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

[289] Πύματόν τε καὶ ὕστατον = X 203, Od. 20.116.

295-303. The incident is quite in keeping with the general tone of the hymn; see Introd. p. 134. But the precise meaning of the two “omens” is doubtful. Both are clearly intentional (cf. “σὺν δ᾽ ἄρα φρασσάμενος”); but it is uncertain whether the second omen is merely a reduplication of the first, or whether Hermes intended to supplement the original “οἰωνός”. The further question arises, whether the omens refer to Hermes or Apollo. According to Hermann, Mercurius, “καταπαρδὼν Ἀπόλλωνος”, significabat parum se ira Apollinis moveri. So Baumeister, who adds that the sneeze is also intentional, ut inhonestius augurium honestiori callide occultaret, although Apollo is not to be deceived. This explanation is not satisfactory; and Gemoll is probably right in understanding that Hermes intends both omens to confirm Apollo's prophecy “ἀρχὸς φηλητέων κεκλήσεαι”. The first omen is, in Gemoll's view, a mere piece of impudence; this is no doubt correct, but the editors do not notice that it is a parody of a favourable omen from Zeus “ὑψιβρεμέτης”. Cf. Eq.639(with Neil's note). An accidental sneeze would also be lucky; the humour lies in the fact that it is intentional. For the omen of sneezing cf. Od. 17.541, 545, Herod.vi. 107, Xen. Anab.iii. 2. 9, and other exx. quoted by Bouché-Leclercq Divination i. p. 162 f. and Blaydes on Av.720“πταρμόν τ᾽ ὄρνιθα καλεῖτε”. Apollo of course is not deceived by Hermes, but ironically interprets the “omens” in his own way.