previous next



    A. LUDWICH, Hymn. Hom. in Mercur. (Acad. Alb. Regimontii, 1890, iii.). Hymn. Hom. Mercurii Germanice versus (Acad. Alb. Regimontii, 1891, i.). A. LANG, The Homeric Hymns (Translation) p. 35 f., 1899. ROSCHER AND SCHERER, art. “Hermes” in Roscher's Lex. PRELLER-ROBERT, Griech. Myth. i. p. 385 f.
I. Subject and motive.—The theme is more varied than those of the other great hymns. There is a unity of time, for the action is continuous, taking place in the first two days of Hermes' life; but there is no close unity of subject: the several episodes are not integral parts of a single myth, and the commentators have vainly puzzled themselves to discover one underlying motif to connect the different parts of the hymn. The connexion lies simply in the fact that the episodes all deal with the first exploits of the infant god, and shew how, by his cunning and dexterity, he vindicated his birthright, and won the attributes which distinguished him in maturity.1 Hermes has perhaps the most complex character of any deity in Greek mythology, and the poet has tried to do justice to some, at least, of the god's many qualities. Of these, one of the most characteristic was thievishness. To the Greeks, who too often prided themselves on successful deceit, and who had made lying a fine art, a patron-deity of cunning came natural. Even in the later parts of the Iliad Hermes is known as the Thief; cf. Il. 24.24, where the gods urge him to steal the body of Hector. Autolycus is in Homer (Il. 10.267) the human representative of the Masterthieves who figure largely in folk-tales; but he learnt his craft from the divine thief Hermes (cf. Od. 19.395 f. “ὃς ἀνθρώπους ἐκέκαστο

κλεπτοσύνῃ θ᾽ ὅρκῳ τε: θεὸς δέ οἱ αὐτὸς ἔδωκεν
Ἑρμείας”. See also Hes. Op.67Hes. Op., 78, fr. 130, Hippon. fr. 1, Plut. 1139 and often). Additional force is given to these stories of trickery and mendacity, when the rogue is a new-born babe, or is otherwise insignificant; and Mr. Lang well remarks that “the poet chiefly revels in a very familiar subject of savage humour (notably among the Zulus), the extraordinary feats and tricks of a tiny and apparently feeble and helpless person or animal, such as Brer Rabbit.”2 The poet emphasises the deceitful ways of Hermes at the outset of the hymn, in a string of epithets, “πολύτροπον, αἱμυλομήτην . . . νυκτὸς ὀπωπητῆρα, πυληδόκον” (13 f.). In the same language he sums up the god's character at the end: “παῦρα μὲν οὖν ὀνίνησι κτλ.” (577 f.).
The theft of the cattle of Apollo was the most striking myth which exemplified these knavish tricks; and the poet takes this to form the main thread of his narrative. But Hermes was by no means a mere thief; in his higher and more Olympian province he was the messenger of the gods, and a great pastoral deity, especially in local cult. These divine conceptions are recognised at the beginning of the hymn (2 f. “Κυλλήνης μεδέοντα καὶ Ἀρκαδίης πολυμήλου”,

ἄγγελον ἀθανάτων”; and 331 “φυὴν κήρυκος ἔχοντα”). Again, Hermes was not always untrustworthy in his dealings with men; he was also the luck-bringer, “ἐριούνιος” (3, 28, 551). The finding of the tortoise is the first “ἕρμαιον” (30 f.).
But, while Hermes had many specific attributes which differentiated him from all other deities, he had also many points of contact with one member of the Olympian circle—Apollo.3 Both were pastoral gods; both were patrons of music, and had prophetic powers, although in this respect the place of Apollo was superior. This close connexion undoubtedly impressed the poet, who gave an explanation common in Greek mythology, that the similarity of attributes was due to an exchange of gifts. Apollo presented Hermes with cattle, and in his turn received the cithara (498 f.). The poet, too, felt that all forms of prophecy rightly belonged, under Zeus, to the Lord of Delphi. But he knew that, in common superstition, certain processes of divination were under the patronage of Hermes, the god of luck.4 He App. therefore naturally assumed that these lower powers had been delegated to Hermes from the abundance of Apollo's higher prerogative. Apollo still remained the keeper of the knowledge which Zeus possessed; but he transferred to Hermes the Thriae, with whom he had served an apprenticeship in prophecy (533566).

II. The theft of the cows of Apollo.—The myth was very ancient, and has been assigned by the “solar” school of mythologists to the stock of Indo-European stories belonging to the undivided Aryan race.5 It is known to have been related by Hesiod, in the “Μεγάλαι Ἠοῖαι”, but no fragment is preserved. Alcaeus handled the same story in a hymn to Hermes, of which only one stanza is extant (fr. 5; cf. Hor. Od. I. x.). In later Greek, the most important version of the myth is in Apollodorus iii. 10. 2. The mythographer deals with an account much resembling the hymn; for the events are the same, although not in the same order. He differs from the hymn in the following details:—

(1) Hermes eats some of the flesh: “τὰς μὲν βύρσας πέτραις καθήλωσε, τῶν δὲ κρεῶν τὰ μὲν κατηνάλωσεν ἑψήσας, τὰ δὲ κατέκαυσε”.

