Thomas W. Allen, E. E. Sikes, Commentary on the Homeric Hymns

HYMN TO DIONYSUS

BIBLIOGRAPHY

A. CHUDZINSKI, ubi et quo tempore ortus sit h. Hom. VII. in Dion., 1886. A. LUDWICH, Königsberger Studien i. p. 63 f., 1887. MAASSE. , Hermes xxiii. p. 70 f., 1888. R. PEPPMÜLLER, Philologus xlvii. p. 20 f., 1888. O. CRUSIUS, Philologus xlviii. p. 193 f., 1889. HARRISONE. , Mythology and Monuments of Ancient Athens p. 247 f., 1890. F. A. VOIGT and THRE. ÄMER, art. “Dionysus” in Roscher's Lex. PRELLER-ROBERT, i.^{2} p. 684 f.

The myth in literature and art.—The story of Dionysus and the pirates, which is the subject of this hymn, was a favourite theme in classical literature. There is an allusion to the myth in Eur. Cycl.11, where the Tyrrhenians are said to be inspired by Hera. Ovid (Met. iii. 582-691) and Nonnus (Dion. xlv. 105-168) describe the adventure of Dionysus at considerable length; and shorter accounts are given by Apollodorus iii. 5. 3, Hyginus fab.134, poet. astron. ii. 17 (after the Naxica of Aglaosthenes), Seneca Oed.449-466, and Nonnus Dion. xliv. 240-249. Servius on Verg. Aen.i. 67 closely follows Hyginus. Oppian (Hal. i. 650) mentions the transformation of men into dolphins by Dionysus. It cannot be proved that any of these versions depend on the Homeric hymn; Ovid and Nonnus handle the legend after their characteristic methods, and certain similarities of expression (noted in the commentary) are probably due to the choice of subject, the broad outlines of which did not admit much variation of treatment.¹

On the other hand, the myth has rarely found a place in art. With regard to extant monuments, the metamorphosis of the pirates (the culminating point of the myth) does not appear in any vase-paintings; for, as Miss Harrison shews (after Gerhard), the celebrated cylix of Execias has no connexion with the Tyrrhenians. On this vase Dionysus is depicted as sitting in a ship, from the mast of which springs a vine loaded with grapes. The vacant space round the ship is filled by seven dolphins. But the vine simply indicates the sacred ship which played a part in the cult of Dionysus, while the dolphins are a conventional indication of the sea, as often on coins.² The god of wine, whose cult spread over all the Aegean and its coasts, was early associated with the sea,³ and it was his journey from isle to isle that doubtless suggested the possibility of his capture, and the consequent manifestation of his might by sea as well as on land. The dolphins, which Greek sailors often saw sporting round their vessels (see h. Apoll. 496), would readily suggest a metamorphosis of actual sailors who had offended the god.⁴

In painting, there is a record by Philostratus (Imag. i. 19) of a picture in which a Tyrrhenian ship is attacking the sacred vessel of Dionysus and his Maenads. The metamorphosis has begun, and the god's ship is covered with ivy and vines. The introduction of a naval battle is evidently a later invention, when the myth was accommodated to other stories of Dionysus' prowess in war; cf. Lucian dial. mar. 8 (Crusius p. 223).

It appears, therefore, that the well-known choregic monument of Lysicrates (B.C. 334) is the sole extant work of art illustrating the myth. A detailed description of the frieze is unnecessary; it may be sufficient to point out that artistic requirements have considerably modified the myth. The scene is laid, not in a ship, but on the sea-shore; there is thus no place for the pilot or for the vines and ivy. Dionysus sits at ease on a rock playing with a panther, while the Tyrrhenians are punished by a band of Satyrs. Some of the pirates are being beaten with the thyrsus, others are leaping into the sea, half transformed into dolphins.⁵

Style of the hymn.—Groddeck and Baumeister, followed by Abel, trace the influence of dithyrambic poetry in the theme and treatment of the hymn; but the debt, if any, is not easily estimated. The formula “ἀμφί τινα ἀείδειν” is not confined to the dithyramb (see on 1), and the harsh transitions, in which Baumeister sees a mark of dithyrambic haste (44, 54), are due rather to unpolished workmanship. For, although the hymn is a valuable and interesting document, it is hard to dissent from Gemoll's judgment that its artistic merits have been generally overrated. Gemoll remarks on the carelessness of the writer in using the particle “δέ” seven times in 4-10.⁶ Nothing is said about the scene of the event; the description of the bear created by Dionysus (46) is at least clumsy, even if it is partly justified as one of the signs by which the god shews his power. It may be added that there is an obvious improbability in the indifference shewn by all the crew, except the steersman, after the god has miraculously freed himself from his bonds (see on h. Dem. 188). Ovid, more careful of artistic propriety, makes the steersman conjecture the divinity of the captive from his general appearance only; Bacchus performs no miracle until it is too late for repentance.

