of the two rival
versions we may say with Virgil : —
Et vitula tu dignus et hie.
I will not criticize them. Let them rest in peace. They are past
praying for.
Me muttire nefas. nee clam nee cum scrobe, nusquam.
€ 62] 8ato/A€j/o)v 17 8' €v8ov dotStaovo"' otti KaXrj — .
"We have A 604 afxaf^ofxevaL oTTL KoXrj of the Muses and
K 221 d€L8ov(rrj<s otti KaXrj of Circe. This is the only place where
the original digamma of ottl (vox, vocis) is clearly disregarded,
for A 137, ^ 98 are clearly perversions of iiraKovarav (-cv) and
cannot be relied upon.
Here we have the remarkable variant noted in Sch. H P Q
yp Koi ovT(09,
8ato/A€V(ui/* vufx,<f>r) 8k IvTrXoKafxova-a KaXvif/u).
The basis of this variant is the proper name. The rest is
evidently derived with the least possible change from 1. 57
T(0 €VL VVfX<li7}
vatcv cvTrXo/caftos*
We see in this a good example of the easy growth of a variant,
if a start once be given. I suggest that the line originally stood
thus : —
SatofieVwv 17 8* €v8ov dotStaovo-a KaXvj/rw,
The more attractive otti Kaky, which I would not willingly
abandon, if it were admissible, can only be due to the reminis-
cence of A 604 and k 221 helped by k 226 : —
u) <f>L\ou, €v8ov yap tis iTroL)(pfXiV7] jxiyav iotov
Kokov doiStact — .
c 79] o^ y^P 'T* dyvo>Tes Oiol aXXrjX.OL(Ti TreAovrat
dOdvaTOLy ovS' €t tis dTroTrpoOi 8(i)fxaTa vaUi,
The condemnation of these two lines by R. P. Knight
(' commenta putida et inficeta ') was probably based on the
general consideration that the explanation was not needed.
Still their presence in the text shows that the hearers of the
Homeric poems at the time of their insertion had a liking for
68
I
BOOK V € 79-188
these little explanations, and if so, why should not the earlier
hearers in the time of Homer himself have liked them also ? Why
I in fact should not the audiences for whom the poem was originally
composed have had the same simple curiosity to know the reason
,why Calypso recognizedHermes as thepauUo-post-Homericaudiences
must have had ?
In other respects the only objection that can be raised
against 1. 79 is that dyvon-cs is not found elsewhere in Homer.
We have only ayv<x)crTo<s (^ 175, v 191, 397) 'unrecognized',
* unrecognizable.' Here dyvcurcs means apparently 'unable to
recognize', otherwise dyvwo-Tot would have served. But we
must also not forget that the later Greeks were quite capable
of changing ayvworot into dyvwres on their own responsibility.
We cannot therefore reject the line on this ground.
To 1. 80 may be objected the flatness of dOdvaTot in such
an emphatic position and the hiatus in the second foot (illicitus).
In the other examples of initial dOdvaroi, A 64, 128, 8 586, there
is real force and no sequent hiatus. Here I would suggest that
the true reading and punctuation have been slightly interfered
with because of the influence of the two lines just referred to,
and that here we should read : —
ov yap T dyvwres Oeol aXX-qXato-L TreAovrat,
dOavdruyv ov8' €t tis diroTrpoOi Swfxara vaUi.
This order of words is not unlike such examples as : —
o 35 dOavdroiv os Tts crc (fivXdcrcriL re pveral re. 25, &C.
V 143 dvSp<av 8* €t Trip rts ere yStr/ kol Kdprei ctKwi/ — .
and on this principle in 8 187 toV p 'Hovs cktcivc cf>a€Lvrjs dyXaos
vlos we may venture to restore
»TT ' <y e» w
Moos OV p €KT€IV€.
€ 183 J otov Br) TOV fxvOov i'7r€<f)pd<r0r]^ dyopevarau
Probably otov Srj nva fivOov, Compare 1348 : —
6<fip €l8rj<S otov Tl TTOTOV ToSc VTJVS €K€K€'vO€L .
The same remedy may be applied to the other similar depravation,
X 519 (v. Note).
€ 188] dXXa TO. fxkv void) kol <fipd<T(Topxi.i
^pda-a-ofxaL here apparently represents an archaic <f}pdSa-ofiaA,
i. q. <f>pd^ofxaL. There is no point in the change to the future
here. The action is sufficiently marked as progressive by the
present t^nse.
69
€ 190-255 ODYSSEY
e IQO] Kttl yap ifwl voos iarlv evawrtftos, ovSe fwt avry
OvfJMS evt (rnjOeara-L crtSiypcos, aXX iXiTj/xinv.
An impossible contrast between the speaker, Calypso, and
the gods of Olympus is suggested by avTT7. Read ovrco with
o"i8>yp€os, as (y 315) ovTO) v'jr€p(f>id\ovSi (H 198) vqij^d y ouro)?,
(8 543) do-KcXcs ovTO), (v 239) ovTiii vcow/xos, (r 169—70)
KoXoV 8' OUTO) €yu)l/ OV TTW tSoV O^BoXllOLO'LVy
orS* ovTO) y€pap6v
€ 209]] Ifi€ip6fji€v6s TTtp IBea-Oai
ayjv d\o)(OV — .
Read apicrOai V. Note on y 233 p. 36 f. It is surely possible
that Calypso should here ironically and jealously speak of
Penelope as the prize which Odysseus was longing to win
V. 8 107 (Note). Bentley's suggestion of Uco-^ai seems to me
less likely, not so much because Uco-^at comes also at the end
of 1. 207, as because its usage when followed by an accus. of
the person hardly justifies its occurrence here. Perhaps others may
feel that this is so, on comparing 8 84, ^ 304, >/i4i,ti5T, o 109,
518, p 516, »/r 314, A 139, H 260, X 123. Only in this passage
would ' to draw near to \ ' to approach ' be felt to be inadequate.
€ 2403 o,va TTctXat TrepUrjXaj rd ot TrXwoiev i\a<f>pm.
I suggest that this line originally read thus : —
ava TToAai TrepLKTjX , a kc ot irXwoiev cXa^pws.
The pure optatiye here is not of course entirely without
the support of other passages, in which we might have expected
to find K€, as E 303 for example. But both after past tenses
and primary tenses (Monro, H. G. § 304), the weight of usage is
altogether in favour of the necessity for the particle in such
clauses as this, whether we regard them as final or virtually
independent. Compare from this same book : —
166 ivOrj(T(i) jxevouKi, a kIv tol Xifiov ipvKOL — .
142 ot Kev fuv ir€/x7rot€v ctt' ivpia vCyra 6aX.dcr(rr)<i {=■ 8 5^0, € 17)'
The case of y 319 q. v. is similar to this in respect of the
omission of kc, as also is y 231, where the question is discussed
in one of its aspects,
c 255] irpos 8' dpa TnjSdXxov Trotiyo-aro, 6<f>p Wvvoi.
Here we may restore the Homeric form of expression, and
bid farewell to another example of hiatus licitus by reading : —
Trpos 8' dpa irqSdkiov irofqaaTO, ry k iOvvoi,.
70
BOOK V €255-265
Messrs. van Leeuwen and da Costa condemn the line as
spurious on the extraordinary ground that a rudder would be
a useless encumbrance, if the wind were favourable. 'Guber-
naculum non requiritur ab eo, cui ovpov dea a tergo est immissura ;
rati autem additum vix quicquam potuit prodesse.' The learned
critics cannot have had any experience of the ways of a
small sailing boat. They would probably be surprised to find
that the only time the rudder is perfectly useless is when there
is no breeze blowing at all. If they were to try to effect a
landing at any given spot, with a fair wind a tergo, as they say,
and no rudder, their efforts would certainly be more amusing
to the spectators than to themselves. They would probably recant
about the non-necessity for a rudder at once and for ever,
c 2613 fxox^OLCTLv 8* dpa rrjv yc KaTeCpvcrev cts oAa Stay.
Bentley proposed rrjv Karaeipva-ey. It would surely be better
to retain n^v yc and read, not KariFpvarev, an imaginary form
suggested by van Leeuwen and da Costa, but KaOuXicvaeVf cf.
B 152 ajma-Bai vrjwv yB* kXK€p.€v €is aXa Slav — »
H 97, 100. Conversely, B 165 oAaS' kkKipuev might be corrected
ipv€LV oAaS*.
€ 265] €V Si ol axTKOv e6rjK€ Oea fiiXavo'S olvolo
Tov €T€poVf trepov S' vSaros fxeyav, ev 8c /cat ^a
According to the not particularly valuable terminology of the
ancient critics 1. 266 is dK€</>aXos, * headless,' because it begins
with a tribrach instead of a dactyl. This licence is a neces-
sary one with such words as ^€<f>vpLr) {rf 119), Ittltovos (/a 423),
UpiafxiSrjq, &c., but €T€pos involves no such necessity. More-
over we may observe it is not the head alone in this case that
exhibits a quantitative defect but, to continue the metaphor,
the shoulders also are similarly afflicted, so that the epithet
aKe(f>aXos by no means reveals the lull horror of the pheno-
menon. In plain words we have here not one tribrach only to
commence the line but two consecutive ones, both wholly
gratuitous.
I believe that Homer never could have propounded, and never
did propound, such a metrical monstrosity as a verse at all. The
staggering melody of: —
TOV IrCpOV, €T€pOV B*
71
€ 265 ODYSSEY
appears to me to be nothing but the glossarial transformation
of the primitive : —
rbv fjiAv, rbv B* erepov.
Let Homer himself Touch for his own usage. Our recog-
nized text affords a fairly abundant crop of examples in point
from both Iliad and Odyssey : —
E 145 TOV /U,€V VTTCp /Att^OtO jSoXobv ;)((xXK17p€t SoVpLy
Tov 8' €T€pov iL<f>€L fX€ydXw KXrjlBa Trap" u>fwv.
V 67 Tr]v fi€v (f>apo<s exovarav hmXvvks ySk )^LT<j)va,
Tr)v S' krip-qv ^^y^ov ttvkiv^v afi oiraa-are ko/ju^civ.
X 149 ^ fiev yap 6* vSari Xiapw pccLj * * *
ri 8' eriprj depei irpopeei iiKvia ;)(aA.a^iy.
I 429 6 /x€V €v fX€(rio avhpa <f>€p€crK€,
TO) 8' cTcpo) kKOLTipOev LT7)v (TioovTes kraxpov<s.
K 352 Tttwv 17 fi€V kfiaXXc OpovoLS evL p-qyia KoXa, * * *
7} 8' krkpr) TrpoTrdpoiOe Opovtav cTtVatve rpairc^a?.
/X 73 Ot 8c hvO CTKOTTcXoi 6 pXV OVpOVOV €VpVV LKaVCL * * *
(lOl) rbv 8* €Tepov crKOTreXov )(Oa/JuiX(i)T€pov 6\J/€\ '08v(ro'€v,
M 88 ol fikv ajx "E/cTop' tarav * * *
(93) Twv 8' krepoyv Ilapis ^PX^ '^** 'AXkci^oos.
Cf. n 173 * * * 179.
Outside Homer reference may be made to Hesiod, Op. 14, Mim-
nermus, 2, 5, &c., but the quoted passages are surely sufficient to
establish my position.
Now in later times this particular formula passed out of use.
It is elliptical, and any one who was desirous to set it forth at
full length, would of course write erepov before or after p,tV,
producing : —
TOV erepov /xev, tov 8' Inpov.
Cf. H 272 x^tpi 8c T^ €Tep7y pAv ♦ * *, t^ 8' kr€prri. The next
step is to delete p,€v leaving Irtpov in sole possession, and
necessitating cTcpov 8' instead of tov 8' cTcpov.
So far I believe, few will refuse to accompany me in this
emendation; but I am less confident about gaining assent to
the proposal to transpose v8aTos /tcyav, which nevertheless I hold
to be essential to the complete restoration of the line : —
TOV /xcv, TOV 8' CTcpov /icyav v8aTOS.
Unfortunatelysome scholars seem anxious, as the later Greeks
probably were here, to relieve Homer, wherever possible, from
7a
r
BOOK V €265-279
the imputation of having needlessly and heedlessly lengthened
the V of vSoip, The most reasonable conclusion seems rather to
be this, that the long quantity of the vowel is just as valid for
the old epic as the short one, which ultimately prevailed.
It may of course be asked, why, if the above statement
of the matter be correct, the other instances of 6 fxiv — , 6 8*
€T€po^ were not tampered with and altered in a similar way.
To a certain extent the question is an irrelevant one, for after
all every passage is subject to its own special risks ; but apart
from these it may be well to note as a general rule, that the
modernizing process, guided by the intuitive vox populi rather
than by any learned critical acumen, is likely to have been
applied more freely to the text of the Odyssey than of the
Iliad because of the greater popularity of the more romantic
and adventurous poem. More particularly, as may be seen
from the above examples, this is the only passage in which t6v
/xcV is immediately followed by rov 8' crcpov. In every other
instance what may be called the peculiar irregularity of the
contrast is made less apparent by reason of the interposition of
several words, in one instance {/x 73 ff.) of a considerable
paragraph. To the possible influence of rSaros I have already
alluded.
€ 279] oKTiDKaLSeKOLTr] 8e (fidvr} 6p€a crKiocvra (= ^ 268).
The true reading here is, I submit :—
<f>dv€(rK opca
*the mountains began to appear', 'became gradually visible'.
The aor. is wrong, if Classen's explanation of rjeXLo^ Svctcto be
regarded as sound. For <f>dv€(TK€ see fx 241-2, X 587, A 64..
The following line
ycuiys ^aLr]K(i)v, 061 r ay)(L(TTOv ttcXcv avrw
is a manifest interpolation of an ordinary kind. Some one was
anxious to give prompt information as to the w^hereabouts of the
* dim mountains ', and of course his yairjs ^ai-qKwv is right and
unexceptionable. He could hardly fail so far, especially as he
had 1. 345 to borrow from and rj 269 to inspire him: but what
are we to say of the remainder of the line ? ' Where it was
nearest to him ' is an extreme specimen of flabbiness and bathos.
It is needless to point out that neither ttcA-cv nor avrw is properly
Homeric. Accordingly the line must be disallowed.
73
c 279-328 ODYSSEY
It follows that in the difficult 1. 281 : —
cwraro S' ws ore pivbv iv rjepoeiBiL ttovtw
the subject to ilaraTo is op€a, and there may be more in the
reading ipwov attributed to Aristarchus by the Scholia, and
explained by them and by Hesych. as equivalent to vc<^os
* cloud ', ' mist ', than is commonly supposed. This is undoubtedly
what distant mountains would seem like to the eyes of an
approaching sailor. Odysseus does not seem to know that he
is near any land until much later, after he is informed by Ino.
If he had seen anything like a shield, ptvov, or a promontory,
piovy he would have had no doubt about the matter, and would
almost certainly have asked himself what land it could be in his
first soliloquy, 11. 299-312.
c 303] OLOLOTLV vi<l)ei(r(TL 7r€pL<rT€<f)€L ovpavbv evpvv
Zcv's-.
The correct construction of 7r€pioT€<^€t in this sentence would
be Ota ve<fi€a ir€/3t(rT€<^€t ovpav<5 cvpet. The true verb, however,
is, I submit, ir€pLTp€<f}€Lf ' curdles.' Two MSS., Palatinus and
Hamburgensis, come as near as 7r€pioTpe<^€t. So in E 903,
where TrcptTpet^crat is accepted from Eust. and the Lexica, the
MSS. are solid for TrcptoT-pcc^cTat. Even in | 477 the same
depravation may be traced. The restored metaphor is certainly
a very striking one.
c 328] a)s 8' OT 07r(opLi/6<s Bopciys <f>op€r)(rLv aKoivOa^
afjL ireSioVf TrvKLval Sk Trpos aXXT^X.r)(riv Ixovrai,
a>s Tqv OLfx. TTcA-ayos avc/xot ^ipov tvOa koX tvOa.
In the last line I propose to read instead of aft TreAayos, which
is a needless assimilation to the aft TrcStov of 1. 327, marring both
the metre and the picture, h TreXdyea-a. The phrase occurs five
lines further on in the description of Ino ; —
vvv 8' oAos iv TreXayccrcrt ^cwv €^ ifx/xopi riiJLrj^.
and again in the Hymns, xxxiii, 15 Acvk^s aX6s eu inXdyea-a-Lv,
in both cases enjoying absolute metrical protection.
In the passage under discussion the thistle-down, or what-
ever it is that is denoted by aKav^as (1. 328), is blown over the
ground which it never touches or touches only at intervals;
but the water-logged raft, half sunk in the waves while it
is being carried this way and that by the winds, is never
for a momcAt lifted above the surface of the sea. Therefore
74
BOOK V C328
iv 7r€Xay€(r(n conveys a more realistic and true idea of the
scene than a/x. TrcAayos. In this connexion Curtius' explana-
tion (Gr. Et.* p. 278) of TTcXayos as the beating buffeting water
(TrAay-, TrAijo-crw, plango) is interesting.
The dat. plur. in -co-i and -eara-L was peculiarly liable to
misapprehension and corruption when the t was elided before a
vowel. One instance I have already dealt with, 8 163 €7reo-(r' for
€7ros, if my idea be right. Perhaps it Avould not be out of
place here to set down briefly an instance or two, where this
particular error has upset the grammatical construction : —
E 329 aTif/a 8e TvSei'Sryv fxiOcTre KpaT€pii>W)(a<s lttttovs.
Here Zenodotus read KpaTtpwvvxior* anroLs. Rightly, I think;
for the objection to tTTTrots at the end of the line (pace Nauck)
cannot be sustained, cf. N 426, T 274, 8 578, &c.
An interesting and tolerably convincing example is afforded
Hes. Op. 4)9 ^fxevos a.iJi/q(TeL<s, oXiyov Trepl )(eip6i icpyiov.
Clearly nothing can be made of )(€Lp6<s. x^^P^^* i^pymv accounts
for the tradition and gives a satisfactory sense. Hermann indeed
suggested x!Eip\ cepywv restoring the grammar at the expense of the
metre. Believers in a long i of the dat. may accept even this : sed
non ego credulus illis.
So also I would emend the curious phrase in the Hymn to
Hermes : —
153 KciTO xikvv iparrjv ctt' dpLorrepa x^tpos iepytov.
;(€tp€cr* €€/oytuv, * clasping in his arms,' is surely meant.
This same form x^^P^^' ^^^ produced x^tpas more than once.
Take the case of: —
O 228 eTrXerOf ottl TrdpotOe v€fJL€(rcrr)6€ls VTroet^c
X€t/3as i/xois, €7r€t ov kcv aviSpwrt y iTeXicrOrj.
There can be, I should imagine, little doubt as to the necessity
for x^^P^^^ ^P-V^ here, and I may take the opportunity to point
out that the first line also seems to require a slight change to
restore its integrity, thus : —
€7rXeO\ OTi TrpoTrdpoiOi. vefXicrcrrjOeLS VTroei^c
X€t>€0-' ifirj^'
very similar is : —
X 63 ovSe K€v a)S £Tt x^tpas e/>cas Xri^aipn (fiovoLO,
where x^^V^o"* ^P-V^ ^ ^ manifest grammatical improvement,
75
€ 328 ODYSSEY
ixeipecr aTroXXrjiaLfxi?), unless we are to suppose that X-q^aifxi
has superseded Trava-aLfxL, a possible but not very likely con-
tingency, as it would be more natural to expect the converse
change, cf. Hym. Dem. 351, 339.
Again in the common phrase vSiop iirl x^^P^** c^cvav (-cv)
(r 270, I 174, a 146, 8 216, &c.) we may at least suspect that
X€tp€(r' was once read, if only from li 303 x«po"iv vSwp iirixivai
and 8 213 xepal 8' c<^ vStop ^cuavTwi/.
Neither do I think we ought to place implicit faith in the
correctness of the accusatives fivrjarrjpas ayqvopa^ in the following
passage : —
y8 235 oAA' rj TOL fivrjoTrjpas dyrjvopas ov tl fieycupa)
€p8ctv €pya ^iaia KaKoppa(f>Lrf(rL voolo'
The dative fxvrja-n^peir ay'qv6pt(T seems almost, if not quite, essen-
tial to the sense, as otherwise the grudging would naturally
be taken to apply to the persons addressed by the speaker, in
this case the people of Ithaca. In the parallel passage y 55
there is of course an intentional ambiguity.
I will conclude with a passage in which the grammatical
construction cannot be very seriously objected to. It is : —
A 5 1 avrap cttcit' avroLO-L ftekoi ex^TrevKks i<f>uls
/3dXX\
There are however considerations, setting aside the metrical gain,
which lend support to the subjoined emendation ; —
avrap cttcit* avrovs yScXcco-cr' ix'^TrevKea edicts
/3aXX\
The dominating verb in thds sentence is, as its position proves,
pdXX\ not the participle €<^uts, with which compare the usage
of the synonymous titvo-ko/xcvos in T 80, x ^^^y ^^ even UWcs
B 774, 626, p 168. See also remark on fiefivrjfjifvrj a 343.
Moreover the tense of this verb, indicating, as it does, a repeated
action, accords better with a plural than a singular noun.
The corruption is not in itself unnatural to a reciter familiar
with 0) 180 : —
avrap tiriiT oAAoi? i^Ui ^cXca arovoevra
avra tituotko/xcvo?, — .
But there the verb is €<^i€i, and the participle, as I contend should
be the case here, does not influence the construction.
The above evidence, I submit, is sufficient to establish a very
7^
BOOK V 6 328-379
strong probability that this particular misreading has been to a cer-
tain extent a real source of textual error. Cf. v 163, ;( 460 (Notes).
€ 343] eLfiara ravr a7roBv<s o^eSuyv aviixoLcri <f>€p€(rdaL
koXXltTj drap '^(iipicrcn vctuv c7ri/xat'co vdorrov
yat>ys ^ai^Kwv, oOi rot p.oip Icmv dXv^ai.
I suggest here v6a-<f>L in place of the impossible voa-rov. It is
clear that the commentators and translators are mistaken in
taking -^^Lpio-a-i with veW. That x^Lpeaa-L goes with c7ri/xat€o and
nothing else is placed beyond doubt by
A 591 Twv OTTOT l6vcr€L€ y€p(i)v €7rt X^P^^ fidxrao-Oai — ,
I 302, T 480,
vcwv v6a-<liL, * swimming away from it/ the o-x^Slt], just
mentioned, the drifting wreck.
The arrangement of the words is not unexampled. Com-
pare : —
^142 rj yovviov Xlo-o-olto XajSoiv cvoiwrtSa Kovprjv
X 423-4. See also Classical Review^ Ma.y, 1899, p. 195.
€162 aXX dyeSovpara fiaKparajJioiv dpfjL6t,€oxo-XK(o | €vp€Lav (rxeBirjv
€ 379] aAA' ov8' ws crc coA.7ra 6v6(r(r€(r0aL KaKorrjTOS
(KaKorrp-a XU ante corr^cturam FD [os superscriptum F^ D^,
Et. Gud. 581, 60 Ludwich).
Here KaKOTqra, the ace, should be read of necessity. ovo/i,ai,
'to make little of (v. Note on p 378), occurs with sufficient
frequency to leave no doubt upon the point : —
A 539 hfda K€V ovK€TL Ipyov dvrjp ovocacTO fiereXdiov — .
N 1 2 7 Kaprepai, as ovr dv kcv Aprj^ ovoa-airo ficreXOwv — .
P 399 Tov ye tSov(T ovotratr', av8* el fxdXa jxlv ;)(oAos lkol.
5 95("" P ^73) ^^^ ^^ o"^ d)Voa-dfjir]v Trdyxy ^/oeVas, oXov eenre<i.
O 439 ovK dv TL<s TOL TTOfJLTTOv 6vo(rcrdiJievo<s fiaxecratTO.
I 55 ov Tts TOL TOV fxvOov ovGCTtTCTat, oor<roi Axai-OL
N 287 ovSe Kev evOa Teov ye /xcfos kol ^eipas ovolto
6 239 veiKea-ev ws av <rr)v dpeTTjv ^poTos ovris ovolto
^427 ovx <Ss fie /MvrjcrTTJpe^ dri/xa^ovTcs ovovraL
P 2 5 ^S yftrj^ d7rovr)0\ ore fx wvaro Kat fJL vire/xeive
Not only so, but the reason for the appearance of the genitive
here is quite apparent. In the passages where this verb is used
with irony as here, the ancients, oblivious of the irony, were con-
tinually attributing to it the meaning of the middle voice of
77
c 379-i 29 ODYSSEY
oviv-qfjiL. See the scholia on p 378, O 241, Apoll. Lex., &c. Of
course ovqa-ojxai does take a genitive : — r 68 Satros ovqcro.
n 3 1 Tt o-cv oAAos ovrjo-erai oxj/lyovos yrep ;
and P 25 above. In our passage ovqa-icrOaL Anec. Oxon. I.
449, 18.
For the rest I will just draw attention to the fact that here
only IXTTo/xai is used in reference to a matter within the speaker's
own power. Is Poseidon doubtful of his ability to execute his
threat ? I trow not. The use of the verb is part of the irony
which has generally escaped the notice of commentators. He
makes pretence of being not quite sure, o-e ye FiXirofi ? If so,
the later Greeks preferred a hiatus to the elision of a diphthong.
^ 393] — /xeydXov vtto Kvfjiaros apOeis.
Read /tcyaXw vtto KvfjiaT depicts. For VTTO with dative v.
Note on y 235. van Leeuwen and da Costa read i-n-L needlessly.
€ 42l]| rj€ Tt fioL KOL K^TOS €7naar€VYj fiiya Saifxatv
6^ dA.OS, Old T€ TToAAd Tp€(j>€L kXvTO<S ^ AflcfuTpLTr]'
Schol. Harl. gives the information that Aristarchus wrote
€tv dXt, are, TroXXd. According to Aristonicus he had i^ dAds.
The latter seems hardly possible, seeing that Odysseus himself was
actually elv dXt. I submit that Aristarchus really read the two
lines thus : —
^€ Tt fwi Kol K^TOS €Tri(r<T€vri ficya Sat/uuov,
€tvdXt' ola T€ TToAAd ktA,.
Compare for the order of words /a 331, t 15, and Note on « 80
above.
BOOK VI (C),
t 29] ^'f y^P "^OL TOVTiov ^ttTi? avOptoTTOV^ dva^aiv€L
kcrOXr)^ •)(a.ipov(Tiv h\ iraTqp koX ttotvul pirp-qp.
The scholion of the Codex Harleianus, collated by Porson for
the Grenville Homer, runs thus : Ik yap tol toiovtcov <^dTts dvOpio-
TTdiV dva^aivcL' KaAAicrTpaTOS 8k X^P*-^ ^*^' ''"^^ X"-P^' P-^TairoLrja-at hi
<f}y](TL Toi/ *ApL(TTO(fidvr)v 0dTts. If the statement that Aristophanes
altered x^-P'-^ *^ <^dTis be trustworthy, that critic is certainly
entitled to the credit of having maintained the true reading
against a dangerous intruder. But there is an even more
important piece of information to be derived from this scholion,
78
BOOK VI I 29
viz. that its author read 1. 29 with two considerable yariations
from our vuIgate as given above. He clearly had the couplet
before him in this form : —
(Ik yap roLOvrayv ^aris dvOpwTTbiv dva^aivei
la-OXrj^ XaCpova-LV 8e Trarrjp kol Trorvia fJi'qTrjp.
' For from such things a right goodly report among men ariseth,
and father and lady mother rejoice.'
We have not, it is true, €k yap tolovtcdv actually presented,
but only the intermediate dittographic stage, iK ydp rot Totovrwv,
through which the vulgate is readily and, it might almost be said,
inevitably reached. But after all it is a matter of comparative
indifference whether we say ' from these things ' (not surely * from
these men ', as one editor at least would have it), or * from such
things '. The second change, however, dvOpw-n-oiv for dvOpw-jrov^, is
one of considerable importance and, unlike the former, may be
regarded as essential not only to the integrity but also to the
intelligibility of the text. It is, I submit, a quite inadmissible
and unwarrantable vagary to render dvOpw-rrov? dvajSatvet, as we
are now obliged to do, ' spreads among men,' instead of ' ascends
men ' or ' mounts up men ', which rendering indeed would serve
excellently well, if men were only mountains or could be regarded
poetically as elevations, cf.
A 497 rjepLT) 8' dve/Srj /xeyav ovpavbv OvXvfXTrov t€.
0-302 '^ fikv CTretT* dve/Saiv VTrepwia 8ta ywatKwv.
From a recognition of this difficulty dvOpuitrov^ dva /Bcuvei has
been excogitated, or adopted from Eustathius, by Hermann and
welcomed by Nitzsch, who actually rebukes Hermann for having
bestowed words of approval on dvOptomov and dvOpiawots (Schol.
MS. Pal.). But to say nothing of the fact that dva dvOpomovs is
hardly a Homeric expression (v. Ebeling Lex. Hom. s. dvd), I am
afraid this dissevering device equally fails to give a satisfactory
result. In fact it leaves the matter pretty much as it was except
that men are now fancifully regarded as possessing horizontal
instead of vertical extension.
No wonder then that Dr. Merry remarks of the vulgate in his
note on the passage * this construction with dvapaCvuv finds no
exact parallel ' ; but when he proceeds to say ' though Eustathius
says well dvafSaivcL ofxoLOTrjTd riva e^et tt/oos to dvaSeSpofic ', the
point of adding this as a qualification of the first remark is not
79
1 29 ODYSSEY
at all clear. It enforces what has gone before, but does not
modify it in the slightest degree. The only difficulty is that
dmySatVct is, if anything, too much like dva8cSpo/i,€ ; for neither
verb will admit after it an accusative such as avOp(i>7rovs with
any propriety. Schol. R. interprets dvaySoiVet here as transitive,
ava/3Lpa^€L, av^ci : but this is of course an error. It would really
be better, if the ace. had to be retained at any cost, to change
avapatviL to dva<f>aLveL, ' sets men in the light,' * gives them
notoriety,' or to something equivalent. There is, however, no
need for such extreme measures. The expression in the scholion,
<f>drLs dvOpwTTOiVj ' what men say,' ' popular rumour,' is not only
satisfactory in sense, but is thoroughly in accord with Homeric
usage, as can easily be shown. It seems indeed that ^drts never
occurs except in combination with a dependent genitive : —
^323 dXX alcrxvvoiJievoL <f>dTLV dvSpiov rj8k yvvatKwi/,
1 460 hrjixov OrJK€ cfidrLV /cat oviiSea ttoAA* dvOpwiriov,
Once this genitive is objective : —
j/^ 362 avTLKa yap ^dris eTcriv dp! rjikiio dvvovTi
dvSpwv p,vr)(TTT^p(i)v, ovs €KTavov iv p^eydpouTLV.
Quite similar is the usage of dvOpca-n-wv in such expressions
as: —
2 35^ ^5 V^^'' V€/x€crtV T€ Kttt aLcr)(€a iroAA* dvOpwTTiav.
661 Kttt atSo) Bia-G' cvt 9vp.Ca
dXXiiiV dvOpd>7r<i)v.
Z 202 TTctTov dvOpii)7rtov dXeciVwv (cf. t 1 1 9).
cr 1 36 Toto5 yap voo's icrrlv c7rt;j(^ovtojv dvOp^Trmv.
p 487 dvOpwrOiV vftpLV T€ Kttt €VVOp.LrjV €<l}OpiOVT€<S.
1 134 rj 6ip,L^ dvOpwTTiov ttcXci, 276 (=T 177).
There still remains Nitzsch's objection to dvafSaiveiv used
absolutely in the sense of * mounts', 'arises'. His words are
* dva/3cuv€Lv kann nioht metaphorisch stehn '. Now we have this
compound used without the object being expressed in : —
/x 7 7 ovSc K€v dpL^aty} ySporos dvr]p ovS* iTri^curj,
Furthermore the amount of metaphor involved in the passage
is a mere nothing compared with that which is involved in the
acknowledged use of other compounds of /SatVw, e. g. Trpo^SaiVciv,
n 54 o "^^ KpdT€L Trpo^f/Si^Krj, dp,<Piftcuv€iVf Z 355 TTOVos <f>p€va<:
&p.<f)LpiPr)K€v. These instances are a sufficient refutation of a
limitation which is almost as unmeaning as arbitrary. Eustatbius,
80
BOOK VI I 29-^32
as we have seen, had no hesitation about suggesting avaSiSpofxe as
the nearest equivalent of dvaySatVei here.
The aboYe arguments, which would go a long way to prove
the reading charts avdpoiiroiv avafBaivii, even if it were a mere
conjecture, as in the first instance I admit that it was, are,
surely, amply sufficient to confirm the variant of the scholia of
two MSS. Harl. and Pal., especially when we consider that an
original avOpdiiroiv might captiously be objected to as liable to be
erroneously taken to agree with the preceding tolovtihv or tovtwv,
to say nothing of the natural inclination to give avaftaLveiv its usual
accusative. But Homer was satisfied with essential clearness of
expression, and his text has only too often been tampered with
and made to suffer from the ill-regulated fancies of grammatical
purists.
£ 32J Kttt Tot cyo) (rvveptOos ap! l<|/o/zat, o0pa raxf-crTa
ei/Tvvcat, CTTCt ov tol tri hr^v TrapOivos ccro-cai.
The metrical wreck, for it is nothing less, of 1. 33, well,
illustrates not so much any inability of the later Greeks to com-
prehend the principles of epic metre, as their decided preference
for less antiquated methods of scansion, in fact, for a nearer
approach to the prosody of their own times. Even if their
reverence for Homer prevented them from actually introducing
ivTvvr) and £0-07/, it is clear that the scansion of both these forms
is practically secured here.
Originally, instead of ivrvveaL, which we are told is an aor.
subj., stood ENTYNEAI, that is, ivrvvrjaL, or as it should now be
written with the elided syllable omitted, ivrvvrj', the present subj.,
' that you may be getting ready.'
With regard to the ending there is some reason to think that
the word -KapOivos in Homer's time had not yet reached the precise
sense which undoubtedly belonged to it in later times. Like the
Sanscrit ' vardh ', to which it has been traced, it seems to mean
merely * young girl'. See B 514, and note the usage in : —
^109 w? 17 y aix(f)L7r6XoL(ri jxeriTrpiTre irapOivo^i dS/xyy?.
228 d/x,^t 8c ct/xara Itro-a^', d ol Trope irapOivoi d8/x,?ys.
It is an easy matter now to restore ^ 33 to its original
form : —
ivTvvrf, eTTCt ov tol cti Sr]v €o-(rcat dS/xiys*
Hap^cVos is the inevitable gloss, which has displaced dSfxrjs as
AGAR (J 8£
i; 32-60 ODYSSEY
a refinement demanded by the delicate scrupulosity of a more
artificially cultivated age. By itself aSfju-qs is in short an airpi-rri^ :
even in ^ 109 we still can trace an attempt to eliminate it in
favour of an aesthetic ayvrj.
\ 60J KoX 8c (Toi avTO) loiKC ixtTa TrptoTOixTLV iovra — .
This line has been corrected by Fick into : —
Kol 8 avTov ere €oik€ fjL€Ta TrpuiTouriv Iovra
by van Leeuwen and da Costa into : —
Kttt o- avTw Sc loLK€ fxeTCL TTpoyrouTiv Iovra
and previously by Payne Knight into : —
Kttt 8€ crot avTw com /xera irpoiTOixri eoLK€.
The traditional order is undoubtedly wrong, as Ioikc (FeFoLKc) could
no more drop its initial F in Homer's day, than XiXvKe could shed
its initial X in the time of Thucydides. It should be noticed,
however, that there is very fair MSS authority for iovri as against
foiTtt, as also for €xovtl in 1. 61.
The second of the above emendations we may disregard, as it
is vitiated by the position assigned to Se, a position unwarranted
by epic usage. Against the first there is no such tangible
objection. Still, it is not quite fanciful to observe that, with
the pronoun emphasized as here by avrw (avrov), and perhaps
by /cat, it is very questionable whether the accusative is even
possible. The impropriety falls upon the daughter in the first
place for her negligence, but also (xat 8c) upon Alcinous himself
for allowing the neglect of duty, and suffering himself to be untidy
on such occasions. It seems to me then that the datives o-ot avrw
must in any case be maintained, and if so Payne Knight's arrange-
ment is the only possible one.
This raises the interesting question whether transposition of
words should be recognized as a form of corruption in epic verse.
Great modern authorities have hastily answered this in the
negative ; but their position is certainly untenable. It would be
impossible here to examine in detail even a tithe of the passages
which it would be necessary to consider for the full discussion of
the point. I will, however, refer to a few examples without
comment. Not altogether unlike the present case is : —
Hes. Op. 234 TLKTova-Lv Sk yvvatKCS ioLKora riicva yovtxxnv.
where yovcCo-t — yvvatxcs is required.
8a
BOOK VI 560-82
N 204 ^K€ 8c /JLLV <r<f>aipr}86v iXi^dfxevo^. Read (T(f>aLpr]S6v Se
fXLv rJK€ with Heyne.
<f> 211 €via/JL€VOV ifX€ aVTLS VTTOrpOTTOV OtKttS* lK€(r6aL
OLKaS' — avTis Fick.
K 240 Kol Se/xa?, avrap vovs ^v £/x7re8os — . irjv voos Knight.
V 374 TrjXefJLaxov ipiOit,ov ewt ^etVots ycAowvTcs. Read ycAowvrc?
— cpe^t^ov.
^ 305 cfxcpSaXiOV 8* i^orjcre ycycovc tc iract Oeola-i. Read
Oeota-L — ycywvci.
There is also another question which naturally arises here
and deserves a full investigation. Is the usage of the ace. and
infin. following a verb governing the dative really Homeric, as
Dr. Monro apparently would have us believe (H. G. § 240), or
is it of later origin and obtruded on Homer by a wholesale
modification of the primitive tradition?
Here, for instance, it is difficult to put much faith in the
validity of ix'^vra (1. 61) as against exovri, when we once accept
iovTL, as it appears we must, in 1. 60.
That there was a tendency in later times to introduce the
ace. for the dat. is clear from the case of T 80 : —
Xo^eirov yap cTrtoTa/xevw ircp covrt,
where Aristarchus is the sole authority for the dat., the MSS. being
absolutely unanimous for a quite impossible cTrtorraftci/ov irep iovra.
Compare I. 398-9, ^ 184-5.
In the Hym. Dion. 8-9 iTriXrj66fi€vov is generally read, though
the MS. has iTnXrjdofxevoL, pointing directly to the more metrical
i7n\rj6ofX€v<o. See also tt 88-9 (Note), and t 221 (Note).
1^ 64] oi 8' ai€t idiXovai V€07rA.irra ci/xar' ^X'^^t^^
Here already we probably have an instance of the removal
of a slightly archaic form by transposition, as the hiatus indicates.
Why should one more hiatus matter among so many, it might be
said. Let us recall : —
atct 8' OL y iOeXova-L — , or alel roi y iOeXovcn — .
1^ 82] /xaoTi^cv 8' iXdav Kavaxr} 8* yv Tfpujovouv'
al 8' dfioTOv ravvovTO, <f>€pov 8' icrOrJTa koi avrrjv.
Out of the fourteen instances of eo-^rjs in the Odyssey — the
word does not occur in the Iliad — only the above line offers any
serious resistance to the insertion of -the initial digamma. The
others, ^510 and o> 67, are easily disposed of: they require but
G 2 83
I 82 ODYSSEY
the omission of a needless t . Here however the 8' after KJicpov
cannot be removed without creating an unnatural asyndeton.
Yet the claims of the digamma are too strong to be set aside. If
we take into account tvwfiL and ct/Aa, the other members of the
family to which co-^tjs belongs, there are in both the Homeric
poems only three instances in which F is not readily admissible
(v. Monro, H. G. § 390, p. 368). The other two are : —
r 56 ^ T€ K€V rjh-q
Xaivov €(Tcro ^tToiva KaKUiv ive^ oaaa topya's.
7/259 tvOa fxkv €7rrd€T€<s fxevov c/attcSov, ci/Aara 8' atct — .
Passing over other suggested remedies I think Xawv is
probably right for XdXvov, the addition of a material genitive to
a noun being peculiarly common in Homer. We have Kvr}fU's
KaacnrepoLO (^ 592)) OLfwi kvolvolo (A 24), )(pvcrolo ToXavra (I 122),
TrXrjfivai dpyvpov (E- ^26) and even To^ov atyos (A 1 05), IfidvTa /3o6s
(r 375), and with a plural o-aKos ravpoiv (H 223), a much more
surprising expression than Xawv x'-'^^^^'
In 17 259 Bekker's l/xTrcSa is beside the mark : but the original
reading may be restored with tolerable certainty : —
€vOa fxkv €7rTa€T€S ftevov ovtoBl, ct/xara 8' atct — .
No doubt in later times the removal of the seemingly tauto-
logical cvOa — avToOi in favour of €vOa — epireSov would seem a
manifest improvement ; but the addition of avrov {avroOi) to
even more detailed and explicit descriptions of place than we
have here is almost too frequent in the Homeric poems to need
reference to passages. One instance, and that a strong one,
would perhaps suffice : —
© 207 avTov K tvff aKOLXOiTO Ka6rip€vo<s oto9 ev ''I817.
Still, if only for the sake of the coincidence of the verb, it
would be inexpedient to suppress : —
I 634 Kot p 6 p€v kv 8-qpM fi€V€L ovTOV TToAA' dTroriaa<s (L. avroOi)
and for final proof
^285 €v6a fi€v cirracTCS /x€vov avroOi, TroAAa 8' ayetpa,
where we have the emendation ready made.
Now the way has been cleared for dealing with our passage,
^ 83, the last remaining hope, so far as the root fcs is concerned,
of those who wish to regard the digamma as a visionary unreality,
and the despair of those who have arrived at an opposite con-
clusion. Nauck, we may notice, contents himself with * verba vix
84
BOOK VI S82
ma ', Fick rejects both 83 and 84. I would venture to restore
le line thus : —
TO) 8' afxoTOv ravvovTe <f>ipov IcrOrjra koX avriyv.
Here we have a line, which possesses obvious archaic features
rell calculated to invite the efforts of the modernizer to bring it
ip to date. So fierce an onslaught has been made at various
3riods upon tw as a feminine pronoun (or article), that it has
only recently won its way to complete recognition even in our
best Grammars, and the same may be said of the participial form
-ovre, ravvovT€. The later Greeks looked with no favour upon,
and indeed could hardly tolerate with patience, a fem. dual
participle in -ovre -avre or -erre. We have apparently to thank
Aristarchus for the preservation oi Trpocfyavivre in © 378, where it
has barely escaped extinction in favour of the spurious modernism
TTpofjiavcta-a or the peculiar Doric licence Trpo^aveiVas (v. Cobet,
Misc. Grit., p. 400, for this and other instances).
The change of at to tw immediately after the dual, rifxiovouv,
need not detain us; but a question might certainly be raised
as to whether Tavvovre can fairly be read here in the sense of
rawofxiva, * galloping.' The interchange of active and middle
forms is not altogether a rarity in the pages of Homer. It
appears, as I have already had occasion to show, probably with
greater frequency than it ought to do in our tradition. But what
we have to consider now is, whether an active form of a verb
can be used in a sense peculiarly belonging to the middle voice.
Undoubtedly this would be a deviation from strict propriety of
usage, although the cognate verb rctVoj is frequently intransitive,
and would hardly be likely to occur except under stress of special
conditions. The nature of these conditions seems to be fairly
apparent from the instances I am about to adduce. If the
participle or other form of the middle voice be such that the
metre forbids or makes difficult its admission, then the active
may sometimes be called into service. Thus we have ctXcro Sopv
(H 139, X 125), but cAwi/ Sopv (O 474, K 145), obviously because
iXofxevos is impracticable; ^134 TretpiycrovTa because Treipiyao/xevov
is certainly not easily manageable there; k 249 iiepeovre^ for
i^epeofjievoi, also t 1 66 i^epiovcra for i^cpeo/xevr] ; o" 143 drda-OaXa
fi'q)(av6(ji)VTa<s for ixr])(avo(ji)fX€vov<s, cf. tt 93 ; ©77 ^^^t^vov T€tvk€lv,
which may be compared with 6 61 t€tvkovt6 t€ Baira; /x 297
85
t 82-137 ODYSSEY
Pid^eTi (xVristarchus) for ^La^ccrOe; Hym. Herm. 188 ve/jLovra for
v€fi6fjLevov. On this principle rcxv^o-ai may be accepted in rj no,
though T€xyoiOfmL be elsewhere only valid, and in Hym. Dion. 51
c^aXcovTc? (Barnes) is probably right as representing iiaXeofievoi.
Also in A 446, ^301 vTro(TTpex{/a<s for the metrically prohibited
vTToarpetf/dfievoSf unless the true reading be vTroorpc^^et? (A 567).
In t 149 K€\(raL(rr)(TL 8c vr)v<rt "we have a unique instance;
but although the active form is here abnormal, it must not be
forgotten that the middle voice of this verb is not in use at all.
In our passage van Leeuwen and da Costa (1897) suggest
fi€/juLU)T€ <f)€povj but do uot admit it into their text. fi€fxa(ji)T€
is obviously too remote from the tradition. Naber's avvovrc is
nearer, but makes the second foot a nerveless tribrach.
1^ 113] ws '08v(r€vs typoiro tSot r eiximiSa Kovpr}v,
rj ol ^aL-qKtjiv dvSpiov ttoXiv rjyrja-aiTo.
The later Greeks made little scruple about sacrificing an
antiquated little k€ occasionally, as we have seen on y 231 q. v.
Here I suggest as the original form of ^ 114 : —
rj K€ ol dv8pS>v ^atyJKiov ttoAiv yyT^aatTO.
There is clearly no attraction of mood here, because the governing
verb is in the optative. The relative clause is used exactly as an
independent sentence. In Dr. Monro's words (H. G. § 304), * it is
connected, by implication at least, with the aiCtion of the principal
clause, and expresses an intended or expected consequence.' * And
she would lead him to the city of the men of Phaeacia.*
The reason for the omission, apart from a supposed metrical
improvement, is not far to seek. When avSpes is used in com-
bination with the name of a people, the usual arrangement is
that which the tradition gives. In fact, in this book in 1. 3
^airJKiov dvSpCiv occurs in the very same place in the verse. So
merely for the sake of uniformity this order seems to have been
adopted here, and the unfortunate kc, the harmless necessary
particle, elbowed out. The ordinary arrangement is, however, I
find, twice varied, v. ^ 335 ( = t 292).
t 137 J (TfX€p8a\€os 8' avrycL <f)dvr] KiKaKWfiivoi dk/xTf.
Read av rfja-L, cf. B 681. So again v 70 "Hprf 8' avryac
appears for av rja-i. Similar changes may be made, v 103, 347,
a 143 (Note), cf. o) 80, 241, 282, Hymn. ApoU. 200.
An excellent example of the damage that occasionally results
86
BOOK VI- I137-141
from this particular modernization may be noticed from the
Iliad :—
!S 205 dfKJH 8e ol KicftaXjj vc^os taT€<f}€ 8ta Ocdtov
)(pv(T€Ov, €K B' avTov Stttc <f>X6ya irafLtjiavooiarav.
The division av tov is essential. With all respect for the com-
mentators the idea that there is a cloud about the head of the
hero and a flame arising from his body is a grotesque absurdity.
The flame must rise from the cloud.
It is a curious coincidence here that the metrical difficulty of
the hiatus in the third foot — theoretically indeed it is licitus —
should be associated with an equally serious, or perhaps more
serious, exegetical mystery in connexion with o-xo/xcVt;. Eusta-
thius gives the explanation iTna-^ova-a eairrqv rrj<s <f>vyrjs. Now
we have undoubtedly eaxovro <f>6(iov (cj 57) in this sense, and
the very similar expressions T 84 ecrxovro {Ji-a^q's, B 98 dvr^?
a-xoio.r\ P 503 fiivios ax^o-ea-Oaij 8 422 crx'^crOai ficrjs. But on
these analogies the omission of the gen. <^6Pov here seems
hardly possible, and even if we contrive to overlook this
difficulty, the further objectioa might be raised that, while in
every instance above quoted the genitive describes a condition
of things actually existing (cf. Nitzsch's defence of the genitive
aiSXwv in a 1 8), in the present case the princess, Nausikaa, not
only never took to flight but, thanks to Athene, never felt even
the impulse to fly : —
ovq 8' *A.\klv6ov Ovydrrjp /jl€V€' tq yap *Kdiqvr}
OdpCTO^ IvX <f>p€(TL 6^K€. KOL €K SeOS €tA.€TO yVLOiV.
These considerations are, I venture to say, conclusive against
the interpretation offered by Eustathius, ' halting,' * stopping ' ;
but it seems just possible that a-xofjiivrj might bear the meaning
' controlling herself ', implying that in the midst of the general
alarm she maintains her self-possession, her sang-froid. If the
line must be accepted, as it stands, this is the only inter-
pretation really admissible, though it can only be supported
weakly by p 238 <^pco-t 8' ecrx^rOf where the addition of <^p€o-t
facilitates matters considerably. In the other examples of the
absolute use of cxoftat, viz. y8 70 ( = X 416) o-p^eo-^e, <^tAot, ^ 379
ax^o, it is clearly not necessary to assume any meaning other
have done ',
87
1 141 ODYSSEY
Then again fiepfxi^piiev in our line occupies an unusual
position, almost a unique one. This verb stands at the end
of a line, forming a spondaic ending, no less than twenty-one
times. There is but one instance of its occurrence as here : —
p 235 aXX IjXiv dor<^aA.ea)s* 6 8c jXipjxrjpL^ev ^OSva-crevs.
Nay, even in this one instance, about to be left in inglorious
solitude, the true reading may very well have been : —
dAA* e/x€v dcr<f>a\€0}s 'OSvcrcvs* 6 8k /xepfxi^pL^ev.
Undoubtedly as the subject is already changed with l/xcvc, the
name, Odysseus is a little belated with ixep/xi^pi^ev.
So far I have only shown from Homeric usage that ^141
possesses certain peculiar features, which must excite some
surprise and justify a little mistrust : but the case is materially
altered and becomes a much blacker one, when we take into
consideration those passages, which along with the identical
words, arrj S' avra crxo/xcViy, here used, contain also important
supplementary additions. The lines are read a 333-4, tt 415-6,
a- 209-10, <^ 64-5, and have often been quoted on our
passage : —
(TTTJ pa irapa araOp,ov reycos irvKa TroLrjToco,
avra 'Trapcidwv a-xp/xivrj XiTrapa KprqSe/xva.
Now it is of course utterly impossible that a-xofievrj should
be used by itself as equivalent to (rxop-ivrj KprjSe/jiva. The
object is indispensable as in M 298 (doTrtSa) ttjv ap 6 ye
TTpoaOe arxop-evo's. But neither is it reasonably probable that with
such surroundings the participle should bear a sense entirely
different from that in a 334, &c. Accordingly an hypothesis
that will reconcile and account for all the difficulties ought to
have a fair claim to consideration. I suggest then that 'OSva-a-evs
is nothing but a gloss on 6 8c, and that the original form of the
line was this : —
OTTJ 8* avra crxo/Ji€vrj KprjSefJiV' 6 8c fxeppu/jpL^ev.
The intrusion of the proper name would easily cause Kp-qhefiv to
be dropped. Moreover, some wiseacre would be sure to discover
that the KprjScfxva were thrown aside at 1. 100, and as, according
to the most approved principles of microscopic criticism, ancient
and modern alike, Nausikaa could not be in possession of, or
hastily catch up, hers without this important fact being expressly
r
BOOK VI 1 141-166
stated in terms, it follows, as the night the day, that the sooner
Kp-^Sefiv is hustled out of sight, the better.
J 151] ^Apre/xiSi ere cyw ye, Aios Kovprj fieyaXoto*
The curious hiatus here is evidently due to the disinclination
to tolerate ye with two pronouns in sequence. This squeamish-
ness on the part of the later Greeks, who frankly preferred to see
in Homer as nearly as possible the usage of their own day, and
had no desire needlessly to perpetuate an archaic turn, is quite
intelligible. Modern scholars who are acquainted with Homeric
usage are still affected in the same way, probably from a vivid
recollection of their own juvenile use of this particle in writing
iambics and of the reception it met with from the authorities.
Accordingly, though the enclitic a-e is absurd here, no one has
dared to propose ae y, which is quite as necessary as o-ot ye in
1. 154 ; for the pronoun in the one passage is just as much and
just as little emphasized as in the other. Knight ventured pd o-*
iyu) ye, and more recently Gerhard a-e y eireiTa, which might have
been said, but could not possibly have generated the vulgate.
The final t in 'Apre/xtSt, I wish to remark for the benefit of
the tiro, is not to be regarded as long by nature here. It stands
here as a long syllable exactly as the a of the ace. in o- 7 7 ScStora
o-apKCs Se — , or the syllable re in t 293 eyKard re (rdpKas re.
Additional instances of this power of initial <t may be found, P 463,
M 431, Y 434, <t> 219, AC 238.
^ 166] ws 8' avTO)^ KOL Kelvo t8o)v ereOriirea 6vfx<^
Srjv, eirel ov im roiov dvrjXvOev ck Sopu yatr)^,
ws o-€, yvvat, aya/Aai tc reOrprd re, SetStd r atvws
yovvoiv dif/acOat.
There is no metrical defect in this passage save the hiatus,
not claimed as licitus, after yrmt; but the inverted sequence
of ws airrws — w?, as Dr. Merry quaintly but truly remarks,
* seems to begin the comparison at the wrong end.' In no
other place does ws avrws introduce the simile, or more precisely
that fact to which the main circumstance is compared as
analogous or identical. Elsewhere in every instance (T 339,
H 430, I 195, K 25, y 64, t 31, V 238, <fi 203, 225, X 114, w 409)
the sentence beginning ws 8' avrws, *And in the same way,'
states that some particular procedure is precisely the same as
one already recounted in detail. Such a sentence is of the
89
1 166-210 ODYSSEY
nature of apodosis rather than protasis, so that here the natural
arrangement — I still follow Dr. Merry, and his statement is
incontrovertible — would be ws kol k€lvo i8a>v crc^Trca, ws avrws
<r€, yuvat, aya/Aai.
This natural order, I do not hesitate to say, was in all
probability the original order also ; but the old critics, the
rhapsodists if so be, would not fail to observe that in the other
eleven instances of a>s avro)? the formula invariably runs w?
8' avToj? for the very sufficient reason that the conjunction is
everywhere in place. Hence if they found here — and the sup-
position is permissible — a solitary instance of ws avrws without
the intervening Si, proceeding by rule of thumb and little
recking that here the clauses are for once differently arranged,
they would not hesitate to give admission to the missing Sc,
even though to effect this they had to turn the two clauses
topsy-turvy and invert their proper relations. Praeposteri
homines ! to use the expression Sallust attributes to C. Marius
(B. J. § 85), they have put the cart before the horse. Let us now
restore the correct sequence and read : —
ws Se, yui/ai, /cat Kctvo iSwv iriOi^Trea Bvjx^
8i;v, cTTct ov TTO) Totov avTiXvdcv €K Sopv yati/s,
ws avTtus ayafuxt t€ TiOrjTrd t€ SctSta t' aivws
yovvoiv aif/aa-Oai.
The pronoun o-e may be omitted as needless. I do not insert
it, not only because aya/Aat can stand well enough without an
object, and reO-q-n-e always does, but because its omission enables
us to dispense with the comma that usually follows riOrprd re.
Obviously those who prefer to retain the pronoun can easily
insert it after either ws or avroys-
^ 182^ ov fX€V yap TOV yC Kp€L(T(TOV KOL ap€iov, —
The omission of tl here is exceedingly harsh. The sense
is incomplete without it. The archetype probably was not so
defective, though it may have exhibited a form that could not
afterwards be tolerated : —
ov fxkv yap Tt too Kpua-aov koX dp€iov,
* For indeed not any state is nobler and better than this,' &c.
i 2IOJ Xovaari r ev Trora/xw, 60* irrl aKirras iOT dvifioio.
The Homeric form of the aor. of Aow (v. Note on 8 252) is
worth a little examination. It is freely used in both the Iliad
90
BOOK VI i2iO
and the Odyssey, occurring at least thirty-nine times. In the
active voice we have Xova-ev, Xova-av fifteen times, Xovcrov once,
A-ovcraTc, Xovcrrj, XovacLav, Xovarai, Xova-acra each once, and beside
these we have the older uncontracted forms XocVo-at (t 320),
XoeVo-a? (^ 282). There is a vast (twenty-one out of twenty-three)
numerical preponderance of the contracted forms. But we may
notice that in the twenty-one instances of Xov, nineteen are in
thesis, which means that Xoe- might be substituted for A.ov-
without detriment, indeed with some advantage, to the metre.
The two recalcitrant instances are our passage and E 7 : —
depfi-qvy kol Xovcrr) otto /Sporov alfxaroiVTa'
{Xov(rr]S' D om. Kat La Roche).
Now let us see how matters stand in the middle voice. The six-
teen examples comprise Xovaavro four times, Xovaaa-de, {d7ro)Xov-
arofxac and Xovcrairo once each, Xova-aa-Oat twice. The tale is
made up by Aoco-o-aro, Xoicrcroixai once each and Xoecro-a/xcvos five
times. There is but one case where Aoe- cannot replace Xov-y
and in three out of the four instances of Xoxxravro the verb ends
the line, as does Xovc-ao-a (c 264), which makes the claim of the
older unresolved form still stronger.
The one instance of Aov- which does not admit Xo€- at
once is : —
^218 6^p €y<»> avTos
aXfirp/ S>p.oiiv aTToXovaofJicu, afjufil 8' iXaiw —
followed almost at once by the unmodernized
221 avTTjv 8' ovK av iyw yc Xoia-ao/xai.
There are then three passages in all, and three only, which have
apparently failed to maintain their integrity under the pressure
of the later Xovw, failed, I mean, to such an extent that something
more is required to restore them than merely to change Xov-
into Xo€-. In E 7 van Herwerden would read Ocp/xiijvr] Xoeaj]
T€. This or Xoiarjo-i r might serve, but I should prefer Ocp/xyvaa-a
Xo€(Tarr]. The other two passages present more difficulty. In
^ 218 we cannot but note that the gen. wfxouv does not agree with
the Homeric usage of this verb, and of analogous ones, cf.
5 345 UaTpoKXov Xov(r€iav otto jSporov at/Aarocvra. ^41.
$ I 2 2 Ot or' WTCLXrjV | ttT/x' aTToA-iKjui^crovTai.
n 667 aXixa KaOrjpov ...
iSapTnySova.
91
1 210-248 ODYSSEY
^224 XP^^ vit,€TO . . . aX/xr}v.
I would accordingly suggest either : —
oq>p cyo) avTos
aX/x-qv wfjio) ifna ye Xoco-o-o/jtat —
(the loss of €fjL(i) after w/xo) is merely an ordinary lipography) or,
with rather more extensive change : —
6(jipa K€v avTos
akfXTjv wfJLd) iyu) ye XoeaaofiaL — .
But what is to be done with our passage ^210? Are we
to throw Xova-are overboard altogether w4th Nauck and read
SeL^are ? Why not vt'i/^arc ? I hardly think we are reduced even
to this alternative. Might not the original have stood thus : —
ev TTorayuw re XoearcraO^ 66 1 o-KCTra? ear ave/jLOLO ?
It is worth noting, however, that irorafxolo appears in D most
unaccountably, unless, as I rather suspect, the archetype had ; —
Kol TTorafJiOLo Xoe(r(raO*j 661 cKeiras ear avefjMto
Cf. $ 560 Ao€cro-a/A€vos Trora/xoLO.
Let it be remembered that in these three exceptional cases
even the possibility of a reasonable correction helps to confirm
the view of the impossibility of such forms as Xova-are being
really Homeric.
1^ 2163 ^vioyov 8* apa fitv XovcrOaL Trorafxoto poycri.
Here again we are confronted by a unique modernization in
Xovo-^at. Strangely enough two MSS., F, H, show Xovaaa-Oat.
Hence Nauck would read : —
rjvoiyov Be XoeaaacrdaL irorafiOLO poyai.
Undoubtedly the aorist is the preferable tense here, and Nauck's
reading may be accepted, as apa pnv might be dispensed with
without detriment to the sense. But why was it introduced?
It seems to me that the real intruder here is to be found at the
end of the line, pojtri, borrowed inopportunely from H 669, 679,
I suggest : —
rjVii>yov 8* apa rov ye XoeaaaaOai irorapxHO.
^ 2483 Trap S' ap 'OSvcra^i Weaav ^pCxriv re ttoo-lv re.
The simplest correction of the gratuitous hiatus here would
be: —
Trap 8 apa raC y OBvcnji dea-av ^puxrCv re ttoctiv re.
The line seems to have been carefully assimilated by the omission
93
BOOK VI U48-273
of the pronoun to v 73, where there is no hiatus or metrical
defect ; —
Ka8 8 ap 08v(r(Trji (TTopecrav prjyo^ T€ \lvov t€.
t 273] "f"^^ dA.€€tVo) (fyrjfXLV aSevKca, firj Tts OTricrcrui
fKOfxevY] — fidXa 8' ctcrtv vTrepfftlaXot Kara Srjfxov —
Kttt vv T19 w8' ehrrjCTL KaKumpo's dvTL^oX'qa-as'
The parenthetical treatment of fidXa — Srjfiov is no novelty. I
find the clauses arranged as above by Loewe (1828) and
Dindorf (1862). Still the prevalent method of punctuating
1. 274 is : —
fxwfxevrj' fxdXa 8' ela-lv inr€p<f>LaXoL Kara SrjfJLOv
So it appears in the texts of Merry and Riddell (1876),
Ludwich (1889), Piatt (1892), Monro (1896) and Ameis-Hentze^^
(1895). Perhaps it does not necessarily follow from the adoption
of this punctuation that these editors, one and all, agree with
Nitzsch, who explicitly denies the parenthetic character of the
clause. 'Der Satz pAXa bis hrjfiov bildet keine Parenthese.'
But certainly such a punctuation fails to convey the least idea
that fxdXa — ^rjfiov is intended to be regarded as parenthetic ;
and if it be not so regarded, Kat vv rts wS' ciTn/o-t ktX. must
be taken as an independent clause with k€ omitted. This
latter usage, however, is itself open to very serious question.
Dr. Monro, H. G. § 275 (b), adduces as apparently the only
example of a pure Subj. used as an emphatic Future in an
affirmative sentence Kat Trore ns etTnyo-t (Z 459, 479, H 87),
and therefore inferentially would seem to agree with Loewe
and Dindorf. But let us see what weight these three passages
carry. In Z 459 the Subj. follows ore kcv in 1. 454, as indeed
Dr. Monro has himself explained. In Z 479 the true reading
is ctTTot (Oxford Homer, 1896), not cith; at all. Lastly, in H 87
iLTrycTL follows 6(f>pa (85). Even if we were to concede the
legitimacy of the usage — a most needless concession on such
flimsy evidence — , neither the Subj. with kc nor the Subj.
without K€ would be quite suitable here as a principal sentence.
The statement would be much too positive. According to
ascertained usage ice with the Opt. would be nearer the mark.
Upon the whole there are in these considerations good grounds
for rejecting Nitzsch's view of these lines and regarding etTn^o-t
as parallel to the preceding fjuofieurj.
93
1 273 ODYSSEY
So far then with regard to the general construction of our
passage. I wish now to propose an emendation which will not
in any way affect that question, but yet may be considered of
some moment, inasmuch as its applicability extends consider-
ably beyond this particular instance. Owing to the neglect of
the digamma in cwnyo-t (275) Bekker, in his text of 1858, read
<Ss itirya-L. But what adequate motive could have induced
any one to change ws into diSc ? A better and more probable
correction would, I submit, be: —
wS* iv€7rr)(rL.
The corruption of this is simplicity itself, being merely the
substitution of a more familiar word (ctTn^o-t) for one that,
having passed out of the sphere of colloquial use, had conse-
quently acquired a somewhat antiquated colouring.
A strong point in favour of the emendation is, as I have
already intimated, that it supplies a far easier and more satis-
factory solution than any hitherto suggested, of the apparent
disregard of the digamma in several other instances of this verb
ctTretv. For example, in the oft-repeated line (rj 187, 6 z'j, p 469,
o- 352, </> 276, H 68, 349, 369, 6, T 102) :—
o(f>p' ctTTO) TO. jjLe Ovfxo^ ivl (TTrjO€(r(ri KcXcvct —
nothing could be simpler than to restore 6<f>p evcVo). Previous
suggestions o<^pa fcTrw, 6<f>p' ea-Tru) and ws citto) are hardly on
the same level of probability. Again, in M 317, H 300, where
6<}>pa Tis w8' €LTrr] (eiTrrja-iv) bears a very close resemblance to
our passage, we may restore S>8* iveTrrj as here. Similarly, in
Z 281 iOeXrja-' cittovtos, the elision, though perhaps not abso-
lutely necessary, may still be maintained by iOeXya-' cvcVovtos.
In A 791 ravr' etTrots should surely be corrected ravr* cvcVois,
not Ttt FeLTTOL^, which only makes bad worse. In A 297 Travr*
eiTTovra we might hesitate to replace the aor. part, by iveirovra
except for the strong warrant of p 549, 556.
I have still two lines more to adduce. They are these : —
828 dAA' ctTT*, T] a(f>o)LV KaraXvcroixiv oiKiWi tinrovs,
I 279 dAAa /xot €t<^*, OTTT) €cr)(€^ twv evcpyca vrja.
In the first case I do not anticipate much objection to aXk*
€i/€7r' being substituted for dAA* citt'. But in the second case
the proposal I have to make : —
dAAd jx* tvL(T<j>\ OTTTj i(T\€^ lo)v iv€py(a v^a,
94
BOOK VI £273-289
challenges comparison with Bentley's dAA' aye €t<^', which
might be considered less elaborate and therefore more probable.
It so happens, however, that indirectly the proposed emendation
can command a curious and powerful piece of extraneous
support. There is a line in the Homeric Hymn to Hermes
(199) running thus: —
ravrd fioL cittc, ycpace TroXatytvcs, et ttov OTrowras — •
Now obviously this line, like the other one, may be emended
in either way ravr* aye eiTre or ravra yu,* cvunre (v. 8 642).
Let me say in favour of the latter that the elision of the
diphthong of fxoi would act as a strong inducement towards
modification. Each then has something in its favour, so that
merely from considerations of intrinsic probability the balance
may be taken as even. But it turns unmistakably to the side
of ravrd fx* evLo-rre, when we observe that the only passages
in which et ttov oTrcuTras occurs have this very verb, this very
aor., cvto-Tretv, preceding it. The passages are : —
y 93^ = 8 323) K€LVOv \vyp6v oXeOpov evto-Tretr, et ttov oTrcuTras.
Hym. Dem. 71 vrj/jLcprcios ftot Ino-Tre, (fiCXov rcKO^, et ttov oTrwTras.
The recognized tendency of epic phraseology to become stereo-
typed could hardly be more strikingly illustrated. Nor is the
case without its warning for the ardent palaeographist.
t 289] ^etve, (TV S' wS' ijxiOev ^vvUt cttos, o<jipa rd)(L(rra — .
Schol. H has fortunately preserved the true reading here : —
apL(rrap)(o<; av 8' wk* i/xcOev. ^-qvoSoros ifxeco. The contribution of
Aristarchus is not of great moment, wxa is recoverable even
without it from B 26, Q 133. But it is evident that Zenodotus
strove to maintain the archaic genitive e/xeo, for which was being
substituted slowly but surely the traditional ifieOev, for no other
reason than that the former fell out of common use earlier than
the latter. The Greeks we may be sure were on speaking terms
with e'/xe^ei/, long after they had parted company with e/xeo.
Now e/xeo might have been arrived at inferentially in these three
passages from the presence of ^wes and $vvUi instead of o-wes and
a-vvLet, but the testimony of so old a witness as Zenodotus puts
the matter on quite a different footing. We may now read with
full confidence : —
|etve, arv 8' u>k kjxio ^vviet cttos, o^pa rd^idTa — .
95
294-300 ODYSSEY
^ 2943 r6(T(T0v ttTTo TTToAto? 6(Tcrov T€ ycytovc ^orjcrwi'
I suggest Too-o-ov d-TTOTrpo TToXtos just as we have H 334 rvrOov
oTroTTpb vcwi/, where the obsolete preposition is not so easily
removable as here ; but it still caused some searchings of heart
with the result that aTro irpo is even now generally adopted, as
by La Roche, under the supposed sanction of Aristarchus, though
aTTOTrpoOi and airoTTpodiv are conclusive in favour of airoirpo.
The iambic scansion of iroXio^ here recommended may be
found : —
B 8 1 1 loTt Se Tts TTpoTrapoLBi. TToXtos atTreta Kokuyvrj,
^5^7 ct Sc K€ ot TrpoTrdpoLOc TToAtos KarevavTLOV cX^w,
So in ^ 262 avrdp i-rrrjv ttoXlos eTrtyScto/xcv Dr. Monro rightly
suggests cTTct K€ TToXtos (hc adopts the form TrdAeos, but the
change is not, I think, advisable), H. G. § 362, p. 329 note.
Another instance of a curtailed preposition before ttoAios occurs
in TT 471 : —
^8r) VTrkp ttoXlos, 06 l B^ "Ep/xatos \6<j)0's i(TTiv.
where the original may easily be restored : —
t^St] vTrepOe TroXtos — .
t 297J avrdp lirrjv rjfxia^i tXirrj ttoti Swfiar d<fH)(6aL,
That the solitary instance of ttotl after d<l>LKV€OfxaL should be
coincident with the appearance of the later IA.7n; for the epic
IXirr^ai is noticeable and informing.
d<f>iKV€Ofjiai is usually followed by the ace. alone or with
either ctti or cts (cs). We may safely venture to read here : —
avrdp Inu x i7/A€as cAttt;' ctti Stafiar d^t;(^ai.
t 300] pcta 8' dpiyvbiT ia-TL, Kal dv irats rjyqcraiTO
vrprio^'
Though I am quite unable to agree with Dr. Monro (H. G.
§ 363 (c)) who thinks dv carries a degree of emphasis here that kc
would not have conveyed, yet I am bound even more emphatically
to protest against the travesty of a verse which van Leeuwen
and da Costa have introduced into their text: —
pcta 8' dptyvuiTa' Kat kcv 7rat9 riyrfcraiTO
relying on the few instances in which the tradition presents us
with d as the ending of the neuter plural. Defects cannot thus
be multiplied.
As far as emphasis is concerned Kal dv Trat? and Kai kcv ttuis
are on an equality. The meaning is ; ' Even a child would show
96
I
BOOK VI I 300-302
you the way.' The emphasis is on Wis and is placed upon it by
the preceding Kat'. av and kc occupy their regular position imme-
diately after the first word in the sentence, there being no other
particles to disturb the arrangement, and can have no special
emphasis. Moreover, ^yrja-aiTo av (kcv) does not require to be
emphasized here any more than ' would show you the way ' does
in the English version.
Now the epic poet has here rightly emphasized Trdis and Trais
only. But he had also another means of emphasizing this word
and that by the simple means of placing it first in the sentence.
So that assuming he used kcv and not av he would have said
pcia 8* apiyviMT €(ttl' ttolL's Be K€v rjyqa-aLTO.
This form would have allowed also the admission of the pronoun
(TOL, of course with elision,
Trats Se k€ (t rjyrjcraLTO (cf. rj 2 2, ^ 1 1 4).
But in the later ages, when the Homeric poems were used as
books of instruction, this could not be tolerated except under
the direst necessity. Every one would agree that koI av irais
would be much better. Every word is up-to-date here. Even
Trais may be pronounced in the usual way as a monosyllable.
Would there have been found one man in an Athenian audience
ready to say : * Let us keep the old version ' ? Not one.
t 302] olos 8d/xos *A\klv6olo
^pCOOS. dXA. OTTOT av (T€ SoflOL KCKvOwori Kttt avXtj.
The MSS. unanimously read ^pw?, but editors, with equal
unanimity, prefer to adopt the gen. from Eustathius. Rightly,
I should say, if they will refrain from trying to make us believe,
or to make believe, that ^pwos can be scauned as a dactyl or as
a spondee, ^pwos is — — v./ and cannot be scanned here at all.
It is curious that no editor has ever remarked on the absurd
pomposity of the word here, unredeemed by any mitigating
circumstances. What has happened is merely this. The word has
strayed from its proper position, not unnaturally attracted to the
immediate neighbourhood of 'AXkivooio, to whom of course it refers.
Let us restore the original order and, incidentally, the
punctuation, thus; —
otos So/Aos AXkivooio,
dAA OTTod' ypoios (T€ BofxoL K€KvB(jicn Kat avXyj^
(0T€ ;(* vice OTToO*),
AQAM H Qi,
I 303-11 5 ODYSSEY
For the position of ^p<uos, which has a slight, but only
a slight, emphasis here, see note on a 37. But why does she
use the word at all? The reason is that Trarpos is scarcely
available, partly because she has already used it several times
in this speech, mainly because it would make an undesirable
contrast with the fJLrjrip ifirjv following. There remain the
pronouns kclvov and totttov, one of which is distant and both
discourteous. I submit that no objection can be raised to the
use of ^poios where I have placed it. There it is merely a
courteous and complimentary reference justified by Homeric
usage. At the beginning of the line, which is also the end of
the sentence, doubly emphasized it possesses a tone of empty
boastf ulness and vulgarity, which as little belongs to the princess
as the impossible scansion to the poet. We may safely acquit
them both.
t 329] avTw 8* ov TTO) <l>aLV€T ivavTLT]' aiScTO yap pa
TraTpoKocTLyvrjTov 6 8* CTTi^a^cXtos //.eveouvc — .
The difficulty is that she does appear, t. rj ipf. Con-
sequently, 11. 328-31 are condemned as later additions by Knight,
Nitzsch, Ludwich, &c. I would suggest for avrtp, which can
hardly be right here, as the emphasis is meaningless, that avnj
should be read meaning ' in her proper person ', i. e. without
disguise. She appeared TrapOeviKy iiKvia vcijvtSi (17 20). There
seems no impossibility in such a contrast, as we have the well-
known (A 4) avTov<s 8e referring to the actual bodies in contrast
to the spirits of slain men. The two verses would then read,
with some further improvement (v. on v 33), thus : —
avTT] 8' ov TTO) <f>aiv€T ivavTLr)' alSero yap pa
TrarpoKoxTLyvrjTOv ov 6 8c ^a^cXois /Aevecuvc — .
BOOK VII (7;).
t] 5] 01 p VTT aTrqvqs
yfXLovov^ iXvov i(r$rJTd tc ta-<f>€pov €i<ra>.
Originally, even here, in spite of appearances, the hiatus was
in all probability non-existent; the pronoun Fol with elision seems,
as usage elsewhere indicates, to have been omitted twice in a line
and a half, once with, and once without, compensation. Read : —
ol r ' VTT* dm^VTjs
"fjfJLLOVOVS eXvOV €<T$^d T6 F* t<T<^€pOV CUTU).
BOOK VII t| 5-6a
^F A sufficient parallel may be found -with a less evanescent
pronoun in S 364 : —
€t fiiij TLS fJi^e Oewv 6\o<f>vpaTo kul /x' co-aoxrc,
or with a dative commodi, as in our passage, take S 765 : —
tS>v vvv fJiOL fjivrja-ai, Kat fxoi fjiiXov vXa. crdiaa-ovj cf. 8 'JS6—*J.
Passages like this, for which the true remedy is not at once
apparent, are largely responsible for the doctrine of hiatus
licitus.
t] 10] 'AXklvow 8* avT7]v ycpas c^cXov, —
Read avraJ for avrrjv, allowing the emphasis to fall on the
really, though of course only momentarily, prominent personality,
as the words that follow sufficiently show : —
ovv€Ka Traat
^at^KCcrcrt avacro-c, Oeov S' ws Brj/jios olkov^v.
Tj 18] aXX 6t€ 8r} ap c/acAAc ttoXlv SvarccrdaL ipawrjvy
So also with similar hiatus : —
^ 1 1 oXA.* ore hr] ap e/xeXXe Trdkiv oTkovSc vUa-Qai — .
K 275 dAA' oT€ h-q dp €/xeXAov tu)v Upas dvd ^Tjacra^ — .
But let us compare with these the following : —
K 365 dXX ore Srj rdx e/xcAAe fXLyrjaea-OaL <f>vXdK€(T(ri — .
A 1 8 1 dXX ore Srj rd^ l/xeAAev vtto tttoXlv alrrv re Tct^os — .
^773 dAA' ore Srj rd^ e/xeXXov lirax^ia-OaL dSXov — .
8514 dAA' ore 8t) rd^ l/xeAAc MaXctawv opo<i ahrv — .
t 378 aXX ore Brj rd^ 6 /xo;)(Xos iXdivo's cv Trvpl /xeXXev — .
It is surely impossible to maintain the hiatus with dpa except
under the perverse assumption that rdxa is the real intruder,
having been brought in to remedy the primitive hiatus, an
assumption happily confuted in this case by such passages as :—
Z 52 Koi S-q fxiv rdx l/AcAAc Ooas eirt vrja^ A;^atciiv — .
V 393 olov 8ri rdx €/>t€AA€ Oea /cat Kaprepb^ dvrjp — .
<^ 418 Kciaro, rtov rdx ^/xcAAov 'A;)(aiot Treiprja-ccrOaL.
So too B 724, p 412, Hymn. Herm. 15, even if the natural
affinity, as it may be termed, of ra^a to I/acXAov with the future
infin. were not of itself sufficiently convincing.
T) 623 Navcrt^oov ficydOv/xov, os iv ^air^^iv dva<r(r€'
Here we have a modernization which may, I think, be
clearly proved; the motive for introducing it apparently is
merely to avoid the obsolete use of the article as a relative.
Furthermore, if this be so, we have a distinct indication of
H2 99
t, 62 ODYSSEY
the partial and local character of the correction of the antique
text. There has not been any systematic attempt to eliminate
o as a relative everywhere. Let no one dream of such a
deliberate project. One passage allows more easily than another
an approximation to everyday usage. There the supposed im-
provement is made and there only. Modernization in the
language of mechanics proceeds along, and (we may say) only
on, the lines of least resistance.
The original here I have no hesitation in saying ran thus : —
Navo-t^oov /JLCYaOv/xoVf o ^ai-qKea-crt avacrcre*
Here we have the proof. In the first place the dat. ^aCrjii
stands unique. Elsewhere ^at^/cco-o-t is always read. The
instances are fairly numerous c 386, ^ 241, 270, rj 11, 6 21,
96, 201, 386, 535, 557» ^ 349 :—
^(oos ^aLrJKecra-L <fiLX.rjp€riJiOL(n dvacraro)*
V 36, 204, 302.
In the next place the preposition iv confirms the argument
from ^aCrjii. The usage of iv with dvao-tro), when examined, quite
fails to support the present passage. We have : —
X 275 €V 017^27 TroXvrjpoTio . . . KaS/ActW rjvacra-e'
284 OS TTOT* cv ^OpxofJi€v<o Mij/vcto) 101 a»/a<Tcr€v
n 572 OS p' €V BovScto) €v vaLOfxivta rjva<T(T€ — .
CD 26 OVV€Ka TTOXXOLO-LV T€ Kttt i<j>6LjX0L(rL ava(T(T€^
St^JJUO €Vl TpUiOiV .
Clearly these stand on a different footing. Still 17 62 has one
friend in adversity : —
T no avSpda-LV cv TroAAoteri koI l<j>6i.p.0L<TL dvd<r(ro)V — ,
not, however, one much to be depended upon, for <u 26 shows
that the reading should be : —
avBpdarL iroAAot(rtv tc koL l<f)6L/xoLari dvaVcrcov.
Usage then fails to defend the preposition in our line (rj 62),
and all that can be said in its favour is, firstly, that in the
abstract it does not appear unnatural or forced — not a very
convincing argument I imagine; secondly, the occasional use
of fi€Td after avda-a-m gives a sort of analogical support to ^^
cf. rj 23 :—
'AXkivoov, OS Toio-Sc /ACT* avOpdyiTOUTL dvcuro'ct ;
A 61 KtKkrjfiai, <Tv Sk Trdcrt fier adavdrouri avd(ra'€K (= % 366)»
H 94 Toco-oiS' oo-o-oiciv orv /x«T* 'A/jycioMTt dvacrcrcts*
100
BOOK VII t] 62-67
^471 AiTwXos y€V€i}v, /ACTtt S* 'AfyyeLOUTL avdaa-ii,
A 252 flCTOl Sc TpLTOLTOKTl avatTCTCV.
Even this ray of protection fades away, if we consider that
in every instance, with the possible exception of A 252 where
the sense is apparently different, fierd may be merely the cor-
ruption of an original /xeya, which has the support of the
synonymous T<fiL with dvao-o-w and of the use of fxeya in such
passages as : —
A. 485 Apy€LOLf vvv avrc /xcya Kparects vcKvctrcrt — ,
A 78, K 32, n 172, o 274, a 276, &c.
It follows that Bentley's emendation of T 124 cannot be
accepted, and the line must be condemned as a later addition
to the passage.
In Hymn. Aphr. 196, a-ol 8' lorat ^lAos vibs os iv Tpwccro-i
dvdi€L the slight correction o kcv for os iv would be sufficient,
dvo^et being the old form of the aor. subj. which afterwards
became dvd^.
Tj 67] Kttt fXLv cTtor' a)S ov TLS €7rt xOovl tUtcu oAAiy,
otrcrai vvv ye yvvaiKcs vir avSpdcL oTkov €xov<riv.
UiS K€LVr} inpl KTlpi T€TLlJirp-aL T€ Kttt €<rTLV
€K T€ <f>LX(i)v 7rai8(uv €K T avTOv AXklvoolo
Kol Aaoiv, OL fjLLV pa Oebv ws cto-opowvrcs
SeiScX*''"^^ P'^OoLCTLV, 0T€ aT€LXJ]<r oiva doTV.
There can be no doubt that Nauck is right in describing
the concluding words of 1. 69, re kol Icrrtv, as corrupt, * verba
vitiosa.' Even in these days, when many scholars cling stoutly
but helplessly to a tradition obviously debased by modernization
in many places, few or none would be hardy enough to maintain
that the words, as they stand, ever proceeded from the lips of
Homer. Yet it does not follow, because there is a corruption
of limited extent in one line, a glaringly manifest corruption if
you will, that the whole passage or any considerable portion of
it is to be condemned as an interpolation and eliminated from
the text.
This summary procedure, largely indulged in by Zenodotus
and by no means eschewed by Aristarchus, is very facile in
application and has consequently been freely used, or in other
words, abused. So here the whole passage, 11. 69-74, is con-
demned by P. Knight, as having been forged 'prava sedulitate
lOI
r, 67 ODYSSEY
diversorum rhapsodorum '. But while hasty rejection is to be
deprecated, we ought no less to be on our guard against that
other extreme of blind credulity, which prompts us to take the
words as we find them and make the best of them, however
bad that best may be.
Here, if we rely on the resources of exegesis, we may take
our choice between three alternatives, (i) "We may understand
TLfx-qea-aa with eariv from the previous rcTi/xryTat. This method,
a fairly popular one, is Nitzsch's, and is backed by a similar
expression found in Propertius, truly a rare authority for Homeric
language. He writes, 2, 13, 38 : —
Nee minus haec nostri notescet fama sepulcri,
Quam fuerant Phthii busta cruenta viri,
where fuerant clearly is equivalent to nota fuerant. But little
admirable as is the expression of the Latin poet, it falls very
far short of the lame imbecility of what Homer is supposed to
have adventured. Nota fuerant is not identical in time with
notescet, nor are the two verbs in the same clause, whereas
T€TLfx7jTaLj * IS now iu a state of honour,' is, according to Homeric
usage, absolutely synonymous with the postulated TLfirjea-a-d ia-TLv,
and they both stand coordinately in the same sentence, as closely
combined as any two verbs can be. The truth is, this first
method proceeds from, and altogether depends upon, a mis-
apprehension of the meaning of the Homeric perfect, v. Monro
H. G. § 28. The words of G. T. Damm (Lex. Hom.) are amusingly
illustrative of this error. After paraphrasing thus *sicut ilia
maxime ex animo honorata inque pretio habita est et etiamnum
habetur ', he goes on with confident but misplaced worldly wisdom
to libel his married contemporaries in these terms, ' nam saepe
uxores primis mensibus vel annis carae fuerunt, at nunc non
sunt adhuc* The second course (2) would be to supply vepl
KtjpL with lo-Ttv; but as such an expression is altogether un-
paralleled in Homer, and no one could say what it would mean
or whether it would mean anything at all, we may put it aside
respectfully but firmly. Lastly (3) it is suggested that irepi iariv
may mean *Bhe excels', which it frequently does when the
particular point of excellence is defined, as for instance by voov
or /Aa;(€o-^ai. But, however admissible elsewhere, here such
a parenthetical remark, breaking the construction of T€TifirjTai
103
r
BOOK VII t) 67
with €K T€ <pL\(ov TraiSiDv ktX., would surely be little less than
intolerable.
Clearly then in this passage, if anywhere in Homer, there
is room for an emendation, provided it be possible to find one,
which would give a reasonably good sense without deviating too
far from the tradition. Bothe conjectured TOKaSea-a-LVy which
certainly in form approximates very closely to the vulgate, but
in meaning is less satisfactory : we can only hope he was
oblivious for the moment of the real sense of tokolBcs (v. $ 16).
Van Leeuwen and da Costa read TiKUa-anv with the fatal neces-
sity of deleting 1. 70 and changing Xadv in 1. 71 to Aaots.
Hartman (Epist. Crit. 1896) has by a happy instinct suggested
yepaco-o-i, but fails to carry conviction, because he considers that
the hopelessly incompatible Krjpi must be maintained : —
WS KilVq TTCpt KTJpi T€TilX7}TaL yipd.^(T(TLV.
The original form of the line seems to have been practically
preserved for us in a passage which apparently has escaped the
notice of Hartman, Hesiod Theogon. 449 : —
7ra<rt fxer aOavdroia-L T^rlfiryrai yepdecra-LV.
From this we may restore to Homer with tolerable certainty
and with manifest advantage : —
ws K€Lvr] Trepl Tracrt Tcrt/xT^ai yepdea-aLV
' So she is graced beyond others with all marks of honour/
The absolute difference between reKAiecxiN and pepAecciN in
Greek uncials is not very great; and although ycpaccro-t does
not happen to be found in Homer, yet in face of repaeo-ort,
ScTraeo-o-i, &c., it would be absurdly fastidious to question its
validity. However, I am inclined to trace the corruption not
so much to the confusion of similar letters as to the fortuitous
substitution of the word KrjpL for Trocrt earlier in the line. The
rhapsodists, one and all, were familiar with : —
6 36 ot Kcv fXLv Trepl KTjpL Ocov ws TLjjLT^crovcn,
r 280 ot 817 fxiv Trepl Krjpi Oeov ws TL^rjo-avro (= ^ 339)j
A 46 ronnv fioL Trepl Krjpt TLeaKeTo ''IXtos Iprj,
also N 430 Trepl KTJpL ff)CX.r](Te, o 245 Trepl Krjpi (ftiXeL, Q 61, 423
Trepl KTJpc <f>L\os, SO that not only is Trepl KtjpL a frequent combina-
tion, but it is found often enough in conjunction with the verb
Ttftatu. The force of association then would almost inevitably
cause KTJpL to be introduced into our line as a variant instead
iP3
t) 67-89 ODYSSEY
of Traa-L. In the struggle for possession lajpi would have the
outside help of the parallel passages above quoted, w^hich would
seem decisive; but in order that K^pt might reign without a
rival with absolute security of tenure, it was inevitable that
ytpat(T(Tiv should suffer extinction, as it has done ; for the two
datives are clearly at irreconcilable odds, whatever may be said
by those who forget that complicated subtleties of expression
are quite foreign to Homer and his age, and belong essentially
to a time when language had become, what it certainly was
not in early epic poetry, the object as well as the instrument
of thought.
In 1. 70 €K T avTov *AXkiv6olo canuot be read c/c r avroV 'AX/ct-
vooio with van Leeuwen and da Costa, curiously oblivious for the
nonce of hiatus licitus with avroo. There is no trustworthy
example of a gen. in -oto with its penultimate syllable long in
thesis. The form is apparently only admitted when this syllable
stands in arsis. Hence the arrangement avrov r i^ *AXklv6olo
alone is metrical. But that the original is so recovered is more,
I think, than can rightly be assumed. It may well, or even
better, have run thus; —
T| 89] apyvpcoL Sk a-TaOfiol iv ovSw ;(aXK€a) tcrrav,
So Ludwich. The MSS. read with a fine disregard of
scansion : —
apyvp€OL Si (TTaOfiol cv ^a^f co) €<rra(Tav ov8w,
ta-raa-av being given by all but two. Generally editors have
followed the lead of Barnes, who in one of his unhappier moments
read : —
arraOfiol 8' apyvpeoL iv x<^^^^ ioraaav ov8<3.
Ludwich certainly has shown better judgement by leaving the
opening words in the order given by tradition and making
the necessary transposition at the other extremity of the line.
iarav has not much to justify its introduction save the necessity
of the case and the breathing on lorao-av. Unfortunately, the
aor. here is totally unsuitable : the imperfect is really inevitable.
Now it is quite possible for coraaav to be developed from corav ;
but it is at least equally possible that it owes its origin to a
primitive ecteN. Consequently, we might venture to read : —
apyvp€oi 8k araSfwX iv ovSw )(aX.K€i^ ^<rnyv
104
BOOK VII t] 89-130
For rjaTTjv V. E 10. The duality of door-posts goes without
saying.
T| 125] 7rdpoi$€ 84 r 6iJi<fiaKe<s cicriv
dvOos d^tcto-at, Irepai 8' VTroTrepKo^ovcrtv.
Possibly this should be read and punctuated thus : —
Trdpoide Be t 6fxcfiaK€<s elaiv
dvOo^ d<fiL€L(r' at y\ erepai 8* vTroinpKd^ova-Lv.
Compare © 457-8. The lines, however, occur in a doubtful
passage, 103-31, and there can be no restoration of later work,
which, whatever its merits may be, has never possessed the
genuine metrical quality of the Homeric epic.
T| 130] V ^* irepiaOiv vir* avA^9 ov86v Irjcn
Trpo'S Bofiov vil/T]\6v, oOev vBpevovro TToXtrai.
The lengthening of the final syllable of v{(/rj\6v is attributed
to the joint efforts of the metrical arsis and the stop that follows.
The subjoined passages however : —
K 428 7rpo9 /xev oAos Kapc? kol Ilatovcs dyKvXoToioL — .
430 irpos &vfi^prj^ 8' €Aa;(ov Avklol Mvcroi t dyipiD)(OL — .
O 669 ixdXa 8i (T^i <f>6(iiq yever dfn^orepoidevj
rjfjiiv Trpos vrjtav kol 6/xouov ttoXc/jlolo.
X 198 avTos Be ttotI xtoA-ios ttc'tct aUi.
4* 341 ®^^' ocraoL vrjaoLon irpos "HXiSo? hrrrofioTOLO'
embolden me to suggest that the verse here in question was
originally independent of either arsis or comma, and began with
unexceptionable metre thus : —
TT/oos Bofxov v\{rfj\ov,
' in the direction of the lofty house,' practically * near to the
lofty house'. See also the Note on p 206.
But over and above this easy emendation the passage
deserves a little further consideration. The accepted inter-
pretation is that the second spring flows beneath the court-yard
wall, issues again in the centre of the court-yard and forms a
piece of ornamental water there. Afterwards, of course, though
nothing is said about this, it must find an outlet by another
passage beneath the epKos avXrjs, perhaps going first right under
the house and so affording a specially convenient domestic water-
supply.
My impression is that the above view is hardly warranted
even by the text as it stands, certainly not by the text as
105
t\ 130 ODYSSEY
emended, and is in fact inadmissible, firstly, because the fashion
of forming artificial ponds, so much followed in later days, is
scarcely likely to have been in vogue in primitive times,
secondly, because under this arrangement the Phaeacians at
large, who were presumably pretty numerous, actually took
their water from a point in the stream above where the royal
household derived their supply — certainly a bad sanitary scheme
for the king and his family — but mainly because a far simpler
explanation of the passage is attainable. I would render it
thus : — ' but the second spring flows the opposite way right up
to the threshold of the outer court near to (in the direction of)
the lofty house, and from hence the citizens used to draw
water.' The stream, as I understand the case, flowed outside
the ovBbv av\rj<s, close up to it, but not necessarily or by any
means underneath it. Similarly the Greek host came wo ''lA.iov ;
but this conveys no implication that they drove mines beneath
the town. On this hypothesis the water would be taken by all
from the same point, the ov8os avkrjsy though possibly the king's
servants would take their supply a couple of yards higher up.
But that is immaterial.
Bekker proposed to read vSpevovcn TroAtrai : the imperfect,
however, seems quite defensible here even in the midst of the
present tenses, because the fact mentioned is not part and parcel
of the scene described and placed as it were before our eyes, but
is obviously based upon subsequent information or observation.
Moreover, as I have elsewhere maintained (Journ. Phil, xxv
p. 3 1 4 f.), TToXirat was probably originally TroXirjTaL (cf. TrroXUOpov),
and the whole line stood thus : —
Trpos Sofiov v{(/r)X.ov, oOev vSpevov TroXi^at.^
^ I really cannot agree with Dr. Leaf (X 429) that woXiiJttjs is less
archaic than iTo\irij$. Analogy is pre-Epic, while vpeafivTrjs is not Homeric,
and odirrjs is usually stated to be formed from 656s + e7iu, 'way-farer.'
IIoAtTT/s, as a proper name, is undoubtedly a difficulty. But is it certain that
the name means ' citizen ' at all ? It would be very surprising that a son
of Priam should bear a name apparently taken directly from the nomen-
clature of the French Revolution. I suggest that noXirrjs is from iro\i^<u,
and means one who effects the momentous change referred to in T ai6: —
Inel ov n<u "iKios Ip^
(V irfSiat it(v6Ki<tto —
If SO, UoXinjs and iro\i-fjTj)s might be totally different terms in the early
epic, and my argument be considerably strengthened.
106
BOOK VII ri 130--143
I cannot think that Naber's conjecture Trpos OoXov vij/rjXrjv
(cf. X 442) deserves any credit beyond that of verbal ingenuity.
The reasons already given against the ordinary interpretation
tell equally against the acceptance of this novelty.
T) 134] avrap cttci Brj Travra cw Orj-qcraiTO Ov/jlw (= € 76),
o 132 Sc^a/xevos, kol iravTa k<o d-qria-aro OvfXiJo'
In these passages the possessive pronoun is entirely without
emphasis. It might fairly be given as an example of what is
meant by a redundancy. Still, I would not on this ground
merely, even with the hiatus to boot — for notwithstanding the
opinion of some scholars there is a real hiatus, licitus or other-
wise, in each of these lines — pronounce sentence against the
validity of cw except for the positive argument from the usage
of the verb, Orjiofxai, which makes it morally certain that the true
reading in these passages is : —
Travra iSwv Orj-qa-aro Ovfiw.
No other conclusion is admissible in face of: —
^17 ay pofieviov iroXXol 8' ap' iOrjrja-avTO IBovres
vlov Aaeprao — .
€ 74 6r}yj(TaLT0 iSwv — .
p 315 cuil/d K€ OrirjcraLO tSwv ra^vr^a koX oAkt^v.
and last but not least in cogency : —
o) 90 dAAa K€ Ketva fxdkicTTa iSwv 6rfq<Tao Ovfiw.
Apparently the later Greeks thought a needless pronoun less to
be deprecated than a tautological participle. They forgot, or did
not care to remember, that the tautology was solely due to the
accidental variation of modern from primitive usage.
Tj 143] '^ttt TOT€ 8iy p avTOLO TrdXiv ^vto 6icrf^a.ros drjp.
In this line we have a time-honoured error, which might
surely without offence be relegated to the limbo of detected
impostures. The true reading is : —
X^t' a.6€(T<f>aT0<s arip
and the following passages bear strong, I think convincing,
testimony to the fact: —
r 4 ai t' €7r€i ovv x^tftwva tfivyov kol a6i(r<f>aTov o/x-^pov,
K 6 nvxoiv V ToXvv ofiftpov a6€crcf>aT0v rjk ^ctAa^av — .
7} 273 oipivev h\ BoXacra-av aOeacfyaTov, ovSe n Kvfia — .
X 373 vv^ 8' rjBe fxaka fxaKpr) aOicrtfiaro^' ovSi ttw wprj — .
o 392 rjfjL€VO<s* atiSc Sk vvkt€S a6i<T<^aToi' Icm fxev evSciv,
107
r, 143 ODYSSEY
X 61 5crc fi€ Satftovos awra KaKt] koI d^€cr<^aTos otvos*
V 244 iv fiev yap ot (tltos d^ca-^aros, iv 8c tc oTvos — .
V 211 vvv 8* at fX€v yiyvovrai aBi<T<^aTOL (sc. ^ocs),
Hymn. ApoU. 298
dft^i Sc V1701/ <Lva<T<rav aO^a-^ara. <^vX' dv^powrcuv — .
Hes. Op. 660
Movo-at yap fx cStSa^av dOe(r<f}aTOV vfxvov dciSctv.
Let me observe in passing, that in X 61 the original was in
all probability not d^cVc^aros oTvos, but aOi(r<f>aTo<: vttvos, a soft
impeachment, to which Elpenor, for there is a good deal of
human nature even in ghosts, would plead guilty more readily
than to the vulgate, even if the digamma did not stand in the
way of the latter's genuineness.
With regard to d^c(r</)aT09, the meaning given in Apoll.
Lex. 13, 5 • "ToXvYf olov ovS' dv ^eos ^aTtVctcv 8ta to ttXtjOos, is
undoubtedly in the main correct, whether Oeos enters into the
composition of the word or not. The nouns to which this adjec-
tive is applied agree only in possessing quantity or volume
that passes description. They indicate something indefinitely
large or copious. An epithet of this kind is obviously given
with full propriety to the pouring rain, the vast sea, the long
night, &c. On the other hand, no description of the impenetrable
mist that enshrouded Odysseus as he entered the Phaeacian
king's palace could be more absurdly ridiculous than to say that
it was ' describably large ', the converse of a6€(T<f>aTos, whether the
describer be a god or any one else. Clearly the arjpy the mist,
is d6£(r<f>aTos in the same way as is the ofi^pos of T 4. It is
copious and indefinable, all the more so, because it is invisible.
If Oia^aros could be supported by an array of passages such
as dOia-i^aro^ has at call, the case would be materially altered ;
but it so happens that our passage stands absolutely alone to
vouch for the word as either the converse or, if any one cares so
to regard it, the equivalent of dOi<T<^aro^. Elsewhere $€cr<f>aTov
is either a noun substantive, * an oracle,' or means * declared by
heaven', v. 477, 8 561, k 473, Hymn. Herm. 534.
The only plausible consideration in favour of maintaining
Oea-KJiaToi here is that the ancients would never have sacrificed
d$€(r<f)aT0i to save a common elision such as the o of x^***
But here again I must recur to my argument that the words
108
I
BOOK Vn Y] 143-164
-would probably be written in yery early times, as in Latin,
■without mark of elision, ;^o dOca-ffjaro^, and consequently it is
merely the wrong vowel that happens to have suffered extinc-
tion. d6icr<f>aTo^ was made the victim, not only because it
produced the rare trochaic caesura of the fourth foot, but
because it had passed out of familiar speech, the only efficient
safeguard of language in ancient times. Luckily the other
sufficiently numerous examples of d^co-^aros were not im-
perilled in a similar way, and have therefore been enabled
to preserve their pristine integrity. Here the MSS. without
exception, so far as I am aware, present 0€a-<f>aTo<s ; but 'twould
be a topsy-turvy world, my masters, if the combined evidence
of eight unquestioned passages were insufficient to overrule a
nonsensical unanimity in one.
Earlier in our line avroto, 'from himself,' seems needlessly
emphatic. This emphasis may perhaps not lack defenders ; but
most probably the original reading, subsequently altered by
a modernizing hand, was aTro roto. It is true the gen. may
stand after TraXiv without a preposition, as in ^ 138, Y 439:
but its presence is clearly admissible, as may be seen from
^ 593 iroAiv 8' dirb xaAKos opovcrc | pX.7]fi€vov. One MS. Vind. 50
supports €K Toto, so that there is not entire unanimity for the
vulgate.
if| 164^ otvov hriKprja-ai, iva koX All T€p7nK€pavv<a
<nr€to-o/i,€v,
Kprjcrai is a remarkable importation. "We have to come down
to the middle of the fifth century B.C. before we meet another
example, in the Ionic of Hippocrates to wit (7. 254 (Littre)).
Happily the Homeric form is placed beyond question. We have
y 390, € 93 K€paxr<T€, k 362 KcpdxraaroLf 1 89 iyK€pda-a<ra, y 393,
0-423 K€pd(TcraTOj V ^^9* ^ 6^ Kepaa-crdfievo's.
Obviously the fact that imKepda-aL fails to satisfy the
metre has led to the introduction of hrLKprjcrai, which had the
essential recommendation of belonging to a living dialect.
It may well have been preferred even to €Tr€yK€pd<raL because
of a later reluctance to allow two prepositions in a compound
verb.
Still I cannot think that hreyKepda-aL would suffice here,
for, as may be seen from r) 179, v 50, <t 423, the middle is quite
109
T] 164-204 ODYSSEY
legitimate (see also Note on ^ 82 f.). Therefore I propose to read
our line thus : —
olvQV erreyKipaxraxrO*, iva koX Ait T€fmu<€pavv<a
(nrcuro/xey — .
*J 193] irofJLTrrj v<f> rffxereprr) ^v TrarptSa yalav LKrjraL
The prep, might be eliminated by reading rifxerffyr) tto/attJ.
That it is needless appears from c 32. The validity of the
dactyl TrofjLTrrj v<f> may also be doubted, cf. i 35 (Note).
t] 196] irpCv ye rbv rjs yaLr}<s iTn^rjfievaL'
Evidently tov is not required here, as it is in the line which
apparently has caused its introduction, a 210 : —
TrpiV y€ TOV €S TpoLtjv avafti^ficvaij
The remedies proposed are TrptV ye irj^, once supposed to be
metrical, irpiv y hi rj<i (van Herwerden), irpLv ye e ^s (Bekker).
I venture to think TrptV y cttI tJs more probable. The repetition
of the preposition is archaic and Homeric, though the contrary
has been sometimes rashly asserted.
T] 204] €t 8' apa Tts Koi fxovvos Iwv ^fi/SXrjrai oStVjys.
For ^p,pXrjTaiL "with its peculiar accentuation (irpoirap-
o^ovov Schol. P) Bekker and Cobet would read ^v/x^X^rai, and
if the contracted form of the word is to be admitted at all,
the circumflex accent is undoubtedly correct, v. Monro, H, G.
§ 88.
Nauck's idea that ^p.p\r]Tai is indicative, ivfjLpXrjrai being
subjunctive, is altogether untenable. The Homeric aor. eySXij^iyv,
parallel with cAv/ai^v, cScy/xiyv, iXcy/xrjVf c^^t/xryv, may of course
appear in the 3rd per. sing, as epXrjro or ^XrJTOy but to suppose
that Pe^XrjfjLai may make pXrjrai as well as /3e/3Xr]Tai is not
merely questionable, but is destructive of all rational accidence.
Dr. Monro (loc. cit.) would defend ivpLpX-qrai as an encroach-
ment of the common thematic type, at the same time admitting
a doubt whether the change reaches back to the earliest form
of the text of Homer. But evidently this defence is only one
remove from a severe blow to the impugned form ; for it is this
very encroachment of later types which has debased the Homeric
text and dotted it with modernizations, which have in the present
century served as pegs on which to hang disquisitions intended
to prove that the poems as a whole are only sham antique, the
work of a cultivated age vainly trying to imagine a remote and
BOOK VII T| 204-275
indeed never actually existent anterior stage of civilization.
The true form of the subjunctive of i/SXrjfjirjv is /SXrjeTaL, as appears
from : —
p 471 ottttot' dvTjp ircpt oTai jjcax'^i-ofievo^ Kreareo-a-L
pXrjiTaL, rf Trept ^ovcrXv 17 dpyewrjs oUcrcri,
In Y 335 ivfi(3XrJ€aL has been rightly restored for ivjjifSXrjarcaL by
Cobet. Similarly we find <f>6UTaL (Y 173), (ftOto^^a-Oa (H 87).
Hence we should read in our passage, not ^ixf^Xyfrai with ancient
grammarians, who from simple ignorance used the linguistic
types of their own day as standards to determine ancient epic
forms, whenever the metre would allow them to do so, nor yet
^vfJ^pXrJTUL, a doubtful contraction of little authority and less
probability, but the simple uncontracted and unquestionable
pXrjeTai with elision thus: —
ivfi^X-qcO' 68lt7)'s.
It is very satisfactory to find this reading already adopted in the
text by the Leyden editors, van Leeuwen and da Costa, who
have also, it appears, in two other passages, /S 368 and y 255,
anticipated my suggestions.
rj 270] rj yap e/xeXXov ert ^vi(Ttcr$ai ot^vt — .
Probably 6iZ,v — efieXXov, cf. Note on t, 60 and p 504.
^ 275] avrdp eyw yc
vrjxop-cvo^ ToSe Xair/xa SuT/JUtyov, 6(f>pa jxe yatrj — .
For ToSe Bekker reads p-eya, and is probably right as the line
seems to have been subjected in more respects than one to the
influence of e 409 : —
Zcvs, Kttt 8t) ToSe XacT/JM StttTft^^a? cTrepao-cra.
Clearly it is only this Siarfi-qia^ cTrcpcuro-a that we have to thank
for SUrfjLayov here. There is no other warrant for Sierfiayov
so far as the meaning is concerned : in form it is really entirely
without excuse. It is not so much a false archaism as a bar-
barous solecism. This may be seen certainly enough from : —
A 531 T(u y' ws /3ovXevcravT€ SicTfiayev rj fxkv cTrctra — . (= v 439)
H 302 r]8* aw' iv fjuXorriri Sterp-aycv dpOfJLi^a-avTi.
M 461 icrxcOerrjVf a-aviSes Se SuTjxayev aXXvSL<s oAAr^ — .
n 354 TTot/xevos d<f>paSir](rL Stcrp-ayev ot 8e i8on"€S — .
374 Tratras TrXrjcrav oSovs, iTrel ap rpAyev vi(/l 8' deXXa — .
where we have merely the alternative form of (SijeT/jioiyrjcrav from
the passive aor. erfidyrjv. Consequently, if the poet had wished to
ti 275 ODYSSEY
use the verb at all in our line, he might easily have said without
any straining of usage : —
avrap i/xoLye
This, however, it is pretty clear he did not say, or some trace
of it would have come down to us, and it is still clearer that
he did not say, and could not have said, what the tradition gives
us, viz. Sierfjuiyov, a form elsewhere not to be met with in all
Greek literature.
As I have already said the meaning which must be given
to this verb here, / crossed, depends upon the expression found
in € 409 SiaTfwy^a? hvipaacra. But it is one thing to use this
participle in subordination to and controlled by kiripacra-a, to
express very nearly the sense of our phrase, *by a short cut,'
* as the crow flies,' or in American * taking a bee-line ', and
quite another thing to change the participle into the indicative
mood and to employ it as by itself equivalent to both verb and
participle together. I doubt very much the possibility of saying,
even though there would then be no formal eccentricity, such as
now confronts us : —
VT/^^o/xcvos ToSc AatT/Aa Sict/ai;^', o^pa /m€ yaxrf—.
So far then as the exposure of the corrupt character of the
vulgate is concerned we are upon sure ground, and such an
examination of the Homeric text has a real value, even though
it may not result in the recovery of the true reading in every
instance or in the majority of instances. No one has a right
to demand or expect so much from researches of this kind. So
here it is only possible to hazard the conjecture, still based upon
the illuminating e 409, that the original was : —
avrap cyoi ye
vr])(OfjLevo^ fi4ya \aiTfia SicKTTcpao"', ocfypa jxe yairj—^.
Compare c 174 Trepdav /w-cya AaiT/xa Oakda<rrjs. circpacra, though
necessarily admissible as well as irrcpaaa-a, has not actually been
preserved in the sense of * I traversed ', though we have iripaa-av
0428 and TTcpao-eic ^297 meaning * transported * or * sold '. This
fact alone would to some extent explain the disappearance of
7repao-(c) here, and it seems to me most probable that this is
the true account of the matter, though I cannot deny the possi-
bility of some other verb having been the original occupier of
iia
I
BOOK VIII Tj 275-0 64
the place now usurped by the intrusive Siir/xayov. Other metrical
equivalents that suggest themselves, such as Sl-^XvOovj SUSpafioVf
Steiiov (8t€^'), Strjpeo-o-' have little to recommend them otherwise,
t] 321] et ircp KOL fxaXa ttoAAov cfcaoTcpco tcTT EvySoir;?, —
Bentley's suggestion TroAAa is improbable, irovXv (t 387)
would be preferable; but in view of Hymn. Dion. 29: —
7j es *YTr€p^opiov<s 17 cKacrTC/ow es Sk TcAevn^v,
a spurious addition, which supplies a source from which eKaoTcpo)
may have been derived, it would seem quite possible that we
have to deal with a gloss on the more usual word diroTrpoOcvt
cf. 17 244 : —
'Oyvyiiy tis vrjaos aircnrpoOev civ aXl Kcirai — .
But if so, a further change would be necessary, and the line must
have run thus : —
€t ircp KoX iroXv fiaXKov aTroTrpoOev ioT ^v^oly)^.
It may be noticed that fidXa ttoXXov diroTrpoOi occurs twice * 832
and 8 811. There is no additional instance oi kKaa-Tipm, though
cKaa-Tdroi occurs once, K 113, in a book which is not always a
very safe authority for diction ; dTroirpoOcv eight times, and
aTTOTrpoOi six.
BOOK VIII (6).
12] €ts dyoprjv Uvai, 6<f>pa ^clvolo TrvOrja-Oe, —
If we compare with the above : —
V 362 €19 dyoprjv ep^ea-Oai, irrel raSc WKxt ICctkcl.
6 42 epx€(r0*j 6<j>pa ^ctvov evt fxeydpoia-L ^tXew/Acv'
K 562 (fxiaOe vv ttov OLKovBe (fytXrjv is TrarpcSa yatav
€p^€crO'' aXXyjv 8* rj/xLV oSov TCKfii^paTO J^ipKY} — .
there is a strong presumption that the hiatus here is no more
correct than it was in r; 164 (v. Note); that in fact the true
reading is, as these passages suggest : —
€15 dyoprjv f.p\i(rd\ 6<j>pa $€lvolo TrvOrjcrOe.
64] 6<^6aXfxiiiv ixkv d/xepa-e, SiSov 8' rjSeLav doiSrjvj —
1 210 X*^'» oSfxr] 8* TjSiLa ctTTo KprjT^pos oSwSei.
As these two passages in conjunction with the probably
spurious V 80 are supposed to demonstrate the impossibility
of restoring the digamma of FrjSvs in Homer, v. Hoffmann
Qu. H. § III., it may be of advantage to take the two lines
AGAR I 113
6 64 ODYSSEY
as a test case and to show that, intractable as they appear,
they do not by any means make it an inevitable necessity
that we should accept the doctrine that Homer considered
himself at liberty to use either FrjSvs or ^Svs, as fancy or con-
venience might prompt.
Let us first deal with 6 64, for if the problem can be solved
there, our second instance, i 210, will be found to present little
difficulty. Now unless we are going to suppose that the poet
meant to intimate by this particular licence that the Muse
in an excess of wanton cruelty — he says she did it all out
of love, Tov TTipi Move' c^tX-qa-ii — deprived poor Demodocus
not only of his eyes but of his Fb, and so converted him into
the ancient equivalent of those modem poets who adopt the
dialect of the slums or the barrack-yard, I see no reason
why we should not restore the line thus : —
offiOak/xib fxkv aftcpac, StiSov S' apa rjhvv a,ot8>;v. [Cf. N 34O.]
Tlie facility with which t 210 follows suit is a point in favour
of this change : —
;j(ei)*, ohjjiy] 8' apa i^Sus airo KprjTrjpo^ 6B<t>8€i,
nor in this last case can I count the removal of the so-called
hiatus licitus as anything but an additional recommendation.
