Google
This is a digital copy of a book that was preserved for generations on library shelves before it was carefully scanned by Google as part of a project
to make the world’s books discoverable online.
It has survived long enough for the copyright to expire and the book to enter the public domain. A public domain book is one that was never subject
to copyright or whose legal copyright term has expired. Whether a book is in the public domain may vary country to country. Public domain books
are our gateways to the past, representing a wealth of history, culture and knowledge that’s often difficult to discover.
Marks, notations and other marginalia present in the original volume will appear in this file - a reminder of this book’s long journey from the
publisher to a library and finally to you.
Usage guidelines
Google is proud to partner with libraries to digitize public domain materials and make them widely accessible. Public domain books belong to the
public and we are merely their custodians. Nevertheless, this work 15 expensive, so in order to keep providing this resource, we have taken steps to
prevent abuse by commercial parties, including placing technical restrictions on automated querying.
We also ask that you:
+ Make non-commercial use of the files We designed Google Book Search for use by individuals, and we request that you use these files for
personal, non-commercial purposes.
+ Refrain from automated querying Do not send automated queries of any sort to Google’s system: If you are conducting research on machine
translation, optical character recognition or other areas where access to a large amount of text is helpful, please contact us. We encourage the
use of public domain materials for these purposes and may be able to help.
+ Maintain attribution The Google “watermark” you see on each file is essential for informing people about this project and helping them find
additional materials through Google Book Search. Please do not remove it.
+ Keep it legal Whatever your use, remember that you are responsible for ensuring that what you are doing is legal. Do not assume that just
because we believe a book is in the public domain for users in the United States, that the work is also in the public domain for users in other
countries. Whether a book 15 still in copyright varies from country to country, and we can’t offer guidance on whether any specific use of
any specific book is allowed. Please do not assume that a book’s appearance in Google Book Search means it can be used in any manner
anywhere in the world. Copyright infringement liability can be quite severe.
About Google Book Search
Google’s mission is to organize the world’s information and to make it universally accessible and useful. Google Book Search helps readers
discover the world’s books while helping authors and publishers reach new audiences. You can search through the full text of this book on the web
at htip:/ / books: coodle.com/
|
4
ay
LEIPZIG? PRINTED BY b.G. TECBNER.
“' = wwe
ERRATA.
. xxxili 1. 2 omit “had”.
. xciv I. 4 omit “same” before book.
. xcvi l. 1 for ‘‘naure” read ‘‘nature”’.
. 20 note on α. 268—g for “ Buttman’s” read ,,Buttmann’s” and 80 in
other places.
. XXII footnote * fur “there” read ‘‘the”’.
. XXV, 12 1. 7 for epicene read ,,epice com.”, i, 6. common.
. XXVIII footnote * for “‘scens"’ read ,,seems”’.
. LIT IL. 21 for ‘caplains” read ‘explains’.
. LV 1. 32 for “Top.” read ‘‘Geogr.”’.
. LXVI 1. 5 from bott. for (1) read (2).
. LXIX 1. 4 from bott. of text omit. ‘“‘to” before “her”.
. LXXIX 1. 12 from bott. of text for “bad” read ‘“‘had”’.
. LXXXIII note * for “from” read ‘‘form”’.
. LXXXIV 1. τό from bott. for “become” read ‘“‘became”’.
. LXXXV 1. 6 from bott. after ‘“‘without’’ omit the (,).
. XCIII 1. 6 for “alliegance” read ‘“‘allegiance”’.
. XCIV I. 14 at end omit ‘‘to”’.
. CXV 1. 12 from bott. of text for “ἔρετμον᾽" read “ἐρετμόν."
. CXX 1. 13 for ‘“‘trambles’’ read ‘‘brambles”.
Notice omitted on p. xciv, at end of ὃ LXXXIII of preface:
na few
‘‘The words in spaced type in the Greek Text are the ἅπαξ εἰρημένα. A
list of such is found in Friedlander II., with which Bekker’s annotatio at the
end of his Odyssey, and the words marked in Crusius’ Lexicon have been
compared ”’.
272 70
PREFACE.
PART IL GENERAL VIEWS.
Est Homerus Grecorum. scriptotum multo et facillimus et difficillimus: facillimus delectari
cupientibus, difficillimus inquirentibus vel in dictionem ejus, vel in res quas commemorat, vel in
carminum ipsorum originem et composiltionem. Hermann Opuse. 11]. prafat. ad Hom If.
I. Whoever believes that “God hath made of one
blood all nations of men”, will feel that they have in
the genius of Homer a common heritage and a perpetual
witness. His moral standard is beyond compare the
highest with which the poetry of the heathen world
supplies us, and it is inseparably connected with the
awe(t) of God. We find in the poet a moral sense penc-
trated by the consciousness of responsibility and by the
apprehension of retribution, but not benuinbed by any
overruling agency, coercive from without, to evacuate
the will of its freedom. We sec in him a pure theistic
conception, struggling for the mastery with the grosser
genius of mythology and polytheism — the Deus against
the Zeus; but as regards humanity, he teems with testi-
mony to what in it is good and true as its proper nature,
in contrast with whatever embases and corrupts it. The
heroism not only of action but of suffering, and not the
The moral
and intellectual
claims of Homer
appeal powerful-
ly to the leelings
and taste of the
present age.
1 ἠὲ φιλόξεινσι, καί σφιν νόος ἐστὶ ϑεουδής, £. 121 (see note there) ε. 176 ; cf.
πρὸς γὰρ Διός εἰσιν ἅπαντες ξεῖνοί τε πτωχοί τε, £.207-—8. ἕ. ς) ----8;; Ζεὺς δ᾽ ἐπι-
τιμήτωρ ἱκετάων te ξείνων τε, 1. 270. of δ᾽ αἰεὶ βούλοντο ϑεοὶ μεμνῆσϑαι
ἐφετμέων, δ. 353, where see note; πάντες δὲ θεῶν χατέουσ᾽ ἄνθρωποι, γ. 48.
See also the description of an upright king as ϑεουδὴς, τ. 109 foll.
Many other
passages may be found in Nigelsbach, V., die praktische Gotteserkenntniss.
HOM. OD, I.
A
FLED I
The present ov
415 πριν ἡ 2b
trgasde rte we
fee Δ, ἃ ἃ, “ure
‘tee ery. νοΐ
Bhs y ἣν Sho {97,445
‘le penreeity οἵ
Us eens the I-40
ee wes] se the
(Ayre y,
PKEEFACE
serner vitae: onde but the gecther cos. ar: imaged in
bie verse: OL in 4pite of the light awveart made of
rapipe avd bewiedds. there ie Det an ancient and scarve
aousvdem writer wh ontam: = link iw mvolt the
Init remoed weral sentient. and s mach τὸ graufy
the ideal not wulv «ft beauty tat ot meadness. as this
the carlieet of all As regards water: of delicacy,
we apolgize τον mcsdern ears for Shakspear-. on the
acore of the fault of bis age. on a mederat: ὁ μα το
five bondred tunes at least for once that sach an apology
te nesaled fur Homer. Nor is the intellectual value of
Homer of less account than the moral splendour of his
rong. Wt is even mere cognizable in this age than in any
previous one. The older the world grows, the Keener is
the senec of invigorating freshness with which we recur
ty the pure simplicity of the hen-dream of its vouth:
and re-ascend the epic heights as to a patch of primeval
forest, still left on some mountain tep. towering above
the sheep-walks and stubble of civilization and modern-
BEIM.
IJ. Among the vast number of questions of first-rate
interest, which arise from the study of "τε poet”, as his
carlier commentators loved xat’ ἐξυχὴν to call him, I
bhall not attempt to discuss any save those connected
with the text and its authorship, and with the latter only
ry far as it is connected with the language and substance
of the poem. It is, however, impossible to deal with
Homer by halves. Were I less convinced than I am of
the unity of authorship (reserving of course questions of
particular passages) pervading the Iliad and the Odyssey,
still, the extent to which all the greater critical or ethical
questions started in cither poem tend to run into the
other, would require a general survey of the whole Ho-
meric ground. Those who hold the opposite persuasion
will at any rate allow that the two poems stand so far on
the same ground as regards language and subject matter,
that the same enquiry may include them. This consider-
ation may, I hope, have the effect of rendering this
volume serviceable for general Homeric study, as well
as for the particular portion of the Odyssey which it
PARTI. GENERAL VIEWS. lii
contains; and may thus make some amends for the ex- part I
tent to which its bulk has swelled.
ITI. But the Odyssey has special claims of its own onthe which latter,
° however, has
student of quaestiones Homericae which have been most re- ctaims of its own
cently acknowledged by Mr. Grote (2) and Dr. Friedliinder. erising from the
Its estimate has been generally lowered through the tra- Νὰ of female
ditional precedence of the Iliad, toan extent not warranted character and of
on critical grounds, and probably arising from the bias, marvewous “
naturally powerful with scholars, derived from the judg-
ment of antiquity. But if it were possible for Greek ever
to become so current among us as for Homer to appeal
to the heart of the people in his native tongue, I am per-
suaded that this preference would disappear, even if it
were not reversed. I will touch on one ground only for
this opinion, the perfection, viz. of Homer’s female
characters, and the balance which in the Odyssey only
they are found to maintain. Every woman's ideal of her
own sex would be ennobled by the power to trace for
herself the character of Penelopé in its original lines.
But apart from this, the versatility of the narrative of the
Odyssey has enabled it to exercise a perceptible influence
over adventurous fiction ever since; and in a wider ra-
dius still Penelopé’s web, Calypsé’s wiles, Scylla and
Charybdis, the Sirens’ song, the cup of Circé, and the
transformations of Proteus, have passed into the imagi-
nation of all civilized nations, and won for themselves a
second life in proverbs, while Polyphemus has become
the type of a wide family of truculent and witless ogres.
2 As that its structure being essentially one, and such as could not have been
pieced together out of any pre-existing epics, goes far to exclude the Wolfian
hypothesis; and that the natural process would be, first to study the simpler
of the two poems (the Odyssey), and then to apply the conclusions thence
deduced as a means of explaining the other. ‘If it had happened that the Odys-
sey had been preserved thus alone without the Iliad”, Mr. Grote thinks, “the
dispute respecting Homeric unity would never have been raised.” Grote, Hist.
fir, I. τ. xxi, pp. §49, §43, 544. So Friedliinder (I) p. 23: ‘‘ Ware die Odyssee uns
allein erhalten, die Frage nach ihrer Einheit wire vielleicht nie aufgeworfen wor-
den. Denn eine durchdachte Composition, cine Concentration des Interesses
auf einen Haupthelden, der gegenwiirtig und abwesend den Mittelpunkt der
Handlung bildet, dem alle Ereignisse und Personen des Gedichts subordinirt sind,
auf den sich alle beziehen etc.” See, however, for a contrary opinion Hermann
Opusc. V. 546, de interpoll. Hom.
ΑΓ
iv PREFACE.
PART I IV. To the Middle Ages of the West Homer was
(peek Meramre KNOWN only through the transmissive agency of the La-
eererily tok tin, ax may be illustrated from the prevalence of the Ita-
iehadakoe Tan Trojan legend, wherever we catch a glimpse of his
land. eave thes-
Veneally, antl subject matter (3). Till the ageot Bentley, Greek literature,
Bentley's, or ra- ον 4 ἴ ὅς selec? τος ἢ - nti i
νέαις except in its theological uses, had scanty attention paid
im, as shown to it in this country. Such a translation as Chapman’s (4)
b , e . Φ .
y the avarth Of shows how little was known of the poct in the original.
hative editions of
the post. Few men of his own or the previous age, including even
the divines, were such good Greek scholars as Milton, and
Milton smacks far nore of the Attic stage than of Ho-
mer(s). Inthe earlier half of the eighteenth century popular
scholarship was still Latin, or added a lacquer of Greek
as an accomplishment merely, in a style which might en-
title it to be called the silver-gilt age. This may be seen
at a glance from Addison's criticism upon Milton(6). He
seems to have had no consciousness of Bentley's exist-
ἃ See Grote I. p. 39). In King Alfred's Boéthius ch. xxxviii, and in the ap-
pendix thereto in metre, is a version of the story of Odysseus, turnias οὐ iedy on
his adventure with Cireé. The remarkable point in it is that the virtue and vice of
the characters are inverted. It is Odysseus who is willing to love and dwell with
Cireé, forgetful of his return, —nor is this sv far wholly untrue to the original —
and the comrades, literally “his thegnes”, who are turned to beasts because
they resist and wish for their home.
4 A single cx. may suffice: in N. s6o foll. Homer makes Adamas mark Anti-
lochus, Chapman renders it as if Antilochus marked Adamas; and following up
the blunder makes Antilochus’ spear stick in Adamas’ shield instead of vice versa,
asin the original, and makes Poseidon help the wrong man.
§ Thus the opening of the epilogue to Comus, although traceable to Homer
(see note on δι 566), seems derived through Eurip. Hippol. 742 foll.
6 The portion of this criticism which bears upon Homer has not a spark of
originality or vigour. Addison is chiefly content to follow Aristotle and Longinus;
and where he departs from them makes us perhaps wish that he had stuck to
them more closely. The superficiality of his remarks, that Vulean among the Gods,
and Thersites among mortals, are parallel examples of buffoonery (No. 273, 318
paragr.), that “there wants that delicacy in some of Homer's sentiments, which
now appears in the works of men of a much inferior genius”, and that his
“thoughts” are rometimes “low and vulgar” (No. 279, 3° and 415 paragr.), will
strike every one. We may excuse Addison individually, as he does Homer, on the
seore of “the fault of the age”, bunt it is of the age that Iam here speaking. [π|
Lord Macaulay's Essay upon Addison a similar opinion as regards hisGreck scho-
larship is even more strongly expressed.
PART I. GENERAL VIEWS. Vv
ence(7). Indeed Greck scholarship is first uninterruptedly part 1
luminous amongst us from the almost yesterday period
of Porson. But, however that be, the history of the dif-
fusion of Homer is to a great extent the history of the
progress of Greek literature revived. It shows that
not only the fifteenth but the sixteenth and seventeenth
centuries had passed by before there appeared even an
English reprint of any foreign edition of the Iliad and
Odyssey together. Barnes in 1711 has the honours of
our first native edition. Bentley is said to have intended
to cdit Homer. He would, no doubt, have donc the work
grandly, but how the text would have fared in his hands
we may judge from the way in which he handled that
of Ilorace.
V. As the world goes on, every great poct needs illus- Great poets re-
quire perpetual
tration in reference to cach successive age. The illustra- je-cditing, and
tive resources of one period become stale to another, ‘here seems just
now marked at-
while the poct retains the freshness of perpetual youth. tention drawn to
This is the case whether there be or be not any fresh ac- Homer.
quisitions to boast of in the province of scholarship. Our
social state and manners, and the fuller register of the
world’s experience, reflect something on the study of
every first-rate literary treasure. To furnish this is, as
it were, only putting a fresh wick into the lamp which
burns from age to age with unquenchable brightness.
The time seems more disposed than ever to regard
ἡ In 1712 Addison wrote with easy confidence as follows: ‘‘ Homer lived near
300 years after the Trojan war; and as the writing of history was not then in use
among the Greeks, we may very well suppose that the tradition of Achilles and
Ulysses had brought down but very few particulars to his knowledge; tho’ there
is no question but he has wrought into his two poems such of their remarkable
adventures as were still talked of among his contemporaries”. In 1713 ap-
peared Bentley's Remarks etc. by Phileleutherus Lipsiensis, in which (VII. p. 18)
occurs the following remarkable anticipation of a part of the Wolfian view:
‘““Homer wrote a sequel of songs and rhapsodies, to be sung by himself for
small earnings and good cheer, at festivals and other days of merriment; the Ilias
he made for the men, the Odysseis for the other sex. These loose songs were not
collected together in the form of an epic poem till Pisistratus’s time above 500
years after” (Wolf's Prolegy. § xxvii). The degree to which these divergent
views nearly touch each other in point of time, is remarkable.
vi
PART I
A hypothesis,
although perish-
able, may yet
have its value.
In Atlica 700—
600 B.C. may be
ruughly taken as
marking the first
formation of a
written text: from
that pointonward
the poems fall
under the influ-
ence of MSS., and
about 900 B. C.,
of organized and
PREFACE.
Homer with affectionate reverence. Homeric literature
since Wolf's day has become a library in itself, as
it did among the later Alexandrines. The homage of the
foremost men of the age waits upon “the poet”, and the
leaders of our Senate choose the laurel of their leisure
from his chaplet.
VI. The reaction which has taken place in the last
half century from the extreme views of Wolf(8) as to the
origin and unity of the Homeric poems, is a warning
against any sanguine hopes being cherished in favour of
the permanent acceptance of any hypothesis, however
sparkling with originality and enriched by learning.
Still, a hypothesis, however perishable in itself, may
have a subjective value as explaining an editor's point
of view. Nor is its incompleteness at once an evi-
dence against it, if it covers only such ground as scems
probably secure, and is content to let many questions
float.
VII. To draw such a rough line as the matter in de-
bate admits of, it seems far more probable than the con-
trary that the Homeric poems, having originated about
1100—1000 B. C., remained, at least in Attica, until
about 7oo—600 B. C. a depositum of oral tradition.
They may have assumed a written form later in At-
tica than elsewhere, for instance in Sparta(9); but it is
through the Attic line of tradition among philosophers
and grammarians that we trace them in writing, and
8 “During the last ten years”, says Mr. Grote (I. i. xxi. p. 541) writing in
1846, ‘‘a contrary (to the Wolfian) tendency has manifested itself; the Wolfian
theory has been re-examined and shaken by Nitzsch, who, as well as O. Miiller,
Welcker, and other scholars, have revived the idea of original Homeric unity
under certain modifications. The change in Géthe’s opinion, coincident with this
new direction, is recorded in one of his latest works.’ He also notices (ibid)
its recent revival by Lachmann. Friedlander occupies medium ground on the
question, as does Mr. Grote himself. Mr. Gladstone contends not only fur unity,
but for the poct’s substantial fidelity as regards historical fact. On this last
point I advance no opinion; but as regards his dictum, “‘that we should assign to
the Homeric evidence a primary rank upon all the subjects which it touches”
(I. i. p. 72), we cannot, I think, discard the caution of Thucydides I. 9:"Ouneos —
εἶ τω ἱκανὸς τεκμηριῶσαι. ᾿
9 See below p. xii. n. 14 and p. xxxvi.
PART I, GENERAL VIEWS.
during not only these four centuries but for certainly two
centuries later they were still most popularly known by
oral recitation. During this time, however, they had
come under the influence of written texts. It will be
seen that between the Pisistratic and the Ptolemean pe-
riods various persons busied themselves with explana-
tions of the poems, on much of which a shadow of ob-
_ security was then beginning to fall;. and the text was, of
course, recopied perpetually. The preparation of the
text of the Iliad for Alexander by Aristotle is the culmi-
nating point of these Homeristic efforts before Zenodotus
(300 B. C.), from whose time criticism is first continu-
ously traceable.
VIII. The question, at what period the Homeric poems
were first reduced to writing, has so great influence on
any theory as to the history and present state of the
text, that I must be pardoned for spending a few para-
graphs on a subject so keenly debated by abler antago-
nists before me. It scems most likely that their written
form is of earlier date than Wolf allowed; yet that they
existed from the first in writing, as Colonel Mure con-
tends, seems against the balance of evidence. The man-
ner of the poet’s handling his machine of language seems
to me to confirm its purely unwritten character. The
love of iterative phrase, and the perpetual grafting of
one set of words on another, the great tenacity for a for-
mulaic cast of diction and of thought, and the apparent
determination to dwell in familiar cadences, and to run
new matter in the same moulds, all seem to me to mark the
purely recitative poet ever trading on his fund of me-
mory. Mcre antiquity of written style, if we may judge
from the early books of Holy Scripture, would not pro-
duce this characteristic of diction. We find in that ma-
jestic cast of venerable language frequent iterations of
expression, it is truc, but we do not find that budding of
phrase with phrase which we notice in Homer. A few
instances will clear my meaning: I will first cite B. 721,
where it is said of Philoctetes, suffering from a serpent’s
bite,
(1) ἀλλ᾽ ὁ μὲν Ev νήσῳ κεῖτο κρατέρ᾽ ἄλγεα πάσχων,
vil
PART I
continuous criti-
cism.,
The features of
Style, which seem
to bespeak the
original oral cha
racter of the (ext,
are such as mero
antiquity would
not exhibil;
PREFACE.
Homer with affectionate reverence. Homeric literature
since Wolf's day has become a library in itself, as
it did among the later Alexandrines. The homage of the
foremost men of the age waits upon “the poet”, and the
leaders of our Senate choose the laurel of their leisure
from his chaplet.
VI. The reaction which has taken place in the last
half century from the extreme views of Wolf(8) as to the
origin and unity of the Homeric poems, is a warning
against any sanguine hopes being cherished in favour of
the permanent acceptance of any hypothesis, however
sparkling with originality and enriched by learning.
Still, a hypothesis, however perishable in itself, may
have a subjective value as explaining an editor's point
of view. Nor is its incompleteness at once an evi-
dence against it, if it covers only such ground as seems
probably secure, and is content to let many questions
float.
PART I
A hypothesis,
although perish-
able, may yet
have its value.
In Attica 700 —
600 B. C. may be
roughly taken as
marking the first
formation of a
written text: from
VII. To draw such a rough line as the matter in de-
bate admits of, it seems far more probable than the con-
trary that the Homeric poems, having originated about
1100—1000 B. C., remained, at least in Attica, until
that point onward
the poems fall
under the influ-
ence of MSS., and
about 300 B. C.,
of organized and
about 700—600 B. C. a depositum of oral tradition.
They may have assumed a written form later in At-
tica than elsewhere, for instance in Sparta(9); but it is
through the Attic line of tradition among philosophers
and grammarians that we trace them in writing, and
8 “During the last ten years”, says Mr. Grote (I. i. xxi. p. 541) writing in
1846, ‘“‘a contrary (to the Wolfian) tendency has manifested itself; the Woltian
theory has been re-examined and shaken by Nitzsch, who, as well as O. Miiller,
Welcker, and other scholars, have revived the idea of original Homeric unity
under certain modifications. The change in Géthe’s opinion, coincident with this
new direction, is recorded in one of his latest works.” He also notices (ibid)
its recent revival by Lachmann. Friedlinder occupies medium ground on the
question, as does Mr. Grote himself. Mr. Gladstone contends not only fur unity,
but for the poet’s substantial fidelity as regards historical fact. On this last
point I advance no opinion; but as regards his dictum, ‘‘that we should assign to
the Homeric evidence a primary rank upon all the subjects which it touches”
(I. i. p. 72), we cannot, I think, discard the caution of Thucydides I. ο: Ὅμηρος ---
εἶ to ἱκανὸς τεκμηριῶσαι. ᾿
9 See below p. xii. n. 14 and p. xxxvi.
PART I. GENERAL VIEWS.
during not only these four centuries but for certainly two
centuries later they were still most popularly known by
oral recitation. During this time, however, they had
come under the influence of written texts. It will be
seen that between the Pisistratic and the Ptolemean pe-
riods various persons busied themselves with explana-
tions of the poems, on much of which a shadow of ob-
_ scurity was then beginning to fall;, and the text was, of
course, recopied perpetually. The preparation of the
text of the [liad for Alexander by Aristotle is the culmi-
nating point of these Homeristic efforts before Zenodotus
(300 B. C.), from whose time criticism is first continu-
ously traceable.
VIII. The question, at what period the Homeric poems
were first reduced to writing, has so great influence on
any theory as to the history and present state of the
text, that 1 must be pardoned for spending a few para-
graphs on a subject so keenly debated by abler antago-
nists before me. It seems most likely that their written
form is of earlier date than Wolf allowed; yet that they
existed from the first in writing, as Coloncl Mure con-
tends, seems against the balance of evidence. The man-
ner of the poet's handling his machine of language seems
to me to confirm its purely unwritten character. The
love of iterative phrase, and the perpetual grafting of
one set of words on another, the great tenacity for a for-
mulaic cast of diction and of thought, and the apparent
determination to dwell in familiar cadences, and to run
new matter in the same moulds, all seem to me to mark the
purely recitative poet ever trading on his fund of me-
mory. Mere antiquity of written style, if we may judge
from the early books of Holy Scripture, would not pro-
duce this characteristic of diction. We find in that ma-
jestic cast of venerable language frequent iterations of
expression, it is true, but we do not find that budding of
phrase with phrase which we notice in IIomer. A few
instances will clear my meaning: I will first cite B. 721,
where it is said of Philoctetes, suffering from a serpent’s
bite,
(1) ἀλλ᾽ ὁ μὲν Ev νήσῳ κεῖτο κρατέρ᾽ ἄλγεα πάσχων,
vii
PART I
continuous criti-
cism.
The features of
style, which seem
to bespeak the
original oral cha
racter of the text,
are such as mere
antiquity would
not exhibil;
vill PREFACE,
PART 1 and in ε. 13, with a single change of tense the same
especially the line is applied to describe Odyzecus pining for his home.
custom of en- Now, compare both these with δε. 395, where the hero's
grafting one delight at first sight of land is compared to that of a
phrase on ano- . . ς- ᾿ . °
ther, of which Child for his sick father’s recovery :— but a single word is
examples are .
ited. changed,
πατρὸς, OS EV νούσῳ κεῖται κρατέρ᾽ ἄλγεα πάσχων.
(2) In T. 137, where Poseidon has been advising Heré
to retire from the conflict, he adds,
πόλεμος δ᾽ ἄνδρεσσι μελησει,
in α. 358—g Telemachus bids his mother resume her
female labours, adding -
uvsos δ᾽ ἄνδρεσσι μελήσει
πᾶσι. μάλιστα δ᾽ ἐμοί" τοῦ γὰρ κράτος ἔστ᾽ ἐνὶ οἴκῳ: (10)
in A. 352— 3 Alcinoiis, re-assuring Odysseus in reply to
one of his counsellors, says, “let him wait till to-morrow,
till I have completed the array of gifts for him” —
πομπὴ δ᾽ ἄνδρεσσι μελήσει
πᾶσι, μάλιστα δ᾽ ἐμοί τοῦ γὰρ κράτος ἔστ᾽ ἐνὶ Duo.
(3) In &. 134 Laodamas, admiring the figure of Odysseus,
commends his
μηρούς TE κνήμας τε καὶ ἄμφω χεῖρας ὕπερϑεν,
in χ. 173 Odysseus bids the trusty hinds scize Melan-
theus,
σφώῶι δ᾽ ἀποτρέψαντε πόδας καὶ χεῖρας ὕπερϑεν,
in E. 122 οἱ al. ἃ deity imparts vigour to ἃ hero,
γυῖα δ᾽ ἐϑῆκεν ἔλαφρα, πόδας καὶ χεῖρας ὕπερϑεν.
(4) In 4.416 Thetis, bemoaning her son’s untimely fate
impending, says
... ἐπεί νυ τοι αἷσα μίνυνϑά περ οὔ τι μάλα δὴν,
with which comp. N. 573: again in χ. 413 describing the
death-struggles of the female slaves the poet says,
ἥσπαιρον δὲ πόδεσσι μίνυνϑά περ οὔ τι μάλα δήν.
Nor are these rare instances; on the contrary, there is
hardly any feature of the poct’s manner more broadly
marked. We are so wholly without parallel examples
showing how a poct so voluminous, trusting wholly to
1o The passage has been rejected by some critics, but see note ad loc.
PARTI. GENERAL VIEWS.
memory, would compose, that there is no room for posi-
tiveness on the question; but I think this characteristic
commends itself to such a case by all the rules of mental
analogy. When thrown side by side, as I have placed
them, these have some of the effects of parody, or remind
us of the Aristophanic ληκύϑιον ἀπώλεσεν tagged on to
all sorts of initial penthimemers.
IX. The great number of oversights and smaller in-
consistencies, which the poems betray, is a further pre-
sumption in favour of purely oral composition and publi-
cation. If we can venture to approach critically the
menfal condition of a man carrying memoriter over 20,000
verses of his own composing, this at least may be said : —
it is absurd to expect the same relations to exist be-
tween the inind and its work, as occur where it has the
power of projecting the latter symbolized objectively be-
fore its view. Flushed with the grander forms of his
conception, would the poct be likely to adjust minutely
the details? In a sort of mental fresco style, where a great
deal must often be done at a study, can we expect the
small pottering exactness of a mosaic? Would not flaws in
the filling up be most likely to occur in those more prosaic
elements of time, place, and circumstance, which might be
slurred or lost without prejudice to the picture presented
by the imagination? But those grander forms would carry
his audience with him, and a happy amnesty would cover
all. They could not “bring him to book”’, had their criti-
cal astuteness been ever 80 vigorous. Nor, we may be
sure, would they have cared to do so. Nay, I think it likely
that these poems existed even in MS. for some time,
before such flaws in them were noticed. Secure of a
sympathetic carelessness in his audience, the poet would
probably look very little after such pins as critics have
since been picking up with clephantine laboriousness. A
high degree of inaccuracy, in a poem which had no ob-
jective existence as a whole, we may be sure, would pass
unchallenged. And so far from regarding such flaws as
any objection against the genuineness of the text as we
have it, I am disposed to think that but for critical tin-
kering we should have found them ten, twenty, or fiftyfold.
ix
PART I
Such again are
minor incongrui-
ties of incident,
which would pass
unnoticed by the
hearers, and
might be over-
sights,
PARTY 5
fe 40 et
Wari (σι 4
Toma foam ΤΣ
γι. nwle 7
Ae γιὰ moesf.
Such ales are
the ovaciely οἵ
equivalent gram
tncatiecal feet,
aid corinin me
trical preeulingi
tien,
PREFACE.
X. I +hould imagine that the danger. to which a poet
so comping would be hable. would be that of having
a powerful grasp on the part of the poem immediately -
before his mind, bat retaming a comparatively feeble
held on the entire work: that, the ngid safeguard of the
letter being wanting, he would be merely guided by a
sense: of the pervading spirit of his song: that, if he re-
cited perpetually his own work, it would be morally im-
possible for him to check the pullulation of fancy, so as
to retain identity of phrase. Why indeed should he?
Would not novelty have a charm alike for his audience
and himself? I should expect then that he would modify
and recast, and judge‘of the relative effects of this or that
version on his audience ; and that, crossing and diverging
lines of thought being thus generated, he might some-
times be at a loss to decipher accurately the mental pa-
limpsest. If there be any approximation to truth in this
conjecture, why may not some variants be alike genuine?
Nor do I like to attempt to draw the line, as to what
magnitude of discrepancies, in a poem seldom if ever
recited save in portions, should be deemed to overstrain
this licence which I have claimed. Mr. Grote's allega-
tions as regards the Iliad might, I think, were that my
present business, be largely answered on this principle.
He thinks he detects in it an Achilleis recast into an
Iliad. I think we may admit all the variations in detail
which he urges without inferring such a change of de-
sign. Such a view, I think, arises from the assumed ana-
logy of a written poem. .
XI. Another token of oral recitation is the variety of
equivalent forms for the same word. Writing trains
down the wild luxuriance of language; it lops some
shoots and developes exclusively others. In Homer the
healthy vigour of the “gadding vine” is predominant.
We find a stage of language in which this profusencss,
especially of pronominal and verbal forms, reigns un-
checked. We find moreover a power of shifting the
weight of the voice from syllable to syllable at will, so
as that ἐρύσωμεν should becoine ἐρύσσομεν, and ἕως in
effect elog; which again suggests the first freedom of a
PARTI. GENERAL VIEWS. xi
muse unbroken as yet to the yoke of written forms. The parr 1
prevalence of hiatus as an original feature, undeniable,
I think, by any who deals candidly with the text as he
now finds it, is due to the same oral power of governing
in recitation the sound generated (11).
XII. Colonel Mure, it seems to me, is successful in The use of writ-
ing in a commu-
establishing that a knowledge of writing existed in a nity often exists
great part of Greece far earlier than Wolf allowed; and " state pur
. P . poses, while the
that it was practised for certain purposes, such as the re- general aod ti-
gister of sovereigns or other official personages, the pub- terry use of it
is unknuwn,
lication of laws, the recording of oracles, and the inscrip-
tion of monuments (12). But that it was used for literary
purposes is a point of which the proof falls wholly short.
A few official persons and a small olass of public scribes
might easily keep it to themselves, save that in every
community a few congenial minds would appropriate and
master it. Doubtless, the existence of such would leaven
the body politic with such a smattering, that a small per-
centage of the public might spell out the acts of carly
legislators when exposed at Athens on the inscribed turn-
tables for the benefit of all. They would be able to inform
public opinion; just as a meeting among ourselves is held
11 Lincline to think that the earliest written copies of Homer had the F, and
also such hiatus as could be remedied by the voice in recitation. But the ques-
tion is hardly a practical one for us. The loss of the F would leave in many lines
a redundancy of hiatus, and through this, coupled with the reactionary influence
of a written text, which reminds the ear of hiatus through the eye, the corrupt de-
vices by which hiatus is stopped were probably generated. As regards the F it-
self, it probably died out very gradually, going through many phases of semi-
pronunciation; and probably possessed from the first a degree of elasticity which
could evade lengthening a sylluble before it by position; cf. the promiscuous
use of ‘a university”, ‘“‘an university’’, among ourselves, and the various ways in
which the (probably at first guttural) -ough is evaded, which guttural sound itself
seems often to have been the remnant of a stronger consonantal sound decayed.
12 The list of Olympic victors, from Corebus downwards, was kept at Elis,
that of the Carnean victors at Sparta, as also that of the Spartan kings with the
years of their reigns. The priestesses of Heré were similarly registered at Sicyon.
From these ἀναγραφαὶ or some of them was compiled by Charon of Lampsacus,
before Herodotus had written, his work called the Prytanes or rulers of Lacede-
mon; whilst Timzeus drew up from comparison of them, what may be called Fasti
Dorici, in which chronological differences were closely noted (Miiller’s Dorians,
vol. I. p. 149—50).
xii PREFACE.
ΡΑΕΤῚΙ to be public when the reporters are in the roomt3. The
Several argu. @bsolute use of the word γράφειν, sc. νόμον, 14. confirms
ments, especially this view, and doubtless descended from the ancient time
that based on Z. 4° \
168 foll., and an. When writing was very rare. How much older than So-
other of Mure's lon written testaments were, or whether so old, it is im-
bath, are soem possible to know, and superfluous to enquire. In their
shown to be in- earliest age they would doubtless be drawn by an official
conclusive. scribe. To take a familiar instance, the existence of the
“Book of the Law” is no proof that writing, or even
reading, was familiar to the Hebrew people. The Levites
probably engrossed that knowledge, and doubtless the
injunction of a “bill of divorcement” would operate as
an impediment rather than a facility in the age when it
was given; since it,would compel resort to a Levite,
which would cause delay, and give passions time to
cool(ts). It is strange that Colonel Mure should think
that Archilochus’ allusion to the σκυτάλη (16) implies that
he “was in the habit of writing his works” and ‘of dis-
tributing copies of them”. His other arguments, based .
on the strictures of Herodotus on the ancient and
later Greek alphabet, on the ascription to Palamedes of
the invention of letters, and on the allusions by the dra-
matic pocts to the art of writing, as practised in the
“heroic” age from which their fables were drawn (t7), are
cither satisticd by the acknowledged existence of writing
13 This would answer Colonel Mure’s argument that “a clamour for a new
code of written laws could hardly have arisen among a people who were them-
selves unable to read them”. (III. iii. vii. § 17. p. 462.)
‘14 The Doric rhetras include foreign treaties, and some ancient ones are
said to have been preserved in writing (Miiller ub. sup. p. 153). A good example
of a monumental rhetra is preserved among the most ancient Greek inscriptions
(Boeckh, vol. I. No. 11). It is a treaty for rooyears between the Eleans and Herxans.
15 Thisis quite consistent with the New Testament condemnation of its principle.
16 ἐρέω τιν᾽ ὑμὶν αἷνον ὦ Κηρυκίδη,
ἀξνυμένη σκυτάλη .... cited Mure wb. sup. p. 453. The connexion of
the last two words is not wholly clear: ἄχνυμαι is in Homer always passive or
neuter, and σκυτάλη should probably be taken in apposition with Kyjgux. The
address to some person whom the poct chooses to designate as ‘“‘messenger’s son”
— a jocularly fictitious name—is further reinforced by the appellation σκυτ. =
“ nost-stick”’, just as from the name of his weapon ἄς. a knight is culled ‘Sa lance”,
a rower “an oar’. Mure takes it as if ἀγνυμένην σκυτάλην were the reading.
17 tb. p. 447.
PARTI. GENERAL VIEWS.
for a limited purpose, or nullified by the known licence
of poetic fiction. With regard to the arguments gathered
from the poems themselves, the famous passage in Z.
168 foll. certainly proves that a despatch on a matter of
life and death might in the poet's view be transmitted
and deciphered. But it may be that this is meant to be
regarded as a family secret, obtained through the Asiatic
connexion of Proetus rather than generally diffused. The
word σήματα or σῆμα, thrice repeated, rather points to
ΧΕΙ
PART I
some form of hieroglyph than to written characters, as ἤν
in the coin of Gortys here engraved, whose τὸ oéua is|
the actual lion. A further argunent, bascd on the expres- WW ἐξ
sion ta δὲ πάντα ϑεῶν ἐν γούνασι κεῖται(ι8), which is
interpreted by Colonel Mure to mean, in some book con-
taining the written decrecs of fate, secins to me inade-
quately supported. Copious as are the ILomeric refer-
ences to Fate under various terms, there is not one allu-
sion anywhere to a “book” of fate. atoa spins the lot
- of suffering at birth, and Zeus has two vases (πέϑοι) of
good and evil fate on his threshold: further, the “lines
(πείραταὶ of victory are held above by the gods” (19). Such
are the images of the poct’s own finding, and we mustabstain
from adding to them. But even allowing ancient oracles,
committed to writing’, to have been alluded to, this is one
of those rare and distinct purposes already allowed for
above, to which early writing may have been directed (20).
All these arguments fall short of the point at issue, which
is the popular use of writing on such a scale as would as-
sist the author of poems consisting of 12,000 lines apiece.
XIII. On the other hand Mr. Grote, I think, takes
too narrow a view in lowering the age of written copies
to that of the formation of an early class of readers. It
might early be discovered that written copics, used by a
prompter, would be a great assistance to rhapsodists
18 P. 514, T. 435, α. 267, 400, π. 129.
19 T. 128—9, 2. 209—10, 527—8, H. 101 —2.
(Coin of Gortys :
a lion’s head in
the centre, round
it, beginning
from below, the
words Fogruros
70 Gaya.)
Rut the first
written copies
were — probably
not for general
readers, but as
a mechanical aid
to the rhapso-
20 The allusions to oracles have been challenged by Payne Knight (Prolegg.
§ XLVi) as proving the later date of the Odysscy, to which they are confined. Without
admitting this, it is pertinent to observe that neither of them contains any allusion
to writing as a modus vaticinandi, Sec further some remarks on p. tii inf.
Xiv PREFACE.
part 1 highly gifted in other respects, but whosememory was trea-
ists, and Solou's Cherous(2t); or that, if public feeling was against this use
law περὶ rovga- Of them, the wnemory might by their aid be better forti-
vamueoae μος fied beforehand (22). MSS would also be very useful in
lowed. teaching other rhapsodists. In such a way it seems likely
that the habit of copying crept in, but it was doubtless for
a long while a πάρεργον merely, having no public import-
ance, and carrying no authority. Yet still, as they mul-
tiplied individually, copies would in time acquire a subsi-
diary power of giving a consciousness of a text as an
objective fact; and, on the whole, it seems more pro-
bable that the law of Solon(23), providing that recitation
should be ἐξ vzoBodjs, ἑ. ὁ. probably, following a given
cue, or in orderly succession, was passed after that
power had been acquired than before it. Those who ap-
prove this view will perhaps be content to regard the
habit from which a written text was thus first formed, as
having grown up at Athens in the two centuries preceding
Solon, viz.the 7" and 8" before Christ (24), and to suppose
that by the time of Solon, who closes the 7'* century, that
text was complete in its constituent elements, although
probably these were in great disorder and were charged
with much adventitious matter. On this view, however,
it is less important to fix precisely an initial period for a
first written text than on most others.
21 Some have even thought that ἐξ ὑποβολῆς ῥαψωδεῖσϑαι, the term em-
ployed in the law of Solon on recitations, means, ‘‘to be recited with a prompter's
aid’’: so Hermann Opusc. p. 311. I take it rather to mean, each rhapsodist in
turn giving to (ὑποβάλλων) and receiving from (vxolaupavowy) another his cue;
cf. Wolf Prolegg. § xxxii, ἢ. 4.
22 Mr. Grote’s argument (ub. sup. p. 527), that a τυφλὸς ἀνὴρ (Hymn Apoll.
Del, 172) could not have used a MS., is superficial. He might have been prompted
from it in case of need.
23 Ta Ὁμήρου ἐξ ὑποβολὴς γέγραφε ῥαψωῳδεῖσϑαι, οἷον ὅπου ὁ πρῶτος
ἔληξεν, ἔκειϑεν ἄρχεσϑαι τὸν ἐχόμενον. Dicuchides ap. Diog. Laert. II. 57.
24 The many germs of civilization which Solon’s time evinces, and which his
legislation in regard to property leads us to suppose, make it difficult to think
that the application of writing to so obviously useful a resource, as the fortifying
the memory for recitation, could be longer delayed; especially as men’s wits would
be stimulated to the application by the chance of a prize. We are to re-
member also that for 300 years previously the use of convenient writing materials
had been within the reach of the Egyptians and Phoenicians.
PARTI. GENERAL VIEWS.
XIV. If a written Homer thus sprang up per accidens,
and in its influence was rather felt than seen, and Solon
attempted in this crude state of the text to deal legisla-
tively with recitations; it is quite consistent that difficul-
ties should have revealed themselves which threw Pi-
sistratus back on an endeavour to establish accuracy in
the text itself, and to do that advisedly which had
been done fortuitously before. And in this sense we
may allow that he, in the words of Wolf, “carmina Ho-
meri primus consignavit literis, ct in eum ordinem rede-
git quo nunc leguntur’ (25). If incompetent to expel what
was extrancous — a question to which 1 purpose further
returning — he would have to arrange what was reccived,
and to familiarize the Athenian mind with the conscious-
ness of a Homeric text as an objective whole. And here
we may accept the suggestion of Mr. Grote(26), that the
period has now been reached, in which a class of readers
may be looked for; and in which, a standard text having
been settled, the poet, free before as a bird of the air,
was, as it were caged in a litera scripta, although all but
a few lettered men would still know him by recitation
only; and, this continuing to be his popular life, a good
deal of fluctuation might still exist among the readings
of the rhapsodists.
XV. On the whole there may be reason to think that
too much has been made of the influence of Pisistratus
upon Homer. Occupying a position which no man did
afterwards — nor indeed before, taking into account li-
terary opportunities — he would be able with peculiar
ease to appropriate the results of others’ labours.
he also could bring the power of the executive to bear
upon designs which might have been attempted by pri-
vate hands too feebly for success or too obscurely for
25 Prolegg. § xxxiii.
But
XV
PART I
Such 4 fortui-
tous text al A-
thens was pro-
hbably by Pisis-
tratus — supple-
mented with an
advised one.
Of whose
influence on Ho-
mer, however, an
over-estimate
has perhaps
heen foruned.
The ancient authorities, cited by Wolf there (note s),
speak not of the formation of a written text, but of the introduction of order into
the matter which had become confused.
Orat. 111. 34.
The oldest of them is Cie.
de
26 He fixes such a period at 660— 30 B. C., or nearly a century before Pisis-
tratus (Grote ub. sub. p. 531): α fortiori therefore, might it be the case, at Pisis-
tratus’ time.
Xiv PREFACE.
part 1 highly gifted in other respects, but whosememory was trea-
lists, antSolon's. Cherous(2); or that, if public feeling was against this use
law περὶ τοῦζα- Of them, the memory might by their aid be better forti-
nnn vy. fied beforehand (22). MSS would also be very useful in
lowed, teaching other rhapsodists. In such a way it scems likely
that the habit of copying crept in, but it was doubtless for
a long while a πάρεργον merely, having no public import-
ance, and carrying no authority. Yet still, as they mul-
tiplied individually, copies would in time acquire a subsi-
diary power of giving a consciousness of a text as an
objective fact; and, on the whole, it seems more pro-
bable that the law of Solon(23), providing that recitation
should be ἐξ ὑποβολῆς, 7. 6. probably, following a given
cue, or in orderly succession, was passed after that
power had been acquired than before it. Those who ap-
prove this view will perhaps be content to regard the
habit from which a written text was thus first formed, as
having grown up at Athens in the two centuries preceding
Solon, viz.the 71} and 8" before Christ (24), and to suppose
that by the time of Solon, who closes the 7" century, that
text was complete in its constituent elements, although
probably these were in great disorder and were charged
with much adventitious matter. On this view, however,
it is less important to fix precisely an initial period for a
first written text than on most others.
21 Some have even thought that ἐξ ὑποβολῆς ῤαψωδεῖσϑαι, the term em-
ployed in the law of Svlon on recitations, means, “to be recited with a prompter's
aid”: so Hermann Opusc. p. 31. I take it rather to mean, each rhapsodist in
turn giving to (vxoBadlwy) and receiving from (vxolauBavey) another his cue;
ef. Wolf Prolegg. § xxxii, n. 4.
22 Mr. Grote’s argument (ub. sup. Ὁ. 527), that a τυφλὸς ἀνὴρ (Hymn Apoll.
Pel. 172) could not have used a MS., is superficial. He might have been prompted
from it in case of need.
23 Τὰ Ὁμήρου ἐξ ὑποβολὴς γέγραφε ῥαψῳδεῖσϑαι, οἷον ὅπου ὁ πρῶτος
ἔληξεν, ἔκειϑεν ἄρχεσθαι τὸν ἐχόμενον. Dicuchides ap. Diog. Laert. II. 57.
24 The many germs of civilization which Solon’s time evinces, and which his
legislation in regard to property leads us to suppose, make it difficult to think
that the application of writing to so obviously useful a resource, as the fortifying
the memory for recitation, could be longer delayed; especially as men’s wits would
be stimulated to the application by the chance of a prize. We are to re-
member also that for 300 years previously the use of convenient writing materials
had been within the reach of the Egyptians and Phoenicians.
PARTI. GENERAL VIEWS.
XIV. If a written Homer thus sprang up per accidens,
and in its influence was rather felt than seen, and Solon
attempted in this crude state of the text to deal legisla-
tively with recitations; it is quite consistent that difficul-
ties should have revealed themselves which threw Pi-
sistratus back on an endeavour to establish accuracy in
the text itself, and to do that advisedly which had
been done fortuitously before. And in this sense we
may allow that he, in the words of Wolf, ‘“carmina Ho-
meri primus consignavit literis, et in eum ordinem rede-
git quo nunc leguntur” (25). If incompetent to expel what
was extraneous — a question to which I purpose further
returning — he would have to arrange what was received,
and to familiarize the Athenian mind with the conscious-
ness of a Homeric text as an objective whole. And here
we may accept the suggestion of Mr. Grote(26), that the
period has now been reached, in which a class of readers
may be looked for; and in which, a standard text having
been settled, the poet, free before as a bird of the air,
was, as it were caged in a /ilera scripta, although all but
a few lettered men would still know him by recitation
only; and, this continuing to be his popular life, a good
deal of fluctuation might still exist among the readings
of the rhapsodists.
XV. On the whole there may be reason to think that
too much has been made of the influence of Pisistratus
upon Homer. Occupying ἃ position which no man did
afterwards — nor indeed before, taking into account li-
terary opportunities — he would be able with peculiar
ease to appropriate the results of others’ labours. But
he also could bring the power of the executive to bear
upon designs which might have been attempted by pri-
vate hands too feebly for success or too obscurely for
25 Prolegg. § xxxiii.
XV
PART I
Such 4 fortui-
lous (cxt at A-
thens was pro-
bably by Pisis-
tratus supple-
mented with an
advised one.
Of whose
influence on Ho-
mer, however, an
over-estimate
has perhaps
heen formed,
The ancient authorities, cited by Wolf there (note 5),
speak not of the formation of a written text, but of the introduction of order into
the matter which had become confused.
Orat. TIT. 34.
The oldest of them is Cic. de
26 He fixes such a period at 660— 30 B. C., or nearly a century before Pisis-
tratus (Grote ub. sub. p. 531): @ fortiori therefore, might it be the case, at Pisis-
tratus’ time.
xvi PREFACE.
PART I notice (27). IIe, no doubt, by these means gave a direction
and a concentration to Athenian taste, and supplied
Athens with the means of gratifying it, and the value of
the result must be multiplied by the influence acquired
by the Attic school of thought in later times. It will be
more convenient, however, to resume consideration of
this subject further on.
The questions XVI. In considering the Homeric text as we now
here = discussed
relate to 1. the have it, the most important questions are those which re-
word-forms, and late to the genuineness of the forms of words, of their
2. the matter of
the text. The Substantial identity with those used by the poet, and of
question of the the substance of the text as a whole, or of its main com-
origin of the va- . . .
riants, since it ponent members, including their arrangement. The ques-
runs back tthe tion of the origin of the variants is one of great collateral in-
time before Aris- .
tarchus, is ob- terest, but, subject to the remark made above on p.x., be-
seure. Several longs rather tothe history of thetextin very early days, the
possible sources “
of them are here NAtcrials of which havemostly perished. Weareall but en-
mentioned, tirely at the mercy of the AlexandrineSchool. Yet, as will
be shown below (p. niii foll.), the predecessors of Aristar-
chus, and Crates, his opponentand contemporary, exercised
a perceptible, although scarcely a significant influence over
the judgment of subsequent ages. Some of their readings,
which Aristarchus rejected, have been rescued by the
Scholl., but the value of mostis not so great as toenhance our
regret for the loss of the larger portion (28). In them, how-
27 We can thus justify the couplet of the epigram said to have been inscribed
on the monument of Pisistratus at Athens, in which he declares himself as
τὸν μέγαν ἐν βουλῇ Πεισίστρατον, ὃς τὸν Ὅμηρον
ἤϑροισα σποράδην τὸ πρὶν ἀειδόμενον.
Villoison e Dionys. Thrac. Anecd. Gr. p. 18.
We may compare the action of Constantine upon the Canon in causing Eusebins
to prepare 50 copies of Holy Scripture for the new Churches designed at Constan-
tinople. That that Canon then was not settled — although probably not in such
an unsettled state as the text of Homer in the time of Pisistratus — is shown by
Mr. Westcott (The Bible in the Church pp. 155—60), who supposes that this drew
further attention to questions of Canonicity, especially the attention of Athana-
sius, and thus prepared the way for greater definiteness. This of Constantine Mr.
Westcott calls “the first complete Greck Bible issued by authority for public use”.
28 The Scholl. have preserved many more than are mentioned in the marginal
readings of this or probably of any edition. The scope of such a margin is not to be
a receptacle for all refuse readings, but only to invite the reader’s judgment to
such as seem to possess at any rate plausibility, and generally something more.
PART I. GENERAL VIEWS.
ever, wehave a bare glimpse of anon-Aristarchean Homer.
Since Aristarchus’ time there is no trace of any sources
which were unknown to him having been even enquired for:
but from theAugustan cra downwards several critics, among
whom Didymus is the leading name, found that time had
again brought round the period of lustration, and passed
all the various streams of learning derived from the first
Alexandrines through the filter again. Among the vast
variety of readings of which now no trace is left, it is
impossible to say how many that were truc have perished
at each great revise. For such is human frailty that its
best judgment has probably let slip on every such oc-
casion something that is true, and established something
that is false. As regards the variants themselves, no
general theory seems worth advancing. A probable
source of a large number of original variants has been
suggested above. The practice of recitation would lead
to many more. The strongly formulaic character of the
phraseology would allow the substitution of one for-
mula for another of the same metrical value. Even with-
out such distracting influences a reciter, whose wit was
readier than his memory, might alter much, and, as will
be shown below with regard to interpolations, might, if
popular, establish a school of followers, and so garble or
disguise the text as to make it difficult for all the re-
sources of subsequent criticism to detect the true read-
ing. Then must be taken into account all the dangers
to which MSS. are liable. But these the Homeric poems
share in common with all other ancient writings, al-
though since 200 B. C. they had for about four centuries
such a hold on critical attention as prevented further
textual errors from accumulating. It must suffice to
consider on their individual merits in the following
notes ad loc. such variants as seem worth the trouble,
and to omit the rest. There is one other circumstance,
which on the whole tells in favour of carefulness in pre-
serving the Homeric text: it is that from the earliest
times, when education was systematically given, they
were used as school-books, and were standard classics.
It is natural to suppose a greater vigilance over such a
HOM. OD. 1. B
Xvil
PART I
For the text has
been exposed to
various dangers
both in its oral
and its) written
form,
whilst it also en-
joyed one main
security.
XVill
PART I
The argument
in favour of the
genuineness of
the word - forms
rests on 1. the
metrical struc-
ture,
2. the rhapso-
dists’ art, which
was traditional
and conservative,
and certainly did
not begin in Ho-
mer.
PREFACE.
text than over one which was less essential to the mental
culture of the Greek race.
XVII. As regards the genuineness of the forms of
words in Homer, the first broad argument in its favour
is based on their fitting into the metrical structure, and
on the fact that the later use of language tended mostly
to cut them down, which therefore, if yielded to, would
often have lamed the line. Even such contractions as
would substitute spondees for dactyls, considering the
dactylic preponderance which we find surviving, need
no wide margin of allowance. It seems indeed likely
that Homer’s language was slightly archaic in his own
time. We cannot suppose him to have reached the
artistic level on which he stands without many steps of
ascent having been raised by others before him. Many
preludes of shorter flight must probably have been es-
sayed, and ruder schools of song have had their day, be-
fore he arose to transcend them all, and perhaps tacitly
to incorporate the results of some(29). The very copious-
ness of his matter suggests this, and still more its com-
plication. Conventionalisms of diction and established
formule of expression, common to him with Hesiod,
suggest previous workmen and a handicraft which had
become traditional. They can hardly fix themselves as
features of manner in one man’s lifetime. Now, such
schools of song tend to arrest that flux of language to
which all that we know of human speech bears witness,
and the rhapsodists would doubtless maintain a fami-
liarity with whatever uncouth or prolix forms were
dropping out of the most current vernacular; while the
vinculum of the metre, although not without some such
elasticity as innovators might improve, would check
any wide licence of departure from the primitive stan-
dard. If at or before the period of Solon interpolation
was, as we shall see reason to think, successful for a
29 The Ambros. and other Scholl. on y. 267 mention as ἀοιδοὶ earlier than
Homer, Demodocus the Laconian, Glaucus, Automedes of Mycenz, Perimedes of
Argos, Lycimnius of Buprasium, Sipis of Doris, Pharidas (or Phalaridas) the
Laconian, Probolus of Sparta
PART I. GENERAL VIEWS.
time, it could only have been so by keeping to acknow-
ledged old Achzan forms, those which were vernacular
once, but have come down to us as “Epic”, so called
from the works which have preserved them.
XVIII. But before the time of Solon the dialects had
been formed, the influence of which shall! be considered
presently; and by his tine it has been considered likely
that a crnde written text existed. So long as that text
was ancillary to recitation, and had no documentary va-
lue, it was not likely to exercise a corrupting influence
on the word-forms. Even long afterwards, the fact that
recitation continued to be the popular channel of Ho-
meric knowledge would tend to check such corruptions.
The rhapsodist would transmit the word-forms probably
as he received them, the copyist from MS. to MS. would
tend to clip them, to misunderstand, to guess and do
mischief. On the other hand, the rhapsodist would per-
petrate or admit interpolations freely, but the copyist, if
he even incorporated them, would be checked by some
other who had them not; and whenever a true critic
arose, no matter how late, if he had only an adequate ar-
ray of material, he would easily precipitate and expel
them. It is true, the earliest class of interpolations might
possibly baffle all subsequent acuteness (XXXVIII—
IX inf.). But the time when the most formidable
danger would threaten the word-forms, was the age of
criticism itself. The famous Alexandrine school set to
work on the assumption that they knew Greek, and for
all except Homeric purposes they perhaps knew it suf-
ficiently well. It was so far unfortunate that they were
worst equipped on that very point at which they directed
the greatest force of their wits. Their non-recognition
of the digamma in Homer, which they knew in Aolic,
shows us how narrow was the basis of their view. It is
no arrogance to say that, since no language can be
known by itself, and since with all except Greek that
school had but the most superficial acquaintance, modern
scholarship has a collateral apparatus at command
which sets it on a ground of conspicuous vantage. If
we in the present day knew no Gothic language save
B*
PART I
That art, while
it tended to keep
the word - forms
pure, favoured
interpolation,
and those forms
were most em-
perilled in the
age of professed
criticism,
PART I
3. The power of
a work of genius
—a national mo-
nument — in
checking the flux
of word - forms,
and 4, the na-
tional enthusi-
asm, which the
poet kept alive,
should also be
allowed for.
PREFACE.
our own, how could we edit King Alfred or even Laya-
mon? It has been the work of scholars since Bentley,
but more especially since Wolf, to turn that apparatus to
account, and to supply, if possible, the omissions, or
even correct the mistakes of Aristarchus.
XIX. As regards the preservation of the word-forms
till that time, the tenacity of an unlcttered populace for
their ancient forms of speech is remarkable in an age
the upper social surface of which may be over-run with
written and even printed literature. Thus most rural
nooks of England contain remnants of Chaucerian
English. In Greece there were, however, but scanty
traces of a national life in rural quictude independent of
the cities. It is not likely that antique traits of dialect
lingered, unless in Beotia, with the rustic muse. In At-
tica especially the assimilation of the people's tongue to
that of the capital was probably early accomplished. But
the rhapsodists kept the ancient tongue alive, and Homer
held his own. The grand master of song had raised
a monument of language which became a barricr in itself.
Similar has been the influence of Shakspeare and,
more uninterruptedly, of the Authorized Version of the
Bible among ourselves. Homer would derive a still
stronger influence from the fact that he was recited when
cities met in festive mirth around the altar of some na-
tional deity. The heart of the nation would fix itself
with filial reverence upon his words, which fired them
with a momentary impulse of patriotism beyond muni-
cipal barriers, and reminded various tribes of their ori-
ginal unity, as each retraced its dialectic rill in the parent
lake of epos. Our argument does not descend to jot and
tittle, but it hardly admits of doubt that the essential
forms, familiar in their ring of sound upon the ear, would
descend with the truc song as its native vehicle, just as
they would form the only possible credential for spurious
imitations. I do not think that this view need be rejected
even by one who were disposed to accept the ingeniously
constructed antique text of Payne Knight. Those archaisms
only disguise our present text, they cannot be said essen-
tially to alter its forms. As regards the digauuna, while
PART I. GENERAL VIEWS.
nothing is better established than its Homeric existence,
nothing is more uncertain or perhaps less uniform, than
its actual force; see p. xi, ἢ. 11. Fluctuating usage, and
the poet’s own caprice, might in many words mould this
perishable clement to a type cither prominent or subdued.
It is necessary to insist on the great clasticity proper to
the yet unwritten Epic tongue, and to caution learners
against the prejudices imbibed from the early study of
the most highly artificial poetry. If an Englishman
would be a sympathetic student of Homeric diction, he
should shut up Virgil and open Chaucer. Although even
here the influence of writing renders the parallel im-
perfect in the extreme.
XX. If we assume, on the contrary, the word-forms of
the Homeric text to have become corrupted, we know suf-
ficiently the types which they must have followed. The
supposed process of corruption could not have escaped
the bias which determined contemporary language in the
7th and 61} centuries B. Ὁ. That bias was not single, but
manifold, and of the resulting dialects we have adequate
specimens in the extant remains of Archilochus, Tyrteeus,
Aleman, Alceus, Sapphé, Stesichorus, Solon and Mim-
nermus, who flourished during those centuries at such
various places as Paros, Sparta, Lesbos, Himera, Athens
and Colophon. It would lead us too far astray to analyse
exhaustively the language of these various fragments.
But it is clear at a glance that none of them reproduce
the language of the Homeric poems, although most of
them teem with Homeric quotations morc or less direct,
showing that those who now talked Ionic, Doric, or
fKolic, had Homer also on their tongues(3c). They
ΧΧῚ
PART I
5. The word-
forms of Homer,
if corrupted,
must have fol-
lowed a dialectic
direction,
30 Cf. Archil. V. 1, ϑοῆς διὰ σέλματα νηὸς φοίτα with μ. 420, αὐτὰρ ἐγὼ διὰ
νηὸς ἐφοίτων; ib, XXIV. ς--ό, γαλεπῇσι ϑεῶν ὀδύνῃσιν ἕκητι πεπαρμένος with
Ε. 399, ὀδύνῃσι πεπαρμένος, also with Hy. Apol. Pyth. 180 χαλέπῃσι.... ὀδύνῃσι;
with τ. 42, Διὸς... ἕκητι, M.8 ϑεῶν ἀέκητι; ib. XXXII, νίκης δ᾽ ἐν θεοῖσι πεί-
gata with Η. το2, νίκης πείρατ᾽ ἔχονται ἐν ἀϑανάτοισι ϑεοῖσιν; ib. 1ΧΧΤ]Ὶ, πολιῆς
ἁλὸς ἐν πελάγεσσι with &. 335, A. 358, ἁλὸς ἐν πελάγεσσι; ib. LXXXVIII. 4—s,
ἀλλά σ᾽ ἡ γαστὴρ νόον τε καὶ φρένας παρήγαγεν εἰς ἀναιδείαν with ρ. 286—7, γα-
στέρα.. οὐλομένην, ἢ πολλὰ xan’ ἀνθρώποισι δίδωσιν, and K.391 παρὲκ νόον ἤγα-
γεν Ἕκτωρ; Tyrteus 1.1, τεθναμεναιγὰρ καλὸν ἐνὶ προμάχοισι πεσόντα with O. 522,
ΧΧΙΙ PREFACE.
PART 1 exhibit the forms of all the principal dialects, but not
intermixed, as we find them in Homer. In each a dialect
predominates, although in most not with the sharp ex-
clusiveness which the poets of the following century ex-
hibit. They stand in short, as they might be expected
to stand, on the supposition that our present Homeric
text is the genuine product of an age considerably ear-
lier, each diverging in a different direction from it and
finding its new centre in some point nearer or more re-
mote. Among the nearer may be rated firstly Archilo-
such as the poets . . .
of the carly ly- Chus, then Stesichorus and Simonides of Amorgos, then
ric period show. Mimnermus, Tyrtseus, and Solon, the last two having
a narrower vein of epic language and showing the
dialectic principle — that of the Ionico-attic — more
fully developed. Alcaus and Sapphé have a greater
divergency, and show dialectic features yet more
marked. Aleman stands somewhat similarly by him-
self in relation to Doric, but has a tinge of closer
affinity with the first group. Simonides of Ceos I ex-
clude from the list, as having a character too markedly
advanced even to close it. He imbeds a good deal of
Homeric phrase, but with the air of conscious adoption,
even where an express Citation is not meant. The Attic
terseness of his epigram has nothing in common with
the large fulness of measure which Homer yields,
ἐνὶ προμάχοισι δαμῆναι, see also J. 458, P. 590; ib. 15, ἀλλὰ μάχεσϑε, παρ᾽ ἀλ-
λήλοισι μένοντες, with P 721, μίμνομεν ὀξὺν "Aon παρ᾽ ἀλλήλοισι μένοντες ;
besides such phrases as ἀσπίδος ὀμφαλοέσσης, τανηλεγέος ϑανάτοιο ἰδ. LI. 25, 35,
which every one will recognize. See also III. 32, and cf. 4. 602—3 (perhaps in-
terpolated). Tyrteus’ words are ἀλλ᾽ ὑπὸ γῆς πὲρ ἐὼν, γίνεται ἀϑάνατος, which
contain the germ of the idea evolved by a dichotomy of the hero (Herakles) into
his εἴδωλον and himself (αὐτὸς). Col. Mure has also compared VI. (Gaisf. T) το foll.
with X. 71 foll., VII. (Gaisf. II) 10 foll. with E. 529 foll., O. 561 foll., VII. 31
with N. 129. Cf. also Aleman VI. 1—2, Κάστωρ τε πώλων ταχέων δμητῆρες
κι τ. A. with I’. 237, Κάστορα θ᾽ ἱππόδαμον; ib. ΙΧ. dvoxage, καλόπαρι x. τ. 1.
with I. 39, A. tgs; also ib. XXIX. χρύσεον ὅρμον ἔχων with ο. 460 (same
words) and with o. 29s—6. Cf. also Alceeus I. s—6 καϑύπερϑεν ἵππειοι λόφοι
νεύουσιν with y. 124, δεινὸν δὲ λόφος καϑύπερθϑεν fvevev, O. 537 ἵππειον
λόφον; ib. 11 —12, ἔρκος ἐσχυρὸν βέλευς with J 137 ἔρκος ἀκόντων. Il. 5 κακκεφα-
λᾶς with 9. 8ς ef al. κακκεφαλῆς : besides again commonplace phrases, such as
κῦμα κυλίνδεται, ναὶ μελαίνᾳ, mag... ἄντλος ἱστοπέδην ἔχει, γᾶς ἀπὸ πειράτων.
PART I. GENERAL VIEWS.
while his other pieces approach the form of the dramatic
chorus.
XXI. If, now, the Homeric word-forms be genuine,
and represent a real stage of the development of the
Greek language far earlier than al] these, it helps us to
account for them all, and by their facies qualis decet esse
sororum, they account for it, as their common parent.
On any other supposition how is it possible to explain
its existence? What poet from 700 to 500 B. C. could
possibly have produced it? I speak not of the inner
soul of song, but of its mere shell of language.. Archi-
lochus comes undoubtedly nearest; so much so, that a
high authority (31) has said, “his dialect is substantially
the same as Homer's, with fewer antiquated forms, and
otherwise slightly modified, to suit the more familiar
tenor of his own composition.” The compass of his dic-
tion is, however, very much abridged. Where, for in-
stance, is the vast variety in the forms of pronouns ὃ
What has become of the -yge -χι -ome -οϑὲν -εϑὲν
termination of nouns? What of the triple ending
of the pres. infin. act.? What of the melodious open
vowel system of which εὐχετόωνται, δὁρόωσιν, μαιμώωσα
idgwdvras, are specimens? -Where are the Homeric
many particles, especially the characteristic xe? We
find the epic pronoun ὃ, 7, τὸ, sunk in the article. In
the word ἄναξ the digamma is inconstant, while ofvog
and οἷκος, occurring each several times, appear to have
wholly lost it. One might easily extend the list of mis-
sing features. Yet, as some one must stand next to Ho-
mer, however longo proximus intervallo, let us allow, —
omitting for the present all consideration of Hesiod — that
place to Archilochus. Now, all these various offshoots
of language prove that no poet of those centuries stood
at a level where such a command of language as Homer
wielded was possible. And, as we must probably allow
at least a century for them to form, this throws us far
back into the 8" century B. C., and probably even fur-
31 Mure vol. II. Bk. iii, ch. iii § 10.
Xxili
PART I
Their dialects
and the epic of
Homer mutual-
ly explain each
other, on the
supposition that
his is consider-
ably earlier than
any, a8 shown
by the example
of the nearest to
him, Archilo-
chus.
XXIV
PART 1
6. Further,
since Homer was
equally popular
among poets of
‘ all the dialects,
not one corrupt-
ed text only, but
several would
have arisen, and
would have left
some traces.
No poel of Ar-
chilochus’ period
or later could
have produced
such a diction as
the Homeric.
PREFACE.
ther. That which had been, probably at some time in
the g'" century, one, was now manifold. The flattening
down of the “epic” into Archilochus shows that epic was
vernacular once.
XXII. And, in the case of a poet so broadly popular
that the moment we arrive at a literary period it smacks
strongly of him, is it likely that we should have one cor-
ruption only out of all the dialects? The carly writers
in all of them are evidently familiar with Homer, many
of them borrow directly from him. He must have been in
the mouths of Doric, Ionic, and Aolic rhapsodists alike.
If recitation engendered corruption, where is the Dorico-
Epic, the Molico-Epic ete. text? Pisistratus ought by this
theory to have found a text consisting of something like
the Solonian Attic. The same process, if it had gone on
at all, would have gone on alike in the various diverging
dialectic streams. That they should have blended again
into our present text of Homer is against all the analogy
of language. All ought, on this supposition, to have had an
existence, and there ought somewhere to be a trace of some
of them (32). The opposite is the fact. We infer safely
that they never had existence, and that Homeric diction
was not in them fused down and recast.
XXIII. But if Homer could not have been a genuine
product of these centuries, still less could the Iliad and
the Odyssey have then arisen by a study of the past.
The artificial process of the grammarian poct was wholly
foreign to the period (33). On this possibility, however,
no moderately well-informed reader will waste a second
thought. Nor, if we adopt such an extravagant supposi-
tion as that a poet of those centuries might have been
equally familiar with all these dialects, could he even
then have produced the Homer which we have. For
that contains, besides the germs of them all, many other
germs of language which did not fructify, but fell away.
32 There was among the early edd. in the hands of the Alexandrine critics
one known as the Alodexy or Alodlg, but there is no reason to suspect the de-
signation of any other than a local force, as in the case of the ᾿ργολικὴ etc.;
see schol. on Od. &. 280, and Buttmann’s note there.
33 Sec Gladst. I, i. pp. 30—1.
PART I. GENERAL VIEWS.
This again is what we might expect; it resembles the
spontaneous redundancy which we trace so frequently
where nature has her way.
XXIV. As regards individual forms suspected of
spuriousness or alteration, they must stand or fall on
their own special grounds, and on the general analogies of
grammar(34). A number of apparently abnormal forms
lave been reduced to symmetry by the digamma alone,
sithough it may be impossible now to assign it its just
power in every place to which it seems entitled. That
tuch a key should ever have been applicable to the dif-
iculties of any text not substantially primitive, would
lave been in itself a paradox. The uncertainty which
sttaches to its use may probably arise from the fact, that
t was in the Homeric period an element which had be-
gun to lose its hold upon the language. Some words, in
vhich it was continued in Aolic, may in the poet’s use
α it have already lost it.
XXV. But the same suspicions which would destroy
tle credit of the text of Homer would be equally fatal to
tht of the Hesiodic poems. 1, indeed, can hardly ac-
cejt these three, or any two of them, as belonging to the
sane author. They offer no scope whatever to what is
to ay mind the master-argument for the unity of author-
shit of the Iliad and Odyssey, the ethical consistency,
namly, of characters introduced; whilst their mutual
unlilenesses are far more startling. I should be inclined
to ple the Theogony, allowing for some passages of a
probaly later origin, in the same century as the Homeric
poems the Works and Days — allowing conversely for
XXV
PART I
Some suspected
forms must stand
or fall on their
own ground,
some are eluci-
dated by the di-
gamma.
Homer 15. con-
firmed byHesiod.
The probable pe-
riod of the vari-
ous Hesiodic (50
called) poems
considered.
34 ‘hus among the pronominal forma the. epic ἐγὼν is found also in Xolic,
the epicéuefo is justified as a mere lengthened form of the ἐμέο of Ionic or the
ἐμίο of Dric, the epic τύνη by the Laconian Doric τουνὴ, the epic τεῖν is Doric
also, the ἐν is parallelled by νὲν of Attic and Doric tragedy, ἄμμε ὕωμε ἄμμι ὕμμι
are at 052 epic and olic, the case-forms of tig and ὅστις or ὅτις in Homer are
all traceale in the Ionic of Herodotus, the rare ἀμόϑεν (α. 10) is explained by his
ovd-apos. The extended forms of case-endings, as ἀκουόντεσσι, are directly in
the line of rammatical analogy, and must in many cases have been supposed as
its necessar, links, even had they not occurred. To similar verb-forms the same
remark will pply.
* xxvi
PART I
Certain peculi-
arities in the
Works andDays,
PREFACE.
earlier matter most venerable and primitive which it in-
corporates — in the following century; and the Shield of
Hercules, which has superficially a greater resemblance to
the diction of the Theogony, at a considerably later pe-
riod than either, not however later than the earlier part
of the 7" century(35) B.C. Mr. Paley, the most recent
editor, has remarked, that “to a considerable extent it is
a cento of Homeric phrases and expressions; more 89
even than of Hesiodic. This is precisely what we shoull
expect from an Ionic rhapsodist ” (36).
XXVI. This opinion of the late origin of the Works
and Days, as compared with the Iliad and Odyssey, I
found partly on its internal character and partly on the
prima facie aspect of its diction. Its genius is, as Colonel
Mure has observed, in a passage quoted by Mr. Paley (371,
“essentially personal or subjective. . . . In the Works
not only is the author never out of sight, but it is tke
author, at least as muchas the subject, which imparts in-
terest to the whole. Instead of an inspired being trars-
ported beyond self into the regions of heroism and glory,
a gifted rustic impelled by his private feelings and 16-
cessities, dresses up his own affairs and opinions in tat
poetical garb which the taste of his age and country en-
joined as the best passport to notice and popularity”? 38).
Now, although such a genius is not the creature pemaps
of any period, yet that it should find and keep the ar of
a people, argues that the facts of its moral and
mental nature found theirs more in harmony with i than
seems at all probable in the Homeric age. The uaint,
terse, and pithy wisdom of its home-saws and rustic
maxims would not alone necessarily imply a laterorigin,
for they were probably a heritage from the earliet times.
But they are not crudely transmitted, they havca back-
35 “Hercules (on the Chest of Cypselus) appears armed with hit bow as in
the old Homeric legend, not with the club and lion's skin 85 in the imovation of
the Rhodian Pisander which first acquired popularity in the age of C’pselus him-
8611. Mure vol. III. iii. vii, § 7.
36 Paley’s Hesiod p. 108. See also note on Scutum H. 431.
37 Paley’s Hesiod, Pref. VI, note 3.
38 Mure 11]. ii. xxi. § 2.
PART I. GENERAL VIEWS. XXvVli
ground in the poet's own character, somewhat as has the = PART I
Vision of Piers Plowman.
XXVII. The terse and word-stinted style of the which seem to
. . . mark a post-Ho-
purely gnomic passages, which form a considerable part. meric epoch,
of the work, is utterly alien to the easy affluence of
the Homeric muse. And these are of more value for
the present argument, since in them any alterations
in the forms of the words are far less easy; while
the fact of their being proverbs is strongly conserv-
ative of their native form, in which they would pass
from mouth to mouth quite independently of their being
committed to writing (39). The Hesiodic mannerism
also, which makes predicative words, mostly compound
adjectives, do duty as subjects, (49) marks reflection as
superseding the outspoken first impression of the earlier
style. And a still further refinement in the same direc-
tion is the way of telling a thing not in itself, but by its
results (41) — the substitution of secondary for primary
39 Of proverbs keeping peculiarities of verbal form we have English exx. inthe
rebel distich, ‘‘When Adam delved and Evé span, Who etc.”, the rhyme keeping the
old preterite form intact; and Bacon’s ‘When Hempe is spun, England’s donne”
(Essays XXXV), the final e being needed to express the fact of a fifth sovereign
(Elizabeth).
40 Such are φερέοικος, avdoreos, πέντοξος, for the snail, the cuttle-fish, and
the hand respectively; so ye:godixae ‘might-for-right men", i. e. lawless, εὖ-
φρόνη for the night, νηὸς πτερὰ for sails (used in Homer for oars, but as a predi-
cate, τά ve πτερὰ νηυσὶ πέλονται 1. 124). Goettling, Prafat. ad Hes. Op. XXX—I,
notices that Zschylus ‘‘cum Pythagora proxime accedit ad hanc inventionem vo-
cabulorum"; instancing ἀνθϑεμουργός for the bee in Persw 604, ἀμέαντος for the
sea ib. 570; and calls this an “‘oracular language", comparing that used by the
Pythia at Delphi. He observes that the Works contains many instances of this
usage, but the Theogony few; which confirms the view taken above of the greater
antiquity of the latter. To the same oracular class he refers the aivog (Works
202 foll.) of the hawk and nightingale, — the oldest of Greek fables in the
/Esopian sense — connecting the term with afviypa, ‘i. e. sententia cujus tecta
est significatio”. All these seem to me clear indications of a later school of
thought. One might add also the vilification of women, or shall we say, with
Mr. Paley on Works 375, the first indication of the courtesan? Either of these
seems non-Homeric, and I think also post-Homeric.
4t Such are the maxim γυμνὸν σπείρειν γυμνὸν δὲ βοωτεῖν in 391, cf. Virgil
Geor I. 299 nudus ara, sere nudus, meaning, that both would need to be done during
the warmer weather; the direction duaog ἔχων μακέλην πόνον ὀρνίϑεσσι τιϑείη
σπέρμα κατακρύπτων, 470—1, where the birds scratching laboriously for the
XXViil PREFACE.
PART 1 phenomena — which Virgil has, with excellent taste as
regards his own time and circumstances, imitated in the
Georgics.
especially the XXVIII. But most remarkable is the width and com-
ynomie vein “S pass of the gnomic range in Hesiod, beyond that of any
modern and, omitting Holy Scripture and the Hagio-
grapha, of any ancient too, except the purely gnomic
Theognis. One may feel him at times almost rise
to the impassioned dignity of prophetic warning, some-
times he muses soberly in the vein of Jacques, some-
times he strikes the sententiously sarcastic vein of
Franklin's “poor Richard”. In him the world seems to
have done and suffered much since its exuberant heroic
youth, and to have learned indignant sadness, querulous-
ness and close calculating thrift. That such a genius
should have bloomed even in the shade side by side with
the Homeric, seems strange, but passing strange that it
should so early have found sympathetic admirers.
ἐμουκῖν tere in =XXIX. As regards his diction, the question is more
cisive as atest, difficult, since, owing to a divergency in the standard of
language, differences which seein due to time may be
only the result of local influences. Many of those noticed
below (42) would taken singly be utterly insignificant ; nor,
seed indicate the depth to which it is to be “‘buried"’; and the caution in 496—7
μή σε κακοῦ χειμῶνος ἀμηχανίη καταμάρψῃ σὺν πενίῃ, λεπτῇ δὲ παχὺν πόδα
χειρὶ πιέξῃς, this descriptive action is noticed by Victor Hugo in his Notre
Dame, p. 406 ed. 1836, a8 characterizing sufferers from cold.
42 We miss in the Works and Days the characteristic class of open-formed
verbs in -ow -ww. which are noted above as missing in Archilochus. The Theogony
has a fair sprinkling. The Shield of Hercules a due proportion, where it is pro-
bably an imitative feature. There is one in the Works and Days in a passage
which Goettling (69. Opp. not. ad v. 504), and Mr. Paley (Hesiod, Pref. p. ix) con-
cur in regarding as non-IIesiodic. In this poem the table of pronominal inflexions
is far more limited than in Homer, even allowing for the small scope which a di-
dactic poem furnishes as compared with one 80 full of dramatic life as his. In the
typical forms — ovo gen. sing., and — éwevae pres. infin. act. the preponderance is
slight, but it is on Homer's side. There is a great deficiency in the reduplicated Ho-
meric forms of aorist and of future not being paulo-post. As regards some more
special classes, the mixed aoristic forms, as βήσετο δύσετο, are wanting. The forms
of εἰμὶ and εἶμι are jejune as opposed to Homeric luxuriance. xd fxov, frequent
in Homer, occurs once only, I believe, in the Works (v. 345). I have observed in
PART I. GENERAL VIEWS. XXIX
as between Homer and Hesiod, would all taken together parr 1
have perhaps a decisive weight, since analogy would be
in favour of the co-existence of a greater and a lesser
dialectic richness of inflexional forms in the earliest
known stage of the Greek language (43); that stage, how-
ever ancient as regards us, being yet certainly in itself
both late and transitional. Still, taken together, they
amount to something, as confirming the argument de- confinns the ar-
gument derived
rived from the subject matter of the Works and Days. from the matter.
If there be, further, reason for regarding the passage
v. 724 ad fin.(44) as older than the chief part of the
poem, the argument gathers strength, since certain
forms noted as rare in the previous portion occur fre-
quently in this.
them no nom. masc. of the form fxxota ἥπυτα, save the conventional epithets of
Zeus εὐρύοπα μητέετα νεφεληγερέτα. The contractions βασιλεὶς and βοτρῦς
(v. 248, 263, 611) are opposed to Homeric usage as regards those words, although
we have in Homerlaweig πελέκεις ἀπὰ δρῦς acc. plur. (4.151, F851, 4.494, 118).
The versatile adjective πολὺς πουλὺς πολλὸς is reduced to fewer varieties. The
article in one passage occurs with its full force of contrasting persons or things
with μὲν and ὃ in a clause. It is v. 287—9
τὴν μέν,τοι κακύτητα καὶ ἰλαδὸν ἔστιν ἔλέσϑαι
ῥηιδίως" λείη μὲν ὁδὸς, μάλα δ᾽ ἐγγύϑι ναίει.
τῆς δ᾽ ἀρετῆς ἰδρῶτα Seo) x. τ. A.
43 Thus is the 14" century, whilst Chaucer inflected the verb ‘to love’, in
the pres. indic., I love, Thou lovest, He loveth, We, Ye, They loven. Barbour in
Scotland wrote uninflexionally I, Thou, He loves, We, Ye, Hi (they) loves, and
John de Trevisa, rector of Berkeley in Gloucestershire, in the sing. as Chaucer,
but in the plur., We loveth, ye loveth, they loveth. Craik’s Engl. Lang. pp. 88,
93. For this and some other English illustrations I am indebted to the Rev‘. T.
W. Norwood of Cheltenham.
44 It is likely that such a calendar would have been among the earliest fruits
of observation or of superstition, and that the rules of ceremonial propriety, which
precede the calendar, are a highly venerable tradition. They will bear compar-
ison with some of those laid down by Moses, or to which, already perhaps tradi-
tional, he gave a sanction. The many proverbs and saws scattered in single lines,
couplets and triplets up and down the poem, may possibly have even in their pre-
sent form a higher antiquity than any single rhapsody of the Iliad. They, doubt-
less, came down in some rude rhythm from father to son amid a rustic population,
and would have been easily gathered by the poct from their lips for the benefit of
the “‘much misguided Perses”’.
xxx
PART I
As also does
that of the Ho-
meric (so-called)
Hymns.'
PREFACE.
XXX. But the Homeric word-forms derive some fur-
ther confirmation from the Hymns, in popular phrase
“Homeric”, which date however, the bulk of them, as is
clear from internal evidence, from a period when the
rhapsodists’ art had become little else than a handicraft
of rules and phrases. We shall not far err in placing
most of them with Mure at various intervals in the two
centuries which terminate with the ascendancy of Pisi-
stratus. That to Ceres is probably not older than the com-
mencenent ofSolon’s period, that to Pan is probably as late
as the year of Marathon. “The blind old man of Scio's rocky
isle” had become a conventional “6 ego, and the personality
which he assumes in the Delian Hymn is strikingly con-
trasted with the non-personal tone of his genuine works.
The occurrence of the name Peloponnesus also marks a post-
Homeric age. In all, although least in that to Ceres, there
is a want of independence of diction, a perpetual tagging
of Homeric phrase, sometimes queerly perverted from the
Homeric use of it. All show an absence of lofty conception
or powerfully marked individuality of character, a striving
after petty effects, and an overdevelopment of accessories
for the sake of their symbolic or mystical bearing, which
marks the day when genius had left the epic vehicle to
priestcraft. Owing to the sacro-festive element in the
Greek mind, these Hymns were abundantly popular apart
from the question of their merits (45); but they are import-
ant as belonging to the period to which the first crude
shape of a written text of Homer has above been
ascribed ; and they carry down a living epic strain, how-
ever shallowed and dwindled from its original volume,
far into historic times. In them may be observed nearly
the same retrenchment from the Homeric word-forms
which was noticed as prevailing in the Works, whilst
they are still more barren in some special forms, as
45 They compare in this respect poorly with the lay of Demodocus in the
Ody. 9. 266 foll., which is in the nature of a Hymn to Hephestus (Mure II. ii.
xx, § 2,), and even with a large portion of the “Shield of Hercules": they
are, however, in close keeping with some of the legends in the Theogony, which,
indecd, might be viewed as an introduction to them. The Delian Hymn has been
ascribed to Cynsthus or some other rhapsodist of Chios (ibid. p. 328).
PART I. GENERAL VIEWS.
the case-endings in -yge -οφι, in the reduplicated
aorist, and in the 8.4 plural perf. and pluperf. pass. forms
in -αται -ato, save such as are expressly borrowed from
Homer. They show a still greater fluctuation of the di-
gamma (46). The epic cast of language had become in fact
conventionalized, and they rather imitate Homer than
create in his style, and rather repeat him, than imitate
him. But, as regards our argument on his word-forms,
they are highly valuable, because they show, as those
word-forms through later speech became altered, what
form the alteration took. They seem to exhibit in con-
junction with Hesiod how the standard of epic diction
gradually declined. If it had been flattened down into
conventionalism by perpetual recitation, we should not
trace the differences which now occur. As it is, primitive
characteristics are thrown out in relief, and we rest:as-
sured that even the decomposing influences of writing,
however early they may be assumed to have begun, have
so far spared the archaic features as to allow us to re-
cognise the genuine style. If we continued to believe on
other evidence than the language, that Homer, Hesiod
and these Hymns belonged to different periods, then uni-
formity, if found, would imply debasement. The extent
to which the Homeric type recedes from the Hesiodic,
and this from that of the Hymns, confirms on the con-
trary the substantially primitive character of the former;
and this must form my excuse for having led the reader
so far into matter which is, properly speaking, extraneous
to the subject.
_ XXXI. Mr. Gladstone has remarked on the tendency
which the matches and prizes of bards at solemn public
gatherings would have inchecking corruptions (47). I have
hinted above, and hope further on to show more fully, why
ΧΧΧῚ
PART I
Reasons why
these Hymns are
important to the
present argu-
ment.
The rhapsodists
would tend to
check each other,
46 Baumeister in his ed. of the Hy. Leipsic 1860, p.187, remarks on the author
of the Hy. to Mercury. “‘digamma non novit sed aliquot locis exempla Homeri
secutus eas voces in hiatu positas habet, imprimis of et Zgya’’. In that to Ceres v.
37 the F is lost in ἔλπις, cf. Ody. π. τοι, τ. 84, in (v. 66) εἴδεϊ, cf. g. 308, 454, and
in (¥V. 430, 440, 492) ἄναξ and ἄνασσα. Some departures from the Homeric stand-
ard in word-forms are also noticed by Baumeister ub. sup. p. 278.
47 Gladst. I. i, p. 56.
XXXil
PART I
but their influ-
ence, wholesome
while it lasted,
was gradually
lost as literature
advanced.
PREFACE.
I think that they would not equally check interpolations,
but they would undoubtedly tend to preserve the word-
forms in their purity. Local and dialectical peculiarities
would bear witness against each other, and traditional
usage would prevent those forms which were independ-
ent of all dialect from being warped in a dialectic direc-
tion. If for instance a Dorian rhapsodist had recited
with the 0 final instead of the o, as in xaio, rote for
παῖς, τοῖς (48). or if an Attic one had substituted closed
for open syllables, there is little doubt that such a liberty
would have been resisted by his compeers. Yet it may
contrariwise be also supposed that forms not retained m
any known dialect would tend to drop out of use, and
others to be tacitly substituted for them. Where the
bond of the metre allowed such substitution, the tend-
ency must be admitted as real; and the influence of a
written text, when that came into extensive use, would
concur with it. We should set off against this the influence
of the rhapsodists, who in the time of Plato (49) had grown to
be contemned by the cultivated minds of the day, and were
probably men of the people holding fast a popular tradi-
tion with a class feeling, while their cultivated despisers
would have wished to improve them out of it. Whatever
influence they could exercise on the copies which were in
circulation, would probably be in favour of the carly and
genuine features of the text(so), and this perhaps is all
that can be said. The. rhapsodists’ art does not seem to
have come down to the Alexandrine period, or if it did, it
had sunk so far in esteem as to be set aside in silent con-
tempt. We hear universally of copies, and not of men.
48 See the early Peloponnesian Monuments in Boeckh vol. I passim.
49 In Grote's Greece I. i. xxi. p. 521, there is an attempt to show that the
rhapsodists were unduly depreciated by Plato's followers. Still, that estimate of
them is probably to be taken as an index of opinion current in the more cultivated
Athenian society, and would probably be influential far beyond the limits of
Athens. The rhapsodists had done good work in their time, and for this probably
Plato did not make sufficient allowance; but their apparently complete extinction
within a century from Plato’s time seems to show that their work was done, and
that they were even then becoming effete.
§0 τοὺς γάρ τοι ῥαψῳδοὺς οἶδα ta μὲν ἔπη ἀκριβοῦντας αὐτοὺς δὲ πάνυ
ἡλιϑίους ὄντας. Xen. Memor. LV. 2, 10.
PART I. GENERAL VIEWS. XXXxlii
XXXII. But before the rhapsodist’s art had fallen parr 1
thus low, it had had contributed something more than κα notice of ear-
oral recitation to preserve the text of Homer. On page |y¥ Homeric com-
ose mentators, some
LViii foll., among the names of the Ante-Zenodotean com- ofthem probably
mentators, appear those of several from the time of Pi- rhapsodists, who
° . ° attest the poet’s
sistratus downwards, who wrote in explanation of the paramount influ-
poet. Their labours were doubtless for the most part cence down toPla-
hermeneutical rather than critical; but as most of those ΣΌΝ
between Theagenes the earliest, and Aristotle, who with
two of his disciples edited or revised the Iliad and Odys-
sey, were themselves probably rhapsodists (51), and as one
of them, Antimachus, was a poet, we can hardly doubt
that their feeling would have been against the influence of
transcribers. At any rate, in their hands the oral and the
written text could hardly fail of being turned to some ac-
count as useful checks upon each other; and as they
flourished over a wide geographical area, from Rhegium
in ‘the southwest to Lampsacus in the north-east, a con-
siderable variety of tradition may be supposed to have
been embodied in their works. If any attempted to deal
critically with the text, and we can hardly suppose that
Aristotle's διόρϑωσις was wholly without this element (52),
they probably did so on subjective grounds. At the same
time they could hardly fail to accumulate materials for the
better informed judgment of a later day. And as Plato,
who flourished only a century before Zenodotus, mentions
the names of several of them(s3), and those not the most
eminent of the number, therc is littledoubt that most of their
works reached Aristarchus, who came sixty years later, and
5t Lehrs regards these early Homeric glossographists ag rhapsodists (Diss. i.
p- 46). They, wrote brief clementary explanations of difficult words.
52 His acuteness could hardly have failed to notice the fact of cxisting varia-
tions and the importance in some passages of their difference as regards the sense.
But the time was not ripe for such investigations. As regards his interpretation
Lehrs says (p. so) “δὰ Homerum explicandum attulisse Aristotelem quod doctiori
zvo alicujus momenti videretur, nec exempla que :ad manum sunt, nec Alexan-
drinorum silentium credere patitur’. As an ex. of his emendation Lehrs says,
“nescivit explicare θεὸς αὐδήεσσα, quare conjectura substituit οὐδήεσσα, i.e. que
in terris domicilium habet (ihid)"’.
53 Ion. p. 530. C. Ὁ. (this dialogue seems of doubtful genuineness, but was at
any rate probably the work of a disciple); cf. Xenoph. Memorab. IV. 2, το.
HOM. OD. 1. Cc
XXxiV
PART I
The influence of
statesmen, of pu-
blic feeling, and
of individual
rhapsodists, on
the text, and the
question as to
the antiquity of
the copies which
reached Aristar-
chus.
PREFACE.
were included, so far as he cared to include them, in the
apparatus crilicus which he employed. At this period or
earlier, special names, as “the ἀριστεῖα of Diomedes’’ (54),
appear to have been already given to distinct portions of
the Iliad, and, no doubt, the Odyssey also enjoyed a si-
milar arrangement. Between Pisistratus and Plato Ho-
mer was the ruling influence in intellectual Greece. Phi-
losophy then awoke to divide with him the empire of
mind. But nowhere is the influence of his poetry more ma-
nifest than in Herodotus(s5), unless it be in Plato himself.
XXXIII. It has been mentioned that Homer was a
text-book of instruction for boys, and enjoyed in that re-
spect a better chance of careful supervision than most
poets. He was also a public care to governments in many
cities of Greece, who followed or perhaps anticipated
the example sect by Pisistratus(s6). Statesmen, however,
only concentrated and methodized the attention which
the irregular but more sweeping influence of national
enthusiasm secured to him. Wherever a rhapsodist of
considerable fame had flourished, his readings would
probably be accepted by his citizens, and adopted as
the standard text; and in this way most of the more
famous men who had lived by Homer and for him, would
probably leave their impress on his works, and contri-
bute positive testimony to be sifted by future gramma-
rians. Those grammarians undoubtedly laboured under
a deficiency of what Colonel Mure calls “black-
letter scholarship” in the more flourishing period of li-
terature. An anecdote, which Diogenes Laértius has
s4 Herod. IT. 116.
ss Mure (IV. App. 9.) has collected the passages in Herodotus which directly
reflect the language of Homer, but the subtle penetration of his matter by Ho-
meric thought is not to be measured by so broad a standard.
56 Conversely Clisthenes, the tyrant of Sicyon, is said (Herod. V. 67) to have
forbidden the competitive recitation of Homer in that city. Mr. Grote thinks
(I. p. s14 note 1) that the prohibition related to the Thebais and the Epigoni
ascribed to the poet; Mr. Gladstone argues (I. i. p. 50) that the prominence given
to Argos in the Iliad would provoke the jealousy of a despot even more. Certainly
the subject matter recited seems to be of less importance than the public con-
course and those national sentiments which it would stimulate, save in so far as
the most popular lay would tend to produce that effect in the highest degree.
PART I. GENERAL VIEWS. XXXV
preserved, bears on the point. “How”, enquired the part 1
poet Aratus, who professed criticism, “could one come
by an unvitiated text of Homer?” Timo answered him,
“If one could meet with the ancient copies, and not those
now-a-days corrected” (57). The tone of irony of this re-
ply seeins to indicate the hopelessness of any such quest.
Yet, still as a good parchment will easily outlast its cen-
tury (58), and as the expense of copying a work of 12,000
lines would operate to check destruction before it was
worn out, it is probable that a fourth or even a third
transcript from a Pisistratid archetype of the Iliad or
Odyssey may have reached Zenodotus. How far the
matter of the
XXXIV. We come now to the question of the matter text would have
of the text. How far would it have been liable to sub- δέρῃ *xposed τὸ
stitution or to interpolation? Such substitution as would interpolation.
alter the facts of the story, would not have been easy
even in the earliest days of recitation, since the want of
coherence with the rest of the known text would pro-
bably have betrayed it. And this holds good to some
extent even of an isolated rhapsody recited at an obscure
local gathering; but much more so when we take the
case of numerous rhapsodies and recitations, kept up
perhaps for several days together, and that at the more
celebrated centres of population and political life. Yet,
within this limit it is by no means improbable that a
passage may have been frequently recast; and that thus
5] πῶς τὴν Ὁμήρου ποίησιν ἀσφαλὼς utyoatto... εἰ τοῖς ἀρχαίοις ἀντιγρά-
φοις ἐντυγχάνοι καὶ μὴ τοὺς ἤδη διωρϑωμένοις. Diog. Laert. IX. 113, ap. Wolf.
Prolegg. xxxix.
58 The argument is indeed, if anything, considerably understated. There
are many remote rnral parishes of England with parchment registers intact and
legible from the time of Elizabeth, in a climate more adverse to such preservation
than that of the shores of the Mediterranean. What would have been the cost in
the time of Pericles or of Aristotle of a single such διφϑέρα as would contain a
hundred hexameter lines? Probably, if we include the copyist’s labour, not lessthan
12 drachme. Consequently 1440 dr., or over £50 present valne would be needed
for 12,000 lines. Copies of Wickliffe’s translation of the Bible are said to have
been sold for £40 cach — a much greater sum, if we take into account the change
in the value of money since then. But, although papyrus was a cheaper and more
perishable material than skin, it is likely that in the case of Homer a sufficient
number of copies on the more durable substance would have been transmitted to
Aristarchus even without the conservative influence of “black-letter scholarship”.
c *
XXXVI
PART I
Athens would
probably admit
them ina great-
er, and Sparta
in a less degree.
The statements
concerning Pisi-
stratus rest on
authority of too
late a date to be
received save in
broad = gencrali-
ties.
PREFACE.
to add polish to the original work may have been during
one period, and that no short one, an object of successful
ambition to the rhapsodists. Allowing free play for the
ordinary tendencies of the human mind, it seems more
likely that among a people of lively genius, like the
Athenian, applause would have been sought by such ori-
ginality as was not debarred by the conditions of the
work, than by a fidelity to the supposed fixed tradition
of a textus non scriptus. Moreover, it takes some time
for such tradition to become fixed. Before that time love
of novelty would almost certainly préponderate, and such
attempts at innovation, as did not violate the sequence
of the story, would probably carry the popular voice
with them. On the other hand, at Sparta and in Pelo-
ponnesus generally the tendency would probably be con-
servative. Of native poets there, save lyric(s9), during
the period down to Pisistratus, we do not hear. Tradi-
tion asserts that the poetry of Homer was introduced by
Lycurgus from Crete — a statement which means under
that venerable name probably to designate an early act
of the Spartan government. The poetry must have come
in the person of a rhapsodist. Sparta in her early period
freely imported poets (60), and as the universal vehicle of
poetry was song or recitation, a rhapsodist would be
necessary. But as Crete had carly enjoyment of the sea,
and therefore probably of Egyptian intercourse, a MS.
may not improbably have accompanied the rhapsodist.
XXXV. If Homer was thus introduced by the govern-
ment, it is nearly certain that his text would be jealously
watched from the popular tampering of reciters. It
might be mutilated. or interpolated, if the government
thought it had any interest in either (61), but such political
59 And of the so-called ‘“‘Dorian” lyrists the majority were olians or
Ionians by birth: see Miiller’s Dorians vol. 11. p. 381 foll. (‘Tufnell’s and Lewis’ transl.)
60 Tyrteus of Athens and Aleman of Sardis are instances, and but for his
objectionable character, Archilochus would probably have been received there.
Mure speaks (III. p. 144) of Lacedsmon as being at his “period the great mart for
poetical commodities”’.
61 “Ecprepes the Ephor, on observing that the lyre of Phrynis had two
strings more than the allowed number, immediately cut them out.” Miiller’s
PART I. GENERAL VIEWS. XXXVii
chicane would be transparent at the first view. Sparta Parr 1
and Athens would probably represent the opposite ex-
tremes of fixedness and variation; and this fact at
any rate we may suppose Pisistratus would have re-
cognized, if he had had a mind prepared to enter-
tain such questions. The Spartan government may have
given him, since his family had hospitable relations with
them, the benefit of their copy; for they would almost
certainly by his time have possessed one, if not in that
“of Lycurgus”. But whether he would have known
what value to attach to it is very doubtful, and not very
important. There is great probability that either in
their copy obtained from Crete, or in that from Argos,
the Alexandrines possessed what might represent the
assumed Spartan MS. or ita archetype; and most likely
its characteristics would not have been lost by the year
250B.C., the strong jealousy of independence between city
and city operating as a safeguard of textual peculiarities.
As regards the action of Pisistratus on the text, the
Attic tradition has probably attached too much weight to
it. Later authorities than Cicero insist on finding in the °°" "
Pisistratic era the literary activity of the Ptolemean (62).
The absurdity of this would be plain, even if the later form
of the tradition did not diverge into an anachronism (63),
which makes any reliance on the detail of its allegations
impossible. Yet, taken in the most gencral outline merely,
it amounts to this, that Pisistratic research extended to all
D8rians vol. I. p. 335. From this specimen of imperious preciseness we may cal-
culate how far they would be likely to tolerate corruptions of a text which was
government property.
62 The words are ἐκήρυξεν (Πεισίστρατος) ἐν πάσῃ τῇ Ἔλλαδι τὸν ἔχοντα
Ὁμηρικοὺς στέχους ἀγαγεὶν πρὸς αὑτὸν, ἐπὶ μισϑῶ ὡρισμένῳ καϑ᾽ ἕκαστον
στίχον. Villoison e Dionys. Thra. Anecdota Gr. 11. p. 182.
63 The anachronism in question is that out of the 72 or, according to
Allatius, 7o grammarians, to whom was committed the rehabilitation of Homer by
Pisistratus, were two whose collection and arrangement were allowed by all the
rest to have excelled, and that these two were Aristarchus and Zenodotus! Wolf
on the number mentioned remarks, “Aristes fabulam audis de LXXII interpreti-
bus Bibliorum”; so Villoison ub. sup. p.183 n.1. Grifenhan Geschichte der Philo-
logie sect. 54—64 vol. I. p. 266—311 is cited, Grote’s Hist. Gr. vol.1. p. 539 note, as
giving a summary of the facts of the case as regards the recension by Pisistratus.
XXXViii PREFACE.
PaRT 1 available quarters (64), and offered the most substantial in-
ducement to all persons competent to furnish aid. Cicero’s
statement regarding Pisistratus shows that that view was
accepted in the schools at Athens in his day; but he is too
remote from thie period of which he testifies to carry weight
on more than themost gencral statement. ‘The notion of our
inferring from him whether before Pisistratus a written
text existed or not, is strange indeed. Onomacritus has
come down to us as the name of Pisistratus’ editor, coupled
unfortunately with a charge of notorious interpolation (64).
This may be taken, as an admission of the Attic school
against itself, with less hesitation; whilst it has some
value as showing that at that pcriod some one was awake
to the question of what was genuine Homer, and what
spurious — a value which abides, whatever may become
of the charge as against Onomacritus.
_The interpola = XXXVI. Ina critical age, newly conscious of becom-
tions of Onoma-
critus probably ing so, men are liable to the crror of imputing to carlier
resulted insome ages the results of the same accumulated skill and ex-
the necessity of perience, which, in their own day, has originated
the case. criticism. The value and criteria of evidence as be-
tween different sources of authority, where to look and
with what eyes to see, are things which time slowly
teaches; but at first critics do not see why these gifts
are not for every age. Hence literary gossips of the
Alexandrine period heaped upon Pisistratus the gifts of
research of a Ptolemy. The evidence of such research
being wanting, what we learn of the character of Onoma-
critus does not commend it to our belief. It is, however,
not impossible that, after collecting all that was reputed
Homeric, Pisistratus was obliged to find some one who
could cement the material together. If the Corpus Home-
ricum had become disjointed, and the separate members
had, as it were, sprouted beneath the rhapsodists’ hands,
they might easily have become estranged from their
former relation, and a new law of combination have been
required to adjust them, involving the supply of connect-
64 One of the lines alleged as his is 1. 604, see the Harl. Schol. and Nitzsch
ad loc.
PART I. GENERAL VIEWS.
ing links — the σχεύη in short implied in the title δια-
σκευαστής (65). Probably an editor would have been in-
competent, according to the standard of those days, who
could not furnish haec ipsa ad munera gluten in sufticient
quantities. This carries the Pisistratic recension a step
farther than what was previously allowed, the enquiry
viz. what was the text of Homer: but this next step would
almost immediately follow from the answer to that enquiry
being given: and if Pisistratus took stock of the existing
material, it is not unlikely that his son Hipparchus
should have thus followed out the work.
XXXVII. And yet all this while there may have been
more perfect texts out of Attica than in it. The literary
splendor of Athens in a later day was able to ensure cur-
rency to her claim for Pisistratus as the first known re-
viser of the text of Homer, and to obscure or obliterate
the anticipative efforts of other cities, if any were
made; and the genius of Cicero has perpetuated to her
the advantage thus gained. But it is very likely, when
we consider the long succession at an early age of
considerable poets in Greek Asia, whose fragments
testify to their love for Homer, that some earlier
efforts were made there also to keep or to recover
a standard text. The more inevitable does this view
become-in proportion as we suppose their Asiatic posi-
tion to have carlier diffused among them the knowledge
of the art of writing. In Sparta and perhaps some other
Dorian states it is likely that copies would have imbibed
a far less amount of corruption, owing, as has been
said, to the repression of rhapsodical licence by the state
itself. Thus Athens and her Pisistratid diaskeuasts may
have been after all seri studiorum in their textual efforts;
but inthe names of several cities from Sinopé to Marseilles,
which furnished MSS. to the Alexandrines, we probably
trace a legacy of the non-Attic traditions of the Homeric
ΧΧΧῚΧ
PART I
Other written
texts, older than
the Athenian,
may have des-
cended to the
Alexandrines,
6s Quicunque hoc modo (by interpolation) genuinam carminum Homericorum
formam corruperant dicebant Alexandrini διασκευαστάς. Etenim quod nos solemus
dicere interpolare vel quocunque modo genuinum textum scriptoris mutare, hoc a
Grecis Grammaticis proprio vocabulo dicitur διασκευάξειν. Lehrs p. 349, who
there cites from the Schol. Venet. many examples of this use of the word.
XL
PART I
allcarrying alike
their interpola-
tions with them,
as in the absence
of criticism, was
most to be wish-
ed.
Interpolations
in the earlicst
period were pro-
bably least no-
ticed and most
numerous,
PREFACE.
text. As regards interpolations or substitutions, there
is little doubt that those found by Pisistratus and his
diaskeuasts in the text, as well as those in any contem-
porary non-Attic texts, would mostly remain there; as it
was certainly safest that they should, when we consider
that criticism as yet was not. From the specimen of
critical acumen shown by no less an authority than Thu-
cydides, in reckoning the Hymn to Apollo as a genuine
Homeric work, we may rate the Pisistratic discrimination
of a century earlier sufficiently low. Those revisers would
probably have no suspicions where the passage presented.
no conflict with any other part of the known text: where
they had suspicions, their capacity for applying a critical
test is very doubtful; and where no solution occurred to
them, they would almost certainly act on the maxim
that “retention was safer than exclusion”. And thus
many passages, which Alexandrine criticism subsequently
removed, may have cumbcred their rhapsodies, and,
through the vulgate which they, as we suppose, origin-
ated, may have become for a while currently accepted in
Greece (66).
XXXVITI. Interpolations are likely to have been
most frequent in the earliest age, and at no period very
rare, while recitation lasted. Cynszthus is distinctly
charged with interpolating his own verses in his recita-
tions at Syracuse; Onomacritus, we have seen, may have
felt himself compelled by the necessity of his position to
interpolate at Athens, and Solon before him was taxed
with a similar licence for a political purpose. As re-
gards the ante-Solonian period, if we endeavour to
judge the question in the spirit of the primitive age
of poetry, we shall see that the fraudulent essence
of interpolation vanishes, although its effects remain.
The song, I should conceive, was everything, and the
poct little or nothing in those days. The poet found his
account in the office of reciter; and this, after the song
66 This would help to account for the various passages mentioned or alluded
to by Wolf Prolegg. ὃ xi, n. 7, a8 quoted by Plato, Aristotle and others from the
Homer of their day, which are not found in our present text; without supposing
that they moan to quote some other poem than the Iliad or Odyssey as Homeric.
PART I. GENERAL VIEWS.
had lost its first freshness, would tend to obliterate dis-
tinctions of authorship. The question, whose was the
producing mind, was of barren interest and slender prac-
tical importance for those who were absorbed in the ob-
jective product. Thus the principle of suum cuique
would obtain no homage. It was open to all who would,
to sing the mighty decds of ancient men. They were
national property; the heir-loom of the Greek mind
' rather than the trophies of individual genius. All
matched—there was no sense of trespass where all was
publici juris, no animus decipiendi in the imitator, adaptor
or interpolator, no suspicious sagacity in the public.
Frauds, forgeries and literary detectives belong alike to a
later age. Indeed the only form in which the critical
faculty could exercise itself in that period was by allying
itself with the creative. Ifa thonght seemed tame or an
expression: poor; the reciter who had the power would
criticise by devising a new version; and if thus roused
to try an original flight, he would decide the question
whether or not to incorporate it by his poetical sense
how far it matched and relieved the existing lay. If it
be improper to say that interpolation and recasting is
the oldest form of criticism; yet in this stage of mental
progress one and the same germ involves the critical
with other faculties, which afterwards are found to shoot
different ways. Thus there could have been little in the
modes of thought at that early period to prevent the song
of one man being taken up with additions by another (67).
The feeling of profound reverence for Homer was neces-
sarily of far later growth than his own day. A rhapsodist,
endowed with poetical gifts, would be warmed probably
by the act of reciting, to unite his own out-flow with the
stream which he transmitted; and would not have felt
his genius dwarfed and rebuked by the juxtaposition.
XLi
PART I
and some of con-
siderable size
may have inse-
parably adhered.
67 Let us consider how at a later day Virgil borrowed of Ennius and Lucre-
tius, Ovid of Catullus, and all of them impartially of the Greek, nay in our own li-
terature how the legend of King Lear went through the hands of Wace, Layamon,
Robert of Gloucester and others, and was actually dramatized and put on the
stage by an anonymous author within ten years of its being produced by Shak-
speare before King James I in 1604. On the argument here and in XXXIX see
Wolf Prolegg. § xxv.
xLii
PART I
The Homeric
Structure re-
ceives comple-
mentary senten-
ees easily, and
δ sympathetic
hand might es
cape detection,
but — interpola
tions with an end
to serve would
betray them-
selves.
PREFACE.
Where such additions were in the spirit of the original,
and of a date not far removed, it might happen
that they would pass undetected into the corpus Homeri-
cum, and defy the criticism of later days. It is not
likely that any large member of an epic whole, such as
an entire rhapsody, could so have been added without
having excited suspicion when criticism was finally
awakened; but many passages of from 50 to 100 lines
may lurk in the text of Homer, which were from a dis-
tinct source; and may have so completely coalesced with
it as to have established their position. Those by whom
the criticisms of Lachmann and W. Miller are accepted,
will of course as readily suspect whole rhapsodies. But
I have no confidence in the criteria which they pro-
pound, and think they may have often mutilated the
body, for once that they have removed an accretion.
XXXIX. With regard to short passages of one or of
a few lines, it may be that there are several hundred
such due to later authors than the original bard. Such
short interpolations would be the readiest way of impart-
ing a finish to whatever seemcd left undeveloped before:
and for a long period whatever enhanced the fulness of
the image presented to the mind, or left on the ear in
any close a better-balanced cadence of syllables, would
be accepted for its own sake irrespectively of authority.
The structure of Homeric sentences is such that the in-
sertion or extension of a supernumerary clause ad libitum
is a complement which they often gracefully bear; run-
ning, as they do, loosely and at large, like the heroic cha-
riot-team with its παρήοροι ἵπποι. And in this way even
felicitous touches may sometimes have been added by a
sympathetic hand. And when this took place, a popular
rhapsodist, winning. prizes in every city by turns, might
easily succeed in establishing his additions as gratifying to
the uncritical ear. It seems at the present day hardly worth-
while to trouble one’s self or the reader with conjectures
on such questions. One must in a matter of such anti-
quity be content to a great extent to accept what one
finds. On the other hand, additions designed to glorify
particular houses or cities, or to favour special institu-
PART I. GENERAL VIEWS.
tions, or which bore the stamp of a given epoch, would
betray themselves. There can be little doubt that
‘such fungi yiclded a copious crop to the pruning
knives of the earlier critics, and to a great extent justi-
fied the slashing expurgatorial zeal of Zenodotus. The
probability of their existence is the best excuse for his
excesses, from which, as we shall further see, the more
discerning forbearance of his successors recoiled. But the
distinction between disallowing and excising passages
shows that strongsuspicions often existed, where a verdict
of non liquet was the only safe course; and in a similar de-
cision we in the present day must in the greater number
of cases be content to acquiesce. There is indeed one
test which, I think, has hardly been hitherto sufficiently
recognized — that of the congruity of the debateable
passage with the ἦϑος of the speaker, a point in which
our feeling of Homeric character is often a safer guide
than grammarien scruples; and on this ground I have
endeavoured here and there to vindicate — with what
success the reader must judge — passages which have
laboured under, I think, unjust suspicion hitherto (68).
XL. The ancient critics who believed in the separate
authorship of the Iliad and Odyssey obtained the name
of χωρίξοντες, as “separating” what had by the voice
of previous tradition been pronounced one. Among
modern critics not only has this view been held, but
the substance of each poem has been believed to con-
sist of a patchwork, or cento of epic scraps, which had
accumulated round two great centres of heroic song.
Thus Lachmann(69) has divided the Iliad into sixteen
such fragments. Minute differences of word-forms,
phrases, and grammatical manner, as also of costume,
religion, moral tone and sentiment, have been relied on
in support of these views, while the grand argument
68 See the notes on α. 356—9, δ. 353 and App. Εἰ. 8 (3) note **
ΧΙ
PART I
Many passages
must be left
doubtful, some
*may be settled
by the cthical
test.
Ancient ywoe-
ξοντες and their
modern imitators.
The notion of a
number of de-
tached poems co-
alescing into an
epic whole, is
against probabi-
lity,
, δι κει.
69 In the Proceedings of the Berlin Academy for 1843 an article of his wishes
to reckon the wounding of Agamemnon, Diomedes and Odysseus as prior to the
sending the embassy to Achilles, in the conception of the poet of b
builds this on the word γϑίξζον in T. 141, 195, which is precisely
accuracies referred to p. 1x. sup. as characterizing a long unwritten
ook XIX. He
one of the in-
poem.
XLIV PREFACE.
PaRT 1 in favour of unity, which arises from the ethical indi-
and is refutedby Viduality of each character, not only throughout each
the anity of the poem, but wherever the same character appears in the
ereater chars" two poems, has been overlooked. Of such critics it
may be said that they rerborum minutiis rerum frangunt
pondera. But before touching on this it may be re-
marked, that the Iliad and the Odyssey are the sole
survivors of a wide circle of poems of which the rest
have perished. How late those others survived is in
most cases doubtful; but some of those ascribed to
Homer came down certainly to the age of Aristotle;
one of them, or a large portion of it, to that of Pau-
sanias. In course of time these also perished, but the
Iliad and the Odyssey survive and seem impcrishable.
This alone is a strong presumption in favour of their
superior merit. Neither the ancient nor the modern
world would let them die. But they let everything else
of similar pretension die. Surely then it is unlikely
that such a robust vitality as these poems exhibit could
have been derived from such a fortuitous concurrence
of epic atoms as the critics of that persuasion (7°) believe.
It is casy to believe in one mind of towering grandeur,
and in its creations as permanent, while those of others
perished. It is not easy to believe in ten or a dozen
such; it is not so easy to believe in two such; although
as regards the question of mere duality of authorship,
the argument has less weight. Again, it is not easy
to believe that ten or a dozen bards could have so
sunk all idiosyncrasy as, when united, to appear one(7").
70 In France the notion that the Odyssey and lliad were each a congeries of
pooms was first started circa 1720 by Hedlin and Perrault. They were answered
by Boileau and Dacier. Casaubon and Bentley (see above p.V. note 6) favoured the
same view, and were alleged by Wolf (Prolegg. ὃ xxvi, note 84) as his own pre-
decessors in the theory. Vico, as Dr. Friedliinder says (I. p. 2), had gone much
further than cither of these last, but Wolf seems not to have known of him. All
thesc, however, hazarded the assertion merely; to Wolf belongs the merit, what-
ever it may be, of endeavouring to find a scientific ground for it (ibid. p. 4).
71 Payne Knight has given from Fabricius, who rests on Suidas and others,
a list of over twenty titles of poems, snid to have borne Homer’s name. They are
the Hymns to Apollo and other deities, the Epigrams, the Batrachomyomachia,
the Contest (of Humer and Hesiod), the Goat with seven lengths of hair, the
PART I. GENERAL VIEWS. " XLV
The same character, as drawn by different hands, could part 1
not have had the coherency which we see it has. Nor
would the work, so compounded, have had as much
wholeness of colour and symmetry of movement as we
perceive in the Homeric poems. In the first place, the
more ample and powerful cach such supposed genius is,
the more original and self-possessed will its conceptions
be, and the wider the range within which divergencies
will be manifested. In the next, we must guard ourselves
from viewing these poems as the first rough samples of ἃ — gut Homer is
mere powerful genius wholly untrained. Such fully i 4! probabitity
41. the resultofmuch
moulded forms and such versatility of adventure, by the previous pro-
complexity of the notions which they present, show, ashas eres.
been hinted above (p. xviii), that not a few of those steps
forward had already been taken by which an oral litera-
ture forms itself. We recognize an age of vast pro-
lific power, and one which, freely imbibing the external
stimulants of war, locomotion and commerce, had left
very far behind that initial stage of human progress
in which uniformity prevails, because minds cannot es-
cape into diversity, until growth, pushing different ways,
has developed it. Homer is not then, in my opinion, the
symbol for a series of minds; but he may be viewed as
the last term in a series, greater than all which had pre-
ceded it(72). But the longer the period of development
Arachnomachia, the Geranomachia, the Psaromachia, the Cercopes, the Margites,
the Epithalamia, the Epicichlides, the Amazons, the Gnome, the Iresione, the
Capture of A:chalia, the Thebais, the Epigoni, the Cyprian poem (Herod. III.117),
the Little Iliad, the Nosti, the Cycle (Prolegg. vi). The first three are extant.
The Goat and five following were humorous or satirical, and of those the Margites
was believed by Plato and Aristotle (Alcib. I. p. 147¢, Eth. Nicom. VI. 7) to be
Homer’s own, and had a high reputation. Suidas ascribes it toPigres of Colophon.
The Thebais was by Pausanias esteemed next after the Il. and Ody. (Beot. p- 729).
42 It is likely that the Iliad from its more highly episodic character contained
the result of earlier poets’ efforts recast and incorporated. Such are the stories
of the earlier generation by Glaucus, Phoenix and Nestor (Z. 152 foll., I. 529 foll.,
A. 671 foll.), It is possible also that some of the ἀριστεῖαι represent what had
been sung in shorter single flights before, by either Homer, or his predecessors, or
both. Some of these have been urged in favour of the composite theory of the
Homeric poems, as if added by a later hand. I believe the opposite to this to be
the more correct way of viewing them. In the Odyssey the boar hunt of Autoly-
cus may be viewed as a similar episode introduced at τ. 394.
XLVI
PART I
The characters
of Odysseus, Pal-
las and Menelaus
(App. E. 1. 4. 8)
and that of Nestor
offer each an
identity,
duly modified by
the different cir-
cumstances οἵ
the two poems.
PREFACE.
through which poetry had passed, the greater necessarily
is the distance which separates the Homeric age from
that of first crude poetic endeavour, where monotony of
type predominates, where individuality may be supposed
nearly colourless, and in which accordingly samples of
different minds might match by virtue of indigenous re-
semblance. .
XLI. As regards the argument based on characters
contained in the two poems, I must refer the reader to
Appendix E, in which most of those so contained have
been examined at some length. Those of Odysseus and
Pallas, from their complex and multi-lateral type, are
the characters most effective for the present argument.
That of Menelaus is hardly less valuable for the same
purpose, because, although greatly simpler, its traits are
in the [liad subdued and overshadowed, while in the
Odyssey they shine out with great prominence and lustre.
The conditions are so different, that the identity, if it can
be established, is the more decisive. And this indeed is
to a less degree observable of nearly all the characters so
contained. The analysis does not yield a coincidence of
ethical points, nor show us the features at the same angle
of vision; but pro re παίᾶ foreshortened, dilated, reduced
or enhanced; or changed and mellowed, as it were from
sunlight to moonlight. The identity which, I think, results
is the more cogent, because it is relative to the circumstances
and proportioned to their demand upon the actor. There
is one character, that of Nestor, whose share in the action
of the Odyssey was hardly large enough for the formal
notice of an Appendix, bnt which may be more briefly
noticed here, as bearing on this point of the argument.
The turn given to it in the Odyssey has a felicity and
ease, which speak the master’s hand. The element se-
lected for development there is the jovial one; which, ir-
repressible even amidst the alarms of war, blooms out
exuberantly in the “piping times of peace”. How
plainly the old gentleman has a will of his own, and with
what emphatic heartiness, and what a flood of overbear-
ing good-humour, it makes itself felt, has been noticed in
some of the notes to book y. and in some of the remarks
PART I. GENERAL VIEWS.
in App. E. 4. Yet this, although in the happiest keep-
ing with the Nestor of the Iliad, is less broadly expressed
in it. The character marches with the circumstances,
just as in our acquaintance with a real person further ex-
perience corrects and completes our first impressions of
what he is.
XLII. Among the external agencies which modify
character as between the two poems, the most powerful
is, that in the Iliad we have a number of princes banded
under a chief who is primus inter pares. Such interaction
of character as thence results is wanting in the Odyssey.
Thus Odysseus in the Iliad has Diomedes as an alter ego,
his subordinate and executive half. The few lines at the
beginning of K. in which Nestor is described rousing them
in the night to a council give an admirable epitome
of character. Odysseus is a light sleeper, and rouses
up at the voice(73), comes forth from his hut where he
has slept, and, after exchanging a few words, goes in
again to fetch his shteld(74). Diomedes is a heavy sleeper,
is found slecping outside his hut with his armour and
weapons at his side, is stirred up with a kick (75) and a
rousing objurgation from Nestor, and at once takes his
spear. So the sequel of the book proceeds; and so also
in other passages which contain both these heroes com-
bined, Odysseus is still the shield and Diomedes the
spear (76). But in the Odyssey the two are separated, and
this draws on Odysscus to be both shield and spear. But
even thus, his courage is ever cool, his daring kept well
73 ἐξ ὕπνου ἀνέγειρε Γερήνιος ἱππότα Νέστωρ
XLVIl
PART I
For instance,
Odysseus is se-
conded by Dio-
medes in the H.,
but 15 without
him in the Ody.
This cireum-
stance influences
his character,
φϑεγξάμενος᾽ τὸν δ᾽ αἶψα περὶ φρένας ἥλυϑ᾽ lon. K. 138—9, cf. 148—9.
74 ἐδ. τ 5ςο foll.
75 λὰξ ποδὶ κινήσας, ὥτρυνέ τε νεέκεσέ τ᾽ ἄντην"
““ἔγφρεο, Τυδέος υἷέ᾽ τί πάννυχον ὕπνον ἀωτεῖς"; ib. 158—9, cf. 178.
76 This is that hero’s favourite and distinctive weapon, as may be seen from
the many combats in which he engages. With it he wounds Apphrodité, Ares, and
in the funeral games Ajax. See ulso the characteristic line, @. 111, where he SaYS,
he will not retire, ὄφρα καὶ Ἕκτωρ ἐίσεται εἰ καὶ ἐμὸν δόρυ μαίνεται ἐν πα-
λάμῃσιν, which same phrase Achilles borrows when, enlarging on the crippled
condition of the Greek host in the persons of certain prime warriors, he says, οὐ γὰρ
Τυδειδέω Διομήδεος ἐν παλάμῃσιν μαίνεται ἐγχείηϊκιτ.λ. 11. 74—5. Diome-
des‘is κατ᾽ ἐξοχὴν the spearman of the host, at any rate in the absence of Achilles.
XLVill PREFAC E.
paRT 1 in hand, and his enterprise circumspect. The act in
which he comes nearest to the dare-devil gallantry of
Diomedes, is his attempt to spear the monster Scylla,
who, like Ares, is immortal. But would Diomedes have
similarly withheld from his comrades his knowledge of
the monster’s haunt and habits? If not, this rather shows
that when the two approach most closely there is a clearly
marked zone of character which separates them.
Payne Knight's =X LITT. Payne Knight thinks the judicial severity of
lower sthical Odysseus upon Melanthius and the handmaids in the
standard ofbook ()dyssey a trait unworthy of the same character in the
Z. shown to be . ° . .
‘ll-founded, Iliad, and founds a “chorizontic” argument on this sup-
posed inconsistency (77). But we have really no situation
in the Iliad to furnish a test. The treatment of open
enemies can never supply a standard for that of domestic
traitors, especially in a servile position. The example
of Roman manners as regards the open enemy, the re-
volted ally and the servile criminal, will occur to every
one. Waiving for a moment the question of authorship,
let us suppose the two poems recited to the same Greek
audience. Would any Greek down to the time of Plato
have felt in the execution done in book 4. a lapse below
his heroic ideal? He might feel the two poems appealed
in a different way to his moral feelings, but would he
experience in χ. particularly a shock to his moral sensi-
tiveness? I submit that there is no reason to think so.
77 “In foedis istis et immanibus suppliciis que Ulysses et Telemachus de ca-
prario et miseris aliquot mulierculis sumunt, judicium limatius et liberalius desi-
derandum est. Bellatores suos atroces, ssevos et feroces exhibuit Iliadis auctor;
sed a frigida ea ac tarda crudelitate qu odium duntaxat et nauseam pariat
omnes abhorrent. Cede et sanguine hostium non cruciatibus inimicorum gaudent:
neque Achillis tantum vel Diomedis, sed Ulyssis etiam, qualis in Iliaco carmine
adumbratur, excelsior et generosior est animus quam ut in servos et ancillas sx-
vicrit aut tam vili et miserando sanguine ultionem vel iram placaverit” (Payne
Knight Prolegg. in Hom. § u.). The mention of Achilles and Diomedes here sug-
gests the remark that the atrocious treatment of the corpse of Hector by Achilles,
and the butchery by Diomedes of the sleeping Rhesus and his comrades, although
not strictly in pari materia with the conduct of Odysseus to his revolted slaves, go
far to redeem it from falling below the actual Homeric standard. The former
sinks below the ideal of the poet himself, as shown by the interposition of the
gods to stay the outrage on humanity, and especially by the line κωφὴν γὰρ δὴ
γαῖαν ἀεικίξει μενεαένων Q. 54.
PART I. GENERAL VIEWS.
And if this be true, why are we to tax the poet for a
moral standard so far transcending that of his audience,
and really borrowed not from the Iliad but from
Christianity? I cannot think that such a topic would
ever have crossed the mind of any of the χωρίξοντες of
the heathen world. But I believe that the mistake has
partly arisen from the objector not observing that the
aspect of Odysscus in this scene, long foreseen and pre-
pared for, and allying might at last with right, proceeds
in a course of measured and graduated retribution (78).
The suitors perish as becomes Achzan nobles, the female
slaves are denied an honorable (καϑαρὸς) end and
strangled, the renegade caught in overt treachery is
hacked to death. We may surely compare the penalties
of the mediseval and Elizabethan English law of treason
and the studied atrocities of executions in ante-revolutio-
nary France. How long is it since the world grew so ten-
der-hearted as to let simple death suffice for the highest
penalties, that we should assume the manners of the [liad
to include that degree of clemency ?
XLIV.The conduct and bearing of Pallas upon the plot
is, I believe, thought by some too widely different in the
liad and Odyssey. In the former, it is said, she appears
as the fcellow-combatant of the hero whom she befriehds,
and in the latter as his familiar spirit. This opinion is,
I believe, based on the prominence with which every
reader recals the magnificent ἀριστεῖα of Diomedes and
the formidable figure which the Amazon goddess there
makes. That is suited to the warlike ἦϑος of the poem: at
the same time, however, it is an extreme case, and even in
the Iliad itself is necessarily exceptional. Tohavekept her
in that degree of predominance would have overwhelmed
the life of the battle-pieces in that poem, and robbed
them of their human interest by theurgic intervention (79).
XLIX
PART I
The bearing of
the goddess Pal-
Jas in the two
poems has none
other than a cir-
cumstantial dif-
ference,
48 Sce some remarks in App. E. 1. (14) to a similar purport, but which were
written before reading the remarks of Payne Knight.
7g Compare some remarks on her function in the μνηστηροφονέα in App.
E. 4 (8). We do not feel this so much in book E. because the hostile presence of
Ares on the Trojan side restores the balance; and so in the combat of Hephestus
with the river Xanthus in ὦ.
HOM. OD. 11. D
PART I
Certain ohjec-
tions are examin-
de founded part-
ly on the lan-
guage,
PREFACE.
As regards her other appearances in the Iliad, the mode
in which she acts upon Pandarus in Z. 86 foll. is so pre-
cisely similar to her repeated interferences under various
eidola in the Odyssey, that, assuming the priority of the
former poem, it may be said to be the precedent which
they follow. Her action upon Odysseus in B. 16g foll.,
and previously upon Achilles in 4. 1g7 foll., is very si-
milar to her confidential communications with Odysseus
in ν. 288 foll. and in w. 157 foll., in a disguise which she
readily abandons, or which he easily penetrates. Her
action against Hector in X. 214 foll., complicated as it is
with an appearance undisguised to Achilles, and again
under an cidolon to Hector, contains at any rate the germ
of her operation against the suitors in χ. 205, 256, 273,
297. Her greater familiarity with the hero in the Odys-
sey may be accounted for by her avowed preference for
him, and by his greater isolation there. Nor is it dis-
proportioned to their respective characters, that she
should appear to Diomedes as his fellow-combatant, and
to Odysseus chiefly as his politic counsellor.
XLV. As regards the variation stated by Payne
Knight in the forms of certain words in the Odyssey
from the same as found in the Iliad, such as
in Odyssey in [liad
νώνυμος νώνυμνος
ϑέσπις ϑεσπέσιος
ἀγρότης ἀγροιώτης
ἠοῦς ἠόος
δόατο δοάσσατο
ΜΗ ; monosyllables
tTEDVEDS, MENTEDS etc. τεϑνηὼς, πεπτηὼς οἷα.
γραίη, γρηῦς, γρηῦς γεραιή:
it may be noticed that νώνυμος comes directly from
ὄνομα, which, with the forms ὀνομάξω ὀνόμαστος, shows
that it is the -vog of νώνυμνος, which is accretive rather
than the -wog of νώνυμος which is defective; ϑέσπις, as
Col. Mure remarks (80), is shown similarly by ϑεσπιδαὴς
80 Mure II. App. D. p. 494.
PART I. GENERAL VIEWS. ae |
to be as primitive as Seoxéoros, or rather moreso; ἀγροιώ- PART I
ts, or rather its plur. -ὦται, occurs in both poems; ἄγρο-
ται is a noun ἅπαξ εἰρημένον in x. 218. The former word
.*is adjectival, and means rustic or even clownish, as shown
by some such word as βουχόλοι, ἄνερες, λαοὶ, and the like,
being always introduced with it (81), and by the line φ. 85 μῆνα pre.
νήπιοι, ἀγροιῶται, ἐφημέρια φρονέοντες, where we have valence of open
three adjectives or adjectival clauses, all bearing a re- % ‘ot! [or™>
proachful sense. As regards xéu:, the argument depends
firstly on the rejection of 4. 705 as spurious, secondly on
fons, which follows, having the digamma(82). The only
passage apparently favourable to χρέα being a monosyl-
lable is ε. 347, where the « final may probably be lost
by hypermetral elision. For its gencral quantity sec
note on y. 33. ἠοῦς (83) is common to both poems, so are
τεϑνεὼς and πεπτεὼς, τεϑνηῶς and πεπτηὼς (84), not to
mention τεϑνειὼς and the variation -orog -@tog etc. in
the case-forms; on δόατο sce note at ξ. 242, where Wolf's
reading déar’, confirmed by Butmann, Lezxil. 38, is to be
preferred. γραίης in α. 438 is a ἅπαξ elonuévorv, but
Γραῖαν in B. 498 occurs as a nom. prop., yeni is not pe-
culiarly Odyssean, witness I’. 386, γεραιὸς is common to
both poems (8s). He further objects that ἐπὴν = ἐπεὶ av
is found not unfrequently followed by indic. in the
Odyssey, but never so in the Iliad. He cites, however,
81 A. §49, 676, O. 272, 1. 292.
82 I am inclined to think that the digamma is inconstant in ἴσος, and that
κίοι is dissyll. in ε. 42, 549.
83 ©. 470, 508; 525) μ. 3, ν. 94; Cf. Anrovg in A. 9.
84 P. 402, p. 84, P. 435, 0. 23, ξ. 354, χ. 384, 362, ®. 503, ξ. 474, Z- 384.
85 A vast number of close and open, short and long, etc. forms in the two
poems might be raked together, which occur with sufficient promiscuousness in
both, but it is likely a close sifter might detect some confined by mere chance to
either: such are κλισιάων κλισιῶν, Βορέαο Βορέω, κύσι κύνεσσι, but δάκρυσι not
δακρύεσσι, contrariwise ἠρώεσσι ποϊήἤρωσι, μείξονα μείξω, μείξονες μείζους, κυκεῶνα
κυκεῶ, δῶμα and δῶ, ϑύγατρες ϑυγατέρες, δυσαήων δυσαέος, κρειῶν κρεῶν, γέλων
γέλον, ὀΐεσσι and ὄεσσι, καρήατος κάρητος κράατι κρατὸς, πουλὺς πολλὸς πολύς ;
ef. also βαϑύρροον ©. 8 with χειμάρρους A. 493; ϑεοὶ is a monosyllable only in
A. 18; besides the forms in -ozo and -ov, case-forms in -ge represent -ov -@ -ῆς
-y, and we have a large variety in forms of pronouns and their possessives. It
would he a work of some time to complete the list. But when complete it might
be easily matched alike from Chaucer and from Shakspeare.
" =
Lil - PREFACE.
PART I [0 instances, and I have not been able to find any such.
Crusius notices none such, nor does Jelf or Donaldson.
I believe the fact to be, that it is followed several times
by optat., and more frequently by subjunct., in either,
poem. His objection, that Hermes is nowhere the mes-
ΠΩΣ Και, tune: senger of Olympus in the Iliad, has been abundantly
tions of deities, answered by Col. Mure(86) and by Mr. Gladstone (87).
His objection, that in the IHad Poseidon has no trident, is
singularly inapposite, for we find no proper function of
the sea-god in him there. He is there, as it were, a “fish
out of water”; but in the Odyssey he shivers the rock,
and rouses the tempest (88). The alleged inconsistency 1s
a nice observance of propriety of costume. He objects
that Delos is not mentioned as sacred to Apollo in the
Iliad, the fact being that it is not mentioned at all, and
only once in the Odyssey, and there as part of a travel-
ler’s reminiscence. Similarly Cilla is only mentioned as
sacred to Apollo once in the Iliad (89), and nowhere in the
Odyssey. Equally fecble is the objection that Theseus
is mentioned as a hero in the Odyssey only. This as-
sumes 4. 265 to be an interpolation. Be it so; why may
not then 2. 322—5 and 631 be likewise interpolations ?
But the objection assumes that a poct’s mythological lore
is to be equally exhibited in each of his works, and no
god or hero named in one who is not also named in the
other. If this principle were applied to Milton’s Paradise
Lost and Regained (9°), what havoc it would make of the
86 Mure II. App. B 3. 87 Gladst. II. iii. 239—41.
88 δ. 506—7,&. 291—2. It may be asked why has not Poscidon his trident when
he shakes earth to her centre in T. 54 foll.? And must we not understand it when
he is matched, otherwise weaponless, against Phoebus in ®. 436 foll.? But even in
the Ody., 6. g. in ν. 163, where it would seem proper, Poseidon has not ahcays the
trident; and perhaps the weapon used familiarly upon tunnies and lampreys
would have been ridiculous in a ϑεομαχία. In Virgil’s time the trident had be-
come as purely conventional as it is to us now; hence he without scruple intro-
duces, in An. II. 610—1, Neptune on shore digging up the walls of Troy with it.
89 In A. 38 the prayer of Chryses, recurring in 452.
go It is remarkable how Milton, in the first half of his greater poem, inclines
to the Ptolemean, and in the latter half to the Copernican theory in his celestial
machinery; which ought on ‘“chorizontic” principles to imply duality of author-
ship. This was pointed out to me hy ΜΓ, I, James, V. P. of the Normal College,
Cheltenham.
PART I. GENERAL VIEWS.
poet’s allusions! As regards another objection, the ab-
sence of the oracular terms χρεέων, χρησόμενος, found in
the Odyssey, from the Iliad, it may be answered that in
the latter the Grecks are fast bound to one spot and have
their soothsayer, Calchas, with them. Their fortunes on
the voyage are most bricfly alluded to, their previous
home-life hardly at all. The same god, however, who in
the Odyssey gives oracles, inspires the soothsayer in the
Iliad. Surely, under circumstances so different there is
no room for the negative argument, even if we may not
rather on general grounds claim a confirmation.
XLVI. Payne Knight also traces a development in the
Odyssey of the social state and arts of life beyond that
of the Iliad. The word ϑὴς, ϑητεύω, is said to indicate
a class unknown to the Iliad, and not fitting into the
frame of socicty there. Such objections forget that what
we have there is life in a camp with an occasional glimpse
of a palace interior in ‘Troy. Of civic life in Troy there
is little or nothing, and even the houses mentioned are
all those of princes. How is it possible that a scene so
circumscribed should afford scope for all the relations of
social life to be stated? Take as an illustration the
question of slaves: the word δοῦλος does not occur, dues
once only in 1]. (7. 333), in a line which could well be
spared, and which is in fact no statement of events at
Troy, but a retrospect of home-life by the bereaved Achil-
les; the word ἀνδράποδον also once occurs (H. 475) ina
passage describing various articles of barter; and here
again the line could be detached without being missed,
and has been suspected by Thiersch (91) and others before
him for the sake of the word. There remains then but
one undoubted passage in the Iliad, in which a slave of
the male sex is spoken of, against over 30 times mention
of it in the Odyssey. The isolated mention in the home-
picture in question supplies exactly the key to the dif-
ficulty, and shows that the social state of the Iliad is ex-
ceptional, and that therefore it is that duwg occurs once
only, and ϑὴς not at all. For the same reason there is no
gt Gr. Gr. 197, § 60.
Lill
PART I
partly on the
mention of ora-
cles or the si-
lence concerning
them,
and partly on
the social slate
and comparative
progress in the
arts of life,shown
in cither poem.
The social state
is incompletely
shown in the
Iliad ;
Liv PREFACE.
pakT | Aégoyn in the Iliad. As regards the arts of peace what
Payne Knight says is very likely to be true; on the con-
trary, as regards the arts of war, the opposite is the case.
We might not, save for the Thad, have supposed the
whereas a i" Greeks of the period capable of orderly marshalling a
appears there host of men(92), of enclosing and fortifying a camp with
lope. “eve- ἃ rampart, turrets, a foss and palisades (93), of the curious
metallic combinations described in the armour of Agamem-
non(94), or of contrivances for keeping a fect of ships,
drawn up on the beach for a long time, ready for instant
launching by troughs and props (95). ‘The first two
oun omen ἕ examples of arts which he selects are both trivial and
mention of cer- Coubtful. He says, the strings of the lyre are in the Iliad
tain artistic ap- of flax, and in the Odyssey of gut. Assuming that to
pliances, . e, 9 °
be the meaning of the passage, it is certainly open to
question, whether the twisting fibres of flax into a chord
be not on the contrary a mark of further civilization than
the use of the intestine of an animal. Further, both in-
ventions might have been in use at once, as are hempen
and chain cables in modern ships. But one cannot but
question the whimsical criticism which makes a string
twisted of flax, a vegetable fibre, a proof of priority in the
Iliad, and the cable (96) twisted of βύβλος, another vege-
table fibre, a mark of posteriority in the Odyssey. But the
meaning assigned is at best questionable. The words λένον
δ᾽ ὑπὸ καλὸν ἄειδεν having been, as the objector admits,
taken to mean something very different (97). As regards the
κόλλοψ (98), or peg (?) for tightening the strings, somesuch
examined in de-
tail,
92 J. 297 foll., 447—9. 93 H. 436—41. 94 A. 1g foll. 5 A. 486, B. 153.
96 As regards this objection, it should be noticed that the word for cable in
the same passage (ὅπλον φ. 390—1) is peculiar in this sense — and indeed in the
singular in any sense — to the Ody. Obviously this is to be referred to the spe-
cial scope of the poem. And, indeed, one might mako fromthe details given of
the build and rigging of ships, and of the interior of a palace, a long list of Odys-
sean words.
97 ‘‘Haud me effugit viros doctos λένον istud pro cantiuncul& quadam habu-
1880 (Prolegy. xuvii, note 2). This was Aristarchus’ view, Zenodotus preferred
that of Payne Knight. Two Scholl. on 2.570 explain flax as used because, the
song being there a hymn to a god, the gut was unsuited to the sacred occasion—
evidently regarding the use of the two as contemporaneous.
98 Volkmann p. 120 contends for a different sense of xoddow, “non est ver-
PART I. GENERAL VIEWS. LV
contrivance must have been in use from a very early part 1
period of the lyrist’s art, since they would always be
liable to stretch. His other instance is that of columns in
a palace interior, mentioned only in the Odyssey. But it
is there only that such an interior comes in for descrip-
tion, and the spaces assumed as inclosed in the Iliad
make it difficult to understand how without columns the
mass could have stood. His next objection is founded on
the epithet ἀψόρροος applied to the ocean, “returning
upon itself”, or ‘circumfluous”’, alleged as occurring
only in the Odyssey, and betokening there a further ad-
vance of geography and navigation. But it is surely
pucrile to talk of any such advance as would have dis- , 1" ΠΟΙᾺ
covered in fact that the continental mass was really sur- epithet dyée-
rounded on all sides by water. The notion must be taken °°
as one of poetical conjecture only. Let us, however,
waive this and allow with Payne Knight, 2. 399, in
‘which the word occurs, to be spurious. Yet we have two
passages in the same book 2. (99) which confirm thenotion
as in the poct’s mind. The one is 485—9, where “all the
constellations which encircle heaven’’, save the Bear, are
mentioned as sctting in the ocean-stream. How is the
conception possible, if that stream be not regarded as
ἀψόρροος in fact? The other is 479—8o, cf. 607—8, in
which the ocean-stream is made to run round the rim
which encompasses the shield. The rim runs round
(περὶ) the shield, the stream gocs along (πὰρ) the rim. shown to be in-
The obvious inference is surely that the poet’s idea is conclusive:
that of a stream ἀψόρροος, and thus the argument against
the word collapses. The next objection, that certain me-
thods of fowling and fishing(toc) are also found men-
ticillum quo chords intenduntur et remittuntur, sed jugum, der Steg, quod recen-
tiores κόλλαβος vocant”’. Crusius does not support this.
99 It should be mentioned that Payne Knight protests (xi—xvii) against Hey-
ne’s (Exc. 111. ad &.) condemnation, following Zenodotus, of the whole shield-
passage as post-Homecric. Surely then the amount of metallurgy involved in it,
is such a step in advance, as throws all the art-knowledge of the Odyssey very
far into the shade; and this without assuming that metallurgic skill could then
actually compass such group-casting as the shield implics.
100 As regards fowling, it is very doubtful whether the birds are not rather
mentioned as pursuing the chase for themselves; see Mure’s remarks (11. Append.
C. p. 492): a8 regards fishing, Payne Knight consistently rejects E. 487—92, a 8i-
ων] PREFACE.
PART I tioned only in the Odysscy, may surely be met by the
gencral reply, that the war-scenes of the larger poem at-
ns also these on ford no scope for such things, and that in similes, in
tioned in similes, Which alone they occur in the Odyssey, a poct’s choice
to use or to omit any particular image is surely free. On
the other hand, we have in similes in the Iliad the
method of irrigation alluded to, and the purple-staining
of ivory by the Meeonian woman, of neither of which the
Odyssey yields any trace.
eon their XLVII. These are the arguments of Payne Knight for
siveness, these Separate authorship and such answers to them perhaps as
objections ὅγο can be given. But indeed all special answer is superfluous,
overbalanced by ° . °
the ethical ar- Whenthey are weighed in the balance against the grave ar-
gument; and the pument for unity based on the ethical oneness of cach cha-
racter found in the two poems: for all such arguments hang
in the fringe of the garment merely, but these figures are
indissolubly inwoven in the woof and warp of the fabric
itsclf. With the arguments to a similar purport once
urged by Nitzsch it is needless to meddle, since he him-
self lived to own their insufficiency, and became a con-
vert to the belief in the unity(ror). It must be allowed
that a far larger array of examples would be needed than
those here reviewed to establish the conclusion aimed at,
and that the force of those few which have been ad-
vanced, is too far invalidated by others alleged per con-
tra, for us to view it as established. And after all, there
is nothing either in the vocabulary(102) used or in the
mile in which the net (epioe Advov) is spoken of, as interpolated. Why the two
similes in y. 302 -6 and 383—g9 may not be equally interpolations, I cannot sec.
In them alone are these methods spoken of. One or two such facts may be found
not unfrequently in contemporaries, Thus the ages of Shakspeare and Ben Jonson
largely overlap, and yet while the latter mentions the familiar use of tobacco, the
former never once alludes to it.
τοι See Mure pref. p. vi, who refers to Nitzsch’s Sagenpoeste der Griechen.
102 There are some excellent remarks on the words which occur exclusively
in cither poem in Friedliinder (II), who observes that by far the greater part of
them are due to the object or person introduced into the one poem, whereas,
either by chance or by the nature of the circumstances, occasions for their em-
ployment are wanting in the other (pp. 795—6). On p. 812—4 he gives several
lists of such words. Thus ἐβεβεννός, λοιγὸς, νηπύτιος, νηπίαχος, ἱππηλάσιος,
ἀγακλεὴς, ἀλεγίξω, κυδιόω, ἄνδιχα, διάνδιχα, περιδείδω, Exvog (elavog), εἶϑαρ,
τύνη, ὕπαιϑα, and γραισμέω, arc noted as Iliadic words; forms related to some
PART I. GENERAL VIEWS. vii
things mentioned, even if we allow the objections the parr 1
full force which the objector ascribes to them, beyond |
such a degree of progress as may fall within the life of they prove is
an individual man. As regards language, our own. such a degree of
during the reign of Elizabeth(103) probably underwent a rompatible with
greater change than the closest sifting could discover in the development
the Odyssey as compared with the Iliad. As regards
things, compare the state of the arts of life in Europe
of sociely in a
single generation
rapidly transiti-
onal,
wherever a busy and lively period has succeeded one of
standstill, Italy before and during the period of the
Medici, our own country during and after the Lancas-
trian civil wars, and a development, proportionate to any
conceivable as belonging to the period between the Iliad
and the Odysscy, may readily be found. And certainly,
if the unity and personality of Homer be allowed, there
can be no reason for assuming the period which produced
him to have been in itself a stagnant one.
of these and common to both poems being ἔρεβος and ἐρεμνὸς, νήπιος, ἀγακλυτὸς
and ἀγακλειτὸς, ἀλέγω, κῦδος, κυδρὸς, κύδιστος, κυδαίνω, δίχα, δείδω. Again
χοήματα, ἑξῆς, ἀσπαστὸς, ἱππήλατος, ἀλεγύνω, ἐλπὶς, ἐλπωρὴ, πινυτὸς, ἀλαὸς
ἀλαόω, ἄπτερος, ἐπηετανὸς, κάλλιμος, περιμηχανάομαι, are noted as Odyssean,
and related forms common to both are ἕξείης, ἀσπάσιος, ἔλπω, ἔλπομαι, ἀλαοσκο-
xin, μηχανάομαι. He remarks that two of the Iliadic class are certainly striking,
viz. those remarked upon by Buttmann, ἑανὸς and χραισμέω, and that two others,
λοιγὸς and γρήματα, although in his opinion referable to the distinct subject mat-
ter treated of, may appear to some critics to present a proof of a distinct usage.
As regards γρήματα, the promiscuous use of it with the Iliadic κτήματα in Ody.
(π. 384, 389) goes far to negative any such presumption. But we may surely ask,
does not human speech progress in one generation with much more startling in-
crements than these, even if none of those given in the above lists were accounted
for by the difference of tenor and subject in the pocms? Dr. F. (I, p. vii) has
also quoted from Lachmann some striking remarks on the mere casual use or dis-
use of words highly familiar in everyday style. He adds (II. 796) that such words
as are peculiarly Iliadic or Odyssean are mostly nouns and adjectives, rarely verbs,
and still more rarely words of other classes, ‘‘which alone might suggest that the
ground of the peculiarity Jay, not in distinctness of vornacular but in that of sub-
ject-matter’’. See on the other hand Volkmann, pp. 121 foll., on words “ que
nulla ... rei novitate excusantur, multo majorem igitur nove originis suspicionem
necessario movent’’. He alleges as such in the Ody. 7 nouns, 18 or το adjectives,
and 8 verbs. Volkmann views the later origin of the last six books of the Iliad, and
of the eighth and eleventh books of the Ody. as established beyond a doubt (p. 120).
How the Iliad could possibly have ended with the ὁπλοποιέα of Z. he does not
explain. If any book of the poem leaves us expecting a sequel, Σ΄. surely does.
103 See Latham’s English Language I, p. 318 (4** edition).
PART II.
ANCIENT EDITORS AND COMMENTATORS.
XLVIII. As regards attention early paid to the study of Homer
and works meant to assist it, although their critical pretensions are
very doubtful, the following sketch may suffice.
- Theagenes of Rhegium was a younger contemporary of Pisistratus,
and is mentioned as “the first who wrote concerning Homer” (1). He
is said to have had recourse to allegory in explaining the poct. That
such a work should have found acceptance so early, scems to forbid
the notion that Homer was up to the Pisistratid period only known as
a loose collection of ballad pieces. The writings of Theagenes, no
doubt, were known to the Alexandrine school; see Mure vol. IV p.
95. Fabric. I. pp. 367—8. Schol. Aristoph. 4v. 823.
Anaxagoras the philosopher scems first to have unfolded the ethi-
cal character of the Homeric poetry, as being περὲ ἀρετῆς καὶ δικαιο-
σύνης (Diog. Laert. 11. 11).
Euripides, the father of the poet, unless it were some other of the
same name, is said tu have revised Homer (Fabric. ibid p. 362).
Stesimbrotus of Thasos and Mctrodorus of Lampsacus (2) also wrote
on Homer. Mctrodorus is said by Diog. Laert. (ub. sup.) to have ap-
plied to the Homeric mythology explanations of physical phenomena.
He also is said to have disbelieved the historical existence of the EHo-
meric personages, and to have viewed them as introduced for the sake
of the interest of the story (χάριν οἰκονομίας). With these may be
joined Hippias of Thasos, mentioned by Aristotle in the Poetics (cap.
ΧΧΥ. 8. ὃ ap. Fabric.) as having solved Homeric difficulties, and
Glaucon, perhaps an Athenian. All these appear to have been rhap-
sodists, and to have belonged to about the middle of the 5‘ century
B.C.: the first was a contemporary of Pericles, and was the teacher of
t Schol. Ven. B. on T, 67; whether that on 4. 381 speaks of the same man
is not clear.
2 Plato, fun 530D.
PART Wf. ANCIENT EDITORS AND COMMENTATORS. _ tix
Antimachus (3) of Colophon, poct and grammarian, whose editions of
Homer, or one of them, furnished matter for ercerpta to the Scholl.
Ven. and L, on 4. 423, 598, N. 59, ®. 397, 607 ef al. Eustathius also
cites him as an interpreter of the poet. His age was 4o4 B. C. (Fabric.
ibid. pp. 358, 360—1). He and Stesimbrotus arc said to have treated
‘‘de carmine, genere et tempore Homeri” (Tatian ap. Fabric. II. p.
358). ΑΒ Aristotle revised the Iliad for Alexander, so did Callisthe-
nes his disciple, and Anaxarchus, the Odyssey (Fabric. I. p. 357) (4).
Aratus, the poet of the Phenomena, and Rhianus, an epic poet of
note in his day, although later than Zenodotus, yet as external to the
Alexandrine School, may find a place here. The former edited the
Odyssey, and his διόρθωσις is among the works cited by Suidas. He
is said to have attached himself to Antiochus Soter, king of Syria,
who urged him to undertake the [liad also. Wolf thinks that, on his
declining it, Rhianus accepted the task (Prolegg. ὃ xii). This edi-
tion (ἡ Ῥιανοῦ or κατὰ Ῥιανὸν) is often cited by the Scholl. as an au-
thority for readings in the Ody. also, showing that his labours ex-
tended to both poems. Fabric. (ub. sup. p. 357) mentions a tradition
that Aratus edited the Iliad also, being led to do so from its having
been “corrupted (λελυμάνϑαι) by many”.
Chameleon of Heraclea was a personal pupil of Aristotle, contem-
porary with Heraclides Ponticus(s), against whom he charged a lite-
rary larceny in purloining (which may perhaps mean plagiarizing
from) a work of his on Homer and Hesiod (Fabric. I. p. 508). His
name is introduced here for the same reason as that of Aratus, and
on the same ground stands the following name.
Chrysippus, the Stoic philosopher, b. 280 B.C. (Smith's Diet. Biogr.),
3 Wolf. Prolegg. § xL. appears to have at one time supposed that the gram-
marian was a distinct person from the poet of this name, but to have been con-
vinced by the further light thrown by the Schol. Ven. Yet Fabricius (ub. sup. p.
359) puts it as if Wolf had maintained the affirmative, and Villoison had doubted.
Suidas identifies them.
4 Antimachus’ own poetry is said to have shown a vigorous style and much
power of expression, but to have been wanting in suavity and ease. Proclus, com-
menting on Plato, (7'imeus I p. 28) has a statement that Plato preferred his poems
to those of Chzrilus then highly popular. Some say that the specimen of prolix-
ity censured in Hor, A. P, 136, commencing “‘reditum Diomedis ab interitu Me-
leagri’, was really borrowed from a 7hebais which he composed under the influ-
ence of Homeric study. Aristotle (Ahet. iii.6) cites from him an example of purely
negative poetical description. Over a hundred fragments of Antimachus are given
in the Script. Grwe, Biblivth. Paris 1840.
5 The elder, not the one mentioned in this list inf.
LX ~PREFACE.
wrote also on poetry and criticism in which he incidentally illustrated
many passages of Homer. He is censured by Plutarch (de audiendis
poetis p. 31) as a frigid interpreter. He is cited by the Scholl. Ven.
on N. 41 and on ®. 483, where the remark ascribed to him justifies
Plutarch’s censure.
XLIX. From Villoison’s Anecdota Greca and his Prolegg. in Il.
ad fidem Cod. Ven. the following brief summary of the sources of an-
cient criticism, chiefly Alexandrine, has been drawn. We find men-
tioned there the very ancient and now lost editions of Homer ob-
tained from Chian, Cyprian, Cretan, Argolic, Sinopic and Massilio-
tic sources, the edition of Aristotle(6) of the Iliad only, the two edi-
tions of Aristarchus, the two of Antimachus, those of Zenodotus,
Aristophanes of Byzantium, Callistratus, Rhianus, Sosigenes, Phile-
mon of Crete, Antiphanes οἷς. The “Cyclic” (xuxdixy) is the title
of an ed. which embraced the 1]. and Ody. as part of the poems
known as the xvxdog, or viewed them as forming members of that
series (Schol. Harl. on 2. 195, Lehrs p. 30). The ΖΒ ο δὴ (Aldodrxy or
Alvdls), and that known as the “museum” ed. (ἡ ἐκ τοῦ μουσείου)»
4. 6. kept in the temple of the Muses adjoining the Alex. library,
are known from other Scholl. (on ξ. 280, 331, ὅσ. 98, § 204). The
class, named from localities, are included in the class labelled, pro-
bably, in the Alexandrine library, as af ἀπὸ τῶν πόλεων, the latter in
that distinguished as αἱ κατ᾽ ἄνδρα. Wolf has denied (7) that the former
6 Called also that é τοῦ νάρϑηκος, from the casket, literally “hollow reed”,
in which Alexander the Great, for whose use the poem had been revised by his
great master, carried it with him. The casket was really one of the most precious
amongst the personal spoils of Darius whose unguents it had held. Wolf refuses
to allow that any reading ascribed to Aristotle belongs to this revise. ‘The point
igs one which can never be proved. But it ought to be remembered that when
Aristotle cites Homer, ho cites a work on which he himself bestowed literary care;
see Schol. Ven. on B.73, 447, ᾧ. 252, 493, where readings etc. of his are mentioned.
His ed. as well as the Sinopian and the Massiliotic had been previously known by
name from Eustath., the others are mentioned from the Schol. Venet. and Lips.
(Wolf Prolegg. ὃ xxxix and xL, p. cLxxxiii, note 46). Atheneus, lib. XIV. p. 620,
has a tradition to a similar purport regarding Cassander, King of Macedonia,
οὕτως ἦν φιλόμηρος ὡς διὰ στόματος ἔχειν τῶν ἐπῶν τὰ πολλά" καὶ ᾿Ιλιὰς ἦν
αὐτῷ καὶ Ὀδυσσεία ἰδίως γεγραμμέναι. But this implies admiration for the poet
rather than critical skill applied to his text. Villoison Prolegg, in Il. p. xxvi.
7 “Publico jussu illas factas esse vel servatas publice, cave cuiquam ante
credas, quam probabili argumento demonstratum fuerit, ejusmodi instituta olim in
civitatibus Grecie obtinuisse, que res, meo quidem judicio, non cadit in ista tem-
pora.”” Prolegy. ὃ xxxix. Qn the other hand Villoison, Prolegg. in dl. p. xxiii,
views these as “‘editiones quas curaverant nonnulle cjvyitates’’; and Ὁ. xxxvi in-
PART IJ. ANCIENT EDITORS AND COMMENTATORS. xxi
designation means anything more than that the librarfans at Alexan-_
dria named them from the places whence they had come, and in par-
ticular, that they were in any sense public copies, which the civic au-
thorities had caused to be prepared for the use of their citizens. In
spite of Wolf's denial the fact seems to me highly probable, as well as
more agreeable to the variety of phrascology in which the designation
is couched: and Colonel Mure has expressed the same opinion. For
we have not only af ἀπὸ πόλεων, and ἔνιαι τῶν κατὰ πόλεις, but af
διὰ τῶν πόλεων and at πολιτικαί(β8). The remarkable blank which
we find in place of the name of Athens among these cities, is most
easily explained by supposing, with Ritschl and Mr. Gladstone, that
the Athenian recension had obtained the authority of a vulgate text,
gencrally received in Greece central, to the standard of which those
of the other outlying cities named might be referred (9).
L. This view has at any rate the advantage of systematizing what
little we know. The supposed paraltel designation adduced by Wolf,
ta ἐκ πλοίων, applied to writings brought by ship to Alexandria and
returned in copy to their owners by the same, while the archetypes
were deposited in its library, rather makes against his hypothesis;
for probably nearly all those designated ἀπὸ τῶν πόλεων also came
telligo editiones publice servatas vel publico jussu a quibusdam civitatibus factas.
Payne Knight objects to this that he does not see how a city could discharge edi-
torial functions, or how municipal decrees could deal with doubtful readings
(8 xxxiv). But surely such a body could appoint a curator and sanction his acts.
8 These phrases seem to imply some action of the πόλεις in reference to
them, and some definite relation in which they stood to the πόλεις. Nor is it easy
to see why they should have been thus named as recensions, as if in contra-
distinction to those which rested on individual authority, unless some correspond-
ing authority, on grounds connected with the wodtg itself, had been ascribed to
them. This probability is further strengthened by the known fact that at Athens
and at Sparta the Homeric poems had been cared for by the state as carly as the
times of Solon, Pisistratus and (in the sense explained XXXIV sup.) Lycurgus;
and by the credible statement that Pisistratus used written copies, and by means
of them and the aid of the judgment of learned men either added or restored to
them order and unity, which amounts to a public editorial care, however crude
and tentative. That what was done at Athens and Sparta should have been done
at least as carly in some of those cities which claimed Homer for their country-
man, as Chios, is more likely than not; especially in those which were the seats
of public rhapsodic contests; and that it should have been omitted for the four
centuries which elapsed between Pisistratus and Zenodotus is unlikely.
g As cited by Grote vol. I. pt. I. ch, xxi. p. 538 note. Gladst. vol. I. p. 63.
This seems to me to be more likely than the inference of Payne Knight regarding
this recension — cujus apud veteres haud magnam fuisse auctoritatem, ὁ gram-
maticorum silentio colligere licet (Prolegg. § xxxii).
LXxil PREFACE.
by ship. Those MSS. ἐκ τῶν πλοίων were so called, it seems, not
because their source could not be ascertained, but because it was not
worth-while more specially to distinguish them. The inference is
that in the case of those from “cities” it was worth-while. And why
should it have been worth-while, unless their character as πολιτικαὶ
had entered into the question of their authority ? — A view the more
likely, since they are not merely so classed as writings or copies,
(βιβλία, γράμματα, ἀντίγραφα,) but (teste Wolf himself 1. c.) as διορ-
ϑώσεις “revised” or “corrected editions’’(t0). At any rate it would
have sufficed on the other supposition to have merely classed them as
from “cities”, whereas we find beyond this the individual cities named.
And this is further confirmed from our finding that the copies were
rated as of more or less critical value, just as we reckon Aldine or
Elzivir editions now. The epithcts which show this are αἱ ἄλλαι
σχεδὸν πᾶσαι διυρϑώσεις as opposed to al Agioragyov, af χαριέστεραι,
of “higher merit”; and again, the threefold classification of af κοιναὶ
the “common, uncorrected” cditions(«1), af μέτριαι, those “of medio-
crity”, af εἰκαιότεραι the “more correct”.
LI. Of the “men” from whom the recensions κατ᾽ ἄνδρας (12) were
designated, many of whom exercised a permanent influence over the
Homeric text, it is worth-while to give a brief account. Those here
mentioned may be arranged in three classes (i), (ii), (iii), one of
which numerals is prefixed to cach name. (i) consists of those who
were editors of revisions of the poems or either of them, or of com-
mentaries upon them. (ii) of those who furnished incidental illustra-
tion, or wrote on special points of grammar, or were occupied in de-
partments of Ifomeric study. (iii) of those who applied themselves
to excerption and compilation of the matcrials contributed by those of
(i) and (ii). After the first three or four great names, (i) and (11)
will be found interspersed, while (iii) for our present purpose begins
with Porphyry.
.to So Payne Knight, ‘‘Wolfii autem sententise vocabula ἐκδόσεις οἱ διορϑώ-
σεις, quibus vetera exemplaria dignoscuntur, obstare videntur; παράδοσις enim
non ἔχδοσις vel διόρϑωσις cf ratione facta fuisset”’. ibid. § xxxv.
tt “ Que venalia prostabant apud bibliopolas τῶν ἐς πρᾶσιν γραφομένων βι-
βλίων, quieque inquit Strabo, XIII. p. 419, ab ineptis exarabantur librariis nec
postea cum aliis codicibus conferebantur”’. Villoison Prolegg. in lliad. p. xxvi.
12 Those enumerated by Didymns are the edd. of Antimachus, Rhianus, Phile-
tas, Zenodotus, Sosigenes, Philemon, Aristophanes, Callistratus, Crates, those of
Aristarchus are of course understood. Lehrs p. 30; for a more complete list
see XLIX sup.
PART II. ANCIENT EDITORS AND COMMENTATORS. _ xiii
(i) τ. ZENODOTUS or EPHESUS
flourished circa 300 B. C., was the pupil of Philetas of Cos, who, him-
self an elegiac poet of some mark, contributed to Homeric criticism (Wolf
Prolegg. ὃ xu1). He was the founder of the Alexandrine school of cri-
trics. Ptolemy Philadelphus, likewise a pupil of Philetas, made Zenodo-
tus first curator of the Alexandrine library, and committed to him the
revision of the Homeric and the other poems there, except the dramatic.
He was a more daring critic than Aristophanes his pupil and successor,
wholly excising passages (13) which the latter was content to “obelize” (14),
cutting short the frequent repetitions of messages (Schol. Ven. on B. 60—
70), and not allowing verses once read to recur in a new context. This
shows a strange ignorance of Homeric manner (Lehrs p. 357). Colonel
Mure has thrown together a list of the discarded passages(ts). Some of
these are said to have been already omitted by the MSS. which he fol-
lowed, but ‘the greater part are evidently disposed of without any pre-
text of MS. authority, merely from not happening to square with his own
particular theories’’. Mure further charges him with “engrafting new mat-
ter of his own on the genuine text’’. This last remark is so far true that
he does not seem to have shaken off the old habits of the early διασκευα-
13 ᾿Δριστοφάνης ἡϑέτει Ζηνόδοτος δὲ οὐδὲ ἔγραψεν Schol. Vulg. on IT. 237 et
passim. Sometimes, however, conversely, as in the Schol. Ven. A on &.114, Ζηνόδοτος
ἠϑέτει παρὰ ᾿Δριστοφάνει δὲ οὐκ ἦν. Col. Mure, vol. II. ch. xvi p. 172 note, has
remarked on the importance of the distinction between this “disallowing” and
the excising the line from the text, as regards the right understanding of the
method of the Alexandrian critics. Wolf remarks on Zenodotus, “ ἀϑετήσεξων au-
tem ejus tanta est multitudo et licentia ut nonnullis visus sit Homerum ex Homero
tollere” (Prolegg. § xiii). The ἀϑέτησις, however, was not a “sublatio”’.
14 The famous oBedog, generally named from Aristarchus, was a single hori-
zontal line thus ————— , drawn in the margin against the beginning of a verse.
By it spurious and disallowed (ἀϑετούμεναι) lines were noted. Besides this, Vil-
loison, in his Prolegg. in Jl. p. xLvi. gives the following symbols as used by the
Alex. critics, the diplé am , either by itself (καϑαρὰ), or dotted ς- (περε-
ἐστιγμένη), the former being used to mark ἅπαξ εἰρημένα, and other peculiarities
of a very miscellaneous character, the latter to mark the readings of Zenod. Crates
and Aristar. The asterisk 3< denoted such verses as were especially admirable
and apposite. This combined with the obelos * denoted lines which had
become displaced from their proper context. The antisigma 3} denoted lines which
had been altered, and the same dotted 9 marked tautology. Villoison gives at
the end of his Prolegg. a treatise of Hephestion περὶ σημείων, from which it ap-
pears that in MSS. of other poets too such symbols were familiar. ‘Thus the
obelos was used tu mark the end of a paragraph, or by the lyric pocts the end of
a strophc; and the asterisk marked the end of an éx@dog and the commencement
of a new piece in different metre. Hephestion further remarks that the same
signs have not the same meaning in different pucts,
15 up. sup. p.173- Another list is given by Wolf (ὃ xtiii. n. 72): the two do
not correspond, each having somewhat which the other omits.
LXiV PREFACE.
Otai; see XXXVI sup. Tle may perhaps be regarded as the last of them
and the first of the critics. But he did not, as the above words might
seem to imply, wantonly interpolate. He is said ἢ in particular to have re-
jected the ὁπλοποιία of 2.
LIT. The extreme censure of Colonel Mure is tempered by Wolf, who
says that some of the readings ascribed to him were not emendations of
his, but, monstrous as many of them are, probably belonged to the text,
not only as he left but as he found it. The same may apply to some of
his alleged interpolations (16). He is said to have written a sort of leailo-
gus, explaining the more difficult words; and a commentary (ὑπομνημαὶ
is cited under his name; but whether a distinct work, or merely some
other grammarian's view of his w ritings, is doubtful. Among his errors
were, the endeavouring to foist on Homer the definite article, as by read-
ing ὦλλοι for ἄλλοι, ὁ λεὺς for Ὀϊλεὺς; the corruptions of Homeric pro-
nominal forms to suit the usage of his own day; the omission of the final
ν in ἀμεένων ylvxtwv; the removing anacoluthia, and others given in the
notes 75—78 to § xxiii of Wolfs Prolegg. (17); who adds, that some valu-
able criticisms of his, confirmed by Aristarchus and subsequent writers,
and yielding traces of good original authorities, are found; so that from
his remains may be formed some estimate of the state of the Tomeric
text before his time. Ilis study was not profound, and his censure often
inconsiderate; as is plain from his readings preserved by the Schol. Ven.
on IT. 89 and the Schol. P. on ἢ. 15, 140; 80 that Ζηνόδοτος ἡγνοίησεν ὅτι
x. τ᾿ A. is quite a commonplace of the Scholl. in accounting for his read-
16 It isAristonicus who uses the expression Ζηνόδοτος ἐποίησε or μετέγραψε,
following an opinion current among ancient grammarians. The probability, Lelirs
thinks (p. 374), is that these, as suggested above, were unfairly credited to him
because he let them stand with the authority of his name.
17 Lehrs remarks (p. 352), ‘Si nihil aliud prestitisset Zenodotus quam ut
hane meditationem (of detecting spurious lines) ad Homerum attulisset, nunquam
ejus memoria perire deberet; quippe a quo omnis critics: primordia repetenda es-
sent’. Lehrs enumerates four reasons for pronouncing a verse spurious: “ pri-
mum deficiens carminum connexus vel discrepans: deinde, si quid displicet in
arte poctz vel in hominum deorumque factis et moribus: tum, si quid in antiqui-
tatibus, denique si quid in sermone a poctz consuetudine discrepat. Et Zenodo-
tus quidem primo ct secundo genere substitisse reperitur, tertium et quartum ge-
nus aliis relinquens, qui artem criticam cum arte grammaticfé conjuncturi erant”’.
As an ex. he rejected διὰ τὸ ἀπρεπὲς, i.e. as containing something unworthy of
the deity mentioned, J. 889, Γ. 424—5, A.396—406, O. 18; 80 part of the episode
of Thersites, dca τὸ γέλοιον; see Schol. Ven. on B. 231, 236. Not a few of his re-
jections, e. g. that ofO.64—77, have been adopted by Bekker, Perhaps under the
second of these heads would be classed his objections to verses where he himsclf
was at fault in scholarship: — “ Zenodoto vocabulorum Homericorum parum gnaro,
cum vulgares significationes adhiberet, qusedam sensu omnino carere vel ridicula
videbantur. Hee ille non poterat non falsa judicare’’ (Lehrs p. 364). Lehrs
adds (p. 374) that all early criticism is too free and sweeping, as in the revival of
it in Italy at the renaissance.
PART II. ANCIENT EDITORS AND COMMENTATORS. ιτιχν
ings; see scholl. on N. 315, 86, Π. 697 ete. As an instance of rash
exegesis may he noticed his view upon B.12; seeSchol.B. there. His writ-
ings were edited by Ptolemy surnamed Epithetes (Schol. Ven. on B. 111).
Wolf remarks that we know his readings in about 400 passages, those
of Aristophanes in about 200, those of Aristarchus in more than 1000
(Prolegg. ὃ xuii) and cites Ausonius(t8) as a witness to his reputation,
conjoined with Aristarchus. His influence on the text is proved hy the
large number of places in which the Scholl. cite his readings in pointed
contrast with the Aristarchean; showing the extent to which subsequent
criticism recognized on the whole both his ability and his fidelity. ‘There
is no trace of his having allowed variants.
LIII. (i) 2. ARISTOPHANES or BYZANTIUM,
son of Apelles, pupil of Callimachus, Zenodotus and Eratosthenes, of
Dionysius tov ἰάμβου and of Euphronides of Corinth, flourished 264 B.C.,
founded a school of his own at Alexandria, of the library of which he
was curator, and invented, as it is said, the system of written accents (19).
Similar irregularities to those of Zenodotus have been alleged against him;
but his judgment as a scholar was superior. His studies extended beyond
the letter to the spirit and meaning of his author, whose idea or general
design and esthetical points he sought to exhibit. Besides revising the
text of Homer, he wrote a “commentary” and a ‘‘glossary ἡ", cited by Schol.
Ven. on 4. 567. His chief care was directed, however, to the dramatists, and
especially to his great namesake. Besides his illustrious pupil Aristarchus,
two others of his school, Callistratus and Diodorus, left works on Homer,
as did also others whose names have not come down. We know nothing,
Wolf remarks, of either his method or his sources; but may be sure that
the greater part of any text which could have been called his, would have
been some older vulgate common to him with Zenodotus, as shown by
some absurdities which appear under both their names. ‘These therefore
were not due to him, and he can at most be charged, like Zenodotus,
with letting them stand. It should be remembered that he had not the
materials which Aristarchus found ready at hand (2¢); and if he abstained
from altering where he could not see his way to amend, this alone is
greater praise than can be claimed for many distinguished critics in va-
rious ages. It is unfair then both to him and to Zenodotus, to charge these
absurdities upon them, which may have been accumulating for centuries.
18 In his Ludus Septem Sapientium,
Meeonio qualem cultum quesivit Homero
Censor Aristarchus normaque Zenodoti.
19 Villoison (4necd. Gr. II, Ὁ. 119) notes that these originally stood on con-
secutive syllables, as Θὲύδωρος, Θεόδοσίὸς, ‘sed hunc usum, cujus nulla in
nostris codd. vestigia, jam obsolevisse ante Dionysii Thracis setatem, qui Aris-
tarchi grammatici discipulus οἷς." They scem to have soon become extensively
current; since Crates, (p. Lxxii) who had no connexion with Alexandria, and was
a@ younger contemporary of Aristoph., used them (Scholl. BL on 44. sgt).
20 &. 247 is given by Lehrs (p. 357) a8 an ex. of a verse not understood by
Aristophanes, but rightly explained by Aristarchus.
HOM, ΟΡ. II. E
LXV1 PREFACE.
Wolf further remarks that in such readings as can be ascribed to him,
more learning and more moderation is shown than in those of Zenodotus,
and that a good number of them were confirmed by Aristarchus; while
others stuck in the text in spite of his attempt to turn them out of it, being
ratified by the verdict of posterity (Prolegg. ὃ xiiv). From the phrase δι-
χῶς ᾿Αριστοφάνης, used by Schol. Ven. on N. 59, it would seem that he re-
cognized variants; and this is perhaps the earliest extant notice of them.
LIV. (i) 3. ARISTARCHUS,
_ born in Samothrace, flourished 222 B. C., in the school of Alexandria,
and, times having changed for the worse with literature there, taught in
his old age at Rome. The son of Ptolemy Philopator(2') and Ptolemy
Physcon were educated by him. By the time that he was curator of the
Alexandrine library sufficient materials had accumulated there to place
him in a-highly adv ntageous position for critical labours. There he de-
voted himself to the correction and explanation of the texts of ancient
Greek poets, but especially of Homer. His texts were generally accepted.
Those of the 1]. and Ody., which he first divided into 24 books each, be-
came themes of commentary to his successors, and were no doubt the
vulgate at the Augustan era. His own commentaries also displayed wide re-
search and sagacious judgment. He avoided, however, the snare of allego-
rizing, which, as we have seen, beset the earliest school of commentators, and
which soon after again became popular(22). Wolf's statement, that we have
over 1000 passages where his readings are known, relates to those in which
some question has been raised; but the present text at large, so far as it
has not suffered from subsequent corruption, probably owes its form
mainly to him. By the Schol. Venet. his readings are cited most frequently
of all. There are some indications that his opinion changed on cer-
tain passages (23), but this may have been due only to the accumulation
of further MS. evidence (24). Sometimes two readings were left evenly
21 “Qui et ipse φιλόμηρος fuit”, Wolf, citing lian N. H. xiii. 22.
22 The Stoics were great patrons of Homeric allegory; but besides this, to
save the credit at once of the gods and of the poet, they falsified readings and in-
terpolated lines. We have a specimen of such a book of allegories under the name
of Heraclides or Heraclitus (Heyne Eacurs. in Il. ¥. 84, p. 236).
23 As on T’. 386, where occurs πρότερον δὲ γράφων ὁ ‘Agiatagyos..... ee
μετέγραψεν ὕστερον.
24 As we seem to sce in the Schol. on Z. 4 πρότερον ἐγέγραπτο... . ὕστερον
δὲ ‘Agiot. ταύτην τὴν γραφὴν εὐρὼν ἐπέκρινε. Such is the opinion of Lehrs.
The fluctuation of his opinion in some passages where further reflection, or added
materials, modified his view, shows that he was not positive or obstinate. So the
Schol. on IT. 613 says, the verse did not appear ἐν τῇ ἑτέρᾳ τῶν ᾿Δρισταρχείων,
ἐν δὲ τῇ δευτέρᾳ ἄλογος (1. ὀβελὸς) αὐτῷ παρέκειτο, and the same on T. 365, af-
ter noticing a primary omission, adds, ὁ μέντοι ᾿μμώνιος ἐν τῷ περὶ τῆς ἐπεκδὸο-
Delong διορθώσεως οὐδὲν τοιοῦτο λέγει. This ἐπεκδοϑ. διορϑῶσ. is really the
same, I take it, as ἡ δευτέρα; see the next note.
PART II. ANCIENT EDITORS AND COMMENTATORS. _ rxvii
balanced by him, when hoth were allowed (25). Traces of deference to his
authority are found even where his reasons were not deemed conclusive (26).
There were two revises of the text of Homer current under his name.
From his pupil and successor Ammonius writing to prove that only one
was his (27), we must suppose that the second was at any rate unauthorized,
being perhaps an incorporation of some of his obiter dicta, or of notes
. from his lectures in his later years, with the text which he had previously
put forth, which those later remarks may have corrected in some places.
At any rate af ᾿“Αριστάρχειοι are cited, sometimes as agreeing, sometimes
as differing. One is distinguished as ἡ δευτέρα (see n. 24 p. Lxvi). Again
the distinction is even more clearly marked in one being called the
προέκδοσις, the other the ἐπέκδοσις, which would seem to denote posterio-
rity in time; but there is no perceptible difference in the authority
ascribed to them(28). Occasionally, as in Schol. B on ὦ. 252, we find
2s As shown by the recurring phrase διχῶς af ᾿Δριστάρχου. These phrases
may refer to the προέκδοσις and ἐπέκδοσις mentioned paul. inf. |
26 So the Schol. Venet. on 4. 572 ἐπεκράτησε δὲ ἡ τοῦ ᾿Δριστάργχου, καέτοι λόγον
ovx ἔχουσα, and on II. 415, ὀξυτόνως ἀνέγνω ὁ ᾿Δρίσταρχγος καὶ ἐπείσθησαν οἵ
γρσαμματικοί; cf. also Schol. A. on E. 178, 289, Ζ. 150, N. 103, &. 38. But see
also on O. 320, which shows that such deference had its limits.
27 περὶ tov μὴ γεγονέναι πλείονας ἐκδόσεις τῆς ᾿Δριδταρχείου διορθώσεως
Didymus ap. Schol. X. 397; cf. on T. 365 for a title of a work, also by Ammonius,
περὶ τῆς ἐπεκδοθείσης διορθώσεως, which Wolf (Prolegg. § xuvii, n. 19) thinks the
same. Lehrs thinks that by μὴ γεγονέναι πλείονας Ammonius meant “not more
than two”. This is certainly a strain of the language. I believe Amm. meant
that not more than one could properly be reckoned as the genuine work of
Aristar., the éxexdo@eion διόρϑωσις, distinguished also as ἡ δευτέρα, having been
tampered with by disciples, although it was commonly cited as his, and might
even contain his ripest and latest views formed after his own genuine ed. had been
published. The Schol. A on T. 259 cites ἡ ‘Agesragyov. at is more common, or ἡ
ἑτέρα τῶν ᾿ρισταρχείων. Lehrs says p.15 ‘Bis ediderat Arist. Homerum: sed si
etiam post alteram editionem in publicum emissam in legendo et interpretando
Homerum perrexit, hoc demum tempore quedam animadvertit antea nondum ob-
servata. Hec sensim haud dubie, cum editiones identidem describerentur, textui
addita ; attamen quedam que ore tantum propagata vel per commentarios, quos
non omnes habebant, disjecta essent, eruenda fuisse patet ac sero accessisse.
Attamen damus, ut jam antea significavimus, quasdam notas, quas Aristarchus nec
posuerat nec indicaverat, ex ejus mente et doctrina ab discipulis appositas esse.’’
The balance of evidence seems to me against the words bis and alteram. It may
be added (Lebrs p. 30) that Aristar., before he prepared a text of his own, had
annotated on the ed. of Aristophanes, perhaps that referred to by the Schol. A on
Bi. 236 as ἡ Aguotagyzou καὶ Aguoropavovg; cf. id. on B. 133, ἐν τοῖς κατ᾽ Ageoto-
φάνην ὑπομνήμασιν ᾿Δριστάρχου. This may have helped to increase the confusion,
which perhaps called forth the work of Amm. as aforesaid. All this shows the keen
literary interest which the remains of Aristar. excited in the Alexandrine school.
28 This is nearly the opinion of Wolf (Prolegg. § xivii) cf. Villoison (Prolegg. -
p. xxvii),
E +
LXVIli PREFACE.
the remark ᾿Αρίσταρχος ἀγνοεῖ, and so the Schol. A on X. 28 charges him
with an error in accentuation.
LV. It has been urged that his reconstruction of the poet's text, not-
withstanding its parade of authorities, was still too ideal and dogmatic;
and that, while he cullected copies from remote sources, he did so only
to ornament the decision which he really arrived at on subjective
grounds (29); viz. by considering which of the readings before him was
most worthy of the poet or best suited to the passage, instead of rigidly
balancing the evidence. As far as we can see, Aristarchus was under
two conflicting (30) influences, a scrupulous regard for authorities, and a
rigid consistency in the application of principles ascertained by analogy.
It is not perhaps too much to say that his famous ἀϑέτησις. or disallow-
ance of a verse or passage without going so far as to remove it from the
text, represents the practical balance or compromise which these two
principles maintained in his mind. I hardly think that Lehrs in his
estimate of the great critic has taken due account of the latter of these
characteristics, whilst Wolf has, as, I think, Lehrs shows, not recognized
the former with due frankness (31). As an apt example of the two prin-
ag ‘“‘Verum ista omnia sic accipi nolim, quasi bonos et accuratos emendatores
negem antiquis et exquisitis codicibus usos esse, iisque comparandis genuinam
formam textus quesivisse. At genuina illis fuit ea, que poétam maxime decere
videbatur. In quo, nemo non videt, omnia denique ad Alexandrinorum ingenium
et arbitrium rediré.”” Lehrs (364) censures this as inconsistent, “neque enim
poterant un& opera genuinam formam querere comparandis antiquis et exquisitis
codicibus suoque abuti arbitrio”, and Wolf (8 x.vii) even seems a few pages fur-
ther on to repent of his dictum, for he in effect admits that we have not the ma-
terials to decide how far Arist. used or abused his authorities. — ‘‘ quid ‘lle in
summam carminum novi induxerit, qua religione antiquos libros excusserit quo-
modo usus sit Zenodoti, Aristophanis et ceterorum, 4108 supra nominavi, recensio-
nibus, hxe et alia certis aut probabilibus argumentis hodie perspici nequeunt”’.
30 “‘Singulares sunt in scholiis loci duo, unus ad ¢. 222, alter ad x. 466. In
priore Aristarcho etiam reverentia veterum recensionum tribuitur et περιττὴ
εὐλάβεια : in posteriore constantia emendationis eorum que preceptis suis con-
traria putasset.”” Prolegg. § L, note 52.
31 ‘‘Minime audax fuit Aristarchus; imo mihi certum est si quid Aristarchus
peccavit in contrarium peccasse: nam si totam hominis subtilitatem perspicio,
opinor unum et altcrum non laturum fuisse in Homero, ut alienum ab ejus con-
suetudine, nisi quedam religio obstitisset.”” Lehrs 381. Lehrs goes on to say that
in Homer are some things which he ventures to affirm have no sense in them:
that Aristarchus had no other reading of them than we have, and that he never-
theless did not condemn them (379—80). It is a pity Lehrs has not given one or
two examples. Perhaps £.201—3 may be one such; sce note there. See further, as
against this, Wolf's charge that he “‘audaciores generosioresque sententias poete
corrupit non raro, quo cas propius ad naturam et veritatem reduceret”, and the
note (8 xviii, 52) by which he substantiates it. Opposed to the religio quedam,
ascribed above by Lehrs, is his mention that Arist. “indulged his opinion” in re-
jecting lines διὰ τὸ περιττὸν, t.e. on account of redundancy, the sense being com-
PART II. ANCIENT EDITORS AND COMMENTATORS. xxix
ciples in conflict the following (Lehrs 375) may be cited: Aristarchus had
arrived at a canon that φόβος is never in Homer an equivalent for δέος,
and wherever his codices provided him with a subsidiary reading, e. g-
τρόμος, he escaped from the difficulty by adopting it, otherwise he sacri-
ficed (ἠϑέτησε) the line. He would not allow authority to establish a line
against his canon, nor allow scope to his canon where authority gave no
countenance to its dictum, but set the mark of ἀϑέτησις against the line.
Where the authority of two readings was balanced he preferred τὸ ovvn-
Dis to τὸ δέον, Homeric usage to abstract fitness. (Apollon. Dysc. Synt.
p.77, cited by Villoison and Lehrs.) But he did not allow this to influence
him where the verdict of the authorities was clear. Thus he retained
dvoato in I’. 262, where his own judgment would have led him to read
δύσετο, and βῆ φεύγων in B. 665, where φεύγειν would have been more
Homeric (32). Again as an example of a canon allowed or not according
to the state of the MSS., he retained in 17. 358 “ἴας δ᾽ ὁ μέγας where δὲ μέ-
yas was equally metrical but in B. t withstood Zenodotus’ error ὥλλοι, read-
ing ἄλλοι. So in ®. 84 he dropped the augment in ὃς μέ τοι αὗτις δῶκε,
where the metre would have allowed it; but contrariwise in O. 601 ἐκ
γὰρ δὴ τοῦ ἔμελλε he kept it against Aristophanes’ μελλε. The MSS. in
these cases were clear, where they differed he dropped the augment, as
in ἔργα νέμοντο and ϑαῦμα τέτυκτο. Lehrs (379) remarks that in deter-
mining the balance of such doubtful cases, he showed good taste and
nice discernment.
LVI. On the whole Wolf's censure of Aristarchus’ critical standard as
‘ultimately arbitrary cannot stand. Wolf himself argues like a man who
had swept out a conclusion boldly, and was trying back for reasons
in support of it. He says that the ancient odo! were always viewed as
addicted to emendation ad lib., and that this bad habit had descended
till it infected ‘‘all the critics” (Prolegg. § xzvi, last par.). He forgets the
great change from the ἀοιδοὶ to Zenodotus, and from Zenodotus to Aris-
tarchus. In the first criticism was interpolatory, in the second expurga-
torial, in the third explorative. The licentiousness of alteration indulged
by the rhapsodists reacted in the wholesale excisions of Zenodotus —
a practice which became moderated as criticism matured itself in Aris-
tarchus. We must pardon in Zenodotus for reasons explained above (p.
Lxiv), not only what he cut out, but what he put in—if he did put in.
He had to patch up somehow a readable text from the materials which he
had left himself, and in default of a due apparatus he had recourse to
plete without them; as also in rejecting lines which by extending only weakened
the sense; as after A. srs the extension, lovg τ᾽ ἐκτάμνειν καὶ ἥπια φάρμακα
πάσσειν (359—60).
32 So in Π. 636 Lehrs remarks “noluit una deleté τ omnem dubitandi mate-
riem tollere, quid igitur veritus est nisi codicum auctoritatem?”’. The slightness
of the alteration in this and the above cases tends to enhance his respect for the
codd. ‘This cannot be said as regards the Aristarchean suggestion to read aw
ἐπάσαντο for ἐξ ἔρον Evro in I. 222, which, Aristarchus remarked, would show
that they partook only out of compliment to Achilles, haying feasted only just
LXX PREFACE.
diaskeuastic resources, such as random conjecture and perhaps down-
right coining. Conjectural emendation abates in Aristophanes, and in
Aristarchus retires within the narrowest margin, being subdued by an
abstemious caution, if not guided by a more competent sagacity. This
crude resource of early criticism gave way as larger materials enabled
Aristarchus to pave a surer path. We have seen that in cases where the
MS. evidence was strongly on one side, and yet his canon would have
led him to rule contrariwise, he set the canon aside. In doubtful cases he
would let the canon operate. What degree of defective evidence would
constitute in his eyes a case to be ruled by a canon, is a question impos-
sible to answer, further than that in the general his deference to autho-
rity is extreme. His consummate judgment in cases of the different vari-
ants is generally attested in strong terms by Wolf himself (33).
LVII. Next to that lack of philology, which, as noticed above on p.
xix—xx. narrowed the hasis of his verbal criticism, his chief defect seems
to have been a want of poetic sympathy for the thoughts of his author.
For so symmetrical a mind uniformity and system would have an abiding
charm, and he would perhaps miss the force of the poet's conception
buoying up the epithct, or dilating the image into hyperbole. It is on the
whole fortunate that he was so abstemious in conjecture. The few
samples which we have contain no very bright specimens, while some are
egregiously shallow, frigid and prosaic(34). Of the happy divination
which has not rarely marked modern criticism I doubt we possess a
single example among his remains. There is reason to think that he
himself, so encompassed was he with the power of judgment, and so con-
scious alike of his forte and of his foible, detected his own want of capa-
city in this respect, and in general distrusted, if on that account only,
such unauthorized emendations as he might have made. The famous
reply that “he would not write such verses as he could, and could not
such as he would’, seems reflected in his careful eschewing of conjecture
save in a few rare instances. Owing to the same defect he was offended
at some Homeric similes, much as Addison was in the last century. The
unhealthy super-refinement of the Ptolemean age may be partly char-
geable with this. Such men, as Lehrs remarks, are often spoilt between
the court and the schools (35).
before, and having in fact no ἔρος left. Such a suggestion shows that the notion
of “improving” his author was not absolutely without place in the mind of one
who could makc it.
33 ‘‘Videmus eum ex discrepantia plurium lectionum eam fere elegisse que
Homerico ingenio et consuetudini ipsique loco optime convenisset.” (Wolf. Pro-
legg. § xuvii.) See also the 1° par. of the same section.
34 Thus (Wolf 8 xxviii,n. 35) he would have read ἐννεαχείλους ἢ δεκαχείλους
in E. 860, 5. 148 for ἐννεαχίλους ἢ δεκαχίλους, and in Pind. Pyth. Ill. 43 βάματι
ἐν τριτάτῳ for βάματι ἐν πρώτω, thinking such a single leap alarmingly great
even fora god. Such criticism knocks off natural flowers to substitute cut paper
ones. So he took offence at νῆας plur. in O. 417, and read νῆα on account of the
expression paul. sup., τὼ δὲ μιῆς περὶ νηὸς ἔχον πόνον.
35 “‘Illos vero Alexandrinos et auls luxuria affluentes, et philosophorum se-
PART IT. ANCIENT EDITORS AND COMMENTATORS. rxxi
On the whole his memory has been unjustly treated by Wolf, whose
sagacity is overlaid by captiousness, and who overlooks the fact that in
regard to other poetry sober canons (36) of criticism had become accepted
at Alexandria, and that the presumption lies against Homer having been
dealt with arbitrarily. Of course, the Homeric text had difficulties of its
own, to solve which the ordinary principles of criticism were inadequate.
Still, those principles remained true even where they failed of practical
application. They were to be supplemented, not forsaken. Wolf seems
to assume that critics who dealt soberly enough with other texts became
suddenly crazed with an arbitrary furor when they turned to the Homeric.
On the contrary Aristarchus (37) seems to have been in judgment almost
a “faultless monster’ of sobriety. His mind shows, so far as samples of
it have reached us, great power of analysis, method, order and symme-
trical combination. It was after all imperfectly stored with materials from
without, as has been above stated (p. xix), and in the creative depart-
ment it was nearly blank — the judgment had so thoroughly tamed down
the imagination. The moral tempcrament, so far as we can indirectly
judge of it, was in harmony with the mental. There seems to have been
in him a judicial calmness of temper, an absence of dictatorial presump-
tion (38), a capacity for retracting and a readiness to use either end of
veritate circumstrepentes, in multis offendisse mihi consentancum videtur”’, p. 355.
So Wolf, § xxviii, ‘“‘fuerunt olim haud dubie qui putarent in prisco poeta anomala
queedam ferenda esse, nec indigna repetitu, que ille ad preecepta sua rigide mu-
taverat.”’
36 Lehrs charges Wolf roundly that he “‘omnino falsam de illorum grammati-
corum oper& conceperit notionem”’, viz. in Prolegg. §xuvi, contends for the careful
study of MSS. among the ancient critics (p. 366), and rejects the notion of their
contemning as ἃ “parum digna cura’’, the minutie of subdivisions of texts, as
into books etc. with summaries prefixed, of collating copies, correcting errors, of
punctuation and accentuation (p. 373).
37 Perhaps by no one remark can Wolf's unfairness to Aristarchus be better
illustrated than by that in which he says that A. treated Homer as Cato treated
Lucilius, or as Tucca and Varius would have treated the Aineid. The falseness
of the parallel is obvious at a glance. For there was no doubt, we may fairly
presume, in Cato’s mind, as to what Lucilius really wrote; only he thought he
could improve upon it. ‘Tucca and Varius, again, had Virgil’s autographs before
them, but avowedly left in an unfinished state, and their thought was to do that
for the /neid which they conceived its author would have done for it. Where is
the resemblance between such cases and that of a student feeling his way up the
current of tradition upon the stepping-stones of divergent or contradictory texts?
38 In testimony of this, no name so surpassingly great in its own province
has ever excited so little of that envious detraction which leaves its mark upon
great men and is the tribute of inferior to loftier minds. He was not only facile
princeps, but no one in the ancient world was looked upon as similis aut secundus to
him, nor am I aware of any attempt to disparage him till that of Wolf. In-
deed there is hardly a man who is such a luminary in his own sphere, of whom as
ἃ person we know so little, although none lay more fully in the run of anecdote-
LXXii PREFACE.
the stile. The name of Aristarchus is a date in itself — a turning point .
where a long prospect opens. Before him there is none, but after him
comes a long line of successors, forming around “the poet ” of Greece an
undergrowth of parasitic literature unequalled perhaps in exhaustivencss
and variety, unless it be by the Patristic commentaries on Holy Writ.
Seventeen of his more illustrious personal pupils are known by name be-
sides his two sons, and forty-one are enumerated. He is said to have
written 800 books of commentaries, and to have died at the age of 72.
LVIIT. (i) 4. CRATES,
cir. 155 B. C., the adversary of Aristarchus, son of Timocrates, a stoic
philosopher, was born at Mallus in Cilicia, and educated at Tarsus, but
flourished at Pergamus, where he founded a school or sect (39) of gram-
marians which continued to enjoy reputation for some time after his
death. His favourite principle is named ἀνωμαλία, as opposed to that of
Aristarchus, ἀναλογία; and he is said to have taken it from Chrysippus.
He viewed the critic’s art as excursive into all the provinces of litera-
ture; and embraced mythology, geography and physical science among
his illustrative materials. His chief work, arranged in nine books, was
entitled διόρϑωσις Ἰλιάδος καὶ Ὀδυσσείας. In what sense he used διόρϑω-
σις is not certain, owing to the scanty traces which are extant. But pro-
bably it was a revised edition of the poem, the word for commentaries
being ὑπομνήματα. The key-word, ἀνωμαλία, as opposed to ἀναλογία, sug-
gests that he recognized the abnormal clement in language, and resisted
the dogmatical tendency of the Aristarchean canons. He is cited by Scholl.
AB on O. 365, ὦ. 558, MV on y. 293, by Scholl. HQ on ὅδ. 260, by Schol.
H on ὅ. ὅτι et al. He wrote also on the Theogony of Hesiod, and on the
Attic dialect, and enjoyed the distinction of introducing grammatical
studies at Rome, whither he was sent as ambassador from King Attalus IT.
Whilst there he fractured his leg, and while thus laid up, occupied his
enforced leisure in lecturing on grammar. ‘Traditions of his views de-
seended there to Varro, who wrote about a century later. His reputation
in antiquity was as high perhaps as that of any after Aristarchus, over
whose readings some of his have enjoyed a permancnt preference in a
few passages. ©
mongers and literary gossips. He had the rare fortune to flourish when the time
was duly ripe for him. Never was a genius better timed to its epoch, or more
exactly commensurate with the province which awaited it, and this probably con-
tributed to perpetuate the reputation which he secured. 116 seemed to step spon-
tancously into a niche of fame ready made for him, and no serious effort, until
Wolf's, has ever been made to depose him from it. This, of course, does not im-
ply that there was no school opposed to him; but the opposition was viewed as
heterodox (see on Ptolemy of Ascalon p. Lxxv. inf.), the school had no vitality,
and Ieft his preeminence substantially unshaken.
39 A treatise περὶ τῆς Κρατητείου αἱρέσεως is ascribed to Ptolemy of Asca-
lon. Pergameni or Cratetet was the name of his disciples, to whom is referred tho
drawing up of certain lists of writers and catalogues of the titles of works.
PART IT. ANCIENT EDITORS AND COMMENTATORS. © uxxiii
(i) 5. RHIANUS
rose from being a slave to be an epic poet and grammarian, contemporary
with Aristarchus and intimate with Eratosthenes at Alexandria. His
birthplace is variously described as Crete or Messené, but the latter is
probably a mis-description arising from his work on the Messenian war.
He also wrote Ἡράκλεια, Ἠλιακὰ, Θεσσαλικὰ and epigrams, some of which
are extant and evince much simplicity and elegance. His remains are
edited in Gaisford’s Poete Minores Greci. His grammatical works in-
cluded either a revise of or commentary upon Homer, and several of the
readings cited from him by the Scholl. are worthy of special remark, e. g.
those on ®. 607, B. 241, 311, y. 24, 178.
LIX. (ii) 6. CALLISTRATUS,
mentioned above as a disciple of Aristophanes, is probably the same as
the author of the work on Heraclea, cited by Stephanus of Byzantium,
in seven books or more.
(ii) 7. DIODORUS,
also a disciple of Aristophanes or a supporter of his views (Villoison
Prolegg. p. 29), possibly the same as the one mentioned by Atheneus
(XI. p. 479) as the writer of certain γλῶσσαι Ἰταλικαὶ etc.
(ii) 8. PARMENISCUS
addressed a book to Crates (40). Eustath. and the Scholl. cite him several
times. Varro (de Z. Z. x. 10) ascribes to him some grammatical work,
probably on the parts of speech. One interpretation of his of the word
πρότμησις in A. 424, and a reading of Aristarchus (from the book afore-
said) are preserved (Fabric. I. p. 518).
(ii) 9. APPOLLODORUS,
son of Asclepiades, and pupil of Aristarchus, as also of Panetius the
philosopher and of Diogenes the Babylonian, flourished as a grammarian
at Athens about 140 B. C., and was a voluminous writer. He is known
as regards Homer only by a work in 12 hooks, explaining historically
and geographically the catalogue of ships in B., and by a glossary
(γλώτται) (Villoison Prolegg. p. xxix), but several of his other works on
mythology, as that called the βιβλεοϑήκη, that regi Peay ctc., must have
partly covered Homeric ground. Of these the βιβλιοϑ. has come down
to us in an incomplete state, and has been edited by Heyne, Gottingen, -
1803 (Smith’s Dict. Biogr.s.n.). Eustath. cites a mention of him from
Porphyry (Fabric. ub. sup. p. 504). He wrote also a χρονικὴ σύνταξις,
being a history of the world continued from the mythical period to his
40 If this were to be understood as an epistle to a contemporary, this would
fix his date, but there is some reason to think that πρὸς Κράτητα was a mere con-
ventional form of connecting a work on any subject with a name already famous
in connexion with it.
LXXiV PREFACE.
own time, but now lost. He is said to have been the inventor of the
““tragiambic.” verse, and is cited by the Scholl. Venet. on 4. 244, B
103, N. 301, Π. 95 et al.
(ii) 10. DIONYSIUS,
surnamed the Thracian, pupil of Aristarchus (41), wrote ‘“‘on quantities ”,
cited by Schol. Ven. on B. {ττ, in which he refuted incidentally some
views of Zenodotus, and a τέχνη or treatise on grammar which was am-
plified by successive grammarians, and was for several centuries a po-
pular clementary treatise among teachers. He considered ‘‘criticism as
the complement and crown of grammar”. A paraphrase on the Ody. is
ascribed to him (Fabric. I. p. 394). He also wrote against Crates, and
in this and other works a good deal of Homeric illustration was con-
tained; hence he is cited several times by Eustath., and more frequently
by the Schol. Venet. That he had no servile deference for Aristarchus,
appears from the Schol. on B. 262.
LX. (ii) 11. NICANDER or COLOPHON,
son of Damneus, poet, flourished at an uncertain date, the doubt lying
between the period of Attalus, circa 145 B.C. and the Christian cra. He
wrote ϑηριακα, “of venomous animals”, and ἀλεξιφάρμακα, ‘antidotes’;
also lost works entitled Alrodcna, γεωργικα, γλώσσαι (cited by Athenseus
VII, p. 288) and others. Tis γλῶσσαι is probably the work from which
the Scholl, quote in citing his authority for certain readings, ὁ. g. Scholl.
AL on Ζ. 506. IIe is often reckoned amongst the medici, and is said to
have done into hexameters part of the works of Hippocrates under the
title of προγνωστικα. (Fabric. iv. p. 344.) He is referred to by Strabo,
p. 823, as an authority regarding serpents. It is doubtful whether the
Nicander surnamed of Thyatira, cited by Stephanus in his epitome (ibid.
354, 655), is identical or different.
(ii) 12. DIONYSIUS,
surnamed ‘the Sidonian "’, cited Schol. Ven. on B. 192, 262, X. 29 ef al.,
by Varro (de LZ. L. IX 10), Apollonius Lex. Homer., and often by Eu-
tath. He is mentioned once as censuring Aristarchus, and also as the
author of a work on ‘the resemblances and differences of words” (Vil-
loison Prolegg. p. xxix, Fabric. I. p. 511, VI. p. 364).
(ii) 13. NICIAS or COS,
B. C. 50, was fortunate in being a literary friend of Cicero and Atticus,
~ as on the score of merit he would hardly be entitled to much notice. He
4t An article in Dr.W. Smith's Dict. Biogr. gives his period as B. C. 80, about
which time he is said to have taught at Rome. ‘This is probably an error, as he is
said (Villoison Prolegg. p. xxix; Anecd, Gr. vol. H. p. 171) to have been “one of
the 40 pupils of Aristarchus”, not a later follower of his, It may have arisen
from confounding him with some other of the name, perhaps ‘the Lindian"’, said
(Fabric. VI. p. 364) to have taught at Rome in the time of Pompey. ‘The same
confusion appears in Villojson Anecd, Gr. II. 119.
PART II. ANCIENT EDITORS AND COMMENTATORS. — ixxv
is mentioned in Strabo, p. 657—8, as ὁ xa® ἡμᾶς Νικίας ὁ κατατυραννή-
σας Κώων. The mention of him in Cicero's letters (see Smith’s Dict.
Biogr.) seems to bespeak rather a light esteem of the man. He is cited
by Eustath. and 9 times by the Venet. Schol., also by Scholl. EMQ on
α. 109 ef al. .
(ii) 14. ΙΧΙΟΝ,
surname given to Demetrius of Adramyttium, derived from his commit-
ting a saerilege in the Herzeum at Alexandria, or, a8 others say, from his
stealing a play from Philotimus (Fabric. vi. p. 446). He was a follower of
Aristarchus and lived at Pergamus in the age of Augustus Cesar. He
wrote of verbs and pronouns, and composed a commentary (ἐξήγησις)
upon Homer and Hesiod (ibid. p. 362). He is cited by Scholl. ALV on
A. 513 and B. 127, 192, by Scholl. AB on E. 31, by Scholl. HP on ε.
490 etal. His ἐτυμολογούμενα are mentioned by Atheneus.
(ii) 15. APOLLONIUS,
surnamed “the Sophist’’, son of Archebulus or Archebius, flourished as a
grammarian at Alexandria in the Augustan age (42), and wrote a Lexicon
to the Hl. and Ody. which is preserved, not however entire, and probably
with considerable interpolations. It preserves a great number of very
valuable ancient readings, and cites many early fauthorities, ‘and was
edited elaborately by Villoison, Paris, 1773. Hesychius took his mate-
rials largely from Apollonius, who in turn is supposed by Villoison to
have incorporated the more valuable part of a similar work by his pupil
Apion. He is cited by the Schol. A on Z. 414 εἰ al.
LXI. (ii) 16. PTOLEMY or ASCALON,
author of a work concerning the ‘‘differences of words" (43), probably the
one still extant (ap. Fabric. VI. p, 156 foll.), also of Homeric prosody,
and of a work on the revision of the Ody. by Aristarchus. He was a
teacher at Rome; and is quoted by Herodian (inf. no. 25) who lived un-
der M. Antoninus, but referred to also by Didymus (Lehrs), which fixes
an earlier date for him. He seems to have ventured on a more decided
difference from the views of Aristarchus than most of the grammarians;
see Schol. Ven. 4. 396, O. 312.
(i) 17. DIDYMUS or ALEXANDRIA,
temp. Tib. Ceesar, son of a salt-fish salesrnan of the same name; and from
his devotion to study surnamed yadxévtegocs, followed Aristarchus, whose
42 Rubnken, however, places him about a generation later (Smith's Dict.
Biogr. 8. n.); this is countenanced by Villoison Prolegg. p.xxix, who speaks of him
‘et ejus magister Apion”.
43 Closely resembling another similar one ascribed to Ammonius, who belongs
to the end of the fourth century (Fabric. loc, cit. and note »). Whether either of
the ascriptions is just is a very obscure question. ἮΝ
LXXVi PREFACE.
διόρϑωσις of Homer he re-edited with consummate research and acumen(44).
He is said to have written 3500 works, including commentaries on most
of the more important Greek dramatists and orators (45). The best of the
scholia on Pindar and Sophocles are said to be his (Smith's Dict. Biogr.
s.n.). Most of these numerous works were probably compilations, in some
of the latter of which he is said to have forgotten what he had written
in the former. His Homeric studies formed the most valuable portion of
his labours. In these he collated edd. earlier than Aristarchus, especially
those of Zenod. and Aristoph., and often gives his judgment with great
impartiality where they differ from Aristarchus’ (Lehrs 28--- 9); ef. Schol.
A on Z..71. The Scholia minora, called also ‘ Didymi”’, are a compilation
partly from him, but including many other and some much later sources
(Fabric. I. p. 388, cf. cap. 18). An account of them is given by Dindorf
(Pref. ad Scholl. in Odyss. p. xv). Didymus was the teacher of Apollonius,
Apion and the Heraclides Ponticus mentioned inf. Tle was the contem-
porary and in some sense the rival of Aristonicus. He was, however, a
superior commentator to him, and made use of original authorities from
which the latter abstained. He often corrects Aristonicus, and shows that
readings accepted by him as Aristarchean could not have been so. But,
Lehrs thinks, he could not have been in any sense indebted to him (46).
44 “Tune Didymum ejusque in Aristarcheis lectionibus exquirendis positam
operam Wolfius si cognovisset melius, hunc si tenuisset Didymum esse qui per tota
scholia duplicis Aristarche editionis lectiones apponit, nunquam 1116 negassct
duplicem Aristarchi cditionem fuisse’’ (Lehrs, p. 26—7). As regards the value
of his labours, Lehrs says, ‘‘fuit igitur aliquot sewculis post perutile, que tym
Aristarches: ferebantur lectiones ad fidorum monumentorum regulam exigerc.
Preeterea tum accederct, ut non seme! Aristarchus sed bis Homerum edidisset, hoc
etiam perutile, utriusque cditionis lectiones inter se conferre singulisque versibus
utriusque editionis vel consensum vel dissensum notare. Sed ne sic quidem omnis
in textu Homerico ab Aristarcho posita opera illustrata. Nam cum post alteram
editionem emissam multos annos in meditando et interpretando Homero porstitis
set, atque etiam commentarios edere pergerct, partim discipulis coram, partim iu
commentariis veteres suas lectiones reprobaverat, alias, ut dies diem docuerat,
᾿ optaverat, defenderat, stabiliverat. Ergo hoc etiam perutile, lectionibus editio-
num constitutis, variante lectione ex utrique congestié, addere ex commentariis et
ex traditione (ea vero discipulorum scriptis vel etiam memoria continebatur)
lectiones paulatim ab eodem adscitas. Tum dcmum recte de Aristarcheo textu
constabat” (ibid. 19). ‘Quam artem subtiliter diligenterquo tractare docuerat
(Aristarchus); eam Didymus tam egregie ad editiones Aristarchi Homericas ad-
hibuit, ut nihil mihi videatur in hoc genere fingi posse perfectius” (ibid. p. 18).
45 ‘‘He stands at the close of the period in which a comprehensive and in-
dependent study of Greck literature prevailed, and he himself must be regarded
as the father of the scholiasts who were satisfied with compiling or abridging the
works of their predecessurs" (Smith's Dict. Bioyr. s.n.). He is here placed in
class (i) as having edited the text of Homer.
46" “‘lidymus ipsus fontes adiens Aristonici breviario carebat facillime”
(Lehrs p. 31). Amongst these ‘‘fontes’ were the edd. of Antimachus, Rhianus,
PART II. ANCIENT EDITORS AND COMMENTATORS. = rxxvii
His work περὶ τῆς “ρισταρχείου διορϑώσεως is recited at the end of every
book by the compiler of the scholl. Venet. as having furnished materials
for his work; see that on B. 111.
(ii) 18. ARISTONICUS,
temp. Tib. Cesar, was esteemed a grammarian of high merit. Strabo
mentions him p. 38 as of his own time, and as having, in what he wrote,
concerning the wanderings of Menelaiis, recorded the opinions of many
upon the matters therein contained. A schol. on I’. 198, ascribed by
Lehrs to Herodian, cites him as reading ofwv where Aristarchus read
οἰῶν; see also on N. 137, ὀλοοίτροχος. The remarks there adduced as
his are supposed by Lehrs to be from his commentary on Homer. He
also commented on Pindar (Schol. ad Οἱ, I. 33, TI. 31, VII. 153). He
gave explanations of the marks of Aristarchus, whose name is often to be
understood where he uses the 3" pers. sing. anonymously. So his phrase
σημειουνταί τινὲς is referred by Lehrs to Aristarchus or his disciples
(Lehrs p. 5, 8 4, Ρ. 15, 8 7). See further under Didymus, who with
Ariston. is one of the four grammarians out of whose works the scholl.
Venet. were compiled.
LXII. (i) 19. APION,
surnamed μόχϑος from his literary toils, son of Plistonicus, or Posido-
nius, but whether of Egyptian or Cretan origin, is doubted. A revision
of the Homeric text with a commentary, the joint production of him and
Herodorus, was in high popularity in the time of Caligula, and absolutely
ruled the Homeric studies of the age. He is cited by Schol. B on B. 12,
BL on 4. 457, Q on ὅ. 419 εἰ al. Hesychius mentions his expositions of
Homeric λέξεις, and Eustath. often speaks of the commentary. Whether
he was the author of a distinct Homeric Lexicon, has been doubted (υ. δ.
Apollonius), but his Homeric works, under whatever title, were compiled
with great judgment, and (Valckenaér thinks) became the basis of subse-
quent Homeric Lexicons (Fabric. I. p. 503—4). He excelled also in ora-
tory, and was politically concerned in the embassy from Alexandria to
Caligula against the Jews, whom he also attacked in writing, which called
forth Josephus’ famous reply. He also wrote £gyptiaca, a topographical
and descriptive work, an eulogy on Alexander the Great, and other works.
His merits were undoubtedly high, but were obscured by his own over-
weening estimate of them, which outran even the adulation apparently
paid to him.
Philetas, Zenodotus, Sosigenes, Philemon, Aristophanes, Callistratus, Crates, the
one named ἡ πολύστιχος (perhaps from the number of lines in a column or page),
those known as the κοιναὶ, δημωδεῖς etc., the Holic and the Cyclic; besides the
commentaries of Dionysius Thrax, Dionysius Sidonius, Cheris, Demetrius Ixion,
Diodorus, Ptolemeus Epithetes on the text of Zenodotus (‘‘si modo recte inter-
pretamur B. 111”, adds Lehrs), the tract of Ammonius, referred to p. Lxvii n. 27,
Dionysius Thrax on Crates περὶ ποσοτήτων, the writings of Dionysodorus, Par-
meniscus, Ptolemseus Oroandes, Apollonius Rhodius on Zenodotus, and a few more
(Lehrs p. 30).
LXXVIli PREFACE.
(ii) 20. HERACLIDES PONTICUS,
so called by Fabrice. (ub. sup. p. 513), but possibly by confusion with the
better known one so named and surnamed, who was a pupil of Plato. He is
claimed by Ammonius, a grammarian of ‘Alexandria towards the close of
the 4'* century, as ‘‘one of us’ ᾿ (ἡμέτερον), i. 6. probably of the Alexan-
drine school. He wrote ‘‘solutions’’ (λύσεις) of Homeric questions (47),
and explained Homeric allegories (48). He is said by Fabric. (ub. sup. p.
513, ef. VI, p. 369) to have been a pupil of Didymus the younger and
to have flourished in the times of Claudius and Nero.
(ii) 21. SELEUCUS or ALEXANDRIA,
surnamed Homericus, wrote ἐξηγητικὰ on the whole of Homer, and also
taught oratory at Rome. He was the author of other works grammatical
and mythological. His date is mneertas but was not later than Sueto-
nius who cites him (Fabric. VI. 378) A. D. go.
(ii) 22. NICANOR
of Alexandria (Suidas) or of Hierapolis (Steph. Byzant.) A. D. 130, was
surnamed derisively στιγματίας from his writing on punctuation, espe-
cially that of Homer and Callimachus, but also generally (περὲ τῆς xa-
ϑόλου στιγμῆς). His work furnished materials to the Sehol. Venet. (Ia-
bric. L. 368, 517, III. 823, VI. 345). He is cited by the Scholl. BL on
Ζ. 445 εἰ αἱ.
(ii) 23. ZZLIUS DIONYSIUS,
a Greek rhetorician uf Halicarnassus temp. Hadrian, who wrote a lexicon
of ᾿Δττικὰ ὀνόματα, cited by Eustath., also probably by the Schol. L. on Ζ.
378. His other works were chiefly upon music. He must be distinguished
from the more famous Dionysius, also surnamed “ of Halicarnassus"’, who
wrote on Roman archeology and belongs to the century B. C.
(ii). 24. APOLLONIUS,
surnamed ὁ δύσκολος from having his temper soured by poverty, was born
at Alexandria, flourished under Hadrian and Antoninus Pius, and wrote
on parts of speech, verbs in μὲ and “Homeric figures”. .
(ii) 25. HERODIAN,
son of the last mentioned, also an Alexandrian, but removed to Rome
and gained the favour of M. Aurelius, to whom he dedicated a book, ei-
47 This was a favourite form of ancient Homeric criticism on detached points;
ef. Villoison Anecd. Gr. 11. p. 184, “ac preesertim ii qui ex Alexandrina schol&,
tanquam ex equo T'rojano, prosiluere, et vocabantur of λυτικοὶ, et ut Eustathii
verba usurpem, of τῶν Ὁμηρικῶν ἀποριῶν λυτικοὶ, quod in Musco Alexandrino
ut plurimum Homericis questionibus excogitandis et argute solvendis vacarent.”
One such ἀπορία, ascribed to Aristotle, is mentioned by the Schol. Ven. on B. 73.
48 Unless these were the work of the elder Heraclides Ponticus, already re-
ferred to, with whom Fabric. loc. cit. seems to confound him.
PART II: ANCIENT EDITORS AND COMMENTATORS. — ixxix
ther his Ἰλιακὴ προσωδία (Schol. Ven. on 4. 576) (49), or his ἡ κωϑόλου
προσωδίέα in 20 books. Both are cited by Schol. Ven. on 4. 493; see also
on ®. 232 el al. He also wrote ἐπιμέρισμοι. in which rare and difficult
words and peculiar forms in Homer were discussed (59); see further in
Smith's Dict. Biogr. 8. ἢ
(iii) 26. ATHENASUS or NAUCRATIS
names as his contemporary the emperor Commodus, and flourished to the
time of Alexander (Rom. Emp.). His work is called the δειπνοσοφισταὶ:
which might be paraphrased as ‘learned table-talk”; it is in the form of
a dialogue supposed to take place at a banquet, but spun out to the in-
ordinate length of 15 books. It is chiefly on literary and critical poinfs,
or on literature as illustrating the art of the bon vivant, but is so illimitably
discursive that anything may lead to anything else. ‘The opinions ex-
pressed in it are perhaps as often merely whimsical or jocosely exagger-
ated as sincerely meant; such probably is the statement that Athenocles
of Cyzicus understood Homer better than Aristarchus (V. p. 177 e); so
also the allusion to oa and ὑπερῷα (cf. Schol. V. on Π. 184) and sundry
other heavy pedantic jokes. He has rescued from perishing a vast mass
of literary fragments, and wrote a lost history of the Kings of Syria. See
further in Smith’s Dict. Biogr. s. n.
LXHII. (iii) 27. PORPHYRY,
born probably in Batanea (Bashan) of Trans-Jordanic Palestine, in his
youth studied under the Christian Father, Origen, perhaps at Ceesarea, but
Hourished as a Neo-Platonic philosopher of the school of Plotinus and an
adversary of the Christians, from Gallienus to Diocletian or Probus. His
original name was Malchus = βασιλεὺς, from which “Porphyry” sprung
by an easy association (Smith's Dict. Biogr. s.n.). He was a voluminous
writer. Amongst his works were the ‘‘ Homeric Questions”, probably a
compilation (Fabric. I. p. 396), see p. Lxxviii ἢ. 47, and an allegorical in-
terpretation of the ‘Cave of the Nymphs” in Ody. v., which were much
in favour with the early editors of Homer down to the 11} century; thus
even Barnes retains them; also scholia on the II., said to resemble closely
the scholl. Ven., and (whether distinct from the last named or not, is
49 Herodian’s work on prosody furnished materials to the compiler of
the scholl. Venet., together with the works of Didymus, Aristonicus and Nica-
nor, and Lehrs thinks that the first compilation took place not much later than
Herodian’s age. A few additions were made from other writings of Herodian,
especially any which seemed to conflict with the views stated in his prosody.
Casual observations which bore upon the point discussed might, Lehrs thinks,
have also been added to the commentaries of Didymus and Aristonicus; and as
time went on and further materials accumulated, as from Porphyry, other ad-
ditions were made (Lehrs 3s—6).
so ‘Summum magistrum Aristarchum srepissime respicit, assentiens in pleris- -
que, raro et verecunde dissentiens (e. g. Z. 266, O. 10, 320, T. 228, see schol.
there), .... doctissimum opus est” (Lehrs p. 34 § 11).
Lxxx PREFACE.
not quite clear) ‘annotations on difficult passages in the 1]. and Ody.”
(Fabric. I. p. 394). He was careful in explaining difficulties, as also in
adding citations of the passages which illustrate the doubtful word or
phrase. He states. this principle, as cited b the Schol. B on Ζ. 201,
ἀξιῶν δὲ ἐγὼ Ὅμηρον ἐξ Ὁμήρου σαφηνίζειν, αὐτὸν ἐξηγούμενον ἑαυτὸν ὑπε-
δείκνυον. He was also useful in handing down elder traditions. A MS. of
these scholl. exists at Leyden, and an edition of them was promised by
Voss, but he did not live to execute it. Valckenaér has published those
on book XXII of the Il. (Fabric. L., pp. 309g—400, ef. VI, p. 519). Such
‘questions’ propounded in the schools of Alexandria formed a favourite
test of the students’ knowledge of Homer; and scholia often take the form of
ἀπορία with its λύσις (51) e.g. at X.147, &. 200, Ζ. 234, 359, 488 (Schol. B).
(iii) 28. HESYCHIUS
of Alexandria or of Miletus, a Christian writer of the 3™ and 4" cen-
tury. Whether the same as the Christian martyr under Diocletian is un-
certain (Smith's Dict. Biogr. 8. πη). ‘The lexicon which goes under his
name is replete with illustration of the Greek classic writers, and for the
diction of the poets no one compiler has perhaps done so much by way
of clucidation. It is no less useful for the LXX and N. T. It professes
to be based on that of Herodian, and has again been added to successively
by later hands. The most renowned scholars of Europe since the renais-
sance have contributed to throw light upon its text. The only known
MS. of it is in the Marcian Library Ven. (Fabric. VI. p. 19g foll.).
LXIV. (iii) 29. TZETZES,
a verbose and voluminous writer, who flourished in the middle of the
12" century, and wrote a poem in three parts: 1. Pro-Homerica,
2. Homerica, and 3. Post. Homerica(s2), a ‘“‘paraphrase on Homer”, and
‘Homeric allegories ων which he dedicated to the Empress Irené Augusta.
Parts 1. and 2. are also called ‘‘the little Iliad”. We is said to have had
no knowledge of the Cyclic poets, but to have drawn his sources wholly
from scholia ete. The libraries of Madrid and Vienna, the King’s
Library London (Brit. Mus.), and the Bodleian Oxford, contain unedited
MSS. of various parts of his works. Most of what they contain is, how-
ever, probably known from other sources (53).
LXV (iii) 30. EUSTATHIUS,
archbishop of Thessalonica, born at Constantinople, flourished in the
st See on p. Lxxvili, note 47.
§2 A fragment of the Post Homerica, and another of the Paraphrase, was
edited by Dodwell (Dissert. de vett. Gr. et Rom. Cyclis p, 802), and a fragment of
the Pro-Homerica by F. Morell (7|. carmen Gr. poct@ cujus nomen ignoratur), and an-
other by G. B. Schirach, Halle, 1770 (Fabric. I, p. 403 foll.).
53 Concerning the Chiliades of 'Tzetzes, a work of over 12,000 lines mythologi-
cal and historical, but having no special reference to Homer, see Smith’s Dict,
Biogr. 85. v. Tzetzes, pp. 1200—1.
PART II. ANCIENT EDITORS AND COMMENTATORS. LXXxi
latter part of the (2'" century, and published under the title of παρεκβολαὶ
(excerpta) a laborious commentary on the Iliad and Odyssey, incorporat-
ing all the Homeric learning of his time. It was first printed at Rome
under the auspices of Pope Julius IIH, the Emperor Charles V and King
Henry I of France, in 3 voll. fol. 1542—9. A notice of other edd. will
be found in Fabric I. pp. 391—2. ‘The mere index of writers cited by
him occupies forty-five 4'° pages of Fabric. Bibl. Gr. vol. I, and of these
the great majority would be wholly unknown, or known by name only,
but for him. Hence the value of his work may be estimated. It is, as
it was inscribed by the author, a veritable κέρας ᾿“μαλϑείας. Valckenaér's
opinion (ap. Fabric. loc. cit.) was that he found no poets extant but such
ashave come down to us(54), that all his other citations of poets are second-
hand from Athenzus(55) or from scholiasts now lost, that of all these,
however, he was a most careful student (56), that his other chief sources
were the commentary of Apion and Herodorus and other scholl. of high
antiquity on cither poem, the copious lexicons of Alius Dionysius, Pau-
sanias and others, and the works of Heraclides and Herodian. His
above mentioned references to of παλαιοὶ are accordingly derived from
this class of writers(57). But his copies of many surviving poems were
superior to any which we now have, and he has thus preserved some
readings of high value. It is some testimony to the antiquity of his au-
thorities that his work contains hardly any allusions to the Christian
Scriptures, although the phraseology of a Christian writer and Divine is
occasionally traceable in it (58).
54 It appears, however, from ‘“‘the Catalogue of the books of the Patriarch
of Constantinople’’ 1578, that among them were extant probably down to the fall
of that city, and therefore in Eustathius’ time, 24 plays of Menander and ‘“Ly-
cophronis omnia”. This catalogue is in Sir T. Phillipps’ library; see page Lxxxv
note 6.
55 ‘Bentley has shown by examining nearly a hundred of his references to
Atheneus, 'that his only knowledge of him was through the epitome” (Smith’s
Dict. Biogr. 8. n. Athenseus).
s6 Lehrs charges Eustath. with a careless use of the scholl. which he had at
hand, “quem limis oculis quos ad manum sumeerat libros percurrisse certum est.
(He here adduces instances.) Strictim oculis percurrisse copias suas Eustath.,
hoc etiam proditur illustri documento. Usus est scholiorum volumine eo, que
hodie codex Venetus A. habet sed preterea tractabat, quem sxpissime ad partes
vocat, librum commentationum Apionis et Herodori nomine inscriptum. Eo vero
libro eadem illa scholia contineri (quod ita esse excursu opusculi mei ostendam)
longum per iter hoc comitatu utenti non patuit” (p. 4o—1).
57 Dr. Leonard Schmitz (ap. Dr. Smith's Dict. Biogr., p. 120) further thinks
that “he was personally acquainted with the greatest of the ancient critics, such
as Aristoph. of Byz., Aristar., Zenod. and others, whose works were accessible to
him in the great libraries of Constantinople”.
58 As is occasionally the case in some of the Scholl., 6. g. ἡ χάρις tov Aylov
Πνεύματος διὰ νέφους σταλαγμοὺς δέδωσι γνώσεως x. τ. 4., Scholl. H. Q. on a. 2.
HOM. OD. III. F
PART III.
MSS. OF THE ODYSSEY AND ITS SCHOLLIA.
LXVI. The list of ancient authorities which has been under review
in Part II leads on naturally to the MSS. of the text and of the
scholia upon it which we inherit from their labours. ur oldest Ho-
meric codices are: in fact a little older than the age of Eustathius. and
were inostly imported several centuries later from Constantinuple,
the last native seat of Greek learning.
The following account of MSS., so far as they are contained in
public librarics(s), is probably net far from complete as regards its
1 Ihave to thank for the assistance which their replies to my enquiries have
furnished, the librarians of
the Ambrosian library at Milan,
the Imperial library at Paris,
the Marcian library at Venice,
the University library at Heidelberg,
the Public library at Hamburg,
the Catholic library at Louvain,
the University library at Leyden,
the Public library at Amsterdam,
the Royal library at Madrid,
the Imperial library at Vienna,
the Royal library at Breslau,
the Medicean library at Florence,
Caius College Cambridge,
Corpus Christi Coll. Cambridge
the Royal library at Berlin.
Tho above arrangement follows the order in which their replies were received.
I havo also to thank the Rev‘, H. Bradshaw of King’s Coll. Cambridge, and
ospecially the Bodleian Librarian in the University of Oxford, by whose permission
the spocimen of the MS. of the scholia on the Odyssey was copied, fur valuable
help which they have afforded in prosecuting the researches necessary for the
purpose,
PART III. MSS. OF THE ODYSSEY AND ITS SCHOLIA. txxxiii
proper scope, the Odyssey. On one point, however, viz. how far the
various codices enumerated have been collated, and in what editions
the results of those collations have been embodied, the information
which it has been found possible to obtain is in some respects defi-
cient. I commend this branch of the enquiry to the good offices of
any scholars who may be travelling on the continent.
LXVII. In the library of the Brit. Mus. among the Harleian MSS.
are four of the Odyssey,
No. 5658, vellum, A. D. 1479.
5673, paper, XV" century.
5674, vellum, XIII century. This was collated by Porson with
Ernesti’s ed. of the Ody. 1760, and before him, but cursorily,
by Bentley, who, as Porson says, only noticed the various
readings of the text, omitting those derivable from the
scholl. These Bentley sent to S. Clarke (the son) for his
edition of Homer left unfinished by his father. Cramer
since collated the scholl. with those edited by Buttmann. Of
the four this alone has scholl. In some parts of the earlier
books these are very copious. They sometimes fill the en-
tire margin, including the spaces above and at the page-foot,
and sometimes have an entire page or more to themselves.
Cramer thought he detected a later hand in ‘some of the
longer scholl., and traces of erasure of those by the earlier
hand to make room for them. On this question of unity of
hand Porson suspends his judgment, adding, ‘neque id
sane multum refert, cum satis constet, unius jussu et con-
silio totum MS. concinnatum esse”. He remarks that it
was written at a time when copyists had begun to hesitate
between the ὁ subscript_or written ad latus. The MS. is in
beautiful condition and contains (50 leaves(2). The ink is
Enquiries have also been addressed to the Vatican library at Rome, the Pau-
line library at Leipzig, and to the principal libraries at Strasbourg, Augsburg
and Basle, also to the Imperial library at St. Petersburg, to that of the Holy
Synod at Moscow, and to the Royal library at the Escurial; but no replies have
been received from any of them. The notices of the MSS. said to be in their
keeping are derived from Fabricius, Heyne, Dindorf and other scholars. As re-
gards private libraries, it is quite possible that MSS. may exist there which are
generally unknown. I shall of course be thankful for information concerning
any such.
2 Heyne (vol. III. iv. de subsidiis p. xcvii note) calls it an “‘eximius codex
eum Townleiano Iliadis codice comparandus”. The end of the volume has the
F*
LXXXxiv PREFACE.
in some places paler than in others, but the ink used by the same
writer may not have been always of the same quality. A table of the
var. lect. which Porson extracted from it, arranged in the order in
which they occur in the poem, is appended to the Oxford Clarendon
ed. 1800. This MS. is cited as Harl., and its scholl. as Scholl. H., in
the present ed.
No. 6325, vellum, XV" century.
LXVIII. In the Bodleian library at Oxford is a MS. of scholl. on the
Ody. without text, in beautiful condition and very legible, ascribed to the
XI" or XII" century (3). They are those known as the scholl. minora,
as contrasted with those of Eustath., also as vulgata or scholl. Didymi,
but with no due authority for the name; see under Didymus p. LXxVi.
Their form is that of comments on the individual word or phrase, prefixed
as a catch-word, in the order of the text. The books have short argu-
ments prefixed. Dindorf collated this MS. for his ed. of scholl. on the
. Ody., Oxford Clarendon, 1855, and says (Preefat. p. xviii) that the scholl.,
published by Asulanus at the Aldine Press in 1528 were derived from
a MS. closely akin (plane gemellus) to this.
LXIX. In the library of Caius Coll., Cambr., is a MS. no. 76 fol., on
vellum, containing an exegesis of the Ody., apparently a fragment of the
scholl. Didymi on book I to VII. 54. (Fabric. 1. 412, cf. p. 389. and
Heyne III. p. txx note.) In the margin are some additions in red ink,
and the scholl. are occasionally displaced, e, g. at «. 188 (4). The li-
brarian is not aware that it has ever been collated.
In the library of Corpus Christi Coll., Cambr., is a MS. no. 81 fol. on
paper, probably XV" century (5), containing the Il., the Post-Homerica of
Q. Smyrneus and the Ody. It was collated by Barnes for ‘his cd.
Cambr. 1711.
LXX. In the boys’ library, or School.library of Eton College is a copy
of the Florentine ed. prin. 1488, the ample margins of which contain MS.
scholl. ‘“‘by the hand of Aloysius Alamannus”’ and precisely dated ‘‘the
5'° of April 1518, being Easter Day”. The scholl. on the Il. are said
subscription ‘“‘Antonii Seripandi et amicorum”’. Seripandi was a Cardinal (Fabric.
I. p. 401) and Archbishop of Salerno, and died 1563. For this and some other
similar information I am indebted to ΜΓ. E. Deutsch of the Brit. Mus. A specimen
of this MS., to follow this page, has been copied for the present work, by permis-
sion of the authorities of that Museum.
3 A specimen of this MS., to follow that of the Harleian, has been copied for
this work.
4 It is bound up in a miscellaneous collection of Greek MSS. principally
medical.
5 From its having the name of Theodore in gilt letters on the first page it
has been ascribed to the Archbishop of Canterbury of that name in the VII'® cen-
tury, but erroneously, as shown by the character and appearance, betokening a
date not much earlier than the invention of printing. (Catal. of MSS. in C.C.C.C.)
ad
ww
. ὦ τον ον
~id wre xX om Ἷ ἃ. ».,α,. οαἱἷ,
ad W100 149d cofamn cody d cat 9p Wp. natron 0d.0&% nai.
Need yetey core be doin ete on rp 0019
nod NG Ov te onbrocen pong | ob . 1H dood o>
+ ple howd feat A » drs v0 1-9 At bb δχχοα ἡ of Af
bh ox.rmocend .raofty voy vol 1odw ragowdigod op dood
Dar doh γα} tg "αι Σου mid deagondied vod i ον
ydadoat wadaly oar dovy lgX) olner. spore dodgi3~x
ἡ col * hd omyrto py ob apart An motyp Hx yp ped
- ye 9 σὴ οὐ ml o/p Kt car “΄.“΄ 1nd 20d o>
“ὦ σον oy ery X19 dp : 1 Porn Jay
* Dtadp or cori! 010» prypddar Apo γᾶν νά.
Τρρεζον
+
(Tr yy fo ἠρυυνιυνυνβ 9 puny yay fo BPO} THI σινυγδηινοῦ abv}: 74/5 )
ἌΜΩ. ΝΞΟ Will ‘CUO4AXO ‘AUYYRIT NVYI3100qg BHI NI |
ΧΡ. LNOHLIM “NV ASSAODO αν WHONIW, WITOHOS BHI 40 ‘STW ν AO NAEWIDRdS BTIWIS-OV4
PAM 20 Maar asdde ag συ ναοῦ yy
Λα 2} ho roy nodrak PP Angre ρρ dam. δῷ
Dh bag her g μέρα aa meee ocd ΤᾺ
WN ELON + 2030.07 ΡΝ 9 Ajodu_b
- Nad 9 Lar δ ΟΣ drama. 0 IEE Arisa fe
ἋΣ amvofoap ain +" .
a ὦ ο΄ ᾿
‘PART IIT. MSS. OF THE ODYSSEY AND ITS SCHOLIA. .xxxv
to be less copious than those on the Ody. and to cease entirely after
about bk. XXI. There are none on the Batrachom. and Hymns. Barnes
extracted the Odyssean scholl. (Heyne III, iii, de Scholl. in Hom. LXXI,
ef. Barnes preefat. p. vi. and Fabric. I, p. 390), and they also appear to
have been previously used for the Camb. ed. of 1689 (Heyne III, i, de
edd. Hom. p. xxx).
In the library of Sir Thomas Phillipps, Bart. of Middle Hill, is an 8v°
vellum, XV" or XVI" century MS, no. 367, in extremely good preser-
vation and very clearly written, but by a careless scribe, without scholia.
It appears from a mem. at the end to have been the property of Matteo
Palmieri of Pisa, and passed into the hands of the Jesuits of Clermont
at Paris (6).
LXXI. In the Imperial library at Paris are seven MSS. of the Ody.,
six of them with scholl. Their value is discussed by Villoison Prolegg.
in Il. p. xiv. foll. note. On applying to the librarian I have not been
able to ascertain which of them have been collated, but one of them is
doubtless that mentioned by Dindorf as “Parisinus 2403", the scholl. of
which were collated by him and are cited under the letter D. This MS.
is said to be on silk, of the XIV" century, elegantly written in very
black ink. Its scholl. on books I to III are copious, those on books IV
to X fewer, after which they wholly cease. It is said to retain the name
of Porphyry (7) attached to many scholl. where other MSS. had lost it.
Another is probably the ‘‘Parisinus 2804 of Dindorf, inspected by him,
and cited under the letter 8, same century and material, but square in
form, with double columns in each page, and in each column 22 lines of
text. The Ody. with scholl. and glosses occupics p. 209—333 of the
MS., but these scholl. etc. disappear after v. 38 of book III. They are
described as good and ancient, but less copious than those of the Har.
Cramer, adds Dindorf, gave some excerpts from this MS. in his Anecdot.
Paris. vol. III, but omitted a good deal as illegible, and misread some
(Prefat. xiv).
LXXII. In the Medicean library at Florence, book-case numbered
XXXII, the following MSS. contain the Odyssey in whole or in part:
No. 4, fol. vellum, XV'" century, of great beauty, containing also the
6 By the courtesy of the owner, now residing at Thirlestaine House, Chelten-
ham, I have inspected this MS., and collated, but too late to be of use for the pre-
sent volume, books a. and «. and a part of δ. It agrees more frequently with the
Harl. 5674 than with any other MS. known to me; yet it differs from it, agreeing
incidentally by turns with six or seven other MSS., or with Eustath., often enough
to give it an independent, and as it were, eclectic character. Among these variants
" Tbave found three which I do not see noticed as existing in any MS. whatever,
' although two of these are recorded by scholl. on the II. or on a later book of the
' Ody. The third, ὀρώρει fur ὀδώδειν in &. 60, is, I believe, new. There is also a
. MS. of Eustathius in the Middle Hill Library.
ἡ This does not imply that Porphyry was the original source, he having
| largely compiled from others; see Porphyry on p. Lxxix sup.
LXXXVi PREFACE.
Vita Hom., the Il. and Batrachom.: the books have arguments prefixed,
but no scholl.
No. 6, fol. vellum, XV" century, of great beauty, the same without the
Vita, but having neither arguments nor scholl. |
No. 12, large 4° paper, XV" century, containing the Ody. alone, muti-
lated in several places, with neither arguments nor scholl. except to
book I.
No. 23, 859 paper, XV" century, containing the Ody. with very scanty
scholl. by a much later hand, and which commence at book XVI.
No. 24, 855 vellum, ΧΡ century, containing the Ody. with interlinear
glosses, mutilated towards the end.
No. 30, large 4° paper, XVI" century (8), containing the Ody., text only,
with arguments to some only of the books.
No. 39, 859 vellum, XV“ century, containing the Ody. with some inter-
linear glosses and very brief scholl. on the first four pages; no argu-
ments.
Book-case numbered LVII (9).
No. 32, 859 paper, XV" century, containing ancient scholl. by an un-
certain author on books I—IV of the Ody., cited by Dindorf as R., and
as Schol. R. in the margin of this edition.
Book-case numbered XCI.
No. 2, large 4'° silk, XITI" century, containing Ody. books I—XIV, no
scholl., mutilated at the end.
LXXIII. In the Marcian library at Venice are the following:
No. 460, fol. vellum, XII" century, in 250 leaves contains Eustathius
on 1]. and Ody., and was used for the ed. Romana (10) 1542 ... 1550;
see Fabric. ub. sup. p. 392.
No. 513 (or 613 ,as given by Fabric. ub. sup. and Dindorf) (11), fol. paper,
8 ‘‘The trade of the copyist of Greek MSS., instead of sinking at once before
the printer, held its ground for nearly a century. Some of the most elegant Greek
books we possess in MS. were executed as late as the middle of the 16 century.
.,.- The public were supplied with cheap Greek books by the Aldine and other
presses, but for copies de luxe, such as kings and collectors loved — charta@ regia,
novi libri — copyist and miniator still continued in request.” Quarterly Rev. No
234, p- 338.
g Erroneously given as 37 by Dindorf.
10 Cardinal Bembo procured it for the Roman editors, as J am informed by the
present librarian of the Marcian; who adds that it was once, through misinter-
pretation of the superscription, supposed to be an autograph of Eustath. himself.
He refers me to Bembo's Lettere, Venezia 1729. vol III. p. 125, Dorville Vann, Crit.
Amsterdam vol. I. p. 313. Its register will be found in the Marcian Catal.
Gr. MSS. II. p. 245 foll.
11 Registered 313 in same Catal. p. 315. Fabric. calls it a 4'°, and Dindorf
describes it as being ‘‘form& quadrat&éi”. ‘This was collated by Cobet, and is of
all now extant the most perfect as regards the scholl. on books I—IV.
PART IIT. MSS. OF THE ODYSSEY AND ITS SCHOLIA. ixxxvii
in 296 leaves, XIII'* century, the Ody. follows the Batrachom. and
has scholl. in its margin.
No. 4 of Class IX, 4 paper, XIII'* to XV" century, contains as follows:
1. From the beginning to book VI, v. 190, with a preface prefixed,
XIV" century.
2. From book IX, v. 541, to the end of the poem, with scholl. of
XITI" century. Dindorf used the scholl. in his ed. of the Scholl.
in Odys., and describes them as short and of little value, mentioning
favourably, however, one long note probably transmitted by Por-
phyry (12). He adds that the first portion of the MS. is on silk.
No. 463, 85» on paper, in 194 leaves, XIV" century, with interlinear
scholl. (13), the books VII and VIII are missing, while VI and IX are
fragmentary.
No. 456, fol. vellum in 541 leaves, XV" century, containing also the I1.,
the Hymns and Batrachom., with the poem of Quintus Smyrneus.
No. 457 (14), 4'° paper, in 191 leaves, XV" century or thereabouts.
No. 611, fol. paper, in 244 leaves, XV" century(15), has the Vita Hom.
prefixed.
No. 29 of Class IX (16), fol. paper, XV" century, ‘“‘with interlinear Latin
version, which does not agree with any published up to this day”, and
accompanied by marginal notes.
No. 34 of Class IX, fol. paper, XV" century, with glosses and scholl.
interlinear and marginal, bequeathed by Girolamo Contarini to the
library; the end is missing.
No. 610(t7), fol. paper, in 590 leaves, about XVI" century.
No. 20 of Class IX, 4'° paper, in 279 leaves, XVI" century (18), contains
among other things ‘‘Annotationes grammaticales in Odysseam Ho-
meri”, p. 133 foll. 7
12 On the question why Odys. discovered himself to Telemachus and the ser-
vants, and not to Penelopé. This is such an ἀπορέα and λύσις as those mentioned
on p. Lxxvii note 4). They are as old as Aristotle.
13 This and the next two are on p. 245 of the same catal. This is perhaps
the one given as No. 263 by Fabric.
14 Possibly that given by Fabric. (ub. sup. p. 408) as No. 647 4°, “‘Odyssea
fine mutila’’, and by Villoison Anecd. Gr. II. p. 247, a8 being in the append. to Ca-
tal. of Gr. MSS. in the Marcian from the Catal. of Cl. Zanetti, No. pcxivi1, 49,
in 194 leaves, XIV‘* century, mutilated at the end.
15 On p. 314 of the same catal.
16 This and the next are in the Appendix to the catal. aforesaid. The quota-
tion in the text is from the letter referred to in note 9.
17 On p. 314 of the same catalogue.
18 This and the two following are in the Appendix aforesaid. This MS., as
the Marcian librarian informs me, derives from the library of the Nani family of
Cefalonia, and is described by Mingarelli in the Graci Codd. MSS. B. 1784, pp.
484—6.
LXXXVili PREFACE.
No. 21 of Class [X, fol. paper, XVI" century (19), imperfect at the begin-
ning, contains parts of the poem.
No. 36, 37 of Class IX. A copy of the Florentine ed. prin. of Hom.
opp., 1488, with schol]. written in the margin of the Ody., only dating
from the XVI" century (2°). Bequeathed by Contarini aforesaid.
The Scho]. Ven. on the Π., whence Villoison edited in 1788 Homeri
Nias ad veteris codicis Veneli fidem recensita, refers to his scholl. on the
Ody., which Villoison, however, was nowhere able to find, sce ibid.
Prolegg. pp. 27 and 44 note.
LXXIV. In the Vatican library at Rome are MSS. scholl, on the Ody.
by Georgius Chrysococces, or perhaps copied only by him (Allatius de
Georgiis p. 360 ap. Fabric. I. p. 416).
In the library of the ‘‘Congregatio Cassinensis” (21), MS. No. 2, is Ody.
fol. vellum.
MSS. of Ody. are mentioned by Montfaucon in his Catal. as existing
in the same library (Fabric. ub. sup. p. 412); he does not say how many,
nor state particulars. One distinguished as ‘Reginensis gt”, paper,
XV" century, containing also the Hymni, is mentioned by Baumeister,
Hy. Hom. prolegg. p. 94.
In the library of Padua is a (MS.?) translation of the Ody. by Manuel
Chrysolores (22).
LXXV. The Ambrosian library at Milan has three MSS. with scholl.
and two without, all carefully examined by Mali, who says Prefat. de Codd.
Ambros. Odyss. Ὁ. xxi, “‘ novum esse plerumque diversumque ab editis Ambro-
sianorum scholiorum(23) genus ..... neino legens non videt”’. ‘They are:
A fol. MS. on paper, apparently XIV" century, entire with most valu-
able and copious schol]. which diminish in number in the later books (24)
(Maii, who first edited them at Milan 1819, Preefat. p. xxxvi). Buttmann,
19 The parts of the poem are said to be stated in Mingarelli, pp. 486—7; sec
last note. This also came through the:Nani family.
20 The marginal scholl. in MS. are a similar feature to those in the margin
of the Etonian copy of the same ed. prin. ascribed to Aloysius Alamannus,
see p. Lxxxiv. § LXX.
21 Supposed to be that of the Benedictines on Monte Cassino in Naples.
22 ‘‘Vel potius alicujus indocti.” Fabric. ub. sup. p. 412.
23 Villoison (Prolegg. ad Il. p. xLi) notes that ‘‘in Ambrosianis scholiis semel
loquitur Christianus auctor anonymus (6. 2) semel ctiam Gregorius theologus
(ϑ. 409)"; adding, ‘“‘nonne etiam in Venetianis scholiis Christiana vestigia iin-
pressa sunt?” ;
24 E.y. the first twelve books in Maii’s ed. of the collated scholl. occupy
over 100 pages, the last twelve 30 pages. ‘These MSS. are registered respectively
as Q. 38 part. sup., B. 99 part. sup., E. 89 part. sup., A. 77 part. inf., D. 120 part.
sup., Ε΄. 85 part. sup. ‘The description ‘‘part. sup.” or “inf.” probably refers to the
part of book-case οἵ". The Ambrosian also contains an allegorical interpretation
of the fables of the Ody., the work ‘“‘Johannis Aurati, Gallicani poets”, sometime
a teacher of Greek at Paris; it is a paper MS., 89, registered F. 85 part. sup.
PART III. MSS. OF THE ODYSSEY AND ITS SCHOLIA. xxxxix
Berlin 1821, and Dindorf have incorporated them in their respective edd.
of scholl. and cited them as Q. (25):
One of square form on silk paper, XV" century (Maii says 419, XIV"
century), has scholl., mostly short, as far as the beginning of: book XXI;
partly identical with other scholl., partly of much later origin; used by
Maii and cited as B (Dindorf. tb. p. xii): |
Another on silk, same age, contains books I to ΙΧ, with copious
scholl. partly good and ancient, partly trifling and worthless. Brought
from Scio into Italy. Used by Maii and cited as Ὁ; (Dindorf ἐδ. p. xiii).
The two without scholl. are, one fol. on paper, containing the whole
poem but with the first book acephalous, beginning at v. 384; this has argu-
ments of the books, is a western MS., and bears date as finished Nov. 1468;
the other contains not the text, but the comments of Eustath. on the first
book and the beginning of the second, and a latin commentary, also de-
rived from Eustath., on books I—X. It is curious as being an autograph
of Basil. Chalcondyles, younger son of the Demetrius Chaleondyles: who
edited the ed. prin. of Homer at Florence.
LXXVI. In the Elizabethan library at Breslau are two MSS. of the
Ody., both collated by F. Jacobs for Heyne (III. iv. de subsidd. p. xc),
and probably also by Clarke or Ernesti before him, since the edition of
Ernesti, following Clarke, contains frequent references to their readings.
One is a., large fol., vellum, in 176 leaves, very carelessly transcribed,
but in an elegant hand, contains also Batrachom., the Vita Hom. and 1].
I to VI. v. 356.
Another, A., small folio in 484 leaves, XV" century; the gna vol. con-
tains the Ody. by two hands, one that of Michael Apostoles of Constan-
tinople, driven by the fall of that city ἱπίο Candia. It has here and there
various readings in the margin.
LXXVII. In the Town library at Hamburgh is a large sized MS. on silk
in 228 pages, XIII" or XIV" century (26), containing the Ody. as far as
v. 67 of book XIV, with scholl., the text carefully written, and with no |
unusual contractions. Some of the scholl. are interlinear, but merely of
the character of glosses, the greater part in the margin, difficult to de-
cipher on account of their contractions and the tattered state of the
edges. These seem also in places to have run away several pages from
the text. At p. 151 a new series of scholl. commences in a later hand,
occupying at first only the spaces left hy the older series, which by and
by fail, and the newer series appears alone. This is chiefly from Eustath.,
the older agree chiefly with the Ambrosian and with the Heidelberg MSS.,
and are diffuse and rhetorical. (Abridged from Preller’s description ap,
Dindorf Prefat. ad Scholl. in Odyss. pp. ix—xi.) Dindorf, however, who
incompletely collated it, says it is useful in checking other scholl., and
25 Fabric. (ub. sup. p. 411) speaks of a MS. of Ody., XITI*® century, in the
Ambrosian library, Milan, as mentioned by Montfaucon Diar. Ital. pp. 17—18.
I cannot identify it with any known to the librarian there.
26,Preller indicates that it had been previously assigned to the XII'* century.
LXXXViil PREFACE.
No. 21 of Class LX, fol. paper, XVI" century (19), imperfect at the begin-
ning, contains parts of the poem.
No. 36, 37 of Class IX. A copy of the Florentine ed. prin. of Hum.
opp., 1488, with scholl. written in the margin of the Ody., only dating
from the XVI" century (20). Bequeathed by Contarini aforesaid.
The Schol. Ven. on the Π., whence Villoison edited in 1788 Homeri
Ilias ad veteris codicis Veneti fidem recensita, refers to his scholl. on the
Ody., which Villoison, however, was nowhere able to find, see ibid.
Prolegg. pp. 27 and 44 note.
LXXIV. In the Vatican library at Rome are MSS. scholl, on the Ody.
by Georgius Chrysococces, or perhaps copied only by him (Allatius de
Georgiis p. 360 ap. Fabric. I. p. 416).
In the library of the “ Congregatio Cassinensis”’ (21), MS. No. 2, is Ody.
fol. vellum.
MSS. of Ody. are mentioned by Montfaucon in his Catal. as existing
in the same library (Fabric. ub. sup. p. 412); he does not say how many,
nor state particulars. One distinguished as ‘‘Reginensis gi”, paper,
XV" century, containing also the Hymni, is mentioned by Baumeister,
Hy. Hom. prolegg. p. 94.
In the library of Padua is a (MS.?) translation of the Ody. by Manuel
Chrysolores (22).
LXXV. The Ambrosian library at Milan has three MSS. with scholl.
and two without, all carefully examined by Maii, who says Prafat. de Codd.
Ambros. Odyss. p. xi, ‘‘novum esse plerumque diversuinque ab editis Ambro-
sianorum scholiorum(23) genus ..... nemo legens non videt”. They are:
A fol. MS. on paper, apparently XIV" century, entire with most valu-
able and copious scholl. which diminish in number in the later books (24)
(Maii, who first edited them at Milan 1819, Prefal. p. xxxvi). Buttmann,
19 The parts of the poem are said to be stated in Mingarelli, pp. 486— 7; sce
last note. ‘This also came through the:Nani family.
20 The marginal scholl. in MS. are a similar feature to those in the margin
of the Etonian copy of the same ed. prin. ascribed to Aloysius Alamannus,
see p. Lxxxiv. § LXX.
21 Supposed to be that of the Benedictines on Monte Cassino in Naples.
22 ‘Vel potius alicujus indocti.” Fabric. ub. sup. p. 412.
23 Villoison (Prolegg. ad Il. p. xLi) notes that ‘‘in' Ambrosianis scholiis semel
loquitur Christianus auctor anonymus (0. 2) seme] ctiam Gregorius theologus
(ϑ. 409)’’; adding, ‘“‘nonne etiam in Venctianis scholiis Christiana vestigia im-
pressa sunt?” ;
24 E.g. the first twelve books in Maii’s ed. of the collated scholl. occupy
over 100 pages, the last twelve 30 pages. ‘These MSS. are registered respectively
as Q. 38 part. sup., B. 99 part. sup., E. 89 part. sup., A. 77 part. inf., D. 120 part.
sup., F. 85 part. sup. ‘he description ‘‘part. sup.” or “inf.” probably refers to the
part of book-case et’. ‘The Ambrosian also contains an allegorical interpretation
of the fables of the Ody., the work “Johannis Aurati, Gallicani poets”, sumetime
a teacher of Greek at Paris; it is a paper MS., 8", registered Εἰ, 85 part. sup.
PART III. MS8. OF THE ODYSSEY AND ITS SCHOLIA. txxxix
Berlin 1821, and Dindorf have incorporated them in their respective edd.
of scholl. and cited them as Q. (25):
One of square form on silk paper, XV" century (Maii says 4°, XIV‘b
century), has scholl., mostly short, as far as the beginning of: book XXI;
partly identical vm ‘other scholl. .. partly of much later origin; used by
Maii and cited as B (Dindorf. ἐδ. p. xii): :
Another on silk, same age, contains books I to LX, with copious
scholl. partly good and ancient, partly trifling and worthless. Brought
from Scio into Italy. Used by Maii and cited as E (Dindorf ἐδ. p. xiii).
The two without scholl. are, one fol. on paper, containing the whole
poem but with the first book acephalous, beginning at v. 384; this has argu-
ments of the books, is a western ΜΆ... and bears date as finished Nov. 1468;
the other contains not the text, but the comments of Eustath. on the first
book and the beginning of the second, and a latin commentary, also de-
rived from Eustath., on books I—X. It is curious as being an autograph
of Basil. Chalcondyles, younger son of the Demetrius Chalcondyles who
edited the ed. prin. of Homer at Florence.
LXXVI. In the Elizabethan library at Breslau are two MSS. of the
Ody., both collated by F. Jacobs for Heyne (III. iv. de subsidd. p. xc),
and probably also by Clarke or Ernesti before him, since the edition of
Ernesti, following Clarke, contains frequent references to their readings.
One is a., large fol., vellum, in 176 leaves, very carelessly transcribed,
but in an elegant hand, contains also Batrachom., the Vita Hom. and Il.
I to VI. v. 356.
Another, A., small folio in 484 leaves, XV" century; the gna vol. con-
tains the Ody. by two hands, one that of Michael Apostoles of Constan-
tinople, driven by the fall of that city irito Candia. It has here and there
various readings in the margin.
LXXVII. In the Town library at Hamburgh is a large sized MS. on silk
in 228 pages, XIII" or XIV" century (26), containing the Ody. as far as
v. 67 of book XIV, with scholl., the text carefully written, and with no
unusual contractions. Some of the scholl. are interlinear, but merely of
the character of glosses, the greater part in the margin, difficult to de-
cipher on account of their contractions and the tattered state of the
edges. ‘These seem also in places to have run away several pages from
the text. At p. 151 a new series of scholl. commences in a later hand,
occupying at first only the spaces left by the older series, which by and
by fail, and the newer series appears alone. This is chiefly from Eustath.,
the older agree chiefly with the Ambrosian and with the Heidelberg MSS.,
and are diffuse and rhetorical. (Abridged from Preller’s description ap.
Dindorf Prefat. ad Scholl. in Odyss. pp. ix—xi.) Dindorf, however, who
incompletely collated it, says it is useful in checking other scholl., and
25 Fabric. (ub. sup. p. 411) speaks of a MS. of Ody., XITIt® century, in the
Ambrosian library, Milan, as mentioned by Montfaucon Diar, Ital. pp. 17—18.
I cannot identify it with any known to the librarian there.
26,Preller indicates that it had been previously assigned to the XII"® century.
xc PREFACE.
“etiam scholia multa solus servavit ex bonis et antiquis fontibus derivata”’
(ibid. p. xii). . He cites it as T.
LXXVIII. In the University library at Heidelberg is a large 4'° MS.,
vellum, in 468 pages, XIII‘ or at the latest XIV" century, having scholl.
on the margins, which were collated by Buttmann (ed. scholl. Berlin 1828)
and by Dindorf(27) (ed. sup. citat. prefat. p. xii), who cites it as P and
rates it as of less value than the last mentioned, T. It contains also the
Batrachom., an argument of the Ody. and some other pieces. The scholl.
on books IV to VII inclusive are difficult through their small and highly
contracted characters, but of greater value (often agreeing with H and
Q) than those of the other books, which are by a later hand (Dind. ibid.).
In the Public library at Nuremburgh is a MS. in 2 vol. of the Opera
Hom., written in 1552 by Charles Stephanus (28), (Fabric. ub. sup. p. 412.)
LXXIX. In the Imperial library at Vienna27 are the following:
No. 5, large fol., 191 leaves, containing the Il., the Ody. and the poem
of Q. Smyrmmeus, without scholl., on page 5 of the catal.
No. 50, containing in 219 leaves the Il. and the Ody., on page 33.
No. 56, containing on 169 leaves the Ody. with scholl. interlinear and
margin, on page 36.
No. 117, containing on 251 leaves the Il. and Ody. with scholl. inter -
linear and marginal, on page 72.
No: 133, containing in 146 leaves scholl. only on the Ody., on page 77.
No. 289, containing fragments of Homer, whether any of the Ody. is not
stated, on page 143.
No. 307, containing in go leaves a large fragment of the Ody., on
page 147.
F. C. Alter edited in 1794 at Vienna the Ody., Batrachom., Hymns
and other poems vulgarly ascribed to Homer, giving a ‘“‘varietas lectionis
e codd. Vindobonensibus”. Dindorf (ub. sub. p. xv) has incorporated in
his ed. of Scholl. in Odyss. some excerpts given by Alter from Nos. 5, 56
and 133. The librarian refers to Max von Karajan, “Ueber die Hand-
schriften der Scholien der Odyssee”, 859, Vienna 1857, and to the pre-
faces of Dindorf, Bekker and others, as further showing to what extent
collations of these MSS. have been made. No. 5 is called the “codex
Busbequianus”, probably brought home by Baron de Busbecq, ambas-
sador from Germany to the Sultan about 1580, and is noted by Ieyne
(de codd. 111. ii. xuiv) as superior to the others. That called by Heyne
“Codex Hohendorffianus” (ibid. p. xiv), No. 116, is not a MS., but a
copy of the ed. of Libert, Paris 1620, the ΤΠ... however, only, with scholl.
LXXX. In the library of the Holy Synod -at Moscow, No. 286, is a
MS. ascribed to the XII" century, on vellum, but Heyne (III. iv. de
27 From an original letter from the Heidelberg University librarian to the pre-
sent editor, June 201} 1864. .
28 The librarian refers to “‘Nessel, Daniel. Catalogus sive recensio specialis
omnium codicum manuscriptorum Greecorum.... bibliothecee Cesarese Vindobo-
nensis. Vindobone et Norimberge 1690 fol.” The pages on which the MSS. are
mentioned as found are those of this catalogue.
PART IIT. MSS. OF THE ODYSSEY AND ITS SCHOLIA. ΧΟΙ
subsidd. p. xcii) on collating it throughout, thought it later. It is not
mentioned by Fabricius.
In the library of the Escurial, out of (1) (2) (3) (4) Homeric MSS.
mentioned in Pluer’s index, (4) contains excerpts from the Ody., as veri-
fied by Tyschen (Fabric. I. pp. 409, 411).
In the Royal library at Madrid, No. 27 in the catal. of Gr. MSS. p. 122,
is a MS. on paper, XV" century, containing besides the Argonautica of
Orpheus 20 books of the Ody., with a few interlinear latin glosses on
bks. I, I, and part of III.
Another, No. 67, contains brief annotations on certain books of the I].
and Ody. gathered from various sources (Fabric. ub. sup. p. 411).
In the library of Cesena a MS. of the year 1311, Ody. with scholl.,
some in latin being intermixed (Fabric. ibid.).
PART IV.
THE PRESENT EDITION. .
ἀξιῶν δὲ ἐγὼ Ὅμηρον ἐξ Ὁμήρου σαφηνίζειν, αὐτὸν ἐξηγούμενον ἑαυτὸν
ὑπεδείκνυον. e Porphyrio ap. Schol. Ven. B in Il. Ζ. 201.
LXXXI. In the present edition the attempt has been, by means of a
margin giving parallel and illustrative passages, to make Homer as far
as possible his own scholiast; and to show the remarkable peculiarity
of his style, that of never parting from a phrase so long as it was
possible to use or adapt it, which has been noticed p. vii sup. For
those who lack the leisure or the perseverance to make use of this
margin it is hoped the notes may provide a secondary assistance. In
compiling it the difficulty lay ten times perhaps in selecting from a
multitude of passages for once that it arose from a paucity of choice.
To record all the iterations and resemblances of phrase would be
cumbrous and impossible. Some are of course too trivial to need even
a single citation, and their space has been better bestowed on others
that need more copious illustration. Yet after all, many passages inust
necessarily be of very unequal value, although I hope that to the Ho-
meric investigator all will be of some. Less rigorous students may
therefore be counselled to use the margin only when referred to in
the notes.
LXXXIT. As regards the text adopted, it rests on no collation of
MSS.; nor, if I had enjoyed the leisure to collate(1) any one, al-
though general Homeric scholarship might have benefitted, would
this edition probably have been perceptibly improved by the labour.
The time has long gone by when it was worth while to edit a single
codex of Homer as such, or at any rate such a work is wholly dis-
tinct in scope from that which I had proposed to myself; which was
to give the student a text which, resting on the results of the most
advanced collations, would as far as possible eliminate the imperfec-
tions and defects of any one MS. It is, further, advantageous in
the present day to adopt the economy obtained by dividing the la-
bours of collating and editing—the preparation of the material and
the digesting and selecting from it.
1 See, however, page Lxxxyv. ἢ, 6.
PART IV. THE PRESENT EDITION. XCili
The editions on which the present is based are as follows Bekker's
Bonn 1858, Dindorf’s Leipzig 1852, Faesi’s Leipzig 1849, Lowe's
Leipzig 1828, Ernesti’s Leipzig 1824, Wolf's Leipzig 1807, the Ox-
ford edition of 1800, Barnes’ Cambridge 1711.
LXXXITI. The Oxford edition by Dindorf of the collected scholia on
the Odyssey, Eustathius, and Nitzsch’s commentary, have been con-
stantly before me both in establishing the text and in furnishing the
notes. The Oxford text of 1800 contains at the end the highly va-
luable results of Porson’s collation of the Harleian MS. no. 5674 with
the text of Ernesti of 1760, and a less important table of the read-
ings of Clarke as compared with its own. From some of these the
various readings of the margin above the footnotes have been mostly
derived. Others have been taken from the margin of Ernesti or of
Barnes. The digammated readings find place by themselves in an
intermediate margin. I have already indicated the uncertainties
which beset this question (p. xxi, xi. n.11), and regard this portion of
the work as tentative merely. From the scholia or from Eustathius
is necessarily drawn all that is known of the readings preferred by
the ancient critics and grammarians, while the same scholia often
show the reading of the text which each scholiast followed. Where
the name of such a critic etc. is followed by the designation of a
Scholiast with a (,) between them, it is to be understood that the cri-
tic etc. is cited on the faith of the Schol.: where this too is followed
by the name of any modern editor, it is also separated by a (,); thus
on B. 321, ““σπάσατ᾽ Arist., Scholl. H. Q. R.(2), Wolf” means that the
Harleian, the Ambrosian and the Florentine Scholiasts all assign the
reading σπάσατ᾽ to Aristarchus, and that Wolf adopted it. Nitzsch’s
commentary is cited as Ni., Faesi’s and Léwe’s editions are referred
to as Fa. and Léw., the Oxford edition of 1800 as ed. Ox.; and the
other names of editors, critics and authorities, whether ancient or
modern, are designated by abbreviations which will, I think, be
easily made out; the scholiasts by the letters made use of by Bekker
in his edition of them. The sign [] in the margin above the footnotes
marks a line or lines as disallowed by some modern critic, the sign +
by some ancient one. A frequent abbreviation in the same margin,
2 These letters and the others used in that margin to designate certain
MSS. are the same as those used by Dindorf in his Scholia Greca in Odyss. ;
see Prefat, to the same. In this ed. the letters are used to distinguish the MSS.
of the scholia from those of the poem. Thus the Harleian ΜΒ, of the poem is
cited as Harl., but its scholia as schol. H., and so of others,
XCiV PREFACE.
‘“¢ Wolf et recentt.’”? marks the fact that his reading has been generally
adopted by recent editors.
LXXXIV. In the marginal references e¢ al. for et alibi refers to other
places in the same book of the poem last referred to; the references
to books of the Iliad are made by the capitals of the Greek alphabet,
those of the Odyssey by the-small letters; and this has been adopted
for its compendiousness, not only in the margin but generally.
The abbreviation “mar.” appended in the margin to a reference
there refers to the marginal references given at the passage indicated.
The Appendices are referred to in the margin under the letter and
number which distinguishes them, thus App. A. 20 mar. refers to the
Appendix on γεινομένῳ on p. XXXI, and to the marginal references
to be found there.
The abbreviation “cf.” in the margin refers to passages of colla-
teral interest, or introduced to illustrate the subject matter where the
primary reference is to the form of the language. Where a parallel
is cited with a less obvious bearing on the text, the purpose will ge-
nerally be found explained in the note ad loc.
The remark e¢ sepius or et sepiss. (sepissime), accompanying a refe-
rence, indicates that the passage recurs so frequently, either in the
particular book or the whole poem, as to make it inconvenient to
enumerate the recurrences, while none have any special prominence.
Sometimes, as on ἤματα πάντα B. 55, the first and the last occasion
of such recurrence are given.
LXXXV. In the notes and Appendices the proper names which
occur frequently have been abbreviated; as Ni. for Nitzsch, Il. for
Iliad, Ody. for Odyssey, Odys. for Odysseus, Penel. for Penelopé,
Telem. for Telemachus: and generally in the notes any proper names
occurring in the text to which they stand subjoined will be found in
an abbreviated form. The common abbreviations of grammatical
terms as sing., subjunct or subj., adj., demonstr., rel., for singular,
subjunctive, adjective, demonstrative, relative, (subj. also for subject
where the sense is unmistakeable), proby. for probably, H. for Ho-
mer, have been freely: employed.
For the sources of the few illustrations introduced, and for infor-
mation concerning them, I am indebted to the Revi, W. Burgon,
Fellow of Oriel College, Oxford (3).
The plans attached to App. Εἰ. 2 simply reflect my own notions de-
3 For the two facsimiles of MSS. see pref. p. uxxxiv. n. 2, 3.
PART IV. THE PRESENT EDITION. xov
rived from a study of the passages to which they relate. I have
not thought it worthwhile to attempt to harmonize them with the
plan given in Kruse (Hellas, Atlas), Gell and Schreiber, of the
ruins of the traditional domus Ulyssis in Theaki.. Such a minutely rea-
listic spirit would, in my opinion, be utterly misplaced, as regards
Homeric poetry. The plans which are given make no pretence there-
fore to represent literal facts, but may enable the cye to guide the
mind to a clearer grasp of what the Appendix means, and I hope also
of what Homer meant.
LXXXVI. In two instances only have I attempted to amend the
text without the authority of a MS., and in both the amount of al-
teration is the slightest possible. Both depend on the same principle,
the easy displacement of a te or d when elided. The places are γ. 33
and 6.665. Inthe first the common reading before Wolf was κρέα
ὥπτων ἄλλα δ᾽ ἔπειρον ; the Florent. however has κρέα τ᾽ ὥπτων ἄλλα
τ᾽ ἔπειρον. Wolf, adopting for δ᾽ of the vulg. the second τ᾽ of the
Flor., gave κρέα ὥπτων ἄλλα τ᾽ ἔπειρον. I believe the true reading
to be κρέα ὥπτων τἄλλα τ᾽ ἔπειρον, see note ad loc.; but that some
editor offended at the hiatus, not knowing the length of the -« in
κρέα inserted τ᾽ after it; the next step probably was that in careless
copying the τἄλλα was corrupted into τ᾽ ἄλλα, and that then another
editor, finding one τ᾽ too many, struck out the wrong one. The δ᾽
is probably dug to an independent corruption.
In δ. 665 the common reading, which Wolf follows, is ἐκ τόσσων
δ᾽ ἀέκητι. IT have stated in the note ad loc. the reasons against ac-
cepting it. I suppose ἐκ δὲ τόσων ἀέκητι to have been the true read-
ing. If then the τόσων acquired a δ᾽, as the transition from τόσος to
the somewhat stronger τοσόσδε is easy, a subsequent error detached
the δ᾽ and made it τόσων dé, and the next editor or copyist finding
δὲ twice in one clause, struck out the wrong one.
To each book a “summary” or argument is prefixed, and the day
of the poem's action is printed at the top of every page. I ascribe but
little value, however, to any such attempt to reduce the poem toa
diary. It seemed worthwile making for the sake of method and con-
nexion of parts, but must be taken as indicating a possibility only.
LXXXVII. The Appendices contain di$cussions of such points as
seemed to require rather fuller treatment than could be extended to
them in the footnotes.
Appendix A. is chiefly grammatical, or is occupied with the forms
of certain rare and difficult words, but contains also articles on the
xovi PREFACE.
meaning of certain words or clasecs of words, or on the naure of the
things for which they stand. They are arranged nearly in the order
in which each word first occurs. | :
Appendix B. treats of the various terms employed by Homer for
the sea, with their epithets and compounds;
Appendix C. is mythological ;
Appendix Ὁ. is geographical ;
Appendix E. relates to the principal characters of the poem, con-
sidered in their ethical bearing upon both the 1]. and the Ody. (4)
4 In the review of the characters of the Homeric poems in App. E., and in
the consideration of the subject matter generally, it is convenient to speak on
the assumption that the personages and the facts are real. To sustain any such
theory in detail is, however, beyond the province of an editor and commenta-
tor. Nevertheless I am on the whole disposed to view the Iliadic story as en-
veloping a core of réality, although any attempt to restore by analysis a pro-
bable residuum of historical fact would no doubt be valueless. The state of
natural conflict between rival and kindred races may probably have culminated
in an invasion of the principal neighbouring dominion of Western Asia by a
confederacy of the principal nation of South Eastern Europe, Thus a historical
source of the many legends which perhaps united to make up the “Tale of Troy
divine” is to my mind more probable than any other. Such individual legends
would probably attach themselves from the first to the chief local personages
of such a confederacy. If the banded Achsan princes with their forces were
absent for even a much shorter period than the traditional ten years, news of
them would be eagerly looked for at home. And, as we may reasonably ascribe
to the office of the ἀοιδὸς an antiquity at least as great as any period when
such an united effort could have been possible, the probability of such metrical
news bearers wandering homewards from the wars, with their imaginations glow-
ing from the scenes which they had lately left, is sufficient to allow us to as-
sume many historical points of departure for such legends. All the main person-
ages in Homer are strictly anchored upon localities, to an extent, I believe, un-
parallelled in any similar mass of legend. The difficulty lies in assuming that
where local features come out so clearly, personal traits are purely mythical;
and that, in spite of the strong tendency in the human mind to associate real
actors with real scenes, while all that we are told about the places, so far as we
can test it, is true, all about the persons should be false. At any rate the onus pro-
bandi may fairly be left with those who make the assertion. On the other hand,
assuming, as antecedently likely, the historical fact of such an expedition as en-
gaged the flower of the Achzan race on the North Eastern shore of the Agean,
we may assume an animus pervading the period somewhat approximating to that
of the earlier crusades. That the chicf princes of Argos, Mycené and Sparta
may have each had one or more ἀοιδοὶ amongst their followers, who would
have brought over contemporaneous versions of their exploits and would have
become sources of their transmission to posterity, even as Geoffrey Vinsauf
sung the deeds of Cwur de Lion, is a supposition containing nothing unreason-
«ααἂ,
PART IV. THE PRESENT EDITION. ° xovii
Appendix Εἰ. relates to structural details, and is arranged in two
parts, 1. the Homeric Galley, and 2. the Homeric Palace.
able, save to an “over strict incredulity’’. Even the personality of Achilles
has this in favour of it, that he is ascribed to a district comparatively insigni-
ficant and locally remote from the centre of the movement assumed in the poem.
It is difficult to conceive why, if the poet had been in search of a purely fa-
bulous protagonist to his epos, he should have gone so far north as to Thessaly
to find one. In a poem so teeming with marks of local interest, a prime war-
rior of pure fiction would probably have adorned some great centre of the Achwan
name. It is clear from the Catalogue in 3. 681 foll. that the poet knew locally
but little of Thessaly, as compared with many other regions which furnished
his contingents. He names only three cities there, and each of those without
a single descriptive epithet. The other names in this passage are those of re-
gions and of races. It is easy to account for prominence of locality being
here overpowered by that of individuality, if we assume the latter based upon
ἃ personal fact. I do not see how it is so easy to account for it otherwise.
Homer's veracity has been impugned in various times for different reasons. We
know from Chaucer that he was in the middle-age looked upon as a fabulist
because he extolled the valour of the Greeks:
One said that Omer made lies,
Feyning im his poetries,
And was to the Greekes favourable,
Therefore held he it but fable. (House of Fame iii. 387— 90.)
in short the empire of the West was then Virgil's; but, as between Greek and
Greek, the selection of Phthié for his hero’s home throws upon the “‘fable”’ the
suspicion of a truth; and the same may be said as regards Odysseus and Ithaca.
At the same time it is a remarkable accident that the names of Hellas and
Hellenes, destined in after time to such undying fame, should in this pre-his-
toric period of their obscurity be thus closely associated with the grand typical
hero of the Hellenic name and race.
of τ᾽ εἶχον Φϑίην ἠδ᾽ Ἑλλάδα καλλιγύναικα,
Μυρμιδόνες δ᾽ ἐκαλεῦντο καὶ Ἕλληνες καὶ ᾿4χαιοὶ,
τῶν αὖ πεντήκοντα νεῶν ἦν ἀρχὸς ᾿Αχιλλεύς. B, 683--Ξ.
As regards the Odyssey, its beginning and its end may possibly embody histo-
rical facts — the state of anarchy in Odysseus’ palace, his return, and the mas-
sacre of the intriguing nobles, — whilst all the intermediate portion may be such
a train of romance and floating legend, as a great name in a dark age, once
become traditional, is found to draw to and weave about itself. We may com- '
pare the Iliad in some of the foregoing respects with the romance of Charle-
magne, and the Odyssey with that of Arthur, as suggested in the Essay on
Carlovingian Romance, Ozford Essays, vol. 2. p. 277. The early English me-
trical romances οὗ Richard Coeur de Lion and of Guy of Warwick, or Bevis
of Hamptoun, might offer other parallels. I think the Homeric poems may in
the same sense as these be viewed as Chansons de Geste, or the Iliad perhaps
as incorporating many such. To examine, however, the analogies offered by
these or by the Niebelungenlied would require a wide and careful survey of ground
lying entirely beyond my present compass, and might well be made the subject
of an independent work.