(2) Hermes finds the tortoise after stealing the cows. He makes the strings of the lyre “ἐξ ὧν ἔθυσε βοῶν”, not from sheep-gut, as in the hymn.

(3) Apollo inquires at Pylos, not Onchestus.

(4) Apollo discovers the thief “ἐκ μαντικῆς”.

(5) Maia shows Hermes to Apollo.

(6) Apollo desires the “σῦριγξ” also, and exchanges it for “τὴν διὰ ψήφων μαντικήν”.

Apollodorus names no authority, and his precise debt to the hymn has been disputed. According to the general view (see Gemoll p. 191), he used the hymn, but supplemented its account from another (unknown) source. Greve (de h. in Merc. Homerico p. 37) thinks that Apollodorus drew little from the hymn. Some scholars, on the other hand, argue that the hymn was the sole ultimate authority, and that the variations of detail are the invention of the mythographer. Gemoll, who supports this view, believes that these variations partly proceed from carelessness, as (3), partly from a desire to explain or amplify the hymn; e.g. the variant (2) is due to Apollodorus' wish to utilise the cows, and so connect the two incidents of the cithara and the cattlestealing. Gemoll also assumes, with no adequate reason, that Apollodorus used a text with the present lacunae in the hymn. The differences between the two accounts seem too wide to admit the theory that Apollodorus used no other source; indeed, it may be doubted whether he was even at all acquainted with the actual text of the hymn, although he may have borrowed from sources (written or oral) which were ultimately drawn from the Homeric version.

The version of Antoninus Liberalis 23 is confined to the incident of Battus. Hermes steals 12 “πόρτιας, 100 βόας ἄζυγας”, and a bull from Apollo, and ties branches (“ὕλη”) to the tail of each, “ὡς ἂν τὰ ἴχνη τῶν βοῶν ἀφανίσῃ”. Battus, who was paid by Hermes not to tell, proved false, and was changed into a stone. Ovid ( Met.ii. 676 f.) also narrates the story of Battus. The popularity of the myth (in its different forms) is shewn by the list of sources quoted by Antoninus: “Νίκανδρος ἑτεροιουμένων ά, Ἡσίοδος ἐν μεγάλαις ἠοίαις, Διδύμαρχος μεταμορφωσέων γ́, Ἀντίγονος ἐν ταῖς ἀλλοιώσεσι, καὶ Ἀπολλώνιος Ῥόδιος ἐν ἐπιγράμμασιν”.

The geographer Philostephanus, a disciple of Callimachus, dealt with the subject in his “περὶ Κυλλήνης” (F. H. G. iii. 28), a book which might have given us much information of which we stand in need. Another Alexandrian, Eratosthenes, in an unnamed work, narrated the birth of Hermes and his theft of his mother's and her sister's clothes, and of Apollo's cows (schol. on Il. 24.24), and interpreted the Homeric “Ἑρμείας ἀκάκητα” (Immerwahr l.c. p. 72).

The geography of the two versions represented by the hymn and Antoninus Liberalis is quite different. In the hymn, Hermes passes Onchestus, where he finds the nameless old man corresponding to Battus; thence, by an undefined route, he reaches the Alphean Pylos (139, 398), near which place he slaughters the cows. Antoninus gives a long itinerary, starting from Phthiotis and ending at the Messenian Pylos; there Hermes hides the cattle in a cave at Coryphasium in which Nestor had housed his booty (Il. 11.677, Paus.iv. 36. 2). The meeting with Battus took place near Maenalus. Thus a Pylos is mentioned in both versions as in the neighbourhood of Hermes' cave. Probably the original account referred to the Triphylian place of that name; the neighbourhood of the Alpheus is a natural route along which to retire to Cyllene.6 The view that the Messenian Pylos is original (Preller-Robert i. p. 392 n. 2) rests on O. Müller's very doubtful theory that the stalactites in a cave at this place were thought to be the skins of the beasts slaughtered by Hermes (see on 124 f.). The cave, on the northern slope of Coryphasium, is described by Frazer (who accepts Müller's explanation) on l.c. But it is clear from 398 that Hermes' cave was near the Alpheus. The cave of Hermes is mentioned also in Lithica 18 and 55.

The site of the Triphylian Pylos is unidentified, but is defined by Strabo 343 fin. “κατὰ ταῦτα δέ πως τὰ ἱερὰ” [that of Poseidon at Samicum and of Athena at Scillus] “ὑπέρκειται τῆς θαλάττης ἐν τριάκοντα μικρῷ πλείους σταδίοις Τριφυλιακὸς Πύλος καὶ Λεπρεατικός, ὃν καλεῖ ποιητὴς ἠμαθόεντα”. The coast south of the Alpheus is sandy and largely covered by lagoons (see the references given on h. Apoll. 424), and this suits the wording of the hymn.7 The town, with its cave, was obscured in later days by the Messenian Pylos.