Clearly such an expression as rfSyv doiSrjv would seem to
the later Greek in the interests of elementary grammar to call
for the simple correction B* rfBelavy which if it had been equally
simple would doubtless have been with equal readiness applied
to the line which may still be quoted in support of the
apparently anomalous concord : —
/x 369 Ktti TOTt fJL€ Kvt(rr}S ap.<f)riKv6€ r)8v^ avr/xiy.
Compare also ^ 122 OrjXvs dunj, T 97 OrjXvs coOo-a, c 467
$rj\vi ieparj, 8 442 oAowTaros oSfM-^i 406 Trixpov — oS/xiyv, K 27
TTovXvv €</)' vyprjv &c. It is indeed rather strange that the
distinctively feminine forms of this adjective (^Scia, rfSiiav)
depend for their validity in Homer solely on these two lines
{6 64, L 210) and the doubtful 550, which belongs to a
passage^ found in none of the MSS., but introduced by Barnes
from the probably spurious Platonic dialogue, Alcib. 11. 149 D,
where it might well have been allowed to rest. This con-
sideration may serve at any rate to diminish the natural regret
we might otherwise feel at parting with lyScta (-av) here.
BOOK VIII 64-121
In this connexion it is by no means difficult to discern the
iture and cause of the remarkable reading found : —
O 71 IXtov alirv eXwcriv.
'he lost fem. anrvv, found in Harl. Mor., should certainly be
stored, nor need we hesitate to read aiirvv for cutt-^v in 6 516.
)0 also in 11 766 ov/ocos cv ftrja-a-rj^ fSaOerjv ircXifJU^efiev vkrjy,
fauck's correction pi^a-ayja-t ^aOvv may be safely accepted,
lere is little to recommend the curious compromise ^aOirjv.
Fes. Theog. 39 for rjSeia' ycXa we may restore rfSvs' ycXaet.
For fxkv — 8* apa in ^ 64 reference may be made to A 426,
308, B 426, r 8 &c. ; but to support 8' apa in t 210 by any
luotations would surely be a work of supreme supererogation.
67] KaS 8' ex Tra(TcraX6<j>L Kp^fxaaev — .
Here and 105 the archaic genitive iraaa-aXoo may be
stored, cf. € 59 (Note). So also in O 268.
100] vvv 8' iiiXOiOfiev Kal aiOkiOv TreiprqOdpxv
For TreLprjOwfxev, the later form of the epic irct/aiy^^o/Acv
{-tLOfiev), we haye irctp^o-w/xcv Schol. T, A 389, ircLp-qOifD/jiev
Bekker, ireLprja-wfieO* diOXiDv Fick, all nearly equally objectionable.
Other suggestions might be made, such as Trctpaw/Ac^* or TnLprjOi^eT
acO\(jDv ; but perhaps the most satisfactory solution would be to
suppose that the original reading was TrciprjOrjvaL (sensu imperative).
This would be almost sure to be converted into the traditional
form. Compare <o 532 (Note).
6 121] TOLO-L 8' oLTrb vvaarrjs TCTaro Spofxos' ol 8' a/xa TravTcs
Ka/DTToAt/LttOS CTTCTOVTO KOVLOVT€S TTeBcOlO.
The first clause is a doubtful entity. The technical terms of
sport, racing and pedestrianism, are always somewhat of a
mystery to the uninitiated, and, besides this inherent difficulty,
vary so much from age to age, that it is not a matter of surprise
if those of a remote time suggest to us ideas which originally
they never conveyed. It is therefore no reproach to scholars if
they are not agreed as to the meaning of this short sentence : —
TOtO-t 8' ttTTO VV(T(Tr)9 TCTttTO 8pd/X09.
The most generally accepted explanation, at any rate in England,
is that given by Dr. Merry : ' Their running was kept up at full
speed from the starting-point,' and so to the same effect Messrs.
Butcher and Lang have : * From the very start they strained at
utmost speed.'
I 2 115
e 121 ODYSSEY
On the other hand Ameis-Hentze understood the words
quite differently. Their interpretation would run thus : * a course
was drawn for them from the starting-point.' This would be
the StavXos, which extended, as they explain, from the starting-
point to some mark in the distance and then back again to the
starting-point.
We have the sentence again in ^ 758 also in the description
of a foot-race. The competitors are named, then follows : —
Toart S* OLTTO vvacrrjs Teraro Spofxxts' wKa 8* cTrciTa
€K<f>€p* *0t\€i8iys, €7rt 8' wpwTo Stos *OSv(r<r€vs — .
In this passage the first explanation, if the words will bear
it, is suitable enough to the context. But the same cannot be
said of 6 12 1-2, for there the clause immediately following
amounts to nothing more than a very weak and lumbering
repetition of the statement that the race was a fast one.
Of the second we may say generally that no one can consider
the words *a course was drawn for them from the starting-
point ' to be an adequate description of a SiavXos at all. They
really describe, if anything, what is called a point-to-point
course.
When we come to consider the particular words used it is
almost a certainty that neither version can be accepted.
It is always assumed that vva-a-a means in these two places
*the starting-point'. The assumption, however, is most un-
warrantable. If Homer had given us these two passages only,
and the meaning had to be inferred from them, * starting-point *
would be a very tolerable guess, though not, as we have seen,
entirely satisfactory. But he has not left us in the dark at all.
No explanation could be more definite and precise than the one
he has given us : —
^327 €<TTr}K€ ^\ov avov o(TOv T* opryvL vtrkp atiy?,
7} S/)vos ri TTCv/oys* TO fjikv ov KararrvderaL ofx^pt^'
Xa€ Be Tov eKarepOcv ip-qpeBarai Svo Acuku)
ey ^voxyaiv oSov, Xcto? 8* ImroSpofxos afi<f>is'
^ Tcv an^fia /SpoTolo TroAat KaTareOvrjCrro^,
^ TO ye vvua-a rervKro €wi wporepwv dvOpumiov'
KoX vvv Ttpfiar* iOrjKi iroBdpKrj^ 8tos 'A^^iAAcvs.
T<p (TV fxaX* iy^LfXif/a^ ikdav (r)(€S6v apfxa kox Mnrovs,
aVTOS 8c K\t,V$^vaL CV7rX«KT<{> ^vi 8i<^p<j)
116
BOOK VIII ei2i
rJK* 67r' apLCTTcpa tolov' arap tov Sc^iov imrov
K€V(raL 6fJiOK\y(ra<s, cT^at re oi -^vCa ^ipcrCv.
€v vv(T(rr} Se rot ittttos dpLarepos iY)(pLfJi<f>6i^o),
o)? oiv TOL TrXriixvyj y€ hodcra-erai aKpov LK€(rOaL
kvkXov TTOtrjTOLo' \l6ov 8* aXiacrOai kiravpeiv,
fxy TTws iTTTTOVs T€ rp(x>crr]<s Kara. 6* dpfiara diys'
€t yap K* iv vvorcry ye Trape^eXda-ya-Oa Skokwv,
ovK earO* os Ke <r' cAiyort /xeraXfjLevo^ — .
The vva-a-a is the turning-point in the distance, remote from the
starting-point, the d(f)€Tr]pta, with which the Schol. B. Q. absurdly
identify it. That the word should have both meanings is only
conceivable on the improbable supposition that Homer used
the terms of sport without caring for, we cannot say without
knowing, their significance.
For my part I believe rather in the fallibility of the writer
of Schol. B. Q. and of all his authorities, if he had any. The
only author who is supposed to have used vva-a-a in the sense of
starting-point is Oppianus in his Halieutica, and as he lived
nearly 200 years after the beginning of the Christian Era, it
does not matter much if he misused the word. It may be,
however, that Oppianus is maligned.
The only question is : Can vva-a-a be taken in its proper
acceptation of 'turning-point' in these two passages ^121 and
* 758 ? If so all other renderings, however ingenious and
plausible, are at once out of court, being founded on an erroneous
basis.
Now what serious objection can be taken to our rendering
the sentence in this way? —
* A course was marked out for them straight from the turning-
point.'
If we take a piece of string, pass it over a peg or nail or
projection of any sort, and then holding the two ends nearly
together in one or both hands pull the string taut, the line
forms a StavXo?. The one thing needful beside the string is
the peg or nail, the vva-a-a. The line, the Spofios, Terarai aTro
vva-a-r)<s.
So in arranging the race in Homer's time the one thing
needful was the distant vva-a-a. They did not need even the
117
6 I3I-I59 ODYSSEY
string or any actual marking of the intermediate ground. The
eye stretched an imaginary line to and from the vva-cra. This
was sufficient : it made the SiavXo^, and none could mistake the
course to be run. I hardly think it is necessary to say more in
favour of this interpretation. It recommends itself. An English
reader might perhaps imagine that Homer would have said to
rather than from the vvaa-a ; but it is the idiom of the Greek
language which differs from our own in this respect. Where we
should speak of tying Odysseus to the mast, the Greeks said
* from the mast ' (/a 5 1 ) and so on. Nor does it really matter in
this case, as the imaginary line that forms the SiavXo? is drawn
both to and fro.
It only remains to notice one passage which is thought to
justify the first of our two recognized renderings. It is : —
^373 oXX* ore 8r) Trvixarov reXcov Spo/xov WKces Tjnroi
a\f/ i<f>* aXos TrokirjSi totc Brj aperq ye kKoxTTOv
<f>aLV€T\ a<f>ap 8* XTnroKTL rad-q Spofios' w/ca 8* cTrctTa
al ^rjprjTLaSao ttoSwkccs eK<f>€pov lirrroi.
Here the accepted rendering of rdOiq 8p6ixo<s is 'the pace was
forced ', * accelerabatur impetus.' This cannot be objected to as
unsuitable to the passage ; at the same time I venture to doubt
whether this is precisely what the words really meant to the
mind of the author.
First of all I would notice that, except in one passage
(2 281), regarded by many critics as an interpolation, Spofuis
never means anything but ' course ', * running-ground.' Next
Tctvci) seems to convey not so much the idea of hard tension as of
extension in length. So that in P 543 TcVaro Kpareprj va-jxivriy
M 436 €7rt r<ra /acix^ Teraro irroXe/jLo^ tc, Tcraro may mark rather
the length, the protracted character, of the struggle than its
ferocity and intensity.
In any case I should be content to render a<f>ap 8' linroia-i rdOrf
8po/ios * at once the horses had a straight course before them '.
The turn round the vva-a-a being accomplished they had a straight
run home, in which speed, not the driver's dexterity, would tell.
This may be a less picturesque expression, but is quite as
effective a touch in the description.
6 1593 ^^ y^P ^* <>^^*> ^^^>'*> ^arjixovi <f>o)ri iiarKni
aOKoiVy old T€ TToAAa /act' avOpunrouri ircAoKrat,
118
BOOK VIII 159
aWa Tw OS 0* a/xa vrjl TroXvKkrjLSi Oafit^ioVj
dpxos vavrduiv ot t€ TrprjKTrjpe^ catri,
<f}6fnov T€ jjivrjfAdiv kol hricrKOTro^ jjcnv oSaioiV
K€p8ioiv 6 dpTra\€<j)v ovS* dOXrp^pL cotKas.
This is the flouting speech of the Phaeacian Euryalus to Odysseus
during the progress of the games. Even the most careless reader
of Homer must be struck by the solitary example in 1. 1 6o of the
contracted form dOXov. Rising up in protest against it there
stand at least forty instances of the uncontracted deOXov and
diOXia. Again the question arises: — Is the presence of this
later form sufficient to prove that the line, and as much of
the passage as may be involved in its excision, ought to be
regarded as not genuine? And again the answer is: — By no
means. Nothing has happened here beyond the introduction
of a modern form where the original turn of expression happened
to be of a slightly archaic cast, and happened also to lend itself
with facility to such modernization. The primitive phrase is
still recoverable : —
Ota r deOXia ttoAAo, /x.€t* dvOpiinroLcri ntXovTai.
We may therefore disregard Knight's rejection of this line. He
also condemns on the same ground 1. 164, to which I will make
reference later.
Now the omission of the antecedent genitive which the pre-
ceding Barj/jLovL implies is peculiarly epic and may be illustrated
by such examples as H 401 yvuirov Sk kol os fidXa vi/Trios ia-rtv,
T 40 tJ fxdXa Tts ^eos €v8ov, ot ovpavbv €vpvv t^ovcriv. The attraction
of the antecedent noun into the relative clause is too common
after otos to need much illustration. Compare : —
^244 ^fieriprf^ dperrjs fJiefjLvrjixevos, ota kol ^fiiv
Z€i)S cTTt €pya Ti6r)(TL SiafJiTrcpks ii €TL Trarpiov.
also the Note on X 364. But it may be worth while to consider
briefly the remaining instances of this contraction (d6X.) of the
cognates of ae^Aov. The contraction of the simple noun is, as
I have said, unique here. The other instances are six in
number, seven, if we count a repeated line. We have dOXrjaavra
twice (H 453, O 30). I have already dealt with these passages
in a discussion of the former line Journ. Phil. xxiv. 48, p. 278,
and need say no more of them. O 734 dOXevoyv may be dismissed
as late. Either the composer himself did not accurately realize
119
e 159 ODYSSEY
the proper sense of dc^Xcvw, for which see A 389, ^ 274, 737, or
possibly he wrote Orjrevuiv, which some one afterwards altered
to save the royal dignity. We next come to two instances of
adXo(f>6pos : —
I 124 Trrjyovs aOX.o<f)6pov9f ot de^Xia iroa'a-lv apovro =266
A 699 T€(T(rap€^ aOXo<f>6poL lttttol avroLcriv o;)(€(r^tv.
In the first case 7rrjya<s acOkocjiopov^ (Brandreth) is probably right.
TT^yc? from Trrjyos would be fairly paralleled by ipL-qp^q cratpot
beside iptrjpos cratpos. But there is even less difficulty here, as
no well-established singular form Tnyyo? has to be discounted.
There is only kv/mitl Tn/yw at the end of a line (c 388). In the
second A 699 a transposition leads directly to an easy remedy : —
avTOLs rea-crapes lttttol a€0\o<f>6poL (tvv 6')(€(t^lv.
Cf. X 22 (revd/A€vos ws 0* tinros aeOkoKfiopos crvv 6x€<r<f>LVf
and for the rhythm ; —
E 222 oloL TptoLOL tmroL iTrLorrdfjievoL ttcBlolo.
Of course the metre would allow the commencement r€<Taap€^
avTOL<T with elision, if preferred.
There is now left to be noticed only the concluding line of
this speech of Euryalus ; —
/cepScwv 0* dpTraXecJV ov8' aOXrjTTJpL €OLKaq.
It would be possible to suggest pAX.' dedXrjrrjpL or with a closer
adherence to the tradition (rv 8* deOXriTTJpL (cf. Aesch. Eum. 137
(TV 8* alpxLTqpoVf for which the MSS. offer ov8' at/xa-nypoV) with con-
temptuous irony : but the whole line seems rather like a later
addition, *e commentis ortus' (Knight). Over and above the
objection to dOXrjrrjpL, the ground on which Knight based his
rejection of the line, there are suspicious features about the adj.
dp7raX€(j)v. It is difficult to believe that the meaning, * alluring,'
* attractive,' given by Liddell and Scott for this passage, is
Homeric at all. The use of the adverb dpiraXiois is not recon-
cilable with such a sense. On the other hand, if the meaning
be * snatched,' * plundered,' it seems hardly consistent to make
this a reproach to a trader in an age when plundering open
and avowed in the form of piracy was an honourable calling.
Moreover the speech would end effectively enough with oSaiW
instead of with the mere repetition of the all too near opening
remark.
In 1. 163 cto-iv should be accepted from P i man. and
BOOK VIII
159-167
[Schol. H. rather than rja-iVj not only because the only genuine
Homeric form of the subj. is erja-iv, but because, while palaeo-
graphically the two words are identical, EICIN, the subjunctive
here is at any rate not essential.
167] ovT(o<s ov Trdvrc(r(TL O^oX \apicvTa hihova-iv
dvSpd(Tiv, ovT€ cl>vr]v ovt ap (f^pevas ovr dyoprjTvv.
The use of ovtws here is unparalleled in Homer, and is
[iiardly sufficiently vouched for by the similar use of adeo in
[Latin, v. Merry and Riddell ad loc. ' so true is it that '. This
fdoubt is strengthened when we compare : —
A 320 dA.A,' ov TTCos dfxa Travra Scot Soaav dvOpwirourLV
N 729 dXX' ov TTws a/xa Trarra Svvqo-eaL avros iXia-OaL.
ind confirmed when we take into consideration the undeniable
fact that the most important word in the two lines just quoted,
the cardinal point as it were, Travra, is conspicuously absent in
167. Hence we have several proposed emendations here.
'Duentzer proposed and van Leeuwen and da Costa accept: —
ovrws ov)( dfxa Travra Oeol \apCevTa StSovcri — .
So also van Herwerden with ov yap Trog for ovtco? ovx-
On the other hand Adam would find room for the necessary
word by removing ^^apUvra. He proposes : —
ovTws ov TrdvTcorcn Oiol d/xa Travra SiSovaiv
or as an alternative, not unnecessarily offered, as the hiatus is
glaring : —
ovTOi<s ovK dpa Travra Oeol irdvT^crcrL StSovcriv.
I confess I do not find any of these suggestions satisfactory.
It does not seem likely that Travrco-crt is wrong, and still less
that -^apievra is an intruder. The doubtful word is ovrw?, and
if this be, as seems probable, properly represented by the ov
Tr(09 of A 320 and N 729, then we have only to deal with ovrws
ov. The rest of the line should not be touched.
The passage is, I submit, made to read satisfactorily, and its
present state is most easily accounted for, if we suppose that
it stood originally : —
Trav^' <i)9 ov Travrco-o^t ^cot ;(aptevra StSovo-tv.
Thus the emphatic word occupies the first place, the place to
which it is properly entitled. I suggest further that Travra ws
became corrupted into Travrcos, which was then changed into
the more suitable adverb ovrws.
xai
® 179-195 ODYSSEY
ws (TV ye fivBeiaii oXX! iv TrpwroMTiv oiw
€/A/x€vai, o^p* ^)S>; T€ rreTTotOea X^P^^ t' ifJi-rjan.
The second line in all probability ran thus in the original : —
Q)<S (TV y€ fJivOec*, flfi, dAA' iv TrptirrourLV oto) — .
/Av^ec' = jxvOifaL with elision. We may of course adopt the
traditional hyphaeresis of y8 202 fxvOeaiy which was doubtless
preferred as less antiquated, and read
<i)S <rv ye /xv^cat, €i/u.*, dAA' ev tt/owtowtiv dtco — .
The necessity for the elfxC here is not metrical only. The contrast
with ififxevai = * was ' will not allow us to leave out the corre-
sponding and contrasting * am ' in the earlier clause,
w 195] 'fttt K dXaos roty iilve, StaK/atVeic to (rrjfia
afi<f)a<f>6(i>v'
Here to (rrjfxa should hardly be accepted unquestionably as
an early instance of the defining article (v. Monro, H. G. § 261,3).
There is every probability that a primitive
T08* -^/Jia
would have had small chance of surviving, when so facile a
modernization as to a-rj/xa was suggested by the words of a line
so near as 1. 192
6 8' VTrefyjTTaTO (rrjfxaTa Trdvrwv — .
The noun ^/xa * cast ', * throw % is only preserved in ^ 891 : —
178' oo-o-ov Swd/x€(, T€ KOL y/xao-LV £7rA,€v dpioTcys
and even there we are told that a wild modernization was
essayed, 8vvd^€t koX prjfjiaa-L, So hard is it for an obsolete word
to remain untampered with, even when interference leads directly
to absurdity.
Here though the change to to (rrjfxa introduces no such
discordant element, yet rjp,a might challenge comparison with
arj/iia on intrinsic merit alone leaving the choice between to
and ToSc out of the question. If, as is usually supposed, the
a-T^/xara of 1. 192 are pegs stuck in the ground, Athene would
in effect say that this 17/xa needs no ayj/xa to make it more dis-
cernible. It needs no judgement of the eye. A blind man
could tell by touch alone that this throw was first and the rest,
as they say, nowhere.
133
r
BOOK VIII 0229-237
2293 Bovpi B* OLKOVTli^di 6(T0V OVK aX\o<S Tt9 OKTTiO.
Read aKovri^iw as the metre demands. The infinitive
depends on the iv oTSa of 1. 215 : —
€V iikv Toiov olSa iv^oov dfJi(f>a<fida(rOaL'
Even if the intervening lines be retained as genuine, the main-
tenance of the construction is characteristic of the epic style,
but it is of interest to note that the whole passage 11. 216-28
is condemned as an interpolation by many eminent scholars,
Kirchhoff, La Roche, Fick, Lehre, Kayser, van Leeuwen and
da Costa. If the passage be removed as inconsistent with the
incognito of Odysseus, for here he clearly poses as one of the
leaguers against Troy, and also with the speech of Alcinous,
11- 577-86, the emendation might commend itself even to the
casual reader, perhaps indeed to all except those who wildly
imagine hiatus licitus to be a thing desirable in itself and for
itself.
V 237] dXX* iOiXii^ dp€r7}v (rrjv <f>aLV€fjL€v, rj tol oTnySci,
)(o}6fX€vos OTL cr ovTOS dvTjp iv dytovt irapatTTOs
vuKca-eVj ws av <rr}v dperqv /?/ootos ov tis ovoito
OS T19 lirLarraLTO rjcn <f>p€(Tlv dpria /Sd^ecv'
The last line may also be found verbatim in the Iliad in
a passage which may be compared advantageously with the
above : —
H 90 (Ttya, fxrj tl<s t oAAos 'A;(atoiv rovrov aKovoTy
fivOov, ov ov K€v dvrip ye 8ta cTTOfxa Trdpjrav ayotro,
OS Tts iTTLcrraLTO ya-i tfypealv dpria ySa^eiv
(rKrj'nTOv)(os t elrjy Kat ot TrciOoiaTO Xaot — .
In H 92 there is a well-supported, though unmetrical, variant
CTrto-Tarai. One MS. Lips. has CTrio-Taro. So in 240 eTrto-TaTat
has some support and en-ia-rair] is given in two scholia. As
admissible readings none of these variants are of any value.
Their existence however necessarily reflects some doubt upon
cTTto-TaiTo, and makes one wonder what common origin they all
can have had. The common point about them seems to be
that they are efforts of the grammatical spirit to impart a formal
accuracy to something which to the later critical ear must
have seemed defective in this respect. The missing link of the
traditional readings, the basis of the grammatical deviation,
may be found in the form hrLardfxivos. The probability of
"3
e 237 ODYSSEY
this suggestion depends upon the ascertained usage of this word
in Homer. Curiously enough it is almost always strictly adjec-
tival. The step from participle to adjective is not perhaps very
difficult to take, the border line being narrow enough, but it
is seldom taken so thoroughly as to admit the possibility of
anything like : —
T 80 vjS^aXXcLV ^aXiTTov yap iTrurTa/xevio irep com,
where the participle of the verb, * to be ', has to be added to this
participle to ensure that the expression should be recognized as
really participial.
O 282 AtrtoA-wv ox aptoTO?, iTrurrdfievo^ fiev okovtl
ia-0X6<s S* ev a-TaScr)'
-S 599 o' S' OT€ fjiev 6pi^a<TKov errurraixevovarL TroScctrt — .
S 231 irjrpbs 8e eKaoTOS iTncrTdfievos irepl Travnav
dvOpiOTTiOV.
^359 dvBpo^ iirurrafxivov
V 3^2 dpryaXiov o'c, Bid, yvtuvat fiporia di/rtcuravrt
Koi pAK i'7ruTTap,evio'
if/ 184 Tts Be fWL aXKocre 6t]K€ \€)(OSi X'^^''^^^ ^^ '^^ *"7
KOL /AoA' €7rtcrTa/xev<u.
<f> 406 0)9 OT dvrjp <f)6pp,Lyyos iirLordp^eyos kol ootS^s — .
In one passage ir 374 crrMrra/xevos should probably be read for the
unique hruTnqp.iav,
Only once is it still participial 8 730 cTrwrra/Acvai adi^ia
Ovpiw.
Similar is ctSws with ace. (participle), with gen. (adjective).
Compare also the usage of 7r€<f>vyp,evo<s, a 18 and elsewhere.
It seems to me highly probable that if the only passage in
question had been H 92 f. : —
OS Tis €7n(rTdp,€vos yoTL <l>p€(rlv aprta ftd^civ
a-KYJTTTOVXOS T €Lr} Kttt ol TTCt^OtaTO XttOt .
we should not have been troubled with cTrtoraiTo at all, as €117
can go with cTrwrra/xcvos as well as with o-zoyirroOxos. In 240
however the case is different. The statement ends with /Sd^eiyj
so the grammatical purist had only two courses open to carry
out the convictions of his soul. He had either to begin a new
line with elrj and find some words to complete his verse, or to
change iirurrdpievos into cVttrratTo. Naturally he would choose
the latter alternative. Both passages bad to be treated alike.
"4
I
BOOK VIII 6237-305
Hence we have our traditional iTrCa-ravro and its train. Compare
for ellipse of ctry : —
N 322 OS OvrjTOS T etrj kol eSoi ATjfirjrepo? aKTrjvj
)(a\K(3 re pr}KTb<; fieydXourC t€ ■)(ipfjiahioicnv.
In 1. 238 the original reading may well have been
Xwofxcvo^ Trep, o or ovros avrjp iv dyojvt TrapacrToi^.
This o equivalent to the later conjunction 6tl would fall an easy-
victim to the improver. See A loi (Note).
262JI dficfil Se KovpoL
Trp(ti0rj/3ai tcrravTO
All that is necessary is to allow the text elsewhere to come
to the rescue of the text here.
TrpojOrjjSaL (revovTo
is vouched for by A 414-15 and 419.
' Were busy about him ' in a bustling crowd is the sense.
6 290^ ipXOfxcvr} Kar dp e^eO*' 6 8' etcroi Sw/xaros yet {ye Nauck).
Read 6 8' cto-w Sw/xar icrrje
The expression is a little pleonastic ; but not more so than
our own * he entered in ', cf. rj 6 IcrOrjrd re ea-cficpov cto-w. The
other passage, which is quoted in support of Sw/xaros here, is so
used by a misunderstanding. Thus it stands ; —
7; 135 KapTraXifxois virep ovSov i^T^crero Sw/xaros euro).
where if we take ovSov Sw/Aaros together like ovBov fieydpovo
(;( 127), avXri<; ovhov (17 130)? then ela-oi Sw/xaros here has
absolutely nothing in epic usage to justify it, and can only
appeal to the later idiom, to which it undoubtedly owes its origin.
6 305D o-p,ep8a\eov 8' e^orjae ycycuvc re Tratrt deoLcri.
If we accept this — the traditional form of the line — we
cannot escape the necessity of believing that Homer practically
made no distinction, if so inclined, between a perfect and a
pluperfect form, that although he was under ordinary circum-
stances willing to submit to the general laws of language and
allow ycywva to mean ' I shout ' but (c)y€yo>j/€a ' I shouted ',
yet he did not hesitate on occasion to override even such a
fundamental distinction as this, and sometimes to treat the
perf. y€y<DV€ as equivalent to the pluperf. yeywrci, as in the
present line. The truth is these grammatical solecisms are not
to be charged to Homer at all. They have one and all been
foisted into the text, and modern editors, deeply impressed
125
6 305 ODYSSEY
by the legal maxim that possession is nine points of the law,
have not ventured to question their validity, much less to
expel them as intruders. There is also this peculiarity about
them, which has greatly favoured their maintenance, that they
have only ventured to inflict themselves upon those verbs which,
like weakly and ailing plants, have lacked strength to protect
themselves from parasitic growths. We do not find verbs, that
have preserved their vigour and vitality in the later language,
suffering in this way. Words like loT-r/Ka, TrcVoi^a, oTSa, iri^fiVKa
(but V. 17 114) &c. are, and always have been, safe enough from
these attacks. Perhaps we should say they have had friends
to stand by them, to raise their voices in their behalf and save
them from maltreatment. It is only the obsolete word, deserted
and friendless, that has been permanently damaged. SciSte twice
appears as a pluperfect, v. Joum. Phil. xxv. 50. p. 320, and
the martyrdom of avwya might move a heart of stone to pity.
Unfortunately its wounds remain and are kept rankling by the
timidity and thematic plasters of philologists. At present how-
ever we are only concerned with the rescue of ycywvc. For avo>ya
V. Note on v 139.
It will be sufficient to set forth the usage of our verb in the
indicative mood and in the third pers. sing, only : —
€ 400 dAA' OT€ Tocrcrov arrrfv oa-(rov T€ yeywvc y8o^(ras,
(=M73»/* 181).
^ 294 rdcro-ov oltto tttoXios o<T(rov T€ ycywvc ^oiqa-av
X 34 vxf/ocr ava(r)(6/M€VO<s, /Acya 8' oi/xw^a? cycywi/ci — .
^425 'Arpct^T;? 8' cScwre Kat 'AmXo;j((p cycytovct*
<l> 368 Tr/Xc/xa^o? 8' €T€p(i)$€V d7r€tX">;(ra9 iyeywvei.
So far all is normal and regular ; nor is there much difficulty in : —
H 469 Atas 8' avT eyeyoDvtv afiv/xovt TlovX.vSdfULVTif
where it is obvious enough that the traditional iyeytavev is merely
cycywi/c' (cycywrec) with a paragogic v erroneously inserted in
place of the apostrophe.
Then we come to our passage 6 305 and its one associate in
the misery of corruption : —
O 703 KOiKVCTiv t' ap tireira ycywvc re irav Kara otorv.
I would suggest that the former should be redeemed by an easy
transposition thus : —
<r/x€p8aXcov 8' ip6rf(T€ OfOLai Tf 7ra<ri ycywvci.
ia6
I
BOOK VIII 0305
and again in the latter instance, although there is also a possi-
bility of restoring grammatical regularity by substituting ^oiy<r€
for yeywve, we may employ similar means ; —
KWKva-ev r dp Ittcit' iSk ttSv Kara darv ycywi/ci.
Nauck's cyeycove? for e/Sorycras (S 28 1 ) is a barbarism not to be
tolerated even in an interpolated passage.
In two passages our verb is open to some suspicion, as it
can hardly bear, certainly not with any obvious propriety, its
ordinary sense of shouting. First comes : —
/x 370 ot/xoo^ag 8e Ocolo-l fier aOavdroicrt yeywvevv.
Odysseus was not ' in the company of the immortal gods ', nor,
if he had been, would shouting have been comme il faut on his
part. The case is different with Hephaestus {6 305). Clearly
the expression is drawn from X 34 quoted above, and therefore
Bekker's fxiy for /act' is likely to be right, ycywvcvv remains
a difficulty. But what are we to say of: —
p 161 ^fxevos €<f>pacrd/Mr)v kol Tr)\€ixd)(<a cyeywveuv?
It was disallowed by Aristarchus along with 1. 160 with good
reason. It reminds one very forcibly of the words of Humpty
Dumpty in Lewis Carroll's * Through the Looking-glass',
P- 134 •—
I said it very loud and clear ;
I went and shouted in his ear.
Whether Telemachus behaved as the next couplet describes is
not revealed; but no one could blame him, if he did: —
But he was very stiff and proud ;
He said * You needn't shout so loud ! '
In these two last passages the thematic ycywi/ew may be taken
to be the nearest approach to an original ycywj/ca with mono-
syllabic -ca, that could pass through the mill-stones of tradition.
In connexion with this verb it is of interest to note that in
the recovered Baccbylides (in. 35) we have : —
ahrvv aiOepa (r^crcpas decpas
ycycDvcv. [Ed. Princeps]
This might have served as an indication more or less definite
of the period (about 500 b.c) before which the original usage
was lost and superseded by the loose treatment of yeywve as
a past tense. Unfortunately however the verb here is by no
127
e 305-347 ODYSSEY
means assured. The papyrus has preserved only the last three
letters NEN, so that the true reading may conceivably have
been XiraLvev or XtVavcv (aor.) or something similar. Certainly
we have here no warrantable authority for ycycDvcv, which Prof.
Jebb {1905) retained.
Let me add that the poet ought to have written, though the
papyrus forbids me to say he did write : —
alOep' d/x<^0T€pa5.
315] o^ /^^*' (r<f>€a<s tr^ coXTra /xivvvOa, ye KiUfxev ovru) — .
We may take o-c^ca? It' with Bentley as an imaginary
metrical improvement of an original a-cfxnc loXira (FeFoXTra), but
even then the line is very unsatisfactory. The metre proceeds
with all smoothness, the sense lags and halts considerably. It
is just barely possible to maintain that fxtvuvOd ye = * a moment
longer', a possibility which becomes very bare indeed when we
reflect that the sense thus reached might be even better expressed
by the diametrically opposite expression fidXa Srjv.
It must not however be supposed that I am here suggesting
fidXa Srjv as a possible reading instead of fXLwvOd ye. I only
wish to point out the incongruity of the accepted text. The
corruption, if there be any, is not to be looked for in ixivvvOd ye,
but rather in the opening words of the line. A plausible and,
1 think I may venture to say, a probable restoration might be
found in the following : —
ri fM€v (rcf>(j)€ coA.7ra fxtwvOd ye KeUjxev ovT(t>
* Verily indeed I expect the pair will lie thus but a little time *,
— it will only be for a little while that they will remain as
they are.
6 3473 Xvcrov* eyo) Si tol avTov v7rL(r)(0fJML , ws (rv KeXevets,
TtVetv atcrt/xa vravra fxer ddavdroia-L OioicrL.
Here one MS gives avro?, Monacensis Augustanus (U).
The most cursory view of the context makes it quite impossible
for any one to entertain the idea that Poseidon is here
promising that he himself will pay. That oifer he makes later
on (11. 355-6), in case Ares defaults. Consequently we may be
sure that no one ever deliberately altered avrov into avros.
Such an introduction of confusion into a plain tale is incon-
ceivable as the act of a sane man.
On the other hand the converse change of avros (supposing
128
BOOK VIII 6347-353
this to be the original reading) to avrov would be made at once
by everybody, as a necessary correction. The question then that
arises is this. Is it possible that avros is after all what was
found in the primitive text and that this MS. has preserved it
for us? Clearly not, unless the subject of tiVciv (tio-c/acv) was
otherwise given, for it cannot be omitted. I would submit
the following reconstruction, which will account for all the
phenomena : —
cyo) Si € t' avTos v7rL(r)(OfxaL
No fault can be found with the sense thus given : * But I give
thee my personal promise that he will,' &c. The elision of the
diphthong of tol is legitimate enough, though in course of time
the Greeks eschewed it, and the loss of e after S4 only natural,
while it would certainly entail the correction of avros into
avTov.
Similarly in tt 66 iyot Be tol eyyvaXt^w the true reading
would rather be, for the pronoun should not be omitted : —
cyu) he € T iyyvaXt^o)'
6 3 5^ J ''"^? ^^ ^y^ ^^ SioifiL fi€T dOavdrouri Oiolcriv,
€t Kev "Kp-q^ ov)(oiro XP^os koI Sea-fxbv dXv^as ;
According to Ameis-Hentze the form xP^o<; instead of the only
well authenticated Homeric xp^'^os has caused La Roche to
suggest {Horn. Unters., p. 41) xp^^os with monosyllabic scansion
as the original reading. The result sounds anything but
rhythmical. The equal division of the verse into two separate
parts is a device not so richly beautiful as it is fortunately
rare. To read the line as a verse at all is rather a trial to the
vocal organs, a dangerous delight, not to be indulged in too
frequently by the wise and prudent. Hence, if xP^'os is as
inadmissible as I fully believe it to be, I should prefer to attempt
the restoration of the line in this manner : —
€L K€V 6 y' OLXOLTO XP^tOS KOL ScCT/AOV oAv^ttS.
The pronominal 6 ye without further addition is sufficiently
lucid here, and yet it might easily have been displaced to make
room for the very correct gloss, "Aprjs. Certainly the metrical
outcome of this hypothesis need not fear comparison with La
Roche's curious effort.
There are one or two interesting points attaching to the
AGAR K 129
e 352 ODYSSEY
examples of xp^los in Homer, -which for the purpose I have in
view may be exhibited at length : —
y 367 C*/A*, €v6a XPCtOS flOL 6<f>€XX€TaL, OV Tt V€OV y€ —
A 686 Tovs tfx€v olcTL xpelos o^ctAcr' cv^HXiSt Siy'
€f> 17 ^XOe fxera )(p€ios, to pa ot 7ras S^/aos ot^eAAc*
6 355 "H^atOT*, €t TTcp yap Kcv^Aprj^ xpctos vTroAv^as —
A 688 SaLTpcvov' TToXia-iv yap *E7r€tot ;(pcto9 o</)€tAov,
698 Kttt yap T<o xp€LO^ /jL€y o^etAcr' cv^'HXtSt 80/, —
N 746 X/^cios, cTTCt Trapa VT7vortv di^p aros TroXc/xoto —
a 409 ^ €01/ avTOv ^(pctos ceXSo/Acvos to8* tKavct ;
j8 45 dAA* e/xoy avTOv ;^€ros, o /xol KaKov c/attco-c oiko).
The odds against xp^os, which is not very likely to find many
advocates — it is also impugned by Leo Meyer {Kuhn*8 Zeitschr.
vii, p. 208) — are not, however, quite nine to one, as would
seem from the above list. It has the support, whatever it may
be worth, of the accepted, but for all that not very trustworthy,
reading of A 479 : —
^A^ov Tctpeo-tao Kara xpcos, c? riva fiovXrjv (ctTrot), —
SO that in this case as in several others the questionable form
exists in duplicate. It would seem as if there had been a
deliberate intention not to leave the modernized form entirely
without a comrade to keep it in countenance.
But it may be observed that xp^'os in this latter line departs
not only from the quantity of xp^lo^, but is used in an uncertain
sense. The commentators obligingly give us the choice of three
renderings, (i) *on business with/ (2) *in need of,' (3) *for
consultation with.' To add to the difficulty the identical
expression Kara xp^os actually occurs in the * Hymn to Hermes ',
1.138:—
avrap cttci toi iravra Kara xpeo^ T^w(r€ 8at/>to)v,
where it evidently means * duly ', * in due course ', and contributes
precisely nothing to the elucidation of the usage in the Homeric
passage.
I would suggest, as the only possible solution short of
absolute surrender to xf>€os, that in A 479 the original must
have been subjected to some slight alteration, and might
previously have run thus: —
^A^ov Tcipccruio Kara xAeos —
This is a little different from the usual /icra icXeos, but this
230
BOOK VIII 0352
difference would correspond to a difference in the sense of the
expression. He came not *in quest oi\ 'to find', the fame of
Teiresias, cf. A 227 /xera kAcos ikct* *Axaitov, but * because of his
fame ', ' along of ', as we say in provincial English of the North.
So much then for the validity of xp^o^ i^ Homer. I must
now return to 6 353. The lengthening of the o of olxolto before
^€105 in my proposed emendation will not be objected to in
face of y 367 ct/x,*, €vOa xp^^os, <f> ^^J ^X^e ftcra xpetos, where the
' production ' is that of a syllable in arsis.
With regard to A 686 tovs t/xev oXcri xp^lo<s the case is
different, and I have a suggestion to make, which, if well
founded, is of some importance in the sphere of metrical usage.
The t of 010-6 being here in thesis, the better reading would be,
as I judge, olaiv xp^to9. In fact I venture to maintain that,
other means failing, the v iffxXKvcrTiKov is a necessity here; for
although xp would always suffice to lengthen a preceding short
vowel in arsis — of this there are examples in plenty — it would
be quite a different matter if the vowel were in thesis. Then
I submit this vowel would remain short, as in the well-known
instances : —
^186 po8o€VTt 8c xpt^ cXato) — .
O 795 '^°^'' Tct yc XP^<^^^W ^^ A-apvaxa OrJKav cXovrcs.
Accordingly I should not regard the traditional reading of
353 as metrically open to any valid objection any more than
Hymn. Apoll. 293: —
TTttO-t OefXKJTeVOLjJLL Xp€0)V CVt TTlOVt VTjio.
On the other hand La Roche's reconstitution of 353 in
this light becomes worse than ever; but let it rest in peace.
Why stretch the corpse, and such a disjointed corpse, again upon
the rack ?
I proceed to add to the passages already adduced Hymn.
Herm. 332 : —
cnrovSoLov toSc xPVH-^ B^wv fxcO* ofxif/vpLV -^XOe
and one of a unique, but very suggestive, character from the
Hymn to Apollo, 1. 439 : —
€s Xifxiv*, y 8' dfxdOoL(TLV ixpifJ'^a.TO TrovTOTropos vrfi^.
Now I do not claim to have absolutely proved by these instances
the canon I have ventured to lay down, but the probability of
its truth is at least considerably strengthened thereby, and may
K 2 131
i
e 353 ODYSSEY
derive still further confirmation and support both (i) from
examples of its applicability to improve existing rhythms and
(2) from the facility with which such adverse examples as occur
in the vulgate may be corrected.
(i) I will begin by referring to a 409 and the very similar
/3 45, quoted above in the list of instances of the use of x/>«o?»
The primitive and more acceptable rhythm in these lines may
fairly be supposed to have been : —
^ €ov avToo xpeio^ —
dAA* ifwv avToo xp^tos — .
In p 1 2 1 orrev xpiytX^^v at the beginning of the line is clearly
improved by the restoration of the dactyl ottco. No advocacy
is here required. None shall be used.
And so probably enough in A 686, although, as I have
said, ola-Lv would be at least correct, yet something might be
advanced both on grounds of sense and rhythm in favour of : —
Tovs tfiey OLcrC Tt ^(pe'Los 6<J>€lX€T* iv *HXt8t SCy.
In A 37, 451, perhaps I may not be alone in preferring to
the vulgate this emendation : —
kXvOi fievy apyvporo^o^j o Xpvcrqv dfx,(f>i^€l3r]Ka^.
For the nom. for voc. v. Cobet, Misc. Crit. p. 333, Monro, H. G.
§ 164, and for the article used as relative pronoun v. Monro,
H. G. § 262.
I expect less ready support and approval for my next
suggestion, on the analogy of Hym. Apoll. 439, quoted above,
that a 13 : —
TOV 8* oToV, VOOTOV K€)(p'q IJLCVOV ^Sc yi/vatKos,
may have had originally, as the second hand in U (Monacensis
Augustanus) gives it,
VOOTOIO K€Xpr}IJi€VOV,
while the very similar but even more cumbrous andante move-
ment of V 378 cTLTov Koi oLvov K€)(p-rj p.€vov would ccrtaiuly be
infinitely improved in lightness, harmony and rhythm, if read : —
(TVTOO Kol OLVOLO K€)(prj fltVOV .
So also X 5^ ov Tt yapxyv rocra-ov K€Xpr}fi€vos. Leg. TOO-o-ofSc.
(2) The adverse instances of lengthening of a short vowel
in thesis before xp a^® neither numerous nor formidable. In
V 215 we now read: —
aXK* aye 8^ to- )(pT^fiaT* apiOfx-qa-it) koI ISwfiai,
13a
BOOK VIII 0352
For this I have elsewhere (v. Note on v 213 ad fin.), without any
idea that the second foot was really illegitimate, proposed to
restore : —
dAA' aye 87] TttSc ^(prjfWT* dpiO/x'qa'w t€ tSo) t€.
I need not dwell on the un-epic character of the article
here. The hitherto unsuspected fact that it is also unmetrical,
merely confirms the general opinion which already condemns,
and has long condemned, to. xp^fiara as a late deprayation,
though the terrors of xp seem to have prevented any suggestion
of the above easy remedy.
There is a very corrupt line, showing this erroneous rot
yprniara in the same position in the verse, to be found in the
Hymn to Hermes (400) : —
^)(^ ov 8y] to, ^^p-qfiar' drtTaAAcTO kvktos ev Siprrj,
The attempted restorations are exceedingly numerous. I will
add my own : —
So again v 363 dAAa xp-qfuira fikv fJivx^o avrpov Ocatrea-CoLO
Oeco/xev avrcKa vvv — .
The tradition here has not been altogether fallacious, for in
four reasonably good MSS. PHTU (Ludwich) may be found the
true reading dAA' dye instead of dAAd FGDSLW.
V 283 oi 8k p(p?7/AftT* i/JM yXa<f>vprjs €k vrjos eXoi/rcs
Here oi 8' apa or simply ol 8c KrrjfMiT* as suggested for the
next example, $ 385.
^385 TToAAo, xprjfJLar' ayovra avv dvnOeots erdpoLon.
Here again the MSS. in three instances at any rate, GLW,
indicate an unexceptional reading : —
TToAAa KTTy/xaT*
This is to some extent confirmed by the analogous case of v 120,
where the accepted text has Ik 8e Krrjfiar'y though a minority of
MSS., already started on a wrong tack, has xpW^t"- there also
{KT-qiiaT FGPHDSU ; yPVI^'^^ MLW, Eust., Ludwich).
There remains, I believe, but one other instance of this
lengthening in thesis : —
TT 185 ^Sc )(pv(r€a Scapa rervyfiiva'
The line is probably spurious j but the subjoined is not
133
^ 352-379 ODYSSEY
a very far-fetched remedy, nor one from which the vulgate
could not be developed with tolerable facility : —
rjh* h-L would be read ^3e rt, and then the meaningless n
would of course drop out altogether. Compare ^ 173, where
although 6<f)pa tl is in no wise meaningless, yet I am distinctly
of opinion that Homer said o<f)p* en, in spite of the recurrence
of €TL in the next line. Such recurrences are not uncommon in
Homer.
I now pass for a moment to the consideration of ^ 355 : —
"Hi^aiOT*, €t Trep yap k€v "Aprjs XP^'^os vTraXv^a?.
On the principle I have endeavoured to establish, the intolerable
ending -os vTroAv^as, now defended on grounds which carry no
conviction but cannot well be discussed at present, may be
easily redeemed by a simple tmesis : —
"Hi^atOT , €t Trep yap k€v "Aprjs vtto xP^^o? dAv^as.
In conclusion I cannot but remark on the curious incon-
venience of the duplicate set of verb forms exhibited in the lines,
on which I have been commenting, oc^etAcrai, o(^€iA.ov, 6</)€iA.€to
contrasted with 6(/)eAA€Tat, o^cAAe. The inconvenience is en-
hanced when we have to find room for another 6<^€AAo>, augeo,
which has obviously no connexion with the above double-barrelled
eccentricity. It must not be supposed that the variation of
spelling in the verb that signifies * I owe ' is a point of absolute
differentiation between the Iliad and Odyssey, as might appear
to be the case from these lines. So far as can be ascertained, the
authority of Aristarchus (v. on A 688) seems to have largely
prevailed in the Iliad in favour of the spelling -aA.- ; but -cAA-
is not by any means absent from the older poem, as may be
easily seen. In fact we have in the Iliad pretty much the same
elegant confusion as in the Odyssey. If the latter gives us y 367
XP^^os fioL ot^cAAcrat {debetur) and ^233 ati/^a Sc oikos oc^cAActo
{augebatur), the former is a good second with : —
A 353 TLfjLT^v Trip fioL 6<fi€Xk€v 'OXv/x-TTios cyyvaA/^ttt {dehebai)
Y 242 Zcvs S' apf.T7]v avhpea-a-LV o^eAAci t€ pnvvBiL t€ (auget).
In this difficulty are we to throw Aristarchus overboard or
to accept his pilotage and allow him to guide us into smoother
waters ?
^ 379] Kovpoi B* iireX-qKeov oAAot
»34
BOOK VIII 6 379-384
No form XrjKeo) seems to be found before we reach the Doric of
Theocritus : —
2. 24 atOiji' X <^5 avra AaKct /xcya KaTnrvpiaraxra — ,
The compound iTn\r}K€(o depends for its existence upon this
passage only. In Homer we have a 2 aor. XdK€, and a perf.
part. AcXt^kws, XeXa^ma with AeXctKovTo (Hymn. Herm. 145).
Under the circumstances it seems highly probable that owing
to the change of meaning sustained in course of time by the
pluperfect tense (in Homer it is virtually an imperfect), and also
to the appropriateness of i-n-i- here, meaning * at the performance \
eirikriK^ov has taken the place of IXfX-qK^a-av.
For a similar intrusion of this preposition, compare cTreotKe
'passim ; and perhaps i7r€\o>/3evov in y8 323 : —
ol 8' iTTcXui^euov KOi eKcpTOfieov iTmarcnv
may represent an original ol Se k Xw^evov,
6 384] V^* ^P kroLfxa TcrvKTO' acySa? fjb c^et elo-opooivra.
Ordinarily hoL/xos means * ready ', * ready to hand ' in Homer,
as in the oft-repeated line : —
ol 8' ctt' 6v€LaO' iroifxa TrpoKCLficva x^ipa? taXXov (a 1 49, &C.).
Such also in later Greek was the meaning of eroifio^, the sole
difference being that in epic the word was applied only to things
not to persons, whereas afterwards it was freely used of both.
But there are in the Homeric poems one or two passages,
and this is one, in which this adjective cannot possibly mean
* ready'. In H 53 f. Nestor assents to Agamemnon's description
of the state of affairs thus : —
^ St] ravrd y crot/xa rerevxarai, ovSe k€V oAAcd?
Zevs vif/LJ^pefiiTrjs avros Traparc/cT^vatTO.
In these two passages, which indeed closely resemble each other,
the idea of * readiness ' is quite inadmissible ; it makes no sense
whatever. Consequently we are told that irotfia for the time
being here means ' true ', ra Trpox^Lpa koL Ivapyrj koI 8ta tovto koX
aXrjdrj (Eust.). Nothing could be simpler — and sillier. What is
ready to hand is pretty nearly certain to be visible; what is
visible is generally taken to be true, ergo ' ready ' is synonymous
with *true'. So the ancient critic with innocent candour.
A modern editor must be more reserved. He contents himself
with a line of darker innuendo, thus ireo^, iTvp.o'i, iryrvfio?, all
of which undoubtedly convey the idea of 'truth', and in this
135
e 384-396 ODYSSEY
respect and in their non- aspiration are differentiated, one would
think, sufficiently from hoifwi. Which of these methods fails
the more completely here need not detain us.
The only reasonable conclusion seems to be that cTot/xa in
these passages is not the true reading, and the moment we allow
ourselves to entertain this idea, even as a mere suspicion, it
becomes incumbent upon us to consider what the original can
have been. Surely in S 53 none other than
^ 8r} ravrd ye roia T€T€V)(aTaL,
and here in 384
•^8* apa rota T€tvkto*
Cf. TT 420 (TV 8' ovK apa Totos erja-Oaf which ought to bring con-
viction. In the former passage the change from the tradition
is very slight. One letter only (/a) is dropped and the true reading
emerges at once, with an adequate and complete sense. * Truly
now these things are such as thou sayest.'
In the latter the change is hardly more serious and the
sense is equally satisfactory : * and, as the event shows, it was
so,^ i.e. as thou saidst. For rotos compare A 399 rotos erjv
TvScvs AtTwXtos- ^ 222, 8 248, and with apa T 153 : —
Totot apa Tpwdiv yyrjropis ^vr' iirl irvpyw.
8 227, TT 420, B 482, &c.
There is, however, one other passage in which our adj. €Tot/>tos
appears to be somewhat forced, I 425. The passage runs thus,
11, 423-6 : Achilles is the speaker : —
6<f>p aXXrjv <f>pd^<ji)vraL ivl <f>p€(n firjriv d/tcmu,
17 K€ a-<f>LV v^as T€ COO) KOL Xaov 'A;(aia>v
vrjva-lv tin yXa<f>vpys, CTrct ov ar(})L(TLV ySe y iroLfi-qf
fjv vvv i<f}pd(rcTavTo e/xcv d7ro/jL7]VL(TavTo<s.
Obviously hoL/jir} here is in no respect necessarily like the
examples we have been dealing with. It would be more
naturally taken to mean * ready to hand ', * available ' ; but even
here I believe the true reading is : —
€7r€t ov (r<j>un.v rjhe yc TOti;,
* since this particular plan promises them no such thing,' *is
not of such a character,' as to hold out any hope of saving the
Greek ships and army. Compare the roloi afxwe/xev of /B 60.
6 39^3 EvpvaAo? 8c € avTov dpeo'a-da-Oo} hr€€<T(Ti — .
That Prof. Piatt is right in his correction a^ts for avrov
136
r
BOOK VIII 0396-443
seems to me certain ; but I am not prepared to follow him in
substituting fiiv for €. The tradition would be more closely-
maintained by reading: —
EvpvaXos S' €€ y avrts — .
The ye would ineyitably drop out. iFe ye is exactly analogous to
e/xe ye and needs no further warrant.
443] avTos vvv iSc TTw/xa, Oows 8' cTrt SecrfMov trjXoVy
fi-q TLS TOL Koff 6S0V hrjXrjaiTaij ottttot' av avre
evSyarOa yXvKvv vttvov io>v iv vrjl fxeXaivrj.
V 122 Kttt TO, ftev ovv irapa TruOfxev' iXcurjs aOpoa OrJKav
iKTOS oSoVy ixYf TTCos Tts oStTctwv avOpwrrwv,
irplv 'OSvot}' eypeaOai, iireXOiov h-qXrja-aLTO.
These two passages are concerned with the presents which
Odysseus had receiyed from the Phaeacian princes, ia-Orjra xp^o-ov
re, Ttt oi $a6;/ces eSojKav. These are to be secured in the first
instance against the crew of the Phaeacian ship during the
owner's sleep, in the second instance against passers-by on
the road, also while Odysseus was asleep. The precaution of
cording the chest and again of concealing the treasures at the
root of the olive tree are taken in either case with the same
motiye, fi-q ns SrjXi^a-eTaL and /x-q tls SrjX-qa-airo, lest any one should
damage or destroy them. This is the only possible meaning of
the verb 8-qXeo/jMi, I damage, destroy, spoil, ruin, mar, injure,
and whatever other synonymous terms may be found. Essentially
then it is the destruction of the goods that is to be feared. But
why should there be any such absurd fear ? Unless the Phaeacian
sailors were absolute lunatics bent on mischief, and unless the
roads of Ithaca were infested with lunatics, the gold and raiment
were in no danger of being destroyed or injured. But the
Phaeacian sailors were not mad, nor was Ithaca the Bedlam
of the heroic ages. All that has happened to cause even the
faintest suspicion of such an unpleasant state of things is the
change of <f> into S in the text of Homer. It is the sanity of
the text that has lapsed. The sailors and the wayfarers are
intellectually sound, but morally only * indifferent honest '. The
real apprehension was : —
ixy Tts TOL Ka$' 680V ^rjXiqa-iTaL — .
/xt; ttws Tts bhiTanav avOpwrtav,
Trplv 'OBvaif (Lypta-Oai, hreXO^v <f>r]XT^(raiTO.
137
e 443-483 ODYSSEY
The precautions are taken to prevent any one stealing the
valuables, and it is amusing to note how unconsciously, as it
were, the translators select the one word as a rendering for
hrjXria-- which from its double meaning might serve also as
a rendering for <jir]\rj(r- ^ spoil'.
It will of course be said that KfyrjXeofxaL does not occur in
Homer. These passages show that it has been deprived of its
rights. That the verb was in the vocabulary of Homeric times
is certain. We have in the ancient Hymn to Hermes : —
214 fjirjXrpyjv ycyawra Atos TratSa KpovtWos.
446 v6cr<f}L creOev, <f>r}\rJTaf Aios /cat MataSo? vU.
00 old T€ ^WTCS
<f)r)XY)TaL hUirovcTi /xeA-aiVrys vv zeros Iv Siprf.
175 <f>r]\rjT€iov {?) opxafJLOS chat. 292 ap^o? <f>r}\7)T€<i)v
159 <f>r)Xlf]T€V(T€LV {?)
Hesiod, Works and Days 374 : —
OS Bk yvvaLKL TrirroiOe, TrcTroi^' o ye <f)r}\r)Ty(ri. Leg. os T€ ywat^i.
The archaic quality of the verb may be considered assured.
Perhaps to this and its rarity may be attributed its displace-
ment by the better known SrjXiofiaL, which is found, always in
the sense here assigned to it, in k 459, A, 401, 408, x 278, 368,
to III, A 156, r 107, A 67, 236, 271, H 102, * 428.
^ 4^7j T^ K^^ Tot Kttt k€lOl Beta a>s evxeTO(a/jLr)v
atet yjfiaTa irdvra'
The metre of 1. 468 is as defective as the sense is extrava-
gant. Odysseus has no intention of becoming for the rest of his
life a praying fakir. Read with some regard to metrical
correctness and moderation of statement ; —
ai€t ctt' ^fxari Travrt.
We may compare for better assurance : —
^105 Twj/ aUi O-01 CKaoTOS hr y^fxaTi fiTJXov dytvci.
P 284, /A 105, N 234, T 1 10.
^ 475J vwTov dTTOTrpoTa/JLtav, ctti hk TrXctov cAcAetTrro,
apytoSovTos vos.
The parenthetical clause should read thus : —
€7rt Sk TrXelov r* iXtXenrro
For the position of the enclitic pronoun Fol see Note on a 37.
® 483J VPV Aay/AoSoKo)' 6 8* cSc^aro
138
BOOK IX 6483-127
All the MSS. save one K (Cracoviensis) have ypm v. on ^ 303.
The true reading is of course : —
ArjfjLoSoKfo rjptai' 6 8' iSeiaro
or, as we should now write it, with the elided t omitted : —
ArjfjLoSoKta -^pu)' 6 8* iSeiaro — .
6 524 J 05 T€ irjg irpoa-Oev ttoXios Xawv T€ Trecn/oriv
It is idle to imagine that this line opens with a legitimate
[dactyl. There is a little word missing, Foi, * to her (the wife's)
Isorrow.' Head : —
OS T€ r €r/s — .
L® 547j avepL, OS T oXiyov Trep iTruf/avrf TrpaTrtSecra-i.
Again, as in 1. 483, we have an evasion of the elision of the
I of the dative. We may easily restore : —
dvcp*, O TtS T oXtyOV TTCp — .
Similarly N 300 might be read thus : la-mff, 6 rts t i<f>6l3r}(T€ — .
Compare ^43 Zr]v\ os rts T€ ^cwv vrraros kol apL(TTO<:.
V 5°0 V "^^5 TOL KOL 7n;os airi<f>BiTO 'IXto^t irpo
i(r0\6s iwvy yafijSpo? 17 rrevOcpos, —
Here the punctuation is not quite as it should be; the
participle ewv now stands in the wrong connexion. We should
at least read ; —
€o-^Aos, ewv ya/Xj8pos t) Trcv^cpos,
as 11. 584-5 sufficiently indicate : —
rj TtS TTOv /cat €Tatpos avr)p Kexo-picrfieva ctSws
€O-^A.0S ; CTTCt OV fJi€V Tt /CaO-tyVl/TOtO X€p€LO)V .
where between iirel and ov there has been lost an ethic dative fi'
(jiol) * as I judge \ A similar case may be found c 364.
In 1. 582 I would further correct the existing metrical failure
by transposing slightly to this effect : —
icrOXoS) yafJLJSpos i(jiv y Trcv^cpos.
BOOK IX (i).
I 27] rpr))(€L, aX)C ayaOr] Kovporpo^os* ov rot iyu> ye
rjs yatiys Svvap-at yAvKcpwrepov aAAo ISea-Oai.
rj fJL€V fx avroO' epvKc KaAvi/^w, 8ta Oedwv,
[ev ariricrcn yAa^vpotcrt, XtXaiofxivq irocnv ctvaf]
Modern editors since Wolf (1807) have bracketed 1. 30;
Ludwich (1889) omits it altogether from the text and consigns
139
1 27-35 ODYSSEY
it to the obscurity of the foot-notes. Nor is this at all surprising.
Only XD and H in margine contain the line ; it is not found in
FGPHSTUKW. From this evidence it seems certain that the
verse is merely a marginal illustration, brought in here appro-
priately enough to explain the true meaning of avroOi in 1. 29.
Nor indeed is such explanation unnecessary here. So needful
is it that I do not think it is in any wise possible to rest satis-
fied with Ludwich's : —
Tj fji€v fx avToO* €pvK€ KttXvj/^w, Sitt Oedoiv
The reason is this. A definite place has just been men-
tioned with some particularity, Ithaca, the home of the hero,
who is also the speaker. avroOi, ' there,^ * on the spot,' coming
immediately after this notice inevitably suggests Ithaca as
the place of detention, whereas every one knows it was Ogygia.
Clearly it must have been a feeling that avroOi taken in its
natural sense was misleading, that led to the introduction from
a 15 of the elucidatory but almost universally discredited 1. 30.
Now while the exclusion of this line is not only fully justi-
fied but absolutely required by the evidence of the MSS., on
the other hand it is certain that the result thereby attained is
anything but satisfactory. The situation is peculiar. We can
neither do with the explanatory words nor yet without them,
ovT€ avv TravoiXiOpoKfiv ovt avev TraviaXiOpoiV,
Tradition is against their retention; the sense will hardly
allow them to be dropt. This leads me to suspect that the
original reading of 1. 29 must have been somewhat different
from the vulgate. The difference need not be a great one.
By merely altering two letters a solution of the dilemma is
attainable. All difficulty disappears, if we suppose that the
original text ran : —
y fxev fi aXXoO* tpvKf. KaXvt/^oi, Sta Oediov.
*In another place,* ^elsewhere,' *not in Ithaca' is precisely
the contrast that suits the preceding description; and although
oWoOl, like avTodi, is correctly explained by 1. 30 as an illustra-
tive comment, yet, unlike avrd^t, it by no means requires it as
a necessary supplement.
I 35D *t 'Tcp Kttt Tis aTroTrpoOi iriova oIkov
yaiii iv oAAoSaTT^ vaUi aTrdyeud€ roKi^iov.
Apart from the outstanding question as to the right of
140
r
BOOK IX I 35-149
these two lines and the one immediately preceding to stand in
the text at all, it may be remarked that in two particulars they
have somewhat degenerated, as they now appear, from an earlier
and better state. Natei, if usage (v. Monro, H. G. § 292 (a)) and
metre may be allowed to prevail, should certainly be vatrj. In
fact there is fairly good MS. authority for making the change
(mt|? G, vaLTj DT, Eust.).
Again in ^211 we have StJ/aw «/ dAAoSairw, cf. T 324
dAAoSaTToJ €vl StJ/xo), and here, too, StJ/xw has probably been dis-
placed by the wider term merely because the later restricted
usage admits the possibility of a misunderstanding. The metrical
correctness oiyairj is not quite above suspicion, cf. 1/193 (Note).
I 49] eiruTTa^evoi fJLcv a<f>* hnrtav
avSpda-L jjApvaaOai kol 061 )(pr} ttc^ov iovra.
It is probably only due to the later Greek love for variety
in expression, that the natural and less artificial
KOL 60l Xfyrj, TTC^ot corrcs
has not survived. The sudden change to the singular is quite
alien to the Homeric style.
I 5^D o^pa ixkv r}(ji<s rjv /cat ai^ero Upbv yfjuip,
This line, which is also read 66, is scarcely in its original
form in our tradition. I venture to suggest as possible and even
probable : —
6<fipa fxev r)oi? rJ€V, de^cro 0' Upbv ripxip.
The discovery that this conjecture has already been made
by Nauck, while it disposes of my own claim to the emendation,
removes at the same time a good deal of the diffidence which
necessarily attends the suggestion of anything that we cannot
hope to demonstrate or verify.
t I22]| ovt' apa iroifjivrja-Lv Karaficr^erai ovr dporoun,
dXX* y y a<r7rapT0<s — .
Several reconstructions of 1. 122 have been suggested to
accommodate the regular form KarticrxcTat. I suggest as most
likely to have been changed : —
ovT dpa iroipiVQCT r] yc /caTto^crat — (v. X 52 Note).
The repetition of the pronoun is Homeric enough, cf.
V 254:—
ovS* o y dX'qBia cTttc, ttoXiv 8 o yc Xct^cTO p.v6ov.
^ M-Q] K€\croL(Tjjcn Sk vrjva-l KaOeikofxev larta trdvTa.
141
I 149-153 ODYSSEY
The one other example of kcAAw in an intransitive sense,
V 114, is quite insufficient to create any confident belief in
KcXo-aoT^o-i vr)v(TL here. The phenomenon is too common; it is
a detected imposture in so many cases. KeXXo) is transitive in
t 148, 546, K 511, A 20, ^ 5, and in t 138 the object is clearly
to be understood. The present questionable expression seems
to be an erroneous grammatical assimilation of the noun and
participle. The original may have stood thus with a free
participle like the cTrtKeAo-avras of t 138 : —
KcXaravres Sk v€€(T(rL KaOeiXofxev hrria "Travraj
In V 114 the true reading may be cTrcKcAcra^' (-aro), * beached
itself/ which is precisely what the passage requires.
•- ^53] vricrov Oav/xdlovTes eSiveofiea-Oa Kar avTqv,
In the preceding discussion of t 29 a difficulty was found
about the adverb avroOi, for which it was proposed that oXXoOl
should be read. We have not had far to go for a parallel case.
Here again there is something odd about avnjv, and here again
it seems to me that something may be said in favour of accepting
aXXrjv as the true original.
The received text says 'we roamed over the island itself,
unless in sheer desperation we separate vrja-ov from kut airrjv
altogether and take the former with Oavfid^ovTes and the latter
with iSiveo fiea-Oa, treating avrrjv as an unemphatic anaphoric
pronoun. This course, however, has little probability in its
favour. Dr. Merry seems to combine both views, for he says
that ' Kar' avrrjv is to be taken closely with the verb, ain/jv
serving to contrast the island itself with the shore and the
water'. Nitzsch offers a somewhat curious explanation of the
phrase 'through the island itself, making a sort of contrast
which depends upon the fact that Odysseus has just given an
account of the island. He and his men explored the island in
its reality. ' Jetzt nahmen sie mit Staunen wahr, was Odysseus
schon berichtet hat.' This view takes us into metaphysical
Teutonic depths and is certainly not Homeric, whatever else
it may be. Loewe (1828) and Ameis-Hentze (1893) pass avnje
without remark, which is perhaps the simplest way of getting
rid of the difficulty.
If one or other of the above explanations should commend
itself to the reader's judgement, there is no need to proceed
14a
BOOK IX 1153-159
I divorcing avrrjv from vrjcrov or find any reasonable probability
in the above somewhat forced explanations of Kar avrrjv vrja-ovt
the suggestion I have made is worth consideration : —
vrjcrov 6avfjiA^ovT€S cStveo/xccr^a kot' aWrjv,
There is an ambiguity certainly about oAAryv, which may,
it is not unlikely, have led to its disappearance. It may mean
'another island' as well as what I take to be the sense here,
Hhe rest of the island.' But this is a harmless ambiguity
inherent in the word and hardly need be apologized for in
Homer, though he undoubtedly frequently agrees with the later
Greeks in using the article with oAAot in the sense of the Latin
ceteri, but only, apparently, in the plural number. Aristarchus
denied this use of the article, and refused to regard it as any-
thing but a pronoun when joined with oAAoi. In this, however,
few would now side with the great critic. For oAAos = * the
rest^ V. r 68 = H 49, 8 285, e no. Granting then the correct-
ness of KttT aWrjv vrja-ov to express in epic times * over the rest of
the island ' for the later phrase Kar aXXrjv rrjv vrja-ov, I venture to
say that its superiority here over the vulgate avrrjv admits of
no denial or qualification. Whether aAA^v will hereafter be
found in one or more MSS. time alone will show. At present
no apparatus criticus notices the word avTTJv at all. There can
be no harm in saying that the point deserves the attention of
specialists.
I 159] vrj€<s fxiv fioL Ittovto SvwScKa, i<s Se iKao-rrjv
iwea Xdyxoivov atycs* €/xot 8k Sck' e^eXov otw.
We have here a notable hiatus licitus in one line and a
gross violation of the usage of Xayxdvoi in the other. It seems
to be the fate of the former to be dogged by some flagrant defect
in the vicinity.
The tradition beside €s 8k iKdaTrjv gives ev 8k iKaa-Ty, which
indeed is rather better supported by the MSS. (cs 8k kKd<rrqv U,
Eust. ; €S 8' €Kdarr]v F ; is 8k kKaa-Tq HK ; Iv 8k iKacrrqv P
(€s ss. P2); kv 8k kKdarr} {-rj) GXDJTW, Ludwich). It is note-
worthy that with both these prepositions in several MSS. a nomina-
tive eKdarr) appears.
I suggest that this nom. kKdxmj is no error but a relic of the
true reading, which might be restored thus : —
143
1 159-205 ODYSSEY
i^€S /X€V fWL hrovTO SvwScKtt* Tat 8e kKacrrq
€wia Aayxavov atyas* c/Aot 8c Sck* I^cXov ot<o.
Compare for Xayxavov ^233 ttoAAol 8* orrria-a-tii Xayxavov, * I obtained
many things by lot/ and v 282 (jxolpav) tcrrjv, ws aurot" Trcp cXay-
Xavov, *as they themselves got for their share.'
There is a similar confusion with the aor. of this verb
Hymn. Herm. 428, 430, cf. ^ 79.
I 196] ^rjv arap alyeov aaKov €)(ov —
Perhaps /3rjv' atyeiov 8' aa-Kov, There seems to be no other
instance of the later corrqotion atycos.
t 205] (oTvov) -^Svv OLKrjpdcrLOVi'OcLOV ttotov ovhi t4S avTov
rjiLSr) S/xwwv ovS' d/x</)t7roX(ov ivl otKO),
aXX avTos a\o)(6<i re (f)LX.rj rafurj re fu' otr].
rov 8' ore irCvoLev fieXLyjSia oTvov ipv6p6v,
€V Sciras i/XTrXi^cra'S vSaros dva ctKocrt jxerpa
X^^\ oSfxrj 8* rjSiia aTro Kprqrrjpo^ oSwSet,
^ctTTrecro;.
The lines here quoted may be passed over lightly as far as
regards the first three in order to come at once to the very
difficult and unsatisfactory 11. 208-9.
In 1. 205 we have another good instance of avrov in its
later unemphatic sense, again displacing in all probability an
original oAAos, cf. p. 403, p 401, o- 416. The fact that oAXos
here is more idiomatic than logical would perhaps contribute as
much as anything else to its downfall. For reading avros r in
1. 207 there is some little MSS. authority (H'^Ki) in addition
to the requirements of metre.
The ordinary version of 11. 208-9 is as follows : — * And oft
as they drank that red wine honey-sweet, he would fill one cup
and pour it into twenty measures of water' (Butcher and
Lang). First of all the use of rov here is not exactly Homeric.
It is hardly to be classed as a substantival or attributive article
followed by a noun in apposition, nor again as the defining
article combined with a noun in apposition and followed by
a relative as in E 265, v. Monro, H. G. § 261. Moreover its
position before, instead of after, the conjunction, ore, is scarcely
to be defended by such instances of trajection as i 15, /a 140,
331, &c. The addition of /AcXtrySea oXvov IpvOpov is incompatible
with the emphasis which trajection would cause rov to carry.
M4
r
BOOK IX ia05
I venture to say we should proceed more easily and naturally,
as far as the middle of the next line at any rate, by reading : —
rov 8 , OTC TTLvoLiv fJLcXLrjSia oTvov ipvOpoVy
tv Sc7ra5 e/x7rA.^oras,
* But with it, when they were for drinking red wine honey-sweet,
he filled one cup, — .' rov of course depends on e/xTrXiJo-as, as
indeed it does a line or two further on :—
212 Tov <fi€pov i/XTrXya-a? olctkov ixiyav,
where I am obliged to dissent from Ameis-Hentze^s statement
that it depends on aa-Kovy in which case there would be no need
for ifiTrX-qcra^ at all.
With this restoration of tov for rov the passage is relieved
of a harshness that none can be concerned to maintain or
tolerate; but there still remains the much- vexed conclusion of
the sentence : —
vSaros dva ciKocrt fiirpa
This is beset with difficulties. That the proceeding here de-
scribed reverses the usual custom in later times, of adding the
water to the wine instead of the wine to the water, I deem of
little moment taking into consideration the special circumstances
of the case, the abnormal strength of the wine proportionate
to the gigantic creature it was intended to intoxicate. In fact
the accepted proportion of twenty to one is probably far less
than what Homer had in view; for it seems almost impossible
in face of such passages as : —
/? 355 Ct'fOO-t S' COTO) /ACrpa fJLvX.7}(f>dT0V aX<f>LTOV aKTTJS'
H 47^ 8(^K€v 'IrjaovLSrjs dye/ACv /xeOvy ^tXta /xcrpa.
^74^ dpyvpiov KprjTTJpa r€Tvyp.€vov €$ 8* dpa ficrpa
264 Koi rpiiroh' (OTwevra SviOKaLeiKocrtfjieTpoVj
to understand p^erpov here as loosely equivalent to ScVas.
There is no authority whatever for so regarding it, unless we
can find warrant in the present passage. According to Hultsch
(Metrologie, p. 499) the ftcVpov was equal to 12-12 litres or
nearly 3 gallons; but this seems excessive even for the region
of fable. Let us pass on to the grammatical construction of
the clause, which has its peculiar uncertainties. Some have
taken dva as separated by tmesis from \€V€* But this, though
AGAR It 1^5
r20S ODYSSEY
Homeric in appearance, is in reality meaningless. It by no
means follows, because avlfxt^c (S 41, k 235) means *Le mixed
up ', that av^x'^vi could bear the same sense. We might just as
well maintain that, because we can say in English * to mix up*,
we could also express the same idea with equal accuracy by * to
pour up \ It is fairly certain then that ava. is a preposition
governing etKoo-t fierpa, and the meaning can hardly be other
than 'up to', *to the extent of.'
The next question. is, what is the object of the verb x^«?
It is usual to say SeVas or, as it might be expressed with more
precision in Latin, poculum vini impletum. The objection to
this view is, that it leaves v8aTo<s dm clkoctl /xerpa without any
suitable sense at all. The local sense of ' over ' for dvd is perhaps
the most feasible, but is not altogether pleasing. Again *he
poured a cupful of wine to the extent of twenty measures of
water ' fails to convey the obviously intended meaning. Messrs.
Butcher and Lang's * into ' would unfortunately require more
justification than is likely to be forthcoming. It would be far
better to give up SeVas as the object, and to find one in the
whole phrase dm eiKoarL /xcVpa vSaro?, * about twenty measures
of water.' We might regard this phrase grammatically as an
abbreviated expression for the needlessly full fjUrpa vSaros dva
etKoa-L jxiTpay ' measures of water to the amount of twenty
(measures).' However, as I do not for a moment believe that
vSaros dvd is capable of scansion in the hexameter, I would
suggest that the original reading was not vSaros but vSwp,
altered in later times to avoid the then objectionable v, v. Note
on € 265 ff.
Lastly there is x^v itself to be considered. The aor. is here
as much out of place as it can well be. There is no question
but that the imperfect is urgently required by the sense. Sup-
posing for a moment that some modern critic had in an unlucky
moment suggested the aor. here as an emendation of some verb
or other in the imperfect, already in the text, the suggestion
would have been scouted on all sides as intolerable and absurd.
Yet few have ventured to throw suspicion upon this x«5*, which
has evidently displaced an imperfect. We ought certainly to
restore this tense in some form or other, if it can be done. Fick,
who apparently despairs of success, .with his usual boldness tries
r
BOOK IX mos
to restore regularity by the excision of 1. 209, The success of
Ijis remedy here is not conspicuous. He would read : —
Tov S' 0T€ TTivouv /xcXwySca oXvov ipvOpov,
oSjxr) Se FrjSela aTro KprjTrjpo<s oSwSeL.
The last line certainly is rough enough to set one's teeth on edge^
a result not entirely due to the ' sauerkraut ' of hiatus licitus.
Van Leeuwen and da Costa object to 8e after the curtailment
and not without reason ; but, feeling the charm of Fick's recon-
structed line, would retain both it and 209 with this alteration
at the end of the last-named r —
thus leaving the aorist after all untouched. These remedies^,
if so they can be called, seem decidedly worse than the disease.
Xeo) makes in the imperf. indie. (3 sing.) tx^ev, which curiously
enough is also the i aor., at any rate in later Attic. This
c;j(€€v could of course be scanned as an iambus, and might be
written with contraction tx^w or, with the augment dropped,
Xetv. The difficulty of preserving such a form as this, even if
it was ever accepted, would plainly be insuperable. There
is however an alternative. Just as we have ttAcw and many
similar verbs occasionally appearing with the penultimate
lengthened, ttXciW (participle), ttWciv, aTrcVXetov {fi 501), so
X€o) might very well have possessed an analogous imperf. tx'^iov.
This would give us here the at least tolerable form ^et' (^xtt^)-
For the comfort of those who cannot be convinced by this
reasoning from analogy, reference may be made to Hesiod: —
Theog. 83 T<p pikv IttX y\(x)<T(rrj yXvKeprjv xciova-iv iepcrrjv.
The remainder of this line has been dealt with already under
6 64. If I am right, the whole passage would stand thus : —
ovSc Tts oAAos
^itSr} SfJL(i>(ov ovS' dfjL<f>LTr6\<ov ivl olk(o,
aW avTo? T aXo^os re cfjikr) rafxirj T€ fu olr],
TOV S', oT€ TTLvoLcv fxcXtTjSea olvov ipvOpov,
tv ScTTttS ifJLTrXi^cras vSuyp dva ctKOo-t fjierpa
^ct , oSfXT] S' apa 1781)5 aTTO KpriTTJpos 68<u8ct
6€(nr€(TLrj.
'Nor did any one else among the thralls and waiting- women
in his house know thereof, only himself and dear wife and one
housekeeper. But whenever they were for drinking honey-
L 2 I45«
I 205-215 ODYSSEY
sweet red wiae, he would fill one goblet with this, and pour
water to the amount of twenty measures (sc. into the Kprjrrjp)^
and then from the mixing-bowl there arose a fragrance ineffably
sweet.'
I 2153 aypLoVy ovT€ SiKas eu ciSora ovtc Oefiurra^.
We have here a very excellent instance of that hiatus which
many eminent scholars hail with delight and cherish as licitus.
To magnify this cult by the increase and multiplication of such
instances ranks as a triumph of critical skill. Consequently, if
this hiatus were the only fault or, let me say rather, peculiarity
exhibited by the line, it would be hopeless at present to question
its absolute and perfect integrity: but, as in other cases pre-
viously dealt with, there is here over and above the bucolicism
an irregularity of expression, which has, I suppose, only been
condoned hitherto out of a superstitious reverence for the beauty
of the hiatus.
The irregularity I allude to will be at once apparent, if we
consider for a moment a line which corresponds very closely to
this one in form : —
8818 nyTrios, ovT€ TTOvoiV iv ctSws ovt' dyopdoiv.
The invariable usage is that iv clSws takes the genitive in
reference to general knowledge or, as is commonly stated, Avhen
it means 'skilled in'. The instances are numerous, B 718,
A 196, 206, 310, Z 438, M 350, 363, O 525, 527, € 250, B 823,
E II, 549, B 720. Once the infinitive follows, O 679 KcXryri^av
iv €t8(09, but this forms no exception to the rule, as would be
clear from B 720 : —
t6$(dv ru €t8oT€5 T<f>L fxd)(€(rdai,
if l(f}L had not, unfortunately both for the metre and the sense,
ousted the original connective : —
To^wv €v €t8oT€s TjSk fxax^crOaL (Bentley).
On the other hand, if the knowledge extends only to a single
isolated fact, then and then only iv ctSws may properly be
followed by an accusative. The case is naturally a rare one :
indeed there is but one valid example, so far as I am aware, in
Homer, but that one is enough for our purpose : —
N 665 OS p iv ci8a)S KTJp' oXorjv CTrt vrjbs e/SaLve,
It is his own individual doom that he was well aware of, when
he went on shipboard.
148
BOOK IX 1215-261
Why then does no MS. present the genitive in our passage ?
The sense requires it : the scansion would allow its introduction.
The answer is that the tradition has been faithful after all in
transmitting these accusatives* The error lies not in the nouns,
StKtts and ^eftto-ras, but in the participial ev elSora. We have
in fact to deal with a corruption of the usual kind. A familiar
phrase of frequent occurrence has dislodged a less familiar and
almost forgotten form. The genuine word, the original occupant,
is suggested by ^e/xto-ras. Remembering : —
A 238 ot T€ ^e/xiaras
Trpos Atos ilpvarai'
we may restore with some confidence the proper governance of
our accusatives : —
OVT€ BiKa<S dpVfjAvOV OVT€ OcfXLOTa^,
We have $ 229 /3ovXas I elpvcrao KpovLk)vos, «//• 81 6e<i>v — Bi^vea
eipva-OaL, and even in association with the other noun here used,
though the form of the phrase is different ^ —
n 542 OS AvKLTjV ctpVTO hlKYiaL T€ KOL (tOcvH W.-
Hymn. Dem. 151 KpT^Se/xva iroXrjois
ctpvarat /3ov\rj(TL /cat Wecrja-L Siicirja-LV*.
I 250] — (T7r€V(T€ Trovr](TdfX€.vo<s TO, a tpyay —
The words recur 1. 310 and 1. 343. To. a is doubtless
a later improvement ; but Knight's kFa leaves the metre unsatis-
fied. I would suggest (jiiXa, of which to. a might be a glossarial
elucidation, afterwards adopted in the text. Similar are M 280^
058,:$ 451.
I 261] otKttSe UfxevoL, aXkrjv oBoVf aAAa KeXevOa
riXOoiiiv'
The repetition of aXXos here is different from any other-
example in Homer. Elsewhere there is a contrast intended'.
Here, however, as the Schol. Q. says, aXk-qv and aXka are U
TrapaXXriXov' tol yap Svo tv cnyyu-atVovcrt.
I am inclined to think that Homer said something less
artificial and rhetorical, which the prevalent taste of the later
Greeks would not allow to survive. Following p 426 Alyvn-rovS*
Uvai, BoXlxw oSov, I would suggest that the original here was,
as the metre also requires, something to this effect : — *
OiKaSi i€/xevoi, ttoXXtjv oBov, aAAa K^Xevda
rj^XOojiii^
1 261-378 ODYSSEY
* Bent on reaching our homes, a long journey, we have come other
ways than that.'
The author of the Hymn to Apollo in his imitation of this
line (472) did not want ttoAAtJv, and his adoption of aXXrjv there
may have occasioned its introduction here also, the change being
so easy.
* 274] OS fxe ^€Ovs KcXcat 17 SciSt/xcv rj oAeacr^af
Read os KcAcat fxc ^eovs, giving a slight but appropriate
emphasis to KeAcat, v. Note on a 37. So k 337. In all passages
the trisyllabic character of KcXeat may easily be restored. Cf.
<f> 381, K 263 (Note).
I 283] v€a fxev fioi Karea^e Iloo-etSawv ivoa-LxOwv — .
The monosyllabic via is attributed to Aristarchus : the MSS. have
vrja. Several conjectures have been propounded. Sacrificing no
whit of the tradition we might read : —
KCLfX [xev vrjd jx ca^c noo-€t8au>v ivocrLxOwv.
I 366] OvTt<s i/jLOL y ovofxa' Ovtlv 8c /xe KiKkrjo-KOvcn — .
Apart from the testimony of M (Codex Venetus Marcianus)
and U (Monacensis Augustanus) it is clear enough that the
above metrical freak is wrong, and that ovoix cot' should be read
with Naber, who compares : —
o> 306 avrap ifxoL y ovo^i Icrriv ^Ett^pltos'
Cf. o- 5, T 247 ; but perhaps the most conclusive parallel is : —
Hymn. Dem. 122 Aiyw i/xot y ovo/x coTt*
In more than one instance the Hymns have preserved us the
true reading of a line of Homer, e. g. v 233 (Note on i/r 233).
•• 373 "4] <t>dpvyo<i 8' i$€(rcrvTo olvo<i
if/(Dfxoi T dv8po/Acot' 6 8^ cpcvycTO OLVofiapuiiiv.
Perhaps originally — ipevyofxai is transitive in H 162 — cf.
Virg. Aen. iii. 632: —
6 8 cpcvycTO 6lvo^ap€L(i)V
ij/iDfxovs dvSpo/Acovs* <f>dpvyo<s 8' l^i^rcrvro 00/09. (Cf. IVef. p. xi.)
*• 375I '^^^ ^<^' ^y^ '"'^^ fiox^ov —
378 dXA* oTC Srj Tax' o /ao^Xos cXdivos —
This particular noun fjt.ox^o<s occurs seven times in all.
Only in the two examples above quoted is it adorned with the
article. We may compare the case of yT}(ro':y v. Note on c 55.
Here 6 yxo^Aos ikdivos condemns itself. We may probably thank
the consistency of the successful introducer of t6v into I. 375 for
150
BOOK IX * 378-419
the 6 of I. 378. Nothing but the most unreasoning and blind
devotion to the letter of tradition could fail to recognize that the
true reading of 1. 378 is rdxa fxox^os iXdivos, and if so, it is almost
certain that in 1. 375 the original was : —
KOL tot' iyu) Ta^a /xo)(\6v — ,
I 392] — /xeyaAa ld)(ovTa —
Probably an entirely correct tradition, so far as the mere
letters go, of fxeydX' dFFid^ovTa, i. e. dva-Fid^ovTa.
It is worth remark that the participle ldxo)v (twelve times)
might be written aFFtdxniv in all but two places without the
least difficulty. The exceptions are Z 468 IkXivOt] idxiov, where
iKXcOrj should be read, and T 424 where ia^wv is a mere intruder
and the text should be either iv irpdiToia-Lv iu)v l^^ /xwvvp^as lttttovs
(Bentley) or iv Trpdyroia-Lv c;(e KpaT^pdiwxa'i hnrov^. So with
idxova-a (three times) there is one recalcitrant passage ^ 341,
which might be made conformable by the omission of cyw. In
A 463 Tpls 8' dUv iaxovTos clearly rpts 8' at' dFFidxovTo^ is admis-
sible. IdxovTOL (once) and Id^ovTi^ (twice) admit the compound
without difficulty.
In B 316 the strange afw^ia^vtav is probably nothing but an
incomplete assimilation of the same dva-Fiaxvlav {-ova-av).
In N 41 avCaxot {aFFiaxot = dva-FiaxoC) means 'shouting', not
as some, Apion, &c. suppose, ' without shouting \
Even laxri (ten times) may represent an earlier avia^i/,
though if so, in three places it must be a misreading for r^xyi
(A^ 43, O 384, P 266).
I 4^9^ ovTw yap TTOV pi! ^Xttct' lv\ (fipecrl vrprtov ctvai.
None of the attempts to restore the original form of this
line seem to me successful. Cobet proposed ovtih ydp tl p!
iFeX-TT^T : Nauck ovtoj p! dp ttov (.XircT. From the former the
vulgate is not readily evolved, and the latter misplaces the
enclitic pronoun. I suggest that the main corruption is in
y^XTTiT for which I would restore the older pluperfect, as it is
called, iFeFoXiree. Tradition elsewhere gives it in the disguise
of cwXttci. We may dismiss ttov without much compunction and
read thus : —
ovTio ydp p! iFeFoXire cvt <f>p€(TL vrprtov ctvat
or adopting the form which tradition gives,
ovTw ydp p,€ icoXirei—.
151
1 419-456 ODYSSEY
The same tense may also be restored in tj/ 345 (q. v.) with
advantage.
' 45^1 €' ^h OfJUxfipOViOL'S 7rOTL(f>a)Vrj€lS T€ ytVOLO.
The formation of the adjective Trort^wvijcis has often been
called in question. Goebel has gone so far as to write the line
thus : —
€t Srj 6jXO<f)pOV€OL<S 7rOT€, <fi(i}Vq€L<S T€ y€voio.
This will not do, neither will the ttoti <^a)V7Jcts tc of Ahrens
adopted from one or two MSS., but leaving re in the wrong
place. The word, however, admits of a very satisfactory
explanation. It is a slight depravation of
Fofrl <f>o}vq€Li or foTTt^wnyct?.
It is comparable with the familiar Sovplk\vt6<s, Sa^iXog, dpTyti^arog,
IlvpL<f>\€y€6u)v, &c. &c., and has its analogue in aXifivfyrjus (c 460,
^ 190),
I am much inclined to think that this dat. otti has been
hardly dealt with not only here but in many other passages
of the Homeric poems. For instance in w 535 : —
iravra 8' iirl xOovl TrZim OeoM oira (^invqa-acrri'i
the true reading is doubtless otti. The ace. is due to the influence
of three well-known lines : —
B 182 ( = K 5^2) ws ^dO\ 6 he ^vverjKe Oeas oira (fxavrja-danj^ — .
Y 380 rap^rjara^, or aKova-e 6eov oira ^(OD^avros,
in which o-n-a depends on the principal verbs. Indeed from the
last example we may safely correct the erroneous tradition in
n 76:—
ovSe TTO) 'ArpetSeu) ottos IkXvov av8rjcrq.vros,
which should read, as the form of the patronymic indicates : —
ovSe TTO) ArpeiSao ott' ckAvov avSi^(ravro^.
Cf. /t 52 OTT ttKOv^s Setpiyvouv, 160, 185, 187, A. 421, V 92, A 435,
Hymn. Dem. 67.
It is quite possible, more than possible, that the recurrent
dira/ActyScTO, aTra/AciySo/xcvos was originally ott' a/xec^ero, ott' dfieifio-
/btcvos, a quaint old phrase recalling the Virgilian voce refert,
cf. ap-eipero p,v6w. We still have in connexion with singing,
though that makes little difference,
afieL/So/xevai orrl KaX.y (A 604 = o) 60)
and it is a significant fact that a.Trap.eCptTo is very often preceded
15a
p
BOOK IX 1456-530
by a short vowel unduly lengthened, as is generally said, by the
ictus, e.g.: —
V 3 Tov 8 avT* AXkivoos a7ra/X€i^€TO ^wvrycrcv re*
-^ 308, e 140, 400, X 347, 362, p 405.
In the case of the participle, our tov 8' aTra/xctySo/acvos may well
have been without the 8c, with which it is now graced. But
what is to be said of kcu in
H 4 1 TOV Kol K^tuvrjcrwi 7rpoa€<l>r] KpiCoiv * Aya/xc/xj/wv ?
Is it a misplaced conjunction or does it emphasize the propriety
or impropriety of Agamemnon raising his voice? Neither, I
fancy. It merely represents a forgotten, because unappreciated,
TOV OTTt (fxiiVT^aa^.
Curiously enough kol tov (fxovyja-as never seems to occur, though
/cat fiLv (fi(tiv'q(Ta<s is common enough.
Finally let me refer to a passage in the Iliad : —
O 401 dkXa are fxev OepaTrcav TroTtTcpTrcTO),
where the compound verb, which of course never recurs anywhere,
is utterly inexplicable, unless we adopt the humorous 7rp6<s tw
<jiapfidK<a of Schol. T. After what has been said, it is plain that
the true reading is : —
dAXa <r€ /xkv OipaTnav ottI TC/aTTCTw.
Cf. O 393.
^ 5^4] (jidaOaL 'OSvarcr^a irToXvTropdLOV i^akawcraL,
530 ^^^ Fh '08vcr(n7a "rrToXnTopOiov otKaS' LKia-OaL.
These are the only two instances of TrroXiTrop^tos. Elsewhere
the adjective is TTToXtVop^os, which has the ample warrant of
ten passages in the Iliad and four in the Odyssey. Even in the
above two passages many MSS. offer the correct form tttoXlttopOov,
though it fails for different reasons in either case to give a
metrical line. See the discussion of Wernicke's law, Leaf's
Iliad, Appendix IV. A transposition is indispensable to both.
L. 531 may be read : —
S6<s pjri oiKaS* lK€(rOai *08v(Tcrrja TTToXiiropOov
but in 1. 505 we cannot be content with Bentley's suggestion : —
<f>d(rOaL '08v(ro-^a TTToXtTropOov <r c^aXawcrat
nor yet with Hartman's F' (i.e. 6<l>6aXfx6v) in the same place
adopted by van Leeuwen and da Costa. Epic usage requires : —
KfxicrOaL (T i^aXawcraL 'OSvaarrja TrToXiTropOov.
It will be said the line so written contains a manifest ambiguity.
153
I 530-K 8 ODYSSEY
So doubtless the author of TrToXitropOtov discovered. But the
ambiguity we may be sure never misled either man woman
or child of any audience that listened to the poet.
•■ 534] o'A^ KaKws lA^oi, oAco-a? ajro Travras iraipovSt —
If we compare the line with A, 114 = ^ 141
6if/€ KaKtos veiai, oAccras ctTro Travras eraipovs — •
some doubt falls upon the genuineness of iXOoL, especially when
we take into account the extreme rarity and uncertainty of the
lengthening of -ot of the optative before a vowel. Now v€olto
if it were metrically admissible would avoid the difficulty. Even
the tradition shows some appreciation of the doubtful character
of the scansion by giving an impossible eXOjj (for the subjunc-
tive obviously is useless here). Kayser would reject the line
altogether ; but as it seems necessary to the sense of the passage,
I would suggest that a more anti(juated present form vuojxai
(cf. i/cto-o/xai Eust. 1615. 35) gave veiW here, which afterwards
not unnaturally had to yield to the familiar tkOoi. The present
via-a-ofiaL is a strange form. Dr. Monro gives it as vtcrofxaL
(11. G. § 35) and explains it as a reduplicated thematic present.
The tradition is confused and seems to me hardly trustworthy,
V. Ebeling's Lex, sub vtWo/xat.
BOOK X (ac),
K 8 J ot 8 atet Trapa irarpX <f>LX(o Kal fxrjript KeSvy
BaLVvvTai' Trapa Bi (rcfav ovctara pjvpia Kctrat,
Kvicr^cv 8c T€ hoifxa TrepLcrrevax^t^TaL avXy
^/xara* vvKras 8' aire Trap' alSoirj': dXoxoio-tv
€v8ov(r €v T€ TOLTrrjcn Kal iv rprjTOLaL Xexica-L,
The tantaliziug uncertainty in 1. 10 of this passage is uni-
versally recognized. Neither the resources of explanatory com-
ment nor the efforts of conjectural emendation seem to have been
able to remove its obscurity. The difficulty centres in the word
avA.^. There are two traditional variants, avX-j (FD post cor-
recturam XTU 2 man. W) and avB^ (yp. avSrj X), according to
the latest authority, Ludwich (1889), who himself unwisely, as
1 venture to think, adopts the nominative, avX-q.
The rendering of what may be called the vulgate given
above would be to this effect : — * And the house filled with
(54 ,
BOOK X k8
savoury smell sounds all round in the court-yard/ Now by a
great effort we may persuade ourselves that Aeolus* house was^
like Prospero's island,
' full of noises,
Sounds and sweet airs, that give delight and hurt not ',
though it is certainly somewhat difficult to read anything like
this into Trepurrevaxi^^^TaL. Still our difficulties are not over
even then, for as the court-yard did not extend all round the
house {-n-epi) but only before the front, the addition of avXrjy
' in the court-yard,' is inexplicable. Hence Ernesti did not
hesitate to explain avXrj 'cantu tibiarum', and Schaefer con-
jecturally reads avXy with the assumed meaning of 'fluting*,
' flute-playing ' {avXrja-Ls). So Bekker, Kayser, Friedlaender, and
the Cambridge Homer (1892). Obviously either avX<h in a
collective sense (Rochefort) or avAots would be less objectionable
or at any rate easier, as Nitzsch intimates, though he gives the
preference himself to avSrj comparing t 4. His further suggestion
that Eustathius had ciAt; is hardly a happy one. Lastly there is
Duentzer's proposal, TrcptoTcvaxt^er aoiSfj, which is not without
plausibility and is admitted into the text by van Leeuwen and
da Costa (1897), but its appropriateness either to 7r€pto-T€va;(i^€Tai
or to KVL(TrJ€v is at least disputable.
If all these methods of dealing with the line seem unsatis-
factory, still more so is the introduction of the nom. case, avAiJ.
' The court-yard echoes round the steaming house ' is of course
open to the previous objection, that the court-yard, the aiXrj^
did not extend round the house, besides being somewhat meaning-
less at the best. The nature of the noise is not specified, but if
it was the sound of music, as is generally assumed from : —
p 269 ytyvcio-Kw 8' oTt 7roA.A.ot ev avT(3 Saira TiOivrai
avSpes, CTret Kvca-q fjikv IvrjvoOeVt iv 8e re <fi6pfxiy$
rjTTveL, rjv apa Sairl Oeol irotrjcrav eraLprjv.
it would certainly have been heard far beyond the court-yard.
This is placed beyond doubt by the explicit statement of: —
•A 135 <^5 K€V TLS <f>airj ydp,ov eppevat cktos d/covcov,
7] OLV* oSbv crT€i)(Oiv ^ ot Treptvatcraovo't,
where the sound of the ^op/xty^, like that of the modern piano,
reaches not only the wayfarer on the road outside but even the
inmates of the neighbouring houses,
ass
K 8 ODYSSEY
That Sw/JM, is the subject to the verb and not the object
after it seems to me certain from the repetition of the expression
in : —
if/ 146 roLCTLV Sc fxeya SCifxa TrepKmva^^L^ero ttoctctiv
avSpdv Trat^oKTtuv KoAAt^wvwv re yvvaLKu>v.
where moreover ttoo-o-lv makes for the genuineness of a dative in
our passage also.
What then have I to offer as a more probable solution of the
difficulty ? Simply this :
KVL(rr]€V Se t€ SiofLa TrepLcrTevaxt^^r avrrj
* the house sounds with the din of voices, with the hum of con-
versation '. This sense of avrrj — there is no need to write dii-n} —
may be found : —
B 96 iwia Se c^cas
K1]pVK€^ )8oOO)VT€S IprjTVOV, €t TTOT dvT^5
o^oiar*, aKovcrciav Sc hiorpefjiiiiiv /^aa-iXi^oiV,
So again of the 'heave- ahoy' of the Greek sailors — rot S' aXXi^Xouri
K€\€vov : —
B 153 avrrj ^ ovpavov wcc
otKttSc Ufxevwv*
Compare also : —
^122 ws T€ ft€ Kovpdoiv d/x^ryXv^€ OrjXvs avrrj.
The word by a curious coincidence, if it be one, is exactly
rendered by Virgil in a passage frequently adduced here and
most erroneously supposed to countenance avky: —
Aen. i. 725
Fit strepitus tectis vocemque per ampla volutant
atria.
Here per ampla atria is simply the usual Virgilian ornate
variation of tectis, and cannot lend any efficient support to the
worse than useless nom. avXi}, to which in fact it is not in any
degree an equivalent. On the other hand strepitus^ further
elucidated by vocem, — for Dr. Henry's attempt in his interesting
and valuable Aeneidea to restrict strepitus to the racket made
by the attendants is unsuccessful — is precisely synonymous with
di^T?} as defined above.
It follows that irepurrevaxtCeTaL is not to be explained by
reference to any supposed mysterious noises. It in no wise
reproduces Virgirs conception of the cave of Aeolus : —
156
BOOK X k8-22
Illi indignantes magno cum murmure montis
circum claustra fremunt.
any more tlian it does Shakespeare's fantasy of Prosperous
haunted island. In Homer we have simply a dinner-scene.
The leading Terb is Sacvvvrai (1. 9), to which rnxara practically
belongs, as Nitzsch and Ludwich would indicate by punctuation.
Rather needlessly, I think, for it is applicable not only to the
main yerb haivvvTai, but also to the supplementary ones Kctrat
and TTcptcTTevaxt^erai, V. the remarks on the usage of aXXoOi
(Note on 8 684). The two intermediate clauses, practically
parenthetical, merely serve to give additional details about the
feasting and cannot rightly be extended to anything beyond the
ordinary accompaniments thereof, in this case conversation rather
than music or singing, though the two latter are not necessarily
excluded. There is thus no interruption in the continuity of
the reference (from 1. 8 to 1. 12) to the mode of life followed by
Aeolus and his family.
It may be well in conclusion to attempt to show how in a simple
manner our corrupt tradition avXiJ may possibly have originated.
Assuming this primitive avr^, we may be fairly sure that at an
early period in the history of the written text the presentation
would be Ik TrXrjpov^ thus : —
Swfxa TreptoTeva^t^tTat avrrj.
Nothing could be easier than to misread this into : —
BCifJia TTcpto-Tcva^i'^CTat avrrj,
which is naturally suggestive of the common idiomatic use of
avTos seen in 24 avrfj ycu-y — avry T€ OaXdcraif), 290 ittttovs
avTOLCTLV 6)(€(rcf>iv, 6 186 avTcp KJiapu, <f> 54 to^ov avrcu yo)pvT<p.
In the present instance avrf} preceded by 8w/xa readily calls up,
and indeed can hardly be supplemented by any other word than,
avXrj. This from being a mere marginal addition, Sw/^a — avrrj
(avXrj), would end by displacing avrrj altogether : and so we are
left with the seemingly more important avXrj, which, as we have
seen, baffles and will always continue to baffle all rational and
legitimate exegesis.
K 22] rffjxv iravifxevaL t^8* opvvfxfv ov k iOiXr)(ri,
The hiatus has arisen from the old system of writing without
elision. Metre requires and usage allows : —
"^fikv 7rav€ju,cv rjBk Kal dpvvfxev 6v k iOiXrjcnv.
'57
K 22-44 ODYSSEY
The division of the line into three equal parts may have been
objected to, but the objection is idle. In the first book of Odyssey
fifty-seven instances may be counted. Neither is it necessary to
suppose that the introduction of kcu would give much, or indeed
any, greater prominence to dpvvfuv than -n-avefiev itself can claim,
cf. E 128 and also M 159 : —
a)S Twv €K ycipiiiv yScXca piov rjixcv *A)(aLU)V
rjSe KOL Ik Tpwoiv'
This usage might serve to explain the irregularity of 1. 6 (=0 604)
ti fikv Ovyarepc^, e^ 8' vtccs i7y8(oovT€S.
I am quite unconvinced that c^ here retains anything of an
initial (r,and see no good reason for accepting Fei from van Leeuwen
and da Costa. Much more probable to me seems : —
ti jM€V Ovyarpe^y e^ 8c kol vices T7y8<oovTcs.
K 29] Ty ScKarri 8* -^Sr) dv€<^atV€TO irarph apovpa,
An easy depravation of a line in this form :—
rrj 8cKaTi7 8e Sr] afx/xiv i<f>aLV€TO irarpls apovpa.
The form a/Aiv, if such were the original orthography, would
produce av€<j>aiV€ro still more easily. ^ kv€<f>aiv€To might indeed be
maintained thus, h\ Srj apux dv€(f).
K 353 Ko-^ l^ €<j>a(Tav xpv(r6v tc koX apyvpov otKaS' ayea-Oai.
For otKaS', no less otiose than unmetrical, Fick has ingeniously
suggested ao-Kw. The appropriateness of this is apparent, for it
is the mystery of the tied-up sack which impels the sailors to
forget their duty. In later Greek we should have iv olo-kw; but
ao-Kw alone may be compared with vtjlj explained as an instru-
mental dat. in K 140
tv6a 8' iir d/cT^s vrjl KarrjyayojJLeaOa aLoriry*
K 41] XrjiSo^' rffJLiLS 8' avT€ 6fxy]v oSov cKTcXccravrcs
We should lose a hiatus licitus but nothing else by reading : —
^fX€L<i 8' avTc r ofxrjv 680 v {Fol)
just as we have in 291 rj kcv tol 6fx6v X^x'^'*'
* 44J — dXX dye Oaora-ov iSwfXiOa om rd^ icrriv — .
Another hiatus licitus flanked with attendant difficulties on
either side. Probably in view of y 175 we may here adopt for
dXX* dye Oaxra-ov the more metrical dXXd rdxioTa followed by
t8(o/x€o-^' (cf. \ 356, p 479, H 30). For om I would suggest the
possibility of drra (v. Note on v 309 f.) : —
— dAAd rd)(i(rra i6u)fX€crO* drra rdB* coriV.
BOOK X
64-78
64] 7rw9 5A^c5, '08vo-€v ; . .. ~.
Modernized most probably from ttw?, 'OSvo-ev?, rjX&e^; or
ivOes. The later Greeks seem never to have been content to
illow Homer to use the nominative for the vocative, and dis-
»garded scansion freely in order to eliminate the supposed error
[V. Cobet, Misc. Grit. p. 333).
68] dao-dv fx' €TapoL re KaKol Trpos tolo-l re v7rvo<s
a-xirXios.
The metrical flaw here might be remedied by introducing
na-iSe or rotcrSeo-t (cf. 1. 268); but it would perhaps be simpler
suppose that crt has been lost after re. The objection to Trpos
for £7rt does not seem of much weight, considering the free use of
rpos as an adverb, = praeterea, insuper, e. g. with €tl v 41 Trpos 8'
n KOL To8e fiei^ov — fxepfjLrjpL^o}. t lO, &c.
78] nipero 8' avhpoiv 6vfJio<; vtt clpea-LT)^ aXeyeLvrjs
rj/x€T€pYj fiarir], CTrct ovkIti <f>aLV€TO Trofnr-q.
* And the spirit of the man was spent beneath the grievous
rowing by reason of our vain endeavour, for there was no more
any sign of a wafting wind ' (Butcher and Lang).
It will be seen that Messrs. B. and L. follow Nitzsch in
his interpretation of rj/jLeripr} fiaTLrj. Most editors however
adopt the explanation of the Schol. rjixcrepa pxnaioTrjTL koL apLaprta.
This last I believe to be right ; but the lines should certainly be
read thus punctuated : —
' retpero 8' avSptov Ovfxb'S vtt €lp€(TL7]<s dXeyciv^S,
r)fxcT€prj fxarir) cttci ovkItl <f>aLV€TO TroftTny.
The new punctuation indicates that rjfieTepr} fianrj belongs to the
sentence iirel TrofiTrrj. It is placed before the conjunction,
€7r€i, merely for the sake of emphasizing its importance. The
principle is the same as has been illustrated in the note on a 37.
With the present instance we may compare : —
t 15 KrJSe' iirei fxoi ttoAAo, Socrav deol ovpavLOive^.
p 4^ arap avrbs aKOVCfiev at k lOiXricrOa,
Srjo-dvTOiV a- ev vrjl — .
E 27 Tpwes 8e p,€ydOvp,OL iirel ISov vie Adprjro^f —
iraa-iv opivOr} ^vfios*
Z 474 avrap o y' ov <f>iXov viov cttci Kvcre TrqXi re \ep<riv.
Accordingly the translation would be to this effect : * The spirit
of my men was wearied out in the stress of hard rowing, for by
as9
K 78-112 ODYSSEY
reason of our own foolishness there was no longer prospect of any
convoy home.'
The TTOfxTrrj given by Aeolus, practically the favourable wind,
the zephyr, had disappeared, and they were left to their own
resources, rowing.
Now apart from a possible doubt whether vtt' ctpco-t?;?
dXcyctv^s should not be inr cipco-tj; dXeyeLvfj with G (the codex
Mediceus Laurentianus), to which I certainly incline, there
remains only the question of the curious and unique word /xarLy.
Nitzsch deriving it from fxaToio) gives it the sense of * helpless
delay ', which the verb justifies. But the form of the noun allied
to fmrao) should certainly be fmr^, as the adverbial ace. fidrrjv
shows was really the case. Marti; seems to be sort of rough
compromise, a distant approach to fxaraiorr}^, which the later
Greeks thought they could allow themselves to indulge in here,
as they were gradually becoming unable to enter easily into the
obsolescent ideas and phraseology of the epic age. What the
poet elsewhere lays explicitly to the charge of the too inquisitive
crew was a-ny {aTaa-OaXirj), as we may see from k 68. In later
times when they — and Aeschylus may be taken as witness — had
loaded this word with deeper meaning, it is small w^onder that
such a term was thought too severe for a comparatively trivial
offence. Therefore instead of being content with
rjfX€T€prj ddrrj {aFdrrj)
which probably originally stood here, they turned it into the
apparently lighter impeachment, ^mriri.
This idea of the origin of /xan'r; may perhaps appear to some
fanciful and extravagant : but there is a passage in the Etymo-
logicum Magnum which gives it a remarkable support and is
worth revolving : — Ik rov dro^ ytVcrai fxaro^j 6 XiW iv dry wv koI
<t>p€vol3Xapia, IvB^v fiaria. After this rather damaging exposure
it seems hardly possible even for the most credulous to retain
faith in, or any serious respect for, the traditional incubus,
K 112] 01 8* CTTCt €l(nj\6ov kXvtcl Sw/AttTtt, T^v Sc ywatKtt
€vpov d(rqv r 6pio% Kopv<f>yv, Kara 8' ccmry^ov avnyv.
Here the article tiJv is unepic and the emphatic aim^v
intolerable. There is also a doubt whether Kariarvyov should be
followed by any object at all. In the only other passage which
160
I
BOOK X Kiia-193
shows the compound verb, P 694, it stands alone and means *wad
struck with horror'. It would involve very little alteration of
the received text to read : —
OL S' CTTct elcTTJXOov /cXvTo, 8<o/xaTa, Tj^ Bk yvvaxKa
€vpov oirrjv t' 6p€0<s Kopv<fi'qv, Kara B* earvyov dvrrjv.
' They were horrified before her.' The use of t^ = where
(ubi) has sufficient warrant in 8 565, c 442, 17 281 and else-
where.
K 172] KttS S' c^aXov TrpoTrdpoiOe vcos, dvcycipa S' eratpovs — .
As all the MSS. save one have vcws here, it is very difficult
to think that the vcos of P gives the line as originally composed,
or indeed as a metrically satisfactory verse. Without much
rashness we might read :—
kolS S ejBaXov vrjo^ TrpoTrdpotO*, dveyeipa 8' €Toupov<5.
K 178 J W9 icf}dfir)Vi ot 8' w/ca e/xots iTrieaarL ttlOovto {== 428, fx 222).
Accepting Nauck's transposition IttlBovto Ittco-o-i, I would
take the hint given by P wk' and restore the scansion thus : —
w? iffidfxrjVf ot 8* u>k iir c/xot? iTriOovro eireacri.
Cf. O 162, 178, A 565, A 412.
K 192J ov8' OTTTf dw€LTar dXXa (fipa^io/xiOa Od<r<rov
€t Tts €T* ccrrat /a^is* cyco 8* ovk otopixii eivat.
€r8ov yap crKOTTLrjv cts TraiTraXocacav dvcX^wv — .
Two of the words here found, otofxai and eXBov, dactyl and
spondee, are clearly un-epic. We have also a case, more or less
serious, of hiatus in 1. 192. None of these defects need be
attributed to the poet. Several emendations of cyw 8' ovk otofxai
elvat are current, Nauck's cyw 8' ovk I/a^cv* 6iw, which leaves the
sense unsatisfactory (it is either an unworthy counsel of
despair, a quite incredible solution, or, as Nitzsch would have it,
the hero merely means that he is of opinion there is no other
policy possible than that he is going to recommend, but does not.
This makes crt all important, more so indeed than it can well be),
Naber's iyw S4 y oiofxai cTvai, Piatt's eyw 8* dp dto/xat cTvat and van
Herwerden's cyw Bi yc l/x/xcv' oto) with the precious hiatus licitus.
Perhaps the following would be fairly satisfactory in metre
and meaning : —
ovK OTTT) iiavaviLT ' dXXa ^/oa^(o/x,€^a Odcrcrov
et T19 It' Icrrat fxrJTLs' eyw 8e tiv* Ifxpav oio).
cs Be lBov (TKoinrjv is iraiiraXoea'a-av dv€XO<jt>v — .
AGAE M r6i
K 192-247 ODYSSEY
Such a primitive text might well be the starting-point whence
he tradition has proceeded by natural and easy stages.
K 232I EvpvXo;(os 8' VTrefxcLvev, oto-a/xevos 8oXov ctvai.
258 avrap iywv v7refX€Lva, 6i(rdfX€vos 86X.OV cTvai.
I suggest that a slight alteration of the punctuation in the
first line would be an improvement : —
^vpvXoxp'S 8' VTre/xeiv, ev oicrdfjievos SoXov ctvai.
What he said to himself was * Iveorrt 8oAos '.
If so, the hiatus in the second line disappears at once :—
avrap iyu)V vttc/acii/', ev otcra/xevo? SoXov itvai.
* ^47] ^^ ^^ ^^ 6(r(r€
BaKpv6<f>iv TrifiTrXavTOy yoov 8' wtcro 6vfji6<s.