HOM. OD. I. G
XCviil
PREFACE.
LXXXVIII. Four of the above A. C. Ὁ. and E. are divided into
numerous articles, and for all the following table is subjoined:
Appendix A.
PAGE I. 1. ἔννεπε.
11. 2. Epic forms in -o@ -ao for -ao.
3. (1) ὀλοόφρων, ὀλόος, οὖλος (“Aens), fovAog, οὔλος, ὀλο-
gatos, ὀλοφυδνὸς, ὀλοφύρομαι, (2) οὔλη (λάχνη), οὐ-
Aad (ὀλαὶ), οὐλόχυται, ὄλυραι, οὐλαμὸς, οὐλοκάρηνος,
ἴουλος, (3) οὗλος (ὅλος), οὖλε, οὐλή (scar).
III. 4. βουλὴ, ἀγορή.
VII. 5. πεσσοί.
6. (1) ἀδήσειε, ἀδηκότες. (2) ἀδινὸς, ἄδην, ἀδὴν -ἕνος
(acorn), ἄδος, ὦτος. (3) ἁνδάνω, ἁδεῖν, ἥδομαι, ἡδὺς,
ἡδονή.
IX. 7. δουλὴ, ὁμῶς, δμωὴ, Egrdos, ϑὴς, οἰκεὺς, ταμίη, ἀμφέ-
πολος, ϑαλαμήπολος, δρηστὴρ, δρήστειρα.
ΧΙ. 8. xontyno, δέπας, κύπελλον, ἄλεισον, κισσύβιον, σκύφος.
xu. 9. On the use of moods by Homer.
XXIV. το. ὧδε.
τι. (τὴ ἢ ... ἤ. (2) ἠὲ ... ἥ. (3) ἢ ... ἠέ. (4) ἠὲ... ἡ. (5) ἡ
. ore... ἠέ. (6) εἴ τε... ἢ or ἠέ. (7) 4... εἴ τε. (8) εἴ τε
... εἴ τε. (9) εἰ... ἤ.
XXV. 12. Πύλον ἡμαϑόεντα.
14. ἀνόπαια.
ΧΧΥ͂Ι. 14. va, ξεδνα.
ΧΧΥ͂ΙΙ. 15. κληΐς.
16. ἀκὴν, ἀκέων.
XXVIII. 17. (1) δῆλος, δέελος. (2) ἔνδιος, δείλη. (3) εὐδείελος.
XXIX. 18. (1) ἢ καϑύπερϑε Χίοιο νεοίμεϑα παιπαλοέσσης
νήσου ἐπὶ Ψυρίης, αὐτὴν ἐπ᾽ ἀριστέρ᾽ ἔχοντες.
γ. 170—1.
(2) .... ἐπ’ ἀριστερὰ χειρὸς ἔχοντα. 8. 277.
XXX. 19. νάσσα (ναίω, νάξω).
ΧΧΧΙ. 20. γεινομένῳ.
21. οὐλαμὸς, νωλεμὲς, νωλεμέως.
XXXII. 22. λέγω, λέκτο.
Appendix B.
xxx. The Homeric use of ἁλς, ϑάλασσα, πέλαγος, πόντος.
Appendix C.
' xxxvi. τ. The legend of the oxen and sheep of the sun.
PART IV. THE PRESENT EDITION. XCix
PAGE XXXVI. 2. Hermes.
ΧΧΧΥΙΙ. 3. Atlas.
XXxIx. 4. Phorcys.
5. Τριτογένεια.
XL. 6. Al γὰρ Ζεῦ τε πάτερ, καὶ "Adnvatn, καὶ "Ἄπολλον.
XLU. 7. Proteus and Eidotheé.
xLiv. 8. Ind, Leucotheé, Cadmus.
Appendix D.
XLVI. 1. The Ethiopians.
XLVII. 2. Ogygié.
XLVI. 3. Sparta.
XLIX. 4. Pylus.
5. The Taphians.
L. 6. Temesé.
7. Dulichium.
LI. 8. Ephyré.
111. 9. Argos.
111. 10. Cyprus.
11. Pheenicé, Sidonié.
LIV. 12. The Erembi.
13. Libya.
14. The Styx.
LV. 15. Scherié.
Appendix E.
Lv. τ. Odysseus.
LXV. 2. Penelopé.
Lxx. 3. Telemachus.
Lxxu. 4. Pallas Athené.
LXXxIv. 5. Atgisthus.
LXxxv. 6. Antinoiis.
LXXXvul. 7. Eurymachus.
LXXXvill. 8. Menelaiis.
c. 9. Helen.
Appendix F. τ.
cv1. The Homeric Galley.
Appendix F. 2.
ΟΧΧΙ. The Homeric Palace.
σ | PREFACE.
LXXXIX. The following are the principal works referred to in
the preface, notes and Appendices.
GRAMMATICAL.
Donaldson, Greek Grammar. Cited as
.͵. sd New Cratylus.
Jelf, Greek Grammar.
Buttmann, Lexilogus (Fishlake’s translation).
Irregular Greek Verbs (do).
Spitzner, Versuch einer kurzen Anweisung
zur griechischen Prosodik.
De versu heroico.
Adverbiorum que in ϑὲν desinunt
usus Homericus.
Thiersch, B., Uebersicht der Homer. Formen.
Thiersch, F., Griechische Grammatik.
Ahrens, Griechische Formenlehre.
De hiatus legitimis quibusdam gene-
ribus.
La Roche, itiber den Hiatus und die Elision.
Crusius, Worterbuch ἄρον dic Gedichte des
Homeros ete.
Curtius, Grundziige der Gricch. Etymologie.
Liddell and Scott, Lexicon.
Doederlein, Homerisches Glossarium.
Apollonius, Homeric Lexicon.
Hesychius, do. do.
Etymologicon Magnum.
Volkmann, Commentationcs Epice.
Hermann, Opuscula.
de legibus quibusdam subtilioribus
sermonis Homcrici.
Werner, de conditionalium cnunciationum
apud Homerum formis.
Dindorf, Scholia Greeca in Homeri Odysseam.
Bekker, Scholia in Homeri Lliadem.
MYTHOLOGICAL.
von Nagelsbach, Homerische Theologie.
Donalds. Gr. Gr.
Donalds. New Crat.
Jelf Gr. Gr.
Buttm. Zezxil. or Lex.
Buttm. Gr. Verbs, or Gr.
V., or Irreg. Verbs.
Spitzner, Gr. Pros.
Spitzner de vers. her.
Spitzner adverb. in dev.
Thiersch Hom. Form.
Thiersch Gr. Gr.
Ahrens Gr. Form. or
Griech. Formenl.
Ahrens de hiatu.
La Roche de hiatu.
Crusius.
Curtius.
Liddell and S.
Doed. or Doederl.
Apollonius or Apol-
Hesychius. lon. Zex.
Etym. Mag.
Volkmann.
Hermann Opusc.
Hermann etc. verbatim.
Werner de condit.enun.
ap. Hom. formis.
Schol. on a@., B., ete.
Schol. on 4., B., etc.
Niagelsbach or
Nigelsb.
PART IV. THE PRESENT EDITION. ci
Welcker, Gricchische Gitterlehre. Cited as Welcker Gr. Gott.
Buttmann, Mythologus. Buttm. Myth.
GEOGRAPHICAL.
Volcker, Homerische Geographie. Volcker or
Volcker Hom. Geogr.
Schreiber, Ithaka. Schreiber.
Kruse, Hellas. Kruse Hellas.
Gell, Sir W., Itinerary of the Morea. Gell.
Dodwell, Classical and Topographical Tour Dodwell.
through Greece.
Leake, Topography of the Morea. Leake.
Spruner, Atlas. Spruner Aélas.
Rawlinson, Herodotus. Rawlinson Herod.
Wheeler, Geography of Herodotus. Wheeler Geogr. of He-
rod.
MISCELLANEOUS.
Nitzsch, Erklérende Anmerkungen zu Ho-
mer’s Odyssee. Ni.
Heyne, Excursus in Homerum. Heyne Exc. ad Il. A. ete.
Gladstone, Homeric Studies. (5) Gladst.
Bekker, Homerische Blitter. Bek. Homer. Blatt.
Wolf, Prolegomena in Homerum. Wolf Prolegg.
Payne Knight, Prolegomena in Homerum. Payne Knight Prolegg.
Villoison, Prolegomena in Iliadem. Villoison Prolegg.
Anccdota Greeca. Villoison Anecd. Gr.
Spohn, de extrema Odyssee parte. Spohn de extr. Odys.
par.
Schmitt, Jo.Car., de secundo tn Odyssef deo- Schmitt, Jo. Car. de
rum concilio. II” in Odys.Deor.Conc.
Lehrs, de studiis Aristarchi. Lehrs.
Buffon, Histoire Naturelle générale et parti- Buffon Transl. 1791.
culi¢re, Translation 1791.
5 I have been indebted to this work in some passages, chiefly in the ap-
pendices, where the references have not been made; such are Gladst. vol. II.
86; comp. App. E. 4. (14); p. 87, comp. ibid. p. LXXIII note **; p. 113 comp.
ibid. ν΄ LXXIII 1. 7 from bott.; pp. 331—7 and 341, comp. ibid, 1. 11—16 from
top; p. 426, comp. App. E. 1. (11); pp. 484—5, comp. App. E. 2, p. LXIX 1. 3—
4 from top, and App. E. 9, p. CI, 1. 16 from top; vol. IL, p. 25, comp. note on
B. 1. There may possibly be others which have escaped me, for which I hope
this gencral acknowledgement may suffice.
Cii PREFACE.
Mure, History of the literature of Ancient
Greece. Cited as
Grote, History of Greece.
Lewis, Sir G. C., Astronomy of the Ancients.
Millin, Minéralogie Homérique (German trans-
lation by Rink).
Voss, Anmerkungen und Randglossen zu Grie-
chen und Roemern.
Friedlander, die Homerische Kritik von Wolf
bis Grote.
Zwei Homerische
zeichnisse.
Seber, Index Homericus.
Kiesel, Ulixis ingenium quale et Homerus fin-
xerit et tragici Grecorum poete. (6)
Houben, Qualem Homerus in Odyssea finxe-
rit Ulixem. (6)
Grashof, Das Schiff bei Homer und Hesiod.
Rumpf, I. de sedibus Homericis.
IT. de eedibus Homericis altera pars.
III. de interioribus edium Homcrica-
rum partibus.
Eggers, de edium Homericarum partibus.
Miiller’s Dorians, translated by Lewis
and Tufnell.
Hymni Homerici ed. Baumeister.
Worterver-
Dictionary of Greck and Roman Biography
and Mythology, edited by Dr. W.
Smith.
Fabricius, Bibliotheca Greeca.
Gaisford, Poets: Greeci minores
Giles, Scriptores Greeci minores!
Mure.
Grote.
Lewis Anct. Astron.
Millin Hom. Mineral.
Voss Anmerk. Gr. und
Rom.
Friedlinder 1."
Friedlinder II.
Seber’s Index.
Grashof.
Rumpf I.
Rumpf IT.
Rumpf ITI.
Eggers.
Miiller’s Dorians.
Hy. Apoll. Del., Merc.
Cer. etc.
Smith’s Biogr. Dict.
Fabricius or Fabric.
not cited by name, but referred to
under the name of the poet. Gais-
ford’s ed. has been used ; but for poets not contained in it re-
course has been had to that of Giles.
6 These have not been cited, but I wish to acknowledge a general use
made of them with regard to references on the subjects of which they treat.
PART IV. THE; PRESENT EDITION. Ciii
ON VOL. I.
XC. The present volume contains the first six books of the Odys-
sey; and my intention is, if life and leisure are allowed me, to com-
plete the poem in two volumés more. I am aware that this division is
possibly open to objection; and if I had been able to devote myself
more entirely to the task, I should have preferred making the en-
tire work one of two volumes. With the reasons why this course was
not open to me, as they are purely personal, I need not trouble the
reader. A first volume must needs bear the weight of many questions
which relate to subjects spread over the whole poem, and which, when
settled once, are settled once for all. The necessity of thus consider-
ing them has thrown upon the first volume a quantity of general
discussion disproportionate to the nucleus of text which it contains.
This, however, if the work be usefully done, will hardly be an objec-
tion to it; and I have even some hope that students of the Iliad may
find in it a good deal of assistance. As regards minor imperfections
it may be some extenuation, that the publisher’s office is in London
and the printer’s at Leipzig, whilst I myself, except in vacations,
have been engaged at Cheltenham. To any who undertakes the cen-
sure of these or of graver faults I may say in the words of Porson,
‘“leniter an acerbe faciat, nihil prorsus mea refert, modo vere; ali-
quid forsan ipsius referat, si modo mavult ceteris lectoribus videri
hoc onus suscepisse studio literas juvandi potius quam emulum de-
primendi.”
Cheltenham, Nov". 22° 1865. H. H.
, ERRATA.
. 79, note on ¢. 24, for “app. G. 3” read “app. G. 5§ (5)’’.
. 86, note on ει. 104-5, 1. 3, for “farrows” read “ furrows’.
. xcix of preface, 1. 1, for “‘tragegians” read “ tragedians’’.
. Ixxvii of preface, 1. 11, for “ xuptBes’” read “ xbpBes’’.
Φ
ς
Β
Ὁ Ὁ Ὁ Ὁ
ADDENDA.
On p. xciv of preface, 1. 9 from bottom, insert foot-note at “" Minor’’,*
The @ppixios πόντος of Ψ. 230 is probably the Hellespont again ;
seo Mr. Paley, ad loc.
On p. c of preface, 1. 9 from bottom, insert foot-note at ‘‘ Achilles’’,*
‘The weapons of P. 194 are those of Peleus, and would doubtless
descend to Neoptolemus; cf. B. tor foll. .
HOM. OD, I. 1
SUMMARY OF BOOK I.
Tue invocation and statement of the general subject, commencing from the
moment when the hero is about to leave Calypso’s island (1—10).
In Poseidon’s absence, it is resolved in the council of Olympus, at the in-
stance of Pallas, that the home return of Odysseus be no longer delayed on
account of Poseidon's wrath by the wiles of Calypso (11—gs).
Pallas hastens to descend to Ithaca, in order to further this resolve. There
the suitors, a numerous body, are found besetting the palace, and wasting its
substance in daily revels (96—112).
Among them Telemachus sitting, as he broods over the thought of his father’s
return, is surprised by the arrival of a guest, professing to be Mentes, prince
of the neighbouring Taphians, but really Pallas under that disguise. He re-
ceives her in the spirit of heroic hospitality. She animates his hopes of his
father's return, and suggests projects for the overthrow of the suitors’ faction;
as a first step to which, he is to call a council of state (ἀγορὴ) and denounce
their outrages, and then to depart to visit Nestor and Menelaus with the view
of gaining news of his father (113—318).
The goddess departs, with a token of her true personality, and the scene of
revel is pursued, the minstrel] Phemius singing the hapless return of the Achwans
from Troy. Penelopé overhears the strain and descends, wounded in her feel-
ings, to bespeak a change of theme. Telemachus, emboldened by the goddess’
visit, reproves her interference, and rebukes the suitors, giving notice of the
ἀγορὴ for the morrow, with an intimation of his purpose in calling it (319—419)-
The first day closes with the break-up of the revel and the retirement of
Telemachus, attended by Euryclea, to rest (420—44).
~ 9 Cd
Θεῶν ayooe.
CAG
hy
"Adnvag παραίνεσις πρὸς Τηλέμαχον.
οἱ νεών φε οι τρια.
ἄνδρα μοι ἔννεπε," μοῦσα, πολύτροπον," ὃς μάλα πολλὰ [" Ἐ.161;, ef δ. 88]
πλάγχϑη, ἐπεὶ Τροίης ἱερὸν: πτολέεϑρον Exegoer,’
1. pro πολλὰ Harl. πάντων.
In this exordium the hero is singled
out characteristically; comp. that of the
liad, where Achilles, the hero of gloomy
wrath and fearful prowess, is in con-
trast with Odysseus, the hero of en-
durance and wide adventure. The latter
lost all his comrades (5 --- 9), and was still
roaming and pining when his brother
chiefs had ended their toils (11—12).
Hence he stands per se, cf. tovd οἷον, 13.
1--- 2. ἄνδρα and πλάγχϑη, each
leading a line, stamp the man and his
wanderings as the general subject. ἔν-
vere, see App. Α. 1. μοῦσα, the epic
bard conceived himself the recipient of
divine teaching, in an age when such
intercourse with men, once frequent,
had otherwise ceased. The muses (whose
number, nine, first appears Hes. Theog.
52—6o0) had knowledge of all themes of
eae as being divinely ever present, B.
6; of men the bard says, ἡμεῖς δὲ
meme οἷον ἀ ἀκούομεν, οὐδέ τι ἵδμεν, nor
could the bard know more, unless taught
by the muse. Hence Odys. thinks»,
muse or Apollo must have taught ( 30.
daée) Demodocus in 9. 488. Hence also
one explanation of καὶ ἡμῖν, v.10, inf. is,
“tell us, that we, foo, may know as you
do.’’ In H. the song is the specialty of the
muses, the lyre, that of Apollo, 4. 603—4.
The notion of their teaching sciences
came with those sciences — later. In
H. and Hesiod they teach only facts.
Φ
πολλῶν δ᾽ ἀνθρώπων ἴδεν ἄστεα" καὶ voor! ἔγνω,
δὰ 0. ς ε. 165.
i cf. 9. 494 — 520,
3. «ἰδὲ Faoren.
3. νόμον.
πολύτο. some take this as explain-
ed by ὃς μ. π. πλάγχϑη, jast as πα-
τροφονῇα in 299, by ὅς of πατέρα...
ἔκτα following. Nor is this un-Homeric,
οἵ, I. 124. Thus it would be = πολύ-
πλαγκτος, 0. 511. It would then be from
τρωπάω (τ. 521), 88 εὐρύχορος fr. χῶ-
ρος. But some epithet of distinct mean-
ing suits the exordium better: render
“versatile” ’ showing, as says a Schol.,
τὸ τοῦ ἤϑους εὐμετάβολον, in which
sense Hermes is πολύτρ. .., A. Mere. 439-
Eustathius takes it passively, ὁ διὰ xod-
Any ἐμπειρέαν πολύφρων, “well versed”
in men and things, but this hardly dif-
fers enough from πολλῶν δ᾽... ἔγνω
in 3. ἔπερσε, cf. the epithet πτολίπορ-
#og, given only to Achilles as in prow-
ess, and to Odys. as in counsel first;
on which Cicero erroneously (see O. 77.
®. 550 foll.) says, ‘“Homerus non Aiacem,
non Achillem, sed Ulixem appellavit πτο-
Atx.”’ Cic. ad Fam. X. 13. Horace ren-
ders 1—2 (de A. P. 141— 2) with no
equivalent for πολύτρ., his other render-
ing (Epist. I. ii. 19) gives, loosely, pro-
vidus for it.
3-4. νόον ἔγ., “learned all they
knew.” 6 γ᾽; by yé, an emphasis is
laid on the whole action, as related to
the further action of vy. 6. C. F. Na-
gelsbach in a monograph on the Home-
ric ye says, ‘‘ponitur in sententiis cau-
sam rei cujuspiam continentibus”’; here
1*
anntay
71: κω θω ΑΝ YF, 229.
AY
βούννν τ
4 ΟΔΥΣΣΕΙΑΣ A. 4—17.
aa. 444, v. 59, w.
769 ¥
345, W. .
b f. 23, a. $24, 379.
ς 4. 409; cf. x. 27,
497, y. 1
e mw. 261 foll.
f @. 480, μ. 133
et al.
g a. 168, 354; cf
Ζ. 455, Φ 8.8).
h α. 33, 47.
i εἴ. γ. 180--92, ὃ
§85—4.
κ ι. 286, μ. 287, 446
1 5. 507, 9. 47 e¢ al.
--80, y.334—5.
03, a. 155, 114,
ἑ.
a.
3
P w. 335.
q ¢. 32.
r 4.248, 4¥. 833,
B. 551, 6. ’
418.
s 42. 425, 2. 139,
δ. 208; cf. 9
197—8.
200, 354, I.
,ἀλλὴν οὐδ᾽ ὡς ἑτάρους ἐρρύσατο, ἱέμενός περ᾽
[Day 1.
’ ‘ ° + e ’
ἀρνύμενος ἣν τε ψυχὴν καὶ νόστον ἑταίρων.
αὐτοὶ γὰρ σφετέρῃσιν ἀτασϑαλίῃσιν ὕλοντο," .
νήπιοι," of κατὰ" βοῦς Ὑπερίονος ᾿Ηελίοιοϊ προ τυ
Rody: αὐτὰρ ὃ τοῖσιν ἀφείλετο νόστιμονς ἦμαρ.᾿
[τῶν ἁμόϑεν γε, ϑεὰ ϑύγατερ Διὸς, εἰπὲ καὶ" ἡμῖν. 10
$2. ἔνϑ᾽ ἄλλοι μὲν πάντες, ὅσοι φύγον" αἰπὺν ὄλεϑρον,
“οἴκοι ἔσαν, πόλεμόν τε πεφευγότες ἠδὲ ϑάλασσαν᾽
τὸν δ᾽ οἷον," νόστου κεχρημένον" ἠδὲ γυναικὸς,
νύμφη ' πότνι᾽ ἔρυκε, Καλυψὼ δῖα ϑεάων, An
ἐν σπέσσιν ylagpveoies, λιλαιομένης πόσιν εἶναι.
ἀλλ᾽ ὅτε δὴ ἔτος ἦλθε περιπλομένων: ἐνιαυτῶν, --
᾿Ιτῷ οἵ ἐπεκλώσαντο" ϑεοὶ οἱκόνδε' νέεσϑαι
a ΓῸΟ 6 .ὁ“΄“΄ὦἝἝ.-- --΄΄Π[Π ὀ .΄΄΄΄΄΄-ἰ΄΄-ὖὃὅΘπςττὖτἱοοἋῷΓςοως ὈὈ-ἰἰ -ρ-υπππ1Γ-ἰἰἰἰῸἰ-ς-ςςς-.-....----΄-..---..
τ
Ω.
=
4. 6. βιέμενος.
12. «[οέκοι. 16. βέτος. 17. foe
Fouxovds.
7. αὐτῶν Schol. K. 204.
the action of ye should have been a
cause, but failed of its effect — ‘‘much
"ds true, he suffered, etc., but not even
so did he rescue his comrades’. πόντῳ,
the great expanse of sea, see App. B.
—6. ἀρνυμι., the notion is avtixa-
ταλλάσσων, Schol., ‘staking his suffer-
ings to win the safety of self and com-
rades”’; ἄρνυμαι, αἴνυμαι, αἴρομαι,
are akin, this verb denotes, however,
rather effort than result. weg and xal
with participles mark the concessive
notion with a certain emphasis; see
Donalds. Gr. Gr. 548 (32); Jelf, § 697.d.;
so with nouns, as ϑεοί weg ‘‘the very
gods”.
η---8. atacd&., in H. always plur., is
ascribed especially to A gisthus, to the
suitors, and, as here, to the comrades
(mar.). Bows, for the legend in ques-
tion see App. C. 1. Some take Ὕπε-
ρέων as contracted from Ὑπερειονέων,
and so patronymic; so in pw. 176 Tze-
esovédao is found, but the line is sus-
pected; others better as a patronym-
ically formed adj., as Τερπιάδης, Texto-
νίδης, Ἠπυτίδης, fr. τέρπω, τέκτων,
ἠπύτα (Ni). As in Ἠέλιος Φαέϑων,
the epith. had become a cognomen.
— ——— —
10. This line is probably spurious:
ἁμόϑεν is unknown to epic usage, and
εἰπὲ should have the Jf (see, however,
δ. 28; A. 106), which violates the quan-
tity of Διός: besides, the invocation of
line 1 is feebly repeated; and the καὲ
is weak, in spite of the explanation
given above on μοῦσα. Perhaps, as
Ni. suggests, the line was due to some
rhapsodist, who, by καὶ ἡμῖν meant
himself in contra-distinction with the
poet. τῶν depends on ἀμόϑεν. ἀμριό-
Sev, or ἀμόϑεν, has the same root as
οὐδ-αμῶς, μηδ-αμῶς.
11 -3. ὅσοι φύγον. See mar. for
who these were, 88 mentioned in the
poem. αἐπὺν, the notion of high,
deep, steep, precipitous, sudden (i. e.
of a fall), overwhelming, are transi-
tionally connected; thus alpa, ‘‘sud-
denly’’; cf. Θ. 369, αἰπὰ δέεϑρα. πε-
φεξευγ. sec on 18, πεφυγμένοι. κε-
rene. ‘‘yearning for’’. » α
16, δὴ combined with ἀλλ᾽ ὅτε, ‘as,
with αὐτὰρ ἐπὴν 293, marks that a
narrative has reached a critical point,
when some thing of special interest
occurs. ἔτος (to which ἐπιπλόμενον is
epith. ἢ. 261. & 287) seems specially
ty
πολλὰ δ᾽ ὅ γ᾽ ἐν πόντῳ πάϑεν ἄλγεα ὃν" κατὰ ϑυμὸν,
5
᾿ ἊΝ
A Fe lane ὁ ava Ow". . ὌΝ
20
\
.
ue a)
4
DAY 1.}
OATZZEIAZ A. 18—29.
1 /,. 2
Cas ὁ. " ΤΟΝ
gee τι 5
ee EA tO
εἰς Ἰθάκην, (οὐδ᾽ ἔνϑα πεφυγμένος" yev ἀέϑλων"
- καὶ μετὰ οἷσι φίλοισι.) ϑεοὶ δ᾽ ἐλέαιρον: ἅπαντες 1“...
νόσφιλ Ποσειδάωνος, ὃ δ᾽ ἀσπερχὲς" μενέαινεν -
ἀντιϑέῳ' Ὀδυσῆι πάρος ἣν γαῖανε ἱκέσϑαι. ~
ἀλλ᾽ ὃ μὲν Αἰϑίοπας μετεκίαϑε τηλόϑ᾽ ἐόντας,
Αὐϑίοπας" τοὶ διχϑὰ δεδαίαται, ἔσχατοι ἀνδρῶν, ξξεν..14.
of μὲν δυσομένου' Ὑπερίονος, of δ᾽ ἀνιόντος."
ἀντιόων ταύρων τε καὶ ἀρνειῶν ἑκατόμβης. .
ἔνϑ᾽ ὅ γε τέρπετο δαιτὶ παρήμενος" οἵ δὲ δὴ ἄλλοι |!
Ζηνὸς" ἐνὶ μεγάροισιν Ὀλυμπίου ἀϑρόοι ἦσαν.
τοῖσι" δὲ μύϑων ἦρχε πατὴρ ἀνδρῶν τε ϑεῶν τε
) μνήσατος γὰρ κατὰ ϑυμὸν ἀμύμονος» “4ἰγίσϑοιο,
ΝΞ
19. «ζοἴσι.
22. μετεκείαϑε nonnulli metri gratia, Schol.
used in H. of a year at the end ofa
serics, and hence in sing. only. regia.
render, ‘“‘completing their course’’.
17 —8. ἐπεχλ. the action of spinn-
ing, expressed by this and by ἐπινέω,
is often applied to Zeus or Deity,
(1) as breaking off, or continuing at
will the ‘‘thread of life’’; (2) of bring-
ing to pass, as here, particular events
in it. wepuyy. only here occurs with
gen., elsewhere an acc. follows it (mar.),
as πεφευγότες in 12, which means ac-
tively ‘“‘having escaped’’; this rather,
passively, “rid or quit of’’, passing into
a merely adjectival sense. Such Do-
nalds. Gr. Gr. 425 (cc), calls a perf. of
immediate consequence. The ἄεϑλα
are his contests with the suitors and
rebellious Ithacans in books yx and a.
19. οὐδ᾽ ἔνϑα... φέλοισι, a brief
parenthesis relating to events after his
return. The apodosis of ἀλλ᾽ ὅτε δὴ in
16 is shown by δ᾽ in ὃ δ᾽ ἀσπερχὲς, 20;
“when the year came..., and all the
gods were feeling for him save Posei-
don, the latter (6 δ᾽) cherished wrath,
etc.” xeat is = “although”’.
21—4. ἄντιϑ'., an epithet applied to
heroes and their comrades, to the kind-
red of the Gods, Otus, the Cyclops and
the suitors (mar.), comp. ἀντεάνειραι
applied to the Amazons. πάρος, an
epic equivalent for πρὶν, but always
followed by the infin, Jelf. Gr. Gr. § 848
obs. 7. In sense of priusquam both πρὶν
... πρὶν and πάρος ... πρὲν are found.
X. 219.
b cf. 2. 115 foll.
c x. $99.
’ @.
Ne
193
45 mar
h cf. a. 50-1,
671 — 3, 871 —2
Z.396—7, Υ 51]
—2, X. 17—
i ef. y 251, &. 97,
21. Fny.
23. Αἰθίοπες, Schol. Z. 154.
AiSiox., the epanalepsis keeps the
word before the mind, while adding
to it impressiveness, see mar. For
the Ethiopians see App. D.1. mete-
χέαϑε some read -κεέαθε metri causa,
but the zis by arsis. τηλόϑ'᾽ ἐόντας
i. e. the distance was great even for
a god. Homeric deities are for the most
part under human limitations of time
and space, only with a wider range,
cf. E. 770o—2, and ‘‘their faculties are
no more than an improvement and ex-
tension of the human’’. Gladst. II, v.
349. Poseidon is got out of the way
that the hero may have a fair start in
book ¢. on his raft. He knows nothing
of what goes on, even on the sea, in
his absence. ὄυσομι. Vreg., gen. of
place (mar.); see on8. The participle
belongs to a mixed form of aor., dv-
ceto, B. 388.
25—6. ἀντιόων, a real future, 6
being dropped Donalds. Gr. Gr. 331 (4).
Like fyoua: and the like, this verb
takes gen. of contact, but also accus.,
as including motion, in sense of going
to meet. a@yvraw, the prose form, has
sometimes dat. δὴ continues empha-
tically the clause introduced by of δὲ,
as in 49 that by ὅς.
29. The story of the return of Agam.
is given y. 255-751; and allusions to it
recur so often that it forms as it were
a tragic back-ground to the action of
the Ody., perhaps implying a warning
to the ἀτασϑάλιαε of the suitors. apeuv-
at. 455, Z. 488,
Pad
Homa t.d ©
uns? xSte
bon (ord
- rocks wiv
~
6 OATZZEIAL A. 30—46.
a ΝΟ. 633, 4. 183,
E 601, §2. 376.
b a. 7 mar.
ς 4. 436 mar.
d Z. 246, I. 399.
ed. 534.
f α. 11 mar.
g see App. C. 2.
mar.
[DAY 1.
tov ῥ᾽ "Ayausuvovidns τηλεκλυτὸς Extav’ Ὀρέστης. ΄
τοῦ ὅ γ᾽ ἐπιμνησϑεὶς Exe’ ἀϑανάτοισι μετηύδα.
“oS πόποι, οἷον δή νυ ϑεοὺς" βροτοὶ αἰτιόωνται "
ἐξ ἡμέων γάρ φασι κάκ᾽ ἔμμεναι, of δὲ καὶ αὐτοὶ
σφῇσινυ" ἀτασϑαλίῃσιν ὑπὲρ μόρον“: ἄλγε᾽ ἔχουσιν,
ὡς καὶ νῦν Αἴγισϑος ὑπὲρ μόρον ᾿“τρείδαο
γῆμ᾽ ἄλοχον" μνηστὴν, τὸν δ᾽ ἔκτανε νοστήσαντα,
τ ἐριιδε
h ef. ε. 35. εἰδὼς" αἰπὺν! ὕλεϑρον, ἐπεὶ πρό of εἴπομεν ἡμεῖς,
1 Z. 162. Ἑρμείανε πέμψαντες évoxonoy ’Agyerpovtny, —
k X. 271. i”? ap /, 4 , ra .
UT αὐτὸν κτείνειν UNTE μναασϑαι ἄκοιτιν .
Ι Ν 50. 4 ὕ ᾽ foal . atthe
β Ν ots ἐκ γὰρ Ὀρέσταο τίσις ἔσσεται ᾿“τρεέδαο, .: ' 51" ᾿ οΟ
; mci. y. ). e 9 n e - t ’ y l sy he 8...
na. 81, ὦ. «Ὁ, ὑππότ᾽ ἂν ἡβήσῃ τε καὶ ἧς ἱμείρεται αἴης." ."
Θ. 31, cf Εἰς Epad’ Ἑρμείας, ἀλλ΄ οὐ φρένας Alyie oto
756. reid’ ἀγαϑὰ φρονέων" νῦν δ᾽ ἀϑρόαν πάντ᾽! ἀπέτισεν.""»"»
ο γ. 203, ¢. 477,
A 151, ν. 393.
Ρ εἴ. δ. 371, νι!
31. «έπε᾽.
41. omisso τ,
τὸν δ᾽ ἠμείβετ᾽ ἔπειτα Dea γλαυκῶπις ᾿4ϑήνη"
a" πάτερ ἡμέτερε Κρονίδη, ὕπατε κρειόντων,
421. | xeclo λίηνν κεῖνός ye ἐοικότι κεῖται ὀλέϑρῳ,
37. ειδὼς, For; προει είπομεν omisso of, quod tollit Hoffmannus.
«Εῆς.
46. Fefouxore.
31. ἔπεα πτερόεντα προσηύδα Harl., recept&i tamen in marginem nostr4 lect.
35. ὑπέρμορον Arist.
---... ---- τ΄.
faoow was at first an epithet of distinc-
tive excellence (mar.), but had become
a purely conventional style as applicd
to a class, like our “‘honourable and
gallant’’, or “learned, gentleman’’.
32. Οἷον δὴ νυ, ‘only see how!”
οἷος δὴ is used scornfully, as here,
indignantly, and admiringly (mar.). νυ
marks urgency, inf. 59---62.
34—5- The double sense in the words
a ’
ὑπὲρ μόρον shows that a moral ele-
ment was involved in Homer’s view of
the ‘‘lot” οὗ man. Men incur woes
gratuitously (ὑπὲρ w.) e. g. gisthus
did so by acting unwarrantably (υπὲρ
μ.); Bee on & 436.
36—7. yj’. We should of course
say, he did not murry her, for she was
the wife of another man. As in Paris’
case, 80 in Agisthus’, the wrong lay,
in Homer’s view, in the primary ab-
duction (ἁρπαγὴ) of Helen, or of Cly-
temn., also of course in the murder
of Agam., which the guilty pair shar-
ed. Sec further App. E. 9, (3). Pa-
ris is called the husband (zo01g) of
38. πέμψαντε Aristoph. et Zen.: ἡ Μοασσιλιωτικὴ, “πεμ-
ψαντες Μαίας ἐρικυδέος ἀγλαὸν viov’’. Schol.
πιβήσεται.
41. ἡβήσειε Vind., ἡβήσηῃ τε lib. ;
-——— -- -.-- -.͵,:-..........
Helen, I. 427; so Hor. Carm. I. xv. 7
‘“‘tuas rumpere nuptias’, εἰδὼς ul.
G4. εἰδὼς with neut, pl. adj. following
is said of one whose mind and thoughts
are bent in one direction; 50 ἤπια, ὁλο-
φώια, αἴσιμα &c., εἰδὼς, κέδν᾽ εἰδυῖα,
α. 428; here it means ‘‘having a sight
or clear knowledge of awfal ruin”; —
whose? The ἐπεὲ x. τ. 4. following
points to his own: he was forewarned,
but reckless; ἐπεὶ might, but harshly, be
thrown back to 34 for its connexion.
It shows why the case of Agisthus, 35,
illustrates the maxim about ‘‘men’s own
presumption” in 34. So, δ. 534, οὐκ
εἰδότ᾽ ὄλεθρον (of Agam. slain), ‘‘ with
no knowledge of his doom”’.
39. “vaaoar, sce App. A. 2.
40—1. ἔσσεται, the reason is here
added in the oratio recta, the previous
statement might be viewed as in the
same by taking the infin. κτείνειν,
μνάασϑαι. as put forimper. Areeld.
depends as object on τίσις. For Hermes
and his epithets see App. C. 2. édusige-
ται for -ηται subjunct. shortened epice.
T “pe uel
τς . Ν ‘ 7 _ J se! So + fF fader .
ΝᾺ | . Ju ck’ | hema tcAocte !Ἑ ‘ 1}
, mers f , i "
ι τὰ ἮΝ
pay 1.] εν | OATEEETAE A. 47—57.- 7
ὡς ἀπόλοιτο καὶ ἄλλος. ὅτις τοιαῦτά γε ῥέξοι." δα Sor ἐπὶ
“Δ ο. 356 - 482, .
ἀλλά μοι ἀμφ᾽ Ὀδυσῆι δαΐφρονι" δαίεται ἦτορ,
-- δυσμόρῳ, ὃς δὴ δηϑὰ φίλων ἄπος πήματα πάσχει >t
"Cam: bh yt.
50 νήσῳ" ἐν ἀμφιρύτῃ, ὅϑι τ᾽ ὄμφαλός' ἐστι θαλάσσης,
νῆσος δενδρήεσσα," ϑεὰ δ᾽ ἐν" δώματα ναίει. .“
άτλαντος ϑυγάτηρ ὀλοόφρονος," ὃς τε ϑαλάσσης
πάσης βένϑεα οἷδεν, ἔχει δέ' τε κίονας αὐτὸς
μακρᾶς, at γαῖάν. τες καὶ οὐρανὸν ἀμφὶς" ἔχουσιν.
55 τοῦ ϑυγάτηρ δύστηνον ὀδυρόμενον κατερύκει,
αἰεὶ δὲ “μαλακοῖσι καὶ αἱμυλίοισι" λόγοισιν.
1 ϑέλγει, ὅπως" ᾿Ιθάκης ἐπιλήσεται Ἢ αὐτὰρ Ὀδυσσεὺς, |
ty πστ΄ - τ “-Π-- “- --’ 7 tre :
ἐλ 83+ Foider. . ἊΝ
ad " wt
,
49. τῆλ᾽ ἀλάληται Schol. ε. 8.
6. χαὶ Ale, this phrase, only found
in conversation, conveys a tinge of in-
dignation or even irony, comp. the Engl.
‘Sand serves him quite right”. λέην,
though here long in thes., is said to
occur ro times with 7 in H., 40 times
with 7.
48. Buttm. Lex. 37, says datgg. is
used of a woman, o. 356; better refer it
there to Laertes. He contrasts datgg.
ἱπποδάμοιο of Il. with δαΐφρ. ποικιλο-
μήτην of Ody.; but the last occurs of
Odys. in both (mar.). In Hes. Scut.
119 it may as well mean ‘‘skilful’’ as
any more properly warlike quality, as
it refers to managing a horse, This
is probably its primary meaning, and
its application to martial persons, as
skilled in their special province, merely
secondary; comp. ‘‘notable’’, as ap-
lied to a woman whom H. would call
Soy’ εἰδυῖα.
49. δυσμι., observe what emphasis
an adj. gains when standing first of a
verse, next before a pause, its subst.
having preceded; so often νήπιος,
σχέτλιος, ἄς. ἄπο, ‘far from”,
in 75.
so—4. ὅϑι τ᾽, the te gives a relative
word a special and emphatic value, thus
Og te is ‘‘the particular person who”
(Donalds. Gr. Gr. 245 b). This is fur-
50. ὠγυγίῃ ‘Strabo ex . 8.
Schol. ex conjecturf.
e a. 198, μ. 283, ὃ. -
6δ6---8.
f 4. 25, A. H,
$2. 27
Ε δ, Κ. ἘΝ
340, 2.
. 811, 517, ἊΝ 80,
. 18.
k “ace App. A. 3.
co lan 1B. ἼΘΙ, $ 108,
"4, @. 210, 295
v. δ s. 324;
P of a. 85.
ban ὰ "
i
52. ὀλούφρων
ther illustrated by the Attic use of wote,
οἷός τε; the latter = ‘‘just such a per-'
gon as to” νῆσος, epanalepsis, see
on 23, with ‘case varied by attraction of
ὄμφαλος preceding. “AtAay. κι τ.1λ. see
App. C. 3. Hesiod. Theog. 359 makes her
the daughter of Oceanus and Tethys.
βένθεα is akin to βάθος as πένϑος to
πᾶϑοξ-. GE and τε conjoihéd make a
clause appear at once contrasted and
coordinated with another, here with ὅς
te... οἶδεν previous. (mar.). ὦ dc,
this prep. signifies (1) ‘on either side”’
(2) ‘‘asunder, or away from’’, (3) “be.
tween’’; (3) is the converse of Ἂν), being
the relation of a mean to extremes, (1)
that of extremes to a mean; see mar.
57: ϑέλγει, cf. (Ζεὺς) ᾿ἡχαιῶν Be.
νόον, Μ. 254—5 ‘‘was sapping their cou-
rage”’. For a specimen of the αἰμύλιοι
λόγοι. see Calypso’s words &. 2ο6--το,
where the tone is that of wheedling a
strong mind to weak compliance. éxed.
Ni. says, not subjunct. shortened epicé
— a doubtful statement, as that mood
with ὅπως, to express an effect, is more
frequent than the fut, Yet a clear exam-
ple of fut. is A. 136 ἄρσαντες κατὰ ϑυ-
μὸν ὅπως ἀντάξιον ἔσται, see also Jelf
Gr. Gr. § 812, 1. 2, and jHeyne Excur.
III. ad Il, A. 251,677. For’ Ἰθάκης, gen.
with ἐπιλήσεται, see on λαϑοίμην, 65.
Careline, ὧι
rast sca
ot cfr °
ceues
Ace. ἐν ah
ν
“w
»
°
gu,
oc
OATEXEIAE A. s8—76.
[Day 1.
x
23°
1933 Ss
de
se
Rn? 2.04 Oe
Se NOP Soy
aso
rT Φ
e Sak
μ'
wee
ῳ,
mee
ae
= 8
Se
Nh
5958."
93.
. 279, ὅδ. 190,
. 388, τ. 326.
δ 8 116, 9. 41,
10 Ὁ
Se
- ὦ»
-
233
a3
©
εἷς
ace
Lame
T. 68.
IT. 546,
_ 516,
. ὃ.
9. 64.
11, Τ᾽. 128
<<
lo
Pac
a
Ow
ae Rane
0. 227.
ξ.
con
oe.
δ
a
"9
γ. 38), 415. |
58. ξιέμενος. 59. Fijs.
60. οὔνεκ᾽ (pro ob vv τ᾽): τ᾽ esse toe monebat Herm.
δοντι Aristoph.
58. χαπνὸν ἀποϑ'. von. Liwe com-
pares Oy. E ponto 1. iii, 33 optat Fu-
mum de patriis posse videre focis, doubt-
less an imitation of this.
59- πδρ implies that, ‘although an-
other's heart would relent at such woe,
thine does not’’; so δ. 729, where see
note.
60—s. Hermann considers τ΄ in ov
νύ τ᾽ as τοι. ὠδύσ. playing on the
name Ὀδύσσ. in 57 and 60 (mar.). &@Q%.
ὀδόντ. The imago is that of the pali-
sades (σταυροὶ, § 11), by driving in
which a fence (ἕρκος) was made, and
to which the teeth are likened. Others,
not so well, think the lips, as an outer
fence round the teeth (ὀδόντ. gen. ob-
jective), intended by ἕρκος. λαϑοέμι.
This verb, when mid, takes gen., cf. ἐπι-
30. δ a 9 ᾽ b ~ ᾿
.]έμενος καὶ καπνον" ἀποϑρωσκοντα᾽ vonsat
τὴν δ᾽ ἀπαμειβόμενος προςέφη νεφεληγερέτα Ζεὺς"
“céxvov ἐμὸν, ποῖόν" σε ἔπος φύγεν Egxos' ὀδόντων; - 5 --
πῶς" ἂν ἔπειτ᾽ Ὀδυσῆος ἐγὼ ϑείοιο λαϑοίμην."
@ ~ 4 ἐ-
Κύκλωπος κεχόλωται," ὃν ὀφθαλμοῦ" ἀλάωσεν, ~. :*
ΝΣ ιν fee “1:
-ες we
CG
‘Ing γαίης, ϑανέειν ἱμείρεται. οὐδέ vv' σοί περ :
| ἐντρέπεται φίλον ἥτορ, Ὀλύμπιε. οὔ νύ τ᾽ Ὀδυσσεὺς
᾿Δργείων' παρὰ νηυσὶ χαρίξετο ἱερὰ δέξων"
Τροίῃ ἐν εὐρείῃ; τί νύ" of τόσον ὠδύσαο,' Ζεῦ,"
΄
!
ὃς περὶ" μὲν νόον ἐστὶ βροτῶν, περὶ! δ᾽ ἱρὰ ϑεοῖσιν
ἀϑανάτοισινὶ ἔδωκε, τοὶ οὐρανὸν εὐρὺν ἔχουσιν ;"
ἀλλὰ Ποσειδάων" γαιήοχος ἀσκελὲς' αἰεὶ
ἀντέϑεον Πολύφημον," δου" κράτος ἐστὶ μέγιστον"
πᾶσιν" Κυκλώπεσσι᾽ Θόωσα δέ" μιν τέκε Νύμφη,
Φόρκυνος ϑυγάτηρ ἁλὸς ἀτρυγέτοιο μέδοντος,
ἐν σπέσσι"" γλαφυροῖσι Ποσειδάωνι μιγεῖσα. wiv. ὦ
ἐκ τοῦ δὴ Ὀδυσῆα Ποσειδάων" ἐνοσίχϑων ἕἯ-".. -
‘lov τι κατακτείνει., πλάξει δ᾽ ἀπὸ πατρίδος αἴης.
ἀλλ᾽ ἄγεϑ᾽ ἃ, ἡμεῖς οἵδε περιφραξώμεϑα πάντες
ee ----ἕ-- ὠ -ὕ.ὄ-ἥ.ἜὌ...--. me --.
62. ἔοι. 64. Féxog.
n 70. ἔσκε Schol. 72. μέ-
76. wade.
λήσεται 57, when act., accus. (mar.);
80 μνώομαι, epic for μνάομαι, δ. 106,
in sense its opposite, takes gen., rarely
accus., as ξ. 168—g.
69—77. Kvxd., gen. of source whence
wrath proceeds, Donalds. Gr. Gr. 447.
Πολύῳφ. is by inverse attraction drawn
to the rel. clause, Jelf Gr. Gr. 824. ii. 4;
see mar. πᾶσιν, “amongst all’. dé
μεν κι τ... this clause apparently in-
volves a πρωθύστερον, but dé is em-
phatic and nearly = yag; it was not
so much his prowess as his being the
god’s own son, which infuriated the
latter, as shown by ἐκ τοῦ following,
‘‘in consequence of this’’. A var. lect.
μέδοντι refers this word, not so well, to
Ποσειδάωνι in 73. πλάξει δ᾽ ἀπὸ in
tmesis (mar.). ξ΄ϑησι, the old form
in pt, -wpt, -ησϑα, -ησι(ν), is prevalent
“
Ἢ πέμψω" ὃ
DAY 1.}
: νόστον," ὕπως ἔλθῃσι. Ποσειδάων δὲ μεϑήσει" 1 Ede:
ov χόλον᾽ οὐ μὲν γάρ τι δυνήσεται ἀντία' πάντων.
ἀϑανάτων ἀέκητι ϑεῶν ἐριδαινέμεν οἷος. .
80 τὸν δ᾽ ἠμείβετ᾽ ἔπειτα ϑεὰ γλαυκῶπις ϑήνη"
“oe πάτερ ἡμέτερε Κρονίδη, ὕπατε κρειόντων,
εἶ μὲν δὴ νῦν τοῦτο φίλον μακάρεσσι ϑεοῖσιν,
νοστῆσαι Ὀδυσῆα δαΐφροναξ Gvde δόμονδε, -... ..νὸ
Ἑρμείαν! μὲν ἔπειτα διάκτορον ᾿Αργειφόντηνλ y utc Αι.
85 νῆσον ἐς Ὠγυγίηνκ ὀτρύνομεν, ὄφρα τάχιστα
vuugy! ἐὐπλοκάμῳ εἴπῃ νημερτέα βουλὴν,
νόστον Ὀδυσσῆος ταλασίφρονος", ὥς κε νέηται.
αὐτὰρ" ἐγὼν Ἰϑάκην ἐσελεύσομαι, ὄφρα of υἱὸν
μᾶλλον ἐποτρύνω. καί οἱ μένος ἐν φρεσὶ ϑείω."
90 εἰς ἀγορὴν» καλέσαντα κάρη κομόωντας ᾿αἰχαιυὺς
ῳᾳ πᾶσι μνηστήρεσσιν ἀπειπέμεν," οἵ τε οἵ αἰεὶ
,. BAN ἀδινὰν σφάξουσι καὶ εἰλίποδας ἕλικας βοῦς."
δ᾽ ἐς Σπάρτην τὲ καὶ ἐς Πύλον" ἡμαϑύόεντα,
νόστον πευσόμενον" πατρὸς φίλου, ἤν που ἀκούσῃ,
95 ἠδ᾽ ἵνα μιν κλέος" ἐσθλὸν ἐν ἀνθρώποισιν Exnorv.”
ΟΔΥΣΣΕΙΊΑΣ A. η7--ο. ς΄ 9
ee nn ῦϑ ΚὉῸῈὉᾧῸὺὺὕ .......-..--ς..-.
a a. 87, ὅ. 110.
b ef. φ. 377, 126
ς A. 230, ο. 377.
e a. 45 mar.
fd. 831.
g a. 48 mar.
h ZT, 445.
isee App. C. 2. mar.
k see App. D.2.mar.
L a. 29—30.
m 7 84, 4. 466;
ef. N. 300.
n g. 52.
o Φ. 145. e
υσενείνς q A. 515, I. 309,
431, 2. 340.
r δ. $20, 721, 7.
218, 7. 516, wr. "326.
B. 67,469, 17.481
5. ει. 46, I. 462, Ψ΄..
oie 166.
tf. 214-5, α. 264
carafe
u 4. 251, B. 77, β.
308, 4. 252.
v β. 264, a. 281.
w 1. 415.
x a. Ai-6, $2. 340
as* εἰποῦσ᾽ ὑπὸ ποσσὶν ἐδήσατο καλὰ πέδιλα, -2.
78. ἐόν. 79. ἀξέκητι.
μνηστήρεσσ᾽ ἀποξειπέμεν
8ο. τὸν δ᾽ αὖτε προσέειπε.
Schol. 87. κεν ἵκηται.
89. ϑήσω.
δὲ Κρήτηνδε παρ᾽ ᾿Ιδομενῆα ἄνακτα.
in the subj. mood sing., Donalds. Gr.
Gr. 331. 3. f. Ahrens Griech. Formenl.
§ 49. 1). Anm. 2.
78—80. One thought is here en-
grafted on another; ‘‘he will not be
able (1) to strive alone against all”
and (2) ‘‘to strive invitis dis’ πᾶν»
των, like ἄλλων 132, is inclusive, where
the thought i is really exclusive, = ‘‘all
the other”’ 2 860 also ρ. 401—2.
82—7. νὺν emphatic, as showing that
what before was doubtful now was fix-
ed: to this ἔπειτα, cf. 84, is retro-
spective, ‘‘that being settled”. Ἕσρμει.
see App. Ο. 2. διάκτε., Buttm. Lex.
40, regards ‘‘runner’’ as the original
sense, tracing it fr. δέω, διώκω (i. φ.
διάκω, διή ἕω with analogy οὗ ϑῶκος,
Banos, ἔ όωγα ῥήγνυμι, &c.) and re-
εἰ κυ
VViww
iv
83. Fords.
92. «έλικας.
85. ἐν τῇ κατ᾽ ᾿Αντίμαχον
88. ᾿Ιϑάκηνδ᾽. ἐπελεύσομαι οἱ διελεύσομαι.
93. ἡμαϑόεσσαν: post v. 93 codd. Ambros. Harlej. Vind. κεῖϑεν
86. Fedxn. 88. 89. 91. For.
96. Feexovo’.
66
woyviiny” you Mera,
95. pro ἔλῃσιν Rhian. λάβῃσιν.
jecting διάγω. The later view of Her-
mes as ψυχόπομπος suggested the ety-
mol. from δεάγω meaning transveho.
‘Ryvy., see App. Ὁ. 2. ὀτρύνο., epic
for -wpev, 88 41, g. υ. νόστος and
véowar are specially used of returning
home (mar.). tadacég., another form
is ταλάφρων (mar.).
88—98. of Odys., 88, and of Telem.,
89, are both datives of special re-
ference; so is of in 91. Refer, xadé-
davta in go to υἱὸν in 88. ἄπειπ.,
‘warn off’, from acting as in 92; else-
where (mar. }= “refuse, renounce’; also
“report (a message) in answer’’ . ἀδινὰ,
sec App. A. 6, (2). Σπαάο. κ. τ. λ., see
App. D. 3. quad, see App. A. 12.
φέρον, imperf., of her habitual move-
ment; her actual flight begins in 102.
M. 8, Ο. 720.
274, x. 413, 2.6
gel oe a
coms
p A. 54, T. 84. tlw. φ'
‘Laenhio y
A OC ee -ὦ
“4
3 Ψ
1
7, 4.
x
o A. 821, 334. |
p δ. 38, 23; ef. 2.
101. ouBoruoraten Bek.
eee ae
ὑγρὴν, J‘watery”’, i. δ. surface; so
χέρσος, ἡπειρος, really adj. but taken
as nouns; 80 Cowper, Time piece, 55—6,
“When did the waves so haughtily
o’erleap Their ancicnt barriers, delug-
ing the dry?”? Gmc, simul, i. 6. “as
swiftly 48.
97—101, These verses are wrongly
inserted here by some copyist from the
H. (mar.). There they suit the sequel,
which relates Pallas’ taking the tield
in propria persond; not so here. Fur-
ther, the ἔγχος recurs in 104, a8 part
of the disguise suited to the εἴδωλον
adopted by Pallas.
1o1i—s. ὀβριμίοπ. On this epithet
see App. E. 4, (14). Boe-, of arbitrary
length, is probably the root of ὄβριμος ;
80 in βρίϑω, βρίάρην, Βρίάρεων, who is
called Ὀβριαρεὺς in Hes. Theog. 734.
δήμῳ means (mar.) (1) region, as here,
(2) soil, (3) people. For προϑύροις
and οὐδοῦ αὐλείου, sce App. Ε΄. 2.
(5. Ταφέων, see App. D. ς.
106. In ἔπειτα a transition takes
place from the progress of Pallas,
to the course of events in the pa-
lace.
107. %&60., a game resembling our
draughts or chess; see App. A. 5.
109. κήρυκες in τ. 135 are reckoned
δημιόεργοι, t. 6. persons who had func-
tions to discharge in which the people
were interested, a class which also
includes in 9. 383—s the seer, the sur-
ΟΔΥΣΣΕΙΑΣ A. 97—109.
τ - ee
109. av τοῖσι Nicias.
[Day 1.
[ἀμβούσια χρύσεια, τά μιν φέρον ἠμὲν ἐφ’ ὑγρὴν"
ἠδ᾽ ἐπ’ ἀπείρονα" γαῖαν ἅμα πνοιῇς" ἀνέμοιο.
.] εἴλετολ δ᾽ ἄλκιμον ἔγχος, ἀκαχμένον ὀξέϊ χαλκῷ,
at? | βριϑὺ" μέγα στιβαρὸν, τῷ δάμνησι στίχας ἀνδρῶν
᾿᾿|ἡρώων, τοῖσίν τε κοτέσσεται ὀβριμοπάτρη.
v4, βῆε δὲ κατ’ Οὐλύμποιο καρήνων ἀΐξασα,
᾿Ιστῇ δ᾽ Ἰϑάκης ἐνὶ δήμῳ" ἐπὶ προϑύροις: Ὀδυσῆος,
οὐδοῦ ἐπ’ αὐλείου, παλάμῃ δ᾽ ἔχε χάλκεον ἔγχος,
εἰδομένη! ξείνῳ, Ταφίων" ἡγήτορι Μέντῃ.
.|evge δ᾽ ἄρα μνηστῆρας ἀγήνορας. οἵ μὲν ἔπειτα
πεσσοῖσι προπάροιϑε ϑυράων ϑυμὸν" ἔτερπον,
ἥμενοι ἐν ῥινοῖσι βοῶν, οὖς ἔκτανον αὐτοί"
κήρυκες" δ᾽ αὐτοῖσι καὶ ὀτρηροὶ ϑεράποντεςν
10s. «ειδομένη.
geon, the artisan, and the minstrel.
The bulk of the people found their
ἔργα in agriculture, each tilling his
own field, but the above pursuits were
useful to all. The κῆρυξ seems to have
been personally attached to the man
of high rank. To a king they were
‘Shis only immediate agents. They con-
veyed his orders; they assisted him in
the assembly, in sacrifice, and in ban-
quets. They appear to be the only
executive officers that are found in Ho-
mer.”’ Gladst. III. 1.69. But of course
their functions were limited by the sta-
tion of their immediate chief. In the
Ody. they are not, except Medon (see
π. 252, χ. 357—8), of the household of
dys. The office of ϑεράπων», a sort
of lower comrade, with a mixture of
inferiority with equality which may be
compared to the Scottish “Henchman”’,
was one of high honour. Patroclus is
the great embodiment of the idea. In
the II. we trace in Eurybates, B. 183—4,
a θερ. to Odys. He himself, in the Ody.,
in disguise, speaks of κῆρυξ Εὐρυβ.,
‘‘whom he regarded above all his com-
rades, as his sentiments were in unison
with his own” (τ. 244—8). And indeed
the κῆρυξ and Seg. might be united in
the same person. In a borrowed sense
kings and warriors are ϑεράποντες
᾿Δρῆος, Διὸς, &e.
109—12. While this was going on
within the palace (comp. 126, 144);
100
105
Day 1.]
10 οὗ μὲν ἄρ᾽ οἷνον" ἔμίσγον ἐνὶ κρητῆρσι καὶ ὕδωρ,
οἵ δ᾽ αὖτε σπόγγοισι" πολυτρήτοισι τραπέξας
vitov καὶ πρότιϑεν, τοὶ δὲ κρέα πολλὰ δατεῦντο." d
τὴν δὲ πολὺ πρῶτος ἴδε Τηλέμαχος ϑεοειδής᾽
ἧστο γὰρ ἐν μνηστῆρσι φίλον τετιημένος" ἦτορ,
15 ὀσσόμενος" πατέρ᾽ ἐσϑλὸν ἐνὶ φρεσὶν, εἴ ποϑὲν ἐλϑὼν εἰ
μνηστήρων' τῶνξ μὲν σκέδασιν κατὰ δώματα ϑείη,
τιμὴν" δ᾽ αὐτὸς ἔχοι καὶ κτήμασιν οἷσιν ἀνάσσοι.
ΟΔΥΣΣΕΙΑΣ A.
110—122. 11
a I’. 2%9—70
ez 453, υ. 151,
ς oO. 140, 9. 550;
ys i
ef.
σ ΗΝ 4. 556,
@. 447, 1. 13.
eu. 81, A. 105, =.
᾿ 152, 8. 35,
A.
ia. M 302-11 ;
εἴ. 4.185, ζ. 293,
τὰ φρονέων, μνηστῆρσι μεθήμενος, εἴσιδ᾽ “ϑήνην, ΤᾺΝ Θ. 322,
By δ᾽ ἰϑὺς προθύροιο, vendor dy δ᾽ ἐνὶ dupa
k N. 122, Ζ. 351,
P. 25
20 ξεῖνον Onda ϑύρῃσιν ἐφεστάμεν " ἐγγύϑι" δὲ στὰς 13159, πὶ 544
χεῖρ᾽" ἕλε δεξιτερήν, καὶ edéEato® χάλκεον ἔγχος, nye ἡ F108,
καί μιν φωνήσας ἔπεα πτερόεντα προσηύδα" ee
122. Féwea,
110. μὲν οῖνον. 113. fide θεοειδὴς. 117. Fotoe Εανάσσοι. 118. FoF ed".
21. δεξιτερῇ.
the suitors were without. The Homeric
narrative docs not carry on two sects
of actions as contemporaneous. Thus
here the parts which describe the ban-
quet are divorced from their real sequel
by the reception of Mentes (Pallas) by
Telem. The real continuation of 112
is 144. This is betrayed by ἔκτοϑεν
ἄλλων μνηστήρων, α. 132, which shows
that the suitors were then coming or
come in. Each guest ordinarily had a
table to himself, but in δὶ 54 two
share a table; so in ρ. 334 Eumeus
takes his place and eats at Telemachus’
table. The division of the viands (da-
tevyto) was the last thing done before
the feast, as in 146, commenced; see
0. 140, Q. 331. We may compare ‘with
δατέομαι daw dais, πατέομαι πά-
σασϑαι, χατέω χάος.
115. ὀσσόμενος.... ἐνὶ φρ.,» ‘‘men-
tally regarding, wishfully brooding
-over’’; comp. the Lat. opto akin to ὅσ-
σομαι. Fixedness of regard, seems the
most general idea of ὀσσόμ. -» especially
when compounded with πρὸς; the mind
realizing the image by dwelling on it.
Thus with κακὸν, ὄλεθρον, &c., “ fore-
boding’’ is the sense. Hamlet's words,
‘‘In my mind's eye, Horatio’’, Act I,
Sc. 11, are an obvious parallel.
116. £vHOT. τῶν μὲν, the pronoun,
emphatically repeating the noun (seo
mar.), takes the latter’s place in con-
struction, introducing the contrast with
αὐτὸς in 117. The noun far more com-
monly follows the pronoun, as in 125
and in A. 488—9, αὐτὰρ ὃ μήνιε... διο-
γενὴς Πηλέος viog, until, when it fol-
lows immediately, the pronoun lapses
into the force of the article, as in ὁ
γέρων, ὁ γεραιὸς, A, 33. 35:
117—23. τιμὴν, “his due’’, including
the γέρας, or substantial part of roy-
alty. So Achilles, in the Shades, en-
quires about Peleus, ἢ ἔτ᾽ ἔχει τιμὴν
. μετὰ Μυομιδόνεσσιν (mar.). Μδ-
μεσσήϑη » “felt ashamed’’, because
he represented the host; the feelin
is sometimes expressed by αἰδῶ xa
νέμεσιν; comp. ὃς ἤδη νέμεσίν τὲ καὶ
αἴσχεα, nearly = νεμεσσήϑη αἴσχεα
(mar.). ἐγγυθιε, here of place, is
also used (mar.) of time, and takes
either gen. or dat., as does ἐγγύθεν.
φιλήσεαι, with pass. force, ‘shalt be
well treated’’, used specially of hospi-
table entertainment. So Menel., N. 627,
upbraids the Trojans; ‘‘ye carried off
my wife, ézel φιλέεσθε παρ᾽ αὐτῆ;
and so the active, ὅς xe φιλήσῃ, “who
may entertain’’, δ. 29. Observe the
hospitable rule, to supply the guest’s
wants first, and then enquire his er-
rand, So Nestor, y. 69—70, when his
guests are sated, says, ‘‘now it is more
seemly to enquire who our guests are’’.
Comp. also the reception of Telem. by
Menel., and subsequent conversation,
δ. 60—4, 117—39.
. 281.
. 461, D. 76,
. 642.
191,
ὡς εἰπὼν ἡγεῖϑ᾽,
Γ cf N. 260—1.
87.
hd. 51: εἴ. α. 145.
389.
γ'
i x. 358, a
2. 352 9,
¥
OATZZEIAL A.
123—139. [Day 1.
ἐς χαῖρε, ξεῖνε, παρ᾽ ἄμμι φιλήσεαι"" αὐτὰρ ἔπειτα
180, 2, 507, δείπνου πασσάμενορ". μυϑήσεαις ὅττεό σὲ χρή."
4 δ᾽ ἔσπετο Παλλὰς ᾿“ϑήνη.
of δ᾽ ὅτε δή ῥ᾽’ ἔντοσθεν ἔσαν δόμου ὑψηλοῖο,
Eyyos’ μέν ῥ᾽ ἔστησε φέρων πρὸς κίονα" μακρὴν
δ 01900 ὁκης ἔντοσϑεν ἐϊξόου, ἔνϑα περ ἄλλα
k x. 318° ite Σ. ἔγχε᾽ Ὀδυσσῆος ταλασίφρονορς ἵστατο πολλὰ,
840.
Ι x aus, =", 240,
390
@. 86, ὅ. 136.
ni. 251. I, 489, T τ.
10, E.2 203, Ws S15, |
ο y sos. ete
—6, x. ind —79, |
ο. es
—5; ef. y ο
ΡΙ. 123, ΟΝ ᾿χέρνιβα
ἜΜ, μα 231, ν. 13, |
@® 362.
40. 883, 447, χ. 14.
5 ὦ ὅν 345, γ. 479,
y. 166,
@. 495.
125. ἐειπῶν.
124. μυϑήσεο. 127. μακρόν.
124. RadGau., only this aor. and
the pluperf. πεπάσμην are found in H.
The verb also takes an accus.
126 — 30. οὗ σ᾽ ὅτε δή δ᾽... ἔγχος
pty ῥ᾽... αὐτὴν δ᾽, with this train
of conjunctions and particles comp.
I. 15—a1, οἵδ᾽ ὅτε δὴ . Τρῶσιν μὲν
τὸν δ᾽ ὥς, where 6a ᾿ alone is want-
ing to complete the parallel. χέονα,
fem., but also masc. (mar.). For δουρος
δόκη and Aira sco App. Εἰ, 2. (21), (17).
The drapery spread under the seat (since
the floor was native carth), was λές,
‘‘smooth’’, not embroidered; λὲς in this
sense becomes a noun. Qn the seat
was laid a dyed fleece (mar.). Lid-
dell & 5. explain doth as being on the
seat.
131—2. καλὸν δαιό., refer these to
ϑρόνον (mar.). χλισμὸν, having set
a ϑρόνος for the guest, he sets a
κλισμὸς for himself; so Helen in her
palace sits on a κλ., and so Heré and
Pallas in Olympus Θ. 436, while Zeus
on a &g. A. 536. Probably the @@.
was the seat of dignity, ‘‘throne”’.
Heré promises to give a ‘‘throne”’, as
134. Vind. ἀηδήσειεν οἱ ἀηδίσσειεν, alii ἀδδήσειεν.
αὐτὴν δ᾽ ἐς ϑρόνον" εἷσεν ἄγων, ὑπὸ λῖταὶ πετάσσας. 1
,Ἰκαλὸνκ δαιδάλεον."1 ὑπὸ δὲ ϑρῆνυς ποσὶν ἤεν.
᾿Ιπὰρ δ᾽ αὐτὸς κλισμὸνυ ϑέτο ποικίλον, ἔκτοϑεν ἄλλων
μνηστήρων, μὴ ξεῖνος ἀνιηϑεὶς ὀρυμαγδῷ
δείπνῳ ἀδήσειεν," ὑπερφιάλοισι μετελθὼν,
[δ᾽ ἵνα μιν περὶ πατρὸς & ιχὺμέ
δ᾽ ἀμφίπολος προχόῳ ἐπέχευε φέρουσα
καλῇ χρυσείῃ ὑπὲρ ἀργυρέοιο λέβητος,»
᾿νίψασϑαι" παρὰ δὲ ξεστὴν ἐτάνυσσε τράπεξαν."
. 449, σῖτον: δ᾽ αἰδοίη ταμίη" παρέϑηκε φέρουσα;
(0 ἔροιτο.
134. αδήσειεν.
a reward to the Sleep-god, ἐπ. 238, and
has herself the epithet γρυσόϑρονος.
Women or younger persons use 8 κλι-
σμός, but the distinction, especially
in the camp-life of the II., is not ri-
gidly observed. Either might be used
with a ϑρήνυς. Athenreus says (V. 4.),
the #9. was for mere sitting, the κά.
for reclining; but of reclining, save in
bed, H. has no trace; nay, χλισμῷ xe-
χλιμένη is used, Q. ‘96 — 7, to further
describe the attitude of ite. ἄλλων,
like πάντων, 79, where see note; comp.
ξ. 84, ἅμα τῇγε καὶ ἀμφίπολοι κίον
ἄλλαι.
134. ἀδήσειεν, see App. A. 6, (2).
137—9. λέβητ., “wash-basin’’, The
utensil was also used to heat water. It
appears thus in simile to illustrate Cha-
rybdis boiling with surge, and the wa-
ters of Xanthus bubbling in the flames
of Hephxstus. In an cnumeration of
presents it often occurs in conjunction
with the “tripod’’, which was not, how-
ever, a mere stand for the λέβης, but
included a containing vessel; see YW.
264. For the tagseéy see App. A. 7 (4).
1:
DAY I.|
140 [εἴδατα πόλλ᾽ ἐπυιϑεῖσα, χαριξομένη παρεόντων"
δαιτρὸς" δὲ κρειῶν πίνακας παρέϑηκεν ἀείρας
παντοίων, παρὰ δέ σφι τίϑει χρύσειας κύπελλα * |
κῆρυξ δ᾽ αὐτοῖσιν ϑάμ᾽ ἐπῴχετο οἰνοχοεύων.
ἐς δ᾽ ἦλϑον μνηστῆρες ἀγήνορες. οἵ μὲν ἔπειτα
145 ἑξείης ELovto κατὰ κλισμούς" te ϑρόνους τε,
τοῖσι δὲ κήρυκες μὲν ὕδωρξ ἐπὶ χεῖρας ἔχευαν,
σῖτον δὲ δμωαὶ παρενήνεον ἐν κανέοισιν,
xoveot δὲ κρητῆρας ἐπεστέψαντοϊ ποτοῖο.
otk δ᾽ ἐπ᾽ ὀνείαϑ᾽ ἑτοῖμα προκείμενα χεῖρας ἴαλλον.
150 αὐτὰρ ἐπεὶ πόσιος καὶ ἐδητύος ἐξ ἔρον ἔντο
μνηστῆρες, τοῖσιν μὲν ἐνὶ φρεσὶν ἄλλα μεμήλειν,
μολπή! τ᾽ ὀρχηστύς τε᾿ τὰ γάρ τ᾽ ἀναϑήματα δαιτός.
κηρυξι δ᾽ ἐν χερσὶν κίϑαριν περικαλλέα ϑῆκεν
Φημίῳ, Oo" ῥ᾽ ἤειδε παρὰ μνηστῆρσιν ἀνάγκῃ.
155 ἣ τοι ὃ φορμίζων ἀνεβάλλετοο καλὸν ἀεέδειν,
ΟΔΥΣΣΕΙΑΣ A. 140---15 6. 13
ἃ ¢. 84, μ, 252; ef.
E. 369.
b ge. 331.
ς x. 357, Γ΄. 248.
d ὅδ. 677, π. 252.
e a. 132 mar.
f y. 339-40, φ. 270
—1, Ir. 174-5.
g δ. 213, ZX. 270.
h A. 470.
i 9. 222.
k 0. 67, 218, e. 200.
S. 71, 484, ξ. 453.
o. 112, π. 54, @.
98, uv. 256, 1. 9ι
—2, 221-2, 422.
627—8.
ly. 430; cf. g. 271,
ϑ. 99
m $.67—9, 105—7,
256—7.
n yx. 330—1, 356,
a. 337.
o F. 268, 0. 262—3.
‘
141. οινοχοευων.
140 delet Nitzschius probante Herm.
142. τίϑη. Dubium ex x. 355 an legen-
dum sit κανεια; tum fortasse 141 cum 142 permutandus. post 146 nonnulli codd.
149 habent, tum νώμησαν δ᾽ ἄρα πᾶσιν ἐπαρξαμενοι δεπάεσσιν, tum 147, 148, 150.
Harlej. ili νωμησαν--- post 148 posito, subjungit 147 et 149.
She had general charge of the bread
(σῖτος), and the eatables (εἴδατα) ge-
nerally except fleshmeat. Each guest
had a table laid (ἐτάνυσσε) for him.
140—3. Verse 140 is probably borrow-
ed from 7. 176, where it belongs pro-
perly; see note there. eidata is also
used for ‘‘bait’’ of fish, and sing. εἶδαρ
(mar.) for ‘‘fodder’’ for horses. It is
objected to vv. 141—2 (rejected by Bek.
here and at δ. 57) that the flesh (112)
appears to have been already distri-
buted; but see on rog—12. It does
not, at any rate, appear that the guest
had been served, and his table was
only just set. The dattgdg has no
business with the κύπελλα. This, how-
ever, need condemn 141 only; but see
the emendation suggested in the lower
margin. For κυπελλα see App. A. 8.
The κῆρυξ is Medon (mar.).
146 —8. ud. ἐπὶ χεῖρας, a phrase
of Holy Writ is here parallelled, 2 Kings
Ill, 11, ἐπεστέψ., ‘“crowned”’, i. e.
‘filled brim-full’’? of wine. The vina
coronant of Virg. Aén. I. 724 (comp.
111. 525), as meaning crowning with a
chaplet, perhaps arose from a mistake
in the sense here. Butt. Lez. so.
182. ἀναϑήμι., ‘“embellishments’’,
properly used of offerings to deck a
shrine. Comp. Hor. Od. HI. x1. 6, of the
lyre, divitum mensis et amica templis. (Ni.)
154. Φημέῳ, called Τερπιάδης (mar.).
He is spared in the μνηστηροφονέα on
this plea of having acted ‘‘under con-
straint’. The name, like Phronius,
Noemon 8. 386, also Aglaia and Cha-
rops, B. 672, belong to the class of
names made up to suit character or
circumstances. Similar are the Phea-
cian princes’ names, 9. 111—g. and Ni.
on β. 386, says that Hermann con-
tended for an extension of the same
principle to first-class personages.
There is no doubt of its being general
with subordinate ones.
155. ἢ toe, in discourse these par-
ticles add strong asseveration, emphatic
statement, or hearty assent; μὲν, vv,
or γὰρ is sometimes put between them.
aveBadd., sounded or “struck up’ a
prelude; this was done by touching a
few notes first on the φόρμεξ, whence
14
a d. 70, ρ. 592.
b 9. 248, I. 54.
e a. 280, 377,
417, @. ΠΝ
142. β'
ἃ 4. 221, ὦ. 72, 76,
TT, 347, YW. 263,
82. 793.
e W. 328, 4.174;
ef. A. 395.
f &. 135—6, ὦ. 290
—2.
Sore fo, 0 1, δ.
ie. 303, P- 133.
k Z.
I 188,204 «2,
μ- 34"--9
a1, i 2 "ξ τι,
Ζ.
n α. 9 mar.
ο α.
ς
ΟΔΥΣΣΕΙΑΣ A. : so 170.
[DAY 1.
αὐτὰρ Τηλέμαχος προσέφη γλαυκῶπιν ᾿ϑήνην,
ἄγχι" σχὼν κεφαλὴν, ἵνα μὴ πευϑοίαϑ᾽ of ἄλλοι"
“ξεῖνε φίλ᾽, ἦ καί μοι νεμεσήσεαι ὅττι κεν εἴπω;
τούτοισιν μὲν ταῦτα μέλει, κίϑαρις" καὶ ἀοιδὴ,
ῥεῖ᾽,. ἐπεὶ ἀλλότριον βίοτον νήποινον ἔδουσιν,
ἀνέρος οὗ δή που λεύκ᾽ ' ὀστέα πύϑεταιο ὄμβρῳ
κείμεν᾽ἴ ἐπ᾽ ἠπείρου, ἢ εἰν ἁλὶ κῦμα κυλίνδει.
εἰ κεῖνόνβ γ᾽ ᾿Ιθάκηνδε ἰδοίατο νοστήσαντα,"
πάντες x ἀρησαίατ᾽ ἐλαφρότεροι πόδας εἶναι
ἢ ἀφνειότεροι χρυσοῖό τε ἐσθῆτός τε.
νῦν δ᾽ ὃ μὲν ὃς ἀπόλωλε κακὸν μόρον, οὐδέ τις ἡμῖν
ϑαλπωρὴ," ef! πέρ τις ἐπιχϑονίων"" ἀνθρώπων
φῇσιν ἐλεύσεσθαι" τοῦ δ᾽ ὥλετοι νόστιμον ἦμαρ.
Ρ fave poi 2 ἀλλ᾽. ἄγε μοι τόδε εἰπὲ καὶ ἀτρεκέως κατάλεξον"
38, 9. 550. τὴς» πόϑεν εἷς ἀνδρῶν; πόϑι τοι πόλις ἠδὲ τοκῆες;
158. κε είπω. 163. Ειδοίατο.
158. εἰ καί. 167. ἐκπωρή.
some derive φόρμιξ, quasi peocurg, from
φροέμιον, Lat. prowmium. Lowe com-
pares Ov. Metam. V. 339. prartentat pol-
lice chordas, In later Greek ἀναβολαὶ
properly signifies a prelude, Pind. Pyth.
I. 7, προοιμίων ἀμβολὰς, cf. Aristoph.
Av. 1385 foll.,; Puc. 830, comp. 1267
168— —60. νεβμεσ. ὅ. κ. εἴπω, “be
provoked at what I am going to say’”’
for the force of this subjunct. sce on
316. The gen. ἀνέρος is evolved from
the possessive ἀλλότριον.
162—s. The obj. of χυλένδεε is the
same as the subj. of πύϑεται. The
double compar., ἐλαφρότεροι ἠὲ ἀφνει-
ὅτεροι, is used of two qualitics con-
trasted in the same object; Donalds.
Gr. Gr. 415 (cc); so Herod. III. 65,
ἐποίησα ταχύτερα ἢ σοφώτερα, Eur.
Med. 485, πρόϑυμος μᾶλλον ἢ σο-
φωτέρα, Jelf Gr. Gr. § 782. f. In
κεῖνον, 163, we may notice an in-
stance of the tacitly emphatic way
of speaking of the hero without men-
tioning his name, as though it were
sacredly cherished, used by his wife
son, and attached servitor Eumzeus
(mar.).
166. νῦν δ᾽, contrasts an actual with
a supposed or a past state. ἀπόλωλε,
y
165. ξεσϑῆτός τε. 169. ειπέ.
108, codd. φήσει vel φησίν; φῇσιν Schol. A. 129.
᾿ὥλετο, 168, comp. y. 87—9, ἀπώλετο
conversely followed by ὅλωλεν; ‘the
perfect representing the state conse-
quent on an action’’, easily becomes in
usage passive (Donalds. Gr. Gr. 347,
obs.) “he is lost’’; the aor. suggests
how he reached that state.
167. ϑαλπωρὴ, for form comp. ἐλ-
πωρὴ, ἀλεωρή. Comp. the Coronach
in The Lady of the Lake, “Το us comes
no cheering, to Duncan no morrow’
This despondent dwelling on the worst
view i8 characteristic of Telem.; see
App. E.
168. 91 So, so Bek., following the
Schol.; ef with subjunct. is common in
Epic Greek, Jelf Gr. Gr. § 854, obs. 1.
For examples of ef with subj. pres. and
aor. in Ody. sce mar. In Iliad are
given by Jul. Werner de condit. enun.
ap. Hom. formis, subj. pr. J. 261, M.
245, aor. A. 81, 340, Ε. 258, K. 225,
A. 116, M. 223, II. 263, ®. 576, X.
86, 191.
170. τὲς πόϑεν, see Donalds. Gr. Gr.
413 (bb) “Swho and whence. are thou?’’
Ni. cites Eur. Helen 85, ἀτὰρ τὶς sl;
moter ; τίνος; Phaeniss. 122, τίς; πόϑεν
γεγώς; N. B. Bek. for εἷς writes εἷς,
contrarily to the most recent gram-
marians,
1:
180
185
DAY I.]
ὁπποίης δ᾽ ἐπὶ νηὸς ἀφίκεο" πῶς δέ GE ναῦται"
ἤγαγον εἰς Ἰθάκην; τίνες ἔμμεναι εὐχετόωντο;
οὐ μὴν γάρ τί oe πεζὸν ὀΐομαι ἐνθάδ᾽ ἰκέσϑαι.
καί" μοι τοῦτ᾽ ἀγόρευσον ἐτήτυμον, ὄφρ᾽ εὖ εἰδώ,
175 ἠὲς νέον μεϑέπεις, ἡ καὶ πατρώιός" ἐσσι
ξεῖνος, ἐπεὶ πολλοὶ ἴσαν: ἀνέρες ἡμέτερον δῶ
ἄλλοι, ἐπεὶ καὶ κεῖνος ἐπίστροφος ἦν ἀνθρώπων."
τὸν δ᾽ αὖτε προσέειπε ϑεὰ γλαυκῶπις ᾿4ϑήνη"
“roryao® ἐγώ τοι ταῦτα μάλ᾽ ἀτρεκέως ἀγορεύσω.
Μέντης" ᾿Δγχιάλοιο δαΐφρονος! εὔχομαι εἶναι
υἱὸς, ἀτὰρ Ταφίοισι φιληρέτμοισινκ ἀνάσσω.
νῦν δ᾽ ads! ξὺν νηὶ κατήλυϑον ἠδ᾽
ΟΔΥΣΣΈΕΙΑΣ A. 171—186.
15
a #.57—9, 222—4.
b ὅδ. 645 mar.
ἘΝ, 6.032,
ce 120—1, 2. 172,
203.
az 157, @. 522,
Z. 215, 21.
eo. 194; ef. a. 886,
| see App. “A. 10.
ma
ΤΙ, γ. 286,
ἑτάροισιν, δ. 202, 5. 48, 9.
πλέων ἐπὶ οἴνοπα" πόντον ἐπ᾽ ἀλλοϑρόους" ἀνθρώπους, 7548: $7: κ1
ἐς Τεμέσην μετὰ χαλκὸν, ἄγω δ᾽ αἴϑωνα σίδηρον. | | a. oF ote. a.
νηῦς» δέ μοι 40° ἕστηκεν ἐπ᾽ ἀγροῦ νόσφι πόληος, ass; cf. 0. bu,
Ev λιμένι ἹΡείϑρῳ, ὑπὸι Νηίω ὑλήεντι. 4 γ- 81
174. ξειδῶ. 178. προσέξειπε.
δ᾽: τ᾿ Arist.
’
τοῶνται.
σε: TE.
71.
175. Dind. 7t..
171. Oxxoing, here the interrog.
changes from the direct to the indirect
form, and again conversely; in 406 —7
the ὅπποϑεν of the indirect is followed
by ποίης and ποῦ.
172. EVHXET., sclf-assertion is usually
expressed by this verb, sometimes also
the act of prayer, as in μ. 356.
173. A quaint proverbial truism, be-
ing probably the islander’s customary
address to the voyager. Telem. repeats
what he had perhaps heard his elders
say to a stranger newly landed. Mure
Literat. of A.G. XIII. § 7, ranks this as a
specimen of Homeric burlesque, Butthe
poet's thought has the naiveté of child-
hood, which is not comic to the child,
only "to us in the old age of the world.
Such a truism is τ. 163, ov ἀρ ἀπὸ
δρύος ἐσσι παλαιφάτου οὐδ᾽ ἀπὸ πέτρης.
175-82. νέον μεϑ'., ‘art newly,
t. e. for the first time, our visitor”
For ἠὲ...ἦ, see App. A. τι. For the
‘“‘Taphians’’ see App. D. 5. Only to
them and to the Phwacians is the epi-
thet φελήρετμοι applied by H. For
acc, after ἴσαν without a preposition
sce mar. ἐπέσερ occurs isch.
Agam. 397. For Code, see App. A. το.
81. φιληρέτμοισι Favacow.
171— 3 omittebant nonnulli, Schol.
Qi μεϑέπῃ.
183. fotvona.
172. εὐχε-
176. ἔσαν. 183. ἐπ᾽: ἐς.
183—4. ἀλλοϑροους, ‘‘of foreign
tongue’’, used of Egyptians, and fo-
reigners generally (mar.), comp. βαρβα-
ρόφωνοι and ἀγριόφωνοι. (mar.) Homer's
αἀλλόϑρο. ave. always speak without
any interpreter to Greeks in the Greek
tongue. He is conscious of the “‘strange
speech”’ existing as an objective fact
only. Cf. ΖΞ βοῇ, Sept c. Th. 170, &¢&Q0-
pave στρατῷ, of the Argive army. T-
μέσ., see App. Ὁ. 6.
185—6. ‘These lines are not found
in some copies, and were rejected by
Arist. (Schol.). They seem, however,
genuine. ἥδε, here, pointing to it.
ἀγροῦ, the harbour named is a little
E, Ν. Ε. of the town, but perhaps the
spot where the ship lay was visible
thence. The town was accessible from
the sca (mar.); but one landing from
the Epirus side would first reach Rhei-
thron. From Nyéq is derived the
epith. ὑπονήιος, applied to Ithaca
(mar.). Acgeévi, before the liquid and
sometimes δ (comp. 203) ε has this
quantity; see Spitzner, Gr. Pros. § 9. a.
Ῥείϑρῳ... Νηίῳ, a large συ! indent-
ing Ithaca on the N. E. side nearly di-
vides it into two parts, a head, the 8. E.
16
a a. 175 mar.
b a. 167 mar.
ς β. 238, 4. 176.
d a. 49 mar.
ὁ €. 209, 246, 248,
vy. 72.
f 4. 3230.
g 4. 193, 323, Σ.
57, 438.
ἢ x. 160, π. 260,
ξ. 182.
i a. 238, 42. 262;
ef. I. 64.
k ». 34, Ἡ. 271,
ἍΜ 461.
1 δ. 498, 552, 377.
m a. 50, μ. 283.
n o. 172—3, y. 226.
OATZZEIAL A. 187—208. [pay 1.
ξεῖνοι δ᾽ ἀλλήλων πατρώιοι εὐχόμεϑ᾽ εἶναι
ἐξ ἀρχῆς, εἴ" πέρ τε γέροντ᾽ εἴρηαι ἐπελθὼν
ΛΔαέρτην ἥρωα, τὸν οὐκέτι φασὶ πόλινδε“
ἔρχεσϑ᾽, ἀλλ᾽ ἀπάνευϑεν ἐπ᾿ ἀγροῦ πήματα πάσχειν 190
γρηὶ σὺν ἀμφιπόλῳ, 4 of βρῶσέν τε πόσιν τε"
παρτιϑεῖ, evr’ ἄν μιν κάματος κατὰ γυῖα λάβησινἷ
ἑρπύξοντ᾽ ἀνὰ γουνὸνβ ἀλωῆς οἰνοπέδοιο.
νῦν δ᾽ ἦλθον δὴ ydéo μιν ἔφαντ᾽ ἐπιδήμιονϊ εἶναι
σὸν πατέρ᾽- ἀλλὰ νυ τόν ye ϑεοὶ βλάπτουσι κελεύϑου" 195
οὐ γάρ πω τέϑνηκεν ἐπὶ χϑονὶ δῖος Ὀδυσσεὺς,
ἀλλ᾽ ἔτι που fads κατερύκεται! εὐρέϊ πόντῳ
νήσῳ" ἐν ἀμφιρύτῃ, χαλεποὶ δέ μὲν ἄνδρες ἔχουσιν,
[ἄγριοι, οἵ που κεῖνον ἐρυκανόωσ᾽ ἀέκοντα.
o εἴ. ο. 581-2, 41. αὐτὰρ" νῦν τοι ἐγὼ μαντεύσομαι, ὡς ἐνὶ ϑυμῷ 200
tp 185. 8 ἀϑάνατοι βάλλουσι καὶ ὡς τελέεσθαι ὀΐω,
ΕἸ. ῥ' ° » ’ 9 4 nm” ~ ’ ,
ie. 36, 285, 7.473, Οὔτε Te μάντις ἐῶν οὔτ᾽ οἰωνῶνο Gaga εἰδώς.
A. 416. ovP τοι ἔτι. δηρόν γε φίλης ἀπὸ πατρίδος αἴης"
im soy man ω ἔσσεται, οὐδ᾽ εἰ" πέρ τε σιδήρεα δέσματ᾽ ἔχῃσιν᾽"
tc 189 mar. φράσσεται ὥς κε νέηται, Exel πολυμήχανός ἐστιν. 205
ut. 86, 58. ἀλλ᾽: ἄγε μοι τόδε εἰπὲ καὶ ἀτρεκέως κατάλεξον,
. τ το x 3 εἰ δὴ ἐξ αὐτοῖο τόσος" παῖς εἷς Ὀδυσῆος.
149... δ0. ᾿Ιαἐνῶς" μὲν κεφαλήν τε καὶ ὄμματα καλὰ ξοικας
191. For. 193. Forvomédoro. 199. ἀξέκοντα. 202. ξειδώς. 206. Ferré.
208. FéFouxag.
190. ἄλγεα. 195. κελεύθους. λοι. τετελέσϑαι. 204. pro οὐδ᾽ Harl.
margini ἀλλ᾽
inseruit.
208. μὲν Arist. et Aristoph.; γὰρ Dind. ὁ Schol. Γ΄ 156.
extremity, and a body running North-
westerly. The former contains Neios,
a still woody mountain, now Stephano;
and at its foot, being a smaller bay
of the same gulf, is a harbour called
Bathmoi, with a stream of fresh water
running into it, prob. the ῥεῦέϑρον which
gave the name. Schreiber, Gell, Dodwell.
188—g1. ef weg, sec on 168 for sub-
junet. with ef. The reading ἄλγεα in
190 for πήματα may stand, hiatus be-
ing admissible after the 4 th foot; see
App. A. p. III. note. vent... ἄμφιπ.,
she is said in ὦ. 366 to be a “Sicilian’’.
193. γουνὸν ἁλωῆς » Doed. 1011
takes this from γόνυ, and understands
elevation as the leading idea; comp.
κνημὸς for the slope of a mountain.
This seems better than γόνος, yev-, in
sense of ‘‘seed’’, whence others derive
it. A hill position certainly suits the
vineyard; ‘‘Bacchus amat colles’’, Virg.
Georg. II.113. The threshing floor, too, for
which yovvog ἀλωῆς also stands, would
be higher than the ground about it.
195—9. βλάπτουσι, this verb often
means “to hinder’? (mar.), comp.
ZEschyl. Agam. 120, βλαβέντα λοισϑίων
δρόμων. For 197—8, κατερύκχ. and
ἔχουσ. , see_on 162. Bek. rejects V. 199;
yet it adds a more precise character to
the detention supposed,
203. For ἔτε δηρὸν see on 186. The
t seems long before δ by arsis only,
we may comp. wala ony.
205. τόσος implies admiration; as
does: τοῖος in 223, 371, inf.3 so Virg. Ain.
Ι. 606, qui tanti talem genuere parentes?
DAY 1.]
κείνῳ, ἐπεὶ Papa τοῖον" ἐμισγόμεϑ᾽ ἀλλήλοισιν
10 πρίν γε τον ἐς Τροίην ἀναβήμεναι,. ἔνϑα περ ἄλλοι
"Agyetay of ἄριστοι ἔβαν κοίλῃς ἐπὶ νηυσίν" |
OATZZEIAE A. 209--226. 17
5
: -ς
ed
ἐκ τοῦ δ᾽ οὔτ᾽ Ὀδυσῆα ἐγὼν ἴδον οὔτ᾽ ἐμὲ" xstvog.” |* %,,2,% 486, σ.
τὴν δ᾽ αὖ Τηλέμαχος πεπνυμένος ἀντίον ηὔδα" 2. 811, T. 160,
“τοιγὰρ ἐγώ τοι, ξεῖνε, μάλ᾽ ἀτρεκέως ἀγορεύσω. d ΟΝ
15 μήτηρ μέν τ’ ἐμέ φησι τοῦ ἔμμεναι, αὐτὰρ ἐγώ γε [ΓΦ ss.
οὐχ οἷδ᾽" οὐ γάρ πώ τιρ ἐὸν γόνον αὐτὸς ἃ ἀνέγνω. |" σ. 138, Φ 168
ὡς δὴ ἐγώ γ᾽ ὄφελον" μάκαρός νύ tev ἔμμεναι υἱὸς |1 α- 38ι. b 188.
ἀνέρος, ov κτεάτεσσιν ἑοῖς ἔπι γῆρας ἔτετμεν. Left mer.
νῦν δ᾽, ὃς ἀποτμότατορ' γένετο ϑνητῶν ἀνθρώπων. νι, δ δι:
20 tov" μ' ἔκ φασι γενέσθαι, ἐπεὶ σύ με τοῦτ᾽ ἐρεεένεις..)"} κα. 189. ΠΟ ΟῚ
τὸν δ᾽ αὖτε προσέειπε Dea γλαυκώκις ᾿4ϑήνη EB Per
“ov μήν τοι γενεήν ye ϑεοὶ νώνυμνον" ὀπίσσω Φ. $22, Καὶ
ϑῆκαν, ἐπεὶ σέ γε τοϊονὶ ἐγείνατοπ Πηνελόπεια. ὁ. 180. ΙΗ 186.
ἀλλ᾽ ἄγε" μοι τόδε εἰπὲ καὶ ἀτρεκέως κατάλεξον᾽ 173 ᾿ as κ
45 τίς δαὶς, rig δὲ ὅμιλος ὅδ᾽ ἔπλετο; τίπτεο δέ σὲ χρεώ; ase 2 491, ἐδ
εἰλαπένηρ ἦε γάμος; ἐπεὶ οὐκ Egavog τάδε γ᾽ ἐστίν. |q
212. «έδον. 216. οὐ Fotd’ ἐξόν.
221. προσέειπε.
212. ἐκ τοῦδ᾽ Dind. ἔχοτε V.
ars. τέ we Bek. Dind.
209. Papua τοῖον, lit.‘‘often, sovery’’,
the qualifying word following the qua-
lified with ellipse of the relative clause
which should supply some measure of the
degree, which by this very indefinite-
ness is enhanced. Jelf. Gr. Gr. 823.008. 3,
explains this by “the fact that the de
monstrative originally performed the
functions of the relative’, but y. 331
πέλαγος μέγα τοῖον, 0ϑεν τέ περ οὐδ᾽
οἰωνοὶ αὐτόετες οἴχνευνται, rather sug-
gests the explanation by ellipse; comp.
also οἷον, as used in 410 without τοῖον,
— the converse .
310—3, πρὶ», Jelf. Gr. Gr. § 848 b
lays down a rule for πρὶν with the infin.
which would exclude this instance and
many more, 88, ὃ. 668, 7. 83, ὃ. 301,
ε. 65. In Homer's use the infin. after
πρὶν does not differ from the indic.
in sense, only xgl» becomes quasi-
prepositional; here = πρὸ τοῦ ἀναβή-
μεναι. In ἀναβαέν. observe, the no-
tion of going up is involved in that
of going on board ship, comp.. ὃ. 473.
213—23. H. uses wexp. (comp. %t-
Hom. op. I.
218, κτεάτεσσι Feoigs, -σιν ἐξοὶς
224. ειπέ.
214. καταλέξω Harl. ἀγορεύσω Schol. H.
222. ita Bek.
μέν lib. 225. τίς δέ σε χρεία alii.
ψυτός, 229), for having knowledge, pre-
sence of mind, &c., νόῳ (supplied Q, 377)
being understood; xvevey, éxvevse, for
inspiring μένος or like qualities; and
πνδίω for mere breathing.- For éyec-
veto see App. A. 20 (mar.).
225. Before ὅρεελος obs. hiatus, more
common in 2584 thanin 1% foot (Spitsz-
ner de vers. her.§ 11). δὲ χρεώ; the
preferential rule of H. is to use zgemw
as with a verbal force (rarely with ἐστι)
overning acc. of pers., as ζρεὼ βουλῆς
μὲ καὶ ot, K. 43: but χρειὼ with a verb
expressed, ἱκάνει or the like (mar.).
226. eldaxivy qe, the -ἢ ἧ- must
be read in synizesis. Observe yagsdc,
by pause and ictus. The εἰλαπ. was
sumptuous, perhaps sacrificial; cf. Hes.
Frag. CXXXII. 2—4, who says the song
of Linus was always sung ἐν ellaxt-
vats τὸ χοροῖς τε, which phrase sug-
gests religion; so Pind. Nem. V. 38 ev-
φρονες las... ϑεὸν δέκονται: Donald-
son’s note there says, an δέλαπ. was
“a feast of the gods κατ΄ flag”; of
the ἔρανος we have a hint in ὑμῶν
2
18
- - -
te ee
a εἴ, 31. 108 --9, υ.
ΒΕ
mee ΟΕ Ν
RB KEES
ἢ «:
mar.
mar,
rR
aX ae
μἊ
πῃ
-
CO ums
ὃς ἃ
h
=. 258;
- 259, υ. 79.
880.
801
eng
ent WSFA
ao*
pa
aj
μα
Ι
am
. 86, «.
--. .“.........-.-.--. -- -.- --«-
ΟΔΥΣΣΕΙΑΣ A, 227 -- 242.
[pay 1.
———~ - oe -----
᾿ ὥς τέ μοι ὑβρίξοντες" ὑπερφιάλως δοκέουσιν
δαίνυσϑαι κατὰ δῶμα" νεμεσσήσαιτό κεν ἀνὴρ,
αἴσχεα πόλλ᾽ ὁρόων, ὅς τις πινυτόςὗ ye μετέλϑοι."
1 τὴν δ᾽ av Τηλέμαχος πεπνυμένος: ἀντίον ηὔδα
ὦ BS “ξεῖν᾽, ἐπεὶ do δὴ ταῦτά μ’ ἀνείρεαιὰ ἠδὲ μεταλλᾶς,
«866, Μι.} μέλλεν μέν ποτε οἷκος ὅδ᾽ ἀφνειὸς καὶ ἀμύμων
ἔμμεναι, ὄφρ᾽ ἔτι κεῖνος ἀνὴρ ἐπιδήμιοςξ nev:
16:17, νῦν δ᾽ ἑτέρως" éBddovro' Geol κακὰ μητιόωντες,
» A. 8319.. οὗ κεῖνον" μὲν atotov'! ἐποίησαν περὶ" πάντων
ἀνθρώπων, ἐπεὶ οὔ κε ϑανόντι περ ὧδ᾽ ἀκαχοίμην,"
εἰ μετὰ οἷς ἑτάροισι δάμηο Τρώων ἐνὶ δήμῳ,
-τι, ὦ. 9% φίλων ἐν χερσὶν, ἐπεὶ πόλεμον τολύπευσεν.Ρ
ἱτῷ κέν of τύμβον μὲν ἐποίησαν Παναχαιοὶ,4
., δέ κε καὶ ᾧ παιδὶ μέγα κλέος ἥρατ᾽ ὀπίσσω.
νῦν δέ μιν ἀκλειῶς" “Aoxvia® ἀνηρείψαντο""
᾿ὥχετ᾽ ἄϊστος ἄπυστος," ἐμοὶ δ᾽ ὀδύνας τε γόους τε
232. Foixog. 235. ἄξιστον. 237. fois. 239. fot. 240, fo. 242. ἄξιστος.
α
234. ἐβόλοντο Harl., ἐβάλοντο Eustath. Schol. H., ἑόλοντο, ἐβούλοντο, βούλοντο alii.
236. οὔτι Harl., οὔκε Schol. H., δὲ pro κε Rec.
242. οἴχετ᾽ Apoll. Soph, (Bek.),
ita Schol. B.
κτήματ᾽ ἔδοντες ἀμειβόμενοι κατὰ ol-
nxovg β. 140, and in a scene in δ. 620
—4 where Menelaus’ guests bring their
own provisions. In A 41s the fgavog
is said to be a ‘‘rich man’s’’, being
his’? in whose house it took place.
The banquets given by a king to his
γέροντες (referred to by Ni.) in J. 250,
I. 70, ἢ. 49, εἴ. ὃ. 38—9, &e., provided
doubtless out of his receipts in kind,
are δαῖτες limited by the relation of the
guests, who are said δήμια πένειν, P.
250; cf. 4. 185—6.
232—s. μέλλεν ... wore, ‘there
was a time when / thought this house
would be”’; this subjectivity of state-
ment often marks the Homeric use of
μέλλω (mar.). ἀμύμων, applied some-
times, as here, to things, keeps up the
sense of distinction in its own class:
see μ. 261, Z. 171. ἑτέρως ἐβόλοντο,
Ni., after Eustath. prefers ἐβάλοντο;
Spitz. de vers. her. 97, reads ἑτέρωσ
ἐβάλοντο, in alteram partem se verte-
runt; for ἑτέρωσε see mar.; for ἐβό-
λοντο see Buttm. Lezil. 5. υ. βάλλειν.
ἄϊστον, out of sight or knowledge, so
that I cannot love him if living, nor
pay the honour due to him if dead.
236—7. Davorte, a dat. which may
he referred to the general notion of
bestowing our sorrow or joy (so ἐλθόντι
κεχάροιτο, B. 249) on the object which
excites it. weg, see on 6, For the
sense of δήῤέῳ see On 103.
238. τολύπευ., Penel. in t. 137, says
ἐγὼ δὲ δόλους toluxeva, as we speak
of “spinning a thing out’’, ¢. e. pro-
tracting. Here the notion of finishing
predominates, as given more precisely
by πόνον ἐκτολυπεύσας in Hes. Scut. 44.
241. ἀκλειῶς, “silently”, leaving no
κλέος, 283, 80 axlex δ. 728; an idea
further expanded in 242, mzet ... axv-
otros. “Agavrace are impersonations af
hurricanes, as Evgos, Ζέφυρος, ἃς. of
ordinary winds; one of the 4gx. is
named Podargé in Π. 150. Hesiod.
Theog. 267, names two, Aellé and Ocy-
οἰῶ. @#vella: sometines appear ==
Αρπ. (mar.). Elemental deities often
are interchanged in poetic idea with
the powers of nature which they rule
and involve, This is most common with
the various winds Eurus, &c., and fire
“Heatotog, the physical function and the
personal action blending in one image.
avngely., akin to ἐρέπτομαι, τ. 533.
2.3
23.
24)
Day 1.}
κάλλιπεν.
devn,'
248, 251. Foixo».
244. unde Rec. 246. Σάμω Rec.
οὐδ᾽ ἔτι κεῖνον ὀδυρόμενος otEevazito
οἷον, ἐπεί νύ μοι ἄλλα Geol κακὰ unde ἔτευξαν..
245 ὅσσοι" γὰρ νήσοισιν ἐπικρατέουσιν ἄριστοι,
Aoviiylo” τε Lewy τε καὶ ὑλήεντι: Ζακύνϑῳ,
ἦδ᾽ ὅσσοι κραναὴν Ἰϑάχην xara’ κοιρανέουσιν,
τόσσοι μητέρ᾽ ἐμὴν μνῶνται, τρύχουσις δὲ οἶκον.
ἣ δ᾽ οὔτ᾽ ἀρνεῖται στυγερὸν, γάμον οὔτε τελευτὴν
250 ποιῆσαι δύναται" τοὶ δὲ φϑινύϑουσιν ἔδοντεςξ
οἶκον ἐμόν᾽ τάχα δή we διαρραίσουσι καὶ αὐτόν."
tov 0 ἐπαλαστήσασαλ προσηύδα Παλλὰς ᾿4ϑήνη
“ἢ πόποι, ἡ δὴ πολλὸν ἀποιχομένου Ὀδυσῆος
6 xe μνηστῆρσιν ἀναιδέσι χεῖρας ἐφείη.
255 EX γὰρ νῦν ἐλθὼν δόμου ἐν πρώτῃσι! ϑύρῃσιν
σταίη, ἔχων πήληκα καὶ ἀσπίδα καὶ δύο δοῦρε,"
τοῖος" ἐὼν οἷόν μὲν ἐγὼ τὰ πρῶτ᾽ ἐνόησα
οἴκῳ ἐν ἡμετέρῳ πίνοντά τε τερπόμενόν τε,
ἐξ ‘Evens? ἀνιόντα παρ᾽ Ἴλου Μερμερίδαο"
ὥχετο γὰρ καὶ κεῖσε Bons ἐπὶ νηὸς Ὀδυσσεὺς
ΟΔΥΣΣΕΙ͂ΔΣ A. 243—260. 1g
ee ee
5 Swe + eee
ἐᾷ π. 122—-5, π. 947
—51, ¢. 130—3,
K. 214.
Ὁ & 885, το 222,
B. 625.
ς ef. ε. 34.
ἀ ν. 8577, E. 382,
e #. 84, ρ. 381,
σ. 272, «. 151.
g ¢. 159, 584,
h MM. 168, Ο. 21.
i P. 142, YW. 484.
k εἴ. σ. 384-6.
I y. 250, X. 66.
m gs. 228, #. 295,
σ. 877, yx. 101.
n d. 342—6, 2. 499
—501, ρ. 188—7,
wo 3876-9, A.
262—S,
o I. 233.
p App. ὃ. 8 mar.
258. fotxo.
247. naroxosgayéovery Schol. E. 332.
254. δεύῃ Aristoph., δεύει _vindicant Schol. H. M. Q. R. ἐφεέῃ Herm. coll. J. 191.
259. Ἴρου Scholl. H. M. Ἴλλου Rec.
242. ἄπυσ. is not found in Il., but
used in Ody. with active, as well as
passive force (mar.). We have πυϑ-,
πύστις (sch. Sept. C. Th. 54), axv-
στος, like πιϑ-, πίστις, ἄπιστος
246. For Dulichium see App. D. 7.
Samé is in B. 634 Samos, and, with Za-
cynthus, part of the dominion of Odys.,
not so Dulichium, which belongs to
Phileus, B. 625. H. scans £ and ox,
commencing proper names, as single
letters, e.g. Ζέλειαν, B. 824, Σκαμαν-
ὅρῳ, E. 36.
252. éxadactydada. This word
is only here read, although ἀλαστήσας
also occurs (mar. ), and ἀλαστόν! is neut.
adj. .» Opithet of πένθος, ἄχος: also dia-
oté, vocat., is applied by Achilles in
vehement passion to Hector, Out of this
the Tragedians, especially in the forms
ἀλάστωρ, ἀλάστορος, developed a tragic
depth of meaning, which far transcends
the Homeric idea, although the ἀλαστὲ
of Achilles, “accursed wretch'’, comes
nearest to it. No satisfactory deri-
vation has been suggested: that of
ἀ-λανθϑάνω may be rejected without
scruple. See Asch. Pers. 355, Lumen.
227, Soph. Aj. 374, Antig. 974.
254. Sevy, 2. sing. pres. mid.; the
var. lect. of Aristophanes, devet, is a verb
impersonal = λείπει, Schol. ἐφεέη,
Herm, reads ἐφείῃ subj., comparing
4. 191, prquay a κεν παύσῃσι.
255. ξἔ γὰρ (or as some read at yag),
is said by Ni. ad loc. to differ in sense
from ef@e (or αἴϑε), as expressing, not
a simple wish, but one combined with a
conditional proposition, or with a conse-
quence following from the thing wished
for, if obtained. The passages adduced,
however, do not bear out this doctrine;
e. g. αὖ yag (or ef γὰρ) and ai@e (or
εἴθε) 9. 251, 494, seem to express pre-
cisely the same notion. Also J. 189
ae δὴ οὕτως ein is surely a simple
wah: and again ef ὡς ἡβώοιμι x. τ. 2.,
H. 157, is followed by precisely such
a statement of a consequence. Ni.
admits also, what in effect nullifies the
distinction, that the prop. afuresaid
may at times not be expressed. Now
surely in §. 468, 4. 313—6, it is as
easy to supply a suppressed prop. after
9*
20
.
SE ..ὕ....--ἕ «..-...... -..-.-
ΟΔΥΣΣΈΙΑΣ A. 261—276. [pay 1.
af, m9. ὦ 212, | φάρμακον" ἀνδροφόνον διζήμενος, ὄφρα of εἴη
836 -Ἴ, ΕΓ 4.14..} ἰοὺς χρέεσθαι χαλκήρεας" ἀλλ᾽ ὃ μὲν οὔ οἵ
ΠῚ B. 396—7.
ςα. 378 mar.
Υ.
aes ξ
ΝᾺ
ὃ
B.
K. 445, ef.
a. 295, @.
P.
Δ. 493,
200, 849,
“δ: ὅππως" xe μνηστῆρας ἀπώσεαι ἐκ μεγάροιο.
᾿Ιδώκεν, ἐπεί ῥα ϑεοὺς νεμεσίξετο" alle’ ἐόντας,
ἀλλὰ πατήρ of δῶκεν ἐμός. φιλέεσκε γὰρ αἰνῶς"
τοῖος ἐὼν μνηστῆρσιν ὁμιλήσειεν Ὁδυσσεὺς,
' πάντες κ᾽ Gxvpogor® τε γενοέατο πικρόγαμοί τε.
“i'n, ἀλλ᾽ ἡ τοι μὲν ταῦτα ϑεῶν ἐν γούνασι' κεῖται,
» δ. 433, A
‘'9 κεν νοστήσας ἀποτίσεται, ἠὲξ καὶ οὐκὶ,
οἷσιν ἐνὶ μεγάροισι" σὲ δὲ φράξεσθϑαι ἄνωγα,
[εἰ δ᾽ ἄγε νῦν ξυνίει καὶ ἐμῶν ἐμπάξεοὶ μύϑων᾽
: ef.
. 16 . 89ι
a, ak
ἐπε} αὔριον εἰς ἀγορὴν" καλέσας ἥρωας ‘Azaovs
β. 1. ᾿μῦϑον πέφραδε πᾶσι, θεοὶ δ᾽ ἐπὶ μάρτυροι! ἔστων.
᾿Ιμνηστῆρας μὲν ἐπὶ σφέτερα σκίδνασθαι" ἄνωχϑι,
μητέρα" δ᾽, εἴ of ϑυμὸς ἐφορμᾶται γαμέεσθαι,
, 196--1.} eye ita ἐς μέγαρον πατρὸς μέγα δυναμένοιο"
261, 262, 264. For.
262. ov.
269. fotos. 275. Foe.
261, δαεέη pro of εἴη Zenod., alii ἥν που ἐφεύροι, Scholl.H.M. 270. καὶ Schol. E.
272. ita Harl. ἐπιμάρτυροι Dind.
275. μήτηρ Schol. Ἡ, et Barnes.
al@e (or ei@e) as in τ. 23, v. 169 after
ai yao (or ef γὰρ). See further on ὅδ. 341.
259—632. Ἐφύρ. see App. D. 8. oO
μὲν, i.e. Hus, The restraining motive
in his case was the fear of the gods,
but this, it seems, was overpowered in
the other by love for Odys. — a token
of the intense affection which Odys. in-
spired. gags. includes wholesome as
well as banefal drugs (mar.), here the
latter are meant. ‘I'he feeling against
poisoned weapons is a remarkable an-
ticipation of civilized warfare,
263. νδρμεσέξ., here has acc., but in
the same sense, “to feel an awe of”,
it has also a gen. (mar.). In the sense
of “be angry with’ it has dat., or acc.
followed by infin.
265. τοῖος ἐὼν, the sentence inter-
rupted starts anew in its leading word
τοῖος. The same form of wish for the
return of Odys. recurs elsewhere, si-
milarly interrupted by an anecdote and
resumed (mar.).
266—7. axvg. is also found active,
“swiftly slaying’. With χε . comp.
Eurip. Med. 400, πικροὺς δ᾽ ἐγώ...
ϑήσω γάμους. ἐν your., perhaps be-
cause suppliants grasped the knees; thus
ἐπιμάρτυρες al.
274. ἄνωγε.
not merely “at the god's disposal’’, but
‘‘to be suppliantly sought’’ is intended.
The sanctity of the knees appears
from adjurations, as λέσσομ᾽ ὑπὲρ ψυ-
χῆς καὶ γούνων, mar., and μὴ πρὸς
σὲ youseyr Eurip. Med. 325.
268—9. join xéy with νοσεήσας. Do-
nalds. Gr. Gr. 505, p. 543 says, ‘‘the
apodotic use of the participle with a»
is generally found in objective, rela-
tive, and causal sentences’, Here the
protasis, “if he return at all’, may be
understood. ἄνωγα, Buttm. Ζοαίϊ. 8. υ.
ἀνήνοθεν (26) supposes a radical form
ἀνήγω, or, ἢ being non-essential, azyes.
The analogy of ἐλήλυθα, ἐνήνοχα, ἐδή-
doxa &c. requires a tetrasyllable with
a short vowel in 3°¢ syllable. He seems
to imply that avnvoya would be the
link form. With Buttman’s avnya we
may comp. ἐπείγω.
273—5. πέφραδσε, see on a. 444.
ἐπὶ = adhibiti, i. e. to witness his de-
nunciation; so he invokes Zeus and
Themis #. 68. In 275 the sentence ran
on from the preceding clause, μνηστῆ-
ρας μὲν... σκέδνασθαι ἄνωχϑι, μητέρα
δ᾽ (aw ἐέναι), but was suddenl changed
in the latter, as if μήτηρ had p ed
26:
27
27.
DAY 1.] ΟΔΥΣΣΕΊΑΣ A. 277-296.
of δὲ γάμον τεύξουσι καὶ ἀρτυνέουσιν ἔεδνα"
πολλὰ" μάλ᾽, ὅσσα ἔοικε φίλης ἐπὶ παιδὸς ἔπεσϑαι.
σοὶ δ᾽ αὐτῷ πυκινὼς ὑποθήσομαι," el! χε πίϑηαι"
8ο νῆ᾽ . ἄρσας ἐρέτῃσιν ἐείκοσιν, ἢ τις ἀρίστη,
ἔρχεοξ πευσόμενος πατρὸς δὴν οἰχομένοιο,
ἤν τίς τοι εἴπῃσι βροτῶν, ἢ ὄσσαν! ἀχούσῃς
ἐκ Διός, ἥ τε μάλιστα φέρει κλέος! ἀνθρώποισιν.
πρῶται μὲν ἐς Πύλον ἐλθὲΥ καὶ εἴρεο Νέστορα δῖον,
85 κεῖϑεν dt Σπάρτηνδε παρὰ ξανϑὸν Μενέλαον"
ὃς! γὰρ δεύτατος ἦλθεν ᾿“χαιῶν χαλκοχιτώνων.
εἶν μέν κεν πατρὸς βίοτον καὶ νόστον ἀκούσῃς ."
ἢ τ’ ἂν τρυχόμενός περ ἔτι τλαίης ἐνιαυτόν᾽
εἰ δέ xe τεϑνηῶτος ἀκούσῃς μηδ᾽ ἔτ᾽ ἐόντος,
go νοστήσας δὴ ἔπειτα φίλην ἐς πατρίδα γαῖαν
σῆμαν τέ of χεῦαι καὶ ἐπὶ κτέρεχ! κτερεΐξαι
πολλὰς μάλ᾽, ὅσσα ἔοικε, καὶ ἀνέρι μητέρα δοῦναι.
αὐτὰρ ἐπὴν δὴ ταῦτα τελευτήσῃς" τε καὶ ἔρξης,
φραξεσϑαι δὴ ἔπειτα κατὰ φρένα καὶ κατὰ ϑυμὸυ,!
21
a App. A. 14 mar.
Ὁ α. 398, Δ. 197,
238, 2 .
ς (((. 194, 2. 143,
& 293.
d A. 207, ζ΄. 83.
e App. Ε 1. (17)
An. Mar.
f θ 294, 8. 426,
. 80.
ο. 270, a. 94, 7.
δ 360, ψ. 415. β
h B- 216—7.
i B. 93. ωὠ. 418,
εἴ. é. 89, γ. 315.
j B. 486.
k @. 93. Δ. 314, 359.
1 g. 178.
m T. $1, yw. 342.
n §.318—238; ef. μι.
Sree. πι 405. δ᾽
9. 79—83
o 0. 520, 525,
p 2. 75, H. 86. 92.
799, d. 684 mar.
q 7- 385, 2. 38.
τ a. 278 mar.
s ἃ. 80.
t δ. 120 mar., 117.
95
«- . ee τἕτἕ᾽'
278. ἔσεσθαι Schol. H. ἔσεσθαι al. Hunc v. omittit Rhian.
286. δεύτερος var. lect. Harl., cf. 2. 248.
289. ita Harl. ex emend. τεϑινεεώτος.
ὅππως" κε μνηστῆρας ἐνὶ μεγάροισι τεοῖσιν
κτείνῃς ἠὲ δόλῳ ἢ ἀμφαδόν"" οὐδέ τί σε χρὴ
278. Féforne,
201. fos.
277. ἔξεδνα.
en .5.5.άώἀψ.ώ ὲςὲς.............-.----..
Schol. 4. 105.
Harl. ex emendatione.
Clark. ἐπικτέρεα. κτερέϊξον Harl.
. --------.-ς-. ....
as subject; see Jelf, § 58:1. 1. The
Scholl. H. M. think μητέρα was de-
veloped by some copyist adding «a to
pre the ancient abbreviation for μητήρ.
277. ΟἿ, i. e. of ἀμφὶ τὸν πατέρα,
Eustath. δεῦνα, see App. A. 14.
281. wevoou. takes a gen., see Do-
nalds. Gr. Gr. 451 9g. “Το hear of’ one
absent is here the sense; but &. 12 ‘‘to
hear’’ (the speech of) one present. It has
also acc., as vootoy B. 215,360, properly
of the actual statement heard; cf. axov-
σης a. 287, 289, and see β. 315 note.
The verb of sense may be classed with
λαμβάνω, aigéo etc. in ambiguity of
syntax. None of them wholly lose the
right of a trans. verb, yet all partake
of the possessive and partitive idea;
cf. a. 121 χεῖρ᾽ Ele δεξιτερὴν, and H.
108 δεξιτερῆς Ele χειρός.
280. ἐξείκοσιν.
292. Féfotne.
—_——
ee
u 2. 119--20.
243;
|
282 feixyoe. ύσσαν.
282. ἀκούσας
287. ακοῦσεις
201. χεῦσαι
293. πάντα pro ταῦτα Schol. X. 468.
282. ὄσσαν, “rumour”, is distinct
from φημῆ. Soph. ded. R. 43, B. 35,
v. 100, and from ομφῆ y. 215, Hy.
Merc. 543—§, which mean “prophetic —
voice’’, Rumour widely prevalent and
rapidly spreading, yet not traceable
to a human source was ascribed to
God, Buttm, Lezil, 5. v.; 80 vox popult
vue Dei, comp. Hes. Opp. 761 φημῆ
δ᾽ οὔτις πάμπαν ἀπόλλυται, ἥντινα
πολλοὶ λαοὶ φημέξουσι᾽ Saog vv τίς
ἐστι καὶ αὐτή. Niigelsb. Hom, Theol.
6 II. 14 adopts this view, but § IV. 25
inclines to identify it here with ὀμφη.
284—6. Πυλον, see App. D. 4. ὃς
in epic usage was demonstrative as
well as relat.; cf. ὡς for ‘‘so’’ and ‘‘as”’.
289 - 99. ἀκούσῃς takes a construc-
tion similar to zurPavopat; see on 281.
22
a εἴ, 2. 619.
5 τ. 88, 6. 20, 0. |
175.
--΄’..-.-ςἘςἘς.. ....-...
ΟΔΥΣΣΕΙ͂ΑΣ A. 29)-- 222.
:νηπιάας ὀχέειν," ἐπεὶ οὐχέτι τηλίκος" ἐσσί.
ἢ οὐκ ἀΐεις οἷον κλέος ἔλλαβε δῖος Ὀρέστης ἃ
[pay I.
ee ee
σ. 11, O. 248. , ’ ~ ~
dy 832. 8. r.107 πάντας" ἐπ᾽ ἀνθρώπους, ἐπεὶ ἔκτανε πατροφονῆα.
Kn 18. Aiysofov dodounter, ὃς of πατέρα κλυτὸν ἔχτα:
fy. 197—8, 301--8, | xalE σὺ, φίλος," (μάλα γάρ σ᾽ ὁρόω καλόν; τε μέγαν τε)
g 7. 199—200.
Β L $75. 4. 189,
- Of, D. 106.
+ @. 106, 4. 513,
ἄλκιμος goo’, ἵνα τίς σε καὶ ὀψιγόνωνν ev εἴπῃ.
αὐτὰρ ἐγὼν ἐπὶ νῆα Bony κατελεύσομαι ἤδη
ef. G7, ὁ 4ι8, ἠδ᾽ ἑτάρους, of πού pe μάλ᾽ ἀσχαλόωσιπ" μένοντες"
kr. 3.3, Ἡ 81. |Sol δ᾽ αὐτῷ μελέτω." καὶ ἐμῶν ἐμπαξεοο pyar.”
᾿ 108 nar τὴν δ᾽ αὖ Τηλέμαχος πεπνυμένος ἀντίον ηὔδα᾽
ny 308. “ξεῖν᾽, ἡ τοι μὲν ταῦτα φίλαν φρονέων ἀγορεύεις,
oe me ὥς τε πατὴρ ᾧ παιδί, καὶ οὔ ποτὲ λήσομαι αὐτῶν.
᾿ é. set, Ζ. 340, ἀλλά ἄγε viv ἐπίμεινον, ἐπειγόμενός" περ ὁδοῖο."
ἐς Ἶ, 350-1. |Opoa λοεσσάμενός" τὲ τεταρπομενός" τε φίλον κῆρ
arr ass. δώρον" ἔχων ἐπὶ νῆα xing, χαίρων" ἐνὶ Dupe,
ef, X. γ5. 35. ᾿τιμῆεν μάλα καλόν, ὅ τοι κειμήλιον" ἔσται
\ aa $96. ἐξ ἐμεῦ, οἷα φίλοι ξεῖνοι ξείνοισι διδοῦσιν." |
ν ὁ. 75. tov δ᾽ ημείβετ ἔπειτα Dea γλαυκῶπις 49ϑηνη᾿
w 8. 995,
x δ. 600, YF. 61",
@. 91, 101, 159.
y ¢. 600.
Σ 0. 83, φ. 349,
“un μ᾽ ἔτι νῦν κατέρυκε, λιλαιόμενόν περ ὁδοῖο,
δώρον δ᾽ ὅττι κέ μοι δοῦναι φίλον ἥτορ ἀνώγῃ,
αὖτις ἀνερχομένῳ δόμεναι οἰκόνδε φέρεσθαι ,*
aa δ᾽ 400, 4, 5356.
. 111.
bb ϑ. 405, Ψ', δ62,
$85.
ce KE, 138.
καὶ μάλα καλὸν ἑλών". σοὶ δ᾽ ἄξιον"" ἔσται ἀμοιβῆς.»
n° μὲν ἄρ᾽ ὡς εἰποῦσ᾽ ἀπέβη γλαυκώπις ᾿4ϑήνη,
ὄρνις δ᾽ ὡς ἀνύπαια διέπτατο" δὰ τῷ δ᾽ ἑνὶ ϑυμῷ
dd Ὁ, 8, 112, Ε. ἰϑιῆκε μένος“ καὶ ϑάρσος, ὑπέμνησέν τέ E πατρὸς
oF ὦ Φ "δ, μᾶλλον ἔτ᾽ 4 τὸ πάροιϑεν. ὃ δὲ φρεσὶν σι νοήσας
300. ὅ (οι. ;
321. £8.
297. νηπιάχοις et νηπιαχοντ᾽.
302. Ferny. ; 308. Fo.
332. φρεσὶ Frat.
300. ὃ Arist., Schol. M.
317. Fosxovds. 319. Serxove .
305. αὐτῶν Rec.
314. αὖτε προσέειπε Rec. ἀπαμειβομένη προσέφη Harl. ex emend. antiq.
316. sic Voss., lib. ἀνώγει.
320. sic Clark, secutus Arist., avoxaia Herod.,
cy onaia Voss.
τηλίκος, here = tantulus. ἐπ᾿’ ἀνϑρώ-
πους, the accus. signifies extent or
diffusion. Ὀρέσε. see on a. 29.
301. φέλος, for other examples of
this voc. see mar.; φέλε is also found,
as B: 363. .
304-9. αὐχαλό., A pres. ἀσχάλλω
is found, B. 193. For Andogeae see
on 6s. ὁδοῖο, gen. of thing desired,
(cf. λιλαιόμ. od, 315) involving a me-
taphor from motion, as shown in ἐσσυ-
μένος, τιταινόμενος, &c. ὁδοῖο, as of
urgent pursuit; see Jelf, Gr. Gr. § 510.
16—8. Ni, suggests σε for xe and
objects to Otte xe... ἀνογῃ, as leav-
ing the giving in uncertain expectation,
in fact = éay ... ἀνώγῃ: but οττι xe
is used (mar.) of what a man is just
going to say, &c., and which has no
further uncertainty than that it is not
yet said. ἑλων is construed with do-
μεναι as (mar.) with ἔχω, but transposed
into the subjoined clause καὶ pofla ...
320 2. avdx., see App. A. 13 and
note on y. 372. πεῖρος, see App.
ΒΕ. 3.
300
305
410
315
320
325
DAY I.]
SauBynoer* κατὰ ϑυμόν᾽ ὀΐσατο yao ϑεὸν εἶναι.
αὐτίκα δὲ μνηστῆρας ἐπῴχετο ἰσόϑεος" φώς.
τοῖσι δ᾽ ἀοιδὸς". ἄειδε περικλυτὸς, of δὲ σιωπῇ
εἴατ᾽ ἀκούοντες" ὃ δ᾽ ᾿Ζ“χαιῶν νόστον ἄειδεν
λυγρὸν," ὃν ἐκ Τροίης ἐπετείλατο Παλλὰς ᾿4ϑήνη.
τοῦ δ᾽ ὑπερωιόϑεν φρεσὶ συνϑετοῖ ϑέσπιν ἀοιδὴν
xovons Ἰκαρίοιο περέφρων Πηνελόπεια,
430 "κλίμακα' δ᾽ ὑψηλὴν κατεβήσετο οἷο δόμοιο,
ovx* οἵη" ἅμα τῇ ye καὶ ἀμφίπολοι! dv’ ἕποντο.
ἣν" δ᾽ ὅτε δὴ μνηστῆρας ἀφίκετο δῖα γυναικῶν,
στῆ" ῥα παρὰ σταϑμὸν τέγεος πύκα ποιητοῖο
ΟΔΥΣΣΕΊΙΑΣ A. 323-344.
23
| a cf. 7. 371—3.
. B. 565,
ἄντα παρειάων σχομένη λιπαρὰ xondeprva’? ΗΝ
335 ἀμφίπολος δ᾽ ἄρα of κεδνὴ ἑκάτερϑε" παρέστη. δ Αι.
δακρύσασα". δ᾽ ἔπειτα προσηύδα ϑεῖον" ἀοιδόν = X, i,
“Druce, πολλὰ γὰρ ἄλλα βροτῶν ϑελκτήρια ἤδης, ᾳ χ- 181, ξ. 19.
ἔργ᾽ ἀνδρῶν τὲ ϑεῶν τε, ta τε κλείουσιν" ἀοιδοί:" εξ ΝΗ διὰ
τῶν ἕν" γέ σφιν ἄειδε παρήμενος," oF ὃὲ σιωπῇ ι 6. 418, α. 851,
340 οἶνον πινόντων. ταύτης δ᾽ dxoxave’ ἀοιδῆς εἶ, @. Sat.
λυγρῆς, ἤ τέ wou αἰεὶ ἐνὶχ στήϑεσσι φίλον κῆρ © 8 Sot ?.
τείρει, ἐπεί μὲ μάλιστα καϑίκετο xEvBOSY ἀλαστόν' x 7.800 3 316
τοίην" γὰρ κεφαλὴν ποϑέω" μεμνημένη αἰεὶ
ἀνδρὸς." τοῦ κλέος εὐρὺ καϑ' Ελλάδα καὶ μέσον “Aoyos.”
jz ἃ. 549, 556, 16.
‘aa BE. 414.
| bh d.726, 816, 0.80.
EE A SE SE ......
324. «Γισόϑεος. 329. Fexagcoro,
337. Fydne.
337. οἷϑας lib., deg sive, fide Porsoni, εἴδεις Zenod.
342. Clark. Dind. alacroy,
326 -. Ay. νόστον, all the lays of
bards in the Ody., except that of Ares
and Aphrodité in book &. (comp. 338
ϑεῶνῚ, relate to the Trojan war. The
idea of its renown is thus, to the
reader, poetically enhanced; comp. the
reason assigned by Telem. for the
minstrel’s choice of theme, 351 --- 2.
exetetA., “decreed”, cf. Zach. Prom.
99—100 μόχϑων yor τέρματα ... ἐπι-
τεῖλαι.
328—31. vrega. and χλέῤε., see
App. F.2.(32). ἀμφέπο(εἴ ἀμφιπέληται
352) always female. The names of these
appear o. 182 as Autonoé and Hippoda-
meia. Nausicaa (mar.) is attended by
such; but also the aged Laertes has his
γρηῦς ἀμφίπ. 191; and Telem. is waited
on by Euryclen 438—41. Hence apget
338. Féey.
3385. foe ξεκάτερϑε.
340. fotvoy.
330. fuéo.
———————
338. aotdovg al.
344. f Arist. Bek.
πολούω “to wait on”; see further App.
A. 7.
333—4. Ota. téy., see App. F, 2. (16).
xendeu., a band or fillet of linen used
to tie or entwine with the hair, but
also held loose, kerchief-wise, as here.
The Schol, H. thinks it was to stay
her tears. Ind gives one to Odys, to
bind under his breast. Figuratively,
it means the battlement of a city-wall:
see mar.
339. σιωπῇ, not a hint to be quiet,
but a common-place phrase of a party
drinking and listening at once, 80 325.
342—4. ἀλαστον, 566 ON 252. V. 344
is rejected by Arist. and Bek., but
needlessly. Penel. may naturally speak
of Odysseus’ fame as “extending to
Hellas (in Thessaly) and all Argos in-
$
an = B
his VE Sm» y Ὁ &
“δ
yj!
%.
r Rm
at
oe eRe
ἜΣΣΩ
ΞΦΝ κα
ἘΣ:
"ΗΝ
$38; ef. ὃ. 14
. 168
4, 588, a. 894
OATIZEIAE A. 345—360.
[Day 1.
τὴν δ᾽ av Τηλέμαχος πεπνυμένος ἀντίον nida
μῆτερ Eun, τί τ᾽ ἄρα φϑονέεις ἐρέηρον" ἀοιδὸν
τέρπειν" ὅππῃ of νόος ὄρνυται; οὔ νύ τ᾽ ἀοιδοὶ
; «[.͵ αἴτιοι, ἀλλά cote Ζεὺς αἴτιος, ὃς τε δίδωσιν
ἀνδράσιν ἀλφηστῇσιν,» ὅπως! ἐθέλῃσιν, ἑκάστῳ.
τούτῳ δ᾽ οὐ νέμεσις ξ Ζαναῶν κακὸν οἶτον" ἀείδειν" 35)
17, 9. τὴν γὰρ ἀοιδὴν μᾶλλον ἐπικλείουσ᾽ὶ ἄνϑρωποι,
᾿,ἥ τις ἀκουόντεσσι νεωτάτη ἀμφιπέληται.
T. 20, ©. ὩΣ] σοὶ δ᾽ ἐπιτολμάτω" κραδίη καὶ ϑυμὸς ἀκούειν᾽
α lov γὰρ Ὀδυσσεὺς οἷος ἀπώλεσε νόστιμον! ἧμαρ
""" €v Τροίῃ, πολλοὶ" dt χαὶ ἄλλοι φῶτες ὄλοντο.
BA; 05 2 ἀλλ᾽υ εἰς οἶκον ἰοῦσα τὰ σ᾽ αὐτῆς ἔργα κόμιξε,
o ὅ. 181,13. ἱστόν τ᾽ ἡλαχάτηνο τε, καὶ ἀμφιπόλοισι χέλευε
" ρ. 227, σ. 868.
q ν.8ὲ, κ.328,86ι,. ἔργον» ἐποίχεσθαι" μῦϑος δ᾽ ἄνδρεσσι μελήσειν
A. 8ὃι.
τ 1. 388 - 83, Y. 187, |
s T 824, εἴ. δ. 885.
346. ἐρίξηφον. 147. fos.
358. ξεργον.
346, ἄρ᾽ αὖ Rec.; φρενόεις ex emend. Schol. M., Bek. annot,
σύ γ᾽ εἰσελθοῦσα Scholl. Ε. H M. Q. ΒΕ.
χαριεστέραις γραφαὶς οὐκ ἡσαν᾽" Scholl. H. Q. R.
349. ἐθέλῃσι βεκάστω.
389. folxo.
| πᾶσι, μάλιστα δ᾽ ἐμοί" τοῦ" γὰρ χράτος ἔστ᾽ ἐνὶ οἴκῳ."
ἢ μὲν ϑαμβήσασα πάλιν olxdvde βεβήκειν"
356. Soixoy, Fégya.
360. Fosxovde. ᾽
ps6 ἀλλὰ
356—9. delevit Arist. “ἐν δὲ ταῖς
360. ϑαλαμονδὲ Scholl.
E. H. M. 9. R.
tervening”’; gee App. D. 9 (5); nor can
the phrase in o. 80, where it recurs,
be spared,
348—9. ποϑὲ = που, “1 suppose”’,
giving a modest tone to the speak-
er’s words. ὠλφησ., this epith., not
found in 1]., occurs only with ayv-
δρες in the sense of enterprising”’,
Fa. ad lve. The phrase ‘knights
errant”, or ‘‘merchant-adventurers’’,
may, allowing for a different state of
society, nearly represent its furce. Ni.
explains δέδωσιν as of Zeus assigning
their lots to venturesome men, and so
giving rise to those adventures. which,
as in the case of the Greeks at Troy,
become the minstrel's theme. It is man
who seeks, god who sends the lot
{comp. Nausicaa’s words, nar.) — one of
blended good and evil; we cannot alter
facts, and though the woe be that of
the Greeks, blame nut the bard, he
.only chose it as the newest tale. This
seems to imply, for the epos, that it
meant to be faithful to an accepted
view of facts, and did not consciously
romance; see espy. &. 488 --οἱ. The
Chorus in Soph. Antig.332—48 πολλὰ τὰ
δεινὰ... περιφραδὴς ἀνήρ᾽ is a good
commentary on avd.dig. here: cf. Soph.
Philoct. 709. Zeschyl, Sept. c. Th. 767.
350. Oiroyv, “lot”, always in evil
sense, Nigelsbach Hom. Theol. 111. § 3b.
It is connected with ofcopa: as /fors
with fero. In @. 489-90 οἷτον is pa-
raphrased as ogo’ ἔρξαν τ᾽ ἔκαϑόν te
καὶ ooo ἐμόγησαν ᾿4χαιοί.
351-., quoted Plato de Rep. IV. p.
424 B. Contrast with the sentiment
here that of Hes. Theng. g9—101, where
the ἀοιδὸς μουσάων ϑεράπων sings
κλεῖα προτέρων ἀνθρώπων. The sub-
junct ἀριφιπέληταε is here used to
give that indefiniteness which a ge-
neral statement implies; see Jelf Gr. Gr.
§ 828, 2.
356—9. These lines have been sus-
pected by various critics, but need-
lessly. They suit the occasion and the
speaker. Telem., conscious of new
strength (321), is somewhat full of self-
assertion: see App. E. 3. tov uttered
with some gesture added to show that
he speaks of himself. Ni.
DAY 1.]
.- ἃ ,Ἠ
παιδὸς γὰρ μῦϑον πεπνυμένον ἔνϑετο" ϑυμῷ.
és δ᾽ ὑπερῷ᾽ ἀναβᾶσα σὺν ἀμφιπόλοισι γυναιξὶν
κλαῖεν ἔπειτ᾽ Ὀδυσῆα φίλον πόσιν, ὄφρα οἵ ὕπνον -ϑιΨ
ἡδὺν ἐπὶ βλεφάροισι βάλε γλαυκῶπις ᾿4ϑήνη.
465 μνηστῆρες“ δ᾽ ὁμάδησαν ἀνὰ μέγαρα σκιόεντα,
πάντες δ᾽ ἠρήσαντο παραὶ λεχέεσσι κλιθῆναι.
τοῖσιο δὲ Τηλέμαχος πεπνυμένος ἤρχετο μύϑων᾽
μητρὸς! ἐμῆς μνηστῆρες ὑπέρβιον ὕβριν ἔχοντες,
νῦν μὲν δαινύμενοι τερπώμεϑα, μηδὲ βοητὺς
470 ἔστω, ἐπεὶ τόξ γε καλὸν ἀχουέμεν ἐστὶν ἀοιδοῦ
τοιοῦδ᾽,ι" οἷος ὅδ᾽ ἐστὶ, θεοῖς; ἐναλίγκιος αὐδήν.
ἠῶϑεν δ᾽ ἀγορήνδε καϑεζωμεσθα" κιόντες
ὈΟΔΎΣΣΕΙΑΣ A. 361—384. 25
a ἃ. 108, ν. 848:
ef. ο. 81.
b d. 751, 760, ρ. 49,
τ. 6038—4
’
ἡ : ef.
, %.449—61,
ye
Ἷ
- 250, 8. 4 mar.
i i. i ὦ,
Nm RS AS APS
ξ
ἢ wo ε - 3 n β. 189-45
πάντες, ty ὑμῖν μύϑον! ἀπηλεγέως ἀποείπω," ο ϑ. 38.
ἐξιέναι" μεγάρων" ἄλλας δ᾽ ἀλεγύνετεο δαῖτας P oF ee
q I. 471.
375 Dua? κτήματ᾽ ἔδοντες, ἀμειβόμενοι κατὰ οἴκους.
εἰ δ᾽ ὑμῖν δοχέει τόδε λωίτερον καὶ ἄμεινον
ἔμμεναι, ἀνδρὸς ἑνὸς βίοτοντ- νήποινον ὀλέσϑαι,
κείρετ᾽ " ἐγὼ δὲ ϑεοὺς ἐπιβώσομαι αἰὲν" ἐόντας,
alt κέ ποϑι Ζεὺς δῷσι παλέντιτα" ἔργα γενέσθαι"
380 νήποινοί κεν ἔπειτα δόμων ἔντοσθεν ὕλοισϑε.᾽"»
ος᾽ Epad’, οἵ δ᾽ ἄρα πάντες ὁδὰξ ἐν χείλεσι φύντες"
Τηλέμαχον ϑαύμαξον, o* ϑαρσαλέωςνΥ ἀγόρευεν.
τ α. 1θ0, &. 877,417.
5 a, 868, 8.86, 4.
290, 494, @. 518.
t Z. 526, y. 98.
u @. δι.
v σ. 410—3, uv. 268
—70,
w cf. 8.308, ὦ. 410,
M4. 818.
x 7. 166, Μ- 875,
γ. 840, δ. 206.
γα. 885, o. 329—
τὸν δ᾽ avr’ "Avtivoog προσέφη Εὐπείθεος υἱός 30, 880—90
“ Τηλέμαχ᾽, ἢ μάλα δή os διδάσκουσιν": ϑεοὶ αὐτοὶ
863. foe. 364. ηδύν.
370. ἀοιδὴν Rec.
ὀλέσσαι Clark.
373. axofelxe,
373 et 376. ὕμιν et ὕμμιν.
279. pro ai Bek. passim ef, ποτὲ et zoe Harl., ποϑὲ
z εἰ W. 307, ρ.
δ18-- 9.
379. ἐέργα.
377. ὀλέσθαι Harl., valg.,
375. Solxovs.
etiam Hesych.
362—71. For vxegqu and oxider.
see App. F. 2. (32) (18). τοιοῦδ᾽, see
on 207. , ,
373—80. ρμεῦϑον axyda. αἀποεί.,
‘“may utter fearlessly a prohibition”’;
see on 91. adeyuy., the imper. shows
that Telem., declaring what he wil! say
in council, warms with the occasion
into actually saying it. νήπιε» “as my
substance is wasted without compen-
sation, so may your death be”’; é. e.
be unavenged. δόρῤιων évr. foresha-
dows the actual catastrophe of the
suitors in 7, and νήποιψοι the futile
attempt to avenge them in o.
379—81. For αἴ xe Bek. always gives
εἰ xe. These particles with a subjunct.,
when some verb of urgency or entreaty
precedes, mean “to try if’: with an
optat. they expresses a wish, “if you
only would ...’’, and in the apodosis
καί κε sometimes follows, “then would
I”. The af γὰρ of adjurations “would
God”? has an apodosis understood.
.«.«οφῦύντες, a tmesis, “clinging
with teeth as if growing into their lips’’:
comp, the common phrase ἐν τ᾿ aga
of φῦ χειρέ (mar.).
382. ὃ == guod, (1) “that”, simply
connecting a clause ag object, (2) "ἴον
that’? = as ards the fact that, as
here, (3) = ds’ o “wherefore’’ (mar.).
384—8. This short speech is in a
strain of ironical banter; see App. E. 6.
26 OATZZEIAL A. 385— 402. [pay 1.
a ΟΝ -. «4
a β. "6,305, ¢.406;! ὑψαγόρην" τ᾽ ἔμεναι καὶ ϑαρσαλέως ἀγορεύειν.
oO ν. 53:4. μή » σέ γ᾽ ἐν ἀμφιάλῳ“ ᾿Ιϑάκη βασιλῆα Κρονίων
. 899,
υ. 344. ,
ε α. 395, , 293,
d ef. ο. 633 - 4,
ea. 150, K. 115.
f cf. O. 207,
6 a. 411, γ. 8171.
Β &. 1τ521--͵
i a. 355 mar.
k 3. 293.
1 α. 386 mar.
md. 58.
n 2.26; εἴ. w. 357.
ὃ α. 267 mar,
pp a 880 mer. ’
ὁ. | ποιήσειεν, ὃ τοι γενεῇ πατρώιόν ἐστιν."
' τὸν δ᾽ αὖ Τηλέμαχος πεπνυμένος ἀντίον ηὔδα
“Avyrivd, ἡ καί μοι νεμεσήσεαι" ὅττι κεν εἴπω;
καί κεν τοῦτ᾽ ἐθέλοιμι, duds γε διδόντος, ἀρέσϑαι.
ἢ φὴς τοῦτο κάκιστον ἐν ἀνθρώποισι τετύχϑαι.-
οὐξ μὴν γάρ τι καχὸν βασιλευέμεν" apa τέ of da"
ἀφνειὸν πέλεται καὶ τιμηέστερος αὐτός.
ἀλλ᾽ ἡ τοι βασιλῆες ᾿4ἀχαιῶν εἰσὶ καὶ ἄλλοι!
πολλοὶ ἐν ἀμφιάλῳ Ἰθάκῃ, νέυι" ἠδὲ παλαιοὶ,
τῶν κέν τις τόδ᾽ ἔχῃσιν, ἐπεὶ Dave δῖος Ὀδυσσεύς"
᾿αὐτὰρ ἐγὼν οἴχοιο ἄναξ ἔσομ᾽ ἡμετέροιο
καὶ ὁμώων, οὔς pot ληίσσατο" δῖος Ὀδυσσεύς."
τὸν δ᾽ avr’ Εὐρύμαχος Πολύβου παῖς ἀντίον ηὔδα
τ ~ = ’
4 «εἴ. T. 114 ν- ἐς Τ, λέμαχ᾽, ἡ τοι ταῦτα ϑεὼν ἐν γούνασι" κεῖται,
τα. Ui; εἴ.
110.
—_— wee ee
a
389. κε felxm. 102. For.
397. Fotxoro, Favag.
« ὕς τις ἐν ἀφιάλῳν Ἰθάκῃ βασιλεύσει ᾿Αχαιῶν"
κτήματα δ᾽ αὐτὸς ἔχοις καὶ δώμασι σοῖσιν. ἀνάσσοις."
402. σοῖσι Favaccoic.
389. ef pro ἢ &chol. H. εἴπερ μοι καὶ ἀγάσσεαι Schol. M. 302. sic Bek., μὲν lib.
402. οἷσιν.
----.ὕ»ὕ.ὕ»....» eee .. ...ὄ-. -- —————
— == - -
386. say Ob γ᾽, 80 403, μὴ γὰρ OY
ἔλθοι: comp. the N.T. ΜΗ yevorvo here
the phrase is ironical or insincere. “It
is admitted by the suitors that the so-
vereignty descended to Telem, from his
father. Yet there was evidently some
special if not formal act to be done,
without which he could not be king;
for Antin. expresses his hope that Ju-
piter will never make Telem. king of
Ithaca. Not because the throne was
full, for on the contrary the death of
Ulysses is assumed to have occurred;
but apparently because this act, what-
ever it was, had not been performed
in his case.” Gladst. III. 1. 51. The
same Writer notices the change in the
sense of βασιλεὺς in the Ody. from
that of the 1]., the Ody. representing
the political condition of Greece after
the great shock of the Trojan war.
Thus the suitors are βασιλῆες ᾿Δχαιῶν
(cf. ὃ. 390—1), though no one of them
is actually βασιλεύς : and, as the pres-
sure of the Bac. in chief was removed,
the minor βασιλῆες would of course ex-
«ΜΗ».
pand in importance. Nay, Telem. ad-
mits (396) the right of such a chief Bac.
being chosen from among them in de-
feat of his hereditary right.
390—8. Telem. speaks in a matter-
of-fact way, which blunts the effect of
Antinons’ irony by taking his words not
ironically. With humility, in disclaim-
ing royalty, he shows firmness in claim-
ing domestic supremacy; see App. b. 3.
396. Dave = τέθνηκε; comp. wlero,
168; 80 413.
402. σοῖσιν, so Bek. and Buttm. for
οἷσιν of the mss. On the argument
whether ὃς, £0¢ can be possess. of the
2°4 (and 1°) pers, see Liddell ἃ 8. «. v.
who affirm, and Buttm. Lezil. s. v. Enos,
note, who denies. Of the passages
mar.) adduced as supporting this use,
jouw in T. 174 is merely a var. lect.,
σῇσιν also being read, as in =. 221,
II. 36, etc. and ». 320 has been marked
by various ancient critics as probably
spurious. Thus our present passage
alone remains; and, considering the
great frequency of recurrence of ἐμὸς
DAY 1.]
oh
OATZEEIAL A. 403—419. 27
μὴ" yao 6 y» ἔλϑοι ἀνὴρ ὅς τίς σ᾽ aéxovra® βέηφιν | ac. 396 mar.
κτήματ᾽ a&xogeatoer’,’ ᾿Ιϑάκης ἔτι ναιεταούσης.
4054 αλλ ἐθέλω σε, φέριστε," περὶ ξείνοιο ἐρέσϑαι,
ὁππόϑεν' οὗτος ἀνήρ, ποίης δ᾽ ἐξ εὔχεταις εἶναι
γαίης; ποῦ δέ νύ of γενεὴ καὶ πατρὶς ἄρουρα;
née τιν᾽ ἀγγελίην! πατρὸς φέρει ἐρχομένοιο,
ἢ ἐὸν αὐτοῦ χρεῖος ἐελδόμενος" τόδ᾽ 1 κάνει:
410 οἷον ἀναΐξας ἄφαρ οἴχεται, οὐδ᾽ αὶ ὑπέμεινεν
γνώμεναι" οὐ μὴν γάρ τι κακῷ εἰς ὦπα ἑῴκειν."»
τὸν δ᾽ αὖ Τηλέμαχος πεπνυμένος ἀντίον ηὔδα
“Βὐρύμαχ᾽, ἦ τοι νόστος" ἀπώλετο πατρὸς ἐμοῖο"
οὔτ᾽ οὖν ἀγγελίη ἔτι πείθομαι, εἴ ποϑεν ἔλϑοι,
415 οὔτε ϑεοπροπίης" ἐμπάξομαι, ἣν τινα μήτηρ"
ἐς μέγαρον καλέσασα ϑεοπρόπον ἐξερέηται.
ξεῖνος, δ᾽ οὗτος ἐμὸς πατρώιος ἐκ Τάφου" ἐστὶν,
Μέντης" δ᾽ ᾿ἀγχιάλοιο δαΐφρονος εὔχεται εἶναι
υἱὸς, ἀτὰρ Ταφίοισι φιληρέτμοισιν ἀνάσσει."
b T. 844
e ὅδ. 646, 4. 480.
ἃ π. 428,
e ει. 309, Ζ. 133,
q α. 187, ρ. δ8:, Z..
215.
τ App. ἢ. 5 mar.
δα. 180—1.
— =
“S &
S38
ἐς
403. aféxoyta, 407. (οι.
419.
re ee ee ... ~—- — -. ὦ.
403. 00.
411. sic Bek. μὲν lib.
8 manu rec.
and σὸς, a ἅπαξ dey, or, what is prac-
tically such, has little or no proba-
bility when δώμασι σοῖσιν lay so ob-
viously in the poet’s way. Further, we
might expect the usage, if it existed,
. to be frequent, as is the use of og re-
lative for all persons. On the other hand,
the recurring o may have offended the
older critics, and so caused the altera-
tion.
403—4. μὴ γὰρ, see on 386. ἀτορ-
φαΐσει,, optat., not -ραΐσεε fut. ind., for
in H. where ὅσεες occurs in a subjoined
clause, it mostly takes optat., if optat.
has preceded; exceptions are y.319— 20,
N. 233—4 where cortg takes subjunct.
406. ποίης, see On 171 sup,
408 — 9. ἠέ eee ῇ, see App. A. ti,
feAdou. is found with gen. as well as
with acc. (mar.). tod ἑκάνει, “comes
hither”, trode marking the present
place, as ode the present person. Fa.
thinks it marks the act ef coming.
409. Feov, ἐξελδόμενος.
Favaoces.
404. sic Voss. Bek., ἀπορραίσει lib.
414. ἀγγελίης Eustath. -ἢς al. ἐπιποίθομαι Schol. M.
415. ἣν si.
41τι. «εξῴκειν.
408. οἰχομένοιο Schol. H.
416. καλέουσα.
410—11, οἷον, see on 209. δὲς
wWra, comp. εἰς avra (or εἴσαντα)
ἔδεσϑαι, § 217, which verb may be
here supplied.
414—5. For ἀγγελίῃ Eustath. reads
ἀγγελίης, so in A. 57 the gen. occurs
as a var. lect. The gen. also follows
rneiSomeae in Herod. I. 126; see Bahr
and Schweighiuser ad loc. Jelf. Gr.
Gr. 828, 3, resolves ἢ» teva: as if =
ἐάν τινα, expressing a ‘definite attri-
bute of the principal clause, about the
existence of which some doubt exists.
This is rare in Attic Greek, as they
usnally prefer the optat. for that pur-
pose”: in H,a subjunct often follows;
comp. ἢ tig... ἀμφιπέληται, a. 353.
On the optat. ἔλθοι see App. A. 9
(19) end.
416. ἐξερέηται, here middle voice;
the act. has also the meaning of ‘‘ask’’,
but also, like ἐξερεεένω, that of ‘‘utter,
declare”’.
28 ΟΔΥΣΣΕΙ͂ΑΣ A. 420 -- 499. [pay I.
a 2 Mi cl |) ag φάτο Τηλέμαχος, φρεσὶ δ᾽ ἀϑανάτην" ϑεὸν ἔγνω, 420
ph re jot δ᾽ εἰς ὀρχηστύν" te καὶ ἱμερόεσσαν ἀοιδὴν
Fes ἐξ ἡ ‘geo, τρεψάμενοι τέρποντο, μένον δ᾽ ἐπὶ ἔσπερον ἐλθεῖν."
wv. sa ~ χοῖσι δὲ τερπομένοισι μέλας ἐπὶ ἕσπερος ἤλϑεν'"
ΓΑ Δδδι εἴ A131.) δὴ" τότε κακκείοντες ἔβαν οἰκύνδε ἕκαστος.
ΓΕ Τηλέμαχος δ᾽, ὅϑι' of ϑάλαμος περικαλλέος αὐλῆςφε. 425
hee ὑψηλὸς" δέδμητο,! περισκέπτῳ ἐνὶ χώρῳ
ΩΝ μευ ιμηδοιστ μ δε a0eP
1.438, 2 204, υ. ἔνθ᾽ ἔβη εἰς εὐνὴν, πολλὰ φρεσὶ! μερμηρίξων.
δ Κ Ts δ᾽ ἄρ᾽ au’ αἰθομένας" δαΐδας φέρε κέδν᾽" εἰδυῖα
ma, 4h, 44, Ae ΒΞ ae :
ao 3 Εὐρύκλει᾽ ο Ὦπος ϑυγάτηρ Πεισηνορίδαο,
: ths, 383. ™ τὴν» ποτὲ “αέρτης πρίατο κτεάτεσσιν" EoloLy, 430
ον. 140. ee , κα
ps. 485, §. 115.| πρωϑήβηνντ ἔτ᾽ ἐοῦσαν, ἐεικοσάβοια" δ᾽ ἔδωκεν,
4 ἃ. 2180.0. lion δέ μὲν κεῦνῃ! ἀλόχῳ tlev ἐν μεγάροισιν, ν
(23s pion εὐνῇ δ᾽ οὔ ποτ᾽ ἔμικτο," χόλον δ᾽ ἀλέεινε γυναικὸς"
"5 la οἵ ἅμ᾽ αἰθομένας δαΐδας φέρε, καί ἕ μάλιστα"
san aa ὅμωίων φιλέεσκε, καὶ ἔτρεφε" τυτϑὸν ἐόντα. 435
2 2 ὦιξεν dt ϑύρας ϑαλάμου πιυκα" ποιητοῖο,
456, 2. 608. “ E£eroyY δ᾽ ἐν λέκτρωῳ, μαλακὸν δ᾽ ἔκδυνε χιτῶνα᾽
y Β. 42, K. 21. Ὶ ᾿ _ ἐ ,
zt. 356. καὶ τὸν μὲν γραίης πυκιμηδέος ἔμβαλε χερσίν.
an _" Lee = 179.
A ee
422. βέσπερον͵
428. κεδνὰ ἰδυῖα.
420. Pedy. 42
--...-----.. Ao
420. ἀϑανάτην. The α, due to arsis,
W743. a μὲν τὸν arvgaca* καὶ ἀσκήσασα" χιτῶνα,
oe .-.-ς-... σὰ -- ---- ee
424. Fotxovds Féxactog. 425. Foe.
423. «έσπερος. ;
431:. ἐξεικοσάβοια.
43ο. ἐξξοῖσιν or κτεάτεσσι ξεοῖσιν.
432. «ἰσα. 434. Fa, Fe.
4. ἔνιοι " δὴ τότε κοιμήσαι το καὶ ὕπνου δῶρον ἕλοντο" Schol. Η.
429. Ὡπος
435. τιτϑον Harl. 438. γρηὸς Schol.
429—33- On Euryclea’s position, du-
is frequent in hypertrisyllabic words,
6. g. ἄκάματος, ἀπονέεσθαι, Spitzner,
Gr, Pros. § το Ὁ. Comp. Πρῖαμέδης,
which Virgil follows, who also has
Italia,
424. Some read here δὴ τότε κοιμή-
σαντο καὶ ὑπνου δῶρον ἕλοντο, ascrib-
ing the text us above to Arist.
425—6. ὅϑε governs αὐλῆς as ven.
of place; comp. ducouévon Ὑπερίονος,
α. 24, local gen. without any adverb;
see mar, there. For the arrangement
of the αὐλὴ and ϑάλαμος see App. F.
2. (6), (25) foll. The form δέδμητο from
dauvnut, y. 304. should be distinguished
from this.
yw
ties, &c., see App. A. 7 (2). ἐεικοσαβ.
oxen were the primitive standard of
value, comp. ἑκατομβοι᾿ ἐννεαβοίων, and
παρϑένοι ἀλφεσίέβοιαι (mar.). So in the
funeral games the female slave is prize:
at four oxen and the tripod at twelve,
YW, 705, 703. For χόλον yur. comp.
the story of Phonix, I. 449 foll. The
δὲ after χόλον is = γάρ. So in y. 48.
436. ϑύρας Bad., seo App. F. 2.
28).
43). ἔχδυνε, active in mid. sense,
‘She (not she) took off his coat’; comp.
mar. for ἐνδύνω so used.
439- ἀσχήσ., “smoothed’’; often
used of fine artistic finish given to a
work of art jn metal, wood, &c. (mar.).
DAY 1.] . ὈΟΔΥΣΣΕΙΑΣ A. 440-444. 29
440 πασσάλῳ" ἀγκρεμάσασα παρὰ τρητοῖσι" λέχεσσιν, -
Bic 6 ἵμεν ἐκ θαλάμοιο, ϑύρην δ᾽ ἐπέρυσσε κορώνῃ ἃ Fk
ἀργυρέῃ, ἐπὶ δὲ xAntd’* ἐτάνυσσεν ἱμάντι. la
ἔνϑ᾽ ὅ ye παυνύχιος, κεκαλυμμένος olds! ἀώτῳ,
βούλευε φρεσὶν ἧσιν ὁδὸν τὴν πέφραδ᾽ © ᾿4ϑήνη.
444. φρεσὶ «σιν.
440. sic Clark. et ed. Oxon. ex dubia Harl. lect. τρητοῖσι λεχέεσσι, “ubi aut
τρητοῖς, aut λέχεσσι, prout mavis, legere potes
Pors.; al. τρητοῖς
λεχέεσσι.
--- - ----.....-.
441—4. κορ »νῃ, the handle, crook-
ed, like a ‘‘beak’’, as being so more
surely grasped in pulling the door to.
From g. 165, where the arrow is set
down to rest against it, its height on
the door could not have been above
the arrow's length (about 3 feet) from
the ground. For xAnid’, here the
“bolt”, see App, A. 15. πέφραδ᾽,
a reduplicated sor. of which λελαϑὼὺν,
κέκλετο, πεπύϑοιτο are also instances,
80 at Vv. 273.
28
a 2. 464; cf. γ
818--8.
b 304—306.
c 781.
d ὃ. 786, 2. :δὲ
e $96
ξᾷ
EE
8,
Ὃν»
Ξ
ΒΓ ΟΝ By ἘΠῚ Sree
"SEE g
"
“a
μη}
ΤῊΝ
Se κ᾿!
Ξ
“κι “sm ὦ
»ο
&
ak
ἕ
»
z
ξ
> ww)
᾿Ιτῷ 0 ἂρ
ae ὦν
3
By
- |
ἕ
ἽΕ
o =
=
€
Res SSF _ FSX xv
μ ὁ
oe: .
ES BSx
re
erento 30
Θ .
]
=
PEREE
iM
=
=
ἐν
&
f
aq <
R Pe 2 NON NOR
€
8
ΞΦ
ἅ
310, |
Ἀ
ty &
a ey
P
ne
em
Ἁ
δ. ‘
ΤῈ:
h
2
422. Féaxegoy, 423. Jéoxegos.
428. κεδνὰ «ἰδυῖα.
432. «ἴσα.
ΟΔΥΣΣΕΊΙ͂ΑΣ A. 420 -- 440.
424. Forxovde ξέκαστος.
430. ἐξοῖσεν or κτεάτεσσι «εοῖσιν.
434. (οι, «ξε.
[pay 1.
a .“«ὕἕἅ.-..υ.ὕ.ὕΨ;Ψ;ΣΞ;ὦ5ὦ“ζ 5Ξ5-.-τἘτΦὋἘὌᾶπ, τ ..τὕὔὔ΄ὐὔὔὐπ πε -ῇ-π'΄.........ὕᾧ;}ἋὋζΧὉ«Ὁ::.0
ὡς φάτο Τηλέμαχος, φρεσὶ δ᾽ ἀϑανάτην" ϑεὸν ἔγνω, 4:
οἵ" δ᾽ εἰς ὀρχηστύν“ re καὶ ἱμερόεσσαν ἀοιδὴν
τρεψάμενοι τέρποντο, μένον δ᾽ ἐπὶ ἔσπερον ἐλθεῖν.“
τοῖσι δὲ τερπομένηισι μέλας ἐπὶ ἔσπερος ἦλθεν"
δὴ" τότε xaxxetovres ἔβαν olxovde ἕκαστος.
Τηλέμαχος δ᾽, δὅϑι' of ϑάλαμος περικαλλέος αὐλῆςξ
[ὑψηλὸρ" dédunto,' περισκέπτῳ ἐνὶ χώρῳ,
1 ἔνϑ᾽ ἔβη εἰς εὐνὴν, πολλὰ φρεσὶ! μερμηρίξων.
ἅμ᾽ αἰϑομένας" δαΐδας φέρε κέδν᾽" εἰδυῖα
Εὐρύκλει᾽ . Ὦπος ϑυγάτηρ Πεισηνορίδαο,
ἽἼτήν» ποτὲ Μαέρτης πρίατο χτεάτεσσιν ξοῖσιν,
.| πρωϑήβην" ἔτ᾽ ἐοῦσαν, ἐεικοσάβοια" δ᾽ ἔδωκεν,
tox δέ μιν κεδνῃ" ἀλόχῳ τίεν ἐν μεγάροισιν,
εὐνῇ δ᾽ οὔ ποτ᾽ ἔμικτο," χόλον δ᾽ ἀλέεινε γυναικός"
ῇ οἱ ἅμ᾽ αἰϑομένας δαΐδας φέρε, καί ἑ μάλιστα"
δμωάων φιλέεσκε, καὶ ἔτρεφε" τυτϑὸν ἐόντα.
okey δὲ ϑύρας θαλάμου πύχα" ποιητοῖο,
Ἰξξετοῦ δ᾽ ἐν λέχτρῳ, μαλακὸν δ᾽ ἔκδυνε χιτῶνα"
᾿ Ἰχκαὶ τὸν μὲν γραίης πυκιμηδέος ἔμβαλε χερσίν.
43. .Ὁἢ μὲν τὸν πτύξασα" καὶ ἀσκήσασα" χιτῶνα,
425. Joe.
431. ἐξεικοσάβοια.
420, ϑεάν. 424. ἔνιοι “δὴ τότε κοιμήσα: το καὶ ὕπνου δῶρον ELovro” Schol. H.
429. ῶῷπος
420. ἀϑανάτην. The a, due to arsis,
is frequent in hy pertrisy llabic words,
e. g. ἀκάματος, ἀπονέεσθαι, Spitzner,
Gr, Pros. § 10 b. Comp. Πρῖαμέδης,
which Virgil follows, who also has
Italia.
424. Some read here δὴ τότε κοιμή-
σαντο καὶ ὑπνου δῶρον ἕλοντο, ascrib-
ing the text as above to Arist.
425—6. OMe governs αὐλῆς as gen.
of place; comp. ducouévov Ὑπερίονος,
α. 24, local gen. without any adverb;
see mar, there. For the arrangement
of the αὐλὴ and ϑάλαμος see App. F.
2. (6), (25) foll. The form δέδμητο from
Saurynut, y. 304. should be distinguished
from this.
435. tetBoyw Harl.
438. γρηὸς Schol.
- = -.-.-- -=—- _——
429—33- On Euryclea’s position, du-
ties, &c., see App. A. 7 (2). ἐεικοσαβ.
oxen were the primitive standard of
value, comp. ἑκατομβοι᾽ ἐννεαβοίων, and
παρϑένοι ἀλφεσίέβοιαι (mur.). So in the
funeral games the female slave is prized
at four oxen and the tripod at twelve,
W, γος, 703. For χόλον yur. comp.
the story of Phoenix, I. 449 foll. The
δὲ after χόλον is = γάρ. So in y. 48.
436. ϑύρας Had., see App. F. 2.
28}.
437. ἔχδυνε, active in mid. sense,
‘the (not she) took off his coat’; comp.
mar. for ἐνδύνω so used.
439- ἀσχήσ., “smoothed”; often
used of fine urtistic finish given to a
work of art jn metal, wood, &c. (mar.).
DAY I.} ΟΔΥΣΣΕΙΑΣ A. 440—444. 29
140 πασσάλῳ" ἀγκρεμάσασα παρὰ τρητοῖσι" λέχεσσιν, a cf. 59. 61, 108,
Bio ῥ᾽ ἵμεν ἐκ ϑαλάμοιο, ϑύρην δ᾽ ἐπέρυσσε κορώνῃ 4 Fk ΤᾺ ἊΝ
ς .&. 188, εἴ.
ἀργυρέῃ, ἐπὶ δὲ κληῖδ᾽ " ἐτάνυσσεν ἱμάντι. d ἔνα Tie
Ev? ὅ γε παννύχιος, κεκαλυμμένος οἰὸς ἀώτῳ, .) ws am Ἂν
e , 16; 6
Bovieve φρεσὶν ἧσιν ὁδὸν τὴν xépead’s ᾿4ϑήνη. tt Foe
~ ---- .---- - - - —_ ..-. TS SS | re
444. φρεσὶ «Εῇσιν.
440. sic Clark. et ed. Oxon. ex ἀυδὶα Harl, lect. τρητοῖσι λεχέεσσι, “ubi δαὶ
τρητοῖς, aut λέχεσσι, prout mavis, legere potes’’ Pors.; al. τρητοῖς
λεχέεσσι.
ts ar ee eS: re ee ee
441—4. κορώνῃ, the handle, crook- the arrow’s length (about 3 feet) from
ed, like a ‘‘beak’’, as being so more the ground. For zxAnid’, here the
surely grasped in pulling the door to. ‘bolt’, see App. A. 15. x -
From q. 165, where the arrow is set a reduplicated aor. of which λελαϑὼν,
down to rest against it, its height on κέκλετο, πεπύθοιτο are also instances,
the door could not have been above _ 80 at Υ. 273.
28 ΟΔΥΣΣΕΊΙ͂ΑΣ A. 420—499. [pay I.
* ss ὃς φάτο Τηλέμαχος, φρεσὶ δ᾽ ἀϑανάτην" ϑεὸν ἔγνω, 4
ε Ν.
ἃ δ᾽ 06 ye Bo τρεψάμενοι τέρποντο, μένον δ᾽ ἐπὶ ἔσπερον ElPeiv.t
w, ba "| χοῖσι δὲ τερπομένηισι μέλας ἐπὶ ἕσπερος ἤλϑεν"
ΓΑ 8i cf. βιῖδι, δὴ» τότε κακκείοντες ἔβαν οἰκόνδε ἕκαστος.
ἔξ: Τηλέμαχος δ᾽. ὅϑι' οἱ θάλαμος περικαλλέος αὐλῆς
it 185, π. 285;| ς ‘oh i , κ "os
oh 387 ὑψηλὸς" δέδμητο,! περισκέπτῳ" ἐνὶ χώρῳ,
1 κ᾿ 488, 2. 204, v.| ἔνϑ᾽ ἔβη εἰς εὐνὴν, πολλὰ φρεσὶ! μερμηρίξων.
af, τ SS) ΤΙ τῷ δ᾽ ag’ ap’ αἰϑομένας" δαΐδας φέρε κέδν᾽" εἰδυῖα
8
Pe
ξ
J
ena
ΝΣ
ve
5
€
ἘΒΡΣΒ
BEES κα
ὈΜΦΡ 5 oS
Be” Og
Gere to TO
i
&
°
Ι
=
#NEX NOR
Bae
44
Ὲ
ἕ Ss
2 ®
ἅ
3
“"»"
ΜΞ.
=
ag
>
hy
Ὁ.
oo X-
ΒΝ
g°
moo
Mag
δ gy
5
“4
5 58
he
ΕΣ
Ἔ)ὴ
δ᾿:
x
422. έσπερον. 423. «έσπερος.
428. κεδνὰ «ἰδυῖα,
432. Sioa.
464; ef. γ
304-906. οὖν δ᾽ εἰς ὀρχηστύν" τε καὶ ἱμερόεσσαν ἀοιδὴν
414. Forxovde έκαστος.
430. ἐξοῖσεν or κτεάτεσσι «εοῖσιν.
434. for, «δε.
Εὐρύκλει᾽ ο Ὦπος ϑυγάτηρ Πεισηνορίδαο,
ἽἼτήνν» ποτε Λαέρτης πρίατο κτεάτεσσιν 1 ξοῖσιν,
"ἰπρωϑήβην" ἔτ᾽ ἐοῦσαν, ἐεικοσάβοια" δ᾽ ἔδωκεν,
toa δέ μιν κεδνῇ" ἀλόχῳ τίεν ἐν μεγάροισιν,
εὐνῇ δ᾽ οὔ ποτ᾽ ἔμικτο," χόλον δ᾽ ἀλέεινε γυναικός"
‘lf οἱ ἅμ᾽ αἰθομένας δαΐδας φέρε, καί E μάλιστα"
δμωάων φιλέεσκε, καὶ ἔτρεφεν τυτϑὸν ἐόντα.
ἰώὥιξεν δὲ ϑύρας θαλάμου πύκα" ποιητοῖο,
ξξετοῦ δ᾽ ἐν λέκτρῳ, μαλακὸν δ᾽ ἔκδυνε χιτῶνα"
καὶ τὸν μὲν γραίης πυκιμηδέος ἔμβαλε χερσίν.
“ἢ μὲν τὸν πτύξασα: καὶ ἀσκήσασα"" χιτῶνα,
425. fot.
431. ἐξεικοσαβοια.
420. θεάν. 424. ἔνιοι “δὴ τότε κοιμήσαιτο καὶ ὕπνου δῶρον ἕλοντο᾽" Schol. H.
429. 'ῶπός
420. ἀϑανάτην. The a, due to arsis,
is frequent in hypertrisyllabic words,
e. g. @uapatog, ἀπονέεσθαι, Spitzner,
Gr, Pros. § 10 b. Comp. Πρίαμέδης,
which Virgil follows, who also has
Italia,
_ 424. Some read here δὴ τότε κοιμή-
σαντο καὶ ὕπνου δῶρον ἕλοντο, ascrib-
ing the text as above to Arist.
425—6. ὅϑε governs αὐλῆς as gen.
of place; comp. δυσουένου Ὑπερίονος,
α. 24, local gen. without any adverb;
see mar. there. For the arrangement
of the αὐλὴ and Salapog see App. F.
2. (5), (25) foll. The form &ééunto from
δαμνημε, y. 304. should be distinguished
frum this.
435. τιτθὸν Harl.
438. γρηος Schol.
429-33. On Euryclea’s position, du-
ties, &c., see App. A. 7 (2). ἐεεκοσαβ.
oxen were the primitive standard of
value, comp. ἑκατομβοι᾿ ἐννεαβοίων, and
παρϑένοι ἀλφεσίέβοιαι (mar.), So in the
funeral games the female slave is prized
at four oxen and the tripod at twelve,
W. 7058, 703. For χόλον yur. comp.
the story of Phoenix, I. 449 foll. The
δὲ after χόλον is = γάρ. So in y. 48.
436. ϑύρας ϑαλ., see App. F. 2.
28).
43). ἔχδυνε, active in mid. sense,
“ἢ (not she) took off his coat”; comp.
mar. for ἐνδύνω so used.
439- ἀσκήσ., “smoothed”; often
used of fine artistic finish given to a
work of art jn metal, wood, &c. (mar.).
DAY 1. ΟΔΥΣΣΕΙΑΣ A. 440—444. 29
440 πασσάλῳ" ἀγκρεμάσασα παρὰ τρητοῖσιν λέχεσσιν, 1" 3 gor 57, 106,
Bic @ ἵμὲν ἐκ ϑαλάμοιο, θύρην δ᾽ ἐπέρυσσε κορώνῃ Ζ tas, 2 rm,
c ,Ξ΄. 188, cf.
ἀργυφέῃ, ἐπὶ δὲ xAntd’? ἐτάνυσσεν ἱμάντι. d ἣν 90, φ. 46—7.
ἔνϑ᾽ ὅ γε παννύχιος, κεκαλυμμένος olds! ἀώτῳ, * ἢ, ὧδ =: ἐν
’ sy , , 9, 3 , . 599, 716; ς
βούλευε φρεσὶν ἧσιν ὁδὸν τὴν πέφραδ᾽ ε ᾿4ϑήνη. helen
—— — - -- --- - -- ----.ὕ. --.
444. φρεσὶ «ῇσιν.
440. sic Clark. et ed. Oxon, ex dubia Harl. lect. τρητοῖσι λεχέεσσι, “ubi δαὶ
τρητοῖς, aut λέχεσσι, prout mavis, legere potes
’ Pors.; al. τρητοῖς
λεχέεσσι.
441—4. κορώνῃ, the handle, crook-
ed, like a ‘‘beak’’, as being so more
surely grasped in pulling the door to.
From g. 165, where the arrow is set
down to rest against it, its height on
the door could not have been above
the arrow’s length (about 3 feet) from
the ground. For zAnid’, here the
“bolt”, see App. A. 15. πέφραδ᾽,
a reduplicated aor. of which λελαθὼν,
κέκλετο, πεπύϑοιτο are also instances,
so at V. 273.
OATIZETAS B..
SUMMARY OF BOOK II.
On the morning of the Second Day Telemachus summons the Ithacans to the
Assembly, which had not met since Odysseus’ departure (1—34).
He exposes the importunity, rapacity, and insolence of the suitors, and his
own helplessness, and implores the people not to abet them (35—79).
‘Antinous replies by. impudently throwing the blame on Penelopé, detailing
her artifices to elude their suit: — let her choose her husband and they would
be gone, but not till then (80 -- 128).
Telemachus states his scruples at forcing her will, or sending her away.
The debate is here interrupted by an'omen, which is interpreted by Halither-
ses to portend the suitors’ doom. This draws on him the violent language of
Eurymachus, who re-states the suitors’ resolve (129— 207).
Telemachus drops the question and proceeds to that of his projected voyage
to Peloponnesus. Mentor urges the Ithacans to oppose the suitors; to whom
Leocritus replies with sneering disparagement and the Assembly breaks up
(208 — 259).
Pallas, in the guise of Mentor, appearing in answer to Telemachus’ prayer,
instructs him as regards his voyage. He, returning to the palace and resisting
the overtures of Antinous, directs Euryclea to prepare the stores and not to
tell his mother of his departure (26ο--- 381). :
Pallas, in the guise of Telemachus, obtains a ship and crew, and sends on
the suitors a strange sleep while they sit and drink. She then changes her
form to that of Mentor and summons Telemachus to embark. Their voyage
commences as the second day ends (382 — 434).
᾿Ιϑακησίων ἀγορά. Τηλεμάχου ἀποδημία.
Ἦμος" δ᾽ ἠριγένεια" φάνη ῥοδοδάκτυλος Ἠὼς,
ὥρνυτ᾽ « ἄρ᾽ ἐξ εὐνῆφιν Ὀδυσσῆος φίλος υἱὸς,
εἵματα ἔσσάμενος, περὶ δὲ ξέφος" ὀξὺ ϑέτ᾽ Gua,
ποσσὶ δ᾽ ὑπὸ λιπαροῖσιν ἐδήσατο καλὰ πέδιλα,
ὥ»
mT me Ὁ
Ω ΝΣ
bye osts ΓΝ
ὅβερε
3
5
ξ
3. «ξείματα Fecoapevos.
3. pro ξέφος ... wpm nonnulli μέγα βάλλετο φᾶρος ex Β. 43, addito etiam
versu ex B. 45.
The 254 day of the poem’s action
here begins.
On the proceedings of the ἀγορὴ
which form a large part of B. see App.
A. 4. In order to understand the po-
sition assumed by the suitors in £.,
we must remember that the long ab-
sence and presumable death of the
king, the long minority of the heir,
and the defect of near relatives (see
%, 115—21), had weakened royalty in
Ithaca, and that the members of the
βουλὴ, being the advisers of the so-
verei and natural leaders of the
ἀγορή, had no proper function in his
absence and while the ἀγορὴ (8. 26—7)
had ceased to meet. Still they might
find a pretext for assembling at the
palace in their large stake in the
country — to use a modern phrase —
and in their prospective interest in a
royalty not necessarily hereditary. They
came thither in the king’s interests,
as they might say: still their living at
free-quarters in the palace is always
viewed as a lawless intrusion on pri-
vate rights without even a colour of
justice (B. 140—5, 235—7, cf. 198—207).
As hopes of his return ebbed away —
and they would soonest expire in those
HOM. OD, I.
who looked to succeed him — the
questions of who should fill his throne,
and who marry his widow (the latter
being an easy step to the former, at
least in the case of an Ithacan noble),
would be more boldly stirred. Hence
the suitors’ clamour rises higher, as
Penelopé’s forlorn hope fades, and we
the more admire the tenacity with
which she clings to that hope and to
her hold on the palace and estate, with
all these forces arrayed against her.
If she had accepted her widowhood
and returned, as urged, to her father's
house, the remaining property of
Odys. would have been at once dis-
sipated. Hence, as on his own force
of character his return depends, so on
hers it wholly depends that he has a
home to return to. See further App. E. 2.
1. ἥμος δ᾽, see on δ. 400, ἠριγέν.
Some take ηρι- as if nege, with re-
ference to the ‘“mistiness’’ of morn,
cf. ἥερι πολλῇ A. 752, Others better,
however, from adv. ng: ‘“‘early’’, as
illustrated by ὀψέγονος a. 302, and (He-
sych.) ὀψιγενής. A Schol. also notices
that γένεια may have an act. or pass.
force; the latter is best, thus ‘early
born”’ is the sense. Curtius gives ρει
3
34 ΟΔΥΣΣΈΕΙΑΣ Β. 5—14.
a @, 370, 37),
T. 250; ef
$. ina, Z. 401
b 4. 50—2 442— 4,
I. 10, τ 80.
β 16, 4.3, 0.468.
. 21, 9. 189,
B53: of. ΖΓ, 149.
-.-.-.- eee — ...... --«ἩἨὄ -
6. κέλευε.
14. Εεῖξα
[pay II.
βῆ δ᾽ ἴμεν ἐκ ϑαλάμοιο Bed ἐναλίγκιος" ἄντην.
αἷψα" δὲ κηρύκεσσι λιγυφϑόγγοισι κέλευσεν
,] κηρύσσειν ἀγορήνδε κάρη κομόωντας ᾿Δ4χαιούς.
οὗ μὲν ἐκήρυσσον, τοὶ δ᾽ ἠγείροντο μάλ᾽ ὦκα.
αὐτὰρ“ ἐπεί ῥ᾽ ἤγερϑεν ὁμηγερέες τ᾽ ἐγένοντο,
.]βῆ ῥ᾽ ἴμεν εἰς ἀγορὴν, παλαάμῇ δ᾽ ἔχε χάλκεον ἔγχος," 1¢
Ἰοὖκ" οἷος" ἅμα τῷ γε δύω κύνες ἀργοὶ" ἕποντο.
᾿͵Ιϑεσπεσίην δ᾽ ἄρα τῷ yE χάρινε κατέχευεν ᾿4ϑήνη᾽"
τὸν δ᾽ ἄρα πάντες λαοὶ ἐπερχόμενον ϑηεῦντο""
ἔξετο δ᾽ ἐν πατρὸςϊ ϑώκωῳ." εἶξαν δὲ γέροντες."
. ita Bek. Pors. secuti E. Venet. Ambros. .» pro δύω κύνες Dind.
κύνες πόδας secutus Harl. ex J. 578.
as distinet from ne Fie, ver, -et being
afformative, and 7- same root as in
ἠὼς. In Ψ, 226—7
ἑωσφόρος εἶσι φόως ἐρέων ἐπὶ
γαῖαν,
ὃν te μέτα κροκόπεπλος ὑπεὶρ clo
κίδναται ἠὼς,
the first line seems to speak of the
dawn, the next of daylight; but in B.
48—g it is ἠὼς who comes φόως ἐρέ-
ουσα like the ἑωσφόρος of Ψ. 226;
thus the distinction vanishes, | unless
seated in κροχύπεπλος. The ‘‘rosy”’
hue here may attend or follow dawn,
according to state of atmosphere &e.
Why applied to the daxrvio: is not
clear: perhaps rays breaking diver-
gently through clouds may be taken
to represent a hand with fingers spread.
Virgil Hn. VII. 26 has combined — or
confounded — godod. and κροπόπεπ. in
Aurora in roseis fulgebat lutea biyis.
Arist. Ithet, III. 2. 13 remarks on the
poetic superiority of godod. to φοινι-
sodeine, or. ἐρυϑροδάκε.
δέφος, this was probably the
φάσγανον which the suitors wicld in
χ. 74, 90; persons of free birth com-
monly wore it, cf. Thucyd. I. 6 on
the habit of σιδηροφορεῖν long retained
in Greece, which Aristotle (ol. II. v.)
associates with the traffic in women as a
mark of barbarous manners. The spear
is borne, as by Mentes @. 104, and
Theoclymenus o, 282, who were tra-
vellers, so here by Teclem., who had
been all night thinking of his journey
(a. 444) and prepared for it at once.
“΄
The ‘‘sceptre”’ is afterwards prescnted
by a herald, 37—8.
5—6. ἐναλέγκ. the simple ἀλίγκιος
occurs twice (mar.). κηρύκεσ. see
on a. 109. Atyv@d., a rarer epith.
for the heralds is ἠερόφωνοι ‘raising
the voice’’, 3. sos.
11. οὐχ οἷος, these words, used also
where human attendants (mar.) are
added, show a sense of comradeship
between dog and man which culminates
in the cpisode of Argus in ρ. 291 foll.,
where dogs for the chase (t. 436) aro
distinguished from mere household pets,
or watch - dogs (τραπεξῆες eure.
X. 69), like Eumeus’ in &. 29 foll.,
200. These last recognize the deity,
of Pallas (π. 162—3) when Telem. does
not. From A. 50 we may suppose the
Greeks took dogs over sea to Troy.
ἀργοὶ, this word has no connexion
with ἔργον, which retains its £ in H.;
the ἀργὸς = ἀ-εργὸς is post- -Homerie.
Here it seems to mean (1) “stalwart,
powerful’, cf. its use for βόες (¥. 30),
and (2) ‘swift’, as depending on
strength of foot: ef. ποδάρκης epith.
of Achilles, ἀργίποδες also οὗ dogs
(Q. 211), and “Agrura Ποδάργη, sug-
gestive of ag(y)- or ag(x)- as root, as
in ἀρκεῖν ἀρήγειν (Donalds. New Crat.
§ 285). A totally distinct radical sense
is ““white’’ or rather “‘glistering’’, as
in ἀργὴς, ἀργινόεις, ἀργύφεος or -φος,
ἄργυρος, ἄργιλλος, ar gentum, argilla.
12. See mar, for similar χάρις given
to Odyss. and Penel.
14. ϑῶχος, or open form Powxos 26,
”
DAY u1.] OATZZEIAL B. 15—31. 35
15 τοῖσι δ᾽ éxe® ἥρως «Αἰγύπτιος ἦρχ᾽" ἀγορεύειν, δ 360, 7. 46]
ὃς δὴ γήραϊ κυφὸς ἔην καὶ μυρία" ἤδη. ν 5. 188, μι. 188,
καὶ γὰρ τοῦ φίλος υἱὸς dw’ ἀντυϑέῳ Ὀδυσὴι T 210) @. 440,
Ἴλιον“ εἰς εὔπωλον ἔβη κοίλῃς" ἐνὶ νηυσὶν, ς i160, νὴ, Ε
᾿ἄντιφος αἰχμητής" τὸν δ᾽ ἄγριος ἔκτανε Κυκλωψ d B37, aah, σ
20 ἐν σπῆι γλαφυρῷ, πύματον δ᾽ ὡπλίσσατο δόρπον." ‘is ee
τρεῖς δέ of ἄλλοι ἔσαν" καὶ ὃ μὲν μνηστῆρσιν ὁμίλειν, | 900 ἀπ΄ 188. Ὅ
Εὐρύνομος,5 δύο δ᾽ αἰὲν ἔχον" πατρώια ἔργα ΕἼ ἢ το ϑοι
ἄἀλλ᾽κ od"! ὡς τοῦ Ander’ ὀδυρόμενος" καὶ ἀχεύων. eR. 127, ὃ. 318,
τοῦ" 6 γε δάκρυ χέων ἀγορήσατο καὶ μετέειπεν ΕἾ τέρα
25 ““κέκλυτε δὴ νῦν μευ, Ἰθακήσιοι, ὅττι κεν elma: “is”
οὔτε ποϑ᾽ ἡμετέρη ἀγορὴ γένετ᾽ οὔτε ϑόωκος» m3. 100. ἑ. 40, 1.
ἐξ οὗ Ὀδυσσεὺς δῖος ἔβη κοίλῃς ἐνὶ νηυσίν. ὃ δ, ἔξ ἴω;
νῦν δὲ τίς ὧδ᾽ « ἤγειρε; τένα χρειὼ τόσον ἵκει ὁ ef. ΠΣ
mar.
30
- cessarily in age,
ἠὲ νέων ἀνδρῶν ἢ οὗ προγενέστεροί εἰσιν;
né τιν᾽ ἀγγελίην στρατοῦ ἔκλυεν ἐρχομένοιο ."
ἣν χ᾽ ἡμῖν σάφα εἴποι, ὅτε' πρότερός ye πύϑοιτο,
——— ee: -
P
α. 182, App. A.
1 10 m
r @. 225 mar.
a a. 408,.
150.
εἶμ cf.@.47,229.
16. ήδη. 18. Fldsov. 21. Fou. 23. Fégya. 24. μετέξειπεν. 25. Fecxo.
᾿ . Ἐεέποι.
ι8. ἐπὶ. 22. δύο δ᾽ ἄλλοι ality utrumque Arist., Schol. H. 24. τοῖς Harl.
Clark., τοὺς Harl! mar.; ὅδε: δακρυχ ων. 46. οὐδὲ... οὐδὲ alii; οὔτε πω
Arist. 28. ἥκει. 31. ote Schol. H.
means (mar.) both xa@édga as here,
and συνέδριον: it was like the stately
seat of ‘‘smoothed stones’’, whereon
sat the γέροντες “in a sacred circle”’
in the Assembly (2. 504). All the
people, however, usually sat (2. 246
—8). On ϑῶκος, ϑᾶκος and ϑοάξω
see on 336 inf. γέροντες » not ne-
t in rank the first.
Thus in the 11. Diomedes is of the
number, although quite young. In the
Greek camp, and at the court of Al-
cinous we Rnd γέροντες (mar.).
16. yneat, this dative depends on
μυρία ἤδη as well as on κυφὸς ἔην,
cf. παλαιά te πολλά τε εἰδὼς inf. 188.
The statement that the ἀγορὴ had not
met so long gives us a measure of the
importance of the step of convening
it, and of the public prominence into
which Telem. thereby starts,
22. Evevy., the party of the suitors
would naturally lic among the younger
Ithacans v. 51, but there was a lack
of elder men to control them, these
having gone to Troy and left a wide
social chasm behind them. We may
suppose that the father Aigyptius, now
γήραϊ κυφὸς, was just too old, and
the three sons mentioned, too young
for service then; hence the suitors
party now might be both numerous and
headstrong. Thus νέοι and προγενέ-
στεροι of v. 29 indicate parties; cf. a.
395- «, used of men, when not
qualified, as by πολεμήια, ϑαλάσσια,
means agriculture, of women, weay-
ing etc.
25. x€xXAVTE, with gen. here, as below
v. 30 with accus. ; see On α. 281. ϑόω-
xoc, ‘“‘assembly’’, see above on 14,
and cf. 69 Θέμιστος 7 4 τ᾽ ἀνδρῶν ayo-
eas .... καϑέζει.
28 —31. For wd” see App. A. 10; for
χρειὼ see on a. 225. τόσον “‘to such
an extent’’, cannot agree , with χρειὼ
which is fem. , cf. χρειοῖ ἄναγκα Θ.
vi 80 the adjectives δήμιον, ἔδιον,
, do not agree with Ζ0 to in 312.
For. be. ἢ and ἦε... ἠέ see App.
A. τι. στρατοῦ ..... ἐρχομι., i. ε.
the Greek army returning, see on a@.
3%
36 ΟΔΥΣΣΕΊΑΣ B. 32—47.
[Day 11.
a γ. 82, ὃ. 814
δ 9, P.|9é te δήμιον" ἄλλο πιφαύσκεται" ἠδ᾽ ἀγορεύει;
44.
. 12--8, ἔ
© hers
Sz,
= a oo
Pap
8 ᾿
Φεν ἡ
, 0. 111,
nT)
nage
Sig) δ᾽ ἘΞΕς
Μ ὡς
[3 ζῶ
ο ἾΣΟΝ
BE Zoe
om Bi
= Me
a5
gs"Seen
=I Oo
x RTOS py
B ὃ
5 Μὲ
ν. 255,
aoe}
. ἃ.
. 294,
9
δ. 690 —3.
Le |
|S
34- φρεσὶ Fras.
33- fos.
40. Jexag «είσεαι.
4: ἤγειρε Zenod., Schol. H.
κλ
voy legisse Zenod. testatur Schol. H.
37. For.
43. felxo.
ἐσθλός μοι δοκεῖ εἶναι.“ ὀνήμενος. εἴθε of αὐτῷ
1. "Ζεὺς ἀγαϑὸν τελέσειεν, ὅτε φρεσὶν ἃ ἧσι μενοινᾷ."
"| ὡς φάτο, χαῖρε δὲ φήμῃ: Ὀδυσσῆος φίλος υἱός,
οὐδ᾽ ἄρ᾽ ἔτι[ δὴν ἧστο, μενοίνησεν δ᾽ ἀγορεύειν,
στῆς δὲ μέσῃ ἀγορῇ" σκῆπτρον" δέ of ἔμβαλε χειρὶ
Ἰκήρυξ' Πεισήνωρ πεπνυμένα μήδεα! εἰδώς.
πρῶτον ἔπειτα γέροντα καθαπτόμενος" προςέειπεν
“a γέρον, οὐχ ἑκὰς" οὗτος ἀνήρ (τάχα δ᾽ εἴσεαι αὐτός) 40
ὃς λαὸν ἤγειρα μάλιστα δέ μ᾽ ἄλγος ἱκώνει."
οὔτε τιν᾽ ἀγγελίην στρατοῦ ἔκλυον ἐρχομένοιο,
qv χ᾽’ ὑμῖν σάφα εἴπω ὅτε πρότερός ye πυϑοίμην,
οὔτε τι δήμιονο ἄλλο πιφαύσκομαι οὐδ᾽ ἀγορεύω,
ἀλλ᾽ ἐμὸν» αὐτοῦ χρεῖος, ὅ μοι κακὸν ἔμπεσεν οἴκῳ, 45
76. dota: τὸ μὲν, πατέρ᾽ ἐσθλὸν ἀπώλεσα, ὅς ποτ᾽ ἐν ὑμῖν
; 62, 138 , nw 5
. ef, #. 443, | τοϊοδεσσινᾳ βασίλευε, πατὴρ δ᾽ ὡς ἤπιος" HEV:
38. Fedde. 39. προσέξειπεν.
45. Solna.
42. aut ἠιόνα pro ἀγγελίην, aut ἤιον pro
44. pro ovd 70. 45. ita Arist.,
κακὰ Aristoph., Scholl. B. H. M. E.; κακὸν ἔμπεσε κῆδος Ven.
408. εἴποι, on this optat., which in-
fuses a tone of doubt into the sug-
gestion of news of the army, and on
the moods of the passage here and as
repeated 42— 3, see App. I. g. (18).
33- ὀνήμενος, i. e. εἴη, ‘“‘may he be
gratified’? <= I wish him well! cf. μὴ
ψῦν ὀναίμην Soph. Ged. Tyr. 644, and
ὄναιο Cid. Col. 1042. The closely si-
milar forms of some parts of the dif-
ferent verbs ὀψένημι and ὄνομαε should
be noticed (Donalds. Gr. Gr. p. 301).
The revival of the ἀγορὴ naturally
gratifies the old man who had doubt-
less spoken in it in his youth. Ob-
serve also the thought of news from
the army uppermost in his mind, as
having a son there.
35— 7. φήμῃ, word or phrase of
omen, such was the last part of the
previous speech in 33—4. For éri be-
fore δὴν seo on a. 186. σκῆπτρον,
this was the badge of public office.
Telem. having summoned the assembly,
it was his ex officio to address it, as
well as from his occupying the πατρὸς
Banos v.14. Thus judges and heralds
bear the σκῆπ., Menelaus, making a
judicial appeal, receives it, and so
Hector when swearing to Dolon (mar.);
cf. Arist. Pol. 111,9. ὃ δὲ ogxos nv τοῦ
σκήπτρου ἐπανάτασις. The previous
speaker here accordingly has it not,
being a mere private person.
39—41. xaBaat., this participle
bespeaks impressiveness, used kindly
or harshly according to context (mar.).
οὗτος specially notes the person spoken
of as related to the person addressed;
“vou will .find μοι man not far off’.
Scan v. 41 ὃς Aaloy ἠ γεϊρᾶ etc. — ixa-
vee is used especially of physical states
or mental emotions arising; so with
ὕπνος, μόρος, πένϑος, τάφος (mar.).
43—5. εἴπω, subjunct., App.A. 9. (18).
G, see On α. 382. καχὸν, κακὰ, read
by Aristoph., is justified by the ad-
missibility of hiatus after 41} foot in
heroic hexam, La Roche p. 17; but in
0. 375 κακὸν ἔμπ. οἴκω recurs, also
the Ven., reading κακὸν fur. κῆδος,
favours κακόν. δοιὰ agrees with both
the evils following (46—8).
4). ὑμῖν toiod., ‘‘you here”, sce
50
DAY 11.] ΟΔΥΣΣΕΊΑΣ B. 48—54. 47
νῦν δ᾽ αὖ καὶ πολὺ μεῖζον, ὃ δὴ τάχα οἶκον ἅπαντα" a. oer παι,
8. ᾽ , ἢ.
πάγχυ διαρραίσει." βίοτον δ᾽ ἀπὸ πάμπαν ὀλέσσει.
μητέρι wow μνηστῆρες ἐπέχραον: οὐκ ἐϑελούσῃ,
489.
b δ.711, Ψ'. 156—7.
ς 17.352---0,.2. 396,
᾿τῶν ἀνδρῶν φίλοι υἷες of ἐνθάδε γ᾽ εἰσὶν ἄριστοι," x. 84, g. 09, Φ
of πατρὸς μὲν ἐς οἶκον ἀπερρίγασι νέεσϑαι, d a. 245, π. 251.
Ἰκαρίου," ὥς x αὐτὸς ἐεδνωσαιτοῖ ϑύγατρα, ocho 10. ΠΟ
δοίη δ᾽ ᾧ κ’ ἐθέλοι καί pl κεχαρισμένοςς ἔλϑοι" ς εἶ. 4. 25. δ΄
48. Foixov. 52. μὲν Foixoy. 53. Fexaglov ἐξεδνώσαιτο͵ 54. For.
50. μητρί τ᾽ ἐμῇ.
53. pro ὥς ὅς Schol. P.
54. δώη ... ἐθέλῃ. ἔλθῃ Rec.
Donalds. Gr. Gr. 8. 239. πατὴρ. Ari-
stotle (Pol. I. 5, III. 4) bases royalty
on the paternal relation, quoting the
Homeric title πατὴρ ἀνδρῶν te Peay
te as suitable to the sovereign of all
things, and says that despotism trans-
gresses by ruling for one’s own in-
terest, disregarding that of the ruled,
whereas the rule over one’s children
includes their benefit as a motive; cf.
ἰδ. 1. 8. The heroic monarchy is the
fourth kind enumerated and examined
by him (ἐδ. 111. 9). Contrast with this
Achilles’ reproach to Agam. in A. 231
us a δημοβορος βασιλεὺς, which again
might largely be illustrated from Pol.
V.g. So Penel. speaks (δ. 691 foll.) of
the practice of kings in general and
of the character of Odys. in particular,
which Eumsus (ξ. 62, 138 foll.) illus-
trates. Some points of a popular king’s
character are fair division of spoil etc.
(ε. 42, A. 704), protecting refugees (z.
424), uprightness in administering jus-
tice (τ. 111, JZ. 387 foll.), princely re-
cognition of services (@. 38 foll.), and
general hospitality (Ni.); in this last
duty, however, his ‘‘gifts’’ supported
him, so that what was partaken of
was reckoned δήμια, P. 248 foll.; cf.
υ. 264.
48—9. πολὺ μεῖξον, in reference
to his house (κακὸν... οἴκω 45) the
suitors’ licence and pillage were worse
than his father’s death. This gives
great rhetorical force to his complaint.
διαρραίσει, ἀπορραίω occurs (mar.)
with double accus.: ῥαέω simple, akin
to ἀράσσω, is used of ship-wreck and
other violent sundering. This hint of
its meaning may be gathered from its
derivatives, δαιστὴρ the smith’s “‘ham-
mer”, ϑυμοραΐστης “118 -crushing”’,
and κυνοραϊστὴς the ‘‘dog-tick” (N.
544, 0. 300). ;
so—1. geoe refers the action dis-
tinctly to the person speaking. Do-
nalds. Gr. Gr. § 459 88, calls this a
‘“‘dat. of special limitation”. It im-
plies a closer personal interest in the
fact stated than ἐμῇ would convey.
ἐπέχρφαον, this and its simple verb
occur in H. only in the imperf., which
loses its proper force, meaning, ‘‘have
been and are worrying’’: see the si-
mile in which it describes wolves wor-
rying kids (mar.). This passage seems
to have suggested to Dissen the resto-
ration, doubtful however, of a frag-
ment of Pindar (44), ἀλόχω ποτὲ ϑω-
ραχϑεὶς ἐπέχραεν ἀλλοτρέᾳ. υἷες, 80
in the last ἀγορὴ (ω. 456—7) the
Ithacans are reminded of their sons’
recklessness having brought ruin. g@@e-
otvot, from Ithaca there were 12, all
ἄριστοι (mar.).
§2—4. ἀπερρ. “abhor”, i.e. “shrink
from the trouble’’, — a well-chosen
word, especially if Icarius abode, as
a Schol. supposes, in Ithaca; as mean-
ing, ‘‘they give her the greatest an-
noyance instead of taking the least
trouble themselves’’. Annother suppo-
sition, that Icarius abode in Sparta,
does not well suit Pallas’ words to Te-
lem. in 0. 16. It seems assumed that,
when a widow remarried, she did so
from her father’s house and with con-
sent of her relatives; ¢. e., her hus-
band’s right failing, that of her family
revived. ἐεδνώσ-., see App. A. 14:
the optat. here and in v. 54 is forcible
as if “to give him the chance of so
doing, tf he pleased"’, see Jelf Gr. Gr.
§ 807 β. The subject of ἔλθοι is bor-
rowed from the object of dofn, δοῦναι
being understood after ἐθέλοι.
38 OATEZEIAL B. ss—yo.
g-r - ram © & Oo Of
Ee eee a νον βου Be
PEAgRE Seger e er eee
aes Bank gue ἐς §BER0'
2 €5 af anf ws
be ae
2 DOB
ROMA WS BO
Ἂν 8
Sra
= 8!
a”
2
La |
ef. β. 419,
: ef. 45.219.
om
at
57. Foivoy. 59. «Εοίχου.
Ζ. 326, Ν. τιό.
58. gayrd., this word, save in
the phrase p. ἀλάλησϑε or -8ϑαι γ. 72,
leads the line in which it stands, as
does also paw nearly always. κατά-
μεταε, the simple ἄνω, primary of
ἀνύω, is found always save once (mar. )
with ὦ. — ἔπ᾽ is here ἔπεστι.
59- ἀρὴν, ἀρὴ ‘‘woe’ ᾿ has &, ἀρὴ
“ prayer’ or ‘‘curse’’ has @inH., but
the latter is always in arsis; hence
most Lexicons (see Liddell ἃ 8. and
Crusius s. v.) give them. as the same
word; but in 135 inf. ἀρήσετ᾽ is in
thesis, showing that α is natural in
ἀράομαι, and therefore ἰῃ ἀρὴ. Thus ἀρὴ
is a distinct word.
60—a2. ‘“‘And we are no ways able to
repel (the wrong); — sure enough in that
case (i.e, in case we were) we should
be (lit. shall be) poor creatures, and
incapable of a bold deed; of course I
would resist, if I had only the power’’.
Ni. compares Ov. Heroid. 1. 97—8, Tres
sumus imbelles numero, sine viribus uxcor,
Laertesque senex, Telemachusque puer,
τοῖοι is = the Attic οἷοί, te, and οὐ
Sed anx.= Latin nescii. ἢ τ᾽ ἂν shows
that it is re elided not toe in crasis
(Ni.).
63. Féoya.
55: ἡμετέρου Ven.; of. Hy. “Mere. 370, Herodot. I. ἃς.
οὔ νύ τοι ἡμεῖς; pro καί Schol. κεν.
70. ita Arist.,
[Day 1.
οὗ» δ᾽ εἰς ἡμέτερον" xadevpevor’ ἤματα πάντα,
βοῦς ἱερεύοντες " καὶ ὄϊς καὶ πίονας αἶγας,
εἰλαπινάξουσιν' πίνουσί τε αἴϑοπα οἷνον
μαψιδίως" τὰ δὲ πολλὰ κατάνεται.5 οὐ γὰρ ἔπ’ ἀνὴρ
Γ] οἷος Ὀδυσσεὺς ἔσκεν, ἀρὴνὶ ἀπὸ οἴκου ἀμῦναι.
ἠήμεῖς δ᾽ οὔ νύ τι τοῖοι ἀμυνέμεν. ἡ καὶ ἔπειτα
: λευγαλέοι τ᾽ ἐασόμεσϑα. καὶ οὐ δεδαηκότες" ἀλκήν.
‘ly τ᾽ ἂν ἀμυναίμην, ef μοι δύναμίς ye παρείη.
cr. ov γὰρ ἔτ᾽ ἀνσχετὰ ἔργα τετεύχαται, οὐδ᾽ ἔτι καλῶς
οἶκος ἐμὸς διόλωλε.
ἄλλους τ᾽ αἰδέσϑητει περικτέονας" ἀνθρώπους,
οὗ περιναιετάουσι" ϑεῶν δ᾽ ὑποδείσατε μῆνιν,
[μή τι μεταστρέψωσιν" ἀγασσάμενοι κακὰ ἔργα.
νεμεσσήϑητε καὶ αὐτοὶ,
εἰ 403, ᾿λέσσομαι ἠμὲν» Ζηνὸς Ὀλυμπίου ἠδὲ Θέμιστος ,1
ἢ τ᾽ ἀνδρῶν ἀγορὰς ἠμὲν λύει ἠδὲ καϑίέζξει."
σχέσϑε." φίλοι, καί μ᾽ οἷον ἐάσατε πένϑεϊ λυγρῷ
64. «οῖκος. 67. έργα.
“60. ἡμεῖς οὔ τι νυ οἱ
63. , pro καλῶς Heyn. καλὰ, coll.
μή μ᾽ οἷον Aristoph.
64--6. The argument, appealing to
their sense of wrong, of shame, and of
awe for the gods, rises in an ascending
scale. wegexté. (which is explained
by the rel. clause following, see on
πολύτροπον ὃς μάλα κι τι a. & 1—32,)
occurs nowhere else in the Ody., while
περιναιετ. i8 not found i in the 1]. (Ni.).
67—9. μεταστρ., " ‘repent”’, t. ὁ. no
more allow you; sometimes ψόον fol-
lows, completing the sense (mar.), here
μῆνιν preceding suggests some such
word. Crusius takes ἔργα following as
its object, “rebuke your misdeeds ”’
Ζηνὸς ... Θέμισι., gen. of adjura-
tion, referred by Donalds. Gr. Gr.§ 453 ee
(x) to “relation”: πρὸς or ὑπὲρ more
commonly assists this construction: with
λίσσομαι und. ὑμᾶς. The deities ete.
in such adjurations are chosen pro re
natd; here, in presence of the ἀγορὴ,
Zeus and Themis are preferred (cf.
mar.). Themis is ‘‘ordinance’’ perso-
nified: it is hers to convene the Olym-
pian Assembly (mar.), as here that of
men. Θέμις has accus. Θέμιστα. κα-
9it., transit., elsewhere neut. (mar.).
70. σχέσϑε, φ. “hold, friends’? —
to the Ithacans, viewod as abetting
80
pay κι] ΟΔΥΣΣΈΙΑΣ B. 71—8s. 39
τείρεσϑ'᾽, εἰ μή πού τι πατὴρ ἐμὸς ἐσθλὸς Ὀδυσσεὺς | a v. 314.
δυςμενέων κάκ᾽ ἔρεξεν ἐὐκνήμιδας 'Ayaovs, b . 320 ef seepiss.
τῶν μ᾽ ἀποτινύμενοι κακὰ ῥέξετε Ovguevéortss,* : Ἢ a7 w
τούτους ὀτρύνοντες. ἐμοὶ δέ κε κέρδιον" εἴη 357-8.
75 ὑμέας ,ἐσϑέμεναι κειμήλιά τε πρὸ ἡβασέν τε. dd. 617, γ. 22, ¢.
εἴ χ᾽ ὑμεῖς γε φάγοιτε, τάχ᾽ ἄν ποτε καὶ τίσις“ sin: : ΜΝ 229,
τόφρα γὰρ ἂν κατὰ ἄστυ ποτιπτυσσοίμεϑα μύϑῳ 228, 346, 502, 558,
χρήματ᾽ ἀπαιτίξοντες", ἕως x’ ἀπὸ πάντα δοθείη") “1”
- ἢ , ᾿ ~ f ge. 223; cf. κ. 202,
νῦν δέ μοι ἀπρήχτους ὀδύνας ἐμβάλλετε Dupo.” 568.
ὡς φάτο χωόμενος, ποτὶ δὲ σκῆπτρον βάλε γαίῃ, | ¢ A. U5.
δάκρυ᾽ ἀναπρήσας"" οἶκτος δ᾽ Fle λαὸν ἅπαντα. h I. 433, I. 849
>. ’ 9 A 3 —50; cf. β. 427.
Ev?! ἄλλοι μὲν πάντες ἀκὴν ἔσαν. οὐδέ τις ἔτλη | AL; ef. 1.430.
Τηλέμαχον μύϑοισινκ ἀμείψασθαι χαλεποῖδιν" κ 9. 396.
᾿Αντίνοος δέ μιν οἷος ἀμειβόμενος προςέειπεν | α. 385 mar.
m y. 104.
85
“ Τηλέμαχ᾽ ' ὑψαγόρη, μένος ἄσχετε,"" ποῖον ἔειπες
77. «ἀστυ.
72. ἔρεξεν Ven. (ξ ἃ manu sec. adscripta).
δάκρυα ϑερμὰ χέων Zenod., Scholl. H. M. Q. Β.
Ambros. cum Scholl.
84. woocsferney.
85. ἔξειπες.
77. προτιπτυσσοίμεϑα Harl. Ven.
82. ita Herman, Bek. Dind. secuti Schol. 8. .᾽ ᾿οὔτε libri.
(ὀτρύνοντες 74) the suitors — “and
leave me to pine merely with sorrow!
Unless it be that my father (said iro-
nically) ever wrought the Achwans ill,
then in requital go on wronging me’
Take οἷον with τείρεσ. used as a noun:
it might also, however, as in X. 416,
agree with we.
73—7. ἀποτινῦύμε., Some edd, double
the », needlessly, as τένω has 7 in H.
Spitzner Gr. Pros. § 53, 3 0. ὑμέας,
he is addressing the ayogn, ἐ. 6. na-
tive Ithacans, many of the suitors being
alicns. ποτιπτυσσ., ‘‘we (I and Pe-
nel.) would address you with our plea’,
probably a legal phrase, with a fo rmal
plea at law intonded, which the ἀγορὴ
would decide; see App. A. 4 (3) (4).
The verb, not found in the Il, means
sometimes merely to address, also to
embrace (mar.)
78—9. ἀπαιτέξ., the simple αἰτέξζω
(which is not found in the 11.) always
includes some notion ofimportunity, and
is used for a beggar, thus joined with
κατὰ δῆμον etc., as an act which is
(mar.) inconsistent with αἰδὼς: 80
χφηματα in sense of property is not
found in the 1]. ‘without
redress”,
8o—2. This same line describes the
action of Achilles under strong emo-
tion in public (mar.). No doubt this
was meant to add dignity to our im-
pressions of the young Telem., warm-
ing out of indecision and reserve toa
burst of generous indignation, like the
hero of wrath. The words δάκρυ᾽ ava-
πρήσας, however, sufficiently distin-
guish the two. Achilles has tears ready
in torrents for his friend’s loss, but
not when provoked by injury. λαὸν,
see App. A. 4 (3): the word jhas more
personal force than δῆμον. ἀκὴν, see
App. A.
8s—7. The words ὕψαγ.» μένος ἄσχ.
are used in derision cloaked under iro-
nical deprecation; see App. E. 3, and
6 (1). The speech assumes that the
suitors are rather the injured party
than the injurers — a shrewd piece of
impudence, meant to evade the appeal
of Telem. and make him ridiculous.
This banter recurs in 302. μῶμον
avaw. ‘‘to fix derision on us’’ — a
phrase occurring only here. Aya. with
μνηστῆρες as with κοῦροι, vieg cte.
ἀπρήκχε.
40
ΟΔΥΣΣΈΙΑΣ B. 86—104.
a .--.------ς--- “-ἍΛἉἋἌΧΦσσσσσσσσσστπ-
a A. 183, Γ. 164.) ἡμέας αἰσχύνων, ἐθέλοις δέ κε μῶμον ἀνάψαι.
Ὁ ¥. 322, 709.
ς ef. B. 106—7, ν.
$77.
div. 24, φ. 312;
εἴ. ¢, 42, W.834.
e =. 40.
f ¢. 13%—56, ὦ.
128 — 46.
g ef. B.424—5, 431.
h x. 223.
ig. 174, «. 248;
ef. α. 148 mar.
κ I. 318.
lo. 332, 4. 5363.
m y. 238, 2. 171,
398, Θ. 70, X.
210.
n ὃ. 245 mar.
o T. 32, Ὡ. 551.
p IZ. 57, ὦ. 207.
q 4.585—7, 556—7,
K. 489—90.
col δ᾽ οὔ τι μνηστῆρες ᾿4χαιῶν αἴτιοί" εἰσιν,
ἀλλὰ φίλη μήτηρ, ἢ τοι πέρι κέρδεαν οἷδεν.
ἤδη γὰρ“ τρίτον ἐστὶν ἔτος, τάχα δ᾽ εἶσι τέταρτον,
ἐξ οὗ ἀτέμβει ϑυμὸν- ἐνὶ στήϑεσσιν "Azar.
πάντας μέν ῥ᾽ ἔλπει καὶ ὑπίσχεται ἀνδρὶ ἑκάστῳ
ἀγγελίας προϊεῖσα, νόος δέ of ἄλλα μενοινά.
ni δὲ δόλον τόνδ᾽ ἄλλον ἐνὶ φρεσὶ μερμήριξεν"
στησαμένηξ μέγαν ἱστὸν ἐνὶ μεγάροισιν ὕφαινεν,
λεπτὸν" καὶ περίμετρον ἄφαρ δ᾽ ἡμῖν μετέειπεν
ςχοῦροι', ἐμοὶ μνηστῆρες, ἐπεὶ ϑάνε δῖος Ὀδυσσεὺς,
uduver* ἐπειγόμενοι τὸν ἐμὸν γάμον, εἰς ὅ κε φᾶρος
ἐκτελέσω, μή μοι μεταμώνια! νήματ᾽ ὄληται,
“Μαέρτῃ ἥρωι ταφήιον, εἰς ὅτε κέν μιν
μοῖρ᾽ ὀλοὴ καϑέλησι τανηλεγέος" ϑανάτοιο,
μή τίς μοι κατὰ δῆμον ᾿“χαιιάδων νεμεσήσῃ,
αἴ κεν ἄτερ δπείρου" κεῖται" πολλὰ κτεατίσσας."»
ὡς ἔφαϑ᾽. ἡμῖν δ᾽ avr’ ἐπεπείϑετο ϑυμὸς ἀγήνωρ.
ἔνϑα καὶ ἠματίη μὲν ὑφαίνεσκενι μέγαν ἱστὸν,
88. Εοῖδεν. 89. Fézoc.
gi. μέν ξέλπει Fexaoto.
92. For.
gs. μετέξειπεν.
86. ita Harl., vulg. ἐθέλεις; δὲ καὶ Harl.
lect. -ξεν.
93. μερμήριξεν Harl. cum var.
““88—g qui scripsit, versus omisit 93—110’’, Herman. ap. Bek.
a
98. μεταμώλια Schol. P., μεταμώνια Hart.
102. κῆται Ven., ita Wolf. Bek.
88—9. πέρι, as at a. 66, 50 inf. 116.
The words τρίτον ἐστὶν ἔτ. and τέταρ-
τον may be reconciled with 106—7 by
supposing te. frog to mean “third
completed year’’, and thus with ἐστὶν
= “the third year is ended”, and τάχα
δ᾽ el. τέταρ. = “16 fourth year will
soon come to an end’’; on the other
hand τέτρ. ἦλθεν ἔτ. 107, means “the
fourth year’’, not complete, but com-
mencing. This reckoning is confirmed
by ». 377, ‘‘the suitors are now three
years (rofetes) lording it in thy palace.
A Schol. explains raza εἶσι as = τα-
χέως διέρχεται ‘is swiftly passing”,
which at once strains the language and
yields a poor sense.
,. 91—6. εἐλπει, active only here in H.
ἄλλον, ‘‘besides” what was mentioned
ing1. gépvet’, the force of this word
here is hardly more than a negative,
nolite properare: for a similar sense of
the partic. μένοντι see mar.
97—100. εἰς ὃ xe, here with sub-
jaunct. (so mox inf. with καϑθελῃσι)
takes also opt., with the usual dis-
tinction of a principal or 8 historic
tense having preceded. Of the fut. ind.
Dind. retains one instance in 9. 318
ἀποδώσει, where Bek. and others read
subjunct. All other apparent cases of
the fut. in H. with εἰς o xe may be epic
subjunct. Laertes having no female
relative, this provision for his death
devolved on Penel. before quitting her
home.
102. xێt., Buttm., Gr. Verbs s. 0. xei-
μαι. says, “ΟἹ has altered, according
to the Venet. MS., the old reading of
the text κεῖται (which as indicat. would
be certainly incorrect), to a conjunct.
κῆται. But this was unnecessary, as
by an old usage κεῖμαι, κεῖται served
for both conjunct. and indicat.”’
104—7. For the combination of the
form in -oxoy, marking continued or
[DAY 1.
x
9.
1X
25
IO
15
DAY 11.]
νύκτας δ᾽ addveoxer,® ἐπεὶ" δαΐδας παραϑεῖτο."
ὃς τρίετες μὲν ἔληϑε δόλῳ καὶ ἔπειϑεν “Ayarovs:
ἀλλ᾽ ὅτε τέτρατον ἦλθεν ἔτος καὶ ἐπήλυϑον ὥραι,"
καὶ τότε δή τις ἔειπε γυναικῶν, ἢ Gaga‘ ἤδη,
καὶ τήν γ᾽ ἀλλύουσαν ἐφεύρομεν ἀγλαὸν στόν.
ὡς τὸ μὲν ἐξετέλεσσε καὶ οὐκ ἐθέλουσ᾽, ὑπ᾽ ἀνάγκης"
σοὶ δ᾽ ὧδε μνηστῆρες ὑποκρένονται,Ε ἵν᾽ εἰδῇς
αὐτὸς σῷ ϑυμῷ, εἰδῶσι δὲ πάντες ᾿“χαιοί.
μητέρα" σὴν ἀπόπεμψον, ἄνωχϑι δέ μὲν γαμέεσϑαιὶ
τῷ δτεῴ τὲ πατὴρ κέλεται καὶ ἁνδάνει αὐτῇ.
εἰ δ᾽ ἔτ᾽ ἀνιήσει γε πολὺν χρόνον υἷας ᾿Αχαιῶν,
τὰ φρονέουσ᾽ ἀνὰ ϑυμόν ἃ of πέρι δῶκεν ᾿4ϑήνη,
ἔργα τ᾽ ἐπίστασϑαι περικαλλέα καὶ φρένας ἐσϑλὰς
κέρδεα! 8᾽, οἷ᾽ οὔ πω τιν᾽ ἀκούομεν οὐδὲ παλαιῶν,
(τάων at πάρος ἦσαν ἐὐπλοκαμῖδες "" ’Ayocat,
20 Tuga" τ᾽ ᾿λκμήνη τε ἐύστέφανός te Μυκήνη᾽
τάων οὔ τις ὁμοῖα νοήματα Πηνελοπείῃ"
ἤδη" ἀτὰρ μὲν τοῦτό γ᾽ν ἐναίσιμον οὐκ ἐνόησεν")
τόφρα! γὰρ οὖν βίοτόν τε τεὸν καὶ κτήματ᾽ ἔδονται,
ὕφρα" κὲ κείνη τοῦτον ἔχῃ νόον, ὅν τινά οἵ νῦν
25 ἕν στήϑεσσι τυϑεῖσιτ ϑεοί. μέγα μὲν κλέος αὐτῇ
ποιεῖτ᾽, αὐτὰρ σοί γε ποϑὴν πολέος βιύτοιο.
ΟΔΥΣΣΕΊΙΑΣ B. 105—126.
--..ο.-...
41
---- oo re ee
a 1.588 --Ἴ,͵ 596—7,
K. 489 — 90.
b w. 254, $2. 227.
ς ὁ. 506.
Av. 477.
e ἃ. 295, & 294.
f eg. 307, 153, 373,
w. 401, B. 192.
g H. 407, ο. 170,
τ. 555.
ἢ α. 274 seqq.
ἰ β. 128, σ. 289.
κα. 356, 7. 110—1,
97, x. 223.
Ι cf. ν. 255.
m τ. 542.
n A. 235.
o εἴ. δ. 279, P. 51.
p ἢ. 299; cf. e. 190,
oa. 220.
4 1. 350—1.; ef.
4.220 —1,
νι N. 732.
106. τρίξετες. 107. Fétog. 108. ἔξειπε. ξήδη. 111. ὑποκρίνονθ᾽ ἕνα ξειδῆς.
112. «ειδῶσι. 114. ανδάνει. 116. foe. 117. Féoya. 122. £707.
124. foe.
106. erant qui legerent ὡς διετὲς ....
nonnulli τὶ 153 inserebant.
ed. Clark.
στῆρες ἔδονται legorent’’, Bek.
ἀλλ᾽ ὅτε δὴ τρέτον, coll. 89.
114. alii αὐτῷ Bek. :
Schol. H., ἀνέησιν Schol. E., ἀνιήσησι Herman.
123. “‘videntur fuisse qui βέοτον τὸν σὸν (vel βιότοιο᾽ τεοῦ) μνη-
124. ἔχει Harl,
, Post 107
115. δέ τ᾿ ἀνιήσειδ
120. ἐὐπλόκαμος Harl. Ven.
125. αὐτῆς Schol.
126. ποϑὴ Arist.
repeated action, with the optat. παρα-
Seito, see App. A. g (20). ἔληϑε,
the pres. 47% occurs τ. 88, 91. For
ὡς teletés x. τ. 1. some have wished,
says a Schol., to read wg Sletes...
ἀλλ᾽ ore On τρίτον; but in note on 89
the text is shown to be admissible.
109. ἱστὸν “web”, but 94 ‘“‘loom’’.
So Dryden, of the spider, she ‘‘runs
along her loom’’. N. B., in 110 τὸ μὲν
means ἔργον, for ἱστὸν is acc. of masc.
nom. f6t0¢, see 94.
114. There is a similar change of
subject for object here to that in 54
sup., where see note.
115 — 26. The parenthesis suspends
the sense so far that in 123 τόφρα ....
the whole is virtually resumed, and
the ef δ᾽ ἔτ᾽ ἀνιήσει x. τιλ. of τις is
left without a formal apodosis. ‘‘If
she will go on baffling the Achwans
.... they so long will go on consuming
thy substance as she retains this pur-
pose.’? Further, the τάων ov τις x. τ. 1.
of 121 repeats independently the state-
ment made depending on a@xovopey of
118, and καὶ in 117 couples meévag ἐσθ.
κέρδεα τ᾽ to the substantival clause
ἔργα τ᾽ ἐπίστασθαι περικ. Thus φρέ-
vag is not obj. of ἐπέστ. ἀτὰρ κ. τ. λ..
42
a oa, 28 —9.
h f. 252, yw. 138—9.
ec A. 223—4.
Γ d. 110, 837, 2.
464; cf. ©. 701—2.
ἐπ πὶ
ι p. , σ΄. 205,
. 651.
i s. 896, ¢. 172, 2.
61,2 641; cf.y. 27,
201
201, A. 792,
Ὁ. 4037 Σ΄ 182. |
127. Féoyea.
— - --- ws — ——- — --——-
the blame here conveyed gains force
from the encomium which leads up to
it. ἔργα ... κέρδεα, for by a mix-
ture of these she had baffled them.
ἑναίσ. οὐκ ἐνό., a phrase of po-
lite but cold irony — ‘this device of
hers was not judicious’’, or ‘‘for your
interests’’. Antin. speaks not of the
moral quality of the act, but only of
its effect on their course of action, as
shown by γὰρ following. The word
has another sense inf. 159, 182, ‘‘related
to ασα᾽", as ‘‘fate’’, i. 6. “portentous’’:
sce also mar.
Τυρώ, mother of Neleus and others
by Poseidon and Cretheus (mar.); Mv-
xj. daughter of Inachus. ὅμοια Πην.,
“like (those of) Penel.’’, a contracted
constrn. Ni. compares φωνὴν foxova’
ἀλόχοισιν δ. 279.
127—9. ποιεῖτ᾽, Donalds. Gr. Gr.
139 says the apparent elisions of αἱ
belong to synizesis, — ἃ rash doctrine,
especially where, as here, a comma
intervenes, see Jelf Gr. Gr. § 18.5 and 6.
NERVE. BCC ON &. 213.
132. Cwee... téDy., this phrase,
elsewhere introduced by οὐδέ τι οἷδα,
ἴδμεν, or the like, stands here abso-
lutely; ef τε might be understood to
complete the sense; see App. A. 9 (1)
and cf. ἐάσομεν, 4 κεν ἴῃσιν ἢ κε μένῃ
(mar.) where the latter clause contains
a contingency yet to be decided, whercas
ξώει ... τέϑνηκε stands as a fact ac-
complished one way or the other, but
unknown which. ἑκὼν, read for ἐγὼν,
being really Fexov, impedes the pro-
sody.
134. Some refer tov πατρ. to Inag.,
“Sher father‘‘, and explain κακὰ πεί-
σομαι by πόλλ᾽ ἀποτίνειν, a weak
OATZZEIAL B. 127—134.
Πσρφίν γ᾽’ αὐτὴν γήμασϑαι ᾿4χαιῶν ᾧ
» [2
130. ἀιξεκουσαν.
133. Harl. ἑκὼν, Schol. Η. ἐγών.
[DAY 11.
ἡμεῖς" O° οὔτ᾽ ἐπὶ Egya” πάρος" γ᾽ iwev οὔτε πῃ ἄλλῃ,
z
κ᾿ ἐθέλῃσιν."
΄
x, 76, τὸν δ᾽ av Τηλέμαχος πεπνυμένος ἀντίον nida
‘4Ayrtvo’, οὔ πως ἔστι δόμων ἀέκουσαν ἃ ἀπῶσαι
β. 191, δ. ιν, ἢ μ᾽ ἔτεχ᾽, ἢ μ᾽ ἔϑρεψε"" πατὴρ δ᾽ ἐμὸς ἄλλοϑι γαίης,
toe! ὅ γ᾽ ἢ τέϑνηκε' κακὸν δέ μὲ πόλλ᾽ ἀποτίνειν
Ἱκαρίῳ, εἴ κ᾽’ αὐτὸς ἐγὼν ἀπὸ μητέρα πέμψω.
ἐκ γὰρ τοῦ πατρὸς κακὰν πείσομαι, ἄλλα δὲ δαίμων"
133. Εικαρίῳ.
137 + Arist. |
meaning for words so strong. The
whole speech (see App. E. 3) is frag-
mentary and lacks sequence. Render,
‘ill were it for me to make large com-
pensation to Ic. (as I must), if of my-
self I dismiss my mother. — Why, from
that father (mentioned in 131) I shall
have woe to suffer; further woe the
powers above will add, since my mo-
ther on going forth from home will
invoke the abhorred Erinnyes (see on
y. 310); indignation, too, from men will
attend me.’”’ His father, if alive, would
return to punish him; if dead, would
retain a power to curse. ἄποτέν. pro-
bably means that, as the injured hus-
band re-demanded what he had given
the father, when a wife was dismissed
for adultery (@. 318), and the husband
repaid what he had received in pre-
sents etc., if she were sent away cause-
lessly, so the same rule would apply
to Telem. dismissing his mother as pro-
posed; see App. A. 14.
δαίμων, Nigelsb., I. § 47, says,
that although clear cases occur where
δαίμ. stands indifferently for ϑεὸς, or
for numen divinum, yet only twice in H.
has it a clear sense of god as helping,
benefiting etc., and that in the Ody.
the sense inclines mostly in malam par
tem, cf. the adj. δαιμόνιος, a term
of reproof; but cf. also ὀλβιοδαίμων.
Yet he rejects any notion of an inde-
pendent coordinate power of evil, and
connects with δαίμων the notion of
divine agency as strange and mystec-
rious, and especially as exerted for
harm. Hes. Opp. 121—3 has a quite
different view of δαέμονες, as the spi-
rits of the men of the golden age,
who, departed this world, exercise in-
DAY 11]
135 δώσει, ἐπεὶ μήτηρ στυγερὰς ἀρήσετ᾽ ‘Eguvic,*
οἴκου ἀπερχομένη" νέμεσις" δέ μοι ἐξ ἀνθρώπων 418
ἔσσεται" ὃς οὐ τοῦτον ἐγώ ποτε μῦϑον ἐνίψω.
ὑμέτερος δ᾽ εἰ μὲν ϑυμὸς νεμεσίξεται" αὐτῶν,
ἔξιτέο μοι μεγάρων. ἄλλας δ᾽ ἀλεγύνετε δαῖτας
140 ὑμὰ κτήματ᾽ ἔδοντες, ἀμειβόμενοι κατὰ οἴκους.
εἰ δ᾽ ὑμῖν δοκέει τόδε λωίτερον καὶ ἄμεινον
ἔμμεναι, ἀνδρὸς ἑνὸς βίοτον νήποινον ὀλέσϑαι,
κείρετ᾽ "ἴ ἐγὼ δὲ ϑεοὺς ἐπιβώσομαι αἰὲν ἐόντας,
OATZZEIAZ Β.
135—153- 43
, Φ. 412.
b a. 350 mar.
c A. 148, @. 529,
Ἡ. 447; εἴ. α.1,
ω. 414.
d cf. β. 239 -- 40,
Ζ. 335.
e a. 374— 80.
Γβ. 312, ὦ. 459.
Β 9.5], «ΑἹ. 123.--9.
h o. 168, N. 821.
εἴξ κέ ποϑι Ζεὺς Odo. παλίντιτα ἔργα γενέσθαι" ᾿ νὰ are
145 νήποινοί xev ἔπειτα δόμων ἔντοσθεν ὅλοισϑε."» oe κι an P
ὡς φάτο Τηλέμαχος, τῷ! δ᾽ αἰετὼϊ εὐρύοπα Ζεὺς s7s, Σ 599.
ὑψόϑεν ἐκ κορυφῆς ὄρεος προέηκε πέτεσθαι. | α. 98 mar.
τὼ δ᾽ ἕως μέν" ῥ᾽ ἐπέτοντο pera! πνοιῇς ἀνέμοιο, a il
πλησίω ἀλλήλοισι τιταινομένω" πτερύγεσσιν᾽
150 ἀλλ᾽ ὅτε δὴ μέσσην ἀγορὴν πολύφημον" ἰκέσϑην,᾽
n χ. 376.
o ε. 538, υ. 218,
H. 269.
p α. 115, 6. 389,
Ev” ἐπιδινηϑέντεο τιναξάσϑην πτερὰ πολλὰ, η. ato. 15, ν'
ἐς δ᾽ ἰδέτην πάντων κεφαλάς ὕσσοντον δ᾽ ὄλεϑρον, 224, 2.172. Ὁὃῦ
᾿ ’ A) ’ 4 . & ᾽ 4 ey
δρυψαμένω“ δ᾽ ὀνύχεσσι παρειὰς ἀμφί τε δειρὰς 4 9548?
136. βοίκου. 140. Fotnove. 144. Feoya.
144. κε Ζεὺς δώῃσι F. ed. Oxon. 146. τῷ Codd. quatuor, τὼ tres, sed
horum Scholl.
149. πλησίον.
τῷ agnoscunt.
Bek., of A. 454:
--- - ee ee
fluence in it. ὡς not oxytone, which
would mean “so that”, but = διὸ
‘‘ wherefore ᾽ἢ , ἐνέψω see App. A.
138. ve te αὐτῶν, ‘‘has any awe for
all these’’, i. ὁ. the wrath of gods,
Erinnyes, parents and men, The gen.
is that of cause or motive (Donalds.
Gr. Gr. 8 453 ce (a)); see also the ex-
amples of gen. with verbs of wondering
etc. in Jelf Gr. Gr. § 495, 499, 500, and
οὔτοι Τρώων χόλῳ οὐδ νέμεσσι ἥμην
(mar.); but νεμεσίξομαι is not clse-
where found with gen.; see on 239—40.
139 —45. See on &. 374— 80.
148. ἕως (scanned in synizesis )
‘“‘awhile”’, ie. really, while on their
way in 146—7. This indefinite use is
in correlative clauses common with ὅτε,
more rare with ἕως (mar.).
150—6. πολύφ. » this well expresses
the hum of voices rising into the air;
which makes the birds’ descent more
147. pégecPae.
151. τιναξέσϑην Rec. ; ; pro πολλά Harl. et plerique πυχνὰ, ita
152. ὄσσαντο Rhian. interp. Pors.
148. efag Schol. A. 193.
--.-.-.0..-.- .. -.. — ——— - »»Μ.“ἍἍ»...
ominous, they not being scared by it.
τιναξάσ., “shook out’’; ef. &. 368, N. 243.
ὄσσον. x. τ. Δ. “Ἰοοκοὰ with omen of
destruction”, see on α. 115, and cf.
/éschyl. Sept. ς. Th. 53 λεόντων ὡς
Aen δεδορκότων.
153. Sovuwayu., the mid. voice shows
that the birds pecked themselves, not
those in the ἀγορὴ, δρύπτω being (mar. )
transitive. Eustathius mentions a notion
of birds destroying themselves being an
omen of ill. But by ‘‘themselves”’ he
might mean “one another” ξαυτοὺς for
ἀλλήλους, cf. Soph. Ant. 145, Jelf Gr. Gr.
§ 654. 3; Teircsias Soph. Ant. 1003 80
regards birds σπῶντας ἐν χηλαῖσιν ἀλ-
λήλους φοναῖς. --- δδξεὼ, either on the
observers’ right, or on the absolute
right, ὦ. e. the Eastern side (mar.).
The gazers gave the omen its real in-
terpretation, i. e. woe to the suitors.
The reading ἔμελλεν 156 is needless,
K. 714, M. τ.
e @. 137.
d ef. o. 172—58.
233, 4. 310, 9.
137.
fo. 451 -- 4.
ε N. 431, 77. "05,
B. 330, .Ξ. 124,
2. 535.
h A. 74, Z. 316,
352.
i ἃ. 137, ν. 7.
k 3. 81, 4. H7,
P. .
655
1 εἴ. β 237, 283,
ξ. 15%
—61, τ.
30 7, S5H—R,
$85 —7.
m @. 82, O. 134.
nef. wo. 526—8.
οι. 21, ν. 212, 24,
τ. 132.
, 241. 244, ὦ.
a
q 0. 417, yw. 109.
τ M. 804, P. 41.
8 a. 210, o. 252,
Ζ. 74.
ια. 6. ἷ x
uy. 19 7.
Ζ: 27], w. 102,
170.
w A. 432, ν. 132,
ψ. 12.
x @. 302, ν. 175, σ.
271, B. 329-30.
am 4%.
—
154. folxea.
162. ξείρω.
164. pro αὐτῶν Aristoph. οὕτως, Scholl. H. M.
155. doy.
164. For.
OATIZEIAL B. 154—176. [pay u.
. 2 32.1 δεξιὼ" ἤιξαν διά τ᾽ οἰχία καὶ πόλιν αὐτῶν.
ϑάμβησαν δ᾽ ὕὄρνιϑας ἐπεὶ ἴδον" ὀφθαλμοῖσιν, 15
‘Gounvav’ δ᾽ ava ϑυμὸν ἃ περ" τελέεσθαι ἔμελλον."
ε Β. 36; εἴ. 9.160. |
τοῖσι δὲ χαὶ μετέειπε γέρων ἥρως ᾿4λιϑέρσης
Μαστορίδης" ὃ γὰρ οἷος ὁμηλικίην ἐκέχαστοξ
ὕρνιϑας γνῶναι καὶ ἐναίσιμα μυϑήσασϑαι""
ῦ σφιν ἐὐφρονέων ἀγορήσατο καὶ μετέειπεν
“xexAure δὴ νῦν μευ, Ἰϑθακήσιοι, ὅττι χεν εἴπω"
μνηστῆρσιν δὲ μάλιστα πιφαυσχόμενος τάδε slow. i
τοῖσιν γὰρ μέγα πῆμα" κυλίνδεται- οὐ γὰρ Ὀδυσσεὺς
δὴν ἀπάνευϑε φέλων ὧν ἔσσεται!, ἀλλά που ἤδη
ἐγγὺς ἐὼν τοῖςδεσσι φόνον καὶ κῆρα φυτεύει"
πάντεσσιν" πολέσιν δὲ καὶ ἄλλοισιν" κακὸν ἔσται,
of νεμόμεσϑ᾽ Ἰϑάκηνο εὐδείελον. ἀλλὰ πολὺ πρὲν
φραξώμεσϑ᾽ ὥς κεν καταπαύσομεν"» οἵ δὲ χαὶ αὐτοὶ
παυέσϑων᾽" καὶ γάρ σφιν ἄφαρ τόδε Actos ἐἑστέν.
οὐ γὰρ ἀπείρητος" μαντεύομαι, ἀλλ᾽ εὖ εἰδώς"
καὶ γὰρ ἐκείνῳ φημὶ τελευτηϑῆναι ἅπαντα
ὥς of ἐμυϑεόμην. ὅτε Ἴλιον εἰςανέβαινον"
᾿Δργεῖοι. μετὰ δέ σφιν ἔβη πολύμητις Ὀδυσσεύς.
φὴν κακὰ πολλὰ παϑόντ᾽, ὀλέσαντ᾽' ἄπο πάντας ἑταίρους,
ἄγνωστον" πάντεσσιν ἐεικοστῷ" ἐνιαυτῷ
οἴκαδ᾽ ἐλεύσεσθαι" “ τὰ δὲ δὴ νῦν πάντα τελεῖται."
16
16
17
17.
161. ξβεέπω.
157. μετέξειπε. 160, μετέξειπεν.
175. ἐξεικοστῷ.
170. Fecdas. 172. Fou Fiéluov.
176. 179. Folxad.
186. ita Scholl. E. H. 5. Q. V.
Codd, aliquot ἔμελλεν, ita Harl. ἃ prima manu. 168. pro of δὲ, Schol. K. 167 83.
170. ἀπειρήτως Rec.; μαντευσομαι Harl., sine o Schol. H.
as in HI. and the non- Attic poets the
pl. occurs with pl. neut. nouns (mar.);
seo Jelf Gr. Gr. § 385, Obs. 2.
_ 1g8—9. exéxad., see on y. 282.
tvald., sce on 122; 80 also inf. 182.
162—6. egw rare epic pres., only
found in Ody. It was doubtless Féga,
or lengthened μβέρρω, Lat. sero, as in
Virg. En. VI. 160 sermone serebant; the
fut. ἐρέω is used in phrases of solemn
enunciation, ἄλλο δὲ τοι ἐρέω, σὺ δ᾽
κι τι. (mar.). τοῖσδ. seo on 47.
167—9. evdeleé., see App. A. 17 (3).
πρὶν is adv. in 167, but in 128 con-
junction; in I. 403 both uses occur,
τὸ πρὶν ἐπ᾿ εἰρήνης πρὶν ἐλθεῖν x. τ. 1.
καταπ., i. ὁ. μνηστῆρας, it may be fut.
as in φραξώμεϑ᾽ ὅπως ἔσται rade ἔργα
4.14, or subjunct. shortened epicé, as
in 1. 112. a@vtol = sponte.
170—2. εἰδὼς, often, as here, ‘“‘cx-
perienced’’; the experience meant is
shown by the sequel καὶ γὰρ x. τ. λ.;
he had foretold what was in part ful-
filled, and he infers that “all is being
fulfilled’’ in 176. εἰςανέβ. see on a.
210. With the vaticination in 174—6
Ni. compares that of Calchas to the
Greeks, given B. 26s foll.
200
DAY 11.]
OATZZEIAL B. 177—200.
45
τὸν δ᾽ avr’ Εὐρύμαχος Πολύβου παῖς ἀντίον ηὔδα
«(ὦ γέρον, εἰ δ᾽ ἄγε νῦν μαντεύεο σοῖσι" τέκεσσιν,
οἴκαδ᾽ ἰὼν, μή πού τι κακὸν" πάσχωσιν ὀπίσσω᾽
(80 ταῦτα δ᾽ ἐγὼ σέο πολλὸν ἀμείνων μαντεύεσϑαι.
ὕρνυϑες δέ τε πολλοὶ ὑπ᾽“ αὐγὰς ἠελίοιο
φοιτῶσ᾽, οὐδέ τε πάντες ἐναίσιμοι" 5 αὐτὰρ Ὀδυσσεὺς
ὥλετο τῆλ᾽, ὡς καὶ σὺ καταφϑίσϑαι σὺν ἐκείνῳ
ὥφελες. οὐκ av τόσσα ϑεοπροπέωνξ ἀγόρευες.
(85 οὐδέ κε Τηλέμαχον κεχολωμένον ὧδ᾽ ἀνιείης 9"
σῷ οἴκῳ δῶρον ποτιδέγμενος ,͵ἷ εἴ κε πόρησιν.
ἀλλ᾽κ ἔκ τοι ἐρέω, τὸ δὲ καὶ τετελεσμένον ἔσται"
ai κε νεώτερον ἄνδρα παλαιά τὸ πολλά! τε εἰδὼς
παρφάμενος" ἐπέεσσιν ἐποτρύνῃς χαλεπαίνειν,
ι9ο αὐτῷ μέν of πρῶτον ἀνιηρέστερον" ἔσται,
[πρῆξαιο δ᾽ ἔμπης ov τι δυνήσεται εἵνεκα τῶνδε")
dol δέ, γέρον, ϑωὴν» ἐπυιϑήσομεν, ἣν κ᾽ ἐνὶ ϑυμῷ
τένων ἀσχάλλῃς « χαλεπὸν δέ τοι ἔσδεται ἄλγος.
Τηλεμάχῳ δ᾽ ἐν πᾶσιντ ἐγὼν ὑποθήσομαι αὐτός"
195 μητέρ᾽ δὴν ἐς πατρὸς ἀνωγέτω" ἀπονέεσϑαι"
of δὲ γάμον τεύξουσι καὶ ἀρτυνέουσιν ἔεδνα ᾿
πολλὰ" μάλ᾽, ὅσσα ἔοικε φίλης ἐπὶ παιδὸς ἔπεσϑαι.
οὐ γὰρ πρὶν παύσεσϑαι ὀΐομαι υἷας ᾿Δχαιῶν
μνηστύος ἀργαλέης, ἐπεὶ οὔ τινα δείδιμεν ἔμπης."
" οὖν Τηλέμαχον, μάλα περ πολύμυϑον ἐόντα"
ww 3
ουτ
a Ο. 197.
b β. 134 mar.
c A. 498, 619, N.
837.
d x. 119, μ. 420,
B. 719, M. 266,
Y. 6.
e Δ. 159, B. 353;
cf. δ. 122, Z.519.
f aw. 217, 9. 312,
A. 548, I. 428,
I. 698.
g A 109, B. 321.
h 3. 73, E. 761,
δ. 568, 9. 359,
X. 80, β. 300.
i f. 205, 403.
k B. 257.
Ι 8.16 mar.
m π. 287, τ. 6; εἰ
=. 217, O. 404.
n ρ. 220.
o A. 562.
p Ν. 669.
q a. 304, «. 159,
634, B. 293, 297,
X. 412, 2. 403.
r I. (21, 528.
s a. 269, w. 132.
t a. 277—8 mar.
u α. 278 mar.
v H. 196, 4. 205,
§. 491, M. 320,
P. 632.
186. Fodxm. 187. «ξερέω.
195. &Fny.
180. ἀμείνω Schol. H.
ϑήσομαι Schol. H.
181 —9. δέ TE, see on ἃ. 53. ὑπ᾽
αὐγὰς ἠελ., ὑπὸ here with acc. does
not mean “to or towards’’, but fixed
position (mar.), cf. ad or ,apud superos
Virg. Ain. VI. 481, 568. ἀνιεέης, this
verb means “to set free, loose or
open’’, here ‘to set on or rouse’’, in
mid. “to rip up’? (mar.) It is here
optat., as depending mediately on ayo-
géves, “you would not be talking and
thereby rousing Telem. to wrath” (xezod.
a further predicate). | παάρφαμι., as we
say ‘‘talking over” RECO, κα we
ἐπέεσσιν, I. 526.
191— 5. The line 191, not found in
188. ειδώς.
196. ἔξεδνα.
182. πωτῶντ᾽ Scholl. M. Q. 8.
191. omittunt nonnulli. pro efyexa τῶνδε (vel τῶν γε) οἷος ἀπ᾿ ἄλλων.
198. pro παύσεσϑαι παύσασϑαι Harl., παύεσϑαι alii.
we fear Telem.’’
189. Fewéecory. 190. For.
197. FéFoexe.
190. ἀνιηρώτερον Bek.
192. ἐπι-
many of the best copies, is probably
from Il. (mar.), Day “‘mulct”’, which
the ἀγορὴ could probably impose; see
App. A. 4 (3). The sense of ‘‘blame”
suggested by Ni. is doubtful, and would
here certainly be poor. ἀσχάλ., else-
where ἀσχαλάω or epicé -όω; H. has the
form ἀσγαλλω only here; 866 mar.
ἐν πᾶσ. céram omnibus, For « in @xo-
νέεσϑαι see on α. 420.
196—203. For of dé... ἔεδνα seo
App. A. 14. ἔμπης, “in every sup-
posable case"’;, hence, ‘“anyhow’’; sec
mar. οὔτ᾽ οὖν κι τι λ., “πο, nor do
; this seems to answer
46
ἃ α. 415, ΤΠ. 50;
εἴ. α. 271, 2. 422.
b cf. β. 126.
ς A. 336, M. 436,
e. 42.
d β. 265, ν. ἯΙ,
β' 404, 4. 42,
T. 150.
e cf. 0. 401, y. 24.
f A. 763, σ. 251.
5. β. 336, N. 379,
429, ¢. 63, Θ.
901.
h ὅδ. 681, ξ. 150,
σ. 99, φ. 174, 232.
i cf. ξ. 400, ZZ. 11.
k p. 44.
1 e. 327, 331, x.
574; cf. ἡ. 86
B. 462, 476, H.
ΟΔΥΣΣΕΊΙΑΣ B. 201—224.
[pay σι.
οὔτε ϑεοπροπίης" ἐμπαξόμεϑ'᾽, ἣν ov, γεραιὲ,
μυϑέαι ἀκράαντον, ἀπεχϑάνεαι δ᾽ ἔτι μᾶλλον.
χρήματα" δ᾽ αὖτε κακῶς βεβρώσεται, οὐδέ ποτ᾽ ἶσα"
ἔσσεται, ὄφρα κεν ἥ γε διατρίβῃσιν “ ᾿Αχαιοὺς
ὃν γάμον" ἡμεῖς δ᾽ αὖ ποτιδέγμενοι ἤματα πάντα
εἵνεκα τῆς ἀρετῆς ἐριδαίνομεν., οὐδὲ μετ᾽ ἄλλας
Eoyoued’, ἃς ἐπιεικὲς ὀπυιέμενε ἐστὶν ἑκάστῳ.";
τὸν δ᾽ αὖ Τηλέμαχος πεπνυμένος ἀντίον ηὔδα
ς Εὐρύμαχ᾽ ἠδὲ καὶ ἄλλοι, ὅσοι μνηστῆρες" ἀγαυοὶ,
ταῦτα μὲν οὐχ ὑμέας ἔτι λίσσομαι
ἤδη γὰρ τὰ ἴσασι ϑεοὶ καὶ πάντες ᾽“χαιοί.
ἀλλ᾽ aye μοι δότε νῆα ϑοὴν καὶ εἴκοσ᾽ ἑταίρους.
οἵ κέ μοι ἔνϑα! καὶ ἔνϑα διαπρήσσωσι κέλευϑον.
Eiue™ γὰρ ἐς Σπάρτην τε καὶ ἐς Πύλον ἠμαϑόεντα.
νόστον πευσόμενος πατρὸς δὴν οἰχομένοιο,"
ἤν τίς μοι εἴπῃσι βροτῶν, ἢἣ ὕσσαν ἀκούσω
ἐκ Aids, ἥ τε μάλιστα φέρει κλέος ἀνθρώποισιν.
εἰ μέν κεν πατρὸς βίοτον καὶ νόστον ἀκούσω,
οὐδ᾽ * ἀγορεύω"
156. ἢ τ᾿ ἄν τρυχόμενός περ ἔτι τλαίην ἐνιαυτόν"
m α. 98 -- 4 mar.
n @. 281---02 mar.
ο 42. 38.
p A. 68, 101, B.
76, Η. 354, 365,
π 213.
205. ἐὸν.
216. βεέπῃσι ξόσσαν.
222. for.
205. προτιδέγμενοι.
211. τὸ. 213. διαπρήσῶσι Harl.,
214. ἠμαϑόεσσαν Rec.
207. ἐπιεικὲς Fexaoto.
διαπρήσωσι Schol.
222. ita Herod. ., χείω Arist., alii yevoo, Schol. H.
εἰ δέ κε τεϑνηῶτος ἀκούσω μηδ᾽ ἔτ᾽ ἐόντος,
νοστήσας δὴ ἔπειτα φίλην ἐς πατρίδα γαῖαν
σῆμά τέ of χεύω καὶ ἐπὶ utégen” κτερεΐξω
πολλὰ μάλ᾽, ὅσσα ἔοικε, καὶ ἀνέρι μητέρα δώσω."
ἦν τοι 6 γ᾽ ὡς εἰπὼν κατ᾽ ἄρ᾽ Eleto, τοῖσι δ᾽ ἀνέστη
212. είκοσ᾽.
224. ξειπων.
211. ἴσασι.
223. «έξβοικε.
206, de hoc v. dubitavit Aristoph., Scholl. H. Μ. Q. R.
B.; κέλευθα Rec.
πικτέρεα Hesych.
a supposed query, as in α. 414. οὔτ᾽
οὖν .ον answers a Teal one. oa
“equivalent”, ἐς e. “‘compensation”,
so κατ᾽ ἶσα, ἐπ᾽ low (mar.).
204 — 6. Sate. ‘Ay. ὃν γ., ἃ rare
double accus., with which we may
compare Eschyl. Eumen. 221 —2 δίκας
μέτειμι τόνδε φῶτα and mar. ©.
‘‘Puts off her wedding” o uts off
the Achseans’’, would be simple ; this
sentence complicates the two transitive
constructions, having one object in the
persons deprived, and another in the
thing debarred; cf. the similar use of
ἀπορραίσει α. 404. ἀρετῆς, ‘“supe-
riority’’ », 300 mar.
207. Ove., the act. with accus, is
used of men, the pass. or mid. of women
(mar.),. »
212— 3. aye often becomes purely
adverbial, as shown here by the plur,
δότε following. ἔνϑα x. € here of
motion, ‘to and fro”’, but also of po-
sition ‘‘here and there’’ (mar.).
214—23 are nearly verbulim recurring
lines (mar.).
DAY I1.]
ΟΔΥΣΣΕΙΑΣ B. 225—241.
225 Μέντωρ, ὅς δ᾽ Ὀδυσῆος ἀμύμονος ἦεν ἑταῖρος ,?
καί of ἰὼν ἐν νηυσὶν ἐπέτρεπεν" οἷκον ἅπαντα,
πείθεσθαί te γέροντι καὶ ἔμπεδα πάντα φυλασδειν""
04 σφιν ἐὐφρονέων ἀγορήσατο καὶ μετέειπεν
«κέκλυτε δὴ νῦν μεῦ, ᾿Ιϑακήσιοι, ὅττι κεν εἴπω"
230 μή" τις ἔτι πρόφρων ἀγανὸς καὶ ἥπιος ἔστω
σκηπτοὔχος βασιλεὺς, μηδὲ φρεσὶν αἴσιμα" εἰδὼς,
47
a β. 258--4, 286,
. 68—9.
Ὁ ef. y. 268, o. 266.
c 4. 178, τ. 52.
d p. 160 —1.
e e. 83—12.
{ cf. 4.77, @. 40,
175.
ἀλλ᾽ αἰεὶ χαλεπός, τ᾽ εἴη καὶ αἴσυλα! ῥέξοι"
ὡς οὔ τις μέμνηται Ὀδυσσῆος ϑείοιο
λαῶν οἷσιν ἄνασσε, πατὴρ δ᾽ ὡς ἤπιος ἥεν. εἰ, ΖΦ. 5
235 ἀλλ᾽ ἡ τοι μνηστῆρας ἀγήνορας οὔ τι! μεγαίρω.
ἔρδειν ἔργα βέαια κακορραφίῃσι" νόοιο"
σφὰς γὰρ παρϑέμενοι" κεφαλὰς κατέδουσι βιαίως
οἶκον Ὀδυσσῆος, τὸν 0° οὐκέτι φασὶ νέεσϑαι."
νῦν δ᾽ ἄλλῳ δήμῳ νεμεσίξομαι,» οἷον ἅπαντες
240 ἦσϑ᾽ ἄνεῳ.," ἀτὰρ οὔ τι καϑαπτόμενοι" ἐπέεσσιν
ταύρους! μνηστήρας καταπαύετε πολλοὶ ἑόντες.";
226. οι. Foixov.
234. ἄνασσε.
232. ῥέξων Harl. mar.
libri et Scholl, Bek. Dind. Fa. Low.
225—6. Mentor here only appears
in prop. persond, being elsewhere .an
εἴδωλον assumed by Pallas, who re-
peats his words here (mar.). In ὅς
... καὶ .-.. ἐὼν, the subject of
the second clause is borrowed, as in
249 — 50, from the object of the first.
So γέροντι, 227, is Mentor, the subj.
of φυλάσσειν. It is probable that Men-
tor was older than Odys. See on y. 268.
230—8. πρόφρων x. τ. λ., “forward
(in being) gentle’’, or “taking pains
to be so’. τες eee SRUATOVXOG B.,
the τις separated gives notice of the
noun following, as does the demonstr. ὃ,
c.g. A. 488, αὐτὰρ ὁ UWE ... πόδας
ὠκὺς ᾿Αχιλλεύς. — νέεσϑαε, this verb
appears only in pres. and imperf., but
the pres. has also a fut. force, as ‘hore
(mar., Buttm. Gr. Verbs 8. v.): it appears
in epic pres. vevpat, vetar, νεῖται.
239— 40. νεμεσέξ. (mar.), in sense
of ‘‘be angry’’ this verb takes dat. of
person or accus. of thing, or both; in
228. μετέξειπεν.
236. έρδειν Féoya.
236. κακοφραδέῃσι Scholl. H. Μ. 5.
241.
libri κατερύκετε, ita Dind. edd. Clark. "et Oxon,
wy A. 279; cf. B.
101—7.
h O. 207.
10. 353.
j E. 103, Φ. 214.
k . 47 mar.
Ι 9. 206, sft 40S ;
m μ. 26, O. 16.
ny. 74, ¢. 255.
ov. GI, ἊΣ 152, 7.
257, 2. 101, 136.
p @. 263,
E. 757, ΤΑΝ
4 B. 320, P. 173.
ry. 144, . 93,
. 323, 2". Si,
I. 30, 695
s ΙΔ. 39 mar
tcf. a. 383
229. Fetnw. 231. Ferdas.
238. foixoy. 240. fentecouy.
240. aver
ita Rhian., Schol. H., ita Bek. Fu.,
sense of “feel awe at’’, accus. of pers.
and once gen., viz. 138 sup., where see
note. Οἷον x. t.4., this sudden turn
from speaking of them to directly ad-
dressing them gives much vigour to the
address. aveq, 80 Bek. in Ody. (but
«veo in Il,, 806 mar.); and so “the
earlier edd. till Wolf’? says Crusius
s.v., who, however, gives ave, regard-
ing jt as an adverb. It certainly occurs
. 93 with sing. subject, ἢ δ᾽ ἄνεω δὴν
στο, where ἄνεω is found in all edd.
Buttm. Lezil. 20 writes it always ave
as an adv., i. 6. he disregards the
seven times of avew for the once of
avew. Those who ‘rogard the MSS.
will probably still keep a@vem as an
adj. plur., when joined with a plar.
verb., as do the Scholl. H.M. here; even
although it may be doubtful whether
avéo of ψ. 93 be a fem. form or an
adverb. Mentor appeals here, as Hali-
therses did in 68, to the people as a
last resort amid the disaffection of the
βουλή; see App. A. 4 (3).
&
74. i
δ δον
ΞΕ OAM
—™ ye ane 8
Fo Bae
ἢ
b
Ἰη
ξ
i
Ww es
—_
- =?
-
85
seni
Ὁ
Noe
o§
ᾷ
. 170,
ἈΞ OPA mae Se 3,
Sya
Qa
eee "239 [-}
ΣΣΣΣΕΣ
fhe
ἂ»
5
ΟΔΥΣΣΕΊΑΣ Β. 242—256.
τὸν δ᾽ Εὐηνορίδης Δειώκριτο;" ἀντίον nuda
"66 Μέντορ ἀταρτηρὲ.," φρένας ἠλεὲ.- ποῖον ἔειπες
; ἡμέας ὀτρύνων καταπαυέμεν. ἀργαλέον δὲ
ἀνδράσι xal πλεόνεσσι μαχήσασϑαι περὶ δαιτί.
εἴ περ γάρ κ᾿ Ὀδυσεὺς Ἰθακήσιος' αὐτὸς ἐπελϑὼν
δαινυμένους" κατὰ δῶμα ἐὸν μνηστήρας" ἀγαυοὺς
ἐξελάσαι μεγάροιο μενοινήσει᾽ ἐνὶ dupe,
- οὔ χέν of' χεχάροιτο γυνὴ, μάλα περ χατέουσα,
4. ἐλϑόντ᾽, ἀλλά κεν αὐτοῦ ἀειχέα! πότμον ἐπέσποι,
130, (ef πλεόνεσσι" μάχοιτο" σὺ 0’ οὐ κατὰ" μοῖραν ἔειπες.
ἀλλ᾽ aye, λαοὶ μὲν oxidvacd’® ἐπὶ ἔργα ἕκαστος.»
T. ™7,| τούτῳ δ᾽ ὀτρυνέει « Μέντωρ ὁδὸν ἠδ᾽ ᾿4λιϑέρσης.
Β. 15. οἵ τε of ἐξ ἀρχῆς πατρώιοί εἰσιν ἑταῖροι."
- ἀλλ᾽" ὀΐω καὶ δηϑὰ χαϑήμενος ἀγγελιάων"
:πεύσεται εἰν Ἰθάκῃ, τελέει δ᾽ ὁδὸν" οὔ ποτε ταύτην.»
243. ἔξειπες. 247. «Γεὸν.
245. καὶ παύροισι Scholl. Μ.
emend. Harl.
49. For.
252. re “fixaseos.
247. ἕω Scholl. M. 8.
ze1. εἶ πλέονες of ἔποιντο Harl. Ven. Ambros. .» quorum Scholl.
250. ἀξεικέα.
254. fot.
51. ἔξειπες.
250. ἐπίσπῃ ex
quoque nostram lect. improbant.
243. --Ξ. ata t., proby. a reduplicated
form of atngé, from arty but with a,
as in ἀτάσθαλος. ἀνδράσι x. πλεόν.,
‘*"tis a hard thing for men though out-
numbering (us) to do battle (with us)
about a meal. For if Odys. himself
were to return and try to drive us out,
the attempt would be fatal to him’”’.
ν. 261 (see. note there) was doubtless
added by some diasccuast, who mis-
took the connexion of ἀνδράσι καὶ πλ.
in 245, governing it by μαχήσασϑαι.
That connexion is plain from 239—41.
Leiocritus takes up indignantly the
closing sentence of Mentor'’s speech;
hence the word ἡμέας answers to παύ-
ρους μνηστῆρας, and the ἀνδράσι καὶ
zi, must mean not the same suitors,
but the more numerous party to whom
Mentor had appealed. The reading
καὶ παύροισι Bcems an attempt to recon-
cile 245 with 239—41, while governing
ἀνδράσι by μαχήσασθαι.
281. δὲ x. τ Δ. This 2" protas.,
after the 1°¢ with its apod. bas been
completed, is a clog to the sentence.
With cithor reading t this objection holds,
unless ef be strained to mean καὶ e;
800 ΚΕ. 350—1. Then, if the text be
‘taken, this upsets the condition (245
and 241) of superior numbers bein
against the suitors. If we read ς
πλέονες of ἕποιντο, this re-states that
condition, most unsuitably to the stress
laid by αὐτὸς (246) on Odys. appearing
personally: — which same applies to
the sense suggested for the text by a
Schol.; of his ‘‘fighting with more on
his δία", The other words, σὺ δ᾽ ov x.
μοῖραν &., after ποῖον ἔειπες of 243,
seem very feeble: the phrase, too, does
not elsewhere in H. occur with ov.
253. tovt@, said, as in 336, con-
temptuously. Telem. had asked the
ἀγορὴ to further his voyage in quest
of Odys. as a public errand. The
suitors pass this by in derision; ‘“‘ Men-
tor and Hal. have taken his part, they
are his father’s cronies, let them speed
his errand”; cf. inf. 265, 306, 319.
evra, as it is found with other
objects, as μάχην, ἀγγελίην, so with
ὁδὸν here (mar.), meaning “‘prompt his
journey’, i. 6. prompt him to go.
ass—y. Oto) x. t.4., 1 rather think,
etc,’’, said ironically in derision of the
want of decision attributable to Telem.
[pay τι.
2
2:
DAY 11.]
OATZZEIAL B. 257—267. 49
ὡς ἄρ᾽ ἐφώνησεν, λῦσεν δ᾽ ἀγορὴν αἰψηρήν."
οὗ μὲν ἄρα oxidvavto ἑὰ πρὸς" δώμαϑ᾽ Exaoros,
μνηστῆρες δ᾽ ἐς δώματ᾽ ἴσαν ϑείου Ὀδυσῆος."
Τηλέμαχος δ᾽ ἀπάνευϑε κιὼν ἐπὶ Diva Saracens,
χεῖρας νιψάμενος πολιῆς" ἁλὸς, εὔχετ᾽ ᾿4ϑήνη᾽
a T. 276, d. 108.
b β. 252 mar.
ς ζ. 236.
d μ. 336, x. 182,
ἢ 305; εἴ, Z.
266 — 7.
le ὅδ. 405, w. 236,
A. $50, . 374;
ef. 8. 410 mar.,
“AOL μευ, ὃ χϑιξὸς ϑεὸς ἤλυϑες ἡμέτερον δῶ, cf. 0. 365, Φ
καί μ᾽ ἐν νηὶ κέλευσας ἐπ᾽ ἠεροειδέα[ πόντον, ὦ
νόστονξβ πευσόμενον πατρὸς δὴν οἰχομένοιο, μι 80, 289, ». 103;
55 ἔρχεσθαι" ra δὲ πάντα διατρίβουσιν" ᾽Αχαιοὶ,
μνηστῆρες! δὲ. “μάλιστα κακῶς ὑπερηνορέοντες. ”
gy @ 94, 281.
h f. 204 mar.
i δ. 766.
as ἔφατ᾽ εὐχόμενος, σχεδόϑενκ δέ of ἦλϑεν ᾿Αϑήνη, k 0. 223, π᾿ 151.
‘4
258. Feov. δῶμα Féxaotos.
257. λῦσαν “Boon δὶ pope i ἀαιψηρὴν Harl. ex emend. et Scholl. H. P.
260. κέων Harl. ἃ prima manu ita Wolf.
Ern. Cl, ed. Oxon.,
emend. Schol. H. te Beene. Ern. Cl. ed. Oxon.; θένα Arist.,
262. wor plerique.
H. M. 9. R. 8.
αἰψηρήν, a further predicate, see
Donalds. Gr. Gr. § 489; in familiar
English “he broke up the assembly
quick”,
260—2. Purification was customary
before praycr or sacrifice (mar.); cf.
Hes. Opp. 739 — 40. ἁλὸς, gen. of
source whence the material of the act
proceeded, cf. its use with ἐκ to aid
the sense £. 224. αλ. πολιῆς by Seber's
index occurs 10 times in Il., 3 times
in Ody.; ad. πολιοῖο once in Il., twice
in Ody. (mar.). ὃ = ὅς.
265. ta δὲ πάντα ὅ., ‘‘are baffling
all this plan’, i. 6. his voyage, see
on 204—6. The Ithacans had shown
apathy, the suitors contempt; cf. his
words to Antinous 319—20 ov γὰρ νηὸς
ἐπήβολος x. τ. Δ. and note. In the
speech 262—6 there is no prayer beyond
the xlv@¢ μευ in 262, but ‘‘ prosper
me in the way wherein thou hast sent
me’’, is clearly implied. Human aid
failing, he bespeaks divine. Hence in
271—87 Pallas, not without rebuking
his faint spirit, promises help for the
voyage,
267. Pallas, who appeared a. 105 as
Mentes, here and 7. 205—49, ὦ. 445 foll.
as Mentor, and β. 383 as Telem., as-
sumes in 7. 20, ὅπ. 155—7, the form of a
a woman, @. 194 that of a man in
the crowd, and », 222 that of a young
shepherd. Thrice, viz. α. 320, y. 372,
4-240, she disappears under the form of
HOM. OD. I.
263. ἠεροξειδέα.
267. For.
259. ἀνὰ
ων ex
ϑινὶ alii, Scholl.
a bird. She is recognized by Odys. as
his ‘‘staunch comrade”’ in 9. 200, 4.
210, and by the dogs in x. 162, but by
others only in the moment of such dis-
appearance 6.9. a. 420, y. 378. Observe
here, that Mentor is not evacuated of his
personality, any more than Telem., by
the goddess assuming his form. The
real Mentor losesthatshare in the poem’s
action which we might have expected
from B. 2534, but we have a glimpse
of him in propria personé in δ, 654 foll.,
where Noémon, from the presence of
the real Mentor in Ithaca, suggests the
inference that the Pseudo-Mentor, who
had embarked, was a deity. Me-
don is aware of the disguised deity
at last (m. 445—9), but had perhaps
heard Noémon’s statement, and had,
further, witnessed the marvellous tri-
umph of Odys. against enormous odds.
Hence, perhaps, his conviction. The
statement in x. 161 οὐ γάρ πω παάν-
τεσσι Geol φαίνονται ἐναργεῖς, shows
that such recognition was to the poet's
mind the privilege of the favoured
few; cf. A. 197-8. The Pheacians,
whose position is wholly exceptional,
ἑκὰς ἀνδρῶν ἀλφηστάων, boast (7.
201 ---6) of their privileged intimacy
with the gods. H. seems to have thought
that such intimacy was familiar in the
earlier age, limited in the heroic, un-
known — we may infer from B. 485 —
in his own. Nigelsbach § 111 4—6.
4
268. βειδομένη.
276—¥7. [] Bek.
2y70—2. The drift of this speech is
to throw Telem. on his own resources.
ὄπειϑεν “hereafter’’; Homeric usage,
contrary to ours, regards the future
as behind, and the past as before, thus
ἅμα πρόσσω καὶ ὀπίσσω A. 343, means,
‘“‘as well for the past as for the fu-
ture’’. This is indeed the order of
time itself. Render, ‘‘you will not turn
out a coward or a fool, if indeed you
have a drop of your father’s spirit in
you’’, A youth is often said to be
‘this father’s son’’, when showing his
father’s spirit; hence she continues,
“but if you are not his son etc.”
ἑνέστ., not elsewhere found in Homer,
but see Herod. ΙΧ. 3 adda of δεινός
τις ἐνέστακτο ἵἴμερος (Ni.). The
name of his father acts like a spell
on Telem., and this is the chief key
to his character, see App. E. 3. He
is recognized by Nestor from the judi-
cious character of his address as Odys-
seus’ son (y. 123--- 5); 80 is Pisistratus by
Menelausas Nestor’s(0.206).— τελέσαι
ἔργ. κι τ᾿ A, refers to his brave words in
theAssembly,which now required energy
(μένος ἠῦ) to accomplish them (Ni.).
276—7 are by Bek. set in the mar-
269. φονήσασα Fire.
280. Felxwon Féoya.
-5O ΟΔΎΣΣΕΙΑΣ B. 268— 284. [pay i.
Δ ἃς | Μέντορι" εἰδομένη ἠμὲν δέμας ἠδὲ καὶ αὐδὴν,
b a. 22, β. 118, καί μιν φωνήσασ᾽ ἔπεα πτερόεντα προφρηύδα"
oP. 456, ¥.80. | ““Τηλέμαχ᾽, οὐδ᾽ ὄπιϑενν" κακὸς ἔσσεαι οὐδ᾽ ἀνοήμων, 2
ἃ β' Ὁδ. εἰ δή τοι σοῦ πατρὸς ἐνέστακται μένος" Hv,
ἐπ β. 318, 4.26. οἷος ἐκεῖνος Env τελέσαι ἔργον τε ἔπος τε"
g a a 9 οὔ τοι ἔπευιϑ᾽ “ ἁλίηϊ ὁδὸς ἔσσεται οὐδ᾽ ἀτέλεστος.
315, Κ 186. |εἰξ δ᾽ οὐ χεένου γ᾽ ἐσσὶ γόνος καὶ Πηνελοπείης.
ἐν lod σέ γ᾽ ἔπειτα ξολπα" τελευτήσειν ἃ μενοινᾷς.
k cf BE. 800, Ζ. παῦροιϊΪ γάρ τοι παῖδες ὁμοῖοι πατρὶ πέλονται.
Vg. Ns .5: οἵ πλέονες κακίους, παῦροι δέ τε πατρὸς ἀρείους. *
fo, 8: ὧν, Σ ἀλλ᾽ ἐπεὶ οὐδ᾽ ὄπιϑεν κακὸς ἔσσεαι οὐδ᾽ ἀνοήμων,
n 3. 28, 2. 177, οὐδέ σε πάγχυ γε μῆτις Ὀδυσσῆος προλέλοιπεν,
9 TSTMS ef ΠΝ, ἑλπωρή! τοι ἔπειτα τελευτῆσαι" τάδε ἔργα.
Po 185, 27 12, τῷ νῦν μνηστήρων μὲν ἔα βουλήν" TE VOOV TE
o, 215, ὦ, 177, ἀφραδέων. ἐπεὶ ov τι νοήμονες 5 οὐδὲ δίκαιοι"
r F. 102. 4, οὐδέν τι ἴσασιν ϑάνατον καὶ κῆρα μέλαιναν, ἃ
105, ξ. 1.5. ὃς" δή σφι σχεδόν ἐστιν, ἐπ᾽" quate πάντας ὀλέσϑαι.
272. «έργον Jémog. 275. «ἐξολπα.
283. ἐίσασιν.
τὼ Schol. H.
281.
=~ τ
gin as suspicious; but they have the
air of traditional saws current in the
poet’s time, familiar to every one, and
needing no apology, in his hearers’
view, for their introduction where the
sense of the passage has only a ge-
neral connexion with them. Cf. the
similar maxim of Menel., ῥεῖα δ᾽ ἀρί-
γνωτος γόνος ἀνέρος κ. τ. λ., δ. 207—8.
Observe, however, that to Mentor, as
an elderly man addressing a young one,
the γνωμοτυπεῖν or stating maxims is -
adapted (Aristot. Ret. 11, 21). Ni. here
cites Aristotle’s remarks on the tendency
of degeneracy to followa certain analogy
of type (/thet. 11. 15. 3). Telem. bearssome
such marks of a feebler copy of Odys.
280. τελευτῆσαι, the aor. often
follows phrases of hoping, promising,
and others where a fut. might be ex-
pected (mar.), ef. ZAeschyl. Prom. 685—6,
x Διὸς μολεῖν κεραυνὸν, following
μυϑουμένη ‘warning”’.
281—2. ἔχ ‘‘never mind”. νόον,
sce on &. 3. — νοήμονες, this word is
limited in H. to the Ody. and to this
context. Νοήμων becomes a proper
name in 386, like the Latin Caio.
284. ἐπ᾿ ἤματι, with ὀλέσϑαι, “upon
DAY π|] ΟΔΥΣΣΕΊΑΣ Β. 285—300. 51
85 σοὶ δ᾽" ὁδὸς οὐκέτι δηρὸν ἀπέσσεται, ἣν σὺ μενοινᾷς" |» 9. 150; eff. 220.
τοῖος" γάρ tor ἑταῖρος ἐγὼ πατρώιός εἰμι. ὁ 206, Ο. 254,
ὅς τοι νῆα Bony’ στελέω καὶ cu’? ἕψομαι αὐτός. il "ἃ ail
ἀλλὰ σὺ μὲν πρὸς δώματ᾽ ἰὼν μνηστῆρσιν ὁμίλει, | tar, φ, ἴων B
ὑπλισσόν τ᾽ Hak καὶ ἄγγεσιν" ἄρσον ἅπαντα, ες απ a 88s,
go otvov' ἐνκ ἀμφιφορεῦσι καὶ GAgita,' μυελὸν ἀνδρῶν, 09,266, es
δέρμασιν ἐν πυκινοῖσιν" ἐγὼ δ᾽ ἀνὰ δῆμον. ἑταίρους" |i β. δι0--- δ. as,
aiy’ ἐϑελοντῆρας συλλέξομαι" εἰσὶ δὲ νῆες ς. 18, 106, Σ
πολλαὶ" ἐν ἀμφιάλῳ Ἰθάκῃ, νέαι ἠδὲ παλαιαί" | of. βιϑδι, Ὁ, 50
τάων μέν τοι ἐγὼν ἐπιόψομαι" F tig? ἀρίστη, core zs, ἘΠῚ
195 ὦκα δ᾽ ἐφοπλίσσαντες" ἐνήσομεντ εὐρέϊ πόντῳ." Ia a. 395,
Gs par’ ᾿4ϑηναίη" κούρη Διός" οὐδ᾽ ἄρ᾽ ἔτι' δὴν |" ὅ᾽ δἹ δ᾽. oa
Τηλέμαχος παρέμιμνεν, ἐπεὶ ϑεοῦ ἔκλυεν" αὐδὴν, + #390, 6.6285,
\ a. 203, 8
βῆ δ᾽ ἰέναι πρὸς δῶμα, φίλον τετιημένος" ἤτορ.
εὗρε δ᾽ ἄρα μνηστῆρας ἀγήνορας ἐν μεγάροισιν,
αἷγας ἀνιεμένους Ὁ σιάλους 9᾽ εὕὔοντας ἐν αὐλῇ.
α d. 831, κ. 31},
481.
ν α. 114 mar.
w X. 80, β. 185
mar.
nm eo cece ee ee
290. foivor.
289. πλισσαί Bek. ‘annot.
298. ἔμεναι Barnes. Cl. ed. Oxon.
ee ee
a day (not tixed)’’ i. ¢ some day: else-
where defined by trade, ‘‘on this day’’,
but also meaning “for a day's space’’.
So, τρὶς ἐπ᾽ qu., ‘“‘thrice a-day”’
(mar.). Ni, joins it with σχεδὸν = “daily
near’’, but this lacks Homeric authority
and is weak in sense.
289. nia, also ἤϊα ἦα (mar.), “vic-
tual’’; Eustath. says “properly the
stalks of beans’’, which sense Curtius
ascribes, s.v. fecal, to δαὶ, εἶοι. For
these forms, which resemble fem. and
masc. plur, of which ἤἥεα might be epic
neut,, there seems no authority but
Suidas, who renders it ‘“‘chaff’’, which
néwy certainly means in &. 368. Several
Scholt. explain it erroneously by éqo-
δια ἀπὸ τοῦ ἱέναι. — ἄγγεσιν &Q.,
‘secure in vessels’’, for carriage and
stowage on board: ἀμφιφορῆες and
δέρματα are two varieties of ἄγγεα
for liquids and solids respectively; the
&oxog is also a common receptacle for
wine (mar.). Hesiod. Opp. 600 directs
the storing of corn ἐν ἄγγεσιν.
290. adAgita, coupled sometimes
292. ep Harl. a pr. manu,
299. delet ἀγήνορας Harl. addito ἐνὶ
μεγάροισιν fotary.
297. παρέμεινεν.
-- a “ὦ... ee cee es
with ἀλείατα (mar.), 80 ἄλευρά τὰ καὶ
ἄλφιτα Herod. VII. 119. ἄλῳ - ὁς
albus seems to exhibit the root (Cur-
tius 399), to which the epithet λευκὰ
also points, suggesting ‘‘white’’ meal
(of barley, usage so limiting it) as
meant. Observe that the ἀλφίτου ἀκτὴ
inf. 355 means just the same as ai-
gita here and 354. ἄλφε apocopated
. occurs for the same, Hy. Ceres 208.
ἀλείατα and ἄλευρα are connected
with ἀλέω, merely meaning ‘things
ground’’, but by usage restricted to
neal of wheat.
291. wvxeyv., here = “waterproof’’,
from the general idea of density which
resists external action, hence used of
houses, chests, armour, brushwood,
and by metaph. of plan, counsel, etc.