III. Place of composition.—As in the case of nearly all the hymns, the place of composition is doubtful. There are a certain number of Atticisms, and usages of forms and words which approach to the style of the Attic tragedy.8 Some of these forms may be due to scribes familiar with the Attic dialect; others may be common to other dialects, and only testify to a comparatively late time of composition. There is really nothing in the hymn which suggests Athenian composition, and much which distinctly negatives such an idea. Besides numerous reminiscences of Homer, which are a feature in all the hymns, there are many lines which show the influence of Hesiod in a marked degree (cf. 10, 19, 30, 36, 67, 76, 80, 98, 106, 110, 120, 124, 236, 243, 415).

Possibly the commentators have been too chary of suggesting a locality; at all events, a very good case can be made out in support of a Boeotian origin. The influence of Hesiod points in this direction, although of course this fact is inconclusive, as Hesiod, like Homer, early became the property of all the Greeks. But the part played by Onchestus, which does not appear in the other versions, is more striking; the mention of this place seems motiveless, except on a supposition of Boeotian influence. There appear to be traces of local dialect in “ἀθρόα^ς” 106, the elision of “ι” in “περ᾽ ἰγνύσι 152, θᾶττον” 255, and in “ἡχοῦ” 400, on the analogy of “ἡχοῖ” in an Oropian inscription.9

In any case we may reject Fick's earlier suggestion (B. B. ix. p. 201) that the poem was originally composed, in old Ionic, at Colophon in Asia, for the festival of Apollo Clarius. His view that Apollo, not Hermes, is the real “hero” utterly misconceives the spirit of the hymn.

IV. Date.—The date is equally uncertain, but there is every reason to believe, with the consensus of scholars, that the poem is later than the rest of the longer hymns. Hermann and Baumeister point out that there is no living digamma, although, as usual, there is often hiatus in the case of words originally digammated (Hermann Orph. p. 689). See also Eberhard die Sprache der hom. Hymn. ii. p. 34 f., and n. on 92; Pref. p. lxix. Definite evidence of date has been sought for in the mention of the seven-stringed cithara (51). The adoption of seven in place of four strings is usually ascribed to Terpander (see Flach Gr. Lyr. i. 195), who was an old man in Ol.26=676 B.C.; Smyth Melic Poets p. 165 (but see Timotheus Pers.237). Even if this form of the cithara is older than Terpander, who probably only modified the scale (Smyth l.c.), it is highly probable that the hymn is much later than that poet. As Gemoll remarks (p. 193), the hymn-writer could not have attributed the seven strings to Hermes, had not the cithara been long established in that form. On the other hand, the hymn does not approach the childishness of the Batrachomachia (attributed to Pigres, circ. 480, by Plutarch and Suidas), nor to the comic effects of fourth-century parody; still less is it Alexandrian. It is excellent and vigorous literature of an early period, and its cynical and quasi-parodic style make it unique. Its language is in places prosaic,10 but a high flight of poetic fancy would be foreign to the theme. The moral tone appears low when judged by modern standards—as low, perhaps, as that of the Lay of Demodocus (see h. Aphr. Introd.). But this was no stumbling-block to the average Greek, who acquiesced in gods made after his own image. The hymn-writer, in fact, frankly represents the popular religion; he is no opponent of it, like Euripides, nor scoffer, like Lucian. His Hermes may be akin, in some respects, to the gods of Comedy; but the character is far removed from the sorry figure of the Aristophanic Hermes in the Plutus.

V. Influence on later literature.—With all its merits, the hymn seems to have made little or no impression on later Greek literature, and it is rarely cited as an authority, even where some reference might be expected. Pausanias, who quotes from the hymns to Apollo and Demeter, ignores it, and in referring to the myth of cattle-lifting, mentions only the hymn of Alcaeus (viii. 20. 4). The silence of Apollodorus is still more significant; it appears that the authority of the Homeric hymn was overshadowed by Alcaeus and Hesiod in the Eoae. The account of the invention of the cithara is equally neglected.11 Euripides speaks of the lyre as the gift of Hermes to Apollo; it by no means follows, however, that he knew the hymn, as Gemoll supposes (see on 416). In Alexandrian times, Aratus and Nicander mention the myth, but their accounts seem independent of the hymn, and the scholia on Nicander make no allusion to it. Callimachus, who certainly knew the hymn to Apollo, appears to owe nothing to the style and language of the present hymn.12 The direct citation of a line (51) by Antigonus of Carystus (iii.-ii. cent. B.C.) is quite exceptional.

As an example of modern appreciation, it may suffice to mention Shelley's well-known translation, which, of course, does full justice to the poetry of the original, although, as Prof. Mahaffy remarks (Greek Lit. i. p. 150), it perhaps accentuates the comic element too strongly.

V. State of the Text.—The usages of its language make the hymn very difficult; there are a certain number of verbal corruptions, but not a single line need be omitted or transposed. The ingenuity of the higher criticism is largely wasted, although the commentators have been particularly active in dissecting the document. On the other hand, the interruption of sense in several places requires lacunae; and this is in itself more probable on graphical grounds than theories of interpolation or addition, not to say transposition.

1-9. These lines, with a few unimportant variations, form a short hymn to Hermes (xviii), where see note.