Somewhat reluctantly I have been driven by a close examination
of epic usage to the conclusion that the curious phrase, yoov
8' wtcTo Ovp-osy *his soul thought of lamentation,' 'wailing was
the thought of his soul' is Homerically an illegitimate and
indefensible expression. It recurs, it is true, once again,
V 349, where the whole line is repeated verbatim after oo-crc
8' dpa a<f)i(Dv. The only advantage however to be derived
from this recurrence is that it saves us from the error of
making 6vp,6s refer to the spectators of the scene, 'their soul
expected his weeping,' a translation that has actually been
suggested as possible here.
At the same time oLOfxac in the sense of ' expect ', * look for '
is strictly in accordance with a recognized Homeric usage, e.g.
N 283 Krjpas OLOfxivio, P 35 1 Kctvov otofxivr], k 380 5 Ttva ttov
80A.0V aAAov otcat, v 427 dXXa rd y ovk oto). The question is,
can the meaning here required ' I think about some one or some
thing ' be equally approved for 6to/Aat nva or rt ? I am afraid
not. We certainly might apply this latter rendering, and some
have applied it, to v 224 : —
dAA' £Tt Tov Bvcrrrjvov oiopuaiy ct troOev i\$oiv
dvSpwv fivrjOTT^piov o'Kc8ao-tv Kara 8w/xaTa Our].
'Ich muss denken an ihn' (Ebeling Lex.). The better
supported sense however is not, ' I must still think of him,^
' still my thought is ever of ' (Butcher and Lang), but simply
*I am still expecting, looking for, him.* y8 351 is precisely in
the same position. So also x ^59 "^^^ ""^P ^^^ ^^®^ ^^* mean,
* whom I am thinking of,* but, * whom I suspect, and I expect
16a
BOOK X K 247
L,„,„.,.,....„...^.
^■ikely.' The only other passage, so far as I am aware, which
^■affords any justification for assuming the legitimacy of the
meaning under discussion is : —
p 580 fxvOuTai Kara fxoipav a wep k* ololto koI oAXos — ..
Here also I am strongly inclined to believe the sense is *just
that which any one else would expect,' ' quae suspicetur '
(Ebeling) ; we might paraphrase, ' he expresses the apprehensions
that any one else would feel/ Even if we take the meaning to
be ' what any one else would think ', there is a considerable
interval between a rrep k ololto and yoov wUto. The former
is far from being a justification of the latter.
However it is undoubtedly difficult to prove to demonstration
the Homeric impossibility of yoov wUto : the niceties of language
are apt to elude the most careful investigation. Still it can
hardly be denied that the phrase is of a dubious and isolated
character, and, if so, there is room for a suggestion, more
especially one following the ductus litterarum as closely as
what I now propose : —
yotav Se ol tcro Ov/xos-
Obviously the vulgate TOONAEOIETO (with Si for 8*) differs
little, and indeed is but one iota removed, from TOONAEOI-
lETO. The sense gained by the new reading is, I venture to
say, unimpeachable and thoroughly Homeric: *on lamentation
his soul was set,' ' his soul yearned for wailing.'
We may compare the recurrent roto-iv v^* i/Acpos wpro
yooLOf v(j> L/Jiepov wpa-e yooto, yoov Lfxepov wpaey, and for the
genitive after lea-OaL k 529 lifitvo^ TroTafxalo pod(i>v, o 69 UfX€vov
voo-TOLo, A 168 UfxevoL TToAtos, ^371 viKTjs te/x€vo)v, cf. 718, 767.
There remains however one difficulty which may seem hard
to settle. The evidence for an initial F in l€to is exceedingly
strong. This particular form never occurs in the fourth foot
without a short open vowel preceding. Of course we may
deliberately shut our eyes to the digamma altogether and say
stoically with La Roche (Praefat. ad Iliadem) * Digammi
rationem habui fere nullam'. We might even go a step
further and renounce Homer and all his works. In this case
however the disregard of the digamma has some little basis on
which to rest, te/xcvos is preceded by a dactyl ending in a
M 2 16^
I
K 247-288 ODYSSEY
consonant twice k 246, ^142 (q.v.), where €0'(rvft€i'os may possibly
have been the original word. Two other passages y8 327 cttci
vv irep terat (q.v.) and 5 501 aifxfjia) S* ua-Orjv are also recalcitrant.
Still there must be some hesitation about adding to these
exceptions.
Possibly then some may be disposed to leave the noun here
in the singular number, as is indeed usual, and read : —
yOOLO 8c ?€T0 OvfJLOS'
On the other hand it must be admitted that the possibility of
this being converted into the traditional reading is not by any
means equally apparent.
For my own part I faithfully adhere to the principle I
ventured to lay down in discussing 037, and accordingly I con-
ceive that the true original ran thus with elision of -01 : —
yooiv Si F IfUro Ov/jlos.
in exact correspondence with : —
cTTCt Trpo F* eFiLirofiev '^fX€L<s.
In the later passage, v 349, either yooio 8c Uto or yocov 8' apa
— there is no place for a pronoun — would necessarily be made
to conform to the corruption here.
It 263] Tov 8' anf/ rjviirfea avrrjv oSov rjyiqa-aa-Oau
rjvwyca is undoubtedly the correct epic form and is given by
nearly all the MSS. That the verse as it stands is unmetrical is
however certain. Instead of adopting rjvuiyeov or ^Jvwycw from
Bothe, I would suggest the insertion of /xot thus : —
TOV 8' yvij^yed p! anf/ avrrjv oSov rjyi^a-aa-Oai.
Compare t 274 (Note) for position of verb and pronoun, and for
the construction ^ 114, 1; 22.
K 269] fjavymptv' €Tt yap K€V aXv^aipev kukov ripxip.
The variant <^€vyop€v (T ante corr. U'?) may indicate
<f>€vy€p.€v as the original reading. Whether any variants on 1[ti
yap K€v exist is not stated by Ludwich (1889). I would suggest
as possible : —
<i>€vy€pevy €L K€v TTtos It oAv^at/xcv KaKov rjpxLp. (v. Note on /x 113)
or we might preserve the independence of the last sentence and
the exact order of its particles by reading : —
<f>tvy€p€v' ws cTi yap kcv aXv^aificv KaKov r}fiap.
K 288] «PX^» ° '^**' "^o' Kparos akdkicrja-iv KaKov 5/xap.
Read €px(\ 5 kIv r diro Kparos dXakKjja-LV kukov ^/Mip. The
164
I
BOOK X K 288-326
examination of the usage of aXiiu), aTraXi^m in the Note on p 364
shows this change to be necessary. The short syllable in thesis
before Kp may have contributed to the exclusion of the preposition,
but the main motive doubtless was to avoid the elision of rou
K 295] KtpK>y Iwax^aL tSs re KTa/xevaL fxeveaivaiv,
322 KipKy €7n/t^a w<s t€ KTapavai /xcvcaiVwj/.
Whatever defence maybe made for the third foot in 1. 295,
it is impossible to maintain that in 1. 322 we have in that place
even a tolerable spondee. In fact from I. 322 some degree of
doubt must fall upon the lesser licence, and more weight begins
to attach to the frequency of an elision before ws tc, e.g. X 26,
N 564, 571, O 271, 323, 410, 690, 630, t 292. It is admitted
that the diphthong of cTrat^at could not be elided ; but, as may
easily be shown, the prohibition to elide by no means involves
the licence of leaving a hiatus, as is sometimes too readily
assumed. On the other hand the i aor. inf. mid. iirat^aaOaL,
which occurs at least twice in the Iliad, allows the elision of its
last syllable, and this I submit is the solution of the difficulty in
our first passage : —
ILipKri iTrat^aa-O* ws re KToi/xevaL fxtv^aiviav.
The second passage has probably been brought into forced
conformity with the previous line after lirdi^acrdaL was abandoned
for cVat^ai. There seems little doubt from the usage elsewhere,
that the reading should be : —
KipKyj (Trr}ixOr]v ws t€ Krafxevai /xcvccuVwv.
These two alterations may be considered sufficient, but if
we look at the usual idiomatic construction of the verb in Homer
even apart from the minor objection to the shortening of -y in
KipKYj, it is quite possible that KipKrjs atiacrO' and KtpKT/s rjLxOrjv^
represent better the original text.
K 317II ^^ ^€ T€ <f>dp/xaKov rJK€ KaKot. cf>pov€OV(T ivL Ovfiio.
If the exclusion of tc from statements of particular fact
be accepted (v. Monro, H. G. § 332 (6)), we should read
here : —
€V Sc TL (fidpfiaKOV
Contrast with this passage v 244 iv Se re otvos yiyverai, where tc
is properly and correctly used.
K S'^^J BavpA /x' t)(iL (1)9 ov TL TTtwv TttSc <f>dpfiaK i6eX)(0r]<s'
Bekker and Cobet (Var. Lee. p. 108) propose to change dxs to
165
K 326-403 ODYSSEY
TTws. This is not, as I believe, the true remedy. There is here
a doubtful expression, which deserves attention even more than
tlie hiatus, Oav/xd jx l^ct. Elsewhere in Homer Oavfia never means
'wondering', 'the feeling of wonder.' That is expressed by
Td<f>o<s. Oavfia is always the object of the wondering, the thing
wondered at. This is established by 17 instances in the Iliad
and Odyssey and about half that number in the Homeric
Hymns.
Accordingly leaving ws untouched I would give ^av^a here
its proper sense by reading : —
rj fiiya OavfJL* ws ov Tt Triwy rdSe (fxip/xaK WiX^6rj<i.
Compare O 286, Y 344, p 306. In the last-named passage
T) iMaXa Oavfxa is read, and would of course serve equally well
here.
K 3&^] TPttCrtV 8' t/X,C/30€lS VTTcSv yOOS, dfJL(fH Sk 8<u/i,a
tr/Aep8aXcov Kovd^it^^'
The usage of tju,€po€t? here is absolutely unique. The meaning
is supposed to be ' wistful ', ' yearning,' indicative of home-
sickness. Surely the true reading can only be : —
Traa-LV 8' L/xepos cts vTriSv yoov,
of which the corruption is simple. The tradition is quite
Sophoclean in expression, but utterly remote from Homer, cf.
the regular t/xcpo? ydoto, and for the contrasted adjectives
^138 KUL X €*5 TraVTttS ipVKOl — .
K 403] vTJa fxkv dp TrdjXTrpiOTOv ipvaraare rjireipovBij
KTT^fxara 8* ev orTTT/coxrt TrcXdao-are OTrXa T€ iravra'
Doubtless Bentley's irdpLirpoiTa is a necessary step in the right
direction, but further correction is needed here. Both these lines
exhibit the hiatus at the end of the fourth foot, which is claimed
as licitus. Both are under some suspicion on other grounds ;
Kirchhoff boldly rejects them both along with avro? in I. 405.
They are, he would probably urge, merely modifications of
11. 423-4, put into the mouth of Circe. Obviously the detailed
orders are better placed in the speech of the leader to his men.
But even this argument is not conclusive, and if we are not
[)repared to go the length of rejecting the lines here, the speech of
Circe would not lose either in respect of idiom or politeness and
might actually be better iu point of metre, if we attributed to
her the optative instead of the imperative, ipva-aaiT — TrcXao-o-atT .
166
c/, °^ U6. y BOOK X K 403-410
For other examples of this optative, used, in the words of Dr.
Monro, as * a gentle or deferential imperative, conveying advice,
suggestion, or the like* (H. G. § 299), cf. A 20 TraiSa 8* i/xol
Xva-aire (fiikrjv rd t airoLva ^ix^crOai, where, as here, an infinitive
follows, r 407, &c. The elision at the end of the fourth foot is
not altogether infrequent, v. A. 356, p 479, H 30, k 44 (Note),
X 381, 385, 388.
The result is that the laborious portion of the exhortation or
injunction is recommended as advisable — merely so — by the mild
f optatives: but the invitation is unhesitatingly expressed by the
[more urgent infinitive. So again in 1. 425 for oTpvvecrOe ifxot (or
[«/a /mol) we may easily restore drpvveo-OaL ifioC y a/x-a Travrcs cTrecr^ai,
if we are not too devoted to hiatus licitus.
|K 410] <^? S' OT av aypavXoL Tropte? ttc/oi ySovs dycAatag,
iX.Oovaa<s i<s Koirpov, ivrjv /Joravy;? KopianovraL,
iraa-ai afia a-Kaipova-LV ivavTiai' ovS* €tl (rr/Kot
i(T)(OV(T , dAA' dSivbv jjLVKWfxevaL ajxcjitOiova-L
firjrepas' ws e/xl k€lvol, CTret iSov 6(f>0aXfMOL(TL,
SaKpv6€vr€S €)(yvTO' Sokt/ctc B* apa a(f)L(rL Ov/xo^
Sis efj.€v (1)5 el TrarpiK iKoiaro koX ttoXiv avrrjv
Tp7)^€Lr]<s 'I^aKT^s, Lva T €Tpa(f>€v -qS' lyivovTO'
There are a few points in this passage that invite brief notice.
For (OS 8* or av, van Leeuwen and da Costa (1897) read ws S* ore k',
but as the pure subjunctive is the rule in a simile, ws 8' ore t
(cf. M 132) should probably stand not only here but in all the
instances enumerated by Dr. Monro, H. G. § 289, to which we may
add K 216, X 468, K 5, M 41, O 80, O 480.
The form Troptes, which can only be supported from Euripides
and Theocritus, should be replaced by the more correct Troprtcs,
which even here is not entirely without MSS. authority (tto/jtics F,
post corr. D (D'^?) U^, Eust. H. Steph. Ludwich). Evidently Tropics
proceeds mainly from the difficulty of realizing that Troprtes can
be scanned , as probably is the case in Hymn. Dem. 174. Troprcs
might certainly be written, but Troprtc? seems preferable for the
reason given by Porson in favour of 'A^^yveW (y 278). Compare
also remarks on k 493 ad fin.
In 411 cTTct may be accepted instead of ctt^v. The comma
after Kopia-uivrai involves the adoption of Bekker's o-Kaipwcrt in the
next line ; but it is open to question whether it would not be
167
It 410 ODYSSEY
better to follow Ameis-Hentze and change the comma into a colon,
not making an anacoluthon, but leaving the substantive verb
{ioxri) to be understood after ore re, as in A 547, E 481, N 323 :
compare also A 535, where we now find generally printed avrvycs
at TTcpl hi^pov (sc. rjcrav).
The main difficulty of the passage however meets us when
we get to 1. 415. Obviously I-^qjvto cannot govern c/ac (1. 414),
as d/x</>€xwTo might have done, so that it is of no avail to appeal
to such a passage as tt 214 d/t^t^v^cis Trarep la-OXov. Usage is
decidedly against removing the comma after Kctvot with Bekker.
Hence Kirchhoff, Fick and van Herwerden call in question the
validity of 11. 415-17, regarding them as interpolated.
I would venture to suggest as an alternative that tyyiTo is
corrupt and should be simply corrected to Xkovto, which saves both
grammar and sense. * In such wise, when they saw me with their
eyes, they came to me weeping' seems adequate enough to the
occasion. Ixwto may well have been suggested by tt 214 ; d/A<^i-
Oiova-L (413) would help to maintain it as well as the idea, a very
natural one, that it gives more pathos to the picture. Perhaps
we should be nearer the mark in saying that it gives too much.
Certainly Odysseus with half the ship's crew hanging about his
neck would find the situation morally and physically almost over-
whelming. Of the other interpretation that has been suggested,
*in lacrimas effusi sunt,* it is enough to say that it is not
possible.
Lastly SoKYjcre 8' apa ar^Ca-L 6vpjo<s \ ws tp.iv must surely be read
hoK-qa-e 8* apa o-<^wrt Ovfiio. The meaning is not * and their feeling
seemed (to me) to be just as if &c., but 'for it seemed to them
in their soul to be as if &c. If this is not obvious in itself, it is
surely placed beyond question or cavil by a comparison of: —
V 93 fxepfxrjpi^e 8* cTrctra, SoKTjcre 84 oi Kara Ovfiov
TjSrj yiyv(oorKOV(ra Trapea-rd/JievaL K€<f>aX.rj(f)i.
The whole passage with the alterations I have advocated would
stand thus :
0)5 8* oT€ T aypavXoL iropru^ Trept /Sovs dycAataj,
(\Oov(ra<i cs Koirpov, cttci ^ordvrj'i Kopfa-iovrar
Tratrat a/xa crKatpovaiv ivavriaL' ov8' €tl (tyjkol
i<TXpv<Ty aXX dBivov p,VK(i)p.€vai dfitfaOeovari
firjrepas' ios ifik kcivoi, cttci i8ov 6(l)6akfiolcrLf
168
BOOK X
K 410-432
SaKpvoiVTi^ LKOvro' ^oK-qa-e S* apa (T<fiL(n $vfM(o
ws €fi€V a>9 €t TrarptS' Ikoloto kol ttoXiv avrrjv
rprjx^LT]^ *lOdK7j<s, tva r trpat^ev 178' cyeVovro'
432]] KipKrjs is fiiyapov KarajSi^p^evaL, rj k€v aTravras
^ crvs ^e XvKovs 7rot>y(r€Tai 17c Xeovras,
ot K€V 01 /xcya Sw/xa ffivXacrcroLixev koX dvay/cjy,
u)S xcp KvkAwi/^ cp^*, oT€ ot fiicrcravXov lkovto
r/jxiTepoL crapoi, crvv 8' 6 Opa(rv<s etTTcr* '08u(r(r€V9*
i'he passage is thus translated by Messrs. Butcher and Lang: —
pto go down to the hall of Circe, who will surely change us all
[to swine or wolves or lions to guard her great house perforce,
laccording to the deeds that the Cyclops wrought, when certain
wf our company went to his inmost fold and with them went
[Odysseus ever hardy \ Apart from the admitted uncertainty of
[the rendering of 1. 434 (v. Dr. Merry's note) there is in the clause
corresponding to ws wep KvkXwxJ/ Ip^* an unmistakable tinge of
[Vagueness, which would, T think, disappear, if we were to restore
[the integrity of the two concluding lines by reading and punctua-
iting thus : —
(S? TTCp K.VK\o>lf/ tp^ , 0T€ Ot fl€<T<TavXoV LKOVTO,
^fjLiTepovs cTapovs, crvv 8e Opaavs etTrer* '08vao-€vs*
In the vulgate it seems natural to suppose that the unmetrical
rjfjiiTcpoL Irapot has superseded the accusative owing to the strictness
of the grammatical views of some forgotten critic, who either could
not extend his regard beyond the proximate verb ikovto or who
realized too vividly that avv 8' 6 Opacrvs ktX. was part and parcel
of the temporal sentence. The inter-locking of clauses is however
Homeric enough, e. g. 475-6
V(i>Tov dTTOTrpoTa/xcov, €7rt 8c irXetov iXeXeLTrro,
apytoBovTOS v6<s, OaXeprj 8' ^v afJLifAs dXoi(l>rj-
The exact meaning of €p$* in our reconstructed clause calls
■ for some remark. If it were not for the closely similar : —
1/^312 rjS* oora KvkXwj/' ep$€y
where ep^c unquestionably comes from €p8a>, I am afraid I should
without much hesitation take epi' here with Adam and Ameis-
Hentze as the aor. of Ipyw {Upyw), although there is but one other
instance of this form in Homer, ^411, where moreover the scansion
is decidedly curious. However I may safely leave this question
for future treatment (v. Note on ^411), for to say here *just as
169
K 432-493 ODYSSEY
the Cyclops penned in our comrades ' is not materially different
from saying 'just as the Cyclops treated our comrades', if, as
Nitzsch believed we ought to do, we follow the Ambros. Schol. in
the explanation of <f>v\d(Ta-oLjx€v in the preceding line, TrjpoLjxevy
ov)^ <fivXa.(T<T€LV SwfJLa dAAa to act iKilari ctvai. This involves no
innovation with regard to <f>v\d(T(ro) as c 208 roSe Su)fxa <f>v\d(T(roi's
bears witness, and it may be observed that in k 214-19 the wolves
and lions, whether they are human beings transformed or not,
appear rather to play the part of lures and decoys than of
guards.
Accordingly I would render from 1. 434 thus : —
' and so we should abide perforce in her great house, in the same
way as the Cyclops dealt with our comrades, when they came to
his steading, and our rash leader was with them '.
K 4^5j ^^* oAAwV €Tdp(i)V, 0? fJi€V <f>OlVvdoV(rL <f>i\0V KTJp
ajxffi e/x 68vp6fX€voL, ore ttov cv yc v6(t<^l yevrjai.
There is one remarkable point about this relative sentence,
' who lamenting around me make my heart weak ', and it is this :
(f>LXov KTjp in A 491—2 dAAa <f>OivvO€<TK€ <I>lXov KTjp avOi fxivwv belongs
to the subject of the verb, not as here to a different individual.
So we have Tcra/aTro/xcvo? tc (ftiXov Krjp (a 310). The case is the
same with the synonymous <f)L\ov ^Top, which occurs much more
frequently. <^iAov T€TLrifjL€vo<s rjrop (a 114 &c.), <j>lXov KaTan^KOfAXu
rjTop (t 136), Ka^aTTTO/Acvos <jii\ov TjTop (v 22).
With this I connect the hiatus in 1. 486 which, always
suspect, is here accompanied by this deviation from the ordinary
construction. Possibly
K 198 roia-LV 8c KarcKXaaOri ^cAov yrop
fjivr](raixevoL<s tpymv (cf. t 256) — .
may supply a hint. At any rate as a temporary expedient
I suggest:—
oicrt <j>BlvvB€l <j>lXov rjrop
afKJi* tp! 6SvpQp,evoLS.
For (f>$LvvO€i V. TT 145, ^ 530, /x 131, &c.
•* 493 J p.dvTr)o^ dXaov, rov re <f>p€V€<: c/tTrcSot euri*
P 267 pAvTTjos dXaov, ®r}ftaLOv Tcipcatao,
I transcribe from the apparatus criticus of Ludwich (1889) (0 on
'f 493 • f^vTTjos dXaov M (coniecit Hermann Elem. doctr. metr.
347)> Bekker; pxivrrjo^ dXaov coniecit Thiersch Gr. Gramm. § 190,
170
BOOK X
K493
22; ixdvTLo<s aXaov MSS. sch. Plat. Menon. loo^, Eust. ; /juivtlos
ayXaov X, jxdvTiog dXaoo P. Knigbt ; /xavrtos aXaoLO Hartel Horn.
Stud. Ill 9 (13). (2) on fx 267: fjidvT7]o<: coniecit Hermann,
Bekker; fxavTio^ G nt MSS. al. (e super t scr G^).
Although there is but one MS., Venetus Marcianus 613,
which shows /tavnyo? dXaov, most editors, Bekker, La Roche,
Ameis-Hentze, Fasi, Diintzer, Merry, Piatt, Monro, adopt this
l^iinique form (the regular gen. fmvTLo<s is found N 663), although
[even then the second foot is a yery dubious dactyl. On the
[other hand if following Ahrens and the more recent editors van
Leeuwen and da Costa we accept Knight's /xavrto? dXaoo, the
metrical difficulty is only moved one step forward to the third
foot where -6, tov (or -5, too) is an utterly impossible spondee
[(or dactyl).
Under these circumstances it seems worth while to propose
a third solution of the difficulty : —
dAaoo /xdmos, tov Te <f>p€V€S c/AircSot eto-tv
"This transposition of the adjective and noun removes every
objection on the score of metrical sufficiency. To the Greeks
[in later times however this reading would necessarily seem much
too severely archaic, and they would readily welcome in its stead
even such an unsuccessful measure of relief as the vulgate. I shall
not discuss at leugth the lengthening of a short open vowel before
initial fx. The analogies are well known. But the treatment of
the genitive termination -tos as a long syllable deserves further
illustration :—
B 8 1 1 lo-Tt 8e Tis irpoTrdpoiOe 7roA,ios atTrcta KoX<j)vrjy
$ 567 €t 8c Ke ot irpoTrdpoidi ttoAios KarevavTiov tXOia'
Bekker in both places would read ttoXco? without authority in the
first case and with one MS. L only in the second. Dr. Monro
gives some countenance to this needless change by adopting it in
^ 567 (Oxford Homer 1896).*
I will now subjoin a few passages in which this scansion w —
of TToAios may be admitted with advantage : —
^262 avrap ctt^v ttoXlos iTn/STjOfiiv rjv 7rc/ot irvpryo'S
Here the late form lirrjv no less than the metre authorizes : ~
avrap cTret kc TroA-tog
a restoration due to Dr. Monro, H. G. § 362.
171
* 493-505 ODYSSEY
^294 Toa-a-ov airb irroXios o<r<rov T€ ycytovc ^oijoras.
The analogy of H 334 tvtOov airoTrpo v€<av gives a fair warrant for
r6(T(rov oLTTOTrpo ttoXlo^.
■JT 4 7 I ^St; VTTCp TToXtOS, O^t 6* "FipfJLOUOS \6<f>0S €OTtV,
A remedy of a similar character to the above is equally applicable
and equally called for by the metre here : —
T]8rj VTrepOi zroXios.
For the improper preposition with genitive cf. Monro, H. G. § 228.
P 1 4 7 etcrt TTcpt TTToAtos, €7r€t ovK apa tls X^P^5 ^cv.
If we remove the prep. Trcpt, which is scarcely appropriate here, for
the more suitable and more usual Tr/aocr^e, both sense and metre are
advantaged ; —
cTcriv TrpoaOe ttoAio?.
Cf. ^ 524 OS T€ €7]<s irpoa-Oiv 7roA.tos Aawv T€ Tricrycnv, H 833, $ 587,
A 54, also <E> 567 quoted above. But another solution adheres
more closely to the tradition
ctct TTcpiTrpo woA.tos
For irepLTTpo * well in front ' cf. 11 699. I may also refer in this
behalf to :
T 292 itSov irpb TTToXios BeSatyfxivov 6$€l ^oXko).
for the corrupt opening of which line I have on independent
grounds suggested as probable: —
cto-ctSov Trpo TToXtOS,
and the present argument tends to confirm the remarks then made,
v. Journ. Phil. xxv. p. 303.
The ace. rroXtas is disyllabic, o — , in two passages : —
^560 KOI 7rdvT0)v icracrL TroAtas kol ttlovos ay povs — .
574 oLvOptoTroiVf avTOvs T€ TToAtas T iv vat€Taov(ras,
and in all probability we should be right in substituting this
form for iroXeis in B 648, I 328, 5 342, 490.
" 5053 f^V ^^ '^^'' Y/t/Aovos y€ TToOrj vapa vrjl /xtXea-Oia,
There is a suspicious redundancy, about the expression ttoOtj
fitXea-Owj 'desiderium sit tibi curae.' It does not exhibit the
true Homeric note of simplicity and directness. The ring is rank
falsetto. Next we cannot fail to observe that the form fxtXiaOu),
the imperative mood of the middle voice, is unique. Elsewhere
with tolerable frequency p^tXtTin is found, e. g. : —
il 152 (=181) fiyihi TL OL 6d.yaTo% fi€\€T<t> €f>p€(TL firjSi tl Tapfios'
O 231 ( = a 305) crol S* avTw /bteXcTw,
173
BOOK X
« 505-573
)8 304 {fi-q TL roL oAAo) iv orrrjOca-cn KaKov /xcXcVo) tpyov T€ hro^ t€,
8415 KoX TOT hr€Lff VfUV /XCACTW KoipTOg T€ ^LTJ T€,
■jy 208 *A\klVo', oAAo Tt TOt /AcXcTO) <f>p€a-LV'
There is indeed one passage, and one passage only, which gives
countenance to this peculiar use of the middle voice of the verb
lii\<a : —
A 523 cftot Si K€ ravra ficXrja-erai, o<f>pa reXecra-o)'
where the original may perhaps have been fxeX^a-oia or fxefi-qXaxr* ;
\ but whatever may be said of this suggestion, the weakness and
' Unsatisfactory character of /xcXco-^w in k 505 stands confessed, so
fthat here at least a restoration of the true verb may be essayed
'with some confidence. Moreover we have in this case a surer
basis than that of mere conjecture in the possibility of an appeal
to analogous usage and to some extent of tradition also. I would
submit that the true reading of the line is : —
fiT^ Ti TOt r]y€fx6vo<s y€ iroOrj irapa vrjl y€V€(r6u),
of which the literal rendering would run thus: — *Let there not
be unto thee in any wise anxiety for a guide with thy ship,'
irapa vrji qualifying i7ye/Aovo5, * a guide to accompany the ship,'
as in the examples I have already adduced, v. Journ. Philol.
xxiv. p. 280.
In actual use the combination of ttoOt] and ytyvo/xai occurs :—
A 471 icrOXos i(oVf fjLcydXr) 8k ttoBt] AavaoiaL yivqrai
and again in a line unmistakably cast in the same mould as
X 505 :—
6 414 firjSi TL TOL $L<f>€6^ y€ iroOrj /JLeroTTurOc yevoiTO.
I do not know that the cogency of the above argument is
really increased by the fact that yevia-Ou) is the actual reading of
one of the two leading MSS. of the Odyssey, Flor. Laurent. 52, but
undoubtedly many scholars will thereby be more willing to give
ear to the objection against /xeXia-Om and to admit the alternative
and, as I believe, genuine verb.
K 573] pcta TrapiiiXOova-a' Tt? av Oibv ovk WiXovra
6(f>0aXfxoi(rL tSoLT 7] ivO* rj tvOa. Kiovra;
We have here a strong instance of av, but not quite con-
clusive as against k^v. Van Leeuwen and da Costa suggest
pcia '7rapa<f>$afX€V7]' tis k€V — .
But this would scarcely have been lost. If nothing better can be
' .173
K 573-X 26 ODYSSEY
suggested, av must be admitted here. Suppose, however, we leave
the words unchanged except in one point, their order, and read : —
pel* iXOovaa Trap€$' tls Kev Oebv — ;
For transposition v. Note on ^ 60.
BOOK XI (X).
X 4] €v 8c TO. jxrjka \a/36vT€^ e^T^crafiev.
Here the article with fi^Xa is probably due to the facility
with which the original text could be altered to give it admission.
Supposing that iv 8' apa fxrjXa was here to begin with, we need
not be surprised at the appearance of the metrically equivalent
and more modern iv 8c ra ixrj\a. The case of 1. 20 ck 8k ra firjXa
is similar, and to this may be added t 464 Kap7raXt/Aws Sk to. ixrjXa
TavavTToBa.
None of these exhibit a use of the article which is in any
degree Homeric, as is X 35 ikXia-d/xrjv, ra 8e /x^Xa Xa/3oiv d7rc8ctpo-
To/xr/o-a, Avhere we have the article of contrast (v. Monro, H. G.
§ 259 a). This last passage may indeed have started, or given
countenance to, the tampering with the others, for it might well
be said, if rd stand here why not there also ? It may be noticed
that the noun fxrjXov occurs more than seventy times in Homer,
everywhere save in the above-mentioned places without the article,
cf. c 55 (Note).
X 15] OV^i TTOT aVTOV<S .
In all probability for an original ovSi irori crc^ca?. That
avTovs as a simple anaphoric pronoun is genuine in Homer cannot
be safely admitted. The later usage was certain to assert itself
to the prejudice of an obsolescent form, particularly when as here
it fits in so well with the metre, cf. o> 241 (Note), X 26 (Note).
X 18] ovff or av axf/ cirt yatav dir ovpavoOiv irporpdinp-ai.
Read ottot for or av, as ottotc in the previous line with
Dr. Monro (H. G. § 289) : also ovpavoo for oipavoOev. Wherever
av ovpavoOev occurs (© 365, <E> 1 99, /a 381) the next word begins
with two consonants. The less extinct archaism was naturally
preferred and preserved. Cf. ^ 67 (Note).
X 26] dyM<^* avTio 8k X^V^ X^^H-W 'rao'tv V€KV€(r<n,
TrpCjTa fifXiKprfTt^y /u-CTCTrciTa 8c i78€i o(va>,
TO rpiTOV avO* v8aTL' ctti 8* oX^tra Xcvkol 7raXi;vov.
(-K 518-20.)
»74
BOOK XI
X 26-43
Premismg that afxcfi* auroi 8e probably stands for d/x</)t Bk tw
fyc we are faced by the abnormal scansion, or metrical licence of
[1. 28. Even those who are prepared to accept the hypothesis that
Ithe L of the dat. sing, may be regarded as ' a doubtful vowel '
[must be a little surprised to find it with its supposed long
quantity maintained before a word beginning with a vowel, so
[that -t cTTt forms a dactyl. Still this metrical freak is not
[without a little extraneous support. There is tt 206 with its
teve repetitions, not a very convincing instance (v. Note on w 322)
id the very peculiar version of Y 259 adopted as Aristarchean on
le evidence of Didymus against all the MSS., an instance still less
jonvincing, if anything. Dr. Leaf now reads o-a/cct ^Aao-cv (1902).
Now if no rational account can be suggested to explain the
ixtraordiuary phenomenon here presented, it is perhaps necessary
bo admit that we should have to stifle our doubts and accept the
le as a verse. It seems to me however that a probable account
^of the origin of the tradition is still lacking, merely because no
one has troubled himself to raise the question. I suggest that the
lines once stood thus, epically unexceptionable, but with one form
which in later times could not possibly be acquiesced in : —
TrpCyra jxeXtKprjTOVy /ACTCTrctra 8c rjSea oTvov,
TO rpcTov avO^ vSiap' iin 8' dk<f>LTa Xcvko, Trakwov.
I submit that although fjLcXtrjhia was received wdth acquiescence
rjSia could not be tolerated, and to avoid this representative of
•^Svv, the expedient of introducing a possible dative was accepted
as the lesser evil. Cf. evpvv and evpia.
X 433 6e(nr€(Tiri La)(rj' ifxe Se )(Xo}p6v Seos XJpiL.
Perhaps r)xy should be restored for ta;^^, v. t 392 (Note), and
certainly ctXc for ijpet. The former change is confirmed and the
latter required by X 633 : —
■Y]^ Oea-TrecTLr]' e/^ie Be ^Xcopov Scos ypeu
The inconsistency and untrust worthiness of the tradition, for
it is nothing less, may be similarly illustrated in the case of the
verb by setting side by side : —
X 4^ ^5 (fidro, Tov^ 8' dpa Travras vtto )(Xo)pbv Seos etXci/.
o) 450 o)? (fxiTO, Tovs 8* dpa Travras vtto )(X(i)pbv 8cos yp€i.
In X 42 the MSS. are unanimous for the aor. and in a> 450 almost
unanimous for the imperf.
X 43-53 ODYSSEY
The same state of uncertainty exists in the Iliad, as
witness : —
© 7 7 6d/JL/37ja'aVj KoX rravras vtto xXoypbv Sio^ ctXcv.
H 479 crfJiepSaXea KnnrcW* tovs 8c xXo)p6v Seos yp^C
So far as we can judge from La Roche, one MS. L has ijpct in 77,
but none give eiXev in H 479. In u> 533 : —
0)5 <f>dT *A6r)vaLr)f tovs 8e ^Xoipov Sco? cIXc*
the aor. alone is supported by the tradition. So also in Hymn.
Dem. 190, but the other examples of this ending xXoipov Scos have
ypei, H 479, A. 43, 633, fx, 243, a> 450, except P 67 alpct
Then we have x^Xoi Be fjnv aypios ijpci (A 23, 460, 6 304),
8pt/xvs x®^°5 aipct (2 322), and tfX€po^ atpct (r 446, A 89, B 328,
Hymn. Apoll. 461, Hes. Op. 617, ijptt Hymn. Herm. 422): on the
other hand tp-cpo? ctAcv Hymn. Aphrod. 57. In this last place the
aor. has probably been preserved, because this Hymn contains
tv^o instances of the same form of expression, which are effectually
protected by the metre, 1. 91 and 1. 144 'Ayxttnyv 8* Ipos clAc,
Ittos t* l^ar' ck t ovo/xo^cv.
The only possible conclusion on grounds of sense and metre
is that the aorist is the genuine word, the imperfect and present
mere intruders.
The appropriateness of the aor. will hardly be questioned :
there is perhaps some room for doubting whether atpcw was
digammated. The positive evidence is limited to A 230, 275,
B 329, K 235, and 2 260; the negative evidence is of the sort
illustrated above and may be safely regarded as of no weight. On
the other hand the aor. eXctv, though some have said otherwise,
clearly had no digamma for the author or authors of the Homeric
poems.
X 52] ov yap ITU) iriOarrro vtto \9ovbs cvpvoScnys*
Possibly irws should be read here. The clear distinction
between irw and ttcos may have been developed later, cf. ovrw,
ovTws. The hiatus in the fourth foot, supposed to be legitimate
by some, moved Cobet (Misc. Grit. p. 370) to suggest Kara in
place of VTTO. It is however not easy to see why so satisfactory
a reading should have been so completely expelled from the
tradition. The only variant is ctti in two MSS. G P. I believe
we might account far better for the received reading if we
supposed the earliest copies contained this reading without
J 76
BOOK XI \ 52-101
omission of elided letters : —
ireOaTTTO o yc vjto x^ovo<s —
This by the accidental omission of one o would become ireOaTrro
y in the later mode. Then the unintelligible ye would be igno-
miniously expelled, without any one even suspecting that the true
writing was with considerable consonantal change : —
€T€6a(f)$ 6 y VTTO )(6ov6<s.
Compare the Note on <f> 98, and also that on <^ 229. So y 64,
X 362, t 122.
X 61] acre fie 8at/xovos aura kukt] kol aOicrcfiaTO^ oTvos*
For acre /xc Nauck reads aao-e. Van Leeuwen and da Costa
wishing to save the pronoun — a most desirable object certainly*
for it can hardly be spared — print Saifiovo^ aao-e /x* aura KaK?/,
which gives an impossible place to the enclitic. Now in Homer
we have ato-a KaKrj and Atos aTo-a, but only here the combination
SaLfxovo<s atcra KaKrj. Note also that the line immediately preceding
this, 1. 60, is omitted by the majority of the MSS. and disallowed
by all editors : —
Stoyeves AaeprtaSry, 7ro\vfn^)(av 'OSvccer.
From these facts the conclusion I reach is that the true
reading of 1. 61 was: —
SaLfxovLj oaore fj. aiara KaKrj Kal d^ecr^aros vttvos.
V77TOS is preserved by Stobaeus (v. Note on 77 143). oat/Movie
contains a respectful rebuke, as in B 190, and is certainly
appropriate to the circumstances, and finally the loss of the
vocative amply accounts for the appearance of 1. 60.
X 66] vvv 8e (re rcuv OTriOev yovvd^o/JuxLy ov TrapeovTcov,
Trp6<s T aX6)(ov Kal Trarpos, o cr €rpefj>e tvtOov corra,
T7/Xe)aa;(0v ^', ov fxovvov ivl fxeydpotcnv eXeiTres*
The conjecture of irwv for twv I now abandon. It has little in
its favour save a graphical plausibility.
vvv 8e ce (rCiv o-mOev
is simpler and more probable. It is indeed noteworthy that
a-iov oTTiOev should be Homerically and epically a possible ex-
pression, whereas twv hrtOev is not. Such however is the fact.
X lOlJ ov yap 01(1)
Xrj(T€LV iwocTLyaLOVj o tol kotov evBero Ovfxioj
)((o6iJi€VO<s OTL ol vlov ffytkov c^oAawo-as.
In the first clause the pronoun tre can hardly be omitted, and
AGAR U l>^tj%
X IOI-I44 ODYSSEY
the scansion of 1. 103 ( = v 343) is certainly unsatisfactory. I
would suggest : —
ovd€ a- oto)
Xrjo-eficv 'Ewocrtyatov, o rot kotov tvOiro Ov/xio,
X(t>ofjL€v6^ Trep o r* vibv ibv <f>Lkov c^oAaworas.
The omission of cov being caused by the desire to save the elision
of the diphthong of Fol and the consequent disappearance of the
whole word, the rest follows naturally enough. Let o be glossed
as oTL and the vulgate is reached. For ovSe o-' ota> cf. E 284, 350,
and O 727 where jxlv has superseded F\
X 105"] €pvKaK€€Lv. This abnormal aor. is probably not archaic at
all, but merely the outcome of the application to ipvKO) of the
same principle of SicKxao-ts, or extension, which made 6pav into
opdav, opo> into opotu, and here -ctv into -eetv. Read kpvKaviuv
(ipvKavifjiev), cf. k 429. The present tense brings out the idea of
duration in the effort and is, so far, better than any aorist. So also
V 313,7 144.
X II43 o»j/€ KaKtos veiai, oXeo-as a7ro Trarras iraipov^s
vetat represents either vccat, veuai or j/cicrcai, the future of
v€OfiaL, A satisfactory line as far as metre is concerned would
be:-
vcicat oif/k KttKtos, oXecras a7ro Travras cratpovs.
So /A 141. Compare Note on t 534.
X 1443 ^f-T^^i ava^, TTw? KcV /A€ avayvoLt) toj/ covra ;
Cobet's restoration of this line
OTTTTWS K€ /A* avayvoLTj
fails, because the form ottttos cannot be used with the first syllable
in thesis. But it by no means follows that the verse, as it stands,
is right. Along with the hiatus it has a defect, which is patent
to all. The sentence, How would she recognize that I am he?
contains two pronouns, on each of which there is a pronounced
emphasis, a reciprocal and equal stress, / and he. Now in the
text we have the enclitic non-emphatic fxe. What is required is
undoubtedly ifxL We have here probably enough no deliberate
corruption, but merely the result of an inability to decipher what
seems a mere confusion of letters. Suppose we have without
omission of elided, or distinction of long and short, vowels
TTosKccyccficavayvoic
178
BOOK XI X 144-190
it is easy to see that there might naturally enough be a failure to
transcribe this into : —
TTws )^ y y €//,* avayvotrj
For the omission of the pronoun cf. A. 52 (Note).
X 148] aXfixirro<s axra-ov tfifv, 6 Si rot v^y/xepres ivLif/€L'
Here van Herwerden with the change of roc to kcv adopts
ivLo-inj from a few MSS. A slight further alteration would give
an unexceptionable line : —
aTjJLaTos aarcrov LK€arO\ 6 Be kcv vry/Acprcs IvUnrri'
Cf. * 44) S 247.
X 172] 17 hoXi)^ vov(ro<5, rj "AprcfXLS lo-)(iaLpa — .
Almost certainly with a moderate emphasis on the epithet : —
rj ho\u)(ri rus vovo-os, rj^ApTCfxi^ lo'^iaipa. Cf. 1. 200, 8283 (Note),
For a much stronger emphasis so given to an adjective t.
A 108 :—
icrOXov S* ovre ri tto) ctTras cttos — .
X 188] a.yp(o, ovSk iroXivSi Karip^erai'
The last syllable of dypoi is improperly long in thesis before
a vowel. Read in conformity with usage, as illustrated by a 185,
iQOj'r 33O) 383, X47»
aypov CTT*, ovh\ ttoXivSc Karip^iraL.
The feeling seems to have been adverse to ending a clause with
a preposition. Hence the preference given to the locatival dative
here in spite of the metre. That the comma makes no difference
is clear from H 192, a 209, &c. Cf. x 3^6 (Note), also p 115.
X 190] oX)C 6 ye xeipia jxev evBet 66 l 8/xw€S evl oiko),
There can be no true appreciation of Homeric metre, as long
as we vainly endeavour to explain on purely fanciful grounds -cs
evL here as a correct dactyl [v. Monro, H. G. § 375 (3)]. Surely
it is better to admit that occasionally time has created flaws and
defects which may or may not now be safely remedied, but
certainly ought to be recognized as mere accidents. The cause of
the damage here, however, is patent. The poet said : —
66l SfiCies F* evl FoLKia
8/x.wes bears a certain slight emphasis (v. Note on a 37). Conse-
quently the order is 66 1 Sjxu)e<5 Fol evl oLKio. The difference between
this order and 66l Fol B/xwes is not more than a little stress on the
word ' bondmen ' in English or the expressive shrug of a French-^
man's shoulders.
N2 ,^9
X 198-252 ODYSSEY
X 198] ovT* €/u,€ y Iv jxeydpoicriv cvo-kottos loxiaipa — . (Ludwich)
Read ovt c/x,* lv\ /Acyapoio-iv. The MSS. give some intimation
that this is the true reading, ovt lixkv P, Ivi F ; but it is clear per
se that the pronoun here should not be strongly emphasized.
Perhaps indeed ovr€ fi! ivl would be even better, cf. 202. In any
case €/A€ yc must be disallowed both here and in 1. 406, where
indeed it has been introduced by Ludwich, for e/xe y on the
authority of Voss (Hymn. Dem. 44). Also 1. 399 for i^e o-e y Iv
vrJ€(T(Ti read rfe a ivl vrjccrcn.
X 208J hrraT. ifiol S* a)(o<; o^v yevia-Kero Krjpodi frnXXov — .
Read Krjp* tn fxaXXov, V. Note on p 458. The unique
y€V€o-K€To conveys at least a hint that cytyvcro would not scan
liere, as in N 86: —
Kttt or<^iv a)(p's Kara Ovfxov lyCyvcro SepKOfXivouTL
We may be quite sure the later Greeks would never have removed
the latter for the former, any more than the English people of
the Stuart period would have ousted Charles II to make way for
his brother James.
Those who believe in hiatus licitus and in final v before an
open vowel should note this and similar cases.
X 227^ ocro-at apKTTrjwv aXo^oi ctrav 1786 Ovyarpcs.
Read aXoxot t' ccrav.
X 2493 T€^€t5 dyAaa reKva, iirel ovk aTrotfuokioi cvval — .
We are told that Aristarchus gave riicLs, Zenodotus repeat
liere. If so the dactyl is to be preferred. The canon that the
middle is used only of the father or both parents (La Roche) is
refuted by B 742, X 48, x 324, and most decisively by T 98 : —
rifJuaxL TO) ot' I/xcXXc ^i-qv *IlpaK\rf€Lr)v
'AXKfiiqvrj TeiccrOaL ivaT€<f>dv(i) ivl ®T^/3r}.
Still this is of small moment in comparison with the curious
notion that rcVi/a, cVct ovk should be scanned with a doubtful
hiatus and a still more doubtful crasis. The ad plenum writing
may indeed be, and probably is, more correct ; but the only
possible scansion is that represented by tckv*, iirfl ovk.
X 252 J avrap cyto roC ct/xt Iloo-ciSaoav ivo<TL)(6(t)v.
Here Nauck would restore the metre by substituting reiv for
Toi. A more likely restoration would be to write cyw yt for cyw.
Here the pronoun really requires the emphasis, which is needlessly
given, as we have seen, in 1. 198.
180
BOOK XI X 257-289
257] vat€ 7roXvppYivo<s, 6 8' ap iv TLvXio rifxaOoiVTi,
It may be permissible to suggest : —
TTOvXvpprjvos €vaLy 6 8' ap' iv ILvX<a rjfxa^oiVTi.
[Cf. llovXvS(iixa<s, TTOvXv/SoTeipa,
273] yrj/xafxevrj <o vu' 6 S* ov irarep* c^cvapt'^as
yrjfxev'
The majority of the MSS. have vtet, which may be called the
)ld or common reading of our editions. Several have vu. There
is evidence for vm and also for TratSt: but vu conjectured by
Hermann (Hymn. Apoll. 46) is now accepted by La Roche and
Ludwich. It meets no difficulty, but merely introduces the
doubtful grace of hiatus licitus into a passage already metrically
unsound. There can, however, be little doubt that 6 8' 6v should
be 6 8e Fovy in which case the t of vu would be elided. But even
so, the second foot is a peculiar spondee ; for -w in thesis cannot
properly remain long before a vowel, cf. X 188. Fick reads
yrj/xafjiivr) kFio vV' 6 8e Fov — . which makes the second foot a
tribrach. Van Leeuwen and da Costa give : —
y7)fxa/jL€vr} iFw vli^ o Fov — ,
which is just a little more objectionable metrically than Pick's
proposal. I submit with a slight transposition : —
vUl yyj/juifievrj ^w, o Fov Trarep' i^evapi^a<s — .
This gives a better emphasis on w, and should be considered in
connexion with the proposed emendation of \f/ 169, v. Note on
V 33 ff-
X 288] T^v 7ravT€9 fxvwovTO TrepLKTLTai' or8€ Tt Nt/Xcvs
Tw iSiSov OS jxy] eXiKas /36as €v/3V/>t€T(07rovs — .
* Yet in no wise did Neleus offer her to him who had not — .'
This expression is hardly acceptable. Clearly it is not the
definite pronoun tw that is needed here, but the indefinite
enclitic tw = nvt. But it is certain that t<o could not stand here,
nor indeed is it at all necessary that it should. Its omission
would make no difference. Possibly avBp' iBcSov or dvSpl SlSov.
That TO) should first appear as an explanatory glgss is natural,
and that it should finally get into the text in the form of tw is
also quite a simple process. Compare a 292 koI dvepc /xrjrepa
8owat (= p 223). Moreover the use of dv-^p for an indefinite
individual is exceedingly common in Homer. Perhaps also for
ovBe Tt (Aristarchus), ovB' dpa (Zenodotus) the original reading is
181
X 289-338 ODYSSEY
ouSc €, which would fairly account for the appearance of the
two variants.
X 2983 fttt A')y8r7V €l8ov, TTjv TwSapiov irapaKoiriv
This passage, 11. 298-304, may or may not be a later
addition ; but this line though modernized is not necessarily to
be rejected like 1. 304 must be. This last is plainly an attempt
to make oAAotc 8' avrc grammatically complete, as Dr. Leaf
has shown. Here t^v TwSapeov irapaKoiriv is a very natural
modernism, say, of fj TvvSapiov -n-apaKOLTi^ with rjv understood.
In fact, if the introduction of the modern article had not been so
facile and ready a method, doubtless we might have had ^v or rjcv
or even rjrjv (v. to 343) crowded into the following line. What
is important to realize is that this line and 1. 304 stand
on quite different planes. Here there probably was an
archaic : —
Kttl A17817V ISofJLTiv, rj Tvi^apiov Trapa/coiTts,
TJ p* VTTO .
In the other case we may be quite sure there was no archaic
original at all.
X 338] ^€tvos 8* ailr* c/Aos eoTt, l/caoT09 8* e/x/xopc rt/t^s.
TO) fxr] iTTCLyofxevoL diroTr^TrcTC /xrjSk to, hCxpa
The meaning of cKacrros 8' efifiope rLfxri<s here cannot be said to
be satisfactorily determined. Indeed the usual translation,
* each of you hath share in the honour,' viz. of entertaining the
stranger, seems to me quite impossible. There is nothing in
Homer to indicate that the discharge of the duties of hospitality
was ever looked upon as an honour conferred on the entertainer.
To him it was necessarily, as Cicero in humorous mood would
say, more of an onus than an honos, cf. p 382-6. Nor, even if
the honour to the host be granted, is it obvious why the other
guests should be sharers in the commodity. But something
more than this questionable rendering of the present passage is
required to make it at all credible that this idea of the presence
of a distinguished guest reflecting honour on his host belongs
to the primitive simplicity of the heroic age. It is rather the
product of an artificial and conventional courtesy, developed
under the mellowing influence of material progress, and forming
18a
BOOK XI X 338
jone of the distinctive elements of a later refinement and civili-
Ization.
Nitzsch, obviously shrinking from the sentimental politeness
and conventional etiquette of the above view, proceeds to file
|down niirj, till it means no more than ' good part ', * agreeable
[duty ', as we might say. To do him no injustice, his version
lis: — *er ist nun mein Gastfreund, aberjedervon euch hat sein
[gutes Theil in ihm/ This may possibly imply that Odysseus
m a piece of valuable property, in which they all have a share ;
|but how or why that should be, is a mystery not explained even
)y Nitzsch's quotation of Hes. Op. 345 : —
ifijxopi TOt TL/xrjs, OS t' efjifxopc yciVovos iaOXov —
i* wo Hermann Werth libersetzt.'
Eustathius boldly makes the clause anticipate the concluding
mtence in Arete's speech : —
TToXXa yap v/x/jllv
Kn^fjLar ivl yaydpoicn ^cwv lottjtl Kiovrai.
SO that it becomes equivalent to *each of you has got valuable
ts', *you are all men of property', cKaarov rtov aKpoariov
Tift^s fxoipav ^x^iv €v T€ aXXois kol cttI tw irXovTetv. This
mistake is not quite reproduced in the scholion, /loipav l^ci -njv
ovcTLavy w(rT€ Ttfiav SvvaaOaL. The last clause saves the case.
The writer may have been hesitating between ' property ' and
* honour ' ; but we may give him credit for intending to render: —
*each of you hath his share in the honouring of him.'
For my part I regard this last version as manifestly better
than any of those already mentioned, and if it squared with the
repetition of the clause in the well-known passage O 189 : —
Tpu<s yap T CK Kpovov ci/xcv aS€\(f>€OL, ov<s T€K€TO 'Pca,
Zcvs KOL cyoj, rpLTaTO'S 8* *AtSr}^, Ivipoicn avda-crtav .
Tpi)(6a 8c Travra SeSaoTO, CKacrro? 8' ep-fjiope TL/xrjS'
it might be regarded as entirely satisfactory. Unfortunately
this is not so. There can be no possible doubt that the meaning
of ti/xt} there is * royal prerogative', as in A 278 o/xot'r^s c/x/^opc
Tt/x^s, Z 193, (0 30, Hymn. Dem. 150, This is, I think, the true
meaning in our passage also. ' Each of you shares our royalty,'
* our royal rank and prerogative.' In other words, we are all
pa(TLXrJ€<s together. We, Alcinous and I, have no claim to be
greater than the rest of you, as indeed Alcinous himself says,
183
X 338 ODYSSEY
6 388, making the admission, exactly as Arete does here, an argu-
ment for a generous treatment of his guest by his fellow kings : —
6 ^€tvos fxaka jxoi SoKeet ttcttw/aci/os etvat.
dA.X' aye ol Bw/xev ieiin^Lov, ws CTrtciKcs.
Su)8€Ka yap Kara Srj/xov dpiTrpcTrccs /SacnXrje^
dp^ot Kpaivovari, TpKTKaihiKaro^ S' eya> avros*
There is moreover a singularly close parallelism between that
speech of the king and this of Arete, the queen.
The next clause tw /x^ €7retyo//,€voi aTroTre/xTrcrc, ' therefore
send him not home in haste,' has some bearing on this view I
have advocated. It seems indeed highly probable that Kirchhoff 's
fiiv for /A^ is right, the intrusion of firj being due to a ground-
less fear lest * sending Odysseus home quickly' should imply
rather an inhospitable eagerness to be rid of him as soon as
possible. Undoubtedly the alteration has left tw almost destitute
of sense, whatever be our rendering of licaaros 8' c/x/ao/oc ti/x^s.
* Because you are kings, do not send him home quickly ' is only
one whit less unsatisfactory than ' because you are honoured by
his company, do not ', &c., and both are capped in absurdity by
* because you have plenty of money ', &c.
But the propriety of tw * therefore ' (cf. yap in 6 390) is
plain enough if we understand the queen to speak to this
effect : — Your prerogatives are equal to ours. You have a right
to a voice in the matter of his treatment: therefore I ask you
to comply with his request and give him conveyance home
speedily. The Homeric received opinion is that the host fulfils
his duty best by sending home (dTroTrc/xTretv) those who appeal
to him as guests and suppliants, and that with no undue delay.
Observe how Aeolus takes credit to himself : —
K 65 ^ /X€V <T ivSvK€(ji)9 d7r€7r€/>t7rO/X€V,
and again the extent of wh at is implied in the apologetic statement : —
K 1"^ ov yap fxoL Oifxis iarl Ko/xi^e/xci/ ov8* aTroTre/JLTreiv
avSpa Tov, OS kc Biolcnv airi-^Or^Tai fxaKapta-cnv,
Compare also Menelaus' exposition of the whole duty of a
host o 68-74.
I cannot however feel any confidence in the genuine character
of the glaring hiatus in cTrctyd/xcvot aTroTrc/xTCTc. I should
venture to restore the metre by a slight change, thus : —
TW p.LV iTr€iyOfX€ViO<S dTrOTTC/iTTtTC
184
BOOK XI X 338
cf. ccrcrr/xcVws, eTno-ra/xeVo)?. The Greeks io fact always retained
a number of similar adverbs -from pres. and perf. participles,
e.g. rrrpeTTovTws, €L(jd06t(j}<s. In two other passages this form
i7reiyofievoi<s may be read with distinct advantage, viz. : —
Z 388 -^ jxev Sr) Trpos rct^^os iTreiyo/xevr} d<fiLKdv€L,
E 902 (1)5 8' 6t otto? yaAa XevKov iTreiyofxevos crwcTny^ev
Palaeographically cTrctyo/^cvos and i-n-eLyofjiivu}^ are identical, and
not even hiatus licitus can be appealed to for the maintenance
of €7r€Lyo fjL€V7j d(f>LKdv€L. So also in X 2 2 (r€va/>i€vos may have
displaced an original i(T(TVfi€V(jD<:.
We now come to fxrjSe ra S<o/oa, for which van Herwerden's
fxrjhi TL Scopa, * nor in any wise stint your gifts,* is doubtless
correct, rd Swpa is variously explained : (i) as * your previous
gifts', V. 6 439 f., or (2) as 'the usual gifts'. The first is
obviously erroneous ; the second fails to recognize the fact that
the usual gifts had already been given. Of course according to
the prevalent style of destructive or disintegrating criticism this
would ensure, or at least warrant, the rejection of the passage
in Book VIII. Surely the most legitimate and reasonable con-
clusion is, that ra 8(opa is merely a modernization of a very
natural and simple character.
An instance of a corruption of a somewhat different kind,
springing from a different motive, may possibly be found in the
lines which immediately precede our passage. We read thus : —
<E>at7yKC5, TTws vfXfXLv dv7]p oSc (f>aiy€TaL etvat
C180S T€ fxiyeOos re i8e (^piva<s tvSov ctVas ;
I would suggest that the various and strenuous efforts to ex-
plain eto-as, as (i) 'good' €vs, (2) 'well-balanced', (3) 'com-
mensurate with his physical endowments ', {4) ' bright ', have
been necessitated, only because a would-be improver thought
that cio-a? was a more effective and graphic epithet, whatever
the meaning might be (omne ignotum pro magnifico), than the
simple and sufficient
tv^ov coTJcras,
which indeed is by no means otiose as a qualification of <j>p€va^
here or where it recurs ^178. On the other hand ciVas being,
as we are bound to assume, laudatory in its significance prac-
tically begs the main question and makes the queen's demand,
— TTws vfxp.Lv dvTjp oBe (f}aLV€rai elvat; — an idle and nugatory form.
»85
X 363 ODYSSEY
X 063] W *OSv<T€Vf TO fJL€V OV Tl (T iuTKOfieV tlcrop6(i}VT€^
rpriponrrja r ifi€V koX iTrUXoirov, otd t€ voXXov'S
/SoarKCL yaxa /itXaiva iroXvcnrepias avOpwTrov^
xj/ivSed T dprrvovTas, oOev kc res ovSk lBolto'
This passage has certainly suffered more than a little in
transmission. We may note that to in 1. 363 has no proper
construction : that ttoXXovs in 1. 364, for which Zenodotus read
TToWd, is not altogether remote from TroXvaTrepeas in sense, and
last but not least that re after if/evBea in 1. 366 needs explana-
tion.
It seems to me that beside all this there is an unsuspected
depravation or worse, which should first be got rid of before we
can hope to make any successful attempt to restore the primitive
form of these lines. Let me first provisionally eliminate the
whole of 1, 365 : —
/JdcTKCi yaui filkawa iroXvcrv^pia's dv^pwirovs.
Like most interpolations it has defects. There is an iambus
in the fifth place — jroXvcnrepioiv dvOpwiroiv in B 804, whence the
words are borrowed, does not offend in this way— and though
we make every allowance for the permanent epithet, yet the
absurd irrelevance of the blackness of the earth and the wide
dispersal of mankind to the question of the hero's veracity is
particularly conspicuous.
Now if we turn to examine the usage of cttikAoxos, we find
that in two out of the three other instances of its occurrence
X 2Si,<j> 397, V 291
(1) dXXd Tis dpTi€7r^s Koi cttikXcttos cttXco fxvOu)Vy
(2) ^ TIS 67i7)Tr)p KOL iTTLKXoTros eirXeTO t6$0)V,
(3) KipSaXios K €Lr} Kol cttikAottos,
it is followed by a genitive, and it becomes highly probable
here, as soon as 1. 366 is brought into immediate sequence to
1. 364, that iirUXoTTov (//-cvSeW like cTTtKAoTTos fivOwv was in the
mind of the poet, that in fact i/^cvSewv is to be understood from
the following ola re — i/^cvSca, cf. ^ 160 (Note), k 222-3.
Now with a little correction of ij/evBed t dprvvovras the
passage might read thus : —
S> '08vO-€VS, OV IX€V Tl (TC t(rKOfl€V €iaop6(iiVT€<S
rjTr€pOTn]* c/xcvat kol lTr(,KXoTroVj otd t€ ttoAAo,
i/'cvSc' iTraprvvoviTLVt oOty Ki jts QvBk 180170"
l8($
BOOK XI X 363-401
The encroachment of to I trace to the desire to introduce the
vocative without creating an hiatus. TroAAa may of course have
been TroAAoi, but it is easy to understand rjTrepo7rrJ€<s kol xJ/evScmv
iTrUXoTTOL as the subject to iTrdprvvova-i, * they put upon us/ The
speech runs thus : — * Odysseus, verily in no wise do we fancy,
as we look upon thee, that thou art a deceiver and a concocter
of such lies, as travellers cap their tales with wholesale — tales
of lands irrecoverably lost to sight.*
TToAAovs — cTraprvvovTas would be closer to, and account
better for, the tradition, but would involve a zeugma, tS/xcv from
la-KOfiev — efxevai, which it would perhaps be rash to assume.
X 401]] ^€ (T dydp(TLOL dv8p€<s iSrjX-qcravT C7rt ^ipcrov
^ov<s v€pLTafxv6fi€vov ^8* olwv ircoca KoXct,
-^k Trepi tttoXlos fiaxiov/xevov rjSk yvvaiKcuv ;
These lines recur in the concluding book of the poem with
an important difference. The pronominal object after the
principal verb is no longer singular but plural. We read
accordingly :—
CD 1 1 1 rj TTOv dvapcLQi avBp€<s iSr^Xi^a-avT ivl ^ipcrov
fBovs 7r€ptrafJivofJi€VOv<s rjS* otwv Trtoca KaXa,
Tjk TTcpl TTToXios fta;(cov/i,€voi i^Sc yvvaLKiov ;
Metrically this latter passage has a distinct advantage, inas-
much as the third foot in o> 112 is an undeniable and unexcep-
tional spondee, which is more than can be said of X 402, where
the mysterious potency of ictus- lengthening has to come to the
rescue. Both passages exhibit the extraordinary participial
form fxax€ovix€vos with however the notable difference that in
X it agrees with the object after iSyjXrja-avTo, but in <o with the
subject to that verb. Hence Wolf, Kayser, and others would
read fxax^ovfxcvoL in X also, the plural being supported there
by one MS., Cod. Vratislaviensis 28. Obviously the reverse
assimilation is debarred by the metre. It would be too much
to say that the plural yvvaLKwv is more consistent with the plural
participle : but the combination TrepiTa/xvofievov — fjLa)(€ovfX€voL
has this advantage ; it makes the victim in each case the
aggressor. It is noteworthy that in these two points the
superiority rests with w as against X, although we can well
imagine how gratifying as a piece of evidence the converse
would have been to many scholars headed by Aristarchus, who
187
X 40I ODYSSEY
have found much to complain of in the two concluding books of
the Odyssey.
The form fiaxcov/xcvos for /Aaxco/xcvos is a remarkable, indeed
an astounding, linguistic development. That a presumed fuixi-
oyw,€vos may for metrical reasons become fjutx^tofxevos is strictly in
accordance with other recognized and well-established analogies,
e. g. ttKeto/xevo?, vctKcto), TrXctcDi/, otvoySapetwv, Trcv^ctw, TcActcrat, oKvctw,
though it might probably be more desirable, as it is certainly
possible, to regard /maxcto/xcvo? as the participle of a desiderative
form /jMX€LoiJuiL, * I am eager to fight.' The solitary example of
fxax€L6fX€vo<s may here be fitly quoted : —
/3 471 OTTTTOT avTjp TTcpl 6i(Ti /Aa;(eio/xevo5 KTeaTCO-fTt
PX-qerai 17 Trept /Sovalv -^ dpyewys 6U(T(tlv'
Van Leeuwen and da Costa have, not without some violence,
contrived to introduce this form into the two passages at present
disfigured with /xaxcov/xevos, reading thus : —
r}€ fiax^LOfievoL tttoXios rrepi rjSk yuvaiKiov.
In this proposed rehabilitation I fear I must decline to accompany
the ingenious authors. I confess I am not reconciled to the
transposition of Trepl tttoA-ios even by the superadded grace of
hiatus licitus. It seems to me that -n-epl tttoXlos is practically
confirmed by the parallel : —
^265 dXXa TTipl TTToAtos T€ fxaxT^(T€T(u ySk yvvaiKiov.
Furthermore this line directly suggests what is in all probability
the true reading in our two passages : —
7]€ TTcpL tttoXlos T€ fxaxovfJiivoL TjBk yvvaLKwv.
I have adopted the form in -ov/xevos, because the above
mentioned Cod. Vrat. reads it; but two MSS. of the highest
quality, Flor. Laur. 52 and Harl. 5674, have /xaxco/xcvoi/, which
should not be lightly dismissed, as the crasis of -co is easy, and yet
the neglect of it would be likely to lead to the scansion represented
by the vulgate /taxcovfievov, certainly so after the removal of the
little particle tc.
We may also acknowledge this crasis by writing fxax^v/xofoi on
the analogy of irovevfjievov (A 374) &c. &c., as indeed Bothe proposed
to do, conjecturing tttoXlos ye fiax^v/xevov : but while the insertion
of ye is evidently entirely gratuitous and unwarrantable, TrroXtd?
T€ — ^8c yvvuLKwv IS qultc as correct here as in 2 265. Obviously
the loss of TC is due primarily to the preceding yi, which very
188
BOOK XI X 401-433
naturally, but most unfortunately, caused the following rjSe to
be changed to 17c, as indeed most MSS. have it written. After
this depravation re has no foothold, and the metre makes the
abnormal /xaxeov/x-evov a desperate necessity.
X 4^3^ avrap cytu ttoti yatiy ^^elpas detpcDV
ySoAAov uTToOm^crKdiv Trept (f>acrydvio'
* But for me, as I strove to raise my hands I dropped them
to earth, as I lay dying pierced by the sword.' This version
has now apparently superseded the older rendering : * But I on
the ground raising my hands tried to throw them round my sword,
as I was dying.'
Two objections may be taken to the first rendering, which
ilone needs to be considered, as the other may be regarded as
already refuted and quite untenable. There is only a loose
analogy in favour of regarding ;(€tpas det/owv as indicating a
supplicatory gesture. If such had been intended, the usual xctpas
dvaoT^wv would give here ^^tpa? avtcrx^v, which would be unmis-
takable. It happens moreover that p^ctpa? dctpo), where it actually
[occurs elsewhere, has an entirely different sense. It indicates
[a distinctly hostile attitude, as in Theocr. xxii. 65 : —
CIS €vt X'^^P^'^ o.€Lpov ivavTLOS avBpl KaraoTas.
Cf. ApoU. Rhod. 2. i4f.
The other objection is that jSaXXa) ttotI yaCrj does not mean
* I let drop on the ground ', but ' I fling to the ground ', a very
different action, and even granting the possibility of the former
sense, still the use of the imperfect here, ^aXKov, would be in-
tolerable : only the aor. (3d\ov would serve to describe what from
its very nature could not be a repeated action nor yet an incom-
plete action.
If the words are correctly transmitted, the only possible
translation, though it is not without difficulties, seems to me to
be this:— 'But I uplifting my arms tried to strike down (the
murderess) to the earth, though I was dying pierced by a
sword.'
He made a dying effort to save Cassandra, or rather to
avenge her, by striking down Clytemnestra. It was of course
ineffectual, and she, her work accomplished, turned away, vocr<f>L-
a-arOf and had not the grace to pay the ordinary attention to his
dead body. But although no other view of the words as handed
189
X 423-484 ODYSSEY
down seems admissible, yet it must be admitted that this natural
impulse to kill the murderess consorts ill with the following com-
plaint that she hard-heartedly would not stay to close his dying eyes.
I therefore suggest this alternative, that x^tpa? dctpwv may be
an error for xepalv aeipayv (xctpccr' dctpoDv), an easy and not un-
common corruption, v. c 228 ff (Note). The words just before our
passage are : —
olKTpotdrrjv 8* ^Kovcra oira Ilpid/ioto Ovyarpo^y
K.a(T(rdv8pr]Si Tr]v kt€lv€ YLXvTaLpivrjaTprj BokofirjTii
3 1** /
afl<p €flOL.
Now it is clear from the words dfx<f>^ cfxoi, which occupy a
position of marked and unmistakable emphasis, that the dead
body of Cassandra falls upon the expiring Agamemnon. My
suggestion is that the words under discussion describe the effort
made by the dying king to remove the encumbrance : * But I tried
to raise the body with my hands and throw it to the ground,
though I was dying pierced by the sword/
Since writing the above I have read in the Classical Review
(May 1906) an interesting and ingenious suggestion by Miss R. E.
White, to the effect that the action of Agamemnon is a form of
calling up from the lower world the avenging Erinys, by beating
the earth with the hands. In spite of the extensive learuing and
research with which the question of cTrto-Kiyi/^is has been treated
I cannot think that the poet meant to convey this idea in our
passage. Still less can I think that Clytemnestra ran away
because she fancied the Erinys was coming in answer to the
summons. Moreover the objection I have taken to my own
rendering of the vulgate tells equally against this view.
X 43^3 otKttS* cA.€v<r€(r^at* y S' €$o)(a Xvypa ISvca — .
Not improbably derived from an original : —
oiKttS' iXcvcTicrO*' rj Bk fiiy €$0)(a Xvypa IBvia,
The disappearance of /xcya is by no means surprising. We have ^
fi€y €$oxos </> 266, B 480, and o 227 : —
dcf>v€Los IlvXtoicri /xey* c^o^a Sio/xara vauwv
where see Note.
X 4843 ""pt*' f^kv yap (T€ ^(i)6v eTiofjLCV Ttra Oeouriv
Possibly instead of altering irlofiev into irtov (Bentley) con-
trary to Wernicke's canon, it would be better to read : —
irlop.€V dOdvarov ws
190
BOOK XI
X 484-519
'Cf. ^ 309, and Oebs ws rUro Bi^fi(a (^ 205), o? ere Ocov a»s | rurova
(I 302). But ^/x-ara Travra (cf. Hymn. Aphr. 214) might put in
h claim.
Obviously in later times To-a Oeola-Lv would appear to possess a
light metrical advantage. If rtov be right, the reading must be :—
Trplv fxev yap ^wov tlov ere ye Xcra Ocolctlv.
|X 49® J a^' o.y€ fxOL irov iraiSos dyavov fivOov cvwrTrc
[It w^ould be easy to read here dXA.* ay€ 8y jxol rratSos, as Sy follows
lV aye with great frequency. But it seems to me rather more
)robable that the later Greeks found themselves faced by an
ilision they did not like and therefore wished to get rid of. They
rould hardly tolerate
dAA* aye fx avriKa TratSos
specially when written at full length dXX* aye fioi avrUa.
It is surely as futile here to explain rov as ' that noble ' as
It would be to treat similarly rov in the parallel line :—
T 535 aAA' aye /xot tov oveipov VTtoKpLvai kol aKova-ov.
|The same suggestion would apply there also. Compare T 322,
jwhere k avrov seems a satisfactory solution of kcv tov, also tt 149
rpSiTov K€v TOV Trarpo?, for which read TrpotTov k avTov or, as van
jceuwen suggests,
TfpwTa K€v avtov — .
519] oAA' oloP TOV Tr]\€(j>t8yjv Karevr/paTO ;(aA.Kw — .
We have only to turn to E 638 : —
dX\* olov TLvd (fiacre ^irfv 'H/aafcXiyetryv
before which Dr. Monro with great probability suggests that the
line (X 517) ^
Trai/ras 8' ovk av lyoi ixvOrjaofxaL ovB* ovo/Aryvo),
has dropped out, to see at once that the true reading here, as
there, is : —
dXX* olov TLVa Tr]\€<fiL87)V — .
Evidently t6v has been introduced from a mistaken idea that
1^. Tiva reflected a slight disparagement upon the 'hero Eurypylus,
son of Telephus ', and that tov was necessary to maintain his
dignity and importance, cf. tov 1. 492. The truth is of course
that TLva belongs closely to olov, and the combination may be
I complimentary, as here and in E 638, or the very reverse, as in
V 3 7 7 olov fiiv TLva TOVTOV e^cts iTTL/xaoTOV dXi^Trjv.
So also e 183 q.v., and compare E 554 (Note in Journal of Philology
xxiv. p. 276 f.).
191
X 530 ODYSSEY
^ 530] ^ S« /^€ fldXa TTOXX* Ik€T€V€V
hnroOcv iie/xtvaif
A flagrant interpolation and proved to be so by every
possible test. The wiseacre who added these words evidently
thought that the scene described by Odysseus occurred inside the
Wooden Horse, and that there without the aid of candles, gas,
or electric light Odysseus could observe changes of complexion,
wiping of tears, handling of sword hilts, and the like. I say
nothing of the trembling limbs, as this shaking might com-
municate itself to the timbers of the structure, and so be as easily
felt as seen; but imagine the idea of military discipline in an
ambush of this character, where silence was absolutely essential
to safety, let alone success, which finds it quite fitting that
*many entreaties' should be addressed to the one in command
to let out an impatient and for the purpose in view utterly
useless fire-eater. Except for the words quoted Odysseus
describes simply what he noticed before the storming-party
entered the horse at all. This he states plainly enough in 1. 523
avrap or €ts hnrov KarcySatVo/xev, and if the interpolator, rhapsodist
or whatever he was, had refrained from meddling, the story is
reasonable and shows Neoptolemus in a favourable light. This
however was not enough for our ingenious poetaster, who wished
to make the hero so exceedingly brave that he has turned him by
this one stroke into an insubordinate swashbuckler, and the whole
scene into an impossible and ludicrous absurdity.
The varieties of reading, iKeVcvcv and c/ceAcvcv, iiefievou and
i^ifjievai, seem to reflect a little uncertainty in the interpolator's
mind, as to how far he could stretch the valour of his champion.
Is he to ask or to order his commanding officer ? To do what ?
To go forth with his forces, or to send him out alone, which last
as Didymus tells us is ifx(f>avTu<(!yr€pov ? So it is undoubtedly.
Lastly there is the false archaism linroOey which in itself is
sufficient to betray the imposture ; and if we look to the metre
we find at once that the imported words, as usual, fail to keep
the scansion perfect. They make the third foot of 1. 530 no longer
a dactyl but a tribrach. Some suspicion rests also on the validity
of the fourth foot : fidXa gives position only in two other places.
There are many interpolations in the Homeric poems, as
every one must admit ; but it would be hard to find one more
19a
BOOK XI X 530-571
insensate and exemplary than the one here exposed with, I submit,
no more severity than it deserves.
X 54^D Icrrao-av a)(yvfx€vai, €LpovTO Se K-q^^ kKacrr-q.
"Airaa-ai for kKoxTT-q Bentley : rctpov 8e T€ Ki/Se' kKaarriv Naber,
introducing an erroneous tc, and leaving the most serious fault,
the neglect of the F in FiKaa-rqv, unaltered. Fick, with great
ingenuity but no probability, proposes F^ipov 6\ o F^ KTJSi,
kKOXTTT).
The simplest restoration would be
*o}8os 8* ipiovTo kKoxTTrj
or ctpovTo as the MSS. give it, but the dactyl is after all a little
better. The meaning is without much doubt ' each (spirit) asked
after its kindred '. KrjSea might possibly stand as , but the
plural always seems to mean ' troubles \ With the singular used
collectively we may compare S 300 8ao9, v. Monro, H. G. § 170,
and more particularly for the sense of ' kinship ' we can refer to
the expression in N 464 : —
ya/x/Spfo afJLvvefJLevaL, €t Trip tl crc Krj8o<; tKavct. (tov y et Tt ae)
X 550] AlavG', OS TTtpl fxkv ilhoSi Tcpt 8' ^pya rirvKTO — .
Neither oAAa for tpya (Bentley) nor iTrXero Ipya (Brandreth,
Fick) is a good correction here. Read : —
AiavO*, OS TTcpt /xkv ctSos kol tpya rervKTO.
X 561] olXX aye Sivpo, ava^, «/' Ittos kol fxvBov aKovcrys — •
This may have come from : —
dAA,' aye Scvpo, a.v\ 6(f>pa cttos Acat pJv6ov aKovcrrjs — .
The form ava, voc. of ava^, occurs in Homer only in addresses to
divinities : but clearly this is merely accidental. We certainly
have no reason to suppose it is an old usage which gradually
became obsolete.
It is quite easy to see that the supposed reading would
almost inevitably be transformed into our traditional text.
^ 5^5 J tvOa )^ ojxtos Trpo(r€<fi7j K€XoXo)fJi€vos y K€v eya> tov
A strong objection is felt to o/acos here =. 'nevertheless', as
un-epic. The epic 6/acus of most MSS. is inscrutable. Perhaps
€v6a K tjx OS Trpoaifjir) — . Cf. $ 1 98 dAAa kol os SetSotKc — , where
three MSS. give the corruption ws.
X 57^ J vjP'^voi ka-raores tc Kar' cvpvTrvAes "AtSos Sw.
Read kut "AtSos evpvTrvXks 8w, as also in * 74. It may be
noticed that although there are several instances of 8w used with
AGAR O 193
X 571-580 ODYSSEY
a four- syllabled adj. v\l/epe<f>i<s, x^'^oySares, these are the only cases
in which the adj. is separated from the noun by a dependent
genitive.
X 580] Arp-o) yap ^XxTyore, Aios KvSprjv TrapaKOLTiv,
HvOwB' ipxofiivrjv SiOL kolXXl)(6pov IlavoTr^o?.
These lines give the reason for the cruel punishment
inflicted upon Tityus in the lower world. It will readily be
granted me that the verb, ^Akt/o-c, is decidedly questionable, if
only from the large number of variants, more or less important,
presented by the MSS. To establish this statement and for
further use I transcribe from Ludwich (1889) '^Akt^o-c XUK.
ApoUon. pron. 87, 28, Herodian. ii. 33. 4 et 87. 24, Eust. ; tJX-
G; TJX- PD, cum yp' W ; T^kyrja-ev F (ct et kv superscripsit F'^ ;
^Akvo-c HK; 7jX- M {y\- corr. M man. recent.); ciAkt/o-c Z;
elXKrjarev 0; ciAKvo-e post correcturam HK, Heraclit. AUeg. 18,
Macrob. 1. 1., cum yp' X; ciAkvo-cv superscripsit schol. M, Porph.
1. 1.; ^Xkoj(T€ W, Tzetz. AUeg. A 129; -^A- T; jja-xwe Sext.
Emp. 407. II.'
In the main the prevalent idea among those to whom we
are indebted for our tradition seems to have been that the verb
is connected w^ith cXkcd or some cognate form. In the next place,
although the augmented first syllable of any of these would
naturally be clXk-, there is a distinct predominance of the
illegitimate, or at any rate less legitimate, tjXk-. There is further-
more a curious absence of the unaugmented cAk-, which according
to the conclusions of Prof. Piatt concerning the augment in
Homer would here have been most in accord with epic
usage.
I would also draw attention to two further peculiarities
which should certainly be noted, firstly the seeming uncertainty
as to whether the rough or smooth breathing is correct, and
secondly the addition in one instance at least, though I am
inclined to think the phenomenon {pace Ludwich) is far more
extensive in its range, of an t subscript to the initial 17.
Perhaps a more directly suggestive point than any of the
above, so far as any attempt to recover the true reading in this
passage is concerned, is that although ydp is unanimously
exhibited by the MSS., yet Porphyrius, Qu. ii. 334. 23, gives 8c
as the reading. This I accept as a startiDg-point of some value
194
BOOK XI X580
and suggest with confidence that the true and original form of the
line is still recoverable : —
ArjToa 8' rj€LKL(r(r€, Atos KvSfyrjv TrapaKoiTLv.
The reading Arp-oa for ArjTO) may pass without comment.
My immediate purpose is to deal with yap rjXK-qa-e only.
Nearly every point I have dwelt upon as peculiar in the
readings of the MSS. leads to or countenances in some degree the
above conjecture : rj^Uvcrcrs. elucidates the origin of the variation
between 7^- and 6t-, as well as the partial maintenance of the
smooth breathing, though IXkih and its cognates rarely, if ever,
fail to exhibit their proper aspiration. Then again tJ- would be
in later times the correct initial vowel of the aor. of atKc^w. In
Homer of course the verb is dct/ct^o), i.e. dfciKt^w. It is by no
means uncommon, O 22, 54, IT 545, T 26 &c. : but as might be
expected from what has occurred in the present passage, there is
no instance of the full preservation of an augmented form. In
the only other line in which such a form ever existed, and might
have had a chance of surviving, there has been a radical
modernization : —
TT 290 (= T 9) aXka KaryKLa-Taij o(r(rov 7rvpo<s lkct dirr/x^.
not amounting, it is true, to so thorough a corruption as in our
passage, but still a serious debasement of the archaic original.
As I have elsewhere had occasion to observe, though van
Herwerden was first in the field with the emendation, the
line should run with the true antique form and improved
rhythm : —
dAAa KanquKLo-Taiy wrov ktX.
As to the meaning of rieLKia-are, clearly 'maltreated',
* assaulted,' is quite equal, if not superior, to any * dragged ' or
* wounded ', which can be extracted from one or other of the
traditional readings.
To show the temptation — I might almost say the invitation
— that would be offered by the supposed original to corruption,
it may be well to place 8e rjeiKia-a-e before the eye, as it would
appear in the early uncial writing, in which elision was not
recognized by any removal of the vowel and rj had no other
sign than c. There is certainly a sort of provocative mystery
about
AeeeiKicce,
o 2 195
X 580-584 ODYSSEY
which almost justifies a verdict of ' extenuating circumstances ' for
the tradition.
Finally the substitution of ydp for an original S4 is really
a common phenomenon in Homer. Quite a considerable number
of instances might be given if needful ; but in this case also
mercy to the reader may be allowed to temper the claims of strict
justice to the argument.
X 584D arrevTO 8k SLij/doiVy Trtectv 8* ovk €L)(€V eXeaOaL'
This line belongs to the description of Tantalus in the lake,
co-TttOT iv Xlfivr}. The word a-nvTo has been productive of
much discussion. Hesychius tells us it means *he stood',
wrraTo. On the other hand Aristarchus defined crrevro meta-
phorically, Kara 8tai/otav Stwpt^cTO kol ovk ctti Trj<s twv ttoSiov
orracrcws* arrda-LV yap if/v)(rj<s a-qixaivu rj Xe^is (Aristonicus).
There is also an intermediate view, of which we may take
Mer. Casaubon, whose words are frequently quoted with appro-
bation, as the representative. He seems to think the sense
is * he struck an attitude ', * stood on tiptoe with his mouth
open,' * hoc igitur vult poeta his verbis, eam fuisse Tantali seu
in pedes erecti sive alio quocunque gestu, ut de pugilibus olim
loqui soliti, Trpo^oX-qv^ ut ardentissimam sitim prae se ferret.'
I regard this as an ingenious, but somewhat unsuccessful,
attempt to amalgamate the conflicting opinions of Hesychius
and Aristarchus. Why should a man raise himself (in pedes
erecti) to reach water he is standing in ? It rests with us to
decide between Hesychius and Aristarchus, and usage must
guide the decision. In spite of Ameis-Hentze's amusing
' gebarte sich als ein Durstender ', ' he behaved as a thirsty
man,' it will never do to make Homer the corpus vile of this
trimming eclecticism with whatever wealth of picturesque detail
it may be adorned for our acceptance.
We find our verb in the following passages : —
B 597 C'-TCVTO yap cv;>(o/a€vo9 VLKYfo-efiev,
V 83 (TTivraL ydp tl €7ro^ ipieiv Kopu^aioXos "EKrwp.
E 832 OS irpiorjv pikv i/xoLTe KofUprj otcvt* dyopeviny
Tpioa-l ixa)(T^(T€crOaif drap *Apy€Loi(TLV dprq^iiVj
I 241 crrcvrat yap vqdv diroKOxj/iLV aKpa Kopvp-^a — .
S 191 cTTCvro yap *H<^atoTOto Trap' oldipev Ivrca KoAa.
* 455 o"TCvro 8' o y' d/x^orepwv dTroXixj/ipLfv ovara ;(aA.K^.
196
BOOK XI
X584
p 525 (rrevrat 8* *OSu(r^os aKoxxrai
dy^ov — .
To be eager, enthusiastic, keen, sharp-set, to feel sure and to
express this eager assurance, would satisfy the requirements of
these passages, and Aristarchus, who derived his knowledge
from a careful study of the text, is absolutely and entirely
right. How does the employment of the verb in the present
instance agree with the ordinary Homeric usage ? There is
one clear point of difference. Here (rrevTo stands by itself
without any dependent infinitive, such as is found in all the
other instances. We may be told this is a proof that the
whole passage is a late accretion, as indeed it may be : but
this peculiarity of usage must not, I think, be pressed into
service as evidence that it is so, and for this reason. If we
look a little closer, we find (tt^-vto without an infinitive ; but in
the immediate sequence ilx^v crops up encumbered with two.
Moreover the latter clause is hardly Homeric. Of course it is
possible to translate it with Dr. Merry, ' but he was not able to
itake anything to drink withal,' or with Messrs. Butcher and
Lang, ' but he might not attain to the water to drink of it.'
But neither free colloquial modernism nor grace of antique
•phraseology can remove our misgivings. The objection is that
an epexegetical infinitive, such as ttlUiv is here, would hardly
stand first in a genuine Homeric sentence ; its regular position
is last, e.g. A 8 ivvirjKc /xdx^o-Oai, &c. Would it not then be
better here to give each verb its infinitive and leave no
anomaly? The change is mainly one of punctuation. Only
a slight verbal alteration would be necessary : —
OTCVTO Se Suj/doiv ttlUlv, ov8' cix^ ikio-Oav
* He was eager in his thirst to drink, but was not able to reach
the water.' The clause crrivro 8e 8nf/d(ov ttlUw exactly re-
produces the construction of
E 832 (TTevT dyopevtav
Tpa)a"t fxaxT^areaOai.
The only possible objection of any weight or importance
would be that Trtceiv should be the future, and certainly usage,
as may be seen above, is in favour of that tense. At the same
time the aoristic sense of irueiv does not seem altogether out
of place here, 'to get just one drink.' Those who believe the
197
X 584-600 ODYSSEY
future indispensable, which I do not, may easily read ttUctO'
(■n-UaOaL); for assuredly the later Greeks would have sacrificed
TTtW^' in favour of ttUclv without a qualm. An avoidable elision
of -at generally disappeared. Even in the line just mentioned : —
E 833 TpoxTL fiaxrjcrea-daL, arap 'A/oyctowrtv dprjieiv,
the original was probably enough : —
Tp(i)€(T(nv /Aa;(co-€o-^', arap kt\.
and the same form of remedy is equally applicable to the very
similar : —
E 483 avSpl pxixri<J'a(r6ai' arap ov tl (jlol ivddSc roiov — .
Read : —
dv8p€(TcrLv fxa\i(ra(T$\
I will add two more examples in illustration : —
0-39 X^P^^ fiax^ora-aa-Oat' dXXd ^vveXda-arofiev wKa.
Read: —
Xctpeo-crtv /xaxecraa-O*.
V 112 dvSpes €(r€p)(OVTaLj dAA' dOavdrtov 686s Iotlv.
Read : —
dvepes €l(rep)(ovT.
Nor is this peculiarity confined to the penthemimeral caesura.
I may adduce : —
N 356 ... dXe^c/xcvat oAccivcv for dA.c^6/>tev c^oAeWev.
$ 91 pLvdcrOaL ov8e vUcrSai . . . for fjivdea-Q' ovSe. (So the
Cambridge Homer 1892.)
and if I may venture to take it that
B 590 TL(ra(rOaL 'EAcviys ... is for iicTLa-aa-O* 'FiXeurjs.
IT 24 o\f/€(r6aL i(f>dfX7]v . . . for €lcro{(/€(rO\ i^dfiyv.
there is not much evidence left for this particular hiatus.
See also note on A 758 with proposed restoration, Journ.
Phil. xxiv. p. 282 f.
X 600] Kara 8* i8pa>s
tppcev Ik fXiXiuyVf kovlt) 8' Ik Kparos d/xupci.
The explanation given of this remarkable expression, ' and
dust rose from his head,' that the dust really does not rise from
his head but from the ground, and seems to come from his head,
because he is bending his head to the ground, is too far fetched
to be satisfactory. Simple facts are not misstated in this way in
epic poetry. It may be impossible to restore with any certainty
198
BOOK XI X 600-613
the true reading here, but the following is at least physiologically-
correct and scarcely out of court palaeographically : —
Kara 8' tS/ows
eppeev ck /xcXetov, aKpov 8' iK Kparos opwpcL.
Otherwise we must in sheer desperation regard ck Kparo? as a wild
corruption of something totally different, an adjectiye oAX^ktos,
aTrXyp-o<; or adverbial phrase Trcpt t d/x,<^t t , dyu^* ovao-' or the like,
a yiew I do not recommend.
X 613] />ti7 Te)(y7]croLfX€vo<s fxrjS' aX\o ri rexyT^cratTO
OS K€Lvov reXafxOiva irj iyKarOero r€)(vr).
For the interpretation of 1. 613 v. Note on 8 684 ad fin.
iHere I may remark that the usual defence for the repetition of the
negative in 8 684, the agitation and excitement of the speaker,
fcannot be urged. Furthermore the idea that rexyrja-dixevos here
'= * the designer ', 6 T€xv>7o-d/x,evos in later Greek, is incompatible
[with the existence of 1. 614, which happens to mean the very
jame thing, and it is also quite impossible to get rid of the line
[by any athetesis, or ruling out, in as much as 1. 613 could not
■stand alone. Whatever doubt may be entertained as to the
Igenuine character of all this passage, the author of it must have
included 1. 614 in his criticism of the belt. Still he need hardly
be credited with the unnatural and inane €17 iyKdrOero Tex^y-
Possibly he wrote : —
OS Kctvov TcXa/xtuv' oXorj iyKorOeTO r^xyV'
Cf. oAoat PovXal. The change to ky would be suggested by the
other passages in which iyKarOeTo appears (i/^ 223, H 219, 223),
as soon as any doubt arose about oXofj. The dat. is best taken
as instrumental, and not governed by the iv of the verb as in the
passages referred to. Certainly iyKarOero stands better alone
here, as * designed', * constructed,' if such a sense be possible.
On the other hand the variant ws kciVw reAa/xwvt irjv iyKorOeTo
rix^vy (H 2 man. Schol. i. M. X Ludwich) suggests that the
original may well have been : —
OS KctVo) TcXa/xcov' oXorjv iyKorOeTO rexyrjv
* who in that baldrick concentred his weird skill '.
This accounts best for the disappearance of the adjective,
and gives a meaning that exactly suits the preceding line,
* May he never have designed, may he never design such another.*
199
X 623-Ft i6 ODYSSilY
X 623] ov yap €T aXXov
<f)pd^ero ToDSe Tt /xoi •xaXeTrdrr^pov cTvai ac^Xov.
Here again the tradition does injustice to even the supposed
interpolator. Not only is tovSc ri fxoi (La Roche, Ludwich) or
Tov 84 ye fjiOL (Ameis-Hentze, Merry) epically impossible in this
position ; but <^pat,€To cTvat ' he thought that there was ' is quite
beyond toleration. We have <f>pa^€(TOoi vrjca-a-Lv dXc^e/xcvat — irvp
(I 347) and <f>pd^€(rO€ o-a(D(r€/x,€v rjvLO)(7Ja (T 401), which clearly
afford no countenance to the expression here. Restore to etva*
its lost aspirate, and the reading becomes clear enough : —
</>pa^€TO TOV y ctt' eynot Kparepwrepov ctvat deOXov.
' he devised — to inflict upon me,' just as we have t 576, where
however the verb and the noun seem to have changed places : —
vvv Se fivy}am^p€(T(rLv diOkov tovtov €^7y(ra>.
BOOK XII ifj),
fj, 16] rjfi€LS fiev TO. c/caorra StetVo/Mev
So also A 706. In both passages the article is quite
needless. There seem to be two other examples of ra
cKcurra : —
/A 165 ^ Tot cytu TO, cKaoTtt Xeywv krdpoicri 7rLtf>av<TKov'
i 315 dXX* OL fxev TO, CKaoTtt Trap-qfievoL i^epiova-tv — .
Against these four we have to set twenty-five instances of cKaora
neut. plur. without article in the Odyssey alone.
Next, it would be quite easy to adduce between forty and
fifty examples of /xcV pa, such as : —
B I aXXot fiey pa Oeol — (=0677).
a 1 2 7 lyxos p-^y P corrytrc — .
IT 336 Krjpv$ /X€V pa p,€(Trj(ri — .
It surely becomes clear that in three out of the four cases of ra
iKacrra the true reading is /xcV pa iKacrra, and as we cannot well
leave /a 165 in solitary error, it would be better to substitute
there also
tyw yc CKaora.
In /x 165 there is another more important word, which
seems unlikely to be correct, to wit, Xcywv used in the later
sense of 'speaking', not in the epic sense of * reckoning',
* enumerating.' Possibly the letters have been wrongly appor-
BOOK XII
fi 16-98
ioned here. I suggest as a possible and more satisfactory
[vision : —
ri rot cyw yc CKaoT* dXeytuv krapoLcri TTLffiavaKov
leywv would be quite suitable here, as meaning * carefully ',
heedfully/ cf. I 504 aXeyova-L KiovaraL.
So again ^375 should certainly be read with the first two
rords as one : —
aXXoL /zev pa IxaoTa iraprjixeuoi e^epeovcrtv
Jumaeus is contrasting his own behayiour with that of
others' similarly placed, he proceeds 1. 378 dAA' c/aoI ov <j>Ckov
42] Tw 8' ov Tt yvvy] kol mfn-ui riicva
OLKaSc voaTrj<ravTL TraptoTarat ovSk ydwvrai,
The unfortunate singular TrapioTaraL is hardly a corruption
)f TrapLo-TavraL (Kayser, Ameis) ; neither is it to be defended as
jferring to the wife alone. Such a distinction would be
leaningless. It is rather a misreading of TrapiardaTai written, as
isual, without mark of elision. As a compromise irapto-ravrat is
jceptable enough. Indeed Trcireiparrat 1. 37 is probably an
istance in point, representing iremipdarai,
57] OTnrorepr) 8-q rot 680s l(r(reTai,
Bekker has here suggested oTnroripvi (cf. 69 kcivt/), a step in
the right direction, but the hiatus after the enclitic rot calls for
remedy. The original may have stood thus : —
07nroT€py}<f)LV 8-q 0* 680s l(r<rcTat
Cf. r)vop4r)<f)i, dvayK(U7j(f>Lf dyXatrjcfji, K€(}>aXr]<f)LVy €reprj<f>L, SegLr€prj<f>L.
The later Greeks lost their ability to recognize rot in $\ and
therefore could not preserve the line intact.
|i 9O ^ ^^ rpLOTOLXOL o8oVT€S
The adverb rpuTTOLxt (K 473) is probably the true reading.
|A 9^J T^ ^ ov TTW TTOTC VaVTai OLIc/jpLOL €V;(€TOO>VTat
7rap<jf)vy€€iv (rvv vrjO
^ 328 SkvAAt^V 0^ ^V OV TTW TTOT OLKT^pLOl av8p€9 oXv^ttV.
In these two quotations, both referring to the monster
Scylla, we have the adjective dK-qpioi used in the exceptional
sense of ' unharmed ', * scatheless.' So at least we are told by
the authorities, and it is patent that the ordinary meaning of
aKrjpios, * with no heart for anything,' * dispirited,' is precisely
the most unsuitable idea that could be imported into either
fi 98 ODYSSEY
sentence. All the same this last is certainly the proper
and distinctive sense of aKi^pto?, as the following passages
bear witness : —
E 8 1 2 7} vv a-i TTOv Scos itrxct aKrjptov'
817 OVT€ TL fXC SeOS L(T)(€L OLKrjpLOV OVT€ T19 OKVOS,
N 224 ovTC TLva Seos tcr;j(€t aK-qpioVf
H 100 rj/MevoL avOu eKaoTot OLKypLOL^ aKXees avrws*
A 392 6$v ^cA.os TTcAcTttt, Kttt OLK-ripLov otij/a Tidr^a-L.
^466 oAAoTC 8e <fi6LVv0oV(TLV aKlQpLOl,
While it is clear enough that uK^pios, * spiritless ' or even
* lifeless ', as in the last instance but one, and possibly in the
last, is formed from Krjp * heart', the prevalent theory with
regard to d/c^ptos in the supposed abnormal sense of * uninjured',
' unhurt,' is that it comes from Krjp. This I hold to be a mani-
fest error. There is nothing whatever to justify the belief that
KT^p has any other meaning in Homer than * fate ', and in a
more definite and limited sense, * death.' In saying this I
am not forgetful of O 82, where Tr^fxa is indeed a variant, but by
no means indispensable either in form or sense. Consequently
oLKT^pios, assuming the possibility of the duplicate from Krjp, could
never have meant for Homer merely * uninjured ', as has been
quietly taken for granted. I believe I am fully justified in
saying that this word in the two passages is nothing but
a careless and ignorant corruption or rather confusion, such as
the later Greeks, the uncritical custodians of the Homeric poems,
so often allowed to pass unchallenged. Read in both cases : —
OLK-qparoL
a word that still happily survives in the following places : —
O 497 oAA' aXo)(os T€ (Tory kol TratScs o7r«r<ra),
KOL oTkOS Kttt KXrjpOS (XKTypaTOS,
p 532 avTWV jxey yap KTrjfiaT aKT^para kclt evl otKio,
U 303 )(€palv v8o)p i7n)(€vaL aK-qparov
We have in our texts, even in that of Allen and Sikes
(1904), Hymn. Herm. 530 (pay88ov) — , dKTJptov rj o-c <t>v\d^€L, but the
great majority of the MSS. the Fam. Par. and L have d/ojpaov, which
is quite as near the genuine aKT^parov as it is to the present
vulgate.
This adjective is apparently connected with the Aeschylean
verb Krjpaivw, *to injure' (Eum. 128, Supp. 999). To refec
BOOK Xn |A 98-113
to Kepavw/xL, as some do for Q 303, is on the face of it
impossible. Even aK-qpaa-iov {olvov) in t 205 is clearly nothing
but ' undamaged ', * sound ' wine. The whole description is a
protest against the usual translation, ' unmingled/ ' undiluted.'
Of course it was * unwatered '. But no one intent on setting
forth the unriyalled potency of a wine would begin with such
a superfluous statement.
fi 108] dAAa fxakai %Kv\Xrjs (TKOTrikta Tr€7r\r]iM€vos WKa
VTJa Trape^eXdav
The form TrcTrAry/xeVos (TreTrXiy/Aevos Rost) has no valid support,
and probably represents Trpoa-n-Xruxevos, cf. ttA^to (H 438), tirXyjvr
(A 449, 63), TrXrjvTo (H 468). The compound verb is better
here, as appears from ; —
t 285 aKprj TrpooTTcXao-as {yrja), M 285, X 583,
and perhaps from : —
V 95 Trjixo<s St) vq(T<a TrpocrejriXvaro TrovroTropo^ nyvs.
fl. 113] €t TTWS Tr]V oXoYjV fxkv VTT€K7rpOcf>vyOLfXL X.dpv^Siv,
rrjv 8c K dixvvaifirjv, ore /xoi (tlvolto y kraxpov^s.
No argument or array of passages is needed to show that
T^v oXorjv is not primitive, cf. Note on € 55, pp. 65-7. The
original form of the clause is fortunately discernible enough from
the words immediately following. That we should have two verbs
after c ittws, the former v7r€KTrpo<f>vyoL/xL without kc and the latter
dfjLvvaLiMTjv with K€, Is not only irrational in itself, but in Homer
lacks the thread of support from little eccentricities of usage
which later Greek might furnish. Now if kc had been found
with vTTCKTrpo^vyoi/Ai, we might undoubtedly have been satisfied
to supply it in thought to dfjLwaLfirjv ; but not reversely. We may
surely restore without much fear of error : —
et K€v TTWS oXorjv fjikv VTrcKTrpotfyvyoi/JLL Xa/avySSiv
There is indeed one other passage in which the obnoxious
combination ttjv oXo-qv reappears : —
/x 428 ocfyp' tn TTjv oXorjv dva/xerpT^craLfiL ^dpv^Biv.
In this case there is nothing to show what ttjv has super-
seded. Still it would be little below the height of foolishness
to argue that an emendation visibly indicated in one passage
should be set aside and refused admission, because the same
fault in another place cannot be removed with similar assurance
of correctness. Duly recognizing however the inevitable lack
203
p 113-120 ODYSSEY
of cogent force to drive home the suggestion, we may never-
theless find a possible remedy by borrowing ttos from our
passage, /x 113:—
o<f>p cTt ■Tro)? 6X077V.
Other solutions may, however, be devised such as o<^p €t cyw
y' oXoT^Vy &c.
It would scarcely be right to pass over unnoticed the fact
that, while at (el) Kev ttw? (^v ttws) with subjunctive and el ttws
with optative occur with tolerable frequency, there is no extant
example of ct kcv ttws with the optative save this el ttcds — k
dfivvaLixr]v, which is somewhat hidden from view by the inter-
vening words. Obviously however the presence of xws makes no
material difference, and the case is the same as that of ci kcv with
optative, which must be recognized as Homeric, though scholars
have been tempted to suggest in some instances that yc should be
read in place of kc, v. Monro, H. G. § 313. "We find e? ttws with
optative N 807, H 163, P 104, Y 464, X 196, 8 388, i 317, k 147,
X 91. With the exception above named no instance of ct kcv
'TTioi with this mood has come down to us in the text of Homer,
but there is one passage from which an original kcv has almost
certainly been ejected : —
^460 €1 TTws ot iKSvs ;j(Xarvav iropoi.
The metre urgently requires and the sense readily admits the
restoration : —
€1 kIv ttws / ' €k8v9 yXaxvav Tropoi.
Compare also ^ 118, A 792, and the Note on k 269.
On /x 114 it is worth remark that <tlvolt6 y' — there is no
room for any special emphasis on the verb here — exhibits a
peculiar and perilous use of yc. It is little more than a mere
metrical stop-gap. Save for the rule of modal attraction, which
is not always operative, cf. y 320, the subjunctive would be
regular. I suggest then that ore fjuoi crivrp-ai was the original.
May not the optative with its weak appendage be the outcome
of a laudable but disastrous feeling, that Homer ought not to
he allowed to lack any of the elegancies of expression in vogue
from time to time, especially one which could be foisted in by
the addition of such an * unconsidered trifle ' as yc ?
p. 1203 ovSt re's (OT oXkt^' <f>vy€tiv Koifnurrov arr* avr^.
The remarkable oxymoron is rather a doubtful phenomenon ;
204
BOOK XII y. 120-140
mt aw avTTJ^ may be unhesitatingly condemned, as a weak
lodernization, perhaps of d-TroTrpo.
Nearer to the tradition would be vttck tt}?, for which
)mpare : —
700 ovK €<f>a(rav <j>€v^i(r6aL vttck KaKov,
P 46 1 pea fxev yap (f)€vy€a-K€V vttck Tpwcov opv/xayBov.
lere is no instance elsewhere in Homer of <^€vyw d-n-o.
The disappearance of the pronominal article is natural
lough. A probable instance may be found in 1. 130, where
)vos 8' ov ytyveraL avrOiv would readily come from the less
ieptable, because more archaic,
yovos 8' ov yiyveraL Ik rdv (cf. k 350)*
140] VT/t T€ Kttt €TapOtS* ttVTOS 8* €t TTCp KO/ oAv^S .
This line occurs in a passage 11. 137-141 repeated verbatim
from X 1 10-4, where the words are put in the mouth of Teiresias
and addressed, as here by Circe, to Odysseus.
Again the opening words of this particular line occur in A. 161
■with a yery slight yariation : —
V7JL T€ KoX iTapOUTL "TToXvV 'XpOVOV ', Ovhi TTOi rjXOi^ .
This last line together with the one that follows it, was however
rejected by Aristophanes with good reason. There is some
justification therefore for considering /x 140 and its repetition
A, 113 on their merits apart entirely from X 161.
That this prophecy should be made twice over to Odysseus
would hardly be regarded as objectionable in any degree by the
hearers of the poet. The warning is only made more impressive
by coming from two competent independent sources. Therefore
we may without further doubt proceed to examine the nature of
the warning as given in the two passages. 'If the sheep and
oxen be injured by you,' say the seer and the goddess, 'then I give
you warning of destruction '
t6t€ rot T€KfiaLpofx oXeOpov,
and our line follows to tell upon whom the destruction is to fall,
' upon thy ship and thy comrades.' But why upon the ship ?
There is no particular reason for bringing in the ship at all.
Here I think lies the error of our text. Two possible results
are clearly indicated, if the cattle were hurt. Such misconduct
would either ( i ) be fatal both to the hero himself and to his men,
or (2) in the alternative, if not to himself personally yet certainly
305
fi 140-177 ODYSSEY
to all his comrades, and even if Odysseus escaped with his life,
his return home would be indefinitely delayed, and when finally
attained less favourable circumstances would be found prevailing
there. The words, avros 8* ct Trcp kcv aXv^s, show clearly that
his own life would be in danger, as well as that of his companions.
They show it now inferentially, but I am inclined to think that
originally the statement was explicit and direct : —
TOT€ TOL T€KfiaLpOfJL oX^OpOV
avTU) T* ^8* erdpoL^' avros 8' €t Trip k€v oAv^s, —
After the interpolation of X 160-1, assuming of course that
Aristophanes was right in his athetosis, it would clearly serve
the stability of the new lines that the opening of A 113 and /a 140
should be assimilated to that of X 161 in every particular. Hence,
I suggest, the encroachment of vr}L with damage to the metre and
the loss of the emphatic avraJ.
The mere metrical defect may be remedied by vtjl re (rvv &
cTctpots (Doederlein) or vryt & kralpoKrlv t (Hoffman) and in other
ways also ; but such corrections entirely fail to account for the
vulgate, and therefore lack an essential condition of probability.
p. 154] ^ ^tXoi, ov yap yjyr\ %.va. ISfxevaL ovSk 8v oiovs — .
The ace. usually precedes XPV) ^-nd the metre requires that it
should do so here. Read accordingly : —
u) (f}LXoL, ov yap eva )(prj tS/tcvat ovSe Bv otovs.
Compare y 14 TrjXefxaXf ov /xiv ere XPV ^^' atSovs ov8' rjftaLov' also
for €va similarly treated : —
V 15 TtaofxeO'' apyaXiov yap eva TrpotKos ^(aptorao-^ai.
O 5 1 1 /SeXrepov t] aTToXia-Oat eva )(p6vov 176 jSiCjvai.
|X 177] ki^ir]<s 8' krapoKTiv lir ovara ttoLo'lv aXcuJ/a.
One good MS., Venetus Marcianus 647, has ovao-t here, which
would bring the construction into harmony with : —
fjL 200 6v a-<f>LV €ir (icrtv aXcLxj/, Ijxi t Ik Bea-ixGyv av€Xv(rav —
where Knight proposed ovao-', leaving the grammar unaltered.
There remains however one other example of c7raA.ci<^<o, which
must be taken into account : —
/u, 47 dA.Xa Trap€$€XdaVf €irt 8* ovar* dXcti/'at ercuptov
KTjpbv Scxj/'qa-a^ fxeXirfS^a.
This question of the grammatical construction is well worth
consideration. The dictum in Ameis-Hentze that cirt is a
preposition in /a 200, but belongs to the verb in the other
ao6
BOOK XII c; ,1177
l^^...^. _
Indeed the converse statement would perhaps be more difficult
to disprove.
Now the simple verb dXctc/xo is fairly common and its con-
struction undisputed : —
-S 35® Xo€(rav T€ /cat ijXenl/av XCtt iXatto.
H 175 Tw p* ^ ye Xpoa KaXov dXeLij/aixivr],
but the compound verb €7raA,et<^(o, just like irpoa-aXciKfxa, .which
appears: — ■
K 392 ip^ofxivrj 7rpo(TdX€L<f)€ kKaarna <^ap/xa/cov oAAo,
would naturally and necessarily take, as in //, 200, an accusative
of the unguent or material employed and a dative of that to which
it is applied. We may compare the similar difference existing
between the use of /SdXXoi : —
H 266 Tw ySoAcv AtavTos Seivov o-okos — .
and of cTTtySoAAco : —
8 440 ftdXev 8' cTTt Sep/xa iKaxrrta.
The addition of vwtolo-l to this last would make the parallel with
/A 200 absolutely complete. But the case in favour of the con-
struction given in /a 200 and against that in /x. 177 is even
stronger than this. It is backed by the analogous usage of a
host of verbs compounded with iiri, e. g. iTriTLd-qfit, e<f>CrjiJLL, cTrayw,
cTTtTrdwrora), c'Trtravva), hn^io). Examples need hardly be adduced
here. They are accessible to everybody.
There are, I believe, only two apparent exceptions : —
^35^ ^ y^-P f^^^ ^^^ KV€<f>as T]Xv6€ yaxav.
€ 175 TO d ov6 €7rt viy€S ettrat
oiKviropoi TrepooiCTLVy
TO in the last instance referring to fxiya Xatr/xa OaXd(T(Ty]<s. No
one will pretend that these two afford the least countenance
to the construction in yw, 177. In them the accusatives follow
intransitive verbs of motion and denote a large and extended
space, such an extension as cannot possibly be compared to that
belonging to the ears of the men of Odysseus, even though un-
charitably and unwarrantably we should endow them one and
all with the 'large fair ears' of the * translated' Bully Bottom
himself.
It appears then that G. Curtius's ovar (ovara) for the vulgate
207
fi 177-185 ODYSSEY
w<rtV in 1. 200 is a step in the wrong direction, welcomed though it
has been by Hinrichs, Cauer and the Leyden editors yan Leeuwen
and da Costa, who refrain however from following Curtius in
changing ov to w. Much more worthy of acceptance is Knight's
ovaa, approved by Nauck and Kirchhoff.
It follows also that in fi 177 ovara cannot be right, though
it is not necessary to extend the condemnation to ovar' in /a 47 ;
for obviously ovar* may stand in Homer for ovart just as easily
as for ovara, although the later Greeks did not like to make the
acknowledgement. Hence I would read ; —
/x 177 c^ct^S S cTapoMTtv €7r' ovaTL TracTLv aXiLij/a.
The change is of the slightest. Even in /x 200 the same form ovar*
(ovart) may be correct, as oxrCv is obviously a modernization.
The use of the singular ovart in these passages does not
constitute a difficulty, although it may have helped to bring
about the received debasements, precisely as in t 539, where
our received text runs : —
iraa-L Kar av;(€vas rjie
though every scholar knows that the original must have been : —
TraaL Kar av)(iv ca^c
au^eV* €r/^€v [la^c cod. V] Herodian. This passage is addition-
ally interesting, because it exhibits the very 7ra<TL{y) of /i, 177.
But this use of the singular in a distributive sense is fairly
frequent in Homer, cf. pu 332 (= 8 369) crctpc hi yaa-ripa Ai/tos.
8 300 Soos fi€Ta xc/tKTtv exovcrau v. Monro, H. G. § 1 70 for other
examples.
|A 185] v^a KarauarTqcrov, Xva vanrip-qv ott d/covcnys.
An undoubted metrical improvement could be secured in this
line by transposing tva and o-n-a : —
VTJa KaToaTqaov, OTra vuiLriprjv iv o-Kovcnys.
It is true the next line but one ends with ott aKoixrai, but
this is quite as much in favour of, as against, the suggested
arrangement. The position assigned to the conjunction giving
emphasis to the noun and adjective may be supported not
only by the well-known instances of single words so emphasized
A 32 dAA* tOi, fJi-q fjJ ipfOt^ij o-awTcpo? ws k€ vi-qai.