οο. ameg., “ripping open’, cf.
κόλπον ἀνιεμέψη (mar.) of a garment.
The traditional sense of ‘“‘flaying”’
seems a needless extension of the
simple, meaning of ἀνέημε, nor does
the xaveito λάγονας of Eurip. Elec.
$26, ‘‘was ripping the flanks’’, confirm
4*
OATZZEIAL B. 301—318.
[pay 11.
. 291,
7, Ὁ.
. 311, 4. 181,
ῃ. 330,
x. 280,
S53? Bs
=e
ἕξ
ὌΣΣΕ
[τ] #2728
228
eo
δ,
=
2 q,=
8°
ω
=
eve
κτήματ᾽ ἐμὰ,
Mg<ncen
Bea se ΜΕ
302. «οι Fémog.
305. poe Wollf.,
Schol.
it. Yet all the Scholiasts, and lexico-
graphers from Hesychius, will have it
‘“flaying’”’.
303—8. On the tone of this speech
of Antin. see App. E. 6. The mock-
assurance given in 306, ‘‘the Achwans
will do all you wish’’, may be com-
pared with the contemptuous words of
Leocritus in 253, and with what Te-
lem. says in 265. — ἔπος x. τ. 1., 866
on ὅδ. 610.
gir. A line of balanced harmony ex-
pressive of the cheerful content and
calm enjoyment of which it speaks.
For ἀχέοντα see App. A 16; for ἔχη-
dog cf. Asch. Sept. c. Th. 238, Exniog
lode, μηδ᾽ ἄγαν ὑπερφοβοῦ.
313. ye ‘‘is aor. according to Her-
mann’’ (Ni.), whether so, or as Do-
nalds. Gr. Gr. §. 321 gives it, imperf.,
‘ts analogy with ya from εἶμι, eo, in
all persons, is observable.
318—7. ἀχούων πυνϑαν. This
sentence well brings out the difference
in sense between these two words; cf.
Πυϑὼ the oracle, as that which in-
forms, in which however H. has v.
304. έργον Fémog.
wad’ Harl. Amb. E. Barnes. Ern. Cl. ed. Oxon.
M. ita Harl. Ven. Wolf. ed. Oxon., ἀέκοντα Schol. M. Barnes. Ern. Cl.
'Avrivoos δ᾽ (Bug γελάσας κίε Τηλεμάχοιο,
ἔν" τ᾽ ἄρα of φῦ χειρὶ, ἔπος" τ᾽ ἔφατ᾽ ἔκ τ᾽ ὀνόμαξεν"
“Trdépay © vpayden, μένος ἄσχετε, μή τί τοι ἄλλο
ἐν στήϑεσσι κακὸν μελέτω ἔργον" τε ἔπος τε,
ἀλλά μοι" ἐσϑιέμενῖ καὶ πινέμεν ὡς τὸ πάρος περ.
τἀῦτα δέ τοι μάλα πάντα τελευτήσουσιν ᾿᾽“χαιοὶ ,5
νῆα! καὶ ἐξαίτουςϊ ἐρέτας, ἵνα ϑᾶσσον ἵκηαι
Egk Πύλον ἠγαϑέην μετ᾽ ἀγαυοῦ πατρὸς ἀκουήν.᾽
τὸν δ᾽ αὖ Τηλέμαχος πεπνυμένος ἀντίον ηὔδα
«(᾿Ἄντίνο᾽, οὔ πως ἔστιν ὑπερφιάλοισι wed’ ὑμῖν
δαίνυσϑαί τ᾽ ἀκέοντα' καὶ εὐφραίνεσθαι Exndov.™
ἢ οὐχ" ἅλις ὡς τὸ πάρονϑεν ἐκείρετεο πολλὰν καὶ ἐσϑλὰ
μνηστῆρες, ἐγὼ“ δ᾽ ἔτι νήπιος Ya;
νῦν δ᾽ ὅτε δὴ μέγας εἰμὶ, καὶ ἄλλων μῦϑον ἀκούων
πυνϑάνομαι." καὶ δή μοι ἀέξεται" ἔνδοϑι ϑυμὸς,
πειρήσω' ὥς x ὕμμι κακὰς ἐπὶ κῆρας ἰήλω 9"
Ht’ Πύλονδ᾽ ἐλθὼν, ἢ" αὐτοῦ τῷδ᾽ ἐνὶ δήμῳ."
εἶμι μὲν (οὐδ᾽ ἁλίην ὁδὸς ἔσσεται ἣν ἀγορεύω)
312. ov Fades.
311. ita Rhian.,
Curtius (328) traces this force in the
Sanskrit words related to πυϑ. — ϑυ-
“os, “mental power’’, Eustath. com-
pares Herod. IH. 134 αὐξανομένῳ γὰρ
τῷ σώματι συναυξάνονται. "αὶ αἱ φρέ-
veg; oF specially “anger” , ολος,
ὅστε .... ἀνδρῶν ἐν στήϑεσσιν oad ἑται
(mar.). For ἠὲ ... ἢ here, and 7...
ἢ ... ἠὲ inf. 326—8, see App. A τι.
Πυλονδ᾽, this purpose is perhaps
based on Mentes’ words a. 284—s,
2936 (which are perhaps alluded to
in ἄλλων μῦϑον 314), by inferentially
connecting the two heads of his advice ;
which, however, as given, seem not
meant to be so connected; for there
the errand to Sparta is suggested to
obtain news merely. It is natural,
however, that Telem., after proving
the weakness of his party in the As-
sembly, should recur to Sparta as a
probable source not only of tidings but
of help, This is brought out plainly
in the surmises of the hearers which
follow inf, 325 — 6.
318. οὐδ᾽ ἀλέη x.t.4., these words
only re-aftirm negatively the resolution
3
3
3.
DAY u.| OATZZEIAZ B. 319—333. 53
Euxogos’* οὐ γὰρ νηὸς ἐπήβολος οὐδ᾽ ἐρετάων : m 900
΄ ad , » α. ar.
20 γίγνομαι, ὥς νύν που ὕμμιν ἐείδατο κέρδιον“ εἶναι." |. 4. 14, & 385.
ῃ ῥα, καὶ ἐκ χειρὸς χεῖρα σπάσατ᾽ ᾿Αντινόοιο d ‘. 100 mar
e ~ ’ , ΘΟ. » &. °
ῥεῖα" μνηστῆρες δὲ δόμον κάτα δαῖτα πένοντο." fy. 17, 9, 158, ὦ,
οὗ δ᾽ ἐπελώβευον καὶ éxegtducov! ἐπέεσσιν. oe. ae oa?
ὧδεξ δὲ τις εἴπεσκε νέων ὑπερηνορεόντων᾽ ν, 578, φ. ϑ6ὶ,
25
(ἢ μάλα Τηλέμαχος φόνον ἡμῖν μερμηρίζει᾽
ἤν τινας ἐκ Πύλου ἄξει ἀμύντορας ἠμαϑόεντος,
ἢ" ὅ γε καὶ Σπάρτηϑεν, ἐπεί νύ περ ἵεται αἰνῶς"
‘nt καὶ εἰς ᾿Εφύρην ἐθέλει, πίειρανπ ἄρουραν,
ἐλϑεῖν, ὄφρ᾽ ἔνϑεν ϑυμοφϑόραν φάρμακ᾽ ἐνείκῃ,
30 ἐν δὲ βάλῃ κρητῆρι καὶ ἡμέας πάντας ὀλέσσῃ."
ἄλλος». δ᾽ αὖτ᾽ εἴπεσκε νέων ὑπερηνορεόντων
“ice δ᾽ οἶδ᾽ εἴ κε καὶ αὐτὸς ἰὼν κοίλης ἐπὶ νηὸς ν.
τῆλεν φίλων" ἀπόληται ἀλώμενος ὥς περ Ὀδυσσεύς;
322. ξεπέεσσιν.
2322.
320. ἐξείσατο.
324. «είπεσκε.
«οζὸδ.
vy. 110, Ψ. 152."
ἢ α. 175 mar.
ia. 93.
k ZZ, 866.
1 α. 269—62 mar.
m 3. 541.
n Z. 168.
o 8. 324 mar.
. 216 . >
hc. Ὁ
q δ. 817, 2. 508,
216, «. 269.
r cf. β. 182, 3656—6.
s α. 49,
331. αὖ Selxeoxe.
321. oxacat Arist., Scholl. H. Q. R., Wolf., σπάσεν Harl, Amb. Fl. Barnes. Ern.
Cl. ed. Oxon.
327. ἦ νυ καὶ ἐκ Σπάρτης Dionys. Halic.
22 + Aristoph. et nonnulli, Scholl. M. Q: R., [] Bek. Dind.
333. ἀπόλοιτο Schol. K. 204.
εἶμι pry,
by οὐδ᾽ ἀτέλεστος added sup. 273; they
affirm nothing as to the result of his
mission.
319. ἔμπορος, one who voyaged
νηὸς ἐπ᾽ ἀλλοτρίας, ‘‘in a ship not his
own”, paying an ἐπέβαϑρον, “‘fare”’
(mar.). Not that Telem. actually s0
paid, Pallas otherwise arranging, inf.
383 foll. — ἐπήβ., “successful in ob-
taining’’; cf. Soph. Fragm. 95, φρε-
νῶν ἐπήβολον. He had not obtained
any public notice of his request for a
ship, but was left to the resources of
friends and volunteers. Hence he de-
scribes his errand to Nestor as ἐδίη
ov δήμιος, y. 82. He says nothing
to Antin. of Pallas’ promise sup. 287,
but leaves him to infer that he had
now the means of going; which Antin.
evidently disbelieves; cf. the eager
surprise of his questions in δι. 642 foll.,
on learning that Telem. had really
gone, and the suitors’ bantering sur-
mises which here follow, inf. 323 foll.
This reticence is a trace of the pru-
dence in which Telem. imitates his
father, see App. E. 3.
322. This line, suspected by Aristoph.
“1 mean to go’’, as shown
of Byzant., probably because οὗ δ᾽,
323, follows as if no noun had pre-
ceded, is set in the mar. by Bek;
but we left the suitors in 300 preparing ἢ
the banquet, and the subject is here
naturally resumed.
324. τις, the different suppositions
which follow evidently belong to dif-
ferent persons, and represent 80 many
conjectures hazarded and remarks ex-
changed among the company. The line
is formulaic, but specially adapted,
and dramatizes the current opinion and
feeling in the subordinate agents, after
some impressive exhortation or example
given by some principal person. ~
328. ᾿Εφύρ., see App. Ὁ. 8. — πέξι-
gay with this fem. of πέαρος (πέων)
cf. velatoan from veagog (fog), and
prop. name Νέαιρα. Ni. adds also
ἀγρότειραν Eurip. Electr. 168.
329. φάρμι., the knowledge of these
is expressly ascribed (mar.) to the
Epean princess Agamedé, A. 740—1,
see App. Ὁ. 8; so Egypt bears φάρ-
pone, πολλὰ Aid ἐσθλὰ μεμιγμένα,
πολλὰ δὲ λυγρὰ, δ. 230, see also on
a. 261, and so ΖΞ ΒΟ. ], (Fragm. 428 Dind.)
speaks of the Tyrrhenians, Τυῤῥηνὸν
ΟΔΥΣΣΕΙ͂ΑΣ B. 334—347-
[Day II.
339. Feotys Fades.
335- «ξοικέα.
γενεὰν φαρμακοποιὸν ἔϑνος. ΟΥ̓ this
treacherous use of poison the heroic
legends contain no instance, and only
this allusion to it from the suitors who
stand the lowest in the scale of heroic
morality.
3346, said in derisive irony, ‘“‘he
will give us all the more trouble, for
then we should have to divide the
property &c.”, which was exactly the
consummation designed in their plans.
τούτου, contemptuously, as mar.
33]. ὑψόροφ. Had. see App. F. 2
(29) end. χατεβήσ. This verb is used
with accus, of object somewhat loosely
by H. Thus we find κατέβαιν᾽ ὑπερώια
‘““went down from the upper-story’’,
and κλίματα κατεβήσ. ‘went down by
the ladder’, here ‘‘to the chamber’’.
340—3. οἴνοιο... ἡδυπότοιο, cf.
mar. for instances of other rhyming
lines, or members of lines: they are
probably all accidental. agg. ‘‘se-
cured”’ probably to the wall is meant,
but how is not clear; mere contact
would be insufficient. et xot’ i.e. kept
for the special contingency, referred
to also in 351. — xat “although’”’.
345. tapin, chief of the female do-
mestics; the title is applied to (1) Eu-
ryclea, (2) Eurynomé (mar.), who was
probably a younger woman and may
340. Folvoo ξηδυπότοιο.
346. πολυςξιδρεέῃσι.
‘lotra κεν καὶ μάλλον ὀφέλλειεν" πόνον ἄμμιν"
κτήματα γάρ κεν πάντα δασαίμεϑα," οἰκία δ᾽ αὗτε
2-1 χρύτου" μητέρι δοῖμεν ἔχειν ἠδ᾽ ὃς τις ὀπυίοι."»
ὃς pav, ὃ δ᾽ ὑψόροφον ϑαλαμονὰ κατεβήσετο πατρὸς,
εὐρὺν, ὅϑι νητὸς χρυσὸς" καὶ χαλκὸς ἔκειτο,
ἐσθής" τ᾽ ἐν χηλοῖσιν, ἅλις τ᾽ εὐῶδες ἔλαιον."
9. ἐν δὲ πίϑοι" οἴνοιο παλαιοῦ ἰήδυπότοιοϊ
175, Eoracav, ἄκρητον. Belov ποτὸν ἐντὸς ἔχοντες,
ἑξείης ποτὶ τοῖχον ἀρηρότες, εἴ ποτ᾽" Ὀδυσσεὺς
“ss, οἴκαδε νοστήσειξ, καὶ ἄλγεα" πολλὰ μογήσας.
Ἰἰκληισταὶ δ᾽ ἔπεσαν σανίδες" πυκινῶς ἀραρυΐαι,
Ψ.] δικλίδες"» ἐν δὲ γυνὴ ταμίη“ νύκτας" te καὶ ἦμαρ
ἔσχ᾽, ἣ πάντ᾽ ἐφύλασσε νόου πολυϊδρείῃσιν,"
| Εὐρύκλει᾽" Ὦπος ϑυγάτηρ Πεισηνορίδαο.
343. ξοέκαδε.
be the ἀμφέπολος ταμέη of x. 152, cf.
wy. 292—3. Thus in τ. 356 Euryc. is
described as ὁὀλιγηπελέουσα ‘‘decrepit’’.
It seems to be asserted that she was
always in the ϑάλαμος — a poetic am-
plification of her vigilance, or else a
tacit recognition of her deputy. The
designation tageéy did not exclude the
person from other special offices. Thus
Eurycl. acts as ϑαλαμηπόλος to Telem.
a. 428—g and even here, when acting
as ταμίη, is called φέλη τροφος in the
same passage, inf. 361. We also find
her setting out seats, ρ. 32, ordering
household work to the other servants,
v. 147 foll., and bathing Odys., t. 356
foll, Cf. the office of Nausicaa’s nurse,
η. 7—13. Euryc., as housekeeper, had
charge of stores and oversight of do-
mestics χ. 396, 421—3, but has the air
of a factotum, turning her hand to what-
ever most needed her personal care.
Similarly Euryn. bathed Odys. Ψ. 154,
brought a seat for Pencl, after con-
versing with her (probably not in the
store-room τ. g6—7, so again 9. 495),
and in o. 169 is aloft in the vxegma.
Euryn. further acts as ϑαλαμηπόλος
to Odys. and Penel. after aiding Eu-
rycl. in preparing the bed, wp. 289—95.
446 --- 53. ἔσχ᾽, imperf. of εἰμὶ, so
β. 59. -- πολυΐδρ., cf. the παλαιὰ τε
DAY 11.]
OATZZEIAL B.
348— 362. 55
τὴν τότε Τηλέμαχος προςέφη ϑαάλαμόνδε καλέσσας"
“ wat’, ἄγε δή pou οἷνον ἐν ἀμφιφορεῦσιν" ἄφυσσον
50 ἡδὺν, ὅτις μετὰ τὸν λαφώτατος, ὃν σὺ φυλάσσεις
κεῖνον ὀϊομένη τὸν κάμμορον." ef ποϑὲν ἔλϑοι
διογενὴς Ὀδυσεὺς θάνατον" καὶ Κῆρας ἀλύξας.
δώδεκα δ᾽ ἔμπλησον, καὶ πωώμασινῖ ἄρσον ἅπαντας.
ἐνε δέ μοι ἄλφιτα" χεῦον ἐὐρραφέεσσι δοροῖσιν.
55 εἴκοσι δ᾽ ἔστω μέτρα μυληφάτου ἀλφίτου ἀκτῆς.
τὰ δ᾽ ἀϑρόα! πάντα τετύχϑω᾽
ἑσπέριος γὰρ ἐγὼν αἰρήσομαι, ὁππότε κεν δὴ
μήτηρ εἰς ὑπερῷ᾽ ἀναβῇ κοίτου τε μέδηται.
εἶμι γὰρ ἐς Σπάρτην τε καὶ ἐς Πύλον ἠμαϑόεντα,
60 νόστον! πευσόμενος πατρὸς φίλου, ἤν που ἀκούσω."
ὥς φάτο, κώκυσεν δὲ φίλη τροφὸς Εὐρύκλεια,"
καίο ῥ᾽ ὀλοφυρομένη ἔπεα πτερόεντα προρηύδα
αὐτὴ δ᾽ οἴη lode:
349. Κοῖνον. 350. ξηδύν.
Ern. ΟἹ.;
σον Harl. Barnes.
πολλά te εἰδὼς, and μυρία ἤδη, ap-
plied to ΦἘργρίλαβ and Halitherses
sup. 16, 188. On account of her ‘“‘ex-
perience”, trustiness, and attachment,
Eurycl. is called dia γυναικῶν v. 147
— a high-ranking epithet, testifying
to the moral and social aspect of he-
τοῖς servitude. Dadapovde x., how
could he summon her to the chamber,
if according to 345—6 sup. she was
always there, and therefore there then?
Ni. suggests fey’ for ἔσχ᾽ from ἔχω in
the sense of ‘‘kept (the doors) fast”? ;
but the difficulty rather arises from
the ἐν, which implies that she was as
much inside as were the stores, cf.
ἐν at 340. The ϑάλαμος or ϑάλαμοι
probably contained a range or row of
chambers (App. F. 2 (29) and note), and
to all there might be general access
by the doors described 344—5. It is
likely that the wine and oil would be
stored in a different compartment from
the treasures of 338; cf. φ. 51—4.
Hence, if she were in one, and he
first reached the other, he might be
said to call her ϑαάλαμόνδε even though
she came from a ϑαάλαμος to him.
Thus the ἐν δὲ γύνη ... ἔσχ᾽ means,
‘““was within the whole range of such
chambers’’; they were never left on
355. Secxoct.
350. ita Eustath. Vulg. Harl. Ven. Amb, Wolf. ed. Oxon.
mox ὧν Ven, Harl. var. lect.,
Ern. Cl.
ὃν Schol. M. et edd, rec.
a β. 290, yw. 305.
Ὁ 4. 160, 339, 2.
216, v. 33.
ς β. 342—3 mar.
[{9. 443, 447, ει.
314, 4. 116.
g 8. 20—1 mar.
ἢ v. 108.
i & 429, 4. 631,
639—40.
k α. 43, X. 271,
f. 410—1.
Ια. 24—5, β.
214—5, y. 15.
in §2. 200.
n ὅ, 742, τ. 21, yx.
419, 485, 492, w.
25, 39, 69.
o &. 72.
356. ξίσϑι. 357. Feongoroc. 362. ξέπεα.
λαρώτερος Barnes.
354. χεῦ-
ed. Oxon., yevov Wolf.
account of the value of their stores.
Those whom this explanation dissatisfies
_will probably have to alter the text,
as by reading θαλάμου δὲ κάλεσσεν,
— ‘‘called forth from”’’, he being at
the door — or the like. seta tor,
the expectation of his father, now
keenly roused, peeps out in this detail
of his voyage: he will not take the
best — that is reserved for Odyss. --
but the next best. λᾶρώνσ. obs. λᾶρος
a gull, & 51. Obs. var. lect. λαρώτε-
ρος. The spirit of the passage cer-
tainly requires the superlative. xez-
vor see on a. 163. — AWM. ser
‘‘secure with stoppers or capsules’;
πῶμα φαρέτρης mar.) ‘‘lid of quiver’’
354—5. ἄλφιτα ἀλφέτου, see on
290 sup.
356. ἀϑρόα x. τετύχ., “be set
forth together ready’’. Bek. after
Aristarch. aspirates ἀϑρόος.
357—9. αἱρήσ., as we say, “shall
take myself off’. For Sparta and
Ephyré see App. D. 3, 8. For Πύλον
NUD. 800 App. A. 12.
361—2. κὠκυσ.-, onomatopeic from
xo—, & cry of sorrow; to cry for joy
is ὀλολύξειν, γ. 480. --- ὀλοφυρ., for
its connexion with oviog, ὀλοφώιος see
App. A. 3.
Cnr
“A
oe
z
°
380, τ. 284,
δ me bad Om
ΓῚ
τὸ
|
3
σῃ “ὦ oo
of
tO ROP Bs
Spee l
ote
=>
Ξ
2s
=
me oy
3
ε
e Ὕ
“ὦ Ὁ
aay
£59508
ΡΤ χα ον
pan (Ὁ Pry
ξ
@
we
-Ὁ
@ ~
ΞΡ
ἐν
x
om 6.3 *
mys
, 4-7, Ff αὐτὴν
SJ FB A
3 ἘΣ
gira e i cs
Ss hy
“ug «ace
“Ὃ δὼ
8
ἘΞ
ra 88
"»
~~
> τὰ
93.
|
3. 3% cf. 2.
377, ὦ. 516.
ΟΔΥΣΣΕΙΑΣ B. 363—385.
[pay 1.
~ 125, 300 | “ciate δέ tor, φίλε" τέχνον, ἐνὶ φρεσὶ τοῦτο νόημα
ἔπλετο; πῇ δ᾽ ἐϑέλεις ἰέναι πολλὴν ἐπὶ γαῖαν,"
μοῦνος: ἐὼν ἀγαπητός; ὃ δ᾽ ὥλετο τηλόϑι πάτρης "
- διογενὴς Ὀδυσεὺς ἀλλογνώτῳϊ ἑνὶ δήμῳ.
of δέ τοι αὐτίκ᾽ ἰόντι κακὰ φράσσονται ὀπίσσω.
ὥς xe δόλῳ φϑίῃς, τάδε δ᾽ αὐτοὶ πάντα δάσονται."
ἀλλὰ μέν᾽ αὖθ᾽ ἐπὶ σοῖσι καϑήμενος" * οὐδέ! τί δε χρὴ
; πόντον" én’ ἀτρύγετον κακὰ πάσχειν οὐδ᾽ ἀλάλησθαι." 370
τὴν δ᾽ αὖ Τηλέμαχος πεπνυμένος" ἀντίον ηὔδα
“Saooe, wai’, ἐπεὶ οὔ τοι ἄνευ ϑεοῦν δε γε βουλή.
. ἀλλ᾽ Guocov μὴ μητρὶ φίλῃ τάδε μυϑήσασϑαι,
4 πρίν γ᾽ ὅτ᾽ ἂν ἑνδεκάτη: τε δυωδεκάτη" τε γένηται, —
ποϑέσαι" καὶ ἀφορμηϑέντος ἀκοῦσαι,"
ὡς ἂν μὴ κλαίουσα κατὰ χρόα καλὸν lantn.”’™
ὡς ἄρ᾽ ἔφη. yonvs δὲ ϑεῶν μέγαν ὕρκον ἀπώμνυ."
- αὐτὰρ ἐπεί φ᾽ ὕμοσέν τε τελευτησέν τε τὸν ὄρκον,
αὐτίκ᾽ " ἔπειτά of οἷνον ἐν ἀμφιφορεῦσιν ἄφυσσεν,
. το, ἐν δέ οἵ ἄλφιτα χεῦεν ἐὐρραφέεσσι δοροῖσιν"
ἊΣ Τηλέμαχος δ᾽ ἐς δώματ᾽ ἰὼν μνηστῆρσιν" ὁμίλειν.
ἔνϑ᾽Υ avr’ ἄλλ᾽ ἐνόησε ϑεὰ γλαυκῶπις ἡϑήνη,
, Τηλεμάχῳ δ᾽ εἰκυῖα κατὰ: πτόλιν ὥχετο πάντῃ,
bb, 2. im, Hs Pot ᾿καί ῥα" ἑκάστῳ φωτὶ παρισταμένη φάτο bb μῦϑον,
ec Sos.
379. legend. βοῖνον ἔπειτά Foe αὐτίκ᾽.
et ad fin. 382 plene distincto.
366. ἀλλογνώτων Apollon.,
δάσωνται Ern. Cl. ed. Oxon.
Apollon.
367. ὀπέσσω 88 ὄπιϑεν 270, where
see note.
368. φϑίης ... δάσονται, sce App.
A. 9 (5) on this change of moods.
373—4- μυϑήσ., see on 280 ) sup.
πρέν γ᾽, the full form is πρὶν ἢ ὅτ᾽
ἂν Donalds. Gr. Gr. § 583 (6); πρὶν
may be followed by a subjunct. (or,
tense so requiring, by an optat.) when a
negat., a8 μὴ 373, has preceded, by an
infin. whether affirm. or neg. has pre-
ceded. ἑνδεκάτη x. τ. λ.; cf. Hor.
Sat. 11. vi. 40 septimus octavo propior
. annus, and our similarly formulaic
way of speaking ‘“‘the eleventh or
twelfth’. So the tenth day, i. e. the
ninth with one complementary, is the
384. Fexaato.
et hoc ct ἀλλογνώστῳ Scholl.
273. μυϑήσεσϑαι Harl. marg. et Schol.
385. ita Wolf. Thiersch. Buttm. Bek. Fa., ἀγέρεσϑαι Vulg. Dind. Léw.
᾿ἐσπερίους δ᾽ ἐπὶ νῆα Bonv’< ἀγερέσϑαι ἀνώγειν.
383. Feexvia omisso δ᾽
385. εσπερίους.
468. φϑείης Amb. B.;
376. ἰάφψῃ
380. For.
most frequent Homeric reckoning (mar.);
οἵ, Hes. Theog. 802— 3. Telem. here
takes fuller measure, perhaps to allow
for unforeseen impediments; 80 does
Menel., in the spirit of hospitality, ὃ.
588, when pressing his stay.
377. ἀπώμινυ = ὥμνυ μὴ, 373; cf.
ἀπειπεῖν, which sometimes == εἰπεῖν
strengthened, so ἀπόμνυμε in Thucyd.
V. 50 is ὄμνυμι strengthened, but never
so in H.
380. ἀλ peta see on 290 sup.
384—5. Comp. with this the proceed-
ings of Odys. in the Grecian camp,
B. 189 foll.
385 —92. ayegéo Da is 2. aor., as
ἀγέροντο, Σ. 245, ἀγέφεσϑαι var. ‘leet.
365
375
380
385
DAY 11] OATZZEIAL B. 386—407. 57
ἣ" δ᾽ αὖτε Φρονίοιο Νοήμονα φαίδιμον υἱὸν ad. 630— 56.
ἥτεε νῆα ϑοήν᾽ ὃ δέ of πρόφρων" ὑπέδεκτο. Si, 3 τ᾿ 480.᾿ ¥.
, 4 , , ~ 4 ς . ᾽ ᾽ .
δύυσετό“" τ᾽ ἠέλιος σκιόωντό τε πᾶσαι ἀγυιαὶ, fas, 298, 471.
d - +, Ζ21,.Δ᾽ , νῷ, ]ἀς. 200--ἰ.
καὶ τότε νῆα ϑοὴν chad’ εἴρυσε, πάντα δ᾽ ἐν αὐτῇ ὁ ὃ 18ι..ὃ, 9 δ
390 ὅπλ᾽ “ ἐτίϑει, τά τε νῆες ἐύὔσσελμοι φορέουσιν. , φ. 300. 0 .
ι , He ς
στῆσε δ᾽ ἐπ᾽ ἐσχατιῇ λιμένος, περὶ δ᾽ ἐσϑλοὶβ ἑταῖροι | ὁ.
ἀϑρόοι ἠγερέϑοντο" " ϑεὰ δ᾽ ὥτρυνεν ἕκαστον.
Ev®’i αὖτ᾽ ἄλλ᾽ ἐνόησε Bed γλαυκῶπις ᾿4ϑήνη᾽" "2. 118,
By δ᾽ ἰέναι πρὸς δώματ᾽ Ὀδυσσῆος ϑείοιο" " 231.
, . i β. 382 mar.
395 Evia! μνηστήρεσσιν ἐπὶ γλυκὺν ὕπνον ἔχευεν, k β. 298, ὃ. 799,
πλάξεπ δὲ πένοντας, χειρῶν δ᾽ ἔκβαλλε κύπελλα. ͵ © 308, v.54 5
οὗ δ᾽ εὕδειν ὥρνυντο κατὰ πτόλιν, οὐδ᾽" ἄρ᾽ ἔτι δὴν 161— 5. cu
slat’, ἐπεί σφισιν ὕπνος ἐπὶ βλεφάροισιν ἔπιπτεν.. |n δ. ἐξ mar, ᾿
αὐτὰρ Τηλέμαχον προφέφη γλαυκώπις ᾿Αϑήνη, ° i. 26. os ΩΝ
40o ἐκπροκαλεσσαμένην μεγάρων ἐὺ ναιεταόντων, 1 4 Ἢ. Gis. 4. 45;
Μέντορι: εἰδομένη ἡμὲν δέμας ἠδὲ καὶ αὐδήν᾽ τ β. 268 mar.
“ Τηλέμαχ᾽, ἤδη μέν τοι ἐῤκνήμιδες ἑταῖροι . tte Pn ἐδ
εἴατ᾽ ἐπήρετμοι." τὴν σὴν ποτιδέγμενοι' ὁρμήν᾽ t K. 1%; εἴ. B
ἀλλ᾽ ἴομεν, un Onda διατρίβωμεν" ὁδοῖο.» u β. 204 mar
“ι μὩ͵.»ν ’ > © + . 2 , ν γ. 29--ὃθ, η. 37
405 ὡς ἄρα φωνηδασ ἡγήσατο Παλλὰς “4“9ηνὴη" sobre 418, δ
καρπαλίμως" ὃ δ᾽ ἔπειτα μετ᾽ ἴχνια βαῖνε ϑεοῖο. 104. ons >.
αὐτὰρ" ἐπεί ῥ᾽ ἐπὶ νῆα κατήλυϑον ἠδὲ ϑάλασσαν,
387. fos.
391. ita Harl. 8. Wolf,, ἐσχατιῆς Barnes. Ern. Cl. ed. Oxon.
ect. Schol. H.
αὐτὴν Harl. var.
is pres. For ἡγερέϑοντο a pres. ἠγερέ-
ϑονται occurs. For the form in -ϑὼ
see the list of such verbs in Jelf Gr.
Gr. 8 263, obs. I., ef. § 248 c. — ἀνώ»-
γξειν, for a defence of the final » in
the pluperf. 3"! sing. see Bek. Homer.
Bldtt, 11. p. 29. On the names Noémon
and Phronius see ona. 154. — -Oé ...
υπέδ., “undertook it at her request’’.
In the recurring v. 388 the effect of
sunset as casting into gloom the roads
before a traveller seems intended.
ὅπλ᾽, “tackle”, in sing. ‘‘a rope”
(mar.) see App. F. 1 (7).
395—7. ὕπνον, “drowsiness”, the im-
perf. πλαάξε, ἔκβαλλε, &c., denote its effect
as sustained. ἔτξ δὴν see on a. 186.
400-— 3. exmeoxad., cf. ἐκπρολι-
πὼν μηϊοὸ lect. ἐὺ ναῖιξτ., sometimes
written as one word εὐναιετ. γναιετάω,
here neut., is also transit. with name
50, μ. 391, ν. 70.
392. ὥτρυνε Fénaorov. ~* 401. ξειδομένη.
392. pro ἀϑρόοι,
404 Ζεποά., Schol. Μ.
of place; εὖ ναιόμενος is a more com-
mon formula. εὐχνήρε., this and κάρη
κομόωντες 408, being in Il. epithets
of "Ayacol, are used of Ithacans, as
being of that race. ἐπήρετ., if li-
terally meant, they would be sitting
(cf. 408), on the shore oar in hand,
‘“man and oar being inseparable”’ (Ar-
nold’s Thucyd. vol. I. App. 1Π.). With
this accords δ. 782 showing that the
oars were put on board. So Elpenor
begs that his oar, with which he rowed
in life, may be set up as his personal
badge over his tomb. 4. 77—8; see
App. F. 1 (13) (14). ἐπήρετ. elsewhere
is epith. of the ship.
405—6. This dependence of Telem.
for his smallest actions on the gui-
dance of Pallas, supposed by him Men-
tor (so 416—7 inf.), illustrates his cha-
racter as yet unformed, see App. E. 3.
58
a cf, yn. 167, σ. 34,
a. B. 85!.
—
γ᾿
ΟΔΥΣΞΣΡΤΑΣ
B. 408—426. [pay II.
εὗρον ἔπειτ᾽ ἐπὶ ϑινὶ κάρη κομόωντας ἑταίρους.
bf. 289 mar. τοῖσι δὲ καὶ μετέειφ᾽ ἱερὴ ἴς" Τηλεμάχοιο
of 207 p.m, δεῦτε, φίλοι, ἤια" φερώμεϑα" πάντα γὰρ ἤδη
e &. 315. ἀϑρό᾽" ἐνὶ μεγάρῳ μήτηρ δ᾽ Eun οὔ τι πέπυσται,
εν i οὐδ᾽ ἄλλαι ὃμωαὶ, μίαλ δ᾽ οἵη μῦϑον ἄκουσεν."
h ho 206 K. 310,| ὡς ἄρα φωνήσας ἡγήσατο, tol δ᾽ au’ ἔποντο.
. 224 mar. οὗ δ᾽ ἄρα πάντα φέροντες ἐὐσσέλμῳ ἐπὶ νηὶ"
kit ig, δ ἰκάτϑεσαν, ὡς ἐκέλευσεν Ὀδυσσῆος φίλος υἱός.
2 or ΤΓὰνε δ᾽ ἄρα Τηλέμαχος νηὸς Baiv’, ἦρχε δ᾽ ᾿4ϑήνη,
m ἃ. 1. νηὶ δ᾽ ἐνὶ πρύμνῃ κατ᾽ ὶ ἄρ᾽ Eero’ ἄγχι δ᾽ ἄρ᾽ αὐτῆς
no. 807, 500, 860, ἔξετρ Τηλέμαχος τοὶ δὲ πρυμνήσι᾽ Κὶ ἔλυσαν,
ο §. 253, 200. = | ay! δὲ καὶ αὐτοὶ βάντες ἐπὶ κληῖσι καϑῖξον.
p cf. a. 295, μ. 289 ᾽ ς . ; ,
q ¥. 208, Σ. 516, τοῖσιν δ᾽ Ixpevoy™ οὐρον" te γλαυκῶπις ᾿4ϑηνη.
+ tae mar ἀκραῆο Ζέφυρον." κελάδοντ᾽ « ἐπὶ οἴνοπα: πόντον.
APE ta 300, 430, Τηλέμαχος δ᾽ ἑτάροισιν ἐποτρύνας ἐκέλευσεν
; ἐπ Δ, (ον. ΠΡ ὅπλων" ἅπτεσθαι" τοὶ δ᾽ ὀτρύνοντος ἄκουσαν.
"539, τ᾿ ὅν στὸν. δ᾽ εἰλάτινον κοίλης ἔντοσϑε μεσόδμης "
¥ 4 tir, κι οι, στῆσαν" ἀείραντες, κατὰ δὲ προτόνοισιν ἔδησαν,
30, 7 “| ἕλκον δ᾽ ἱστία λευκὰ ἐϊστρέπτοισι»" βοεῦσιν.
409. μετέξειφ᾽ Fic.
410. pro ἤια Callistr. ὄφρ᾽ ἦα, Scholl. H. M. Q.
ἐμὴ Harl, ex emend. Ern, Cl. ed. Ox. Bek. Fa. Τωῦνν.
Ern. Cl. ed. Ox., ἄρα Harl. Wolf., mox ἐνὶ νηὶ Harl.
pr. manu, sed -wy ex emend. cum Schol.,
Wolf, Dind.,
409—10. ἑερὴ tc, Bek. writes lege.
The denoting a person by a conspi-
cuous quality is a form of language
widely diffused, cf. Bin Ἡρακληείη
(mar.). Ni, adds ὃς ἐδάμασσε βίης
Ἡρακλ., Hes, Theog. 332. ἱερὴ, prob.
as being of kingly race, cf. διοτρε-
φέων βασιλήων. For ἤια see on 289.
411. ἀϑροο᾽ » 866 on 356. én, this
reading is preferable to ἐμοὶ, there
being no call for a dative of ‘special
limitation in the action.
416. νηὸς, Jelf Gr. Gr. § 624 obs.
refers this to the head of gen. parti-
tive (as implying the part of the ship
which he reached), or local.
417—8. πρύμνῃ ... πρυμνήσ. 866
App. F. 1 G) “Ga (11). οἴκοι πρυ-
μνήσ. (πείσματα) fastened the ship to
the shore, after she had been launched.
420. ἔχμενον is referred by Doederl.
to εἴχω as meaning “to suit’’, or
‘comply with”, in which sense, as
Felxm is the real word, τοῖσι δὲ Ft-
421. ξοίνοπα.
411, ἐμοὶ Harl. a pr. manu
414. ἅμα
422. ἔποτρύνας Harl. a
«ας Barnes. Cl. ed. Ox. οἱ edd. rec.
κμενον would be needed. Ni. refers i it
to ἐκμὰς “moisture”, not, howeyer,
taking ἴκμενον to mean “moist”? (cf. ἀνέ-
μων μένος ὑγρὸν ἀέντων), but “smooth-
ly and equably gliding’. This seems
forced. The simplest way is to take
it from ἔκω, but why it should lose
the breathing is difficult to say. Per-
haps it is a touch of nautical verna-
cular. Similarly we find nuag but
nuéen- -- οὖρος is doubtless a form of
αὔρα, cf. ἀπούρας partic. of axaveca.
421—2. αχ a7, the Scholiast’s mean-
ing of ἀκρὸς ἄημι, ‘‘blowing neither too
much nor too little”, is the best; cf.
ἁλιαὴς, Svoans. For ἐποτρύνας a
Schol. has ἐποτρύνων, doubtless based
on ὀτρύνοντος mox inf. κελάδοντ᾽ >
Lowe would refer this to πόντον, as
more used in H. of the roar of water;
he perhaps overlooked Ζέφυρον κελα-
δεινόν (mar.). Here position also
awards it rather to Ζέφυρον.
424—6. ἱστὸν, in form identical with
410
415
420
425
DAY 11.]
ee et
*Exonoev” δ᾽ ἄνεμος μέσον ἱστίον, ἀμφὶ δὲ κῦμα
orsign’ πορφύρεον μεγάλ᾽ ἴαχε" νηὸς ἰούσης"
ἢ δ᾽ ἔϑεεν κατὰ κῦμα διαπρήσσουσαϊ κέλευϑον.
[30 δησάμενοιξ δ᾽ ἄρα ὅπλα ϑοὴν ἀνὰ νῆα μέλαιναν
στήσαντο κρητῆρας ἐπιστέφεας" οἴνοιο,
λεῖβον δ᾽ ἀϑανάτοισι ϑεοὶς; αἰειγενέτῃσιν,
ἐκ πάντων δὲ μάλιστα Διὸς γλαυκώπιδικ κούρῃ.
es
παννυχίηϊ μέν 6
428. μέγα Florze.
430. δήσαντες Schol. P.
στὸν ‘‘weaver's beam’’, also “web”,
109 sup. — μεσόδ., see App. F.
(6). — siorgéat., see App. F. 1. (8);
the forms εὐστρεφῆς, εὔστροφος, also
occur (mar.).1
427—34- The melodious flow of these
lines is admirable. The line describing
the sail- hoisting 18 succeded by a
dactylic burst, as if to mark the bound-
ing of the vessel. Observe also the
sudden stability introduced into this
billowy measure by the spondai stabiles
(Hor. de A. P. 256.) in 431, where the
bowls are set in equilibrium, as it were,
by a dactylic between two spondaic
dipodia, With this metrical effect may
be contrasted that of Virg. #n. III.
208 Annixi torquent spumas et cerula
verrunt, in which the measured oar-
stroke seems imitated in the train of
spondees. On agegt... στείρῃ see
App.F.1.(2). — laye, also ¢ (mar.), is
used of a bow-twang, war - shout,
trumpet-call, and of water hissing on
7 ye καὶ ἠῶπι πεῖρεν κέλευϑον.
ΟΔΥΣΣΕΙ͂ΑΣ Β. 427—434. 59
Aone |
aR
wee
Br =
Ὁ" @EIONMA@SESS? ἈΠ ΞΘ,
¢ peeiee Cala ς
&
<=
oh
Ss
431. Folvoro.
434 Tt Schol. BW. 8, Bek. annot.
hot iron (mar.). dydam. » “having
made fast the sheets’’, used in hoisting
the sails. ἐπιστέφ., Bee ON a. 148.
ἠῶ, acc. “during the early morning”’
cf. νύκτας 105; besides this, Ni., fol-
lowing Eustath., gives three senses,
further extended, of ἠὼς, viz, (1) the
forenoon, (2) the whole day till sunset,
(3) the Ψυχϑήμερον of 24 hours. (1)
may be allowed, as the terminus a quo
is put for the space it helps to ΤΥ νὸν
so in ὄφρα μὲν ἡ ὡς ἣν καὶ ἀέξετο
ἕερον ἡμαρ; so ἠὼς, δείλη, and the
μέσον ἥμαρ, which sunders them, make
up the day: but (2) and (3) are mere
poetic figures of part for whole, as
‘‘morns’’ are used for days, “summers”
for years in English poetry. In ».93—5
the idea of this word ἠῶ is expanded
into 3 lines of description.
Bek. attaches v. 434 to the first
paragraph of book III, With it the
third day begins.
ΟΔΥΣΣΈΕΙΑΣ I.
SUMMARY OF BOOK III.
On the morning of the third day Telemachus, with Pallas in the guise of
Mentor, lands at Pylus, where he finds Nestor with his family and the whole
Pylian population sacrificing to Poseidon on the shore. They are hospitably
invited to share the banquet. Pallas, receiving the cup, prays to Poseidon, as
does Telemachus, and they join the feast; after which Nestor enquires who
they are, and what their errand (1— 74).
Telemachus states his purpose of enquiry for his father, and begs for any
news of him (75 — 101).
Nestor in reply gives a narrative of how the war closed with divided counsels,
he himself with some others coming home straightway, Odysseus and the rest
waiting to gratify Agamemnon, who was lingering in hopes to propitiate Pal-
las, but in vain. He mentions Agamemnon’s fate and how it was avenged
(102 — 200).
Telemachus opens the question of his domestic troubles. Nestor encourages
him to hope for Odysseus’ return. He replies despondingly, and enquires more
particularly about Menelaus (201 — 252).
Nestor relates in fuller detail the course pursued by #gisthus, and how Me-
nelaus was driven by the loss of his pilot and stress of weather to Egypt,
whilst his brother's death, as also Orestes’ return and vengeance, took place
before his wanderings ended. He advises Telemachus to go to Menelaus at
Sparta, and offers him conduct thither (253— 328).
Telemachus accepts Nestor’s invitation to sleep at his palace, while Pallas,
disappearing under the form of a bird, is recognized by Nestor, who vows a
sacrifice, and all retire to rest (329— 403).
The fourth day opens with the sacrifice, as vowed, to Pallas, described with
much solemnity: the usual banquet follows; on which Nestor at once gives
ofders to prepare for the journey to Sparta. Pisistratus accompanies Tele-
machus. They halt for the night at Phere, and spend the fifth day on the
journey thence to Sparta (404 --- 497).
nr
Te ἐν via
Ἠέλιος" δ᾽ ἀνόρουσε," λιπὼν περικαλλέα λίμνην 95 | a τ. 493-4, x. 197,
' ᾿ Ἡ.422--3, Θ.485.
οὐρανὸν ἐς πολύχαλκον, ἵν’ ἀϑανάτοισι φαείνοι" να B59 2.79.
, d E. 504, Ρ. 425,
καὶ ϑνητοῖσι βροτοῖσιν ἐπὶ ξείδωρον' ἄρουραν" oe
ek , ~ . , t a. 463, 2. 300
of δὲ Πύλον Νηλῆος" tixtipevoy πτολίεϑρον lg 295 -- Ὁ. ὦν
x. —f,
ἷξον. tol δ᾽ ἐπὶ ϑινὶ ϑαλάσσης ἱερὰ ῥέξον, i ee a ον:
, , , , . cf. ε. 528, 536,
ταύρους nappédavas,” ἐνοσίχϑονι κυανοχαίτῃ." ΤΠ. 66, 4. 242.
—_—
ee ee me ..
1—4. The break of the third day.
λέμνην, Eélius, viewed in reference
to the whole physical system, rises.
out of and sinks into the Ocean river.
But to those voyaging by sea he would
seem to rise from it; and, as λέμνη in
H. certainly signifies the sea close to
shore, or between islands (mar.), it
might well suit here, where they are
close to the N. E. coast of Pelopon-
nesus. In ὦ. 246, where Adp. occurs
in some copies, of thé Xanthus, δίνης
is a better reading. In Hesiod Theog.
364 foll. the daughter-nymphs of Ocean
haunt γαῖαν καὶ βένϑεα λίμνης as
if — ϑαλάσσης. Later poets use it
freely in that sense, as Virgil uses
stagna, vada, etc., as Eurip. Hec. 446,
ἐπ᾿ οἷδμα λίμνας. On the mythical
cosmography of Eélius see Vilcker
Homer, Geogr. §15, p. 20. — πολύχαλ-
ΧΟΡ, conveys the notion of stability,
80 firmamentum, LXX. στερέωμα, and the
Heb. 3°), which they render, which
means something hammered out, as
if metallic. So Pind. Nem. VI. 3—4,
ὁ δὲ χάλκεος ἀσφαλὲς αἰὲν ἔδος με-
vet οὐρανός: and γίλ. X. 27. See
Sir G. C. Lewis Anct. Astron. 3 (4).
1. φαείνοι Bek. Dind. Fa., φαείνῃ Harl. Ern, Cl. ed. Oxon., φανείη Wolf. Low.
- «.....Ἅ. -΄ --
In same sense H. has σεδήρέος (mar.).
Πύλον, see App. Ὁ. 4.
s—6. ἶξον, a mixed form of aor.,
the ending τον of the 258 preceded by
the o (ἔξω = ἴκσω) of the 1*; ef. dv-
σετο βήσετο and others. ἐνοσίχ. xva-
voy. = Ποσειδάωνι. He-begat Ne-
leus who begat Nestor (4. 235 —57)-
κυανοχαέτῃ stands elsewhere alone
for Poseidon, 80 ἀργυρότοξ᾽ A. 37 for
Apollo, and πολυδέγμων for Hades,
Hy. Cer. 17, 31. It is epith. also of
a horse (mar.), of Hades in Hy. Ceres
348, and Hector has χαῖται κυάνεαι.
Here, as in the κυάνεον νέφος, φά-
λαγγες κυάν., and in mourning gar-
ments, an intensely dark hue is in-
tended. The material xvavog is cer-
tainly a metal, and probably bronze,
the darkest-hnued of metals, hence
furnishing a standard of colour; 80
κυάνεος i8 black, see App. F. I.
(19). The victims are ‘‘all-black’’ as
if to an infernal deity; Poseidon and
Hades, as devourers and destroyers,
having much in common. The former
is ἕππιος, the latter xivtommlos; 50
Holy Scripture couples ‘‘the sea’’ with
“Death and Hades” in Rev. XX. 13.'
—_—,
——<,
ΟΔΥΣΣΕΙΑΣ LT, 7—18.
64 [pay π|.
0 Ῥ. 355. πε ἐννέα δ᾽ ἔδραι ἔσαν, πεντηκόσιοι δ᾽ ἐν ἑκάστῃ
a. ’ . . , δ᾽ » ’ ’
ἐσ. 44, γ. 179, |ξῖατο, καὶ προύχοντο" ἑκάστοϑι ἐννέα" ταύρους.
dv. 56--17 73—7,
M. 373—5.
e y. 178, 2. 322,
#2140; cf. τ. 202.
f p. 416.
g σ. 355, φ. 288,
e. 462. “
ἢ Ζ. 201, Γ΄. 47;
εἴ.4.240, ΦὉ. 302.
i a. 281, β. 360,
9. 12.
k Z. 464, ,Ξ. 114;
εἴ, X. 482,
303, ¢. S48.
1 α. 119, ρ. 325.
τ ¥%, 71.
no. 406.
7. δὲ ξεκάστῃ. 8. Fexaorods. το. fed’ ἐξίσης. 13. προσέξειπε. 18. Fecdoper..
evo’ of σπλάγχν᾽ ἐπάσαντο, ϑεῷ δ᾽ ἐπὶς μηρί Exnav,
of δ᾽ 4 ἐὠϑὺς κατάγοντο." ἰδ᾽ ἱστία νηὸς ἐΐσης
στεῖλαν ἀείραντες. τὴν δ᾽ ὥρμισαν, ἐκ δ᾽ ἔβαν αὐτοί.
Ex! δ᾽ ἄρα Τηλέμαχος νηὸς Baiv’, ἦρχε δ᾽ ᾿4ϑήνη.
τὸν προτέρη προςέειπε ϑεὰ γλαυκώπις ᾿ϑήνη
«Τηλέμαχ᾽, οὐ μέν σε χρὴ ἔτ᾽ αἰδοῦς. οὐδ᾽ ἠβαιόν":
τοὔνεκα γὰρ καὶ πόντον ἐπέπλως." ὄφρα πύϑηαι!
ξ: πατρός. ὅπου xvtE* γαῖα καὶ Ov τινα πότμον ἐπέσπεν.
ἀλλ᾽ ἄγε νῦν ἰϑὺς! κίε Νέστορος ἱπποδάμοιο"
εἴδομεν" ἣν τινα μῆτιν ἐνὶ στήϑεσσι κέκευϑεν.᾽"»
7. πεντακχύσιοι Arist. Herod., Scholl., πεντήκοντα δ᾽ ἐν ἑκάστῃ Harl. suprascr.
Ld 3 Ρ ᾽
πεντηκύσιοι δ᾽ αν ἑξκαστην.
Arist., Scholl. Η. Μ.
ἐπέσπα.
η. ἑἕννέα, nine cities are under
Nestor’s sway in Β. 591 foll. Obs. here
the varr. lect. Ni. thinks πεντηκοντὺς
may be the true reading. The Scholl.,
however, note the agreement between
9 (seats) >< 500 (men), and, in Nestor’s
armament, #. 602, go (ships) >< so
(men); ‘“‘fifty’’ being the least number
mentioned as manning a ship in the
Catalogue. The agreement is probably
not accidental, but based on some
political divisions familiar to the poet’s
earers, but now lost.
8—9. xQovy., the oxen were “held
in front’? of each ἔδρα ready for
slaughter. For the number g in sa-
crifice and banquet, see mar.
ἐπὶ expresses destination, as in τὰς
(γαστέρας) ἐπὶ δόρπῳ κατϑέμεϑα
(mar.). μηρέα, see on y. 456. The
verbs in this are in effect pluperf., the
aor. involving in its absolute past no-
tion that of the past before a given
epoch.
10—11. οὗ δ᾽, the δὲ is apodotic of
evte ing, ‘‘when they had sacrificed
then these began to land”: for δὲ so
used see mar. For the mode of furling
sails and landing sce App. F. 1 (g)—(11).
xatay., “brought to shore’, opposed
to avayorto ‘put to sea”.
14-5. 48ator, often follows οὐδ᾽,
as here, enhancing negation, but is
used also in affirmation (mar.).
8. προύϑεντο E., ἑκαστόϑεν Scholl. H. M. Q. R.
9. ἐδάσαντο Scholl. E. H. M. Q., καῖον Cl. ed. Ox.
11. σεῖσαν Zenod., Scholl. quinque.
17. id. pro ἱπποδάμοιο ὄφρα τάχιστα.
10. xatayoy tol δ᾽
16. Schol. H.
15. ἐπέπλ., πλώω means “1 float’’.
but with ἐπὶ both it and πλέω become
compounds in the sense of sailing over;
this ἐπὶ here takes acc. of motion over
a surface, not towards a point, see a.
299 note.
16. ὅπου. χύ. γαῖα, the words, if
interpreted by κατὰ γαῖα καλύπτοι,
and ὑπὸ κεύϑεσι γαίης (mar.), would
imply death and burial; but Pallas, as
Mentor, would then be contradicti
Pallas as Mentes, who (a. 195 fol’)
strongly asserts the fact of Odys. being
alive. So does Halitherses, with whom
Mentor is associated (8. 163—6); and
the object of this voyage is to raise
up hope in Telem.; thus, as κεύϑω is
used also (mar.) of a ship, a city etc.,
merely as ‘‘containing’’, we may render,
‘“‘what country keeps him from our
sight’’, The form of sentence, “hear
of thy father, where he is”, is com-
mon in all simple styles; so scin’ me
in guibus sim gaudiis, Ter, Eun. V. 8, 5.
18. εἴδομιεν, epic for -opey, follows
κίβ without conjunction, as often in
admonitions brief through urgency, and
is the hortative subjunct., cf. Jelf,
Gr. Gr. § 416, 1. So in ϑάπτε ws ὅττι
τάχιστα, πύλας ᾿Αἴδαο περήσω, Ψ. γι,
and often after ἄγε, φέρε, and the
like; the non-recognition of this gave
rise to the var. lect. ὄφρα τάχιστα in
Vv. τῇ.
15
20 ψεῦδος δ᾽ οὐκ ἐρέει"
30
DAY 111.|
Γ[λέσδεσϑαι" δέ μιν αὐτὸς ὅπως νημερτέα εἴπῃ"
μάλα γὰρ πεπνυμένος" ἐστίν."
τὴν δ᾽ αὖ Τηλέμαχος πεπνυμένος ἀντίον ηὔδα
« Μέντορ." πῶς τ᾽ ἄρ᾽ lw; πῶς τ᾽ ἂρ προσπτύξομαι" αὐτόν;
οὐδέ τί πω μύϑοισι πεπείρημαι" πυκινοῖσιν"
αἰδὼς δ᾽ av νέον ἄνδρα γεραέίτερον ἐξερέεσϑαι."»
τὸν δ᾽ αὗτε προσέειπε Bea γλαυκῶπις ᾿4ϑήνη
“Τηλέμαχ᾽, ἄλλα μὲν αὐτὸς ἐνὶ φρεσὶ σῇσι νοήσεις,
ἄλλα δὲ καὶ δαίμων! ὑποϑήσεται" οὐ γὰρ ὀΐω
ove σὲ ϑεῶν ἀέκητι" γενέσϑαιϊ τε τραφέμεν te.”
as* ἄρα φωνήσασ᾽ ἡγήσατο Παλλὰς ᾿4ϑήνη |
καρπαλίμως᾽ ὃ δ᾽ ἔπειτα μετ᾽ ἴχνια βαῖνε ϑεοῖο.
ἷξον δ᾽ ἐς Πυλίων ἀνδρῶν ἄγυρίν! τε καὶ ἕδρας ,"
ἔνϑ᾽ ἄρα Νέστωρ ἦστο σὺν υἱάσιν, ἀμφὶ δ᾽ ἑταῖροι
δαῖτ᾽ ἐντυνόμενοι" κρέα ὥπτων tadda® τ᾽ ἔπειρον.
19. Fetny. 20. ov Ῥερέει.
ΟΔΥΣΣΕΙΑΣ PT.
28. προσέξειπε,
19- 33. 65
ἃ γ. 327—8.
b α. 213.
c B. 368.
df. ΤΊ, 9. 478,
A. 451, v.339—41.
ed. 2.
ff. 184.
gw. 251, d. 805,
| 9. 280.
| h Φ. 177, 9. 43; ef.
| @. 79, w 98.
εἰ H. 190, 3. 436;
, ef. δ. 723, ξ. 201,
A, 251.
k β. 405—6.
1 U7. 661, $2. 141.
ΜῊΝ 500.
Joy. 462, ξ. 430.
28. aFéunte.
19. αὐτὸς Arist., Schol. H. ad 327 wf., ita Bek. Dind. Fa. , αὐτὸν Cl, ed. Oxon.
24. νέῳ ἀνδρὶ Rhian., Scholl. H. M.
recent. man, Harl.
19— 20. These lines are set in the
margin by Bek. and belong more fitly
to 327—8. ‘For πέπνυμε. see on α. 213.
22—3. ζω wee προσπτύξομιαι, pres.
subj. followed by fet. adie. cf. ὥς
κε... φϑέῃς τάδε δ᾽ .... δάσον-
ται, 8. 368: see App. A. ‘9 (5). πε-
πεέρημαιει, this verb commonly has a
gen., the ‘‘trial’’ implying a process
of contact; here the result, — one who
has made trial. -of and is well versed
in words (μύϑοισι dat.) — is implied.
In ὃ. 23 we have a singnlar constrn.
τοὺς (ἀέϑλους) Φαίηκες ἐπειρήσαντ᾽
Ὀδυσῆος = which they “tried on’
upon QOdys. Donalds. Gr. Gr. § 454 cc
distinguishes a gen. ‘“‘tentative’’; but,
to aim at, to reach to, to be in con-
tact with, or in possession of, are but
extended degrees of one notion.
24. Telem. justifies the afdag which
Mentor declared inopportune vy. 14.
ἐξερέεσθαι, see on a. 416.
27-8. οὐ γὰρ ... οὔ, the negative
repeated in same clause adds empha-
sis, as in “no! I am sure not;”’ so in ov
uly... ov σε wouter ete., for instances
see mar. As ἔχητε is “by the good will
or blessing” of Apollo, Hermes, etc.
(0. 319, τ. 86), so ἀέκητι is without such
HOM. OD. I.
31. ἀγορήν Heidelb. Schol, M. et a
33. κρέα τ᾽ Harl. cum aliis, κρέα Dind. ἄλλα omnes.
their good-will or blessing. The Greek
wall at the ships ἀέκητι θεῶν ἐτέτυκτο,
wherefore ov τι πολὺν χρόνον ἔμπεδον
(nev, M.8,9). Conversely, Mentor means,
Telem. might expect the gods would
protect and prosper him. a@éx. is also
used of active opposition, ‘‘in spite
- of’, cf. mar. — γεν. τραῷ. τε, “born
and bred’’,
31. ἄγυρέν, not exactly = ἀγορὰν,
which means a formal assembly of
men, the former applies equally to
(mar.) corpses, ships etc, (Ni.) ἔδρας,
the component parts of the whole ἄγυρ.,
forming hendiadys with it.
” z
33. κρέα ὥπτων τάλλα τ᾿ , Dind.
and most edd. give χρέα ὥπτων ἄλλα τ΄.
The Harl, has κρέα τ᾽ ὥπτων, or, as
Kek. says, κρέατ᾽. Now the plur. of
κρέας in H. and Hes. is κρέξὰ syncopated,
or κρεὰ contracted, which last, occurring
only before a vowel, becomes κρέα.
Thus κρέατ᾽ lacks authority. But the
main difficulty lies in ἄλλα τ᾽ ἔπειρον.
To say, ‘were roasting steaks and
spitting others’ is nonsense. But by
regarding the τ᾽ of κρέα τ᾽ (Harl.) as
displaced and really belonging to τἄλλα
following, and viewing the acts ὥπτων,
ἔπειρον, us a prothysteron, we have
3
3.
4
66 ΟΔΥΣΣΕΙΑΣ IT. 34-46. [pay Ill.
. Κ' ee of δ᾽ ὡς οὖν ξείνους ἴδον, ἀϑρόοι ἦλϑον ἅπαντες
ς δ᾽ 680, 9. 62, χερσίν τ᾽ ἠσπάξοντο" καὶ ἐδριάασϑαι" ἄνωγον.
dpe 6.1:.} πρῶτος Νεστορίδης Πεισίστρατος ἐγγύϑεν: ἐλθὼν,
ev. 3, 95. ἀμφοτέρων Ele χεῖρα, καὶ Tdoveev παρὰ δαιτὶ
εἶ 180, . a, ἰχκῴώεσινο ἐν μαλχκοῖσιν, ἐπὶ ψαμάϑοις! ἁλίῃσιν,
4, 1,138, 224. πάρ τε κασιγνήτῳ Θρασυμήδεϊ καὶ πατέρι ᾧ"
δὴ ΕΝ 217, (« δῶκε δ᾽ ἄρα σπλάγχνων μοίρας, ἐν δ᾽ οἷνον ἔχευεν 4
aes. χρυσείῳ δέπαϊ᾽ δειδισκόμενος § δὲ προσηύδα
Lo, 149-53. Παλλάδ᾽ ᾿᾿ϑηναίην, κούρην Διὸς. αἰγιόχοιο"
" ἦι mi 3 “ εὔχεο!" νῦν. ὦ ξεῖνε, Ποσειδάωνι ἄνακτι"
Ὡρῶν ὃ. ἐν τοῦ γὰρ καὶ δαίτηςϊ ἠντήσατεκ δεῦρο μολόντες.
nS. 5, 4. 86. αὐτὰρὶ ἐπὴν σπείσῃς τε καὶ εὔξεαι, ἣν" ϑέμις ἐστὶν,
1203) Μη 48, δὸς καὶ τούτῳ ἔπειτα δέπας μελιηδέος" οἴνου
34. «δον. 39. fo. 43. favante. 46. μελιιςηδέος.
41. ita Arist., Scholl. H. M., Wolf. χρυσέῳ ἐν δέπαϊ Harl. Ven. Ern. Cl.
45. ἢ Thiersch. Bek. Dind., 7 Scholl. H. M. Ni. Wolf. Cl. ed. Ox.
in tadda the well-known expression
for the ‘‘remnants’’, when the sacri-
ficial portions, as in g sup., had been
disposed of. The “spitting” these then
corresponds with what is more fully
described inf, 462, A. 465, a8 μέστυλ-
λον τ᾽ ἄρα τἄλλα καὶ ἀμφ "ὀβελοῖσιν
ἔπειραν. The meaning thus is, ‘‘were
Spitting the remnants and roasting
steaks of them”’. For this sense of
κρέα cf. Certamen Hes. et Hom. Goett-
ling, P-, 319, 12, 13,
πεντήκοντ ἦσαν πυρὸς ἐσχάραι" ἐν
ἑκάστι
πεντήκοντ᾽ ὀβελοί, περὶ δὲ κρέα
πεντήκοντα.
24. of δ᾽, i.e. Nestor and his sons.
36. πρῶτος, he was the youngest
son (413—5) of seven, of whom Anti-
lochus, beloved next after Patroclus
by Achilles, fell by Memnon’s hand
(δ. 187). It is his office, as youngest,
to attend to the guests (Ni.). Herod.
V. 65, says that Pisistr. the ‘Athenian
usurper was so named from a notion
of family descent from the Neleids.
38—9. The xwag was the actual
fleece (ofog δέρμα, 519), used in
coarser bedding; the yea (epith. καλὰ
πορφύρεα), probably κώεα dressed and
dyed, were commonly thrown over
- the @gdvor, x. 352, or formed part of
the bedding, as in 7. 336. Ogacvu.,
the eldest brother, who went with his
father and Antilochus to the war. (Ni.)
40—1. The μήρια were wholly sa-
crificed, the oz. shared religiously,
each having a taste (ἐπάσαντο, inf.
461, cf. Aristoph. Pax 1039 δεῦρο ov-
σπλαχνεύετε), see on 466--9 inf.; the
rest (τἄλλα, 33) were shared festively.
The guests arrive when the Pylians
have began the festive business, but
are initiated with a share of the oxi.,
and in 65—6 join in the banquet.
δειδισχ., we have pluperf. δεέδεκτο
of δείκνυμι in sense of ‘‘welcomed”’
or ‘pledged’? (and so δεικνύμενος
‘“‘pledging’’), and from the perf. a pres.
δειδέσκομαι, as here, ‘‘holding the cup
out to pledge”’ (cf. δειδέσσομαι, det-
8m), and in the same sense δεικανάο-
μαι (Buttm. Gr. Ves, v. δείκνυμι);
for examples see ‘mar.
43—6. εὔχεο, addressed, to Mentor
individually, whereas ἡντήσατε com-
prehends Telem. and his followers; cf.
x. QgI—4, Where καταδάπτετ and pace
are followed by σέϑεν. (Ni.) For ἡν-
tno. see on α. 25. The phrase ἢ Dé-
pus ἐστὶν or 7 ϑέμ. ἐσ. passes from
the sense of abstract right into that
of mere custom (mar.); here it seems
to mean the former, ‘‘as one ought’’;
in the latter sense stands sometimes
ἢ Otxn ἐστί (mar.), On the former is
based the reproachful epithet αϑέ-
μιστος, t. 106, I. 63. --- οἴνου is one of
the Homeric words in which the £ is
inconstant, In α. 110, B. 349 ef alib.
DAY 1π.]}
σπεῖσαι᾽ ἐπεὶ καὶ τοῦτον ὀΐομαι ἀϑανάτοισιν
—w ----
ΟΔΥΣΣΕΈΙΑΣ LP. 47—63. 67
a β. 249, ν. 280,
εὔχεσϑαι" πάντες δὲ ϑεῶν χατέουσ᾽ " ἄνϑρωποι. | 0. 816.
ἀλλὰ νεώτερός ἐστιν. ὁμηλικίη" δ᾽ ἐμοὶ αὐτῷ" ae a a p.
50 τοὔνεκα σοὶ προτέρῳ δώσω χρύσειον ἄλεισον."" a App. A. 8 (3
as εἰπὼν ἐν χερσὶ tite δέπας ἡδέος οἴνου" | mar.
χαῖρε" δ᾽ ’Adnvaln πεπνυμένῳ" ἀνδρὶ duxato,' def. P. 501--8,
ovven of προτέρῃ δῶκε χρύσειον KAELCOY- je α. 213 mar.
αὐτίκα δ᾽ evyeto® πολλὰ Ποσειδάωνι ἄνακτι" " ΓΚ. ΜΝ
! “Κλῦϑι, Ποσείδαον γαιήοχε, μηδὲ μεγήρῃς in Ρ' 8, Ὁ. 354.
ἡμῖν εὐχομένοισι τελευτῆσαι τάδε ἔργα. β. 235, 9. 206,
Νέστορι μὲν πρώτιστα καὶ υἱάσι κῦδος ὅπαξε" " | 4. δ4, Ν. 563.
αὐτὰρ ἔπειτ᾽ ἄλλοισι δίδου χαρέεσσαν ἀμοιβὴν' Κα. 820, ϑ. 496,
σύμπασιν Πυλίοισιν ἀγακλειτῆς ἑκατόμβης."" " ᾿ “ ate $00
30 δὸς δ᾽ ἔτι Τηλέμαχον καὶ ἐμὲ πρήξαντα" νέεσθαι νὰ a
otvexa δεῦρ᾽ ἱἰκόμεσϑα Bor σὺν νηὶ μελαίνῃ." nf. 191.
ὡς ἄρ᾽ ἔπειτ᾽ ἠρᾶτο, καὶ αὐτὴ πάντα τελεύτα" 5 | 0 f. 171, γ. 86, φ.
δῶκε δὲ Τηλεμάχῳ καλὸν δέπας ἀμφικύπελλον. _ 200.
51. ξειπὼν. 53. For. 54. ξάνακτι. 56. βέργα.
51. pro δέπας ἡδέος of. alii ὃ δὲ δέξατο χαίρων ex W, 797. Bek. annot.
Fotvoy is proper, but here and y. δι
οἴνου. The ending μελιαδέος οἴνου
occurs Pind. Fragm. 147. Donalds. 44.
48-—-9. A passage remarkable for
simple and straight-forward piety
mingled with high courtesy. Ni. with
the sentiment here compares Arat. 4.
πάντη δὲ Διὸς κεχρήμεθα πάντες.
Here δὲ is = γὰρ, as in a. 433. Obs.
ομηλεκέῃ is used individually of a per-
son or collectively of a generation, as
πάντες ὁμηλικίη ... Τηλεμάχοιο (mar.).
s0— 3. ἄλεισον, for this and the
other Homeric cups etc. see App. A. 8
(3). The young Pisistr. imitates Nestor
in his sententiousness, see on 69 --- 70
inf., where Nestor leads off with a
maxim.; but there is also much naiveté
in a youth laying down this principle
of seniores priores, and adding that
he shall proceed to act upon it in his
office to the guests.
πεπνυμε. ... διχαίῳ, ‘discreetly
respectful’’, οἴ, 133, where the Greeks,
being not all νοήμονες and δέκαιοι, in-
cur woe through the wrath of Pallas.
ovvexa, see on 61 inf. The discern-
ment lay in giving the cup first to
Mentor on the score of age, passing
by the princely rank of Teclem. The
compliment, paid really to the eidolon
Mentor, is accepted by the goddess; 80
χ. 213 foll. Agelaus threatens (as he
supposes) Mentor, which Pallas in per-
son resents, 224.
55—7- The verb geyaiga is fol-
lowed by a gen. case N. 563, but here
the infin. supplies the object. 2st»
includes all who had partaken, not
merely the Τηλέμ. καὶ ἐμὲ of 60 inf.
Observe the precedence given to Nestor
aud his sons, as the hosts, and per-
‘haps further in return for the dis-
cerning courtesy of Pisist. in 40—2.
These “minor morals’’ show the spirit
of the Homeric age.
59— 61. σύμπασιν, recognizes the
occasion as one common to the whole
people, not private in Nestor's family.
πρήξαντα, though sing., virtually in-
cludes both the persons named; no
trace of such a reading as πρήξαντε
occurs. οὔνεχα, --- TO οὐ ἕνεκα, ‘that
for the sake οὗ which’’; cf. this with
οὔνεκα “ because”’ in 63 sup. and often
in H., as οὕνεκα τὸν Χρύσην ἠτίμησ᾽
ἀρητῆρα A. τι.
62—4. Poseidon was still among the
Ethiopians, whither he went ἃ. 22.
5* ᾿
68
ΟΔΥΣΣΈΕΙΑΣ I. 64—76.
[pay 11.
af. 106, ε. 8. Igo δ᾽ αὕτως ἠρᾶτο Ὀδυσσῆος φίλος υἱός.
b y. 470, «4. 290.
c 7. 800, ὁ. 8, η. of δ᾽ ἐπεὶ ὥπτησαν κρέ᾽ ὑπέρτεραν καὶ ἐρύσαντο,
’ . - , [4 [2 9 Γ “« 6
dK. 203. μοίρας δασσάμενοι meee ἐρικυδία δαῖτα.
α. 231 πιατ.,γ.348, χύταρ ENEL ποσιος κα TVOG E ον EVTO
“Ἐπ Ζ δ 0 9 ητύος ἐξ ἔρ ;
Γ 4. 201, y. 800,
316, ὁ. 27, 9.
91, 429, Ψ. 30],
$09.
g « 252--ὃ, α
170—3.
h y. 82, x. 202, 568. ” ἢ ~ h
ip. 58,7. 380. [ῆ τι κατὰ πρῆξιν" ἢ
κ p. 810.
p ¢. 139 -- 0, α.
421.
τοῖς ἄρα μύϑων ἦοχε Γερήνιος ἱππότα Νέστωρ" "
(νῦν δὴ καλλιόν ἐστι μεταλλῆσαι" καὶ ἔρεσϑαι
ΠἸξείνους, οἵ τινές εἰσιν, ἐπεὶ τάρπησαν' ἐδωδῆς.
οξ ξεῖνοι, τίνες ἐστέ; πόϑεν πλεῖϑ᾽ ὑγρὰ κέλευϑα;
μαψιδίως; ἀλάλησϑε.,Κ
οἷά τε ληιστῆρες, ὑπεὶρ ἅλα, τοί τ᾽ ἀλόωνται
ψυχὰς παρϑέμενοι. 1 κακὸν ἀλλοδαποῖσι" φέροντες ;’’
τὸν δ᾽ αὖ Τηλέμαχος πεπνυμένος" ἀντίον ηὔδα,
'ϑαρσήσας"» αὐτὴ γὰρ ἐνὶ φρεσὶ ϑάρσος» ᾿Αϑήνὴ
ός. ἐερύσαντο.
72—4 improbabat héc l. Aristoph., permittente Arist. et hic et ad ε. 253 -- δ,
It would seem as if, during such ab-
sences, prayers and sacrifices from
mortals must fail of their effect; see
a. 21—4 note. Here, as regards Men-
tor and Telem., the question does not
arise, the prayer being only part of
the disguise; as regards Nestor and his
sons, they were probably performing
rites stated and due, and the poet's
consciousness does not seem to re-
cognize the coincidence of their festival
with the god’s absence. As regards
the prayer for Nestor, she herself, we
are told, accomplished it. Thus the
sacrifice was effectual although the god
to whom it was offered took no ac-
count of it. ἠρᾶτο ‘Od. hiatus is
frequent after the csesura of 3°? foot,
especially the bucolic cas.
65 — 6. ὑπέρτ. » ‘‘upper or outer”’,
as contrasted with the entrails pre-
viously tasted 40 sup.; then came the
libation and prayer, and now in due
course the feast. ἐρύσ. ‘pulled (the
meat) off (the spits)”. Eumeus on the
contrary presents his guest, in ruder
fashion, the pieces on the spits (ξ.
78—7). δασσάμι. δαένυντ᾽. This
juxtaposition illustrates the connexion
between dadvyupar ‘feast’? and δαέο-
μαι ‘‘dvide shares”.
68—g. Nestor leads off with a maxim
Bee on 50—3 sup. This hospitable rule,
to ask no question till the guest’s
wants have been supplied, is cha-
quamquam ibi magis propria, Scholl. H. M. Q. R.
racteristic of heroic courtesy, ‘The
epith. Γερήνιος applied to him, is based
on a place given as Γερηνία, Γέρηνα
(ca), or Γέρηνον, where Nestor either
was born or found refuge when all
the eleven other sons of Neleus were
slain. Hes. Frag. xtv, 2, 3, Goettl.
δωδέκατος δὲ Γερήνιος ἱππότα
Νέστωρ
ξεῖνος ἐὼν ἐτύχησε παρ᾽ ἱπποδά-
μοισι Γερήνοις.
70— 3. τάρπησ. This verb is ca-
pricions in its construction; the dat. is
commonly found with the pres. and
imperf, and once with the 1" aor. (@.
131), with which and with the 2™4 aor.
the gen. mostly follows. Aristoph. re-
jected 72—¥4 here, thinking them bor-
rowed fr. . 253—5; Arist. also thought
them more proper there, yet allowed
the iteration. μαψιδέως “at random’’,
i. e. wherever they could pick up
plunder; whereas a xengig would imply
a fixed destination. Odys. in his feigned
story ἔξ. 222-30, as a Cretan prince,
speaks of such marauding expeditions
as occurring before the Trojan war.
On the question of piracy οἵ. Thucyd.
I. 5, who infers the reputableness of
the employment, and is a testimony to
the genuineness of the passage here.
76. Dagonoas. That Telem. should
show less hesitation after the hospitable
reception than he expressed 22—4 sup.
is natural,
7‘
7.
95
DAY 111.]
ϑῆχ᾽. ἵνα μιν περὶ πατρὸς ἀποιχομένοιο ἔροιτο᾽
[ἡδ᾽" ἵνα μιν κλέος ἐσθλὸν ἐν ἀνθρώποισιν ἔχῃσιν
((κἦ Νέστορ Νηληιάδη, μέγα" κῦδος ᾿Αχαιῶν,
8ο εἴρεαι, ὁππόϑεν εἰμέν" ἐγὼ δέ κέ τοι καταλέξω.
ἡμεῖς ἐξ Ἰθάκης ὑπονηέου" εἰλήλουϑμεν᾽
montis" δ᾽ ἤδ᾽ ἰδίη, οὐ δήμιος," ἣν ἀγορεύω.
πατρὸς ἐμοὺ xdéog! εὐρὺ μετέρχομαι, HY που ἀκούσω,"
δίου Ὀδυδσῆος ταλασίφρονος, ὅν ποτέ φασιν ,
85 σὺν σοὶ μαρνάμενον Τρώων πόλιν ἐξαλαπαξαι:"
ἄλλους μὲν γὰρ πάντας, ὅσοι Τρωσὶν πολέμιξον,
πευϑόμεϑ᾽., ἡχιὶ ἕκαστος ἀπώλετο λυγρῷ ὀλέϑρῳ᾽
κείνου δ᾽ αὖ καὶ ὄλεθρον ἀπευϑέακ ϑῆκε Κρονίων.
οὐ γάρ τις δύναται σάφα εἰπέμεν, ὁππόϑ᾽! ὄλωλεν"
goa ϑ᾽" ὅ γ᾽ én’ ἠπείρου δάμη ἀνδράσι δυςμενέεσσιν"
εἶ τε! καὶ ἐν πελάγει μετὰ κύμασιν ᾿““μφιτρέτης.
τοὔνεκα" νῦν τὰ σὰ γούναϑ᾽ P ἱκάνομαι, ai x’ ἐϑέλῃσϑα :
κείνου λυγρὸν ὕλεϑρον ἐνισπεῖν. εἴ που ὕπωπας
ὀφϑαλμοῖσιτ: τεοῖσιν, ἢ ἄλλου μῦϑον" ἄκουσας
ΟΔΥΣΣΕΊΙΑΣ Γ΄. 77—98.
69
a α. 95.
b μ. 184.
c a. 186; εἴ. Z.
396 — 7.
d δ. 314.
e 8. 32, 41.
f a. 283, 344.
. 87 mar.
, δ. 176,
LJ. 577.
πλαξομένου᾽ περὶ γάρ μιν ὀϊξυρὸν τέκε' μήτηρ.
By, Féuacros.
78 caret Vien., marg. inseruit. Harl.,
Schol. B.
annot. go—I.
78 — 83. v. 78 is probably an inser-
tion by some copyist from a. gs; thus
the question of Fynoty subjunct. fol-
lowing ἔροιτο optat., each with ἔνα in
same dependence, need not arise; see,
however, some instances of optat. and
subj. mixed in the same dependance
App. A. 9 (16) end. ὑπονηίου, see
on α. 186, On πρῆδις ... δήμιος ef,
φ. 16—7 Ὀδυσσεὺς nite μετὰ χρεῖος τὸ
ῥά of πᾶς δήμος ὄφελλεν.-- κλέος
here bears partly the sense of ‘‘renown’’
as in α. 344, and partly that of “tid-
ings’’, as in a. 283; the renown of Odys.
consisting in the news spread of bim.
87—9. ἦχι, Jelf, Gr. Gr. ὃ 339, 8
writes yt; but it seems better to view
it as a real ep. dat., a twin form of
the dat. locative in ge, ib. § 83, 1,
and then the ¢, which is subscript in
ῇ becomes final in ἦχι. --- ἀπευϑέα,
in active sense at 184, here in pass.;
being found in no other book of either
poem it is marked as unicé lectum;
for both act. and pass. use cf, axvorog
—- +
82. ἐκδήμιος Aristoph., Scholl. H. M,
pro ef εἴ Βεκῆ 7.
t ἢ 151. 8 τ. 355,
. 127] --Β,
, Θ. 3014, εἴ
A.a@i7—8, X
89. ἐειπέμεν.
[] Wolf. et edd. rec. 81. ὑπὸ Νηίου
87. λυγρὸν ὄλεθρον Bek.
95 [] Bek.
(mar.). ὀππόϑ'᾽, here ε is elided, , 28
in the dat. pl. and in ἐστὶ, περὶ, ὅτι.
go—1. & 9’ coe & te, here Bek.
prints 7 &’... 4 τὲ without adequate
reason; εἶ following verbs of saying,
in sense of ‘‘tell me ¢ etc.’’ is com-
mon enough, and stands elsewhere, on
good MS. authority, repeated with a
double clause. We find once indeed
εἴ te of one clause followed by ἠὲ καὶ
of the other, but though this shows
that the meanings approach each other,
it gives no ground for rejecting one
of the expressions; see mar. — πελά-
yer, see App. B. (3). — Apget., see
on & 422.
92. γούναϑ'᾽, see on a. 267. ébxa-
vouat here shows the sense of -ixe-
τὴς, ‘“‘come suppliantly”. For af κ᾽
see on a. 379. The subjunct. here re-
sembles that called deliberative, as in
φρασσόμεϑ' ἦ κε νεώμεθ᾽ κι τι. App.
. 9 (6) end
95- Bek. suspects this line’s genuine-
ness here and δ. 325 where it recurs,
ἋΣ
Ο
-σν»
:
388, X. 419,
ΟΔΥΣΣΕΙΑΣ LI. 96—103.
undé® τί μ᾽ αἰδόμενος" μειλίσσεο," μηδ᾽ ἐλεαί
[Day 111.
θῶν.
-Bicf ὃ. 17). ἀλλ᾽ ἃ εὖ μοι κατάλεξον ὅπως ἤντησας" ὀπωπῆς.
0,0
δ
. 327, ὃ. 314,
1, 642, 2. 148
3 “πο Ὅν ὦ
SF ὡς he SRAPRS RA
we
-
Qe
a
Atooopon,! ef ποτέξ τοί τι πατὴρ ἐμὸς ἐσθλὸς Ὀδυσσεὺς
ἢ ἔπος" ἠέ τι ἔργον ὑποστὰς ἐξετέλεσσεν
72, ο. 35. Ιδήμῳ ἔνι Τρώων, ὅϑι πάσχετε" πήματ᾽ ᾿Αχαιοί"
τῶν! νῦν μοι μνῆσαι. καί wor™ νημερτὲς ἔνισπες.᾽
τὸν δ᾽ ἠμείβετ᾽ ἔπειτα Γερήνιος ἱππότα Νέστωρ
, ¢ 3 ’ Pn a ’
U2, x. τοῦ, “ὦ φίλ᾽, ἐπεί μ᾽ ἔμνησας ὀϊξύος, ἣν ἐν ἐκείνῳ
----.-..-- .
97. pro ὁπωπῆς B. marg. ἀκουῆς.
with the whole passage 92—101; but
although it might be spared, it does
not weaken the sense, or encumber
the sentence. πλαζομένου is referable
to xefvov 92, and εἴ που .... μῦϑον
ἄκουσας is parenthetical, or πλαξ. may
depend on μῦϑον to be rendered ob-
jectively, ‘‘tidings of him roaming”’,
cf. 4. 493 τοῦ παιδὸς ἀγαυοῦ nv fo».
Yet to read πλαζόμενος would be more
Homeric. ὀιξυρὸν téxé, i.e. a man
was born ill-fated, as he was born strong
or healthy; elsewhere (mar.) we read
of alow as spinning at a man’s birth
the thread of weal or woe which he has
thereafter to endure; cf. Thetis’ lament
to her son τί vv σ᾽ ἔτρεφον aly cot &-
κοῦσᾳ ... ἐπεί νύ τοι αἷσα μίνυνϑά
meg οὔτι μάλα δήν. A. 414—6.
96. αἴδομαι, here in sense of
‘‘compassionate’’, see mar.; αἰδέομαι
is also found. For a word descriptive
of shame borrowed for compassion, cf.
Virg. En. 11. 541—2 jura fidemque sup-
plicis erubuit. The pres. imper. “&ét-
λίσσεο is continucd in 97 by κατά-
λεξον the former injunction being ge-
neral, and not limited, as the latter is,
by the occasion of the moment; Jelf,
Gr. Gr. § 420, 2.
97—8. κατάλεξον, Buttm. assumes
a root dey- in sense of to “say, talk
of’’, and another dey- in that of ‘“‘lic
down’’; Curtius also (I. p. 163) views
them as distinct; but in τανηλεγέος the
elements are tavaog and λὲγ- “lay”;
see App. A. 22, For ἤντησ. see on
α. 25. λίσσομαι, for the sentiment
and the manner of urging Odysseus’
memory as a topic of appeal cf. (mar.)
λίσσομαι ... ef μή πού τι πατὴρ
ἐμὸς ..... τῶν κι τ. Δ.
99—101. ἔπος and ἔργον», although
99. Féxog. «έργον.
100. pro πήματ᾽ Venet. marg. adye’,
disjoined by ἢ ... ἠέ seem to mean ‘word
as accomplished in act’’, reflecting the
sense of ἐδετέλεσσεν as joined with
ὑποστὰς (mar.). — τῶν, the plural is
more forcible, as assuming that the
supposed good offices on Odysseus’ part
were in fact frequent. For ἐμεῦπες
see App. A. 1. δήμῳ, see On α. 101—5.
102—200. This whole speech is cha-
racteristic of Nestor and may be com-
pared with one in the 1]. to Patroclus
(A. 670 foll.) — a long narrative, clos-
ing like this with urgent advice. Ob-
serve in both speeches how accessories
are engrafted, and episode set within
episode; especially sce A 690—3, 700,
711, 714, 722, 750, 753, 766—70. The
old warrior talks on and off his real
subject, somewhat presuming on his
years and the well-won respect of his
juniors, but guided by kindness and
good sense through all the ramifica-
tions of his tale. Shakspeare has given
us some traits of such a character in
the Menenius of his Coriolanus.
103. ἐπεὶ would lead us to expect
some apodosis introduced by toe γὰρ
ἐγὼν ἐρέω or the like; and indeed, by
throwing into a parenthesis all from
ἔνϑα μὲν 109 to πάϑομεν κακὰ 113,
we might there take τές nev ἐκεῖνα x.t.d.
apodotically, as equivalent to, ‘‘I can-
not tell you all, for no one could (lit.
‘“who could’’), even were you to go on
asking for years’’, But the clauses
so parenthesized are too closely knit
with their immediate predecessors and
followers to allow this. It is better, then,
to view the structural outline as lost
in the accumulation of details evoked
in 105 —13 by Telemachus’ appeal to
the events of the war; and of which
the enumeration is simply impossible.
Io
DAY 111.]
OATZZEIAZ YL.
paovawed’
104—T118. 71
δήμῳ ἀνέτλημεν μένος" ἄσχετοι υἷες ᾿Αχαιῶν, a β. 85.
vay a ἣν ἐπ’ δέν a b 9.383, 575, H.
05 nuéy” ὅσα ξὺν νηυσὶν ἐπ᾽’ ἠεροειδέα πόντον 301—2, ν. 210.
πλαξόμενοι κατὰ Anid’, ὅπῃ ἄρξειεν- ᾿Αχιλλεὺς, «ἔξ 290. » 287,
ἠδ᾽" ὅσα καὶ περὶ ἄστυ μέγα Πριάμοιο ἄνακτος ϑ. 250.
" ? ἢ ing ἀκ . [6 d. 543 foll
ἔνϑα ὃ ἔπειτα κατέχταϑεν ὅσσοι “ ἄριστοι" [δ Β am, Ht. 366,
ἔνϑα μὲν Alas? κεῖται ᾿ρήιος, ἔνϑα δ᾽ ᾿Αχιλλεὺς, ΞΞ. 318.
ἔνϑα ὃὲ Πάτροκλος ϑεόφιν' μήστωρ ἀτάλαντος, β δ nal
Evita δ᾽ ἐμὸς φίλος υἱὸς, ἅμα κρατερὸς καὶ ἀμύμων,5] τω. τ.
"Αντέλοχος οἷ περὶ" μὲν! ϑείειν ταχὺς ἠδὲ μαχητής. ᾿ n ce
ἄλλα te πόλλ᾽ ἐπὶ τοῖς πάϑομεν κακά" τίς κεν ἐκεῖνα m Ζ. 12.
, " ~ 3 , , n cf. §. 419, Β. 403,
πάντα γε μυϑήσαιτο καταϑνητῶν" ἀνθρώπων; ἯΙ 315.
οὐδ᾽ εἰ πεντάετές" γε καὶ ἕξάετες" παραμίμνων ο YW. 206, 665
15
105. ἠεροξειδέα.
11, pro ἀμύμων Heidelb. B. ἀταρβής.
107. faoty Favaxtos,
115. πεντα ξετές ἐξάξετες.
113. αλλά γε πόλλ᾽ Harl. mar., sed
te Schol. H.
Thus far it seems as though Nestor
mistook Telemachus’ words, τῶν νῦν μοι
μνῆσαι 101, as meaning, ° ‘pray make
mention of all this to me’’, cf. πατρὸς
μνησθῆναι δ. 118, and Μοῦσαι .....
μνησαίαϑ', Β. 491—2. In the same
strain he goes on to show why it is
inrpossible; — ‘‘for nine years long we
manceuvred against them with every
sort of artifice (δόλοισι)᾽᾽, and this
word seems to lead him to the first
recognition of Odys., rather, however,
as the prime deviser of these δόλοι
than as the subject of the enquiry
which he is answering. He then again
breaks off in an apostrophe to Telem, —
‘‘thy father surpassed all in stratagem,
if so be thou art indeed his son’’,
In 126 Nestor may be said to settle
down to his tale. Its flow is copious
and unbroken, but we find in its course
little completed events, like islands
in a stream (see below on 165 foll.),
in which the imperf. is exchanged for .
the aor. At its close the news of others
is added to his own, and the final men-
tion of the fate of Agamemnon and the
deed of Orestes gives occasion to an ad-
monition to his young guest and friend.
105—6. 06a... πλαζόμι., join this
with ἀνέτλημεν 104, ‘all that we en-
dured in wandering”; hence, ὅσα
μαρνάμεδ᾽ is slightly in anacoluthon
as if = ἀνέτλημεν μαρνάμενοι. --- aQ-
§ecev, for the optat. following the im-
perf. or aor. see App. A.g (20). — χελ-
λεὺς, see I. 328 foll. where Achilles
speaks of twelve adventures by sea
and eleven by land.
109. xeitac. Nestor (H. 334) states
a purpose of gathering the bones of
the deceased, after burning the bodies,
to take them home to their children.
He was an old man and had left
children. The Hebrew idea that a
man should ‘sleep with his fathers’’
found little place with 11, Those who
had left no children at home were
buried on the spot — even Achilles,
the prime hero, with his best beloved
comrades Patroclus and Antilochus (Ψ.
91,) 244, ὦ. η8---80), as he himself had
directed. The Greek’s idea was rather
to plant his fame abroad, and mark
remote regions with his memory (δ.
584). Thus Elpenor (4. 75 —8); and
so Hector supposes will be done for
any champion whom he may overthrow
(Η. 85—91). The examples to the con-
trary, of Sarpedon’s translation by Sleep
and Death, and of the suitors’ corpses
sent home (1. 453—7, ὦ. 418—9), can
be easily explained by their respective
circumstances.
113—6. ἄλλα τε, we should expect
some more marked conjunction than te;
yet it illustrates the easy loquacious
style of Nestor. xata oe, & mere
intensative of ϑνητὸς: cf. ῤιγηλὸς and
καταρριγηλὸς, στυφελὸς and καταστυ-
φελός. --- ουδ᾽, vr could ποέ tell them
all, even if etc.’
“
N
aos 8
3
Bd
2ae..
a
oe
B
9
2
1, Ἡ. 359,
14},
148, δ. 90, 120
327, τ
I. 179—
118. edvaferec. 122. fereor.
117—8. πρέν, adverbial, “thou would'st
have gone home /firsi, out of weariness”.
Some, placing a comma at Ayacol,
render it conjunctionally, ‘‘I should
not have told all before thou hadst
gone home’’, This is harsh, for, by
introducing the indefinite limit of the
hearer’s patience, it clashes with the de-
finite limit of ‘‘5 or 6 years’’ previously
supposed. — δάπτομιεν is imperf.
121. ἤϑελ᾽, not merely = ἐδύνατο,
as Schol., but ‘‘no one ventured”
(mar.); so schyl. Prom. 1049, θελήσῃ
t εἰς avavyntoy μολεῖν “Δδιδην; cf.
for a similar tenor, A. 186 -7, orvyé3
δὲ καὶ ἄλλος ἶσον ἐμοὶ φάσϑαι καὶ
ὁμοιωϑήμεναι ἄντην.
122. With the δόλοι in which Odys.
was thus facilé princeps, cf. the κέρδεα
of which Penel. was mistress; see App.
E. 2 (2). .
124—5S. ἐοιχότες ... ἐοικότα. The
senses of ἔοικα, ‘to seem like’’ and
‘to be scemly’’, are played upon here.
The latter sense is clear in ἐοικότι
κεῖται ὀλέθρῳ and ἐοικότα γὰρ κατα-
λέξω (mar.) while to take both ἐοικότες
and ἐοικότα, with Ni., in sense of “‘suit-
able’’ seems lame and tautological, and
evacuates ye of its force, which is, “your
words at any rate are like his’’, referring
to the doubt of his sonship just before
stated; and to take them both in sense
of “‘like’’, ἐς δι like Odysseus’ way of
speaking, would leave σέβας μ᾽ ἔχει
κι τι. without due force. Render, “1
OATXZZEIAE IL. 116—126.
ν᾽ ἐξερέοις" ὅσα κεῖϑι πάϑον κακὰ δῖοι ᾿χαιοί"
124. Feforxores.
116. ἐξερέεις Harl. sed Schol. H. ἐξερέοις.
from Odys. (132—5).
[pay 111.
ee ee —
ΠἸπρέν" κεν ἀνιηϑεὶς σὴν πατρίδα γαῖαν ἵκοιο.
.] εἰνάετες ἃ γάρ σφιν κακὰ ῥάπτομεν" ἀμφιέποντες
παντοίοισιξ δόλοισι, μόγις δ᾽ ἐτέλεσσε Κρονίων.
ἔνϑ᾽ οὔ τις ποτὲ μῆτιν ὁμοιωϑήμεναι ἄντην
ἤϑελ᾽," ἐπεὶ μάλα πολλὸν ἐνίκα δῖος Ὀδυσσεύς
, 0. 25; παντοίοισι δόλοισι.' πατὴρ τεὸς, εἰ ἐτεόν! yE
3.384. χείνου ἔχγονός" ἐσσι" σέβας" μ᾽ ἔχει εἰρορόωντα.
i339, α. 46. [ἢ TOL γὰρ μῦϑοίπ' γε ἐοικότες, οὐδέ κε φαίης
880, δ΄ ἄνδρα νεώτερον" ὧδε ἐοικότα 5 μυϑήσασθϑαι.
A. 161, ἔνϑ᾽ 4 τοι εἴωςν» μὲν ἐγὼ καὶ δῖος Ὀδυσσεὺς
125. «ειοικότα.
120, ov πώ τις Bek. annot.
um astonished as I behold you, for
indeed your words are like his, and
yet one would not say that a man so
much younger would speak so suitably
i. e. so sensibly’’, The fact that to
speak like Odys. would be to speak
sensibly, makes the two thoughts play
into each other with a very subtle
transition. They appear more plainly
as put by the less rhetorical Menelaus,
τοέου γὰρ καὶ πατρὸς, ὃ καὶ πε-
πνυμένα βάξεις, δ. 206.
126. εἴως, ‘‘all that while’’, relat.
for demonstr. τείως: cf. οἷον a. 410
and note. He means “whilst the siege
went on’’, in contrast with the sub-
sequent events, introduced by αὐτὰρ
ἐπεὶ 130 inf., which dissolved their
unanimity. Even then, it was rather
the resolve of Zeus for evil, and Pal-
las’ fateful wrath breaking up _ its
brotherhood of chiefs, than any per-
sonal disunion, which severed Nestor
The same crisis
bred drunken discord and prolonged
debate (App. A. 4 (2) note). Yet even
then Odys. inclined in judgment to
go with Nestor, and went as far as
to Tenedos with him, but thence turned
back to gratify Agam., clinging to his
chief even when his brother left him
(141-—65, see App. E. 1 (1)). It is
observable that H. says nothing here,
or in &. 108—9, of the outrage of Ajax
Oileus on Cassandra as causing Athene’s
wrath, but perhaps it is hinted at in d.
DAY II1.]
οὔτε ποτ᾽ εἰν ἀγορῇ δίχ᾽ " ἐβάξομεν" οὔτ᾽ ἐνὶ βουλῇ, ἃ π
ἀλλ᾽ ἕνα“ ϑυμὸν Exovre, νόῳ καὶ ἐπίφρονι" βουλῇ . Ὁ. 710
ΟΔΥΣΣΕΙΑΣ Γ΄. 127---ἰ.:30. 73
» » , μ᾿ on mM , “ :
φραζόμεθ, “ργείοισιν ὅπως ὄχ᾽ " ἄριστα γένοιτο. ᾿ " 7 ᾿ Ν
130 αὐτὰρ ἔπε Πριάμοιο πόλιν διεπέρσαμεν αἰπὴν," N. 62); ef»
[βῆμεν δ᾽ ἐν νήεσσι, ϑεὸς δ᾽ ἐκέδασσεν ‘Azyacovg:] 8ST ἔξ 21
καὶ τότε δὴ Ζεὺς λυγρὸν ἐνὶ φρεσὶ μήδετο" νόστον τ ah ee
"Aoyetoug, ἐπεὶ οὔ τι νοήμονες,, οὐδὲ δίκαιοι iF. 782, 209.
πάντες ἔσαν" τῷ σφεῶν πολέες κακὸν" οἶτον ἐπέσπον' | B, 30.
’ 2 2 ~ 4 , ; °
135 μήνιος" ἐξ ὀλοῆς γλαυκώπιδος" ὀβριμοπάτρης, n δ᾽ 500,’ oo
Ht ἔριν" “τρείδῃσι μὲτ ἀμφοτέροισιν ἔϑηκεν. ip 6. 9. “ν΄ 815,
. , ι + meet q B. 214, EB. 759,
τῶ δὲ καλεσσαμένω ἀγορὴν ἐς» πάντας χαιοὺς, ΡΝ
Uap ἀτὰρ οὐ κατὰ κόσμον, ἐς" ἠέλιον καταδύντα ᾿ 7 A
εν > 3 , ? 3 ~ . °
(ot δ΄ ηλϑον οἴνῳ" βεβαρηότες vies ᾿Ζχαιῶν) ἐρατὴν F483,
139. fovea.
128. ἐπίφρονα βουλὴν Bek. annot.
Wolf.
502. But beyond special provocations,
men are nearest, in H{omeric view, to
the wrath of heaven, when they have
no earthly check to their will, as the
Greeks in the moment of conquest, and
the suitors in the absence of Odys,
Pallas, as the calm wisdom which
checks impulse and controls passion,
is directly hostile to such arrogance;
see App..E. 4 (6). Her wrath had been
fatal to Troy, and now pursued the
conquerors, to whom, unlike the “Ar-
give’’ Here, she had no national at-
tachment. ibid. (4). Thus she occurs
alone, ἃ. 327, a8 decreeing the ill-fated
return of the Greeks, and wrought her
end not only by moral agency but by
physical, raising waves and storm
(ε. 108—g) to thwart their homeward
voyage.
128—9. &xigg., ‘‘opportune’’, ap-
plying φρὴν to the oecasion, hence
ἐπιφροσύνη, &. 437, is a gift of Athené,
who is lauded by Hesiod Theog. 896
as ἶσον ἔχουσαν πατρὶ μένος καὶ ἐπί-
φρονα βουλήν. -- ᾿Αργείοισιν de-
pends on γένοιτο. With the superl. we
tind χα (cf. ὑπείροχος ἔξοχος) like ὡς
in Attic Gr., = “‘the best etc. ροδαίδίο᾽".
131. This line is out of place, for
they do not embark till 157 inf, and
then only one half do so. It is pro-
bably inserted from ». 317, the same
line leading up to it there as (130) here.
.--
131. ‘‘aberravit ex v. 317°’ Bek.
Schol. H., βεβαρημένοι Bek. annot.
129. γένηται ἔτι, Cl. ed. Ox., γένοιτο
139. βεβαρηκότες Ambros. E.
There might indeed be room for it as
the apodosis of αὐτὰρ ἐπεὶ introduced
by δὲ, and epitomizing what is ex-
panded in 132—64 (cf. of δ᾽ ἐπεὶ ovy
ἤγερϑεν τοῖσι δ᾽ ἀνιστάμενος
μετέφη, A. 57—58), but for the more
formally apodotic phrase καὶ tote δὴ
of 132, which precludes such a view.
135. μήνιος «2. ὀλοῆς, see latter
part of note on 126 sup,, and, for o4.,
App. A. 3 (1). |
137—8. tw δὲ is subject of μυϑ εί-
ony in 1403 139 adds a circumstance,
the excess of wine on the part of the
troops, as a reason for the expression
μὰψ ... κόσμον, δὲ being = γάρ, see
on 49. paw and μαψιδέως commonly
lead the verse; for exceptions cf. mar.:
join μάψ κ. τ. 4. and ἐς ἠέλιον x. with
μῦϑον μυϑ. following. ἐς H&A. xat.,
the debate was so long, because in
the state of the Assembly, οἴνῳ βεβ.,
much time would be idly lost.
139. οἴνῳ BEB. Agam. is reproached
as οἰνοβαρὲς by Achilles, but also as
a coward, which he certainly was not,
see A., his ἀριστεῖα. Hence the re-
reproach is probably the contumely of
unmeasured anger. So in insolent scorn
Antin. reproaches Odys., ᾧ. 293— 4.
-Odys. pleads vinous excitement as
Jeading a man to act beyond himeelf,
play, dance, sing, etc. The suitors
once appear to sit over their wine till
74
——— me .-.. - -.-ν -
a ὃ. 313, 362, 560,
ε. 18, B. 159.
b A
ς 4.105; ef. uv. 313.
d Ζ. ay 501:
εἴ. O. 21 .
e a. 8 nar οὐδ᾽ »
Ι Υ̓͂. 460.
Β' .4.. 2.9. 427
he. 79, & 228, ὁ
δέ, 400.
i δ. 583.
k 4. 301—5.
Ι γ- 1, ξ. 518, 8 χ 23,
. 193,
ΠῚ τ 43, 03, 9
159, 27.252, N
534, O. 355, δ),
IT. 769, 4. 213;
cf 387
né .
o y. 490, o. 40, 188,
π. 367, τ. 342
p y- 131, 160.
q 4. 179, 187, x.
900, 314, 0. 146.
---- ___»sa
143. ἐξήνδανε.
146. Ρήδη.
ΟΔΥΣΣΕΙΑΣ Τ.΄
148. ξεπέεσσιν.
149. ἔστασαν Ern. Cl. ed. Ox., ἕστασαν Harl. Ven. Wolf.
potioribus legi monent Scholl. E. H. M. Q. R.
140—163.
[Day 11].
μὖῦϑον μυϑείσϑην τοῦ εἵνεκα λαὸν ἄγειραν.
ἔνϑ᾽ ἡ τοι Μενέλαος ἀνώγει πάντας ᾿Αχαιοὺς
τι] νόστου μιμνήσκεσϑαι ἐπ᾽ εὐρέα" νῶτα θαλάσσης,
““γαμέμνονι πάμπαν ἑήνδανε- βούλετο γάρ ῥα
λαὸν ἐρυκακέειν- ῥέξαι ϑ᾽ ἱερὰς ἑκατόμβας.
ὡς τὸν ᾿4“ϑηναίης δεινὸν χόλον ἐξακέσαιτο. ἃ
ὀνήπιος,ἷ οὐδὲ τὸ ἤδη ὃ οὐ πείσεσθαι ἔμελλεν.
οὐ γάρ" τ᾽ αἷψα ϑεῶν ἐρέπεται νόος aityi ἐόντων.
‘|ag* τὼ μὲν χαλεποῖσιν ἀμειβομένω ἐπέεσσιν
"0, ξστασαν" οἵ δ᾽ a&vdgovoay! ἐὔχνημιδες ᾿Ζχαιοὶ
lB. 367. ἠχῇ ϑεσπεσίῃ.."" δίχα δέ σφισιν ἥνδανε βουλή."
νύχτα μὲν ἀέσαμενο χαλεπὰ φρεσὶν dguatvorres
ἀλλήλοις" ἐπὶ γὰρ Ζεὺς» ἤρτυε πῆμα! κακοῖο"
ἠῶϑεν δ᾽ οἱ μὲν νέας ἕλκομεν εἰς ἅλα δῖαν
-----....-
150. co. Envi Frvdave.
151. εἰάσαμεν a
153. pro εἰς ἅλα δῖαν Harl,
mar. ἀκ φιελίσσας.
slumber supervenes, but the effect is
there ascribed to the express agency
of Pallas. Elpenor is the only clear
case of a Homeric Greek overcome
with wine (olvoBage/my), save the As-
sembly here (mar.). The Cyclops is
the only example of stupid or ‘‘dead’’
drunkenness, and the centaur Eurytion
of aggressive insolence produced by
wine; but both these lie without Greek
society, in which the rule αἴσιμα πί-
νειν, φ. 294, scems to have prevailed.
See Gladst, II. 447.
144—7. ἐρυχακ.,, cf. for reduplica-
tion in 254 syllable ἠἡνέπαπον and ἐνέ-
vinov from ἐνέπτω. — ἐξακέσ., 80 we
have χόλος ἀνήχεστος (mar.).— νήπιος
implies that Nestor, the speaker, knew
better. ἔμελλε, i. e. ᾿4ϑήνη, was not
likely to comply or relent. ov γάρ τ᾿
κι t. 4, With the sentiment contrast
Eurip. Med. 960, πείϑειν δῶρα καὶ
ϑεοὺς λόγος, and I. 497 JOTQENTOL
δέ te καὶ ϑεοὶ αὐτοί. τ᾽ is τε (see
mar.) adding emphasis to γὰρ = ‘but
no! for the mind of the gods etc.”’,
α ya seems the emphatic word, “gud-
denly’’ == without grave reason. For
alte see on ἃ. 11, αἰπὺν. Cf. the vain
attempt of the Trojans to propitiate
Pallas in Z. 311.
149. Here the aor. comes in, see on
—— ee ---
103 near the end. ‘The affair of the
ἀγορὴ is spoken of as ἃ completed
event. For this discerd between the
Atridee see App. E. 1 (1), 4 (4) end,
8 (8).
149—50. ἀνόρουσ. » used especially
of a start of surprise, breaking off
some occupation (mar.). ϑεόπεσ.,
Doederl. 500, notices that the sense
of εἰπεῖν is so far lost in this com-
pound, that Sophoc. Cid. Tyr. 463
has re-introduced it in ϑεσπιέπεια;
render “awful’’.
51. ἀέσαμι., used, commonly with
νύκτα, of a halt in travelling, not
implying sleep (mar.). ἄημι to blow
(cf. avexvevoay of breathing, respite,
Schol.), is the robable present; but
in meaning fave comes nearer this
aor. ἄεσα. Curtius (I. 587) connects
radically ἄημι (ἀξάω ¢-afo lave)
ἀὴρ ἄελλα αὔρα, «οὖρος. — χαλεπὰ
ge. ὁρμαέν., ‘revolving ungentle
thoughts’’, as variance of opinion
produced misunderstanding.
152-33. πήμια κακοῖο, 80 πῆμα
κακὸν, κακὸν καὶ πῆμα, and δύης
πῆμα are found; πῆμα often stands
for some bane wrought by supernatural
power, 6. 9. 9. 446, τίς δαέμων τόδε
πῆμα προσηγαγε:
140
145
150
160
qn
DAY 111.|
--------- ..-ὕ....
κτήματα" τ᾽ ἐντιϑέμεσθα βαϑυξώνους" τε γυναῖκας.
155 ἡμίσεες δ᾽ ἄρα λαοὶ ἐρητύοντο" μένοντες
αὖϑι παρ᾽ "Arostdn ᾿Δγαμέμνονι., ποιμένι λαῶν᾽
ἡμίσεες δ᾽ ἀναβάντες ἐλαύνομεν" αἵ δὲ μάλ᾽ ὦκα
ἔπλεον, ἐστόρεσεν δὲ ϑεὸς μεγακήτεα ἱ πόντον.
ἐς Τένεδον" δ᾽ ἐλθόντες ἐρέξαμεν loa ϑεοῖσιν,
οἴκαδε ἱέμενοι" Ζεὺς δ᾽ οὔ πω μήδετο νόστον,
σχέτλιος, ὅς δ᾽ ἔριν ὦρσεΞ κακὴν ἔπι δεύτερον" αὖτις.
οἵ μὲν ἀποστρέψαντες ἔβαν νέας ἀμφιελίσσας
aug’: Ὀδυσῆα ἄνακτα daipoova* ποικιλομήτην,
αὗτις ἐπ᾽ ᾿Ατρείδῃη 4γαμέμνονι ἤρα! φέροντες.
αὐτὰρ ἐγὼ σὺν νηυσὶν ἀολλέσιν," at μοι Exovto,
φεῦγον. ἐπεὶ γίγνωσκον" ὃ δὴ κακὰ μήδετο δαίμων. | 6 305,
φεῦγε δὲ Τυδέος υἱὸς ἀρήιος,. doce δ᾽ ἑταίρους me
160. focxade Sréwevor.
OATZIZEIAX Γ.
162. ἀμφιιελέσσας.
154—167. 95
ae. 10—2, &. 263
—5, 1. 138—9.
b 1. 594; cf. S. 122.
ς @. 345, O. 3, 367.
d @. 22, δ. 1, B.
S81, 4. 600.
e 4. 38, 452, 4.
625, N. 33.
[γ. 132 mar.
g cf. 10.
ἢ τ. 65, y. 69.
i Z. 436 sey., JF.
| 81—6, AT. 139
seq., O. 301 seq.
κα. 48 mar.
| π. 8915, σ. 5, 4.
572, 518, ,Ξ. 132,
τ. 343.
m γ. 412, 427, ὃ.
418, DF. 391, x.
9, A. 225,
312, 491,
nw. 995,
163. Favexta. 164. Foe.
163. ποικιλόμητιν Harl. ex emend.
I54—]7. γυναῖχας, as part of the
spoil (mar.). meéd., half the forces
tarried with Agam., the rest, among
them Nestor, embarking at once against
his wishes. a δὲ, t. e. νῆες under-
stood from ἀναβάντες. With Badvt.
cf. βαϑυκόλπων (mar.). What we call
a ‘‘Grecian waist’’ is short; but the
arrangement of the girdle would cer-
tainly fluctuate with taste and fashion.
Here probably loose folds hanging deep
over the girdle, are meant; see Dict.
antiq. 8. v. TUNICA.
158—9. ἐστόρεσ., cf. stratum silet
aquor, Virg. Bucol. IX. 57. μεγακῆ.,
this epith. views the whole sea as
gathered in one vast gulf (cf. the cava
flumina of Virg. Geor. I. 326), a liquid
bulk filling an immense concavity; see
Buttm. Lexil. 7o, δ. 1 note, and App. B.
162 — 4. οἱ μὲν eee aug’ ‘Odve.,
i. e. ‘‘Odyss. and his people’, Donalds.
Gr. Gr. § 399 (y) would restrict this
usage to “later Greek’’, but the pas-
sages (mar,.) adduced by Ni. seem to
prove it Homeric. ἐπ᾽ ... yoa φέρ.,
tmesis for ἐπιφέροντες ἦρα. Buttm.
Lexil. 62 does not recognize ἐπέηρα,
but always detaches the ἐπὶ, wherever
ἐπίηρα is commonly read, to go in
tmesis with φέρω, always found in
conjunction with it. Yet ἐρεῆρες and
ἐπιήρανα surely justify ἐπέηρα; cf.
also ἐπιμάρτυροι, and adverbs ἐπιπό-
vos, ἐπισμυγερώς, in some of which
some critics detach the ἐπί.
16s—8s. Nestor provided for himself,
and his age probaBly enabled him to
dispense with personal deference to
the chief of the host. We may con-
jecture that Odys., secure perhaps
of the favour of Pallas for himself, felt
not the alarm of Nestor, and had a
strong sense of duty to his chief; since
Nestor with delicacy omits to touch
on what was the ἔρις κακὴ (159) in
which he and Odys. were involved.
For Odysseus’ adherence to Agam. 866
App. E. I, (1), for Menelaus’ aban-
donment of him see App. E. .8 (8).
αολλέ., this adj., which occurs 30
times in H., is always placed as here,
closing the 418 foot and making it, as
also the 34, a dacty!, mostly followed
by some slight pause (mar.). It is
strikingly descriptive of men, ships, &c.
thronging each other mostly with some
sense of disorder and hurry; certain
parts of the verbs αολλεω, αολλέξω
occur, but not in the Ody. After the
first halt expressed by the aor. ἀέσα-
μὲν (151), the imperf. tense is resumed
in ἤρτυε (152); then again follows de-
lay at Tenedos and further division
described by the aor. 158—64; again
a short progress in the imperf. 165—7;
then further delay at Lesbos again in
the aor, 168—g. The imperf. takes us
δ᾽
.-...-.... .. ree oe
ΟΔΥΣΣΕΊΙΑΣ Γ΄. 168—182.
[DAY 111.
a δ. 706, ε. 322, ὀψὲ" δὲ δὴ μετὰ νῶι κίε ξανϑὸς Μενέλαος,
ῃ. 155, v.
b 2277, B. δ6,.] ἐν “έσβῳ δ᾽ ἔκιχεν δολιχὸν πλόον oguatvortas,
Ε. 355, H.
A. 498,
240, N. 765.
e B. 324, μ. 394,
P. 645-7, AZ.
199—209, $2. 292.
ad N. 241.
M. ΤῊ ἢ καϑύπερϑε Χίοιο νεοΐίμεϑα παιπαλοέσσης,
νήσου ἔπι Ψυρίης, αὐτὴν ἐπ᾽ ἀριστέρ᾽ " ἔχοντες;
ἢ ὑπένερϑε Χίοιο, παρ᾽ ἠνεμόεντα Μίμαντα.
,;ἠτέομεν δὲ ϑεὸν φῆναι τέρας" " αὐτὰρ 6 γ᾽ ἡμῖν
, #489, x. δεῖξε γ. καὶ ἠνώγει πέλαγος " μέσον εἰς Εὔβοιαν
e App. Β. (3) mar.
fe vir
129, 23
Ε 2. 84, ὦ. 20. τέμνειν, ὄφρα τάχιστα ὑπὲκ κακότητα φύγοιμεν.
i ὅδ. 380—1.
k y. 10.
12. 130, y. 6.
ow. 347. , -
p y. 321, =. 16.
q ef. ὃ. 389.
re. 262, uw. 399.
s B. 559.
t B. 525, M. 56.
u A. 760, TI. 378. |
ὦρτο δ᾽ éxl® λιγὺς" οὖρος ἀήμεναι" αἵ δὲ wad’ ὦκα
[ἐχϑυόεντα' κέλευθα διέδραμον. ἐς δὲ Γεραιστὸν
n 7.218, Α΄. 40--. ἐννύχιαι κατάγοντο" " Ποσειδάωνι! δὲ ταύρων
| πόλλ᾽ Exi™ uno” ἔϑεμεν," πέλαγος μέγαμετρήσαντες"
τέτρατον ἡμαρ" ἔην, ὅτ᾽ ἐν 4ργεῖ" νῆας ἐΐσας
Τυδείδεω ἕταροι Aropydeog ἱπποδάμοιο
ἔστασαν "" αὐτὰρ ἐγώ γε Πύλονδ᾽ ἔχον," οὐδέ ποτ᾽ ἔσβην"
180. ἐξξέσας.
169. Λέσβῳ δ᾽ av Bek. δηποῖ
up again in 173--- 4. but is broken by the
momentary action δεῖξε; and in 176 the
last stage, including the arrival home,
closes the whole in the aor.; broken,
however, by the continued action ἔχον
in 182. Thus a series of completed
pauses is interspersed with the pro-
gress of the tale.
168. νῶι, dual, Diomedes and me.
170— 2. From Lesbos Chios lies to
the S., and Psyria to the W. according
to one Scholiast about 80, or to another
about 40 stadia from Chios, sheltering
vessels, when storm-beaten, from the
fEgean. The alternative was to steer
“above” i. 6. to the N. of (καϑύπερϑ ε)
Chios in the direction of Psyria and
keeping Chios (αὐτὴν) on their left, or
to sail between Chios and the Asiatic
coast, of which Mimas (named from
a fabulous giant, one of those who
warred against Zeus. Hor. Carm. III.
IV. 53) is a cape, this is called ‘‘under
Chios’’. In the former case they would
cross the gsan at once, which course
they eventually took; in the latter they
would make short casts from island to
island, as was usual in the timorous
navigation of that early day. ἐπ᾽ a@e-
στέρ᾽, see App. A. 18.
173. Deow, the god meant could not
be Zeus nor Dallas, who were then
αι. δ᾽ ἐπ᾽ Harl.
Schol. H., ita Heidelb. mar.
178. ἐννύχιοι Rhian.,
enraged with the Greeks, but is pro-
bably Poseidon, the deity of the Ne-
leid house, and in whose worship the
speaker had been recently engaged,
who is also named 178 inf. as thanked
by sacrifice for the passage. This god
effects a τέρας in Ψ. 162—9, although
the word is not there used; cf., how-
ever, its use in B. 324 for a similar
transformation. See also, for a τέρας
to sailors, J.75—7, ἀστέρα ..... ἡναυ-
THOL τέρας ἠὲ στρατῷ εὐρέϊ λαῶν.
Such is, perhaps, intended here.
176—8. at dé, i. ὁ. νῆες as in 157.
Γεραιστ., the southern point of Eu-
bea; a temple of Poseidon is said to
have stood there. ἐννύχεαι, a Schol.
gives ἐννύχιοι, as if meant of the men:
N. B. ἐννύχιος, like παννύχιος, is of
3 terminations, ἔννυχος πάννυγχος of 2.
It means ‘‘in the night’’ following the
414 day, see on 180.
179—8o. ἐπὲ, with Ποσειδ. 178 means
“in honour’ of that god. tétgator,
the four stages were probably Tene-
dos, Lesbos, Eubma (reached in the
night), Argos. So Achilles conld in 3
days from the Troad reach Phthia, I.
362. A Schol. reckons the 4 days,
however, from quitting Leshos. .
182—3. ἔστασαν, 3. pl. 1. aor. for
ἔστησαν, a rare form, and in several
170
180
DAY 111.] OATZZEIAL Γ΄. 183—196. “949
οὖρος, ἐπεὶ δὴ πρῶτα , ϑεὸς προέηκεν" anvat. [ἃ x. 2.
ὡς ἦλθον, φίλε τέκνον." ἀπευϑὴς," οὐδέ τι οἶδα ΤΩΣ δ
185 κείνων, οἵ τ᾿ ἐσάωϑεν ᾿“χαιῶν οἵ τ᾽ ἀπόλοντο" are
ὕσσα δ᾽ ἐνὶ μεγάροισι καϑήμενος ἡμετέροισιν 4 8 γ. 45 mar.
πεύϑομαι, ἢ" ϑέμις ἐστὶ, δαήσεαι." οὐδέ σε κεύσω.5 δῇ ΩΝ
\ we 7 ’ oy. .
εὖ μὲν Μυρμιδόνας φάσ᾽ ἐλθέμεν ἐγχεσιμώρους ." h B. 692, 810, H.
ovs ἄγ᾽ "AydAjog μεγαϑύμου φαίδιμος υἱὸς, Ξ it ἢ BH
190 εὖ δὲ Φιλοκτήτην" Ποιάντιον ἀγλαὸν!" υἱόν" Ble
πάντας δ᾽ Ἰδομενεὺς" Κρήτην εἰσήγαγ᾽ ἑταίρους, Ld. 138, IT. 185.
ot φύγον" ἐκ πολέμου, πόντος δέ of οὔ τιν᾽ ἀπηύρα.» "Bh,
᾿Δτρείδην δὲ καὶν αὐτοὶ ἀκούετε νόσφιν ἐόντες, oe 204, σ. 273.
( 2
ὥς τ᾽ ἦλϑ᾽ ὥς τ᾽ Αἴγισϑος ἐμήσατον λυγρὸν ὄλεϑρον. «γ' 29.
195 ἀλλ᾽ ἡ τοι κεῖνος μὲν ἐπισμυγερῶς " ἀπέτισεν. : δ a ito, wt:
4.5, T. 80, 235.
aR. Ροῖδα.
ὡς ἀγαϑὸν x καὶ παῖδα καταφϑιμένοιο λιπέσθαι"
192. οι.
196. ἀποφϑιμένοιο Schol. A. 793-
places, where found, the MSS. fluctuate
between it and ἴστασαν, as B. 525.
ἔχον, with object νῆα; ἔχω is espe-
cially so used, with ship, chariot,
etc. (mar.). oveos, H. doves not no-
tice that the same wind which was
fair from Lesbos to Greece would not
have him carried them round Tsenarus
and thence northwards to Pylos. Poe-
tically, however, the wind never failed
and was an ovgosg still.
184—7. axevd., see on 88. xel-
vey, “those” whom we left 155—6
with Agam. ᾿Αχαιῶν, this gen. is
“‘ elegantly redundant’’, i. 6. added to
give dignity to the manner of stating
without adding anything to the matter
of the statement; so B. 87. ἢ ϑέμι.,
(see on 45) refers to danoeae “you shall
know, as it is right you should’’.
188. ἐγχεσιμι. With this cf. lopa-
ροι, ὑλακόμωροι for the second element,
for the other ὀρεσσι- βάτης τειχεσι -
πλήτης, these last suggest that that
second element is a verbal, probably
akin to μεέρομαι Eppoga, in sense of
having allotted to one; this also suits
σινάμωρος Herod. V. 92, in which the
former element is the noun olvos ; for
the ὦ in -μῶρος cf, τρωπάω τρύπος,
νωμάω νόμος. Indeed ἐγχεσίμοόρος ὑλα-
κόμορος could not enter the hexameter,
any more than ἄϑανατος or Πριαμίδης.
189. υἱὸς, Neoptolemus, left in Scy-
ros by his iather during the carlier
part of the war, whence Odys, fetched
him at its closo. His valour and coun-
sel are lauded 4, 506— 37. Pindar,
Nem, VII. 50 foll., has preserved a
tradition that, after being king in Mo-
lossia on his return from Troy, he was
slain at Delphi by the priest there,
Macherus, whose claim to a share of
the victim offered he had despised; see
on δὶ 5 [0]].
190. Philoctetes, son of Poan, Β.
721—3, abode in Lemnos, disabled by
the bite of a serpent. From 9. 219—20
we see that he subsequently joined the
Greek army, as perhaps is implied Β.
724—5. In ὃ. 219 Odys. confesses his
superior archery. Sophocles has em-
bodied in his Philoctetes a legend that
the hero was conveyed to Troy by
Odys. and Neoptol.
193 — 5. ἀχουύ., see on ὅδ. 688 for
accus., Ἀτρείδην, in this sense fol-
lowing this verb, for the form of sen-
tence see on 16 sup. Αἴγισϑ., see
App. E. 5. ἐπισμι., probably akin
to μόγος μογέω; cf. σμικρὸς μικρὸς,
and in Eng. smelt and melt, smoulder
and moulder; there is no adj. ᾿ἐπισμυγε-
οός, but the verb ἐπιμογέω is found in
tmesis (7. 19) in sense of ‘‘to feel an-
guish /fur’’ a person; 80 here, ‘the
(ZEgisth.) has expiated it fo his sorrow’
196—8. ὡς dyad., ‘how good it
78
ΟΔΥΣΣΕΊΙΑΣ ΓΤ.
197 — 209. [DAY ITT.
a a. 298—302, 40) ἀνδρὸς." ἐπεὶ καὶ κεῖνος ἐτίσδατο πατροφονῆα,
b J. 358, H. 87.
ey. 79.
d μ. 184.
Aiyiotov δολόμητιν. ὅς of πατέρα κλυτὸν ἔκτα.
[καὶ σὺ, φίλορ, (μάλα γάρ σ᾽ ὁρόω καλόν τε μέγαν τε)
ὁ ὦ, 46, ε. 477, π.͵ ἄλκιμος ἔσσ᾽, ἵνα τίς σε καὶ ὀψιγόνων" εὖ εἴπῃ."
37.
Γα. 344, y. 83.
g 4. 76, 255, a
433, B 119
Ζ. 358, 5. ‘580,
w. 197.
ιν. 193, G4,
168. x
il. me.
k 7.93, ρ. 588, σ.
143, Η 170, 370,
A. 695.
1 δ. 208, a. G4;
ef. ¢. 188.
m ¢. 190, v. 311.
-- οορρο“Πὅ΄΄΄ὃἝὃἝ --...-.Ὄ. .......
198. o fot.
199 — 200. auctore Aristoph.
H. M. 9.
πυϑέσϑθαι Wolf., utramque Eustath.
200. «εέπῃ.
improbantur ex a. 301—2 “hue translati,
203. μὲν pro μὲν Bek. annot.
τὸν δ᾽ av Τηλέμαχος πεπνυμένος ἀντίον ηὔδα
“ae Νέστορ Νηληιάδη. μέγα κῦδος ᾿4χαιῶν,
᾿ καὶ" λίην κεῖνος μὲν ἐτίσατο, καί of ᾿Ζχαιοὶ
οἴσουσι κλέος" εὐρὺ καὶ ἐσσομένοισι πυϑέσθϑαι.
ai γὰρ ἐμοὶ τοσσήνδε ϑεοὶ δύναμιν περιϑεῖεν.
"τίσασϑαιϊ μνηστῆρας ὑπερβασίης ἀλεγεινῆς,
οἵ τέ μοι ὑβρίξοντες ἀτάσϑαλα! μηχανόωνται,
ἀλλ᾽ οὔ μοι τοιοῦτον ἐπέκλωσαν! ϑεοὶ ὄλβον,
πατρί τ᾽ ἐμῷ καὶ ἐμοί: νῦν δὲ χρὴ τετλάμεν" ἔμπης. ”
203. For.
Scholl.
204. ἀοιδήν Ern. ΟἹ. ed. Ox.,
205, περιϑεῖεν Bek. juxta Schol. H.,
ceeteri παραϑεῖεν.
is!’’ λιπέσϑαε, H. uses the 2 aor.
mid. of λεέπω in pass. sense, (mar.)
ἐλίπην λιπῆναι etc, not being found in
him. ὅς od κ. τ. 1., a clause expansive
of πατροφονῆα, see on α. 1 πολύτρο-
πον, and cf, ἀδμήτην ἡ ἣν κ΄ τ. λ. γ. 383.
199 --- 200, these verses recur from
α. 301, but are probably genuine here |
also, and hint obliquely (Nestor’s po-—
liteness preventing more direct allusion
to the private difficulties even of one
80 much younger), at the occasion for
vigour afforded by the state of affairs
at Ithaca. This allusion draws out a
full statement an those affairs from
Telem., see App (end),
204. καὶ eso, voudt, the καὶ
implies to future as well as present
hearers. πυϑέσθϑαι, the reading ἄοι-
δὴν seems to have originated in a gloss
on κλέος εὐρὺ based on @. 580, ἕνα
joe καὶ ἐσσομένοισιν dowdy, and
ὦ. 197 τεύξουσι δ᾽ ἐπιχϑονίοισιν
ἀοιδὴν, Ἡ. has two forms of phrase,
with slight variation, to express the
prospect of renown or infamy among
future ages: one is “this will be base
or will be a shame (αἰσχρὸν, λώβη), or
the like, for future ages to hear (xv-
Biota)”; the other, “they will make
a song in future ages about such a
person’’, or ‘such an event will be-
come a sung, such person will be sung
about (ἀοιδὴ ἀοίδιμου), etc. among
future agea’’: nowhere, unless ἀοιδὴ
be read here, is it brought in as a
second to a previous noun like κλέος,
nor here is it so good a second to
κλέος as πυϑέσθαι is: “shall diffuse
his renown widely for future ages {0
hear”? is better than the hendiadys
“his renown and a song about him for
future men’’. The difference, however
slight, on either ground, seems in fa-
vour of πυϑέσϑαι.
20C
205
205. τοσσήνδε, followed by infin., -
with ellipsis of ὅσον, expresses ‘just
so much as to punish”’.
206—7;. τέσασϑ΄., this accus. of per-
son with gen. of thing is common with
this verb, see Jelf, Gr. Gr. § 500: in
216 ἀποτίσεται has dat. (σφι) of per-
son, accus. of thing, and in o. 236 an
accus. of each. For atad®. sec on @.7.
208—9. MOL... πατρί τ᾽ ἐμῷ καὶ
ἐμοέ, the ever present remembrance
of his father (cf. α. 115, 135, B. 46, 134)
occurs to Telem. as he is speaking of
himself, and occasions him thus to cor-
rect, as it were, his words. ἐπέκλ.,
sce on @.17; in similar sense of destiny
or lot, we have ἐπένησε, “‘spun’’, T. 128,
Q. 210. ὄλβος means “wealth”, alike
in the older sense of happiness and in
the modern sense of riches. Pindar is
210
220
DAY It. |
OATZZEIALY Γ΄. 210—224.
79
tov δ᾽ ἠμείβετ᾽ ἔπειτα Γερήνιος ἱππότα ΝΝέστωρ ..γ. 10), 1 Os.
«(αι φίλ᾽, ἐπεὶ δὴ ταὐτά μ᾽ ἀνέμνησας καὶ ἔειπες"
φασὶ μνηστῆρας σῆς μητέρος εἵνεκα πολλοὺς
ἐν μεγάροις, ἀέκητι" σέϑεν. κακὰ μηχανάασθϑαι. -
εἰπέ μοι ἠὲ ἑκὼν ὑποδάμνασαι, ἢ σέ γε λαοὶ
ἐχϑαίρουσ᾽ ἀνὰ δῆμον, ἐπισπόμενοι ϑεοῦ ὀμφῇ."
τίς" δ᾽ οἷδ᾽ εἴ κέ ποτέ σφι βίας ἀποτίσεταιε ἐλϑὼν,
ἢ ὅ γε μοῦνος" ἐὼν. ἢ καὶ σύμπαντες ᾿4χαιοί;
eli γάρ σ᾽ ὡς ἐϑέλοι φιλέειν γλαυκώπις ᾿4ϑήνη,
ὡς τότ᾽ Ὀδυσσῆος περικήδετο" κυδαλίμοιο
δήμω! ἔνι Τρώων, ὅϑι πάσχομεν ἄλγε᾽ ᾿4χαιοὶ,
(οὐ γάρ πω ἴδον ὧδε ϑεοὺς ἀναφανδὰπ"π φιλεῦντας
ὡς κείνῳ ἀναφανδὰ παρίστατο" Παλλὰς ᾿4“ϑήνη")
εἶ σ᾽ οὕτως ἐϑέλοι φιλέειν κήδοιτόο τε ϑυμῷ,
τῷ κέν τις» κείνων ye καὶ ἐκλελάϑοιτο γάμοιο."
9 ’
213. @Feante.
221.
211, ἔξειπες.
214. ξειπέ. Senor.
«δον.
|b ε. 177, 19, 2.
91, 0.43, v.42;
1 ef. a. 79, γ. 28,
vm. 93—6.
c π. 134, @. 49%,
gp. 375.
d §. 262, e. 431,
w. 153.
e B. ai, Y. 129;
cf. Θ. 230.
fp. 332.
Καὶ α. 2605 - 510
w. 480. ¢
hv. 30, 40, ψ'. 39,
4. 388.
i K. 285—91.
k §. 527.
ily. 100, ὅδ. 330.
m ἃ. 455, JT. 178;
ef. ¢. 288, ν. 45.
ιπ Y. 121.
ο 4. 196, H. 201.
p a. 302, ν. 394,
427.
-- πω
216. τις «οἱδ᾽.
211. ἐπέμνησας Harl. suprascript. et in ἢ marg. ἐπανέμνησας, ut omisso μ᾽ precedat
ταῦτ.
translatos,
especially fond of this term; tor some
of its related words see App. A. 3 (3).
211. see On 200,
214—5. The genuineness of these
lines here is doubtful, The question
asked by them is not answered, as it
is where they recur (mar.): it implies
that if Telem. were overborne against
his will, it must be through the λαοὶ
taking part against him — a strong
confirmation of the weight due to the
popular element in Homeric politics,
ns laid down in App. A. 4. ἐπισπόμι.
“x. τ᾿ A., this is added politely, not to
seem to suppose that Telem. could
have given any ground for enmity.
ϑεοῦ ὀμφῇ, oracular or prophetic
warning, see on a, 282, Buttm. Lezil.
21, and App. A.
216 --. ὄφε, ‘dat. of special rela-
tion like of α. 88, 91: here the accus.
of the deed (βίας) follows ἀποτίσ.,
as in 206 sup. one of the doer follows
τίσασθαι.
218 — 23. The long-spun sentence
losing itself in a parenthesis, and then
resuming, resembles that in a. 255 foll.,
see note on α. 265. ὧν avda we
find also ἐξαναφανδὸν, and ἀμφάδιον
or -ίην. Visible and manifest help is
213. μηχανάασϑαι Venet. marg.
216—7. ἀποτίσεαι, ov γε Zenod., Schol. H.
214—5 |] Bek., quippe ex x. 95—6
a Ὁ special mark ΟἹ a god's ravour
than help merely, ov γάρ πω xayvt-
εσσι ϑεοὶ φαίνονται ἐναργεῖς π. 161,
cf. οὐ σέ γ᾽ ἔπειτα ἴδον κούρη Διὸς
οὐδ᾽ ἐνόησα x. τ.1. ν. 318—g; see also
App. E. 1 (11).
‘There is a reading of Zenodotus ἢ
σύ ye for ἢ ὃ γε, and ἀποτίσεαι for
ἀποτίσεται, meaning, “who knows
whether you may perchance return to
pay off their wrong, either alone or
with all the Achsans to aid you’’:
but although the words of Telem, 226—8
suit this well, those of Athené in 231
plainly refer to Odys. returning to
avenge; besides, ef... ποτέ... ἐλθὼν
hardly applies with due force to Te-
lem., and the “united Achzans”’ is a
phrase pointing clearly to Odys., cf.
παναχαιοί (mar.). The variation per-
haps arose from the difficulty felt at
passing from 7 ὃ γε (217) to ef γὰρ σ᾽
(218) and εἴ σ᾽ οὕτως (223), which,
however, is only an instance of the
rambling Nestorian style.
224. τις, used by epic litotes as if
= πᾶς τις. The litotes shows con-
temptuous irony: for ἐκλελάϑ'. γά-
goto cf. ἐκλ. ᾿φροδίτης χ. 444.
80
a π. 213, ὁ. 371, |
o. 105
b ὦ. 221.
OATZZEIAZ ΓΤ.
225—238.
τὸν δ᾽ av Τηλέμαχος πεπνυμένος ἀντίον ηὔδα
Sq} γέρον, οὔ πω τοῦτο ἔπος τελέεσθαι ὀΐω"
. 193, . 208, | , : ‘ , - .. Ζ 1 9 . 9 n" . ,
ΗΟ = 108 λίην" yao μέγα εἰπας᾽ ayn” μ᾽ ἔχει᾽ οὐχ ἂν ἐμοί YE
da. οἵ mar.
ς K. 556, β. 322,
ὃ. 207, x. 573, |
σε. 195, Ψ. 185—6.
f 4. 452, g. 309,
E. Ὧι.
g ἢ. 313, τ. 483.
h α. 218,
. 2 1, 55,
. 125. Ὁ
k Jd. 525-- 37, 4.
409—10.
14 140, 211, 1.
ι.
πὶ J, 315, 444, σ.
n tO.
ο ῥ' 100, τ. 145,
135.
P 2. 398; cf. 77.
ὅ59, «. 464.
227. Felnag.
228. «ξελπομένω.
233.
σαώσει 181]. suprascript.
Folnadé.
228. pro οὐδ᾽ ef Zenod. ef μὴ, Scholl. H. M.
ἐλπομένῳ ta γένοιτ᾽, οὐδ᾽ εἰ ϑεοὶ ὡς EFEdovEV.”
τὸν δ᾽ αὗτε προσέειπε ϑεὰ γλαυκῶπις ᾿4ϑήνη
ἐς Τηλέμαχε, ποῖόν σὲ ἔπος φύγεν ἔρκος ἃ ὀδόντων.
ῥεῖα ϑεός γ᾽ ἐθέλων καὶ τηλόϑεν ἄνδρα σαῶώσαι.
βουλοίμην ὃ ἂν ἐγώ γε; καὶ ὶ ἄλγεα πολλὰ μογήσας"
οἴκαδέ τ᾽ ἐλθέμεναι καὶ νόστιμον ἦμαρ" ἰδέσϑαι,
ἢ ἐλϑὼν ἀπολέσϑαι ἐφέστιος . ὡς ᾿Ζγαμέμνων
ὥλεϑ᾽ " ὑπ’ Αἰγίσϑοιο δόλῳ καὶ ἧς ἀλόχοιο.
GAN! ἡ τοι ϑάνατον μὲν ὁμοίιον"" οὐδὲ ϑεοί περ
καὶ" φίλῳ ἀνδρὶ δύνανται ἀλαλκέμεν, ὁππότε κεν δὴ
μοῖρ᾽ ὀλοὴ" καϑέλῃσι τανηλεγέος" Faveroro.”’
229. προσέξειπε. 230. ξέπος.
235. «ῆς.
230. Τηλέμαχος. 231. κ᾽ pro γ᾽,
232—8 improbantibus quinque Scholl. receperunt
Dind. Fa. Loéw., 236—8 solos [] Bek.
226 --ὃ. Telem. answers only the
latter words of Nestor (323—4), , which
had fairly astonished him (ἄγη μ᾽ ἔχει):
— for him, though divinely succoured,
to baffle the suitors, was in his eyes
λέην μέγα. — ἐλπομι., sce Jelf Gr.
§ 599. 3; a dativus commodi often car.
ries a participle describing the fecling
etc. of the person accommodated; in
#Esch. Agam. 1631 the pronoun is omitt-
ed, δεχομένοις λέγεις θανεῖν os. —
οὐδ᾽ εἶ ϑεοὶ κιτ.λ. ‘This is not felt to
involve actual impiety, as the Homeric
conception of divinity is in nearly all
its aspects restrained by limits; cf.
note on α. 22 and App. E. 4 (16).
Athené points out (221) that the act
which he supposed beyond those limits
lay really within them.
230—1. For Τηλέμαχε some MSS.
have Τηλέμαχος, but they are of in-
terior authority. Wermann contends
that in no such word is the voc. in
τος found except φίλος (Bek.) as in
α. 301, — ῥεῖα is especially used by II.
to characterise the ease with which a
god does what man finds impossible ;
cf. ῥεῖα pal’ ὥς te ϑεὸς I. 381, TY.
444, which phrase commonly begins
a line (mar.). For ye the early edd.
give κε after ϑεός. -- xual... Dawa
“could bring a man safe (home) even
from a distance’’: for this sense of
σαώσαι see mar.; 80 Ὁ Xenoph. Anab. V1.
5, § 20, ἣν δὲ δὴ καὶ coPapey ἐπὶ
ϑαάλατταν.
232-5. These lines (which were re-
jected by some ancient critics) if re-
tained, require us to press the sense of
nal... μογήσας ‘‘and (if he be brought
safe home) I for my part would prefer
that lot, even "though I had to toil hard for
it, tothe lotof Agam., who (reached home
without toilsome wandering, but) died
at the domestic hearth by treachery’”’
t. 6. your father’s lot, hard as it is, may
be less so than his. In this view, these
lines need not be rejected. For Bovdoé-
μὴν in sense of malim, followed by ἢ
than, cf. 4. 489—91. — Alyliod. and
ἐλόχ. depend on ὑπὸ, and δόλῳ is
dat. of manner. ἧς adoy. is an ad-
dition to the previous statement of 194
which spoke of Agisthus ouly. For the
full details see 4. 409 foll. and δ. 529
foll. The wife abstracted the victim's
last weapon, the gacyavoy, leaving
him thereby defenceless.
236—8. ᾿ἀλλ᾽ toe (mar.) appears
to be a phrase for breaking off a sub-
ject = “but there — death, the com-
mon lot, not even the gods can etc.”
[DAY III.
225
235
240
245
DAY 111.|
τὴν δ᾽ av Τηλέμαχος πεπνυμένος ἀντίον ηὔδα
“6 Mévrog, μηκέτι ταῦτα" λεγώμεϑα κηδόμενοί" περ.
κείνῳ δ᾽ οὐκέτι νόστος ἐτήτυμος." ἀλλά of ἤδη
φράσσαντ᾽ ἀϑάνατοι ϑάνατον καὶ κῆρα μέλαιναν.
νῦν δ᾽ ἐθέλω ἔπος ἄλλο μεταλλῆσαι" καὶ ἐρέσϑαι
Néorog’, ἐπεὶ περίοιδες δίκας[ ἠδὲ φρόνινε ἄλλων"
τρὶς! γὰρ δή uly φασιν ἀνάξασϑαι! γένε᾽ ἀνδρῶν,
ὥς τε μοι ἀϑάνατος ἰνδάλλεται εἰροράασϑαι.
ΟΔΥΣΣΕΙΑΣ I. 239-246.
81
αν. 296, N. 292.
b X. 416.
ς ὃ. 157; ef. 140,
y. 122.
d y. 69 mar.
6 ρ. 317, N. 728.
fe. 215, 2. 570.
g d. 258.
ἢ A. 280 ---2.
i δ. 177, 602:
k τ. 224, P. 213,
Ys, 460.
241. Foe. 243. 244. S806.
244. weet Forde.
245. ανάξασϑαι.
246. ινδάλλεται.
239. τὸν Barnes. pro τὴν.
perspect& loquentis indole,
ἀνδρῶν alii ἄλλων.
241—2. in dubium vocant quatuor Scholl., parum
244—6 Scholl. H. M. improbant
246. ita Aristoph., Scholl. H. M., et ita Wolf., ἀϑανάτοις
[] Bek. 245: pro
Barnes. Ern, Cl. ed. Ox.
Bek. sets 236—8 in the mar. as spu-
rious. Five Scholl. mark the whole
pass, 232—8 as spurious, the first four
lines as lacking coherence with the
preceding (see, however, note on 232
—5 sup.), the last three as incoherent
with 231. The Venet. Schol. explains
the apparent conflict of this with 231
on the principle that the πεπρωμένη
(wotea) in that case is supposed not to
have reached him, in the latter to have
done so. But there is no conflict if
τήλοϑεν ... σαώσαι be understood, as
in note on 230—1 sup. Then 236—8
is added rather in reference to the death
of Agam. than to the main question
of Odysseus’ return. Telemachus had
positively asserted 227—8 that that
return was beyond hope. He gives in
his next speech 242 the reason, as
though admitting, “a god could bring
him home from however far, were he
alive; but (he is not, for) the gods have
decided on and (he implies) executed
his doom’’. The general sense of
μοῖρ᾽ ὀλ. “x. t. 4. is natural death,
but the κῆρα μέλαινα of 242 is some
violent cutting short of the course of
nature. Whether even Zeus couldthwart
the course of μοῖρα is discussed on e.
436, g. νυ. For tarnd., see on 97—8
sup, and App. A. 22; of τάναος other
compounds occur (mar.).
241—2 are marked as doubtful by
four Scholl. οὐχ. ἐτήτ. means merely
‘‘not assured”’, but implies ‘‘sure not
to be”. This” despondency, perhaps,
expresses the blank disappointment left
HOM. OD, I.
on the speaker’s mind by Nestor’s words;
although inconsistent with the spirit of
Telemachus’ errand of enquiry about
his father, it is yet characteristic of
his tone of mind; see App. E. 3. ἐτήτ.
has cognate forms ἔτυμος, ἔτεος.
244—6 are rejected by two Scholl.
as superfluous, but needlessly. δέκας
in sing. means often custom or the
course of things, but in plur. bears a
higher sense (mar.), cf. mos and mores,
and our ‘‘by rights”: — ‘he is supe-
rior to others in sense of justice and
in information’: meaning he is good
and well informed; cf. ψεῦδος δ᾽ οὐκ
ἐρέει" μάλα γὰρ πεπνυμένος ἐστὶν, γ.
328. — φρόνεν is only found in one
other place (mar.). For ἄλλων, go-
verned by περὶ, cf. a. 66; there is a
var. lec. ἀνδρῶν, arising perhaps from
245.— ἀνάξασ. In A. 252 Nestor μετὰ
τριτάτοισιν ἄνασσεν; the change of
expression here ‘‘marks the difference
between his age in the two poems’’,
Gladst. IIT, rv. § 111. p. 450. We have
ἀνάσσονται pass., an ‘the active verb
frequently (mar.); here the sense is
‘“‘to continue king’’, followed by acc.
of duration, yéve’, sce on £. 35. He-
rod, 11. 142 reckons 3 y vex to a
century, or about 30 years each; see
Gladst. ub. sup. ἐνδαλλ., this word
is used in 1]. (mar.) of a prominent
appearance; so here, ‘‘he strikes me
as immortal’’, since ‘his age and vi-
our seem to defy death ; cf. τι 224,
ως μοι ἰνδάλλεται nrog, where, ἐν-
δάλλ. is probably impers. and ἦτορ
6
[Day 111.
82 ΟΔΥΣΣΕΙΑΣ Γ΄. 247—260.
4 Υ. 101 πιατ. εὖ Νέστορ Νηληιάδη, σὺ δ᾽ ἀληϑὲς ἐνίσπες ""
b γ. 191. ~ 9.2} oe > 4 , 3
c a. 300. ᾿ πῶς ἔϑαν᾽ ᾿Ατρείδης εὐρὺ κρείων AYOMEMVODYV ;
def. 2. 409 full.
e App. D. 9 (3); |
εἴ. α. 24 mar. !
ποῦ Μενέλαος ἔην; τίνα δ᾽ αὐτῷ μήσατ᾽ ὄλεϑρον"
ΔΑϊγισϑος δολόμητις ; ἐπεὶ κτάνε, πολλὸν ἀρείω.
ff. 127, 0. 385, ἢ οὐκ "ἄργεος" ἦεν "Ayauxod, ἀλλά πῃ! ἄλλῃ
x. 110.
g a. 183 mar.
h €. 282, Z. 260.
i δ. 548, ὦ. 284—5.
πλάξετ᾽ ἐπ’ ἀνθρώπους. ὃ δὲ θαρσήσας κατέπεφνεν ;”
τὸν δ᾽ ἠμείβετ᾽ ἔπειτα Γερήνιος ἱππότα Νέστωρ
κα 887, IZ. «5. “τοιγὰρ ἐγώ τοι, τέκνον, ἀληϑέα πάντ᾽ ἀγορεύσω.
' Ἀ' aN “ 4 »
la. 218, 2.81, 4. ἢ τοι μὲν τάδε καὐτὸς)" ὀΐεαι, ὥς κεν ἐτύχϑη,
293, Ζ. 515.
m ¥.956, Ζ, 404, 601 ξωόν" γ᾽ Αϊγισϑον ἐνὶ μεγάροισιν ἔτετμεν'
ef. 2. 15.
n 2. 271, X. 89,
335, 509, YF. 184.
ο 2. 92.
p y. 263, ὅδ. 517—8.
q @®. 404.
258. ἔοι.
——
247. μέγα κῦδος ᾿Αχαιῶν pro ov δ᾽ ἀληϑὲς ἐνίσπες Vind.
᾿χαιικῷ Scholl. H. Q., al. Ἄργος ἔην ἐπ᾽ ‘Azauxov Bek. annot.
Harl. correctum pro tade a man. pri.
Cl. ed. Ox. Bek. Dind., weg Wolf. Fa. Low.
260. ἄστεος Barnes. Ern. Cl, ed. Ox. Bek. Dind.
Scholl. E. M. Q. et H. marg.
260. fexa Faoreos.
"Aroetdns Tootntev ἰὼν ξανϑὸς Mevéhaog:
τῷ κέ of οὐδὲ ϑανόντι χυτὴν"" ἐπὶ γαῖαν ἔχευαν,
ἀλλ᾽ ἄρα τόν γε κύνες" τε καὶ οἰωνοὶ κατέδαψαν"
κείμενονν ἐν πεδίῳ" ἑκὰς ἄστεος" οὐδέ κέ τίς μιν
251. Ἄργει ἔην ἐν
255. τόδε
ὥς κεν Harl. weg suprascr., xéy Ern.
258. nonnulli ἔχευεν, Schol.
Fa., "Agyeog Schol. H. Wolf. Liw.
accus., “in my mind’’. The reading
ἀϑανάτοις was corrected by Wolf to
nom. from the Harl. Schol., who ascribes
the latter to Aristoph. (Ν᾽) The verb
is not elsewhere found with dat. of
thing resembled.
247. ἐνέσπ., see App. A. 1.
248. πῶς, the question means “how
came he to die?” and, coupled with
further questions 249—50, implies that
the speaker could not account for the
two facts of Menel. not defending or
avenging Agam., and of Agisth. over-
coming a so much better man than
himself. The question ποῦ Mevéd. ἔην
is a testimony to the strong brotherly
attachment of Menel.; see App. E. 8 (8).
Telemachus had heard no details of
the voyage home of the Atride, save
that Menel. was of the party who
urged departure (168 sup.), whilst Agam.
was for delay. Hence he might have
reasonably supposed that Menel. would
have reached home at least as soon.
251. "Ἄργεος, local gen., explicable
as a gen. of contact, sce on 23; Jelf
Gr. Gr. § 522. 1, 2 connects with it
the local adverbial forms ποῦ, ἀγχοῦ,
τηλοῦ &c., and the gen. following
verbs of motion, expressing the space
traversed, ϑέειν πεδίοιο X. 23, 30 inf.
476, and the like, which, as well ‘as
the strictly local gen., is very rare in
prose. The two other readings here
are perhaps attempts to get rid of an
unfamiliar construction. The “Achran
Argos’’ = Pcloponucsus, see App. D.
9 (3)-
255. καὐτὸς, plainly by crasis of
καὶ αὐτὸς (see mar.), some read κ᾽ αὖ-
tog, but there is no sense in κε (Ni.).
ὥς χεν, var. lect. ὥσπερ, Which, how-
ever, should mean ‘‘as the actual fact
was’’ not — as the sense requires —
“would have been”’.
256 --- 8. ξωόν 7 » var. lect. ξώοντ᾽,
but ye is found in some parallel
places (mar.) and suits this place better.
We also find rare ep. contracted forms
fog ξὼν (mar.). κέ extends its force
to xatéd away, 259.
260. ἄστεος, the reading Ἄργεος
possibly arose from a wrong notion
that “Agyog was the city of Agam.; sce
App. D. g (1), or it may have been
λῆς
25.
2.6¢
DAY I11.]
3
κλαῦσεν ὃ
ued’: ὃ
2654 δ᾽ ἡ τοι τὸ πρὶν μὲν ἀναίνετο ἔργον ἀεικὲς ." nat
δῖα Κλυταιμνήστρη" φρεσὶ γὰρ κέχρητ᾽ ἀγαϑῇσιν. cf. 2. 36
πὰρ δ᾽ ἄρ᾽ Env καὶ ἀοιδὸςκ ἀνὴρ,! ὦ πόλλ᾽ ἐπέτελλεν ᾿
᾿“τρείδης, Τροίηνδε κιὼν, εἴρυσϑαι" ἄκοιτιν.
ἀλλ᾽ ὅτε δή μιν μοῖρα ϑεῶν ἐπέδησε" δαμῆναι,
261. βέργον. 264. ϑέλγεσκε ἐέπεσσιν.
262. πολλὰς Harl. suprascr. (contra metrum), πολεῖς Bek. annot.
κέκρητ Eustath. Schol. Ρ.
Axauddav μάλα γὰρ μέγα μήσατο ἔργον." .« λ. 72s ef. δ. 197
ἡμεῖς μὲν γὰρ κεῖϑι πολέας" τελέοντες ἀέϑλους
δ᾽ εὔκηλος μυχῷ" “Aeyeos' ἱπποβότοιο
πόλλ᾽ “Ἵγαμεμνονέην ἄλοχον ϑέλγεσκ᾽ ὁ ἐπέεσσιν.
ΟΔΥΣΣΕΙΑΣ Γ΄. 261--- 269. 83
—
" γ, 25 215, E. 303,
ς ὅ. 150.
dl A. 554, §. 479.
ὁ Z. 152
f App. b, 9 (2).
a. 57, π. 39S,
521]
Le. 399, 4, 515.
πι ε. 194, O. 141.
n A. 292, 0.155 -6,
Χ. 5.
265. έργον ἀξεικές.ς 268. ἐείρυσϑαι.
266. var. lect.
267. ‘“‘xag δ᾽ ἄρ᾽ Schol. _uni preefigitur sed πὰρ
γὰρ alii’’, Pors. γὰρ Barnes, Ern. Cl. ed, Ox., δ᾽ ἄρ᾽ Wolf. et recentt.
at first a gloss to explain πεδέῳ: the
expression corresponds to that, aygov
ἐπ᾽ ἐσχατιῇ, where gisthus ‘is said
to have dwelt, and to that of μυχῶ
Ἄργεος (mar.).
261. xAadd., the κλαυϑμὸς was part
of the rites due; so Elpenor says, μὴ
μ᾽ ἄκλαυτον ἄϑαπτον κ᾿ τ΄ A. (mar,).
μέγα ... EQy., this phrase means (mar.)
(1) arduous task, often physical effort,
(2) heroic achievement, (3) . heinous
crime, as here.
262—4. This well describes the con-
trast between the toils of the warrior
lord abroad and the sly craft and quiet
enjoyment (εὔκηλος) of the effeminate
schemer at home.
266. Sce App- E. 2 (7).
267. ἀνὴρ » this added to a noun
(so to χαλκεὺς, ἑητρὸς, etc.), imparts
greater dignity than such a noun alone
would convey; contrast with this usage
the expression φὼς δεκτὴς, by which
contempt perhaps is intended. The
name of the bard is said by a Schol.
to have been Demodocus, the supposi-
tion being that a real name is perpe-
tuated in #. 262 foll.
268. εἴρυσϑαι, see on εξ. 484. Obs.
that no such charge was given by.
Odys. concerning Penelopé — a tri-
bute perhaps to her superior discre-
tion — Mentor’s commission extending
only to the house and goods (β. 225—7).
The Minstrel was singled out for this
office perhaps owing to the sacredness
of his character (zy. 345—6), to which
the mode of his death was no doubt
a tribute; with the barbarous casuistry
which dictated the fate of Antigoné
(Soph. Antig. 773 foll.), he was not
slain by blow of hand, but his death
contrived to appear quasi-nataral. The
moral influence of bards is also dwelt
on by, the Schol.; πάντες αὐτοῖς προσεῖ-
χον ὡς σοφοῖς, "noel παιδευϑῆναι τού-
τοις παρεδίδοσαν τοὺς ἀναγκαίους. It
is clear also that their attainments were
viewed with reverence (mar.) and re-
ferred to a divine source. Such an
one would be free from the political
temptation which partly animated the
suitors against the absent Odys.; thus,
Phemius on the whole remained true
to his lord, and only sung to the suitors
under compulsion (z. 352 foll., cf. a.
184).
269. μεν, whom? Ni. says the ἄοι-
δός, of whom the reader’s mind, he
says, is full: but then the noun for
which μὲν stands (ἀοιδὸν) would hardly
be found in the clause δὴ τότε ...
v. 270; besides the goiga ϑεῶν seems
to refer us rather to the denunciation
of Zeus (α. 35— 43, see note there)
in spite of which Agisthus sinned,
εἰδὼς αἰπὺν ὄλεθρον, i. ec. with a
knowledge of his doom — the μοῖρα
here.
6
84 ΟΔΥΣΣΕΊΙΑΣ I. 270—282. [pay III.
a ‘ ge 4 ’ 4 5 Ἢ μὴ F _ 5 F
bP. ‘Bi. ‘ δὴ tore tov μὲν ἀοιδὸν ἄγων ἐς νῆσον ἐρήμην"
ς 8. 41, v. 208,/ , =e a : ᾿
pet ΡΟΣ κιἰλλιπεννὴ οἰωνοῖσιν ἔλωρ" καὶ κύρμα" γενέσθαι,
| ῶ. ), ©. fi ἐν: —— My .
«δ... τὴν δ᾽ ἐθέλων" ἐθέλουσαν ἀνήγαγεν ὅνδε douorvde,'
174. " ip iy . Res he :
ἔξ Ἦ 305, 4. 90s, πολλὰ δὲ unod’* Exne θεῶν ἱεροῖς ἐπὶ βωμοῖς ."
icf. ε 184, ὦ. 246 Ye ᾿ Ξ : " ᾿ P
—1, #9. πολλὰ δ᾽ dydAuar® ἀνῆψεν, ὑφάσματα" τὲ χρυσόν τε,
κ γ. 425, ὅ. 602 ‘Acie 5 Stent [otek Ψ
Tr: ‘i I 1 τὰ δὰ εἰ
$. δῦη, μ. 347, | 2 Re Say Hane ee | ὃ
Ὁ. soo’ τ ἐκτελέσας μέγα ἔργον," ὁ OV ποτε ἔλπετο ϑυμῶῷ."
1 cf. w. 37, μι. 51,
162, 179.
mcf, 2. M02.
ny. 201 mar.
o y. 319.
pef. γ. 262
y ἡ. 64, ὦ. 410, op.
251, τ. 86, 32. 755,
vu. 276—s, @.
258— 67; cf. 4
172, 108, ὁ. 475,
πα. 202, wv. 71, BO,
roe. 255; ci. Κ. 30,
a a. 127, 219; ef,
4.155, =. 1
271. Félmg. 272. ονδε.
271. κῦρμα Barnes, Ern. Bek., κύρμα Schol. B. Wolf. Dind. Fa, Low.
276. pro ἅμα πλ. Zenod. malt ἀναπλέομεν, Schol, M.
ψαέων Harl. contra metrum nisi omisso axgoy et a metri
Bek. ad Aristoph. Nub. 400.
xeto Barnes.
270. νῆσον, a Schol. calls it Carphé.
274. See mar. for various ἀγάλματα.
— VPA". ... χρυσόν are two de-
scriptions of ἀγάλματα, which sub-
division of a general term is common
in H., see for examples mar.; they
were thank - offerings for the unex-
pected (275) success of his crime.
277. ᾿Ατρεέδης, i. e. Menelaus.
278. 2X. igow, the S. cape of At-
tica, sacred to Poseidon, who is invoked
Aristoph. Eg. 560 as Σουνιάρατε. (Ni.)
A sacred character is ascribed to all
striking natural objects, showing a
sense of the influence of superhuman
power. (Ni.) Aristoph. Nub. 400 has
καὶ Σούνιον axgov Αϑηνέων, where
ἄκρον seems required by the sense,
still, 4ϑηναέων which is also read “in
all editions before Brunck’’ (Pors.),
might scan, omitting ἄκρον. But on
the whole it seems more likely that
᾿Αθηναίων was a gloss both here and
in Aristoph. l.c., since Sunium could
not literally be called a “cape of
Athens (the city)’. So in Aristoph. ἔξ.
159 A®nvatwy crept into the text for
4ϑηνῶν or ᾿Δϑηνέων.
279— 80. In the Ody. Apollo rarely
appears, It is noticed that he gave
275. {έργον «ἕλπετο.
ἡμεῖςν μὲν γὰρ ἅμα πλέομεν Τροίηϑεν ἰόντες.
᾽Ατρείδης καὶ ἐγὼ. φίλα εἰδότες ἀλλήλοισιν"
ἀλλ᾽ dre Σούνιον ρὸν ἀφικόμεϑ᾽., ἄκρον ᾿“ϑηνέων.
ἔνϑα κυβερνήτην Μενελάου Φοῖβος ᾿“΄πόλλων"
οἷς ἀγανοῖς βελέεσσιν ἐποιχύμενος κατέπεφνεν,
πηδάλιον μετὰ χερσὶ θεούσης νηὺς ἔχονται,
εἶ. B.si3—-4. Φρόντιν Ὀνητυρίδην., ὃς ἐκαίνυτο" φῦλ᾽ ἀνθρώπων
277. ferdoreg. 280. (οῖς.
275. na-
278, 4ὃη-
gratia product&; cf.
stature and imanly ripeness to youths,
with which is to be connected his
function, the privative of this, of cutt-
ing short the prime of youth and man-
hood by a sudden extinction. His sister
Artemis has precisely the same func-
tions for her sex. He occurs as the
patron of archery, worshipped with
special festivals in Ithaca, and she is
ἰοχέαιρα, as he ἑκηβόλος. The epith.
ἕχατος H. 83 may also be compared
with the name Ἑκάτη, which in post-
Homeric mythology is a synonym of
Artemis. The death of the children of
Niobé (2. 605 etc.) was not an exer-
cise of those previous functions, 80
much as an act of vengeance or dis-
pleasure; so also probably that of Otus
and Ephialtes (4. -318), though the
added fact of their early youth (319
-- 20) suggests a reference to such
functions; as does the case of Eurytus
cf. οὐδ᾽ ἐπὶ γῆρας fuer’ (9. 226—7).
Artemis’ slaying Orion pertains per-
haps to her functions as a huntress
.(& 123—4).
282. Perhaps καένυμαι, in connexion
with xexaopevog ἐκεκάσμην etc. (as
clearly traced by Buttm. Gr. Verbs s.v.),
is also related to yatw, κέκαδον, xe-
2.70
275,
285
290
DAY 1π.]}
--.«..-ἰ.-.. Ο Ξ-Ξ-.-.-Ὸςσ’....
νῆα κυβερνῆσαι, ὁπότε σπερχοίατ᾽ ἄελλαι."
ὃς ὃ μὲν ἔνϑα κατέσχετ᾽ ἐπειγόμενός" περ ὁδοῖο,
ὄφρ᾽ ἕταρον ϑάπτοι καὶ ἐπὶ xrégea® κτερίσειεν."
ἀλλ᾽ ὅτε δὴ καὶ κεῖνος. ἰὼν ἐπὶ οἴνοπα“ πόντον
ἐν νηυσὶ γλαφυρῇσι, Μαλειάων ὄρος αἰπὺ
ἷξε ϑέων, τότε δὴ στυγερὴν ὁδὸν εὐρύοπα" Ζεὺς
ἐφράσατο, λιγέων' δ᾽ ἀνέμων ἐπ᾽ ἀὐντμένα χεῦεν
κύματά TE τροφόεντα πελώρια, ἶσα ὄρεσσιν.
ἔνϑα διατμήξας! τὰς μὲν Κρήτῃ ἐπέλασσεν,"
nye" Κύδωνες" ἔναιον Ἰαρδάνουν» ἀμφὶ ῥέεϑρα.
ἔστι δέ τις λισσὴ αἰπεῖά τε εἰς ἄλα πέτρη
ἐσχατιῇ" Γόρτυνος," ἐν ἠεροειδέϊ" πόντῳ"
286. folvora.
OATZZEIAZ Γ᾿ 283—294.
ago. Εἴσα.
SR ῷ 2.0 orn
3° *
SONS wr Sree FolpMBRAWRARS aS
3
ς
ῳ 5
“Ὁ
-"»ὄϑὉ
@.
Ὡ
EES.
RN
᾿ς καὶ
Ree
x
dn
onatos 6
5
»ὦ
Rms
πὸ
294. ἠεροιςξειδέϊ.
283. σπέρχοιεν ἔτι. Cl. ed. Ox. Bek., fortasse ex N. 334, cf. & 304, σπερ-
yorat Harl. ex emend, ejusd. man. Wolf. οἱ recentt., alii σπέρχωσιν var. 1. H. Ste-
phan.
φόεντα legi memorat.
289. pro δ᾽ alii τ᾽, utramque dedit Arist.
Aristarcho vix probabiliter tribuit Schol., ipse vitium procul dubio passus.
vero tes@oevta et manifesto errore τροφόεντο
τροφέοντα Schol. A. 307. Eustath. et hic et
293. Λισσὴ Scholl. H. M. Q. V., Asoony Crates,
290. tgoqeovto Ambros. quod
Iam
ro τροφέοντο Scholl. exhibent.
. 621 tum τροφέοψτα tum τρο--
Scholl. M. V.
κάδοντο, κεκαδήσω, of which he says
“‘the act. voice had in the older lan-
guage the causative sense of ‘J cause
to retire, drive back’; thus ἐκαένυτο
here ‘distanced’, lit. ‘caused to retire
from him’, so ἐλέφαντι φαέδιμον ὦμον
κεκαδμένος Pind., distinguished or
differenced by ivory’’. Jelf, Gr. Gr.
667, obs. 1, notices that an infin. fol-
lows this verb as it does adjectives,
ὁ. 9. ϑείειν ταχύς.
284—s5. ὃ μὲν, Menel. ‘was de-
tained’’, it is implied (cf. ἡμεῖς 276,
and κεῖνος 286) that Nestor sailed on.
ϑάπτοι, since to omit a burial caused
ἃ μηνιμα, A. 73.
286—7. ἐπὶ, see on a. 299. Mead.,
the 8. E. cape of Peloponn., now Cape
St. Angelo; vessels creeping along the
shore would often encounter a sharp
gale from the west in rounding it.
289—90. That this description is not
overcharged is clear from the men-
tion in Zhe Times, Naval and Mil. In-
tell. Apr. 13° 1861, of “Ἢ. M. Gun-
boat Lapwing lying at Pirseus, suffering
from a gale of wind in the Archipe-
lago, from which she had saved her-
self by throwing her guns overboard.”’
ἀδτιμένα, there is also a fem. ἀὐτμὴ
(mar.) in same sense,
292. Kud., the Cretan tribes (mar.)
were the Achseans, Eteocretans, Cy-
donians, Dorians, Pelasgians. The first,
certainly, and the last two apparently,
being invaders who had settled there.
These Cydonians lay in the N. W. re-
gion of Crete, at the root of a spur
of its coast-line jutting northwards,
and would be first reached from Ma-
lea (Herod. III. 59).
293. λισσὴ, obs. that the Schol.
makes it a proper name, said to be
Βλίσση in the Cretan dialect.
294. Gortys lay about the middle of
the island towards the 8. coast, its
ruins are widely conspicuous still, and
some traces of the famous labyrinth
exist near in cavernous rocks, etc.;
see, however, Sir G. C. Lewis (Anct.
Astron. p.441), who treats the labyrinth
as wholly fabulous. Phestus lay 8. W.
of it, distant about 60 stadia (Ni.), at
the root of a spur of the southern coast-
line jutting southwards, and faces the W.
A river flowing from E. to W., having it
on the 8S. bank near the mouth, and Gor-
tys on the N, bank higher up, is pro-
bably the Iardanus; see Spruner’s “68.
b @. 325, g. 221.
ον 279, o. 209.
d e. 40, 405, ε. 405.
e cf. 4. 415-6,
f e. 482, 530, x.
127
ς᾽ γ. 291 mar.
h 1; 312, ὅδ. 81, 90,
2 — 32.
i a. 183.
k y. 194.
Ι e. 4154, 2. 621,
Ir. 1
$3; cf. α.
426 mar.
m 8. 275—9, 4.447,
£249 82,
n H. 180, 4. 46.
o Φ. 39, μι. 118.
p a. 40.
qy @. 299 — 300, γ-
497 -- 8.
r y. 66, ὅ. 8, η.
0, ᾧ 201. ἢ
᾽
296. ἀποιβέργει. 298. ἔξαξαν.
. 306. fos.
emend.
Arist. δέδμηντο, Scholl. H. M. Q. ΗΕ.
phista ex ®. 39.
ΟΔΥΣΣΕΙΑΣ LT. 295—309.°
303. Focxofe.
308. ὁ Fou.
296. pro μικρὸς Zenod. Maiéov, Scholl. Ε΄. M. Q. V.
[pay πηι.
ἔνϑα Νότος μέγα κῦμα ποτὶ σκαιὸν ῥίον" ὠϑεῖ,
ἐς Φαιστόν., μικρὸς δὲ λέϑος μέγα κῦμ᾽ ἀποέργει."
αἵ μὲν ἄρ᾽ ἔνϑ᾽ ἦλθον, σπουδῇ“
ἄνδρες, ἀτὰρ νῆάς ye ποτὶ σπιλάδεσσιν ἃ ξαξαν"
κύματ᾽ " ἀτὰρ τὰς πέντε νέας κυανοπρωρείους
“Δἰγύπτῳ ἐπέλασσε φέρων ἄνεμός τε καὶ ὕδωρ.
ὡς ὃ μὲν ἔνϑα πολὺν βίοτον καὶ χρυσὸν ἀγείρωνν
ἠλᾶτο ξὺν νηυσὶ κατ᾽ ἀλλοϑρόους ἀνθρώπους ὶ
τόφρα δὲ ταῦτ᾽ Alyotos éunoaro* οἴκοϑι λυγρὰ,
κτείνας ‘Arostdnyv, δέδμητοι δὲ λαὸς ὑπ᾽ αὐτῷ.
ἑπτάετεςπ δ᾽ ἤνασσε πολυχρύσοιο Μυκήνης""
τῷ δέ of ὀγδοάτῳ κακὸνο ἤλυϑε δῖος Ὀρέστηςν
ay an’ ᾿ϑηνάων, κατὰ δ᾽ ἔκτανε πατροφονῆα 1
Αἴγισϑον δολόμητιν, ὅς of πατέρα κλυτὸν ἔκτα.
ἦ τοι ὃ τὸν κτείνας δαίνυ" τάφον ’Agyeloow
᾿ ἤλυξαν ὕὄλεϑρον
305. ἑπτάξετες δ᾽ ἐξάνασσε.
297. of μὲν Harl. ex
302. Barnes. Cl. ed. Ox. νηυσὶν ἐπ᾽ fortasse ex a. 183, Harl. κατ᾽.
203. 304 ἃ quibusdam abesse monet Schol. H. pro οἴκοϑι idem πήματα.
te ? >’ 9 o 304-
306. τῷ 0 ἀρ avancroy Apollon. So-
307. pro ax’ ἄϑηναων Zenod. et Eustath. exo Φωκήων, Arist.
ax’ ᾿Αθηναίης, coll. 4. 80, an’ ᾿ϑηναίων Schol. H.
309—10 decrant in
nonnullis vett. exemplaribus, Scholl. M. Q. R. T
295. ῥίον in I]. (mar.) means always
“‘peak”’ (of Olympus).
296. For μιπρὸς .. λέϑος 4 Scholl.
give a reading Maiéov .. Affog; the
δὕρμεα is the roll of the Mediterranean
from the west.
20). σπουδῇ, with great effort —
“scarcely ’’; of ὄγις and μογέω.
298 —300. ἔαξαν χυμιατ᾽, a neut.
plur. with plur. verb. is common in H.:
Jelf, Gr. Gr. § 385. obs. 2, says, this
is “often merely for the metre’’; here
and at @. 137, no such reason could
apply. xvavoxemg., cf. the other
epith. for the prows of ships, μελτο-
πάρῃος, t. 125; this however is far
more common; for its probable mean-
ing see App. F.1 (19). Αἐγύπτῳ x. τ. 2.
ef. Eurip. Hel. 682, ὧδ᾽ ἐπέλασ᾽ Al-
γύπτω, and 671 éxélace Nello.
304. SédD unto, from δαμάω, see on
«. 426. The attempt of Agieth. had,
like the suitorship of Penel., a poli-
tical element in it; marriage with the
wife of the absent being the direct
step to the occupancy of his throne;
see App. E. 5, and preliminary note to β.
30s—6. For Homer's formula of fixing
a number and then adding one to make
it complementary (mar.) see on B. 374.
Holy Scripture exhibits something si-
milar, 6. 9. Prov, XXX. 15.
306—8. Orestes was sent from home
a boy, to return grown up. The exile
of Or. was with his uncle Strophius in
Phocis, according to the legend fol-
lowed by the dramatists. HI. seems to
speak only of Athens (Zenod. however
read ἀπὸ Φωκήων 307), whither the
Eschylean form of the legend sends
him to expiate his guilt. The shade
of Agam. (4. 458—60) enquires where
he is, at Orchomenus, Pylus, or
Sparta? as though assured that he was
not at Mycensze. Of course the date of
that enquiry was previous to the re-
turn of Orestes, since Agisthus ruled
for 7 years after the fall of Troy.
309. δαένυ τάφον, cf. δαίνυντο
δαῖτα, δαένυντα γάμον (mar.).
295
300
305
310 μητρός τε στυγερῆς" καὶ ἀνάλκιδος Αἰγίσϑοιο"
αὐτῆμαρ δὲ οἵ ἦλϑε βοὴν" ἀγαϑὸς Μενέλαος,
πολλὰς κτήματ᾽ ἄγων, ὅσα of νέες ἄχϑος ἄειραν.
καὶ» σὺ, φίλος, μὴ Onda δόμων ἄπο τῆλ᾽ ἀλάλησο,
κτήματά τε προλιπὼν ἄνδρας τ᾽ ἐν σοῖσι δόμοισιν
οὕτω ὑπερφιάλους, μή τοι κατὰ πάντα φάγωσιν
κτήματα δασσάμενοι.Ε σὺ δὲ τηὐσίην ὁδὸν ἔλθῃς.
ἀλλ᾽ ἐς" μὲν Μενέλαον ἐγὼ κέλομαι καὶ ἄνωγα
ἐλϑεῖν" κεῖνος γὰρ νέον ἄλλοϑεν εἰλήλουϑεν,"
ἐκ τῶν ἀνθρώπων ὅθεν οὐκ ἔλποιτόκ γε ϑυμῷ
ἐλϑέμεν, Ov τινα πρῶτον ἀποσφήλωσιν' ἄελλαι
ἐς πέλαγος μέγα τοῖον," ὅϑεν τέ περ οὐδ᾽ οἰωνοὶ
31
ι
320
DAY 111.|
ΟΔΥΣΣΕΙΑΣ I. 310—321.
87
311. 312. Foe.
a A. 410, 424, 432.
b P. 665.
ς γ. $Ol mar.
d T. 386, 1.180,
cf. φ. 18.
e ο. 10—6.
f pf. 370.
g p. 365.
ἢ ξ. 127.
iv. 360, ρο. 112,
nm. 26.
k y. 275.
1 Ε. 567.
m α. 209 mar., 4.
135.
319. ov ἐέλποιτο.
318. pro τοι alii δὴ.
310. μητρός, this is the only hint, if
the line be genuine, that Orestes slew
his mother. That it should be so is then
a mark of Homer’s euphemistic reserve,
as contrasted with the violent promi-
nence which subsequent poetry gave
that action. Arist. remarks (Scholl.)
that her death may be inferred from
it, but not necessarily by Orestes’ hand. ἡ
This shows that he accepted the line;
and assuming it Homeric, the re-
mark may find place here that the
ἐρινύες were already established in
mythology, especially in connexion
with a mother’s curse (8. 135, I. 571,
@, 412); but, Ni&gelsbach says, not
yet having a distinct penal agency,
and rather related to the Ζεὺς κατα-
χϑόνιος as μοῖρα is to Ζεύς (Homer.
Theol. V. § 38). Yet the description
of Erinys (sing.) as ‘‘walking it dark-
ness” (ἡεροφοῖτις), hearing from Ere-
bus imprecations on the guilty, and
having an implacable (ἀμ εέλεχον) heart,
is a formidable image, and, combined
with orvyegal, as proper to an infernal
power, carries with it the idea of
vengeance as a special function. The
doubtful epithet δασπλῆτις (0. 234),
whether ‘‘vehemently hasting’’, as
Nigelsbach (ibid. note) suggests, or
‘striking heavy blows’’ (Lid. and 5.
furthers this idea. Thus Erinys instils
ἄτη — the wrong which works retri-
bution — into the mind (0. 234), and
the Erinyes wait upon the elders of a
family (O. 204) even among the gods,
and watch with divine power over the
helpless on earth (πτωχῶν ys θεοὶ καὶ
Ἐρινύες εἰσίν 9. 475). They also guard
against transgressions of the physical
or moral laws of the world, against
what ever seems a portentous or im-
pious privilege; thus stopping the pro-
phetic voice of the horse Xanthus, and
redressing the advantages lavished by
fond goddesses on some pampered mai-
dens (T. 418, v. 78). It is clear then that
the elements of a crime against nature,
and of these powers as its chastisers,
existed in Homeric legend. The “schy-
lean Eumenides form their legitimate
development, adding the notion of pur-
suit, borrowed, perhaps, from the “τη
See Gladst. II. 302 foll.
following easily from that of “‘lifting’’;
see mar. for the closest examples. An-
other sense, ‘‘carrying off as spoil’’,
occurs; with which compare the cattle
‘lifting’? of the Scotch borderers.
316. τηὐσέην, with this word, from
the pron. of the 3" person, cf. αὕτως
‘‘just so and no more’’ (see on δ, 66s),
and hence ‘‘merely’’, passing into the
notion of “idly, in vain’’, a sense
more fully developed in ἐτώσιος, which
is probably ryvorog slightly altered.
Hence the Schol. gives ματαίαν to ex-
plain τηῦσ. here. (Doed. § 260—1.)
320—1. ὃν teva, not merely = ὅν,
but as the force of the subjunct. with
ὅστις is to make the statement general
88
a 1. 384, E. 790,
Ο. 640.
b «. 172.
c y. 376, ὅδ. 362,
y.71; cf. 3. 566,
ν. 174, TZ. 671,
651.
d a. 285, β. 214.
e y. 19, 20.
f a. 213 mar.
g A. 475, ε. 225,
e. 168, 558, χ. 185.
h β. 251, δ. 783,
η. 227, T. 186.
iy 390, #.93, 0.423.
k y. 6,43, 54, 55,178.
Ι Δ. 358 . 138
Ἢ ig? Ὁ ἮΒ
m @. 510.
ἢ x. 190, a. 57, ¢.
26, v. 241.
ο 9. 76.
1. 194, O. 124.
OATZZEIAL I. 322—336.
[Day III.
αὐτόετες οἰχνεῦσιν," ἐπεὶ μέγα τε δεινόν τε.
ἀλλ᾽ ἴϑι νῦν σὺν νηί τε σῇ καὶ σοῖς ἑτάροισιν"
εἰ δ᾽ ἐθέλεις πεζὸς, πάρα τοι δίφρος τε καὶ ἵπποι,
πὰρ δέ τοι υἷες ἐμοὶ, οἵ τοι πομπῆες " ἔσονται
ἐς Aaxedaipova δῖαν, oft ξανϑὸς Μενέλαος.
λίσσεσθαι" δέ μιν αὐτὸς, ἵνα νημερτὲς ἐνίσπῃ᾽
ψεῦδος δ᾽ οὐκ ἐρέει' μάλα γὰρ πεπνυμένος ἐστίν."
ὃς Epar’> ἠέλιοςς δ᾽ ἄρ᾽ ἔδυ, καὶ ἐπὶ κνέφας ἤλϑεν.
τοῖσι δὲ καὶ μετέειπε Bea γλαυκῶπις ᾿“ϑήνη
«ἦ γέρον, ἦ τοι ταῦτα κατὰ" μοῖραν κατέλεξας ".
ἀλλ’ ἄγε, τάμνετε μὲν γλώσσας κεράασϑεὶϊ δὲ οἶνον,
ὄφρα Ποσειδάωνινκ καὶ ἄλλοις ἀϑανάτοισιν
σπείσαντες κοίτοιοὶ μεδώμεθϑα᾽ τοῖο γὰρ ὥρη."
ἤδη γὰρ φάος οἴχεϑ᾽ ὑπὸ Edqov," οὐδὲ ἔοικεν
Onda ϑεῶν ἐν δαιτὶ» ϑαασσέμενν ἀλλὰ νέεσϑαι."““
222. αὐτόξετες. 328. οὐ ξερέει. 330. μετέξειπε. 332. Foivov. 335. ξέξοικεν.
325. ἕπονται, Schol. B. cf. 376.
Schol. H. quod recepit Fa.
327. αὐτὸν Bek. Dind., αὐτὸς Arist, teste
331. pro ταῦτα alii παντὰ ex T. 186.
335. al.
ἔρχεϑ᾽ Bek. annot. Zenod. ὥχεϑ᾽, Schol. H. ov γὰρ ἔοικεν Schol. A. 475.
(Jelf. Gr. Gr. § 828, 2), so here that
general statement is a principle or cause
to which the previous statement ὅϑεν
...... ἐλθέμεν is referred. — πέλαγος,
seo App. B. μέγα τοῖον, the relat.
clause ὅϑεν τέ περ x. τ. 1. explains
τοῖον ‘great so as that’’; see on a. 209.
In the fictitious tale in ἕξ, 257 they reach
Egypt on the οἷ day from Crete with
a North wind. There Odys., as a man
of wide experience, speaks soberly.
‘Nestor knowing probably nothing of the
distance beyond hearsay, as story - tcl-
lers will, exaggerates hugely. olwvotl,
“‘drawing his idea from those birds which
periodically migrate”’, Gladst. In I. 3
foll. we have a simile noticing the flight
of cranes at winter's approach. (Ni.)
325—6. woun., “your escort’’, the
form πομποὶ also occurs (mar.), — Aa-
xedatiu., previously Sparta has been
named as the dwelling-place of Mencl.
(mar.); in δι 1—10 we find him at
Laced. (the region), and fetching a wife
for his son from Sparta (its chief city);
see B. 581—z2, note on 6.1, and App.
D. 3.
327. λέσσεσϑαι depends on κέλο-
μαι in 317 sup., and the dé is cor-
respondent to μὲν there.
332. γλώσσας. The tongue was re-
served as a choice part, and offered
in the old Homeric cultus to the god
’ specially worshipped, here Poseidon.
This rite the Athenians retained, and
Aristoph. Av. 1711 says πανταχοῦ τῆς
᾿Αττικῆς ἡ γλῶττα χώρις τέμνεται, 80
Pax 1060, θη the thighs have been
offered and the entrails tasted, the
tongue is called for as in due course.
In the Plutus of the same poet (1110)
it is alluded to as if specially offered
to Hermes, ἡ yi. τῷ κήρυκι τούτων
τέμνεται, which was doubtless ἃ con-
version of the old rite to a special
symbolism, when Hermes had become
worshipped as the god of oratory, and
public-speaking had become the ruling
art of Athenian life. Of this H. knows
nothing; nor can any such notion be
based on the custom ascribed to the
Pheeacians, 7. 138, of pouring a li-
bation to Hermes the last thing be-
fore going to bed; although Atheneus
(I. 14) would connect the two. For
the Homeric functions of Hermes see
App. C. 2. The word τέμνω, tapva,
found so generally with the phrase,
shows that the tongue was cut out as
a distinct act (χῶρες) when the other
parts had been dealt with.
336. ϑαασ., Buttm. points out (Le-
325
33°
335
DAY III] OATZIEIAL Γ΄. 337—355.
ἢ 6a Διὸς ϑυγάτηρ, τοὶ δ᾽ ExAvov αὐδησάσης."
τοῖσι" δὲ κήρυκες μὲν ὕδωρ" ἐπὶ χεῖρας ἔχευαν,
κοῦροι δὲ κρητῆρας ἐπεστέψαντο ποτοῖο,
340 νώμησαν" δ᾽ ἄρα πᾶσιν ἐπαρξάμενοι δεπάεσσιν"
γλωσσαςξ δ᾽ ἐν πυρὶ βάλλον," ἀνιστάμενοι δ᾽ ἐπέλειβον.
αὐτὰρὶ ἐπεὶ σπεῖσάν τ᾽ ἔπιόν & ὕσον ἤϑελε ϑυμὸς,
δὴ τότ᾽ ᾿4“ϑηναίη καὶ Τηλέμαχος" ϑεοειδὴς
ἄμφω léodyv' κοίλην ἐπὶ νῆα νέεσϑαι.
345 Νέστωρ δ᾽ αὖ κατέρυκε καθαπτόμενος ἐπέεσσιν"
(Ζεὺς τό γ᾽ ἀλεξήσειε καὶ ἀϑάνατοι ϑεοὶ ἄλλοι."
ὡς ὑμεῖς παρ᾽ ἐμεῖο ϑοὴν ἐπὶ νῆα κίοιτε
ὥς τέτευ 9 παρὰ πάμπαν ἀνείμονος ἠὲ πενιχροῦ,
@ οὔ τι χλαῖναι" καὶ ῥήγεα» πόλλ᾽ ἐνὶ οἴκῳ.
350 οὔτ᾽ αὐτῷ μαλακῶς οὔτε ξείνοισιν ἐνεύδειν.
αὐτὰρ ἐμοὶ πάρα μὲν χλαῖναιν καὶ ῥήγεα καλά.
οὔ ϑηνι δὴ τοῦὐδ᾽ ἀνδρὸς Ὀδυσσῆος" φίλος υἱὸς
νηὸς ἐπ’ ἱκριόφιν" καταλέξεται, ὄφρ᾽ ἂν ἐγώ γε
ξώω.! ἔπειτα δὲ παῖδες ἐνὶ μεγάροισι λίπωνται.,"
355 ξείνους" ξεινίζειν, ὅς τις" κ᾿ ἐμὰ δώμαϑ᾽ ἵκηται."
348. ξεπέεσσιν.
344. «ιέσϑην.
«Εοέκῳ.
349.
343. θεοειδής.
89
a ὅὃ. 505, K. 47,
IT, 76.
" a. 146—8 mar.,
φ, 270 -- 3,
70--1,1..1174--7.
ΓΙ. 0.
gy. .
h 7. 446, ξ. 422.
iy. 395, ἡ. 184,
bog
κα. 113
la. 6.
m X. 366.
n ὅδ. 50, ὁ. 229, x.
542, & 478, ο.
331; cf. 0. 86,
179, v. 248.
o ἃ. 159, τ. 337;
ef. ὃ. 297-301.
" 7. 349 mar.
4 4..2}}, B. 276,
A. 365, N. 813,
@. 568.
ry. 64.
δν. 74, 4.414, ὁ
283, 552
t cf. 4. 88
u BE. 154, 5. 485
v ἢ. 190.
w 9. 32, €.153, uv
205, φ. 313.
348. ἀξείμονος.
349. Arist. οὔτι, Zenod. οὔπερ, vulg. οὔτε; mox pro ῥήγεα Zenod. κτήματα,
Schol. M. 351. Bek. μὴν.
353- pro ὄφρ᾽ alii evr’ Bek. annot,
ail, 63) that the Attic ϑάσσειν (with
cogn. noun ϑᾶκος) is a contraction
of this, The #a- and -#o are probably
equally radical, cf. διπλάω and δι-
ziow, thus we have ϑοάξω, ϑῶῦκος,
ϑόωκος, and ϑαάσσω, Bacon, ϑᾶκος.
340. This line, describing a ritualistic
act, is not found in the parallel a. 146
foll., which merely describes the meal
of the suitors, whose impiety omitted
recognition of the gods. νώρῤεησαν,
here = circumferebant, is used of ply-
ing, wielding, or turning a bow, pole,
helm, etc. (mar.); but éwagg. is a
word of ritual, containing the notion
of an ἀρχὴ, i.e. something religiously
given or taken first, The simple verb
is used. of solid as this of liquid of-
ferings, cf. πάντων ἀρχόμενος μελέων,
ἔξ. 428, and similarly ἀπάρχεσϑαι of
the victim’s hair, κατάρχ. of lustration
and of the sacred barley (mar.). Buttm.
Lexil. 29 (4), says the ἐπὶ adds the no-
tion of relation to individuals. — πᾶ-
σιν, i.e. the guests, — δεπάεσσιν is
dat. of instrument.
344—9. ἐέσϑην, “were making a
move to go’’, the literal sense, from
which comes the notion of desire. — w&-
γνεχροῦ, for poverty as shown in regard
to garments, cf. §. 513—4. —_ χλαῖ-
vat is sometimes, as here, found joined
with ῥήγεα, as bedding, oftener with
χιτῶνες, as garments, the generic ef-
ματα καλὰ following (mar.). For the -
φᾶρος see 466—7 note. The γλαῖναι
alone were also used as seat-covers
(mar.); see further on δ. 297—9.
352—3. OU » found only in
speeches, as is #7» affirmative, espe-
cially 4 ϑην, καὶ γάρ ϑην, etc., = “1
should rather think’’, expresses in-
dignant irony or surprise (mar.); the
same feeling of indignation is con-
tinued in the τοῦ δ᾽ ἀνδρὸς Ὀδυσ. ---
ἐκριόφιν, see App. F. 1 (3).
go
a 42. 650.
b ef. A. 259.
c 9. 543.
dicf. 1. 427.
ὁ x. 292, μ. 25, 165,
ν. 385, a. 226—7,
261—2, 339.
f I. 60.
g cf. . 383-4.
ἢ y. 49 mar.
iz. 598.
k δ. 731, x. 272.
lef. φ 279—80.
m K. 129, ¥. 829.
n φ. 17, 4. 686—8.
o #. 78, τ. 351,
v. 332.
p ef. d. 8.
q cf YF, 749.
r°E. 266,
s cf. a. 320, χ. 240.
ι φ. 122, 2° 342,
4. 19, 4. 815,
42. 482—3.
356. προσέξειπε. 357. FéFouxey.
OATZZEIAL Γ΄. 356—372.
τὸν δ᾽ avre προςέειπε ϑεὰ γλαυκῶπις ᾿4ϑήνη
“ev δὴ ταῦτά γ᾽ ἔφησϑα, γέρον" φίλε". σοὶ δὲ ἔοικεν
Τηλέμαχον πείθεσθαι", ἐπεὶς πολὺ κάλλιον οὕτως.
ἀλλ᾽ οὗτος μὲν νῦν σοὶ ἅμ᾽ ἕψεται, ὄφρα κεν εὔδη ὁ
σοῖσιν ἐνὶ μεγάροισιν' ἐγὼ δ᾽ ἐπὶ νῆα μέλαιναν
εἶμ᾽, ἵνα ϑαρσύνω ϑ᾽ ἑτάρους εἴπω" τε ἕκαστα.
οἷος γὰρ μετὰ τοῖσι γεραίτερος εὔχομαι εἷναι"
of δ᾽ ἄλλοι φιλότητι νεώτεροι ἄνδρεςξ ἕπονται,
πάντες ὁμηλικίη" μεγαϑύμου Τηλεμάχοιο.
ἔνϑα' xe λεξαίμην κοίλῃ παρὰ νηὶ μελαίνῃ
νῦν} ἀτὰρ ἠὦϑεν μετὰ Καύκωνας" μεγαϑύμους
εἶμ᾽, ἔνϑα χρεῖός" μοι ὀφέλλεται. οὔ τι νέον γε
οὐδ᾽ ὀλίγον" σὺ δὲ τοῦτον, ἐπεὶ τεὸν ἵκετο. δῶμα,
πέμψον" σὺν δίφρῳ τε καὶ υἱέϊ" δὸς δέ of ἵππους.
of τοι ἐλαφρότατοιι ϑείειν καὶ κάρτος ἄριστοι."
ὃς ἄρα φωνήσαδ᾽ ἀπέβη γλαυκώπις ᾿4ϑήνη
φήνῃ εἰδομένη" ϑάμβος" δ᾽ Ele πάντας ἰδόντας.
361. βείπω βέκαστα. 369. For.
472. ξειδομένη.
388. Τηλέμαχε Bek. annot.
Harl, Wolf. et recentt.
Strabo VIII. 526 Ἤλιδι δίῃ.
H. Q. V.
367.
357. εὖ x. τ. 4., we miss the usual
courteous phrase of approval ταῦτα YE
παντα ... κατὰ μοῖραν ἔειπας; nor
does the curt εὖ ἔφησϑα elsewhere
occur. It is worthwhile to contrast the
businesslike terseness of Mentor here
with the genial loquacity of Nestor in
the preceding 346—55. — yég. pide is
the style of Achilles to Priam (mar.).
366. Καύκ., Cauconians appear in
H. as allies of the Trojans, in Dolon’s
enumeration to Diomedes, grouped with
the Leleges and Pelasgi; and again in
a later battle as in an extreme rear-
ward or flank position (mar.). With
the former cf. Herod. I. 146, where
Rawlinson says: ‘“‘The Caucons are
reckoned by Strabo among the earliest
inhabitants of Greece and associated
with the Pelasgi, Leleges, and Dryo-
pes; like their kindred tribes, they
were very widely spread. Their chief
settlements, however, appear to have
been on the north coast of Asia Minor
... and on the west coast of the Pelopon-
364. ὁμηλικίῃη Barnes. Ern. Cl. ed. Ox., «ὁμηλικέη
Arist. χρεέως, Scholl. Η. Μ. ,Ῥτο͵ οὔ τι ν. γ.
268. Zenod. ἐπεὶ τὰ σὰ γούναϑ᾽ ἱκάνει, Scholl.
372. Ayatovg pro ἐδόντας Scholl. Η. E. Μ. Q. 6 Ψ. 815.
nese in Messenia, Elis, and Triphylia.
ΝῊ From the Peloponnese the race
had entirely disappeared when Strabo
wrote, but had left their name to the
river Caucon, a small stream. in the
N. W. corner of the peninsula (Strabo
VIII. p. 496 -- 7)’’; cf. also Herod.
IV. 148.
367. χρεῖος. Ni. thinks that the
debt may have been conceived as one
of compensation for plunder, but this
would need to be backed by force, for
which a‘ single small ship and crew
was inadequate. Such commercial traf-
fic as we have a glimpse of in a. 184
might more probably lead to a debt.
Aristarch. read χρεέως against authority
and probability, as far as we know.
ὀφέλλεται. Buttm. Irreg. Verbs s. v.
regards ὀφέλλω as the only true epic
present; and Bekk. follows him by
altering the received ὀφείλετ᾽ ὄφειλον,
A, 686—8, to ὀφέλλ.
372—3. φήνῃ, said by Billerbeck
ap. Crusius to be the osprey — an
[Day 11.
360
365
370
375
380
DAY 11}
ϑαύμαξεν" δ᾽ ὁ γεραιὸς, ὕπως ldsv> ὀφθαλμοῖσιν" .
Τηλεμάχου" δ᾽ ἔλε χεῖρα, ἔπος" τ᾽ ἔφατ᾽, ἔκ τ᾽ ὀνόμαξεν. [ἃ
«(ἢ φέλος, οὔ σε ἔολπα κακὸν" καὶ ἄναλκιν' Eccota,s |.
, v ~ ὃ [
εἰ δή τοι νέῳ ὧδε ϑεοὶ πομπῆες" ἕπονται. g
ov μὴν γάρ τις ὅδ᾽ ἄλλος Ὀλύυμπιαὶ δώματ᾽ ἐχόντων, i
ἀλλὰ Διὸς ϑυγάτηρ, κυδίστη Τριτογένεια." I
ἢ τοι καὶ πατέρ᾽ ἐσϑλὸν ἐν ’Agyetovow ἐτίμα."
ΟΔΥΣΣΕΙΑΣ Γ. 373—384.
ΤΙ. 233.
ἀλλά, ἄνασσ᾽," ἴληϑι, δίδωϑι δέ μοι κλέος" ἐσθλὸν, |? 3. ΠΝ
- 451, Φ». 479.
αὐτῷ καὶ παίδεσσι καὶ αἰδοίῃν παρακοίτι" i K. 23-4,
4 3 φ ‘ , - φ 3 , r Z. 4, 275, 309.
σοὶ δ᾽ av ἐγὼ ῥέξω βοῦν nuy" εὐρυμέτωπον" "ὦ. 280, μι, 262,
taduntny, ἣν οὔ πω ὑπὸ ξυγὸν ἤγαγεν ἀνήρ᾽ ι cf. a. 12, 209
] ) ᾽ ’ας."» 4606, 655.
τήν τοι ἐγὼ ῥέξω, χρυσὸν κέρασιν περιχεύας."" u iP ἘΣ
273. Feder. 374. ξέπος.
175. ov τι σ᾽ Schol.
ἀγελείη Barnes. Ern. Cl. ed. Ox.
instance of the preference of H. for
specific over generic terms noticed App.
A. 13. To the view of ἀφνοπαῖα (a.
320) there taken add the conjecture,
that ἀνόπαια might be a noun de-
scribing the bird as roosting ete.
ἀνὰ τὸ ὁπαῖον, on the smoke-vent;
such a bird is the swallow, found as
Pallas’ eidolon in x. 240. ϑάμβ. and
Dave. are radically identical, 6 being
=: v, and vp = Bu by metath. The
root is tag. or taf. strengthened with
and aspirated; cf. τάφος τέϑηπα.
ἐδόντας cannot take the £ here. —
ὅπως idey, with this use of «ὅπως
as == when, ef. M. 208 ἐρρέγησαν ὅπως
ἴδον αἴολον ὄφιν x, τ. A,
374—5. ἔπος τ᾽ ἔφατ᾽, ἔχ x. τ. λ.
This phrase occurs more than 40 times
in 1]. and Ody., often without any name
following, or even word of address,
like ὦ φέλος here, as ὀνόμαζε (cf. δ. 278)
would seem to require. The speeches
introduced by it mostly begin a con-
versation, or a third speaker by it
strikes into one. Such addresses have
a tone of ejaculatory abruptness, as
if prompted by some demonstrative emo-
tion — joy, sorrow, sympathy, scorn,
antipathy — or sudden thought striking
the speaker. Thus it is often intro-
duced by grasping the hand, as here.
For some of the more remarkable ex-
374. FéFoixa.
380. Favaco’.
378. Zenod. κυδέστη, Scholl. H. M. ita Wolf. et recentt.,
380. pro finde Zenod. ἐλέαιρε, Scholl, H. M.
amples of its use see mar. With φίλος
voc. cf. a. 301.
378 — 80. See on ἐφαργὴς 420 inf.
Toiroyey., see App. C.s. — ἄνασσ᾽,
ef. Hor. Carm. III. 111. 2, regina...
Calliope. So ἄναξ, of a god (mar.). —
δίδωθιε, very rare; commonly δέδου.
383 — 83. viy εὐρυμι. adun., the
second epithet is peculiar to oxen.
ἀδμήτην is paraphrased by the foll.
ny OV πω x. 7.4. as often in H., see
on a. 1. πολύτροπον. Obs. also the
repetition of the statement of 382, ῥέξω
βοῦν in 384, τὴν ... ῥέξω, with which
of. B. 118—21, παλαιῶν τάων KL πάρος
ἦσαν ... τάων οὔ τις x. τ. Δ., and ὃ.
125— 33, Φυλὼ δ᾽ ἀργύρεον τάλαρον
φέρε... τὸν 6a of ἀμφέπολος Φυλὼ
κι τι 4. In all these the main state-
ment is emphatically re- asserted after
subordinate circumstances have been
added. yi», before a vowel, is an in-
stance of the power of a liquid in
doubling itself to the ear, seen in ἐύμ-
pedling y. 400, ἐΐννητος q- 97, and
more remarkably in ἐνὶ ῥμεγάροισιν
Harl. 8.94. These instances are all in
arsis, and 80 is the well known Virgilian
example “Ἐπ. IIL. 91, Limina que lau-
rusque (as if que Ul); comp., however,
in thesis βλοσυρῶπῖς ἐστεφάνωτο, A.
36; also ὦ. 452, 4. 343, where
πρόσσω καὶ sx ίσσω ends the line.
92 ΟΔΥΣΣΕΙΑΣ Γ᾿. 394—412.
ἃ γ. 68 mar.
b y. 4218, ε. 381.
c α. 145.
d β. 340; cf. ε. 196
—2i1.
e a. 139 mar., 2.
152.
f a. 334 mar
g &. 331, τ. 288.
h y. 342 mar.
i a. 42% mar.
k y. 352.
1 η. 345.
m α. 440 mar.
n App. F. 2(8) mar.
o 4. 165, P. 59.
p y- 454, 482, x.
224, ξ. 22, v. 185;
cf. d. 156.
q ¢. 62 ~3.
ry. 354.
s App. F. 2 (3!)
mar.
tI. 411.
u β. 2 mar.
ν . 6; ef. π΄. 408,
x. 211, 253.
> »
387. Few. 4488. άνακτος.
Féxaotos.
394. éxtonévdav Bek. annot.
385—94. The conversation on the
sea-shore here closes and the scene
is shifted to the palace of Nestor.
386—9. Γερήνιος, see on γ. 68.
HALOM. ... PQOV., 806 ON a. 131—2.
391—2. For Nestor’s appreciation of
wine cf, A. 629 foll., for Homer's fre-
quent commendation of it cf. Hor. Ep.
I. xix. 6. Laudibus arguitur vini vinosus
Homerus. xeQ7d., not the stopper (πῶ-
μα, B. 353), but a fillet round the neck
of the jar, probably securing the stopper.
On the various senses of χρήδ. see on
α. 334. On the paraphrase of ὦιξεν
by the following phrase, see on 382—3
(ἀδμήτην) and on a. 1.
396. olxovde, the married sons of
Nestor are said to come next morning
ἐκ θαλάμων, 413 inf. Probably οἶκον
is here in a general sense, ‘‘abode’’.
So it is used of Penelopé's abode, the
391. Fotvov ξηδυπότοιο.
[Day Iv.
ὡς par’ εὐχόμενος, tov δ᾽ ἔκλύε Παλλὰς ᾿᾽4ϑήνη.
τοῖσιν δ᾽ ἡγεμόνευε Γερήνιος ἱππότα Νέστωρ ."
vide. καὶ γαμβροῖσιν, ξὰ πρὸς δώματα καλα.
ἀλλ᾽ ὅτε δώμαϑ᾽ ἵκοντο ἀγακλυτὰν τοῖο ἄνακτος,
ἑξείης" ξἕξοντο κατὰ κλισμούς te ϑρόνους τε,
τοῖς δ᾽ ὁ γέρων ἐλθοῦσιν ἀνὰ κρητῆρα κέρασσεν
οἴνου ἡδυπότοιο." τὸν ἑνδεκάτῳ ἐνιαυτῷ
ὥὦιξεν ταμίη" καὶ ἀπὸ κρήδεμνον ἔλυσεν"
τοῦ ὁ γέρων κρητῆρα κεράσσατο, πολλὰ δ᾽ ᾿ἀϑήνῃ
εὔχετ᾽ ἀποσπένδων.5 κούρῃ dds αἰγιόχοιο.
αὐτὰρ" ἐπεὶ σπεῖσάν τ᾽ ἔπιόν ϑ᾽ ὅσον ἤϑελε ϑυμὸς,
oti μὲν κακκείοντες ἔβαν οἷκόνδε ἕκαστος,
τὸν δ᾽ αὐτοῦ κοίμησε Γερήνιος ἱππότα Νέστωρ,
Τηλέμαχον φίλον viov* Ὀδυσσῆος ϑείοιο,
'rontois™ ἐν λεχέεσσιν, ὑπ᾽" αἰϑούσῃ ἐριδούπῳ᾽
πὰρ δ᾽ ἄρ᾽ ἐνμμελέηνο Πεισίστρατον ὕρχαμονν ἀνδρῶν, 400
ὅς οἵ ἔτ᾽ ἠίϑεος παίδων ἣν ἐν μεγάροισιν."
αὐτὸς δ᾽ αὖτε καϑεῦδε μυχῷ" δόμου ὑψηλοῖο,
τῷ δ᾽ ἄλοχος δέσποινα λέχος πόρσυνε' καὶ εὐνήν.
ἦμος δ᾽ ἠριγένεια φάνη ῥοδοδάκτυλος "Has,
ὥρνυτ᾽ " ἄρ᾽ ἐξ εὐνῆφι Γερήνιος ἱππότα Νέστωρ᾽
ἐκ δ᾽ ἐλθὼν κατ᾽ ἄρ᾽ ξξετ᾽ ἐπὶ ξεστοῖσι λίϑοισιν,"
396. Foixovde
401. Fos.
400. δὲ of εὐμελέην, ἄνδρα id.
ὑπερώιον, a. 356; see App. F. 2 (31)
(32). It might thus include ϑάλαμον
for inmates of the palace.
399. αἰϑούσῃ; see App. F. 2 (8) (9).
400. ἐϑρεμε., an epithet applied to
Priam, Euphorbus, and others (mar.);
here it, as also ὄρχ- avd@., seems
applied to a young prince merely as
such, so to Polites (mar.); Eumsus
and Philetius are called dgy. ἄνδρ. as
set over others.
402. μυχῷ; see App. F. 2 (34). |
403—4. πόρσ., this word with dé-
χος following is used always of the
wife who shares the bed. The form
πορσαίνω is found Hy. Ceres 156, and
the Cod. Ven. reads πορσαψέουσα from
itin I. 411. ῥοδοδάκε., see on β. 1.
The fourth day of the poem’s action
here begins.
406. ξεστ. A4D., these appear to
DAY τν.]
οἵ of ἔσαν προπάροιϑε ϑυράων" ὑψηλάων,
λευκοὶ ἀποστέλβοντες ἀλείφατος "" οἷς ἔπι μὲν πρὶν
Νηλεὺς tfeoxev ,° ϑεόφιν μήστωρ ἀτάλαντος"
410 ἀλλ᾽ ὃ μὲν ἤδη Knol δαμεὶς "Αϊδόςδε βεβήκειν""
Νέστωρ αὖ τότ᾽ ἐφῖξε Γερήνιος, οὖρος ᾽Αχαιῶν, t 8.
σχῆπτρονβ ἔχων. περὶ δ᾽ υἷες ἀολλέες" ἠγερέϑοντο
ἐκ ϑαλάμων ἐλθόντες, Eyépowyi τε Στρατίος τε
Περδεύς τ᾽ "“ρητός! τε καὶ ἀντίθεος Θρασυμήδης"
415 τοῖσι δ᾽ Exevd’ Exrog Πεισίστρατος ἤλυϑεν ἥρως"
πὰρ δ᾽ ἄρα Τηλέμαχον ϑεοείκελον εἷσαν! ἄγοντες.
τοῖσι δὲ μύϑων ἦρχε Γερήνιος ἱππότα Νέστωρ"
ΟΔΥΣΣΕΙΑΣ Γ᾿. 407—425. 93
ἃ σ. 32, ι. 304, a.
107, π. 344.
b εἴ. Y¥. 170.
ς 42. 472.
dy. 110, H. 366.
e ¢. 11, Y. 294,
δ 962.
80, 4. 840,
O. 370, 659.
g B. 101, 279, 3.
597.
. 427, Δ. 2%,
233, y. 165.
i cf. δ. 111, ν᾿ 332.
j P. 494, 527, 539;
cf. I δ, 66.
k I. K. 255,
P. ἮΝ
Ια. 130, A. 311,
“ἐ καρπαλίμως μοι, τέκνα φίλα, κρῃήνατ᾽ ἐέλδωρ."}) 5. 1...
ὄφρ᾽ | τοι πρώτιστα ϑεῶν ἴλάσσομ᾽" ᾽Αϑήνην.,
420 ἥ μοι ἐναργὴς» HAGE ϑεοῦ ἐς δαῖταν ϑάλειαν.
ἀλλ᾽ ἄγ᾽ ὃ μὲν πεδίονδ᾽ ἐπὶ. βοῦν ἴτω, ὄφρα τάχιστα 1“
ἔλθησιν, ἐλάσῃ δὲ βοῶν ἐπιβουκόλος" ἀνήρ᾽
εἷς δ᾽ ἐπὶ Τηλεμάχου μεγαϑύμου νῆα μέλαιναν
q ε. 149, μ. 439.
rov. 235, χ- WS,
285, 20); ef. +.
πάντας ἰὼν ἑτάρους ἀγέτω. λιπέτω δὲ δύ᾽" olovg: 222 £. 102
425 εἷς δ᾽ αὖ χρυσοχόον Μαέρκεα δεῦρο κελέσϑω
407. foe.
410. Aftdogds.
411. ἐφῖξε Wolf. et recentt., ἔφεξε Barnes. Ern. Cl. ed. Ox. Low.
8 . 154; cf. 2.
413.
416. ϑεοιςείκελον.
416, 417. Inter
hos ‘versus in marg. Heidelb. insertus legitur αὐτὰρ ἐπεί 6 ᾿ἥἤγερϑεν ὁμηγερέες
>
τ᾽ ἐγένοντο.
421, ἀλλά γ᾽ Ern. Cl. ed. Ox.
ἀλλ᾽ ay’ Barnes et recentt.
have been fixed thrones for the king
and persons of distinction on occasions
of state, here of sacrificial solemnity.
Nestor here seats Telem. by his side
(416 inf.), as Alcinoiis does Odys, in
8. 6—7: ‘‘smoothed stones’’ are the
material of palace walls; here an or-
namental polish is further given by
ἄλειφαρ, of the nature of stucco. The
word also means unguent. In a fragm.
Sophocl. ἄλοιμα occurs, explained by
Hesych. as χρῖσμα τοίχων. Seats of
smoothed stones occur also in the ἀγορὴ,
see on β. 14—6, and App. F. 2 (4) (6)
and note. The gen. ἀλείφατος arises
from the ‘‘action being regarded as
springing into life from the materials
of which it was composed’’. Jelf Gr.
Gr. § 540 obs.
409—11. Νηλεὺς, for his birth and
posterity see A. 235 foll., 281 foll. ov-
@0g ‘Ay., an epithet distinctive of
Nestor, see mar.
412. ἀολλέες, see on 165.
419—20. ἑλάσσομει᾽, obs. elision of
«αι, frequent in mid. voice, whether
pres. 1*t pers. as here, or pres. infin. as in
6.270, 287. --- ἐναργῆς, recognizable”,
i.e. by the mode of her departure; 80
a. 323 Telem. concludes that it is a
deity, though he does not seem to know
which (β. 262). Nestor’s divining that
it was Athené is doubtless meant to
exemplify his sagacity. He may have
perhaps concluded from her known
partiality to Odys. her attendance on
his son.
422. ἔλθησιν, ἐλάσῃ, a form of
prothusteron arising from the end oc-
curring to the speaker first and the
means afterwards. βοῶν ἐπιβ., cf.
αἰπόλι᾽ αἰγῶν, αἵἴπολος αἰγῶν, συῶν
συβόσεια. With ἐπιβουκόλος ef. ἐπι-
βώτωρ ν. 222; and obs. that βουκολέω
the verb is used in a borrowed sense
of horses in T, 221 (Ni.). On avne
see On 267 sup.
435- χρυσοχόον. No actual fusion
94 OATZZEIAL I. 426—440.
[pay Iv.
a y. 384, 437; ef.
4. 111.
b γ. 412 mar.
oP, 203, YW. 184.
fe. 140, B. 307,
om. 345.
gu. 149, 4. 600,
@. 219, &. 155.
h 4. 187, O. 309.
i M. 79, H. 102,
W350, 2. 501,
Hi, 402, μ. 51.
καὶ 476—7.
1 A. 194.
πὶ α. 25.
ny. 394, 426.
o α. 439 mar.
Ρ γ. 274 mar.
qg α. 136—7, J.
52— 3.
τ 4. 885, B. 467.
427. ξείπατε, ἀολλεες precedente per synizesim lecti.
435. Fecoyafero.
ἐλϑεῖν, ὄφρα βοὸς χρυσὸν" κέρασιν περιχεύῃ.
οὗ δ᾽ ἄλλοι μένετ᾽ αὐτοῦ ἀολλέες ," εἴπατε δ᾽ εἴσω
δμωῇσιν κατὰ δώματ᾽ ἀγακλυτὰ δαῖτα" πένεσθαι,
ἔδρας τε ξύλα τ᾽ ἄμφι," καὶ ἀγλαὸν, οἰσέμεν ὕδωρ."
ὃς ἔφαϑ᾽, of δ᾽ ἄρα πάντες ἐποίπνυον" 5 ἦλθε μὲν 430
ἂρ βοῦς
ἐκ πεδίου, ἦλθον δὲ ϑοῆς παρὰ νηὸς ἐΐσης
Τηλεμάχου ἕταροι μεγαλήτορος, ἦλθε δὲ χαλκεὺς"
ὅπλ᾽ ἐν χερσὶν ἔχων χαλκήια, πείρατα' τέχνης.
ἄχμοναά τε σφῦραν τ᾽ εὐποίητόν τε πυράγρην,
οἷσίν τε χρυσὸν εἰργάζετο" ἦλθε δ᾽ ᾿4ϑήνη,'
ἱρῶν ἀντιόωσα""» γέρων δ᾽ ἱππηλάτα Νέστωρ
χρυσὸν ἔδωχ᾽ - ὃ δ᾽ ἔπειτα βοὸς κέρασιν" περίχευεν
ἀσκήσας... tv’ ἄγαλμαν Bea κεχάροιτο ἐδοῦσα.
βοῦν δ᾽ ἀγέτην κεράων Στρατίος καὶ δῖος Ἐχέφρων.
χέρνιβα: δέ σφ᾽ “Agntos ἐν ἀνϑεμόεντι" λέβητι
431. ἐξέσης.
438. Ειδοῦσα.
436. ἀντήσουσα Athenzeus.
of the gold follows; it is merely ham-
mered thin and made a leaf- wrapper
for the horns. Yet we read of youvor
in Σ΄. 470, showing an acquaintance
with fusion of metals. In g. 383—5,
τ. 135, we have the craftsmen and
professionals enumerated, the prophet,
surgeon, carpenter or buildey, minstrel,
and herald, to which the χρυσόχ. and
the χαλκεὺς, often, as here, one person
(432), should be added; and from the
Il. the tanner (P. 389 foll.), potter (Σ΄.
600 foll.), and currier (H: 220). The
τέκτων includes ship-building, and one
mentioned-in E. 62 foll. was a person
evidently of importance. A smithy
existed in the town of Ithaca (σ. 328),
and the connexion in which it is men-
tioned suggests the notion that it was
an office of the palace. The designa-
tion δημιοεργοὶ denotes working not for
themselves only but for all. They were
doubtless of the free people —- the
δῆμος who shared the land and are
called by the same name as it (see on a.
103) — not reckoned noble, yet invited
to the king’s table (9. 382— 6) in re-
cognition of their public usefulness
οὗ, δήμια πίνειν P. 250. The name
Λαέρκης is probably based on ὁ λαῷ
παρκῶν, and nearly — δημιοεργος
(Eustath.).
429 — 30. apg? is in tmesis with
πένεσϑαι. --- exolxvtoy, sometimes 0
(mar.). Buttm. Lezil. (93) says it is
from πνέω ἔπνυτο with reduplication,
as ποιφύσσω from φυσάω. The diphth.
oc may be observed as much used in
forming words of sound, gdotoBos
- δοίβδος, and the like. It is not quite
certain that zoez-, a mere word of
sound, like our ‘‘puff’’, is not the
whole root of this and of ποιφύσσω.
433—4. πείρατα, ‘‘sum total—whole
resources’’, arising from the notion of
a “limit or bound”, The simple sense
of a “‘rope”’ is probably the primary
one, 88 seen in πολέμοιο πεῖραρ Ex-
αλλάξαντες ἐπ᾽ ἀμφοτέροισι τάνυσ-
σαν (mar.); cf. our word “line” (λέ-
vov) for boundary. σῳφύραν, smaller,
probably, than the gasorje (mar., cf.
Esch. Prom. 56).
435—40. ᾿Αϑήνη, i. 6. invisibly: the
condition of local nearness is required
by H. for the conception of a present
deity. ἀντιόωσα, see on a, 25 and
App. E. 4 (2) note. χεράων, gen. of
445
450
DAY 1V.|
ἤλυϑεν ἐκ ϑαλάμοιο φέρων, ἑτέρῃ δ᾽ ἔχεν οὐλὰς"
ἐν κανέῳ᾽" πέλεκυν“ δὲ μενεπτόλεμος ἃ Θρασυμήδης
ὀξὺν ἔχων ἐν χερσὶ παρίστατο, βοῦν ἐπικόψων.
Περσεὺς δ᾽ ἀμνίον εἶχε γέρων δ᾽ ἱππηλάτα Νέστωρ
ΟΔΥΣΣΕΙ͂ΑΣ I. 441—453.
acl. y. 415, A.
449.
b d. 761.
ς δ. 221, τ. 512,
ᾧῴῳ. 120, O. ᾿
. 612, YW. 89].
ad K. 255.
Γχέρνιβαξ τ᾽ οὐλοχύτας τε κατήρχετο," πολλὰ δ᾽ ’ADyvy | © P. 52.
εὔχετ᾽ ἀπαρχόμενος .ἱ κεφαλῆς τρίχας ἐν πυρὶ βάλλων.
αὐτὰρ" ἐπεί ῥ᾽ εὔξαντο καὶ οὐλοχύτας προβάλοντο,
αὐτίκα Νέστορος υἱὸς ὑπέρϑυμος Θρασυμήδης | 263; cf. §.
ἤλασεν ἄγχι Oras: πέλεκυς δ᾽ ἀπέχοψε τένοντας!
avyevious, λῦσεν δὲ βοὸς μένος" ai δ᾽ ὀλόλυξαν"5ι
ϑυγατέρες" τε νυοί te καὶ αἰδοίη παράκοιτις
Γ cf. 7... 220-- 4.
Β 42. 304.
. 810, δ. 761,
2 420, 428, φ.
κυ
Νέστορος, Εὐρυδίκη πρέσβα" Κλυμένοιο ϑυγατρῶν. a
of μὲν ἔπειτ᾽ ἀνελόντες ἀπὸ χϑονὸς" Eeveuvodetns
443. χειρὶ Arist., Schol. H.
Nicander et al., Scholl. H. M. Q. R.
444. αἴμνιον Apollod. et al., δάμνιον Zenod.
453: ἀνίσχοντες (contra metrum) Arist.,
Schol. H., unde Porson. ἀνέχοντες.
a Ἐς ... .-.-.-.--.: ἑ “ῥ Ἕ-ῆ-..ὕ.’-..-ς-.--ο-ς-.ςς-(ςΚςςῈῈ-
part held; so λαβὲ γούνων A. 407. Aé-
Byte, see on α. 137.
441. ἑτέρῃ, i.e. χειρὶ, probably the
left. ovdac, see App. A. 3 (2).
442. πέλεχυν, used mostly as a
woodman’s or earpenter’s tool, also
associated with ἀξίνη as a weapon;
its stock, wélexxog, is once of olive
(mar.). In the bow-contest of the
suitors in g. the ‘‘axes’’ have rings
at the ends of the handles, perhaps
to hang them up by. From the men-
tion of ἡμιπέλεκκα, it is probable that
the wed. had a double head, like the
Lat. bipennis.
444. ἀμνέον, probably a sacrificial
word of uncertain derivation, perhaps
from αἷμα as catching the blood; and
a Schol. adds that the Cretans pro-
nounced it αἱμνέον. Others interpret
it of the sacrificial knife, and suppose
that δαμνέον connected with dapam is
the proper form of it — an unlikely
meaning, since Pisistr. in 454 uses
the knife, and it is unlikely that an-
other should previously have care of it.
445. This may be exhibited by re-
solution into ἤρχετο (ritualistic word),
‘‘took religiously first’’, κατὰ χέρνιβα
κι τ᾿ 4., κατὰ directing action to ob-
ject (Buttm. Zezil. 29); see on 340
ἐπαρξάμ. Jelf, Gr. Gr. § 516 obs.,
gives an explanation based on a mis-
conception of κατήρχετο. — χέρνιβα
here the water, means also the vessel
used, It was poured by an attendant,
here Aretus (440 sup.); see I. 270,
2. 303 — 4.
446. ἄπαρχόμι., Bee ON 340, para-
phrased here by the sequel κεῷ. τρί-
χας ἐν π. B., a8 in 383, 392 sup., see
on α. 1. -
447- The rest follow the example of
Nestor, who officiates as if in priestly
character (A. 451), all washing (8. 261)
and flinging meal before praying. The
οὐλαὶ of 441 become οὐλόχυται when
flung; see App. A. 3 (2). Ni. dwells on
this and similar features of ritual as
showing that H. knows of no priesthood
save as attached to a temple, and that
all might sacrificially approach the
deity for themselves.
450. OAGA., the ὀλολύγη was the
cry of women for joy, used sacrificially
(as here, perhaps to drown the vic-
tim’s groan), or otherwise (mar.). So
we find ἀλαλάξω, and Lat. ululo which,
however, is a cry of wail, or the howl
of an animal, formed like this from
the mere sound.
453. ἀνελόντες. The victim had
been felled, the elder brothers (οἱ μὲν,
opposed to Pisistr. who used the knife)
raised it bodily from the ground. In
Chryses’ sacrifice, A. 459 foll., which
compare with this, we find av ἔρυσαν,
resupinaverunt, being probably a less
g6
a cf. A, 459, B.
422
ΟΔΥΣΣΕΙΑΣ I. 454—460.
[Day 1v.
foyou:* ἀτὰρ σφάξεν Πεισίστρατος ὄρχαμος" ἀνδρῶν.
τῆς δ᾽ ἐπεὶ ἐκ μέλαν αἷμα ῥύη, λίπες δ᾽ ὀστέα ϑυμὸς, 455
αἷψ᾽ ἄρα μιν διέχευαν,. ἄφαρ δ᾽ ἐκ μηρί᾽ Exapvov
πάντα κατὰ μοῖραν ,° κατά τε κνίσῃ, ἐκάλυψαν
8, δίπτυχαν ποιήσαντες, ἐπ᾽ αὐτῶν δ΄ ὠμοϑέτησαν."
459. ἐοῖφον.
full and formal way of effecting the
same thing, by raising the head and
throat merely backward and upward.
The notion was that in offering to a
celestial deity the rite required an up-
ward direction. Probably the blood
spirted upwards: contrast with this the
rites to the dead, where the lambs’
throats are cut “into the trench” dug,
as the libations are poured thither
(4. 25 — 36).
456. διξχ., ‘broke up”’, including
the dismemberment and the opening
and removal of intestines. ρηρέα (461
μῆρα, or A. 460 μηροὺς) are probably
the upper joints of the four quarters
ending at the knee. Ni. quotes an
authority of doubtful value, stating
that μηροὶ are called μηρέα or μῆρα
when viewed as consecrated, and notes
that what are sacrificially burnt in H.
are always μηρία or: μῆρα. In Soph.
Antig. 1008, 1011, μηρία and μηροὶ
alike express what are so burnt. Some
think that by either term the bones
are alone meant, — a view chiefly
resting on Hes. Theog. 535 foll. which,
however (Heyne ap. Ni.), is best taken
for a local custom limited to Meconé
(Sicyon). We may assume that the bones
areincluded in the μηρία, not mere slices
from the limb offered, as Mr. Paley on
Hes. Theog. 556 thinks. The κνίσῃ κῶλα
συγκαλυπτὰ of Aschyl. Prom. 504 is
decisive against the latter view, and
in Soph. Antig. the μυδῶσα κηκὶς μη-
ρέων cannot so well be understood of
mere bones which had “slipped out of
their fatty envelope’’. These joints with
the fat had the highest sacrificial value.
457. #védy. The omentum, caul of
fat, enveloping intestines, is prin-
cipally meant. The word primarily
means nidor, the smell of flesh roast
or burnt (mar.), and the fat as yielding
it, The fat burnt best — a sufficient
ground for preferring it: so in the
Mosaic ritual Lev. IIT. 14—6. The
blood on the contrary has no special
prominence in H.
458. δίπτυχα, best taken as a noun
from δέπτυξ: but δέίπκτυχος adj. also
occurs. The bones of the dead are
also wrapped δίπλακι δημῷ (mar,).
Heyne on A. 461 gives for δέπε. ποιήσ.
omento bis circumducto. ὠμοϑέτ. is
cleared by ξ. 427—8, where Eumeus
“slicing votive parts (ἀρχόμενος) from
all the members was setting them raw
on (ἔς) the rich fat”, i. 6. to burn.
Besides the chief joints, prime morsels
from the rest laid on the fatty en-.
velope completed the burnt - offering.
Thus the whole victim was represen-
tatively burnt (Schol.).
459. σχέξῃς, ‘cloven”’, as burning
more quickly. This again recals Jewish
ritual, see Gen. XXII. 3, 1. Sam. VI. 14,
the oxttn is not, however, exclusively
sacrificial (é.425). — αἴϑοπα, “‘spark-
ling’’, sce App. Ὁ. 1. The ‘pouring
wine” ended the strictly sacrificial part
relating to the god, as the sprinkling
barley began it; the banquet had a
wholly human relation; the “tasting
the entrails’? (461) is a link uniting
the two, bringing the worshipper, as
it were sacramentally, into direct con-
tact with the rite.
460. véou x. τ. 1., the purpose seems
to have been to keep the sacrifice from
falling apart — an ill-omened acci-
dent cf. Soph. ub.sup. In y. 33 these
rites had all been performed before
Telem. arrived. In comparing the
simpler ritual of: Eumeeus in §. 425,
n. ὃ. that sacrifice is not there, as here,
the primary object, but only, in mak-
ing the feast, he ‘‘did not forget the
gods’’, Where lambs are the victims,
in consecrating the oath (Γ΄ 260—92),
their throats are cut merely.
460
DAY Iv.]
αὐτὰρ ἐπεὶ κατὰ une ἐκάη, καὶ σπλάγχν᾽ ἐπάσαντο,
μίστυλλόν τ᾽ ἄρα τἄλλα καὶ ἀμφ᾽ ὀβελοῖσιν ἔπειραν,
ὥπτων δ᾽ ἀκροπόρους ὀβελοὺς" ἐν χερσὶν ἔχοντες.
τόφρα δὲ Τηλέμαχον λοῦσεν καλὴ Πολυκάστη,
Ιό5 Νέστορος ὁπλοτάτη" ϑυγάτηρ Νηληιάδαο.
αὐτὰρ“ ἐπεὶ λοῦσέν τε καὶ ἔχρισεν Aix’ ἐλαίῳ,
ἀμφὶ δέ μιν φᾶρος καλὸν βάλεν ἠδὲ χιτῶνα,
ἔκ @ ἀσαμίνϑου" βῆ δέμας ἀϑανάτοισιν ὁμοῖος"
πὰρ δ᾽ ὅ γε Νέστορ᾽ ἰὼν κατ᾽ ἄρ᾽ Eero, ποιμένα λαῶν.
οὗβ δ᾽ ἐπεὶ ὥπτησαν κρέ᾽ ὑπέρτερα καὶ ἐρύσαντο,
δαίνυνϑ᾽ ἑξόμενοι" ἐπὶ δ᾽ ἀνέρες" ἐσθλοὶ ὕροντο,
οἷνον ἐνοινοχοεῦντες ἐνὶ χρυσέοις' δεπάεσσιν.
αὐτὰρ" ἐπεὶ πόσιος καὶ ἐδητύος ἐξ ἔρον Evro,
τοῖσι δὲ μύϑων ἦρχε Γερήνιος ἱππότα Νέστωρ᾽
ΟΔΥΣΣΕΊΙΑΣ Τ'. 461—476. 97
a μ. 395.
b 4. 58, 2. 283, o.
361, I. 108.
e w.183; cf. δ. 128,
0. 90, F. 456.
f ge. 109.
5. y- 65, v. 279.
ἢ & 104.
i App. A. 8 (2)
mar.
k a. 150.
1 δ. 776, B. 331.
πὶ e. 380, o. 216,
E. 323, @. 348.
n γ. 478, 0. 47; ef.
“ἐ παῖδες ἐμοὶ, ἄγε! Τηλεμάχῳ καλλίτριχας" ἵππους} 3 Si, 146, 100,
ξεύξαϑ᾽ ὑφ᾽ Aouar ἄγοντες." ἵνα πρήσσῃσινο ὁδοῖο."
470. ξερύσαντο.
ο 0.47, 219, 2.264.
472. «οἶνον ξοινοχοεῦντες.
469. alii πὰρ δέ γε, ποιμένα Heidelb. Bek., ποιμένι Schol. P. ΟἹ. ed. Ox.
Dind. Fa, Lé.
472. οἰνοχοεῦντες, ut £ consulatur, Scholl. H. V.
476. alii
πρήσσοσιν.
462. μέστυλλον, opposed to διέ-
yévay, as subdividing into small por-
tions, not, however, ‘‘mincing’’; such
portions are called κρέα in y. 33 where
see note.
464. τόφρα, since neither ὄφρα nor
ὡς precedes, is better taken to mean
“then” than “‘all this while’. Adtder,
Ni. seems to think that a daughter of
the host, where there was one, usually
80 assisted the guest; cf. δ 252; as
Hebé in Olympus (E. 905) who how-
ever has general ministerial functions,
and is not a daughter of Zeus, but of
Kronos (722, ef. J. 2). But in Alcinous’
palace, itis not Nausicaa, but the slaves,
who do so, as in the Spartan and
Ithacan palaces (ϑ. 454, δ. 49, @. 88).
Faesi’s account is better, that out of
distinguished friendship Polycasté waits
on Telem. as a sister, Calypsd and
Circé with her nymphs so attend Odys.
From ¢. 215 foll. and 7. 296 λοῦσεν or
losy appears to mean, in all these
cases except the last, merely ‘‘pre-_
pared or furnished a bath’’; see Gladst.
IT. 513 [0]. Πολυκάστη, according
to one legend she afterwards married
Telem.
HOM. OD. I.
466—7. Ain €2., Aix’ is best taken
as accus. of Aly and, being = zoeéopa,
is the accus. of the equivalent object
after ἔχρισε; so Aix’ ἄλειψεν £. 227;
but may also be dat. λέπι, and ἐλαέῳ
& noun in appos., cf. Ausch. Agam. 1402
λίπος ἐπ᾽ ὀμμάτων αἵματος ἐμπρέπειν,
or with Heyne on X. 577 as = an adj.
φᾶρος and χιτώνα are in inverted
order: the φᾶρος was ample and could
muffle the head, or serve as a shroud;
it is described as μέγα πορφύρεον,
seems. to have been worn over the yt.
like the χλαῖνα. It was also worn. by
females. Calyps6 gives Odys. several
‘page to make his sail. The looms
of the nymphs in Ithaca produce φάρεα
ἀλιπόρφυρα, by which epithet probably
some choice dye is intended (mar.).
469. ποιμένα, the edd. mostly
favour ποιμένι. Juxtaposition with ἴων
gives the preference to the accus., as
of motion, with παρὰ over the dat. of
rest. Thus Néotog’ is Νέστορα.
470—1. κρέ᾽ x. t.1.,-see on 33 and
65—6 sup. — «ἀνέρες 209-02, 8 more
dignified term than κοῦροι in 339 sup.;
cf. δ. 236 and mar.
475-6. That Nestor can be brief
7
h ¢. 82.
i y. 494, ο. 192,
. 768, Θ. 45,
K. 530, 4. 519,
xX. 400.
k o. 183.
1 x. 81, B. 538
m o. 18i—91; cf.
a. 41.
ἢ α.54; cf. Ν. 106,
&. 352.
o β. 388 mar.
p E. 542—52.
q g. 15.
r Y. 239.
sy 151 mar.
ty. 404.
OATXEZEIAZ Γ΄ 477—493. [Day v.
ὡς" ἔφαϑ᾽ " of δ᾽ ἄρα τοῦ μάλα piv κλύον ἠδ᾽ ἐπέϑοντο-"
καρπαλίμως δ᾽ ἔξευξαν" ὑφ’ ἄρμασιν ὠκέας ἵππους.
ἐν δὲ γυνὴ“ ταμίη σῖτον καὶ οἶνον ἔϑηκεν,
ὄψα τε, οἷα ἔδουσι διοτρεφέες βασιλῆες. 48
ἂν δ᾽ ἄρα Τηλέμαχος περικαλλέα" βήσατο δίφρον" ©
πὰρ δ᾽ ἄρα Νεστορίδης Πεισίστρατος ὄρχαμοςἷ ἀνδρῶν,
és& δίφρον τ᾽ ἀνέβαινε καὶ ἡνία λάξετο χερσὶν,
μάστιξεν" δ᾽ ἐλάαν" τὼ δ᾽ οὐκ ἄκοντε πετέσϑην'
ἐς πεδίον, λιπέτην δὲ Πύλου αἰπὺ πτολέεϑρον᾽
οὗ δὲ πανημέριοινι σεῖον ξυγὸν ἀμφὶς" ἔχοντες.
δυσετό" τ᾽ ἠέλιος σκιόωντό τε πᾶσαι ἀγυιαί:"
ἐς Φηρὰς δ᾽ ἵκοντο, DroxAjog? ποτὶ δῶμα.
υἱέος Ὀρσιλόχοιο,ι τὸν ᾿Δλφειὸς τέκε: παῖδα.
ἔνϑα δὲ νύκτ᾽ ἄεσαν"" ὅ δὲ τοῖς πὰρ ξείνια ϑῆκεν.
ἦμος" δ᾽ ἠριγένεια φάνη ῥοδοδάκτυλος "Has,
ἵππους te ξευγνυντ᾽ ἀνά ὃ᾽ ἄρματα ποικέλ᾽ " ἔβαινον"
48
4S
u E. 239, 4.226,'&% δ᾽ ἔλασαν προϑύροιο καὶ αἰθούσης ἐριδούπου"
| .
479. «οἶνον.
484. ἀξέκοντε.
479. supra ἐν ἂν; supra ἔϑηκεν ἔχευεν habet Harl. script. probante Schol. H.
λ
484. ἵππους pro ἐλάαν Schol. M.
486. ϑεῖον οἱ ἀμφιέχοντες Aristoph., Scholl.
H. Q. R. T., sed ἀμφὶς ἔχοντες Schol. M. Marl. θεῖον sed in marg. et Schol.
σεῖον. -
o. 187, φ. 16 Harl. per τ constanter.
patris nomen per τ, filii
489. Ὀρτιλόχοιο Harl, a manu pr., sed mutatur τ in o, o Schol. In
“Schol. ad Εἰ. 542 in Cod. Townleiano
er 6 scribi vult’’ Pors.
490. ὃ δ᾽ ἄρα ξεινήια δῶκε
Harl., ὃ δὲ τοῖς πὰρ ξένια δῶκεν Venet. in textu, sed ϑῆκεν Scholl. H. Μ.
493. omittunt-codd. complures.
"on occasion is shown by this the shortest
speech of his in either poem. Dis-
pateh is here the prime object, and
is absolute tone to his sons suits it.
His farewell is witheld clearly because
he counted on his guest’s return, as
Telem. was‘well aware; who, in dread
of his pressing héspitality, discreetly
avoids him on his way back (0.193 foll.).
For ὁδοῖο see on 251 and 23 sup.
480. oda x. 7.4. Eumseus bids Odys.
“eat such as servants have to give’? —
his choicer animals (such as are here
perhaps by distinction intended) being
devoured by the suitors (ξ. 80—1).
(Ni.) This line is remarkable for hia-
tus twice occurring.
486. With of dé παν. cf. παννυχίη
μὲν δ᾽ ἢ ye, of the ship on her voyage
(B. 434). Aristarchus here proposed
sioy (ran) ζυγὸν ἀμφίεχοντες. The
words mean as they stand, ‘‘shook the
yoke, ‘having 16 about (their necks)’’,
From &. 268 foll. we see that the
yoke, or rather cross-bar, was first
secured to the pole and then the cattle
led under it, there being but one yoke
for the pair. (Ni.); see further on &. 73
for this subject. —
488—g0. @yeac, see App. D. 3.
A later Orsilochus son of Diocles and
grandson of Alpheiis the river-god went
to the Trojan war: Odys. had also in
his youth visited an Orsil. at Messené
(mar.). There is considerable varia-
tion, and even confusion between a
and t in the orthography of the name.
aéday, see On ISI sup.
491. See on β. 1. The fifth day here
begins.
493- This v. is wanting in some MSS.
but seems to be quite as allowable here
as in o. 191. (Ni.) For the πρόϑυ-
ρον and αἔϑουσα see App. F. 2-(8).
"1103 ¥ 20% 3Ν|1
‘THY WOO@ B21VYULSATII OL
DAY V.|
_ [μάστιξεν δ᾽ ἐλάαν, τὼ δ᾽ οὐκ ἄκοντε πετέσϑην.]
195 ἷξον δ᾽ ἐς πεδίον xvongdeor,* ἔνϑα δ᾽ ἔπειτα
ἦνον" ὁδόν" τοῖον γὰρ ὑπέκφερον ὠκέες ἵπποι.
δυσετό" τ᾽ ἠέλιος σκιόωντό τε πᾶσαι ἀγυιαί.
ΟΔΥΣΣΕΊΑΣ Γ΄. 494—497.
99
a M. 314, 5. 123,
υ K. 251, Σ. 473,
8. 357, 243.
ς E 316, 37, Θ.
d Δ. 488 mar.
494. ἀξέκοντε.
494 [] Bek.
496. ἤνυον (ὃ omisso odoyv?) Schol. Vind.
4—6. Homer's love of repetition
of details in the same words fof. 483
—s) is remarkably instanced here.
Bek. however rejects 494. — gov, see
on y.5—-6. For xwedlovw xveng. see
App. D. 3. This adj. is more common
under the form πυροφόρος (mar.). —
, strictly imperf. ‘were finishing”’,
t.e. “were near their journey’s end’’:
the pres. forms ἄγομαι pass. and ayia
act. are found in H., not ἄφνυμε or
ἄνυμαι; past forms ἤνυσε ἤνυτο, also
occur (mar.). .
The fifth day of the action of the
poem, measured strictly, ends with this
book; but see on ὃ. 1.
OATZZEIAS A.
SUMMARY OF BOOK IV.
In the course of the fifth day Telemachus and Pisistratus reach Sparta and
find Menelaus engaged in the nuptials of his children. A remark of Tele-
machus on the splendour of the palace draws from Menelaus a brief sketch
of his wanderings, which leads him to dwell on the comrades whom he had
lost, especially Odysseus (1—119). Helen appears from her chamber and re-
cognizes Telemachus by his likeness to his father. This leads to a climax of
sorrow which pointedly depicts the tenderness of Menelaus’ character, and the
surpassing merit of Odysseus (120— 218). Helen assuages their grief by the
Nepenthé, and after further conversation on Odysseus’ exploits at Troy, they
retire to rest and the fifth day ends (219—305).
On the morning of the sixth day, Telemachus, in answer to Menelaus’ en-
quiry, states his domestic troubles, and declares his errand at Sparta to enquire
after his father’s fate (306—350). This leads to the episode of Proteus of the
Nile from whom Menelaus, when detained in those parts by baffling winds,
had learnt the fate of Ajax son of Oileus, and of Agamemnon, and the fact
of Odysseus’ detention in Calypsé’s island. He then presses Telemachus to
stay and offers him presents (351—624).
The scene then shifts to Ithaca, where the suitors, having discovered Tele-
machus’ departure, at Antinous’ suggestion plot an ambush to destroy him on
his return (625 --- 6)74). Medon overhears and discovers their plot to Penelopé,
who, until this disclosure, was ignorant of his departure. Her affliction at
the news is vividly pourtrayed. Euryclea soothes her, suggesting prayer to
Pallas, which she offers. The suitors then prepare for their expedition, and
the sixth day ends (675— 786) by Penelopé’s retiring, in a fast of sorrow, to
her chamber, where, falling asleep, she is reassured as regards her son by a
vision sent by Pallas. In the night the suitors place their vessel as Asteris to
lurk for Telemachus on his return (787—847).
Ta ἐν Πὰκεδαίμονι.
Οἱ δ᾽ ἷξον κοίλην" “ακεδαίμονα κητώεσσαν ,"
πρὸς δ᾽ ἄρα δώματ᾽ ἔλων- Μενελάου κυδαλίμοιο.
τὸν δ᾽ εὗρον δαινύντα. γάμον πολλοῖσιν ἔτῃσιν "
υἱέος ἠδὲ ϑυγατρὸς ἀμύμονος ᾧ ἐνὶ οἴκῳ.
τὴν μὲν ᾿Αἀχιλλῆος ῥηξήνορος'" υἱέϊ πέμπεν᾽
020 OR
abort 1S, by
Lame }
cj Be
= BS
3. «έτῃσιν.
I. καιετάεσσαν Sive καιετόεσσαν Zenod., Scholl. H. M. Q. R.
Diodorus Aristophaneus, Wolf, prolegg. p- 264,
ο
4. ἀμύμονα Fa Focxo.
--20. delebat
[] Low. 4. ἀμύμονα Bek.
F subsequens.
1. The fifth day of the poem’s action
is continued after sunset.
iSov, see on y. 5, 6. xolAny de-
scribes the region rather than the town:
γῆ under its Doric form δᾶ (schyl.
Prom. 580) suggests δῆμος δᾶμος, to
which the 254 element in Μακε-δαέμων
is akin, as yeia to γῆ; the 15 is Aax—
as in λάκκος, a pit, Herod. IV. 195,
Lat. lacero, lacus, lacuna, and suggests
κητώεσσαν “full of hollows or ra-
vines’’ (Buttm. Zezil. 70, Curtius 86).
For κοίλην cf. Calo-Syria, κοίλη Hits,
and Soph. Céd. Col. 341 τὸ κοῖλον “Ag-
γος. The region here intended, is the
narrow valley of the Eurotas between
mounts Taygetus and Parthenius (App.
D. 3), on entering which they were
probably near the town.
2. ἔλων, here strictly imperf., “were
driving’’ while he was (v. 3) feasting:
but by some 3—19 is viewed as an
interpolation; see on 1 5—19 ἐν.
3. ἔτησιν (and yelroves ἠδὲ ἔται 16),
this. word, always plur. in H., has the
fF, and seems akin to férog a year,
and Lat. vetus. It denotes lapse of time
spent together, as yefzove¢ local near-
ness (mar.), and expresses intimacy
based on that idea, not, therefore, im-
plying kin, nor feeling like géioz,
nor comradeship like éraigo:, although
these may be accidentally included and
are often found in connexion with it;
and its tie may arise from any or se-
veral of these,.as any may produce
the mutual habituation. Thus the bro-
thers and ἔται of Theoclymenus are
mighty princes of the Achseans, and
pursue him for tribal homicide, o. 273
foll.; Ajax Telamon has frag καὶ ἑταί-
ρους, the former antecedent to, the
latter arising out of the war. Menel.
has no kin to celebrate his children’s
nuptials, hence his γεέτονες here. So
Eteoneus ov πολὺ ναῖεν ax’ αὐτοῦ o.
96. In Lat. necessarii seems closest to
frat. Apollonius s. v. ra explains it
by συνήϑεις, whom two Scholl. follow.
4—s- “Sophocles in the Hermioné
says that Hermioné was given in mar-
riage to Orestes by Tyndarus while
Menel. was yet in Troy, and that, when
Neoptolemus came to demand her ac-
cording to promise, she was taken away
from 6. but that afterwards, when
Neoptol. was slain at Pythé by the priest
Macheerus, O. resumed her as his wife
en
_
a
. ὅδ) ΘΟ κ᾿’
sipped:
SS" S8e52
28 δι
ae Qe
[πὶ Σ
οΡΒο πον
s hyo “> &:
ΕΝ
>
[εἰ
-
Bo;
a
288
4.5’ @rSet
Set MAROMas
BSeh, a8 e
»
ass
9. ἄστυ favaccer,
9. pro, προτὶ περὶ Harl. ex emend. antiq. certe si non ejusd. man.
nulli; Eléyng Aristoph. Rhian., Schol. M., ita Harl. o superscripto.
OATZZEIAL A. 6—19.
—
11. fos.
[pay v.
ἐν Τροίῃ γὰρ πρῶτον ὑπέσχετο" καὶ κατένευσεν
δωσέμεναι, τοῖσιν δὲ Deol γάμον ἐξετέλειον."
τὴν ἄρ᾽ ὃ γ᾽ ἔνϑ᾽ ἵπποισι" καὶ ἄρμασι πέμπελ νέεσϑαι
: Μυρμιδόνων προτὶ ἄστυ περικλυτὸν ." οἷσιν ἄνασσεν .ἵ
E.| vlét δὲ Σπάρτηϑεν ᾿“λέκτορος ἤγετο κούρην,
ὅς of τηλύγετος" γένετο κρατερὸς Μεγαπένϑης
έκὴ δούλης" Ἑλένῃ δὲ ϑεοὶ γόνον οὐκέτ᾽ ἔφαινον,
ἐπεὶ δὴ τὸ πρῶτον᾽ ἐγείνατον παῖδ᾽ ἐρατεινὴν'
Ἑρμιόνην," 4 εἶδος ἔχε χρυσέης" ᾿ἡ“φροδίτης.
45. [ὡς of μὲν δαίνυντο καϑ᾽ ὑψερεφὲς" μέγα δῶμα
. 21.) γείτονες» ἠδὲ ἔταια Μενελάου κυδαλίμοιο,
π. , \ 3 ,
τερπόμενοι" μετὰ δέ σφιν ἐμέλπετο ϑεῖος" ἀοιδὸς
φορμίξζων δοιὼ δὲ κυβιστητῆρε' κατ᾽ αὐτοὺς,
Ζ. Al. - ’ ’ \ ’
144, 0. 447,| μολπῆς éEdezyortos,". ἐδίνευον" κατὰ μέσσον. "
16. Fécas.
12, ¢ non-
1s—g. hos
14. ἐειδος.
vv. non Homeri sed Arist. esse affirmabat Athen. IV. 180, Scholl. M. T., [] Bek.
Dind. ] Fa.
19. ἐξάρχοντος Athen. ub. sup. Wolf. ἐξάρχοντες (ab
Arist. fictum, Athen.) Ern. Cl. ed. Oxon.
μέσσον Harl. a manu pri. ita Low.
μέσσους Harl. ex emend, recent. ita Bek, Dind. Fa.
and begat Tisamenus.”’ Schol. Another
legend made O. kill Neoptol. patrias ad
aras (Virg. En. III. 330—23), 1.6. probably
at Delphi. Cf.alsoEurip, dndr. 1117 foll.
8—10. πέριπδ coresponds with ἤγετο
in 10, ‘“‘sending’’ his daughter as a
bride, ‘“‘bringing home’’ a bride for
his son. τυ, no ‘‘city of the Myr-
midones is named in B. 683 foll., nor
in 1. 440, 479—80, where we might
expect it, if at all: their land is Phthia.
The Scholl. would identify Pharsalia
with the site — 5πάρτηϑεν i.e. his own
city, where Alector dwelt, like Eteo-
neus in 22, ἃ grandson of Pelops and
cousin of the Atridsw (Schol.).
11. τηλύγετος. The etymology which
connects this with ϑήλυς Palio suits
best the decisive passage φόβος λάβε
τηλυγετον ws, and is justified by the
paraphrastic expansion following in I.
143, 285 ὃς of τηλύγετος τρέφεται
θαλίῃ ἐνὶ πολλῇ; see on a. 1, 299,
and cf. y. 383, 392, δ. 788 for other
instances of this usnge. — Meyanév-
Ons, cf. for significance the scriptural
names Benoni, Ichabod, etc. For the
‘“‘great sorrow’’ which gave the name
see App. E, 8 (16).
12—4. δούλης, see App. A. 7 (1).
The Scholl. have a name for her, va-
riously given as Teris, Teiris, Teri-
daé, or Getis. The same notice a fit-
ness in Helen’s having no children after
Hermioné, as tending to preserve her
beauty, and avoiding the notion of her
bearing any to Paris. Soph. Electr. 539
says she had two by Menel. ἐπεὶ has
é by arsis. For eyelvato see App.
A. 20.
15—g. These lines, some of which
occur in 1]. (mar.), are ascribed by
Athenseus to Aristarchus. Ni, and Bek.
condemn them, Fa. rejects only vv.
17—9, but Lowe all vv. 3—19, ad-
mitting, however, that τὼ δ᾽ αὐτ᾽ in
20 does not aptly continue 2. If only
vv. 15 —19 were omitted, the actual
nuptials might be supposed over. This
would be more consistent with the ab-
sence of any further mention of a ya-
μος. That Menelaus’ attention is ab-
sorbed in his guests is hardly an ar-
gument against the genuineness ofthe
passage; since the Homeric narrative
does not concern itself with groups not
connected with the main narrative,
save perhaps in a passage of transi-
Jo
15
DAY V.|
OATZZEIAL Δ. 20—34.
105
Ἢ Φ 9. 5
τὼ δ᾽ aur’ ἐν προϑύροισι" δόμων αὐτώυ" τε καὶ ἵππω, ] ς App. F. 2 (1) το
Τηλέμαχός & ἥρως καὶ Νέστορος ἀγλαὸς" υἱὸς,
στῆσαν". ὃ δὲ προμολὼν" ἴδετο κρείων Ἐτεωνεὺς,
ὀτρηρὸςῖ ϑέράπων Μενελάου κυδαλίμοιο,
βῆ" δ᾽ ἵμεν ἀγγελέων διὰ δώματα ποιμένι λαῶν,
25 ἀγχοῦ! δ᾽ ἱστάμενος ἔπεα πτερόεντα προρηύδα"
“ξείνω δή τινε τώδε, διοτρεφὲοὶ ὦ Μενέλαε,
ἄνδρε δύω, γενεῇ δὲ Διὸς μεγάλοιο ἔξίκτον.
ἀλλ᾽ εἴπ᾽ εἰ σφωῖν καταλύσομεν! ὠκέας ἵππους,
ἢ ἄλλον πέμπωμεν ἱκανέμεν, ὅς xe φιλήσῃ."
40 τὸν" δὲ μέγ᾽ ὀχϑήσας προφέφη ξανϑὸς Μενέλαος
“ov μὴν νήπιος ἦσϑα, Βοηϑοίδη ᾿Ετεωνεῦ, ἣ
τὸ πρίν" ἀτὰρ μὲν νῦν γε πάϊς ὡς νήπια Badges.
ἦ μὲν On νῶι ξεινήια πολλὰ φαγόντε
ἄλλων ἀνθρώπων δεῦρ᾽ ἰκόμεϑ᾽, αἵ κέ ποϑι Ζεὺς
22. ἰδετο.
20. αὐτοί te καὶ ἵπποι alii, Bek. annot. ——
32. atag μὴν νῦν Bek. νῦν μὴν id. annot.
34. pro αἴ Bek. ef; pro ποϑὲε ποτὲ Bek. annot.
Ι, Stephan.
Augsb. ita Bek.
tion, as δ. 621—4, where see note.
The revelling suitors on the contrary
are kept in view throughout the hos-
pitalities of Telem. to the Pseudo-
Mentes, but the suitors have a direct
connexion with the story. The question
of μέσσον or μέσσους is hardly worth
discussing where the whole passage is
so doubtful. ἐς μέσσον often occurs
(mar.) meaning “‘into the midst of a
company ’’.
20—3. προϑύροισι, see App. F. 2
(7)—(9). — ϑεράπων, see on a. 109.
The &egazxovteg perform for Menelaus’
guests duties discharged for those of
Nestor by his sons; cf. y. 475—80 and
35 — 43 inf.
27—8. yevex, ‘‘family type’’, that of
a royal race, styled commonly dtoye-
veis or διοτρεφεῖς; 80 E. 474 αὐτῷ γὰρ
γενεὴν ἄγχιστα ἐώχειν. — ἐξΐχτον,
Ni. allows a var. lect. ἐΐκτην, since the
speaker has them no longer in view,
or retiring in 24. For six’ ef Bek.
writes ex’ ἢ» but see on γ. go—t.
, 29. πέμπωμεν subjunct, coupled by
ἢ to ind. fut. See App. A. 9 (s).
31-3. Menelaus derived only injury
from his hospitality to Paris, which jus-
tifies Eteoneus’ hesitation here (Schol.).
25. «έπεα.
(9) mar.
b N. 684.
c δ. 303, 0. 144,
3. 188, K. 196.
dn. 4.
e 2. 382.
{ δ. 217, α. 109
mar., A. 321.
g ὅδ. 528, 679.
h y. 100, 9. 349,
ὁ. 159, ο. 9.
id. 561, P. 702.
k ὦ. 198, Τ' 111.
1 η. 6.
πὶ ὅ. 332, ο. 325.
27. έξικτον.
- λη. γενέην Schol. V. ἐΐκτην var.
33. φαγόντες Harl,
It is characteristic of Menel. that he
remembers the good that he has re-
ceived rather than the evil; see App.
E. 8 (10) (12). Eteoneus, once his
comrade in war and wanderings, was
now a neighbour (0. 96). — Ov μὴν,
Bekker's alteration of μὲν after ov,
καὶ, 7, etc. to μὴν (Homer, Blatt. 34),
wherever metre allows, has been fol-
lowed only where there is some strong
and emphatic abruptness of negation,
as here and a. 222. Jelf, Gr. Gr. § 729,
3. b., reading ov μὲν, notes this as a
rare use of it in reference to what
follows, ἀτὰρ μὲν νῦν x. τ. 1. For
δεινήια see on ξεένι᾽ γ. 490.
3—4. φαγόντε, Bek. φαγόντες,
but νῶε often has dual participle, e. g.
προφανείσα @. 377—8, ΚΞ. 314. Bek.,.
however, even when va has another
dual word joined, as in δ. 282, νῶι μὲν
ἀμφοτέρω, prefers the fuller sound,
μενεήναμεν ὀρμηϑέντες, for the end
of the line (Z/omer. Blatt. 31—2), which
two MSS. favour. In o. 398, in the
th foot, the metre requires πένοντέ. ---
xoued’ “are come’’, aor. for perf., ac-
cordingly af xe with subjunct. follows,
meaning, ‘‘(trying to see) if Zeus may
hereafter (ἐξοπέσω; mostly of place,
af ». oa"
C4 ᾿ τὰ ᾿ :
"" on -WF- im FAy Faves
roo ‘io
ΚΣ JS : “ἃ , 710° he |
wy tA 2 te πλείονι. ξδασπι 1 taadns
Ving κάλ ὅπ “Ins
ἄτη ι. 4 71 τ7τ."
cA ne γσ “2.1. 3. λύσας: Ca! SIA ai and.
7 - “ a a - “- “ -“«- - Ε" - πον.
ἜΝ, “ A VN RFA; Bey αὐήσπῃ ETA Sepa -Aganvwes.
rt) An | 4.’ . . o . .
σῷ the 73 gay arviinhay 35. | EEG. AMAT!
«
a? . ‘ a» > va eas . δὺς
ἘῸΝ
ς, pts δ΄ ba he Ager. teee), M. if “2. ΒΕ.
(ye Ae.
he peri ΕΝ ,, .,..,ϑ6. Sea pix
San,
war wae, baee af Siete.
BAA MW azty RE.
nen Of beeve italy
Yive se gees
Dt, the aareed-
sagyzeate his name:
$6. a3, Lhwy ἐπσιτιμήτοοο .. below.
sh, σφνεέ Myo, Neal them ἣν ἢ,
aageod in alanygoy 41: thay were yet
by πφοϑυ διε, ee 1% Op,
“5, angalhus, the qneation hetween
thin nel ἐησέσθω κεστὸν wetted 9, by
the fast thet anhatias κε every pas
ange, but bankai in oxeladed ing.
444. (9) Nhot compensa of ἕπομαι drop
fhe p, ne ἐπισπόμενσᾳ! 's, that σπέ-
ain helny tannd ΠΥ preceeded by
woven fi ob) whe ennily corrupted
int ἐηνέπθμι (ime), and (4) hy the
annlopy of ἔχω ἔσχον αχέσθαι x. τ. 1,
ΠΤ ΜῈΝ , antata σποηίμην
HAH ed of ΠΗ ἢ, (dr, Berka) and
Midtance (Ae, X. ad (hy hold the a dn
AN them fo he corrert ΝΗ ἢ old opie
form Mfeyne, Ni, Wok., Thiersch,
ted ΑἸ ΗΝ rejeot if,
4! Qeeeeg. Virgil's farra (lear, L734),
remolding wheat, to whieh some on
svasconventendes μη ἢν gorecfoer 1G, ΗΜ] mated
feo fone Hated from apalt, by whieh tarm
amen vender Adnger, Nie elton Mprongol
Mie vet δον, an αἰ εκ" thie: tint 1{-
vel, TEL atv ΠΝ Boverk with ὄλυραι
ur with ἡ mpovlon of It, tn δι bog
4". « Aon;
ων σπέηθνε ἅλιον, χ tg ita Bek. Dist. Fa.
Sarecas βασι, Een. Cl. of. Ox Bek.
e way 1 Sanaa 72.03. tom 44 χη agree Ξωξαυ.
] “΄ ἤγυσ "5, 4 tiagures tong ἔνανζως traqesencte -
a ᾿ς κήποις 8 gigas” δεῖν Asane- i 42 Bawtes
Povynlen win ἄδαασ Bvegagéng' Semeqes:
Abs τι yt γλλέγπ' αἰγάη πέλεν Ge SeAqwys
Seve haya χα teagegs;' Wavsieor: πεϑαλέαηε.
vi αήσάφ᾽ ian, τάφαν αν ὀφεύαενοκ" ὑπ Φελκηῦειν.
“ 4, 6 Ghoylean:; βάντες brome; Ζνεσαντο.
aA. aw” ἐσπέσϑαι Barnes. “2.
jp seer Arist.
------
ὥρια 17. classed with περοὶ wheat,
ant «gi barley. In Il. πφὲ and ὄξσραι
are. the nanal horse-meat, Kruse, azain
‘Hela 1. p. 341 note, cites Pliny Ν.
HI. XVI. 19, to show that Lec is spelt.
and is diatinet from olega. which he
inakes « kind of wheat. The whole
subject avems full of doubt. The word
ocecnen alan in δ, 604 but nowhere else
in Η,
42. trata, se App. F. 2 /8) and
(16, end,
43-7. εἰσῆγον, sce on 36. εἰσάγω
lias also a newt. sense (mar.). ἠέλιος
nkin to ἕλη εἴλη “heat”, and σελήνη
to σέλας “brightness”, as giving light
but no heat. H. has also μήγη, akin
tu μὴν μεὶς, mensis, for ‘‘moon”’, Sir
(i, (', Lewis, Anc. Astron. Ὁ. 17 (65).
ὀφώμενοι, middle, often means to
survey with admiration; so here,
48, Voss would have the bath-cham-
hers in the πρόδομος, on the right as
one entered, The fullest description,
however (κ. 358—63), rather implies
that there were no chambers specially
so tinod, but that with moveable ves-
nels, a tripod was set up, a fire kindled,
and wator warmed, wherever conve-
niont, the floor being the native earth
App. F. a (17).
ἢ
DAY v.] ΟΔΥΣΣΕΙΑΣ A. 49—66. 107
τοὺς" δ᾽ ἐπεὶ οὖν δμωαὶ λοῦσαν καὶ χρῖσαν ἐλαίῳ, | 2 2. 587.
50 ἀμφὶ δ᾽ ἄρα χλαίνας οὔλας βάλον ἠδὲ χιτῶνας, ιν» α. 136—42 mar.
ἔς 6a ϑρόνους Eovro παρ᾽ ᾿“τρείδην Μενέλαον. cg. 331.
χέρνιβα" δ᾽ ἀμφίπολος προχόῳ ἐπέχευε φέρουσα ἃ π᾿ 49-50.
καλῇ χρυσείῃ, ὑπὲρ ἀργυρέοιο λέβητος, Le εἴ. γ. 41.
νίψασθαι" παρὰ δὲ ξεστὴν ἐτάνυσσε τράπεζαν. τε £. 46-7.
55 σῖτον δ᾽ αἰδοίη ταμίη παρέϑηκε φέρουσα, gy. (9-70; ef.
εἴδατα πόλλ᾽ ἐπιϑεῖσα, χαριξομένη παρεόντων. 2. 64.
᾿[δαιτρὸς: δὲ κρειῶν ἃ πίνακας παρέϑηκεν ἀείρας he. 252.
παντοίων, παρὰ δέ σφι τύϑει χρύσεια κύπελλα.] icf. τ. 163.
τὼ καὶ δεικνύμενος" προςέφη ξανϑὸς Mevélaog Σ-Ἴἰκκ A. 176, B. 98;
όο ““σίτουϊ[ & ἄπτεσϑον καὶ χαίρετον- αὐτὰρ ἔπειτα ef. ὅδ. 24 mar.,
δείπνου πασσαμένωξ εἰρησόμεϑ᾽ of τινές" ἐστον 27, σε. Ah.
ἀνδρῶν. οὐ γὰρ σφῶν γε γένος ἀπόλωλε τοκήων, } of 4. 216 - τ΄
, ἀλλ᾽ ἀνδρῶν γένος ἐστὲ διοτρεφέων" βασιλήων " ow. δ. 457,
σκηπτούχων, ἐπεὶ οὔ κε κακοὶ τοιούςδε τέκοιεν." | 0. a8.
65 ὡς φάτο, καί σφιν νῶτα" βοὸς παρὰ πίονα ϑῆκεν͵ yi ὡ.
ὄπτ᾽ ἐν χερσὶν" ἑλὼν, τά ῥά οἵ γέρα" πάρϑεσαν αὐτῷ.
50. Fovlas.
51. παρὰ ξάνϑον Μέν. pro var..1. notat Schol. H.
57. 58. omittit Harl., |] plerique edd.
62—4. + Aristoph. et Zenod., Scholl. H. M.
Schol., χρυσῆν mar.
Harl. cum Schol.
61. Feconoone®’.
66. οι.
54. ξεστὴν Harl, text. et
61. παυσαμένω
[] Bek.
62. σφῶν Arist. et Herod., σφῶν (quod legi volunt Scholl. M. V.) Apollon.,
Scholl. H. M.
50—1. οὔλας, “of crisp wool’’, see
App. A. 3 (2). -- ἐς is used, as ἕξοντο
a verb of rest implies previous motion,
Jelf Gr. Gr. 8. 641. 1. — ϑρόνον, see
on @. 131—2.
§2—8, see on a. 136—42, whence
these lines recur. In the Harl. MS.
57—8 are wanting. They encumber
the passage, as the action of Menel.
in 65—6 inf. supersedes that of the
δαιτρὸς here; see also on ἂ. 140— 3,
and the readings in the inferior mar-
gin there.
59—61. δεικνύμενος, see on γ. 41.
Contrast with Menelaus’ courtesy in
60—1, and that of Nestor y. 69 foll.,
the abrupt question of Polyphemus in
t. 252. — δείπνου, see on 194 inf.
62. Ogu», the common text has
σφῶν, but this dat. dual contracted,
although common in Attic Greek, is
nowhere else found in H. Similar dual
forms as νῶϊ, νῶϊν, νωΐτερος, σφωΐ-
tégog, also avoid contraction, which
has been one ground for rejecting vv.
62—3. Ni. proposes to take σφῶν (the
vulgate according to Eustath.) as in-
stead of ὑμῶν, which sense he ascribes
to a Schol., who only says it is to be
referred to the 254 person, and means
probably to take σφῶν as gen. plur.
of σφὸς in sense of σφωΐτερος (A. 216):
σφὸς might indeed as well be posses-
sive of ogm or ogame “you two’, as of
σφεῖς ‘‘they’’, There is no other in-
stance in H. of σφὸς for the 2™ person.
Nor yet is Homeric analogy against it,
as it is against σφῶν for σφῶϊν. --- y
γος, apparently used like γενεὴ 27 sup.,
“the type of your parents is not lost’’
in you.
6s. vata, the chine, pl. as con-
taining both loins, was the special por-
tion of honour; so (mar.) Odys. sends
part of that which Alcinous had as-
signed to him to Demodocus.
66. If the lines 3—19 (see on 2) be
an interpolation, this verse should also
108
OATESZEIAE A. 6;—75.
[Day Υ͂.
a α. 149—50
Ὁ d. 444.
c α. 167 mar.
ἃ o. 167, E. 440,
ox 3, 470
ὁ E. 243, 826, K
234, 4. 608, T
287, ¢. 23.
f A. 83, ξ. 268, 9
437; cf. ἡ. S6—7.
g o. 460, o. 295.
h A. 704; cf. ν.
424. >»
iy. 123.
er eee
72. ηχήεντα.
γο. ita Zenod., πευϑοίατο ἄλλοι Arist., Scholl. H. Μ.
of* δ᾽ ἐπ᾽ ὀνείαϑ᾽ " ἑτοῖμα προκείμενα χεῖρας ἴαλλον.
αὐτὰρ ἐπεὶ πόσιος καὶ ἐδητύος ἐξ ἔρον Evro,
δὴ τότε Τηλέμαχος προςεφώνεε Νέστορος υἱὸν,
ἄγχι: σχὼν κεφαλὴν, ἵνα μὴ πευϑοίαϑ᾽ of ἄλλοι"
“6 φράξεο, Νεστορίδη, τῷ ἐμῷ" κεχαρισμένε ϑυμῷ,
χαλκοῦ τε στεροπὴν κατὰ δώματα ἠχήεντα,
χρυσοῦ τ᾽ ἠλέκτρου τε καὶ ἀργύρου ἠδ᾽ ἐλέφαντος.
Ζηνός που τοιήδε γ᾽ Ὀλυμπίου ἔνδοθεν αὐλὴ,
dooa τάδ᾽ ἄσπετα! πολλά. σέβας μ᾽ ἔχει εἰσορόωντα." 75
.--.-...--ῖ-ἣβὕ.
Η
72. καὶ δώματα Harl.,
fortasse ὁ xad δώματα (Barnes. Dind. Fa. Liw.) corrupte ortam, Bek. κατὰ ὃ.
74. τοιαῦτα δόμοις ἐν κτήματα κεῖται Schol. P. et Seleucns ap. Athen. V. 189.
be rejected, as there is then no ap-
positeness in the mention of Menel.
having had the νῶτα sect before him
first.
γ1-2. ἐμῷ xEx. D., cf. Virg. En.
XII. 142, animo gratissime nostro. yadhe
κοῦ, cf. Ov. Fast. VI. 363, wrata per
atria.
73. ἠλέχτρου, the sense of amber
may safely be preferred to that of the
admixture of gold with '/, of silver
(Pliny NV. ἢ. XXXII. 4), of which So-
phocles probably speaks, Antig. 1037,
as τὸν πρὸς Σάρδεων ἤλεκ., and couples
with Indian gold. In Hes. Scut. 142
it occurs in conjunction with gold,
ivory, and téravog (commonly supposed
gypsum), as a material of embellish-
ment. Hesiod Fragm. 355 notices the
fable of the daughters of the Sun being
changed to poplars and their tears to
amber, which looks like the mythical
statement of a mere natural fact. On
it the lost Eliades of Aschylus was
based and the Phaéthon of Euripides.
Cf. also the name ‘‘Electra”’, and the
Ἤλεκτραι πύλαι (Aschyl. Theb. 418).
The derivation from ἠλέκτωρ (name of
the Sun) is probable, and suits its
glittering golden hue; although Buttm.
Mythol. 162 prefers to derive it from
ἕλκω, as if Ednrooy, ‘‘the attracter’’.
Amber being a primitive substance is
more likely to have given its name to
the compound metal than conversely.
Herod. III. 115 knew of it as a com-
mercial commodity fetched, as was said,
from the fabulous (as he thinks) river
Eridanus. See Rawlinson’s Herod. and
notes ad loc. The vast antiquity of
amber, being found, as here, in do-
mestic ornamentation among the rem-
nants of the lacustrine villages of
Switzerland, which are apparently pre-
historic (Revue de deux mondes Febr.
1861), and in tombs of the ‘‘bronze”’
period, gives a probability to its rather
being meant here than the metallic
ἤλεκτρον. The use of the plur., too,
ηλέκτροισιν Fegro or ἐερμένον (0ρ-
μον mar.), surely suits the notion of
“lumps of amber’’, and is inapplicable
if it were a metal. The Baltic Prus-
sian region is not the only one where
it is found. Sir G. C. Lewis, who views
it as amber here, speaks of a large
lump (18'>) said to have been found
in Lithuania, and now at Berlin (Anc.
Astron. VIII. § 4, 461).
74. Cf. for the idea Hy. Merc. 251
ola ϑεῶν μακάρων ἱεροὶ δόμοι ἔντος
ἔχουσιν. A var, lect. Ζηνὸς που τοι-
avra δόμοις ἐν κτήματα κεῖται is re-
tained by Athenzeus, which better suits
κτήματα 79; τοιήδε also hardly leads
apply to ὅσσα. Ni. remarks that avin
is the court without, which the speaker
saw not when he spoke: but the si-
milar amazement of Odys. at Alci-
nous’ palace refers to its outer deco-
ration, πρὶν χάλκεον οὐδὸν ἱκέσθαι.
Besides, Telem. sitting within might
easily express his thoughts of what had
struck him frst on entering and was
continued around him; a continuation
which ἔνδοθεν easily suggests, and
αὐλὴ itself may even be conceived as
put for all that it contained, viz. the
μέγαρον. Cf. I, 404, οσσα λαΐνος ov-
δὸς ἀφήτορος ἐντὸς ἐέργει.
80
85
DAY V.|
ΟΔΥΣΣΕῚΑΣ A. 76—8o.
109
tov δ᾽ ἀγορεύοντος ξύνετο ξανϑὸς Μενέλαος,
a O. 145.
b cf. 4.218, FZ. 389.
καί σφεας" φωνήσας ἔπεα πτερόεντα προςηύδα᾽ cE. 172.
“τέχνα φίλ᾽, ἦ τοι Ζηνὶ βροτῶν οὐκ av τις ἐρίξοι"" ὁ 9116; 401.
ἀϑάνατοι γὰρ τοῦ γε δόμοι καὶ κτήματ᾽ ἔασιν. 115. δ.
ἀνδρῶν δ᾽ ἥ κέν τίς μοι ἐρίσσεταις- ἠὲ. καὶ οὐκὶ
κτήμασιν. ἢ γὰρ πολλὰ παϑὼν καὶ πόλλ᾽ ἐπαληϑεὶς"
ἠγαγόμην' ἐν νηυσὶ, καὶ ὀγδοάτῳξ ἔτει ἦλθον,
Κύπρον," Φοινέκην' τε καὶ Αἰγυπτίους" ἐπαληϑεὶς,
Avtlonds' 8ϑ᾽ ἱκόμην καὶ Σιδονίους" καὶ ᾿Ερεμβοὺς 3206,
ἢ 5502, 0 4123,
448, A. 2
i & 291; of v.12,
0.415 - 9, ἐμ. 144.
k y. 300, ὅ. ξ.
Sepius I. 382:
Ια. 22
καὶ Λιβύην," ἵνα τ᾽ ἄρνες ἄφαρ κεραοὶ τελέϑουσιν᾽ ἐν ds, 205.
τρὶς γὰρ τέκτει μῆλα τελεοφόρονο εἰς ἐνιαυτόν. ὁ x. 267, £. 202,
ἔνϑα μὲν οὔτε ἀναξ ἐπιδευήςν οὔτε τι ποιμὴν » i 290; ef, 1.225.
τυροῦς καὶ κρειῶν, οὐδὲ γλυκεροῖο γάλακτος, 1 68. 225, 22,
ἀλλ᾽ ἀεὶ παρέχουσιν ἐπηετανὸντ γάλα ϑῆσϑαι." 52 Νὰ
77. έπεα. 82. βέτει. 85. ἕνα ἐάρνες. 87. Favag.
83. nonnulli ἐπ᾽ ἀληϑεῖς Schol. V.
Herod. IV. 29, ὅϑι.
84. ita Arist.,
Scholl. H. M. Q. R., Zeno Σιδονίους “AguBag τε, "Scholl. H. M.
86. pro τρὶς nonnulli δὶς, Scholl. H. M.; hunc v. Bek.
alii Ἐρεμνοὺς et ᾿Εραμβοὺς,
85. pro ἕνα
nostro 88 postposuit.
78. ἐρέζοι, this verb found with dat.
and acc, (mar.), and with double dat.;
see 80, 81 and mar. there. For the
sentiment see App. E. 8 (3).
80. ἤ χέν τές ... ἠὲ χαὶ οὐκὶ, the
question is suggested without prepon-
derance intended towards either alter-
native: the mar. gives examples both
of this force of the phrase and of its
use to show preponderance, mostly,
but not always, towards the first.
82. myay., often used for bringing
home a wife, .here for treasures etc.
83—5, for ‘the countries and peoples
mentioned see App. Ὁ. 10—13
83. éxad., Eustath. gives i ἀλη-
θεῖς, ‘‘came to the true, i. 6. sooth-
saying Egyptians’’, if this were adopt-
ed, we should recognize a play on the
word at end of 81 cf. Onosre τ
. ϑήσατο wafoy, 2. 57—8; sir
ϑεῖς ‘might also mean “‘just’’; cf. M
ἧς. Herod., IV. 29, quotes this line
with ὅθε for ἕνα; he says, on the κε-
ραοὶ, δοκέει δέ μοι καὶ τὸ γένος τῶν
βοῶν τὸ κόλον διὰ ταῦτα οὐ φύειν κέ-
ρεα ᾿αὐτόϑι (ἐν τῇ Σκυϑικῇ), μαρτυ-
φέει δέ μον τῇ γαῖα xal Ὁμήρου πος
ν Ὀδυσσείῃ, ἔχον ..... ὀρθῶς
εἰρημένον, ἐν τοῖσι θερμοῖσι ταχὺ πα-
ραγίνεσθαι τὰ κέρεα, ἐν δὲ τοῖσι ἰσχυ-
ροῖσι ,“Ψύχεσι, n οὐ φύει κέρεα τὰ κτή-
VEX ἀρχὴν, ἢ φύοντα φύει μόγις. Ni,
compares Aristot. Hist, Anim, VIII, 28,
καὶ ἐν μὲν Λιβύῃ εὐϑὺς γίνεται. κέ-
ρατα ἔχοντα τὰ κερατώδη τῶν κριῶν,
‘“‘the sort of rams which have horns
are born at once with them’’. For
which Ni. suggests τερατώδη, but there
is no τέρας in the matter. Buffon
(Transl. 1791) says of the ram, without
regard to country, that ‘‘his horns oP
pear the first year and often at birth”
adding that in warm countries ewes
can produce twice a year. The goat
goes about 5 months with young; hence
3 conceptions in the year would seem
possible. Thus poetic exaggeration re-
cedes within narrow limits, The yag
in 86 means, ‘‘all increase is rapid
in proportion, for the ewes οἷς." Bek.
transposes the line to come after yala
ϑήσθϑαι, so yielding a neater but not
a more Homeric structure. Had it
stood so at first, it is difficult to think
it could have been altered.