Date of the hymn.—The general uncertainty in dating most of the hymns is strikingly exemplified in the case of the present poem, for the composition of which the critics have suggested various periods down to the third or fourth century A.D. This late date has been advocated by Ludwich, who believes the hymn to be a work of the Orphic school and closely related to the Argonautica, which passed under the name of Orpheus. Ludwich draws attention to the following points of similarity between the two poems: (1) both are characterised by extreme rapidity of diction, and by numerous words expressing haste (e.g. “τάχα—θοῶς—τάχα—αἶψα”, Hom. h. 6-9; “μάλ᾽ ὦκα—θοή— ἐπειγομένη”, Arg. 268-270. For a full comparison see Ludwich p. 61-67). It may be replied that adverbs, etc., denoting haste or swift transition, are common in epic poetry (e.g. Il. 18.525-532, compared by Crusius), and “τάχα, αὐτίκα, αἶψα”, and the like are especially frequent in hymnic literature; the hymn to Hermes affords many examples (see on h. Herm. 70). (2) Ludwich remarks on a general resemblance in diction between the hymn and the Argonautica (p. 68, 69). None of these parallels, however, are very striking, and all are “Homeric,” and may therefore have been modelled independently on epic originals (see further on 2).

(3) The position of the hymn in the collection—next to the hymn to Ares—is thought to be a sign of Orphic origin. The eighth hymn is undoubtedly late, but not necessarily Orphic (see Introd.); in any case the argument is of little value, as it would apply equally to the ninth hymn, which is certainly not Orphic. The style of the hymn to Dionysus, which is a pure narrative poem, is quite foreign to the religious tone of the hymn to Ares. The latter cannot be adduced as evidence for the date or origin of any other hymn.

If there is no strong argument in support of Ludwich's theory, there is equally little reason to follow Gemoll, who places the hymn (doubtfully) in the Alexandrine period. As evidence of lateness he instances “αὐτόν” (22), the use of “ὅδε” (19, 27), “ἐρεῖ” (30), “ἐκάθητο” (14), the dat. plur. in “οις” (5, 12, 16, 21), the art. in “τῷ ἐμῷ” (55). Some of these usages are perfectly regular, at least in the later parts of the genuine epic (see on 22, 55); and there is nothing in the language which need not belong to a date far higher than that of the Alexandrines. The double title “Διόνυσος ἢ λησταί” (in DELIIT) reminds us of similar alternatives in Theocritus and Herondas; but this title is not given by M, and is probably a later addition. Nor is there any proof that such titles were first adopted by the Alexandrines. In style, the hymn has little in common with the works of Callimachus or the hymnic idylls of Theocritus; its simplicity and directness of expression, which often pass into abruptness, differentiate it from any characteristic product of the Alexandrine age. This will appear from a comparison between the hymn and the idyll of Theocritus, which deals with the fate of Pentheus (xxi); the subject—the might of Dionysus and the punishment of Pentheus—is similar to the theme of the hymn; but the latter is quite free from the affectation of rare or “precious” words (“μαλοπάρηος, ἐθυμάρει”, etc.) that mark the Alexandrine work. The hymn-writer's disregard of all superfluous details is in strong contrast to the fuller and more “literary” compositions from which Ovid drew his inspiration.

The hymn has also been referred to the fifth or fourth century, with no great probability.⁷ The chief argument for this date, based on the youthful form of Dionysus, is of no value (see on 3). There is, in a word, no reason to separate the hymn from the rest of the collection (the hymn to Ares and possibly one or two others being excepted), or to deny it a place in the literature of the sixth or even the seventh century B.C.