V 47 avrap iyu) Oios ci/ai, StafXTrept^ ^ (TC <f)vX.d<rar<ii — .
/* MO> 33 1> t i5> Hymn. Herm. 530,
308
I
BOOK XII |i 185-199
but by : —
fx. 49 arap avros a/covcyacv at k eOiX-rja-Oa, —
E 27 Tpwcs Se /xeydOvfJLOL cttci i8ov vie Adprjro^ —
7ra<Ttv opivOrj Ovfxo^'
Z 474 avrap o y ov fjiiXov vvbv cttcI kvctc tt^Xc t€ ;j(€p<rtV,
ctTTC 8* i7rev$d/ji,€vos All r dkkoLcriv T€ ^cowriv
So in the vexed passage : —
A 566 pLTj vv Tot ov )(paL(rfi(t}<riv ocrot OeoL eta ev *0A.v^7ra),
Sj(T(rov twv ore kcv rot aaTrrovs x^'P**? cc^eiito.
(Bentley.)
iwv is probably after all the true reading, for I6v6* the tra-
ditional form savours very strongly of an attempt to connect
the two words by hook or by crook with the preceding verb
XpaL<Tfi(a<TLv. There was no unanimity even among the ancient
Homeric scholars as to what this iovO* represented. Zenodotus
took it for l6vT€ : Aristarchus for lovri. Modern editors are
pretty unanimous in condemning both, and deciding in favour
of lovra, though many look with longing eyes on Bentley *s
conjecture and lament the fact that no MS. gives the reading.
Similarly I would strongly urge that A 527 : —
ov8' aTiXevTrjTOVf 6 ri kcv K€cf>aXy Karavevcro)
would be much more satisfactory in point of emphasis and metre,
read thus : —
ovS* driXivrrjToVf KeKJiaXr} o Tt k€V KaTavexJcro),
The principle of this postponement of the conjunction is
quite analogous to the case of the enclitic personal pronoun,
set forth and illustrated on a 37.
In the last line of this song of the Sirens (/a 191)
i8/t€v S* o(r(ra yivrjrai. hr\ )(6ovl 7rov\vfioT€Lprr).
I would suggest the slight change of oo-o-a into da-aa as a
desirable grammatical amelioration, cf. A 554
dAAa fidX evKTjXo^ rd <f>pd^€aL d(T(r iOeXrjaOa.
There seems indeed to be no other instance of ocros with the
pure subjunctive.
|A 199] aV °-'"'° K^pov tXovro i/xol cpn/pes kraxpoi,
397(=^249) k^fmp fjicv cTTCtTa i/wl ipiTjp€<s iraipoi
SaiVvvr'*
I 172 oAAot fikv vuv [upveTy ifwl iplrfpe^ iraipoi,'
AQAu . P 2og
^199 ODYSSEY
I 554 oAA' o y€ /Ji(p{MT^pi^€V ottws aTToXouxTO Tracrai
vrj€^ lv<T(TfXfjLOi KoX ifiol ipCrjpes kralpoi.
^ 6 Mvp/xt8ov€S Ta;)(V7ra>Xot, c/x.ot iptrjpes eraipoi,
The above lines exhibit all the instances in the Homeric poems
of the expression, e/Aot cptiypcs cratpoi, and deserve a close
consideration. The formula stands twice as a vocative of
address, t 172, * 6, and in these two instances the use of the
emphatic possessive pronoun seems natural. In the remaining
four cases it is certainly somewhat forced. It would be just
as erroneous to attribute the pronoun in fx 199, i 555 to
affectionate regard, as it would to look upon it in /x 397,
$ 249 as a touch of sarcastic irony.
In the next place the metre calls for remark. It is a
very peculiar feature in these verses that we have a long
open diphthong in the fourth foot maintaining its original
quantity before a word beginning with a vowel, nor does it
avail to defend this hiatus by supposing that ipu-qpo? originally
possessed an initial digamma. The supposition is not only at
variance with other examples of this prefix ipi-, e.g. epiavxriv
(K 305), ipt/^ioXos (<^ 232), cptySovTTos (H 411), ipiicv^<:
(12 802), epLcrOevT^s (N 54), ipKrrdcfyvXos (t m), ipLTLfxo<:
(B 447), but meets contradiction in the usage of the adjective
itself. We find T 378 Ko/xio-av 8' iptrjpe^ crat/aoi, 11 363 o-au>
8* ipirjpa^ cTttipov?. Nor again is the doctrine of hiatus licitus
a disturbing element here, although it is supposed to protect
the example before ifxoC in the two first quoted lines. It does
not however form an essential part of my case to take exception
to that at present.
On these grounds then, the hiatus after ifioL and the needless
emphasis of that pronoun, I am disposed to question the
genuineness of this expression and to regard it as a simpli-
fication of an older formula. Such a formula I find in the
subscribed passages: —
A 566 p.ri vv TOi ov xpaLcr/iMaiv oaoL Oeoi cttr* iv 'OXv/xira»,
E 877 oAAot fxev yap TravTcs oa-oi Oiot tla iv *OA.vyx7ra),
© 451 ovK av fX€ rpci/^ctav ocroi OioC ficr iv 'OXv/xtto).
II 98 /iT^c Tis ovv TpoHov Odvarov <f>vyoi o<raoL €a<ri.
In many instances the substantive verb is unexpressed : —
M 13 avTap iirtl Kara fitv Tpuxtiv Odvov ocraoi apurrot,
aio
BOOK XII ft 199
y 108 €v6a 8 CTTCiTa KarcKra^cv oacrot apiaroL' Cf. A 691.
C 257 TrdvT(t)v ^aty K(i}V elBrjcrifxev ocroroL apicTTOi.
I 55 ou Tts Tot Tov fxvOov 6v6(r(r€TaL 6(r(T0L *A)(aLOLj Cf. 642.
6 214 iravra yap ov KaKos il/xLy fJL€T avBpdcrLV 6(T(tol atOXoi.
4> 371 oarcTOV ol oAAot Trarrcs ocrot Tptu€cr<riv dpcoyot'.
428 TOtovTOt vvv 7ravT6S oo-ot T/3(oe(To-iv dpoyyoLf
© 205 et TTcp yap k eOeXoifxcv oaoi Aavaoicriv dpoiyoi — .
More examples might be quoted, if necessary. There is one
however which shows this use of oo-ot in combination with
a vocative and so possesses a distinct feature of interest in this
connexion : —
y8 209 ^vpvfia^ ■^Sc Kttt aXXoi, ocrot fJLvrjoTrjpiS ayavol — .
So also : —
^250 dAA aye, ^af^ACwv /Srjrdpfiovi^ 6(roroL apioToi — .
But then it may be said, why should this familiar idiom have
been preserved in the passages just quoted, while all trace
of it seems to be lost in those at the head of this section ?
The question is a fair one, and the answer is easy. There
is nothing in the idiom in any wise offensive or incompre-
hensible to the linguistic feeling of the later Greeks. It has
perhaps a flavour of antiquity and is not of such common
occurrence in classical Attic ; yet we may find a practical
exemplification of it in Aristoph. Wasps, 1. 400 : —
ov $vWl^lf/€(TO^ OTTOaOLO-L St/Cttt TTJTC*; fXiXXoVCTLV t(T€(r6aL ;
But in the particular cases under discussion there happened
to be a serious complication, indicated and revealed to us by
the presence of the possessive pronoun which, as has been
remarked, is in four cases out of six not quite natural. The
original expression contained, there is reason to believe, an
elided unemphatic dative of the personal pronoun cyw, which
gives a perfectly suitable sense in every case.
It was this unfortunate elision, this partial obliteration
of fioLy unwelcome to the eyes and unfamiliar to the ears
of the later Greeks, that led to the dropping of ckrot from
these lines, which I would thus restore : —
/x 199 aJxj/ ttTTO K-qpov iXovG' oaaoL p! ipir)p€S cTatpot,
397 (= ^ 249) €$rjpxip fxlv cTret^' o(r(roi p! iptripes kralpoi
haivvvO^'
t 172 oAAot pXv vvv piipA/eO* o(roL p.* ipir]p€S iTolpoC
P 2 211
fi 199 ODYSSEY
Compare the combination of oAAoi with iravTcs ^ 462, o 307.
t 555 aXX* 6 ye /xcpfjLi^pi^ev ottws diroXoLaro Traorai
v^€S cvo-crcA/jtot Kttt oo-ot fi ipirjpes kraxpoi.
Here ocroi — iralpoL forms a fitting balance to the preceding
^ 6 MvpfxiSoves Ta;(V7ro)\oi ocot /a* €pLr]p€<s iraLpoi,
which with t 172 approximates very closely to the above quoted
/? 209 and 250.
It is well known that this elision of /u,ot (rot, o-ot) has been
only very partially preserved in our traditional text: that
of FoL has disappeared altogether. Many restorations of each
have been suggested, of which some may unhesitatingly be
accepted as certain and irrefragable. Therefore in introducing
it here I waive any general discussion of its admissibility,
cf. Journ. Phil. xxv. 308 f. and Note on a 37.
That the enclitic is far more suitable than the possessive
I)ronoun to the passages as a whole is surely beyond all shadow
of doubt. Let me recall : —
336 ovT iyu) ovre tis oAAos iraLpoiv pt fxoi taaLV. Cf. /w, 114.
H 295 (Tovs T€ fidXia-Ta eras Kat iraupovs ol tol iaaiv.
As I have more than once had occasion to remark, the earliest
writing in all probability did not remove elided letters. They
appeared, as in Latin, written at length. Hence oo-ot /xot, which
seems too long for an iambus, as it appears visibly impossible
to retain the whole, may have been considered most fairly and
easily treated by substituting the convenient and apparently
equivalent possessive €/>tot, with detriment to the metre of
course ; but that is of the nature of almost every modernization
that can be detected in the Homeric text.
1 take it as a further slight point in favour of this correc-
tion that with it the elimination of the hiatus licitus in p. 199,
397, ^249 becomes so easy a matter. I have not hesitated to
remove it, but of course devotees may preserve it intact, if the
loss would l»e in any degree painful to endure. The formula
may also be applied to t 273 drap ipL-qpa^ kralpov^ \ wAeo-c
thus : oo-ot 8' ipirjpe^ cratpoi, | wAco"* : but a<f>ap 8* is an easier
remedy. The lengthening of -ap is not defensible.
Another argument in support of my hypothesis may be
BOOK XII fi 199-209
irawn from the fact that it serves to explain the extraordinary
radition of Hymn. Dem. 325 ; —
avTis cTretra jxaKapas Oeovs aicv eovras
Travras eTTtTrpotaAAev
The difficulty is not caused by the accidental omission of Trarrjp
(Valckenaer), ava^ (von Gent) or Zevs (Voss). The accusatives of
1. 325 are due to the reflex action of Travras on the formula in
question, and the solution is : —
avTts eTretO' ocraoi jxaKapcs Oeol alev covrcs
with a further possibility of tTrct^' o y' oo-ot.
After all I am quite conscious that to many the above
emendation may seem too considerable a departure from the
tradition ; but this much may be said in defence. It is no
haphazard re-writing from unfounded conjecture, but rests
upon a careful examination of the ascertained usages of Homer.
These usages have been here set forth for the consideration of
all, that of oo-ot in almost full detail : only with regard to the
elision of fioi is the case presented with undue brevity, as a full
exposition would require far too many pages.
fA 201^ ciAA.' 6t€ Srj T^v vrjcrov cA.ctTro/x.ei', avrtV eireira — .
403 dAA' 0T€ Sr] TTjv vrjo'ov ikeLTro/xev, ovSc rt? oAAry — .
The emendation given in the Note on c 55 (q. v.) is strongly
confirmed by ^ 301 : —
dAA' ore Br} KpT/rr/v /xcv cXetTro/jtcv, ovSe tis oAAt; — .
where three MSS. X D Z actually have rrjv vrja-ov. As I shall
show afterwards, this combination, the noun followed by fxev for
emphasis, has been very extensively tampered with for the
accommodation of the later article.
jA 203] T(ui/ 8' apa SiLO-avTiov — .
Here and in a> 534 Knight and others would read rdv Sk
BeLo-avToiv : the Cambridge Homer has twv 8' ap 8eto-avTo>v. Is it
not rather the participle that is at fault and needs correction ?
The lasting state of fear into which the men are thrown in both
cases is more adequately conveyed by the perf. part. (Monro,
H. G. § 28):—
Ttuv 8' apa SctSioTwv (SeS/ioTwv).
Cf. ^60, 0-77.
fi 2093 ®^ H-^^ ^V """^^^ /ACt^OV C-TTt KttKOV 1^ OT€ Kv/cAo)j/f .
There is nothing to justify this lengthening of the t of em,
213
fi 209-251 ODYSSEY
So various attempts both ancient and modem have been made to
escape the difficulty. Zenodotus read Ixct. Schol. H Vind. 133
gives cTTct from tiriji), cf. A 483 Tpoics Ittov TroAAot — . This La
Roche accepts. Ahrens preferred cTret as a supposed equivalent
of €7r€tcri, * comes upon us/ as tlOcl = rCO-qa-i, Mol = 8t8<i)cri : but
analogy alone is not sufficient warrant for the form. The
simpler remedy of transposition seems to me in every respect
preferable : —
ov fiev hrj t68* Zttl fiii^ov KaKov
The quantity given to liri is now natural enough; yet the
appearance of iirel in the MSS. is not surprising. The ready
confusion of irri and cTret could not be better shown than in the
quotation of X 598 in Aristotle's Rhetoric (3, 11) : — ,
avTis €7rt SaTreSovSe for avrts cTrctTa TreSovSe.
Here ctti is amply confirmed as the true reading, and its
erroneous position accounted for by such passages as : —
A 5^5 ^^^^ o^ TOi €7rt 8cos — .
6 563 ovT€ Tt TTrjfjuLvOrjvaL €7ri Seos — .
Cf. <!> iio, X 367, r 45, TT 315, i 92.
fx 2233 ^KvXXrjv 8' ovK€T ifivOeojJLrjv — .
"Etl is, I submit, scarcely suitable. Perhaps the words should
read thus: —
OVK €Tr€fXv6€6fl7]V
' I did not tell them of Scylla as well.'
f* 235] ivOev yap ^KvWrjf erc/otu^i Se 8ta XapvySSts
Siivov av€ppoL^Srj(T€ OaXdcrcrr)^ aX/xvpov vBiop,
Nearly all the MSS. have /xev yap. It may seem paradoxical
to say both are wrong : but an original evOev tev SkvAAt; might
perhaps best account for their presence. McV preserves a trace
of €«/: yap comes in after its disappearance. The verb is,
I think, required here.
Next Setvov is certainly strangely used. With vStap following
it should hardly be an adverb. Lastly Sla in Circe's mouth is
satisfactory (104) ; but to Odysseus the monster is 6\oi^ and Sccny.
€v6€V erjv '^KvXXrj, SeLvrj S* eTipuiOi Xapv^Sis
ryjfjios dv€ppoLfiSr](Tt OaXda-arrfs aXfivpov vStup.
seems within the limits of possibility.
fi 251] o)? 8* 6t CTTi 7rpo/?oA<t) ttAicvs TTtpifXT^KH pd^Sta
l\Ov<rL Tots oA/yotcri 8q\ov Kara elSara jSaXXiav — ,
214
BOOK XII 11251-298
This unique i-n-l Trpo/36X(Oy * upon a headland/ shows how far
the later Greeks were prepared to go to be rid of an obsolete
elision. Rather than accept : —
ws 8' or' €7rt TTpofiX^O' oAievs —
they adopted -n-po/JoAo), which might have meant the same thing
as TTpo^XrJTL, if usage had so decreed. Usage however gave it
other senses for which the Lex. may be consulted. Outside
this passage the word, one of fairly frequent occurrence, never
means any thing like ' headland ^ and this fact seems to have
urged some to attempt to take it here in spite of its position as an
epithet of pd^Sw. As might be expected in a passage likely to
be so popular as this about Scylla and Charybdis, modernizations
are rife hereabouts, rots oAtyowrt (252) perhaps for etvaAioto-i, loss
of archaic ye (257), ypa (243), iiopixrj(Ta(Ta{2 2i)&c. In 252, how-
ever, R. P. Knight's excellent suggestion of SoXoevra w^ould enable
us to retain oXiyoLo-t without the intrusive later article : —
t^V(T(TLV hoXoCVT oXvyOKTL KaT CtSttTtt /SoXXiDV .
We have v€kv(t<tlv X 569, x 4°!? ^ 45> Trtrvaa-Lv t 186 and
ycwcrcrt A 416, sufficient warrant for the supposed ixOvaa-iv.
p, 298^ dXA,* aye vvv fiot Trarrcs 6fi6(T(raTe Kaprepbv opKov,
. . . fjLT^ TTOV Tts dTa<rOaXir)(ri KaKycrL
17 ^ovv rj€. Tt pLTJXov aTTOKTavrj'
Here ajroKravrj is assuredly wroug in metre. The -yj of the
thematic aor. cannot be shortened before a vowel. The true
reading may be inferred with almost absolute certainty from : —
8 253 • /cat wfioaa Kaprepbv opKov
fir] jx€V irpXv '08v<r^a pu€Ta Tp(x>€(T(r dva<l>rjvaL — .
^373 dAA' opLOCTOv fxrf fi-qxpl <f>(Xrj raSc fivBrjcraadaL — .
We have, it is true, in these passages no nom. with the aor. infin.
to correspond to ns here ; but for that little detail we may refer
to the well-known A 76 : —
Kcu fioL ojxoaarov
rj fxiv ixoL irpo^ptiiv tirea-Lv kcu. x^pcrXv dprjieiv.
We should restore then :
rj /3ovv r]€ Tt jxrjXov diroKTa/ACV
This use of the aor. infin. of a future event is curious enough to
have caused the appearance of the aor. subj. : but the passages
adduced prove its validity, and the metre properly understood
demonstrates its necessity.
215
V- 329-355 ODYSSEY
fi 329] aXX* oT€ Srj vryos c^c</)^tTo ijui iravra
Perhaps we should not be wrong in saying that this unmetrical
adaptation or imitation of i 163 : —
ov yap TTU) vrjwv i^€(fi$LTO otvos ipv6p6^,
has suffered from being made to conform too closely to its
model. Less objection could be taken to : —
aXX* 6t€ Sr} vrjo^ fikv ajrif^OiaT T]ia vavra,
or perhaps aW ore 8>/ p ck vrjos.
M- 3353 oAX' oT€ 8r] Slol vr](TOv lojv ^Xv^a kralpov^
There is no apparent reason why either Irapov^s rjXv^a or
r}Xv(TKov iraLpovSf both suggested by Bentley, should have become
the vulgate. But if the original verb were rjXva-Kaa-a, it would
inevitably be glossed, and might afterwards be displaced, by
In favour of the proposed form we have three instances of
aXva-Ka^u) : —
p ^Sl v^piv aAvtTKa^tuv avhpuiv VTreprjvopeovrwv'
E 253 ov yap ftot yewatov oAvcr/ca^ovrt /xd^earOaL — .
Z 443 at K€ KttKos ws v6ar<f>Lv aXva-Ka^o) ttoXc/xoio.
I may add further that the next line (/a 336) : —
)^€Lpa's vL{f/dfjL€VOSi 60* iirl (TKCTras rjv dvi/xoiOy
can only be regarded as a weak interpolation, suggested by
and concocted from /3 261, k 182 for the one part, and from
€ 443, 77 282 for the other. The x^^pas vii/^a/Acvos is tolerable
enough, as far as the meaning is concerned, but hardly the rest
of the line. Odysseus needed no shelter from the wind either
to wash his hands or to say his prayers. It would be ridiculous
to assume that he deliberately intended to go to sleep.
|i 3553 l^oarKea-KOvO* lA-tKcs KaXal ftoes ivpvfjLiToyrroi.
Clearly this cannot have been the original form of the
line. Metrically /Soo-k^o-kovO* cAikcs is a sheer impossibility, nor
is the unique double iterative ySoo-Kco-Ko/xat very likely to be
correct. I would suggest : —
P6<jKov6* ciA-iTToSes cAtK€S ySocs ivpvfJLtTdyTroi.
This familiar combination ctAiVoSas lAtKa? (I 466, <P 448,
a 92, 8 320, t 46) would seem to have been successfully tampered
with here, because the neighbouring 1. 262 : —
€vOa 8* Haav KoXal )8o€s €vpvfJi€To>7roL —
naturally suggested that the third foot, which seemed defective
216
BOOK XII 1^355-396
rhen the F of FeXtKes was lost, might by a little judicious
reatment be improved and perfected. There would be the less
lliesitatiou about borrowing KaAat and abandoning ciAtVoScs,
[because there was a wide-spread impression that ctAtVoSes and
fJA-t/ccs were synonymous terms, v. Scholia on O 633 and M 293.
IWe may easily believe that the rhapsodists and their hearers
rere fully convinced that the revised version was distinctly
[better in scansion. With our knowledge of the lost F we
^are aware that this was an error ; but many are still of opinion
lat Knight's /Soo-kovto /VAckcs is a possible and acceptable
sorrection, as indeed it would be if the second foot of the
lexameter could be a tribrach.
372] 17 fi€ fxaX €19 aTrjv KOLfXT^crare vrjXu vTrvw
It is impossible to regard vrjXei here as anything more than
in unfortuiiate attempt to improve upon the epic epithet
f^/jtM or rj8v/jL(o. As already remarked, this part of the poem
Wms to have been made the object of special attention on the
part of would-be improvers.
388^ Twv Be K iyo) ra)(a vqa 6or]v apyyrL Kcpavvto
tutOol ^aXiov Kcaa-aLfXL fxca-to ivl olvottl ttovto).
The subj. Kcao-oo/At is indispensable; otherwise instead of a
strong assurance that satisfaction would be given to Eelios, and
a threat that punishment would fall upon the offenders, we have
merely the vague statement of a contingent possibility.
]i 396] oTTTaXea re kol wfxd' /?oo)v 8' ws yiyvero KJxairq.
This line attached to a preceding,
Kpea 8' d/x^' o^cXoLCTL fxefjcvKCL,
seems to me quite worthless as evidence that the -a of the
neuter plur. was originally long (v. Monro, H. G. § 374). Cf.
i/^ 225 (Note).
On the contrary I rather incline to regard it as a proof of the
almost insuperable difficulty the later Greeks experienced in
attempting to make a slight addition to a Homeric description
without leaving evident traces of their handiwork. The idea of
adding oTrraXea and w/xd is not in itself unattractive ; the state-
ment is in harmony with the preceding d/>w/»* oyScAoto-i. It is at
worst only superfluous ; but the line still has to be completed,
and although the ending is metrically more successful than the
beginning, yet it is after all even more of a superfluity than the
317
fi 396-419 ODYSSEY
earlier part, for powv 8* w? yiyvero ffxovq is merely a periphrastic
repetition of fie/xvKci. Additions of this character are well-known
phenomena.
f* 4^5] ^V ''"OTC Kvav€r}v V€<j>i\'qv iarrja-e Kpoviwv
vr/os VTrep yXa<f>vprjsy -^x^^^^ ^^ ttovtos vtt avrrjs.
Both these lines are found again, $ 303-4, and the last
clause, to which alone exception can be taken, is nearly repeated
in H 64 : —
fXiXdvCL 84 T€ TTOVTO? VTT OVTrj^,
But there avr^s, on which the doubt falls, refers to (f>pl^ ^€<f>vpoio
not as here to v€<f>eXrf, so that the sense of vtt' avr^s is in
any case rather different in H 64 from what it is in p. 406 and
^304.
The use of the oblique cases of avros as unemphatic pronouns
of reference, anaphoric pronouns, is questionable in Homer. It
is obvious that some allowance must be made for the encroach-
ment of the later regular usage. In the above instances if the
archaic original had vTrat rrjs — an undeniable possibility —
nothing else could be expected than that it should be turned
afterwards into the regular vtt' avrrj^.
In H 64 this I believe is the true solution ; but in the other
two passages there is an alternative suggestion which deserves
a little consideration. May not the true reading be : —
T])(X.v(r€ 8c TTovros vtt* avTos.
^And the sea itself grew dark beneath it.' The shadow of the
dark cloud falls primarily upon the ship, which it seems to over-
hang, but extends also over the surrounding ocean. From avros
the description gains somewhat in natural truth and pictorial
effect, while it loses nothing from the removal of the doubtful avr^s.
\}, 412]] TrXrj^e Kv^epviyrco) K€tf}aX-qv (sc. toros)
Instead of the gen. it would be easy to read the ace.
Trkr]$€ Kvfiepvrjrrjv KCKJiaX-qVf
just as in A 240 rbv 8' aopt TrXrj$* av^eVa. The vulgate would be
more easily reached from this than from KvPepvtjrao Kopa which is
suggested by Fick.
p. 419] Kvpxixriv ip,<f)op€ovTOf Oeo^ 8' aTroaxwro vootov.
From this line, repeated ^ 309, and two others : —
N 262 Tpoiia, TO, KTapiivoiv dirocuVv/tai.
P 322 Tjfucrv yap r aper^s aTrocuwraL evpvorra Zcw — »
>J8
BOOK XII p 419-422
it might be supposed that alwixat had an initial digamma.
The rebutting evidence however is too strong to be dis-
regarded: —
^ 144 dAAa /a' '08v(r(r^os troOos atwrai ol)(OfJi€voLO.
A 580 Ev/avTTvAos 8' iiropova-e /cat atirvro r€V)(^e dTr* w/xtor. (= N 55®)
A 531 iK S* OLVVTO Ovfxov. <f> 53 ^^o Trao'O'dXov olvvto tq$ov — .
O 595 KvSos diraiwTO. A 582 T€v;(€' aTraivv fxevov — .
^ 502 ws dp* ^<f>y}t Arjro) 8e avvaLwro Ka/xirvXa ro^a — .
P 85 Tov jxev aTraivv fJLCvov K\vrd revx^a, X 5®° X^^P'^'* "^^ alvvfjLevaL.
To these may be added : —
Hymn. Herm. 434 t6v 8' epo? cv (m^Oecra-Lv dp,rixo-vo^ alwro Ovjxov.
If then aTToaLWfjLaL has displaced in /x 419 &c. some less
ramiliar verb, it can hardly be any other than that which still
'holds its ground in : —
Hes. Op. 577 T^ws yap ipyoLO TpiTTjv aTra/Actpcrat atcrav — .
„ Theog, 801 civacTcs Sc ^ewv "d7rap,€ip€Tai.
Nor are we quite left to conjecture alone in this matter; for
Plato De Legibus vi. 777 actually quotes p 322-3 thus : —
rjfiLcrv yap t€ voov d7ra/x€tp€Tat ivpvoTra Zeus
dvhpiiiv ovs av hr] Kara SovXlov rj/xap eXrja-i.
Whatever we may think of the minor variants from our
received text, it is hardly to be supposed that Plato introduced
an entirely new verb into the passage, that is, one not generally,
or at least widely, recognized as belonging to it, cf. Athen. v. 264,
Eustath. 1766, 56.
And if dTrajxeLperaL is right in p 322, it is no extravagance to
propose dTra/xcipo/xat in N 262 and dTrap-dpiTo in our line and its
repetition.
fii 42^3 ^'^ ^^ ®' IcTTov dpa$€ TTOTL TpovLV avTop Itt avr<o
€7rtTOV09 ^efiXrjTo l3o6<s pivoio tctcv^w?.
The usual version, ' and (the wave) brake off the mast close
by the keel,' seems to me impossible. Firstly ttotI rpoTriv is not
the phrase to express the position of a fracture ; ttotI rpoira would
be required. Secondly the mast was not a fixture inserted into
the keel, but was lowered and raised as required. Now if the
mast were standing, we might accept readily enough the possi-
bility at least of snapping it off at the keel, as the end of the
mast might well be inserted into a hole in the keel made for the
purpose ; though I believe the idea of any such insertion is
2J9
J1422 ODYSSEY
derived solely from the misinterpretation of this very passage. The
fieo-oS/xr/ indeed seems to have been intended to dispense with the
necessity for such a hole. Moreover the existence of a hole
of this kind would have made it a very difidcult operation to
lower the mast, as it would have had to be lifted every time
clear of the hole, before it could be lowered at all.
However, we might here concede the supposed hole in the
keel without reservation, and yet manifestly, under the circum-
stances, as the mast fell twelve lines before (1. 410), struck the
pilot on the head, as he was steering in the stern, and killed him,
it could not now be snapped * at or near the keel '. How then
are the words to be understood ? What does happen to the
fallen mast ? I suggest the following : — ' the wave knocked the
mast off the ship, or what remained of the ship — there was not
much left of it — alongside the keel, so that it floated beside the
keel.' If this be so, we see at once, what was not obvious before,
why the apa^e of Aristarchus is right and the la^c of Zenodotus
necessarily wrong.
In ctt' avTw we have a strong instance of the usual later
unemphatic use of the pronoun. The reasonable solution of this
and similar examples should go far to enforce more generally the
conclusion arrived at in the Note on ^ 137 q. v. I suggest that
avTw here represents an original lorw, as also in € 254. Similarly
€K 8* la-Tov is admissible for the eK 8' avrov of fi 51, 162, 179.
Indeed in these passages the noun not having preceded may be
said to have considerable claims apart from any question of the
epic use of the pronoun.
In the use of tctcvxws as passive in sense and equivalent to
TCTvy/icVos we have a grammatical solecism, which only, or
perhaps not even, the direst necessity should induce us to
accept and condone. Of course there is first of all the surgical
remedy, the excision of a large passage as unworthy of Homer.
The removal of a small one would be of no avail, is indeed quite
impracticable. Kammer accordingly condemns 420-48. If
however we acquiesce in the genuineness of the line, as is only
reasonable, until we are convinced that it is part and parcel of
a spurious addition, we are under some obligation to account in
a fairly natural manner for any abnormal feature it exhibits.
In any case if we can do this successfully, we remove one of the
{
BOOK XII 11422
supports on which the adverse opinion rests. Van Herwerden
[has suggested as a possible original the ending : —
/?oos pivov veorevx^^i
and again the line is quoted by Athenaeus (xiv. 632) in this
form : —
€7rtTOVOS TCTttKUCTTO jSoOS T<f)L KTafM€VOLOf
There is however one obvious objection against putting faith in
either of these solutions. How could the vulgate possibly have
arisen from any such originals ? By what conceivable course of
development or disintegration ? It has also been suggested
that T€T€vx<^'s should be referred to rvyxo-vo), and not to tcv^w
; at all, a curiously lame evasion of the difficulty.
I am emboldened to present an idea which seems at any
rate better fitted to account for the rise of the traditional text.
My supposition is that originally the line stood thus : —
CTTtTOVos /Se/SXrjd , o /^oos pcvoio rirvKro.
It is not very far-fetched to assume that ^epX-qO* 6 or /SepXrjro
(written ck TrXi^povs) might be taken for ^e^Xrp-o, especially
j^as the later Greeks would not be over ready to recognize any
form of the masculine relative pronoun save 09. Once let
PefiXrjTo stand alone without o, and the necessity of altering
TCTVKTo becomes absolute. In this place the regular and fre-
quently occurring rcTvy/xcVos could not be accommodated.
There was therefore no resource except crediting Homer with
TCTcvxwg, of which, I venture to say, he was never guilty. No
doubt the Homeric text, as we have received it, contains other
absurdities equal in grossness to this particular specimen, and
it is, I fear, considered scientific to let one corruption prop up
another. The old saying, ^two blacks do not make one white,'
no longer holds good : for it seems quite legitimate to argue
that, when two blacks are placed side by side, both become
immaculate. I will make no further comment on the general
futility of this proceeding, but will forestall the production of
one concrete instance of an exactly similar misuse of a perf.
part. act. If we turn to one of the later books of the Odyssey,
we may read, I think in every text : —
p 5 1 9 detSr} SeSaojs tTPC* IficpoevTa ^poTotcrt.
1 may just note in passing that for ailBj) some editors have the
ill-supported variant, detSct ; but the special feature, to which
231
^ 422-K 28 ODYSSEY
I call attention here, is the participle SeSaw? usually Tery
tenderly treated as a genuine Homeric vagary for SeSayj/xivo^.
It is assuredly nothing of the kind. It is a mere blunder. Let
us restore the older form of the 3rd sing, subj., and give back
to Homer the long-lost but true reading : —
auhya-L Sacts cttc* Ifitpoevra ^porouri.
There will then be no need to apologize for the grammar, and
any one can appreciate the facility, with which CIAA6IC might
be misread into A6AA0C.
BOOK xm (4
V 28] avrap *08v(ra€vs
iroAAa Trpos rfeXiov Ke<^aA.-^v rpcTrc 7rafx<f>av6o)VTa
Swat €7r€tyo/x€vos* Srj yap fxeveaive veecrOai.
Though it is hardly matter for wonder that Nauck should
have suggested €7r€vxoix€vo<;, and Wansink ieXSo/juvos, instead of
cTTctyo/xcvos in 1. 30, still it is by no means easy to acquiesce in
either change. They are both a little too remote from the
tradition. At the same time the objections to SvvaL i-n-eiyofxevoi
are stronger than might at first sight be supposed. Let us
compare the other examples of cTrctyeo-^at followed by an in-
j&nitive : —
B 354 T(o fjiy Ti5 Trplv cTTCtyccr^o) ot/coi/Sc vUcrOai.
€ 399 v^X^ ^' ^'"'^'-yop'^vo's TToalv -fjireipov iTTL/SrjvaL.
Obviously these give no countenance to the recognized rendering
* eager that the sun should set ', * impatient for the setting,' but
support only the more simple and natural, though here impossible,
version * hastening to set \ The change of subject exhibited by
the infinitive goes rather beyond the usual Homeric licence,
because the infinitive is here attached not to the whole clause,
but to the participle only. See the instances given in Monro's
Homeric Grammar § 231 : of these A 340 eyyvs ta-av Trptx^vyciv,
*they were near for him to escape,' seems to come nearest in
point of harshness to the present instance. It is not really
quite so violent, for the expression is preceded by ov yap oi Tttttol
(i. e. ov hi ot) and the pronoun may logically be regarded as the
subject.
aaa
BOOK XIII 1^28
Moreover a further criticism may be made upon this phrase
/at i7r€Ly6fX€vo<s. The sense here necessarily assumed is not only
Imittedly harsh, as we have seen, but in reality and for another
;ason inadmissible. cTretyo/xcvo? with an infinitive, as the
examples quoted indicate, is not fairly represented by * eager'
id ' impatient '. In this collocation the word connotes not
lese feelings alone, but the vigorous action which is prompted
them. It might be rendered ' exerting himself ' or in common
irlance ' putting his shoulder to the wheel '. It is evident that
Odysseus could not by any personal exertion accelerate the chariot
:0f the sun.
Under these circumstances then some slight change may at
any rate be considered. I would alter one letter only and read ; —
SvvaL cTTctyd/xcvov
'hastening to his setting'. It may be objected that this is too
easy a correction. Why has it not been made before, and why
was the vulgate ever preferred? The two questions are practi-
cally identical and a satisfactory answer will go far to prove the
emendation. In the first place then probably because readers
and editors have somehow persuaded themselves that there is
a contrast intended between the epithet Tra/x^ai/dwvTa, * all-
radiant,' and the verb Bvvai, as if Odysseus began casting
impatient glances at the sun, as soon as, or even before, it had
attained its meridian height. Hence comes apparently Nauck's
unfortunate Srjv for 8rj in the next clause. Such a persuasion
is however quite gratuitous. It exaggerates the excusable
impatience of Odysseus and moreover betrays a somewhat in-
accurate observance of natural fact. Are we to suppose, forsooth,
that the sun's light would not be Tra/A^avdcov after midday ?
Let all possible emphasis be given to the Tra/t-, yet I venture
to say that the very reverse is a good deal nearer the truth ; for
the fiercer vertical rays of midday are rather less dazzling to
the eye than the horizontal, though really weaker, ones of
afternoon.
Dr. Wordsworth (Athens and Attica, p. 46) in reference to
the fact that the battle of Marathon was won towards evening,
dAA' o/xws or* aTTCCDO-a/xccr^a $vv ^cots Trpos kcnripav,
(Arist. Vesp. 1085)
has this comment, which strikingly confirms my position, * The
V 28-64 ODYSSEY
hour of the day . . . may have conduced much to the success
of the Athenians. The sun would then have streamed in full
dazzling radiance, so remarkable in the sunsets of Greece, on the
faces of their adversaries, and against it the conical tiara of the
Persians would have offered little protection.'
The second and chief cause of the corruption however must
have been the somewhat short-sighted notion that hrj yap
fi€veaiv€ vUcrOai is bound to refer solely to the two words that
begin the line, instead of to the whole preceding statement.
If this arbitrary limitation be admitted, then undoubtedly
cTretydjLtevov must be changed to eTrctyo/xcvos in spite of any
resultant harshness of construction for hvvau But what need
is there for the limitation ? In very truth none whatever, cf.
9 23-5' * For now he was anxious to return home ' is the reason
for the oft-repeated turning of his head to see the progress of the
declining sun. The true reading : —
8vvat iTTCLyofxevov
tells us that the sun was declining, and that the hero with
ordinary sound sense did not begin casting these anxious
glances until the sun (then more than ever 7ra/x<^avo(ov) was
unmistakably sloping quickly to the west.
So Cassian (Monast. Institut. x. 2) describing the weariness
of a monk's life writes : ' egreditur et ingreditur callem et solem
velut ad occasum tardius properantem crebrius intuetur.'
It appears that after all tTrciyo/xevov is the reading of at least
one MS., No. 5 in the Imperial Library, Vienna, v. La Roche,
Ilayman ad loc. This MS. was collated along with the other
Viennese MSS. by F. C. Alter in 1794. It was regarded as of
some importance by Heyne : but van Leeuwen (Mnemosyne 1889)
declares it is a mere copy of Palatinus 45, and more recently it
has been entirely ignored by Ludwich (1891) in his ajpparatus
criticus. La Roche (Proleg. ad Odyss.) is very severe upon
it (L) : — * vitiis cuiusvis generis est depravatus et nullius
pretii.* However he concludes his censure with the signi-
ficant words : — ' tamen hie quoque codex habet nonnulla,
quae ad emendandam Odysseam non sint inutilia.' I have
to thank it for raising my conjecture to the rank of a variant.
V 64 J Tio 8' a/jM KTipvKa Trpoict fJL€vo9 *AXkiv6olo
rfy€l<T$ai iirl v^a 6orjv Koi $Lva $aXa<T<rtj^'
924
BOOKXiri 1^64-107
^^K ^237 Sr/ TOT c/A ^vcoyov Kat dyaKXvrov iSofievrja
^Hr vijccro"' rjyiqaraa-Oai cs ''lAtov*
it is apparent that the true reading in both passages is rjyria-aa-B*
with elision of the diphthong. A tribrach in the second place
and an amphimacer in the third are alike impossible.
V 92] h-f] t6t€ y arpefxa^ evSe, XeXacfxevos 6(r(r hmrovO^L.
The otiose yc shows that the original was : —
hrj TO^' o y ttTpe/xas cvSc — . (Cf. y 2 70, a 268 Note.)
For a similar survival of yc after the pronoun has been lost, v.
^ 98 (Note). Of course a period, not a comma, should stand at
the end of 1. 91, and the passage becomes closely assimilated in
form to ;( 185 f. : —
Aacpreo) ^p(ao<:, o Kovpi^wv <f>ope€(rK€'
Srj TOT€ y i]8r] K€lto, pacfiol 8' iXikvvTo lfxdvT<j)v'
V 107] €V S' la-Tol XiOeoL 7r€pt/>nyK€€S, ei^Oa re vvfM<pai
tf>dpe v<f>aLvov(TLV aXtTr6p<j>vpa^ Bavfxa IhicrOaC
iv 8' vSar divdovra.
'AevaovTtt is the reading of the majority of the MSS. A
minority have the obviously impossible dewdovra, and a still smaller
minority aUvdovra. The word is supposed to mean 'ever-
flowing ' and to be a compound of aUi or aUv and vdovra.
Bekker and Nauck would read ate vdovra, but without the
slightest Homeric authority for the form ate. About the
Boeotian rjL or the Lesbian at the less said the better. To
introduce any such forms into Homer would simply be to exaggerate
what has been shown to be the common error of the later
Greeks themselves in dealing with the text.
But if neither aicvdovra nor devdovra can possibly be
correct, from what can these peculiar developments, these voces
nihili, have originated ? I suggest from a primitive : —
dvvdovra (i.e. dva-vaovTa)
* up-springing ', * bubbling- up '. It is some assistance and some
satisfaction to find that dwdovra is actually the reading of
Flor. Laur. xxxii. 4, a highly respectable authority. A motive
for corrupting dvvdovra into either of the forms mentioned may
be found in the desire to present vdovra, as ordinarily, with a
short rather than a long antepenultimate. Still epic usage
would fully justify the licence, if licence it be, cf. riydaa-Oe beside
V I07-I24 ODYSSEY
dyaao-^e; and in the limits of vana itself, though we have ^292
Kprqvy} vdci, ^ 1 97 <f>p€LaTa fxaKpa vaovatv with short a, yet
there is also : —
t 222 )((i)pLS 8' avO* epaat' vaov 8* opw dyyea iravra*
The Aristarchean vatov is perhaps needlessly read by most
editors in that passage. Its acceptance is however quite im-
material to the argument. Those who prefer the diphthong
may introdilce it here also, awaCovra : but it certainly seems
desirable to keep vaiw, habito, without any superfluous liability
to be confused with vao>, fluo.
Again, to the minds of the later Greeks aevdovra would
recommend itself because of their familiarity with dcVaos, which
may be found in many of their authors from Hesiod downwards,
but not, be it observed, in Homer.
I do not pretend to apply the remedy here advocated to the
Hesiodic instance of our participle ; —
Hes. Op. 552 OS T€ apv(ra-dfX€vo^ trorafiwv diro devaovruiv.
Possibly the true epithet there is harqivrinv. But the passage
in which this line stands is not only a mass of meaningless
corruption in the tradition, but no attempted reconstruction has
so far produced even a tolerable result. It would suffice to
suppose that the participle was borrowed from our line after the
encroachment of the traditional impossibility.
. In 1. 108 the original can hardly have run, as we now have
it:—
^dp^ v<f>aLtvov(TLV dXvjroptjivpa.
The third foot is defective. As to the idea, fostered by a few
easily remediable instances, that oAs retained in Homer its
primal sibilant, surely it is untenable in face of such combina-
tions as ^apa &iv oAds, €^' dAos, Xet/Atui/cs dXos, &c., particularly so,
I should think, in a compound like this, a form moreover that
actually has an elision before it in the only other passages where
it appears, ^ 53 and 306 ^XaKara o-t/cmo^wo-* aki7r6p<f>vpa.
I would suggest that we have here a modernization of some-
thing like <f>dpea Xi<f>$* v<f>dovcr' (v^owcr'), cf. rj 1 05 at 8' urrovs
v<f>6io(ru Doubtless the vulgate deiies convincing emendation,
but that cannot, and ought not to, protect it from due anim-
adversion.
¥ 124] For Sr)X.T^<raiTo read <f>rj\T^airOf v. 443 if. (Note).
226
BOOK XIII V128
V 128] Ztv TTttTcp, ovK€r iytx) ye /xer' d^avaroto-t Oeoicn
Tifwycts ea-ofiXLL, ore /i.€ ftporol ov tl tlovo-l,
^aCrjKes, tol Trip tol ifxrj^ 1^ ctcrt y€ve^A.>;s.
Here the gross hiatus, for so I must take leave to call it, in
the third foot of 1. 129, may be taken to show that there has been
an error of transliteration — a deliberate error it may be, invited
and justified in the eyes of the transgressors by the too archaic
form of the original text; but it is quite possible and probable
that an accidental lipography started the corruption. This might
easily be the case if the original stood thus : —
Nothing could be easier than for OMOC to fall out between
€CCOMAI and the following OTB, and then the expansion of
TifjLTJ? into Tt/ATJeis follows of necessity. The loss of the adverb
with €lfXL would moreover be sustained without regret as an out-
of-date expression contrary to the later idiom.
As a matter of fact, however, the exact expression thus
restored is found extant in I 605, though many editors perversely
refuse to recognize it : —
ovk46* 6/Atos TLfirjs eo-cat ttoXc/aov xcp oA-oAkw.
Here rt/x^? is the reading of all the MSS. and of Aristarchus
himself : yet an epical ly impossible Ttjurys for rt/x-^cts is accepted
by some, and La Roche actually takes ti/x^s itself as a contraction
of that adjective.
Now the adverb with ci/xi, not with Ixcu as in later times,
was the only true epic phrase, e.g. H 424, I 551, A 762, 838,
S 333, A. 336, &c., and the genitive is exactly the same as in the
well-known idiom ws . . . rts cwotas 17 fivnj/xr]^ Ixot (Thuc. i. 22),
KaXw^ t-^uv T^9 fxiOrjs (Hdt. V. 2o), ttCjs c^ct TrXrjOov? cTrto-KOTrei
(Plat. Gorg. 451 c), ttov cot rvxns ecTTrjKiv; (Soph. Ai. 102), ttoj?
dywi/os ^KOfxev ; (Eur. El. 75^)? "^^^ tv)(7]^ yap wS' !;(<»> (Hel.
857), being in all probability locatival as in ttov y^s, cf.
8639.
There is nothing whatever in the construction of I 605, so
explained, that can reasonably be regarded as impossible in
Homeric Greek, and therefore I cannot agree with those critics
who say or think that rt/x^s can hardly be taken as a genitive
there. The true and most effective rendering is, * No longer wilt
Q 2 227
V I28-I63 ODYSSEY
thou be in a like position in respect of honour/ and similarly in
our passage Poseidon says : —
ovKCT iyu) ye fX€T aOavdroLa-t Ocolctl
TLfxrjs €<r<ro/x' 6/Atos
' No longer shall I be on a like footing in point of honour among
the immortal gods '.
V 141 J ov Tt (/ dri/xa^ovcrt Oeor
Such is the assurance given by Zeus : but the present tense
is quite inadmissible. Poseidon's fears are for the future. The
mortals, the Phaeacians, have already put an affront upon him.
If he tamely submits to it and allows them to go unpunished,
then — and in that case only — he will lose caste among his fellow
immortals. Therefore read : —
dTifi-qcova-L
or, as is probably more correct in point of form, aTL/jida-a-ova-L.
*' 155J OTTTTOTC K€v St] TrdvT€S kXavvofJLorqv TrpotSoyvTai
Perhaps 81J has ousted rrjv here. The pronoun certainly
seems a desideratum, cf. 1. 163 6s fiLv Xdav iOrjKc — .
V 163] Kttt ippL^(i)(Tev evepOe
;(€ipt KarairprjvcL iXdaas'
For the dative singular here I would substitute the plural,
which seems to have been lost, despite the resultant injury to
the metre, mainly because there was no apparent necessity for
the god to use both hands. The restoration will stand thus : —
^(cpcrl KaraTrprjvi<r(T IKaxras.
But the expression may, I think, repay a little further examina-
tion. The plural, we may see, is preserved in this phrase a few
lines further on : —
V 198 o) TTCTrXryycTO /xr/pw
X€/3(rt KaTaTrprfV€(T(Tj
as also in O 114, 398, where the whole clause is repeated. In
these three places, however, the plural was not in serious danger,
for it is well-nigh a physical impossibility to perform the action
described with one hand only. Experto sibi quisque credat.
We have one more instance of the plural : —
T 467 Tr)v yprjvs xeCpea-crL KaTairp-qvicrcn Xa.jSovo'a,
where the metre is just as efficient a protection.
It now remains to look at the other passages, in which the
, singular appears. I find two only : —
aa8
BOOK XIII •^163-168
n 791 ^
crrrj S' OTTiOev, ttXtJ^cv Se /Jicra^pevov cvpec T* utfxta
X^f-P^ KaTaTrpr]veL, (rrpefjieSLvrjOiv Se ol oa-ae.
Hymn. Apoll. 333
;(ei/3t KaTa7rpr]V€L 8 IXacrc ;;^^oi/a Kat <^aTO fivOov.
[n the latter passage 8* occupies an impossible position, and the
>lural x^po-t KaTaTrprjvecrcT with asyndeton is perhaps preferable : but
ret p for cttcit' (332) leaves no difficulty. We may compare ; —
I 568 TToWa 8e /cat yaiav TroXv^op/Jryv x^po-ti/ dAota.
The case of 11 792 is still more interesting. There it is
noteworthy that our phrase is immediately followed by a
formidable formation a-rpecfieBLvqOev, the first and last appear-
ance, as may be imagined, of that remarkable verb. On this
unique monstrosity I base the restoration of the plural in this
passage also : —
XC/30-t KaraTT prjv€(TcrLV, IhivqOev 8e ot ocrcrc,
'and his eyes rolled wildly.^ It is as if Patroclus had been
smitten with sudden epilepsy, one well-known feature of which
is the twitching and rolling of the eyes. The concocter of
<TTp€(f>€SLV7]0€v doubtlcss thought to intensify the agony, and has
perhaps not been altogether unsuccessful, if we are to regard,
not the hero's, but the hearer's feelings.
There is not the slightest difficulty in the use of the
plural in any of these passages, though we can easily imagine
the would-be improvers of Homer suggesting with profound
but mistaken piety that in the case of Apollo (H 792) and
of Poseidon (v 164) the power of the god would be much more
marked if the effect were produced by the stroke of one hand
only. That consideration in itself would be enough : but if
any additional motive for the displacement of the plural be
desired, it may be found, so far as two out of our three passages
are concerned, in the later disinclination to elide the t of the
dat. except under absolute compulsion. See remarks on c 328 ft",
and X 460. In 8 137 y ye irocriv kiriea-a is probably right.
V 168] (5 fJioi, Tts 8^ vrja Oorjv 67re8ry<r' ivl ttoi/to)
otKttS' iXavvofxivrjv ; koX Srj irpoxx^aivero Tracra.
* Ah me ! who is this that hath bound our swift ship on the
deep as she drave homewards ? Even now she was clear in sight.'
(Butcher and Lang.)
229
V i68 ODYSSEY
The Phaeacian who made this remark was with his country-
men at the harbour watching the approach of the ship that was
now returning home after conveying Odysseus to Ithaca. Sud-
denly Poseidon smote the ship and turned it into a stone or rock
rooted to the sea-bottom (11. 163-4). We have to remember,
however, that these Phaeacian spectators did not exactly know
what had happened. We are certain of this from the next
line : —
u)S apa Tt5 etTTCOTKc* to, 8* ov Icrav co? ctctukto.
Now unfortunately the speech in question has been tampered
with by some one who of course did know what had occurred, as
given in 1. 163 : —
OS iiiv Xaav l^ry/cc koX ippC^wa-ey evepOe^
He knew, what no one of the gazing crowd could possibly be
aware of from the evidence of his eyes, that the ship was turned
into stone and immovably fixed to the bottom of the sea. The
Phaeacian knew nothing of this, but only that the ship was
one moment fully in sight. He and every one else could see all
that ever can be seen of a vessel afloat,
KOI Srj '7rpo€cf>aLV€TO Tracra.
The last word is important. Then in a moment the ship almost
disappears, altogether disappears if you like ; but total disap-
pearance is not necessarily implied as may be shown.
What could any one say at such a sudden catastrophe ?
Would any one be likely to say * Who has bound the ship fast ? '
The circumstances of the case absolutely preclude the possibility
of such a comment. The striking fact was that the ship had
become in an instant almost invisible. What then did the
Phaeacian really say ? What could he say before it was ascer-
tained that the ship was bound fast ? I suggest the following,
changing two letters only : —
(5 iioLy Tis 8^ \rqa Bo7]v vTTiBva €vt TTOVTO) — ;
' Who hath sunk the ship to the water's edge ? '
There is a little difficulty in expressing this occurrence
concisely in English. We have no verb which expresses the
I>eculiar form of sinking to which the light Greek ships were
subject. They did not as a matter of fact sink at all. They
simply became water-logged and floated with the waves wash-
ing over them, until they finally broke up (cf. Note on ^ 233).
330
BOOK XIII
V 168-213
I
Dr. Monro in his edition has a pretty illustration (p. 19) of the
Old Harbour of Corfu, showing a small island, which certainly
strongly suggests a half-submerged Yessel and might easily be
mistaken for one if the buildings and the trees were removed.
It is really a most apt illustration of this legend of the
Phaeacian ship, to which indeed it may easily have given
rise. Let the reader judge for himself.
As to the suggested viriSvcrc, although this transitive aorist is
not elsewhere to be found in Homer, (we have the mid. vttcSuo-cto
8 425.—
w? elirova vtto ttovtov iSva-ero KVfJiatvovTa)
it can hardly be doubted that vTriSvcre vrja would be a legitimate
and intelligible expression in epic Greek and, we might almost
say, at any period of the language. It is enough to have the
warrant, so far as it goes, of Herodotus, who has vrja KareSvae
more than once (viii. 87, 88, 90).
This KariSva-e might indeed here be accepted as the reading
except for the need for a form, which could without much
dislocation become the l-n-ih-qcr of our tradition.
V 208]| ^T} TTcas fjioi eXiop oXXoktl yivrp-ai.
1 suggest /AT/ jxoL TL as in 1. 229 : —
j^^aipe T€ KOi fXT^ fXOL TL KUKO) VOW OLVTl/SoXl^CraL^.
V 213] Z€v<s (r<f>€a<s ricraLTo ikctt^o-ios, o? t€ kol aAAovs —
Such is the accepted presentation of this line, certainly not a
331
V 213-234 ODYSSEY
favourable specimen of the Homeric metre. The objectionable
feature is the third foot, presumably, but by courtesy only and not
by right, a dactyl.
As far as the evidence of MSS. is concerned, for (r<f>€a^, which
no one adopts, there is absolute unanimity; for Tto-atro there
are PH post correcturam M Schol. i man. : for rto-at^' FDUL
post correcturam H'^ Et. Flor. Lastly Tto-atro is attributed to
Aristarchus, Tia-da-Ow or Tia-acrOai to Zenodotus.
The corrections hitherto suggested are Zcvs crcfida<s rCa-aiff
Barnes, Bekker'^ : Zevs 8e or<^€as ridaiff Cobet, v. Misc. Crit.
p. 331 ff., where the optative, as opposed to the imperative, is
conclusively shown to be essential here. Cobet's emendation
is in my opinion undoubtedly the better of the two ; but the
assumed correspondence of 8c rather than dAAa to the Latin
At in imprecations (At te dii deaeque perduint, &c., &c.) seems
questionable.
I venture to propose as a more likely original : —
Zevs arcf)ea<s iKTia-aiO*.
The earliest writing would be ad plenum Zcvs (r(f)eas Ikti-
o-atTo, of which one syllable must of course disappear. Is it
not more reasonable to suppose that the almost otiose pre-
position has been eliminated, than that a particle 8c has been
removed from before cr</)cas and left no trace in our tradition?
For the omission of a prep. cf. note on A. 584 ad fin., where
the hiatus in B 590, it 24, N 356, v it2 has been dealt with
on the principle here applied. 5<^€as is of course frequently
used without synizesis, e. g. tt 475 Kat (r</)cas uiicrOrjv tovs
c/x/xcvai.
Before quitting the passage I should like to suggest a better
emendation of: —
215 dAA' dye hr) to, xpy/xar dpt^/x^o-w Kat t8a)/xai, —
than Fick's wild reconstruction dAA' dy dpiOfirja-di ra xp^ftara 178c
ISwfiaL. I would read : —
dAA.' dye Srj rdSe )(pi^fxaT dpiOfirja-io re t8oo n.
Xp does not necessarily lengthen a preceding short vowel, only
indeed in arsis, and for the end of the verse as restored surely no
defence is needed.
V 234] rJ€ TtS aKTTI
Kcid' dAl k€k\lix€vtj €pt)8(oXaKOS rpriipoLO'y
233
BOOK XIII 1/234-242
^■etriment to the meaning, if KCKXt/Aeviys were read instead of
KiKXifievr]. The nom. may be due to the influence of a line in
the Hymn to Apollo, 24 : —
OLKTai T cts aXa KCAcAt/xtVat At/tcVcs re OaXd(rcrr]<;.
A further question is suggested by this line. Should kclO* oXl
be €ts oXa ?
There certainly seems to be a touch of modern heightening in
the picturesque direction in this verb. The Terb is not required
here any more than in the opening clause : —
rj TTOv TLS vrj(TWiV cvSct'eXos — J
V 2423 rf Toi fxev Tpr])(€ia kol ovx tTTTn^Aaro? icrriVj
ovSe Xltjv XvTrprj, arap ovS' evpeia. rervKrai.
For ov8' in 1. 243 it is only fair to say most of the MSS. have
ovK. Two MSS. and Aristarchus are responsible for ovS\ which
indeed neither Aristarchus nor any one else would haye intro-
duced here out of his own head. No editor prints the easier ovk,
and so the yulgate alone need be considered here. I belieye
the error of the tradition is in the preceding word drap, and
will state at once what I hold to be the true reading of the
line : —
ovSk XiYjv Xvirpy] t6(tov, ovB* ev/aeta rirvKrai.
Now the necessity for the rejection of the yulgate does not
depend upon the question of the yalidity of hiatus licitus. It
is not my primary intention to select deliberately 6vixo^6pov
epcSos fxevei as examples of erroneous readings in our accepted
text instances of mere hiatus licitus, yet I find it neither possible
nor desirable out of deference to a mistaken and misleading
theory which happens to be in yogue to leave untouched such
a passage as the one here giyen. If we disregard the hiatus
then altogether, it is still pretty clear that drap ovBe is here
impossible. There is no conceiyable, or at any rate no admis-
sible, rendering of these words other than *biit not eyen'. Now
if any one is satisfied with such a sentence as * neither is it
a very poor island, but it is not even wide ', because forsooth the
tradition or Aristarchus has it so, he will of course champion the
cause of the yulgate. But doubtless there will be others who are
a little more exacting.
333
V 242-246 ODYSSEY
Another consideration telling against drap ovhi is that it only
occurs once again in Homer : —
E 485 Tvviq 8 tcTTr^Ka'i, drap ov8* aXXoia-L KcXcvcts.
Even there although the sense *but not even' is quite appro-
priate, yet the line is doubtful, and Homeric usage gives strong
warrant (v. Journ. Phil. xxiv. p. 275 f.) for my proposed correc-
tion : —
TvvT) 8* €(rrr}Ka<; cKag, ovS* aXkoLCTL KcXcvcts.
As in that case the appeal was made to Homer himself so
the restoration here is immediately derived from the poet's own
words elsewhere : —
o 405 ov Tt TrcptTrXrjOris \crjv Tocrov, dAA. dyaOrj /acv,
The expression there though verbally different is very similar
in type to our line (v 243) and like it occurs in the description of an
island, conf. remarks on Hymn. Herm. 199 (Note on ^ 273 ff. ad fin.).
The idiomatic combination Xirjv roa-ov may also be found : —
8 371 VTp-tos cts, w ielvc, Xltjv Toaov rjSe ^aXti^pwv — ;
and the use of t6<tov may be further illustrated by that of toIov
with adjectives and adverbs, ^246 (tv/x/3ov), dAA' l-miiKia rotov,
y 321 cs TTcAayo? /xcya rotov, \ I35> 'A ^^^^ (^avaros) d^XrjXpos fidXa
TOtos (L Totov), o 451 KcpSaXiov 8r] roloVy a 209 Oa/xa TOtov, 8 77^j
7/30 (TLyy TOLovy V 302 arapSdviov fidXa tolov. Compare also the
adjoining (v 238) ovSe tl Xi-qv \ ovto) vww/MOi icmv.
It is worth remarking that Xltjv roa-ov where the words are
together has escaped interference ; but here, where they stand
separated by the interposed AvTrprj, t6<tov has failed to maintain
itself. The inference is that proximity of parts is the best safe-
guard of an entirely obsolete formula, while conversely the integrity
of but a slight deviation from a familiar turn of expression is
better secured by moderate distance. Compare bow t6v fiev has
fared in c 266 (Note).
V 2463 alyL^oTO<s 8* dyaOr] koL fiovjSoTO^' toTL pxv vXrj
TravTOLrj, iv 8' dpSfiol lirqiTavoX Trapeacrt.
Here again we have a hiatus similar to the one in 1. 235,
except that for it no one claims privilege.
If, however, we restore the Homeric idiom, the line need suffer
from no hiatus. Let us simply read : —
lari fi(v vXrj<;
'jravTotrj^ — .
»34
I
BOOK XIII 1/246-262
Compare k 159 ck vofiov vX-q^ *from his woodland pasture'. The
island is certainly not a wood ; but it is possessed of all sorts of
forest trees, which is precisely what the genitiye would express.
Compare Monro, H. G. § 147.
V 2623 owcKtt fX€ CTTepiaraL rrj^ XrjtSo^ yjOcXe iraa-qq
Tpoitd8o<ij r^s eivcK* cyw TrdOov oAyea ^tf/xw — .
^T6/3€o-a6 for a-T€prj(raL is rather a startling form, especially as
its chief support is to be sought from the Anthology (11. 124 and
9. 174). It comes doubtless from Orph. Arg. 1330, where it
might well be allowed to remain untroubled. It has no shadow
of claim to belong to the old Epic. It stands alone and un-
supported in this passage, in which it never would have appeared
at all in all probability save for the desire to eliminate something
too archaic for toleration. This I suggest was Fprja-at or as it
would appear after the transliteration prjaai (v. Note on a 403).
In the archaic writing it would be PGCAI. Clearly the line : —
ovviKo. jxc prjoraL rrjs \r}LSo<s ■^dcXe TracrT/s
is in many degrees better than what the tradition has conveyed,
while the deviation therefrom merely amounts to the omission of
three letters ore- as I have shown.
Unfortunately, however improved, the line cannot even so be
considered satisfactory, ttjs XtjlSo^ exhibits the later article, for
the explanation that fxe rrjs = ifxrjq is hardly likely to gain
acceptance, and another very doubtful point is the genitive
itself, for which the accusative would seem to be required by
Homeric usage.
Furthermore in 1. 263 the epithet TptutaSos is questionable.
The word is only to be found in the Iliad : three times as a sub-
stantive (2 122, X 514, O 215), and again three times with
yvvatKas (I 139, 281, 11 831). Generally 'Trojan' is expressed
by TpoiLKos or Tpwos.
With so many doubtful points the lines cannot for a moment
be accepted in their present form as archaic, yet as they are
necessary to the story we cannot take the rough and ready
method of excising a paragraph. The inference I would draw
is this, a very important and far-reaching one, that hardly any
amount of later forms would of itself be sufficient to justify the
rejection of a passage. As to this passage itself, it has evidently
been tampered with to such an extent that no convincing restora-
335
V 262-359 ODYSSEY
tion could possibly be offered. Solely then as an unsupported
speculation I proceed to submit a couplet which might ha^e
stood here: —
owcKct /AC prjcraL Tp<arj<s eOeX ^jmlo-v iracrrj^
ArytSos, lys ev€K avroO' cyo) 7rd6ov aXyea Ovfiio — .
* For that he wished to take from me half of the Trojan booty, for
the sake of which I endured on the spot sufferings of soul.'
This it will be observed makes the proposal of Orsilochus
a little more reasonable, and more likely to be entertained by the
authorities when brought forward. A reviser of the poem on
the other hand might be disposed rather to increase the justifica-
tion Odysseus had for his prompt and severe retaliation.
y 283] ol 8k -^fprjixaT ifxu yXacf>vprjs Ik viyos cAoktcs — .
Read ol Se KrrjfMiT, v. Note on 352.
V 305] ojiraa-av otAcaS' lovtl ifxrj ftovXy tc vow tc.
Here I suggest otKaS' Iovt coTraxra-av. The mere transposition
of the otKttS' (ioTrao-crav which suffices for 1. 121 (Nauck) is not
a complete remedy here.
y 327] TavT dyop€V€jx€vai, iv* ifw.<s <f>piva.'s y7r€po7r€V(rr)^ — .
This may easily have derived from : —
ravT dyop€V€fjL€v, at kcv i/xas <f>p€vas — .
as the placing of the comma is the main alteration involved.
V 344] dXX dye tol Set-to *I^aKrys eSos, 6<f>pa 7r€7roL$rj^.
'I^aKT/s is clearly not here in place. It has probably super-
seded yat7/s or v7](Tov, not without metrical detriment.
V 359] o-^ x^^ ^^ 7rp6(f>po)V fx€ Alos Ovydryjp dyeXelrf
avTOV T€ ^(i>€LV Kcu jJLOL cfyCXov vlov di^.
The corruption of the text in this passage, though it has not
obscured the meaning, is of moment because it conveys a mis-
leading idea of Homeric usage jn more than one respect. The
first point, and for accurate scholarship perhaps the most im-
portant, is the illegitimate position of the enclitic pronoun /xc in
the first line. The best defence for the tradition, as I judge,
would be this. We might urge that there is a certain emphasis
on the verb id which makes the trajection permissible, while
again the closeness of the connexion of irpoK^pviv with l^ gives
the two words a unity that allows them to be treated as one
and indivisible. See Note on a 37. If there were no other
peculiar features about the vulgate, I think this defence might
336
BOOK XIII 1.359
I
^■ivail, at any rate so far as to render the acceptance of any emenda-
^Hlon very improbable.
^F We come now to the second point, the use of Trpo^poiv as
a feminine adjective. It is true none of the later Greeks w^ould
have thought of the form as in any special degree masculine rather
than feminine ; yet we shall find quite enough reason to believe
that in the epic period the case was different. In Homer we have
a peculiar feminine of pretty frequent occurrence, irpo^paa-a-a : —
K 290 Trp6<fipaxTcra irapicrrq'S.
^ 5®0 Trpof^pcuara-a ficr aOavaTOuri BeoiarLV —
€ 161 fj,aXa 7rp6<f)pa(T(T aTroTrifJuf/Q).
K 386 aW €t Br] Trpofppaa-aa iruZv —
V 391 7rp6cf>pa(rcr hrapr^ous.
It may be noted in passing that Trp6(f>p(ov as masculine is found
in twenty places at least (A 77, 150, 543; 23, 175; I 480;
H 71,357; P 353; ^647; ^230,387; €8; ^498; t355; ^54,
406; T 398; V 372; ij/ 314). The same form as feminine only
here and apparently in two other places : —
€ 143 avrdp ol Trpo^pfnv VTro6ri<TO p^ai —
It would be easy to alter this to Trpot^paa-cr v-n-oOrjcrofxai, bringing
it into conformity with the usage that follows a few lines further
on, 6 161, already quoted : but the fact is 11. 143—4 are probably
spurious, as has already been suspected. The other instance : —
K 244 ov TTcpi fxkv Trpocfipwv KpaSir) kol 0vp,6<s ayrjvoip —
is really no exception at all, KpaBir) kol Ovfxos being a combination
as familiar as ttoScs kol yowara, and amenable to the same treat-
ment : —
O 269 o)? "Ektwp \anf/r)pa TroSas koX yovvar evuifxa
X 24. Cf. O 344 where also, as Dr. Leaf says, the two nouns
' form a single idea \
It appears then that trpof^paiv as a feminine form is of doubt-
£;' ful validity, for Homer.
The testimony of the Hymns which are called Homeric may
be noticed. We have : —
Hymn. Dem. 140 7rp6<f>p(DV, ola yvvaLKos a<f>rjXiKO^ €pya TervKTai-
„ ,, 226 TratSa 8c rot irpof^pwv VTroBeiofxai, —
7rp6cf>pa(r(r is metrically admissible in both examples. In Hymn.
XXX. 1 8 Trp6cf>pQ)v 8' di/T loSrjs no one would dream of making a
237
1. 359 ODYSSEY
correction; but even in the same Hymn it is transparently obvious
that 1. 7
6 S* oXjStOS, OV K€ (TV OvfX^
7rp6<f>poiV TLfxrjcrrjS,
said of Gaea, should be 7rpo</)povt ri^-qa-q^, that is if 40 and X 184
be not entirely forgotten.
But however matters stand with the Hymns, in our passage
of Homer (v 359) the substitution of irpoffipaa-a-a for 7rp6(f>p(tiv fxi
would be by no means improbable, apart from all question as to
the position of the pronoun. No other inference can be drawn
from the facts.
To pass now to the third and final point to be examined in
connexion with the couplet we are discussing, in avrov re ^wciv
the T€ being followed by kol should mean both ; but this can only
be so, if the verb that comes after the kol be coordinate with
^(u€tv, which unfortunately is not the case here either in sense or
grammar. This difficulty has been felt of old, and accordingly
some of the MSS. give de^etv, which restores the grammatical
balance, but makes utter wreck of the sense. The modern in-
clination is rather to let grammatical exactness go by the board
and to take refuge in some kind of anacoluthon. * Riickkehr
zum verbum finitum' (Ameis-Hentze). The fact of the matter
is that if there were no tc after avrov, the subjunctive is so natural
that no editor would ever dream of noting it as a * Riickkehr ' ;-
the Kttt would simply unite ca and its belongings to de^ and
its belongings. The remark really implies that a€$rj is for ai^tw,
a disastrous and quite fatal consequence, which the presence of tc
necessitates.
Having now seen that there is good cause for mistrust of the
traditional reading, we may be more ready to consider a sugges-
tion whereby all these difficulties may be removed. Accordingly
I submit the following as a restoration of the original : —
at K idy Trpo^paxra-a Aios Ovydrrjp dyeXcirf
avTov C/X6 ^w€LV Kai fiot (fjikov vlov ai€$r).
This reading has been in part at least anticipated by the sugges-
tions of others ; ax k€ fx ia Trp6<f>pacr(ra was proposed by F. Schnorr
V. Carolsfeld and at *c* idy 7rp6<j>p(i)v fi€ is read by van Leeuwen
and da Costa. The responsibility for the removal of t€ and the
substitution of i/ii I take upon my own shoulders.
238
BOOK Xm •'359-378
I
IS that it came naturally enough from the association of tt 388
where it stands with unexceptional fitness ; —
dXXa jSoXicrOe
avTov T€ ^wctv KOL ^X^'^ TTaTpwia TrdvTa.
Afterwards the temptation to find room for the ousted pronoun
by changing the obsolete Trpo^pao-o-a into the familiar TrpocfifHov
would hardly be seriously resisted in spite of, or rather because of,
the deep reverential respect for Homer prevalent in classical times
wherever the Greek language was spoken and understood.
V 378] fxytsifxevoL avTLOerjv aXo)(OV kol cSva StSovre?*
The line is also read A 117, and yet the double occurrence
cannot induce me to abandon my suspicions as to its authenticity
in its present shape.
The contracted form /xvw/xcvot for fjLvao/xevoi is doubtless
legitimate. The usage of fxvdo/jiat gives it sufficient counte-
nance. At the same time there are several passages in which
the uncontracted forms ought to be, and frequently are, restored
by editors, e. g. |^ 91 fxvdecrO', <f> 326 fivdovr, tt 431 /^vacat. There
is no other instance of the participle in Homer, but in Hymn. Apoll.
209 /AI/WO/A6VOS (e coniectura) is read, and as all the oblique cases
of the plural would have to be of this form for admission into
the hexameter at all, the tendency would be rather towards the
adoption of the uncontracted form in the nom. case also.
Primarily, however, suspicion falls upon the adjective dvriOir^v,
and for the annexed reason : dyri^cos, although anything but
a rare word, is nowhere else applied to Penelope, nor indeed to
any woman either in the Iliad or in the Odyssey. This can
hardly be an accident.
Accordingly I hazard the conjecture, not palaeographically
a violent one, that the original was in both passages : —
fivcjio/JievoL T€ Tcrjv oi\o)(ov KOL cSva StSoVTCS*
The gravamen of the charge against the island-princes really rests
upon the pronoun. ISm StSovrcs implies no offence in itself : it
is a transgression, if it be dAoxw : it is an exasperating personal
insult as well, if it be refj aX6x<^.
Similarly in v 336 TrptV ye tl {y crt) tnjs aXoxov Tretpi^a-icu — . I
would recall this form of the pronoun of the second person ;
TrptV ye re^s a\6xpv — .
339
y 379-405 ODYSSEY
V 379] "7 Sc <Tov ai€t v6(TT0v oSvpofionrj Kara Ovfibv — .
* Ever lamenting thy return ' is the natural meaning of the
words ; but as this totally misrepresents the feelings of Penelope,
we have to force the phrase either into * tearfully desiring thy
return ' or * lamenting thy non-return '. The corruption is I
believe in oSvpofxivrj, which has effected a lodgement here, because
lamentation is so much the normal state of Penelope. I suggest ]
as the true reading : — /'.
rj Sk crov alel v6(ttov oLOfxivrj Kara Ovfiov — .
V 386] dXX' ay€ /XTJTiv v^ryvov, ottw? airoTLcrofiaL avrovs*
For avTovs read avSpas, cf. p 540 yStas airoTia-eraL dvhpCiV,
V 3893 ^'' '^^ h''^'' ^5 fiefxavla TrapaoTatT^s, yXav/cwTri,
Kttt K€ TpirjKoa-LOia-LV eywv avSpea-a-L p,axoip.yjv
(Tvv <TOL, TTOTva Ocdj OTC fiOL 7rp6cf>pa(T(T iiraprjyoL';.
Rejecting 1. 391 with Bekker, as an adaptation from K 290,
I would write the two lines thus : —
at K€ fiOL, w yXavKWTTt, irapaa-Trjrj^ /xe/xavta,
Kttt K€ TpirjKoo'LOLcnv iyuiv dvhpecrari fxa^oifx-qv.
Compare a 287 ct /tcv k^v — d/covcn;?, ^ kc — rAaoy?. Cf. ^ 218 f.
X 104—5 aA,\' In /MCI/ /c€ — LKOL(T$€, oX K iOiky^s-
Also X I lO-I I = /u, 137 f. ^ 556 ff. ci 8' av — eao-o) — <l>€vy(o,
— av dTrov^oLjxrjv. P 38 ff. ^ k€ — yevot/xryi/, ct Kiv — ftdko). Cf.
12 653, where c^ctTriy and ycViyrat should be read, as I have else-
where urged.
V 405D ^5 ''"^^ ^^*' i7rLovpo<Sj O/AWS 8c TOt -^TTta otSc,
TratSa t€ (tov ^tXcct Kat €)(icf>pova TLrjveXoircLav.
The difficulty of 6fiu>s in o/xws 8c rot ^Tria ot8c is very great,
and the explanations conflicting. It is quite impossible to agree
with Ameis that it means * equally with the swine \ He feels as
much attachment to you as he does to his charges. Very forced
too is the explanation which makes it refer to Telemachus and
Penelope, who are mentioned in the next line. And in o 39,
where the line stands by itself, this view cannot be applied.
Dr. Monro takes o/aws rot together to express agreement, while
Tjirta expresses friendship, both together making up the complex
notion of sympathy. This is very ingenious indeed, but hardly
Homeric. Others have recourse to emendation, and we have o/aw?
8' try Bergk, but the noun is Firrjs ; and vtos w? Lentz, which
seems unmetrical.
240
Ife
BOOK XIV K 405-1 12
My suggestion is that the difficulty arises from the omission
of €Tt, and that we should write : —
o/x(os ert t -^Trta oioe.
Suppose this appeared without elision : —
6/Aws 8e CTt Tot ^TTta ot8e.
Obviously the preservation of rot without elision would involve
the sacrifice of cti. With In it becomes fairly clear that o/aws
refers to time and that the ellipse is tw Trapos, * the same as
before.' On the other hand, without the indication given by crt,
we can hardly be surprised that o/xws has created the difficulty
which the passage suffers from.
There is one other passage in which o/aws is used in
this sense 'the same as before', *as he did previously' (from
Lemnos) : —
^62 -^ ap* o/xws KOL KecOey iXevcreraL,
where, however, there is little possibility of its being misunder-
stood.
BOOK XIV (i).
I 12] TO fiiXav Spvbs afiKfyiKedcra-a^.
There are two versions, (i) chopping round, i.e. dressing, the
heart of the oak, (2) cutting away the bark from the oak. The
former is more suitable to the words, but does not represent
a very likely method of making palisades. But it is less
necessary to consider this, because the expression to jxiXav Spvos
is obviously not Homeric. The tradition is derived from the
Aeschylean fragment : —
Kpe/xdcrao-a to^ov ttltvo^ Ik fxeXavhpvov.
Whatever fxcXavSpvov may have meant, it is impossible to deny its
connexion with the expression before us, and yet it is incon-
ceivable that Aeschylus had in view to fieXav Spvos, for clearly
ficXavSpvov in his phrase has nothing whatever to do with hpvos,
* oak.' And if Aeschylus did not borrow from Homer, the
only conclusion possible is that the present Homeric reading is
a far-fetched and indeed irrational adaptation from his fjLcXavSpvov,
which lends itself very easily to the purpose, but only if we take
it by itself and entirely forget its combination with the word
TTLTVOS.
AGAR B 241
5 i2-n7 ODYSSEY
Assuming then that the vulgate is hopeless and untenable,
can we form any probable conjecture to restore it ? It seems to
me that the curious to [xeXxiv (the heart of oak is not black
at all, though very old oak may become so on the surface)
may well have come from fxekivov (v. p 339). If so, Spvos is utterly
wrong, and I would replace it by ivkov — neither 8ptos (-ov) nor 86pv
seem satisfactory — thus reaching : —
* dressing timber of ash \ which at any rate affords a definite and
intelligible sense.
i 15] TrevT^Kovra crv€<s ;j(a/xatcuj/a8€9 lp\aT6<jiVTO
We have xa/Aatcvmt in 11 235. The special form of the
adjective to suit the gender is in itself suspicious, and in view of
the fact that Upyto, not c/Dyoo, is Homeric (v. Note on ^ 411), we
may safely read here : —
Xa/>uxi€wat iepxarooiVTO.
Cf. ev^eraofLai, vatcrao).
I ig] — t,aTp€(f)€<DV (TidXiov Tov apLOTOv diravTWV
Read os dpiaTo<Si as also 11. 108, 414. Similarly for ol vim.
(1. 61) ot vcoi.
I 36] TrvKvfjcrLV Xt^aSccro-tv 6 8k irpoa-iinrev avaicTa*
Here a little word has been lost, because the elision of -t was
not relished (v. v 164). I entertain no doubt whatever that we
should read : —
TTVKvrja-Lv XiOdSiO-a' 6 Be ov TrpocrcctTrc dvaicra' V. Note on v 33.
^41] V. Note on i 151.
I 70] Kol yap K€tvos €^rj * Aya/xe/xvovo^ €LV€Ka rifirj^ — .
Perhaps cySatv' rather than lySr;, if we may judge from
r 311:—
av 8* dp* ijSaiv avT09 Kara 8* i^vta T€LV€V oirLO'a'ta.
and the use of the imperf. in A 437. There are but two other
instances of ifSrjy firj with the long quantity of r} before an open
vowel in the Odyssey, o 547 and <^ 51. Both may be removed by
writing l/Jatv*, Paiv. Compare also )8 416, y 12.
i 112] V. Note on a 268.
i 117] <^^9 8* avTov ^Oia-OaL *Aya/A€/xvovo? civcKa Tt/1.^5
Read tji-q^ 8' avrov pXv <^Bi<r6* *Aya/A€/x.vovo9 — .
This use of p.iv needs no illustration from Homer. It is familiar
to every reader. For elision v. Note on ^522.
243
I
BOOK XIV 1 122-135
I 122^ u) yipov, ov Tts KiLVOV dvr]p aXaXrJixevo'i ikOuiV
dyyeXXwv iretacte ywatKct re xat tfiCXov vlov'
Here van Herwerden's ov kIv tis tov is nearly satisfactory :
but ov TL<s K€v TOV secDis bcttcr because it is palaeographically
closer to the tradition. As ov tis may be regarded as practically
one word, no serious objection can be taken to the order. Cf. os
Tts K€ (y 355).
Van Leeuwen and da Costa's ct tis kuvov, ' ut sit optantis
exclamatio/ cannot be considered probable.
I 1263 OS Se K aX'qTvoiav ^lOdKrj<s is SrjfJiov LK-qrai,
iXOoyv is SeaTTOLvav ijxrjv aTraTt^XLa jSd^it'
17 8* 6v Se^aixivrj (fyiXieL kol eKaara /xcTaAAa,
Kttt ol oSvpofxivy (3Xe<f)dpo}V airo SaKpva TrtTTTCt,
y Oi/xis ia-rl yvvaiKos, cttci ttoo-is oAAo^* oXrjrai.
Of these five lines two in my opinion should be removed as
later accretions. The first is 1. 128, which is wholly detrimental
to the picture. The good reception and kind treatment might
be tolerated, though it comes a little too soon perhaps ; but
the critical questioning is not to be attributed to the lady.
She hears the false tales with emotion that finds relief in
tears, not in questions ; that would upset the whole romance.
The second is 1. 130, the very model of an interpolation.
t begins even more successfully than 1. 128. *H Oe/xis ioTL
^aiKos is a very veracious piece of moralizing ; but having got
so far the interpolator was * gravelled for lack of matter ', and
gave himself away by adding iirel ttoo-ls aXXoO^ oXrjrai. He
forgot that the very essence of the tramps' tales was necessarily
to the effect that the missing husband was not dead but
still alive. No tramp could possibly be so blind to his own
interest in the matter of reward as not to bear this in
mind.
OS Se K oiXrjTevoJV 'lOaKrjs is 8rJiJX)v LKrjTaif
iXOwv is SeoTTOtvav i/JLrjv aTraTTjXui ySa^ci,
Kttt ot oSvpofiivTf ^Xecfydpwv diro SdKpva TrtTTTet.
Here we have the graphic truth undiluted with rhapsodical
amplification, /cat ot v. Monro on 1. 112.
^ 135] V ^o*' 7 ^ TToi/TU) ^dyov ixOv€s, ocrria S' avrov
/cetTttt CTT* rjireipov if/afjiddio elXvfxiva TroXXy.
What is avTov at the end of 1. 135? * Of him'? Surely
B 2 343
1 135-151 ODYSSEY
not, after t6v yc Or is it 'there'? Hardly I submit. The
bones cannot yery well be ' in the deep ', kv irovno, if they are
iTT rpreipov. May we not restore the obsolete but epic avrws here,
as in O 413 (KCirat) — avrooscv KXta-Lrja-f v 281 dAA* avTws aTrojSajTC?
iKeifieOa — . 3 338 KeicreaL avrcos, and read ; —
17c Tov iv 7r6vr(a (f>dyov l)(Ove^j ocrria 8* avrois — .
Cf. o) 291 7]i TToB^ iv TTOVTO) <f>(iyov i)(Ov€S.
I 142^ ovSc w Twv €TL r6(T(Tov oSvpofxaL, ie/xevo5 Trep
6<l>6aX]xo2(ri iSiarOaL cwv iv TrarptSt yatry*
aWd jx ^OSvcraryjos ttoOos atvvrat ol^^ojxivoio.
The difficulty in the first line is that the MSS. are almost
unanimous for d^vv/Atvos, which will scan, while the editors are
almost all for te/xevos, which will not. On the other hand U'/xcvo?
gives 1. 143 a satisfactory construction, which d^vvftcvos fails
to do.
I think I have found the solution of this crux, and propose
to read the lines thus, with one word only (ecov) altered : —
ovhi w Twv crt Toaa-ov oSvpofxat, d^(yvjx€v6s Trep'
aXXd fx 'OSvo-or^os ttoOos alvvraL olxofxevoLO
6^0aXp.oicn ISia-Oai ey iv irarpi^L yaiy.
The last line is added in true Homeric fashion, and is defensible
enough as an explanation of the tto^os 'OSvo-o^os, * that I should
see him with mine eyes in his own native land.' Yet there is
enough in it to awaken doubts in the mind of the grammatical
stickler, and it really seems not such a bad stroke to shift its
position and by merely altering i^ to enhance the filial affection
of Eumaeus in a surprising manner.
I 151] oXX! iyo) ovK avTtos fivOi^a-oiMU, oAAa avv 6pK(o,
o)? v€€Tat '08v(r€vs.
By all means let us replace the unmetrical ws vecrai *08vo-€vs
by the more idiomatic and — except for the omission of #c€
which might easily be lost — palaeographically identical ex-
pression : —
0>5 K€ virjT *08v<r€vs.
Metrical suitability is not by any means the sole or main
recommendation of this reading. It reinstates a phrase that
would naturally, ay, almost inevitably, fall from the lips of
an epic poet in this connexion, as indeed may be seen
from: —
344
BOOK XIV I151-163
a 85 6<f>pa rdxiOTa
vvfxfjiri evTrXo/ca/AO) ctTn; vrjfJLipria ^ovXtjv,
vocTTOv Ohv(T(Trjo<s ToXaoTLcfipovo^, tits K€ virjTaL.
205 <f>pdcr(reTaL w? kc verp-ai, CTret 7roXv/Aiy;(avds ianv.
From these and similar passages it may fairly be doubted
^whether the common doctrine that k€ with subjunctive states
fact with less positiveness and emphasis than the future
^indicative is altogether to be relied upon.
I find in this same book, and it may as well be noticed
it once, another instance of hiatus as bad as the above, or even
rorse : —
41 rjjJLai, dX\oi(TLV 8c arvas o-toAovs driToAAoj
\J would suggest as a probable remedy, certainly a tolerable
one : —
rjfji (1)0
*I sit as I am', or as Aristarchus would have it, — not quite
accurately though, except in such expressions as the present
^one, ' here I sit.'
Not very dissimilar is the case of : —
E 684 TlpiafiLSr], p.rj hrj /xe tXwp Aavaoio'iv id<Ty9
K€Lcr6ai, aXX k-rrdpjvvov'
tt have long been of opinion that we have here a result of the
^disinclination to recognize frankly an ordinary epic elision,
rand that the true presentation should be : —
KCLo-O* o)8\ aXX' i-n-d/xwov' Ho lie here. ^
^We may compare the contrasted expression ^ 184 Kcia ovrws,
Lie thou there.' wSe is just as appropriate in the mouth of
the wounded Sarpedon as ovrias is to the victorious Achilles.
C 163] Koi TtVcrat os Tts cAceiVov
ivOdS* aTi/xa^ct aiko)(ov koL <^at8t/>tov vlov.
Undoubtedly dTLfxd^y is required here by both grammatical
usage and the laws of metre. Hermann (Op. iv. 40), reading
K€v for Tts, says : ' hie aut drLfid^rj scribendum aut, servato indica-
tivo, 09 Tt9, quod alii libri habent.' But os T19, which is read
in nearly every MS., should certainly be followed by the subj.
Compare v 335 : —
yrjjjiacrO' os tls dpicrros dvrjp kol TrXctarTa TroprjaiVj
a 352, € 448, 210, fjL 41, V 214, ^ 106, o 401, o- 336, with many
others both in the Odyssey and the Iliad. In the few cases where
245
i 163-193 ODYSSEY
the indicative occurs rightly after os ns a particular individual is
more or less plainly indicated, e.g. E 175.
i 171] oAA' ^ TOL opKov fX€V idao/xev, avTap 'OSixrorus
ekOoL OTTws fJLLV tyw y lOiXm kcu IlTyvcXoTrcta
Aaiprrjs 6 6 yipoiv koX TrjXefxa^os OeoeiS-qs.
Fick and Kirchhoff reject from 1. 171 to 1. 184 ; but the case
against the whole passage should not be prejudiced by these three
lines which seem to be certainly spurious. The opening words
are borrowed, with but one alteration that ruins the metre, from
1. 183. Moreover the oath has already been taken, 11. 158-9.
The rest is leather and prunella. Lastly €\6ol ottws idiXw is at
least questionable Greek. Yet Seeck and others, who reject
11. 174-84, will not have these lines questioned. * Sed ipsi poetae
hos deberi iure statuisse videtur Seeck ' (van L. and da C.) I
I 178] ' (jipivas tvhov etcras — .
Read Ivhov covoras (v. Note on X 338 ad fin.). Without this
qualification here <^peVas following 8€/>tas koX etSos (177) would
naturally be taken in its purely physical sense.
I 1933 *"/ f"^ *'^^ vwiv hrX )^6vov rf/jLiv eSwS^
rjBe jxiOv yXvK€p6v KXto-tiy? evrocrOev covert,
BaiwcrOaL oIkcovt', oAAot 8* €7rt tpiyov Ittoicv*
Odysseus here proposes in the form of a wish, that Eumaeus
and himself should stay indoors for a time and take food and
wine, while the others attend to the work outside. There is a
noticeable metrical dif&culty in 1. 195, the hiatus in halwa-OaL
oLKiovT, and as usual it is accompanied by a commensurate failure
in the sense.
The intention of Odysseus is that he and his entertainer
should have an opportunity of conversing quietly without being
incommoded by the presence of witnesses. Accordingly we find
that the two words just quoted are rendered *to feast or dine
quietly ', * in quiet ' (Butcher and Lang), * ruhig ungestort '
(Ameis-Hentze). Unfortunately, I fear, this is not the true
sense of aKtovre. It is merely a loose and inaccurate rendering
designed to suit the special case. The real meaning is ' in
silence \ ' holding our tongues ', the very reverse of what
Odysseus should have said. Previously indeed (v. i no) he
had been content to feast * in silence ' and play the part of a
listener: now he intends to be the speaker. Such being the
346
I
BOOK XIV 1 193
case, aKiovre might conceivably be taken as an instance of his
notorious artfulness, /cAcTrTocrvvry, if only there had been any
occasion for its exercise. Artfulness unmotived is merely down-
right fatuity masquerading under a more specious title.
But is it quite certain that aK^tov means ' without speaking' ?
Well, perhaps we cannot rely strictly on the derivation from a
priv. and ;j(atVw ^ to open the mouth ' : for if that were insisted
on too rigidly, the hero and his host would get no dinner at all.
The usage of Homer, however, is explicit enough, and cannot
well be disregarded. Not every passage need be quoted at
length. The following will perhaps suffice : —
A 34 ^rj 8' aKcwv Trapa &Lva TroXvcfyXotar^oio 6aXd<r<rr]^.
Clearly Chryses refrains from speech until he reaches a safe
distance. So A 5 1 2 dAA.' dxeW Srjv ^oto. No less definite are : —
K 85 (fiOeyyeo /xrjS' aKcwv ctt' lyw,' €p)(€o.
A 22 (:= © 459) dK€<i}v riv ovSe n (trri.
(Leg. ix\v oLKriv Journ. Phil. xxiv. p. 274.)
t 427 Tovs dK€(kv (Tvveepyov ivcrrp€<f>€ea(TL XvyoLcri,
V 385 dAA* OLKitav Trarepa TrpoaeSepKiTO.
The other passages in which the word occurs are k 52, ^ iio,
p 465, 491, V 184, <f> 89 (?), A 565, 569, X 142.
One passage remains and is of importance, because the
intrusion of aKeovr in our line i 195 is probably due to its
influence : —
^310 'AvTtVo*, ov TTws eo-Tiv VTr€p<f>LdXoi(ri pLiO^ vpuv
Sacwa-OaL t aKcovra Kat €v<j>paiv€(r6aL cktjXov.
The latter line, if I may add another to the proposed restora-
tions, would be more correctly read thus : —
Saiwa-OaL r aKeovT €v<f)paLV€<T6aL re €Kr]Xov.
But the pressing question is the sense in which dKcovra is to
be taken. Of course if it here means no more than cKrjXovj
there would be an end of the matter ; but I submit the true
meaning is there as elsewhere * in silence ', i. e. * without pro-
testing aloud against your conduct \ In fact Telemachus
proceeds with his protest at once 11. 312-17. The only reason-
able conclusion is that dK€<oi/ rt Trpdrroi means * I do something
without uttering a word \ not, * I do something without hearing
a word.' This latter is indeed absolutely refuted by ^ no q. v.
But where are we to seek a plausible remedy for the
247
1 193-202 ODYSSEY
Saiwa-OaL aKeovr of ^ 195, which now appears to be little
better than nonsense ? Possibly in the very passage from which
the corruption, as I suggest, has been derived, thus : —
SaiwcO* CVK77X0V5, oAAot 8' cTTt efyyov cTrotev*
The incompatibility of aKeovre being admitted, there could hardly
be a more appropriate term than cvkt^Xovs (or cvktjXoi^, for the
distinction between the dat. and the ace. is probably later than
Homer) or one better avouched by usage in this connexion. In
proof of this I would appeal to : —
E 805 halwa-Bai fxiv dvcoyc' ivl fxcydpourL €/o;Xov*
^289 ovK dyaTras, o eicrjXos v7r€p<l>LaXoLcn fieO* rfjuv
haiw<TaL ;
/M, 301 oAAa tKiqXoi
icrOuTe jSpiofJbTjV Cf. ^167.
p 478 6(t6€ eKTjXos, i^lve, KaOrj/xevo^.
I 202^ €/Ae 8* wvrjrrj T€K€ fJLtfJTrjp
TToXXaKLS, aXXd jxe Taov Waiyeveeara-LV irLfxa
KctCTTwp 'YXaKiSrjs.
The reading of the Codex Palat. 45 (Heidelberg) la-a must,
with the exception of the accent, be the true reading : —
To-* Waiyeveecra-LV.
That WaLyevrjs or t^aycv^Js should have the first syllable short
is beyond all probability. Unless indeed one should roundly
and hardily declare that t^vs, Wvw, lOvvo), t^vTrrtW, all of which
in innumerable instances invariably have the i long, must be
referred to a different root and so have nothing to do with the
case, there is no escape from the conclusion that the vulgate is
erroneous.
But error is seldom solitary in the Homeric poems. KaKov
KaKw io-TqpiKTai, One instance generally hath a fellow to keep it
in countenance. So here we have to deal with the testimony of
the supposed respectable friend, who comes forward to bear out
the knave's credit. Here he is : —
n 586 Kttt p lySaXc ^OeviXaoVf *l6aifx€ve(yi <f>LXov vlov.
Now is this evidence of serious weight ? There are divers con-
siderations to be set in the opposite scale. The order of the
words, I should suggest, may have been tampered with, the
original having stood thus : —
Kou p lySoAcv <f>iXov vV *lOaifUv€OSy "XOevtXaov.
348
BOOK XIV I 202-222
Cf. E 682-3. Others may prefer to write ^OeveXeoiv on the
analogy of 'AycAcw?, x ^3^^ 247, where, however, 'AycAao? Unrc
is probable, and certainly possible. Some may regard ^OeveXaov,
which is a aTra^ Xeyo/Aevov, as the corruption of some now irre-
coYerable name. Fick is contented with '^OeveXov and a halting
metre. But whicheyer of these alternatives be favoured, the
known quantity of I0v<s cannot be disregarded, and on this
argument the case for To-' may safely rest.
^ 2143 aAX' tfnr7j<5 KakafXT^v yc cr oLOfxat cla-opowvra
yiyvcoo-K€iv* rj yap /xc Svr} l^ct ■^XiBa ttoXXt).
It is doubtful whether epic usage would allow the enclitic
pronoun ere to occupy the position in which it stands here.
Nauck proposed to read o-c for ye o-' with hiatus licitus. I suggest
rather : —
aXX' €fX7rrj? KaXd/xrjv cri y ot'o/xat ilaopowvTa.
Again in 1. 215, instead of e^ei, * holdeth,' not only the metre, but
the sense, imperatively requires (rxeOcv, * has held.'
^ 222JI I^OV 84 fJLOl ov <f>LXov <La-K€v
ovS" olK(ii(f)€XLri, rj T€ T/0€^et ctyAaa rcKva, —
It is quite impossible to agree with Knight and Fick in their
condemnation of 1. 223 as an interpolation. "Epyov, 'field-work,'
is not all that is required here. In fact there is no real incom-
patibility between field-work and warfare, as may be seen from
o- 366-86. The work that Odysseus here pretends to have a
distaste for is rather the steady routine of accumulating wealth,
of increasing his tilled lands and his flocks and herds. To
express this ot/cox^eXtry is clearly essential, and if it can be brought
into such connexion with epyov as will serve to make known the
particular nature of the 'work' here intended, so much the
better. Accordingly I would read : —
Ipyov Se fxoL ov (filXov tcTKCv
ov OtKOJC^cXtT;?,
while for the repetition of the negative reference may be made to
y 27:—
ov yap 6l(o
ov 0-6 OeQiv aiKrjTL yevicrOaL re rpacf)€fJL€v re.
and Dr. Merry's note ad loc, though for my own part I take
it that the emphasis there is on the pronoun, and ov o-e should be
read.
249
1 235-337 ODYSSEY
i 235] aXk* ore Srj rrjv yc arvyeprjv 68ov evpvoira Zcvs
€<f>pa(raO , ^ TToAAtuv dvSptuv vtto yovvar lAvo-c, —
Here nearly all the MSS. offer r^vSt. All the later editors
adopt TTJv y€, which is quite without parallel in Homer, and
merely accepted here, because ttJvSc has not been explained.
I venture to submit that r-^vSe admits of a satisfactory explana-
tion and should not be abandoned. In the mouth of Odysseus,
who cannot forget that for himself at least the end of the Trojan
expedition was not yet reached, TrjvSe is not inappropriate. It
contains a touch of self-betrayal which ought not to be lightly
rejected, certainly not to make way for an ill-attested reading
with a very disputable sense.
^ 245] avrap cTrctTa
AtyvTTTovSe fxe ^v/xos dvwyit vavriW^a-Oai, —
In all probability we should divide the letters at the begin-
ning of 1. 246 thus :—
AtyVTTTOvS' Cfl€ dvfXO'S .
This suggestion, I find, is also made by Dr. Monro, H. G. § 365.
7 q. V. Compare also Note on ^ 222 ad. fin.
I 292]] evOa Trap avrw /jLtlva r€X.€(T<j>6pov cis iviaxrrov.
dAA' ore 8ri /xrjv€^ t€ kol rjixipai l^inXevvTO —
Read irapaX TO) and cKTcAeorro.
i 295] €S AijSvrjv fji €7rt vrjos liarcraro TrovroiropoLO
The form ceWaro is almost certainly a blunder for ifftea-a-aTo,
caused by trying to remove the repetition of the preposition. So
Rhianus : itfaCa-aTo Zenodotus.
I 31S] ouOpoi KOL KafxoLTio SiS/xrjfxivov rjyev is olkov
Here and in p 84 Nauck would read ^yc 8o/xo»/8€. In both
cases €to-ay€ oiKov seems far more likely to have been the original.
Nauck is probably right in condemning 1. 319.
^ 337] Totcrtv h\ KaKrj <j>p€(rL avSavc fiovXr)
dfJL(f}' ifxoLf 6<f)p* en 7rdy)(y 8vr)<s Ittl Trrjfxa ycvot/tiyv.
Evidently the words of the final clause have sustained some
corruption. The above is the reading of the MSS. and Arist-
archus. To Aristophanes is attributed Svy tin injfxa yivrp-aL.
No doubt this last with the needful amelioration of yeVoiro for
ycjoTTtti— there would still be a little difficulty with Trayxv —
affords a tolerable sense, which is more than can be said of the
350
I
BOOK XIV I 337
vulgate. Still no one would believe for a moment, in face ot
the evidence, that the phrase patronized by Aristophanes can be
the original from which the peculiar reading of the MSS. has been
evolved. It is on the contrary merely the readiest simplification
of the unintelligible tradition.
Of course the thick-and-thin adherents of tradition and
tradition only may rejoin, ' Oh, we can translate it : it means " in
miseram calamitatem inciderem",' and indeed it is fairly obvious
that the required sense is practically, as the excellent version of
Messrs. Butcher and Lang has it, 'that even yet I might reach
the extremity of sorrow.' The scholion BH, ActTrct rj ii, tv fj
CK Trj<s 8vr]s cTTt /SXdjSrjv eXOoLjjn, is deservedly scouted. But
where is the warrant for rendering iTnyiyvo/xaL Tnjfia, I meet
with trouble? There is certainly none in Homer, and later
usage, which would give Trrjfxd tlvl eViytyvcTai, is no more favour-
able than epic itself. In fact, unless some one will undertake
to maintain that Homer practised an ultra-Virgilian freedom
in transposing ordinary expressions for the sake of variety, no
defence of the phrase cTrtytyvo/xat Tnjfjia is possible. If such
defence be adventured, ' the eftest way ' to deal with the advocate
would be to give him, with all Horatian urbanity, the appropriate
recommendation ' naviget Anticyram ',
I have dwelt upon the condition of the vulgate because it
is full of warning not only for those who cling blindly to
tradition, but also for those who at the occurrence of the least
difficulty promptly scent an interpolation. In every case, before
excision is resorted to, it ought to be tolerably certain that the
tradition has not failed in some particular from one or other of
the numerous causes which have frequently operated to impair the
primitive text. In short the possibility of a corruption has a prior
claim to consideration, and should never be left out of account
when we are inclined to athetize. Nor even, if our attempts to
effect a reasonable restoration are inadequate and unsatisfactory,
does it necessarily follow that the text, being a mere accretion,
the work of an inferior mind, is sound and requires none. The
corruption may be, possibly it is here, of such a character that
a convincing emendation is unattainable.
Now here van Herwerden has proposed an emendation : —
Svya-LV TTTjfJiaLVOLfxrjv
251
1 337 ODYSSEY
with the variation : —
6cf>p* apa irdyxv Bvya In Trrj/JMLVOtfiriv,
There is, however, something very unsatisfactory in the way im is
here dealt with, either by (i) absolute removal, or (2) substitution
of Irt, which then has to be cut out after o(f>pa and replaced
by apa.
It has occurred to me, and it seems worth suggesting as a
step in the right direction, that Sv>;s iirl injfw. may have arisen
from : —
* to step into trouble ', a somewhat rare, but quite sufficiently
attested form of expression in the Homeric poems. We may refer
to B 234 KaKwv e7rty8ao-K€ft€V vla<s 'A;!(at(ji>v, X 4^4 avatSctrys liri^-qcraVy
if/ ^2 iv<f>po(rvvr]s tTri ftrjrov, © 285 ev/cAcnys iirL^-qcrov.
The concluding word presents some difficulty. It must
evidently be a verb in the first pers. sing, of the middle voice,
and the one that would best meet the requirements of the clause
is apoLfirjv 'to win for myself, v. Note on 8 106-7. ayoifi-qvy
though more nearly reproducing the ductus litterarum, does not
satisfy the sense. There is, however, a very fair sense in the re-
construction suggested, while the ironical turn not being of
universal appreciation might easily lead to the substitution of
the vulgate, which has a superficial air of intelligibility.
I propose then :
o<f>p' In Trayxv Sviys hn^ripicv apoip^yjv
*in order that I might still be completely successful in getting
into trouble \ * might yet fully succeed in landing in misery.'
That the irony is Homeric may be seen from : —
H 1 30 /xiy TTov Tts €<^' iX/ce't 2A.KOS oiprjTaL.
That the infinitive may take the place of a noun in the ace. needs
no proof.
As an alternative some might be disposed to take refuge
in the possible solution which a common usage of .8v>y suggests
{^- o- 53, 81) and to read ; —
6<f>p €Ti 'Trdyxy Svrj dpry/icVo? ctrjv,
which at least gives a plain and intelligible sense, though how or
why this should have been transformed into the vulgate, is not
easy to see.
35a
I
BOOK XIV I 342-363
I 342] dfxtfn 8e fJLOL paKos oAAo KaKov /SaXov -qSk ;)(tTO)va,
poyyaXia, to, kol avros ev 6(f>0a\fMOL(TLV oprjac
The latter of these two lines is one of the five worthies, which
in the Odyssey lend support to the idea of an original -a as the
ending of the neuter plural. Rhianus in this instance shows
a better appreciation of the requirements of metre than Arist-
archus himself by reading pwyaXeov : but it is only too plain that
in the main the line is a later accretion, perhaps of Dorian origin,
as we may judge from the concluding word oprjai, for this and not
oprjaL is the reading of almost all the MSS. (FGPXDULWZ
Ludwich). As far as pwyoAea the words are from v 434 : —
a/xcfn 8c /JLLV paKos dXXo KaKov /3dX.€v rjSe ;j(tT(uva,
Hl^ ptuyotXca, pviroiavTO, KaK(o /JLefiopvy/Jiiva kottv^'
where no trick is played with the -a of pwyaXea.
In 1. 342 Ludwich is clearly right in reading fi€ for the
vulgate /Aoi.
^ 35^] CTTCtTa Be X^P^'- Birfpea-a d/xcfyoTiprja-L
vr))(o/x€Vos, fxaXa 8' w/ca ^vp-qO^ ea dfjL(f>li cKCtvtov.
Voss, who was free from the hiatus licitus idea, suggested
OvpaOev r, and Bothe OvpaO* tov in the second line.
Dr. Monro thinks the a of ta long (H. G. § 12 ad. fin.) : but
the evidence is, I am afraid, insufficient to warrant the conclusion.
I venture to offer a suggestion about ea here, which may
solve the difficulty, for there is a metrical difficulty, in another
way. My conjecture is that vccu, *I swim,* was possessed of an
aorist Ivca, cf. ;(€w, c^ca, and that ea is merely the faulty trans-
mission of vea, or, if preferred, cvca, 'I swam.' The word, as we
have it, appears without elision, but has been docked of its initial
V by way of compensation. Accordingly I would read ; —
fxdXa 8' wKtt OvprjOi ve d/A<^ts CKetVwv
or maintaining the augment : —
6vpr]6* €ve* djxtfHS iKCLvmv.
In spite of the preceding vrjxofieyos the verb here suggested
gives more force to the clause, and perhaps is really required, if
u)Ka means not so much ' soon ' as ' quickly '.
' And very quickly I swam ashore out of their reach.'
I 3633 ttAAa Ttt y ov Kara Kocrfxov oiofxai, ovSi fxe TrctVcts
ctTTcbv dficf> ^OBva-rji'
In this sentence Ludwich places a comma after olo/jml, Monro
?53
1 363-402 ODYSSEY
a comma both before and after that word. Ameis-Hentze add
another after TretVcis. Punctuation alone, however, cannot produce
a satisfactory result here. It is elirwv that is the stumbling-block.
We should probably restore : —
dAAa Ttt y' ov Kara KocTfiov oCofiai, ovBe //,€ ^curets,
€t7r€/i,cv dix(f> *08vcnJL'
with a further probability that rd y represents ac y\ cf. ^214.
^ 375I o-AA* ol fjikv TOL €K(WTa TraprjfxevoL c^cpcovo-iv, —
378 dXX' ifxol ov cfyCkov ccrrt ixeraW^craL kol IpicrOan
It is obvious that SXXoi and not dXk* ol is the only possible
reading here. Cf. A 636 aAAos fjnv and ^ 319 aXXo? fxiv 6\
especially the last where the MSS. are altogether in favour of
dAA' OS. See Note on /x 16. Perhaps instead of ixiv pa cKacrra we
should read here : —
oAAot fieV T€ €Ka(TTa —
in view of ^ 319, and certainly for eiepiova-iv the more regular
i^epeovraL.
The use of the act. form is admissible only in the participle.
§ 3S4] '^^'' <^tiT* i\€V(re(rOaL rj cs $€po<s -^ is OTTOiprjv,
The condition of the third foot indicates some defect in the
tradition. Read : —
Kol <f>dT iXevarea-O* avrov rj i<s 6ipo<s i) C9 OTrwprjv
TToXXd ^^jOTy/xttT* dyovra a-vv di/Tt^€ots krdpoicri.
The words avv avrtOioLs erdpoLCTL imply the presence of the pronoun
of necessity * that he would come in person '. For 1. 385 v. p. 133.
I 3S9] dXXa Ata ^€VLOv SctVa? avrov t iXeaipoiV.
Here we may safely venture to remove the v of avrov and
restore a long-lost s,
avTos T* cXcatjptov
* and because I pity thee without any such inducements *, * freely,*
'sponte.' The usage hardly needs illustration.
i 4023 ^€tv , ovToy ydp kcV fioL ev/cActr; t dpcinj T€
etrj lir* dvOpoiirovs dfxa r avrUa koX /ACTCTrcira,
OS or* iTTii is KXicTL-qv dyoyov koI ^etVta Sw/ca,
avTis 8c KTiLvaifii <\>iXov r diro Ov/xov iXoifirfV
Trpo^pwv K€v hri iireira Ata KpoviWa Xiroip.'qv.
The true reading of 1. 404 can hardly be that given above os
<T — KT€tVai/Ai. For the general use of the relative followed by the
pure optative in the Homeric poems v. Monro, H. G. § 304-5.
364
I
BOOK XrV I 402
It is only the conditional use with which we are now concerned.
Of this I will take two ordinary instances by way of illus-
tration : —
8 222 o^ TO Karaftpo^eLeVy 67r€i Kpr)TrjpL /Atyco;,
ov K€v €<f>rjfxepL6g ye /SaXoL Kara haKpv Trapeitov.
(v. Note ad. loc.)
I 125 ov K€v akrjio^ clrj avqp w rocTcra yevovro.
It will be seen at once that in these conditional clauses (i) os=
ct Ti's and <S=€t tlvl. In fact in every instance of a conditional
relative, except in the example we are considering, the person is
indefinite, and being indefinite, as it must be, the relative cannot
be in any other person than the third. Hence I infer we are
bound to read here : —
€t (T, cTret es kXlo-ltjv ayayov koX ^ctvta SwKa^
avTt? Be KT€LvaifJiL <^iXov r aTro OvpJov iXoLfxrjv
In the next line Duentaer proposed the change of avris to
avTos; to this there are serious objections. It is the actions that
are contrasted, not the persons. Not only so, but avros ' by mine
own hand ' is exactly what Odysseus had not contemplated in his
proposal. He said specifically and definitely * set the thralls upon
me^ 1. 399 SfjLioas eTrtcro-cvas. There is also perhaps a further
reason for leaving avrts unmolested. In later Greek we have the
well-known idiomatic usage of the participle followed by a finite
verb introduced by ctra, e. g.
Eur. Andr. 756 ft^ vvv <f>vy6vT€^ eiO aXwfiev va-repov.
Now etra is not Homeric : but here just as i-n-el — 8a>Ka corre-
sponds to cf)vy6vT€9, so avTts Se may be regarded, I think, as the
equivalent of etra, and if so, is indispensable to the clause.
In line 406 7rpo<^p<ov kcv 8rj hreira Atia Kpovticova XiToifirjVf
a variant of some interest is given by a few MSS. (XD post
correcturam H 2 man.)
KpOVLOiv' dXLTOLfJI,r}V.
This reading has been adopted by Cauer as well as by van Leeuwen
and da Costa, and therefore deserves remark.
There are two objections fatal I think to its acceptance.
First, it involves for Trpocfypoiv the meaning of ' deliberately ' or,
as the lawyers have it, *of malice prepense.' This I say
advisedly is far more than can be justified by the usage of
7rp6(f>p(ji)v, Trp6cf>paa-ara and 7r/oo<^pov€(os. The literal sense is
255
i402-4n ODYSSEY
' heartily ^ * with all one's heart/ and * sincerely ', ' honestly,' or,
if the action involved be of the nature of a favour, 'kindly/
Secondly, the tone of pleasant irony -which is assumed at the
beginning of the speech 1. 402 cvkXcit/ t apcn^ re is naturally and
properly continued, 'After that I should be very ready to — ,'
until the first subject or topic is dropped and a new one intro-
duced by (1. 407) VVV 8* toprj SopTTOLO.
^ 411] Tas /xkv apa €p$av Kara ^Oea KOLfirjOrjvaty
KXayyT] 8' ao-Trcros wpro trvcov avAt^o/xcvatov.
That €p$av should be able unassisted to make position for the
last syllable of apa is a doctrine resting on a very slender basis,
and might very well be abandoned, if any other more acceptable
account of the quantity here given to the first syllable of the
second foot were forthcoming.
To this end let us begin by considering the form ep^av. Is
it Homeric ? It seems to me very doubtful, and for this reason :
the form cpyw is not epic but late, the only genuine Homeric
form of the present being ccpyo). This conclusion some may be
inclined to contest ; but it appears to result inevitably from the
facts.
The evidence for Upyu) is as follows: Upyei 3 sing. pres.
occurs B 617, 845, I 404, N 706, X 121, O 544 : kipyova-w X 503 :
Upyoiv M 201, 219: UpyofxevoL N 525 : icpyrj A 131. All these
forms except the last, where no MS. presents, and no editor has
gone out of his way to suggest, l/oyy, are absolutely protected by
the metre.
The case for cpyw (etpyw) rests on the present passage and
two others : —
(l) ^ 72 TTJXi fie €Lpyov(Ti «/a;;(at, ctSwXa Ka/xorrtuv,
where Bentley and others are certainly right in reading TrjXe /a'
iepyova-L.