Ἑρμ̂ην: only the contracted form is found in this hymn; it occurs also in Il. 20.72, ε 54, ξ 334, 435, ω” 1, for the older Homeric “Ἑρμείας”.

Μαιάδος: so Od. 14.435, Simon. fr. 18, Semon. fr. 20 etc.; the form “Μαῖα” (3) is not Homeric; in Theog. 938 “Μαίη”.

[2] Κυλλ́ηνΗς: for the numerous references to the Cyllenian cult of Hermes see Immerwahr die Kulte u. Myth. Ark. i. p. 73 f., Roscher Lex. i. 2342 f., Preller-Robert i. p. 389.

6=xviii. 6 “ἄντρῳ ναιετάουσα παλισκίῳ”, but the parallel is without effect on the reading of the older hymn. It is unnecessary to read “ἄντρου”, with Baumeister, or to alter “ναίουσα” into a verb of motion, with the older critics. “ναίειν” here governs the accusative, as often in Homer, and “ἔσω” is to be taken absolutely, “within.” For “ἔσω”=“ἔνδον”, with a verb of rest, cf. Il. 13.553, η 13, ς 96, φ” 229. Zenodotus (on Od. 7.13) denied the use, and Ebeling follows; but the exx. in Homer can hardly be explained away.

[7] Νυκτὸς ἀμολγῷ: the meaning is no doubt the “dead” or “blackness” of night, although the derivation is still disputed (see Ebeling). Forchhammer (die Kyanen etc. 1891) curiously returns to the ancient etymology “milkingtime,” on the ground that Mediterranean goat-herds still milk their flocks in the middle of the night. Meyer (Griech. Et. i.) rejects this derivation; the connexion with Dan. mork Eng. mirk etc. is also doubtful.

[8] ὄφρα . . . ἔχοι: Gemoll explains the mood as the optative of indefinite frequency, comparing Od. 7.136 πυμάτῳ” “σπένδεσκον, ὅτε μνησαίατο κοίτου”. But “ὄφρα” is not equivalent to “ὅτε”, and must here be final, i.e. “until,” or “in order that”; see H. G. § 307. Zeus waited till the dead of night, until Hera should be asleep (or, as often, with an indistinct notion of time, “that Hera might be asleep”).

[10] Διὸς Νόος ἐΞετελεῖτο: probably borrowed from Theog. 1002 “μεγάλου δὲ Διὸς νόος ἐξετελεῖτο”. So Il. 1.5, Cypria fr. 1. 7Διὸς δ᾽ ἐτελείετο βουλή”. Gemoll objects to the imperfect here, which he thinks has been blindly copied from Hesiod. But the tense is quite appropriate: “the will of Zeus was coming to fulfilment.” Cf. h. Apoll. 349ἀλλ᾽ ὅτε δὴ μῆνές τε καὶ ἡμέραι ἐξετελεῦντο” (followed by “ἐπήλυθον ὧραι”). “Διὸς νόος” is Hesiodean; cf. Op.105, Theog. 51, 537, 613 al.

[11] τῌ̂ δ̓: “δέ” probably marks the apodosis (“τε” in 12 being connective), as in the similar passage h. Apoll. 349 quoted above. For this use in the hymn cf. 108, 116.

μείς: the form “μής” is perhaps accidental in M; it was read in the Chian ed. on Il. 19.117, and is found in the MS. Barocci 203; also in the Heraclian tables (Cauer Delectus^{2} 40. 1, C. I. G. 5774. 5). Smyth Ionic § 543, Solmsen K. Z. 29, 61, Herwerden Lex. s.v.

ἐστ́ηρικτο: more properly the moon, which marks the months, is “fixed in heaven,” as in Aratus Phaen.10αὐτὸς γὰρ τάδε σήματ᾽ ἐν οὐρανῷ ἐστήριξεν”. The editors compare Il. 19.117 τῇ δ᾽ ἕβδομος ἑστήκει μείς”, where, however, “ἑστήκει” doubtless means “had begun”; cf. “μὴν ἱστάμενος”. The hymn-writer may have misunderstood the meaning, or he may have varied the expression consciously.

[12] εἴς τε φόως ἄγαγεν: apparently modelled on Il. 19.118 ἐκ δ᾽ ἄγαγε πρὸ φόωσδε”, where the subject is Hera, taking the place of the “Εἰλείθυιαι”. Cf. also Il. 16.188 (of Eilithyia). Here both the subject and object of “ἄγαγε” are obscure. Gemoll understands <“Ζεὺς> ἄγαγεν <ἔργα”>, i.e. “Zeus revealed the deed, and everything was made known.” He compares “πρὸς φῶς ἄγειν” etc. in Plato. This view is most improbable; the object, at all events, can hardly be anything but “παῖδα”. The subject is probably Maia, the passage being a clumsy and inaccurate reminiscence of the Homeric descriptions of childbirth. The fact that “εἰς φόως ἄγαγεν” is an exact equivalent of “καὶ τότ᾽ ἐγείνατο παῖδα” presents no great difficulty in this hymn; nor need we suspect interpolation. Compare the diffuse style of 24, 25; 34, 35.