89. ἐπηετ., perenne, derived from
né- = ἀεὶ, with -cavog cf. annot-inus
diu-tinus Lat. So Doederlein § 1040,
ΟΔΥΣΣΕΙΑΣ A. go—106.
[Day Vv.
110°
ay. 201, §. 33. | slog ἐγὼ περὶ κεῖνα πολὺν βίοτον συναγείρων" go
a 99. niauny ,> τείως μοι ἀδελφεὸν ἄλλος ἔπεφνεν
d 2. “0, ω. 97. [λάϑρη, ἀνωιστὶ,. δόλῳ οὐλομένης ἃ ἀλόχοιο᾽
ΤΙΣ, 120. ὡς οὔ τοι χαίρων τοῖςδε κτεάτεσσιν ἀνάσσω." '
eI. 49. καὶ πατέρων τάδε μέλλετ᾽ ἀκουέμεν. οἵ τινες ὑμῖν
Σὰ 268. εἰσὶν, ἐπεὶ μάλαξ πόλλ᾽ ἔπαϑον. καὶ ἀπώλεσα οἶκον
k β' 312, μ. 347, εὖ μάλα ναιετάοντα,"" xeyavddra' πολλὰ" καὶ ἐσϑλα.
a ᾽ 284, ὦ, 41.) ὧν ὄφελον τριτάτην περ ἔχων ἐν δώμασι μοῖραν
. Δ. 117. ᾿» ’ °°
ΗΠ 216, γ. 265, Ῥαίειν, of δ᾽ ἄνδρες σόοι ἔμμεναι, οἵ τότ ὕλοντο
ap. o's 40, 1 Τροίῃ ἐν εὐρείῃ, Exds”"Agysos™ ἱπποβότοιο.
612, 2.128. | add” ἔμπης πάντας μὲν ὀδυρόμενος" καὶ ἀχεύων 100
ο £2.10, 4. 64—5, πολλάκις ἐν μεγάροισι καϑήμενος ἡμετέροισιν, ον
Ρ r- 3. ἄλλοτεο μέν τε γόῳ φρένα τέρπομαι. ἄλλοτε δ᾽ αὐτε
[. . 221. ’ , » ,
ae 212, 2. 54. παύομαι᾽ αἰψηρος δὲ κόρος κρυεροῖο γόοιο —
x. 24-5, 4. 8ι, τῶν πάντων οὐ τόσσον ὀδύρομαι," ἀχνύμενός περ,
ἦν. 202. ᾿Ιὼς ἑνὸς, ὅς τέ μοι ὕπνον ἀπεχϑαίρει' καὶ ἐδωδὴν τὸς
t I. 405; cf. δ. 788, |
T.
306-7, 846. μνωομένῳ, ἐπεὶ OD τις ᾿ἡχαιῶν τόσσ᾽ ἐμόγησεν
|
93. ανάσσω.
95. «οἴκον.
99. féxag.
go. ἕως tuentur ed. Ox. Fa. Low., εἶος Bek. Dind. secuti Thiergch 8 168, 10,
εἴως Harl. et Scholl. Ε. 9.
οὐδέ τι βουλόμενος ἀλλὰ κρατερῆς ὑπ᾽ ἀνάγκης.
99 7 nonnulli.
ἔχων pro weg ἔχων Harl.
93 } nonnulli, contra ridiculé subjungunt alii
94—6[] Bek. 97. παρ-
100 — 3. [] Bek.
and Curtius 353; Bek. from writing
éxnfétavog seems to adopt the affinity
of fétog annus, which Crusius also
ives. ϑῆσϑαι, ep. for FacPar (Faw).
he only other part found in H. is
θησατο.
94. μέλλετ᾽ is imperf., cf. δ. 181,
a. 232
95. ἀπώλεσα οἶχον. The commen-
tators say, ‘his own house’’. But it
is odd in accounting for his present
wealth to enumerate his losses. The
words will not easily cohere with what
follows in this sense, nor with wade
σεόλλ᾽ ἔπαϑον preceding in any other,
Bek. cuts the knot by putting these
lines in his margin. The fact is that
Menel. is strong in feelings and weak
in power of expression. On the whole
retrospect, the melancholy to which
his character leans, tinges all the cir-
cumstances; and he dwells rather on
_the break up of his home and the for-
mer contents of it, than on the sub-
sequent enrichment, which is more in
the way of the topic of the moment,
but which he leaves to be understood.
The κτήματα carried off by Paris are
often mentioned among the objects to
be won back by the war (Γ΄. 70, 91, 458).
The whole is a specimen of the ἔπι-
τροχάδην ἀγορεύειν ascribed to Menel.
See App. E. 8 (4) (5) (16) (17). The
difficulty has led to the suggestion that
οἶκον means that of Priam, yielding
a very feeble sense.
96. πολλὰ χαὶ ἐσθλὰ, these ad-
jectives, combined in various genders
and cases, are 8 favourite formula
closing a line (mar.).
100. Gdvgou., here with acc., but
1o4—5 with gen.
105. ἀπεχϑαίρει, in a rare sense,
‘‘erudges me my sleep and food”’, i. e.
makes me take less, the bold figure,
imputing as to Odys. the effect of his
involuntary absence, expresses well the
ardent feelings of the speaker; cf. 4.
δύο, Ζεύς — στρατὸν ἤχϑηρε, “bore
8 στυάρο᾽ to it.
120
DAY V.|
ὅσσ᾽ Ὀδυσεὺς ἐμόγησε" καὶ 7 ἤρατο. > τῷ δ᾽ ἄρ > ἔμελλεν:
αὐτῷ κήδε᾽ ἔσεσθαι, ἐμοὶ δ᾽ ἄχος αἰὲν ἄλαστον ἃ © δ᾽ 165,
κείνου, ὕπως δὴ δηρὸν" ἀποίχεται. οὐδέ τι ἴδμεν .
110 ξώειξ ὅ γ᾽ ἢ τέϑνηκεν. ὀδύρονταί! νύ που αὐτὸν ,
“αέρτηςϊ ® ὃ γέρων καὶ ἐχέφρων" Πηνελόπεια g
Τηλέμαχός! 8, Ov ἔλειπε νέην γεγαώτ᾽ πα ἐνὶ οἴκῳ." |h
ὥς" φάτο, τῷ δ᾽ ἄρα πατρὸς ὑφ᾽ ἵμερον ὦρσε γόοιο" ,
δάκρυο δ᾽ ἀπὸ βλεφάρων yaucdtc? βάλε πατρὸς ἀκούσας, | m «. 400
115 χλαῖναν πορφυρέην ἄντ᾽ ὀφθαλμοῖιν ἀνασχὼν "
ἀμφοτέρῃσιν" χερσί. νόησε δέ μιν Μενέλαος,
μερμήριξε" δ᾽ ἔπειτα κατὰ φρένα καὶ κατὰ ϑυμὸν 118
OATZZEIAZ A.
107—123. 111
a ὅ. 151---, 170, Ψ.-
» or; ef. 240—1. .
α. 240, =. 165.
d a. 342 mar.; ef.
114.
. 8186, ο. 270,
6.313, v. 216, 290.
. 132, δ. 837,
464
o P. 437-8.
p O. 435, 714, JT.
136, 9. 193, ϑ. 94,
P. 465.
a7 9A Ἢ ’ ~ q δ. “ist, @. 2%.
ἠέ μιν αὐτὸν πατρὸς ἐάσειε μνησθῆναι, ra. 528. 110, 2
ἢ moar ἐξεφέοιτο ἕκαστά τε πειρήσαιτο. i E. 611, @
slog ὃ ταῦϑ᾽ ὥρμαινε" κατά φρένα καὶ κατὰ Fvucr, |t «. i65—6) 434,
ἐκ δ᾽ Ἑλένη" ϑαλάμοιο" ϑυώδεος ὑψορόφοιο Ὁ τ io.
»Ἤ uc Ὁ
ἤλυϑεν, ᾿Δρτέμιδι" χρυσηλακάτῳ" εἰκυῖα. v ef, 0. 191-2, 317.
~ 3 > 7 99 Ww
y fd. 14.
τῇ δ᾽ ἄρ᾽ ἅμ᾽ ᾿“δρήστη κλισίηνΥ εὔτυκτον ἔϑηκεν, xg a0
109. Fédwer. 112. Folxo. 119. Féxaote. 122, Ferxvie.
113. ὅρσε Harl. a man. pr.
Stephan. Wolf.
cecev) alii, Scholl. WH. M.
11g. alii ὀφθαλμοῖσιν.
μυϑήσαιτο Ern. Cl. ed. Ox.
120. ἕως ut sup. ad v. go.
119. τὸ πειρήσαιτο
τ᾽ ἐπειρήσαιτο (i. 6. ἐπερωτή-
123. a’ Adgyotn
Arist. et Herod, ἅμα ᾿δρήστη Scholl. H. M.; εὔκτυκτον Harl. unde Bek. sibi
duxit εὔπτυκτον, sed εὔτυκτον Schol. H. marg., alii omnes nostram lect. tuentur.
108. ἄλαστον, see ON ἂ. 262.
109. ὅπως δὴ κ. τ. 4., this should
be referred to ude ἔσεσθαι in 108,
as well as to ἐμοὶ δ᾽ ἄχος x. τ. A.
ὅπως like quoniam or guod = ‘‘since or
seeing that’’, takes indic.; see Heyne
Exec, 11]. ad Il. A. 251, 677.
113. Aristotle (Rhet. I. 11, 12) quotes
this verse to prove that καὶ ἐν τοῖς πέν-
ϑεσι καὶ ϑρήνοις ἐγγένεταί τις ἡδονὴ
κι τ. A.
.114-8. χαμάδις with πέσε, βάλε,
χέε οἷς, is constantly found in this same
metrical position (mar.). “unerse,
a favourite phrase, when δον by
ἠδ... ἢ, to express wavering between
alternatives; see App. E. 8 (17) for
Menelaus’ slowness of resolve; cf. also
the repetition of the formula nearly
verbatim 120 inf. The poet by repeating
it means to give prominence to this
charpcteristic. νόησε knew (mar.), not
as usually ‘‘perceived’’.
122. yovondrax. The word ἡλακάτη
in 131 means the ‘‘distaff’’ which held
the wool for spinning (v. 135 inf.):
χρυσηλακ. it means ‘ ”, each
being a shaft of reed terminating in
a point. So an arrow is called con-
temptuously ateaxtog “spindle” in Thu-
cyd. IV. 40. ἡλάκατα ‘pi. neut. is the
wool as held for spinning; see 7. 105,
δ. 315, It was carded or combed (πεέκω,
ξαίνω, 7. 423) by the handmaids, who
also spun and wove with their mistress.
Helen is industrious even amid her
Trojan luxury, designing in her web
the combats of the war waged on her
account (I. 125, Ni.)..
123. The reading ἅμα δρήστη may
be barely noticed. We have dg7-
στήρ masc. and δρήστειρα fem.; sce
App. A. 7 (4); but δρήστη is highly
doubtful. κλισίην εὔτυκχτον, ‘“‘well-
fashioned seat’’, in same sense as κλι-
σμὸς, see on a. 132, which name is
used for it in 136 inf. Penelopé’s 8 κλι-
σίη in τ. 55 is wreathed, i.e. carved,
συ "Ὁ, ὦ κ“"
awn:
mn WD
pind
So
ix)
"-
OB rs
- >
ας"
3 °
3
5Ξ
[
"
ena o5
Mts Me.
ὃ
SMARoMSs
. 74980.
a<e7-
ἃ
2
9. ἄστυ Favaccer,
9. pro προτὶ περὶ Harl, ex emend. antiq. certe si non ejusd. man.
nulli; Ἑλένης Aristoph. Rhian., Schol. M., ita Harl. o superscripto.
vv. non Homeri sed Arist. esse affirmabat Athen. IV. 180, Scholl. M. T., [
19. ἐξάρχοντος Athen. ub. sup. Wolf. ἐξάρχοντες (ab
Arist. fictum, Athen.) Ern. Cl. ed. Oxon.
Dind. 7—9. [] Fa.
ΟΔΥΣΣΕΙΑΣ A. 6—19.
11. fos.
[Day v.
.|év Τροίῃ γὰρ πρῶτον ὑπέσχετο" καὶ κατένευσεν
δωσέμεναι, τοῖσιν δὲ ϑεοὶ γάμον ἐξετέλειον."
τὴν ἄρ᾽ ὅ γ᾽ ἔνϑ᾽ ἵπποισι" καὶ ἅρμασι πέμπε" νέεσϑαι
Μυρμιδόνων προτὶ ἄστυ περικλυτὸν..»" οἷσιν ἄνασσεν
Εἰ υἱέ! δὲ Σπάρτηϑεν ᾿“λέχτορος ἤγετο κούρην,
ὅς of τηλύγετος" γένετο κρατερὸς Μεγαπένϑης
] ἐκὴὰ δούλης" Ἑλένῃ δὲ ϑεοὶ γόνον οὐκέτ᾽ ἔφαινον,
ἐπεὶ δὴ τὸ πρώτον' ἐγείνατοι παῖδ᾽ ἐρατεινὴν!
Ἑρμιόνην,"ι ἣ εἶδος ἔχε χρυσέης" ᾿ἀφροδίτης.
᾿ς. 48. [ὡς of μὲν δαίνυντο καϑ' ὑψερεφὲς" μέγα δῶμα
γείτονες» ἠδὲ rau’ Μενελάου κυδαλίμοιο,
᾿Ιτερπόμενοι"τ μετὰ δέ σφιν ἐμέλπετο ϑεῖος" ἀοιδὸς
51. φορμίξων" dow δὲ κυβιστητῆρε' κατ᾽ αὐτοὺς,
μολπῆς ἐξάρχοντος .". ἐδίνευον" κατὰ μέσσον. 5
16. Férac.
12. =f non-
1s—g. hos
Bek.
14. Fecdog.
μέσσον Harl. a manu pri. ita Low.
μέσσους Harl. ex emend. recent. ita Bek. Dind. Fa.
and begat Tisamenus.’’ Schol. Another
legend made O. kill Neoptol. patrias ad
aras (Virg. Ain. III. 330—2), {. 6. probably
at Delphi. Cf.alsoEurip. Andr. 1117 foll.
8—10. πέριπε coresponds with ἤγετο
in 10, “‘sending’’ his daughter as a
bride, “bringing home’’ a bride for
his son. ἄστυ, no ‘‘city of the Myr-
midones is named in B. 683 foll., nor
in I. 440, 479—80, where we might
expect it, if at all: their land is Phthia.
The Scholl. would identify Pharsalia
with the site — 5πάρτηϑεν i.e. his own
city, where Alector dwelt, like Eteo-
neus in 22, ἃ grandson of Pelops and
cousin of the Atridwe (Schol.).
11. τηλύγετος. The etymology which
connects this with ϑῆλυς Balin suits
best the decisive passage φόβος λάβε
τηλυγετον ὡς, and is justified by the
paraphrastic expansion following in I.
143, 285 o¢ of τηλύγετος τρέφεται
Baidn ἐνὶ πολλῇ; sce on a. 1, 299,
and cf. y. 383, 392, δ. 788 for other
instances of this usage. — Πεγαπέν-
Ons, cf. for significance the scriptural
names Benoni, Ichabod, etc. For the
“‘great sorrow’’ which gave the name
see App. E, 8 (16).
12—4. δούλης, see App. A. 7 (1).
The Scholl. have a name for her, va-
riously given as Teris, Teiris, Teri-
daé, or Getis. The same notice a fit-
ness in Helen’s having no children after
Hermioné, as tending to preserve her
beauty, and avoiding the notion of her
bearing any to Paris. Soph. Electr. 539
says she had two by Menel. ἐπεὶ has
é by arsis. For ἐγείνατο see App.
A. 20.
15—g. These lines, some of which
occur in 1], (mar.), are ascribed by
Athenseus to Aristarchus. Ni, and Bek.
condemn them, Fa. rejects only vv.
17—9, but Lowe all vv. 3—19, ad-
mitting, however, that τὼ δ᾽ avr’ in
20 does not aptly continue 2. If only
vv. 15 —1g9 were omitted, the actual
nuptials might be supposed over. This
would be more consistent with the ab-
sence of any further mention of a γά-
μος. That Menelaus’ attention is ab-
sorbed in his guests is hardly an ar-
gument against the genuineness of the
passage; since the Homeric narrative
does not concern itself with groups not
connected with the main narrative,
save perhaps in a passage of transi-
10
15
DAY v.|
OATZZEIAL A. 20—34.
105
Δ ψ " bd .
τὼ δ᾽ avr ἐν προϑύροισι" δόμων αὐτῶν τε καὶ ἵππω, ] ς App. F. 2 (1) to
Τηλέμαχός ϑ᾽ ἥρως καὶ Νέστορος ἀγλαὸς" υἱὸς,
στῆσαν". ὃ δὲ προμολὼν" ἴδετο κρείων Ἐτεωνεὺς,
étenods! ϑέράπων Μενελάου κυδαλίμοιο,
Bye δ᾽ ἵμεν ἀγγελέων διὰ δώματα ποιμένι λαῶν,
as ἀγχοῦ" δ᾽ ἱστάμενος ἔπεα πτερόεντα προςηύδα᾽
(ξείνω δή τινε τώδε, διοτρεφὲοὶ ὦ Μενέλαε,
ἄνδρε δύω, γενεῇ δὲ Διὸς μεγάλοιο ἔῖχτον.
ἀλλ᾽ εἴπ᾽ εἴ opaly καταλύσομεν! ὠκέας ἵππους,
ἢ ἄλλον πέμπωμεν ἱκανέμεν, ὅς κε φιλήσῃ."
40 τὸν δὲ μέγ᾽ ὀχϑήσας προςέφη ξανϑὸς Μενέλαος
“od μὴν νήπιος ἦσϑα, Βοηϑοίδη ᾿Ετεωνεῦ, ᾿
τὸ πρίν" ἀτὰρ μὲν νῦν ye πάϊς ὡς νήπια βάζξεις.
ἢ μὲν δὴ νῶι ξεινήια πολλὰ φαγόντε
ἄλλων ἀνθρώπων δεῦρ᾽ ἰκόμεϑ᾽, αἴ κέ ποϑι Ζεὺς
(9) mar.
b N. 684.
ς δ. 303, o. 144,
ὃ. 188, K. 196.
d 9. 4.
e 2. 382.
f d. 217, α. 109
mar., A. 321.
g δ. 528, 679.
h y. 100, ρ. 349,
e. 159, o. 9.
id. 561, P. 702.
k @. 198, Τ. 111.
1. 6.
m δ. 332, 0. 325.
22. «Εἰδετο.
20. αὐτοί τε καὶ ἵπποι alii, Bek. annot.
32. atag μὴν νῦν Bek. νῦν μὴν id. annot.
34. pro af Bek. εἴ; pro zo@: ποτὲ Bek. annot.
1. Stephan.
Augsb. ita Bek.
tion, as δ. 621—4, where see note.
The revelling suitors on the contrary
are kept in view throughout the hos-
pitalities of Telem. to the Pseudo-
Mentes, but the suitors have a direct
connexion with the story. The question
of μέσσον or μέσσους is hardly worth
discussing where the whole passage is
so doubtful. ἐς μέσσον often occurs
(mar.) meaning ‘“‘into the midst of a
company ’’.
20—3. προϑύροισι, see App. F. 2
(7)—(9). — ϑεράπων, see on a. 109.
The θεράποντες perform for Menelaus’
guests duties discharged for those of
Nestor by his sons; cf. y. 475—80 and
35 —43 inf.
27—8. γενεῇ. ‘family type’’, that of
a royal race, styled commonly dsoye-
νεῖς or διοτρεφεῖς; 80K. 474 αὐτῷ γὰρ
γενεὴν ἄγχιστα ἐώχειν. — ἐΐχτον,
Ni. allows a var. lect. ἐΐκτην, since the
speaker has them no longer in view,
or retiring in 24. For etx’ εἰ Bek.
writes eix’ ἢ» but see on y. go—1.
. 29. πέμπωμεν subjunct, coupled by
ἢ to ind. fut. See App. A. 9 (s).
313. Menelaus defived only injury
from his hospitality to Paris, which jus-
tifies Eteoneus’ hesitation here (Schol.).
25. «ἐπξα.
27. «έξικτον.
᾿ a7. γενέην Schol. V. ἐΐκτην var.
33. φαγόντες Harl.,
It is characteristic of Menel. that he
remembers the good that he has re-
ceived rather than the evil; see App.
E. 8 (10) (12). Eteoneus, once his
comrade in war and wanderings, was
now a neighbour (0. 96). — ov meq,
Bekker's alteration of μὲν after ov,
καὶ, 7, etc. to μὴν (Homer. Blatt. 34),
wherever metre allows, has been fol-
lowed only where there is some strong
and emphatic abruptness of negation,
as here and α. 222. Jelf, Gr. Gr. § 729,
3. b., reading ov μὲν, notes this as a
rare use of it in reference to what
follows, ἀτὰρ μὲν νῦν x. τ. Δ. For
δεινήια see on ξεένι᾽ y. 490.
—4. gayorte, Bek. φαγόντες,
but va: often has dual participle, 6. g.
προφανείσα ©. 377—8, ΚΞ. 314. Bek.,
however, even when va has another
dual word joined, as in δ. 282, νῶι μὲν
ἀμφοτέρω, prefers the fuller sound,
μενεήναμεν oounteytec, for the end
of the line (7Z/omer. Blatt. 31—2), which
two MSS. favour. In o. 398, in the
th foot, the metre requires πέφνοντέ. ---
bedued’ “are come”, aor. for perf., ac-
cordingly af xe with subjunct. follows,
meaning, ‘‘(trying to see) if Zeus may
hereafter (ἐξοπέσω; mostly of place,
mo τ £0 Ὅσα Tsay Fave
Zivay. ὡς Φ oscar; aac ἔπε δι. 71} 7177τ"
wy tA 17. 221g than Ζξαδητ 1 tain:
tonamiern., ἅμα: torn 20
μας. καλὰ ἀπ ἜΣΠνΞ
QTE.
on a Η ut OFFA: 269 εν laa ald dganeres .
ὌΝ JA; 7:3 δὴν χααεν 5 EE Bee ."
coe a4 Tht 4 Afov anes 74.83. tue 44 241" crane HSE? .
Co Li, tynntn 41 igure ty IPGL TEBGERUMITTE -
9 “ eo whine, 8 τῆν" Bany ἄμα. wi 42 Maerz:
A Ὁ i φοίᾳστην warn κα Sencqaging' Semaqac-
41. hey τ. ly ἡ“ λών» κἰγάη πέζεν ἀξ πέλχνη:
sn 7 e Swen we reagigs.; | Wavisen Ξεφαλέᾳλεν.
40 Ki% χύπσ 452. τάφκν αν esate ῥᾳ Φελαηΐειν.
t/a” 1, 6 thuslvr.;' ϑέντε; ἐνξζσεα; ρεέσαντο.
RB pind 4:. £th4n783.
e
.ς pty @ hyn bs Ate
Rohe 66 ὙΦ fond ba Saw,
aan wht, herr of Siena, vires a feats
KOs HW, Ay I, Ζενᾳ, the anagea-
none tf herageihiadit aigzeate hin name:
+9, 6.19%, hots ἐπετεμήτινο ... ξείνων.
hh. ngaeb Wye , ‘tea them in’,
bayoA in alanyuy 44: they were γοῖ
hy πυ᾽νϑύροισε, wee 20 wp,
4h. onfatrir, tha yneation between
"εἶν and ἰσπέσθψε neon wettlad ‘9, by
thn fact that σπέσθωε anita every pan-
anya, bt bankatas ia veeluded ing.
$445 (6) Chet werageninds of ἔπομαι dre
the 9, μα ἐπκιηπόμενηφι ‘4, that σπέ-
"με ἢ ον funn monthly preceded by
A viewed fi wr pb) wae ranily eorriipted
dnote ἐηπέσθιαι (iar.), ane (4) Wy thes
analoyy of ἔχη ἔσχον αχέηθαι 4.2. 2,
Mie matin mppllon to σπήσθω σποίμην
nau vie, μι Muttin, (dr, Verba) and
wh mee (Man, Χὶ ad 1h) hold the κ- in
AVL Weems fer be γα ae an old ople
Form. Woyne, Ni, Neko, Thiersch,
ΗΠ Adve cso reject WH,
At Geteeg. Virgil's farra (deor 173),
"ΜΠ ΠΗ wheat, fo whilel some on
11 ν΄ gore four ἢ, “ΜΝ μα
fer dee Hat inet from apolt, by whieh torn
nome tonder Anges, Ni eltom Aprongel
Mint vet heoh, an mlowdig thing fat Ha.
rel 1. 40. tilontition Berend with ὄλυραι
ve with κα apovlon of It, in & bog
; ona. Μ᾿ ΗΓ! ῳ. Κ΄.
“, 3 »., ten φπέηθν Anan, 4114 ite ex. Dint. Va. 23.
ἤά»σαν Kremner. Een. Cl. of. Ox Bek.
fh. an” ioxiste: Barnes. εἶ.
istes Ar:st..
pra re casted with wegen what,
ant χφὲ baricy. In Il. πφὲὶ and ὄξεφαι
are the nanal horse-meat. Kruse, again
‘Hetian 1. p. 345 mote, cites Pliny ΟΝ.
I. XVI 1g, to show that Seca is spelt.
and is distinct from olega, which he
makes a kind of wheat. The whole
satject seems fall of doubt. The word
ocenm also in 8. 604 but nowhere else
in Sf.
42. ἐνώπιεκ, see App. F. 2 /8) and
(16, end, ,
43—7. εἰσῆγον, see on 36. εἰσάγω
lan also a nent. sense (mar.). ἠέλιος
nkin to ἔλη εἴλη “heat’’, and σελήνη
to σέλας “brightness’’, as giving light
Lut no heat. H. has also μήνη, akin
to μὴν pele, mensis, for ‘“‘moon”’, Sir
(i. (:, Lewis, Anc. Astron. p. 17 (65).
ogapevot, middle, often means to
survey with admiration; so here,
48. Voss would have the bath-cham-
hers in the πρόδϑομος, on the right as
one entered, The fullest description,
however (*. 3s8—63), rather implies
that thera were no chambers specially
nso usod, but that with moveable ves-
nels, a tripod was set up, ἃ fire kindled,
and water warmed, wherever conve-
nient, the floor being the native earth
App. F. a (17).
ἢ
pay v.] ΟΔΥΣΣΈΙΑΣ A. 49—66. 107
|
τοὺς" δ᾽ ἐπεὶ οὖν δμωαὶ λοῦσαν καὶ χρῖσαν ἐλαίῳ, [5.33 oot.
50 ἀμφὶ δ᾽ ἄρα χλαίνας οὔλας βάλον ἠδὲ χιτῶνας, “1 α. 136—42 mar.
ἔς 6a ϑρόνους Eovto παρ᾽ ‘Argeldny Μενέλαον. ε 0. 831.
χέρνιβαυ δ᾽ ἀμφίπολος προχόῳ ἐπέχευε φέρουσα ἃ π᾿ 4950.
καλῇ χρυσείῃ, ὑπὲρ ἀργυρέοιο λέβητος. heel. γ. A.
νίψασϑαι' παρὰ δὲ ξεστὴν ἑτάνυσσε τράπεζαν. bef δι 46-7.
55 σῖτον δ᾽ αἰδοίη ταμίη παρέθηκε φέρουσα, Ν᾿ y. 69-70; ef.
Schol., χρυσῆν mar.
Harl. cum Schol.
57. 58. omittit Harl., [] plerique edd. 61.
62—4. + Aristoph.
εἴδατα πόλλ᾽ éEncOetoa, χαριζομένη παρεόντων. 22. 641.
"[δαιτρὸςς δὲ κρειῶν ἃ πίνακας παρέϑηκχεν ἀείρας "ε. 252.
παντοίων, παρὰ δέ σφι tite χρύσεια κύπελλα.] ji ef. «, 168,
TO καὶ δεικνύμενος προβέφη ξανϑὸς Μενέλαος ᾿ A. 176, Β. 98;
60 ““σίτου' & ἅπτεσϑον καὶ χαίρετον" αὐτὰρ ἔπειτα ef. 6. 24 mar.,
δείπνου πασσαμένωξβ εἰρησόμεϑ᾽ οἵ τινές" ἐστον 27, πε. 401.
ἀνδρῶν" ov γὰρ σφῶν ye γένος ἀπόλωλε τοκήων, ᾿ or 8. 718 τ’
ἀλλ᾽ ἀνδρῶν γένος ἐστὲ διοτρεφέων " βασιλήων "aot. δ: 487,
σχηπτούχων, ἐπεὶ οὔ κε κακοὶ τοιούςδε τέκοιεν." ἰπ ο. κι
ὃς φάτο, καί σφιν νῶτα" βοὸς παρὰ πίονα ϑῆκεν 40
bar’ ἐν yegoly® ἑλὼν, τά ῥά of γέρα" πάρϑεσαν avt@.| ὁ ὃ
go. ξούλας. 61. Fergnooue®’. 66. For.
κι, παρὰ ξάνϑον Méy. pro var. 1. notat Schol. H. 54. ξεστὴν Harl, text. et
παυσαμένω
et Zenod., Scholl. Η. M. [] Bek.
62. σφῶν Arist. et Herod., σφῶν (quod legi volunt ‘Scholl. M. V.) Apollon.,
Scholl. H. M.
s0—1. οὔλας, ‘of crisp wool’’, see
App. A. 3 (2). -- ἐς is used, as ἔξοντο
a verb of rest implies previous motion,
Jelf Gr. Gr. 8. 641. 1. — ϑρόνον, see
on @. 131—2.
52—8, see on a. 136—42, whence
these lines recur. In the Harl. MS.
57—8 are wanting. They encumber
the passage, as the action of Menel.
in 65—6 inf, supersedes that of the
δαιτρὸς here; see also on a. 140—3,
and the readings in the inferior mar-
gin there.
59—61. δεικνύμενος, see on γ..41.
Contrast with Menelaus’ courtesy in
60—1, and that of Nestor y. 69 foll.,
the abrupt question of Polyphemnus in
t. 252. — δεέπνου, see on 194 inf.
62. σφῶν, the common text has
σφῶν, but this dat. dual contracted,
although common in Attic Greek, is
nowhere else found in H. Similar dual
forms a8 vot, νῶϊν, νωΐτερος, spal-
τερος, also avoid contraction, which
has been one ground for rejecting vv.
62—3. Ni. proposes to take σφῶν (the
vulgate according to Eustath.) as in-
stead of ὑμῶν, which sense he ascribes
to a Schol., who only says it is to be
referred to the 254 person, and means
probably to take σφῶν as gen. plur.
of σφὸς in sense of σφωΐτερος (A. 216):
σφὸς might indeed as well be posses-
sive of opm or ogame “you two’’, as of
σφεῖς ‘‘they’’. There is no other in-
stance in H. of σφὸς for the 2™ person.
Nor yet is Homeric analogy against it,
as it is against σφῶν for σφῶϊν. --- y
voc, apparently used like γενεὴ 27 sup.,
“the type of your parents is not lost’’
in you.
65. νῶτα, the chine, pl. as con-
taining both loins, was the special por-
tion of honour; so (mar.) Odys, sends
part of that which Alcinous had as-
signed to him to Demodocus.
66. If the lines 3—19 (see on 2) be
an interpolation, this verse should also
108
ΟΔΥΣΣΕΙΑΣ A. 67—75.
[Day Vv.
a α. 149—50
b δ. 444.
ς @. 167 mar.
ἃ o. 167, E. 440,
=. 3, 470.
e E. 243, 826, K.
234, 4. 608, T.
287, ¢. 23.
f A. 83, ξ. 268, 9.
437; cf. 9. 5θ--Ἴ.
g 0. 460, σ. 295.
h A. 704; cf. ¥.
421.
iy. 123.
70. ita Zenod., wevPofato ἄλλοι Arist., Scholl. H. M.
of? δ᾽ ἐπ᾽ ὀνείαϑ᾽ ἡ ἑτοῖμα προκείμενα χεῖρας ἴαλλον.
αὐτὰρ ἐπεὶ πόσιος καὶ ἐδητύος ἐξ ἔρον ἕντο,
δὴ τότε Τηλέμαχος προςεφώνεε Νέστορος υἱὸν,
ἄγχι. σχὼν κεφαλὴν, ἵνα μὴ πευϑοίαϑ᾽ of ἄλλοι"
“φράξεο, Νεστορίδη, τῷ ἐμῷ κεχαρισμένε ϑυμῷ,
χαλκοῦ τὲ στεροπὴν κατὰ δώματα ἠχήεντα,
χρυσοῦ τ᾽ ἠλέκτρουξ te καὶ ἀργύρου ἠδ᾽ ἐλέφαντος.
Ζηνός που τοιήδε γ᾽ Ὀλυμπίου ἔνδοθεν αὐλὴ,
ὅσσα τάδ᾽ ἄσπετα" πολλά. σέβας: μ᾽ ἔχει εἰςορόωντα. 75
.-.------.ὕὄὃἁ.
.
72. Fnynevta.
72. καὶ δώματα Harl.,
fortasse e nad δωματα (Barnes. Dind. Fa. Liw.) corrupte ortum, Bek. xara δ.
74. τοιαῦτα δόμοις ἐν κτήματα κεῖται Schol. P. et Seleucus ap. Athen. V. 189.
be rejected, as there is then no ap-
positeness in the mention of Menel.
having had the νῶτα set before him
first.
71—2. ἐμῷ χεχ. 9., cf. Virg. En.
XII. 142, animo gratissime nostro. yad-
κοῦ, cf. Ov. Fast. VI. 363, wrata per
atria.
73. ἠλέχτρου, the sense of amber
may safely be preferred to that of the
admixture of gold with '/, of silver
(Pliny N. A. ΧΧΧΙΠ, 4), of which So-
phocles probably speaks, Antig. 1037,
as τὸν πρὸς Σάρδεων ἤλεκ., and couples
with Indian gold. In Hes. ϑομί, 142
it occurs in conjunction with gold,
ivory, and téravog (commonly supposed
gypsum), as a material of embellish-
ment. Hesiod Fragm. 355 notices the
fable of the daughters of the Sun being
changed to poplars and their tears to
amber, which looks like the mythical
statement of a mere natural fact. On
it the lost Eliades of A&schylus was
based and the Phaéthon of Euripides.
Cf. also the name ‘Electra’’, and the
Ἤλεκτραι πύλαι (Aschyl. Theb. 418).
The derivation from ἠλέκτωρ (name of
the Sun) is probable, and suits its
glittering golden hue; although Buttm.
Mythol. 162 prefers to derive it from
ἕλκω, as if ἕλκτρον, ‘‘the attracter”’.
Amber being a primitive substance is
more likely to have given its name to
the compound metal than conversely.
Herod. IIT. 115 knew of it as a com-
mercial commodity fetched, as was said,
from the fabulous (as he thinks) river
Eridanus. See Rawlinson’s Herod. and
notes ad loc, The vast antiquity of
amber, being found, as here, in do-
mestic ornamentation among the rem-
nants of the lacustrine villages of
Switzerland, which are apparently pre-
historic (Revue de deux mondes Febr.
1861), and in tombs of the ‘‘bronze”’
period, gives a probability to its rather
being meant here than the metallic
ἤλεκτρον. The use of the plur., too,
ἡλέκτροισιν ἕερτο or ἑερμένον (ὁρ-
μον mar.), surely suits the notion of
‘lumps of amber’’, and is inapplicable
if it were a metal. The Baltic Prus-
sian region is not the only one where
it is found. Sir G. C. Lewis, who views
it as amber here, speaks of a large
lump (18'>) said to have been found
in Lithuania, and now at Berlin (Anc.
Astron. VIII. § 4, 461).
74. Cf. for the idea Hy. Merc. 251
ola ϑεῶν μακάρων ἱεροὶ δόμοι Evtog
ἔχουσιν. A var, lect. Ζηνός mov τοι-
avra δόμοις ἐν κτήματα κεῖται is re-
tained by Athenseus, which better suits
κτήματα 79; τοιήδε also hardly leads
apply to ὅσσα. Ni. remarks that avi7
is the court without, which the speaker
saw not when he spoke: but the si-
milar amazement of Odys. at Alci-
nous’ palace refers to its outer deco-
ration, πρὶν χάλκεον οὐδὸν ἱκέσθαι.
Besides, Telem. sitting within might -
easily express his thoughts of what had
struck him first on entering and was
continued around him; a continuation
which ἔνδοθεν easily suggests, and
avin itself may even be conceived as
put for all that it contained, viz. the
μέγαρον. Cf. 1. 404, ὅσσα λάϊνος ov-
δὸς ἀφήτορος ἐντὸς ἐέργει.
DAY V.|
τοῦ δ᾽ ἀγορεύοντος ξύνετο ξανϑὸς Μενέλαος,
καί σφεας" φωνήσας ἔπεα πτερόεντα προςηύδα"
ἐς τέχνα φίλ᾽, ἦ τοι Ζηνὶ βροτῶν οὐκ ἄν τις ἐρίξοιν
ἀϑάνατοι γὰρ τοῦ γε δόμοι καὶ κτήματ᾽ ἔασιν"
80 ἀνδρῶν δ᾽ ἤ κέν τίς μοι ἐρίσσεται" ἠὲ καὶ οὐκὶ ;
κτήμασιν. ἦ γὰρ πολλὰ παϑὼν καὶ πόλλ᾽ ἐπαληϑεὶς |i & 21;
ἠγαγόμην' ἐν νηυσὶ, καὶ ὀγδοάτῳξ ἔτει ἦλθον, :
Κύπρον," Φοινίκην! τε καὶ Αἰγυπτίους" ἐπαληϑεὶς,, |! «.
Attlonds'! 8᾽ ἰχόμην καὶ Σιδονίους" καὶ ᾿Ερεμβοὺς | 2
85 καὶ Διβύην," ἵνα τ᾽ ἄρνες ἄφαρ κεραοὶ τελέϑουσιν"
τρὶς yao τέκτει μῆλα τελεορφόρον" εἰς ἐνιαυτόν.
ἔνϑα μὲν οὔτε ἀναξ ἐπιδευήςν» οὔτε τι ποιμὴν
τυροῦ! καὶ κρειῶν, οὐδὲ γλυκεροῖο γάλακτος,
ΟΔΥΣΣΕΙΑΣ Δ. γη6---80.
6.
m 0.425, Z.290—1,
ys, 743, &. 295.
n &. 295; ot. 1.441.
ο x. 267, &. 292,
230.
p ΔΙ 299, ef, 1.225.
at , 219, 225, 232,
86
ἀλλ᾽ ἀεὶ παρέχουσιν ἐπηετανὸντ γάλα ϑῆσθϑαι." ἐξ 8.
a7. «έπεα. 83. ἐέτει. 85. ἕνα Faoves. 87. Fevag.
83. nonnalli ἐπ᾽ ἀληϑεῖς Schol. V.
Herod. IV. 29, oft.
84. ita Arist.,
Scholl. H. M. Q. R., Zeno Σιδονέους AouBas te, ‘Scholl. H. M.
86. pro τρὶς nonnulli dig, Scholl. H. M.; hunc v. Bek.
alii Ἐρεμνοὺς et Ἐραμβοὺς,
85. pro ἕνα
nostro 88 postposuit.
78. ἐρέξοε, this verb found with dat.
and acc, (mar.), and with double dat.;
see 80, 81 and mar. there. For the
sentiment see App. E. 8 (3).
80. 4 χέν τίς ... ἠὲ καὶ οὐκὶ, the
question is suggested without prepon-
derance intended towards either alter-
native: the mar. gives examples both
of this force of the phrase and of its
use to show preponderance, mostly,
but not always, towards the first.
82. myay., often used for bringing
home a wife, .here for treasures etc.
83—5, for ‘the countries and peoples
mentioned see App. D. 10—13.
83. ἐπαλ., Eustath. gives ἐπ᾿ ain-
Seis, “came to the true, t. 6. sooth-
saying Egyptians’’, if this were adopt-
ed, we should recognize a play on the
word at end of 81, ef. ϑήσετε τιμήν
ca νων ϑήσατο μαζόν, 2. 57—8; ἀλη-
ϑεῖς might also mean “just’’; cf. M.
433-
85. Herod., IV. 29, quotes this line
with o@: for ᾽ἕνα; he says, on the xe-
aol, δοκέει δέ μοι καὶ τὸ γένος τῶν
βοῶν τὸ κύλον διὰ ταῦτα οὐ φύειν κέ-
ρεα ᾿αὐτόϑι (ἐν τῇ Σκυθικῇ), μαρτυ-
gee δέ μου τῇ pron xe καὶ Ὁμήρου πος
ν Ὀδυσσείῃ, ἔχον ..... ὀρθῶς
εἰρημένον, ἐν τοῖσι ϑερμοῖσι ταχὺ πα-
ραγίνεσθϑαι τὰ κέρεα, ἐν δὲ τοῖσι ἰσχυ-
ροἴσι ,Ψύχεσι. ἢ οὐ φύει κέρεα τὰ κτή-
VEX ἀρχὴν, 7 φύοντα φύει μόγις. Ni.
compares Aristot. Hist. Anim. VIII, 28,
nal ἐν μὲν Λιβύῃ εὐϑὺς γίνεται. κέ-
ρατα ἔχοντα τὰ κερατώδη τῶν κριῶν,
“the sort of rams which have horns
are born at once with them’’. For
which Ni. suggests τερατώδη, but there
is no τέρας in the matter, Buffon
(Transl. 1791) says of the ram, without
regard to country, that ‘“‘his horns ap-
pear the first year and offen at birth”’,
adding that in warm countries ewes
can produce twice a year. The goat
goes about 5 months with young; hence
3 conceplions in the year would seem
possible. Thus poetic exaggeration re-
cedes within narrow limits, The γὰρ
in 86 means, ‘‘all increase is rapid
in proportion, for the ewes etc.” Bek.
transposes the line to come after γάλα
@noFa:, so yielding a neater but not
a more Homeric structure. Had it
stood so at first, it is difficult to think
it could have been altered.
89. EXNET. » perenne, derived from
ne- = asl, with -tavog cf. annot-inus
diu-tinus Lat. So Docderlein § 1040,
OATZZEIAL A. go—106.
[pay Vv.
go
110.
ay. 801, §. 323. | slog ἐγὼ περὶ κεῖνα πολὺν βίοτον συναγείρων"
ς @. 39. ἠλώμην." τείως wor ἀδελφεὸν ἄλλος ἔπεφνεν
a ne ω. 97. [λάϑρη, ἀνωιστὶ,. δόλῳ οὐλομένης ἃ ἀλόχοιο᾽
ΓΞ, 125. ος οὔ τοι χαίρων τοῖρδε κτεάτεσσιν ἀνάσσω."
eT. ‘2. καὶ πατέρων cade’ μέλλετ᾽ ἀκουέμεν, οἵ τινες ὑμῖν
: we. 466. εἰσὶν, ἐπεὶ μάλα πόλλ᾽ ἔπαϑον, καὶ ἀπώλεσα οἷκον of
ΣΝ εὖ μάλα ναιετάοντα ," κεχανδότα' πολλὰν καὶ ἐσϑλα.
io ‘ 284, ὦ, 421. ὧν ὄφελον τριτάτην πδρ ἔχων ἐν δώμασι μοῖραν
m J. 248, γι 263, mney» of δ᾽ avd Es . σόοι ἔμμεναι, οὗ τότ ὄλοντο
np. 5, 40, 1 φοίῃ ἐν εὐρείῃ, ἑκὰς Ἄργεος ἱπποβότοιο.
612, 2. 118. ἄλλ᾽ ἔμπης πάντας μὲν ὀδυρόμενος" καὶ ἀχεύων
ο 2.10, 4. θ4--5,
566—8.
p ¥. 28.
q εἴ. T. 221.
ra. 212, 42. 524.
8 X. 424—5, δ. 819,
ξ. 142, φ. 250,
YF, 222. ὁ.
12. 405; οἴ. δ. 788, |
πολλάκις ἐν μεγάροισι καϑήμενος ἡμετέροισιν,
ἄλλοτεο μέν τε γόῳ φρένα τέρπομαι,» ἄλλοτε δ᾽ αὖτε
παύομαι" αἰψηρὸς. δὲ κόρος κρυεροῖο γόοιο * —
τῶν πάντων οὐ τόσσον ὀδύρομαι." ἀχνύμενός περ,
ὡς ἕνὸς, ὅς τέ μοι ὕπνον ἀπεχϑαίρει' καὶ ἐδωδὴν
T. 306-7, 846.) μνωομένῳ, ἐπεὶ οὔ τις ᾿Αχαιῶν τόσσ᾽ ἐμόγησεν
93. ξανάσσω.
95. «οἴκον.
99. «έκας.
go. ἕως tuentur ed. Ox. Fa. Liéw., εἶος Bek. Dind. secuti Thiersch 8 168, 10,
εἴως Harl. et Scholl. E. Q.
οὐδέ τι βουλόμενος ἀλλὰ κρατερῆς ὑπ᾽ ἀνάγκης.
99 ¢ nonnulli.
ἔχων pro πὲρ ἔχων Harl.
and Curtius 353; Bek. from writing
éxnfétavog seems to adopt the affinity
of fetog annus, which Crusius also
ives. ϑῆσϑαιε, ep. for ϑᾶσθαι (Pao).
he only other part found in H. is
ϑησατο.
94. μιέλλετ᾽ is imperf., cf. δι 181,
α. 232
95. ἀπώλεσα οἶχον. The commen-
tators say, “his own house’’. But it
is odd in accounting for his present
wealth to enumerate his losses. The
words will not easily cohere with what
follows in this sense, nor with wade
σόλλ᾽ ἔπαϑον preceding in any other.
Bek. cuts the knot by putting these
lines in his margin. The fact is that
Menel. is strong in feclings and weak
in power of expression. On the whole
retrospect, the melancholy to which
his character leans, tinges all the cir-
cumstances; and he dwells rather on
the break up of his home and the for-
mer contents of it, than on the sub-
sequent enrichment, which is more in
93 } nonnulli, contra ridiculé subjungunt alii
94—6 [] Bek. 97. παρ-
100 — 3. [] Bek.
the way of the topic of the moment,
but which he leaves to be understood.
The κτήματα carried off by Paris are
often mentioned among the objects to
be won back by the war (I. 70, 91, 458).
The whole is a specimen of the ἔπε-
τροχάδην ἀγορεύειν ascribed to Menel.
See App. E. 8 (4) (5) (16) (17). The
difficulty has led to the suggestion that
olxoy means that of Priam, yielding
a very feeble sense.
96. πολλὰ καὶ ἐσθλὰ, these ad-
jectives, combined in various genders
and cases, are a favourite formula
closing a line (mar.),
100. Odvgou., here with acc., but
104—5 with gen.
los. ἀπεχϑαίρει, in a rare sense,
‘“‘erudges me my sleep and food”’, i. e.
makes me take less, the bold figure,
imputing as to Odys. the effect of his
involuntary absence, expresses well the
ardent feelings of the speaker; cf. 4.
560, Ζεύς — στρατὸν ἤχϑηρε, ‘bore
a grudge’’ to it.
100
105
120
DAY V.|
doo” Ὀδυσεὺς ἐμόγησε" καὶ ἤρατο." τῷ δ᾽
αὐτῷ κήδε᾽ ἔσεσθαι, ἐμοὶ δ᾽ ἄχος αἰὲν ἄλαστον ἃ εξ
κείνου, ὅπως δὴ δηρὸν" ἀποίχεται, οὐδέ τι ἴδμεν ,'
110 ξώειξ ὅ γ᾽ ἢ τέϑνηκεν. ὀδύρονταί(" νύ που αὐτὸν ,
“αέρτηςϊ ® ὁ γέρων καὶ ἐχέφρων" Πηνελόπεια g
Τηλέμαχός! 9, ov ἔλειπε νέην γεγαῶτ᾽ π' ἐνὶ οἴκῳ."
ὥς" φάτο, τῷ δ᾽ ἄρα πατρὸς ὑφ᾽ ἵμερον ὦρσε γόοιο"
δάκρυο" δ᾽ ἀπὸ βλεφάρων χαμάδις» βάλε πατρὸς ἀκούσας,
115 yAaivay’ πορφυρέην ἄντ᾽ ὀφθϑαλμοῖιν ἀνασχὼν
ἀμφοτέρῃσιν" χερσί. νόησε δέ μιν Μενέλαος,
OATZZEIAZ Δ. 107—123.
III
" ἃ ὁ. 1δ1---, 170, y.
ἔμελλεν“) 507; cfd. 240-1.
b a. 240, 2. 165.
ἄρ᾽
d a. 342 mar.; cf.
. 174.
e §. 376, ο. 270,
0.3138, v. 216, 290.
ἴω 132, d. $37,
. 464.
h 42. 740.
ig. 9, 172, 451.
if 330, ω. 294.
44.
3
a. 400.
4). 507, ὅ. 188,
Ys, 108.
o Ῥ. 437--8.
p O. 435, 714, JT.
n
, 136, ο. 193, 3.94,
μερμήριξε" δ᾽ ἔπειτα κατὰ φρένα καὶ κατὰ ϑυμὸν 118, P. ΠΝ
’ , ~ q σ. 9 Ζ. .
ἠέ μιν αὐτὸν πατρὸς ἐάσειε μνησϑῆναι, ra. 528.
~ ’ rag , , 8. Χ. + Ue » @.
ἢ moar ἐξερέοιτο ἕκαστά τε πειρήσαιτο. 235, B. 61), @.
slog ὃ ταῦϑ᾽ ὥρμαινε; κατά φρενα καὶ κατὰ Fvuor,|t 2. 365—6, 424,
> ͵ , c.f ξ 118, A. 193,
ἐκ δ᾽ Ἑλένη" Bahaporo’ θυώδεος vyogogoro ἜΝ
, uci. 0. .
ἤλυϑεν, ᾿Αρτέμιδι" χρυσηλακάτῳ" εἰκυῖα. v ef. 0. 191—2, 317.
~ 99 M9 99 ἢ ia w IT, 183, Y. 70.
τῇ δ᾽ ag au Adgynotyn xdtoinv’ εὔτυκτον EFnxev, |x i ot ee
y K. 566, N. 240.
109. Fcduev. 112. Fodxo.
113. Ogoe Harl. a man. pr.
Stephan. Wolf.
σειεν) alii, Scholl. H. M. 9.
119. «ξέκαστα.
115. alii ὀφθαλβοῖσιν.
μυϑήσαιτο Ern. Cl. ed. Ox.
120. ἕως ut sup. ad v. go.
122, feevia,
119. TE πειρήσαιτο
τ᾿ ἐπειρήσαιτο (i. ε. ἐπερωτή-
123. a Αδρήστη
Arist. et Herod. dpa δρήστη Scholl. H. M.; εὔκτυκτον Harl. unde Bek. sibi
duxit εὐπτυκτον, sed εὔτυκτον Schol. H. marg., alii omnes nostram lect. tuentur.
108. ἄλαστον, see on α. 252. |
109. ὅπως δὴ x. τ. λ., this should
be referred to κήδε᾽ ἔσεσθαε in 108,
as well as to ἐμοὶ δ᾽ ἄχος x. τ. A.
ozog like guoniam or quod = “since or
seeing that’’, takes indic.; see Heyne
Exc. 111]. ad Il. A. 251, 677.
113. Aristotle (Rhet. I. 11. 12) quotes
this verse to prove that καὶ ἐν τοῖς πέν-
ϑεσι καὶ ϑρήνοις ἐγγένεταί τις ἡδονὴ
κι τ. A,
114—8. χαμάδις with πέσε, βάλε,
χέἕε etc, is constantly found in this same
metrical position (mar.). ρμερμήρεξε,
a favourite phrase, when followed by
ηξ... ἢ, to express wavering between
alternatives; see App. E. 8 (17) for
Menelaus’ slowness i resolve; cf. also
the repetition of the formula nearly
verbatim 120 inf. The poet by repeating
it means to give prominence to this
characteristic. νόησε knew (mar.), not
as usually ‘‘perceived’’.
122. χρυσηλαχ. The word ἠλακάτη
in 131 means the ‘‘distaff’’ which held
the wool for spinning (v. 135 inf.): in
χρυσηλακ. it means ‘ ”, each
being a shaft of reed terminating in
a point. So an arrow is called con-
temptuously ἄτρακτος “‘gpindle”’ in Thu-
cyd. IV. 40. ἠλάκατα pl. neut. is the
wool as held for spinning; see ἢ. 105,
ὅσ. 315, It was carded or combed (πεέκω,
Eadvo, χ. 423) by the handmaids, who
also spun and wove with their mistress.
Helen is industrious even amid her
Trojan luxury, designing in her web
the combats of the war waged on her
account (I. 125, Ni.).,
123. The reading ἅμα δρήστη may
be barely noticed. We have δρη-
στήρ masc. and δρήστειρα fem.; see
App. A. 7 (4); but δρήστη is highly
doubtful. κλεσέην εὔτυκτον, ‘well-
fashioned seat’’, in same sense as ΧΚλι-
σμὸς, see on a. 132, which name is
used for it in 136 inf. Penelopé’s κλε-,
ofn in τ. 55 is wreathed, i.e. carves
OATZZEIAL A. go—106.
[pay v.
go
110.
ay. 301, §. 33. | slog ἐγὼ περὶ κεῖνα πολὺν βίοτον συναγείρων"
ς ὦ, 39. ἠλώμην," τείως μοι ἀδελφεὸν ἄλλος ἔπεφνεν
d 2. i ω. 97. [λάϑρη, ἀνωιστὶ.. δόλῳ οὐλομένης ἃ ἀλόχοιο᾽
ΕΣ 125. ὡς οὔ τοι χαίρων τοῖςδε κτεάτεσσιν ἀνάσσω."
g I. 492. καὶ πατέρων τάδε! μέλλετ᾽ ἀκουέμεν, οἵ τινες ὑμῖν
7 ΜᾺ 8. εἰσὶν, ἐπεὶ uchat πόλλ᾽ ἔπαϑον, καὶ ἀπώλεσα olxoy of
κ β' 312, μ. 347, εὖ μάλα ναιετάοντα," κεχανδότα' πολλὰ" καὶ ἐσϑλά.
a > 764, ὦ. 421. ὧν ὄφελον τριτάτην περ ἔχων ἐν δώμασι μοῖραν
ΔΙ 246, y. 205, ναίειν, of δ᾽ ἄνδρες! σόοι ἔμμεναι, οἵ τότ᾽ ὅλοντο
ap. 3. 5 oT Τροίῃ ἐν εὐρείῃ, Exdg”Agyeos™ ἱπποβότοιο.
612, 2.128. ἄλλ᾽ ἔμπης πάντας μὲν ὀδυρόμενος" καὶ ἀχεύων
ο £2.10, A. 64—5,
566—8.
p ¥. 23.
q ef. Τ΄. 221.
τ ἃ. 212, 92. 524.
8 ¥ 124-5, ὅ. 819,
ἐν. 223, FO
t I. 405; cf. δ. 788, |
93. ανάσσω.
95. «οἴκον.
πολλάκις ἐν μεγάροισι καϑήμενος ἡμετέροισιν,
ἄλλοτες μέν τε γόῳ φρένα τέρπομαι,Ρ ἄλλοτε δ᾽ αὖτε
παύομαι" αἰψηρὸς δὲ κόρος κρυεροῖο γόοιο *—
τῶν πάντων οὐ τόσσον ὀδύρομαι." ἀχνύμενός περ,
ὡς ἑνὸς, ὅς τέ μοι ὕπνον ἀπεχϑαίρει' καὶ ἐδωδὴν
T. 806-- 1, 346. 'μνωομένῳ , ἐπεὶ οὔ τις ᾿“χαιῶν τόσσ᾽ ἐμόγησεν
ee ee
99. Féxas.
go. ἕως tuentur ed. Ox. Fa. Liéw., slog Bek. Dind. secuti Thiergch § 168, 10,
εἴως Harl. et Scholl. E. Q.
οὐδέ τι βουλόμενος ἀλλὰ κρατερῆς ὑπ᾽ ἀνάγκης.
99 ¢ nonnulli.
ἔχων pro περ ἔχων Harl.
and Curtius 353; Bek. from writing
éxnfétavog seems to adopt the affinity
of fetrog annus, which Crusius also
ives. ϑῆσϑαι, ep. for ϑᾶσϑαι (Paw).
he only other part found in H. is
ϑησατο.
94. μέλλετ᾽ is imperf., cf. δ. 181,
a. 232
95. ἀπώλεσα oixoy. The commen-
tators say, ‘“‘his own house’’. But it
is odd in accounting for his present
wealth to enumerate his losses. The
words will not easily cohere with what
follows in this sense, nor with μάλα
σπόλλ᾽ ἔπαϑον preceding in any other.
Bek. cuts the knot by putting these
lines in his margin. The fact is that
Menel. is strong in feelings and weak
in power of expression. On the whole
retrospect, the melancholy to which
his character leans, tinges all the cir-
cumstances; and he dwells rather on
the break up of his home and the for-
mer contents of it, than on the sub-
sequent enrichment, which is more in
93 + nonnulli, contra ridiculé subjungunt alii
94—6 [] Bek. 97. παρ-
100— 3. [] Bek.
the way of the topic of the moment,
but which he leaves to be understood.
The κτήματα carried off by Paris are
often mentioned among the objects to
be won back by the war (Γ΄ 70, 91, 458).
The whole is a specimen of the ἐπε-
τροχάδην ἀγορεύειν ascribed to Menel.
See App. E. 8 (4) (5) (16) (17). The
difficulty has led to the suggestion that
olxoy means that of Priam, yielding
a very feeble sense.
96. πολλὰ xal ἐσθλὰ, these ad-
jectives, combined in various genders
and cases, are a favourite formula
closing a line (mar.),
100. ὀδυρόμι., here with acc., but
104—s5 with gen.
10s. ἀπεχϑαίρει, in a rare sense,
‘“‘erudges me my sleep and food’’, i. 6.
makes me take less, the bold figure,
imputing as to Odys. the effect of his
involuntary absence, expresses well the
ardent feelings of the speaker; cf. 2.
560, Ζεύς — στρατὸν ἤχϑηρε, ‘bore
8 grudge’’ to it.
100
105
DAY V.|
ὅσσ᾽ Ὀδυσεὺς ἐμόγησε" καὶ ἤρατο." τῷ δ᾽ ἄρ᾽ ἔμελλεν:
ΟΔΥΣΣΕΊΙΑΣ Δ. 107—123.
111
ἃ d.151—2, 170, w.
$07; εἴ. δ. 240---Ἰ.
b a. 240, Σ. 165.
αὐτῷ κήδε᾽ ἔσεσθαι, ἐμοὶ δ᾽ ἄχος αἰὲν ἄλαστον ἃ et. 165
κείνου, ὅπως δὴ δηρὸν" ἀποίχεται., οὐδέ τι lOper,!
110 ξώει5 ὅ γ᾽ ἢ τέϑνηκεν. ὀδύρονταί" νύ που αὐτὸν ,
Λαέρτης ϑ᾽ ὃ γέρων καὶ ἐχέφρων" Πηνελόπεια ξ
Τηλέμαχός! 8, ὃν ἔλειπε νέην γεγαώῶτ᾽ πα ἐνὶ οἴκῳ."
ὥς" φάτο, τῷ δ᾽ ἄρα πατρὸς ὑφ᾽ ἵμερον ὦρσε γόοιο᾽
d α. 342 mar.; ef.
. 174.
6 §. 876, ο. 270,
0.313, uv. 216, 290.
~ 132, δ. $37,
464
h $2. 740.
ig. 9, 172, 451.
k ᾿ $90, a. 204.
1d. 144.
δάκρυο δ᾽ ἀπὸ βλεφάρων χαμάδις» Bade πατρὸς ἀκούσας, | m τ. 400
n 4). 507, ὅ. 183,
115 χλαῖνανα πορφυρέην ἄντ᾽ ὀφϑαλμοῖιν ἀνασχὼν YF, 108
120
ἀμφοτέρῃσιν. χερσί. νόησε δὲ μιν Μενέλαος,
μερμήριξε" δ᾽ ἔπειτα κατὰ φρένα καὶ κατὰ ϑυμὸν
ἠέ μιν αὐτὸν πατρὸς ἐάσειε μνησϑῆναι, r 528
o P. 437-8.
p O. 435, 714, JT.
136, ρ. 193, 9. 94,
18, P. 438
118, Ρ. 435.
ὃ. ἰδὲ, τ. 225.
e e
ΞΖ
3 - 9 ’ ? , 51, v. 10, ω
ἢ πρῶτ᾽ ἐξερέοιτο ἕκαστά τε πειρήδσαιτο. 235, Ἐ. 671, @
slog ὃ ταῦϑ᾽ ὥρμαινε' κατά φρενα καὶ κατὰ ϑυμὸν, |t ε. 365—6, 424,
30 ’ , e , ξ 118, A, 193,
ἐκ δ᾽ Ἑλένη" Sahaporo’ ϑυώδεος ὑψοροφοιο 15. ΠΟ
3 ’ ’ u cir. 0. .
ἥλυϑεν, ᾿Αρτέμιδι" χρυσηλακάτῳ" εἰκυῖα. v ef. 0. 191-2, 317.
~ > ww > DD g +t Ww . .
y td. 131.
τῇ δ ao ap Adgnoryn κλισίηνυΥ εὐτυχτον ἔϑηκεν, x ot ΑΓ 0
109. «έδμεν. 112. «οίκῳ. 119. έκαστα. 122. ἐεικυῖα.
113. ὅρσε Harl. a man. pr.
Stephan. Wolf.
σειεν)ὴ alii, Scholl. H. M. Q.
11g. alii ὀφθαλβοῖσιν.
μυϑήσαιτο Ern. Cl. ed. Ox.
120. ἕως ut sup. ad v. go.
¢ 119. TE πειρήσαιτο
τ᾽ ἐπειρήσαιτο (i. 6. ἐπερωτή-
123. aw Αδρήστη
Arist. et Herod. ἅμα δρήστη Scholl. H. M.; evxrvxtoy Harl. unde Bek. sibi
duxit εὔπτυκτον, sed εὔτυκτον Schol. H. marg., alii omnes nostram lect. tuentur.
108. ἄλαστον, see on a. 252. .
109. ὅπως δὴ x. τ. 4., this should
be referred to κήδε᾽ ἔσεσθαι in 108,
as well as to ἐμοὶ δ᾽ ἄχος x. τ. 2.
ὅπως like guoniam or quod = “since or
seeing that’’, takes indic.; see Heyne
Exc, 111]. ad Il. A. 251, 677.
113. Aristotle (Rhet. I. 11. 12) quotes
this verse to prove that καὶ ἐν τοῖς πέν-
ϑεσι καὶ ϑρήνοις ἐγγένεταί τις ἡδονὴ
κι τ a,
114—8. χαμιάδις with πέσε, βαλε,
χέε etc. is constantly found in this same
metrical position (mar.). μερμήριξε,
8 favourite phrase, when fohowed by
nt... ἢ, to express wavering between
alternatives; see App. E. 8 (17) for
Menelaus’ slowness of resolve; cf. also
the repetition of the formula nearly
verbatim 120 inf. The poet by repeating
it means to give prominence to this
characteristic. νόησε knew (mar.), not
as usually ‘‘perceived’’.
122. χρυσηλαχ. The word ἡλακάτη
in 131 means the ‘‘distaff’’ which held
the wool for spinning (v. 135 inf.): in
χρυσηλακ. it means ”, each
being a shaft of reed terminating in
a point. So an arrow is called con-
temptuously ἄτρακτος “spindle” in Thu-
cyd. IV. 40. ἠλάκατα pl. neut. is the
wool as held for spinning; see 7. 105,
6. 315, It was carded or combed (πεέκω,
ξαίνω, χ. 423) by the handmaids, who
also spun and wove with their mistress.
Helen is industrious even amid her
Trojan luxury, designing in her web
the combats of the war waged on her
account (I. 125, Ni.)..
123. The reading aa donotn may
be barely noticed. We have den-
στήρ masc. and δρηήστειρα fem.; see
App. A. 7 (4); but δρήστη is highly
doubtful. xdAcoiny εὔτυκτον, ‘well-
fashioned seat’’, in same sense as ΚκΆλι-
σμὸς, see on a. 132, which name is
used for it in 136 inf. Penelopé’s κλι-
σίη in τ. 55 is wreathed, i.e. carved,
112
OATZZEIAL Δ. 124—139.
[Day Vv.
a K. 156, δ. 298,
9. 337.
b ¢. 247, 3. 56S.
e 1. 381—2.
dd. 48 mar.
e 1. 122, 264.
fe. 201.
ge >. 439, o. 106.
h a. 357, d. 135.
id. 616, ο. 116.
k w. 189.
Ι ει. 426.
m 42. 597.
n 2. 390, a. 131,
x. 315, 367.
o ὅ. 632.
p K. 534.
q 2. 385.
᾿Δλκέππη δὲ τάπητα" φέρεν μαλακοῦ ἐρίοιο,
Φυλὼ δ᾽ ἀργύρεον τάλαρον" φέρε, τόν of ἔδωκεν
|'Adncvden, Πολύβοιο δάμαρ, ὃς Eva’ ἐνὶ Θήβῃς
Alyvating, ὅϑι πλεῖστα δόμοις ἐν χτήματα κεῖται"
ὃς Μενελάῳ δῶκε δύ᾽ ἀργυρέας ἀσαμένϑους. 4
δοιοὺς δὲ τρίποδας, δέχᾳ δὲ χρυσοῖο τάλαντα. 5
χωρὶς δ᾽ avd’ Ἑλένῃ ἄλοχος πόρε'Ϊ κάλλιμας δῶρα"
χρυσέην τ᾽ ἠλακάτην" τάλαρόν ϑ'᾽' ὑπόκυκλον ὅπασσεν
ἀργύρεον, χρυσῷ" δ᾽ ἐπὶ χείλεα κεκράαντο.
τόν ῥά οἱ ἀμφέπολος Φυλὼ παρέϑηκε φέρουσα
νήματος ἀσκητοῖο βεβυσμένον" αὐτὰρ ἐπ’ αὐτῷ
ἠλακάτη τετάνυστο lodvegis! εἶρος ἔχουσα.
ἕξετοτι δ᾽ ἐν κλισμῷ, ὑπὸ δὲ ϑρῆνυς ποσὶν ἦεν."
αὐτίκα δ᾽ ἢ γ᾽ ἐπέεσσι πόσιν ἐρέεινεν ἕκαστα.
(ἐδμενο δή, Μενέλαε διοτρεφές. of τινὲς οἵδε
ἀνδρῶν εὐχετόωνταιν ἵχανέμεν« ἡμέτερον δῶ;
125. 133. Foe. 138. FLodvegis.
128. ἀργυρέους Bek. annot.
ed. Ox.
with ivory and silver. Pindar and Eu-
rip. also use xdeoéa for a couch or bed
(Pyth. IV. 236, Alcest. 994). Perhaps
the chair, like Penelopé’s, had a stool
προσφυέ᾽ ἐξ αὐτῆς “fashioned of a
piece with it’’, as one is mentioned
136 inf. In 1]. κλισίη eve. or εὔπηκτος
means “tent or hut’’.
123—-5. Circé has four ἀμφέπολοι,
Penel, commonly two — the usual
number, probably. Helen being Διὸς
éxyeyavia, the poet amplifies her state.
See App. E. g (8) for her tasteful in-
dustry. τάλαρον, ‘basket’, elsewhere
as containing cheese or fruits (mar.).
126. For the wealth of Thebes, and
its hundred gates see mar, The name
is plur. Herod. II. 15 says the name
“Egypt’’ anciently belonged to Thebes,
meaning evidently the Thebaid or
“upper”? Egypt. In δὶ 477 the Nile
is called Αἴγυπτος.
128—g. ‘‘Bath-vessels’’ do not else-
where occur as presents. There is a
subtle propriety in ascribing such gifts
to Egypt, the land of punctilious ablu-
tions. τρέποδας see on a. 137. The
nom, is τρέπους, and X. 164 τρέπος.
131. vadxvx., following the ana-
logy of ὑπόρρηνος, based like this on
8. noun, it should mean, “having κύκλοι
137. ξέπεσσι Féxaota.
, 131. χρυσέην Barnes.
134. αὐτοῦ et αὐτὸν Bek. annot.
138. ἰδμεν.
evony Venet. Ern. Cl.
139. evyetowvto Schol. Vulg.
under 10", i. e., ‘‘on wheels”. Some
explain it “somewhat round’’,. but we
do not find ὑπο--- in adjectival com-
pounds so used by H., who for ‘‘round’’
has κυχλοτερὴς and περέτρογος.
132. ἐπὶ... XEXQaaYTaL, see App.
A. 8 (1) and note. Buttm., Gr. Verbs
p- 154 note, suggests that κραέψνω is
contracted from κρεαένω, but its pro-
bable connexion with κάρα xga-rog
points to xea— ag the form, in sense
of “put a head to” and so finish off;
further shown in 9. 390—1 κατὰ δῆ-
μον βασιλῆες ἀρχοὶ κραίνουσι, ‘are
the head or chief’; cf. ὁ κραένων
τῆςδε τῆς χώρας, Sophoc. Oeed. Col. 296.
134. BeBvou. “crammed”, βύω does
not occur elsewhere in H., but Herod.
VI. 125, uses it to describe Aristago-
ras’ mouth stuffed up (ἐβέβυστο) with
gold in Darius’ treasury. The νῆμα
was what she had spun: hence the
basket’s repletion denotes her industry.
The ἐοδνεφὲς εἰρος, ‘‘dark-hued
wool’’, was her raw material.
138—9. ἔδμεν (epic and Ion. for
ἴσμεν, Donalds. Gr. Gr. p. 289 note 1),
‘‘do we know?” i, 6. have they yet
declared themselves ? — alluding to the
rule of not asking them at first, see on
59—61 sup. EVXETOMVYTAL, Bee ON. 172.
DAY v.| OATZZEIAZ A. 140—153. 113
4 ld la |
40 ψεύσομαι" ἢ ἔτυμον ἐρέω; κέλεταιν δέ μὲ ϑυμός. 0 ΑΚ. 534. ,
> , , , ᾽ , ? , e.551—5, 187.
οὔ" γάρ πῶ τινὰ φημι ἐοικότα ὧδε ἐἰδέσϑαι e τ, 380; ch γ
οὔτ᾽ ἄνδρ᾽ οὔτε γυναῖκα (σέβας, μ᾽ ἔχει -εἰρορόωσαν) | it >
ὡς ὅδ᾽ Ὀδυσσῆος μεγαλήτορος υἷι ἔοικεν, ὁ δ. 112.
Τηλεμάχῳ," τὸν ἔλειπε νέον γεγαώτ᾽ ἐνὶ οἴκῳ Fg. 243, φ. 201.
. , ar ar , “ .. ge I. 180, 3. 396,
45 κεῖνος avng, Ot ἐμεῖο κυνώπιδος εἵνεκ᾽ ᾿4χαιοὶ 9. 319.
ἤλϑεϑ᾽" ὑπὸ Τροίην, πόλεμον ϑρασὺν ὁρμαίνοντες." |h K. 2.
\ > 9 , , \ iy. 313, σ΄ 187,
τὴν δ᾽ ἀπαμειβόμενος προςέφη ξανϑὸς Μενέλαος ». 362.
«(οὕτω νῦν καὶ ἐγὼ νοέω, γύναι, ὡς ov ἐΐσκεις ᾿ κ ἥ'ς δῖ. ,
’ ‘ ’ ἢ 0. .ὦ. 10].
κείνου γὰρ τοιοίδε πόδες Κ τοιαίδε τε χεῖρες mt. 20-1, Ψ.
50 ὀφθαλμῶν τε βολαὶ' κεφαλή τ᾿ ἐφύπερϑέ te χαῖται." ; 167. 8.
καὶ νῦν ἢ τοι ἐγὼ μεμνημένος ἀμφ᾽ Ὀδυσηι. ot
μυϑεόμην, ὅσα κεῖνος ὀϊξύσας ἐμόγησεν " o 9. 5881, Δ. 391,
ἀμφ᾽ ἐμοὶ, αὐτὰρ ὃ πικρὸν ὑπ᾽ ὀφρύσι δάκρυον" εἶβεν,) 353° xy?
140. ἐξερέω. 41. Fefouxora Ειδέσϑαι. 143. FeFouxev. 144. Folxo.
148. ἐειβέσκεις.
141. pro ἐδέσϑαι Schol. E. γενέσθαι.
bet ταλασίφρονος; mox pro vit (quod primo fuerat) vic.
140, ψεῦσο αε ἢ & &, cf. B. 132
ξώει ὃ γ᾽ ἢ τέϑνηκε, which might be
read as a question, like .1}}18.
143—4. Helen with feminine quick-
ness (whilst Menel. was spelling out the
several featares, 148--- 50), discerning
the likeness, contracts the argument,
‘*this is very like Odys. and éherefure
probably his son”’, into “this is very
like the son of Odys.”’.
148. χκυνώπιδος, a term of vehe-
ment reproach. The same is applied
by Hephestus to his faithless wife in
ὃ. 319, which strengthens the argu-
ment in App. E. 9 (5). Achilles re-
roaches Agam. in A. 225 a8 κυνὸς
bauer’ ἔχων. Sce also ©. 423, ὦ. 481.
148. εἴσχω (fefioxm), or ἴσκω
(Féoxm), means “to think like’’, as
here, or ‘‘ make like’’, as in 279. They
are kindred forms of εἴκω wh. only
occurs in imperf.; see Buttm. Gr. Verbs”
s.v. εἴκω. So Z. 520 σφίσιν εἶκε, i.e.
ἐδόκει, ‘it seemed to them likely”.
149. τοιοίδε πόδες x. τ. Δ. That
the physical family type should be
marked in the descendants was per-
haps prized as conveying a promise
of moral likeness also. Thus Nestor
found the μῦϑοι of Telem. like his
father’s y. 124. In a. 208 the Pseudo-
HOM. OD. I.
143. Harl. supra μεγαλήτορος scriptum ha-
146. ἦλθον Schol. M.
Mentes finds the head and eyes of
Telem. like his father’s, who is
generally described in I. 193 — 8.
“Menel. here notices the feet, hands,
and not only the head but its hair
(which in Odys, is described [§. 231,
π. 176] as criap and black, and “ike
the hyacinth’’, probably in its curling
line), also the Bodaz, “glances or looks”’,
of his eyes; comp. Virg. Ain. IIT. 490,
Sic oculos, sic ille manus, sic ora ferebat.
So Penel. (t. 359) notices the travel-
worn hands and feet of the guest as
perhaps like her husband's, supposing
him aged by toil; and Euryclea ob-
serves, not quite consistently (t. 381),
. the whole figure (δέμας), the voice, and
the feet, as like her lord’s, i. 6. as she
remembered him. From the notice of
πόδες we may infer that the feet were
so far at any rate bare as to show
their distinctive form. The family
likeness is represented in &. 474, a8
noticed by an enemy iu battle.
153. εἶβεν is found, in all its forms
that occur, always closing a line and
with δάκρυον preceding. With λεέβω
εἴβω, cf. λαιψηρὸς αἰψηρὸς, λάχνη
ἄχνη; so dental and guttural mutes
are lost when initial, as in διώκω
ἰώκω, γαῖα αἴα. Donalds. Gr. Gr. § 118.
We have in N. 88 δάκρυα λεῖβον.
8
114
a ὅ. 115 mar.
» δ. 291. 316, o.
64,57. 167, P.12. |
« φ. 462,
da. 11", Π. 544,
cf. P. 4, Z.
351, N. 122, 2.
61—5.
OATZZEIAL A. 154—169.
χλαῖναν" πορφυρέην ἄντ᾽ ὀφϑαλμοῖιν ἀνασχών.᾽ἢ
τὸν δ᾽ αὖ Νεστορίδης Πεισίστρατος ἀντίον ηὔδα
«᾿4τρείδη" Μενέλαε διοτρεφὲς ὄρχαμε λαῶν,
κείνου μέντοι ὅδ᾽ υἱὸς ἐτήτυμον, ὡς ἀγορεύεις"
ἀλλὰ σαόφρων“ ἐστὶ, veuecodrar’ δ᾽ ἐνὶ ϑυμῷ
ὁ δι 13, 3.467; ef. ὧδ᾽ ἐλθὼν τὸ πρῶτον" ἐπεςβολίας ἀναφαίνειν
Z. 499, AT. 420
ΓΒ. 275.
h γ. 6s, K. 203.
i §2. 152, 437, ὃ.
570.
k A. 385, β. 272,
301, γ. 99. , Γ΄
| A. 15». ἐν μεγάροις, @
m α. 291, β. 215,
264, ο. 2:0.
n Ψ. 119, O. 735,
254.
o x. 255, X. 196.
p X. 297, 373.
159. ta πρῶτα ferxeoBodlas.
165. ἀξοσσητῆρες.
158— 60. ab Rhiano omissos notat Schol. H., [| Léw.
162. pro ἐέλδετο Zenod. ὀΐετο, Schol. H.
scholl. H. M. Q. R., utrumque v. 162 et 163 improbari vult Dind.
nod.. Schol. H.
162. ἐξέλδετο Ειδέσϑαι.
ἄντα σέϑεν, τοῦ νῶι FEOVE ὡς τερπόμεϑ᾽ αὐδῇ.
κ Χ. 394. [αὐτὰρ ἐμὲ προέηκε Γερήνιος" ἱππότα Νέστωρ
τῷ ἅμα πομπὸν ἕπεσθαι" ἐέλδετο γάρ σε ἰδέσϑαι,
ὄφρα of ἤ τι ἔπος" ὑποϑήσεαι! ἠέ τι ἔργον.
πολλὰ γὰρ ἄλγε᾽ ἔχει πατρὸς παῖς οἰχομένοιο"
μὴ ἄλλοι ἀοσσητῆρες" ἔωσιν,
ὡς νῦν Τηλεμάχῳ ὃ μὲν οἴχεται, οὐδέ οἱ ἄλλοι
εἴσ᾽ οἵ κεν κατὰ δῆμον ἀλάλκοιεν" κακότητα."
τὸν δ᾽ ἀπαμειβόμενος προςέφη ξανϑὸς Μενέλαος
“GP πόποι, ἦ μάλα δὴ φίλου ἀνέρος υἱὸς ἐμὸν δῶ
163. For Féxog «έργον.
166. fot.
159. ἐπιστομίας Ze-
1637 nonnulli,
168. tow δὲ
μέγ᾽ ὀχϑήσας Schol. H., quod ex v. 30 peti notat Bek.
158. νεμεσ΄., x Schol. says that
168 —60 had been viewed as suspicious,
yet they account for Pisistr., who is
only the πομπὸς, speaking first; and are
characteristic, as he, unlike Telem., is
evidently forward. ready of speech and
busy. Thus he prefaces his welcome to
the guests with some suitable remarks,
and manages, rather than Nestor, their
reception in γ. 36—50; and thus he re-
calls his host from the burst of un-
measured sorrow in 100 inf. So, here,
it is quite natural that he should thus
slightly patronize Tclem. and compli-
ment Menel. by the way. The use of
νεμεσσ. for αἰδεῖται is objected to; but
the feelings are closely akin, see on
α. 117—23.
159. TO πρῶτον should go with ἐλ-
Sov, = ἐπεὶ τὸ xg. ἦλθε, “as soon
as he has come”. ἐπεσβόολ.-, ‘‘over-
tures’’; the noun occurs nowhere else
in H. Its elements are ἔπος Ballo;
ef, éxéoBolog, adj., mar.
160. νῶι, i.e. Telem. and I: it does
not appear that Pisist., who had not
been at Troy, was previously known
to Menel., and Helen's enquiry (138—9)
shows that to her both were strangers.
163. ἔπος and ἔργον, although put
disjunctively, have a blended meaning,
as in hendiadys; see on γ. 99.
165. 4% ἄλλοι, obs. synizesis of ἡ ἃ.
167. @AGAX., this verb is used with
τί τινος and τί τινε, as here, meaning
‘“‘to keep off’’; and so ‘‘defend’’ or
generally ‘“help’’ (mar.). It is found
with dat. of both person and instru-
ment.
16g9—82. It is remarkable how Me-
nel. in this speech entirely ignores the
busy and forward Pisistr., the previous
speaker, and concentrates his atten-
fion on the silent and backward Te-
lem. for his absent father’s sake; no-
thing could more enhance the interest
in that father, or more happily exhibit
the frank and ardent temperament of
Menel., than this simple poetic contri-
vance; — the rather, that the very
emphatic exclamation about φίλου ave -
ρος υἱὸς is exactly as applicable to
Pisistr. as to Telem., but is clearly
meant for the latter only.
[pay v.
1(
DAY v.| ΟΔΎΣΣΕΙΑΣ Δ. 170—188. 115
70 ined’, ὃς elvex’ ἐμεῖο πολέας ἐμόγησεν" ἀέϑλους" εὖ 106 mar.
καί μιν ἔφην ἐλϑόντα φιλησέμεν" ἔξοχον - ἄλλων ca. 118, T. étt,
"Aoyéslav, εἰ νῶιν ὑπεὶρ dla νόστον ἔδωκεν P. 358.
~ ’ ’ , > » ’ | d App. A. 19 mar.
νηυσὶ ϑοῇσι γενέσϑαι Ὀλύμπιος εὐρύοπα Ζεύς. | ef. 0.254, Β. 629,
καί κέ of “Aoyel véooas πόλιν καὶ δώματ᾽ ἔτευξα, = | ° 2. 36-7._
ao ἐξ Ἰθάκης ἀγαγὼν σὺν κτήμασι καὶ téxel @° Sdn Bh
καὶ πᾶσιν λαοῖσι, μίαν πόλιν ἐξαλαπάξας 4 we 5.501.
al περιναιετάουσιν,ξ ἀνάσσονταιν δ᾽ ἐμοὶ αὐτῷ. i a. 209,
καί xe Dap’ ἐνθάδ᾽ ἐόντες ἐμισγόμεϑ᾽ " οὐδέ κεν ἡμέας [ἡ ΝῊ
ἄλλο διέκρινεν φιλέοντέκ τε τερπομένω τε, m IT. 350.
nd.
ἀλλὰ τὰ μέν που μέλλεν» ἀγάσσεσθαιο ϑεὸς αὐτὸς, | ε. 129, 9. 70, β.
ὃς κεῖνον δύστηνον ἀνόστεμονν» οἷον ἔϑηκεν.᾽« νι 113.
3. κοΓ'
ὡς φάτο, τοῖσι δὲ πᾶσιν ὑφ᾽ ἵμερον ὦρσε γόοιο.
8o
p cf. ὅδ. 806, ν. 333.
κλαῖε μὲν ‘Aoyetn Ἑλένητ Διὸς ἐκγεγαυῖα,
η ὦ. 528.
rw. 218, Γ΄. 418.
5 ὦ. 61, A. 415
85 κλαῖε δὲ Τηλέμαχός te καὶ ᾽Ατρείδης Μενέλαος" a. 29.3]. ef T
99? » ἢ 9 , 8 » : 829. 9.
οὐδ ἄρα Νέστορος υἱὸς ἀδαχρύτω ἔχεν ὁσσε | a es wt 6 γ.
μνησατοῖ yao κατὰ ϑυμὸν ἀμύμονος Avrdozouo," 112, d. 202, ὦ
τόν ῥ᾽ Ἠοῦς ἔκτεινε φαεινῆς ἀγλαὸς υἱός". ν a. 822.
174. fot. 175. fo. 177. ανάσσονται.
170. πολέας Schol. H., ita Wolf. et edd. recentt. πολεῖς Barnes. 171. ἔξοχον
ἄλλων Schol. M., ita plerique edd. ξξογα πάντων Venet. 1181]. fortasse ex 2. 134.
176—7. |] Low. probante Ni,
XV.) ἄλλο ἀμμε, Ni.
174. νάσσα, see App. A. 19, “would
have settled for him’’, i. e. assigned
for his dwelling, a city. Ni. says Me-
nelaus’ intended offer ‘‘could only have
been a flight of friendly fancy”’, The
offer indeed was one which Odys. could
not have accepted, even if it lay in
the other’s power to make; but, he
adds, ‘‘it contradicts our notions of
the relation of king to people, as we
find it among the Acheans’’. This is
true; but Menel., as a wanderer not
long come home from Asia, Egypt, ectc.,
may not limit his feelings at the mo-
ment by strictly constitutional notions,
but talk with the uncalculating ar-
dour which characterizes him: see App.
E. 8 (19) end. What would have be-
come of the townsmen whom he pro-
posed to turn out (ἐξαλαπάξας)} Pro-
bably H. means that Menel. did not
ask himself the question. If any answer
be given, it should seem that they
178—g apud Plutarch. (de adult. et am. discr.
181. μέλλει Bek. annot.
were to take the place of the immi-
grants; and this treatment of friends
and subjects was nearly parallelled by
Xerxes or Nebuchadnezzar in their
conquests; comp. the ‘‘dragging’’ of
Samos for Syloson by the Persians,
Herod. VI. 31.
181. ἀγάσσ., this verb means (1) to
think a thing aya» or too great, (2) to
envy or grudge, as here, (3) to ad-
mire or wonder, (4) to wonder with in-
dignation, (5) to grudge with indigna-
tion; see mar. for examples. —
182. ἀνόστιμιον occurs nowhere else
in H., but we find the similar ἄνοστος,
and νόστιμος (mar.) meaning similarly
“fated to return’’.
186—g. Pisistr., weeping for his own
loss, although it is suggested by that
of Telem., is a touch of nature; so in
T. 302 the women weep Πάτροκλον πρό-
φασιν σφῶν δ᾽ αὐτῶν unde’ ἑκάστη.
— Ἠοῦς x. τ. λ., cf. Pind. Mem. II,
9 Ἐ
116
ΟΔΥΣΣΕΙΑΣ Δ. 189—200.
aa. 4 mar.
b 2. 229, ζ. 2b.
e ζ. 110, ef. I. 180. -
foo , . , .,
τοῦ ὅ γ᾽ ἐπιμνησϑεὶς ἔπεα πτερόεντ᾽ ἀγόρευεν"
“’Aroetdn, περὶ" μέν σε βροτῶν πεπνυμένον εἶναι
ds. 513, εἴ. δι: Νέστωρ φάσχ᾽ 0 γέρων. ὅτ᾽ ἐπιμνησαίμεϑα σεῖο
100--2.
249. |
f τ. 264, σ. 27. |
᾿[οἷσιν ἐνὶ μεγάροισι, καὶ ἀλλήλους ἐρέοιμεν.}"
ς ε΄. 9. 4δ, ε. BA. χαὶ νῦν, elt τί που ἔστι. πέϑοιό por: οὐ γὰρ ἐγώ γε
τέρπομ᾽ ὁ ὀδυρόμενος μεταδόρπιος"" ἀλλὰ καὶ ἠὼς
κ co. 190. 296, IT. | ἔσσεται ἠριγένεια. νεμεσσώμαί!' ye μὲν οὐδὲν
451, 675, Ψ. 9. | xdatewy Og κε ϑάνῃησι βροτῶν καὶ πότμον ἐπίσπῃ.
h WN. 569.
i YW. 46; εἴ. 141.
k JT. 570; cf. @
415, O. 11.
1 4. 374-5.
189 fénec.
192 7 Arist., Scholl. H. Q. |] Bek. Dind. Fa. Low.
194. μεταδόρπιος Har]. supra wera habet ἐπι,
ἀλλήλοις notant Scholl. H. Q.
μεταδόρπιον Bek. annot.
192. foto.
197. οἷον (admirantis) Eustath.
τοῦτό νυ καὶ γέρας" οἷον ὀϊξυροῖσι βροτοῖσιν ,"
κείρασϑαί; τε κόμην βαλέειν τ᾽ ἀπὸ daxev παρειῶν.
[καὶ γὰρ ἐμὸς τέϑνηκεν ἀδελφεὸς. οὔ τικ κάκιστος
"Agyslav: μέλλεις δὲ σὺ ἴδμεναι" οὐ γὰρ ἐγώ γε!
200.. ξίδμεναι.
ἀλλήλους fere omnes, et
198. κεέράσϑαι Marl.
62—3; see App. D. 1. Strabo XV. p-
728 says, φησὶ δὲ καὶ Αἰσχύλος τὴν
μητέρα Μέμνονος Αισσίαν.
191. See App. A. g (20) for the im-
perf. in -σκον followed by optat.
192. The rejection of this line pro-
ceeds on the sense of ‘‘were saying
or speaking to each other’’ being
ascribed to ἀλλήλους ἐρέοιμεν, which
Homeric usage will not allow. But as
ἐρέοιμι optat. bears in 4. 229, Bov-
Aevoy ὅπως ἐρέοιμι Exaotny, the
sense of ‘‘ask’’ with accus. of person,
we may retain it, rendering ‘were
asking one another’’.
193. εἴ τί που ἔστι, i.e. πίθεσϑαι,
“if to comply be possible or reason-
able’’; a modest way of introducing his
advice: cf. Hsemon’s words to his father
in Soph. Antiy. 719, γνώμη yao εἴ τις
nan’ ἐμοῦ x. τ. Δ.
194. μεταδόρπ., ‘during supper”’,
which had been interrupted by their
burst of sorrow; sce 216—8 where it is
resumed. δόρπον was the latest of the
meals; cf. ἄριστα, δεῖπνα, δόρπα 8᾽
αἱρεῖσϑαι τρίτα, Mschyl. Fraygm. ap.
Athen. I. 11 e, Yet this same is called
δεῖπνον 61 sup., ἄριστον occurs π. 2,
Q. 124. For the form cf. μεταδήμιον
(mar.) “in or among the people”’, In
τέρπομ᾽ ὀδυρόμενος the yoo φρένα
τέρπομαι of Mencl. 100 —2 is reflected.
“T at any rate’’, says Pisistr., “find no
solace in lamentations over our meal”’,
cf. also Menelaus’ words 105 sup. and
Penelopé’s words describing her forlorn
state (niar.) ἤματα... τέρπομ᾽ ὁδυ-
ρομένη γοόωσα.
195—7. ἠριγένεια, see on β. τ. ---
μνεμεσσ. YE κι τιλ., 8866 on 158 sup. The
force of ye may be given by ““ποί that
I am ashamed of weeping for one etc.”’
ὀϊξυροῖσι βροτοῖσιν, contains a
blended notion of the lost and the sur-
vivors, tho γέρας being paid by the
latter to the former. ὀϊξυρὸς pourtrays
the estate of man, exemplified, in the
poet’s notion, most strikingly in the
greatest heroes: cf. Thetis to Achilles,
A. 417, ὠκύμορος καὶ ὀϊξυρὸς περὶ
πάντων ἔπλεο, and Telem. of Odys.,
γ. 95; περὶ yao μιν ὀϊξυρὸν τέκε
μήτηρ, also the contrast of this with
the state of the gods ῥδῖα ξώοντες,
and ὥς γὰρ ἐπεκλώσαντο ϑεοὶ det -
λοῖσι βροτοῖσιν ζώειν ἀχνυμ έ-
yous, αὐτοὶ δέ τ᾽ ἀκηδέες εἰσίν Q.
525—6; sce Nigelsbach I. § 9. το.
198. xelgad Sar, so Achilles and his
Myrmidones cover the corpse of Pa-
troclus with their shorn hair, and in
the opening scene of The Choéphora
Orestes deposits his shorn lock on his
father’s tomb. This verb there becomes
trans, in v. 272 (Dind.) οὐκ ἔστιν οστις
πλὴν ἐμοῦ κείραιτο vey, so Herod.
II. 61, τὸν δὲ τύπτονται x, τ. 1.,) and
so here we might render ‘“‘to shear
one’s hair for them (fgotod)’’.
[pay v.
19
19
201
15
DAY v.]
ἤντησ᾽ οὐδὲ ἴδον" περὶ δ᾽ ἄλλων φασὶ γενέσϑαι
"Avrthoyor ,* πέρι μὲν ϑείειν ταχὺν ἠδὲ μαχητήν."
τὸν δ᾽ ἀπαμειβόμενος προςέφη ξανϑὸς Μενέλαος
ἐπεὶ τόσα εἶπες ὅσ᾽ ἂν πεπνυμένος ἀνὴρ
105 εἴποι καὶ ῥέξειε, καὶ ὃς προγενέστερος εἴη"
τοίου" γὰρ καὶ πατρὸς, ὃ καὶ πεπνυμένα“ βάζξεις",
ῥεῖα δ᾽ ἀρίγνωτος γόνος ἀνέρος ὦ te Κρονίων
OABov ἐπικλώσῃ" γαμέοντί τε γεινομένῳ te,
ὡς νῦν Νέστορι δῶκε διαμπερὲς ἥματα πάντα,
τὸ αὐτὸν μὲν λιπαρῶς" γηρασκέμεν ἐν μεγάροισιν,
υἱέας αὖ πινυτούς τε καὶ ἔγχεσιν εἶναι ἀρίστους.
ἡμεῖς δὲ κλαυϑμὸν μὲν ἐάσομεν. ὃς πρὶν ἐτύχϑη,
δόρπου δ᾽ ἐξαῦτις uvnowpeta,: χερσὶ δ᾽ ἐφ’ ὕδωρ
χευάντων᾽ μῦϑοι δὲ καὶ ἠῶϑέν περ ἔσονται
Τηλεμάχῳ καὶ ἐμοὶ διαειπέμεν! ἀλλήλοισιν."
as ἔφατ᾽, ᾿σφαλίων δ᾽ ἄρ᾽ ὕδωρ" ἐπὶ χεῖρας ἔχευεν,
ὀτρηρὸς ϑεράπων" Μενελάου κυδαλέμοιο.
3
“a φίλ᾽,
ΟΔΥΣΣΕΙΑΣ Δ.
201-217.
117
ἃ ὅ. 187 mar.
b γ. 124--δ; ef
§2. 377.
ς 7. 58; cf. σ. 392.
ἃ ζ. 108, 300, @..
‘| 265; ef. 375.
6 y. 208 mar.
f App. A. 20 mar.
g Π. 499.
ἢ 4. 136, ¢. 368,
w. 253; cf. o.
332.
i T. 148, 42. 601,
O. 477.
k α. 146 mar.
1 pe. 16, K. 425,
4. 706.
m d. 213.
n ὅ, 23, 38, α. 109,
A, 321.
. «κΕἔέδον.
207. ἀρίγνωτον γένος Ἡ, Stephan.
ἐπικλώσει Wolf.
Bek, annot. 212. δὴ pro δὲ Eustath.
204. feces.
204—6. The apodosis of ἐπεὶ τόσα
εἰπας is suspended by a parenthesis
devoted to the praise of Nestor and his
sons, as far as v. 211, when it appears
in v. 212, ἡμεῖς δὲ x. τ. 1. In 205 ὃς
προγενέστε og εἴη is an adjectival
clause coupled by xed to πεπνυμένος
in 204. In 206 ὃ is ‘“‘wherefore’’, by el-
lipsis of διὰ, see Liddell and 8. s. v. ὅς;
cf. for the sentiment 611 inf. and note.
208. γαμέοντέ τε yey. te, ‘at
his marriage and at his birth’; a
πρωϑύστερον which Ni, illustrates by
δι 723, κι 417, μ΄ 134, A. 251, where
rearing precedes birth; so y. 467, δ. 50,
&€. 264 etc. Bek. here and in the
ralle] passages (mar.) edits γιγνομένῳ
in the same sense. The text is sup-
ported by the Schol. B. here who, how-
ever, mistakenly renders it τεκνοῦντι
“begetting”, to be in keeping with yovog
«ἀνέρος (207) and υἱέας (211). Authority,
however, is against the pres. γεένομαι
in this sense (see Crusius 5. v., Ni. ad
loc., Donalds. Gr. Gr. p. 286 8. v., Jelf.
Gr. Gr. § 261. 5. obs. 3); Buttm. Gr.
Verbs s. v., however allows it, but cites
205. «είποι.
208. ἐπικλώσῃ Ern. Cl. ed. Ox, et recentt.,
Léw. secuti Schol. II. et var. lect. ms. GC.
213. pro δόρπου δείπνου Schol. ad 61 sup.
215. δια ξειπέμεν.
210. αὐτῶ μὴν
no passage: see further App. A. 20.
We may for the sense compare Hes.
Theog. 218—9, Kimw#o τε Adyzecty: τε
καὶ Ἄτροπον, αὖ te βροτοῖσι γεινο-
μένοισι διδοῦσιν ἔχειν ἀγαθόν τε
κακόν τε.
210. λιπαρῶς, λιπαρὸς expresses
(mar.) ‘“‘in holiday trim’’, as the suitors,
or ‘“‘dainty”’ e.g. a lady’s veil, so A-
παροχρήδεμνος of Charis; cf. λιπαρὰς
καλέσειεν Αϑήνας Aristoph. Acharn.
639. In Latin nitidus most nearly ex-
presses it which Virgil applies (Georg.
IIT. 437) to youth, as H. does dexagog
to such old age as Nestor’s; see also
γήραϊ λιπαρῷ (mar.) and cf, Pind. Nem.
VII. 99, "Ba λιπαρῶ te γήραϊ δια-
πλέκοις.
212—5. ἡμεῖς δὲ, see on 204 τὰ
διαειπέμεν, ‘‘to have our talk out”’
διὰ = “thoroughly” , not ‘‘to speak
in turn, converse”; so £. 47 διαπέ-
geade. In this form the word occurs
in H. only here; but forms, in which,
as not uncommonly in ἐπ᾿ εἰπ- and
their derivates, the £ is lost, also oc-
cur, as διειπεῖν etc. (mar.).
118
ὃ cf. 2. 77. |
c β.330, x. 236—7.
d ef. n. 220-1, v.
OATXTTEIAL A.
118— 129. [pay Vv.
ἔνϑ᾽" avr’ ἄλλ᾽ ἐνόησ᾽ Ἑλένη Διὸς ἐκγεγαυῖα"
αὐτίκ᾽" ἄρ᾽ εἰς οἷἶνον βάλε φάρμακον," ἔνϑεν ἔπινον,
85. νηπενϑ ἐς τ᾽ ἄχολόν τε, κακῶν ἐπίληϑον ἁπάντων.
ΝΣ ὃς τὸ καταβρόξειεν." ἐπὴν! κρητῆρι" μιγείη;
ς β. 330. ov κεν ἐφημέριός γε βάλοι κατὰ δάκρυ παρειῶν,
h A. 153, P. δόδ,' οὐδ᾽ εἴ of κατατεϑναίη μήτηρ τε πατήρ τε,
ys, 176. ves , ᾿ om ;
i F308, ef. 4.209, οὐδ᾽ εἴ of προπάροιϑεν ἀδελφεὸν ἡ gliov viov
oN ee 'χαλκῷ" δηιόῳεν, ὃ δ᾽ ὀφθαλμοῖσιν ὁρῷτο.
α. > . e 4 ᾳ ᾳ ͵
| A. 141. τοῖα Avs Buyarne* ἔχε φάρμακα μητιόεντα
my. 3, 4. 463.9.) ἐσϑλὰ, τά of Πολύδαμνα πόρεν, Θῶνος παράκοιτις
332, ¢. 357
304. | Adyvaren , τῇ πλεῖστα! φέρει ξείδωρος"» ἄρουρα
224. 225. 228. For.
221. ἐπίληϑον Arist., Scholl. Η. Q., ita Hesych. Eustath. et edd. recentt. j ἐπι-
λῆϑον Ascalonita., Scholl. H. Q., quod Buttm. placuit, οἱ ἐπέληϑον et
πιλὴ-
Sov agnoscunt Scholl. T. V., Harl. ipse éxfln@ev, Schol. ἐπίληθον prebente.
ἐπίληθϑες E. ita (teste Pors.) Dion Chrysost. XII. p, 209 et Plutarch. vit. Hom.,
Barnes.
Schol. P.
220—1. Οἶνον meaning the κρητῆρ
in which the wine was mixed, see 222
inf. πενϑές, Sprengel and others
think the opium intended by these qua-
lities. Sir H. Halford, Essay X., sup-
poses this possible, but adds that the
substance may more probably be “‘the
hyoscyamus, used at Constantinople,
and, I believe, throughout the Morea,
at this day under the name Nebensch’’.
To the hyosc. belong the deadly night-
shade and the potato. Two species
are described by Dioscorides as both
being μανιωδεῖςἰαπὰ καρωτικοὶ “heady’’,
but a third as an useful sedative: cf.
πολλὰ μὲν ἐσϑλὰ μεμιγμένα πολλὰ dt
λυγρὰ, also β. 328—30 and note there.
Without further knowledge, however,
of the Nebensch, its identity with the
νηπενϑὲς plant, if plant it were, can-
‘not be relied on. Spenser has built
on the purely negative Homeric idea,
and amplified it into an allegory, as
follows:
Nepenthé is a drink of sovereign
grace,
Devised by the Gods, for to assuage
Heart’s grief, and bitter gall away
to chase,
Which stirs up anguish and conten-
tious rage:
222. καταβρώξειεν var. lect. Scholl. H. E.
manu pr. Wulf.; οὐκ αν Harl. ex emend. Ern. Cl. ed. Ox.
229. tote pro τῇ Theophr. περὶ φυτῶν, 1. IX. cap. 15, Barnes.
223. οὔ κεν Harl. a
227. μητιόωντα
Instead thereof sweet peace and
quiet age
It doth establish in the troubled mind.
Few men, but such as sober are
and sage,
Are by the Gods to drink thereof
assign’d;
But such as drink eternal happiness
do find.
Faery Queen, B. 4, Cant. 3, St. 43.
ἐπίληϑον, an adj.; cf. éxaxovoy
Hes. Opp. 29 for the form and ἐπιλή-
σεται a. 57 for the gen. following.
Crusius says Buttmann reads ἐπιλῆϑον
as if a partic. of ἐπιλήϑω. Pind. Pyth.
I. go has καμάτων δ᾽ ἐπίλασιν παρά-
σχοι: cf. Nem, X. 24. Ni. compares the
φύλλον νώδυνον of Soph. Philoct. 44.
222. €xny, the optat. prevails through-
out the following clauses, the whole
train of thought being that of a hypo-
thetical cause contingently producing
an effect; see App. A. g (20).
228—9. Πολυδ., a Schol. notices
that this word may be read as an adj.
referred to ta, but on the authority
of Euphorion takes it as a prop. name.
On Θώῶν see App. C. 7. Obs. the
synizesis of iy in Alyuxttn.
DAY V.] OATZIZEIAS Δ. 230—241. 119
30 φάρμακα, πολλὰ μὲν ἐσθλὰ μεμιγμένα πολλὰ δὲ Avyod:|a 4. 514.
ἰητρὸς" δὲ ἕκαστος ἐπιστάμενος" περὶ πάντων » S500 yr tase
ἀνθρώπων" ἦ γὰρ Παιήονός" εἰσι γενέϑλης. ἃ c ar $99, 900;
9
35
40
αὐτὰρ ἐπεί @ ἐνέηκε κέλευσέ τε οἰνοχοῆσαι,
ἐξαῦτις μύϑοισιν ἀμειβομένη προςέειπεν
‘’Arostdn Μενέλαε ΖΔιοτρεφὲς, ἠδὲ καὶ οἵδε
ἀνδρῶν ἐσθλῶν παῖδες (ἀτὰρ ϑεὸς ἄλλοτε ἄλλῳ
Ζεὺς" ἀγαϑόν τε κακόν τε διδοῖ" δύναται yao! éxavta)
ἡ τοι νῦν δαίνυσϑε καϑήμενοιξ ἐν μεγάροισιν
καὶ μύϑοις τέρπεσϑε"" ἐοικόταὶ γὰρ καταλέξω.
πάντα μὲν οὐκ ἂν ἐγὼ μυϑήσομαι οὐδ᾽ ὀνομήνω,
ὅσσοι Ὀδυσσῆος ταλασίφρονός εἰσιν ἄεϑλοι 1
ἁ ν. 130, E. 270,
T. 111; εἴ. 8.
857.
e ξ. 188—9.
f d. 612,827, 4. 25.
g φ. 89.
h d. 597, yw. 301,
π. 398, A. 642;
cf. ¢. 590.
iy 125, δ. 141.
k 4. 328, 517, B.
488.
1 ὅδ. 270—1; ef. δ.
107 mar.
231. «ἕκαστος, 233. Forvoyorjoae.
230. τετυγμέμα ibid. Barnes.
234. προσέειπεν. 239. Fefornora.
2312. ἐπεί σφισι δῶκεν ᾿Απόλλων ἰᾶσθαι"
καὶ γὰρ Arist., Scholl. Β. Η. Q., ανϑρωπων εἰ φαρμακξων Scholl. Μ. V.
236. ἄλλοτ᾽ ἐπ᾿ ἄλλῳ Barnes. Ern. Cl. ed. Ox., ἄλλοτε Wolf.
230-1. φάρμακα, cf. Hschyl, Fragm.
428 Dind. Τυῤῥηνὸν γενεὰν pagua-
κοποιὸν ἔϑθνος.-- ἔητρος, cf. Herod.
If. 84, 111. 129, and the statement of
the Egyptians’ monthly course of physic
ibid. 11. 77.
232. Παιήονος, Peon, absorbed by
later mythology into Apollo (sch.
Agam. 146, Soph. Ged. Tyr. 154), is in
a fragm. of Hesiod (Schol.) distin-
guished from him. It is εἰ μὴ ᾿4πόλ-
λων Φοῖβος ὑπὲκ θανάτοιο σαώσει, ἢ
αὐτὸς Παιὼν x. τ. 4. ΖΒ. γ]. (Fragm.
229 Dind. supposed from the Philoc-
tetes), invokes death as wm θάνατε
Παιάν. Peeon appears in Il. as the
healer of Olympus (mar.), just as Po-
dalirius and Machaon in the Grecian
camp. Fa. notes that those skilled in
healing are his γενέϑλη, just as a war-
like hero is ὄξος “Agnog. We also find
παιήων for a hymn of thanksgiving
or of triumph: twice in the 1]. the
Greeks sing it, once to Apollo when
appeased after the plague, and again
on the death of Hector (mar.).
23s—7. otde, here of the 2™ pers.
as τοῦ in α. 359 of the 1%. — ἀτὰρ
ϑεὸς ..-.. διδοῖ, the relation of this
common-place formula on human af-
fairs to the subject finds its link — a
somewhat loose one — in ἄνδρ. ἐσϑ.,
παῖδες: ‘‘Sons of good sires, — though
all (goud and bad alike) must take
their lot of fortune, good or bad, as
Zeus awards.’’ Homer's view of hu-
man affairs includes their chequered
aspect and promiscuous distribution.
Hence the good and brave, if disaster
comes, must tetiawsv ἔμπης (£. 190,
cf. #. 570, 7. 287, 6. 134—5). No less
clearly is it crossed by a notion of
fatality — alow spinning at his birth
the thread of man’s weal or woe. Yet
on the. whole, the particular events in
their relation to each are represented
as dealt out by Zeus; see the allegory
of his two πέθοι of good and evil in
2.527 foll. But there is not traceable
any notion of a scheme of Providence
shaping the individual’s lot, much less
comprehending that of all men, save
in αἶσα aforesaid, nor of any general
control covering the whole flight of
human action, neither is there any
recognition of a general end of good
seen amid partial evil. Divine know-
ledge, will, and choice, are merely
incidental where they occur. See Ni-
gelsbach I. § 28, p. 52—3, III. § 6,
p. 132, VII. 8. 3, p. 361—2. Still
chance is excluded from this aspect:
all that happens has a cause, under
whatever name of δαέμων, aloa, Ζεὺς,
or μοῖρα, and that of τὐχη does not
even occur. For the relation of Ζεὺς
to μοῖρα see on &. 436.
239— 43. €oexdta, “suited to the
purpose”, i. ὁ. μύϑοις τέρπεσϑαι. ᾿
ΟΔΥΣΣΈΕΤΑΣ A. 242—251.
120
᾿ , + ” ᾿ \
El ἀλλ᾽ οἷον" τόδ᾽ ἔρεξε καὶ ἔτλη καρτερὸς ἀνὴρ
100, δήμῳ ἔνι Τρώων, ὅϑι πάσχετε πήματ᾽ ᾿᾽4χαιοί."
b 100. nue Q 9 x nu χαιοί.
ς Β. 264. αὐτόν μιν πληγῇσιν: ἀεικελίῃσι δαμάσσας,
ἃ ξ. 209, 179; ο[.} σπεῖρα ἃ κάκ᾽ ἀμφ᾽ ὥμοισι βαλὼν, οἰκῆι ἐοικὼς,
p. 102.
e ¢. 129, ο. 505,
A. 462; ef. 0. 518,
Β. 239, Δ΄ 194.
ἔν. 54, 1711.
g a. 144.
hé 31, X. 247.
ἀνδρῶν δυςμενέων κατέδυ πόλιν [evovayviar’
ἄλλῳ δ᾽ αὐτὸν φωτὶ" κατακρύπτων ἥἤισκεν,
δέκτῃ, ὃς οὐδὲν τοῖος ἔην ἐπὶ νηυσὶν ᾿4χαιῶν.
τῷ ἴκελος κατέδυ Τρώων πόλιν) οἵ δ᾽ ἀβάκησαν
πάντες" ἐγὼ δέ μιν οἴη ἀνέγνων" τοῖον ἐόντα,
καί μιν ἀνηρώτων᾽" ὃ δὲ κερδοσύνῃ" ἀλέεινεν.
244. afernedcyor.
245. Fouxne Fefounmg.
247. ἐξέξισκεν.
249. SUxédog.«
242. οἷον Parmeniscus, Scholl. H. bP. Q.
246—g. Bek. respuit inde ab svovayriay usque
ad Τρώων πόλιν.
putat αὐτὸν scribi debere).
244. αὑτὸν codd. omn. (Barnes, qui
οἷον, used admiringly, as often τοῖον,
see On &. 209, 410.
244— 58. This expedition may be
viewed as shortly preceding the Wooden
Horse, and as undertaken to procure
the necessary information (φρόψεν). In
Eurip. Hec. 239 foll. Hecuba asserts
that Helen disclosed to her Odysseus’
arrival, and that she effected his escape,
8. variation which impoverishes both
these female characters. The Scholl.
notice a pertinence in this mention of
the beggar's disguise borne by Odys,
in Troy to his similar personation in
the later books w.....y., thus pre-
paring Telem. for the unfolding of the
plot, but if 246—g be rejected (see
note inf.) of course this has no place.
With the | whole story, especially the
πληγῆσι vex. cf. the artifice of Zopy-
rus, Herod. IIT. 153, foll. Eurip. loc.
cit. enhances it by ὀμμάτων ἄπο ,φό-
vou σταλαγμοὶ σὴν κατέσταξον γένυν.
244—5. αὐτὸν μιν --- ἑαυτὸν, ἃ
pron. which as one word never occurs
in ἢ. Donalds. Gr, Gr. § 235. — dxeiga
is used of coarse wrappers, sails,
shrouds, etc. (mar.).
246—9. Bek. sets in the mar. from
Eveuvay. to πόλιν 249; reading con-
tinuously ἀνδρῶν δυσμενέων κατέδυ
πόλιν" οἱ δ᾽ ἀβάκησαν --- a rejection
probably well-founded: if Odys. κατέδυ
πόλιν οἰκῆϊ ἐοικὼς, how could he do
the same thing τῷ (δέκτῃ) ἵκελος, for
the two are wholly distinct? Of course
he might have shifted his disguise, but
the assertion, that he κατέδυ πόλιν
first as one and then as the other,
has all the air of an insertion; and
οὐδὲν τοῖος ἔην, if applied to Odys.,
is languid, if used as = οἷος οὐδεὶς
ἔην, involves some violence to the
sense and the relations of words. The
imitator however probably meant it in
this sense — tuo show the cleverness
of Odys. Had he appeared in a (lis-
guise which might have been picked
up ἐπὶ νη. Az., he might have been
suspected, so he shifted it to one pe-
culiar to the city. As an alternative,
we might reject from ὃς οὐδὲν in 248
to πάντες in 250.
247. φωτὶ, Ni. distinguishes between
φὼς and ἀνὴρ, as though ἀνὴρ here
would have meant some definite indi-
vidual; but in fact mag occurs (mar.)
in this definite sense, and ἀνὴρ with
αλλος, τις, etc. in the indef.; ; see XK.
339, 8341.
248—9. δέχτῃ and ἀβάκησαν are
ἅπαξ λὲγ., the latter from saying uo-
thing (a- βαξω) evolves the meaning
of ‘took no notice”’, ἑ. ὁ, were duped
by his trick. In Sapph. 29, ed. Giles
ἀβακὴν occurs expressive of simple
placidity, as cpith. of φρένα.
2zs0—1. τοῖον €., te. “though in
such guise”. — κερδοῦσ., he ovaded
her enquiries by ready guile, until,
his stripping for the bath, his identity
became too clear for the illusion to be
kept up.
[DAY Vv.
24
25
260
265
DAY V.|
OATZZEIAL Δ. 252—269.
121.
ἀλλ᾽ ὅτε δή μιν ἐγὼ λόεον καὶ yotov ἐλαίῳ,"
ἀμφὶ δὲ εἵματα" ἔσσα, καὶ ὥμοσα καρτερὸν ὅρκον,“
μὴ μὲν πρὶν Ὀδυσῆα μετὰ Τρώεσσ᾽ ἀναφῆναι,
πρίν γε τὸν ἐς νῆάς" τε Boag κλισίας τ᾽ ἀφικέσϑαι,
καὶ τότε δή μοι πάντα voor! κατέλεξεν ᾿4χαιῶν.
πολλοὺς δὲ Τρώων κτείνας ταναήκεϊ χαλκῷ
ἦλθε wer’ ᾿Αργείους, κατὰ δὲ φρόνιν ὁ ἤγαγε πολλήν.
ἔνϑ᾽ ἄλλαι Τρωαὶ λίγ᾽ " ἐκώκυον αὐτὰρ ἐμὸν κῇρ
χαῖρ᾽. ἐπεὶ ἤδη μοι κραδίη τέτραπτο νέεσϑαιὶ
ἂψ οἷκόνδ᾽, ἄτην δὲ μετέστενον, ἣν ᾿ἀφροδίτη"
Ody’, ὅτε μ᾽ ἤγαγε κεῖσε φίλης ἀπὸ πατρίδος αἴης,
παῖδά τ᾽ ἐμὴν νοσφισσαμένην! ϑάλαμόν τε πόσιν τε
οὔ τευ δευόμενον, οὔτ᾽ ἂρ φρένας οὔτε τι εἶδος." "
τὴν δ᾽ ἀπαμειβόμενος προςέφη ξανϑὸς “Μενέλαος
“val δὴ ταῦτά γε πάντα, γύναι, κατὰ μοῖραν ξέειπες.
ἤδη μὲν πολέων ἐδάην βουλήν" τε νόον τε
ἀνδρῶν ἡρώων, πολλὴνο δ᾽ ἐπελήλυϑα yaiav:
ἀλλ᾽ οὔ πω τοιοῦτον ἐγὼν ἴδον» ὀφθαλμοῖσιν,
253. ξείματα Féoou.
261. Fotxovd’.
a x. 364, 450, Ε΄.
905, IT, 669—70.
Ὁ ζ. 228, η. 265,
ξ. 396.
ce x. 351, μ. 295,
σ. 55, T. 108,
127. "
ἀ 4.97, E. 288, O.
72—4; cf. β. 128.
e A, 487, =. 392.
f a. 3 mar,
gy. 244.
ἢ T. 284.
i ef. ©. 139 — 40,
173, 100, Z. 350.
k I. 380—5, 413
seqq., §2.27—30.
ls. 339, 379, φ.
17, 194; ef. 2.
m ἃ. 337, o. 249;
cf, ὁ. 212—3.
n ff. 281 mar.
o β. 364, τ. 284.
p ὅδ. 226 mar.
264. Feidos. 266. ἔξειπες.
269. Fédov.
252. ἐγὼ λόεον Harl. text. ct plerique Wolf., ἐγὼν ἐλόευν Harl. marg. Ambros.
E. V. et (teste Buttm.) P. Schol. H. Barnes. Ern. Cl. ed. Ox.
(Harl. μή we etiam prazebet), μὴ μὴν Bek.
263. νοσφισσαμένην Wolf., νοσφισσαμένη Barnes, Ern. Cl. ed. Ox.
Scholl. H. Q.
252. λόεον, the var. lect, here should
be noticed. Bathing the guest (see on
γ. 464) was sometimes the office of a
daughter of the house, here Helen is
represented as doing it. Her curiosity
may have been roused, we will sup-
pose, by the suspected presence of
Odys., and such attendance gave her
the opportunity of private conference.
Ife refused, however, to gratify her
curiosity, until he had bound her by
an oath; see App. E. 1 (1) note, and
(4). The poet doubtless intends here
and in 143—4 sup. to ascribe to Helen
the quality of quick discernment.
254. 443] μὲν, Bek. here again adopts
μὴν, as if by a canon of his own;
others μέν. It may be urged that μὲν
adds little or nothing to the sense, and
indecd Ouocat μὴ without μὲν or μὴν
occurs in *. 343—4, 6. §5—6; but our
present text undeniably uses μὲν for
254. μὴ μὲν codd.
260. ἤδη Arist. ἢ δὴ Crates.,
ἃ mere complementary syllable; see
o. 252 and cf. τ. 124, where in the
same phrase μὲν is inserted and omitted,
apparently without any modification of
the senze, :
257—8. The details are not given,
but this line and half suggests the si-
milar excursion of book K. and makes
it probable that night gave the op-
portunity. ggorey intelligence; cf,
y. 244.
260— 4. Helen omits all mention of
Paris as offensive to her husband.
According to a later legend, counte-
nanced however by δ. 274 and 9. 517
——-20, after Paris’ death she lived in
Troy as Deiphobus’ wife; Eurip. 7rotad.
962, Virg. Hn. VI. 511 foll. νοσφισσ.,
this verb in the middle voice once
means “to take away’ (mar.), but
mostly, as here, ‘‘to go away from”.
ἐ:2 ΟΔΈΞΞΣΔΕΞ Σ τὰ οι ἼΒΥ τ.
ee
. 1 2 so ὥρδτσῆος ταλασύσφενις; saz φίλην σφ.
tm wns ze. τοῦ ἔφεξ2 wz. tin tepizen:' Eryp
(% 06 Δ, ἴχαφ im Ξεστῶ. Ty” ἐνπαεζε πέντε: Egor
; . ἥ Nydas. Τφαεῖσε" govern rei Agge φεφοντες.
$
γάφψε; ἔπειτα OF
ὕπε΄ uzazvsemeves δὲ δ᾽ ἔπεεξεν
Lo σῷ a, Melee. ὃς Τρώεσσιν: ἐβοέάξτο πέϑος ὀοφεξει-
as a πο, χω το Or igeger: Φεοείχεξλος IE ἰοτα;.
τοῖς 0: περφίστειξα; miinr 2ρχον ἀπφεᾳφόωσε.
. Ὃν ΗΟ ἀκ δ᾽ ἡνυμαχλήδην" “ανεῶν ὀνόπεξες ἐφέστοες.
“
“ χὴ a.
- 4 e¢@
a¢ | wee
ziviey ᾿“ργεέων φωνὴν ἰσχρεσ᾽ ἐδοχοιόιν.
αὐτῶν ἐγὼ" zi Τιυϑεέδη: καὶ δῖο: Odrosers.
ne ἥμενοι ἐν" μέσσοισιν ἀχούσαμεν ὡς ἐβόησας.
NST, Υ von μὲν ἀμφοτέρω μενεήναμεν ὁραηϑέντε
7. ἡ ἐξελθέμεναι ἢ ἔνδοθεν aie’ vxaxovea:*
΄ ΄ ee ἀλλ᾽» "Odvorv; κατέρυχε καὶ ἔσχεθεν izpive x29.
if “τὰ κι, ‘ivi’. ἄλλοι μὲν πέντε: ἀκὴν ἔσαν υἷες ᾿4χαιῶν,
ed "Avizhns δὲ σέ γ᾽ οἷος ἀμεέφασϑαι" ἐπέεσσιν
sath tr tie ἤφελεν ἀλλ᾽ Ὀδυσεὺ: ἐπὶ μάσταχα" χερσὶ πέξξεν
ἅν, I, ΤΏ.
νωλεμέως᾽ κρατερῆσι, σάωσε δὲ πάντα: ᾿“ταιοὺς,
thy 4, Ἢ μη, χῤφρα" δ᾽ ἔγ ὕφρα σε νόσφιν ἀπήγαγε Παλλὰς 4ϑήνη.)"
YO IF Q φ
an 44. Mh,
τῇ, 1% mag,
Lane Oe de el
27h. Bros olnelog.
27,4. Agystor War.
Ariat. Beholl. Η, ῳ, ita Ambros. et B.
θέντες justa Harl. Bek. ὀρμηϑέντε reliqui.
274. Floxove’.
276 Ὑ apnd nonnullos Scholl. H. Q.
279. eloxove’ Harl. Flor. .9)
‘ ’ ΄ ΄ ΄ 2 ᾳ »
τὸν δ᾽ αὖ Τηλέμαχος πεπνυμένος ἀντίον ηὔδα
’Argeldn’ Μενέλαε Διοτρεφὲς ὄρχαμε λαῶν.
284. ξιεβένω. 286. βεπέεσσιν.
2771. περίστιξας
282. ορμῆ-
28s—g ¢ Arist., Scholl. H. Q.
st plerisque abesse monet Schol. H.; [] Bek. Dind. Léw.
370-1, Ὡϑυσσ. ... HQ, ‘like ὃς
Πηλεμάχοιο, B. 40g, where see note,
for the person's μα], Not resuming
and raponting the οἷον of 270, but used
an in 342, 8660 note there.
274. Μαλουσ. κι τι... “1. think some
god must have bidden you”, seo on
4. 2,2, Thin in the usual formula of
excinge or oxtoniation to an indulged
ctlprity wo Priam tells hor οὔ τί μοι
aleln ἐσσὶ, θ εοἱ νύ μοι αἴτιοί εἰσι I.
Ι04 - the object boing to spare the
hoaror'a foolings; seo App. ὁ. 9 (6),
and, for the account of thie action, Ἃ .
27) δ4. ἰσκουσ᾽ noo on ΩΣ
yorsty, vn contracted constrn, for φω-
vate ἀλόχων, noo on β, 131, — Τυδείς
Sng, it in romarkablo that Virgil, An.
Hl, a6s, Inu tho Het of heroes who
descend from the Horse omits Tydides,
whose place next before Sthenelus, his
constant ϑεράπων (cf. ἐγὼ Σϑένελος τε
Ad
ha
1.48), is occupied by the unknown Thes- |
sandrus or Tisandrus. ὁρμηϑέντε,
Bek. as usual gives -évteg, but see on 33
sup. — ὑπακοῦσαι, ‘to answer’’ (mar.).
28s—g. These have been rejected by
Aristarchus, and Anticlus is unknown in
the II.; but the conclusion, as Ni. re-
marks, is inadequate without them,
whereas σάωσε δὲ πάντας “A. of 288
justifies ἀλλ᾽ οἷον τόδ᾽ ἔρεξε of 271 sup.
This, however, may account for their
insertion — a view wh. seems to have
escaped Ni.
287—8. ἀλλ᾽ Ὀδυσ., for this action
and the whole passage see App. E. 1
(4). For νωλεριέως see App. A. 21.
‘95
105
,10
DAY VI.]
ἄλγιον" ov γάρ οἵ τι τά γ᾽ ἤρκεσε λυγρὸν ὄλεϑρον," 2 71% got
ΟΔΥΣΣΕῚΙΑΣ A. 292—311.
123
οὐδ᾽ εἴ of κραδίη γὲ σιδηρέη" ἔνδοθεν ἦεν. b Ζ. 8, Υ. ig
ἀλλ᾽ ἄγετ᾽ εἰς εὐνὴν τράπεϑ᾽ ἀ ἡμέας, ὕφρα καὶ ἤδη" “ “ἢ Sle v.
ὑπνῷ ὕπο γλυκερῷ ταρπώμεϑα κοιμηϑέντες.» doh 9. 3252, 1.
, ὡς ἔφατ, “ργείη' ὃ Ehevy δμωῇσι κέλευσεν. © he Ut ὅ, 2
δέμνι᾽ ὁ bx’ αἰϑούσῃν ϑέμεναι, καὶ ῥήγεα' καλὰ Γ δ, ἐμά, 9. 1Κ
πορφύρε᾽ ἐμβαλέειν, στορέσαι τ᾽ ἐφύπερϑε τάπητας, 15 S69, “,
χλαίνας τ᾽ ἐνθέμεναι οὔλας καϑύπερϑεν ἔσασϑαι. ney. Fe (=
at δ᾽ ἴσαν ἐκ μεγάροιο δάος μετὰ χερσὶν ἔχουσαι, : ΟΝ ΠῚ
δέμνια δὲ στόρεσαν᾽ Ex δὲ ξείνους" ἄγε xjovk.! ἌΧΟΣ
orm μὲν ἄρ᾽ ἐν προδόμῳ" δόμου αὐτόϑι κοιμήσαντο, m ΣΝ 1143;
Τηλέμαχός" a Hows καὶ Νέστορος ἀγλαὸς vids: 7.4 i ‘,
Arostdns? δὲ xadevde μυχῷ δόμου: υψηλοῖο, Ρ 402 ΔΩ
πὰρ δ᾽ Ἑλένη τανύπεπλος" ἐλέξατο, δῖα' γυναικῶν." mr.
᾿ ἦμος δ᾽ ἠριγένεια φάνη ῥοδοδάκτυλος Ἠὼς, δ ὁ. 111 κι 106,
ὥρνυτ᾽" ἄρ᾽ ἐξ εὐνῆφιν" βοὴν ἀγαϑὸς Μενέλαος, π 414, Σ᾿ 171.
εἵματα ἑσσάμενος" περὶ δὲ ξίφος" ὀξὺ ϑέτ᾽ Gua, B. 2.8. Ὑ. 405,
ποσσὶ δ᾽ ὑπὸ λιπαροῖσιν ἐδήσατο καλὰ πέδιλα, ,ἰΣῦμ.
By δ᾽ lwev ἐκ ϑαλάμοιο ϑεῷ ἐναλίγκιος ἄντην, x §. 528.
Τηλεμάχων δὲ παρῖξεν,: ἔπος" τ᾽ ἔφατ᾽ ἔκ τ᾽ ὀνόμαξεν. | 28. bod nar
292. 293. foe.
31ι.
294. τρέπεϑ᾽ Barnes.
299. fovlas FésacPau.
Feros.
Ern. Cl. ed. Ox., τράπεϑ᾽ Wolf,
308. Feduata feconpevos.
“29 5. ταρπώμεϑα
var. 1. GC. Wolf., τερπώμεϑα Barnes. Ern. Cl. ed. Ox., παυσώμεϑα Scholl. H. P.
κοιμηϑέντε Harl.
292 — 5. ἄλγιον, “all the more
sad!’’ i.e. to think of his brave deeds,
which could not save him, althou h
they preserved others (v. 288).
single word has great force. δύδ᾽ εἴ
κ. τι 1... “not even if his heart had been
of iron, wd. this have availed ἄρκεσαι
Avyo. ὄλεϑ.". — ὑπὸ expresses the no-
tion of being covered, overwhelmed
with sleep. Fa. compares δ. 493, φίλα
βλέφαρ᾽ ἀμφικαάλυψας (ὕπνος), Hes.
Theog. 798, κακὸν δ᾽ ἐπὶ κῶμα κα-
λύπτει.
297—9- This bed is meant to be of
the most luxurious kind which H. knew:
the δέμνια θϑέμεναε, or στόρεσαι, is
comprehensive of the whole, of which
ῥήγεα ... ταπήτας. χλαίνας are the
parts. Inv. 2—4 Odys. sleeps (as here
in the πρόδομ. = αἴθουσα; see on 302
inf.) on a bull's hide and many fleeces,
raw, it seems, from the animals lately
slaughtered, and covered by a simple
χλαῖνα. There the hide — the bed
being χάμαδις (τ. 599; cf. υ. 95--ὦ} —
supplies the place οὗ τρῆτα λέχεα, on
which all the bedding was usually laid
(y. 399). In y. 349—51 Nestor speaks
of ény. and piety. only; here τάπητες
are the added clement of greater lu-
xury; see mar. for the passage as re-
curring. In v. 58 λέκτροισι μαλακοῖσι
seems generally to express the whole
of that, on or in which one slept.
301 -- 2. κῆρυξ, he was specially
charged with care of guests (mar.),
αὐτόϑι, referring us to alfovon of
297, seems to identify it with the πρό-
dou., see App. F. 2 (9).
306—g, See on 8. I—5.
rad. Reg. IV. 426 foll.,
Ἰὼς, a morning fair .
nger
311—2. παρῖξεν, perhaps on such
Milton, Pa-
imitates godod.
. With radiant
[24
ΟΔΥΣΣΕΙΑΣ Δ. 312-326.
[DAY νι.
ag. 120—1.
b fp. 2% mar., 2.
164.
ce y. 142 mar.
dy. 8', p. 32.
e γ. 101 mar.
[ δ. 156 mar.
g o. 117, v. 120.
h γ. 83.
i a. 160, 377, £.
45—9, 237.
k β. 61.
Ι β. 252.
m . 55-6.
n α. 92 mar.
o a. 92 mar.
p α. 368; cf. γ.
206—7.
q γ. 92—101 mar.
rd. 30, ο. 325.
80. 124—141.
t 77, 745, X. 297,
373.
uy. 121 mar., ».
22, τ. 251.
v cf. 4. 118—5.
w t. 445, 4. 415,
®, 573.
x ᾧ. 2, X. 189
—.,
(τίπτε" δέ σε χρειῶν δεῦρ᾽ ἤγαγε, Τηλέμαχ᾽ jews,
ἐς Μακεδαίμονα δῖαν, ἐπ᾽. εὐρέα νῶτα Padacons;
δήμιον ἢ ἴδιον; τόδε μοι νημερτὲς ἐνίσπες."
τὸν δ᾽ αὖ Τηλέμαχος πεπνυμένος ἀντίον ηὗδα
“᾿τρείδῃ Μενέλαε ε]ιοτρεφὲς ὄρχαμε λαῶν,
ἥλυϑον, εἴ τινά μοι κληηδόνα" πατρὸς" ἐνίσποις.
ἐσθίεταί!, μοι οἶκος, ὕλωλεκ δὲ πίονα Eoya,!
δυςμενέων" δ᾽ ἀνδρῶν πλεῖος δόμος, οἵ τε μοι αἰεὶ
una ἀδινὰ σφάξουσι καὶ εἰλίποδας ἕλικας βοῦς,"
μητρὸς» ἐμῆς μνηστῆρες ὑπέρβιον ὕβριν ἔχοντες.
τοὔνεκα νῦν τὰ σὰ γούναϑ᾽ ἱκάνομαι, al x ἐθέλῃσθα
κείνου λυγρὸν ὕλεϑρον ἑνισπεῖν, εἶ που ὕπωπας
ὀφθαλμοῖσι τεοῖσιν, ἢ ἄλλου μῦϑον ἄκουσας
πλαξομένου- πέρι γάρ μιν ὀϊξυρὸν τέκε μήτηρ.
μηδέ τί μ᾽ αἰδόμενος μειλίσδσεο μηδ᾽ ἐλεαίρων,
ἀλλ᾽ εὖ μοι κατάλεξον ὅπως ἤντησας ὀπωπῆς.
λίσσομαι. εἴ ποτέ τοί τι πατὴρ ἐμὸς ἐσθλὸς Ὀδυσσεὺς,
ἢ ἔπος ἠέ τι ἔργον ὑποστὰς ἐξετέλεσσεν
δήμῳ ἔνι Τρώων, ὅϑι πάσχετε πήματ᾽ ᾿Αχαιοί:
τῶν νῦν μοι μνῆσαι. καί μοι νημερτὲς ἐνίσπες."
τὸντ δὲ μέγ᾽ ὀχϑήσας προςέφη ξανϑὸς Μενέλαος
(((}5" πόποι.. ἥ μάλα δὴ κρατερόφρονος ἀνδρὸς ἐν εὐνῇ
ἤϑελον" εὐνηθῆναι ἀνάλκιδες αὐτοὶ Eovtes.
ὡς" δ᾽ ὁπότ᾽ ἐν ξυλόχῳ" ἔλαφος κρατεροῖο λέοντος
νεβροὺς" κοιμήσασα νεηγενέας γαλαϑηνοὺς
318. Foinog έργα.
320. F&dcnag.
329. Féxog «έργον.
314. ἐνίσπες Harl. a manu pr., Schol. Q. Bek. Dind. Fa., ἐνέσπε Harl. ex emend.
Ambros. Cl. ed. Ox. Liw.
317. καὶ κληδόνα Ε΄. Schol, ad A, 105.
325. [| Bek.
336. Aristoph. Byzant. legisse videtur (ec Scholl, E. H. Q. T. ad 339) νέβρον ...
νεηγενέα γαλαϑηνὸν, νεογενέας Arist.
ξεστοὶ λίϑοι as formed a seat for
Nestor, outside the palace (mar.).
ἔπος x. τ. Δ. see on y. 374. τέπτε
x. τ᾿ Δ. See on α. 225.
314. δήμιον ἢ ἴδιον, “is the matter
private etc.?’’, see on β. 28.
317—21. These words of Tclem. are
plainly and broadly to the point, with-
out the tone of apology and hesitation
of his similar speech to Nestor in y.
79—101; but there, it is his Ars¢ speech,
and at first introduction; here he has
spent a night in the house and society
of the host, whose character, too, is, to
a youth, more winning and less awe-
inspiring than Nestor’s. χληηδόνα,
= κλέος, but elsewhere (mar.) κλεηδ.
318 — 20. ἔργα, see on B, 22. —
ἀδινὰ, see App. A. 6 (2).
322—31. See on y. 92—r101, but obs.
that τοὔνεκα in y. 92 refers to the
uncertainty in which his father's fate
lay, here to his difficulties at home.
334. ἤϑελον, ‘were venturing’, sce
on y. 121; evadxideg following gives
force to it. Here Menel. dwells on the
scene wh. Tclem. had left behind him.
Hence the imperf.
340
DAY VI.]
κνημοὺς" ἐξερέῃσι" καὶ ἄγκεα" ποιήεντα
βοσκομένη, ὃ δ᾽ ἔπειτα Env εἰςήλυϑεν εὐνὴν, b
ἀμφοτέροισι δὲ τοῖσιν ἀεικέα πότμον ἐφῆκεν ."
ὡς Ὀδυσεὺς κείνοισιν ἀεικέα[ πότμον ἐφήσει.
αἱ yao, Ζεῦ te πάτερ καὶ ᾿4ϑηναίη καὶ “Axoddov 95
τοῖος" ἐὼν οἷός ποτ᾽ ἐνκτιμένῃϊ ἐνὶ AdoBo
ἐξ ἔριδος Φιλομηλείδῃ ἐπάλαισεν! ἀναστὰς,
ΟΔΥΣΣΕΙΑΣ Δ. 337—343.
[25
ἃ B. 821, ὦ». 419,
. 117.
549,
k AE. 111.
Ι cf. Y. 733.
338. Fenv.
337. κρημνοὺς B., sed ejusd. Schol. κνημοῦς.
339. 340. ἀξεικέα.
342. ἐν Agtopy P.
337. κνημοὺς, this word in Il. is
used always of Mount Ida, mostly with
a mention of its wooded character.
éSegéyoe ‘“‘explores”’, cf. the similar
use of ἐξερεείνων (mar.). For the sub-
junct. in comparisons see Jelf, Gr. Gr.
8 419, 2. In A. 113—5 we find what
seems like a first cast of this simile:
here the ‘‘seeking out the slopes and
glens and grazing’’ seems added to
mark the security of the suitors’
depredations on Odysseus’ house and
substance in his absence (318); and
with like intent κοιμήσασα is added
as marking the presumptuous con-
fidence of the intruder. In A. 115 we
have ἐλθὼν εἰς εὐνὴν said of the
lion, to describe his breaking up the
fawns at his leisure, not that there he
finds them, as here, in his lair. ayxta
‘hollows’’ is found only in simile: it
is akin to ayxn, ἄγκυλος, ἀγκύλη.
338. εἰσήλυϑεν, this aor., with ἐφῆ-
κεν 339, following ἐξερέῃσι subjunct.,
as it might a fut., is to be taken as
denoting the certainty of the con-
sequence; see Jelf, Gr. Gr. § 403, 2.
It is thus not a case of the ‘‘aor. (or
other narrative tense) of simile’’ (Jelf,
Gr. Gr. 8 402, 3), which (since a simile
is under no limitation as to time) merely
reflects the time of the action compared
— a practice which is most plain in the
shorter similes, e.g. N. 389, ἤριπε
δ᾽ ὡς ὅτε τις δρῦς ἤριπεν, T. 403—4,
καὶ ἤρυγεν ὡς ὅτε ταῦρος ἤρυγεν,
and so in ©, 455—60, Ν. 62—s5, O
271—80, and II. 633, where ὀρώρει is
pluperf. with force of imperf., but the
same is traceable also in longer similes,
e.g. A. 324—6, 557—8.
339- ἀμφοτέροισε, t. e. both the
hind and her fawns; Ni. would limit
it to the fawns viewed as twins; but
ἄμφοτ. is properly referred to two
things which have been distinctly
enumerated .Fa. compares Virg. Ain
Ι, 458. <Atridas Priamumque et sa-vuimn
ambobus Achillema
341. at γάρ, Zev x. τ. λ., for this
famous trine invocation see App. C. 6.
Ni. says it is used of a wish the fulfil-
ment of which is not expected by the
speaker. It is true wishes so expressed
are commonly extravagant or hyper-
bolical in their terms; yet they gener-
ally point to some substantial object
on which the speaker's heart is set at
the moment. In @ 255 (where 866
note) a wish of precisely similar ime
port is introduced by εἶ γὰρ without
any appeal to deities, and concludes
with the same apodosis as in 346 here;
and in H..157, A. 670 ef@ is used
just as ai γὰρ, Zev x. τ. A. here. In
all these optative forms the speaker
seems in the fervour of his earnest-
ness lifted out of the sphere of the
present and catches at the remem-
brance of some past state, which he
would fain recall, without at the mo-
ment considering whether such a recall
be possible, In all, being originally
protatic in character, an apodosis, ex.
pressed or implied, seems due.
342—3. ἑνὲ Λέσβῳ, the reading ἐν
᾿Δρέσβη (mar.) points to a site on the Hel-
lespont, which therefore is less suited
to an exploit performed, we must sup-
pose, on the way to Troy, than that
of Lesbos, to which the epithet évxre-
μένῃ also belongs (mar.). — ἐξ ἔρι-
dos, so ἐξ ἔριδος μάχεσθαι, H. 111,
(Ni.), “‘by way of rivalry”’, or as we say *
120
a Ε. 601.
b # 100.
ς B. 4.
ἃ ζ. 269,
p. 102.
9 ζ. 129, 0. 505,
A. 462; εἴ.ο. 518,
ΒΒ. 239, 4. 194.
ἔν. 54, WT Al.
g a. 144.
h& 31, X. 247.
179; cf,
ΟΔΥΣΣΕΙ͂ΑΣ A. 242— 251.
[DAY Vv.
|Add’ οἷον" τόδ᾽ ἔρεξε καὶ ἔτλη καρτερὸς ἀνὴρ
δήμῳ ἔνι Τρώων, ὅϑι πάσχετε πήματ᾽ ᾿4χαιοί."
αὐτόν μιν πληγῇσιν" ἀεικελίῃσι δαμάσσας,
σπεῖρα κάκ᾽ aug’ ὥμοισι βαλὼν. οἰκῆι ἐοικὼς,
ἀνδρῶν dvguevéay κατέδυ πόλιν [εὐρυαγυιαν"
ἄλλῳ δ᾽ αὐτὸν φωτὶ" κατακρύπτων ἤισκεν,
δέκτῃ. ὃς οὐδὲν τοῖος ἔην ἐπὶ νηυσὶν ᾿Ζχαιῶν.
τῷ ἴκελος κατέδυ Τρώων πόλιν] of ὃ
πάντες" ἐγὼ δέ μιν οἴη ἀνέγνων" τοῖον ἐόντα,
καί μιν ἀνηρώτων᾽" ὃ δὲ κερδοσύνῃ" ἀλέεινεν.
O°
ἀβάκησαν
244. ἀξεικελίησι.
245. Fouxne FeFornwes.
247. ἐξέξισκεν.
249. «ἴκελος...
242. οἷον Parmeniscus, Scholl. H. 1. Q.
246—9. Bek. respuit inde ab εὐρυάγτεαν usque
ad T'gmav πόλιν.
putat αὐτὸν scribi debere).
244. αὑτὸν codd. omn. (Barnes, qui
οἷον, used admiringly, as often τοῖον,
see ON a. 209, 410.
244 -- 58. This expedition may be
viewed as shortly preceding the Wooden
Horse, and as undertaken to procure
the necessary information (φρόνεν). In
Eurip. Hec. 239 foll. Hecuba asserts
that Helen disclosed to her Odysseus’
arrival, and that she effected his escape,
a variation which impoverishes both
these female characters. The Scholl.
notice a pertinence in this mention of
the beggar’s disguise borne by Odys,
in Troy to his similar personation in
the later books #..... ., thus pre-
paring Telem. for the unfolding of the
plot, but if 246—g9 be rejected (see
note inf.) of course this has no place.
With the, whole story, especially the
πληγῇσι ἀεικ. cf. the artifice of Zopy-
rus, Herod. IIT. 153 foll. Eurip. oc.
cit. enhances it by ὀμμάτων “70 ,φό-
vou σταλαγμοὶ σὴν κατέσταζον γένυν.
244--5. αὑτὸν μιν -- ἑαυτὸν, A
pron. which as one word never occurs
in H. Donalds. Gr, Gr. § 235. — σπεῖρα
is used of coarse wrappers, sails,
shrouds, etc. (mar.).
246—9. Bek. sets in the mar. from
EVELEY. to πόλιν 249; reading con-
tinuously ἀνδρῶν δυσμενέων κατέδυ
πόλιν" of δ᾽ αβάκησαν — a rejection
probably well-founded: if Odys. κατέδυ
πόλιν οἰκῆϊ ἐοικὼς, how could he do
the same thing τῷ (δέκτῃ) ἴκελος, for
the two are wholly distinct? Of course
he might have shifted his disguise, but
the assertion, that he κατέδυ πόλιν
first as one and then as the other,
has all the air of an insertion; and
οὐδὲν τοῖος ἔην, if applied to Odys.,
is languid, if used as = οἷος οὐδεὶς
ἔην, involves some violence to the
sense and the relations of words. The
imitator however probably meant it in
this sense — to show the cleverness
of Odys. Had he appeared in a dis-
guise which might have been picked
up ἐπὶ νη. Ay., he might have been
suspected, so he shifted it to one pe-
culiar to the city. As an alternative,
we might reject from ὃς οὐδὲν in 248
to πάντες in 250.
247. pwr, Ni. distinguishes between
φὼς and ἀνὴρ, as though ἀνὴρ here
would have meant some definite indi-
vidual; but in fact φὼς occurs (mar.)
in this definite sense, and ἀνὴρ with
ἄλλος, τις, etc. in the indef.; see KX.
330, 341.
248—9. δέχτῃ and ἀβάκησαν are
ἅπαξ Aey., the latter from saying no-
thing (a- Bafa) evolves the meaning
of ‘‘took no notice’’, ἑ. ὁ, were duped
by his trick. In Sapph. 29, ed. Giles
ἀβακὴν occurs expressive of simple
placidity, as epith. of φρένα.
2s0—1. τοῖον &., t.c. “though in
such guise’. — xegdod., he evaded
her enquiries by ready guile, until, on
his stripping for the bath, his identity
became too clear for the illusion to be
kept up.
24.
25:
265
DAY V.|
OATZZEIAZ Δ. 252—269.
ἀλλ᾽ ὅτε δή μιν ἐγὼ λόεον καὶ χρῖον ἐλαίῳ,"
ἀμφὶ δὲ εἵματα" ἔσσα, καὶ ὥμοσα καρτερὸν ὅρκον,"
μὴ μὲν πρὶν Ὀδυσῆα μετὰ Τρώεσσ᾽ ἀναφῆναι,
255 πρίν γε τὸν ἐς νῆας" te Boag κλισίας τ᾽ ἀφικέσϑαι,
καὶ τότε δή μοι πάντα νόον κατέλεξεν ᾿4χαιῶν.
πολλοὺς δὲ Τρώων κτείνας ταναήκεϊ χαλκῷ
ἦλθε μετ᾽ ᾿Αργείους, κατὰ δὲ φρόνιν ἤγαγε πολλήν.
ἔνϑ᾽ ἄλλαι Τρωαὶ λίγ᾽" ἐκώκυον- αὐτὰρ ἐμὸν κῆρ
260 χαῖρ᾽, ἐπεὶ ἤδη μοι κραδίη τέτραπτο νέεσϑαι!
ἂψ οἷκόνδ᾽, ἄτην δὲ μετέστενον, ἣν Apoodtry*
day’, ὅτε μ᾽ ἤγαγε κεῖσε φίλης ἀπὸ πατρίδος αἴης,
παῖδά τ᾽ ἐμὴν νοσφισσαμένην! ϑαάλαμόν τε πόσιν τε
οὔ τευ δευόμενον, οὔτ᾽ ἂρ φρένας οὔτε τι εἶδος."
τὴν δ᾽ ἀπαμειβόμενος προςέφη ξανϑὸς Μενέλαος
“val δὴ ταῦτά ye πάντα, γύναι, κατὰ μοῖραν ἔειπες.
ἤδη μὲν πολέων ἐδάην βουλήν" te νόον τε
ἀνδρῶν ἡρώων, πολλὴν" δ᾽ ἐπελήλυϑα γαῖαν᾽
ἀλλ’ οὔ πω τοιοῦτον ἐγὼν ἴδονν ὀφθαλμοῖσιν,
121.
a x. 361, 450, Ε.
905, I, 669—70.
b C. 228, η. 265,
&. 396.
e x, 381, se. 29S,
o. 55, T. 108,
121. ᾿"
d 4.97, Ε. 185,0.
72—4; cf. β. 128.
e A, 187, =. 392.
f a. 3 mar.
5. . 244.
ἢ T. 2854.
icf. ©. 130 --- 40,
173, 400, Z. 350.
k ©. 380—5, 413
seqq., §2.27—30.
1 τ. 339, 579, φ.
77, 101; ef. ἃ.
425.
m ἃ. 337, σ. 249;
cf, 4. 212—3.
n ff. 281 mar.
o f. 364, τ. 251.
p δ. 226 mar.
253. Fecuata féoou.
261. Fotxovd’.
264. ξεῖδος. 266. ἔξειπες.
269. Fiédoyv.
252. ἐγὼ λόεον Harl. text. et plerique Wolf., ἐγὼν ἐλόευν Harl. marg. Ambros.
E. V. et (teste Buttm.) P. Schol. H. Barnes. Ern, Cl. ed. Ox.
(Hlarl. μή μὲ etiam prasebet), μὴ μὴν Bek.
263. νοσφισσαμένην Wolf., νοσφισσαμένη Barnes, Ern. Cl. ed. Ox.
Scholl. Ἡ. Ὁ.
252. λόεον, the var. lect, here should
be noticed. Bathing the guest (sec on
y. 464) was sometimes the office of a
daughter of the house, here Helen is
represented as doing it. Her curiosity
may have been roused, we will sup-
pose, by the suspected presence of
Odys., and such attendance gave her
the opportunity of private conference.
He refused, however, to gratify her
curiosity, until he had bound her by
an oath; see App. E. 1 (1) note, and
(4). The poet doubtless intends here
and in 143—4 sup. to ascribe to Helen .
the quality of quick discernment.
254. 443) μὲν, Bek. here again adopts
μὴν, as if by a canon of his own;
others μέν. It may be urged that μὲν
adds little or nothing to the sense, and
indecd Ouocat μὴ without μὲν or μὴν
occurs in *. 343—4, 6. §5—6; but our
present text undeniably uses μὲν for
254. μὴ μὲν codd.
260. ἤδη Arist. ἢ δὴ Crates.,
& mere complementary syllable; see
o. 252 and cf. τ. 124, where in the
same phrase μὲν is inserted and omitted,
apparently without any modification of
the sense.
257—8. The details are not given,
but this line and half suggests the si-
milar excursion of book K. and makes
it probable that night gave the op-
portunity. gover intelligence; cf,
γ. 244.
260— 4. Helen omits all mention of
Paris as offensive to her husband.
According to a later legend, counte-
nanced however by δ. 274 and 9. 517
—z20, after Paris’ death she lived in
Troy as Deiphobus’ wife; Eurip. 7roiad.
962, Virg. -kn. VI. 511 foll. νοσφισσ.;
this verb in the middle voice once
means ‘“‘to take away’ (mar.), but
mostly, as here, ‘‘to go away from”.
122 ΟΔΥΣΣΕΊΙ͂ΑΣ A. 278—291.
a ὅ. 242. οἷον Ὀδυσσῆος ταλασίφρονος ἔσκε φίλον κῆρ.
b v. 393. οἷον" καὶ τόδ᾽ ἔρεξε καὶ ἔτλη καρτερὸς" ἀνὴρ
c 9. 193—520, λ. ἵππῳ“ ἔνι ξεστῷ, ἵν’ ἐνήμεϑα πάντες ἃ ἄριστοι
623-32, Aoyelwav, Τρώεσσι" φόνον καὶ Κῆρα φέροντες.
a ré ἦλθες ἔπειτα σὺ κεῖσε" κελευσέμεναι δέ σ᾽ ἔμελλεν
(ας 91, ὁ. 485, π.. δαίμων, ὃς Τρώεσσινε ἐβούλετο κῦδος ὀρέξαι"
194, τ. 10, 138. | καί τοι AnipoBog" ϑεοείκελος ἔσπετ᾽ ἰούσῃ.
g A. 19. τρὶς δὲ περίστειξας! κοῖλον λόχον ἀμφαφόωσα,
h M. 94, 9. 511.} ἐκ δ᾽ ὀνομακλήδην" Javady ὀνόμαξες ἀρίστους.
ae πάντων "Aoystav φωνὴν loxovo’! ἀλόχοισιν.
. hus - αὐτὰρ ἐγὼ" καὶ Τυδείδης καὶ dios Ὀδυσσεὺς,
m A. 1617-8, ἥμενοι ἐν" μέσσοισιν ἀκούσαμεν ὡς ἐβόησας.
n H. 384, 417, T.| νῶι μὲν ἀμφοτέρω μενεήναμεν ὁρμηϑέντε
11. ἢ ἐξελϑέμεναι ἢ ἔνδοθεν αἶψ’ ὑπακοῦσαι""»
ο 5. 58. GAA’? Ὀδυσεὺς κατέρυκε καὶ ἔσχεϑεν ἱεμένω περ.
p 7. 430. wad. ” , > 4 Ϊ Α Ν
4 8. 82, 81 [ἔνϑ᾽ « ἄλλοι μὲν πάντες ἀκὴν ἔσαν vies “χαιῶν,
r US, 489. ἤάντικλος δὲ σέ γ᾽ οἷος ἀμείψασθαι: ἐπέεσσιν
6 y. 76; cf. τ. 419 ἤϑελεν: ἀλλ᾽ Ὀδυσεὺς ἐπὶ μάστακα" χερσὶ πίεξεν
—80, 1. 34. Ινωλεμέως" κρατερῇσι, σάωσε δὲ πάντας ᾿4χαιοὺς.᾿
t App. A. 21 not. [τόφρα" δ᾽ ἔχ᾽ ὄφρα σε νόσφιν ἀπήγαγε Παλλὰς ᾿4ϑήνη.}"
[pay v.
u A. 509.
v d. 156 mar.
τὸν δ᾽ αὖ Τηλέμαχος πεπνυμένος ἀντίον ηὔδα
“’Arosidn’ Μενέλαε Ζιοτρεφὲς ὄρχαμε λαῶν,
276. θεοιξεέκελος.
273. Agyetor Harl.
Arist., Scholl. H. Q., ita Ambros. et B.
ϑέντες juxta Harl. Bek. ὁρμηϑέντε reliqui.
et plerisque abesse monet Schol. H.; [
270—1. Ὁδυσσ. ... κῆρ, -like is
Tniepazoo, B. 409, where see note,
for the person’s self. Nut resuming
and repeating the οἷον of 270, but used
as in 242, see note there.
274. XEAEVS. x. 7.4., “I think some
god must have bidden you’’, see on
α. 232. This is the usual formula of
excuse or extenuation to an indulged
culprit; so Priam tells her ov τί μοι
αἰτίη ἐσσὶ, θεοὶ νύ wor αἴτιοί εἰσι I.
164 --- the object being to spare the
hearer’s feelings; see App. E. 9 (6),
and, for the account of this action, (9).
219-84. σχουσ᾽ see On 148. — ἀλο-
χοισιν, a contracted constrn. for ga-
vaig ἀλόχων, see on β. 121. — Τυδεέ-
Ons, it is remarkable that Virgil. En.
IT. 261, in the list of heroes who
279. floxova’.
276 + apud nonnullos Scholl. H. Q.
279. εἴσκουσ᾽ Harl. Flor. (?)
284. Fremévo. 286. βεπέεσσιν.
277. περίστιξας
282. ὁρμη-
28s—g 7} Arist., Scholl. Ἡ, Q.
Bek. Dind. Low.
descend from the Horse omits Tydides,
whose place next before Sthenelus, his
constant θεράπων (cf. ἐγὼ Σϑένελος τε
27¢
27!
28c
48:
29ς
1.48), is occupied by the unknown Thes- |
sandrus or Tisandrus., Ogundérte,
Bek, as usual gives -ἕντες, but see on 33
sup. — ὑπακοῦσαε, ‘to answer’’ (mar.).
28s—g. These have been rejected by
Aristarchus, and Anticlus is unknown in
the Il.; but the conclusion, as Ni. re-
marks, is inadequate without them,
whereas σαωσὲε δὲ πάντας ‘A. of 288
justifies ἀλλ᾽ οἷον τόδ᾽ ἔρεξε of 271 sup.
This, however, may account for their
insertion — a view wh. seems to have
escaped Ni.
287—8. ἀλλ᾽ Ὀδυσ., for this action
and the whole passage see App. E. 1
(4). For vw@depéws see App. A. 21.
DAY VI.|
ἄλγιον" οὐ γάρ οἵ τι τά γ᾽ ἤρκεσε λυγρὸν ὄλεϑρον," 5" a ὩΣ Sis τ.
ΟΔΥΣΣΕΊΙΑΣ Δ. 292—311.
. 123
306,
οὐδ᾽ ef of κραδίη γε σιδηρέη" ἔνδοϑεν nev. b 7. ἢ ay 7 78
ἀλλ᾽ ἄγετ᾽ εἰς εὐνὴν τράπεϑ'᾽ ἃ ἡμέας, ὄφρα καὶ ἤδη" " “ἢ hy Ψ
95 ὕπνῳ ὕπο γλυκερῷ ταρπώμεϑα κοιμηϑέντες." d ef, 9. 292,2
ὡς ἔφατ᾽, ’Agyetn! δ᾽ Ἑλένη δμωῇσι κέλευσεν © ὧν BA — ὅ, 4
᾿δέμνι ὁ vx’ αἰϑούσῃ" ϑέμεναι, καὶ ῥήγεα καλὰ Ud; 154, 9. 115,
πορφύρε᾽ ἐμβαλέειν, στορέσαι τ᾽ ἐφύπερϑε τάπητας, 5“; 33. 8, 2
o 3 %” ’ er
χλαίνας τ ἐνθέμεναι οὔλας καϑύπερϑεν ἔσασϑαι. αν. Fe 2 (2)—
00 at δ᾽ ἴσαν ἐκ μεγάροιο δάος μετὰ χερσὶν ἔχουσαι, | 1 tae, κι
δέμνια δὲ στόρεσαν᾽ Ex δὲ ξείνους " ἄγε κῆρυξ." ΧΉΤΗ
οἵπ μὲν ἄρ᾽ ἐν προδόμῳ" δόμου αὐτόϑι κοιμήσαντο, m 2. δ. 1 143:
Τηλέμαχός» 8 tows καὶ Νέστορος ἀγλαὸς υἱός" ΠΟ δι,
“Ἵτρείδης» δὲ καϑεῦδε μυχῷ" δόμου ὑψηλοῖο, ἜΝ ΟΝ ἢ
292. 293. foe.
311.
294. τρέπεϑ᾽ Barnes.
299. fovlag «έσασϑαι.
Fexog.
Ern. Cl. ed. Ox., τράπεϑ᾽ Wolf.
105 πὰρ δ᾽ Ἑλένη τανύπεπλος" ἐλέξατο, diat γυναικῶν." | mr.
ἦμος δ᾽ ἠριγένεια φάνη ῥοδοδάκτυλος Ἠὼς,
ὥρνυτ᾽ " ἄρ᾽ ἐξ εὐνῆφιν" βοὴν ἀγαϑὸς Μενέλαος,
εἵματα ἑσσάμενος" περὶ δὲ ξίφος" ὀξὺ ϑέτ᾽ Gua,
ποσσὶ δ᾽ ὑπὸ λιπαροῖσιν ἐδήσατο καλὰ πέδιλα,
10 βῆ δ᾽ ἵμεν ἐκ ϑαλάμοιο ϑεῷ ἐναλίγκιος ἄντην,
Τηλεμάχῳν δὲ παρῖξεν,: ἔπος" τ᾽ ἔφατ᾽ ἔκ τ᾽ ὀνόμαζξεν.
ι α. 382, ο. 106,
πὶ 414, Γ᾽ 171.
Τ᾽, 225
y γ. 314.
Σ ἢ γ. 406.
aa f. 302 mar.
308. Feluara Fecoapevos.
20 5. ταρπώμεϑα
var. 1. GC. Wolf., τερπώμεϑα Barnes. Ern. Cl. ed. Ox., παυσώμεϑα Scholl. H. P.
κοιμηϑέντε Harl.
292 — 5. ἄλγιον, ‘all the more
sad!’ i.e. to think of his brave deeds,
which could not save him, although
they preserved others (v. 288). The
single word has great force. οὐδ᾽ ef
x.t.4., “not even if his heart had been
of iron, wd, this have availed ἄρκεσαι
Avye. ὄλεϑ.". — ὑπὸ expresses the πο-
tion of being covered, overwhelmed
with sleep, Fa. compares 8. 493, φέλα
βλέφαρ᾽ ἀμφικάλυψας (ὕπνος), Hes.
Theog. 798, κακὸν δ᾽ ἐπὶ κῶμα κα-
λύπτει.
297—9. This bed is meant to be of
the most luxurious kind which H. knew:
the δέμνια ϑέμεναι, or στόρεσαι, is
comprehensive of the whole, of which
ῤήγεα ... ταπήτας. χλαίνας are the
parts. In v. 2—4 Odys. sleeps (as here
in the πρόδομ. = αἴθουσα; see on 302
inf.) on a bull’s hide and many fleeces,
raw, it seems, from the animals lately
slaughtered, and covered by a simple
χλαῖνα. There the hide — the bed
being χάμαδις (t. 599; cf. v. 95—7) —
supplies the place of τρῆτα λέχεα, on
which all the bedding was usually laid
(γ. 399). In y. 349—51 Nestor speaks
of ény. and χλαῖν. only; here τάπητες
are the added element of greater lu-
xury; see mar. for the passage as re-
curring. In v. 58 λέκτροισι μαλακοῖσι
seems generally to express the whole
of that, on or in which one slept.
301 — 2. κῆρυξ, he was specially
charged with care of guests (mar.).
αὐτόϑι, referring us to αὐθούσῃ of
297, seems to identify it with the πρό-
dou., see App. F. 2 (9).
306—g, See on β. 1—5. Milton, Pa-
rad. Reg. IV. 426 foll., imitates δοδοῦ.
Ἰὼς, Νὴ ‘““morning fair ... with radiant
iger
311—2. παρῖξεν, perhaps on such
[24
α ρ. im—1.
ΟΑΥ̓ΣΣΕΙΑΣ A. 312— 336.
[DAY σι.
‘Sciare® δέ σε χρειὼν δεῦρ᾽ ἤγαγε, Τηλέμαχ᾽ ἥρως:
bp. % mar, 2) ἐς Μακεδαίμονα diav, ἐπ᾽' εὐρέα νῶτα θαλάσσης:
168.
ες y. 142 mar.
dy. 8’. β. 32. |
e y. 101 mar.
Γ ὅδ. 156 mar.
g o. 117, uv. 120.
ἢ γ. 83.
ia, 1M, 377, β.
45-9, 237.
k β. 64.
1 β. 252.
m β. 55-6.
n α. 92 mar.
o α. 92 mar.
ν α. 305; cf. y.
4200--Ἴ.
q γ. 92--|} 01 mar.
rd. 30. ο. 325.
sg. 124—141.
t IT. 745, X. 297,
373.
u y. 121 mar., y».
22, τ. 251.
v εἴ. A. 113--δ.
wt. 445, 4. 415,
®, 573.
x ᾧ. 2, X. 189
—),
δήμιον" ἢ ἴδιον; τόδε μοι" νημερτὲς ἐνίσπες."
τὸν δ᾽ αὖ Τηλέμαχο: πεπνυμένος ἀντίον nvda
‘’ ἡτρείδη[ Μενέλαε «ΠΙιοτρεφὲς ὄρχαμε λαών,
ἥἤλυϑον, εἴ τινώ μοι κληηδόνα" πατρὸς" ἐνίσποις.
ἐσθέεταί! μοι οἶκος, ὄλωλε" δὲ πίονα ἔργα οἱ
δυςμενέωνπ δ᾽ ἀνδρῶν πλεῖος δόμος, of τε μοι αἰεὶ
μιἢλ᾽"» ἀδινὰ σφάξουσι καὶ εἰλίποδας ἕλικας Bors,”
μητρὸς» ἐμῆς μνηστῆρες ὑπέρβιον ὕβριν ἔχοντες.
τοὔνεκα! νῦν τὰ σὰ γούναϑ᾽ ἱκάνομαι, αἵ x ἐθέλῃσθα
κείνου λυγρὸν ὕλεϑρον ἐνισπεῖν, εἴ που ὕπωπας
ὀφθαλμοῖσι τεοῖσιν, ἢ ἄλλου μῦϑον ἄκουσας
πλαξομένου: πέρι γάρ μιν ὀϊξυρὸν τέκε μήτηρ.
μηδέ τί μ᾽ αἰδόμενος μειλίσσεο μηδ᾽ ἐλεαίρων,
ἀλλ᾽ εὖ μοι κατάλεξον ὅπως ἤντησας ὀπωπῆς.
λίσσομαι, εἴ ποτέ τοί τι πατὴρ ἐμὸς ἐσθλὸς Ὀδυσσεὺς,
ἢ ἔπος ἠέ τι ἔργον ὑποστὰς ἐξετέλεσσεν
δήμῳ ἔνι Τρώων, ὅϑι πάσχετε πήματ᾽ ᾿Αχαιοί:
τῶν νῦν μοι μνῆσαι, καί μοι νημερτὲς ἐνίσπες."
τὸντ δὲ μέγ᾽ ὀχϑήσας προςέφη ξανϑὸς Μενέλαος
((()" πόποι.! ἦ μάλα δὴ κρατερόφρονος ἀνδρὸς ἐν εὐνῇ
ἤϑελον" εὐνηϑῆναι ἀναάλκιδες αὐτοὶ ἕόντες.
ὡς" δ᾽ ὁπότ᾽ ἐν ξυλόχῳ" ἔλαφος κρατεροῖο λέοντος
νεβροὺς" κοιμήσασα νεηγενέας γαλαϑηνοὺς
318. οῖκος Fégya.
320. Félixag.
329. Feros «έργον.
314. ἐνίσπες Harl. a manu pr., Schol. Q. Bek. Dind. Fa., ἐνέσπε Harl. ex emend,
Ambros. Cl. ed. Ox. Liw.
317. καὶ κληδονα E. Schol. ad A. τος.
325-[] Bek.
336. Aristoph. Byzant. legisse videtur (e Scholl. E. H. Q. T. ad 339) véBeor ...
venyevian γαλαϑηνὸν, νεογενέας Arist.
Eectol λίϑοι as formed a seat for
Nestor, outside the palace (mar.).
EXOG x. τ. Δ. sec on y. 374. τέπτε
κ. τ. Δ. sce ON @&. 225.
314. δήμιον ἢ ἔδιον, “is the matter
private οἷς, δ᾽", see on β. 28.
317—21. These words of Tclem. are
plainly and broadly to the point, with-
out the tone of apology and hesitation
of his similar speech to Nestor in γ.
79—101; but there, it is his frst speech,
and at first introduction; here he has
spent a night in the house and society
of the host, whose character, too, is, to
a youth, more winning and less awe-
inspiring than Nestor’s. ζχληηδονα,
<= κλέος, but clsewhere (mar.) κλεηδ.
318 — 20. ἔργα, see on B, 22. —
ἀδινὰ, see App. A. 6 (2).
322—31. See on y. 92—101, but obs.
that τοὔνεκα in y. 92 refers to tho
uncertainty in which his father’s fate
lay, here to his difficulties at home.
334. ἤϑελον, “were venturing”, see
on y. 121; ἀναλκιδὲς following gives
force tu it. Here Menel. dwells on the
scene wh. Telem. had left behind him.
Hence the imperf.
340
DAY VI.| OATZZEIAL A. 337—343- [25
κνημοὺς" ἐξερέῃσι" καὶ ἄγκεα" ποιήεντα a a a, 410,
βοσκομένη, ὃ δ᾽ ἔπειτα ἑὴν εἰφρήλυϑεν εὐνὴν, De FO ¥ 400
ἢ , ~ 9 , ’ > « ἃ d J. 145.
ἀμφοτέροισι δὲ τοῖσιν ἀεικέα πότμον ἐφῆκεν, ς 4. 398.
\ , ͵ [ τ. 550.
ὡς Ὀδυσεὺς κείνοισιν ἀεικέα! πότμον ἐφήσει. gu. 311, σ. 23,
ω. 376, B. ,
αἱ yao, Zev τε πάτερ καὶ ᾿4ϑηναίη καὶ “Anoddov ,5 4, 28, H. 132,
τοῖος" ἐὼν οἷός ποτ᾽ ἐϊκτιμένῃϊ ἐνὶ AéoBo
ἐξ ἔριδος Φιλομηλείδῃ ἐπάλαισεν! ἀναστὰς,
338. Feny.
337- κρημνοὺς B., sed ejusd. Schol. κνημοῦς.
339. 340. ἀξεικέα.
342. ἐν "AgtoBn P.
337. κνημοὺς, this word in Il. is
used always of Mount lda, mostly with
a mention of its wooded character.
é§egénoe “explores”, cf. the similar
use of ἐξερεεένων (mar.). For the sub-
junct. in comparisons see Jelf, Gr. Gr.
8 419, 2. In A, 113—5 we find what
seems like a first cast of this simile:
here the ‘‘seeking out the slopes and
glens and grazing’? scems added to
mark the security of the _ suitors’
depredations on Odysseus’ house and
substance in his absence (318); and
with like intent κοιμήσασα is added
as marking the presumptuous con-
fidence of the intruder. In A. 115 we
have ἐλθὼν εἰς εὐνὴν said of the
lion, to describe his breaking up the
fawns at his leisure, not that there he
finds them, as here, in his lair. ἄγκεα
‘‘hollows’’ is found only in simile: it
is akin to ayun, ἄγκυλος, ἀγκύλη.
338. εἰσήλυϑεν, this aor., with ἐφῆ-
κεν 339, following ἐξερέῃσι subjunct.,
as it might a fut., is to be taken as
denoting the certainty of the con-
sequence; see Jelf, Gr. Gr. § 403, 2.
It is thus not a case of the “‘aor. (or
other narrative tense) of simile’’ (Jelf,
Gr. Gr. § 402, 3), which (since a simile
is under no limitation as to time) merely
reflects the time of the action compared
— a practice which is most plain in the
shorter similes, 6. 9. N. 389, ἤριπε
δ᾽ ὡς ore tes δρῦς ἤριπεν, T. 403—4,
καὶ NOVYEY WS OTE ταῦρος ἤρυγεν,
and so in ©, 455—60, N. 62—s5,
271—80, and II. 633, where ὀρώρει is
pluperf. with force of imperf., but the
same is traceable also in longer similes,
e.g. A. 324—6, 557—8.
339: ἀμφοτέροισι, t. e. both the
hind and her fawns; Ni. would limit
it to the fawns viewed as twins; but
augot. is properly referred to two
things which have been distinctly
enumerated .Fa. compares Virg. Ain
I, 458. Atridas Priamumque et sa@vum
ambobus Achillema
341. at γὰρ, Zev x. τ. λ., for this
famous trine invocation see App. C. 6.
Ni. says it is used of a wish the fulfil-
ment of which is not expected by the
speaker. It is true wishes 80 expressed
are commonly extravagant or hyper-
bolical in their terms; yet they gener-
ally point to some substantial object
on which the speaker's heart is set at
the moment. In a@, 255 (where see
note) a wish of precisely similar ime
port is introduced by ef γὰρ without
any appeal to deitics, and concludes
with the same apodosis as in 346 here;
and in H..157, A. 670 ef@ is used
just as ai γὰρ, Zev x. τ. λ. here. In
all these optative forms the speaker
seems in the fervour of his earnest-
ness lifted out of the sphere of the
present and catches at the remem-
brance of some past state, which he
would fain recall, without at the mo-
ment considering whether such a reéall
be possible. In all, being originally
protatic in character, an apodosis, ex.
pressed or implied, seems due.
342—3. ἐνὲ Λέσβῳ,, the reading ἐν
᾿Δοίσβη (mar.) points to a site on the Hel-
lespont, which therefore is less suited
to an exploit performed, we must sup-
pose, on the way to Troy, than that
of Lesbos, to which the epithet ἐύκτε-
μένῃ also belongs (mar.). — ἐξ ἔρε-
dos, so ἐξ ἔριδος μαχεσϑαι, H. 111,
(Ni.), ‘‘by way of rivalry’’, or as we say *
126
at. 482, 539, -x.
172.
b a. 265—6.
c cf. ο. 402.
ad & 168; ef. 4. 439.
ο εἴ. YF. 424,
fd. 344, 401, 542,
δ. 345, ν᾿ 06, 345,
A. 535.
g E. 516, d. 144.
e. 143, §. 467, o.
154, «τ. 269, if
265.
h γ. 300.
i$! 736, ψ. 225.
k 1.535—6, δ. 582,
348. Felworpe.
353. t Zenod.,,
OATZZEIAL A. 344-355.
349. ἔξειπε.
κάδ᾽" δ᾽ ἔβαλε κρατερῶς, κεχάροντο δὲ πάντες 'Ayacol,
τοῖος" ἐὼν μνηστῆρσιν ὁμιλήσειεν Ὀδυσσεύς".
πάντες κ᾽ ὠκύμοροί τε γενοίατο πικρόγαμοί τε.
ταῦτα" δ᾽ ἅ μ᾽ εἰρωτᾶς καὶ λίσσεαι, οὐκ ἂν ἐγώ γε
ἄλλα παρὲξ" εἴποιμι παρακλιδὸν," οὐδ᾽ ἀπατήσω,
ἀλλὰ τὰ μέν μοι ἔειπε γέρων ἅλιος νημερτὴς,
τῶν οὐδέν τοι ἐγὼ κρύψω ἔπος. οὐδ᾽ ἐπικεύσω.
Αἰγύπτῳ" μ᾽ ἔτι! δεῦρο ϑεοὶ μεμαῶτα νέεσϑαι
ἔσχον, ἐπεὶ οὔ σφιν ἔρεξα" τεληέσσας ἑκατόμβας.
‘lof δ᾽ αἰεὶ βούλοντο ϑεοὶ μεμνῆσϑαι! ἐφετμέων.
νῆσος" ἔπειτά τις ἔστι πολικλύστῳ" ἐνὶ πόντῳ
. 300. Αἰγύπτου προπάροιϑε, Φάρον δέ ἑ κικλήσκουσιν ."
ee RS
350. Fésog. 355. Fé.
Scholl. E. H. P. Q., [] Wolf. Bek. Dind. Fa. Léw. βούλοιντο
var. lect. II. Steph.
‘“‘in a match against’’; cf. the Latin
certatim. — Φιλομήη., the mother of
Patroclus was named Philomela; as,
however, metronymics are not Homer's
usage, and as the overthrow of Pa-
troclus could not have caused joy to
the Achwans, a son of some Philomeles
or —leus, is meant. Eustathius says
that he was king of Lesbos, and chal-
lenged all who sailed by to wrestle
vith him; Odys., accepting the chal-
lenge, overthrew him. Lesbos was a
dependency of Priam, sec &. 544,
where Macar is named as its king,
whether then or formerly is not clear.
345—8. τοῖος, sec on a. 265—6. —
adda is contrasted with τὰ μὲν 349.
παρὲξ has the same force as if com-
pounded with stzouuc, and developes
the force of παρακλιδὸν (only read
here and 9.139) more distinctly: ‘“‘other
things, digressing from and declining
what you ask’’,
350. Hero begins the narrative of
Menel., which may be viewed as com-
plementary to that of Nester concerning
him, and fitting in between y. 302 and
411. He tells how in pinch of famine
through baffling winds he was taught
by Eidotheé to entrap Proteus of the
Nile, who then told him all he wished
to know — and more, This brings us
to definite tidings of Odys. (555— 60),
as detained in Calypsé’s island with
present prospect of escape, and
justifies so far the whole episode, as
also the errand of Telem. at Sparta.
The whole passage stands unmatched,
even in H., for vigour of delineation,
novelty of adventure, and the happy
play of light and shade; the archness
of Kidotheé and the grotesque humour
of the capture of Proteus relieving the
forlorn aspect of Menel., and the dis-
mal tragedy of his brother’s death.
351. Αἰγύπτῳ scems here to mean
the river. — ἔτε enforces δεῦρο, as
seen in 736 inf. ἔτι δ. κιούσῃ, other-
wise it might seem rather to go with
ἔσχον.
353, this v. has been suspected as
spurious, but see App. E. 8 (3) note **,
cf. ZEschyl. Suppl. 205 —6 Dind. pe-
μνῆσϑαι σέθεν κεδνὰς Epetpas;
wh. suggests that this line was in the
Homeric text as known to -schyl.;
also Pind. Pyth. II. 21 ϑεῶν δ᾽ ἐφε-
τμαῖς. — ἐπεὶ οὐ should be read in
synizesis.
355. Φαρον, of the fact of its
having once been an island there
seems no doubt; the question is whe-
ther the interval of a day’s sail be
not too large. Herod. (II. 179) says
that of old the lower portion of Egypt
was all sea, and was added to the
land by the deposit of the Nile. This
leaves open the question of distance,
which need not be taken as that of the
shortest line from Pharos to the coast.
[DAY VI.
34
35
32
αἰεὶ γὰρ περὶ νῆσον" ἀλώμενοι ἰχϑυάασκον'
358. ἐξίσας. 360. ἐξείκοσιν.
2456. ἄνευθεν ὅσον Schol. H. sed ἄνευϑ᾽ in text.
363. pro μένε᾽ μένος Bek. annot.
366. Εὐρυνόμη Zenod., Scholl, E. H. 9.
E. P.
366. FerdoPén.
DAY σι] ΟΔΥΣΣΈΙΑΣ A. 356—368. 127
τόσσον ἄνευϑ᾽ ὅσσον τε πανημερίη" γλαφυρὴ" νηῦς O21 ts
ἤνυσεν, ἡ λιγὺς οὖρος ἐπιπνείῃσιν" ὄπισϑεν" 52. m1.
Ey! δὲ λιμὴν evoguos, Bev τ᾿’ ἀπὸ νῆας ἐΐσας ὁ ἐς 139, E. 698
ἐς πόντον βάλλουσιν, ἀφυσσάμενοι μέλανε ὕδωρ. ᾿}ε δι 91, ν᾿ 400, ef
360 ἔνϑα" μ᾽ ἐείκοσιν ἤματ᾽ ἔχον ϑεοὶ, οὐδέ ποτ᾽ οὖροι |h cf. ὁ. 's85—6
ye mw ee . icf. ¢.285, 4.335
πνείοντες patvov®’ ἁλιαέες.ἷ οἵ ῥά τε νηῶν k γι 825, 370, »- τὶ,
ες Κ > εὐρέα! va 4 . ly. 142.
πομπῆες γίγνονται ἐπ᾿ εὐρέα νῶτα ϑαλάσσης ΟΣ κει το
καίπ νύ κεν ἤια" πάντα κατέφϑιτο καὶ weve ° ἀνδρῶν, [κ 7. 289 mar.
εἶν un τίς μὲ ϑεῶν ὀλοφύρατο καί μ᾽ ἐσάωσεν, p x. 181, ef. 2. 336,
’ ’ e . .
465 Πρωτέος ἰφϑίμου ϑυγάτηρ, ad toto’ γέροντος, ag 9 mE ay
Εἰδοϑέη" τῇ γάρ Oa μάλιστα ye Pvpov™ ogiva. "" δ
δ᾿ 3 4 , - £ | 330-2; [
ἥ μ᾽ οἴῳ ἔρροντι συνήντετο νοσφιν ἑταίρων. ἐν δ; ‘
367. ξέρροντι.
et ἀφυσσόμενοι Scholl.
364. Rinoey var. lect. H. Steph.
367. συνήντεε Bek. annot.
It would suffice to consider it measured
from the nearest port or frequented
point, e. g. to Naucratis on the eastern
side of the western and most ancient
mouth of the Nile; and, according to
Aristotle, ‘then the emporium (Schol.)
of Egypt’’. Or the terminus a quo for
the day's. sail might reckon from the
station for ships, which, from awp δ᾽ εἰς
Αἰγύπτοιο x. τ. A. 581 ‘inf. (cf. ξ. 258),
seems to have been within and perhaps
some way up the river. Léwe cites
Lucan. Phars. X. 509 foll. claustrum pe-
lagi cepit Pharon, insula quondam in
medio stetit illa mari, sub tempore vatis
Proteos: at nunc est Pellacis proxima
muris, The Schol. has preserved a
story that Pharos was named from the
pilot who brought Helen thither and
then perished by a serpent’s bite.
Herod. (II. 111), who makes Proteus
a king of Egypt, gives Φερῶς as his
immediate predecessor. This is very
suggestive of “Pharaoh’’ as in con-
nexion with Φάρος. The clause Φα-
gov... κικλήσκουσιν bespeaks the
foreign origin of the tale, being
such a phrase as a Phoenician voyager
might use in recounting it to a Greek.
κικλησκχ. is used of an appellation
given by forcigners, by men in con-
trast with gods, or with some such
special significance; but also of sum-
moning, invoking, etc.
357—9. ἤνυσεν, this aor., for which
the future might be substituted, de-
notes an “habitual act regarded as
single, separate, and of repeated but
distinct occurrence’’. Donalds, Gr. Gr,
§ 427 (bb). — ἀφυσσ. fhe ὕδωρ » this
verb is constantly used of drawing or
pouring off wince from the κρητὴρ into
the drinking cups, here of ships water-
ing from a spring or pool.
361—3. aAcaées, not denoting
direction to or from the sea, i. e. off
or on shore, but “blowing along the
sea’s surface” as oxplained by the
sequel of ῥά τε νηῶν. For this ex-
pension of a word by the sequel see
notes on a. 1, πολύτροπον, &. 199,
πατροφονῆα, also cf. γ. 282-- 3 and
note. — wy has somewhat of ‘fan
ironical bitterness’’ (Jelf Gr. Gr. § 732),
cf. a. 347, B. 320, A. 416.
364—5. εἰ followed by «7 is in H.
far more frequent with optat. than
with indic., and with the subjunct. is
not found, — ἤρωτ., see App. C. 7.
In Σ. 43 Πρωτὼ is the name of one
of Thetis’ nymphs; cf. Hes. Theog. 243,
248. For Eidothcé see App. C. 7.
368. ἐχϑυάασ. , this resource marks
the approach of famine. Agricultural
128
OATZZEIALZ A. 369—379.
[pay vI.
a cf. E. 796.
b ¢. δῆ, x. 400.
ec ¢. 273, ν. 237.
do. 405.
e 7.530; ef. 2.310,
12. 445, ζ. 149.
m ὅ. 372—3.
na. 108, 4). 570.4
o @. 67 mar.
p δ. 468—70, v.
74—6, £119, B.
485; cf. e.
372. ξεκῶν.
370. Fézog.
375. προσέξειπον.
γναμπτοῖς ἀγκίστροισιν, ἕτειρε" δὲ γαστέρα λιμός.
ἣν δέ μευ ἄγχι orada ἔπος φάτο φώνησέν τὲ
Syymuds® εἰς, ὦ ξεῖνε, Any’ τόσον ἠδὲ χαλίφρων,"
.]ἠδ ἑκὼν" μεϑίεις καὶ τέρπεαιξ ἄλγεα πάσχων,
δι) ὡς! δὴ δήϑ᾽ ἐνὶ νήσῳ ἐρύκεαι, οὐδέ τι τέχμωρ'
ὡς ἔφατ᾽, αὐτὰρ ἐγώ μιν ἀμειβόμενος προςέειπον 4’
‘ix μέν τοι ἐρέω, ἢ τιςὶ σύ πέρ ἐσσι ϑεάων,
e 4 »ἭἬ e δὶ , 3 ‘ ,
ὡς ἐγὼ ov τι ἑκῶν" κατερύκομαι, ἀλλά νυ μέλλω
ἀϑανάτους" ἀλιτέσϑαι," of? οὐρανὸν εὐρὺν ἔχουσιν.
ΝῊ ΓΝ ἀλλὰτ σύ πέρ μοι εἰπέ (ϑεοὶ δέ τε πάντα ἴσασιν)
376. ξερέξἔω. 1). ξεκών.
279. Fecxé Είσασιν.
369. γαμπτοῖς ibid.
370. ἢ δέ μοι ἀντομένη Zenod., Scholl. Ε. H.
312. με-
ϑίεις Harl. Ambros. E. Scholl. E. P. Q. Wolf., ita Schol. ad Plat. Alcibiad. I.
a4 (teste Pors.), weding Ern. Cl. ed. Ox. 314: τοι ἔνδοϑεν ἥτορ Schol. E.
379. Zenod. perperam ἐεὶπ
Schol. H.
or pastoral pursuits (the ἔργα of men
β. 22 note), furnished man’s ordinary
food. Fishing, although well known,
was an exceptional pursuit. It was
practised by the net (E. 487), and by the
angle with a hook of copper (IT. 407 - 8)
or of buffalo horn, weighted with lead
(wu. 251—4, 2. 80—2). It furnishes a
simile (zy. 384—8), and among the
sources of wealth in a rich country it
is mentioned ϑαάλασσα δὲ παρέχει
ἰχϑῦς (τ. 113). In Hes. ϑομί. 214—5
the fisherman and his action are
described with some minuteness. ὧλι-
evg in the Ody. means a fisherman, but
also a seafaring man generally (x. 349,
o. 419). Commercial or marauding
enterprise offered richer prizes to those
who could command a vessel, and fish-
ing was doubticss left to the poor and
the unenterprising, i. e. was despised.
Virg. (Geor.'I. 141—2) speaks of fish-
ing xs an art wh. came in as the
golden age went out.
369. ἔτειρε, ‘was beginning to af-
flict’’. By thus pressing the imperf.
sense we may reconcile this line with
363 sup.
372. μεϑίέεις, “in the 2" and 414
sing. (pres.) collateral forms according
to the conjugation ἴῃ ὦ are in τέϑημι
not unusual even in the Attic dialect”’
Donalds. Gr. Gr. 8 319 I. (3); such
occur in H. in the verb ἔημι, as in
προΐει B. 752, ἀνέεις (Bek. -ης) E. 880
and the imper. fee ®. 338, sce also mar.
Here the ms. authority seems in favour
of μεϑίεις not -n¢, and this is contirmed
by the Schol.
3738. τέχμωρ, the notion of finality
pervades this word. In A. 526 Zeus
promises to nod, that being his wéye-
στον τέκμωρ, ‘supreme or decisive
token’’. There it procures the deliver-
ance from doubt, here from difficulty:
so in Π. 472 it signitics remedy or
riddance. The verb τεκμαίρομαι 51:
‘milarly involves the notion of final
appointment, but not necessarily by
divine authority (7. 317, κ΄ 563); see
Buttm, Lezil. 98.
379. ϑεοὶ dé τε x. τ. λ., 11. asserts
a theoretic omnipotence (δ. 237, κ΄ 306,
&. 444), as here an omniscience, for his
deities, but of course both break down
in practice through the anthropomor-
phic limitations inseparable from such
conceptions. Thus Zeus himself is
beguiled by Heré (8. 352 foll., ef. 2.
168, 184, T. 112); see Niigelsbach I.
§ s— 7. Hence Proteus knows nothing
of the assault meditated upon him,
and suspects not the device of thie
seal-skins (451—3 inf.). Homeric
30 ὅς τές μ᾽ ἀϑανατων πεδάᾳ καὶ ἔδησε" κελεύϑου,
vootoy” 8, ὡς ἐπὶ πόντον ἐλεύσομαι ἰχϑυόεντα." -
ὥς ἐφάμην, 7 δ᾽ αὐτίχ᾽ ἀμείβετο δῖα ϑεάων,
ἐτοιγὰρ" ἐγώ τοι ξεῖνε μάλ᾽ ἀτρεκέως ἀγορεύσω.
πωλεῖϊταί' τις δεῦρο γέρωνξ ἅλιος νημερτὴς,
35 ἀθάνατος Πρωτεὺς Αἰγύπτιος, ὅς τε ϑαλάσσης
πάσης βένϑεα οἷδε, Ποσειδάωνος ὑποδμώς.
τόνδεϊ τ᾿ ἐμόν φασιν πατέρ᾽ ἔμμεναι ἠδὲ τεκέσϑαι.
τόν γ᾽ εἴ mag σὺ δύναιο λοχησάμενος λελαβέσϑαι,
ὅς" κέν τοι εἴπῃσιν ὁδὸν καὶ μέτρα κελεύϑου
νόστον! 8᾽, ὡς ἐπὶ πόντον ἐλεύσεαι ἰχϑυόεντα"
καὶ δέ κέ τοι εἴπῃσι, Ζιοτρεφὲς, al x’ ἐθέλῃσθα, |
Orte™ τοι ἐν μεγάροισι κακόν τ᾽ ἀγαϑόν τε τέτυκται
οἰχομένοιο σέϑεν δολιχὴν ὁδὸν" ἀργαλέην τε."
)9
DAY VI.|
386. Foide.
380. κελεύϑους Harl. κέλευϑον Bek. annot.
Wolf. καταλέξω Ern. Cl. ed. Ox.
2
deities enjoy a range of knowledge, as
of power, irregularly transcending
human, and the poet extends, abridges,
and economizes either at will, to suit
the interest of the poem. Thus Meunel,
after outwitting Proteus, still addresses
him as widely knowing, or even as
all-knowing (465— 8). Poseidon knows
not what takes place even on his own
clement, until he comes within sight
of it (ε. 286). Apollo only knows be-
cause he ‘keeps a good look-out” (οὐδ᾽
ἀλαοσκοπίην εἶχεν K. 515), but even
then he knows less soon than concerns
the interest of those whom he befriends.
Cf. also J. 286 foll. Thus the πάντα dv-
νανται or ἴσασι sinks into a hyperbole,
drawn forth perhaps by the lowering
sense of human weakness. The Muses
are said to “ὍΘ present and know all
things’’, but this is their function, as
instructing the bard, and this very
condition carries its own limitation
with it; and, manifestly, foreknowledge
formed no part of the gift. This indeed,
seldom enters into the poet’s concep-
tion, save as through the medium of
vaticination (A. 69—72): when it does,
it is chiefly in express reference to
alow or μοῖρα (ν. 306, T. 407—10, &.
206—7), as indeed is Proteus’ state-
HOM. OD, I.
OATZZEIAZ Δ. 380—393.
389. Felxnoty.
129
|
a ὃ. 389.
Ὁ δ. 390, 424, x.
540; cf α. 77.
ς 0.516, 4.420, w.
317.
d x. 487, 503, wu.
115.
ea. 179, 214, &.
192, o. 266, 352,
π. 113.
f cf. β. 55 mar.
g δ. 349 mar.
h α. §2—3.
i cf. a. 215—6.
k x. 539~— 40, cf.
a. 286, @ 198.
ι ὅδ. 381 mar.
m cf. ν. 306.
n J. 483, ρ. 426.
391. «εέπησι.
383 et 399. ἀγορεύσω Harl.
387. πατέρα gac Schol. P. (Buttm.).
388. λελαϑέσϑαι Bek. annot.
eee - --.. --...-.--.-.....--
ment, so tar as regards the future
(inf. 475, cf. 561). The Sirens also
profess to know all things that come
to pass on earth (μ. 189—91), but the
poet may have meant their words to
be untrue.
384. δεῦρο, with πωλεῖταε, a verb
of motion to and fro involves the no-
tion of frequenting the spot, not merely
coming to it.
388—9. εἴ πως x. τ. λ., the apodosis
is ὃς κέν τοι κ. τ. A. where ὃς = αὐτὸς.
For the subjunct. in apodos. with optat.
in protas. cf. A. 386—7, ef μὲν d7......
πειρηϑείης, οὐκ ἄν τοι χραίσμησι
βίος, and see some remarks in App. Α.9.
(19). With μέτρα χελεύυϑου cf. Hes.
Opp. 648, δείξω δή τοι μέτρα πολυ-
φλοέσβοιο θαλάσσης, and Herod. I. 47,
οἶδα δ᾽ ἐγὼ .... μέτρα Palacong.
Here the words ὁδὸν καὶ μέτρα κελ.
seem to promise a detail regarding
Menelaus’ homeward voyage, which the
sequel does not verify.
392. The line was often cited by So-
crates but with a new application, as
meaning the knowledge best worth
knowing, good and evil morally, in rela-
tion to one’s self. (Aul. Gell. XIV. vi.)
393. ὁδὸν with οἰχομένοιο is an
accus. of the equivalent notion, similar
9
130
a X. 271—5.
b cf. ν. 312.
ς ὅ. 352 mar.
dd. 383 mar.
δ 9 68, 77. 777—
tm 312, 430—41,
ν. 95, H.433—4,
YY, 226—S.
g η. 315.
h δ. 450.
i δ. 349 mar.
k H. ti—5, P. |
126, Y¥. 692.
1 α. 15 mar.
OATZZEIAZ A.
394— 404. [DAY VI.
ὡς ἔφατ᾽, αὐτὰρ eyo μιν ἀμειβόμενος προςέειπον"
αὐτὴ νῦν φράξευ σὺ λόχον ϑείοιο γέροντος,
μὴ πώς μὲ προϊδὼν" ἠὲ προδαεὶς ἀλέηται"
ἀργαλέος" γάρ τ᾽ ἐστὶ ϑεὸς βροτῷ ἀνδρὶ δαμῆναι."
ὡς: ἐφάμην, 4 δ᾽ αὐτίκ᾽ ἀμείβετο δῖα ϑεάων'᾽
“τοιγὰρ ἐγώ τοι, ξεῖνε, wad’ ἀτρεκέως ἀγορεύσω.
enuog! δ᾽ ἠέλιος μέσον οὐρανὸν ἀμφιβεβήκῃ,
τῆμος" ἄρ᾽ ἐξ ἁλὸς" εἷσι γέρωνὶ ἅλιος νημερτὴς
πνοιῇ ὕπο Ζεφύροιο, μελαίνῃ φρικὶ" καλυφϑεὶς,
md. 445, 450, 0 ἐκ δ᾽ ἐλθὼν κοιμᾶται ὑπὸ σπέσσι! γλαφυροῖσιν᾽
450
n Υ 207.
᾿ς 304: προσέξειπον.
ἀμφὶ δέ μιν φώκαιπ νέποδες καλῆς ἁλοσύδνης"
396. meofiday.
399. ἐγὼν ἐρέω σὺ δ᾽ ἐνὶ φρεσὶ βάλλεο σῇσιν Venct. P. et ex Romana Eust.
ed. Stephan., nostram tuentur Flor. Lov. (Barnes.).
400. ἀμφιβεβήκη Bek.
Dind. Fa., ἀμφιβεβήκει Eustath. Ern. Cl. ed. Ox. Wolf. Léw., etiam ἄμφεβε-
βήκειν prodit Schol. H.
to that of the object cognate with the
verb; see Donalds. Gr. Gr. 466. So Vir-
gil has currimus equor, Ain. 111. 191, ef.
V. 135.
400. ἦμος δ᾽, the absence of any
logical ground for the presence of δὲ
here led Ni. to suppose that δ᾽ was
δὴ. He probably means that it forms
a crasis δήέξλιος, or rather a synizesis
δὴ ἠέλιος. This would gain some sup-
port from pw. 399, 0. 477, δὴ ἕβδομον
and other instances collected by Bek.
(Homer. Bldtt. p. 173) who also reads
μὴ δὴ οὕτως in A. 131, Ε. 218. But
this presumption is of no value against
the undeviating custom that nog is
followed by δὲ, not, as some have
supposed, coalescing in sense with it,
as in τοιόςδε τοσόσδε, but as 4 con-
junction having a definite grammatical
function, as in t. 558—61, A. 475—8,
H. 433; 8. 68, Ψ΄ 226. It is probably
the same here as δὲ resumptive of
I’. 200, 229, where Helen’s reply to
Priam’s successive questions, “‘who is
this and that warrior’’, commences
with οὗτος δ᾽; sec Jelf, Gr, Gr. § 768,
4. Yet it should be remarked that
Homer’s style rather overflows with
conjunctions, and that he feels him-
self at liberty to connect a clause by
δὲ, whether there is or is not anything
in ‘the subject matter or form of the
sentence to require it; cf. E. 890
ἔχϑιστος dé μοί ἐσσι, 63ς, ψευδόμενοι
δὲ σὲ φασι, phrases preceded by an
imperative mood or a question. Pro-
bably this abundance of conjunctions
is a trace of the recitative style, they
forming links to the recitation whether
there were anything in the matter
recited to require a conjunction or not,
The Schol. indicates a var. lect, &uqt-
βεβήκειν (sce Dindorf’s note thereon),
but prefers ἄμφιβε κει. Granting
even that, as ἀμφιβέβηκας is said to
be used with a present force in A. 37,
so here the pluperf. could in sense be
imperf. or simply past, still to say ‘‘when
the sun was going” or “ went round”’,
would not suit the sequel elo’, which
requires ‘shall have gone round’’.
We may comp. II. 54, Oxxote δὴ τὸν
ὁμοῖον ἀνὴρ ἐθέλησιν ἀμέρσαι .... ὅ τε
κράτει! προβεβήκῃ, where also προ-
βεβήκει is wrongly read (Bek. Homer.
Blatt. p. 67). Virg. Georg. IV. 401
imitating this, has medios quum sol uc-
cenderit astus, and 426, ca@lo et medium
sol igneus orbem Hauserat.
402—4. See App. C. 7 for προιεῇ
φριχὶ, and φῶχαι. The “Zephyr”
might seem, on comparing 360—1, to
be the foul wind which had detained
Menel. so long, but it is rather men-
tioned as a fact attending the time of
Proteus’ emerging, ἱ. e. noon, — νέ-
xodeg. Curtius (I. 232) takes this as
from vex- related to ἀψέψεος nepo(t)s,
neptis, nephew, and meaning “‘brood’’;
so Eustath. gives ἀπόγονοι as one
interpretation. Curt. cites Theocr.
DAY vI.] ΟΔΥΣΣΕΙΑΣ A. 405—417. 121]
405 ἀϑρόαι EVOOVOLY, πολιῆς ἁλὸς" ἐξαναδῦσαι ," ! δ δ᾽ es e350,
πικρὸν ἀποπνείουσαι" ἁλὸς πολυβενθέος ὀδμήν." oe μα.
ἔνϑα σ᾽ ἐγὼν ἀγαγοῦσα ἄμ’ jot! φαινομένηφιν id. tis, δι 42,
εὐνάσωξ ἑξείης" σὺ δ᾽ ἐὺ κρίνασϑαι" ἑταίρους rt ὅν, ΠΥ
τρεῖς, οἵ τοι παρὰ νηυσὶν ἐὐσσέλμοισιν ἄριστοι. εὖ fa 6.
410 πάντα δέ τοι ἐρέω ὀλοφωιαὶ τοῖο" γέροντος. ᾿ς ἈΝ ἬΝ Νά
φώκας! μέν τοι πρῶτον ἀριϑμήσει καὶ ἔπεισιν" ig. 160, x. 259, ¢.
αὐτὰρ ἐπὴν πάσας πεμπάσσεται ἠδὲ ἴδηται ,” κ 22. 87 ΠῚ
λέξεται ἐν μέσσῃσι 5° νομεὺς» ὡς πώεσι μήλων. atte
tov μὲν ἐπὴν. δὴ πρῶτα κατευνηϑέντα: dnote, ° Ὁ. 682.
415 καὶ τότ᾽ ἔπενιϑ᾽ ὑμῖν μελέτω κάρτος" τε Bin τε, ἀν ef δ
415
avd. δ᾽ ἔχειν μεμαῶτα καὶ ἐσσύμεμόν' περ ἀλύξαι"
πάντα δὲ γίγνόμενος πειρήσεται, ὅσσ᾽ ἐπὶ γαῖαν
41ο. «ερέω.
413. μέσσοισε Ern. ΟἹ. μέσσῃσι Wolf. ed. Ox.
412. ίδηται.
414. Είδησϑε.
415. ἔπειτ᾽ ὕμμιν Ambros.
Ern. Cl. ἔπειθ᾽ ὑμῖν Harl. Wolf. ed. Ox., mox ἔργον τε ἔπος τε Heidelb. Vind.
pro κάρτος τε βίη te, quod mavult utriusqne Schol.
XVII. 25, ἀϑανατοι δὲ καλεῦνται fol
wéxodes. He also (II. 220) views
-συδνη in αἀλοσύδνης as = Indo-ger-
manic su-n-jad, and connects it with
the fem. of a masc. which in Sanscrit
corresponds with the German Sohn
(son). Thus “daughter of the sea”
(applied thus also to Thetis, cf. ϑυγά-
tne ἁλίοιο γέροντος) is the sense: Pro-
bably -σύδνη might also be akin to ὕδωρ
(sudor), as in sylva ὕλη, etc. Cf. Virg.
Georg. IV. 394 Immania cujus Armenia
et turpes pascit sub gurgile phocas.
405. πολ. ἁλὸς, see on β. 261.
406—8. Obs. the rare usage of ne-
κρὸν as an adj. of 2 terminations, in
contrast with Gluny πικρὴν &. 322 —3.
See inf. on 442, diooraros ὀδμή. —
εὐνάσω, see On 440 inf.
410. δὅλοφώια » ‘elvish tricks’’, cf.
ὁλοφώια δήνεα Κίρκης, and Melanthius
to Eumeus, dlogacra εἰδώς (mar.); see
App. A. 3.
41τι. ἔπεισιν, “will go over’ as
items in a total, an easy transition
from the notion of traversing a surface
ef. ἐπῴχετο inf. 451 and mar. there.
412—6. πεμπασσεται, this may be
subjunct. shortened epice, but need
not, see App. Α. 9, 4 (end) and 5: cf.
Esch, Eumen. 748, πεμπαζξετ᾽ ὀρϑῶς
ἐκβολὰς ψήφων, and Pers. 981, μυρία
πεμπασταν, ‘‘reckoning by tens of
thousands’’, i.e. the host of Xerxes (He-
rod. VII. 60); also the Heb, ὉΠ
Exod. XIII. 18 in ‘‘ranks of five (or
fifty)”? where the A. V. has ‘“‘harnes-
sed’’; also the Roman numeral V, which
was probably originally the hiero-
glyphic for the hand with its fingers
spread. It suits here the simple humour
of the passage to keep the primitive
sense of ‘“‘counting on the fingers’’.
κάρτος te B. te may have suggested
to éschylus his names of the mini-
stering fiends who bind Prometheus;
Prom. V.1. — ἐσσύμενον, often used
as if = μεμαῶτα, here bears its primi-
tive sense of “set in motion, struggl-
ing’’, shown also in N. 142, the simile
of the stone, which, after reaching the
flat, οὔ τι κυλίνδεται ἐσσύμενός περ.
417. πειρήσεται, i.e. ἀλύξαι; this
gives greater force to the δὲ: render
‘and (to escape) he will endeavour’’,
not by joining πειρήσ. with γιγνόμενος,
‘‘will endeavour to become”’, which Ni.
notes as generally a later participial
idiom, not, however, without Homeric
example, as with agyo and παύομαι,
cf. 8. 15, B. 378, I’. 447, Ν. 815—6,
X. 502, and see Jelf Gr. Gr. § 681,
3, 4. Ni. therefore proposes a colon
at ἀλυξαι. Hor. Sat. 11. 3, 73 follows
this, varying the images, in Fiet aper,
g *
132 ΟΔΥΣΣΕΙΑΣ Δ. 418—427. [Day vr.
. mit, ἦ on ἑρπετὰ" γίγνονται, καὶ ὕδωρ καὶ ϑεσπιδαὶς" πῦρ᾽
Yr. γ᾿ 490, P, 312, ; ὑμεῖς δ᾽ ἀστεμφέως- ἐχέμεν μᾶλλόν τε πιέξειν. 4
cB. 344, Γι. ἀλλ᾽ ὅτε κεν δή σ᾽ αὐτὸς ἀνείρηται ἐπέεσσιν, 4
ἀμ. 196, 164, δ. Ιτρῖος ἐὼν οἷόν κε κατευνηϑέντα ἴδησϑε,
e εἴ, ὃ. 316. καὶ τότε δὴ σχέσϑαι τε βίης λῦσαί τε γέροντα,
εὖ “τὸ be. 352, ἥρως. εἴρεσϑαι Ot, ϑεῶν" ὅς τίς σε χαλέπτει.,
a. ἱνόστον' 9᾽, ὡς ἐπὶ πόντον ἐλεύσεαι ἰχϑυόεντα."
acs εἰποῦσ᾽ ὑπὸ πόντον ἐδύσετο κυμαίνοντα." 4
1 αὐτὰρ ἐγὼν ἐπὶ νῆας, 68 ἕστασαν ἐν ψαμάϑοισιν,,
309, dD. 551
16; εἴ. A 428, ἤια .Κ
— — -- ---..Ἅ -..
i re ee
420. ἐεπέεσσιν.
419. πιεξεῖν Apion, Schol. Q.
ex emend, rec. in textu, alii avtes.
ἴδηαι mavalt,
modu avis, mudo saxum, et cum volet,
arbor. Ovid Met. XI. 243 foll. ascribes
similar transformations to Thetis, as
a sea - goddess.
The transformations of Proteus have
been viewed as allegorizing 1. phy-
sically, the various forms assumed by
primary (Πρωτ-) matter (Harris’ Her-
mes), or by the watery element as con-
stituent of all things (Thales’ theory),
2. ethically, the dangers which beset the
sea-faring man, wh. he meets and con-
quers by enterprise and resoluteness,
and wh. teach at last by experience,
thus imparting knowledge not other-
wise attainable. So Longfellow,
““Wouldst thou’’, so the helmsman
answer'd,
“Learn the secret of the sea?
Only those who brave its dangers
Comprehend its mystery.”’
Ni. further notes that Plato applied
the fable to express (Euthyd. 426)
the wiles of the Sophists; Lucian (de
Sall, 19) to the intricate changes of a
dance; Himerins (Or. XXI. 9) to the
urtifices of rhetoric; Horace (Sat. II.
3-71) to a pettifogger — ail involving
the notion of versatility or evasive-
ness. Prof. Conington on Virg. Georg.
IV. 388 has other applications cok:
lected by Taubmann; who adds, “tot
autem fere allegorias huic fgmento
induerunt, quot Proteus ipse formas,”’
To the notion that Proteus was an al-
legory of the versatility of matter was
added that of Eidotheé being an al-
πολλὰ δέ μοι κραδίη πόρφυρε! κιόντι.
421. FidnoPe.
420. αὐτὸς Arist.,
425. fetmovo’.
Schol. H., et ipse Harl.
421. pro ἴδησϑε Schol. M. a man. rec.
426. ἔστασαν Ern. Cl. ed. Ox. ἔστασαν Wolf.
legory of form (εἶδος: Ovid, Met. VIII.
731 foll., to the transformations men-
tioned here and 456 foll. adds those
of a bull and of a stone. See App. C.
7, and parts of 3.
418—20. ἑρπετὰ, = = foe Schol.,
ἕρπειν ἐπὶ γαῖαν (mar.) includes all
motion on the earth’s surface. Dedxt-
δαὲς, this epithet applied to fire in
its own nature, without regard to its
quantity or size, suggests a god as
the first giver, and leads up to the
legend of Prometheus’ stealing it from
heaven. ἀλλ᾽ ὅτε, see on a. 16.
αὐτὸς <= sponte or ultro, without be-
ing first addressed.
419. πιέξειν, so Virg. Georg. IV.
412, Tanto, nate, magis contende tena-
cia vincla, cf. also Silenus bound by
Chromis and Mnasylos Bucol. VI. 19
foll.
426. ψαμάϑοισιν, plar. used col-
lectively for ‘‘the beach’’. In one or
two places, where the sing. once stood
in this sense, the best edd. now prefer
the plur., as A. 486, ¥. 853. We find
also ψαμαϑός τε κόνις te to express
‘the sand of the shore”, and waua-
Sov acc. for ‘‘a heap of sand” (mar.).
427. πόρφυρε, this word, in later
authors transitive, is in H. neut. as
applied to the sea rolling and heaving:
here the metaphor is from the turbid
state of the water when so moved.
So Sophoc. Antig. 20 καλχαίνουσ᾽ ἔπος,
and Virg. in. VIII. 19, magno curarum
fluctuat estu. Obs. 0, but πορφύρεος,
DAY VI.] ΟΔΥΣΣΕΙΑΣ A. 428—442. 133
αὐτὰρ" ἐπεί ῥ᾽ ἐπὶ νῆα κατήλυϑον ἠδὲ Bddacoay, 1. δ' 407 mar.
δόρπον" ® ὁπλισάμεσϑ᾽, ἐπί τ᾽ ἤλυϑεν ἀμβροσίη" vvé- : ᾿ ΩΣ 261.-8;
430 δὴ τότε κοιμήϑημεν ἐπὶ δηγμῖνιδ ϑαλάσσης. ag 280, 5 t ΠΝ
ἦμος" δ᾽ ἠριγένεια φάνη ῥοδοδάκτυλος ‘Has, 169, sa, 550, δ
καὶ τότε δὴ παρὰ Piva ϑαλάσσης! εὐρυπόροιο : ἢ , Θ. 501.
ἤια πολλὰξ ϑεοὺς yovvovpevos: αὐτὰρ ἑταίρους Γκ. 2, O. 381.
τρεῖς ἄγον, οἷσι μάλιστα πεποίϑεα" πᾶσαν ἐπ᾽ ἰθύν. * gia, on ΕΊΣ ἃ
435
440
-acc, to ‘‘plunge into ”” with
τόφρα δ᾽ ἄρ᾽ ἢ γ᾽’ ὑποδῦσα" ϑαλάσσης εὐρέα! κόλπον
τέσσαρα φωκάων ἐκ πόντου δέρματ᾽ ἔνεικεν
δόλον δ᾽ ἐπεμήδετο"
πατρί.
εὐνὰς δ᾽ ἐν ψαμάϑοισιο διαγλάψασ᾽ ἁλίῃσιν
ἧστο μένουσ᾽- ἡμεῖς δὲ μάλα σχεδὸν ἤλθομεν αὐτῆς"
ἑξείης δ᾽ εὔνησε.» βάλεν δ᾽ ἐπὶ δέρμα ἑκάστῳ.
ἔνϑα nev αἰνότατος λόχος ἔπλετο" τεῖρει γὰρ αἰνῶς
φωχάων ἁλιοτρεφέων ὀλοώτατος ὀδμή"
(πάντα δ᾽ ἔσαν veddagra™),
h cf. π.98, N. 96,
71. 1171. :
iZ. 79, 9. 377,
π. 301, D. 30:
k #.481—2, Θ. 392,
2. 145; εἴ. ¢. 127,
. δὲ, x. 398.
Ι Σ 440, Ὁ. 125.
m 7.363; οἵ. α. 108.
n εἴ. X. 395.
o δ. 426 mar.
p cf. ὅδ. 758, 8. 381.
q JT. 510, ὦ. δὲ,
366; cf. x. 78.
440, Fexaoro.
429. δόρπον ἄρ᾽ Harl. ex emend. rec.
437, veodegta Harl.
438. διαγλάψασ᾽
scriba Harl. scripserat sed in διαγνάμψασ᾽ mutavit, quod Apollonio Sophistz
Bek. tribuit,
440. δέρματ᾽ Harl.
διαγλύψασ᾽ Scholl. B. E., sed in text, utriusque διαγλαψασ᾽.
ἔνϑα κεν Bek. Dind. Fa. juxta Scholl. H. Ρ.
collato Θ. 130, κεῖϑιε δὴ Cl. ed. Ox. Léw. quod Harl. Heidelb. Ambr. habent.
and £. 53 ἁλιπόρφῦρα; 80 πορφῦρα in
Attic Greek, as Aschyl. Agam. 957.
432. πολλὰ ϑεοὺς x. τ. 1., 80 Ovid
represents Peleus (Metam. XI. 247—8)
Inde deos pelagi.... adorat, youvou-
HMEVOG, γουνοῦμαι means “to entreat’’,
often as a phrase of supplication, you-
νοῦμαί oe (mar.), whereas γουνάζομαι
is rather the actual taking by the knees,
sometimes with γούνων, gen. of part
seized, added — an energetic mode
of supplication.
434. ἐϑὺν, in H. only found in acc.,
has motion for its primary notion. The
vulgar English use of “go” as a-noun
may illustrate the lively image of force
associated with motion, ‘for every go”’
ef, P. 725, ἔἴϑυσαν δὲ (rashed on}
κύνεσσιν οικότες. Sometimes its sense
is more general, as ‘‘purpose”’ (mar.).
Like ἴθμα E. 778, it contains the root
of els ibo, as shown in [B+ its impe-
rative.
435. ὑποδῦσα, used, as here, with
en. to
“come forth of’’, and rarely with dat.
of person, as πᾶσιν ὑπέδυ γόος “took
possession of all’’ (mar.).
440—1. εὔνησε, ἐυνἄσω in 408 sup.
is from evvafo. εὐνάω is also used
figuratively, with γόον or ἀνέμους
(mar.) to mean “‘lulled”. τεῖρε,
said also of fiery vapour or of sweat
(mar.), oppressing and overpowering ;
perhaps our verb ‘“‘tire’’ is akin to it.
442. ὀλοώτατος, here fem.; some
comp. and superl. adjs. are of 2 ter-
minations in other writers, as Hy. Cer.
157) πρώτιστον ὀπωπὴν, Thucyd. V. 110
ἀπορώτερος ἡ λῆψις (Jelf. Gr. Gr. 8 127)
Obs. 3). In H. we have also πικρὸν
. ὀδμὴν 406 sup., ἄγριον ἄτην T. 88,
κλυτὸς with ‘Augiteden and Innodc-
μεια, &. 422, B. 742, and ϑερμὸς ἀτμὴ
Hy. Merc. 110. For the sentiment see
App. C. 7. p. xui11, and comp, Trin-
culo’s repugnance to Caliban as yield-
ing ‘“‘a very ancient and fish-like smell ;
ind of, not of the newest, Poor -
John”; The Tempest., Il. 2. Buffon
(Transl. 1791) speaks of their offensive
odour as characterizing seals.
134
ΟΔΥΣΣΕΊΑΣ Δ. 443 —454.
[pay vI.
ἃ 8. 67, ο. 179.
bo. 75, X. 4233,
486.
ς E.777, 5%. 170,
IT. 670, 680,
38—9
d ef. 7.119, 0.406.
e 0. 459, 2.181, 2.
37, w. 100, 168.
ζω. 47, 55—6, N.
15.
g e. 65, 119.
h B. 773, ὅδ. 430
mar.
i A. 726.
k P. 356.
le. 335.
πὶ #. 475, I. 453.
n 7.346; cf. χ. 196.
445. Γεκάστῳ.
443. κ᾿ Wolf. ἂν Barnes. Ern. Cl. ed. Ox.
εὐνάξοντο Wolf. 450. pro
αἷψ᾽ (addito alw
444—50. ὄνειαρ, ‘dainty or solace’’.
Hector is so called by his mother and
wife in their fond laments for his death
(mar.). ἀμβρφοσίην, Buttm. Lezil. 15
(2) (4) regards this as a noun mean-
ing ‘‘immortality”’, that quality which
imparts and perpetuates vigour, a qua-
lity partaken of by everything which
belongs to the gods and is around them:
hence the adj. ἀαμβρόσιος. This thought
seems to have possessed Milton also in
Parad. Reg. IV. 588 foll.
A table of celestial food, divine,
Ambrosial fruits fetched from the
tree of Life,
And from the fount of Life am-
brosial drink.
Such a substance, although not used
as food, is here meant; not an un-
guent, as when used by Heré in order
to captivate Zeus, and as when applied
by Apollo to ‘the dead body of Sarpe-
don (zoicéy τ᾿ ἀμβροσίῃ mar.) Virgil's
imitation suggests the image of a casket
opened, diffusing odour, and its con-
tents then applied by inunction to in-
vigorate; see Georg. IV. 415—8 and
Prof. Conington’s note. But H. here
speaks of a substance placed ὑπὸ ῥῖνα
ἑκάστῳ, and, when applied thus to the
part aggrieved, quelling the noisome
odour of the seal-skin. And so far
only as such fetor tends to kill, as
446. Frndv.
ἔνδιος Bek. annot. εὔδιος ἔνδειος.
ex emend.) Harl., ita Ern. Cl. ed. Ox. ἡμεῖς δὲ Wolf.
τίς γάρ x εἰναλίῳ" παρὰ κήτεϊ κοιμηϑείη;
ἀλλ᾽ αὐτὴ ἐσάωσε, καὶ ἐφράσατο μέγ᾽ ὄνειαρ"
τ᾿ ἀμβροσίην: ὑπὸ ῥῖνα ἑκάστῳ ϑῆκε φέρουσα
ἡδὺ μάλα πνείουσαν.ἃ ὕλεσσε δὲ κήτεος ὀδμήν.
πᾶσαν δ᾽ ἠοίην μένομεν τετληότι" ϑυμῷ"
φῶκαι δ᾽ ἐξ ἁλὸς ἠλϑον' ἀολλέες" αἵ μὲν ἔπειτα
ἑξῆς εὐνάξοντοξ παρὰ" ῥηγμῖνι ϑαλάσσης᾽
Evdtosgi δ᾽ ὁ γέρων HAD’ ἐξ ἁλὸς, εὗρε δὲ φώκας
ξατρεφέας, πάσας δ᾽ ἄρ᾽ ἐπῴχετο," λέκτοὶϊ δ᾽ ἀριϑμόν.
ἐν δ᾽ ἡμέας πρώτους λέγε κήτεσιν, οὐδέ τι ϑυμῷ;
ὠίσϑηπι δόλον εἷναι" ἔπειτα δὲ λέκτου καὶ αὐτός.
ἡμεῖς δὲ ἰάχοντες ἐπεσσύμεϑ᾽, ἀμφὶ δὲ χεῖρας
464. Γιάχοντες.
449. ἠυνάξοντο Ern. Cl. ed. Ox,
454. ἡμεῖς ὃ
ὁλοώτατος perhaps suggests, does the
immortal quality of the antidote come
into view. This brings out fresh force
in ἐσάωσε. In the case of Patroclus’
corpse Thetis instils ambrosia and
nectar through the nostrils, ομβροσέην
καὶ νέκταρ ἔρυθρον στάξε κατὰ δι-
νῶν ἕνα of χρὼς ἔμπεδος εἴη (mar.).
But there the notion is probably that
the life-giving principle, in order to
counteract the effects of death, must
be applied in the usual channel of
life, the nostrils, through which passes
that breath which is the life.
447—50. τετληότι &., “patiently”.
For ἀολλέες see on y. 165; for ἔνδιος
see App. A. 17 (2).
451. ἐπῴχετο, see on ἔπεισιν 411
sup. — Aéxto, here and in.453 there
is a play on this word in the senses
of ‘She reckoned’”’ and ‘‘he lay down’’;
see on y. 124-56. λέγε in 452 and
ἐλέγμην (mar.) are said of reckoning
the items; but to express the total also
we have here Aéxro. Further in 453
although lying down is the notion which
predominates, yet there is a bye-sense
of adding himself as the last item to
the total, which much assists the hu-
mour of the whole.
453—4- δὲ, a var. l., to avoid,
robably, the hiatus, is δ᾽ ala’: but
δάχοντεν may have the £ (cf. however.
445
450
155 βάλλομεν. οὐδ᾽ ὁ γέρων δολίης" ἐπελήϑετο τέχνης.
ἀλλ᾽ ἦ tor” πρώτιστα λέων" γένετ᾽ ἠὐγένειος,
αὐτὰρ ἔπειτα δράκων καὶ πάρδαλις ἠδὲ μέγας" σῦς"
γίγνετο δ᾽ ὑγρὸν ὕδωρ καὶ dévdgeoy! ὑψιπέτηλον,
ἡμεῖς δ᾽ ἀστεμφέωςξ ἔχομεν τετληότι" ϑυμῷ.
60 ἀλλ᾽ ὅτε δή ῥ᾽ ἀνίαξ᾽ ὶ ὁ γέρων, ὀλοφώια" εἰδὼς.
καὶ τότε δή μ᾽ ἐπέεσσιν ἀνειρόμενος! προςέειπεν
‘rig νύ τοι; ᾿Ατρέος vie, Peay συμφράσσατο" Bovddg, |! δ
ὄφρα μ᾽ ἕλοις ἀέκοντα λοχησάμενος"; té0° σὲ χρή;
μβ5.
DAY VI.]
OATZZEIAL Δ. 455—465.
135
419.
. 215, P. 109,
8.
ὡς» ἔφατ᾽, αὐτὰρ ἐγώ μιν ἀμειβόμενος προφέειπον | , O° Kis 377
ὅ. 375.
ἐοἶσϑα,ι γέρον: tl με ταῦτα παρατροπέων: ἀγο-
ρεύεις:;
460. ἐειδώς.
ἔειπον.
461, βέπεσσιν προσέξειπεν.
465.
ο
YA. 365.
τ 1. 800, ¥. 398,
| 423.
463. ἀξέκοντα. 464. προσέ-.
«οῖσϑα.
45). πάρδαλις Eustath. Harl. marg. Ern. Cl. ed. Ox. Bek. Fa. πόρδαλιες Ap-
pollon. Harl. a pr. manu Wolf, Dind.
in marg. rursus correxit) et Heidelb.,
μενος. 462.
Arist.,
ὯΙ 216) and the ὅδ is then long by ar-
sis. Exedovued 24 aor. The change
of tense to imperf. in 455 (βαλλο-
μὲν ἐπελήϑετο) has no force. A very
familiar instance of this interchange
is in A. 3, 4, , Pues, “Atse προΐαψεν
ἡρώων, αὐτοὺς ἑλώρια τεῦχε κύ-
veoo.y, espy. as τεῦξε is read in Η,,
and here the time of both verbs is
clearly the same. Still H. often pre-
vents monotony by presenting some in-
cidents as having incidence merely and
others duration also, in the same nar-
rativd. With οὐδ᾽ ὁ γέρων x. τ. Δ. ef.
Virg. Georg. IV. 440 Ille sue contra
non immemor artis.
457. πάρδαλις, Liddell and 8. say,
“πορδαλις is in H. now everywhere
found in the text’’. Bek., however,
prefers πάρδαλις, as in 1]. ‘does Dind.
also. Porson says (Postscr. ad varr.
l, e cod. Harl. ad loc.), “ Apollonius in
Schol. supra ad v. 156, πάρδαλις ἡ δορὰ
καὶ πόρδαλις τὸ ξῶον᾽. The Oxford
reprint of Dindorf’s ed. of the Scholl.
gives παρδαλῆ. . πάρδαλις as the read-
ing of this Schol., παρδαλῆ being (not.
ad loc.) a correction of Cobet for
φράσσατο Harl. ascripsit supra συμφράσσατο.
Schol. P., Harl. Barnes. Ern. Cl. ed. Ox. ἀγορεύεις Schol. H. Wolf.
461. ἀμειβόμενος Harl. ex emend. (sed
sed Schol, et text. a pr. manu ἄνειρο-
46s. ἐρεείνεις
πάρδαλις. This seems more likely to
be the true reading of the Schol.
Besides the orthography, the gender
is very doubtful. In ®. 573 foll., Hy.
Ven. 71, it is found fem., but is classed
with male animals, the λέων and the σῦς
κάπρος, in that Hy. and in P. 2o—1.
Prof, Conington from his note on Georg.
IV. 408 fulvd cervice lea@na, seems to
take it as fem. But as H. does not.
seem to have felt any difficulty about
sex in his metaphors or similes, neither
need he in transformations; cf. Heré
to Artemis ®. 483 σε λέοντα γυναιξὶ
Ζεὺς θῆκεν, and the comparison of
Penelopé to a lion in 791 inf., where
see note. Nor is there perhaps any
propriety in retaining a tie of sex for
Proteus whom form does not bind, and
whose metamorphoses transcend all
human and even animal limits.
460. aviat’, for the use of this
verb, neut., as here, and trans. see
mar.
46s. re tee ne tor not found else-
where in has we for object.; cf. the
use of παράτροπος actively by Eurip.
. 410,
i α. 183 mar., 77.
858.
k a. 41—2, 114—5,
C. 314 it 76
—7, 9. 410, ε.
§32—3
1 3. 190, 82, 751;
cf. x. SH—S5, +.
192—3.
m β- 374, Jd. 150.
433.
nd. 581, η. 284.
ΤΙ. 114, P. 263,
®. 268, 326
ΟΔΥΣΣΕΙΑΣ Δ. 466—477. [Day vr.
ὡς" δὴ δήϑ᾽ ἐνὶ νήσῳ ἐρύκχομαι, οὐδέ τι τέκμωρ
εὑρέμεναι δύναμαι, μινύϑει δέ μοι ἔνδοϑεν ἤτορ.
ἀλλὰ" σύ πέρ μοι εἰπὲ (ϑεοὶ δέ τε πάντα ἴσασιν)
of, ὃς τίς μ᾽ ἀϑανάτων πεδάᾳ καὶ ἔδησε κελεύϑου,
νόστον 8’, ὡς ἐπὶ πόντον ἐλεύσομαι ἰχϑυόεντα.; 47.
aoe ἐφάμην, ὃ δέ μ᾽ αὐτίκ᾽ ἀμειβόμενος προςέειπεν
. ἀλλὰ wad’ ὥφελλες ἃ Διί τ᾽ ἄλλοισίν τε ϑεοῖσιν ς
δέξας" ἱερὰ κάλ᾽ ἀναβαινέμεν.5 ὄφρα τάχιστα
σὴν ἐς πατρίδ᾽" ἵκοιο πλέων ἐπὶ οἴνοπαὶ πόντον.
οὐκ γάρ τοι πρὶν! μοῖρα φίλους τ᾽ ἰδέειν καὶ ἰκέσϑαι 47:
οἷκον ἐς ὑψόροφον καὶ σὴν ἐς πατρίδα γαῖαν,
πρίν y ὅτ᾽ ἂν “ἰγύπτοιο διιπετέος" ποταμοῖο
468. Fecxt Εἰσασιν.
468. ἔειπε Schol. H. cf. ad 379.
tanquam κελεύϑους fuisset.
471. προσέειπεν. 475. Fedéeuw
omisso t. 476.
474. folvora.
Foixoy.
469. κελεῦϑου Harl. sed eraso ¢ δὰ fin.
471. αὕτις Ern. Cl. ed. Ox. αὐτίκ᾽ Wolf.
477. διειπετέος Zenod., Scholl. E. H. 9.
Androm, 528, and passively by Pind.
P. II. 65. We find παρατρέψας of turn-
ing a chariot ἐκτὸς ὁδοῦ, also in later
writers of perverting, falsifying, and
παρατρωπαάω of turning away anger
(mar.). Ni., thinking that xagate. is
more correctly intrans., as, he says,
περιτροπέω is always, defends Ari-
starchus’ reading ἐρδεένεις for ἀγορεύ-
eg, making μὲ its obj. But in Hy.
Merc. 542, περιτροπέων ... φῦλ᾽ ἀνθρώ-
πῶν, where Schneider would read πα-
ρατρ. ἢ it seems trans., so certainly is
ω
τροπέω in Σ. 224, and παρατρωπάω
in I. 500
466 — ὡς » connects the clause
with olofa (Léw.). — TEXUME, See
on 374. — ἔδησε = ἀπέρυκε, as we
say ‘“‘weather-bound’’.
472—3. ἀλλὰ is adversative of some
statement omitted in the vehemence of
the reply, such as, ‘‘yes, the gods
detain you, for you have neglected
them; but you surely ought etc.’
ὥφελλες, see on y. 367. — ἀναβαι-
γνέμεν, BEG ON α. 210.
475—7. For πρὶν .... πρὶν with
optat. following see mar. at 475: for
πρέν γ᾽ ore with ἂν and subjanct., also
with indic. and optat,, see mar. at 477.
Bek. (Homer. Blatt. p. 89, 8) notes that
nowhere in H. is πρὲν followed simply
by indic. διιπετέος is epith. also of
the Spercheiis, of the Scamander, and of
‘‘a river’’ indefinitely in a simile (mar. ):
so Hes. Fragm. οὐχ. In ®. 195—7
all rivers, as well as the ϑάλασσα, the
fountains and the wells, spring (νάουσιν)
from Oceanus, In T. 7, 8 all rivers,
except Oceanus, attend as deities the
great Assembly of Olympus, and the
nymphs come next. The statement in
®. is that of a supposed physical fact
— one great cosmical water-system.
Still, the dependence of rivers on
precipitation, and their sympathy with
drought or heavy rain must have been
instantly observed. Hence their epi-
thet deexerng, and their mythological
relation to Zeus and Olympus, some-
times more closely expressed, as in
the case of the Xanthus (4. 434) by
affiliation: in which, however, Zeus’
own seat Ida, being the local source,
helps out the Telationship. The Ocean
river was conceived as external to
both γαῖα and οὐρανὸς, and hence is
independent (2. 607—8, cf. 483) and
keeps aloof from Zeus. In Hy.
Ven. 4 διιπετέας epith. of olmvovg
485
DAY σι]
αὖτις ὕδωρ ἔλθῃς, ῥφέξῃς" B ἱερὰς ἑκατόμβας
ἀϑανάτοισι" ϑεοῖσι τοὶ οὐρανὸν εὐρὺν ἔχουσιν"
480 καὶ τότε τοι δώσουσιν ὁδὸν ϑεοὶ ἣν" σὺ μενοινᾷς.
ὡς ἔφατ᾽, αὐτὰρ ἐμοί γε κατεκλάσϑη φίλον ἥτορ ,"
οὔνεκα μ᾽ αὖτις ἄνωγεν ἐπ᾽ ἠεροειδέα πόντον"
Αϊγυπτόνδ᾽ ἰέναι, δολιχὴν ὁδὸν ἀργαλέην τε.
ἀλλὰ καὶ ὥς μιν ἔπεσσιν ἀμειβόμενος προςέειπον
(ταῦτα μὲν οὕτω δὴ τελέω, γέρον, ὡςξ σὺ κελεύεις"
ἀλλ᾽" ἄγε μοι τόδε εἰπὲ καὶ ἀτρεκέως κατάλεξον,
εἰ πάντες σὺν νηυσὶν ἀπήμονεςϊ ἦλθον ᾽Αχαιοὶ,
οὗςΚ Νέστωρ καὶ ἐγὼ λίπομεν' Τροίηϑενπ ἰόντες,
482. ἠεροειδέα.
484. ὡς μύϑοισιν Harl. Schol. Μ.
ΟΔΥΣΣΕΙΑΣ Δ. 478—488.
484. έπεσσιν ὥς Fe.
137
ay. 141.
b @. 67 mar.
ς β. 285.
il δ. 538, ¢. 256, x.
198, 4196, 566, μ.
277.
ὁ β. 263 mar.
f 2.80, ¥. 20, 180.
g 3. 347, 402; cf.
x. 443, 2. 507.
ἢ a. 169 mar.
i N. 744.
k cf. γ. 168—9.
1] ef. x. 119.
m y. 276.
ee a ee ees
486. Feuné.
6
προσέ Fermoy.
486. ἀγόρευσον Har]. ascripsit supra
κατάλεξον.
involves the notion οὗ πέτομαι, as
“‘flying’’. The word occurs as epith.
of the image of Ἄρτεμις, which was
perhaps an aérolith, in Acts XIX. 3s.
479. ϑεοῖσι, these are not the
Egyptian local deities, but those of
Homer’s own mythology, who recog-
nizes none but his own theistic sy-
stem.
483—4. ὁδὸν, see on 393. — muy
ἔπεσσιν, here μύϑοισιν is a var. lect.
On reviewing the passages in the Ody.
where ἀμειβ. stands with ἔπεσσι and
μύϑοισι respectively, the former far
preponderate; and even if we add to
the latter those in which avecgopevos,
or some such participle, has μύϑοισι
subjoined, and those in which the
phrase ἀμείβετο μύϑῳ occurs, the
majority remains as before. Obs.
μῦϑοι plur. specially means ‘narra-
tive” or “‘tales’’, as inf. 597, μύϑοι-
σιν ἔπεσσί te, “tales and talk” (cf.
4. 379), but also a speech or conversa-
tion generally; see ἢ. 47, 72, 1579 233)
A. 51t, » 298, ρ. 488. The verb pv-
ϑέομαι means iu Ody. either ‘‘to tell
a tale’’, or “to declare as with author-
ity, oracularly’’, etc. At @. 124 mar.;
δ. 829 mar. the chief passages are col-
lected. In φ. 193 occurs ἔπος τέ xe
μυϑησαίμην, “1 could a tale unfold”.
487. εἰ, Bek. reads ἢ, thinkin
(Homer. Blatt. pp. 859 61) (1) that ε
and 7 are only dialectic varieties of
the same_original word, and assuming
(2) that 7 was the original, and there-
fore the Homeric form, and further
(3) that words so differing should not
be found in the same poem — all three
questionable doctrines. For ‘‘dialectic
varieties’? ‘phonic modifications ”’
seems preferable, ¢. 6. slight changes
in the sound to express a recognition
of the difference between two forms
of thought so closely cognate, as the
simple hypothetical and the disjunctive.
(2) and (3) seem unfounded assumptions ;
and (3), if I understand it aright, would
tend to exclude ef altogether. He fol-
lows up (2) by supposing that the co-
pyists favoured ef, and, agreeably to
the norma loquendi of a later period, let
it slip into the place of 7. ef seems,
however, to represent ufrum and an in
Latin dependent questions, ‘‘if’’ and
‘““whether’’ in English ones. Thus it
cannot be ghown by the analogy of
language that the conjunction which
introduces such bifurcate questions
must be the same as that which sub-
joins the alternative or 2™ branch of
them: see further on y. gor.
487. ἀπήμονες, this adj. and axlav-
tog 494 inf. are found, like ἐπευϑὴς
and ἄπυστος, alike in active and pas-
sive sense (mar.); see on y. 88: also
ἀπήμων seems by an accretion of po-
sitive meaning to stand sometimes for
“*beneficent’’.
488. Νέστωρ καὶ ἐγὼ corresponds
138
27.9. εἴ ο. WA.
b&b a. ZA mar.
« δ. 631 mar.
Ach. bt. MA—46.
e 6. WB, μ. 1:4.
fa. 3.
«4. 4, X. WH.
" Αἴ. 14.
ΟΔΥΎΣΣΕΙΑΣ Δ 489 —<oz.
[DAY VI.
ἦέ τις ὥζετ᾽ ὀλέϑρω" ἀδευκέϊ ἧς ἐπὶ νηὸς,
yt” φίλων ἐν χερσὶν, ἐπεὶ χόλεμον τολύχευσεν.᾽
ὡς“ ἐφάμην, ὃ δέ μ᾽ αὐτέχ᾽ ἀμειβόμενο: προξέειπεν
"Argetdn, τίά pe ταῦτα διείρεαι; οὐδέ τί σε χρὴ“
ἴμεναι, οὐδὲ δαῆναι ἐμὸν voor’! οὐδέ σέ φημι
“δὴν ἄκλαυτον" ἔσεσϑαι, ἐπὴν εὖ πάντα πύϑηαι.
i @.296, intl, plus: πολλοὶ" μὲν yao τῶν γε δάμεν, πολλοὶ δὲ Aixovro-
εἰςίεε. 4
κ 2.353, εἴ.γ.145,] %
Ι α. 197.
ρχοὶ δ᾽ αὖ δύο μοῦνοι "Azadyi χαλχοχιτώνων
ἐν νόστῳ axodovro:* μάχη δέ τε καὶ σὺ παρῆσϑα.
mt. 20, w. 1761} εἷς! δ᾽ ἔτι που ξωὸς κατερύχεται εὐρέϊ πόντῳ.
εἴ, 9. 191, 3,
vy. 168.
n ὃ. SOT.
ῳ γ. 21 mar. '
p J. 12. |
Alas μὲν μετὰ νηυσὶ δάμη δολιχηρέτμοισιν."
Γυρῇσίνη μιν πρῶτα Ποσειδάων ἐπέλασσεν"
πέτρῃσιν μεγάλῃσι. καὶ ἐξεσάωσεν ϑαλασσης"
4 8. 612, 17. 657, καί νύ κεν ἔκφυγε κῆρα, καὶ ἐχϑόμενός περ ᾿ϑήνῃ,
489. Fis.
491. προσέ ξειπεν.
493. «ἰδμεναι.
491. αὕτις Ἐτη, Cl. ed. Ox. αὐτίκ᾽ Wolf.
494. σ᾽ ὀΐω pro σέ φημι Bek. annot.
πὴν ascripsit.
uem refellit Schol. H. ex v. 551.
(pind. ed. Scholl. Bek, annot.).
δολιχηρέτμησιν Bek. annot.
— es «
with “Arge/Ang καὶ ἐγὼ of Nestor’s
speech in γ. 277.
499- Αἴας, i. ε. Oiliades. Virgil's
account varies (πη, I. 44—s5). There
Pallas, after he had been transfixed
by a thunderbolt, turbine corripuit sco-
puloque tnfxtt acuto. H. gives a cue
to this in saying that Pallas owed him
8 grudge; cf. y. 145: but Poseidon
would, on his own element, have
guaranteed his safety, but for his pre-
sumption. Léwe here notices that
Lycophron (Cassand. 392) follows H.,
and that the story had been painted
by Apollodorus at Pergamus, and by
Polygnotus at Delphi (Pliny XXXV. 9,
Pausan. X. 26, 1). — Sodcyng., epi-
thet of ships or (cf. φιλήρετμορ 1. 349)
of scamen, viz. the Pheacians, as using
long oars, when it has the comple-
montary phrase ψναυσέκλυτοι ἄνδρες
(mar),
soo. Γυρῆσιν, a mere cluster of
rocky islets. Myconus, one of the
Cyclades, is the region assigned to
them by the Scholl. Spruner, Atlas XV.,
495. pro δάμεν Arist. ϑάνον valg., Schol. H. Ἶ
παρηὰς Schol. Η. (fide Pors.) sive παρῆας
498. εὐρέϊ κόσμῳ Tzetzes (Barnes.).
492. μὴ ταῦτα διεέρεο var. |. Steph.
494. ἄκλαυστον Harl., mox ἐπεί x’ supra
497 ¢ Zenod.
499-
500. ἐδάμασσε Scholl. H. P.
makes a Gyros Pmt. the 8. E. cape
of Tenos. Virg. En. XI. 260 seems to
take the 8. E. point of Eubowa as the
scene of Ajax’s wreck, Euboic@ cautes
ultorque Caphereus: and so Quintus Cal.
XIV. 547 (Liéwe). Distinct from both is
the Gyarus to which state prisoners were
exiled in the Roman Imperial period
Juv. Sat. I. 73. X.170. As yvgog = xv-
κλικὸς the name might be = Cyclades,
importing the disposition of the group
not the shape of any individual islands:
But this hardly suits Γυραίην πέτρην
507 inf. The name probably imports
the shape, “rounded”; cf. γυρὸς ἐν
ὥμοισιν τ. 246, and Lat. gyrus ‘a
round”, ἐπέλασσεν, the var. lect.
ἐδώμασσεν does not so well suit ἐξε-
σάωσε ϑαλάσσης sor.
ο2. ᾿Αϑήνῃ, H. perhaps tacitly al-
ludes to his outrage on Cassandra in
the temple of Pallas, cf. note on y. 310,
where a similar reticence is seemingly
used; at any rate Virg. Ain. IT. 403
foll. has embodied a tradition trans-
mitted probably by the Cyclic poets.
DAY VI.]
OATEZEIAE A. 503—s06.
εἰ μὴ ὑπερφίαλον ἔπος ἔκβαλε, καὶ μέγ᾽ ἀάσϑη""
φῆ ῥ᾽ ἀέκητι" ϑεῶν φυγέειν: μέγα λαϊτμαλ ϑαλάσσης. ;
505 tov δὲ Ποσειδάων μεγάλ᾽" ἔκλυεν' addyjoavtos:
αὐτίκ᾽ ἔπειτα τρίαινανε ἑλὼν χερσὶ" στιβαρῇσιν
503. ἐέπος.
503. ἔχβαλε, cf. Milton Comus. 760,
‘‘T hate when Vice can bolt her argu-
ments’’, and ΖΞ ΒΟΥ]. Prom. 932, τοιάδ᾽
ἐκρέπτων ἔπη, where the notion is
that of audacious temerity; comp. the
expression ‘“‘to hurl defiance”, —
ἀασϑη, ‘‘was led to presume”, the
pass. form points to the current notion
of an external agency, leading man to
be foolish or wicked, while the 1. aor.
mid. ἀασάμην expresses his yielding
to that influence; cf. I. 115 —6, T. 95
(where Aristarchus’ reading Ζεὺς ἄσατο
seems better that Ziv’ ἄσατο as Ni-
gelsbach I. § 46 would take it), 137.
Sometimes, as in the self-defence of
Agam. T. 91, 119, Ἄτη 18 personified
as the Power 7 πάντας gatas; she
being, by the usual theogonic device,
a daughter of Zevg, who, however,
hurled her from Olympus in anger
when he had himself suffered by her.
This her fall supports the view of
Gladst. II. 158 foll., as embodying the
tradition of the Evil One as tempting
by guile. She also includes the notion
of the evil so wrought recoiling on him
who yields to it, even although he re-
pent (I. so4—12). Yet, as Niigelsbach
(I. § 46—7) remarks, her personality
is indistinct. Sometimes a power to
tempt exerted by some deity, by Erin-
nys, or the indefinite δαέμων, is all
that is meant (δ. 261—2, 4. 61, 0.
233—4, T. 88, 270); sometimes the
notion of injury is most prominent, but
probably nowhere without that of wrong
as its basis. Thus conirades, sleep,
wine, injure a man (x. 68, g. 296—7,
where the drunkard ἄασεν φρένας
οἴνω, but just before οἷνος ἄασεν with
pers. for obj.). Thus the power of ex-
ternal objects or agents to stimulate
inward desire, or that of such desire
to mislead, might equally be personi-
fied by “Aty, and not improperly, since
. sent
g ὁ. 292.
M. 397, 4.711,
646.
504. ἀέκητι.
such ‘‘temptations from within and
from without coincide and imply cach
other” (Bp. Butler Anal, P' I. Ch. iv).
So as regards the consequences: a man
regretful after folly, or repentant after
sin, experienced a change in his af-
fections towards certain objects; that
change implied a power, which he
would at once in Homer's language
personify as “Ary: and if retribution,
or a calamity viewed as such, over-
took him, this would probably be a
function of the same person. Thus
wrong done, woe ensuing, temptation
exerted, and yielded to, all meet in
this complex ethical notion.
504. ἀέχ. Dewy, cf. Eschyl. Sept.
c. Th. 427—8, ϑεοῦ τε γὰρ ϑέλοντος
ἐκπέρσειν πόλιν, καὶ μὴ ϑέλοντός
φησιν x. τ. 4. --- φυγέειν, for this
aor. see on β. 280, and cf. mar. Lowe
cites Senec, Agam. 534 foll.
Tandem occupat& rupe furibundum
. intonat
Superasse nunc se pelagus atque
ignes; juvat
Vicisse cxelum, Palladem, fulmen,
mare;
ands paraphrastic expansion of the pre-
assage from Quint. Cal. 564 foll.
For λαῖτμα ϑαλ. see App. B. (2) (3).
505. μεγάλ᾽ belongs to αὐδήσαντο
here not to ἔκλυεν; Homeric usage con-
stantly joins μεγάλα with words of
uttering, shouting and the like (mar.).
506. τρέαιναν, so in Hschyl. Suppl.
214 and in Pind. Ol. IX. 30 (τριόδον-
tog) this appears as Poseidon’s weapon.
It was originally the fish spear (Plat.
Soph. 220 6) used for large fish, e. g. the
tunny, the hook and line being ἐχϑύσε
τοῖς ολίγοισι, μ. 252. The commotions
and convulsions in which sea and land
often sympathize were ascribed to the
trident-wielding Poseidon; cf. T. 57—8
αὐτὰρ ἔνερϑε Ποσειδάων ἐτίναξεν
- ep eee
ce eo -- τσ
140 OATZZEIAZ A. 507—518.
° 159 mar.
. 03 mar
. $5. ,
“ 405 ; οἴ. M.
47]
[pay νι.
ὁ Ἶλασε Γυραίην πέτρην, ἀπὸ δ᾽ ἔσχισεν αὐτήν᾽
ξ. 137; ef. a.165,' καὶ τὸ μὲν αὐτόϑι μεῖνε. τὸ δὲ τρύφος ἔμπεσε πόντῳ,
δ ἱτῷ ῥ᾽ 4ἴας τὸ πρῶτον" ἐφεζόμενος μέγ᾽ " ἀασϑη.
τὸν δ᾽ ἐφόρει κατὰ πόντον ἀπείρονα κυμαίνοντα.
cf. μ. Ἴ2. ὥς ὃ μὲν ἔνϑ᾽ ἀπόλωλεν, ἐπεὶ πίεν ἁλμυρὸν ὕδωρ.
h x. 275, A. 151 —2. !
ΩΣ σὸς δέ που ἔκφυγε χῆρας ἀδελφεὸς ἠδ᾽ ὑπάλυξεν “
|
j 2. 119-20, x. 48, ἐν νηυσὶ γλαφυρῇσι" σάωσε δὲ πότνια “Ηρη.5
ιν. 316—7, ν. 63;
ει Ζ. 86, ΤΟΊ ἀλλι ὅτε δὴ τάχ᾽ ἔμελλε Μαλειάων!: ὄρος αἰπὺ
κ é. a ἴξεσϑαι, τότε On μιν ἀναρπάξασα ϑύελλα!
mt, 78, $30) σ΄ πόντον ἐπ᾽ ἰχϑυόεντα φέρεν μεγάλα στενάχοντα,
Met ἀγροῦ! ἐπ᾽ ἐσχατιὴν." ὅϑι δώματα ναῖε Θυέστης"
o App. E. 5 πιαγ. τὸ πρὶν, ἀτὰρ τότ᾽ ἔναιε Θυεστιάδης AlyroPos. °
— EL SE ge en A ς --.....
507. ἤλασσεν Γυρέην Bek. annot.
508. pro μεῖνε Schol. H. μέμνε. ει []
Bek. Dind. Liéw.; nulla ἐκδόσει contineri non tamen ab Arist. damnatum Scholl.
H. 1. testantur. 516. μεγάλα fere omnes βαρέα E., cf. ε. 420. 5§17—20. Bek.
horum. vv. ordinem mutavit, ut qui 319 et 320 in nostro textu sunt, sint 317
--- - ee ee ee
γαῖαν ἀπειρεσίην ὀρέων τ᾽ αἰπεινὰ
καρηνα.
507. ἤλασε a. t. 4. “‘drove at the
rock” i. 6. atruck it; so in g. 219
οὐλὴν τήν .. we σῦς ἤλασε, “wound
which the boar inflicted on me’’, where
τὴν is the accas. of the equivalent ob-
ject. In. 219 ἐλόωσι γαλήνην, “drive
along the calm”’ the neut. verb of mo-
tion becomes by usage transitive; cf.
to “run the blockade’’.
$09: τὸ πρῶτ. seems merely to
heighten the contrast between his mo-
mentary security and his subsequent
fall.
gio, xata, ‘down into”; but &. 377
“along”’. ἀπείρ. xvualy., these
epithets are not elsewhere found con-
joined. Their union is most expressive
of the momontary aspect of the sea —
‘‘boundless, surging’? — to one fall-
ing suddenly into it, Out of several
othor classes of epith. including 7ego-
ειἰδέα, ἰοειδέα, οἴνοπα, ἀτρύγετον,
ἰχϑυόεντα, μεγακήτεα, (see App. Β
(4)) none, nor any two combined would
have been so forcible here.
11. This v, was current in none of
the oditions (ἐκδόσεις), says Eustath.,
as being very poor (εὐτελές) This rea-
son being assigned seems to imply that
et 318. κι. ἐσχατιῆς Harl. a τὴ. prim& et Schol.
IN
the external evidence in its favour was
adequate. As regards internal grounds
of rejection, the earlier clause is for-
mulaic (mar.), for the latter cf. δ. 321
— 3: it suits Proteus, as a grim irony
against him who defied the sca and its
powers: — ‘“‘So there was an end of
him (with all his boasting) after a
mouthful of salt water!’’
514. Μαλειάων, see on y. 287.
517. ὅϑι is said by Faesi to refer
not to ἐσχατ. but to ἀγροῦ; but cf. «.
238 νήσου ἐπ᾽ ἐσχατιῆς ὅϑι δένδρεα
μακρὰ πεφύκειν, δ. 563—4 πείρατα
γαίης .... ὅϑι ξάνϑος Ῥαδάμανθυς,
&. 489 aye. ἐπ᾽ ἐσχ. ᾧ μὴ πάρα γεί-
τονες ἄλλοι; from all of which it is
unlikely that the rel. clause following
the phrase relates to the position of
the ἀγρὸς generally rather than to that
of ἐσχ. Besides, to say that Agisthus
lived in the ἄγρος of Thyestes is poor;
for where else should he have lived
who had usurped the royalty wh. was
once Thyestes’? To say that he lived in
its ἐσχατ. has some descriptive force.
The extremity of. Agamemnon’s terri-
tory trenched on that of Pylus, and in
I. 150 Cardamylé, and other cities
perhaps on the W. side of Tsnarus,
are apparently claimed by him, but
DAY VI.|
ΟΔΥΣΣΕΊΙΑΣ A. 519—534.
ἀλλ᾽ ὅτε δὴ καὶ κεῖϑεν ἐφαίνετο" νόστος ἀπήμων,"
520 ἂψ δὲ ϑεοὶ οὖρον“ στρέψαν, καὶ οἴκαδ᾽ ἵκοντο,
ἡ τοι ὃ μὲν χαίρων ἐπεβήσετο πατρίδος αἴης:
καὶ κύνει ἁπτόμενος ἣν πατρίδα' πολλὰ δ᾽ ax’ αὐτοῦ) 4%, I. 3, P
δάκρυα" ϑερμὰ χέοντ᾽, ἐπεὶ ἀσπασίως ἴδε γαῖαν. 235
. 2% 9 9 ν ~ ᾿ δ“ fd. 450, ν. 33,
τὸν δ᾽ ἄρ᾽ ἀπὸ σκοπιῆςξ εἶδε σκοπὸς, ὃν ba καϑεῖσεν δλ3, ef. 4. 406,
525 ΔΑ ἴγισϑος" δολόμητις ἄγων, ὑπὸ δ᾽ ἔσχετο μισϑὸν ἡ Ap _E. δ. mar.
~ , . , “ \ i δ. 129, ¢.202, ὦ.
χρυσοῦ δοιὰ τάλαντα φύλασσε δ᾽ ὅ γ᾽ εἰς ἐνιαυτὸν, 214, 7. 27; οἵ.
μή ἑ λάϑοι παριὼν, μνήσαιτο δὲ ϑούριδος ἀλκῆς." ᾿ x. 20b. 9 Wt
By! δ᾽ ἵμεν ἀγγελέων πρὸς δώματα ποιμένι λαῶν. Ο. 481, I. 270,
3 4 ᾽ . 185.
αὐτέκα δ᾽ Αἴγισϑος dodAiny™ ἐφράσσατο τέχνην. 1 δ΄ 24, 679
530 "χρινάμενος" xara δῆμον ἐείκοσι φῶτας ἀρίστους n ἐς 217 — 8, Ζ
4 δ΄, »ν , - > Ch. τ.
εἷσε λόχον, ἑτέρωθι δ᾽ ἀνώγει δαῖτα πένεσϑαι. 195, 4. $01—6,
αὐτὰρν ὃ βῆ καλέων ᾿ἀγαμέμνονα: ποιμένα λαῶν 0 δ, 405. mar, I
ἵπποισιν καὶ ὄχεσφιν. ἀεικέα μερμηρίέξων. p ¥, 107.
τὸν δ᾽ οὐκ εἰδότ᾽ τ ὕλεϑρον ἀνήγαγε, καὶ κατέπεφνεν |e a. 31.
520. βοίκαδ᾽. 522. βῆν. 523. Fide. 524. Feide. 52]. Fe. 530. ἐξεί-
κοσι. 533. ἀεικέα. 534. ἐειδοτ᾽.
521. ἐπεβήσατο Harl.
all this 8146, including of course Malea
itself, is out of the apparent course
from Troy to Mycene.
519. κεῖϑεν, if the whole passage
be retained as it stands, this should
mean the last named locality, the ἀγροῦ
éoz.; but this does not suit the notion
of the οὖρος bringing them home 520,
which should mean from the πόντος
not from the ἄγρ. ἐσχ. Further their
being brought ἀγροῦ ὅς ἐσχ. serves no
poetic purpose whatever. Then, too,
ἐπὶ twice repeated with same case but
in different sense, ἐπὶ πόντον “‘over the
sea”’, ἐπ᾽ ἐσχατ. ‘‘to the extremity”’, is
harsh. Again πόντον ἐπ᾿ ly. is used
elsewhere (mar.) of a storm driving
voyagers out to the open sea away
from any shore, which makes it less
suitable to make ἀγροῦ ἐπ᾽ ἐσχ. a mere
extension of the same drift. There-
fore the lines 517 — 8 either are spurious
or have been displaced from their con-
text. They might, if retained, follow
428, or as Bek. sets them, 520; see
App. E. 5. ;
521. ἐπεβήσετο is used most com-
monly of mounting a chariot (mar.).
524. καϑῆκε Bek. annot.
527. παρεὼν Scholl. H. P.
522—3. πατρίδα depends on κύνει.
— χέοντ᾽, obs. plur. verb with neut.
plur. noun; see on ἔμελλον B. 156.
524—37- On the details of the story
here compared with other forms of the
tradition see App. E. 5.
527—8. Seber's Index gives Dovege-
ὅος ἀλκῆς about 20 times in II., in
which μνήσασθε Povo. ἀλκῆς is a for-
mula of warlike exhortation, in Ody.
only here. The accus. is ϑοῦριν,
O. 308, 2. 157. — ποιμένι λαῶν
i. ὁ. Agisthus.
531. ἑτέρωθι, the murder took
place, in Homer’s version of it, in the
μέγαρον or great hall of the palace,
used commonly for the banquet. éré-
eof: has, in respect of this, a peculiar
meaning, ‘at the further end or wall’;
ef. ἑτέρωϑεν App. Ε΄. 2 (26). Thus
the λόγος was secreted somewhere in
the péy.; but details are wanting.
534. εἰδότ᾽, see on a. 37. — ἀνή-
aye is perhaps part of the action
illustrated by the simile, as the animal
marked for slaughter was first fetched
142
aA. All.,
ly ZZ. 457.
ς cf. 4. 397.
ἃ τ᾿ 219, γ. 165.
A
k J. 426 mar.
1 J. 833, &. 44, v.
201, ἊΝ Ω.
558.
πὶ cf. 3.23—7, 42.
165.
n ef. δ. 103, 2. 212,
82. 227.
: κλαϊονὶ δ᾽ ἐνκ
ΟΔΥΣΣΕΙΑΣ I. 535—s50. [Day σι.
δειπνίσσας," ὥς τίς τε κατέκτανεν βοῦν ἐπὶ φάτνῃ. 53
οὐδές τις ᾿“τρείδεω ἑτάρων λίπεϑ᾽ οἵα of ἔποντο,
οὐδέ τις Αἰγέσϑου, ἀλλ᾽ ἔκταϑεν" ἐν μεγάροισιν.
ὥς" ἔφατ᾽, αὐτὰρ ἐμοί γε κατεκλάσθη" φίλον ἦτορ,
ψαμάϑοισι καϑήμενος, οὐδέ νύ μοι κῆρ
ἤϑελ᾽ ἔτι ξώειν καὶ ὁρᾶν φάος ἠελίοιο." 54
αὐτὰρ" ἐπεὶ κλαίων τε κυλινδόμενός τ᾽ ἐκορέσθην 5"
δὴ τότε μὲ προςέειπε γέρων" ἅλιος νημερτής
22 “μηκέτι. ᾿4τρέος vit, πολὺν γρόνον ἀσκελὲς» οὕτως
ο ὦ Se κλαῖ᾽, ἐπεὶ οὐκ ἄνυσίνι τινα δήομεν"" ἀλλὰ τάχιστα
4B SAT, ef 4. πείρα ὕπως κεν δὴ σὴν πατρίδα γαῖαν ἵκηαι. 54
rm. ai ἢ γάρ μιν ξωόν" ye κιχήσεαι, ἤ κεν Ὀρέστης
ι οἵ, H. 144. κτεῖνεν ὑποφϑάμενος,' σὺ δέ κεν τάφου ἀντιβολήσαις.""
ur Ὧν oat. ὡς ἔφατ᾽, αὐτὰρ ἐμοὶ κραδίη" καὶ ϑυμὸς ἀγήνωρ
wd. 840, ο. 105, αὕτις ἐνὶ στήϑεσσι. καὶ ἀχνυμένῳ περ. ἰάνθη,"
aot 658, OM 2.) καί uty φωνήσας ἔπεα πτερόεντα προφηύδων᾽" 5.
536. For. 542. προσέξειπε. 550. ξέπεα.
535. δειπνήσας Harl. text. et marg. 539. οὐδὲ vv μοι κήρ Schol. H.,
οὐδέ μοι ἦτορ sed supra scripta vv μοι, κῆρ Harl.
546. καὶ Ὀρέστης Bek.
bros. hujus Schol. οὕτω.
543. ἀσκελὲς αἰεὶ E. Am-
850. προσηύδα Harl.
(cum emend. —dwyv) Cl. ed. Ox., προσηύδων fere ceteri.
from the pasture; see y. 421, also τρεῖς
σιάλους κατάγων, v v. 163.
535-6. The sense of the var. lect.
δειπνήσας, as measured by the simile,
is weaker than that of δειπνέσσας,
wh. indicates the image of the beast
fattened for the knife, and knocked
on the head while at his manger. The
same idea prevails in 4. 412—5 where
the comrades of Agam. κτείνοντο, σύες
ὡς ἀργιόδοντες, οἵ ῥά τ᾽ ἐν ἀφνειοῦ
ἀνδρὸς μέγα δυναμένοιο x. τ. λ. --
κατέκτ., aor. of simile, see on 338 sup.
βοῦν ἐπὶ g., this simile, designating
the helplessness of superior strength
(cf. y. 250) through supine security,
seems, as it were, a melancholy reflex
of that found B. 480—1, where Agam.
armed and leading his host to war is
compared to ‘‘the bull mightiest of the
herd’’.
§39—41. The violence of the emo-
tion of sorrow is even more intensely
manifested by Achilles for Patroclus,
and by Priam for Hector; but neither
does self-reproach or the sense of total
ruin and loss to self and people em-
bitter Menelaus’ loss here, nor is his
loss enacted before his eyes, but only
narrated by Proteus.
544. ἄνυσιν » with the sentiment
ef. (mar.) ov γάρ τις πρῆξις πέ-
λεται κρυεροῖο γόοιο. — ὅδήομεν,
Buttm. Jrr. Verbs 8. υ. 44-, (4) gives
this as an epic fut. from that stem
formed from fut. δαέω by contraction,
δαέ-ομεν dn-owev. So the fut. κεέτ ὦ
becomes κεέω by contraction, and this is
shortened to xé@, and of these forms
we have infin. κειέμεν τ and participles
κείων κέων, &. 315, (4. 340, ἡ. 342.
The use of the 1°. pers. plur. seems
a touch of sympathy between the sea-
god and the hero whom his news has
so afflicted—shown further (as Eustath.
remarks) by his waiting to be further
questioned when the fit of grief was over.
546—7. For the moods of verbs here,
see App. A. 9 (1). With indic., as
κτεῖνέν, κεν is rare, the optat. avtt-
βολήσαις expresses the uncertainty of
a further consequence depending on
the first uncertainty expressed by 7
γὰρ ...... ἢ κεν.
DAY vI.] OATZZEIAZ A. 55 I— 563.
143
ἐτούτους μὲν δὴ oida’ σὺ δὲ τρίτον ἄνδρ᾽ dvouage, | * ἃ ἜΣ: 373, 377, 466.
ὅς" τις ἔτι ξωὸς κατερύκεται" εὐρέϊ πόντῳ
[ἠὲ ϑανών᾽ ἐθέλω δὲ, καὶ ἀχνύμενός περ, ἀκοῦσαι. |
aco ἐφάμην. ὃ δέ μ᾽ αὐτίκ᾽ ἀμειβόμενος προςέειπεν
555 “υἱὸς ἃ Μαέρτεω Ἰθάκῃ ἔνι οἰκία " ναίων"
tov! δ᾽ ἴδον év& νήσῳ ϑαλερὸν" κατὰ δάκρυ χέοντα,
νύμφης ἐν μεγάροισι Καλυψοῦς, ἥ μιν ἀνάγκῃ
ἴσχει" ὃ δ᾽ οὐ δύναται ἣν πατρίδα γαῖαν [κέσϑαι᾽"
οὐκ γάρ of πάρα νῆες! ἐπήρετμοι" καὶ ἑταῖροι.
560 οἵ κέν μιν πέμποιεν Ex’ εὐρέα νῶτα ϑαλάσσης.
σοὶ δ᾽ οὐ ϑέσφατόνο ἐστι, διοτρεφὲς» ὦ Μενέλαε,
“Aoyet ἐν ἱπποβότῳ ϑανέειντ καὶ πότμον ἐπισπεῖν,
ἀλλά σ᾽ ἐς ᾿Ηλύσιον πεδίον καὶ πείρατα" γαίης
¢
de. WS, 581, a.
104.
e δ. 798, H. 221.
f ε. 13 —17, 0.
142—6.
B. 121.
. 201, 409, 570,
λ 5, 466, Z. 496.
1 &. 224, ef. 8.212,
3913, ὃ. Boo”
gst. foida. 554. προσέξειπεν. 555. Forxta. 556. τὸν Εἶδον. 558. Fry.
559. foe
551. ὀνόμασσον Bek. annot. 552. εὐρέϊ κόσμῳ Tzetzes (Barnes.). 553 t
Scholl. H. P. Q., [] Bek. Dind, Fa. Léw. 554. avttg τη. Cl. ed. Ox.
αὐτίκ᾽ Wolf.
553 is said by the Scholl. to be That Menel. on Telemachus’ visit, see-
rejected by all the ancient copies as
being opposed to the previous state-
ment of the speaker in 496—7 sup.
Ni, urges against this that phrases
like ξωὸς ἠὲ ϑανών had lost their
distinctive meaning by usage, and
become mere formula meaning vaguely
‘“‘under any circumstances’’, and cites
Lobeck Phryn. p. 764, who is of the
same opinion, and who has adduced
Soph. Antig. 108—9, it’ ἵτ᾽ ὀπάονες, of
τ᾽ ὄντες of τ᾿ ἀπόντες, adding ‘quis
non videt, hoe tantum dici guotquot
sunt”. But the question whether Odys.
be alive or dead, is that on which
this whole portion of the poem turns.
Hence we cannot suppose that words
which state that question could here
be used without their full significance.
It is true that Menel. has a natural
tendency to despondency, and of this
he has already given a token in 110
foll., 181—2, passages, which, as Liwe
thinks, may bave given a hint to the
copyist who 'probably inserted this v.,
wh. is not, perhaps, unsuited to the
character of Menel. [see App. E, 8 (2)
(s) (16)]; still it seems too strong a
contradiction of Proteus’ words ub. sup.
to occur in the same conversation.
ing that Odys. was still missing, should
indulge in gloomy forebodings, is not
similarly inconsistent.
859. ἐπήρετμοι, see on β. 403.
Crusius s. v. refers this to ἑταῖροι, but
see ξ. 224 where it qualifies νῆες; and
so presumably here. Cf. δολιχηρέ-
τμοισι 499 sup. and note.
563—9. Hes. Opp. 17o—3 makes
those heroes who escaped death dwell
ἀκηδέα ϑυμὸν ἔχοντες
ἐν μακάρων νήσοισι παρ᾽ Ὡκεανόν
βαϑυδίνην,
adding paul. sup. that it was ἐς πεί-
eata γαίης apart from men and far
from immortals, and that Cronusreigned
among them; who, however, (Theog.
851) is placed “ander Tartarus”’ with
the Titans; cf. ἐξ. 274—9, O. 225 and
©. 478—81, where the πεέρατα yatng
(mar.) are distinguished in their penal
aspect by the epithet vefara, and καὶ
πόντοιο is added; ‘‘there sit Japetus
and Cronus, solaced by neither sun-
beam (cf. 4. 1s—r1g) nor breeze (con-
trasted with 567 here), but with deep
Tartarus around’’. H. only knows
Cronus as in a state of punishment
and exclusion, but the ‘‘ends of earth’’,
from their remoteness, are the seat of
[44
— . -...
a 0. 556
δ γ.325,.Ξ.321--.2. ἀϑάνατοι" πέμψουσιν, ὅϑι ξανϑὸς ᾿Ραδάμανϑυς."
ζ. 43—5, η.
17—8.
d K.7; εἴ. O
M. 273—sv
e §. 522.
Γ cf. ΠῚ 150-1.
ς cf.
1
ΟΔΥΣΣΕΙΑΣ A. 564—569.
[pay vi.
τὸ τῇ πὲρ ῥηϊστη βιοτὴ πέλει ἀνθρώποισιν"
εατο, |
|ov* νιφετὸς. οὔτ᾽ ἂρ χειμὼν" πολὺς οὔτε ποτ᾽ ὄμβρος,
2 ’ Q o o
δ μον Ph ἀλλ᾽ αἰεὶ Ζεφύροιοϊ λιγὺ πνείοντας ἀήτας"
h ε. 139, O. 626.
i 5.
|
le. ¥
70, δ
567. πνείοντος Harl. marg. Scholl. H. P. πνείοντὰς Harl. text.
ψυχὴν ἀνθρώποις Pindar. Schol. (Barnes.) δ
in nonnullis legi φίλος ἐσσὶ monent Scholl. H. P. 9.
these sequestered heroes, as the ‘‘ends
of Ocean”’ (Δ. 13) are of the dead,
the former glad and ever-fresh, the
latter gloomy and cheerless. H. says
nothing of islands, but the Ocean send-
ing Ze. antag favours the notion of
the Ἠλύσιον πεδ. being in the far west.
On the passage see App. E. 8 (2) and
g (8) note.
564. ‘Padadmuay., son of Zeus and
a daughter of Phenix, and brother of
Minos; he is not here introduced as
judge, which office has regard to the
penal view of the departed (Virg. En.
VI. 566 foll.), but as sharing the abode
of the heroes by privilege of birth, as
Menel. (569) by marriage. Yet a
glimpse of some such office appears
in his being brought to Eubea ‘to
visit Tityus’’ by the Phsacians; Ti-
tyus being among the doomed (4. 576—9),
and his offence having been committed
at Pytho not far from Euboea (mar.),
Yet Pind., Ol. H. 129g—40, who also ma-
kes the retreat of the blessed an isle of
ocean (ἔνϑα μακάρων νᾶσος ὠκεάνι-
δὲς αὐὔραι περιπνέοισιν), introduces the
ἡ) δι decrees of Rhad.”’ into the pic-
ture, and, more notably, makes Cronus
and Rhea — so far from penal humilia-
tion — the centre of the beatified
scene.
565. ῥηΐστη, the notion is the
same as in θεοὶ ῥεῖα ξώοντες (mar.)
‘living at ease”. Broty, only here
in If., elsewhere Béotog; in Hy. VIII.
10 wo find βιότητα from nom. βιότης.
566. οὐ νιφετὸς x. τ. 1., the de-
scription, chietly negative, and which
may be compared with that of the
abode of the gods (mar.), suits the
ate of Madeira and the Canaries
111 ,,388, 48, οὔνεκ᾽ ἔχεις ᾿Ελένην καί σφινὶ γαμβρὸς Atog ἐσσι.’
, δ. ΤΊ. Ι
᾿Ωκεανὸς ἀνίησιν: ἀναψύχειν! ἀνθρώπους"
568. παρα-
. abesse a quibusdam exx.,
es —_—,
with their equable temperature; the
prevalent wind over the western ocean
may be a reflex of the trade-wind.
These mere general facts were known
to H.; a little later, as the peak of
Teneriffe is visible at 100 miles, some
of that group may have given He-
siod the outline of his paxagay Ψψῆσοι
(above). The Zephyr. ‘‘ever’’ blows,
as an element of the delightful tem-
perature, and the negatives of 566
imply uninterrupted sunshine. Comp.
the absence of the sunbeam and the
breeze in the abode of the Titans,
©. 480—1. Hence Milton has perhaps
derived some images in his epilogue
to ‘“Comus’’, although blending others
with them.
Spirit. To the ocean now I fly,
And those happy climes that
lie
Where day never shuts his eye,
4 * ἜΝ
There eternal summer dwells,
And west- winds etc.
Wolf (Prolegg. XLIX, 253, note 39)
mentions (teste Sallust.) another pas-
sage descriptive of Elysium once found
in H., but wh. has disappeared from
our texts, ρεφετὸς, snow-storm or
drift; cf. ὑετὸς of rain. sag is a
flake; cf. M. 278 νιφάδες χιόνος : νίφω
is found ib. 280.
569 is rejected in some edd. (Scholl.).
σφὶν, dat. of special reference, as it
were ‘‘precious in their sight’’ (mar.).
Was Menel. not to die? The text only
says he was not “to die in Argos’’, re-
ferring to the death of his brother there,
but to be sent by the gods to the Elys.
plain. Yet on the whole this implies
not only an extension of life and a
ΟΔΥΣΣΕΙΑΣ A. s70—s8s.
DAY VI.]|
145
« Ὁ. 425-3! mar.
70 ὧς" εἰπὼν ὑπο πόντον ἐδύσετο κυμαίνοντα.
> 4 , - ow 9 9 ’ , bd. 34, 4. 2, x.
αὐτὰρ ἐγὼν ἐπὶ νῆας dw’ ἀντιϑέοις ἑτάροισιν 403, 423, 4. (41,
nia, πολλὰ δέ μοι κραδίη πόρφυρε κιόντι. =. 16, π. 848,
αὐτὰρ ἐπεί 6 ἐπὶ νῆα κατήλθομεν ἠδὲ ϑάλασσαν, ἣν Ων A. 424
δόρπον & ὁπλισάμεσϑ᾽, ἐπί τ᾽ ἤλυϑεν ἀμβροσίη vvk-| —6; cf. o. 496.
75 δὴ τότε κοιμήϑημεν ἐπὶ ῥηγμῖνι ϑαλάσσης.
ἦμος δ᾽ ἠριγένεια φάνη ῥοδοδάκτυλος ‘Hos,
νῆας" μὲν πάμπρωτον ἐρύυσδαμεν" εἰς ada δῖαν.
e App. F. 1 (13)
mar.
f ὅδ. 473 mar.
g μ. 180.
ἐνὰ δ᾽ ἱστοὺς tOeusota καὶ ἱστία νηυσὶν ἐΐσης, h Ἢ i mo tt
ave δὲ καὶ αὐτοὶ βάντες ἐπὶ κληῖσι κάϑιξον, A. 485.
80 ἑξῆς δ᾽ ἑξόμενοι πολιὴν ἅλα τύπτον ἐρετμοῖς." ere 20.
ἂψ δ᾽ εἰς Αἰγύπτοιο διιπετέος ποταμοῖο! ι γ. 1.
στῆσα νέας, καὶ ἔρεξα" τεληέσσας ἑκατόμβας. mn ἢ ae
αὐτὰρ ἐπεὶ κατέπαυσα ϑεῶν χόλον ality! ἐόντων,
χεῦ᾽ ™ ᾿ἀγαμέμνονι τύμβον, tv’ ἄσβεστον" κλέος εἴη.
85 ταῦτα" τελευτήσας veduny, δίδοσαὐ δέ μοι οὖρον»
εἴ. α. 291 mar.
n ἢ. 338; ef. 1. 413.
ο 0. 148—9.
p ὅ. 520 mar.
i a sr SS SS wa
570. Fermoy. £77. πάμπρωτα Fsegvocaper. 578. ἐξξίσης.
570. ἐδύσσέξο Harl. 573. κατήλυθον Bek. annot. 578. ἰστούς τ᾿ ἐϑέμεσϑα
Harl. mox νηυσὶ ἐῆσιν Scholl. H. P., νηὶ μελαίνῃ Heidelb., νηὸς ἐΐσης Schol. P.
579. ἐν Ern, Cl. ed. Ox. av Wolf., cf. 785.
58s. ἔδοσαν Ern. Cl. ed. Ox.
δέδοσαν Harl. Wolf.
solace after its woes, but an ultimate
exemption from death: although, as the
Tyndaridse were only allowed by Zeus
an alternate life between them, and that
νέρϑεν γῆς, after submitting to death
(4. 300—4, Γ. 243-4), it is not consi-
stent that Menelaus should attain im-
mortality by marrying their sister. The
Tyndarids probably embody in myth
the natural alternation of seasons, and
so far support the view that the tale of
Troy is developed from nature-myth
also. Eurip. Androm. 1253 foll. ha
adopted from this passage the immor-
tality of Peleus for Thetis’ sake, see
Thetis’ words, σὲ δ᾽, ὡς ἂν sling τῆς.
ἐμῆς εὐνῆς χάριν, x. τ. λ.
The tale of Proteus being told, Menel.
narrates his return from Pharos (sup.
355) to the Nile, how he performed
all dues to the deities and to his bro-
ther’s memory, and sailed home. He
then invites Telem. to stay, and offers
him an unsuitable present.
570. Cf. Virg. Georg. IV. 528, Hac
Proteus: et se jactu dedit wquor in al-
HOM. OD. I.
tum, and Ov. Met. XI. 250, Dixerat
hac Proteus et condidit equore vultum.
571—6. See notes on δ. 425—31, and
for ἀντιϑέοις on a. 21. On 573 νῆα x.
t.4., see App. F.1 (21). ἄμιβ. νὺξ is
here a faint personification, brought
fully out in Hes. Theog. — 756 foll., where
Νὺξ goes forth having Txvog in her
arms. On δηγμῖνε, as being of the
water rather than of the land, see Lid-
dell and 8. s. νυ. On 576 see notes on β. 1.
577—80. See App. F. 1 (6) (7) (10) (14).
- 581. See on δ. 351, 355, 477.
583—4-. Menelaus’ piety and bro-
therly affection are alike marked here;
see App. E. 8 (3) (8). He might sup-
pose that Agisthus’ ascendancy would
prevent any such tribute from being
paid in Argos. See also note on y.
109. The Scholl. will have it, the
monument was inscribed; but some
symbol only like the oar of Elpenor
(1. 77, 15, cf. Virg, in. VI. 233),
would probably be erected. Of course
there would be a στήλη (μ. 14).
58s—6. Menel, evidently rcognizes
10
1 46 OATZXZEIAE Δ. 586—s596. [pay VI.
a δ. 504. ἀϑάνατοι." τοί μ᾽ ὦκα φίλην ἐς πατρίδ᾽ ἔπεμψαν.
ha. 809 mar. ἀλλ᾽ ἄγε νῦν ἐπίμεινον" ἐνὶ μεγάροισιν ἐμοῖσιν,
“ 2. i>, 2 Spoa κεν ἔνδεκάτη“" te δυωδεκάτη τε γένηται"
‘ in ct sepius.| καὶ τότε σ᾽ εὖ πέμψω, δώσω δέ τοι ἀγλαὰ δῶρα
e cf, Hy 156. τρεῖς ἵππους" καὶ δίφρον! ἐΐξοον" αὐτὰρ ἔπειτα
Γ φ; G02, «. 10],
1. 402.