(2) P57l^ "^T^ fat ipyofiivrj pAXa irep xpoos dvSpo/Acoto.
Again Bentley 's rj Kal Upyop.ivq is not to be resisted, v. Journ.
Phil. XXV. p. 44.
The imperfect is always Upyov\ but no certain inference
can be drawn therefrom either way. Neither do I think that
the perf. and pluperf. pass, cpx^rat, epxaro, &c., can be usefully
appealed to on this question. epxOtvr* <I> 282 has many variants,
and should in all probability be connected with SiTroipaj} in the
256
BOOK XIV I 411-425
ine following ; but this question cannot now be entered upon at
length. Admitting the difficulty of ipxOivr still we can only put
me interpretation on the aboYe facts; Homer knew iipyoy only,
lot epyo). For ipxarooyvTo V. ^ 15 (Note).
Of epyaOev in A 437 a word may be said : the line runs : —
Travra o Sltto TrXevpwv xpoa ipyaOeVy ovSi r eaae.
is next door to a certainty that the correct reading is xpo*
^fpyaOev, as indeed appears in the verse which gives the other
istance of this word: —
E 147 TrX-rj^'f a-TTo 8' av;(€vos wfJLOV iepyaOev 17S' diTro vurrov.
The MSS. rightly present crwiipyaOov in H 36, cf. t 427, ^ 424.
ley could indeed hardly do otherwise ; but we find airoipyaOe {-v),
599, <f) 221, instead of what is now evidently the only correct
form OLTreipyaOe (-v). In y 296 for aTroc/ayci read aircepyeL,
Such is the case against the genuine character of epiav.
^Jf my conclusion be valid, as I cannot doubt it is, the aorist
maugmented would be Upiav and with an augment we should
iave probably rjepiav, though there is only the imperfect analogy
igOf ^lOTKc 8 247 and ^iVko/aci/ ^ 332 : but as to the possibility of
there being an augmented form with the first syllable long whether
€t- or ^-, it is I should imagine in view of the facts stated no
longer open to dispute. Accordingly I submit as the true reading
of our line : —
ras fiev op* r}€p^av Kara ^Oca KoipirjOrjvaif
It is even possible that ras /acv dvrjepiav was the original : but
proof of this is now unattainable. In any case the argument
against ep$av remains the same, and the opinion that ep$* in k 435
is from cpSw (v. Note on p. 169) is entirely confirmed.
The last clause is usually taken to mean, * which he had left
when splitting wood,' cf. 1. 418. Wwv is supposed to be for
this occasion only equivalent to Ked^tav. This interpretation is
found in the Scholia and Eustathius; but may be dismissed as
impossible. Fick has proposed to accommodate the true form of
the verb by reading
^X^^V* W XcLTTi Kcdoiv (/(ea^cuv),
and Prof. Tyrrell would retain KctW in the sense of * going to
bed \ There is nothing attractive in this last view. It is indeed
rather a grotesque and unaccountable touch, and is hardly worth
AGAE S 357
I 425 496 ODYSSEY
the violence done to the usage of KctW, which is future and
requires a verb of motion.
It seems to me that the alternative traditional sense is
preferable here : — AceiW avrl tov Kaioiv. KatW ovv ra aAAa ^A.a
TavTTfv KareAtTTCv koI ovk eveKavarev, o)S iirLTyjBeCav tt/jos to tvtttciv tol
Upa Tiys (Tcfyayrjs. BHQ.
It may be noticed that in the previous description the light-
ing of the fire is told by implication only, hence Katwv fills up
a distinct omission, and is therefore far from otiose here.
i 45®D avTOS KTrjcroLTO oTos airoi^o^evoio ava/cros, —
It is fairly clear that oto's is neither metrical nor necessary
after avrds, in spite of laboured distinctions. Possibly we should
read
avT09 KTTycraTo olctlv,
* of his own act acquired for his ihen, his underlings'. Compare
A 428 K€A.€V€ Sc oMTt €/caoTos aud ^ 8, which is cast in the same
mould.
I 47^3 avTop VTTipOe •)(i{jiv yiver r/vre ird^vr], —
Naber Xdxyrj : perhaps rather rpjr* kir axyrjy cf. € 403.
i 496] dXA.a Ti<s eirj
ct-TTctv *Arp€LSrf ^AyafxijjLVOvi, TroLfxivi Xaw, —
* But may there be some one to tell ' is at best a clumsy form
of expression, and the suspicion it naturally arouses is not lessened
when we consider that a more idiomatic phrase is attainable by
simply omitting ctry altogether. *AAAa rts . . . cittc/xcv is good epic
idiom for * But let some one tell', v. Monro, H. G. § 241. This
suggestion is worth making even though no satisfactory conclusion
can be reached as to what has been superseded by the unnecessary
drj. The difficulty is this : if ei-q be a deliberate substitution
intended to supply a better grammatical construction for €.liriyi€Vi
as seems probable, then we can hardly expect €17; and its one
variant ^et will furnish any palaeographical evidence of value
for determining what word originally ended the line. Otherwise
it would be hard to resist the claim of ^877. As it is, I suggest as
not unlikely: —
dAAa Tis €X6l}v
elircfxev *ATp€t8>/ * AyafXffxvovi, iroL/x€vt kaiov.
Prom Schol. V and Eustathius we learn that ciiy was by some
regarded as opt. of €t/u=7ropcvotTo.
BOOK XV I 496-0 88
Far less likely are adverbs such as eWap, aT«^a, ^xa, &c.
5223 Ivwa-Oai 6t€ Tts ;(€t/>io)v €AorayA.os opoiro.
Read with elision of the diphthong, for which v. Note on
584:—
hnrvcrff ottttotc Tts x^*-!^^ CKTrayAo? opoiro.
[Similarly we have tt 287 [=1 r 6)
Trapffida-Oaiy ore k^v (re /ACTaAAwcrti/ Tro^eovTes*
tfbr : —
Trapcf>da-0', OTnrore kcv (re /xeraXXwa-iv Tro^eovres*
|Cf. Notes on ^ 117, 195, 384, A 432, v 65, 327.
BOOK XV (0).
.0 36] avrap iirrjv vpwryjv dKrrjv 'I^a/cr/s dcf>iKrjaLf
Two attempts to correct this line have been made, irpuyrov
Bothe, €irct K€ Trpcor' van Leeuwen. Neither will scan. Read ; —
avrdp €7r€t k€V Trpwr — .
So also 8 414 Tov ix€v i-n-rjv Brj TrpSrra may safely be read rov jxkv
hr€L K€v, Hymn. Aphr. 256, 278, 274 (-TrpSiTov), In A 221 cttci Kt
irpwra should be cttci kcv, while for a case in which k€ is rightly
long before Trpwrov A 106 may be taken ; —
OTTTTOTC K€ TTpitiTov TTcAaoTys €V€pyia vrja — .
The usage of to. TrpCna has special features and calls for
more detailed investigation.
88] /SovXopxLL ^8>; v€L(t6 ai i(f>* -q/xiTcp*.
This the solitary instance of the contraction of the familiar
vUa-Bai can hardly be accepted as the true reading here. Its
appearance is amply accounted for by two passages : —
I 619 (ppacra-ofJieO* ^ kc vew/jLeO' i<f>* rjfjLerep*, -q kc /xivtofxev.
^ 91 fjLvdcrOai ovSk veecrdat ctti cr^irep, dAAa tKrjXoi — .
1 mean of course that these two passages have supplied the
temptation to introduce veo/xat here in place of the verb originally
written, which may still I believe be recovered : —
ySovAo/xat y}^-q iKiarOai c^' yjjxerep .
This verb Uofxrjv is frequently used with i-rrt following, and
at least one passage, in which it is practically, as here, used
to express * coming back to the place a man starts from ', may be
found : —
n 247 darKri$ri<s fjjoi hreira Oow: hr\ vqwi t/cotro — .
S 2 359
o 88-117 ODYSSEY
Nauck's ^.TToviiaOoL for ^817 vtia-Oai is not suitable here, neither is
Menred's rj re veea-Oai ^ovXcfx at all probable, rj^-q must be retained.
o 109^ ^av 8' livai Trporepd) 8ta 8(o/AaTa, eto? lkovto
In this line all tike MSS. have 8aj/xaT09, which is read by
Ludwich (1891), while Swfiara is adopted by Ameis-Hentze (1895)
and Monro (1901) on the ground that Eustathius mentions it,
and Homeric usage gives warrant for 8ta Stafmra and 8ta 8w/xa
only, never except here for 8ta Scafxaro^. The instances quoted
are for Siofiara, A 600, 8 24, 679, ^ 50, k 546, x 495> for 8wfia,
17 139, TT 276, p 479,^ o- 153, 341. Undoubtedly the case loolcs
a strong one, and it would seem as if hiatJus licitus had for once
triumphed even over the MSS. But I am afraid the MSS. are
right after all ; 8ia Siofxaros is unique, it is true, but so are the
circumstances in which it is used. The difference between the two
expressions is this, and it is in exact accordance with the
recognized use of 8ta. If you go through the house, all over the
house, up and down the house, through- the rooms of the house,
without quitting the house, then 8ia Sw/jLara or 8w/i,a is right;
but if you go through the house, or through the rooms of the
house and end by getting outside the house, in that case 8ia Swfiaro^
is required. Here it is certain from 1. 133 that Telemachus was
outside. In all the passages where the ace. is used the house
is never quitted. The sphere of movement is within the rooms.
o I17J €pyov 8' 'H^ato-Toio* Tropev 8c € ^aiSipos ^po)^
StSovtW ySao-tXcvs, oO* cos Sofxos ajxcfyeKaXvij/e
K€L(r ifxk vo(rTrj(ravTa' tciv S* iOiku) to8* OTrda-a-ai,
These lines occur in a passage which is repeated verbatim
from 8 613-9, so that, whether they be accepted or rejected
here, there is no question as to their genuine Homeric character.
In 1. 119, as also in 8 619, Kctcr' ifie is doubtless right,
though all the MSS. have k€l(t€ /x-c, not because we have the
authority of Herodianus for c/xc, but because this deferred position
is not legitimate for the enclitic pronoun.
I have a suggestion to offer with regard to tciv. The form
is supposed to be Doric, but can hardly be accepted as Homeric,
though it is found in the following passages in addition to those
mentioned above : —
A 201 Zcvs fi€ Trarrfp Trpocr/Kc rctV Ta8€ ixvOrja-aaOaL.
8 829 ^ vvv /xc 7rpQ(rjK€ T€iv Ta8€ fivOT^aaa-Oo^L,
<96o
BOOK XV ' 0117-132
X 559 oAAa Zeus Aavawv OTparbv al)(jxrjTa.iiiv
eKTrayXws ■^)(Or)p€, reCv 8' C7rt fioipav eOrjKCv.
The passage from tthe Iliad debars any easy assumptioii
that this is only a slightly more recent form, restricted to the
Odyssey and indicative of the later date of that poem. Not
that I mean to imply that retv is not a recent form as judged
by the standard of Epic. On the contrary, I believe it is in
all these instances an intruder, substituted for an archaic and
'obsolete form by the later Greeks, who naturally preferred
to see a w^ord from a living dialect, even if the dialect was
not specially a literary one, rather than one that had entirely
passed away from the lips and minds of ev^ry section of their
race.
My suggestion is that retv is really representative of an
original rcot, a parallel form to i/xoL, o-ot, cot, and oL The only
Support I can allege is the very strong probability that the
corresponding archaic genitive of this pronoun is still extant, or
at any rate not quite extinct, in the slightly depraved reading of
© 37 and 468 : —
ws fx-r) TrdvT€<s oA-covrat oSvara-afxivoLO tcoio.
where rceto (cf. i/xeto, ado, elo) is restored by Heyne, Bekker,
Nauck, Rohde, Piatt. The defence of reoto as a possessive
used like the later to <t6v = ot; is surely an error of j udgement
on the part of Brugmann. While the plausibility of recto is
increased in some degree even by the mere suspicion that a
fraternal and complementary rcot may once have held a position
in the great Achaean epics, the objection io t^oIo, which
led Zenodotus to omit the line from his text, is patent, and
though Tctv is not in itself similarly incorrect, yet no injustice
would, I think, be done to either form by regarding them
both as caretakers, pressed into service, who only took pos-
session of their present quarters after the previous tenants
were dead and forgotten. To this extent they have been
useful in an emergency, and so far, but no further, they are
to be justified.
122^ 6riK avrov TrpoTrdpoiOe (ftepoiv Kparepos McyaTrcV^T/s
Originally this would probably read thus : —
6rJK€ TOO TrpoTrdpoiOe
o 132] v. Note on 1; 134.
261
o 149-188 ODYSSEY
o 149]] €V SeTrai ;(pv<r€a), 6<fipa Xcaj/avre KiOLTriv.
In Iliad O 285 where this line is found along with 1. 148, it
appears in this form : —
;j(pva"€a) cv ScTrat, o^pa \€Lif/avT€ KvotTqv
MoreoYer a considerable number of MSS. here also give that order
of the words. It may be that it is the true order, but it by no
means follows that the line so constituted is a correct specimen
of Homeric metre. I observe that in the Iliad passage the
intention is that the libation should be made, as indeed it is
made, to Zeus (cf. O 287, 290, 296, 308). Hence I suggest that
O 285 originally stood thus : —
^vcr€(o iv ScTra', 6<f>pa Ati Xetif/avre kiolttjv.
In the Odyssey it is not clear that the libation is offered to Zeus,
though there is nothing in the narrative to prevent such a
supposition. Still we may perhaps venture to suppose that the
author thought it unnecessary to specify the divinity on this
occasion, and accordingly chose to render the line metrical by
transposing •^(pva-iio iv ScVat into ev ScVai ^(jiva-iia. If so, it
becomes easy to understand the variations of the MSS., and
even the disappearance of Aa from O 285 is rendered com-
prehensible, or at any rate more comprehensible than it would be
otherwise.
The order Uirdi xp^(r€<a recurs v 261, 0-121, and iv ScVai
Xpv(T€io should apparently be restored instead of xp^a-eito SeVat to
741.
160] u)s apa ol eiTroj^t iTriirraro Sextos op»'is(= S^Sj ^^ 82 1).
It is just possible that eiTroi^os may be right here, cf.
OTTt pd 01 ^Lorov TvepLicqSiTO voo-^iv cdnros.
1 155 fiaXa TTOV (r(f>L(ri Ov/jlos . • . Xivaa-ovTwVf t 458—9, p 231—2,
X 17-18, H 25-6, n 531. In this case the gen. would be temporal.
Compare also 8 646 rj o-c jSiy acKovros and Dr. Merry's note ; tt 92
with Dr. Monro's Grit. Annot.
O 177] OLKaSe VO(Trrj(T€L KOL TL(T€Tai' r}€ KOL T^Srj
OLKOL, arap fxvrjarrjpa-L KaKov TravnararL (f>vT€V€L.
It seems to me worth suggesting that the second line should
read : —
OLKOL p.vrfcmqpicra'L KaKov 7ravri<r<Ti. <f>VT€V€u
o 188] V. Note on y 490.
364
BOOK XV 0197-218
197] $€LVOL Bk Sia/JLTrepls evxoficff civat
€K Trarepoiv (jaXoTrjro^, drap kol 6/x^AtKcs ct/xev
Here d(f)ap kol ofxrjXLKi^ elfiev is probably the true reading.
Dr. Leaf has shown that d(f>ap occasionally possesses an asseyera-
Itive force, v. his notes on A 418, 11 323, ^ 375.
Similarly X 331 "Ektop, arap ttov e<f>r]s should be "EktoPj
irov €<f>rj<s. For a similar corruption of d(f>ap v. Note on
\<fi 228-9. Cf. V 242 (Note).
218 J €yKO(rfjL€iT€ TO, T€v)(€, iratpoL, vrjl pbcXacvrj.
A very slight change here will restore the long-banished
[original, none the worse for being a little archaic, and remoYC
le Attic use of the article : —
iyKO<rfjL€L€T€ revx^.
Could it be reasonably expected of the later Greeks that
they should refrain from introducing the form eyKocr/AciTc,
especially when the gap made by so doing could be so easily
filled up by the familiar article ? They secured two advantages
by merely sacrificing an obsolete and therefore unpleasing form.
iJlight gladly, we may imagine, would they proceed to fling away
'the ugly piece of primordial trachyte and secure the two fine,
serviceable birds. Who would blame them?
That iyKoa-fieuTe is quite admissible and Homeric may
be safely inferred from the list of similar formations on pp. 188,
147, irevOeLd), vctKctw, &c. It is observable that the diphthong -et-
cannot be attributed to ictus-lengthening as it occurs with
tolerable frequency in thesis also. It may be merely metrical,
or may be explicable in one of the ways stated by Dr. Monro,
H. G.'^ App. C, p. 386 : but the fact of its existence is for present
purposes the material point.
By the aid of this peculiarity or principle, whichever it be
rightly named, of epic speech, further confirmed and ensured by
this demonstration of its usefulness, we may recover the true
reading in the hitherto puzzling : —
Z 46 (=A 131) ^wypet, 'Arpeos vt€, (rv 8' a^ta Si^ai arrotva.
Here Sc^c' airoLva Fut. Indie. (Nauck, van Leeuwen and da Costa,
Piatt) is undoubtedly right; but something more is required
for the full restoration of the original. L. and C.'s ^wypec is
not enough : it might even be questioned whether it makes any
improvement at all : and their suggestion for Z 46 of ^wypec a is
^65
o 218-245 ODYSSEY
sufficiently disproved by the consideration that it is inapplicable
to A 131.
There could be little objection to reading in both places : —
^ii)yp€i, 'Arpcos vU, <rv 8* aiia Sc^c' OTroLva.
i. e. ^u)yp€L€ from the alternative long form ^wypeto). Thus the
requirements of either passage will be satisfied, and an unex-
ceptional verse recovered in place of an erroneous, though but
slightly perverted, tradition.
o 227] d^vctos HvKioLcri jxi-y c^o^a SiOfiara vcu(i)V'
Here IlvXtoto-t as a locativ^al dative is so harsh, that we have
fxira noted as a variant of yaeya. But /xiy e^oxa is confirmed,
if confirmation be necessary, by <^ 266, B 480, and the true
reading is: —
d(f)V€L Iv IlvXtbtcrt fxiy t^oxo- Stofxara valiov
Cf. a 232, 393, and particularly p 420, koX yap cyw -jrore oTkov ev
av6p<jiyiroL(TLV evaiov oXfScos dcfiveiov — . Similarly in Z 477 dpLirpeiria
TpwearcTLv should be dptTrpcTre' iv Tpwecrcrti/, the meaning being
* among the Trojans ' not ' in the eyes of the Trojans '. Probably
too in a 71 TrdcTLv J^vKXuyjreaorL is for Traor' ivl KvKXwTrco-o-t. The
natural desire to avoid the elision of the t of -n-da-L would be
certain to cause the production of the vulgate.
o 245]} ov Trept KYJpL <f>LX.€i Zcvs T aiyto;(OS kol AttoXAcdv
TravTOLTjv (faXoTrjT*' ov8' lk€to yiypaos ovSov, —
In the Platonic or Pseudo-Platonic dialogue, Axiochus 368 A,
this passage is quoted with one variation from our vulgate given
above : —
TravTOLTj ^iXorryr^ .
This I am decidedly of opinion is the genuine reading,
not because the ace. of the internal object, as it is called, is
in any wise incorrect here. It is grammatical enough: but
its very admissibility tends to discredit it. The Greeks of the
classical or post- classical period would never have attempted to
change such an unobjectionable ace. into a dative involving the
to-them-scarcely-endurable elision of the iota. Such a change
could never hope to win the least degree of popular approval.
The reverse process however would doubtless have been hailed
with acclamation.
For these two reasons (i) Plato's quotation, (2) the later
views on elision, the dat. here possesses claims which cannot be
364
I
BOOK XV o 245-249
ightly set aside; and they are reinforced, if not entirely con-
firmed, by the following passage in which, though the construction
is precisely similar, no elision has endangered the preseryation of
the dat. Hymn. Herm. 574 : —
ovTCD MaiaSos VM aya^ iffitXrja-ev 'AttoAAwv
TravTOLj] <j>iX6Tr)Th X^P*-^ ^' eTriOrjKC Kpovioov.
The MSS. have vlov, for which I have substituted the necessary
ma. In this point even thje most meticulous of editors might
venture to disregard the false testimony of tradition.
249] MavTios av tckcto IIoAix^ct'Sea re KActrov tc*
Read avr ctckcv.
The dittography re tc may have brought about the change to
T€K€To ; but evidently reKero owes its maintenance to a desire to
support the usual distinction between the act. and mid. forms,
V. A, 249 (Note). This is a trifling matter. The two following
lines have a more serious defect : —
aXX y rot KActTOj/ XpvcToOpovos rjpiracrev "Jla)?
KttAAcos €LV€Ka ola, tv' aOavaTOurL fi^Tecrf^
This conveys the absurd information that Eos because of her
beauty carried off Kleitus ; but every one refuses to translate it
so, because such nonsense cannot be tolerated, especially when, as
in the case here, the intended meaning is quite evident. In Y 235
where the second of these lines is found preceded by : —
Tov Kol avrjpetij/avTO Oeol Ait oIvo)(0€V€lv.
Dr. Leaf suggests that it js borrowed from our passage, though
the special absurdity that distinguishes it here does not exist
there.
Now a very slight alteration, accompanied by the removal of
a comma, would make the line e:^press the intended sense, and
at the same time allow it to remain undisturbed in the place
it occupies in the Iliad. The true reg,ding of the couplet is
1 urge: —
dXX* ^ Tot KXetTov )(pv(r66povo^ Tjpiracreu 'Hoi?,
KoAAcos €LV€Ka oV iv' o -y' aOavdrouTL p-eTCLrj.
Those who have a fancy for hiatus licitus may adopt the
punctuation without the pronoun: but it seems to me that the
pronoun is necessary here. In any <iase it is clear that by
removing the comma olo gains its proper reference to the subject
of its clause, and a proper emphasis from its position. ' In order
265
o 249-310 ODYSSEY
that he for his beauty's sake might be among the immortals.' In
1. 248 €K Tov 8' vV iyevovT seems probable.
o 299] €vO€v 8' av vrja-ourLV irrLTrpoerjKc Oofja-LVy
6/3/xatVcuv 7] K€V Oavarov <f>vyoL rj k€v oAwi;.
Here I acknowledge that the ancients were right in their
interpretation of Oofja-Lv, * sharp ', ' pointed,' and Messrs. Butcher
and Lang may fairly adopt ©orja-Lv as a proper name, * The Pointed
Islands.' To do so is no longer ' a venture in the dark ' as I
described it, when suggesting ihrepOev, * in the main ' or * mid-sea ',
as a tolerable correction. This recantation is due to the valuable
investigations of M. Victor Berard in his illuminating book ' Les
Pheniciens et I'Odyssee '. He gives many remarkable instances of
the geographical precision of the Homeric poems.
In this particular case he tells us that in the Channel of
Zante there are actually some half-submerged pointed rocks lying
west and north-west of the coast of Elis between Caps Glarenza
and Cape Nepito. There are four sets (pates, pies) with smallest
depth of water 5'",02 in 1844 and 4^,og in 1865 according to the
official publication * Les Instructions nautiques '.
I am afraid that M. Berard has not only ruined my
little emendation but has seriously damaged botU the Aeolic
and the Ionian supposed authors of the Homeric poems. Still,
leaving these two phantoms to shift for themselves, I cannot
allow this remark of M. Berard to pass unchallenged: *Telemaque,
en longeant les lies Pointues, craint d'etre drosse par le courant
et de perdre la vie ou de rester pris dans ces aiguilles de roches.'
What Telemachus is afraid of, or anxious about, is lest he should
be intercepted and slain by the suitors, of whose designs Athene
had informed him before he left Sparta (o 27-30).
o 310] dAAa fxoL €v & inroOiv kol a/x* 'qycfiov* icrOXbv 07rcuT(rov,
The form vwoOev is very suspicious : the combination cv
vTToOia-OaL does not elsewhere occur; and we may ask why any
* suggestion' at all should be needed, if a 'trusty guide' is
to be provided.
oAAa (TV fi €v6v Trpdcs Koi a/x rfy€fi6v iaOXbv OTraxrcrcv
gives a very satisfactory sense, and follows closely the letters of
the tradition ; but the sole epic authority for evOv seems to be the
Hymn to Hermes, 342. Perhaps therefore it might be better to
966
BOOK XV 0310-358
adopt the adverb which stands in a line singularly resembling in
type the one just giyen, viz. n 38 : —
dAA,' €/>i€ TTcp Trpoes S>)^j afia 8' aXkov \aov oTraaarov (L. aAAwv)
and read here : —
dAAa (TV /x uiKa itpoti #cae a/A* yy€/x6v icrOXov orrcuro'ov
or even : —
aXka (TV fi rjv Trpoes — .
Cf. 8 589 KOL Tore </ ev Trefxif/ia.
o 324] Ota T€ Tots ayaOoLO-L TrapaSpwoxrt x^PV^^'
We may read, with some confidence that rots deserves its fate,
old T€ TToAA*,
but though we may be well assured that ayaOoZon is wrong ; for
it is obvious that bad men might be even more successful in
enforcing the performance of these household services on their
thralls than good men — in fact it would not be unfair to suppose
that dyaOoZa-L is due to some one who wished to take irapa^ponna-L
as ' misperform ' — yet we can scarcely be certain of the word that
the ironical dyaOoZa-L has superseded. I would suggest : —
old T€ TToAAa dva^L TrapaSpcowcrt ;j(ep7y€9. {vTroSp. Herwerden.)
Dissatisfaction with the form of the noun may have stimulated
the change.
o 326] (o /xot, ieZve, tly) tol ivl <f>p€(rl tovto vorjfia
€7rAeT0 ; ^ av ye irdyyy XikaUai avroO* oXeo-Oai,' —
For cttActo, which occupies so emphatic a position with so
little claim to it, /xcftySAcrat may be suggested, cf. T 343 ; —
^ vv TOL ovK€TL Tvdyxv fteTtt (f>p€(rl /jii/x/SkeT 'A^iAAcvs ;
In /? 364 where practically the same expression occurs, the same
modification
fiefx^XeTaL : rj p iOiXeis — .
is admissible. In fact tttj 8' e^cAets is inexplicable. Dr. Merry
says 7^5= 'how ? '. But what does ' how ? ' mean in such a context ?
® 35^3 V ^' "^X^*- ^^ TTtttSos dirif^OiTO KvSaXifJLOio,
XevyaXiio Oavdrio, ws fxr) Odvoi os Tts €/AOt ye
evOdSe vateratov ^tXos etrj kol cjiiXa epSot.
Some MSS. have ws and a modal adverb is certainly better,
but what is really required is the relative w. Then if ov in 1. 358
be altered to (r<^o{) = ' their ', for the speaker is telling about
Laertes and his wife, there only remains for consideration os tl^ . . .
fjiCXos ety] KOL 0tAa epSot. Some scholars would write FepSoi) but
267.
o 358-376 ODYSSEY
the evidence of the poems is overwhelming against the F in this
word. It would of course be easy to adopt pc^oi instead ; but it
seems a great deal more likely that the attracted optative is the
real fault, and that the subjunctive should be restored and the
pas^ge read thus;— r
7] 8' a;(€t (Tf^ov TraiSos airiijidLTQ KvhaXifxoLO
AcvyaAeo) ^avoro), w fxyj Odvoi 6s tls ifxoL yc
evOdSe vauTawv ^tAos ^y kol <f>LXa elBrj.
i. e. be my friend and entertain friendly feeling for me. It is
a matter of reciprocal feeling, of mutual friendship ; not of feeling
on one side and action on the other. For the corruption cf . o 51.
o 376] /xcya Sk ^/twes xariova-iv
avTia Sco-TTOtVr/s (fydcrOaL kol cKaora TrvOia-dai,
icat <fiaye/x€v TrUfxev re eTrctra Sc Kat rt KJiepecrOaL
aypdv8', Ota re Ovfxov del S/xtoccro-iv latveu
There are two changes in these lines which might be made
"with advantage and even with some confidence that they represent
the archety|)e better than the tradition as given above. Firstly,
1-377:—
dvTia SeoTTTOivrj^ (f>d(T6aL koX iTreira TrvOicrOaLf
Not only is cKaa-ra unmetrical, but it is quite impossible td
suppose for a moment that in the heroic ages or in any other
age 8fxo)€s were allowed to play the part of Paul Pry to the
extent inevitably suggested by eKaarra. On the other hand iTretra
emphasizes the natural sequence. The thrall first unfolds his
budget of news, and after having done so (cTrcira), of course
receives in return an account of current topics in the town.
Secondly, for the sake of metre only, 1. 379 might be read
thus : —
ayp6vB*f oTd re Ktjp aUl Sfjiwea-criv laivei.
Cf. X 58-9. Otherwise tbe variant evl crrrjOea-cnv should be
accepted.
We have now only 1. 378 with its hiatus licitus to deal with.
Suppose we venture to borrow iKaaroi from the preceding line,
* each party of S/xwcs,' and allow the whole passage to stand thus : —
^eya 8c 8/x(U€S ^areovcnv
avrCa htanroivrj^ (fyda-Oat kol CTrciTa TTvOeaOaL,
KoX <f>ay€fji€v TrUfxev re eKaaroi, Kat Tt (ftepeaOax
ayp6vB*f old re Krjp alel 8/x(U€cro"tv tatVct.
a68
I
BOOK XV 0397-425
397] 8eL7nn^(Ta<s aifi v€(rcrLV avaKTopLrjarLV i-n-icrOo).
avaKTopirjo-iv has two traditional interpretations (i) 'of the
master', herilis, (2) 'of his command', 'in his charge/ due to
Aristarchus and Aristophanes respectively. Perhaps ' of the
demesne', or 'manor', might be preferable.
o 425] ^'^ f-^ 5iStovo5 TroXv)(aXKOV evxofiaL cTvai,
Kovpy} 8' etfJL ^Apv/SavTO'S eyo) pvBov a<f>vf.Loio.
One can hardly without culpable lenity conceal the disagreeable
truth that in 1. 425 the fourth foot is defective, being properly
a trochee. It i»' true that the genitive in -ov (as also the dative
in -w), ordinarily short before a vowel, is not infrequently long :
but there is an important restriction on its use with the latter
quantity. In arsis the phenomenon is common and quite legiti-
mate; in thesis it is seldom found, and the rare occasions, on
which it does occur, may all be regarded as erroneous and
corrupt. One well-known example, which from its repetition
forms a considerable fraction of the whole number extant, will
suffice by way of illustration. In V 146 we hear of a Trbjan
named Yi.a.vBoo's ; the patronymic HavOdthr]^ occurs passim. In
spite of this the ordinary texts exhibit : —
O 522 €ta TLdvBov vlov €vt Trpoixa)(OL(TL Sa/JLrjvau
P 9 ov8* apa IldvOov vtos ivfJL/xcXLrjs dfieXrja-e.
40 HdvOta iv )(€ip€<r(rL ^dXm KaX ^povrihi SCy.
59 TOLOV JIdv6ov vlov ivfjLfxcXcrjv Y^xKJioppov.
23 oarcrov YLdvOov mcs ivfjifxeXCaL (f>pov€OV(nv^
Of course there is no instance, and could bei no instance, we may
be sure, of either gen, or dat. or any other case with the second
syllable in arsis. Obviously also the familiar adj. 6o6<s is an
integral part of the proper name. The tradition, however, is as
here set forth, and it is maintained by most editors, though metre
and everything else combine to prove that the trisyllabic dactylic
forms HavOoov and Ilav^ow alone are genuine.
There is a second point worthy of comment in our line
(o 425) touching the word 5t8wos. It happens somewhat
suggestively, that only here does Homer use the name of the
town, though he occasionally speaks of the people, %lS6vlol (8 84,
618, o 118), and the land, SiWtiy (v 285, Z 291). Once (* 743)
we find StSoves (t).
2$9
o 425-463 ODYSSEY
From the facts stated there is a very strong probability that
the original reading here was : —
c/c fxev StSovtW 7roXv;(aA,K<i>v €V)(o/xaL eTvau
That TroXvx^'^**^ ^^ j^^^ ^^ applicable to a person as to a place
appears from K 315, where Dolon is described as TroXv^pvo-o?
TToXvXO-^KO'S'
Nor is it less certain that the plural is admissible here, as
witness : —
V 192 rewv 8* €^ €i;;^€Tat ctvat
avSpwv ; TTOv M vv ol yevcrj koX Trarpts apovpa ;
where the form and sequence of the question are nearly the same
as the statement in our passage.
In the latter of our two lines it seems not unlikely that cyw
pvSov — the pronoun is here quite superfluous — represents a com-
pound adverb such as iTTLppvSov, cf. the later cTrtppota, iinppoi^.
Somewhat similar too is cTrtppvTov, which apparently is used
in an adverbial sense by Aeschylus: —
Eumen. 907 Kapirov re yata? kol ^otwv cTrtppvrov
dcTTOto-tv cvOevovvra firj Ka/xveLV )(p6v(a.
Or did Aeschylus write iinppvhov ?
o 435D ^^V '^^^ '^^^ TovTj €t fxoL iOiXoLTe y€, vavrat,
OpKO) TTLCTTiDO^Vat aTTyfJLOvd fJL OtKttS' aTTO^ClV.
It is not sufficient merely to omit fi in the second line here
(van Leeuwen and da Costa, Monro, crit. note (1901)). The first
line clearly should stand thus : —
etrf K€V KOL tovt\ €t 87J fi iOeXoLTi yc, vavrcu, {ji=fWL)
Compare O 56 : —
eh] K€V KOL TOVTO — , €t Srj ofirjv *A;j(iX^t — ,
O 439]} TOtS 8* aVTl<S ft€T€€t7r€ yVK^ Kttl a.p.f.iPiTO flvOiO'
There is slight MSS. authority for rolcr avOi<s (G U, ss. U«
Ludwich). But the decision of usage in this matter is paramount
and admits of no compromise. When we consider the frequency
of rov 8* avT€ TrpocreciTTc and the like in conjunction with the
curious fact that avrt? save here is never used at all in ex-
pressions of this kind, it is surely certain that the true reading
must be : —
Tovs 8* avT€ 7rpo(r€€Lrr€ — .
*> 4^3J wvov virurxofievaL' 6 8k rg Karivtva-f. <niOTr^»
^70
p
BOOK XVI 0463-1723
Better thus : —
wvov VTTLirxofJievaf ry S' os Karivivcre (rKoirrj.
Z 59 and 286, &c.
BOOK XVI (tt).
11] OV TTO) TTCtV €Lp7JTO eiTOS, 6t€ ol <^tXoS VIO? .
I OV TTO) Trav ctpr/^', or* ap' A/A^tVo/xos tSc v^a.
In the latter of these two lines Ahrens proposed to introduce
his * legitimate ' hiatus by reading : —
ilprjro 6t *AiJi(f)LVOfios — .
The suggestion has been well received. Whether hiatus is ever
legitimate is a question too readily taken for granted ; but here
it may be remarked that we have from Eustathius a perfectly
metrical reading : —
iiprjTOy KOL AjXcfyLVOflO^
which has this recommendation, that by its aid not only tt 351
but TT II and the analogous K 540 : —
OV TTO) irav etprjTO €7ro5, or dp' ^XvOov avToL
may become metrical instead of unmetrical lines : —
TT 1 1 OV TTCD TTttV €ipr)TO CTTO?, KOL ol (fiikoS Vt09 .
K 540 OV TTO) Trav etprp-o ctto?, Kat iTrrjXvOov avrot.
That Kat, which is here equivalent to the temporal con-
junction, should have been displaced by it is not surprising. The
strict grammarian would see to that. We may compare Virgil's
(Aen. iii.8) : —
Vix prima inceperat aestas,
et pater Anchises dare fatis vela iubebat.
I submit that a remedy which removes the difficulties of the
three passages is intrinsically better than that by which one only
receives a questionable improvement.
^23] (=p4i)
^A.^€s, TrjXifJMX^, yXvKcpbv <^ao<s' m <t It cyw ye
oif/ea-OaL icfxtjxrjVj iirel w^co vr/C IIvA-ovSe.
In the above passage I may say at once that beyond the slight
improvement already suggested (v. p. 198) ela-oxj/ea-O' i<fidiMr}v, —
Naber's ovkct . . . ox^ccrOai (t gives a false position to the pro-
noun — I do not propose to make any change whatever ; but I am
by no means satisfied with, and I challenge the correctness of, Uie
471
IT 23 ODYSSEY
recognized rendering of the clause that begins my quotation,
^X^cs, TrjXe/xax^, yXvKepov <^ao9, * thou art come, Telemachus,
sweet light of mine eyes ' Butcher and Lang, ' ut Latine dicitur :
mea lux, cf. Cic. ad Fam. xiv. 2 ' Ebeling's Lex. Hom., * mein
silsses Leben ' Voss, like the Oriental ' light of my life,' * light of
my eyes ' Liddell and Scott.
Whether ^aos ever became in later Greek a mere term of
endearment for lovers, I "will not attempt to decide. It is quite
possible : it is even probable, though the instances in Liddell
and Scott do not prove that it was so. But I utterly deny
that there is any adequate reason for believing that Homer,
who was no Oriental, either initiated or followed this interesting
practice.
For the Homeric meaning of <f>dos outside the strictly literal
sense of 'light' and the special <^a€a=* eyes', we have the evidence
of the following passages : — ^
Z 6 Tpojwv prj^€ KJxiXaYyoLi <^aos 8' kTapoKTiv eOrjKCVm
n 95 oAAa vaXiv TpwTraa-OaL, ctt^v <^aos cv vrjicrcn j
Y 95 ^ ot TrpoxrOev lovcra riOei ^aos,
^ 53^ at §€ Trerao-^cto-at r€viav </)aos*
O 741 Tw €v X^P^^ <f>6o)Sy ov paikv^Lri TroXcfioLO^
(Probably tw ^aos cv )(€ip€cr(rf ktX.)
^ 282 (=A 797)
)8aAA ovTws, at K€V tl <f>dos Aavaotcrt yevrjau
P 615 Ka\ Tw /A€V <f>do^ rjXOfv, dfiwe 8k vrjXiks yjfiap,
2 102 ovhi Tt TLarpoKXio yevofirjv <f>do^ ovS' erdpoKTi.
where the meaning is ' victory ', * success,' ' salvation,' * rescue.*
In the last three instances the word is applied to a person ; but
this makes- little or no difference in^ the sense, *the light of
victory ' in contrast to * the darkness of defeat '. Hence in our
two passages yXvK€p6v ^aos, even as a vocative, must mean, I
submit, not * s-weet darling ' but * welcome rescuer ', * dear deliverer.*
But is yXvKcpov <f)do^ a vocative at all ? I trow not, though,
as we have seen, it would not be quite impossible to treat it as
such. There are however two preferable alternatives. The
simplest course would be to regard it as a nom. in appositioa J
to the subject of rjX6€<s, as is the case where it is read with rjXOfif i
in P 615. The other alternative I would suggest is to take
9p
I
BOOK XVI IT 23-88
! yXvKcpov <^aos as the accusative of the internal object after ^X^cs,
as in the familiar : —
'EkevTjv KTavw/xev McvcAew Xvtttjv TriKpav.
The rendering would then be : — ' thou art come, Telemachus, —
a welcome deliverance, a sweet relief/ In other words *thy
coming, Telemachus, is a welcome relief \ This form of expres-
sion is thoroughly Homeric.
A 196 ov Tt9 otcTTCvcra? l^aXev ro^oiv Iv ctSw?
Tpwwj/ 7] AvKL(ov, Tip fJLcy kA.€09, ajXjXL Sk TrevOos.
l 183 t) o^' 6ixo(f)pov€OVT€ voT^fxaaL oTkov Ix'/tov
avrjp rjSk yvvf]' ttoAA' oAyca Sv<r/>i€vc€0"(ri,
y6.pp,Q.ra. 8 eifxeveTrja-r
Compare F 51.
O 735 P^V^' X^'P^^ eXoiV dxro Trvpyov, Xvypov oXeOpov.
In either case </>aos here is not a namby-pamby term of
endearment as is commonly supposed, but retains the full vigour
and vitality of its ordinary sense, and this is my main contention,
which saves the poet from a time-honoured misunderstanding.
IT 66] V. Note on 6 347.
IT 70 J Trias yap Sr) tov ^etvov iyoiv VTroSiiofiai oik(o ;
Two restorations of this line have been proposed : —
TTuis yap 8^ $€lvov viroS^iofx' cyo>v ivl otKO) ; (Knight)
TTtus yap Brj ^clvov olkw v7ro8e^o/xai d/xw; (Monro)
In view of the rarity of dp,os perhaps we should rather read ; —
TTtos yap Srj ^elvov oiko) vTroSi^OfJL lyoi ye ;
So 1. 74 Trap* ifjLOL ye for Trap' ifWL t€ seems not unlikely.
TT 72] A spurious exegesis of the preceding ov ttw x^P^*- ^tVot^a
without much doubt, as also in 12 369, v. Leaf ad loc.
P Ik 88j Trprj^aL 8* dpyaXcov rt p,cTa TrXeovea-criv iovra
avSpa Kol l^$Lp.ov, kirei y] ttoXv <f>€pT€poL elai.
The accusatives here enjoy the support of the MSS., and yet
there can be little doubt that, as the metre declares, the true
reading is : —
irprjiai 8' dpyaXcov ri jxeTa TrXeovecra-Lv iovn
avopi /cat ifjiOLfJUOj cTret rj ttoXv <j>epTepoi eicri.
For better assurance we may turn to : —
M 410 dpyaXeov 8c fjLot icm kol l(fiOL/M(a irep eovri
fxovvio p7]^afJL€V(o OeaOaL irapa vqvcri KeXevOov
AGAR rp 2^
IT 88-107 ODYSSEY
Y 356 apyaXcov Sc /lot €<m kol l<fi6ifx,(o Trcp iovTL
Too-trovcrS' avOpunrovi c^cttciv Kal ttcuti fjux)(€a6ai.
See ^ 60 (Note ad fin.).
IT 107]] 17 TttSe y* alev dct/cca cpy* opaaa-Oai,
^CLvov^ T€ (rTv<f>€XL^ofji€Vovs SjMjod^ T€ yvvatKas
pv(TTd^ovras diiKeXiiDS Kara Sw/xara KaAa,
KOL oTvov 8ia<f>v(Ta-6/x€vov KOL arlrov t8ovTa<s
jxa^ avTtos dreXea-Tov avryvvtrro) ctti cpycj).
There is a curious variation, more striking perhaps because
it is symmetrical, in this series of participles o-tv^cXi^o/acVovs,
pvcrTo^ovTa^, SLacf>v(r(r6fjL€vov, cSorrag, an alternation of passive and
active. Change of subject is Homeric enough, but this fluctuation
seems to transgress the limits of allowable licence, especially when
simply by changing 8Lacf>v(rcr6fj,€vov to 8ta<^vo-o-o/AcVovs we might take
all the participles as transitive with one and the same subject,
thus rendering the construction incomparably more natural with
very little sacrifice of tradition.
I have quoted the passage, however, mainly to draw atten-
tion to aTeXcarov in the last line. It must, I think, be regarded
grammatically as an adjective agreeing with o-trov, though in sense
it will be adverbial. The meaning, if we follow Ameis-Hentze
(' endlos, ohne Ende '), is * without end or measure \ * without stint.'
This renderiog I venture to dispute : dT€X€crTo<s cannot properly
carry such a sense. It means * unconsummated ', ' imperfect,*
'unsuccessful,' v. A 26, ^ 273, 6 571.
If again we adopt as the meaning here ' fruitlessly ', * to ^
no good end,' the result is still not much more satisfactory.
The doubt as to the legitimacy of the translation is not entirely
removed, and aTeXea-ToVf so understood, merely anticipates the ^
following phrase dvrjvvcma iirl Ipycp. Under such circumstances >
I see no escape from the conclusion of Thiersch ' Dieser Vers ist ^
einzig schlecht — endigt sich sehr tautologisch '. 1
I believe, however, it might be redeemed by a single slight
change, -w for -ov, really -ot for -ov : —
/Aon/^ avTUis drcXecTTia dvrjvvaT<a hri €/>y<j>«
Even if drcXcoTa) and dvqvvcrrta bear an identical meaning,
* impracticable,' * unattainable,' still the strengthening or en-
forcing of an idea by such iteration is a very different thing
from the addition of a long clause which merely explains a
a74
I
BOOK XVI Trl07-i8l
word in itself sufficient : but probably there is after all no such
tautology about the adjectives as is here supposed. Without any
undue stretching of the Homeric usage of verbal adjectives I think
we may render the proposed reading : — * while their real object
remains unattained and unattainable,^ * engaged in a business that
has failed and is doomed to failure.*
In this light the line is far from being a bad one (• schlecht ').
The expression rises by a fitting gradation, forming a very effective
and telling climax.
IT 133] OLY} aTrayyctAas* twv 8' aXXcov /a^ T15 'A;)(at(ov — .
Perhaps XdOprj aTrayyctAas, V. Monro, H. G. § no, unless we
transpose dyyctAas otr], cf. 150.
IT 142] avrap vvv i$ ov (tv ye wx^® ^'' HvAoi^Se,
It is hardly possible to accept Sltt^x^^ (Barnes) in spite of
the slight support given by i-n-wx^o G. The choice seems to lie
between the ov re of Nauck and the oTo of Ahrens, and the latter
is to be preferred, both because re is unsuitable and because olo is
naturally modernized into the traditional reading.
IT 149] See Note on A 492 ad fin.
IT 171] Srjpov diro (r(f>S}LV Icro/Aat fxcfxav^a yid\i<rOai.
Read with slightly enhanced emphasis on the pronoun : —
aTTo (rcf>S)LV y' tcrojxai — .
Cf. E 287 OLTap ov fiev o-<^wt y' oto), 8 62, ^ 219 (v/xewv yc yStas).
IT 181] dAAotos fxoi, iiLVCf (fidvr)^ viov rjk TrdpoiOev.
Although it is obvious that Telemachus means only to
remark that the stranger (Odysseus) is considerably altered in
appearance from what he was before, — we have just been told
that Athene touched him with her golden wand — yet the ex-
traction of this simple sense from the text is a matter of serious
difficulty. We are asked to render thus : * Thou seemest just
now, stranger, a man other than before.' Messrs. Butcher and
Lang have it * Even now, stranger, thou art other in my sight
than that thou wert a moment since '.
The difficulty is that practically viov (fidvr)<s is not at all
different from Trdpoi^cv <f>dvr]<s. While both expressions necessarily
refer to a time now past, viov conveys the additional information
that this time has only just gone by, so that viov <f)dvr)<s means
* you appeared just now', *a little while ago/ vcoxttl. If there
were any doubt of this, it should be set at rest by the lines we
T 2 375
TT i8i ODYSSEY
meet a little farther on : —
199 ^ yap TOi v€OV ^(rOa yiptav koX dciKea co-o-o*
vvv 8c OeoLO-L €OLKaSj ot ovpavov evpvv exovoriv.
where vcW ^a-Oa is properly contrasted with vvv lotKas, and where
moreover viov ya-Oa is not materially different from Trapos or
TrdpoiOev rjcrOa.
Hence we find Prof. Hartman suggesting, with some approba-
tion from van Leeuwen and da Costa, that we should read : —
viov r}^\ irdpoiOev
* modo et antea ' * lately and previously \ No doubt this is sense,
a little loose perhaps: it ought at least to be * previously and
lately ' : but it is certainly not poetry.
It is surprising that cfxivri^ vvv has not been suggested.
Perhaps it has. It could not however be regarded as a real
solution of the difficulty : for we should then have the aor. (f)dvri<s
used firstly as the aor. which refers idiomatically to the present as
just past, e. g. Arist. Knights 696 : —
^aOyjv aTTCtXat?, iyeXaca if/oXoKoixrirLai<;,
and secondly as an ordinary past tense with trdpoiOcv. Singly
and apart these usages may be unexceptionable, but they cannot,
I submit, be thus combined and confused in one sentence.
I think it is clear that the error is in the little suspected
m-dpoLOev, for which I once fancied Trcp 1787; might be right; but now
I see that the true solution of the problem is slightly different.
The line, I assume, originally stood thus : —
dAAotos fjioif ^ctvc, <f>dvq«i v€ov Tji Trep wSe.
Palaeographically IIEPOAE might easily be misread into IIA-
POI0E, and certainly to the later Greeks rji irep o>8€ would hardly
seem a natural or readily intelligible expression for r/ vvv ; but
yet it is not difficult to see that this is the Homeric meaning of
the formula. I find the following instances : —
B 258 €t k' Iti or' d^paivovra Kixya-ofxai ws vv vep wSt,
This passage, by the way, was coiTupted in ancient times very
similarly to that under consideration. The copy of Sinope had
o)? TO Trapos Trcp. Moreover varepov avTL<s (Massiliensis) and ev
Aavaottrt (Philemon) seem to show that the original expression
was, as I have said, not readily intelligible.
12 398 d^veio? /xcv o y ctrri, yiptav 8c hr) w? crv Trep a>8c.
Hymn. Dem. 116 TrjXUai, ws <tv irep <ll)8c, koL oirXonpai ycydao'iv.
276
BOOK XVI Tri8i-2i7
Evidently the present corruption for all its facility could never
have held its ground, or indeed have gained a footing at all,
except for the use of the aor. above mentioned, which is also
Homeric to a certain extent; but v. Monro, H. G. § 78. The
meaning, however, of (fxxvrjs veov is absolutely and irrevocably
determined by veov ^o-Ool.
tr 185] rjSk ')(pv(T€a Siopa T€TvyfJL€va' ^ctSco 8* rjfjiiiav.
A spurious line. The preceding one says all that need be
said. Here we get into the region of the hyperbolical. Nor is
the final </>ct8eo 8' T7/x,e<ov any improvement on IX-qBi preceding.
Metrically rjhk -xpva-ia is a faulty opening : though this might be
remedied by 178' hi, v. ^352 (Note).
IT 217] <jirjvaL rj aiyvTrtol ya/jn/^cow;)(€S, owrt tc reKva
ayporac e^eiXovTO Trapos TreTerjva. yeviaOai,
If we consider this passage in connexion with : —
A 293 SecTfxoL t' apyaXeoL kol ^ovkoXol ay potior au
<f> 85 mjTnoL ay poLUiTai, l^rjfxipia <f>pov€OVT€<s,
A 549 Kvves T€ KOL dvcpei dypoiSyraL, ( = 272)
676 kclB 8' eTTCcreVf Xaol 8k TrcpLTpecrav dypoiwrai.
we cannot fail to notice the unique dyporai, a form which evidently
does not belong to the same linguistic period as the synonymous
dypoLwrai, Two courses are now open. On the one hand we may
regard the presence of dyporat in tt 218 as proof positive that
this passage could not have been written before dyponys had
come into use instead of the earlier dypotwriys. This is the usual
inference and is commonly accepted as irrefutable. Payne Knight
(Prolegom. § 44) cites this very dyporq^ as an example of those
words which ' Atticam istam elegantiam et concinnitatem, quae
maiestatem veteris linguae paullatim subruebat, iamdudum
obreptantem produnt '. And so the way is opened for a vapid
Hood of argument intended to demonstrate the composite and
unreal character of Homer's language.
On the other hand it may be said, and I see no effective
reply to the allegation, that the word dyporT/s here cannot be
trusted as a basis for any conclusions respecting the original
date of the poems : for it may be, and very probably is, a mere
modernization, a substitution of the familiar for the obsolete made
in later times, because the passage happened to lend itself easily
277
IT 217-290 ODYSSEY
to such a substitution. On this hypothesis we may assume that
the original ran : —
dypottorai eXovro.
Now the later Greeks used dyporai in their daily speech and
also — this may be noted as a minor point — elXovro rather than
ikovTo. By merely adding the little preposition ck, making
a compound verb, which indeed suits the later idiom better
than the simple one, they secured the double advantage of
dyporat c^ctAovTo. What harm that they could realize or ap-
preciate is done to Homer by the substitution? Would any
Greek of the age of Pericles have preferred that his children
in their repetition- lessons should commit to memory and say
dypoLtoTai cAovro rather than dyporat e^ctkovro ? Not one. Attica
ista elegantia et concinnitas facillime punctum omne tulissent.
The perception of the possibility of this modification, a
possibility rising in fact to a very high level of probability, is
not to be treated as if it were an impression or conviction that
the later Greeks disregarded all limits of moderation and reason
in the modernization of their ancient epic heirlooms. The very
word we are now considering, dypotwrai, is an absolute proof
that they did not. We see that in four instances out of five
the archaic form is maintained unimpaired, and if it was
sacrificed in tt 218, the reason for its abandonment is as plainly
discernible in the one case as the cause of its retention in the
other four.
TT 236] See Note on t 218.
IT 241^ w TTOLTip, rf TOL (TiLO /Acytt kXcos ai€V aKOVOV,
Read olkovu), cf. o 403 €i ttov d^ovct?, X. 458, y 193, ft 118, 8 94,
688. Similar is <t 126.
TT 287] See Note on $ 522.
TT 290] (= T 9) dAAa KaryKurrai, 6(r(rov Trvpos ikct* dvr/Jirj.
The verb Ka-rgKurraL presents another patent modernization,
quite on a par with the one just noticed, 1. 218, and an example
of the so-called legitimate hiatus to boot. Fortunately dciKi^w is
well established as the only legitimate Homeric form of the simple
verb, n 645, T 26 dciKiVorwo-t, X 256 detKitu (leg. dctKicro/i,'),
O 22, 54 ditKL^ev (-€t), n 559 dtLKLa-a-aifX€6\ X 404 aciKia-a-aa-Oaiy
not to mention the cognate and confirmatory dct/oys, deiKcAios,
dciKco;.
278
BOOK XVI IT 290-294
I ._....^
|H|o recognize what is called the medial digamma, dfciKi^w, so
^^hat the contraction given in the vulgate is for Homer doubly
impossible. Consequently there is hardly room for doubt that
the true reading here is : —
oAAa KarrjiLKLaTaij oaov Trvpos tK€T avrfiy.
It is easy to see that the lack of a separate sign to distinguish
rj from c in the earlier writing would much facilitate the honest
delusion that KaryKLo-TaL was the Homeric form. The difference
between the forms is only that between cet and ct.
I have to resign the priority in the making of this correc-
tion to van Herwerden, and therefore I may without interested
motives, as I am not the first in the field, declare my conviction
not only that the case against the accepted form Kar-QKLa-Tai is
unanswerable, but that Herwerdea's restoration of the original
is as assuredly right as if it were vouched for by every extant
MS. and every papyrus that has, or may hereafter, come to light.
The change of oo-o-ov to oa-ov can hardly, I should imagine,
offend even the most susceptible.
It 294] avTos yap iffyeXKcrai avSpa ctSrypo?.
Here and in the corresponding passage, t 13, the use of
cri8r;pos is by many regarded as an anachronism, v. Dr. Monro's
Note on t 1-50 (4). Prof. Ridgeway on the other hand looks upon
this clause as evidence that tlje Homeric age was not the age
of the Mycenaean finds. Suppose, however, that before this
quotation established itself as a proverb, it stood thus: —
avTos yap c^eXKcrat dvepa ;^aA.KOs.
This would bring the line into harmony with the general use
of x^xos in the poems to express weapons, o^et ;(aAKa), &c., and
no one can doubt that in the full development of the age of iron,
the modification we find in the tradition would follow inevitably
in a proverbial saying. Cf. Val. Fl. v. 540 ' virum trahit ipse
chalybs '.
This suggestion has, I find, been made by van Leeuwen and
da Costa : but its solvent effect on one of the arguments of the
Higher Criticism, so called, is worth notice. If ec^cXiccTat refers
to magnetic attraction criS-qpos will stand, but the line then can
hardly be anything but a late interpolation, for Homer knows
nothing of magnetism nor does all iron possess magnetic power.
a7a
■n 302-404 ODYSSEY
Tt 302] /iiyT* ovv Aaeprrf^ toTta to y€ firjrc (Tv/Swrrj^
/Aiyrc Tts oiKrjoiv fxi^* avrrj nryvcXoTrcta.
Kirchhoff condemns the two lines : but there is nothing really
against them except the neglect of the F in olKrjoiv. It is easy to
read; —
/at^t' apa Tts otKCvs — .
IT 367] ov TTOT ctt' rjTTeLpov vvKT oxra/JLev, aXX* evl ttovtw — •
The regular aecraafiev is given by two MSS. D Z. Wacker-
nagel has accordingly given
i-rr rjTretpoLO a€(T(Tafi€V
which is approved by Monro ad loc, and suggested though not
adopted by van Leeuwen and da Costa, who might have been
expected to recognize only an augmented and necessarily long a
in dcWa/Acv. We may safely read : —
iir rprfipov dia-crajxev.
TT 369] T-qXifiaxov Xo;(oa>vT€5, tva ^^to-at/xcv cXovrcs
avrov Toi/ 8' apa ttjos dTriyyayc otKaSc Baifxxov.
For avTov Bekker would read avroOiy Nauck avrUa. Either
gives a satisfactory sense ; but avrws seems to me far more likely
to have been lost than either of the two other adverbs, because
(1) it is a form that became obsolete, and (2) the sense would be
hardly understood * as he was ', * there and then.*
IT 387] ct K v/juv oSe fjLvOos d(f)avSdv€Li dAAa ^oXeaSe — .
As neither d<f>avSdv€L nor oFavSdveL is a possible form, I suggest
that the original form of the line was : —
€t 8* av jxvOos 08* vfxfi aTToavSdvet, —
Cf. aTTOctTTOV, aTTOTifJidwy aTroKrjSeu).
Or again, abandoning the somewhat doubtful preposition, we
might read : —
€1 av ixvuo<s 06 vfLfx ov avoavct — .
IT 390] ivOdS* dyf.Lp6p.evoL, a\X Ik p^eydpoio CKaoTOS
p,vd(T6<ji ifSvoLcriv 8t^r;/X€Vos*
Read ov 8' ck />t€ydpoio, ' from his own hall.' Clearly the
possessive pronoun cannot be omitted here. Cf. Note on v 33 if.
IT 4023 KT€iV(iV' dAAa TrpwTa OeCiv ilpwfxeOa ftovkd^.
Read dAA* dye Trpdra as metre demands, cf. 6 352 (Note).
It 4^4^ aVTOS T€ KT€V€<Ji TOVS t' oAAoVS TTClVTaS dviO^Oi'
The curious fut. dvw^o) can hardly be right. It is of course
unique, and probably owes its existence to the fact that the
a8o
BOOK XVI TT 404-418
^ext line ends with avwya. The only variant is avdioi PYO
(Ludwich). I will suggest as at least possible and certainly
preferable : —
Cf. y8 185 ovSe K€ Tr]X.€fiaxov KexoXoi/xevov aiS' avL€Lrj<s.
IT 4^SJi 'AktiVo', v^ptv exdiVf KaKOfii/Jxave, kol 8c ore <f>acnv
iv S>7/Aa) ^lOdKrj<s fxiff ofxrjXtKas i/xfxev apurrov
fiovXrj KOL fjLvOoLcn'
Can we rightly assign to the phrase /ac^' ofirjkiKas the sense
here obviously required, * among thy coevals,' ' amidst thy peers ' ?
If we could stringently limit our range of view to this passage
and one other ; —
I 53 TuSeiSry, Trept jxev TroXcfMo €vl Kaprepos ccro-t,
Kttt /3ov\rj fi€Ta Travras 6/xryAiKas IttAcu apwrros.
we might possibly rest in a state of stolid contentment. But
the moment we audaciously proceed — per vetitum et nefas — to
take into consideration the ordinary usage of /xcrd with the ace,
our satisfaction — alas ! — is at an end for ever.
Now jxerd with ace. frequently occurs in Homer after a verb
of motion with the meaning (i) ' to join the company of, (2) * in
pursuit of, 'in quest of,' e.g. (i) A 222 fiera Sai/x-ovas oAAovs
(yScySrJKci), TT 85, (2) ^ 133 -^k par dyporipa^ eXdcfiovs (cpxcrat),
A 292 /3rj Sk p,€T akXovs, A 700. Then (3) it means merely
' after ', ' next to,' without the necessity for any verb of motion,
<f> 190 €K 8' aVTOS /X-CTO, TOVS SopLOV ^Av^€, A. 2 60 T^V Sk /XCT*
AvTtoTnyv l8ov, &C., &c.
From this last usage comes directly its employment in certain
sentences closely analogous to, and yet oddly different from, the
peculiar pair under examination : —
B 674 Ntpeus, OS KaAAioTos dvrjp vtto IXlov rjXOey
Tu>v oAAwv Aavatui/ p,€T a,pivp,ova HrjXetoiva'
I 140 (= 282)
at K€ p,eT Apyetrjv EiXevrjv KaAAtcrrat iUio-LV.
M 103 ol ydp ot etcravTO StaKptSov etvai a/otorot
Twv oLWcov /Acra y avrov
Here ye probably represents an original cf e-
^117 Nav/?oA/8r;9, os apio-ros irjv ctSos re 8c/x,as t€
Trdvrmv $atr/Ko>v /act' d/xv/xova AaoSdpiavTa.
881
IT 418 ODYSSEY
X 522 K€LVOV St] KaXXioTOv tSov fxcTo. Mifivova Stov.
(koAAiotov 87] Tov y€ tSov Cobet.)
Add X 470, 551, a> 18.
It appears then that fiera with ace, especially after super-
latives aptoTos, &c., has a yery distinct and definite meaning,
practically ' with the exception of ', more literally ' in succession
to ', * ranking next to.' If so — and the quoted passages seem
to place the matter beyond all doubt — then in tt 419 popular
rumour and in I 54 the aged Nestor paid Antinous and Tydides
respectively a very ambiguous, or rather left-handed, com-
pliment by classing them as ' best after (every one of) their
compeers \
The unfortunate school-boy who figures at the very bottom
of his class might find this idiom useful to save his face, as they
say in China, when it became necessary to describe his position
to his hopeful parents : but I fear the artifice without the aid
of a learned language properly misunderstood would prove a
failure.
Recognizing the absurdity Nauck has suggested, and van
Leeuwen and da Costa have accepted, the correction : —
Ktt^' bfxrjXiKWi,
but I think the difficulty may be surmounted and the corrup-
tion accounted for much more easily, if we suppose that the
original was in the first case : —
^ /A€^' 6fJirj\LK€(r €/X/JL€V apUTTOVj
and in the second ; —
fXiTOL Travreor* 6fX7jX.LK€<T cTrA-t' apurro^.
The dative after /xcra, which is epic not Attic, affords the
required meaning, 'amid thy compeers.' We have already
seen the proper use of /xcra with ace. after a superlative, and
the construction with the dat., the superlative being still
present, may now be illustrated to confirm the emendation.
We have : —
A 5 1 6 /xcTo, Trao-tv aTt/xorany ^«o9 cifti,
where no misguided remodeller has introduced /actol iravra?, which
would be admissible if tt 419 and I 54 be right: but no one
would like, I fancy, to have to defend such a change.
n 570 /?A^o yap ov ri KaKLoro's dirqp fi€Ta. M.vpfx.Lh6v€(r(riV'
4^ 476 ovT€ vewTttTo? c(r<n /act 'Apyciowri TO<rovTov»
aSa
BOOK XVI IT 418-437
In these two lines also the datives have been left undisturbed
for a very good and obvious reason.
For similar instances of the archaic form of the dat. plur. in
-€ort expelled in favour of the ace. I may refer to the Notes on
€ 328 ff. and V 164.
If Nauck's remedy, Kara, be wanted anywhere, let it be
applied to B 143 where /xera irX-qOvv is, certainly objectionable,
more objectionable than ever if the argument here advanced
be accepted ; for nothing is then left to keep it in countenance.
But really little reliance can be placed upon the genuineness
of B 143 at all : it was athetized by Aristarchus and probably
rightly. Again KaO^ ofxikov (van Leeuwen and da Costa) may
be right in P 149, but the traditional fiS^ ofiiXov is not quite
indefensible after crawo-eias, and may well be left in undisturbed
possession.
IT 4283 rov p tOiXov <f>OL(rai kol aTroppoLcraL <^lXov rfTop —
Read perhaps aTropprja-aiy v. Note on a 403 f.
'"'" 437] ovK €(rO' ovTOS dvrjp ovS' €(r<reTat ovSk yevr/rat,
OS K€v Tr)X€fxd)((o <tQ vlei ^j^ctpas iirota-eL
t,o)ovr6s y ifxWev /cat eirt ^Oovl SepKOfxevoto.
This passage is of great interest because we can compare it
with the similar guarantee given to Calchas by Achilles : —
A 88 OV TtS ip,€V ^(OVTO^S KOL CTTt ^dovl SepKOfJ^iVOLO
(TOL kolXtjs Trapa. vqvcrX fiapeias ^ctpas cttoiVcl
(TVfjLTrdvTtiiv Aavacov, ov8* fjv ^Ayafii/xvova ctirTys, —
Taking the words as they stand, no one could say that the
lines from the Iliad bear marks of being older than those from
the Odyssey. In fact a comparison of e/xtv t,<iiVT(ys with ^wovros
y ijxeO^v and of os kcv i-n-oLcreL (Subjunctive) with ov tl<s cTrourct, to
say nothing of koCXtjs irapa vrjva-L and the somewhat otiose ySapccas,
would lead and could lead only to the opposite conclusion. But,
before drawing such a conclusion, we ought first to consider
whether it is not possible and even probable that the lines have
sustained modifications in later times, which may have materially
altered their aspect.
Let us take the passage from the Iliad first. Of course
^(ovTos is un-Homeric : yet it would be futile to suggest t,oiov as
the original. The ^wovros of ir 439 makes that impossible.
But what is the meaning of iirl x^ovl SepKopiivoLo ? Of course
283
IT 437 ODYSSEY
it has to be regarded here as loosely synonymous with ^w»/to?,
' and behold the light on earth ' (Leaf), ' am on earth to see the
light ' (Butcher and Lang).
As a matter of fact SipKOfjun, used intransitively, means only,
as usage shows, ' I stare, glare, gaze fixedly ' ; so that, if the
words are to be accurately rendered, Achilles is absurdly repre-
sented in an attitude, an habitual attitude moreover, either of
moping philosophic contemplation, ' gazing on the ground/ buried
in the light of thought, no doubt, or else ' glaring at the ground '.
If this latter be right, we might well say with the poet in a
special sense : kco^^v yap Srj yaiav act/ct^ct fMiveaivitiv.
I am convinced, however, that Homer was not guilty of this
travesty of the heroic. What we have in the tradition is due
to some rhapsodist who dropt his aspirates occasionally. The
line should stand thus : —
OV TtS ifJi€V ^WOKTOS CTTt )(OoVL t' €p)(OfJL€VOLO
' while I live and move upon earth '. For the intervention to be
effectual it was not sufficient that he should be merely alive, cf.
T 334 ^Srj yap HrjXrjd y' oto/xat r) Kara TrdfJLTrav
T€^va/x€V, T] TTOV tvtOov €Ti ^(oovT dKa)(r}cr6at — .
He must be capable of active bodily exertion, not a mere ax^os
dpovp-qq. He must be like the generality of mankind, as they are
depicted in the equivalent phrase (E 442),
^a/Attt ip)(oixivo)v T dvOpioTrwv,
So also Hymn. xxix. 2, cf. xxx. 3. Compare the expression in
P447(=cr 131):—
TravTwv oaraa re yatav ctti irviUi re kcu epTrei,
See also Note on w 263.
Accordingly with two slight additional changes the passage
A 88 ff. would read :—
OV TIS ip-iV ^(i)OVTOS CTTt X'^OVL T IpXOp^VOLO
COL KoiX.y^ cTTi vrjvcrl ySapct'as ;(€tpas cttoiVci
<rvp.TrdvT(iiv Aavawv, ovS* €t k 'Aya/xe/xvova eiTnys, —
Cf. E 791, M 90. Perhaps Trapa vryvo-i Ooya-L (89).
Closely following this arrangement of the earlier passage,
I would suggest for tt 437 ; —
ovK ta6* ovTos dvrjp ov8' tcraerai ovSc ycKJ/rai,
OS K€V €/X€V ^(OOVTOS CTTl )^6oVL T €p\OpAvOLO
TriXfpAxt^ T€a> vu l3ap€Lai \€ipai CTrotVct.
a84
BOOK XVI TT 437-441
^his allows os k ifiio for os k€v c/xev, but the contraction is quite
admissible.
IT 4413 au/ftt ot at/xa KiXawov ipwi^a-ei Trept Sovpl
riix€T€p(aj cTTCt ^ Kttt ejxk TrroXiTropOo^ '08v(rcreus
iroXXaKi yovvaa-L olcnv i<f)€cr<rdfJi€vo9 Kpia^ otttov
€V •)(eip€(T(TLV WrjKev, hriarxe. t€ oTvov ipvOpov.
Exception must be taken to ri/xeripw. Dr. Monro suggests
that the plural is used in order to seem to associate others with
the speaker. But throughout the speech there is an insistence
on his personal readiness as an individual to defend Telemachus
against all and sundry. Consequently if rffxercpia be right, it can
only be regarded as equivalent to e/xw. I suggest, however, that
it is a corruption, firstly because the preceding line, where it
occurs in the Iliad (A 303), concludes a speech, and secondly,
if my view of the line be right, a view adopted from the
consideration of A 303, such a word is quite impossible.
Achilles says to Agamemnon : * You may take Briseis, but
nothing else that is mine.' Then he proceeds : —
€t 8* aye fjLTjv TTCiprycrat, tva yvwoxrt kol olSc'
alij/d Tot at/xa KeXatvbv ipoj-qcreL vepl Sovpt.
Now €po)€a> means * to draw back ', * to retire,' v. P 422, /x 75,
T 170, ^ 468, and N 57, where co-trv/xcvos — ipwi^a-it should be
read.
I suggest that the original form of A 303 (and tt 441 with
ot for Tot) was : —
aTij/d Tot at/xa KeXaivbv c/xw rjaret ircpl Sovpt.
The question is whether ltj/ml can be used (sc. p6ov) prac-
tically as an intransitive verb. Certainly 07/xt occurs with a
similar ellipse in the sense of * I shoot', ' I throw,' v. t 499, and
the analogies of iXavvoi and ex'^ are in point. But the usage of
hjfjLL itself in connexion with rivers and springs is more, if not
quite, decisive : —
X 239 OS TToXv KoAXioTOS TTOTa/xoiv cTTt yatav irj(TLy
■jy 130 (8v(u Kp^vai) rj 8* irepoiOev vir avA^s ovhov l-qan — .
If this view be accepted, rjfX€Tepio would need correction, and
for it ev fxeydpio seems not unlikely, as involving but slight change
of letters. It is not an ineffective touch that the locality should
be thus marked, whether we leave it in connexion with 1. 441
or, by placing a full stop after Sovpt, bring it into the following
285
IT 441-p 10 ODYSSEY
sentence ' Since in his halls oft did Odysseus set me too on his
knees &c.\ KaC means *as well as his own son, Telemachus'.
Cf. t 15 KTJSc* €7r€t fjuoi. E 26, Z 474.
"^ 454] ^^ tcpcvo-avTcs cvtavcriov. avrap *A6rjvr} — .
Read :—
ipcvo-avTcs <rvv evtavcrtov.
Lines with diaeresis after both the second and fourth feet are
not by any means so uncommon as is generally supposed. The
first book of the Odyssey contains fifty-seven examples : the
second sixty-nine : the third seventy-four ; and in all probability
an examination of the other books would show similar results.
Cf. 13 168, 178, 205.
'"' 471] V^V ^€p TToXtos, oOl & '^pfXaiO'S X6<f}0<S ioTLV,
See Note on ^ 294.
IT 473J ^5 Xifxev rjfX€T€pov' TToAAot 8' ecrav avBpe<s kv avrrj,
The doubtful pronoun is not to be accepted here as genuine,
avS/ocs cv avrfj is too easy a modification of a more antiquated
av€p€<s €vSov
or perhaps eio'CD.
BOOK XVII (p).
p 10] Tov ^€LVOv Sv(TTr]vov ay' es irokiv, o<f>p* av ckcWi
Satra tttwx'^'^'
14 6 $€ivoi 8* ct TTcp fxaXa jxrjvUL, aXyiov avrw
tcrcr€rav
If we compare with the former of these two lines w 289 : —
crov $€Lvov SvarrrjvoVi Ipxtv TratS', €t ttot trjv yc,
it is not unreasonable to suppose that here also the true
reading is
crov ^ctvov hvcTTiqvoVy
and this is confirmed when we consider how well the possessive
pronoun suits the manifest purpose of Telemachus to disarm
suspicion by a pretended disclaimer of any sympathy with the
swineherd's guest.
Again for I. 14 we might restore not without some
probability : —
^€ivo<s 8* €t trip K(U fxaXa jx-qvUiy
in view of the frequency of the occurrence of koX fidka in conjunc-
a86
I
BOOK XVII pio
tion, e. g. 6 139 €t KaX fjcdXa KapT€p6<s iirj. f 485 ct kol fidXa Trcp
)(aX€7raLvoi. ^ 312 (=77 194) ci xal fxdXa rrjXoOcv ecro-t, 217,
v6, ^155.
Still the objection would be raised that the article with
ie2vo<s is a special feature of the Odyssey, a birth-mark which
cannot be remoYcd and should not be touched. To answer this
it will be necessary to examine the claims of the article so far as
^etvos is concerned in some detail, exactly as was done in the
case of vrjcros and x^pos in the Note on c 55. The general con-
siderations there stated need not be repeated here. The facts
with regard to ^uvos are as follow. Omitting vocatives which
obviously can have no bearing on the question at issue, I find
the word occurs 130 times in the Homeric poems: out of this
number eight only belong to the Iliad.
The nom. case sing, is used with the article 13 times ) m ^ 1
„ accus. „ „ „ 18 times [>■
TO) iiLvu) and tov<s ^ctVovs occur once each j
It appears then that the use of the article is practically
limited to the forms ^ctvos and ieivov.
Let us first consider the two exceptions. They are : —
P 345 ^os T(i) ^ciVu) ravra <f>€poiv avTov re KcAcve — .
Now in 6 477 Odysseus, acting just as Telemachus does here,
says : —
Krjpv^, TTj hrjy TOVTO Trope Kpeas, 6<j>pa ^ayiycrt, —
So again in t 347 offering the wine to f*olyphemus : —
KvkAcdi/^, TTjj irU olvov, €7r€t <fidy€<s dvBp6fX€a Kpca, —
Cf. K 287, € 346, H 219, ^ 618, O 287. I infer that the true
reading here is : —
T^, 80s ^ctVo) ravra (fiipcav — .
Nor is the case of v 382 very difficult to solve : —
rovs iuvovs €V vrfi TroAvxATytSt ^aXovres
is St/ceXovs TrefXTTOifMev.
We must again read, as in p 10, with effective ironical emphasis
the possessive pronoun : —
orovs ielvovs
* these friends of yours \
We have now to consider the thirteen instances of 6 ielvos,
or rather the twelve, as one p 14 has already been dealt with.
Six of these have an elision before the article, which may of
287
p 10 ODYSSEY
course be removed without detriment to either sense or metre:
They would read thus : —
17 192 fivrja-ofxeO't ws K€ ^ctvos avevOe ttovov kol dvti/s — .
1 01 TravTCDV, ws k€ ^€tvos evLorTn) oto-i (ftCXoicriVf ^.
251 7ra«raT€, ws K€ $€lvo9 IvLanrrj olcrt ^lXolctiv — .
c 401 aX6^ axjiiXXe ^etvos d\w/A€vos aAAo^' oXeardai — .
^314 eX.'TreaL, at k€ $€lvo^ *OBvcrcrrjo<s fiiya to^ov — .
424 TrjXcfxax, ov ere ^civos ivl fieydpoLaiv cXcyx^* — •
There are thirty-three examples of ^elvos ^nominative) without
6 in the tradition, and in not a single one of the thirty-three can
the article be inserted. In one way or another it is necessarily
excluded. As the later Greeks would naturally favour the usage
of their own day, it is not unlikely that the 6 was deliberately
inserted in the above six lines, if only because the work is done
with such happy completeness. But be that as it may, these six
lines absolutely refute the prevalent idea that the article, in p 10
and 14 for example gives a contemptuous tone. In four, if not
five, contempt is utterly out of the question.
The remaining instances six in number are these : —
^388 6 ^€tVOS fJidXa fXOL 8oK€€i TTeTTW/XeVO^ €LVaL.
541 o ^€tvos* fidXa TTOv fiLV aixo<s </>p€vas afxt^ipi^-qKCV.
p 586 ovK d<l>poiV 6 ^eivos otcrat, ws irep av €Lr}' (Ludwich)
o- 38 6 $€Lv6<s T€ Kal*Ipo<s ipL^erov aXXi^Xouv — .
T 99 o ieLvo<s ifxeOev' iOeXoi 8c /xiv e^epcccr^ai.
if/ 286 ^ctvos, Tov TravTcs aTt/ACDV iv /xcydpoKri
1 will suggest that 388 may have stood thus : —
^ctvos /x.€V /xdX* ifxol SoKe€L ■7r€Trvvp.ivo<s cti/ai
Cf. 8 157 X^^^VOV fliv TOL 08' VLOS . 8 774 8at//,0l't0l, flvOoV^ fl€V —
followed as here by dXX* dye. <^ 344, rj 160.
For ^ 541 : —
$€LVO<s o8'' rj fidXa ttotj /xiv ai)(os <l>p€va<s d/jL(fiL^i^r}K€V
is supported by the ^ctvos 08' of ^ 28 and t 27, though it would
be possible to read simply ^ctvos* koI fidXa, as in p 14 above.
p 586 ovAC a<f>p(DV TO ^ctvos dicTtti, 0)9 TTcp av €tr).
* The stranger — no fool he — thinks of this, as it would be.'
This reading I proposed in a notice of Dr. Monro's Od.
xiii-xxiv. It seems to me to account for the presence of 6 and
to supply a satisfactory sense and construction, to being the
anticipated subject to av cit;, as in o!8a o-e Tts ct. While con-
a88
(
BOOK XVII pio
yeying the same meaning, it renders Dr. Monro's abrupt punctua-
tion needless : —
ovK a<f)p(ji)v 6 ^etvos* oUrai, ws Trep av evq'
0-386 ^etVos T€ KoX *Ipo<; — .
The yery facility with which this might be emended in more
ways than one makes a quite satisfactory restoration unattain-
able, ietvos yap Koi *Ipos would serve, as would other particles
beside yap. We might even preserve 6 by writing it o = on. The
clause would then be an explanation of the re/aTrwArj mentioned in
the preceding line, ' the fact that.'
In T 99 we have a line beginning with a spondee followed
by a procession of six short syllables. I might fairly claim that
a metrical freak like this is of no account whatever in any dis-
cussion. I suggest : —
^ctvos i/xev' lOiXoi Si fxiv iiepicaO* oris ctrrt.
Cf. rj l^j K€pTO/x€OL T€ hr€(T(TL KoX l^ipioid^ OTtS etT/.
The last example j/^ 28 may be read ^civog, t6v koX iravrc?,
though, as in the case of cr 38, other suggestions that would suit
well enough (^ctvos p.€v, rov &c.) might be made.
It now remains to consider how the traditional examples of
rov ^iivov can be dwelt with, if, as now seems likely, they are not
to be accepted as original features of the Odyssey. Here they
stand, omitting p 10 which has been already considered : —
7) 227 Tre/JLTrifxevaL rov ^ctvov, eTrel Kara fjLOtpav letTrcv ( = v 48).
6 133 ScvTc, <^iAoi, Tov $€LVOV ipwfxeOa, ct nv aeOXov — .
402 Toiyap eyw tov ^iivov ap€(T(rofxaii ws av KcXeveLS.
V 52 TOV ^€tvoi/ TrefXTTOi/xev crjv i<s TrarpiSa yatav.
o 542 Kcu vvv fJiOL rov $ewov ayoov ev 8w/x.a(rt counv — .
TT ^O TTois yap S-J) rov ietvov cyojv vTToBeiofiai otKO);
78 ctAA' 7) TOL rov ielvovj cttci reov LKcro 8(op,a — .
p 398 OS TOV ^eivov avwya? aTro fx^yapoio SUaOai — .
508 epx^o, 8r Ev/xai€, /ctwv rov $€ivov avw^^t — .
544 ^PX^^ f-o' "^^^ ielvov ivavrtov wSc KaXco^cov.
o- 2 22 OS rov iecvov cao-as dctKio-^r/ftevat ovrws.
416 fiT^e ri rov ^ctvov arrv(f)€XLt,€r€ fx-i^re tiv' aXAov (= v 324) — .
420 rov $€Lvov Be ew/jtev ivl fxeyapoLS *08vo^os — .
T 94 ws rov $€ivov efieXXov ivl fieyapoLcnv ipmcnv — .
V 305 OVK l^aXcs rov ^etvov aXivaro yap /SeAos arros.
Let US take first tt 78 for convenience. The restoration here
AOAE U aS9
p 10 ODYSSEY
is hardly open to doubt. The formula aXX' 5 rot — /xeV is
tolerably familiar to all readers of Homer. (See my list, Journ,
Phil. xxiv. p. 275, also Note on t 235.) Nor indeed is this use of
fjJv as a particle of emphasis limited to this formula only. We
have it with this word ^uvov in 77 162 : —
dAA* aye 8^ ^ilvov fxev cttI Opovov apyvpo-qXov — .
where two MSS. only, unavailingly but significantly, offer tov Icii/ov.
I take it then as a moral certainty that the true reading of
TT 78 is
oAA* ^ Tot itlvov fieVf hrel tcov ikcto 8o>/ta — .
This being so, the question naturally arises : To how many
of the lines in the above list is this same remedy possibly and
reasonably applicable ?
Might we not accept as probable ? —
Tj 227 TTc/ATTC/Acvat ielvov /X€V, cTTct KttTa fwcpav €€Mr€i/(= V 48).
• ^133 8cvT€, (fiikoL, ieivov fxcv ipw/xeOa
402 roiyap iyoj ieivov fxev apicra-opjcu
V 52 ^iivov fiev Tre/ATTOD/xcv — . cf. H 89 avSpbs /a€V ToSe (r^fxa — .
o 542 Koi vvv fxoL iflvov phf ayuiv iv Sw/jUMTt o-otcrtv
p 398 OS i^Lvov fX€V avwyas
O" 22 2 OS ^€LVOV pxv IttO-ttS
T 94 a)s ^ilvov fX€v c/AcAAov
V 305 ovK cySaXcs fiev ^eivov
In this last the emphasis is on the verb, and the fiev rightly follows
the emphatic word. Similarly I should prefer inry 227(=v 48)
-Trc/xTTc/xcvat fxkv $eLvov — .
TT 70 TTtos yap Br] icLvov oLK(o vTToSiiofJL cyw ye; (v. Note ad loc.)
There is no great dif&culty presented by the next pair : —
p 508 epx'^Oy 8t' Eu/xat€, KioiV koX ieivov avm-^Bi — ,
544 lpx€0 KOX fWL ifivov evavTLov wSc Kakcaaov.
Cf. O 54 epx^o vvv — Koi Sevpo Kakecra-ov.
A little more difficulty attends the solution ofo-4i6(=v324). But
with elose adherence to the text as transmitted, and even a slight
gain in force, we might read : —
fx-qr In Ti iilvov orv^cXt^rrc fi-qrc tlv aXkov — .
There now remains only o- 420, for which I have nothing better
to suggest than the ordinary epic attributive article (Monro,
H. G.§258).—
Tov B* cacD/xcv $€lvov
390
BOOK XVII p 10-22
The conclusion I draw from all this is that it is idle and
futile to treat 6 ieivo^ and t6v ielvov as congenital with the
Odyssey. In some instances there is little real doubt that they
are nothing but modernisms, and there is something more
than a possibility that this is the true state of the case always.
There is every probability that an examination of 6 ycpwv in both
Iliad and Odyssey would show like results, cf. e 55 (Note), t 375,
T 535.
p 22] dAA' cpx^^* ^f-^ ^' °^^^' oivr]p oSc, Tov crv KeXeueis,
avTLK cTTci K€ TTvpo'S Oepioi oXirj T€ yarrjrai.
The form ^epcco in 1. 23, if it be carefully considered, is
more than a little surprising. To begin with it is quite unique,
yet its acceptance seems inevitable, for there is no variant save
the still more impossible OepcG) of Flor. Laur. 52, corrected
indeed into Oepia) by the second hand and probably merely a
slip of the copyist. Now let us see what grammatical explana-
tion has been given of this Oepiw. We are told it is the
subjunctive of a 2 aor. pass. iOeprjv, a form itself entirely un-
known, a mere figment in fact devised to meet the require-
ments of this passage, and moreover probably quite incapable —
even granting the possibility of its existence — of giving Oepto)
in Homer. The true form of the subjunctive would rather
be $€p€LU) after the analogy of SafieLiOj Sactw from iSd/jirjv, iSarjv
respectively.
Accordingly without being guilty of any very precipitate
scepticism we may venture to repudiate Oepeo) altogether as corrupt
and look for some other solution of the problem presented by the
tradition. Let us begin by reviewing the usage of Homer with
respect to this verb Oipofiai, *I am warmed.' Here we have,
I believe, all the passages : —
Z 331 dAA' ava, fJLr) TO-xa axrrv Trvpos BrjLOLO Oiprjrai.
A 666 ^ fj.€V€i ets o kc Srj vyjeq Ooat ay^i OaX.aa(Trjs
^Apyetwv deAcryrt Trvpos SrjiOLO Bipayvrai — ;
T 64 vqrjcrav ^\a ttoAAo, ^ows c/>tev rfh\ OipicrOau
506 avTt9 ap' dcro-OTepcu Trvpos €\k€to hi^pov *08vcro'€vs
Oepcrofxevos, ovXrjv 8k Kara paKecarcn KaXvij/e.
In T 64 we may notice that the true reading </)dos r efjLtv is
supplied in Etym. Mag. 565, 39 and practically (re fiev) in
Etym. Gud. 16, 3, but not apparently by any MS. of the
TJ 2 291
p 22 ODYSSEY
Odyssey. Oepcrofievo^ in 1. 507 is paralleled by 8ta</)^€po"6i
(N 625), but is hardly sufficient to justify the suggestion of
Oepa-iD/x (van Leeuwen and da Costa in Note) for our passage
instead of Oepew.
The peculiarity of the second foot in t 507, I do not
hesitate to say, is in all probability the result of a bold trans-
position, designed to save the elision of the t of paKcco-o-t (v. Notes
on € 328 ff., V 163 f., IT 418, and cf. $ 539, p. 298), the original
arrangement having been : —
$€p(r6/x€vos, Kara Sk paK€€(r(T ovXrjv €KaXv\J/€.
Apart from the change of the order of the words nothing is
altered here save KoXvif/e, which now appears as iKoXvif/c — a
slight matter, which van Leeuwen and da Costa, who indeed
print paK€€(T(T iKoXvij/e according to their custom, would accept
without demur, though oi trepl Prof. Piatt might, I fear, be
disposed to raise an objection to the augment.
To return to our passage, it is evident that the natural and
most regular word instead of the disputable ^epcw would be
BiptiifiaLy and this I propose to reinstate simply enough thus : —
avTLK l-mi K€ TTvpos T€ Oipuyfx aXir] t€ yivrjrai.
It would perhaps be sufficient to suggest that 0eP€O is merely
an accidental mutilation of T666P0, but apart from such
a possibility, on which I lay no stress, the disappearance of tc in
this position is susceptible of illustration not only from t 64,
already quoted, but also from the far more apposite and effective
instance of A, 403 : —
^€ TTcpt irrdXids T€ fia\ovfievoi ^Bk ywatKwv,
where the loss of the participle, as I have shown good reason to
believe, has resulted, as here, in the development of a unique
and altogether unacceptable verbal form, /xaxcovftcvos, v. Note,
pp. 187-8. There is little need to insist on the danger which
always attended elided forms like Oipoifi for Bipaipju in the
Homeric text. Enough has been said not only to indicate the
ease with which our unsatisfactory Oipim might be developed, but
also to provide something more than a colourable excuse for the
suggestion of re Oepw/x.
With respect to the beginning of 1. 22, dXA* tpxoj' ifxk 8* — ,
which is faulty both by reason of the contraction of <px*o *^^
because of the hiatus, a simpler and more likely original than
39a
BOOK XVII P 22-157
ither of the two propounded by van Leeuwen and da Costa : —
€pX^o' avTap €fx (Text)
olXX IOl' avrap €fi (Note)
"would be : —
The infinitive for the imperative is Homeric enough. The
imperative would come in inevitably as a gloss, nor can the
supersession of the ambiguous epx^a-ff be much wondered at;
but why any one should have desired to alter either of the two
readings suggested by the learned Dutch editors, is not by any
means apparent, always supposing they — the readings — are in
point of metre flawless.
p 31] Tov 8k TToAv TrpwTT] ctSc rpo<j>6^ Ev/ovKActa — ,
Read Trpw-ny tScro Tpo</)os (cf. 328, t 449) or TrpuyrLcrra tSe (cf.
$ 220).
P 37D 'AprifJiiSi iKiXr} -^k xpvo'ey *A<f>po8LTrf
This line both here and t 54 is merely a rhapsodist's method
of giving distinction to Penelope. It should be rejected without
hesitation.
P 104] 'f'X^^' ^Z"'* ^ ATp€i8r)(nv cs "IXlov' ovSe fiOL crXr;?
^ATpttBrjcr €9 "IXlov (van Leeuwen and da Costa) is doubt-
lessly right : but I would suggest as equally necessary : —
ovBk (TV fJL €T\r)<; {/x = /xot).
p 114] avrap *08vacrrjo<s TaXa(TL<f)povo<i ov ttot t<fia(TK€
^(uov ov8\ 6av6vTO<s lirixOovioiv rru aKovcrat,
This line is not to be corrected t,oioT ovBl with van Leeuwen
and da Costa. We must read for the metre's sake : —
^CDOV It ovSe Oavovro^
So T 272 t,iaov' avrap ayct Kct/x^Xta ttoXAo, koX icrOXd (Ludwich)
should conform to p 527 ^wov* TroAAa 8' ayct /cet/AiJXta ovSe So/xovSe
rather than to o 159 Ipp^o/Aai, avrap ayo> Keifx-qXia iroXXa koi
iaOXa — .
The gen. in -ov is never to be accepted as long in thesi before
a vowel. This rule is absolute.
P 157] <^5 V "^^^ '08v(r€vs yj^-q ev TrarptSt yoiry,
r]fji€Vo<s ^ €pTro)v, raSe TrevOofxevo's KaKa epya,
€OTtv, arap fxvrjarrjpo'i KaKov Trdvrecra-L (jivrevet.
Apart from the examples of hiatus in the first of these lines,
which no one has ever attempted to legitimize either in the
293
p 157-206 ODYSSEY
second foot or in the fourth, the position of lortv, however
accented, is quite sufficient to make us aware that the tradition has
not faithfully preserved the words of the poet, cf. Note on «/r 314.
One MS. (P) has Travrco-o-i ixvrja-rrjpa-L, but this, though tolerable
in sense, requires the removal of the second Trdvrta-cn and leaves
the origin of arap a mystery. My own view is that though drap,
* but,' is quite unsuitable, yet it is not far from the truth and repre-
sents here as occasionally elsewhere, e. g. X 331, a primitive d<^ap.
I suggest the following as probably the original ; from
it the development of the vulgate is easily intelligible : —
0)5 ri TOL Ktivo<s fi€v iff ev TrarpiSi yairj
^fievos rj l/OTToov, raSe TrevOofievo's xaxa epya,
T]Sr} a<j>ap fivrja-'njpa'L kukov 7ravT€(rcrt <f>VT€V€L.
For Kcivo? fiev V. TT 78, and for erj cf. X 404.
rjSr} a(f)apy * at this very moment ' or, as they say in America,
'right now,' cf. 11 323 co/xov a<f>ap and Dr. Leaf's note there. In
€ 108 a<f>ap 8' seems highly probable.
In the first place kcivos /xev may well have been ousted by
the correct gloss, 'OSvo-evg, and thereby i-j would become ^817, if
only to save the metre from instant ruin. When we add to this
the conversion, facile enough, of a<f)ap into dra/D, there is really
nothing left for it but to introduce the somewhat weak-kneed
€<mv into the position necessarily left vacant at the beginning of
our third line.
This account of the process of evolution is surely not
unreasonable, and few will, I imagine, contend that the emended
passage is either philologically or poetically less acceptable than
the tradition.
P 203] a-KrprTo/Jievov' to. 8c \vypa Trcpt )(poi ciftara €<tto.
This line, which recurs a> 158 and, with only the variation
of a letter, p 338, is a spurious concoction (contaminatio) from
B 457 :—
avT<3 a-KrfTTTOfieyov Kari/xev Sofiov *Ar8os cictcd.
and ^67 Kttt <f><jivrjv, Koi TOta Trcpi )(poL tifiara Ioto. Cf. r 2l8.
p 206j TVKT^V KoAAipOOV, 0$€V vSpCVOVTO TToXxTai,
See Note on rj 131. KoXKiporiv seems probable, as we have
KoAAipor; (Hymn. Dem. 419). Compound adjectives in epic
generally are of three terminations. The later usage sometimes
produced odd misapprehension, cf. w 62 (Note).
394
BOOK XVII p 226-254
p 2263 olW* i-rrcl ovv Sr) tpya KaK efXfiaOev, ovk lOtXricru
epyov €7rot3(€(r^at, dAAa Trrwcrcrwv Kara Srj/Mov
PovXerai atrt^cov I36(tk€lv ^v yacrrip avaXrov.
These lines with but slight modifications meet ns again : —
(T 362 dAA' CTTct ovv Sr] epya kolk €fjLfxa6€Sf ovk c^cXiycrcts
tpyov €TroL)(€a'6ai, dAAa Trrwo-cretv Kara Srj/xov
jSovAcai, ocfip* av exp^ ^oo-kuv (rrjv yaarep aivaXrov.
In other passages the hiatus in the third foot has been regarded
as a doubtful licence, e. g. i 384, v. Note on X 584. Here we
might read : —
€pyov i7roL)(€a-$* f oAAa KaraTrruiacroiv (-civ) xara S^/jlov — .
KaTaTTTwcrorw ' I skulk ' (A 224, 340 «fec.) seems perhaps a little more
suitable here than tttwo-o-o) *I crouch', 'cower,' and certainly
the repetition of Kara would be likely to offend later critics, so
that we need not be surprised at its removal from the verb.
The last line, with its remarkable variation in the construc-
tion given to Poo-kuv and the forced sense of avoArov, ' insatiable,'
is rather open to doubt : but there is no conclusive evidence, and
the only safe course is to suspend judgement.
p 237] Tj Trpb<s yrjv cAoo-cte Kapr] dfx<f>ov8i<s dctpas.
I would read : —
rj TTOTt yoiir) KpoLT iXacreL afi^fiovSls dctpas
For yrjv V. Note on if/ 233. For irorl yaCrj cf. A 245 = /3 80 ttotI
Se (TKrJTrpov fidXe yatrj. X 64 ^aXXofieva Trporl yairj. 6 289 ws tc
o-KvXaKas TTOTi yaCy KOTrre. c 415 fif^TI '"'^'' 'rerpiy. rj 279, Y 420,
t 459. 'AfifftovSis is probably corrupt, dftoyryrt might be hazarded,
but certain restoration cannot be hoped for. * By both ears ' is
surely ridiculous, and it is difficult not to agree with Dr. Monro
that the word has nothing to do with ovSos or ovSas. Perhaps
we might best explain it as a corruption of dpiFpvSi^ {dvd-Fp€<i)\
* by an upward swing-movement,' 'at a lift.'
p 2543 ws etTTwv Tovs fiev Xiirev avroBt rjKa Kiovra^'
Three MSS. F G U (Ludwich) have uvtoOl : the generality
have arrov, which I believe more nearly represents the primitive
reading. If not, there is no apparent reason why avroOt only
appears in a minority of our MSS. I suggest accordingly : —
ws ctTTwv Tov^ jxkv Xlttcv avTovs rjKa Ktovras*
He left them to proceed quietly ' by themselves '.
295
p 254-301 ODYSSEY
So ^467 7ravu)fi€(r6a fJM-X^'S' ol S'avrot 8r)piada$<av,
* without our interference ' (Dr. Leaf).
o 3 1 1 OS K€ //,€ KCtor' aydyrj' Kara 8k tttoXlv avrbs avdyicrj
"TrXdy^ofiaif
* by myself/ * without the guide.'
The pronoun is nearly equivalent to oto?, 'alone.' It is com-
bined with that word p 356 avr^ S* olrj lctOl. , I doubt whether it
is even advisable in <^ 194 to reject the vulgate y avros KevOu) in
favour of the variant avrws.
p 276] Sv<r€0 8c fivr/a-rqpas, iyo) S* VTroXtLil/oficu avrov'
It would be well, I suggest, to eliminate the peculiar
humour of * get inside the suitors ' in favour of the less remark-
able but more reasonable : —
hvcreo 8* €S fjtyrjcrnjpas,
* get inside to the suitors.'
The vulgate may be compared with I 553 MeXiaypov eSv
XoXos. P 210 hv 8c fjiLv''Aprr)S' I 239, T 16, X 94.
p 279] ^ ySaXjy 17 eXd(rQ. ra. Sc (T€ <f)pd^€(r6aL dv(oya.
One good MS. D has ^c ySaAry, which is probably right.
Perhaps we might read with metrical improvement on the
vulgate : —
^c ftaXy 17 eXaaarji 6 are <f>pa^€(TOaL avorya,
Cf. T 515 (Note).
p 282]} aXX f-PX^ TrpoTrdpoLOeVj cyo) 8* vTroXeLxf/ofxaL avrov.
ov ydp TL TrXrjyicov aSaTJfxwv ovSc jSoXdoiV.
This seems capable of improvement, i.e. of being brought
nearer to its original condition, in several respects. To be brief,
every change in the following rehabilitation, even to the punctua-
tion, is, I believe, defensible : —
epx^o Bk TrpoTrdpoiOeVy cyw 8* VTroXiiif/ojJiaL avrov
ovBe Ti TrXrjyaoyv aharfpAav ovhk jSoXdoiv.
p 301] St) totc y\ ws €v6tj(T€v 'OSvo-o-ca iyyv^ iovra, —
This beautiful example of hiatus licitus is undoubtedly
quite worthless as a piece of evidence in its favour. Yet one MS:
alone (G) has the true reading, '08v<rcr^*, and apparently only one
editor, Dr. Monro, has adopted it, though van Leeuwen and da
Costa say of it, * fortasse recte.' Similarly in ^ 212 *08v<ro^*
is weakly supported, while the erroneous '08vcro-€a receives an
almost unanimous backing. Such are the freaks of our tradition.
396
BOOK XVII p 322-364
^1322] For this see Note on ;a 419. €vt av in 11. 320, 323 should
j be changed into b-mroTi, Neither av nor kc are here in place. So
also 0-194.
P 336] ayxtfioXov 8k fier avrbv iSv(T€ro Sw/Aar' 'OSvtrcrcvs —
Probably we may restore : —
arfxffxoXov 8c rw avros Ihvcrero —
Cf. 300 ctyxt/xoAov Se o"^' ^A^c, 0575V 173. 095 dyxtfwkov Se
ol ^X0€, n 820.
P 34S] ws (fxiTO, firj 8c <TV<f}op/36s, cttci tov jJLvOov ttKovcrcv, —
This line recurs twice in this book, 11. 551 and 574, and it is
also practically identical with B 1 6 : —
ws cfiaro, jSrj 8' ap' "Ovctpos, cttci tov /xvOov aKOVcrev'
In all these lines it would be easy to read : —
CTTCt S>) fXvdoV aKOV(r€V,
as in A 235, c 150, y 183, &c.
Among the other ten or twelve lines, which like the above
four end with fjivOov and some inflection of aKovw, there is but
one with the article : —
T 185 ;^ai/)<») crevj AacfyndBri, tov fxvOov a.Kova-a's'
For this I suggest tentatively xatpw /xav — aeo fivOov.
The case for the article with fivOos is not a strong one. It is
found only with the accusative singular, and the special argument
in favour of the article with ycpwv, ycpaios, ^€tvo5, that they are
merely adjectives which have been turned into substantives
(Payne Knight, Prolegom. § lix), will not avail for fivOo^. The
other instances of tov fxvOov may be briefly touched.
The Iliad exhibits seven times (A 552, A 25, 209, 462,
H33o> n 440, :s 361):—
TTOtOV TOV flvdoV CCtTTC?,
for which it is open to read ttoiov Ttva. So e 183 and A. 519 oXov
TOV (v. Notes ad loc.) and E 715 may be remedied.
There remain three examples, I 309, 55 and c 98. In the
first hr) vvv fxvOov seems requisite : for the second o-ov or vvv would
serve : the last with the line preceding is obviously a spurious
addition, and may be disregarded.
P 364D °^^ o^^' <^5 Ttv' c/xcAA' aTraXc^o-civ KaKorqro^.
Athene had prompted Odysseus to beg alms from the several
suitors, so that he might learn which were righteous and kindly
men and which were hard and cruel — rather a superfluous piece
297
p 364 ODYSSEY
of discrimination perhaps, for, as the line quoted scrupulously
informs us, it did not enter into her design to save any one of
them from his evil fate, that is, the death penalty shortly to be
inflicted upon them by the outraged Odysseus.
Now in order to judge fairly the construction found above,
dTraXc^trciv Ttva KaKOTrjros, let US examine as fully as may be
necessary the usage of aXeico in Homer. To begin with we find : —
r 9 €v Ov/xQ /x,€/x,aa)T€S dXeiifMev aXXyjXoLcnv.
E 779 oLvSpdcnv *Apy€LOLcrLv aXe^ifxevai fiffiavLat'
Z 109 T/owortv dXc^crovTa —
X 196 €L TTOJS ol KadvTTipOev aXaXKOiev /SeXiecrcnv, —
These instances make clear the use of the dative to indicate
the person protected. We may now proceed to the accusative
expressing the evil, against which the protection is given : —
I 605 ovKiO* ojxios TLfxrjs €(r€at -ttoAc/aov Trep olXoXjcwv.
It may be well here to remark that the reading rifxy^ = nprju^
is a wild absurdity of the scholia — they abound in such —
altogether unworthy of the measure of favour which in some
quarters it has managed to secure. It is only needful to realize
that 6/tcus €o-cai means ' you will be on a like footing \ and
nothing could be more natural than the addition of rt/x^s, * in
respect of honour,' cf. ttojs dywvos yKOfiev ; (Eur. El. 751), ws tis . . .
cri/otas i) fjivyiiirjs Ixpi (Thuc. i. 22). Dr. Leaf says the gen. is
impossible here ; but this is clearly too hasty a conclusion. It is
perhaps desirable to add for the benefit of the youthful reader
that in Homer ci/tt, and not Ixw as in later Greek, is usual with
adverbs. Of course in iS 475 Kat xp^o-oi/ Tifirjvra the true reading
is xpvo-ov TLfirjevra without Kat (Knight), which, as usage shows, is
entirely superfluous.
To return to oXe^u) : —
4^ 185 dXXa Kvva$ /x€V aXaXK€ Aios Bvydrqp *A<f>poStTr] (oAc^c?) —
^539 oLVTiOi l^iOopty Tpuxav tva Aotyov dXdXKOL.
In this last line Tpwwv probably represents an original Tpwco-o-',
as will appear later.
^54^ €OT^> OTTWS OavdroLO ySapeias k^/kxs oAoAxoi, —
y 346 Zcrs TO y' dA.€^T^€t€ /cat dddvaroL O^ol oAA-oi.
We now come to those passages in which we have the dat.
and ace. in combination. I first quote that which bears upon
and helps to strengthen the suggested improvement of * 539.
398
BOOK XVII P364
$ 138 Blov 'A^tAA^a, Hpui€(TcrL Se Xoiyov dAaAKOt(= 250).
I 251 ^pa^cv OTTws Aavaotcrtv dA.e|^7^cr€ts KaKov ^/xap.
34 Y cf>pat,€(rO(i) VT^€(T(TLv dAc^e/xcvat 8>ytov 7n5p.
674 ^ p' ^OeXei vr]€(T(rLv dXc^e/xcvat Si^tov Trvp, —
P 365 dAAiyAots KaO' ofXiXov dXc^c/zcvai <fi6vov ahrvv.
153 vvv 8' ov ot dAaXK€/A€va6 Kvvas ctAt;?.
T 30 Tw fjikv iyo) TTCLprja-o) olXoXkclv aypia <l>vXa —
y 236 dAA* rj TOL Bavarov fiev ofMoiiov ovSk OiOL irep
KOL (f>LX(o avSpl Svvavrat dA.aA,Ke/xcj/, —
8 166 ovSe ot aXXoL
€L(r* OL K€v Kara 8^/aov dXdAKOtev KaKorrjra.
Here we have to notice that the noun {KaKorrjra) is the same
as in p 364, the line under discussion.
K 288 €px^j o '<^ TOL Kparoi dXaXicrja-LV KaKOV rjfjiap.
The gen. here is totally different from that in p 364, and we
may furthermore have some suspicion that t' diro Kparos, cf.
6 g2, fx 99, may have been the original reading.
V 3 I 9 OTTiOS TL fJLOL uXyOS dA.dA.KOlS.
The middle voice might perhaps be omitted; but N 475 : —
— dAc^ao-^at fJL€/xao)s /cvvas ySk Koi dvS/xxs'
and 0-62 TovTov dAc^ao-^at, — make the list complete, so far as
the usage of our verb when followed by any noun or pronoun is
concerned.
It may be said that I have illustrated dAe^w but not
dTraAc^o), of which the construction might possibly be different.
Let us see then what is the evidence afforded by the Homeric
text : —
X 348 0)5 ovK €(rO* OS o^s ye Kvvas K€<^aA^s dTraAoAKoi.
which is practically identical with k 288 above.
O 371 KOL 84 Key dAAov
(r€v dTraXe^craifJiL'
8 766 fxvrja-rrjpas 8' dTroAoAKC /caKios VTreprjvopeovra^.
To exhibit the whole usage of this verb and its compounds we
need only add 365 toJ i-n-aXeirjarovcrav and A 428 tw cTraAc^o-wv.
It appears then that there is not an atom of real support
elsewhere for the construction dTraAe^o-etv rtva KaKorrjTos. It
stands alone and cannot be regarded as tolerable in face of the
above evidence. Surely to any one not afflicted with an
infatuated affection for solecism, or unprepared to ignore the
399
p 364 ODYSSEY
unsophisticated simplicity and directness of Homer's language
as distinguished from the varied elaboration of phrase practised
by his great Roman rival —
Cedite Romani scriptores, cedite Grai :
Nescio quid mains nascitur Iliade —
the conclusion is irresistible, that KaKo-njra ought to be read
instead of Kaxd-n/ros, even if the change were not supported by
the evidence of any MS. whatever. As a matter of fact
KaKOTTjra is the reading of Flor. Laurent. 52 (F) and of Parisinus
2403 (D), two of the best authorities extant. This being so, tiv'
is not read for nvd, a mistaken idea which has undoubtedly
caused the evolution of the now discredited KaKorrjrcys, but for
TLVL, which alone is correct here, notwithstanding the unwilling-
ness of the later Greeks to recognize the possibility of such an
elision. Moreover a further interesting conclusion may be drawn
from the facts as here presented, viz. that the earliest texts in all
probability had tlv or indeed tlvl — the elision being left to the
reader — in every case, where the vulgate now shows tw with
short quantity before a vowel, e. g. A 299 ovtc tw aXXa>, v 308,
M 328, N 327, K 32, V 297.
Not a little confirmatory of this idea is the fact that in two
out of the three cases in which a disyllabic tcw appears, the
metre will allow tivl : —
n 227 OVT€ TCO) O-TTCvScCTKe ^CtOV,
A 502 Tw K€ T€io (TTviaLfXL fiivo^ KoX x«ipas adirTOVSj —
The recalcitrant instance is : —
V 1 1 4 ovSi ttoOl v€<f>o<s tort" ripa^ vv tcw roSe <f>cuv€L^.
Many eminent scholars, I am well aware, would not hesitate
to declare that here too the result of exchanging tcw for tivl
would be for the fifth foot metrically satisfactory, cf. Monro,
H. G. § 373. Frankly I believe this opinion as to the variable
quantity of the final i of the dat. sing, is an error depending, so
far as Homer is concerned, on a number of debased lines ; but
the discussion of this question now would be a lengthy matter
and would take us too far afield. I have already been sufficiently
discursive ; so this very interesting and important point must be
reserved for a more favourable opportunity. Under no circum-
stances, however, should I be satisfied with such an ending as : —
Tc/Mxs yu Tivi ToSe (/huVc(9.
300
BOOK XVII P 364-365
Rhythm and metre alike — the diaeresis in the fourth foot must
be noted as highly objectionable — would be better satisfied by
the reading I here suggest as the probable original : —
But even if we let the line stand as adverse, there is still quite
sufficient justification for the remark against the lonicism t€<i»
and in fayour of the regular tlvl as the rightful occupant of its
position in the Homeric poems.
To return for a moment to the main passage under discus-
sion, p 364, it seems hardly possible that the Tulgate should
hitherto have entirely escaped suspicion, and I am pleased to
find that both tlv {tlvl) and KaKorrp-a appear to have occurred
as possibilities — I have shown they are necessities — to van
Leeuwen and da Costa, who give in a note with a query added
TLV c/xcAAcv dA.€^(r€tv KaKorr/ra, while scrupulously leaving the
text in all its traditional impurity.
P 365] fiv ^' *7^^ aLTqcroiv evSc^ta ^aira l/caoTov,
TravToae X"/^' opeyoiv, <I)S €t tttwxos TroAai iLTj,
Here I impugn the participle alTtja-fDv as a blot on the passage,
and in spite of the practical unanimity of the MSS. in its favour
— there is but one slight deviation from the vulgate, i/xcvat tmtwv
P, on which, suggestive though it is, no argument can well be
based — I venture to maintain that the true reading is necessarily
and indubitably : —
aLTL^UJV.
The construction allows it: the meaning can hardly be
satisfied without it. atTcw of course means ' I ask ' or ' entreat '
in the widest sense, atrt^o), * I beg,' in what may be called the
professional application of the word. This distinction may
easily be verified for Homer. We have atrcw E 358, Z 176,
N 365, X 295, O 292, ^ 387, y 173, L 354, K 17, V 74, (o 85, 337 :
arn^oj 8 651, T 273, p 222, 228, 346, 351, 502, 558, V 179, 182.
In the compounds eTratTcto and dTraiTt^w the same fundamental
difference prevails. In * 592 Antilochus with apologetic humble-
ness says to tlie indignant Menelaus : —
€t Kttt VV K€ OLKoSeV oAAo
fl€L^OV e7raLTT](T€LaSi —
* make a greater demand/ whereas Telemachus in a different tone
30T
p 365 ODYSSEY
speaks thus : —
^77 To^pa yap av Kara aarv irornrrvo'croL^tBa fivBta
•)(pYiixaT airaLTL^ovT€<: €<05 k aTrb iravra SoOetrj'
threatening to play the part of an importunate beggar in order
to obtain restitution.
There is but one exception over and above that which I have
challenged. It is this : —
0-48 aUl 8* avO* rjfuv /xcraSaurcTcu, ovSe riv aXkov
TTTw^bv lord) fuayecrOai iaxTOfiev alrqtrovra.
■where of course aiTrja-ovTa must be regarded as equally erroneous
with alrrja-iov here (p 365), and replaced by the requisite am^oKxa.
There is in truth a further objection to this at-njorovra, which
ain^awv is not liable to ; for there is, I believe, no other instance
in Homer of airew used without an ace. of either the person or the
thing.
Finally I would urge against both atnyo-wv and ai-njo-ovra,
that in neither case is a future participle in the least degree
necessary or natural. It is true, in the former case we have a
verb of motion, in fact two verbs of motion, Prj tfjLev, but surely
here the participle should describe, not so much the purpose,
as the actual behaviour of Odysseus on this occasion, exactly as
does opcywv that immediately follows. A fairly close parallel
may be found in Y 36 : —
''H^aioTO? 8* afw. roL<n kU aBivii )8A.€/A€(uVa)v,
This doubling of participles is indeed quite a noticeable feature
of Homer's style. As many as three participles in succession
may be found in A 434-5.