Place of composition.—There is no internal evidence pointing to any special country, and the efforts to localise the hymn have not been fruitful. Several scholars, however (Welcker Ep. Cycl. i. p. 367; Baumeister p. 339; Chudiński p. 9; Christ Handbuch der klass. Alt. vii.^{2} p. 63), have argued for an Attic origin, and this view has been upheld with some confidence by Crusius (p. 204 f.). It is suggested that the hymn served as a prelude at the Brauronian festival of Dionysus, in which rhapsodists recited the Iliad (Hesych. s.v. and Clearch. ap. Athen. vii. 275 B=F. H. G. ii. p. 321). Crusius lays stress on the legend that Tyrsenian pirates carried off Attic women from Brauron ( Herod.vi. 138), and he sees in the sole extant representation—the monument of Lysicrates—a proof that the myth was peculiarly He Attic. suggests that the bear created by Dionysus is Brauronian, as Attic maidens at the festival were called “ἄρκτοι” (but see on 46). The arguments may be plausible, but there is really no more reason to attribute the hymn to the Athenians than to almost any other branch of the Hellenic race. The myth itself may have arisen in Naxos; later accounts, at least (Aglaosthenes, Apollodorus, Ovid), connect it with the island; and it is not impossible that the hymn is also Naxian.⁸

ἀμφί: the use with “ἀείδειν” or similar verbs occurs at the beginning of xix, xxii, xxxiii, and in h. Herm. 57. The formula is found in Od. 8.267 (with genitive), and was stereotyped in dithyrambic verse (cf. Terpand. fr. 2) according to the schol. on Nub. 595, Suid. s.v. “ἀμφιανακτίζειν”; so in tragedy Troad. 511.

[2] ἐφάνΗ: such “ἐπιφάνειαι” are a marked feature of Dionysiac mythology; cf. Rohde Psyche p. 305. Ludwich traces the hand of an Orphic writer in this “epiphany,” comparing Orph. Arg. 16 “πρῶτος γὰρ ἐφάνθη” (of Phanes). But there is nothing mystic in the line; on the contrary the absence of any specific indication of locality is against Ludwich's theory; Crusius notes that such picturesque details are common in the Orphic Argonautica. According to Apollodorus, Dionysus wishes to cross from Icaria to Naxos, and therefore, embarks on a Tyrsenian ship; but the sailors refuse to land him. In Ovid (l.c. 597) Dionysus is found in Ceos (“Ciae telluris” Lachmann for MSS. Chiae); Nonnus localises the legend in the Sicilian sea. The hymn gives no reason for the god's appearance or for his easy capture; he is “mero somnoque gravis” (3.603) in Ovid's account.

[3] ἀκτῌ̂ ἐΠὶ Προβλ̂ητι: cf. Od. 5.405 “, κ 89, ν” 97, Apoll. Arg. 2.365. Νεηνίͅη ἀνδρὶ ἐοικώς=Od. 10.277, followed by “πρῶτον ὑπηνήτῃ” (of Hermes). It was supposed that the youthful type of Dionysus in art was created in the age of Praxiteles; but it is now known that the type goes back to Calamis ( Curtius A. Z. 1883, p. 255; cf. Roscher 1089 f., 1126 f.), i.e. to the first half of the fifth century. In any case the present passage is no indication of lateness, for, as Bergk notes, the god only assumes the form of a youth for the occasion; the transformation is on Homeric analogy. Moreover it is probable that the young Dionysus was familiar to poetry for many years before the art-type was created (see Sandys, Eur. Bacch.p. xcix f.). The hymnwriter does not conceive of the god as effeminate and voluptuous, but as the ideal of a young Greek athlete with broad shoulders (5) like Telemachus, Od. 15.61; cf. the metamorphosis of Apollo, h. Apoll. 450 “ἀνέρι εἰδόμενος αἰζηῷ τε κρατερῷ τε”

“πρωθήβῃ, χαίτῃς εἰλυμένος εὐρέας ὤμους”; so Verg. Aen.x. 485pectus ingens of the young Pallas.

[5] στιβαροῖς ὤμοις=Od. 14.528 “, ο” 61, Orph. Arg. 200.

[6] ἀΠό is supported by xxxiii. 8 where “οἱ δ᾽ ἀπὸ νηῶν”=“οἱ ναῦται”, with no idea of motion in the context. Köchly's “ἐπί” is not only needless, but involves a repetition of the preposition in 7.