[14] Ἥγ́ητορ᾽ ὀΝείρων: the other epithets in 13-15 refer to the deceit and thievishness of Hermes; hence Gemoll reads “ἡγήτορα φωρῶν”. But the god of elusive and often deceitful dreams is near akin to the god of thieving. This is perhaps the first reference to Hermes as a dream-god; in Od. 7.138 the last libation is probably offered to him as “ἐριούνιος”, protector of the house, not as the sender of dreams; in Od. 5.47 f. (Od. 24.343 f.) he is the giver of sleep to men, but this appears to be not ordinary sleep, but a trance. See Nitzsch on Od. 7.138. In Homer Zeus is the sender of dreams; cf. Il. 2.6.

[15] ὀΠωπΗτ̂ηρα, “watcher for the night,” connected with “ὄπωπα”, from which “ὀπωπέω” was coined (Orph. Arg. 181, 1020). Matthiae compares Tac. Ann.ii. 40speculati noctem. The word suits a thief-god, who is “ἡμερόκοιτος” ( Hes. Op.603). Hoffmann (Hermes und Kerykeion p. 41) understands “the eye of night,” but his view that Hermes was a moon-god, and so patron of thieves, is improbable. The converse is no doubt the truth, i.e. Hermes owes his connexion with the night to his character as a thief. No emendation is required.

Πυληδόκον (only here): the context shews that there is no reference to Hermes as “προπύλαιος”. Here he is the god who pries about the door, ready to pilfer. Cf. “ὁδοιδόκος”, a highway robber ( Dioof Prusa iv. 95, and reff. in L. and S. ).

17-19. Most editors, after Ilgen, eject these lines on the ground that “βοῦς κλέψεν” is inconsistent with 20, where “ὃς καί” should introduce a new idea. But the “καί” serves to mark a particular achievement (the theft of the oxen), after the general statement of Hermes' precocious deeds, of which one was the cithara - playing (17). Gemoll rightly defends the passage.

[17] ἐΓκιεάριζεν: the compound verb implies playing before an audience (cf. h. Apoll. 201); either the writer supposed some attendants to be present (“ἀμφιπόλους” 60), or he mentally supplied “ἐν ἀθανάτοισι θεοῖσι” from the previous line, perhaps with a reminiscence of the scene at Apollo's birth (h. Apoll. 130 f.). See on 61. The emendations proceed from a standard of exactness foreign to the hymn. On the hiatus see Eberhard Metr. Beobacht. ii. p. 11.

[18] Ἀπόλλωνος: for the ownership of the cows see on 71.

[19] τετράδι τῌ̂ Προτέρͅη: i.e. “τετράδι μηνὸς ἱσταμένου”. As Baumeister saw, the month is here bipartite, as in Hesiod ( Op.780μηνὸς δ᾽ ἱσταμένου τρισκαιδεκάτην”). Hesiod also knows of the tripartite month (cf. Op.782 Op., 820), but this division would require “πρώτῃ” for “προτέρῃ” here; cf. Op.785 πρώτη ἕκτη”.

For the birthday of Hermes on the fourth of the month cf. Plutarch Symp.ix. 3. 2, Theophr. Char.14 and other reff. in Lobeck Aglaoph. i. p. 430, PrellerRobert i. p. 391. Baumeister derives the four-sided figure of Hermes from this day; the converse is more probably the case, as the “τετράγωνον σχῆμα” is certainly old; possibly the numerical coincidence is accidental. Roscher (Lex. i. 2370, 2386), who thinks Hermes to be a wind-god, explains the birthday as due to the idea that the fourth day of the month prognosticates the weather for the rest of the month (Theophr. sign. pluv. 8, Aratus 1148-1152, Georg.i. 432, N. H. xviii. 348). But the origin of Hermes is very problematical. The fourth day was also sacred to Aphrodite, Procl. on Hes. Op.800.

[22] βόας: in 116 the MSS. give the contracted form, at the same place in the verse; in 18 “βοῦς” is proved by the metre.

[24] Apollodorus (iii. 10. 2) makes the episode of the tortoise follow the theft of the cows, which provided Hermes with strings for his lyre: “καὶ εὑρίσκει πρὸ τοῦ ἄντρου νεμομένην χελώνην. ταύτην ἐκκαθαίρας, εἰς τὸ κύτος χορδὰς ἐντείνας ἐξ ὧν ἔθυσε βοῶν καὶ ἐργασάμενος λύραν εὗρε καὶ πλῆκτρον”. According to Paus.viii. 17. 5 the tortoise was found on Chelydorea, a mountain adjoining Cyllene (for its probable identification see Frazer ad loc.). In Pausanias' words (“ἔνθα” “εὑρὼν χελώνην Ἑρμῆς ἐκδεῖραι τὸ θηρίον καὶ ἀπ᾽ αὐτῆς λέγεται ποιήσασθαι λύραν”) there is nothing to indicate an acquaintance with the hymn.

[25] The line has been ejected by most editors as a gloss on 24. But the repetition in 24, 25 is characteristic of the writer's narrative style; so 12, 13. With 25 cf. the similar expression in the hymn of the Delphian Boeo ( Paus.x. 5. 7) “πρῶτος δ᾽ ἀρχαίων ὕμνων τεκτάνατ᾽ ἀοιδάν” (of Olen).