ψ App.
mar.
h ὅδ. 543.
i α. 315, δ, 599.
k y. 500, 2’. 446,
ALS, &. 32.
1s. 144, P. 489;
ef. 9. 411.
—.
δώσω xalovs ἄλεισον, ἵνα σπένδῃσθα ϑεοῖσιν
A- 5 Ὁ) ἀϑανάτοις, ἐμέϑεν μεμνημένος ἤματα πάντα."
τὸν δ᾽ αὖ Τηλέμαχος πεπνυμένος ἀντίον ηὔδα
«(᾿Ξ 4τρείδη, μὴ δή μὲ πολὺν" χρόνον ἐνθάδ᾽ ἔρυκε.
καὶ γάρ x εἰς ἐνιαυτὸν ἐγὼ παρὰ σοί γ᾽ ἀνεχοέμην 59
| Huevos, οὐδέ κέ μ᾽ οἴκου ἕλοι" πόϑος.,1 οὐδὲ τοκήων"
396. οὐδέ pe Focxov.
389. πέμπω Ernest.
----.-:. ees
the fair breeze as a direct answer to
his adoration of 582, and the pious
phrase with him is no mere form; see
App. E. 8 (3).
588. The term of invitation is beyond
the usual length in H.; see on &.
373—4- oe
590. τρεῖς ἐππους, the Scholl. say
ἐᾷ pair with a rein-horse (xagnogog)”’:
the latter ran outside the flank; at-
tached only by reins (παρηορέαι), and
completed the ‘‘turn-out’’ for war. It
was a resource in case of either yoke- |
horse failing. Thus the gods drive no
παρήορος (O. 119). Achilles drives
one, 8 mortal steed, rather it seems
as a trophy, beside his immortal pair
(II. 148 foll., cf. 467 foll.). Also. in
the race no παρήορος, as being there
a mere incumbrance, is used (¥%, 293).
In Θ. 184—5 Hector drives a team of
four, perhaps two zag., to battle — a
trace perhaps of the boastfulness which
marks him, In v. 81 a simile of a term
of four running ἐν πεδίῳ occurs. The
offer of the chariot etc. is a sample
of the sanguine and unpractical side
of Menclaus’ character; sce App. E.
8 (19) end.
594. μὴ On x. τ. Δ. Telem. hero
begs not to be detained and (598 inf.)
urges a reason for declining the leng-
thened stay proposed by Menel., and
the next time that the story reverts
to him (0. 7, 8) he is still with Me-
nel. at Lacedswmon. Yet in this in-
terval occurs the departure of Odys.
. tells Telem. his tale.
from Ogygié, his eighteen days’ run,
shipwreck, concealment, discovery by
Nausicaa, entertainment by Alcinous,
escort to Ithaca by the Phseacians,
and colloquy with Pallas there, who
says that Telem. is then ‘‘leisurely
staying’ at Sparta (vy. 423—4), and
his reception by and stay with Eu-
meus (&..... €.). To give space for
all this Telem. must have staid nearer
a month than 11 days with Menel.
(Ni. ad loc.). In order to evade this in-
consistency Jo. Car. Schmitt, de 71.649
tn Odyss. Deor. concil., would make the
mission of Hermes to Calypsé in εξ.
synchronize with that of Pallas to
Ithaca in α., so that Odys. would
quit her isle on the same day (6° of
the poem’s action), on which Menel.
Such parallel
continuations of distinct branches of
the plot are not, however, in Homer's
manner, His groups succeed each other
in their share in the action, and the
same law applies even to individual
persons in the same group. AS a
single marked instance may be taken
the attendance of Iris and Apollo, sum-
moned by Heré to Zeus, in O. 143 foll.
Zeus gives Iris her errand first, and
the poet follows out to the end this
branch of the action by narrating that
whole errand and its issue. This done,
he reverts to Mount Ida with the words
καὶ tor ᾿ἡπόλλωνα προσέφη .... Ζεύς
(220): which, if pressed, imply that
Apollo is kept waiting for his errand
DAY VI.]
αἰνῶς γὰρ uvtoroww® ἔπεσσί τὲ σοῖσιν ἀκούων"
τέρπομαι. ἀλλ᾽ ἤδη μοι ἀνιάξουσιν " ἑταῖροι
ἐν Πύλῳ. ἠγαϑέῃ: σὺ δέ μὲ χρόνον ἐνθάδ᾽ ἐρύκεις."
00 δῶρον δ᾽ ὅττι κέ μοι δοίης, κειμήλιον' ἔστω"
ἵππους δ᾽ εἰς ᾿Ιθάκην οὐκ ἄξομαι.5 ἀλλά σοι αὐτῷ
ἐνθάδε λείψω ἄγαλμα" σὺ γὰρ πεδίοιο ἀνάσσεις
εὐρέος, @ ἔνι μὲν λωτὸς; πολὺς, ἐν δὲ κύπειρον
πυροί τε ξειαί τ᾿ ἠδ᾽ εὐρυφυὲς κρῖ! λευκόν.
05 ἐν δ᾽ Ἰθάκῃ οὔτ᾽ ἂρ δρόμοιπ' εὐρέες οὔτε τι λειμών"
alyiBotog," καὶ μᾶλλον ἐπήρατος" ἱπποβότοιο.
οὐ γάρ τις νήσων ἱππήλατος» οὐδ᾽ εὐλείμων,
ai ϑ᾽ ἀλὶ κεκλίαται" « Ἰ᾿Ιθάκη δέ τε καὶ περὶ πασέων."
597. «ἔπεσσι.
599. Arist. xe pro we, Harl. marg., mox ἐρύκοις text.
λον ἐπήρατον Arist., Scholl. H. P.
ΟΔΥΣΣΕΙΑΣ A. 597— 608.
147
a δ. 239 mar.
b 9. 368, 429.
ς ὅδ. 460 mar.; cf.
α. .
d A. 252.
e a. 315, ὃ. 594.
{ @. 312 mar.
gy. 214.
ἢ τ. 257, y. 438
mar.
i «ῷ.3931]: εἴ. ε. 93,
94,97, B.776, &.
348.
k ὅδ. 41 mar.
td. 41 mar.
m 9. 121.
πε. 124, ν. 242-3,
246
12;
ΡΨ. 242.
ζ. 307, ν. 235
97, 77.135. 4
71, Ο. 740.
602. Favaccscs. -.
606. αἰγέβοτον καὶ pa
607. pro ov γάρ Schol. X. 45. ἀλλ᾽ ov.
608. δ᾽ ἔτι Harl.
all the while Iris is performing hers.
But the poet has no sustained con-
sciousness of personages off the scene.
597—9- μύϑοισιν EX., see On 484.
— ἀνιάζουσιν, sce on 460. — Πύλῳ,
sce App. D. 4.
601—8. Lowe cites Hor. £pist. I.
vir. 40 foll., Haud male Telemachus ...
Non est aptus equis Ithaca locus etc.
On this speech and the reply of Menel.
see App. Εἰ. 3, p. Lxxz, and 8 (11) (16).
602—4. πεδίοιο, see App. D. 3. —
λωτὸς, not the plant of e. 93 foll.,
where men eat what is probably a
fruit, but the well known ‘‘clover”’,
still common in moist grounds in
Greece, and now called there τρι-
φύλλι, Kruse’s Hellas I. 346. Virg.
Georg. 111. 394 recommends a lotus for
cattle as augmenting their milk. —
κύπειρον, the cyperus rotundus Linn.,
very common in the Greek islands still:
cf. Theocr. Idyll. I. 106. In Hy. Merc.
107 we have xumeigos, ὁ. — Setalé...
δρῖ, see on 41 sup.
606. ἐπήρατος. Ni. explains this
‘‘exposed, lofty, jutting’’, but assigns
no etymol. grounds, nor includes the
kindred πολυήρατος, used (mar.) of
εὐνὴ, γάμος, ἤβη, etc. and which
can only be from ἐράω. In Hy. Apol.
Py. 351 (529) which he quotes, the
line seems corrupt, and ἐπήροτος
(gow) or εὐήροτος should perhaps be
read; cf. ἀνήροτος τι. 109, 123. In Hes.
Theog. 67, Opp. 63, fraym., XCIII. 4,
ἐπήρατος occurs, always in sense as
if from ἑράω; and so in Pind, Pyth.
V. 69 ἐπήρατον κλέος, Isthm. V. 12
δόξαν ἐπήρατον. Line 606 should
probably follow 608, and may have
been transposed by some carly critic
offended by the homoioteleuton of λει-
pov and εὐλείμων clesing consecutive
lines. Lowe would give καὶ here the
force of quamvis, better perhaps with
tive Scholl. that of καέτοι, ‘“‘and yet’’,
the lines standing as they are; but if
transposed as suggested, the καὶ μᾶλ-
λον ἐπήρ. will correspond to καὶ (bdth)
περὶ πασέων αἰγίβοτος.
607. τις νήσων ἱππ., a8 ἃ cor-
roboration of this, Odys. and Ajax
Telamon. are the only chiefs .of fore-
most note who never in the Il. appear
in chariots. They are both islanders.
Diom. and Odys. capture together the
equipage of Rhesus; but Diom., not
Odys., drives it into the camp, and
stalls the horses with his own (KX.
529—30, 566—9). Idomeneus of Crete
is in a chariot in P. 6o9 foll., and
Meriones his comrade engages in the
chariot race in WB. 351; but Crete is
εὐρεῖα (ν. 256 εἰ al. cf. ν. 243) and éxa-
τόμπολις (B. 649), and, although a γαξα
ἐνόν ον περίρρυτος (τ. 172 --- 3), is no-
where. called a νῆσος, a term limited
by H. to islands of small compass.
608—10. The notion of xexdiarat
10*
148 OATZZEIAZ Δ. 609—6232. [pay τ
a “Δ, 555. ὡς gato, μείδησεν" δὲ Bony ἀγαϑὸς Μενέλαος
be. 151, 4. 361, PATO, βέισὴ mY αΥ ?
Ἐ 312, Ζ. 455) | χειρί" τέ μιν κατέρεξεν ἔπος τ᾽ ἔφατ᾽ ἔκ τ᾽ ὀνόμαξεν.
42.127 61. 8. 302: χειρ μ Q φ μ
i 95. | 7 * “oiuards εἰς ἀγαϑοῖο, φίλον τέκος, οἷ᾽ « ἀγορεύει:
( .« O24, & 9; ci.
; 9s. $ ’ 4 4 ‘4 ~ , . [4 ὰ [4
1 5 0, τοιγὰρ ἐγώ tor ταῦτα μεταστήσω" δύναμαιὰ γάρ.
f &. 326, ο. 101, τι δῶ > ὅσσ᾽ μῷ ‘Ava!
305, ὦ, 132.’ δώρων" δ᾽, ὅσσ᾽ ἐν ἐμῷ οἴκῳ κειμήλιαϊ κεῖται.
App.A. 8(1 .]ς ἡ \ , ,
F hobs 210.052, δώσω ὃ κάλλιστον καὶ τιμηέστατόν ἐστιν.
υ. 366, χ. 335; cf. , . h 2 , ;
. 234, δωσω tor κρητῆραβ τετυγμένον" ἀργύρεος δὲ
ἔστιν ἅπας, χρυσῷ" δ᾽ ἐπὶ χείλεα κεκράανται"
1.
k . 75; cf. Β 92, y ᾽) e ᾽
@. 1%, Σ. 1ι- ἔργον" δ᾽ ᾿“Ηφαίστοιο- πόρεν! δέ E Φαίδιμος ἥρως,
1d. 120 mar. - | Sidovioy™ βασιλεὺς, 08" ἑὸς δόμος ἀμφεκάλυψεν
Ν ὦ ἀ05, δ ύῦ ἐκεῖσέ μὲ νοστήσαντα" τεῖν δ᾽ ἐθέλω τόδ᾽ ὀπάσσαι."»
o hie v. »δδῃϊθϑὶ πη 4, 4 ~ ἢ 9 ’ 9 ᾿
p “7, 9.102, 0.467.| @G° οὗ μὲν τοιαῦτα πρὸς ἀλλήλους ἀγόρευον.
«, oho, cf. 299 “
400.
ref. @. 170—1, νυ.
163, 174.
ὅν. 19.
[δαιτυμόνεςν» δ᾽ &° δωματ᾽ ἴσαν ϑείου βασιλῆος.
of δ᾽ ἤγον" μὲν μῆλα, φέρον δ᾽ εὐήνορα" οἷνον"
Gio. ἐέπος. 613. υοἔκῳ. 617. έργον Fe. 618. ὅτ᾽ ἐξβός. 622. οῖνοι
609. μείδησεν Schol. Η. γήϑησεν. 611. pro ἀγαϑοῖο Crates ὀλοοῖο Schol. H
613. dwgov Bek. 617. dubium an proprium nomen Φαέδιμος, Scholl. P. q
621—4. [] Bek. Dind. 621. pro ἐς Schol. H. ava.
seems to be that of “leaning on” or, simi, nihilque Homerici coloris haben
as here, ‘‘sloping towards’’ (mar.). On tes’’. The ‘‘obscuritas”’ he illustrate
ἔπος τ᾽ ἔφατ᾽ κι τ. λ. see on y. 374. by saying that Eustath. thought the
* ats ferred to the suitors at Ithaca, not
ότι. Menelaus’ enthusiastic sympa- ‘© ; ’
thy with his juniors, and his delight Od plainly shown by, Spohn (de extr
at recognizing their father’s traits in οτν i ES he tos ᾿ς k δὲ ace ἃ
them are part of the generous eleva- parta, “sia ἢ aon ks’? t eee
tion of his character; cf. his words he fi ne fo or dec 1 7 Cl. 0. 4 i
206—7 sup. to the young Pisistratus: b τὰ ines form h, ee aa as wea
contrast with this the barely passing tra ae over a rat er b: bly c die
touch which Nestor gives to the same ‘T&usiion and are probably some dia
thought in y. 124—5. Nor in o. 126 sceuast’s work: remove them and w
does Odys., although noticing a similar have the Pech oe 0. 126 foll. Krom th:
fact, so expatiate upon it. way in Gr ich we net end Θὲ των
615—7. τετυγμένον does not ne Pruptnese of tranvitjon need startle ue
-- ne- 3
cessarily imply a high degree of finish, and, when reduced to a whole, suc!
being used at 9. οὗ Ρ oy Phemus’ milk points of articulation are dust where w:
“fashioned” On the κρηεὴρ here should (ook for Pome eo have had ΤΣ
: ose 1 - al
Vescribed sec APP. A. (8) a ιδο- ρανος in view; as the ordinary forn
PEW, BECO App’ Li. 11. τ PaletHos, of entertainment by a king, after thi
some who take this as an adj. say that extraordinary one of a γάμος had beer
Sobalos or Sethlos was his a despatched; gee a. 226 and note. Thi
621—4. Wolf. Prolegg. 78—80 (131 word ἔπεμπον implies that the ‘‘wives’
—3) rejects these lines as ‘‘ipsa ora- were according to custom not. presen
tionis insolentia et ambiguitate duris- at the banquet of the men. Ni., how
DAY VI.| ΟΔΥΣΣΕΙΊΙΑΣ A. 623—636. 149
σῖτον δέ σφ᾽ ἄλοχοι καλλικρήδεμνοι" ἔπεμπον. 7 iso
Ἢ , , .714. εἴ. α.107.
ὡς οἵ μὲν περὶ δεῖπνον ἐνὶ μεγάροισι πένοντο. d 9.186, 431,
ee. 156, IT. 589.
25 μνηστὴρεςῦ δὲ πάρονιϑεν Ὀδυσσῆος μεγάροιο
ὁ δίσκοισιν ἃ τέρποντο καὶ αἰγανέῃσινο ἱέντες,
ἐν τυκτῷ δαπέδῳ,5 ὅϑι περ πάρος ὕβριν ἔχεσκον.
"Avrlvoog δὲ καϑῆστο καὶ Εὐρύμαχος ϑεοειδὴς,
ἀρχοὶ! μνηστήρων, ἀρετῇ δ᾽ ἔσαν ἔξοχ᾽ ἄριστοι." m'y.
30 τοῖς δ᾽ υἱὸς Φρονίοιο Νοήμων! ἐγγύϑενν ἐλθὼν
"Avrivooy μύϑοισιν ἀνειρόμενος" προςέειπεν.
«᾿ντίνο᾽, ἦ ῥά τι ἴδμενο ἐνὶ φρεσὶν, ἦε» καὶ οὐκὶ,
ὁππότε Τηλέμαχος νεῖτ᾽ ἐκ Πύλου« ἠμαϑόεντος;
νῆα μοι οἴχετ᾽ τ ἄγων, ἐμὲ δὲ χρεὼ" γίγνεται αὐτῆς
45 Ἤλιδ᾽" ἐς εὐρύχορον διαβήμεναι, ἔνϑα μοι ἵπποι"
δώδεκα" ϑήλειαι, ὑπὸ δ᾽ ἡμίονοι ταλαεργοὶ"
628. ϑεοιξειδής.
623. ἔνεικαν Schol. Η. ἔνειμαν Bek. annot. ἔπεμπον var. 1. Steph.
τος, distincto post πάρος, Arist., Schol. P.
ever, inclines to allow the passage as
genuine,
623. xadAexg., see notes on α. 334,
and on y. 394.
625 foll. The scene here changes to
Ithaca. Noémon by his enquiry of
Antinotis about his ship interrupts the
suitors’ sports, who, startled at the
news of Telemachus’ departure, con-
cert measures to waylay him on his
return. Medon, overhearing their plot,
informs Penelopé. Which of the days
since Telemachus’ departure is here
resumed, is not directly stated. An-
tinoiis’ question 642, πότ᾽ wyeto, is
left unanswered; but v. 656 shows that
it was not the first day. Doubtless
(see on 594 sup.) the same 6' day of
the whole action, left unfinished at
Sparta, is meant to be continued.
627. δαπέδῳ, the da- is = γῆ:
see on ὅδ. 1: the ground itself with a
levelled surface (τυκτῷ), not strictly, (as
the Schol.) a “‘pavement’’, is intended.
628—g. On the part taken here by
Antin. see App. E, 6 (2). — καϑῆστο,
they sat perhaps as arbiters or umpires
to the rest (mar.).
631. προσέξειπεν.
f @.366; cf. e. 206,
Δ. 105.
ο x. 190, y. 26, K.
100; cf. 4. 719.
p α. 268 mar,
4 α. 93 mar.
ry. 216; cf... 168.
tv. 275, 0. 298,
347, ὦ. 431, 8.
615, 4. 673, 686.
u A. 681.
v φ. 23; cf. W. 654
5, 662, 666.
w C. 37 ef sepius,
n. 2, 6, 42. 150
δέ s@wpius.
x cf. 42. 277.
632. ἐέδμεν. 636. talafegyor.
, 627. ἔχον-
635. ἐς εὔιππον Bek. annot.
633—4. weit’, “returned’’. This
enquiry elicits that they knew not of
his having gone. — Πύλου, see App.
Ὁ. 4, and A. 12. — χρεὼ ylyvetac
is an exception to the general usage
mentioned in note on α. 225.
635. Ἤλιδ᾽. Elis, distinguished as
κοίλη (see on δ. 1), 88 a level space
between mountains, is, to judge from
map delineations, the most unbroken
plain in Peloponnesus. In A. 678—81
the spoils of this πεδίον are described.
Herod. (IV. 30) says, that mules could
not be bred there, but implies, that
it was a great pasture ground for
them. Lowe remarks, that v. 605
shows why Noémon’s mares etc. were
not kept in Ithaca. — svevzZogor,
the 2"4 element in this is yoeog, not
χόρος: the epithet is vaguely applied
to any region large or small, if not
broken up by crags and ravines. Pind.
Pyth. VIII. 57 applies it to the ayuas,
‘*streets’’ of a town.
636. ἡμίονοι, Nausicaa’s car, and
that in which Hector’s corpse is
brought back by Priam (mar.) are
drawn by mules, hence called éyrecreg-
150
a ζ 383, ζ. 109,
8.
b M. 106, 125.
c A. 682; cf. γ. 4.
ἃ γ. 10! mar.
eB. 227; cf. β.
307.
——
f a. 409, K. 204.
g App. A. 7 (3)
mar.
h App. A. 7 (1)
mar.
ie. 90.
κα. 174, ν. 232,
ξ, 186, w. 258,
297, 403.
4. 430, a. 403;
εἴ, H. 197, O.
156.
—
m β. 77 mar.
n f. 133.
o v.56, W. 313, YF.
62.
643. Feod. 645. Feldo.
64r. Ἀντίνοος ἀπαμείβετο φώνησέν te Harl. marg. Scholl. H. P.
ef Bek., mox ἀπηύρατο Ern. Cl. ed. Ox. ἀπήυρα Harl. Wolf.
OATZZEIAL A. 637— 650.
646. ἀξέκοντα.
[DAY νι.
aduntes’® τῶν κέν τιν᾽ ἐλασσάμενος δαμασδαίμην."»
ὡς ἔφαϑ᾽., οἵ δ᾽ ἀνὰ ϑυμὸν ἐθάμβεον οὐ γὰρ ἔφαντο"
ἐς Πύλον οἴχεσϑαι Νηλήιον." ἀλλά που αὐτοῦ
ἀγρῶν ἢ μήλοισι παρέμμεναι ἠὲ συβώτῃ.
τὸν δ᾽ αὐτ᾽ ᾿Αἀντίνοος προςέφη, Εὐπείϑεος υἱός "
( γῃμερτές μοι ἔνισπε, πότ᾽ ὥχετο καὶ τίνες αὐτῷ
κοῦροι ἕποντ᾽; Ἰ᾿ϑάκης ἐξαίρετοι," 4 éol! αὐτοῦ
ϑητές" τε δμώές" τε; δύναιτό κε καὶ τὸ τελέσσαι.
καίκ μοι τοῦτ᾽ ἀγόρευσον ἐτήτυμον, Ope’ εὖ εἰδῶ.
ἤ σε βίῃ ἀέκοντα! ἀπηύρα νῆα μέλαιναν,
ἦε ἑκών of δῶκας, ἐπεὶ προςπτύξατο" μυϑῳ;»
tov δ᾽ υἱὸς Φρονίοιο Νοήμων ἀντίον ηὔδα"
((αὐτὸς" ἐγώ of δῶκα" τί κεν ῥέξειε καὶ ἄλλος,
ὁππότ᾽ ἀνὴρ τοιοῦτος ἔχων μελεδήματα" ϑυμῷ
64). εκών For. 649. for.
646. 7 pro
649. ἐγὼ Bek.,
ἑκὼν crteri, quod ob (ΑΚ stare nequit.
yol, ‘‘harness-working’’. The mule was
fitter for heavy draught and burden (τα-
λαεργὸς) than the horse, as also for
mountain use, being sure-footed, hence
suited to Ithaca. From ogog mons
comes ὀρεὺς, Epice ovgevg. For war
he lacked the weight, speed, and
strength of the horse. H. uses ἡμέον.
and ove. as synonyms; cf. 2. 697, 716.
Arist. de animal. VI. 29 says that the
ἡμίον. is bred from male ass and
mare, and the ὀρεὺς by reversing the
parentage, sometimes called a ‘‘mute’’.
In B. 852 we read of wild mules, un-
derstood by Koppen ad loc. to be the
Jiggetai, known in Persia (equus he-
mionus Linn.). In W. 655 one of 6
years old is yet unbroken, but this
cannot have been usual; indecd, the
poet adds ἢ τ᾽ ἀλγίστη δαμάσασϑαι.
Mules afterwards ran in the Olympic
games (Pind. Ol. VI.).
639—42. Νηλήιον, see App. A. 12.
-- αὐτοῦ, dep. on ἀγρῶν. ποῦ ρο-
verns ἀγρῶν “somewhere in his own
fields”. — συβώτῃ, Eumeus, who
forms a leading personage in &. π.
and g., is here first alluded to. —
&vtOne, see App. A. 1.
643. κοῦροι denotes vigour, but also
intimates subordination to the ἀρχὸς
as senior, cf. y. 362—4, and Cic. de
Sen, VI. 17. Some punctuate κοῦροι
Exove’ ᾿Ι'ϑακης ἐξαίρετοι; but no ade-
quate sense can be given to 78. ἐξαέρ.
wh. wd. not exclude their being his
own dependents.
644—7. τὸ is the manning his ship
by his own @yté¢g and δμῶες: for these
see App. A. 7 (1) (3). The vulg. ie
ἀέκοντος, which cannot be gen. aftei
βίῃ, the phrase Bla τινος being post-
Homeric for “ against one’s will’’; no
can it as in A. 430 depend on annu-
ρων, because oe precedes: and in a
phrase so short a gen. absolute, inter.
posed between the object to which it
refers and the verb, is not to be
thought of, nor is it justifiable by
σφισι .... λευσσόντων of ἕξ. τ55---
(Fa.), where it follows as a separate
clause. Hence, the conjecture οἱ
Ahrens de hiatu 21, and La Roche
19, that ἀέκοντα is right, but was
altered by some early critic to avoid
the hiatus of - ἃ @- (cf. 9. 503-é|omde-
σόϊμεσϑὰ ἀτὰρ), has been received.
See mar. for places where ἀέκοντα
agreeing with a pron. has βίῃ con-
nected with the governing verb.
652. ὑμέας Barnes,
659. ΠΝ Β,
Scholl. [1] Bek. Dind. Fa.
Scholl. 7 %
DAY VI.| ΟΔΥΣΣΕΊΙΑΣ A. 651—665. 151,
αἰτίξῃ: χαλεπόν" κεν ἀνήνασϑαι δόσιν εἴη. ag. 267, cf. ξ. 239
κοῦροι ὃ οὗ κατὰ δῆμον ἀριστεύουσι b ped ᾿ ἡμέας, “ π' Als, B. 143,
of of Exovt’: ἐν ὃ ἀρχὸν ἐγὼ βαίνοντ ἐνόησα | Wi 16}, x. 204,
Μέντορα" ἠὲ ϑεὸν, τῷ δ᾽ αὐτῷ πανταῖ ἑἐῴκειν. ᾿ς δ. 267—8
55 ἀλλὰ τὸ ϑαυμάξω' ἴδον evade Μέντορα δῖον lee $.25, @. 530, 2
χϑιξὸν ὑπηοῖον 8 τότε δ᾽ ἔμβη νηὶ" Πύλονδε.» ᾿ πολ 142, Ν
ὡς" ἄρα φωνήσας ἀπέβη πρὸς δώματα πατρὸς, k 4.151 ἔχον
τοῖσιν ὃ ἀμφοτέροισιν ἀγάσσατοϊ ϑυμὸς ἀγήνωρ. 7 7. Sar!
μνηστῆρας δ᾽ ἄμυδις! κάϑισαν καὶ παῦσαν ἀέϑλων. κι. ΚΟ 475.
όο τοῖσιν δ᾽ ᾿ντίνοος μετέφη, Εὐπείϑεος υἱός , ὁ τ ὭΣ
j om ag , n Ζ. 319. 31,
Udulawe’ ὅσος BE οἱ αὐοὶ ἀομκενόωντι teeny.) 1 ἥἄδρν τειν
i ee δ 9 . μ nv. 800, 940, 351,
@ πόποι, ῆ μέγα ἔργον ὑπερφιάλως ἐτελέσϑη 254, 260, 265, 267,
Τηλεμάχῳ ὁδὸς ἦδε' φάμεν δέ of od τελέεσϑαι.»ν oT aay
65 éx4 δὲτ τοσῶνδ᾽ ἀέκητι νέος παῖς οἴχεται αὕτως ." 450) 9,138)
Ι
653. For. 654. Εεξώκειν. . Fldov. 662. For Feftueny. 663. έργον.
664. Pu. 665. aféxnte.
656. ὑπ᾽ ἠοῖον Barnes. Ern. Cl. ed. Ox. ὑπηοῖον Wolf.
660. προσέφη Harl.
664. φάμεν δέ μιν nonaulli
665. τόσσων δ᾽ plerique τοσσῶνδ᾽ Ascalonita, Scholl. P. Q.
661—2. translatitii vv. ex A. 103,
erperam,
652. ἡμέας, the var. lect. ὑμέας
perhaps arose from an ,opinion that
μετὰ with accus, could not mean
“‘among’’, which it can (mar.).
654—6. ἠὲ ϑεὸν, see mar. — τότε
refers to the start on the evening of
Day II. If the words (see on 625 sup.)
are spoken on Day VI., χϑιζὸν would
mean Day V. Telem. made his pas-
sage in one night, reaching Pylos the
next morning or forenoon. With an
equally fair wind back he might cer-
tainly have returned, but after a stay
of 24 hours only, within the time. Thus
Noémon, as such a degree of dispatch
was unlikely, is amazed at having
scen Mentor on Day V. at dawn.
658 — 9g. ἀγάσσατο͵ here ΘΧΡΥΘΒ808Β
wonder mixed with indignation sce on
δ. 181. — ἄμυδις, for the form ef.
χαμάδις from χαμαὶ, ᾿ and ἀμοιβηδὶς: it
is a more intense form of ἅμα, its con-
nexion with which is shown by e. 467,
μή μ᾽ ἄμυδις στίέβη te κακὴ καὶ O7-
Avg ἐέρση ..... δαμάσῃ.
661—2. These lines were probably
transferred hither by some copyist from
A. 103—4; see on α. g7—I101.
663. μέγα ἔργον, sce on y. 261,
with which cf. also Pind. Nem. X. 64,
μέγα ἔργον ἐμήσαντ᾽. — ὑπερφιάλως,
uttm. Lexil. 102, notices that this
adv. is ‘‘free from any meaning stri¢tly
reproachful’’, such aa the adj. ὑπερ-
φέαλος sometimes admits: and cites
this passage as more clearly showing
than others that the word is based on
ὑπερφυὴς. That which transcends
nature and implies supernatural aid
being required by the sensc, not that
which is overbearing or arrogant,
Cf. Shakspeare’s ‘passing strange’.
Buttm. notes that ἐτελέσθη is here =
τετέλεσται.
664. τελέεσθαι is here fut. mid.
with pass. sense, cf. Θ, 415, ὧδε γὰρ
ἠπείλησε ...
665. The edd, all give ἐκ τόσσων
δ᾽; but ἀέκητι cannot easily stand
absolutely: it governs τόσων, and ἐκ
is in tmesis with οἴχεται (for ἐξοέχο-
μαι see mar.). Now Homeric usage
352
OATZZEIAL A. 666—668.
[DAY VI.
a d. 405 mar.
Ὁ ¥. 490.
ερ . 597.
“ 105, 8. 340, &
10, 218, ο. 175,
27, $2, 159, .
134.
666. βερυσσαμενος.
667. ἀλλά of Ἔτη. Cl. ed. Ox. ἀλλὰ of Wolf. quod mavult Schol. H.
νῆα ἐρυσσάμενος κρένας" τ᾽ ἀνὰ δῆμον ἀρίστους.
t.| ἄρξει καὶ προτέρων κακὸν ἔμμεναι" ἀλλὰ of αὐτῷ
Ζεὺς " ὀλέσειε βίην πρὶν ἡμῖν πῆμα φυτεῦσαι. ἃ
667. For.
rn eee Ἀἅ--ὖ΄--..ςς-
668. ἤβης
μέτρον ἱκέσϑαι Arist.,_vulg. ἡμῖν πῆμα γενέσθαι Harl. mar. Scholl. H. Q.
ἡμῖν πῆμα φυτεῦσαι Barnes. Cl.
ed. Ox.
Dind. Fa. Léw., sed Bek. Arist,
sequitur.
—- — —
is (see mar.), in coupling by @ a
sentence beginning with a prep. in
tmesis, to join the δὲ to the prep.
If the text be tho true reading, the
second de might easily become de-
tached, and then from δὲ seeming
repeated, the first δὲ might be let
᾿ drop. τοσῶνδ᾽ is of course from τοσόσδε
the stronger demonstr., 80 many as
you see here’’, wh. well suits the pas-
sage. Bek. prints ἐκ τοσσῶνδ᾽, but
the leaving the monosyl. ἐκ thus iso-
lated is not in Homeric manner. —
αὕτως with ἐξ οἴχεται, ‘is got off
baffling us”. “Utrum αὕτως an av-
tog viri summi dissentiunt’’, Lowe.
Buttm. (Lezil. 30) writes αὕτως, Herm.
αὕτως always. It seems based on αὖ-
tog, the adverbial sense of wh. it
bears, meaning in that way itself,
hence “in that very way’’, as is most
clearly seen in the phrase ὥς δ᾽ αὖ-
tas, v. 238; and αὕτως, if read, seems
to imply αὐτὸς as existing, wh., howe-
ver, i8 post- -Homeric, as is even ἑαυ-
τοῦ for wh. H. has ἕο αὐτοῦ, of αὐτῷ
etc. Beyond this presumption 110 evi-
dence appears: possibly it acquired
the aspirate by a grammatical sym-
pathy with οὕτως. By a slight ac-
cretion of force avtmwg means “in the
same way as before, as usually"’, etc,
Thus Penel. αὕτως ἧσται ‘sits just as
she was’’, ν. 336. It points also em-
phatically to a present or actual state,
so A. 520 καὶ αὕτως, “even as mat-
ters stand’’, or A. 133 ° ‘as you see’’
And by further growing into the sense
of “80 much and no more’’, (cf. Latin
tantum “‘only”’ from tantus ‘go much’’)
it becomes contemptuous, like French
comme ρα and our ‘‘so so’. Thus it is
‘‘merely”’, as in παϊς δ᾽ ἔτ, νήπιος
αὕτως, 2. 726. But there seems a
class of passages (mar.) which demand
δ more precise meaning, as ‘‘in vain,
absurdly’’, and so imply another av-
tos, in that sense a distinct word:
for 1. in order to enhance ‘just so”
and the like into a notion of μὰψ
“in vain”, the mode pointed at by
the “‘so”” should palpably involve that
meaning, as in 0. 82—3 οὐδέ τις ἡμέας
αὕτως ἀππέμψει., where ‘“‘send us so
away aus we came’’ is = ‘‘send us away
bootless’’, but this condition often fails;
and 2. the strong stress so required upon
the word αὔτως calls for an emphatic
position, as (here and ν. 336) at the
end of the line, which, however, it
often has not. Further, the curious
passage π᾿ 110—1, σῖτον ἔδοντας βὰν,
αὕτως, ἀτέλεστον, ἀνηνύστω ἐπὶ ἔργω,
seems to contain a pile of adverbial
phrases reinforcing one another in the
same sense, and αὕτως should have ac-
cordingly as properly definitive a sense
as μὰψ or ἀτέλεστον. Thus we have
(1) αὕτως the adv. as it were of av-
τὸς, with a range of meaning as above,
and (2) αὕτως irrito, as here. It is
impossible to settle the breathing or
derivation of this last, but the onus
probandi may be left to those who as-
sert the aspirate. Doeder. 256—7 thinks
it is really ἀξάτως from ἀβάτη (αὐάτᾳ
Pind.) = ἄτη --- a doubtful doctrine.
667. προτέρω, with this, as referr-
ing to fut. time, cf. πρόσσω in the
phrase πρόσσω καὶ ὀπίσσω, and see
note on ὄπιϑεν β. 270. The Schol.
gives it as = ποῤῥωτέρω which would
similarly mean ‘‘further on in time”’,
i. ὁ. ‘‘hereafter’’.
668. For the var. lect. here see
inferior mar.: the authority of Arist.
claimed by 2 Scholl. for ἥβης wét. Cx.
is undecisive, since on what ground
he preferred it, we know not. It is
not strictly consistent with Penelo-
pé’s words of her son (σ. 2175 τ, 532,
cf. 4. 317), μέγας ἐστὶ καὶ ἤβης μέ-
575
DAY VI.] _
ΟΔΥΣΣΕῚΑΣ A. 669—682.
153
66g. Fetxoo™
670. autig Bek., mox λοχήσω et τυχήσομαι Bek. annot.
ἀλλ᾽" ἄγε μοι δότε νῆα ϑοὴν καὶ εἴκοσ᾽ ἑταίρους,
570 ὄφρα μιν αὐτὸν ἰόντα" λοχήσομαι ἠδὲ φυλάξω
ἐν. πορϑμῷ Ἰθάκης τε Σάμοιό τε παιπαλοέσσης 9"
ὡς ἂν ἐπισμυγερῶς" ναυτίλλεταιΐ εἵνεκα πατρός."
ash ἔφαϑ'᾽, of δ᾽ ἄρα πάντες ἐπήνεον ἠδ᾽ ἐκέλευον᾽
αὐτίκ᾽ ἔπειτ᾽ ἀνστάντες" ἔβαν δόμον; εἰς Ὀδυσῆος. | +.
οὐδ᾽ ἄρα Πηνελόπεια πολὺν χρόνον ἦεν ἄπυστος"
μύϑων, οὗς μνηστῆρες ἐνὶ φρεσὶ βυσσοδόμευον""
κῆρυξ γάρ of ἔειπε Μέδων." ὃς ἐπεύϑετο βουλὰς
αὐλῆς ἐκτὸς gov: of δ᾽ ἔνδοϑι μῆτιν ὕφαινον.» ο
By δ᾽ ἵμεν ἀγγελέων διὰ δώματα Πηνελοπείῃ"
48ο τὸν δὲ κατ᾽ οὐδοῦ βάντα προφςηύδα Πηνελόπεια
“xnovk,* τίπτε δὲ σε πρόεσαν μνηστῆρες ἀγαυοί;
ἡ εἰπέμεναι ὃμωῇσιν Ὀδυσσῆος ϑείοιο,
677. ἔοι ἕξειπε.
ἃ β. 212, cf. π.
348—9.
b & 181, π. 463.
ς d. 845—7, 0. 29.
d Δ. 480.
66, 465, 3. 273,
316, v. 184.
. 412. 252, χ.
, 361.
. 739, 2. 356, +.
422, Z. 187, H.
324, 1. 93.
q 3.528 mar., ¢.50.
r App. F. 2.
s δ. 707.
° .
082. Ἐειπέμεναι omisso 7.
682. ἡ delet Bek.
τρον ἱκάνει (is come to); but it well
suits his disparagement by Antin. as
a ‘‘mere boy” (665). Still, the tone
of unfeigned alarm which the speech
shows suits better the other reading.
And the contrast which ἡμῖν offers to
of αὐτῷ strengthens the passage. With
πῆμα φυτεῦσαι cf. θάνατον or κακὰ
Garey (π. 423, Σ. 367). The reading
γενέσθαι is probably taken from Eu-
mseus’ words τοὺς (the suitors) Ζεὺς
ἐξολέσειε πρὶν ἡμῖν πῆμα yevé-
σθαι (mar.). Ni. leaves the question
unnoticed.
670. ἐόντα = οἴκαδε νισσόμενον
in yor. -- λοχήσ. ἠδὲ φυλ., on ques-
tion of mood here see App. A. 9 (5).
671. zogPud, see on 844 foll.
672. ἐπισμυγερῶς, Bee OD γ. 195.
— ναυτέλλεταιε includes, as Ni. thinks,
a touch of derision; if so, our expression
of ‘ta wild- goose chase”’’ would nearly
suit. The mood is subj. shortened epice.
675. ἄπυστος, 866 on a. 242.
677. Μέδων, the speech of Penel.
681 foll. shows that he is in her eyes
8 partizan of the suitors. He has
favoured their lawlessness hitherto,
but seems shocked at their plot against
Telem. and betrays it; and not feeling
secure through this negative loyalty,
when vengeance overtakes the suitors,
he skulks under a seat (z. 362 foll.).
Telem. intercedes, yet he comes forth
faintly reassured and pleading still.
Odys. in the line ὡς κακοεργέίης εὺ-
εργεσέη μέγ᾽ ἀμείνων, seems there to
balance his claims, based by Telem.,
however, rather on early services, and
to admit him, though sternly, to grace.
Spohn. de extr. Od. par. p. 6. finds an
inconsistency in this with the state-
ment g. 172—3 that Medon was ‘most
acceptable of all the heralds (to the
suitors) and was present at their ban-
quet’’: but then Medon’s conduct is
not meant to be consistent. He is a
‘‘trimmer’’. Phemius, too, entertained
them by singing; but this was ἀνάγκῃ
(a. 184): whereas Penelopé’s language
here, although intemperate through
sorrow, leaves no doubt as to Medon's
leanings up [Ὁ a certain point. Me-
don is also the name of a son of Oi-
leus, (N. 694) killed by Aneas (O. 332
foll.).
678-80. αὐλῆς — δώματα --- ov-
dow, see App. F. 2 (5) (6).(10) (23) (24).
682. Obs. synizesis in ἡ εἰπέμεναι:
which, however, is lost when the
digamma is restored, 7 disappearing.
— δμωῆσιν, since Medon had in-
truded on the apartment where Penel.
was sitting with her attendants, she
ΟΔΥΣΣΕΊΙΑΣ A. 683—692.
ad. 351 mar. | | ἔργων παύσασϑαι, σφίσι δ᾽ αὐτοῖς δαῖτα" πένεσϑαι;
οι ΓΑ 55, μὴ μνηστεύσαντες, μηδ᾽ GAAP’ ὁμιλήσαντες,
4 Ὁ. 440, ef 6.378.) ὕστατα" καὶ πύματα νῦν ἐνθάδε δειπνήσειαν"
ς M.
of Dap’ ἀγειρόμενοι βίοτον κατακείρετες πολλὸν,
h 9. 577, 0. 598. ὑμετέρων τὸ πρόσϑεν" ἀκούετε ,. παῖδες ἐόντες.
i 2. 218, & 59, σ
k d. 621.
1 cf. ν. 132-3, 7.
415.
275, τ᾿ 43, 168, | ologs Ὀδυσσεὺς ἔσκε wed” ὑμετέροισι τοκεῦσιν,
οὔτε τινὰ ῥέξας ἐξαίσιον" οὔτε τι εἰπὼν
ἐν δήμῳ 4 τ᾽ ἐστὶ δίκη; ϑείων" βασιλήων"
n μ. 158, EE. "en ἄλλον! κ᾿ ἐχϑαίρησι"ν βροτῶν. ἄλλον xe φιλοίη."
683. ἐέργων.
690. Ferro.
685. δειπνήσαιτε Harl. 686. ϑ᾽ cu’ Harl. sed cum var. lect. Sap’, ita Flor.
Steph. utrumque Scholl. H, P.
"--«αα-...-
asks this question in anger, viewing
him as a partizan of the suitors, ‘‘are
you come to order the women (off their
work here) to wait on the suitors?”’
684. μὴ x. t.4., the two participles
are negatively conjoined, and with
ἄλλοϑ᾽ (ἄλλοτε of time, not ἄλλοϑι of
place) express a condition of the main
action δειπνήσ., --ς “may they, never
again suitoring nor even forming a
party (here), sup their very last here
now’’. With an aorist verb the parti-
ciples of condition are often aor. also,
as Z. 302—3 ἢ δ᾽ ἄρα πέπλον ἑλοῦ-
σα .... θῆκεν; Θ. 218—9 εἰ μὴ
ἐνὶ φρεσὶ Bax’ ᾿4γαμέμνονι ... αὐτῷ
ποιπνύσαντι θοῶς ὀτρῦναι Azat-
οὐς; ὥ. 48 ἀλλ᾽ ἡ τοι κλαύσας καὶ
ὀδυράμενος μεϑέηκεν. Herm. (ad
Viger. not. 262), whom Ni. and Liéwe
follow, gives another construction, in
which μῆ and μηδ᾽ are taken as one
strengt
only, and μνηστεύσ. stands as = the
subj. of the sentence, — ‘‘may they
who have come hither as suitors never
form a party again, but sup etc.”
But the rhyming clauses imply a clo-
ser parallelism in the relation of the
’ words so linked than wd. allow of one
being the subject (quasi μνηστῆρες,
rather more energetically put) and the
other a part of the predication. In
A. 613, μὴ τεχνησάμενος μηδ᾽ ἄλλο
τι τεχνήησαιτο, which Herm. cites,
yno. is further defined by the rel.
©, 0g κ. τ. Δ., in 614; but in the
ened neg. applied to optdno.
688. τῶν pro to Bek. annot.
similar rel. clause here (686) the tense
changes to pres. The participial clause
of condition, which is there included
in one word (té&zvyo.), is here ex-
panded into two dr) un μνηστ. (2)
δ᾽ .... oped., the one enhancing the
er by μηδ᾽, rather stronger than
τ
μ
otk
μητ.
686. xataxeigete, this change of
person from δειπνήσειαν 685 is an
angry apostrophe including in the
reproach Medon, as_ abetting the
suitors. This ethical point is enfecbled
by reading δειπνήσαιτε in 685.
687. δαΐφρονος, see on a. 48.
688. ἀχούετε takes for obj. the
sentence οἷος Od. ἔσκε κ. τ. Δ. For
its tense see Donalds. Gr. Gr. 423 (3),
“the present is used for the perf. in
verbs which express the permanence
of a state, or an impression, and its
results. Such are ἀκούω, κλύω, etc.,
expressing the continuance of a per-
ception’’.
“689. Penel. implies that Medon was
one of the younger generation, sym-
pathizing chiefly with the suitors.
690. teva and te belong with é§ad-
σιον equally to both clauses.
691—2. Be’ ἐστὶ dixn, this phrase
appears limited to the Ody.; cf. note
on 9 ϑέμις ἐστὶ y. 45. — ἐχϑαίρησι
.... PLAOin. In mar. are the passages
given Jelf Gr. Gr. § 809, 2. in which IH.
interchanges the subjunct. and optat.
mood. In all these Bek. edits either
both subj. or both optat., thus ignoring
DAY VI.|
OATZZEIAL A. 693—705. 155
J
κεῖνος δ᾽ οὔ ποτε πάμπαν ἀτάσϑαλον" ἄνδρα ἐώργειν᾽" 1" oO. 139, x. 511,
ἀλλ᾽ ὁ μὲν ὑμέτερος ϑυμὸς καὶ ἀεικέα" ἔργα
695 φαίνεται, οὐδέ τίς ἔστι χάρις μετόπισϑ᾽ εὐεργέων.»""
τὴν δ᾽ αὖτε προςέειπε Μέδων, πεπνυμένα εἰδώς
“al γὰρ δὴ. βασίλεια, τόδε πλεῖστον κακὸν εἴη.
ἀλλὰ πολὺ μεῖξόν τε καὶ ἀργαλεώτερον ἄλλο
μνηστῆρες φράξονται.," ὃ μὴ τελέσειε" Κρονίων.
700 Τηλέμαχον μεμάασι κατακτάμεν ὀξέϊ χαλκῷ,
οἴκαδεξ νισσόμενον᾽ ὃ δ᾽ ἔβη μετὰ πατρὸς" ἀκουὴν
ἐςὶ Πύλον ἠγαϑέην ἠδ᾽ ἐς Λακεδαίμονα δῖαν."
ὡς φάτο, τῆς δ᾽ αὐτοῦ λύτο γούνατα καὶ φίλον
ἦτορ.
δὴν. δέ μιν ἀμφασίη ἐπέων λάβε, τὼ δέ of ὕὅσσε
705 δακρυόφι πλῆσϑεν, ϑαλερὴ δέ οἱ ἔσχετο" φωνή.
b Χ. 395, 4. 24,
2. 733.
ce χ. 319.
df. 367—S.
e β. 34, 8. 570, ο.
112, ρ. 399, υ.
236, 344.
f δ. 740, e. 18—20,
o. 30.
g &. 181.
h β. 308, ξ. 179,
e. 43.
i δ. τ a. ane
. , .ε Vv.
ΠΝ mm
k a. 297, 406, χ.
68, 147, w. 205,
o. 345.
1 P.695—6, τ. 472,
Ys, 396—7, x. 287
—8,u.348—9; ef.
8. 151—2.
m cf, 9. 542.
693: FeFagyets..
ecdas. 7οι. Folxads.
697. εἰ Harl. Heidelb. Ambr. Bek. af Scholl. Dind. Fa. Léw.
702. ἠμαϑίην Rhian., Scholl. H. P.
voy B. νεισσόμενον Barnes.
694. aFexéa Fégya.
695. εὐξεργέων. 696. προσέξειπε
704. «εἡπέων For. 705. foe.
7Ol. νεισόμε-
705. ἔσκετο
Arist., Scholl. H. P. Q.
the fact for which Jelf there finds
reasons. The text here will hardly
bear any such reasoning as Jelf ap-
plies, and here even Bek. retains the
moods different. See App. A. g (16)
for some explanatory remarks.
In the sentiment we have a glimpse
of ‘‘the right divine (ϑεέων) of kings
to govern wrong’’, which wrought its
usual effect. This confirms the tradition
of the speedy downfall of the ‘“‘heroic”’
monarchies throughout Greece as pro-
bably a true picture of history; see
the stories of migrations which Virgil
has embodied in An. III. 399— 402.
Odys. is spoken of as a noble excep-
tion, rather confirming than invalidat-
ing the rule.
693. ἐώργειν, this pluperf. has force
of an aor., the perf. fogya retaining
always its proper force ‘“‘have done”’.
694—5- ϑυμὸς xa ooo ἔργα, the
one as expressed in the other; see on
ἢ ἕπος ἠέ te ἔργον, y. 99. Penelopé’s
view of Medon as being of the hostile
faction finds here complete expression.
695. χάρις, Lowe cites Soph. Aj.
1283 φεῦ, tov ϑανόντος ὡς ταχεῖά τις
βροτοῖς χάρις διαῤῥεῖ x. τ. Δ. and
Plaut. Pen. X. 17 Si quid bene facias,
levior pluma est gratia.
702. ἠγαϑέην, Buttm. Lezil. 58,
prefers the etymol. of ἄγαν θεῖος, in
Pind. ἀγάϑεος, ‘used only of cities,
countries and mountains, to which the
idea of divine, sacred, belongs 88 a
fixed epithet”: so diay here of Laced.
os. ἔσχετο, Arist. read ἔσκετο =
ἐγΐνδτο (Schol.) when ϑαλερὴ would
become a predicate, ‘“‘became faint’’.
In 699 inf. we have ἔσκε, but no trace
of ἔσκετο occurs in the parallel pas-
sages (mar.) and the form lacks author-
ity. There (mar. Il.) θαλερὴ, used of
the voices of Antilochus and Eumelus,
must be a general epith., as in the
phrase ϑαλερῶν αἰζηῶν K. 259, and
therefore here is probably not distinc-
tive of a female voice, but rather -
meaning ‘‘vigorous’’. The opposite
meaning of ‘effeminate’? comes out
in ϑαλερὸν δέ of ἔκπεσε δάκρυ, B.
266. Thus ἔσχετο φωνὴ means ‘sound
was stayed or stifled’’ (mid. for pass.),
as by. sobs — a stage beyond the
ἀμφασίη ἐπέων, inability to utter
156 OATZZEIAL A. 706 —720.
m τ. 201 , ». 222,
γ. ὦ}. (( οὐχὶ
eau omwos
pete ORE PD,
ae
c=“
215, 8, 264. ϑυμὸς ἐφωρμήϑη" ἵμεν ἐς
ὃ πατρὸς ἑοῦ 4 νόστονν ἢ ὅν τινα πότμον « ἐπέσπεν."»
a Ρ 468, η. 155, ὀψὲ δὲ δή μιν ἔπεσσιν ἀμειβομένη" προςέειπεν
ἐἐκῇρυξ,: τίπτε δέ μοι παῖς οἴχεται; οὐδέ τέ μιν χρεὼ"
νηῶν ὠκυπόρων! ἐπιβαινέμεν, αἴ ϑ᾽ ἁλὸς ἵπποι
ἀνδράσι γέγνονται; περόωσι δὲ πουλὺνξε ἐφ᾽" ὑγρήν.
ἡ ἵνα μηδ᾽ ὄνομ᾽ αὐτοῦ ἐν ἀνθρώποισι λίπηται:"»
τὴν δ᾽ ἠμείβετ᾽ ἔπειτα Μέδων, πεπνυμένα εἰδώς"
οἶδ᾽ ἤ τίς μιν ϑεὸς ὥρορεν,"" ἦε καὶ αὐτοῦ
Πύλον, ὄφρα πύϑηται"
ὡς" ἄρα φωνήσας ἀπέβη κατὰ δῶμ᾽ Ὀδυσῆος.
oe. ιν. wor [τὴν δ᾽ ἄχος" ἀμφεχύϑη' ϑυμοφϑόρον," οὐδ᾽" ἄρ᾽ ἔτ᾽
ἔτλη
w P 152¢ #878, δίφρῳ ἐφέξεσθαι" πολλῶν" κατὰ οἶκον ἐόντων,
χε. 195, ὦ. 272;
ef. Θ. 253, ἀλλ’ ἄρ᾽ ἐπ᾽Ὺ οὐδοῦ ἷξε πολυκμήτου ϑαλάμοιο
y App. F. 2. va. , ’
zx. 400, «. 54, | οἴχτρ᾽ ε ὀλοφυρομένη περὶ δὲ δμωαὶ μινύριξον"
bb τ i53' mar, πᾶσαι, ὅσαι κατὰ δωματ᾽ ἔσαν νέαιδυ ἠδὲ παλαιαί.
706. Fe βέπεσσιν προσέξειπεν. 711. ξειδώς. 712. οὐ foid’. 714. ἐξοῦ.
: 717. Foéxor.
707. pro οὐδὲ ἠὲ interrog. Bek. annot.
7 τίς Arist., Scholl.
— —————.
words 704. Virg. Ain. 111. 308—g has
expressed it with variation thus
Deriguit visu in medio: calor ossaa
reliquit.
Labitur et longo vix tandem tem-
pore fatur.
70;—8. μεν χρεὼ, see On &. 255.
— ἔτποι, “chariots’’; cf. ναΐαν énn-
νην Eurip, Med. 1119. Properly ὅπ-
ποι (or ixxm dual, E. 13, 19) is a
chariot: but, as we cannot pluralize
it further, ‘‘chariots’’ would still be
ἕπποι. The all but universal practise
of chariot-driving instead of horse-
riding in H. favours this. Still, from
Pind. Isthm. IV. 5, νᾶες ἐν πόντῳ καὶ
ἐν ἄρμασιν ἔπποι, the simple sense
of “horses’’ might well stand. In
simile a ship runs like a team of four
horses, and on the other hand Odys.
bestrides a plank of his raft like a
riding- horse (vy. 81, & 371).
2. ὥρορε, the more common word
alpov, ϑεὸς οἷο, is ὥρσε, as in
. P. Q., ita Bek. Fa.
712. εἴ τίς Dind. Léw. Cl. ed. Ox.
717. δίφρου Bek. annot.
rousing a hero to warlike effort etc.
In @. 539 ὥρορε is not transitive.
116. ἄχος ἀμφεχ., the metaphor
is that of a cloud or mist involving
& person, 80 ἄχεος νεφέλη ἐκάλυψε and
other like expressions.
717—8. δίφρῳ x. τ. 1,, she could
not endure to take her chair of state
[see App. F. 2 (20) (22)] and face the
company, now numerous, under the
shock which Medon’s news gave her:
she sank therefore with a piteous cry
on the threshold of the θαλαμος. —
For πολυχμήτου see App. F. 2 (30).
719. Samat, see App. A. Σ (a), --
μεινυριξον probably a word based on
vocal sound as the puryveouae of
Zeschyl. Agam. 16; cf. also Ψιϑυρίξω
and our ‘“‘whine’’, “whimper” , German
wimmern.
720. πᾶσαι, ὅσαι x. τ. λ., we know
that 12 of these were guilty of in-
triguing with the suitors (y- 424), yet
the comprehensive expression here
[Day VI.
7
7
7
DAY VI.] OATEZZEIAE A. 721—729. 157
τῆς δ᾽ ἀδινὸν" γοόωσα μετηύδα Πηνελόπεια ον sg
ἐχλῦτε," φίλαι" πέρι γάρ μοι Ὀλύμπιος ἄλγε᾽ς ἔδωκεν | “ Γῆ δὰ, Β. 375,
ἐκ πασέων ὅσσαι μοι ὁμοῦ τραφενὰ ἠδ᾽ ἐγένοντο" d 4. ὁ 248, x, Al,
He πρὶν μὲν πόσιν ἐσθλὸν ἀπώλεσα ϑυμολέοντα ,!
725 παντοίῃς ἀρετῇσιδ κεκασμένονῃ" ἐν Aavaotory:
[ἐσθλὸν,1 τοῦ κλέος εὐρὺ καϑ᾿ Ἑλλάδα καὶ μέσον
Ἄργος
νῦν αὖ παῖδ᾽ ἀγαπητὸν ἀνηρείψαντοϊ! ϑύελλαιπ
ἀκλέα ἐκ μεγάρων, οὐδ᾽ ὁρμηϑέντος" ἄκουσα.
σχέτλιαι,» οὐδ᾽ ὑμεῖς περ ἐνὶ» φρεσὶ ϑέσϑε ἑκάστη
οΟΌ
----
i
|
οι
—o
ὃ
by"
%
ES aN RS OMS
Ἂν yews ἃ
&
Ξ
23 -R OTH
Peye
ΜΞ
-
-
729. «ξεκαστη.
η21. τὰς ... προσηύδα Bek. annot.
722. Ὀλύμπιοι ... ἔδωκαν Ern. ΟἹ. ed. Ox.
Ὀλύμπιος ... ἔδωκεν Wolf., Ὀλύμπιδ ... ἔδωκεν Harl.
726 + Arist., Schol.
I. 395, redundare (collato 724) notant Scholl. H. Q., defendit Eustath., a Bek.
Dind. Fa.
727. ἀποκτεῖναι μεμάασιν Harl., supra scripta nostr. lect., quam
Aristarcho tributam habent Schol. et marg., eandem Scholl. E. P. Q.
seems to mean that even these were
for the while overpowered by the force
of their mistress’ sorrow.
731. τῆς δ᾽, Ni. remarks that
Thiersch rejects the δ᾽, alleging that
the ending —ys ought, as is the rule
in H., to have a vowel following, and
that the nexus of Homeric sentences
requires the δ᾽ to be cancelled. No
editor has ventured on following
Thiersch. Indeed as regards the lat-
ter urgument we have with the dative
sing. and other forms of the article
not a few examples to the contrary
6. 5. μ. 101—4, 1. so—2. On ἀδινὸν
see App. A. 6 (2).
723. τράφεν ἠδ᾽ ἐγέν., 566 mar.
for examples of similar πρωϑύστερον.
726. This v., which appears to be
genuine in o. 80 and α. 344, where see
‘ note, is here condemned by the clumsi-
ness of its coherence with 725, ἐν dav.
being feebly repeated in xa@’ ‘E. καὶ
μ. ‘A. So in 816 inf.
727. avngelwarro x. τ. 1., cf. a.
241 and note, where the expression
closely approaches this: in v. 66, 77
both that and this appear blended
(ἀνέλοντο ϑύελλαι .... Aguvia: ἀνη-
ρεέψ.). Penel. in the wild surprise
of her sorrow overstates with maternal
vehemence the fact, suddenly realized,
of Telemachus’ departure, and refuses
to distinguish between such fact and
her fears — inconsistently with her
own calmer language by and by in 731
—4 inf. »
η28. ὁρμηϑέντος a., ‘did I hear
(till now) of his having gone’’. The
aor. is proper here, as also in β. 375,
marking the fact as kept from her for
some time after its accomplishment:
contrast with this 732 inf. sf... πυ-
ϑόμην ὁρμαίνοντα where ‘if I had
heard of his meditating this voyage”’,
is the sense, as shown by what follows,
429. OyétAcac, this adj. occurs in
Ii. mostly at beginning of line and in
quantity ozérd., but σχἕτλ. in I. 414
It is always used of persons, save that
σχέτλια ἔργα occurs several times with
a range of meaning like that of La-
tin tmprobus, ‘‘harsh, unkind, brazen,
pertinacious’’. In position, especially
with a contrasted clause following
coupled by οὐδὲ, it may be compared
with νήπιος : both words are also often
followed by a clause ὃς x. τ. 4., stat-
ing some act in which the quality of
σχέτ. or νήπ. is involved. — πὲρ seems
rather to belong to ἐπιστάμεναι; it re-
flects, however, the force of that par-
ticiple at once on ὑμεῖς; ‘‘you did
not, though you ought, ... as knowing,
etc,’”’ see on ἃ. 59.
2 a Se " Βα, τ ΕΒ, Tee ae απσαυνι
σαι.
ἝΞ ΝΙΝ ΣΥΝ ΘΠ... .ὄ - ΔΑ. oh, δα λ,.
158 ΟΔΥΣΣΕΙΑΣ A. 730—740.
[pay vi.
a K. 138. [ἐκ λεχέων μ᾽ ἀνεγεῖραι." ἐπιστάμεναι" σάφα ϑυμῷ,
b 4. 404.
cy. 365; ef. A.|Oundr’ ἐκεῖνος ἔβη κοίλην" ἐπὶ νῆα μέλαιναν.
400, T. 331.
dy. 169.
el γὰρ ἐγὼ πυϑόμην ταύτην ὁδὸν ὁρμαίνοντα,"
e 2.64, ν, 403, T.|TO κε Wad’ ἤ κεν ἔμεινε, καὶ ἐσσύμενός περ ὁδοῖο,
339. ἤ κέ ws τεϑνηκυῖαν ἐνὶ μεγάροισιν" ἔλειπεν.
fp. 212, σ. 322.
m. 222, a1, wy. ἀλλά τις ὀτρηρῶς “Φολίον' καλέσειε γέροντα,
κ δ. 5]. ὁμῶ᾽ ἐμὸν, ov μοι ἔδωκε πατὴρ ἔτιξ δεῦρο κιούσῃ ,"
᾿ ve ne 480 καί μοι κῆπον ἔχει moAvdevdgeor,' ὄφρα τάχιστα
κυ, 334: εἰν 411,] “αέρτῃ τάδε πάντα παρεξόμενος" καταλέξῃ
ee αι [Ef δή πού τινα κεῖνος ἐνὶ φρεσὶ μῆτιν! ὑφήνας
mé.700 mar. ἐξελθὼν λαοῖσιν ὀδύρεται, οἵ μεμάασιν"
730. μάλα (cf. ν. 313, Ψ. 185) Harl. sed supra σάφα, ita marg. et Schol., ef.
4. 404. 732. ὁρμηϑέντα nonnulli perperam, Scholl. H. P. 534. tedynviay
Bek. Fa. juxta Thiersch., τεϑνηκυῖαν Dind. Léw., qui tamen in 1. 84, 141.
205 literam κὶ rejiciunt in xatate@y.
+35. ὀτρηρὸς Eustath. Heidelb. Ambr.
Ern. Cl. ed. Ox. ὀτρηρῶς var. 1. ap. Schol. V. et MS. Aloysii, ita Harl. vulg.
Wolf, 736. δῶκε Eustath.
732. ὁρμαέν. i.e. φρέσιν, ‘ meditat-
ing’’ (mar.)
73s. Δολίον. This trusty servant
of Penel. who tends her garden, has
a son Melanthius, and a daughter Μο-
lantho (mar.), the former goat-herd to
Odys., but taking part with the suitors
against him, as does the latter, who
has been petted and spoilt by Penel.,
and repays her by insolence, even
becoming the concubine of Eurymachus
the suitor (o. 325). The question whether
the Dolius of w., who with his Sicilian
wife and six sons forms a complete fa-
mily, is the same as this one, is of doubt-
ful solution. It appears (ξ. 451) that
Penel, and Lacrt. had some joint owner-
ship in or authority over the slaves of
Odys.; and that there should be two,
both γέροντες, both gardeners, one with
Penel. and one with Laert., and yet the
former summoned to take him a message
is unlikely. On the other hand Dolius
here is called by Penel. her ‘town slave
whom her father gave her when she
first came to Ithaca;’’ whereas Laer.
had his own house and establishment,
& γέρας or τέμενος with a mansion (Fa.
on ὦ. 207; cf. β. 102), with a numerous
body of slaves ‘“‘who did his pleasure”’,
and whose society he shared (@. 205
—10, π. 140—1), It is not likely that
the one who was by age his fittest
companion (@. 498—g) and had been
the longest with him — the head, in
short, of his slave - household — should
have been his daughter-in-law’s pro-
perty, and the one most frequently
away, as a confidential servant of
Penel. must have been. The Dolius
whom she sent would certainly have
returned to her; but the Dol. of Laer.
knows nothing of her more than others,
and suggests that some one shall be
sent, not offering to go, to carry news
to her of her husband’s return (@. 403—
). Further, the treatment of Melantho
Ἂ 322—3) by Penel. would rather sug-
gest that she had lost her mother (cf.
υ. 67—8), and then she could not well
be daughter to Laertes’ Dolius, whose
wife was living (@. 389). These que-
stions will be further considered under
the passages referred to in o.
740. Odveetac, subj. shortencd
epice. The sense is “to see if he
will”, in which sense the phrase is
usually led by af xe, as in A. 408,
420. See on a. 204 for subj. with ef.
In all parts of this verb H. has ὕ,
but ὀδύνη and ὠδῦσαο from ὀδύσσο-
μαι (α. 62). In of μεμάασι, Pencl.,
er fears still exaggerating the facts
(see on 727 sup.), imputes to all the
λαοὶ a share in the suitors’ design;
cf. what Telem. says of the Ayaol,
μνηστῆρες δὲ μάλιστα, β. 265—6; for
λαοὶ see on β. 13; the Schol. errs in
4
DAY vI.]
OATZZEIAZ A. 741—757.
ὃν καὶ Ὀϑυσσῆος φϑῖσαι γόνον ἀντιθέοιο." ἃ β 361...
τὴν δ᾽ αὖτε. προςέειπε φίλη" τροφὸς Εὐρύκλεια
νύμφα" φίλη, σὺ μὲν ἄρ μὲ κατάκτανε νηλέϊς χαλκῷ, ;
ἢ fa4 ἐν μεγάρῳ" μῦϑον δέ τοι οὐκ ἐπικεύσω."
745 ἤδε᾽ ἐγὼ τάδε πάντα, πόρον δέ of B60" ἐκέλευεν ,ἷ
σῖτονδ καὶ μέϑυ ἡδύ" ἐμεῦ δ᾽ ἕλετο! μέγαν ὄρχον
μὴ πρίν σοι ἐρέειν πρὶν δωδεκάτην γε γενέσϑαι,
ἤ σ᾽ αὐτὴν ποϑέσαι καὶ ἀφορμηϑέντος ἀκοῦσαι,
ὡς ἂν μὴ κλαίουσα κατὰ χρόα καλὸν" ἑάπτῃς.
7 50 ἀλλ᾽} ὑδρηναμένη, καϑαρὰ χροΐ εἴμαϑ᾽ ἑλοῦσα,"
εἰς ὑπερῷ᾽ ἀναβᾶσα σὺν ἀμφιπόλοισι γυναιξὶν * ὦ;
εὔχε᾽ ᾿4ϑηναίῃ κούρῃ Aids αἰγιόχοιο ""
ἢ γάρ κέν μιν ἔπειτα καὶ ἐκ ϑανάτοιο σαώσαι.»
μηδὲ γέροντα κάχου κεκακωμένον 1 οὐ γὰρ dia|
755 πάγχυ ϑεοῖς". μακάρεσσι γονὴν ᾿Ζἀρκεισιάδαο'
ἔχϑεσϑ᾽.α ἀλλ᾽’ ἔτι πού τις ἐπέσσεται ὃς κεν ἔχησιν
δώματά" ϑ᾽ ὑψερεφέα καὶ ἀπόπροϑιν" πίονας ἀγρούς."
p ef. γ. 231.
ᾳ ζ. 137, 4. θ50--
cf. στ. 212,
υ. 99.
r & 152.
s x. 74, @. 82, ε.
156, 9. 326, ».
65, σ. 426.
τα. 517, π. 118,
wm. 270. = .
ucf. Z. 140.
v 1% 225, x. 111,
w ἊΝ yh, ει. 85,
9. 560, 3. 5Μ1],
8. 80, ε. 18.
ai. ον.
742. προσέξειπε.
745. Fyde οι.
746. Fndv. 747. Feqeecv.
750. Fecuad®.
bn -φϑίναι Harl. ex. emend., φϑεῖσδϑδαι (φϑέσϑαι Bek. annot.) δόμον Schol. M.
é τι Ern. Cl. ed. Ox. δέ τοι Harl. Wolf. 745.
i ἐκέλευεν Wolf. κέλευεν. Bek.
σαώσαι Heidelb. Harl. et Schol. H. Steph. Wolf.
783. σαώσει Barnes.
κέλευσε Ern. Cl. ed.
Ci. ed, Ox.
756. ἃ χθεσθ᾽ Schol. B.
supposing them the suitors, an appeal
to the people is intended, "as at . 228
—41 by Mentor.
943 --- 4. νύμφα, shortened vocat.
from nom. ψύμ — ἢ fa, “or Iet
me (live)’’: the var. lect. ἢ fa (1. pers,
imperf. for ἣν), ‘who was in the pa-
lace’’, is somewhat tame, especially
when we come to ἤδε᾽ οὐ πάντα. Obs.
that in gam the 3. sing. ἐᾷ, 1. pl. ἐῶ-
μεν, 3. pl. ἐάσουσιν (E. 256, K. 344,
g. 233), all suffer synizesis in the first
two vowels. Some forms of this verb
were similarly pronounced in Attic
Greek.
746. ἐμεῦ δ᾽ EA. μέγ. OQx. the samo
expression occurs with dat. of pers,
(mar.), Τρῶσιν δ᾽ αὐ... ogxoy ἕλωμαι.
. 749. ἕαπτης, Ni. says the optat.
would be fitter, but the subj. is prefer-
able, as having a lively transition to
pres. time; see App. A. g (12); “διὸ
bound me not to (and I have not
told) that you may not by wailing ete.’
784. κάχου, imper. pres. κάκοε
contracted, ‘‘do not worry,him already
worried’’. We should here rather ex-
spect the imperat. aor. xaxwoov; but
Ni. on a similar pres. imper. μειδέσσεο
in y. 96, says the -pres. imper. may
stand in prohibitions of an action be-
fore ptrposed, if one supposes this
purpose as already adopted, or the
action as already previously present
in the thought. This is especially the
case in references to a preceding state-
ment of such purpose’’. He then refers
to this passage. The statement of the
purpose igs that given by Penel. 737—
40 sup.
“ΙΙ2 f° pp
160
δι. 440; cf. ὁ
384, 17. 5
0. 488. en
0. 801, τ. 365
0. 750 mar
a. 362 mar.
γ. 445, 447, A.
449, 455, B. 410,
421.
ἔ . 329.
1. 324, B. 157,
115, 714, K
254, ®. 4120.
i 366, A. 40,
101, 3. 331.
259; cf. 4.8,
““Ξ
NT pee OR
Sos & ῳ
3 Ἢ
5
Ra
"ΣΦ
a]
δὶ
Ε΄
o
“
Ὁ 590 Κα
ἐπ}
ie “ὦ «2
. 324,
0.
α
a. 382, . 45, μ.
231. β μ
159. Ἐείμαϑ᾽. 767. Feimove’ Fou.
772. ov Sloav.
762. κλῦθί μοι Barnes.
ΟΔΥΣΣΕΙΑΣ A. 758—773.
769, 772. fecweone.
773. μετέξειπεν.
765. σάωσαι Vr.
[pay vI.
3
ὃς φάτο, τῆς δ᾽ εὔνησε" γόον, σχέϑε δ᾽ ὕὄσσευ" γόοιο."
1° δ᾽ ὑδρηναμένη, καϑαρὰ χροὶ εἴμαϑ᾽ ἑλοῦσα,
ι δίς. ὑπερῷ ἀνέβαινε σὺν ἀμφιπόλοισι γυναιξὶν,
ἐν δ᾽ ἔϑετ᾽ οὐλοχύτας' κανέῳ, ἠρᾶτο δ᾽ ᾿4ϑήνη᾽
ἐς κλύϑίν μευ, αἰγιόχοιο Atos τέκος ἀτρυτώνη.
[εἶ ποτέ τοι πολύμητις ἐνὶ μεγάροισιν Ὀδυσσεὺς
ἢ βοὸς ἢ ὕϊος κατὰ πίονα unot Exner,
τῶν" νῦν μοι μνῆσαι, καί μοι φίλον! υἷα σάωσον,
288. μνηστῆραρ" δ᾽ ἀπάλαλκε" κακῶς ὑπερηνορέοντας.""
ὡς εἰποῦσ᾽ GAdAvEE,° Dea δέν of ἔκλυεν ἀρῆς.
μνηστῆρες" δ᾽ ὁμάδησαν ἀνὰ μέγαρα σκιόεντα"
2, wv.
μὰ, Φ 361, Ψ. | <q μάλα δὴ γάμον ἄμμι πολυμνήστη! βασίλεια
ofa. 277, p.198. | ἀρτύει.." οὐδέ te οἷδεν BY of φόνος υἱι τέτυκται."
| ὧς" ἄρα τις εἴπεσκε, ta δ᾽ οὐκ loav,* ὡς ἐτέτυκτο.
τοῖσιν δ᾽ ‘Avttvoog ἀγορήσατο καὶ μετέειπεν
----------»ῬὋ...........-- ς΄. ὁ. ..-.....΄΄ΠὃΡϑῦ Ά͵ὉΚ....
ηγ71. Foidsey οι.
767. αὐδῆς Bek. annot. 771.
ἄρτυνει Barnes.
758. yoor .. γόοιο, this repetition
offends by its tameness. yvooyv should
probably be read. It is unusual to
find γόοιο applied to the eyes; but our
double use of the verb ‘‘to cry’’ may be
compared, also the scriptural expres-
sion ‘‘he wept aloud”’ or ‘“‘lifted up his
voice and wept’’. Eurip. Phan. 1583,
has δάκρυα γοερὰ, so 801 inf. γόοιο
δακρυόεντος.
761. οὐλοχύτας, see App. A. 3,
and y. 447 note.
762-3. Ψάτρυτώνη, see App. E. 4
(14). — ἐνὲ μεγ., Ni. regards this as
an indication that Pallas’ worship was
established in the family of Odys.,
which is confirmed by ΚΑ. 571.
763. Ὀδυσσεὺς, it is characteristic
of Penel., in whose thoughts he is ever
uppermost, that she does not say ‘‘if
I have ever’’, but “1 Odys. has ever
sacrificed etc.”’, yet adds woe μνῆσαι
καί woe x. τ. d., thus identifying her-
self with him.
766—8. ἀπάλαλχε, cf. ἀλαλκομέ-
ψηιῖς (mar.) epith. of Pallas. ὀλόλυξε,
for this cry of adoration see on y. 450.
The suitors evidently hear it from above
(App. F. 2 (32), and recognize it as an
act of worship, but put their own inter-
pretation on the prayer which, they
infer, it accompanies, oé following
is dativus commodi (Léwe). ὁμάδησαν
denotes their exultation. For oxtd-
evta see App. F. 2 (19).
769. See on B. 324.
770-1. The atrocity of the suitors
is perhaps more effectively expressed
in these two lines than in any part of
the poem. They surmise that Penel.
is about to comply with their wishes,
and choose one of them in Odysseus’
room, yet they never relent for a
moment from their plot against her
son’s life, but show a diabolical exulta-
tion in her unconsciousness of the blow
prepared for her. This is a striking
example of the effectiveness of simple
touches by wh. a great poet makes
his characters paint themselves, For
ὃ quod see on α. 382.
772. toavshort for ἧσαν, 3.pl. pluperf.
of pres. perf. οἶδα: in all other places
of H. save those noted (mar.) ἔσαν is
76
76
77
85
DAY vi.]
δαιμόνιοι. μύϑους μὲν ὑπερφιάλους ἀλέασϑε
75 πάντας" ὁμῶς, μή πού τις ἐπαγγείλῃσιν καὶ εἴσω."
ἀλλ᾽ ἄγε σιγὴ" τοῖον ἀναστάντες τελέωμεν
μῦϑον, ὃ δὴ καὶ πᾶσιν ἐνὶ φρεσὶν. ἤραρεν ἡμῖν.
ὡς εἰπὼν ἐκρίνατ᾽ " ἐείκοσι" φῶτας ἀρίστους.
βὰνε δ᾽ ἰέναι ἐπὶ νῆα ϑοὴν καὶ ϑῖνα ϑαλάσσης.
8o νῆα! μὲν οὖν πάμπρωτον ἁλὸς βένϑοςδε ἔρυσσαν, '
ἐν δ᾽ στόν τ᾽ ἐτίϑεντο καὶ ἱστία νηὶ μελαίνῃ.
ἠοτύναντο δ᾽ ἐρετμὰὶ τροποῖς ἐν δερματίνοισιν,
πάντα" κατὰ μοῖραν" ἀνά ϑ8᾽ ἱστία λευκὰ πέτασσαν᾽
τεύχεα" δέ σφ᾽ ἤνεικαν ὑπέρϑυμοι ϑεράποντες.
ὑψοῦ" δ᾽ ἐν νοτίῳ" τήν γ᾽ ὥρμισαν, ἐκ δ᾽ ἔβαν αὐτοί:
ἔνϑα δὲ δόρπονν ἕλοντο, μένον δ᾽ ἐπὶ ἔσπερον ἐλϑεῖν."
778. ξειπὼν ἐξείκοσι.
ΟΔΥΣΣΕΙΑΣ Δ. 774—786.
780. ξέρυσσαν.
161
a ys. 332..
φ. 229.
e ef. ὃ. 675—9.
don. 301, α. 209,
321.
e ὃ. 530 mar.
f @. 20
Ef. $67, x. 158,
02, S09, νυ. 65.
ο. 205.
h 9. 51—4, δ. 577
—‘S mar.
ef. 9. 37.
k 9. 54, A. 480;
ef. App. F. 1 (10)
3) mar.
| πο 326, 460.
mo. 21s.
ἢ 3.55; cf. gw. 317,
=n 7°
o y. 11; cf. 4. S11,
us 715.
p &. 347, H. 466.
q αἂ. 422, σ. 305.
786. βέσπερον.
778. πώς Barnes. Ern. Cl. ed. Ox., ποῦ Harl. Wolf., mox ἐπαγγείλησι ox emend.
Harl. Bek., ἐπαγγείλησι Cl. ed. Ox. Dind. Fa. Liw.
7,82. λεύκ᾽ ἐπέτασσαν Eustath. Barnes. Ern. Cl. ed. Ox.
] Bek. Dind. Low.
Cl. ed. Ox. Bek., σφ᾽ ἦνεικαν Eustath. Harl. Rom. Wolf. Dind. Fa. Liw.
dare notat Schol. M.,
777. εὔαδεν Schol. H.
783. ¢ Harl., abun-
784. σφιν ἕνεικαν Barnes. Ern.
785.
εἰνοδίω Aristoph. (sive, ut Lebrsio placet, efvodtov), Scholl. B. E. H. P. Q., ἐκ
> ἔβαν Vr. et tres Harl., ἐν δ᾽ ἔβαν ceteri omnes.
for ἤϊσαν 3. pl. imp. of εἶμι; so ὦ.
11, cf. 13.
774—5. δαιμόνιοι is in H. a word
of reproach, cf. δαιμόνιε (mar.). πᾶν"
tac, Liéwe refers this rightly to μύ-
ϑους, “all words alike (ὀμῶς)᾽", i.e.
concerning both the γάμος and the
φόνος (77o—1). Ni., after Voss, in-
clines to read πάντες (ὑμεῖς); but this
seems less forcible.
776 -7. σιγῇ τοῖον, seve on α. 209,
and, for Antinous’ caution and yet
contempt of Telem. here, App. E. 6
(2). — ἤραρεν, Buttm. Gr. verbs 5. υ.
ἀραρίσκω notes the intrans. sense (as
here) of this reduplicated aor.; in II.
214 both this and the transit. sense
are shown, ὡς ὅτε τοῖχον ἀνὴρ ἀράρῃ,
.. ὡς ἄραρον κόρυϑες. Buttm. ἰδία.
compares with the present passage A.
136 ἄρσαντες κατὰ ϑυμὸν, i. ὁ. ἐμὲ τῷ
γέρᾳ, also β. 353 πώμασιν ἄρσον ἅπαν-
tag, and & 95 ἤραρε ϑυμὸν ἐδωδῇ;
adding, ‘‘it is clear that ἀρέσκω ἀρέσω,
which is used in the same sense, co-
mes from APQ with inflexion - ἐσω.᾽
780—s5. For the various naval details
here sce App. F. 1 (6) (7) (10) (13),
and especially (g) note ** for 783, an
HOM. OD, I.
(8) for τεύχεα 784 With ἐν νοτέῳ cf.
Eurip. Hec. 1241 Pors. ποντία νοτὶς.
For the vulg. ἐν δ᾽ ἔβαν should be read
with the Vr. and three Harl. ss. ἐκ δ᾽
ἔβαν, as in y. 11. In ϑ. 52—s5 the same
lines (with the omission of 784 and the
change of οὖν πάμπρωτον into of ye
μέλαιναν) recur verbatim as far as ὧρ-
usoav, when follows αὐτὰρ ἔπειτα βάν
6° ἴμεν Alurvono ... ἐς μέγα δῶμα, in
which house they banquet. To read ἐν
makes the crew sup on board here,
besides making ἀναβάντες superfluous’
in 842 inf. Now, although in exigen-
cies food must have been eaten on
board (x. 80, cf. B. 431—3), it was an
unheard of thing to do so with one’s
ship in harbour. They do not start
finally until evening, although they
ship the tackle etc. now. Having then
to wait ἐπὶ ἔσπερον ἐλθεῖν, nothing
would have been gained either in time
or in secrecy (since their embarcation
by daylight must have been noticed)
by supping on board: so they got out
(Fx) and supped ἔνϑα “there’’, i. 6.
on the shore, 779. ὑψοῦ nec not im-
ply such distance from shore as to
cause a difficulty in their landing.
11
162
OATZZEIAZ A. 787—796.
[pay γι.
ao. 517, App. F
2 (32) mar.
b ¢. 250, 7. 316.
c 4. 201, x. 384, @.
#03, 4. 780.
d cf. ε. 87, x. 5%,
eo. 300.
789. For. 793. ήδυμος.
794. Foe.
4 δ᾽ ὑπερωέῳ" avd. περέφρων Πηνελόπεια
κεῖτ᾽ ἄρ᾽ ἄσιτος, ἄπαστος" ἐδητύος ἠδὲ ποτῆτος 9,"
ὁρμαίνουσ᾽ “ εἴ of ϑάνατον φύγοι υἱὸς ἀμύμων,
ἡ ὅ γ᾽ ὑπὸ μνηστῆρσιν ὑπερφιάλοισι δαμείη.
Ἰῦσσα δὲ μερμήριξε λέων ἀνδρῶν! ἐν ὁμίλῳ
.] δείσας, ὁππότε μιν δόλιον περὶ κύκλον ἄγωσιν,
τόσσα μιν ὁρμαίνουσαν ἐπήλυϑε νήδυμοςξ ὕπνος"
.Ἰ εὖδεν δ᾽ avaxdivPeioa,' λύϑενν δέ of ἄψεα πάντα.
ἔνϑ᾽' avr’ ἄλλ᾽ ἐνόησε ϑεὰ γλαυκῶπις ᾿4ϑήνη"
εἴδωλον" ποίησε, δέμας δ᾽ ἤικτο γυναικὶ,"
796. ξεέδωλον ἤκξικτο.
787. ita Harl. Flor, Steph. Wolf., ὑπερῷ᾽ ἀναβᾶσα Eustath. Ven. Ambr. Barnes.
Ern. Cl. ed. Ox.
fendit Eustath. 792. ἄγουσι Harl.
ἐπήλυϑε Eustath, Harl. Rom. var. 1. Steph. Wolf.
788. κεῖτ᾽ ag ἄναυδος Rhian., Scholl. H. P., ἄσιτος de-
793. ἐπέλλαβε Barnes. Ern. Cl. ed.-Ox,,
796. Médy pro δέμας Hem-
sterhusius ad Lucian. d. ἃ. p. 270 (Bek. annot.) secutus Schol. M. ad 797.
787—841. The poet reverts again to
Penel. in the upper chamber, lying
weary and sorrow-sick, till sleep over-
comes her; Pallas then sends a phan-
tom in the form of her sister, who
soothes her anxiety about her son, but
on her enquiring about her husband
vanishes into thin air.
788. For ἄσιτος Rhianus gave avav-
δος, objecting tautology to ἄσιτ. exact.
x. τ᾿ Δ. Yet the ἄσιτος is merely para-
phrastically expanded by ἄπαστος ἐδ.
following, as zatgomorna a. 299 by 300:
ποτῆτος moreover adds to the idea.
791. λέων, Eustath. says, a lion, not
.with his courage up, but fearful, un-
decided and inactive, is meant in this
simile: by this he would alleviate the
diversity of sex. But Homer's sense
of creature-sympathy carries him far
beyond such considerations in his com-
parisons; see that of Menel. to a bereav-
ed dam, and to a fly, (fem.) in P. 4,
5) and s7o—1. Sec also δ. 457 and
note. Ni. says that the poet aims at
laying before us not an imposing whole
but a single feature. Better, Homer's
simile’s are mostly not so much in-
troduced for the sake of illustration
as they are the spontaneous rebound of
poetic sympathy from the human scene
which he is describing to the scenes
of nature, and the ‘‘single feature’’ is
the link of poetic keeping which pre-
vents them from being irrelevant. Yet
neither must we exclude the element of
illustration, as in the workmen with
the wimble, applied to the boring out
Polyphemus’ eye, the tanner and his
crew, to “‘the tug of war’’ over Pa-
troclus’ corpse (ει. 384—6, P. 389 foll.);
and such are mostly very close in their
resemblances. Both elements may per-
haps be found in many.
792—3. xvxdoy, ‘circle’ of men,
dogs etc.: perhaps the Highland “ Tin-
chel’’, Lady of the Lake, νι. 17. A
Schol. says it = ddxrvov.— »yd voc,
Buttm. Lezil. 81 believes this to be
nothing but an ancient error for the
digammated ξήδυμος, arising from the
separable » of ἃ preceding word ad-
hering to it when the f was lost; see
App. A. 21.
796. εἴδωλον, visions, and phantom
appearances in H. are all conceived of
as having an objective reality and a
substance, “of such stuff as dreams
are made of,’ and their form, although
arbitrary, is always human (Penelopé’s
dream τ. 536 foll. is hardly an exception,
see 549). Thus Nestor's form is adopted
by the ovesgog in Β. 6 foll., as Iphthimé’s
here. Similar in character are the ef-
dia by which in the battles of the
Il. a deity imposes on an enemy (E.
DAY VI.] OATZZEIAL A. 797—799. 163
Ἰφϑίμῃ" κούρῃ" μεγαλήτορος Ἰκαρίοιο, a x. 105-6, ο. 364
τὴν Εὔμηλος" ὕὄπυιε, Φερῇς ἔνι" οἰκία ναίων. a Bit
πέμπε δέ μιν πρὸς δώματ᾽ Ὀδυσσῆος Felovo,' f (Δ. 394 ma
798. Foexla.
Post 796 Vindobon. καλῇ te μεγάλῃ te καὶ ἀγλαὰ Egy’ εἰδυέῃ.
797. IpPluy
nom. prop. Eustath. Heidelb. ct omnes edd., dubitasse Arist. “πότερον ἐπέϑε-
tov ἢ κύριον᾽" monet Schol. P.
798. ὄπυε Harl., ‘que vora et antiq. forma
videtur’’, Pors.
449 foll., X. 227, 298—9). But further,
Pallas herself appears to Nausicaa in
the person of a female friend, and
there the same goddess, whose massive
weight oppressed the axle of Diome-
des’ car, modifies herself to be ἀνέμου
ὡς πνοιή, just as the figure here enters
and departs without moving door or
bolt (παρὰ κληῖδα or κληῖδος ἱμάντα,
ὃ. 838, 802), and vanishes ἐς πφνοιὰς
ἀνέμων. Still the objective reality of
the goddess’ figure is plain, and this
tennity of substance, indicated only
in the moments of appearance and of
departure, points to the fact that the
ὄνειρος, like the εἴδωλον on the field,
exists not beyond the purpose of the
moment and the physical state of the
dreamer, Other formulaic tokens of the
ὄνειρος are its “standing above the
head’’, t. 6. appearing hovering in air,
and addressing the dreamer, “slecpest
thou?’’ To some such substance the de-
parted soul is compared (4. 207, 222, F.
100, 104), called also εἴδωλον, and such
souls and dreams have alike the epith.
ἀμένηνος. In Iles. Theog. 211— 12
Night bare Θάνατον, τέκε δ᾽ Ὕπνον,
ἔτικτε δὲ φῦλον Ὀνείρων, unbegotten
by any father. In J]. 672, 682 Death
and Sleep are twin brothers; cf. Virg.
‘En, VI, 278 consanguineus Lethi Sopor:
80 ΓΚ. 231, Jheog. 756, 758—61, where
their joint abode is, like the Cim-
merian land of 2. 14—9, unvisited by
the sun’s rays, cither rising or setting.
So in ὦ. 12 the δῆμος ὀνείρων is a
stage on the road to Hades; and
Virgil. in. VI. 283 foll. makes his
Somnia roost “in numbers numberless”’
beneath the boughs of a massive elm
in the entry of Hades, So the famous
double dream-gate of τ. 562 foll. is
objectively the exit of dreams from
the world of shadows, and again as
it were subjective to the sleeper, in/.
809, who is said, although in her own
chamber, to slumber ἐν ὀνειρεέῃσι xv-
λησι. So the ψυχὴ of Patroclus, not
being itself an ὄναρ, appears to the
sleeping Achilles; and Pallas appears
to Telem., and again to Odys., she
being no ὄναρ, and they being not
even asleep: yet here the situation
governs the manner of the appearance,
and we find the formula στῇ δ᾽ ἄρ᾽
ὑπὲρ xeq., and in Patroclus’ case the
question evderg, wh. in that of the
waking Odys. seems to find its equi-
valent in tizt avt’ ἐγρήσσεις (Ψ. 65
foll., vw. 30 foll.). The many well at-
tested tales-of the uppearances of the
dead or absent wh. bewilder modern theo-
ries of psychology would be simply ac- .
cepted, if current in Homer’s day, and
fall naturally into a place in his my-
thology. Penel. dreams of her husband;
and thus her dream- life has more so-
lace than her daily life, and seems to
be weaning her thoughts from things
visible, Cf. her prayer to Artemis —
commencing in a petition to the god-
dess, but passing off into a rhapsody of
meditation on what she suffered by day
and dreamed by night (v. 61 foll.). So
she expects to remember ‘‘even in a
dream’’ the home of her youth (τ. 541,
581). Dreams are sent by Zeus, or
other god, or by a δαίμων (δ. 831,
υ. 87), and may be true or false, or
even intended to deceive (ovdog, τ. 562
foll., 8. 6, cf. 80—1). The word
κακὸς applied to them may mean de-
lusive, or, of evil omen (v. 87, K. 496).
Hence the function of the ὀνειροπόλος
(A. 63, cf. E. 149); cf. ὀνειρόμαντις
fEschyl. Choeph. 33 Dind.
797—8. Ιφϑίμῃ, Arist. doubted
whether this was a common or a prop.
noun. See mar. and cf. Φαίδιμος ows
(Fa.). — Εὔμηλος, son of Admetus
and Alcestis, daughter of Pelias, led
11*
164
OATZZEIAZ A. 800—815.
[Day VI.
ον δὼ F © | εἴως" Πηνελόπειαν ὀδυρομένην b γοόωσαν
b ¢.513; ef. 106. c
c @. 18, φ. 225, παύσειε
ω. $23: f. ὃ.
758, 812.
d App. A. 15, mar.,;
κλαυϑμοῖο γόοιό τε δακρυόεντος.
ἐς ϑάλαμον δ᾽ εἰςῆλθϑε παρὰ κληῖδος ἱμάντα ."
App, A316. στὴ" δ᾽ ἄρ᾽ ὑπὲρ κεφαλῆς, καί μιν πρὸς μῦϑον ἔειπεν"
202.
p 8. 88, A. 553.
TSmae. scf.n. 244.
is, “eddets,,! Πηνελόπεια, φίλον" τετιημένη ἥτορ;
δες, οὐν μήν σ' οὐδὲ ἐῶσι Deol! ῥεῖα ξώοντες
κλαίειν οὐδ᾽ ἀκάχησϑαι." ἐπεί ῥ᾽ ἔτι νόστιμός! ἐστιν
δὸς παῖς" οὐ μὲν γάρ τι ϑεοῖς ἀλιτήμενος" ἐστέν.᾽
τὴν 0 ἠμείβετ᾽ ἔπειτα περίφρων Πηνελόπεια,
Ψ.- 605; ἡδὺ μάλα κνώσσουσ᾽ ἐν ὀνειρείῃσι πύλῃσιν. n
“rinte,” κασιγνήτη, δεῦρ᾽ ἤλυϑες; οὔ τι πάρος" YE 8
πωλέ᾽ 1 ἐπεὶ μάλα πολλὸν ἀπόπροϑι" δώματα ναίεις"
won Mi καί μὲ κέλεαι παύσασϑαι ὀϊξύος ἠδ᾽ ὀδυνάων
ὅ. πολλέων, αἵ μ᾽ ἐρέϑουδι" κατὰ" φρένα καὶ κατὰ ϑυμὸν,
sg. 17. ..., α. ἦ" πρὶν μὲν πόσιν ἐσθλὸν ἀπώλεσα ϑυμολέοντα,
294 mar.
u δ. 724-5 mar.
803. ἔξειπεν.
παντοίῃς ἀρετῇσι κεκασμένον ἐν Aavaoio.y:
8ο9. Fndv.
8οο. εἴπως Barnes. Ern. Cl. ed, Ox., εἴως Harl. et Schol. Η, ita Wolf.
"et ex emend. Harl., ita Barnes. Cl.
χῆσϑαι͵ Ascalonita, Scholl. H. P.
806. axe-
ed. Ox.
811. πώλε᾽ ἔτη. Cl. ed. Ox., πωλέ᾽ Barnes. Wolf., πώλεαι Harl., πωλέῃ Thiersch.
812. κέλῃ Barnes, Ern. Cl. ed. Ox. , κέλεαι Harl. Wolf.
troops in the Catalogue (imar.) from
Phere and Iaolcus. This connects the
Trojan story with that of the Argé; see
Kurip. Med. 5,6. In Eurip. Alcest. 393
foll. he is introduced as a child be-
wailing his mother,
800. εἴως, for ὅπως (Eustath.), for
other examples see mar.: the distinction
between an action tending to produce
a result, and one to continue until the
result has been attained, is casily con-
founded, for instance often in ogea;
ef. the use of ‘till’? in the Irish-
English common speech.
80a—3. κληῖδος ἱμάν., see App.
A. 15. -- στῆ... ὑπὲρ, see on 796 δηρ.;
οἵ, Iicrod. Vil. 17, ὄνειρον ἐν. ὕπερ-
στὰν ... τοῦ ᾿ἠρταβανου εἶπε (Ni.).
80s. The hiatus οὐδὲ ἐῶσε might
be avoided by transposing ἐῶσι to the
end, but ¢ in, hiatus in the 25) foot
is found B. 8 οὖλε Ὄνειρε, JF. 46 τοιός-
δὲ ἐὼν, E. 310 ἀμφὶ δὲ ὄσσε, Τ'. 288
ξωὸν μέν σε ἔλειπον (Hoffmann (Quaest.
Hom. pp. 92—3). — ῥεῖα ζώ., not the
securum agere aevum of Hor. Sat. 1. v.
1o1, following Lucret. VI. 57, which
is quite against the abundant theurgy
of Η., but expressing an absence of
effort in whatever they do, as compared
with mortals; see on 197 sup.; cf. dete
μάλ᾽ ὥς τε δεὸς, Υ. 444, also x. 573.
So Eschyl. Suppl. 93 πᾶν ἄπονον δαι-
μονέίων; see also Nigelsb. I. § 9
806—7. ἀχάχησ., the participle of
this perf. is irreg. in accent, being
proparox. as if pres., which sense the
infin, here bears: so ἀλαλήμενος ν. 333
and ὠλετήμενος, either a shortened
perf. or a syncop. aor., (Buttm. ir.
Verbs), The forms in pres. are ἄχο-
μαι, ἀχνυμαι, ἀκαχίζω.
809. κνωσσουσ᾽, used by Pind. ΟἹ.
XIII. 71, Pyth. 1.8, as by Bion XV. 27,
and Theocr. XXI. 65, in same sense as
here, of sound sleep. Moschus II. 23
has adopted the entire phrase ἡδὺ μ.
xy. The etymol. is uncertain; it may
be quast πνώσσω from ὑπνώσσω, or cor-
rupted fr. κατανωτίζω (Doederl. 2480).
ἐν ὀνειρεέῃσι πο see on 706 sup.
811. πωλέ᾽ pres., at clided, a tense
often found with πάρος (mar.), past ac-
tion continuing into pres. time, as with
Lat. jamdudum. Tho Harl, writes it in
full, πωλέαε, in synizesis, so κελέαι 812.
“ef μὲν δὴ ϑεός ἐσσι Peotd™ τε ἔκλυες" avdys,
DAY vi. | OATZZEIAZ A. 816—832. 165
[ἐσθλὸν," τοῦ κλέος εὐρὺ xad’ Ἑλλάδα καὶ μέσον; κα ὃ. 726 mar.
᾿ “Aoyos. ] b J. a,
νῦν » av παῖς ἀγαπητὸς ἔβη κοίλης" ἐπὶ νηὸς, 5 104. mar.
νήπιος, οὔτε πονῶν ev εἰδὼς οὔτ᾽ ἀγοράων. e IT. 200; cf. Φ».
tov δὴ ἐγὼ καὶ μᾶλλον ὀδύρομαι" ἤ περ ἐκείνου" 507, X. 24].
$20 τοῦ δ᾽ ἀμφιτρομέω" καὶ δείδια μή τι πάϑησιν,, ΠΣ μῇ ine
ἢ ὅ ye τῶν ἐνὶ δήμῳ iv’s οἴχεται, ἢ ἐνὶ πόντῳ" εἴ, A. 508, 0.
δυςμενέες γὰρ πολλοὶ ἐπ’ αὐτῷ μηχανόωνται ih 123, DP. 32%.
ἱέμενοι κτεῖναι πρὶν πατρίδα γαῖαν (xéoda.” ΒΡ τὸ 9 NS;
τὴν δ᾽ ἀπαμειβόμενον προρέφη εἴδωλον ἀμαυρόν |i a 433, 0, 409.
125 ““ϑάρσει,) μηδέ τι πάγχυ μετὰ φρεσὶ δείδιϑι λίην" iy. 362, π᾿ 436,
τοίη" γάρ of πομπὸς ἅμ᾽ ἔρχεται, ἣν τε καὶ ἄλλοι ω. 557.
ἀνέρες ἠρήσαντο παρεστάμεναι, δύναται"! γὰρ, ᾿ ΝΜ oe, β' ὧν
Παλλὰς ᾿4“ϑηναίη" σὲ δ᾽ ὀδυρομένην ἐλεαίρει:" 800.
ἣ νῦν we προέηκε, τεῖν τάδε μυϑήσασϑαι." 1 ὅδ. 612 mar.
τὴν δ᾽ αὗτε προςέειπε περίφρων Πηνελόπεια μι β' Ὁ δ. 89.
o γ. 95, d. 325, e
εἰ δ᾽ ἄγε μοι καὶ κεῖνον dtfvedy® κατάλεξον, 105.
818. ξειδώς. 823. Fréwevor.
822. μηχανόωσιν Harl. sed ὠνται supra ὡσιν.
824. Γεἰδωλον.
826. For. 830. προσέειπε.
826. pro te toe Barnes. Ern.
Cl. ed. Ox., of Harl. Wolf., mox ap ἔσπεται Vr. Harl. var. lect., quam natam
e glossé ἕπεται jure suspicatur Buttm.
ψαται γὰρ Schol. P.
tra omnes αὐδὴν fretus B. 297, ξ. 89.
828. Παλλαδ᾽ ᾿᾿ϑηναίην Bek. annot.
827. καὶ ἀμύνειν Vien. Heidelb., δύ-
831. Bek. con-
832. xaxsivoy Vr. Harl.
816. See on 726 sup.
818. νήπιρς, οὔτε, Sec ON 729 sup.
— πόνων εὖ εἰδὼς, the personal verb
also takes gen. (mar.): cf. cogog xa-
κῶν, AEschyl. Suppl. 453; see Jelf Gr.
Gr. § 493, 1.
819. καὶ μάλλον, the novelty of
her anxicty makes it at the moment
more severe, Ni. cites Aschyl. Prom.
26—7 ἀεὶ δὲ τοῦ παρόντος ἀχϑηδὼν
κακοῦ τρύσει α᾽.
820. ἀμφιτρ. takes gen. as ἄμφι-
μάχομαι O. 391, IT. 533; but περιδεί-
δια has dat. (mar.). Tho physical sen-
sation of tremor pervading (aug) the
frame is probably the basis of the com-
pound notion. Ni. refers desd/a also
to τοῦ, but it is best referred solely
to μή te x. following.
821. τῶν, The constrn. is, “should
suffer from those in the region where’”’
etc.; this gen. of origin or cause is
assisted by ἐκ in B. 134. For the unas-
sisted gen. cf. Eurip. Electr. 123 -- 4,
Paley, σᾶς ἀλόχου σφαγεὶς Asye-
σϑου τ᾽, ᾿Δγάμεμνον. — for “δήμῳ,
see on a, 103. -- iy’, “where’’, some-
times also “there” ‘3 See mar.
824—6. ἀμαυρὸν, see Liddell and
S. s. v.: this epith. seems to refer to
the appearance to the sense, that of
Evaoy ς 841 inf. to the effect on the
mind, ‘‘unmistakeable’’. — ἔρχεται.
Buttm. on Schol. ad loc. rejects the
var. lect. ἕσπεται or ἔσπεται, the forms
of Zox— found in H. being all aorists.
831—2. ϑεὸς, as Hermes is Zens’
messenger: χυδῆς implies a reference
to προέηκε 829. For the var. lect. in-
volving «ὑδὴν (mar,) see on α. 281. —
εἰ ὃ aye, “come then”, so often;
only here the sé μὲν of 831 seems com-
plemented, but really is not so, in ef δ᾽,
the hypothetical force of εἰ in ef δ᾽
ἄγε being sunk in colloquial usage, so
that it means merely age vero.
ῳ
“τ 24 -2
GE At Shee ὦ» |
wR
ΟΡ ΣΝ 5
“"
Ξ
9
R
. 9
ie
Ξ
@
--
f bad
9 γ. 11 πιλγ.
p π. 370; cf. α. 37.
4 y. 51.
Γ 5 354 mar., ε.
116.
t .
a!
v x. 141; cf. ὁ. 404,
e. 136.
wy. 425, & 181,
0. 2%, π. 369,
OATZZEIAL A. 833—847.
DAY νι}
εἴ που ἔτι" ξώει καὶ dea φάος ἠελίοιο,
ἦ" ἤδη τέϑνηκε καὶ εἰν ᾿Αἴδαο δόμοισιν.’
τὴν δ᾽ ἀπαμειβόμενον προςέφη εἴδωλον. ἀμαυρόν 8:
"1" οὐ μέν τοι κεῖνόν γε διηνεκέως ἀγορεύσω,
ξώει" 6 γ᾽ ἢ τέϑνηκε᾽ κακὸν δ᾽ ἀνεμώλια! βάξειν.;
ὡς εἰπὸν σταϑμοῖο παρὰ κληῖδα" λιάσϑη"
ἐς nvotds' ἀνέμων" ἣ δ᾽ ἐξ ὕπνουκ ἀνόρουσεν
κούρη Ἰκαρίοιο: φίλον δὲ of ἦτορ' ἰάνϑη,
‘7.1 ὥς of ἐναργὲς ὄνειρον ἐπέσσυτο" νυκτὸς " ἀμολγῷ.
μνηστῆρες δ᾽ ἀναβάντες ἐπέπλεον ὑγρὰ" κέλευϑα,
Τηλεμάχῳ φόνον» αἰπὺν ἑνὶ φρεσὶν ὁρμαίνοντες.
ἔστι. δέ τις νῆσος μέσσῃ ἀλὶ" πετρήεσσα,
μεσσηγὺς! Ἰθάκης τε Σάμοιό τε παιπαλοέσσης ,"
"Aotégls, οὐ μεγάλη" λιμένες" δ᾽ ἔνι ναύλοχοι αὐτῇ
ἀμφέδυμοι" τῇ τόν γε μένον λοχόωντες" ᾿Αχαιοί.
834. AFidao, 835. «ἐεέδωλον.
833. ἤ που Bek. Fa.
838. ειπόν.
840. Fexaeforo For. 841. For.
846. αὐτῆς addito serius ¢ sed ab eadem manu.
836—7. Eustath. remarks on the
economy shown by the poet in the
interest of his tale by leaving Penel.
thus uninformed. — ζώει 6 γ᾽ ἢ t.,
see on β. 1332.
838. λιάσϑη, Buttm. Lezil. 77, con-
nects this, in sense of ‘‘to go aside,
turn away from”, with ἀλέαστος, and
disconnects it with λδλιημένος akin to
λιλαίομαι.
, 841. ἐναργὲς, sce on 824 sup. —
«(«μολγῴ, Buttm. Lezil. 16. considers
‘Sin the depth or dead”’ of night,
and accepts the Eustathian gloss on
Ο. 324, that the Achwans call ἀμολ -
yor τὴν ἀκμὴν; the wate ἀμολγαίη
of Ifes. Opp. 590 he regards as =
ἀκμαία in sense of “exactly baked’’.
Doederl. 377—8 connects it with po-
Auto, μέλας, “black”’.
846. ᾿Αστερὶς, Strabo X. p. 700 ed.
Casaubon, calls it Asteria, and says
that Scepsius and Apollodorus differed,
the one denying, the other affirming the
continued existence of the λιμένες vad.
Gell., Ithaca p. 78, names the modern
Dascallio, as the only island situated
in the passage; but adds that no vessel
could lie safely there, and that it is
out of the way for the purpose of
intercepting one returning from Pelo-
ponnesus, which could only be safely
done by lying in the southern harbour
of the headland Chelia, partly formed
by that same island.
The 618 Day of the poem’s action here
ends.
ee ......-.....--.-....... .-.......-.. . ...........ὄ
ΟΔΥΣΣΕΊΙΑΣ E.
SUMMARY OF BOOK V.
On the seventh morning the gods are assembled in council, and, at the
instance of Pallas, Zeus despatches Hermes to bid Calyps6 dismiss Odysseus.
His errand is received by her with reluctant submission, and on his departure
she seeks out the hero pining on the shore, and bids him prepare a raft (1—170).
He distrusts her at first, but is reassured by her oath, and in their conversation
the seventh day ends (171—227).
On the eighth day he sets about his work, which is completed in four days.
On the twelfth she furnishes him with stores, and he departs alone (228—77).
On the eighteenth day* of his voyage and twenty-ninth of the poem’s action he
sights the land of the Pheacians; when Poseidon, returning from the Ethio-
pians, catches sight of him and raises a tempest in which the raft becomes
unmanageable (278—332). Ind Leucotheé rises to his rescue from the deep,
and gives him her immortal scarf; bidding him quit the raft and the scarf will
support him. He yet clings to the raft till it goes to pieces; when he puts on
the scarf and swims, while Poseidon departs to gx (333—81).
Pallas sends a fair north-wind; and, after drifting yet two days and nights,
on the thirty-first day of the poem’s action he reaches a river’s mouth in utter
exhaustion and naked; there he seeks the shelter of a wood and falls asleep
(382—493).
* The first of the eighteen days of his run is the twelfth of the poem’s action,
and is further marked as the fAfth from the commencement of the work of
raft-building (&. 263): see notes on δ. 262—3, 279. It is not absolutely
certain, perhaps, from δ. 278 that that fifth day, on which he starts, should
not be reckoned distinct from the eighteen, instead of coincident with the
first of them; yet I think it safer on the whole to regard it as so coincident.
Ὀδυσσέως σχεδία.
VHag δ᾽ ἐκ λεχέων παρ᾽ ἀγαυοῦ Τιϑωνοῖο
a ΜΛ. 1---, T. 2,
B. 48-8); cf. Θ᾽
4 ? ow? 3 , , ’ ar ~ i,v. 91, is, 226.
wHovud , tv ἀϑανάτοισι mows φέροι ἠδὲ βροτοῖσιν" » ὃ 188, “. 121, o.
οἷς δὲ ϑεοὶ ϑώκόνδε" καϑίξανον. ἐν δ᾽ ἄρα τοῖσιν |, ON. 659.
d B. 28, μ. 318, @.
Ζεὺς» ὑψιβρεμέτης, οὗ te κράτος ἐστὶ μέγιστον. ἜΤ 15, ¥.4
τοῖσι δ᾽ ᾿4ϑηναίη λέγες κήδεα" πόλλ᾽ Ὀδυσῆος fu a0. Ae
, " , \ , , ὅδ. 452, μ. 165,
uvyncauéyyn’' μέλε γάρ of ἐὼν ἐν δώμασι Νύμφης. εἴ δ £145, 197.
“Zev! πάτερ ἠδ᾽ ἄλλοι μάκαρες ϑεοὶ αἰὲν ἐόντες. 1k Κ΄ ἫΝ 551.
1 9. 306, μ. 371.
6. for.
1— 86. The seventh day of the poem’s
action here begins, The gods muster
in session, and Athené reminds them
of the case of Odys. detained still by
Calypsé, a grievance unredressed and
now aggravated by the snare spread
for his son. Zeus receives her appeal
with an air of surprise, and, viewing
her request as granted, at once des-
patches Hermes to bid Calypsé speed
Odys. on his way. His flight to her
isle is described, terminating at her
grotto, the romantic beauty of which
forms a noble contrast with the view
of the forlorn hero, pining in his con-
stancy, with his tearful face fixed ever
on the sea.
1. Ἠὼς. Homer's heaven has its
day and night, and dawn visits the
gods, even as mortals. Thus in p. 382
—3 the Sun-god threatens that, if
Odysseus’ crew be not punished for
their sacrilegious slaughter of his herds,
he will ‘‘descend to Hades and shine
among the dead’’. Milton has allowed
the image of dawn in heaven Parad.
LL. VI. 6—13,
which makes through heav'n
Grateful vicissitude like day and
night:
Light issues forth, and at the other
door
Obsequious darkness enters, ’till her
hour
To veil the heav’n; etc.
— Τιϑων. He occurs in the Trojan
pedigree (T. 215s—40) as a sun of Lao-
medon and elder brother of Priam. In
Hy. Aphrod, 218—34 we find the story
of his being the darling of Kés and of
his joyless immortality (cf. Tennyson's
Withonus). Payne Knight considers it
as “6 seriorum opinionibus de diis pro-
fecta’?; which, although he is disput-
ing its genuineness in A. 1—2 only,
would condemn it wherever (mar.) it
occurs, Hes. Theog. 984 mentions Auma-
thion and Memnon sons of Tith., the
latter only being named in H., see ὃ,
188, 4. 522.
3—5. Saxovds, the locative δὲ im-
plies their going thither before sitting
there. λέγε, ‘was enumerating’’; sec
mar. for this sense, and note on ὃ.
451. — κήδεα πόλλ᾽, including the
Gu
᾿ς
λ
170
ἃ β. 230—4 mar.
OATZZEIAZ E. 8—18.
[pay vir.
[μή" τις ἔτι πρόφρων ἀγανὸς καὶ ἤπιος ἔστω
σκηπτοῦχος βασιλεὺς, μηδὲ φρεσὶν αἴσιμα εἰδώς"
ἀλλ᾽ αἰεὶ χαλεπός τ᾽ εἴη καὶ αἴσυλα δέζοι.
b ρ.113--6, B.721,
a. 395, 0. 232, 2.
593,
ς dé. 557—60 mar.
ὡς οὔ τις μέμνηται Ὀδυσσῆος ϑείοιο
[λαῶν οἷσιν ἄνασσε, πατὴρ δ᾽ ὡς ἥπιος ἦεν.
ἀλλ᾽" ὃ μὲν ἐν νήσῳ κεῖται κρατέρ᾽ ἄλγεα πάσχων,
νύμφης" ἐν μεγάροισι Καλυψοῦς, i μιν ἀνάγκῃ
ἴσχει" ὃ δ᾽ οὐ δύναται ἣν πατρέδα γαῖαν ἰκέσϑαι"
d d.727, cf. δ. ἼΟΟ,
740.
ov γάρ of πάρα νῆες ἐπήρετμοι καὶ ἑταῖροι,
οἵ κέν μιν πέμποιεν ἐπ᾽ εὐρέα νῶτα ϑαλάσδης.
~ φ
νῦν" αὖ παῖδ᾽ ἀγαπητὸν ἀποκτεῖναι μεμάασιν
9. ἐειδώς.
8. ἀγανός τε καὶ P. Knight v. not. ad loc.
12. άνασσε.
15. Fyyv. 16. For.
10. ἀήσυλα var. 1. Barnes. coll.
E. 876.
obduracy of Calypsé, and the ever ris-
ing insolence of the suitors in Ithaca.
8—11. A man so just had deserved
better of the gods, who treat him as
though a righteous character were of
no account with them. The topic is
borrowed from Mentor’s appeal to the
Ithacan Assembly in B. 230—4, where
see note. Indeed the whole passage
1—48 is largely made up of lines which
occur with or without modification else-
where; see mar. passin. On this J.
C. Schmitt de 1149 in Odyss. Deor. Con-
cil. has framed an argument against
its genuineness. He constructs accord-
ingly a commencement of ¢. in which
Pallas’ appeal is omitted, and suppo-
ses €. to start anew on the same day
as a. — a notion quite against Ho-
meric usage; see on ὃ. 594. Further,
the delay in sending Hermes, as she
had suggested in a. 84—7, is not in-
consistent with Zeus’ character, who,
as a rule, is indolent and requires to be
moved, whereas Pallas is prompt, ea-
ger and bustling (App. E. 4. (4) (7)];
see below on 22—7. His reply to
her also in α. 76-—g9 leaves a door
open for procrastination, and even im-
plies that further deliberation should
precede action (περιφραξζώμεϑθα). Nor
in point of fact had Poseidon yet
‘Salaxed his ire’’. That deliberation,
suppose, was now to take
but the urgency of Pallas cuts
; she carries the Assembly with
her, and the still absent Poseidon is
forgotten.
12. This v. seems certainly out of
place here. It is nothing to the spea-
ker’s purpose that the Ithacans forget
their king. It is Zeus and the gods
who should remember him and do ποῖ."
Omitting 12, ov τις of 11 would then
mean ‘‘no one of you’? — an apt re-
minder of the resolution which she
had assumed as taken in a. 76—87.
The line probably crept in here from
B. by the force of the attraction of
its context. Similarly in a@. 96 foll.,
where see note, the descent of Pallas
drew after it the description of her
spear from E. 74s—7, which does not
suit her errand in α.
13. Κεῖται conveys a notion of in-
activity, of which it is the proper pos-
ture, as in B. 688, κεῖτο γὰρ ἐν νή-
εσσι.... ᾿4χιλλεύς. The same line (mar.)
describes the forced inactivity of Phi-
loctetes in Lemnos; and, by a singular
change of νήσῳ to νούσῳ, is in &. 395
adapted to a totally different image.
14—17. See notes on 6. 557—6o.
18. μεμάασιν, omitting 12, this
stands without a subject expressed,
but this omission in a speech of ra-
pid urgency is insignificant. Nor could
this attempt be fairly charged on the
λαοί; see x. 375 foll. It is easily un-
derstood of whom she speaks, as Zeus
shows by supplying μνηστῆρες in 27.
The passage 18—20 is not here incon-
DAY τ.
OATZZEIAL E. 19—35.
171
οἴκαδε" vocduevoy’ ὃ δ᾽ ἔβη μετὰ πατρὸς ἀκουὴν
20 ἐς Πύλον ἠγαϑέην ἠδ᾽ ἐς “ακεδαίμονα diay.”
τὴν" δ᾽ ἀπαμειβόμενος προςέφη νεφεληγερέτα Ζεύς
“céxvov ἐμὸν, ποῖόν oe ἔπος φύγεν ἔρκος ὀδόντων.
οὐς γὰρ δὴ τοῦτον μὲν ἐβούλευσας νόον αὐτὴ,
ὡς ἦ τοι κείνους Ὀδυσεὺς ἀποτίσεται ἐλθών;
25 Τηλέμαχον δὲ σὺ πέμψον" ἐπισταμένως" (δύνασαιξ
γὰρ);
ὥς" xe μάλ᾽ ἀσκηϑὴς' ἣν πατρίδα γαῖαν ἴχηται, |
μνηστῆρες δ᾽ ἐν νηὶ παλιμπετὲς " ἀπονέωνται.""
ἢ ῥα, καὶ Ἑρμείαν" υἱὸν φίλον ἀντίον" ηὔδα
«(Ἑρμεία" σὺ" γὰρ αὐτείτά t ἄλλα =p ἄγγελός éoor: P
30 νύμφῃ: eixlonacpo εἰπεῖν νημερτέα
νόστον Ὀδυσσῆος ταλασίφρονος, ὥς κε νέηται,
οὔτε. ϑεῶν πομπῇ οὔτε ϑνητῶν" ἀνθρώπων"
ἀλλ᾽ ὅ γ᾽ ἐπὶ σχεδίης! πολυδέσμου πήματα " πάσχων
ἥματί᾽ " x’ εἰκοστῷ Σχερέην ἐρίβωλον" ἵκοιτο,
45 Φαιήκων" ἐς γαῖαν, οἱ ἀγχέϑεοι γεγάασιν,
19. οίκαδε. 22. βέπος. 26. βήν.
19. νεισόμενον Barnes. Ern. Cl. ed. Ox., νισσόμενον Wolf.
(quasi signif. fut.) Flor. Lov.
30. ἐξειπεῖν.
a ὅδ. 701—2 mar.
b a. 63—4 mar.
c @. 479—80.
dy. 216, λ. 118,
π. 255.
ὁ y. 369.
f a. 368, ν. 161,
Κ΄. 265.
g ὅ. 612 mar.
h 2, 144, 168, ε. 70.
i &. ; K. 212,
Sn ai,
k IT, 395.
1 o. 308, O. 305.
m 82. 333.
n @. 200.
o ef. 0. 540, ρ. 273.
p cf. O. 144.
4 α. 86—7.
ουλὴν, τε. 521; cf. 2. 382,
852, Ζ. 171.
8 a. 219.
t 4. 338, 9. 264;
cf, 4. 177, η. 274.
ῳ . 3
34. εικοστῷ omisso x .
27. ἀπονέονται
28. φίλον υἱὸν Ern. Cl. ed. Ox., υἷὸν φίλον
Barnes. Wolf.
sistent with her assurance to Penel.
in δ. 825—8, since the insolence of
the suitors remains the same, and to
contrast this with the heroic but un-
heeded endurance of Odys. is the main
point of her opening speech.
z22—7. Zeus in α. had given no ex-
plicit assent to Pallas’ proposal about
sending Hermes; but she had assumed
his compliance and acted on it. He lets
things rest for six days in statu quo.
and when she renews her appeal throws
the responsibility upon her, as though
the executive were her province ex-
clusively. Thus his character for lais-
sez faire and hers for energy are ef-
fectively contrasted, This ethical point
is lost by those who impugn the pas-
sage; see on 8—11 sup. vooy = βου-
anv; cf. the hendiadys βουλήν te νόον
te, δ. 267. 25—6 could be spared: 27
coheres exactly with 24, since sub-
junct. may stand as = fut. after ὡς,
πῶς etc., in final sentences [App. A.
5. (5)]. The other reading ἀπονέον-
ται is itself a pres. with fut. force.
To omit 25—6 would suit exactly the
fact shown in δ. 825—8 that Pallas
had already settled it all, and needed
not the exhortation which 25—6 ad-
dresses to her. Yet this need not be
present to Zeus’ mind, whose words
arise naturally out of hers in 18 -- 20
sup.
27. παλιμπετὲς cannot be παλιμ-
πετέες with 8 elided, see Buttm. Le-
wil. 51 (1).
28. Ἑρμιεέαν, see App. C. 2. and
Gladst. 11. iii. 231—41.
30—1. See note on a. 82—7.
32. This is verified by the hero's de-
parture on his solitary raft 263 inf,
and explains her words 140 foll.: Ca-
lypsé in fact only despatches him ἀπὸ
ynoov with a fair wind which she her-
self sends.
33—4. ὄχεδίης πολ., sec App. F.
1. (4). — Lyeglaw see App. Ὁ. 14.
35—36. ἀγχέϑεοι, cf. η. 205, ἐπεί
172
OATZZEIAL E. 36—s0.
[DAY vm.
a ζ. 158, η. 69, o.
N. 119, 206, 430,
4. ἐμ , 4%, 435.
, 339-- 41
vy. 1416---κ. cf. x.
40—1.
x 84.
δ. 487 mar.
2.327; ¢
k $2. 340-5.
1. 75, 94, 145, 9.
388, ὦ. 99. B.
103, 9». 197, 2.
of κέν μιν περὶ" κῆρι, ϑεὸν" ws, τιμήσουσιν,
πέμψουσιν“ δ᾽ ἐν νηὶ φίλην ἐς πατρέδα γαῖαν,
; χαλκόν te χρυσόν τε ἅλις ἐσθῆτά“ τε δόντες,
ϑ. Μ0, ο. 207. | πόλλ᾽,» ὅδ᾽ ἂν οὐδέ ποτε Τροίης ἐξήρατ᾽ Γ Ὀδυσσεὺς,
εἴ περ ἀπήμων" ἦλϑε, λαχὼν" ἀπὸ ληέδος αἷσαν.
i o32|S' γάρ οἱ μοῖρ᾽ ἐστὶ φίλους τ᾽ ἰδέειν, καὶ ἰκέσϑαι
- [οἶκον ἐς ὑψόροφον καὶ ξὴν ἐς πατρίδα γαῖαν."
as* ἔφατ᾽, οὐδ᾽ ἀπίϑησε διάκτορος! ᾿Δργειφόντης.
αὐτίκ᾽ " ἔπευϑ᾽ ὑπὸ ποσσὶν ἐδήσατο καλὰ πέδιλα,
ἀμβρόσια χρύσεια, τά μιν φέρον ἠμὲν ἐφ᾽ ὑγρὴν
ἠδ᾽ ἐπ᾽ ἀπείρονα γαῖαν ἅμα πνοιῆῇς ἀνέμοιο,
εἴλετο" δὲ ῥάβδον," τῇ τ᾽ ἀνδρῶν ὄμματα ϑέλγειν
εἰ ὧν ἐθέλει. τοὺς δ᾽ αὖτε καὶ ὑπνώοντας ἐγείρει"
Ρ π' 196. τὴν μετὰ χερσὶν ἔχων πέτετο κρατὺς" ᾿4ργειφόντης.
r = .226—7,B
5 δ. 508, 8. 318.
38. άλις Ἐεσϑῆτα.
36. περὶ Eustath. Ern. Cl. ed. Ox.’Bek. Fa., πέρε Wolf. Dind. Low.
δέποτε sine ἐκ Harl. Wolf., οὐδέποτ᾽ ἐκ Barnes. Ern. Cl. ed. Ox.
var. 1. Barnes.
41. Fou Fudéecy.
Theotnv' δ᾽ ἐπιβὰς ἐξ αἰθέρος ἔμπεσε" πόντῳ"
42. Fotxoy ἐξῆν.
39. οὐ-
45. φέροι
so. Schol. P. virgulam post αὐθέρος non post ἐπιβὰς appinxit.
σφισιν ἐγγύθεν εἰμέν. --- περὶ χῆρι,
a phrase found also with νεμεσσῶμαι,
φιλέω, ἐχθαίρω etc., cf. the κηρόθι
μᾶλλον of ε. 284 et al. (mar.). On the
question whether to take weg? in such
sense as if it had πάντων following
(ef. a. 235), t. e. “excessively”, and
rotract the accent, editors differ, nor
is it an easy point for mss. to settle.
We find, however, such phrases as
περὶ ϑυμῷ and περὶ φρεσὶν (X. 70,
cf. ®. 65, JI. ι57). suggesting that
words relating to the mind are go-
verned hy περὶ with a peculiar local
force, based probably on the physical
notion of κῆρ or φρένες, an analogy
which θυμὸς follows.
38. δόντες, gifts as a token of ho-
nour and source of profit were in high
esteem with the Greeks from the he-
roic age downwards; cf. πεέϑειν δῶρα
καὶ ϑεοὺς λόγος, Eurip. Med. 960. So
here it is a mark of divine favour and
gcompense after neglect, that Odys.
nld return home ricber than if he
eome straight from Troy. We
compare the ‘‘end of Job” (Job
II. iz). Ni. seems to think 39—40
superfluous here, as the gifts are ‘‘men-
tioned only incidentally’’ (beildufig).
Perhaps he did not give due weight
to the connexion just pointed out with
the main subject.
43. In this passage Virgil has (An.
IV. 238 foll.) followed in the footsteps
of H, with unusual continuity and close-
ness, allowing for the divergence in
the line of his Mercury's flight. For
διάχτορος sce on α. 82—7; for Ag-
γειφόντης see App. C. 2.
45—6. See on a. 88—98.
47—8. These lines suit the expedi-
tion of Hermes in Q., which involves
the casting of the Greek sentinels
into a sleep; but have no special per-
tinence to his errand here, and per-
haps followed their context by attrac-
tion as in 12 sup. and @. 97—101.
However, the ῥάβδος, as specially sym-
bolical of the god who is γρυσόρραπις
(87 inf.), may certainly be allowed even
wRhout such pertinence.
50. Πιερέην. Ni. remarks on the
geographical definiteness of the abode
of the Gods, as being on Olympus, an
4C
5
59
DAY νι.
σεύατ᾽ " ἔπειτ᾽ ἐπὶ κῦμα λάρῳ ὕρνιϑι" ἐοικὼς,"
ὃς τε κατὰ δεινοὺς κόλπους ἁλὸς ἃ ἀτρυγέτοιο
ἐχϑῦς ἀγρώσσων πυκινὰ πτερὰ δεύεται ἄλμῃ"
τῷ" ἴκελος πολέεσσιν ὀχήσατο' κύμασιν ‘Kouys.<
ἀλλ᾽ ὅτε δὴ τὴν νῆσον ἀφίκετο τηλόϑ᾽ ἐοῦσαν,
ἔνϑ᾽ ἐκ πόντου βὰς ἰοειδέος ἤπειρόνδεν
ἤιεν ὄφρα μέγα σπέος ἵκετο, τῷ Eve νύμφη,
.--«.-
51. FeFouxag.
54. hune v. pro additamento notant Scholl. Π. P. Q. + Eustath.
ΟΔΥΣΣΕΙΑΣ E. 51—58.
ναῖεν ξὐπλόκαμος" τὴν δ᾽ ἔνδοϑι τέτμεν Κ ἐοῦσαν.
54. ίκελος.
173
a Z. 505, H. 205.
h 7.240, H. 59, «Ξ,..
290; cf. α. $20.
ec Jd. 245,
la. 72, ζ. 226, x.
170.
ὁ δ 240, TM, P.
Γ 2. 731; cf. 201.
5.435, E 490.
403,
110.
h 438 ,
423, ¥. εὖ;
i a. δῦ, e. 30.
Κα. 21, 0. 15, Z.
ΜΠ, Ζ. 293; cf.
| =. 52s.
56. Frofecdéos.
55. τηλόϑεν
οὖσαν Bek. annot,
actual mountain, in Il., and the less
precise tokens of such relation, and
greater ideality given to their abode,
in the Ody.; in which Olymp. does not
bear the usual epithets which mark
it as a mountain. Here Olympns, al-
though not named, is suggested in Pie-
rié its northern extension. Olympus
appears to retain even among the
Turks its celestial celebrity (Hammer
ap. Kruse’s Hellas I. p. 282). — ἐδ
αἰϑέρος, this is distinguished (ἐξ.
288) from ἠὴρ the lower and denser
air, which, when thickened, is viewed
as homogeneous with mist ete. 2» 80 that
ἠέρι πολλῇ means “in gloom or haze”
so ἠέρι καὶ νεφέλῃ 1. 15. Pallas de.
scends from heaven through the αἰθὴρ,
and the flash and clang of arms goes
up to the οὐρανὸς through the same (T.
351, B. 458, P. 425) (Ni.). ἐξ αἰϑέρος
shonld go with ἐπιβὰς, not with ἔμπεσε
a. Thus Pierié is a stage between the
αἰϑὴρ and the sea — a platform from
which the god plunges seawards. Other-
wise the αἰθὴρ would be at no higher
level than Pierié, which hardly agrees
with the passages cited. His course
seems meant to be north-westerly ; see
App. D. 2. By ἔμπεσε contact with
the surface, not immersion, seems
meant. The poet appears to adopt
Pierié as the point of view, and to
mark and describe his deity’s flight
from thence. Any one who has watched
from a headland the birds shoot down
upon and sport along the sea, will ea-
sily realize this.
31—4. σεύατ᾽
oe. Ext, this de-
scribes motion skimming the surface;
80 53 inf. the wings are wet with the
spray. λέρῳ, this bird, aa described
by Aristotle (Hist. Anim. V. 9) cf. Il. 17,
VIII. 3), may be either the larus canus, pa-
rasiticus or marinus. For ὄρνιϑι with λά-
ρῷ sce on ἀνόπαια, App. A. 13. Observe
Adgos, but λαΐφος adject. in B. 350. —
€o.xas, 8. simile is shown by this
word, and not an assumption by Her-
mcs (as often by a deity) of the bird
form. This may be a special reason
for the insertion of v. 54, which Eu-
stath. and Payne Knight reject. We
are thereby assured that it is Hermes
in propria persona.
52—4. κόλπους, not ‘“‘depths’’, but
“bays”’; δεινοὺς, perhaps alike 80
to navigators by their crags and reefs,
and on the land side by their preci-
pices. ἔκελος, as also ὡς or τοῖος,
lead the formule by which H. thus
binds the simile to the thing illus-
trated. Possibly Ἑρμῆς was origin-
ally ‘Eguéag, a lighter form of ‘Eg-
μείας (Ni.). Payne Knight based his
rejection of this line and of §. 435 on
the non-Homeric form of the name
Ἑομῆς.
55. νῆσον. Those ancients who re-
garded the wanderings of Odys. as
being in the Mediterrancan wholly,
viewed the isle as being on the coast
of Lucania; see on £. 4—5.
56. ἤπειρόνδε » ἥπειρος is used of
land as limiting and excluding the sen;
whether it be island or mainland.
OATZDEIAL E. s9—69. [Day. VII.
174
ay. ἰυϑ. τ. 389,
b ef. ξ. 12, 425, 0.
37), 92. 192,
ς εἴ. φ. 52, Ο. 153,
ὃ. 121.
πῦρ μὲν ἐπ᾽ ἐσχαρόφιν" μέγα καίετο, τηλόϑι δ᾽ ὀὸμὴ
κέδρου τ᾽ εὐκεάτοιο" ϑύου" τ᾽ ἀνὰ νῆσον ὀὁδώδειν, 6c
na 'darougvav: 4 δ᾽ ἔνδον ἀοιδιάουσ᾽ " ὀπὶ" καλῇ,
cx, ὦ, 0,4. ἐστὸν! ἐποιχοπένη χρυσείῃ κερκέίδ᾽ ε ὕφαινεν.
AM & 3% ὕλῃ δὲ σπέος ἀμφὶ πεφύκει τηλεϑόωσα,"
εἀ aa. ’ . 3 ’ 9 » ’
h Ζ. 148, 9. 116. AQ DON! τ αἴγειρός" τε καὶ εὐώδης κυπαρισσος."
ὌΝ ἔνϑα δέ τ᾽ ὄρνιϑες τανυσίπτεροι εὐναξζξοντο, 6:
ς᾽ Ὁ 6] σκῶπές τ’ ἰρηκές τε τανύγλωσσοί τε κορῶναι" ᾿
ὁ, a, δι 305 εἰνάλιαι," τῇσίν τε ϑαλάσσια» ἔργα " μέμηλεν. | f°
p 1. 22 ἣ δ᾽ αὐχσοῦ τετάνυστο περὶ oneiovs’ γλαφυροῖο
“ 4. 220.
r x. 6, & 465, 508,
I. 446.
ἡμερὶς nBawoa, τεϑήλει δὲ σταφυλῇσιν.
6). Féoyea.
He
sg. τηλόσε Harl., τηλόσε Flor. Lov. Steph. Schol. V. MS.GC. — 61. etiam legi
δαιομένων νύμφη δὲ ἐὐπλοκαμοῦσα Καλυψὼ notant Scholl. H.P.Q. 63. ἀμ-
φιπεφύκει Flor. Lov. Schol. V. Ern. Cl. ed. Ox., disjunctim Barnes. Wolf.,
τηλεϑαουσὰα Harl. sed ex emend. 66. κῶπες var. 1. Barnes citato Aristotel.
ap. ‘Elian. Hist. Anim. XV. 8. 67. μεμήλει Schol. H. 68. ἡ δ᾽ Harl. Schol.
H. Stephan. Barnes. Ern. Cl. ed. Ox. Bek. Dind. Fa. Lowe, ἡδ᾽ Flor. Lov. Wolf,
59 toll. With the description of the
abode of Calypso, cf. that of Cireé in
Virg. En. VII. 10 foll. — ἐσχαρόφιν,
see App. F. 2. (19) (20).
60. εὐχεάτοιο, the notion is that
of logs split (xeafm κεέω) for fuel;
and the word is not based on χαΐέω
κηώδης, as if reinforcing ὀδμή. —
ϑύου, “qualis arbor fuerit ... jam
veteres ignorasse videntur’’ (Liwe).
Donbtless some perfumed wood; cf.
Pliny N. H. ΧΙ]. 17. Non alia arborum
genera sunt in usu quam odorata, cibos-
que Saberi coquunt thuris ligno; and Virg.
An. VII. 13 Orit odoratam nocturna in
lumina cedrum. Macrob, Saturn, 111. 19
identifies it with the citrus of the La-
tins, its fruit being the feliz malum of
Virg. Georg. 11. 127.
61—2. dowe., the number of open
vowels in this word is exquisitely
adapted to express vocalization, espe-
cially as distantly heard, the sound
predominating over the words of the
song. So in the case of Circé (mar.).
exoryou., Liwe cites aSchol. on Pind.
th, IX. 33 (18), lorod παλιμβάμους
ὁδοὺς, to tho effect that constant move-
ment to and fro and turning about
were required in ancient weaving. ‘
iN
64—5. κληϑρφη, the species of alder
meant is perhaps the alnus oblongata, as
the best known in Greece (Dunbar Ler.
App.). αἴγειφος, populus nigra, ἔνϑα
δὲ τ᾿, the τ᾿ is probably τοι.
66—7. σκῶκές, Eustath. describes
it as emaller than the ylavé, having
lead-coloured plumage with whitish
spots. lian. (de Nat. An. XV. 28), al-
leging Aristotelian authority, rejects the
o here, writing κῶπες, in which Athe-
neeus (IX. 10) concurs, citing also four
other ancient authorities. There is an
owl called the Strix Scops (Linn.) ap-
parently identified with this.
κωρῶναει elvad, Aristot. (Hist, An.
VHT. 5) and ASlian (de Nat. Anim. XV.
23) apply this name to what is pro-
bably either a cormorant or ἃ coot
(Dunbar Lex. App.). Eustathius says the
αἴϑυιαι (see on 337 inf.) were anciently
so called. — ϑαλάσσια ἔργα, such as
diving. fishing cte. Ni. compares Hes.
Theog. 440, οἱ γλαυκὴν ἐργάζονται.
To the Arcadians, to whom Agam. fur-
nished ships, the phrase is adapted
negatively (mar.).
68—70. ἢ, this pronoun article gives
distinctness and prominence to the
ἡμερὶς as among the other trees.
DAY VII.]
70 κρῆναι δ᾽ ἑξείης πίσυρες" ῥέον ὕδατι" λευκῷ,
πλησίαι ἀλλήλων τετραμμέναι ἄλλυδις ἄλλη.
ἀμφὶ δὲ λειμῶνες" μαλακοὶ ἴου ἠδὲ σελίνου
ϑήλεον᾽" EvGac x’ ἔπειτα καὶ ἀϑάνατός πὲρ ἐπελθὼν!
ϑηήσαιτοξ ἰδὼν καὶ τερφϑείη φρεσὶν" ἧσιν.
75 ἔνϑα στὰς ϑηεῖτο διάκτορος" ᾿4“ργειφόντης.
αὐτὰρ ἐπεὶ δὴ πάντα ἑὼ" ϑηήσατο θυμῷ,
αὐτικ’ ἄρ᾽ εἰς εὐρὺ! σπέος ἤλυϑεν. οὐδέ μιν ἄντην
nyvotnoev™ ἰδοῦσα Καλυψὼ" δῖαο ϑεάων. Ν"
οὖν γάρ t ἀγνῶτες ϑεοὶ ἀλλήλοισι πέλονται
80 ἀϑάνατοι. οὐδ᾽ εἴ τις ἀπόπροθϑιι δώματα ναίει.
9 μ
3
---....Ρ eee
72. «έου.
ΟΔΥΣΣΕΙ͂ΑΣ E, 7o—81.
οὐδ᾽ ἄρ᾽ Ὀδυσσῆα μεγαλήτορα" ἔνδον ἔτετμεν ,"
74. ξιδὼν Εῆσιν.
175
ἃ π. 249, χ. 111].
bh YW. 252.
e . 138.
α ε. 132—3.
ον. 106, τ. 59, 102.
cf.
f cf. x. 87-8, Δ.
539, N. 343.
ew &. 17.
h 9 368; cf. φ.
301. ?
ie. 43 mar.
k o. 182.
1c. 231, 337, N. 32.
m A. 537, B. 807,
N. 2.
na. Il, ε. sepius,
ι. 0.
o ὅ. 376, 382, 398,
κ. μ. s@pius, σ.
190, 1972
p εἴ. Ε. 127-8.
q δ. 511 mar.
r ὅδ. 143 mar.
s e, 58 mar.
76. Few. 78. frdovea.
γι. ἄλλῃ, ‘pro vitioso notat Schol. V. 72. μαλακοῦ var. |. Schol. H., mox fuisse
qui fov in céov mutatum vellent notant. Eustath. et Athen. II. 61.
80. pro ef
τις Aristar. ἥτις, Scholl. H. P.
ἡμερὶς, cf. Virg. Bucol. V. 6—7, aspice
ut antrum Sylvestris raris sparsit labrusca
racemis. Eustath. talks of a thin-barked
kind of oak so called, but the en-
tire description points to some species
of vine; cf. Simonides Ceos Fragm. 51,
1, ἡμερὶ πανθέλκτειρα, μεϑυτρόφε,
μῆτερ ὁπώρας, Apoll. Rhod. III. 220,
ἡμερέδες χλοέροισι καταστεφέες πετά-
λοισι. Possibly the adj. ἥμερος “tame”,
i, ὁ. “‘cultivated’’, may be its origin. So
Liddell and 8. give ἀγριὰς as = ἀγρέα
ἄμπελος. — ἡβώωσα, sce App. A. 2.
70. *Q7vaL, we may compare the
two in the precinct of Alcinous’ pa-
lace, one for the garden and one for
the house etc. (7. 129—31). The larger
number here bespeaks the abundance
of a divine abode. σέσυρες or πέτο-
ees was ‘‘the oldest Greek form” for
τέσσαρες, Donalds. New Crat. 158. —
Aevxq@, contrast this epith. with μέ-
lav vdwe, δ. 359, expressing perhaps
the sheltered basin, as this the spring-
ing rill, and with κρήνη μελάνυδρος, 1.14.
72. tov, for this Ptolemy Euergetes
proposed to read σέου, ‘“‘marsh-plant”’,
as more appropriate to the neighbour-
hood of parsley than violets; this
seems trivial. Hoth parsley and vio-
lets were used for garlands; cf. the
—6, II. vii. 24, apio coronas.
73—4. This whole clause might be
spared, as in 75—6 Hermes actually ad-
mires. Yet it generalizes the effect of
the previous picture very happily: cf.
similar phrases in which ovxéte or
οὐδ᾽ ... ὀνόσαιτο occurs with similar
force to that of ϑηήσαιτο here (mar.).
Moreover in 77—8o0 inf. the line of
thought is inverted; since there the
statement of a particular case, οὐδέ
μὲν x. τ. Δ., is followed by that of a
general principle, οὐ γάρ κι τ. Δ. For
the whole manner here cf. ». 96—112,
especially for ἔνϑα repeated and for
ἔνϑα δ᾽ ἔπειτα “there accordingly”’,
in 106. In some other instances (mar.)
of ἔνϑα followed by ἔπειτα the latter
has a distinct sense of ‘‘after’’ some-
thing else has taken place.
ϑηήσ. Buttmann (Gr. Verbs) gives
as Doric forms ϑαάομαι ϑαέομαι, epic
ϑήομαι, whence (6. 191) ϑησαίατο,
and ϑηέομαι, which last is most com-
mon in H. With this verb here thrice
recurring in as many lines Ni. com-
pares tyxouae § times in ς lines, τ.
204 foll.
a δ. 539 mar.; ef. ἀλλ᾽ ῦ
8. 151—2.
κ a 42i—7,
1 x. 277, 331.
m A, 202, Ζ. 254,
ys, 94.
=.
ΟΔΥΣΣΕΙΑΣ E. 82—9s.
[pay vit.
γ᾽ ἐπ’ ἀκτῆς κλαῖε καϑήμενος" ἔνϑα πάρος
MEQ,
᾿Ιπόντον" ἐπ᾽ ἀτρύγετον δερκέσκετο δάκρυα" λείβων.
᾿ἱ Ἑρμείαν δ᾽ ἐρέεινε Καλυψὼ!" δῖα ϑεάων,
ἐνὶ ϑρόνῳ ἰδρύσασα φαεινῷ" σιγαλόεντι,
(τίπτε wor, Ἑ ρμεία χρυσόρραπι..' εἰλήλουθας ."»
on, rd 316, =. ῃ χἰδοῖός" τε φίλος τε; πάρος γε μὲν οὔ τι ϑαμίζξειςυ
Ot.
po. 161; ef. δ. αὔδα! ὅτι φρονέεις" τελέσαι δέ μὲ ϑυμὸς ἄνωγεν,
4 ,«Ξ΄. 195—6.
ref.
ΝῊ, σι, (66 δύναμαι τελέσαι ye καὶ εἰ τετελεσμένον ἐστίν." )
Ἢ 229, σ. 82, τ}... ἊΝ , “ \ , ,
487, 547, φ. 337. [ἀλλ > ἔπεο προτέρω, ἵνα tor πὰρ ξείνια! Fei. |”
S ᾿ e —- an.
188, 4. 779,
to |
408. |
u T. 1
Vv Φ
Of a.
w ὅδ. 445 mar.
x ¢. 219, η. 177.
y 8. 43 mar.
Σ
&. 111.
83. στεναχῇσι Aristoph., Scholl. H. P.
| ] Bek. Dind, Fa., retinent Barnes, Ern. Cl. ed. Ox. Wolf. Liw.
Harl., “‘abest a multis,’’ Bek. annot.
Barnes.
83—4. These lines, if both genuine
here, recur 1s7—8. Eustath. was for
rejecting both in this place. TheScholl.
reject. 84 only. Certainly, κλαῖε ...
δάκρυσι ... δάκρυα savoura of redun-
dancy; and the “looking on the sea’,
i. e. towards his home, seems too cha-
ractcristic to be spared, to which it
adds force that his eyes well with tears
as he looks. Thus we may preferably
reject 83. But whether 83 be read or
dropped, 84, if read, requires a co-
lon after καϑήμενος. On στοναχῆσι
Buttm. Lezil. 97. grounds an ana-
logy in favour of στοναχῆσαι στονα-
χίξω from ground-form στένω, as φορὰ
φορέω from φέρω. — ἐρέχϑων, akin
to ἐρεέκω (mar.), applied to a hel-
met etc. burst by a spear etc. So
Hes. Scut. 286—7 ἀροτῆρες ἤρεικον
Sova. For δάκρυα λείβων cf. on
ἄκρυον εἶβεν, δ. 153.
85—96. This reception and greeting
consists almost wholly of recurring
lines, mostly from Thetis’ visit to Cha-
ὃς" ἄρα φωνήσασα ϑεὰ παρέϑηκε" τράπεξαν,
2. 3 , , , ’
ὅν τῷ, ρ. 333, ᾿ἀμβροσίης " πλήσασα, κέρασσε δὲ νέκταρ ἐρυϑρόν.
αὐτὰρ" ὃ πῖνε καὶ note διάκτοροςν ᾽“ργειφόντης.
αὐτὰρ" ἐπεὶ δείπνησε καὶ ἤραρε ϑυμὸν ἐδωδῇ,
--. --....-- ne
84 abundare notant Scholl. IH. P.
gi omittit
Wolf. Bek, Dind. Fa. Liwe, retinent
. ed. Ox.
ris and Hephestus in &. For yev-
σόρφραπι see App. C. 2. — PapelGecc
elsewhere (mar.) has a participle to
assist its meaning; so here ἐρχόμενος
might be supposed. In 89 adda was
an old error for αὖδα, which Barnes
first corrected, noticing that the final
α is long.
In go observe ἐσεὶν, not, as in
mar., ἔσται; since a thing which has
been done is possible. The whole line
has a formulaic air. Ni. remarks that
verbals in τὸς include the senses of
both fact and possibility, citing Arist.
Poet. IX. 6. τὰ δὲ γενόμενα φανερὸν
ὅτι δυνατά. Line 91 is better away,
having followed its context from 2.
485-00: but there the guest is seated
afterwards, as a consequence of the
invitation, here he is so already.
93—4. ἀμβροσ., 566 on δ. 445. For
Stax. ᾿Αργειφ., sce on α. 82--7 and
App. C. 2.
95. With yeage Sv. cf. the adj.
85
DAY vil.]
᾿ καὶ τότε On μιν ἔπεσσιν" ἀμειβόμενος προςέειπεν
“slomras μ᾽ ἐλθόντα, ϑεὰ, θεόν" αὐτὰρ ἐγώ τοι
νημερτέως" τὸν μῦϑον ἐνισπήσω (κέλεαι“ γάρ.)
Ζεὺς ἐμέ γ᾽ ἠνώγει δεῦρ᾽ ἐλθέμεν οὔκ“ ἐθέλοντα"
(00 τές δ᾽ ἂν ἕκὼν τοσσόνδε διαδράμοι ἁλμυρὸν" ὕδωρ
ἄσπετον; οὐδέ τις ἄγχι βροτῶν πόλις, οἵ τὲ ϑεοῖσιν
ἵεραξ τὲ ῥέξουσι καὶ ἐξαίτους " ἑκατόμβας.
ΟΔΥΣΣΈΙΑΣ Ἐ. 96—106.
177
\a J. 706.
jb «. 269.
‘ce ef. δι 612 mar.
4 cf. O. 175.
[6 @. 155, x. 573, y.
31, ὦ, 307.
f d. Sil, ε. 227,
470, μ. 2:36, 240,
431, ο. .
gs y. 5.
“ἫΝ , 32
ἀλλὰϊ μάλ᾽ οὔ πως ἔστι Ζιὸς νόον αἰγιόχοιο ie, 151
" k 2% 4 Nad ea « Ι k K.344; εἴς ». 291
οὔτε παρεξελθεῖν" ἄλλον Feov ov? αλιῶσαι. 1H. 73
(05 φησί τοι ἄνδρα παρεῖναι ὀϊξυρώτατον"» ἄλλων 2"
τῶν" ἀνδρῶν οἵ ἄστυ πέρι Πριάμοιο μάχοντο
96. Fe ξέπεσσιν προσέειπεν.
106. faorv.
99. ἐμὲ cum hiatu omnes ante Barnes,, qui ex conj. μὲν ἔμ᾽, ita Ern, Cl. ed.
Ox., ἐμ ἴ correct. a man. certe antiq. Harl., ita Wolf., we γὰρ Schol. O. 175.
104. παρ
ἐλθεῖν Barnes. Ern, Cl. ed. Ox.
παρεξελϑεῖν Steph. Wolf. 105
—11 + Scholl. P. Q., τὸς et ὀϊζυρότερον οἱ ὀϊξυρότατον prebet Schol. I.
ϑυμαρέα applied to ἄλοχον in w. 232,
I. 336.
97—159. Hermes states his message
— reluctantly, as shown by the two
opening lines. He exhorts Calypsé to
bow to Zeus and aloa (113) and send
Odys. away. She replies, stung with
indignation at the selfish jealousy of
the male gods, of which she cites se-
veral other instances: but concludes,
‘““since Zeus is irresistible, let Odys.
go,’ and promises to show him how.
ITermes departs, and she seeks Odys.
solitary on the shore, to tell him what
change awaits him.
98. νημερτέως x. τ. λ., cf. Mene-
laus’ words to Telem. δ. 350, τῶν ov-
δέν τοι ἐγὼ κρύψω ἔπος, οὐδ᾽ ἐπι-
κεύσω.
100—2. Hermes speaks as a human
messenger who had traversed a desert
with no places of refreshment might
speak. There is something playful in
his manner, pleading his own hard-
ships in bringing the message, and as
it were tacitly setting them off against
the vexation which it would inflict;
‘““but,’? he adds, ‘Zeus’ will must be
done, no other god can evade it’? —
leaving her to apply the maxim to her-
self, as she in fact does (137—8 inf).
He also carefully abstains from all a
lusion to her passionate love for Odys,
HOM. OD. I,”
104. Cf. Hes. Theog. 613 ὡς οὐκ
ἔστι Διὸς κλέψαι νόον οὐδὲ παρ-
ἐλθεῖν.
105. ὀΐξυρ., the superl. stands here
where we should expect the compara-
tive (which is also read, but probably
as a corrupt device to ease a difficulty),
meaning ‘‘more wretched than (any
one of) the others;’’ it is inconsistent,
because the sense of adimy expressly
excludes what the superl. form requi-
res should be included. Indeed ἄλλων
after a superl. may by an idiomatic
abuse of language be taken as = πάν-
tov. See mar. on ἄλλων for similar
examples. Milton has a parallel to it
in Par. L. IV. 323—4,
Adam the goodliest man of men since
orn
His sons, the fairest of her daugh-
ters Eve.
Similarly, Thucyd. I. 10, τὴν στρατείαν
ἐκείνην μεγίστην μὲν γενέσϑαι τῶν
πρὸ αὐτῆς, and Eurip. Med. 941, εἴ-
πὲρ γυναικῶν ἐστὶ τῶν ἄλλων μία;
so inf. 118 ἔξοχον ἄλλων is to be ta-
ken as a superl. with compar. force.
106. There is hardly a doubt that
τῶν ἀνδρῶν should be taken in clo-
sest connexion with aliowy, not merely
depending partitively on ἄνδρα pre-
ceding. It then forms, (since what is
said of ‘‘the men” implies zaxtmy) a
justification of the preceding note.
12
178
ay. 118.
b B. 328-9.
ς y. 138.
d 5 978mar., 7.265,
ew. 110
Γι. 147, B. 144.
g ἢ. 251; ef. «. 273
—4.
659, ὁ. 146, Χ.
107. εἰνά ξετες.
ΟΔΥΣΣΕΊΙΑΣ E, 107—113.
108. forcxad’.
[pay vu.
| elvetetsg 9° δεκάτῳ" δὲ πόλιν πέρσαντες ἔβησαν
οἴκαδ᾽" ἀτὰρ ἐν. νόστῳ ᾿4“ϑηναίην" ἀλίτοντο ,"
ἢ σφιν ἐπῶρσ᾽ " ἄνεμόν τε κακὸν καὶ κύματα paxea.!
εςζἔνϑ᾽ " ἄλλοι μὲν πάντες ἀπέφϑιϑεν ἐσϑλοὶ! ἑταῖροι,
τὸν δ᾽ ἄρα δεῦρ᾽ ἄνεμόςϊ τε φέρων καὶ κύμα"πέλασσεν.]
τὸν νῦν σ᾽ ἠνώγειν ἀποπεμπέμεν ὅττι! ταἀχιστα"
οὐ γάρ of τῇδ᾽ αἷσα φίλων ἀπονόσφιν ὀλέσϑαι.,
113. (οι.
110—11 fF Schol. H. [] Wolf. Bek. Dind. Fa. Liéwe, retinent Barnes. Cl. ed.
Ox. 110, axép@iGov Barnes. Wolf. Cl. ed. Ox. Dind. Liw., ἀπέφϑιϑεν
Augsb. cum tribus Vindob. Scholl. Vulg. H. P. Q. Bek.
P. H. Bek. Fa., ἠνώγει Barnes. Wolf. Cl. ed. Ox. Dind. Liw.
ares. Ern. Cl. ed. Ox., ἀπόνοσφιν Wolf.
σφιν
108—g. Thése lines no way relate
to Odys. and his fortunes, but in the
mouth of Hermes they are perhaps
good-humonred gossip. He is telling
Calyps6, who lives so remote, the news,
or what he takes to be such, as an
ordinary ἀγγελος might. We learn from
μ. 389 -go that he told her more be-
sides.
108. "4. ἀλέτοντο, see on y. 126:
cf. Hes. Scut. 79—80, ἀϑανάτους
μάκαρας, tor Ὄλυμπον ἔχουσιν ἤλι-
tev ᾿ἀμφιτρύων.
110—1. These lines seem proper as ἃ
part of Calyps6’s words to Hermes 133
—4, and therefore less proper here as
a part of what he says to her. Three
Scholl. omit them here, but admit them
there, although there Eustath. rejects
them. Two Scholl. reject the entire
passage 10s—11, urging that the storm
raised by Pallas had nothing to do
with the wreck of Odys., as neither
could .48. ἀλέτοντο apply to him, but
see above on 108—g. But as regards
110—1 merely, if they are retained,
the word ἔνϑα would seem to connect
that wreck with the storm so raised,
which is against Odysseus’ own state-
ment elsewhere, and is a further rea-
son for rejecting these lines here. Be-
low (133—4) ἔνϑα properly connects
the wreck with Zeus’ thunder, which
is exactly in accordance with that
statement.
112. ἡνώγεεν, for the retention of
the » in this termination see Bek. Hou-
mer. Blat. p. 29, who pleads the au-
112. ἠνώγειν Scholl.
113. ἅπο νό-
thority of Aristarchus, Zenodotus, and
Aristophanes, as being, according to
various Scholl. in favour of it. Eu-
stath. on Z. 170 calls this an Ionic
form, as being the more ancient, and
retained by the Ionians, from whom
the Attics also adopted it, as in ἤδειν
(Léwe).
113. αἶσα, cf. μοῖρα in next line.
The two words have here a shade of
difference, which the context aptly il-
lustrates, αἶσα being used by H. in rela-
tion to the evil, μοῖρα to the guod which
befalls a man. Absolutely taken their
import is often indifferently “fate’’ or
“Jot”, The former special meaning
is shown by the epithet xaxq or b
the context, as in δαίμονος alou κακ ἢ
A. 61, cf. τ. 259, E. 209, ἐπεί ψύ TOL
αἱἰσαμένυνθα neg; ovti pada δὴν
A. 416, goon of aloa xara κλῶϑές
te βαρεῖαι γεινομένῳ νήσαντο λίνῳ
ἢ. 197, 80 T. 127, ἰῇ ἄρα γιγνόμεδ᾽
αἴσῃ Χ. 477, Π. 441, ἐν ϑανατοιό
meq αἴσῃ 2. 428; the latter by μοὶ -
ράν τ᾽ ἀμμορίέην te καταϑνητῶν ἀν-
ϑρώπων υ. 76, ὦ μάκαρ ᾿Ατρείδη, μοι -
ρηγενὲς ὀλβιόδαιμον I. 182. Yet we
have @avatog καὶ μοῖρα I. τοι,
tely δ᾽ ἐπὶ μοῖραν ἔϑηκε (Ζεὺς) λ.
560, cf. τ. 592 and μοῖρ᾽ ὁλοή 5 times
in Ody. and 3 times in Il. So αἶσι-
μόν ἔστι and μόφσιμόν ἔστι, α ἴσι -
μον nuag and μόρσιμον ἡμὰρ seem
equivalent; cf. also κακὴ Διὸς αἶσα
παρέστη ἡμῖν αἰνομόροισιν ι. 52— 3,
which latter passages show that the
line of distinction is not rigid.
120
DAY VII.]
OATZZEIAL Ε΄. 114—122.
καὶ ixdoPar | 2 « 4!—2 mar.
ἀλλ᾽ ἔτι of μοῖρ᾽ ἐστὶ φίλους τ’ ἰδέειν, δ ρον 18, B.
452—3, Θ.19--9,
2 3 6 , e 1. 236—7, 5 .9—
οἶκον ἐς ὑψόροφον καὶ Env ἐς πατρέδα yaiav.” 1, Φ. (525-5:
cf ὁ. 41 mar., ζ.
314,
ὡς" φάτο, ῥίγησεν δὲ Καλυψὼ" δῖα" Secor, ca 171, ΤΟ 260,
ες 150, 279, 4. 254,
[ o 3 ” ’ ,’ . 119.
καί μιν φωνήσασ ἔπεα πτερόεντα προςηύδα ἃ 4. 78 mar.
, ον ΓΑ 269, 7. 236, 9.
ἐς σχέτλιοίξ ἐστε, ϑεοὶ, ξηλήμονες" ἔξοχον ἄλλων, yO. 36. 89"
R33 0
P . , ἢ ef. ἡ, 807.
οἵ τε ϑεαῖς ἀγάασϑε" παρ᾽ ἀνδράσιν εὐναξεσϑαι i ὃ ἢ mar.
, oa 1g. 284, I. 178
augadiny,' ἤν τίς te φίλον" ποιήσετ᾽ ἀκοίτην. πὶ ὦ. ΔΒ], φ 88.
.. 274, X. 2
, 1, Ψ 1, A
ὡς μὲν ὅτ᾽ ἸΦρίων᾽" ἕλετο ῥοδοδάκτυλος» ν᾿ Ηὼς, 4 ἐπ δ’ Τῷ
ba ο. 250.
, ,, \ , 4 ef. ο. 250.
τόφρα of ἠγάασϑε" ϑεοὶ" ῥεῖα ξώοντες, r δ, 181 mar.
114. foe «ιδέειν omisso τ΄.
115. Foixoy ἐξήν.
117. φωνήσασα fined.
122. foe.
118. δηλήμονες var. 1. Kustath. Scholl. Vulg. K. et Steph.
], Flor. Lov. Schol. Q. Barnes. Ern. Cl., ἣν τές te Wolf. ed. Ox.
123 —4 fF nonnulli, Scholl. H. P. Q.
μέν τ var. 1. Harl. et Schol. H.
isd
120. ἢ τις Te Var.
121. ὡς
123.
εἴως Ambr. (2), ita Harl., sed ἕως (quod omnes edd.) ex emend.
ὀλέσθαι, Hermes views Odysseus’
staying in the island as all one with
‘‘perishing’’: he would so indeed be
lost to his friends, to:heroism and to
fame. Perhaps Calypsé in 135—6 in-
tends a reply to this insinuation.
114. ἐκέσϑαι rhymes with 113; οἵ,
mar.
116. δέγησεν expresses the sudden
seizure of alarm, not paralysing, but
prompting to some utterance or action
(mar. ).
118. σχέτλιοέ, “‘hard-hearted’’; the
clause of te x. t. Δ. 119 is to be ta-
ken in close connexion with it, see on
δ. 729. — Heol, distinctively of the
male deities, as opposed to ϑεαῖς 119.
— ξηλήμι., this better suits ἀγαασϑε
following, than the var. lect. δηλή-
μονες.
ι19--:22ϑ. ἀγάασϑε, see on ὅ. 181.
— ἀμφαδ., the force of this, which
belongs strictly to εὐναξ., is continued
into ἥν τίς te x. τ λ.; cf. Museus
Hero et Le, 179, ἀμφαδὸν ov δυνά-
μεσϑα γάμοις ὁσίοσι πελάσσαι. She
professes the open and honourable
union of wedlock, as opposed to the
amours described by παρελέξατο λάϑροῃ
B. 515, θεὰ βροτῷ εὐνηθεῖσα B. 821,
which had yet provoked no similar
jealousy. ποιήσετ᾽, subj. shortened
epice for ποιήσητ᾽.
121—4. In Eds carrying off Orion,
since he is also a hunter and a famous
constellation, we probably have the ob-
scure trace of some nature-myth, the
true import of which was lost. Even
among the stars Orion retains his ‘‘dog’”’
(mar.). There is an essay on Orion by
Miiller in the Rheinisch. Mus. (1834 p.
1—29). Strabo (IX. ii. 12) mentions
Hyria in Beotia as his birth place.
Eis also carried off Cleitus (mar.) and
Tithonus (Hy. Aphrod. 218). For @o-
Sodax. see on β. 1.
122. ἡγάασϑε, although in thesis;
ef. ἀγάασθε 119 sup.; an instance of
the elasticity of epic usage as regards
quantity; so a. 39 μνάασθϑαι, π. 431
μναᾷ, χ. 38 ὑπεμνάασϑε.
12°
δ᾽
ΟΔΥΎΣΣΕΙΑΣ E. 123—7.
[pay vit.
39
Ξ
Θ΄ ΟΣ ΒᾺΝ ΤΡ
ee
se!
—_
-
᾿Ξ
oe
—_
—_
z.
w. 24,
7
a
v.
φ. 299.
326, :
τ
Re
7)
bs
“s
ro TOR
SMR QS
ΜΙ
SSBR
e 3
: 8
ew
δώ
124. Joés.
μα, [ἕως μὲν ἐν Ὀρτυγίῃ" χρυσόθρονορ" "άρτεμις ἁγνὴς
1; ef. olga ἀγανοῖς βελέεσσιν ἐποιχομένη κατέπεφνεν.)
‘3 soo, ες δ᾽ ὁπότ᾽ Ἰασίωνι ἐὐπλόκαμος Δημήτηρ," δ
~ ᾧ ϑυμῷ εἴξασα, μίγη" φιλότητι καὶ εὐνῇ"
| VEL ἔνι τριπόλῳ "ἢ οὐδὲ δὴν ἦεν ἄπυστος
126. fo είξασα.
127. τριπύλῳ var. |. notant et damnant Scholl. H. P. Q.
123—4. These lines are probably an
interpolation due to some Syracusan,
who found the name Ὀρτυγέη in H.,
meaning probably Delos, (0. 404, un-
less it be there also an interpolation)
and wished to glorify his city and Ar-
temis by enshrining its local legend
here. Ὀρτυγέη occurs thrice in Pin-
dar, always in connexion with Syra-
cuse, Artemis and Hiero (ΟἹ, VI. 92.
Pyth. Hi. 6, Nem. I. 2), but Syracuse,
where Ὀρτυγέα was the name of the
island incorporated with the city (ἐν
voy οὐκέτι περικλυζομένῃ ἡ πόλις ἡ
473 ἐστιν Thucyd. VI. 3), was not
founded till 734 LB. C. (Clinton's Fast.
Hellen.), Nor it is likely that that is-
land attracted attention much before.
Vilcker, however (p. 24 § 17), thinks ©
that thatisland is meant ino. 404, which
he, with Hermann, views as genuine.
The passage which mentions Ἄρτεμις in
Hy. Apoll. Del. 14—16 is now viewed
by most critics as spurious. Later my-
thology retained the name Ὀρτυγ. in
connexion with the cultus of Artemis;
cf. Ἄρτεμιν Ὀρτυγίαν ἐλαφάβολον
ἀμφέπυρον, Soph. Trach. 214, Dindorf,
and Nossis Locrissa, Fragm. Ἄρτεμι
Δᾶλον ἔχοισα καὶ Ὀρτυγίαν ἐροίσσαν.
In ο. 403 foll. Apollo and Artemis are
joined, which suits Delos; and they
operate on their respective sexes, just
as elsewhere Artemis sends sudden
death to women, or as Penelopé longs
for her painless arrow (v. 62). Her
killing Orion is inconsistent with this
her limited function. Also ®. 483— 4,
where Heré says to her, ἐπεί σε ἀέ-
ovra γυναιξὶν Ζεὺς ϑῆκεν, suggests
that the death of Orion, the ‘‘mighty
hunter’, had not yet been ascribed to
her. Further, if Ὀρτυγίηϊ in o. 404 stand
for the Syracusan island, what can the
island Zvefn be? There is no other
island near Syracuse which could be
said to lie καϑύπερϑεν; whereas that
relation well suits Rhenea and Delos.
The epithet χρυσόϑρονος is applied
in Il. chiefly to Heré, but once to
Artemis, in Ody. solely to Eis, save
here, It is probably based on some
chair of state usual in a temple (cf.
Hermann Opuse. VIE p. 310 foll. and
Ni. ad loc,
ἀγνὴ has, as Ni. remarks, a reli-
gious character, being applied to Ar-
temis, to Persephoné and to the festi-
val of Apollo (mar.).
125—7. The veg is the novalis of
Virg. Georg. 1. defined by Varro de re
r. I. as ubi satum fuit antequam secunda
aratione renovetur; with τριπόλῳ ef.
Varro ibid. tertio cum arant, jacto semine,
lirare dicuntur, our “harrowing”. Cf.
Hes. Theog. 969-71,
Δημήτηρ μὲν Πλοῦτον ἐγείνατο, δῖα
ϑεάων,
Ἰασίῳ ἥρωι μιγεῖσ' ἐρατῇ φιλότητι,
VEL “en τριπόλῳ, Κρήτης ἐν
πίονι δήμω.
Ni. cites also Theocr. XXV. 25 foll.,
βασιλῆι πολὺν καὶ ἀϑ oparoy
0
ὄλβον
ῥυόμεϑ᾽ ἐνδυκέως, τριπόλοις σπό-
ρον ἐν νειοῖσιν
ἔσϑ᾽ ὅτε βάλλοντες, καὶ τετραπόλοι-
σιν ὁμοίως
and adds that Iasius was localised by
later writers in many places, as the
hero and discoverer of wheat cultiva-
tion, as the propagator of Demeter's
worship, or as one of the Samothracian
Cabiri.
127—9. οὐδὲ by ictus. --ἰπυστος,
see on ἃ. 242. -- οἷς δ᾽, it seems bet-
ter to render this ‘‘as’’, just as in 121,
DAY VII.]
Ζεὺς, ὅς μιν κατέπεφνε βαλὼν ἀργῆτι" κεραυνῷ.
ὡς δ᾽ αὖ νῦν μοι ἀγᾶσϑε." ϑεοὶ, βροτὸν ἄνδρα" παρ-
εἵναι.
[20 τὸν μὲν ἐγὼν ἐσάωσα περὶ τρόπιος βεβαῶτα
οἷον, ἐπεί of νῆα Bony ἀργῆτι" κεραυνῷ
Ζεὺς ἔλσας ἐκέασσε μέσῳ ἐνὶ οἴνοπι πόντῳ.ἶ
ἄλλοι μὲν πάντες ἀπέφϑιϑεν ἐσϑλοὶ ἑταῖροι,"
τὸν δ᾽ ἄρα δεῦρ᾽ ἄνεμός τε φέρων καὶ κῦμα πέλασσεν.
[25 τὸν μὲν ἐγὼ φίλεόν τε καὶ ἔτρεφον, ἠδὲ ἔφασκον
ϑήσειν" ἀϑάνατον καὶ ἀγήραον ἤματα πάντα.
ἀλλ᾽ Ὶὶ ἐπεὶ οὔ mag ἔστι Διὸς νόον αἰγιόχοιο
οὔτε παρεξελθεῖν ἄλλον ϑεὸν οὔϑ᾽ ἁλιῶσαι.
ἐρρέτω ," εἴ μιν κεῖνος ἐποτρύνει! καὶ ἀνώγει,
Eve’
OAT ZIZEIAZ FE.
128— 146. 181
ae. 131, η. 249,
μ. 387, ᾿Θ. 133.
b d. 181 mar.
ς 8. 105.
d ἐ- 421—4, 438, τ.
78, ἡ. 252.
ec 4. 128 mar.
f ¢. 274-6, a. 183
mar.
g e. 110 mar.
"ἄρ ἢ 257, w.
, M335, P.
i 4. ἴω- 4 mar.
k I. 377, Y. 349;
° cf. x. 72, 75, @.
164.
Ι Ζ. 439,
725, K 1
πὶ f. 370 mar.
n cf. 4. 161,
O. 43,
30.
ο ν. 203, 207; cf. Ζ.
[40 πόντον" ἐπ᾽ ἀτρύγετον᾽ πέμψω" δέ μὲν οὔ Jin? ἐγώ ye.| 261, 2.71
145
ov? γάρ μοι πάρα νῆες ἐπήρετμοι καὶ ἑταῖροι,
οἵ κέν μιν πέμποιεν ἐπ᾽ εὐρέα νῶτα ϑαλάσσης.
αὐτάρ of πρόφρων ὑποθήσομαι.“ οὐδ᾽" ἐπικεύσω,
ὥς" x& μάλ᾽ ἀσκηϑὴς ἣν πατρίδα γαῖαν ἵκηται."
τὴν" δ᾽ αὖτε προςέειπε διάκτορος" ᾿4ργειφόντης
(οὕτω νῦν ἀπόπεμπε," Διὸς δ᾽ ἐποπίξεον" μῆνιν,
131. 143. foe.
132. ξέλσας βοίνοπι.
Ρ s. 16—7, δ. δ59
—60 mar.
q @. 279 mar.
r δ. 350 mar.
139. Fegoéto. 144. Fnv.
145. προσέξειπε.
129. “ἄγασϑε ‘Barnes. Ern, Cl. ed. Ox., ἀγάασϑε ‘tov δευτέρου α συστελλομέ-
νου"
’ Schol. P., ἀγᾶσϑε Harl. ex emend. Wolf.
132. ἐλάσας Zenod., Scholl,
H. P. Q., ita Ambr. (2) et var. 1. Flor. Lov. Schol. Vulg. Steph. MS. GC., ἔλσας
ut ποιητικώτερον laudant Scholl. Ἡ. P. 9.
136. Arist. ἀγήρων, Schol. H.
104; mox οὐδ᾽ Ern. Barnes.,
Bek, Dind. Low.
125 sup.; had “so” been intended, we
should ΠΑΡ ΔΙ, ave had ὥς καὶ νῦν.
130. With the gen. τρόπιος, cf, τετά-
νυστὸ περὶ σπείους ἡμερὶς 68--9 sup.
περὶ when local takes dat. more com-
monly, | as in Quintus Smyrn, XIV. 548,
Αἴας δ᾽ ἄλλοτε μὲν περινήχετο δούρατι
νηός. Calypsé seems to claim Odys.
as by right of ‘‘flotsam and jetsam’’.
He had been washed up on her island
on the keel of his foundered ship, and
she had saved him: ef. Nausicaa’s
words to him in &. 462, μοι ξωάγρι᾽
ὀφέλλεις. For the τρόπες see App. F.
1 (2) and note.
133—4. See on 110—1 sup
136. ἀϑάνατον, she had. probably
given nectar and ambrosia before; cf.
133—4 omittit Eustath. ‘al Wolf.
138. παρὲξ ἐλθεῖν ut in
ov®’ Wolf. Cl.
ὃ. 453 τόφρα dé of κομιδὴ ye θεῷ
ὥς ἔμπεδος ἦεν, but now that her
hopes .are forbidden she serves him
with mortal food, 199—201 inf. She
had given him ambrosial raiment too,
and repeats the gift at his departure
(η. 259, 265), but this seems of slight
account; or rather serves to increase
his peril (320 inf.).
140. οὔ πῃ, πῇ i8 used either of di-
rection, “πο whither’’, or qf manner,
‘‘no πον (mar.): the next verse shows
that manner is here to be preferred.
141 —4. See notes on the places re-
ferred to in mar.
146. οὕτω, ‘‘as thou sayest’’, she
had rather (140) said the contrary;
but Hermes with diplomatic skill ap-
182 OATZEZEIAL E. 147—161. [pay vil.
3 3 i μή . πώς τοι μετόπισθε bn aoatber τα ταλεκήνῃ.»
ἃ ὅ. 193, ΤΙ. 191. oy dm” paovn 9 axepn θατυς᾿ ey φ nS
ἢ δ᾽. 155 mar. ἡ ὃ ἐπ Ὀδυσσῆα μεγαλήτορα πότνια " νύμφη
ce 24s, Pin, ἦι ) ἐπειδὴ Ζηνὸς ἐπέκλυεν ἀγγελιάων ἱ ΝΞ
υ. « 5 e
BR mal sanqudgt™ clpcorso. euvelfere! δὲ γλυκὺς αἰών τον
1 9.319, α. 55, 9. νόστον ἐ ὀδυρο tue | ἐπεὶ οὐκέτι Ἰνδανει snip
me 399, ρ. 173. μὴ 7 τοι vicars iy teseonev" καὶ ἀνάγκχ "
Ὁ ἃ, 15,mar. ἐν σπέσσιο λαφυ O01 παρ᾽ ovx ἐϑέλων ” ἀθελούσ “1
PF fiche ἥματα δ᾽ ty πές σι καὶ ᾿ιόνεσσιᾳ καϑίων ἍΝ
ἘΠ ΝΣ δά υσι" καὶ stove σι καὶ ἄλγεσι ϑυμὸν ἐρέ Sav
rey 5-4 mar, πόντον" ἐπ᾽ ἀτρύ ow δε véonero ϑάκι va λείβων ᾿
sof A 350, ¥.14 1 st δ᾽ ἰσ ΟΡ Q ͵ δ ρ .
0, 2.216, v. ἄχου ταμένη προςεφῶνεε δῖα ϑεαῶν
04,5. tS2mar. “κάμμορε, α μή μοι ἔτ᾽ ἐνθάδ᾽ ὀδύρεο, μηδέ τοι αἰὼν" 16
v 4
τὰ ὃν ὁ. δι. φϑινέτω: ἤδη γάρ σε μάλα πρόφρασσ᾽ 5 ἀποπέμψω.
153. Fnvdave.
153. νύμφῃ Scholl. P. Q. V. Barnes.
156. pro ἐν πέτ. Aristar., ἀμπέτ. Scholl.
H. P. 157 ¢ Harl., ‘“‘abest a compluribus’’ Bek. annot., [] Wolf. Bek. Dind.
Fa. Low. retinent Barnes. Cl. ed. Ox.
In Heidelb. ad mar. ponitur et signis
inter 158 et 159 refertur.
propriates the concession of 143—4 88
a virtual consent, which it proved to
be; cf. inf. 161-7. — ἐποπίξεο, oes
(mar.) means the oversight, visitation
or punishment of men by the gods; cf.
Beav μηδὲν ὀπιξόμενοι, Theog. Grom.
732, 1144. ,
153—5- νύμφη, the reading νυμφῇῃ,
which would make νόστος the subj. of
nvdave, scoms rather the feebler even
if we take οὐκέτι as “not yet’: if as
“no longer,’ it seems to imply what
is not the fact, that it once had pleased
her. Whereas it seems natural that
Odys., when newly rescued should have
found content at first, which was after-
wards exchanged for pining home-sick-
ness. — οὐκ ἐϑέλων ED., cf. Soph.
Trach. 198 οὐχ ἑκὼν Exoves δέ.
156. ἐν, Aristarchus preferred ap,
on what grounds there is no evidence
to show; and it seems hardly worth
while to alter the received text in the
absence of evidence. Ni. prefers ap,
comparing a βώμοισι Θ. 441, and as
regards ouphony he is right. We may
cf,, however, 2. 614, νῦν δέ που ἐν
πέτρησιν, ἐν οὔρεσιν. a rejected (ἀϑε-
τούμενον) line, yot doubticss of a pe-
riod when the Homeric spirit was alive
and procreative, and Hy. XIX. 10, πέ-
τρῃσιν ἐν ἡλιβάτοισιν. — ἠιόνεσσε, .
as πέτρα is a single mass of rock, 80
should ἠέων mean somo single object,
and in H, it seems to mean a slope of
beach down to the sea; see especially
the epithet βαϑεέῃ, and the position
assigned to it as between ἄκραι (mar.)
see also Buttm. Lewil. 59 (1).
157. The line is here retained, since
the structure admits it with perfect
ease: two participial clauses left asyn-
deta are not uncommon; see on 83 sup.
160—70. Observe that she makes no
mention of the mandate of Zeus by
Hermes, and her words in 188 foll.
would lead Odys. to ascribe his depar-
ture entirely to her own kindly feel-
ings; she seeks, however in 206 foll.,
to deter him by mention of unknown
perils. These few touches pourtray her
as a being of plausible but selfish wiles:
cf. a. 56—7, and seo note on 119 sup.
In accordance with this the reply of
Odys. 173—9 seems to show that he
had learned to distrust her.
160—1, xaugoge, this expressive
epithet, especially with its emphatic
170
᾿ (4) for this and its details.
‘DAY VII]
OATZZEIAL E. 162—177.
ἀλλ᾽ ἄγε δούρατα" μακρὰ ταμὼν ἁρμόξεο χαλκῷ
εὐρεῖανυ σχεδίην ἀτὰρ ἴκρια“" πῆξαι ἐπ᾽ αὐτῆς
ὑψοῦ, ὥς GE φέρῃσιν ἐπ᾽ ἠεροειδέα πόντον."
αὐτὰρ ἐγὼ σῖτον καὶ ὕδωρ καὶ οἶνον ἐρυϑρὸν"
ἐνθήσω μενοεικέ᾽,[ & κέν τοι λιμὸνξ ἐρύχοι, Γ
εἵματά τ᾽ ἀμφιέσω." πέμψω δέ τοι οὐρονὶ ὄπισϑεν, Ἶ
ὥς κε μάλ᾽ ἀσκηϑὴς σὴν πατρίδα γαῖαν ἵκηαι," '
αἴ xs ϑεοί γ᾽ ἐθέλωσι τοὶ οὐρανὸν εὐρὺν ἔχουσιν.
οἵ μευ φέρτεροί εἰσι νοῆσαί τε κρῆναί! τε."
ὡς" φάτο. ῥίγησεν δὲ πολύτλας δῖος Ὀδυσσεὺς.
καί μιν φωνήσας ἔπεα πτερόεντα προςηύδα"
((ζλλοο τι δὴ σὺ, ϑεὰ, τόδε μήδεαι., οὐδέ τι πομπὴν,
ἥ μὲ κέλεαι σχεδίῃ περάαν μέγαι λαῖτμα θαλάσσης,
175 δεινόν" τ᾽ ἀργαλέον te: τὸ δ᾽ οὐδ᾽ (ἐπὶ νῆες ἐΐσαι
ὠκύποροι" περόωσιν, ἀγαλλόμεναι" Διὸς οὔρῳ.
οὐδ᾽ ἂν ἐγὼν ἀέκητι" σέϑεν σχεδίης ἐπιβαίην,
ο.
. 520 mar.
. 26 mar.
. 115.
. 116 mar.
. 117 mar.
‘3 200.
. 812 mar., 2.
(3) mar.
367, μ. 1
r 8. $67, 19,
. 169.
s &. 230, 3.708 mar.
t C. 272; cf. B.
2, Y. 222.
uy. 13 mar.; cf.
o. 319, ¢. 88, v.
42.
164. ἠεροιξειδέαβ. 165. Fotvoy.
172. ξέπεα.
166. wevoF exe’,
175. ἐξῖσαι sive ἔξισαι.
167. Fe(uata ἀμφιι(βέσω.
177. &FEXNTE.
163. ἐν δ᾽ Prove habet sed supra ἐν δ᾽ scriptum αὐτὰρ i, 6. ἀτὰρ Harl., quem
sequuntur omnes edd., mox ἐν αὐτῇ Harl.; sed in mar. ἐπ᾿ αὐτῆς, ita Wolf., ἐπ
αὐτῇ Barnes. Ern. Cl. ed. Ox.
ἐρυκῃ
ed. Ox., κρῆναί Enstath. Wolf.
Bek. annot.
173
177
addition πάντων περὶ φωτῶν is be-
stowed by H. solely on Odys. σπρό-
φφασσ᾽, ‘‘in earnest”, a solitary epic
fem. adj. of which a masc. form πρό-᾿
goas may be supposed. It is applied
also to Athené and Circé (mar.) for
the termination cf. ἄνασσα ϑάλασσα
Περσέφασσα. φράξω contains the root.
163—4. σχεδέην, see App. F. 1. (2)
υψυοῦ, in-
dicates the height of the vessel in its
vertical section, the ἔκρια (see App.
F. 1. (3) indicating the highest point.
168. ἔχηαι, ὥς κε final after a pres.
or fut. prefers the subj., as in 4, 32,
Π. 84 (in which last, however, Eustath.
read ἄροιο for vulg. eenac), unless the
clause appears put hypothetically, as
in B. 52 —4, where Icarius would ἐεδνα-
σαιτο ϑύγατρα in case the suitors went
to him; so in w. 135 ὡς κεν τις φαέῃ,
“that one might (if he heard it) say’’;
and so even more plainly in g. 163—
ἐκ
166. ἐρύκει Harl. ex emend., an errore pro
168. fxoro Aristoph., Scholl. H. P.
. μήδεα Schol. V., ἐπιμήδεαι omisso rode
. ἔγωγ᾽ var. 1. Steph
170. xgévaé Barnes, Ern. Cl.
5 with ὡς av, where we have in 163
the hypothesis expressed. The var. lect.
fxorco would imply a degree of doubt
unsuited to the passage; see App. A.
9 (19) and note *.
169. τοὶ ... ἔχουσιν, Ni. says this
phrase occurs in Ody. 14 times, in II.
only twice, It has remarkable force
as used by Calypso, who belongs to
the more earthy order of divinities,
and admits the Olympian gods as her
superiors, although contrasting herself
(211 foll.) as superior to Penel.
173—4. ἄλλο τι... τόδε fh, “thou
art plotting something else in this’’, a
form of phrase rare in H.; see mar.
for one instance of it. — xéAeae,
scanned in synizesis. Aaituc Dad.,
see App. B (3).
176. In ὠχύποροι and ἀγαλλόμιε-
vat, also used of birds, horses etc.
(mar.), there seems a reminiscence of
the image ἀλὸς ἔπποι ns applied to
ships in δ. 708.
--
184
ee
|
a x. 200, 43, T.
113.
b e. 187, x. 300, 344.
ec ὅδ. 609 mar.
ἃ 2. 78 mar,
e δ. 610 mar.
ΟΔΥΣΣΕΙΑΣ E. 178—194.
[pay vit.
εἰ μή μοι τλαίης γε, Dea, μέγαν" ὕρκον ὀμόσσαι,
μή" τί μοι αὐτῷ πῆμα κακὸν βουλευσέμεν ἄλλο.
ος- φάτο, μεέδησεν δὲ Καλυψὼ" dia ϑεάων,
χειρί" τέ μιν κατέρεξεν ἔπος τ᾽ ἔφατ᾽ ἔκ τ᾽ ὀνόμαξεν
ΓΘ. 361, ¥. B55 | af δὴ ἀλιτρός! γ᾽ ἐσσὶ καὶ οὐκ ἀποφώλιαξ εἰδὼς.
cf. ν. 291—5.
g & 212, 9. 177 ᾿οἷον δὴ τὸν μῦϑον ἐπεφράσθϑης ἀγορεῦσαι.
A. 349.
ἢ Ο. 36—5.
i Φ. 261.
k 5. 271.
1 δ. 755 mar.
πὶ e. 179 mar.
na. 205, 2. 621,
π. 238, x. 453.
Ys, 453.
o β. 28 mar.
p cf. η. 209.
q yw. 172, X. 357.
r β. 405-6, γ. 2
—30)
5. γ. 5, 81, 495, δ.
1, E.773, K. 410.
181. Fésog.
ex indicio Aristoph. Schol. H.
188. ὅσσ᾽ Harl. ex emend.
χρεὼ τόσσον ἴκοιτο Bek, annot.
182. ξειδώς.
179. ἄλλοις (i. 6. ἐν τοῖς ἀ.) Aristoph., Scholl. H. P. Q.
ἴστω" νῦν τόδε γαῖα καὶ οὐρανὸς εὐρὺς ὕπερϑεν
καὶ τὸ κατειβόμενον' Στυγὸς" ὕδωρ, ὅς τε μέγιστος
ὅρκος δεινότατός τὲ πέλει μακάρεσσι! ϑεοῖσιν,
Ἰμήπι' τι σοι αὐτῷ πῆμα κακὸν βουλευσέμεν ἄλλο.
ἀλλὰ τὰ μὲν νοέω καὶ φράσσομαιν goo’ ἂν ἐμοί περ
αὐτῇ μηδοίμην. ὅτε με χρειὼ“ τόσον ἵκοι᾽
καὶ γὰρ ἐμοὶ νόος ἐστὶν ἐναίσιμος.» οὐδέ μοι αὐτῇ
ϑυμὸς ἐνὶ στήϑεσσι σιδήρεος.« ἀλλ᾽ ἐλεήμων."
st ἄρα φωνήσασ᾽ ἡγήσατο δῖα ϑεάων
καρπαλίμως" ὃ δ᾽ ἔπειτα μετ᾽ ἴχνια βαῖνε ϑεοῖο.
ἷξον" δὲ σπεῖος γλαφυρὸν ϑεὸς ἠδὲ καὶ ἀνήρ᾽
184. Flore.
18s. ὕδατος var. 1.
187. τοι Ern. Cl. ed. Ox., σοι Harl. Wolf.
189. we Harl. a man. pr., woe ex emend., mox
194. fo» Bek. annot. 195
. κάϑιζξεν Bar-
nes. Ern. Cl. ed. Ox., καϑέξζετ᾽ Eustath. Harl. Wolf. et var. 1. Steph., mox
ϑρόνον Bek. annot.
179. In Hy. Ap. Del. 84—6 this form
of oath recurs verbatim, where cf. 79
with 178 sup. The great powers of na-
ture are viewed as above the indivi-
dual god; see Nagelsb. (V. 8 24b) who
remarks that Zeus in his nod (A. 524
—6) as it were swears by himself, and
that in his oath to Heré (T. 108, 113)
nothing sworn by is named. See Hes.
Theog. 793 foll. for the penalty, if a
god swore falsely. In the oath of Hec-
tor to Dolon and in that of Heré to
Zeus (mar.) the statement sworn to is
introduced by μὴ with indic. (μὴ ἐπο-
χήσεται, μὴ πημαίνει), but where
Agam, swears on his reconciliation to
Achilles μὴ with infin., as here, is
found. The oath of Heré to Hypnus,
being affirmatory, contains 7 μὲν with
infin. (mar.). As regards the Styx, see
App. D. 14.
182. axog., this in H. means “use-
less, bootless’’ (mar.). Doederl. (1997)
probably cnough connects it with axa-
‘bootless arts.’’
φέσκω ἀπαφάω, but his taking xa) as
= καί weg is clearly wrong. The sense
is “a sly rogue thou art, master of no
The tone is that of
playful banter.
183. οἷον δὴ 4009 ἀγοφεῦσαι, this
is a mere expansion of of’ ἀγορεύεις
of δ. 611, and stands in similar con-
nexion with the phrase next before it.
188. ἀλλὰ κ. τ. ., “but I think and
will contrive for you, just such a plan
as I would wish to frame for myself
etc.”” Observe that the pres. φραξζο-
μαι is used by H. always of mental
action, the aor. sometimes of recogni-
zing at sight (mar.), and in α. 273,-4.
335 the aor. πέφραδον means ‘‘declare,
tell”. ve, ‘whenever’, the optat.
following is, Ni. remarks, rare in II.,
frequent in Ody. It marks possible
recurrence without definite time.
194; ϑεὸς, generically, as contrasted
with ἀνὴρ, so in 459 inf. and A. 516.
18
18:
1
DAY VII.]
OATZZEIAL E. 1τ94--212. °
195 καί" ῥ᾽ ὃ μὲν ἔνϑα" καϑέξετ᾽ ἐπὶ ϑρόνου ἔνϑεν. ἀνέστη
Ἑρμείας, νύμφη δ᾽ ἐτέϑει! πάρα πᾶσαν ἐδωδὴν,
ἔσϑειν" καὶ πίνειν, οἷα βροτοὶ ἄνδρες ἔδουσιν"
αὐτὴ δ᾽ ἀντίον ἷξεν Ὀδυσσῆος ϑείοιο,
τῇ δὲ παρ᾽ ἀμβροσίην" dual καὶ νέκταρ ἔϑηκαν.
200 of δ᾽ ἐπ᾽ ὀνείαϑ᾽ ἑτοῖμα προκείμενα χεῖρας ἴαλλον.
αὐτὰρ" ἐπεὶ τάρπησαν ἐδητύος! ἠδὲ ποτῆτος,
"zoig" ἄρα μύϑων ἦρχε Καλυψὼ" δῖα ϑεάων.
«διογενὲς Δαερτιάδη, πολυμήχαν᾽ Ὀδυσσεῦ,
οὕτω δὴ olxovde? φίλην: ἐς πατρίδα γαῖαν
205 αὐτίκα νῦν ἐθέλεις ἰέναι; σὺ δὲ χαῖρε καὶ ἔμπης.
᾿ Τ εἴ γε μὲν εἰδείης. σῇσι φρεσὶν, ὅσσα τοι (αἶσα)
ands ἀναπλῆσαι.," πρὶν' πατρίδα γαῖαν ἱκέσθαι,
ἐνθάδε κ᾽’ αὖθι" μένων παρ᾽ ἐμοὶ τόδε δῶμα" φυ-
λάσσοις,
ἀθάνατός τ᾽ εἴης, ἱμειρόμενός" περ ἰδέσϑαι
210 σὴν ἄλοχον, τῆς αἰὲν ἐέλδεαιλ ἥματα πάντα.
οὐ 'μήν ϑήνΥ κείνης γε χερεέων εὔχομαι εἶναι ,"
ov δέμας, οὐδὲ φυὴν, ἐπεὶ οὔ πως οὐδὲνυ ξοικεν
204. Forxovds.
210. ἐξδλδεαι.
207. ἀνατλῆναι var. |. Harl.
206. ef μὲν Fecdedns.
a A. 536, σ. 157,
. 139, 166, 244,
492, w. 164.
b π. 48, @. 70, τ΄
59, 102.
ς §2. 597.
ἃ ¢. 76—7.
e ἢ. 220.
f y. 480.
g π. 53, &. 10.
ἢ e. 359, 7. 347.
i α. 149 mar.
k 4.780; cf. e. 87,
x. 58.
| d. 788, x. 3814, 0.
603.
γ' mar., y. 41.
R
Be
ea cu OR §
Sen x @
ῷ Φ
φι
3
5
Ἀ4«5“
2,2 trey NOES WR RS
ry
oS
@ Nag
a he
we
oa poh
=
Θ᾽ σι
wr
ΠῚ
=
, X. 370.
. 319, MM. 212.
σ
Ξ.ωἍὦὉ"
638
209. fsdéoPar ferri nequit.
212. Féforner.
208. παρ᾽ ἐμοὶ Schol. P. Flor. et plerseque vett.
edd. Wolf. Ern. (2) Dind. Léw., σὺν ἐμοὶ Barnes. Ern. Cl. ed. Ox. Fa., ξὺν
Bek. 210. τῆς τ Harl.
196. Egu., in μ. 389—90 we have
a mention of some other conversation,
both between Hermes and Calyps6 and
between her and Odys., than is here
recorded; see the passage. Otherwise
there is nothing to show that Odys.
knew at this time of Hermes’ visit.
197—9. Οἷα agrees with ἐδωδὴν
taken collectively; see also note on
136 sup. We may observe that she
waits on Odys.; but the attendant
nymphs (δμωαὶ) on her. The whole
action may be compared with that of
Circé (x. 348—73), where the nymphs
perform subordinate ministrations only,
the goddess herself attending to his
bath and food. The personal graces
of heroic hospitality are uniformly pre-
served. For ἀμβροσίην sce on a.
444 — §0.
202. τοῖς is used where one speaks
to an individual only; see mar.
208. ἐνθάδε x’ αὖϑι » ef. for the
double adverbs of place Θ. 207, αὖ-
τοῦ κ᾽ Ev® ἀκάχοιτο καϑήμενος, the
sense being both there and here much
the same as that of éyravda, which
in H. only occurs in I. 601.
210—2. ζλοχον, the mention of her
shows a touch of feminine jealousy.
The Schol. remarks that Calyps6 urges
her personal charms only, omitting the
ἔργα often coupled with them in praises
of women; and that Odys., admitting
this personal superiority, hints by the
epithet περέφρων (216) his wife’s men-
tal advantages. In such gifts — it is
worth observing, as illustrating Homer's
conception af deity, — a mortal might
be even superior; so that such lan-
guage, for instance, as that of Poly-
xena in Euripid. Hec. 356 ἴση ϑεῇσι
πλὴν τὸ κατθανεῖν μόνον, which sounds
e
186 . ΟΔΥΣΣΕΊΑΣ ΕἸ. 213 —227.
[pay vir.
ag. 251, τ. 14. | Pyntag ἀϑανάτῃσι δέμας" καὶ εἶδος ἐρίζειν.»
ΡΣ ἐ δ. ὯΙ. τὴν δ᾽ ἀπαμειβόμενος προφέφη πολύμητις Ὀδυσσεύς
d o. 363, 1. 508. [“πότναν Dek, μή μοι τόδε χώεο᾽" οἶδα καὶ αὐτὸὸ 2115
a We nee πάντα pod’, ovvexa’ σεῖο περίφρων Πηνελόπεια
gs. 210 πιῶ, εἶδος ἀκιδνοτέρη" μέγεϑός τ᾽ εἰράντα ἰδέσθαι"
a4 oe mar. [ἢ μὲν γὰρ βροτός ἐστι, σὺ δ᾽ ἀθάνατος καὶ ἀγήρως.
ka, 188 πα, [ἀλλὰ καὶ ὡς ἐθέλω καὶ ἐέλδομαιξ ἤματα πάντα
ἥ τ ΝΣ 490, | οἴκαδέ" τ᾿ ἐλθέμεναι καὶ νόστιμον ἦμαρ ἰδέσθαι. 220
1. 492, ¥. 607. |e! δ᾽ αὖ τις ῥαίῃσι ϑεῶν ἐνὶ οἴνοπι πόντῳ,
nd 07, 4 162, | TANGO, ἐν στήϑεσσιν ἔχων' ταλαπενϑέα ϑυμόν"
p 0. 234--Ὁ. ἤδη γὰρ μάλα". πόλλ᾽" ἔπαϑον καὶ πόλλ᾽ ο ἐμόγησα
i το man. "κύμασι. καὶ πολέμῳ μετὰ καὶ τόδε τοῖσι yevéota.”—™
ὁ ef γι 402. ὡς ἔφατ᾽, ἠέλιος: δ᾽ ἄρ᾽ ἔδυ, καὶ ἐπὶ κνέφας ἦλθεν. 225
t 2. ὕδ.
ἃ Ψ. 211, Ε. 872, ἐλθόντες δ᾽ ἄρα τώ γε μυχῷ" σπείους; γλαφυροῖο
P. 721; cf. 4.536. τερπέσϑην φιλότητι, παρ᾽" ἀλλήλοισι μένοντες.
213. 217. Fetdog. 215. οῖδα. 217. ξιδέσθαι.ς 219. ἐξέλδομαι.
220. Folxadé, FidéoPae forri nequit. 221. Fotvone. ’
215. πότνια eax Eustath. Barnes. Ern. Wolf. Cl. ‘ed. Ox. Liw., πότνα Sea
Scholl. H. P. Q. V. G. C. Bek. Dind. Fa. 217. εἰς ἄντα Arist., Scholl.
H. P., Eustath. Barnes. ἔτη. Cl. ed. Ox., εἰσάντα Wolf. Bek, Dind. Liéw. Fa.,
εἰς ὦπα edd. viliores, Scholl. H. P. (ita probante Dind. correxit Pors. pro εἰς
σώμα depravato). 219. ἔλδομαι var. 1. Steph. 221. pro εἰ δ᾽ av Thiersch
Gr. Gr. § 229. 2. c. ef δ᾽ ἄν conjecit, ῥαέίσειε Vindob. 4222. στήϑεσσι φέρων
var. 1. Steph. 224. μετὰ τοῖσι δὲ καὶ to Bek. annot. 227. μένοντε Barnes.
Ern. ΟἹ. ed. Ox., μένοντες Eustath. Harl. Wolf. et recentt.
to us hyperbolical, according to this
standard was not necessarily so.
21s—6. πότνα 9., Ni remarks, on
Wolf's reading πότνια dea, that there
is no other instance in H. of ϑεὰ bein
a monosyllable, and only one of #z0
(A. 18), and that πότνια elsewhere oc-
curs always in the s'* foot. πότνα is
always, as it would be here, vocat.,
but in Hy. Ceres 118 πότνα ϑεάων oc-
curs as nom. Also Hes. Theog. 11, 926
has the accus. πότφιαν. --- 407] ... YEO,
ef. Eurip. Med. 157 κείνῳ τόδε μη
χαρασσοῦυ. — μάλα goes with πάντα,
“all — quite”. περέφρων, see on
210—2 sup.
217. ἀκιὄνοτ., the Schol. says some
interpret this ao@evecréga some evre-
λεστέρα, ‘more ordinary’’; the latter is
preferred here by Apollon. Lex. p.98 ed.
Par. 1773. Ino. 130 the sequel seems to
explain it as ‘‘helpless’’; perhaps akin
to ἄκικυς t. 515, which is from κίκυς or
xixug “strength” 4. 393. εἰσάώντα, if
Aristarchus’ reading εἰς avta be taken
εἰς is in tmesis with the verb.
221. εἰ... δαέῃσι, for subjunct, with
ef see on a. 168; the optat. after what
Calyps6 had said, would intimate too
much uncertainty. Her mention of the
σχεδέη and his own previous experience
easily lead Odys. to think of ship-
wreck as the form of κήδεα to which
her words point in 207 sup.
222. Ern. cites Hor. Sat. II. v. 20
Fortem hoc animum tolerare jubebo, ut
quondam majora tuli.
225—8. The close of the seventh and
dawn of the eighth day here takes place.
227. τερπέσθϑην ... μένοντες most
editors have recently adopted with Bek.
the pl. where a particip. dual would end
the fine with a short vowel. Yet Bek.
himself says that Aristarchus, Zenod.
DAY να. ΟΔΥΣΣΕΙΑΣ E. 228—242. 187 -
ψ > ’ ’ ’ 8
ἦμορ" δ᾽ ἠριγένεια φάνη ῥοδοδάκτυλος His, |h hits
αὐτίχ ᾿ ὃ μὲν χλαῖνάν: τε χιτῶνα τε ἕννυτ᾽ Ὀδυσσεὺς," $4) 356 oi6 0
230 αὐτὴ δ᾽ ἀργύφεον" φᾶρος μέγα Evyvto νύμφη, 79," 0. 850, 557,
λεπτὸν καὶ χαρίεν, περὶ δὲ ξώνην Bader’ ἐξυῖ
καλὴν χρυσείην, κεφαλῇ δ᾽ ἐφύπερϑε καλύπτρην""
καὶ τότ᾽ Ὀδυσσὴι μεγαλήτορι μήδετο! πομπήν.
δῶκε μέν of πέλεκυνξ μέγαν, ἄρμενον" ἑνὶ παλάμῃσιν,
235 χάλκεον," ἀμφοτέρωθεν ἀκαχμένον: αὐτὰρ ἐν αὐτῷ
orr
»ὦ
tba
ΞΞ
[
Ox OMe 2.5 ΜΚ ΟΜῈ
ge
+
SCS 5 FTIR
Q , , φ. 422.
στειλειὸνὶ περικαλλὲς eddivov,™ εὖ ἐναρηρός" cf WN. 612.
δῶκε δ᾽ ἔπειτα σκέπαρνον" ἐΐξοον (ἦρχε δ᾽ ὁδοῖο ὅ. 517 "ἢ “4,
νήσου ἐπ’ ἐσχατιὴν, ὅϑι δένδρεαν μακρὰ πεφύκειν, σι = ot
xdndon t αἴγειρὸς" τ΄, ἐλάτη τ ἣν οὐρανομήκης,; ot a κι, κι
240 ave’ πάλαι, περίκηλα, ta of πλώοιεν" ἐλαφρώς. ς Gee sar.
αὐτὰρ ἐπεὶ δὴ δεῖξ᾽, ὅϑι δένδρεα" μακρὰ πεφύκειν, |' 2.802, οἴ. τ.122,
ἢ μὲν ἔβη πρὸς δῶμα Καλυψὼ" dia Beco: ἃ 4. 238 mar
229. 230. βέννυτ᾽, Févvuto. 2134. δῶκεν For. 240. (οι.
232. ἐφύπερθε Arist., Schol. Η., Bek. Fa., ἐπέθηκε meliores, Schol. H., ita
Eustath. Barnes. Ern. Wolf. Cl. ed. Ox. Dind. Léw.
237. ev ξέον var. |. Eustath.
Q. Barnes, Ern. Wolf. Cl. ed. Ox. Dind. Low. Fa.,
240. ἐλαφρὰ var. 1. Ern., mox περὶ κῆλα
Steph.
Bek.
236. éxaenoog var. ].
238. ἐσχατιῆς Eustath. Scholl. H. P.
ἐσχατιὴν Harl. ex emend,
hrysippus, Schol. P.
and Aristoph. preferred the dual; see
note on δ. 33. Here, however, there
is no doubt that ἐλθόντες is the true
reading in 226, which seems almost
to require μένοντες in 227. The inter-
mixture of dual and pl. forms in the
same clause is common enough, 6. g.
τώ δ᾽ ἔσταν x. 181, τὼ δὲ... ἔκοντο
@. 153—4.
228. See on β. τ.
230. ἀργύφεον, the unsullied fresh-
ness of the wool or other material is
meant, elsewhere it is epithet ef the
nymphs’ grotto; see on β. 11, latter
part.
231—2. ξώνην, Léwe remarks on
ξώνη being the woman's, ζωστὴρ the
man’s. — καλύπερην, ‘‘veil’’, distinct
from the κρήδεμνον or “head - fillet”;
see on a. 334, also ΖΕ ΒΟΥ]. Suppl. 114
Σιδονίᾳ xakunrean and Paley ad loc.,
who cites Hes. Theog. 575, x. δαιδα-
λέην. Tho elaborate toilet, as in the
parallel case of Circé (x. 524—5), de-
notes a solemn farewell.
234. δῶχε, join ἐν παλ., “gave into
his hands’’; ἄρμενον (2 aor, mid. part.
syncopated, not adj.) “fastened’’ or
‘joined’: it seems used of πέλεκυς the
axe-head, as the correlative of ev éva-
ρηρὸς (inf. 236), of the handle. — ἐν
παλάμι. occurs in E, 558, ®. 469 with
a verb of fighting, in the sense of
‘‘hand to hand’’, but more commonly
bears its present meaning.
237. σχέπαρνον,. on the vowel short
before it see Spitzner de vers. her. p.
99, 105, and note on a. 246. In xa-
πετος for σκάπτω and ἐπικέδναται for
σκεδάννυμι we trace a similar evanes-
cence οὖσ before x, cf. our ‘‘emerald”’
from σμάραγδος, also our words ‘‘splash
plash’’, ‘‘smoulder moulder’’, ‘‘sneeze
neeze”’,
238 and 241. πεφύχειν, for the fi-
nal » see on ἡνωγέξὲεν 112 Sup.
240. Chrysippus read wegl xyjda;
but κήλεος is the simple form in H.,
only found in πυρὶ κηλέῳ where -é@
is in synizesis. Hes. Frag. 247 has
κατεπύϑετο κήλεα νηῶν, quoted by
the Schol. Venet. on “. 155.
OATZZEIAL E. 243—255.
[pay vIir.
a cf. ε. 204, ¢. 103,
χ 33. 424 Me 161,
b o. 341, . 41
C977 Τ᾽ δ
© φ.121; εἴ. O. 410.
d yw. 198.
e 4. 78 iar.
αὐτὰρ ὃ τάμνετο δοῦρα" Bows δέ of ἤνυτο ἔργον.
εἴκοσι δ᾽ ἔκβαλε πάντα." πελέκκησεν δ᾽ ἄρα χαλχῷ,
ξέσσε"ν δ᾽ ἐπισταμένως. καὶ ἐπὶ στάϑμην" ἴϑυνεν.
τόφρα δ᾽ ἔνεικε τέρετρα" Καλυψὼ" δῖα ϑεάων᾽
τέτρηνεν“ δ᾽ ἄρα πάντα, καὶ ἥρμοσεν' ἀλλήλοισιν,
όμφοισιν δ᾽ ἄρα τήν γε καὶ ἁρμονίῃσιν ἄρασσεν.5
.] ὅσσον" τίς τ᾽ ἔδαφος νηὸς τορνώσεται' ἀνὴρ
᾿Ιφορτέδος" εὐρείης, εὖ εἰδὼς τεκτοσυνάων, ἵ'
τόσσον ἔπ᾽ εὐρεῖαν! σχεδίην ποιήσατ᾽ Ὀδυσσεύς.
ἴχρια"π δὲ στήσας, ἀραρὼν ϑαμέσι σταμένεσσιν,
᾿Ἰποέδι- ἀτὰρ μακρῇσιν ἐπηγκ pve δεσσι τελεύτα. ww
’ tv
ne. 3s. ἐν δ᾽ ἱστὸν ποίει καὶ ἐπίκριον" ἄρμενον αὐτῷ"
πρὸς δ᾽ ἄρα πηδάλιονο ποιήσατο, (ὄφρ᾽ ἰθύνοιὴ
243. οι έργον.
244. «εέκοσι.
280. «ειδώς.
247. τέτρῃνεν δ᾽ Barnes. Em. Cl. ed. Ox., τέτρηνεν δ᾽ Wolf. οἱ recentt., τέ-
τρηνε δ᾽ Eustath.
248. ἁρμονιῇσιν Bek. Fa. secuti Scholl. H. P., ἀρμονίησιν
Eustath. et οδοῖ., mox ἄφηρεν Eustath. Barnes. Ern. Cl. ed. Ox. Wolf. Low.,
ἄραρεν et ἄφηρεν Schol. V., ἄρασσεν Scholl. B. H. M. P. Q. T. Harl. et in textu
et in. mar., ita Bek. Dind. Fa.
244. πάντα, “in all’, for this use
of the adj. see mar., and cf. Herod. I.
163 ἐβίωσε πάντα εἴκοσι καὶ ἑκατὸν
ἔτεα. Jelf. Gr. Gr. 454 Obs. 1. seems
to think the article τὰ would be re-
gularly required; but this is not so, as
πάντα is a further predication.
245. Otaduny, the line of the
plummet, the plummet itself being
called σταφύλη, B. 765; when. used,
it was rubbed with ruddle (ὑπομε-
μιλτωμένη Schol.) to leave its mark
or timber.
247—8. ἤρμιοσεν, ‘fitted’; the ac-
tual fastening comes in 248. With
γόμφοισιν cf. _fEschyl. Suppl. 440, 846
Dindorf, γεγόμφωται σκάφος, yougo-
δέτῳ τε ᾿δορί: for the process here see
ae F, 1. (4). — τήν γε, i. 6. σχε-
ν. -- ᾿ἄρασσεν, ‘knocked (ἴορο-
ther)”, i. ὁ. with the hammer; so it
is used of fastening bolts in Aschyl.
Prom. 58 Aeacce μᾶλλον, oplyye. The
reading wenger may have arisen from
361 inf. ἐν ἄρμον. ceney: but this perf.
form is not transitive in H.; the aor.
αἀραρον is both trans. and intrans. “4
see on 777 sup. The perf. also shor-
tens the -7- into -d- in particip: age-
249. τορεώσατο Var.
l. Scholl. B. E. H. Q.
evia (cf. rePaldvia), but the aor. never
lengthens it.
,:249-51. ὅσσον τίς τ᾽ », 1. ε. ὅσσον
τέ tig; see mar. τορνώσεταε, the
primary notion is that of circular mo-
tion; see mar, and cf. Lat. tornus tor-
queo “‘lathe”. So Eurip. Bacche 1066
—7 κυκλοῦτο δ᾽ ὥστε τόξον ἢ κυρ-
τὸς τροχὸς, τόρνῳ γραφόμενος περι-
φορὰν, ἕλκει δρόμον: here the roun-
der form of the φόρτες or ναῦς στρογ-
γύλη, as contrasted with the galley,
seems implied. Ni. says the verb is
here subj. shortened epice, but we have
in ἃ 88 bjoined clause of a simile, X.
27 ὃς (ἀστὴρ) 6a τ᾽ oxwens εἶσιν, a
verb clearly indic. and probably fut.,
and in J. 422—3 ὡς ὅτε introduces the
main clause of a simile by indic., ὡς
δ᾽ ὅτ᾽ ... κῦμα ϑαλάσσης ὄρνυτ,
where the image is continued by the
fut. and pres. ind. κορύσσεται and βρέ-
pee, cf. also N. 795—6; thus the in-
dic. may clearly stand here. _ eveelys,
contrast the expression ναῦς μακρὰ
for a war- -galley in the historians.
τόσσον Ex", “in such proportions’’.
251 foll. on the vere A parts of the
vessel down to 257 see App. F. 1 (3)
(4) (6) (7) (9) (14) “itso for ἔχρια see on
DAY VIII—xI!.]
goats δέ μιν δίπεσσι διαμπερὲς" οἰσυΐνῃσιν
κύματος εἶλαρ" ἔμεν" πολλὴν δ᾽ ἐπεχεύατο" ὕλην.
τόφρα" δὲ page ἔνεικε Καλυψὼ δῖα ϑεάων
ἱστία ποιήσασϑαι" ὃ δ᾽ εὖ τεχνήσατο καὶ τά."
60 ἐν' δ᾽ ὑπέρας τε κάλους τε πόδας τ᾽ ἐνέδησεν ἐν
αὐτῇ:
μοχλοῖσιν" δ᾽ ἄρα τήν γε κατείρυσεν᾽ εἰς dda δῖαν.
ΟΔΥΣΣΕΙ͂ΑΣ E. 256—272.
189
ἃ ἢ. 96, & 11.
b H. 338, 437, ,Ξ.
56, 68.
¢ 8. 487.
da. 246.
e δ. 644, 4. 138,
Z. 10, Y. 25.
f a. 265-7, ¢. 76
—Y, ἡ. 129.
g x. 32.
ἢ ε. 332—47 pass.
id. 577.
3 " ~
τέτρατον ἦμαρ Env, καὶ τῷ τετέλεστο ἅπαντα" ΛΊ β. 111, η. 381.
τῷ δ᾽ ἄρα πέμπτῳ πέμπ᾽ ἀπὸ νήδου δῖα Καλυψὼ,
εἴματά! τ’ ἀμφιέσασα"" ϑυώδεα" καὶ λούσασα.
1 η. 265.
m a. 167 mar.
n φ. 52.
165 ἐν δέ οἵ ἀσκὸν" ἔϑηκχε Bea μέλανος» οἴνοιο ; “ em, 196
(τὸν ἕτερον, ἕτερον δ᾽ ὕδατος μέγαν ) ἐν δὲ καὶ na |b δὴ, HS
κωρύχῳ" ἐν δέ οἵ ὄψα: τύϑει μενοεικέα" πολλά᾿ ἐμ, 16-7
‘ovgov" δὲ προέηκεν ἀπήμονα" τε Avagoy™ τε. ui. 420 mar.
γηϑόσυνος δ᾽ οὔρῳ πέτασ᾽" ἱστία δῖος Ὀδυσσεύς. v 5. 164, δ. 497
17O αὐτὰρ ὃ πηδαλίῳν ἰϑύνετο τεχνηέντως wd ar ΡΩΝ
ἥμενος οὐδέ of ὕπνος ἐπὶ βλεφάροισιν ἔπιπτεν ." YF 308 mar.; of.
ἢΠληιάδας"" τ’ ésogdvre καὶ ὀψὲ δύοντα Βοώτην «ας eyo
264. ξείματα ἀμφιιξέσασα.
271.
256. οἰσυΐνοισιν Vr.
σεσϑαι Harl.
265. For ξοίνοιο.
(οι.
26]. πολλῇ... ὕλη MS. α. C. et Schol. V.
262. τέταρτον contra metrum Harl.
267. foe μενοεικέα.
259. ποιή-
264. εἴματα δ᾽ Harl.
272. ἐσορῶντα et ὁρόωντα tum vero ἐσορῶντι et ὁρόωντε lectioncs commixtas 6
Schol. H. “διχῶς af ‘Ageotagzov’’ interpretatur Pors. .
163—4 sup. — ὕλην, the olovivac; so
sylva is used in Virg. Georg. I. 76, Il.
17, IV. 273 for brushwood or such light
growth. πολλὴν is best taken as a
further predicate, ‘‘laid his material
on in abundance’, ¢. 6. to be a suffi-
_ cient ellag 2s9—60. On xal ta Ni.
uotes Pind. Isthm. VII. 15 (VIII. 30),
aca δ᾽ ἔστι βροτοῖς σύν γ᾽ ἐλευθερίᾳ
καὶ τὰ; cf. also mar. With πόδας
cf. Virg. Hin. V. 830 Una omnes fecere
pedem, also Eurip. Or. 697—8, Soph.
Antig. 715 Dindorf.
261. μοχλοῖσιν, the difficulties of
Robinson Crusoe in a similar effort
will occur to most English readers,
262—3. τέτρατον, i.e. of his work
= eleventh of the poem’s action, since
the first of these four days was itself
the eighth; see on 225—8 sup.; thus
πέμπτῳ is the twelfth. Obs. in πέμ-
ato πέμπ᾽ a play of words.
264. A πρωϑύστερον; the bathing
would come first.
266. μεέγαν, a Schol. gives the pro-
portion as threefold. In τ. 209 twen-
tyfold is given for mixing — an evident
exaggeration. ya, sce on β. 289.
268—9. ἀπήμονα, see on ὃ. 487. —
Atagoy is also epithet of blood and
of water; and axnp. τὸ dt. τὲ form a
joint epithet of sleep (mar.). On yy-
ϑόσυνος x. τ. 4. see App. F. 1 (9)
note ** (end).
271. Ni. compares ASschyl, Sept. c.
Th. 190 ἀγρύπνων πηδαλίων, Lycoph.
386 ἄγρυπνον τέχνην. The same
notion is involved in Palinurus’ struggle
to resist Somnus Virg. in. V. 847 foll.
271 foll. The Hesiodic calendar is
marked by the Pleiades, Arcturus, Hya-
des, Orion, Sirius, Opp. 381—5, 562, 570,
§85, cf. Scut. 153, 397, also Virg. Georg.
I. 246, Hn. 11. 514—6. — Πληιαό.,
the derivation commonly given is πλεῖν
190 OATZXZEIAL E, 273-274. [pay χει.
04 ey Pod , ᾽ ~ XX
° ἢ 29, 506, Η. “Agxtov 2, ἣν καὶ ἄμαξαν ἐπίκλησιν καλέουσιν."
b 42, 47.
‘6. x2) ως ἢ τ᾽ αὐτοῦ στρέφεται" καί τ᾽ Rolwva® doxeve,!
navigare; see Hes. Opp. 619 fol., where
the setting of the Pleiads marks the end
of the navigator’s season and the be-
ginning of the ploughman’s. There is
just a trace in H. of such a reckoning
of seasons by stars in the simile X. 26
foll., where the dog of Orion ‘goes
forth in the late summer, and brings
fever’’ (see on 328 inf.). But besides
this ‘‘the imagination of poets play-
ing upon the name conceived them as
a flight of doves” (quasi πελειάδες)
pursued by Orion; cf. Pind. Nem. II.
11—2, ὀρειᾶν ye Πελειάδων μὴ τη-
λόϑεν Θαρίωνα νεῖσϑαι, and even in
Hes. who keeps the form Πληιάδες,
we find Opp. 619 gut ἂν Πληιάδες
σϑένος ὄμβριμον Ὡρίωνος φευγου-
σαι κ. τ. Δ. So Aschyl. Fragm. ap.
Athen. has
of δ᾽ fxr’ Ἄτλαντος παῖδες ὠνομα-
σμέναι
πάτρος μέγιστον ἄϑλον οὐρανοστεγῆ
κλαίεσκον, ἔνϑα νυχκτέρων φαντα-
σμάτων
ἔχουσι μορφὰς ἄπτεροι Πελειά-
ες.
In μ. 62 foll. the πέλειαι τρήρωνες are
explained by Eustath. mythically of the
Pleiads, In myth they are daughters of
Atlas and Pleion&é; see Athen. XI. 79
foll. where some other passages may be
found; hence Πληιάδων ᾿Δτλαγγενέων
Hes. Opp. 383. Six only are visible
save a host of small stars, yet seven
was their conventional number; qua:
sepltem dict, sex tamen esse sulent Ovid.
Fast. 1V.170; οἵ, Simonides Ceos, Fragm.
122, and Q. Smyrnezus, XIII. 551—9.
This may possibly embody traditionally
the fact of the disappearance of a star
of the group since the period of the
earlicst observations. Various stories
were invented to account for it; see
Anc', Astron. p. 66. The Latin name
for them was Vergiia, as their rise
marked the close of the spring. In &.
486 the Hyades are added to the list
of constcllations as represented on the
shield, cf. Virg. in. 1. 744, III. 516,
Georgy. 1. 138. — dé. ὅ. Βοώτην, the
epithet is explained, that, as the con-
stellation is vertical at setting, it takes
a longer time to disappear, whiereas,
horizontal when rising, it comes
into view more quickly. Ovid poetici-
zes the fact in guamvis tardus eras et
te tua plaustra tenebant, Met. 11. 177.
So in Catull. LXVI. 67 the Coma Be-
renices says, Vertor in occasum tardum
dux ante Boodten, Qui υἱῷ sero alto mer-
gitur oceano; cf. Prop. III. iv. 25, Juv.
Sat. V. 23. (Anc'. Astron. p. 59).
273. ἄρκτον ... ἄμαξαν, with the
second name cf. the Latin Septemtrio,
and Ov. ex Ponto IV. x. 39 Proxima
sunt nobis plaustri prebentia formam ..
sidera. The name βοώτης (βοῦς = trio,
Varro de ling. Lat. VII. 74—5) points
to the same fancy — the husbandman’s
notion; as that of the bear and Orion
in connexion with it was the hunts-
man’s. Mythology accounted for the
Bear, as being the nymph Callisté, loved
by Zeus, but by the jealousy of Heré
transformed into a bear; Ovid repre-
sents Juno as imploring Tethys, re puro
tingatur in e@quore pellex, Met. 1]. 530,
‘Accountin thus for the statement orn
δ᾽ ἄμμορός x. τ. 2., which Virgil ap-
plies to both the Bears and by impli-
cation to the Serpent, perhaps, also
Georg. I. 246, Catullus (μδὲ sup.) with
a qualification (viz), to Bodtes. —
ἐπέκλ. xad. should be taken as a
whole phrase, ‘they surname’’. Pro-
perly the “Wain” is the seven ‘larger
stars only. The ‘‘Bear’’ contains these
with others of less magnitude.
274. αὐτοῦ, local gen., ‘‘upon him-
self’’, as indicating the locality where
the motion takes place. στρέφεται,
‘“‘turns’’, as it were, to bay; cf. στρε-
φϑεὶς of a hunted lion in a simile
(mar.). There is, however, in this
phrase a recognition of the conspicu-
ous change in the attitude of the con-
stellation manifest towards morning,
as if “revolves upon his own pole”’
were meant. Lelwva, his attitude is
described 4. 572—5 as hunting beasts
κατ᾽ ἀσφοδελὸν λειμῶνα. -- δοκεῦει,
as a wild animal at bay, ‘‘awaiting”’
the huntsman’s charge; so the hound
ἑλισσόμενον (λέοντα) δοκεύει (mar.).
Liéwe cites Manil. I. 491. fol. Arctos
et Orion adversis frontibus thant. In X.
26 foll. Orion has a dog, not named,
bunt evidently id. q Sirius; see above
on 271 foll,
DAY XII—xgrx. | ΟΔΎΣΣΕΙΑΣ E. 275— 282. ΟῚ
275, οἵη δ᾽ ἄμμορός ἐστι λοετρῶν" RxExvoio: Oe aL
. \ , » \ , c . 78 M. 118,
τὴν γὰρ δή μιν ἄνωγε Καλυψὼ dia ϑεάων Ὧν ater Ν' 309,
d η. 267--9
υ > ., ‘ \ . 277 ma
ποντοπορευέμεναι" Ex’ ἀριστερὰ" χειρὸς ἔχοντα. Ἢ 3 es, γ
ἑπτὰ" δὲ καὶ δέκα μὲν πλέεν ἥματα ποντοπορεύων ." |" ἃ: ΕΣ 374,
, , , , , , ie 285”: 352, 5
ὀκτωκαιδεκάτῃ! δ᾽ ἐφάνη ὕὄρεαξ σκιόεντα" ΩΨ:
M. 118
280 γαίης Φαιήκων, ὅϑι τ᾽ ἄγχιστον πέλεν αὐτῷ wm
(εἴσατο! δ᾽ ὡς ὅτε ῥινὸν λὲν ἠεροειδέϊ' πόντῳ.
τὸν δ᾽ ἐξ 4ἰθιόπων" ἀνιὼν κρείων" ἐνοσίχϑων
k K. 155, χ. 278;
cf. 4. 447. a. 108,
a. 435, μ. 395.
281. Fedoaro negofedet.
217. χειρὸς et supra yg. νηός Harl., eandem var. 1. prebent Scholl. H. M., χει-
eos EKustath. Wolf. et omnes edd.
278. ἑπταδεκαίδεκα Eustath. Barnes. Ern.
Cl. ed. Ox., ἑπτὰ δὲ καὶ δέκα Wolf. et recentt.
281. ὅτ᾽ ἐρινὸν legere qui-
dam, Schol. Π., ὥστε ῥινὸν (sive wor’ ἐρινὸν) Schol. E., ὡς ὅτ᾽ égevow Arist.,
. Schol. V.
275. οἴη δ᾽ ἄμμορος x. τ. 4. may
equally be said of all the stars in that
quarter. Arist. (de Poet. XXVI. 17)
explains ofn, since it is the most no-
table; Ni., more probably, because the
others had not been reduced to groups
in Homer's time. Crates ap. Apoll.
read ἢ δὴ ἄμμορος, probably an in-
vention to save the poet’s astronomi-
cal reputation (Anc', Astron. p. 59).
See for the statement Ov. Met. XIII.
293 tmmunemque wquoris Arcton.
277-8. Ex ἀριστερὰ x., sec App.
A. 18. ποντοπορ., see App. B. 4.
279. Oxtwxatd., i. ὁ. the 29'" of the
poem’s action, 860 on 262 sup, Where
the πέμπτον ὴ ag is the first of navi-
gation and 12‘ of that action. oxtd-
&vta is also applied to νέφεα and to
μέγαρα (mar.): cf. Virg. An. 111. 205
—6, Quarto terra die primum se attollere
tandem Visa, aperire procul montes, ac
volvere fumum.
280. ὅϑι t x. τ. 4., “where they
(ὄρεα) came the nearest to him”: ay-
χιστον is adverbial, Ni. remarks, some-
what hypercritically, that not the near-
est but the highest mountains are first
seen; but why may not the nearest
happen in poetry to be also the high-
est? Besides, if they are more remote,
the state of the atmosphere (ἠεροειδέϊ
πόντω) may prevent their appearing to
the eye.
281. εἴσατο, “‘appeared’’, aor. keep-
ing the sense of the pres. εἴδεται, 80
283 inf., whereas the fut. εἴσομαι ra-
ther follows the perf. old in sense of
“know”. Another εἴσατο from εἶμε eo "
occurs in J. 138, N.191. For ὡς ore
without a verb following cf. J. 462
ἤριπε δ᾽ ὡς ὅτε πύργος, ἐνὶ κρατερῇ
υσμένῃ and Pind. [sthm ΥἹ. τ ϑαλλον-
τος ἀνδρῶν ὡς ὅτε συμποσίου (Ni).
δινὸν neut. and.grvog fem. both oc-
cur, meaning a “hide’’, or the ‘‘buck-
ler’? made of it (mar.). Now a buckler
might certainly stand as the type of
the islands in the Ionian sea, as de-
lineated in Gell’s /thaca. They rise
with a mountain boss in the middle
and flatten down round the edge. Sche-
rié is not certainly an island; but to
regard it as such would assist the view
of the isolation of the Phseacians (ξ.
8). A prominent cape or peninsula of
it might at any rate have at a distance
an insular appearance, The Scholiast’s
mention of the sense of ψέφος or az-
Avg being given to ῥινὸν by certain
remote tribes is not worth attention;
as neither is the reading ot ἐρινὸν,
“fig”, which they ascribe to Aristar.
282—4. Αἰϑιόπων, see App. D. 1.
Zod., Lycia, or thereabouts, is the
192 OATZZEIAZ E. 283—297. @ [DAY XX1X.
0 2. ΝῊ, 2... ᾿ἰτηλόϑεν ἐκ Σολύμων" ὀρέων ἴδεν" εἴσατο" γάρ of Sty
πόντον ἐπιπλώων᾽" ὃ δ᾽ ἐχώσατο κηρόϑι μᾶλλον,
‘| κινήσας" δὲ κάρη. προτὶ! ὃν μυϑήσατο ϑυμόν
«(ΚΣ πόποι, ἡ μάλα δὴ μετεβούλευσαν ϑεοὶ ἄλλως
ἀμφ᾽ Ὀδυσῆι, ἐμεῖο μετ᾽ “ἰϑιόπεσσιν ἐόντος,
καὶ δὴ Φαιήκων γαίης σχεδὸν, ἔνϑα of αἶσα
ἐκφυγέειν μέγα πεῖραρ" ὀϊξύος, ἢ μιν ἱκάνει.
ἀλλ᾽ ἔτι μήν wiv φημι ἄδην" ἐλάαν κακότητος."
ὥς εἰπὼν, σύναγεν νεφέλας, ἐτάραξε" δὲ πόντον,
χερσὶ τρίαιναν' ἑλὼν. πάσας δ᾽ ὀρόϑυνεν" ἀέλλας
παντοίων" ἀνέμων. σὺν" δὲ νεφέεσσι κάλυψεν
γαῖαν ὁμοῦ᾽ καὶ πόντον" ὀρώρει δ᾽ οὐρανόϑεν νύξ.
σὺν 0” Evgdg? τὲ Νότος τ᾽ ἔπεσον Zépvgds τε δυςαὴς 295
καὶ Βορέης" αἰϑρηγενέτης, μέγα" κῦμα κυλίνδων.
καὶ τότ᾽ Ὀδυσσῆος λύτο' γούνατα καὶ φίλον ἥτορ,
“ὃ:
ea. 370, P. 442,
@. 465, 491, υ. 184.
{ 2. 295, 355, 407,
404
g εἴ. Ν. 359, Z.143.
h N. 315, T. 423.
i a. 379, 397, 414.
304.
29C
nae. 305 .
P. 56, ε. 260.
ο “859, μ. 314
p ws. 326, IZ. 105.
q μ. 789, ¥. 200;
. ef. «4.
O. 171.
cf. §. 315, ε, 147.
ὅ. 703 mar.
r
"
ι
291. Seema.
290. Fadny.
283. Fede εισατο For. 285. Fov. 288. For.
284. ἐπιπλείων Eustath. Barnes. Erm. Cl. ed. Ox., ἐπιπλώων Wolf. et recentt.
289. πεῖρας Barnes, Ern. Cl. ed Ox., πεῖραρ Eustath. Wolf. et recentt. 292.
ϑυέλλας Bek. annot. 294. οὐρανόϑι Harl. ex emend., sed οὐρανόϑεν Schol.
H. Eustath. Wolf. et omnes edd. 295. ἔπεσον Harl., te πέσεν Eustath., te
πέσον Bek., τ᾽ ἔπεσε Barnes. Wolf. et recentt., mox δισαὴς var. 1. Schol. V.
296. αἰϑρηγενεὴς Rhian. et Aristoph., Scholl. H. P. Q., mox μέγα πῆμα Harl.
ex emend.
region of the people Solymi in Z. 184,
hence the Taurus might be here un-
derstood. A Schol. gives Lod. ὄρη τῆς
Πισιδίας. Similarly in Virg. #n. VII.
286 fol. Juno sights A&neas’ fleet on
her return from Argos. εἴσατο see
on 281. μᾶλλον adds an indefinite
vehemency to ἐχώσατο.
285—6. χεινήσας δὲ x., this is for-
mulaic, a8 expressing indignation; so
with ἀκέων, where suppressed wrath
and postponed vengeance is intended
(mar.), as that of Odys. and Telem.
against Antinoiis and Melanthius. were
eBovd., this was in fact the case:
the gods at the urgency of Pallas had
outvoted him in his absence; his wrath
being all the while before their eyes
as irreconcileable with their resolve
in the interests of Odys.
, 288—go. αἶσα, see On 11{3--4 sup.
adny, see on App. 6 (6). — xaxotn-
τος, here “‘suffering’’ or “‘ woe”’.
291—3. νεφέλας ... νεφέεσσι, if
these are to be distinguished, in ve-
φέλῃ form predominates over matter, in
νέφος matter over form: thus νεφέλη
will be the single distinct cloud, νέφος
the general cloud-mass, Thus the drama
of Aristoph., in which the clouds have
individuality, is entitled Νεφέλαι, but
there 287—8 (Dind.) the Cloud-chorus
says, ἀποσεισάμεναι (Νεφέλαι) νέφος
ὄμβριον ἄϑανατας ἰδέας, “having sha-
ken from off our immortal shape the
humid cloud -mass.’’ ‘The words are,
however, as might be expected, not
sharply distinguished, especially in me-
taphors; thus we have νέφος ἀχλύος
in O. 668 and ἄχεος νεφέλη in P..591.
The god, while speaking, must be sup-
posed to have reached his element
(Fa.). Cf. Virg. Aen. I. 85 foll., ΠῚ.
196, V. τι͵ foll.
296—7. alSeny., the Scholl. inter-
pret producing αἴϑρη (clear sky) or
αἶϑρος (chill), and so Apollon. Lez.
Hom.; but the analogy of aleryevé-
της, epithet of the gods, rather points
to an intransitive sense ‘‘born or pro-
duced in the αἴϑρη᾽᾽; cf. also xvgt-
yevetay χαλινῶν ‘‘furnace-forged ”’,
5
πὴ (εἴπη) Harl.
Scholl. T. V., ἀνατλήσειν Bek. annot.
DAY xx1x.] OATZZEIAL Ε΄. 298—313. 193
ὀχϑήσας δ᾽ ἄρα εἶπε πρὸς ὃν μεγαλήτορα ϑυμόν 5.4 955, 407, 465,
a<6a> μοι ἐγὼ" δειλός" τί νύ μοι μήκιστα γένηται δ 8, ἀρ, X 93.
δείδω μὴ On πάντα ϑεὰ νημερτέα" εἶπεν, ς X. ai.
ἢ μ᾽ ἔφατ᾽ ἐν πόντῳ, πρὶν' πατρίδα γαῖαν ἰκέσϑαι. | γ. ΤῊ λ. 137
ἄλγε᾽ avandyoey:s τὰ δὲ δὴ νῦν πάντα τελεῖται" cs 207 mar
οἵοισιν νεφέεσσι MEQLOTEMEL οὐρανὸνὶ εὐρὺν ἰ 5 Sui, B- 967,
Ζεὺς, ἐτάραξε δὲ πόντον, ἐπισπέρχουσιν δ᾽ ἄελλαι! , 257, Ὁ D. 212.
παντοίων ἀνέμων. νῦν" μοι σῶς αἰπὺς ὄλεϑρος. Ι 291-3,
τρὶς μάκαρες" Javaol καὶ τετράκις, οὗ τότ᾽ ddovto ΤΟΝ
Τροίῃ ἐν εὐρείῃ. [χάριν ᾿Ατρείδῃσι φέροντες.» ) p ef Ε wi
ὡς On ἐγώ γ᾽ ὄφελον. ϑανέειντ καὶ πότμον ἐπισπεῖν. τ δ᾽ 582’ mar ᾿
ἤματι" τῷ ὅτε μοι πλεῖστοι χαλκήρεα' δοῦρα a a
10 Τρῶες ἐπέρριψαν περὶ Πηλείωνι ϑανόντι. ua. 291, γ. 285
τῷ x’ ἔλαχον κτερέων" καί wev κλέος" ἦγον ᾿“χαιοί: ν Φ 28.
νῦν δέ we λευγαλέῳ" ϑανάτῳ εἵμαρτο ἁλώναι."» y Ζ. 5:2, Ν. τ,
ὡς ἄρα μιν εἰπόντ᾽ ἔλαδσεν μέγα κῦμα κατ᾽ὴῪ ἄκρης. Ω. 15.
298. ἐεῖπεν ἐξόν. 300. Feimev. 312. ξείμαρτοι. 313. ἐειπόντ᾽.
299. τίνα pro τί νυ Schol. V., mox μήχιστα var. 1. Scholl. H. P,Q. V. 4200.
02. ἀναπλήσειν Harl. et supra ἀναπλῆσαι quod pro var. |.
305. σόος solus Bek. 306. tele μά-
καρες Barnes. Ern. Cl. ed. Ox. Bek., τρισμάκαρες Eustath. Wolf. Dind. Fa.
μὸν. 310. δαμέντι Bek. annot.
312. pro ἁλῶναι ὄλεσϑαι (6 corruptela ἄλε-
σϑαι Buttm. restituit) Ixion, Schol. H.
feschyl. Sept. ες. Th. 207, Dindorf, and
ὁ Διὸς γενέτας, Soph. Gd. Tyr. 470
Dindorf, genitus not genitor. In H., how-
ever, a class of adjectives are used
both actively and passively; as axv
στος, κατηρεφὴς etc. With Avro you-
vata x. τ᾿ 1. cf. Virg. kn. I. 92 Anew
solvuntur frigore membra.
298. ὀὐχϑήσας, connected with ay-
ϑεσϑαι, Buttm. Lezil. go.
299. μήχιστα, “the furthest off”;
hence the phrase means, ‘‘what will
become of me at last?’ Ni. cites
Quid misero mihi denique restat? Virg.
En. 11. yo. γένηταε, the subjunct.
expresses the uncertain future.
300. μὴ ... εἶπεν, on this indic. sec
App. A. 9 (5).
304—s. Ζεὺς, Odys., being ignorant
of Poseidon’s agency, ascribes the cloud-
gathering to Zeus as vepednyegétne.
— ain. ὄλεθρος, sec on a. 11.
306—10, With this soliloquy cf. that
HOM. OD, I.
of Aineas in Virg. An. I. 94 fol. O
terque quaterque beati etc.
309—12. ἤμιατε, the fight over the
corpse of Achilles lasted all the day
(mar.). Aevyadé@, “ignoble’’, cf. B.
61 λευγαλέοι τ᾽ ἐσόμεσϑα καὶ ov de-
δαηκότες ἀλκήν: the sentiment is pri-
marily that death by drowning exclu-
ded those sepulchral honours, so dearly
prized by a Greek, mentioned in 311;
cf. δ. 584 and note, Hes. Opp. 687, δει-
vow δ᾽ ἐστι ϑανεῖν μετὰ κύκασιν, and
/Eneas’ words to Palinurus Virg. An.
V. 871 Nudus in ignotd Palinure jacebis
arend; but also implies an inglorious
contrast with death in battle (306), the
lot most worthy of the hero, cf. indigna
morte peremptum, Virg. Ain, VI, 163.
313—4. xav ἄχρης, often said of
a city destroyed, captured etc. (mar.)
Ni, cites Virg. kn. I. 114 ingens a ver-
tice pontus and Soph. Cid. Col. 1242—
4, Dindorf, ὡς καὶ τόνδε xnatdxeas
δειναὶ κυματοαγεῖς ara: κλονέουσιν
18
194
ae. 429, 451, LP.
737, Y. 288.
b ef. pe. 416.
c me. 4117.
d εἴ, 4. 270.
e cf. ge. 422.
f pe. 288.
g ¢.179, 269; cf. β.
102 mar., τ. 147,
ω. 137.
h a. 254.
i a. 393.
k e. 264, 372.
I A. 544.
τ εἴ. δ. 911.
n A. 813, ᾧ. 261.
o α. 6 mar.
p Z. 8".
q Y¥. 192.
r 8.101; cf. P. 264.
s β. 213 mar.
t Φ. 316.
316. ἔξαξεν.
314. ἐπισσύμενον Arist., Schol. P.
.Q. vulgato prseponentes.
ΟΔΥΣΣΕΙΑΣ E. 314—328.
321. Feduata.
[pay xxIx.
| δεινὸν ἐπεσσύμενον." περὶ δὲ σχεδίην ἐλέλιξεν."
τῆλε δ᾽ ἀπὸ σχεδίης αὐτὸς πέσε," πηδάλιον δὲ
ἐκ χειρῶν προέηκε᾽ μέσον δέ οἱ ἱστὸν ξαξεν
δεινὴ μισγομένων ἀνέμων ἐλθοῦσα Buedia,!
τηλοῦ δὲ σπεῖρον" καὶ ἐπίκριον" ἔμπεσε πόντῳ.
τὸν δ᾽ ἄρ᾽ ὑπόβρυχα ϑῆκχε πολὺν χρόνον, οὐδ᾽ ἐδυ--
νάσϑη
aipa war’ ἀνσχεϑέειν μεγάλουϊ ὑπὸ κύματος ὁρμῆς᾽ 420
etuatak γάρ 6 éBaguve,' ta of πόρε δῖα Καλυψώ.
ὀψὲ δὲ On ῥ᾽ avédv, στόματος δ᾽ ἐξέπτυσεν GAuny™
πικρὴν, ἥ of πολλὴ ἀπὸ κρατὸς κελάρυξεν."
ἀλλ᾽. οὐδ᾽ ὡς σχεδίης ἐπελήϑετο, τειρόμενόςν περ,
ἀλλὰ μεϑορμηϑεὶς ἐνὶ κύμασιν ἐλλάβετ᾽ αὐτῆς,
ἐν μέσσῃ δὲ κάϑιξε τέλος ϑανάτου ἀλεείνων.
τὴν δ᾽ ἐφόρει μέγα" κῦμα κατὰ ῥόον ἔνϑα" καὶ ἔνϑα.
ὡς" δ᾽ ὅτ᾽ ὀπωρινὸς Βορέης φορέησιν ἀκάνϑας
323. Jor.
315s. αὐτὸν βάλε Rhian., Scholl. B. H. P.
317. δένῃ var. 1. Scholl. B. H. P. 9. T.
319. οὐδ᾽
ἐδυνάασϑη Harl. ct Schol. H. Wolf. Dind. Léw. Fa., οὐδὲ δυνάσϑη Eustath.,
Barnes. Ern. Cl. ed. Ox. Bek.
& man. pr.
antiqq., mox ἔλλαβεν ex emend.
-----.-.-.-.
ἀεὶ ξυνοῦσαι, where κατ᾽ ἄκρας should
perhaps be read. Distinguish from this
κατακρῆϑεν (κρᾶς caput, but κατ᾽ ἄκρη-
ϑὲν ap. Bek.) Π. 548. With éxeo-
σύμι., perf. pass. part. proparox, cf.
ahalnuevog ἀκαχήμενος ἀἁλιτήμενος
ἐληλαμενος.
318—9. σπεῖρον ... ἐπέχρ., sce
App. F. 1 (7). σπεῖρον means clae-
where ‘‘shroud’’ or (pl.) ‘wraps’’.
ὑπόβρυχα, Buttm. Lexil. 36 (9) pre-
fers to view this as metaplastic acc.
for nom. ὑπόβρυχος, but adds, “ὑπο-
βρύχιος was more in use in the Hymns,
Herod. and elsewhere’: see Hy. XX XIII.
12 ἄνεμός te... καὶ κῦμα... θῆκαν
ὑποβρυχίην, cf. ὑποβρύχιον Herod.
I. 189, who also in VII. 130 has ὑπό-
βρυχα of Thessaly flooded by the Peneus,
The subj. of ϑῆχε is ϑύελλα in 317.
321—5. eluata, see on 136 sup.
Ernesti cites Virg. -En. V. 178 fol.,
where the description is drolly adapted
to Menoetes thrown overboard, rising
322. ἀνέβη Bek. annot.
325. ἐνὶ Harl. a man. pri. ut videtur, ita Wolf. et recentt., ἐν
326. δ᾽ ἐκάϑιξε Harl., καϑῆστο Bek. annot.
327. καταῤῥόον (κατάρροον Ὁ) Harl. cf. mar. ad v. 461.
323. πολλὸν Harl.
drenched, and rejecting the salt water
he had swallowed — one of the few
touches of humour admitted in the
‘neid. μεϑορμηϑεὶς, ‘rushing af-
ter’, μετὰ as in μετέρχομαι y. 83.
328. OxWELYOS B., the epithet is
forcible. In X. 27 the log-star rises
ὀπώρης, in ©. 346 the ὁπωρινὸς Bog.
dries a newly watered plot of ground,
and thus the hot season when irriga-
tion would be nceded, as opposed to
the rainy, scems pointed at: 80 thie
ϑέρος tePalvia τ᾽ ὀπώρη, A. 192, cf.
ξ. 384. shows by old Laértes’ then
sleeping out of doors that the late
summer (ἡ ὄπισϑεν ὥρη), when the
grapes ripen, is meant; ct. Soph, rach.
703, Dindorf, γλαυκῆς ὀπώρας ὥστε
πίονος ποτοῦ γχγυϑέντος εἰς γὴν Bax-
χίας ἀπ᾿ ἀμπέλου. Soin μ. 76 αἴϑρη
“clear weather’? may then be expected.
Then the “thorns’’ would of course be
dry, and may be supposed then cut for
winter fuel. Thus our word ‘‘autum-
DAY XxIx.| ΟΔΥΣΣΕΙΑΣ E. 329—337. 195
ἂμ πεδίον, πυκιναὶ δὲ πρὸς ἀλλήλῃσιν" ἔχονται, aw. 5,
a \ ) »ν " b Δ. 213 mar
330 ὡς τὴν au πέλαγος ἄνεμοι φέρον ἔνϑα" καὶ ἔνϑα. ὁ ζ. 125, ΤΊ 407; ef
( ἄλλοτε μέν τε Νότος Βορέῃ προβάλεσκε φέρεσθαι. 150, 149. a
ἄλλοτε δ᾽ avr’ Εὖρος Ζεφύρῳ εἴξασκε διώκειν.) ὁ οἴ. d. 364
f 2. 582, 593, ρ.
τὸν δὲ ἴδεν Κάδμου ϑυγάτηρ καλλίσφυρος Ἰνὼ 142, E. 995, P.
Asvuotén, ἣ πρὶν μὲν ἔην βροτὸς αὐδήεσσα ." 2. 353.
- > ¢9.\ ἢ - ~ 393, 9.20, 9
335 νῦν δ᾽ ἁλὸς ἐν πελάγεσσι ϑεῶν ἐξέμμορε τιμῆς. δέν, 22, Σ
ἢ" ῥ᾽ Ὀδυσή᾽ ἐλέησεν ἀλώμενον, ἄλγε᾽ ἴ ἔχοντα, 207, ἅν 88.
, 3 9 ~ 9 , . ’, i A. 359, 496
[αὐϑυέῃβ δ᾽ εἰκυῖα! ποτῇ ἀνεδυσατοὶ λίμνης.) ky. 1.
31. «ξεέξασκε.
333. «δεν.
337. ἐξικυῖα.
329. ἀμπέδιον et 330: ἀμπέλαγος Eustath. et antiqq., ἂμ med. et ἂμ πέλ. Wolf.
et recentt., mox ἀλλήλοισιν Harl. 333
. τόνδ᾽ εἶδεν Eustath.
334. οὐδήεσσα
Aristoteles et Chameleon, Eustath, Scholl. H. P. Q., αὐλήεσσα var. 1, Scholl. E.
Ρ. 9. T.
Schot H. P. Q., [] Wolf. et recentt.
335. ϑεῶν ἐξ ἔμμορε Barnes.
ποτ ny (tanquam nomen) var. |, Scholl.
337 + plerique, dubitabat Arist.,
. P. 9. Eustath. MS. GQ. C., mox ὑπεδύσατο Arist., Scholl. H. P. Q.
nal’? would convey an incorrect notion.
However in IT. 385 ἤματι ὁπωρινῷ
means the rainy season, and in Hes.
Opp. 674—s5 the navi ator is bidden, in
the same sense, μηδὲ μένειν οἶνόν re
νέον καὶ ὀπωρινὸν ὄμβρον καὶ χει-
μῶν᾽ ἐπιόντα Νότοιό τε δεινὰς ἀήτας;
which proves that the transitional point
of the weather is intended, where the
dry season breaks up in rain; also
shown by Ψέας “early” in éschyl.
Fragm. 341,7 Dind,, νέας δ᾽ ὀπώρας
ἡνίκ᾽ ἂν ξάνθῃ στάχυς.
328—9. φορέησιν ... ἔχονται, for
the mixture of mooda see App. A. 9
(3), where some similar examples are
explained: the subjectivity of the whole
image is here given by the subjunct,,
but when the assumption has been
made, the ‘thorns’ clinging together”’
is marked as an objective fact by the
indic.
330—2. age πέλαγος, Bee App. B (3).
Observe the force here of the frequen-
tative form of the aor. in -σχον. The
pairs of names of winds imply the
chopping and shifting of the gale's di-
rection.
333—79- Ind emerges from the sea,
and bids Odys. abandon his raft, strip
and swim for it; giving him also a ma-
gic scarf to ensure his rescue, which,
after using, he is carefully to return.
He gives a qualified acceptance at first
to her words, till his raft parts asun-
der, when he has recourse to the scarf.
Poseidon perceives him, and dooms him
yet to suffering, till he reach the Phe-
acians’ land,
333: Καόμου ... Ἰνὼ Λευκχ. oo.
αὐδηήεσσα, see App. C. δ (τ) (2). The
name Kaduog is perhaps based on a
Phoenician word representing the Heb.
ὉΠ, “the East”. The son of Ind was
Palemon, otherwise Melicertes, a name
based apparently on the Tyrian Mel-
kart, and seeming to show that these
sea-gods were of Phoenician origin; cf,
Eurip. Tphig. Taur. 270—1 Dindorf.
335. @A. ἐν πελαγ.» see App. B (1)
(3). On some expansion of the idea
of this line Milton has founded his
beautiful legend of Sabrina, Comus.
827 fol.
336. ἐλέησεν, Léwe cites Ov. bis
275. Sollertique viro, lacera’ quem fracta
tenentem, Membra ratis, Semeles est mi-
serala soror. Semelé was also daugh-
ter of Cadmus.
337. External evidence inclines
against this verse. The “doubts’’ of
Aristarchus (Scholl.) are perhaps due
to the felicity of the insertion, if such
it be. Ind was before (335) spoken of
as alog ἐν πελάγεσσι, and the line
forms an apt link between that state-
ment as to her abode and the other-
wise startling abruptness of [fe δ᾽ ἐπὶ
κι τι λ. in 338. If εἰκυῖα meant “tak-
ing the form’’, this would, on compar-
13*
a 8. 33 mar
Da. 160, 2. 216
ς 8. 44. τ: ’ τ
33; cf. β΄ 35΄. Ι“χάμμορε." τίπτε τοι ade Ποσειδάων ἐνοσίχϑων
d sore α. 62,2
eB. 5, ὃ. 218, 0 ὠδύσατ᾽ ὁ ἐκπάγλως, ὅτι τοι κακὰ πολλὰ φυτεύει; °
118, 0. 27, 2,
159; cf. d. . ’ ’
19. br. ov μὴν δή σε καταφϑίσει, wala’ περ μενεαίνων.
g 6. 258, a. 360.
ἢ e. 358. z . Ε
i ef. 9. 388, βἀλλὰ" μάλ᾽ ad’ ἔρξαι, δοκέεις! δέ μοι οὐκ ἀπινύσσειν **
O. 10.
1 B. 261, X. 125. - , ,
me. 331, μ. 442,| είματα ταῦτ᾽ ἀποδὺς! σχεδίην ἀνέμοισι φέρεσθαι"
τ. 468.
n pg. 444, ξ. 351. ,͵ , ͵
ὁ fl. 220, Κ᾿ 401 κάλλιπ᾽, ἀτὰρ χείρεσσι" νέων ἐπιμαίεος νόστου
p 4. 280.
‘| 460. ’ , -
r $a, ι. BAT, x. «| γαίης Φαιήκων, ὅϑι τοι μοῖρ᾽ ἐστὶν ἀλύξαι."
287, 4. 615.
5. 4. 373, 459, - , ,
184. Ξ' τὴν δὲ, τόδε κρήδεμνον" ὑπὸ στέρνοιο τανύσσαι"
t 4. 106.
Ὁ 4. 373.
ν 5. 563, M. 246. «| nto οὐδέ τί τοι παϑέειν δέος, οὐδ᾽ ἀπολέσϑαι."
338. J eine.
338. σχεδίης καί μιν πρὸς μῦϑον ἔειπεν Harl. Flor. Lov. Steph.
οξαι libri et edd. omnes, ἔρδειν Bek. annot.
Eustath.,
τῇ Wolf. Cl. ed. Ox. et recentt.
‘“‘utrumque Aristarchi edd.”’
ΟΔΎΣΣΕΙΑΣ E. 338—347.
ite δ᾽ ἐπὶ σχεδίης" πολυδέσμου, εἶπέν" τὲ μῦϑον
342. ὥς Fégéac.
[DAY χχιχ.
343. ξείματα.
342. ἔρξον
446. τῇ Eustath, Ern.,
στέρνοισι Eustath. Hal. mar., στέρνοϊ ὁ in text.
» Scholl, H. P., mox τανύδαι Harl. , τάνυσσαι Eu-
stath. Barnes. Cl. ed. Ox., ᾿τανύσσαι Wolf, et recentt.
347. οὐδὲν Eustath.
Barnes. Ern. Cl. ed. Ox., οὐδέ te Vr. Wolf. et recentt., mox κακὸν var. 1. pro
δέος Schol. H.
—
ing 353 inf., be against its genuineness;
since to mention the figure of trans-
formation both at the appearance and
disappearance of a dcity is not uaual
with H., and even ow. 548 is probably
an addition, although there is properly
speaking no disappearance of Pallas
there. But efxvia may better mean
to describe her movement, not her form ;
cf. λάρῳ ὄρνιϑι ἐοικὼς (of Hermes) ε.
51, κορώνῃσιν ἕκελοι μ. 418, τρήρωσι
πελειώσιν ἴϑμαϑ᾽ ὁμοῖαι, E. 778; and
thus the objection disappears, and we
have a verse exactly i in Homer's man-
ner (mar.). This view of εἰκυῖα pro-
bably suggested the reading πότην,
which would correspond with ἴθμαϑ'
just cited. Aristar. read ὑπεδύσατο,
grounding it probably on §. 127, Ὁ. 53,
but the passages adduced for avedv-
σατο (mar.) offer a closer parallel. The
objection to λέμνης is casily answered
by y. 1, 806 mar. and note there. Still
it is rare in the sense of ‘‘sea”’ and
an imitator would almost certainly
.--.-ὄ-
have said πόντου, πόντον or κῦμα (A.
496); πόντον occura indeed in 352. It
thus becomes an argument in favour
of the verse, but hardly inclines
the balance in its favour. alDvin,
‘“‘“cormorant’’, Lat. mergus; cf. Aristot.
de Anim. Hist. I. i. 6, VII. iii, 7. Dun-
bar Lex. App. ef. the verb αἐϑύσσω
used, especially as compounded, by Pin-
dar, of rapid glancing motion, as in Ol.
VIL. 95, XI. (X.) 73, Pyth. I. 87, IV. 83.
338. πολυδέσμου, see App. F.1 (4).
339. κάμμορε, see on 160-1.
342—§. ἀπινύσσειν, cf. Hector
stunned and senseless, κῆρ ἀπινύσ-
ows, (mar.) in the physical sense, =
animo deficiens, here desipere. νόστου
γαίης, “arrival αἱ the land”; cf.
ὥλεσε τηλοῦ νόστον Ayartdos (mar. )
and Eurip, [ph. Taur. 1066 Dindorf,
γῆς πατρῴας νόστος.
346. τῆ, Buttm. Lezil. 99 (2) takes
this from the verb root ta- of which
the existing pres, form is te/ym or te-
yuo. Thus τά-ωὦ would give impe-
355 ὀχϑήσας" δ᾽ ἄρα εἷπε πρὸς ὃν μεγαλήτορα ϑυμὸν
360 ἀλλὰο μάλ᾽ ὧδ᾽ ἔρξω, δοκέει δέ μοι εἷναι ἄριστον"
DAY ΧΧΙΧ.] ΟΔΥΣΣΕΙΑΣ E. 348—362.
197
—— ee ae .....
—
αὐτὰρ ἐπὴν χείρεσσιν ἐφάψεαι ἠπείροιο,
ἃ α. 183 mar.
ἂψ ἀποδυσάμενος βαλέειν εἰς οἴνοπα" πόντον b x. 528,
8 > 9 3 9 A 9 9 , , c a. 92.
350 πολλὸν ax ἠπείρου, avtog δ᾽ ἀπονόσφι τραπέσϑαι.»"υ ἃ δ. 425 mar.
e 8. 337 mar.
κι ς 3 4 ‘ ,
ὧς" ἄρα φωνήσασα Bea κρήδεμνον ἔδωκεν, ἜΝ
αὐτὴ δ᾽ ap ἐς πόντον ἐδύσατο κυμαίνοντα “ ko. 90.
alduin® εἰκυῖα" μέλαν δέ & κῦμα κάλυψεν. he D693 mar.
Η ᾿ , ; ᾿ je. 422, Ζ. 187.
αὐτὰρ ὃ μερμήριξεξ πολύτλας δῖος Ὀδυσσεὺς, Κι. 129, @. 216, O
468, Π. 133, P.
757.
1 ε. 342 mar.
m & 143, δ. 226
mar.
nef. a. 3158.
o @. 342 mar.
p cf. 0. 259-62, 4.
187—UI.
qe ipa) N. 127,
4. 137
“oF μοι ἐγὼ, μή τίς μοι ὑφαίνῃσινὶ δόλον αὖτε
ἀϑανάτων., ὅτεκ we σχεδίης ἀποβῆναι ἀνώγει.
ἀλλὰ! μάλ᾽ οὔ πω πείσομ᾽. ἐπεὶ ἑκὰς ὀφθαλμοῖσιν "
γαῖαν ἐγὼν ἰδόμην, ὅϑι μοι φάτο φύξιμον" εἶναι.
Spo’? avi μέν κεν δούρατ᾽ ἐν ἁρμονίῃσιντ conor,
τ. 23.
v ~ [2 a? 17,
τύφρ᾽ αὐτοῦ μενέω" καὶ τλήσομαι ἄλγεα' πάσχων" "4. 311, OT. 305.
n
349 Jotvona. 353. ειχυῖα Fe. 355. ut in 298 sup. 358. Fexag.
359. ἐγὼ Fudouny. 360. ὡς Fégto.
349. αἷψ᾽ Vr., mox ἀπολυσάμενος Schol. P. Bek. Fa. 350. ἀπονόσφι ut in 113.
352. apy var. 1. Scholl. H. Μ. P. 386. αὖτε Harl. Flor. Wolf. et recentt.
var. 1. Schol. M. ᾽, ἄλλον Barnes. Ern, Cl. ed, Ox., ἄλλος Bek. annot., ἄλλων
Eustath. 357. ὅτε (h. 6. διό τε Buttm.) Aristoph., Scholl. 11. P. 359. φεῦ-
ξιμον MS, G. C. Aloysii.
rat. tae ta, with pl. tare (Schol. on
Aristoph. Acharn. 203 who wrongly
views it as a pron., citing Sophron.).
We may compare xataxtetvm κατέκτα,
βαίνω ἔβην. perhaps an adj. τάελος τῆ-
dog also existed, hence τηλοῦ and τήλε
with its compounds; 80 τηῦσιος γ. 316,
and tavg = μέγας, πολυς (Hesych.).
The object οὗ τῇ is always supposed
held out to the person addressed; here
the κρήδερινον, which she was pro-
bably wearing, and unbound from her
head as she spoke.
348—50. χεῖρ δῦσιν x. τ. 1., οἵ. Virg.
-En. VI. 360 Pr ensantemque uncis mant-
bus capita aspera montis. πολλὸν ἀπ᾽
Ne» ‘a long way out from shore’’, as
suiting a goddess who dwelt ἀλὸς ἐν
πελάγεσσιν. Cf. Tennyson’s Morte d’
Arthur, “Take Excalibur, And fling him
far into the middle mere’’; there too
the recipient is represented as “Sitt-
ing in the deeps. Upon the hidden
bases of the hills.” ἀπονόσφει Te,
Odys. receives from Circé (mar.) a simi-
lar injunction regarding his sacrifice to
the dead; cf. also Virg. Bucol. VIII.
101—2 rivoque fluenti fransque capul Jace
nec respexeris. Similar in the prin-
ciple of the Divine Command to Lot
in Gen. XIX. 17, based on the feeling
of reverential awe due to the working
of superhuman power. No mention is
made of Odysseus’ observance of the
direction; see on 453—7 inf.
355 — 64. On this soliloquy as cha-
racteristic of Odys. see App. Ε. 1 (1)
end, and (5).
357. ὅτε, causal with indic. assigns
some present fact just happening, as
the cause of what precedes, The read-
ing τε is just worth noticing;: if
adopted , it may be better to take o
as = διὸ, see δ. 204—6 and note.
Bek. apparently would make ὃ qui in
O. 468, a very similar passage, but
reads ὅτε here.
361—4. ἂν μέν xev, for examples
of ἂν and κεν thus combined see mar.,
where σοὶ δ᾽ ἂν γὼ πομπὸς καί κεν
κλυτὸν Agyos ἱκοίμην shows that the
αν is not in such passages due to the
1g8
aa 3 le, τας
a 4. 137 mar.
hy ε.- aH..
“4. 153 19.
deh eg Yate See.
2%
OSTESEIAS EL :6:--3:5.
[pay σσισ.
αὐτὰρ ἐπὴν dy ποι σχεδίην διὰ xtua τινάξη.
τῆήξομ΄. ἐπεὶ" OF μην τι περα προνοξζσαι ἔπεινον.᾽"
ging! ὃ τοῦϑ᾽ Goucsre χετὰ core καὶ κατὰ ϑυμὸν, 36:
ὧρσε δ᾽ ἐπὶ πὲγα xtuc Ποσειδέων ἐνοσίχϑων.
δεινόν τ΄ ἀργαλέον τε. πετηρεφὲ:.: ἔεασε δ᾽ αὐτόν.
ὥς" δ᾽ ἄνεμο: Sar; πίων ϑηκμῶταε ress,
χαρᾳφαλέων. τὰ μὲν ἔρ τε διεσκεδασ᾽ ἄλλιδι:" ἄλλῃ,
bie Se rs δούραται μεαρὰ deere’. αὐτὰρ Ὀδυσσεὺς 5
ie 38. aug evi δούρατι βαῖνε y XE Age “ὡς ἵσπον ελαυνῶν,
ie . Μ' εἵματα: ὃ ἐξαπέὸῤ Ure. τά" οἱ πορε δῖα Καλυέω.
na FM. αὐτίχα 7 δὲ χρήδεμνον ὑπὸ στέρνοιο τανισσεν.
, Pie, αὐτὸ: dé Tonys: adi κάππεσε. χεῖρε! Ξετάσσας οἱ
fa 101 mar νηχέμεναι μεμαώς. ide dé χρείων: ἐνοσίχϑων,
7 ΤΡ τη xivyous’ δὲ χαρὴ προτὶ ον μυϑησατο ϑυμὸν
372. selpate (οι.
365. φρένα Bin; ᾿δησσεὺς Enstath,
375. £68.
366. eocey Barnes.
οὕτω' νῦν xaxa* πολλὰ παϑὼν aiow* κατὰ πόντον.
΄ Pr) re ° ~
fils 6 χεν ἀνθρώποισι διοτρεφέεσσι μεγεΐῃς:“)
-,
3;6. For.
368. τενάξη Ευ-
atath. barnes, Brn. Cl, ed. Ox. Fa, nuvake Harl.. revaéee Apollon. Lex. Wolf.
Bek. Pind. Low.
Harl., στέρνοισι τάνυσσεν Enstath.
presence of ὄφρα, ὃς or such relative
word, — ἐπεὶ ov, not here in synize-
sin as in ὃ. 362.
36% - 9. ἠίων, BEG On B. 2890. — τι»
vagy, nee on β. 1“τ: the mood is sub-
junct. of simile; sec App. A. 9 14). —
ὥλλυδις ἄλλη, this form of phrase
in the dat. case, as here, is very rare;
it would be more consistent with usage
if for ἀλλῃ were read ἀλλο in appos.
with ta. As it stands, it resists ana-
lysis, ἄλλῃ being hardly more or less
than ἄλλυδις repeated. Disorder as
well as dispersion seems to enter into
the notion which it expresses.
371. δούρφατε, see App. F. 1 (2)
note. χέληθ", ef. the Roman Cele-
rea, Pliny N. HM. XXXII. ii, g. Doe-
derl, 2138 connects the name with
κέλλω (of a ship) ‘trun ashore’’, and
Lat. -cello, as in percello, procella etc.
Riding on horseback is not alluded to
by H. save in this and anothtr simile,
QO. 679, where a hero leaping from
ship to ship is compared to a man &x-
y ev εἰδώς: it may
344 ἄλλη mendose Cl. ed. Ox. )
». 378. Φαιήκεσσι var. |. pro avPegoz. Schol.
Π., ὅπως Φαιή. var. 1, Schol. H., mox μεγείης libri, usynys Bek.
σι ° 6
213. στέρνοιο τανῦσεν
possibly be intended in Ψ' 346 ef Ἡρεί-
ova diov flarvor; but cf. Hes. Scul.
109—10, 120, 323— 4. Where the ἔππον
᾿Δρείονα is clearly spoken of as mere-
ly the better one (or δεξιοσεερος) of a
chariot-team, as was Ai@y in ¥. 409.
It is true that Diomedes in the Dolo-
neia mounts the ‘‘horses”’ of Rhesus;
but he does so ἐξ ἀνάγκης (Schol.), for
Rhesus’ chariot waza plainly not car-
ried off, K. 513. ef. 498, sor, 504—8.
In Hes, Sent. 286 riders are mentioned
as forming part of a bridal procession,
vad’ ἵππων ἐπιβάντες ἐθύνεον.
374—5. πρηνὴς GA. x., he “plunged
headlong”, abandoning the plank, which
scems to have served only as ἃ support
whilst he stripped. In proof of this
there is no more mention of the plank ;
but here and 399, 417, 439 inf. he 18
constantly spoken of as swimming.
κινήσας δὲ X%., see on 285 sup.
378. dtoteeég., nowhere used of a
whole people save of the Pheacians
here (so 35 sup. of ἀγχίϑεοι γεγαα-
σιν, cf. note on β. 267 end), elsewhere
380
385
DAY XXIX—XxXXI. xt]
_—
ἀλλ᾽ " οὐδ᾽ ὥς oe ἔολπα" ὀνόσσεσϑαι" κακότητος." "
ὡς. ἄρα φωνήδας tuacev! καλλίτριχαςξ ἵππους,
ἵχετο" δ᾽ εἰς Αἰγὰς, ὅϑι of κλυτὰϊ δώματ᾽ ἔασιν.
αὐτὰρ" ᾿4ϑηναίη κούρη Avog ἄλλ᾽ ἐνόησεν.
ἦ τοι τῶν ἄλλων ἀνέμων κατέδησει κελεύϑους,"
παύσασϑαι δ᾽ ἐκέλευσε καὶ εὐνηθῆναι" ἅπαντας"
ὦρσε δ᾽ ἐπὶ κραιπνὸν Βορέην," πρὸ δὲ xvpar’ ἔαξεν,
ἕως 6 γε Φαιήκεσσιν φιληρέτμοισι μιγείη
διογενὴς Ὀδυσεὺς, ϑάνατον καὶ κῆρας" ἀλύξας.
’ [2 s [4 9 PA 4 t ~
Evia δύω νύχτας" δύο τ᾽ ἥματα κύματι"! πηγῷ
379. «ἐξξολπα.
3279. κακότητα Bek. annot.
OATZZEIALZ E.
381. Foe.
385. pro πρὸ ta Bek. annot.,
379— 388.
$6, 396, 533,
. 340, γι 80; ef.
385. ἔξαξεν.
mox idem ἔαγεν.
386. ἕως ὅδε Eustath., ὅππως Bek. annot., slog ὁ Lachmann., oxnws Pain. var.
| Scholl. B. H. P. Q.
388. τ᾿ Eustath. Harl. ex emend. "Wolf, et recentt.,
δ᾽ Barnes. Ern. Cl. ed. Ox., mox κύματι κωφῷ Bek. annot.
of kings and princes only, to whom
διοτρεφὲς is a customary style of ad-
dress; 6. g. Menel., see δ, passim. In
the same tone Alcinoiis boasts that
the gods came in person to the feasts
of the Pheacians and met them Ὁ
the way, ἐπεί σφισιν ἐγγύϑεν et-
μέν, ὥς weg Κυκλωπές τε x. τ. d., 7.
205—6. Further, the Pheacians “in a
measure represent the deol ῥεῖα ξωον-
τες. We must not look too rigidly in
them for notes of the divine charac-
ter, but rather for the abundance, opu-
lence, ease and refinement of the di-
vine condition.’’ Gladst. II. p. 320.
379. οὐδ᾽ ὥς, ‘not even 80”, i. 6.
when you reach the Phreacians. —
ὀνόσσ., this verb is nowhere else
found with gen., and Bek. gives a
reading κακότητα; still, μέμφομαι and
similar verbs have a gen. commonly
enough to justify this: render, ‘will
think too lightly of your suffering”’,
wh. is borne out by Odysseus’ own
words concerning his hardships in 9.
182—3, 231—2, cf, 138 --. Pind. /sthm.
111. 68 has ὀνοτὸς ἐδέσϑαι, “of small
account to see to’’ (Milton).
380—464. On Poseidon's retiring
Athené orders home the other winds,
but rouses Boreas, before which Odys.
drifts two days and nights, and on the
third day (thirty first of the poem’s
action) nears the Pheacian coast, where,
after much peril from its cliffs and
crags, and self-debate how to avoid
them, he lands exhausted at a river's
mouth; the river-god, whom he sup-
pliantly invokes, checking the rush of
his waves to allow of an easier land-
ing. He then lets go the magic scarf,
and kisses the earth as safe at last.
381. Αἰγὰς, the town so named in
Achaia on the G, of Corinth is, from
the mention of Helicon in connexion
with it, the one probably meant in Hy.
(to Poseidon) XXII. 3, and would best
suit the situation here. Pliny also
mentions (NV. H.1V. 18) a rocky hum-
mock so called between Chios and Te-
nos, which Kg@o mari nomen dedit, but
this is too obscure, and Pliny’s autho-
rity for the name too late. Another Ege
on the W. coast of Euboa, nearly oppo-
site Opus, is mentioned by the Scholl.
as understood by some here, and seems
clearly meant in Hy. Apol. Del. 32.
The £olian and Cilician towns so
named are less suited for the site of
the sea-god’s palace.
388-9. πηγῷ, Curtius IT. p. 98 re-
cognizes a connexion with παχύς, which
200
ἃ ς. 219.
: πλάξετο
bx. 141. cero,
OATZIEZEIAL E. 389 -398.
[DAY XxxII.
----ς.
(ξολλὰ dé of xoaden προτιόσσετ᾽ " ὄλεϑρον.)
ἐμ. 165-9; cf ε- ἀλλ᾽» ὅτε δὴ τρίτον ἦμαρ ἐὐπλόκαμος τέλεσ᾽ Ἠὼς,
451.
εἰ χα Ot.
ον. 197, ὦ. 453.
‘I. 374, P. $9,
255, ΧΟ.
Kw. 23.
he 13, B. 72.
ἱ δ. 372 mar.
ιχαὶς τότ᾽ ἔπειτ᾽ ἄνεμος μὲν ἐπαύσατο, ἠδὲ γαλήνη“
ἔπλετο νηνεμίη. ὃ δ᾽ ἄρα σχεδὸν Eigede® γαῖαν,
ὀξὺ μάλα προϊδὼν, μεγάλου ὑπὸ κύματος ἀρϑείς. ὰ
ὡς" δ᾽ ὅτ᾽ ἂν ἀσπάσιος βίοτος παίδεσσι φανήῃ
πατρὺς. ὃς ἐν" νούσῳ κεῖται κρατέρ᾽ὶ ἄλγεα πάσχων, 105
k x.64; cf. D365, δηρὸν τηχόμενος. στυγερὸς δέ of ἔχραεν δαίμων,
vy. 321, a. SH.
my. 35.
n 9. 343, 5. 205.
——— “-“. -- --α- - --- -ο--..-
380. For. 392. ἔσιξιδε.
.ἢ δὲ Arist., Schol. i. ἠδὲ libri.
col H.
e gloss. Schol. B.
Doede rl. 40, (c “f.44 --5) also implies. πα-
χὺς, “sturdy” is used (mar.) of horses ;
ef. ἀνὴρ παχὺς “a sturdy fellow’, Ari-
stoph. F’esp. 288 Dindorf; go we havo
the Πήγασος ἵππος in Hes. Theog. 281,
(cf. also πηγεσίμαλλος in Γ. 197) and
πάγος, πηγυλὶς ‘frost, ice” » With κῦυ-
ματι πη. cf. for the sense τρόφι κῦμα
and κυματὰ τροφόεντα (mar.). So
the Scholl, explain anya as εὐτρεφεῖ
καὶ εὐμεγέϑει. For προτιόσσετ᾽ sec
note on a. 115, and cf. for another
shade of meaning f. 152 and note,
391—3. Aristarchus’ reading ἡ δὲ
scems less suitable, as there is noth-
ing in the sense to require it, and ἄνε-
μος μὲν, with which it, would then
correspond, has not the ὁ, γαλήνη,
as explained by νηνεμίη in 392, Means
‘fa lull of the wind’? merely, for the
sea was still runuing high. It was not
yet the λευκὴ γαλήνη of x. 94, which
oceurs first at 452 inf. within the ri-
ver’s mouth, With ofy x. t. Δ. cf. the
phrases ὀξὺ νόησε or ἄκουσε, ὀξὺ βοή-
σας or λεληκώς, and the like (mar.).
The Virgilian imitation, An. VI. 357,
Prospexi [taliam sununa sublinis ab unda
omits the “sharp”? look out of Odys.
here.
395. νούσῳ,, the latter part of this
line sounds like a queer parody on &.
13, Where substituting νήσῳ for νούσῳ,
it is applied to Philoctetes ; cf. 8. 449
with 7.147. Agents causing a νοῦσος
393. προρξιδών.
ἀσπάσιον δ᾽ ἄρα τόν γε ϑεοὶ κακότητος" ἔλυσαν,
᾿ὡὥς" Ὀδυσὴ᾽ ἀσπαστὸν" ἐείσατο γαῖα καὶ ὕλη,
396. Fou. 398. ἐξείσατο.
393. ἐπὶ pro ὑπὸ Aristoph. et Rhian.
394. dontotek Harl. , woxactos Schol. H., mox φανείη Eustath.
Barnes. Ern. Cl. ed. Ox., φανήῃ Wolf. et recentt.
398. Odvoesé var, 1. Barnes. Bek., Ὀδυσὴ᾽ libri.
397. ἀσπασίως Flor. Lov.
are Zeus, Apollo, and here δαέμων:
no human remedies seem to be con-
templated, but recovery, as here, al-
though unexpected (cf. ἀελπέα 408 inf.)
to be possible. In ε. 411—2 the Cy-
clupes tell Polyphemus, supposing his
affliction a νοῦσος Stos, to pray to Po-
seidon for aid. Perhaps the éxaodn,
used in τι 457 for staunching hemor-
rage, might be applied to a νοῦσος;
but we know nothing of the use of
the φάρμακα ἐσϑλὰ of δ. 230 save the
solitary case of the νηπενϑὲς drug
there; and it seems heroic medicine
was confined to the treatment of hurts.
In g. 383—6 the list of δημιόεργοι puts
the intne κακῶν (hurts) next to the
waves. The δηρὸν thx. here is found
nobly expanded (4. 201) into νοῦσος
τηκεδόνι στυγερῇ μελέων ἐξείλετο
ϑυμόν: see Wolf. Hom. med.
398. Ὀδυσὴ᾽, Bek. contends for and
prints here Ὁ υσεῖ, alleging that after
a diphthong or vowel the clision of an-
other vowel is imperceptible to the
ear. On the same grounds he would
write (although he has not in his edi-
tion 1858 so printed it) μενοινήσαι for
μενοινήσει᾽ in β. 248, and duo ἐμὸν
for duo ἐμὸν in δ. 736, the latter fol-
lowing the analogy of γέλω and ἰδρῶ
(Homer, Blatt. p. 41--.ς-3). This canon
involves a question of pronunciation
which it scems impossible in this mo-
dern day to settle.
495
410
DAY xxx11.]
OATZZEIAL E.
399— 411. 201
νῆχε δ᾽ ἐπειγόμενος ποσὶν ἠπείρου ἐπιβῆναι.
400 ἀλλ᾽" ὅτε τόσσον ἀπὴν ὕσσον τε γέγωνε βοήσας,
καὶ δὴ δούπον" ἄκουσε ποτὶ σπιλάδεσσις ϑαλάσσης.