In the second case the commonly accepted future participle
involves the additional necessity of treating fucr/ia-OaL as a
verb of motion, not perhaps a difficult feat for a grammarian
in distress, except that ingenuity of this sort should only
be resorted to when something is gained by its exercise, not
when, as here, success can only be detrimental to the passage.
The point clearly is, that no other beggar-man was to be
permitted to ply his trade among the suitors, and this professional
begging must, as we have seen, be expressed by am^w not by
auTtu).
30a
BOOK XVII P 367-378
P 367] ot S* eXcatpovTcs SiBocrav kol iOdfxfieov avroVf
We may read with advantage : —
KOL iOdfji^eov avTws
^ idly wondered at him '. They suspected nothing.
P 374] ^5 €<f>aT' *AvTtVoos 8' iTrecTLV v€LK€(r(r€ (Tvfiiarrjv
For eTTca-Lv Bekker proposed ato-x/ow?, but iTreo-tv is not likely
to have been developed from an adverb.
The corruption is rather to be sought in the verb. I would
suggest : —
a)s <i<j>aT' 'AvTLVOo^ 8c cTrcccr' ivevnre (rv^ixynjv'
It is the desire to remove the elision of the t that has been the
motive for the change.
Cf. V 303 rfVLTraTre fxvBta. V 427 ir6(TLv 8* rfVLTraTre fivOto.
0-78 *AvTtVoos 8' €V€vt7r€ €7ros T €<f>aT — . <;^ 84, 167, 287. O552.
P 378] ^ ovocrat ort rot /3toT0V KariSova-t dvaKTO<s,
If the form ovoa-ai here be right, ovo/xat is a non-thematic verb
like StSofxai the mid. of 8t8a)//,t {ovo/xai, ovoa-ai, ovorat). On the
other hand if woo-at be corrupt, it is at least possible that
ovofiai is thematic (wo/xai, oveai, ovcrat). The indication of
ovvio-Oi 12 241 is towards the thematic classij&cation — Buttmann
however would there read ovvoctO^, while 6vo<rao-^€ is attributed
to Aristarchus — and I believe I am right in saying that ovofuu
would be the solitary instance of a non-thematic deponent in
-ofiac. The peculiar wvaro P 25 points to a present wa/xai,
but here again we have the suggestion of error, and Bekker
corrects to wvoto. I will not press in the midst of so much
uncertainty any objection to the formal validity of ovoa-ai, but
even so there is still something to be said against its right to
appear in the present passage.
A very obvious objection to the line, as it stands, is the hiatus
in the second foot, which is not claimed as licitus and cannot
satisfactorily be defended by positing a consonantal sound before
oTi. Of course the vulgate presents us with a few similar cases :
A 758 K€K\r}TaL' oOev avrts, for which I have suggested that
k€k\lO'' oOev iraXiv avrts is the true original (Journ. Phil. xxiv.
p. 282 f.) : ^ 152 0)5 vccTttt '08vor€vs, where ws kc ve^r' '08vo-€vs
is most likely right (v. Note ad loc). Again o- 272 vv^ 8*
lo-Tat, oT€ 817 perhaps was primarily vv^ 8' co-c^' binroTi 817.
Moreover there is another objection to ovocrax here, that the
303
p 378 ODYSSEY
context seems to make it indispensable, that the tense should be
aorist and not present.
rCrj he. (rv rovSe TrokLvSe
^aycs ; ov aAis yfiLv aXiq^ovis elcri koI aWoi,
TTTioXOL dvL-qpoL, SaiTwv aTToXvfxavTrjpe^ ;
rj ovocrai otl tol JSlotov KartSovcrt avaKTOS
ivOdB* dyctpo/xcvot, (tv Sk kol tt/ooti tov8* eKaAco-cas ;
Note "Tyayc? and eKoAco-o-a? and also that the discontent that
prompted the invitation must have not only preceded the in-
vitation but in the view of the speaker, Antinous, would have
disappeared with the arrival of the new gormandizer. These
considerations tell very heavily against the present here : more-
over in the parallel case, H 95 (= P 173), w'e have the aorist
used : —
vvv Bi o-cv o>vo<rdfxrjv irdy-^ <^p€vas, otov Ictwcs,
and supposing, as most people do, that Aristarchus was right,
we may add : —
O 241 rj ov6(TaxT& OTL fJLOi KpoviSrjs Zcv? oXyc' l8a)K€.
If the aorist be admissible in H 95, P 173, it may be said to be
still more so here, where the reference, as I have already stated,
is to the opinion entertained by Eumelus at the time he invited,
or was supposed to have invited, the beggar-man.
Add to this, that the aorist involves in the oldest writing no
very serious departure from the traditional ONOCAI. The aorist
would appear with unacknowledged elision as ONOCAO or with
C doubled ONOCCAO. It is only with the introduction of O in
the archonship of Euclides (403 B.C.), that we get a very marked
visible differentiation of wocrat and (ovo(r(o-)ao.
The restoration of the aor. to our line has however been
made additionally difficult, because it necessitates the preliminary
change of on to o; but it may be noticed that the change
suggested is, as it ought to be, in favour of the older usage, and
that o was bound to be glossed by on. The line would, if my
argument prevail, stand thus : —
^ U)v6crcra\ o tol fitorov KaTiSovaL avaKTOS —
'Didst thou think it not bad enough that those who are
gathered here consume thy lord's substance,* trv Bt kol irpoTL tovS*
CKoAco-o-as ;
A word of warning is needed with respect to the meaning
304
BOOK XVII P 378-387
of ovofjLat. The lexicons considerably overshoot the mark, when
they give as equivalents, 'to insult,' 'blame,' * reject,' 'scorn,'
' vituperate.' Such renderings absolutely destroy the fine irony
inherent in the word. The synonym given in the scholia,
^avAt^o/xat, conveys the real sense without all this exaggera-
tion. The true meaning is 'to hold as a mere trifle', 'to com-
plain of as deficient ', ' to feel that only half-measures have
been taken and that something more is required ', ' to regard as
inadequate ', ' to be dissatisfied with the amount of, ' to slight \
' to disparage '.
But this error, serious as it is, is as nothing to that of Bergk
(Note on Theognis, 1. 11 90), who unaccountably accepts the
absurd scholium ovrjo-tv ex^re for O 241, and in consequence is
forced to propose ^ oj/arat, ' an te iuvat ? ' here, and still worse
dvoLo-ea-OaL in € 379. This is not temperate reform but down-
right revolution of the most mischievous character, enabling the
impetuous to ignore rational argument and to flatter themselves
that by exposing such vagaries they can discredit all conjectural
emendation indiscriminately.
P 3873 'TTco^j^ov 8' ovK av Tts AcaAcot rpviovra c avrov.
dAA' aiet ^^aAcTTos Trcpt TravTwv €is fJi,VY)(TTqp(i)V
SfXioalv *OSv(r(Trjo<Sy Trcpt 8' avr* ifjLoc' avrap cyai ye
OVK dAcyo), etws fxot i)(€(f>po}v IlTyvcXoTrcca
^(oct ivl fxeydpio kol TrjXifJLaxps ^eoetSr/s.
As Dr. Monro remarks, we get rid of one hiatus by writing
either Fc avrov or cp avrov, but not of both. I suggest as a solution
for this line and for P 551 : —
iFe y avrov {-rjv).
This is merely the parallel accusative to the common nominatives
aij y' avT05 (-i^) (t 1 2 i), avros cyw ye and o ye avros- Cf. 396 (Note).
In the next line I suggest that ets, the objection to which is
well known (Monro, H. G. § 5), has displaced a very necessary
and emphatic crv.
Another case — the genitive — of this same pronoun seems
to have been lost to the detriment of both sense and metre in the
very next sentence. I would read : —
avrap eyw yc
OVK dXeyto o^et', etos l)(i^poiV HrjVikoirua
^(x)€L ivl /Aeyapo) kol TriX€fxa)(o^ ^coctSi^S*
AGAR X 305
P 387-455 ODYSSEY
In such a personal defiance as this the pronoun surely
ought not to be omitted. Palaeographically its failure before
€109 amounts to little more than a very simple lipography.
P 407] €t ot roararov Travrcs opiiciav fxvi^a^pe^Sf
Kat K€V /XLV rpcts /xrjva^ atr6irpo$L oTkos ipvKOi.
Most MSS. have aTroTrpoOev ; but it is clear that diroTrpo^t G U
(Monro) is right. But this is not all that is required. Antinous
is made to say : — * If all the suitors would give him as much as
I, the house would keep him away for three months.' What he
really did say was less artificial : — * If all the suitors would give
him as much as I, it would keep him away from the house for
three months.'
€? ot Toa-aov TravTcs opc^ctav fivrjoTrjpi';,
Kai K€v /XLV rpets /Jirjvas airoTrpoOL oIkov ipvKOL.
What he intended to give, and did give him, was the footstool
flung at his head.
The clause has been marred because a sigma has been
obtruded upon oIko' ipvKoi.
For gen. after the adverb, cf. iyyvOif TrjXoOi.
p 415] ^09, ^tAos* ov fiev fjLoi 8oK€ei<s 6 koklotos *A)(aL<i)V —
Probably SoKcets t^kkttos, cf. ^531.
p 43^1 ol 8' vySp€i eL^avT€<s, —
Though the contraction of vj3pu is a possibility, yet it seems
far more likely that we have here a transposition of : —
v/?ptt 8' ot €L$aVT€S
Cf. n 430, B 457. The assumption of an older dat. in i (vySpt) is
not warrantable from the text of Homer. Cf. p 504 (Note).
P 443] Ap,r^opt ^laaiSrjy
The form Ajx-^wp seems rather questionable. We should
rather expect A/x-^p, which occurs as a noun Hymn. xxii. 5 : —
tTTTTCOV T€ SfXTp^p* €/X€Vai (TWT^pd T€ Vr](Jt)V. Cf. BfX.-^€Lpa (H 259).
So we might read here : —
In favour of the tradition we have in Homer only the parallel of
6 335 BSiTop kanav in a doublj-athetized passage, cf. Hymn. xxix. 8.
To this support little weight can be attached. It cannot be
treated as a recognized Homeric form, as in Monro's H. G.
§114* (6). The question calls for further investigation.
P 4553 o^ <^ y ttv €^ oIkov o-Jp iTriardTrj ov5' oAo Scni/s — .
306
BOOK XVII P 455-458
As the emphatic words vvv aXXorptoLo-L Traprjfxevo^y made more
emphatic by their position, show, the true reading is i$ oXkov crov
' from thine own house '. eTna-TaTr], a doubtful word, possibly for
iTTiCTTpOcfxi} = TO) CTTep^O^CVW.
P 45^J ^5 €cf>aT, *AvTLVOO<s 8' i)(o\(o<TaTO ktjpoOl fxaXXov, —
What is the word K-qpoOi here, is a fair question. It is
answered with prompt conciseness by the Etym. Magn. Ik tov Krjp
€irippr]pxi., ' an adverb from K^p,' and this doctrine holds among
all readers and critics of Homer from lexicographers downwards
with perhaps the slight embellishment — it is hardly a variation
— of ' locative case ' or * locative adverb from Krjp \ But is it
possible to give any explanation of the formation of K-qpoOi from
KYJp ? None whatever. As a derivative from Krjp it would be an
aberration, a freak, a miscreation, and even then an utterly
needless and superfluous production at the best ; for from Krjp we
have already KrjpL, an unexceptional dative, freely used in Homer
as a locative, e. g. A 53 aTri^BwvraL mpX Krjpt, o 245 ov Trcpt K^pi
^iXet Zev? — , I 117 ov TC Zci»9 Krjpi ^lAryony, A 46 rdcov fiOL Trepl
KrjpL Tiia-KiTo "lAios Ipr] — . Now let us take a panoramic view of
the usage of this curious KrjpoOi in Homer.
I 300 €t Se TOL 'ATpeiSrjs filv airri^OcTO KrjpoOi /xaXXoVj
^ 136 a)s a/3* €<^>7, TTorafxbs Be ^oXwcraro KrjpoOi fxaXXoVy
I 480 0)9 i(f>dixr]v, 6 8' cTTctra X'^^^^^^'''^ KrjpoOu fxaXXov'
p 458 ws €<f>aT, 'AvTiVoo? 8* ixoXwaaro KrjpoOi juaXXov,
cr 387 ws e(f>aT, ^vpvfxaxos 8' i)(oX(i>(TaTO KrjpoOt fiaXXoVy
)( 224 0)9 cfidr, ^AOrjvour) 8' i)(oXw(raTO KrjpoOi /xaAAoi/,
c 284 TTOVTOV iTmrXiixjJv' 6 8' c^wcraro KrjpoOt /xaAAov,
X 208 cTTTar'* ifjLol 8' d^o^ 6^ ycvicTKero KrjpoOt fxaXXov,
o 370 dypovSe irpotaXXe' cfiiXet 8e fie Kr]p66i jxdXXov.
The word occurs then twice in the Iliad and seven times in the
Odyssey and always in combination with fidXXovy the two
together forming in every instance the final dactyl and spondee
of the verse. I find it also once in the Homeric Hymns : —
Hymn. Ap. 138 — (fyiXrjo-e Se KrjpoOi /taAAov.
There remains only an Hesiodic instance. Scut. Here. 85 : —
rj SiKrj ecrO* LKeTrjaL, riov 8' dpa KrjpoOi ^aaAAov.
It may be mentioned that the suitability of fxdXXov in some of
these passages has been made the subject of discussion. Her-
mann on Hymn. Dem. 362, while admitting its right to stand
X 2 307
p 458 ODYSSEY
in I 480, A 208, p 458, Hymn. Ap. 138, regards it as redundant
in I 300, ^ 136, € 284, o- 387, X 224. Nitzsch on c 284 holds
that yu-aAAov in all the passages has sufficient justification, as
indeed it has, for in every case the feeling, whether of hatred,
wrath, sorrow or love, was entertained before in a less degree.
The point will be seen to be of some importance, when K-qpoOi
has to be dealt with. At present the argument against that
word needs enforcing. Let us suppose for a moment that
K-qpoOi had been transmitted to us as an isolated word apart
from all context or explanation, as it might have been. In
that case any attempt to connect it with Krjp would have been
received with incredulity and even derisive scorn ; every one
would have agreed that it was evidently and inevitably a loca-
tive from K77/00S * wax ', just as olkoOl, ovpavoOi, aXXoOi and *IA.to^4
are from 01x09, ovpavos, oAAos and "lAios respectively, and we
should perhaps have dreamed about some Greek anticipation of
our 'fly in the amber \ There would be a difficulty as to
visibility in the new material no doubt, but that would be
nothing compared to the present difficulty of seeing how KrjpoOi
can come from Krjp. Others would perhaps prefer to advocate the
humbler parallelism of the 'fly in the treacle ^ and might
incur the censure of the professors of the Higher Criticism
accordingly. We may fairly then be more than a little sceptical
with regard to KrjpoOij but, unless some account can be suggested
of its origin in these passages, we might still be inclined
to let our scepticism lie fallow and to adopt the principle
of masterly inactivity inculcated in the oft- quoted words of
Shakespeare : —
* There 's the respect
That . . . makes us rather bear those ills we have
Than fly to others that we know not of.*
The suggestion I have to make is that KrjpoOi really conceals
what is undoubtedly the natural word here, K^pi : but if so, it
must have been K^pc with an elision of the i, for so only would
the later Greeks have had any motive at all for deserting the
original reading. We have then to fill up, so as to make a dactyl
and spondee : —
Krjp* , . . fiaWoVf
ftnd here fmXXov is a very material help ; for we find, that not
ao8
BOOK XVII p 458-544.
only is In fxaXXov a frequent combination in other positions in
the Homeric hexameter, but on no less than seven occasions
forms the ending of the line (I 678, E 97, T 231, <l> 305, ^ 202,
0-347, r 285). The inference is that the original reading instead
of the traditional KrjpoOt jxaWov was in every case : —
KTJp* en fiaWov,
which should be at once restored, KrjpoOi being condemned as
a pure barbarism, * a fond thing vainly invented,^ and accepted
as an archaism, only because it served so well to remove out of
sight and out of mind a distasteful elision.
P 485I '^^ '^^ ^^®^ $€Lvouri ioLKOTiS dAAoSaTTOwrt,
TravTOLOL TiXiOovres, cTrtcrr/ow^tuo-t TroX-rjas,
There is no need to dwell upon the uselessness of Travrotoi
TeXiOovres. Read with but little palaeographic change : —
TravTot' c/cTcAcovres
' for the accomplishment of divers purposes ', * for manifold
ends.'
P 494] ^^^' ovTw<; avTov (re ^aXoL — ■
The apostrophe to Antinous is forced. Probably airrov i is
right.
P 504] ovTO<; Se OprjwL irpvfxvov ySoAc he^iov wfxov.
A transposition would perhaps be justifiable (cf. Note on
7] 270):—
ovTOS Be TTpvfxvov Pake Op-^vvi Seitov wfxov.
p 519] aeiBr] SeSaws cttc' l/jLepoevra PpoTOLcri,
Read decBrjo-L Saeis, V. Note on //, 432 ad fin.
P 5443 ^PX^^ H'^'-* "^^^ ielvov evavTLov wSe KoXea-a-ov.
ov)(^ opdas 6 fxot vios cTrcTrrapc ttoxtl eireca-i ;
TO) Ke KoX ovK dTeXrj<s Odvaros /xvrja-TTjpa-t yevoiro
7rd(TL fjLoX*, ovSe Ke tl<s Odvarov kol Krjpas d\v$€i.
dXX.0 8e TOL cpeo), av 8 evl <f>pecn ^dXXeo crya-iv'
at K avTov yvoio) vrjfJLeprea irdvT cvcVovTa,
ctrcro) fXLV ')(Xaivdv re XLTwvd re, eLfiara KaXd.
In the above little speech addressed to Eumaeus by Penelope
there is no special difficulty about the general sense, but before
dealing with the one serious flaw in the passage, as I view it, I
will briefly note one or two slighter peculiarities of expression,
which are probably due to later influences. There is every
probability for example that at k avrov (549) is merely an
309
p 544 ODYSSEY
easy modernization of at k€v t6v. So again in epx^o /xol, t6v
iiLvov (544) the desire to find accommodation for the by no
means necessary article t6v with ielvov seems to me to have
caused an awkward displacement of the ethical /tot, which
ought to go with KoAco-o-ov rather than epx^o. I would
suggest : —
cp^co Kttt fiOL ietvov — KoXecrcrov.
See Note on p 10, p. 290.
In 1. 547 aXv^et is probably right in form, though it is not
a fut. indie, but an aor. subj., the termination -et being the
original form of the 3 pers. sing, of the non- thematic aor.,
afterwards superseded by -y except when, as here, the form was
mistaken for a future. The MSS. vary between dAv^ct, dAv^oi,
and aXviai, while three important MSS. omit the line altogether.
This and the tautology of 546 and 547 {to Sk ovk oltcXtj^
OdvoTOS fxvrjo'TrjpGrL Tratrt Kat to ovScts OavaTOV aXv^oi TavTOV
hfiXovaiv Eust.) have caused Knight and others to condemn 547.
It must be admitted that there is a fair case against the line,
though in form it is Homeric enough ; but before deciding the
question let us turn to the consideration of 1. 546, for the sake of
which primarily attention has been drawn to the speech.
First of all I would urge that yevoLTo, which has the unani-
mous voice of tradition in its favour, should certainly be altered
in spite of all MSS. — their untrust worthiness on this particular
point is a commonplace of criticism — to ycViyrat ; for the state-
ment is obviously intended to be as positive as it can be made :
would certainly is the sense here required, not would jyrohahly.
I may refer to the lines just preceding the quoted passage
(539-40) j--^
€t 8* '08v(r€vs tkOoi Kttt ikoit' cs TraTpCBa yatav,
aa(/d K€ (Tvv to iratSt ySias aTroTtVcrat dvSpwv.
where the subjunctive comes, even after an optative in the
protasis, for pretty much the same reason, as it ought to come
here. If anything, the need for it here is, I should imagine,
rather more stringent, though it is possible that on this poiot
there may be a difference of opinion. Still I should hardly
expect that there could be any hesitation on the main question,
the necessity for yiv-qTai rather than ycVoiro in 1. 546.
If we turn to the consideration of the statement as a whole,
310
BOOK XVII p 544
' death would be, or will be, not unaccomplished for all the
suitors/ it does not seem quite to satisfy all the requirements
of the case. Death is of course sure to come to the suitors sooner
or later. The essential point here is surely the time of the
visitation, and in the vulgate no mention whatever is made of
this : there is no ' soon ' or ' shortly ^ or ' presently '. There is
only the odd litotes, ineffective and unimpressive, of ovk dTcAijs,
and there the serious corruption, if there be any serious corrup-
tion of the line, must lie. Suspecting then the soundness of ovk
dreAiis I have little doubt that it but slightly veils the true read-
ing, which can hardly have been other than
Palaeographically the difference between ovac dreAr/s and wkvtcAtJ?
is very slight, while the advantage to the sense, given by the
latter, is considerable : ' In that case death to the suitors will be
swift of accomplishment.'
To complete the discomfiture of the vulgate it may be noticed
that arcXris is practically aira^ Acyo/^evov, and that the meaning
given to it in this passage is altogether illegitimate in Epic
diction. The real Homeric word for ' unfulfilled ' is dreAeo-ros,
A 26, 57, 168, /3 273, $ 571, TT III, o- 345; once we have
drcAcvrj^Tos, A 527. As for dTeAijs it may be found in the
Homeric Hymn to Demeter, 1. 481, where it means unini^
tiated : —
o? 8* drcA^s lepwv, os t d/x/>topo9, ov iroO* 6/jlol(j)V
(Leg. OfJLOLTJv)
aurav €)(€l </)^t/x6vos Trep vtto ^o^<j) €vp(i>€VTL.
In conclusion, by the adoption of w/cvreArjs, an unexcep-
tional formation (cf. o^v^iXrjs, &c.), we recall a primitive word
from unmerited oblivion, restore its effective emphasis to Kai, and
at once remove the objectionable tautology of the two clauses,
the mere recurrence of the noun OdvaTos being not unusual in
Homeric diction : —
Tw Ke KOL (UKtn-eA^s Oavaro^ fx.vqoTrjpo'L yivryrai
7ra(TL /xdA', ovSe k€ tis Odvarov /cat Krjpas dAv^ci.
The first line dwells upon the swiftness of the impending
doom : the second enforces its comprehensiveness.
31 »
<T 10 ODYSSEY
BOOK XVIII (o-).
cr lo] cTk€, yipov, wpoOvpov, /xr] Srj rd^a kol ttoSos eXKyj.
IA,K|7 for IkK-qai is not to be accepted. It is an exposed im-
posture. The contraction is admittedly post-Homeric. Knight's
lAxcai only makes matters worse ; for not only is the contraction
in the highest degree doubtful, but the introduction of an indica-
tive, for such it is, whatever may have been the view of its
sponsor, when a subjunctive is indispensable, must be condemned
as a misguided effort. Van Leeuwen and da Costa change 8^
into Tis, so converting IXk-ti into an unexceptional 3 sing. act.
This is at least ingenious ; but it is hard to see why rts should
have become 87J and left no trace of its real self. There is nothing
in the suggested reading to provoke the alteration into the
vulgate. In the MSB. there is no variant of 87} save hrj and only
lkK€ L of cA/o;, mere differences of breathing and accent being, as
here they may be, disregarded.
I have rather an adventurous suggestion to make, which
would account in a fairly satisfactory manner for the traditional
text, and yet afford a simple and intelligible reading with some-
what of an antique cast. There is no palaeographical difficulty in
supposing that IkKy may be an old error for cA/cij. It is hardly
necessary to press into service the reading of L cAkc to justify the
idea, though indications even as slight as that carry weight with
many minds. Under this supposition the verb, the substantive
verb, which is all that is required, may be concealed under the
unassuming, but non-essential, 87;, and we get this result : —
€tK€, yepov, TrpoBvpoVy /xrj ty Td)(a kol ■770869 cAkiJ.
* Give ground, old man, from the portal, lest there be soon
a haling (of thee) by the foot.'
On the substitution of irj for 8rj it is hardly necessary to
dwell. The possibility of the corruption is undeniable : but it
is also quite possible to accept the view that tkKrj should be read
and yet leave Brj undisturbed : for the verb cjy may be understood
here, just as it is in E 481 rd. r lASerai os k €7ri8ev>;§.
The essential point then is to show the possibility of the
noun cXkiJ. We have only cAkt/^/xos extant in Homer in this
sense : then we have the cognate derivative IXxrjOpov, and that
312
BOOK XVm a 10-26
is all : for it is by no means determined "whether cA/co? is, or is
not, to be reckoned as belonging to the same root, v. Curtius,
Gr. Et. 23. But even from eXKrjOfio^ alone we may postulate
a primitive cAkt}. There is therefore no reason to insist, as
some formalists might be disposed to do, that the noun must be
in the o form, oAktj, which admittedly was the only form used in
later times, or — shall we say? — the form that ultimately pre-
vailed, cf. Aesch. Suppl. 884, &c., &c. If this be not sufficient
to convince, there is still the adverb iXKrjSov, which may be found
in Hesiod, Scut. Here. 302, giving further confirmatory evidence
for our supposed iXK-q, cf. (r<f>aLpr]86v from o-^atpa, ayeXrjSov from
ayiXr), adverbs of this termination being always formed from
nouns.
Assuredly, when oX/crJ held the field, nothing could save an
obsolete noun cXkyj from becoming in later times cAkt;, unless it
were safeguarded by some more efficient protection in the shape
of a verb than the no less obsolete ey, though, as I have already
admitted, it may never have possessed even that meagre amount
of protection.
a 26] o) TTOTTOi, ws 6 fJioXo^pos iTriTpoxdBrjv dyopcvct —
p 21 g Trfj 8r] TovSc p.oXofip6v dycLS, dfxeyapre av^wTa;
These are the only passages in which the word fioXoPpos
occurs, so that it may seem over-bold to throw suspicion on the
article in o- 26. For, of course, with this noun it is found in no
less than fifty per cent, of the instances, a proportion that no
other word that is favoured with the article in the Homeric poems
can boast. Undeterred by this, however, I proceed to suggest
that the true form of the word may be really preserved in cr 26,
if we read it thus : —
O) TTOTTOL, COS 6/>toXo)8/0O9 CTTtTpO^aSl^V dyop€V€l
and accordingly p 2 1 9 becomes : —
Trfj Br] Tov8' ofxoXo/Spov ayct?, dfxiyapre crv^iOTa ;
The traditional and generally accepted explanation, * glut-
ton,' yaa-TpLfiapyos could hardly be better rendered in detail than
by a compound containing ofxos, oXos and Vftop
6ftoAo/?0/D05
The one difficulty I see in this derivation is that the only form of
oXos known in epic is ovXo?. Whether this is necessarily fatal to
the derivation (cf. oXvpa, ovXaC), I leave for others to decide.
3>3^
/-^ OF THE ^A
UNIVERSITY I
<T 26-93 ODYSSEY
An alternative suggestion ayaXopopo^ (a/icXto) does not
appear to me particularly attractive.
a 74] ^^W ^'^ poLKeoiv 6 yeptov lirLyovviha tjxuvei.
Probably modified for the better accommodation of the
article from an original : —
OLTjv €v paK€€cr(rL yeptav iTnyovviSa <f>aiv€u
Cf. r 31 ev irpoixa)(ouTL <f>av€VTaj v 309, S 295, o 5l7«
<r 93] ^^^ ^^ ol <f>pov€OVTL Boda-a-aro KipSLov cTvai,
^K cXcurat, Lva p.rf fiLv €7n<f)paxT(raLaT 'A)(aiOL.
I regret to say that I cannot, even out of deference to the dignity
and importance of the comma, feel the least confidence in the
correctness of the second foot of 1. 94 : neither is the hiatus here
to be defended by the fashionable, but I venture to say fleeting,
doctrine of legitimate hiatus, which has in fact never been invoked
for the benefit of this particular foot. As it happens, I have
already made a suggestion with regard to two fairly analogous
cases of hiatus, B 590 iKTicraaO* 'EAcvry? for Tia-acrOaL 'EAcvt/s and
TT 24 = p 42 ela-oif/eaO' i(f>dp.r]v for oxj/eaOaL i<f)dfjir)v (v. Note on
A 584, p. 198), and it does not seem altogether improbable that
two other instances : —
$ 522 €wv(r6aL, ore tl<s )(€lixwv cKTrayXo? opoiro.
IT 287 7rap<f>d(T0aL, ore k€v (re fxeraXkOxTLV tto^covtcs* —
should thus be restored on similar lines : —
€WV(rO\ OTTTTOTC TtS
7rap<f>d<T0' , OTTTTOTC K€V .
Consequently it may be desirable, or at least permissible, to see if
any plausible means of escape from the metrical difficulty here
also is open to us. Evidently no solution can be reached by the
precise method adopted in the preceding instances, the restoration
of a lost elision. Here an elision is out of the question. The
final syllable of a i aor. inf. act., it is generally agreed, cannot be
elided, nor indeed, if it could, would it bring us immediately any
nearer to a successful issue : and yet I venture to think that the
original may still be recoverable, and in fact probably stood
thus : —
^Ka r ikdcrcraLf fxy pnv —
Now rjKa cAoo-o-at, the only correct tradition possible of the
above reading after the loss of the digamma, would readily
become rjKa iXdjcrai and then necessarily tjk cAcurai. Under such
314
BOOK XVIII <T 93-135
circumstances the encroachment of the conjunction tva, whether
it came as an explanatory gloss or a metrical makeshift, would
be natural enough. It may be noticed that a couple of lines
back, where the same adverb and verb are used, they are accom-
panied, as I suggest they should be here, by an enclitic pronoun :
but the pronoun there could not be so readily lost to sight, rji fjnv
rJK i\d<r€L€. The disappearance of i here before cAacro-at which
begins with the same letter would be even easier than that of k^
in ^ 152 ws vecrat 'OSvcrevs, where I have already (v. Note ad loc.)
under some warrant of usage restored <5s kc virjr *08va€v<s.
Accordingly as a suggestion, not devoid of certain elements
of probability, for I make no greater claim, jxera koL To8e rotcrt
y€vea-6(j}. Sooner or later the occasion may arise when, to mis-
apply the words of the Roman poet, ' et haec — meminisse iuvabit.'
See Notes on a 83, rj 164, and k 295.
a 102] al6ovarq<i T€ 6vpa<i' Kat fitv ttotI ipKiov avA.^s — .
The hypothesis of legitimacy for this hiatus has been con-
siderably shaken, and is hardly to be regarded as a satisfactory
defence for the vulgate reading. Hort should be maintained ;
otherwise Kat Srj e irpos might be adequate. I suggest that we
should follow 77 165, 343 and read : —
Kat fiLV TTOTt T€L\Lov avkrjs.
<r 107] Xvypo^ c(uv, /xr; ttov tl kukov kol fiet^ov iTravprrj.
One MS. (F) has iiravpys, though the sigma is deleted by an-
other hand. There is scarcely a possibility of resisting the con-
clusion that the verb has been altered. Some one has naturally
thought of making the passage more effective by introducing the
ironical liravpr^aL, for which iiravpr} is in accordance with later,
but contrary to Homeric, usage made to stand. If so, and there
is no extravagance in the supposition, we must look for a word
which would be Homeric, but afterwards either rare or obsolete.
This condition is fairly met, I submit, by what I here propose : —
flT^ TTOV Tt KOKOV KOL fliit^OV eTTOTTnyS.
Compare X 39 : —
olos av€vO^ oAAwv, iva fi-q ra^a ttot/xov errtcnrys — (Cf. Z 4 1 2).
<r 114] OS TOvTov Tov avaXrov akrp'€V€iv aTreiravcras — .
Restore os rovrov fikv dvaXrov — .
For fx€v here see Note on p 10.
o" 1353 '^"^ '^* 0€p€t deKa^Ojotcvos tctXi^oti Ovfi.<S,
a 135-158 ODYSSEY
Possibly the gnomic aor. occurred here originally :—
Kttl Tct y eveyK deKo^o/xevo? TerXrjOTL Ov/x^
o 15SJ T^ S ap' hri cf>p€(Tl OrJK€ Oca yXavKWTri? *A6i^vr}j
Kovpy iKapioLOj iripif^povi Jl-qvfXoirurj^
fJunrjcmjpea-a-L ffyavrjvaif ottcds Treraxnu fxaXiara
OvfJLOv fxvrfOTi^poiv iSk TiftT/co-o-a yevoiro
fXaXXoV TT/JOS TTOO-tOS T€ Kttl VUOS 1/ TTOipoS rjCV.
Line i6o furnishes the solitary instance of TrcTavw/xt used meta-
phorically. It is, of course, very frequently used literally, e.g. of
hands (x^tpc Treracro-a?), clothes (^94, &c.), sails (A 480, &c.), light
iX 45> &c.), and doors (<^ 50), with the meaning * to spread out ',
* to open \ Hence it would seem not unnatural that Trcrao-etc
dvixov /xyrjarrjpuiv here should mean ' to disclose, reveal, the mind
of the suitors ', in plain terms, * to put their generosity to the
test'. This indeed is precisely what she proceeds to do to the
huge delight of her husband :—
0-281 ws KJxxTO, yrjOrjcrev 8e ttoXvtAxis Stos ^OSvaa-evs,
ovv€Ka Tojv fiev Btapa TrapikKcro, —
and doubtless her son thoroughly shared in his father's unsophis-
ticated gratification.
This, I submit, is what the author of Trerdo-etc, whether
Homer, or a redactor, or reviser, — the whole passage is the
subject of an interminable wrangle among the professors of the
Higher Criticism — must have meant by the expression. Penelope
was to * show up ' the suitors, thereby endearing herself all the
more to her husband and son. But this is by no means the view
the ancients took of Trerdo-cic here. It would have been an insult
to the royal family, an aTrpcTrcs, as they were so fond of declaring
on other occasions. So ircTcto-ctc is explained by Schol. V ckttXij-
ietCf by B dvaoTrja-eu Trpos i-mOvfXLav, and in Eustathius Siaxcot, ck
lxcTa<f>opa<s TUiv 8ia7r€Tavwp.ev<i}v crw/xdrcDV. There is a good deal of
latitude, it is true, in these explanations. The moderns, while
following suit in the main, are as a rule a little more precise.
Ebeling and his coadjutors in the Lexicon Homericum have
* animum quasi dilatare laetitia et cupiditate ', * arrigo ' : Ameis-
Hentze * das Ilerz ausbreitete, mit freudiger Hoflfnung schwellte':
Crusius (Arnold) * expand the heart of any one, i.e. to swell ' :
Autenrieth * open the heart ' ; Liddell and Scott * open one's
316
BOOK XVIII <ri58
heart ' (?) : Butcher and Lang ' that she might make their heart
greatly to swell for joy '.
Now to put the suitors in a good humour may or may not
have been desirable; certainly it is difficult to trace any such
considerate intention in a good many things said and done by
both Odysseus and Telemachus, and even by Penelope herself.
Moreover one might fairly suppose that the fight between the
two beggar-men had already achieved that object for the
generality, cf. 1. lOO ycAw IkOovov, 1. iii 1781? yeAotWrcs. Only
Amphinomus has any reason (v. 11. 125-127) for feeling a little
depressed. Neither Penelope then nor Athene, for either might
be regarded as the entertainer of the design whatever it was, can
be supposed to have intended to produce this effect. Schol. V
stands alone in supposing that Penelope merely meant to astonish
the suitors. However it is perhaps unnecessary to pursue
further the inquiry into the meaning of Trcroo-cte. What has been
said justifies considerable mistrust of its genuineness, and has an
important bearing on the emendation I wish to propose.
Some MSS. — ULW cum yi Y (Ludwich) — give OiX^eu, which
is approved by Nauck with a hearty ' rectius, ut opinor '. Van
Herwerden, on the other hand, with some plausibility thinks
OeX$€i€ merely a gloss derived from 11. 212 and 282. Undoubtedly
a conjecture, to win the smallest credence, must account for the
appearance, not of 6eX$€L€, but of Trcrao-ctc. Perhaps I should
mention the one offered by J. J. Hartman in his Epistola Critica,
1896, (TKcSda-eLc. With this verb Ovfiov of course assumes its
special sense, ' anger.' But the same objection holds against this
reading also. We have no information that the suitors were
angry, though Penelope was herself a little out of temper not
without reason, as her son admitted, to fxeu ov <r€ vc/xeo-crw/xat
K€)^oX(i)crOai.
But it is now only fair to hazard my own conjecture.
Accordingly I suggest that what Homer really said differed by
but one letter from the tradition, and the text should stand
thus : —
OTTWS €TaO'€l€ /AoAtOTa
Ovfibv fxvrjoTi^pwv —
*in order that she might test the mind of the suitors.' The
sense is as already explained : the motive is very much the same
317
a 158-192 ODYSSEY
as tbat which influenced Athene on a previous occasion, p 363
(ws av . . .) yvoi-q & o? rives ctcriv evatcrt/AOt ot t' aOifxiarot' More-
over it would seem not unreasonable to suppose that the editor or
rhapsodist, who substituted Trcrao-cte, the more common and
familiar Homeric verb, for the always rare and unusual crao-ctc,
intended to maintain the sense without material alteration, and
scarcely contemplated the treatment his well-meant effort has met
with at the hands of subtle exponents, some of them bent on
making a display of imaginary psychological analysis.
Against crao-ctc for clcrao-ctc in later classical times the same
feeling would operate that would greet nowadays the appear-
ance of * ceive ' for * perceive '. Analogy might plead for it, but
usage would reject it without a moment's hesitation. The
instances of the use of cra^w, for a reference to the Lexicons will
assure us that it was used, seem to be almost confined to the
Anthology, whose writers however were often in diction great
revivalists.
<r 167] /Aiy Travra jivqarripaLV v7r€p<f>Ld\oi(TLV bfuXciv,
If this line be genuine — Duentzer would expel it from the
text along with the next — it is worth while to inquire what is
the sense of iravra. Is it * always \ Travra xpovov ? So far as
I can ascertain there is no other instance of this in Homer. Nor
would it be in accordance with the facts, for Telemachus and the
suitors to be described as inseparable companions.
As a neuter plur. used adverbially xavra is equally unac-
ceptable. Travra oftiXetv is quite without a parallel in the
Homeric poems, and * to associate in everything ' would not
apply to the case.
If, as seems most likely, the meaning intended is ' not at all',
* not in any wise \ then the reading should be in spite of
tradition : —
/at) TrdfiTrav fivrjoTrjpcrLV VTrcp^ioAoKrtv o/AtA.€tv, —
cf. n 65, Y 376.
<T 1923 KoAAcl* fi€v Ot 7rp(xyra Trpoo-awrara /coXa KaO-qpev
d/x^pocrto), —
Undoubtedly it would be an unenviable task to defend the
above line in its entirety, unless its champion were prepared
boldly to ignore the existence of such a thing as cumulative
evidence. It is not only that KoXXti is, as Fjck says, mirum
318
\
BOOK XVIII a 192
imguentum — it seems rather to be a sort of modern toilet-soap —
but Trpoo-wTrara for TrpocrcaTra is really more than we could possibly
bear with equanimity even for the sake of the excellent bucolic
diaeresis. Then to crown all comes KoXa, an innocent-looking
j word enough, but surely quite inadmissible after KoAAei, whether
Ave take it as a mere standing, and conventional, epithet, as in
(u 44 : —
Ka$rjpavT€^ Xpoa koXov
vBaTL T€ Xiapw Koi oAct^aTt*
or regard it as a somewhat uncomplimentary prolepsis * till it
became beautiful '. In fact KoXd, if I do not mistake, is the main
centre of mischief in this passage, though unfortunately it cannot
Kbe said to be the only faulty element that mars the tradition.
-Even KaOrjpev is not altogether free from suspicion. It would,
however, be useless on the strength of a single doubtful passage,
4> 347 OS Tt5 e^ctpry, to do more than hint that possibly an aor,
iOrjpev (iFeOrjpev?) may have stood here with the meaning 'care-
fully treated ' ; but it may be allowable to exercise, more freedom
in dealing with the abnormal Trpoa-uyTrara and its probable origin.
' I suggest then that the poet really said Trpoa-onra aTraXd, cf. 5 123
irapcLaoiv aTraXdiov. If there were any confusion of ctTraA-a with
araXd, we should get the very letters that make up the curious
or, to be mildly apologetic, heteroclite Trpoa-w-rrara : but in any
case the confusion of tt and t is not a very difficult matter to face.
As to KoAa, which has ousted the less familiar word, it is more
than half suggested by the ending of dTroAa. For the rest of the
verse, if we look to KaOrjpeu, which of course van Leeuwen and
da Costa print eKaOrjpeVi there is every possibility that the lipo-
graphy of €KA (^xa) is the missing link and may have started
the process of corruption. Certainly yKa might be lost before
hcddrjpev just as readily as eKas after coTry/cas in E 485 (v. Journ.
Phil, xxiv, p. 275 f.). We arrive at the result: —
KoAAct fxev ol Trptara Trpoa-uxf) aTrdX rjKa KdBiqpev.
Still nearer to the tradition is rjKa Wrjpev^ but to adopt this verb,
as I have already observed, is too much of a step in the dark.
The aspiration of the ir in the above writing makes the change a
little more considerable in appearance than it is in reality ; for
we must remember that Trpoo-wTra would almost certainly appear
in the older writing without any visible elision.
319
a 192 ODYSSEY
It may be useful indeed both for present and future purposes
to consider the passage again from the point of view of the earlier
■writing, and to set down the last four words at full length, as
they may be supposed to have appeared before the time of the
archon Euclides : —
nPOCOnA AHAAA €KA €KAe€PeN.
Now ot fx€TaxoipaKTr)pL^ovT€^, besides introducing the special
forms for the long vowels H and H, would probably have to
strike out those which are elided in reading, and according to
the later custom omitted in writing. In the above we have
three couples AA, A€ and A€ requiring to be dealt with. In
the first no error can be committed : it is immaterial whicli A
is cancelled ; nor is there much more room for material eiTor in
the third : the removal of the € would serve just as well as that
of the A ; but in the second case the loss of the €, if accident-
ally deleted instead of the A, would be immediately fatal to thel
conservation of the adverb rJKa. Not only abnormal grammatical
forms like Trpoo-toTrara may have arisen in this way, but mysterious
words, which would have puzzled Homer himself as much as
they did his interpreters, would be evolved now and then, such
as for example fwpoevra in this very book, 1. 298. The explana-
tions that tradition has preserved of this locution are quite
enough to assure us that the ancients knew nothing whatever
about it. To begin with they were uncertain whether to read
TpiyXrjva /xopoevra or TpiyX-qv afiopoeyra. Then the explanations
are at once various and beautiful, and not without an occasional
touch of humour. Some of the Greeks, good easy men, evidently
thought that to do hard work was as bad as to be killed, so that
TTovos was to all intents and purposes the same as /xopo9. Ergo,
it is clear fxopoevTa = imrovrjixiva, ' mortal hard to make ' in the
vernacular. Others preferred to try to make apjopoevra reveal its
secret and convinced themselves that they had hit the nail on the
head by making it equivalent to d^avara, piopov p,rj parixovra.
We need not tarry long over the remaining, mainly modern,
efforts of exegesis, such as * plena particularum ' {p,6pa = pars),
* splendida ' {p,app,aLpw)t * venusta ' (Sansc. smara = amor),
*fatalia' (/xopos), 'mulberry-coloured' (pi6pov\ * black,* *nigri-
cantia.'
In applying the principle enunciated above, absolute assur-
$30
BOOK XVIII ai92-aoi
ance is of course unattainable; but it is surely not venturing
beyond reasonable limits to surmise that
TPirA€NAIM€POeNTA
might lose in course of transfer the I instead of the A of the
Al. Then fiepoevra would not have much difficulty in becoming
fxopoevTa. Certainly the plain and simple
TpiyX'qv Ifxepoevra
will lack attraction for many who would not lose the magnificent
mumpsimus, jnopoevray at any price, partly because they delight
in the mysterious and unfathomable, partly because they blindly
cling to the dogmatic pronouncement that the most difficult
reading is always to be preferred, just as if a fortuitous corrup-
tion, as opposed to a deliberate alteration, was always, or indeed
ever, likely to be plainer than the original. At this rate lucidity
and clearness should be found in muddy and disturbed waters,
and opacity only in the pure untroubled stream. Observation,
however, does not confirm this interesting inference.
CT 201J rj fx€ jxaX alvoTTaOT] fiaXaKov Trepl kw/x iKoXvij/ey.
In this sentence alvoTraOrj is emphasized by /xa\a, just as in
the case of other adjectives before which jMoXa is placed else-
where. Instances can be found by any reader without difficulty.
Yet it is obvious at a glance that the main point of Penelope's
exclamation is her surprise at the visitation of sleep. That she
should go out of her way to declare with emphasis that she is
a dreadful sufferer is unfortunately only possible in our own
advanced civilization. Women of this peculiar type are essen-
tially modern, not epic creations.
Add to this that the word alv(ma6rj^ itself is not Homeric,
also that the contracted form of the ace. is late, and there can
be no doubt in an impartial mind that alvoTraOrj is corrupt. This
conclusion holds, although it may be quite impossible to restore
the original text. There is in such a case as this room for more
than one suggestion. Usage would warrant : —
^ pAXa ^iq pH atvws /xoAaKOV Trcpt Koip! iKoXvij/ev.
Or a suggestion might be taken from </> 196 wSe /xaA' c^aTrtVr^s —
7J /A€ /xaX* i^aTTLvrj'S /xaXaKOV Trepl Kwpi iKoXvif/ev.
But the safer course, as palaeographic considerations must clearly
prevail here, would be to read the line thus : —
rj fie pioX aivd Tro$€V fMxXaKOv Trepl Kot/JL €KaXv\f/€V,
AGAR Y 3^ai
a aoi-265 ODYSSEY
•Surely 'tis very strange. Somehow soft slumber wrapt me around/
The position of ttoOcv is justified by the emphasis upon the
adverbial aivd. This reading, I submit, accounts for the tradition
and gives a satisfactory sense. Similarly by a converse process
Hymn. Herm. 155 is recoverable : —
TtTTTC O-U, TTOLKLXo/xrJTO, TTaOioV ToSc WKTO? eV WfiYJ (l)[)^e') — ;
O" 251] 'Evpvfxax, rj roi i/xrjv apirrjv cTSos t€ Sc/Aas T€
wXccrav aOdvaroLj ot€ *IA,tov cla-ave/Saivov — .
I would suggest : —
I!ivpvfjMx, rj rot €fi aOdvaroL €1809 tc Sc/^as tc
wAeo-av rjixari tw otc "IXtov et? ave^aivov — .
In trying to get rid of an imaginary hiatus by substituting
one regarded as legitimate, the improvers have made Penelope
disclaim far too much. She did not lose, nor would she be likely
to say that she had lost, any of her skill in weaving, in house-
wifery, or in short —
tpyar liricrraa-OaL TreptxaAAca Kat^pcvag etr^Xag.
What she would admit, what she has already allowed, that she
has lost, is ayXatrj (or 180), and that is enough.
This applies also to t 124-5, "where the lines recur.
a 254] €t Kctvds y i\6u)v rbv i/xov jSiov a/jL<f}LTroXevoL,
Perhaps we might read : —
€t K€Lv6s y iXOiov €T ifiov /3iov d/A<^i7roXevot,
where en would mean * as he did in days gone by ', cf. en koX vvv.
^ 257] V M^ ^V ^"^^ '^' V^ Xlttwv Kara trarpCha yaiav
The T€ following ore is unsuitable here. Read : —
^ fxev St; p 6 y or ye Xittwv Kara TrarpCSa yaiav*
Cf. O 53, H 337 ^^' « ^V p'-
a 2653 "^^ ^^'^ ^^^* V '^^^ f-' dvecrct 0€6<s, rj kcv oAaki)
avTov ivl Tpoirj'
The above is the reading of Ludwich's text (1891). There are
sundry minor points about it which might be discussed, whether
Ttu or Tu) is correct, whether ct . . . ^ should be read with the MSS.
or ^ . . . ij as above, whether ov before oTS* and kc before aXuxa should
not be written for ovk and kcv, also avrod* for avrov ; but the main
problem here is the determination of dvea-ei. The only variant is
dvtaroLy which gives no help, save that it shows that some one
linew that kc did not assort well with what looks like a fut. indie.
The most widely accepted view is that dvf<ra is a special
BOOK XVIII CT265
form of the fut. indie, of avtrjfiL, though why Homer eyer tried to
palm off av€o-£t upon his hearers for dv^o-ci, which is actually used
in B 276, has never been, and never will be, explained. He has
been charged with blindness ; but even a blind man could hardly
say dvcVet for avrja-n. That would argue rather some slight
degree of vocal, if not mental, deficiency. Alexandrine scholiasts
and editors, however, did not stand at trifles, as I have shown
more than once in these pages, and when we find even modern
critics of repute giving us, also under stress of metre, an
imaginary oveap for oveiap (Hymn. Dem. 269), much may be for-
given to those early novices.
The next and latest view is that dvccret is a i aor. subj. of
dvtry/xt (Savelsberg). This view is supposed by its author to
reduce to a minimum the difficulty of the shortening of the
penultimate. Here are his words : * well nie das Futurum,
wohl aber der erste Aorist die Verlangerung des Wurzelvokals
ofters mit der Kiirze vertausche.' If dvcVct, however, is to be
dealt with at all, those who refer it to t^w, l^co, to seat, must
surely prevail against those who would force it to belong to t-qju.
We have N 657 c? SLcf>pov S* dvcaavrcs, S 209 €ts evvrjv dveo-at/At.
The difficulty about dveorei in this view is that, though the
grammatical form is satisfactory enough, the meaning * restore
me to my seat ' is very flat and unprofitable. This objection has^
I suppose, been considered fatal, as indeed it ought to be.
Many reject the form dvcVct altogether and follow Thiersch
in reading avey, an unhappy conjecture; for the form is itself
speculative, dvrJT/, found in B 34, being alone authentic. It may
be remarked also that the meaning postulated for avC-qpn, 'send
back home,^ is not elsewhere found in Homer.
The scholia B Q give as the first paraphrase Ik tov Oavarov
a<f>-^(T€L and the Venetian scholia edo-ct. Here, I think, we have
a fair hint, and something more, as to what the real reading was
which av€(T€L has unfortunately displaced.
Tw o^ 618* 7} Kev /x' car; ^€os, rj k€ dA,w(u.
Palaeographically the corruption of idy into -yrj which associates
it with L7}ixt is easy. But more than that, the special epic use of
edo), * to spare an enemy's life,' became obsolete and was forgotten
by the later Greeks. trjfxL obviously requires the help of the prep,
avd to enable it to convey any. meaning at all here, and if any
T 2 ^aaS
<ra65 ODYSSEY
one thinks the Greeks would hesitate at a bold modification of
quantity to make the necessary accommodation, he underrates
seriously the sacrifices they would make of form to secure the
laudable end that their great poet should speak in * a tongue
understanded of the people '.
We might, it is true, get a little closer to the tradition by
reading idcry with a crasis of ca-, such as we find in E 256 rpcti/
fi ovK ia TLakXas *AOi^vr), I am, I confess, quite incredulous as to
the integrity of E 256 and the possibility of such a contraction.
Moreover the pres. tense idy, * is for sparing my life,' is far more
suitable here than the aor. To carry out the intention would
necessarily involve a series of acts of intervention. Of course
dXuxj) refers to a catastrophe that could only occur once.
For the special sense of cao) the following passages may be
noticed : —
S 743 o^ /*€'' ^P /*€ KaroLKTave vrjXii ;)(aAKw,
7} la €V jjLeydpio'
n 731 'Ektodp 8' oAAovs fxev Aavaovs ta ov8' evdpi^ev
fi 684 cTTct 0-' ctacrcv *A;)(tAA€VS.
569 /xrj crc, yipovy ovS' avrov ivl KXia-irfo-iv ida-ai (Leg. yipuiv)
KoX Ik€T7Jv irep iovra, Atos 8' dX.LT(DixaL kf^erpids.
In the last line it is fairly certain that koX iKcrrjv should be ktoi?
LKCT-qvy but the later Greeks could not tolerate the uncompounded
participle (cf. on cr 158), and preferred to strengthen Trep by a
Homerically superfluous kul in spite of the distressing hiatus
thereby created. The emendation, an excellent one, is due to
Brandreth, whose work has received recently considerable, though
perhaps not complete, acknowledgement at the hands of Prof.
A. Piatt, the editor of the Cambridge Homer.
There remains one passage that must needs be quoted. In0556
Priam referring to the ransom he has brought says to Achilles : —
arv 8c Tu>vS* aTrovaio kol cA^ots
crrjv €S TrarpiSa yatav, iireL jxe Trpdrov eacras — (Leg. iirel (rv /ac).
Here he ended, cTrel . . . lao-as being definite enough * for you began
by sparing my life ' ; but some critics or readers not knowing the
usage, oTTcp dyvorj(TavT€<: tivcs, as Didymus says, — though it is
hardly necessary to assume that they were as ignorant as Didymus
himself, who promptly kicks away his own pedestal by explaining
^34
BOOK XVIII <r 265-335
eao-a? by ^Swas, r)v<f>pava^, it would be sufficient ground for their
action that they knew the usage to be obsolete, — these critics
added the universally-bracketed line in order to give lao-as its
ordinary sense : —
aVTOV T€ ^WCIV KOL opov ffxxo'S rjikioLO.
<T 271] Kcivos Tws ayopevv to, S^ vvv Travra TeXctrai.
I suggest : —
KCtvos o y (og ayopeve'
Cf. T 344 Kcivos o yc TrpoTrdpoLOe vewv opOoKpaipatav
r 391 Kel.vo<s 6 y €V OaXdfJuo /cat Sivturotcrt Ae;)(€crcriv —
The line itself recurs twice, B 330, H 48, where the same
remedy is applicable. In B 330 the MSS. have not tw? but 6^ ws ;
in S 48 ^' ws is largely supported and kcij/os y is mentioned.
Here the MSS. are for $* &s and 8' <Ss. t<us and too-o-' are attributed
to Aristarchus.
a 275] jMvrjcrT^poiv ov;( ^8e Sikt/ to TrdpoiOe rirvKrOy
Here J gives TrpoTroLpoiOe and P TcrvKrat. We may read
accordingly with considerable advantage : —
ixvrjon^pwv ov^ ijSe Slkitj TrpoirdpoiOe Tervicrau
Cf. TT 241.
(T 293] (ttcttAov) ttolklXjov €V 8' tt/j* IcTttv TTcpovox BvoKOtScKa TTCUrttl — •
We may read ; —
€V he r ea-av {F* = Fol)
So again below 323 SiSov &' ap' for SlSov hi F\
Cf 303] T^ 8' ap* a/t' dfx(f}L7ro\oL e<f>€pov TrcptKaAAca Swpa.
For the sake of the metre <fi6p€ov should be read. The hiatus
is the result of a fear that <f>op€o) could not be a precise equivalent
of <f)epw. That it may be so in epic is however hardly to be denied,
cf. I 10, V 368, where there is also a variant i(f>€p€, [x 68, e 328,
^ 171, X 448, &c.
o- 333] rj dA.v€ts oTt'Ipov ivLKrja-as rbv aXr^v ;
Perhaps simply : —
ivCiajcra^ fiev aXrjrrjv
just as fi€v gives emphasis to the verb in <^ 201 ws cXOol fiev /ccTvos,
p, 156 dXA' ipiio p,€V cywv. Q ^i»
a 335] ^s Tts (t' dp.^t Kap9^ KCKOTTtus X^P^^ cmySap^crt
S(x)fJLaTo<s iKTrefixfrrjCTL <f)opv^a<s atp-ari ttoAAw.
For OS Tis usage requires os k€v, v. Monro, H. G. § 282, and
for cKTTcp-i/oyo-i we may safely read iKTrefjiirrjai.
335
<' 353-371 ODYSSEY
o- 353] ovK d^€ct 08* avrjp *Ohv(rTqiov cs Sofiov lk€L'
ejxTrqs fiOL SoKcct SatSoiv crcAas ffxfievai avrov
KCLK K€<f>aXrj^y cTTcl ov ot evL rpix€<s ov8 i7;Satat.
The flaw in this piece of gibing flippancy is the word dOeci
It is only found here. It has no close parallel among the other
Homeric modal adverbs in -€t or -Z. The sense that has to be
given to it, Oewv deKiyri, hardly seems natural to the word, and is
more than the passage requires, if a merely light and humorous
tone is to be maintained. It is unmetrical, as the hiatus in this
place finds no defenders. Lastly, there would have been no
difficulty, if the sense had really been Oewv de/oTri, in making use
of that very expression, e. g.
OVK deKrjTL Oiwv 08* dvrjp t6v8* €S Sojjlov wcct
or LK€T €s ToSc Swfia would serve for the ending.
On the other hand, I think it is quite a mistake to suppose
that Eurymachus who is the speaker has any intention to com-
pare the beggar-man to a god. He would never dream of doing so.
He is only ridiculing his bald head. Suppose we read thus : —
OVK d)(p€L 08' dvrjp *08v(TrJLOv is Sofxov lk€L'
We have d^eiov tSwv, i. e. d^iia ISwv (B 269), and d)(peLov 8*
iyeXaa-a-c in this book (o- 163). The meaning I take to be this : —
* Not for nothing hath this man come to the house of Odysseus :
really now the light of the torches seems to me to come from his
own head (as from a reflector), for he has no hair upon it, never a
bit.' He has natural advantages that double the illumination.
The lines r 36-40 describe an entirely different phenomenon,
the effect of the presence of a god, and may well have suggested
the introduction of d^ect here.
O" 37^D *^ ^* ^^ '^^^ ^o€S €?€v ikawi/xev, ot Trep dpioTOi,
aWwves, /xeyoAot, dfJL<f>(i) KiKop-qon ttoit/s,
^AtK€s, i(TO<f}6poi, Twv T€ (rOevos OVK dXairaSvoVy —
Such is the received text, in which every word that qualifies
I36€<i save one, KeKoprjore which is dual, is in the plural number. It is
certain, however, that TJkiKes really represents tj\lk€. Accordingly
Bekker and Nauck would read with every probability of being right
y\iK€ Fiaroffiopu)
We might go further and write, as Dr. Monro suggests, with G
ix> TTcp apurrw,
aX$iay€, fieydXoif
3>$
BQOK XVIII <y 371-379
and TOLv also might be written for twv {373) ; but even so the
plural would still remain unalterably fixed in ^oes. It seems
better to recognize that in the original there was, as other passages
show, a free power of using the plural as well as the dual in
reference to couples and pairs. Cf. M 367, /x 211, tt 295. In
8 186 read perhaps dSaKpirroos. Here the separate individuality of
the oxen, so to say, is only prominent in 373. I would read: —
ct 8' av Koi (Boi'i ctev eXavvcfJiev, ot Trep dpioTOL,
alO(i)V€S, fxeyaXoL, irotrj^ KCKoprforts dfjL<f>(i)f
17X1x6, to-o^opu), Tttfv T€ (rOevoq ovk oA.aTraSi'ov, —
a 379] Tt? '^^ /^' tSoLs TrpwTOKTiv €vt 7rpo/xd)(OL(n /Atycvra,
' '.- ovS* av fxoL rrjv yacrrcp' ovciSt^CDV dyopcvots.
It is impossible, at any rate it is undesirable, to separate the
ijonsideration of t<} kc /x' lSols here from that of the very same
words in 1. 375: —
Tw K€ fx t8oi9, ct wAxa SirjV€K€a irpoTafjLOifjirjv.
In this latter passage the metrically more satisfactory tw kc tSotg
may be read without detriment to the sense. It seems hardly
possible, however, to follow Knight and others in making the same
easy correction in 1. 379. In 1. 375 6t. . . Trporajxoifxrjv allows the
pronoun to disappear with impunity and even with advantage ;
but here fuyevra with no pronoun would be decidedly wanting in
clearness. The maintenance of the pronoun must therefore be
regarded as an indispensable condition, and the question is,
whether this condition will allow us to maintain also the con-
sistent use of the digamma in this root Fl8-, or whether we are
forced by such an instance as this to adopt the in-and-out theory,
the always-ready-when-wanted idea, of the digamma. Taking
this then as a typical instance of the difficulty that sometimes
attends the restoration of the F, I would suggest that the true
reading here is : —
T<3 K€ FiSoL<s e/x€ Trpwrov €vl irpo/xdxoLcri jxiyevra, —
The pronoun is thus preserved with enhanced, but not undue,
emphasis. But there is something more to be said, a further
argument, by which I hope to justify and confirm this correction.
If we consider the traditional Trptoroio-tv Ivl irpofiaxoun, we cannot
but notice that, notwithstanding the frequency with which
irpopxtxpi- (7rpo/xd;(ot(n, kvX TTpojjidxoLcn) occurs in Homer (F 31, A 354,
E 134, © 99, N 642, O 457), the combination irptuTot Trp6pxi)(oi is
a 379 ODYSSEY
elsewhere entirely unknown. The reason is obvious. There is no
material difference between ivl Trpo/xaxots and cvt Trpwrots. The Trpo-
fiaxoL are so called because they are irpuyroi. If you say of a man
that he is among the front-fighters, it is mere surplusage to add
that the front-fighters are first. Where else could they be ? You
can only give him higher credit by saying that he is first among
the front-fighters, and this is, as I conceive, exactly what was
originally said here, just as elsewhere (A 458, P 590) Homer
speaks of a hero as icrOXov ivl TrpofxAxoLo-Lj of which expression this
irpCiTov ivl TTpofxdxoLm is the superlative, being equivalent to
apLOTOV €VL TrpofjjdxoixTL.
I will add that the vulgate cannot be defended on the
ground that Trpwroi irpopjoxoi means ^ the van of the Trpofiaxot '»
This would imply that the irpofxaxoi- were an organized body of
troops, a sort of special regiment or Agamemnonian Old Guard,
whereas we know that any warrior promachized, as the fancy
took him. And here in this point of organization we seem to
have the chief difference, or an important difference, between the
TTpofxaxoL and the ^-pvAces, cf. O 517 : —
Atas 8 IXc AaoSdfxavTa
■^e/xova TrpvXiwVf ^Avr-qvopos dyXaov viov
"We should look in vain for a riyipZiv irpopAxinv- Of special
interest also, in view of the passage under discussion, is ; —
<E> 90 ^ Tot Tov TrpityroKn fxira TrpvXUa-a-i Sa/xacrcra? — »
In our second line the late use of the article r»)v yaaripa is
undoubtedly a modernization. Here we have a noun that is by no
means rare. It occurs thirty times in all : three times in the nom,
sing. : three times in the gen. : eight times in the dat. : fifteen
times in the ace, and once in the nom. plur. In one instance,
I may say, the ace. is an error, the dat. being the true form : —
I 433 TOV Kara vtora XaySwv, Xaatrjv inrb yaarrip ikva-Oeis —
Read kaa-Lr) vtto yaarpl iXvaOets or even yacrrcp', if preferred ; but
this participle, I have little doubt, was digammated in spite of
appearances. In O 510 'AxtA^t is evidently the true reading : and
in 4^ 393 it is equally evident that kkva-B-q itself is wrong. The
verb required there should be supplied, I would suggest, by the
still rather mysterious but, as usage will avouch, quite appropriate
But to return to yaanip, in no place save this solitary 0-380
3a8
BOOK XIX <r379-T33
do we find any article with this noun. Even the case of the
article with vrj(To<s (Note on c 55) has more to run on than one
crazy wheel. Therefore I propose the following as a probable
restoration : —
ovSe K€ fx ovTco yacrrep' ov€t8tX<*>v dyopeuois (ft* = jjlol)
' taunting me thus ', * in the way you did.' Of course the corrupt
tradition would be due to the desire not to recognize, if possible,
the elision of /xoi^ and no suggestion for replacing -njv, by such
a word as tots for instance, would be satisfactory, because there
would then be no reason why the tradition should have failed.
A further illustration of this process of change, resulting in
the appearance of the later article, may be found a few lines
further on : —
0-385 OLlj/d K€ TOL TO, OvpCTpa, Kol CVpCtt TTCp floX COVTtt,
<ji€vyOVTL OTCLVOLTO 8l€K wpoOvpOLO Ovpa^C.
This affords in ati/ra kc some justification for changing ov8' av in
1. 380 to ovSi K€ : for there can be no pretence that more emphasis
is required in 1. 380 than in 1. 385 (Monro, H. G. § 363, 2 (c));
in fact the reverse is manifestly more nearly the truth. But now
to account for the article. If we write with a gap to indicate the
loss of a syllable before which rot would be elided toi . . . ra, it is at
once apparent that the insertion of av- would solve all difficulties.
aaj/d K€ T avra OvpeTpa, kol evpca irep fiaX covra, —
* the very doors, wide as they are, &c.'
<T 404] l(T6\ri<i t(T(T€Tai rihof;^ cttcI to, )(€p€Lova vlkS..
The line is from A 576. In both places Nauck's suggestion
€(ro-€Tat ia-OXrj^ rjSos
may be accepted without much hesitation. For the rest we may
read with much advantage
€7r€t pa x^puova vt/ca.
BOOK XIX (r).
T 33] ^7X*^ '''' o^oevra*
This epithet is somewhat of a mystery. Neither of the two
recognized explanations, (i) pointed, (2) beechen, is satisfactory.
We have cyx^*- o^^cvtl at the end of the line in E 50, H 11,
514, N 584, O 536, 742, and v 306, seven times in all : once it
occurs at the beginning of the verse, n 309. eyx^a o^ocvra ends
339
T 33-44 ODYSSEY
the line E 568. In all these instances there is hiatus between
the words.
The present passage, t 33, and one other, H 443,
Sarvtov ovracrc Sovpl /xeraX/Acvos o^oevTt,
show no hiatus. But it is clear that this victim to the prowess
of Ajax not only lost his life in the battle, but has been by a
strange destiny robbed of his name also. He was born ' by the
banks of the river Satnioeis', so that, as we may see from
Simoeisios (A 474), his name was San/toaVtos and is here
improperly docked. "We must restore : —
'XarvLoeLorLov ovra /xcraX/xcvos o^tt SovpL
It now becomes doubtful whether the remaining cyx^a t
oivoevra is really to be accepted as genuine, especially seeing
that the easy change to : —
Sovpa T€ oivoevra
would remove all difficulty in the way of an explanation of this
notable epithet. It should, I think, be associated with the word
<}>oi6<s {<j>o$L)(€iXos *Apy€Lr) KvXt$ Simonides) : —
B 2 1 9 <f>o$os t-qv KefjioXriv — -.
Compare the curious Schnabelkanne, the jug with a long high
spout found at Hissarlik. I suggest Fo^oevra or <f>o$v6€VTa as
the true form.
* Cone-shaped ' seems to be the meaning, and would be
an appropriate description of the metal point of a spear.
T 44] oAAa (TV jxiv KaraXeiaLf iyu) 8' VTroXeiif/ofxcu avrovy
6<j>pa K en Sfuoas kol fiifrepa (ttjv ipeOi^m'
"fj hi fx oSvpofievrj €ipi^<r€TaL a/Mffn^ c/caoTa.
The arrangement is that Odysseus should stay in the hall
while Telemachus retired to his chamber ; but the statement of
the motive for this arrangement is decidedly remarkable, *in
order that I may further provoke the bondswomen and thy
mother.* That epc^t^co has displaced some more suitable verb,
probably one that became obsolete, is an assumption necessitated
by the circumstances of the case. They make clear that what
Odysseus wishes to do is to test by observation and inquiry the
disposition and conduct of his wife and women-servants, exactly
what Athene attributed to him in v 335 : —
(Tol 8* ov irui j^CKov cart $ai//i,cvou ov8< irvOitrBait
330
BOOK XIX T44-6r
irpCv y €Tt (T^s aX6)(ov ireLp-qcreaL, rj T€ rot avTWS
^arat ivl fieydpoicTLv, — [Lsg- TrptV ye re^s]
and as he himself says to Telemachus ir 304 : —
dXy oToL (TV T lyoi T€ yvvaLKwv yv(i>ofjL€V Wvv.
Cf. TT 313 and particularly 316 f. : —
aX\ rj TOL ere ywaxKa^ iyo) SehdacrOaL dvioya,
at T€ (T oLTi/JLoi^ova-L Koi at vrjXtTiSes elcnv'
The word required here then is a synonym of TreipT^crofxaiy yvwoi
and SacLio. Metrically Tretpa^w could stand, but the spondaic
ending is no recommendation and the corruption of Tretpo^w to
ep€^6^(o is unlikely. 'AAcyt^w might have served except for the
fatal fact that it always takes a genitive. In this difficulty I fall
back upon the word suggested in the Note on cr 160, as I venture
to think with some probability, era^w, ' to test/ * examine.' We
might read : —
It should be observed that k€ rt not k Itl is supported by the
bulk of the MSS, Itl is not otiose, as it is in v 336, where also
a large number of the MSS. fail to support it, and may be post-
poned without detriment to the sense, ' that I may to some extent
put to further proof &c.'
The remaining line seems rather like an interpolation.
Whether we render * for she in her sorrow will ask me everything
separately', or 'about everything ', it is beside the mark. It can
only be said that it conveys by a far-fetched implication that
Odysseus in his turn would have an opportunity of extracting
information. But it is obvious that cpect not ctprjo-erat, ' will tell '
not ' will ask ', is what the poet would have said, if he had thought
it necessary to add the line at all. If 1. 45 end with cra^w or
any equivalent verb, nothing further need be said ; but after
ipeOL^d) something is clearly required to counteract the unhappy
suggestion of that unacceptable word.
KaroAe^ai (1. 44) is the aor. imper. mid. according to the
later grammar, but Homer has only Xe^co and Xe^o. Hence here
the true reading is probably KaraAe^e'. Cf. o 218 (Note).
T 61] at 8' drrb fxkv orlrov iroXvv ripeov yjhe xpaTre^a? — .
If, as seems probable, atpcw had an initial F (v. Note on X 43),
^p€ov, i. e. Fatpeovj cannot be right in this position. Placed before
T 61-95 ODYSSEY
TToXvv it would scan with synizesis of the last two syllables;
otherwise some other verb has been superseded here. It would
hardly be legitimate to replace iroXvv by Ta^a : but the possibility
at least of one or other of these solutions can hardly be denied.
T 63] Tt^p S* ttTTo Xa/jLTm^pmv ;(a/Aa8ts ^aXov, oAAa 8' iir avroiv
viyT/crav ivXa 7roA.Aa, <f>6u)<s tfxev r)h\ OipecrOai,
This passage and O 741 (v. Note outt 23) are the only places
in which <^aos may not at once be restored for the debased <^o(o9.
No account need be taken of Hymn. Herm. 12. Here it would be
easy to read : —
oAAa K €7rt cr<fi€(i)V
viq-qa-av ^Xa TroAAct, ^aos r ejxev -^Sk dip^crOai,
T 81] TO) VVV ivfj 7rOT€ Kttt CTV, yVVOLLy (XTTO TTttcav oXiCTCTys
ayXatrjv — .
This appears to be the only instance in which yvmi, the
vocative, is used in Homer except as a respectful and ceremonious
address. That it is not ironical is certain, for to use one ironical
term and one only in a long speech otherwise grave and serious
would be utterly impossible. The hiatus is a further indication, it
might even be said a sufficient indication in itself, that some-
thing is wrong. I suggest ; —
TW VVV /XT/ TTOTC Kol (TV T€^V OLTTO TTaCTaV oXeCTOTyS
ayXatrjv — .
T 95J OiP'<f>l' TfOa-CL €Lp€(r6aL, €7r€t TTVKIVWS aKd)(rifuu,
The infin. depends on l/xcAAov and should of course be in the
future tense (v. Prof. Piatt, Joum. Phil. xli. on yotcAAto). Dr. Leaf
(Note on * 773) has suggested IpUa-Oai^ but the only future for
which there is epic authority is elprjcrea-OaL. Moreover, the second
foot is still unsatisfactory because of the hiatus. Even the
questionable form ttoo-Z, which is probably not Homeric at all, is
open to this metrical objection. Perhaps : —
a/x<f> avip flprqcrt<r6aiy cttci iruKtvois aKd)(r)iJLaL,
The objection to elide the t of dvepi in later times would seem well
surmounted by introducing Trdo-ei with the warrant of p 555 : —
fi€TaXXrj(TaL ri k Ovfioi
dfxffil Tr6<r€i KcXerat, koX K-qhid inp vtvaOvirj.
I am indeed inclined to think that this last line is itself a loose
and undesirable expansion, apart from its bad grammar, intended,
33a
BOOK XIX T 95-121
as usual, to supply an unnecessary yerb to Ovfios. Everything
needful is said by : —
jxeTaXXyja-aC Tt 6 6vfx6s'
The rest is leather and prunella : but it may be noted that the
grammar of TmraOvirj carries the implication that Ovfxos has no
yerb other than cort. M 300 has of course supplied KcAerat. If
this be so, the author of p 556, some rhapsodist probably, may
fairly be credited with the ttoo-ci of t 95 also.
To return to our passage, it may be remarked that Travra in
1.93 is not to be taken with iv as = ' quite ' ; it is yirtually
according to a common idiom the object after ctpca-dai or clprjcr^a-Oai.
She wished to hear all he could tell about Odysseus.
T I2IJ fXT^ TLS fJLOL SfXlOWV V€lJL€(Tr](r€TaLf Tjk (TV y aVTT],
<f>rj 8c 8aKpvTrX<ji)€iv fSe^aprioTa fxe <f>p€va<s oivw.
The condition of the latter of these lines is such as to call for,
and certainly to excuse, an attempt to remedy its graye and
patent defects. If it can be made fairly probable, or even fairly
possible, that these defects haye arisen partly from involuntary
errors in transmission, partly from injudicious patching on the
part of the later Greeks, this would constitute an effective reply to
the opinion advanced by Knight, Fick, and others, that the line
should be athetized and removed as a spurious assertion.
The objections to the line, as it stands, must first be shortly
set forth. Metrically the quantity here given to the first syllable
of SaKpvTrXweLv is out of accord with Homeric usage, with one
exception as might be expected, viz. : —
(T 1 7 3 A'-'yS' ovTO) haKpvoiCTL 7r€(f)vpfX€vrj afx<f)l 7rpoo"W7ra — ,
where I have no doubt Knight and Spitzner are right in reading
SdKpva-ari, especially as SaKpva-L is found in a large number of MSS.
(PH JLW) and BaKpvcn in U. The other metrical fault in the fifth
foot of T 1 2 2 would be easily remedied, if all else were satisfactory,
by reading <^pcVa (Bentley).
In point of language BaKpvTrXuteLv is a word elsewhere
unknown and is sufficiently surprising. Floating or swimming
in tears is, I believe, a feat altogether confined to the Second
Chapter of Alice's Adventures in Wonderland. Our familiar
expression * his eyes were swimming in tears ' is obviously quite
a different matter, and cannot render any help towards the
333
T12J ODYSSEY
elucidation of SaKpvrrkwfiv here. Last and worst fault of all,
there is an altogether inexcusable violation of correct epic order in
the position of the enclitic pronoun fxe (v. Note on a 37). It is
quite unavailing to fly for support to the equally guilty parallel : — -
The true reading there is, or ought to be, generally recognized
to have been successfully restored by van Leeuwen and da Costa,
who have anticipated me in this instance, as in many others : —
fxy F* ayaO^ vep iovri ve/xio-crrjOi^ofxev i7/A€ts.
There is a similar valuable warning to be found in most texts
in fi 278 : —
avTLKa 8' EvpvAo;(os arvyepta /m rjixufiero fxvOia'
Several MSS. rightly omit fx. Mr. Piatt has judiciously ex-
pelled it from the Cambridge Homer. There remains one
rather noticeable line, on which a remark here will not be out
of place : —
t 523 at yap Br] il/v)(rj^ re koI atwvos (T€ hwaLfirjv.
The two nouns are here allowed to precede the enclitic, because
they form a single idea, a true hendiadys, and the licence is
not really greater than that involved in giving emphasis to
single words and phrases (v. Note on a 37). Obviously SaKpv-
ttXwciv and ySeySapryora are not welded together in this way, and
therefore t 122 cannot so be defended.
Such being the objections that may be taken to the line, as
it stands, we may proceed to see if any help can be derived
from traditional sources. Aristotle, Problem, xxx. i p. 953, 12
(according to Ludwich) quotes the line not flawlessly thus : —
Kttt /AC fl>r)(TL SoLKpv TrXwctv ^c^aprj/xevov otvw.
The first noteworthy point here is the ending ySe^ap^/xcVov
otvo), which gives a fair indication that <f>piva^ is insititious and
along with its complement p,€ should be dislodged from th6
position altogether. See also Albert Fulda's Untersuchungen
tiber die Spr. der Hom. Ged. p. 130 ff. for objection taken to
<f)p€vas here. It seems to me that Pepaprjfiivov merely repre-
sents a natural, but of course futile, attempt to provide a better
dactyl for the fifth foot than pePaprjora olvto apparently affords.
Practically therefore Aristotle's testimony, as I take it, is in
favour of /Jc^apryora oivio as the ending of the verse.
Then in SaKpv ttXwcij', which by the way appears also in
334
I
BOOK XIX T121-146
several MSS. (FLU^Z), there is more than a hint, that two words
are really concealed under the disguise of this irrational SaKpv-
TrXfueiv. If this be so, I would suggest that TrAwetv has been
deyeloped from ttoAAw, which would be a very suitable epithet
for otKo) in this connexion : —
TToAXu) ^e/Saprjora otvw.
Now if we restore jue to its legitimate place, the verse is already
nearly complete : —
<f}rj 8e /x€ Sa/c/ov — — ttoAAw /SfjSaprjora oivta.
The only syllable unaccounted for is ctv, and this may be preserved
if we insert ■^(iuv to make up the line : —
^'Q Se ix€ SoLKpv X^^''^ TToAAw ^e^aprjOTU otvo).
The only quite uncertain element here is x"'''' ^^^ clearly
SaKpvifjiev will satisfy the metre equally well, and would perhaps
afford an easier progress towards the corrupt vulgate by the
intermediate stage of SaKpvetv.
T 146] fJL-q TLS fxoL Kara Srjixov 'A^attaSwv vificarjoiri
This line is found in two other places, /? ioi,a> 136, and the
peculiar form 'AxattaSwv presents itself again on four occasions : — -
E 422 rj fxaXa Sy rtva KvTrpts 'A^atiaStov dviciora — .
424 Tojv TLva Kappit,ov(Ta 'A^actaScuv cinrcTrAwv — .
y 260 ovSe K€ Tts fJitv
KXavcrev 'A^^attaSwv fiaXa yap fieya fXT^a-aro epyov.
<^ 160 aXX.r)v Srj tlv hrnTa 'A;)(atta8ajv IvTriirXiov — .
[Leg. cVei^' 5 y 'A.]
Of these E 424 is an interpolation, commentum ineptissimum
e margine inductum, as Knight puts it not too strongly. This
leaves the repeated line and three others to support *AxaaaSwv.
There is no nom. 'Axaitas save perhaps in a Lex. nor any other
oblique case of such a noun except this one. Elsewhere when
Homer wishes to mention the ladies of Achaea he calls them
'Ap^ait'Scs : —
I 395 iroAAat 'A;(aa8€S fXcriv av *EAAa8a tc ^Ocrfv re,
<^ 251 ctat Ktti aAAat TroAXat ^A)(au8€S, Cf. B 235, H 96.
or 'A^atat' : —
(3 iig TctcDV at Trapos -^crav ivirXoKa/uBe^ 'A;(atat, >
T 542 otfjL(f>L 8' €fx TjyepiOovTO ivTrXoKajjuSis 'A;(atat — .
Unless under pressure of absolute necessity it seems altogether
impossible that any poet already possessed of two available forms
T 146-167 ODYSSEY
should invent a third of this peculiar type for his versification.
In fact it is questionable whether any metrical necessity could
excuse such a proceeding. But here there is no justification of
the kind, and I am convinced that the poet himself was not
responsible for this remarkable form. He could say or write,
and in all probability did say or write, not 'Axaud8(ov but
*A;j(ata<ov : —
fjL-q Tts /x.ot Kara h^fxov 'A^atacov vefxia-i^arf
and so in the other lines that have been quoted, E 422, y 261,
</> 160. *Axaiia8tov then is, I submit, a vox nihili, a later evasion
of the obsolete uncontracted form, and the fact that twv in E 424
shows the like evasion confirms the condemnation of that line.
The class of nouns in -as, -aSos apparently received some
extension in post-epic times, as we may see from the western
islands called by the later Greeks 'ExtvaScs, 'E^tvaScov, but Homer
says : —
B 625 ot 8* €K AovXt;(toto *E;(tvaa)v 0* Updoiv
a line, which would be materially improved by the restoration of
T€ after AovXlx^olo,
T 166] ovKiT OLTToWrjieL? Tov ifxov yovov iicpeovaa ;
Without paying the slightest attention to the late article we
may say at once that for Odysseus to address Penelope in this
form would have been to cast off the beggar and assume the
husband in plenary authority. We may be quite sure that
originally the address was more deferential : —
ov K€V axoXXiy^etas ifxov yovov iiepeovaa ;
The form of expression is distinctly epic. Instances are : —
r 52 ovK av 8r] /xecveias dprjicfuXov M.€viXaov ;
E 456 OVK av Br) TovS* dvSpa p-d.yyj'i ipvcrato jxereXOuiV — ;
lo 57 '^d'Tnra ^tV, ovk av 8>y /Aot If^OTrXicrartia^ dirqvrfv — ;
7j 2 2 Si TCKOS, OVK av fxoL Sofxov dvepos yjyrfo-aLO — ;
^132 o) <l>iXoij OVK av Si; Tis av* opaoOvprjv dva^axrj — ;
By reading ov k It we might retain In, but the clause is better
without even this slight sign of impatience, and the maintenance
of the assumed character all the more complete.
For e^ip4ovara = c^cpco/xcviy v. Note on ^ 82—3,
T 167] dXX Ik tol ip€U)' r) fxtv p! d)(€€a-a-L ye Soktcis
TrXiiocLV 17 expfxaf rj yap ^iKtjy omrore trdrprj^ — •
336
BOOK XIX T 167-218
Instead of rj ixofxai I would suggest the idiomatic : —
ye TTcp wS*
which, as I have shown in the Note on tt 181, is an epic expression
peculiarly liable to be sacrificed in favour of a more up-to-date
formula.
T 185] See Note on a 212.
T 192J Tw 8' T]8r] SeKiXTT] ^ ivBcKOTrj TTcXev r](i)S — .
It would be certainly more metrical and at the same time
more idiomatic to read : —
Tw 8' ^Srj SeKOLTr} T€ kol cvScKa-ny TTcAtv r/ws
Compare N 260 Sovpara . , . koX tv koI ^Xkoo-l 8r;€ts
y 115 ov8* €t TTCvraeres yc koX €^a€T€S -n-apa/At/Avcov — .
where re would probably be right for yc : —
B 346 Tovo-Sc 8* la (fiOLVvOeiVy €va kol Svo, rot kcv ^Axcllwv — .
also I 379, X 349-
T 215] vvv fxev 817 creu, ^ctvc y*, otw Tr€Lprrj(T€<rOaL,
This is the vulgate. Ludwich (1891) accidentally or other-
wise prints the equally impossible ielve, y olw, for of course ^ctvc
y' is an unheard of and impossible form of address. Monro (1901)
reads : —
vvv Br] (T€LO, ieivc, olo) Tr€iprj<T€(r6aif
rightly omitting y*, but refraining from restoring the archaic
nom., as his reference to H. G. § 164 shows he was inclined
to do.
Two MSS. (F Z) and the editio princeps leave out fiev. Certainly
vvv Br) a-€LO, $€lvo<s, otw Trcipi^a-ecrOaL
is acceptable enough, cf. </)tA€ and <^tAos, 413, ^ 106,
A 189, &c.
T 218^ CtTTC flOL OTTTToT a(T<Ta ITCpt XP^'^ Ct/XttTa loTO,
Here we have the solitary instance of aa-cra. On the other
hand ao-o-a is fairly established in the received text. For the
instances see Note onv 309, where some evidence is adduced that
tends to show that arra is the true Homeric form. So here we
might read : —
ctTTc jjL oTTOta KOL a(T(Ta TTcpl )(poi iLfxara laTOy
just as we have in tt 236 : —
6<f>p* €t8c(U 0(T(TOl T€ KOi OL TLV€S OLvipeS CtCTt'*
where the opening words may represent an original : —
6<l>pa 8a€t(o ocroL re,
^QAK ^ Z 337
/
T 218-228 ODYSSEY
or more probably 6<f>p* iv €t8w, v. Note on x 234. Undoubtedly
€tS<i) is non- thematic : ctScw is clearly post-epic.
T 221J u> yvvat, apyaXeov roaaov XP^^^^ dfx(f>ls iovra
Read covrt, for which it may suffice to refer to the Notes
on ^ 60 (ad fin.), tt 88. * It is difficult for me parted from him so
long to say.'
T 228^ iv irpoTipoLcri TroSecrcn Kvoyv t^^ ttoiklXov eAAov,
acnraipovTa \doiv' to Se Oavfjid^ecrKov aTravres,
ws 01 xp^O'fOL €OVT€S 6 fxev Xoe v€/3pov SiTrdyxov,
avrdp 6 €K<f>vy€€iv fJL€p,aws T^cnraipe TroSco-trt.
Tov Sk XLTU)v' ivorjora irepl XP^^^ (nyaXoevTa,
olov T€ KpOfxvoio XoTTOv KCiTa t(r;(aA.coio.
In the first four lines we have the famous description, much
discussed, of the ornamental design on the clasp of the hero's
mantle; then his tunic is praised by means of a homely but
striking comparison. All the lines are noteworthy and deserve
for various reasons more than cursory consideration. As there
are some half a dozen changes which seem called for to restore
the impaired integrity of the passage, and since the impression
of the whole as emended ought to be favourable rather than
otherwise to the discussion of the particulars, I will anticipate
the result by setting down in black and white before the reader
the whole paragraph with the several emendations I have to
propose. I will then proceed to offer such justification for each
change as may be attainable or sufficient.
iv TrporipoLori ttoSccto-i kvihv €J(€ ttolklXov cAAdv,
dxTTTolpovB* vXdiav' to Se 6av/xd^€<TK0V d-navrts,
0)9 Tw xP^<^ov iovO* 6 /xev vXac ve^pov aTrdyxoiVj
avrdp o y iK<f>vyt€Lv ixefxauis ^(nraipe TrdSctrcn.
tot) 8c ^(tTaiv* ivorjcra irtpi xpot criyoAdcvra,
oXoV T€ KpOflVOLO XoTTOV /CapT iaXdXiOLO.
Now with regard to Xdoiv in 1. 229, the ancient interpretations,
bad as they are, have not been bettered, and are not likely to
be bettered, by modern scholars. They may be found concisely
stated in Schol. MV 6 fitv ^ApLO-rapxos diroXavtaVy o 8k Kpdrrjs ovrl
TOV ^AcTTcjv, 01 84 <f>a(riv dxf>rjp7J(r6ai to v, tva jj vXdiav, According
to Aristarchus then the hound is enjoying itself, according to
Crates it is gazing or glaring, if you will, either with uplifted
338
BOOK XIX T228
liead or at its "victim, according to the unnamed expositors it is
harking. Latterly Xaiav lias been considered cognate with, and
practically equivalent to, (i) AtXato/tcvos (Fick) or even (2) Xa/3wv
(Passow, Ameis-Hentze) with of course the meaning of a present
' fassend ', cf. ytx 254 acnrcupovTa 8' cTrctra Xa^wv.
We are not without a little archaeological evidence of some
interest ; for there is an unmistakable pictorial representation
of this brooch on the reverse of a coin of lakos, a town near
Mt. Eryx in Sicily, the date being about 430 B.C. By the personal
kindness of the late Samuel Butler, Esq. — continued by his
representatives — in whose Translation of the Odyssey, p. 253,
this woodcut appears, I am enabled to present his enlargement of
the coin in question, now in the British Museum.
Out of regard to Mr. Butler I feel bound to say, in accordance
with his wish, that he himself fully adopted and endorsed the
opinion of his friend Prof. Cav. B. Ingroia of Calatafimi, who
suggested that the dog and hind of Ulysses' brooch were the
emblem, crest or stemma of some actual city which the waiter of
the Odyssey had in view and intended to honour. As I am now
considering the exact meaning of the w^ords in this passage, and
no more, I shall content myself with the humbler and perhaps
safer hypothesis that Aristarchus in his unsatisfactory interpreta-
tion practically accepted, and may very possibly have seen, this
interesting little picture, which, notwithstanding its interest, is
not in my opinion a very successful attempt to realize the Homeric
conception. The dog long, gaunt, and obviously heavy, lies wdth
its whole body, hind-legs as well as fore-legs, couched on the
back of a rather diminutive fawn, and with its reverted muzzle
sunk in the throat of its victim is apparently draining its life-
z 2 ^59
T 228 ODYSSEY
blood. In all probability this is what Aristarchus must have
meant by his gloss dTroAavwv : possibly indeed he may have been
familiar with the artist's work, which would be an antique even
in his day (210 B.C.), if the date assigned by Mr. Butler to the
coin may be trusted. Mr. Butler is my warrant for saying that
a somewhat kindred subject is very frequent on the coins of Eryx,
Drepanum, and Segesta, though there is nothing which suggests
Ulysses' brooch as this coin of lakos does. However, whatever
is meant by ctTroAavwi/, the artist's conception of the scene
cannot fairly, I say it with all due respect to archaeology and
to Aristarchus, be reconciled with the poet's description. The
hound could hardly be described as merely holding the fawn in
its fore-paws {iv irporipoKTi iroh^a-crC), if its whole bulk was
huddled on the fawn's body and its hind-legs firmly planted
there as here shown. In the next place it seems scarcely
possible to suppose that the hound had fastened on the fawn
with its teeth, when the detention is expressly stated to have
been by the fore-paws. The fawn is certainly not being pulled
down like the stag in Landseer's well-known picture. I am not
forgetting one expression in these lines, which gives colour —
alone gives colour and gives colour only — to such a repre-
sentation, viz. vefSpbv airdyxoiv : but I submit that such an in-
terpretation, though natural, is inconsistent with the rest of the
description, and secondly that the expression need not imply
more than that the weight of the dog's fore-paws pressed heavily
on the prostrate fawn was smothering or stifling the little
creature. That d7ray;(a) can be used without implying actual
seizure by the throat cannot of course be shown from Homer,
as the word occurs only here, and ayx<" also makes but one
appearance, T 371 dyx^ /aiv Ifxds. If we may turn elsewhere
for such illustration as may show the possibility of this less
strict use of aTrdyxoi, we have Arist. Wasps 686 : —
Kol Trpos TOVTOL9 cTTiTaTTO/Acvos ^otTtt?, o fidXiaTo. fi d7rdy;(€t,
also Clouds 988 wo-Tc fi dTrdyx€arO% where it means ' to render,
and to be rendered, speechless with indignation '. For the
above reasons it seems necessary to reject Aristarchus's oltto'
Xaviov as a possible interpretation of kdotvy even supposing, as
we reasonably may, that his idea of the scene is conveyed by
the picture on the coin. As a matter of fact no single com-
340
BOOK XIX T228
mentator in modern times, so far as I am aware, lias given his
adherence to Aristarchus's translation.
According to Crates the dog is merely looking up or down.
The direction of its gaze is, of course, indeterminate from Xdwv
and Aae, but if aTrayx^v be taken to refer to throttling by the
teeth, as is usually though I think erroneously supposed to be
necessary, then the eyes of the dog, if normally constructed, could
hardly be turned from the fawn. The weakness of this is patent,
and in the issue, whatever may be the direction of the dog's gaze,
we have a participle and a verb, on which from their repetition
some stress is evidently laid, conveying nothing at all beyond
the otiose information that the dog had not shut its eyes, as
if any one would have imagined in the absence of the two
w^ords such a Pecksnififian performance on the dog's part likely
or possible.
Of one thing we may be assured, that whatever idea
kdoiv conveys in 1. 229 must also be contained in Aae in 1. 230,
so that we cannot possibly allow the licence assumed for the
nonce by Messrs. Butcher and Lang, who first render da-ircupovra
Aawv, ' and gripped it as it writhed,' and then translate 6 fikv
Aae, 'the hound was watching the fawn.' A looseness of this
kind is a rarity in the work of these scholars, but the excuse
made by Horace for Homer himself may perhaps be extended
without offence to his translators also,
verum operi longo fas est &c.
There remains the last of the traditional versions, which
seems also to have been the popular one, as it is not attributed
to the genius of any critic, ol 8e (f>axrLv a<firjfyrj(rOai to v, tva y
vAawv. This view of the meaning is after all the only one that
can be considered acceptable, though the idea that vXauxv could
dispense with v is so flagrantly impossible that the rendering
has been discredited at the outset and has never received fair
consideration. With the restoration of vXdiov and vAae, which
are absolutely necessary to convey the meaning, the dog. is
represented as barking, while it holds down the fawn with its
fore-paws. Under the circumstances it could hardly be repre-
sented as doing anything else, for its freedom of action is
considerably restricted by the fact that it is fully engaged in
holding down the fawn with its fore-paws. While doing so, it
34^
T 228 ODYSSEY
lifts up its head and barks its triumph. This loud barking is,
and always has been, the dog's note of victory, its rrjv€\Xa
KoXXCvLKo?. Any one -svho chooses to make the experiment
with a dog and a bone may realize this fact for himself, but
sliould first for prudential reasons tie a long and stout piece of
string to the bone, before he shows it to the dog and commences
to run. If he does iot succeed in getting any amount of barks
and growls, which is the phenomenon indicated by vAawv, vAae,
there must be something the matter with his dog.
There is no difficulty whatever in the representation in
metal of a barking dog. On the shield of Achilles Homer
makes the dogs bark, 2 586 : —
laToiixevoL Be fxaX €yyv<s vXaKreov — ,
the COWS low fivKrjBfi^ (575)> the bull bellow fiefjiVKS)^ (580). So
Virgil, Aen. viii. 655, describing the shield of Aeneas, follows suit
with a goose : —
atque hie auratis volitans argenteus anser
porticibus Gallos in limine adesse canebat ;
and afterwards we meet (698) latrator Anubis, though it is of
course not absolutely essential that * latrator ' should be equivalent
to latrans.
The erroneous and unintelligible vulgate has arisen, as I
have already explained in a similar case (Note on a- 192), from the
mishandling of the ck TrXiJpovs Avriting ACTTAIPONTAYAAON.
The Y has been removed instead of the A. Then the blunder
made with vXdoyv has necessarily been extended and made
almost irretrievable by the deliberate suppression of vkae
in favour of Aae in the next line. The tradition has how-
ever not been unfaithful in preserving the true sense, Tva rj
vXdoiv, even under the very difficult conditions so brought about,
and by its aid the original reading may now at length be
recovered and restored.
In 1. 230 the usual reading ws ol xp^^a-eoi covre?, faulty as it
is from a metrical point of view, is not, it may be noticed, that
which the tradition really gives. The MSS. with one accord
offer a properly modernized reading, which at any rate does
happen to scan, uk ol xp^^^ol ovtcs. Following Ileyne's sugges-
tion editors have replaced orrcs by the only correct epic form
€OFT€5 (>/ 94 aOavarov: ovras kol dyi^po}^ fjiiara irdvra is a gross
54>
BOOK XIX T228
and patent interpolation), though by so doing they have un-
wittingly ruined the scansion : for the contracted -cot cannot
be sliortened before a vowel in spite of xp^a-eco dva cncrprrpoi
(A 15), which seems to have been originally xpvcrcio av a-Krprrpia
(Lehrs). In our passage I find that van Leeuwen and da Costa
consider w? ^^va-eiia iovre the true reading, but inasmuch as
the pronoun is archaic here, and therefore could not have been
introduced for the same reason that has gained for ovrc? a
unanimous welcome according to the testimony of our MSS., it
is better to retain the pronoun, not indeed in the plural form,
but in the dual. The confusion of the two may be paralleled
by N 358 where tw is restored for tol by Dr. Leaf,
In 1. 231 the substitution of o y for 6 may seem to some
a needless change ; but the accepted canon that a short vowel
that cannot be elided, e.g. v, may therefore stand before a vowel
without the hiatus being in any way objectionable, seems to
me essentially an error. However, this question cannot now be
discussed. It is sufficient to have mentioned the point. I pass
to the Tov at the beginning of 1. 232 tov Se ;(it(uv' ivorjcra.
This surely is quite indefensible. Obviously tov, referring to
Odysseus, is what is here required. Compare by all means the
TOV for TOV standing in the forefront of t 208 (v. Note ad loc).
It is bad enough there, where it may at least be translated with
some meaning 'that wine': but here 'that tunic' is just as
impossible as the utterly inane ' it, the tunic ' would be.
One important, and I think necessary, change has been made
in the last line, Kapra replacing Kard {Kara). The difference is
but slight, amounting to no more than one letter added ; but
Kara Xottov, though it recalls and reproduces on<? of the most
familiar forms of expression Kar dvOpiOTrov, Kar dvSpa, &c., is not
here a very suitable or likely phrase. Even supposing that Kara
Xottov means ' like the skin ' it would then be synonymous with
otov Xottov, and though either expression might be acceptable,
still the combination and blending together of both forms in Kara
olov Xottov must be regarded as quite impossible and meaningless
in Homeric Greek at any rate. I notice that Mr. S. Butler has
a novel idea, for his rendering runs thus : ' the shirt fitted him like
the skin of an onion.' This might indeed be a more exact
rendering of Kara Xottov if it had stood alone : but there are two
343
T 228 ODYSSEY
fatal objections, (i) Why of an onion? What is the special
appropriateness in selecting an onion for mention rather than
any other of the multitude of Tegetables and animals which
are equally well fitted with an integument ? The skin of the
onion cracks and splits and peels away a good deal as that
valuable vegetable dries, but the attire of Odysseus as a ragged
beggar-man is not here in question. (2) The point of simi-
larity between the tunic and the onion-skin is after all not
left doubtful, for the next line states it with certainty and
precision : —
Tws fi€v tqv /ULkaKos, Xa/XTTpos 8* yv rj^kioi a>s*
Ko-fyra with tcrxaXcoto, 1 might almost venture to say with
no reflection whatever on the preciosity of the hiatus licitus,
recommends itself. The dryness of the peel or husk of the
onion must be complete and pronounced, in order to bring out
the silken sheen of the smooth surface. So remarkable is the
lustre and smoothness, that this reference to a common and
familiar article is one of the most effective in the whole picture-
gallery of Homeric similes. For the use of the ace. without the
mar- all Kara, compare : —
A 262 ov yap TTO) TOLOvs tBov dvepas ovBk tSco/xat,
oTov Uctpt^oov T€ Apvavrd t€, TroLfxeva Xatuv,
Katvea t' *E^a8tdv T€ koX avrtOiov IloXv<f>rjfjiov.
It is noteworthy that Kctpra, though unexceptionable in form
(cf. Kapro^y KOLprepos, KapriOTOS, Kaprvvo) as well as Kparo^, KparepoSt
Kparco), and Kparvs. See also the remarks on case forms as adverbs,
Monro, H. G. § no), does not actually occur elsewhere in the
Homeric poems : but the difficulty which a solitary form would have
in maintaining itself is quite intelligible. Dr. Monro very inge-
niously renders ' like as (it glistens) over the skin of a dried onion*;
but the separation of otov from Xoirov is unlikely, if not impossible.
There is also a difficulty in supplying a verb from o-tyoAdcvra,
and, granting that we may do so, the words tws /x€v t-qv /xoAaKos
come in awkwardly after such a verb. As an alternative he
would read Kara with gen. following * over a dry onion \ quite
a doubtful use of Kara, certainly not justified by o- 355, and made
perhaps less likely from Kpofxvoio coming so early in the line.
Least tolerable of all is KaTaioxoAcoto (F P H X).
344
I
BOOK XIX T 235-302
''" 235]) V H'^^ TToXXac y avrov lOT^rjaavTO ywatKc?.
Neither yc nor avrov is satisfactory here. By avrov the
wearer, not the garment, would be indicated. Nor again is ^ /xcV
alone the formula appropriate to the statement. Read with an
additional particle, v. p. 290 : —
Tf TOL fikv TToXKaX rbv i6r)rj(ravro yi;vatKes.
Cf. p 372 5 TOL fX€V ol Bevpo, a 307, rj 299, y 255, k 27l,p6,T 124,
560, and other passages. A slight transposition would give the
exact order of p 372 : —
rj TOL fxev Tov ttoAAcu.
T 265] /cat yap rts t aXXolov oSvperat avSp* oXea-aaa
KOVPlSlOV, TO) T€KVa TiKT] <^tA.OTT/Tl fJiLy€L(ra,
rj 'OSvcny', ov <f>aa-L 6eols evakiyKLOv ctvat.
The last line is rejected by van Herwerden and others ; but
if any line is to be removed here, it is rather 1. 266 which
breaks the close connexion of 1. 267 with aXKolov. Some
addition to the neutral term aXkolov seems to be absolutely
indispensable to the sense. The word would imply no com-
pliment without the addition of 1. 267. On the other hand
the exact definition given by 1. 266 is to a large extent
superfluous or worse.
T 27OJ (1)9 ^Sry 'OSvcr^os €yo) Trcpt vootov aKOVcra — .
In the next line the first word dyxov, i. e. dy^ov coi/to?, refers
to the proper name, as also does ^wov at the beginning of 1. 272.
I submit then that even apart from the argument from the hiatus
the necessary order is : —
(1)5 rjBr] Trepl vootov cywv ^OSvarrjos oKOvcra — .
Cf. Notes on p 157, x 45*
T 282^ Kox K€V TToXaL €v6d8* ^OBvo-o'ev'S
rj7]v* aXX apa ol to yc Kep^Lov cicraro Ovjx<a, —
I cannot think either ycLv or ctrj would serve here for the
corrupt ^t;v, v. Note on w 343. The following reconstruction is at
least tolerable : —
^cv* drop Ov/xw TO ye ctcraro Kip^LOV eivat.
Nauck writes IttA-cto for iqT^v. Van Leeuwen and da Costa read tJcv
OSvcrcrci'S ivOahe.
T 302] hy^pov dTreo-o-etrat* iixirrjs B4 rot opKia SoKro).
345
T 302-367 ODYSSEY
Though opKLa in the plural is usual, opKLov is sufficiently
justified by
A 158 ov fJL€v 7ro>9 akiov ttcAci opKiov al/xd t€ apviov —
where the plur. could not well be introduced. Read here : —
Srjpbv aTr€(r(T€LTaL' Swcro) 8c tol opKtov c/xTrrys.
T 317] oAXa fXLV, dft^tVoXot, diroviif/aTe, kcit^ctc 8' €vvt^v.
The washing here ordered, as is clear from the reply I. 343 f.: —
ovSe Tt /xot TToSdvLTTTpa TToBwv iTTfqpava Ovfiijo
ylyveraC ovh\ yvvrj 7ro86s anj/cTai rj/xcTcpoLO —
is limited to the washing of the feet. We may therefore read
with certainty of correctness in both sense and metre : —
dAAa jXLv, d/x^iVoXoi, noSe vtif/are,
Compare also I. 356 ^ o-c 7ro8as vLif/ei.
T 322] TO) 8' oAyiOV, OS K€V €K€lV(t)V
TOVTOv dvLa^rj 0vfxo<f)06po<s'
The true reading is dvidy from dvLaa). The verb dvid^w is intran-
sitive (2 300, ^ 270, 8 460, X 87) save here and in the worthless
^721 d\A' oT€ 8rj p dvla^ov ivKvrjfxtSa^ *Axaiovs,
where there is a variant cv/cv^/xtSes 'Axaioi, for which something
might be said. Cf. t 66 dvtTJo-cts (= v 178). It would of course
be possible to read avt-^crr] here ; but the uncontracted present is
more likely to have been changed to the tradition.
T 34^D ^^ I^V '^*^ ypi^v's eCTTt TToAatT/,
Read yw-i] co-n TroAany, V. Note on CO 389.
''' 35®D $^V€ <f>LX,\ ov yap TTcu Tts di/^/0 TTCTTW/xevos aiSc
^€LV<DV rrjXeSaTTiov <f>i\L(ji)v c/xov ikcto Swfia — .
Dr. Monro in. his note ad loc. has pointed out that KfuXiiov
cannot be right here, and must have crept in from w 268. Per-
haps instead of removing <^iAto)i/ root and branch, and inserting
XaAKoySarcs 8w after lk€to, we might read : —
iiLvoiv TrjXcBaTrtov tc <^iA.(i>v
One or two MSS. at least have cfuXiuiv tc and one X c^tAwv re. We
might even adopt Trj\eSaTrS>v r dvSp(ov as in ^ 279, cf. o 224.
T 356] y (r€ TToSas VL{f/€L okLyrpreXiovad irtp c/xTny?.
Probably vii}/€L should be read, though the omission of kc in
clauses of this kind is unusual, v. Note on c 240.
T 367] aLp<x)/X€VOfi^ CtOS LKOIO
yrjpds T€ \nrap6v Optif/aLo t€ <f>aiSifxov viov
It is surely impossible that the temporal conjunction in any
546
BOOK XIX T 367-403
form should stand here in a final and object clause (Monro, H. G.
§ 314). It seems quite necessary to read, as in A 88, c 439 et irov,
€1 (TV 7', or even ct kcv with Bothe (et av).
T 37®] OVTiH TTOV KOt K€LV(0 k^ol/LOOiVTO yVVOLKC^
icLViaV TT/jkeSuTTtOVj OT€ T€V KX.VTa. 8(OfXaO^ IKOLTO,
<i)9 (reOev at Kvve<s alSe KaOcij/LooyvTaL a7rao-at, —
The first necessity in this passage is that the comma after
TT^AeSaTrwv should be removed and placed after ywaiKcs at the end
of 1. 370. Even if no further change be deemed desirable, this
improvement is clearly imperative, as may be seen from : —
E 27 T/3W65 8e fxeydOvfjiOL iTrel ISov me /^dp7]To<s — .
Z 474 avrap o y ov cfiikov vlbv cttci kvctc TrrjXe re ;(eportV,
and still more plainly (if Ave write instead of the corrupt ore rev
the correct otco) from : —
^221 dvSpwv 8v(r/x€veW o re /jlol eiiiLe 7r68e(T(TLV.
$ 106, 204, o 395, 3 423, € 448, V 143, and others.
The first suggestion of orco is due, I believe, to van Leeuwen and
da Costa, though their punctuation will not allow the true version :
* To the goodly house of whomsoever of his far-off friends he
might come.'
In 1. 372 ai instead of being attributed to the encroachment
of the later idiom, as is most probable, is vainly explained as
expressing aversion of contempt (H. G. § 261, 2), cf. also p. 288.
The passage should be thus read : —
oirrw TTOV Kat Kctvo) i(j>&l/io<ji)VTO yvvcuKes,
^etVcov TrjXihaTTwv oreo kXxjto. 8<o/xa^* ikoito,
ws pa (TcOev kvv€<s aiSe KaOeif/LooyvTai aTracrat, —
But there is at least a chance that we can come even nearer than
this to the original. ^iOev gen. after Kctvo) dat. is curious. The
article is perhaps the termination of an adjective : —
ws <T okoal Kvvcs atSc KaOeij/LouyvTaL dirao-ai. ((r' = (tol.)
"*" 403] AvToXvK, aVTOS VVV OVOfX €Vp€0, OTTL K€ deCO
TTttlSoS TraiSt <f)L\<0.
The middle of cvpto-Kw is singularly rare in Homer. There
are only three other places in which it occurs : —
n 472 TOLO fxkv AvTO/zeStov 8ovptKA.VT09 evpcTO T€KfHOp'
L 4 2 r €t TLv CTatpowTiv Oavdrov Xva-tv rj^* e/xot avrw
ivpoLfx-qv'
^ 304 ot 8' avT<3 TrpwT(o KaKov ivpero olvo/Sap^Liov.
347
T 403-449 ODYSSEY
Everywhere, except in our passage, the exact sense of find-
ing for one's own benefit is appropriate. Here, too, we have
the hiatus, which is by no means so legitimate as is supposed.
In all probability what Homer said was ; — •
AvToXvKf avTos vvv ovofx evpe/xeVf ottl kc Oclo — .
The infinitive as an imperative occurs frequently without being
preceded by any other clause, e. g. E 501, P 692, c 30, tt 235.
"^ 445] o 8* dvrtos eK $v\6xolo,
<f}pL$a<i €v ko(f>Li^Vj TTvp 8' 6<^6aXpx)l(Ti ^SopKia^,
arrj p avTU)v a-)(€S60ev' 6 8' apa TrpcSrwrros '08va"crcus
t<r<TVT avaa")(6p,€VO<: hoXv)(pv hopv X<iipi iraytLrf, —
In 1. 446 Bothe's €vXo<f>Lr)v and the omission of 8e seem
distinct improvements. The adverb ev here is out of place. The
metre of 1. 447 betrays some corruption. Again the usage of
<rx€8o^€v elsewhere makes it almost certain that it properly
belongs to the following clause. I suggest : —
arrrj p avTws* a")(€h66€v 8' apa ot Trpcurio-ros '08v(ro'cv5
€(r<rvT dvacr;(d/xcvos BoXi)(oy 86pv X^^P^ '^'^X^^V
ovrd/JLevoL p,€fia(tis'
' Thus (i. e. with this aspect) it made its appearance : and
then at close quarters Odysseus was the first to charge it.' In
the other four lines of the Odyssey in which (rxcSoOev appears it
begins a clause (axiSoOev S4 ot), fi 267, v 221, o 223, v 30, while
both instances that occur in the Iliad, II 807 arx^SoOev jSaXe, P 359
a-x^^Oev 8k fidx€(rOaLy refer as here to fighting at close quarters.
That a-x^BoOev here originally belonged to €(r(rvTo may be regarded
as certain, even if there were no objection to the form avrwv with
which it has been forced into connexion. For avrws compare
2 198 avTCDs — </)dv77^t, where Dr. Leaf wrongly accepts the un-
metrical avros, apparently because it is unmetrical. In p 447
<TTrj6i' ovT(j}<s is slightly difterent, being strictly deictic * on that
spot ', but it serves to illustrate the expression here suggested as
right.
"^ 449] o ^^ f''*'*' <l>Od/jL€vo<s ekaaev trv?
yovvos vTTcp, TToXXov Sk 8n^<fivar€ aapKOS oSovtl
AtKpt^ts cti^a?
Here <f>$dp,evos has been introduced from the Iliad N 387
&c. The Odyssey knows only vTro<f>6dfi€vo^ (8 547, o 171).
6 8' vTro<f>0dfitv6s F* lAoorcv crvs
348
BOOK XIX T 449-462
restores the metre and gives the necessary emphasis to the parti-
ciple (y. Note on a 37). On St^^vo-e for SitJ/avotc, v. Note Class.
Rev. for Dec. 1897.
T 460] ^^ iTja-djjievoL 7]B* dyAaa Swpa Tro/aovre? — .
An easy remedy of this hiatus would be : —
/cat r ' dyXaa 8(opa Tropovre'S.
T 4^^ J "^^i* h'^^ P* TraTTjp Kol TTOTVia /J'Tfrrjp
Xalpov voa-TrjcravTL koL iiepietvov cxaoTa,
ov\r]v OTTL TToiOoL' 6 8* dpa (Tcf>L(rLV €v KttTcAe^e
ws fXLV OrjpevovT iXaxreu avs — .
Apart from the metrical difficulty of FiKacrra in 1. 463, which
might be surmounted by reading i^epiovro (Nauck) or accepting
ttTravra (Vind. 5), there is the patent fact that iiepieivov is amply
provided with grammatical objects in ovXrjv and otti TrdOoi, and
cannot well accommodate any more. Therefore, I submit, neither
cKao-Ttt nor ttTravra can be right, and the neuter plural must be
a corruption. If cKatrros could be used in reference to two
persons only, it would have a strong claim. But this is not the
true usage, so that if cKacrros be adopted, of course with i$epeovro
preceding, we should have to extend the reference to the whole
household, rather a doubtful extension, especially as c^epcWov
aTravTcs would serve the same purpose. It seems to me, however,
that the poet is here dealing with the welcome given to Odysseus
by his parents only, the questions they ask and the account of the
accident he gives to them. Hence I venture to regard cKao-ra
here as totally corrupt, corrupt to such a degree that it affords no
basis of conjecture for the restoration of the word which it has
displaced.