[26] The cave of Maia is fitted up like an Homeric house; cf. “μεγάροιο 146, προθύροιο 158, μεγάλοιο δόμοιο” 246. It has an “αὐλή” in front, like the cave of Polyphemus, Od. 9.462.

[28] σαῦλα: the word is applied to a horse (Sim. Am. fr. 18καὶ σαῦλα βαίνων ἵππος ὡς κορωνίης”), and to maidens ( Anacr.55Διονύσου σαῦλαι Βασσαρίδες”). So Eur. Cycl.40ἀοιδαῖς βαρβίτων σαυλούμενοι”, Vesp. 1173 “σαυλοπρωκτιᾶν”, fr. 522διασαυλούμενον”. The meaning of the adj. may be “moving delicately,” “mincing,” or (of a horse) “high-stepping.” The slow and deliberate movement of the tortoise's feet might be called “delicate” or “languid,” as Ruhnken explains; cf. Hesych. “κοῦφα, ἥσυχα, τρυφερά”. But the grammarians also took the word to express a kind of rolling or swaggering gait; cf. E. M. 270. 45 “ἀπὸ τοῦ σαλοῦσθαι, ἐστιν ἀκριβῶς διαβαίνειν καὶ οἱονεὶ σείεσθαι”. So “σαλάκων”, a swaggerer.

[30] σύμβολον: like “σύμβολος”, an omen, which a person meets or sees on his road. There is no doubt a reference to the “godsend” which was proper to Hermes, the god of luck. The tortoise was the first “ἕρμαιον”. For “ἕρμαια” see PrellerRobert i. p. 403 n. 3.

οὐκ ὀΝοτάζω: sc. “δέχομαι τὸν ὄρνιν”. For “ὀνοτάζω” cf. Hes. Op.256(elsewhere only in Aesch. Supp.11 in middle); “ὀνοτα<ς>τόνh. Aphr. 254.

[31] χοροίτυπε: only here in passive sense, “played in the chorus.” For the wrong accentuation of the MSS. cf. 56 where M has “παραίβολα” for “παραιβόλα”, and see on xix. 11.

δαιτὸς ἑταίρη: cf. Od. 17.271 (“φόρμιγξ”) “ἣν ἄρα δαιτὶ θεοὶ ποίησαν ἑταίρην, θ 99 φόρμιγγός θ᾽ δαιτὶ συνήορός ἐστι θαλείῃ”. So “νυκτὸς ἑταῖρεinfra 290.

32, 33. ἕσσο, which Tyrrell has lately proposed, was thought of by Matthiae, who, however, gave up his conjecture on account of the neglected digamma. This is no objection to the word, cf. Il. 3.57 λάϊνον ἕσσο χιτῶνα”; and it does away with the great awkwardness of the construction, which had induced Hermann and others to take “τόδε”=huc. Gemoll's punctuation (“πόθεν τόδε καλὸν ἄθυρμα; αἰόλον ὄστρακόν ἐσσι”) gives a very weak sense. “ἕσσο” suits the tone of the hymn admirably; the form is rare enough to he easily corrupted, especially in the neighbourhood of “ἔσσῃ” 34.

35, 36. Both these verses have been unjustly suspected; 35 does not indeed add anything to the sense expressed in 34, but such repetitions are common in the hymn; see on 12. Line 36 occurs in Hes. Op.365, where it may refer to the advantage of having substance stored in the house; more probably, however, it is an isolated aphorism, advising women to stay at home and so avoid slander. Whatever the original Hesiodean context, the line is here a palpable parody, the humour of which is quite in keeping with the hymn. Hermes tells the tortoise “there's no place like home.” There may be additional point to the irony, as the tortoise was proverbially a “stay-at-home”; cf. coniug. praecept. vii. p. 421 “τὴν Ἠλείων Φειδίας Ἀφροδίτην ἐποίησε χελώνην πατοῦσαν οἰκουρίας σύμβολον ταῖς γυναιξὶ καὶ σιωπῆς”. Cf. id. Is. et Osir. 75, Aesop fab.154.The marginal note in some MSS. (see p. lv n. 1) only shews that the scholiast considered the hymn, as the work of Homer, to be older than Hesiod.

[37] With the line cf. h. Dem. 230. ἔχμα: Ruhnken's correction is certain; cf. the same error in Hesych. “αἴχματα: κωλύματα”, and Apoll. Arg. 4.201, where ˙“”˙ cod. Laur. 32. 9 has “αἶχμα”. The mistake is due to the early identity of sound of “ε”, when accented, and “αι”. Cf. the echoing sound (“ν”)“αίχι”=“ἔχει” in Callim. Ep. 29.

For the tortoise as a charm cf. N. H. xxxii. 4 terrestrium (sc. testudinum) carnes suffitionibus propriae magicisque artibus refutandis et contra venena salutares produntur. Pliny (l.c.) mentions a number of complaints, such as headache or toothache, which were thought to be cured by the blood, flesh, or gall of the various kinds of tortoises (see Pauly-Wissowa, art. “Aberglaube” 77). The above-mentioned superstitions refer to the animal when dead; for the protective power of a living tortoise (as here) cf. Geoponica i. 14. 8 (from Africanus), where the tortoise is a charm against hail for the vineyards; it must be carried in the right hand, on its back, round the vineyard, and then be left alive, in the same position, upon the ground in the middle of the land. For other such charms, by carrying a victim round a vineyard etc., see Frazer on Paus.ii. 34. 2.