ῤόχϑειλ γὰρ μέγα κῦμα ποτὶ ξερὸν, ἠπείροιο dg.
δεινὸν ἐρευγόμενον," εἴλυτο δὲ πάνϑ᾽ ἁλὸς ἄχνῃ"5
οὐ γὰρ ἔσαν λιμένες νηῶν ὄχοι, οὐδ᾽ ἐπιωγαὶ,
ἀλλ᾽ ἀκταὶ" προβλῆτες ἔσαν σπιλάδες τε πάγοι τε.
καὶ! τότ᾽ Ὀδυσσῆος λύτο γούνατα καὶ φίλον ἥτορ,
ὀχϑήσας δ᾽ ἄρα εἶπε πρὸς ὃν μεγαλήτορα ϑυμόν
«(ὦ μοι, ἐπεὶ δὴ γαῖαν ἀελπέα δῶκεν ἰδέσθαι
Ζεὺς, καὶ δὴ τόδε λαῖτμα" διατμήξας" ἐτέλεσσα ."
ἔκβασις οὔ πῃ patved’ ἁλὸς" πολιοῖο ϑύραξε." ὝΝ
ἔχτοσθεμ μὲν γὰρ πάγοι" ὀξέες, ἀμφὶ δὲ κῦμα
-Ο--. ee --.
403. ἐεέλυτο.
403. ῤοχγϑεὲ γὰρ Harl. et Schol.,
tato (Pors.).
ἀελπτέα Wolf. Liw. 409
ἃ ε. 473, ζ. 204, ge.
131; cf. ε. 491,
; ‘351.
b ge. 202, 4. 10, x
foi, Κ᾿ 354.
δ &. 438, P. 265;
or ει. ST, IT. 162,
Γ o Ih ‘40, E. 130.
g 4. 426, μ. Bs,
O. 626; ef. E.
499.
h x. 89, ν. 97-8.
iy. 298.
k a. 411.
1 a. 297-8.
m ‘ye, (3) mer
" ᾧ, 3
7 335.
pe. 12, Y 229;
cf, A261 mar.
q Φ. 29
r a. 405.
-- --- --- -οὕ....Ἅ--. ee eee ΠΟ ..
407 ut 298.
pro γὰρ Apoll. et Etymol. Mag. δὲ hoc 1. ci-
408. ἀελπέα Eustath. Barnes. Ern, Cl. ed. Ox. Bek. Dind. Fa.,
éxégnoa Eustath. Barnes, Ern. Cl. ed. Ox., ἐπέ-
ρασα sive ἐπέρασσα (‘‘haud dubie glossema”
Buttm.) sed suprascr. ἐτέλεσσα
Venet. Vindob. et var. 1. Scholl. H. P., ἐτέλεσσα et supr. yg. ἐπέρασα Harl.,
ἐτέλεσσα Vr. Wolf, et recentt.
40o—1. yéywve, this verb is pro-
bably phonetic, from the natural sound
of a man’s voice shouting loudly, hence
the sense ‘‘to shout so as to be heard”’;
cf. M. 337. τε is added to ὅσσον with
the same force as in ὅς τὲ οἷός τε;
see Donalds. Gr. Gr. § 245 (b). The
καὶ δὴ δοῦπον κι τ. i. adds a fact re-
lating also to sound, The clause cor-
respondent to ἀλλ᾽ ὅτε ... is καὶ tor’
Ὀδυσσῆος ... in 406. --- σπιλάδεσσι,
akin to our split, splinter, the sharper
points of the rocky surface.
402—3. Some place the (,) at κῦμα
joining thus ποτὶ &. ἤ. with δεινὸν
ἐρευγ. following, but ῥδόχϑει left abso-
lutely without ποτὲ ξερὸν seems weak.
Join ἠπείροιο with égevyousvoy, as
often the gen. follows of violent ef-
fort; so ἐσσύμενός περ ὁδοῖο, δ. 132.
— εἴλυτο, Buttm. Lexil. 45. distin-
guishes εἶλύω, to “wrap up or cover
over’’, from tive, to ‘‘compress or coil
up together” , the latter occurring in
t. 433, F. 393, 2. 510, the former
shown in the noun εἴλυμα ζ. 179, and
views both as related forms of root
é1-, of which ἔλω εἴλω εἰλέω are pre-
sent forms, and ἀλεὶς 2. aor. part. pass.
ἄχνη, “spray”, in plur. ἄχναι “chaff”;
a lively image lies in the connexion
of the two.
404. νηῶν Οχοι, “receptacles for
ships”. ἐπεωγαὶ, ‘‘shelters, lee sides”’,
the Schol. derives it from ἄγνυμι, as
where the force of wind and wave are
broken; οἵ, βορέω vx’ ἐωγ ἢ (mar.) ex-
plained there by πέτρῃ ὑπὸ γλαφυρῇ,
the locality being inland. It is thus
connected with axty, which etymol.
Curtius accepts, II. p. 119, comparing
Eurip. Iph. Taur. 263 Dindorf, xoclo-
πὸς ἀγμὸς and Herod. 1V. 196, IX.
100, κυμ ατωγὴ.
405. ἀκταὶ προβλῆτ., “projecting
bluffs’? — the grander features of the
coast, the σπίλ. xay. te being the
smaller ones, but painfully conspicu-
ous from the surf,
407—9Q. SIME κ. T.A., 866 ON 355 Sup.
For λαῖτμα, which is sometimes ex-
plained by ϑαλάσσης, seo App. B. 3.
410. ἁλὸς π., see on β. 260—2. Join
θύραζε with ἔκβασις, of which it
serves to develope the meaning, any
special sense of ‘‘doors” being lost.
411—4. The description seems to im-
ply a precfpitous face of cliff running
ΟΔΥΣΣΕΙΑΣ E. 412—427. [pay xxx51.
,βέβρυχεν" φόϑιον, λισσὴ" δ᾽ ἀναδέδρομε πέτρη.
65,74. ᾿ἀγχιβαϑὴς δὲ θάλασσα, χαὶ ov πως ἔστι πόδεσσιν
“ἢ Ων ᾿στήμεναι ἀμφοτέροισι καὶ ἐχφυγέειν καχότητα.
e 4. 431-40 mar; πώς μ᾽ ἐχβαένοντα βάλη λέϑακι ποτὶ πέτρη
εἴ. α.91, β. δ..1, 5 > » , , ° ’
£4. 515-6 mar, [κῦμα μέγ᾽ ἀρπκάξαν, μελέη δέ μοι ἔσσεται ορμή.
¢ δι 45, 452, Fi εἶ δέ κ᾽ ἔτι προτέρω" παρανήξομαιε, ἤν" που ἐφεύρω
h ξ. 300. ἠιόνας τε παραπλῆγας λιμένας τε ϑαλάσσης,
ty tw 80, εἶ. δείδω μή μ᾽ ἐξαῦτις ἀναρπάξασα ϑύελλα!
415
κα. 96-7. πόντον ἐπ᾽ ἰχϑυόεντα. φέρῃ βαρέα στενάχοντα, $20
I 4, 540 mar. j€ τί μοι καὶ κῆτος" ἐπισσεύῃ" δαί
ager gon | τέ μοι καὶ κῆτορς ἐπισσεύῃν μέγα δαίμων
Joo. “ine ἐξ ἁλὸς, οἰά τε πολλὰ τρέφει κλυτὸς ᾿᾿Αμφιτρέτη "5
4 2. oda γὰρ ὥς μοι ὀδώδυσται' κλυτὸς" ἐννοσίγαιος."
ον 43h, #.905,| εἷος" ὃ ταῦϑ᾽ ὥρμαινε κατὰ φρένα καὶ κατὰ ϑυμὸν,
εἴ.β 153, 77.321.
412. M. 34,
Py 675.
4 a. 15%, φ' 1, 4.
55, ο. 234, ξ. 227.
418. βαλοι Vr. 17. ef xov Vr.
notat Ni,
Eustath. Bek. Dind.
sheer into deep water, which broke it
nt bottom into sharp snags; or these
might have been fallen fragments,
scoured and fretted to fine points by
the washing of the waves. They would
thus lic ἔκτοσθεν, and be first presented
to the swimmer.
415. μὴ, anticipates δείδω, which
docs not occur till 419 inf., the same
anticipation occurs in 467 inf. as com-
parod with 473. For the sequence of
moods here seo App. A. 9 (5).
417- 8. xagaryngouce may after ef
δέ xa bo fut. indic., as shown by EF. 212
ef δέ κε νοστήσω καὶ ἐσόψομαι ....
πατρίδ᾽ ἐμὴν. sce also ᾧ. 114, ρ. 82
(Jul, Werner de condit. enunc. ap. If,
formis, p. 31. τοῖν που ἐφ., “to try
if I can find’, For ἡιόνας sco on
156 sup. With παρᾳπλῆγας, “smit-
ten obliquely ef. ἀντιπλῆγες ax-
tal, Soph. “ἡ. 592 Vind., ‘smitten
point blank”’.
—2. Ni. mentions suspicion as at-
to these lines as possibly in-
420. φέροι Vr.
421. ἢ ἔτι Scholl. P. Q. T. lib. plerique, et Wolf. Léw., né τί
422. pro ἐξ ἀλὸς Arist. ely ἀλὶ, Schol. H.
gege Eustath. Wolf. Dind., φέρεν Barnes, Ern. Bek.
Vr. Harl. a man. pri, Wolf. et recentt, ἔνϑ᾽ ἀπὸ
vett., mox σὺν δ᾽ Eustath. Vr. Dind. Bek., σὺν τ
τόφρα δέ μιν μέγα κῦμα φέρε τρηχεῖαν ἐπ᾿ ἀκτήν.
ἔνϑα x” ἀπὸ ῥινοὺς δρύφϑη." σὺνε δ᾽ ὀστέ᾽ ἀράχϑη,
εἰ μὴ ἐπὶ φρεσὶ ϑῆκε Dea γλαυχώπις "Adjvn:
423. Fotda.
421—2 suspectos fuisse
425.
426. nostr, |. Flor. Lov.
τε δρυφϑη Eustath. et
ἐνό
Marnes, Wolf. Ern.
terpolated, and says they overload the
thought, and leave an impression of
redundancy. Yet we may compare the
dread of beasts of prey by land ex-
pressed in 473 inf. Nor is there any
objection to the notion that Poseidon,
as a last resource of baffled wrath,
might send a monster. ‘Apgereity
is the watery element personified (cf.
καλῆς ἀλοσύδνης δ. 404) queen of the
life moving in its waves, and empha-
tically of the larger forms; she is
therefore subservient to Poseidon: 80
in y. gt we have xvuaciy Augitedtns
(Nigelsb. II. 8). So Hes. Theog. 240
—3 she is daughter of Nereus and Do-
ris and sister of Thetis. For δαέμων
see on β. 134. — ἐξ ἁλὸς, “from sea-
ward’, he being now close to shore,
so T. 148 κῆτος ax’ neovos.
427. ϑῆκε, the object of this verb
is the action stated in λάβε (428); 80
in A. 54—5 ἀγορήνδε καλέσσατο λαὸν
ἄχιλλευς, τῷ γὰρ ἐπὶ pe. ϑῆκε where
ϑῆκε has for obj. τὸ καλέσασϑαι λᾶον.
DAY xxxt.]
--- .-.ς...-. re rn ee ee ee ... .
ἀμφοτέρῃσι" δὲ χερσὶν ἐπεσσύμενος" λάβε πέτρης;
τῆς ἔχετο στενάχων, εἴως μέγα κῦμα παρῆλϑεν.
430 καὶ τὸ μὲν ὡς ὑπάλυξε, παλιρρόϑιον" δέ μιν αὖτις
πλῆξεν ἐπεσσύμενον," τηλοῦ δέ μὲν ἔμβαλε πόντῳ.
iad
ὡς δ᾽
— ῦΘ -΄. --ἅο.Ἅ..ς.
431. ἀπεσσύμενον Ixion, Scholl. H. P.
κῦμα καλ. Barnes. et edd.
ΟΔΥΣΣΕΙ͂ΑΣ E. 428—437.
ὅτε πουλύποδος ϑαλάμης ἐξελκομένοιο"
πρὸς xotvando νόφιν πυκιναὶ λάϊγγες" ἔχονται,
Gg τοῦ πρὸς πέτρῃσι ϑρασειάωνε ἀπὸ χειρῶν
435 φῥινοὶ ἀπέδρυφϑεν"" τὸν δὲ μέγα xduai κάλυψεν. ie. 353.
ἔνϑα κε δὴ δύστηνος ὑπὲρ μόρον ὥλετ᾽ Ὀδυσσεὺς,
εἰ μὴ ἐπιφροσύνην! δῶκε γλαυχώπις ᾿4ϑήνη.
a ... er ee ..ὦΨ.Ψ.-.
203
ἃ δ. 116, ὦ. 316,
=. 23, M. 3982.
" 8. 311 mar.
ce. 485.
,Ξ. 258, ζ. 116.
ὁ Ζ. 211.
fC. 95.
g A. 553, 571, Ν.
134, O. 314, P.
662, 4. 714.
ἢ 2. 426 mar.
κα. 34-5, VY. 30,
@®. 517.
{ τ 22.
435. κῦμ᾽ ἐκάλυψεν Eustath. Vr. Harl.,
437. ἐπὶ φρεσὶ ϑῆκε Bea var. 1. Scholl. H. P.
nostr. I. omnes.
This illustrates the éxepegocvrn of 437
inf.
430. παλιρρόϑιον, the “reflux”
caught him before he could reverse his
effort (ἐπεσσύμ.) of resisting the pre-
vious landward rush of the wave, and
swept him from his hold.
432—5. [ἢ οἱ. Del. 77—8, zov-
λύποδες δ᾽ Ἢ ΡΝ ϑαλάμας ....
ποιήσονται. The loosened clutch of
Odys. is compared to that of the po-
lype torn from its cell. In the mo-
ment of separation the simile is pre-
cisely true, after that it reverses the
fact ἐναντίως δὲ παραβέβληνται Schol.),
the shingle hanging to the creature's
suckers, whereas the Odysseus’ fin-
gers leave their skin upon the rock, (The
sense of the italicised words is implied
only.) χοτυληδονόφιν, is epic form,
older and unshortened, for κοτυληδόσι,
dat. plur. The tenacity of the polype
furnishes a simile in Soph. Fragm. 289,
Dindorf, νοῦν δεῖ πρὸς ἀνδοὶ, σῶμα
πουλύπους ὅπως πέτρᾳ τραπέσϑαι.
436. ὑπὲρ μόρον. The saying that
one event would have happened if
another, which did happen, had not
happened, is formulaic. Still we must
assume that ὑπὲρ μόρον ὀλέσϑαι re-
presents a possible event; the notion
being that there was a lot of suffer-
ing which could not ordinarily be
avoided but might be increased (mar.)
or anticipated, and so a measure of
success allotted, which vigorous effort
might transcend ; thus the Greeks would
have gained κῦδος καὶ ὑπὲρ Διὸς al-
σαν by their own might, P. 321—32;
ef. ὑπὲρ ϑεὸν 327: thus /Egisthus
brought on himself ὑπὲρ μόρον ἄλ-
yea, a. 34--6. Μοῖρα is the μόρος
personified, but gathering from perso-
nality a more varied relation to events
—a sort of average arbitress of man’s
lot, but who might be overborne for
good or evil by human energy, much
more by extraordinary, however arbi-
trary, divine intervention, as that of
Poseidon here, or as Zeus in the case
of death itself (Π. 433—42) seems to
contemplate; cf. X.174—85. But again,
we have in y. 236—8 a strong decla-
ration, that ‘‘not even the gods can
ward off death the common lot, when
its fatal Μοῖρα seizes the man they
love.’’ Zeus ub. sup. speaks as if he
could do so, yet does not. Nor have
we any such case in point. Thus those
words of Zeus seem like others in
which omniscience, or the like power,
is claimed for the gods, Which is al-
ways found to break down in practice;
see on δ. 379. The conviction, from
experience, of death as the sole cer-
tainty amid “the changes and chances
of this mortal life’’, and that, after
however many hair-breadth escapes in
seeming defiance of his power, death
must win at last, seems expressed in
y. 236—8. The successful strife mean-
while — unequal in the last resort —
of other agencies, divine or human,
with Μοῖρα, is the poet’s way of ac-
counting for such escapes. Menelaus,
if spared from death, was so because
so it was ϑέσφατον (3. 561), 7. ε. be-
canse Moiga so ruled it, and so of
198
OATZZEIAZ E.
363378. [pay XXIx.
aa 8 190, H. 1%. | χαὐτὰρ ἐπὴν On μοι σχεδίην δὲ διὰ κῦμα τινάξῃ,
a δ. 120 mar.
b ε. 296.
ς 8. 175 mar.
d cf. ε. 183, v. 340,
νήξομ᾽, ἐπεὶ οὐ μήν τι πάρα προνοῆσαι ἄμεινον."
εἷος" ὃ ταῦϑ᾽ ὥρμαινε κατὰ φρένα καὶ κατὰ ϑυμὸν, 365
Σ. 599. ὦρσε δ᾽ ἐπὶ μέγα" κῦμα Ποσειδάων ἐνοσίχϑων,
οεἴ. E. 4
f M. 157.
g 8. 289 mar.
ἢ N. 279; ef. e. 71.
i 4. 162 mar.
j ef. e. 130.
k O. 679—80.
ΤΟΣ, δεινόν τ᾽ ἀργαλέον τε, xatnoepes,* ἤλασε δ᾽ αὐτόν.
ὡς" δ᾽ ἄνεμος Lang ἠίωνξ ϑημῶνα τινάξῃ
καρφαλέων, τὰ μὲν ἄρ τε διεσκέδασ᾽ ἄλλυδις" ἄλλῃ,
ὡς τῆς δούρατα' μακρὰ διεσκέδασ᾽.
ἀμφ᾽ ἑνὶ δούρατι Baive,i κέληϑ᾽ " ὡς ἵππον ἐλαύνων,
n a. 346. εἴματα! δ᾽ ἐξαπέδυνε, ta™ of πόρε δῖα Καλυψώ.
o JT. 310, 413, M.
396, P. 300
pe. 417, 5. 495,
. 115.
q 4. “18, N 549. |
re 282 mar UNYEWEVAL μεμαώ
5 δ. 285 mar. ἤχ μ μ μ 5:
t a. 146.
υ 9. Jet: o. 176,
᾿Ιαὐτίκαν δὲ κρήδεμνον ὑπὸ στέρνοιο τάνυσσεν,
αὐτὸς δὲ πρηνὴς" ἁλὶ κάππεσε,. χεῖρεν πετάσσας .1
ἴδε δὲ κρείωντ ἐνοσίχϑων,
κινήσας" δὲ κάρη προτὶ ὃν μυϑήσατο ϑυμόν
π᾿. 205. ((οὁὕτω' νῦν κακὰ" πολλὰ παϑὼν alow’ κατὰ πόντον,
wo. 814. {εἰς ὅ κεν ἀνθρώποισι διοτρεφέεσσι μιγείῃς " ἢ)
372. ξείματα for.
365. φρένα δῖος Ὀδυσσεὺς Eustath.,
stath. Barnes. Ern. Cl.
Bek. Dind. Léw.
Harl., OTEQVOLOL τάνυσσεν Eustath.
375. Fide.
366. ὦρσεν Barnes.
ed. Ox. Fa., τινάξει Harl., τινάξει Apollon. Lex. Wolf.
369 ἄλλη mendose Cl. ed. Ox.
376. For.
368. τινάξῃ Eu-
σ
273. στερνοῖό τάνυσεν
378. Φαιήκεσσι var. |. pro ἀνϑρώπ. Schol.
B., ὅπως Φαιή. var. 1. Schol. H., mox μιγείης libri, μιειγήης Bek.
presence of ὄφρα, ὃς or such relative
word, — ἐπεὶ ov, not here in synize-
sis as in δ. 352.
368—9. ἠΐων, see on β. 289. — te-
vagy, see on β. 151: the mood is sub-
junct. of simile; see App. A. 9 (14). —
ἄλλυδις ἄλλῃ, this form of phrase
in the dat. case, as here, is very rare;
it would be more consistent with usage:
if for ἄλλῃ were read ἄλλο in appos.
with τά. As it stands, it resists ana-
lysis, ἄλλῃ being hardly more or less
than ἄλλυδις repeated. Disorder as
well as dispersion seems to enter into
the notion which it expresses.
371. δου ate, see App. F. 1 (2)
note. — xéand ἦν ef. the Roman Cele-
res, Pliny NV. "P XXXIII. ii, 9. Doe-
derl. 2138 connects the name with
κέλλω (of a ship) ‘“run ashore’’, and
Lat. -cello, as in percello, procella οἵα.
Riding on horseback is not alluded to
by H. save in this and another simile,
O. 679, where a hero leaping from
ship to ship is compared to a man fx-
ποισι κελητίέξειν ev εἰδώς: it may
possibly be intended in Ψ' 346 εἰ Aget-
ove δῖον glavyor; but cf. Hes, Scué.
og —10, 120, 323— 4, where the ἔππον
‘Agetova is clearly spoken of as merc-
ly the better one (or δεξιόσειρος) ofa
chariot-team, as was Ali@n in WB. 409.
It is true that Diomedes in the Dolo-
neia mounts the ‘‘horses’’ of Rhesus;
but he does so ἐξ ἀνάγκης (Schol.), for
Rhesus’ chariot waa plainly not car-
ried off, K. 513. cf. 498, 501, 504—8.
In Hes. Sent. 286 riders are mentioned
as forming part of a bridal procession,
vad’ ἵππων ἐπιβάντες ἐθύνεον.
2η4---5. πρηνὴς ad. x., he “plunged
headlong’’, abandoning the plank, which
seems to have served only as a support
whilst he stripped. In proof of this
there is no more mention of the plank;
but here and 399, 417, 439 inf. he is
constantly spoken of as swimming.
κινησας δὲ x., sce on 285 sup.
378. διοτρεφ., nowhere used of a
whole people save of the Pheeacians
here (so 35 sup. of ἀγχέίϑεοι γεγάα-
σιν, cf. note on β. 267 end), elsewhere
αὐτὰρ Ὀδυσσεὺς 370
380
385
DAY XXIx —xxxI.]
OATZZEIALZ E.
379—388.
[a —
ἀλλ᾽" οὐδ᾽ ὥς σὲ ἔολπα" ὀνόσσεσθϑαι" κακότητος." "γ᾿
ὡς ἄρα φωνήσας ἵμασενῖ καλλίτριχαςξ ἵππους, d
txetoh δ᾽ εἰς Αἰγὰς, ὅϑι of κλυτὰϊ δώματ᾽ ἔασιν. εἶ
αὐτὰρ" ᾿4ϑηναίη κούρη Aros ἄλλ᾽ ἐνόησεν.
ἢ τοι τῶν ἄλλων ἀνέμων κατέδησε! κελεύϑους," Θ. 331, 8. 100,
ω. 528,
e =~ | cf. ἢ. 272.
παύσασϑαι δ᾽ ἐκέλευσε καὶ εὐνηθῆναι" ἅπαντας" m =. 17, ὁ. 620.
ἢ ΕἸ. μι. .
, o cf. &. 253, 299.
ὦρσε δ᾽ ἐπὶ κραιπνὸν Βορέην,» πρὸ δὲ κυματ᾽ ἔαξεν, | p 9. δι, 388. 685,
. 349, ν᾿. 36; €
Fac Ὁ Φαιήκεσσιν φιληρέτμοισ é δ. je
ἕως ὃ γε Φαιήκεσσιν φι LOL WLYE * 352.
50 γ | φιληρετμ μιγξείη 4 281 ef. 9.953
, ~ , & x cf. . 340,
dtoyevns. Ὀδυσεὺς. ϑάνατον καὶ κῆρας ἀλύξας. Ys NK, 42. 745.
Overy ? 10 tw. 235, 7. 290
’ ᾽ , 9 »» e « A, ᾽ cf, r
νϑα δύω νύκτας" δύο τ ara α ῷ .
ἔνϑα ὃ τας" ὃ nu κύματι; πηγε 124
379. «ἐξολπα.
379. κακότητα Bek. annot.
381. for.
385. pro πρὸ ta Bek. annot.,
38s. ἔξαξεν.
mox idem ἔαγεν.
386. ἕως ode Eustath., ὅππως Bek. annot., slog ὁ Lachmann., οππῶως Paty. var.
1, Scholl. B. H. P. Q.
388. τ᾿ Eustath. Harl. ex emend. "Wolf. et recentt.,
δ᾽ Barnes. Ern. Cl. ed. Ox., mox κύματι κωφῷ Bek. annot.
of kings and princes only, to whom
διοτρεφὲς is a customary style of ad-
dress; 6. g. Menel., see δ. passim. In
the same tone Alcinoiis boasts that
the gods came in person to the feasts
of the Pheacians and met them
the way, ἐπεί σφισιν ἐγγύϑεν ε
μέν, ὥς πὲρ Κυκλωπές τε x. τ. λ.,
20os—6. Further, the Pheacians (bn a
measure represent the ϑεοὶ ῥεῖα ξωον-
τες. We must not look too rigidly in
them for notes of the divine charac-
ter, bnt rather for the abundance, opu-
lence, ease and refinement of the di-
vine condition.” Gladst. II. P- 320.
379. οὐδ᾽ ὥς, ‘not even 80”, i. e.
when you reach the Pheacians. —
ὀνόσσ., this verb is nowhere else
found with gen., and Bek. gives a
reading κακότητα; still, μέμφομαι and
similar verbs have a gen. commonly
enough to justify this: render, ‘will
think too lightly of your suffering”’,
wh. is borne out by Odysseus’ own
words concerning his hardships in 9.
182— 3, 231—2, cf. 138 —9. Pind. [sthm.
Ill. 68 has ὀνοτὸς ἰδέσϑαι, “of small
account to see to’’ (Milton).
380—464. On Poseidon’s retiring
Athené orders home the other winds,
but rouses Boreas, before which Odys.
drifts two days and nights, and on the
third day (thirty first of the poem’s
action) nears the Pheacian coast, where,
after much peril from its cliffs and
crags, and self-debate how to avoid
them, he lands exhausted at a river's
mouth; the river- god, whom he sup-
pliantly invokes, checking the rush of
his waves to allow of an easier land-
ing. He then lets go the magic scarf,
and kisses the earth as safe at last.
381. Αἰγὰς, the town so named in
Achaia on the G. of Corinth is, from
the mention of Helicon in connexion
with it, the one probably meant in Hy.
(to Poseidon) XXII. 3, and would best
suit the situation here. Pliny also
mentions (N. #.1V. 18) a rocky hum-
mock so called between Chios and Te-
nos, which Hgao mari nomen dedit, but
this is too obscure, and Pliny’s autho-
rity for the name too late. Another Ege
on the W. coast of Eubma, nearly oppo-
site Opus, is mentioned by the Scholl.
as understood by some here, and seems
clearly meant in Hy. Apol. Del. 32.
The £olian and Cilician towns 80
named are less suited for the site of
the sea-god’s palace.
388-το. πηγῷ, Curtius II. p. 98 re-
cognizes a connexion with παχύς, which
200
OATZZEIAL E. 389 —398.
[Day xxxIl.
a :ς-. —
ξ. 219. πλάξετο, (τολλὰ δέ οἵ κραδύη προτιόσσετ᾽ " ὄλεϑρον. >)
b x. 111.
ς μ. 105--9; cf ε.
45].
dix. Ot.
ey. 197, ὦ. 493.
f Ir. 374, P. 59,
255, X. 141.
εν. 233.
he 13, B72. |
id. 372 mar.
ἀλλ᾽" ὅτε δὴ τρίτον ἦμαρ ἐὐπλόκαμος τέλεσ᾽ "Hos,
᾿ καὶ" τότ᾽ ἔπειτ᾽ ἄνεμος μὲν ἐπαύσατο, ἠδὲ γαλήνη“
᾿ ἔπλετο νηνεμίη. ὃ δ᾽ ἄρα σχεδὸν εἴςιδες γαῖαν,
[ὀξὺ μάλα προϊδὼν. μεγάλου ὑπὸ κύματος ἀρϑ είς. Ἰὴ
ὡς δ᾽ bt’ av ἀσπάσιος βίοτος παίδεσσι φανήῃ
πατρὸς, ὃς ἐν" νούσῳ κεῖται xgatég’' ἄλγεα πάσχων, 395
κ x Gt; ef. «Ὁ. 360, | Sngoy τηκόμενος, στυγερὸς δέ of ἔχραεϊ δαίμων,
Ι vw. 32k, w. S64.
mv. 35.
ἡ ἢ. 343, 89. 295.
- —— ame one
389. for. 393. ἔσξιδε.
. ἡ δὲ Arist., Schol. πο ἠδὲ libri.
schol H.
Barnes. Ern. Cl. ed. Ox., φανήῃ Wolf. et recentt.
398. Ὁδυσεὶ var, 1. Barnes. Bek.,
e gloss. Schol, B.
Doederl. 40, (ef-4 44 ἫΝ also implies. πα-
τὺς, , sturdy” is used (mar.) of horses ;
cf. ἀνὴρ παχὺς “a sturdy tellow’’, Ari-
stoph. Fesp. 288 Dindorf; so we ‘have
the Πήγασος ἵππος in Hes, Theog. 281,
(cf. also πηγεσίμαλλος in Γ. 197) and
πάγος, πηγυλὶς ‘‘frost, ice’’ » With xv-
ματι wy. cf. for the sense τρόφι κῦμα
and κυματὰ τροφόεντα (mar.). So
the Scholl. explain πηγῷ as εὐτρεφεῖ
καὶ εὐμεγέϑει. For προτιόσσετ᾽ sce
note on α. 115, and οὗ, for another
shade of meaning B. 152 and ποῖο.
391—3. Aristarchus’ reading ἡ δὲ
seems less suitable, as there is noth-
ing in the sense to require it, and ave-
μος μὲν, with which it, would then
correspond, has not the 6. γαλήνη,
as explained by νηνεμίῃ in 392, means
“a lull of the wind’”’ merely, for the
sea was still running high. It was not
yet the λευκὴ γαλήνη of x. 94, which
occurs first at 452 inf. within the ri-
ver’s mouth, With ὀξὺ x. τ. 4, cf. the
phrases ὀξὺ νόησε or ἄκουσε, ὀξὺ Bon-
σας or λεληκὼς, and the like (mar.).
The Virgilian imitation, Aen. VI. 357,
Prospexi [taliam summa sublimis ab undd
omits the ‘‘sharp’’ look out of Odys.
here.
395. νούσῳ, the latter part of this
line sounds like a queer parody on s.
13, Where substituting νήσῳ for νούσῳ,
it is applied to Philuctetes ; cf. 8. 449
with 7.147. Agents causing a νοῦσος
393. προξιδών.
ἀσπάσιον δ᾽ ἄρα τόν γε ϑεοὶ κακότητος! ἔλυσαν,
᾿ ὥς" Ὀδυσὴ᾽ ἀσπαστὸν" ἐείσατο γαῖα καὶ ὕλη,
396. Fou. 398. ἐξείσατο.
293. ἐπὶ pro ὑπὸ Aristoph. et Rhian.
304. ἀσπϑσίως Harl., ἀσπάσιος Schol. H., mox φανείη FEustath.
397. ἀσπασίως Flor. Lov.
Ὀδυσῆ᾽ libri.
are Zeus, Apollo, and here δαίμων:
no human remedies seem to be con-
templated, but recovery, as here, al-
though unexpected (cf. ἀελπέα 408 inf.)
to be possible. In et. 411—2 the Cy-
clopes tell Polyphemus, supposing his
affliction a νοῦσος Seog, to pray to Po-
seidon for aid. Perhaps the ἡ παοιδὴ,
used in t. 457 for staunching hemor-
rage, might be applied to a vovoos;
but we know nothing of the use of
the φάρμακα ἐσθλὰ of δ. 230 save the
solitary case of the νηπενϑὲς drug
there; and it scems heroic medicine
was confined to the treatment of hurts.
In 9. 383—6 the list of δημιόεργοι puts
the intne κακῶν (hurts) next to the
μάντις. The δηρὸν tnx. here is found
nobly expanded (A. 201) into νοῦσος
τηκεδόνι στυγερῇ μελέων ἐξείλετο
ϑυμόὸν: see Wolf. Hom. med.
398. "Od voy, Bek. contends for and
prints here O υσεῖ, alleging that after
a diphthong or vowel the elision of an-
other vowel is imperceptible to the
ear. On the same grounds he would
write (although he has not in his edi-
tion 1858 so printed it) μενοινήσαι for
μενοινήσει᾽ in β. 248, and duo ἐμὸν
for duo ἐμὸν in δ. 736, the latter fol-
lowing the analogy of ‘yéloo and idea
(Homer, Blatt. p. 41—3). This canon
involves a question of pronunciation
which it seems impossible in this mo-
dern day to settle.
ΟΔΥΣΣΕΙ͂ΑΣ FE.
DAY Xxxil.] 399—411. 201
νῆχε δ᾽ ἐπειγόμενος ποσὶν ἠπείρου ἐπιβῆναι. 0 te 15, GO a
)1λ᾽. ἢ . any ὦ f σαο K. 551. '
400 αλλ ὅτε τοῦσον anny οὔσον TE γέγωνε βοήσας, b p20, 10, x
καὶ δὴ δούπον" ἄκουσε ποτὶ onrdddecor’ ϑαλάσσης. res δι ἀὐδ
ῤόχϑειλ γὰρ μέγα κῦμα ποτὶ ξερὸν, ἠπείροιο de δῦ. ΡΟ ons.
δεινὸν ἐρευγόμενον.," εἴλυτοῖ δὲ πάνϑ᾽ ἁλὸς ἄχνῃ᾽ 5
οὐ γὰρ ἔσαν λιμένες νηῶν ὄχοι, οὐδ᾽ ἐπιωγαὶ,
405 ἀλλ᾽ ἀκταὶ" προβλῆτες ἔσαν σπιλάδες! τε πάγοι". τε.
καὶ! tor’ Ὀδυσσῆος λύτο γούνατα καὶ φίλον ἥτορ,
ὀχϑήσας δ᾽ ἄρα sine πρὸς ὃν μεγαλήτορα ϑυμόν
«ὦ μοι, ἐπεὶ δὴ γαῖαν ἀελπέα δῶκεν ἰδέσθαι
Ζεὺς, καὶ δὴ τόδε λαῖτμα" διατμήξας" ἐτέλεσσα ."
410 ἔκβασις οὔ πῃ φαίνεϑ᾽ ἁλὸς» πολιοῖο ϑύραξε." ὙΛ
ἔκτοσθεν μὲν γὰρ πάγοι ὀξέες, ἀμφὶ δὲ κύμα
403. ἐείέλυτο.
Ο. 626; cf. Ε
499
ἢ x. 89, ν. 91--5
iy. 298.
k a. 411.
le. 297-8.
m App. B (3) mar
ny. 276, y. WI,
@. 3
oy. 3
pe. 182, FW. 229;
cf. f. 261 mar
q @. 29, 237.
r a. 405,
407 ut 298.
403. ῥῤοχϑεὶ yao Harl. et Schol., pro γὰρ Apoll. et Etymol. Mag. δὲ hoc 1. ci-
tato (Pors. ).
ἀελπτέα Wolf. Liw. 409.
ρασα sive ἐπέρασσα (‘‘haud dubie glossema”’
Venet. Vindob. et var. 1. Scholl. H. P., ἐτέλεσσα et supr.
408. ἀελπέα Eustath. Barnes. Ern. Cl. ed. Ox. Bek. Dind. Fa.,
éxégnoaw Eustath. Barnes. Ern. Cl. ed. Ox., ἐπέ-
ἐτέλεσσα
Buttm.) sed suprascr.
yo. ἐπέρασα Harl.,
ἐτέλεσσα Vr. Wolf, et recentt.
400—1. γέγωνε, this verb is pro-
bably phonetic, from the natural sound
of a man's voice shouting loudly, hence
the sense “‘to shout so as to be heard”;
cf. M. 337. te is added to ῦσσον with
the same force as in og te οἷός τε;
see Donalds. Gr. Gr. § 245 (b). The
χαὶ δὴ δοῦπον κι τ. 4. adds a fact re-
lating also to sound, The clause cor-
respondent to ἀλλ᾽ ore ... is καὶ τότ᾽
Ὀδυσσῆος ... in 406. — σπιλάδεσσι,
akin to our split, splinter, the sharper
points of the rocky surface.
402—3. Some place the (,) at κῦμα
joining thus ποτὶ é. ἡ. with δεινὸν
égevy. following, but δόχϑει left abso-
lutely without ποτὶ ξδρὸν seems weak.
Join ἠπείροιο with ἐρευγόμενον, as
often the gen. follows of violent ef-
fort; 80 ἐσσύμενός περ ὁδοῖο, ὃ. 733.
— εἴλυτο, Buttm. Lezil. 45. distin-
guishes εἰλύω, to “wrap up or cover
over’’, from dive, to “‘compress or coil
up together’’, the latter occurring in
t. 433, Δ. 393, &. 510, the former
shown in the noun εἴλυμα §. 179, and
views both as related forms of root
ἐλ-, of which fim ello εἰλέω are pre-
sent forms, and dels 2. aor. part. pass.
ἄχνη, ‘spray’, in plur. ἄχναι “chaff”;
a lively image lies in the connexion
of the two.
404. νηῶν ὄχοι, “receptacles for
ships”. ἐπιωγαὲὶ, ‘shelters, lee sides”,
the Schol. derives it from ἄγψυμι, as
where the force of wind and wave are
broken; cf, βορέω ὑπ᾽ toy 7 (mar.) ex-
plained there by πέτρῃ v0 γλαφυρῇ,
the locality being inland. It is thus
connected with ἀκτὴ, which etymol.
Curtius accepts, II. p. 119, comparing
Eurip. I[ph. Taur. 263 Dindorf, κοελω-
πὸς ἀγμὸς and Herod, IV. 196, IX.
100, κυματωγὴ.
405. ἀκταὶ προβλῆτ., ‘projecting
ὈΙυ 8 — the grander features of the
coast, the σπίλ. παγ. te being the
smaller ones, but painfully conspicu-
ous from the surf,
407—9. εἶπε x. τ. λ.,) see On 3565 sup.
For Aaityue, which is sometimes ex-
plained by ϑαλάσσης, see App. B. 3.
410. ἁλὸς π΄, Bee on β. 360—2. Join
Sveate with ἔκβασις, of which it
serves to develope the meaning, any
special sense of ‘‘doors’”’ being lost.
411—4. The description seems to im-
ply a precipitous face of cliff running
e e. 439—40 mar.;
f ὃ. 515-6 mar.
OATZZEIAL E. 412—427.
' BéBovyev® ῥδόϑιον, λισσὴ" δ᾽ ἀναδέδρομε πέτρη,
Ιἀγχιβαϑὴς δὲ ϑάλασσα, καὶ οὔ πῶς ἔστι πόδεσσιν
στήμεναι ἀμφοτέροισι καὶ ἐκφυγέειν - κακότητα.
μή πώς μ᾽ ἐκβαίνοντα βάλῃ λίέϑακι ποτὶ πέτρῃ
᾿Ικῦμα μέγ᾽ ἁρπάξαν, μελέη δέ μοι ἔσσεται ὁρμή.
[DAY XxxII.
g ὁ. 416, 452, Υ εἰ δέ x’ ἔτι προτέρω παρανήξομαι, ἦν" που ἐφεύρω
h ξ. 399.
iy. 91, wu. 60; cf.
3. 404."
κα. 96—7.
1 2. 340 mar.
m 6. 326, @. 440,
. 862, ,Ξ5΄. 135,
510, O. 184, ε
$18, O. 173.
ἢ ὅδ. 120 mar.
o a. 435, ¥. 395;
cf. 8.153, 17.321.
. 412. AT. 354,
P ie 673.
q σ. 158, φ. 1, A
ἠιόνας τε παραπλὴγας λιμένας te ϑαλάσσης,
δείδω μή μ᾽’ ἐξαῦτις ἀναρπάξασα ϑύελλαῖ
πόντον ἐπ᾽ ἰχϑυόεντα. φέρῃ βαρέα στενάχοντα,
ἠέ τί μοι καὶ κῆτοςξ ἐπισσεύῃ" μέγα δαίμων
ἐξ ἁλὸς, οἷά te πολλὰ τρέφει κλυτὸς ᾿᾿Αμφιτρίτη""
οἷδα γὰρ ὥς μοι ὀδώδυσται! κλυτὸς" ἐννοσίγαιος."
εἷος" ὃ ταῦϑ᾽ ὥρμαινε κατὰ φρένα καὶ κατὰ ϑυμὸν,
τόφρα δέ μιν μέγα κῦμα φέρε τρηχεῖαν ἐπ᾽ ἀκτήν.
ἔνϑα x’ ἀπὸ ῥινοὺς δρύφϑη." σὺνε δ᾽ ὀστέ᾽ ἀραχϑη:
φ . . , ᾽ ~ ~ 4
55, 0.934, 221.) εἰ μὴ ἐπὶ φρεσὶ ϑῆκε Dea plavuwdats ‘Adyvn-
a ee ee
415. βαλοι vr.
notat Ni.
Eustath. Bek. Dind.
(17. εἴ που Vr.
420. φέροι Vr. a
421. ἢ ἔτι Scholl. P. Q. T. lib. plerique, et Wolf. Liw., n& τί
422. pro ἐξ ἁλὸς Arist. efy adl, Schol. H.
φερε Eustath. Wolf. Dind., φέρεν Barnes. Ern. Bek.
nen Ὸ6Ὸ ὁ “΄“ΠὅΠΠΠῆ6Π͵.ὃ ὃΘἝΘἝὁ
423. Εοῖδα.
421—2 suspectos fuisse
425.
426. nostr. 1. Flor, Lov.
Vr. Harl. a man. pri. Wolf. et recentt. ἔνϑ᾽ ἀπὸ ῥινός te δρύφϑη Eustath. et
vett., mox σὺν δ᾽ Eustath. Vr. Dind. Bek., σὺν τ᾽ Barnes, Wolf. Ern.
sheer into deep water, which broke it
at bottom into sharp snags; or these
might have been fallen fragments,
scoured and fretted to fine points by
the washing of the waves. They would
thus lie ἔκτοσϑεν, and be first presented
to the swimmer.
415. μῇ, anticipates δείδω, which
does not occur till 419 inf., the same
anticipation occurs in 467 inf. as com-
pared with 473. For the sequence of
moods here see App. A. 9 (5).
417—8. nagarvynSouce may after εἰ
δέ xe be fut. indic., as shown by E. 212
εἰ δὲ κε νοστήσω καὶ ἐσόψομαι ...
πατρίδ᾽ ἐμὴν. see also gm. 114, ρ. 82
(Jul. Werner de condit. enunc. ap. H.
formis, p. 31).—9Y που E@., “to try
if I can find’, For ἡιόνας see on
156 sup. With παρεαπλῆγας, ‘‘smit-
ten obliquely’, cf. ἀντιπλήγες ax-
ταὶ, Soph. Antig. 592 Dind., ‘‘smitten
point blank’’.
421—2. Ni. mentions suspicion as at-
y, * these lines as possibly in-
terpolated, and says they overload the
thought, and leave an impression of
redundancy. Yet we may compare the
dread of beasts of prey by land ex-
pressed in 473 inf. Nor is there any
objection to the notion that Poseidon,
as a last resource of baffled wrath,
might send a monster. ‘Apepeteity
is the watery element personified (cf.
καλῆς ἀἁλοσύδνης δ. 404) queen of the
life moving in its waves, and empha-
tically of the larger forms; she is
therefore subservient to Poseidon: 80
in y. 91 we have κύμασιν Augeroltns
(Niigelsb. II. 8). So Hes. Theag. 240
—3 she is daughter of Nereus and Do-
ris and sister of Thetis. For δαέμων
see on B. 134. — ἐξ ἁλὸς, ‘‘from sea-
ward”, he being now. close to shore,
so T. 148 κῆτος ax’ Novos.
427. ϑῆκχε, the object of this verb
is the action stated in AwBe (428); 80
in A. 54—5 ἀγορήνδε καλέσσατο λαὸν
Azidlevs, τῶ yao ἐπὶ po. ϑῆκε where
θῆκε has for obj. τὸ καλέσασϑαι λᾶον.
415
420
425
DAY XXXII]
a a a we ee Ἢ. ......
ἀμφοτέρῃσι" δὲ χερσὶν ἐπεσσύμενος" λάβε πέτρης,
τῆς ἔχετο στενάχων, εἴως μέγα κῦμα παρῆλϑεν.
430 καὶ τὸ μὲν ὡς ὑπάλυξε, παλιρρόϑιον- δέ μιν αὖτις
πλῆξεν ἐπεσσύμενον," τηλοῦ δέ μιν ἔμβαλε πόντῳ.
ὡς δ᾽ ὅτε πουλύποδος ϑαλάμης ἐξελκομένοιο"“
πρὸς κοτυληδο νόριν πυκιναὶ λάϊγγες ἔχονται,
ὡς τοῦ πρὸς πέτρῃσι ϑρασειάωνξ ἀπὸ χειρῶν
435 Otvol ἀπέδρυφϑεν"" τὸν δὲ μέγα κῦμα κάλυψεν.
ἔνϑα κε δὴ δύστηνος ὑπὲρ μόρον" ὥλετ᾽ Ὀδυσσεὺς,
εἰ μὴ ἐπιφροσύνηνὶ δῶκε γλαυκώπις ᾿4ϑήνη.
431. ἀπεσσύμενον Ixion, Scholl. H. P.
κῦμα καλ. Barnes. et edd.
ΟΔΥΣΣΈΙΑΣ E. 428—437.
437. ἐπὶ
203
ἃ δ. 116, ὦ. 316,
=. Ὁ, M. 382.
b a. 314 mar.
ce. 485.
d 3, 258, ζ. 116.
e J. 211.
f ¢. 95.
g A. $53, 471, N.
134, O. 314, P.
662, YW. 714.
ἢ 8. 426 mar.
i e. 353.
κα. 34-5, Y. 90,
@. 517.
ι τ. 22.
435. κῦμ᾽ ἐκάλυψεν Eustath. Vr. Harl.,
φρεσὶ ϑῆκε Dea var. 1. Scholl. H. P.
nostr. 1, omnes.
This illustrates the ἐπιφροσύνη of 437
inf.
430. παλιρρόϑιον, the ‘‘reflux”
caught him before he could reverse his
effort (ἐπεσσύμ.) of resisting the pre-
vious landward rush of the wave, and
swept him from his hold.
432—5. cf. Hy. Apol. Del. 77—8, nov-
λύποδες δ᾽ ἐν ἐμοι ϑαλάμας ....
ποιήσονται. The loosened clutch of
Odys. is compared to that of the po-
lype torn from its cell. In the mo-
ment of separation the simile is pre-
cisely true, after that it reverses the
fact (ἐναντίως δὲ παραβέβληνται Schol.),
the shingle hanging to the creature's
suckers, whereas the Odysseus’ fin-
gers leave their skin upon the rock. (The
sense of the italicised words is implied
only.) χοτυληδονόφιν, is epic form,
older and unshortened, for κοτυληδόσι,
dat. plur. The tenacity of the polype
furnishes a simile in Soph. Fragm. 289,
Dindorf, νοῦν def πρὸς ἀνδρὶ, σώμα
πουλύπους ὅπως πέτρᾳ τραπέσϑαι.
436. ὑπὲρ μόρον. The saying that
one event would have happened if
another, which did happen, had not
happened, is formulaic. Still we must
assume that ὑπὲρ μόρον ὀλέσϑαι re-
presents a possible event; the notion
being that there was a lot of suffer-
ing which could not ordinarily be
avoided but might be increased (mar.)
or anticipated, and so a measure of
success allotted, which vigorous effort
might transcend; thus the Greeks would
have gained κῦδος καὶ ὑπὲρ Διὸς αἷ-
σαν by their own might, P. 321—2;
ef. ὑπὲρ ϑεὸν 327: thus Agisthus
brought on himself ὑπὲρ μόρον ἄλ-
yea, a. 34—6. Μοῖρα is the μόρος
personified, but gathering from perso-
nality a more varied relation to events
—a sort of average arbitress of man’s
lot, but who might be overborne for
good or evil by human energy, much
more by extraordinary, however arbi-
trary, divine intervention, as that of
Poseidon here, or as Zeus in the case
of death itself (Π. 433—42) seems to
contemplate; cf. X.174—8s5. But again,
we have in y. 236—8 a strong decla-
ration, that ‘‘not even the gods can
ward off death the common lot, when
its fatal Moiea seizes the man they
love.’” Zeus ub. sup. speaks as if he
could do so, yet does not. Nor have
we any such case in point. Thus those
words of Zeus seem like others in
which omniscience, or the like power,
is claimed for the gods, which is al-
ways found to break down in practice;
see on δ. 379. The conviction, from
experience, of death as the sole cer-
tainty amid “the changes and chances
of this mortal life’’, and that, after
however many hair-breadth escapes in
seeming defiance of his power, death
must win at last, seems expressed in
y. 236—8. The successful strife mean-
while — unequal in the last resort —
of other agencies, divine or human,
with Μοῖρα, is the poet’s way of ac-
counting for such escapes. Menelaus,
if spared from death, was so because
so it was ϑέσφατον (δ. 561), 7. €. be-
cause Μοῖρα so ruled it, and so of
204
a ὅδ. 405 mar.
b O. G21, ε. 374.
ce
A
. ob.
. SS, E. 168,
N. 760; cf. ε.
4i17—S mar.
€ QV. 206, B.
M. 38, Χ.
ef. 107.
f y. os; cf. @. 11.
: Ye 281—2.
ἢ e. 251 mar.
ad
752,
147;
in IT 514; e1.£.149.
n 9. 313, BAN, 352,
H. 102, K. 441,
o F. 206, η. 239, A.
WO, ὁ 4192.
p 4.147, ef. ὁ. 489.
. 322 mar.
r p. 343 mar., B.
90.
442.
445-
stare nequit,
bp. T.,
Oot
Ganymedes and Rhadamanthus.
question is fully discussed in Nigelsb,
Gladst. IT. § 4, p. 285
Comp. Virg.
Dido, Nam quta nec fato, meritd nec morte
peribat, and Demosth. de Cor, 205, ὁ μὲν
τοῖς γονεῦσι μόνον γεγενῆσϑαι νομί-
ἕων τὸν τῆς εἰμαρμένης καὶ τὸν αὐτό-
ματον ϑάνατον περιμένει x. τ. λ.:
Suetonius remarks that no one of ‘Ce-
sar’s murderers survived him above ;
‘neque su& morte defunctus est”’
Jul. Cassar 89 (Aul. Gellius XU. 1).
438. τώ τ, a plur.
clause where the anteccdent is singu-
lar, is very common with ofa, as in
κῆτος.
111. αὶ 10 foll.,
—97-
years,
421--2 Kup.
x. t.d., and a.
φίλοι ξεῖνοι. ξείνοισι διδοῦσιν; rarer
with ὃς or δ as ἴῃ μ. 97 κῆτος ἃ μυ-
ρέα βόσκει κ. τ. Δ.; but in all we pass
on from the individual in the one clause
to the class in the other.
the pres. is that called absolute, de-
noting the general character of the
that the waves are always
so doing, without reference to the time
of the narrative; see Jelf. Gr. Gr. §
statement,
395. 1
τῇ δὴ Harl. Eustath.
oot Eustath. Barnes. Ern. Cl. ed. Ox., ὅστις Flor. Lov. Harl. quod
ὅτις Vr. Wolf. et recentt.,
-oyv Barnes. Wolf. ct recentt. quam 1. agnoscunt Schol. V. Aloys. He-
OATZZEIAZ E.
eee ee ee
κύματος ἐξαναδὺς," ta τ᾽ ἐρεύγεται" ἤπειρόνδε;
νῆχε παρὲξ, ἐς γαῖαν ὁρώμενος, εἴ που ἐφεύροι
ἠιόνας τε παραπλῆγας λιμένας te ϑαλάσσης.
438—449. [DAY xxxII.
μμοΟ . ......-.-..ὄ. ee ee
440
ἀλλ᾽ Gre δὴ ποταμοῖο κατὰ στόμα καλλιρόοιο "
ite! νέων, τῇξ δή of ἐείσατο"" χῶρος ἄριστος,
, : ° g
λεῖος πετράων, καὶ ἐπὶὶ σκέπας ἣν ἀνέμοιο"
ἔγνω δὲ προρέοντα" καὶ εὔξατο ov! κατὰ ϑυμόν
6 χλῦϑι, ἄναξ, ὅτις ἐσσί: πολύλλιστον δὲ σ᾽ ἱκάνω, 4.45
φεύγων ἐκ πόντοιο ]]οσειδάωνος ἐνιπαᾶς.
αἰδοῖος μέν τ’ ἐστὶ καὶ ἀϑανάτοισι" ϑεοῖσιν
3 ~ “ er 3 4 e ‘ 3 4 ~
ἀνδρῶν Os τις ἴκηται ἀλώμενος,» ὡς καὶ ἐγὼ νῦν
΄ eg la ’ 3 4 4 [4
σον" τε QUOY σὰ TE γουναϑ 4 ἱκάνω moAda® μογησας.
445. άναξ.
444. For.
ed. Ox. Wolf. et recentt. , τῷ δὴ Ern.
442. Foe ἐξείσατο.
Barnes. Cl.
ΙΠῸΧ πολύλλιστον Harl. et Scholl. H.
sych., -og Eustath., πολύκλυστος Vr.
The 439—40. νῆχε, νήχω is formed on
νέω (442 inf.) of the same sense; 80
σμάω σμήχω, ψάω ψήχω: we have ‘also
the deponent νήχομαι (364 sup.), which
alone is used by later writers Butt. Gr.
V.s.v. νέω (3). For 440 see on 418 sup.
442—3. ἦξε, see on y. 5—6. — λεῖος
πετράων, genitive of privation, cf.
δακρύων κενὸς, Eurip. Hec. 230 Dind.,
Jelf Gr: Gr. § 529. 1. — ἐπὶ, “towards
that side’, or “looking that way”
448. ἄναξ, compare the salutation
to Nausicaa (mar.), With ὅτις ἐσσί
ef. Zschyl. dgam. 160 Dindorf, Zevs,
ὅστις ποτ᾽ ἐστίν. — πολυλλ., οἵ. τοίλ-
λιστος Θ. 488. νηοῖσι πολλυλίστοισι Ηγ.
Apol. Pyth. 169, and ἧστο (Ζεὺς) πο-
λυλλίστῳ ἐνὶ νηῶ, Hy. Ceres 28.
With the reading πολύλλιστος the ac-
tive sense must be taken. — ἑκάνω,
with notion of a suppliant; | cf. 449 inf.
and y. 92 ta σὰ youvad κάνομαι.
449. yourad’ » see on α. 267, and
for ἑκάνω, on y. 92. With this sup-
plication to the river cf. that of Achil-
les to the Spercheius in ΔΨ. 144. So
the Scamander was worshipped with a
priest (ἀρητὴρ) in Troy (E. 77 -- 8), and
live horses were thrown into its strcam
Jn. 1V. 696, of
so
in the relative
. οἷα TE πολλὰ
311—3 δῶρον... οἷα
ἐρεύγεται,
450 ἀλλ᾽" ἐλέαιρε, ἄναξ" ἱκέτης" δέ τοι εὔχομαι εἶναι."
ὃ δ᾽ αὐτίκα παῦσεν ἐξὸν ῥόον. ἔσχε δὲ
κῦμα;
πρόσϑε δέ of ποίησε γαλήνην, τὸν δ᾽ ἐσαωσεν
ἐς ποταμοῦ προχοάς "δ ὃ δ᾽ ἄρ᾽ ἄμφω γούνατ᾽ ἔκαμψεν"
χεῖρας τε στιβαράς" ἁλὶ γὰρ δέδμητο φίλον κῆρ.
ὦδεε δὲ χρόα πάντα, ϑάλασσα δὲ κήκιε πολλὴ
455
460
450. favaé,
DAY χχχιῖ.]
ὡς par’,
ἂν στόμαϊ τε ῥῖνας 8’:
ΟΔΥΣΣΕΊῚΑΣ E. 450—464.
205
ee ee
ac. 175.
b cf. y. 380.
cm. 67, 6
cf, F. 546.
d cf. @. 369.
e 2. 391 mar.
f y. 231, d.513, 765.
vy 4. 212, v.65, P.
263.
269 ;
h Hf. 118, T. 72,
iY. 777.
ὃ δ᾽ ἄρ’ ἄπνευστος xal|k oO. 2, 5, τ
ἄναυδος 356; cf. a. 403.
ι K. 312, 399.
mo. 349, 4. 354,
X. 475.
κεῖτ᾽ ὀλιγηπελέων ,κῃ κάματος δέ μιν αἰνὸς ἵκανεν.
ἀλλ᾽πι ὅτε δή ῥ᾽ ἄμπνυτο καὶ ἐς φρένα ϑυμὸς ἀγέρϑη,
καὶ τότε δὴ κρήδεμνον" ἀπὸ ἔο λῦσε ϑεοῖο.
καὶ τὸ μὲν ἐς ποταμὸν ἁλιμυρήεντα μεϑῆκεν,
ἂψ δ᾽ ἔφερεν μέγα“ κῦμα κατὰ ῥόον, αἧἷψα δ᾽ ἄρ᾽ Ἰνὼν) 55 37,
δέξατο χερσὶ φίλῃσιν" ὃ δ᾽ ἐκ ποταμοῖο λιασϑεὶς"
σχοίνῳ" ὑπεκλένϑη, κύσε, δὲ ξείδωρον" ἄρουραν.
ὀχϑήσας δ᾽ ἄρα εἶπε πρὸς ὃν μεγαλήτορα ϑυμόν"
51. feov sive ἐξόν.
n a. 346 mar.
o e. 327 mar.
p e. 333.
q 2. 482, P. 620,
=. 27, WW.
τ δ. 838 mar.
ς« εἴ, B. 497.
ι v.354; ef. δ. 522.
uy. 3 mar.
v a. 298 mar.
452. For. Féo.
459- . 464. ut 298.
485. ὦξεε δὲ var. 1. Eustath. Schol. H., _penner var. 1. Scholl. H. P., od nosy
ὃ) ὄγχῳ͵ var. 1. ,Schol. V.
Ox., 3’:
456. te° ὅ δ᾽ (
ὁ δ᾽ ἄρ᾽ Eustath. Harl. Wolf. et recentt., 9"
Barnes. Ern. Cl. ed.
0 δ᾽ ἀνάπνευστος Vr.
omisso ἄρ᾽
458. ἔμπνυτο Schol. H. (lectio Arist. ut liquet e Scholl. Venet. et Voss. ad X.
475)"
460. καϑῆκε Vr.
459. £0 Zenod., ἔϑεν vulg., Scholl. H. P., ἕο Eustath, et edd. omn,
61. κατάρροον Harl. Scholl. H. P., κατάρδοον (i. 6. κατ᾽
«eg δόον Dind. ed. Scholl.) Heidelb.
(®. 132). From it too Hector’s son was
called Σκαμάνδριος. These tokens of
a cultus of rivers, as also the tremen-
dous oath by Styx (sce on 179 sup.)
are probably to be connected with ge-
neral nature-worship, as remnants of
an old Pelasgic belief; cf. B. 751—5.
451—2. γαλήνη, see On 391 8". --
Edawoer, “brought safely’; so mar.
453—7. This picture of a weary
swimmer, drooping and dragging his
limbs, -is perfect. We see the hero
reduced to the lowest point of pro-
stration to which the poet carries him
in the whole struggle with Poscei-
don’s wrath. He cannot, till a while
recruited, muster strength to cast off
the κρήδεμνον of Ind, the service of
which in supporting him may be un-
derstood, although we only trace his
own effort and the river god’s aid. Her
directions given 348—5o sup. are per-
haps complied with in 459—60, as far
as circumstances permit. Instead of.
casting it into the sea a long way from
land he “‘lets it go into the river’, ap-
parently floating away. This tacitly
adds a further touch to the image of
utter exhaustion.
455—6. ϑάλασσα x. τ. Δ., see App.
2. — ἄπνευστος xeck ἄναυδος,
cf. Penelopé’s condition, κεῖτο ἄσιτος
ἄπαστος, δ. 788, and Hes. Theog. 797,
κεῖται ἀνάπνευστος καὶ ἄναυδος.
457—8. With ὀλειγηπελέων, and 468
inf. ὀλιγηπελίης, cf. ὀλιγοδρανέων in
X. 337.— φρένα in the physical sense,
“his chest’’.
462—3. λιασϑεὶς, see on 6. 838.
κύσε, the pres. is κυνέω; cf. δ. 522.
ξεέδωρον, fetal occurs in ὅ. 41 as
ἃ grain, see note there, and cf. Soph.
Philoct. 1161 Dindorf, βιόδωρος ala,
γαῖα φερέσβιος Hes. Theog. 693.
206
ae. 299.
b 3. 521,
OATZZEIAZ E. 465—475.
[DAY χχχιι.
6 23 μοι ἐγὼ, τί nado; τί νύ μοι μήκιστα γένηται;
cK ASR, 312, 399; εἰ μέν κ᾽ ἐν ποταμῷ" δυρκηδέα νύχτα" φυλασσω,
-ῷ
cf. v.
dg. 25.
e [. 122,
K. 21, us, 4
Γ cf. a. 457 mar.
"Ὁ
Ὁ, ἡ fit
467. ἐξέρση.
413. Félog.
μή μ᾽ ἄμυδις otiBy4 τε κακὴ καὶ ϑήλυς" ἐέρση
Τ᾿ 7, ἐξ ὀλιγηπελίης δαμώσῃ κεκαφηόταξ ϑυμόν᾽
᾿Ιαὔρη δ᾽ ἐκ ποταμοῦ ψυχρὴ πνέει nade πρό.
εἰ δέ xev ἐς κλιτὺν ἀναβὰς καὶ δάσκιονὶ ὕλην
ϑάμνοις Καὶ ἐν πυκινοῖσι καταδραϑῶ, si we μεϑείῃ
ὀῖγος καὶ κάματος. γλυκερὸς! δέ μοι ὕπνος ἐπέλθῃ".
δείδω" μὴ ϑήρεσσιν ἕλωρ καὶ κύρμα γένωμαι. ”
ὡς" ἄρα of φρονέοντὶ δοάσσατο κέρδιον εἶναι"
By ῥ᾽ ἵμεν εἰς ὕλην" τὴν δὲ σχεδὸν ὕδατος εὗρεν
474. «βοι.
466. φυλάξω Harl. Heidelb. Eustath. Barnes. Ern. Wolf. ed. Ox., φυλάσσω Arist.,
Scholl. H. P., Dind. Bek. Fa.
}., mox pro πνέει πέλει Vr. Schol. ad Apoll, Rh, iv. rit.
ϑάμνοισιν πυκνοῖσι Vr., mox ef κε var. 1.
comment.”, Ern. annot. 471.
469. «ven γὰρ var. 1. Harl. mar. et Scholl. H.
εἰ πέλετ᾽ Eustath. in
Steph., mox μεϑείη Eustath. Barnes. Ern. Cl. ed. Ox. Low., μεϑείῃ Wolf. Dind.
Fa., μεϑήῃ Bek.
465—93. ,Odys. in his ‘choice of
difticulties’’ resolves to sleep in a
neighbouring wood; there creeps un-
der an olive-tree, and embeds himself
in fallen leaves. Athene sends refresh-
ing slumber.
465. See note on 299 sup.
466. ἐν ποταμῷ, “in the bed or
cavity of the river’, so mar. φῦ-
λάσσω is probably subjunct., since εἶ
péy x requires the fut., when the mood
is indicat. (Jul. Werner p. 30): φυλάξω
may, if read, be fut. ind. or aor. subj.
467. “yj, see on 415 sup. ϑήῆλυς
ἐέρση, 80 Hes. Scut. 395: for the mas.
form with fem, noun, see on ὃ.
The sense (akin to ϑάλλω) is that of
nourishing, refreshing etc.
468. ὀλιγηπελέης, see on ἢ sup.
κεκαφηότα , ef. X. 466 ἀπὸ ψυ-
χὴν ἐκάπυσσεν, which Crusius ma-
kes an aor. of καπύω, but Doederlein
2227, imperf, of καπύυσσω, comparing
ἀλύειν ἀλύσσειν, ἀφύειν ἀφύσσειν, and
citing Hesych. <A Schol. gives κάπος
(presumably akin to κάπνος)--- πνεῦμα.
With the form of the particip. here cf.
κεχαρηὼς, κεχμηὼς etc. It seems to
agree with μὲ and govern ϑυμόν.
469. αὔρφη, the well-known sea-coast
phenomenon of a land-breeze in the
472. πυκινὸς Vr. pro yluxegos.
475. βῆ δ᾽ var. 1. Schol, E.
early morning, owing to the land cool-
ing more rapidly than the sea. δ᾽
might possibly be = yag, as in α. 71,
y. 48, but a mere coordination of the
clauses would satisfy the sense. ἠῶϑε.
Ni. takes this as a form of the gen.,
but Donalds. Gr. Gr. 156 as dat. It
probably is, like the termination -gzr,
common to both cases (-ge according to
Donalds. 148 (b) is accus. also). Here
and in Ἰλιόϑι πρὸ (mar.) and in oft
= ov it is gen.; but in the adverbial
forms ἄλλοθι, τηλόθι, ἀπόπροϑι, ἐγ-
γύϑι, ἑτέρωϑι probably dat.
471. μεϑείῃ, epic subjunct. with εἰ;
see on a. 168. There is no difficulty
of syntax in the var, lect. μεϑείη op-
tat., when the clause becomes paren-
thetical, and yi. δὲ μ. ὕπνος ἐπὶ ELON
following must be read conjoined with
εἰ... καταδράϑω. But this condition
within a condition is foreign to the
simpler Homeric style. ef δέ xew is
commonly found with aor. subj.; see
Jul. Werner p. 31.
474. This recurring formulaic line is
followed by infin. — “thus it seemed
best — to do so and so” — save in
two other passages: in one, as here,
an indic. succeeds (mar.), and in the
other an optat. with ὄφρα,
495
470
475
480
4185
Οὔτε μὲν vel μὲν Bek. annot,
DAY XXXII] ΟΔΥΣΣΕΙΑΣ E. 476—488. 207
ἐν περιφαινομένῳ." δοιοὺς δ᾽ ἄρ᾽ ὑπήλυϑε ϑάμνους" |a N. 179.
’ ς, ~ . ἢ “ 99 , b a. 471 mar.
ἐξ ὁμόϑεν πεφυώῶτας᾽ ὃ μὲν φυλίης, ὃ ὃ ἐλαίης. ccf, E, γ4:. 1.
tous" μὲν ἄρ᾽ οὔτ᾽ ἀνέμων διάει μένος ὑγρὸν ἀέντων, | 4d τ. 410-3.
ὁ ἃ. 16.
οὐδέ ποτ᾽ ἠέλιος» φαέϑων ἀκτῖσιν ἔβαλλεν,
οὔτ᾽ ὄμβρος περάασκε διαμπερές" ὡς ἄρα πυκνοὶ
f $2. 165; cf. η.
285—6.
? , 9 , κι ¢ 99 ‘ . 462 mar.
ἀλλήλοισιν ἔφυν ἐπαμοιβαδίς" ovg vx Ὀδυσσευς h τὶ 4435 ef. ε. 430,
δύσετ᾽ς ἄφαρ δ᾽ εὐνὴν ἐπαμήσατοϊ χερσὶ φίλῃσιν εἰ ΝᾺ
εὐρεῖαν." φύλλων γὰρ ἔην χύσις! ἤλιϑακ πολλὴ, ι ef. 72. 385-6.
n B. 471.
Gooov t ἠὲ δύω ἠὲ τρεῖς ἄνδρας ἔρυσϑαι
ὥρῃ" χειμερίῃ, εἰ καὶ μάλα περ χαλεπαίνοι. υ. 10
τὴν" δὲ ἰδὼν γήϑησε πολύτλας δῖος Ὀδυσσεὺς,
n ¥, 3535 w. S04,
o δ. 41.
, ᾿ , , , p δ. 453 mar.
ἐν δ᾽ ἄρα μέσσῃ" λέκτο,ν χύσιν δ᾽ ἐπεχεύατο" φύλλων. | 4 ε- 483.
ὡς δ᾽ ὅτε τις δαλὸν" σποδιῇ ἐνέχρυψε μελαίνῃ, en
486. fudar.
-..-..-.- .-.. .. ....... ο.--«----..--..
477. ἐξ ὁμόϑεν Eustath. Wolf. οἱ recentt., ἐξομοϑὲν Heidelb. et Schol. Barnes.
Ern, Cl. ed. Ox., mox γεγαῶτας var. 1. Scholl. H. Q. T., πεφυώῶτε Schol. ad E.
245. 478. dian Bek. Fa., διάξει omnes rell. 479. οὔτ᾽ av Eustath., ovdé-
ποτ᾽ Barnes. Ern., οὐδέ ποτ᾽ Cl. ed. Ox. Wolf. Dind. Liw., οὔτε ποτ᾽ Bek. Fa.,
482. ὕλην pro εὐνὴν Vr. et var. 1. Eustath.
483. yee’ ἔην Harl., γὰρ ἔην Enstath. vulg. et edd. omn.
477. ἐξ ὁρμιόϑεν, “from a common
stem’’. Ni. interprets it of size, ‘‘grown
equally”’; but for this H. would pro-
bably have said ἐξ ἴσου. We need
not supply ἢν with 6 μὲν: it is an in-
stance of anacoluthon in apposition,
such as (mar.) ly’ ἀπέλεθρον ἔχον -
rag’ ὃ μὲν τόξων ev εἰδὼς x. τ. 1,
cited by Ni. The statement is pro-
bably meant to convey a poetic mar-
vel. We have no trace in H. of the
sacredness of the olive to Pallas, or
this might be significant of her favour
for the hero. φυλέης, the Scholl, ex-
plain ‘‘a wild olive’, or, “a kind with
leaves like a myrrh tree’’. Obs. the var.
lect. δάφνης from the Schol. on E. 325.
478—80. ἀνέμων ... μὲν, VYQ. Ges
Hes. Opp. 625 has adopted this phrase.
It is more forcible to refer ὑγρὸν as
adverbial accus. to ἀέντων than as
nom, to μένος. Ni. remarks that διεάει
refers to the fact at the time, but πε-
ράασκε to what was usual whenever it
rained: cf. with the whole passage Soph.
Ed. Col. 676—8, Dindorf, φύλλαδα ...
ἀνήλιον ἀνήνεμόν TE πάντων ζχει-
μώνων. .
48ι. ἔφῦν (-vy by ictus), ‘clung”’,
as in ὁδὰξ ἐν χείλεσι φύντες a. 381.
— ἀλλήλοισιν may best be governed
by éxaporBadls, as if, ‘Seach taking in
turn the other’s place’, i. 6. interlac-
ing’’; unless we were to read ἀλλήλοις
ἐνέφυν.
484. ἔρυσϑαι, Buttmann’s leading
conclusions on this verb are (1) that
the v is naturally short in both senses,
to ‘draw’? and to ‘‘save’’; (2) that,
when metre requires it long, gvocato,
ἐῤῥύσσατο, etc. should be written; (3)
that the v is due to the Attics; (4) that
εἴρῦτο εἴρυσϑαι Eguro ἔρυσϑαι cannot
in sense be perf. or plup., nor the last
two even in form; and can be aorists
only when, as in E. 538, the action of
saving etc. is completed at the instant;
and therefore (5) that, as a continued
action is mostly intended, these forms
are pres. and imperf. syncopated from
εἰρύετο etc., and so here from égve-
ofa; (6) that the ep. fut. of ἐρύω is
also ἔρυω (Lezil. 53, Gr. V. 8. v.).
488. ἐνέχρυψε, aor. of simile; sce
on δ, 338.
208
a δ. 517 mar.
by. 256, 2. 245, .
$2. 445.
ev. Ὁ.
ΟΔΥΣΣΕΙΑΣ E. 489 - 493.
[Day χσχει.
ἀγροῦ ἐπ’ ἐσχατιῆς," ᾧ μὴ πάρα γείτονες ἄλλοι,
σπέρμα πυρὸς σώξων. ἵνα μή ποϑὲν ἄλλοθεν αἴῃ. «0ς
ὡς Ὀδυσεὺς φύλλοισι καλύψατο" τῷ δ᾽ ἄρ᾽ ᾿4ϑήνη
ὕπνον" ἐπ᾽ ὕμμασι χεῦ᾽, ἵνα μιν παύσειε τάχιστα
δυςπονέος καμάτοιο, φίλα βλέφαρ᾽ - ἀμφικαλύψας.
489. ἐσχατέη MS. G. C.
Ixion, Scholl. H. P., Bek. Dind.
490. avo: Eustath. Barnes. Ern. Wolf. ed. Ox., avy
493- δυσπραγέος Dion. Halicarn. Fit.
Hom. XXIII.
490. “7... avy, “he may not have
to kindle’, akin to ava, ‘‘dry”’’ 240
sup.; cf. ἐναύω, Herod, VII. 221. avy,
Ixion’s reading, would throw the clause
into pres. time giving us, as it were,
the actual words of the reg aforesaid;
see App. A. g (17). This 3254 day of
the poem's action ends without any of
the usual forms ἠέλιος κατέδυ x. τ. 1.;
but its end is implied in vuxta 466;
also in 7. 283—4 Odys, tells Alcinoiis
that at this juncture ἐπὶ δ᾽ ἀμβροσίη
. w »
νυξ ηλυϑ.
OATXZZEIAS Z.
SUMMARY OF BOOK VI.
The night of the 2254 day closes with a visit of Athené, as the daughter
Dymas, to the sleeping Nausicaa, daughter of Alcinoiis king of the Pheacia:
(1—25). On her suggestion early on the 3354 day Nausicaa obtains leave |
her father to drive with her maidens to the river, to wash linen for the hous
hold (26—84).
The laundry work done, the maidens dine and amuse themselves with bal
play. The ball being lost, their outcry rouses Odysseus; who, emerging fro
his covert as a suppliant, terrifies all but Nausicaa, whom he addresses in
speech of much compliment (84—185). She answers his enquiries, rebuk
the alarm of her maidens and clothes him, on which Athené gives him a su
passing comeliness (186—246).
Nausicaa then directs him how to find the city, the palace and the presen
of her father (247—315). She then drives away. He follows, and by the w:
implores the aid of Athené, who for a politic reason does not yet appear
him. The 33° day here ends with sunset (316—331).
Sd
Ὀδυσσέως ἄφιξις εἰς Φαίακας.
‘Rs ὃ μὲν ἔνϑα xadevds πολύτλας δῖος Ὀδυσσεὺς
ὕπνῳ καὶ καμάτῳ ἀρημένος "" αὐτὰρ ᾿4ϑήνη
ἐς Φαιήκων ἀνδρῶν δημόνυ"υ τε πόλιν τε,
οἱ πρὶν μέν ποτ᾽ ἔναιον ἐν εὐρυχόύόρῳ ς Ὑπερείῃ. "
ἀγχοῦ Κυκλώπων" ἀνδρῶν ὑπερηνορεόντων,
βῆ ῥ᾽
ae. 403, 2. 136, σ.
233, =.
1. καϑεῦδε Zenod., Scholl. H. P., ita Eustath, Barnes. Wolf., καάϑευδὲ Ern.
ΕἸ. ed. Ox.
2. ἁρημένος var. 1. Eustath., βεβαρημένος (6 gloss. natum) Bek,
annot.
.---- ae --.ἐἐἧὀὀὠὠ ne ee ee .-.- nr ee ee ο-.
1—48. The night following the 32%
day of the poem's action is continued
in the visit of Athené to Scherié, and
her appearance in a night vision to
Nausicaa, daughter of Alcinoiis the
king, to whom she suggests an excur-
sion from the city to the river-side in
order to wash linen in its laundry-pits;
reminding her that such provision will
be needed for her approaching mar-
riage. As Athené disappears the dawn
of the 3378 day takes place.
1—2. πολυτλας, the epithet has
especial force here, by reason of the
toils and perils recently surmounted.
It occurs by Seber’s index 34 times in
Udy. and ς in Il., a difference sug-
gested by the subject matter itself.
ὠρημένος, the Scholl. render this by
βεβλαμμένος, which seems too severe
a rendering for 2. 136, ᾧ. 283, which
speak of the quiet torpor of old age end-
ing in a painless death. Thiersch (Gr.
Gr. § 232, 24) suggests an etymology,
which removes. this difficulty and sa-
tisfies all the passages (mar.). It is
that ἀρημένος is contracted by loss of
the F from βεβαρημένος of ξαρέω =
βαρέω (βαρὺς), when ‘overwhelmed,
or sunk, in slumber and fatigue”,
would be the sense; cf, ἐδηκότες--- Fe-
Fadnxores (App. A, 6 [6]), also found
with καμάτῳ and ὕπνω. It uniformly
occurs in the same place in the line
with the @ in thesis, showing that the
quantity is natural. Doederl. 1044 pre-
fers to take it from ἀραρημέψος, ἀράω,
id. g. ἀράσσω, for which see on s. 248;
virtually == the βεβλ. of the Scholl. It
is found elsewhere (mar.) with δύῃ and
γήραϊ as instrumental dat.
4—5. εὐρυχόρῳ, see on ὅ. 635. —
ἥ περεέῃ ... huxdwawy, see App.
1). 15. Ukert takes in the main the
same view of the question as there
given (Hom. Geogr. 28), and concludes,
with Callimachus and Aristarchus, and
against Crates, Eratosthenes, Apotio-
dorus, Posidonius and Strabo, that
Odysseus wandered in the “inner”
(Mediterranean) sea, only just touch-
ing the “‘outer’’ or ocean (ibid. 5—7,
34). Véleker (8 55—64) and Ni. in his
remarks prefixed to £. adopt a similar
view. The three Cyclopes, Brontes,
Steropes and Arges mentioned Hesiod.
Theog. 140, a8 sons of Kronos, show a
total diversity of legend.
14*
212 OATZZEIAZD Ζ. 6—18. [par ¥xXxxX)
75 » Lg ° a , τ
᾿Ξ 1, οἵ σφεας σινέσκοντο, βίηφι" δὲ φέρτεροι ησαν.
σι. Ὁ". - 9. . bh 4 - Ἂν ᾿ is - ν -
ἡ ιν 779. ἐνθὲν ἀναστῆσας ἄγε Δαυσίϑοος" θεοειδής.
' i. 340, Win. εἰσεν δ᾽ ἐν Σχερίῃ. ἕκας" ἀνδρῶν" ἀλφησταωῶν"
Ry io. ἀμφὶ δὲ τεῖχος! ἔλασσεξ πόλει, καὶ ἐδείματο oixovs
ΠΝ ae καὶ νηοὺς ποίησε Bev, καὶ ἐδασσατ᾽ ἀρούρας.
ee ater ἀλλ᾽» ὃ μὲν ἤδη χηρὶ δαμεὶς' ᾿Αϊδόςδε βεβήχειν,
ΟΥ̓͂Ν "Adxtvoos δὲ τότ᾽ HOLE» Seay * ἄπο μήδεα' εἰδως.
Px a oe , τοῦ" μὲν ἔβη προ; δῶμα tea γλαυχώπι: “9ϑηνη,
12... ein νόστον" Ὀδυσσῆι μεγαλήτορι" μητιόωσα.
2. 376."
Bye δ᾽ ἴμεν ἐς ϑάλαμον πολυδαίδαλον, @ ἔνι xover
35 ἀν᾽ - κοιμᾶτ᾽ ἀϑανάτῃσι puny. καὶ εἶδος ὁμοίη.
9. μι, στρ, Ναυσικάα" ϑυγάτηρ μεγαλήτορος" ᾿Δλκινόοιο"
Ε ᾿ "πὰρ ὁὲ δύ᾽ ἀμφίπολοι.' Χαρίτων" ἄπο κάλλος ἔχουσαι
ee - ee ee am ee ee
7. ϑεοιξειδῆς. 8. Fexag. 9. Folxovs. 11. “Afedogde. 12. «ειδώς.
16. ξεῖδος.
re ee ee ee
8. δὲ Σχερίῃ Arist., Scholl. E. H. Q., ita Schol. H. ad I. 345, mox ἀνδρῶν «
emend, clloy a man. pri. Harl. Apollon. Plutarch. de ezil. (Ni.). post 8. Ba
nes. ἀνθρώπων ἀπάνευθε πολυκλύστω ἐνὶ πόντω se a Plutarcho (περὶ pvyi
fol. 603) restituisse ait pro ἀνθρώπων legens Κυκλώπων. 10. ϑεοῖς Rhiar
Schol. H. 16. ἀϑανάτοισι a man. pri. Harl., eadem manus in ἀϑανάτησι Τὰ!
tavit. 18. éyovoa Vr.
7—8. Navol., son of Poseidon and
Peribowa (η. 56). The Phsacian pro-
per names are chiefly derived from the
sea or ships, with some exceptions as
regards the royal family, whose names
denote vigour, wisdom, sway etc. —
ἀλφηστάων, sce on a. 349. ἑχὰς
«avdQ. ἀλ., means to say, in a posi-
tion of safety ‘out of the reach”’ of
such intrusive adventurers, who might
molest their serene inertness. Migra-
tion under pressure of troublesome
neighbours was not strange probably
to any age. Later the Phocewans, when
besieged by Harpagus, embarked with
their wives, children and treasures in
quest of a new settlement, and left
their vacant city to the enemy (He-
rod. I. 164). .
g—10 concisely depicts all the ele-
ments of an ancient πόλις, providing
for defence, habitation, public worship
and sustenance, according to the ασ-
τυνόμοι ὀργαὶ of the Greck mind; ef.
κόμους παρεέρων χϑονὸς ϑεῶν τ᾽ Evog-
yor δίκαν, ὑψίπολις, Soph. Antig. 355,
368, Dindorf. The only temples men-
δὲ in Scherié by H. are the Πο-
σιδήιον 266 inf. and the ἱρὸν ‘Ad:
ναίης 322, which perhaps implies on
although strictly a mere epithet |
ἄλσος. ‘The half-wild shepherd life |
the Cyclopes (ὑβρισταί τε καὶ ayer
οὐδὲ δίκαιοι) and the developed pol
tical humanity of the Phracians (
λόξεινοι καί σφιν νόος ἐστὶ Seovd:
120—1 inf.) stand in typical contras
as it were the wild and the cultivat
stem from the same stock (8. 477
both Nausithoiis and Polyphemu
mightiest of the Cyclopes, being so!
of Poseidon (7. 56, α. 7o—3), and tl
Pheacians claiming kindred with tl
gods both for the Cyclopes and f
themselves (7. 205—6). Nausitho'
may be compared with Theseus in A
tic legend as regards political instit
tions. The name is also given in He
Theog. 1017 to a son of Ulysses |
Calypso.
18. Xagitwy, the Graces atte!
upon Aphrodité in the toilet and tl
dance. In Il. beautiful hair is ἃ
scribed as locks like the Graces’, tl
veil of Aphrodité is of their weavin
and Pasitheé is mentioned by name |
20
25
DAY XXxxI1.]
oraduotiy® ἑκάτερϑε"" ϑύραι" δ᾽ ἐπέκειντο φαειναί.
OATZZEIAZ Ζ. 19—28.
213
ἡ δ᾽ ἀνέμου ὡς πνοιὴ éxéoovto4 δέμνια κούρης, : i Bo, 23, 312,
στῇ" δ᾽ ἄρ᾽ ὑπὲρ κεφαλῆς, καί μιν πρὸς μῦϑον ἔειπεν, ἃ ον, 5, ᾿
εἰδομένη κούρῃ ναυσικλειτοῖοῖ Ζύμαντος, Feta 39, δ. 191,
ἢ οἵ ὁμηλικίηξ μὲν ἔην, κεχάριστο! δὲ ϑυμῷ᾽ cy i. aT
tH pv ἐεισαμένη προςέφη γλαυκώπις ᾿4ϑήνη ἱ B. τὸ, 22, Γ᾽.
Ναυσικάα, τί νύ σ᾽ ὧδε μεϑήμονα ! γείνατοκ μήτηρ;]] Bou; cf N.
108, 121
eluate μέν τοι κεῖται ἀκηδέα ovyadderta.,! ΚΞ, ἮΝ
σοὶ δὲ γάμος σχεδόν ἐστιν, ἵνα χρὴ καλὰ μὲν αὐτὴν |! Χ ͵
. 17.
[. ὃ. 10, ξ. 211,
“ - ’ n εἰ.
ἔννυσϑαι." ta δὲ τοῖσι παρασχεῖν οἵ κέ σ᾽ ἄγωνται.) ο. 238, 11. 189
21. ἔξειπεν.
19. Fexareg@e.
26. βείματα.
22. ειδομένη.
28. έννυσθϑαι.
24. ἐξεισαμένη.
20. ἐπ᾽ ἔσσυτο var. 1. Barnes.
22, ναυσὶ κλειτοῖο nonnulli, Scholl. P. 9. 24.
μὲν ἐειδομένη Eustath., μὲν ἐειδομένη Harl.
‘Cone of the younger Graces’’, but no
number is fixed for them. Charis is
there too individualized as the wife of
Hephestus (mar.). Hes. Zheog. 907
mentions three, and gives their names
Aglaia, Euphrosyné and Thalia. In υ.
71 beauty is the gift of Heré, but this
might be ministerially through the
Graces. Pind. Ol. XIV. g—11 calls
them πάντων ταμίαι ἔργων ἐν ov-
ρανῶ, χρυσότοξον ϑέμεναι παρὰ Πύ-
ϑιον Ἀπόλλωνα ϑρόνους.
19—21. σταϑμοῖιν &x., 80 placed
probably that the doors might not be
opened without arousing them. For
σταϑμοὶ ‘‘door-posts’’ see App. F. 2
(16). — Gveae, these would be of
course secured with a bolt (κληὶς) and
thong (fuag); see a. 442, δ. 801, 838,
gm. 241: thus in ἢ δ᾽ ἀνέμου ὡς πν.
the δ᾽ is emphatic, ‘‘but (in spite of
these obstacles) as a breath of air she
glided in’’, Par levibus ventis volucrique
simillima somno, Virg. Ain. VI, The Ho-
meric deities are corporeal; but the
εἴδωλον of Pallas is here adapted to
the sleeper’s state, and referred sub-
jectively to its consciousness; see on
ὃ. 803. — δέμνια, probably derived
from δέμας, as enwrapping the body.
στὴ δ᾽ x. τ. 2., see on ὅδ, 803; cf.
Virg. Aen. IV. 702 Devolat et supra ca-
put astitit.
25—8. μεϑήμονα, cf. ne ἑκὼν με-
Bing, δ. 372. — yelvato μι., to speak
of qualities, claimed or disclaimed, as
imparted or witheld at birth, is a Ho-
meric formula of self-assertion; cf.
οὐδ᾽ ἐμὲ πάμπαν ἀνάλκιδα γεί-
ψνατο μ., and ovx ay μὲ γένος γε
κακὸν καὶ ἀνάλκιδα φαντες; so
ἐπεὶ οὐδ᾽ ἐμὲ νήιδαά γ᾽ οὕτως ἔλπο-
μαι ἐν Σαλαμῖνι γενέσθαι, and μι-
νυνϑάδιον δέ pe μήτηρ γείνατο
(mar.). It is common, however, to
other poetry, Eurip. Alcest.677—8 Dind.
οὐκ oloGa Θεσσαλὸν μὲ κ᾽ ἀπὸ Θεσ-
; σαλοῦ
πατρὸς γεγῶτα
Hor. Carm, 1Π|. X, 11 Non te Penelopen
difficilem procis Tyrrhenus genutt parens.
On γεένατο see App. A. 20. — χεῖται
ἀκηδέα is the predication: σδεγαλό-
Evta, as a fixed epithet, describes the
normal state of the efuata rather than
their exact condition at the moment.
γάμος σχεδὸν &., she being of mar-
riageable age, it is assumed as a mat-
ter of course that she will soon marry;
although from §. 245, 7. 311 foll. it is
plain that whom she was to marry was
not settled. — σ᾽ ἄγωνται, see the
a App.F.2(16) mar.
4
ὅν.
ς
214
φ. 323, us. 362;
ef ¢.332- 3,¢ 273.
b Ζ. 413, 420, 1.
οὐ, N. 430, X.
d ὁ. "407 mar.
ὁ εἴ. 3. 550, 560.
Γ ἢ. “$7 mar.
g 6. W%3—4; εἴς J.
664, 652, 9. 40.
ho. 267, @Q. 373;
cf. 4.175, u 193.
O. 25%.
452 mar.
β. 25, «. 419.
———-— « - -- -
29. τοιούτων pro τοι τούτων 1141].,
φάτις tribuentem χάρις legisse testantur Scholl. H. P.
34. ave δῆμον Bek. annot. 35. []
ἐστὶ melioribns tribuit glossa inter lin. Harl.,
οὔτι Harl.
OATZZEIAL Z.
'éx γάρ τοι τούτων φάτις"
éotAn, χαίρουσιν δὲ πατὴρ" καὶ πότνια μήτηρ.
« ἀλλ᾽ ἴομεν πλυνέουσαι" du’! ἠοῖ φαινομένηφιν᾽
καί τοι ἐγὼ συνέριϑος" ἅμ᾽ ἔψομαι, ὄφρα τάχιστα
ἐντύνεαι, ἐπεὶ οὔ τοι ἔτι δὴν παρϑένος ἔσσεαι"
ἡμιόνους! καὶ ἅμαξαν épondioa,™
29 —37- [DAY xxxt1.
--Ξ - —- ---- ---.-..-ἨὄὦἝ . .
ἀνθρώπους ἀναβαίνει
an
ἤδη yao δε μνῶνται ἀριστῆεςξ κατὰ δῆμον
πάντων Φαιήκων, ὅϑι τοι γένος" ἐστὶ καὶ αὐτῇ.
ἀλλ᾽ ὶ ἄγ᾽ ἐπότρυνον πατέρα κλυτὸν ἠώϑιϊ
πρὸ
ῇ κεν ἄγῃσιν
mox ἀνϑρώπων, Callistratum Aristophani τὸ
33- ἐντύνεῦ' ἐπεὶ
Bek. ὅ oot αὐτῇ τὸ γένος
ita Scholl. R. T., pro oft τοι
Schol. V. ntot (an ἡ toe), ὅτι toe Aloys. et MS G. C., ἐσσὶ καὶ αὐτὴ Hart.
ee ee -- - —- -. - een
descriptions of wedding festivities in
=. 493-.4. νύμφας δ᾽ ἐκ ϑαλάμων
δαΐδων ὑπὸ λαμπομενάων ἡγίένεον
ἀνὰ ἄστυ, and Hes. Seud. 274 foll.,
ἤγοντ᾽ ἀνδρὶ γυναῖκα x. τ. i. (Nie.
The ceremony is that of bringing the
bride from her father’s house to her
future husband’s, and is a public spec-
tacle; see on 159 inf.
29—31. τούτων, the same as τοῖσι
in 28, ‘‘they, being well- contented,
spread your fame abroad’’. The read-
ing χάρες would rather require τούτων
to mean “these things’’, viz. the being
fairly robed yourself, and the giving
fair clothing to others. πλῦνέουσαι
and πλῦνοὶ, 40 inf., but πλύτω pres.
It is always used of garments, as νέ-
ato of the person (Lowe).
32-3. συνέριϑος, the Scholl. de-
rive it from working wool (ἔρεα) to-
gether: sce App. A. 7 (2). We may
perhaps infer from this promise that
the daughter of Dymas is one of the
actual ἀμφέπολοι in 84 inf. — ἐντυ-
vec, the -εαε being read in synizesix.
ἐπεὶ x. τ. λ., sce above on γάμος σχέ-
δον ἐ. in 27.
35. ὅϑι x. τ. λ., whether this or the
ΗΔ]. reading be ‘followed, the mean-
ing will amount to ‘to which thou too
belongest by birth’, o@ referring na-
turally tu the δῆμος Dar. It seems,
at first sight somewhat superfluous, to
remind Nausicaa that she is a Phia-
ciau, nor if o@e were understood, as
Voss takes it, as referring to ἀριστῆες,
it is less so, she being the king’s
daughter, to remind her that she is of
high rank. This has probably led Bek.
to omit the line. But it is not clear
that all weak lines in our text of H.
are spurious, and further, a simple
primitive taste does not feel truisms
offensive any more than verbatim repe-
titions. But besides, it is not wholly
irrelevant as regards the advice given,
to point out that her own family dwell
where she, when imarried, will still
probably dwell, for it suggests that
the φάτις ἀνθρώπων (29) will there-
fore have greater force. Thus the line
has some point. With γένος here ef.
Virg. Bn. VI, 123, εἰ mi genus ab Jove
summo. H, uses alike the plurals γένεα
(γ. 244) and γενεαὶ for “generations’’,
but for the “race” or ‘‘collective stock”?
γενεὴ. as in ofn πὲρ φύλλων γενεὴ
κ. τ. λ. in Ζ. 146 foll.
36 --7. ἠῶϑιε πρὸ, 866 on ε. 469.
ἡμιόνους, sce on ὃ. 636. They or or
oxon (&. 782) usually drew the ἅμαξα;
with horses we find ἄρμα δίφρος or
ὄχεα used. ἅμαξα is the name of a
constellation in €. 273, where see note.
It was probably here four-wheeled;
sce on 70 inf.; cf, Herod. 1. 188 ὥμαξαι
τετράκυκλοι ἡμιόνειαι, and 2. 324
τετράκυκλον ἀπήνην; ἀπήνη Mean-
ing properly | a mule - car, see Pind.
Pyth, 1V. 94 ἀνὰ δ᾽ ἡμιόνοις ξεστὰ τ᾽
ἀπήνᾳ, and Schol. on Ol. V. 7, ef. also
57, 69, 73 inf. Plato Theat. 207 A. (cited
by Ni. on 68 -- 73 inf.) enumerates its
x
DAY Xxx1I.] ΟΔΥΣΣΕΙΑΣ Z. 38—44. 215
ξωστρά te καὶ πέπλους καὶ ῥήγεα" σιγαλόεντα. laa. 19, - 318,
καὶ δέ σοι ὧδ᾽ αὐτῇ πολὺ κάλλιον" ἠὲ πόδεσσιν υ 3.518, 6. 858,
ἔρχεσθαι" πολλὸν γὰρ ἀπὸς πλυνοί εἰσι πόληος." Π a iar
n° μὲν ἄρ᾽ ὡς εἰποῦσ᾽ ἀπέβη γλαυκῶπις ᾿4ϑήνη c 310, ws 212
[Ovdvuxovd’,! ὅϑι φασὶς ϑεῶν Eos ἀσφαλὲς αἰεὶ ig B. 783, 2. 613
Eupevac’i οὔτ᾽ ἀνέμοισι τινάσσεται οὔτε ποτ᾽ ὄμβρῳ | 9 48. | |
devetar,* οὔτε χιὼν ἐπιπίλναται, ἀλλὰ μάλ᾽ αἴϑρη ιν ages
41. Fernxove’.
38. pro ξῶστραά τε var. 1. ξώνας Schol. P.
40. «xo Eustath. Heidelb. et Schol.
ejus et Schol. ad 2. 64, Barnes. Ern. Cl. ed, Ox., ἀπὸ Wolf., mox πόλιος Harl.
42. ὃν φασὶ Schol. V.
parts as τρόχοι, ἄξων, ὑπερτερία, av-
τυγες, Cvyov, where, however, if four’
wheels were an
essential charac-
teristic, we should
expect ἄξονες,
even a8 ἄντυγες,
plur. To those
parts the ῥυμὸς
“pole”? (Q. 271)
should be added.
The epithet vpn-
Any, applied in 58
inf. to ἀπήνην = ἅμαξαν, since it is
never found with agua, δέφρος or ὄχεα,
probably implies that it stood consi-
derably higher on its wheels than they.
The annexed figure of a mule-car is
trom a coin of Messana.
42—7. φασὶ, this word seems to
condemn the whole of this fine pas-
sage as an interpolation, although a
very early one, Homer's view of
Olympus as the dwelling of the gods
has a fulness of objectivity inconsis-
tent with it. See, however, note on e.
so for certain differences in this re-
spect between Il. and Ody. We find
also (%. 307, 0. 43, ¥. §5) 8. departure
of Hermes, and again of Pallas, πρὸς
μακρὸν Ὄλ., where the narrative runs
on, as it would here, if this passage
were omitted. Further, gaol in this
connexion is used by H., apparently
(mar.) of some non-constant or purely
local tradition; and the passage is it-
self a pannus purpureus, there being no
reason why, between the view of the
sleeping Nausicaa in her ϑαλαμος and
her meeting with her parents, we should
be carried off to the glories of divine
44. ἐπικίδναται Herodian., mox αὐϑὴρ Rhian., Scholl.
H.
abodes. Contrast it in this respect
with the passage somewhat similar re-
garding the ‘Elysian plain” in ὅδ. 563
foll., which springs directly from the
subject of the moment. The hint of
it was probably borrowed from Hes.
Theog. 117—8 πάντων ἔδος aag. αἰεὶ
atavatov of ἔχουσι κάρη νιφόεντος
Ὀλύμπου, (cf. also Pind. Nem. VI. ς,
cited on y. 2) and dressed up from δ
563 foll. Olympus, even when spoken
of as the divine abode, is recognized
by H. as “‘snowy’’, as in J. 186 a@a-
νάτων οἱ Ol. ἀγάννιφον ἀμφινέ-
μονται. In II, 364—5 ‘‘the storm-cloud
comes from Ol. when Zeus wields the
whirlwind’, and in E. 750—1 the πυκινὸν
νέφος appears as a special property of
Ol., which the Seasons (Ὧραι) raise
and let fall— a physical fact perhaps
woven into the theo-mechanism of poe-
try. All this the present passage flatly
contradicts, and its descriptive touches
savour of a later age; cf. Soph. Aatig.
609—10, Dindorf.
43—5. Clarke cites Lucret. III. 18,
Apparet Diviim numen sedesque
quiete :
Quas neque concutiunt venti, ne-
que nubila nimbis
Aspergunt, neque nix acri con-
creta pruin&
Cana cadens violat, semperque in-
nubilus ether
Integit, et large diffaso lumine
ridet,
So Lucan. II. 271, cited by Ni., Nubes
excedit Olympus Lege Dem; minimas re-
rum discordia turbat; Pacem summa te-
nent. The αἴϑρη ἀνέφελος is doubtless
act
Ν᾿"
=
Pore
“. ἀ" $e
s3°
aM
we
νῳ
ῬἘ ἈΠ δῶ, δι.μν
>
y
CY
. 5. |
4, εἴ. @. |
Ys Wk
» v.
RRS
Sa
=
5 8
Η
ει
415, ef. &. 4
ΕΝ
Β 8
»
δ
ὴ
i, x. 105,
27, 2
Te
OATEZEIAS Z. 4ς--ς7.
πατρὶ; φίλῳ καὶ μητρί"
[pay xxxu1.
ἱπέπταται dvigedos, λευχὴ" δ᾽ ἐκιδέδρομεν" αἴγλη « 45
_ Τ. τῷ ἕνι τέρπονται μώχαρες ἃ ϑεοὶ ἥματα © χάντα.
mar. ,ἔνϑ᾽ ἀπέβη! ylave@ats, ἐπεὶ διεπέφραδε: xor'gr,..
αὐτίχα" δ᾽ ᾿Ηὼς ἦλθεν ἐὔΐϑρονος, ἢ μὲν ἔγειρεν
| Navoixday evaexiov: ἄφαρ δ᾽ ἀπεϑαύμασ᾽ ὄνειρον.
ΟΝ By δ᾽ ἱέναι διὰ δωώμαϑ᾽. iv” ἀγγείλειε τοκεῦσιν,
κιχήσατο δ᾽ évdov* ἐόντας.
μὲν ἐπ’ ἐσχάρῃ ἧστο σὺν" ἀμφιπόλοισι γυναιξὶν.
ἠλάκατα" στρωφῶσ᾽ ἁλιπόρφυρα"» τῷ δὲ Bvgate
sa +e ἐρχομένῳ ξύμβλητον μετὰ “λειτοὺς βασιλῆας
‘iq δὲ pad’ ayy στᾶσα φίλον πατέρα προςέειπεν
“manna φίλ᾽, οὐκ" ἂν δή μοι ἐφοπλίσσειας" ἀπήνην "
56. προσέξειπεν.
45. ἀννέφελος Schol. A. 420, Barnes. Ern. Cl. ed. Ox., ἀνέφελος Eustath. Vr.
Scholl, E. P. Q. V. Wolf.
46. pro τῷ Rhian. τῇ, Scholl. H. P.
47° διεπέ.
φραδὲ (quod laudat Hesych.) Harl, Heidelb, et edd. plerseque ante Ern., ita
πάντα
Wolf. ed. Ox, Bek. Dind., διαπέφραδε Eustath. Barnes, Cl. Ern., κούρη Harl.,
πάντα cum var. 1. κούρῃ Scholl. H. P., κούρη Eustath.
50. ἴμεναι Harl. W olf.
Dind. Fa. Liw., ἐέναι Eustath. Barnes. Cl. Ern. ed. Ox. Bek., mox xara Eu-
stath.
Ox. Bek.
based on the physical fact of the clouds
being seen from a mountain top float-
ing far below; see Kruse’s //ellas I. i.
p- 311 foll.
45—7. λευχὴ ... αἴγλη, ‘“unche-
quered splendour’’. dcex φραδε, on
on the whole ἐπέφραδε (A. 794, Π. 37,
st) is probably from simple φραζω,
although Thiersch (Gr. Gr. § 208, 13)
says from ἐπιφράξω; comp. 7. 49 with
ΚΟ TIT, and ἐ 4 with 9. 423. The
meaning of x peador i is “pointed out”
or ‘appointed ”’, as in the passages
cited and in K. 127, and the διὰ here
is an in διχειπέμεν δ. 215, sce note
there.
48—84. The 5.4 day of the poem's
action here begins. Nausicaa, now
awake, asks her father’s permission tu
go in a carriage and wash linen at a
distance, suppressing all mention of
the marriage, and substituting other
Harl. cum Schol. Il Vr. Wolf. Dind. Fa. Léw., διὰ Barnes. Cl. Ern. ed.
57. ἐφοπλίσειας Vr., ἐφοπλίσσειαν Rhian. , Scholl. H. P.
pretexts. The permission is granted
and she departs with her handmaids.
49—51. ἀπεθϑαύμασ᾽ , ἀπὸ with
sense of utterly, as in ὠπεχϑαίρω, ἀπ-
αναένομαι etc. ἔνδον, not gone forth;
her father, however, just going.
52--3. ἐσχάρῃ, the position was not
so much perhaps for warmth as for light:
see App. F. 2 (19) (20). — ἀλιπόρφυρα,
used only of the wool of the Phwa-
cians here and of that of the nymphs;
ἐξ the ἐοδνεφὲς εἶρος used by Helen
135); and applied to describe the
( of Polyphemus’ sheep (¢. 426).
In all these some thing rare or
marvellous is probably meant, as in
Virg. Bucol. IV. 45, Sponte sud sandyx
pascentes vestiet agnos. Through the
Phoenicians foreign dyes might have
become known to the Greeks, although
unskilled in the art, sufficiently for a
poetic purpose. So we have ἔόεις epi-
60
65
DAY ΧΧΧΙΙΙ.]
OATZZEIAE Ζ. s8—67.
217
ὑψηλὴν εὔκυκλον, ἵνα κλυτὰ εἴματ᾽ ἄγωμαι
ἐς ποταμὸν πλυνέρυσα." τά μοι ῥερυπωμέναν κεῖται;
καὶ δέ σοι αὐτῷ ἔοικε μετὰ πρώτοισιν ἐόντα
βουλὰς βουλεύειν καϑαρὰ Δ χροῖ εἴματ᾽ ἔχοντα.
πέντε δὲ τοι φίλοι υἷες ἐνὶ μεγάροιρ» γεγάασιν,
of δύ᾽ ὀπυίοντες .[ τρεῖς δ᾽ ἠΐϑεοιξ ϑαλέϑοντες"
οἵ δ᾽ αἰεὶ ἐϑέλουσι νεόπλυτα εἴματ᾽ ἔχοντες
ἐς χορὸν" ἔρχεσθαι" τὰ δ᾽ ἐμῇ φρενὶ! πάντα μέμηλεν."
αἴδετο γὰρ ϑαλερὸνΚ γάμον ἐξονομῆναι
πατρὶ φίλῳ ὃ δὲ πάντα! νόει, καὶ ἀμείβετο μύϑῳ
κι ” 9
ὡς épat °
58. Fecuar’.
60. ἔξοικε.
a ¢. 31 mar.
b ef. w. 115.
ς K. 147, 327.
dd. 750.
c x. ὃ.
Γ β. 207, δ. 798,
Ν. 2:19.
αὶ Δ. 8, 4.411; ef.
y. 401.
h Ir. 393, O. 508,
ΤΙ. 153, 5. 590,
82. 261; cf. ϑ.
260 —5 . 133—
and
i cf. T. 213.
k v. 74.
Ι o. 230.
61. 64. βείματ᾽.
60. ἐόντα Harl. et Schol. H. Vr. Wolf. Eustath., ἐόντι var. 1. Eustath. Barnes.
Ern. Cl. od. Ox.
απο
thet of iron, descriptive of its greyish-
“blue colour; for if among metals it
‘ haps ironically affirmative reply.
came nearest to a “violet”’ tint, that
would suffice for a poetic purpose; and,
iron once ἐόεξις, ἐοειδὴς πόντος &. 56
need cause no scruple.
54. βασιλῆας, so the suitors are
called βασιλῆες Azoarmy in α. 391.
57. πάππα, hence παππάξω (E. 408).
Ni. cites Aristoph. Pax 120 πάππαν
we καλοῦσαι. --- οὐχ ἂν x. τ. 1., see
mar, for places where the question
thus introduced requires an affirma-
tive, and where a negative, or per-
The
reading ἐφοπλέσσειαν probably arose
from a wish to be minutely in accord-
ance with the sequel in 71 foll, For
ἀπήνη 866 ON 37 sup.
60—5. For rhyming lines or mem-
bers of lines see Bek. Hom. Blatt. ch.
xvi and ¢. 114 mar. It is probable that
Η. neither studied nor avoided them.
Observe a poetic economy in male at-
tire being included in the errand, as
thereby Odys. is enabled to be clothed.
62. πέντε x. τ. λ., Nausicaa is sis-
terless: she is ‘all the daughters of
her father’s house’’, and is evidently
the cherished darling of the family.
Thus, on her return, her brothers at
once surround her and attend upon her
equipage, although the servants had
prepared her departure (69—71 inf,
cf. n. 4—6). Thus it was, too, that
the charge of linen for the household
devolved upon her exclusively, and the
. ἔχοντι Eustath.
64. νεοπλῦϑ᾽ Vr., ἐύπλυτα Bek. annot.
63. ‘Saléortes et τελέϑοντες Bek.
words ta δ᾽ ἐμῇ φρενὶ πάντα μέμη-
λὲν. state with something of humorous
gravity her sense of the cares of her
department, here made a maidenly pre-
text to veil the topic of the γαμος
(27 cf. 66). Perhaps the self-possessed
firmness which, under all its feminine
grace, lies at the core of her charac-
ter, has a subtle relation to her being
reared 80 largely in male society among
five brothers; just as, conversely, the
weakness of Dolon in Κ. has been con-
nected with the fact, αὐτὰρ ὃ μοῦνος
ἔην μετὰ πέντε κασιγνήτῃσι. K. 317.
63—5. ὀπυίοντες, always of the
husband. Ni. cites Aristot. Eth. Ni-
com. VII. 5 τὰς γυναῖκας, ὅτι οὐκ ὀπυί-
σιν ἀλλ ὁπυίονται, and 80 ὄπυι-
ομένη Θ. 304. — χορὸν, in mar. will
be found the leading passages relat-
ing to the dance, whether as an ele-
ment of worship, of artistic display
(as among the Pheeacians), or of re-
vel. One of these is reproduced in
Hy. Ven. 118-20. χορὸν probably
means the space or floor cleared for
dancing, as in &. 260 λείηναν δὲ yo-
ρὸν.
66—7. αἴδετο, this maidenly reti-
cence prevents Nausicaa’s words from
being a mere reproduction of those of
Pallas in the vision (as e. g. Agamem-
non’s are of those of the dream-god in
B. 60—70, cf. 23—4), and gives play
to the free, untrammelled cast of her
character. πάντα, including probably
the γάμος, which she had suppressed.
218
a ¢. 406, σ. 16, 15,
ΜΕΥ
bh o. δ, x. 320.
e €. 37 mar.
d 5. 57--".
e E. 744, N. 407,
=. 151.
OATZZEIAED Z. 68—81. [pay XXXII.
“οὔτε τοι ἡμιόνων φϑονέω." téxos, οὔτε τεῦ ἄλλου.
ἔρχευ-" ἀτώρ τοι ὅμῶες ἐφοπλίσσουσιν ἀπήνην "
ὑψηλὴν εὔχυκλον, ὑπερτερίῃ ἀραρυῖαν." ς 70
ὡς εἰπὼν Ouweoo! ἐκέκλετο. τοὶ δ᾽ ἐπίϑοντο.
οἵ μὲν ἄρ᾽ ἐχτὸς ἄμαξαν: ἐύτροχον ἡμιονείην
fv. 147.
g 2 1, 76. ὥπλεον, ἡμιόνους θ᾽ ὕπαγον" ξεῦξάν F ὑπ᾽ ἀπήνῃ.
; ty pil ὅς Τὰ xovon δ᾽ ἐκ ϑαλάμοιο φέρεν ἐσθῆτα φαεινὴν,
ry. we ,.: δαὶ τὴν μὲν κατέϑηκεν ἐϊξέστῃ; ἐπ᾽ ἀπήνῃ" 75
mv. 210. μήτηρ δ᾽ ἐν κέστῃ ἐτίϑει μενοεικέ᾽ ἐδωδὴν"
oN. 25, 2. 32; “παντοίην, ἐν δ᾽ bya! τίϑει, ἐν δ᾽ oivov™ ἔχευεν
ps ys ast, ἀσκῷ" ἐν αἰγείῳ" κούρη δ᾽ ἐπεβήσετ᾽ ο ἀπήνης.
ref. Yi Ἐ] -2 δῶκεν» δὲ χρυσέῃ ἐν ληκύϑῳ ὑγρὸν ἔλαιον,
ΓΕ ae, elas χυτλώσαιτο" σὺν " ἀμφιπόλοισι γυναιξίν.
ve Ait ἢ" δ᾽ ἔλαβεν μάστιγα" καὶ ἡνία" σιγαλόεντα,
1. fecrov.
68. οὐτέ τοι Harl. sed tev var. |. Scholl. Η. P.
73. ὥπλεον Vr. Barnes. Wolf. Bek. Dind.
ed. Ox. Fa.
Scholl. H. P., ita Harl.
(Buttm.) aut κοῦραι posceret, φέρειν Heidelb.,
νεέην cum var. |. jucovory [141].
Liéw., ὄπλεον Eustath. Ern. Cl.
stath., Aristuph.,
0. 33. 78. ἐπεβήσατ᾽ Harl. Vr.
χρυσέω Vr., δώκεν δὲ χρυσέη Harl.,
— -οο .- eee ee
69, 73- ἀπήνην, see On 37 sup.
70. ὑπερτερίῃ, this was perhaps
specially fastened on (ἀραρυϊαν) to
reccive the linen, as the πείρινς in Q.
297 πείρινϑα δὲ δῆσαν ἐπ᾽ αὐτῆς.
The schol. call it a πλένϑιον “plat-
form’’, or “‘tray’’, and describe it as
κε four- 'sqnare” and “fitted on to the
top’’ of the vehicle to receive bag-
gage. This seems to imply four wheels
to the carriage; the pair in front sup-
porting the sitters’ place, and that be-
hind the receptacle for baggage, in-
cluding here the κέστη, 76 inf.
72—s5. ἐκτὸς, “out of doors”, as
opposed to the collecting the linen
and provisions, which whould be done
indoors; cf. ἐκ ϑαλάμοιο. ἡμμιεόν., see
on δ. 636. — tv§éoro, Bekker’s read-
ing ἐυξέστη may be justified by such
instances as αἐγέδ᾽ ἀϑανάτην, Β. 447,
πύλῃς εὐποιήτῃσι, Ε. 466, πήρην ...
ἐυπλείην, ρ. 467.
76—80. μήτηφ, tle queen prepares
74. ξεσϑῆτα.
79. δῶκε δὲ χρῦσ
δώκε δὲ γρυσείη Barnes, Ern. Cl. ed. Ox.,
δῶκεν δὲ Ἰρυσέῃ Harl. Wolf.
76. pevoferxé .
72. ἡαιόνοιιν Eustath., nuco-
74. 15. φέρον κατέϑηκαν Eu-
a man. pri. quod κούρῃ, κούρης
mox oo Bek. et évésotar
Eustath. Flor. Lov.,
the provisions, the princess the wash-
linen, who also 253 inf. harnesses the
mules, and so in 7. 5, 6 the young -
princes cooperate: — a picture of pri-
mitive manners the more forcible, as
the Phawacians embody the Homeric
ideal of refined and luxurious life.
With this harmonious domesticity the
reading of Aristoph. of Byz., κούρη.
φέρον ... κατέθηκαν, would sadly in-
terfero.. With the ὄψα cf. the εἴδατα
πόλλ᾽ cf. a. 140, the ἐδωδὴ including
the σῖτος there. So the γυνὴ ταμίη puts
up σῖτον καὶ οἷνον ὄψα τε for Tele-
machus and Pisistratus when starting
for Sparta, y. 479—8o. — EWG, see on
δ. 800. — χυτλώσαιτο, “anoint after
bathing’’, is the explanation of the
Scholl. ; “this accounts for the secon-
dary meaning in Galen (Liddell and
S.), “to rub with @ mixture of water
and oil’’; for, if the body were still
wet when the oil was applied, such a
mixture would be effected.
81—4. σιγαλόεντα, sce on 26 sup.
85
go
DAY xxxu1.]
μάστιξενε δ᾽ ἐλάαν" xavayn” δ᾽ ἦν ἡμιόνοιιν᾽
at δ᾽ ἄμοτον τανύοντο," φέρον δ᾽ ἐσθῆτα καὶ αὐτὴν,
οὐκ! οἵην" ἅμα τῇ ye καὶ ἀμφίπολοι" κίον ἄλλαι.
αἵ δ᾽ ὅτε δὴ ποταμοῖο ῥόον περικαλλέ᾽
ἔνϑ᾽ ἡ τοι πλυνοὶϊ ἦσαν ἐπηετανοὶ,5 πολὺ δ᾽ ὕδωρ
καλὸν ὑπεκπρορέειν pada περ ῥυπόωνταϊ καϑῆραι,
Ev® αἵ γ᾽ ἡμιόνους piv ὑπεκπροέλυσαν ἀπήνης.
καὶ τὰς μὲν σεῦαν ποταμὸν! πάρα δινήεντα,
τρώγειν ἄγρωστιν μελιηδέα" ταὶ δ᾽ an’ ἀπήνης
εἴματα χερσὶν! ἕλοντο καὶ ἐςφόρεον μέλαν" ὕδωρ᾽
στεῖβον" δ᾽ ἐν βόϑροισιο ϑοῶς ἔριδαν προφέρουσαι.
go. μελιηδέα.
8). ὑπεκπροϑέει Vr.,
Schol. H.
— ἄμοτον tay. expresses the sus-
tained intensity of the effort in the
draught, not the rapidity of the pace,
which, as the handmaids accompanied
on foot was evidently slow. Thus we
have καναχὴ δ᾽ ny nu., as if substi-
tuted for the formula with horses, τὼ
δ᾽ οὐκ ἄκοντε πετέσϑην; sce γ. 484.
— ὄλλαι, sce a. 132 and notes on a.
sg and «. 105. ‘There is no further
mention of the daughter of Dymas,
who (see on 32 sup.) should have been,
and may be supposed to have been,
of the number.
84—126. Nausicaa with her attend-
ants, after reaching the river, des-
patch their laundry business, bathe,
dine and play at ball. An accident
in the game causes a sudden outcry,
which arouses Odys. Wondering where
he is, and what reception awaits him,
he resolves to explore for himself.
86. πλυνοὶ, those near Troy are de-
scribed (X. 153—5) As εὐρέες καλοὶ,
λαΐνεοι, oft εἵματα σιγαλόεντα πλύ-
νεσχον Τρώων ἄλοχοι. Fresh water
of course was preferable; cf. ποτα-
μοῖο ῥόον 85. — ἑπηετανοὶ expresses
the sustained supply, or continuous
oozing of the water into the πλυνοὶ,
see on δ. 89: the sequel, πολὺ δ᾽ ὕδωρ
καλὸν ὑπεκπ., then paraphrases the
OATZZEIAL Z. 82— 92.
mox ῤῥυπόεντα var. 1. Scholl. H. P.
89. τοὺς Eustath. Barnes, Ern. Cl., τὰς Harl. Vr. Wolf. ed. Ox.
ita Apollon. (teste Pors.), mox πάρα Arist.,
219
ay. 484.
b JT. 105, 791, T.
365.
ς ZT. 375; cf. 475.
dT. 601, α. 331
mar.
e Ζ. 399.
fC. 40, 31 mar.
gy. 217, δ. 88, ἡ.
128, 9. 233,
es
ἵκοντο,
h cl. εξ 83, 9. 125,
i ¥ MS. t. 72;
ef.
κα 342, Θ. 490,
φῦ. 206: cf. Υ΄ 73,
qd. 603,
1 9. 372, =. 373.
πὶ δ. 359 mar.
n Y. 499.
o Κ. 517, λ. 25, 90,
42, P. 58
p &. 7.
gi. Felpara.
88. ἁμάξης var. 1.
Schol. P.
epithet as in y. 383, @. 1, where see
notes. Ni. compares Hes. Opp. 517 éxn-
etaval τρίχες of sheep's ‘wool thickly
matted’’, This sense of continuity will
be found to suit the word, wherever
occurring in H. or elsewhere; as (Ni.)
in Pind. Nem, VI. 10 cornfields supply
βίον ἀνδράσιν ἐπηετανὸν πεδίων;
and so Theocr. XXV. 20, πλατάνιστοι
éxnetaval; cf. Cowper's ‘‘bound-
less continuily of shade’’, ‘he word is
not found in Il. πολὺ goes best as
predic. with vaexx., “oozes in plenty”.
88—91. ὑπεχπροέλυσαν, the ὑπὲκ
expresses the release from under the
yoke, the πρὸ the free action of the
mules when released. — ἄγρωστιν,
the ‘‘couch-grass’”’ (triticum repens Linn.,
see Dunbar Lex. App.), or, as it is
called in some parts of England the
‘squitch”. Theocr. XIII. 42 gives it
the epithet efditevne ‘spreading i in the
marsh’’, so here, on the river's brink.
Eustath, says it has diuretic proper-
ties. Billerbeck (Flor. Cl. p. 23) says
it is the Panicum dactylon Linn, ‘‘Agro-
5118) is the name of a large class of
grasses. ἐσφόρ. κι τ. Ay te. φόρεον
εἴματα εἰς μέλ. vd. --- μέλαν ὕδωρ,
see On 70 sup.
93—5. Dows qualifies στεῖβον, and
ἔριδα προῷ. resembles Virgil's fa-
220
aC 87 mar.; cf.
a τ|
ΟΔΥΣΣΕΙΑΣ Z, 93—102.
[DAY XxxIII.
9 a 9 4 ~ ’ ’ Ul ee ,
αὐτὰρ ἔπει πλῦναν TE καϑηρᾶαν TE ρυπαὴ παντα,
by. 292 mar. δ , , \ 9 C4 b ,
ς a. 433. ἑξείης πέτασαν παρὰ ϑῖν᾽ ἁλὸς, Hye” μάλιστα
d 3.398, 175] 1» , ,
cf, a. 402. λάϊγγας" ποτὶ χέρσον' ἀποπλύνεσκε ϑαάλασσα.
40. mar.; cf.
rash 57, 0. 116, B. ate δὲ λοεσσάμεναι καὶ χρισάμεναι λέίπ᾽ ἐλαίῳ
309, @. 53; ef.
A. ὃ ““|dstavov! ἔπειϑ᾽ εἴλοντο παρ ὄχϑῃσινξ ποταμοῖο,
g Σ. 539, 4. 475.| >>
hef, ¢ 213, 251, | εἵματα δ᾽ ἠελίοιο μένον τερσήμεναι αὐγῇ.
φ' ὃ lA o
i 9. os cf. η. αὐτὰρ ἐπεὶ σίτου τάρφϑεν" δμωαί τε καὶ αὐτη,
k α. 331 toni > Χρ᾽ ἡ πὴ , κ "σαι"
Ι - is6, 251, η.} σφαίρῃ' tact ἄρ᾽ ἕπαιξον, ἅπο xondeuvak βαλοῦσαι" 100
m δι 19, 3. 606. ἰτῇσι δὲ Ναυσικάα! λευκώλενος ἤρχετο μολπῆς."
de
λ. 172, 198, 0.
° fis; ch t 61. οἵη δ᾽ ἄρτεμις. εἶσι κατ᾽ οὔρεα" ἰοχέαιρα,"
υ. 11. ——
98. ξείματα.
95- ἀποπτύεσκε Harl. Vr, et duo Vindobb. MS. G. C. Ambros, B. Schol. V., ἀποπλύ-
DEOKE
DEORE Eustath. Heidelb. Ambros, var. l. Schol. B. ἀποπλύνεσκε Harl. mar., ano-
πτύνεσχε var. 1, Vindob.
96. γρισάμεναι Harl, Vr. Wolf., ἀλειψάμεναι Eu-
stath. Schol. V., χρισσάμεναι Barnes. Cl. ed. Ox,
99: dudes Harl. ex emend.
100, ταὶ δ᾽ Scholl. H. P. Ni. “3 γ᾽ Bek. Dind. Fa, τ΄ Eustath, Barnes. Ern. Cl.
Wolf. ed. Ox. Léw.
102. οὔρεος Harl. Eustath. Barnes. Ern. Wolf. et recentt.,
sed οὔρεα citat Heracl. Pontic. (Ern.) quod malunt Scholl. H. P.
vourite word certalin, as in ‘En. 11.
628 εἰ al. δύπα, metaplastic plur. of
δύπος, like κέλευθα, Avzva, κύκλα ete.
Jelf Gr. Gr. 8. 85 obs. 2.— ποτὲ χέρ-
σον, cf. (mar.) βοάᾳ ποτὶ χέρσον
“roars (as it rolls) ashore’’, 80 some
verb of motion might be easily under-
stood from ἀποπλυνεσκε, “was scour-
ing’’. μάλιστα indicates the prefer-
ence for that particular spot. To bring
out this notion more clearly in the ex-
pression itself Ni. would read ποτέχερ-
σον adj., but this seems needless.
96—9. Ain’ ἐλαίῳ, see on γ. 466.
— δεῖπνον, the mid-day meal, the sun
being high; cf. A. 86 and note on ὅ.
194. — μένον has at (96) for subject
better than efuata; although neut.
plur. nouns take pl. verb sometimes
in H., see on y. 298. The imperf. in
this and ἔπαιξον ... ἤρχετο (ro0—1)
appears to have its exact force. — av-
tag seems explanatory of μένον, ‘‘were
waiting, and so, when they had dined,
were playing’.
100. σφαΐρῃ, the men of the place
excel in a similar callisthenic exer-
cise — a touch of effeminacy (mar.).
Ni. finds fanlt with Athen. I. 25 (14) for
supposing that a dance here formed
part of the game, but surely μολπὴς
in τοί justifies the notion. Of the
readings here δ᾽, γ᾽, τ΄, the first is
cumbersome, the second imparts a
sharpness to the personality which
there is | nothing in the sense to re-
quire; t has therefore been restored,
to which the weight of authority also
seems slightly to incline. κρήδεμνα,
see on a. 334: these would have im-
peded freedom of movement.
102- 9. Virgil Ain. I. 498—502 has
borrowed this simile, exquisite as it
stands here, to adorn the view of Dido,
who there appears in the midst of her
princes, and in the heart of her capi-
tal, instans operi (the work of masons
and builders) regnisque futuris. All the
surrounding circumstances of the Vir-
gilian scene are entirely the reverse
of the Homeric, and there remains but
the solitary central image of the queen
-— a widowed queen too — on which
the simile may fasten. Indeed the
105
DAY XXxiII.]
ἢ κατὰ Τηΐγετον περιμήκετον" ἢ Ἐρύμανϑον,
τερπομένη καπροισιῦ καὶ ὠκείης ἐλαάφοισιν᾽
τῇ δέ ϑ᾽ ἅμα νύμφαι" κοῦραι Ζιὸς αὐγιόχοιο
OATZZEIAL Ζ. 103—105. Τα
εἴ. ε. 481.
υ Ε. 783, H. 251.
ce. 154, ν. 350, Ζ.
420; cf. δ. 752
mar.
105. τῇ δὲ ἅμα Eustath.
line which is the gem of the whole
passage here (108) is dropped by Vir-
gil as beside his purpose. Aul. Gellius
N. A. IX. 9 cited by Liéwe ad loc., simi-
larly reviews the Virgilian simile. He-
len and Penelopé are also likened ge-
nerally to Artemis in δ. 122, 0. 37, ΚΤ.
54. We have a glimpse of the Ho-
meric Artemis as “queen of the quarry”’
(πότνια ϑηρῶν) in ®. 470 foll., her
death-dealing power over women being
also alluded to (cf. 0. 410, 478, 6. 202
—4); and in E. 51 fol. she bestows
skill in the chase and the gift of a
‘‘dead shot’’, See further on &. 123.
Winckelmann on Ancient Art says of
Diana, p. 133, ‘her figure is lighter
and more slender than that of Juno
and even of Pallas. A mutilated Diana
would be as readily distinguishable
among the other goddesses, as she is
in Homer among her beauteons Oreads”’ ;
and mentions (note ibid.) a Diana in
the palace Colonna, ‘‘the wonderful
head of which is probably the most
beautiful of all the heads of this god-
dess now remaining. The features are
delicate, and of exeeeding beauty; her
bearing divinely lofty’’. Compare the
well-known Diane Chasseresse of the
Louvre,
102. κατ᾽ οὔρεα, the other reading
oveéog seems condemned by the accnu-
satives in the next line, which parti-
cularize the general expression of this.
The change to οὔρεος may be ac-
counted for by the probable anxiety
of certain critics about the hiatus, and
perhaps also the all-but homoiotelen-
ton of οὔρεα ἐοχέαιρα. The gen. too
is less proper, as it should mean ‘‘down
from’’ as in xad δὲ κάρητος in 230
inf. “down from the head’, and A. 44
Br δὲ κατ᾽ Οὐλύμποιο καρήνων, which
sense there is nothing in the thing
compared to require: cf. also ὦ. 485
κατ᾿ οὔρεα θῆρας ἐναίρειν. — ἰοχέ-
atgec, Doederl. 2065 justly prefers to
derive this from χέω: cf. ὃ. 590 βέλεα
χέοντο. For the ending cf. νέος νέαρος
véciga, μέγας μέγαρα μεγαίρω, which
seem to show that we need not sup-
pose with Doederl. -ἔξερα as in τεκνολέ-
tecga to have been the original, and
-ἕαιρα a later form based on a sup-
posed connexion with χαέρω.
103—4. Taygetus is the mountain
spine stretching down to the promon-
tory which parts the Messenian and
Laconian Gulfs, περεμήκετον, how-
ever, probably (cf. mar. περίμηκες
ὄρος) refers to height rather than ex-
tent. Erymanthus is the ridge between
Arcadia and Elis, χκάπροισι, the pro-
per appellative of the male, 2. 131,
sometimes added distinctively to vat,
to mean ‘“‘boar-pigs’’. ;
105—6. wvugepac, these in H. are
distinguished by name as Neiades, of
the springs, and Orestiades, of the
mountains (vy. 104, 348, 356, Z. 420).
Those of the zécea ‘‘fens’’ are not
distinctively named by him, as neither
are those of the ἄλσεα ‘groves’, T. 8.
Later writers, as Hesiod Theog. 363,
seem to include the τανύσφυροι Qxea-
νιναι among them, and the Hy. Ven.
264—72 has the elegant fable of the
Hamadryads. They all are imperso-
nations of the power of life and beauty
in God’s works: ‘“‘“— the poet's uplift-
ing and vitalizing process is every-
where at work. Animate nature is
raised even into divinity, and inani-
mate nature is borne upwards into
life’ (Gladst. ITI. iv. § ii. p. 423). His
idea disengages the life which we view
as bound up in nature, and gives it an
objective existence. So in Tennyson’s
Tatking Oak,
the days were bricf
Whereof the poet's talk,
When that which breathes within the
leaf
Could slip its bark and walk.
Yet in such passages as x. 350—1 and
in the Nymphs’ affiliation to Zcus (see
note on διεπετέος δ. 477), their cle-
mental relation is seen underlying the
poetical idea. Man abhorred the mo-
ral vacuum of an impersonal nature,
and peopled the scene about him
222
ΟΔΥΣΣΕΊΙ͂ΑΣ Ζ. 106—115.
a Θ. 559, A. τ, ἀγρονόμοι παίζουσι" γέγηθε" δέ τε φρένα Δητώ"
εἴ. N. 493.
b IT, 7%.
ς δ. 207 mar.
ἀ ζ. 22%. |
ea. 17, Z. ιν.
f 2. 277.
g δι. 252, α. 439, | 6
τ. 25-6.
h β. 352 mar.
i ζ. 142.
Ιπασάων δ᾽ ὑπὲρ ἥ ye κάρη" ἔχει ἠδὲ μέτωπα,
ῥεῖά τ᾽ ἀριγνώτη" πέλεται, καλαὶ δέ τε πᾶσαι"
Os ἢ γ᾽ ἀμφιπόλοισι μετέπρεπε παρϑένος ἀδμῆης.
| ἀλλ᾽ ὅτε δὴ ἄρ᾽ ἔμελλε πάλιν oixdvds νέεσϑαι ,-
fevtao’! ἡμιόνους πτύυξασάξ τε εἴματα καλὰ,
᾿ἔνϑ᾽" avr’ ἄλλ᾽ ἐνόησε ϑεὰ γλαυκώπις ᾿4ϑήνη.
ς Ὀδυσεὺς Eygoito, ἴδοι τ᾽ εὐωπιδαὶ κούρην.
la of Φαιήκων ἀνδρῶν πόλιν ἡγήσαιτο.
σφαῖραν ἔπειτ᾽ ἔρριψε μετ᾽ ἀμφίπολον βασίλεια"
110. «οἵκόνδε.
ι1ι. «είματα.
113. Fédou.
108. ῥεῖά r Arist. et pane omnes, Scholl. H. P. Wolf., ῥεῖα δ᾽ Eustath. Bar-
nes. Ern. Cl. ed. Ox.
inter lin.
with the reflex of his own conscious-
ness. Their cultus in Ithaca (v. 350,
ξ. 435, 0. 208—11, 240) perhaps im-
plies that in cvery region the local
nymphs were so honoured, ‘They at-
tend the divine synod of Olympus, and
assist mortal weakness or sympathize
with mortal sorrow. There is nothing
in Homeric mythology to correspond
to the Fauns and Satyrs of the old
Italian and later Greek: — a remark-
able testimony to the superior purity
of the Homeric conception, since this
unisexual idea opened no door to li-
centious imagery. A fragment of He-
siod CXXIX. ed. Gottling adds what
is perhaps the earlicst mention of the
Satyrs ,
ἐξ ὧν οὔρειαι νύμφαι Sead ἐξεγέ-
vovto,
καὶ γένος οὐτιδανῶν σατύρων καὶ
αμηχανοεργῶν.
Yet here, too, the epithets show that
impurity formed no part of the first
conception of the Satyrs. But see Hy.
Ven, 263. Another curious fragment
of Hesiod CLXIII ibid. computes the
duration of the nymphs’ existence as
10 times that of the phoenix, go times
that of the raven, 270 times that of
the stag, 1080 times that of the crow,
and 9720 times that of man; which
gives a greater intensity to the idea of
longerity than a mere statement of du-
ration without limit. Calypsd is called:
a νύμφη; not so Circé, who, as daugh-
110o—1. δή ow ξεύξεν Vr. et abest te.
Hunc v. apud Suidam corrupte citatum notat Pors.
προς
115. μετ᾽ Marl.
ter of the Sun-god, is δεινὴ Sea av-
δήεσσα, and has nymphs to attend on
her. — ἀγρονόμοι, some ancient cri-
tics made this word proparoxytone;
but the analogy of ἀνδροφόνος, vio-
τόμος εἰς. seems against this. γέ-
γηϑε δέ τε, in A. 683, where this
phrase recurs in a strictly similar con-
text, we have, owing to the tense being
past, γεγήϑει (here pres.): the δὲ also is
dropped, an example of the elasticity
of Homeric practice as regards particles.
, 107. ὑπὲρ ... ἔχει, in tmesis for
ὑπερέχει ‘exceeds’ (κάρη ηδὲ μέτωπα
being accus, of relation) or is, as we
say familiarly. ‘“‘a head taller’. Such
phrases as καλῇ te μεγάλῃ te, v. 289,
and εἶδός te μέγεϑος τε. £. 152, con-
stantly remind us that largeness of
scale was a constituent element of
beauty in the Greek ideal. Thus H.
elevates the goddess; conversely Pope,
to dignify the nymph, sinks the dis-
tinction in Windsor Forest,
“Scarce could the goddess from her
nymph be known,
But by the crescent and the gol-
. den zone.”’
110-1. δὴ ἄρ᾽, an unusual hiatus.
Cevgao’ ... atv§ada, the sequel 252
inf. shows that these actions were not
performed now, and that these parti-
ciples must therefore be closely com-
bined with νέεσθαι and subordinated
to ἔμελλε,
[DAY XxxIII.
110
115
DAY ΧΧΧΙΙ.]
ἀμφιπόλου μὲν ἅμαρτε," βαϑείῃ" δ᾽ ἔμβαλε δίνῃ"
αὖ δ᾽ ἐπὶ μακρὸν" aicar.
OATZZEIAE Ζ. 116—122.
223
--- ----.-......
a Ο. 430, “2. 491,
Θ. 119, @. 171.
ὃ δ᾽ &ygero4 δῖος Ὀδυσ- b &. 213, 239.
\ ᾿ς Θ. 160, X. 294.
σευς, d .. 187.
EEduevog δ᾽ ὥρμαινεο κατὰ φρένα καὶ κατὰ ϑυμόν t ν᾿ 200..2.
» 5 ~ . gid. 545, 4. 26, 144,
“a! wor ἐγὼ, τέων avre βροτῶν ἐςξ γαῖαν κάνω; 168, ¢. 202, η.
ἢ" ῥ᾽ οἵ γ᾽’ ὑβρισταί te καὶ ἄγριοι οὐδὲ δίκαιοι,
né φιλόξεινοι,, καί σφιν νόος ἐστὶ ϑεουδής;"
ὥς τέ μὲ κουράων ἀμφήλυϑε ϑῆλυς! airy,
193,
ἢ ει. 175-6, 9. 515
icf. Ζ. 15.
k τι 109, 361; εἴ,
ξ. 389, y. 39.
| 8. 467 mar.
116. ἔμβαλε Eustath. Harl. et Scholl. H. P. Q. Vr. Rom. Wolf., ἔμπεσε Bar-
nes. Cl. Ern. ed. Ox., mox Aduvy pro δένῃ Bek. annot.
Dee μ 9
122. αὕτη Harl. avt-
μὴ Scholl. V. et var. 1. Schol. P., avr Heidelb.
116. ἔμβαλε, the var. 1. ἔμπεσε
would involve a change of subject,
since by Homeric usage (mar.) ἅμαρτε
is to be referred to the person, not
the missile, Such a change is not,
however, uncommon in H., as in a.
69, 162; but the balance of authority
is decidedly in favour of ἔμβαλε; and
perhaps a remembrance of the ἔμπεσε
zovt@ found in @. 508, &. 50, 318, may
have beguiled some copyist here. The
Scholl., noticing the terseness of this
line, remark that βαϑεέῃ assists the
sense, as implying the probable loss
of the ball, and accounting for the
outcry in v. 117, by which Odys. is
roused. Eustath. has here an anecdote
that the poet Sophocles, who wrote a
satyric drama entitled Ναυσικάα or
the Πλύντριαι, himself performed Nau-
sicaa, and earned great applause by
his adroit ball-play. To the same ef-
fect speaks Athenzus I. p. 20e. A
single characteristic line of this drama
has been preserved by Pollux VII. 45,
πέπλους te νῆσαι νεοπλυνεῖς (λινογε-
veig ed. Bek.) τ᾽ ἐπενδύτας.
11g9—21. These lines form an Odys-
sean commonplace (mar.). The notions
of reverence for the gods and respect
to the stranger, the suppliant, etc. are
parts of one whole, and stand like the
‘first and greatest commandment of
the Law” with the ‘‘second like unto
it’’, in Homer’s ethical system. Thus
their insolent outrage to the wanderer,
and their neglect of the usual token of
piety at meals (see Gladst. II. p. 426)
complete the wickedness of the sui-
tors. Ni. observes that the word φι-
λόξεινος is not read in 1]., but that
the character is mentiuned (mar.) with
commendation there; and conversely
the Trojans, as the abettors of Paris’
outrage, regarded not the μῆνιν Ζη-
vos ξεινίου, N. 625. Buttmann shows
(Lexil, 65) that δέος is the second
part of ϑεουδής. He supposes df to
have been in the original root, as in
δὶς (i. ὁ. δύις = OFlg), and the fF lost
after δ to have been compensated by
v before it; whereas in the false ety-
mology from εἶδος (fesd.) the (ΓΕ would
impede the crasis.
122 foll. we, “ἴο such an extent”, i. e.
as to lead to the answer to his question
(119) suggested in the question of 125
inf. For ϑῆλυς with fem. noun see
on 0. 443. The false reading ἀστμὴ is
probably an echo of p. 369. Ni. and
Bek. rightly condemn 123 —4 a8 imped-
ing the sentence, and the latter as be-
traying, by its clumsy over-develop-
ment of the sense, the interpolator's
hand. Ni. rejects the explanation of
the Scholl. who take νυμφαῶν x. τ. A,
as interrogative, and similarly view 7
in 125 88 7 disjunctive, indicating the
alternative question, ‘‘or (if not to
nymphs) am I near to men?’’ But to
make vupgaoy x. τ. 1. a question, with
no particle or interrogative word to
lead up to it, is a strain on Homeric
language, in which questions are put
very plainly,.as in 120—1 here: nor
does the notion of their being possibly
nymphs suit that previous question in
120 -1.— For yugeq—aay see on 105 sup.
224 ΟΔΥΣΣΕΙΑΣ Ζ. 123—137.
[DAY XxXxIII.
8, 9. [νυμφάων," at ἔχουσ᾽ ὀρέων αἰπεινὰ" κάρηνα
doe 174.
ec uv. 53, 4. 337; cf.
καὶ πηγὰς ποταμῶν καὶ πίσεα ποιήεντα.)
ἡ νύ που ἀνθρώπων εἰμὶ σχεδὸν αὐδηέντων ;"
3.435, «. t—2.|CAA’ ἄγ᾽ ἐγὼν αὐτὸς πειρήσομαι ἠδὲ ἴδωμαι."
[ τ. 448, υ. 299, x.
326, φ. 6, Γ. 816,
g σ. 67 tS 410;
ὡς εἰπὼν ϑάμνων ὑπεδύσετο" δῖος Ὀδυσσεὺς,
ἐκ πυκινῆς δ᾽ ὕλης πτόρϑον κλάσε χειρὶ παχείῃ
ef. B.2 φύλλων, ὡς ῥύσαιτο περὶ χροὶ μήδεαξβ φωτός."
h 4.4
δ 290, P. 61,| BH δ᾽ ἵμεν ὥς τε λέων ὀρεσίτροφος, ἀλκὶ; πεποιϑὼς,, 130
j Ἐπ, Ν. “ι,} ὅς τ᾽ εἶσ’ ὑόμενος καὶ ἀήμενος," ἐν δέ of ὄσσε
δαίεται" αὐτὰρ ὃ βουσὶ μετέρχεται! 1) ὀΐεσσιν
ἠὲ μετ᾽» ἀγροτέρας" ἐλάφους" κέλεται δέ E γαστὴρ"
μήλων πειρήσοντα καὶ ἐς πυκινὸνν δόμον ἐλθεῖν"
:. ὃς Ὀδυσεὺς κούρῃησιν 1 ἐὐπλοκάμοισιν ἔμελλεν
Ἰμίξεσϑαι, γυμνός weg ἐών" χρειὼτ γὰρ ἵκανεν.
σμερδαλέος" δ᾽ αὐτῇσι φάνη κεκακωμένος! ἄλμῃ"
t ὃ. 754 mar.
ree
126. βέδωμαι.
123—4. [] Bek.
127. ξειπών. 131. fot.
126. ἄγε τῶν Bek. annot. ex Harl. ἀλλά ye τῶν.
133. £8.
127. ἐπεδύσατο
Harl., sed δ prius scripserat οἱ ἃ ex emend, ejusd. man., ὑπεδύσατο Vr. Scholl.
V. P. 131. & pro
6 omittebat Rhian., Scholl. H. P.
ed, Ox.
136. μέξασϑαι ed. Ox.
y Vr 132. αἴϑεται (fortasse glossa) Bek. annot., mox
mox βουσὶ μετέρχεται Eustath. Harl. Wolf.
, βουσὶν ἐπέρχεται Barnes. ΟἹ. Ern. 138.
ἐυπλοκάμῃσιν Bek. annot.
137. λευγαλέος οἱ Zenod. ἀργαλέος, utrumque male,
Scholl. H. P., σμερδαλέως var. 1. Ern.
ee reer A enna
- “αὐδηέντων, see On ξ, 334. — πξιε-
φρήσομιαι ἠδὲ ἔδ., for fut. followed
by subjunct in same clause see App. A.
9 (4)—(6); the “seeing’’ is a sequel to
the “trying’’.
127—8s. Odys. emerges from his co-
vert; the maidens shrink away, all
save Nausicaa, who, by grace of
Athené, unabashed confronts him. He
addresses her in a speech of refined
homage, and moves her pity by the
tale of his sufferings and by his for-
lorn appearance.
127, ὑπεδύσετο, the genitive θά-
μνωὼν is that of local removal, just as
the accus. (mar. δ.) is that of motion
towards.
130—4. The point of this simile,
which recurs with slight variation
(mar.), seems to be, that the hero
moves forth from his covert with for-
lorn desperation, heedless whom or
what he may encounter, even as the
hungry lion endures wind and rain,
and all prey, wild or tame, comes
yr.) CUS ἱμὰς Ads be foe “ LAC YS WO γί.
(. καὶ alt id rr an oe
alike to him. Further, the effect pro-
duced on the maidens resembles that by
the lion on the animals. The constancy
of Nausicaa alone is not included in
the simile. The simile dignifies a
passage which seems to us perhaps to
need such relief, but nothing in the
whole context is more remarkable
than the simple and unruffled gravity
of its tone. No later poet could have
attempted such a scene save in the
Satyric vein, as indeed Sophocles in
his Πλύντριαι, (see on 115—6 sup.)
it seems, did. ἄήμενος, Ni. remarks
that ato occurs with passive sense
(mar.), and so perhaps ἄηται in Pind.
Isthm. II. 27. — μετ᾽... ἐλάφους,
for accus. with μετὰ “among”, see on
ὃ. 652: μετέρχομαι in sense of ‘pur-
suing’’, like μετοέχομαι, takes properly
an accus., see y. 83, Z. 280. The sense
accordingly here is that of ‘coming
among’’; and this makes the change
to the accus. more remarkable. It is
doubtless metri gratid, since the epic
cle 2 ¢
7. e Cray . 134
145
150
DAY XXxIIi.]
OATZZEIAL Ζ. 138—1582.
225
τρέσσαν δ᾽ ἄλλυδις" ἄλλη ἐπ᾽ ἠιόνας προὐχούσας"
οἴη δ᾽ ᾿Δλκινόου ϑυγάτηρ μένε" τῇ γὰρ ᾿4ϑήνη
140 ϑάρσος" ἐνὶ φρεσὶ ϑῆκε καὶ ἐκ δέος εἴλετο- γυίων.
στῆ δ᾽ ἄντα σχομένη᾽ ὃ δὲ μερμήριξεν Ὀδυσσεὺς" | « @. 235
a A. 145, a. 369
d cf. P. 167, Ψ,
686
ἢ γούνων λίσσοιτο λαβὼν εὐώπιδαξ κούρην, εἴη δ, =
ἡ αὕτως" ἐπέεσσιν! ἀποσταδὰ μειλιχίοισιν G6 a. 42,
λίσσοιτ᾽, εἰ δείξειε! πόλιν καὶ εἵματαῖ δοίη. OF FM,
ὡς" ἄρα of φρονέοντι δοάσσατο κέρδιον εἶναι, 1 338, $96
λίσσεσθαι ἐπέεσσιν» axoorada? μειλιχίοισιν, neg τοῦτ
un of γοῦνα λαβόντι χολώσαιτο φρένα κούρη. Ὁ ©
αὐτίκα μειλέχιονι καὶ κερδαλέον φάτο μῦϑον .
“vovvoupatl’ σε, ἄνασσα" ϑεός" νύ τις ἢ βροτός éoor; | y
εἰ" μέν τις ϑεός ἐσσι τοὶ" οὐρανὸν εὐρὺν ἔχουσιν," |»
᾿“ρτέμιδί δε ἐγώ γε. Ag” κούρῃ μεγάλοιο,
εἶδός" τὲ μέγεθός τε φυήν τ᾽ ἄγχισταν ἐϊσκω"
143. 146. ξεπέεσσιν.
152.
ee .......
141, ἄντα σχομένη Eustath. Heidelb. Ambros. Wolf., ὦντα-
143. αὕτως Heidelb. Eustath. edd. preter
140. γύων Harl.
σχομένη Barnes, Cl. Ern. ed. Ox.
144. ξεέίματα.
εἶδος Fefiono.
145. 147. fot. 149. Favacoa.
ee ee
L. (Ern.) Bek. Fa. Ni. (laudans Thiersch. § 198. 5), αὕτως Barnes. Cl, Ern.
Wolf. Dind. Liw., mox ἐπισταδὰ Bek. annot.
Bek. Dind.
Eustath. Barnes. Ern. Cl. Wolf. ed. Ox.
152. eloavta ἐΐσκω Vr.
pectum fuisse notant Scholl. H. P., [ |
ἢ Ascalonites, Schol. P., Bek. Fa., 7
Dind. Léw.
form of dat. plur, would be ἀργοτέρῃσι
ἐλάφοισι. — σμερδάλεος, this keeps
up the moral attitude, which the si-
mile at first gave.
138. τρέσσαν, ““τρεῖν est fugere non
tremere’’. Lcehrs p. 91.
141—3. ἄντα is best joined with
στῆ, but might (mar.) go also with
σχομένη. σχομένη, “checking
herself” (from flight). γούνων, de-
pends on λαβών. — αὕτως, ‘as he
was’’, see on ὃ, 665.
144—8. εἰ, “Sto try if she would”.
δοάσσατο, sce on Year’ inf. 242. —
κερδαλέον, the sense of ‘‘winning”,
from κέρδος suits well enough as se-
conding μειλέχιος ; so in 0. 451 κερδα-
λέον is exactly the North-country word
‘‘winsome’’,
150—6. ϑεός ἐσσι, τοὶ, for plur.
HOM. OD, 1.
144 abundare et Athenocli sus-
149. θεός νύ τοι Vr., mox
——
relative following a sing. antecedent
806 on &. 438. — Διὸς κούρη μεγά-
Adoto is a phrase elsewhere applied
to Athené (mar). The nymphs are also
collectively called κοῦραι Δεὸς 105 sup.
With this address of that cf. Anchises
to Aphrodité, Hy. Ven. 92 foll., χαῖρε
ἄνασσ᾽, ἥτις μακάρων x. τ. 4. — μέ-
γεϑος, sce 107 sup. and note there.
The well-known passages from Virg.
En, I. 331 foll. 606 are cited by Er-
nesti, as also Musseus Hero et Lean.
138 ὄλβιος ὅς σ᾽ ἐφύτευσε, καὶ ὀλβέη
ἡ τέκε μήτηρ, γαστὴρ ἢ σ᾽ ἐλόχευσε
μακαρταάτη; and by Ni. and Liwe Ov.
Metam. IV, 322—4 Qui te genuere beati,
Et frater felix, et fortunata profecto Si
qua tibi soror est, et qu@ dedit ubera
nutric. That the strain of feeling was
not confined to the gentile world is
15
Ἢ
+o Wh
12, Paw
“.“ δᾶ
1 We nar
of SR Ete
a. R-" me
τ ; τ΄.
"of * [ay
7“ KH ner
a 4 oU7t mee.
. fog. kh 34 mar
a 9 tH »
vA
ἢ. ΚΣ war +
J 3h 12.
mS ᾿ΦΊ mar of
WW 15.
1 7 th, B49
“Ὁ in
νῷ 17% Zn τ
1% ἃ P4534
» BK Av, of. .
114 J 77. δ΄ the,
I. φι ΖΣ. 65.
17 4. A ISS.
ra. TU, «. 10.
Σ. 1%
4 1%
139. ἐξέδνοισι Γοϊκόνδ᾽.
OSTSSEIL~ Z. τς;--τάς.
ΒΑῪ xxx]
a ἧξ tc; 2am φυτῶν τοὶ ἐξὶ poo ναϊιεταοιῖσιν.
τοὶ; αἀαπαρε:" ακὲν Go γὲ TETYS’ ταὶ πύτνια κήτηφ.
To; πάχαφες" δὲ χασιφνητοι. Behe ποτ ὅφισι ϑυιμὸς |;
αἷὲν ἐξφφησενησιν ἰκισεται' civexe δεῖο.
ἀευσσόντων" τικονς θάλος χοφὸν εἰςοεχνεῖσαν.
᾿ χξῖνης δ΄ et περὶ πῆρε παχέφτατος ἔξοχον. ἄλλων,
ἧς χέ σ᾽ ἐέδνοισε ἀφέσα: οἶχονὸ᾽ αἀγαάγπται.
οὐ γάρ πῶ τοεοῖτον ἴϑδον- βφοτον οᾳϑαξςκοῖδιν.
ott τ ἄνδρ᾽ οἵτε γτνεῖχα- 6éSe: κ᾽ ἔχει εἰ:ορόωντα.
Ζήλῳ ϑή ποτε τοῖον ᾿Ιπολλωνο:" παρὰ pose
φοένιχος νέον ἔρνος ' ἐνεφχζόαενον ἐνόησα"
ἠάϑον γὰρ καὶ χεῖσε. πολὺς» δέ ποι ἔσχετο λαὸς.
(τὴν ὁδὸν" ἥ δὲ ἔμελλεν ἐμοὶ χακὰ- κήδε᾽" ἔσεσθαι. ὃ τί
160. τοὲον εἶδον.
"45. εἰ δ' an γε βροτῶν ἐσσὶ bro γ᾽ ἐσσι βροτῶν. mendose, quoniam βροτὸς a
ο
man. pri. βφοτῶν ex emend.
gata pro var. |. nisi qnod of pro τοί.
8, 306.
ἢ 154—5- τρισ'
13h. ἐν εὐφροσύνησιν var. 1. Scholl. P. Q.
ἀρούρης κάρπον ἔδουσι Harl. sed in mar. vul-
μαπαρὲς omnes, sed vide ad
160. τοσοῦτον ἴδον ἐγὼν
‘mendose pro ἐγὼν ἴδον) Harl. sed ἐγὼν diverso atramento et ex emend. τοῖον
εἾϑον βροτὸν ‘salva £, Bek. landans Schol. ad a. 1. p. 8 16.
Marl,
fometo var. \. ἔπλετο Schol. E.
164. καὶ κεῖδε
oMl., κάκεϊῖσε Eustath. Schol. H. Barnes. Ern. Cl. ed. Ox., mox pro
165. ἣ Eustath. Barnes. Cl. Ern. ed. Ox., ἢ
Vr. et Harl. ex emend. Wolf., mox μέλλεν Heidelb. et Harl. ex emend.
elear from the benediction pronounced
in 8! Matt. XVI. 26.
147--y. λουσσόντων, for the ana-
eolathon apparent on comparing this
with opie in 18g see examples in mar.,
and οἵ, Jelf Gr. Gr. § 710 Obs.—The
fem, elaoyvevoay is by a constraction
κατὰ σύνεσιν, cf. Hy. Ven. 272, τὸν
μὲν ἐπὴν .... ἴδῃς θάλος. Ni. also
clten Kurip. Hacch, 1307—8 Paley, τὸ
δ᾽ fgvog κατθανόντα and the more re-
motely illustrative passage uw. 74—5
vewbhy δέ μιν ἀμφιβεβήκειν κυανέη"
τὸ μὴν ob ποτ᾿ ἐρωεῖ, in which τὸ
acomns to suppose νέφος as having pre-
coded, For wegl κῆρε see on ε. 36.
or éédvotde seo App. A. 14. Ni. says
that according to Hellanicus and Ari-
atotlo the “happy man" of 158 was
Telomachua; but see on 7. 464. βρέ-
OG, , breponderating in gifta’’, Lowe
an} BelGo in H. is always
ar.).
162—5-. Voss (cited by Ni.) says in
his WMythol. Br. Part ΠΙ p. 108 that
‘tin Agamemnon's time Delos had for
sea-voyagers the most frequented oracle
of Apollo, as Pytho for land-travellers’’.
The Scholl. suppose that the tree in-
tended was that under which in Delos
Leto bare Apollo (Hy. Ap. Del. 18, 117);
but νέον... ἀνερχόμενον clearly means
a tree which was still a sapling at
the time of Odysseus’ visit, Cf. The-
ognis 5—6, Φοῖβε ἄναξ, ore μέν σε
Gea τέκε πότνια Λητὼ, golmxos ῥα-
δίνης χερσὶν ἐφαψαμένη. Liwe cites
Enripid. Hec. 458, ἔνϑα πρωτόγονός τε
φοῖνιξ δάφνα τ᾽ ἱεροὺς ἀνέσχε Aatot
φίλᾳ πτόρθους ὠδῖνος ἄγαλμα δίας.
Cf. Euripid. Jon gtg foll., 79». Taur.
1100 foll. in both of which the olive
and the palm are combined. Cicero
de Legg. 1. 1 says, Quod Homericus { {ἰ-
xes Deli se proceram et teneram palmamn
vidisse dixit, hodie monstrant eandem:
τί
170 χϑιξὸςΓ ἐεικοστῷ φύγον" ἥματι οἴνοπα" πόντον"
.)
DAY ΧχχΙΠ.]
ὡς δ᾽ αὕτως καὶ κεῖνο ἰδὼν, ἐτεϑήπεα" ϑυμῷ
δήν"υ ἐπεὶ οὔ πω τοῖον ἀνήλυϑεν ἐκ δόρυ γαίης,
ὡς σὲ, γύναι, ἄγαμαί τε τέϑηπά τε, δείδιάς τ᾽ αἰνῶς
γούνων ἄψασϑαι" χαλεπὸν δέ μὲ πένϑος" ἱκάνει.
τόφρα δέ μ᾽ αἰεὶ xduai φόρει κραιπναίν τὲ ϑύελλαιὶ!
ΟΔΥΣΣΕΙΑΣ Ζ. 166—179.
4
227
δω. 90, 391—2;
ς . 105.
e A. 251; cf. . 41,
σ. 274, a. 451, B.
1.
f β, 262, μ. 451,
ea
[8 “- 446.
ἢ α. 183 mar.
νήσου" ἀπ᾽ Qyvyins: νῦν δ᾽ ἐνθάδε κάββαλεν" δαίμων, |i «. 111 mar.
ὔὕφρ᾽ ἔτι που καὶ τῇδε πάϑω κακόν.
k ὁ. 385.
} YO Obi Ld. 3 ef
οὐ. γὰρ ὀΐω ὁ. 515 mar.; ¢
mar.,
, , πὶ α. 85 .
παύσεσϑ᾽ " ἀλλ᾽ ἔτι πολλὰ ϑεοὶν τελέουσι πάροιϑεν." 24, 244, ψ. 335.
Ὦ ci. ° .
ἀλλὰ, ἄνασσ᾽," ἐλέαιρε" σὲ γὰρ κακὰ πολλὰ" μογήσας,
ἐς πρώτην (xdpny: τῶν δ᾽ ἄλλων οὔ τινα oida
ἀνθρώπων οἵ τήνδε πόλιν" καὶ γαῖαν ἔχουσιν. t
ἄστυ" δέ μοι δεῖξον, δὸς δὲ ῥάκος" ἀμφιβαλέσϑαι,
εἶ τί που εἴλυμα σπείρων" ἔχες ἐνθάδ᾽ ἰοῦσα.
166. Fedor.
170. ἐξεικόστῳ οίνοπα.
o γ. 21, ὅδ. 754, 2.
101, ν. 324, π.
372, φ. 91.
x ὃ. 245 mar.
es ee . τὐσαὰ,
175. favaco. 176. foida.
178. Faorv.
171, τόφρα δέ we μέγα Vr.
so Pliny (N. H. XVI. 99, 44), Nec
non palma Deli ab ejusdem dei arlate
conspicitur; by all which passages we
may understand that there was always
a sacred palm cherished in Delos. We
may compare the olive-trees on the
Mount of Olives and other sacred trees
in Palestine (Dean Stanley, Sinai and
Pal. p. 141 foll.). Ni. remarks that no
trace of any locality being honoured as
the birth-place of a god occurs in H.
167—70. δόρυ, here bears the sense
(rare in H.) of “tree’’ πένϑος is ex-
plained in 17o—2: render éxavee “is
come upon me”’. φύγον, “I escaped,
was quite of”’.
173-7. ὄφρ᾽ ἔτι x. τ. λ., he pleads
not only what he has suffered but what
he expects to suffer, and alleges the
172. μ᾽ ἤγαγε δαίμων var. 1. e Scholl. H. P. Q.
collegit Pors. sed dubium an vere, xeuBade Harl. Bek.
bros. (3) Harl. sed παύσεσϑ᾽ ex emend. ejusd. man.
174. παύσασϑ᾽ Am-
178. ἄστυ ce Harl.
eet oe = ee ee -ς-..ς...-..-.
infliction as from the gods, to move
the sympathy of man. — τελέουσιν is
fut. and πάροιϑεν means “here af-
ter’’; more commonly words connected
with priority refer to past time in H.,
those with posteriority to the future,
80 ἅμα πρόσσω καὶ ὀπίσσω; see on β.
270. — ἄνασσ᾽, this title is equally
applicable to a divine and to a human
being, thus he sustains the tone of his
exordium in 149 sup.
178—g9. Odys. seems designedly to
ask the least possible favour at his
first overture; a hope of more solid
benefit is subsequently held out to him
unasked in 289—g0. Thus the due de-
licacy on his part who sceks, draws
forth generosity on hers who shews
the kindness — a bright instance of
the refined standard of heroic manners.
15*
a
228
OATZZEIAZ Z. 180-191.
[DAY XXxIII.
am US, δ 41, σοὶ δὲ ϑεοὶ" τόσα δοῖεν ὅσα φρεσὶν" σῇσι μενοινᾶς"
b β. 34 mar.
ἄνδρα τε καὶ οἶκον, καὶ ὁμοφροσύνην - ὀπάσειαν ἃ
oo δ: | σϑλήν" οὐς μὴν γὰρ τοῦ ye κρεῖσσον καὶ ἄρειον,
dy. 45.
ecf. ε. 5—86,
509—10.
f ef. ¢. 181 mar.,
γ. 127-9, XZ: 263.
gef. ©. 51.
h cf. N. 734, A.
218.
i ¢. 101 mar.
κυ. 227; cf. a. 411.
| ἢ 88 ὁμοφρονέοντε" νοήμασιν οἶκον ἔχητον
ἀνὴρ ἠδὲ γυνή" πόλλ᾽ ἄλγεα δυςμενέεσσιν,ξ
χάρματα δ᾽ εὐμενέτῃσι μάλισταν δέ τ᾽ ἔκλυον
αὐτοί.»
Ψ , - ’
τὸν δ᾽ av Navoixdai λευκώλενος ἀντίον ηὔδα
“ξεῖν᾽, ἐπεὶ οὔτε κακῷ
fd
ovr ἄφρονι φωτὶ ἔοικας —
Ι δ. 237, Ὡ. 521} Ζεὺς! δ᾽ αὐτὸς νέμει ὄλβον Ὀλύμπιος ἀνθρώποισιν,
seqq.
m 42. 530, 0. 483;
εἴ. 1. 31
ἐσθλοῖς"" ἠδὲ κακοῖσιν, ὅπως ἐθέλῃσιν, ἑκάστῳ"
ny. 208, 7. 307, v. καί πού σοι τά γ᾽ ἔδωκε, σὲ δὲ χρὴ τετλάμεν"» ἔμπης ---
ο t. 177 mar.
181. 183. οῖκον.
se ee
187. FéFounag.
180. φρεσὶν yor Bek. annot. fortasse ex B. 34.
ἔκλυον Eustath., δέ te κλύον Ambros. (1) (3) Heidelb.
viv δ᾽, ἐπεὶ ἡμετέρην τὲ πόλινο καὶ γαῖαν ἰχάνεις.
eee eee .....
.»----- «“«-».....-.-----.. “ὄ«
189. «ξεκάστῳ.
182. τοῦδε Vr.
185. δ᾽
187. ἐπεὶ οὔτι Vr.
190. τάδ᾽ Harl. ex emend. ejusd. man. Barnes. Ern. Bek. Cl. ed. Ox., τά γ᾽ Eu-
180—5. This propitiatory peroration
resembles that with which Agyptius
concludes his opening speech in the
Ithacan Assembly (B. 33—4). In the
petition of Chryses (4. 18—g) such a
phrase forms the prelude. It here de-
rives extra force from the mention of
ϑεοὶ in 174 sup., “may the gods, who
afflict me, give every blessing to you!”
182—4. With this noble maxim cf.
Eurip. Med. 14,
meg μεγίστη γίγνεται σωτηρία
Otay γυνὴ πρὸς ἄνδρα μὴ διχο-
στατῇῃ.
18s. ἔχλυον, this verb does not
seem to bear in H. the sense, ‘‘to hear
one’s self spoken of”, or μάλιστα κλύ-
εἰν would be closely parallel to the ev
or κακῶς ἀκούειν of later Greek. It
seems to mean here not the outward
sense but the inward recognition; cf.
Tennyson Lotus Eaters, “ΝΟΥ listen
what the inner spirit sings.’’ Its ob-
ject doubtless is the ὁμοφροσύνη it-
self. ‘Strong as is the testimony of
enemies and friends, they themselves
feel it most profoundly of all.” Yet
this is an unusual sense of ἔκλυον, and
so slight a change in the ms. would
convert αὐτῶν or αὐτοῖν into αὐτοὶ
that it seems likely one of them may
be the true reading, which would fur-
stath. Wolf. Dind. Fa. Low.
a ce ...
nish a more effective close — ‘‘men
listen most to them,”’ %& e. unanimity
begets influence: cf. τῆς μάλα μὲν
κλύον, 247 inf.
186—246. Won by tho entreaty of
Odys. Nausicaa promises relief and ἀο-
clares her parentage, people and coun-
try. She then recalls her handmaids
from their needless flight, and bids
them succour the stranger, whom they
then assist to dress and bathe, FIc ac-
cepts their services with due reserve.
Meanwhile Pallas confers on his outer
man the comcliness of youth, until it
is Nausicaa’'s turn to ire.
187. The sense is suspended from
ἐπεὶ ... ἔοικας to νῦν δ᾽ in 191.
187—90. To the same purport speaks
Helen in δ. 236—7, where see note.
The sentiment, however, here arises
directly from the facts: — his misfor-
tunes need not dotract from his merit,
since Zeus bestows his blessing with-
out regard to character. The only dif-
ference is that in the man of merit
misfortune draws forth fortitude; cf.
Theogn. 444—6, 1162—4, ἀϑανάτων
δὲ δόσεις παντοῖαι ϑνητοῖσιν ἐπέρ-
ovt’* ἀλλ᾽ ἐπιτολμᾶν χρὴ δώρ᾽
ϑανάτων, οἷα δίδουσιν ἔχειν, Sophoc,
Trachin. 129—30, ἀλλ᾽ ἐπὶ πῆμα καὶ
χαρὰ πᾶσι κυκλοῦσιν.
rf
1f
DAY XXXIII.|
οὔτ᾽" οὖν ἐσθῆτος δευήσεαι οὔτε τευ ἄλλου,
ὧν ἐπέοιχ᾽ ἱκέτην" ταλαπείριον ἀντιάσαντα."
ἄστυ! δέ τοι δείξω, ἐρέω δέ τοι οὔνομα λαῶν.
195 Φαίηκες μὲν τήνδε πόλινο καὶ γαῖαν ἔχουσιν,
εἰμὶ δ᾽ ἐγὼ ϑυγάτηρ' μεγαλήτορος ’AAxtvdoro ,
(rob δ᾽ ἐκ Φαιήκων ἔχεται κάρτοςξ τε βίη τε.)
ἢ ῥα, καὶ ἀμφιπόλοισιν" ἐὐπλοκάμοισι κέλευσεν
ἐστῆτέ μοι, ἀμφίπολοι" πόσεϊ φεύγετε φῶτα ἰδοῦσαι;
200 ἢ! μή πού τινα δυςμενέων φάσϑ᾽ ἔμμεναι ἀνδρῶν;.
ovx™ ἔσϑ᾽ οὗτος ἀνὴρ διερὸς βροτὸς, οὐδὲ" γένηται,
192. εσϑῆτοςς. 193. ἐπέξοικ᾽.
200. φᾶσθ᾽ Eustath, var. 1. Scholl. H. Q.
OATZZEIAL Z. 192—201.
ere cee cee ce en ..-....-.. ἰὶἢά.ἅ.... . -- -..ο...-..-.-.
194. ξάστυ ἐξερέω.
220
ἃ ἔ. 510—1.
b η. 24, ρ. 84, τ.
dio. "
ς ef. η. 293, φ. 402,
2. ὍΣ. ?
d ζ. 178,
e C. 177.
f ¢. 17 mar.
gd. 415.
ἢ . 238, XK. 442.
i IT. 422.
k 9. 144.
ιε. 405—6.
m ef. w. 187.
nz. 437; cf. A.
262.
————
199. «ἰδοῦσαι.
zo1. δυερὸς Callistratus, Scholl.
E. H. P. 9. T., dtegog Aristar. Schol. H.
ee eee
191. πόλιν is inserted by anticipa-
tion, and implics assent to his request
ἄστυ δέ μοι δεῖξον in 178.
193. ἀντιάσαντα, Ni. thinks this a
participle for infin, referring to Mat-
thie p. 1091. Jelf. Gr. Gr. § 691 obs.
2. prefers supplying μὴ δεύεσϑαι after
ἐπέοικε, to govern wy; this requires us
to render ἀντιάσαντα, ‘having met
(some one)’’, as in ». 312. The other
construction would require the sense
of ‘to obtain”, as in A. 66—7 εἴ κέν
πως ἀρνῶν κνίσης αἰγῶν te τελείων
βούλεται ἀντιάσας ... ἀμῦναι.
. 19]. €% governs τοῦ. Ni. thinks this
a reason for giving it the acute accent
(ἔκ); but the consensus of editors is
against him, since δ᾽ intervenes.
199—200. πόσε Pevy., the question
implies that flight is absurd; the ans-
wer implied being, ‘“‘you need not flee
any whither.” yey, for this conjunction
with questions where the verb is in-
dic. see App. A. 9 (5).
201. οὗτος x. τ. Δ. The word δὲε-
ρὸς, and perhaps βροτὸς also, is doubt-
less corrupt here. We need for ἀνὴρ
some predicate corresponding in sense
to δυσμενὴς, 80 that, “this man is not
one whom you need dread’’, is the
sense required, carrying on the rebuke
of πόσε φεύγετε. A colon at βροτὸς
would exhibit this better, and that
stop was read by Voss, see on διερὸς
below. As the text stands, our only
chance seems to be to take 202—3 as
far as φέρων, as a completion of the
subject: — “that man who would come
to the Ph, land with hostile purpose
is not a living mortal, nor can be’’,
But I cannot believe that H. wrote
this. To interpose the predic. and then
go back to complete the subj. by a fur-
ther clause, is a departure from his
usually direct style. Assuming, how-
ever, this sense, the words “living
mortal’, so taken, give force to the
manner of stating, although they add no-
thing positively to the statement: and
the vechemence so imparted shows the
feeling of the speaker, viz. triumphant
assurance, a8 in saying, ‘the man
breathes not on the face of the earth’’,
instead of simply ‘‘is not’. In the
somewhat similarly worded ἀνδρῶν δ᾽
οὔ κέν tig ζωὸς βροτὸς ... ῥεῖα μετ-
οχλήσειεν ψ. 187, ξωὸς βροτὸς is part
of the subject and the passage is no
true parallel to the present. So also
in 2. 437—8 οὔκ ἐστ᾽ οὗτος ἀνὴρ, οὐδ᾽
ἔσσεται, οὐδὲ γένηται, ὃς x. τ. ἃ. ἃ
sentence modelled somewhat similarly,
the predicate is contained in οὔκ ἐστι
which precedes the whole; there is,
however, a similar extension of the
subject in og x. τ. A.
διεφὸς means originally “moist”,
as shown in Hes. Opp. 460 αὔην καὶ
διερὴν, ‘dry and moist’’, Pind. Fragm.
44, 11 νότιον θέρος ὕδατι faxdte διε-
οὖν: hence, referring perhaps to the
blood, as fluid in life, congealed in
death, it means “‘living’”’ or “‘lively’’,
as in διερῷ ποδὲ, ε. 43, == ‘with all
fo - «-
μια.
Ὦ ὃ. 443 mar.
_——.:.
eee . —
203. φέλοι ἀνθρώποισι edd. preter Rom. male (Ern.).
Beotmy Eustath. Harl. Rom., cf. ad 153 sup. 207. τῷ
Flor. Ald. Lov. Steph.,
Vr. male (Ern.), supra τὸν νῦν script. Callistratus τῷ μὲν, Hari.
OATZTZBIAL Z. 202-- 210.
ὅς κεν Φαιήκων ἀνδρῶν ἐς γαῖαν" ἵκηται,
δηιοτῆτα péowy: μάλα γὰρ φίλοι" ἀϑανατοισιν.
οἰκέομεν: δ᾽ ἀπάνευϑε πολυκλύστῳ ἐνὶ πόντῳ,
ἔσχατοι," οὐδὲ τις ἄμμι βροτῶν ἐπιμίσγεταιϊ ἄλλος.
η. ἀλλ᾽ ὅδε τις δύστηνος ἀλώμενοςξ ἐνθάδ᾽ χάνει,
᾿Ιτὸν νῦν χρὴ κομέειν πρὸς" γὰρ Διὸς: εἰσιν ἅπαντες"
ξεῖνοί τε πτωχοί τε, δόσις δ᾽ ὀλίγη τὲ φίλη τε.
Τ᾿ ἀλλὰ δότ᾽,! ἀμφίπολοι, ξείνῳ βρώσίν" τε πόσιν τε,
λούσατέ τ᾽ ἐν ποταμῷ, ὅϑ᾽ ἐπὶ σκέπας" ἔστ᾽ ἀνέμοιο.
204. ἐοικέομεν.
[DAY xXXuII.
a
205. βροτὸς var. |.
aid. t Hari.
Wolf,, δ᾽ Eustath. Barnes, Cl. Ern. ed. Ox.
--- ..ο-.ς-.-.---.-.-.-..
speed” (cf. the word ‘‘quick” in its
two senses); although possibly that may
refer in a literal sense to escape by
sea (the liguido pede of Lucret. VI. 638).
The reading of Callistratus, δυερὸς,
from δυὴ, “causing woe”, is worth
notice, but is probably a subterfuge
from a difficulty. Voss reads a colon
at βροτὸς, and then, pressing the sense
of διερὸς, (but this seems forced) ren-
ders, “‘this man (Odys.) is not formi-
dable”’, as “causing flight’’; which he
contrasts with διερῶ xod) “with start-
led foot’’, s. 43, as showing the act.
and pass. force respectively of διερός,
just as ‘‘fearful’’ and “frightful”? are
used in old English; and if dtegdg pro-
perly contained any notion of fear, this
might be accepted. But it does not.
οὐδὲ γένηται, not strictly subjunct.
as = future, as shown by οὐδ᾽ ἔσσε-
ται οὐδὲ γένηται, π΄ 437; sce App.
A. g (10): render, ‘‘nor ever can be’’.
202. ἔχηται, the subjunct. marks the
statement as general — as true of who-
ever comes; if it were indic. it would
denote that the fact of some one's
coming had an independent existence,
if it wore optat. (not being due to the
past or narrative tense of the princi-
pal sentence), it would denote that such
¢oming were regarded as a pure con-
tiggency by the speaker — a thing
witch might happen or not. The line
mhymag withthe preceding. Bek. (Ho-
phere Malt. p--Bs 1011.) has cullected
many :etamples, of, such as, x. 573—4,
ἐθέλοντα — κιόντα; 0. 483—4, ἑοῖσιν
— ὀφθαλμοῖσιν; 6. 279—80, διδοῦσεν
— ἔδουσιν; yx. 323—4, γενέσϑαι --- τε-
κέσϑαι.
203—4. φέλοι, so Alcinoiis claims
kindred with the gods cither for the
Pheeacians at large or for his own fa-
mily, and boasts of their intimacy. —
πολυκλύστῳ E. A., the phrase pro-
bably indicates an island; although
H. restricts the use of νῆσος to smal-
ler islands only; see on 6.607. Thus
Corfu (supposing that to represent his
Scherié, see App. D. 15) would not be
so called. Compare £. 8 for the re-
moteness of the situation.
207—8. πρὸς, local nearness is the
basis of this notion, shown litcrally in
such phrases as πρὸς alos, πρὸς Θύμ-
βρης, K. 428, 430: hence it means here
‘Sunder the protection of”; cf. daub ...
ὃς & ἱκέτησιν ἅμ᾽ αἰδοίοισιν ὀπηδεῖ,
164—s, also δ. 33—4 and note.
eivol τε πτωχοέτε, cf. ρ. 366, 371,
where Odys, acting as a πτωχὸς is
called a ξεῖνος. — ὀλέγη τε φέλη te,
‘though small, is no less welcome’’;
ef. “And love can make a little gift
excel’’, Worsley transIn, ad loc. The
passace recurs (mar.).
210. λούυσατέ, for the force of this
expression see on y. 464. — ἐπὲ, see
on & 443. — Oxéaac, this probably
refers to the bed of the river within
lofty banks, so that one descending to
the water would find shelter.
DAY XXXII]
“ad” δ᾽ ἄρ᾽ Ὀδυσσὴ᾽ εἷσαν ἐπὶ σκέπας, ὡς ἐκέλευσεν
Ναυσικάα," ϑυγάτηρ μεγαλήτορος ᾿Αλκινόοιο"
πὰρ δ᾽ ἄρα of φᾶρός" τε χιτῶνά te εἴματ᾽ ἔϑηκαν,
215 δώκαν" δὲ χρυσέῃ ἐν ληκύϑῳ ὑγρὸν ἔλαιον,
ἤνωγον δ᾽ ἄρα μιν λοὔῦσϑαιξ ποταμοῖο" ῥοῇσιν.
δή ῥα τότ᾽ ἀμφιπόλοισι μετηύδα δῖος Ὀδυσσεύς"
ΟΔΥΣΣΕΙΑΣ Ζ. 21 1— 224.
ὡς pat’, at δ᾽ ἔσταν te καὶ ἀλλήλῃσι" κέλευσαν,
2321
4 Β. 151.
b 42. 518, YF, 698.
ς ¢. 17 mar.
dy. 467, 9. 231,
&. 154, 2. 79, 0.
550, φ. 339.
e C. 79.
f ¢. 79 mar.
δ cf. ε. 264, x. 361.
«ἀμφίπολοι, στῇϑ᾽ οὕτωϊ dxdxegotev,* ὄφρ᾽ ἐγὼ |» IT. 669, 679, A.
214. for εέματ ᾿
αὐτὸς
ἅλμην! ὥμοιιν ἀπολούσομαι, ἀμφὶ δ᾽ ἐλαίῳ
χρίσομαι" ἡ γὰρ δηρὸν ἀπὸ χροός ἐστιν ἀλοιφή."
ἄντην δ᾽ οὐκ ἂν ἔγωγε λοέσσομαι" αἰδέομαι γὰρ
γυμνοῦσϑαι, κούρῃσιν" ἐπλοκαμοισι μετελϑών.).
ὡς ἔφαϑ᾽, αἵ δ᾽ ἀπάνευϑεν ἴσαν, εἶπον δ᾽ ἄρα κούρῃ.
αὐτὰρ ὃ ἐκ ποταμοῦνΡ χρόα νίζετο δῖος Ὀδυσσεὺς
ἱ 4. 146.
κ ie ι. 158, 0.
1 4. 53, ζ. 225; cf.
6,322, Κ΄. 574—6.
πὶ σ. 179, φ. 179.
ἢ €. 198 mar.
o @. 134.
p ¢. 216 mar.
223. ξεἵἴπον.
—
211. ἔσταντο Eustath. Rom., ἀλλήλοισι Harl. Vr. ct edd. preeter Rom., mox
κέλευον Eustath.
‘Odvoon Liw. secutus Thiersch. § 194, 46d.
220. χρέσομαι Eustath. Harl. edd. vett.
Wolf, et recentt., χγρέίσσομαι Barnes. Cl. Ern.
χρυσέη edd, fere omnes: vide ad 79.
211. The reading κέλευον is perhaps
due to a wish to avoid so nearly a re-
petition of the same word in 212 éxé-
Aevoev; but ine. 248—9 the same word
ein closes both lines, and other in-
stances might be found. The hand-
maids, rebuked, ‘‘standing, calling to
each other’, is a happy picturesque
touch; it shows each, uneasy render
reproof, endeavouring slily to throw
the blame on her fellow, and it indi-
cates that flight had scattered them.
Thus we get a lively notion of the group.
214. φᾶρός τε x. τ. A., here male
attire; see on 60—5 sup. at end, but
also on y. 467.
218—9. οὕτω, the word would be
assisted by a gesture. ὄφρ᾽, see note
on ὃ. 800. — αὐτὸς, “by myself”,
without aid from you. It is, however,
evident, as he declines such aid, that
they were offering it. Contrast this
with note on y. 464. Possibly the poet
means here to indicate the Pheacian
standard of female delicacy as less re-
fined than the Greek, although for dig-
nity’s sake he avoids including the
212. Ὀδυσσῇ᾽ edd. fere omnes, Ὀδυσσέα Vr. Eustath. Rom.,
215. χρυσείῃ Vr. Eustath. Rom.,
king's daughter in the rebuff; just as
Phsacian manliness is made to be
somewhat effeminate (ϑ. 246 foll.). But
again, it is possible that, for the rea-
son which Odys. assigns in 220 ἢ γὰρ
δηρὸν ἀπὸ x. τ. λ., ho uses the word
yvuvovoPat in 222 in an unusually lite-
ral sense. His long privation of such
comforts required his bath to be now
more thorough. This would also ac-
‘count for the emphatic πάντα λοέσ-
σατο, 227, not found in any of the pa-
rallel passages. Either reason will ex-
plain εἶπον δ᾽ ἄρα κούρῃ in 223, they
told their mistress that he had declined
their aid — words which seem to hint
that Odys. spoke aside to them un-
heard by Nausicaa, and this seems a
further tribute to the refinement with
which the poet invests her character,
ἅλμην, so (mar.) Diomedes and Odys,
bathe in the sea and afterwards take
a fresh-water bath.
223. See last note.
224—5. viSeto has here two accu-
satives, as καϑαίρω, λούω, mar. but
in τ. 376 τῷ σε πόδας vipa the two
8. ο΄
224
ἃ Y. 8, 9.
b Y. 58, B. 869.
ς 8. 334 mar.
aoe 174.
e vu. 53, 4. 337; cf.
ὅ. 435, ε. 4S1—2.
g σι 67 St Χ' 410,
ΟΔΥΣΣΕΙΑΣ Ζ.
123—137-
[νυμφάων," at ἔχουσ᾽ ὀρέων αἰπεινὰ "Ὁ κάρηνα
καὶ πηγὰς ποταμῶν καὶ πίσεα ποιήεντα.)
ἡ νύ που ἀνθρώπων εἰμὶ σχεδὸν αὐδηέντων ;"
ἀλλ᾽ ἄγ᾽ ἐγὼν αὐτὸς πειρήσομαι ἠδὲ ἴδωμαι."
ὡς εἰπὼν ϑάμνων ὑπεδύσετο" δῖος Ὀδυσσεὺς,
ἐκ πυκινῆς δ᾽ ὕλης πτόρϑον κλάσε χειρὶ παχείῃ!
i. Β.. 262 φύλλων, ὡς ῥύσαιτο περὶ yoot μήδεαβ φωτὸς."
nh 62.
iM: 209, P. 61,
j E ‘2, N, 471,
κ᾿ 386.
si a σον
ο 1B} Sout; cf
F
Byi δ᾽ iwev ὥς τε λέων ὀρεσίτροφος, ἀλκὶ; πεποιϑὼς,
ὅς τ᾽ slo’ ὑόμενος καὶ ἀήμενος." ἐν δέ Of ὄσσε
Oaterar’ αὐτὰρ ὃ βουσὶ μετέρχεταιϊ ἢ ὀΐεσσιν
ἠὲ μετ᾽» ἀγροτέρας" ἐλάφους" κέλεται δέ E γαστὴρ"
μήλων πειρήσοντα καὶ ἐς πυκινὸνν δόμον ἐλϑεῖν-
ος Ὀδυσεὺς κούρῃσινι ἐὐπλοκάμοισιν ἔμελλεν
εἸμίξεσϑαι, γυμνός meg ἐών" χρειὼτ γὰρ ἵκανεν.
td. 754 mar. σμερδαλέος" δ᾽ αὐτῇσι φάνη xEexaxwpuevos! ἄλμῃ"
126, Βέίδωμαι. 127. ξειπῶν. 131. Fot. 133. Fé.
123—4. [] Bek. 126. ἄγε τῶν Bek. annot. ex Harl. ἀλλά γε τῶν. 127. ἐπεδύσατο
Harl., sed ¢ prius scripserat et a ex emend. ejusd. man., ὑπεδύσατο Vr. Scholl.
V. P. 131. ἐκ pro ἐν Vr.
132. αἴϑεται (fortasse glossa) Bek. annot., mox
ὃ omittebat Rhian. ” Scholl. H. P., mox βουσὶ μετέρχεται Eustath. Harl. Wolf.
ed, Ox.,
136. μίξασϑαι ed. Ox.
-- ,᾿αὐδηέντων, see On & 334. — πει-
ρήσομαι ἠδὲ ἔδ., for fut. followed
by subjunct in same clause see App. A.
9 (4)—(6); the “seeing’’ is a sequel to
the “trying’’,
127—85. Odys. emerges from his co-
vert; the maidens shrink away, all
save Nausicaa, who, by grace of
Athené, unabashed confronts him. He
addresses her in a speech of refined
homage, and moves her pity by the
tale of his sufferings and by his for-
lorn appearance.
127, ὑπεδύσετο, the genitive ϑά-
uvey is that of local removal, just as
the accus. (mar. δ.) is that of motion
towards.
130—4. The point of this simile,
which recurs with slight variation
(mar.), scems to be, that the hero
moves forth from his covert with for-
lorn desperation, heedless whom or
what he may encounter, even as the
hungry lion endures wind and rain,
and all prey, wild or tame, comes
a Ι
εὐ. ' - she
[* “ κα, att frig
βουσὶν ἐπέρχεται Barnes. Cl. Ern. 135.
Le bbe ΝΕ “
ἐυπλοχάμῃσιν Bek. annot.
137. Asvyaléog et Zenod. ἀργαλέος, utrumque male,
Scholl. H. P. » σμερδαλέως var. 1. Ern.
alike to him. Further, the effect pro-
duced on the maidens resembles that by
the lion on the animals. The constancy
of Nausicaa alone is not included in
the simile. The simile dignifies a
passage which seems to us perhaps to
need such relief, but nothing in the
whole context is more remarkable
than the simple and unruffled gravity
of its tone. No later poet could have
attempted such a scene save in the
Satyric vein, as indeed Sophocles in
his Πλύντριαι, (see on 115—6 sup.)
it seems, did. ἀήμενος, Ni. remarks
that ἄητο occurs with passive scnsc
(mar.), and so perhaps ἄηται in Pind.
Isthm. 111. 27. — μετ᾽ ... ἐλάφους,
for accus. with μετὰ “among”’, see on
δ. 652: μετέρχομαι in sense of ‘ pur-
suing’’, like μετοέχομαι, takes properly
an accus., see y. 83, Z. 280. The sense
accordingly here is that of ‘‘coming
among’’; and this makes the change
to the accus. more remarkable. It is
doubtless metri gralid, since the epic
«. © γί ἜΝ
BRAT ys
[DAY XXXII.
125
130
143. 146. ξεπέεσσιν.
152.
ee ee
141, ἄντα σχομένη Eustath. Heidelb. Ambros. Wolf., ἐντα-
143. αὕτως Heidelb. Eustath. edd.
140. γύων Harl.
σχομένη Barnes, Cl. Ern. ed. Ox.
144. είματα.
εἶδος FeFiléono.
DAY XxxIII.] ΟΔΥΣΣΕΙΑΣ Z. 138—152. 225
τρέσσαν δ᾽ ἄλλυδις" ἄλλη ἐπ᾽ ἠιόνας προὐχουσας' |r A. 745, «. 300
οἴῃ δ᾽ ᾿Δλκινόου ϑυγάτηρ μένε" τῇ γὰρ ᾿4ϑήνη Dy. Τὸ αν Sa
140 ϑαρσοςῦ ἐνὶ φρεσὶ ϑῆκε καὶ ἐκ δέος εἴλετος γυίων. | ac. su. 167, ¥.
στῇ δ᾽ ἄντα σχομένη᾽ ὃ δὲ μερμήριξεν Ὀδυσσεὺς" ἐς 35, δι,
ἢ γούνων λίσσοιτο λαβὼν εὐώπιδαβ κούρην, ΤΙΝ Ζ
ἡ αὕτως" ἐπέεσσιν' ἀποσταδὰ" μειλιχίοισιν : c M6, αν 442,
τς Adooour’, εἰ δείξειε! πόλιν καὶ εἵματα" δοίη. ΠΟΥ
145 ὃς" ἄρα of φρονέοντι δοάσσατο κέρδιον εἶναι, 1a 838, 86
λίσσεσϑαι ἐπέεσσινο ἀποσταδὰν μειλιχίοισιν, ng. 474 mar
uy of γοῦνα λαβόντι χολώσαιτο φρένα κούρη. rf Ben Φ
αὐτίκα μειλέχιονι καὶ κερδαλέον φάτο μῦύϑον . fie |
(ς γουνοῦμαί: σε, ἄνασσα" ϑεός" νύ τις ἢ βροτός ἐσσι. | y or. 183 78 mar.
150 εἰ" μέν τις ϑεός ἐσσι τοὶ" οὐρανὸν εὐρὺν ἔχουσιν." wh 33, ἃ, 804,
᾿ΠΖρτέμιδί σε ἐγώ γε, Atos® κούρῃ μεγάλοιο, ΠΥ 296. Ν
εἶδός" τε μέγεϑός τε φυήν τ᾽ ἄγχισταν étoxw: y 7. 80, 2 414
145. 147. fot. 149. Favacon.
ee
rweter
L. (Ern.) Bek. Fa. Ni. (laudans Thiersch. § 198. 5), αὕτως Barnes. Cl, Ern.
Wolf. Dind. Léw., mox ἐπισταδὰ Bek. annot.
pectum fuisse notant Scholl. H. P., [ ] Bek. Dind.
144 abundare et Athenocli sus-
149. ϑεός vv toe Vr., mox
7 Ascalonites, Schol. P., Bek. Fa., 7 Eustath. Barnes. Ern. Cl. Wolf. ed. Ox.
Dind. Low.
form of dat. ρίαν. would be ἀργοτέρῃσι
ἐλάφοισι. — σμερδάλεος, this keeps
up the moral attitude, which the si-
mile at first gave.
138. τρέσσαν, “‘tosiy est fugere non
tremere’’. Lehrs p. 91.
141—3. ἄντὰ is best joined with
στῆ, but might (mar.) go also with
σχομένη. — σχομένη, “checking
herself” (from flight). γούνων, de-
pends on λαβών. — αὕτως, ‘‘as he
was’’, see on 6. 665.
144—8. el, ‘‘to try if she would”’,
δοάσσατο, see on Vécer’ inf. 242. —
κερδαλέον, the sense of “winning”,
from κέρδος suits well enough as se-
conding μειλέχιος ; Bo in 0. 451 κερδα-
λέον is exactly the North-country word
‘‘winsome’’,
1s0—6. ϑεός ἐσσι, τοὶ, for plar.
WOM. OY, TI.
152. εἰσάντα ἐΐσκω Vr.
——
relative following a sing. antecedent
gee on & 438. — Διὸς κούρη μεγά-
4oto is a phrase elsewhere applied
to Athené (mar). The nymphs are also
collectively called κοῦραι tog τος sup.
With this address of that cf. Anchises
to Aphrodité, Hy. Ven. g2 foll., χαῖρε
ἄνασσο᾽, ἥτις μακάρων x. τ. 4. — μέ-
γεϑος, see 107 sup. and note there.
The well-known passages from Virg.
fen. I. 331 foll. 606 are cited by Er-
nesti, as also Muszeus Hero et Lean.
138 ὄλβιος ὅς σ᾽ ἐφύτευσε, καὶ ὀλβίέη
ἡ τέκε μήτηρ, γαστὴρ ἢ σ᾽ ἐλόχευσε
μακαρτατῆ; and by Ni. and Liwe Ov.
Metam. IV. 322—4 Qui te genuere beati,
Et frater felix, et fortunata profecto Si
qua tibi soror est, et qu@ dedit ubera
nutriz, That the strain of feeling was
not confined to the gentile world is
15
3 .
I’. 169-70.
πὸ ὃ. 142 mar.; cf.
q γ. 316, A. 151.
τα. 244, α. 244,
=. 108.
s d. 108.
-----.... ..........-ςς-Ἐς- — me
159. ἐξέδνοισι Foinovd’.
OATZZEIAL Ζ. 153—165.
DAY xxxn1.|
εἰ δὲ τίς ἐσσι βροτῶν τοὶ ἐπὶ χϑονὶ ναιετάουσιν,
τρὶς μάχαρες" μὲν ool γε πατὴρ" καὶ πότνια μήτηρ.
τρὶς μάκαρες" δὲ κασίγνητοι: μάλα πού σφισι ϑυμὸς 155
αἰὲν ἐϊφροσύνῃσιν ἰαίνεται" εἵνεκα σεῖο,
λευσσόντων" τοιόνδε ϑάλος χορὸν εἐςοιχνεῦσαν.
ΕἸ κεῖνος δ᾽ αὖ περὶξ κῆρι μακάρτατος ἔξοχον" ἄλλων,
Ἰς κέ σ᾽ ἐέδνοισιὶ Botoas* oixovd’ ἀγάγηται.
οὐ γάρ πω τοιοῦτον ἴδον' βροτὸν ὀφθαλμοῖσιν,
οὔτ᾽ τα ἄνδρ᾽ οὔτε γυναῖκα" σέβας μ᾽ ἔχει εἰςορόωντα.
53. 6) 444m δή ποτε τοῖον ᾿“πόλλωνος" παρὰ βωμῷ
φοένικος νέον ἔρνος" ἀνερχόμενον ἐνόησα᾽
ἦλθον γὰρ καὶ κεῖσε, πολὺς» δέ μοι ἕσπετο λαὸς,
τὴν ὁδὸν ἡ δὲ ἔμελλεν ἐμοὶ κακὰ: κήδε᾽" ἔσεσθαι. δ 165
160. τοῖον Feidor.
163. εἰ δ᾽ av γε βροτῶν ἐσσὶ (pro γ᾽ ἐσσι βροτῶν, mendose, quoniam βροτὸς a
man. pri. βροτῶν ex emend.) of ἀρούρης κάρπον ἔδουσι Harl. sed in mar. vul-
gata pro var. |. nisi quod of pro τοί,
δ, 306.
Β : 154----. τρισμάκαρες omnes, sed vide ad
156. ἐν εὐφροσύνησιν var. 1. Scholl. P. Q. :
160. τοσοῦτον ἴδον ἐγὼν
(mendose pro ἐγὼν ἴδον) Harl. sed ἐγὼν diverso atramento et ex emend. τοῖον
εἶδον βροτὸν (salv& .Ρ) Bek. landans Schol. ad a. 1. p. 8 16.
Harl. Wolf., κακεῖσε Eustath. Schol. H. Barnes. Ern. Cl. ed. Ox.,
165.
ἔσπετο var. 1. ἔπλετο Schol. E.
164. καὶ κεῖσε
mox pro
τ
n Eustath. Barnes. Cl. Ern. ed. Ox., 9
Vr. et Harl. ex emend. Wolf., mox μέλλεν Heidelb. et Harl. ex emend.
clear from the benediction pronounced
in St Matt. XVI. 26.
157—9. λευσσόντων, for the ana-
coluthon apparent on comparing this
with ogece in 155 see examples in mar.,
and cf. Jelf Gr. Gr. § 710 Obs.—The
fem. εἰσοιχνεῦσαν is by a construction
κατὰ σύνεσιν; cf. Hy. Ven. 272, τὸν
μὲν ἐπὴν .... tang ϑάλος. Ni. also
cites Eurip. Bacch. 1307—8 Paley, τὸ
δ᾽ ἔρνος κατϑανόντα and the more re-
motely illustrative passage uw. 74—5
ψεφέλη δέ μιν ἀμφιβεβήκειν κυανέη"
τὸ μὲν οὔ ποτ᾽ ἐρωεῖ, in which τὸ
seems to suppose νέφος as having pre-
ceded. For wegl x7ge see on ε. 36.
For ἐέδνοεσι see App. A. 14. Ni. says
that according to Hellanicus and Ari-
stotle the ‘“‘happy man” of 158 was
Telemachus; but see on γ. 464. βρέ-
das, ‘“‘preponderating in gifts’’, Lowe
remarks that βρέϑω in H. is always
neuter (mar.).
16a—s. Voss (cited by Ni.) says in
his .Mythol. Br. Part II p. 108 that
‘in Agamemnon's time Delos had for
sea-voyagers the most frequented oracle
of Apollo, as Pythé for land-travellers’’.
The Scholl. suppose that the tree in-
tended was that under which in Delos
Leté bare Apollo (Hy. Ap. Del. 18, 117);
but νέον... ἀνερχόμενον clearly means
a tree which was still a sapling at
the time of Odysseus’ visit. Cf. The-
ognis s—6, Φοῖβε avat, ore μὲν σε
Hea τέκε πότνια Λητὼ. φοίνικος ῥα-
δένης χερσὶν ἐφαψαμένη. Liwe cites
Euripid. Hec. 458, ἔνϑα πρωτόγονος τε
φοῖνιξ δάφνα τ᾽ ἱεροὺς ἀνέσχε Λατοὶ
plla πτόρθους ὠδῖνος ἄγαλμα δίας.
Cf. Euripid. Jon grg foll., Ipk. Taur.
1100 foll. in both of which the olive
and the palm are combined. Cicero
de Legg. 1. 1 says, Quod Homericus U'ti-
xes Deli se proceram et teneram palmam
vidisse dizit, hodie monstrant eandem:
160
170 yOufocg’ ἐεικοστῷ φύγον ἤματι οἴνοπα" xovtov’
t
νιν
Ἵ! -
17 8
DAY χχχπῖ.]
ag δ᾽ αὕτως καὶ κεῖνο ἰδὼν, ἐτεϑήπεα" ϑυμῷ
δήν"" ἐπεὶ οὔ πω τοῖον ἀνήλυϑεν ἐκ δόρυ γαίης,
ὡς σὲ, γύναι, ἄγαμαί τε τέϑηπά τε, δείδιάς: τ᾽ αἰνῶς
γουνωνὰ ἄἅψασϑαι' χαλεπὸν δέ με πένθος" ἰχάνει.
τόφρα δέ μ᾽ αἰεὶ κῦμαϊ φόρει κραιπναίν te ϑυελλαιὶ |
νήσου" an’ Qyvying: viv δ᾽ ἐνθάδε κάββαλε" δαίμων,
ὄφρ᾽ ἔτι που καὶ τῇδε πάϑω κακόν.
παύσεσϑ'᾽"
ἀλλὰ, ἄνασσ᾽," ἐλέαιρε" σὲ γὰρ κακὰ πολλὰ" μογήσας
ἐς πρώτην" ἱκόμην" τῶν δ᾽ ἄλλων ov τινα οἷδα
ἀνθρώπων of τήνδε πόλιν" καὶ γαῖαν ἔχουσιν.
ἄστυ" δέ μοι δεῖξον, δὸς δὲ ῥάκος ἀμφιβαλέσϑαι, |v ΔΈΝ
εἶ τί που εἴλυμα σπείρων" ἔχες ἐνθάδ᾽ ἰοῦσα.
166. Fedor.
OATZZEIAZ Ζ. 166—179.
ἀλλ᾽ ἔτι πολλὰ ϑεοὶΡ τελέουσι πάροιϑεν."
170. ἐξεικόστῳ οίνοπα.
c
°
227
aw. 90, 301—2;
ef. w. 105
b ef. γ. 366.
co. 80, N. 451,
2. 358, K. 93.
d y. 339, @. 65,
. 612, O 16,
Y. 468, £2. 357;
cf. XK. 345.
e A. 254; cf. £. 41,
σ. 214, ὁ. 457, Β.
aia
g e "446
@. 183 mar.
ἱ 4. 111 mar.
. 385.
ο Ι δ 515 mar.; ef.
ov° γὰρ ὀΐω ma
ΕΣ 85 mar., ἢ.
"2A, 244, w. 333.
εἴ. J. 30
OY. es 754, 2.
| ἴι: μ 321, π.
372, φ. 9].
lp vy. 344, w. 286.
1 @. 322, Ὁ. 227.
r y. 380 mar.
s pf. 343 mar
t cf. 9. 462,
u ¢.191, 195, x. 39
x d. me mar.
ee .- eee ...--.--- .......... ὦ»
175. άνασσ᾽. 176. Fotda.
ι 78. Faorv.
171. τόφρα δέ we μέγα Vr.
80 Pliny (N. H. XVI. 99, 44), Nec
non palma Deli ab ejusdem det alate
conspicitur; by all which passages we
may understand that there was always
a sacred palm cherished in Delos. We
may compare the olive-trees on the
Mount of Olives and other sacred trees
in Palestine (Dean Stanley, Sinai and
Pal. p. 14t foll.). Ni. remarks that no
trace of any locality being honoured as
the birth-place of a god occurs in H.
167—70. δόρυ, here bears the sense
(rare in H.) of “‘tree’’’ πένϑος is ex-
plained in 17o—2: render ἑχάμει “is
come upon me”. φύγον», “I escaped,
was quite οὗ",
173-7. ὄφρ᾽ ἔτι x. t.4., he pleads
not only what he has suffered but what
he expects to suffer, and alleges the
- ,
ιν Ρι"»
μι
12. μ᾽ ἤγαγε δαίμων var. 1. e Scholl. Η. P. Q.
collegit Pors. sed dubium an vere, xo pode Harl. Bek.
bros. (3) Harl. sed παύσεσϑ᾽ ex emend. ejusd. man.
174. “παύσασϑ᾽ Am-
178. ἄστυ te Harl.
oe eae » ....-΄---. ee eee
infliction as from the gods, to move
the sympathy of man. — τελέουσιν is
fut. and πάροιϑεν means “here af-
ter’’; more commonly words connected
with priority refer to past time in H.,
those with posteriority to the future,
80 ἅμα πρόσσω καὶ ὀπίσσω: see on β.
270. — ἄνασσ᾽, this title is equally
applicable to a divine and to a human
being, thus he sustains the tone of his
exordium in 149 sup.
178—9. Odys. seems designedly to
ask the least possible favour at his
first overture; a hope of more solid
benefit is subsequently held out to him
unasked in 28g9—go. Thus the due de-
licacy on his part who seeks, draws
forth generosity on hers who shews
the kindness — a bright instance of
the refined standard of heroic manners.
15*
22%
ag. 18. 3. 413.
wo 02.°1.7. BA
» . 34 mar.
«ew. 1% ef 5 193
«. 4H.
ἅν. 45.
οί. «. S—6, ὁ.
Yifa—ido.
feof Ὁ. 191 mar..
γ. 1Zi -%, x. Ms.
eof. Γ΄. 51.
hel. W. 734, A.
215.
1 = 101 mar
κυ, 277, of @. 41
18. 27, 2. 52
4524}.
ms $2. 522). ο. 85»
εἴ, I. 319
fi 7; 299, 9. Mii, v
11.
ts g 177 mar
181. 1541. βοΐκον.
180. φρεσὶν ἦσι ek. annot. turtausse ex B. 34.
Exlvoy Enstath., δέ τε κλύον Ambros. (1) (3) Heidelb.
OATZZEIAL Z. 180-191.
- «--ο-.-.ς.. —_ .----. --
137. έξοικας.
σοὶ δὲ ϑεοὶ" τόσα δοῖεν ὅσα φρεσὶ" σῆσι μενοινῶς"
ἄνδρα τε χαὶ oixov, χαὶ ὁμοφροσίτη»ν" ὑχέσειαν:
ἐσθλήν" οὐ" μὴν γὰρ τοῦ ye χρεῖσσον καὶ ἔρειον.
ἡ ὅθ᾽ ὁμοφρονέοντε' νοήμασιν οἶχον ἔχητον
ἀνὴρ ἠδὲ γυνή πόλλ᾽ ἄλγεα δυςμενέεσσιν.":
χάρματα δ᾽ εὐμενέτησι μάλιστα. δέ τ᾽ ἔχλιον
αὐτοί.»
τὸν δ᾽ αὖ Ναυσικάα λευκώλενος ἀντίον rida
“ξεῖν᾽, éxel* οὔτε καχῷ οὔτ᾽ ἄφρονι φωτὶ ἔοιχας: —
Ζεὺς" δ᾽ αὐτὸς νέμει ὕλβον Ὀλύμπιο: ἀνϑρώποισι:".
, ἐσθλοῖς". ἠδὲ χαχοῖσιν, ὅπως ἐϑέλησιν, Exot:
, καί ποῦ σοι ta γ᾽ ἔδωχε, σὲ δὲ χρὴ τετλάμεν ἔμπης —
voy δ᾽, ἐπεὶ ἡμετέρην te πόλενο καὶ γαῖαν ixaves,
182. τοῦδε Vr. Ss. δ᾽
187. ἐπεὶ ovr Vr.
190, τάδ᾽ Harl. «x emend. ¢jusd. man. Barnes. Ern. Bek. Cl. ed. Ox., ta γ᾽ Eu-
180--- 5. ‘Lhis propitiatury peroration
resembles that with which Agyptius
concludes his opening speech in the
Ithacan Assembly (B. 33—4). In the
petition of Chryses (4. 18—g) such a
phrase forms the prelude. It here de-
rives extra force from the mention of
ϑεοὶ in 174 sup., “may the gods, who
afflict ne, give every blessing to you!”
182—4. With this noble maxim cf.
Eurip. Med. 14,
weg μεγίστη γίγνεται σωτηρία
ὅταν γυνὴ πρὸς ἄνδρα μὴ διχο-
σταάτῃ.
18s. ἔχλυον, this verb does not
seem to bear in H. the sense, ‘‘to hear
one's self spoken of”, or μάλιστα xlv-
écy would be closely parallel to the ev
or κακῶς ἀκούειν of later Greek. It
seems to mean here not the outward
sense but the inward recognition; cf.
Tennyson Lotus Eaters, “ΝΟΥ listen
what the inner spirit sings.” Its ob-
ject doubtless is the ὁμοφροσύνη it-
self. “Strong as is the testimony of
enemics and friends, they themselves
feel it most profoundly of all.’ Yet
this is an unusual sense of ἔκλυον, and
so slight a change in the ms. would
convert αὐτῶν or αὑτοῖν into αὐτοὶ
that it seems likely one of them may
be the true reading, which would fur-
stath. Wolf. Dind. Fa. Low.
nish a more effective close — “πο ἢ
listen most to them,’”’ & e. unanimity
begets influence: cf. τῆς pala μὲν
κλύον, 247 inf.
186—246. Won by the entreaty of
Odys. Nausicaa promises relief and dc-
clares her parentage, people and coun-
try. She then recalls her handmaids
from their needless flight, and bids
them succour the stranger, whom they
then assist to dress and bathe. He ac-
cepts their services with due reserve.
Meanwhile Pallas confers on his outer
man the comeliness of youth, until it
is Nausicaa’s turn to admire.
187. The sense is suspended from
ἐπεὶ ... ἔοικας to νῦν δ᾽ in 191.
187—g0. To the same purport speaks
Helen in δ. 236—7, where see note.
The sentiment, however, here arises
directly from the facts: — his misfor-
tunes need not detract from his merit,
since Zeus bestows his blessing with-
out regard to character. The only dif-
ference is that in the man of merit
misfortune draws forth fortitude; cf.
Theogn. 444—6, 1162—4, ἀϑανάτων
δὲ δόσεις παντοῖαι ϑνητοῖσιν ἐπέρ-
οντ᾽" ἀλλ᾽ ἐπιτολμᾶν χρὴ δώρ᾽
ἄϑανατων, οἷα δίδουσιν ἔχειν, Sophoc.
Trachin. 129—30, ἀλλ᾽ ἐπὶ πῆμα καὶ
χαρὰ πᾶσι κυκλοῦσιν.
[Dar xxxm1.
i!
DAY XXXIII.|
—
obt’* οὖν ἐσθῆτος δευήσεαι οὔτε tev ἄλλου,
ὧν ἐπέοιχ᾽ ἱκέτην" ταλαπείριον ἀντιάσαντα."
ἄστυ. δέ τοι δείξω, ἐρέω δέ τοι οὔνομα λαῶν.
95 Φαίηκες μὲν τήνδε πόλιν" καὶ γαῖαν ἔχουσιν,
εἰμὶ δ᾽ ἐγὼ ϑυγάτηρ' μεγαλήτορος ᾿Αλκινόοιο,
(τοῦ δ᾽ ἐκ Φαιήκων ἔχεται κάρτοςξ τε βίη τε.)
ἢ ῥα, καὶ ἀμφιπόλοισιν" ἐὐπλοκάμοισι κέλευσεν
“ornré μοι, ἀμφίπολοι" πόσε' φεύγετε φῶτα " ἰδοῦσαι :᾿
οο ἢ! μή πού τινα δυςμενέων φάσϑ᾽ ἔμμεναι ἀνδρῶν;.
ovx™ ἔσϑ᾽ οὗτος ἀνὴρ διερὸς βροτὸς, οὐδὲ" γένηται,
-- — -- - a ee re ne ee
192. Fecdyrog. 193. ἐπέξοικ᾽.
200. φᾶσθ᾽ Eustath, var. 1. Scholl. H. 9.
ΟΔΥΣΣΕΙΑΣ Z. 192—201.
- -““-“-ἰιἢἥἦὦ»Ἕ".....». -«-.............
194. Εάστυ ἐξερέω.
220
ἃ é. 510—1.
b ». 24, 0. 84, τ.
ὅν. Ὁ
ς cf. ῃ. 293, φ. 402
2.42.78"
d ¢. 178.
e €. 177.
f €. 17 mar.
g δ. 415.
ἢ €. 238, X. 442.
i ZZ. 422.
k 9. 144.
ι ¢. 405—6.
m cf. yw. 187.
nz. 437; cf. A.
262.
eee ee ee ee ------.. a ....-.-.--᾽-- - -,ς---
199. «δοῦσαι.
eS SS 0
201. δυδξρὸς Callistratus, Scholl.
E. H. P. Q. T., dtegog Aristar. Schol. H.
191. πόλιν is inserted by anticipa-
tion, and implies assent to his request
ἄστυ δέ μοι δεῖξον in 178.
193. ἀντιάσαντα, Ni. thinks this a
participle for infin. referring to Mat-
thie p. τορι. Jelf. Gr. Gr. § 691 obs.
2. prefers supplying μὴ δεύεσθαι after
ἐπέοικε, to govern ὧν; this requires us
to render ἀντιάσαντα, ‘‘having met
(some onc)’’, as in », 312. The other
construction would require the sense
of “to obtain”, as in A. 66 --" εἴ κέν
πως ἀρνῶν κνίσης αἰγῶν τε τελείων
βούλεται ἀντιάσας ... ἀμῦναι.
. 19]. €% governs τοῦ. Ni. thinks this
a reason for giving it the acute accent
(ἔκ); but the consensus of editors is
against him, since δ intervencs.
199—200. πόσε φεύγ. the question
implies that flight is absurd; the ans-
wer implied being, ‘you need not flee
any whither.” 47, for this conjunction
with questions where the verb is in-
dic. see App. A. 9 (5).
201. οὗτος x. τ. A. The word διε-
eds, and perhaps βροτὸς also, is doubt-
less corrupt here. We need for ἀνὴρ
some predicate corresponding in sense
to δυσμενὴς, so that, ‘this man is not
one whom you need dread’’, is the
sense required, carrying on the rebuke
of πόσε φεύγετε. A colon at βροτὸς
would exhibit this better, and that
stop was read by Voss, see on διερὸς
below. As the text stands, our only
chance seems to be to take 202—3 as
far as φέρων, as a completion of the
subject: — “that man who would come
to the Ph. land with hostile purpose
is not a living mortal, nor can be’’,
But 1 cannot believe that H. wrote
this. To interpose the predic. and then
go back to complete the subj. by a fur-
ther clause, is a departure from his
usually direct style. Assuming, how-
ever, this sense, the words “living
mortal’’, so taken, give force to the
manner of stating, although they add no-
thing positively to the statement: and
the vehemence so imparted shows the
feeling of the speaker, viz. triumphant
assurance, a8 in saying, ‘“‘the man
breathes not on the face of the earth’,
instead of simply ‘‘is not’’. In the
somewhat similarly worded ἀνδρῶν δ᾽
ov κέν tig ζωὸς βροτὸς .... ῥεῖα μετ-
οχλήσειεν ψ. 187, ξωὸς βροτὸς is part
of the subject and the passage is no
true parallel to the present. So also
in 2. 437—8 οὔκ ἐστ᾽ οὗτος ἀνὴρ, οὐδ᾽
ἔσσεται, οὐδὲ γένηται, ὃς x. τ. 2. ἃ
sentence modelled somewhat similarly,
the predicate is contained in οὔκ ἐστι
which precedes the whole; there is,
however, ἃ similar cxtension of the
subject in og x. τ. A.
διερὸς means originally “moist”,
as shown in Hes. Opp. 460 αὔην καὶ
διερὴν, ‘dry and moist’, Pind. Fragm.
44,11 νότιον ϑέρος ὕδατι ξακότῳ διε-
gov: hence, referring perhaps to the
blood, as fluid in life, congealed in
death, it means “‘living’’ or “lively’’,
as in διερῷ ποδὶ, t. 43, == ‘with all
2.30
C 119 mar.
a m
hé ~%,
i A. 7); cf. ἡ
165, ε. 270,
422.
k A,
OATZZEIAZS Z. 202—210.
ὃς κεν Φαιήκων ἀνδρῶν ἐς γαῖαν" ἵκηται,
δηιοτῆτα φέρων" μάλα γὰρ φίλοι" ἀϑανατοισιν.
οἰκέομεν" δ᾽ ἀπάνευϑε πολυκλύστῳ" ἐνὶ πόντῳ,
ἔσχατοι," οὐδὲ τις ἄμμι βροτῶν ἐπιμίσγεταιϊ ἄλλος.
1 ἀλλ᾽ ὅδε τις δύστηνος ἀλώμενος ἐνθάδ᾽ ἴχάνει,
161. ᾿Ιτὸν νῦν yon κομέειν πρὸς" γὰρ Διὸς; εἰσιν ἅπαντες"
ἱ ef. 9. 205-6, [ξεῖνοί τε πτωχοί τε, δόσις δ᾽ ὀλίγην τε φίλη τε.
[DAY XXXuII.
176, μ. 320, Τ' ᾿ἀλλὰ dor’,' ἀμφέπολοι, ξείνῳ βρῶσίν" τε πόσιν τε,
ns. 443 mar.
-
203. φίλοι ἀνθρώποισι edd. prater Rom. male (Ern.).
βροτῶν Eustath. Harl. Rom., cf. ad 153 sup.
Vr. male (Ern.), supra τὸν νῦν script. Callistratus τῷ μὲν, Harl.
Flor. Ald. Lov. Steph.,
204. «οικέομεν.
᾿λούσατέ τ᾿ ἐν ποταμῶ., oF ἐπὶ σκέπας" ἔστ᾽ ἀνέμοιο." 2
205. βροτὸς var. |.
207. τῷ
216. τ᾿ Harl.
Wolf., δ᾽ Eustath. Barnes, Cl. Ern. ed. Ox.
-- ———. — —_— ----
eee = er - -—
speed”’ (cf. the word ‘‘quick” in its
two senses); although possibly that may
refer in a literal sense to escape by
sea (the liquido pede of Lucret. VI. 638).
The reading of Callistratus, δυερὸς,
from δυὴ, ‘causing woe”, is worth
notice, but is probably a subterfuge
from a difficulty. Voss reads a colon
at βροτὸς, and then, pressing the sense
of διερὸς, (but this seems forced) ren-
ders, ‘‘this man (Odys.) is not formi-
dablo’’, as ‘‘causing flight’’; which he
contrasts with διερῶ ποδὲ ‘with start-
led foot’’, ε. 43, as showing the act.
and pass. force respectively of διερός,
just as ‘‘fearful”’ and “frightful”? are
used in old English; and if dtegd¢ pro-
perly contained any notion of fear, this
might be accepted. But it does not.
οὐδὲ γένηται, not strictly subjunct.
as == future, as shown by οὐδ᾽ ἔσσε-
ται οὐδὲ γένηται, π. 437; sce App.
A. 9 (10): render, ‘‘nor ever can be’’.
202. ἔχηται, the subjunct. marks the
statement as general — as true of who-
ever comes; if it were indic. it would
denote that the fact of some one’s
coming had an independent existence,
if it were optat. (not being due to the
past or narrative tense of the princi-
pal sentence), it would denote that such
¢oming were regarded as a pure con-
tiggency by the speaker — a thing
which might happen or not. The line
mymas.with.the preceding. Bek. (Ho-
pren, batt. p.-18s foll.) has cullected
any: etamples, of; such as, κ᾿ §73—4,
ἐθέλοντα — κιόντα; 0. 483—4, ἑοῖσιν
— ὀφθαλμοῖσιν; 0. 279—80, διδοῦσιν
— ἔδουσιν; x. 323—4, γενέσϑαι — τε-
κέσϑαι.
203--4. φέλοι, so Alcinoiis claims
kindred with the gods cither for the
Pheacians at large or for his own fa-
mily, and boasts of their intimacy. —
πολυκλύστῳ E. π., the phrase pro-
bably indicates an island; although
H. restricts the use of νῆσος to smal-
ler islands only; see on ὅδ. 607. Thus
Corfu (supposing that to represent his
Scherié, see App, D. 15) would not be
so called. Compare ζ. 8 fur the re-
moteness of the situation.
207—8. πρὸς, local nearness is the
basis of this notion, shown litcrally in
such phrases as πρὸς ἀλὸς, πρὸς Θύμ-
Bons, K. 428, 430: hence it means here
‘Sunder the protection of”; cf. di...
ὅς 8᾽ ἱκέτησιν ap’ αἰδοίοισιν ὀπηδεῖ,
. 164—8, also δ 33—4 and note.
be ivol te πτωχοίτε, cf. 9. 366, 371,
where Odys. acting as a πτωχὸς is
called a ξεῖνος. — ὀλέγη τε φέλη τε,
‘though small, is no less welcome”;
cf. “And love can make a little gift
excel’’, Worsley transln, ad loc. ‘The
passage recurs. (mar.).
210. λουσατέ, for the force of this
expression see on 7. 464. — ἐπὶ, sce
on & 443. — Oxéaac, this probably
refers to the bed of the river within
lofty banks, so that one descending to
the water would find shelter.
220
DAY xxx1I1.]
ΟΔΥΣΣΕΊΙΑΣ Z. 211—224.
221
as ἔφαϑ᾽, αἵ δ᾽ ἔσταν τε καὶ ἀλλήλῃσι" κέλευσαν, | a Β. 151.
κἀδυ δ᾽ ἄρ᾽ Ὀδυσσὴ᾽ εἶσαν ἐπὶ σκέπας, ὡς ἐκέλευσεν }}υ 2. 518, W. 698.
Ναυσικάα," ϑυγάτηρ μεγαλήτορος "AAxcvooto:
πὰρ δ᾽ ἄρα of φᾶρός τε χιτῶνά τε εἴματ᾽ ἔϑηκαν,
215 δώκανο δὲ χρυσέῃ ἐν ληκύϑῳ ὑγρὸν ἔλαιον,
ἤνωγον δ᾽ ἄρα μιν λοῦσϑαιξ ποταμοῖο!" ῥοῇσιν.
δή Ga τότ᾽ ἀμφιπόλοισι μετηύδα δῖος Ὀδυσσεύς"
ς ¢. 17 mar.
dy. 467, 9. 291,
§. 154, 2. 79, @.
590, φ. 339.
e C. 79.
Γ ¢. 79 mar.
g cf. s. 264, x. 361.
“ἀμφίπολοι, στῆϑ᾽ οὕτω! ἀπόπροθεν," ὄφρ᾽ ἐγὼ " IT. 669, 679, 4.
——-. —=
αὐτὸς
ἅλμην! ὥμοιιν ἀπολούσομαι, ἀμφὶ δ᾽ ἐλαίῳ
χρίσομαι- ἡ γὰρ δηρὸν ἀπὸ χροός ἐστιν ἀλοιφή."
ἄντην δ᾽ οὐκ ἂν ἔγωγε λοέσσομαι" αἰδέομαι γὰρ
γυμνοῦσϑαι. κούρησιν" ἐύπλοκαμοισι μετελθών.»
ὡς ἔφαϑ', αἵ δ᾽ ἀπάνευϑεν ἴσαν, εἶπον δ᾽ ἄρα κούρῃ."
αὐτὰρ ὃ ἐκ ποταμοῦν χρόα νίζξετο δῖος Ὀδυσσεὺς
214. (οι Felpat ᾽
i-a. 146.
κ pote, ι. 158, 0.
Ι 2. 53, ζ. 225; οἴ,
6.322, K.574—6.
m a. 179, φ. 179.
n ¢. 198 mar.
o @. 131.
p ¢. 216 mar.
223. ξεἴπον.
- -——
211. ἴσταντο Eustath. Rom., ἀλλήλοισι Harl. Vr. et edd. prester Rom., mox
κέλευον Eustath.
Ὀδυσσῆ Liw. secutus Thiersch. § 194, 46d.
220. χρέσομαι Eustath. Harl. edd. vett.
χρυσέῃ edd, fere omnes: vide ad 79.
212. Ὀδυσσῆ᾽ edd. fere omnes, Ὀδυσσέα Vr, Eustath. Rom.,
215. χρυσείῃ Vr. Eustath. Rom.,
Wolf. et recentt., γρέσσομαι Barnes. Cl. Ern.
211. The reading κέλευον is perhaps
due to a wish to avoid so nearly a re-
petition of the same word in 212 éxé-
Aevoev; but ine. 248—g the same word
ein closes both lines, and other in-
stances might be found. The hand-
maids, rebuked, ‘‘standing, calling to
each other’, is a happy picturesque
touch; it shows each, uneasy render
reproof, endeavouring slily to throw
the blame on her fellow, and it indi-
cates that flight had scattered them.
Thus we get a lively notion of the group.
214. φᾶρός te κ. τ. 1., here male
attire; see on 6o0—5 sup. at end, but
also on y. 467.
218—9. οὕτω, the word would be
assisted by a gesture. ὄφρ᾽, see note
on ὃ. 800. — αὐτὸς, “by myself”,
without aid from you. It is, however,
evident, as he declines such aid, that
they were offering it. Contrast this
with note on y. 464. Possibly the poet
means here to indicate the Pheeacian
standard of female delicacy as less re-
fined than the Greek, although for dig-
nity’s sake he avoids including the
king’s daughter in the rebuff; just as
Pheacian manliness is made to be
somewhat effeminate (@. 246 foll.). But
again, it is possible that, for the rea-
son which Odys. assigns in 220 ἦ γὰρ
δηρὸν ἀπὸ x. τ. 4., he uses the word
γυμνοῦσθαι in 222 in an unusually lite-
ral sense. His long privation of such
comforts required his bath to be now
more thorough. This would also ac-
‘count for the emphatic πάντα λοέσ-
σατο, 227, not found in any of the pa-
rallel passages. Either reason will ex-
plain εἶπον δ᾽ ἄρα κούρῃ in 223, they
told their mistress that he had declined
their aid — words which seem to hint
that Odys. spoke aside to them un-
heard by Nausicaa, and this seems a
further tribute to the refinement with
which the poet invests her character,
ἅλμην, so (mar.) Diomedes and Odys.
bathe in the sea and afterwards take
a fresh-water bath.
223. See last note.
224—5. viCeto has here two accu-
satives, as καϑαίρω, λούω, mar. but
in τ. 376 τῷ oe πόδας νέψω the two
232 OA TILTEIAL Ζ. 225 --136. [pay XXXIII.
at. 219 mar. ἅλμην," ἢ of νῶτα καὶ εὐρέας" ἄμπεχεν ὦμους,
b Ζ 48, ZX. 210, . a , ᾿
aN a ἐκ κεφαλῆς δ᾽ ἔσμηχεν" ἁλὸς χνόον ἀτρυγέτοιο."
d α. 72, ε. 52, 5. ; , ν
4), #119, 41. αὐτὰρ ἐπειδὴ πάντα λοέσσατο" καὶ Aix’ ἄλειψεν,
smpissime , Υ » - ,» fxd , ᾿ ὃ .
ὁ 1. 466 mar ἀμφὶ δὲ εἵματα Eooand, δ of πόρε παρϑένος"Ἔ aduns,
d. 253 . \ . ;
6 4 321, 512, x.| tov μὲν ᾿4ϑηναίη ϑῆκεν, Atos: ἐκγεγαυῖα,
Ὁ 1st mar, 29, μείζονα" τ᾽ εἰςιδέειν καὶ πάσσονα, κὰδ δὲ κάρητος
199, 41 |
134; cf. y. 441, 0.
843, B. 6.
m y. 384 mar., KX.
294.
n εἴ. δ. 617, Θ.195.
125. Fos.
230. καδδὲ Vr.
ee ----- -- ee os ome
are really in apposition as whole and
part: in 219 sup. ἀπολούσομαι has acc.
and gen. ἄμπεχεν, “clung about’.
227. πάντα, Sec on 218—g. — Aix’,
see on y. 466.
229—31. See mar. for similar en-
hancement of beauty by Pallas. Beauty
is the special gift of the Charites (£.
18) or of Heré (v. yo—r): but as a
means to an end, viz, here the pro-
curing him the favour of Nausic., the
prerogative of Pallas includes all such
special resources. πάσσονα for πα-
vs, like ἐλάσσων for ἐλαχὺς, βράσσων
or βραχὺς (although some say βραδὺς),
μάσσων akin to μῆκος, — οὔλας, see
App. A. 3 (2). — υακινϑίνῳ a., al
the critics suppose colour only to be
intended, and there is a hyacinth, com-
mon in Greece, which is black. It may
be questioned, however, whether the
delicate curl of the corolla of the
flower at its edge, be not intended to
represent the line of the hair φυσικῶς
ἐνουλισμένη (Aristenet. I. 1. p. 3, cited
by Ni.). |
233. ἀργύρῳ is not with silver but
228. ξείματα έσσαϑ᾽ For.
233. ἐέδρις.
"οὔλας! ἧκε κόμας, ὑακινθίνῳ ἄνϑει ὁμοίας.
ὡς δ᾽ ὅτε τις χρυσὸν περιχεύεταιπ" ἀργύρῳ ἀνὴρ
ἴδρις, ὃν Ἥφαιστος" δέδαεν καὶ Παλλὰς ᾿4ϑήνη
τέχνην παντοίην, χαρίεντα! δὲ ἔργα τελείει,
ὡς ἄρα τῷ κατέχευει χάριν κεφαλῇ τε καὶ ὥὦμοις.
er’ ἔπειτ᾽, ἀπάνευϑεν κιὼν ἐπὶ Diva θαλάσσης,
230. ἐσξιϑέειν. =. 2.31.
234. Fégya.
237. χάριδι Harl., χάριτε Apollon., χάρισε Eustath. ot edd.
omnes.
on silver, so, of silver cups H. usually
says, χρύσῳ t ἐπὶ χείλεα κεκράανται,
ὃ. 616; the gold, being thinly but en-
tirely overlaid, represents the χάρις or
grace superfused pervading every part:
80 κατέχευξ, 235, Corresponds with πε-
ριχεύεται here. Virg. ‘En. I. s92—3
has reproduced — with a variation —
this simile,
Quale manus addunt ebori decus,
aut ubi flavo
Argentum Pariusve lapis circum-
datur auro.
223-85. “Ἤφαιστος.. Φ xk eee ᾿Αϑὴη-
»η. he as specially gifting with met-
allurgic craft, she as holding the mas-
ter-key of all skill. xaréyeve, ac-
tive, as done for Odysseus’ benefit: but
περιχεύεται in 232 mid. as done for
his own artistic purposes. In redeler
the subject is ἀνήρ.
236—7. éer’, “he sat’’, to await
the refreshment which had been or-
dered in 209 sup., and which follows
in 246 inf. — ἀπάνευϑε, whilst they
are about to prepare his meal he goes
apart — another touch of the delicacy
24000 πάντων adéxnt! ϑεῶν of εκ Ὄλυμπον ἔχουσιν
245
. suppliant;
DAY XXXII. ]
aa
OATZZEIAL Ζ. 237—247. 233
xaddst καὶ χάρισι στίλβων"" ϑηεῖτου δὲ xovon:
δή ῥα τότ᾽ ἀμφιπόλοισιν: ἐύὐπλοκάμοισι μετηύδα
-- ’ ’ ς
“ἐχλύτέλ μευ, ἀμφίπολοι" λευχκώλενοι, ὄφρα τι εἴπω᾽ ἃ
e
f
Φαιήκεσσ᾽ ὅδ᾽ ἀνὴρ ἐπιμίσγεται" ἀντυϑέοισιν..
πρόσϑεν μὲν γὰρ δή μοι ἀεικέλιος δέατ᾽ εἶναι,
νῦν δὲ ϑεοῖσιν! ἔοικε tol™ οὐρανὸν εὐρὺν ἔχουσιν.
ai” γὰρ ἐμοὶ τοιόςδε πόσις κεκλημένος" εἴη.
ἐνϑάδε ναιετάων,» καί οἱ ἄδοι αὐτόθι. μίμνειν.
ἀλλὰ ddr’, ἀμφέπολοι, ξείνῳ βρῶσίν τε πόσιν τε."
ὃς" Epat’,
ϑοντο,
.----τ.---....ὕ.
239. Felmm. 240. ἀέκητι.
αἵ δ᾽ ἄρα τῆς μάλα μὲν κλύον ἠδ᾽ ἐπί-
242. ἀξεικέλιος.
* sé $92; ci. &.
75 mar.;* εἴ.
459.
108 mar,
g 337,
oft 180.
b 4.
9. 4
ξ,
ο.
σ.
ν 2 ἊΣ 79 mar.,
ἐξ:
i α. 1. ma r.
k ν. 402, 5. 84, &.
32
| π. 187, 200, K.
410-1; cf. β. 5
mar.
m a. 67 mar.
ον OO ef,
τ ζ. 209 mar.
. 477, os 220, v.
57, Χ. 118,
141 (en Zl. toties).
243. FéFocne. 24s. foe
Fadou.
239. wot Eustath. Harl. Barnes. Cl. Ern., wev Schol. Η, Wolf., mox ὅττι κεν
εἴπω Bek. annot. 241.
ἐπιμίξεται Schol. Η.
242. δόατ᾽ Eustath. ΕἸ. Rom.
Barnes. Cl. Ern. ed. Ox., δέατ᾽ Harl. Ambros. (3) Vr. Ald. Lov. Aloys. Hesych.
Etym, Mag. Wolf. 344-- st Arist.
245. [] Bek., ado Enustath. 24).
dubitabat autem de priore), Scholl. H. Q.
ἠδὲ πέϑοντο Eustath. Barnes.
Cl. Ern. ed.
x., ἠδ᾽ ἐπίθοντο Vr. Wolf.
in handling with which the poet refines
411 the circumstances of this interview.
OrvidBov, literally, ‘glittering’, thus
the planet Mercury (ignis cali Cyllenius,
Virg. Georg. I. 337) was called ὁ στέλ -
Ba» from his peculiar brightness. The
previous simile of silver overlaid with
gold leads up to this sense of the word.
ϑηεῖτο, “gazed with admiration’’, as
in δ. 74—6.
239—46. Her previous speech had
merely expressed pity for the forlorn
this one rises to glowing
admiration for the now attractive hero,
for “pity is akin to love’’. Perhaps
the poet meant to insinuate her dis-
cernment of Odysseus’ merit as supe-
rior to her Phseacian suitors, the in-
ward man being presumed to corre-
spond with the outward, But observe
that this is addressed privately to the
maidens, he being seated ἀπάρευθϑε,
236. This seems to obviate the re-
pugnance of Aristarchus, who rejected
the lines 244—5 88 unsuited to mai-
denly decorum. ov... ἀέκητι Seay
means “with their goodwill”, cf. y. 28
note, and σὺν γὰρ Hea εἰληλουῆμεν,
I. 49. — Séat’, restored by Wolf from
the best mss. and oldest editions for
doar’, the previous reading, which
arose from a mistaken association with
doin ‘‘doubt”’, and the deceptive use
of hordtecne, δοιάξζοντο by Apollon.
Rhod. (IIT. 819, IV. 576) for a person
deliberating, or labouring under indis-
tinct impressions. Buttm. (ZLezil. 38)
traces déato here to dédaa δαῆναι,
and from it deduces δοάσσατο aor., ε.
474, £. 148, δοάσσεται fut., ¥. 339, the
change of ε to o in verb forms being
common (/rreg. Verbs s. v.). He hints
also at a connexion with ἔδοξε δοκεῖ,
“for a x too much or too little can be no
objection to the affinity of words’’, and
wholly rejects δοιὴ, remarking that
δοάσσατο occurs where resolve is in-
tended after doubt has elapsed. xé-
κλημένος εἴη seems to be = “might
be”, as shown by the next line; cf.
mar.— ὅδοι, on the connexion of this
word with ἀδήσειε ἀδηκότες ἄδην, and
234
ἃ ζ. 209 mar.
be 94 mar., &
109-- 10.
> » 2
πὰρ δ᾽ ἄρ
ς δ. 788 mar.
d ξ. 101 mar.
e . 352 mar.
f ¢. 111 mar.
g §2.277; cf. 0.73.
hy, ὁ. 185, I".
13.
i ©. 249, P. 215
k 8. 302 mar.
1 Ζ΄. 250, Π- 126,
=. 170, Φ. 331
E. 109.
m C. 208, 9. 14, 2
155, @. 185.
n α. 48 mar
o cf. 9. 49.
να. 245 mar., y
108 mar.
q 8. 342 mar.
τ IT. 392, T. 131;
cf. & 344.
s cf 72 mar
t x. 5).
ucf. €. 297,
v Χ. 334.
252. fetuat. 254. Féros.
ΟΔΥΣΣΕΙΛΣ Ζ. 248—262.
257. ειδησέμεν.
[DAY xxxIII.
Ὀδυσσὴι ἔϑεσαν Bowdoty*® τε πόσιν τε.
ἢ τοι ὃ πῖνεν καὶ note πολύτλας δῖος Ὀδυσσεὺς
ἁρπαλέως" δηρὸν γὰρ ἐδητύος ἦεν ἄπαστος.
αὐτὰρ Ναυσικάα" λευκώλενος ἄλλ᾽ 5 ἐνόησεν᾽
εἴματ᾽ ἄρα πτύξασαΐ rier καλῆς ἐπ᾿ ἀπήνης.
ξεῦξεν" δ᾽ ἡμιόνους κρατερώνυχας, av δ᾽ ἔβη" αὐτή.
‘| ὥτρυνενὶ δ᾽ Ὀδυσῆα, ἔπος Κ τ᾽ ἔφατ᾽, ἔκ τ᾽ ὀνόμαξεν"
(ὄρσεο δὴ νῦν, ξεῖνε, πόλινδ᾽ '" lwev, ὄφρα σε πέμψω 25!
πατρὸς ἐμοῦ πρὸς δῶμα δαΐφρονος," ἔνϑα σέ φημι
πάντων Φαιήκων" εἰδησέμεν Oooo? ἄριστοι.
ἀλλὰκ« μάλ᾽ ὧδ᾽ ἔρδειν, δοκέεις δέ μοι οὐκ ἀπινύσσειν᾽
ὄφρ᾽ av μέν κ᾽ ἀγροὺς ἴομεν καὶ ἔργ᾽ . ἀνθρώπων,
τόφρα σὺν ἀμφιπόλοισι wed’ ἡμιόνους" καὶ ἄμαξαν
καρπαλίμως ἔρχεσθαι" ἐγὼ δ᾽ ὁδὸν ἡγεμονεύσω.
αὐτὰρ" ἐπὴν πόλιος ἐπιβείομεν" — ἣν πέρι πύργος
—_— ee ----- ee
258. ὡς Féoderv. 259. Féoy’.
248. ϑέσαν Vr. ct edd. preter Rom., ϑέσσαν Eustath. Barnes, Cl. Ern. ed. Ox.,
ἔϑεσαν Harl. Wolf.
253. ξεῦξε δ᾽ ὑφ᾽ Vr.
reeque, Cl, Ern, Barnes. Wolf., νῦν δὴ Harl. ΕἸ. Rom. Ald.
nod. ἐμεῦ male, Scholl. H. Q., mox ἐνθάδε Bek. annot.
stath. Rom., ἔρχεσθαι Harl. ΕἸ. et edd. plerseque.
255. On νῦν Eustath. edd. ple-
256. pro ἐμοῦ Ze-
261. ἐοχεσθον Ευ-
262. ἐπιβήσομεν Eustath.
Barnes. Cl. Ern, ed, Ox., ἐπιβήομεν Scholl. H. Q. T. FI. Ald. (1), ἐπιβεέομεν
Vr. Schol. V. Wolf.
the relation of the rough breathing to
the f, see App. A. 6, especially (8).
247—315. Odys. refreshes himself
with food; Nausicaa packs her linen
and departs; first giving him directions
to keep company with them till they
enter the city, and then, in order to
avoid scandal, to let them precede and
reach the palace first, that done, to
follow, enter boldly, and supplicate not
the king but the qucen.
252--3. thee ... Sedge, in these
actions ascribed to Nausic, the ἀμφέ-
πολοι are of course to be understuod
as assisting.
254—5. ἔπος κ. τ. λ.,) Bee ON ¥. 374
—5, but observe the absence of an
such action as ξλε χεῖρα there, or ἔν
t ἄρα of φῦ χειρὶ in B. 302, which
would have been unseemly familiarity.
ἔμεν, wight be 1, pers. plur., ‘‘we are
going’’, but to take it as infin. for im-
per. is more in Homeric manner, cf. 298.
256. δαΐφρονος, see on a. 48. σέ
is more naturally the subject than ob-
ject of εἰδησέμεν.
268. For ἀπινυσσειν see on &. 342.
259. ὧν is not hore the particle rein-
forced by κε, but the prep. governing
ἀγροὺς and ἔργ᾽. This is remarkable,
since in 8. 361 ὄφρ᾽ ἂν μέν xe, it is
certainly the particle — an example
of the flexibility of Homeric phrase.
But the prep. here is required the
sense being not, εἰ we come éo the
ficlds’’ etc., for he was not to quit
them till they actually reached the
cily, 262) but “‘whilst we are going along
them’’, where ἀνὰ indicates a line of
motion marked by objects as in K.
297—8 βάν ῥ᾽ ἴμεν... ἂμ φόνον, av
ψέκυας. Observe, howover, that εἶμι
κάνω are found with the direct accus.
of place to which; see ἃ. 176 and mar.
262. ἐπιβείομεν, with this epic form
of 2 aor. subj. cf. στείω, ϑείω, δαμείω;
the 251 person prefers -7- as στηῆς,
στήητον. Nausicaa describes the pro-
spect which will present itself when
he comes within view of the city.
All the objects described must be un-
derstood as lying without its walls,
25.
26¢
265
DAY XXXIII. |
ὑψηλός." καλὸς δὲ λιμὴν" ἑκάτερϑε" πόληος,
λεπτὴ δ᾽ εἰςίϑμη"" νῆες δ᾽ ὁδὸν ἀμφιέλισσαι
εἰρύαται"" πᾶσιν γὰρ ἐπίστιόν ἐστιν ἑκάστῳ.
263. ξεκάτερϑε.
264. εἰσίσϑμη Harl. ex emend. Aristoph., Scholl. Β. H. 9.
Bek. annot. e Schol. ad K. 418, sed dubium an glossa.
yet much frequented by its people.
He is therefore to stop before he
reaches all this, viz. at the τέμενος
of Alcinoiis, 293—5 inf., and he would
know that by the grove of Athené
close to the path — doubtless a striking
object. Her object is to drop his com-
pany before they could attract notice
as fellow-travellers, The apodosis of
αὐτὰρ ἐπὴν is suspended. What he is
to do when they approach the city, is
postponed till 295—6; the interval
being filled as far as 272 with a detail
of the local features, accounted for by
the characteristic pursuits of the people,
and thence to 288 with her reasons why
he is so to act. Then she resumes
with a minute indication of the spot
where he ia to wait, and at last gives
the direction, which is the pith of the
whole, ‘‘wait there till we have reached
home’. πύργος, no gates are men-
tioned. We are to conceive that they
were open and unguarded — a token
of Pheeacian security,
264—5. λεπτὴ δ᾽ εἰσίϑιμη x. τ. λ.,
‘‘and the way in is narrow, for ships
line the approach’. The “haven on
‘either side’, 263, accounts for the
ships being there. This gave rise perh.
to the reading εἰσίσϑμη of Aristoph.,
as if from ἐσθμός. It is, however,
like ἔθμα “δ going’, E. 778, directly .
from εἶμι, imper. 2, “go”. eleva-
tac, nearly = Lat. servant; see on
ἔρυσθαι, &. 484. This perf. pass. with
pluperf. meaning “have or had been
drawn’’, viz. into position, passes over
into an absolute sense, ‘‘keep’’ that
position, or, as here, becomes trans.
with object ὁδὸν; cf. mar. In 2. 463
it further acquires the sense of “keep
a look out for’’. In some passages the
v, long naturally, as in εἴρῦτο (if this
be a. pluperf., see Buttm. Jrreg. Verbs, 8.
v. ἐρυω) x. 90, becomes short before «,
OATZIZEIAZ Z. 263—26s.
264. ἀμφιιξέλισσαι.
235
| a I. 384, H. 338,
437, M. 386; cf.
. 9.
b cf. ἡ. 43-5. |
ccf, #, 329.
d cf. x. 90.
le 4. 218, =. 30,
| 75, O. 654
O. .
cf. & 159, ρ. 156,
¢. ul
265. ξειρύαται ξεκάστῳ.
265. ἐφέστιον
but may be lengthened by ictus (mar.).
ἐπέστιον, Eustathius explains this by
ἐποίκιον “shed”? or “hut” as if a com-
pound adj. from ἑστέα, epicé ἱστίη, cit-
ing Herod. I. 44, τὸν μὲν dla éxt-
στιον καλέων, “invoking Zeus who
presides over the hearth’’, and so in
V. 72, 73, 98 noun, “houses”’ or ‘‘hou-
seholds’’. But the sense of olxos, being
wider than that of ἰστέη, makes it easy
to take éxocxcoy as an addition to the
οἶκος, whether adjoined. or detached,
and so = “shed” or “‘hut’’; but we
cannot analogously conceive of éxé-
στιον as if an addition to the ἔστέη,
especially as the for’y is in this case
locally remote, being within the wall?
while the ἐπέστιον is without it, Yet
we may get really closer to the sense
of Herod. by taking ἱστίη (mar.) as it
were in the moral sense, as the centre
of family life; when ἐπίστιόν ἐστιν
might mean “it, viz. shipping is 8
matter of domestic business’, as op-
posed to the semi-foreign aspect of or-
dinary navigation; or even locally,
“each has a spot (viz. where his ship
was drawn up) belonging to the family”’,
as we speak of “‘a family vault’’. And
this, as giving greatest force to γὰρ
seems preferable. The scope of thie
whole passage is to illustrate the ex-
tent to which among the Pheacians
sea-faring habits were taken up into
domestic and civic life. Thus their
ἀγορὴ, usually in the heart of the city,
and the Ποσιδήιον, doubtless its chief
sanctuary, which in ordinary cities
would have formed the centre of eve-
rything, are here at the sea-side with-
out the walls; and these are attached
to the ἱστίη of the state, even as the
spot where his ship lay was to that of
each citizen: hence we derive a spe-
cial force for ἑκάστῳ. The aspirate
dropped in ἐπέστιον for ἰστίη need be
2.36
a B. 506; cf. €. 10.
b ξ. 10.
ee. 185.
do App. F.1(7) mar.
e ε. 136, x. 465.
f ὦ. 318 mar.
κι. 326. ©. 116.
. 233, y. 2,
, doo.’ * x
ΟΔΥΣΣΈΙΑΣ Z. 266—277.
[DAY XXXII.
Evta δέ τέ Gy’ ἀγορὴ καλὸν Ποσιδήιον" ἀμφὶς,
ῥυτοῖσινν λάεσσι κατωρυχέεσσ᾽ “ ἀραρυῖα.
ἔνϑα δὲ νηῶν ὅπλα" μελαινάων ἀλέγουσιν,
πείσματα" καὶ σπεῖρα.[ καὶ ἀποξύουσινδ ἐρετμα.
οὐ γὰρ Φαιήκεσσι μέλει βιὸς" οὐδὲ φαρέτρη,
ἐπ δέ δ | ἀλλ᾽ ἱστοὶ! καὶ ἐρετμὰ νεῶν καὶ νῆες ἐΐσαι,
δ. - 176. ᾿ , ; , ,
I &. 239, '0, 467, π.' Nowy ἀγαλλόμενοι πολιὴν περόωσι ϑάλασσαν᾽
Th, τ. 527, ὦ 200: |
ef. 6.225, φ. 323 | τῷ
- 4, Z. 351, X. ;
T05—6.
m H. 87, 300
n 9. 13S.
o 0. 547 mar
p &. 226.
ᾳ ®. 108; cf ν. ὁ
280, € 7, 0. 418,
π. 158
v ἀλεείνω φῆμιν! ἀδευκέα, μή tig ὀπίσσω
μωμεύῃ" μάλα δ᾽ εἰσὶν ὑπερφίαλοι κατὰ δῆμον,
καί νύ τις ὧδ᾽ εἴπῃσι". κακώτερος" ἀντιβολήσας “
tig? δ᾽ ὅδε Ναυσικάᾳ ἕπεται καλός" τε μέγας τε
. . ow ~ t ‘ ‘ ~
+ £282; ef.y. 313.1 ξεῖνος; ποῦ δέ μὲν Eevee; πόσις" νύ οἱ ἔσσεται αὐτῇ.
271. ξξῖζσαι.
275. ὥς ἐείπῃσι.
2747. fot.
269. σπείρας Barres., quod Eustathium (in comment.) edd. Ald. Lov. Schol. V.
et H. Stephanum agnoscere affirmat, mox αἀποξεέψουσιν Iarl., ἀποξύνουσιν Eu-
stuth. Schol. H. Barnes. Cl, Ern. Wolf. Liw., ἀποξύουσιν Bek. Dind. Fa. se-
οὐδὲ Buttm.
Bek. annot.
no more objection than the shortenin
of the ε. Thus we have (Eustath.
Λευκίππη Λεύκιππος (Hy. Ceres 418,
Hy. Apol. Pyth. 34) fr. frog, and éx-
ἄλμενος, as well as ἐπίξλμενος, from
ἐφάλλομαι (ξ. 220, w. 320, cf. #. 103,
128). Certain Scholl. derive the word
for ἱστὸς, “a place for masts”, and
so by synecdoche = νεώριον, — a likely
snare for a prosaic interpreter.
266—8. ἀγορὴ» see previous note.
Ποσιδήιον, see on νήους 10 sup. —
δυτοῖσιν λ., see App. F. 2 (6) and
note *. ὅπλα, see App. F. 1 (7).
268—9. σπεῖρα, the reading ozet-
ρας perhaps arose from a repugnance
to lengthen the -α by arsis; certainly
to lengthen the final short vowel of a
properispomenon is an extreme case
of arsis, but in this penthemimeral
ceesura H. lengthens anything: see on
δ. 318 and App. F. τ (7) for the sense,
ἀποξύουσιν, Buttmann’s correction
(Lexil. 26, 4) has been adopted, the
word being ἀποξύω (= ξέω) to “‘shave”’
or ‘“plane’’.
270-2. βιὸς οὐδὲ g., much less
therefore the sword and spear of the
stand-up-fight. This measures the in-
terval between them and the Greeks.
275—88 ἢ nonnulli, Scholl. H. Q.
276. δ᾽ omittunt nonnulli,
277. νυ of Vr., dé of Harl. sed δὲ ex emend.
ἀγαλλόμενοι, as if for [the mere
pleasure of the run. Their vessels
are, as it were, all pleasure yachts in
which they give a free passage to an
occasional stranger.
273—5. adevxta, cf. the name Πο-
Avdevung and the adv. ἐνδυκέως, used
of all Tinds of ministry to another's
comfort; so Curtius, who refers both
(II. 229) to a sanscrit root, traced in
Lat. as dec-us, dec-et, and related pre-
sumably to dulcis (II. 77). For the sent-
iment sec on 29 sup. — ὑπερφέκλοι,
“unscrupulous’’. Some commentators
rejected 275—88 for the same reason as
244—5, vid. sup. But the more repugnant
such female frecdom was to later Greek
notions of decorum, the more certain
the genuineness of the passage.
276—9. tig δ᾽, the d} marks sur-
prise ‘why! who is this?’ — εὗρε,
“picked him up”. ἐπεὶ οὔ τινες Xx.
τ. 4., Lowe takes this ironically, ‘‘since
forsooth there are none (for her to
marry) near home!”’, but it seems more
simple to take it as epexegetic of τη-
λεδαπῶν, and stating the fact on which
the Phwacians were fond of dilating
— their remotencss from all men.
DAY XXXIII.]
qj τινά που πλαγχϑέντα κομίσσατο" ἧς" ἀπὸ νηὸς
ἀνδρῶν“ τηλεδαπῶν, ἐπεὶ οὔ τινὲς ἐγγύϑεν εἰσίν"
280 ἤ τίς οἵ εὐξαμένῃ πολυάρητος ἃ ϑεὸς ἤλϑεν,
OATZZEIAL Ζ. 2᾽)8-- 292.
237
a Θ. 281
bh δ. 489
ec ef. €. 8, 20—5
ιἰ «τ. 401
ὁ v.31, 4.134, P.
545.
οὐρανόϑεν" καταβάς, ἕξει δέ μιν ἥματαϊ πάντα. ff. δδ mar,
᾿ νι ° B Y ued, fae UU,
βέλτερον, εἰ καὐτήξ πὲρ ἐποιχομένη πόσιν εὗρεν ce Be 28
et, . -
ἄλλοθεν" ἡ γὰρ τούςδε γ᾽ ἀτιμάξει κατὰ δῆμον
Φαίηκας. τοί μιν μνῶνται" πολέες' τε καὶ ἐσϑλοί.
285 ὡς" ἐρέουσιν, ἐμοὶ δέ x ὀνείδεα! ταῦτα γένοιτο. A. 1.2, H. 9
καὶ δ᾽ ἄλλῃ" νεμεσῶ, ἢ τις" τοιαῦτά ye ῥέξοι,
ἢ τ᾽ ἀέκητι φίλων πατρὸς" καὶ μητρὸς ἐόντων
ἀνδράσιν μίσγηται, πρέν γ᾽ ἀμφάδιον« γάμον ἐλϑεῖν.
ξεῖνε, σὺ δ᾽ ὧδ᾽ ἐμέϑεντ ξυνίει ἔπος, ὄφρα τάχιστα
200 πομπῆς" καὶ νόστοιο τύχῃς παρὰ πατρὸς ἐμοῖο.
δήεις ἀγλαὸν! ἄλσος ᾿ϑήνης ἄγχι κελεύϑου
i x. 208, w. 427,
A. 2S, Ζ. 452;
$2. 24, 520.
k X.10S; cf. Z. 62,
1 2°. 242.
m 0-89, ys, 494,
o ¢. 51, ο. 432.
p cf. o. 420, 430,
=. 296.
q cf. 8. 120 mar.
τ 9. 241, τ. 378.
3 ".. 15}, 191 --,
αἰγείρῳν" ἐν δὲ κρήνη" νάει, ἀμφὶ δὲ λειμών" 140-1.
278. Fig. 280. ἠέ τις εὐξαμένῃ.
289. Fémog.
279. ἑσσίν Vr. 48
mox γένοιντο Harl.
δ᾽ wx’ Arist, Schol. H.
282. βέλτιον Bek. annot,
287. 7t sive potius 70° (Ni.) Arist., Schol. Q.
290. ἐμεῖο Harl. Ambros. (1), ἐμεῖο Zenod., Scholl.
Η. Q., ita Cl. Ern. Barnes., ἐμοῖο Eustath. Wolf. et recentt.
287. aFéxnte.
285. Fegéovery.
285. ἐμοὶ δ᾽ ay Eustath. Rom.,
289. ov
291. Ones
var, 1. Scholl. H. Q. sed in textu δήομεν, δήεις meliores, Schol. H., Wolf., δήο-
μὲν Eustath. Barnes. Cl. Ern. ed. Ox., mox pre χελεύϑου Harl. ϑαλάσσης sed
%
supra ser. κελεύθου.
280 —2. πολυάρητος, ‘much prayed
fur (to come)’’; sec mar, — βέλτερον,
‘“*twere better so’’, t. e. “that she
should wed, though her husband be one
of her own picking up from abroad,
since she refuses all her Pheacian
suitors’: the implied alternative is,
‘than remain unmarried”, Another in-
terpretation of the Scholl., that “if she
marries any one Pheacian, she must
needs put a slight upon the rest’’, does
not scem suitable. καὐτῇ, see mar.
for similar cases of crasis of καὶ with
pronoun; although these are not found
in all mss. and edd. (ek. Hom. Bidtt.
p- 173). Hermann (Ni.) rejects this
crasis in H., reading x’ for xg, or γ᾽.
286—7. νεμεσώῶ, indic. where optat.
would be regular; see App. A. g (2).
— ἐόντων could be spared: it seems
to have arisen from a confusion of two
constructions, ‘‘against the will of her
parents’’, and “her parents being un-
willing’. ‘‘In this remarkable passage
we have such an exhibition of woman’s
292.
δὲ ΕἸ. Ald. Lov.
freedom as scarcely any ave has ex-
ceeded. Forit clearly shows thatthe mar-
riage of a damsel was her own affair,
and that, subject to a due regard freely
rendered to authority and opinion, she
had when of due age a main share in
determining it’? (Gladst. II. p. 484).
288. μέσγηται, “mixes with”: the
mood is certainly anacoluthon to 6éfo2
in 286: the change of ἢ τις to ἢ τ΄
strikes a different modal key; thus
τοιαῦτα ye φέζοι is a case viewed as
purely hypothetical in the 2™4 clause
she seems to put a case contingent
indeed still, and therefore not indic.,
but which is πού purely hypothetical,
as being in fact her own; and this dif-
ference is what the subjunct. probably
marks. See for some somewhat simi-
lar, exx. App. A. g (16). — duga-
ὅιον, sce on & 120.
289—90. σὺ δ᾽, the δὲ denotes con-
trast between her suggestion in the se-
quel and what she had just been de-
precating. ποριπῆς, he had made no
238
OATZZEIAL Z. 293—309.
[DAY XxxIII.
- -- --.-.ὄς-.Ἔ -ἰ
ἃ 9.363; cf. @. 299, | ἔγϑα δὲ πατρὸς ἐμοῦ τέμενος" τεϑαλυῖά τ᾽ ἀλωὴ,"
Ζ. 194, 1. 515.
bh ef. BE. 90, w. 226,
τόσσον ἀπὸ πτόλιος ὅσσον" τε γέγωνε βοήσας"
x. 561-2, Φ. ἔνϑα καϑεξόμενος μεῖναι γρόνον, εἰς 0 κεν ἡμεῖς
346.
ὁ 4. 400 mar.
de. 138.
e ¢. 256 mar.
f cf. η. 300.
g ¢. 255 mar.
ἢ €. 17 mar.
i δ. 207 mar.
κι. 348; cf. δ. 618.
Ι η. 319.
m ¢. 52 mar.
n wy. 89, I. 206; ef.
Σ. 810.
ω ς. 53 mar.
p Ε. 725, K. 439, |
=. 83, 377.
4». 235, @. 97.
rv. 262, ¥. 8
cf. 9. 456.
«-«-ὄ---Ῥ Ὑ-...-..-..-.- SSS
296. Faotvde. 297. «ἐλπῃ.
301. Fefounore.
ἄστυδε ἔλθωμεν, καὶ ἱκώμεϑα δώματα πατρός."
αὐτὰρ ἐπὴν ἡμέας ἔλπῃ ποτὶ δώματ᾽ ἀφῖχϑαι,
καὶ τότε Φαιήκων iwev® ἐς πόλιν, ἠδ᾽ ἐρέεσθϑαι
δώματα πατρὸς ἐμοὺ μεγαλήτορος" ᾿Αλκινόοιο.
δεῖαὶ δ᾽ ἀρέίγνωτ᾽ ἐστὶ, καὶ ἂν παῖς ἡγήσαιτο
νήπιος" οὐ μὲν γάρ τι ἐοικότα τοῖσι τέτυκται
δώματα Φαιήκων, οἷος δόμος ᾿4λκινόοιο
ἥρωος. ἀλλ᾽ ὁποτ᾽ ἄν σε δόμοι κεκύϑωσι" καὶ αὐλὴ,
axa μάλα μεγάροιο διελϑέμεν, Spo’! ἴκηαι
μητέρ᾽ ἐμήν" ἣ δ᾽ ἧσται éx’™ ἐσχάρῃ ἐν" πυρὸς αὐγῇ,
ἡλάκατας στρωφῶσ᾽ ἁλιπόρφυρα, Bavpar ἐδέσϑαι,
ἱ κίονι κεκλιμένη « δμωαὶ δέ of εἴατ᾽ ὄὕπισϑεν.
.. ἔνϑα δὲ πατρὸς ἐμοῖο ϑρόνος ποτικέκλιται αὐτῇ᾽
τῷ ὅ γε οἰνοποτάξει. ἐφήμενος ἀϑανατος ὥς.
306. βιδέσθαι. 307. For.
309. «ξοινοποταάζξει.
297. δώματα ἶχϑαι Aristoph., Schol. H. 298. ἔρχεσϑαι var. 1. Schol. H. 300.
παῖς Wolf. ed. Ox., Liw., πάϊς Eustath. Barnes. Cl. Ern. Bek. Dind. Fa.
301. οὐ μὴν Bek.
303. ἥρως Ambros (2) Vindob. in text. et schol. Harl. Vr. ΕἸ.
Ald. Lov., ἥρωος Eustath. Wolf., ἥρω Vindob. (2); mox δόμϑ Harl., δόμοις Bek.
annot., mox κεύϑωσι ed. Ox. var. 1. Fl. Ald. Lov. Steph., mox αὐλῇ Harl.
304. pad’ ἐκ Eustath. Barnes. Cl, Ern. ed. Ox., μάλα sine ἐκ Harl. Wolf.
et recentt.
308. αὐτῇ ct αὐγῇ Eustath. agnoscit, αὐτῇ Karnes. Ern. Cl. ed.
Ox. Bek, Dind. Fa., αὐγῇ Harl. Ambros. (1) et var. 1. Schol. V. ita Wolf. Liéw.,
mox ἐμεῖο Barnes. Cl. Ern., ἐμοῖο Eustath. Fl. Wolf. et recentt.
request for this, but she builds partly
on his evident need, partly on the
well known habits of the Phseacians
in despatching strangers to their homes
(vw. 1§1—2, 174).
293. τέμενος, Thucyd. III. 7o men-
tions that a site in Corcyra in his time
passed traditionally as the τέμενος of
Alcinoiis.
300—2. καὶ ἂν παῖς, “even a child
might etc.” οἷος refers to τοῖα im-
plied in ἐοικότα τοῖσι.
303. «ὑλὴ, sce on App. F. 2 (2) (5)
(6). Observe ἠρῶος, doubtless the
true reading, an instacce of the elas-
ticity of epic quantity.
305—7. ἐπ᾽ ἐσχάρῃ x. τ. Δ. and
xéiove in connexion, sce App. F 2 (1g)
(20). — ἀλιπόρφυρα, sce on 53 sup.
— Sumat, sce App. A. 7 (1).
308—9. ϑρόνος, ‘‘seat of honour’;
sce ON ἃ. 131—2. — αὐτῇ». t. 6. κίονι;
to refer it to the queen, since ϑρόνρος
is the subject, sounds absurd since zo-
tixex, means “leans against’; which
makes the var. 1. αὐγῇ less suitable: it
probably crept in from the end of 3065.
— olvoxotatet, the contrasted picture
of the queen plying her industry, and the
king, who “sits wine-bibbing like an
immortal’’ — the allusion being to the
Deol ῥεῖα ξώοντες — is full of force,
and assists us to take the measure of the
sexes in Phseacian court socicty: 566
295
300
3°5
310 TOY παραμειψάμενος μητρὸς ποτὶ γούνασι" χεῖρας
βάλλειν ἡμετέρης," ἵνα νόστιμον» ἦμαρ ἴδηαι
χαίρων καρπαλίμως. εἰ καὶ μάλα τηλόϑεν ἐσσί.
[εἴ κέν τοι κείνη γε φίλα φρονέῃσ᾽ ἐνὶ ϑυμῷ,
ἐλπωρήϊ τοι ἔπειτα φίλουςξ τ᾽ ἐδέειν καὶ ἰκέσϑαι
315 οἶκον ἐς ὑψόροφον καὶ σὴν ἐς πατρίδα patav.]”
as ἄρα φωνήσασ᾽ ἵμασεν μάστιγιϊ φαεινῇ
ἡμιόνους. al δ᾽ ὦκα λίπον ποταμοῖο" ῥέεϑρα" κ
αἵ δ᾽ εὖ μὲν τρώχων,; εὖ δὲ πλίσσοντο πόδεσσιν.
ὅπως ἅμ᾽ ἑποίατο πεξζοὶ
420 ἀμφίπολοί τ᾽ Ὀδυσεύς τε, νόῳ δ᾽ ἐπέβαλλεν ἱμάσϑλην.
δυσετὸ" τ᾽ ἠέλιος, καὶ τοὶ κλυτὸν ἄλσος“ ἵκοντο
ἄρ᾽ ξξετον δῖος Ὀδυσσεύς.
αὐτίκ᾽ ἔπειτ᾽ ἡρᾶτοι Διὸς: κούρῃ μεγάλοιο 438, 20
« κλῦϑί" μευ, αἰγιόχοιο Atog τέκος, ᾿Ατρυτώνη.
325
DAY XXXIII.]
OATZZEIAZ Z. 310—325.
239
|
ἢ δὲ wad’ ἡνιόχευεν,"
ἱρὸν “Adnvatns, tv’
an Τὶ «ἢ γι 92,
vl 500,
b w. 216.
c 3. 466, α. 9 mar.
d 9. 194.
ey. 75—7.
f f. 280, yw. 257.
ge. 41-2 mar.
ἢ s. 380 mar.
i K. 500, T. 395,
Ys, 381.
=. 245, dD. 352,
P. 749.
Ι εἴ. X. 163.
πὶ 4¥, 612.
n β. 388 mar., ἢ.
289.
o €. 291 mar.
Pp &. 40-.οἍ«ἹὉ.
q @. 521, Ζ. 304,
311, K. 296, Δ.
ι.
r ¢. 151, I. 596.
5 0. 102 mar.
νῦν δή πέρ μευ ἄκουσον, ἐπεὶ πάρος OV ποτ᾽ ἄκουσας | 1 cf. 1. 262.
814. ξελπώρη «Ειδέειν omisso τ΄.
— |.
315. «οἴκον.
310. ποτὶ Eustath. Barnes, Cl. Ern. ed. Ox. Wolf. Dind. Léw., περὶ Harl. Vr.
Ambros, (1) (3) Schol. V. Bek. Fa.
mar. reposuit,
ὁπλίσσοντο Vr. male (Ern.). 321.
313—5 omisit Harl. sed man. ead. in
[] Wolf. Bek. Dind. Low, Fa. Ni.
man. τρώχων Harl- , τρεχέτην Callistratus, Scholl. B.
δύσσετο Ald. bev, , ᾿δύσατο var. 1. Barnes.
3.8. ἔτρεχον sed a. pri,
. P. Q. T., mox ev δ᾽
324. woe Eustuth. Barnes. Cl. Ern. ed. Ox., wev ex emend. ejusdem man. Harl.
Wolf. et recentt,
App. F 2 (13), and comp. the follow-
ing direction to pass him by and sup-
plicate her.
312. καρπαλέλιως qualifies ἴδηαι.
313——5. These lines occur naturally
in 7. 75—7. Here they seem superflu-
ous since they say nothing which has
not in effect been said before. The
editors since Wolf accordingly bracket
them.
316—31. Nausicaa starts on her ho-
meward journey, her handmaids and
Odys. following. He reaches at sun-
set the grove of Athené near the city-
gate, to whom he prays for friendly
help; and, with a reminiscence of Po-
scidon’s wrath the book closes.
316—8. φαεινῇ, to what the epithet
precisely alludes it is impossible to de-
termine. In ¥. 362—3 the thong, ἱμάς,
seems a distinct part of the paoreg;
cf. μάσϑλην 320 inf. Wo may sur-
mise that the handle was of wood,
perhaps polished, perhaps ornamented
with metal. τρώχων, | secondary verb
from τρέχω, like στρωφάω, τρώπαω, for
στρέφω, τρέπω. — πλέσσοντο, the
Scholl, here give wdl& as Dorice =
βῆμα, the Schol. on II. 375 says Mo-
lice, and the Etym. Mag. has, with the
Schol. vulg., πλέγμα, τὸ διάστημα τῶν
ποδῶν; but these are words found in
grammarians only. In Sophoc. Fragm.
538 Dind. occurs the word ἀμφιπλίξ.
In Archiloch. Fragm. IX. 1, διαπεπλι-
γμένον probably means “straddling”.
Ern. cites Anacreon, 1269, πλίξαντες
μηροῖσι παρὰ μηροὺς, and Ni. ἀπεπλέ-
gato from.Aristoph. Acharn. 218.
200. νόῳ, ‘‘with judgment”, mean-
ing so as not to go too fast for the
pedestrians to keep up.
321. δύσετο x. τ. 4., the 33 day
of the poem’s action here ends.
325—7. ᾿Ατρυτώνη, see App. E. 4
(14). — νῦν δή πέρ, “now although
δός ἢ
Ww. 771;
. 536, νυ. 102
43, 457, JI.’
527.
9.
, 9,201, 76.161. | πατροκασίγνητον᾽ ὃ
ΟΔΎΣΣΕΙΑΣ Ζ. 326 —331.
[DAY XxxIII.
ψ. 225. ῥαιομένου, ὅτε μ᾽ ἔρραιε" κλυτὸς" ἐννοσίγαιος.
μ᾽ ἐς Φαίηκας φίλον ἐλθεῖν ἠδ᾽ ἐλεεινόν."
εὡὃς ἔφατ᾽ εὐχόμενος, τοῦ δ᾽ ἔκλυε Παλλὰς Ayn:
αὐτῷ δ᾽ οὔ πω φαίνετ᾽ ἐναντίη" αἴδετοξ γάρ ba
ὃ δ᾽ ἐπιξαφελῶς μενέαινεν"
. 20-1 mar. ἀντιθέῳ Ὀδυσῆι, πάρος ἣν γαῖαν ἴχέσϑαι.
331. Fre.
29. ἐνάντιον Eustath. (sed in comment. ἐναντίη) Barnes. Cl. Ern, ed. Ox.,
ἐναντίη Harl. Wolf. et recentt., mox afeto var. 1. Schol. P. et not. ms. ad mar,
ΕἸ. 330. ἐπιζαφελῶς Arist. ,
not before”. Qutouévov ὅτε με᾽ ἔρ-
gace, with the repetition cf. T. 316
—h ὁπότ᾽ ἂν Τροίη ... δάηται, δαι-
ομένη, δαίωσι δ᾽ ἀρήιοι υἷες ᾿4χαι-
ὦν, and Π. 103—5, δαμνα μιν Ζηνός
τε νόος καὶ Τρῶες ἀγαυοὶ βάλλον -
τες᾽ δεινὴν δὲ περὶ κροτάφοισι φαεινὴ
πήληξ βαλλομένη καναχὴν ἔχε, βαλ-
λετο δ᾽ ἀεὶ κ. τ. λ. — δὸς μ᾽ κ. τ. λ.,
the words are a little abrupt through
the asyndeton. In 42. 309 they occur
as the first clause of Priam’s prayer
(with "Aytdinog for Φαίηκας), where he
is about to visit Achilles to ransom
his son.
329—31. aédeto. The feeling of re-
Schol. P.,
ita omnes, ἐπιζαφέλως Bek.
spect extends, in the politic and cal-
culating goddess [see App. E. 4 (8)],
to the forbearance of direct and out-
ward opposition only. Her appearance
in ἢ. 19 foll. is accordingly cloaked in
a strict incognito, and is her only inter-
view with Odys. in which the veil is
not thrown off. Thus appearances as
regards Poseidon are saved. παξτρο-
κασέγνητον, a sense of seniority per-
vades the word, and we may remem-
ber that the Erinnyes, as Poseidon
himself is reminded in O. 204, attend
ever upon the elder members of a fa-
mily. ὃ δ᾽, δὲ here, as often, = γὰρ.
-- ἀντιϑέῳ... πάρος,866 ON &.21—4.
APPENDIX A.
I.
ἔννεπε. (1) Buttm. (Lexil. 21, 1s—23) regards this as a mere lengthened
form of efmé fr. ἔπω, root Fex-, and no compound; he takes ἐνοπὴ as its direct
verbal noun, and views éug7 as similarly related to a verbal form ἔμπω = ἐνέπω;
with this relation he compares ὄγκος, fyxm == évéxw. Negatively, he argues
that ἐν the prep. in no other compound doubles ». He seems to have over-
looked ἐψννεσίῃσι," of which the parts are ἐν-ἴημι. But, supposing ἐνέπω com-
pounded, it need not follow that the first part is ἐν the prep. There are a
number of words, as ἐμμαπέως, ἔμπαιος, ἐμπάξομαι, ἐναίρω, ἕναρα, in which
ἐν. appears, but its prepositional character is very doubtful. The forms akin
to ἐνέπω (omitting all those from ἐνέπτω or ἐνίσσω to reproach, which he re-
jects as distinct,) are 2 aor. ἔνισπον, imper. ἔνισπες, and ἔνισπε, and, there being
no pres. indic. found, évépo and ἐνεψήσω fut. Now as we have ἔσπετε, (comp.
ἕσπόμην, σπέο, σπεῖο from ἔπομαι,) it is not easy to regard ἐν in ἔνισπον, etc.,
as part of the simple verb, and Buttm. seems to have felt some difficulty.
Indeed, elsewhere he inclines to regard foxe (τ. 203, xy. 31) as ἃ form of ἴσπε
(x for 2, as in ἕππος, equus). This is probable, but tends to make the re-
jection of ἔνισπε as a compound form doubtful, With these varying forms éy-éza,
ἔσπετε, ἔν-ισπον, comp. ἔχω, ἔσχον, ἴσχω, an analogy which suggests that
the éy- is adventitious, not, as in Buttmann’s view, radical. The Lat. inguam
probably represents the same form as ἐνέπω (q for π᾿ again), and is equally
puzzling, but can hardly be simple.
(2) As regards ὀμφὴ ἐνοπὴ, the first may be simple and the second com-
pound. op the voice, ὀπὴ a hole, ὄμμα fr. ὄπτομαι (unused pres.) ὄσσομαι,
ὅσσε, os oris, oculus, (Donalds. New Crat. § 216) seem all modifications of a
radical sound based on the vowel o in connexion with a labial or some sound
representing it. The simple notion of which that sound is the symbol may
be assumed to be a hole or orifice, of which the Ictter o is indeed the shape.
The verb or adj. ‘“‘open” stands in close connexion. Hence the above words
expressing ‘‘mouth” or ‘‘eye’’ deduce themselves at once, for there is nothing
which we open so frequently or easily as these organs. Hence op “voice”’
comes straight from the root, being the os ‘‘mouth”’ open for the primary pur-
pose of emitting sound. Then, we may suppose, came the strengthening of the
root by the accession of the F, in vox, Fésxrog, Fetxm, this F containing the
labial of the root, with the guttural (comp., as above, inguam) into which that
labial sometimes passes, as in coquo == πέσσω πεπ- (Donalds. ub. sup. and Gr.
Gr. § 18 j.). Now, the éxm in ἐνέπω may be from the simple root before the F
1. 4 E. 894.
HOM, OD. APP. A
"πα = SPR en 420 ὧν sp - © πᾶν
ay APPENDIX. A.
was added, and the noun ἐρόπη of course from éyéxw, but ougy mere
ὅπη. == ow, strengthened by the farther labial a, as in χρέίμπτω. γνάμπτι
and many other words.
‘3 Thus an answer may be offered to Battmann’s remark, “Sone well m:
wonder why in this componnd alone ἰἐνέπω) the F of the root fe ἔπος wi
so passed over”. And the ἐν may be received as a form of “the intensive prefi
probably a residuam of ava,” (Donalds. Gr. Gr. 3744,.) conveying to the ro
éx- the sense noticed by Buttm. to “announce, declare”.
2.
EPIC FORMS IN -0@ -@@ FOR -aa.
Ahrens Griech. Formenl., § 51. gives atable of Epic forms expanded wi'
short or long vowels from the ordinary contracted forms of verbs in -a@, near
as follows.
Contr. Expand.short. = Contr. Expand. lor
Indic. Pres, sing. 1. ὁρῶ ὁρόω = [μενοινῶ βενοινώω
Indic. and Subj. sing. 2. ὁρᾷς ὁράᾳς > Ἰμενοινᾷ μενοινάᾳ
Indic. Pres. .... 3. ὁρᾷ ὑράᾳ = [ηβώσα ἡβωωσα
Indic. Pres. plur. 3. ὁρῶσι ορόωσι = |xagadqwo: παραδρώωσ
Optat. Pres. sing. 1. ὁρῶμε ogdcpe S ᾿ἐμνᾶσϑε ἐμνάασϑε.
Infin. Pres. ὁρᾶν ὁράαν ε
Inasc. nom. ὁρῶν ὁρόων = With short
Part. Pres.,.... gen. ὁρῶντος ὑρόωντος -- vowel
t fem. nom. ὁρῶσα ορόωσα Σ evolved
Mid. Indie. Pros, Piur,{2" 000682 ὁράασϑε Ξ.Ἰρῶντες ῴἠβωῦντες
id. Indic, Pres, Plur. Ἢ ὁρῶνται ὁρόωνται 3 ἐμνῶντο ἐμνώοντο
Mid. Intin. Pres. ὁρᾶῶσϑαι ὁράασϑαι = μνώμενος μρωομένος
S ἰηβῶμι ἡβωοιμι.
3.
41) ὁλοόφρων, ὀλοός, ovlog (Ἄρης), Fovlos, ovdsog, ὀλοφώιος, ὀλοφυδνό
ὀλοφύρομαι, (2) οὔλη (λάχνη), οὐλαὶ (dal), οὐλόχυται, Aveo, οὐλαμός, οὐλι
κάρηνος, ἴουλος, (3) ovdog (ὅλος), οὐλε, οὐλή (scar).
