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

[11] ὠς δὲ τάμεν: “τὰ μέν” is unintelligible owing to the loss of the context. Hermann renders ut ha<*> numero tria sunt, and supposes that three things had been mentioned, though he does not suggest what the “three things” may be. It is possible that they were three titles of Dionysus; cf. Nonn. Dion. xlviii. 965 f. “καὶ τριτάτῳ νέον ὕμνον ἐπεσμαράγησαν Ἰάκχῳ
καὶ τελεταῖς τρισσῇσιν ἐβακχεύθησαν Ἀθῆναι
… Ζαγρέα κυδαίνοντες ἅμα Βρομίῳ καὶ Ἰάκχῳ

”. But the sense “as these things are three” can scarcely be extracted from the Greek: even if “ἐστί” be supplied, the “μέν” is meaningless. In the Oxford text “τάμεν” (which might stand either for “ἐτάμησαν”, an aor. pass., for which cf. “ταμείη” below, or “ἔταμεν”) was substituted. For the graphical change examples are superfluous, though “τὸ μή, τομῇ” may be quoted as a coincidence ( Acut.22). This would give a verb and eliminate “μέν”, but the meaning of the passage would still remain obscure. It is obvious, however, to suggest that there is an allusion to the violent death of Dionysus-Zagreus. The myth, though chiefly mentioned in late authors, was known at least as early as the sixth century B.C. (first in Onomacritus; see Lobeck Aglaoph. ii. p. 615 f.; for references see Preller-Robert i.^{2} p. 705 f., Maass Orpheus p. 79 f., Frazer G. B. ii. p. 161 f.). For the cutting in this connexion cf. Opp. Ven. iv. 281 “μελεϊστὶ τάμεν”, of lambs, Nonn.vi. 205“Διόνυσον ἐμιστύλλοντο μαχαίρῃ”, and the frag. upon Dionysus in the Album gratulatorium to Herwerden, 1902, p. 137 = Pap. Mus. Brit. 273 v. 45; Deriades the enemy of Dionysus says “αἲ γὰρ δὴ μελεϊστὶ διὰ κρέα σεῖο τα[μείη”]. There is, however, no authority for the hypothesis that he was torn into three pieces; and finally we should expect either “ἔταμέν σε τρία” or “ἐτάμης τρία”, as in Symm. 17 “ἑκάστην διελεῖν κελεύω πέντε μέρη” and Theocr. ix. 26 “πέντε ταμὼν” (“κρέας”) “cutting it into five parts,” and other exx. ap. Kühner-Gerth § 411. 5. Possibly the meaning may be “as three victims were offered,” i.e. “τρία σφάγια:” for this sense of “τέμνω” cf. Il. 19.197 (“κάπρον”) “ταμέειν Διί τ᾽ Ἠελίῳ τε”, Eur. Supp.1196“τέμνειν σφάγια”. This would refer to the common “τριττύς” or “τριττύα”; which, however, was not specially connected with Dionysus.

The emendation is therefore uncertain, and the passage waits for further light. It is also doubtful whether the main clause begins after “τρία” or “πάντως”.

τριετηρίσιν: on the “τριετηρίς” see Eur. Bacch.132, Schömann Griech. Alterth.^{4} ii. p. 523 f. The reckoning of years being inclusive, it was a biennial festival according to modern computation. Diodorus (iii. 65, iv. 3) derives the “τριετηρίς” from Dionysus' years of disappearance and his biennial return; see Rohde Psyche p. 304; so Orph. h. liii. 4 “κοιμίζει, πριετῆρα χρόνον”; Nonnus (quoted above) gives another explanation. For modern theories see Frazer G. B. ii. p. 163, Schömann op. cit. p. 460 n. 2. There were “τριετηρίδες” in many parts of Greece; e.g. Thebes, Tanagra, Delphi, Argos, etc. (Schömann p. 526).