[41] ἀΝαπΗλ́ησας: usually considered vox nihili, although retained by some of the older commentators, who explained it variously (=“ἀμπεπαλών” from *“ἀναπηλεῖν”, for “ἀναπάλλειν”, Ilgen, as “θηλεῖν θάλλειν”, cf. Herwerden Lex. s.v.). The difficulty is increased by the uncertainty of the sense required for the participle: it may express either the preliminaries to killing the tortoise (i.e. throwing it upon its back), or the actual killing. Line 42 does not settle the question, as the process of cutting out the flesh might be either the cause of death, or might refer to the subsequent clearance of the flesh from the shell.

None of the emendations can be entertained. “ἀναπιλήσας” has found favour; “πιλεῖν” is used of pounding a polypus, to make it tender (Arist. fr. 235; and the verb is epic, cf. Apoll. Arg. 4.678). But the proper meaning of “πιλεῖν” is to “compress” or “squeeze,” e.g. “knead” bread, Anth. Plan. iv. 337, and this is quite inapplicable to a tortoise.

[42] αἰῶΝ̓ ἑΞετόρησεν, “cut” or “gouged out” the marrow; cf. 119. The verb expresses the action denoted in the other accounts by “ἐκκαθάρας” (Apollodorus), “ἐκδεῖραι” (Pausanias). The phrase (both here and in 119 “τετορήσας”) is too definite to mean vitam perforando eximere (Ilgen), and shews that “αἰών” must have a more concrete sense than “life.” There seems no difficulty in understanding “marrow,” with probably a wider signification, for “flesh” generally. The material sense is established by Hesych. s.v. “αἰών”: “τινὲς δὲ τῶν νεωτέρων τὸν νωτιαῖον μυελὸν” (“μέλο” MSS.; corr. Musurus) “ἀπέδωκαν, ὡς Ἱπποκράτης, τὸν αἰῶνά τις νοσήσας ἑβδομαῖος ἀπέθανε” (Epidem vii. 7, p. 1240 D); cf. Erotian p. 49 (Klein), E. M. s.v. So also it was taken in Il. 19.27 ἐκ δ᾽ αἰὼν πέφαται”: cf. schol. D “ἤτοι ἀνῄρηται βίος . . . ὡς οἱ γλωσσογράφοι, αἰὼν ἔφθαρται, ἐστιν νωτιαῖος μυελός”. The Homeric “γλωσσογράφοι”, though wrong, must have based their interpretation on the usage of their own day. Pindar fr. 77 (Boeckh)αἰὼν δὲ δἰ ὀστέων ἐραίσθη” almost certainly has this meaning, and probably Hippocr. “περὶ ἀγμῶν” ii. 21 “ἢν σφακελίσῃ τὸν αἰῶνα πάντα ἀντισχεῖν τὸ νόσημα”, where Galen interprets “τὸν ὅλον βίον”. For the change of meaning from abstract to concrete cf. the Latin vitalia, “vitals”; still nearer is the Italian vita for the “back,” and, by a further transference, even the “body” of a dress.

ὀρεσκῴοιο; see on h. Aphr. 257.

[43] For the simile of “νόημα” cf. Il. 15.80 f. “ὡς δ᾽ ὅτ᾽ ἂν ἀΐξῃ νόος ἀνέρος, ὅς τ᾽ ἐπὶ πολλὴν

γαῖαν ἐληλουθὼς φρεσὶ πευκαλίμῃσι νοήσῃ
““ἔνθ᾽ εἴην ἔνθα”.” For the abbreviated (and therefore doubtless later) simile “ὥστε νόημα” see Od. 7.36 (quoted on 45), h. Apoll. 186, 448, Theogn. 985; so Thales ap. Diog. Laert.i. 35τάχιστος νοῦς: διὰ παντὸς γὰρ τρέχει”.

[44] θαμι_Ναί, though unusual, seems established; cf. Nicand. Ther. 239αἱ δὲ θαμιναί” (“χαμηλαί” one MS.), and “θαμειναί” is recognised by Choeroboscus ap. Cramer An. Ox. ii. 180. So “ὑδατι_νούςMatro 79, “ὑδατειναί” Hippocr. Acr. c. 15, 19. Ruhnken, who defended the word, quoted forms in “-ρινος, ὀπωρινός” etc. See Schulze Q. E. p. 253.