The first eight of these are clearly related in sense and form. Our ποῖϊο
of dlodg is assisted by a play upon it, Ζεὺς" δ᾽ ἐπὶ νύκτ᾽ ὀλοὴν τάνυσε κρατερ
ὑσμίνῃ, ὄφρα φίλῳ περὶ παιδὶ μάχης ὀλοὸς πόνος εἴη; here it means “mi:
chievous or baneful’’; 8ὸ ᾿ἀχιλλῆος ὁλοὸν κῆρ" “heart set on mischief”, οὔλες
ἀστήρ- “haneful star”; so’Overgog in B. 6 is Fovlog nearly = ὀλούφρων, com]
τῷ ὁλοὰ geovémy4. οὗλον κεκλήγοντες" ‘comp. Soph. Trach. 846. ὀλοὰ στένει
resembles ὀλοφυδνόν ἔπος, and ὁλοφύρομαι, and expresses an alarm-cry fc
mischief felt impending. The g of ὀλοφώιος suggests a form ὀλοβός, especial]
as we have! ὁλώϊος. For this F the v in ovdog may be received as con
pensative. By metath. this olofog becomes again Fotoog (comp. the nam
Pholoé, Foviog.
(2) Distinct from these is probably οὕλη, fem. adj. applied to λάχνη, “wooll
3. + I. 567-8. b . 130. °c A 62. 4 Π. jor. © P. 756, γ8ι
' Wesiod. Theoy. 591, where see Mr. Paley’s note.
APPENDIX A. ΠΙ
down”’, or other soft nap, hair, &c., οὐλαμὸς, only found with ἀνδρῶν, “a close
band of men’’, and ἴουλος ‘downy first beard’’. It is difficult to say whether
the F is proper to these forms or not. Probably it was an inconstant element
in the root: thus Bekker writes Fovlag,® adj., epith of χλαένας,. but, as our
text now stands, ovloxagnvog” rejects the F. Οὐλαμὸς might, but need not,
be Fovlauog.* Under this group should also probably be brought οὐλαὶ, oral
οὐλόχυται, OAveae' (coupled with κρὲ λευκὸν as horse meat). Here again we
find the form ἐουλ- in the harvest-cry to Demeter οὔλω ἰούλω. Buttm. thought
them distinct, referring this οὐλαὶ to mola, and taking οὔλη (λάχνη) from
εἰλέω, to press close. But it scems better to connect them, if possible. What
common idea, then, can 116 at the root of images so far divergent as wool, fleece,
hair, down, corn, and grain? Probably the growing plant, especially in its na-
scent state, the young wheat with its soft beard, or even the first green crop
before the ear is formed, is this radical idea. As we use “‘corn’’, properly the
hard esculent portion, for the whole plant, so we may suppose the Greeks
used οὐλαί, properly the plant or crop, with such fine wavy fibrous aspect,
for the grain or produce. The 4 seems radical in ovd-, or fovd-, as shown
by Holle, wool. ἄρτον οὗλον" may probably mean a loaf of these οὐλαὶ.
The word ἀνδρῶν always added to οὐλαμὸν might suggest that it is a me-
taphor connected with ovly λάχνη, or with οὐλαὶ the growing crop, men
‘“‘thick as down or wool together’, or men ‘‘thick as blades in a corn-field”’,
might be meant.
If Buttman’s notion of οὐλαὶ being connected with mola molo be correct,
what shall we say of μύλη wvlngatog? Surely these last represent mola molo.
As regards the meaning of ὄλύραι, it is variously rendered by the authori-
ties quoted by Crusius 8. v. as triticum monococcum, or triticum spelta.
(3) Distinct again is ovdog, in later Gr. ὅλος, to which seems akin οὗλε,
either = salve! a fragment of a lost verb, or an adj. in vocative case, idiom-
atically nsed as if a verb imperat., comp. lat. macte. It is only found in Homer
in οὐλέ! τε καὶ μάλα χαῖρε, Geol δέ τοι ὄλβια δοῖεν; where ὄλβια following
suggests ὄλιξος becoming, with -1β- for -AF-, ὄλβος, and, with -4f- transposed,
oviog. To this belongs οὐλὴ healed flesh, scar.
4.
βουλὴ, ἀγοφή. (1) Mr. Gladstone’s essay on the ἀγορὴ (Gladst. III, 1)
may be recommended almost without reserve. If I venture to differ in
any point from this noble picture of heroic politics, it is in favour of giving
even greater weight to the popular element than there is given. The case of
Thersites is no argument against practical freedom of speech in the ἀγορή;
* It always occurs in the verse ending ava οὐλαμὸν ἀνδρῶν; there is rea-
son to think with Ahrens de hiatus legitimis quibusdam generibus, and J. La
Roche iber den Hiatus und die Elision, that in what they call the ‘bucolic
diwresis’’, i.e. where the s5'h and 6th feet are separate in word or words from
the 4'h, the hiatus between the 4'' and 5'h foot may stand. a. 6, 60, 61, 263
are examples of it, on the other hand see a. 209, 397, β. 26, 51, for elision
in the same place.
Bd. 50. hz. 246. ' BE. 196; ©. 564. K 9. 343. 1 @. 402.
at
iv APPENDIX A.
for Le is rebuked and chastised for splenetic? insclence and personally
offensive remarke: and Odve.. though using the ovgumentum Loceliaum. cicarly
earrica® the voice of the people with him. It is worth observing that τ. 212
might have ended. — aud perhaps would in anv other speaker's case Lave done
»»» — with ἀγόρετεν.," for Odes. concedes ty Thersite< the quality of an ἀγορητῆς.ἢ
Unt the poet substitnt.s ἐχολῴα as more descriptive of his tone. Further, in
the important question raised in the Iliad, viz. the reception or rejection of
the Trojan offer ty restore the property carried off by Paris. but without Helen.
Diowedes alone speaks, and there is properly speaking no preliminary delibera-
tive action of the Bovis, or council of chiefs. in managing the ἀγορὴ. as is
ascribed ty it in p. gs. In the writer's own words p. 129 ~the Assembly
shouts its approbation “of Diomedes’ words. Agam. immediately addresses
himeelf to the messenger; ‘Idens. vou hear the sense of the Achzans, how
they answer you; and J think withthem.”’ At the least. this is a declaration
as express as words can make it, and proceeding ous of the mouth of the
rival authority, ‘i. ¢. the ἀγορὴ viewed as the rival of the kingly power.,; to
the ἔτει that the acclamation of the Assembly was, for all practical pur-
poses, its vote, and that it required only concurrence from the king to invest
it with the fullest authoritv. In the ninth Iliad, as we have seen, the vote
held youd even without that concurrence.”
‘2, In that uinth Niad, Diom. says ‘I will contend with thee (Agam.) giving
rash counsel not in the βουλὴ but, in the ayogy’; where. accordingly. ‘the pro-
posal of Agam.’’, to return home re infectd,{ was ‘heard in silence, the mode by
which the army ‘which was nothing more, so to speak. than the State in uniform,
p- 158, indicated its disinclination or its doubt. But the counterproposal of
Diom. to fight to the last was hailed with acclamation*”’, p.100. The state-
ment of p. g& may on the whole be accepted: — “the βουλὴ seems to have
been a most important auxiliary instrument of government"; sometimes as pre-
paring materials for the more public deliberations of the Assembly. sometimes
intrusted, as a kind of cxecutive committee, with its confidence; always as
supplying the Assembly with an intellectual and authoritative element, in a con-
centrated form, which might give steadiness to its tone, and advise its course
with a weight adequate to so important a function.” It ought to be kept in
view that the members of the βουλὴ were always included in the ay. This
is plain from the instances quoted, and from the presence of the γέροντες
in the ἄγ. of Ithaca, In that ninth Iliad* another critical point in the for-
tunes of the war presents itself, and there is properly speaking no action of
the βουλή." Nestor only advises Agam. to consult with it after the decision
of the ἀγορὴ has been taken.* The moving forces lie in the king and in
the ayog7, and to the latter the speakers appeal as overruling the former
* It is remarkable that at Nestor’s suggestion the mecting of the βουλὴ
here takes the form of a banquet, as perhaps most likely to smooth the pas-
sage of unpalatable advice, I, 70, 89—g90. The topic discussed, involving
a retractation on the part of Agam., was too delicate to be treated in public.
4. 5 B. 214—6; 220—4;3 247; 250. b Β. 272—7. “8. 250; 322; cf. Θ. 29.
4 Β. 246. eH. 381 foll. I. 30. ΚΙ. so—t. " Ἔ. 52. ip. 14.
k I. 78. ' TI. g—13; jo—6.
APPENDIX A. ν
when unequal to the crisis. Diom. challenges the decision of the whole host
‘‘young and old’’, whether a reflection previously cast by Agam. on his war-
like spirit was deserved; nay treats him as an isolated chief," who might go
his own way if he would, in short, as bereft of authority when advising
against the sense of the ἀγορή. Again it is the ἀγορὴ, not the βουλὴ, to
which belongs ‘‘the grand epithet xvdtavecga™’’, confined by Homer ‘to two
subjects, battle and debate, the clash of swords and the wrestling of minds....
Thus with him it was in two fields that man was to seek for glory, partly in
the fight, and partly in the assembly’ (p. 103). And the analogy of the one
may guide us in estimating the part of the aristocratic as compared with that
of the popular element in the other. Homer’s battle-pieces resolve them-
selves into duels of the ἀριστῆες, and his Assemblics into similar debates
between them. Still, in the serried ranks, locked shields, and protended spears
of the mass lay the weight of the shock of war; in the shout of unanimous
approval, or the cold silence of distrust lay the weight of substantial deci-
sion*. They who deny practical weight to the ἀγορὴ must in the same degreo
deny it to the φαλαγξ. At any rate it is important to note that the two
cases are in Homer parallel. Of course I am even further from Grote’s view,
(Hist. of Gr. vol. II. p. go—2) of ‘‘the nullity of positive function in the
ἀγορὴ", than is the author whom I quote.
(3) In the Ody. there is no action of the βουλὴ whatever. This is, doubt-
less, due in great part to the extent to which the Suitors’ faction had cor-
rupted its spirit and usurped its functions. Yet this of itself shows that the
βουλὴ was more, and the ἀγορὴ less, dependent upon the king, and so in
his protracted absence easily lapsed into insignificance. The ‘maiden speech”’
of Telem. in the ay. is really an appeal to the popular element against the
aristocratical τῶν ἀνδρῶν φίλοι υἷες of ἐνθάδε γ᾽ εἰσὶν ἄριστοι.» He says the
people countenanced them, and thus ‘‘caused him sufferings without end?P’’,
and implies that, but for that countenance, the Suitors’ annoyance would cease.
He appeals with confidence to their sense of justice, — “1 you had been
yourselves the devourers of my substance, I could recover (lamages by urging
my pleaa’’. The γέροντες" made way for him when he appeared in public,
but clearly sided mostly against him. The other speakers in the Ithacan ay.
confirm this view. Halitherses says, “ἰοὺ us devise plans to stop (the sui-
tors)’’*. Mentor chides the apathy of the people in terms which plainly show
that they had the right and power to rebuke and check the suitors, and that
only their will was to blame. Even Eurymachus, threatening Halith. with a
mulet (ϑωὴ ν), must be presumed, speaking in the ay., to mean one imposed
by its authority; cf. ϑωὴν ᾿Αχαιῶν N. 669; and Leiocritus, as though in some
fear lest Mentor’s words should rouse the λαοὶ, proposes, with some air of an
* I do not follow Mr. Gladstone in his criticism upon the ‘Drunken As-
sembly’’, on the break up of the victorious Greek armament" (p. 130—z), as,
when flushed with victory and wine, they may have exceeded constitutional
limits. Perhaps the Epic aspect of the Achsean ἀγορὴ was, that in opinion
it was never divided save when under this bad influence,
m I. 42—5. " A: 498 6, 85 PB. 743 7 oe 15. ὃ r B. 14
. 16 . Igt. ay. "139-68
VI APPENDIX A.
evasive compromise, that Telemachus’ project of a voyage should be carried
out by his own friends, and that the assembly should break up.* Indeed, the
plan which Pallas prompts, to summon the ay.”, is superfluous, but for this view
of its powers. Why, otherwise, would he not have been on as strong, or stronger,
ground, in denouncing within his own walls the arrogance of the devourers
of his substance? Accordingly the suitors never trouble themselves about any
βουλὴ, but have a vivid apprehension* of the vigorous measures likely to be
taken against themselves personally by the ἀγορὴ in case Telem. should
summon it. The loyalty of the λαοὶ, too, had slumbered for their absentee
monarch, but gave a tardy though ultimately a true response to the symptoms
of manly spirit in his son, whom therefore, the suitors plot to slay before
he can ὁμηγυρίσασϑαι ᾿Αχαιοὺς εἰς ἀγορήν.
(4) The ἀγορὴ, then, must, it seems, be moved, but when moved acts with
a will of its own, though habitually expecting the lead’, whether from the
king, from his son in his absence, or from some of the γέροντες, — a word
which had already lost all meaning of age and become an official designa-
tion = ἀριστῆες, — to whom it looked up with deference and respect. But,
alike where the βουλὴ was in full force and where it was in abeyance, it is
the ἀγορὴ whose will is to be set in motion, Heré in the Il. and Pallas in
the Ody. have no other machinery by which to work?. The hero, suppliant
for return, sits λισσόμενος βασιλῆα te πάντα te δῆμον". The Ithacans, —
though here we dip into the doubtful last book, — on the news of the Suitors’
massacre, go in crowds to the ἀγορὴ," and proceed to action after delibera-
tion there; and there, it is to be presumed, on their return® to the city, the
oaths of loyalty were renewed which reunited the people to their king.4 The
δῆμος is also represented as giving the γέρας to the men of rank and mark.¢
The κῆρυξ ordinarily summons the ἀγορὴ. Accordingly in T. 1—10, where
we have an ay. of the gods, Themis, the personification of inviolable right,
performs this function. So she is coupled by Telem. with Zeus in a solemn
appeal,! as really sanctioning (lit. ‘‘seating and breaking up’) the ἀγοραὶ
of men. In that Olympian ay. the nymphs and rivers — the rank and file
of deity — are all present, whereas, ordinarily, what we see in Olympus is
the βουλὴ of Zeus, The summoning authority is that of the king or some
one of the ἀριστῆες. In the H. Achilles convoked it, as one of the latter.
In the Ody.§ gyptius asks, ‘‘who has collected the assembly, on whom has
come such an exigency, whether among the young men or among the elder?”
But as the king Odys. had been away twenty years, and there had been no
ay. held all the while, this case is too exceptional for anything positive to
be built upon it. The ey. had also judicial functions. In a group on the Shield
the λαοὶ sit on a trial of compensation for homicide;5 the γέροντες = the
δικάσπολοι, to whom the keeping ϑέμιστες, “judicial decisions”, in store for
such occasions is entrusted by Zeus,' hold the σκῆπτρα, symbolical of that
office, in their hands, and sit in a sacred circle, and the people’s province
seems to be to award the fees to the most just adjudicator.
v B. 252-4. Y a. go—t. * π. 375-82. Y Β. 95—100. t A. 54—6;
comp. B. 11 and so—2; a@ 272; # 7—158. 4 ὃ. 187. b wm. 420—64.
© w. 536. ἀ ὦ. 546. ey. 150. ὥ[β. 68—6o. 6 B. 28—9.
bh J. 497 — 508. tA. 237—9.
APPENDIX A. VII
5:
πεσσοί. Herod. I. 94 says, this was the only game common to Lydians
and Greeks which the former did not claim as their invention, — a testimony
to its antiquity. It is familiarly spoken of in the Purfnas, the Sanskrit name
being Chaturunga, nearly = quadripartite, and there being four parties, each of
four pieces and four pawns, which in the modern game are clubbed, as it were,
in pairs. Hence zecool is no doubt fr. πίσυρες four, not, as the Etym. M., fr.
πέντε; a mistake caused by the Greek board being ruled with 5 lines (ef.
Soph. Fr. 381, καὶ πεσσὰ πεντάγραμμα καὶ κύβων Boda), crossed by other 5,
each representing doubtless the fingers of the hand. The middle line of each
set was called the fega γραμμὴ, on which a single piece,* the king, was sta-
tioned, probably common to both players, and standing at the intersection of
these feo. ye. He was only moved when no other way of deciding the game
was left; hence κιψφήσω δ᾽ ἤδη καὶ τὸν ἀφ᾽ ἱερᾶς, Sophron. Fr. 93, == to use
one’s last resource. Thus the playing weocol were four on a side; cf. also
the Lat. fessera (τέσσαρες).
Another kind was played with counters, xvveg, of greater number, and the
game was won by enclosing a black κύων between two white — like forcing a
stale-mate. Plato de Rep. VI. 487 uses this as a simile for Socrates’ driving an
adversary to self-contradiction or absurdity. This latter sort was like the
Roman latrunculi. These games differed from our chess in not having diffe-
rence of value in pieces denoted by difference of form; nor were they based,
as the Hindu Chaturunga, on the idea of mimic war, which, however, the word
lairunculi points to. And it seems most likely that this idea was later evolved
by the more sedentary and meditative oriental, while the versatile and prac-
tical Greek made war itself scientific, but retained the game crude. So in
Eurip. Med. 68 it is the aged lounger’s game as here the youthful idler’s; comp.
πεσσονομῶν, /Eschyl. Supp. 12, arranging as πεσσοὶ on the board. Sec Forbes’
Hist. of Chess, App. B. trom which most of the above remarks are taken. He
refers also to Pollux VII. 206, IX. 97—8, Salcius Bassus in Wernsdorf’s poet.
lat. min. p. 236.
6.
(1) ἀδήσειε, ἀδηκότες. (2) ἀδινὸς, ἄδην, ἀδὴν- νος acorn, ἄδος, ἄτος.
(3) ἀνδάνω, ἁδεῖν, ἥδομαι, ἡδὺς, ἡδονή.
(1) Butm. Lexil. s. v. takes ἀδήσειε" as from ἀδέω for ἀηδέω. He does
not mention that the Cod. Vind. has in α. 134 δείπνῳ ἀηδήσειεν. On the
question of this individual word, this reading might perhaps be viewed as
confirmatory of Butmann’s view, so far as that a verb ἀηδέω was recognized;
although exactly in proportion as it confirms this, it must go against such a
harsh contraction as @- for a7.
* Athenzeus (I. 14) has a story, that the suitors played πεσσοὶ to see who
would win Penelopé, giving her name to the single central-piece, and that
Eurymachus had hitherto won. He understands it as a game in which counters
were thrown.
6. 5 α. 134. mar.
Vl APPENDIX A,
(2) But ἀδήσειε may be better connected with ἀδηκότες in καμάτω ἀδηκ. ἡδὲ
καὶ ὕπνω," and both with ὥδην, adivog. For thus we get a common germ of
meaning for forms stamped with resemblance. The common Latin phrase
satis superque shows how easily the notion of ‘“‘enough” passes into ‘too
much”, saticty into disgust. Thus δείπνῳ adn. means “might have too much
of the supper”, taken with all its accessories of uproar, &c.; and καμάτῳ
ἀδηκότες 7. x. ὕπνῳ represents how over-toil leads to oversleeping. The «
of αδήσειε may be compared with ἔδμεναι ἄδην," where any who consider
the ictus metricus insufficient to cause the ὦ may read ἄδδην, and here ἀδ-
δήσειεν. The meaning of ἀδινὸς is more nearly covered by the expression
ad libitum than by any other: so it is used of sound, as weeping, singing,
and of motion, as applied to which last, ἀδινὸν κῆρ is “restlessly beating”.
(3) The root of all these seems to be ad-, where δι though radical, is not
constant, as in ¢ad-tog gsia, ἐῤῥάδαται ῥαίνω, χανδάνω yalo (χάδσω) χά-ος.
But with this syllabic root the £ is separably combined, at least a strong
presumption of its being so arises from sat = αδ- i. e. Fad-, adfatim = ἄδην,
i. ὁ. ἄξδην, and still more from the curious correspondence of Fadynv ἐλάαν
with fatigo fatisco, i. α. fatis or satis ago. From the same comes directly adog
passing equally into the sense of satis superque, in τέμνων δένδρεα μακρά, ἄδος
δέ μιν ἵκετο θυμόν, where, since hiatus is allowable after the bucolic di-
wresis in 3d foot, eilher ἄδος or Fadog might stand. See footnote on p. III.
(4) In same sense we have aon, Eurip, Med. 245, showing that from this root
ad- the δ falls away, so that we have from a possible present «fda the verb-
forms aot, ἄσαιμι, ἄσασϑαι, &c. All with ἃ, which may be due to the ictus
always found to fall on this syllable, or may be owing to fo. This verb
means to ‘‘feed’’ and to “satisfy’’; comp. ὄψου τ᾽ ἄσαιμι προταμὼν ,' and
ixxovg παντοίου δρόμου ἀἄσῃ:" to the same vorb belongs ἀμέναι i.e. ἀ(.Εδ)ε-
μέναι.
(5) This same root appears with vowel ¢ in ἑῶμεν, but the é should probably
be ἐ; read therefore ἐπεὶ x’ ἐῶμεν πολέμοιο." This vowel-change illustrates
the relation of ἄδην to ἐσθέω, ‘‘eating” and “having enough” having in
primitive thought an obvious connexion, as is further shown by adn» — ἕνος
meaning’ ‘‘an acorn’’ or ‘mast’’, viewed as an esculent. But see Crusius
8. v. ξῶμεν.
(6) In all these forms the f fluctuates greatly; in ἀδινὸς it had perished from
Homeric speech, in ἄδην it is inconstant; thus we might read μέν φημι
Fadny ἐλάαν xaxdtytos,' hut Τρῶας ἄδην ἐλάσαι πολέμοιο. In ξόμεναι ἄδην
it might possibly be efdny, affatim, as above. In ἀδηκότες it retains its force,
Assuming a pres. fadéw, 8 grammarian, mending the text whence the £ had
been lost, might easily write the perf. partic. ἄδηκότες by contracting ἐαδηκότες,
i.e. FeFadnnotes. Horace in Ode III, 4, 11 guided by poetic instinct, hit on
fatigatum as the equivalent of fefadnxota, which is etymologically correct,
see on ἄδην ἐλάαν above, and substituted tudo, of the boy, for καμάτω of
the mau.
(7) In Hesiod. Scut. 101, where the same verb occurs, the true reading is prob-
bw. 281; K. 98. “ E. 203. 4 Π. 481, cf. α. g2 mar. ° A, 88. [1]. 489.
8 J. 280—1. bT. 402, ἷξε. 28. * T. 423.
- APPENDIX A. IX
ably ἄεται πολέμοιο, where ἄεται i. e. ἄξεται is fut. mid. of ἄξω; as ἐλάω ᾿
fut. of ἐλάω, ἐλαύνω, by syncopation.
(8) The third class of words with a rough breathing are still related to
ἄδην, ἐσθίω, the carliest known pleasure of sense being eating to one’s
fill; in evadoy, really ἔξαδον, the * is lost, being a substitute for the £, and,
disappearing when it appears as v.* So the curious νήδυμος in which the
y was ephelcystic of previous word, see Buttm. Lexil. 8. v.
(9) The great difficulty in these words arises from the two fluctuating ele-
ments δ and f, though the former are confined to one marked branch of forms,
ἄσαι ἄσασϑαι &c., to which arog = ἄατος, as if a-a(fd)etog fr. ἄξδω above,
should be added.
7.
δούλη, Sums, δμωὴ, ei fos, Ins, olxevs, ταμίη, ἀμφίπολος, ϑαλαμήπολος,
δρηστὴρ, δρήστειρα.
(1) The word δούλη is regarded as doubtful. It occurs twice, but in one*
place the Schol. rejects the whole verse, in the other reads Jovins, as a
prop. name, or by a var. lect. wholly alters it. We have however δουλοσύνης",
and the adj. δούλειος, δούλιος ἃ, which favour the genuineness of δούλη. The
word doviog, as explained by Athen. 6. pag. 267, included those who had
been slaves and received freedom, libertus as well as servus. This cannot be
affirmed of its Homeric use. It, however, seems by δούλιος &c. to describe
more precisely the state or condition of liberty lost, the opposite of élev-
®egog; sce especially yx. 421—3. The δμὼς, —7, rather denotes the doing
actual service to another under compulsion (δαμῆναι) to serve his will. The
δμῶες and δμωαὶ constantly occur. They were obtained by war® or piracy‘,
as captives, or by purchase’, or birth" of such parents as were δμῶες, and
were an! important part of the property. The males were cattle-keepers,
field labourers, gardeners, &c., the younger seem to have been generally sect
with flocks and herds on account of the activity required. Homer's estimate
of slavery is that it destroys half! a man’s vigour. The female slaves wero
concubines" to their lord, or personal" attendants on their mistress, with whom
they shared the labours of the loom; we find them as domestic attendants
preparing the bath or the banquet, fetching water, cleansing the hall and the
vessels, spreading seats and couches, grinding meal, going on errands, &c.
(2) The number of slaves of Odys. is doubtful, save that there were so fe-
males°® besides Euryclea and Euronomé. The high? trustworthiness of Eurycl.,
who is called δὲα γυναικῶν, makes her an important character in the poem.
Her personal love for? the house of Odys. and deep zeal for her lord and
lady’ are among the most delightful features in the poem. She is probably
* See Butmann’s Greek Verbs, 8. v. avéavo.
E. 297, 450. Κα. 4320: F. γος; Φ. 102; H. 465. b 9. 212; 6. 322;
. 497. iq. 225. k 0. 366—70, v. 209—10; ®. 282. ' g. 322—3.
my. 37; I. 664; δι 12; ξ. 202; α. 432. na. 330—1; I. 143; § 15—19.
° 4. 421. Pv. 1473 B. 345—7; υ. Pie 4 @&. 432—5; B. 361—70; δ. 742—9;
. 1- 79.
τ. Δ Γ΄. 409. bd. 11—12. cy. 423. ἀ @. 252; 0. 323. ey. 73.
ω
x APPENDIX A.
the one pointed at in the advice of Pallas to Telem., on the assumption of
Penelope being about to remarry, to set forthwith over his household duaaay*
ἢ τίς τοι ἀρίστη φαίνεται εἶναι. She has supervision® of the duwai generally,
and is subsequently taken into the confidence’ of Odys. and Telem. in their
measures to destroy the suitors, and renders them important" assistance. She
is also called on* to point out the faithless dueai, as having had oversight
of their conduct. The males would probably be much more numerous than
the female slaves. The swineherd Eumeus, himself a δμὼς, was also an
ὄρχαμος ἀνδρῶν, and would have several under him, 4* were in the actual
hut; but it seems unlikely that these, with 4 dogs, could have been enough
to attend to 12 herds of swine of 80 each. Melanthius the goatherd has
2 slaves in attendance in merely driving to the city the goats on which the
suitors were that day to banquet. Probably there could not have been less than
2 to each herd, besides the headman, ogy. ἄνδρ., under whom they served.
Alcinous had κοῦ female slaves, Circé? had 4.
(3) The ϑὴς was a hired? labourer, the term of engagement mentioned is
δὲ year. He retained his prospect of independence, but whether during his
year he differed from a dues is doubtful. The term is used of field-labour >
(ἐπάρουρος) and of building’. Telem. had ϑῆτες ὁ as well as ὅμῶες at his
command. Hes. in a line which has been suspected, but needlessly, Opp.
602—2, bids the master, when the harvest is got in, ϑῆτα τ᾽ ἄοικον ποιεῖσϑαε
‘‘take to him a homeless hireling”’, because the @ng would usually have an
οἶκος of his own; now he was wanted in his employer's, to guard the housed
crop; and “‘look out for an ἔρεϑος (female servant) without any child’. The ἔρε-
@og° in Homer is a male, and only reaps, but the word συνέρεϑος fem., merely
meaning “assistant’’, occurs also. Doed. 2481 makes fg:@., after Schol., =
ἐριουργὸς ‘‘wool-worker’’, properly therefore fem., and catachrestically masc.
We may under this head class the χζερνῆτιςδ γυνὴ, who works for small pay
and is not a slave. Slaves were not commonly allowed to marry; the privi-
lege is specially promised" to the two faithful ones by Odys.
(4) The remaining names are rather those of special occupations on which
the servants, slave or hired, were put. The ἀμφίπολος (fem.) rises by usage
almost to the corresponding condition of the ϑεράπων in the other sex, but
the radical difference seems to be the servile origin of the former. She
shares the company, labour, conversation, and sometimes bed of her mistress.
The δρηστὴρ, vxodg.' might be a free-man; certainly Odys., when he pro-
poses δρηστοσύνη", does not mean slavery, but the attending on the person,
going errands', lighting fire, and so earning a livelihood or maintenance,
not a payment, but a support received™, On the other hand the dumal, slaves,
are called δρήστειραι"» Thus the word denotes occupation only, not condition.
Similarly the ταμέη, or γυνὴ ταμίη (see on B. 345), is a slave, who has
charge of provisions, and sets the ofrog? before the guest, and also attends
Γ 0. 28. δ. 147-56. ‘* t. 15—25. "gq. 380—7. ° 7. 390—432- Ὑ ἕξ͵ 26.
ἢ. 1093. ,15κ.,349. * 6. 357-τ.--9. * 6. 236ο; D. 444—5. b 1. 489—90.
®. 444, 446. t'8. 644. © 3. 550—60. ff. 32. 6 M. 433 - 5.
bh φ. 213—16. i 0. 330-41 π. 248; v. 160. k o. 321—4. "9. 313—4.
™ 0, 316. Dt. 345. 9 B. 345; Comp. a@. 435; π. 152. F @. 139 (mar.)
APPENDIX A. XI
to his bath; the ταμέης before Troy4 is a free-man, i. e. one of the force 80
acting; perhaps at home he would have had no place, the ταμέη doing duty
there. In Pindar δράστας appears distinguished from ϑεράπων (Pyth. IV,
287), Donalds. (note ἐδ. 41) thinks, “as slave from free’’, but this is not
quite certain. In the Ody. the δρηστὴρ would have been lower than the @eg.,
but yet not a slave.
(5) The word dvdgaenodov', of doubtful Homeric usage, may be added. The
Schol., in the only place where it is read, condemns it as a modernism and
rejects the line. [Chiefly from a dissertation de servis ap. Hom. by H. Rich-
ard. Berlin, 1851.]
8.
κρητὴρ, δέπας, XUXEALOY, ἄλεισον, κισσύβιον, σχύφος. The κρητὴρ
was the large bow] for mixing* wine with water. Achilles” receiving the envoys
calls to Patroclus for a bigger one, and bids him mix the wine stronger. It was
often of rare skill and costly work (τετυγμένος), ascribed e. g. toc Hepheestus;
a history even attaches to it, as to that of Achill.,4 given as a prize; this
was of Sidonian workmanship, brought by the Pheenicians over sea, and given
as a ransom for Lycaon son of Priam. It was mostly of silver*, as being
large; that of Achill., above, contained 6 μέτρα; sometimes finished with gold
as far as the γείλεαΐ or shallow upper portion which met the drinker’s lips. *
The same description is given of Helen’s work-basket® (rddaeog) which was
perhaps shaped like a cup. We once read of a golden one, that used by Achill.»
when pouring libations all night to the dead Patroclus. One κρητὴρ was
enough for a party; each guest sat at his own table and had a δέπας or
κύπελλον to himself. The xg. was then probably at the upper end of the
μέγαρονν, as Leiodes is said to have sat by it μυχοίτατος ἀεὶ, and Phemius!
who in the μνηστηροφονέα was παρ᾽ ὀρσοθύρην, and had doubtless retreated
with the rest towards the μυχὸς Ὁ or upper part, deposits his lyre between
the xg.° and his seat. It would also be in the middle of that upper part, as
a handsome object would be there most conspicuous; thus the guests of
Egisthus (Agamem. and friends) lay, when slain, aug) xg.° (on both sides).
For a large company there would be several or many? χρητῆρες; each party
probably grouping around its xe. Agam. speaks of ten as forming such a
drinking party, where the whole company was large, each party having its ofvo-
qoos, and, doubtless, its xg. too. The xg. was" filled or crowned (ἐπιστεφέας
οἴνοιο) with wine by younger attendants, and a κῆρυξ' or ϑεράπων filled the
, »,On sch. Agam. 790, Mr. Paley’s note, referring to Aristoph. Eq. 814,
og ἐποίησε τὴν πόλιν ἡμῶν μεστὴν εὑρὼν ἐπιχειλῆ, suggests that the χείλη
of the cup reached some way below the actual brim. The Homeric phrase
ἐπὶ χείλεα xexg. favours this view, ‘the gilding would probably cover an upper
section of the cup, not be a mere edging.
qT. 44. ’ H. 4785.
8. * a. 110; Γ. 269—70; 295. b TI, 202. ς δι 617. aD, γ4ι &e.
9 ὃ. 615—6; t. 203; κ. 356—7; 0. 1223 Comp. 103, 115—6. ' 06.616. & ὃ, 131.
"ἢ 219. ' x. 86, k φ. 146. Vox. 333. my. 270. ny. 340—1.
° 2. 419. Ῥ α. 110; v. 253, (comp. 158); Φ. 271—2; A. 470-1; 1. 175—6.
4 B. 126-8, * comp. t. 9; ἃ. 110, 148. 5 @, 232; α. 110,
MII APPENDIX A.
drinking cups from it. So, in pouring libations. the ze.‘ was only. it seems,
used for the cup< to be filled from. So Heetor speaks of setting up the xg."
of freedom ἐλεύθερος to the gods. whenever the Achzans should be driven
out of Tros. The χρητῆρες" of the nymph’s cavern near Phorcys haven are,
like their looms ieroi . of stone iaivos : meant, probably, to be something
marvellous and exceptional.
2 δέπας" seems a general word = cup, inclading zexel. and ale. but
not χρ.: it was commonlv*® of gold. Homer knew of nothing finer even for the
gods. There often occurs a déxas! αμφικύχελξον. perhaps an upper and
lower cup with connecting stem. of the figure of which an hour-glass may give
one a notion. The advantage of this. probably, was that, though one part
only could be used at once, one would be clean if a rarer® wine or stronger
draught were introduced; or, if such a potion as that of Nestor, Pramnean
wine* mixed with grated cheese and meal comp. that offered by Circé>) were
required. Or, one might be used for pouring libations, the other for drinking
— actions often‘ succeeding one another. The Gods who pour no libations
use the déx. augixrx.; but as the amplest and grandest vessel. Nestor’s
δέπας is elaborately described,4 as brought from home. his favourite cup,
material not stated, studded, however, with gold, having four ‘tears’, being
probably handles to lift,* and pairs of duves about each. and with two rims or
bases below; so big and heavy that it was not easy for a man to lift it when full.
The size was evidently unusual and may have been from 1 to 2 gallons. Clean-
sing the déxa ‘pl., and χρητῆρας formed a duty of female! servants. Achil.
had a δέπας" τετυγμένον which none but he used, and in which he poured liba-
tions only to Zeus. So he alone had (above) a zg. χρύσεος. The word xvxei.,
like ‘goblet’, is a diminutive of which the primitive has not been retained;
both contain the root xux- (xrxtw, flecto, comp. zvqos currus, and Kvgos*
prop. name of a place’.
(3) ἄλεισον,ἷ nearly always* in connexion with sacrifice, perhaps was only a
solemn, ceremonial name, as our “chalice”, for the libation cup, as the same
which is called alec. first. is called δέπας ἀμφίχυπ. afterwards. Its derivation
is doubtful. It was of gold, the epith. καλὸν or xegexaliésis sometimes added,
and once ἄμφωτον," which gives a notion of some size and weight, though
inferior to Nestor’s δέπας above; vet three are carried off! from a house in
hasty escape, ὑπὸ κόλπῳ, by a woman. Of course size, fashion, ἃς. might
vary, and she would choose the best worth taking, if equally easy to take.
Priam offers one to Hermes incog.’ to recompense services of great moment.
* It is characteristic that the day of the suitors’ massacre is the festival
of Apollo; the suitors never pour libations to the god; and yet the ἄλεισον
out of which Antinous is drinking, when shot down, is consistent with a sacred
occasion; comp. g. 265—8, zx. g—10.
' A. 596--8; K. 578—9. ° Z. 527—9. ἥν. 105. ~ A. 584, 596; 0. 469—70,
(comp. 466 ; χ. g—10. (comp. 17°. Xam. 142: ¥. 41, 472; δ. 58; κ. 316;
6. 121; 5. 3; Ψ. 196; Q. 285. > ¥. 63; ¥. 573 0. 102, 120; 7x. 86; A. 584;
Z. 220: 1.656; FP. 219, 656, 663. 667, 699. * B. 340, 350; &. 204—11; 1. 203.
ὁ A. 639—40. b x. 234—5- ς ὃ. 70, 89; H. 480—1. 4 A. 362—6.
¢ comp. z. 10; DP. 264. 513. ἔς 61; v. 152—3. ΕΠ. 225. b B. 748.
iy. 50, 53, comp. 63; 9. 430; 0. 85; A. 774. K 7. 9, 10. ' 9. 469—7o.
APPENDIX A. XII
(4) κισσύβιον a more common (wooden?) vessel. Odys. has™ one on board
ship, used on an occasion when he would not have risked a precious article.
Eumzeus has one in common use. It corresponded to the xg." not to the
nvm. or ἄλεισ. Odys. gives the Cyclops drink out of the large bowl which
men would have used for mixing — a monster goblet.
(s) oxvqog?, lat. scyphus, cup for drinking, probably of wood, used by
Eumeus, corresponds to the handsomer metal κύπελλον, as the κισσύβ. to
the κρητῆρ.
(6) The gtadn? does not appear to be used in Homer for drinking, but as
an urn for bones of the dead, or for heating fluids (ἀπύρωτος). For carrying
wine the ἀσκὸς 4, particularized as αἴγειος, was used, and the ἀμφιφορεῦς.
9.
ON THE USE OF Moops By HOMER.
(1) Homer's modal usage of verbs is less regular than that of later writers,
and the rules of his usage, where ascertainable, are often peculiar. Preemi-
nent among these is the employment of the indic. mood in clauses conditional,
dependent, or otherwise not positive. By a rugged boldness which gives his
style a picturesque quality, he asserts where others would obliquely intimate;
hence the thing narrated by him has a point-blank directness of incidence,
and the expressions which convey it an ever-lively vigour. This use of the
indic. is part of the general characteristic of objectivity which stamps his
poetry. We have not only the use of the indic. common to Attic writers, as
in εἶ τι εἶχεν ἐδέδου av, exemplified in ef* ξωόν γ᾽ Αἴγισϑον ... ἔτετμεν
᾽Ατρείδης, .... τῶ κέ of οὐδὲ θανόντι χυτὴν ἐπὶ γαῖαν ἔχευαν, and in εἰ
δέν x’ ἔτι προτέρω γένετο δρόμος, ... τῷ κέν μιν παρέλασσε, and 80 also
in ἃ. 317, Π. 847—8, but we have, further, the indic. and infin. without even xe
or ἄν at all; thus καί pve ἔφην ἐλθόντα φιλησέμεν ἔξοχον ἄλλων, ... εἰ
νῶϊν .. νόστον ἔδωκεν ... Ζεὺς, and, ἐπεὶ τόδε κέρδιον ἦεν, εἰ νόστη σ᾽
Ὀδυσεὺς καὶ ὑπότροπος ἵκετο δῶμα. Tho same feature of style prevails
where there is no formal protasis, but here κε, κὲν assists the meaning;
as in ἢ yag°® μὲν ζωόν ye κιχήσεαι, ἢ xev Ὀρέστης κτεῖνεν ὑποφϑάμενος.
Here we have a mere alternative of fact to be ascertained at some future
time; “when you reach home you will find him alive, unless it be that (κε)
Orestes has killed him first’’,* is the sense; and xey κτεῖνεν is nearly = a
perf. subj. or fut perf. So where a supposed case is the object of a wish,
the optative and indic. are found as parallel expressions of the same notion;
asin, καί κεῖ τὸ βουλοίμην, καί κεν πολὺ κέρδιον ἦεν. There is an example,
* The disjunctive might of course be reduced to the hypothetical form,
when the protasis would appear; — “If you do not find him alive, Orestes
will have killed him’’. Here the fut. perf. is shown.
my. 346. " &. 78; π. 52. % & 112, P DW. 243, 253, 270, 616. 4. 196,
212. τ B. 290, 349, 379; ε. 164, 204.
9. 4 y. 256—8. b @, 526. ει 3 dy, 331—2. 5 δι 546-7.
. 41:
τ;
=
- "πᾶ πο.» - - -
oe . - = ee -
eet Be ee ee Be .. «
-_ =
Pe - - τσ
XIV APPENDIX A,
perhaps unique, of αἴ κεν with a fut. indic. in af κενξ ἄνευ ἐμέϑεν (says Heri
of Zeus) Ἰλίου αἰπεινῆς πεφιδήσεται ond ἐθελήσει exxtgoa.* Hence it
a doubtful instance as, ef" Ὀδυσεὺς ἔλθοι... aipa xe ἀποτίσεται, we may
reasonably take ἀποτί. to be indic., not subj. shortened epicé. The case o:
ξώειϊ oy ἢ τέθνηκε, without a verb like οἷδα &c. preceding, is not difficult
In brief phrases, where the sense is clear, such as nolens volens, bon gré
mal gré, the omission of the particles &c. which mark the alternative relatior
is admissible by the idioms of many languages. To render it literally, ‘‘he
is alive or dead’’, is trivial, The assertion is, that Odysseus is ἄλλοϑι γαέης
i. e. ‘‘not in Ithaca’’, and so, ‘‘whether alive or dead’’, makes no difference
Hence it is resolvable into a pair of hypothetical propositions, ‘‘if he be
alive, he is not in Ithaca’, and ‘if he be dead, the same’’; which fall:
under ef with the indic., and is regular.
(2) Homer uses the indic. where the common rules require subj. or optat.
as in dependent sentences, those expressing final cause, or the temporal ΟἹ
conditional relations, as also in sentences which are the objects of verbs like
ἔφη, olda, ἄς. The indic. for optat. is found also in those subjoined afte1
historic tenses in the oratio obliqg. This latter case is common to other writers,
but amounts in them at most to a frequent exceptional usage, to be accounted
for by the wish to impart to some circumstance mentioned an independent
truth external to the statement; see the exx. given from Herodotus, Xeno-
phon, and others by Jelf Gr. Gr. 8. 886. 2, 3, and 8. 890. In Homer it is
not the exception, but the rule, as regards the optative mood. His choice lay
between the optat. as expressing the view of a fact taken by the speaker,
and the indic., as expressing the fact of itself, however hypothetical. The
subj. was out of the question, as pervaded by the notion of contingency and
futurition; and he prefers the indic., as developing the fact into relief, and
giving it an objective prominence.
(3) To return, however, to the use of the indic. where the subj. is regular.
This, except where the tense is future, is exceptional, and to be specially
accounted for, as in other writers, Thus in ogea* καὶ Ἕκτωρ εἴσεται ἢ δα
καὶ οἷος ἐπίστηται πολεμίζειν ἡμέτερος θεράπων, ἢ of τότε χεῖρες ἄαπτοι
patvov® ὁππότ᾽ ἐγώ meg ἴω μετὰ μῶλον Ἄρηος: here to match ἐπέστηται,
μαίνονθ᾽ should be μαένωνθ᾽. The reason of the change is that the speaker,
Achilles, has in his mind a vivid sense of the latter alternative as expressing
what had been the fact 80 far: — his comrade had hitherto fought only when
he himself Aad mixed in the struggle. Again, in ὡς δ᾽. ὄρνις. . προφέρησι
μάστακ᾽ ἐπεί κε λάβῃσι, κακῶς δ᾽ aga of πέλει αὐτῇ, Achilles is expressing
his own hard case in a simile, the very pith of which is contained in this
last clause. On this he would fix attention, and he does it by the indice.
The other verbs here are in the subj. of simile, — a well-known Homeric
usage.
(4) Where, however, the indic. verb is fut. in tense, its substitution for the
subj. is one of the broad features of the poet's style. In the passage in
* N. b. Bekker always ignores αὐ, writing εὖ for it, Surely this is wrong.
ΕΟ. 213—6. “Q. 539. | B. 132; cf. Δ. 464. ΚΠ. 242—5. | I. 323—4.
APPENDIX A. XV
which Agamemnon threatens to compensate his own loss of Chryseis by de-
priving some other, the fut. commences, and to this the subj. succeeds, then
the future is resumed —
ἀλλ᾽ εἰν μὲν δώσουσι γέρας μεγάϑυμοι ‘Azatol, ἄρσαντες κατὰ ϑυμὸν
ὅπως ἀντάξιον ἔσται, (apodos. understood, “good’’,) ef δέ κε μὴ δώωσιν,
ἐγὼ δέ κεν αὐτὸς ἕλωμαι ἢ τεὸν, ... ἢ Ὀδυσῆος, ἄξω ἕλών" ὃ δέ κεν κεχο-
λώσεται ὃν κεν ἵκωμαι. Perhaps we may say that the alternative of the
Achwans’ giving is considered first, and that of their not giving made to
stand more remote, and contingent on the failure of the former. It is to be
observed that ἄξω may possibly be not fut., but subj. aor., of which other
forms occur in Θ. sos, 545, 8. 663; it might, however, clearly be fut., as
a more positive threat growing out of κεν. . ἕλωμαι previous. Again in κὲν
κεχολώσεται the irritation of feeling to be produced is contemplated as a
matter of course, and so put in fut. indic.; whereas the question of ‘‘whom
I shall come upon”’, is left pending, and so is expressed by the subj. ἕκωμαι.
The fact, however, is that our own language is so much less perfect a
mechanism, as also is the Latin, for rendering these delicate shades of modal
power, that we are obliged to trust the Greek fur a sense which we cannot
reduce to adequate words, and which, in a writer of English, would certainly
have been lost without being missed. A Latin writer might have began si
dabunt...., and have gone on sin minus dederint, but he would hardly have
said tum ego abstulerim or abstulero for ἐγὼ ... ἕλωμαι, much less could he
have simulated the subtle turn into the paulo p. ful. with κεν. There remains
the expression of the final cause by ὅπως with fut. indic., exx. of which,
however, exist in the great Attic prose writers, Jelf, Gr. Gr. 8. 811. 2.
Further, the subj. pres. subjoined parallel to the future, as the sentence runs
on, occurs in τὴν μὲν" ἐγὼ ... πέμψω, ἐγὼ δέ x’ ἄγω Βρισηΐδα; but here
the second verb expresses an act depending on the first act, and on the refusal
of the Greeks supposed in the previous passage.* So in οὔκο old” ef κέν
μ᾽ ἀνέσει Seog ἤ κεν alow the latter clause seems put as depending on
the rejecting of the first.
(s) This fut. indic. by exchange for subj. is used even in final sentences,
where, after determinate tenses of principal verbs the subj. is the proper
form (Jelf, Gr. Gr. 8. 805. 2). And this not only with ὅπως where Attic
usage, vid. sup., allows the substitution, but with ὄφρα or ὡς, as, ὥς κε δόλῳ
φϑίης, τάδε δ᾽ αὐτοὶ πάντα δάσονται, and perhaps with all conjunctions
except ἔνα which usually introduce the subjunct. Even μὴ ‘‘for fear that’’,
of a fut. event, has a fut. indic. in μὴ 4 πώς τοι Κρονίδης κεχολώσεται. Thus
we have @agovvoy' ... ὄφρα καὶ Ἕκτωρ εἴσεται x. τ. λ.; from which, in ὄφρα
μιν... λοχήσομαι ἠδὲ φυλάξω the verbs may clearly both be fut. ind.
Again, we have seen above that, in parallel alternatives, the second clause,
as presented less immediately, may be put under the form of dependence on
the first, this being indic. The apparently inverse case of this, unt πώς μ᾽
* A. 135—9.
m A, 135—9. " A. 183—4. °o. 26s. P B. 368; cf. y. 22. 4 ὦ. 544.
τ. TT. 2433 Θ. τιο---ἰ. " δὶ 670. τς, 415—6.
xVI APPENDIX A.
ἐκβαίνοντα βάλῃ ... κῦμα μέγ᾽ ..., μελέη δέ por ἔσσεται Ogun, is really
ἃ case of protasis implied in the dubitative (μὴ) clause, and apod. then ex-
pressed by indic.; render, “‘lest the wave dash me in trying to land... ., (for if
that happens,) my attempt will be disastrous”’. The δὲ here marks the apodos.
μὴ dubitative introduces direct questions in the indic. mood, and also depen-
dent questions when of an act completed; of the former we have an ex. in
ἢ" μή τού τινα δυσμενέων Dac? ἔμμεναι ἀνδρῶν; and again in
ἡ μή τίς σευ μῆλα βροτῶν ἀέκοντος ἐλαύνει."
ἡ μή τις σ᾽ αὐτὸν κτείνει δόλῳ...; where Bekk. and Faesi read
indic. in both; Jelf. Gr. Gr. 8. 74. 1, ἃ reads κτείνῃ, but the reply to the que-
stion mox inf.~ shows that the indic. is right. Of the dependent question, when
the act referred to is completed, an instance occurs in ra* χρήματ᾽ ἀριϑμήσω
καὶ ἴδωμαι, μή τί μοι ofyortar..... ἄγοντες, and in δείδω μὴ δὴ πάντα
ϑεὰ νημερτέα εἶπεν, where ofy. means “are gone’’, and εἶπεν “have spoken’”’.
The time therefore being completely past, the mood is indic.; the subj. could
not have been used, the optat. was theoretically possible, but here, as before,
Homer prefers the indic. and Attic usage in this follows him. Jelf. Gr. Gr.
8. 877 ἃ. has ove:looked this, stating that μὴ is thus used only in subj. mood,
when following a principal tense in previous clause. In δείδω: μὴ θήρεσσιν
ἕλωρ καὶ κύρμα γένωμαι, the object of fear is future or contingent; 80
in xaraBnopev® ὄφρα ἴδωμεν μή toL..... κοιμήσωνται; and after historic
tenses this subj. becomes optat. ὃ δ᾽" ἤδη τόξον ἐνώμα ... πειρώμενος ...
μὴ κέρα ixes ἔδοιεν. With this we may further comp. the negative oath
of Heré expressed by μὴ with indic. O. 41—2, and the phrase μὴ ὄφελες I. 968.
cf. 6. 312. But, in ὄφρας προσπτύξομαι ἠδ᾽ ἐρέωμαι, as the verbs are simi-
larly applied to same subject and object, προσπτύξ. is an epicé shortened
subj., and so in pyncoweBat βρώμης μηδὲ τρυχώμεϑα λιμῷ. In ovx? ἀλέγω,
εἴως μοι ἐχέφρων IInveloneca ξώει the verb is prea. in form, but with a
future shade of meaning implied ‘‘so long as she shall continue to live.”
(6) It may suffice to add examples of temporal and conditional sentences where
the dependent clause is subjoined in the fut. indic.: ὁππότεῖ xev πολύβουλος
ἐνὶ φρεσὶ ϑήσει ᾿ἀϑήνη vevow μέν τοι ἐγὼ κεφαλῇ, and ἄλλα σφωὲδ δόλος
καὶ δεσμὸς ἐρύξει, εἰς ὅ κέ μοι μάλα πάντα πατὴρ ἀποδώσει ἔεδνα, where
ϑήσῃ and ἀποδώσῃ might have been used with no appreciable difference of
meaning. In cases of oratio obl., where rules require the subj., the indic. is not
found in Homer; nor in Attic writers does this change scem to occur; at least,
in discussing such a formula as φησὶ δώσειν ἐάν te ἔχῃ grammarians do not
notice the substitution. (Donalds, Gr. Gr. 8. 593, cf. Jelf. 8. 887—8.) It seems
doubtful whether φησὶ δώσειν ἐάν te ἔχη ever becomes ef τε ἔχει. However,
the relative clause in oral. obliq, is subjoined in Attic Greek in indic., as Antig.
193—6, κηρύξας ἔχω... Ἐτεοκλέα μὲν, ὃς πόλεως ὑπερμαχῶν ὄλωλε tyode..,
τάφῳ τε κρύψαι κιτ.λ. In Homer after verbs of knowing, enquiring, considering,
deliberating whether, and the like, the indic., mostly fut., with εἶ or ἢ, With
or without xev, often occurs. ‘Thus, Ἕκτωρ" εἴσεται ἢ καὶ ἐμὸν δόρυ μα ἔν ε-
υ £. 200. Yt. 405—6. We. 408. * ν. 215—6. Υ & 300. ι * & 473.
a Δ. 97—9. b φ, 39375. ς Ὁ. 509° 5 6 κι. 177. “9. 390. π. 282— 3.
- 317 —5. . 110—11.
APPENDIX A. XVII
ται; and in the ex. given above, ovx! old” εἴ xev μ᾽ ἀνέσει Seog; so Ζεὺς "
οἶδεν... εἴ κεν σφιν... τελευτήσει κακὸν ἦμαρ, and φράσαι! ἦ κεν... Ady
σὺν Διὶ πατρὶ ἀρκέσει, but also, though less surely, the subjunct. is found,
τῶν" (οἰωνὼν) ov τι μετατρέπομ᾽......, ef τ᾽ ἐπὶ δέξι᾽ ἴωσι πρὸς ἠῶ τ᾽ x. τ.
λ.; and ἀλλ᾽ ἄγε μοι τόδε εἰπὲ," .. ἢ καὶ Λαέρτῃ αὐτὴν ὁδὸν ἄγγελος ἔλθω,
and that more frequently when xe, κὲν is added, φρασσόμεϑ᾽" ἢ κε νεώμεϑ᾽
ἐφ᾽ ἡμέτερ᾽ ἢ xe μένωμεν. Thus the deliberative subjunct., as it is called,
and the ind. fut. are used to a great extent in common by Homer, as, it is
above shown, are likewise the ind, fut. and the final subjunct.
(7) Homer uses the indic. for the optat. even with greater freedom than, ex-
cept when in the fut. tense, for the subjunct. Hermann adducing af@e? θεοῖσι
φίλος τοσσόνδε γένοιτο ὅσσον ἐμοί᾽ τάχα κέν E κύνες καὶ γῦπες ἔδονται κείμε-
voy’ 7 κέ μοι αἰνὸν ἀπὸ πραπίδων ἄχος ἔλθοι, says, ‘‘sensere grammatici, hic,
ut in re prorsus incertf, non esse indicativo locum, unde alii ἔδοιντο, Aristar-
chus recte ἔδοεεν posuit;’’ but the fut. indic., especially with xe, may stand
in parallel subordinate clauses with the optat. as in καί κεν ὕδωρ φορέοις Meo-
σηίδος ἢ Ὑ περεέης, πόλλ᾽ ἀεκαζομένη, κρατερὴ δ᾽ ἐπικείσετ᾽ ἀνάγκη, there-
fore in X. 42 ἔδονται may be read, The optat. and the indic. have two grounds
in common. (a) the superior liveliness imparted to mere assumptions by putting
them as facts, (b) the implication that the fact is nof 80, which we make when
we say “‘if it were so” (ef te εἶχεν ἐδίδου ἄν); for this implied fact, to which
the indic. mood is as much due as to any other fact, is an element in the whole
assumption. On the latter ground Homeric and Attic usages meet; on the former,
Homer's preference of indic. to optat. is far more frequent. Of (Ὁ) we have an
incomplete instance in Virgil's ‘‘Si non alium late jactaret odorem, laurus eraé’’,
Georg II, 132; to make it complete, ‘‘si non jactabat’’ would have been requisite.
There is a case exactly in point in οὐ" γὰρ Ζεὺς εἴασε Κρονέων᾽ τῷ κέ μιν
ἤδη παύσαμεν. It might have been ef γὰρ Ζεὺς εἴασε x. τ. 4. which would
have been of the form we are discussing; by putting ov, the negative fact in
question is not merely implied, but stated.
(8) Under (a) may be ranged the use of the indic. in subordinate clauses of
the oratio oblig., which amounts to the turning such clause into the recta.
Some examples are ὦὥμοσε" ... νῆα κατειρύσϑαι καὶ ἐπαρτέας ἔμμεν ἑταέρους,
οἱ δή μιν πέμψουσι, the rule of oratio oblig. would require πέμψοιεν.
εἴρετο" .... Μενέλαος, ὄττευ χρηίζων ἱκόμην Λακεδαίμονα, the rule would
require ἱκοίμην. The following is a repeated passage: Hector tells Dolon
what he wishes done, and then Dolon, captured by Diomedes, declares his
errand from Hector. Our present example lies in Dolon’s statement; ‘‘Hec-
tor,’ he says, ‘‘bade me ἐλϑέμεν" ἔκ τε πυϑέσϑαι, ἠὲ φυλάσσονται νῆες
ϑοαὶ, ὡς τὸ πάρος περ, ἢ ἤδη χείρεσσιν ὑφ᾽ ἡμετέρῃσι δαμέντες φύξιν βου -
λεύοιτε μετὰ σφίσιν οὐδ' ἐθέλοιτε x. τ. Δ. Here the strict English is,
‘“‘he bade me go and ascertain whether the chips were guarded,’’ &c., but as
the state of things continues up to the then present moment, and as the per-
son addressed has a present interest in the question, the present indic. might
be as easily substituted (“are guarded” for ‘‘were,’’) in the English as in the
ἐσ. 265. Κρ. 523—4. 1 x. 260—1. m M, 239— 40. "x. 137—8.
5. 619. PX. 41—3- 4 Ζ. 457 - 8. τυ, 273--4. 53. § 331-3;
τ. 288—go. tg. 120-1. « K. 395—8.
HOM. OD. APP. B
ei ὁ"
———
᾿ κα Μ᾿ τὰν σαν
XVIII APPENDIX A.
Greck. It is clear, also. that by the pres. indicat. the fact as it is. not a
a subject of engniry, is held up to view. In Hector's* own preceding speech
the indirect question does not, so far, differ from the direct. but has th.
indie. thronghont. But Dolon, repeating Hector’s words. breaks off into thi
optat. in the latter of two alternatives, both stated by Hector indicatively
Hector spoke of the Greeks in their absence; Dolon repeats his words ἔδει
to face with two of their prime warriors, whom he seeks to propitiate; so hy
savas. not. ‘or whether they’, but, ‘‘or whether ye were meditating flight, εἴς
(Bovievorrte,. The reason is that Dolon feels the imputation he is casting
on Greek conrage, in quoting Hector’s words, and varies the mood to show
that it is Hectors assumption, ποῖ his own. He puts the alternative ὁ
watchfulness in the mood of fact, that of flight in the mood of doubt.’
The indice. for indirect questions is common in later writers; see the
examples in Jelf. Gr. Gr. &. 877. obs. 1, 2, and 4, Comp. with the previou
example, ϑήνη" ... ὥτρυν᾽, ὡς ἂν πύρνα κατὰ μνηστῆρας ἀγείροι, γνοί
ϑ᾽, οἵ τινές εἶσιν ἑναίσιμοι, οἵ τ΄ ἀϑέμιστοι. where the last clause has εἶσι:
indic., just as a question in orat. rect. would have had it. Again, Tele
machus bids his mother εὔχεο! πᾶσι ϑεοῖσι τεληέσσας ἑκατόμβας ῥέξειν
ai κέ ποϑι Ζεὺς ἄντιτα ἔργα τελέσσῃ. This corresponds with the regula
formula, Donalds. Gir. Gr. §. 593, φησὶ δώσειν ἐάν τι ἔχη. The narrative
tells ns, she did just what he bade, εὔχετο" πᾶσι ϑεοῖσι x. τ. Δ. verbatim, He
own actual words would be ῥέξω, af xe .... τελέσσῃ, corresponding with the
formula for orat. rect. δώσει ἐάν te ἔχη, ihid. 8. 504. But. agreably to rule
the words of the narrative should have been εὔχετο ῥέξειν ail κε...τελέσσαι
corresponding with ἔφη δώσειν ef te ἔχοι, ibid. 8. 593; instead of which they
retain the tense of present statement. The last example, then, is one o'
oral, obl. become recta: the following, thongh not strictly orat. obl., yet are
included with it under the general form of an objective sentence, (Donalds
(ir. Gr. ὃ. 584, 593: πατέρα" προσεδέρκετο δέγμενος αἰεὶ ὁππότε .... χεῖρας
ἐφήσει, (one cod. has ἐφείη which would be regular) giving the actua
word of his own thought. Similarly Pallas says to Odys., évl* ϑυμῷ de’ ¢
νοστήσεις. Ayain, in a mere piece of narrative, wefot> δὲ μενοίνεον, ξὶ
τελέουσι (fut. indic., occurs; where, if the πεζοὶ were speaking, they woulc
say, “we are considering ef τελέουμεν, whether we shall i. 6. can accomplist
it’. Thus the verb differs in person only from what it would be in orat, rect
(y) We often find the subject matter of a deliberation or question in the
indiec., following the statement of the deliberative or like action in the optat..
aunt ὧν δὴ τις ὡνὴρ πεπίϑοιϑ᾽ ξῷ αὐτοῦ Goud... ἐλθεῖν; εἴ teva που δηίωι
ἔλοι ἐσχατόωντα, ἢ teva που καὶ φῆμιν ἑνὶ Τρώεσσι πύϑοιτο, ἄσσα τε μη-
τιόωσι μετὰ σφίσιν, ἢ μεμώασιν αὖϑι μένειν... Hs κι τ᾿ λ., and in the
example quoted in (5), Athené urged Odys. to gather broken victuals at the
suitors’ feast, wet. . γνοίη of τινες εἰσὶν ἐναίσιμοι, of τ᾿ ἀϑέμιστοι, i. ce. the
dependent sentences which state such subject matter, are put as if independent
* Bekk. has wholly slurred this striking point by printing the indic, through.
out the passage.
‘ K. 305-81, Ὗ 9. 360—3. X 9. 5ςο--ι. Y 9. s9—60. ro, 38s—6:
ef, @. 115-7. 1 ¥. 3239. b M. sg. ¢ Χ, 204-—9. 4 9, 362—3.
APPENDIX A. XIX
(10) The instances towards the end of (6), however, lead us on to the
remark, in discussing the Homeric subjunct., that a clear distinction*® occurs
between it and the fut. ind.; thus in ovx® ἐσθ᾽ οὗτος ἀνὴρ, οὐδ᾽ ἔσσεται
οὐδὲ γένηται, identity of modal power is not supposable; and thus in ov γάρ
xo τοίους ἴδον ἀνέρας οὐδὲ ἴδωμαι, we cannot say that ἴδωμαι is = ὄψομαι;
it rather means ‘‘am likely to see’; so οὐδὲ γένηται sup. “nor is likely to be.”’
(tt) The subjunct. follows determinate tenses in the leading clause regularly,
and historical tenses under the following limitations. It follows the aor. in-
dic. when that tense denotes a review of a past act or series of acts from a
present stand-point, comp. Donalds. Gr. Gr. §. 427 (dd). So Eurip. Orest. 1672,
καὶ λέκτρ᾽ ἐπήν εσ᾽ ἡνέκ᾽ ἂν διδᾧ πατήρ; and Homer has ὅσον te. . γλαφυρὴ
νηῦς ἤνυσεν, ἡ λιγὺς οὖρος ἐπιπνείησιν ὄπισϑεν; and ὅς" κε ϑεοὶς ἐπι -
πείϑηται μάλα τ᾽ ἔκλυον αὐτοῦ. So Diomedes says, ‘‘when two go together,
xaci τε πρὸ ὃ τοῦ ἐνόησεν, ὅππως κέρδος fy. Again, οὐδὲ! γὰρ οὐδέ τις
ἄλλος ἀνὴρ τάδε φάρμακ᾽ ἀνέτλη. ὃς κε πίῃ. But for this latent present force,
the subjnnct. through its affinity with the future, could not subordinate itself
to the simply past. But in ov yag* of τις ὁμοῖος ἐπισπέσϑαι ποσὶν ἦεν
ἀνδρῶν τρεσσάντων, Ore te Ζεὺς ἐν φόβον ὄρσῃ, the reading ὦρσεν should
certainly be preferred, as the whole is simply a historical statement.
(12) Very frequently the act &c. is not thus reviewed, but carries in its
own nature a quality of permanence into present time. This arises vi materiae
not vi furmae. So οὔτεϊ τιν᾽ ἀγγελίην ... ἔκλυον .. ἣν χ᾽ ὑμῖν σάφα εἴπω,
where the past hearing implies present knowledge. éuduvopey™ ᾿Ηῶ δῖαν.
Τηλέμαχον hoyourtes, ἵνα φϑίσωμεν Elovteg, where the subjunct. intimates
that the speaker's murderous purpose was cherished into present time, as is
further clearly proved in the sequel of the same specch. So τὸν" δὲ (Ἰλίου
οἷτον) Geol μὲν ἔτευξαν, ἐπεκλώσαντο δ᾽ ὄλεθρον... ἕνα yor καὶ ἐσσομένοισιν
ἀοιδή, because it had then just been the theme of song. Phoenix again tells
Achilles, ‘‘I adopted (ποεεύμην) thee, as my son, ἔναο μοί ποτ᾽ ἀεικέα
λοιγὸν ἀμύνης, where the subjunct. denotes the continuance of the motive.
Thus, the wish and effort of Odys. to return being a permanent fact, we
read tov? δ᾽ ἐς Jwdavny φάτο βήμεναι, ὄφρα ϑεοῖο .... βουλὴν ἐπακούσαι,
ὄππως νοστήσῃ. This is especially common in the dependent subjunct. after
a principal verb of motion whose past tense means% “am come or gone’’, &c.
The form is not rare in Atttic writers Eur. Med. 214 ἐξῆλθον δόμων, μή
μοί τι μέμφησϑ᾽ (Jelf Gr. Gr. 8. 806. τ. 2), but in Homer, and especially
in the Odyssean narrative, it abounds, and largely contributes to graphic
* Buttm. says Gr. Verbs 8. υ. yéo, “the word γεύομεν may be the conjunct.
(subjunct.) aor. supplying in Homer’s usage the place of the fut.’’. It stands
in a passage (H. 331—41.) in which six verbs at least occur in a form
which makes it impossible to pronounce whether they are fut. ind. or aor.
subjunct. And, though the distinction above noticed is sometimes so clear,
yet in many passages the fut. indic. and aor. Βα) ποῦ, shade off imperceptibly
into one another, especially in the epic usage of the latter with the shortened
vowel, so that no valid difference can be traced.
© π΄ 437. ἴΑ. 262. © δ. 356—7. ΒΑ, 218. 1K. 224. IJ x. 327-8; ef.
Tl. 689; 1. 414—5. ΚΙ. s21. |B. 42—3. ™ 2. 368—9; cf. 384. " 9. 579—80.
° T. 495. P &. 327—9. 4« οὔ, y. 153 &. 102, 377; 4.93 -4; A. 202 - τ; ν. 418.
B*
i
xx APPENDIX A.
vividness of delineation. There is a passage to which this will not apply
or at least in which this principle supplies no satisfactory reason; it is ὃ
δὲτ λάβοιμι δίπτασκον τεταγὼν ἀπὸ βηλοῦ, ὄφρ᾽ av ἵκηται γῆν. Herman:
Bays, it exemplifies ‘‘morem Graecorum, cogitata ἃ praeterito tempore i:
praesens transferendi.’’ I do not think this will serve. Zeus is narrating hi
past triumphs over the other gods in a very straight-forward historical way
Probably the ὄφρ᾽ ἂν ἴχηται γῆν, transferred to the mood suitable to a pres
or fut. preceding, implies a general threat that he will do so again, if the
provoke him.
(13) In adjectival sentences connected by the relative words ὅς ὅστις wit
or without av, Jelf, Gr. Gr. 8. 829 obs. 3, distinguishes the use with subjunet
from that with indic.; the former, he says, relates to the indefinite chance
of the thing spoken of happening, the latter to the thing’s own indefinit
nature. We must however rate the fut. indic. rather with the subjunct. as spe
cifying such “chances’’; so, ‘It all awaits the god's decision ὅστις" ἐν ἀμ
φιάλῳ ᾿Ιϑάκῃ βασιλεύσει ᾿Αχαιῶν". When these sentences become sub
stantival, as standing for the object of a verb of telling, knowing, asking &c
their mood does not change, as δ. 379—8o0. The signification of contingenc
peculiar to the subjunct. is common to all Greek writers, and occurs in adjectiva
and adverbial sentences, signifying that the realization of the statement i
regarded as probable only.
(14) Hence comes the use of the subjunct. in simile, usually the aor. but als
the pres. Thus we have of δ᾽" ὥς τ᾽ alyuvmol.... én’ ὀρνίϑεσσι ϑόρωσι
aor., and ὡς δ᾽ or ὁπωρινὸς Βορέης φορέησιν ἀκάνϑας pres. In the in
dic. the pres. aor, and fut. are also used. In simile the modal fluctuation
increase, as the same idea may be presented by turns under any or all c
the following aspects, accomplished fact, possibility, present occurrence, prob
able contingency; and indeed in Hector's' speech, where he contemplate
the future captivity of his wife, successive touches of sorrowful imaginatio
break out in optat. indic. and subj. all in the space of six lines; the varie
tone of his anticipative grief is similistic in the fulness of its compass.
(15) The optative relates to things existing only in idea, and which hay
of themselves no special relation to time. Hence, depéndent and subord!
nate clauses may by this mood be subjoined to principal clauses in all tense
vf the indic., though such clauses in the optat. have a special propriety wher
a historical tense has preceded in the indic. Further, even probable cor
tingencies, properly expressed by the subjunct., so far as they are not real, an
as they have no tendency to be realized, are the creatures of idea, and ma
fall into the optat. Indeed whatever mercly can be done but is not yet ac
complished, is capable of the same expressiun. This accounts for the tendenc}
constantly indulged by Homer, as leaning less on fixed laws of language an
trusting more to impulsive consciousness, than poets who composed with the per
to mix up the subjunct. and optat. in successive clauses of the same sentenc:
(16) This admixture also arises from the fact that the probable consequenc
of a probable contingency recedes further from the practical chances ¢
realization, and this remoteness is often expressed by the change of th
r O. 23-4. " αἱ, 401. t ¥. 302--3. “ie. 328. Ἶ Z. 457. 62.
APPENDIX A. XXI
subjunct., with or without κε, κεν, into the optat. And hence even of two
parallel alternative clauses, the one, being presented first, takes the lead of
the other as regards probability, and assumes the subjunct. This being done,
it was perhaps felt to be illogical to ascribe, as it were, the same probability
to the other, which accordingly falls off into the region of the possible and
conceivable. The two lie in perspective, though parallel, the one beyond
the other. Thus ἀλλὰ ᾽ μάλ᾽ ἄντην στήσομαι, ἢ xe φέρησι μέγα κράτος ἤ κε
φεροέμην, and aliov® x ἐχϑαίρησι βροτῶν, ἄλλον xs φιλοέη. It is
remarkable that Dindorf in N. 486 gives both verbs optat., in 2. 308 varies
the moods as here given, while Bekker prints both in the optat. in both
places. So wg’ κε νέηται.. .. is followed by ἀλλ᾽ oy’ ἵκοιτη. So again
ἡμεῖς" δ᾽ ἐνθάδε οἵ φραξώμεϑα λυγρὸν ὄλεϑρον Τηλεμάχῳ, μηδ᾽ ἡἧμας
ὑπεκφύγοι; also ὁπποῖόν" x’ εἴπησϑα ἕπος τοῖὸν x’ ἐπακούσαις. Soin
the use of subjunct. for imperat. the subjunct. changes into optat. in ἀλλὰ»
φϑέωμεν Elovteg ἐπ᾿ ἀγροῦ (Τηλέμαχον) .... βίοτον δ᾽ αὐτοὶ καὶ κτήματ᾽
ἔχωμεν, ... οἰκία δ᾽ αὖτε κείνου μητέρι δοῖμεν κιτ.1. Here perhaps the
αὖτε marks the last clause as an afterthought dependent on the previously stated
resolve for its success. So just below 389—g92, comp. also y. 75--8. Of course
where the first of two such verbs is optat., there is no reason in the above
remarks why the second may not be optat. also; as in olov® κ᾽ ἠὲ φέροιεν
"Ayarol ἤ κεν ἄγοιεν, and viv’ αὐτέ ws ϑυμὸς ἀνῆκεν στήμεναι ἀντία σεῖο"
ἔἕλοιμέ xev 1 κεν ἁλοίην, where the mere chance is expressed. Thus in
Pallas’ evil counsel to Pandarus: “I guess you might venture (uptat.) to let
fly an arrow at Menelaus, then you would reap (optat.) honour and glory from
all, especially Paris, τοῦ xev δὴ πάμπρωτα παρ᾽ ἀγλαὰ δῶρα φέροιο, εἴ κε
ἴδη (if he sees, as he probably may,) Μιᾶενέλαον σῷ βέλει ὃμηϑέντα. The pas-
sage is one of pure supposition, but is reduced to a practical suggestion of
likelihood by the last clause. The mixture of the optat. and subjunct. toge-
ther in a suburdinate clause after a historical tense in the principal takes
place because the optat., being grammatically correct, may of course 80
stand, whilst some of the subordinate clauses, for some of the reasons. con-
tained in (11) and (12), are changed to the subjunct. Thus, in the ransom of
Hector’s body by Priam, κὰδ 3”! ἔλιπον δύο page’ ἐϊννητόν te χιτῶνα, ὄφρα
νέκυν πυκαάσας wy olxovde φέρεσθαι. This merely transfers the subordinate
action, as it were, to present time. Then follows mox infra δμωὰς δ᾽ éx-
καλέσας λοῦσαι κέλετ᾽ ἀμφί τ᾽ ἀλεῖψαι ..., ὡς μὴ Πρίαμος ἴδοι υἱὸν, μὴ
ὃ pty ... οὐκ ἐρύσαιτο... καί — κατακτεένειε, Διὸς δ᾽ ἀλίτηται
ἐφετμάς. So Heré resolves ἐλθεῖν" εἰς Ἴδην ἐὺ ἐντύνασα ἕ αὐτὴν, εἴ πως
ἱμεέραιτο (Ζεύς) ..... τῷ δ᾽ (Διἴ) ὕπνον ἀπήμονα τε λιαρόν te χεύη; the
poet means the whole to be thrown before the mind as present, when the
subordinate clause would be properly subjunct.; but then, εἴ πως ἱμεέραιτο
is purely speculative, referred to another subject, whereas the yevy following
is referred to herself, hence the former is optat. the latter subjunct. Again
Zeus is μερμηρέζων' ἢ ἤδη καὶ κεῖνον (Ilatgoxiov)... Extog χαλκῷ δῃώση,
Ww N. 486; &. 308. x ὃ. 692. Ye 31—4. 5 πι 371—2. Δ T. 250.
> x. 383—6. cE. 484. 4X. 252—3. 6. J. 97. Γ΄. 580—1.
< enue ee-eiieiinsh 8S & - πα΄». οὧὖ Bh -wen & ante
ee ee ee "πα παπαν.-
XXIt APPENDIX A.
ἀπὸ t gues τεύχε᾽ Eire πὶ ἔτι ταὶ wisestecis OG FilesEeY πότον alzr:
theust goelero Gruw preced-s. οἱ is plain thar. here too. the action ὶ
eubetautiaily prescut., and the qucstlon realy is. Low te acewunt fur th
opiat. — Prebaliv it may fall ander the prineiple ‘aid duwn for alternative
jus: above,
tc) The same ilove of what Aristtle calls 290 ougares ποιεῖς Rhet. UI. 11.
or what we call the graphic style. leads Homer to diverze from past into pre
sent, or from vrat. νη. ty recta. Which same <ffect is sometimes gained ἢ
th: preeisele opposite chanze of pres. τὸ past δὲ in σταϑμοεςῖ ἀεϑρώπα
κεραΐξετον ὄφρα καὶ αὐτὼ... κατέχταϑεεν. In the statement by Heck
of Paris’ clalleuze τῷ Menelans. “Paris proposes.” says Hector. “that th
reat should put off their arms, ated that ke and Menel, should ight μαχεσϑα.
in the midst”: sv far ταί, obfig.. he then diverges into the actual words <
Paris’ offer, οππότερος δὲ κὲ τικήση πρείσσων TE γένηται, x. τ. 2. in th
eubjunct.. as proper ty a suburdinate clanse im erat. rect. Similary oblic
is turned inty recta ταί. by transforming optat. to subjunct. in ἤτοι 5 ἔφη
γε ov πρὶν μηνιϑμὸν xataxaroiues, ἀλλ᾽ οπότ᾽ ἂν δὴ νῆας ἐμὰ; ἀφ έκητα
ἀστή τε πτόλεμό; τε. Indeed it is very ἀσαντηϊ whether Humer contains a
instance of oral, obliqg. carried consistently through three subordinated clause:
I inay take oceasion here to puint out that these simple rugged features <
the antique style have suffered a good deal from Bekker and other recer
editors, who sometimes alter the mood of the text to obtain a tame un
formity, and symctimes break up a sentence by arbitrary punctuation int
the mere dixjecta membra poetae. The above characteristic 1 cannot but regar
85 genuine; as it is like what we should expect in a recitatory style ¢
poctry. There, every clause, δὲ pronounced, filled the ear by itself, an
whatever was thrown into past time, could not be kept from emerging agaii
often in the next line, a3 by a native buoyancy of stvle, into the present, Ὡς
an oratio, commenced as obliqua, from speedily rectifying itself.
1%) Telemachns, in his speech tu the ἀγορὴ." takes up the words of th
previons speaker a few lines back, but changes a mood: “1 have heard no
news (ἔχλυον is a completed act of the army ἣν χ᾽ ὑμὶν σάφα εἴπω, o1
πρότερός γε πυϑοίμην᾽. There are really two statements 1 “I have ἢ
news to tell’, and (2) “if ὅτε, in case I had chanced to hear news first,
might have told some’; but the apedosis is suppressed. The former stat
ment is of the form ovx ἔχω te εἴπω, the second of that. [εἴποεμε ἂν] |
(ore γέ) te πυϑοίμην. The previous speaker runs* them both into one; 8
if he had asked, ἔχει τε εἴποι ef (ὅτε yt) τι πύυϑοιτο; affiliating εἴποι wit
πύθοιτο following rather than with ἔζεε preceding; and forcing an irony int
his words, as though pointing his own suggestion (about news of the army
return) with a tone of doubt. With ore πρότερός ye πυϑοίμην may ἢ
compared ef ποϑὲν €1 802, quoted beluw at the end of (19).
(1g, Under the principle laid down in (16) above, as regards the extende
consequence of an act which is contingent. may be brought the followin,
“. oy . Ts Φ 3 ᾿" bed ~ 3 ν - ° hd
, * Phere words are, ἠέ τιν᾽ ἀγγελίην... ἔκλυεν, nv 7 ἡμῖν σαφα εἴποι
OTE πρότερον γε πνϑοιτο.
‘BE. 557-8 ΓΓ. γι. " 1. 61-3. © B. 42-3: cf. 30-1. ° x 443—.
APPENDIX A. XXHI
εἰς 0° κε πασέων ψυχας ἐξαφέλησϑε καὶ ἐκλελάϑοιντ᾽ Apgoditns; but
in ἐνν δ᾽ αὐτοῖσι πύλας ποιήσομεν εὖ ἀραρυίας, ὄφρα δι᾽ αὐτάων ἱππηλασίη
ὁδὸς εἴη (Bekk. & Dind.) wo should read εἴῃ, epic subjunct. (recognized by
Buttm. Gr. Verbs 4. v. εἰμί, Donalds Gr. Gr. 8. 321); this passage is con-
tinned by ἔκτοσθεν δὲ... ὀρύξομεν ἐγγύϑι τάφρον ἢ χ᾽ ἵππους καὶ λαὸν
ἐρυκάκοι ἀμφὶς ἐοῦσα, here the fut. ind. (or subj. aor. deliberative) is fol-
lowed by optat. aor. of final cause in a matter quite beyond the control of
the speaker, viz. the effect of his proposed defences on the enemy, hence the
speculative uncertainty is shown by the optat. Again, in tov’ ποτ᾽ ἐγὼν...
ἄξω tnt’ ᾿Ιϑάκης, ἕνα μοι βίοτον πολὺν ἄλφοι, means “on the chance of his
. fetching me much wealth there”’ (ἕνα ubi), ἡ. 6. in the place to which I would
take him; compare with this οὐκ ἄν" τοι youloun κίϑαρις.... ὅτ᾽ ἐν κονίῃσι
μιγείης, “in case you ever met’’, derisively = if you dare; and alow! κατὰ
πόντον εἰς 0 κεν ἀνθρώποισι .... μιγεέης, optat. derisively = “if thou
canst;’’ and οὐδὲ" πόλινδε ἔρχομαι, εἰ μή πού τι περίφρων Πηνελόπεια ἐλϑέμεν
ὀτρύνῃσιν, OF ἀγγελίη ποϑὲν ἔλθοι, where the optatives put the bare
chance of such a thing happening, and the subjunctives express a probable
contingency in case of its being realized; so in 4. 386—7 where the order of
clauses is inverted, the subjunct. being put after; and so in οὔτ᾽ οὖν" ἀγγελίῃς
ἔτι πείϑομαι, εἴ ποϑὲεν EL G01, οὔτε ϑεοπροπίης ἐμπάξομαι ἤντινα μήτηρ ...-
ἐξερέηται: where the optat, infuses,* as above in β. 42---. (18), a tone of
doubt into the supposition. On the subjunct. ἐξερέηται seo note ad loc.
(20) The optat. is used correspondently with the imperf. and frequentative
-oxoy, to express that any assumed case of the action in the dependent clause
would prove to be a case of the principal action. Of this we have a strongly
marked example in ὑσσάκιεν γὰρ κύψει᾽ ὁ γέρων πιέειν μενεαίνων, τοσσάχ᾽
ὕδωρ ἀπολέσκετ᾽"... τῶν ὁπότ᾽ ἰϑύσει᾽ ὁ γέρων ἐπὶ χερσὶ μάσασϑαι τὰς δ᾽
ἄνεμος δίπτασκε κι τ. Δ. Others occur t. 49, A. 610, I’, 216—7, K. 188—9,
A. 549. We have a negative instance in ovdé* te Νηλεὺς to ἐδέδου ὃς μὴ
ἕλικας Boag εὐρυμετώπους ἐκ Φυλάκης ἐλάσειε, the case of any. one’s not
driving the cattle was a case of Neleus’ not giving; which seems to show
that there is nothing properly frequentative in the optat. itself. There is
also a rare instance of an aor. indic., with πολλάκε however, followed by
such optat. in I. 232—3. The optat. has a special relation to past time
arising out of its representing that which exists in conception only; since
whatever is conceived must be so by a past act of conception. Hence its
fitness to express this aspect of a past act. Donalds. (Gr. Gr. 8. 513) regards
it as merely a form developed from the aor., as the subjunct. is from the
fut.; and it is remarkable that in δ. 356— 7, ξ. 63, A. 218, the aor. or imperf.,
standing alone, has a character of indefinite frequency.
(21) The following references are to instances of εἶ with subjunct., an usage
* With this use of the optat. ironically or derisively, to insinuate a
doubt of an event’s happening, we may comp. the English vernacular, ‘‘I
wish you may get it’’,
P H. 339—40; cf. Σ΄. 88. 4« H. 341--2. Τρ. 249—50. s I. 54—5.
Ἢ s. 377—8. u & 372-4. Ἶα. 414-6. ~ 2. 585—92. * Δ, 288—go.
XXIV APPENDIX A.
very rare in Attic. bat common in Epte syntax: @. 188. 204. £. 221. 451. ἢ.
204. &. fo. 348 —G. ἔξ. 1;32-τ-4. ® Gh. 116. 7. 86. 4. 86. :,ωο. A. 225. f. 116,
9. 16— 5, Π. 263-4 ¥. 191 -. Jak. Wermer De cond. πεπσ. ep. Hom.
“Mauy of the cramples and some part of the arguments in the above article
are borrowed from Hermaun’s Dissertatio 15: de legibus guibusdam subtifivribus
serm. Homer. |
Ic.
ὦδε. On the point whether this adverb ever has the local sense “here ~’,
‘hither’, great difference exists: Buttman. Passow, Voss. and Ginther. aftirm-
ing, while Heyne. Hermann, Lebrs. Rost. and others, following Aristarehns,
deny it. ‘Funk cid. inf.. It is difficult laatas componere liles. The places
which most favour it are, Ἥφαιστε." xgouoi’ ὧδε where “come thus as 7 bid
you” is weak and clumsy: νεμεσσᾶταιν δ᾽ ἐνὶ ϑυμῶ ὦ δ᾽ ἐλθὼν τὸ πρῶτον ἐπεσ-
βολίας ἀναφαένειν, where ὧδ᾽ is so remote from asag. and goes so naturally
with ἐλθὼν as to fall into the local notion: and similarly. ἔρχεός wos τὸν
ξεῖνον ἐναντίον ὧδε κάλεσσον. (on the other hand is a passage which at
first sight seems to turn wholly on local adverbs, “οὐ call Ajax”, says
Menestheus,.... ἐπεὶ τάχα τῇδε τετεύξεται αἰπὺς ὄλεθρος, ὧδε γὰρ ἔβρισαν
Λυκίων ἀγοὶ, .... εἰ δέ σφιν καὶ κεῖϑι πόνος καὶ νεῖχο; ὄρωρεν, x. τ. 2.
The message is repeated rerbatim, but mutatis mutandis as regards the ad-
verbs, when τῇδε becomes κεῖθι, κεῖθε becomes ἐνθάδε, but ὧδε remains
unchanged, and accordingly must mean 85 yuu see’. A monograph on
οὗτος and ὅδε by Funk, Neubrandenburg. 1860, rejects the local sense of
ὧδε. But the passages above from Σ, δ. and g. are too strong, coupled with
the analogy of ἐκεῖ, αὐτόϑε iu connexion with the pronouns éxéirog, αὐτὸς,
to allow the exclusion. Thus ὧδε may mean “here;”’ but in a. 182, β. 28,
φ. 196, it is nearly impossible to say whether it means “here’’ or “thus’’,
11.
(1) ἢ....ἢ. (2) ἠξ..«ἧ. (3) ἢ... ἠδ. (4) ἠξ...ἧ. (5) ἢ or ἥε... ἠὲ. (6) el τε...
nor nt. (η) ἢ... εἶ τε. (8) εἶ τε... εἶ τε. (9) εἰ... ἡ.
Of these (1) (2) (3) are varying forms of the ordinary disjunctive, (4) is the
mode in which most cditors print the particles which introduce a dependent
question, after verbs of telling, considering, knowing and the like; so α. 175.
ἦδ.... ἦ follow κατάλεξον, and so, 1. 493, ἐνίσπες; but the distinction, though
grammatically convenient, seems arbitrary. (5) is similarly used to introduce
direct or indep. questions as £.120—1, g. 197. Jelf. Gr. Gr. § 878 has 7....7
for this, and says it is rare in Attic poetry, (he cites Soph. Qed. Col. 79.
κρινοῦσί γε ἢ χρή σὲ μίμνειν ἢ πορεύεσϑαι), but frequent in Homer, as
ξ. 142 -3, where Dind. has ῇ...ἤ, Bekk. ἥ....ἢ, and similarly in τ. ς2ς--8,
v.19, 12; and passages where these editors thus differ might easily be added.
In ζώει" Oy’ ἢ τέϑνηκε, where the 7 occurs once only, ef may be understood
10. * Σ΄. 392. bd. 158—9. © @. 544. 4 M. 343—50. © B. 132.
Δ
APPENDIX A. XXV
as preceding (sce App. A. 9. (1), which will make this a case of (9) said by
Jelf, ub. sup. to express ‘‘a determination* to see the result of the uncer-
tainty’’, which, however, belongs, where it exists, rather to the preceding verb
εἴσομεν, γνώμεναι, or the like, expressed, as in @. 532—3, X. 246, or under-
stood, as in ες 267—8. A clear example of (9) without such determination
being expressed is y. 93—4. “1 come (to see) if you will tell me of his fate,
if (εἴ που) you chance to have seen it... or (7) if you have heard another
tell it’. An instance of such determination apparent but really due to
γνώμεναι preceding, is B. 349, εἴ te ψεῦδος ὑπόσχεσις ἠὲ καὶ οὐχί. Which
really comes under (6) for which also see Soph. Electr. goo ov, εἴτε χρήζξεις,
ϑηρσὶν ἁρπαγὴν πρόϑες, ἢ σκῦλον οἰωνοῖσιν. ence the retention of εἴ,
where Bekk. reads 7], δ. 487, is justifiable. Of (7) the occurrence in Homer
is doubtful. Of (8) M. 239 is an instance; in y. g1—2 it rather belongs to
the dependent question, being epexegetic of Oxxor ὄλωλεν in 89; 80 in
A. 65. Ν. 8. it is probable that there is a close etymological kindred between
ἢ and εἶ, being both referred by Donalds. (New Crat. 139, 199, 205) to the second
pronominal element, but ἢ asseverative and directly interrog. is probably a dif-
ferent word; ἢ and ef, the former standing in the Beotian dialect for the
latter, are remnants of a lost pron., in fact the dat. case of it, the nom.
being f or @; similarly si lat. is related to hi-c, sic.
12.
Πύλον ἠμαϑόεντα. Most Grammarians assume that the adj. in —eeg
is to be esteemed of two terminations epiré here, and in Πύρασον ἀνϑεμόεντα
and the like (Donalds. Gr. Gr. 210 ἃ. obs. 2), but, as we find Πύλον Νηλήιον and
yet Νηλήιαι ἵπποι, it is more likely that the proper name should vary in its
gender, especially as Homer gives even such a fourm as ἡ λίϑος" in a common
noun, than that the adj. should lose its inflexion merely because used with a
proper name. It is better therefore to view Πύλος, Πύρασος, ὅς. as epicene.
Thus we have Ζακύνθῳ ὑλήεντι, but also ὑλήεσσα Ζάκυνϑος." This is con-
firmed by our finding the fem. —eooa termination in Homeric proper names
as Γονόεσσα. "
12.
ἐνόπαια. Such is the reading and accentuation of Aristarchus with sense
‘‘a kind of eagle”, the specific term being added to the generic, as in é£é-
σϑην ὄρνισιν ἐοικότες αἰγυπιοῖσιν." Homeric manner certainly favours
the use of the specific, alone as in χελιδόνι εἰκέλη ἄντην," or combined
with the generic, as above, and so in the case of the bird called χαλκιδὰ
or xvpivdty,© whose form Hypnus took. Indeed Homer never is vague but
always precise; he never introduces a “bird’’ into his story any more than a
* This ‘“determination”’ is expressed by εἴ ποτε, εἴ κε, or al xe, very fre-
quently in Homer, without: any disjunctive ἡ following, as B. 97, a. 378—g.
12. 4 t. 494; M. 287, »α. 2463 6. 24. 5“ B. 573.
13. * H. 59; cf. 0. 526. %y. 240. “ ἐπ᾿. 290—1.
" XXIV APPENDIX A.
very rare in Attic, but common in Epic syntax; a. 188, 204, & 221, 471, ἢ.
204, μ. 96, 348—9, §. 373—4, %. 98, 116, x. 86, A. 86, 340, Κι. 225, A. 116,
O. 16—7, Π. 263—4, X. 191 .. (Jul. Werner De cond. enunc. ap. Hom.)
[Many of the examples and some part of the arguments in the above article
are borrowed from Hermann’s Dissertatio Im de legibus quibusdam subtilioribus
serm, Homer. |
-
10.
ὧδε. On the point whether this adverb ever has the local sense ‘“here”’,
‘‘hither’’, great difference exists; Buttman, Passow, Voss, and Giinther, affirm-
ing, while Heyne, Hermann, Lehrs, Rost, and others, following Aristarclins,
deny it. (Funk vid. inf.) It is difficult tantas componere lites. The places
which most favour it are, "“Hpacote,* πρόμολ᾽ ode where “come thus as 1 bid
you”’ is weak and clumsy; νεμεσσᾶται» δ᾽ ἐνὶ ϑυμῶ ὦ δ᾽ ἐλϑὼν τὸ πρῶτον ἐπεσ-
βολίας ἀναφαίνειν, where ὧδ᾽ is so remote from ἄϑαφ. and goes so naturally
with ἐλθὼν as to fall into the local notion; and similarly, ἔρχεός μοι τὸν
ξεῖνον ἐναντίον ὧδε κάλεσσον. On the other hand is a passage which at
first sight seems to turn wholly on local adverbs, ‘‘Go? call Ajax’’, says
Menestheus,.... ἐπεὶ τάχα τῇδε τετεύξεται αἰπὺς ὄλεθρος, ὧδε yao ἔβρισαν
Λυκίων ἀγοὶ, .... εἰ δέ σφιν καὶ κεῖϑι πόνος καὶ νεῖκος ὄρωρεν, x. τ. λ.
The message is repeated verbatin, but mutatis mutandis as regards the ad-
verbs, when τῇδε becomes κεῖϑε, κεῖϑε becomes ἐνθάδε, but ὧδε remains
unchanged, and accordingly must mean ‘‘as you see’’. A monograph on
οὗτος and ὅδε by Funk, Neubrandenburg, 1860, rejects the local sense of
ὧδε. But the passages above from 3. ὃ. and g. are too strong, coupled with
the analogy of ἐκεῖ, αὐτόϑι in connexion with the pronouns ἐκεῖνος, αὐτὸς,
to allow the exclusion. Thus ὧδε may mean “here; but in a. 182, B. 28,
g. 196, it is nearly impossible to say whether it means “here’’ or ‘‘thus’’.
11.
(1) ee... (2) ἠδ... ἢ. (3) ἢ... ἠὲ. (4) ἠὲ... ἧ. (ς) ἢ ον ἥε... ἠὲξ. (6) εἴ τε...
jor nt. (7) ἢ... εἴ τε. (8) εἴ τε... εἴ τε. (9) εἰ...ἥ.
Of these (1) (2) (3) are varying forms of the ordinary disjunctive, (4) is the
mode in which most cditors print the particles which introduce a dependent
question, after verbs of telling, considering, knowing and the like; so α. 175.
nt....7 follow κατάλεξον, and so, 2. 493, ἐνίσπες; but the distinction, though
grammatically convenient, seems arbitrary. (5) is similarly used to introduce
direct or indep. questions as £. 120—1, g. 197. Jelf. Gr. Gr. § 878 has 7....7
for this, and says it is rare in Attic poetry, (he cites Soph. Oed. Col. 79.
κρινοῦσί ye ἢ χρή σε μίμνειν ἢ πορεύεσθαι), but frequent in Homer, as
ξ. τ42 --2, where Dind. has ἢ...ἢ, Bekk. ἤ.... ἤ, and similarly in τ. s25—8,
v. 11, 12; and passages where these editors thus differ might easily be added.
In ζώει" Oy” ἢ τέϑνηκε, where the ἢ occurs once only, ef may be understood
10. ὁ &. 392. bg. 158—p9. ς 9. 544. ὁ M. ,343--:ο. ὁ. β. 132.
APPENDIX A. XXV
as preceding (see App. A. 9. (1), which will make this a case of (9) said by
Jelf, ub. sup. to express ‘‘a determination* to see the result of the uncer-
tainty’’, which, however, belongs, where it exists, rather to the preceding verb
εἴσομεν, γνώμεναι, or the like, expressed, as in @. 532—3, X. 246, or under-
stood, as in ε. 367—8. A clear example of (9) without such determination
being expressed is y. 93—4. “1 come (to sec) if you will tell me of his fate,
if (εἴ που) you chance to havo seen it... or (ἢ) if you have heard another
tell it”. An instance of such determination apparent but really due to
γνώμεναι preceding, is B. 349, εἴ re ψεῦδος ὑπόσχεσις ἠὲ καὶ οὐχί. Which
really comes under (6) for which also sce Soph. Electr. goo ὃν, εἴτε χρήξεις,
ϑηρσὶν ἁρπαγὴν πρόϑες, ἢ σκῦλον οἰωνοῖσιν. Hence the retention of ef,
where Bekk. reads 7, δ. 487, is justifiable. Of (7) the occurrence in Homer
is doubtful. Of (8) M. 239 is an instance; in y. gi—2 it rather belongs to
the dependent question, being epexegetic of oxxot ὄλωλεν in 89; 80 in
A. 65. N.B. it is probable that there is a close etymological kindred between
ἢ and εἰ, being both referred by Donalds. (New Crat. 139, 199, 205) to the second
pronominal element, but 7 asseverative and directly interrog. is probably a dif-
ferent word; ῇ and ef, the former standing in the Βαροίη dialect for the
latter, are remnants of a lost pron., in fact the dat. case of it, the nom.
being ¢@ or @; similarly δὲ lat. is related to hi-c, sic.
12.
Πύλον ἡμαϑόεντα. Most Grammarians assume that the adj. in --- εὶς
is to be esteemed of two terminations epiré here, and in Πύρασον ἀνϑεμόεντα
and the like (Donalds. Gr. Gr. 210 d. obs. 2), but, as we find Πύλον Νηλῆήιον and
yet Νηλῆήιαι ἵπποι, it is more likely that the proper name should vary in its
gender, especially as Homer gives even such a form as ἡ λίέϑος" in a common
noun, than that the adj. should lose its inflexion merely because used with a
proper name. It is better therefore to view Πύλος, Πύρασος, ἃς. as epicene.
Thus we have Ζακύνθῳ ὑλήεντι, but also ὑλήεσσα Ζάκυνϑος.» This is con-
firmed by our finding the fem. —eoow termination in Homeric proper names
as Γονόεσσα. “
12.
ἀνόπαια. Such is the reading and accentuation of Aristarchus with sense
‘‘a kind of eagle”, the specific term being added to the generic, as in é£é-
σϑην ὄρνισιν ἐοικότες αἰγυπιοῖσιν." Homeric manner certainly favours
the use of the specific, alone as in χελιδόνι εἰκέλη ἄντην,» or combined
with the generic, as above, and so in the case of the bird called χαλκιδὰ
or κύμινδιν," whose form Hypnus took. Indeed Homer never is vague but
always precise; he never introduces a ‘“‘bird’’ into his story any more than a
* This “determination"’ is expressed by εἴ ποτε, εἴ κε, or af xe, very fre-
quently in Homer, without: any disjunctive ἢ following, as B. 97, a. 378—9.
12. 4 τ΄ 494; M. 287. να. 246; ει. 24. ¢ B. 573.
13. * H. 59; cf. o. 526. b y. 240. ¢ ἘΞ 290—1.
XXVI APPENDIX A.
‘‘beast’’. Rarely do we find that generality admitted even in a simile.4 And
ὄρνις is here no simile, but an eidolon of Pallas. A sparrow — not a bird —
and her young are swallowed by the serpent;® Zeus sends an eagle’, Pallas
a hern®; the heroes shoot at a dove, Penelope dreams of geese.' Once indeed
‘‘fish and fowl and whatever came to hand”’ is used to give a collective pic
ture, * as Cowper makes Selkirk say, 1 am lord of the fowl and the brute’’;
but we have no such collective image here. Some name of a bird is thus
required. Further, av’ ὁπαῖα διέπτατο, ‘flew up the smoke-vents”’, the only
rival reading worth noticing, is a harsh use of prepositions; the parallels
adduced are feeble'; for in them ἀνὰ and διὰ are applied to different objects;
and the real parallels are those in which διέπτατο occurs without an ob-
ject,™ as here. ‘The adverb ἀνοπαῖα, ‘‘upwards’’, would emasculate the pas-
suge, for what other way, from the ground, could she fly? The same in sense
of ‘unseen’? would contradict the ὄρνεις ὥς; for a bird would surely be
visible. Against this the authority of Voss, damerk. Gr. and Rom, should be
set. He says, “lectio av oxaia sola est Gracca cum verbo dtéxtato. Tones
veteres ὅπαιον dixerunt foramen camers aut laquearis, per quod fumus flammae
in foco et ignitabulis aeneis quibus pro lucernis utebantur ardentis exibat.
Cum yero Ulyssis aedes binis constaret contignationibus, bina etiam, alterum
lacunaris alternm tecti foramina, sive oxaia, fuisse necesse est.’’ According
to this view the upper story, ὑπερῶον, Penelope’s own apartment, would have
had the smoke from below as well as its own — an absurd arrangement.
As regards the structural question see App. F. 2. Thus Voss's authority here
is of little weight.
14.
édva, ἔεδνα. Both forms occur. in the Od., only ἔδνα in the 1].; ἐεδνωταί
‘“‘betrothers’’, however, in N. 382; cf. ἐεδνώσαιτο ϑύγατρα B.53. The early
form of marriage was by purchase from the wife's father,* to which agrees
the Homeric formula; a husband takes a wife ἐπεὶ πόρε μυρία ἔδνα. Some-
times she seems to have been put up, as it were to auction, and carried
by the highest bidder, ὃς πλεῖστα πόροι." So the suitors’ presents to win
Pencl. are called ἕδνα." ‘These are all personal ornaments to bespeak her
own favour, and such is the idea of ἐέδνοισι βρίσας.- Yet some substantial
value to the father is implicd in Hephestus’ words,4 who, when dishonoured,
claims back the ἔδνα given for Aphrodité to her father; so we have παρϑένοι
ἀλφεσίβοιαι,5 and so Agam. offers Achill. his daughter ἀναάεδνον, as a pri-
vilege.' Yet it is supposed that the father and friends of Penel. would provide
ἔεδνα for her on her remarrying, and ἐεδνωταί N. 382 implies the same.
These may have been mere personal presents, or κειμήλια to grace the
house, &c., and show a princely liberality. These are doubtless what Telem.
says he shall have to pay back (ἀποτέψνειν) to Icarius, if he sends his mother
* See Gladst. vol. II. p. 468, note i.
41, 323—4. 58. 311-7. ἴ M. 200—1. 6K. 274. © Ψ. 853-5. ! 2. 536—52.
ky. 331. | &. 2; K. 298 ™ O. 83, 172; E. 99.
14. ὁ 2. 390—2; φ. 161—23 cf. A. 243—5. bo. 1173 v. 378; τ΄ 5:0:
0. 18; π. 391. £159. 4 & 318. ° 3. 593. [1]. 146, 288.
APPENDIX A. XXVII
away from the home to which she has a right.6 On the whole the value
received by the father was the basis of the transaction, the presents, per-
sonal or domestic, were customary but not essential, like the presents between
guest and host, Pindar (Pyth. III, 166—7) makes a married pair receive ἕδνα
from their guests at the nuptial feast. The word is doubtless βέδνα in its
original form and perhaps akin to our ‘‘wed’’.
15.
xAnts. This word means (1) the bar® or bolt with which the door was made
fast; equivalent in this sense to ἐπιβλῆς or ὀχεὺς, and (2) the key» or in-
strument for unfastening such bolt. We read of two dyneg ἐπημοιβοίς in the
Greek wall, closing double-leaved (δικλέδας) gates, and into which one key
(κληϊς) fitted. One dzevg might have been attached to each leaf and have
had its fastening in the other, — thus ἐπημοιβοί. The bolt either fell, we
may suppose, like a latch, or was shot horizontally. A thong? is mentioned
as instrumental in shooting it, and occurs also as itself tending to impede
entrance from without, and fastened® to a hook-handle, (κορώνη) which was
also used in pulling the door to on going out. The thong, until released from
the handle, would resist the action of the key in forcing back the bolt to
which it was attached; hence Penel., on gving to open the store-chamber,
ἱμάντα ϑοῶς ἀπέλυσε κορώνης, ἐν δὲ κληϊδ᾽ ἧκε — “into’’ what then docs
ἐν δὲ mean? Doubtless the thong passed through a hole in the door, — the
Schol. even speaks of f¢wo holes and a thong through each — and into this
hole the key, a crooked-headed one, able to catch the bolt and force it back
or upwards, according as it slid or fell, was inserted. The security mainly
depended on the massive strength of the bolt; thus Achilles’ hut! had one
which three ordinary men lifted, but he alone was able to manage it. So
Penel. opens the store-chamber evidently with great effort. Thus ἐπὶ δὲ κληϊδ᾽
ἐτώνυσσεν iuavers means, ‘‘she (having gone out and pulled the door to with
the handle) by the strap pulled the bolt’’, or let it fall, across the door
into a hitch or socket. It could then be opened, we must suppose, by hand
from within, but from without, not by the strap any more, but by the key
only. There is still a difficulty in seeing how the bolt could be withdrawn
from within, without releasing first the strap from the handle outside. Perhaps
there was a crook on the bolt to hitch the thong on to; if so, the thong might
then be slipped off the bolt within as casily as off the handle without. The
“key’’ was crooked,® perhaps at the extremity. WN. B. xinig also means a
“ship’s bench”, and a “collar bone”’.
16.
ἀκὴν, ἀκέων. Buttman’s view of this word (Lexil. 13) is far from satisfactory.
Doederlein’s (Glossar. 26.) is somewhat better, but hardly acceptable; he views
it as the same verb, used as neuter, which in ἀκέομαι ‘to heal” is transi-
tive, and connects the two by the idea of staying or assuaging pain &c.,
δ B. 132; π. 385—6. -
15. ὁ φ. 240-1; ἐξ. 166—8; &. 4553 a. 442. b Q. 453-6; φ. 47.
© M. 455—6. d a. 442. © δ. 802; φ. 46. { Q. 453—6. ἔα. 442.
h gm. 6; cf. σ. 294.
XXX APPENDIX A.
172, ἢ ὑπένερϑε Χίοιο παρ᾽ ἠνεμόεντα Μίμαντα; for, the course from Lesbos
being southward in order to bring them upon Chios at all, in going south-
ward between Chios and Mimas, the latter, which is on the mainland of
Ionia would be on the left, and Chios ‘‘on the right looking tmvards the left’’.
But in the previous alternative stated in 170-11 the course proposed is
plainly westward from Chios in the direction of (ἐπὶ) Psyria, which in fact lies
due W. of Chios. Thus they would be passing W. or S. W. from some point
of Lesbos, keeping Chios to the South or S. E. of the line of their course,
i. ce. on their left hand.
(2) Hence there is no reason to depart from the ordinary sense ‘“‘to or on
the left’’, or, introducing χειρὸς, (‘‘hand’’ being taken in the abstract as a
mere index of direction), to the ‘‘left of hand’. Possibly an ellipse, ἐπ᾽ age-
στερὰ ἀριστερῆς χειρὸς. might yield the full construction. As his keeping
the Pleiads in view denotes a generally southerly direction, so keeping Arctus
to the left denotes a general casterly direction, or his course from Ogygie
bore 8. E.
The phrase ἐπ᾽ ἀριστερὰ χειρὸς occurs Hy. to Merc. 418—9, 424, 499—500
where λαβὼν includes ἔχων, “having taken (and holding) on his left the lyre,
he was essaying it (with his right)”.
10.
γνάσσα, (ναέω, va fur), is found in καί κέ of “Agyet νάσσα πόλιν". This
and the longer epic form ναιετάω, transitive and neuter, belong to a root,
the primary sense of which appcars to be that of “piling, raising above a
surface’’; a sense still found in the strenghtened form vacow, 1. aor. ἔναξα,
as ἀμφὶ δὲ γαῖαν fvage, “he raised or ridged on both sides the carth”’
(from the τάφρος); and in Hy. Apollo 298 we have νηὸν ἔνασσαν, aor. 1. of
voto, “they built a dwelling, shrine’. This verb belongs to a class in
—aco not contracted, as being originally —afo, which £ is represented by
the « in ψναέω. Thus xiao, xvaw, κάω, are often called the Attic forms of
κλαίω, xvaio, (lat. scabo, and perhaps our ‘‘gnaw,’’) καίω, from which we
have κλαύσομαι, κλαυσμὸς, xavow, καῦσος, where the f appears as v; comp.
evadov, App. A. 6, (8). That vada is = vafw, is confirmed by ναύω, given in
Hesych. as -Eolic of vaw; accordingly ἔνασσα is a softened form of ἔνα σα.
The noun ναὸς, cp. νηὸς, retains no trace of the £ unless in the ἃ, and
this, Allicé, becomes yews. Further, vém “to heap up’’, Herod. VI. 80,
IV. 62, doubtless exhibits the same root under the form ὃ; this in Homer
appears as ψηέω, νηνέω, of piling’ up fire-wood, bread4, &c.; and Buttm.,
Gr. Verbs 5. v. véw, thinks that even νέω, νήϑω, ‘‘to spin’’, is connected with
the same root in the sense of glomerare. We have from vat also a pass.
1 aor. νάσϑη, in πατὴρ δ᾽ ἐμὸς Ἄργεϊ νάσϑη", “was settled’, as well as
ψάσσα πόλιν above; so Hesiod Opp, 168, of the Titans, Ζεὺς Κρονίδης xaté-
ψασσε πατὴρ ἐς πείρατα γαίης.
There is no obvious connexion with this root of the verb νέεσϑαι νεῖσϑαι
“to go, or go away”’, pres. having force of future’, of which νέω, ynzo, “to
19, 4 δι 174. b φ. 122. © 9. 422: τ. 64. dia. 147. e Ἐπ 119.
Γβ. 238.
APPENDIX A. XXXI
swim, is probably a form; yet here, too, the fut. νεύσομαι, and the undoubdt-
edly cognate ναῦς, νηῦς, navis, indicate plainly the f by their v. In ¢. 222
ψάϊον δ᾽ ὁρῶ we should perhaps read νᾶον, or with digam. vafor.
20.
γεινομένῳ. Buttm. Gr. Verbs s.v. ΓΕΝ —. says, “᾿γείνομαι has the proper
and simple sense of fo be horn; its pres., which belongs to the Epic poets
only, is used in both senses, 0 be born* and (o beget,” e. g. γείνεαι the 2 sing.
conjunct. aor. 1. midd. for γεένηαι᾽". He gives however, no instance of the pres.
in the latter sense, He adds, ‘“‘the aor. 1. midd. ἐγεινάμην, infin γεένασϑαι,
is trans., 0 beget, bring forth, and belongs to both prose and poetry.”” γίγνομαι,
or γίνομαι, he says, means properly {09 be born, and generally to become. Further.
“the old ep. pocts... used γεένομαε, on account of the established usage of
γείνασθαι, in sense of being born, γίγνομαι in that of to become’’. In all the
places® where the phrase, ‘‘whatever destiny (αἶσα or μοῖρα) spun for him
(γεινομένωῳ al. γιγνομένῳ) at his birth”, occurs, Bekk. gives γιγνομένῳ ΜΠ no
notice of var. lect., so also Facsi, but Dind. γεεινομένῳ, and there is no trace of
γειναμένω; but in K. 71, Bekk. gives Ζεὺς ἐπὶ γιγνομένοισιν in κακότητα,
with var lect.; γειναμέν., where Dind. has γεινομένοισι; in fy ἄρα γιγνόμεϑ᾽
αἴσῃ, Bekk. has no var. lect,; Dind. has γεινάμεϑ᾽, which seems wrong, for
the sense is passive; comp. A. 280, E. 800, 7. 61, ϑ. 312, v. 202; in all
which Homer uses this aor. as trans. Hesiod too has γείνατο, ἐγείνατο, ἄς.
transitive passim. There is indeed a var. lect. γείναϑ᾽ in Theoy. 283, where
yév®’ is preferable. Hesiod also constantly has γεινόμενος in sense of ‘at
birth’’, just as in δ. 208, 6. 9. Theog. 82, 202, 219, Op. 181, 804; once, Sc. 88,
yecvoued’ means ‘‘we were born’’, but is probably imperf. nnaugmented.
21.
οὐλαμὸς, νωλεμὲς νωλεμέως. It may he questioned whether the » is
a real part of these two latter words, or whether it be not, according to
Buttman’s view of νήδυμος (Lerxil. 81), a mere adventitious prefix, arising
probably from the » commonly called ephelcystic. We might then view it
as akin to οὐλαμὸς, comp. the phrase ava οὐλαμὸν ἀνδρῶν. The two phrases
ἔχε νήδυμος ὕπνος (Buttm. ἔχεν ἤδυμος ὕ.) and ἔχε νωλεμὲς αἰεὶ would
equally yield this », and the latter might similarly he ἔχεν ὠλεμὲς αἰεί. In
some places, as Od. χ. 228, ἐμάρναο νωλεμὲς αἰεὶ, the open vowel preceding
would not take this ¥; but this hiatus will be found to be always after the
4th foot, where Ahrens and La Roche* contend it is legitimate; further, Heyne
(Excursus 11. ad Il. XTX.) gives οὐλαμὸς as really Foudapos, see App. A. 3 (2),
and so Bekker, in his edition Bonn 1858, prints the word, just as ἡδὺς, Fndveg.
On this view foleuts would be the true and full form, and its meaning,
“close together, pell-mell”, — in short in the οὐλαμὸς ἀνδρῶν, passing into
the general notion of “leaving no interval’’ of space or time, something like
* See note on page III.
20. *K. γι. > v. 202. ς δι 208; ἡ. 198; T. 127; Q. 210. 4X. 477.
XXXH APPENDIX A.
Jat. continuus, continuo. One of these shades of meaning will be found ad-
equate wherever voleuis, νωλεμέως, occur*.
22.
λέγω, λέχτο᾽, ἄς. Buttm. Lexil 76 assumes a root ley— for this verb in
sense of to reckon, collect, recount, and another Zez—, in sense of to lay and
(mid.) lie. He bases the distinction of root on the forms λέχος, lozos, ἄλοχος;
still we have ovvefloza perf. of συλλέγω to collect (Buttm. Gr. Verbs s. r.
2έγω., and λόχος Spartan division of troops,) seems more probably from this
Jatter than from 1ez7— lie. Similarly μάσσω ‘to knead"’ has perf. péuaza, Ar.
Eq. 55, yet we have paytigoc, payis; nor can we doubt the affinity of παχὺς
παχνὴ to πήγνυμι, éxayny; the distinction of root, therefore, is not positively
clear; and it seems at least as likely that laying side by side, ‘putting this
and that together’’, is the basis of counting. He adds that in Ep. poetry
the only forms found are ἔλεξε, ἐλέξατο, ἔλεκτο, in sense of lay or lie, and
should have added the imperat. of the mixed form of aor., légo λέξεο, x. 320,
2. 650, τ. 598; comp. δέξο, T. το.
* ‘The passages are, for νωλεμὲς x. 191; Ζ. 228; I. 317; B- 58; P. 148, 385,
413; T. 232.; and for νωλεμέως δ. 288; 2. 435; 2. 4123 μ. 4373 τσ. 2435 2. 428;
E. 492; N. 3, 780.
APPENDIX B.
The Homeric use of ἅλς, ϑάλασσα, πέλαγος. πόντος.
(1) ἄλς is the sca in its purely physical aspect, the salt-water, into which
the ship is dragged, and which the oar blade smites, the great element which
may be touched, and which wets us in touching; its epithets accordingly are
few and fixed, and are either the indefinite dia, ϑεῖα, the commonplace Ba-
Meta, or words of light & shade, μαρμαρέη “twinkling,”’ πολιὴ, (shared with
ϑαλασσα), ἀτρύγετος (with that and πόντος), πορφυρέη, and the rarer égev-
youévn and πολυβενϑής. It is the home of monsters, comp. κῆτος εἰνάλιον, 5
it characterises the ψαάμαϑοι; we smell it, and the breezes smack of it (ἀλι-
αἕες)». The purely elemental gods are ἅλιοι γέροντες.“ It has, as might be
gathered from ctymology, a closer connexion in sense with ϑάλασσα than with
eithor πέλαγος or πόντος.
Thus we find ῥηγμῖνι ϑαλάσσης and ϑῖν᾽ ἐφ᾽ ἁλὸς πολιῆς, but never πόντου
or πελάγους; 80 we have βένθεα al. and ϑαλάσ. Yet, here too, preciseness
is lost at times; so Proteus comes ἐξ ἁλὸς but his seals ἐκ πόντου, 80 we
find ἀλὶ κάππεσε and ἔμπεσε πόντῳ," and even ἐν πελάγεσσιν alog', and
πόντος ἁλὸς, expressions which point to ἄλς as the material salt-water, the
πέλαγος and πόντος being certain forms of it.
(2) ϑάλασσα is properly the sea in motion, and doubtless by its iteration
of the sound of alg, quasi σάλασσα (comp. σαλεύω), means to express thus
image. It presents the sea in contrast not with the land (as πόντος with
γαῖα and ἤπειρος), but rather with the shore, the “sea-side’’, as we say; that
it groups with the πέτραι nAéBaroe,® and offers the picture of the beach with
vessel moored, in the oft recurring line
νῆα κατήλυϑον ἠδὲ ϑαλασσαν.
So we find it in the waves» washing on the strand, and ἐκλύσϑη δὲ ϑ9ά-
λασσαὶ describes the effect of the rock hurled by the Cyclops from the cliff into
the sea below. Thus it bears most of the epithets suggestive of noise or mo-
tion, ἠχήεσσα, πολύφλοισβος, ὀρινομένη, and is found in the εὐρέα νῶτα or καλ-
πον, ϑαλάσσης"; also the singular attribute ἀγχιβαϑὴς belongs exclusively to it as
applied to its depth close to land. It is curiously used of the rush of salt-water
from the weary swimmer's nose, ears, &c.' It grew to be the common word
ὁ δι 443. > δ. 438, 405-6, 361. ° δ. 365. 4 ὃ. 450, 436. “ ε. 374:
δ. 508. ' & 335; B®. 59. § IT. 34-5; cf. δι sor. ὃ" ξ. 95... |b. 484-541.
Ky. 142; δ 435; δ, 413. =| & 455.
HOM. OD, APP. c
“3. “αν ὦ --ξο. ὦ
XXXIV APPENDIX B.
for the sea in later Greek: so Xenopbon's eoldi-rs ποῦ. IV. τι. ὃ. 23 cried
Salattu, Gaiatra. when they came at last within sight of it. Nav. even in
Homer it sonnes: loses ita distinctive features, and. when there is noe special
atrenas ἴω be laid on the extent or depth of the watery surface, ocenrs as the
readiest word. Sy we have the oagaio; Saiacer,s. and ϑαϊαέξεια ἔργα.
Occasionally also. by poetic license. it pats on the image proper to xor-
τος, as when it bears the epithet ererxogoso, comp. γαίης: eteroderss.
Epithets peenliar to it are γλαύκη “dashing.” of motion vielding light,
comp. the γλατχώπις epithet of Pallas, App. E.4. 20 and αϑέσφατος. com-
monly given ty any vast or striking object, af@e τε νύκτες ἀϑέσφατοι, αϑέ-
Szatoy ὄμβρον.
3, The marked difference which strikes us at once in xélayog as compared
with the parallel expressions, is that it appears in the plur. which they never
do, and is marked by no epithet save μέγα. Its use. in the phrase alog ἐν
πελάγεσσι," appears nearly --- ἐν βένθεσσι, in the “depths.” At any rate the
context seems to require the notion of the lower regions of the sea- basin,
those parts which are concealed from human eve. We may compare with
these xelayex or βένθεα alos the λαῖτμα alos or Salacens," i. ε. the
great gulf which swallows up. So the expression ἐν πελάγει" peta κύμασιν
᾿μφιτρίτης, opposed to ἐν ἠπείρω on lerrd firmd, denotes the extreme
opposite, the ‘‘waters of the great-deep'', whose vast and unknown perils
are as far as possible remote from the familiar aspect, even when perilous,
of land. On the whole the use of this term denotes a sense of awe, mystery,
and terror, attaching to the sea viewed as engulfing and destroying. Possibly
the Hebrew 5: Ὲ, ‘division or separation,’ used in reference to waters, may
after all contain the root, and the word may have been an importation from
the Phoenicians, who, as there is good reason to believe, supplied the Greeks
with the materials of most of those tales of sea-marvel which adorn the
Odyssey. The Greeks may have consistently preferred an outlandish word,
tu embody the notion of unknown profundity and peril which they gathered
only by hearsay. The only passages apparently inconsistent with this view
are a few similes in which poetic latitude of diction may be allowed to rule,
e. g. the raft of Odys. is driven along the sea, as the winds whirl brambles
ἄμ πεδίον; here, then, the horizontal surface must in strictness of speech be
intended; but here the expression is ἀμ πέλαγος.» Again, in the beautiful
comparison of the swell waiting for the winds to lift it into waves,1 we
might expect some other word, but here too we find πέλαγος. But we must
always assume that there will be a few instances in which the reverse of
preciseness will prevail, and the mere love of poetic variety will introduce
laxity, and crase the lines of critical definitions.
(4) The Homeric use of πόντος, again, has this peculiarity, in common how-
over, with adg,* it is found in compounds. The words ποντόπορος (νηῦρ), πον-
tozogevw are significant. They suggest passing over or along the xovrtog.
* Of alg we have the compounds ὠκύαλος, ἀμφέαλος, ἀλιπόρφυρος, ἁλοσύδνη,
besides those mentioned in (1).
™ δι 338; A. 358. © & 561; δ. 504; & 174: τ. 260. °% y 90--. P & 330.
4 “Φ. 16 foll.
APPENDIX B. XXXV
This brings an expanse or surface before our eyes. Breadth of prospect and
wide horizontal range are also suggested by the epithets ἀπεέρων, ἀπείριτος,
ἠεροειδὴς, ἰοειδὴς, olvow. Hence the πόντος is what a man sees around him
when tand is out of sight, the nihil est nist pontus et aér of Ovid; comp.
περιστέφει οὐρανὸν εὐρὺν Ζεὺς, ἐτάραξε δὲ πόντον". In another passage®
we have οὐρανὸς ἠδὲ ϑάλασσα, but there the sea near shore is spoken of,
as shown by ἐλείπομεν shortly preceding, in the same passage πόντος in the
sense of ‘“‘watery surface,’’ follows. We may nearly express the contrast of
πόντος and πέλαγος" in Pope’s line, ‘‘and seas but join the countries they
divide,”’ Compare especially ποντόπορος νηῦς, and the description, πέλαγος"
μέγα τοῖον ὅϑεν τέ περ οὐδ᾽ οἰωνοὶ αὐτόετες οἰχνεῦνται. Πόντος then is the
wide prospect seen from land: thus the seaward stretching promontory stands
ἐν ἠεροειδέϊ πόντῳ," the mariner says, ‘“‘we’’, on leaving the island, ἐνή-
καμὲν εὐρέι πόντῳ!" and so on nearing the land he fears to be swept out
again πόντον ἐπ᾿," and partially experiences it in τηλοῦ δέ μιν ἔμβαλε
πόντῳ. So the πλημυρὶς comes ἐκ πόντοιο, and how full is the image
which we get of sea rising over land in boundless prospect in the ψνῆσον,7
τὴν πέρι πόντος ἀπείριτος ἐστεφάνωται. Further, as regards the epithets
ἠεροειδὴς, ἰοειδὴς, ofvow, whatever their precise meaning, they clearly re-
quire as their basis a distant view of a considerable expanse. Again, the
epithets μεγακήτης and xolvxdvorog* present us with the image of huge ca-
vities and multitudinous waves. The former might seem rather suited to πέ-
λαγος as before defined, but this is too vague to receive any image-building
epithet, and is left indistinct by μέγα τοῖον. Πόντος is distinguished by its
repeated occurrence in the actual sea narrative of Odys., and in the whole
poem is found nearly thrice as often as in the Iliad, whercas ϑαάλασσα is
found only about twice as often, and ἄλς in about equal frequency.
* Perhaps the expressive phrases ‘‘the high sea” and ‘“‘the great deep” may
pi oportionately represent the proper force of πόντος and πέλαγος respectively.
" & 303. s pw. 404— 6. ty. 322. ay. 294; ὃ. 568. Y pb. 401,
Wg. 420, 431; cf. 446. > 2. 486. Y x. 195. : δι 354.
APPENDIX Ο,
I.
(1) The legend of the oxen and sheep of the Sun is regarded by Mr. Glad
stone (vol. II. vir. 410—1) as a trace of brute worship in Greek mytholog
similar to that which pervaded the Egyptian. It seems even more nearly re
lated to the Brahminical sanctity attaching to such animals, which he als
recognizes, and possibly is a tinge of very old eastern superstition, connecte
with sun-worship, and derived, with the names Perseus, Persé, Medea, Per
sians and Medes (id. I. x. 555 foll.) from the cradle of the Aryan race. Thi
number is also remarkable*, 50 >< 7 being the number of days in the non-in
tercalated year, and in the expression used of these cattle, yovos δ᾽ οἱ
γίγνεται αὐτῶν οὐδέ ποτε φϑινύϑουσι, we see the meaning of the myth peep
ing out through the language of poetry — the ordinance that ‘‘Day and Nigh
shall not fail;’? comp. Soph. Antig. 607—8, ἀκάματοι ϑεῶν μῆνες.
(2) With regard to the sacrilege, ‘‘it is impossible to conceive a case, it
which the offence committed is more exclusively of the kind termed positive
or more entirely severed from moral guilt ... Still, when once we let in the
assumption that these animals had essentially sacred lives, which might no
be taken away, then the offence becomes a moral one of frightful profana.
tion, and the vengeance so rigorously exacted is intelligible.’’ It ought tc
be taken into view, however, that they had been expressly warned agains’
the act and its consequences.»
(3) However this may be, we have Hy. Pyth. Ap. 234—5 a mention of the
flocks of the Sun as feeding at Tsenarus, and Herod. IX. 93, has a story οἱ
sheep sacred to the Sun at Apollonia, which illustrates the awe with whict
their destruction was regarded, even though accidental. Pausanias (V. 22, 3
also speaks of some in Corcyra, which like Apollonia was a colony of Corintk
(Thucyd. 1. 26). The ‘‘Stabula Gortynia”’ (Virg. Buc. VI. 60) and Aristeeus
herds in Ceos (Georg. I. 14) pertain to the same custom of keeping flocks &c.
regarded as sacred (Welcker Gr. Gott. I. p. 404); so do the geese of the
Roman Capitol, ‘‘quibus Sacris Junoni in summA inopia cibi tamen abstine.
batur’’ (Liv. V. 47). Such sacred herds &c. may have actually existed in He.
roic Greece, and be merely poeticised here as grazing in the holy islanc
under the care of Guardian Nymphs.¢* At Apollonia there was clearly a fixec
number of them, through Herod. does not state it. Similarly the flock o:
Proteus,’ the seals, sacred to Amphitrité, are counted by him.
2.
HERMES.
This god appears in Homer as the “ conductor’’ of matters or of persons (δὲ
ἄκτορος) not only to Zeus but to the Olympian assembly, and may be com
1. 2. 129—31. PA. 112 —33 w.137—41. © we. 131-6; cf.t.184. 8. 404, 431
APPENDIX C, XXXVITI
pared with the κῆρυξ of heroic life; still, he nowhere sinks to a mere go-
between, but has the charge of convoying through perils or preventing evils;
as in the errand on Priam’s behalf*, the warning to Zgisthus,» the deliverance
of Odys. from Calyps6é,* the counteracting Circé’s! spells, the rescue of Ares, ®
the convoy of Heracles through Hades,! comp. Hy. Ceres 314, whero Iris
is the messenger, as in the Il. but Hermes the agent 335—8. On several of
these occasions his managing influential tone far exceeds that of the mere
perfunctory messenger. The epith. yevoogeamic® implies, as in the case of
Circé,® a magic power; see Hy. Merc. 210, 529. The ‘‘lulling to sleep and
rousing’’ is the effect ascribed to this wand,' but the book o. is tinged
with suspicion, & the office of wvyoxouxog is not elsewhere part of the Ho-
meric idea of Hermes. This ‘“‘lulling’’* is actually exercised on the Greek
sentinels in conducting Priam. He is called évoxozog,' and ἀκάκητα, and
addressed as δῶτορ ἐάων, ‘giver of god-sends, or increase,’ as to Phorbas,
who was zolvunios,™ comp. δωτῆρες ἐάων used of the gods in general; also
ἐριούνιος -- νης" is an epithet, and sometimes a prop. name of Hermes, as
is ἐνοσίχϑων of Ποσείδων. Odys. mentions the special gifts in his patronage
as those which conduce to δρηστοσύνη," clever despatch, over-reaching,? and
adroit evasion, even by falsehood and the use of the oath. He enjoyed local
worship in Ithaca with the nymphs,? and a promontory is named from him
there." The epith. Κυλλήνιος shares the suspicion of w., found, however, often
in the Hy. The constant title Agyespovtns, found in Homer, Hes. and the Hy.,
is probably a form of Aeyecpaytns, = “brilliant shiner’’, and connects him
with the idea of the dawn (Welcker Gr. Gott. I. p. 336), and évoxozog is found
only as attached to it. (Na&gelsbach Hom. Theol. 11. ii. 8. 24.) Mr. Gladstone,
reviewing his sonship to Maia daughter of Atlas, his apparent relationship to
Calyps6, who calls him αἰδοῖός te pllog τε, his being found uncommissioned
in Circé’s island, his youthful impersonation, πρῶτον ὑπηνήτης, and lax moral
tone,® (G. II. iii. 231—41) concludes probably that he was of Phoenician origin, and
young in the Greek Olympus. He mixes most affably of all Olympus‘ with men;
comp. Milton (Parad. L. V. 221—2) ‘Raphael, the sociable spirit, that deigned to
travel with Tobias.’’ This attribute, and his passionless, prudent bearing, 6. g.
when paired against Leté" in the conflict of deities, as also his patronage of
unscrupulous shifts, go far to identify his character with that of the people who
first exemplified sharp practice in trade. His quality of messenger, agent &c.,
also seems a reflex of the Phoenicians as the go-betweens of mankind in the
heroic age. His conveying the sceptre to Pelops may express Phoenician in-
fluence, as supporting in Peloponnesus that founder of an Asiatic dynasty.
3-
Atlas‘ in Homer's view is primarily related to the sea; of him, as of Proteus,
it is said that he ϑαλάσσης πάσης βένϑεα oldev, — such knowledge as an ex-
2. * &. 333—469. a. 38—43. “ε. 28—148. ὁ x. 277. ° E. 390. [Άλ. 626.
6 ¢. 87. x. 277, 331; cf. 238, 319, 389. ' ow. 2- 4: ῶ. 343—4. * Q. 445.
la. 38; ἢ. 137; 2. 24, 1093; IT. 180; @. 10. m #. 335; cf. 325; ἐξ. 490.
> ὃ. 322; T. 34, 72; &. 360, 440. 9.0. 419-24; τ. 396—7; cf. x. 299.
P T. 35. 4 & 435. τ π᾿ 471. s Π. 179—86; 3. 334—42. ᾿ Q. 335.
oT, 72; ®. 497—501. 3. δα. 52—3.
XXXVITII APPENDIX Ὁ.
perienced seaman gains; to Proteus the epithet Ποσειϑάωνος" ὑποδμὼς is
added. Each has a daughter, the one long detains Odyss.,° but at last speeds
him on his way, the other of her own freewill aids Menelaus‘ when similarly
detained. Of Atlas it is added, ἔχει δέ re κίονας αὐτὸς μακρὰς al
γαῖάν τε καὶ οὐρανὸν ἀμφὶς ἔχουσιν, where the word αὐτὸς" is added as if
to import “ἴῃ his own right’’, giving something of dignity to the person in-
tended. His daughter Calypsé' is a goddess, recognized as such by Hermes, δ
and her island is the “mid-point of the sea.’’ Another daughter, Maia, is a
ψύμφη in Hy. XVIII. 7, but the same term is applied to Calypso, and from
the expression ib. 5 μακάρων δὲ ϑεῶν ἀλέεινεν ὅμιλον, Maia was evidently of
the same goddess-rank, and was mother of Hermes by Zeus. In all this there
is no trace whatever of the penal aspect which Hesiod and Aeschylus make
Atlas exhibit; with them he is a Titan, son of Iapetus and brother of Pro-
metheus, Theog. 507—20, Prom. 355 - 8, 432—8; the former poet says
"Atlag δ᾽ οὐρανὸν εὐρὺν ἔχει κρατερῆς ὑπ᾽ ἀνάγκης,
πείρασιν ἐν γαίης, πρόπαρ Ἑσπερίδων λιγυφώνων,
ἑστηὼς, κεφαλῇ τε καὶ ἀκαμάτῃσι γχέρεσσι,
but makes no mention of the Homeric pillars; the latter,
ὃς πρὸς Ἑσπέρους τόπους
ἔστηκε κέον᾽ οὐρανοῦ τε καὶ χϑονός
ὥμοις ἐρείδων, ἄχϑος οὐκ εὐάγκαλον.
In short, Atlas with them comes into the myth of the Titans’ overthrow by
Zeus, of which we trace only a faint rudiment in Homer, the “sitting of Iapetus
and Cronus® at the farthest ends of earth and sea, unrefreshed by sun or breeze
and with deep Tartarus about them’’, and in Heré’s oath to Hypnus, by the
gods τοὺς ὑποταρταρέους of Τιτῆνες xaléovtar,' so Hy. Pyth. Apoll. 335—6;
but with Iapetus, Cronus, and these Titans Homer noway connects Atlas.
He stands unattached, and the next development of mythus in the Tita-
nomachy,* easily drew into itself such unattached elements, especially any
stamped as ὀλοόφρων, ‘“‘fiendish’’, and related to a non-Hellenic source.
The contrast of the Homeric and post-Homeric Atlas culminates in the line
ἔχει δέ te κίονας autog of the older, and that οὐρανὸν εὐρὺν ἔχει κρατε-
οῆς vx ἀνάγκης of the later poet. Mr. Paley adopts ad loc. Hes. et Aesch.
the notion of Humboldt that the peak of Teneriffe was the physical basis of
the legend of Atlas, and Herod. IV. 184 speaks of a mountain in W. Africa,
slender and wholly rounded, said to be so lofty that its peaks cannot be
seen, for clouds never leave them, and adds τοῦτο τὸν κίονα τοῦ οὐρανοῦ
λέγουσι of ἐπιχώριοι εἶναι. This is supposable, as the Phenician colo-
nists, at Carthage, for instance, might easily reach the groups of islands
outside the straits at a very early period. Nagelsbach views Atlas and
Proteus as impersonations of the maritime enterprise of the Pheenicians,
one at either end of the sea which they traversed; they alone having
then explored the straits of Gibraltar. The epithets ὀλοόφρων, ὀλοφώια
* Welcker (Gr. Gott. I. p. 261) thinks the overthrow of the Titans by the
later gods describes the establishment of the Olympian cultus of Zeus, Heré,
and the rest, in place of the nature-powers worshipped by the primitive Pelasgi.
bd. ,86--). ¢ 8, 220-40. ἃ δ. 365 [0]. ° cf. α. 117, 402; B. 53. 287:
γ. 402; ὃ. 649. nN. 245—6. 8 & 97. bh @. 479—81. | Bi. 279.
APPENDIX C. 7 XAXIX
εἰδὼς, denote the unscrupulous acts of plunder and violence which they com-
bined with trade. He further remarks that, as children are named from an
attribute of the father in Astyanax, Eurysaces, Telemachus, so their daugh-
ters’ names are similarly expressive. Kalvwow, the ‘‘Concealer’’ may in-
dicate the efforts of voyagers to conceal the real facts in order to impose
upon others, or the actual concealment of persons seized by Phenician kid-
nappers,* and E/do@én, the “Knowing One”’, may illustrate the information, new
facts, &c., really brought home. The relation of Atlas to Proteus is further
confirmed by the “pillars of Proteus”’ (Virg. Aen. XI. 262) in the East. He com-
pares Atlas with the Tyrian Herakles, the two being brought into view in
the story that Herakles awhile relieved Atlas (but of this Homer knows
nothing) of the load of heaven and earth. In support of this symbolic view
of Atlas he quotes Hermann de Atlante, Opusc. p. 253. ‘‘Ibi ergo, ubi tales
columne czelum sustinerent, ipsi orbis terrarum termini esse credebantur;
ad quos qui pervenisset constantid sud et fortitudine, tenere istas columnas usita-
lissimo verbi significatu dicebatur’’. He further remarks how astronomy, and the
having in his power the treasures (golden apples) of the western main, the
commercial results of discovery, were functions added to Atlas by later writers,
as Virg. Aen. I. 741. Cic. Tusc. V. 3. The Phoenician relations of Atlas are
further brought out by his grandson Hermes as the patron of trade, &c. see
App. C. 2. [Hom. Theol. 11. §. 9, 87—g0.|]
4.
Phorcys is one of the oldest names for ἃ sea-god. Alcman gave Nereus the
name Πόρκος (Hesych. 5. v. Νηρεὺς) plainly related to this form in -vg. He-
sych interprets it as of colour, ‘‘grey”’; Pind. Pyth. XII. 13, has the gen.
Φόρκοιο from -og (Welcker, Gr. Gott. 1. p. 645—6). He is a mere vague sea-
deity with no precise functions in Homer. It is on the whole probable that ἁλός "
ἀτρυγέτοιο μέδοντος, not μέδοντι, is the true reading. A haven in Ithaca was
named from him; perhaps one of the shorter offshoots, now called Dexia, on the
east sideof the great inlet which almost divides the island. The cavern of the
nymphs at the head of it is one of the most famous pieces of Homeric descrip-
tion.» In Hesiod Phorcys is son of Pontus, brother of Nereus, and father
of various monsters; see Theog. 237, 270, 333, 336; in Homer, father of
Thoosa,* the mother of Polyphemus.
5-
Τριτογένεια, Pallas is so addressed with the addition of φέλον τέκος" by
Zeus. She is always spoken of emphatically as his child; so Ares* says ov γὰρ
τέκες ἄφρονα κούρην, ... ἐπεὶ αὐτὸς ἐγείναο παῖδ᾽ ἀΐδηλον; and so in the
narrative, αὐτὰρ Ayatovg ὦρσε Διὸς ϑυγάτηρ“ κυδίστη Τριτ.; comp. the speech
of Νοβίοσν ὁ, Here, probably, the development of mythus left the question of her
origin in Homer's time.e Hesiod says further that Zeus swallowed (ἑὴν éyxat-
Beto νηδὺν) his own first wife Metis, as she was fated to bear children of great
wisdom, and that Zeus afterwards produced ἐκ κεφαλῆς γλαυκώπιδα Torto-
Kk δ, 288—9; 0. 415 foll.
4, 40.72, vy. 1r0o3—12, Sa. γι.
5. * 8. 39; X. 183. b E. 875, 880. © 2. 514—5. dy. 378.
IL ArPE sik (
Fae He. Agel. Hyer. :38 -- 12 Tags Bers ac tus ime vite αἱ Zeas,
<a
79249.
wa. ᾿σ»λδ Stele τ tot πμτιεῖα αὶ Sam Sim Ms νι: ant Serseli of
tere! sare σαι. Tae Hr. L207 ay ἔϑηνταν 2—:: fet25-ges τοῖς
τι. Duster. masag 1. 424g fae fim 15 itat Σὲ motes 112 cir bramtash-
LAY AST Aas Wales Clg υτλχοϊΐ as Its Τοϑυπανῖον, 22002 anf dea Peck-
LAY tat oullay asd cat win etaviag χὰ taarvic Tacs ΜΊΞΙΣ las imitated
Parsd. Lat. Ba. UF ;::--λ wiere Sia τλτε τῷ Sac
χες ¢tiaiy .+atear fair. a rrbieke arm
“ΚΞ of tar 220i To «τε Σ.
Tas βκλουκκίλζωπ of π᾿ τὲ in Hew avis: Hr. esrtaincy faviw che iaterpre-
tating: ω2 Testa7. 24 = ~ 2402-6 Amer τ} mor +xplaims i: 1885 he dues
the byitns: “Agyecgestrs “32 στα... -Eechyits a3:9%3 the καὶ egeml, Eemen.
2.1. Meat ahe wat a, cast frim ite rivalz: Tritem at τὴς 3. W. corner of
tae Copai: Laxe (2 Boewtia: whence. ionitiese. the name was transported by
eolemizativm ty τῶ Ἐ5| [41 “11:3: ini lake ic Africa mear the Sertis minor,*
where Heridotns foun her worship: sec ihe story of her origim there. IV. 159,
tho, 132. ε΄. 120. Ῥης ae Homer knew eothing of the mode of her birth, so
he knew noceing of its place, or we may assume that he woald have told
na. as he naa of ber connexion with Erechtkcas and Athenms.* At any rate
had she Leen connected with the Ioeality of the Copaie Lake and the little
town Alalkomens thereon. we should moat κεῖτ Lave had some hint of it
in hia copions list of E«rotian towns.’ bat Homer's Palias is localized, if at
all, at Athena, and the town Alaikomens prodba'-iv did not exist in his time.
Nagelabacis Hom. Theol. 11 §. 21 p. τος. Bot: Lames** some commentators who
regard τρίτῳ as ἃ name connecting Athen: with the element of water, and
me whe would refer it to the Indian Tritas = Indras = Zeus. The simplest
mmurce Of the name may probably be the real one. viz., “*third-born™ in con-
nexion with her union with Zeas and Apollo in the highest functions of deity; .
ace, App. ©. 6. In this sense Zeus would be xgeroyergs. The quantity of
the ¢ need cause no difficulty, as nothing gives way sooner to metrical con-
venience than the quantity of this vowel; see instances given by Spitzner Gr.
Pros. 464. ¢ Anmerk. 3, 2. Ὁ, 2. ¢. 6.
6.
Al yag Ζεῦ τε πάτερ, χαὶ 'ADnvain, χαὶ Απολλον.
(gy Friedrich, quoted by Gladst. vol. II p. 139, says, ‘“‘this Triad of Zeus,
Athené and Apollo bears an unmistakeable analogy to the Christian Trinity,
af Father, Holy Ghost, and Son: Jupiter answering to God the Father, Athené
* Wheeler, Geogr. of Herod. p. 541, says, “Ἐν the lake Tritonis Herod.
sccm to mean the gulf of Khabs (lesser Syrtis)’’ ..: ‘*His information,
however, was evidently derived from some Argonautic poet, and he could have
been very little acquainted with the real geography of the coast’. The
Araba, he says, have a tradition that a great salt-]ake in Southern Tunis
once communicated with the river near, but it is not clear frém his words
whether any river now exists, or whether it is only ‘represented’? by a Wady.
** Such is Welcker, who (Gr. Galt. I. p. 300) makes Τριτογ. == ‘born on
the water”, which appears to have this name from the trembling wave-motion,
atym. rete, teevg, I'edtns, asin "Augirecen, Τρίτων; comp. Nagevs, Νηρίτης.
“7. 78 -81; B. 546 --51. ΓΒ. 496—508.
TO ILLUSTRATE APP C δ.
Snage of fallas on a prize vase probably for a chariot race of high
antiguily, in the British Musca, engraved trom arepresertatior. oft:
a. (lag as Ancient Unctited Monuments, ef, bearing inscription
IMIAOIOANMQANAOANG “πε
25 κε ἕνην right to ἐσγῦ) ζζῶν AOgvéwv ἃ Θλον sasicuer
The συν of lhe Fish may perhaps llusirate page XL, nate *
APPENDIX C, XLI
to the Holy Ghost, and Apollo to the Son of God, the declarer of the will of
his Heavenly Father: like as, furthermore, the early Christians have largely
compared Christ with Apollo.”’
(2) Paschke in a monograph de Minervd qualem Homerus finxerit, Sorau, 1857;
de Deo Patre, Filio, Sanctoque Spiritu uno numine conjunctis doctrina Chri-
stiana exhibet;’’ agreeing with Friedrich in his distribution of the persons.
A different view is given Gladst. II p. 139, viz. that the ‘‘primitive tradition”
is ‘‘disintegrated and subdivided,’’ Athené and Apollo embodying respectively
two aspects of the Redeemer or Second Person, viz. (1) the Adyog or Wisdom,
and (2) the Son of God incarnate as Messiah. He points out the absence of
evidence for any such primitive tradition respecting the Holy Spirit as would
afford the basis for the character of the Homeric Athené; and he argues that
tradition would not have in that case inverted the order, by postponing the
2™ to the 3% person, as is done not only in the above line, but in the prac-
tical precedence enjoyed by Athené in the poems. Niagelsbach Homer. Theol.
IT. §. 23, in discussing this line takes no notice of the question, but says,
‘in this formula which the Greek consciousness has made the depositary of
its deepest theological perception (Anschauung) — a formula known also to
the Attics — the Greek coordinates the deities, which were in his view au-
preme and had the closest mutual connexion, in a partnership combining also
the highest sanctity (das Heiligste), This coordination is as little fortuitous
as in the oath of the Athenians; (Schol. Il. B. 371) since it is natural to men
in their highest wishes, and in their most sacred affections to direct their
looks to their supreme deities. But this is important chiefly as giving proof
that the Greek had a consciousness — not, to be sure, speculatively deve-
loped — of the complete mutual relation of these three deities.”’
(3) ‘‘Apollo is more largely endowed than Minerva in regard to the future,
though a less conspicuous figure in the direction of the present”’ ... ‘Each
of the two great traditive deities had begun to give way to corruption, and
each in the point at which, according to the respective sex, its yielding might
have been anticipated. As unchastity is more readily pardoned, according to
social usage, in the man, so is deceit in the woman. And in this point the
standard had already fallen* for Minerva.’’ (Gladst. 11. 96, 112.)
The most important marks which denote their Olympian preeminence are
1. a dignity coordinate with, whereas in rank they are junior to Zeus. 2. A
superior antiquity to that of the other Olympians being Zeus’ children. 3. A
peculiar precedence especially assigned to Pallas, and a singular union of
will and affection with Zeus, to Apollo. 4. Heaven defended by Apollo against
rebellion, and other indispensable assistance rendered similarly by Pallas.
5. These deities, with the cxception of Apollo’s servitude’, are never baffled,
disgraced, or worsted. 6. Their honour among men, like that of Zeus, is
peculiar, and universal tkroughout the Homeric world. 7. Their immunity
from any local residence. 8. Their being the objects of prayerful invocation
* This does not sufficiently represent the low moral tone of some of the
deeds and words of Athené; see further under App. E. 4. (2)...(7).
6. ὃ" Φ. 440—57.
XLII APPENDIX C.
irrespectively of special circumstances. 9. Their exemption from the chief
physical limitations laid down for gods. 10. Their punishing independently
of Zeus. τι. Their power of revelation, and of such miraculous action upon
nature as scarcely any other deity approaches. 12. Apollo’s peculiar relation
tu the life-power and to death. 13. Their superior moral* tone to Zeus as
well as to other Olympians. 14. Their large share, with Zeus, in the highest
and most ethical parts of providential administration. 15. Their attributes
belong personally to them, instead of these deities merely being embodiments
of attributes or, at best, stewards of certain gifts. 16. Their attributes out-
number and range beyond those of the other Olympians, ** and they yet have
a capacity for new ones. Thus Pallas combines some of the attributes of
Hephestus> in metallurgy, gives skill to the artizan,* collects and breaks up
the ἀγορή; 4 and thus Apollo ultimately absorbed the distinct functions of Eelius
the Sun-god. 17. The whole conception of these deities, viewed mythologically,
is anomalous; but is explicable by the theory which refers them to a tradition.
(Chiefly abridged from ibid. 134—137.)
Welcker (Gr. Gott. I. p. 142, 144, note g) quotes Preller’s view in Philolog.,
that ‘‘Kronos, in theogony the antecedent (Begriindung) of Zeus. is mytho-
logically derived from him, as the Ζεὺς Κρονέων, whose worship gave rise
to that of Kronos’’. He notes the preferential use of Αρονέων, Κρονίδης, by
Homer and Pindar for Zeus, in a sense equivalent tu the Hebrew, ‘‘The An-
cient of Days’’.
7 .
PROTEUS AND EIDOTHEE.
In Herod. II. 112 Proteus is the name, in Greek, of a king of Egypt, round
whose τέμενος in Memphis the Tyrian Phoenicians had their quarter, so that
the region was called their στρατόπεδον. Herod. gives another, and as he
thought, truer, version of the connexion of Prot. with the tale of Troy, —
that this king, hearing of the crime of Paris from the slaves of the latter,
who was driven to Egypt by storms on his return to Troy from Sparta, de-
tained Helen and her treasures, that the Greeks, disbelieving the Trojans’
statement that this was so, on capturing the city found it true, and that Menelaus
then went to Egypt and reclaimed her. Herod. (116), from the agreement of
names Proteus and Thonis, (custos, according to Herod., of the Nile-mouth,
comp. δ. 228, Θῶνος) and from the local shrine of a foreign Aphrodité, identified
by him with Helen, in the said τέμενος, supposes that Homer knew of this ver-
sion of the tale, but adopted the other on poetic grounds, Thonis is in Strabo,
XVII. p. 801 (437), the name of a town on the Canobitic mouth, given it
from a king Thon. The Tyrians, then, might be well informed concerning
* But see the last note.
** Among the professions or demiurgic functions enumerated g. 383, viz.
(1) μάντις the secr, (2) ἑητὴρ κακῶν the surgeon, (3) τέκτων δούρων the skilled
artiticor, (4) ἀοιδὸς the bard. (1), (z) and (4) come under the functions of
Apollo, (3) under those of Pallas. To these Gladst. II. 65 would add the xenx-
tng or merchant, but this seems an unwarranted addition, and Hermes is
clearly the deity to whom that fanction pertains. Mr. Gladstone's theory of
‘“‘secondary’’ deities has perhaps carried him too far in making Hermes a
‘secondary’? of Pallas, and the πρηκτὴρ thus a function pertaining to her.
b ξ, 233 -43 ψ. 159-60. ¢ O. 412. d B. 69.
APPENDIX Ὁ. XLITI
Proteus and Thon or Thonis, Pharos*, and the Acgyptus (Nile), and they alone
probably knew of the strange creatures of the Northern and Western seas.
The “foreign Aphrod.’’ is doubtless their Astarté. The powers of trans-
formation and prophecy sound like an Egyptian priestly myth; or the former
may be a reflex of the same pretensions which we gather from Holy Writ, Exod.
VII. 10, 11, but might have reached Homer through the Tyrians. The state-
ments of Proteus are only* what a widely travelled mariner, who had picked
up information in every sea, might make, save the one of Menelaus’ mi-
gration to the Elysian plain. Hence he presumably dressed up a tale of
marvel from North-western seas in Egyptian accessories of scene and person.
The epithet Alyuxtiog> added to Prot. confirms this, as it would hardly have
occurred in a tale properly Egyptian. So docs the improbability of the φῶκαι
having been ever found in Levantine seas. The Pelagius monachus, Phoque a
ventre blanc, is said to inhabit the Hadriatic and Sardinian coasts; other varie-
ties save one or two belong to much higher latitudes. As all their organi-
sation favours swimming, they come on shore only at intervals to bask in
the sun and to suckle their young. When they swim, one seal often serves
as guide, or, when they sleep, as sentinel to the rest. Perhaps we have a
suggestion of Proteus here. Yet, though Egypt was in Homer's thoughts, scenes
with which he was personally familiar supplied the details. Thus the cool
wind springing up at noonday, or soon after, is a well known phenomenon
at Smyrna. It comes from the sea (ζέφυρος) and is called the Subat, and the
inhabitants, who mostly take a siesta during the sun's greatest altitude, rouse
up at its approach. (Werry’s Memoirs p. 37, and Wood p. 54, quoted by
Vilcker, Hom. Geogr. § 43, Ὁ. 82.) The disguise of the voyagers is also a
touch of fact. The Esquimaux adopt the masquerade of a seal’s skin, the
fresher of course the better (yeodagta), to come within striking distance of
this shy and sagacious creature. Sir E. Beecher, in a dissertation on Esqui-
maux habits before the British Association at Oxford 1860, told a story, that
he was once levelling his rifle at a supposed seal, when a shipmate’s well-
known voice from within the hide arrested his aim with the words, “don't
shoot! It’s Husky, Sir’’. It is supposable that the device was current in the
earliest ages, and that it was known to the only real seamen of the period,
the Tyrians, who could not fail to notice creatures so curious by their large
size, uncouth form, and high order of instinct, basking on remote promon-
tories, shunning human haunts, and not easily caught, save when asleep, nor
even approached, save in such disguise. It is observable that the word
peext® may mean not “the ripple”, as usual,¢ but, μελαένῃ eg. καλυφϑεὶς,
‘clad, or coated, in swart far’’: — having the appearance, in short, of a seal.
This would render the puarticipial contruction more easy, as the participle
past with verb. fut. elo, must otherwise mean, “having been hitherto concealed”’:
for, at the time of his coming forth the concealment would cease. Comp., for
this sense of φρεκὶ, the name of a horse Φρικέας, from his bristly mane,
Pind. Pyth. X. 16, and φρίξας εὖ λοφιὴν, of the boar, t. 446. Possibly the
poet intended a play upon the world.
* Comp. Eurip. Helen. 5. where Proteus dwells in Pharos and is ruler of Egypt.
7. 4 cf. δ. 556, 389-93. δ. 385.
XL APPENDIX C,
yévecay. The Hy. Apoll. Pyth. 128--32 makes Heré -at this time wife of Zeus,
who became jealous of his producing Athené from his head, and herself of
herself bare Typhaon. The Hy. XXVIII. (εἰς 4ϑηνᾶν) 4—13 developes this
still further, making her leap forth from his head in golden panoply brandish-
ing her lance, whilst Olympus quaked at her vehemence, earth and sea rock-
ing and rolling and the Sun staying his chariot. This Milton has imitated
Parad. Lost. Bk. 11. 757—8 where Sin says to Satan
“Then shining heavenly fair, a goddess arm’d
Out of thy head I sprung.”’
The association of words in Hes, and the Hy. certainly favour the interpre-
tation of Τριτογ. as = ‘‘head-born.’’ Homer no more explains it than he does
the Epithet "Aeysepovtng of Hermes. AEschylus adopts the local legend, Enmen.
283, that she was so called from the rivulet Triton at the δ. W. corner of
the Copaic Lake in Beotia; whence, doubtless, the name was transported by
colonization to the similar stream and lake in Africa near the Syrtis minor,*
where Herodotus found her worship: see the story of her origin there, IV. 179,
180, 189, cf. 150. But, as Homer knew nothing of the mode of her birth, so
he knew nothing of its place, or we may assume that he would have told
us, as he has of her connexion with Erechthcus and Athens.* At any rate
had she been connected with the locality of the Copaic Lake and the little
town Alalkomenz thereon, we shonld most likely have had some hint of it
in his copious list of Boeotian towns,’ but Homer’s Pallas is localized, if at
all, at Athens, aud the town Alalkomenz probably did not exist in his time.
Nigelsbach (om. Theol. 11 8. 21 p. 105, notc) names** some commentators who
regard τρίτω as a name connecting Athené with the element of water, and
one who would refer it to the Indian Tritas = Indras = Zeus. The simplest
source of the name may probably be the real one, viz., ‘‘third-born” in con-
nexion with her union with Zeus and Apollu in the highest functions of deity; .
see App. C. 6. In this sense Zeus would be πρωτογενής. The quantity of
the « need cause no difficulty, as nothing gives way sooner to metrical con-
venience than the quantity of this vowel; see instances given by Spitzner Gr.
Pros. § 64. 6. Anmerk. 3, 2. ἢ. 2. 6. 6.
6.
Al yag Ζεῦ τε πάτερ, καὶ ᾿Αϑηναίη, καὶ ᾿Απολλον.
(1) Friedrich, quoted by Gladst. vol. Il p. 139, says, “this Triad of Zeus,
Athené and Apollo bears an unmistakeable analogy to the Christian Trinity,
of Father, Holy Ghost, and Sen: Jupiter answering to God the Father, Athené
* Wheeler, Geogr. of Herod. p. 541, says, “ΒΥ the lake Tritonis Herod.
seems to mean the gulf of Khabs (lesser Syrtis)’’ ..: ‘‘His information,
however, was evidently derived from some Argonautic poet, and he could have
been very little acquainted with the real geography of the coast’. The
Arabs, he says, have a tradition that a great salt-Jake in Southern Tunis
once communicated with the river near, but it is not clear frém his words
whether any river now exists, or whether it is only ‘represented’ by a Wady.
** Such is Welcker, who (Gr. Gott. I. p. 300) makes Τριτογ. == ‘“‘born on
the water”’, which appears to have this name from the trembling wave-motion,
etym. τρέω, τρεὺς, Tectns, asin Augiteccn, Τρίτων; comp. Nygevs, Νηρίτης.
° n. 78-81; B. 546-51. ' B. 496—508.
TO ILLUSTRATE APP C. δ.
Snage of fallas on a prize vase probably or a chariot race. of high
antiguily, inthe British Musca, engraved trom areprescrtation. obit
a lilleagas Anca Unedited Monuments, εὖ bearing inscraptien
IMIMOIOANQANID AAS tae:
4e@ (reed from right to (et) ζῶν AGnvéiwv ἃ Odov spas epee:
the kevierc of Lhe fish Rey perhaps tllusirale puge AL, note ™ ™
APPENDIX C, XLI
to the Holy Ghost, and Apollo to the Son of God, the declarer of the will of
his Heavenly Father: like as, furthermore, the early Christians have largely
compared Christ with Apollo.”
(2) Paschke in a monograph de Minered qualem Homerus finxerit, Sorau, 1857;
de Deo Patre, Filio, Sanctoque Spiritu uno numine conjunctis doctrina Chri-
stiana exhibet;’’ agreeing with Friedrich in his distribution of the persons.
A different view is given Gladst. II p. 139, viz. that the “‘primitive tradition”’
is “disintegrated and subdivided,’ Athené and Apollo embodying respectively
two aspects of the Redeemer or Sccond Person, viz. (1) the Aoyog or Wisdom,
and (2) the Son of God incarnate as Messiah. He points out the absence of
evidence for any such primitive tradition respecting the Holy Spirit as would
afford the basis for the character of the Homeric Athené; and he argues that
tradition would not have in that case inverted the order, by postponing the
δ to the 34 person, as is done not only in the above line, but in the prac-
tical precedence enjoyed by Athené in the poems. Niigelsbach //omer. Theol.
II. 8. 23, in discussing this line takes no notice of the question, but says,
“in this formula which the Greek consciousness has made the depositary of
its deepest theological perception (Anschauung) — a formula known also to
the Attics — the Greck coordinates the deities, which were in his view au-
preme and had the closest mutual connexion, in a partnership combining also
the highest sanctity (das Heiligste). This coordination is as little fortuitous
as in the oath of the Athenians; (Schol. Il. B. 371) since it is natural to men
in their highest wishes, and in their most sacred affections to direct their
looks to their supreme deities. But this is important chiefly as giving proof
that the Greek had a consciousness — not, to be sure, speculatively deve-
loped — of the complete mutual relation of these three deities.”’
(3) “Apollo is more largely endowed than Minerva in regard to the future,
though a less conspicuous figure in the direction of the present”... ‘Each
of the two great traditive deities had hegun to give way to corruption, and
each in the point at which, according to the respective sex, its yielding might
have been anticipated. As unchastity is more readily pardoned, according to
social usage, in the man, so is deceit in the woman. And in this point the
standard had already fallen* for Minerva.’’ (Gladst. 11. 96, 112.)
The most important marks which denote their Olympian preeminence are
τ. a dignity coordinate with, whereas in rank they are junior to Zeus. 2. A
superior antiquity to that of the other Olympians being Zeus’ children. 3. A
peculiar precedence erpecially assigned to Pallas, and a singular union of
will and affection with Zeus, to Apollo. 4. Heaven defended by Apollo against
rebellion, and other indispensable assistance rendered similarly by Pallas.
5. These deities, with the exception of Apollo’s servitude’, are never baffled,
disgraced, or worsted. 6. Their honour among men, like that of Zeus, is
peculiar, and universal tkroughout the Homeric world, 7. Their immunity
from any local residence. 8. Their being the objects of. prayerful invocation
* This does not sufficiently represent the low moral tone of some of the
deeds and words of Athené; see farther under App. E. 4. (2)...(7).
6. 47D. 440—57.
XLII APPENDIX C.
irrespectively of special circumstances. 9. Their exemption from the chief
physical limitations laid down for gods. 10. Their punishing independently
of Zeus. 11. Their power of revelation, and of such miraculous action upon
nature as scarcely any other deity approaches. 12. Apollo’s peculiar relation
_to the life-power and to death. 13. Their superior moral* tone to Zeus as
well as to other Olympians. 14. Their large share, with Zeus, in the highest
and most ethical parts of providential administration. 15. Their attributes
belong personally to them, instead of these deities merely being embodiments
of attributes or, at best, stewards of certain gifts. 16. Their attributes out-
number and range beyond those of the other Olympians, ** and they yet have
a capacity for new ones. Thus Pallas combines some of the attributes of
Hephestus> in metallurgy, gives skill to the artizan,* collects and breaks up
the ἀγορή ; ὁ and thus Apollo ultimately absorbed the distinct functions of Eelius
the Sun-god. 17. The whole conception of these deities, viewed mythologically,
is anomalous; but is explicable by the theory which refers them to a tradition.
(Chiefly abridged from ibid. 134—137.)
Welcker (Gr. Gott. I. p. 142, 144, note 9) quotes Preller’s view in Philolog.,
that ‘‘Kronos, in theogony the antecedent (Begriindung) of Zeus, is mytho-
logically derived from him, as the Ζεὺς Κρονέων, whose worship gave rise
to that of Kronos’’. He notes the preferential use of Keovtwr, Κρονίδης, by
Homer and Pindar for Zeus, in a sense equivalent to the Hebrew, ‘‘The An-
cient of Days’’.
7: .
PROTEUS AND KIDOTHEE.
In Herod. II. 112 Proteus is the name, in Greek, of a king of Egypt, round
whose τέμενος in Memphis the Tyrian Pheenicians had their quarter, so that
the region was called their στρατόπεδον. Herod. gives another, and as he
thought, truer, version of the connexion of Prot. with the tale of Troy, —
that this king, hearing of the crime of Paris from the slaves of the latter,
who was driven to Egypt by storms on his return to Troy from Sparta, de-
tained Helen and her treasures, that the Greeks, disbelieving the Trojans’
statement that this was so, on capturing the city found it true, and that Menelaus
then went to Egypt and reclaimed her. Herod. (116), from the agreement of
names Proteus and Thonis, (custos, according to Herod., of the Nile-mouth,
comp. δ. 228, Θῶνος) and from the local shrine of a foreign Aphrodité, identified
by him with Helen, in the said τέμενος, supposes that Homer knew of this ver-
sion of the tale, but adopted the other on poetic grounds, Thonis is in Strabo,
XVII. p. 801 (437), the name of a town on the Canobitic mouth, given it
from a king Thon. The Tyrians, then, might be well informed concerning
* But see the last note.
ἘΣ Among the professions or demiurgic functions enumerated g. 383, viz.
(1) μάντις the seer, (2) ἑητὴρ κακῶν the surgeon, (3) τέκτων δούρων the skilled
artificer, (4) ἀοιδὸς the bard. (1), (2) and (4) come under the functions of
Apollo, (3) under those of Pallas. To these Gladst. 11. 65 would add the πρηχ-
tne or merchant, but this seems an unwarranted addition, and Hermes is
clearly the deity to whom that fanction pertains. Mr. Gladstone's theory of
“secondary” deities has perhaps carried him too far in making Hermes a
“secondary”? of Pallas, and the πρηκτὴρ thus a function pertaining to her.
b & 233 -43 Ψ. 159-60. © Ο. 412. d β. 69.
APPENDIX Ὁ. XLII
Proteus and Thon or Thonis, Pharos*, and the Acgyptus (Nile), and they alone
probably knew of the strange creatures of the Northern and Western seas.
The ‘foreign Aphrod.’’ is doubtless their Astarté. The powers of trans-
formation and prophecy sound like an Egyptian priestly myth; or the former
may be a reflex of the same pretensions which we gather from Holy Writ, Exod.
VII. 10, 11, but might have reached Homer through the Tyrians. The state-
ments of Proteus are only* what a widely travelled mariner, who had picked
up information in every sea, might make, save the one of Menelaus’ mi-
gration to the Elysian plain. Hence he presumably dressed up a tale of
marvel from North-western seas in Egyptian accessories of scene and person.
The epithet Αἐγύπτιος" added to Prot. confirms this, as it would hardly have
occurred in a tale properly Egyptian. So does the improbability of the φῶκαι
having been ever found in Levantine seas. The Pelugius monachus, Phoque a
ventre blanc, is said to inhabit the Hadriatic and Sardinian coasts; other varie-
ties save one or two belong to much higher latitudes. As all their organi-
sation favours swimming, they come on shore only at intervals to bask in
the sun and to suckle their young. When they swim, one seal often serves
as guide, or, when they sleep, as sentinel to the rest. Perhaps we have a
suggestion of Proteus here. Yet, though Egypt was in Homer’s thoughts, scenes
with which he was personally familiar supplied the details. Thus the cool
wind springing up at noonday, or soon after, is a well known phenomenon
at Smyrna. It comes from the sea (ζέφυρος) and is called the Subat, and the
inhabitants, who mostly take a siesta during the sun’s greatest altitude, rouse
up at its approach. (Werry’s Memoirs p. 37, and Wood p. 44, quoted by
Vilcker, Hom. Geogr. § 43, p. 82.) The disguise of the voyagers is also a
touch of fact. The Esquimaux adopt the masquerade of a seal's skin, the
fresher of course the better (yeodagta), to come within striking distance of
this shy and sagacious creature. Sir E. Beecher, in a dissertation on Esqui-
maux habits before the British Association at Oxford 1860, told a story, that
he was once levelling his rifle at a supposed seal, when a shipmate's well-
known Voice from within the hide arrested his aim with the words, “don't
shoot! It’s Husky, Sir’’. It is supposable that the device was current in the
earliest ages, and that it was known to the only real seamen of the period,
the Tyrians, who could not fail to notice creatures so curious by their large
size, uncouth form, and high order of instinct, basking on remote promon-
tories, shunning human haunts, and not easily caught, save when asleep, nor
even approached, save in such disguise. It is observable that the word
gpeexl® may mean not “the ripple’’, as usual,¢ but, μελαίνῃ oe. καλυφϑεὶς,
‘clad, or coated, in swart fur’’: — having the appearance, in short, of a seal.
This would render the participial contruction more easy, as the participle
past with verb. fut, eloc must otherwise mean, “having been hitherto concealed”’:
for, at the time of his coming forth the concealment would cease. Comp., for
this sense of φρεκὲὶ, the name of a horse Φρικέας, from his bristly mane,
Pind. Pyth. X. 16, and φρίξας ev λοφιὴν, of the boar, τ. 446. Possibly the
poet intended a play upon the world.
* Comp. Eurip. Helen. 5. where Proteus dwells in Pharos and is ruler of Egypt.
Ἴ. 4 cf. δ. 556, 389—93. b δι 385.
XLIV APPENDIX C,
The Homeric story has over the Virgilian imitation (Georg IV.) the advan-
tage of appositeness. Proteus has no connexion with the loss of Aristscus’ bees,
but a close one with the perplexity of the wind-baffled voyager in strange waters.
There is an elvish archness about the old sea-god's daughter kindly
accosting the wanderer at his need, and volunteering, without it seems knowing
who he is*, a fraud on her own father, if so he be, to relieve the distress
which she yet sports with. Cyrené, the anxious mother, is as far below her,
as Aristeeus weeping for his ruined hives is below the forlorn but unshaken
hero; who, though “‘crushed® at heart” at the toil which awaits him, is only
unmanned and overwhelmed at the news of his brother’s dreadful end.
8.
(1) Ind Leucotheé, Cadmus. Of the latter Homer tells us nothing; but Kad-
peor, Καδμεέωνες," are his constant terms for the people at Thebes, in five
passages referring to events there under the dynasty of Oedipus. The Boforo:
are the people of Thebes fighting at Troy after the capture of Thebes from these
Cadmeans” by a pure Greek force, the first expedition — or famous war of
Seven* — having been unsuccessful. Legend ascribes to Cadmus a Phoenician
origin. Homer speaks of the Cadmeans in terms of exultation over them as
vanquished foes. Tydeus was with the Achwans against them. Both he and
Mecisteus easily vanquished πάντας Καδμ. The relative superiority of Greeks
over them is far greater than over Trojans. Thebes however was founded
by Zethus and Amphion, sons of Zeus and Antiopé® daughter of the Asopus,
i. e. of an autochthonous stock. The legend of the introduction of letters by
Cadmus marks the means by which he obtained ascendancy; we may compare
the case of Tarquin at Rome. Gladst. thinks (I. 240) that the six Cadmeid
generations of tradition, viz. 1. Cadmus, 2. Polydorus, 3. Labdacus, 4. Laius,
5. Oedipus, 6. Eteokles and Polynices, give a period too long. He assumes
that they make 7 generations before the Trojan war; but the last three, in
the best known form of the story, succeed each other so rapidly as to con-
tract the period sensibly, perhaps to 120 years. His argument that some
‘“‘other adventurer’’ before Minos would be ‘‘found to repeat’’ the experi-
ment of founding a dynasty in Greece, seems inconclusive, for how do we
know that none other did so attempt? Homer's persistently stigmatizing the
people, or their ruling order, as Cadmeans marks the want of amalgamation.
The argument (Gladst. I. 241) that the “gronps’’ are apparently introduced
‘‘in chronological order’? in the vexvta seems to rest on slight grounds. Tyrd’s
descent from Zeus (ib. 427) and her amour with Poseidon form perhaps the
reason why she has there precedence. Antiopé, therefore, and her sons may
be earlier chronologically than Tyré. The epithet ‘“Ogygian”’ (whatever its
origin, and probably it is Phoenician, see App. D. 2.) seems to have grown
into the sense of ‘‘olden’”’, and to stamp Thebes and Athens as of the highest
known antiquity (Soph. Philoct. 142, Aesch. S. c. Th. 310, Pers. 37, 154).
* Comp. δ. 371 ὦ ξεῖνε, with 462 ‘Atgéog vié, the address of Proteus.
© δ. 402. 4 H. 63; ®. 126; BW. 692-- 3. ὁ δ. 481, 588 —40.
8. ὃ J. 385, 388, 391; E. 804, 807; K. 388; W. 680; 2. 275-6. » 21. 406.
¢ J. 409; Z. 223. ad 4. 3973 F. 680. © i. 260—s.
APPENDIX Ὁ. XLV
(2) But, indeed, the harmonizing chronologically genealogical statements in
family legends is almost sure to break down. Legend says that Semelé and
Ind were daughters of Cadmus: the former committed her son Dionysus to Ino’s
charge. Athamas, Ino’s husband, through misunderstanding, became jealous,
and persecuted Ind, till, with her son Melicertes, she plunged into the sea,
and, in recompense for her care of Dionysus, or, as Pindar says, Ol. II. 29—32,
for her great sorrows, gained immortal priveleges! (Eurip. [phig. Taur. 270).
She was before βροτὸς (μόρος mors) avdnecoa; comp. Hes. Theoy. 144, of
δ᾽ ἐξ ἀϑανάτων ϑνητοὶ τράφεν αὐδήεντες. The precise force of the epi-
thet is obscure: comp. μερόπων ἀνθρώπων: Circé and Calypsé are each
called ϑεὸς αὐδήεσσα. If weg. avg. distinguishes men from beasts, αὐδήεις
specifies the individual* voice of man or God. She was perhaps raised to
the state to which Calypso proposed to raise Odys., ἀϑάνατος καὶ ἀγήρως.
She gives Odys. an “immortal scarf’. Welcker (Gr. Gotterl. I. p. 644) cites
the Schol. upon Apoll. Rh. I. 917, who mentions a tania which the de-
voted in Samothracia received, to wind round the body, in order to obtain
rescue in storms. He adds the “ευκοσέα is mentioned by Aristotle as a
name given to the island Samothrace. The name Aevao@én suggests to
Nitzsch the λευκὴ γαλήνη.ξ Thus she would benignly preside over the fair
and calm weather which succeeds the tempest, (comp. “albus deterget nubila
Notus’’, and ‘‘candidi Favonii’’, Hor. Carm. I. 7. 15, II. 7. 1,) and rescue the
mariner; so Virg. Georg. I. 436—7. ‘‘Votaque servati solvent... nautse Glauco et
Panopesw et Inoo Melicerts#’’. Here, however, the storm rages with greater
fierceness after her disappearance," staving the raft, &c. and it is only on
the third day that the γαλήνη! succeeds. Her connexion in legend with the
sea seems not likely to have been due to Thebes, an inland locality, but is
in keeping with her Phoenician origin. The name Leucotheé may be com-
pared with Eidotheé. Perhaps, ‘‘white-foam’’ (comp. the White Spectre in
Undine) may be the meaning of devxo—, and the Mater Matuta, otherwise
Albunea (Alba), of Italian myth may be compared. This is rather favoured by
her emerging, αἰϑυίῃ δ᾽ εἰκυῖα ποτῇ, from, and disappearing into the billowing
main — μέλαν δέ ἑ κῦμα κάλυψεν,Κ expressive of the wave crest lost in its
dark water. The whole legend was, doubtless, derived by Homer from a Phe-
nician sea-tale, from which same source all his more remote geography probably
came, Gladst. I. 11. § 4.
* avdn appears to be the distinctive voice by which we recognize an indi-
vidual; hence βροτὸς, or ϑεὸς, αὐδηέσσα, “ἃ mortal, or goddess with a voice
of her own,’’ i. e. distinctive of either in her own class, and as belonging to
it; comp. “πο vox hominem sonat. O Dea certe’’. Virg. Aen. I. 328. Hence
it signifies “‘voice’’ or ‘‘speech”’ in its most dignified aspect, as that of Ne-
stor A, 249, ,the oracular voice with which Heré gifted the horse Xanthus,
T. 407, 419, and the minstrel’s voice compared to a god's, α. 371, t. 4. It is
observable also that only once does αὐδήεις, and only once a form of the
verb αὐδαάω occur as plural, £. 125. (where sce note) x. 418; and αὐδὴ the
noun is invariably sing.
fe. 335; cf.d. 304; Θ. 530-40. © κι 94. © 8. 366—70. '8.388—g2. “&. 337, 352.
APPENDIX D.
I.
᾿Διϑίοπες. The Ethiopians’ are placed on the ocean river which surrounds
the Homeric world; so that their land» is apparently the shore of its stream.
There are eastern and western Eth.,¢ respectively ‘‘the remotest (ἔσχατοι)
of men’’, Yet all Homer says of them, especially when viewed in conjunc-
tion with Hesiod and the Hymns, fixes rather on the eastern section. The east
has strong attractions for Homeric legend even the abodes of the dead, there
is reason to think, lie in the furthest east. Thus Poseidon, returning from
the Eth.,4 sees from the Solymi mountains Odys. voyaging on his raft from
Calypso’s isle, ‘‘the mid-point (Ouqadog) of the sea’, to Scherié N. W.
of Ithaca. These mountains must lie Ἐς, of the Agean, where lies Po-
seidon's favourite abode, and thus could not lie on the way back thither
from any western Eth. But again, we find Ethiopians® in Menelaus’ voyage
grouped among a set of nations certainly situated on the S. E. angle of the
Levant. Next, the legend of Memnon,' recognized by Homer, though reduced
to form by Arctinus LB. C. cire. 770, points eastward. Memnon was the son
of Tithonus and Eos, and prince of these Eth. (Hes. Theog. 984—5). Tithonus
while young enjoyed the love of Eos, and dwelt zag’ Ὠκεανοῖο ῥοῇς ἐπὶ
πείρασι γαίης (Hy. Aphrod. 228), and his ‘‘bed’’ in Homer symbolizes the
region of dawn. The name Eth. has, also, a connexion with αἴϑοψ,
‘sparkling or flashing’’, epith. of wine®, armour , and smoke,! — the latter
as emitting sparks (Crusius 5. v.). The notion of swarthy or sunburnt is not
traceable in it, nor applicable to the Eth. of Homer. The ‘splendid son*
of Morning,’’ who excelled Eurypylus! and all others in beauty, cannot be
easily supposed of darker face than the Greeks, It is true, Homer does not call
Memnon an Eth., but the connexion of that race with the ‘‘rising Hyperion’’,
and of that hero with Eos, suggests the link which Hesiod and the Hymns
supply. The Eth. of Herod. VII. 69. 70 were all black men, and the Post-
Homeric Greeks sought to connect the name with al@o in the sense of blaz-
ing sunshine, under the popular notion of their being blackened by it. There
is reason, however, to think that ‘“‘the name Eth. is probably an adaptation
of the native Egyptian name Ethaush’’. Their “twofold division’’ is the
main fact of Herodotus’ description of them. He says, ‘‘now of the Eth. beyond
1, * A. 423. » BD. 205-6. © a. 22—4. 48. 282, 5 8.83—5. ὃ. 188;
A. 522. 6 A. 462; J. 259; E. 341; Z. 266; A. 775; B- 5; Il. 226, 230;
FY. 237, 250; 2. 641, 791. b 4. 495; E. 562, 681; N. 305; P. 3, 87, 592;
2. 522: T. tt, 117; Qe 434. i“. 152. κ δ. 188. V2, 522.
APPENDIX D. XLVIT
(ὑπὲρ) Egypt and of the Arabians Arsames was leader; but the Eth. from the [land
of] sun-rise, (for indeed two sorts of them were going to the war,) were mar-
shalled next to the Indians, differing from the others not at all in appearance
but only in speech and fashion of hair, for the Eth. from the east (ἡλέου)
have straight hair, but those from Libya have the most woolly hair of all men.
And these Asiatic Eth. were equipped for the most part as the Indians &c.”’
A writer in τ. Smith's Dictionary of the Bible 5. v. Cusa and Eruiopia
states that, “there are strong reasons for supposing two streams of migra-
tion from Africa into Asia in very remote periods ...the later one of Cushites
from Ethiopia properly so called, through Arabia, Babylonia, and Persia, to
Western India;’’ and ‘there is an indication in the traditions of Babylonia
and Assyria of a connexion in very early times between Ethiopia, southern
Arabia, and the cities on the lower Euphrates; the Cushite name of Nimrod
himself as a deified hero being the same as that by which Meroé ia called in
the Assyrian inscriptions. (Rawlinson’s Herod. I. pp. 442—3).... ‘‘Thus we
may suppose the Hamite nations soon after their arrival in Africa began to
spread to the E., to the N. and to the W.,... the Mizraites along the 8S.
and E. shores of the Mediterranean.”’
This harmonizes with the half-poetical aspect of the Homeric Eth., who
hover faintly on the margin of the world, and, save in the voyage of Menelaus,
converse rather with gods than men. In that voyage we have a glimpse of
a geographic reality, localized near the S. Εἰ. angle of the Levant. Homer
᾿ recognized the great eastern offshoot of the Cushite migration, yet knew of
a stock who dwelt further west. The Phonicians might be his authorities,
trafficking perhaps with both, and grouped™ (under the name Sidonians) with
the Eth. of Menelaus’ visit. His pushing them to the extreme W. where
Hyperion sets filled a blank in his world-system, and gratified the simple
minded love of symmetry traceable in all semi-mythical geography. Yet if,
so far as the Phoenicians went westward, they still found nothing but the
Mizraites in Northern Africa, among whom their colony of Carthage was
founded, the poetical statement is justified by the then state of knowledge.
He could not know how the gap was filled up, and represented wide diffusion
as remote division. The position of Eth. tribes in Nubia and 8, Arabia on
both sides of the Red sea and again as far west as the pillars of Hercules,
perhaps suggested the Ocean-stream as their neighbourhood and limit. The
ivory of Menelaus’ palace may be supposed intended as an Ethiopian product.
2.
OGYGIE.
It seems clear that this island lay N. W. from Scherié, see App. D. 15, or
at least that from it Zephyrus was a fair wind to the latter. Odyss. reaches it
in 9 days floating on spars, rowing with his hands, and Notus is the wind
last named previously.* He does not say the ‘‘wind and water’’, as else-
where, but the “‘ gods” brought him (πέλασαν ") thither; i. 6. the whole course is
md. 84.
2. *w. 444; ef. 427. > mw. 448.
XLVIII APPENDIX D.
regarded as das ὦ, their interposition. By this contrivance the poet seems ti
intimate that no ordinary reckoning of distance or rate is applicable. Hi:
thas breaks away from the group of eastern Jocalities which lic in connexio1
with Ewa. viz. the Sircns. Thrisacic and Sevila. and lands us in a new region
The name, if meaninz, as Mr. Pales on Aeschyl. Eumen. οδο thinks. a dark gal:
or chanm, suits well the idea saggested by that of Calyps.) the Concealer”: si
milarly Hes. Theog. Sox applies it to the water of Styx, see App. 1). 14 2. 1
probably became traditional as an epithet of Thebes. to which Aeschyla:
applies it, Sept. “. Th. 310, and might thus be of Phoenician origin. Atlas,
the father of Calvps6, points also to a Phoenician source, see App. C. 3.
Thus by the very names Ogvg. and Cal. the poet may mean to hint that thei
Whereabouts is not to be retraced, and that this part of the hero's course
is not to be squared with previons notes of time or place. The same idea
suits the Ougaios θαλάσσης, i. e. a centre of the sea where it rose high. as
land rises highest in some point far inland, and thus of unknown remvteness.
So from Ogygie reaching Scheri€ in 20¢ days, he is from Scheric brought back
into known regions by a supernatural machinery, the magic galleys¢ which
knew not human laws, and therefore baffle calculation. Thas the poet locks
up his mystery, and all attempts to open it are idle in themselves and are
a violation of bis idea, The direction of Hermes’ course from Olympus, making
Picria his first stage, confirms the N. or N. W. direction of Ogvgié from the
Greek mainland. Gladst. (III. rs. p. 307) gives Ogvg. a N. E. direction.
This suits his interpretation of &. 276—7, ἐπ’ ἀριστερὰ χειρὸς ἔχοντα, which,
however, (see App. A. 18) cannot be allowed.
. 3.
SPARTA.
The journey from Pylus to Sparta takes two days by chariot, stopping
the night at Pheras, The distance from Coryphasium (Pylos, supposed the
most southerly, or Thucydidean Pylos) to Catamata (Phera:) at the head of
the Sinus Messeniacus is 35 miles by road, that from Catamata to Sparta 28 m.
The former is chiefly level, the latter chiefly mountainous, crossing Taygetus
(Gell. p. 234). ‘* These three places lie exactly in a direct line’, (Leake vol. I.
p. 423). The Stenyclerian plain lies N. from Pherae, or on the traveller's left
hand, as does the smaller plain of Pamisus, ibid. p. 60—3. At 40 min. from
Keala, on the N. as he approaches Phere, having hitherto skirted the plain, the
traveller enters the flattest part of it...; there are many buffaloes in the marsh.
At § min. nearer Phera: he finds “the plain cultivated, beyond is the great
marsh’. ibid. 64—--70. This tract is what Telem. speaks of in ov γὰρ πεδίοιο avao-
σεις εὐρέος x. 7.2. (tu Menel.) where especially comp. the κύπειρος “marsh-plant’’.
Going from Pherm towards Sp, the narrow glen of the Eurotas is entered, and
brooks with narrow valleys, glens, and hollows, through which the road passes,
mark the itinerary; comp. the epithets κοίλη and κητώεσσα as applied to Lace-
diemon,* the region of which Sp. is the chief town, standing in a valley
‘‘isrogular and full of hillocks, only 2'/, stades broad, (Polyb. V. 22.) ‘There
c £. 170, 7. 268 -97. 4 ὃ. ss8— 63.
5. 4 δὶ 1; B. 581.
APPENDIX D. XLIX
lies a larger swamp far lower down at Eurotas’ mouth, called Helia (fio¢),
(Hy. Apoll. [410] 232) which, however, Telem. could not have seen. The
word Φέρας (Hy. Apoll. [427] 249) is doubtless a false reading for Péag” near
Elis, whence Ithaca, as the Hy. says, could be seen.
4.
PYLUS.
Of the three towns so called on the W. side of Peloponn., commemorated
by Strabo in the line, ἔστι Πύλος πρὸ Πύλοιο, Πύλος ye μέν ἐστι καὶ ἄλλος,
he considers the Triphylian to be that of Nestor. The reasons assigned by
him against the Southern, or Messenian Pylos (Coryphasium), are shown
by Gell to be weak. That, in particular, based on the adventure of A. 671—761,
seems to arise from not strictly heeding the notes of time. Gell describes
Coryphasium as a hill over-hanging precipitately what was a flat sandy plain
on its E. side in the time of Thucyd., and has probably since formed into a large
lagoon. This accounts fur no lngoon being mentioned by Thucyd., and for
the epithet ἡμαϑόεις applied by Homer, which Strabo strangely explains as
lying on the Amathus, a river called in his time Mamaus. On Coryphas. stood,
Gell thinks, the ἄστυ Νηλήιον: the Neléian kingdom extended southward to
the Messenian Gulf and northward beyond the Alphéus.* (Leake vol. I. ch. X.)
Thus the ἄστυ would be close to the sea; which best suits the idea conveyed
by y. 4—33. The Triphylian Py. lies, and probably always lay, 3 or 4 miles
inland, Further, had Nestor’s Pylos® been the Triphyl., how absurd to make
Arené, a point to the 8. of it, and therefore remote from Elis, the trysting.
place for a foray against the Eleans, in which the characteristic is vigorous
haste. Whereas, going from Messenian Pylus, they would be at Arené a
stage in advance. The more northern site is excluded, as well by the con-
ditions of that foray, as by the distance from Phere in one day. For the gen-
der of Πύλος see App. A. 12. Vilcker § 32, p. 59. seems to think the distance
from Ithaca to the southern Pylos too far for a night’s voyage; yet it cannot
be over 100 miles; and a ship might, running before the wind, make that
between sunset and g or 10 A. M. next day, or even by soon after sunrise.
In Hy. Apoll. [408] 230—[435] 260 we have a coast voyage from Crete round
western Peloponn. noted by the places passed, but their order seems hopelessly
confused.
5e
THE TAPHIANS.
This people, of the stock of the Leleges, a Pelasgian race, occupied part
of the Acarnanian mainland, Leucas, and the islands called Teleboide in its
neighbourhood. The largest of these, Meganisi, is represented as Taphos® in
Spruner’s map. They had no share in the Trojan war, and probably profited
by the absence of the Achwan princes and armies to extend their opera-
b o. 297-8. 4. κ A. 712. b A. 711—26. δ. δα. 417.
HOM. OD. APP. D
τ rae
- τσ rte νος
2 τ τ στο ae
-. τς -᾿ .- τος
- rote τει
“πο MTL et
- . . -Ww-
‘ - = : - . - "ε" “se 7 =. ” a
- - ae τον στιν στε
᾿ “ τ σοῦ Στ τοι ne
΄ : to tee τ τσ air 8
΄ ᾿ _ --- - αὶ te TT aT a Set
- - - - ec *? - ᾿ = a ave ha
- - - - « «a
, ᾿ co -" yte > og eae TS
. : ° “ - τ δον τ τον to os. Nar tha
ΕΣ “ “οὐ τον Ce tb. ταῦ τοῖο ξ news «
“ ot Minas. ots ἃ να ρος δ reg μὲν ἐσασι
μη thet pe το δε τοῖα Ie Ce νι ot phen. ΤΙΣ the mentie
“440. μι σωρί δ oe woe ot ea etrats rater fuipiv the comtrar
Pee thal εὐ δ λ Peneet geteeet Venton τὸἍ a Pieenie. word Teme
ve as A ΕἸ αι, trade-statior
ει .ι δι ? ra ᾿ Pe ee ες ΠΣ ’ Φ -" , ᾿
-.- ee"s re
με’, ‘Vanued, Tinie ore atiweyneut Varicties of the unme. p. 82.
75
DULICHIUM,
Pie ΚΠ ἢ populousnens implied in the statements about Dulichiur
“1111 Gee oshgeeet Whaat Dtvotsget 6 4 44{πΠ|| it ΠῚ the larsest of the group. In on
Petes 9 ἡ ἢ teenie, α ootaple dine + cnumerates three islands, which in an
ΜΞ ΠΝ τηὶ κα θη 9 8 faa 5, ἡκᾳκιι 4. ὅν 81; ὠ. 100, 180. 30;
COE OP ee? Pee, Oe ee Se Sd
APPENDIX D. LI
other are enumerated cach in a separate line, but in the same order of
precedence. Lying beyond the sea, i. e. the Crissean gulf, under the land
and probably flat, its form might easily blend with that of the continent,
and an unduly large space have been ascribed to it. It has the epithet
πολύπυρον," and is said to have become now united by the deposit of the
Achelous to the mainland of Aetolia. *
In the Il. it appears to be subject not to Odys., but to Meges‘ son of
Phyleus of Elis, who migrated thither in a family quarrel. Yet there need
be no inconsistency between this and the Ody.; there® Odys. makes the best
of his tale, and would leave the hearer, perhaps, to infer, what he does not
assert, that all the νῆσοι μάλα σχεδόν ἀλλήλησι were his dominion, Dulichium
would appear from several passages in the Ody., however, to have belonged to
another rule: we read,’ “there happened a ship of the Thesprotians to be going
to Dulichium”’, ἔνϑ᾽ ὅ γέ μ᾽ ἠνώγει πέμψαι βασιλῆι Ancor, “king,” clearly
οὗ Dulichium or some part of it. And the tale of the disguised Odys. requires
that the king of the island to which he was kidnapped, should not be sovereign
over the one which he was treachcrously prevented, through being sent thither,
from reaching. The suitor Amphinomos is called Jovdiyevg® and so is his
father: see further on Amphin. in vol. II.
8.
EPHYRE.
The Schol. on α. 259 gives three cities so called, (1) the Thesprotian, (2)
the historical Corinth, said to be μυχῷ “Agysog ἱπποβότοιο," (3) the Elcan.
(1) and (3) are said to have been each on a river Selleis. Strabo, who adds
a fourth, in Thessaly, (VIII. p. 338,) supposed that in the Catalogue and in
the Ody.» the Elean was intended, as also in O. 531, where Phyleus, father
of the Meges, who led the Dulichians to the war, is said to have brought a
corslet from Ephyré on the Selleis, given him by Euphetes there. For inter-
course with Dulichium the Thesprotian site, as nearer, is more suitable, and
even more clearly so for a place which might allow a voyager from
Ithaca to visit Taphos on his way home.¢ But as the Odyssean site is marked
as the emporium of poisons, and as the knowledge of ‘‘all the drugs, or
poisons, which the earth produces’’ is distinctly ascribed in the Il.4 to the
daughter of an Epean prince in Elis, and, further, as a Phyleus, Nestor’s
antagonist in his youth, appears among the Epeans of Elis, the question
between (1) and (3) is nearly balanced, though the local difficulty as
regards Taphos inclines it in favour of the Thesprotian. This is further
confirmed by the Thesprotians being spoken of as allies (ἄρϑμιοι) of the
* Vilcker 8. 33, p. 57—6o assigns to Dulich. a site further S. covering Elis
on the W. side: his arguments are weak here, but his conclusion is said to
be confirmed by a modern Greek legend that the old Dulich. lies covered by
the sea near that position.
© &, 335. 4 B. 627—8. © 4. 21—6. { 2. 334—6. δ σ. 125—7, 3208.
8. " Ζ. 152-3. ΡΒ. 659; α. 289; β. 328. “α. 259. ὁ A. η:ο--ἰ.
p*
Lic 233277 2
2: tet et we Tete ete Ter we ae GP Ene ἰδέτω Lari. 2
SEN ae tat πε κι eg Mee Tee πὶ dee Gre Jeska Ἣ ὩΣ Woda
be fa Mee eet peed χριλσισ: ἃ Κ τω, vim Seta sr Se
ne οι} 57: ee St Tees eco Σ 31.» DW en Clin > UA to) ies C0
era te Seager ἃ, adel ledet lt Lineiisatst lames Samet Tae εἰ τ
CUE EY Sra 8d Te We te ΡΣ Δ σε be terete ὦ lam ss --- Ἢ
λι τι TW a ae ee kel Get Sebel IF ΕΣ Sgelam Jowett oe E
cA f2 wt peer ami τσ τοπ τε Ree τογῆς means ite ticr of [Ds
aoetee Poste 5,0. Σέ, κεν, eee ἕεττ στ titles. cs thes ἘΣ, Starts a
Μ᾽ αλλ." Jc ce ρας τ τὶ Hees ant ocr lism... ami manis iss: if
RAS ATA WO Te ete ore. ale or Newnes. | eager ΤΥ mice
nota Ose ang at Teen enumerating whe thief ities Οἱ Pespeom
΄χ Se aeene vest for Belizean. ab a .lmitet while. mater its lead
arches fe Αὐγή, [παίειν and Neawir: it bas erithes: ἔσχεβοτου ofte
kt, ROA Ut, πολύαπρφον, RLetON 12st cath. Tre Feeitecs are 4. 30.
sent. foaz. Ὁ yee “4.11.1. 2. τὸς 426. He τὰς 2
re Argos. the plate. and Aenwans. the peopl
pets Gr enese Vega κι 5 with “Achall jana. or kas the epith
“Aenae., Mga fo. 227, Ξ. 19. ὦ. 214. Γ ozs. 1:8. 1. 141. 283. To uns. 7. 25
Shoe manage further capains the senes viven amder 2.
‘4, Velmagie Αὐ γέρε" ia perhaps a nomen gent’ in coutradistinction with Achai
NM oineloses Vithia and Hellas the Tiessalian .
(9, Mid (ulaoy, Argos, ἢ is not certain that this is a distinctive appell
fae, Diem, nave! Sam thy friend to Glaucus, Ἄργεϊ ἐν μέσσω"΄. perha,
like: μέσῳ ἐνὶ ,, πόντῳ and meaning “in the midst of Peloponn.””. comp. “2
Bee Penel, mpeaks of ber husband as ‘the man whose fame had spread καὶ
“μλλύδιυ καὶ μέσον Ἄργος", Hellas, i. e. Thessaly, being the northern e
* An argument in ΟΠ μὲ, [, 11, §13 views Ephyré as the name of the primitiy
Mellie (as Argon of the Pelasgian, settlement, as being the original prop
4111: name for the terre, or walled places, founded by that race; and r
yhodethe bepngot,” whom it identifies with Φῆρες, (as Equen with Φέραι,. Φῆραι
“2[Δ We i a ruder and more barbarous stage (p. 511—3). It would mah
the Bphyrt whenes Weraklés carried off Astyocheia,' to be that in Thessal:
Viyhitly wetting ἀπο Cp, g22-- 3) the geographical difficulty that πὸ riv:
Mellin in thers mentioned; and the Eplyré of the Ody. to be that in Elis, n
nelicing the argument based on the route by Taphos back to Ithacé; and, mo:
atentgaly ΜΠ, supposing that Tépolemus migrated from some Ephyré to Rh
lon, though it im distinctly said that the quarrel which led to his expatri:
How wae with hie father’s family, and though Ephyré is merely mentioned :
the place whence that father “carried off’? his mother.
δ πὶ 427.
1), κ 1}. sau, 03; .1. ga, Ν Baty, .5.γ. 180-1. 4g 108. 5 Β. 68
OT, ay, “ct. 3443 0. Ro. h N. 301. iB. 6s8—9. * B. 665—6.
APPENDIX D. LIIL
tension of the Achwxan territory, and Argos = Peloponn. viewed as lying bet-
ween (μέσον) it and the speaker. So Menelaus uses it, speaking in Sparta.
It is thus opposed to the phrase μυχῷ Agyeog! noticed p. LI. App. D. 8.
(6) Ἴασον Ἄργος," occurring only once, is obscure. It may mean the Athe-
nian or extra Peloponnesian portion, yet lying south of Hellas. The word
seems connected with Ἴωνες," the name, apparently, of the Athenians, and
with Iasus°® their leader. A remote portion of the Greek territory, the furthest
to the east, as Ithaca was the furthest to the west, is required by the pas-
sage, which this satisfies.
4
10.
CYPRUS.
Dmetor son of Iasus is mentioned? as king, Κύπρου. ἶφι ἄνασσεν, doubtless
over some Greek colonists there, who had hospitable ties with the Egyptians,
and to whom Odys. represents himself as given in slavery. This Greek name of
Dmetor, however, may like those of Alcandra and Polybus at the Egyptian
Thebes, and Phsedimus at Sidon,» exemplify Homeric manner giving a Greek
tinge to all foreign facts. Yet we have a Cinyrés**, most probably not a
Greek, who sent a corslet as a ξειψφήιον to Agam. which was a masterpiece of
art, as ‘‘he had heard in Cyprus the great rumour that the Achwans were going
to sail to Troy.’ Gladst. (I. 11. iii. 190), supposes that, being disinclined more
actively to assist, he gave this to buy off cheaply services which it was dif-
ficult for the Greeks to enforce. The Cyprians had a tradition that a part
of their inhabitants were Ethiopians (Herod. VIJ. go). The Temesé of Mentes
may have been in Cyprus‘ see no. 4; as “copper” is derived from Cyprium, sc.
aws., und trade between Cyprus and Ithaca seems to have been common.
Aphrodité flees® thither after the detection of her shame, and in the Il. goes
by the name of Cypris.' Her worship was doubtless early imported thither
from the Asiatic Continent.
11.
PHOENICE, SIDONIE.
It is remarkable that while several passages imply a close relation between
Sidonians & Phoenicians, and while their geographical identity was a point of
preciseness to which Homeric geography had reached, there is yet a distinction
between Sidonians & Phenicians. He speaks of Sidonians on shore and Phe-
nicians afloat, the former as men ‘‘of much copper’’, of workmanlike skill &c.,
while the former are sea-men of fame, of vast subtlety, and roguish.* The
same κρητὴρ which is made by the Sidonians is brought over sea by the
Phen.» So the Sidon. had made the robes which Paris had himself brought over
to Troy.* This distinctness is even more marked when Menelaus enumerates
them separately, putting Egyptians and Ethiopians between them.4
* His name may be derived from κενυρὸς, P.5, or may be an Asiatic name based
directly on the word which in the Hebr, is 93:5 name of a musical instrument.
ly. 263. ™ σι 246. ὮΝ. 685. ° O. 332.
10. δ 9. 442-3. © δ. 617; 0. 117. © A. 19—27. 4a. 184. & 9. 362-3.
f E. 330, 422, 458.
11. 2 0. 418, 415. b WD, 743—4. ς Ζ. 289—91. 4 δ, 83—4.
DSEEwerees verdes: epee wearer = Pe
a ay
ee oa re fs =, A Oa OOS nie: es ae +
LIV APPENDIX D.
12.
EREMBI.
The name may contain Aram, the early name of Syria, or it may be
corrupt form of Ἄραβες. Posidonius indeed stated that the Arabians in ἢ
time were called Erembi; Strab. XVI. p. 784: comp. I. p. 4 Ἐρέμβους οὖς edx
λέγειν τοὺς Τρωγλοδύτας “Agapas, this suggests the Horites. mentioned
“living in cayes"’, Genes. XIV. 6. It has also been supposed that the nar
is akin to ἔρεβος, ἐρεβεννός, aud signifies a dark or swarthy race.
13.
LIBYA.
In the time of Herod. IV. 197 there were Phenician & Greek settlers (ἐπ
dvdeg) in Lib. Its limit westward was the promontory Soloeis, II. 32, IV. 4
As Cyrené was colonized about 637 B. C. it is not likely that any earli
settlements of Greeks lay W. of it. Hence cursory intercourse with the Phc
nicians or their colonies was all that could afford knowledge of Libya.
14.
STYX.
The remarkable source, cascade, and torrent so called, form the upp
waters of the Crathis, rising in a mountain of the same name in N. Arcadi.
and flowing from that watershed down its shorter or northern slope to tl
galf of Corinth. At the source stands the town Solos, on the high grour
above the district now called Kuklines. Thence the torrent rapidly descem
through a deep rocky glen, at the upper extremity of which the eastern pa
of the great summit of Khelmos terminates in an immense precipice. Tw
slender cascades of water fall perpendicularly over the precipice, (cf. aén
géefoa*) and, after winding for some distance along a labyrinth of rocks, unit
to form the torrent. The fall is the highest in Greece, and the foot of the pri
cipice is said to be inaccessible. The water is said by Pausanias (Arcad. c. 18
— a statement confirmed by Plutarch (Alexand.) — to be poisonous (ἀάατον,
intensely-mischievous?), and this effect by the latter writer is ascribed to i
intense* coldness. Vessels made of hoof of horse or ass are said to be alon
capable of resisting the action of the water, Plin. N. H. XXX. c. 16. Th
people on the spot still tell the same story as of old, that it is unwholesom:
and that no vessel will hold it. A body of water marked by such strang
characteristics became the object of marvel and of awe. In the time «
Herod. (VI. 74)** the spring was fenced in with a wall. Leake’s Tupograp/
of the Morea vol, iii. ch. XXVI.
* Strabo p. 389 says of it λιβάδιον ὀλεθρίου πνεύματος.
ἘΞ His words are ὕδωρ ὀλίγον φαινόμενον ἐκ πέτρης στάξει ἐς ayxos, th
seems to describe it in summer, when the volume of water is so slender, thi:
a high wind will blow it about in the air.
14. 2 6.369. " 721.
APPENDIX D. LV
(2) Some of these physical features seem traceable in the epithets and al-
lusions of the poets. Thus besides alma ῥέεθρα vid. sup. we have the κατει-
Bopevoy Στυγὸς ὕδωρ," Hy. Apoll. Del. 85, the cpithet ὠγύγιον, Hes. Theog.
806, probably in its infernal aspect, comp. γᾶς ὑπὸ κεύϑεσιν ὠγυγίοισιν, Aesch.
Eumen. 989, but based on the dark clefts and chasms of its descent, to which
is added to ® ζησι καταστυφέλου διὰ χώρου, ‘the deep rocky labyrinth”,
vid. sup., also ἀμείλικτον, based perhaps on its baneful potency, Hy. Ceres 259,
and ὄμβριμον, Hy. Merc. 519, of its falling weight. Similarly the fact of two
streams combining to form the torrent is perhaps seized upon in Circé’s descrip-
tion,’ πέτρη te σύνεσίς τε δύω ποταμῶν ἐριδούπων. ‘There the Cocytus is
a branch of it. Homer makes tho Titaresius a branch also (axogew§*) of it,
the startling peculiarity of its not mixing with the Peneus, though joining
it, making it worthy of such awful sisterhood as the Styx. Hesiod has a
tale that Zeus assigned the nymph Styx the highest honour of being the
oath revered by the gods‘, because she came the first of the immortal powers
to his aid against the Titans. Theog. 383—400. In a wildly exaggerated
description, which proves that the physical scale of the real Styx was wholly
lost to poetic vision, he makes Styx a tenfold stream, rolling nine times round
earth and the waves of the ϑαλασσα, and falling at last εἰς ada, (Virgil's
‘“‘novies Styx interfusa”’, Aen. VI. 439) whilst the tenth head pours down
from the rock, as aforesaid, an object of awe to the gods. ibid. 789—92.
15.
SCHERIE.
This lay, from t. 271—84, probably near the Thesprotians, a well known site
on the W. side of Epirus, to whose land the stranger personated by Odysseus,
sec the tale there told, came from Zy. when the Phzacians were willing to take
him home. Hence an easy divergence from the homeward route from Zy. would
have brought him to these Thesprotians, It is clear too (866 App. D. 2.) that
Odys. voyaging from the N. W. towards Ithaca with a fair wind’ (for Hermes
told Calypso nothing of Zy. and she starts him ἐς πατρέδα γαῖαν") sights
Hz. in 18¢ days. Further, Boreas brings him, after losing his course, to Zy.
and, as the Pheacians at once launch the ship and moor it with sails ready 4,
it is presumeable that Boreas was still blowing and would be fair for the
intended run (Volcker J/om. Top. p. 126). The ἄελλαι παντοίων ἀνέμων,"
which wrecked his raft, seem to have sent him on the whole eastward, ¢. 6.
from a course in which a north-west wind was taking him toward Ithaca, to
a point whence Boreas took him thither. The words of the king, that Eubea!
was the furthest land known to his sailors, speak certainly for a site on the
W. side of Greece. Our rough latitude and longitude are therefore N. of Ith.,
and W. of the Greck mainland, near Thesprotia, Corfu so closely satisfies all
these conditions, that the tradition which assigns it as the site of Sy. may be
safely accepted. The first territory of these Pheacians was Hypereié near the
© ¢, 185; O. 37. dx. sis. “ B. 755. fe. 185; Θ. 369; O. 37.
15. * ε. 268. b &. gj7—I115. © g. 279; £ 170, ef. ε. 388. ἀ ὃ. 54.
δ. 8. 292. Γ ἢ. 322 --3.
L APPENDIX D.
tions which had previously molested the Thesprotians®, They were expert
oarsmen (φιλήρετμοι), marauders (ληιστῇῆρες), kidnappers, trafficking in metals
and slaves eastward to Sidon and westward perhaps to Italy. Millin //om.
Mineral. p. 67 says, iron mines were probably situated in Cuzzolari, an island,
one of the Echinades (but these are not the Teleboidw, Strabo X.); or the
iron of Mentes might be supposed obtained in traffic or by plunder. QOdys.,
being ἐπέστροφος ἀνθρώπων, had hospitable relations with Mentes a Taphian
prince, (though he was also allied with the Thesprotians whom the Taphians
molested,) and obtained from his father the poison which Ilus of (the
Thesprotian App. D, 8) Ephyré refused him. The Taph. probably were checked
as the Corinthians extended their colonies in the Ionian sea; but, like their
Illyrian neighbours under the Romans, their tenacity of piracy is remarkable,
and is said, to have been exemplified to the alarm of a modern traveller,
Dodwell. (Kruse's Hellas III. cap. x11. 3. ¢.)
6.
TEMESE.
Two places of this name are mentioned: one in Cyprus, (Spruner’s map
gives it near the middle of that island) the other in Bruttium, identified with
Βρεντέσιον (Brundisinm) both rich in copper. The latter is believed by Millin
Hom. Miner. p. 80, together with Strabo, Eustath. and others to be meant. So
Vileker 8. 37 p. 70. South Italy would have been much nearer for thi traffic,
being indeed almost within sight; as we hear, however, of the Taphians>
getting slaves from Phoenicia, it was in the highway of navigation to trade with
Cyprus. Further, the Cyprian breastplate of Cinyres* shows by its refined
workmanship a high pitch gained in metallurgy, and consequently a probable
demand for metal-barter there. Also in g. 448 the suitors threaten Odvs. (dis-
guised) in a way which implies that lie could be suddenly dispatched to Cyprus,
as though communications thither from Ithac. or its neighbourhood were quite
usual, And, even if Ithaca lay more in the way for Mentes to S. Italy than
to Cyprus, yet the detour would be accounted for by the pretended news of
the return of Odys. alleged by Mentes,4 νῦν δ᾽ ἤλθον᾽ δὴ γάρ μιν ἔφαντ᾽
ἐπιδήμιον εἶναι. Nitzsch objects that 8. Italy was not known, but the mention
of Σικελοί, Ltxavin,® as a place of slave-traffic rather imply the contrary,
Millin ibid. says that Bochart referred Tepéon to a Phonic. word Temes
meaning a “foundry,” regarding the place as a Pheenician tradc-station.
Τέμεσσα, Tapaca, Τέμψα are subsequent varictics of the name. p. 82.
7.
DULICHIUM.
The wealth and populousness implied in the statements about Dulichium
seem to show that Homer regarded it as the largest of the group. In one
passage, which recurs, a single line* enumerates three islands, which in an-
bw. 426—7.
6. 2a. 184. 0. 425—9. © A.20—-8. 4.194. τυ. 383; ὦ. 366, 389. 307.
ἢ. κα΄. λ40---ι|7} &. 24; π. 123—4, 247—51.
APPENDIX D. LI
other are enumerated each in a separate line, but in the same order of
precedence. Lying beyond the sea, i. 6. the Crisseean gulf, under the land
and probably flat, its form might easily blend with that of the continent,
and an unduly large space have been ascribed to it. It has the epithet
πολύπυρον," and is said to have become now united by the deposit of the
Achelous to the mainland of Aetolia.*
In the Il. it appears to be subject not to Odys., but to Meges4 son of
Phyleus of Elis, who migrated thither in a family quarrel. Yet there need
be no inconsistency between this and the Ody.; there® Odys. makes the best
of his tale, and would leave the hearer, perhaps, to infer, what he does not
assert, that all the νῆσοι μάλα σχεδόν ἀλλήλησι were his dominion. Dulichinm
would appear from several passages in the Ody., however, to have belonged to
another rule: we read,‘ “there happened a ship of the Thesprotians to be going
to Dulichium”, ἔνϑ᾽ ὅ γέ μ᾽ ἠνώγει πέμψαι βασιλῆι ᾿κάστῳ, “king,’’ clearly
οὗ Dulichium or some part of it. And the tale of the disguised Odys. requires
that the king of the island to which he was kidnapped, should not be sovereign
over the one which he was treacherously prevented, through being sent thither,
from reaching. The suitor Amphinomos is called Jovdezrevgs and so is his
father: see further on Amphin. in vol. II.
8 e
EPHYRE.
The Schol. on α. 259 gives three cities so called, (1) the Thesprotian, (2)
the historical Corinth, said to be μυχῷ Ἄργεος ἱπποβότοιο," (3) the Elcan.
(1) and (3) are said to have been each on ἃ river Sellcis. Strabo, who adds
a fourth, in Thessaly, (VIII. p. 338,) supposed that in the Catalogue and in
the Ody.> the Elean was intended, as also in O. 531, where Phyleus, father
of the Meges, who led the Dulichians to the war, is said to have brought a
corslet from Ephyré on the Selleis, given him by Euphetes there. For inter-
course with Dulichium the Thesprotian site, as nearer, is more suitable, and
even more clearly so for a place which might allow a voyager from
Ithaca to visit Taphos on his way home.¢ But as the Odysscan site is marked
as the emporium of poisons, and as the knowledge of “411 the drugs, or
poisons, which the earth produces’’ is distinctly ascribed in the Il.¢ to the
daughter of an Epean prince in Elis, and, further, as a Phyleus, Nestor’s
antagonist in his youth, appears among the Epeans of Elis, the question
between (1) and (3) is nearly balanced, though the local difficulty as
regards Taphos inclines it in favour of the Thesprotian. This is further
confirmed by the Thesprotians being spoken of as allies (ἄρϑμεοι) of the
* Vilcker 8. 33, p. 57—60 assigns to Dulich. a site further S. covering Elis
on the W. side: his arguments are weak here, but his conclusion is said to
be confirmed by a modern Greek legend that the old Dulich. lies covered by
the sea near that position.
ς δ, 335. 4 B. 627—8. ει, 21—6. fg. 334—6. 6 oO. 125—7., 395.
8. 4 Z. 152-3. >» B. 659; α. 259; B. 328. a. 259. ἃ A. 750-1.
p*
Lil APPENDIX D.
Ithaca? before Odea. left for Troy. which accounts for the Laster Lavinz. als
of conme before be left, gone thither to seek the poison, On the wosle. a
migrations in the Leroie μετ proceedel. as a rile. from North to Soath
the Epheré.* Selléis. and Phyleus in Elis may be repeated from thi
hornonsina in Theasprotia. and hence the duplicate names. Hence the skiil is
φάρμαχα — for “πεῖ, crafts were often hoarded as secrets in families — mai
have gone sonthward ti, and been possessed by an Epeian princess in Elis
g-
ARGOS.
‘s) In its most proper and distinctive sense this means the city of Dio.
medes,? one of Here's three favourite cities, the others being Sparta anc
Mycene.” It is spoken of by Here and bs Diom., and stands first of it:
associated towns in the catalogue, also by Nestor,‘ speaking of Diom. returning
home thither, and by Telem.¢ enumerating the chief cities of Peloponn.
(2) It seems used for Peloponn. as a limited whole, under its leading
chicfs, the Atrids:, Diomedes, and Nestor; it has epithets ixxoBoroy often)
and πολυδέψιον, πολύπυρον, κλυτόν (once cach;. The passages are A. 30, B.
sg with J. 22, B. 348, 4. 171, Z. 152, 456, H. 363, I. 246, O. 30, 372. 2.
457, γ. 263, 9. 174, 562, 0. 239.
(3) It in specially found where Argos, the place, and Achmans. the people,
are coupled; or where Argos is coupled with ‘ Achaid land”’, or has the epithet
““Achaic.”’ M. 70, N. 227, %. 70, 0. 274, Γ. 78, 258, 1. 141, 283, T. 115, 7. 251.
This usage further caplains the sense given under (2,.
(4) Pelasgic Argos? is perhaps a nomen gentile in contradistinction with Achaic.
It includes Phthia and Hellas (the Thessalian).
(4) Mid (μέσον) Argos. It is not certain that this is a distinctive appella-
tive. Diom. says, “IT am thy friend (to Glaucus) Ἄργεϊ ἐν μέσσω", perhaps
like μέσω ἐνὶ... πόντῳ and meaning “in the midst of Peloponn.’’, comp. (2).
Ho Poenel. speaks of her husband as “the man whose fame had spread καϑ'
"Ελλάδα καὶ μέσον Ἄργος," Hellas, i. ὁ. Thessaly, being the northern ex-
* An argument in (iladst, I. ii. κι views Ephyré as the name of the primitive
Hellic (as Argos of the Pelasgian) settlement, as being the original proper
Hellic name for the terre, or walled places, founded by that race; and re-
garda the Ἔφυροι," whom it identifies with Φῆρες, (as Even with Φέραι, Φῆραι,)
as =: Helli in a ruder and more barbarous stage (p. 511—3). It would make
the Kphyré whence Heraklés carried off Astyocheia,! to be that in Thessaly;
lightly setting aside (p. 522— 3) the geographical difficulty that no river
Solléis is there mentioned; and the Ephyré of the Ody. to be that in Elis, not
noticing the argument based on the route by Taphos back to Ithac4; and, more
atrangely still, supposing that Tlépolemus migrated from some Ephyré to Rho-
dos, though it is distinctly said that the quarrel* which led to his expatria-
tion was with his father’s family, and though Ephyré is merely mentioned ag
the place whence that father ‘carried off’? his mother.
© π, 427.
9. 4 B. ssy, 863; 42. 52, > &. 119. °° y. 180—1. ὁ φ. 108. © B. 681.
{Ζ. 224. Κα. 344; 0. 80. ἈΝ. 301. | B. 6s8—9. * B. 665—6.
APPENDIX D. LUI
tension of the Achwan territory, and Argos = Peloponn. viewed as lying bet-
ween (μέσον) it and the speaker. So Menelaus uses it, speaking in Sparta.
It is thus opposed to the phrase μυχῷ Ἄργεος! noticed p. LI. App. 1). 8.
(6) Ἴασον “Agyog,™ occurring only once, is obscure. It may mean the Athe-
nian or extra Peloponnesian portion, yet lying south of Hellas. The word
seems connected with Ἴωνες," the name, apparently, of the Athenians, and
with Jasus°® their leader. A remote portion of the Greek territory, the furthest
to the east, as Ithaca was the furthest to the west, is required by the pas-
sage, which this satisfies.
8
10.
CYPRUS.
Dmetor son of Iasus is mentioned* as king, Κύπρου. lq: ἄνασσεν, doubtless
over some Greek colonists there, who had hospitable ties with the Egyptians,
and to whom Odys. represents himself as given in slavery. This Greek name of
Dmetor, however, may like those of Alcandra and Polybus at the Egyptian
Thebes, and Phsedimus at Sidon,» exemplify Homeric manner giving a Greek
tinge to all foreign facts. Yet we have a Cinyrés**, most probably not a
Greek, who sent a corslet as a ξεινήιον to Agam. which was a masterpiece of
art, as ‘he had heard in Cyprus the great rumour that the Achzans were going
to sail to Troy.’’ Gladst. (I. II. iii. 190), supposes that, being disinclined more
actively to assist, he gave this to buy off cheaply services which it was dif-
ficult for the Greeks to enforce. The Cyprians had a tradition that a part
of their inhabitants were Ethiopians (Herod. VII. go). The Temesé of Mentes
may have been in Cyprus® see no. 4; as ‘‘copper” is derived from Cyprium, 86.
as., and trade between Cyprus and Ithaca seems to have been common.
Aphrodité flees® thither after the detection of her shame, and in the Il. goes
by the name of Cypris.' Her worship was doubtless early imported thither
from the Asiatic Continent.
11,
PHOENICE, SIDONIE.
It is remarkable that while several passages imply a close relation between
Sidonians & Pheenicians, and while their geographical identity was a point of
preciseness to which Homeric geography had reached, there is yet a distinction
between Sidonians & Phenicians. He speaks of Sidonians on shore and Phe-
nicians afloat, the former as men ‘‘of much copper’’, of workmanlike skill &c.,
while the former are sea-men of fame, of vast subtlety, and roguish. ‘The
same κρητὴρ which is made by the Sidonians is brought over sea by the
Phen.» So the Sidon. had made the robes which Paris had himself brought over
to Troy.* This distinctness is even more marked when Menelaus enumerates
them separately, putting Egyptians and Ethiopians between them. 4
* His name may be derived from κενυρὸς, P.5, or may be an Asiatic name based
directly on the word which in the Hebr, is 47:5 name of a musical instrument.
ly, 263. ™o. 246 .\"N. 685. ° O. 332.
10. 2 0. 442-3. » δ. 6173; 0. 117. © A. tg—27, a. 184. “ & 362 —3.
' E. 330, 422, 458.
11. δ. 0. 418, 415. b WD 743-4. ς Ζ. 289—91. ἀ δ, 83—4.
LIV APPENDIX D.
12.
EREMBI. |
The name may contain.Aram, the early name of Syria, or it may be a
corrupt form of Ἄραβες. Posidonius indeed stated that the Arabians in his
time were called Erembi; Strab. XVI. p. 784; comp. I. p. 4 "EgéuBovg ovg εἰκὸς
λέγειν τοὺς Τρωγλοδύτας Ἄραβας, this suggests the Horites, mentioned as
‘living in caves’’, Genes. XIV. 6. It has also been supposed that the name
is akin to ἔρεβος, ἐρεβεννός, and signifies a dark or swarthy race.
13.
LIBYA.
In the time of Herod. 1V. 197 there were Phenician & Greek settlers (ἐπή-
λυδες) in Lib, Its limit westward was the promontory Soloeis, II. 32, IV. 43.
As Cyrené was colonized about 637 B. C. it is not likely that any carlier
settlements of Greeks lay W. of it. Hence cursory intercourse with the Phe-
nicians or their colonies was all that could afford knowledge of Libya.
14.
STYX.
The remarkable source, cascade, and torrent so called, form the upper
waters of the Crathis, rising in a mountain of the same name in N. Arcadia,
and flowing from that watershed down its shorter or northern slope to the
gulf of Corinth. At the source stands the town Solos, on the high ground
above the district now called Kuklines. Thence the torrent rapidly descends
through a deep rocky glen, at the upper extremity of which the eastern part
of the great summit of Khelmos terminates in an immense precipice. Two
slender cascades of water fall perpendicularly over the precipice, (cf. αὐπά
ῥέεϑραϑ) and, after winding for some distance along a labyrinth of rocks, unite
to form the torrent. The fall is the highest in Greece, and the foot of the pre-
cipice is said to be inaccessible. The water is said by Pausanias (4rcad. c. 18.)
— a statement confirmed by Plutarch (Alexand.) — to be poisonous (άάατον,"
intensely-mischievous?), and this effect by the latter writer is ascribed to its
intense* coldness. Vessels made of hoof of horse or ass are said to be alone
capable of resisting the action of the water, Plin. N. H. XXX. c. 16. The
people on the spot still tell the same story as of old, that it is unwholesome,
and that no vessel will hold it, A body of water marked by such strange
characteristics became the object of marvel and of awe. In the time of
Herod. (VI. 74)** the spring was fenced in with a wall. Leake’s Topography
of the Morea vol. iii. ch. XXVI.
* Strabo p. 389 says of it λιβάδιον ὀλεϑρίου πνεύματος.
** His words are ὕδωρ ὀλίγον φαινόμενον ἐκ πέτρης στάξει ἐς ἄγκος, this
seems to describe it in summer, when the volume of water is so slender, that
a high wind will blow it about in the air.
14. * 8.369. » ἐπ. 721.
APPENDIX D. LV
(2) Some of these physical features scem traceable in the epithets and al-
lusions of the poets. Thus besides alma ῥέεθρα vid, sup. we have the xare-
βόμενον Στυγὸς ὕδωρ," Hy. Apoll. Del. 85, the epithet ὠγύγιον, Hes. Theog.
806, probably in its infernal aspect, comp. γᾶς ὑπὸ κεύϑεσιν ὠγυγίοισιν, Aesch.,
Eumen. 989, but based on the dark clefts and chasms of its descent, to which
is added to ® not καταστυφέλου dia χώρου, ‘‘the deep rocky labyrinth”’,
vid. sup., also ἀμείλικτον, based perhaps on its baneful potency, Hy. Ceres 259,
and ὄμβριμον, Hy. Merc. 519, of its falling weight. Similarly the fact of two
streams combining to form the torrent is perhaps seized upon in Circé’s descrip-
tion,’ πέτρη te σύνεσίς te δύω ποταμῶν ἐριδούπων. There the Cocytus is
a branch of it. Homer makes the Titaresius a branch also (ἀπορρώξ") of it,
the startling peculiarity of its not mixing with the Pencus, though joining
it, making it worthy of such awful sisterhood as the Styx. Hesiod has a
tale that Zeus assigned the nymph Styx the highest honour of being the
oath revered by the gods‘, because she came the first of the immortal powers
to his aid against the Titans. Theog. 383—400. In a wildly exaggerated
description, which proves that the physical scale of the real Styx was wholly
lost to poetic vision, he makes Styx a tenfold stream, rolling nine times round
earth and the waves of the ϑαλασσα, and falling at last εἰς aia, (Virgil's
‘“‘novies Styx interfusa’’, Aen. VI. 439) whilst the tenth head pours down
from the rock, as aforesaid, an object of awe to the gods. ibid. 789 -- 92.
15.
SCHERIE.
This lay, from t. 271—84, probably near the Thesprotians, a well known site
on the W. side of Epirus, to whose land the stranger personated by Odysseus,
see the tale there told, came from Xz. when the Phiwacians were willing to take
him home. Hence an easy divergence from the homeward route from Zz. would
have brought him to these Thesprotians, It is clear too (see App. D. 2.) that
Odys. voyaging from the N. W. towards Ithaca with a fair wind4 (for Hermes
told Calypso nothing of Xy. and she starts him ἐς πατρέδα γαῖαν") sights
Σχ. in 18° days. Further, Boreas brings him, after losing his course, to Z7.
and, as the Pheacians at once launch the ship and moor it with sails ready 4,
it is presumeable that Boreas was still blowing and would be fair for the
intended run (Vileker om. Top. p. 126). The ἄελλαι παντοίων ἀνέμων,"
which wrecked his raft, seem to have sent him on the whole eastward, f. ὁ.
from a course in which a north-west wind was taking him toward Ithaca, to
a point whence Koreas took him thither. The words of the king, that Euboea!
was the furthest land known to his sailors, speak certainly for a site on the
W. side of Greece. Our rough latitude and longitude are therefore Ν, of Ith.,
and W. of the Greek mainland, near Thesprotia, Corfu so closely satisfies all
these conditions, that the tradition which assigns it as the site of Xy. may be
safely accepted, The first territory of these Phreacians was Hypereié near the
“δ. 185; O. 3. 4x. 515. © B. 755. ' & 185; Θ. 369; Ο. 31.
15. “ ε. 268. ν & O7—115. © €. 279; §. 170, cf. ε. 388. ἀ ὃ. 54.
8. ξ. 292. Γ ἢ. 322--3.
LVI APPENDIX D.
Cyclopes. The epithet εὐρύχορος, “having wide tracts,’ hardly suits Iapygia,
where Gladst. (III. 322) would place it, better than Sicily to which on that ground
he demurs (ib.). Yet some part of Italy or Sicily, perhaps the same ‘plain
between Syracuse and Catania’’ (Gladst. ib.) which forms the exception to the
general configuration of Sicily, can hardly fail to be meant; from which the
legendary migration of Nausithous,® to escape the violence of the Cyclopes,
would have been easy to Scherié, supposed Corfu. It remains to be noticed
that the assumed remoteness of this Dy., ἕκας ἀνδρῶν ἀλφηστάων, would form
no difficulty to Homer's hearers, although there is no objection to supposing
27. to have lain further from shore in his idea than the actual Corfu. Lastly,
Pallas quitting Zy.," goes to Athens πόντον ἐπ᾿ ἀτρύγετον. And on the whole
the poet’s description of Zy. accords best with the notion of an island; sec
note on ξ. 281 ῥινόν.
fg. 5—s. b 7. ἢ9--8ο.
APPENDIX E-.
THE LEADING CHARACTERS.
I.
ODYSSEUS.
(1) The ancestry of Odys. is derived from Sisyphus Aeolides, κέρδιστος ὃ
ἀνδρῶν, and from Autolycus who surpassed all by the gift of Hermes, κλε-
πτοσυνῃῦ θ᾽ dexw* τέ; and this, which tinges the Homeric conception of his
character, wholly rules it as drawn by later poets. A brief review of his ap-
pearances in the Il. (where he is kept more continually in view than any
except Achil. and, perhaps, Agam.) will best precede the examination of his
character from the Ody. In the II. his relations with Agam.* seem more in-
timate and confidential than those of others except Menel., and he is at his
side whenever calm policy and foresight are required, contrasting nobly with the
plausible paltering and moral cowardice of his chief, especially in the rebuke
given to the frivolous and abject proposal to make off in the night.¢ So in
the actual® return, amid the division of opinion, to speed home or stay for the
scruples of Agam., Odys., though siding first with the former party, returns from
Tenedos to abide his chief's behest. Here even Menelaus forsook the latter.
Toils had united, but victory parted them; but Odys. was to Agam. the “‘ friend
that sticketh closer than a brother.”’ Any embassy or negotiation of tact and
delicacy are his. So he conducts’ home Chryseis. So Pallas chooses him® as
the fittest instrument for checking by his ἀγανοῖς" ἐπέεσσι the result of
Agamemnon’s rash experiment, in which he, perhaps alone of the princes, had
* Not in perjury, which Homeric morals repudiated (T. 264—5), and which
in J. 66—125, is contrived by the poet to deepen the guilt of Troy, but in
the use of the oath, by exacting which Odys. commonly guards against sus-
pected danger (δ. 178, *. 343, μ. 288, 6. 55 foll.). Thus Menelaus, aggrieved
in the chariot race, tenders the oath to Antilochus, ¥. 58:—s. Hence the
κλεπτοσ. and the ogx. are the offensive and defensive sides of the same character.
What were the limits of κλεπτοσ. in the Homeric moral system need not here
be settled; the dealings of Odys. with the Cyclops, and his various personations
and disguises are examples of it. But he differs from his Homeric fellow
princes not in being less scrupulous, but in being more wary and able. The
moral limit of κλεπτοσ. sank with the moral standard of the age, and the
Odyssean character with it; see Gladst. vol. III. 1v. 600 —2.
1. * Z. 153-4. "τ. 395-—6. ¢ I. 205, 268. 4 ἐξ. 83—102. 5 y. 149—68.
{ A. 311 [0]. δ Β. 169 foll. 8 B. 180.
LVIII APPENDIX E.
not touched! his ship to launch it, To him,* as to Achilles, Thersites was
especially odious. Here, too, is noticed his politic! dealing with various ranks
of men. The common soldiers discern™ and dwell upon his merits in the coun-
cil and in the* field. In actual prowess he seems® rated after three besides
Achilles. He is admiringly marked by Priam and enquired about next after
Agam., on which occasion Antenor® especially commends him for eloquence.
He stands,? like Antenor to Priam, as a sort of second to Agam. in the rati-
fications of the truce, and to Menel.4 in the duel with Paris, like Hector to
the latter. He lacks the instinctive unreflecting ardour of Diomed. who, on
one occasion,’ keeps the ficld and rescues Nestor, when Odys. and all the
rest had fled, but only before the blazing bolts of Zeus. It is observable,
however, that Odys. is the only one whom Diom. tries to recall from the
panic. He shows® a spirited resentment of Agamemnon's undeserved rebuke,
and makes good his promise of soldierly conduct. He is! prudential in his
choice of foes, and the last" to rise to Hector’s challenge and to Nestor’s"
proposal of the night adventure.** His ship was in the post of caution, the
centre® of the line. He is the gallant* comrade of Diom., whose keen and
rushing courage contrasts finely with his large- minded, ataid, and provident
valour. In return for the occasion of Nestor’s rescue, he animates Diom.,Y
whose courage flags, and stands in the gap at the crisis of battle. Even
when Diom, quits the field wounded, Odys. though wounded,? alone, and
overpowered, states the point in self-debate, πρὸς ὃν μεγαλήτορα ϑυμὸν, and
then deliberately fights on till rescue comes. This scene is itself an Odysscy
in little; there is no more gallant picture in the poem.
(2) In the embassy to Achilles he* leads throughout. Nestor summons?® him
first to the night council; as a sole comrade Diomed.* prefers him — ‘‘how
could I,”” he says, “pass him by?’? — and the plan4 and gencralship of the
whole Doloneia are his; he gocs into it as second, but comes out first. He
reappears, though yet unfit for the field, in council, as the politic® negotiator,
the man of well-timed suggestions, and in preference to Nestor, — a piece of
excellent poetic keeping for all the characters - is the final consummator of
the reconciliation. Perhaps he alone would have ventured to stem the rash
eagerness of Achilles to fight instantly. He fills the foremost place in every
scene in which he appears, unless Achilles too is personally on the stage.
He disappears, like all others, to make way for the long pent up fury of
Achilles; but reappears with honour in the funeral games; worsting the Aja-
* Πολεμόν τε κορύσσων; by which may be understood giving the last touch
of policy to the councils of the war; for the helmet was put on last after
all other armour; comp. Shaksp. “‘There’s a divinity that shapes our ends,
Rough hew them how we will.
ἘΞ Or at any rate he is mentioned last as rising, which seems to amount to
much the same thing.
k B. 220. ' B. 188— 206. Ὁ B. 273. " H. 180
PI’. 268. 4 Γ. 314. τ @. οι--2. 5. Δ. 50—k5.
- H. 168. Υ K. 231. WY @. 222. x K. 241 foll.
2 A. 4o1 foll. ἃ 1. 169, 180, 192, 218, 223, 624 foll.,
; οἵ, T. 141. b eK. 137. ¢ K. 242—7. K. passin.
eT. 15§5—83, 216-—37.
APPENDIX E. LIX
ces, one in wrestling, a mastery of skill over weight and muscle,’ the
other, ope Palladis, in® speed; thus alone winning two prizes, and those in
contests of great and sustained effort, and morever consecutive. At some sub-
sequent period, but previous to the Odyssey, occurred his dispute" with
Achilles at some banquet, (undetailed, save that Agam. malignantly rejoiced
at it); as also his victorious! prize+contest for the arms of Achilles; also,
perhaps, his visiti to Troy as a beggar. He also distinctly claims the chief *
command of the daring enterprise of the wooden horse, and the assault! on
the house of Deiphobus — the last blow struck in the war.
The prominent features in his character in the Ody. may be noticed suc-
cessively. .
(3) Prudence, as regards persons and things, shown in his distrust of
Calypsé,™ Circé," and even Ind,° (as a sea deity, and therefore, for Posei-
don’s sake, probably hostile,) on whose advice he only acts in a desperate
alternative; in following, however, Circé’sP direction how to deal with the
Sirens. The readiness with which he devises? and sustains a character, tell-
ing tales suited to the part, and procuring’ a garment by a hint so conveyed;
his baffling* the questions and the vigilance of the stupid Cyclops; his keep-
ing' outside the Lestrygonian harbour, where the others entering perished;
his selection" of a landing-place when swimming, and of a shelter’ when house-
less; his advice to retire¥ at once with the advantage gained over the Ci-
conians; his question to Circé,* who will be his guide, and his lying awake
meditating’ plans against the suitors, all exemplify this. So, he commonly
sends? out a party to reconnoitre, or himself ascends some post of obser-
vation. And, perhaps to spare her feelings, in the sketch of his own real*
wanderings, which in disguise he gives Pene'., he judiciously omits all men-
tion of Circé and of Calyps6, making himself come direct from his first ship-
wreck in μ. 424—5 to the land of the Phzeacians. When recognized by her,
however, he no less» frankly tells her all.
(4) Presence of mind in actual peril. This power of μῆτις is his dis-
tinguishing feature. πολύμητις occurs as epithet 80 times, if not more, in the
poems, besides the remarkable expression Je) μῆτιν atalavtog; and Pallas,
inciting his son to follow his example, singles out this special excellence for
his emulation, and recognizes* a spark of it in him;
οὐδέ σὲ πάγχυ ye μῆτις Ὀδυσσῆος προλέλοιπεν.
We may render πολύμητις ‘fertile in resource.’ In his visit’ to Troy in
disguise he saw Helen, obtained information, damaged the enemy, and came
safe off. In the wooden horse® he restrained Diom. and Menel. from betray-
ing the ambuscade, under the influence of Helen's voice; and suppressed the
perilous talker Anticlus. He forbore! in the moment of their approach to
Scylla to tell his fearful knowledge of the monster to his comrades, lest it
{Ψ, 725—8. & UF, 569—78. b &. 75—8. i). 544—51. ἡ δ. 243 foll.
kK 8. 494; cf. Δ. 524. 1 & 517-20. ™ & 173 foll. " *. 339—44. 5 & 361—4.
Pw. 39 &e.; cf. 168 &c. 4 vy. 332; & 199— 359; τ. 172 &e., 221 — 48.
τ &. 460 foll. ® 4, 289—86; comp. α. 204—5. ' x. gi—9g7. u §. 438—40.
Y & 475-87. t. 43-44. *%. g01. τυ. 23—30, 38—43. * κι. g7—102,
145—50, 203—9. δ τ 3273-9. Ὁ ψ. 310-40. © B. 279. ἃ ὃ. 243 δε.
9. δ. 27ο0--89. fw. 223—5.
LX APPENDIX E.
should unman them. Amidst the valorous impulse to stab the Cyclops, the
new peril® of being shut in his den strikes him, and he holds his hand.
Under this head falls that large-minded and many sided versatility, power of
calm reflection,» (ἐπιφροσύνη, sometimes represented as the special gift of
Pallas,) and pliability to circumstances, — the πολυμήχανος: character. He
finds the keel and mast clinging togethtr by the stay, and lashes* them fast.
The keel, a solid balk, would float below the mast, the round smooth spar
would be a seat above. The keel alone would have been a painful seat,
the mast alone would have rolled over and over. His raft is! shattered, he
bestrides a plank; he watches his ship engulfed™ in Charybdis, and hangs on
to a tree to await its reappearance. Amidst the new perils of a supposed
strange land he® sets about counting over his treasures and stowing them
safely away. In the combat with Irus, he strikes with° deliberate feebleness
in order to escape suspicion. He shuns the fire-light on his scar,? and stops
the mouth of the nurse* as she is on the point of divulging his identity: and,
when the suitors are slain, he orders the rest to strike up a dancing revel4
to divert the attention of the neighbours from the catastrophe. Akin to this
are his
(5) Resoluteness and prompt energy. Thus he binds his lotus-charmed*
comrades and forces them on board; and cuts his cable* to save his vessel
from the Lestryg. He represses‘ the mutinous spirit of Eurylochus and the
crew, and, for a while, and until his back is turned, checks the unscru-
pulousness of his comrades amidst the cravings of famine. To this belongs
that self-debate of alternatives" or doubtful chances occuring in the HH. but
in the Ody. repeatedly — the working up his resolve by a mixed refiectiveness
and ardour.
(6) His social tact and influence with men, (ἐπίστροφος ἦν ἀνθρώπων,
πολύτροπος, &c.) shown in his friendship and wide intercourse, and especially
displayed in the 1]. among the Greek confederates. (See (1) and (2).) Thus his
intercourse with Iphitus’ and the tale¥ of the Pseudo-Mentes, but above all
his behaviour at the Pheacian court, exhibit this. So Nestor supposes* that
he might obtain the support of all the Achmwans to rout the hostile faction
of the suitors. We may instance the chivalrous politeness’ and punctilious
decorum of his address and behaviour towards Nausicaa and her maids, his?
exempting Laodamas, his host, from the poasibility of rivalry, his rebuke@
to a rude courtier veiled under compliment to his good looks, his politely
putting by the offer by Alcinous of his daughter in marriage, and» answering
the earlier part of his speech only, also his opportune eulogy® of the Phea-
*) Of all the actions of Odys. perhaps the one which offends most is
the threatening Euryclea, of whose fidelity he might have been assured,
and whose indignant reply places him at a disadvantage in comparison
with her.
δι, 299 --305. bg. 437; cf. 4. 317—8. ' a. 205; cf. II. 29. k μ. 423—5.
lg. 370—1. ™ uw. 431-43. ny. 215—8. 9 6. 93 “4. Ρ τ. 479—8o0.
4 wy. 130—40. ἴ &. 98—102. ® x. 126 foll. ' x. 429— 48. u A. 403 foll.;
&. 356, 407, 464; € 119 foll., 141 foll.; v. 13—24. ° Φ. 32—5. ΚΝ α. 259—A4.
sy. 216—7. Y §. 149---222. * 9. 207—8. ἃ 9. 174—7. bn. 331—3>
5. cf. 309 ζ0]]. ς #. 382—405.
APPENDIX E. LXxI
cian dancers, which leads Alcinous to order an apology from the man who
had insulted him. The absence of all boastfulness should be noticed in
connexion with this. He introduces himself in the heroic4 style as the man,
‘‘whose fame has reached to heaven’’, but he only does this in answer to
enquiries. He tells his tale, when called* upon; yet confesses! that the
Sirens did lure him to bid his comrades unchain him, that the dread® of
Gorgé’s head appearing overcame him, and that by the dismal tidings of®
Circé he was driven to wail rolling on the ground. He puts forth his! prowess
when taunted to display it, and, thus challenged, sets* his own merit in a
clear light. Thus roused to honourable jealousy he dwarfs the Phsacian!
holiday champions; but he never brags, and seeks not to excite their sym-
pathy by his wondrous tale: he™ will not grudge them the story if they wish
to listen, but states his comrades’ sufferings as more piteous than his own, and
only prefers the claim of the stranger and the suppliant.
(7) Akin to this is his delicate courtesy" to women; (for Nausicaa, see
(6) above) 6. g. Areté the queen, who is the first® and the last? addressed by him
at the Phseacian court; to whom he wishes ‘‘joy in her house, children, people
and royal husband’’, Similarly he propitiates Calyps649 by acknowledging her
superior beauty; and in a strain of respectful admiration addresses* in dis-
guise Penelopé herself.
(8) His venturesome spirit is specially commended* on the field of heroes
at Troy, and is shown in his gallantry,* when a youth, at the boar-hunt with
Autolycus, in‘ the attack on the Ciconians, in his volunteering" with his own
ship to explore the Cyclops’ land, in his keeping’ within danger in order
to beard Polyphemus with his taunts, in his arming® to attack Scylla in spite
of the warning of Circé, in his exploring* her charmed palace, but above all
in his awful’ visit to the mansion of the Dead. @
(9) His home affections. With the greatest devotiun® to home and tender
recollection of its features, and with the hardiest* endurance of toil in attain-
ing it, he yet has no trace of the ascetic» in his character, nor does such a
trait® enter into the Homeric ideal; the words4 wag’ οὐκ ἐϑέλων éPeloven,
if® interpreted by his conduct elsewhere, only specially describe his longing
for home, and repugnance to the fond duresse imposed by the goddess. Nor
does there seem any strong personal tenderness towards his wife; she enters
into the home picture, as do his father and son, but there is hardly an ex-
pression of feeling towards her personally during his wanderings. On the
occasions where such expression would have been most natural, when Calypsd
provokes comparison, and Alcinous offers his daughter in marriage, he sup-
* The poet says of him,
αἰεὶ γάρ of ἐνὶ φρεσὶ θυμὸς ἐτόλμα, K. 232.
and Diomedes adds,
ov περὶ μὲν πρόφρων κραδίη καὶ ϑυμὸς ἀγήνωρ, 244.
44, 19—20. © 1. 380— 3. Γμ. 192—4. 6 A. 634—s5. h x. 496—9.
i. 212 [0]. Κ 9. 205-206. | ὃ. 186-99. ™ Δ. 380—2. 5 §. 218 foll.;
ῃ. 303—7- ° ἢ. 146. P » 59-62. 4 8. 215--8. ἴ τ. 107 foll. 5 τ΄ 447—84.
tu. 40. ua. 172—6, Y t. §03—5. Ὗ μ. 114, 226—-33. * x. 275—9.
7 2. passim. * α. §5—Q; & 219—20; ε. 25—36. ἃ ¢,221—4. >» x. 460—6.
σι, 136-7. ‘6.155. © κ᾿ 347, see also A. 145.
LXII APPENDIX E.
presses mention to the former of any love* for Penelopé, and to the latter
never says that he has a wife nor ever makes mention of her till (ν. 42) the
moment of his farewell, save indirectly as the object of enquiry in the vexviéa.
One would think that, amid the genial home-tone of the Phwacian court, with
female influence so predominant, the topic might here have found sympathy
if passed by elsewhere. Nay, in the picture of home's! delights with which he
works upon the mind of Alcin. at the commencement of his tale, there is an
emphatic mention of parents but no allusion to wife. And in his enquiries
after her*® in the vexvéa, he merely takes her in as the guardian of his child
and house, not as part of himself. He puts child and father before her, deems
it quite possible that, in that 254 year of his wanderings, she has already
remarried, and all the tenderness in the mention of her® proceeds not from
him bnt from the shade of his mother, who inverts the order to dwell on
her sorrows first. So before Troy he describes' himself as “the father of
Telemachus’’; whose name suggests that father’s feclings at going to the
‘distant war’’. This leads us to
(10) His strength of feeling, but command over it. His tenderness
towards his mother will not let her, however, drink first of the necromantic
blood. His love of home pervades and sustains him like a religion, but, save in
the inactivity imposed by Calypso’s detention, he does not pine. The nearest J
approach to his feelings overcoming his judgment is when Ithaca, within
sight, vanishes from his eyes, and the released winds blow him off again to
sea. Then he hardly forbears launching himself overboard. With apathy he
receives the news from a sceming stranger (πυνϑανόμην ᾿Ιθάκης x. τ. 1.) that
he is at home at last; contrast with this his kissing the ground, when alone,
in Scherjé. In grave and simple* language, without any glow of feeling, he
declarceNimself to his son, Observe also his distrust of Penelopé’s self-com-
mand,! and the iron restraint which it imposes on him, and which he™ en-
dures; the profound® and ominous dissembling of his resentment for the out-
rages heaped on his house and wife, and on himself, the seeming beggar, by
the suitors, their parasites, and paramours, — especially the curb® laid on the
vehement yearning for prompt vengeance on the latter, as he witnesses drop P
by drop the overtlow of the cup of their insolence; his abiding? Penclopé’s
slow conviction, through all her lingering doubt, to her final test, (comp. Tele-
machus’® reproach for her slowness of credence;) his resistance of present’
transports in calm thought for the morrow, and for the consequences of his
rightcous but unpopular deed; just as amid the raptures of his comrades,
when they saw him returned alive from Circé’s palace, he reminds! them of
the ship and her stores; his essay" upon the feelings of his aged father in
the last scene, and the outburst of sympathy’ between them, resisted, however,
* His words to her are
ἀλλὰ καὶ ὡς ἐθέλω καὶ ἐέλδομαι ἢ ἤματα πάντα
οἴκαδέ τ’ ἐλθέμεναι καὶ νόστιμον ἡμαρ ἰδέσϑαι. ε. 220—1.
ι. 324 -(. Κ,Άλ. 177-9. ‘2, 181—3. ' B. 260; J. 354. jn. 490 54.
Κ π᾿ 188, 204-- 5. 1 x. 303. ™ το 204—12. Dg. 465; 9. 337, 347—96.
ov. αὶ foll., 183—4. P vy. 284— 302. 4 ψ. ὃς foll. rw. g7—103.
δ ψ. 117—40. Ux. 419-}4. " ῳ, 244 foll. Y ῳ. 327—49.
APPENDIX E. | LXUI
by Laertes till the token is shown; thus displaying a strong resemblance in
the basis of character between father and son, and making the one reflect and
illustrate the other. His hiding’ his face during the minstrel'’s song on the
theme chosen by himself, is perhaps an artful device of the poet to enhance
our estimate of the sublime power of the minstrel’s art. Thus to rob Odys. of
his self-command was like drawing the iron tears down the check of Pluto.
(11) The religious element of his character. This can hardly be brought
up to the demands of Christian criticism. Yet the instance of simple prayer*
for help in dire distress, prayer in self-sought solitude, comes nearer to it
than one could expect. According to the Homeric standard this element found
expression in the special tutelage of Pallas which he enjoyed, and his wife
and son, it seems, for his sake. A corresponding trust in her, and in the
power of God, as a general influence on the side of suffering right, appears
in him.Y This tutelage is generally recognizable even in the Il.;* in the Ody.
however, it supplies part of the ground-work of the poem, and to modern
readers undoubtedly weakens its interest.* The due performance of all custo-
mary® rites, consulting what appear as the personal interests of the deities,
is another point of religion. But the great bencficence of his paternal? rule,
and his kindness towards those who recompensed¢ him and his with outrage and
treachery is a yet fuller and deeper trait. Zeus, the guardian? of the outcast,
and avenger® of the suppliant, must love and protect such an one — such is
the uniform moral leaning, often the expressed doctrinal n@og of the poem.
(12) Among the subordinate traits of his character his good fellowship is
prominent. It springs from that broad basis of human feeling which drew
forth his raptures on sight’ of land, and those with which*® he looked
forward to his home. In the same spirit he shares the wailing® of the forlorn
remnant on parting from their no less ‘forlorn hope’’, sent to explore the
fearful isle; and we can understand how by it he kept his comrades under some
restraint when respect for his prudence and awe for his authority failed. Thus
he thinks for them and cares for them, cheers! their despondency, casts lots
for* his share of the danger with the craven Eurylochus, shows his! com-
passionate contempt for his fears, and rebukes them hy going himself. So
he will not™ taste Circé’s banquct till his comrades are restored. So he
pourtrays the touching" scene of their restoration which melted even the cruel
goddess, and his unlooked for return and rapturous welcome® by the rest,
So he weeps forP them in Polyphemus’ den, and dwells on the horror with
which he witnessed4 them shrieking in the fangs of Scylla and vainly imploring
* Pallas becomes a leading character in the poem, invincible and, save
during the sea wanderings of Odys., (accounted for perhaps ζ. 325-—331.) ever
at hand to overwhelm opposition. That the poet was partly conscious of
this scems likely from 7. 236—240; see App. E. 4, (3).
w 8. 521—365. X uw. 335—8. Y y. 389 foll.; &. 273, 283, 300, 310;
m. 207—12. * K. 248; Ψ. 782—3. δ α. 66—7. » ὅδ. 688— 93; ξ. 138—47.
©. 421—33- ad 4, 270—1. © vy. 213-4. fe. 394—8. & 7. 424—5.
b x. 209. iy. 172—7. k 4. 190—209. 1 x. 264—73. mx. 383—7.
D x. 395—9- ° x. 408—21. Pet. 204 5. 4 μ. 255—9.
LXIV APPENDIX E.
his help. So his whole wanderings and toils would embrace their safety as
well as his own; he roams,
ἀρνύμενος ἣν τε ψύχην καὶ νύστον ἑταίρων."
So he watches,* though in vain, against their trespass on the oxen of the
Sun. All the rashness, presumption, and diffidence are theirs, the conduct
and management all his. But amidst the loftier heroism of the self-poised
and well-versed sage of adventure, there glances a touch of genial light-
heartedness, which makes the great mind and the small feel akin, which
enjoys the present moment, taking its chance for the next, has a tear for
the lost and a smile for the survivors, as they sail on their course,
ἄσμενοι ἐκ ϑανάτοιο φίλους ὀλέσαντες ἑταίρους."
(13) The boast of the disguised Odys. that he could do" ficld-work, reap
and plough, as well as fight with the best, was no doubt meant to be taken as
truc, and viewed as an important complement* of the character. Even the skill
with which he could knot a cord was not below mention by the poet, nay he
adds that Circé’ had shown him how. The loftier character of Achilles would
reject such traits, but Odys. is the hero in whom the widest expanse of hu-
man nature — ‘‘all that may become a man” — is to be found to meet.
(14) Among the less agreable traits of character must be placed, first, the
enjoyment of revenge, long looked forward to, closely plotted, and wrought*
out in cold blood. No old Greek would or could have felt pain at this —
such pain would have secmed unnatural to him. Penelopé herself’ asks to
see the corpses — though they had been at once removed — as a loyal wife, .
according to Greek notions, should. A terrible picture’? is drawn of Odys.
the avenger standing among them. Yet he will allow of no insult to the
dead, not* even of a shout of female triumph from the old nurse. The moral
tone is measured and awful, and the pollution» of the hearth and hall is
purged by immediate fire. The unpleasing character of the catastrophe in
the massacre of the suitors, to our notions, disparages the whole poem, though
only consciously felt throughout its latter portion. And the strangling<
of the dozen wretched women who had yielded®4 themselves to the dissolute
influence of the de facto anarchy in the palace is worst of all. Of course it
can be explained: they were slaves who had intrigued and rebelled, and ad-
vanced through impunity to insolence, in the midst of which they were sur-
prised by retribution. The extirpation of the suitors’ faction was politically
necessary, however revolting in its form of massacre, but these were power-
less and helpless victims. Yet a solemn® sternness of justice pervades and
somewhat redeems the whole. Nor should their addition to the trials of
* Homeric honour for the pursuits of peace, the ἔργα of men when there
was no fighting to do, is here manifested. His heroes were not of the kind
which, when not at feud with men, must needs find solace in warring on the
beasts. Homer speaks, too, of a time when the “division of labour’’ had
hardly begun, and when lord and slave might help till the same furrow.
T ἃ. 5. 8. μ. 271-303. τς, 63, 566 foll. "6. 366 -- γ4. 9. 443 -8.
Ὗ π. 233—307; σ. 140-δο; τ. I-13, 31--41; Ὁ. 5—433 Φ. 379—93) 431.
x χ. passin, Y w.83—4. * x. 381—9, 401—6. ὃ x. 407—12. © yx. 481-94.
© 424-Ὀ-5. ὅσ. 57. 5 χ' 417-77.
APPENDIX E. LXV
Penelopé be omitted — they, her own servants of her own sex, had been lost
to loyalty and womanliness, and had forsaken her part of lofty endurance to
side with the misrule of the moment. It is enough, however, that the ἦϑος
of the poem as a whole is good and pure, though it rise not to the loftier
lesson conveyed by the words, ‘‘neither do I condemn thee, go and sin no more’’.
Fondness! for gifts may be noticed as another minor feature of the great
Greek ideal; and this, principally, for the honour which they signify, and as
the pledges of that hospitable’ tie, which, next to marriage, is the purest
and noblest bond of old Greek society; yet also for the gratification of
material wealth, This fondness which he displays for ‘‘gifts’’ strikes us as
an exception to be deducted from the heroic side of his character. Nay his
anxiety about them at one crisis seems almost ludicrous.» But Homer
means nothing comic here. Nor would any Greek — perhaps of any age —
have felt it odd, Even Achilles includes this trait in a mcasure and nega-
tively. He does not at the final reconciliation reject the gifts of Agamemnon.
It pourtrays more powerfully his master-passion at the moment, that he should
not. He is careless whether they are proffered or not, but he does not by re-
fusing, insist on disinterested revenge. His words are ~
δῶρα μὲν αἵ x ἐθέλησθα, παρασχέμεν, ὡς ἐπιεικὲς,
Av ἐχέμεν᾽ πάρα σοί,
and the gifts are accordingly taken to his tents and revised by his Myrmi-
dons;* and every body else seems to view the receipt of the gifts as a matter
of course. The whole point of the argument of Phenix to Achilles had
turned on the probability that the latter would render the assistance sought,
but too late to obtain the δῶρα, as it is also point of the example™ of Me-
leager and the tolians which Phenix cites. The more blunt Ajax® is utterly
puzzled at Achilles rejecting a handsome compensation, and continuing angry
for a girl. The warrior souls of the Greek chiefs at Troy, even as those of
the prior generation,
δωρητοί te πέλοντο παράρρητοί τ᾽ Exésecory.°
Hence Odys. has a keen sense of the value of property, is delighted?
in disguise to see Penel. ‘“‘drawing’’ the presents of the Achzeans, and, although
he is content overnight with the destruction of the suitors and the recognition
of his wife, yet thinks4 of his κτήματα and of compensatory gifts for what
he had suffered in pocket the first thing next morning.
2.
PENELOPE.
Next to Odys, the character of most sustained interest in the poem is
Penelopé. She has her* Odyssey at home—one of passive suffering and heart-
sickness at hope deferred — matching his of restless and active adventure. The
fH. 403—5, 413—4; κι 38—44; 4. 351-61; Ψν. 12—15, 41, 215—8; π. 230—2;
6. 281—4; τ. 283—4, 4:18. δα. 311—3, 316—8; cf. 9. 210. ΒΨ, 215—19.
iT. 147-8. κ Τ᾽ 278. 1.1. 604—5. m J, 527—99. 1. 638—9.
9. 526. P σ. 281—2. 4 wm. 354—8.
2. 4 p 350—3.-
HOM. OD. APP. E
LXVI APPENDIX E.
hero's mother had given way under the lingering anxiety which Penelopé ye
- endured.» Her hopes worn out, her palace beset by the suitors. her son's sub.
stance wasted, her servants insulting her,° she has yet succeeded in protecting
Telemachus up to the period of manhood. This duty performed leaves ὲ
vacuum in her motives of resistance to the suitors. Telemachus and hit:
interests urge her remarriage, as his only release. There is a fearful bu
suppressed contest going on within, whilst all without is a calm of despair
She moves up and down the palace-stairs with mechanical monotony, stil!
keeping her queenly state, and rebuking the insolence of a saucy handmaid,‘
amidst her decp woe at heart, as if to support the new authority of her son
and to check by the influence which her presence carries with it, the irre.
gularity and growing anarchy of the palace. Yet she scems to have a sor
of absence of mind in this routine, and an imperfect consciousness of out
ward things’ (save when the memory of her husband, as in the lay of Phe.
mius, is brought back), and her real life escapes in dreams and prayers. !
In the midst of this, a keen spur of new and active sorrow reaches her it
the departure of Telemachus, and the discovery of a plot against his life by
the suitors. She is calmed by a dream, assuring her of his safety:" then by
the news of his return, and the sight of him.) Then comes the crisis of hei
fate; Pallas inspires her resolves! — 1. To appear among the suitors anc
receive their gifts; 2. To propose the contest of the bow, and then—a fate
from which she recoils with horror™ — to end the long siege her heart hac
borne in vain, and throw herself into some unworthy suitor’s arms. The
keenness of her regrets is freshened by the strange presence of a begga)
with tales eloquent and stirring as a minstrel's song." Nay, she had forbidder
the lay of Phemius, as too acute a reminder of her loss — especially as over
heard when sung to amuse the hateful revel of the suitors, But she eagerly
listens to and questions the wanderer, and on no previous occasion show:
such sustained and animated interest in any present scene.
His stories of her husband reopen the ‘sources of her grief, but do no
change her abhorred resolve. The bow is produced, and she retires, anc
sleeps, above, the sweetest sleep she had known since her lord had gone
During this slumber deep and sweet, the poet exquisitely contrives the enact
ment of the catastrophe, and she awakes to the news that Odys. is re
turned and the suitors slain. Then follows the slow break up of that long
frost of sorrow and despair. And she, in the double night which Pallas giver
them, tells her tale to him, as he his to her.°. The special points on which
one may dwell are—
1. Overpowering and absorbing devotion to her husband. No quo
tations or references are needed to show this; it is the lamp which shine:
from within her whenever she appears; but we may contrast this intense per.
sonal devotion with the more general home feelings of Odysseus. Her minc
ruminates and feeds upon its woe.P The constant dwelling on Odysseu
b 4. 202 —3. © ¥. 424—53; 463—4. d ς οι. © aw. 339-40; σ. 165—7
220—s. Γ δ. 675 &e.; v. 83—7. Sd. 762—6; @. 59, 60; σ. 203—5
τ᾿ 535—50; v. 60—82, 88—go. bd. 795 &c. i 4. 328—32; ρ. 41-44
Ko. is8 ἄς. ‘gst &. πὶ ς.Ὶ δ ἃς. 5.0. 513---2::; 4. 368. ° Ψ. 302—9
. 128— 30.
APPENDIX E. LXVII
makes her speak of him as κεῖνος, ἀνὴρ, &c., pursuing these thoughts aloud,
and therefore not introducing him by name.4 She rejects all tidings which
assure her of Odys. as yet to return." Yet she pursues all stray clues of
information about him,® listening to all, yet laying none to heart,' and catch-
ing at them rather as a diversion of melancholy than a source of hope." She
confesses her neglect of the persons usually most entitled to her regard —
‘‘eruests, suppliants, and heralds.’’* ‘The tale of the disguised Odysseus about
himself,* his dress and ornaments, and the sight of his bow, retouch
her sorrow, and open its wound more widely. She sits on the threshold
of the chamber* where it had lain so long, with that bow on her knees, the
token of her rightful lord, but soon to be the means of handing her
over to some usurper of his bed. She rejects all compliments,’ and they
only suggest the remembrance of Odys. His fame survived, but her beauty?
had perished with him. Her prudence* partakes of her husband’s character;
we may compare her fraud played on the suitors with his imposing on the
Cyclops, and her struggle against hope to escape from remarrying, with his
efforts to keep his comrades from their own sacrilegious rashness. So she
boasts to the stranger (Odys.) how much®* sho is above other women in
sense and ready-witted counsel. In conversation, accordingly, she shows power
and readiness. She silences the brutal Antinous with a reminder> of his
father’s danger and escape, and draws Eurymachus on,° by her rebuke for
their manner of suitoring, to promise presents. The style in which she is
addressed by the suitors marks their view of her position; their speeches to
her begin’, “O daughter ** of Icarius’’ &c., as if with an intimation that she is
a single woman, and by right subject to her father’s will. Contrast with this
the touching and respectful address which two persons only use, the one the
soothsayer Theoclymenus,° the other her husband in disguise. Every speech!
in his dialogue with her commences*** ‘‘O lady wife of Odysseus’’. The busi-
ness of the soothsayer is, as Mr. Gladstone says, merely to prepare for the
catastrophe, hy prophetic forebodings. So nicely even in the forms of address
does the poet preserve the propriety of his characters,
(3) Her love for her son is shown in her receiving with® deference his
manly words as the head of the house and her husband’s representative. She
honours him in the suitors’ presence more than he her. The same appears in
her swoon® and agitation at the news of his voyage and danger, when she lies!
not tasting food, till exhaustion brings sleep; in her keenly taxing* Antinous
with his treacherous design; in her reception! of Telem. on his return and
gentle reproof for his departure; in her zeal for him and care of his in-
* Pallas says of him (v. 332—7,) that he will ‘‘make trial of his wife”’
before disclosing himself to her. True as this is, it is still more markedly
true that Penel. equally makes trial of him; see y. 137—230.
** χρύρη Ἰκαρίοιο, περίφρον Πηνελόπεια. ‘ 245, 285 et alibt.
FF ὦ γύναι αἰδοίη Λαερτιάδεω Ὀδυσῆος. ge. 152, τ. 165 ἄς.
4 a. 343—4; δ. 832; σ. 181. τ τ΄ 257--ὄο, 313, 568 ἄς. 5α. 415--. * &.126—8.
4" ρ. 102; τ. 5908. Ἶ τι 134-51; comp. Ο. δ16--- 7. Ὺ rz. 249 &c. * gp. 55—8.
Yo. 251 Ke. * σ. 180—I1; τ. 125 ὅς. a 2 326—7. b π΄ 413— 33.
© ¢ 251—80, 285—7. dg. 248 285; Φ. 321. eg. 162. { ¢. 165, 262,
336, 583. 6 a. 360 &c. qo4—i0. '! δ. 716—41, 759—66, 787—829.
k π᾿ 418—23. Ve. 41—4.
Et
LXVIII APPENDIX E.
terests dictating the fearful resolve™ to remarry, feelings which the sense of
his danger from the suitors may perhaps have sharpened. She fears for his®
inexperience and with delicate care° separates him from her female household.
(4) Her dreams and prayers. Paralysed by affliction to a sense of
outward things, she lives inwardly in such aspirations. And this half-spiri-
tualized existence of hers contrasts finely with the carnal revels of the sui-
tors, and with the ever-changeful adventures of Odys. She prays for her
son’s safety ,? pleading the sacrifices of Odys.; or for vengeance 4 on the suitors,
vowing sacrifices to all the Gods; or that Apollo™ might smite Antinous, that
Artemis* would release her by death, or the Harpyies snatch! her from the
scene of woe; and ends in a plaintive peroration for her loss of sleep. Pallas
bestows slumber® as a special gift, and subsequently enhances’ her beauty,
as that of Odys. Her vision of Iphthimé¥ assures her of her son’s safety,
and she asks in her sleep if her husband be alive or dead? This is quite
consistent with the despair which in her waking moments she constantly pro-
claims; but the vision declines to answer. In another dream Odys.' scems
to be with her, and again, the eagle who in another dream’ chased and tore
the geese, declares himself her lord returned, She expects to recal in her
dreams, when remarried, the home of her youth. Her elegant myth? of the
double dream-gate has been adopted into a piece of poetical machinery by
Virgil Ain. VI. 894 foll.
(s) Her desponding incredulity has become a fixed habit of mind not
to be influenced by probabilities or testimony. Her judgment bids her to
conclude Odysseus’ return hopeless, she weeps for him as dead; but we see
there is a stedfast spark which those tears will not quench, an instinct of hope
which beguiles her reason. Thus» she would have Telem. tell her in private
any tidings he may have heard of his father’s return. In reply to the assurance
of the disguised* wanderer that Odys. would surely soon be back, she, with a
fond irony® wishes it might be so, but adds that there is no chance of the pro-
mise being demanded which she had given him in case of that event. The
news brought by Telem.® and the solemn asseveration of the wandering! seer
scarcely impress her; she only answers in the optative mood. Telem., too,
has adopted her despondency. She indeed accepts the® omen (of Telem.
sneczing) that the suitors’ doom is near, and receives the news® of their death,
as by the visitation of the gods, not as by her husband’s hand. The fluctuation
of her moods in ᾧ. 11—84 is highly natural. She first wakes up cross, and
rates the nurse soundly for breaking with an idle tale that sleep, the sweetest
she had ever known since Odys. went to cursed Troy'; she then seems for a
moment to accept her protestations, leaps from the couch, kisses the nurse
and enquires further; then, as if now thoroughly awake, subsides into her at-
titude of fixed incredulity ,* and will merely ‘‘go after her son,! to view the
suitors dead and see who has slain them”’.
mr. 157—61. Ὁ δὶ 817—23. ov. 426—7. Ῥ δ. 762—6. 4 9g. 59—60.
FQ. 494. *°6. 202-4. ἰυ. 61—82. δα, 363—4; π. 450—1; 6. 187—90;
τ. 603—4; φ. 357—8. ‘0. 191-4. * 6.795 ὅς, * v. 8B—go. Y τ. 535-50.
™ τ, 562 &c. * 9. 546—7; cf. 540; τ. 137, 525-6. » e. 103—6. ° τ. 303—7.
Ut. 309—16. 9. 9. 142 &c. f 9. 153 &e. δ 9. 545—7. h wp. 62—8.
lap. 11-24. © p. 35—8, 59-68. | ψ. 83--4.
APPENDIX E. LX!IX
(6) Her suspense arises from the fact that she could not, though she de-
clared Odys. was dead, bring herself to tolerate the step of remarriage, which
was certainly expected, perhaps demanded, by the social voice around her.
She had no right, in Greek society, to continue single. No speaker ever
supposes single life a suitable state for her. It is at any rate assumed that,
if Odys. be dead, (which, save the seer Theoclymenus, no one ventures to
dispute) marry she must. Telem. finds fault with the suitors, not because
they urged her to marry,™ but because they beset the palace and lived upon
him, instead of demanding her of her father. Nay, even her own view is"
ovr ἐκφυγέειν δύναμαι γάμον, and she pleads her husband’s parting® injunction
to marry when her son should be grown. Telem., too, undertakes to settle?
the matter himself by giving her in marriage, if, on his return from his tour
of enquiry, he finds that his father be dead; and, similarly, she pleads that
hed and her parents and kindred urge her to marry.* She could only hold
out on the supposition that Odys. yet lived and would return to claim his
own; on that view" she might still be the guardian of his rights,
εὐνήν τ᾽ αἰδομένη πόσιος δήμοιό τε φῆμιν.
Her state of mind on the whole rests in such an unstable equilibrium of
paradox as suspense is prone to produce. She is pertinacious in despair, as
shunning the slow agony of hoping in vain, but she cannot endure to cut
the thread of hope, and sever her existence from his memory, and cease to
be that living monument. of his loss which she had grown to be. Thus she
lives on expedients of protraction, and prays with heart-rending earnestness
for sudden death as her last resource. She declares* the day is come for
the fatal and hateful step, and then projects the contest of the bow, probably
with some dim instinct of delay, in case the conditions might not be ful-
filled, and a loop-hole of escape he thus left open. It is Pallas,‘ however,
who puts into her mind the actnal execution, which is closely connected with
the plot; as Pallas also suggests her visit to the suitors," ὅπως meracets
μάλιστα ϑυμόν. The crisis of her suspense, protracted so long beyond the
sufferings of Odys., freshens up the interest of the narrative. When she
sees him, the door has so long been shut on active hope, that she cannot
bring herself to believe it is he; her feeling is mere tagog’ (comp. “they
believed not for joy and wondered,”’ Luke XXIV. 41) shown in doubtful** and
troubled looks, hesitating speech, &c. Pallas later on assists* to her by pre-
senting Odys. in heroic youth, as when Telem. was to be convinced; but she has
made up her mind to one test and slights all else. She feels, the awful peril! of
the stake, so much greater for her than for Telem.; for, if she received an im-
* It seems likely that some special urgency on the part of her own rela-
tions to this effect is to be conceived as occurring during the absence of
Telem. from Ithaca, in 0. 16—23.
** She hesitates before she descends, ‘whether to enquire of him apart,
or at once embrace him’’, (although her words to the nurse had just expressed
disbelief that it was he) and when she comes into his presence she in fact
does neither; ᾧ. 80—6s.
m B. 52—8. Dt. 156—7. ° σ᾽ 259 ἃς. P B. 220—3. qt. 158—9
cf. 0. 16---᾿ἰῇ τ.’ 525-7. ‘*%t. 57ὴι.. ‘gyi. ὅσ. 160—1. * Ψ. 93
Y wb. 94—5- X wy. 156—63, cf. ψ. 106—7. Σ ᾧ. 215—7.
«ΝΗ
|
|
|
LXx APPENDIX E.
postor, the jewel of her heroic endurance would have vanished in the mo-
ment of grasping. ‘Thus she seems to harden instinctively against evidence
as it grows stronger. Her reply? tothe rebuke of Telem. for her incredulity,
harsh as that rebuke had been, falls as though she had not felt its severity,
She cannot accept or measure probabilities, she craves the strong irrefragable
certainty, and insists on the one token which is all her own, which none but
he could give and none but she could recognize, and which she knows must
be uppermost in his mind as in her own. This inscrutable credential given,
she lapses at once into assurance; but the previous pause is terrible: it is
the pang of returning animation after a living death of so many years. Then
she, as it were, passes at a leap from purgatory to paradise, she is absorbed
in her new life of joy, and his intimation of further wanderings in store for
him, amidst the fulness of present emotion, excites* but a languid interest in
her. She merely dwells in the brighter aspect of ‘‘relief from toils”.
(7) In contrast with other characters, The maid and matron, Nausi-
caa and Areté, besides their intrinsic moral beauty, offer in the picture of
their domestic felicity, the one hoping for, the other possessingand honoured by
a husband, the finest contrast to the forlorn despondency of the heroine. In
no other way could the grand lesson to be learnt from this poem, of the
moral superiority of endurance over enjoyment, have been so clearly set forth;
nor has all heathen antiquity such a bright anticipative comment on the
text, ‘‘Blessed are they that mourn, for they shall be comforted”. How
. wonderful in Homer is the deep-seated perception of this truth, side by side
with the cold abnegation of all prospect of a consolation future and im.-
perishable! Throughout the poem, too, we have a dark glimpse” constantly re-
curring of the guilt and fate of Clytemnestra; the opposite catastrophe of that
wedded pair is pursued for the sake of its moral contrast with that of the
hero and heroine — the more instructive, since Clytemnestra is not in Homer
the Titanic traitress drawn by Aeschylus, nay was once pure‘ in mind, but
fell beneath temptation.4 Helen too had yielded to sin, and what she snf.
fered she had brought upon herself. This is the burden of her gentle pre-
sence, and the point of her contrast with Penel. She is a valetudinarian in
happiness, whilst the ultimate bliss of Penel. is braced and invigorated by
all she has endured.
3°
TELEMACHUS.
In the character of Telemachus there are no strong or great qualities appa-
rent, nor any incident to bring them out or to mark the want of them. He is
the young man brought up at home under female superintendence, but πη οι
the repressive influence of a gigantic evil growing up with him there. He is
grave,* brooding, and melancholy; the thought of his father’ is the centre
* He once “smiles looking at his father”’ 2. 477, but on no occasion through-
out the poem is he said to laugh. As a young man, this is significant.
tw. 105 — 10. * wy. 260—2, 285—7. b a. 29—43, 298— 300; y. 248 &c.;
. 512 &e.; 1. 400—34, 439—56. cy. 265—6. dy. 264—75.
3. δα. 114—7, 135, 161—8, 220, 233—42.
APPENDIX E. LXXxI
on which his mind seems to turn. The arrival and counsels of Pallas, as
Mentes, open a new conception of life to him; he starts with a mecha-
nical obedience to the orders of Pallas, as Mentor, whom he follows like
a dog, quite different from the independence shown -by his father when con-
sciously guided by her, He is laboured in his attentions,” resolves well,
but through inexperience is weak, leans to despondency,‘ is plastic to advice
and answers the helm of influence. He shows the young man recently emanci-
pated from female control by constantly stating’ the fact, 6. g. ἐγὼ δ᾽ ἔτι
νήπιος ne, sometimes by patronizing® his mother,” sometimes by being rather!
severe upon her, and parading his independence, authority, &c., at any rate
by not indulging® much fondness of manner. He, however, preserves essential
kindness, and considers her feelings, especially as regards his departure and
return.’ He is shamefaced « before his seniors Menelaus and Nestor. He shows
the suitors and their adverse party in the council a bold front, maintaining his
rights as regards his mother and himself, but confessing his weakness and ap-
pealing to men and gods. His ‘‘maiden speech’’,! though laboured and self-
conscious, is not unworthy the son of such a father. So Nestor™ compliments
him. His reply" to Antinous is rather an exposition of his helplessness, well
_ meant, but weak. He rejects with spirit the insidious® advances of Antin.
and fearlessly denounces enmity against him and the suitors. His reply? to
his mother’s rebuke, spirited and, under the circumstances, just, is weak. It
is true he could not then disclose all the reasons for enduring, but his asser-
tion of his discretion in o, 228—g is rather in ludicrous contrast with the im-
mediately following plea, that the suitors drove his wise thoughts out of his
head, and the statement of 233 is not true. His general characteristic is,
however, a plain-spoken4@ and ingenuous simplicity. He shows something of
his father’s prudence in binding’ Euryclea by an oath not to divulge his ab-
sence, in shunning the delays*® of Nestor’s hospitable garrulity, in resisting*
the suggestion of Eumzus about telling Laertes of his return, as also that"
of Pireeus regarding the delivery of the treasures, and evinces a care for
his companions in case he should be cut short by the treachery of the suitors.
There is a perceptible improvement in Telemachus’ character after his inter-
course with his father has begun. Thus the suitors crowd about him’ and
speak him fairly, while they plot mischief, but he no more sits among
them’ as before. Nay his tone of increased independence* of mind is shown
at the conclusion of his stay with Menelaus, ἕἥππους δ᾽ εἰς Ἰθάκην οὐκ
ἄξομαι x. τ. Δ. We may observe in passing the easiness of his faith
(which of course no recollection of his own could assist) in the stran-
* Mr. Gladstone remarks that she and he “understand one another thor-
oughly’’, I should be inclined to qualify this, and limit it to the statement
that she thoroughly understands him.
bw. 118—24; π. 44, 79—84. “α. 235-43: y. 241—2; π. 7o—2. ἅτ. 19;
υ. 309—10. ° a. 354. ἴα. 346—59, 415—6; π. 73-τ7. 5 0. » 46, 401;
v. 131—3; gp. 344 ἄς. 88 B. 372-6. 1 mw. 130-4. * y. 22—4; δ. 158—60.
1 8. 64 ἄς. my. 124—5. Ὁ B. 130—45- ο B. 301—21. P σ. 227 ὅτε.
4 8. 130—45, 209—23; 0. 46—7, 64—6, 87—9. τ B. 372—6. 5.0. 199 ἄς.
ὑπ 147 &e. " @. 75; cf. η8--83. ρ. 65—6. ΜΝ ρο. όη---γο. * ὅ. όοο--8;
o. 8)--Οἱ.