[7] Προγένοντο . . . ἐΠί: Gemoll suggests “ἐνί”, understanding the verb to mean “hove in sight.” But “προγίγνεσθαι” often implies movement, “come forward,” and is followed by “ἐς” or “ἐπί”; cf. Il. 18.525 “ οἱ δὲ τάχα προγένοντο”, “came on,” Scut. 345 “τοὶ δ᾽ ἄμυδις προγένοντ̓”, of warriors rushing to meet one another, Callim. h. Art. 178 “κόπρον ἔπι προγένοιντο”, Theocr. xxv. 134 “προγενοίατο θῆρες ἐς πεδίον”.

[8] ΤυρσηΝοί: first in a suspected passage of Hesiod (Theog. 1016). According to Herod.i. 57 and 94, the Tyrsenians were ancient Pelasgic inhabitants of Thrace; Thucydides (iv. 109) places them in Lemnos and Athens. They had a reputation as corsairs, if we may judge from their rape of women at Brauron; Crusius notes that a similar story was told at Samos (Athen. xv. 672). Most scholars assume that the hymn refers to these obscure Tyrsenians, who are rarely mentioned in ancient literature. It is barely possible that the Etruscans are meant (as Chudiński holds, p. 9); pirates from Etruria were a terror to the early colonists in Italy and Sicily, from the seventh century (probably) down to their defeat by Hieroin 474 B.C. (Mommsen i. ch. x.). But, although their name became proverbial for piracy, it is difficult to account for their presence in an early Greek hymn, which appears to have no connexion with the colonies of Sicily or Magna Graecia. It seems therefore better to follow the common explanation. Nonnus (Dion. xv. 104) naturally understands the Tyrsenians to be Etruscans, and Philostratus (Imag. i. 19) speaks of “Τυρρηνοί”, obviously Etruscans; but this proves nothing for the original myth.

[11] υι<*>ὸν . . . βασιλ́ηων: he appeared to be a prince from his beauty (cf. h. Dem. 215), and from his purple cloak, which was a mark of high rank. A purple “χλαῖνα” was worn by Telemachus, Od. 4.115, and Odysseus, Od. 19.225. In Nonnus the god wears jewellery as well as a cloak of Tyrian purple.

[13] For the miraculous loosing of the bonds cf. Eur. Bacch.447 with Sandys' note, ib. 498Eur. Bacch., 616 f. In Ovid l.c. 700 the miracle happens to the steersman Acoetes, when imprisoned by Pentheus.

[14] ἐκάθητο=the epic form “καθῆστο”.

[18] καρτερόν: emphatic, explained by the following words “οὐδὲ φέρειν κτλ.” Gemoll punctuates with the mark of interrogation at the end of the line; but the sense is clear with the usual punctuation, adopted in the text.

[22] αὐτόν: the position is unusual, as there is no emphasis on the pronoun; but it is justified by such passages as Od. 16.370 “ ἵνα φθίσαιμεν ἑλόντες”

“αὐτόν”, where no stress is laid on the pronoun, in spite of its emphatic place, Od. 6.277, 308, 329; so “αὐτός” is unemphatic at the end of a line, Il. 9.562 “, Π” 519. Baumeister's “αὖτις” would eliminate the necessary object of “ἀφῶμεν”.

[24] ὄρσιη ἀργαλέους: an hiatus vix ferendus, according to Baumeister; Abel adopts Barnes' “ὄρσῃ ἐπ̓”. But the text is a reminiscence of Od. 24.110 “ ὄρσας ἀργαλέους ἀνέμους”, or Od. 11.400 “ ὄρσας ἀργαλέων ἀνέμων ἀμέγαρτον ἀϋτμήν”. For the hiatus in thesis see H. G. § 380.

[26] ἅμα: not “besides,” but “with me,” as Franke saw: the steersman is to “lend a hand” with the captain, who is the subject of “ἕλκετο” in 32.

[27] ἄνδρεσσι μελ́ησει: a formula usually put into the mouth of a man speaking to a woman and contrasting the two sexes: Il. 6.492 “, α 358, φ” 352; in Il. 20.137 the antithesis is between gods and men. Gemoll quotes Od. 11.353 as the nearest parallel to this passage, “ἄνδρες” being in both places, as he thinks, equivalent to “πάντες”. But in “λ ἄνδρεσσι” is followed and explained by “πᾶσι, μάλιστα δ᾽ ἐμοί”. Here the implied contrast must be, as usual, “ἄνδρεσσι, οὐ γυναιξί”. The taunt of womanish fear explains “στυγερῷ μύθῳ” 25. The translation of “ἄνδρεσσι”, “crew,” does not suit the context or the regular meaning of the formula.