The sense of the passage seems to require something like
€iep€€LVOV dfX dpujidi
as in </) 188.
Now let us turn to the questions. They asked about the
scar, and they asked what was the matter with him ; this I sub-
mit is the meaning of ottl irdOoi. But as the context already
shows, and as we see from the reply, the question really asked was
'what had hapjpened to him', as it would be expressed in later times
o TL TreTTov^ws €117. Now in epic Greek this would be expressed by
TreTTovOoi, for the perf. opt., though admittedly rare (H. G. § 83), is
unquestionably right in A 35 fie^pwOois.
349
T 462-487 ODYSSEY
If this be so, the passage might read thus : —
Ktti €$€p€€lVOV OLfj! afJL<f>0}
Ov\r}V OTTL TreTTOvOoL' 6 8c <T(f)L(riV €V KttTcAc^c — .
The insertion of apa to make Trd6oL possible is by no means an
unusual or unparalleled device. But we are not forced to assume
even this, for the reading might have been 6 8' ap a-tfua-Lv to begin
with.
For the other instances of -ot of the optative improperly
lengthened before a vowel in the received text, v. Note on Q 654,
Journ. Phil. xxv. pp. 320-2.
T 477] 7rc<^pa8c€tv iOeXova-a (ficXov ttoo-lv €v8ov iovra.
Nauck's Tr€<f>paBefi€v is doubtless right, but requires the
supplement of Fol : —
Tr€(f}pa8€fJL€v r iOeXovcra — .
T 483] Tc3 (Tw cTTt /Att^o)' vvv S' oXyctt TToAAtt /xoy^Q-as
The article may be eliminated by reading
O-U) /X€V €7rl fJiO^W.
T 487] wSc yap i^€p€(i)j koI /xrjv TereXea-fXivov tcrraC
€t -^ VTT ifxoL y€ Oibs 8a/Jid(Tr) fxvrja-Trjpas ayavov9,
ovSk rpocfiov ovarrjs trcv d^c^o/i-at, ottttot' av aAAas
Bfjuoas iv fxeydpoLCTLV c/>tots ktciVw/ai ywat/cas.
This passage has been condemned by Fick and removed
altogether from the text by van Leeuwen and da Costa.
Broadly it might be urged as an objection to the lines that a
threat altogether contingent upon the success of an attempt,
which under any circumstances was rather unlikely to end well,
and would certainly fail utterly if the forbidden disclosure were
made, is not so alarming as it looks and is in fact rather futile.
But on the other hand severe logical reasoning of this kind
was not likely to occur to the mind of Eurycleia at the moment,
nor is it perhaps at any time the most fitting touchstone of
poetry. Moreover there is just a smack, a flavour, of old-world
brutality about the passage that vouches strongly for its genuine-
ness, and it seems hardly probable that any one would after-
wards devise an illogical interpolation, which also lays Odysseus
open to the charge of inhumanity in threatening to kill his
foster-mother. The points of detail, to which exception can
be taken in these lines, are not very serious, with the exception
350
BOOK XIX T487
of ova-Y)^ for iov(rr)s in 1. 489. This is indeed a blot on the
passage and is not to be defended, v. remarks on t 230, p. 342.
We haye indeed rrjXodev ova-a (Hymn. Apoll. 330) most needlessly
maintained by some editors in the text for rrjXoO' iova-a, cf. a 22
rrjXoO' covra?, A. 439 rqkoO* iovTL. Here Hermann proposed iovcrr)<s
or eva-t}^, but nothing is gained by the former save a false foot
in the second place, and the latter, iva~q^, is even more objection-
able as a Homeric form than the tradition itself. Nitzsch
thought avT^9 should be read, and if any fair reason could be
suggested to account for the loss of this and the substitution of
ova"rj<s, we might be contented with the pronoun. It seems to me
essential that the word suggested as the original should either be
one that would readily lend itself to depravation, or be such that
the later Greeks would have felt some difficulty to maintain it.
In default of some such peculiarity of the original, it would
hardly have been tampered with, much less entirely abandoned
and forgotten. Now avrrjq can hardly be said to satisfy either
condition.
With this conviction then I suggest as a more probable
original, though at first sight it may not seem so : —
ovSe [xkv ovh\ Tpocf>ov (rev d^c^o/xat.
My supposition is that ovo-iys is entirely an error, and that the
two words Tpo<{>ov (T€v originally stood together. Now the last
two letters of Tpocf>ov and the first two letters of a-ev make
OYC6,to which we have only to add C to make ovo-779, which
I suggest found its way into the verse from the dittography
of the above letters, all the more easily, if ovcrrj^ were found,
as it might well be, as a marginal gloss. The omission of
ovSk ixiv before ov8e is then a necessity and involves no great
improbability.
Or again, it is quite conceivable that the corruption began
with ovhl fjiev ovSe, a combination which is Homeric enough,
but not likely to suit the taste of any later period so com-
pletely ; but in any case the loss of ovSk fteV amounts to little
more than an ordinary lipography. If ov84 remained alone, it
would be far easier and readier to make up the verse by insert-
ing ova-T}^, where it now appears, than to recall the original
ovSk fjL€v, which would be remote from daily usage, if not already
entirely in the sphere of the obsolete.
351
T 487-509 ODYSSEY
In 1. 490 some difficulty has arisen about the possessive
pronoun, c/xots ; the prevailing opinion is that the form should
always be i^ola-L, though I should for my own part hesitate to
follow Nauck in the attempt to eliminate -ots from Homer.
Still I would not undertake to defend c/xois here, for there is
no particular reason why Odysseus should wish to call attention
to the fact that the hall belonged to him. As an indication of
the scene of his intended operations, iv fieyapoto-t alone is quite
sufficient. Hence van Leeuwen and da Costa suggest tentatively
in a foot-note: —
iv fxeydpoLO-L KaraKTetVco/tt.
This might perhaps be supported by the consideration that if
Kara were represented by kt, it would easily be lost by a
lipography before ktciVco/xi, and then the deficiency might be
supplied by the easy supplement c/xots.
On the other hand if ifxols has a more substantial basis, and
the possessive pronoun of the first person be after all, as is not
unlikely, correct, I should think it must originally have belonged
to S/Awas, cf. 8 736 8/x(o' cftov : —
S/x.a>as iv fJL€ydpoi(nv e/u,a$.
By thus emphasizing their status in relation to himself, the
speaker makes by implication an assertion of his legal right to
put the offending women to death.
T 50^!] ^^ *'^ '^^'' o-VTOs iyu) tjipaxTOfxai kcu €L(TOfx iKaarrjv'
Fick would remove this line altogether from the text, while
at the same time suggesting as a possible alternative that it
should be read thus : —
€v w iKoxmjv <j>pd(T(roix iyu) koI €L(rofxaL avro?*
It is, I think, possible to find a more acceptable, because
more probable, reconstruction. The following involves less dis-
turbance of the verbal arrangement : —
€i! vv K€V avTos iyo) ^^pdxro p.ai ctSw t€ eKacrrrjv*
avTos cyw gives all the emphasis required without the superfluity
of an added Kai. The aor. subj. with kcv is perhaps even better
suited to the occasion than the fut. indie. Possibly also cv w
may have displaced a more archaic rjv.
T 509] ^<t»'<» TO fX€v (T en TVT^OK cywv tlp-qa-Qiiax avny*
353
BOOK XIX T 509-518
In 1. 104 of this book we have a somewhat close parallel : —
^€tv€, TO />tei/ <r€ TrpwTov iy<x)v eipi^crofMiL avn/j'
TLS TToOeV €tS OivhpiiiV ; TToOi TOL TToAtS TjSk TOKr]€<S y
There is however this difference between the two. In the case of
1. 104 TO fiiv 'this matter' is natural and easy, whereas here
it is awkward and forced. The actual request is not mentioned
until we reach 1. 535. The fact seems to be that t 509 has been
assimilated even more closely than is allowable to the parallel
passage. It probably should be read thus with the change of
one letter only ; —
$€Lv\ €TL fJL€V (Te Tt TVtOoV iyoiV €Lp-^(TO/JLai aVTY]'
' Stranger, yet will I ask thee for my own part one little thing
more.' It is surely impossible in view of the length of the
speech to render tvtOov * briefly \ ' in der Kiirze ', as is sometimes
done. We have en tvtOov in combination in v 210.
T 515] avrap ctt^v vv$ eXOrj eXyaL re koitos aTravTas, —
If, as I believe may be proved, only the non-thematic aor.
subj. admits of shortening before a vowel in the 3 pers. sing.,
we should restore here : —
aXX* 6t€ vvi eXOyo-LV eXya-C re koito^ avravTa?.
This question deserves full investigation, which obviously cannot
be undertaken here. Cf. p 279 (Note).
T 5^8] ws 3' OT€ TLavSapeov Kovprj, xXoyprjts arjBwVy
KaXbv a€i8r)(TLV capos veov tcTTa/xcvoto,
SevBpeoiV €V TreToAoio-t KaOe^o/xevr] 7rvKLVOL(TL, —
The form of the noun lapos raises questions of some interest.
What is the relation between capos and etapos, and what would
be the correct form of the nominative, lap or eiap, in epic
poetry ? We have here the one other instance of capos in
Homer : —
Z 147 ^vXXa TO, fiev t avefw<s xa/^^ts X"*^? aXXa 8c 0' vXrj
TrjXcdouicra (f>v€L, capos 8' emyCyveTai wp-q (v. 1. ^py)'
On the other hand, for etapos there is but one passage of which
account need be taken. Hymn. Dem. 174, and even there our MS.
exhibits -^apos which may, or may not, be right : —
at 8' ws T Tj cAa</)ot y TTopTtcs etapos ^prj — .
As for the Hymn to Pan (xix. 17 capos), it is obviously too late
a production to have any weight as evidence of a genuine epic
form. Then there is the adjective ctaptvos occurring about half
AGAR A a 353
T 5i8 ODYSSEY
a dozen times. Van Leeuwen and da Costa always print capivog
(e coniectura) with of course an initial digamma. Their view is
practically the same as that of Payne Knight. It may be given
advantageously in his own words, v. Proleg. in Homerum, p. 80 :
Prima syllaba in casibus obliquis (sc. capo?) quoties e tono et
impetu pronunciandi producta sit, toties in « diphthongum,
grammaticis ac librariis fulcrum solitum inserentibus, mutata est:
perperam : ubicunque enim tres syllabae breves in unam vocem
concurrerent, primam producere licuit. ctap casu recto poetae
recentiores ex Homericis male intellectis sibi confinxerunt, et inter
alia eiusmodi dvojp,aA.a ad metrum supplendum, quoties expedire
visum esset, adhibuerunt.
To the same effect we read in Liddell and Scott : — ' lap, capos,
TO, Hom. and Hdt. : in later Epic Poets, as Theocr. and Nicander,
ctap, ctapos.' As a matter of fact the nom. is not found in Homer,
but occurs in Hesiod, Works 490, where the first foot is con-
siderately supposed to be a spondee, but cannot possibly be right :
fxrjSi ere XyOoL
/XT^* tap ycyvofJLevov ttoXlov fx-qO' wpuos ofx^pos,
though, except for the neglect of the digamma, it is supported by
an equally depraved dative in 1. 460 of the same poem : —
capt TToActv 6ep€o<s he vcajp-ei/"*; ov (r diranyo-ct.
Another faulty verse hereabouts also contains cap, this time as
a disyllabic : —
476 €vo)($€o}v 8' r^cat TToXtov cap, ovSc Trpos oAAovs — ,
where moreover there is some lack of clearness about the meaning
intended to be conveyed. Such then is the case, in its strength
and weakness, in favour of cap, eapo's.
There is another view however of this question, resting on
ancient authority and supported by unquestionable analogy. The
later Epic poets may have been in the right after all, and may in
this case have accurately maintained or restored the forms valid
in the older Epic. There must be at least a strong presumption
in their favour, if only because they had access to better tradi-
tional authority than we possess at present, or can hope to recover
from all the sands of Egypt. In his admirable Homeric Grammar,
to which I have been so often indebted, Dr. Monro, in treating of
the primary suffixes §114, observes that the ancient grammarians
noticed that the stem be/ore -ap is long (Herodian ii. 769, ed.
354
BOOK XIX
T518
Lentz). This dictum is for Homer borne out by a fair array of
instances, aXu(f>ap, oA-Kap, elSap, elXap, rjfJLap, ^Trap, ovOap, wetap,
vlap (?) and Treipap. In later times a distinct preference for
a short stem before this suf&x seems to have generally prevailed.
So for the nom. of KTcarco-o-t we have Kxeap given, for that of
oTcaToq (cf> 1 7 8, 183) (rrcap, analogous to the Tragic /ceap. None
of these forms however — Kxcap, o-reap, Keap — occur in Homer. For
(TTeaTos in the two places in which it occurs it would be easy to
read (TT€LaTo<; by merely removing a needless 8c (ck o-Tciaro? evetKc),
which now is uncomfortably short before a-r, and as to KTiana-a-i
we have a nom. Krepas O 235, &c., which suggests KrepUcrcriv as
the right reading, lost because of the special sense which generally
attaches to the plur. Kxepea. The only trustworthy Homeric
instances of a short stem before -ap, so far as I am aware, are
the indeclinable pair 6vap and vTrap, to which must be added
8a/xap (H 503, 8 126), which from the production of its last
syllable before a vowel in both passages would seem to have
retained in Homer's day its original s (Sa/xap?). c^pciap, later
^peap, I have omitted from my list because it does not occur in
the nom., but there can be little doubt about its correctness.
"We have $ 197 ^paara : but <f>p€aTL appears Hymn. Dem. 99 : —
UapOevLto <f>p€aTL, oOev vSpevovro TroXtrai.
Person, however, was undoubtedly right in his transposition
<f>p€LaTL IlapOeviia. We see therefore that little warrant for the
correctness of eapos can be found in Homer — the analogical
evidence is altogether, or alniost altogether, adverse. As for
Hesiod, the reckless modernization of the quoted passages is pain-
fully obvious. To suppose that either /xtJt cap or lapt ttoXciv was
written by Hesiod would be to exceed the limits of credulous
simplicity. If in such a case as 1. 490 an attempt to restore the
original were desirable, I would suggest ; —
jxriSe crc XrjOoL
ctap yuyvo/xevov ttoXlov fxrjO* wptos ofx^po?.
In 1. 460 may not capt be a gloss on ^pi, which would make a fair
contrast with the converse adverb used in 1. 484 oij/ dp6(rr)^?
For 1. 476 I content myself with tentatively suggesting, ut in re
desperata, cvoxO^iav 8* cs cTap d^t^cat (ev oxcwv ?). It is no matter
for surprise, however, if occasionally the modernizer has wrought
irretrievable ruin.
A a 2 355
T 518-U 20 ODYSSEY
But if we are obliged to condemn capos in t 519 and Z 148 as
a very questionable, if not quite impossible, form for the old Epic,
how comes it there at all ? In both cases, ' I should say, it
represents an original Oepeosj which would serve especially in com-
bination with veov to mark, in accordance with the ancient
dichotomy of the year into Ocpos and x^/^a, the very same time as
capos now indicates. We can easily see that capos would readily
be preferred in later times to Oepeos as a more precise and correct
expression.
T 5^4] ^5 Kcu ifwl SL)(a ^vftos 6pwp€TaL €v6a /cat cv^a
For the figment opwperai presented by the MSB. here and
377 above, Eustathius gives optVcrat, which van Herwerden has by
conjecture restored to the latter passage. It is the disturbing
influence of such freak forms as this unwarranted and unwar-
rantable opwpcrat, only supported by the still worse opwprjraL for
opwpYjCTL of N 271, that gives to the Homeric grammar many of its
terrors. The irruption of thematic dvwyw's and ycycovcD's to suit
a later period of grammatical development has caused, and does
cause, much confusion and much idle speculation. The only
safe course is to regard these forms as inevitable results of the
action of later ideas of correct speech working automatically.
T 535] ^^' o[y€ /JLOL TOV OVUpOV VTTOKpLVaL KoX aKOV(TOV.
This is the only passage in the Odyssey in which ovcipos is
accommodated or encumbered with the article. We may surely
borrow from p 349, k 286, yu, 112, p 274, t 16, <^ 217, xj/ 35, and
read : —
aX)C aye Sr; puoL 6v€ipov — .
The Iliad has also one instance of rbv ovcipov B 80, which line
might be emended thus : —
Cl /ACV TOVTOV 6v€ipOV A)(CUO)V oAAoS IviOTTCV, —
or Cl Tis TovTov. See also Note on p 10.
BOOK XX (v).
V 12J rj €T i(o fxvqoTrjpaLv v7r€p<f>LdX.0L(n fXLyrjvai
Knight rightly gives caot for ct cw, but possibly Irt merely
misrepresents an original o-<^c. rj (r<f> idot — .
« 20] (TV 8' cToX/ias, o^pa at firJTLi
($(iyay^ c^ avrpoio oio/xcvov $av€t(r6ai,
356
BOOK XX u 20-33
The (TV here refers to KpaSirj (rcVAa^t 87J, KpaStrj^ 1. 18); ore
seems to be the reading of all the MSS., but as it is followed by
oiofjievov not otojxevrjv, it is clearly as impossible as it would be
artificial and unepic. Kirchhoff's /xe must, I think, certainly
be accepted. The hiatus in 1. 21 may easily be remoYed by
inserting en. Read : —
(TV 8' CToX/xacs, 6(jipa /xe /x^tis
i^dyay ii avrpov er OLOfxevov Oaviea-Oai. {avrpoi^
u 23] Tw 8c /xoA.' ev TTCLcn) KpaSiTf fxive rerX.rjvLa
vwAc/xews* drap avros eXicra-eTo evOa kol ev6a.
An interpolation as Knight perceived (' e sequentibus conficti
et inserti'). Even if cv TreLo-rj could mean iv 8co-/xots (Schol.) it
would be useless here. Another interpretation is ' in obedience' :
but this too is unsatisfactory. The deviser of the lines probably
intended the sense to be ' in suffering '. Apart from this TeTkrjv'la
is perhaps sufficient to condemn the passage. TerXryws would
properly make rerXavLa, with antepenultimate short. Cobet's a^ro?
8e would satisfy the metre in 1. 24, but the words are, as Knight
says, merely taken from 1. 28 : —
ws dp* o y' evOa kol tvda kXicrafro — .
o 33] TtVr' avT iypT^aareL^, Trdvraiv irepl Ka/xfiope ^(otwj/;
otKOS fiev rot 08* icrTL, yvvrj 84 rot ^8' ivl oikw
Kttt Trat's, dtov ttov Tt5 eeA8cTat efx/xevai via.
So speaks the goddess Athene to the restless Odysseus, who
cannot sleep, as the crisis of his fate approaches. It is the third
line which I wish to consider here, but I may perhaps just draw
attention, in passing, to the unusual number of words the second
line contains. There is a spondee at the beginning and of course
another at the end,otKos . . . olkw. The four intermediate dactylic
feet are made up of no less than nine words ; yet the whole verse
is smoothly modulated, and might be given as an example of
perfection of metre and rhythm.
But let us come to our third line. In the first place it
includes one little word which certainly needs some explanation,
not given, I believe, in any commentary. What is the precise
force here of the ttov in otov ttov ? It is hardly locative, * some-
where,' and it is not easy to acquiesce in the rendering naturally
suggested both by Attic and Homeric usage (e.g. A 178 Oeo^ ttov
(Tol TO y €B(i)K€Vi tr 34, &c.), *I presume,' 'perhaps,' * perchance.'
357
u 33 ODYSSEY
It is inconceivable that the goddess should make an idle display
of supercilious scorn by affecting ignorance of what the feeling of
a human being would be on such a point. The particle here can
only be compared to the fly enshrined in the amber. How it got
there we need not stop to inquire. The important fact is that it
is there. We cannot ignore such an intruder. It is impossible
to try not to see it ; for like the fly it occupies a position of
singular prominence. A really intolerable weight of emphasis
seems from the natural arsis of the yerse to fall upon this un-
happy monosyllable. It is just the little rift within the lute that
jars the melody.
In the next place, while ttov is worse than superfluous, and
is accordingly very judiciously, but very unfairly, passed over in
editors' notes, as well as in the otherwise excellent rendering of
this passage by Messrs. Butcher and Lang, there is something
lacking in the line as it stands, something which cannot easily
be dispensed with ; I mean a possessive pronoun to agree with
via. The line, 1 think, should be read thus : —
Ktti Trats, otov ov Tts ccAScrat c/x/jtevat vTa.
Rhythmically olov iov rt? is better, and for my part I should
prefer to insert iov rather than ov ; but it seems probable that the
form 6v was the actual occupant at any rate at the time when the
dittography — ON ON — resulted in the deficiency which has been
so effectually, and yet so ineffectually, filled up by the introduc-
tion of TTOV.
It may be remarked that 6v or eov gains emphasis from its
position before the enclitic ns (cf. Note on a 37) : otherwise otov
Tts ov would be the order of the words.
The sense now at last fully conveyed is : * Such as many
a man wishes his own son to be,' or as the version already men-
tioned has it with even stronger, but not excessive, emphasis on
the (missing) pronoun : ' Such a son as many men wish to have
for their own.'
A tolerably fair parallel may be seen in tt 192,
TrjXijxaxcys S' ov yap ttw iireiOero Sv irarip eivat.
Evidently the pronoun is here indispensable, and it is equally so
in V35.
In the following passage I find another probable, certainly
possible, example of a similar loss : —
d$8
BOOK XX u 33-77
i/^ l68 ov fxiv K aXXr) y* wSe yvvrj TcrA-Tyort Ov/x<ja
dv8/309 dc^coToiry, os ol KUKa ttoAAol jMoyi^a-as
eX6oi ectK0<rT(3 crct es Trarpt'Sa yatav.
Like via in V 35, dv8pos here lacks the qualifying word that
would give it the point and force which are evidently needed.
suggest its re-admission thus : —
dvSpos a<l>i(TTaL7) ov, 6 ol KaKo. ttoAAo, fioyrjcTa^ — .
The loss of the possessive pronoun here is not altogether sur-
prising. The position of three pronouns in contiguity to some
extent imperils their safety. I find them again, though not all
crowded together, in : —
12 85 KXaie fiopov ov iraiSos dfxvfxovo^j os ot e/xcWe — .
The possessive pronoun not unfrequently comes at the end of its
clause, as in A 496 iraiSos eov, t 392 dvaxO* eov, as well as at the
end of the line, as in <E> 504, t 400, Ovyaripo^ rj^, y 39 Trarept £,
E 71 TToo-et 0), and others. Compare also the emendations of X 273
and TT 390. In p 55 it would probably be well to read : —
TletpaLov 84 F* dvwye' eov Trporl oXkov dyovra — .
For the curious ^/xcv ottov tis of tt 306 I would suggest : —
rjfxey 6 tl<s <S vwi rUi koI SeiSie OvfitS.
Apart from parallels, however, the sense urgently demands
this pronoun, nor do I think the metre in any degree less
worthy than before of the great poet qui nil molitur inepte.
Lastly, I will refer to ^ 36 (Note), cf. p 5, though for eov there
I should prefer to read, not Ivv (Bothe), but twv, ' as he went.'
u 42] €t TTcp yap KTeLvai/xL Aios T€ (Tidev re €K7)tLj
Tnj K€v vTreK7rpo<f>vyoLiJiL ;
Perhaps el yap kc ktciVco/xi, cf . yS 218 et fiev Kev . . . aKovao),
y T dv rXaLTjv.
o 52] aXX* eXeru) ore koX vTrvo<s' dvcrj koI to <f>vXda-(reLv
Trdwvxov eyp-qcra-ovTa, KaKtov 8' viroBva-eaL tjSt}.
TO <j>vXd(r(reLv may represent vpo<l>vXdja-(reLv, cf. Hymn. Apoll.
538 Trpof^vXa^Oe.
u 77] TOffypa 8e ras Kovpas dpirviai dv7)peLi{/avTO — .
Here again the article is undoubtedly unepic. The true
reading is probably : —
To^pa 8e rpels Kovpa^ — .
There seems to be sufficient warrant for the dvrjpafravTo of
Doderlein and Fick, v. Monro's Note ad loc.
359
u 83 ODYSSEY
u 83] dAAa TO fiev Koi dvcKTOv €;(€t KaKov, ottttotc k€v tis
■^jxara fxev KXacrj TrvKLVuys aKa^fxivo^ V^op,
VVKTaS 8' VTTT/OS €)(r)(TLVj
For dAAa TO Duentzer conjectured rj fidXa, doubtless in order
to get rid of the unsatisfactory nominative to, not that to fiiv
cannot express *the state of things', as described in the next
clause, oTTTTore to l;^atv, but to fxev e)(€i KaKov, * this involves an
evil/ though a legitimate expression in later times, is foreign to
the Homeric usage of cxw. Instances in point are : —
o- 73 ^ Ta;(a*Ipos aCpos iTricnrcuTTOV KaKov e^et.
A 482 — dAA' alev t^m KaKO.'
<T 123 — drop pXv vvv ye KaKo1<s €;(eat TroAccao-t (= v 20o),
and reference may be made to such passages as a 34, 8 164,
6 336, e 182, A 582, 593, I 215, o 344, p 142, 318, T 168, E 895,
O 10, n 109, P 445.
Accordingly J. Savelsberg rightly concludes that Ixct here
must have a personal subject, which he finds in Tts understood ;
' A man bears an affliction, yet that an endurable one, when &c.*
* malum sustinet et id sustinendum quidem.' The awkwardness
of TO /M€v however is manifest. I would suggest that the true
reading may be deciphered from the vulgate thus ; —
dAAa 6* 6 p,€V KoX dv€KTOV €^€L KaKOVy
This gives us as an additional advantage the proper opposition or
contrast between 6 fieV here and avTap e/xoc (1. 87), which previously
was less effectively, because less accurately, given by the to fiev.
'AAAd T€ 6 might easily become dAAa ro^ since this particular
use of T€ with dAAd passed out of fashion and so almost out of
knowledge. It may be seen with the same gnomic force as here
in the following passages : —
B 754 aAAd T€ jxiv KaOvTrepOev ImppiiL yjvr tXxuov
K 2 2 6 dAAd T€ ot /Spdcrawv re V009, XeTrnj 8c tc firjriS'
P 677 dAAd r in avTw | la-crvro (sc. atcTos).
T 165 dAAd T€ kdOprj yvta ftapvv€Tai, —
X 192 dAAd T dvi-xyevtav Beet c/attcSov, o</>pa Ktv evprf
^577 dXX.d T€ Kttt TTCpt 8ovpt Tr€7rapp.€V7J OVK dTToAl^Ct —
fi 44 dAAd T€ ^€Lprjv€<s Xtyvpfj diXyovcriv dotJ8f}f —
64 dAAd T€ Koi riov alev d<f)aip€LTaL Ats TrcVpry
67 dAAd 0* o/xov TTtva/cds t€ v€U)v kol a-tofiara ffxirruyv.
Compare also A 484, and see Monro, H. G. § 332.
360
BOOK XX 083
Let us now turn for a moment to two notable passages,
where the irregular use of the article as a relative has given rise
to much discussion :
A 125 dAAa Tct fxev iroXmv €^e7rpa^o/xev, ra SiSacrraL, —
8 349 dAAa TO, fiiv fjLOL ectTTC yepcov aAtos V7jfi€iyrj<s,
Twv ovSev TOL iyu) Kpvif/d) c7ro5 0v8' CTrtKe^cro). (^ p 140--I.)
Dr. Monro (H. G. § 262) has suggested dXXd 0' a fiev, but without
convincing such authorities as Prof. Jebb and Prof. Piatt {Joum.
Phil. XXV. p. 99). I believe the requirements of the two cases
would be satisfactorily met by supposing that the original readings
were respectively : —
aXk d T€ fJi€V TToXLOiv iicTTpdOofiev, TO. SeSaoTtti, —
dXX d T€ fjiev fJLOL IciTTC yepoiv aAtos vr)fi€pn^<s — .
This change is practically no more than the confusion of a single
letter, and would establish the consistency of Homeric usage on
this not unimportant point.
To return however to dXXd re, it will be convenient here to
notice a passage in the Homeric Hymn to Aphrodite where so
sturdy a friend even to impossibilities of tradition as the editor
of Goodwin's Hymni Homerici, Mr. T. \V. Allen, has forsaken his
MSS. to follow a conjecture of GemolFs, who displaces re in
favour of yc in 1. no : —
ov Tts TOL ^60s elfjLL' Tt fji dOavdrrjcTi €L(tk€l^ ;
dAAa KaTaOvrjrq tc, yvvr] 84 fxe yctvaro p-rirqp.
In favour of the retention of tc here, I would urge that there can
be no question but that mortality is a permanent characteristic,
and if it be said that the position of re is unusual, the answer is,
it is not unexampled, as witness H 688 (= P 176) : —
dAA.' atet T€ Atos KpciVo-wv voos rii Trep dvSpwv —
and in fact the principle of emphasis, so often insisted on in these
pages, is well illustrated by the interposition of the emphasized
adjective between dAAd and tc.
In n 688 and P 176 I should hardly have supposed any one
would be rash enough to propose to write aUC ye, though indeed
some MSS. would support the change in the former passage. But
it seems it is equally rash to venture to set limits to the flight of
literary rashness; for I find that this very proposal has been
made by Barnes on the latter, where no MSS. are in its favour.
361
u 83-139 ODYSSEY
For my own part I accept the tradition : I believe that in these
passages alec gains in emphasis by its position, and if so, it is
equally certain that KaraOvrjn^ in the Homeric Hymn could bear
with advantage a like emphatic enforcement,
u 109]} OLL /A€v ap' aXXai cvSov, €7ret Kara Trvpov aXeaaav.
Fick's suggestion of oAAat t^' €v8ov clearly conflicts with the
statement that immediately follows, 17 Sk fiC ov ttw iravir. It is
enough to assume that the familiar and trite evSov has displaced
an older and afterwards obsolete lavov, which is even more appro-
priate here than evSov itself as it conveys, not the idea that these
domestics were soundly sleeping, but only that they were lying
down to get rest from their labours, cf. t 340
KCio) 8* u)S TO Trapos ircp dvTrvov? vvKxas tavov.
V I23J dyp6/x€vaL aveKaiov iir la-xapri aKafAxiTov irvp.
There can be little doubt that cypo/^cvat rather than the
dypo/xcvat of nearly all the MSS. is right Further alteration is
however here demanded by the metre. The true reading may
well have been (cf. c 59 and for rdxa ry 18) : —
iypo/xevai rax €Katov ctt' €cr)(apov aKafxarov Trvp.
** 1 39 J V A"-^ Scftvt* dvwyev VTrocrTopiorai Sfxwycri,
That av(jiy€{v) for Homer was applicable to present time only,
and dvcoyec (-ct, -ctv) to past only is clear enough from an examina-
tion of the passages in which these forms appear, as well as from
the ascertained principles of grammar in the Epic period (v. Note
on 305). That the tradition gives us instances reversing this
rule only shows the force of the pressure of the later thematic
usage. The tendency to regard -ct as a present termination must
have been continually operative, and in cases where assonance
assisted would be evidently irresistible. We have, for instance,
this ending of a line four times repeated (Z 439, O 43, 725, c 139)
€7rOTpVV€L KoX aVUTfCV.
So it ought to be : so it originally was : but our tradition gives,
and it is not surprising : —
CTTOTpVVCt KOL dv(Oy€l.
There are of course other passages which have been made con-
formable to this, which have in our texts ordinarily dvwyci for
dvwycv, with occasionally some reminder, as in 2 176, of the true
reading, H 8, 2 176, T 102, Y 179, X 142, Q, 140 (in H 74
avdiyti is subjunct., and avuiyrj is La Roche's reading), e 139,
36a
BOOK XX U139
f} 221, ^ 463, p 502, <^ 194 (in o 395 dvwyiy is required). In all
these passages the word ends the line, and so has no metrical
protection.
When we come to consider the instances of avwya/ as a past
tense we find a similar state of things. In the Iliad I 680 is like
O 90 possibly present in meaning. In the Odyssey we haye o 1 03,
TT 466, V 139, (0 167, all at the end of the line. But we have also
our line, 1; 139, which requires the substitution of an apostrophe
for the V i<f>eXKV(rTLK6vf
rj fikv SifxvL di/(oye' virocrropicrai S/xiorjcrif
as do S 482, \J/ 368 : —
ovveKo. fi avTLS dvtuyc' err' rjepoeiSia ttovtov — .
TrdvTa^ 8' €VT€* dvwyc' aprjca '^f.pm.v kXia-dat. —
and there are two recalcitrant passages. The first is c 276 : —
T^v yap S-q pi.Lv di/o)yc KaXvif/w, Sta Oeawv
7rovT07rop€v4p.€vaL ctt' dptcTcpa ;;^€tpos l^^ovra.
The second is in a later book (o 95-8). I give it in full : —
ayX^P-okov 84 oi -^XOe 'BorjOotSrj'S *Et€0)vcvs,
avcTTOLS i^ €vvy]S, cTret ov ttoXv vatev dir* avrov'
Tov TTvp KYJai avioye^orjv dyaOos MeveAaos
OTTTrjcraL re Kpewv 6 8' dp* ovk dTrtO-qcrev dKovcra^.
Both these passages from beginning to end are manifest interpo-
lations. The parody of Homeric simplicity in making the * lordly
Eteoneus' of S 22 the non-resident housemaid and cook of the
latter passage is equalled, if not surpassed, in absurdity by the
grotesque order supposed to be giyen by Calypso to Odysseus to
sail with the Bear to the left of his hand. Even in the hackneyed
effort of modern bantering humour which comes closest to this in
flippancy, * Follow your nose,' the selection is of a member which
does not exist in duplicate, and so far we have the best of the
ancient funny man. Other defects of expression and metre may
be left unnoticed. The removal of either passage causes no
difficulty in the narrative.
Turning from the Homeric poems to the Hymns we may see
three notable examples of this corruption in the Hymn to Demeter,
which it may be well to correct: —
(1)207 17 8' dvevevcr'' ov yap Oepurov ol €<^ao-Kcv
TTLveiv oTvov ipvOpoVf dvuyye 8' dp^ dX<pL kol vSmp — .
« 139-194 ODYSSEY
Clearly the reading should be dvwycc 8' aA.<^t.
(2) 297 -^vwy* -^VKO/AW ^rjfjL-qrepL mova vqbv —
This and the next are solitary examples of the augmented
perf. Here it is due to the desire to escape from the elision of
I of the dat. Read : —
Arj/jLT^p rivKOfjUD -^vdryee Triova vrjbv — .
(3) 34^ Zev<s fJL€ irarrjp ^vmyev ayavrjv Ilepcrc^oi/etav — .
There is of course no difficulty in restoring rjvwye.
u 166] ietv', y ap tl (T€ fj^aXXov *A;(atot cto-opoworti/
rje (T aTLfxa^ovarL Kara /xcyap , ws to Trapos Trep ;
It is quite impossible to find in cto-opotucnv any contrast to
aTLfid^ova-L. The verb conveys nothing but the mere fact of seeing,
unless it be supplemented in some way as by Oebv w? {6 173), to-a
^€w (o 520), or we may have such expressions as Tepij/ofiat ela-opowv
(tt 26), laivojxai cicropowaa (t 537)-
Here the flaw is 'Axatot, which merely gives unmetrically an
unnecessary subject to the verb. The real subject is, if I may
express it in terms of later Greek, ot Kara /xiyapa * the people in
the hall '. I would suggest as a necessary correction something
like :—
ielv'f y dp TL ere /xaXXov ottl^ovt €i(ropoa>VT€9.
But it is impossible to do more than offer a possible alternative
for *AxaioL here. It is at least an advantage to realize the inade-
quacy of the tradition and its probable origin.
u 169] at yap 817, Ev/jiaic, Oeol Tto-ataro Xu>/3rjv.
Perhaps at yap nyvS', Evfrnie — .
V 1943 Svo-fiopo?, 7} T€ €OLK€ Sc/xas ^acTiA^t dvaKTL'
oAAa Oeol Sv6(j)(rL TroXvTrXdyKTOVs dv^pwTrovs,
OTTTTore Koi fiacriXevcrLV €TnKX<ixr(i)vraL ot^w.
The last of these lines is distressingly awkward. It is a
veritable stumbling-block. Duentzer rejects it altogether from
his text; others try to make the best of a bad case. Perhaps
nothing could show more clearly and easily the inadmissibility of
the text, as it stands, than to translate 11. 195-6 accurately, and
then to point out in plain terms what the Greek words implicitly
but inevitably convey. For this purpose I will take Messrs.
Butcher and Lang's rendering, which is quite unexceptionable : —
* The gods mar the goodliness of wandering men, when even for
364
BOOK XX U194
kings they have woven the web of trouble.' Or here to the very
same effect is Dr. Monro's literal version in his recent (1901)
commentary ; — * The gods mar the form of much-wandering men,
when they decree even to kings the lot of sorrow/
The only inference that can be drawn from such a statement,
and the Greek alone is responsible for its curious absurdity, is
this, that whereas the gods at certain periods find it necessary to
bring affliction upon men, sparing none, not even kings, at these
times tramps and travellers (TroAvTrAay/cTot avOpwTroi) are severe
sufferers, or briefly, when the gods run amuck against all and
sundry, vagrants, &c., bear the brunt. ' First come first served,'
is the motto of the gods on these occasions. It is certain the
poet never dreamed for a moment of any such theological
doctrine. Hence we have Ameis telling us that kol ySao-tXevonv is
a brachylogy for ' iiber dieselben, selbst wenn sie Konige sind ',
and Dr. Monro telling us ' that the words kol paatXevatv belong
logically to the principal clause ', and that ' the effect of their
postponement is that they come in as an afterthought ', though, so
far from being an afterthought, it is only because Odysseus looked
like a king that 11. 195-6 are spoken at all. The governing
thought is : — ' but his royal bearing did not avail to save him,
for, &c.'
Accordingly the real difficulty is not so much that kol Pacn-
Aevo-iv is in the wrong place, as that the real indirect object after
eTTtKAwo-cDVTat cannot be omitted by brachylogy or anything else.
It is absolutely required in the interests of lucidity, ut iam nunc
dicat iam nunc debentia dici. If now we read the line thus : —
oto't T€ Koi /Saa-iXevcTLV cirtKAtoo-wrrat ot^vv,
all difficulty vanishes at once. I render the whole passage : —
* But the gods reduce to sorry plight the far- wandering men, to
whomsoever, be they even kings, they have decreed the doom of
misery.'
I have one further remark to make. The epithet TroAuTrAa-
yKTovs is not to be passed over lightly. It is here almost, if not
quite, proleptic. The ot^w, ' the doom of misery,' is TrXay ktoo-vvtj.
No worse thing can befall a man, as our own Charles 11, who did
not wish ' to be sent again on his travels ', well knew. Compare
again our author : —
0343 TrXayKToavvrjs 8' ovk eort KaKtarepov oAAo ^/oorouriv,
365
u a09 ODYSSEY
u 2093 ^ Z^®' cTTCtT* '08u(r^os a.fivfiovo<s, os /x' ctti ^ovcrXv
vvv 8' at /Aev ytyvovrai aOia-cfiaTOi, ov8e kcv olXAco?
dvSpL y VTro(TTa)(yoLTO /Souiv yero? cvpv/xcTWTrwi"
If the last clause be right, we surely have here the most in-
effective and absurdly inappropriate metaphor in the whole range
of the Homeric poems. According to the text oxen are said in
quite a casual way to * sprout like corn-spikes ' (o-Ta;(vs). As an
Aristophanic burlesque of such expressions as * Man cometh up
as a flower*, aviSpafiev epvei to-os (2 56), <^tAov OdXosj the word
might be tolerable and laughable ; but if it is to be taken
seriously as Homeric, I would suggest to commentators — the view
is quite a novelty — that the Poet, or we may say with some of
our German friends the Botcher, evidently intended to compli-
ment the cattle on the excellent development of their horns. Not
only are these oxen vastly more numerous, but no one could show
beasts with finer horns. Thus every suspicion of tautology is
beautifully eliminated.
For my own part I am not prepared to accept either (i) the full
native comic force of the verb, or (2) the usual evasive toning-
down of the meaning into ' thrive,' * increase,' or again (3) the
more exact, even if trivial, explanation just recommended to
scholars of the mumpsimus-cult. vTroa-raxvoLTo must, I believe,
be abj ured altogether and for ever as a corruption, only respectable
from its antiquity, which cannot be and need not be questioned.
If now we wish to try to ascertain what the poet really said,
the first essential is, by a new division of the transmitted words,
in place of the somewhat awkward dativus commodi avhpi y\ to
restore the more natural and suitable expression
avhpi y xnro.
I call this more natural and suitable, not only because the
responsibility of the man is the main point, but because the term
is strictly correlative to the preceding kin pova-iv. The herdsman
is cTTt pova-ivj ' in charge of the oxen ' l. 209 (cf. iir oUo-a-i E 137,
Z 25, 424, A 106), and the oxen are xnro ^SovkoAw, * in charge of
the herdsman.' This slight change I advocate as a necessity,
even supposing we maintain intact the residual verb, oTaxyoiroy
which stript of its prepositional ornament is quite as desirable, or
undesirable, as it was before.
366
BOOK XX 209
Perhaps indeed the form, if this verb be retained, should
rather be o-Taxvwro, as some MSS. give it, from araxvooi; but
I am not concerned to maintain this, for the whimsical oddity of
the sense leads me, as I have said, to reject the word altogether.
I suggest that originally the clause ran thus : —
OvSc K€V oAAo)
avSpt y v<j>* o)<s (TTLxdoLTO ^o(ov yevos cv/av/xertoTrtov
' nor in charge of another, being but man, would the broad-browed
oxen move so orderly.' In our text omxaotTo would be a-rixo^ro.
This is the proper sense of a-TLxdofiaL, ordine composito
progredior, iv rdiei Tropcvo/xat Et. Mag. In later times the word
fell out of use and, as it failed to convey its proper meaning to
the popular ear, the ingenious turn of the vulgate would naturally
supplant it in the favour of rhapsodists and their hearers.
oAAo) is not entirely without authority : oAAw FH with
a letter erased at the end, dXXu) XU. Obviously in these instances
aAAo) must be intended, and was actually used according to
N. Heinsius in the MS. of Vespasian Gonzaga di Columna of
uncertain date.
Lastly, while the palaeographic difference between the two
readings is not very great either to the ear or to the eye, something
may be said to show the adequacy of the new reading to the
requirements of the passage. The speaker, Philoetius, with
pardonable vanity is contrasting the state of affairs both with
regard to the herds and to himself at the time when he was
first put in charge of them by his master and now. Then, he
says, he was a mere lad (In tvtOov iovra), and so the task was
almost beyond his powers : now the oxen are vastly increased in
number, but for all that he has them under perfect control. Any
one who has watched a herd of cows being driven to and from the
pasture will appreciate the skill to which he lays claim. They
do not always proceed ordine composito. He prides himself on
being an experienced herdsman. You would not find his equal,
much less a better, unless of course you were lucky enough to
secure the services of a god to look after the live-stock, as the
story tells of Admetus, B 763 : —
LTTTTOL fxkv fx€y dpKTTai tcTov ^pr/TtoSao,
Ttts Ev/xiyXo? tXavvi — ,
TttS €v HrjpeLy $p€i{/ dpyvp6Toio<s 'AiroAAwy.
367
209-260 ODYSSEY
In short Philoetius desires to show that the kindness of Odysseus
to a little lad was well bestowed and not thrown away. He had
not been a careless or incompetent herdsman. As the numbers
of the oxen increased, so their keeper became a master-hand in
the performance of his special work.
U 2273 ^0Vk6\\ CTTCl OVT€ /Ca/CW OVT a<f>pOVL <}>(DtI €OLKa<S
This line only differs from ^ 187 in beginning with /SovkoX'
instead of $€tv\ As the crasis of -et with oi is a late licence, the
best course would be to adopt $€lv here also. The fact is that in
this part of the poem it is Odysseus himself who is * the stranger '
par excellence, and is so addressed over and over again. Hence
it seems to have been thought unsuitable that he should use the
term of any one else. So we have the gloss /SovkoXo^ brought in
here, in violation of Homeric, though not of Attic, scansion.
This licence has been gratuitously imposed on A 249 (v. Note
there). The only instance in the Iliad (N 777) disappears in
Dr. Leaf's second edition.
yacAAcD, CTree /j, ov TrdfiTrav dvdXKLSa yuvaro fji-qryjp'
has rightly replaced i-rrel ouSe /ac, and there can be little doubt
that 8 352 should similarly be corrected to
cTTCt (r<^' ov pe^a — .
There will then remain only t 314 revir), iirel ov tolol (rqpAvropi^
which is certainly more difficult to correct, rcu^cat* ov roXoi (Bothe)
and r€v^€, o t ov toIol (Menrad) seem unsatisfactory. Possibly
reu^c*, cTTCt' T ov rot {t = rot),
which would account best for the variations of the MSS.
u 232^ rf criOev IvOdK €6vTO<i iXeva-erai oiKaS' 'OSvao-cvs.
Read iXevcreraL avrts 'OSvaa-ev^.
u 242]} T^pTvov' avrap 6 rolariv dpia-Tcpo? T^XvOev opvts
Read avrap Totcrtv.
u 2463 TrjX^fidxoLO <j>6vo<s' dXXd /xv?;o-a>/i.c^a Satrds.
Perhaps Satros 8k p.vr}<r6p.i&' dXXris should be read. This non-
thematic fivrja-ofXiOa occurs k 1 77 dXX* dyer — ftvryo-d/xe^a /3pwfjLr)^
fjirjSk Tpv)((j}fji€.da A.t/jta>. A similar change will be required in v 73,
O 477, T 148, O 601. The only remaining instance of /xvT/o-w/Ac^a
is 8 213 where fxefivwfxcOa, as in $ 168, is probably right or at any
rate more tolerable.
u 260J Trap 8' irCOfL <rrrXdy)(yu>v fiOLpaSj iv 8* oti^ov ixevev
iv Btirai xpv<r€<ay
368
BOOK XX u 260-303
oTvov 8' ivex€V€ or otvov Se P cx^^ (^' — ^^0 seems better than
Fick's iv€X€V€ 8k oTvov, though that would serve. Grashofs
importation of xp^o-etw SeVat is a mistake. No alteration of iv
Beira'C ^p^o-co) is needed, unless it be that xpvcrovy the gen. of
material, should replace the adjective (v. Note on o 149).
u 273] ov yap Zcvs €iao-€ ISLpovCiDV tw k€ /x,tv ^S>;
Travara/jiev — .
The difficult ellipse is much too forced for the true Epic
style. Read : —
el yap Zcrs ctacr€ Kpovtwv tw k€ fiLV t^Stj — .
* Would that Zeus had permitted it : in that case we would ere
now have/ &c.
This speech, 11. 271-4, is attributed in the tradition to
Antinous. The two lines which make the attribution are both
metrically imperfect 1. 270 and 1. 275. Moreover, the speech
expresses the prevailing sentiment of the suitors as a body, not
the opinion of any particular individual. It belongs in fact to the
Homeric TliS. The mise en scene is exactly parallel to p 481 ff. : —
o)<s tfjiaO ' ol 8' apa 7rdvT€<s v7r€p<^iaA(os v€fX€arr](rav'
w8e Se Tts €iTre(TK€ viujv vTreprjvoptovTwv'
(488) ws ap' e<fiav fivrjcrrrjptSf 6 8' ovk i/j,7rd^€T0 fjuvOoyv.
and to 373 ff. below : —
fivrjcTTrjpes 8' dpa 7rdvT€<s — .
(375) ^^^ ^^ ''"'''* CtTTCOTKC VCtUV VTTepVJVOpCOVTUiV'
(384) 0)9 ecfiacrav fxvrj(rT^p€S' 6 8' ovk Ifxjrdi^ero fjuvOoiv.
In our passage we have v 268 : —
ws €<f)aO', ol 8* apa iravTC? 68a$ iv xct-^co"* ^wt€9 —
and 11. 270 and 275 should read with Antinous dismissed : —
a)8e 8e tls ctTrecTKC viwv vTrcprjvopeovrwv
and ws ap' €<f>av fjivqoTrjpcq' 6 8' ovk ip/rrd^eTO p,v6oiV,
u 303] Kt^o-ittttov 8* apa T7j\4pia)(0S rjVLTraTre pAj6(0'
K^TTjcTLTnr , Tj pAXa tol t68^ KepSiov cttXcto Ovp,& ^
The former of these lines should probably run thus : —
Tov 8' apa TyjXip^axos xa^c^rw (aruyepw) r^varaire pxiOw
The name is not really necessary, while obviously p-v^w requires
some epithet. In a still worse situation is ^v/xw in the second
line. It is really quite meaningless in its present context. It is
impossible to believe that Telemachus ironically assumes that
AGAR B b 369
u 303-309 ODYSSEY
Ktesippus missed his aim on purpose (Monro), -when he says the
very reverse in the next line. We must dismiss Ovfiw in this
sense, * in thy thought,' altogether, even if a satisfactory substitute
be not forthcoming. But it seems to me possible that with a slight
alteration earlier in the line we may retain Ovfiio in another
sense, thus : —
y fidka (Tw ToSc KipSiov €7rAeTo OvfiQ'
* Assuredly this is better for thy life.' Cf. ck Ovfxov eXotro and
Bottom's remark in A Midsummer-Night's Dream, * If you think
I come hither as a lion, it were pity of my life.'
u 309] ^Siy yo-p voita Kttl ot8a cKacrra,
laSKd T€ Kttt Ttt ;j(€p€ia* Trapos 8' tri vqino's rja.
The above lines occur also 0-228 f., where however Aristarchus
and Aristophanes join in disallowing the second one. Here it
stands unquestioned, and is doubtless genuine enough except in
one point of detail ; for whatever we may be prepared to accept
with respect to the Homeric use of the article (v. Monro, H. G.
§§ 256-64, whose valuable summary unfortunately takes no
account of the possibility — nay, the probability — that in many
cases the article is a mere modernization), it is next door to
impossible to believe that ea-OXd re koI ra x^pcta is, or ever was,
a tolerable form of expression. It is easy to defend the twv
UcXoTTowrja-Liov kol 'AOrjvaiiov of Thucydides ; but would that writer
have indulged in, or would any scholar like to have to justify,
rov TToXe/xov HikoTrovvrja-Lwv kol roiv ^AOrjvaLOiv ? No defence would
be accepted for a moment, even though it took the form of
Ameis's comment here ; — der Artikel zur Verscharfung des
Gegensatzes. It is obvious that, if this convenient and facile
form of pointing a contrast had been legitimate, we should have
had somewhere about fifty or sixty instances of this type, instead
of one, in Homer. The fact is rd here as the article is just as
erroneous for Homer as for any other later writer. Perhaps as a
relative something might be said in its favour ; but the treatment
would hardly be convincing. Still it brings us a step nearer to
the suggestion I have to offer, to the effect that the vulgate has
arisen from the obscuration and corruption of: —
i(rOXa KOL drra \ep€ia.
This would be a natural expression, whether we explain it as an
370
BOOK XX u 309-356
inversion of arra ia-OXa kol x^'p^ta, or as an abbreviation of the
fuller phrase arra iaOXa kol arra ^epcia.
Palaeographically the transition from KAIATTA to TE-
KAITA is not very difficult ; but this point need not be dwelt
upon. It has in other forms often been elaborated by others
elsewhere. There remains the question whether arra would be
correct Homerically for artva. The difficulty to be surmounted is
that our tradition seems to give only ao-o-a in Homeric verse for
artva, e. g. : —
A 554 dAAa ^oA,* evKYiXo^ ra <f>pd^€aL a<T<T iOeXyjcrOa.
K 208 acraa re /Ai^rioaxrt fiera <r<f>LcrLVj —
Y 1 2 7 voTcpov avT€ TO. TTctVerat acr(ra ol ATa-a —
€ 188 oAXa TO, fikv voeo) kol <^paxr<Top.ai, acrcr av ifiOL Trep —
7) 197 Treto-erat acrcra ol Ato-a Kara KXioOis T€ ySapetat —
X 7 4 oXXd fi€ KaKKYJat (tvv T€V)(€(tlv, acrcra p,OL cort,
I 367 a$o/xaL, a(T(r iXa^ov yc
But it may well be that this is only due to later transcribers, as
the T is certainly the older letter, a rka. Quite possibly the truth
is revealed in such a line as : —
(T 142 aXX* 6 ye (J't-jy Swpa Ocwv e^ot, ottl StSoicv,
where ottl may represent a more regularly grammatical, though
of course not absolutely necessary, arra. Still more suggestive in
the same sense is the case of : —
0317 ati/^a K€V €v 8p(i>0Lfii fJi€Ta (r(f>i(rLV ott iOiXoiev.
The MSS. are divided between ott' WeXouv and om BiXouv
except for the otl OiXouv of D. Now we are pretty sure for
obvious reasons that neither of these alternatives can be right.
Consequently the best editions follow the conclusion arrived at by
Lehrs and adopt in spite of all MSS. ao-or' iOeXoiev as the reading
of Aristarchus. I submit that the unanimous vulgate is most
easily accounted for if we suppose the original was : —
ttTT* iOiXouv.
If SO, ia-OXa KOI arra x^p^f-o. ought to satisfy the palaeographists :
but whether they can be satisfied or not, I contend that such a
reading has far more Homeric probability than the anomalous
tradition.
u 356] l€fJi€V<av epe^oaSc vrrb ^6<l>ov
Read Kara ^6<f>ov, * in the darkness,' which was already upon
them. The vulgate is tautological as well as faulty in metre.
B b 2 371
358-383 ODYSSEY
u 358] a>? e<j>aO\ ol 8 apa Travrcs iir avrw rfSv yiXacra-av,
The line recurs </> 376 and is essentially the same as B 270 : —
ol he KoX dxvvfievoL irep iir* avrQ r)hv ycXaaa-av.
It exhibits avro) in its ordinary later usage. Originally, as we
may fairly gather from A 378 : —
iv yoLLT) Kariir-qKTO. 6 3c fxaXa -qBv yeXcurcras —
the formula was without the pronoun and ran thus : —
a)S €(f>aO\ ol 8* apa Travres cirt /mXa rjSv ytXaa-aav —
and indeed from this formula A 378 may in its turn be restored
and rescued from the grip of the hiatus licitus : —
iv yoLtrj KaT€7rr})^6\ 6 8' ctti fxdXa -^Sv yeXdcrcra^ — .
We may see from the above how easily the later pronouns might
be introduced into the Homeric poems in certain places.
" 364J Evpv/xa;(', ov tl cr avcoya c/xot Tro/ATr^as oTra^ctv*
Here a transposition, though not demonstrable as in ^60,
seems not improbable. I suggest : —
Tjvpvjxa^ , ov TL a oTrda-a-ai ifxol Tro/XTrrja'S aivorya.
We may be quite sure there never was such a form as di/wyco, as
the Lexica imagine. Elsewhere in the Od. avoyya is always found
at the end of the line. Possibly ov tl a' oTra^e/xcvat -rr. a.
" 3743 ^rjXefiaxov ipWL^ov irrl $€lvol<s ycXotuvrcs*
A more manifest example of transposition than the last.
BcLvoLs according to Nauck requires a word beginning with
a vowel to follow ; TrjXcfiXLxov emphatically does not. Read : —
TrjXifjiaxov ycXowvTes cttI $€lvol^ Ipiddfiv.
u 382]] Tous ^€tVovs €v vrjl ttoXvkXtjlSl ^aX6vT€<s
is ^tKtXovs Tri/JLTTiOfxev, oOcv kc tol o^lov aXfj>OL.
Dr. Monro is clearly right in reading Trifnroifxev here for the
vulgate ir€fjnl/<ofjL€Vy and his defence of the allusion to the Siceli
against those who scent a diaskeuast's work in the word may be
taken as adequate. There remains only the difficulty of the
plural Tovs icLvovs or arovs ieCvovs (v. Note on p 10) being followed
by the clause oOev kc tol d^Lov dX<f}OL. I do not think Bentley's tis
for TOL can be regarded as entirely satisfactory. Why should rts
have been removed in favour of tol without leaving a trace in the
form of a variant. Of the two tis is far more likely to have
survived, if only for grammatical reasons. I suggest as a more
probable original : —
6$€V K€ TOL oB€ d$LOV oA^Ol
37a
BOOK XXI o38jH>6
which would afterwards properly be written ; —
* where this fellow would fetch for you what he is worth '.
The sarcasm is amusing at least. It is aimed at Odysseus,
whose ill treatment by the suitors is never lost sight of. The
departure of Theoclymenus gives occasion for the remarks ; but
he is a subordinate character in the poet's scheme. Consider the
speech from start to finish, 11. 376-83. No one surely was ever
more unfortunate in his friends than Telemachus. There is first
the beggar-man, elaborately described in three lines as a worthless
fellow, 11. 377-9. Theoclymenus is dismissed in one line. Then
comes the recommendation to send off the whole lot of his friends,
including in all probability Eumaeus and Philoetius, to the slave-
market over sea, where this one, already referred to as tovtov
in 1. 377, would realize what he is worth, i.e. nothing at all, and
Telemachus might pocket the money. The remainder, it is
implied, would be even less likely to realize any thing. As an
ironical jest this could hardly be improved, and it is counter-
poised on the other side by the grim sarcasm of 1. 392 ff. with
which the poet ends the scene.
The jest is not spoiled, the humour is only a little more
restrained, if we understand by a^tov ' a decent price ', * a moderate
return,' the implication with regard to the others being practically
the same.
BOOK XXI (0).
<(> 6] €tA.€TO 8c k\7]lS* evKa/nrea X^'P^ "^^X^^V — •
Here we have a corruption perhaps not difficult to remedy
with some probability, certainly not difficult to detect. Ludwich
quotes on this passage Et. Flor. ap. Miller Mel. 308 ^x^^P'- '"'"-X^^v'
(nrj/Juuv€L TO ippiofxevy koI evrpa^ct* ivLOL Sc jjL€T€ypa\f/av to * X^P^^
<f)LXrjcnv \ Iva fxr} SoktJ aicvpo)^ cttI yvvaLKC €iprj(rOaL to ' irax^^l) '•
I do not accept this correction ; but I must confess that after
due consideration I cannot bring myself to believe that the epithet
here attached to the hand of Penelope is anything more than an
inopportune reminiscence, a mechanical reiteration, of the fourteen
other instances, in which ^eipt '^^X'^^V ^^ found in reference to men
and gods, to wit, Menelaus, Aeneas, Hector, Agamemnon, Dolon,
373
<!> 6 ODYSSEY
Ajax, Achilles, Asteropaeus, Odysseus, Ctesippus, Poseidon, always
or nearly always, be it observed, in reference to strong, yigorous,
and even violent action.
Of this character clearly are the two instances of the use of
the expression in respect of a goddess, the mighty Athene, when
she picks up the huge boulder to fling at Ares, and again when
she strikes down the weaker Artemis (^ 403 and 424).
It is perhaps hardly necessary to go beyond Homer for the
analogous application to Hera (Hymn. ApoU. 340), when she beats
the earth vehemently in her appeal to the powers below.
Obviously none of these passages can lend any real support
to x"pt TaxctTy here, where Penelope, a gentle lady in every sense,
is merely taking up a key, which is described as handsome and —
an important point perhaps, for ladies in all ages of the world are
the same in some respects — adorned with an ivory handle : —
KoXrjv xa.A.Ket7/v* Kwiryj 8' cXc^avros ctt^cv. (v.l. )(pvcreL'qv.)
Moreover the whole usage is, I submit, absolutely against any
attempt to treat the expression as stereotyped. It has surely
no resemblance to anything of that kind. Suitableness to the
occasion is never lost sight of save in this one instance. So far
from being stereotyped, the case is practically unique, while no
rendering of the tradition can make it satisfactory or even
tolerable : ' with her strong hand ' (Butcher and Lang) is quite
inappropriate, and 'mit der fleischigen Hand' (Ameis) strikes
one as a little too Teutonic, though both versions of course derive
from the ippoifxevy kol tvrpa<^d quoted above.
If these objections to the epithet hold good, as in my opinion
they certainly do, it follows that the true reading has lapsed ; but
if comparison be made with : —
E 425 TT/oos ^(pva-iri Trepovy Karafjiv^aro X^P* apairjv
where the reference is to Aphrodite, to whom Penelope is compared
in T 54, there seems some probability that the original ran thus
with perfect fitness and propriety : —
ctXcTO §€ kXt/iS' ruKa/ATTca x^'P' apaiy (i.e. Fapaiy)
* with her slim hand ' or, if the recent Boer war has spoiled this
epithet, * with her dainty hand.'
If it be asked, fairly enough, why x«tpt apaij should have
been lost, while x"P<* apairjv was saved, the answer is that even
in this matter scrupulous respect has been shown to the poet,
374
BOOK XXI <|»6-98
who, as it happens, never once used x^^P^ Trax^uiv — so no one
could transfer, 'convey,' or borrow that — but many times said
X^t-pt- '^"'X^^V' ^^® ^^® ^^s his warrant, the other has not.
<|> 2l] iratSvos iwv Trpo yap ^k€ Trarrjp aXXoL tc yipovT€<s
Icf>LTO<S avO LTTTTOVS St^T^/XCVO?, ttt ol oXoVTO
SwSeKtt ^r;A.€tai, vtto 8' rjfxiovoi raXacpyoL'
In </> 21 TT/oo Se P 7JK€ may be restored, cf. A 195 and 208,
and the two following lines should be read thus with an addi-
tional comma : —
"IcfiLTO? avO^ tTTTTovs 8t^>;/x,evo9, at ol oXovto,
BwSiKa OrjXeiaSf vtto S' tj/xlovol raXaifyyoi-
<() 26j <^co^' 'HpaxX^a, fieydXtav iTruaropa l/aycDV,
The meaning of cTrao-ropa is the difficulty here. Neither
'judge ^ nor * having knowledge of, the two current renderings,
can be considered at all adequate. I suggest that following the
indication given by the later la-ropi-q, ' investigation,' ' research,'
we should understand by iTnCa-Twp, giving full force to the pre-
position, ' one who goes in quest of.' Certainly this description
would fit the character of Heracles conceived as the knight-errant
of antiquity, the vagus Hercules of Horace (Odes iii. 3, 9).
(|> 42] 7} 8* oT€ hi] OdXapLov rov d^tKero
Read fov for rov. Cf. rj ^ is OdXafxov iov ^u {i.e. Fov icrrja),
<|) 56] kXolc fxdXa Xtyctus, €K 8' yp€€ t6$ov avaKTO<s.
Dawes proposed ro^a as a metrical necessity; but ypee is
objectionable for the same reason. We might borrow oiwro from
1. 53, but €lX€to is perhaps to be preferred, as the imperfect is not
quite suitable here. In 1. 53 Kara Tratro-aAov, as appears from
ope^afievrj, is more appropriate than (xtto, which may have come in
from the recollection of E 209.
<f> 893 dXX* (XKetov BatwarOe KaOyj/xivoL, —
"Avew should be read (v. Journ. Phil. xxiv. p. 274), unless
we accept from Eustathius dXXa kol w?. Van Leeuwen and
da Costa suggest dAA' dy' Slk-^v, which is quite possible.
4> 98] ^ TOL ouTTOv ye TrpwTOS ycvcTicrOai l/xeAAev — .
The particle yc here must strike every one as curious and
abnormal. In sense it appears to give emphasis to dtoTov,
which is already sufficiently emphasized by its position ; in its
metrical effect it is hard to parallel and seems somewhat
375
<|) 98-113 ODYSSEY
suggestive of choking, though I hope no one will believe the
poet had any such malicious intention. Few however will be
disposed to disagree with van Leeuwen and da Costa in their
brief pronouncement ' versus durior '. Unfortunately they pro-
ceed to suggest, though only tentatively, a violent cure — remedium
durius morbo — thus : —
^ TOL y€V(r€(r6aL ye oiarov Trpwros IfteXXc.
I venture to think that the line may be successfully treated
by a far easier process than this attempt to bring forward the
verb for ye to emphasize, with the additional novelty of a hiatus
too hastily deemed licitus by many scholars.
Duentzer (with needless severity) condemns the three lines
98-100. Rejecting this alternative I offer as a true restoration
of the line to its original shape : —
rj TOL OLCTTOV 6 ye Trpairos yevcrecr^at l/x-eAAev.
This appears to me simple and satisfactory. Palaeographically
the extant corruption from otoroo o ye is easy. Cf. Notes on
X 52, V 92, <^ 228.
The introduction of the pronoun at once resolves the discord
and makes ye perfectly regular and intelligible. If it needs
illustration, the position of the pronoun is the same as in : —
I 620 ^, KoX HarpoKkia 6 y irr 6cf>pv(TL vevcre aruoirQ — .
M 240 etT €7r* dpL(rT€pa rot ye ttotI ^6<j>ov rjepoevra.
Cf. 7) 32, fi 61.
4> 113] Kttt 8e' K€V avTOS cyo) tov Toiov Treiprjcratixrjv'
The place of the article tov may with advantage be filled
by To8e as an ace. of the Internal Object (H. G. § 133). The
twenty-first book of the Odyssey has the doubtful distinction of
possessing the only three examples of t6$ov with the later article :
but as the word occurs here forty-six times out of a total of fifty-
nine in the whole Odyssey, this is not altogether surprising. In
the Iliad we find fifty examples of this noun, and the article
seems never associated. The second occurrence is 1. 305 : —
a)S KoX aol fiiya Trrj/xa 7n<f>avcrK0fJiai, ai Ke to to^ov
ivravvcrrj'S'
where an easy and probable correction would be : —
at K€ (TV TO^OV.
Thirdly we have 1. 378 T7;Xeftax<j>* ret Se To^a <f>ep<ov, where 6 Se
has disappeared for an obvious reason. In the present case
376
BOOK XXI <|> 113-211
ToSe roiov almost invites corruption into tov to^ov, and seems
a far more likely original than any such metrical equivalent as
Td)(a, jxaXa, or t6t€.
<|> 177] "^^P ^' ^TcOet hi(j>pov T€ fjLcyav /cat Kwas ctt* avrov,
1823 Trap 8k K^ipoiv Bicfipov OrJKcv koL Kwas ctt' avrov,
The original ending of both these lines and of t 97 is
perhaps recoverable from ir 47 : —
Kol Kwas vTrepOev
Similarly we have in t ioi : —
Si<f>pov iv^€(TTOv Koi CTT ovTio Kwas eftaXXcv'
where the true correction is hardly tw ctti, which naturally suggests
itself, but rather : —
KadvTrepde 8c Kwas lySaAAcv.
Compare Hymn. Dem. 196 — KaOvTrepOe 8' iir dpyvcf>€ov ^aXe Kwas.
(j> 1953 TTOiOL K etT* 'OSvarJL dfjLvvijxev, et TroOev tXOot
wSc fiaX iiaTTLvrjs kol tis Oebs avrov ei/ec/cai ;
For the weak and unepic avrov read avrtV. The point
is that they would have to decide at once, without much time for
deliberation. In 1. 195 the elision of t of the dat. has, I believe,
caused the loss of a preposition. Restore ; —
*OSv(Trf lirap,vv€fx€v.
For the treatment of 'OSvonyt before a vowel the traditional
variants in € 398 and v 35 should be noted. Even Ludwich
has '08vo^' in the former, but an absurd *08vo^ in the latter.
Here and in 1. 197 where pLvrfOTi^peara cTra/xwotr' should
be read, the compound verb is better than the simple one, just as
* help ' is better than * defend ' in both places.
<|) 211] €v^afX€VOV ifxk avrts vTrorpoTrov otKa8' LKecrOaL.
X 35 ^ Kvves, ov jx €T icfidcTKiO* vTrorpoTTOv oLKaS' LKicrOaL — .
Fick's transposition of o?Ka8' and avris is obviously right in
itself, and derives support from Hymn. Apoll. 476 : —
TO Trptv, drdp vvv ovk eO* virorpoiroi avrts ^aea-de — .
The expression is found twice in the Iliad : —
Z 367 ov yap 0*8' rj €TL cr<f>Lv VTrorpoTros t^o/xat avrt?, —
501 ov yap fjLiv €T €<fiavTO vTrorpoTrov Ik iroXe/jLOto
tiea-Oat — .
Now in X 35 it appears from Z 501 that besides writing avrts for
otKa8' we should have a fut. infin. after e</f)ao-K€T€, so that the true
reading, as Hymn. Apoll. 476 indicates, must have been : —
St Kvves, ov fi It €(f>d(rK€6' VTrorpoTrov avTts Icrecrdai.
m
<|> 211-228 ODYSSEY
Indeed there is some probability that vn-dr/joTros ci/^t is the original
expression, and that iKeV^at, ?^o/Aat, and ciecrOaL represent an older
Icrco-^at, Icro-o/xat, and t(T(re(r6at. Still the redundancy is not
perhaps enough to justify our making any change save in ^ 35.
On the other hand Z 50 1 might with advantage be read thus : —
ov yap Sry F* tr l^acTKov VTrorpoirov ex TroXijxoto — .
<|> 2183 o^pa fji ev yvQiTov Tna-TOiOrjrov r cvt OvfxQ,
A manifest interpolation, as the verbs indicate clearly.
<|> 228] 7rav€a-6ov KXavOfxoto yooto re, fx-q rts tSrp-aL
c^cA^wv /x€ydpoLOf arap (lirya-L kol €tcra>.
For tSrjrai Fick has suggested iK-qrai, which, though tolerable
enough in itself, seems so incompatible with the following
i^€\6(i>v, that we should then be tempted to substitute IktoctB^,
or something equivalent, for the disabled participle. Van
Leeuwen and da Costa oifer aKovGrQ doubtfully. This does not
clash seriously with i$€X6o)Vy but it leaves the corruption to
ISrjraL quite incomprehensible. Perhaps tSrjTaL is not so much
at fault as ns, which is not really required at all by the
Homeric idiom. The participle alone is sufficient, as could be
shown by many instances, e. g. c 400 oa-a-ov tc ycywve ^oi/cras.
I incline to think we might safely read: —
fi-q TL FCSrjTai (cf. A 522, K 24).
But I am more concerned to deal with 1. 229, which, as it
stands, suffers from two defects. Firstly, there is the hiatus in
the third foot, allowed by some, it is true, but in reality a fault
and, as I have had occasion frequently to note, attended in
most cases, as it is here, by some other difficulty. Secondly,
and this may be tak«n to be the serious part of the matter, the
clause drap elTrya-t kol €i(ra>, fairly rendered by *but should
tell it inside too', coheres hardly, or not at all, with the pre-
ceding words. We have drdp properly used in the immediate sequel,
in the very next lines. Here is the passage as it continues : —
dAAa TrpofivrjcrTivoL €<Ti\d€T€, /xrjS* dpxi 7raia-€S,
TrpiiiTO^ iytx), /xera 8' viifxisr drdp roSe aijfJia tctv^^w
In I. 229 however drdp is distinctly a disturbing element, which
cannot well be ignored. The remedy I suggest is to read the
line thus: —
i$€X$ii}V paydpov, 6 8* d<l>ap ciTnyo-i Koi cio'b),
* and he should tell it at once inside also.*
378
\
BOOK XXI <|> 228-259
The pronoun o would easily be lost, as /xeydpov 6 would be
written ixeydpoLo 6, cf. <f) 98, p. 376 ; so beyond the addition
of 8* there is only the easy change of drdp into acfiap. The
superiority of the latter here is sufficiently obyious, and the
corruption may with great probability be traced to the presence
of drdp in 1. 231.
It would hardly be satisfactory to leave unnoticed a line,
which undoubtedly bears a strong formal resemblance to the
one that has been here dealt with. I refer to x 373 • —
6<fipa yvws Kara Ovfiov, drdp eLTrrja-Oa kol aAAw — .
I need not say dogmatically that yvws is incorrect for yvwr/?,
but assuredly we should gain rather than lose by reading : —
6<f>pa yvovs Kara Ovfjcbv dcfyap eLTrya-Oa kol oAAo),
and this I offer as the real solution of this curious coincidence.
<j> 244] ^S 8' dpa KOL TO) 8/X(t)€ LT7)V OiLOV *OBvcnjo<S.
This is erroneous not only because of the hiatus but because
TO) S/Mwe is inadmissible. Is it not next door to a certainty that
is 8' dpa KOL TO) h(i)fxaT lttjv Oetov *08vcrr]os.
is the true reading ? Compare )8 259 : —
fxvrjarrjpe's 8* es SwfxaT L<rav Oiiov '08vot}o9.
8 621, V 248, y8 394, &c.
4* 259] Tts 8c K€ To^a TiTolvoir ; dAAa cKiyAoi
KdrOiT' drdp TrcAcKcas ye kol €l k etw/xcv diravra^
coTct/xcv ov /x€v ydp tlv dvaifyiqa-ta-Oai diia
IkdovT €S fieyapov AacpridScit) 'OBvcnjos.
It can hardly be doubted that apart from the merely verbal
depravations of TrcXcKcas for TreAc/cvs and elwfxev for idwfiev the
sentence drdp . . . iardfiev has suffered in transmission. The
extent of the corruption is very uncertain ; but perhaps the
simplest method of restoring a tolerable reading would be to
substitute av^t for et kc: —
drdp TreXeKVS ye koX avO* idoyfxev aTravras
eardfiev'
* But let us leave all the axes to stand just where they are.'
This might serve : but kol avff inevitably suggests Kar
av6* or KaTavd\ and we arrive at: —
drdp TTcAcKvs ye KaravO* ediafxev aTravras
eardfiev'
* But the axes let us leave them all to stand where they are.*
379
<i> 259 ODYSSEY
Other suggestions have been made koL (or Kar) rjK eldfiev
Bothe: kcv tjk el^fxev Bergk : kol ev k em/xev Axt. This last
may be immediately dismissed as giving an absolutely in-
admissible position to /ce. Moreover neither rJKa nor cv is very
attractive or appropriate here.
If we regard palaeographic considerations only, k€l6l * yonder'
would represent the traditional ct k€ more closely than avOi
does : but this would necessitate either the omission of yc (om.
GX et in lac. cod. A Ariston. n 559 [Ludwich]) : —
€(TToifJi€V •
or the slight change of kul into kc and of iloifi^v into the
optative with Bergk and Axt, ciw/acv, i. e. idotfiev, as it ought
to be written. Unfortunately, however, the caesura is then
most unsatisfactory : —
drap TTcXcKvs ye k€ k€lO' idoifxev aTravras
* But all the axes we might leave to stand yonder.*
It seems then a choice has to be made between : —
(1) ye KoX avO*
(2) y€ KaravO* (kut av6*)
(3) KOL Ketff
and the second should I think be preferred, if only because xat
gives an overdue emphasis to the following adverb.
Perhaps Duentzer's ircXcKcas hvoKalh^K iw/xev may be worth
recording for its misdirected ingenuity. It is unmetrical because
of the diaeresis in the fourth foot and makes aTravra? quite
inadmissibly prosaic. Even as matters stand, Prof. Hartman
with too severe a logic condemns aTrai/ras as corrupt. To mc the
word, though it be logically superfluous, seems natural and
right.
For the rest, dvaLpya-ea-Oai is probably a modernization that
has displaced dvapprjo-io-dai, i. e. dvaFpT^a-eaOai, as suggested in
the Note on a 403 f.
As the result of the considerations here tentatively advanced
the passage would, I believe, gain, if not its pristine purity, at
least some amelioration of its preseni harshness by being read
thus : —
380
BOOK XXI <|> 259-318
T6S Se Kc To^a TiTaivoiT ; aXXa eKrjXoL
KarOer' arap ttcAc/cus ye KaravO' cato/xev aTravras
ia-Tajjiev' ov fjikv yap riv avappyja-ecrOaL otto
iXOovT €S fieyapov Aae/artaSeo) 'OSvotJos.
4> 293] otvos crc rpwct /AeXtiySi^?, 09 t€ /cat aAAovs
ySAaTTTCtj OS av /xiv ;^avSov cAt; ftryS' atcrt/ta TrtVry.
The correction of os av to o k€v does not seem satisfactory.
The generality of the clause makes against kc. It would be more
in accordance with epic usage to read : —
OTts fiLV xavSov €\rj — ,
as in such passages as v 187 : — ol re kol aXXovg
oLvOpwTrovs; 7r€/x,7rov(rii/, on? o-^cas €i(Ta<f>iKr]TaL (= tt 227—8).
Also a 352, fji 66, V. H. G. § 283.
4> 31S] jxrjSe Tis vfJi€i(i)V Tov y ecviKa Ovfxov a)(€v<i)V
ivOdSc SaLvvcrOo), cTret ovBk fiev ovSe eoiKev.
With these words Penelope concludes her repudiation of the
idea that she would regard the success of the beggar-man in his
attempt to bend the bow as giving him a claim to her hand in
marriage. He himself, she says, is under no such delusion ;
neither, she proceeds, ought any of the suitors to be so. There
is however a marked peculiarity of expression in these two lines,
which has not escaped the attention at any rate of the latest
editor Dr. Monro. He points out truly enough that ' the
logical predicate is Ovfibv dx€ij<ov, the sense being, "let no one
of you that feast here vex his soul on that account." '
So true is this, that had the first line only appeared with
dxevot or an equivalent imperative : —
/jLTjSi Tis vjxeiwv TOV y civcKa Ov/xov d;(cuot.
if the speech had ended so, the meaning would have been
sufficient and complete in itself. The next line therefore — and
this is the main strand of my argument — merely adds what may
be called subordinate detail to the principal prohibition. More-
over to some extent the main proposition is thrown into the
background by this lengthy appendix of less important matter.
To use a familiar illustration, the tail is as long as the dog.
The only poetical and really effective arrangement would be
that the chief predication should come last, after the subordinate
detail, and this is probably the way the lines should stand, if we
wish to have them as originally uttered by the poet : —
381
<t> 318-402 ODYSSEY
firjSi T19 vft€io)v, cTTCt ovSc fX€V ovSe coikcv,
ivOdSe Satvva-Ooi rov y etvcKa 6v/x6v a)(evo)V.
*Let no one of you — it would not indeed be meet so to do-
while he feasts here, on that score vex his soul.'
Now if nothing could have been urged against this couplet as
tradition gives it save the hiatus in the third foot of 1. 319, it
would perhaps have availed little to raise any question about
its correctness. Still this hiatus is at least confirmatory evidence
in favour of the change now made.
The new order of the words certainly conveys Penelope's
meaning with enhanced emphasis and effect, and if no hiatus
licitus be left in the lines, surely no one need vex his soul on
that score.
4> 335I Trarpos 8* i^ dyaOov y€vo<s cv^cTat c/x,/x€vai vlo^.
Unless this line be a mere interpolation, and as such be
removed altogether from the text, vtos which throws the con-
struction into confusion (v. H 113) should, I suggest, be changed
to avTos, ' his own tale is — .'
^ 363I irXay KT€ ; rax av a icfy v€(T(TL kvv€<s Ta;(e€s KareSovraL — .
There is not much use for av in this sentence. Probably : —
Td)(a <T €cf> veacTL — .
The lengthening of the short syllable is justified by M 231, Y 434,
<r 77, <^ 219, i 151, t 293, K 238, X 219.
<)> 393] ctcropocov *OSv(rrja. 6 8' T]Br] Toiov evw/xa — .
Read '08vo-^'. 6 8' dp* ^877 — .
There is good warrant for the elision at the end of a
clause in this place in the verse, cf. N 192 o-/x,€p8aA,€<t) kckoA-v^^'*
6 8' dp do-7rt8os — , A 156, E 731, ^ 520, &c.
<|> 402^ at yap Brj too-o-ovtov on;(rtos dvrtao-ctcv,
u)<s ovTos TTOTC TovTO SvvrjcTiTaL ivTavv(ra(r6aL.
This is the speech of one of the suitors, as they all watch
Odysseus handling and examining his bow. Dr. Monro in his
note says it is a piece of poetical irony and translates thus : —
* Would that the fellow (ovtos) may benefit by it in proportion
as he is sure of being able to string this bow.' * A.s he shall be
able ' is perhaps necessary, as the measure is not the confidence
of Odysseus in his own ability to perform the feat, but his
power to do so. * May his profit equal his achievement,' is the
38a
BOOK XXI <1> 402-406
sense. The implication is, that both will be nil. The irony is
twofold. First on the part of the suitor, who evidently does
not believe that the beggar-fellow will be able to string the
bow. Secondly, on the part of the poet, who wishes his hearers
to see that the wish was really fulfilled, but not as the speaker
intended.
There are, however, some serious objections to the passage
as it stands, ovtos properly belongs to the first clause ; roa-a-ovrov
and ws are not satisfactory correlatives ; and last, but not least,
TTOTc in the second clause has no meaning whatever and is most
judiciously ignored by all the commentators and translators. So
far now from thinking the temporal adverb is of little moment,
it seems to me to be a crucial point and to afford a valuable
clue towards the complete restoration of this embarrassed couplet,
which in short I propose to read thus : —
at yap 8r] tws ovto^ ovqaio'S dvTtocrctcv,
(OS ov Tt9 TTOTC TovTO SvvT^CTeTat €VTavvcra(T6aL.
* May this fellow find blessing (i. e. have his attempt blest with
success, cf. ovrjfievo'; jS 33, &c.) so and no otherwise, as one and
all shall never be able to string this bow.'
The negative is necessarily implied by ttotc, and as soon as
this fact is recognized, the rest follows with the utmost facility.
When T(os had become obsolete, the transliteration of
TocoYTOc, i. e. Tws ovTo<Sy into toctovtos would be inevitable, and
the pressure of metre and meaning would soon evolve the
traditional roa-a-ovrov (cf. B 330 tws and rocro-' Aristarchus).
Then follows the necessary change of ov ns into ovros, with the
result that the unfortunate ttotc is left forsaken and friendless,
positively in a state of suspended animation, as we see it in our
texts.
For Tws with its correlative ws compare V 415 : —
Tws 8e a-* a7r€xOyp(o, ws vvv CKTrayAa fjilX-qa-a.
Clearly, as everybody is sure to fail in the attempt, the
ironical suitor in wishing Odysseus success so far as is compatible
with this universal failure, which is to last for ever, gives way
very little.
<(> 406] ws or avrjp <f>6pixLyyo^ iTnarrap.evo'i kol dotS^s
prfiSLOiS irdvva-a-€ veo) irepl koXXottl ^(opByjv,
aij/as afi<f>or€p<ad€v evorpe^cs ivrepov oios, —
383
<j> 406-x 5 ODYSSEY
It is a surprise that the peg (koAAoi/^) to which the string
is fastened should be represented as *new'. Duentzer very
properly thought that the newness should rather belong to the
string and proposed to read verjv. More recently Prof. Tyrrell has
suggested hdvva-a-ev €a>, which Dr. Monro in his edition (p. 288)
seems to approve.
I believe the problem can be solved satisfactorily by changing
one letter only. I would read : —
prfi8L(i)<s €T(xvv(r(r€ vow Trcpt koAAotti ^opSi^v,
* Easily stretches a string skilfully about the peg '.
For confirmatory evidence let me quote : —
^319 -^ 8k fJioX rivi6^€V€Vy 07r(05 a/A* CTrotaro ttc^oI
dfji(}iL7roXoL T 'OSvo-evs re* v o o) 8* CTrc/JoAAev Ifxda-OXrjv.
196 ov yap TTODS av Ovrp-os dvrip roBe pltjxclvowto
ir
u) avTOV y€ vow,
Hymn. Herm. 484 i^O^yyofxivrj iravTOia vdo) \apL€vra SiSda-KeL — .
These passages establish the use of vow in the sense of * with
skill ', ' with intelligence ' ; in prose we have avv vow.
Here it is the trained skill of the artist that enables him to
do the work easily.
<^ 424] TrjXefiax ov <t 6 ^€ivo9 cvt fi€ydpounv cXcyx*'
yfl€VO<Sy OvSe TL TOV aKOTTOV ^fl/3pOTOV OvSc XL TO^OV .
The article in its full later use appears twice in these lines.
For 6 ^€tvos see Note on p 1 1, and for tov o-kottov, the only instance
with (TKOTTos, read : —
OV^ dpa Tt O-KOTTOV — .
ovSe Tt TTov would be closer to the tradition ; but this is not a case
in which palaeographic indications can be relied upon in any great
degree. The combination ov8* dpa is too well known to require
illustration.
BOOK XXII (x).
X 5] ovTOS /x«v 8^ ac^Aos daaros CKTCTcXccrraf
It does not seem at all satisfactory to render daaros either
< decisive ^ (Monro) or ' terrible ' (Butcher and Lang), iroXvpXapi^
(Schol. V), or the reverse * harmless ' (Schneider).
I suggest that the sense is * flawless ', in American language
the contest is * straight ' ; there is nothing one-sided or under-
handed about it. It cannot be marred or spoiled by any trick
384
BOOK XXII X5-2I
The winner would succeed by virtue of an absolute superiority,
which would be brought out by the contest : —
ov yap 6t(o
p>yt8to>s ToSc r6$ov ev^oov €vravv€(rOaL.
Buttmann's * inviolable ' is not far from the mark in itself, but
his further explanation ' that which we ought not to speak
slightingly of \ * honourable,' * distinguished,' is not of the
slightest value. The Greeks were quite familiar with contests
that were won by indirect means, e. g. Atalanta's race, the chariot-
race of Pelops. This contest is * unimpeachable ' in two respects,
(i) in its perfect fairness, every competitor having an equal
chance, and (2) in the fact that it was a real test and would
require a display of exceptional strength and skill on the part of
the victor. It is * faultless', because no one would have any
ground of complaint, whatever might be the issue. It is in fact
a genuine match, not-damaged by any suspicion of unfairness.
X 21] (TtTOS T€ Kpea T OTTTO, <f>OpVV€TO. TOt 8* 6fX(iBY)(TaV
fxvrjarrjpes Kara Sia/xaO*, ottods lSov avSpa TrccrovTa,
iK 8k Opoviov avopovarav opivSivres Kara Swfiaf
TrdvTO(T€ TraTrratVoKTCS ivSfi'qTovs ttotI toi^ovs'
ovSe Tnj doTTts er/v ovS* akKLfxov cy^os eXecr^ai.
V€LK€Lov S' 'OSvcr^a ^oXa>Tot(rtv eTreea-cnv.
Duentzer deleted from the passage 11. 24-5. Kirchhoff, with
whom Dr. Monro (1891) agrees, regards the two lines and
'probably 1. 23 ' as a spurious later addition. Since the suitors
do not yet think they are in any personal danger, imagining as
they do that Antinous had been slain by an accident, there is no
occasion for them to look for weapons on the walls. This argu-
ment seems quite sound, and disposes of 11. 24-5 ; but I must
demur altogether to the inclusion of the graphic 1. 23 in this
condemnation. It seems to me morally certain that this line is
genuine, and equally certain, as I will try to show, that 1. 22 is
not. The only real objection to 1. 23 is that Kara Swfxa virtually
repeats the Kara S<a/xaO' (Swfxa F P Z) of 1. 22. But what if 1. 22
be the real offender? My objection to 1. 22 is that it is useless
and manifestly owes its origin to a supposed necessity to define
precisely who are meant by the rot in rot 8' ofidSrja-av. There
is of course no such necessity, as may easily be shown. When-
ever there is no real ambiguity, rol Se (ot Se) is used frequently
AGAR C c 385
X 21-55 ODYSSEY
without further definition. A striking example of this is w 205,
where the persons referred to have not been brought directly
forward since the conclusion of the last book. So A 618, ♦ 26,
c 200, 8 If K 109, and passim.
The interpolator having then for the reason mentioned
written down fivrja-rrjpe^, which explains rot most correctly, then
borrowed Kara Sw/xara from the end of the next line and finally
completed his verse by a happy reminiscence of A 745 ; —
l^rpearav oAAvSis aA,Xo5, circi tSov avSpa irta-ovra — ,
with a slight contamination of 459 ottcds i8ov. The passage
would accordingly originally read thus : —
crtTOs T€ Kpia r ottto, (jtopvviTo. rol B* b/xd8r](rav
CK 8c Opovoiv avopovcrav opivOevre^ Kara Sw/ta,
veiKdov 8' *08vcr^a xo^^tolo-lv lirUaa-LV.
X 553 arkp afi/xes oina-dev dpecra-dixevoL Kara Srjfiov,
oo-cra roL cKTrcTrorat kol iSi^SaTaL iv fi€ydpoi(rif
Tifxrjv dficfyis dyovres inKocrd^oiov cKacTTOS,
^oAkov T€ )(pv(r6v T aTToSiixrofieVf €is o K€ abv icrjp
lavOy' irplv 8* ov Tt V€ix€(r<rrjT6v K€xo\(oa-6ai.
This passage has suffered severely at the hands, in all pro-
bability, of the rhapsodists. The commentators are undoubtedly
right in seeing in Kara 8^ftov an intimation that a contribution
would be levied on the community ; but neither Kara Srj/xov alone
nor dp€crcrdpi€voL Kara. Srj/xov expresses any such thing. Nor again
can dpea-a-dfievoi mean * making it good ' : it merely means * gratify-
ing thee ' in the most general sense, as in 415. This, I believe,
is what the rhapsodists intended 1. 55 to convey : — * But hereafter
we throughout the land gratifying thee,' i. e. * by way of giving
thee satisfaction '. And this is the only possible meaning of the
words as they stand. The poet on the other hand really meant
what the commentators try in vain to extract from the text, which
the rhapsodists have deliberately altered in order to prevent the
possibility of its being supposed that these island-princes con-
templated such a mean proceeding as a public levy or collection
to pay their personal liabilities. This dtrpeiris could not be
tolerated. But we, who are no more concerned to maintain an
artificial dignity for Achaean princes than the Greeks themselves
for Phaeacian lords (v 1 4), may restore to Homer his own line : —
drap dfxjxts ^irurOiv dy€ip6ficvoi Kara 87/iOV — .
386
BOOK XXII X55-n6
But more is necessary here : 11. 56 and 57 must be removed
altogether as intruders. The former has no tolerable construction
in the passage at all, and the latter has rightly been removed by
Fick. Clearly the naming of an exact value is incompatible with
the vaguer limitation of cis o xe, &c.
Lastly, lavOrj cannot be accepted in place of iavOrjr}, the real
epic form of the aor. subj. pass. This remedy, however, is easy to
find. He says * we will pay thee bronze and gold \ cis o k€ a-bv Krjp
laLvy, * until it warms thy heart,' that is, until our paying so much
makes you forget your wrongs. The mistake arises from regard-
ing Krjp as nom. instead of ace. cf. o 376 (Note). The need for the
pronoun a-ov now becomes apparent.
The whole passage would read thus : —
OLTap afi/Jbi^ OTTLcrOev aytipofievoL Kara Brj/Jiov
^oXkoi/ t€ )(pv(t6v t a7roB(ii(TO/x€v, et9 o k€ crbv Krjp
iaivTj' rrplv 8' ov ti vi/xea-a-rjrbv KC^oXwarO ai.
X 103] avTos T aiJi<f>L^aX€VfiaL twv, Swo-w 8k (rv^ijnri
Kol Tw ^ovKoXfD oAAa* T€T€vxrj(rOaL yap afieivov.
It is usual to look for some expression of feeling conveyed by
the article. Here in t<3 ^ovkoXw there is neither aversion nor
contrast ; there is simply corruption of the text. Read : —
KOL TO<ra /3ovk6X(o aXXa
sc. r€vx€a, a simple and natural expression, not to be confused
with the aXXo too-ov of X 322, ^ 454, to which its extinction here
may be partly due.
X 114] ws 8* avT<i)<s TO) S/Awc 8v€cr$r]v r€v\(ia KaXa,
Probably ws S' avrws /cat S^oie — . The other offender is <^ 244.
X 116] avrap o y', o^pa pxv avrw afxvvearOaL eaav ioi.
There is no variant of moment in our MSS. except ap.vvacr6ai,
which has some support: still the preceding 1. 106 : —
owrc OeoiVy eicos fjLOt afxvvecrOat rrap olo^tol, —
of which this 1. 116 is the formal repetition, almost as much, to
take a familiar example, as are words duly delivered by a
messenger, makes it very doubtful whether the gross hiatus in the
fifth foot — not even 7^c?<ws — ought really to be tolerated.
This feeling of doubt is considerably increased and deepened,
when we remember how unwilling the ancient grammarians have
frequently shown themselves to acquiesce in the ellipse of the
substantive verb, as it is called, in past time. Copious illustra-
c c 2 387
X II6-I49 ODYSSEY
tions of this — shall I call it? — desire for abstract completeness
having led to the production of whole lines of varying merit might
easily be given. The phenomenon is tolerably familiar to all
students of Homer, v. Notes on 8 694 and w 336.
One instance of the kind is particularly interesting, because
we possess through Aristonicus the valuable criticism upon it of
Aristarchus himself: —
^569 €v §€ la ^Irvxq, Ovrjrov Bi ? (f>a(r avOpoiTroL
€fxfx€vat' avrap oi KpovtST/s Zcvs kvSo<s oTrd^n.
In the former line iv Se P la {jnixn should be read {F = Fol). On
the latter here is the scholium : —
dOereirai, otl ws cAXciVovtos tov \6yov iviraie rt? avrov. Set Sc
Tip ' Ovryrov 8e I <f>acr avOpui-rroL ' irpocrvTraKOveLV to €ivai. kol otl
e7rt<^€po/x€vov to * avrdp ot KpovtSiys Zevs /cvSos oTra^ct ' evavTiov eori
Tw TrporpiiTovrL tov ^Kyrjvopa dvTKTTrjvaL to) 'A;)(tAAer.
This is pretty conclusive against $ 570, and there are many
others of the kind, v. La Roche's note on O 558. If one be
wanted from the Odyssey, iy 52 will serve the turn.
Here this same tendency has turned the original
/ » » /
Trap OLOTOL
into the unmetrical €a-av lot, which should be ousted without
hesitation.
Even earlier in this line avTw is probably a later modification,
and if so, the assimilation of the verse to its prototype 1. 106 may
be made still closer by reading it thus : —
avrap 6 y, ciws p-iv ol dp,vv€<rOaL Trap olcttol.
X ^30] kamwiT dy-)^ avT^s* /Mia K olyj yiyvtr l<f>opixri.
It is not sufficient to receive corraoT from two MSS. LW.
The expression is probably a variation of
ayx* TrapLordfjievov (k 377> ^ 455, &C.),
chosen to avoid any ambiguity as to the actual position.
Some, however, may prefer to borrow aivios from 1. 136 in
place of avrrj^. In any case avrrjs here is not to be defended by
the rjp€vo^ dyx avrov of 95, 534 where avTov has its proper
emphatic sense of * self \
X H9D pxLKpa TLvdacrovra^' p.iya 8* avTw <jialv€ro €pyov.
In M 416 /xcya 8c (T<f>L<ri <f>aiv€ro tpyov, which is possibly the
true reading here also. There the phrase describes not the feelings
BOOK XXII X 149-234
of the combatants, but the mere fact as Tie wed by the poet, cf.
Dr. Leafs Note. There was every prospect of a severe encounter
between them. Otherwise it would be easy to read here
T<5 8e )Lt€ya <f)atv€TO epyov.
X 186] Sr] t6t€ y ^8r/ kcito, pa<^aX 8' lkiXv^r^o l^dvrtav'
This is said of the o-aKos of Laertes ; but the sense requires
hr]v roT^ y TjSrj k€lto
* At that time it had already been lying by a long time ', cf. v 189,
^330 and the Note on y8 403. Probably the ending of the line is
spondaic eXeXwO* l/xavTiov.
The above conjecture has been anticipated by E. Schulze.
8r] TOT oLKTjSis is the ingenious idea of van Herwerden.
X ^97] ovSe ere y rjpLyeveLa Trap* 'OAccavoto poanav
Instead of rjpLyevcia read 'Hws Sea and compare the case of
^226 (Journ. Phil. xxv. pp. 315-16), where i(jDar<f>6pos has ousted
aarTrjp. A similar correction 'Hoa 8tai/ for rfptyiviiav is required
ij/ 347. See remark on ^ 26.
X 206] MevTopt €lSofJiivrj rj/uLcv Sijxas rjBk kol avSi^v.
Perhaps originally Trept fxev Se/xag rjSk /cat avSrjv, as also in the
other places where this line appears p 268, 401, o> 503, 548.
Compare y 112, 8 202 : —
Trepl fikv 9(.Uiv Ta^vs r}h\ fxaxy)Trj<s.
But fwXa is possibly a more suitable adverb here, cf. the
formula (x 178, &c.) : —
u)<s €<f)aO'y ol 8' dpa tov jxaXa fxkv kXvov 178' IttCOovto.
Of elSofievT} the root is clearly Fik as in eiKeA.09, ikcAos, eoiKa
(eiKvta), la-OS {Flko-os), and not FiS as in otSa, tSov, eT8os, ISvla, €iB<i)\ov,
SO that the real Homeric form is probably clKOfievrj,
X 231] WW? Brj vvv, oT€ (TOV ye ho^nov kol KT-q/xaO* t/cavcts,
dvTa ixv-qoTTipuiV oXofjivpeaL oXkl/jlos etvai ;
The extraordinary expression 6Xo<f>vp€ai dXKifxos etvat, which
ought to mean the utterly inapposite ' you lament that you are a
man of might ', might have originally stood thus : —
dvTa fxvrja-Tqpmv oXo^vpcat ; oA-Kt/xos eTvai.
' In presence of the suitors why art lamenting ? Be courageous.'
That 6Xo<f)vp€aL should be equivalent to oi fX€fiova<s or ov TeTXrjKas
is surely impossible.
X 234] 6<f>p' eiSrjs otos rot iv dv8pd<n hva-pievUorcn — .
389
X 234-251 ODYSSEY
If 6<f>pa be right here, the verse should be restored not by
reading /^tiSi^s for dSrj^, but by removing the needless tol : —
6(f) pa K€ el8rj^ 0109 iv dvSpdcn 8v(rfi€V€€(T(rL
or we may begin, following the common formula 6<fip' iv ciSw
(a 174, &c.):—
Elsewhere we have two instances of otfyp' clBrjs at the opening
of a line (0 420, t 348), one of 6(f)p' €l8y (0 406). Of these © 406
and 420 are manifest interpolations, and in t 348 6<f>pa L&rj<s
(cf. 6 432) is apparently admissible.
X 245] ocrorot €t' e^ioov TTcpt re xfrvxewv i/xdxovTO'
Tovs 8' ■^Sr] iSdfxaa-are yStos kol rappees tot.
Undoubtedly van Leeuwen and da Costa's «/t;x^s for xlwx^otv
is right, as also their Trao-a? i/a^xijv H* 443-4 ; but the second line
here, which roundly declares that those who were still alive had
been already killed, must either be removed entirely as an inter-
polation, such as I suspect 1. 238 rjfiev 'OS. — to be, or we must by
an easy emendation allow it to express the fact that it refers to
the others who were not alive : —
rov<s 8' dXXovs iSdfxaa-a-c JSlos kol Tap<fi€€<s lot.
Cf. i I93j 33^ 310, K 449, TT 404.
X 2513 '"'^ ^^^ h'h ^1^^ TravTcs i(f)Ur€ Bovpara pxiKpdj
dX)C dyid* 61 c^ Trponov dKOVTcaaT, at kc ttoOl Zevs
S(i)rj *08v(r(Trja fiXrja-OaL kol kvSo^ dpicrOat.
Twv 8* d\Xo)v ov KrjSo<Si cTrct ^ ovro? yc Tri(n}(Tiv.
The one object they are to set before them is to strike down
Odysseus. The others may be disregarded. They will give no
trouble, if Odysseus can be slain. Accordingly the advice given
to the suitors is — what? That, forsooth, they should not all
fling their spears at him at once, but that six should do so to
begin with, — a palpable absurdity if ever there was one. We
might almost say, the middle of this short speech of Agelaus
forgets both the beginning and the latter end. The recommenda-
tion is indeed a refinement of policy, to which Dogberry's charge
to the watch might afford a just parallel, but not one devised by
the poet of the Odyssey himself, rather by some critical gentle-
man who, forgetting the value of the divine protection enjoyed by
the hero, saw only too clearly that the plan of singling out
Odysseus as the mark for every spear must, humanly speaking,
390
BOOK XXII X 251-267
have been inevitably successful. To this feeling we may, I think,
trace the acceptance of the remarkable limitation to six. There
is no mention of any such number afterwards of course. In
1. 255 all (TrdvT€s) hurl their spears.
What the poet really recommended was, I believe, the natural
proceeding (and the actual one also) that all should cast their
spears simultaneously at Odysseus, the only, or at any rate the
best, method of achieving the object in view.
The question is therefore : Can we make out what the words
were, before they were made to convey the preposterous sense we
now have to tolerate ?
By a process of contamination, of blending the two lines
into one, we might attain a reasonable recommendation, e.g.
Tov Br) vvv ajxa TrdvT€<s aKOVTLcraT
But this is rather cutting the knot than untying it. The
residuum, the yn^, the 1<j>Ut€ Sovpara fiaKpdj the aXX dyeO' ol e^
' -n-pioTov, though inconsistent with the manifest tendency of the
rest of the speech, and the sequel of the action as it proceeds, is
very large for an adventitious accretion.
As we have it, 1. 251 is a prohibition, and there is no reason
why the recommendation to adopt new tactics should uot be pre-
ceded by an exhortation to abandon the old ones.
Tto vvv fJLY] TrdvTecro- a/x,' i<f)UT€ Sovpara fxaKpd
is not a very serious transformation of the received text. In fact
only two words have been made to change places. Even this
might be avoided by reading
Tw VVV fjiij (T<f> dfia 7rdvT€(r
But in the next line we must sacrifice at least ot l^. The sense
requires something like either : —
(1) dAA' ayc^' avTov -TrpiUn-ov aKovrCa-ar
* But come shoot first at himself.
(2) aXKd € OLOV TrpCnov (i. e. to)
* But shoot first at him alone \
The two last letters of oXov (-00) may have been mistaken for
the sign of the number six, and this may have originated all the
present confusion.
X 267] Evpva8r/v S' dpa TT/Xefta^os, "EAarov 8c crv^iorrjSi —
Probably the true reading is : —
T7}\€ixa)(o^ 8' ap* lA* ^vpvdSrjv, —
391
X 267-302 ODYSSEY
A verb is certainly required earlier than €7r€<^v€ in 1. 268.
X 2S9D fJ'-vOov €7rtT/3€i//^at, €'7r€l rj iroXv <f>€fyr€poL eto-i.
Hymn. Dem. 148 Srj yap iroXv <f>ipT€pot cto-i.
In a few cases the Hymns seem to have preserved the older
reading. The phrase cttci . . . ctcrt always has a long syllable pre-
ceding (t 276, /A 109, <f) 154) except in one instance w 89 q. v.
X 302] ot 8' ws T aiyvTriol ya/JiAf/u)vv)(€s ayKv\o)(€LXai
i$ 6p€(av ikOovre^ kir opviOea-cn Ooptoo'c
ral fX€v T ev TreSio) v€<f>€a TmsXTcrovcrai tcvrai,
ot hi T€ TttS oXcKovfrtv iiraXfxevoLy ovSi tis uAk^
ytyvcrat ovSe <j>vyri' )(aLpov(ri 8c t dvcpcs orypy
This fine simile is marred only by one word. Remove this
one word and all is consistent and plain from the beginning to
the end. It is indeed a curious fact that this particular word,
v€<f>€a (1. 304), is removable not only without detriment to the
description, but with manifest advantage to both sense and
grammar. Let us make the experiment by translating the passage.
* But they (Odysseus and his men), just as vultures with
crooked talons and curved beaks come from the heights and dash at
the smaller birds. These on the low-land cower and scurry about,
while the great birds pounce upon them and kill them. There is
neither resistance nor escape : and men rejoice to see the sport.'
There is nothing here to cause even the slightest difficulty.
But now let v€<^€a resume its place, and all is confusion. The
commentators are at logger-heads, almost at one another's heads.
We have the authority of ancient scholia and Eustathius for
taking vec^ea as = * nets ', * fowling-nets,' so that v€<f>€a Trrwcra-ov-
o-at may mean either (i) * shunning the clouds ', or (2) * shunning
the nets '. If the latter be accepted, then the alyvinoC become
trained falcons, and the avipi^, instead of being merely deeply
interested shepherds or rustics, are fowlers pursuing their proper
calling. Here is the picture : —
Not half so keen fierce vultures of the chase
Stoop from the mountains on the feathered race,
When the wide field extended snares beset
With conscious dread they shun the quivering net :
No help, no flight ; but wounded every way,
Headlong they drop : the fowlers seize the prey.
Pope.
39a
BOOK XXII X 302-325
This Yiew of the passage is still held by Naber (Quaest. Horn,
p. 63 f.), but is generally rejected as inconsistent with i^ opcwv
cX^ovT€s. On the other hand if (i) * shunning the clouds' be
taken, we have to understand, either that the birds are trying to
avoid a storm which is raging in the mountains, or that they are
quitting the cloudy highlands where their natural enemies, the
alyvirioL, have their homes and haunts. There is still however
another difficulty, an insurmountable one, I fear. TLruicra-oi is
properly an intransitive verb, meaning ' I crouch ', and vi<f>€a
TTTtixTa-ova-aL is just as senseless in Greek, as * crouching the clouds,
or nets' would be in English. Cf. A 371, E 634, H 129, <E> 14, 26,
p 227, o- 363, and KaTaTTTwa-a-o) A 224, 340, E 254, 476. Against
this array we have one doubtful passage (Y 427). Whatever may
be the reason for the anomaly there, here I think the solution is not
unattainable. I would read with the alteration of one letter
only : —
Ttti fiev r iv xcSto) vc^ct Trrtoo-crovcrat icvrai.
They on the low ground cowering scurry in a drove. This sense
of v€cf>o<s, though rare, is unimpeachable, as witness : —
A 274 TO) Se Kopvcrcrea-Orjv, a/jia Sk v€(f>os €L7r€TO ttc^wv.
^133 Trpoa-Oe fxev l7nrrJ€<s, fxera 8c ve</>os cittcto ttc^wv.
n 66 tiSrj Kvdveov Tpwiov vi<j>o<i d/x^iyScySryKc — .
and even more conclusively, because, as here, we have a drove or
flight of small birds pursued by a falcon : —
P 755 TWV 8' WS T€ \f/apU)V V€<f>OS €p)(€TaL rj€ KoXoLwv,
ovXov K€KXyyovTe<s, ore irpotSwa-iv iovra
KtpKov, o T€ (TfiLKprja-L <f>6vov (f)ep€L opviOtcTcnv.
Lastly, that the dat. vi<^d could be used thus to describe the
manner of the flight may be safely inferred from the explanation
of the instrumental dat. given by Dr. Monro, H. G. § 144 : but
I will add an exact parallel which should dispel any doubt : —
$ 606 TOfjip akXoi Tptucs 7r€<f)0^r)fjL€VOL rjXOov ofilXta
a(r7rd(TL0L Trpori darv — .
X 319] <J^5 o^*^ eaTi X'^P'-^ fxeTOTTLcrO' cvcpyctov.
This remark recurs 8 695 (v. Note ad loc), where it has at
least a definite reference. Here it has none. The speech should
certainly end at ov n kopyu)<s (1. 318 corr. Cobet).
X 325] ■''^ o^*^ ^^ BdvaTov ye BvcrrjXeyea irpocftvyotcrda.
Duentzer's introduction of the more usual epithet ravrjXeyia
393
X 325-422 ODYSSEY
is perhaps right, but undoubtedly the clear positiveness of the
subjunctive and not the concessive politeness of the optative is
here required : —
Tw ov K€V OdvaTov y€ hvorqXeyia 'Trpo<l>vyrj(r6a.
Cf. iOcXyarOa, etTrrja-Oa. There is fair MSS. authority for irpo-
f^vyyja-Oa (LW, Schol. M. et post corr. U'^ Ludwich). In 1. 392
cLTTOifxt is now read for the vulg. etTroL/xL.
X 35^11 to'X^o /xrjSi TL rovTov avaiTLOv ovrac )(a\K(o'
The present imperative ovrae probably represents an original
aorist — compare the (suggested) cai; and oXwcd of <r 265 —
ovraOi
V. Monro, H. G. § 5, p. 5.
X 362] 7r€7m/a)9 yap €K€lto vtto Opovov, aficfii Sc Sep/xa
lo-TO y8oo9 vioSaprov, a\vaK(i>v Krjpa /xeAatvav.
As Medon had been for some little time comfortably or un-
comfortably settled under the chair, we must read vtto Opovov, and
for the sake of the metre
TTCTTTI/O)? yap €K€t^' O y VTTO OpOVOV .
Cf. y 64, X 52.
X 372] 6ap<T€iy cTTCt hiq (T ovTO'i ipvcraro kol ctrcuocrcv,
ocftpa yvws Kara Ov/xoVy drap ^hrrjcrOa kcu oAAo)
That Kai (T €(rd(o(T€v (Knight) and not 178' ia-dwa-ev (Bekker) is
right here, is abundantly clear from 1. 312 (= 344), 8 364, c 135,
7j 256, 8 765, r 408, E 118.
For the second line — yvov? — a<^ap — see Note on (^ 228-9.
X 3S2] ^(oos vTTOKXoTreoLTO dXvcrKwv K^pa /xcAaivav.
Probably ;)( 363 has determined the participle here, for which
vTraXva-Koiv seems to me quite necessary.
X 3^^] SiKTVcp iiipva-av TroXvwTrw' ol 8c t€ 7rai/T€9 — .
On metrical grounds rot 8€ tc should be read. v. Notes on
X 188 and p 114.
X 4^^J — €7r€t /xcya citrtSe cpyov
Dr. Monro's cio-aro is quite worthy of acceptance. It is
exactly what the sense requires, to say nothing of the hiatus.
X 422] Sfiioatj Tas fji€v T tpya SiBd^afiiv ipyd^€(r6aL — .
We have here a serious depravation and a very manifest
modernization of the true epic speech. The particle t€, removed
by Bentley, is entirely out of place in a sentence which is neither
general nor indefinite (v. Monro, II. G. § 332). The verb 8t8a^a-
394
BOOK XXII X 422-449
fi€v in the plural can scarcely be defended in the usual way ; for
the picture of Eurycleia taking this means of asserting her dignity
is a little too ludicrous. These objections are concurrent with
the significant neglect of the digamma in ipya and ipyd^io-Oat.
The line has therefore been ejected from the text together with
1. 423 :—
eipta T€ iaiveiv kol Sov\oaiJvr]v'dv€X€(r6aif
by van Leeuwen and da Costa following R. P. Knight. If how-
ever the modernizations and other changes are adventitious, there
is no shadow of reason for this rejection. Consequently, before
the line is condemned, an effort should be made to recover its
pristine form. If the effort be successful, not only is the couplet
saved, but we have a useful warning against over-hasty conclu-
sions that this or that must be an interpolation.
The simplest change that suggests itself to me for the com-
plete removal of the existing anomalies, would be this : —
SjJLcaai, ras /xkv cpya 8t8a^ o/xa ipyd^ca-Oai,
* bond- women, whom I taught to ply their joint tasks.'
We may compare k 41 o/xrjv oSbv cKTcXco-avTcs — but it is
hardly requisite to illustrate 6/aos at any length— the twelve
women employed at the querns, v 105-8, the recognized arrange-
ments of the Homeric household, and in general the necessity
that slave-labour should always take the form more or less of
gang-working.
The adverb a/i,a, I may observe, would be one letter nearer
to the tradition; but it would be over-refining on the palaeo-
graphic side to give much weight to such a trifle. *0/>ta is
near enough, and is a more likely word to have suffered extinc-
tion as, unlike the adverb, it fell into disuse and became obsolete.
It is essentially an epic word.
X 425] <^^' ^/^^ TLOvcraL ovt avrrjv TlyjvcXoTrcLav.
Neither this line nor the two that follow are quite free from
suspicion as later additions. Perhaps, if the line be retained, it
would be better to make the offence of disrespect a distinct ground
of condemnation : —
OVT* ifik ral yc Ttova- ovt avrrjv lirjveXoTreLav.
The 11. 426—7 about Telemachus must however be condemned, as
van Herwerden has seen.
X 449] '^^^ ^' ^p' ^' aWovarrj riOecrav evcpKcos avXijs,
395
X 449-460 ODYSSEY
We may easily restore the lost dactyl of the fourth foot by
reading
IriBevr' evepKto^
Cf. 8 781, ^ 52. Contrast 8 761 ev 8' eOer and iv 8' cri^et passim.
