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