[29] M's “ὀὲ καστέρω” is perhaps a survival of “ὅ γ᾽ ἑκαστέρω, ὅ γ̓” having strayed in from the previous line; J. H. S. xv. p. 298.

30, 31. The collocation “φίλους, κτήματα, κασιγνητούς” is no less curious than the omission of any reference to the captive's country or parents. Köchly supposes the original passage to have been longer; but the lame expression need not surprise us in a hymn which shews other marks of careless workmanship.

κτ́ηματα Πάντα of course implies a large ransom; in Apollodorus the pirates are prepared to sell the god (“ἀπεμπολήσοντες”).

[33] ἔμπΝευσεν has been altered on the ground that “ἐμπνεῖν” elsewhere takes a dative. But there is a clear case of “ἐμπρήθειν” with acc., Il. 1.481 “ ἐν δ᾽ ἄνεμος πρῆσεν μέγαν ἱστίον”, and on this analogy “ἐμπνεῖν” can stand with acc. In Pind. Isthm.ii. 40“οὖρος ἐμπνεύσαις ὑπέστειλ᾽ ἱστίον” the construction is ambiguous; “ἱστίον” may however be governed by “ἐμπνεύσαις”, though most editors supply “ἱστίῳ”, taking the acc. with “ὑπέστειλε” alone.

In Ovid (l.c. 660) and Seneca (l.c. 450) a sudden calm falls before the god manifests his power.

[34] καττάνυσαν: the Homeric equivalent appears in Od. 2.430 “ δησάμενοι δ᾽ ἄρα ὅπλα” “having made all fast.” Cf.

“κὰδ᾽ δ᾽ ἄρα λαῖφος ἐρυσσάμενοι τανύοντο
ἐς πόδας ἀμφοτέρους
”

Apoll. Arg. 2.933

, and “vela deducunt” in Ovid's version (663).

[37] Πάντας ἰδόντας: elsewhere in the hymn hiatus occurs before “ἰδεῖν” (8, 42, 48, 52). For the variation, within a few lines, cf. Od. 21.122 “ τάφος δ᾽ ἕλε πάντας ἰδόντας” with 112 “ὄφρα ἴδωμεν”. On the observance and neglect of “ϝ” in “ἰδεῖν” see H. G. § 390. The less familiar “τάφος” is supported by “φ”, and is to be preferred to “φόβος” read by Gemoll.

[38] Cf. Ovid

“impediunt hederae remos nexuque recurvo
serpunt, et gravidis distinguunt vela corymbis.

”

(664 f.)

The details of the transformation vary in the several accounts: in Apollodorus the mast and oars became snakes, and the ship is filled with ivy; in Nonnus the mast is changed into a cypress wreathed with ivy. So in Opp. Ven. iv. 261 f. a boat, which carried the infant Bacchus across the Euripus, was covered with ivy, vines, and smilax.

[41] τηλεθάων: not Homeric as a part. with dative.

[43] ΝἮ Ἤδη: Hermann's correction, if not quite certain, is strongly supported by h. Apoll. 392 “ἠμαθόην”, corrected by “Γ”, the second hand of M, and Demetrius to “νῆα θοήν. νἦ ἤδη” would have been written in full “ΝηΑηΔη”, i.e. “νηδηδη”, from which “μηδηδη” is a slight step. It is to be observed that the MSS. except M have been further corrupted. The fact that there is no instance of the collocation “ἤδη τότ᾽ ἔπειτα” is not serious; the nearest approach is the formula “δὴ τότ᾽ ἔπειτα, λ” 44, Apoll. Arg. 4.716, 1629, which always begins a sentence or clause; cf. however Solon fr. 16. 3 “εἴην δὴ τότ᾽ ἐγώ”. The other emendations may be disregarded: the older editors, taking “πελάαν” as intrans. (a rarer Homeric use), looked for the steersman's name, i.e. “Μηδείδην” or “Μήδην δή”. A name “Μηδείδης” would be suitable for an “experienced” steersman; cf. Od. 3.282 “ Φρόντιν”, in the ship of Menelaus. The form could be supported by “Μεγαμηδείδαο”, h. Herm. 100. But the name should have been mentioned before (i.e. at 15), if at all; in Ovid and Hyginus the helmsman is called Acoetes, but no other name is given in the accounts. An adj. agreeing with “κυβερνήτην” (cf. 49) might be thought in place, i.e. from “μῆδος”; but none exists.