LXXII APPENDIX E.
ger’sY assertion that he fs his father, as compared with the slowness of
Penelopé to believe. He still preserves? outward peace in addressing the
suitors; 88 a premature rupture would have exposed his father to needlesa
insult, perhaps have detected his disguise, and ruined their plan. Yet he
adopts? the bold tone of Odys., answers» Antin. sarcastically, as it were re-
paying him in kind, and, though ‘‘taking his cue’ from his father throughout,
especially in the restraint® which he imposes on himself at witnessing the
suitors’ violence, shows a collected mind, a power of acting a part, and a
self-command, which astonishes* others. His blunt and spirited speech® to
Agelaus is especially in point. It is a passage of six lines only, but every
one of them teeming with vigour and decision. He carries his point boldly in
point-blank contradiction! to the suitors in ordering the bow to his disguised
father — an incident happy and natural as coming a/ter his successful effort & in
bending it. So he orders the decisive ® measure of closing the doors, but makes
a slip, which his father would never have made/; on this he concerts" mea-
sures and suggests ready expedients. He even disregards, on a point of de-
tail, his father’s orders, acting! on his own judgment about the fittest mode
of executing the women, and the courage™ which he subsequently shows in
the field, extorts from old Laertes a delighted encomium®™ on his son and
grandson as rivals in prowess. There is a happy stroke of character°® elicited
mutually in him and Nestor, who concludes a long tale by a mention of
Orestes’ valiant deed; observing pointedly, ‘“‘how happy a thing it is for a
worthy son to survive a lost father’, and bidding him ‘‘be valiant too’. Telem.,
with the self-consciousness proper to him, rises to the hint and declares the
state of his home, but adds that to redress the wrong is too much happiness
for him or his father to expect: Nestor politely resumes — ‘since Telem.
has himself put him in mind — men do say that the suitors &c.,’’ and then
asks him, without further mincing the matter, how it was. The old man draw-
ing out the young is here happily managed.
4.
PALLAS ATHENE.
(1) It has not been sufficiently observed that this goddess is a character
in the plot of either poem, inseparable from its texture, and, in its relation
to the dramatic element, similar to that of Mephistopheles in Faust part I.
With one great drawback her character forms in the two pocms taken
together a more wonderfully varied but complete and sustained whole than
that of any hero or deity — even than Odysseus the hero of the tale. The
other gods, save Zeus himself, and that only in the Iliad, are mere golden
shadows when compared to her; they are thrown in, like special heroes, each
to have their ἀριστεῖα; but of her, the protagonist of Olympus, we never
lose sight. Her pressure is in every direction, like a fluid. One might
Σ ας. 186—2165. : σ. 405 δε. ay. 315 ἄος.; cf. π. 106—10. b 9. 397.
5 ρ. 490-1. 4 P- 120-4. “Ὁ, 389--44- [φ. 344—-75- ἔφ. 124-.
b gy. 381—5. χ. 154—6. ky. 101—4. ly. 462—4; comp. 443.
mo. 511---2. 2m. 514-5. °y. 195 &e.
APPENDIX E. LXXII
throw into the crucible Heré, Poseidon, and Apollo, besides the lighter forms
of immortality, without finding the metal to make a Pallas. The drawback
of the character is its want of the suffering element, and its total lack of
affection. We miss the grandeur of heroic endurance, and the touches of
deep feeling, however restrained, which give such a mellow fusion to the
Odysseus.
(2) The Pallas Athené, like other Olympians, is more properly infra-human
than superhuman, in spite of the wondrous moral energy which moves in it.
It must be so: a human being, with far-reaching plans, and means ready for
every end, with restraints removed and powers vastly enhanced, becomes de-
graded by the loss of equilibrium so caused. Thus on Olympus the morals
are on the whole impure*, the sentiments paltry, the motives ordinary — mostly
mere selfishness. For lofty character we must look below Olympus; but,
given the condition of beings with almost nothing to hope or fear, free from
change, or death, or wane, and with nothing to aspire to, and the resulting
character is such as Homer gives us. It was perhaps a more astounding triumph
of genius to succeed under these conditions than to draw the highest type of
man as imagined from experience. And on the whole, as her great march
of action in the Odyssey corresponds with the relief of the sufferings of the
hero, and as she thus borrows something of moral radiance from him, the
rigid harshness of her ethical form is mitigated. But indeed, it is in both
poems essentially the same type, and if a strong argument at this time of
day be needed for the unity of authorship of the two poems, I would commend
to the sceptic the study of Pallas Athené. For, of all characters ever drawn,
she is the most wonderful and the most difficult, though far from the most
admirable or the most interesting. Yet it will be found she is sustained
through a greater number of scenes, if we except the Odyssean panorama of
adventures, than any character in either poem. It is only by watching her
closely from scene to scene that we get a due notion of the tremendous
vigour which marks her — ker, but she is not feminine, save perhaps a touch
of spite; for, in all its main features Pallas’ character is utterly sexless. It
is moral and mental power concentrated on a purpose with only a tacit and
implied reference to a law — that of Moiea. So far as Moga involves a
moral element, Pallas’ character includes it. The moral side of her cha-
racter comes out in the action only indirectly — her favourites are model
men, Achilles, Odysseus, Diomedes. We note her indignation at wrong and
her championship of the right, but she has little hearty sense of sympathy
with right as such. Her character is without tenderness or tie of any sort,
it never owns obligation, it never feels pain or privation, it is pitiless*™,
with no gross appetites — even that of sacrifice,™* conventionally necessary
to a God, is minimized in it — its activity is busy and restless, its partizan-
* Gladst. II. 106—7, 133.
** As in Hector’s fall, for whose goodness, valour, and piety she shows no
spark of the compassion shown by Zeus, and whom she beguiles to his doom.
, ** Compare the succinct dismissal of the fact in y. 435 —6 ἦλθε δ᾽
Αϑήνη ἰρῶν ἀντιόωσα, with the gratified sense implied in Poseidon, in α.
25, 26.
LXXI1V APPENDIX E.
ship* unscrupulous, its policy’ astute and dissimulation> profound. It is
keenly satirical, crafty, bantering, whispering® base motives of the good,‘
nor ‘‘afraid to speak evil of dignities’’, beating® down the strong, mocking!
the weak, and exulting® in her own easy superiority over them, heartless® as
regards deep and tender affection, yet staunch! to a comrade, touched by a
sense“ of liking for iis like, of admiration for its own facultics reflected, of
truth to its party', ready to prompt and back its friend through every hazard,
--- the divinity of human society, in short, a closer impersonation of ‘‘the
World” than any Christian (not to mention heathen) poet has ever produced.
(3) Hence Pallas includes friendship and enmity, policy and war — but its
higher aspect, as Ares its lower — intellectual energy, artistic skill, readiness
amid surprises, a dexterous finger in every knot and tangle of circumstances,
& sure footstep on every precipice of events, all in short that man is and
does, as φύσει πολιτικὸς. Neither poem would be complete in structure, much
less consummate in brilliancy, without her, but in the Odyssey she is of the
fibre of the plot; perhaps the second character in the piece, not in regard, of
course, to interest, but to dramatic importance. And it is the more wonderful
that, having so much in common with Odysseus, she does not offend by repe-
tition. The subtle shading off and varying of her character in disguises, sel-
dom permitting its undiluted harshness to be felt, is one prime resource of
the poet. The secret of her interest is, that she works on the whole morally
rather than mechanically, through human motives rather than by supernatural
constraint. In the Il., however, she partakes less of the moral and more
of the violently mechanical, taking, in this respect, the colour of the poem;
hence in the Il. we sometimes feel that the characters are overborne by
her presence, and wish her operations away. It is probable that Homer's
hearers felt not this repugnance to ‘‘machines’’, as he used them. Why we
feel so differently from Homer's hearers on this point is beside the present
question.
(4) The precise features of her image are chiefly the following: — her policy,
under which head may be classed the craft, or κερδοσύνη, which imposes™ for
one’s own advantage on an enemy or a stranger, or artfully suggests" to him
conduct morally wrong, but serving a purpose of one’s own; her warlike attribu-
tes, the business-like personal energy which she carries into all operations, and
the extent to which she throws herself into the position of her protected hero; to
which belongs her confidential relation with Odys. and to a less extent with
Diomedes and Achilles, her unruffled tenacity of purpose, as in the overthrow of
Troy and in Odysseus’ safe return. The various detached physical effects which
she produces are, as in the case of other deities, the means of furthering her
-end, but they are more frequent, and their relation to a specific purpose is com-
* Thus, on Zeus’ permission of Heré’s request, Pallas tempts Pandarus
to break the truce, and herself arms for fight against Zeus’ orders. Jd. 7o—
103; 9. 420—4; cf. E. 827—8. See also note on p. LXXVII.
4. * 0. 36. b 4. 22—3; E. 845. © 0. 19—23. 4 @. 360—1; O. 137.
° X. 4031. [Β. 420—5; Θ. 377—8o. 8 XY. 409, 427. bh @. 372.
' 4. 390; E. 125—6, 808—10, 828; Λ΄. 279—80, 28s—go; v. 301. ἔν, 2g0—300.
ΣΎ, 313—5. * X. 168—85, 222—47, 276—7, 297—9. m X. 247. n A,
211—4; J. 93—103.
APPENDIX E. LXXV
monly clearer than in other examples. Such are the mental or corporeal gift
most needed at the moment, the breeze furthering the desired course, the mist
to conceal dispersed at the right instant, and the like. The patronage of all
useful and fine arts lies in her. Her epithets, besides a few common to other
deities and heroes, have a remarkable connexion with some such feature of her
character. Some few relate to her worship, or illustrate the character of her
worshippers. As regards her policy; the detailed examples are, her being dispatch-
ed° by Heré to stay the violence of Achilles. That she is apparently the messen-
ger and Heré the sender, is due merely to the greater reserve with which Heré,
even as Zeus, mixes with men in scenes of earth. Athené here exercises the gifts
of remonstrance and persuasion; these she exerts by promising him thrice as
splendid gifts thereafter, and by bidding him use only keen words, not blows,
Similarly in the crisis? caused by Agamemnon’s rash order she descends at
Heré’s suggestion to stay by her ἀγανοῖς ἐπέεσσι the return of the Greeks. She
makes use in turn4 of Odys., who is among men as she among gods. In the
passage preceding" her truce-breaking mission, one should notice that the fate
of Troy is viewed as not doubtful, but Zous has a lingering fondness* for the
Trojans, as well as a bye-plot of his own with Thetis, which Heré and Pallas,
too, it should seem, though less directly, grudge as interfering with the course
resolved on. Now, Zeus‘ proposes, not seriously perhaps, to thwart that course
wholly by a peaceful issue. This is too much for Heré, who, after long scold-
ing, while Pallas sits by in scowling silence, suggests the breach of truce by
the Trojans. Pallas, ‘“‘eager before’, accepts the mission and discharges it by
tempting the reckless Pandarus to shoot, suggesting the great renown and the
splendid gifts from Paris which he would so ensure. He is the “crack shot” of
the Trojan force, and a fair mark has perhaps a fascination for him. To
his vanity and cupidity Pallas exactly adapts the temptation. She next bids
him, with irony, ‘‘pray to Apollo for success’’, and herself then frustrates the
dart she had suborned. She has no attachment to the Grecks, as Greeks, con-
trasting herein with the ‘‘Argive’’ Heré, and has, in particular, no attachment to
Agamemnon, a rash, weak, and vacillating leader. She bids Achilles insult,®
though not slay him. Heré regards him and Achilles with equal favour. But
the moment Troy is captured, Pallas’ sows strife between the Atride, and
gives the armament a disastrous return.
(s) She is, however, marked as strongly by the absence of high-minded moral
sense. Let any one read Fénelon’s 7élémaque to appreciate this fully: nearly all
that Minerva, as Mentor, there is, the Pallas of Homer is not. There is not a
single noble or lofty sentiment ascribed to her in the poem; there is no trite mo-
ralizing, no prudish severity; there is (866 (2)) a good deal of Machiavellian*
morality. In the Ody. Mentor, is an older, graver eidolon than the brisk adven-
turer Mentes, but Mentor does not discourse ethical common-places. He tells his
young friend what to do, and when, but leaves him to gather wisdom for himself.
The want of moral tone arises from no want of occasion. There is, for example,
* The word is used in its popular acceptation, which some have lately sought
to show to be unfair towards Machiavelli.
° A. 194—5. ΡΒ. 156—6s. « B. 169—81. rd. 31-8. ® 4. 44-9.
‘ 4. 1§—9. u A. 196, 211. vy. 134—6.
LXXVI APPENDIX E.
no particle of indignation expressed against Aphrodité for her preceedings in I’.
That such a weak helpless creature ¥ should venture into a field of fighting men
is the presumption meant to be rebuked and punished by the spear of Diomedes.
There is utterly no sense of her being the adulteress deity and contriver of the
foul wrong which lay at the root of the whole war. Aphrodité never appears so
amiable, as when she throws her arms and slim robe, with only the mother’s in-
stinct, around her son, and is rudely hurt in defending him. The triumph of the
sexless Pallas is over her feminine weakness and maternal fondness, not over
her lust and arrogance. Accordingly, instead of any magnanimous reproof, we
have a passage of satirical banter from the so-called goddess of virtue. It
does hint, with a reminiscence of Helen's elopement, at her patronage of de-
pravity, but all moral tone is struck out of the rebuke: ‘“‘— she* (Aphrodité) has
scratched her hand on some Greek lady’s brooch, whom she was trying to induce
to run off with some Trojan.”
(6) Again in ®. 394— 433, where Ares and the same goddess are discom-
fited by her, the latter with a mere sportive touch, the prominent notion is
certainly that of mere power beating down inferior force or mere weakness; so
Heré flouts the weak girlish Artemis, and sends her sobbing to Zeus. The vi-
rago and the shrew triumph over the frailer and softer members of the Olympian
sister hood. We may suspect that an older legend existed, in which Pallas,
defeating Ares and Aphrodité, had embodied σωφροσύνη as superior both to
θυμὸς and to ἐπειϑυμία, or to brute vehemence of animal passion in both its
forms. As regards Ares, we trace it still in the line in which Zeus describes
Pallas as his usual chastiser, also in the above examples; as well as in the
famous scene where she drags him back and disarms him (see further under
the next paragraph). But the legend, if it existed, had let slip its second
lesson — had become as salt that had lost its savour — when Homer sung.
(7) Her well-timed resoluteness on the occasion’ of disarming Ares is worth
special note. She ‘fears for all the gods’’ on account of his disobedience:
having found by experience that Zeus was in earnest at last, and likely to
show* it very indiscriminately if provoked, she forces Ares back when start-
ing, reviles, confounds, and intimidates him in a speech of fourteen verses,
which, as a model of terse, sharp vehemence, is unmatched in Homer. In
this promptnesa on an emergency Odysseus is just like her. We may com-
pare his cudgelling* Thersites, his stopping the mouth of Anticlus® perilously
bent on talking, his seizing* and threatening Euryclea. Her own rebellion4
is the most difficult part of her character. But it only needs a retrospect.
Pallas is set from first to last on working out the fate of Troy. Zeus, sketch-
ing the future course of the war, says the city shall fall through her βουλαί.
She has no lofty horror of their guilt — so far as any motive! indeed is as-
cribed to her, it is the lowest one of which Homer takes notice — but she
will not hear of truce or trifling with the work of destiny, and does her best
to evade it. Thus, when Zeus prohibits action, she artfully® distinguishes be-
tween that and counsel. She seems to have a subtle knowledge of the cha-
racter of Zeus, who is apt to linger fondly over favourites while destiny waits,
W E. 330—33. ΣῈ. 421—5. Y O. 124 foll. τ O. 141. ἃ B. 265—8.
bd. 285—8. “τ΄ 479—81. 4 @. 357 [0]. 5.0. sg—z1. ' 2. 25—30.
8. 9. 36.
APPENDIX E. LXXVII
and whose marplot tenderness for the house of Priam, and dallying with the
tender mother Thetis, she® seems to contemn. Hence she drives unswervingly
the plot of doom against Troy, listens! to no counsel of delay, and her re-
bellion, shared by Heré, is only an essay on the temper of her father, — a
bold stroke by which several points in the game may perhaps he retrieved.
Yet sheJ at once sees exactly how far it is safe to dare; but is utterly calm,
and desists in silence.
(8) As regards the Ody., her policy is the mainspring of the plot, mov-
ing it forward at every stage; to show this in detail would be to abridge the
larger part of the poem. She guides at once the threefuld clue of Odys., while
wandering abroad, and of Telemachus and Penelopé, in his travels and their
joint endurance at home. The dialogue between* her and Odys., newly landed
and ignorant of his country, is the centre-point of the whole plot. Her politic
excuse for not having aided him, that she dreaded Poseidon’s wrath on his
own element, is worth marking.* Her calm and unimpasaioned admiration of
him paints finely their mutual characters. Her confidence in him, and his
in her, are the complement, not the iteration of each other. She is so much
the deity of means-to-end that we forget her practical omnipotence. She
turns up one expedient after another, finely economising divine power and the
interest of the plot. ἔνθ᾽ avr’ ἄλλ᾽ ἐνόησε Sea becomes a commonplace of
the poet. She keeps the insolence of the suitors from! subsiding; indeed her
influence seems to aim at directing it into wanton personal outrage against the
concealed hero, in order that his revenge may be more deadly. She yet in
the crisis of that doom®™ which she is urging, lets victory appear to waver,
though here the expedients to relieve the pressure of omnipotence are weak
and tame, It is too plain there can be but one issue. The suitors, for all
their warlike front, are obviously like sheep in a pen before a butcher and
his dog. Yet the treachery of Melanthius does what can be done for the
interest.
(9) From the Il, one example of κερδοσύνη, that of J, has been cited.
Soon follows her deluding the stupid" Ares. After first inspiring Diomedes
with the necessary μένος and ϑάρσος, she arranges for Ares to quit the field,
so as ‘‘to leave the issue to Zeus and avoid his wrath’’. She then, having®
left the battle too, anon returns with Heré (for Ares has broken the com-
pact). They shroud? their chariot in the mist and take‘ the form of doves,
for no other purpose save to delude him. She then, as she must at last ap-
proach him in person, puts on the helm* of Aides, and thus he is to the last
* So is the reason which she assigns for befriending him; (». 330 foll.)
“That is just like you’’, she says, after he had expressed his doubts whether.
she was not imposing upon him, “that is why I cnnnot abandon you amidst
your misfortunes, because you are so shrewd, so ready, and have your wits
about you so. Any one else would go home at once to see his family and
wife, but you will sound and prove her first.”” (For this meaning of ἐπητῆς see
Crusius s. v.) The confidential tone in this téfe ἃ téte is what makes these
words so forcible. We scan the features closely because the mask is off.
h @. 370—-3. | X.170—8. 1 9. 406, 420 foll. * v. 221-440. | 0. 346—8;
v. 284-6. “™y. 205. ® E. 3035, 6. E. 757—86. ° E. 776. 4 Ε. 778.
ΤΆ. 845.
LXXVIII APPENDIX E.
in ignorance that she foiled his spear and guided that of Diomedes, whom
he only thinks she had set on to the attack.
(10) The wole Ζολωνεία" is a κερδοσύνη, and Odys. is chosen for it as
being specially her favourite: she also in answer to their‘ prayers at starting
sends an omen of success, receives" the dedicated trophies afterwards, and
is on the way ‘“‘first invoked of all immortals on Olympus’’. Diomedes ad-
verts to an exploit of his father — not in detail — but’ from the mention
of ‘honeyed words’’ as preceding ‘‘ruthless (μέρμερα) deeds’’, we may assume
it to have been a form of κερδοσύνην which she had guided. So now she prompts
return at the lucky moment while success* is unimpaired by detection. And a
libation’ to her ends the episode and book. The death of Hector? is contrived
by a distinct κερδοσύνη. Among the more striking examples of this same
feature in the Ody. may be noticed that great variety of disguises? which
she both uses and confers. The rapid and repeated changes” in the form of
Odys., his enhanced majesty, and that of Telem.,* the beauty added to Penel.,4
even the mist® which she first raises and then disperses, all exemplify it.
Odys. himself dreads and deprecates! it. It is with him a foremost faculty,
but so is the distrust which completes and arms the character against® it.
So she misleads the suitors to facilitate Telemachus’® departure, and, later in
the plot, makes their own tones and features unwittingly convey awful por-
tents of their doom.'
(11) Her epithet in regard to this side of her character is πολύβουλος. Her
admonition, delivered in her own person and under no eidolon, to Telemachus
lying awake in Menelaus’ house, is a specimen of unscrupulous* insinuation. It
is directed to instil into his mind suspicion of Penelopé the good and prudent,
whom it represents as being on the point of being overpersuaded by the in-
fluence of her own family and the splendid gifts of Eurymachus. Thus she urges
the young man home to prevent the plunder of his house by his own mother;
bidding him place some trusty servant over it, as a substitute for that mother
now tainted by hostile interests. Our estimate of Penelopé will be the mea-
sure of the moral lapse in the tone of the goddess, see App. E. 2.
(12) Her close personal application to the work before her may next be
mentioned. When Pallas wants a thing done or said, she commonly does or
says it herself; thus she lengthens the night! for Odys. and Penelope on his
| restoration, and herself rouses the dawn at the end of it™. When a plan is de-
| vised with another, she commonly executes it: thus, she it is who actually gives
σϑένος to Achilles", though Poseidon with her had given him the verbal assu-
rance of it. Her personal descent to advise Achilles in the quarrel, and to Odys.
as a herald in the threatened return, her mixing wegis-clad amongst, and glar-
ing round on the Greek princes arming for war, her hurling herself, on the
errand of trucc-breaker, downwards from Olympus as a blazing star® — a
magnificent description — all exemplify this trait, This busy energy is no-
where more remarkable than in the opening of the Ody., where she startg
* K. passim. t K. 277—82, 2765. υ Χ. 462—4. 5" K. 285-6. © K. 290.
ΤΑ. 511. Y K. 577. * X. 247. “vy. 312. ΒΘ. 18-—243 ν. 3933 2. 176,
207—12, 451, 455—7- © o. 70; ἕξ. 229—30; ρ. 63. 4 σ, 188—96; φ. 358.
° v. 189, 352. * ¥. 324-8; 335—6. © ν. 330—5. ©” B. 394-6. ἰυ. 345-- 5ο.
Κρ. 16—26. lap, 242. ™ wb. 347. n @, 287; cf. 304. ° 2. 74—8.
. APPENDIX E. LAXIX
the plot by calling the attention of Zeus to the case of Odys. She bespeaks
the services of Hermes for one branch of it and undertakes the other her-
self. The latter is executed instantly, the other we find is yet unfulfilled
when the fifth book opens, on which Pallas recalls to the mind of Zeus this omis-
sion; but sec note ad loc. One term applied to her is ἐπίῤῥοθοςν or ἐπιτάῤῥοθος,
(applied elsewhere to Zeus or ‘some god’ indefinitely, where probably Athené
is implied) a ‘‘second”’, or ‘‘backer’’ of a champion, but including substan-
tial succour. Diomedes, his father Tydeus, and Odys., are those whom she
most regularly thus favoured, also Achilles on occasion. We may contrast
her. fiery ardour in fight with the more easy Phoebus,4 who shouts to the Tro-
jans from the city, or, after animating them for a while by his presence and
setting on Ares, retires to sit on Pergamus. She “goes among’ the host where
she saw them relaxing effort’. She drags Sthenelus*, the charioteer of Dio-
medes, from his car, and assumes his place. She answers one favoured war-
rior’s' prayer in mid-fight by the gift of strength newly nerved in his limbs;
and, when he is deprived of his whip" in the chariot race, she instantly re-
stores it. She makes a hero her representative for the time, as Diomedes,
or Achilles, and in a more sustained way Odysseus. Thus Achilles has the
segis thrown around his shoulders, his voice magnified by hers, his head made
radiant with a golden cloud and blazing fire. The same hero, when faint with
the fast of sorrow, is by her specially visited’ and supplied with the food of
heaven to support him in the fight. She sees on one occasion the Greeks ¥
perishing in battle and rushes from Olympus to rescue them. Nor are her
energetic efforts made to date from the Trojan war only. She “came* run-
ning as a messenger from Olympus’’ to bid Neleus’ party arm in the night.
Tydeus, too, of the preceding generation, and Herakles, were the objects of
her timely succour; she with Hermes’ convoyed the latter from Aides, she,
with the Trojans, raised a wall to protect him from a ravenous‘ sea-monster
pursuing him from the beach; besides which she bad repeatedly* (μάλα πολ-
λακις) preserved him in the labours imposed on him by Eurystheus. She not
only plots with Odys, and aids him in the struggle, but herself bears the light,
the portentous lustre of which amazes Telem., in the preparatory ar-
rangements,
(13) The department of war is hers in all the nobler part. Ares exults in
the onslaught and havoc, and slays and spoils the slain with his own hands.
To these two ‘‘belong* deeds of war’’, but to him subordinately. Pallas lays
low the ranks with her massive spear, but there is no corpse of her making
on the field. Pallas constantly inspires some favoured champion with μένος καὶ
ϑάρσος and overthrows by him. Ares never so. He scems to have no power
of communicating moral* qualities. He is more man than god and more brute
* There is a remarkable passage in P. 206—12, in which "Agng stands for
a sort of phrenzy of war, with which Zeus specially ecndues Hector, that he
may have one day’s glory before his last. As he arrays himself in the spoils
of Patroclus, this Ἄρης δεινὸς, ἐνυάλιος, enters into him (dv wey), but this is
not the personal deity Ares.
P J. 390; F. 770; E. 808, 828; ὦ. 289. 4 E. 485—6, st0o—11. ἢ J. 518—6.
s E. 787—882. ‘* E. 119—21. " WH. 386-90. ° Σ΄. 341-54. H. 17.
¥ A. 714. Y 1.6263 366—69. * T. 146—8. 4 @. 362. " τ. 33—43. “ 3. 516.
LXXXx APPENDIX E.
than man. His senses have no celestial range. Ajax Telamon, is a warric
approaching his type, but immeasurably superior to Ares in character. Ther
is an obscure personage, πτολίπορϑος Evva4, rated with Pallas as “a goddes
who sways the war of men’’; the same appears siding with Ares in de
fence of Hector, and leading® Κυδοιμὸς Ἐ who is “a glutton of strife’. Sh
hovers in the nebulous state between a personal deity and a mere allega
rized quality; is compared for illustration’s sake with Pallas, but in presence:
is a mere female shadow of Ares. The ordinary use, by Pallas, of the egis
which Phebus! assumes only at Zeus’ bidding, her assumption of the tuni:
of her father when arming for war, her breath® diverting the rush of Hector’
spear, her approbation® of a faultless battle-array, her implied' power ὁ
leading a warrior safe amid the storm of darts, that he might enjoy the sam
grand spectacle, all give a varied aggregate of functions which her epithet
faithfully represent. Thus she is φϑισέμβροτος, ἐρυσίπτολις, ἀγελείη, Anites
ἀλαλκομενηὶς, λαοσσόος, αἰγιόχοιο Διὸς ἮΈ τέκος or κούρη, ὀβριμοπάτρη, atev
τώνη. The last four titles deserve special notice. The ‘‘child* of Zeus th
segis-wearer’’, who seems to wear the same terrible' garment by some my
sterious right of her own, is marked by a special prerogative of Deity. Th:
repeated invocation to ‘‘Zeus™, Athené, and Apollo’’, and the delegacy of th.
same zgis by Zeus to Phebus only — that egis ‘‘which not even his ow1
thunder quells’? — invest these three with a profound relation to each othe
and an elevation of God-head above the average Olympian level; see furthe
under App. C. 5. Thus she is invoked first of all the Olympians by Mene
laus" in extremity, and is pleased at the preference shown for her.
(14) The epithet ὀβριμοπάτρη points in the same direction; “ wieldin;
her father’s power”’ is perhaps as near an approach to its force as we cal
make. With it couple Ἀτρυτώνη, (which may be a patronymic like “Axge
σιώνη, &- 319, “daughter of the a@zeurog’’) found always conjunction wit]
αἰγιόχ. Διὸς τέκος. These combined titles are found only in addresse:
to her, δι 762 (mar.). It is remarkable that Pallas is not diminished ia
dignity by any suffering or humiliation. She appears, however, as a membe:
of a lower triad also: acting with Heré and Poseidon not only in commo:
enmity against Troy, but in a rebellious® attempt against Zeus. Hephzstus!
had been hurled from heaven, Apollo? and Poseidon had served for a yea:
for hire with Laomedon, and by him been dismissed with fraud and threats
Ares® and Aphrodité bear the marks of special ignominy, and the latter iy
consoled by Dioné with the tale of the woes which other gods, including
Heré and Aides,* had endured. Nay, Zeus himself was once, it seems, only
rescued by Briareus from the durance to which Heré,' Poseidon, and Pallas
would have consigned him. But the prerogative of Pallas is entire. Zeus
indeed threatens her, but intimates at the same time his surprise at the hav-
* Comp. Aristoph. Pax, where Κυδοιμὸς is among the dramatis persone as
a minister of Πόλεμος.
ἘΣ Her epithet Διὸς ἐκγεγαυῖα is also shared by Helen.
dE. 333. © E. 593. ΓΟ. 230. 6 T. 439—40. ἈΝ. 127; P. 398.
4. 539. κ E. 738—42. 'y. 297. m Β 371; J. 288; H. 132; δ. 341.
O. 567. ° ‘A. 399—400. P A. 590—4. « ὦ, 440-57. τ @®, 402— 33.
5 E. 392—400. t A. 396—404.
APPENDIX E. ΤΧΧΧΙ
ing to do so. No one is allowed to insult or offend her with impunity; one
of the doomed suitors threatens her, meaning to threaten only Mentor; of
Ajax Oijleus it is said that he might" have escaped, though he had incurred
her hatred, but this seems only to mean, he might have escaped the death
at sea, had he not also offended Poseidon.
(15) Another remarkable fact is that no hero or woman is ever compared to
her. Agamemnon’ is on one occasion likened to three deities at once, of whom
Zeus is one. This distinction, perhaps, she shares with Apollo, (but then Apollo
enjoys, as has been shown, App. C. 6 (3). ἃ prerogative somewhat similar), and
with Heré, but Heré offers hardly a point suitable for comparison for hero
or for heroine. We may compare with this absence of direct comparison the
remarkable prayer of Hector, ‘‘that® he might as surely attain immortality,
and be honoured as Athené and Apollo are, as that day would bring woe to
the Greeks’’. The warlike prowess of Pallas and of Ares recurs repeatedly;
and to Ares warriors are repeatedly compared, but never to Pallas. The
counsel and wisdom of Zeus and of Pallas occur repeatedly, and repeatedly
— for it is quite an Epic commonplace — is a hero called “dil μῆτιν
ἀτάλαντος"; but no one is ever compared with Pallas in this or any other
respect. Once indeed she herself says that the sage hero was like her —
the words are most remarkable?*: ;
ἄλλ᾽ ἄγε μηκέτι ταῦτα λεγώμεθα, εἰδότες ἄμφω
κέρδε᾽, ἐπεὶ σὺ μέν ἐσσι βροτῶν Oy ᾿ἄριστος ἁπάντων
βουλῇ καὶ μύϑοισιν, ἐγὼ δ᾽ ἐν πᾶσι ϑεοῖσιν
μήτι τε κλέομαι καὶ κέρδεσιν.
This is to be viewed as the extreme mark of confidential condescension
on the part of Pallas, and the crowning encomium of all the praise earned by
Odys. It is well for Pallas to say it herself, for no one else could have said
it without presumption. Achilles, indeed, says in scorn he ‘would not wed
Agamemnon’s daughter even though her beauty shuuld rival that of Aphro-
dité, and her works equal those of Athené’’’; but then in beauty several
women? are in fact compared to Aphrodité, but to Athené none in any quality
whatever.
(16) There is a remarkable passage in which Achilles says ‘‘not even Ares
nor even Athené could pursue the wide breach of so great a conflict and do
the work of it’’. This seems to be not merely a hyperbolic description of
the battle, but a real limitation of the notion of power in a deity.
(17) Her gifts, besides that of warlike» courage and prowess instantaneously
swelling in heart and limbs, (or contrariwise her privation® of those whom
she was bent on destroying of all sense,) presence of mind‘ (ἐπεφροσύνη),
and the second sight which knows the gods, were those of manual skill needed
for civil and domestic life, the works of metallurgy® which she shares with
Hephestus, of carpentry, or building, and, for women, those of the loom,’ em-
broidery &c.; so especially gifted by her were Penelopé, the Phwacian® wo-
men, the daughters of Pandarus, ἕο. She wrought a πέπλον ἑανὸν" for her-
υ δι soz—11. ΒΒ. 478-9. * 8.540; N. 827. ἦν. 296—g9. I. 388—g.
* δι τά; @ 37; T. 282; &. 699. 2 7. 358. bE. 2, 124, 136; 1. 254;
K. 366, 482; A. 758; P. 569. ΟΣ. 3113 υ. 345- ἀξ, 437. © wy. 160;
£. 233. υ. 72. ἔῃ. 110--1. b EF. 735.
HOM, OD. APP, F
LXXXII APPENDIXIE.
self, and one for' Heré, and built the wall to defend/ Herakles from the
κῆτος.
(18) Her worship was probably established* in the family of Odys., who,
when at Troy, sets up a temporary shrine with offerings at the stern! of his
galley “till he could prepare a temple’. In Scherié her shrine™ was close
to the private estate of the king; in Troy her temple® was in the Acropolis;
and Theano,°® wife of Antenor, perhaps the foremost among the Trojan
matrons after the queen, was her priestess. The story of the Palladium
appears not to have been known to Homer. In Pylos? we can hardly doubt
that her worship was established, although the sacrifice4 described there is
extraordinary. In each of the poems occurs one remarkable passage’ which
connects her locally with Athens, where, in historic times, her Parthenon be-
came so famed. We may perhaps connect with this the fact that, in the
array of the Greek army, Odys.* and his Cephallenians stand next to the
troops of Athens.
(19) There is perhaps only one slightly traced touch of feminine weakness
recorded in her character, the fact that her grudge against Troy, shared with
Heré, was grounded on their common! disappointment in the judgement of
Paris; but this is so obscurely hinted, that we could not gather the facts, had
we not other sources of the legend. It is but justice to Homer to mark his
entire delicacy of reserve, where even our grave and grand Milton has spoken
broadly out (Purad. L. V, 381—2); introducing to serve as a simile, and there-
fore gratuitously, what Homer only distantly points at out of view. She and
Heré had both sworn never to rescue a single Trojan, and keep their oath.
(290) The personal epithets which pourtray her are few. ‘‘The" large-eyed
majesty’? and’ ‘‘white arms’’ of Heré are sufficiently distinctive, but save the
“olaring’”’ or ‘‘fierce”’ eyes of Pallas (γλαυκῶπις, ὅσσε δεινὼ, φαεινὼ)" there
is nothing beyond the “fine hair’? (ἠύκομος. ἐὐπλόκαμος 3), which is too
general for the purpose. Yet this of itself, though jejune, is distinctive. Our
sense of her personal presence is concentrated in those self-luminous eyes,
by which, it seems, Achilles* at once knew her. And indeed her constant
use of some εἴδωλον or other prevents the nced of outward personal recog-
nition, Even the woman?
καλή τὲ μεγάλη τε καὶ ἀγλαὰ ἔργ᾽ εἰδυῖα
is not herself, but an adopted mask. In the first and second appearances tu
Odys. after his return to Ithaca she brandishes, like Circé, a golden wand*
to effect transformation, but unlike Circé, transforms within human limits.
(21) There is just a touch of somewhat outwardly feminine in this epithet
ἠύκομος shared by Helen, Leté, &c., but it is remarkable that it is no-
where bestowed on her in any of the vast number of enterprises which she
conducts. There some moral, mental, or military quality moulds the epithet
of the moment. Thus unobtrusively, but powerfully, does the poet bespeak
our awe and veneration for this grandest of his supernatural creations. But
=. 178—80. JT. 146-8. κὶ 0.752. |'K. s71. ™ § 291. 5 Ζ. 297.
Z. 298—302. P A, 714. 4 γ. 417—63. ΓΒ. 546—51; ἡ. 8ο---ἰ,
4, 328—30. ' 2. 25—30. uA. 551 et passim. Y A. 55 et passim,
4. 206 et passin. * A, 200; ®. 415. * Z. 273. +*'7. 41. ὃ A. 199 —200,
» π. 1588. © vw. 429; π. 172; cf. κι 237—8, 293, 319. 4d Ζ. 273.
APPENDIX E. LXXXIlI
only in the repose of her own temple and that, too, only among the some-
what effeminate Trojans? and Pheacians® does the poet indulge in the
ἠύκομος aspect of her. It is to her weapons and equipment that we must
look to complete our portrait of Pallas Athené. The fearful egis,' thunder
proof ,® with its hundred tassels of massive gold flashing round Gorgo’s head,
its inwrought forms of Strife, and Might, and Rout, the χιτὼν of Zeus himself,
the weapon which laid low the ranks of heroes, the firm-knit hand which
snatched" the reins from Sthenelus and himself from the car, and which
hurled! the rock that felled the monster Ares, the mass* and weight which
made the axle groan beneath it, all come in to assist our fmagination of the
grand virago with her keen eyes sending out a glare of fire under her helm
and the long beautiful hair escaping from it — the noblest form of demon
ever drawn. Still grander is the plunge! from Olympus, when her form seems
lost in the splendour of her leap, and her track sheds fire-flakes, like a meteor
secn by mariners. Yet she enters™ the maiden’s chamber, ‘‘as a breeze of
air’’, or from some fair" or manly form escapes into a bird® of varied shape
and size, any from dove? to eagle seeming to serve her equally; and in the
Ody. seldom appears in her real person till the last grand crisis comes, when
she brandishes4 the wgis as the minister of doom. Here then we have the
broadest and most ubiquitous conception of Deity to which Homer could
attain. If his Phoebus Apollo in some respects rises higher, he is on the
other hand far more restricted and remote. It is the prerogative of Pallas
to mix to the utmost with human ways and means, and yet to be not only
powerful and crafty, but majestic too. Then again we have the profound
mystery of her origin. On this side we negatively perceive that Homer
received nothing and invented nothing. She is the sole daughter of Zeus
— all else as to where and how is tater legend, see App. C. 5. In the
lofty assertions of his and Hesiod’s poetry respecting her, 6. 9. ἶσον ἔχουσαν
πατρὶ μένος καὶ ἐπίφρονα βουλὴν, Theog. 896, we seem to have the very echo
of Holy writ in such passages as Prov. VIII. 22— 30, whilst in the depra-
vations of her character we have the accomodations of a lofty conception
to the crooked ways of human policy. Neither can we by the closest analysis
detect in the Homeric Pallas an elemental vein*, as we can in Zeus, witness
the Διὸς αὐγαὶ and the duxetéeg ποταμοὶ, and perhaps," but greatly obscured
by her passionate nationality, in Heré. If she is a mythical expression, it is
one not for physical but for moral agencies, as in the overthrow of Ares and
Aphrodite. And to the last her cultus resisted the degenerate specialties trace-
able in the Jupiter Pluvius, and the Juno Lucina. Ovid indeed says Faséti III, 821:
Hanc cole, qui maculas lsesis de vestibus aufers,
Hanc cole, velleribus quisquis ahena paras;
* Welcker, Griech. Gétterl. vol. I, p. 300, connects ᾿Αϑήνη, however, with
aldne, alo, as personifying the pure elemental fire; the ending -y»q being
as in τιϑηνη, ὑπήνη, γαλήνη; he compares Virg. Aen. VI. 747, aurai simplicis
ignem. ‘This may be so, but no existing from of myth indicates it,
em. 41. { E. 733—44. & D. 400—1. ‘hb BE, 835—6. i ᾧ, 403—8.
k FE. 838—g. ι 4. 74-8. m &. 20. πῃ. 20; ν. 222; J. 86. ° α. 320;
γ. 372 οἱ alibi. P E. 778. 4 χ. 297—8. τ OE. 347—51.
r*
LXXXIV APPENDIX E,
but these are merely provinces in the general territory of intellect. The stream
of her idealization narrowed, but it remained pure. Those who believe in a
higher than human Wisdom revealed to man, will not eusily dissociate from
it the highest and fullest, however comparatively low and sullied, conception,
which the human soul had previously entertained. And where our research
finds the furthest stepping-stones of evidence fail us, we should surely look
across the gulf in the spirit of faith.
5s
ZEGISTHUS.
Zgisthus, son of Thyestes,* deriving regal claims through him, he having
ruled after Atreus.» The epithet πολύαρνι, in contrast with the attributes of
regal sway, and with the moral grandeur of ποιμένι λαῶν, mark him as a
pastoral and unwarlike® character. If the Atridsz were young at Atreus’ death,
the transfer of the regale to him would be natural, and also the subsequent
reversion to Agam., whose superior personal qualities would also further his
preferment. But Agamemnon’s long absence and the royal birth and wily
parts οὗ Agis., if regal duties devolved on him during that absence, cnabled
him, we may suppose, to raise a faction in his own favour. The return
of Diomedes and Nestor seems not to have disturbed his usurpation. His
character and pursuits make it likely that he lived at a distance from My-
cené the capital, accordingly μυχῶ “Agyeos4’ is the designation of gisthus’
dwelling, and he is said to have taken Clytemnestra ovde δόμονδε," as though
a different locality from her own. This probably corresponds with the ἀγροῦ
éayatin,’ if the passage be genuine, “where Thy. furmerly used to dwell, but
where A°gis. dwelt tore’’, i. 6. when Agam. was returning home. It is natural
that the influence of gis. should have been strongest in that μυχὸς Ἄργεος,
where he and his father before him had dwelt; after the murder the people’
(i. ὁ. those who had not before,) become his subjects and he ‘was king in
Mycené’’, it is emphatically added, ‘‘for seven years’’, during which Orestes
was in exile at Athens and Menel. wandcring.» This relieves of some difficul-
ties δ. 514—37; although 517—8 have become transposed and should probably
find place after 528. Agam., after beating out to the open sea' from cape
Males, obtained an οὖρος and came οἴκαδε,κ i. 6. to the port of his capital,
where the oxozog! would most naturally have been stationed to look for him,
and prevent his slipping by and taking thought of resistance’’, i. e. rallying
his own supporters about him in his own capital, where he would at once
have found his son and discovered Agisthus’ treachery. The cxozog started
off to carry the news to the latter at his palace; then should come in the trans-
posed lines which show that the messenger went ἀγροῦ ἐπ᾽ soz. ἄς. This
accounts also for the ‘“‘horses and chariots’’™ used to convey Agam. to the
palace of Agis., and harmonizes with the narrative of Agam, to Odys.,® which
implies that he had ποῦ seen his son or household servants.° Nor is it incon-
sistent with the statement that Agam. perished ἐφέστιος, ἑ. 6. οἴκω ἐν ᾿4ιγί-
Dd. 8 δ. 518. b B. 104—7. © ¥. 250, 310. dy. 263. γι 272.
8.517-8. & y. 304-5. "y. 307-11. ἰ 8.516. * δ. 520. ! ὃ. 524.
m δ 533. 5 Δ. 405— 34. ° Δ, 430—2. Py. 234.
APPENDIX ΚΕ. LXXXV
σϑοιο,α since Agis. had invited him οἷκόνδε. τ It also accounts for the escape
of Orestes, and for the small retinue who were with Agam. being unable to call
any rescue, his troops being perhaps disbanded, his citizens at a distance,
and only supporters of ‘gis. near. Emboldened by success Aigis. and
Klytemn. set up their court at Mycené, but there was loyalty enough left
for Orestes on hia return to dethrone and slay them. The Homeric narrative
is thus freed, by a harmony of small circumstances, from much of the diffi-
culty which besets the dramatic versions of the story, and exhibits precisely
the sort of difference usually found between a tale told as it befel, and the
same when worked up for a poetic purpose.
6.
ANTINOUS.
(1) Antinous and Eurymachus are said more than once to be agyol μνη-
στήρων and ἀρετῇ ἔξοχ᾽ ἄριστοι: and of them Antin. is selected by Penel.
- as the one looked up to as leader,” and taxed by her with the contrivance
of the mischief. His is a hard coarse character, and his moral influence
depends on a mixture of qualities which imply strength bereft of all goodness
or shame. On two occasions of a spirited remonstrance by Telem. the rest
of the hearers are silent through shame or sympathy,° but Antin. has a reply
ready :4 ‘A, δέ μιν οἷος ἀμειβόμενος προσέειπεν. He is a man of brazen forehead
and tongue, with no sportive raillery, but a cold cast-iron sarcasm, and a
well sustained mixture of irony and impudence, which leave it doubtful whether
he is in jest ur earnest. He is logical and argumentative, avowing and justify-
ing by cool sophistry the suitors’ proceedings,° fixing the blame on the deceit
of Penel., and leaving Telem. to bear the consequences. In Penelopé’s pre-
sence’ he is mostly silent, while his compeer Eurymachus is specious and
complimentary. He does not seem to sue for favour, but in his one speech
to her is firm,® blunt, curt and even rude, as if his aim were not to win but
intimidate her into consent, Thus in the assembly he says point-blank to
Telem.," “we shall not go about our business till she marries ᾿ἡἀχαιῶν ᾧ κ᾽
ἐθέλῃσιν"; to her, later in the poem, he repeats the offensive speech,' and
points it with another phrase ‘Azamy ὅστις ἄριστος — by which he doubtless
means — though in guarded general language — himself.« With sardonic irony
he reproaches Eumeeus! for wasting his lord’s substance by bringing a beggar
to share the crumbs, as before he had cast on Penel. the blame of her son’s
household wasted. He pursues without, relenting for a moment, hig bitter jests
at another's want," and maintains a cold, fixed refusal while others give°;
which changes to arrogant impatience when the beggar’s appeal is pressed.?
Yet he never loses his temper, is satirical on his fellow-suitors as giving
freely of what is not theirs,1 implying, of course ironically, a zeal for the
substance of the house, is perfectly cold-blooded," and when he hurls his
4 Δ. 389. rR. 410.
6. 3 0. 629, φ. 187; comp. φ. 277—8. > π΄. 419—20. “ α. 381—2; B. 82—3
4 aw. 383—7; β. 84 foll. ° 6. 85—128. π. 418—33, φ. 311-9. 8 σ. 285—9°
h Bp. 127-8. ‘6. 288—9. Κ π. 419. le. 375—93 450—52. m B. 126.
2 a. 406—8. ° 9. 411—12. P ge. 446—9. 4 ρ. 450—2. re. 46ο- ι;
LXXXVI APPENDIX E.
stool at Odys. does not miss his mark as the others,* but strikes a heavy blow.
He rises into boisterous jollity at the prospect of the beggars’ boxing match;'
indecd it is he who gets up the whole affair, proposes the prize, and reviles
Irus, when faltering and craven, with taunts and threats... When he gives
Odys. the dainty as a ptize, he docs it in silent contempt,’ in marked contrast
with the courtesy of Amphinomus. The suitors themselves are shocked” at
his violence to the humble guest, and remind him, but to no purpose,* of the
gods ever, and often secretly present. His bearing towards Telem. is marked
by coarse cajolery when they are alone together, and by open browbeating
in public.’ He treats him with great tact as a mere boy still,? easily fooled
by a jovial manner and affected frankness; his ironical admiration and alarm
are transparently put on.* He has one style of address for him throughout.
In his first speech he says the gods are teaching him to be vpayoony;> this
term he fastens on him, and maintains® the scoff of that first speech as a
nic-name, or derisive style,’ throughout — Τηλέμαχ᾽ ὑψαγόρη, μένος ἄσχετε,
ποῖον ἔειπες. His last speech to Telem., feigning compliance, still harps on
the same idea of vpayoong.e It is observable that, as the firm element
in the youth's character is developed, Antin. shuns direct address to him, and
in the how-trial of g.' gives orders as if simply ignoring his presence.
(2) He is throughout the master spirit of the suitors’ faction. In the bow-
trial he gives the word to commence and fixes the order of shooting.« Noemon
applics to him when enquiring about his ship." His acute enquiries, prompt
resolve, and unscrupulous hardihood of resource, show the secret of his as-
cendancy. He asks whether Telem. had obtained the ship by influence, or
taken it by force, whether it was manned by his own dependents, or by volun-
teers picked from the people; and estimates the danger to their faction accor-
dingly.' He forms his plan at once and himself commands the λόχος to
intercept Telem., as is clear from Eurym. taking a temporary lead in his ab-
sence,* and from his use of the first person in his account of it.' His con-
tempt for Telem. is plain from his demanding only an equal number" of followers
to that taken by him, and by the banter implied (Ni. ad loc.)) in the expres-
sive term νασυτίλλεται." Finding the plot has failed, he is ready with another,
— to murder Telem. in his own island — detecting at once the danger® of
his denouncing that first plot to the people. He has great quickness of per-
ception. Seeming to discern that his hearers recoiled from this second
outrageous proposal, though they had not shrunk from his first design, his
tone changes, — ef δ᾽ ὑμῖν ods uvtog ἀφανδάνει x. τ. 2.,? and he artfully
reminds them that, to be consistent with such scruples, they ought to desist
from their whole policy of devouring his substance. With similar penctration1
he seems to divine that Penel. somchow knew of their plot, checks idle talk
as destructive of its success, and covers it, as if apprehending an eaves-
dropper, in cautious and general phrase’ — τελέωμεν μῦϑον, ὃ δὴ καὶ πᾶσιν
* 6. 396. ἱ 6. 35—50. uo. 58—87. Ἶ σ. 118— 23. ¥ ge. 483—7.
x 9. 488. Y B. 303. * B. 304—8. ἃ αἰ, 384—7. ba. 385. c B. 8s,
303. 49. 406. © v. 271-4. ἴφ. 85—91, 141—2, 176—80. ἢ φ. 141--2,
h δ 630— 7. ' δὶ, 641—7, 665 —8. k π᾿ 342— 50. ' 2, 363— 72.
™ δ᾽ 669; comp. α. 280. Ὁ ὃ. 672. ° π΄ 375—86. P π. 387 —93.
16. 774—5- "δ. 775-7.
APPENDIX E, LXXXVII
ἐνὶ φρεσὶν ἤραρεν ἡμῖν. He is fertile in resource under difficulties, will not
hear of failure, and accounts for it as only temporary, rebuking the weaker
mood of despondency in others.* His wrongs to the absent Odys.' have the
dark stain of ingratitude in return for kindness. He is no native Ithacan,
but the son of a refugee; without ties of kin, without any interest save his
own personal ends, and resembles Shakspeare’s Falconbridge in the un-
swerving selfishness and bold reckless bitterness of his bearing. He is hated
or feared by all. The blunt-spoken Eumeeus?® tells him an honest servant's
mind; Penel. and her women curse him as ‘‘like to black death’’;" and even
his fellows are shocked at him. His purpose at bottom* seems to peep out
at last in the speech of Eurym., as a design upon the sovereignty of Ithaca.
His sudden fall,’ with the goblet at his lips, by the first arrow from the bow
with which he had vainly hoped to win the prize, and the consternation en-
suing, is ἃ grand picture of poetic justice.
7.
. EURYMACHUS.
(1) This is a man more of words than of action. He, however, in debate
is hardly more than second, oftener taking up a conversation or turning it
off than starting a leading idea. Thus he continues the first debate between
Telem. and the suitors with profoundly affected moderation;* — ‘the gods
will decide, who shall be βασιλεὺς ᾿4χαιῶν, but Telem. might hold his own and
enjoy it, he deprecates — in utter falsehood — the notion of any one coming
to deprive him of lawful ownership and lordship, and then diverts the dis-
cussion by enquiry about the guest. He is specious and artful, offering as
it were a suggestion of a middle course; — Telem. should send Penel. to
her father, who would settle the matter by authority; adding less offensively
to Telem.c — αἱ rather than fo whom he talks — that “he thinks the nobles
will not cease their suit’’,4 which he speciously views as a rivalry for a prize
of honour.¢ Yet he uses insolent dictation, coarse imputation of motives,
and open threats to the augur Halitherses,! while he menaces Telem. in pas-
sing only, and in rather covered language. The design of ambuscade on the
news of Telemachus’ voyage" belongs wholly to Antinous, in whose absence
subsequently he assumes the direction of affairs,! but feebly and with no action
ensuing, since his advice comes too late. He can tell the foullest falsehood
with the fairest face,* and cloak his asseverations with a pretence of grati-
tude. He is courtly and personally complimentary to Penel.' on her ap-
pearance; and his flattery is happily turned™ to excuse the suitors’ persecu-
tion of her, as an inevitable tribute to her charms. Yet all this while he
has an intrigue with her hand-maid Melanth6;" and it is on behalf of this
worthless creature, — at any rate as if to cover her frightened retreat® that
he leads the conversation in banter on the seeming beggar’s bald head. He
5 g. 168—80, 257 —68. te. 421 — 33. " 0. 388—91. Ἶρ. 494—504.
*@. 483-)7, * 4%. 49-.53: οἷ, α. 385—6. 7 x. g—25.
7. 4 a 400—11, b β, 19 ¢ β. 200. d B. 198. © β. 205 — 6.
f B. 178—86, 192—3. 8. B. 190. © &.660—72. | 2. 346—s0. * π. 435—48.
lg. 321—2. m 6. 245—9. δ 6. 325. ° O. 354—S.
LXXXVIII APPENDIX E,
is the wit of the party,P and pursucs his raillery till somewhat sternly rebuked
by Odys.4 with a sort of challenge, on which he loses his temper,’ threatens,
intimidates by superior numbers, and uses violence, but only hits the un-
offending cupbearer.* He is goaded by mortified vanity and sense of shame
in the bow-trial, and gives over in despondency, which Antin. rebukes.
(2) He differs from Antin. in being a native Ithacan: this is hinted in his
mock offer to Odys., of placing him as a ϑὴς ἀγροῦ ἐπ᾽ ἐσχατιῆς," also in his
intrigue with Melanthd. It is significant that there were twelve suitors from
Ith.,” and twelve women of the household® with whom the suitors made free.
Of these the only pair named are Eurym. and Melan. Thus Telem.* refers
Theoclymenus to him as one ‘looked up to like a god by the Ithacans”’,
and as the man of highest mark among them. His appeal also ad miseri-
cordiam to Odys., ov δὲ φείδεο λαῶν oa,’ is more forcible on this supposition,
especially in connexion with his statement of the designs of Antin.” on the island
just before; but his proffered compensation, ἄμμες ... ἀρεσσάμενοι κατὰ
δῆμον, x. τ΄ Δ... puts the matter beyond doubt. A glimpse of manly spirit
irradiates his fall; his offer rejected, he stands boldly at bay.» His resource
and skill rise with the emergency,° but withont avail; save that, rebel and
traitor as he is, he dies the death of an Achszean noble, sword in hand and
rushing with his war-cry on the foe.4
8.
MENELAUS.
(1) Menelaus, the very opposite of the complex and many-sided character
of Odys., is pourtrayed in a few deep and simple lines. The poet has selected
for him the type of soul precisely most telling for the position in which he
stands, as the injured man in whose wrong the occasion of the whole grand
quarrel lay. He is of deep and tender feelings, most capable of all of ap-
preciating the happiness which had been snatched from him, and of feeling
the havoc which treacherous aggression had wrought in his household. But
sorer than his sense of private suffering is his consciousness of sanctity vio-
lated, and perfidious wrong defiantly maintained. Hence he betrays in no
thought or word, so long as that wrong is unavenged, his tenderness for
Helen. He alludes to her once only under the title of his κουριδίη ἄλοχος,
but only in a passage which wholly turns on his indignation against the Tro-
jans for the wrong which they had done him. He never utters her name
throughout the Iliad. Nay. his avoidance of it seems studied, for Hector in
propounding the challenge expressly speaks of her,» Menel. in reply says
‘let him die whom god ordains for death, and let the others separate with-
out more ado’’. When she comes forth on the battlements and reads the
features of the heroes, once her loving kin and friends, and names their
deeds and virtues distinctively to Priam, it is not easy to suppose that she
could have been concealed from his eye — that eye which, when searching
Po. 350—1; v. 361—2. 4 0. 366 - 86. Fo. 387 -- 92. δ 6. 396—8.
᾿ Φ' 245-55: 357—68. "9. 357—8. " π. 251. ™ χ' 454. * o $183.
Ζ' 54 “5: ζ. 40- 53. Z- 55. χ. 79—3- Xe 74—6- Z- 79 —88.
$. 4 Ν. 626. b I. gt. 5 Γ', 101—2.,
APPENDIX E. LXXXIX
for a trusty comrade up and down the line of battle, is likened to the gaze
of the eagle on his quarry — had he sought to mark and know her. Some
poets would certainly have seized the occasion and improved it by forlorn
raptures of affection; but Homer preserves a profound silence unmeasured by
look or sign. Menel. is absorbed in the one thought of Paris’ hateful pre-
sence, and the prospect of summary vengeance for his wrongs. His affec-
tions are for the time concentrated in his companions in arms. Hence his
evidently ‘great popularity with the host. Agamemnon fears that, should
he fall, the Greeks® would at once abandon the expedition, and cease to
strive for the right, when not embodied in its champion. Hearty love for
him is what binds those mighty souls in their joint purpose. Agam. doubt-
less is ever ready to over-rate a danger and anticipate an ill; yet his view
is doubtless in this case the broad and popular one. Men would begin to
think of their own wives and homes, and prefer them to rescuing the wife
of the dead, and kindling up the fires of a hearth that had grown cold. The
same probability may have dictated the counsel of Antimachus! to kill him,
when an ambassador with Odys. to Troy. .
(2) This gives Menel. an importance which is the key to his whole position
in the Iliad. Of no great prowess, and unheard of in debate, the poet has
assigned him that cast of intense amiability which is often akin to intellectual
inferiority. His strength and his weakness exquisitely harmonize, and the
poet has poured around him an atmosphere of moral beauty in which he moves
and shines apart from all. He is the man who loves so deeply and has been
wronged so foully, and whose affections are now devoted to those who toil
and bleed for him. No cast of character could have served so well as the
passive, historical key-stone of the whole piece; and in no other way, pro-
bahly, could poetical economy have made Menel. so effective in every scene
in which he mingles throughout the greater poem, and yet have left so large
a sphere for the more active and towering qualities of the grander chieftains.
In the Ody. the finishing stroke is given to his portraiture with the rare and
unerring felicity of the great epic master. He reigns in a gentle melancholy
of chastened enjoyment; tempering the joys of home with a brooding and
regretful love for gallant comrades lost through him, a man of world-wide
wanderings and many tales, of sobered piety and generous uncalcalating
friendship; and in tranquil assurance of a blissful state, to which the favour
of the gods would call him, with his Helen, in ‘‘the plain of Elysium at the
furthest ends of earth’’, where nothing that could chill or ruffle should molest
them more.
(3) Among his qualities may be first noted in detail his strong vein of
practical piety.
This* is the basis, generally, of whatever is amiable or noble in Homeric
character. He not only® dictates the religious ceremonial to solemnize the
conditions of his single-combat with Paris, but, when about to hurl his lance
on the evil-doer, he puts up a special prayer commending his cause to Zeus,
as the cause of all that was most sacred in Hellenic eyes, ‘“Subdue éhou
* See some valuable remarks by Mr. Gladstone vol. II. § vii, p. 426.
4 P. 674-8. 5 4d. 170-5. ' A. 138—41. & I. 103-5.
XC APPENDIX E.
him’’,» he prays, ‘‘by my hands, that others hereafter may dread to violate
hospitality and outrage kindly ties’’; and when his sword breaks in his hand
he “looks up to broad heaven’’ and groans out a prayer of remonstrance
with the god who had not avenged the right. This is remarkable, for the
words usedi οὔτις osf0.... ὀλοώτερος ἄλλος occur twice elsewhere; but in one
placei they are addressed to a present injurer, in the other* they have the air
of a mere apostrophe to Zeus, unconnected with prayer, in a speech addressed
to the disguised Odys. by his friendly hind Philctius, We compare with them
the address! of Achilles to Apollo, ϑεὼν ὀλοώτατε πάντων, but there, too, Apollo
is present on the field. Coupled with his upward look and with his previous
prayer, the fact that this plaintive™ outcry (@pméev) is to the God whose
presidency over hospitable ties is stated more* than once, has great signi-
ficance. He seems to feel and speak to a present deity. We may compare
the final words with which he signifies his will to accept Hector’s general
challenge, avrag" ὕπερθεν “νίκης πείρατ᾽ ἔχονται ἐν ἀθανάτοισι ϑεοῖσιν.
He could not be ignorant of the risk he ran; but he thinks only of the
honour of the Achzean name and leaves the rest to God. His very boast® over
his fallen enemy is sublimed into an address to Zeus, remonstrating with the
permission of iniquity so long, and arising from his own reflection that the
Trojans set at nought the wrath of Ζεὺς &elvytog when they injured him.
In the chariot-race, as at the challenge, he dictates the solemn ceremonial
which is to add awe to the oath. In this he begins by an appeal to man
but ends by one to God. His first thought is to empancl, as it were, the
chieftains present and call upon them to attest and adjudge, his second to
\ adjure the defendant, and leave upon his conscience, in case of his persisting,
| the weight of his wrong. In the same tone of piety he checks his young
guest at once, thongh the remark, not intended for him, reachedP his ears
by accident only, when Telem. compares the Spartan palace to that of Olym-
| pian Zeus, reprehending the notion of mortal man4 contending with the
God whose abode is immortal. Compare also his own account of his wanderings;
!
he had not sacrificed’ due hecatombs, and the gods would have their in-
jaunctions** remembered. And when questioned by Eidotheé, he at once makes:
* The men who are φιλόξεινοι have also the voost ϑεουδὴς, and" πρὸς
Διός εἰσὶν ἅπαντες ξεῖνοι, cf. Ζηνὸς"... ξεινίου.
** Doubts have been raised about the latter verse which marks the sentiment
, 28 Menelaus’; compare with it Diomedes’ words to Pallas, ἀλλ᾽ ἔτι σέων μέμνημαι
ἐφετμέων, E. 818. The right interpretation seems to be that, in the hurried
and ill-advised break-up of the armament after victory, much neglect of
sacred duties took place. In the shock of joy at recovering Helen, and the
sufferings of friends on his account being ended, even he might have for-
| gotten the gods. The émetpal were probably some warnings given by Calchas
or such like seer. Of course it is not told us what they were. for we have
ἰ not a professed history of the war in foto. Yet as Pallas and Heré had pro-
mised him triumph and had kept their word, a special recognition was doubt-
less due. Zenodotus rejected the v. I can sce no reason for his scruples.
br. 350 -4.. iT. 36s. ji Ψ, 439. kK y. 201. 1X15. ™@ I. 364.
n H. 101—2. °o N. 631—8. P δ. 70, 76. 4 δ. 78—9. r ὃ. 3523.
» δὶ 377—8. ἐ ξι 121, & 576, «. 176, ν. 202. ug. 207—8, ξ. 57—
YN. 624—5, δ. 283—4, 389, 4. 270—1.
APPENDIX E. XCI
up his mind that he must have transgressed against the immortals, and wants
only to know’ whom he must appease.
(4) His feelings for his comrades. These are in the Il. ever uppermost
yet not superficial. It is because the events around him bring out what is
in him that he so perpetually evinces them. There is constant occasion to
bewail the loss of the dead, to haste to the rescue of the emperilled, to admire
the fortitude, and sympathize with the toils of all. Amidst the host, he, the
man for whom all has been and is being endured, duly feels it and ‘‘loves
himself last’’. It is the first feeling which rises 1n his mind and breaks from
his lips when he hears Hector’s proposal for his combat with Paris, not that
he may now win Helen back by his own sword, but that now the Argives
and Trojans have ceased their strife, ‘‘sinco* ye have suffered’’, he adds,
‘‘so much in my quarrel’’. So, while the cares how to meet on the morrow
the foe, now presumptuous in his advantage, keep Agam. from sleeping, the
simpler thought exercises Menel.,’ μήτι πάϑοιεν Agysior, tol dn ἔϑεν εἵνεκα
πουλὺν ἐφ᾽ ὑγρὴν ἤλυθον ἐς Τροίην. It is characteristic of him that he
first hears? the voice of Odys. when hard pressed in fight, knows it by the
sound, and conjectures the exact circumstances of his position cut off and
alone amidst hostile numbers, The few lines of this urgent speech end with
dwelling on the ‘‘great regret’? which would ensue among the Greeks for
the loss of such a man. Similarly his first reflection on seeing Patroclus dead
upon the field is,4 ‘the lies there in defence of my honour’’, and when
momentarily quitting the melée around Patroclus’' corpse to summon Anti-
lochus, he charges» the Ajaces and Meriones to stand fast, ‘‘now’’, he says,
‘‘should one remember the merit of our hapless friend, for, while he lived
he well knew how to be tender to all’’.
(5) It is evidently the death of Patroclus which draws” out his ἄρι-
στεῖα. His feelings are bricfly summed up in the simile* with which that
portion of the poem opens, — that of the young dam standing forlorn over
her first-born offspring dead. We may contrast it with the different simile4
for Ajax sharing the same situation, that of the lion guarding his cubs in the
forest depths, scowling at the huntsmen who beset their- path: ‘‘so° Ajax en-
circled Patroclus, but,’’ the poet adds, ‘‘Menel. stood on the other side,
cherishing in his bosom profound sorrow’’. Patroclus had come out to aid the
war waged on his account, had effected a great rescue, and then through his
own overweening gallantry had fallen. This is why Menel. is so deeply stirred;
‘‘his! death’’, he says, “has touched me sorely’’. Hence Pallas appeals to him
on the most assailable side, when she proclaims, ‘‘that confusion and shame
will be Ais, if the friend and comrade of Achilles be torn by Trojan dogs”’.
This is a thought unendurable to him, and under its influence he returns
again and again to the charge, with the pertinacity® of the gad-fly, ready,
if driven off, to sting again with unappeased longing for blood. We may
notice also his feeling® of the heavy news with which he charges Antilochus,
and the tender expressions which fill the short speech in which he delivers
the tidings. Nor can the detachment of Antil. divert him from his chosen
ν 0. 380. ΙΓ. 99 — 100. Υ K. 25—7. * A. 463—71. * P. 92.
b P, 669—72. “ P. 45: 4 P, 133-6. 4ΡὈ. ι3)-τὸο. ' P. ςε6--ο, 564.
8 P. 570—3. h P, 685—91.
XCII APPENDIX E.
post over the body of Patroc.; he will not supply the place which Antil. ha:
left; he sends the other son of Nestor, Thrasymedes, thither, and repairs
at once to the point of fiercest onslaught, and it isi by his and Meriones
hands that the corpse is at length borne out of the struggle. Further, wher
evidently greatly provoked,* in™ the disappointment of the lost chariot -race
and calling! on gods and men to witness his right, he remembers, wher
mollified by concession, the noble services" of Nestor and his sons, one Οἱ
whom, Antilochus, is the offender at the moment — ‘‘thou hast toiled and suf.
fered much for me, and thy gallant father and brother’’ — and as the though:
masters him he at once resigns® the prize to retain which he was so arden!
just before. The same feeling shows itself in his enquiries? of Proteus re-
garding the fate of those comrades whom he left, when he set sail home.
wards from Troy. Nor does he, though heart- stricken with the news‘ of his
brother's fate, omit to follow’ up his enquiry to the end. .
Amid the tranquil joys of home the painful thought of companions loved
and lost seems the one bitter which lingers in his cup. His wealth* and
splendour was hateful to him when he thought of his brother's dreadfu!
end — “ah! would that he might forfeit‘ wealth and splendour if he could
but bid his well-loved comrades live again!’’ But amid this ebb and flow οἱ
sorrow’s tide — for no one" can for ever weep — his grief brims most deeply
over when he thinks’ of Odys., who for him had borne so much, and whose
toils and wanderings were not yet ended, unless, haply, in an unknown grave.
‘“‘As I think of him’’,¥ says he, ‘‘I loathe my sleep and food”’. Under the
same gencral head comes also
(6) His constancy. This trait of character™ is presented as the one by
which he is distinguished in the enumeration of the Catalogue, like the counsel }
of Odys., the tactics? of Menestheus, and the personal beauty of Nireus.
There Menel. is emphasized as ‘‘relying on his own zeal, and chiefly bent
on avenging the unrest and sighs of Helen’’. Athengeus (I. 19) has preserved
a tradition in accordance with the silence of Homer, that Menelaus alone οἱ
the Greek chieftains had no concubine at Troy. The son Megapenthes,® born
ἐκ δουλῆς, (though the verse has been marked as suspicious see App. A. 7, (1),)
as he was of age to marry® when Telem. reached Sparta, could hardly have
been younger than Telem. himself, and must therefore have been born before
the war began. This constancy to Helen becomes constancy in the line of
battle, and conspicuously maintains him in the van when the most powerful
champions of his side, save Ajax, have withdrawn wounded from the fight,
and makes him shine more brightly amidst the reverses and disasters which
precede the return of Achilles to the field,
(7) His forgetfulness of self is a corollary of the foregoing. The
volunteering’ to meet Hector on behalf of Greece and to save her honour
is an example, and it may be added that he was fully bent on it, for he was
bracing his armour on when his brother interposed. In an earlier book when
i P. 7o2—7. ij P. 735—46. k δ’, 439—41, 567. ' BP. syo—8s. @ WD,
573-5. ® BP. 607—9. ° B®, hog—10. P ὃ, 486—g0. q δ 5ς38---4ο.
τ δ. ς51--3. " δ. gi—3. ι δ, 97—9. u δὶ 100—3. ἡ δ. 104—10.
Ὗ δ. 105—6. Σ B. 589—90. Y B. 636. t B. 553—4. 4 B. 673—4.
Dg. 12, “δ. 3-4. 4Η. 93-5.
APPENDIX E, XCIII
he was wounded by the foul arrow of Pandarus, it is said of both Agam. and
himself @¢ynoev,* each “‘was shocked”; but Agam. volubly deplores the possible
consequences in 27 lines, Menel. in 4 bids him not alarm the army, for the
shot had barely pierced his accoutrements. When Machaon the surgeon, whose
presence he does not ask for, arrives, he is found still standing in the midst
of his comrades, and seems to be fighting’ again immediately afterwards,
In the night-colloquy of chiefs which introduces the Dolongia, it is Menel.
who first makes the suggestion’ of sending a spy to observe the enemy.
Agam, takes" no notice of the hint, but when the same idea! is seized and
expanded by Nestor, it is found at once acceptable. Here it is observable
that Menel. claims no credit for the original suggestion made previously by
himself, but, when Diomedes has volunteered as principal, merely rises among
the rest to offer to accompany him. His unobtrusiveness draws the unde-
served) censure of Nestor, as though it were want of energy, on which Agam.
at once does him justice — “his apparent slackness and backwardness arise
from no such cause, but from a wish to act under authority and from wait-
ing for the word of command”’.
(8) His brotherly alliegance claims notice next. It is the earliest! trait
which the Jl. opens to view, where in the first council he comes αὐτόματος,
‘‘for he knew his brother, how much trouble he took’’. He, accordingly,
after™ a hard fuught-day and wakeful night, is first stirring, and goes forth
to visit his brother whom he finds not yet fully dressed and armed, and from
whom he asks" and receives with simple deference precise directions as to
his movements. So when Diomedes°® is foremost in fight, the Atride forming a
pair are next, and so Agam, generously shields him, as has been seen, from
the wrongful imputations of Nestor. He appears in fact though not in form
to fill the place of θεράπων tu his brother. Of course this does not prevent
his having also a ϑεράπωνν of his own. The loyal devotion of Odys. to his
chief has been dwelt upon. That, however, seems to have been a matter of
principle and far-seeing discernment. Yet Odys. haa necessarily an indepen-
dence of action and judgement incompatible with the true therapontic position.
The devetion of Menel. springs from brotherly affection. The Atride, when
on foot,? combat together, just as, Achilles® says, he and Patroc. had done,
and when they are so, Agam. guides and directs, and Menel.* acts only as
second, and so Agam. speaks of him as ἐμὴν ποτιδέγμενος ὁρμήν. Hence
Telem., on hearing of Agamemnon’s fate, at once" enquires ‘where was
Menelaus?’’ And Nestor approves’ the question. The utter abandonment to
his outburst¥ of sorrow, which he himself describes, on the news of Aga-
memnou's death, is a picture fraught with noble tenderness, and bespeaks
how the impression of that dismal scene had sunk into his sensitive heart.
And on the foreign shore, where he had heard the tidings, he at once honours
his brother’s memory* with a cenotaph, fy’ ἄσβεστον κλέος εἴη. On one
occasion this brotherly deference was abandoned’ and ‘Pallas sowed strife
between the Atride’’. It was when victory intoxicated them, and when Menel.
ἐ 4.148 foll. £ Z. 37. ἐ Χ. 37—8. ΒΒ see K. 43—59. ᾿Ι K. 204—17.
} K. 114-8. k K. 120—3. ' B. 408. m K. 25—35. 2 K. 6o—3.
° @. 261. P Ζ. 53, A. 488. 4 Z. 53. τ 2. 341-2. * Z. 61-3. |' Δ. 123.
uy. 249. ‘ y. 255—61. ¥ δ. 538—40. x δὶ 583—4. Y y. 136.
XCIV APPENDIX E.
had at length recovered his Helen. That in such a reunion his usual de-
ference for Agam. should have been infringed is not unnatural, Menel., we
find, was bent on instant? return. His home-yearning, we may suppose, was
at the moment an overwhelming impulse; thus he neglected the gods, parted
in strife from his brother to meet no more, wandered far and wide, and came
home too late to avenge him, the last,* save Odys. alone, of all the princes.
(9) A general tenderness of disposition. This is exemplified in the
case of Adrastus,> whom, when prostrated in the melée by an unlucky acci-
dent, Menel. is going to spare, being moved by supplication. Seeing this,
Agam.¢ with hot haste interposes, “αὐ πέπον, why care for men? ἄς.) re-
minding Menel. of all the wrong the Trojans had done him, and hardening
his mind against mercy. Menel., accordingly, pushes away the suppliant from
him, but leaves the ungrateful task of slaying him to his brother. Now, it
is clear that the poet regards Mcnel. as foolishly weak, for he describes to
Agamemnon’s advice as “ἃ word! in season.”’ And certainly no other hero
on either side, unless perhaps Achilles,° would ever have spared a suppliant
out of mercy, though he might have been tempted by a heavy ransom. It is
clear, however, that it is mercy and uot lucre which prompts Menelaus, and
which his brother rebukes. Homer thought mercy to an enemy foolish, which
we think right, but he made mercifulness a consistent purt of this hero’s
character, although it could not consistently have entered into that of per-
haps any of his fellows. The poet’s conception is nobler than he himself
could be conscious of, and rises by the very fact of a higher moral standard
being applied.
(10) The same gentleness of bearing! is shown in his rescye of Odys. when
surrounded and alone. He takes the wounded comrade by the hand and leads
him out of the fight. So at home he tenderly dwells® in retrospect on the
devoted services which that hero had rendered, speaks of how he would have
transported him, people and all, to Lacedsemon, and given him there a city
of his own, where nothing but death should have interrupted their delight in
each other’s society; and at the thought of the happiness so lost to him by
the envious decree of the gods, breaks out and weeps aloud with a depth of
earnestness which carries all the company in tears around him. Nor are
they recovered from the abandonment of sorrow by any words of his, although
the senior and the host, but by the much younger Peisistratus,® who, though
himself remembering! his own share in the havock of war, yet interposes a
well-timed protest against unseasonable indulgence in such feelings. Menel.
courteously accepts the reproof, eulogizes* Nestor in his age, ‘‘growing old’? —
as if in contrast with his own almost childless state — ‘‘with wise and warlike
sons around him’’. In the same spirit of delicacy he, when touching! on a
questionable act of Helen, which had endangered the final success of the
Greeks’ last stratagem, and, but for Odys.,™ would have caused the ruin of the
enterprise, says, ‘‘some deity who favoured the Trojans must have prompted
her’’, as though to anticipate any pain the reminiscence might have caused.
He shines most signally in his own house: the perfect gentleman, the tender
γ. 141—5, οἵ, δ. 352—3. “ y. 311; cf. 240-57; α. 286. b Z. 45—S4.
Z. 55- 65. 4 2. 62. ὁ ᾧ, 101 2. CA. 487—8. Bd. 170—8s.
bh δι 190—5. id. 187. k δι 204—11. 'd. 274-5. ™ ὃ, 285—9.
APPENDIX E. XCV
friend and husband, the host who studies the welfare and comfort of his guest
with a considerate solicitude, are all met in him. He forms in this a fine
contrast with the somewhat" over-bearing, jovial hospitality of old Nestor in
the previous book. He is indignant at the question® of his ϑεράπων, whether
the guests are to be received or sent further. And here again there springs
to his lips an expression of grateful remembrance for all the hospitality which
he had himself received in his roaming voyage, till Zeus had given him rest,
He discerns the rank of his guests, though not knowing who they are, and
expressesP his genuine admiration of their gallant appearance. He seems to
make the guest his study and to forget self to an extent unmatched else-
where.
(11) On Telem. declining? his offer of a chariot and team as a present,
he is only pleased, and says," ‘‘well then, I will change this for something
else, for well I can’’. His being up before his guests and coming forth to
meet them is of a piece with his sentiment, which, in Pope’s version of it,
has become proverbial as expressive of the duties of the host, ‘‘welcome the
coming, speed the parting guest’’, but which is even more pointed and weighty
as Homer puts it.* ‘‘I cannot bear the host who, while he is kindness itself,
is really doing the most unfriendly thing (in pressing the unwilling): — better
all things in due moderation. It is just as bad of him who hurries off the
guest who has no wish to part, as of him who detains the one who is eager
to be off.’ And beyond the usual offer of thet banquet and the parting pre-
sent, he urges a further and unusually friendly offer," “if you wish to make
the tour of Greece, let me accompany; I will horse your chariot and guide
you to all the cities’. On the offer being decisively declined, he without a
word’ bids his wife and servants prepare the banquet, and busies himself
about selecting a present the most splendid and most precious he possesses,
There is an air of ceremonial’ and punctilious courtesy about the presen-
tation which is very characteristic, and together with the preceding speech,*
which commences with a solemn commendation of his young guest to Zeus,
is probably meant to mark the man. Helen with less formality adds at the
end of her brief address, ov δέ μοι χαίρων ἀφέκοιο οἶκον ἐνκτίμενον καὶ σὴν
ἐς πατρίδα γαῖαν. The parting ceremonial includes a message of loving
remembrance from Menel. to Nestor., with once more a glance back at the
battle-fields of other days.
(12) Yet he is withal of quick temper — a characteristic often allied with
great amiability and generosity of soul. Thus he is kindled’ at once when
Antil. shows signs, as he thinks, of over-reaching him in the race, and tartly*
tells his seneschal Eteoneus, in reply to a question reflecting on his hospitality,
‘you used not to be such a fool’’.
(13) His sense of right prevents this predominance of feeling from issuing
in weakness, It is as constantly present to his mind as the toils and suf-
ferings of his comrades. Thus he rejoices* at the sight of Paris in the hostile
van, ‘‘for he said to himself that he would punish the wrong-doer’’. So in
both his addresses to Zeus he refers expressly to the same vengeance due,»
Ἀγ, 346—5S5. ο δὶ 31—6. Pd. 62--4. 4 δ. 601—8. τ δι 61τι---2.
3. 0. 69—73. ' 0. 75—9. " 0. 8ο--2. Υ 0. g2—104. Ὗ Oo. 120—4.
0. 111—Q. Y W. 439—41. t δι 31—2. ar. 27—8. b I. 351—4.
XCVI APPENDIX E.,
as likely to deter similar transgression and to® recompense wickedness, In
the heat of a later battle-field, having slain an enemy, he takes occasion to
denounce? in set terms the Trojans, as all guilty of his wrong as well as
regardless of the wrath of Zeus, and points out that they had been well
treated first® by Helen, which makes their crime the blacker. His feelings
then work him up to a remonstrance addressed to Zeus for being so indulgent
to transgressors, “for all these things are’’, he says, “ἐκ o¢0’’. The same sense
of wrong in the abstract, and of personal injury allied to it, are shown in
the dispute after the chariot-race. He is delicately scrupulous in the enforce-
ment of his demands, ‘‘No® one shall say he has overborne the right by
false pretences’’, and, in the midst of his call upon his fellow® βασιλῆες, to
decide between them without partizanship, suddenly prefers making the de- ᾿
fendant’s own conscience! umpire in the case, and tenders him an oath to
purge himself of guilt. There runs moreover a moral tone throughout his
several addresses on thia subject which marks him more than any other
speaker. Even at the moment when* injured, he shouts angrily to Autilochus
that ‘‘he shall not bear away the prize without an oath’’; his recognition,
too, of the previous good character of the offender is remarkable. It is evi-
dently in his mind all along that he is bound to respect on personal grounds
the man who has injured him. But it comes out gradually; when, for in-
stance, he feels the smart of wrong, he exclaims on! the instant, ‘‘the Achzans,
and I among them, gave thee, but untruly, a character for discretion’, When
he has had a moment to cool down and the herald has placed the sceptre
in his hands, he though vehemently angered, softens this down™ into, “ Anti-
lochus, heretofore discreet, what a deed hast thou done’! After the con-
cessions of Antil. have mollitied him he commends him as ‘‘not" having been
given to transgression or indisereet before’’, and makes allowance for him
on the score of youth, but bids him beware in future of over-reaching his
betters.
(14) This is a curious scene, because, to our notions of the right and the
wrong in such a case, Antil. had probably the right on his side; yet, glthough
the verdict of the βασιλῆες is not given, and the oath is waived, it is prob-
able that Antil. could not have sworn that he had not acted ἑκὼν δόλῳ. His
not replying® to Menclaus’ first remonstrance, and ‘‘makingP as if he heard
him ποῖ᾽, would probably, if nothing else, have prevented such a denial.
Further, Nestor, who had given Antil. special instructions? and advice how
to use μῆτις to counterbalance the inferiority of his team, and who was evi-
dently deeply interested in his winning, is silent under the reproaches and
appeal of Menelaus, We may surely presume that Nestor thought the case
too clear against his son, for him to interpose his great authority and his
persuasive tones, and therefore that Menel. was upholding the cause of fair
play, as then understood, The whole question turns of course upon the further
one, “what amount of artifice (δόλος) is allowable in a contest of speed?”
(15) To the same head belongs in part his scrupulosity regarding the ritual
of justice, 7 ϑέμις ἐστὶν, both in this case where he bids" Antil. “stand before
(WB, 5s81—s,. J Ψ, 44. k YW 440. 1, s7o.
—_
APPENDIX E. XCVII
his horses and chariot, hold the whip with which he drove, take hold of his
- horses and swear by Poseidon’’, and in the former, where he prescribes*
‘‘two lambs, one white, the other black, as sacrifices to the Sun and the
Earth’’, to be brought by the Trojans, and ‘‘another’’ by the Greeks “for
Zeus’’. The same scrupulous anxiety for the securing justice speaks in his
demand* for Priam’s presence to be a party to the covenant, as he had
learned to distrust his sons.
(16) Akin to this is a somewhat staid and earnest cast of character strongly
tinged with the gentler shade of melancholy. This is rather more fully de-
veloped in the Ody. amid the regrets roused by the occasion of Telemachus’
visit. The name of his only son, Megapenthes,' though he was not born of
Helen, may have been later given in remembrance of his father’s ‘‘great woe’’
(μέγα πένϑος). Yet he retains elasticity" of spirits, and smiles with delighted
approval at the shrewd refusal by Telem. of a chariot and horses as a present.
To this belongs his preference for age as a guarantee of discretion, and his
frank acceptance and endorsement of the excuse of Antil., ‘that youthful’
impulse had got the better of his good sense’, Here may also be mentioned
Nestor’s assurance that Telem. might rely on Menelaus’ tidings,” pala γὰρ
πεπνυμένος ἐστὶν, and the emphatic declaration of Menel. himself, “1 will
not deceive you, but as far as I have heard I will keep back no word nor
hide aught from you’’. In this there seems something more of a conscientious
tone than ordinarily appears.
(17) An intellectual inferiority, however, marks him, In the council
he is silent. He was sent as an ambassador® with Odys. to demand the
reparation of the original wrong, but this was because he was the person
principally injured. Antenor said,’ he “learned’’ on this occasion “to know
the outward man and the deep counsels of both of them“, but as he does
not know Odys. by face when he sees him in the field, this is evidently
rather vague in meaning. Menel., though here, we may suppose, obliged to
speak, yet left on Antenor by his discharge of that duty the impression of
an impulsive speaker,* (ἐπιτροχάδην ἀγόρευεν) lacking command of lan-
guage, though what little he said was to the purpose. In agreement with this,
his speeches in the II. are the shortest of any among the leading chiefs,
except those of Ajax. In the Ody. he is in his own palace, and draws lar-
gely on narrative for the material of his discourse, but his only really long
speech includes an entire tale. His longest in the 1], would be only το lines
but for the prayer to Zeus which it embodies. The one in which he speaks*
with strong feeling under recent wrong, sums up all invective and appeal
to men and gods in 16 lines. When rousing and conversing. with his brother
he commences in σὺ lines, to which Agam. replies in 11, and continues in
34% which are answered in 7.° He is directed and tutored by others, not only
by Agam. but by Ajax Telamon., who sends! him about the field like an
aide-de-camp even in the battle known as his ἀριστεῖα. He is evidently some-
what undervalued, in part owing to his modesty and deference, yet also owing
τ I. 103—4. ‘I. 105 —6. t δι τι; οἷ. P. 139. υ δὶ 609—11.
Y WY, 604; cf. 58991. w y. 328; cf. δ. τ9ο--ι * I. 205—8. . TF. 208.
I. 213-5. «WZ. s7o—8s. b K. 37—al. ς K. 43—59.- ἀ K. 61—3.
© K, 65—71. ΓΡ, 245, 652 -ξ, 716—21.
HOM. OD. APP. α
XCVIII APPENDIX E.
to a want of outspoken firmness, in place of which his style is timidly sug-
gestive. Thus he throws out a hint, when he rouses his brother before the
night-council, “‘why are yous arming? Are you thinking of dispatching a
scout? I much fear that no one will undertake that duty ... one would need
be of sturdy courage’’, — thus he half damps his own suggestion, which
accordingly Agam. deigns not to notice. It has been before remarked how
different is the reception of the same advice from Nestor.® But let one mark
the difference in the way of advising, the penetration, foresight and sagacity,
which stamp the latter, as compared with the half-hinting, half-hesitating
mode of the former, On the field, though acting chiefly under Ajax’ direction,
he seems slightly to lose his head. Ajax bids! him find Antilochus to announce
to Achilles Patroclus’ fall. Menel. gives Antil. the message, but adds, “tell
Achilles* to come and rescue the body, now stripped, for Hector has the arms’ ;
yet he must have known that the weapons spoiled from the corpse were
Achilles’ own, and that he could not take the field for want of them. Antil.
drops this impertinence in delivering the message;! and Menel., who has
nearly recovered his presence of mind by the time he has rejoined Ajax, adds™
thereupon, what is really an answer to his own request just made of Achilles
through Antil., but which he, with still a remnant of mental distraction,
addresses to Ajax; “‘I don’t think Achilles will come now, however enraged
at Hector he may be, for he cannot unarmed fight the Trojans’. We need not
therefore be surprised at the ease with which Antil., over-acting Nestor’s
advice, who would, and to some extent does, put an old head on young
shoulders, outwits Menel. in the chariot-race. Observing Telem., on his visit
in the Ody., weeping at the mention of his father’s services, he is debating® with
himself whether to let his young guest first open his grief in words, or question
him himself; and before he can resolve the doubt, Helen® has arrived with
her attendant handmaids and gueenly state, and taken her seat, and herself
assumed the conversation. Another example of the same slowness of wit is
the last glimpse which the poet gives us of Menel. He stands hesitating?
how to answer the young Pisistratus, who calls upon him to interpret an omen,
which occurred as he and Telem. were leaving Sparta on their return, nor
does he succeed in finding a word, good or had, till again Helen interposes.
(18) As a fighting-man he is better than he is esteemed, and suffers undue
depreciation from friend and foe. The patronizing caution? given him by
Euphorbus not to meddle, is a proof of this, and in reply to it Menel.' refers
to another foe who had undervalued him to his cost. So Apollo reproaches*
Hector: ‘‘How you shrank from Menelaus, who heretofore was but a milksop
at his weapons, but now is gone off bearing a corpse away single- handed,
besides slaying a valiant comrade of your own in front of the battle’. This
is, of course, after Athené hast given him βέη and @agoosg; but then she
never bestows these, contrarily to the law of moral nature, on a coward, but
only enhances their preponderance where they existed before.
(19) Yet his valour lacks the passive, dogged quality. It flickers with the
sentiment of honour, but is damped by the presence of the actual danger
ὁ K. 37—41. b K. 204—17. iP, 652—s. ΚΡ. 691—3. 1 2. 18—21.
Ὁ P. 709-11. Ὁ δ᾽ 116—g. ° ὃ. 120—37. P o. 169—71. 7 P. 12—7.
ΤΡ. 24- 8. *% P. 587—g0. ' P. 567—70.
APPENDIX E. XCIX
which it had sincerely defied before. Menel." rises in uncalculating en-
thusiasm to Hector’s challenge, but, after earnest self-debate,” resolves pru-
dentially the question of fighting when Hector appears in front. The words
of Ajax,” though they sound not much more valorous, yet are not followed by
retreat, but by summoning rescue and standing firm till it comes. The self-
debate of Odys.* in a somewhat similar case is also resolved contrariwise, to
stand firm; but on that occasion, though hard pressed by numbers, Odys. has
not Hector in front. On the whole then, Menel., with more sentiment and
sense of honour than all, but a less equable courage than most, makes no
-contemptible figure in the field, although marked by a certain unsteadiness
derived from the somewhat flighty and romantic vein which tinges his cha-
racter; so that the simile of the gad-fly’ expresses a large breadth of his
moral quality. So in his offers of friendship his tone is unpractically san-
guine, 6. 9. in the notion of offering Odys. and his people a home in Ithaca,
without calculating the difficulties in the way of such an attempt, and in
the offer of a chariot with horses complete, as a present to Telem., in whose
country he must have known they could not have been used, which compli-
ment the younger man with more discernment declines.
(20) His personal appearance is less clearly marked than we might have
expected. Save that he was, like his brother,* tall, there is nothing to mark
him but his auburn* hair. The epithet εὐρέας applied to μους is a fixed
and absolute one, and must not be taken in his case as meaning that rela-
tively and comparatively his shoulders were “broad’’. Helen calls him,‘
generally, ‘‘a husband lacking no gift of mind or person’’, but this must of
course be taken cum grano salis, and we may perhaps conclude, that his ap-
pearance was somewhat lacking in marked characteristics, except as regards
his hair. There is no epithet of any considerable force applied to him; he
is, like the other warrior-princes, βοὴν ἀγαϑὸς, ἀρηΐφιλος, δουρέκλυτος,
ἀρήϊος, and the like, but neither upon him nor his brother is any epithet
expressing mental gifts, bestowed, save the common-place πεπνυμένος.
(21) He appears to some extent in an official relation, conjointly? with
Agam., which fact we glimpse in two or three passages of the Il. This is
expressed in the line by which old Chryses’ advances are described as made to*
᾿Δτρείδα δὲ μάλιστα δύω, κοσμήτορε λαῶν,
and he is once called ὄρχος ‘Ayatov, which, if we compare its use of Sar-
pedon and Iasus,‘ should mean chief of the whole army, é. 6. in joint chief-
taincy with Agam.
(22) The character of Menelaus, in the tenderness and affectionateness which
so largely enter into it, in its devotedness to one woman, in its profound
tinge of religion, in its chivalrous honour, rigid sense of justice, uncalculating
and romantic friendship, and no less in its somewhat ceremonious scrupulosity
and proneness. to a gentle melancholy, more nearly approximates to the
medieval romantic type of the true knight than anything else which human
genius created in times before romance arose.
u H. 94—102. *° P. gi—106. © P. 238—45. * A. 404-10. Y P. 570—2.
tI. 210; cf. 193. ὃ δ. 26s, εἰ alibi. ν I. 210. “ δ, 263—4. 9% B. 762;
H. 373—4, P. 249—50, T. 310. 9.4. 16. fm. 426; O. 337.
, a*
C APPENDIX E.
9.
HELEN. *
(1) The sentiment of the Greeks regarding Helen is remarkably coincident
with the outward facts of her life within Troy. They,* and especially Menel.,
are bent on avenging her “unrest and sorrows’’, and we see her there suffering
such sorrows. But when we look deeper, those sighs are not merely the
sighs of a captive for lost freedom, but those of a sinner for lost purity.
She is regarded, by the Greeks — and by all save herself — not as an
accomplice but as an injured person. There is a gnawing-horror of self-
reproach within her for her own share in the business of her abduction, which
makes her impute it to the loathing of her kin, when she misses her brothers on
the field, — an absence arising simply from their death — whilst all the
while the opposite sentiment prevails regarding her. In the total absence of
details it is impossible to fix on the precise step in the descent of guilty
acts at which her will had become defiled by consent. But that there was
some such stage of moral declension, after which self-respect became im-
possible, is certain. Her deep and poignant words cannot be interpreted of
mere external position and of the regard of others alienated. The Trojans,”
if they did ‘‘shudder at her’’, did so from a sense of their national sufferings,
not of her being more or less guilty with regard to her husband. They were
more likely to consider their own woes than his. Yet it is natural that she
should feel their curses, if they cursed her, as the goads of her guilty con-
science, and as the outward symbol of her self-abhorrence within. Nor would
her acquiescence in the position which the manners of her age had assigned
her, unless there had been some guilty compliance on her part, have of itself
sufficed to load her with remorse. Many women, doubtless married women,
must have been constantly made captives without their husbands being slain,
and their only hope in life would then become to accept their new position
and make the best of it. It is hardly possible to conceive a woman, when
so seized, having practically any choice in the matter.
(2) The Greeks and Menel. take the view most natural to them, to , believe
her wholly innocent in the absence of all direct proof of her guilt. Such
proofs they could hardly have; they rest within her own bosom and in the
consciousness of Paris the seducer and Aphrodité the temptress. But it is
plain that the poet means to show, by the ascendancy* exercised over her,
the “Argive’’ Helen, by this most purely Trojan partizan-deity, how a guilty
compliance has enslaved her will, so that she ‘‘cannot deliver her soul’’.
She, while waiting on the battlements to be made the prize of valour to her
rightful lord, is dragged back again to share in guilty horror the bed of
shame with her seducer, on whom the brand of cowardice has now fallen.
She feels a shock4 of surprise at the appearance of what seemed an aged
* I am indebted to Mr. Gladstone's elaborate vindication of the character
of Helen for many of the details of this article, but on one broad ground I
differ from him. He seems to me make her a penitent with nothing — one
may almost say — to repent of.
9. * B. 589-90. > 2.775. ΚΓ. 383—420. 4 Γ' 395.
APPENDIX E. CI
follower of her own, summoning her to the chamber of Paris; but before she
recovers herself, the features disclose those of the adulteress deity. It is
possible that this recals an earlier scene, that the aged wool-spinner had so
wrought upon her before, and that this may shadow forth that step in her fall
for which self-forgiveness is impossible. This would explain very naturally
the preference of Aphrodité for that εἴδωλον: but this is conjecture merely.
The scene of hope, alarm, distrust, resistance, contemptuous defiance, and
final submission and self-loathing acquiescence, is in itself a moral epic.
(3) Then comes the counterpart to the picture, the laws of her position
bind her now as the wife of Paris, The chance of retrieving what she was
has disappeared. Her position has its duties and she accepts them with a
bitter struggle — but accepts them still. Practically, the only solution of
the conflicting claims upon her would be victory in arms. That had been
snatched from her hopes, and she remains the wife of Paris. This was the
only view which Greek and Trojan would take of her position. Somebody
must have the rights of a husband over her, and till those of Menel. could
be enforced, those of Paris were valid. ‘‘Possession’’ was “nine points of
the law’’, as conventionally understood, if not more. Her recent relapse
from better hopes is what makes her emotions in this sixth book so powerful.
And then comes one of those grand, simple, and effective combinations in
which the poet excels; and its contrast with the following group of Hector
amid his pure family affections heightens its effectiveness, Forced to renew
her acceptance of a husband who is a coward, she seeks to stir up some
sparks of manly spirit within him; and, seconded by Hector, does not wholly fail.
(4) But here again, in making some purer instinct utter its voice of anguish
within her, the poet strikes a root-deep truth; or rather rises to a height of
which he himself was dimly conscious, and which it requires a light from
above to measure in its fulness, Thus “to will is present with’’ Helen, ‘but
how to perform that which is good’’ she “finds not’’, Nor can we find a
clearer lesson among the examples of Pagan antiquity of the tyranny of sin
drawn by St. Paul in a full-length portrait in Rom. VII, 14—24.
(5) Her words regarding her brothers are the most decisive of her guilt of
any that escape her. She feels that she deserves their loathing, that, if
there, they could only share her shame. These strong expressions ,® αἴσχεα
δειδιότες καὶ ὀνείδεα πολλ᾽, & μοί ἐστιν, are inconsistent with her inno-
cence. We may compare them with her words of Paris: he cared! not for
the νέμεσέν te καὶ αἴσχεα πόλλ᾽ ἀνθρώπων, which would certainly follow his
unmanly behaviour in the field. What, then, is the virtue which for woman,
in a rude, but on the whole pure and simple age, corresponds to valour in
man? What is that which, when forfeited, draws down indignation and
shame upon her, even as poltroonery does upon him? Nor do the epithets of
opprobrium which she heaps upon herself admit of any other interpretation
than the same to which these questions point.* They are’ éueio, κυνὸς
* Mr. Gladstone considers that the expression of Paris (ἁρπάξας) implies
such violence as totally excludes guilty complicity on her part and conclu-
sively decides in her favour the questions ‘‘whether the fatal act of quitting her
er. 242, ἴΖ. 351. Ζ. 344.
τ ae δ
cll APPENDIX F.
κακομηχάνου, ὀκρυοέσσης, ‘monster of base practices for one to shudder at’
In the Ody., amid the soothing influences of position restored, her style :
still ἐμεῖο κυνωώπιδος," — the exact epithet applied (9. 319) by Hepheesti
to Aphrodité taken in adultery — even as when the mortal! combat was ragin
for her sake in the Il. She is humbled even amidst her queenly state ἢ
the thought of what she had been.
(6) Again, the goddess Iris rouses in or infuses into her mind a love «
her first husband, city, and parents, and tears of tenderness well from hei
eyes, as she descends, deeply veiled in snowy linen, from her chamber. The!
is no due authority for saying that the emotion was wholly new to her, bi
the words imply that it was not her habitual frame of mind. She hersel
speaking! of another occasion of similar emotion, says, “‘my heart rejoice
(at the successful escape of Odys.), for my inclination had for some time bee
turned to go home again, and I repented of the sin which Aphrodité cause
when she led me thither”’. It is of course possible to give a different shac
of meaning to the words ἅτην petéorevoy; but if it be called ‘‘sin”* whe
we consider Paris’ share in it, why are we to change the word when wv
take the case of Helen? In speaking of the wrongful act to which two pe
sons are a party, Homer never meant to lay the main burden of moral r
sponsibility solely on the one; and strange indeed would be the moral lesso
if all the guilt should be on Paris’ side and all the repentance on Helen’
And lastly, the argument of Penel.,™ though its moral tone is not high, ar
its introduction rather troubles than illustrates the view she is there takir
of herself, yet, taken as it stands, amounts to this, ‘‘Helen would not :
have acted with Paris had she foreseen the consequences’’, — which plain
postulates that there was, at any rate, at one time, a power in her of r
sisting, and that she did not resist. The words of old Priam on the wall «
Troy have a caressing tone which quite deprives them of any judicial weight: -
‘tis not thou but the gods who are, I suppose, to blame’’, might as easi
have been said for Paris, had any one been fond enough of him to say i
The expression denotes a partiality and tenderness for the person, just |
do the similar words" of Agam., whose partiality and tenderness are f
himself, in the reconciliation with Achilles. And the familiar fondness
Priam, Hector, and Laodicé for her, points to the supposition that she hs
husband was premeditated and whether it was of her own free choice’’. Ti
able arguments for the defence are superfluous where habemus confitentem rea:
It is remarkable, too, — although, if any special force lay in the Homer
use of agmafw, Herodotus would be of little weight — that in the passa;
where the latter elaborately discusses the question of Helen and others |
between Asia and Europe, he exactly and in terms contradicts Mr. Gladstone
theory: δῆλα γὰρ δὴ ὅτι εἰ μὴ αὐταὶ ἐβουλέατο οὐκ ἂν ἡρπαζοντ
I. 4. But there is no reason to suspect ἀρπαάξω of any scnse in the po
which it does not bear in the historian.
* Z. 386 ‘““Alsiavdqov ἕνεκ᾽ ἄτης, on account of the sin of Paris
Gladst. III. 8. iv. 578. It is worth noticing that Helen, in this passag
speaks of herself (¢uefo κυνὸς) and Paris in terms of equal guilt, and expec
that they will be alike ἀνθρώποισε ... ἀοέδιμοι ἐσσομένοισιν.
δ. 145. iT. 180. kT. 139—42. 1d. 259—62. m wy. 218—2
5" T. 86—7.
APPENDIX E, CIII
thoroughly accepted her position, and become as one of them, stifling and
burying regrets for husband and child, until at the summons of Iris, or the
visit of Odys. they started again to agony of life.
(7) The poet makes°® it twenty years at Hector’s death since she left Menel.
and ten more elapse before she is brought before us again. It is not incon-
sistent with what we know of conscience that it should sleep a long slumber,
and awake as if invigorated at last. Homer has carried the power of con-
science and the reality of remorse to the highest pitch. He does not declare
them dogmatically, but he stamps them indelibly on one of the most exqui-
site of his characters, and charges the loveliest features with the expression
due to their anguish. They stand out as real on his page as in the fearful
‘‘Last Judgment” of Michael Angelo. He paints them, too, as undying, as
yielding not to time, to suffering, or to the diversion of home delights, or
even to the prospect of translation,’ and of some dimly * blessed state beyond
this world. Helen has all this, but the slow fire of her purgatory, though
not bursting fiercely forth as in the Il., is still4 unquenched in the Ody.;
and when her conscience was once roused, it woke to sleop no more. She
has no νηπενϑὲς for herself. The gods gave her ποῖ child, save the daughter
of her pure and early prime. This abiding penal mark of barrenness sug-
gests her continuance under the ban of sorrow.
(8) The lighter tones of her character are in marvellous harmony. Her
elaborate’ embroidery in Troy and her work-basket' of state at home are
proofs of her taste. Her early love of finery and show appears as a refined
and stately elegance. The basket" was a present from an Egyptian princess,
but to an idle voluptuary would have been as out of place as Menelaus’ chariot
and horses in Ithaca; see the description of her treasury of shawls παμποίκιλοι,"
οὕς κάμεν αὐτή. Her present to Telem. is not only “a memorial of Helen’’,
but “οὗ Helen’s handy-work’’.* ‘There is a beautiful light and shadow playing
about her dialogue* with Priam on the wall, which makes us feel with all
the more potency the gloom which overcasts it when her evil genius, the
seductress-deity, appears. The sight of the Argive host and its princely
lords, which would have elated her had she been innocent, is only humi-
liating in her guilt. The dotmg fondness’ of old Priam, and his aged coun-
cillors chirping their admiration for her, whilst she is wrung so bitterly at
heart, has the grand power of nature, simplicity, and truth, — those secret
springs of all pathos. The delicate grace of her plaintive gratitude to Hector*®
gives a consummate finish at once to his character and to her own. Her
ready sweetness towards all save her injurer and temptress, and her grave
tone of rooted aversion to the οὔθ," and her sharp sarcastic rating of the
other,» show a fund of deep moral feeling, which the fictions and conven-
tionalities of her Asiatic life had left essentially sound. At home her delicate *
* For, surely, if Menel. was to attain Elysium because he was the son-in-
law of Zeus, we must suppose that Helen, in whose right he attained it, was
to share it with him.
° Q. 76s. Ρ δ. 569. 1 δι 145, 260—64.. τ & 12--4. 5. Γ. 125. --
' δ. 131—2. ud. 125—7. 0. 104—8. Ὗ o. 125—6. Σ Γ᾽, 161 foll.
YI. 162. 2 Q. 760—75. a T. 428—36, Z. 350—3. b I. 399 foll.
5 δ. 138.
CIV APPENDIX E.
enquiry, who the strangers were, addressed to her husband rather than to
them, her intuition’ of family likeness, yet hesitation® at saying what might
embarrass, her easy! lead in the conversation, the pure and graceful dignity ©
of her state, her perfect® humility unsullied by the accessories of rank, the
tone! of “rich and rare’’ which lingers about her, the felicity of her parting
gift* and parting words to Telem., connecting her memory with his mother
that was and his bride that was not yet, her ready! wit in reading and in-
terpreting the omen over which her lord and master was hesitating — all
impart a mellow and chastened richness to her portrait which exhausts cri-
ticism to describe it: she is wapzo/xtdog™ as the robes she wove.
(9) There is one passage in her later Trojan life which requires a few
words of special notice. Homer does not expressly state, but leads up to
the statement, which later legend conveys, that Helen after Paris’ death be-
came" Deiphobus’ wife. The Greek chiefs® in the Wooden Horse were sur-
prised and mystified by hearing their names called in accents of their mother-
tongue. Each thought he heard his own wife calling his own name, but the
voice was to one all, and it was Holen’s. Deiphobus? was close beside her,
and ‘“‘some deity’’,4 says Menel., ‘‘who wished to add glory to the Trojans
must have ordered her thither’’, even as ‘‘Pallas' led her back’’. She plainly
acted under dictation, which may be called compulsion, and the act was in
Trojan interests. But that the calling the names of the heroes, in what seemed
to each his own wife’s tones, was a piece of conscious mimicry, is not so clear.
We must allow for strangeness and panic on their parts, and for, perhaps,
theurgic assistance * on hers. That each should think of her who loved him
best, when their lives were all set on the cast of that “forlorn hope’’, is
not surprising, nor is it beyond the bounds of strictly natural magic that the
ears of each should have translated Helen’s voice into that of his own wife.
“The airy tongues that syllable men’s names’’ have had such power before now;
* We ought, however, to remember, that it is the assertion of Menel. that
she made her voice sound to each chief like that of his own wife. He, at
any rate, may be supposed to have known her voice as his wife's. For the
rest, his sanguine temperament may perhaps be supposed to have overinter-
reted their feelings. But on the other hand, in the Hy. Apol. Del. 156 fol.
(referred to by Nitzsch on δ. 279), it is stated that the Delian maids, #é-
ραπναι of Apollo, have the gift of so imitating all voices that each would
think the voice his own. This, taken in connexion with the δαέμων favourable
to the Trojans in δ. 275, who is probably to be understood as Apollo, may
suggest that that god gave Helen's voice a polyphonic power. Nitzsch sug-
gests (ub. sup.) that the δαίμων influenced her by rousing eager curiosity and
impatience, so that, knowing her friends to be there, she wished to hear
their voices at whatever risk to them and herself. Such childish trifling,
however, at 80 critical a moment, need not be imputed to her. What seems
clear is, that she had at least no treacherous intent towards the Greeks; for,
had she harboured any, it would have been simpler to have divulged to the
Trojans what, it seems, she knew, that the ἄριστοι were concealed within
the horse (δ. 278; cf. 256).
48. 141 -- 3. 6 δ. 140. [δ. 230. ε δ. 121 -- 2. bd. 145, 235--- 7)
261—4, 296—9. ἰἱ δὶ 1τ23--ό, 131—5, 219--:ὸ. Κ o. 12s—9. | 0. τύ9 --γ8.
mg. 105. " δι 276, 9. 517. ° δ, 277—9. Pd. 376. 4« δι 274—5.
r δ. 289.
APPENDIX E. CV
and the influence of darkness, danger, and suspense in tricking human nerves
and bewildering momentarily the judgment of the wise and the courage of
the bold, must be permitted a wide margin of probability. As regards Helen
herself, when led up to that grim, silent, wooden image in the darkness of
night, and bidden, if so she was, to call out the names of Menelaus, Dio-
medes and the rest, would the contingencies and consequences of the act be
necessarily present to her? Would she necessarily have had the presence of
mind which all those heroes, save one,* certainly lacked? If not, why should
she have been less ready to speak than they to answer?
(10) On the whole, hers is a character which is seen at first in a transitional
state, and then sobers down into a definite tone, and from its later aspect
and a few stray hints we are to infer its former cast. It was probably light,
gay, and impulsive, with quick feelings and tender affections; but easily
drawn, at itself fond of display, by superficial qualities; and likely te yield
to the fascinations of a handsome foreign adventurer, of courtly ease and
polished manners moulded in a home of Asiatic luxury. It is, assuming the
reality of the characters and facts, likely that the somewhat pensive and
punctilious tone traceable in Menelaus’ character, no less than his inferior
intellectual endowments, may have repelled the levity and gaiety of her
early years, have led her to esteem him lightly, and have laid her open to
the temptation to which she succumbed,
5 δ. 284, 287.
APPENDIX F. 1.
THE HOMERIC GALLEY.
(1) The trees named by Homer for ship-building are the® alder, black pop]
and fir or pine, which were doubtless in the greatest esteem for their r
spective purposes. The two former would perhaps be condemned by mode:
ship-wrights as too spongy and pithy, and yielding too soon to decay, com
δοῦρα" σέσηπε νεῶν. The latter is still serviceable for all straight piece
Virgil speaks of the alder’s scouped trunk as a primitive boat in Georg. I. 13
The tools are merely an axe (πέλεκυς)," a carpenter's plummet (σταϑμη),} ε
adze® for smoothing (σκέπαρνον évéooy, in active sense), und some wimblh
(cégeroa).£ The larger augur® (tevzavoy), described in a simile as turne
by a band (μὰς) worked by several men and guided by another, to bo:
ship-timbers, was of course out of place where there was but one workma:
No saw is mentioned, and we are, doubtless, to suppose that Odys. worke
without any; although the saw was, from the mention of πριστοῦ ἐλέφαντος
as well as from the use of σανίδες etc. known in Homer’s time.
(2) Two forms of vessel seem to have been known, the war galley, of
lighter and sharper build) (νῆες ϑοαὶ, and Hy. Apoll. Del. τες, ὠκείαι), ar
the vessel of burthen, broader“ (φορτὶς εὐρείη), raised on an ἔδαφος (com
νηὸς δαπέδοισι, Hy. Apoll. Del. 238), and apparently without* a keel, :
none is mentioned in the raft which resembles it. The verb by which i
structure is hinted at, τορνώσεται, “will round off’’, probably refers to tl
extremities, as opposed to the sharper prow, and also stern, of the galle
fashioned for speed in rowing. This latter had a keel! (τρόπις), — its mo
substantial timber — left bare (ψιλὴ) when the sides (τοῖχοι) parted, and n
too big for a man to grasp it with his arms™ (ἀγκὰς flv). Thus Ody
* Odys. rides on the keel and mast, lashed together, when his ship founder:
but when the raft parts, he aug’ ἑνὶ δούρατι βαῖνε (ε. 370). He would hay
chosen the keel, had there been one.
4 §. 239. b B. 138. © §. 234. 4 ¢. 245; cf. O. 410—11. δ. & 23
fe, 246. © 4. 384—6. ho. 196. ‘wy. 174 et alibi. 1 δ. ass εἰ alié
k €. 249—50. ᾿ξ, 130, μ. 421—2, τ. 278. ™ ῃ, 252.
APPENDIX F. . CVII
saved himself upon* it, and lashing the mast to it by the back-stay, rode
thereon, paddling with his hands. We need not suppose with Grashof (p. 8,
note) that this rope parted, and that the mast was lost. The keel, probably
a square balk of timber, was far stouter and heavier, and the round mast
which, alone, would roll over in the water, being lighter, would float upper-
most, when the two were lashed together, and thus furnish a seat. Still the
substance of this float was the keel, and thus it is mentioned alone, But
the sharp deep keel of our vessels, adapted for sailing with the wind on the
beam, a practice not known to the ancients, may suggest a false idea. Their
keel had probably little projection below the hull, for convenience in hauling®
up; still, the bottom must have had a sharp enough curve in a midship section
to make the ship unsteady when so stranded without props® (ἕρματα μακρὰ,
Hy. Apoll. Pyth. 329) under the sides, and to require a channel? (οὐρὸς) to
slide in, at any rate if long in one spot, when the keel would tend to settle
down into the sands. The ore¢gy is doubtless only the fore end of the keel
turned up, as commonly, to form a cutwater. The wave ‘‘roars% on both
sides of it’? (ἀμφὶ), as the ship goes.
(3) The term dgvozor™ occurs in simile only, where timbers ranged in an
exact line at equal intervals seem required by the’ image. Grashof views
them as stools supporting and fixing the keel-pieces when first laid; but this
gives a rather too elaborate notion of the building and launching, although
it adds a further point to the simile, viz. that the notches to receive the keel
would lie in a line, and be traversed by the eye like the hoops' of the ze-
λέκεες through which Odys. shoots. We may, however, suppose them props
to keep the ribs and frame up, while building. Thus they would be laid down
first; hence, δρυόχους τιϑέναι δράματος ἀρχὰς (Aristoph. Thesm. 52). They
are, however, no part of the vessel itself, and rather correspond to the scaf-
folding in a building.
The [xgew can hardly be anything else than the deck, which was laid only
at the head and stern, leaving the hollow of the ship amidships for the
rowers’ seats and hold (ἄντλος). Grashof will have fxg. the bulwarks, ground-
ing his view only on ¢. 162 foll.; but the bulwarks of the raft there are the
‘“‘osier hurdles”’, superadded κύματος elzag ἔμεν; and surely the words added
by Calypso ἴκρια... ὥς ce φέρησιν ἐπ᾽ ἠροειδέα πόντον, favour the notion
of that part which actually ‘‘bears’’ the passenger, i.e. the deck. The galley
proper has solid sides (τοῖχοι) " which would each include a bulwark, viz.
the upper edge of either side. Grashof, consistently but wrongly, renders
ἐπ᾿ ἱκριόφιν (y. 353) “αἱ᾽ not ‘“‘on’’ the bulwarks. Why the bulwarks should
be mentioned when a part supporting the weight of the men on board would
so much more naturally occur, he does not say. But in two passages where
* In the tale to Penelope the disguised Odys. unites some features of both
his actual voyages. Accordingly he says (τ. 278) that he reached the Pheacian
coast ἐπὶ τρόπιος, wholly omitting Calypsé’s isle. So he tells Eumseus that
he came ἱστῷ περιπλεχϑείς (§. 311—3).
2 A. 485—6. ° A. 486, B. 154. ΡΒ. 153. 4« β, 427—8. τ τ. 574.
5. τ, 63--5. ἐς. 578. - 0. 382.
CVIII APPENDIX F.
νηῶν ixgs’ ἐπῴχετο" and ἐπὶ πολλὰ ϑοάων ἵἴκρια νηῶν φοίτα" is said ἃ
Ajax, ‘‘was going fo the bulwarks’’ seems poor as compared with ‘‘wa
going along them. Here ἐπὶ with accus. has its common sense of motion ove
a surface. Further, Ajax leaves the fxgea when he retires to the ϑρῆνυς
éxtanodn, which position, being doubtless at a lower level (see below (4)!
gave some shelter from the Trojan darts, to which on the deck he woul:
be exposed. Why, again, should Odys. rush εἰς ἴκρια πρώρης, if bulwark
only are meant? What he wanted was a firm footing to spear the monster
Scylla, from whom no bulwarks could possibly shelter him, even if defence
and not offence, had been his purpose. So the Phzacians* lay Odys. 776
ἐπ᾽ ἱκριόφιν.. ἕνα νήγρετον evdor, and Nestor says, Telem. ov .... #0
ἐπ᾽ ἱκριόφιν καταλέξεται. So where the spear is laid by Telem. ἐπ᾿ ἐκρεόφιε
and taken up ἀπ᾿ ἰκριόφιν, the flat surface of the deck suits the actio:
exactly, and nothing else suits it so well.
(4) The unicé lecta σταμέψεσσι and ἐπηγκενίδεσσιν are less clear. The forme
has the epithet ϑαμέσι, an adjective, which, with πυκΡοὶ, describes the teeth
of Scylla and the palisades4 driven by Eumsus for his fence. Πυκνοὶ xa
ϑαμέες seem especially to convey the notions of closeness and successiveness
the latter being used also of exactly similar things repeating one another
80 πυραὶ ϑαμειαὶ, and ἄκοντες ϑαμέες. Hence ϑαμέσι σταμένεσσι, especiall:
combined with ἀραρὼν, which is used of stones in a wall, or other thing
so ranged in an order, suits exactly the notion of ribs springing from th
ἔδαφος, each repeating the other. Thus the line would contain the commo1
Homeric figure of a mem@voregov, as the laying the deck (ἵἴκρεα) would no
precede but follow the setting up the ribs. The long ἐπηγκενέδες (ἐπὶ &yxe
i. e. ἐνέκω), with which he finished, can then hardly be anything else tha:
planks nailed horizontally along the ribs. The γόμφοι," however, with whicl
these pieces were fastened, might as easily be wooden pegs as copper bolts
comp. πολύγομφοι νῆες Hes. Opp. 660. The aguovfae are perhaps dove
tailings, or morticings, as the word ἄρασσεν (the best reading) means ‘ham
mered’’. The raft (σχεδίη) thus constructed is called πολύδεσμος,' a wort
by which both these means of fastening are probably included. There were
no doubt, planks in the galley proper, forming on either side of the mast :
gangway* from the aft to the fore-deck, as Odys. says) διὰ νηὸς ἐφοίτων
These were most likely laid over the rowers’ seats which were at right angle:
with them and the keel. Odys. therefore, so going (φοιτῶν), would have :
row of oarsmen on either hand. Going aft from the prow, next after the
ixera mewens, or fore-deck, would come the rowers’ seats, then the ἄντλος
then perhaps the ϑρῆνυς ἑπταπόδη, which, from its being called by the
same name as the “‘footstool’”’ in a room, was probably the foot-rest for the
steersman, placed so as to give him a fulcrum when steering. It may have
been rather higher than the row-benches, and parallel to them, but lowe:
. Comp. sch. Sept. c. Theb. 496, τί δ᾽ οὖν, ὃ ναύτης ἄρα μὴ ᾿ς πρῴρα!ι
φυγὼν πρύμνηϑεν ηὗρε μηχανὴν σωτηρίας;
° O. 676. Ὗ O. 685. x O. 728—g9. Y μ. -229 — 30. 7 4. 74
* & 252—3. > Y- 353: © fb. 92. a §. 12. ° A. 52. ΓΑ. §52
6 δ. 267, O. 737.
€. 248. ie. 33, 338, 7. 264. 1 μ. 420; cf. 206
APPENDIX F. CIx
than the aft-deck. As the rudder (πηδαλιον) was merely a big oar, or a
pair of such, trailing aft, see (14), some such fulcrum would be needed with
so large a lever when turning sharply in a heavy sea, or working against a
strong current. Next to this ϑρῆνυς would come the ἔκρια πρύμνης. Where
then stood the mast? Probably abaft the rowers’ seats and forward from the
ἄντλος, into which the tackle (ὅπλα) comes down with a run (κατέχυνϑ᾽),
when in a head-wind the mast snaps* and falls backward. The position of
Odys. lashed to the mast requires that his comrades, as they rowed, should
see his gesticulations demanding release at the Sirens’ song. He says! λῦσαι
δ᾽ ἐκέλευον ἑταέρους ὀφρύσι νευστάξων' of δὲ προπεσόντες ἔρεσσον, and adds
that two of them immediately got up and tied him faster. This shows that
the mast was in sight between them and the stern. Along the bottom of the
avtiog the keel would be visible with the ἐπέτονος straining backward from
near the masthead to it, and down upon” it (ποτὶ τρόπερ) the mast is hurled
by the gale. A passenger falls into the ἄντλος," doubtless from the aft-deck.
A fragment of Alcseus also denotes that in his time the ἄντλος lay next the
mast. It describes the effect of a similar violent head-wind, by which the
mast was wrenched from its place, so that πὰρ μὲν γὰρ ἄντλος ἰστοπέδαν
ἔχει; which seems to mean, παρέχει being in tmesis, ‘‘the hold affords a
mast-step”’, i.e, the mast was forced from its proper ἰστοπέδη into the hold.
(Alc. Frag. 4 apud script. Gr. min. ed, Giles.)
(5) The stern appears to have been high and pointed. What is the pre-
cise value of the phrases ψηῶν ἄκρα κόρυμβα" and ἄφλαστον,Ρ comp. also
ἀκρωτήρια πρύμνης Hy. XXXIII. 10, it is difficult to say. If we may take
ἄφλαστον to be the latin aplustre, some decorative, easily separable pinnacle
or turret would seem meant, perhaps even a staff to sustain some insignia
distinctive of a chieftain’s own ship might be included. Hector, in the
battle at the ships, seizes a galley by its4 stern and has the ἄφλαστον
μετὰ γερσίν. Grashof takes ἀχροτήρια πρύ. to mean merely the aft-deck,
but this is part of his misconception of the ἔχρεια. It is more likely that some
greater elevation, where the side bulwarks ran perhaps to a point at the
stern, was needed to shelter those on deck from a sea breaking from aft.
The ἄκραι κόρυμβα may be such elevated points, Thus the Trojans came
face to face with*® (εἰσωποὶ) the Greek ships, περὶ δ᾽ ἔσχεθον ἄκραι νῆες,
which expresses the elevation of the stern extremities, first approached. Hence
we obtain a form pointed fore and aft (for the expression κορωνὶς ‘‘beaked”’,
surely implies a sharp prow), and high at the stern end. The prow would
also be higher than the sides and bulwarks. This explains the epithet og@o-
κραιράων' given to ships and oxen, to ships only when hauled in a large
number high on the beach’s slope, looking, with their peaks high in air,
like a herd of oxen tossing their horns. The expression θοαὶ νῆξς may as
easily mean “sharp’’, referring to shape, as “swift”, comp. the νῆες μακραὶ
of the historical period. The Pheacians’ mode of landing, or rather beaching"
their galley bespeaks a light sharp build forward, and the description of a
ship on her course,’ τῆς πρύμνη μὲν ἀεέρετο, giving the idea of the prow
Kw. 410-11. |p. 193-5. ™ p. 423. "0.479. 5 1. 241. PO. 717.
4 Ο. 716-7. * I. 241. " O. 653—4. ΕΣ. 3, T. 344; cf. μ. 348,
2. 73. Ὁ y. 113-5. Y Ψ, 84.
cx APPENDIX F.
: nearly burying in the wave, implies the same thing. This burying t
‘ fore-part is perhaps denoted by ἐφέροντ᾽ ἐπικάρσιαι, said of ships in
violent gale.
(6) The mast, made of fir (ἱστὸς εἰλάτινος 1, was moveable, and like’ t
oars and sails, was taken on board when a voyage was intended. It w
» set up (στῆσαν ἀείραντες ", no doubt by aid of the fore-stays (πρότοψοε),
᾿ the ἰστοπέδη, ‘‘mast-step’’, which was large cnough® for a man to stand up
it against the mast when the mast was up, and was fixed κοέλης ἔντοσι
μεσόδμης. Some think this means a beam athwart the ship from side to si
with a hole for the mast. But the mast must then be lifted vertically abo
such hole and dropped into it to reach the ἰστοπέδη below. This could hard
be done with a pole twenty feet high, or more, and tackle upon it, when ἢ
wind was fresh. On the other hand a mere notch or vertical groove in t
thickness of such beam would hardly give the support required; while neith
hole nor notch would seem to satisfy the strength of the phrase xofing &:
too@e p., which points to some more complete receptacle, enclosing as wi
as supporting. It-was probably a kind of trough of strong planks, set on en
two forming the sides and the third the back. The two held the mast betwe:
them, the third kept it from falling forward; see App. F. 2 (41) (42). Whi
up, the mast was made fast by the πρότονοι," two in number, which wou
then steady it by their strain on it forwards, counter to that of the sing
ἐπίτονος ἃ backward to the keel. Thus when the xgotovoe are broken by tl
squall, the mast came down with the éxfrovog on it.* When they® came -
harbour, or put ashore, they lowered the mast by these fore-stays! (xgor
yorory ὑφέντες, κὰδ δ᾽ ἕλον). There was an ἰστοδόκη, of the shape of whic
nothing is said, into which the mast fell when so lowered. A shallow troug
carried along part of the length of the keel may be supposed meant.
(7) ὅπλα is the collective term for all the tackle or implements in tt
Pheeacian navalia,* even the oars, and therefore helm (πηδαλια), being it
cluded. So Virgil calls a ship deprived of its helm, ‘‘spoliata armis’’ Ain. VI. 35
In Hy. VII. 32, comp. 26, a direction occurs to “‘hoist the ship’s sail’’, σὺ
nave ὅπλα λαβών; where ὅπλα would mean the ὕπεραε or running riggin
for that purpose. Of course the fore-stays, used to lower and, we may infe
to erect the mast, would be included, comp. ὅπλων ἅπτεσθαι, which orde1
is given when the mast is to be erected. The mast itself, and of course tt
yard, would also be included in the Owda'. The sail being hoisted, the
make fast (δησάμενοι) the ὅπλα, and the vessel runs before the wind, which
together with the pilot, guides her. Hence, ὅπλα ἕκαστα πονησάμενοι κατ
* It is likely that the ἐπέτονος was slipped on (βέβλητο) by a loop ove
the head of the mast before erecting it. When it came down “αἱ length a
the τρόπις, and the sides parted from the latter, it would be easy to slip o
this loop and lash the mast on to the keel, to which the lower end of th
ἐπίτ. was, perhaps, permanently fastened.
. ι. 70. x β. 424. Yd. 781—2, ὃ. 52—3. 1.0, 288 —go. ap. 171
B. 424, 0. 289. © B. 425, μ. 409 — 10. df. 422—3. ey
433 — 4. fo. 496. k £. 268 73 b B. 423, 0. 288. i κι 404, 42.
. 10.
APPENDIX F. CXxI
yno* expresses the crew’s busying themselves about any or all of these parts;
and xa?’ ὅπ. θέσϑαι (Hy. Apol, Pyth. 279, comp. 309, 32§—6) is to strike
sail, mast etc. There was but one sail, as one yard. ἰστία Aevna* is col-
lective, the sail being one, but of several pieces.** Calypso brings gegs'!
for Odys. to make ἱστία, yet the whole is called σπεῖρον: ἢ and so ἕλκον δ᾽
ἱστέα levan, ..... ἔπρησεν δ᾽ ἄνεμος μέσον ἱστίον." The sail was only
used to run before the wind (ἔκμενονο οὖρον, οὖρον πλησίστιον), when we
read τέταϑ᾽ lorie xovronogovens.? The yard (éxdxgeov) is said to be fitted
on (@guevoy) to the mast, doubtless so as to slide with ease by its middle
up and down it.
(8) The ἐπέτονος “‘back-stay”’, probably stouter than the rest, was βοὸς
δένοιο τετευχώς:« the other cordage was twisted of neat’s leather thongs
(ἐὐστρέπτοισι" βοεῦσι), comp. λύσαντε βοείας (Hy. Apol. Pyth. 309). For the
cable another material is mentioned, the βύβλος, ‘‘rush”; with this ὅπλον
βύβλινον" comp. Herod. Il. 96, VII. 25. παρεσκευάξετο δὲ καὶ ὅπλα ἐς
tas γεφύρας βυβλινά τε καὶ λευκολένου. Some such zefopa' was stout
enough to support the weight of the twelve women executed after the suitors;
but the ὅπλον of &. 346 is evidently a smaller rope, and so probably is that of
g. 390. In an emergency Odys. constructs a rope of λύγοι," twigs or brushwood,
or of these and ῥῶπες;" so in Hy. VII. 13 λύγοι means ropes on board ship.
Similarly ropes are called σπάρτα, from the vegetable fibre of the shrub
σπάρτος, the best kind of which, obtained from Spain, was of general use
in the historical period. Hes. Opp. 627, bids dismantle the vessel when the
season of navigation was over, and stow in the house all the rigging which
had been mounted upon her (ὅπλα éxagueva, cf. ἐπίκριον aeusvoy® αὐτῷ
* From Hes. Opp. 628, it seems likely that the strips of cloth which formed
the sail were actually separable, as he directs that they should be wrapped
up in good order, εὐχόσμως στολίσας νηὸς πτερὰ. Thus they preserved their
individuality and might each be called a ἰστέον, really a ‘“‘piece’’ from the
loom, or a ‘‘piece”’ for the mast, according as we take either sense of forog.
It is true that in 2, 125 we find εὐήρε᾽ ἐρετμὰ ta te πτερὰ νηυσὶ πέλον-
ται. The oars, or rather the broadside of oars spread and moving, called
the tagoog, with their broad blades resembling pen-feathers expanded, are
closely like wings, while the rudders trail behind not unlike the feet of a
swan (hence πόδα νηὸς, see (14), means ‘the rudder’’), and complete the
elegant image, Hesiod, however by στολίσας loc. cit. clearly speaks of the
sails, and this is further confirmed by Hes. Frag. 93, 7. which Gottling has
edited unmetrically, giving
of δή tor πρῶτον ζεῦξαν νέας ἀμφιελίσσας,
πρῶτοι δ᾽ ἱστέα ϑέσσαν, νεὼς πτερὰ ποντοποόοροιο.
where read in both lines πρῶτα, transposing the second, however, to
ϑέσσαν δ᾽ ἱστία πρῶτα, νεὼς πτερὰ ποντοπόροιο.
** By reference to this may be understood a difficult expression in Eurip.
Helen. 1535, λευκά Cort’ εἰς ἐν ἦν, descriptive of preparations for a
voyage, meaning the white sail- pieces were united so as to form the sail.
Kd.9,u. 151. | 8. 258—9. ™ & 318; οἵ, £. 269. 5 β. 426-7. 5 β,
420, 4.7, f. 149. PA. 11. Tp. 4223. ἴβ. 426. 5 φ. 390—1. ὃ x. 465.
* B
Ut. 427. Y x. 166; cf. A. 105. . 135. ¥ & 254. ᾿ “
CXII APPENDIX F.
(ἰστῷ)). The τεύχεα! which the suitors took on board seem not to have p
tained to the ship but to themselves, e. g. weapons &c.
(9) The expression στεῖλαν ἀεέραντες used of the sail-pieces, seems
mean ‘‘furled by taking hold of them’’, comp. πέσυρας συνψναεέρεται ἵππου
where the notion of raising or lifting disappears, so μῆλα γὰρ ἐξ ᾿Ιθάκης Mi
σήνιοι ἄνδρες ἄειραν." When the sail was rent by a squall, Odys. says
μὲν ἐς νῆας κάϑεμεν:" again, the crew when becalmed stood up and #
ἱστία μηρύσαντο, καὶ .. ἐν wnt γλαφυρῇ θέσαν." In the first case, t
mast seems also to have been lowered, as we read subsequently ἰστοὺῦς στ
σάμενοι ava θ᾽ ἱστέα λεύκ᾽ ἐρύσαντες. It is probable, as a gale had su
ceeded the calm,‘ that they in this case struck everything to make the sh
snug; and, if so, the mast may have -been let down, at once, or at any ra
on landing. So we read, on approaching harbour, they λύον ἱστία κὰ ὃ
Eiov ἴστὸν. The ropes, which, with all the necessary rig and outfit, a
included under ὅπλα, are specifically called ὑπέραι, κάλοι, and πόδες; of the
the vxégar, perhaps, hoisted the yard and were strained taut on either si
below (aug δ᾽ ag’ ὅπλα καττάνυσαν, Hy. VII. 33—4); the xadoe, li
the ‘‘braces’’ in our ships, may have governed the yard-arms; the πόϑε
were “sheets”’, or cords at the sail’s foot to keep it square to the wind.
Hy. VII. 32, comp. 26, the verb ἕλκειν is applied to the setting up the ms
and sail, especially in the phrase fotéa ἕλκεο νηὸς, σὺμ πάνθ᾽ ὅπλα λαβα
This erecting the mast by pulling at the cordage is not mentioned express
in Homer, but is consistent with his words. The opposite act to μηρύσανι
“folded or furled’’, appears conveyed by ava® ®’ ἱστία λευκὰ πέτασσαν,
expressing the unrolling or unwrapping the canvass (performed in one cas
where it does not appear that the mast was as yet set up), whereas ava &g
σαντες and ἕλκον are the terms for hoisting sail. The canvass, when torn
pieces by the force of the wind," was strack to avoid wreck, and when 1
mast snapped asunder, the sail and yard were lost together.
(10) The mooring and harbouring, as also the launching, require some speci
notice. The heroic galleys, and even the ships long afterwards, were mere
* The πόδα νηὸς ἐνώμων of x. 32, has however another meaning, see (14
** This phrase, with the line in which it stands, is rejected by Bek. a
Dind. in δ. 783, but retained by both in 9. 54, with exactly the same conte,
The reason would be stronger against it in the latter passage than in 1]
former. For in the latter if it be retained, the ship, after having sails, oars, &
put on board all ready for starting, is left in that needlessly early state
preparation for a whole night and part of a day, moored vpov ἐν vor
Moreover, Alcinous anticipates a calm (7. 319), and the sails are in fact n
used in the voyage of ». 76—8s, for which 8. 52—4 is the preparatio
Possibly they might be taken by custom in any case; and as ava... πέτα.
cay only means unwrapped, the ship with the sail, in that sense, πετασϑὲ
might be easily left moored in 6. 783 while the crew supped. In accordam
with this meaning, in γηθόσυνος δ᾽ οὔρῳ πέτασ᾽ ἱστία biog ‘04.,' it is be
to take οὔρῳ with γηθόσυνος, not with xétao’ as ‘if ‘‘spread to the gale
were meant; a construction which is confirmed by χάρμῃ ynPoovvor.! -
Y δ. 784, x. 360; cf. 326. 7 O. 680. δ g. 18. δι, 72, © pw. 170—
4 μι 328—6. © 9. 496. τς 260. ἐ δι 783, 9. 54. δ, γ1---7
1s. 269. N. 82.
APPENDIX F. CXIlI
big passage-boats with positively no cabin accommodation. ‘To eat a meal in
them was comfortless, comp. Hy. Apol. Pyth. 282—3, and though sleep was
possible in them, yet for these purposes the crew ordinarily landed. Hence
the sailing 6 or 9 days and nights continuously, or even two“, would seem a
heroic pitch of endurance. They were therefore harboured or hauled up at
evening in the usual course. Thus Eurylochus remonstrates against the ar-
bitrary wish, as he thinks it, on Odysseus’ part to make them keep the sea
all night'; with an evident sense of greater risk, which his fellows share.
In leaving shore there is, however, no feature of detail corresponding to that
uniformly expressed in the description of a ship nearing it by ἐκ δ᾽ εὐνὰς
ἔβαλον, when they are about to land. Yet the πρυμνήσια, cables mooring by
the stern, are cast off at starting just as they are made fast before landing.
Further, they moored, or at least hauled up, stern foremost; but must have
approached the land of course head foremost. Now, something would be de-
sirable to check and turn the vessel, and this was probably the advantage
gained by the δύναί. A slab of stone, oblong probably, flung overboard with
a rope attached, from the prow, would*in shoal water bring her head up,
while the stern would from the continued momentum swing round to shore;
ἃ second εὐνὴ would fix her in position for mooring. Such a slab need not
have been heavy, for it would, if flat, act by the exhaustion of the air below
it, and detain a bulk vast in proportion to itself, especially as it would tend
to embed itself in the mud, whence perhaps the term evvat, It is always *
plural. Doubtless the rope was only tied round it; otherwise when the εὐνὴ
was cast off the rope would have been lost. Or the δὐνὴ may have been
pierced with a hole® and the rope reeved through it, but the risk of the
rope being cut by friction would have been greater. It would be easy by
inserting the κοντὸς, or “pole’’, to tilt up the εὐνὴ and slip off the rope,
when wanted. Agamemnon, when thinking of decamping secretly by night from
Troy, says, ὕψι δ᾽ ἐπ᾽ εὐνάων ὁρμίσσομεν", i.e. νῆας; the object being appa-
rently to have all the ships ready launched some time before the crews em-
barked; hence the vessel would of course be afloat when thus ἐπ᾽ εὐνάων,
comp. ὕψοῦ δ᾽ ἐν νοτέῳ τὴνδ᾽ ὥρμισανῬΡ. The Phwacian vessel was moored
by a rope passed through a perforated stone on the shore.
(11) This mode of mooring was used when the shore was not suitable for
running the ship partly ground, or wholly hauling her up, or when tims was
important, A vessel thus held forward and sea-ward by her εὐναὶ, and shore-
ward and aft by her πρυμνήσια, would be as steady in ordinary weather as
if anchored. This view requires the evyal to have been in the ship ready
for use; and she probably carried a number of such stones serving as
ballast during the run, and some as evya) at the end of it. Where the
harbour was land-locked and smooth", no εὐναὶ were required, only the
ships were moored (dédevto). Where the λιμὴν εὔορμος offered a natural
basin, not even moorings* were needed. The mooring by εὐναὶ stern-to-land
* But so εὐναὶ is used in 4. 188 for one person's bed, or rather collectively,
bedding, as δέμνια in δ. 301, §. 20.
k 4. 74-6, 82; x. 28, 80. 1 pw. 279 foll. = 0, 498; A. 4363 ε. 137-
5 cf. ν. 77. ο Εἴ. 77. Pd. 785. 4 ν. 77- τ x. 92—6. * 4. 136—g.
HOM, OD. APP. Ἡ
CXIV APPENDIX Ε΄
would be a measure of precaution whenever they were not sure of their
ception on shore. So Odys. seems to have done in the Lestrygonian harb
At least, that position suits best the description of his swift escape. At
island near the land of the Cyclopes, after we are assured that all moor.
were superfluous, and informed that the ships drifted aground securely in
mist, we yet find Odys. bidding his comrades αὐτοὺς τ᾽ ἀμβαένειν avec
πρυμνήσια λῦσαι. This is at first sight obscure. Yet we must, on reflect
admit, that they could not, when they first grazed the shore in the mist
by night, be aware of the security; and therefore, they, or at any Odys. 1
his own ship, took the usual precaution. On advancing thence to exp
the coast and Polyphemus’ cave, he seems, if ¢. 483 be not interpolated f
540, to have moored head to shore. Thus Polyphemus’ first stone mi
fall before, 7. 6. beyond, the ship, and yet nearly hit the rudder, if they
not yet turned her. On the whole, however, the probability is that the c
mon plan was followed and, therefore, that the line is interpolated. W
Odys. returns to the island, it is distinctly asserted that he beaches his ,
ley (ἐκέλσαμεν)" and the customary command on departure, πρυμνήσια λῦσι
may apply to the crews generally, although his own had in fact ποέ moo:
(12) It is a difficult question what are the ϑοάων ἔχματα »nay*: the so
what similar expression ἔχματα πύργων has led some to think supports, st
to keep the vessel upright, were meant; but what else are the ἕρματα
xea) than such supports? Comp. Hy. Apoll. Pyth. 329. Nor would it be e
for a warrior to dislodge at once a stone thus supporting; nor would sto
so serving be ‘rolled about in great numbers at the feet of the combatants
On comparing ἔχματα in the simile of the irrigator who throws them out of
trench*, and in that of the stone wrenched and hurled by the torrent?,
notion of clogging, or clinging to, so as to impede movement seems me:
and this would very well suit the notion of ballast. Now, the στήλαε, wh
the Greeks had “placed foremost’, to be the ἔχματα πύργων," probably m
stones jutting out in front of the masonry, to keep it from slipping. Of cox
ἔχματα might be taken actively, as ‘‘that which holds”, or passively,
‘that which is held by’’ the ship. It is true, we have no mention of bal
specifically, but neither have we any mention of εὐναὶ, or stones so to se!
as being taken on board. And yet such must have been so taken, and 1
perhaps be included among the ὅπλα πάντα ta τε νῆες ἐύσσελμοι φορέουσ
But indeed the difficulty of sailing a keeled ship without ballast, and
simplicity of the mechanical contrivance, might warrant us in an assump‘
of its use where nothing in the narrative contradicts it. Hesiod speaks ((
624—6) of embedding the beached and dismantled galley in a mound of sta
for the winter. But no such treatment occurs in Homer. He also menti
a plug (χεέμαρος) in the bottom, to be drawn out when the vessel was
used, that the water might not lodge in and rot her.
* At any rate, if ἔχματα νηῶν mean stones supporting or embedding a 8]
we must suppose that this treatment was not used for those to which the
ata μακρὰ were applied: cither mode of support might suffice.
t x. 126—32. ὅς 562. Ye. 546. Yt. 562. ¥ Ἐ. 410. YA. 4
B. 154. : Φ, 257— 9. ἽΝ. 137—40. b M. 260. ¢ B. 390-
APPENDIX F. ΟΧΥ
(13) We have constantly the epithet ἐύσσελμοι applied to ships, but no
mention in Homer of σέλματα, whieh word occurs Soph. Antig. 717, a8 also
féisch. Agam. 1417, Pers. 360—1, meaning the ‘‘benches’’ of the rowers. Comp.,
however, ἐπὶ σέλματος ἄκρου Hy. VI. 47. The term κληΐζδες ὁ may mean
the individual seats, viewed as “locking’’ the plank or gangway in the
middle, see (4) with either τοῖχος, as the human eollar-bone, also called κληὶΐς,
in a similar position, ἀποέργει" αὔχενά τὲ στῆθός te. The σκαλμὸς, ‘‘thole-
pin’’, also does not occur in Homer, but its use is implied in the term dnoduevor'
applied to the oars, and in τρόποι ιϑερμάτινοιῖ. These latter mean the loops
on the oars, which, fitting round the upright peg, or thole (σκαλμὸφ), kept
the oar from slipping when the rower reached out to row. That the σκαλμὸς
was vertical, is likely from Hy. VII. 42, σκαλμοὶ σετθῳφάνους ἔχον. Its use
is clearly pointed at in Asch. Perse 3)8--9 savpatns ἀνὴρ τροποῦτο xO-
any θχωλμὸν ἀμφ᾽ svunestpos, “was looping his oar round the thole’’. The
δησάμενοι ἐπὶ κληῖσε might mean another mode of fastening; but Alcinous
uses the words in his directions to the crew and they execute them by “ fitt-
ing the oars in the heathern loops’’. Possibly the loop may have been at-
tached to the σκαλμὸς and the oar have played in it. Thus dye. ἐπὶ κληΐσιν
means, that the men, being on the benches, so fastened the oars, agreeing thus
with ἐπὶ «1. κάθιζον; although ἐπὶ in such usage does not always mean “uapon’’,
but often “at or near’’, as sometimes in és) πρύρνῃσι", and ἐπὶ vnva/s'.
In the ship of Alcinous the gifts and treasures are put ὑπὸ ζυγὰ", that
they might be out of the way of the rowers, ὁπότο σπκερχοίατ᾽ égexpoig. The
provisions! needed room and perhaps filled the ship’s cavity so that under
the {vya might be the only space left for the treasures. The comrades rescued
from the Lotus-eaters were secured ὑπὸ ζυγά; where a modern captain would
have clapped them under hatches. We may infer that there wae no room
under the decks, and account probably for this by the narrowing of the lines
of the ship at both ends. For a consideration of the ζυγὰ see below at (17).
(14) The oars were of fir (ἐλάτη)"; the proper word for oar is ἔρϑεμον.
The shape of the oar was far broader in the blade than our modern fashion.
Thus ἃ stranger to the sea and its uses, seeing one carried on the shoulder,
might take it for a whmowing-shovel (c@yeniorzog)°*. Keven? was strictly
the haadie only, as appears from its being also applied to the sword‘ and
the key’. So πηδὸν" is properly the blade. Oars were regarded rather as an
appurtenance of the men‘, like weapons. So Elpenor® begs that his own oar
might be set up as his memorial; comp. Virg. a. VI. 233, suaque arma viro
remumque tubamgque. Thus, as the rudder was only a larger oar, or a pair of
such (πηδάλια, ofjia«), the steersmen had personal charge of them while the
ships were hauled up, and before Troy appear’ with them going to the ἀγορή.
The Pheacians used no rudders, their ships being guided by instinct¥ — a
* A coin engraved in Smith's Dictionary of the Bible p. 45, shows a radder
represented which illustrates this shovel- shape.
ἀ β. 419 ef alibi. ° E. 146; ©. 325. [9. 37. ε δι 782; ® 53. 5".
4753 NA 762; &. 32. 65; O. 385. + @. 380; I. 495. «vy. 2:-- |». 71-2.
™ 4. 99. Dm. 172. ° 2. 138; wp. 278. P 6. 489; κ. 129. 4 9. 403;
Δ. 531; A. 119. τ φ. η. * 9. 328; ». 78. t 9. 37. 5. 77-8.
n*
CXVI APPENDIX F. °
poetic marvel. In Hy. Apoll. Pyth. 240 the ship, overruled by divine agi
ov πηδαλίοισιν ἐπείθετο. The sharpness and height of the stern made a
convenient, one on each side of it. Perhaps this may give a greater
cision to the fixed epithet ἀμφιέλισσαι. The broader raft has a single
δάλιον," and its rounder build aft might make a second needless. 8
times the singular occurs where two’ existed, as one at a time woul
handled. Each probably had its thole and loop,* like the oars. A short ph
perhaps in the sailor's vernacular, for πηδάλιον, is πόδα νηὸς," just a:
oars or sails are the πτερά. This seems likely from the word ἐνώμων,
proper one for steering, being employed* where πόδ. νη. occurs. The “sh
of the sail, as in (9), cannot be meant, for he needed not to touch it as
ran before the wind. Hesiod. Opp. 45, 629, recommends that the πηδε
he hung up in the smoke of the hearth to season it, when not used; c
Virg. Georg. 1. 175, suspensa focis explorat robora fumus. Some think the &¢
ἐφόλκαιον" was the rudder; comp. ξεστῆς ἐλάτῃσι for the oars. If H
meant this, it is strange he should not have said πηδάλιον, which equally
the metre, instead of this unicé lectwn. It is more likely a plank for di
barking; ξεστὸν, like the similar word ξυστὸν», being used as a noun,
ἐφόλκαιον meaning “dragging alongside’. Such a plank would be const:
useful, and almost necessary in embarking® sheep and oxen.
(15) Notice should be taken of the xovrog4, “‘pole’’, or ξυστὸν", ship's |
for shoving off, of 22 ells long, as used by Ajax. They appear to —
been fashioned of many slender rods fastened with metal rings (κολλή:ι
κολλητὸν βλήτροισι ἢ and pointed like a spear. For spear, indeed, δόρυ
Evotoy® are nearly synonyms, the latter being strictly, perhaps, an epith
the former. With such a pole or pike" Odys. saves his ship from hb
washed back to shore by the wave raised by Polyphemus’ stone.
(16) The size of the vessels and number of their oars is very vari:
We have one, a ship of burden, mentioned as pulling 20 oars'; the #je¢ |
would pull more in proportion to their size. The ships of Achilles are
to have had each ‘‘s0 comrades on the row-benches’’.« Assuming all to |
rowed at once, we should have that number of oars; and perhaps in shi;
this size this may have been so. In Philoctetes’ ships there are precisely
to have been “50 rowers’’, which confirms this notion.! But we cannot
pose that the vessels were increased by merely adding length and oars
that, it would not follow that in the Beotian galleys with 120 men 6860]
would row at once. And here the men are not called “rowers’’ but’ yo
men (κοῦροι) merely.” /Eneas, in a passage which bears traces of hyper!
* Comp. Orph, Argon. 277, ἐπὶ δ᾽ avr’ οἴηκας ἔδησαν, πρυμνόϑεν ὡς
σαντες, ἐπεσφίγξαντο δ᾽ ἱμᾶσιν. In later ships the contrivance for k
ing the πηδάλιον in its place was called a ζεύγλη “couple”. (Paley on Ex
Helen. 1535.) :
** ‘This interpretation of πόδα will also suit Soph. Antig. 715—6 ναὸς ὃ
ἐγκρατὴς πόδα τείνας ὑπείκει μηδὲν, x. τ. A.
Δ & 255, 270, 316. yy, 281. 2 4. 32, cf. μ. 218. ἃ & 350; μ.
"Ὁ, 388, 67). “τ. 469—70; 4.4; A. 431, 439. 44.487. ° O. 677, ef.
ΓΟ. 389, 678. & A. 256, cf. 260; N. 497, cf. 503, 509; 4. 4693 A.
he. 487. ὦ. 322-3. ΚΠ. ιγο. ἰ Bo 71g. ™ Β. 5ορ--το.
APPENDIX F. . CXVII
speaks of a ship of great size as ἑκατόξυγος"; and that the number of the
ξυγὰ was one test of bulk is implied in πολυξύγος, as also in πολυκληὶς, with
reference to the κληῖδες. Possibly, therefore, éxatofvyog may not be meant
to describe an actual fact. It is, however, to come to the consideration
of the ξυγὰ, unlikely that Homer should call the same piece a κληὶς and
a ζυγὸν, both being words of relation to other parts. Of course, as re-
gards that relation, any cross-piece might be a ζυγὸν, as joining the oppo-
site sides; hence seats, as being cross-pieces, would be included. Besides it
seems almost certain, that in a galley from go to roo feet in length, or pos-
sibly more,: there would be need of other cross-timbers besides the seats, to
secure solidity to the structure, and keep the sides rigid.
(17) Again, the height of a galley of the larger size would be such that,
as the men sat to row, their feet could not nearly reach the bottom and
keel; even assuming that they did so in the smaller one. The same ζυγὰ
which braced the sides would however serve as stretchers, gnd probably
yet leave a considerable part of the ship’s depth below them. Here then
we have the position described as ὑπὸ ζυγὰ, in which persons or things
would be, if lodged and tied, more secure and further out of the way than
if put simply under the benches. We should observe also the uniform dif-
ference preserved in the phrases ἐπὶ κληῖσι" and ὑπὸ fvya;? we never find
in.Homer the converse of these, ἐπὶ {vyoig or ὑπὸ xinidas. This seems to
imply that the underneath position of whatever was stowed below, was in the
poet's mind related, net to the.rower’s seats but to some other timbers, placed,
we must suppose, lower in the line of the galley’s depth. Cattle also on
board ship form a difficulty which is thus most easily solved; as, if they
broke loose, being, when stowed ὑπὸ fvya, below the level of the rowers’
feet, they would be comparatively harmless; and when we find that a fast
ship (not a qogtic) with 20 oarsmen,’ had perhaps as many sheep on board,
the question of stowage becomes somewhat pressing. It is quite suitable that
Odys. should treat his lotus-charmed crew like so many head of cattle and
send them so ‘“‘below’’. The stowing low would also conduce to steadiness —
an important point where the build was so long and narrow. The number
of ξυγὰ might be no clue to that of xinideg, and yet either number might
be a standard of size. In the hold there might be none; this indeed seems
implied from the mast’s falling right to the keel in Odysseus’ shipwreck,’
from which such ζυγὰ would, if there, intercept it. Odys. fears that his com-
rades, if he told them of Scylla, would leave off rowing and crowd or pack
(πυκάξοιεν) themselves within.s Now a retreat to the ends of the vessel, into
the dark and narrow spaces covered by the decks fore and aft, is unlikely to
be intended, though certainly not impossible. To sink down from their seats
under the ζυγὰ, which, with the seats, would to some extent protect them,
would be a move far more readily made. As the ship’s length and oarage
increased, her breadth, though probably in a less proportion, must have in-
creased also; and more men could sit on a κληὶς than two. How the space
thus gained was economized, we have no hint: but the non-rowing members
" T. 247. ° B. 419; 8. 37 et alibi. Pt gg; ΡΨ. 21. 4 4. 308—g.
Γ phe 422. δ μ. 3224—§.
CXVill APPENDIX F.
of the Bootian crews may so have found place, The number of Odyss
own crew on leaving Troy is reckoned by Grashof (p. 18, note 17) from
details given in the poem. at s7'. On long voyages supernameraries, to al
for casualties, would be needed; or at least, a sage chief like Odys. yx
take some. Philoctetes’ crews are put at fifty per ship, as if an outside
tal." Twenty hands was a common complement for a galley going on a sl
errand, i, 6. one of that efze would suffice. Telem.’, and the suitors in |
suit of him,” and Odys. on his voyage to take Chryseis home,* are furnis
with that number.
(18) The general length of voyages throws light on the character of
shipping. Thus Nestor calls it a long course (δολεχὸν πλόον) from Lesbos
Peloponnesus’, although it appears from his own statement that it was
within four days*, So Odys., in dilating on the Greeks’ length of absexz
says a month away from home ordinarily made a man uneasy, and aecou
for such a protraction of the voyage not by any distance gone, but by
weather-bound state of the voyager’. The distance from Crete to Egypt v
we know from the statement of Odys., only five days’ run>, but Nestor sex
to view it as an immense distance, ‘whence the very birds returned not
same year’, suggesting the inference, that much less could men. Odys. sex
to speak of this run as a feat of navigation performed under circumstan
of unusually favourable weather. They went, he says, “with a stern-wind ;
a smooth sea as if down a stream’’®. ΑἹ] this seems to show that mere co
ing voyages were usually thought of, and that the galHeys were not expec
to encounter high winds and heavy seas. This suits the view taken
their build, as long, narrow, light in draught, and low. The fear of ro
and shoals was reserved for a more advanced navigation’. We read of «
only wreck from such causes, and that in the case of a highly presumpta
man®*; neither do we hear of peril of foundering from leakage. Short σι
made before the wind or with the oar would indeed be lees exposed to δι
risks. We read, however, in a simile, of a sea breaking in over the bulwa
beneath a boisterous wind‘,
(19) The colours ascribed to a vessel are either the commonplace “black
or the vermilion and ruddy colour (μελτοπάρηοι", porsexoxaeyoc') applied o
to the παρειαὶ, doubtless the sides of the δον." Pitch is only mentioned
a simile to give an idea of blackness*. We have no knowledge of its :
on shipping as a fact, but their blackness may be probably ascribed to
The epithets xvavoxemeos', κυανοπρώρειος Ὁ also occur, and share the gene
obscurity of the xvavog which is their basis. As a colour κυάνεος certai
appears as the deepest black". If xvavog were the darkest-hued of kno
metals, it might be poetically borrowed’ as a general standard of darkne
* A statement in Herod. III. 58, that ‘‘anciently all vessels were pain
red’’, may as well relate to this part only as to the whole ship.
' cf. κι 203 foll.; ε. 60, 289, 311, 344. α B. 719. Ὗ θ. 213. ν ὃ. ἡ
x A. 309. yy. 169. t y. 180. ἃ B. 292 --- 4. bg. 246—
ς &. 253—6. dp. 217—21. ὁ δ. 500—1. ΓΟ. 381—3. εβ. 4:
B. 524 εἰ alibt. δ, 128; B. 637. tod. 1343 B. 271. k 4d. 3
le. 482; O. 693 ef altbi. ™ ¥. 299. ® 2. 93—4-
APPENDIX F. CXIX
or even, taking the description: of Thetis’ garment literally, no darker dye
for raiment may have been known. It is observable that Hephestus’ foundry
includes only four primitive metals°, yet besides these xvavog appears in the
shield?; and, if we assume, as we probably may, xvavog to be bronze,
its components, copper and tin, occur among those four metals. Bronze
is ordinarily darker than copper, as shown in the familiar form of bell-
metal; hence the epithets κυανοχαέτης 1, xvavoxexiog (Hes. Theog. 406) aro
justified; hence, too, we find κύανος in juxtaposition, as if by way of con-
trast, with tin’. Exposure to the atmosphere would deepen its tint. Its depth
of hue would account for the cornice (@gtyx0¢) in the palace of Alcinous
being of xvevog*; for such an upper projecting portion would contrast effec-
tively with the brighter metal below, and would at any rate be more appro-
priate in that position than any other then known metallic substance. Hence
the important part borne by xvavog in Agamemnon’s armour! is explained,
and justified both by its strength, ite ductility, and its hue. We know also
that bronze was in fact of very high antiquity. Gladst. (III. 1v. 499) doubts
Homer’s being acquainted with the fusion of metals. It is clear, however,
from his mention of yoavo." that he knew of smelting, and Hesiod. Theog,
86:1—7, dwells at length upon it.
(20) Thus xvavoxg., applied to a ship, is probably not a mere word of co-
lour, but descriptive of material, being an anticipation of the well-known copper-
sheathed beaks of a later age.* This view is justified by the epithet κορωνὶρ,
so often applied’, which refers to the form only, as κυανόπρ. to the sub-
stance. We may compare the κορώνη, ‘‘handle”’ of a door, which seems to
have been also of metal. The whole aspect of a ship seems to be contem-
plated under the image of a bird. Now, as the spread of the oar-blades
forms a wing, and the two big rudders trailing behind represent the feet, see
above at (7) note; so the prow seems viewed as the head, having its beak
and its ‘‘cheeks’’ (for xagétal is actually applied to the eagle*). The epi-
thet xvavoxefa of a table’ refers also, no doubt, to the metal as forming its
foot; justified there by its massiveness (Gladst. III. rv. 464), as in the ϑριγκὸς
by its hue. The adjective κυάνεος certainly in a later age meant ‘‘blue’’,
and, taking copper as a basis of departure for the meaning, the ‘‘native blue
carbonate of copper”’ referred to by Gladst. (ib. 498) may have given rise to
this. With this, however, we are not primarily concerned. The ψάμμος
κυανέη", κυάνεαι φάλαγγες", need cause no difficulty; sand may be black, and
troops, though armed with copper, might in the distance show the darker hue.
(21) Homer’s fondness for ships is shown from the number and variety of
their descriptive epithets in his verse. The principal of these are, from their
speed, size, and build, ὠκεῖαε, ὠκύαλοι, ὠκύποροι, Goa), ὀρθόκραιραι, μεγα-
* Perhaps the oldest historical trace of this feature is that in Herod. 11]. 59,
who speaks there of the extremities of the galleys, which had prows like boar-
snouts, being knocked off and hung up as trophies in the temple of Athené
by the Aginete; where, though metal is not mentioned, it is unlikely that
wood should have been so honoured.
o 3. 474-6. PZ. 564. 10. 536; N. 563. ἴ A. 24—5, 34-δ: &. 564—5
87. 87. ‘ A. 24 foll. "2. 470. “τ. 182, 193; B. 297 ef alibi. ΚΝ α. 441
et alibi. x B. 153. Y A., 629. * μ. 243. @ ΖΔ. 282.
ΟΧΧ APPENDIX F.
κήτης, κοῖλαι, γλαφυραὶ, ἐΐσαι, ἄκραι, φορτές ; from their colour, μέλαεναε,
μιλτοπαρῆοι, φοινικοπάρῃοι; from some prominent part, ἐύπρυμνοι, κυανόπρω-
ea, κυανοπρῴώρειαι, ἐὔσσελμοι, κορωνέδες, πολυκληΐδες, ἐύξυγοι, πολύξυγοι,
ἐκατόξυγος ; from their oars, ἀμφιέλισσαι, ἐπήρετμοι, δολιχήρετμοι, ἐεικόσορος ;
besides the more general ones, ποντύποροι, εὐεργὴς, περικαλλὴς, ἐύκλεεαι.Ἐ
Perhaps no single word has been so fully decorated. The oars, too, are evn-
ofa and προήκεα," the sails are λευκὰ, the ropes ἐὔσερεπτοι, the raft is ev-
ρεῖα and πολύδεσμος. The poet never tires of describing the attitudes of his
vessel, quietly grouping with the shore and rocks‘, or reposing in her shelt-
ered basin®, or charging the waves! with swelling and straining sail®, high-
heaved stern™ and burying prow', or again, running before a fair breeze*
with the ease and speed of a chariot and four coursers along a plain'.
Again, he gives us the raft whirled like a faggot of trambles before the
gale™, the tattered sail", the splintered mast°, and the crashing wreck P.
The service of the sea, too, was a service of danger, and had its charm, even
like war itself, for the bold adventurer who scorned the easy joys of home,
ἀλλά μοι αἰεὶ νῆες ἐπήρετμοι φίλαι ἦσαν,
καὶ πόλεμοι καὶ ἄκοντες ἐὔξεστοι καὶ ὀϊστοί.«
It is an aggravation of the barbarism of the Cyclopes, that they had no ships,
nor men who could build them"; and Odys. is to wander forth and meet his
doom in some land of mystery amongst ‘‘men who know not of the sea’’.®
How grand, too, is the picture of the lonely raft with the forlorn hero on
board, clinging sleepless to the helm, while the heavens spread their bright
map above him', and keeping slumber from his
‘“Eyes grown dim with gazing on the pilot stars!”
It is in his similes, however, that Homer’s sense of the sublime in the vast
picture of the sea most frequently escapes; but upon these it would be for-
eign to our purpose to enter.
[The monograph of Grashof on “das Schiff bei Homer und Hesiod”’ has
furnished some valuable hints for the above article; although on some im-
portant points its authority has not been followed.]
* As most of these epithets have been above alluded to in their specific
relations, and the rest will easily be recognized, it seems unnecessary to load
the margin with references in proof of them.
DR. 121, 125 ef alibi. “ pw. 205. 4 ὃ. 428—9, 577-9, 779-83. ° &. 136—9.
Γβ. 427—8. ὁ β. 427; 4. 113 A. 481. bh». 84. Vg. 70. k & 253—6.
Vy, 81-6. 3 &. 327-30. 98. jo-1. 5 &. 316; μ. 422. Ρμ. 41ς, 42ι.
4 ἔξ, 224—5. 4 125—7. SA. 121.--α; ᾧ. 268 -- 72. ts. λῆο--).
APPENDIX Καὶ CXXI
APPENDIX F. 2.
THE HOMERIC PALACE.
(1) The δόμος, δῶμα or δῶ, or plur., δόμοι, δώματα, was the building, and
olxog the dwelling. Hence the plur. οἶκοι hardly occurs in Homer as mean-
ing one man’s house*. The component members of a Prince’s palace, as most
simply enumerated, are ϑαάλαμον καὶ δῶμα καὶ αὐλήν!» where the word δῶμα,
commonly used of the whole pile, probably means the large hall (μέγαρον)
which was its basis. To this last all others seem secondary. It was the
abode of the family, and served for their common in-door life. The lord and
lady slept commonly in a recessed portion of it, the μυχός. The ϑαλαμος
might serve for various purposes, as the work-room and sleeping room of the
female slaves, the sture-room, &c. The male slaves slept round the fire-place,4
towards the upper part of the hall, which had a smoke-vent in the roof, serv-
ing, as did the door, to admit light also. This hall had its porch, and the
αὐλὴ,» “court’’, or “yard’’ also, which was in front of the hall, had often a
porch and threshold of its own. This court served the open-air life of the fa-
mily in various uses. A childless prince, like Paris, would find all his wants
met in what is above described; as would one with infant children merely.
When children grew up, chambers might be added round the hall, opening
off from it; a story might be raised over it or part of it; a portico of con-
siderable depth might be thrown out along its front towards the court, within
which also, if the enclosure were on a large enough scale, other detached cham-
bers or wings might be included. The portico also might be carried round the
court; and in any or all of these ways accommodation might be extended, and
8. more ornate aspect, by the mutual relief of parts, might be ensured, Hence,
of the palace of Odys. it is admiringly said, ἐξ ἑτέρων ἕτερ᾽ for,’ various
corresponding members rising out of each other to the eye.
(2) Some or all of these extensions were in fact adopted. ϑάλαμοι clus-
tered about the hall;® the ὑπερῷον was its upper story," see, however, below
at (33); each portico, extending along the house-front from the porch (πρόϑυρον),
was called an al@ovoa' (Fig.1.CC). The whole of this front structure was named
the πρόδομος. The relative position of the parts in the more highly com-
plex form, and the mode of access to each, often admits of doubt; particular
phrases, too, regarding the details of the structure are ambiguous. Another
difficulty arises from the looseness of Homeric phrase, in which the specific
names of the parts are not strictly used. We have just seen an instance of
the whole δῶμα used for a part: another passage gives μέγαρον καὶ δῶμα
καὶ αὐλὴν, where probably the δῶμα καὶ αὐλὴν would have sufficed to con-
vey the meaning; but the μέγαρον is emphatically before the poet’s mind in
δ ὦ. 417. ' Z. 316. © ἡ, 402, δ. 304, η. 346.
' 9. 266. ® Z. 244—8. Βα. 362, B. 514, εἰ αἰδδέ.
jd. 302, & 5, 0. 5, 466, v, 1, 143.
CXXII APPENDIX F.,
respect of the facts of which he speaks. In another, Iris personating Lao-
dicé finds Helen ἐν μεγάρῳ, who, however, is said at once to go forth ἐκ
@alaworo.' Penelopé, again, tells Euryclea, that but for her age she would
have dismissed her ἔσω weyagoyv; which probably means, ἔσω ϑαλάμον:
and so the faithful handmaids ἔσαν ἐκ μεγάροιο daog μετὰ χερσὶν ἔχουσαι."
where ϑαλάμοιο is meant; unless, as is less likely, Odys. had by this time
in his fumigation passed into the αὐλή. Similarly ἔνδοθεν αὐλὴ," ‘the cuurt
on its inside’’, is used for the μέγαρον, for one within the latter would be ne-
cessarily within the former.
(3) The question of materials occurs before going into the detail of parts.
Stone for the walls, various kinds of wood for the door and its fittings,
roofings, and pillars, copper® for the threshold, and for platings or facings
on some of the walls, gold, silver, electrum*, and ivory for some of the mural
and portal decorations,’ are found. The doubtful xvavog furnishes copings
or cornices to the walls; see App. F. 1 (19). The Phmacian palace is not
to be taken as a fact to the poet’s mind in the same sense as the Ithacan
and Spartan are. The more magnificent decorations which mark it are a
fancy-picture only, the others are enhanced imitations of a real state of life
and manners. The specimens of ancient masonry in Ithaca, as elsewhere
in Greece, consist of massive polygonal blocks ranged in the style called
Cyclopic, without any trace of cement (Kruse’s Hellas, Atlas Pl. VII), nor
is there in Homer's simile of the builder any mention of such a substance.
It is difficult to think that, with his tendency to minute reality, he would
have omitted to name cement had it been in use. ‘“ Helmets and shields
built in like a wall’’4, is even more exact when compared with that Cyclopic
style, in which smaller stones wedge the interstices between larger ones. Ho-
mer’s builder works with πυκενοῖσι λίϑοισι,, and Hector’s monument is strewn
πυκνοῖσι λάεσσι." Odysseus built his chamber πυκνῇσιν λιϑάδεσσι These
builders are especially said to build loftily, and to guard against the force
of the wind; and one of them, in so doing, uses ἀμεέβοντες," “rafters crossed’’,
to support the masonry or timber-work; see below at (14). So the towers
being the loftier portion of the Greek line of defence, have jutting masses
(στήλας προβλῆτας) for buttresses (ἔχματα) ;" with which may be compared
the palisades round the stone wall of Eumeus’ lodge, driven ἕκτος ; see below
at (6). The wall was topped in this last case with a fence of the prickly-
pear (ἐθρέγκωσεν ayéed@),* with which our spike-topped walls may be com-
pared. In Polyphemus’ cavern we find a court in front with a similar fence
on an exaggerated scale, “built loftily with earth-fast stones, with tall pine-
stems and stately oaks.’’!
(4) Thus some of the masonry was uncemented; whether any was cemented
it is impossible to decide; for where no such stockade was used, superior skill,
in choosing and setting the stones, rather than the stability ensured by mortar,
* See note on δ. 73 on the meaning of ἤλεκτρον.
1. 125, 142. mb. 23-4, χ. 404--.. "6.74. ° 7. 83. Ῥ δ. 7a—3.
4 Π. 210—4. r ἢ. 212. * Q. 798. ὑφ. 193. u Ψ᾿ 712—3.
' M. 2509. w & 11--, x ἔ. 10. Ys. 185—6.
APPENDIX F. ΟΧΧΙΙ
may have been the cause. Still, the mentéon of stones ἀποστίλβοντες ἀλεί-
gartos,* though said only of such as formed a seat, makes it difficult for us
to conceive that so near an approximation to the cement, which joins, as the
stuceo which whitens, should have existed alone; especially when the art of
cementing stone was so early known hoth in Egypt and in Asia. There is,
however, equally little trace of the art of brick-making, though certainly known
in those countries at the time. Nor need the epithets ὕψηλον, ὑψόροφον,"
and the like, shake our opinion of mortar not being used; for, though great
height might not be attainable with walls of blocks, yet wood-work might
easily be ereeted upon them to the necessary elevation. Thus the ἀμεέβον-
zeg,> may have sustained an upper-structure of wood. The timber named is
fir, oak, ash, cypress, and, for finer work, cedar.© The method of building with
plank-work engaged in the stone, or brick, or mud of the wall is common
in most European countries. The stones are often particularized as ξε-
στοὶ 4 i, e. dressed so as to present an even surface; porticoes so built are
accordingly georat.° For λάεσαι ῥδυτοῖσι see (6) note *. The doors are con-
stantly spoken of as of planks, cas{dac,' which word often stands indeed for
doors, with such epithets as xolinral,§ εὔξεσεαι," οὖ agagvias;' and Homer
takes pains to tell us that the angles were duly) squared by the rule. The
metallic plating over stone would be such as we have still vestiges of in the
so called ‘“‘Treasury of Atreus’’, where holes, probably for bronze nails, are
yet visible in the stone-work of the chamber. The floor was of native earth
in Odysseus’ palace,“ nor do we trace any other material in other floors.
Thus a great mixture of rudeness and richness predominated, “especially in
the Spartan palace-hall, embellished with the gifts of Egypt and the spoils
of Troy.' From our knowledge of what Greck art was at its maturity we
may be sure that adequate taste was not wanting in its early period, and
that the grains of the wood and the outlines traced by the beams would be
turned to account in giving finish and beauty to the interior. The roof rested
on beams (@oxol)," and in the upward interior view of the palace timber
seems predominant,”
(56) The order of parts should begin with the αὐλὴ, “court”. Its outer wall
was called ἕρκος or ἑρκέον. The phrase foxea τὸ μέγαρόν te° indicates the
whole palace, αὐλὴ included, viewed as lying within the ὅρκος. One descrip-
tion of it as “ornamented (ἐπήσκηται) with side-wall and copings’’?, implies
some degree of sumptuousness in its appearance. Outside Alcinous’ court
lay a large square orchard close by the gates, with fountains, one of which
passed under the threshold of the court itself.1 We may observe the pre-
dominance of symmetry in Homeric conceptions,’ and suppose the αὐλὴ to
have been, like the orchard, quadrangular. Similarly, a local connexion be-
tween the cultivated estate (τέμενος) of Odys. and his αὐλὴ seems intimated
in the fact that the manure (κόπρος) for the former was gathered up from
the latter and removed thither.» On such a heap in the αὐλὴ, the dog Argus
ry. 408. * JI. 213, B. 337. " P.712—3. ° . 38, p. 43, 0. 339—40, &. 191,
ἃ 8. 6, x. 210—1, 253, Z. 244, 248. © Ζ. 243. ΓΜ. 121. 6 I. 583;
cf. ψΨ. 194. %@. 164. + 8B. 344. Jo. 341, 9. 44. * φ. 120—2; cf. τ. 63
1d. 72 —-g, 80—g, 127—g. my. 176, ><. 38. 9 κι 341, @ 604.
P eg. 266—7. 4 η. 82 foll., 112-3. = * of, δ. 7o—t. * @. 297-9
CXXIV APPENDIX F.
lay as Odys. entered. The quantity of this refuse is accounted for by the
constant presence in the αὐλὴ of the animals slaughtered for sacrifice or
daily food; and by the horse-chariots &c. which drew up there." This αυλὴ
had a gate of its own, with πρόϑυρα, or porch. In the first peaceful group
on the Shield of Achilles, the women stand admiringly, ἐπὶ προϑύροισιν ἑκά-
ory,” to see the marriage train go by. Here the προϑ. of the αὐλὴ seems
intended, which would be nearer to an object passing outside than the xg0@.
of the house. Pallas, as Mentes, alights I@axng ἐνὶ δήμῳ ἐπὶ προθύροις
Ὀδυσῆος οὐδοῦ ἐπ᾿ αὐλείου." This seems to mean the porch of the αὐλὴ,
and the sequel confirms it to be so. For Pallas finds, on entering, the suitors,
who enter the μέγαρον later," now certainly in the αὐλὴ, playing πεσσοὶ be-
fore the gates of the actual palace.’ Had the αὐλὴ been empty, a guest
would doubtless have passed through it towards those gates. But a pause
at the outer πρόϑυρα gave more time for the host’s courteous reception, as
matters stood. Here, accordingly, the οὐδὸς αὔλειος is the actual entry of
the αὐλή. Elsewhere, however, we find αὔλειαι ϑύραι," and ϑύραι αὐλῆς,"
used of the actual palace gates, so called as leading into the αὐλὴ; and so
αὐλῆς ϑύρετρα." But the distinctness of the gates of the αὐλὴ appears from
ἐπήσκηται δέ of αὐλὴ τοίχῳ καὶ ϑριγκοῖσι, θύραι δ᾽ εὐερκέες εἰσὶ δι-
κλίδες. This epithet εὐερκὴς is often applied to the αὐλὴ itself, as “fenced”
by the ἕρκος; see Fig. 1. AAA A.
(6) The court might have porticoes along its front wall facing inwards,
corresponding to those of the house. Odys. drags Irus out through the πρό-
ϑυρον, αὐλὴ, and outmost gates, and there seats him propped against the court-
wall. Similarly in Phoenix’ narrative of his escape, the first watch-fire was
in such a portico (ἐν αἰϑούσῃ εὐερκέος αὐλῆς). In such an one were piled
the corpses of the suitor’s, to rid the hall of them.' From Phenix’ tale we
must suppose the court-wall to have been, where not lined with porticoes,
not higher than an active man could vault;® perhaps not much above his own
height; as Medon, apparently unseen, hears from without it the suitors’ voices
within ito This height included its ϑρέγκοι, ‘‘coping-stones’’. If the wall
were lined with porticocs and had a gate-way, it would no doubt, so far,
be higher. This wall was of stone: it would perhaps be such an enclosure
as fenced the Phwacian ἀγορὴ, said to be ῥυτοῖσει λάεσσι κατωρυχέεσσ᾽ ἀρα-
evia.' Similarly, the court of Eumseus’ lodge is fenced ῥυτοῖσιν λάεσσι," and
* Explained by a Schol. a ‘‘stones which must be dragged’’, as too bi
for lifting. But, probably, the word is the same as in the old Latin lega
formula ruta c@sa; where the Pandects (XIX. 1. xvii. § 6) explain ruta, as what-
ever material is dug (eruéa) from the estate, “arena, creta, et similia’’, and
cesa, as whatever is cut down upon it. Warro (de L. L.9, p, 154, ed Bipont.,
1788) expressly notes that the uis long. Stones dug from the ground, as op-
posed to such surface fragments as might be picked up, may probably be the
sense. Another Schol. gives ῥυτοῖσιν as i. g. εὐξέστοισιν: but Homer would
doubtless have said εὐξέστοις or ξέστοισιν λάεσσι, had he meant this; be-
sides, there is the improbability of ‘‘polish’’ in the stones where all else
was rough.
‘ vw. 250, ef. χ. 334—6. ἃ δ᾽ 20, 0. 146. . Σ. 496. Ἢ aw. 103—+4.
5 α. 144. Y a. τού ---Ἴ. 2 wp. 49. δῷ. 240, 389. hy. 137.
ἀ σι, 100-3. ° 1. 472, 4. 449. 1. 476. 5 ὃ. 677—8.
i ξ. 267, cf, ε. 185. x 3 10, °
APPENDIX F. ΟΧΧΥ
coped with the prickly-pear (aysegdog), with palisades thick and close together,
made of heart of oak, driven ἐκτὸς... διαμπερὲς ἔνϑα καὶ ἔνϑὰ, “all along
outside (the masonry) right and left“,! i. e. as viewed from the entry. This last
resource probably assisted the rustic masonry, which, though massive, lacked
compactness, It might not be needed in the more skilful structures in towns.
In the court before Odysseus’ palace was a τυκτὸν δάπεδον, meaning pro-
bably “paved’’, for quoit-play &c. The αὐλὴ was a place of assembly for
Alcinous’ nobles," and in the Olympian palace for the deities, as well as the
palace proper and its porticoes, In the midst of it stood the altar of Zeus
Zoxerog.° In Circé’s palace the συφειός, ‘sty’, was probably in the avin,
as she goes διὲκ μεγάροιο to open? it. On the lamentations of the re-trans-
formed comrades, it is said dug) δὲ δῶμα σμερδαλέον κανάχιξε; 4 where aug
may point to αἴθουσαι along the house-front, and to the opposite wall of the
αὐλή. In the Pylian αὐλὴ stood a ϑρόνος ἢ of polished stones before the
palace gates." Here the sacrifice to Athené,* and probably ordinary house-
hold sacrifices, were performed: goats and swine fed there in the enclosuro,'
and were there prepared for the banquet by the guests." Rumpf supposes
(I. 7) seats joined to the wall of the αὐλὴ outside. This is probable, but not
necessary, from 2. 343—4. The seats used may have been mere hides, as in
«. 108. In the αὐλὴ, whether wholly detached from the main building or not,
several ϑάλαμοι might stand. These will be further considered under θάλαμος.
(7) Going from the αὐλὴϊο the main building, the πρόδομος would be passed
through first; in which all the range of vestibule and adjacent porticoes seem
to be included. Whether the vestibule was wholly or in part walled off, or
distinct by columns only, from the latter, may be doubted. The vestibule,
πρόϑυρον, pl. πρόϑυρα, seems used in a lax sense to include some space in
the immediate front of the door, though not overhung by the roof of the
vestibule. That the πρόϑ-. closely adjoined the αὐλὴ, is clear from the ex-
pression πρόϑ. re καὶ αὐλὴν, used when Melanthius is dragged forth thither.’
So the Centaur Eurytion was punished somewhat like him, evidently in the
avin, being dragged διὲκ προϑύροιο ϑύραξε thither.” The corpse of Patroclus
is laid along (ava) the πρόϑ. of Achilles’ hut.*
(8) It is likely that the af@ovaae projected beyond the vestibule, and that the
space between them, whether overhung by it or not, was called πρόϑυρα (Fig. 1. 8).
It was ample, since we find the gods in the house of Hephestus there as-
sembled,’ and all able to view the interior of the palace; and, although the
female divinities are absent, they are mentioned as though there was room
for them too. The αἴϑουσαι in Zeus’ palace, and in that of Alcinous, are
used as places of assembly. The recurring line, of travellers departing, ἐκ
δ᾽ ἔλασαν προθύροιο καὶ αἰϑούσης ἐριδούπου, may be explained by the fact
* Voss conjectured that this stood ‘outside the gate ‘of the αὐλή because
Telem. in y. 484 is not said to drive, as in y. 493 and 0. 145, 190, ἐκ προ-
ϑύροιο καὶ αἰθούσης ἐριδούπου. Rumpf thinks this an error (I. 7).
ι ξ. τι--- 2. = @. 627. 5 &. 57. ° 4g. 335, cf. 2. 306, A. 774.
P x. 388—go. q = 398. ἢ T γ. * Ye 430-63, 7. 335. -6. ἰυ.
11-Φ-4. 164, 185-9. "5 ὶ, 300. ori ¥ ῳ. 295— 301.
. 2312. [ .
aot
CXXxVI APPENDIX F.
that some part of the portico was used for a stable 3° probably the part at
either end remote from the main entrance. The arriving chariot naturally
drew up in the xeo@ven:> when empty it was set against the ἐνώχια παμ-
gavowvta;® probably a facing of polished stone or wood work, or stones faced
with metallic plate, se above at (3), forming the lower course of front masonry
along the αἔἴϑουσαι and in the vestibule,’ see below at end of (16). The
chariot, being low, would touch, as it stood, these lower courses only; hence
Homer, precisely describing, speaks of it as resting πρὸρ ἐνώπια rather than
πρὸς τοῖχον. On departure the horses would probably be yoked some-
where in one of the af@evear: thence, too, the chariot would drive out into the
πρόϑυρον,Σ and thence away. As final greetings were exchanged at the door
of the wéy., the guest paused there after driving from the αἴϑουσα, and
drove out, after leave taken, by the avlecae Ovgas.* The chariot’s driving out
of the αἴθουσα is marked by the latter having the epithet ég:dovxov,' ex-
pressive of the tramp of hoof and din of wheel echoed by its roof. In other
portions of the αἔϑουσα it was customary to make up a bed for a guest or
for a bachelor son.
(9) That the αἴϑουσα was: esteemed part of the πρόδομος, seems clear from
the fact that Helen orders bedding to be laid in the αὖϑ. for guests, who are
said afterwards to have slept ἐν προδόμῳ." That the πρόϑυρον was also part
of it, seems probable from the fact that Eumzus, who is found sitting in the
xoeod.,' rushes out ava x90. to succour Odys. against the dogs.* Naturally,
also, a projecting porch would form part of the most prominent portion, which
the πρόδομος was. Thus the πρόϑυρα and its adjuncts have their importance
in regard to the out-door life of the inmates and the reception of visitors.'
The αὐλὴ of Eumeus’ lodge was chiefly tenanted by his swine, and fitted
up with sties for the females, and also in the αὐλὴ (πὰρ δὲ) were his dogs.
Telem. is seen by them crossing the αὐλὴ, and they bark not: Odys. also,
within the lodge, hears his foot-steps there. In the αὐλὴ, therefore, it was
that they flew at Odys., and into it Eumeus rushed ἀνὰ πρόϑυρον to drive
them off."
(10) The proper name for the principal apartment is μέγαρον, often used,
especially the plur. μέγαρα, as in the phrase ἐν μεγάροισι, for the whole pile.
The access to it was directly through the main entrance, over the οὐδὸς,
“threshold’’, which seems to have been double, either an outer and an inner,
or an upper and a lower ovddg; see below at (33). The doors, through which
it was entered from the πρόϑυρον, were probably double-leaved (δεκλίϑες), ἘΦ
like those of the αὐλὴ in the palace of Odys. Loftiness and splendour ὄφη- ©
* These are not shown in the plan, but would be a little in front of B’ in Fig. I.
** The preferable etymology of this is δε-κλέγω, not κλεέω, as shown in the
arallel forms ἔγκλιδον͵ παράκλιδον, Hy. 23. 3, δ. 348, 9. 139, Hy. Venus 182.
e word κλέψω is used in the sense of to ‘‘incline’’ the doors to each other,
in a passage where πύλαι stands for the gateway or entrance, and σανέδεςᾳ
for the actual doors. Here ἐπικεκλιμένας is opposed to ἀναπεπταμένας ““fly-
ing’’, ὦ. e. open. M. 120—32.
. ὃ. 40. %&8.20;7.4. “ δ. 42: 0.438. ‘44.121; N. 161. 5 γ. 491; 0. 190.
γ. 493, 0. 191. 6 ¥. 399— 401; ἢ. 345. b δι 297, cf. ὃ. 5. ig. 5.
κ δ. 34. lA. 777. ™ 0. 4—5. 5 δ, 29 foll,
APPENDIX F. CXXVII
Let φάειναι) characterized them. As a good view of the interior of the pé-
γαρον, including its μυχὸς at the upper end, could be had from the x@0@.,°
the doorway would seem to have been spacious; see further at end of (23).
Similarly, the augur Theoclymenus, looking forth from the μέγ., sees the πρόϑ.
and αὐλὴ fall of ghoste hurrying to Erebus,? Loftiness and spaciousness
ure the features of the péy. It was the room of state in a palace, but com-
monly used by the family. All the ancient commentators, inckuding Eustath.,
suppose that there was a women’s apartment of somewhat similar propor-
tions on the ground floor. Voss, Rumpf, and many other German scholars
follow this opinion. It is a figment, however, based on the habits of the
later period of Athenian splendour; and those commentators seem to have
been begailed by their familiarity with the usages of that later age.
(11) Homer contains no passage in which such a gyneceum need be assumed.
Further, all the entries and exits, as well as fixed positions of Penelopé,
Areté, Helen, and Hecuba, testify against it, and the whole habit of social
life, as shared by the sexes, is opposed to it. It suited the view of women’s
position and duties in the Thucydidean and Euripidean period, that they should
be secluded and remote from the men, whose keenly political instincts led
them to affect a life in public; and their extreme domestic abaadonment,
improper for the other sex, tended to a masculine isolation, which sentenced
or privileged their women to a proportionally profound privacy. If further
Homeric proof were needed, it may be found in the palace of Zeus, modelled
on that of kings below. It is wholly opposed to the relation of Heré and the
other goddesses with Zeus, to suppose a gynseceum in Olympus. The whole
episode of her fraud upon him im the fourteenth Iliad is against it. Her
toilet-scene is in a private ϑάλαμορ made for her by Hephestus,1 which no
other deity could open. She gues out of it and calls to her Aphrodité, with
whom she converses “apart from the other deities’’, ¢. 6. evidently, in that
privacy.* Aphrodité departs πρὸς δῶμα, to the μέγαρον, i. e., of Olym-
pus.* On her return, discomfited, to Olympus from Ida, Heré goes to the
same Διὸς δόμορ, where she is exposed to the remarks and questions of the
other gods,‘ and where her statements provoke the rash sally of Ares which
Pallas checks." Here, then, we might surely expect a elear token of the
gyneeceum, if any existed; but here, on the contrary, is the amplest proof of
a hall shared by male and female deities in common, Precisely in propor-
tion as the gynzceum suited the advanced notions of historic Greece, it was
repugnant to the simpler morals and manners of the olden time, and to the
unchecked circulation of male and female thought and feeling in the Homeric
age. That age had a home: the later artificial period broke it up into a
‘‘liberty-hall’’ for the men and a prison for the women.
(12) The peculiar position of Penelopé, as the mistress of a house beset
by intrusive revellers, and the widow-wife of one too long missing to be
deemed its lord, craves for her an exceptional habitat; and hence arises the
prominence of the ὑπερῶον in the Ody. This may perhaps be regarded as
the sleeping apartment of the female members of the family, slave or free,
5 ὃ. 32g foll. Pw.3ss. 4 3. 166—9. ° &. 188-9. 5 &. 224. ¢* O.
84—101. 5 O. 113 foll.
CXXVITI APPENDIX F.
save such as were of rank to enjoy, like Nausicaa, a separate ϑάλαμος, and
as the working room of those who pursued sedentary labour. But, to descend
to detail, Penclopé’, sitting ἐν ϑαλάμῳ, bids Eumzeus summon the disguised
Odys. to her, who postpones the interview till late, when the suitors would be
gone. When on their departure, and that of Telem., Odys. is left ἐν μεγάρῳ,
she comes ἐκ ϑαλάμοιο to see him.” Here, as she is seated awaiting him
in the wey.,* the female slaves leave it, carrying away the tables, vessels,
ἄς. of the previous banquet, and among them Melaunthé reviles Odys.,- who
replies.’ This is evidently in the presence of Penel. seated παρὰ xvgl,? who
hears the words, rebukes the offender, orders a chair for Odys., and opens
the conversation, Between the first message through Eumeus and this inter-
view she had visited the suitors, descending from the ὑπερωια,} and retired,
ascending thither.» But that message had been sent from a @aiapos,® and
on Eumeus’ return she speaks to him ὑπὲρ οὐδοῦ βάντα, ἃ which seems to
show that some ϑάλαμος on the ground floor.is meant. Probably a personal
and private ϑάλαμος of her own, like that of Heré, should be understood
(Fig. I. Z or M). Helen similarly appears ἐκ @aiaporo® in the same sense.
Besides this, ‘‘Eurynomeé the stewardess’’! is found mingling in the conversation
before Eumzus is summoned. Now, her business® certainly lay in the μέγ.
among the suitors; whence she might easily speak with Penel. in an adjacent
ϑάλ., but could hardly have gone up-stairs to do so. Further, Odys. in the
μέγ. among the suitors, after her visit to them, rebukes the handmaids for
attending on them and bids them go to their mistress;
ὃμωαὶ Ὀδυσσῆος δὴν οἰχομένοιο ἄνακτος,
ἔρχεσϑε πρὸς δώμαϑ᾽, ἕν᾽ αἰδοίη βασίλεια"
τῇ δὲ παρ᾽ ἡλάκατα στροφαλίξετε τέρπετε δ᾽ αὐτὴν,
ἥμεναι ἐν μεγάρῳ, ἢ εἴρια πείκετε χερσίν."
Now Penel. had only just before ascended to the ὑπερώια, of which fact, he
was probably aware.* It is plain, therefore, that the expressions, πρὸς da-
wad fy’ αἰδοίη βασίλεια, and ἥμεναι ἐν μεγάρῳ, refer, not to any gynse-
ceum, but to the ὑπερώιον itself. So Euryclea', going to summon the waiting-
women to Penel., is said to go διὲκ μεγάροιο; where, from the sequel,*
the ὑπερώ., in which Penel. then was, is plainly meant. Further Melanthé,' in
her flippant speech to Odys., says, ‘‘wilt thou annoy us here by roaming all night
about the house, and peeping at the women?’”’ These words would be excellently
adapted to the presence of a male stranger in the gyneceum, had any existed;
* It is not easy to trace Penel. consecutively through all her movements in g.,
o. and τ. At the commencement of g. she is with Telem. in the μέγ. Her
words in g. 102 express no intention of going up instantly, see note ad loc.;
neither does she ascend till after Eumseus’ departure, 589; nor are we then
told of her ascent; but in o. 158—207 we find her descending; and infer that
she must have ascended some time in the afternoon with which g. concludes.
She reascends in o. 302, and again we are not told of her descent, but find
her again in a ϑαλ. adjoining the μέγ.) doubtless that in which she had pre-
viously conversed with Eumsus; and, here again, Eurynomé is found in at-
tendance.
Ἶ ρ. §05—I11. Yt. I, δι. Xt. 53. ‘+. 60 [0]. 5 τι 55. * 6. 205.
> 6. 302. © 9. 506. d 9. 575. ε δ. 121. Γρ. 495. ἔ ρ. 259.
bo. 313—6. ig. 185—6. kK 6. 206. ες 65—9.
APPENDIX F. CXXIx
and here, therefore, we might expect to find the scene so laid. But what is the
fact? That the whole takes place in the wéy., which the suitors have recently
left, and where Penel. is already seated by the fire,™ like Areté in the μέγ. of
Alcinous," to hear the stranger’s tale. And on her departure again to the
ὑπερώια she bids him take a bel τῷδ᾽ ἐνὶ οἴκῳ,» which, if spoken in the
olxog of the women, ought to mean that olxog itself; but which means the
common olxog or μέγαρον still, of which the xgodouog is viewed as a purlieu,
and in that πρόϑομος his bed is accordingly made of the fleeces ὅς. which
lay about on the seats in the wéy.;P and into the μέγ... whence it had been
taken, he accordingly takes the bedding again in the morning. Further, as
he lay there, he marked the paramours of the suitors who had gone to their
homes,’ going forth ἐκ μεγάροιο to join them.* This must have been through
the same chief doors of the palace which Euryclea had previously closed.‘
Thus μεγάροιο has here its proper meaning; although in two passages just
quoted it stands for the ὑπερῷον."
(13) As regards the evidence from character and habits, though less critical
stress can be laid on such things than on the facts stated or implied in the
narrative, it seems inconsistent that such a character as Nausicaa should
have been reared in the hot-bed of a gynsceum. She acts most unlike what
we should expect had such been her nurture; and this, in a poet on the whole
so true to moral nature as Homer, should have its weight. The notion of a
young and high-born maiden driving out with no companions but of her own
sex and condition to a distance from home, is out of the question when mea-
sured by such a scale of manners as the gynseceum implies. Her bearing
on meeting Odysseus under the circumstances would be equally inconsistent
with moral probability, and the independent 56] - possession with which she
directs his movements, if possible, even more so. But indeed, the whole Phza-
cian court atmosphere is one in which the women have rather more than less
of their sex’s usual influence. Homer has drawn the men effeminate, but the
queen and princess with exquisite and equal firmness and yet delicacy of
tone. But as regards palatial arrangements, he has one set for all, and ap-
plies it alike to Olympus and to Scherié, and to the households of Hecuba,
Helen, and Penelopé. But of all most unlike the life of the gynsceum is
the reception of Nausicaa by her brothers on her return:
ἡ δ᾽ ὅτε δὴ οὗ πατρὸς ἀγακλυτὰ δώμαϑ᾽ ἵκανεν,
στῇσεν ae ἐν προϑύροισι, κασίγνητοι δέ μιν ἀμφὶς
ἴσταντ᾽ ἀθανάτοις ἐναλίγκιοι, of δ᾽ ὑπ᾿ ἀπήνης
ἡμιόνους ἔλυον ἐσθῆτα te ἔσφερον εἴσω."
The idea of the young men receiving her and carrying in her clean clothes
is irreconcileable with the manners of separation. And the more we examine
the arrangements of the sexes in detail the more extravagantly wide of pos-
sibility will the notion of such a separation between them appear.
* In the view taken below (33), the ὑπερώ. is supposed to have been built
over the πρόδομος, forming one front with it, as viewed from without, and,
like it, therefore, part of the μέγ. Thus, as τῷδ᾽ ἐνὶ οἴκῳ means the πρόδ.,
the word μέγ. may with equal justice stand for the UXEQO.
mr. 55. 5 &. 305. ος, 594—8. Pv. τ. 4 υ. οὔ. Fo. 428.
v. 6—13. ' ¢. 30. = 7. 3—6.
HOM. OD, APP. 1
ΟΧΧΧ APPENDIX F.
(14) The roof of the μέγ. was ordinarily flat; the only case precisely in
‘point being the palace of Circé, shown by the fall of Elpenor from it." The roof
there appears to have been of the sort called solarium by the Romans — the ter-
raced top so well-known in the East, and still used as a sleeping place in
modern Palestine.* A simile in which the reciprocal grasp of the wrestlers’
arms is compared to that of
ἀμείβοντες, τούς τε κλυτὸς ἤραρε τέκτων
δώματος ὑψηλοῖο βίας ἀνέμων ἀλεείνων,"
is explained by a Schol. of ‘‘joined rafters (συστάται) which”, he adds, ‘‘form
the shape of the letter A”. And this idea is supported by the previous
description of the attitude, ἀγκὰς δ᾽ ἀλλήλων λαβέτην χερσὶν στιβαρῇσιν.
There is a stratagem in the Cornish wrestling, in which each adversary grasps
the other round the waist and endeavours to throw him over his shoulder,
which may be here intended. The bodies thus lean on each other at their
upper extremities while their lower ones stand apart (διεστῶτας Eustath.
ad loc.). This suits the A form. Beams so set might combine to keep up a
flat roof, although they suggest 8 pointed ome more obviously. Homer's
usual word for roof is τέγος, which appears also to bear by syneedoche a
different meaning, see below at (16). The gen., téysog, occurs five times*
in the Ody. with epithet πύχα ποιητοῖο, and once in Hy. Ceres 185. Elpe-
nor also fell καταντικρὺ τέγεος, having forgotten to go back to the ladder
or stair by which he had mounted. This does not mean that he fell over the
edge, but, probably, down through the smoke-vent (éa7), there being no other
aperture, This was not vertically over the fire; see below at end of (20).
(1g) The word ὀροφὴ is once found, of the roof as seen from within;) the
masc. ὄροφος, with epithet λαχνήδες “shaggy”, also once in sense of “thatch
— that which covered the hut of Achilles before Troy, and was gathered
from the meadow there. Eustath. on x. 559 foll., supposes a flat roof over-
laid with earth to be meant; but this is a hint which he probably borrowed
from later structures. The principal feature of the roof was ite central beam,
μέλαθρον, so explained by the Scholl., the name originating from the dis-
coloration (μέλας) through smoke, or, according to Eustath., through sun and
weather; the one suggesting the inside, the other the outside view; bnt an
overlying stratum of earth, tile, or other material, would, if it existed, intercept
the latter influences. The derivation from μέλας is favoured by a passage
in which our present texts have,
αὐτὴ δ᾽ αἰϑαλόεντος ἀνὰ μεγάροιο μέλαθρον
ἔξετ᾽ ἀναΐξασα χελιδόνι εἰκέλη ἄντην, "
* Comp. the precept of Deut. XXII. 8.
** Rumpf (II. 11), to whom I am indebted for this quotation, adopts the
view of the Schol., and quotes words from Hippocrates as interpreted by Ga-
len, which signify, ‘“‘the triangular vertical extension of the roof’, in fact a
“‘gable’’, being an explanation of ἀέτωμα there. The same slope-aided form
of roof is alluded to by Aristoph. Av. 1110 under the term ἀδεύς; but Hippo-
crates and Aristophanes are far too late for our purpose.
Ἶ *. 559—560, cf. 2. 6 foll. BW. 712—3. * ας 333; 9. 458; π. 4153 6. 209;
φ. 64. yz. 298. τ: RQ. 451. 4 4. 239—40.
APPENDIX F. CXxXxI
where αθαλ. seems disjoined by hypallage from μέλαθρον," to which Voss
wished, by reading al@addevte ... μελάϑρῳ, to restore it. In a similar pas-
sage the eagle in Penelopé’s dream gy δ᾽ ἐλθὼν κατ᾽ ag’ Efex’ ἐπὶ πρού-
qovts pelafom.>** A beam on which a bird could sit must be, not a rafter
in the plane of the roof which it supports, but perhaps one inclined at an angle to
it, like the ἐρεέδοντες in the simile applied to the wrestlers; see above at (14).
In the net of Hephsstus the light toils droop from the beams (μελαϑρόφι»),
like fine cobwebs, down into the @aiapog and over the sleepers there. Epi-
casté destroyed herself by “fastening a vertical noose from the lofty μέλα-
oor." Demeter in Hy. Cer. 188, ‘‘with her feet made for the threshold”, καί ga
μελάϑρου κῦρε κάρη, πλῆσεν δὲ ϑύρας σέλαος θείοιο. So Aphrodité (Hy.
Ven. 173) εὐποιήτου δὲ μελάθρου κῦρε κάρη, see below at (16), where the
roof-beam, or rather the whole roof composed (εὐποεήτου) of such is spoken
of. The μέλαθρον had a special sanctity attaching to it, in regard to hos-
pitable duties, perhaps as overhanging the hearth and blackened by the
fumes of its sacrifice on their way to heaven. So Ajax appeals to it, say-
ing to Achilles, αἴδεσσαι δὲ μέλαθρον" ὑπωρόφιοι δέ τοι εἰμέν.5
(16) The expression σεαϑμὸς τέγεος πύκα ποιητοῖο stands only in one con-
nexion: where a lady of the family frum the vxegaia enters the péy., we
read, ‘she took her place παρὰ σταϑμὸν τέγ. xv. ποι." The foot of the stair
by which she would descend might be in the péy. itself, and her standing
παρὰ σταϑμὸν x. t.4. might then mean “by an (engaged) pillar” of the wall,
supporting the roof. More probably the stair would land her first in one of the
ϑάλαμοι, whence emerging in the μέγ. she would still become visible first at
its wall. In the Hy. Ceres 186, the queen is seated with her infant παρὰ
ora®, réy. Now τέγος appears to mean, not only the roof, but any chamber
or room, considered as roofed in; (Crusius sub voc.) Probably here the
ὑπερῷον iteelf or upper story, or else the ϑάλαμος into which one descended
from it (Fig. 1. 2), is meant. Now σταϑμοὶ occur elsewhere simply as meaning
door-posts; and the σταϑμὸς τέγεος may therefore well mean the door-way, by
synecdoche, of that @aiauog. So Penel. sits spinning, to hear Telemachus’
tale, παρὰ σταϑ. μεγάροιο; for the door-way, as leading from the τέγος
(== ϑάλ. or ὑπερῷον») into the μέγ., might be called the ora@. of either. But
where one has just emerged from the τέγος it may be viewed as pertaining
thereto, otherwise to the μέγ.; see below at (32). Some take the σεαϑ. réy.
to mean an ordinary “pillar of the roof’’; but the proper term for pillar is
κίων. It is more consonant with queenly dignity in Penelopé, and with mai-
* In the prayer of Agam. that he might set on fire the palace of Priam
that very day, al@aloey is joined to μέλαθρον," perhaps, however, as a se-
condary predicate, describing the effect of the fire.
** There is much doubt about this station of the eagle. Was he inside or
out? Probably ἐν μεγάροισι, said of the geese destroyed, is a general ex-
pression covering the specific sense ἐν αὐλῇ. Some of the beam-ends may
have projected on the palace front; certain ornamentations of the Doric style
are said to be nothing but beam-ends, conventionalized in sculpture, so pro-
jecting over a porch; on one such the bird may be supposed perched.
ν τι 544. ς 8. 279. 41. 28. ¢ 1. 640. ἴα. 333; 9. 4:8; π. 4153
6. 209; φ. 64. 8 9. οὔ. bB. 413 foll.
1*
CXXXII APPENDIX F.
den modesty in Nausicaa, to suppose that neither advanced further than to
be just visible to the party in the μέγ. That the orad. τέγ. was a door-
way is further countenanced by Hy. Ceres 188, ἡ δ᾽ (Δημήτηρ) ἄρ᾽ ἐπ᾿ οὐδὸν
ἔβη ποσὶ, i. e. she ‘“‘made for the threshold’’. The poet adds, καί ῥα μελέά-
ϑρου κῦρε κάρη, i. e. her stature expanding, her head touched the main beam.
Some take μελάϑ." here to be the lintel of the door; but, as the queen was
sitting in the péy., though near its door-way into the ϑαλ., the door would
be behind her, and one approaching her in front would not come under
the lintel, although the brightness of the divinity approaching would cast
a glory on the doors (v. 189). Those who will have a gynszceum in the
rear of the μέγ. consider τέγος to mean that apartment, and the ora@.
its door-way from the μέγ. This entry they think was at the μυχὸς, the
door being at its further end, see at (34). Some take the ora@. réy. to com-
prehend in lax usage the floor adjacent, as far as the hearth, and thus the
spot where the queenly chair is usually set; so that the queen in Hy. Ceres
188 would sit where Penel. and Nausicaa on entering stand, and where Areté
also sits!) The σταϑ. μεγάροιο also occurs, meaning the main entrance from
the court without. There Odys., when his arrows are spent, τόξον μὲν πρὸς
σταϑ. ἐνσταϑέος μεγάροιο ἕκλιν᾽ Ectapevar, πρὸς ἐνώπια παμφανόωντα. He
seems to set down the bow on the threshold whence he had shot. Here,
therefore, ota#. may well mean, literally, the door-post, which the ἐνώπεα
or ‘‘facings’’ of the vestibule would meet; and the bow set at their point
of juncture may be described as resting against (πρὸς) either or both. From
the conspicuous feature of its various ora@pol, one of which is described as
κυπαρίσσινος ,Κ the μέγ. may obtain its epithet of ἐὐσεαϑής.
(17) The floor of the μέγ. has been described as of native earth; see
above at (4). It was duly levelled and hardened to what is called a κρα-
ταίπεδον οὖδας." Damp in the climate of Greece is not much to be dreaded;
and the floor’s level, in order to ensure more support to the walls, may have
been lower than that of the αὐλή. This would give greater vantage-ground to
one standing on the threshold. From its being the native earth we under-
stand how the fire is thrown out on it from the Aaparijees,™ how Telem. digs a
trench along it for the axes in the bow trial to stand in,® and how the same
expressions fgafe, ἐν κονέησιν," which would suit out of doors, equally apply
to it. Thus foot-cloths were spread below the more costly couches, as an
additional compliment to a guest, but carpet there of course was none. The
polluted surface is removed by scrapers (λέστροισι): the same tool is placed
in the hands of old Laertes at his garden work (λιστρεύοντα putoy).4
(18) The μέγ. may be supposed a parallelogram with its short side to the
avin. Of its size we have indications in the following incidents. The bow-
* Rumpf (III. 807—1) interprets μελάϑ. here as a wooden structure (cratiti
operis) erected on the μυχὸς and laterally connected with μεσόδμαε on either
side of it, in his view, ‘galleries’, hanging between the end wall and a
parallel row of pillars thrown out in front of it, see (41). He views the ἐεε-
λάϑ. above and the μυχὸς below as together making up the τέγος.
' £. 305. Κρ. 340. lap, 46. πος 63. 5" g. 120—1, ° Z- 20, 329,
383. P χ. 455. 4 ὦ. 227.
APPENDIX F. CXXXHI
trial was meant. to involve a feat of no ordinary difficulty. We must allow
for a reasonable interval between the axes, and for a sufficient distance’ between
the nearest axe and the marksman. The weapons used against the suitors,
arrows and spears, with the various charges of the combatants‘, especially
when we consider the length ascribed to the spear in the II.,* imply a con-
siderable range. Telem. also ‘“‘runs’’, at his father’s bidding,® from the central
entry of the μέγ. to the ϑαάλαμος on its side, perhaps by way of the devon.
After the massacre Odys. looks about to see if any enemy is skulking any-
where.” The suitors, above a hundred in number, daily banquetted there,
each at a separate table, and room for their attendants had also to be found.
Epithets of amplitude, as ὑψερεφὲς μέγα," are applied to it; so also it is
ἤχήεν, from its echoing walls, and σκεόεν, of somewhat doubtful import, whether
through the shadows cast by figures from the fire, or the prevailing gloom
caused by the absence of windows, and the admission of light only through
the smoke-orifice and the door. That there were no windows in the μέγ.
may be regarded as certain from the fact of no mention of such an important
detail anywhere occurring in Homer, Hesiod, or the Hymns. In the attempts
of the suitors to devise means of escape,’ the windows, had there been any,
would probably not have been forgotten. They could not, had they existed,
have been above reach from the floor, for how then could they have been
closed and opened? They must have afforded an exit either into the αὐλὴ,
or into the street of the town, and in either case it would have been im-
portant to Odys. to close them up beforehand, as he does the door, or to
the suitors to escape through them if unclosed. Even in the later Roman ar-
chitecture, as shown in the remains at Pompeii, windows except in the upper
story are rare. (Smith’s Dict. of Antiq. 5. v. fenestra.)
(19) The aperture in the roof, and there may have been more than one,
would be towards the further end from the door, in order to distribute the
light through it®* and the door more equally; even thus the sides of the room,
remote from the central line through door and smoke-vent, would be very
gloomy. This suggests the sense of oxsoey. For this reason, if for no other,
the greatest length of the room would probably be in this same line, and
in the same line would probably be the three λαμπτῆρες or fixed light ves-
sels raised above the floor. The smaller portable one borne by Pallas being
golden, these may be supposed to have been of copper, and so Eustath. calls
them xezalxevuéva, and explains their position and form by the words ἐσχά-
ραι μετέωροι, ἢ χυτρόποδες ‘“‘vase-footed’? (Rumpf. II. p. 31). On the floor
lay the fireplace (ἐσχάρη)," the mistress of the house or a principal per-
son commonly sits ἐν πυρός αὐγῇ, even when it is broad day-light (Διὸς
αὐγαὶ) without. This seems to show that gloom prevailed but for the fire.
Nearly on the same central line the group of principal persons in the péy.
are to be looked for, in whatever palace interior the scene is laid. The pre-
* In Herod. VIII. 137 the sun is spoken of as looking down into (ἐσέχων)
a house, by the καπνοδόχη, and throwing its light on the floor (ἔδαφορ).
" @. 78—6, 420—3. * z 72, 81, 116, 255 foll. Z. 3193 Θ. 494.
“4.106. ° x. 381—4. % 247-51. * ἢ. 225, Οἵ. δι 757. % 4. 132 foll.
* σι. 307, Cf. τ. 63. ἃ § 305, cf. w. 89.
ΗΝ ἘΝ
CXXXIV APPENDIX F.
vailing gloom is portentously deepened when Theoclymenus denounces woe
against the suitors, but he alone seems to perceive it. They retort, “let
him go out of doors then, if he finds this so like night’’>; the retort comes
with greater force when we remember that a degree of darkness was the con-
dition on which alone the comforts of in-doors could be enjoyed.
(20) The pillars cannot have been fewer than four in a quadrangular build-
ing, and may have been any number not too large. Those in Odysseus’ pa-
lace seem to have been few, to judge from the fight which goes on there,
which was as freely fought as if the stage had been clear. They probably
stood in pairs, opposite to one another, and beams* may have run horizon-
tally across the head of each of them to an opposite σταϑμὸς in the wall.
Their only epithet is expressive of height, and once, in a simile,** stoutness
is implied; but there is no hint of ornamentation, save that suggested in the
last note, although they must have been very prominent objects. From their
mention in conjunction with the fir beams, the peco@par,e &e., it is probable
they were the trunks of trees, barked and smoothed, The chair of state is
placed against a pillar for Areté ‘in the hlaze-light of the fire’, and her
royal husband’s close beside it. Similar seems the position of Penel. in the
same “blaze-light” at the further (ἑτέρου) wall, i. ὁ. farthest from the door.
Also the principal chair! (θρόνος ἀργυρόηλος Fig.I. ὃ seems indeed to have had
a fixed position there, not far from the principal κρητὴρ (see below at (22)
Fig. I. Δ) and the ὀρσοθύρη, or opening into the side-passage ; ἔξ see below at (38).
This was also near the μυχὸς or extreme upper end of the μέγ" The po-
sition of the host or hostess at that “further wall” is confirmed by the place
of reception occupied by Achilles in his hut,' in the interviews with the am-
bassadors and with Priam,* in which last his κλισμὸς πολυδαίδαλος is also
specially mentioned. Hence the hearth seems to have been at the upper end
of the wéy., and Nausicaa’s direction to Odys., μεγάροιο διελϑέμεν, ὄφρ᾽
ἂν ἵκηαι μητέρ᾽ ἐμὴν" implies, perhaps, that a considerable portion of
the μέγ. would be traversed to reach her. This confirms the view taken
above of the smoke-vent, as not central, for, if central, it would be remote
from the hearth; yet it need not have been vertically over it, for then
a sudden heavy fall of rain might have damaged the fire. The ἐσχέάρη,
seems to have been always on the mere flat of the floor, like our ‘‘hearth-
stone” (Fig. 1. 6). 11 is said (Rumpf II. 29) to have been oval (στρογγυλοειδής).
It was the place sacred to supplication, and bears in that relation the more
solemn name of forfn. From it the house derived its sanctity, to which it
was as altar to temple. The stranger swears coupling it with Zeus.™ Odys.
* The position of Melanthius, when hauled up to the top of a pillar, is close
tu the beams (doxot); this, however, is in the θάλαμος or armoury, zy. 192 -- 3.
ΡῈ Itis said of the olive-stump built into his bed-stead by Odys., πάχετος δ᾽ ἦν
nvtE κίων, ψ. 191: this increases the probability that the pillars were tree-
trunks. They seem to have had some protuberance, the rudiment of a capital
perhaps, at top, as otherwise there would be nothing to fix the rope. by
which Melanthius was slung.
b vw, 360 —2. Sr. 37. 4 ξ. 305—7. ὁ wy. 89—90. f ef. το ss—8.
® Χ. 341, cf. 333. " @.145—6. ἰ. 218-9. Κὶ Φ. 597-8. | ζ. 304---ς,
cf, ἡ. 139—41. Ὁ δ, 158—9g; 9. 155 —6; ©. 303—4.
APPENDIX F. ΟΧΧΧΥ
went and sat as a suppliant ἐπ᾿ ἐσχάρῃ ἐν κονίῃσιν πὰρ πυρὶ," whence it
seems that the fire on it was ample enough to shed its ashes on the floor
around. Near it (ἐν πκόρι) the house-servants slept for warmth’s sake, pro-
bably not having bedding, and old Laertes in his woe slept so with them.®
Against another more central pillar the seat is placed for the minstrel μέσσῳ
δαιτυμόνων,Ρ and his lyre is hung from the same within easy reach.
(21) Against one of the pillars (Fig.I. FF’) stood the δουροδόκη. Some question
has been raised, whether this pillar was external in the xgodouog or internal in
the μέγαρον. The former view, held by Rumpf, (I. 29) has been based on what
is probably a xgw@veregov; Telem. ‘‘set his spear against a pillar, and
went in, and crossed the stone threshold’’.4 It is clear that the parts italicized
are to be so inverted in sequence, and probably, as what stands last, the ‘“‘cross-
ing the threshold’’, is really first, so what stands first, tho ‘‘setting the spear’,
is really last. Im visiting Eumssus, Telom. gives his spear to a slave in the
αὐλὴ and himself goes in ἅς. This may possibly have been because in
that lodge the proportions were small, and the entry or interior too small to
admit the weapon, if large, or there may have been no @ovgodoxn, or Telem.
may have wished to give the slave something to do for him. At most it is
inconclasive. The spears which Idomeneus had gathered as spoil were cer-
tainly in the πρόθυφα." There is good reason why they should have been,
as the incident shows which occasions the mention of them, viz. that they
might be ready at hand for instant use; possibly, also, here again the di-
mensions of the weapon and of the hut may have occasioned the doveod. to
be outside the latter. But in the Odyssean palace, the spear is deposited at
a column after entering the péy.', and the wéy. certainly contained spears."
The explanation given by a Schol. a. 128 of the fashion of the dovgod. is not
clear: it is, ἀπέξεον tag κέονας καὶ ἐν αὐταῖς ἐπετέϑουν τὰ δόρατα. Here ἐν
αὐταὶς may imply some cavity or receptacle resulting from the action called
axéteow, which must then be used in the unusual sense of ‘‘scooped’’. The
latter sense lies directly in Eustathius’ words, on a. 128, ϑήκη δοράτων.
κιονοειδής. ἢ μάλιστα, εἰς κίονα ἐγγεγλυμμένη, ἐν ἧ πρὸς ὀρθότητα τὰ
δόρατα ἴσταντο. A fluted column with spears set in the flutings might easily
be understood from this; though something would still be wanted to catch one end
of the spear and steady it. Boarding pikes in a vertical rack used to be
seen round the masts of ships, where, there being no grooves, they were se-
cured by both ends. The phrase ἔντοσθε dovgod. is well suited to such an
explanation; comp. ποιλῆρ ἔντοσθε μεσόδμης," of the Homeric mast, and see
App. F. 1. (6). Rumpf ub. sup. explains the dovgod. as fixed between two
columns, engaged, he probably means, in the wall.
(22) Close to the upper wall appeared a κρητὴρ, probably of large size.¥ We
may suppose ἃ stand for it. It is uncertain whether it lay left or right® of the
central line from threshold to μυχὸς, or it may have lain even in that line. A
* Schreiber and Rumpf place it on the right side, Eggers on the left; see
the plans, Rumpf part. 1 ad fin.; of these Rumpf places it within the μυχος.
® 7. 183—54- ° 2. 188—91. P &. 65—6, 473. 4 9. 29---30. τ σι 4ι.
5. N. 261. ‘a. 12) 011. 5 ¢. 33. *° B. 424; 0. 289. Ἶ φ. 145—6; χ. 341.
a»
CXXXVI APPENDIX F.
man who sat by it was μυχοίέτατος, ft. e., probably, closest to the μυζος of all
the guests. The spot whence the cup-bearer began his rounds" is probably its
place; from it he moved towards the right. Phemius, standing by the ὀρσοθύρη
just before, sets down his lyre, between the κρητὴρ and the chair of state. These
were probably near the ἐσχάρη but not in the μυχός. It seems likely that
the chair was on the same side as the ὀρσοϑύρη, as more convenient for the
occupant’s access to the αὐλὴ without, if needed; the χρητὴρ may then be
assumed to be probably on the opposite side, and as the cup-bearer went
towards the right, i. 6. left of one entering the μέγ. from the αὐλὴ, it would
be more convenient to view the κρητὴρ as itself on that side, and the chair
and ὀρσοϑ. on the right (Fig. I. ki). This so far agrees with a Schol. on
q- 126, who places the dgco@. ‘‘in the right corner”.
(23) The threshold (οὐδὸς) has been several times mentioned. It was the
outer limit of the μέγαρον proper, as the μυχὸς the inner, being the furthest
point from it; hence ἐς μυχὸν ἐξ ovdoio διαμπερὲς Υ means, “from one end
of the μέγ. to the other”. The threshold of Alcinous’ palace was of copper
(χαλκεος),} corresponding with the extravagant splendour of silver posts and
lintel and a golden handle.“ He himself styles it χαλκοβατὲς δῶν, which is
elsewhere applied only to divine abodes.© In the description of Tartarus,
characterized on the contrary by massive strength, we have a copper threshold
and iron gates.4 There seems no doubt, as stated above at (10), that the ov-
δὸς, spoken of as of stone (Aatvog), and again that of wood, (weddevog, comp.
also that said to be δρύϊνος) belonged to the same main entry, and were
both passed in going from the αὐλὴ into the μέγ. Rumpf (I. 39) supposes
& passage or entry of some length, flanked by the ἐνώπια, leading from the
avin to the péy., with outer doors on a threshold of stone and inner doors
on a threshold of wood. As opposed to this may be noticed the seat placed
for Odys. by Telem. within the péy., beside (παρὰ) the stone threshold, where
he might sit and drink wine among the company.® It is equally clear that
he had previously ‘‘sat upon the wooden (wed/yov) threshold within the doors,
resting against (xdivapevog) the door post of cypress-wood’’.. The two pas-
sages can most easily be reconciled by supposing the wooden threshold super-
imposed on the stone one, which latter projected considerably further than
it into the μέγ. inwards, and towards the αὐλὴ outwards. ‘The wooden one
would thus form a bench on which one might sit with his back against the
door-post, his feet would then rest on the stone threshold forming a broad
lower step, and a seat placed beside the latter on the floor of the μέγ. would
be near enough to the company for the guest so seated to be counted as
one of them. ‘The two pairs of doors, which Rumpf probably supposes, may
then have stood, one at each end of the higher wooden threshold. They
seem distinguished as the πρῶται ϑύραι,ξ i. ὁ. first towards the péy., and
the αὐλῆς καλὰ ϑύρετρα," as leading directly to the αὐλή. The width of
the threshold may be inferred, not only from the general phrase εὐρέα pad’
foyra,' but from the fact of fuur men standing on it with space to wield
¥ φ. 142. Y 7. ΕΣ cf. 87. * 7. 83, 88, 89. 47. go—1. by. 4.
¢ 8. 321; A. 426; &. 173; ὦ. 438, τος. 4 Θ. 15. ° v. 258—9. ἴρ. 339—40.
ἔα. 255; χ. 250. by. 137. io. 385.
APPENDIX F. CXXXVII
their spears. That of one of the θάλαμοι may be gathered from an eagle
with spread wings being compared to the width of the door of a lofty @ala-
μος. The main entry of the μέγ. would probably be wider still (Fig. I. EZ).
(24) It is always mentioned with an air of loftiness and size (μέγαν ov-
dov).= Persons npon it are upon an eminence. Philctius leaps ἐξ οἴκοιο
ϑύραξε, which means from the threshold." Odys. leaps upon it and shoots
from it at the suitors.° The external threshold projected into the πρόϑυρον.
The place of a beggar was naturally on the ovdog; comp. the words of Me-
lantheus, that Odys., in disguise, would “rub his shoulders against the door-
posts (pdcad).P, Irus, quarrelling with Odys., bids him quit the πρόϑ.4, who re-
plies “this threshold will hold both," and comes back to the οὐδὸς after
defeating and expelling him.* Their quarrel took place προπαάροιϑὲ ϑυράων
ὑψηλάων (i, ε. before the outer gates) οὐδοῦ ἐπὶ ξεστοῦ," which epithet would
suit either wood or stone. The same phrase is used for the internal threshold
from which Odys. shoots.*. Odys. tells Irus that he will not, after being
vanquished, return ἐς μέγαρον," meaning the palace generally, of which the
οὐδὸς was regarded as the outer limit; so Achilles says, ‘all the wealth
that the stone threshold (= the temple) of Apollo includes’’;¥ and hence the
metaphor, ἐπὶ γήραος οὐδῷ," meaning perhaps to view old age as the thresh-
old of the house of death; so Virgil places old age “‘ primis in faucibus Orci"’,
En. VI 273—S5.
(a5) The ϑάλαμοι might be added at discretion, but not in front. The xgo-
δομος, including the door-way and af@ovea:, then remained full in view. But,
round the sides of the μέγ. and opening into it, and as wings attached to it,
or perhaps in distinct and detached blocks, the dai. may have multiplied
with the demand for them. They not only furnished private chambers for
principal inmates, but were used also for household stores and treasures.
The famous passage in which the ϑαλ. of Priam’s palace are described’
enumerates fifty as tenanted by his married sons, and twelve others, disting-
uished as réyso:, by his sons-in-law. The fifty are said to have been ἐν
αὐτῷ. i. e. δόμῳ, built near each other: the twelve are ἑτέρωθεν ἐνάντιοι
ἔνδοϑεν αὐλῆς, and have the epithet réyeo:, and these, too, are “built near
each other’’. ΑἹ] alike are said to be of polished (ξεστοῖο) stone. A Schol.
on Z. 248 interprets téyeor as meaning ‘distinct and partitioned off from each
other’’, so that there might be no thoroughfare, ‘‘because’’, he adds “‘they were
in the upper story (ὑπερῷοι)᾽᾽ ; another Schol. makes τέγεοι mean ὑπερῶοι,
further explained by ἐπὶ τοῦ τέγους φκοδομημένοι, which Eustath, confirms
by the interpretation ἀνώγειοι (Rumpf III. 73).*
(26) It seems to savour of assurance, perhaps, to withstand this array of
authorities, yet the plain sense of Homer is irreconcileable with their judg-
* céysor, antiqui interpretes ad unum omnes explicant ὑπερῶοι (Rumpf I.
23, note 39). |
PQ. 221. 4 6. το. fo. 17. 5" 6. 110, ‘¢. 32— 8 4. 8,
¥ σ. λ4. Ἧ I. 404. * X. 60; 2. 487; 0. 348. Σ Z. 247 foll. a?
CXXXVIHI APPENDIX F. -
ment. The fact that the twelve ϑαλ. were ‘‘on the other side opposite’,
would require surely al] alike to be either above stairs or below. The whole
picture is otherwise marred, to say nothing of the comforts of the inmates.
The whole must have been on the ground; the fifty were ἐν δόμῳ, the twelve
ἔνδοϑεν αὐλῆς. Here ἐν δόμῳ means in the same block or pile of building
as the palace, and the site of the other twelve is marked as being within
the αὐλὴ, but distinct from that pile, to which, or to the fifty @ad. which
partly composed it, they stood opposite. Thus they were téyeos, as having a
roof of their own, distinct from the general palace roof. Their standing
ἑτέρωθεν, “in the other (part or space)’, is vague; but may be probably in-
terpreted by the expression τοίχου τοῦ ἑτέροιο, explained above at (20) as
being ‘‘at the further wall from the entry of the wéyagos’’, So, while Achil-
les sleeps μυχῶ κλισίης, Patroclus lies ἑτέρωθεν, “at the further or opposite
side’’.* Such ϑάλαμοι could not have stood between the xeddopos and the
gates of the αὐλὴ without being incommodiously remote from the μέγαφον,
or else blocking up its front view; whereas its polished porticoes plainly are
seen. If they were disposed all on one side of the μέγαρον, this evacuates
the sense of ἑτέρωϑεν — a word which implies a duality of objects. Further,
the one-sided aspect of such an arrangement would offend all symmetry.
(37) They might be supposed ranged, in two rows, facing the two sides of
the central block composed of the μέγαρον with its contiguous ϑαάλαμοι:;
but it is difficult to make ἑτέρωθεν include two exactly opposite positions,
right aud left, as if it had been ἑκατέρωθεν. The phrase πλησέοι ἀλλήλων
δεδμημένοι would also seem to exclude this separation into two rows, mnm-
connected and out of sight of each other, and having the whole of the cen-
tral pile between them. The only remaining supposition is that they were
in the rear, but that their front elevation, seen full, outflanked the aéyagor with
its contiguous ϑαλαμοι, seen end-wise, so that they might be partially in
sight as one entered the αὐλὴ at the opposite end. If we suppose the μέγ.
very deep from front to rear in proportion to its width, this might easily be
the case. Those contiguous @alapoe might be ranged five and twenty on
either side of the μέγ., in the rear wall of which there might be a postern
door for the access of the inmates of the twelve ϑάλαμοι. At the same time
we may notice, that the number fifty, is used probably, in the feebleness of
Homeric arithmetic and geometry, without calculating the extent of wall-
space which 80 many would require. The elements of the reckoning float
loosely in the poet’s mind, as great items in a great total, and we are not
to bring him to tale and measure and find fault with the result. See the
plan Fig. II. It is difficult to read the description of Eumseus’ lodge
with its twelve swine-sties ἔντοσϑεν αὐλῆς... πλησίον ἀλλήλων," without its
suggesting the feeling of a sort of parody on similar features in the palace
of Priam. All we can say of these sties is that they were so arranged as
not to intercept the view from the gate of the αὐλὴ to the mecdopeg of the
lodge. The αὐλὴ and the swine-sties have, however, here the primary im-
portance, the lodge was merely attached as convenient for the keeper. In
the palace the αὐλὴ is subsidiary to the μέγ.
®* I. 663—6. 8 δ, 13—4.
APPENDIX F. CXXXIX
(28) Heré retires to her @al., a place of perfect secrecy constructed by
Hephestus for her, and with a secret key, when about to make her toilet for
Zeus.» Telem. had a ϑαλ. in a part of the court, in a conspicuous (περιε-
σκέπτω) spot there.< Whether detached from the pfy., or a wing of it, is not
quite certain, but probably the latter, from the fact of his going out from
the hall (διὲκ μεγάφοιο) to reach it after the main entry of the latter was
shut for the night.t Phoenix, the son of the house, like Telem., had a personal
θάλαμος, which certainly had a door into the πρύδομος, as the fire lit in
the edd. was before the door of his ϑαάλ.. He needed not to enter the péy.,
therefore, in passing out. Still his @a%. may have had another door into
the wéy., and that of Telem. may have had another door into the same. And
of such a door there appears a trace; for, although in 8. 5—10 we do not know
how he reaches the ἀγορὴ, in v. 124—46, going thither from the same 9αλ., he
traverses the wéy., and therefore probably did so in 8. The situation of Tele-
machus’ ϑαλ., and of Phosnix’, is easily understood to be the same, viz. in the angle
between the back of the αἴϑουσα in the πρόδομος, and the side of the μέγ.
The 8αλ. built by Odys. for his own use, enclosing the olive tree, was pro-
bably a counter-poise to the ϑ8αλ. of Telem., or rather the latter was so to
it. See Fig. I. 7] and Α΄, This position would be adequate to what περι-
σκέπτῳ ἔ. yz. implies; as it would be in view both from front and flank, which
the other ϑάλαμοι, save that of Odys., would not.* The 9αῖ. of Nausicaa’
may probably have been similarly sitanted to that of Telem. This would
suit her encountering her father going forth from the μέγ. to the council.§
She might leave her ϑάλ. and come by the αἴθουσα, contiguous to it, to the
palace doors, as he issued from them, or might have entered the μέγ, di-
rectly from her ϑάλ. The ϑάλαμος of Paris is enumerated as distinct from
* Doederlein, 2353, wrongly, I think, takes περισκέπτω as meaning ?. η.
σκεπάστῳ, “sheltered’’. There is a clear difference in sense between σκέπτο-
μαι, σκεπτὸς, σκεπτέος, wherever found, and oxéxag, σκεπάω, oxexato, formed
by the addition of a@ to, possibly, the same root, oxex-. These latter forms
always have the meaning of “‘shelter’’, as in Homer, oxéxag avéporn, ε. 443,
and ἀνέμων σκεπόωσι., «κῦμα, v. 99, said of headlands ‘sheltering’ from the
waves; comp. oxéra μαιόμενοι, Hes. Opp. 532, adduced by Doed., where oxéxa is
doubtless the apoc. plur. of oxéwag, though he deniesit. σκέπτομαι means to “look
closely, watch’’, σκεψάμενος ἐς νῆα Bony ἐνόησα x. τ. 2.5 μ. 347; 80 σκέπτεο
νῦν... αἴ κεν ἴδηαι, and hence to “‘espy”’, as the result of sueh watching;
so Μετάνειρα... i θαλάμοιο σκέψατο, Hy. Ceres 243—5; comp. Hy. Merc.
360. One passage, II. 360—1, seems capable of the meaning ‘sheltered him-
self from’’; there Hector, covered under his shield, σκέπεετ᾽ ὀϊστῶν te δοῖξον
καὶ δοῦπον ἀκόντων. But, as he is covered as to his evpéag copovg, he is
manifestly looking out over the top of the shield, as is further shown by 4
μὲν δὴ γίγνωσκε x. τ. Δ. in 362, “he clearly marked the turn in the tide of
battle”. Nor is any trace of oxexrog in sense of ‘sheltered’? to be found
in post-Homeric Greek. Further, in what sense the @ud. of Telem. could
be niore ‘‘sheltered” than any other building in the αὐλὴ it is not easy to
see. The same expression is used of Eumeeus’ lodge, and of Circé’s palace,
which, though approached by cliff and forest, might easily have stood in a
clearing, so as to be conspicuous when reached.
» ἘΞ. 166—9. ο «. A28 —6. , . ἢ t. 47, οἵ. 36. 41. 469.
. 15-. . 54:
CXL APPENDIX F.
the δῶμα, i. 6. μέγαρον: and Paris and Helen are conveyed thither by
Aphrodité, after his combat with Menelaus.' Those who hold the view of a
gyneceum find place for it here. But, even supposing Homer meant to draw
a so far different view of domestic manners in the case of this Asiatic vo-
luptuary, the exception would only tend to prove the rule as regards the
simpler habits of Greek life. The @atauog may, however, have been only
such an one as Odys. built for himself, and no gynseceum at all. Whether
it is there or in the μέγ. that Hector finds Paris tending his armour with
Helen and her handmaids,* is also uncertain.
(29) The ϑαάλαμοι of Odysseus’ palace were several; as is shown by one
being spoken of as éeyarog.! He had built himself one by enclosing a part
of the αὐλὴ with a tree growing there. Of the store-chambers there were
at least two; for we must suppose that the one in which Euryclea in person
or by deputy “abode night and day”’’,™ was different from that furthest (ἔσχα-
tog) one which Penel. unlocks in person to find the bow." The one which is
converted into an armoury by Odys., when clearing the μέγ. of weapons, is
probably distinct from both.°* The one in which Euryclea and the women
abide during the massacre is most likely the store-room in which she usually
abode, as Telem. bids her not come forth if she heard any alarm, but “‘stay
where she was, about her business’ (παρὰ ἔργῳ). The armoury and this ϑάλ.
were mutually accessible, as seems clear from Odysseus’ thinking that some
of the women there (ἐνὶ μεγάροισι) might have helped the suitors to weapons 4
(Fig.I. gg rr). But the doors sbe is bidden to shut are those of the main entrance
to the μέγ. Eumsus conveyed the message to her to that effect,* probably
by going round by the λαύρη," into which doors may have opened from
these ϑάλαμοι, being the servants’ way, we may suppose, to the offices in the
avin without passing through the μέγ. and chief doors; and by the same un-
observed way she passed round and secured those chief doors, viz. the outer
pair towards the αὐλὴ close to which the λαύρη terminated." This gave
Philetius time to go down and secure the further gates of the αὐλὴ before
those from the μέγ. to the αὐλὴ were closed." The direction of Penel., when
indignant and incredulous, to Euryclea, to go down and back to the μέγαρον,
must be taken as uttered on the supposition that she had come from there,
which Euryc. negatives subsequently. The ϑάλαμοι were approached from
the μέγ. by doors and a threshold of their own;! that of the bow-chamber
being of oak. From the word κατεβήσετο being used of a person going from
the μέγ. to the ϑαλ.,." its floor must be supposed lower than that of the μέγ.
* From the marked expression ἐς ϑαλάμους Ὀδυσῆος x. 143, it is likely
that these ϑάλαμοι had mutual communications (Fig. I. ss), and that Melanthius,
entering ava ῥῶγας μεγάροιο and passing out by the door, would pass through
more than one; comp. Hy. Ceres 143, λέχος στορέσαιμι μυχῷ ϑαλάμων ev-
πήκτων. For ῥδῶγας see below at (35). So Euryclea tells Penel. she was
μυχῶ θαλάμων wp. 41, during the massacre, being perhaps the last of the range.
bh Ζ. 316. iT’. 382. k Ζ. 318 foll. 1g. 8-ς.
™ B. 337—46. "gq. 8 [0]. ° ©. 4, cf. χ. 140—1. P gp, 3832-5, cf. 335—9.
4. χ. 151—2. Τ φ. 387, cf. 381—2. 5 φ. 378—8o. © χ. 125— 30.
* 4. 137. Y gp. 388—g1, cf. 240—1. Ὗ w. 20, cf. 24. Σ go. 40—3.
χ. 155; Ψ. 42, cf. % 19. * φ. 43. ὁ B. 337; 9. 99; Ζ. 288.
APPENDIX F. CXLI
In the &ai. of Nausicaa a fire is lighted and refreshment served.» The fire
implies an escape for the smoke, probably into the μέγαρον, through some
chink or opening left there; and so through the general smoke-vent see below
at (3s). The @ai. is spoken of as εὐρὺς, ὑψηλὸς, ὑψόροφος,δ ὑψηρεφὴς,"
εὐσταϑής. There is a pillar, perhaps several, in it to support the roof.®
These epithets probably imply that it had the height of the μέγ. The @ai. of
Hepheestus, in which the μέλαθρον appears, was probably the μυχὸς (Fig. I. 2),
at the further end of the μέγ."
. (30) These details of the ϑαλ. bring out with great force the story of Me-
leager as told by Phenix.' It seems he had shut himself and his wife into
his @a4., while the embassy of priests, and his father heading them, were in
the μέγ." beseeching him in vain;* the latter shaking the chamber doors,
which Mel. had fastened, to urge his appeal. The @aJ. is spoken of as κηώ-
εις, ϑυώδης," εὐώδης," all which epithets of perfame may be accounted for
by that of material, κέδρινος;9 also as πολυδαίδαλος, πολύκμητος.4 Most of
these refer to ϑαάλαμοι tenanted by ladies of rank, and give one a high idea
of refinement and rarity. More common-place are the epithets ἐύπηκτος,"
πύκα ποιητὸς ,* relating to substantial strength. We find the μυχὸς ϑαλά-
oso veoro, in sense of the chamber of a newly-wedded pair.‘ The woman
in attendance on the occupant is called ϑαλαμήπολος." We find an analogy
in the ϑαλάμη, ‘“cell’’ of the polypus,” and in the name @alapog, given in
later Greek to the lowest and darkest stage of the ship, the rowers in which
were called θϑαλαμέται.
(31) The word #2. is used for the ὕπερῶον where Penel. slept.¥ She oc-
cupies, however, a ϑαλ. below, and in a burst of sorrow sita weeping on its
threshold. She probably is sitting among her handmaids in one of the @d-
λαμοι when Medon and Eumeus bring her the same message of Telemachus’
return.’ She was not in the péy., for she goes thither to the suitors directly
after; nor is it likely that the messengers went up to the ὑπερῷον to find
her. On another occasion she is peta Spano: γυναιξὶν, ἡμένη ἐν ϑαλάμῳ,
when she hears a heavy blow struck in the μέγ Thence she calls to her Eu-
mseus, who is in the μέγ.» After her private conversation with him he takes
her message to Odys. and returns, and she addresses him ὑπὲρ οὐδοῦ βάντα,“
meaning the “threshold” of the door from the μέγ. into the ad. This θαλ. was
probably that into which the stairs (κλὲμαξ) from the ὑπερῷον descended, see
below at (32). Hence this ϑαάλ. in connexion with the ὕπερ. is sometimes appa-
rently spoken of as in itself an ofxog, or apartment more frequented by the women.¢
(32) The ὑπερῶον, ὑπερώιον, or plur., -@a, -ὥια, was on the first story
from the ground, reached by a ladder or stairs (κλῖμαξ). Penel., though fre-
* Or perhaps in the πρόδομος, if, as is supposable from the sequel, #a-
λαμος πύκα βαλλετο, v. 588, the Gal. was, like that of Telem. an the pri-
vate one constructed by Odys., accessible from the αὐλὴ, by way of that πρόδ.
Dn. 7,13. ° α. 426; B. 338; 2. 285; Γ. 423; 2.317. 40.131. 41]. 582. ἴᾧ. 178.
6 vy. 176, 193. bh μὲ 279. ' 1, 574 foll., ef. 56 ΚΙ. 574. ' 0, 99;
I. 382; Z. 288; &. — ™ δὲ 1210 2r. 3 ° Q. 192. P £. Is.
4 δ᾽ 718. ry gl 5 a. 436. ' P. 36. tn 8; Ψ. 293. Υ 8. 432.
Ὑ δ, 802, cf. 787. τ δι 718. Υ x. 335 foll. : π΄ 413. * 9. 5ο5--6,
cf. 492-3. βρ. 507. 50. 515 foll. 4 α. 356, 360—z3.
CXLII APPENDIX F.
quently appearing below, mostly lived, slept, and worked in it.¢ A Schol. on
I. 125 says that the @aiapog was the lodging (ἐνδεαέτημα) of the married
women, but the ὑπερῷον that of widows and maids.‘ Penel. lived, therefore, as
a widow. The name @aiapog is given to it,6 and such by use it was; that
of ὑπερῷον relating to its situation merely. The arrangements were such
that the minstrel’s voice below in the μέγ. was audible there above,” and
the sound of Penel. weeping above was audible to Odys. in the xgodopog.'
Whoever descends from the ὕπερ. stands παρὰ σταϑμὸν τέγεος, on emerging
in the μέγ. The same place is taken by Penel. when appearing in the μέγ.
among the suitors, although she has not descended just before.* It is probable
that she reached the péy. by the same entry as if she had so descended,
and that she came from one of the @aiapor, as above stated. If this be ao,
it seems nearly certain that the foot of the descent from the ὑπερῷον lay in
some such ϑαλαμος; and that is more reasonable than to suppose that the
women could not leave their ὑπέρ. without coming fully into the μέγ. and
into view of all there assembled. From such a ϑαλ. the μέγ. would easily
be reached, and the station παρὰ ora@p. téy., explained above at (16), was
probably the nearest part of the μέγ. to that Gai. In fact one standing there
would not have passed over the threshold of the @ai., if we may judge from
the last descent recorded of Penel. to meet Odys. Then only she does not
take her usual station by the σταϑμ. τέγ., but εἰσῆλθεν καὶ ὑπέρβη λάϊνον
οὐδὸν (the threshold of the @ai.), Fer’ ἔπειτ᾽ Ὀδυσῆος ἐναντίη, ἐν πυρὸς
αὐγῇ τοίχου τοῦ ἑτέρου. It may be inferred that her pause παρὰ σταϑ. τέγ.
in other cases, then, is a pause on the threshold, which opened from a ϑαλ.
somewhere on the side of the péy., not on the τοῖχος ἕτερος, or end-wall.
(33) As regards the epith. λάϊνος, here applied to οὐδὸς, it is probable
that every threshold had the two layers of stone and wood described above
as forming that of the main entrance. From the ὑὕπερῶον rose perhaps the
further stair-way, mounting to the actual roof, which Elpenor missed, But
the question what the ὕπερ. rested on is doubtful. The roof of the μέγ. was
certainly that of the whole pile, and not the floor of the ὑπκερῶον. If we
suppose an ὕπερ. partly covering the wéy., the msthetic difficulties are great
on any but a directly front view. It may have been a story raised on the
deep portico which fronted the house, and which, including the porch, is
known as the πρόδομος, being very probably not more than half the height
of the μέγ. There can be no reason indeed why this range of portico should
have more than the height sufficient for the door; or, if we allow the door
ten feet and this twelve, every purpose of use would be satisfied. Now, as
these porticoes were used for men to sleep in, see above at (20), the same
width above might suffice for the women’s apartment, and the ὕπερ. might
thus stand on the πρόδομος, forming the upper part of the general front
elevation. This is favoured by the fact of Penelopé’s weeping above bejng
heard by Odys. in the πρόδ. below." The greatest length of the ὕπερ. would
thus be equal to the width of the μέγ. including, perhaps, that of some adja-
cent ϑάλαμοι; for, if they were less high than the wéy., some of them might
14. & δ. 803, cf. 784.
4 β. 358; δ. 7513 ρ. 1013 τ. 594 foll. [Β. 514
ba. 338. i 1 wy. 85—go. Ὁ, 92.
V. 92. σ΄. 4147-5.
APPENDIX F. CXLUI
suppors @ continuation of the ὕπερ. along the upper parts of its sides as
well gs in front. Thus in the plan Fig. I. the space ineluded by the dotted
lines represents the tweg., extending over the af@ovea in front and four
chambers on ejther side. It has the epithet φιγαλόδνετα expressive of polish
and beanty; comp. some of the epithets of the Sadapog in (30).
(34) A few details of the structure remain to be noticed. The μυχὸς ap-
pears to have been a recess at the upper end of the μέγ. used as the chief
sleeping chamber for the lord of the palace and his wife. It was not so used
in Odysseus’ palace, who had made a separate Gail. for himaelf," and Penel.
in his absence used the ὑπερῷον, Hence the μυχὸς there appears to have
no separating well or door, and the suitors, shrinking and worsted, retire
thither.° But ia the palaces of Nestor,? Menel.,1 Alcia.,’ and in Achilles’
hut,‘ and in the palaces of Celeus (Hy. Cer. 143) and of Hephestus,* see
above at end of (39), it was so occupied, and must be presumed 80 en-
closed. Those who support the notion of a gyneceum make the μυχὸς the
passage between it and the men’s apartment (Rumpf III, 76—7, 80), the
‘“‘stone threshold’’, which Penel. passed in ». 86, that of the gynseceum, and
the σταϑμοὶ τέγεος or μεγάροιο, pillars or door-posts on each side of that
passage (ibid. 81)". In the Trojan palace Andromaché weaves μυχῷ δόμου."
We find ϑαλάμοιο μυχὸς," and μυχῷ θαλάμων," the former in the account
of the arms deposited there by Odys. and found by Melanthius. Whether any
exact recess is here intended, or only the furthest, most retired, part, as in the
Cyclops’ cave* &c., (cf. Hy. Venus, 263) is doubtful, In the latter sense we have
μυχῷ Ἄργεος} to describe the situation of Corinth and of Agisthus’ abode.
The chair of state for the mistress atood by it, close to the blaze of the hearth."
(See Fig. 1. Hi.) The word is akin to pum to close, cf. μύσαν Ooae.*
(35) The ῥῶγες peyagoso offer 4 difficulty of which no satisfactory solution
has been found. The senses given by the ancient interpreters are mani-
fold. Rumpf (LI. 47--8), chiefly following Favorinus, 1628, 3 foll., gives
the following, 1. The passages in the upper story, or even passages in the
palace generally; 2. the ogco@vgy, or side-door, itself; 3. windows (an inter-
pretation followed by many); 4. steps to ascend, or a ladder; g. some read
ἀναρρῶγας, rendering it, “up the narrow places”, and in Sophoc. Philoct. 937)
καταῤῥῶγες, adj., stands as epithet of πέτραι; 6. the roof beam *™* or some
* This suggests the meaning of σεαϑμὰ κοῖλα ϑυράων οἴκου, Theocr. Jdyl.
XXIV. 15., and of κοῖλα κλῆϑρα Soph. Ald. Tyr. 1262, as being a ‘recessed
door- way” or “enclogure’’.
ΤΥ So Pindar, Nem. 1, 41, τοὶ μὲν οἰχϑειδᾶν πυλὰν ἐς Paldpow μυχὸν
εύρυν ἔβαν; with him μυχὸς is ἃ most favourite expression for any retired
place; Isthm. I, 56 Pyth. X. 8. and V. 64. Comp. also Τάρταρα... μυχῷ χϑό-
ψος εὐρυοδείης, and μ. νησῶν ἱεράων, Hes. Theog. 119, 1015.
“** Kampf cites a Schol. on Theoer. Jdyll. XIII. 13 αἰϑαλόεντι πετεύρω, who
explains it to mean some part of the noof-timber whereon birds may roost, and
quotes, in explaining it, αἰϑαλρεντας ava ῥῷγας, as if from Homer, being
probably a confusion of χ. 239 with 7. 143. But there is no ground for thinking
5 wp. 189 foll. ° y. 270. Py. 402. 4 δ. 304. τη. 346.
* IT. 663, cf. 2. 675. ' ὃ. 2go. u x 440. Y π᾿. 285; χ. 180. ww. 4i.
Xe. 236, cf. ν. 363; mw. 6.
<a
CXLIV APPENDIX F.
covering of the roof. All these, however, alike presuppose that the ϑάλαμος
of arms was somewhere in the vxsgoxa, and that its elevation had in some
way to be surmounted; hence their various notions of 1, 3, 4, 6, all implying
ascent. It is plain, however, from a comparison of t. 4—40, where Odys. and
Telem, deposit the weapons, with zy. 101—141, that the θα. is on the ground-
floor, or perhaps a step down from the μέγ. The rapid evolutions in the lat-
ter passage are not suitable to the notions of a staircase traversed and a
height attained. I conceive the ai. to have opened either by a side-door
into the μέγ. in which the fight goes on, or into the λαύρη,. or possibly both
ways; and I conceive that by ava ῥδῶγας avéB. some mode of ingress into
the ϑαλ. at a higher elevation is intended. No positiveness of statement as to
what that mode was is admissible. Let us consider, however, φώγας here,
from a nom. of which the compound form ἀπορρώξο occurs, comparing
φδοχϑέω,Δ ἔρρωγα (φήγνυμι), and its kindred adjective gwyaiéog,* which means
“rent and gaping’’, The meaning “gaps or chinks” will well suit the noun,
but the way in which gaps &c. could assist the ascent is not obvious. We
may glean, perhaps, from structural considerations some hints, which may
suggest a possible meaning.
(36) The ϑάλαμοι, if arranged sideways along the péy., must have suffered
greatly from want of light. The μέγ. itself was sombre, and, as there is no
reason for supposing windows in it, so neither is there in the θαλ. It is un-
likely that there was a separate vent-hole above in the ϑαλ. Still, we hear
of a fire lighted in that of Nausicaa. In this Gal. of arms there was not
often a fire, to judge from the removal of the weapons thither from the péy.,
in order to be, as alleged, ‘“‘out of the smoke”. Nothing is more likely than
that gaps to allow the escape of smoke, as also to admit such light as was
admissible from the péy., should be left in the wall parting it from the @ad.
An active man might then, likely enough, especially with the help of com-
rades, climb up to these ῥῶγες and into the ϑαλ., and might so be said ava-
βαίνειν ava φῶγας. Telem. does not appear to have marked Melanthius’
entrance, but supposed it was through the door left by himself insecure.! If
that entry was, as supposed, from the μέγ. itself, the fact of the sides of the
μέγ. being less lighted than the central line, see above at (19), or the inter-
vening obstacle of a pillar, might easily conduce to conceal his climbing up.
The sense 3. given to ga@yeg by a Schol., as above, viz. ϑυρέδες, ‘windows’,
would agree with this, Suidas gives ‘‘a kind of stone’ for 6a§; comp. rupes
cognate with rumpo; see Rumpf, 11]. s0—1, who traces also some curious
verbal analogies in favour of another sense, ‘gratings, cross-bars, &c.’’, as
evolved from the meaning of ‘‘shoots, sprouts, twigs’’, which belongs to a
kindred form ῥάχος. He adduces also ῥόγοι from Hesych., as meaning
“barns”, and suggests that ῥῶγες might be a part of a dwelling-house simi-
lar in structure; but all these considerations are of light weight. Favorinus
ub. sup. notes that some took ῥῶγας to be, like κῶας, a neuter noun.
δώγας connected in meaning with πέτευρος ; and its occurring to the Scholiast's
mind in connexion with af@al. is probably, therefore, a mere mistake.
4 x. 514; &. 359; B. 755, cf. ν. 98. d €. 402; μ. 60. " 9. 435, 438; &. 343.
fy. 155—6.
APPENDIX F. CXLY
(37) Of the other senses 5. arose from one party among the ancient commenta-
tors always doubling the initial liquid in arsis after a final vowel, while others
left it single; later copyists, ignorant of this, seem to have written two such
words, where the sense allowed, in one, coining thus new compounds, such as
ἀναρρῶγας. Also 2.* is unlikely in the extreme. For why, in points of detail,
should two names so different be given to one and the same thing, especially as
ay ὀρσοϑύρην might have stood for ἀνὰ ῥῶγας without marring the metre. Nor
could Odys. have been puzzled to know how the arms could have been brought
in, if the way ava gm@y. had been the same as ἀν᾽ ὀρσοϑύρην, for of the latter
he was plainly cognizant, and knew, doubtless, what access it afforded. Fur-
ther, if Melanthius knew that Telem. had brought the weapons out for Odys-
seus’ party by the λαύρη, supposing that the armoury were entered from it,
he would think that the door into that armoury from the λαύρη (Fig. I. gq), and
therefore from the ὀρσοϑ,, which is merely the upper exit of the same passage,
was in possession of the enemy and presumably unavailable. We know that in
fact that door was unguarded, and probably Melan., finding it open, returned
from the ϑαλ. by it, — an easier way for one heavily laden — and 80 by
the ὀρσοϑ. back to the μέγ. Thus Melan. is observed in the armoury by
Eumeus, sent to shut its door (probably by the way of the λαύρη), who re-
ports, and asks if he shall seize and bring him back (probably by the same
way), and finally lurks with Philcetius on either side of that door, where they both
seize him while crossing the threshold.* (See below at (40).
(38) The ὀρσοθύρη occurs in two places." Phemius stands by it when the
suitors are slain, and from the sequel he must have stood near the μυχὸς
at the upper part of the hall. In a passage just before it is said to have
been “in the well-built wall’’, and to have communicated by a side-passage,
into which it led, with the main doors of the palace, close beside the
threshold (ἀκρότατον οὐδὸν) of which it opened. By this exit Odys. bids
Eumeus keep guard, seeing the two openings were so close that he could
do this without quitting the other. If the suitors could have forced it, they
would have been at once in the αὐλὴ and might have raised the city. The
ὀρσοθύρη at the one end corresponds apparently to the σανέδες εὖ ἀραρυὲαι
at that towards the οὐδός. The clearly marked difference in the name seems
also to denote a different form of door. Whether it be for 0980 Mve7
(ὀρθὸς), an “upright door’’, or (from ὄρνυμιε, ὄρσω) a “raised door’, or
whether a mere single door, in contradistinction to the ϑύραι δέκλιδες, is
not important. It appears to have been at the height of the threshold above
the floor of the μέγ. This would account for ἀν᾽ 69008. ἀναβαίη; for, as
there was no threshold to mount by, there may have been some other mode,
as a short ladder, to reach it.** (See Fig. I. k.)
* This, it should be added, is the view taken by the Schol. Valg. at χ. 126
ὌὈρσοϑ. ἐν τῷ τοῦ οἴκου ἐναντίῳ τοίχῳ Buea ny, ds ἧς els tow ϑαλαμον
ἀναβῆναι, ἔνϑα τὰ ὅπλα ἔκειτο. The phrase ἀναβαίνειν ava, used of each,
may perhaps have suggested this view. . Cee ,.
ἘΣ Hesychius ὀρσοϑύρα. Buea βεγαλη καὶ ὑψηλὴ δι΄ ἧς ἔστιν ὑροῦσαι κα-
ταβαίνοντα᾽ ἄλλοι πᾶσα θύρα μὴ ἔχουσα tov βαϑμὸν προς τῇ γῇ; αλλ απ-
ἔχουσα τοῦ ἐδάφους, οἷον ϑυρὶς, ἡ ϑύρα εἰς ὑπερῷον ἀναγοῦυσα.
8 χ. 181--- 3. bh vy, 126, 3333 οἵ. 340,
HOM. OD. APP. κ
CXLVI APPENDIX F.
(39) That there was no threshold would be further confirmed, if we could
rely on a Schol. on Eurip. Med. 135, quoted by Rumpf, in which a person
standing ἐπὶ τοῦ ἀμφιπύλου hears voices in the hall; the Schol. says that
this ἀμφέπ. was so called as having two doors, one the regular one (τὴν
αὐθεντικὴν), and the other the Homeric ὀρσοϑύρην; but the identity of the
ἄμφιπ. of Eurip. with the ὀρσοϑ'. of Homer is very questionable. The ab-
sence of threshold, however, agrees with the account given by Hesych. in
the last note, see especially the words thcre, μὴ ἔχουσα τὸν βαϑμὸν x. τ. γ.
The ὀρσοϑ'. seems to have been in the wall of the further part of the wéy., near
the μυχὸς, to judge from the station of the minstrel there, and from his lyre
being set down between the κρητὴρ and the ϑρόνος aeyvednios; for these
were near the μυχός; and that further part was also least exposed to Odys-
seus’ arrows. If the λαύρη, into which it opened, followed the outer line
of the house-wall, the λαύρη may have run through any ϑαάλαμοιε on that
side of the building, or may have gone outside the #aJ., as in the plan Fig. I,
in which case light would reach it more easily. The Schol. gives the Aaven
the former direction, but assigns only one chamber to that side, viz. the ar-
moury. It is probable that the λαύρη was used by the women from the ὕπερ.,
and the servants generally, in order to reach the αὐλὴ without passing through
the μέγ. Hence it was probably connected, see above at (29), with that Dea.
which formed the female servants’ hall, and by a κλῖμαξ with the ὑπερῶον.
If that ϑαλ. had, as supposed above at (32) the stair-foot in it, the connexion
of these related portions of structure would be clearly made out. But pro-
bable suppositions are the utmost that can be advanced. For reasons why
the ὀρσοϑ'. may probably have lain on the right of the central line from the
threshold inwards, see above at end of (22). It is quite uncertain whether
the λαύρη was, as Rumpf (III. 61) supposes, unenclosed above (subdialis), or
roofed in, with, as must then be supposed, apertures only to admit light.
If it passed through a range of ϑάλαμοι, it would of course be so far strictly
enclosed (Fig. I. ?).
(40) The exit (στόμα) of the λαύρη was along the topmost (ἀκρότατον)
threshold, that of wood, close to the main gates of the palace (αὐλῆς Ovge-
tea) (Fig. I. m).! These during the massacre were shut, but the suitors did not
necessarily know it. Ifence Agelaus thinks some one could escape by the λαύρη,
the στόμα of which seems to have been just inside those gates. It was neces-
sary to guard that opening, as otherwise a party entering the λαύρη by the
ὀρσοϑ'. from near the μυχὸς, might fall upon the rear of Odys. guarding the
inner threshold. Eumeeus therefore, thus guarding it, would be slightly in
his rear, yet near enough to cooperate in spearing the suitors from that in-
ner threshold,* the doors of which may be supposed open the while. It has
been supposed possible that the λαύρη led to the armoury, so that one might
return from the latter either to the main-gates, as did Eumzus, or to the
ogcof. and further end of the μέγ., as did Melanthius. The fact of the Laven
opening on the upper threshold would give it a high level, and account for
the use of ἀνὰ in describing the entry into it by the égco0@., which could
not have been at a lower level than it. Those who hold that the thresholds
' 4. 136—7. δ 4. 267, 279— 84.
APPENDIX F. CXLVII
were not upper and lower, but outer and inner, may render ἀχρότατον παρ᾽
οὐδ. ‘beside the outmost threshold”, yet still allow this view of the Joven
in connexion with the ogco®. and armoury. The στόμα is described as ag-
γάλεον, so that one stout champion might hold all assailants in check.' Its
narrowness was presumably such, therefore, as to admit persons only in
single file.
(41) Another word little elucidated is μεσόδμαι, as applied to a house; for
its sense in sing. as part of a ship see App. F. 1. (6). The μεσόδ, are con-
joined with walls, beams, and pillars, and again with walls only.” The fol-
lowing authorities should be cited.
Three Scholl. on τ. 37 interpret pecod., alleging Aristarchus’ authority, as
μεσόστυλα, “intercolumnar spaces’’,* adding that others take it to mean the
“intervals between (διαστήματα) the beams.”
Another Schol. ibid. says, the ‘‘fillings-up (διαφράγματα) between the pillars
inserted about (zegl) the walls to support the ends of the beams”.
Eustath. p. 903, 49 (Rumpf.) says, “‘some say they were masses (στήλας) pro-
jecting, called ἀντήρειδες᾽". He evidently has in view στήλας προβλῆτας." We
find ἀντήριδες in Thucyd, VII. 36, where ‘beams to resist crushing blows on a
ship’s bow” are meant, also in an unknown dramatic fragment.** Thus ἀντή-
ρειδὲς may mean “buttresses’’. And Etymol. Mag. p. 537, 35, explains ἀντήρεις
in a sense which amounts to this.
Other senses of μεσόδμη from writers quoted by Rumpf, III. 30 --- 4, are
1. a great beam passing (as often in old houses still) across a room from
wall to wall. Hippocrates directs in a case of dislocated hip that the patient
be slung up to it by the legs. 2. A partition, let down apparently from this
beam, dividing the interior into two compartments. 3. A shed, booth, or
other small crection; 4. any hiatus or void space in the midst. 1. occurs
also in Q. Smyrnseus XIII. 451, where a blazing peo. falls on a fugitive,
with which Rumpf compares Agamemnon’s prayer that he might κατὰ πρηνὲς
βαλέειν Πριάμοιο μέλαϑρον αἰϑαλόεν. Pollux, VII. xxvu, explains κατῆ-
Ap by μεσόδμη. Now κατῆλιψ is also explained as μεσ. by Hesych., who
adds, ‘“‘a partition’? (μεσότοιχον), “8 beam supporting the roof’’, (which
are senses 2. and 1. given above) and further, ‘the raised - flooring (ἐκρέωμα)
in a house, which is better”. This suits Aristoph. Ran. 566 ἐπὶ τὴν κατή-
Aug’ εὐθὺς ἀνεπηδήσαμεν, but does not suit the Homeric palace. Favorinus,
1239, 36—45 adds nothing to the above shades of meaning, save some un-
important ones as regards a ship. 3. comes close to the sense given to μεσό-
otvia by Ducange, as quoted in the last note.
(42) Rumpf gives an elevation of a μὲσ. in his plans at the end of III,
precisely resembling that of a gallery, as familiar to us in a church, sup-
* Or, Rumpf says, ‘“‘rooms or sheds built in such spaces”, referring to Du-
cange Gloss. p. 914, who gives, s. v. μεσόστυλα, taberne in intercolumniis ex-
structe, or tabulata intercolumniis affixa.
* κοήρνη σεαυτὴν ἐκ μέσης ἀντήριδος, ascribed to Eurip. by Etym. Mag.
p- 112. 26. lad ov is used for the same purpose in Homer J. 278, apa-
μένη βρόχον αἰπὺν ap ὑψηλοῖο μελάϑρου.
by. ιτι26-- ὃ6δ᾽΄τ. 373 v. 3.4. "Μ. 259.
Kt
, : anaciiailiinlMatB aia.
CXLVIII APPENDIX F.
ported between a wall and a row of pillars. Such a row of pillars he thinks
ran parallel to the end wall and marked off a small end-section of the μέγ.,
the middle of which end- section would be the μυχός. He thinks the galleries
were hung between those pillars and that end wall, right and left of the μυχὸς,
which would be perceived between them. Thus he prefers the μεσόσευλα
interpretation of weo., according to Ducange’s view of it. I think that any
such complexity of structure is wholly inadmissible in Homer's age. We
have no hint of the use of such galleries, nor can they have served any use-
ful end. Sleeping rooms and store-rooms lay elsewhere in sufficient abun-
dance. Galleries are the devices of architects driven to economize space.
The sense which meets every condition of suiting the poet’s general tenor,
agreeing with the word’s etymology, and having sufficient support from au-
thority, as well as offering an analogy to the same word when used of a
ship, is that of an interval or recessed space between a pair of engaged co-
lumns. Thus the sequence of ‘‘walls, beams, and pillars’? with the μεσ.
becomes evident; the notion of a middle space, not built (dé), but left by
building, {. 6. by raising pillars, is etymologically just; whilst the glosses
given above of μεσόστυλα, δοκῶν διαστήματα, and especially 4. that of ‘“‘a
hiatus or void space in the midst”, go exactly to the point required. Rumpf
also quotes, in regard to the analogy of the ship, the word μεσόκοιλον from
Pseudo-Lucian. Amor. c. 6, tov totoy ἐκ τῶν μεσοκ. ἄραντες x. τι Δ. The
peo. of the ship has also the Homeric epithet κοίλη, meaning (see App. F.
1. (6)) a socket-frame of two uprights and a third at their back, to receive
and sustain the mast, when hoisted, from tumbling forwards. A pair of
wooden balks near together, supporting and supported by a wall, gives
exactly the corresponding image of the hiatus medius in the palace. ‘They
might be multiplied along the wall to any extent, and so form a relief of its
surface. Thus they occur again in connexion with the τοῖχοι. This mural
decoration is widely common, and probably highly ancient.
(43) An expression variously written καταντηστιν, κατάντησιν, κατ᾽ ἄντη-
σιν (Schol.),4 deserves notice. Penelopé, καταψτήηστιν ϑεμένη περικαλλέα δί-
φρον, was listening to the words of each man ἐν μεγάροισι. In favour of
the compound we have xatavta,’ καταντικρὺ" in Homer, κατάντιον Soph.
Ant. 512, Herod. VI. 103, 118, and καταντάω Polyb. 30. 14, 3. In favour of
the separate κατ᾽ may be compared τὸνδ᾽ (ἔλαφον) ... κατ᾽ ἄκνηστιν μέσα
νῶτα πλῆξα.' The question of ot. or o in the last syllable, may probably
be decided, by the argument of the more difficult being more likely to suffer
corruption, in favour of the oz, which is the reading of all the mss. of Ho-
mer (Rumpf III. 84) with insignificant and probably corrupt variations. Still
the Etym. Mag. p. 112, 17 in viewing ἄντηστιν as the accus. of a noun, has
the analogy of κνῆστις from κνάω, μνῆστις from μνάομαι, πρῆστις πρίστις
from πρήϑω πρίω. All the grammarians, however, regard it as an adverb,
not a noun (Doederlein 707). It is not so easy to separate κατ᾽ from it, as
if in tmesis with ϑεμένη, as Doederlein suggests, comparing τ΄ 101, v. 259,
because ἄντηστιν alone is not easily justified as an adverb by analogy, un-
° τ 37. Pv. 354. 1 v. 387. ro 116. δ 4. §59; A. 64. © x,
161 — 2.
APPENDIX F. CXLIX
less we go to the Latin, as confestim, viritim, and the like. The meaning,
however, seems plain. Penel. in the ϑαάλαμος, see above at (31), sets her
chair near its dour-way into the péy., 50 that, without being seen, she could
conveniently overhear (Fig.I. p). This seems to me a further incidental argument
against a gynecceum, in which Rumpf, following the Schol., would place her
(111.83). For it would not be so easy to hear voices in conversation, 80 as to catch
what each said, in a gynseceum placed as he places it, viz. a further apart-
ment beyond the μέγ. and its μυχὸς, as ina chamber on the side; for the length
of the μέγ. was considerable, its breadth less so; although in either case
she might equally be said to sit κατάντηστιν, i. e. ‘right opposite to’’ the
party in the μέγ. More especially would her hearing be difficult, if we in-
terpose such a cratitium opus and such μεσόδμαι as Rumpf supposes between
her and that party.
(44) The word ἀντέϑυρον occurs in a single passage. Athené there, after
Eumeus has left his lodge to go to the city, draws near and stands κατ᾽
ἀντίϑ. xiang." Odys. and Telem. with the dogs are within.” Telem. does
not recognize her, Odys. and the dogs do. The dogs slink away whining to
the further side through the lodge. She then beckons Odys. forth,” who goes
out of the μέγαρον of the lodge, to the side of the fence of the court, and
there stands before her. The reason why Telem, does not perceive her is
that he is not favoured, as his father, with the gift of vision.* Now since,
but for this, he would presumably have seen her, she must have been stand-
ing in the line of the lodge-door, but so far without it as to be at or near
the court-wall. Odys., probably, on going forth stands before her a little out
of the same line, as at the moment of his transformation, which follows, he
is probably unseen by his son. Thus avr/#. seems not to mean any distinct
space specially so called, but merely the general position ‘opposite the
door’’, and any point in the line of view through the door from within would
satisfy it. The sense in Soph. Electr. 1433, Bate κατ᾽ ἀντιθύρων ὅσον τάχι-
ota, is probably “the parts of the palace opposite to, i. 6. on the further side
from, the door”, from the analogy of ἀντικνήμια (Aristoph. Ach. 219) ‘the part
opposite the shin”, ἀντέστομος “having the mouth opposite”. Rampf(II.15) quotes
a passage from Lucian, Alexander c. 16, where the soldiers pass in by the
door to take a last look at their dying king, and pass out by an aperture
made for the occasion xara τὸ βντέθϑυρον, apparently, in the wall opposite
the door; i. e. opposite to but inside it: in Homer opposite but outside is
what the sense requires; see the line BB’ in Fig. I.
(45) The ϑόλος is mentioned only where Telem. executes the faithless wo-
men-servants. In that passage occurs twice the line μεσσηγύς tre ϑόλου καὶ
ἀμύμονος Egxeog αὐλῆς, followed the second time by δἴλεον ἐν στείνει ὅϑεν
οὔ πως ἦεν ἀλύξαι,Υ “they cooped (the women) up in ἃ narrow space whence
there was no possibility of escape’. The ϑόλος then stood near the fence-
wall of the court, the narrow space being, doubtless, that between the two. ἡ
There were twelve women, and it seems implied that they were all executed
at once, being hung with halters from a cable stretched from a pillar of the
ΜΝ li/Zizzppye
CL APPENDIX Κ᾿
avin to the Solog.* This would require probably a width of not less than
18 feet for this narrow space. This suggests a standard of measurement for
the court itself. For this interval of 18 feet to have been relatively narrow,
we can hardly suppose the distance across from the ϑόλος to the opposite
further wall of the court to have been less than four times that space, or
2 feet, giving a total of go feet, besides the diameter of the ϑόλος it-
self perhaps amounting to 10 more. This gives 1oo feet for the minimum
length of the court, and probably it may have been larger. The height
of the ϑόλος was probably not less than that of the fence-wall and αἷ-
ϑουσα, which may reasonably be put at about το feet. The fact of the
women being in a space whence there was no escape suggests an obstacle
effectually closing it on one other side. This was probably the palace itself
or one of its outlying ϑαλαμοι. In short the Sod. would stand best in the
angle made by the front-line of the main-pile with the fence-wall. It was,
according to the Schol. round (κυκλοτερὴς), and was used to put away house-
hold vessels and furniture in daily use. The historical Bodog at Athens was
round, and was the dining hall of the Prytaneum (Plato 4pol. XX. Andocid.
de myst. 7. 11.). For these parts of the structure see Fig. I. D and CC.
[The essays referred to above as Rumpf I, II, and III, are respectively
entitled de @dibus Homericis pars I™¢, de ed. Hom, pars altera, de interioribus
Homericarun @dium partibus. To D'. Rumpf I am indebted for most of the
references to the Etym. Mag., Hesych., Q. Smyrneus, Pollux, Ducange, Sui-
das, Eustath., and Schreiber, given above; and I wish to acknowledge his
courtesy in sending me a copy of one of his essays which was out of print.]
* xlovog ἐξάψας μεγάλης περίβαλλε ϑόλοιο: where the rule of position seems
to favour the rendering; “having made it fast from a large pillar he passed
it round the @odog’’. The following, ὕψοσ᾽ ἐπεντανύσας, would suit either
pillar or ϑόλος, but the latter best, as the nearer noun. Its top perhaps tapered
so that a cable might be passed round it. A pillar of the αὐλὴ indicates an
αἴϑουσα on that face of it next which the ϑόλος lay, but which face of
the αὐλὴ that was, we cannot determine. It was not improbably the same
αἴϑουσα as that under which the corpses of the suitors had been deposited,
v. 449. The height of 10 or 12 feet, assigned above (33) to the αἴϑουσα
and its pillars, would give an ample distance from the ground to satisfy the
requirements of y. 467, 473.
FIG. [.
ILEUSTRATING APP. F. 2.
|Z -
FFFF
EXPLANATION OF PLAN
FIG. I APP. F 2.
The court (αὐλὴ) before the palace.
The parts in front of the door (πρόϑυραὶ : any
object in the line BB’ is said to be situated
nat’ ἀντίϑυρον.
The main portico (αἴϑουσα) along the pa-
lace -front.
Its supporting pillars: to the furthest of them horses might be tied
when a chariot was put up against the wall-facings (ἐνώπια ὃ, 42)
of the portico, and the mangers might be sct for them at either end.
A side-portico in the court with similar pillars from one of which
the cable was stretched to the the rotunda D in χ 473.
The rotunda (@odog). This position for it, although not certain, is
justified in App. F. 2 (45).
The threshold (οὐδὸς) at the main-gate of the palace, the shaded
portion representing the upper layer of wood, the margin round it
showing that of stone below of ampler size. The strong black lines
across the shading represent pairs of folding doors, inner and outer.
The pillars supporting the roof of the hall (μέγαρον) which is the
interior large oblong around them, Six pillars are drawn, but the
number is not a definite one. On one near the door the δουροδόκη
should stand at 4" (20) (21).
The hearth (ἐσχαάρη).
The thresholds leading from the hall to the chambers (ϑαάλαμοι) on
either side of it.
The larger wassail-bowl (κρητήρ).
The seat of state (ϑρόνος ἀργυρόηλος).
The side-door (ὀρσοθϑύρη) leading from the rear right-hand corner
round the flank of the pile by the passage (λαύρη).
The side-passage (Aavgn) having its exit (στόμα) in the vestibule be-
tween the pairs of doors.
The exit of the side-passage. Here Eumeus kept guard, and passing
along the passage saw Melanthius in the armoury at N.
These two together
form the πρόδομος.
‘ para “ὦ Φν
CLII EXPLANATION OF PLAN.
n Outer threshold of Telemachus’ chamber under the portico (28).
o o \ The vertical lines at the side of the shaded block are the facings
o o [(ἐνώπια) of the walls flanking the main entry between the pairs of
doors.
H The recess (μυχὸς) at the remote extremity of the hall.
1 The chamber of Odysseus, described in ».
K The chamber of Telemachus. That of Phoenix (I. 469) and that of
Nausicaa were perhaps similarly situated.
L The furthest (ἔσχατος) chamber which Penelopé unlocked to find the
bow (g. 8—g9).
M The store-chamber where Euryclea abode and was with the female
servants during the massacre (8. 337—346, comp. gy. 38a—s, 235—9).
Penelopé’s seat (καταάντηστιν) to hear the conversation in the hall;
near this was probably the foot of the stair (κλὴμαξ) by which she
descended from above.
N The chamber into which the weapons were conveyed (τ. 4, comp.
χ. 140—1).
qq The threshold leading into the side-passage, at which Melanthius
was seized (y. 180 foll.).
rr The similar threshold of the store-chamber door into the side-passage.
ss Doorways connecting the chambers with each other.
OOO Chambers used for miscellaneous purposes, chiefly perhaps for stores.
PP Chambers in the rear of the palace one on either side of the recess.
Their existence is very uncertain as the recess might have existed
without them.
NB. The dotted line represents the ground plan of the upper story pro-
jecting over the portico, and over some of the chambers on either side
of the hall, see (32) (33).
a
UNIV. oF MICKiaRK.
NEC 31 lame
| FIG I}. ILLUSTRATING APP. F. 2.
joe pete acahen tro ΄ Ι “
ϑ © 9 ϑ Θ
FROM SUCH A FRONT POATICO AS THHKS ALL THE CHAMIBERS MAV HAVE BEEN ENTERED.
OSE MT γε
VESENT TH
Af
£ AEP.
THESE QGRAQ MOL WHA
AND OS γραῦς}
THE DETAILS OF THIS INTERIOR ARE TO BE UNDERSTOOD AS
BEING CENERALLY THE SAME AS 18 FICS
CLII EXPLANATION OF PLAN.
n Outer threshold of Telemachus’ chamber under the portico (28).
o o \The vertical lines at the side of the shaded block are the facings
o ο΄ [(ἐνώπια) of the walls flanking the main entry between the pairs of
doors.
H The recess (μυχὸς) at the remote extremity of the hall.
I The chamber of Odysseus, described in ψ.
K The chamber of Telemachus. That of Phenix (1. 469) and that of
Nausicaa were perbaps similarly situated.
L The furthest (ἔσχατος) chamber which Penelopé unlocked to find the
bow (φ. 8—9).
M The store-chamber where Euryclea abode and was with the female
servants during the massacre (f. 337—346, comp. φ. 383—s, 235-- οὐ.
p Penelopé’s seat (κατάντηστιν) to bear the conversation in the hall;
near this was probably the foot of the stair (κλίμαξ) by which she
descended from above.
N The chamber into which the weapons were conveyed (τ. 4, comp.
χ. 140—1).
qq The threshold leading into the side-passage, at which Melanthius
was seized (7. 180 foll.).
rr The similar threshold of the store-chamber door into the side-passage.
ss Doorways connecting the chambers with each other.
O00 Chambers used for miscellaneous purposes, chiefly perhaps for stores.
PP Chambers in the rear of the palace one on either side of the recess.
Their existence is very uncertain as the recess might have existed
without them.
NB. The dotted line represents the ground plan of the upper story pro-
jecting over the portico, and over some of the chambers on either side
of the hall, see (32) (33).
5 | UNiv. oF Micwiaay.
DEC 31 hams
_ FIG I}. ILLUSTRATING APP. F. 2.
| pa ta aay
Q- SUCH A 6 ore. THOS ALL THE Og MAV HAVE BEEN π΄
OL wit HOSE AT γε kno
TE REPRESENT THE
POS f
THE DETAILS OF THIS IN,TERIOR ARE TO BE UNDERSTOOD AS
BEING CENERALLY THE SAME ASIN FIC/.
Live Music Archive
Librivox Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland Museum of Art
Internet Arcade
Console Living Room
Books to Borrow
Open Library
TV News
Understanding 9/11