X 460] ctAcov iv (rT€LV€Lf oOev ov -TTODS yev dXv^at.
It is exceptional to find a dat. sing, of a stem in -cs which
is not scanned, when it comes before a vowel, as a short syllable
(v. Monro, H. G. § 105, i). This naturally arises from the elision
of the t of the dat. : for to take the two examples given by
Dr. Monro, riix^i wo Tpwcoi/ and 17 Ittci rj tpytoy an equally or more
correct writing would be Tct^c' and lire*. As ordinarily presented,
these words really exhibit a relic of the earlier Greek practice of
writing elided letters without visible mark of such elision, as in
Latin poetry of the Augustan age and generally.
The result in the present passage has been that Menrad has
proposed to correct the peculiarity by reading ctXeov ev a-revei —
Dr. Monro also says, ' originally perhaps a-revd ' — or etXeov es
oTcivos. The latter is adapted from <^ 8 €s iroTaixov ^IXcvvto and
X 1 2 €15 ao-Tv oAcv. The former is likewise approved and accepted
by van Leeuwen and da Costa, who print with a slight modifica-
tion, FiXXov ivi CTTevei.
Now undoubtedly the vulgate cv oTctVci is wrong in point of
metre ; but I do not hesitate to say that iv o-rcVct is doubly
wrong. It errs both in form and metre.
The form a-revos is utterly unknown to Homer, whether as
noun or adjective (o-tcvos). In later times of course the adj. is
common, but the noun is less well attested, being only found in
one place in a Chorus of Aeschylus (Eumen. 520). Homer
employs only orctvos, the noun, and perhaps it would be well to
set forth here the usage in full. We shall thus, at least in one
instance, destroy the idle fancy that ottcivos must be used with
the first syllable in arsis. Of course in general this syllable will
naturally be in arsis in a metre predominantly dactylic. Such
indeed will be the case also with t€lx'°'* ^^ almost any other word
of similar quantity. The first passage is : —
M 66 iTTTTcwrf OTcivos yap, oOl TpttxriaOai o«i>.
Van Leeuwen and da Costa after introducing (rrcVci into
their text (x 460) remark, 'Ceteris locis artLvoi dicitur, in arsi
enim est vocis syllaba prior.* Clearly Homer used (rrctvos
39^
BOOK XXn X46o
simply because no such form as crTeVo? was ever heard of in his
time. The other passages are : —
^419 aT€Lvo^ 680V KocXrjs tSev *AvrL\o)(os fxevtXf^PH'V^'
© 476 (TTUviL Iv aivoraTto Trepl liarpoKXoLo Oavovro^.
O 426 fxT] Srj TTOi xd^io-Qe fJi-dx^S iv oTCivct rf^Scy —
Then again cttcVci is yainly supported by an appeal to arevoi
pass. oTiLvofxat Y. Ebeling. It is sad to haye to demolish its last
hope ; but here the lexicographers are certainly at fault. The con-
nexion of (rT€V(o and crrctVo/Aat is hardly likely to be closer than
the mere lettering. (ttcVo), * to groan,' is connected with orcvaxw,
(TTevax^^oi, (TTova)(TJy (ttovos, aTova)(€(i), orovoci?, all distinctly con-
noting the vocal expression of pain or strong feeling. On quite a
different plane stand crrcivos, otcivowto?, and crrctVo/xat, which have
certainly nothing to do with sound. In the case of the first two
this is admittedly true. That it is also equally true of the verb,
the usage will show : —
or 385 au/^a K€ . . . 6vp€Tpa, kol evpia irep {xaX iovra,
<f>€VyoVTL (TT€LVOLTO SuK TTpoOvpOLO Ovpa^€.
^219 ovSe TL Trri 8wa/xat Trpox€€Lv poov ets aXa Suiy
OTCtvofxevos v€KV€acrL.
1219 rapcrol pxv rvpuiv ^plOov, cmCvovro 8c crrjKol
dpvwv rjS' ipL<f}(ov.
S 33 ov8k yap ov8* cvpvs Trep ioiv iSx/vrja-aro 7ra<ras
atytaXos vrja? xaSeav, ot^Cvovto Sc XaoC.
t 445 Xdyyta (Tr€Lv6fi€vo<i kol €/xot TrvKiva <f>pov€ovrL.
It follows then that oT-etVct in Homer cannot under any
circumstances be changed into the phantasmal a-Tevei, and as the
hiatus here, even if the change were possible, would only become
more intolerable than ever, the remedy must be sought in another
direction.
We may safely read : —
etXiov iv aT€LV€arcr, oOev ov ttcos ^cv aXv^ai.
Cf. Note on V 163.
The form crrciVco-o-' was at variance with later Greek ideas ;
but the Greeks were content, as usual, to simplify it into
oT€tV« : they left it to the moderns to propose orcvci, an utterly
impossible creation for the Homeric age, a mere incubus here, of
which all may say with the poet but without regret : —
Tov TTore fXifJLvrjcrea-Oai otofxai ev irep 6v€Lp<a,
397
X46(H'3 ODYSSEY
* Some day I ween I shall think of it, when I have the night-
mare.*
The infinitive is hardly tolerable here. I suggest
avXtvSc (rvfjievaL,
* rushing to their quarters,' ' to their bivouac' The expression
seems to be a military one, cf. I 232, or else pastoral, ' to their
fold ' like sheep, &c. (Hymn. Aph. 168).
BOOK XXin if).
i|# 3] yovvara S' ippwravro iroScs S* VTripiKralvovro.
OTTi 8' ap virkp K€cf)akrj^ Kai pxv irpoq fivOov f.€L-ir€V
As the ancient critics were profoundly ignorant of the word
vTrepiKTouvovTo, their suggestions and interpretations are exceedingly
varied but not very helpful. Aristarchus took it as vir- ipiKTaivovTOf
which is right so far as it goes ; but we have no information as to
the meaning of kpLKraCvovTo, except that he explained the whole
vTTfpLKTaLvovTo by dvcTTaAAovTo, B, word which may represent either
dv-€'7r-dX.\ovTO or dv-CTroAAovro.
Another derivation gives tKrap = cyyvs with v-rrep as the prep.,
elements which seem somewhat difficult to combine satisfactorily.
Heliodorus in Apoll. Lex. glosses the mysterious verb by
vTroKaT€KXu)VTOy ovK €VTovowT€s, apparently connecting it with ipiUu).
(piKvos 7rd8as Hymn. Apoll. 317.)
Crates gives as an explanation we/oc^cTetVoi/ro.
Lastly, we have a reading vTrepaKraivovTo or vTroaxrcuVorro
(Hesychius), to which is attached the explanation Irptpjov.
Most of these speculations fail to recognize the obvious fact
that the line is intended to convey an impression not of the senile
weakness, but of the extraordinary vigour and activity of
Eurycleia's movements on this occasion. For the time she has
thrown off old age altogether.
Under the circumstances I would venture to suggest that the
reading should be vrropcKTatVovro, or better, as the form is one for
which we have the warrant of Hesychius (opc/crtaw),
VTTOpCKTldoVTO
Of the appropriateness of op«yo/xat in this connexion there
398
BOOK XXIII 4' 3-44
can be no doubt "whatever. Not only have we N 20 rpU ftcv
opeiar iwv, but there is the closer parallel of 11 833 : —
Tttcov 8c Trpocrff "^Acropos cukccs lttttol
7ro(T(rlv opinpi^arai TroXe/xti^etv
In 1. 4 arri 8' ap vtrlp Ke<f>a\7]<s represents an original o-ttj Be
P (Fol) not only here, but where the line recurs 8 803, ^ 21, d 32,
and B 20, 59 (p! = /xot), * 68, O 682. For confirmation, if con-
firmation be needed, it is almost sufficient to recall Hdt. i. 34
avTCKa Se ol ev8ovTt liricmq ovetpos.
^ 8] p.vr](TTrjpa<i 8' Iktcivcv ayrfvopas, ot & cov otfcov
K?y8€(rKOV Kttt KTT^p.ar iBoV /^LOOiVTO T€ TTtttSa.
Nauck's reading ot co oTkov seems satisfactory as a restoration
of the metre here. But I find no other instance in which this verb
KrjSoi is used with an inanimate object, cf. I 615, t 402, P 550,
O 240, 542, E 400, 404, A 458, with the possible exception of
4> 369, though even there the infliction of pain upon something
sentient is clearly connoted. Here therefore I suggest
ot T€ P {Fol) aKOLTiv
giving a better summary of the offences committed by the suitors.
The reason why olkoitiv was removed, supposing it to have been
the original reading, needs no explanation.
iji 20] dAA' aye vvv KarajSyjOi kol aif/ €p;(cv /xcyapovSc.
Dr. Leaf in a note on P 142 gives up the case against -cv
unresolvable into -co because 'the Odyssey contains some nine
cases where -ev cannot well be avoided \ Presumably this is onej
but we may easily read
Koi avf/ iXOcLV yucyapovSc (or tcvai).
Compare p 22 (Note). Such instances as p 282 aXX* €px«v Trpo-
TrdpotOev, o> 323 dAA' to-^co Kkav6p.oio, A 251 vvv 8' f-p-)(fv 7rp6<s 8(u/Aa
admit of a simple transposition epx^o (iot^co) S4 and epx^o vvv.
For i/' 254 dAA* €px<^v, XiKTpovh* tofxev, ywat, o<^pa kol ■i]8r) the solu-
tion is given by ^ 45 dAA' Ittco, KXccrLrjvB* Lop,€v (cf. j/^ 32). Again,
8 395 avrr] vvv (f>pd^€v (rv has been well corrected by van Leeuwen
and da Costa avr^ vvv o-v <fipdZ,€. See also Note on o 310. Clearly
no reliance can be placed upon this supposed unresolvability.
»|r 44] TrjXifxaxos' tov yap pa ira'rqp TrpoirjKe KaXecrcrai.
Tov yap fxe seems preferable. Other similar instances are
A 113, P 600, $ 299, c 321, o 16. This line, however, looks very
399
^ 44-52 ODYSSEY
like a needless interpolation to tell the hearer who was meant by
aos vl6<s in 1. 43. The ending comes from 1. 51.
^ 5^] a^' Ittcv, 6<t>pa cr<f>o)'iv iv<f>pocrvvr}'S Ijn^rjrov
afJL(f)OT€p(ji) <}>Lkov rjTopj CTTcl KaKo. TToAAa TreTrao-^c.
The grammatical difficulties of the passage are insuperable,
unless we are prepared to entertain some of the wildest extrava-
gancies of scholastic or scholiastic criticism. We may treat a-<}>(oiv
as a nominative in defiance of accidence, or as a dative in defiance
of syntax. After that, we have to explain <^tA.ov ^rop as an
accusative of the part affected in what is called a ' constructio
ad sensum \ because forsooth iv<fipo(rvvrjs ctti^^tov is equivalent
to iixjipaivrja-Oov !
I have no hesitation in saying that for my own part I
cannot put faith in any of these things, nor can I recommend
others to do so. Indeed, even if we accept the ultra-Sophoclean
construction, and fling accidence and syntax on this occasion to
the winds, we are still faced with the difficulty, that i-mfirJToy
is a modernized form, the true Homeric form being admittedly
The MSS. give no variants except in the case of what is
apparently one of the least important words, d/A<^oT€/D<u FGPHU ;
afx,<fiOT€p<j)v XDLW post correcturam U 2 man. cum yp W ; ap,(f)6-
T€pov Ven. 457. This gives- us two uncertain elements to deal
with in the tradition, afjujioripd) (-wv) and the corrupt iinPrJTov.
Let us now see what suggestions have been made for the
restoration of the passage. (T<f>wi y Axt : o-<^(ut Kayser, Duentzer,
Nauck. iTnprjy Bekker, or as alternative ^lAo) ^op : cirt^SiJa-w
Hartman, with d/A</>oT€pwi/, as also Bekker.
Undoubtedly, any probable or acceptable emendation must
start from iinprJTov. Hartman's eTriyST/o-o) is not so flat as Bekker's
cTTi^i/jy ; but it seems very unlikely that the simple directness of
€inPrj(T(i) would ever have been displaced by the more difficult
I propose to read thus : —
dAA €7re*, o^pa crf^uav €V<f>poa-vvrj^ iin^T^aeL
ap,<f}OT€p(i)V <f>L\ov rjTop, CTTcl KaKOL TToAAoL iriTTaorOt.
* But come with me that it may transport the very hearts of you
both to the land of gladness, for ye have suffered many sorrows.'
The subject to eTrijSTyo-ct, I aor. subj. act. (= tTrifiijayj, as it
400
BOOK XXIII * 52-91
■would afterwards be written, and may be read here, if preferred),
is ' the state of affairs ', * the sight of it all,' pretty nearly the same
as the object to tSovcra, 1. 47, v. Monro's note ad loc.
In later times the indefiniteness of this subject would give
the first impulse to tampering with the verb. *E7n(3rJTov could
not but suggest itself to reciter or reader, and then of course
afxtjioripitiv necessarily gets a variant d/i^oTc/jcu.
For this usage of cTrtySatVo) (transitive) compare : —
Tf 223 ws k' €/>(,€ rov 8v(TTr]vov c/Aiys €7rt^?^crcTe Trdrp-q^.
© 285 rov KoX TT)X60* iovra cvKA-a'ry? eTTL/Srja-ov.
if/ 13 Kttt' T€ )(a\L(f)poveovTa (Tao<f>po(rvvr]<s eTri^Tjcrav.
B 234 dp)(ov covra Ka/cwv iin/SacrKip^ev vtas A^^atwv.
^ 7^] ^^^* CTTCV* avrdp iytav ifiiOev irepiSiixrofJiaL avTrj<Sf
at K€V (T c^aTra^u), KTctvat jjH oiKTcoTta oKidp<a.
The ordinary punctuation, as above, is misleading. The
second line has no grammatical dependence on the first. It should
begin ai Se kc <t i^aTrdtfxji or, if no verbal change be allowed, we
must read : —
avrap iyoiv ifjiiOev ircpiSwo'o/xat avrrj^'
at K€V (T iiaTrd<f>(j}j Kxctvat p.* oiktioto) oXeOpw.
^ 81] pxua <f}L\r), )(aX.€7r6v ae dioiv aXeiyeveraniiv
hrfv^a etpva-Oai, fiaXa Trep TroXviSpLV eovcrav
The verb €tpv(r6aL is totally unsuitable here. Neither guard-
ing nor observing nor drawing is here to the point. L. 151 seems
to have caused its introduction to this passage. evpea-Oai would
serve as far as the sense is concerned. Perhaps
8rjv€* i<f>€vpea6aL
may be tolerably near the mark. Srjve dvevpia-Oai (cf. dvixyeviDv,
X 192) is palaeographically closer. The meaning would be 'to
reach by discovery ', ' to get at by search.' 'Epcwacr^at may also
be suggested.
^ gi] rjoTO Kdro) opooiv, TroTcSeyfievo's et tl pnv ctTrot
iffyOcp^r} Tra/DttKOtTts, —
Neither in sense nor scansion is ct tl p.iv ^Xttoi possible. We
might read ct irpoTULiroi or ct k€ tl cIttol. The latter may be sup-
ported hj p 186 : —
crw OLKio Swpoj/ TTOTtSey/xevos, at kc iroprrjo-LV.
Or, again, hinroTc ctTrot (cf. H 415) would serve. Nor is the case
AGAR D d 401
^ 91-93 ODYSSEY
for the tradition in the least degree improved by the number of
possible alternatives.
<|» 93] V ^ o.v^tii 8^v rjoTOi rd<l>oi Sc ol rjrop acavcv*
o{{/€L 8' oAAoTC /x€v fXLV €V<o7ra8t<os cortSctr/ccv,
aXXoT€ 8' dyv<i>(Ta(TKe KaKa XP®*^ tl/xaT €)(ovTa.
This account of the behaviour of Penelope, when she enters
the hall to see whether she can recognize the slayer of the suitors
as her husband, is marred by the corruption and consequent un-
intelligibility of 1. 94. Nothing can be made of cvcoTraStoDs eo-iSco-Kcv.
The MSS. give ^wTraStV PH J, ^(ottiSiW FXDULWZ, cVwTrtaStW
M. ecrtSco-Kcv MSS. Aristarchus evioi rjiaKcv, dvrl tov uyfioCov. So
Ludwich, who adds from Voss Randgl. 70 ' legendum videtur
oAAore /acv fttv cwtkcv evwTraSwos ia-iBovara. Eust. et schol. pro tiaKev
legerunt iireyvu) [?] cf. w 217'.
Of ia-CSea-Kev it is enough to say that the form is here
absolutely impossible, setting aside the meaning altogether for the
moment. A Homeric hexameter can no more end with co-iSco-kcv
than a Latin one with invidebat. We have therefore, if we
confine ourselves to the tradition, only iFCSta-Kev and iFiFuTKOf to
choose between.
With regard to evawraStws the suspicion of corruption is over-
whelmingly strong. The word is of course unique, and the only
forms that throw light upon it are (i) Kar cvowra or Karcvonra in
O 320 : —
avTop «r€t icar* cvowra iSwv Aavatuv Ta;(i;7ra)Xo>v
orcwr,
where it evidently means * in the face of ', whether we take the
adverb or the adverbial phrase: — (2) ckowt^ E 374 (= ^ 510)
* openly \ It seems fairly clear, that cvowra is the ace. of a noun
cvcDTny, just as we have ttoKa (A 601) from iodki/, oXkl from akKiq^
vcTfuvL from v(r/uvrj.
That from this noun ivwir-q an adverb ivumaSiw^ should be
formed, is not only contrary to all analogy — it should at least
be KaT€vti)7ra8ia)5 — but even if conceivable, would be a glaring
example of linguistic wastefulness, as it could not differ in sense
from either Kar ivunra or ivw-rrjl, as explained above.
Let us now see how the passage is ordinarily rendered.
Messrs. Butcher and Lang, whose version cannot be bettered, have
the following : — ' But she sat long in silence, and amazement
40a
BOOK XXIII ^ 93
came upon her soul, and now she would look upon him steadfastly
with her eyes, and now again she knew him not, for that he was
clad in vile raiment.'
There is no true opposition here, such as is implied in aAAore
fi€v . . . aX\oT€ 8c. If we accept * now she would look upon him
steadfastly with her eyes', the natural continuation would certainly
be, ' now she would turn away her eyes,' cease to scrutinize him
in fact. But if we take as our starting-point the second clause,
* and now again she knew him not,' it is equally certain that the
only possible contrast is, ' at one time she felt that she recognized
her husband.' Now it is useless to say that this is implied in
* now she would look upon him steadfastly with her eyes .' This
is so far from being the case, that it is the very fact of her looking
upon him steadfastly with her eyes that makes her fail to recognize
him. The looking steadfastly upon him is the antecedent condition
both of recognition and non-recognition. Neither the one nor the
other would be possible without this earnest scrutiny ; it belongs
equally to both.
The condemnation then of cvwTraStws ecrtSco-Kcv is justified both
in form and substance. Is it possible to restore both without
disturbing too much the tradition ? At any rate I will make the
attempt, for the reconstruction quoted above as suggested by
J. H. Voss seems quite unacceptable, as also is Kayser's oif/e 8c 817
oAAoTc.
We have seen that t]utk€v, i.e. eFcFiaKev, has some claim here
and may be considered eligible in place of ccrt8co-Kci/, provided any
reasonably possible treatment can be found for the real difficulty,
€va)7ra8ta>s. Even of this the major part might be accepted, cvwTra : —
6if/€L 8' aAAoTC fJi€V fXLV ivwTTa . . . iFiFia-Kev.
* As she gazed at one time she deemed him like in face — .' To
whom ? To her husband necessarily. Therefore let us promptly
complete the line thus : —
oi/^ct 8' oAAoTc /Acv fJitv cvwtt' ^Ohvcrq kFiFuTK^v.
This at any rate gives a perfectly satisfactory sense to the passage,
and in the unwieldy tail of €v<07ra8ta)s, I think, may be traced still
some of the * disiecta membra ' of the name of the long-suffering
hero himself : —
eNOnA^iocei^ecKeN
eNOTTAO^YCeifeeiCKeN
D d 2 403
»|» 93-98 ODYSSEY
For the construction compare : —
E 1 8 1 TvBdSy} fXLV iyu) yc BatcfjpovL Travra F^FurKta.
^151 ^AfyrijJiiht (T€ iyti) yc, A tog Kovfyr) /xcyoAoio,
ctSos T€ fieycOos re ^viyv t ay-^ia-ra FiFia-Kto.
The texts have Ua-Ktii, which however undeniably (I need not stay
to prove this) represents FeFla-KU}. Following the analogy of these
passages, our line should appear thus : —
oi/^et 8' oAAoTC /X€V fxiv ivwTT ^OSvcrrji iiaKcv — .
The ace. iva>7ra corresponds to the Trai/ra of E 181, and to cTSos re
fieyeOo^ re <fivrjv t in ^ 152. Its appropriateness to the present
passage is marked. It is in the face only that Penelope can at any
time detect a likeness ; the general appearance (KaKot xpot eifiar
cxovTtt), when she regards that, forbids the identification which
the features suggest.
Probably enough, as van Leeuwen and da Costa suspect —
they make no change in the text — , the curiously contracted
dyv(o(ra(TK€ in 1. 95 for ayvorjcracrKf. represents an earlier dyvoico-Kc,
cf. A 537 yyvoLrj(T€. The formation would be analogous to wOea-Ke
from <o^€o> and ot^vco-Kc from ot^^vco).
\|/ qS'J TL(f)0' ovTd) Trarpos vocr<^6^cat — ;
This is supposed to mean, ' Why turnest thou thus away from
my father ? ', or more exactly, ^ Why keepest thou thus away from
my father?', because there is no question of turning in the
ordinary sense.
In reality, if the expression be a possible one, which may be
doubted, it can only mean : ' Why art thou quitting thus my
father's house ? ' (iraTpog = Trarpos Stofia, cf. y8 195 &c. &c.).
Now AS Penelope was not quitting the house, but merely
sitting still by the wall opposite to Odysseus, looking at him in-
tently at least now and again, the correct rendering has of course
no chance whatever. However, the true reading is in this case simple
enough, and will be found to fit the circumstances exactly : —
Ti<f>0' ovTU) Trarpos v6(T<f>' i^cai — ;
' Why dost thou keep on sitting there away from my father? '
Telemachus is impatient at the prolongation of her inspection.
As for i/oo-^t^o/xat taking the genitive, we may be quite sure that
in Homer it could not. Here is the proof : —
T 57 9» ^ 77> ^^^4 vo(r<f>L(T<Tafifvr} roBe SwfJM.
S 263 7rat8a r ifirjv vo<T<f>i(ra'afX€irqv daXafwv tc 7ro<rtv tc — #
404
BOOK XXIIl * 98-174
''^ 33^ ^^ T^P^^yrov ILprfrq'i opea vicfioevTa
vocr<f)L(rd.ixrjv.
The ace. is readily understood in : —
B 81 iJ/evSos K€V <f>aifji€V Koi vo(T(f>iZ,OLfjt.iBa ^aXXov.
A 424 rj h\ KVVWTTl?.
vocr<l>L(raT , ovSd fWL erXrj iovrt Trep ets *Ai8ao — .
This leaves but one other place in the Homeric poems, where the
verb is found, and it matters little whether we understand an ace.
or not: — A. 73 vocr<^io-^cts, ^quitting the spot.' Compare Hymn.
Dem. 92, Hymn. Herm. 562. Clearly the genitive in our passage
is utterly out of court.
We may accordingly without hesitation remove from the text
this abnormal voo-^t^cai. The inference from what we see here
is that errors in connexion with an obsolete word are of a deeper
dye — more irrational in fact — , than the corruptions of words
still in familiar vogue. If voar<f>iCofjLat had continued in use, the
mere recurrence of T^cat in the i^ofxivrj of 1. 99 would not have
troubled the severest censor of tautology.
»|j no] (rq/xaO*, a Srj kol vdi KeKpvfx/JLeva tS/xcv aTr' oAAcov.
Metrical experts denounce the short first syllable of
KCKpvfifxeva. G. Hermann condemns the participle : Hartman and
van Leeuwen and da Costa omit Kat disastrously : Monro suggests
vaJ : Bothe (for Kat vwt) /aoww. In spite of X 443 I venture to
think the line entirely correct, v. Note on 6 352, pp. 131— 4.
t|f 174] Sat/xovL, ovT ap tl /xeyoXt^o/xat ovr aOepL^to
ovT€ Xltjv aya/xat, fxdXa 8' €v 0T8' oto^ irjaOa — .
The difficulty here is in the ovt€ Xirjv aya/xai, of which I have
not found, nor do I expect to find, any satisfactory explanation.
Messrs. Butcher and Lang render quite accurately, ' nor am I too
greatly astonied ' : but if she was not surprised, she certainly
ought to have been.
Dr. Monro says she means ' I am not haughty or indifferent or
offended ' ; but though aya/xat might possibly bear the sense, * I am
offended/ there is no apparent reason for disclaiming offence here.
What could she be supposed to have taken offence at ? It seems to
me that the series of negatives has been accidentally continued- just
a little too far. ovtc . . . ovtc should be followed by a positive
reason for her behaviour. Therefore I would suggest : —
dAAa Xirfv SyafiaL
405
ij/ 174-233 ODYSSEY
*but I am greatly amazed, for I know right well what sort of
man thou wast.*
Apparently she considers the husband who left her was not
quite like either the beggar-man or the refurbished prince, Bifms
dOavdroLO-iv 6/xoto9 (1. 1 62).
^ 186-7] These two lines are probably spurious. L. 186 is
adapted from tt 198. OvSk fxaX rjpisiv is from M 382, and * living
mortal of men ' is a curious expression at the least. Lastly, the
whole idea is flatly at variance with the admission with which
Odysseus concludes his speech, 1. 202 : —
OvSc TL otSa
71 fxoL It* I/attcSov coTi, yvvaL, \€)(o^y rji ris rjBrj
avSpiov aAAo<r€ 6TJK€f ra/xwv vtto irvOfiiv iXairjs.
<|> 209] fx-q fxoL, 'OSvo-o-ev, ctkv^cv, cttcI to. irep aXXa fiaXurra
dvOpwTTwv TreTTwao'
It is clear enough that rd dXXa must mean * in other matters ',
'in all else,' as in o 540 and p 273 where it makes good sense.
Here it makes no sense at all, or conveys the absurd intimation
that the wisdom of Odysseus was only deficient when he was angry
with his wife.
What is required is something to this effect : —
eirct (TV trip eio\ov aXXtav
dvOpityn-oiv ttcttwctO'
His being the wisest of men is a reason why he should not be
angry.
'I' 21IJ ot vwtv dydaavTO Trap* dXXrjXouTL /xevovre.
The dat. vwiv is just as impossible here as it is that vwii'
should be the ace. either here or elsewhere, cf. 52 above. We
may read ot vw* rjyda-a-avro or, inserting a particle or adverb ttc/j,
TTov, or fxdXa : —
ot TTcp vw dydcravTO.
(|f 225] vvv 8', CTTcl ^Sri (n^fJULT dpt^pahia KarcXe^as — .
This instance of lengthening of -a of neut. plur. (v. Note on
p. 396) may be corrected thus (cf. t 464) : —
dpi<f>paS€* €v KareXe^as.
'I' 233] ws B* OT av aoTTcio-tos yrj vrjxop-ivouri ^a^Tj;,
wv T€ Uoa-dBduiv €Vfpy€a v^* evl ttovtw
pcua-ff, iTr€iyop.€VTji' dvip^ta KaX Kvpxiri mjy^'
iravpoi 8* €$€<f>vyov ttoAi^? dXos T^€ip6vB€
406
BOOK XXIII ijr 233
vrjxojJ'CVOL, TToAA^ 8c irepl xpoi rirpo^cv SXfirjj
cMTTTcunot 8* CTTcySav yan/s KaKorrjra ^tryovrcs*
That y^ is not Homeric can, I think, hardly be doubted.
The evidence is decisive. We have in the Iliad and Odyssey
nearly a dozen precarious instances of y^ against about three
hundred of yata. This result of the modernizing tendency is not
surprisingly large, and several of these instances may readily be
restored to order. For v 233 : —
Tts yrj ; Tts 8rjfjix)<s ; tlv€^ dvepes cyyeyaao-tv ;
vv^e have only to turn to Hymn. Apoll. 468 : —
Tis Srjfxos ; Tts yaia ; rtVcs ^porol lyyeyaacnv ;
In /A 27 ^ <i\os 17 67rl y^s, the position of the preposition is
enough to warrant ^ dXos ^ yaLrjs.
Again in T 259 r^ re koI 'HeAtos the re is quite needless ;
therefore read Fata koL 'HcAios undeterred by F 104 : —
r^ T€ Koi 'HcXticp, Att 8* i7ft€ts oi(rofji€v oAAov,
which is almost certainly an interpolation intended to explain
why one lamb is white and the other black, and for the rest
gratuitously introduces a third victim which is never heard of
afterwards, but just serves to fill up this line. See also p 237
(Note).
Here however we have an instance not so easily removable,
if we may judge by the attempts hitherto made, and yet it
seems highly improbable that this simile should have yrj in the
first line and your]^ in the last,
Fick would read, not without considerable harshness : —
a)S 8' oT€ yat' €<f>dvrj dairaoTos vrixofxevoLCL — •
Van Leeuwen and da Costa print : —
(Ls 8* 6t€ vr))(OfjL€voL(r do-TracTTos yatd tjtavrfQj
suggesting also : —
<i)S 8* oT€ K da-Trda-LOS yata vavrya-i <f}ain^.
This last idea has one merit ; it recognizes, as the other
attempts do not, that the error may be in vrjxop-fvoLo-ij which
may be, and probably is, merely adopted from 1. 237, vrjxdfJi^evoi,
to facilitate the admission of yrj.
The circumstances described in the simile are as follows.
The ship is damaged by Poseidon : in plain words, by collision
with a sunken rock or other mischance a plank is started, and
the vessel becomes water-logged. It does not sink, any more
407
i|/ 233-261 ODYSSEY
than does Odysseus* boat, a-x^Sirjy under similar conditions. It
is driven along by the wind over the rough sea, cTrciyo/xci/Tyv
avijjua Koi fcufxari iriyyo). The sailors do not abandon the vessel
at once and take to swimming ; neither did Odysseus. They
wait and endure the washing of the spray and the waves (ttoAXt/
Bk ircpl xpo'' T€T/3o^€v oi\/j,r))f until they drift within sight of
land. Then and then only they quit the half-submerged hulk
and take to swimming to reach the land they are so glad to
have descried. What were they doing while still on the water-
logged vessel ? Let me submit in reply my proposed correction
of 1. 233:—
ws 8' OT€ T do"7ra(Tios yat* €V)(0/x€voicn <f>ain^r}.
This association of ' sinking ships and praying hands ' is not
a mere touch of imagination on the part of Tennyson (Lotos-
Eaters). The picture was drawn long ago in full detail in the
Homeric Hymn to the Great Twin Brethren, xxxiii. 11. 7-12 : —
6t€ t€ (nr€p)((i)(nv acAAai
)(€LfJL€pLaL Kara ttovtov a/JLeLXi^ov' ot 8' aTro vrjdv
€V)(^6fX€VOi KaX.€Ova-L Aios Kovpovs fJLeyaXoLo
apvecTorLv AcvKOtcrtv, ctt' aKpwn^pui ^dvrcs
7rpvfJLV7]S' rr}v 8' avcyLtos re jxiyas kol Kvpxi Oakda-(Tr}S
OrJKav v7ro/3pv)(Lr]v,
<|» 248J w yvvat, ov yap irw TrdvTwv ctti ireipaT diOXwv
yiXOofxeVy aXX er OTncrOev dfierprjTos ttovos co-rai,
Surely co-rt, the variant given by F U and Eustath., is a
necessity here. oirurOiv Iottl is the equivalent of corat, just as * is
to come ' = * shall be '.
I further suggest that in 1. 248 TravTwi/ is an error for iravTO)?
(ov TravTws or Travrws ov = omnino non). We might render * For
assuredly we have not yet come ', cf. 450, v 180.
^I* 261] ctTT* aye /x,ot tov deOXoVf iirel koI ottiot^cv, oio), — .
It is not TOV deOXov alone that mars this line. There can be
little doubt that el-rr aye is corrupt, for in no instance, and there
are many, save this does aye follow a verb. It always precedes,
as in the common formula aXX dye (jlol roSe ehri : so ei 8* aye 8?}
poL . . . mWc9 (35 above). Here then the line should begin el 8*
aye or eV dye. This seems almost, nay quite, a certainty, if dye
be retained at all. We might continue thus : —
ci 8* aye elve fi deOXov, —
408
BOOK XXIII il* 261-314
We can easily see why and how the tradition would spring from
this, the elision of /xol furnishing the starting-point.
Another remedy would be to dismiss aye as erroneous, and
read the infinitive with imperative meaning : —
€i7r€/>tcvat' fjLOL aeOXov, — .
Cf. 355 KTrjixara. fxkv to. [xol JLcttl KOfXil^ifxev iv fxeyapoicri — ,
<|/ 2813 Odvaros Be [xol i^ aX6<s avroi
There can hardly be a contrast with Xaot (1. 283). Probably
aiTrj<s should be the reading, the natural contrast being the
permanent one between the sea and the mainland.
<|» 3M-] V^* ^5 AtoXov iKcO*, 6 fjLiv irpocfipwv VTriBcKTO
Kol irifXTr', ovSi ttoj at(ra f^iX-qv is TrarpCK LK€(r6aL
rjiqvy aXXd fitv avris dvapTrd^aara OvcXXa
TTOVTOV lir ixOvoevra <fi€p€v ^apia (TT€vd)(0VTa.
Ludwich gives the variants of the abnormal form rj-qv in
1. 316 as follows: — ^t/v M ; d-qv FZ post correcturam G^; ol-qv
K ; et-jy Y ; eta Vind. 5. Now although iq-qv is in every way in-
defensible (v. Note on a> 336, p. 425), it is quite impossible to
believe that Nauck's hrXero is the word that rf-qv has superseded.
The reading of K (al-qv) suggests to me, not liyv, — this has been the
misfortune of the passage — but the possibility of a more forcible
and rhythmical opening than the present spondaic one : —
(u<T lev, or as it would become alcr rjv.
Now I may as well say here, and the remark has an
important bearing on the problem before us, that supposing
ato-a and rjv or larC to occur in connexion in Homeric verse,
i. e. forming a predication, both words would certainly be in
one and the same line. The separation of the two would be
linguistically a barbarism or rather an ineptitude of expression.
We have the proper form of expression in ^ 511 : —
aiXcra yap rjv diroXia-Sai, —
Here in our passage we have the — ineptitude.
The substantive verb, as is also the case with pLolpa rjv or
60-TI, may in this phrase be omitted altogether, as from its
unimportance it most frequently is, but it cannot be trajected,
as here, into the next line. The reason is plain enough. Such
a trajection would emphasize intolerably the very word which
usage shows to be so little emphatic that it can nearly always
be left unexpressed, as in H 52, O 117, ^ 80, 8 475, H 434,
409
i 314-361 ODYSSEY
P 421, and with aura Q 224, c 113, 206, v 306, c 288, i 359;
o 276, n 707.
This being so, then of course ato-a must be removed from
1. 315, leaving the line imperfect. Let us see how it stands : —
KOU TTC/XTT*, OvSi TTO) . . . f^CkfJIV €S ITaTptS* LKifrOai
OUT €€V.
To solve the little difficulty here presented, let me draw
attention to the following passages : —
B 419 ws €<f>aTf ov8' dpa ttw 01 iir€Kpaiaiv€ KpovtW (= T 3^^^
N 521 ovS* apa ira> ti ttcttvoto.
P 401 ovB* apa TTUi Ti.
X 279 T]flfipOT€<S, OvB* dpa TTW Tt, OiOLS CTTlCtKcA,' *A)(tAAd5,
Y 205 6\f/€l 8* OVT dp TTW (TV €/XOVS tScS, OVT dp* fyw (TOVS'
Leg. apa — (TV y.
We may now easily restore : —
KoX TTc/tTT*, ov8* opa TTCJ € <l>iXrp^ €S TTaTplB* iKicrdai
ax<r TjVy aXXd pnv avris — .
apa = * as the result showed ', * as it appeared.'
^ 345!] OTTTTOTC 87/ p *OBvarja ccA-ttcto ov Kara Ov/xbv
Here we have a remarkable instance, an instructive
instance, of the failure of the traditional equivalents to represent
adequately the ancient forms. A moment's consideration of this
passage and the usage of loAjra is sufficient to convince any
reader that the true tense here required is FtFoXim or ^FiFokim.
It so happens that this word has assumed in the modernized text
the form €(oX^^€^ which is treated always as if its first two
syllables were metrically equivalent to those of liXirtro. We
have (v 328, <^ 96) aTrj$€(r(riv ecoXTrei for arqOea-crL FeFoXirtt. or
trTridta-(r iFtFoXirtL, and so in due correspondence ccXircro here is
treated as metrically the same as FeFoX-rrcey and we get instead of
a perfect verse one with the hiatus licitus so called, cf. 1 419 (Note).
ijr 361] col 8c J yvvaXf rdS* cttitcAAw ttiwt^ Trcp lova^'
The tTna-TiXXoi of Ed. Flor. Barnes and Cobet is not con-
vincing. The form tTriTcAAo) alone is epic. Perhaps a tmesis of
€7rtT«AAa> occurred here, and the present halting verse has arisen
from the attempt to remove it ; —
cot 8' €7ri raOra, yvvat, TeAAw
Otherwise there is no acceptable resource but to transpose Truorn}
v€p iovcrjj and ravr cTriTeAAw.
410
« 49-58
BOOK XXIV (a)).
w 493 Oea-irea-L-q' xnro 8c rpofws cAAaySc Travras *A;(a«)vs*
Probably a later accretion, cf. o- 88, A 633. The rush to the
ships in 1. 50 was not made with any idea of launching them and
sailing away. This would be a remarkable method of ayoiding
a noise rising oyer the sea (/3o^ 8' ctti ttovtov opwpct). The Greeks
made for the ships (koIXus vrjas) to take refuge inside, so that
there is no contradiction, as Aristarchus supposed, between this
line and 1. 43.
w 5S] d/x</>t 8c (T €<mj<rav Kovpai oXlolo yc/oorro?
OLKrp 6Xo<f>vp6fJi€vai, ircpl 8* aifx^pora ci/xara ccro'av.
It is quite in accordance with the customs of the heroic
age that the sea-nymphs should perform the function known in
leland as ' keening ' at the funeral of Achilles ; but I think
it will generally be admitted that the covering of the hero's
body with diyine raiment as a last tribute would be more
fittingly attributed to the mother herself than to her attendants.
In the case of Sarpedon by command of Zeus, Apollo himself
(n 680) pays this honour to the dead,
TTcpt 8' a/xf3poTa ttfiara tcrcrev.
Again, among the prerogatives of women in the heroic epoch
hardly anything is more certain than that the lady of the house
always kept in her own hands the charge of the store of clothes
and linen.
Now if reference be made to the speech of Agamemnon {the
^Jrvxr} *AyafjL€fivovo<s) in which our lines occur, they will be
found to constitute a resumption of the main narrative, in-
terrupted by a short passage (11. 48-57) describing the effect
on the Greek army of the mysterious noises from the sea that
were heard before the appearance of Thetis and the sea-
nymphs.
I do not mean to imply that the digression is not as ancient
and genuine as any part of the speech ; but I wish to point out
that the connexion of the main narrative should be maintained
in the epic manner as closely as if there had been no interrup-
tion at all. Accordingly the statement in 1. 47 having been
fn/nyp 8* ii oAos ^X.6€ — ,
4"
ia 58-95 ODYSSEY
apparently emphasized and recalled by its virtual repetition in
Nestor's speech 1. 55, v/e maintain the connexion far better
than at present, and gain other incidental advantages, by
reading 11. 58-9 thus : —
dft^t Bi cr IcrrqcTfy Kovpas aXioLO yipovro^
oiKTp 6\o<f>vpofX€va^f TTcpt 8* ufx^poTa eifJLara ea-aev.
One of the obvious advantages possessed by the suggested
restoration over the vulgate is the removal of the hiatus
(illicitus) in the middle of the fourth foot; another is the
exchange of the rare icmrja-av = lo-rav (there are, I believe, only
three other instances of the form in Homer, A 593, 822, and
K 391) for the transitive and unexceptionable coriyo-cv, cf.
A 298 Trefoils 8' i^oTnOt crTrjarev. The later name ST>7trt)(opos
probably implies one who performs duties resembling the action
of Thetis here. For the whole scene compare the description of
Hector's funeral O 719-22. The Muses here correspond to the
dotSovs Oprjvwiv iidpxovs, and cTTt Bk arevaxovTo yvvaiKcs expresses
the part taken by the sea-nymphs.
u 62] *Apy€L(DV TOLOV yap vTrwpope fwvcra Aiycia.
A certain interpolation. 'ApyctW is put in to prevent any
one supposing that all the Muses were weeping (v. Note on p 206).
ToLov . . . Xtycta gives of course an entirely wrong reason for the
general emotion. It was not caused by the Muses' singing, but
by sorrow for the hero's death. In the next line for o-c read
<r€ y,
W 80] dpLKJi* aVTOLO-L B* CTTCtTa —
Either dfx<f> av roLonv tirctra or dpxj>i Be rolo'iv hr€ira. See
Note on ^ 137.
w 83] ws K€v r>;A.€^av^s Ik vovrotfiLV dvBpdcriv eirj — ,
Read irovrov €$, i. e. ttovtol £$.
w 86] OrJK€ fxicrta kv dyatvi dpi(rrrJ€(r(TLV *A;(ata>v.
Here again a transposition has occurred with the definite
and supposed praiseworthy object of eliminating an elision of -i
of the dat. I submit we should read : —
6rJK€v dyiov* €vl /Atccra) dpi(rrq€(r<TLV *A^ati!>v.
*» 953 avTop ifwi Ti ToB* yBos — ;
Not as van Leeuwen and da CJosta suggest rt to ^Sos, but : —
dAAa Tt ftot ToSc ^80? — ;
Cf. S 80 dXAa Ti /xoL Tuiv ^Sos — ;
4ia
BOOK XXIV « 102-231
« 1023 eyvtji 8c \frv)(r} * Aya fjieixvovo<s 'Ar/aciSao — .
This ending 'Aya/xe/xvovos 'ArpctSao occurs four times in the
Odyssey (the other three being X 387, v 383, cu 20), and nine times
in the Iliad (A 203, B 9, T 193, H 176, I 178, 226, 388, E 137,
T 241). There is this notable difference. In every case in the
Iliad the syllable preceding is rightly and properly long per se.
In every case in the Odyssey this syllable is not . long except
by virtue of the questionable hiatus licitus doctrine.
'AyafX€fjLvovo<s alone without the patronymic to follow occu-
pies this place in the line in t 263 (here the patronymic pre-
cedes), i 70, 117. The two latter places are open to the
objection stated and have been already dealt with (v. Notes
ad loc), without reference to the peculiarity here noticed. It
seems to me permissible to infer that 'Aya/xifxvovo^ ^ArpetSao is
probably not Odyssean at all, but that 'Ayafie/xvovos in all the
four cases has displaced an epithet of 'ArpeiSao which left no
doubtful point about the metre. I suggest that this epithet was : —
/xcyaXr/TO/oos
Cf. I 109 (TV 8c o-oi fi€yaX.rJTopL dvfxio, where Agamemnon is addressed.
It is worth noting that in the Odyssey the patronymic 'ArpdSrjq
when used in conjunction with either ' Ayafiefivwv or Mcvc'Xao?
always precedes the proper names except in those lines which
exhibit metrical licence or failure.
(u 113] See Note on X 401-3.
w 118] fxrjvl 8* ap' ovAo) Trdvra 7rcprJ(ra/jtcv cvpca ttovtov — .
There does not seem much reason for iravra here. I suggest
iravTL, 'toto solido mense,' cf. k 14, /x 325.
« l8g] OL K d7rovt«/^avT€9 jjLcXava ^porov ii onetkeoyv — .
We should perhaps omit c^ and read : —
OL K aTrovL{]/avTe<s fxeXava ySporov wTctXacov.
0) 215] SecTTVOV 8' a«//'a (tvwv icpeucrarc os Tts apL(TTO<S'
We may easily remove the hiatus by reading UpevKraa-O'
{Upeva-aarOaL), cf . t 198 Acat jSovs IpevaracrO ai, Iva TrXrja-aiaro Ovpuov.
Or the usual active form may be retained by Upcvefiev.
<ti 231] aly€Lrjv Kvv€rfv kc^oA.^ e)(e TrivSos dc^o>i/.
The text cannot possibly be right here. irevOos dc^wv is
a very remarkable reason for wearing a skin-cap, i. e. a fur-cap.
It would be more applicable to the case of one who did his
gardening work in the tall silk hat of our own day. There might
413
u 231-244 ODYSSEY
be some martyrdom in that. Here the old gentleman guards his
hands with gloves ^Sarwv IvcKa, and wears leggings ypaTrrOs dAcetVtuv,
which is exactly parallel to irevOos ac^wv with respect to the cap.
It is impossible to accept the view that -rrevOos ae^wv applies to
his whole attire, which is obviously assumed largely for comfort.
TTcV^os seems to have got in here from 1. 233 below /Atya Se (f>p€(Tl
irevOos exovra. As a remedy van Herwerden has suggested ^oAiro?
aXeiiov and Schulze Trvtyos aXeicDv. Unfortunately neither of these
nouns can be shown to be Homeric. I prefer : —
ofi/Spov aXe^uiv or TrrjydS* dAc^tuv
which would give an equally good, or even better, reason for
wearing a fur-cap. Compare the passage in Hesiod descriptive
of the power of wind and rain : —
0pp. 514 Kttt T€ SlOL pCVOV ^ob<S ipX^TM OvSi flLV tO^Cl,
Kat T€ Bl atya arjcn Tovvrpixo-' irwca 8' ovri,
ovvcK iTrrjiTavaX Tpix^s avrcov, ov Star/crt
ts avcfiov Bopcou* Tpo;(aA,ov 8e ykpovra riOricn'
We are, of course, not in the least bound to suppose that the
recognition scene in the orchard took place in the pouring rain,
yet this idea may have led directly to the loss of ofiftpov dAc^wv
and the substitution of the inane tradition.
w 240^ irpityrov Kcpro/juois iiriicra-Lv TrupTjOTJvat.
The metrical difficulty is not insuperable. We may read
with some degree of probability : —
Trp&rov Kcprofxcoyv TrtLp-qBrfvai liri^crcrLv.
or irptoTov K€fyrofXLOL(TL €7r€(ra-L tl TreiprjOrjvaL.
* to make a trial to some extent.' The position of n would be
a little unusual, but not indefensible or unexampled. Kcpro/uowrt
cTTco-o-t form one idea and may be properly emphasized by being
placed before instead of after the enclitic pronoun, cf. <^ 217,
ijr 73, TT 88, X 305.
K€fyrofuois hardly has its usual sense of * provoking ', * mock-
ing.' Possibly K€p8aX€oiarL should be read,
w 241J] Ttt <f>pov€0}v iOv^ Kiev avTov STos 'OSvo-cev?.
See Monro, Note ad loc. We might easily read : —
kU TOIO y€ — .
w 244^ (o yipov, ovK a8ar}fiovLr) <r l^*' d/x^iTroXcveiv
opxarov, dAA' tv rot KoixiSrj l;j(«, ovSe Tt -irdfiiraVf
ov ffiVTOv, ov (TVKrjy OVK d/ATTcAos, OV jxkv ikairjt
4M
BOOK XXIV «244
ovK oyyyqi ov irpacrvq tol avev ko/aiS^s Kara ktJttov.
aXXo 84 TOL epeo), crv 8k fiy] •)(6Xov tvB^o Ovjjl^'
avTOV <T* OVK dyaOr] ko/aiS^ e)(€i, aXX afxa yrjpa<s
Xvypov €;5(€is av)(fi€L^ re KaKws /cat deiKca Icrcrat.
ov jjikv aepyir]<s yc ai/a^ €V€k ov cc Ko^ti^ct, —
In many respects this passage is a remarkable one. Pecu-
liarities of vocabulary, idiom, and metre are crowded together in
closer array here than anywhere else in the two poems.
Here alone a.8a7j/xovir]f avx/J-elSi and dcpyo; are met with.
vpaxTtri occurs in one other place (rj 127). These are trifles, how-
ever, beside the familiar later idiom ev€X€t(l. 245) and the atrocious
crasis in 1. 247, to which we may add the expression y^pas cx^ts.
Cobet proposed to read y^pas . . . c^ct o-', giving as faulty a position
to the pronoun as that which it occupies in 1. 251. Then, lastly,
we have the repetition of a hiatus which no one will defend,
for it is not even licitus, in 11. 245, 249. That in 1. 246 is of
course claimed as licitus.
It would be useless from every point of view to attempt to
restore fully the integrity of a passage on which the hand of the
modernizer has fallen so heavily, or in less exceptionable terms
the later developments of language have exerted so powerful an
influence. But ^vrov suggests, if it does not imply, some such
series of dependent genitives in 11. 245-7 ^-s this : —
ov8i Ti TrdfiTrav
ov <{>vt6v, ov avKTJS) OVK dfiTreXov, ov fiey cAaoys,
OVK oy)(yr]<i, ov TrdfXTrav dvev Ko/xL8rj<s Kara ktjttov.
Or instead of Trdfiirav, an emphatic repetition, we might retain rot
and read ov^ €v tol.
Of the dira^ Acyoftcm there is only one, avx/tcts, that needs to
be seriously objected to. Not only is it entirely without support
in Homer, direct or indirect, but the epic vocabulary comprises a
word which exactly, or almost exactly, expresses the idea it must
be supposed to convey, pinrow (t 72, if/ 115, ^ 87, v 435, cu 227).
In fact, Eustathius explains av^ftcts by pxnrov l^wv koX oAoirrwi/. I
suggest accordingly for 11. 249-50 : —
avrov a ovk dyaO-q KoiXL8r] €X^'> ^^ °-l^^ yrjpa^
Xvypov €x*^> pvTrdcts T€ KaKws /cat deiKea lo-crat.
In 1. 245 /co/xtS^s would give an idiomatic phrase which,
however, may be later than the Epic period.
415
» 263-285 ODYSSEY
b) 2633 a/*^^ i^ivw €/AU), T] TTOV ^<t)€L T€ KOL loTlK,
Read ^wct re koI tpircLy 'lives and moves.* The argument
used in the discussion of tt 437 is of force here. The vulgate is
flatly tautological, and possessed of no poetical merit. The idea
that power of movement is essential to anything that can be
called life is prominent in the myth of Tithonus. Compare also,
beside P 447 (= <r 131), the notable expression applied to
Odysseus himself: —
T]/X€VOS 7] tpTTiOV
* quiescent or bestirring himself '.
b) 273] '^tt*' o^ Swpa TTopov ^ciVT^ia, ola i(uK€i.
Here a strong case of hiatus licitus fails, as often happens,
to bear the slightest scrutiny. Elsewhere ^eivrjiov (-a) is a noun.
So that the true reading would seem to be : —
Kttt ol Swpa TTopov ^€Lvrjiov, Ota cw/cei.
* and I gave him, as a ^ctvijiov, such gifts, as were befitting.*
b) 282^ vfipiOTaX 8' avT^v koX araa-daXoL dvSpe^ €)(ov(tlv'
Swpa 8 eTtucria ravra )(apL^€o, fxvpL oTrd^oiv.
As in 1. 241, the pronoun avrrjv without emphasis is not to
be accepted as epic. Either av rrjv (v. ^137 Note) or dpa T-qv will
serve. For the second line we should probably read : —
TO) h\ €TO)(ria ravra ^(apt^eo, pivpC oTra^wv.
That Swpa is a later insertion seems certain not only from the
metre, but because pjvpC oTra^wv virtually implies that no such
word as Swpa has preceded.
(1) 2853 Tw KcV <T iv hoipoicrw d/Acti/^a/ACVOS dTri'ir€pA^€V
KoX iiVLT) dyaOy'
314 fiL$€(T6aL iivty rjB* dyXaa S<x>pa SiSwo-ctv.
Before touching upon the reason for setting these lines side
by side, I may remark that 1. 285 might be improved by the
transposition of Swpoio-iv and dTrcTrc/Ai/^cv. However, I am mainly
concerned to deal with the noun ievirj which I venture to impugn
as un-epic. When we consider the frequency of the occurrence of
the cognate forms ^etvo?, ^ctVta, ^€lv^lov, $€ivio<s, ^ctvt'^w, ^civoSokoS)
and the rarity of $€v-, which, apart from these instances is con-
fined to $€VLri (ter, ^158 &c.) and ^iviov {$ 389, v. Monro, Grit. Note
ad loc), some doubt must be felt as to the epic possibility of such
a form. But much more so, when we meet in 35 the very form
416
BOOK XXIV « 285-313
which we should from analogy have expected the noun to assume,
ietvoa-vvrj.
This form I propose to restore by reading, with omission of
the needless Kai, in a> 286 : —
^€Lvocrvvy ayaOrj.
In 0) 314 the line might well begin thus : —
ieLVOcrvvrf fXL^ecrOai 18' ayXaa — .
u 299] '^^^ ^"^ V7]v^ eorrrjKe Ooyj, rj cr' ^yaye 8evpo — ;
If we compare P 707 ; —
aTTj hk Trap Atavrco-crt ^ecuv, flOap 8e TrpocrrjvSa' —
it is apparent that the true reading was in all probability : —
€(TT7JK€ $€OV(r.
Cf. y 288 t^€ Oeoiv, even when twv stands in the same sentence.
w 309] avrap 'OSvcrcnji toSc Sr] TripjTrrov €tos iaTtv,
'AAA' 'OSva-rj' avTio toSc may be suggested ('OSvo-^t P. W.).
Rather than recognize this elision the MSS. prefer the absurd
form 'OSvorct in c 398, v 35.
w 3Il]| Svorfxopos' rj ri ol i(r6Xol ccrav 6pvL0€<s Iovtl
SeiiOLf ots xaipaiv fxev eywv aTreTre/xTrov c/ceivov, —
In 1. 311 rj T€ ol ia-OXol lovt opviOe? e-n-ovTO would partly
account for the corruption. In 1. 312 accepting Nauck's otaLv
eyw x^^P^^i ^ better ending, in accordance with the canon of
Aristarchus, would be
(XTTO K€tVOV CTTC/XTTOV.
Or, again, ola-iv cyw k€lvov xf-^P^^ dTrcVe/xTrov is possible.
0) 313] X^^P^ ^^ KiivOS i(i}V Ov/XOS 8' €TL VWLV CwXTTCt
fiL^ecrOai $evLrj rjS* ayXaa Swpa StStocreiv.
It seems an extraordinary and well-nigh unaccountable cir-
cumstance that the unmetrical combination vwtv cwXTrct, i. e. vCjlv
FeFoXTTCLy or with augment iFeFoXTretj has not been set right by
simply changing the dat. vwtv into the ace. vw or vwl thus : —
vcot FeFoXireL
vw iFcFoXTrei.
For voyiv Eustathius gives rjfjuv. This, as I should judge, only
indicates how easily a gloss, rj/juv, may become a variant. But
van Leeuwen and da Costa promptly seize the opportunity to get
in another example of the favourite hiatus licitusand suggest r//x'
iFeFoXTTCL. The only other correction hitherto offered seems to be
AGAK E e 417
« 313-322 ODYSSEY
Nauck^s €Tt €Xir€To vwiv, which could only be accepted reluctantly,
if the dative were quite indispensable.
There is, however, no overwhelming necessity for the dat. at
all. The attribution of Ovfios is simple enough, and the super-
session of an original vwt by vwiv in the tradition is quite intelli-
gible, as it removes an apparent, though really imaginary, hiatus.
In n 99 vwtv appears for a nom. vait (v. The Classical Review,
vol. X. p. 329, where I have shown some reason to believe that
va> 8' eKSvLYifxev is the true reading). In 428 vtot cw (La Roche),
i.e. vo) cao), we have the warning and illuminating schol. : — ovrws
vwt ;)(o>/3ts Tov V Didymus. 6tl rtvc? yp. crvv tw v, KaKws Aristonicus.
In © 377 VIOL (ace.) we have vCjCv DH, vwCv Zenodotus. Reference
may also be made to A 767 and X 216, and lastly there is the
well- vouched- for, but utterly impossible, a-tftwiv (nom.) of i{/ 52,
V. Note, p. 400.
We need hardly hesitate to remedy such inveterate confusion,
following in this the example of Aristarchus himself.
It may be permissible and perhaps desirable to add a remark
about the extraordinary form StSwo-etv, weakly supported by v 358,
which figures at the end of 1. 314. I recommend absolute dis-
belief in this word here and elsewhere. Still I am not prepared
to think with van Leeuwen and da Costa that
/cat 8o>o"€/A€v dyXao, Stopa
was the original. I suggest that Odysseus was made by the poet
to say with naive frankness,
■fjS* dyXaa Stopa B€)(€<rOau
Then in Jater times some courtly rhapsodist or critic wished
to credit the hero with nobler altruistic sentiments. Unfortu-
nately the Homeric man believed with all his soul that it was
more blessed to receive than to give. The attempt to elevate his
simple primitive ideas has, I suspect, produced StSwtrctv here.
w 320 J KV(T(T€ Se fxiv TTcpw^vs cTTtoA/xcvos rjSk irpocrrjvSa.
Comparing ^220 7rp(DTL(TTo<s cTrdX/xcvos we might read perhaps
KaT€7ra\fi€vo<i. Laertes must have been stooping low, if he had
not absolutely flung himself on the ground, eXwv kovlv aWaXofo-a-av.
W 3223 ^\0oV CCtKOOTU) £T€t €S TTaTpCSa yOLOV.
The line is found four times, the other occurrences being
TT 206, T 484, <f> 208, and with IXdoi as the first word it is read
^ 102, 170.
418
BOOK XXIV 0)322-328
That the final letter of crct is short and like other iotas of
the dat. subject to elision appears from 8 82, which ends kol
oySoctTO) £T€t rjXOov, i. e. €Te rfXOov. Why then is this t long here
and in the passages referred to, even before the open vowel ? The
easy and natural solution, that h represents an original Trpos or
TTpoTL, cannot be entertained for several reasons which need not be
set forth in detail. The solution in- my opinion is to be sought in
the omission of some word between these open vowels, and if so
the lost word can hardly have been other than aj/^, which indeed
happens to occur in precisely this position in the verse and with
this same verb also in i/^ 20 q. v.
Unquestionable ai/^, ' back,' is quite suitable to all these
passages. Accordingly I propose to get rid of this glaring hiatus,
which has even less to recommend it than the vhan of A, 28 (see
Note there), by reading here and elsewhere : —
rfXOov €€iKO(rT<^ €T€t aij/ €S iraTpiha yaXav.
Perhaps in i/^ 102, 170 Itci cs ^v.
(I) 3^^3 ^' i"'^*' ^V '08v(r€rs yc cftos Trais cv^aS' tKaj^cts,
(nj/xd ri fxoL vvv ctTre dpt^paScs, 6<f>pa Tretroidai.
X 45 *^ f-^^ ^"h *08vo"€vs 'I^ttKr/o-ios €.lXiqXov6a.<i, —
The two lines are spoken by Laertes, who naturally desires
some evidence that the stranger is his son. The single line to
some extent resembles and supports m 328. Now Cobet has
proposed to remove one hiatus by reading
'OSvorcvs crv y' Ip})^ — .
Rightly, though the adherents of hiatus licitus will not accept the
change, or their idol may suffer. Hence van Leeuwen and
da Costa carefully keep a-v out of their text. Cod. Pal. omits yc,
and certainly without the pronoun, which requires emphasis, yc is
as useless as in </> 98. It is plain that, taking the words as trans-
mitted, it is not '08vo-€vs, but c/xos Trais, that should be em-
phasized. If Laertes had happened to have more sons than one,
something might be said for 'OSvo-evs yc ; as matters stand, it is
simply indefensible, and crv yc should be read.
It may be a pity that the unique passage which shows this
favourite hiatus in two consecutive lines should be laid hands
upon ; but truth compels me to declare that I have grave doubts
whether even
CtTTC apL<f>paS€s
E c 2 419
u 328 ODYSSEY
is genuine and correct. After an examination of all the passages
in which (rrjfm and dpw^paScs occur, — I forbear to set them forth
in detail — I have found reason to think that here Laertes did not
ask Odysseus to ^ tell ' him a * clear sign \ but to * show ' him one.
(Trjixd ri /not vvv Sct^ov dpt</>pa8e9, 6<f>pa ttcttoi'^o).
The particular o-iy/xa is of course the scar on the thigh.
Unfortunately in the two nearest instances of the use of the
expression, cr^/Aa api^pahi^ the verb used is diriiv. They occur in
the preceding book, 11. 73 and 273 : —
aX)C dye Tot koX (rrjfia dpw^paScs aWo ti ctTro).
(rrj/xa 8e /xol to8' ccittcv dpt^paSes, ov8e (re Kcvcro).
This verb, which has exercised a disastrous influence over our
passage, is used with perfect propriety in both cases. In j/^ 73
Eurycleia speaks to Penelope of this same scar. She could only
say ctTTw. In if/ 273 Teiresias, as Odysseus recounts to his wife,
told him a sign, that he would meet afterwards. I need not do
more than mention if/ 22^, where KarcXc^as is the verb.
But in an earlier book, where Odysseus also refers to his scar,
the verb is what I suppose it was originally here : —
^217 ct 8' dye 8r] kol arj/xa dpK^paScs dAAo ti Sct'^w,
and here in answer to his father's request Odysseus with the
briefest summary of the events does show the scar at once. He
begins —
331 ovXrjv fJikv TrpioTOV tt^vSc <fipd(rai 6cf>6aX.fiOL(Ti.
It only remains to add in this connexion that, in spite of hiatus
licitus theories, even <f> 21^ and »/^ 73 have suffered injury and
should be restored : —
i/^ 73 oAA' dy€ fxoL KOL ctTTCD dpL(f>paSe<s dXXo tl (rrjfxa
^217 tl 8' dy€ 8r} KOL Scti^o) dpt^paSc? dXXo tl (rrjfxa.
The position of the verb is then the same in all the four lines
<^ 217, if/ 73, 273, (o 328, a very suggestive fact.
A further question arises in reference to u) 328 and x 45-
There is no doubt whatever — it is easy to show by many examples
— that €t fx€v Srj and ct 8rj, when followed by a present indicative,
always imply that the statement is an admitted fact, true at the
moment {Srj) and undisputed. We may fairly render ct Sy * since
now *.
a 82 €t filv 8r) vvv tovto <f>LXov fxaKOipecra-L 0€o7(tl, —
y 376 €1 Srj TOL veoj <L8e Otol Trofiinjei CTrovTat — .
430
BOOK XXIV 0,328
K 386 ctAA' €t Brj Trp6<f>pacr(Ta Tritiv (jiayifxev re KcXevets — .
V 238, o 328, o- 80, <f> 253.
A 61 €t 8^ ofxov 7roA€/A09 T€ Stt/xa Kat Xot/A09 'A^atovs.
Here hafj^a is not future, as some commentators say, but present.
It expresses a very unpleasant, but undeniably present, fact. Of
course the form 8a/xa, properly hajxdei, may be either one or the
other ; but to choose the future here is to rob the passage of all
its instant and urgent force. In its archaic form, for 6/xov the
local adverb has probably been introduced to get rid of the
original tttoA-c/xos, the line would begin thus : —
et 8^ a/>ta irToXeixo^ 8a/x,act — .
A 574 f^ 8^ (T^w €V€Ka Ovyjt5>v ipiSacveTOV mScj —
I 434 ei fxkv 8r] vocttov ye /xcra cf>p€(rt, cfiouSLfx 'A^j^iAAcv,
ySaAXeai, ovSe n TrdfjLTrav dfxvvcLV vrjvcrl OoyaLV
TTvp c^eXct? dtSr^XoVf —
K 242, 433, A 138, M 67 {Brj MSS., Tovs Arist.), N iii, H 337,
53, O 140, 406, 660.
In our passage, to 328, the statement of the conditional
clause is by no means treated as an admitted unquestionable
fact. The next line shows that the fact is not yet accepted as
true,
(rrjfxd Tt fMOL vvv cittc dpicfypaSes, 6<f)pa TrcTrotOo).
Consequently, apart entirely from the hiatus in the second foot,
not esteemed as licitus here, el fxkv Brj must be wrong. So much
is certain. The argument against it is conclusive. The difficulty
is to suggest a remedy equally certain. Metre and meaning alike
indicate that an emendation is necessary. I suggest as a reason-
able probability
€L /x€v Orjv — .
The meaning, ' truly,' ' of a verity,' suits the clause exactly, and
1 find this particle following /acV, as here, in : —
€ 2 1 1 ov fxev 6r)v Kctvrjs ye xepeiinv ev^opLai etvat, —
© 448 ov jxev Orjv Kdfxerov ye fid^ evi KvSiavetpy —
Cf. B 276, K 104, H 480, 4> 568. In K 104 and $ 568 there is
slight authority for 877, but Orjv is unquestionably right.
Again, that Orjv and Srj are distinct particles, and not mere
varying forms of one word, is clear from : —
y 352 ov 6r]v Brj tov8' dvBpbs ^OBva-arjos (J>l\os vIos — .
Compare also I 393-4.
421
w 328-336 ODYSSEY
Lastly, Orjv is used after a conjunction in : —
TT 9 1 w ^tX', cTTCt ^?yv /Aot ACttt d^€ti/^a(r^at ^e/xts eoTiV, —
(8^ superscript. H.)
In the case of x 45 the argument against Srj is not so strong, for
Eurymachus might be said to accept the statement as a fact : but
clearly the two lines w 328 and ^ 45 must be dealt with alike,
« 33^J ^^ ^' ^y^ "^ot '^tt^ SevSpe* ivKTLfxevrjv /car' dk(x)r)v
ehruif a fioi iror eSwKas, cyw 8' tttcov crc cKaara
TratSvos cwv, Kara ktJttov i7ncnr6fX€vo<S' Slol 8' avrwv
iKvevjjLicrOa, <rv 8' wvo/xao-as Kat Icittcs c/cao-ra.
o-yn^vas /xot 8(0Kas TpicrKathiKa koI ScKa fxr}X€a<St
<rvK€as TicrorapaKOVT' op^ovs Se fxoi (S8' ovo/xryva?
Stoo-ctv TTCVTTyKovTa, 8taTpvytos 8e cKao-ros
^ryv €i/^a 8' dva (TTa<j>vXal TravTolai cacrtv,
OTTTTOTC 8^ Atos wpttt lTri^pL(T€.iav vTTepdev.
* But come, and I will tell thee the trees through all the
terraced garden, which thou gavest me once for mine own, and
I was asking thee this and that, being but a little child, and
following thee through the garden. Through these very trees
we were going, and thou didst tell me the names of each of them.
Pear-trees thirteen thou gavest me, and ten apple-trees, and figs
two score, and as we went thou didst name the fifty rows of vines
thou wouldst give me, whereof each one ripened at divers times,
with all manner of clusters on their boughs, when the seasons of
Zeus wrought mightily from on high.'
Butcher and Lang (1879).
The above graceful version, though not altogether unexcep-
tionable, as I may have occasion to show, gives sharply and
clearly the picture delineated in this paragraph, as we have it
in the tradition. The father, Laertes, takes the lad, Odysseus,
through the orchard. The boy begs for every one of the trees
(such is necessarily the meaning of cyw 8' iinov o-e tKaara. It
does not mean : — 'I kept asking miscellaneous childish questions,*
as the above version rather suggests). His father in an outburst
of parental kindness and generosity gives away to his importunate
little son no less than thirteen pear-trees, ten apple-trees, forty
fig-trees, and fifty rows of vines; in fact he presents him, we
may safely say, with the whole orchard and vineyard.
Such useless and unnecessary free-handedness on the part of
433
BOOK XXIV a»336
Laertes is yery surprising, and when we come to examine the
passage in detail, we shall find reason to doubt whether the
original author of these lines, be he Homer or not, did as a matter
of fact exhibit either the father as so foolishly generous, or the
son as so wildly exacting.
The whole passage has, I fear, suffered from the anxiety of
some rhapsodist, or — shall we say? — redactor, to make Laertes
display a princely and becoming generosity. Originally, there is
I think reason to believe, the narrative possessed far less unreality
and a truer touch of that nature that makes the whole world kin,
than it now exhibits.
The key to the passage in its primitive form is, I believe, to
be found in 1. 339 : —
<rv 8' wvo/xatras kol cetTres cKacrra,
or, as it should certainly be written, and as the Cambridge Homer
ought to have had it (cf. Note on a 37) : —
(TV 8' (uvo/x-acras /^corcs t€ FeKaara.
* and you told me the name of every tree.' He told the boy
which were apple-trees, which pear-trees, and which fig-trees,
and the number of each kind. The boy, who is a boy and not
a prattling baby ready to ask for the moon or anything else that
was handy, is being taught the valuable lesson, which half the
world does not know nowadays, how to distinguish one kind of
tree from another, and probably also to count and remember the
exact number of each sort in the orchard. The whole value of
the incident as a proof of identity lies in these particulars. It
makes no difference to the strength of the evidence whether the
trees were given, or only inspected, named, and counted. The poet
doubtless saw this, though the would-be improver of the passage
did not.
Apart, however, from this tell-tale line, 339, there is another
place, which has proved intractable and shows plainly that it
has been tampered with. I refer to the expression in 11. 340—1,
ov6\ky]vaM 8(ocr€iv.
Here Messrs. Butcher and Lang's version is obviously not
intended as an accurate rendering. Dr. Monro, following
Ebeling's Lex., says briefly, * ovoftryvas " didst promise ".' But this
is merely a gratuitous concession to the actual requirements of
this passage. Elsewhere ovo/acwVo) never means anything like * I
423
0) 336 ODYSSEY
promise '. It is quite a mistake to suppose that in t 121 ovo/xrjvu)
means anything more than < to enumerate ', * specify/ ' give
the list of (cf. I 515, 5 449). Neither can ovofxrjva^ here be
reduced to the barer generality, * didst say ' ; for evidently its
meaning cannot be, or rather cannot have been, very far from
that of d)v6/xa(Ta<s in 1. 339. The only admissible renderings of
ovofirjvas are (i) you named, told the names of, and (2) you
enumerated, gave a list of. Lastly — wSc means ^just as you did
of the other trees \ Dr. Monro's rendering of the adverb ' as
I tell you ' is, I fear, too forced, though it almost reaches the same
point by another route. Neither can I accept Messrs. Butcher and
Lang's ' as we went \
The unsuitable Swo-civ must be attributed to the remodeller
of the passage. That it has no right to stand here seems certain:
but what originally stood in its place is by no means so certain.
It may have been Sei^as, or Set^as with ovofx-qva*: (part.) preceding,
or cTttcs as 1. 339 suggests ; but even aXXovs or rpet? Kat would be
tolerable, and it is needless to speculate further on such a matter.
The important point is that h<ii(T^Lv here is impossible and
corrupt.
Now I come to the line, which in my view of the passage
has suffered most. It is, of course, 337 ; —
ctTToo, a /xot TTOT cSwKas, cyo) 8' rynov (T€ CKacrra — ,
where, if I am right, an original cSct^as (eSct/co-as) has been replaced
by cSw/cas, not a very difficult exchange in itself, and made accept-
able from the motive already mentioned.
Its acceptance, however, has involved the modernization and
modification of ipofirfv, an unfamiliar form (cf. T^pcTo, ipia-Oat) =
* I asked you about every one ', into yreov = ' I begged for, I asked
for '. In I 354 :—
1781; iroTOV TTLVuiv, KttL fi 'ffr€€ SevTcpov avTts,
where -ffree is natural and right enough, we have a var. lect..
ttpcTo (Ebel. Lex. sub verb.).
The whole passage would stand thus : —
€t' aye TOt Kttt BevSpe ivKTifJiivrjv Kar aXtarjv
ctTTOJ, a fxai ttot ISet^a?, eyw 8' ipojxrjv (tc cKaora
TratSvos ewv, Kara icrjirov tTTicnro fxtvos' 8ia 8c a-<f>€iov
iKvtoixiaOa, (TV 8' <ovo/xao-as cTttcs T€ iKacrra.
oy;(vas fxoi 8€t^as Tpi,(rKaiBiKa koI BfKa /AiyXeas,
424
BOOK XXIV «336
crvKeas Tea-aapaKovT • opxovs Be fxoL w8* ovo/xij vas
Sei^as TTcvTrjKovTa, Star/ovytos 8e iKacrTOS,
l^rjv tvBa 8' dva (TTa^vAal TravTolai cacrtv,]
OTTTTOTC 8^ Alos w/otti cTTtySptVeiav vTTcpOcv.
' Come now and I -will tell you the trees in the well-laid
garden, the trees you once showed me, and I being but a lad
asked you about every one, as I went with you over the orchard.
As we were going through the midst of them, you told me the
names of each and all. You showed me thirteen pear-trees, ten
apple-trees, and forty fig-trees. And just in the same way you
showed me and counted up fifty rows of yines. Each one ripened
at its own due time, when the seasons of Zeus forced them for-
ward from on high.'
It will be observed that I have excluded 1. 343 altogether :
but this severity is really essential, whatever view be taken of the
passage. Its inclusion entirely destroys the proper dependence of
1. 344. Messrs. Butcher and Lang's version slurs over the difficulty.
But after all the line is only a somewhat flagrant example of one
of the commonest types of interpolation in Homer. The case is
this : — BiaTpvyios 8e eKaa-ros as a complete predication involves of
course the ellipse of rjv or eev, an ellipse for which Homeric usage
gives full warrant. The interpolator of 1. 343 thought the verb
should be expressed, and so began his line magnificently with
rather a bloated form it is true, and happily as rare as it is
imposing in every sense of the word (v. Monro, H. G. § 12, also
his Note on if/ 316). He then lamely filled up the verse with a
clause containing a verb in present time eao-i, so again facili-
tating, by an antiquarianism this time successful, the detection of
his well-meant but nefarious work. Perhaps it will be sufficient
to refer to similar cases in I 43, O 360, 2 367, ^ 570, and the
remarks in the Note on y 255.
Finally, I may just mention two other changes I have made
in the vulgate, eV dye (eia age), v. Monro, H. G. § 320, and Sid
(T<l>eo)v for Si avTuiv. The ingenious emphasis on the pronoun
shown in Messrs. Butcher and Lang's version is not here tenable.
Of course hC airruiv would be the natural modernization of hid
(T<f>€o)Vy cf. o) 381 ; but I refrain from entering upon a full
discussion of this rather interesting question. It would have
425
« 336-353 ODYSSEY
to be too lengthy for toleration, cf. Notes on a 143, p 33, 127,
c 190, ^ 137, e 347) K 112, /A 120, 405, V 386, ^ 135, &c.
A distinguished scholar, Prof. J. Cook Wilson, has done mo
the honour to examine at some length the suggestions made on
this passage, with the object of defending the vulgate. His very
interesting and stimulating strictures and my own reply may be
found in the Classical Review for April and October, 1905,
respectively.
One new point brought out by the discussion deserves
mention. In 11. 337 and 339 cKaora means ' the several kinds of
trees ', * the different varieties of them,' each variety being treated
as a unit, not * each individual tree ', which last, as appears from
1. 342, would be expressed by the singular iKacrrov.
The proof of this assertion may be found by considering the
following passages, i 220, 164, /x 130, <o 417, B 127, T i, H 100,
I 66, ^ 55, where the proper use of the plural is plainly dis-
cernible. (In V 76 c/cao-Tos not iKaa-Toi should be read as in the
editions of H. Stephanus and Barnes.)
We now see a further reason why ^cov will not do. The
boy would not ask for trees by kinds, though he would so ask the
name, i. e. once for all in the case of each sort.
Lastly, in considering the object and purpose of this naming
and counting the trees in the orchard, my suggestion, to which
I adhere, was as follows : — The occasion was probably one of
importance, marking a stage in the boy's life. It is the * beating
of the bounds' of the orchard. The boy is the human document
used for recording facts. He is the schedule of the trees : he is
jxvri^iiiv dAwiJs (cf. B 163).
In 1. 341 ovofxrjva^ Sct^a? should perhaps be more simply
rendered ' you named and showed me '.
w 353] M ^°^X°- 'ravTcs
The defective third foot cannot, I fear, be tolerated. Again
an omission seems the true solution : —
ivOdS* irr* dfxfi ekOioa *lOaKT^(TLOij
where ayM/w,t may be taken in its strictly dual sense, * against the
two of us.' Odysseus proceeds at once to correct the misappre-
hension of Laertes, in 11. 359-60, by informing him of their real
numerical strength.
426
BOOK XXIV « 360-377
w 360] Trpovirefiif/ , w? av BeLtrvov €^07rXtcra-(oo-t rd)(i(rTa.
Clearly modernized, probably from Trifiij/ eyw, <Ss kcv — . I
doubt whether co-w (yan Herwerden) would have its last syllable
shortened by an early Epic poet, cf. the usage of dv<o and Karo).
** 374] ctSos T€ /xcyc^os T€ d/x€ivova 0^K€ ISicrOaL.
Read etSos ^at fxiyeOo^ /xey' d/xctVova — . Cf. 253 above. It is
doubtless the juxtaposition of the cognate noun and adverb that
afterwards became a cause of offence. But in the old epic the
association of fxiya with dfjiiLvoiv is especially noticeable, B 239,
A 405, X 158, 333, X 374-
W 377] 0^05 NiyptKOf etkov, ivKTLfJLiVOV TTToXUBpOV,
dKTTfv rjTTeipoLO, }^€<f>aX.Xi]V€(r(n dvdcra-oiv.
Laertes, in command of the Cephallenians, claims to have
captured or taken by storm Nericus, a city situated, if the
authorities we have may be trusted on any question of Homeric
geography, at the northern extremity or north-eastern side of
the island of Leucadia, now Santa Maura. Some, according to
Eustathius, identify Nericus with the island itself; but this is
inconsistent with the words of 1. 377 ivKTtfxevov TTToXUOpov, ' a
stronghold.'
Now we come to the difficulty. This Nericus, this strong-
hold, is called dKrrjv rj-rreipoLo, ' the shore of the mainland.' Now,
to call a city, wherever situated it may be, the shore of the
mainland, is rather meaningless and more than justifies the com-
ment in Ameis-Hentze * eine ungenaue Apposition zu ^rjpiKov ',
* an inexact apposition to NtJ/oi/cov ' ; but to go further and so
describe a city situated on an island is much worse, and cannot,
I submit, be palliated by the words, * an welchem sich die Stadt
hinerstreckte.'
Neither a city nor an island — it is only fair to say that
Ameis-Hentze adopt the latter view, in fact they go further and
make it a peninsula with Eustathius's unnamed geographer — can
be called ' the shore of the mainland ' because it faces the shore
of the mainland, in this instance the shore of Acarnania. The
peninsula-theory is too obviously a concoction to suit this passage
to be worth attention.
The truth is dKTrjv rjirupoio is irreconcilable to common sense
and is, unless I greatly mistake, merely the corruption of a less
427
« 377-387 ODYSSEY
familiar word. I suggest as the original reading the simple and
satisfactory
avrrjv rprcipovo,
' facing the mainland.' This is exactly the situation occupied by
the town Leucas, now Amaxikhi, nearly at the north end of the
strait that separates the island from the mainland.
The change of avT>;i/ to aKT-qv is very easy, and may be due
largely to the fact that there is no example of avT7]v with a
dependent genitive in the Homeric poems. The ancient gram-
marians seem indeed to have required at least two instances of
an unfamiliar usage in Homer to give it countenance, e.g. w 337.
If this requirement were fulfilled, they readily, as I have more
than once observed, allowed almost any licence.
There is after all little reason to doubt the grammatical
correctness of avrr^v -qTreipoco, v. Monro, H. G. § 228. It is
merely a matter of metrical convenience : avra usually serves
best.
The form avrrjv is fairly analogous to -n-eprjv in B 626,
vr]<r(i)v, at vaiovcn Treprjv aXos "HAtSos avra,
a verse which might have ended with avrrjv, had there been any
tendency to require a strict spondee in the sixth place.
If we consider 399 : —
fid(TK Wi, *Ipt fap^eta, ttolXlv Tpiirc jjitjB* ea avrrjv
tp-^€(r6'' —
we may be fairly sure that avr-qv e/Aeto, * facing me,' could have
been said as well as ttoXlv ifxcto, * away from me,' for which there
is good warrant, Y 439, yj 143.
w 387] ^^^' o y^ptav AoAtos, crvv 8' vtets roto ycpovros,
497 r€cr(Tap€s afxf^ 'OSvo-^ , e^ h vlas ol AoAtoio*
These lines throw light upon one another. One sees at once
that vUis in 1. 497 must have been vlUs, and may even infer that
except for errors of transmission the vtcis of 1. 387 should be
equally resolvable. This throws more doubt on the already
doubtful Toio yepovTos cf. y 388 (Note).
But is oi AoAtoto itself correct? Dr. Monro in his com-
mentary says the use of the article is post-Homeric, but proceeds
to support the usage by reference to his Hom. Gram. § 260, 9.
The article here is in my view entirely an error, but one for
438
BOOK XXIV « 387-389
which I believe the original author is not properly responsible.
He wrote in all probability
€$ h\ Vt€€S ot AoXtOtO*
' and six who were sons of Dolios.* This may be illustrated by
A 535 o-yrrrye^ at Trcpt St<^pov, ^353 ix^ves ol Kara Sim?, where at
and OL have at last rightly replaced the usurpers at and ol in
our texts.
It seems to me quite possible and even probable that in 1. 387
Toto yepovTos has ousted a similar ot AoAtoto, the neat modern turn
being naturally preferred to the rather cumbrous antique form of
expression. There is of course no difficulty in the way of main-
taining y€povTo<:, if necessary, as we may read ot pa ycporros.
Compare ^60 and Note on ^ 19.
*^ 389] f^V'^'VPi ypy]v<s ^tKcXry, rj cr<^€as Tp€<f)€ Kai pa yipovra
ivSvK€(x)^ KOfJL€€(rK€Vj CTTCt KaTo, yrjpa<s e/jLapij/ev.
The dame in question is the wife of Dolios, who is referred
to two lines before as yipoiv and yipovros. Consequently editors
almost unanimously refer yipovra (1. 389) to Dolios also.
Dr. Monro, however, in his edition of the Odyssey xiii— xxiv.
(1891), says that yepovra is apparently Laertes. For Hhe poet
seems to be repeating here his description of the ypyjvs %K€Xrj given
in 211-12 '. The lines referred to are these : —
iv 8c yvvr] '^LKeXr] yprjvs TrcXev, ^ pa yepovra
ivSvK€0)s KojJie€<TK€v Itt dypov v6(r<f>L 7r6\r)o<s.
How is this question to be determined ? On the one hand, it is
extremely harsh to have to understand yipovra of any other old
man than the one just doubly mentioned, i.e. Dolios.
On the other hand, why should it have occurred to the poet
to make the wife of Dolios a ypr]v<; St/ceXiy, unless with the
deliberate intention to identify her with the "^lkcXyj yprjvs who
took charge of Laertes ?
Furthermore, why in the world is the word yprjv? of 1. 2 n
represented or misrepresented in yprjv<s in 1. 389 ? Was it
necessary for the disyllabic to become a monosyllable ? I fear
it was. Let us examine this matter a little further. It will be
found that the disyllabic nom. yprjv<s occurs in twelve other
places in Homer, a 185, t 503, x 433^/8 377, ry 5,t 353.361,386,
467, X 49 5> 'A '» 292, the monosyllabic form only once again in
T 346, of which more anon.
429
« 389 ODYSSEY
The hand of the interpolator is thus becoming visible.
There is always some defect or modernization in his work. So
far, however, we have only suspicion. Let us go on and suppose,
for the sake of our argument, that we have an interpolation here,
that something has been removed to make room for yfnjvs SikcXtj.
Can we determine definitely and with any certainty what has
been sacrificed? Does firjrrjp . . . ^ o-<^€as Tp€<f>€ give any hint,
suggest any omission ? Why undoubtedly it does ! Let Homer
speak for himself. With him the firjrrjpf the mother, is
emphatically y yH Ircx*, ^ / t6p€^€. (/3 131). Compare the
following : —
yu, 134 TttS /xcv apa Opiij/aa-a reKovaa t€ iroTVia fx-qn^p.
A 414 and B 548 have these verbs in intimate association; but
let us come at once to the very archetype of what has been
tampered with here : —
j^ 325 fxrjTepa & r] [liv ctiktc koX €Tp€<f)€ rvrOov iovra —
and, although it is said of the other parent : —
X 421 UrjXivSf OS fttv €TLKT€ Kttt €Tp€<f)e Tnjfxa yevia-Oaiy
we can now reproduce our line with some confidence, I might
almost say, with certainty, in its original form : —
p.rjTTjp, rj (Tffieas tlkt€ koI €Tp€<f>€, Ktti pa yepovra — .
Not only so, but we see at once that kol pa yipovra cvSvkco)?
KOfjiiio-Kcv naturally led some one to recall to mind the ^ pa yipovra
€v8vK€(09 KopiU(TK€v of thc carlicr passage, and to raise the question
whether the wife of Dolios was the ^iKiXyj yprjv^ there mentioned.
Probably this question is rashly answered in the affirmative, and
the identification noted at first on the margin is afterwards con-
firmed by actually squeezing the two words, though yprjvq suffers
in the process, into the line.
This account of the origin of the vulgate explains, I submit,
every difficulty. While it justifies Dr. Monro's version of the
vulgate, it shows that originally the reference of yipovra was of
course to Dolios and Dolios alone. So much for w 389.
I now turn to t 346, the other passage, which still supports
what I have called the modernized form yprjvs for the Homeric
ypT/vs : —
T 346 €1 pLtj Tts yprqvq Icm iraXavq^ KcSva tSvta, — .
I might almost rest satisfied with pointing out that Aristarchus
disallowed this and the two following lines ; but although there
430
BOOK XXIV «389
is weight in the objection, for Odysseus certainly showed little of
his usual prudent judgement in suggesting that he should have
the services of one who was almost certain to recognize him by the
scar, yet I believe even in this line yp-qvs is more modern than
the context, that in fact the poet or his interpolator, which you
will, really wrote not the tautology of ypiyv? TraAatrj, but the
natural expression, which is indeed synonymous with ypiyvs, viz.
TraAai^ yvvq : —
€t ixrj Tis yvvri 1(tti TraXairi, K€^va. IhvZa — .
I can hardly quit this subject of yp-qv's versus ypryv? without
referring to the two passages in which the vocative, yprfv, is found
as a monosyllable. The extraordinary idea that yp-qv can be a
pyrrhic w w as well as a trochee — «-^, I take leave to reject as
groundless. We have : —
T 383 w yprjVy ovTOi (ftaarlv otrot tSov 6<f>6aXixoL(rLV —
^411 iv Ov/JitOf yprjv, X^P^ '^^^ Icrx^o fJurjS' oXoXv^c.
Premising that the true archaic disyllabic voc. yprfv occurs in
three places, x 395? 481, Hymn. Dem. 113, 1 suggest for x 4^^ '• —
Ov/xiOy ypryv?, X^-^P^ '^"'■^ '^^X^^ P-V^^ 6X6Xv^€.
For the omission of iv compare H 189 yyOrja-e 8e Ov/x^, A 256
Kcxo-poLaro ^v/xw, 483 x'^^P^ ^^ Ovjx^ (= ^113 and 0) 545)5 V 301
fjL€LBY](r€ 8e OvfjLfo, &c. In fact, we may say that as a general rule
6vix(o is used with verbs of this kind without a preposition. Still
if any one chooses to insist on maintaining the prep, here, it is
easy to read : —
X^^^p' ^^t OvfXio, yprjv, KOL lax'^o fxrjS* 6X6Xv^€,
The nom. for voc. is of course quite legitimate.
Similarly in t 383 we may simply remove the needless w, and
transpose, with better emphasis resulting : —
ovTO), ypr]v<s, <fiaalv ocrot tSov ocfiOaX/xoia-iVf
or, if we may not sacrifice even the expletive : —
ovTO) <f>d(rf w yprjvs, oaoL tSov 6<j>6aXpLOicrLV,
which the devotees of hiatus licitus may easily alter to suit their
peculiar fancy.
Finally, passing from the question of the possibility of the
satisfactory removal of this modernization ypryvs, yp-qv from the
pages of Homer — they do seem to totter a little — I think the
following rehabilitation of the misunderstood tradition in Hymn.
431
w 389-437 ODYSSEY
Dem. 10 1 may be left without much advocacy. The accepted
reading is : —
ypyfi TraXaLyevei cvaXtyKtog, ^ t€ tokolo — .
But this is not the traditional reading. Our sole authority, the
Moscow MS., has iraXavyevir) ivaXLyKios. Ruhnken conjectured
rightly enough, as far as it goes, TraXatyevcl', and so it stands in
all editions, TroAatycvct cvaXtyKto?, bearing false evidence as to
the production of -t of the dat. sing., even before an open vowel.
The true acceptation of the tradition on the contrary tells in
favour of the regular elision of this -t. What the MS. gives is
beyond all doubt : —
ypr/C TraXatyeve rjev dXty/cto? — .
It is merely a question of dividing the letters rightly. There is
no unexplained debasement of t into -q. All that is wanting is an
apostrophe. Furthermore, as a reference to the context will show,
we can now allow 1. 100 to end with a full stop, since the adjec-
tive dXtyKtos has no longer to stretch backward to 1. 98 for its
grammatical construction.
w 3941 ^ ycpov, ti^' €7rt SctTTVoi/, d7r€KA.€A.a^€cr^€ Se Od/x/Sevs'
The contraction, as Dr. Monro says, is not Homeric. We
should perhaps restore
aTrcKXcXdOicrOe rdfjiovo'
A parenthetical remark is better without a conjunction.
0) 398] dix<f>OT€paSi *08v(T€vs 8k \a/3(jiv kv(T€ x^tp* cTt Kap7r<3 — .
A still more objectionable contraction than the last, but
although we might even acquit the author of the line of this
vagary, — Nauck^s d/A<^a>, 'OSvo-o-^os Bi seems satisfactory enough —
yet the act of kissing ' the arm at the wrist ' is so extravagantly
improbable and the narrative proceeds so smoothly without the
line that we are almost bound to attribute it to some would-be
improver, unless of course we feel compelled to retain every word
that may support the strange contention that the author of the
recognition-scene was a bad poet.
(I) 4^0^ ScLKavooyvT cTrcecro-t kol iv xeipea-crt <f>vovTo, —
We may safely restore the regular expression : —
BfLKavowvTO €7r€(r(rLV, €<f>vv T iv X^po^t iKttCTTOS. (x**/^)
Cf. K 397. In any case this line helps to confirm the rejection of
1.398.
<«> 437] cL\X* lO/Ji(V, fJLT] <jiBi(ji(TL 7r€paLO)6tVT€S €K€LVOl.
BOOK XXIV w 437-491
Unless this be a spurious addition, which it would be rash
to assert, the original must have run in some such form as this : —
et aye, fxr] <f}Or](iy<rL Trcpatw^evrcs cKetvoi.
or we may adopt k€lvol from Aristarchus and place it after the /rq.
0) 4613 xf-'- vvv wSe yevoLTO' TriO^adi /xol <i)9 dyopevo}'
fit] LOfjceVf fx-q irov ns imcnraaTOv kukov €vpy.
It is almost inconceivable that this absurd punctuation of
1. 461 should be maintained. As van Leeuwen and da Costa
have seen TrCOea-Ot ftot is just a parenthesis and nothing more.
ixrjh^ LfievaL is probably necessary for fxrj lofiev, as the speaker never
contemplated joining the party. The lines would then read thus : —
Kttt vvy oiSc yevotTO, TTLOeaOe fxoL, ws ayopevw
firjS* Lfxevai, fiiq ttov Tt9 €Tr i(r7ra(TT0v KaKov (Vfir).
" 463] ^? e(f)a6\ ol 8' ap avrjL^av iivyaXt^ aXaXyir(^
rjfU(T€(i}V TrXctovs" rot 8* aOpooL avroOt fxcLvav
ov yap (r<f>iv a8e fivOoq cvt <jip€(TLV, dAA,' EuTrct^et
TreWovr • auf/a 8' cTrctra €7rt tcvx^cl iacrevovTO.
The accepted interpretation of these lines does less than
justice to the author, be he who he may. Primarily the tradition
is responsible, which gives Evirct^ci, though it is obviously
unmetrical, at the end of 1. 465. Now let this Evn-eiOei be
replaced by 'AkiOepay) and the real sense of the passage is not far
to seek. The majority start up with the intention of proceeding
against Odysseus. This is plain from ficydXtD dAoXi/rw. Then
for a moment the poet turns to the peace party. They keep
their seats. They do not like the proposal that has been
made, the pJvOo^, 'the motion/ as we should say, in contrast
with the * amendment ' of Halitherses and Medon. They go
with Halitherses. After this little digression, dealing with the
minority, the poet naturally returns to the proceedings of the
majority,
a«/^a 8* Ittcit* Itu revx^cnv iaarevovro.
Epic idiom allows the dative here, though the later idiom does
not. I refer to X 392 vrjva-lv t-rri yXxi<f>vpycrL v€(o/A€^a, A 274 vrjvarlv
hn . , . €A.aw€/xfv(= 400), B 89 ^orpvSov Se irirovTOL iir dv6€<nv
ilapivola-Lv,
<i) 491^ i^iXOwv TL<s lSoi fxt) Srj ax^^ov Sxri KtovTC5.
This line seems to have been brought to utter ruin firstly
because of the desire to introduce a needless t«, cf. c 400, and
AGAR p f 433
w 491-506 ODYSSEY
secondly because of a similar idea that the substantive verb must
necessarily be expressed. Perhaps
KLioa-L might be read ; but the ellipse of cwo-t is quite epic, v. o- 10
(Note).
w 506 J T-jyXe/Aa^ , ij8r) ficv toSc y* cwrcat avros iireXOtaVy
avSpiov ixapvafX€v<j)V Tva re Kpivovrai aptoToi,
p.ri Ti KaTaLa")(yv€LV Traripuiv yei'o?, ot to Trapos Trep
dXKy t' rfvoperi t€ KeKacrfieOa Traa-av iir atav.
To this Telemachus replies : —
6\f/€cUf at K iOekycrOoj Trdrep ^tXc, roiS' cirt ^v/aw
ov Tt KaTator^vvovTa T€ov yevos, ws dyopeuct?.
First of all cttcX^wv in 1. 506 is quite meaningless in this
context. A reference to j8 246 will make this point clear at once.
Ameis-Hentze really do not improve matters by making a separa-
tion between avros and €7reX6(av, taking the former with ctorcat and
the latter with 1. 507 ; for iinXOuiv necessarily implies a visit to
a place where the individual referred to is not already present.
Again, as Dr. Monro remarks, the exhortation is out of place
after the battle with the suitors.
Lastly, from the remark of Laertes 11. 514-15 : —
Tts vv fJLOL rjixip-q i^Se, OioX ^iXoi ; rj fxdXa )(cup(a'
VtOS 6' vl<t)v6s T dpcr^S TTCpt B^pLV txOV(TL.
it would seem that both father and son had been each calling atten-
tion to the prospective display of his own prowess.
Perhaps the case of this most unsatisfactory little dialogue is
not quite beyond hope. We must, however, begin by giving up
hriXBuiv altogether. I suggest that it has superseded an original
diOXto
upon which the dvhpOiv fmpvafxiviav of the next line depends.
Possibly then Odysseus said approximately as follows : —
TrjX€fJLa)(^, ri fx iv rQSe (tv cttrcat avjts de^Ao)
dvSpwv fiapvaa€V(aVf tva T€ Kpivovrai apiaroLj
fiT^ TL KaTaLar)(yv€iv Trarepwv y€vo<s, ot TrpoTrapos irep
aXKy r rjvopij) t€ KeKda/JnOa Trdcrav ctt' atav.
In using KeKda-fieOa the speaker illogically identifies himself with
his own ancestors, but there is some justification for this as he is
addressing his own son.
434
BOOK XXIV « 506-532
In Telemachus's reply an emphatic personal pronoun is
clearly requisite. Even at the sacrifice of <f>L\€ I suggest we
might read with advantage
6ij/€aif at k' iOiXycrOaf Trari^p, c/ac tw8* cttI Ovfjua
ov TL KaTaiar^vovra reov yivoSy ws dyopcvets.
ci) 532] ws K€V dvaifjioyrL y€ SLaKpivOrjre rdxicrra.
If the form BiaKpLvOrJTe be genuine here, it certainly would
slightly help the argument against the attribution of this book
to the author of the Odyssey.
On the other hand, if there be a reasonable possibility that
the form has been modernized, no reliance could be placed upon
it for the purpose of this argument, as it would merely show the
readiness of the Greeks to eliminate the obsolete in favour of the
present usage wherever the change could be effected without
apparent damage to their great poetic heirloom.
Under limit of this condition a modernization was always
without hesitation accepted by them, just as we ourselves freely
accept and, save for purposes of antiquarian research and study,
readily welcome or, I might say, insist on having a modernization
of spelling in our texts of Elizabethan authors.
The archaic form of SiaKpivOyjre is of course SuaKpLvO-^eTe. It
may certainly be a mere accident that ws kcv is not elsewhere
followed by rdxiOTay but by Odcrcrov in Z 143 (= Y 429), and
similarly 6<{>pa kc Oda-a-ov (B 440, M 26) ; but it seems to justify to
some extent the conjecture here of
hLa.KpLvOri€T€ 6d(T<rov.
We may feel fairly confident that the ingenious modernizers
who boldly converted O 53 from
fjLiq F dyaO^ ttc/d iovn V€fX€(r(r7jOT^ojji€v ^/>t€ts
into
ixrj dyaOi^ Trep iovn vefxea-a-rjOctofJLev ol yiJi€i<s
(so indeed the editions ; but the MSS. unanimously vefiea-crriOcoixev),
would not hesitate to change 6dar<rov into Tdxtcna to accommodate
StaKptV^^TC.
They have however, according to the evidence available,
shown less consistent wrong-doing in the strictly parallel case not
fifty lines away from our passage, viz. : —
o) 485 €K\rj(riv OeiDfiev' tol 8* dAAi^Aovs tjxXeovTwv — .
F f 2 435
«533
ODYSSEY
Such is the reading in Ludwich (1891), Monro (1901), and in all
the best editions. The majority of the MSS. stand for Oiofxcv
FPHULWZ: 6f<j}fiev M. Eust. The wonder is that Oiafxev is not
supported at all. Perhaps it is. The true reading of the line
is without doubt : —
6-qoiJi€V €KXr}(riv' rol 8* dAAiyXovs (fnXeovrtav.
i , ^'^ THE "^~ %
436
• INDEX I
The numbers refer to the pages.
Ace. and infin. after verb govern-
ing dat., 83, 110,273, 338.
Active and middle forms, 8, 85,
396,413.
Adverb used adjectivally, 177.
Adverbs in -as, 184.
Adverbs with elfil, 227.
Aorist reduplicated, meaning of,
64.
Article pronominal, omission of,
II, 31, 141, 177, 179,225,372,
376, 378, 394.
Article later, erroneous, 30, 32,
41 f., 62, 65, 69, 150, 174, 182,
191, 200, 203, 254, 263, 267,
286-91, 297, 314, 315, 322,325,
328 f., 336, 347, 350, 356, 359,
37o» 37^, 379, 384, 3^7, 4o8,
428.
AvTos, oblique cases of, faulty, 7,
20, 25, 70, 86, 99, 109, 128,
142, 160, 174, 204, 218, 240,
243, 250, 286, 297, 303, 332,
345» 347, 348, 350, 372, 377,
388, 412, 414, 416, 425.
Confusion of a\/r and a?v//-(a), 55.
Construction of ovofiai, yy.
Crasis of kuI erroneous, 38.
Dat. with wo, 38, 78.
Dat. with eVt, 433.
Dat. sing, in -t], quantity of, no,
141.
Dat. sing., elision of i, ix, 24, in,
139, 264.
Dat. plur. corrupted, 52, 74 f.,
228 f., 282, 292.
Digamma, ix f., 83 f., 114, 280,
314-
Dual and plural confused, 45, 51,
326.
Elision of e in opt. in -etf, 14,
^ 53/-, 349.
Emphasis, 2, 208, 265.
Enclitic pronoun, position of, 2.
Epanalepsis, 4.
-ev of imperative mood, resolv-
able, 399.
Fem. adjective, unrecognized, 4,
31, 114-
foi lost, 98, 138, 139, 158, 179,
325, 350, 388, 398.
Generalizing re not used with
imp. ind., 44, 57, 275.
Genitive ablatival, 29; descriptive,
235-
Genitive after aWos, 23.
Genitive erroneous, 33 f.
Genitive in -eav (-acoi/), 64, 296,
390, 413.
Genitive in -to?, scansion of, 171.
Genitive in -00 lost, 13, 29, 67,
90, 115, 171, 174,261.
Genitive restored, 79 f., 234, 261.
Hesiod, emended, 75, 82, 226, 355.
Hiatus after §77, 99.
Humanitarian sentiment, 60.
Hymn. Dem., 55, 213, 237, 363 f.,
432.
Hymn. Dion., 8$.
Hymn. Herm., 75, 95, 133, 265,
322.
Hymn. Aphr., 1 01, 229, 361.
Hymn. Apoll., 351.
-L of dat. sing., quantity of, 89,
92,417,419.
Hiad, passages emended, viii, 2,
36, 53, 57, 7h 75, 76, S7, 91,
94, 115, 120, 126, 132, 136,
153, 172, 185, 198, 209, 219,
229, 234, 245, 248, 257, 262,
263, 283, 285, 298, 303, 328,
330, 336, 361, 378, 388, 421.
Infinitive (imperatival), 115, 164,
258, 293, 348, 389.
Interpolation, 5, 32, 39 f., 46, 58,
61, 73, 186, 192, 216, 217, 243,
246, 253, 273, 277, 293, 294,
437
INDEX
331, 332, 345, 357, 363, 385,
386, 393, 406, 407, 411, 412,
425, 432.
Lipography, 64, 92.
Loss of a word from line, 56, 122,
150, 190, 245, 254, 264, 270,
296, 305, 318-
Meaning of adaroSf 384. avaK-
Topios, 369. ddfiVTjfxi, 54. depKO-
fiai, 284. 8i€T[j.ayov, III. eVi-
ia-Ttopf 375. €pa)€(o, 285. ^paro^
49 f. /xopoftff, 320. vep€criCop^i,gf,
re0o$',392f. vuo-o-a, 1 1 5 ff. ovofiat,
305. o^uoet?, 329 f. irapdepos, 81.
7rp6cf>pcovy 255* (Txofi€VOS, 8y.
(l)doSf 271 f.
Negative repeated, 5, 249.
Neuter plurals in 5, 217, 253, 406.
Nouns in -ap, 354 f.
Odyssey, passages incidentally
noticed or emended, xi, 2, 61,
75, 76, S8, 91, 94, 96, 124, 125,
130, 135, 152, 158, 167, 172,
198, 200, 203, 222, 226, 245,
267, 288, 290, 292, 301, 320,
328 f., 334, 359, 361, 368, 371,
376, 407, 436.
Optative in final clause after
primary tense, 22.
Optative, kc restored, 35 f., 41,
70, 86.
Optative, polite command, 43,
166, 336.
Optative pure, with relative, 254.
Orchard scene, 422-5.
Order of words, noticeable, 77.
Parenthesis, 43, 93.
Participles, doubling of, 302.
Plural of iKaa-Tos, usage of, (268),
426.
Position of enclitic personal pro-
noun, 2, 236, 334.
Possessive pronoun lost, 98, 242,
258, 280, 294, 357.
Preposition omitted, {iv) 53, 264,
(fVt) 179, («) 296, («) 301.
Preposition omitted from com-
pound verb, 198, 232, 295.
Preposition misunderstood, 281 f.
Punctuation improved, 25, 69,
78, 139, 162, 169, 236, 254,
265, 347, 389, 401, 433-
Rudder, use of, 71.
Scansion of ttoXios, 96.
Second aor. subj., non-epic form
of, 29.
Sense v. Tradition, 58.
Shortening of f) (or) in thesis, 56,
254.
Shortening before Trp-, 58, 259.
Shortening before xp[^ ^Z^'
Singular for plural in error, 57,
397.
Singular in collective sense, 208.
Subj. with K(, 217, 244, 394. ^
Subj. without Ki in principal
clause, 93.
Transposition, 9, 62, 82, 90, 134,
i39> 173, 208, 236, 240, 306,
309, 322, 345, 372, 412.
Transposition of clause, 89 f.,
150, 244, 381.
Verbal adj., usage of, 274.
Vocal action, represented
metal work, 342.
in
INDEX II
aaaros^ 384.
aypoTJyy, 277.
mvaovra^ 225>
need, 326.
a^fV^QTOf, 107.
iWXoi/, 118.
alvona0T}tj 32 1
438
aip(a>, 16.
atrtfo), 301.
aKfoiV^ 246 f.
dKTjpioSj aKfjpaTOSj &C., 20I f.
aKTTjv (dvTtjv), 427 f.
aXe^a, 298 f.
aX\d Tff 360.
INDEX
dn(f)0v8isy 295.
&v {<€), 96 f.
avd<ra(Of lOO.
dv€(r€ij 322.
dvidCdi, 346.
dvTideos, 239.
nvaya, 362.
di/a>|a>, 280.
diraixeipofiai., 2 1 9.
d7rofpr](rfi, 14*
OTTOTiTa, 27.
dpecrOai, 36, 70.
apo-iTToScs, 45.
da-afxev, (45), 280.
So-e (aao-e), 1 7 7.
So-o-a, 337, 370-
arap, 233, 262 f.
dvTT], 156.
avTovs (alone), 295.
auTCoy, 244, 280, 303.
aipap, 294.
'AxauaSwv, 335.
y€ omitted, 19, 28, 31, 55, 89,137,
180, 275, 419-
y€ya>paj &C., 1 25*
yepdeo-ariVf I03.
y^ (jyata), 295, 407-
SaKpyTrXweiv, 333.
Scarai, 20.
dcSacbs, 221.
8i]}^€oixai, 137.
Sict (Sw^aros), 360.
diaKpiv6riT€f 435.
6i8a)0-«i', 418.
Ster/xayov, III.
e, loss of, 128.
lapos (eiapoj), 353-
idoij 324.
iepya, 4Ij 256.
et 8^, 420 f .
elpvpevov, 1 49.
fiaas, 1 85.
fio-o), 125.
€Kaff (aTTo), 40.
cKaorepo), 1 1 3.
eKaoTOSf 352.
cXfci), 312.
eXuo-^i;, 328.
f/ico {ipi6iv)y 95.
eVoff, 352.
eVeTTO), 45, 94*
evayrradicds, 402f.
ftravpr], 3 1 5.
eneiyofJLevoSf 222 f.
iireXrjKiov, 1 35.
em^Tjuevai {^vrjs), 252.
fViiOTopa, 375.
eTria-rdpevos, 1 23.
«7riT€X\o), 410.
epivov, 74*
epTTfi, 416.
ipVKOKiiiv, 178.
eparja-ei, 285.
eVao-etf, fVaC©, 3l7j 33I«
€Tot/zos, 135.
exvvTO, 168.
ewXTret, 410.
^ shortened in thesis, 56.
^8v9, 114, 175-
^i/v, 409, 425.
^6 TTcp <S8e, 276, 337.
^KTjae, 194.
^v^a, 216.
^/Lia, 122.
^papfy, 63.
^paTo (-fro), meaning ot, 49.
i]fpei, 176, 375- ^
^pa)os, i7pa), 97, 1 38.
TJaTr}Vf 104.
depim, 291.
3€(T(f>aTos, 107.
^jyi/, 421.
OodKOS, 18.
^v/xw, 370.
ta;(0»;Ta, I5I«
l8€(T0ai for dpeadai, 36, 70.
117/iii, 285.
iixepoeis, 1 66.
KOI, erroneous crasis, 38.
Kapra, 344.
Karaio-x^Tat, I4I.
Kf, loss of, 10, 35, 70, 86, 244.
KTjpo^i, 307.^
Kp^o-ai (/ccpao-ai), 1 09.
Xayx""*^) 143*
Xdo)!/, 338. .N ' X
Xdeoi/ erroneous {Xovov, fAovfov)^
54f.
Xouo-aTf, &C., 901.
XovaOaif 92.
pdvTTjos, 170 f«
439
INDEX
fiaxfovfievov, 1 87.
fK\€(rBa>, 172.
H€v, 242, 290.
fX(pfXT]pi^€V, 88,
fterd, 281.
fivr}crd>fif6a, 368.
fivayfievoi, 239.
fioi elided, 150, 270.
fioXoppoSf 313.
fiopoevra, 320.
i/ea (v^a), 1 50.
vea (ej/ea), 253.
v€7ai, 178.
veixetTiCofiai, 9 ff.
I'eoi', 275.
ve'^fa (-6t), 392.
vo(r(f>i(€aij 404.
voo), 384.
pvacra, meaning of, 1 15-18.
^epiT], 416.
l^vp$\TjTat, 1 10.
odvpofiai, 240.
'OSuo-orca, 296.
o/ixa)y, 193.
o/iiw? («^/*i)> 227, 240.
ovofiai, 303-5.
o^voeis, 329 f.
OTTO, OTTl, 68, 152-3.
OpKlOV, 346.
opoiperai, 356.
Off Kf (©ff Ke), 20.
otrot (/ioi), 2Ioflf.
-ou, -&), in thesis before vowel,
179,' 181,269,293.
ovarjs, 351.
6(f)€\\(o) (o(/)etXo>, 134.
o(f)p €v €ld5>, 338, 390.
ne7r\r]fjL€vos, 203.
TTfTTOvdol, 352.
Tre piTp€(j)€t^ 74.
neTaaett, 3 1 6.
TrXay/croo'vi'T;, 365.
TrdtTi, 332.
TTOTl for f TTt, 96.
Trp-, metrical value of, 259, 280.
7rpo^6\a, 214.
npo(T((f>T] for ttpoaiuirt 14*
TrpoaayiraTaj 318.
Trp6(f)pa)v, 236, 255.
npS>Toi npofjLaxoi, 327 f.
TTToXlTTOpdlOV, 1 5 3.
7rTa)CT0"a), 393.
pffl, 36.
p^aat {FpWai), 18, 235.
aidrjpos, 279.
OTtWi, 396 f.
(Txepea-ai^ 235.
(rrt;^aoiro, 367.
(T^Siiv (vShv), 400, 406, 417.
o-^fSo^f, 348.
(TxopL€vrjy meaning of, 87.
i-«X«» 99-
Ta;Cio-Ta (xe 6a<T(T0v), 33.
re for yf, 337.
Tf, point in usage of, 44, 57, 165,
^322, 361.
Tftv, 260.
rfr«';^a)ff, 220.
r€rX»;uta, 357.
Tiprj, 182.
Tt/Li^ff, 227, 298.
Tivi or reo), 3CX).
Tiaaadai, 33.
Toi, lossof, 129,241,373.
Tov /lev (erepoj/), 7I f«
Tdoroi/, 234.
TO)!' for TO), 23.
'■'^s', 325* 383.
im-epiKraiuovTO, 398.
vTrepwa, non-epic, 29.
wo, with dat., ^7.
viroOcv, 266.
v^epe(f)r]s) (ii>//'opo^off, 63.
0aoff, 271 f.
(f)T}\€Ofiat., 137.
^^ti/ff {(f)dlfai), 29.
(f>i\i<ov, 348.
Xeo), 147.
Xpetos, 129.
0)8e (^e ""ep), 276.
(utero (yoov), 1 62.
a>«(vreXi;ff, 3 1 1,
wff Kfv (opt.), 32.
Oxford : Printed at the Clarendon Press, by Horace Hart, M.A.
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LIBRARY
BERKELEY
Return to desk from which borrowed.
This book is DUE on the last date stamped below.
3Mar52Vvv
REG. CIR. tibdc'it
CIB. JAN 27
'81
vt^
3 a\SS^
LD 21-96m-ll,'50 (2877816)476
U.C.BERKELEY LIBRARIES
CDSmiaE3M
M