[44] λέων Γένετ̓: a common transformation of Dionysus; Eur. Bacch.1018, Hor. Od. ii. 19. 23, Dion. xl. 44. In the accounts of Ovid and Seneca, the god retains his human form, but various wild beasts appear at his side (Ov. Met. 3.668), or occupy the prow and stern (Sen.457). According to Nonnus, Dionysus suddenly becomes a giant, while animals swarm on all the ship's benches. The scene in the hymn is closely parallel to a myth in Ant. Lib.10, where Dionysus, to frighten the Minyades (who stayed at their looms instead of joining the Bacchanals) “ἐγένετο ταῦρος καὶ λέων καὶ πάρδαλις, καὶ ἐκ τῶν κελεόντων ἐρρύη νέκταρ αὐτῷ καὶ γάλα”. For the transformations see also Sandys on Eur. Bacch.1017.

Νηὸς ἐΠ̓ ἀκροτάτης=the Homeric “νηὸς ἐπ᾽ ἰκριόφιν”.

[46] ἄρκτον ἐΠοίησεν: Ovid's “simulacra inania” (668) is a more “modern” touch. In his contest with Deriades, Dionysus takes the form of a bear, among other changes, Dion. xl. 46. Crusius is therefore wrong in stating that the mention of the bear is mythologically unique in connexion with Dionysus.

σ´ηματα φαίνων=Od. 21.413 (of Zeus thundering); cf. Il. 2.353.

47, 48. ἂν δ᾽ ἔστη: to be taken with “λέων” as well as “ἄρκτος”, unless some verb is to be mentally supplied from “ἀνέστη” for “λέων”. In either case there is some harshness, though not more, perhaps, than elsewhere in the hymn. But it is possible that a line has dropped out after 47, containing a verb for “λέων. δεινὸν ὑΠόδρα ἰδών” is not to be disturbed; cf. Il. 15.13, Scut. 445.

[51] ἀρχὸν ἕλ̓: Köchly objects to “ἕλε” on the ground that nothing is said about the captain's fate when “seized.” But his death may be inferred, or we may actually translate “killed”; Gemoll remarks that this use of “ἑλεῖν” is quite Homeric.

θύραζε, “out”; for this general sense cf. Il. 5.694 “, Π 408, ε 410, φ” 422 etc.

[53] The omission of the subject is again abrupt.

[54] ἔθηκε Πανόλβιον: obscurely expressed; the meaning intended is apparently “made him happy” by allaying his fears; cf. Ov. 3.668 “pavidum . . . firmat deus.”

[55] †δῖε κάτωρ: “εκάτωρ, κάτωρ” appear to be impossible and meaningless forms, although the latter is defended by Chudziński (p. 9), and Ridgeway (J. P. 1888, p. 113) who translates “oarsman,” comparing “κατήρης”; this, word, however, properly means “furnished with,” and only bears the special sense “fitted with oars” when joined to “πλοῖον” ( Herod.viii. 21) or in a similar context. Again, on this theory, the first part of the word is “κατά”, and it is hardly possible that this prep. with the termination “-ωρ” could imply “mariner.” Of the conjectures, only “ἀκάτωρ, ἄκτωρ, κράτωρ” are formally possible, and there is little probability in any of these. M's “ἑκάτωρ” (M has often the closest form of a corruption; cf. 43) might be thought to suggest a shortened form of a proper name, e.g. “Ἑκατήνωρ” (Fick Personennamen p. 117); but the introduction of the name seems even more out of place here than it would be at 43.

There is no objection to “δῖε”, which might be applied to the helmsman as appropriately as to the swineherd in the Odyssey. Gemoll suggests that there is a corruption of Dia, the old name of Naxos (cf.

““excute” dicens
“corde metum Diamque tene”

”

Ov. 3.689

); but the place-name is unmanageable in the verse.

τῷ ἐμῷ κεχαρισμένε θυμῷ: Gemoll points to the use of “τῷ” as a mark of late epic usage; as a matter of fact the whole formula occurs in Il. 11.608 “, δ” 71.

[56] εἰμὶ δ̓: for “δέ” introducing an explanation (instead of “γάρ” or an asyndeton) cf. h. Dem. 77 (“οὐδέ”).

58, 59. With the concluding formula cf. h. i.18 f.