[45] ὅτε: M's reading has been rejected on the ground that it involves a double comparison to illustrate the same aspect, whereas in Homer accumulated similes are generally supposed to express different pictures or views; see Il. 2.144 f., 455-483, with Leaf's notes, and Jebb Homer p. 31; so Sout. 402-405. But passages like Il. 23.366 ὤς τε νέφος ἠὲ θύελλα, η 36 ὡς εἰ πτερὸν ἠὲ νόημα” shew that alternative similes can refer to the same aspect; cf. also Il. 19.374 (unnecessarily suspected), and see on 147. Apollonius also uses the alternative simile: e.g. Arg. Il. 4.877 πνοιῇ ἰκέλη δέμας, ἠΰτ᾽ ὄνειρος”, 1298 f., 1452 f.; in the two last instances the second simile is introduced by “ ὅτε”, as here. For the simile drawn from the “twinkling of an eye” cf. 1 Ep. Cor. 15. 52 “ἐν ῥιπῇ ὀφθαλμοῦ”; see on 279.

Baumeister's correction “αἱ δέ τε” rests on xαἳ ὅτε”, but the corruption would be difficult to explain. There would be a single comparison, the passage of a thought in the brain being marked instantaneously by a movement of the eyelids. This sense is intelligible, although no improvement on M's reading; there appears to be no parallel nearer than the lines of Tennyson (quoted by Tyrrell): As when a great thought strikes along the brain, And flushes all the cheek.

[46] Cf. Il. 19.242 αὐτίκ᾽ ἔπειθ᾽ ἅμα μῦθος ἔην τετέλεστο δὲ ἔργον”, Apoll. Arg. 4.103ἔνθ᾽ ἔπος ἠδὲ καὶ ἔργον ὁμοῦ πέλεν ἐσσυμένοισιν”. So in prose, Herod.iii. 135ταῦτα εἶπε, καὶ ἅμα ἔπος τε καὶ ἔργον ἐποίεε”.

47-51. Invention of the lyre. The word “λύρη”, which is not Homeric, only once occurs in the hymn (423), which elsewhere uses “κίθαρις” (499 etc.) and “φόρμιγξ” (64, 506). Moreover the expression in 423 “λύρῃ δ᾽ ἐρατὸν κιθαρίζων” shews that at this time the three names could be applied indifferently to one instrument. For the difference between the lyre and cithara see Guhl and Koner (Engl. Trans. p. 201 f.), Smith Dict. Ant., art. “Lyra” (Monro). The later cithara seems to have been developed about the time of Pindar. It is curious that the more recent word “λύρα” was afterwards confined to the primitive tortoise-shell instrument; according to Monro, “the later form of the cithara was developed gradually, retaining the original name, which therefore included all varieties, until the new word “λύρα” came into vogue for the commoner and more primitive kind.”

For Hermes' invention of the lyre cf. Nicand. Alex.560 f. “ἄλλοτε δ᾽ οὐρείης κυτισηνόμου, ἥν τ᾽ ἀκάκητα

αὐδήεσσαν ἔθηκεν ἀναύδητόν περ ἐοῦσαν
Ἑρμείης: σαρκὸς γὰρ ἀπ᾽ οὖν νόσφισσε χέλειον
αἰόλον, ἀγκῶνας δὲ δύω παρετείνατο πέζαις
, Phaen.268 f. “καὶ χέλυς τ᾽ ὀλίγη: τὴν γάρ τ᾽ ἔτι καὶ παρὰ λίκνῳ
Ἑρμείας ἐτόρησε, λύρην δέ μιν εἶπε λέγεσθαι
. Neither account need have been borrowed from the hymn; and Lucian's version (dial. deor. vii.) is almost certainly unconnected with it, as he makes Apollo a lyre-player before Hermes found the tortoise. Bionix. 8ὡς χέλυν Ἑρμάων, κίθαριν ὡς ἄνυσ᾽ Ἀπόλλων”, also differs from the hymn; so Callim. h. Del. 253, where the seven-stringed lyre is invented by Apollo. For the invention as represented in art see Roscher i. 2432.

[47] δόνακες: explained by Pollux as equivalent to the “κέρατα”, or “πήχεις” of the lyre: “δόνακα δέ τινα ὑπολύριον οἱ κωμικοὶ ὠνόμαζον ὡς πάλαι ἀντὶ κεράτων ὑποτιθέμενον ταῖς λύραις” (iv. 62). This is certainly wrong, the mistake being probably due, as Gemoll points out, to a misunderstanding of Ran. 232 “προστέρπεται δ᾽ φορμιγκτὰς Ἀπόλλων ἕνεκα δόνακος, ὃν ὑπολύριον ἔνυδρον ἐν λίμναις τρέφω”. The right explanation (first given by Matthiae) is that the reeds were cut in different lengths (“ἐν μέτροισι”), and fixed in the shell; they thus served as a framework for the oxhide which was stretched over them, to form a sounding-board.

[48] Πειρ́ηνας should mean “fastening by the ends” (“πείρατα”): cf. Od. 22.175, 192 σειρὴν δὲ πλεκτὴν ἐκ αὐτοῦ πειρήναντε”. Here Ebeling translates efficere ut per totum transeat, i.e. Hermes passes the “δόνακες” (which must then be the obj.) through the shell from end to end. But the sense “pierce” seems clearly required. It is possible that the verb may be equivalent to “πείρω”, for which Baumeister compares Manetho ii. 106. Matthiae's correction “τετρήνας” has been usually adopted, and this is supported by the variants “συντετραίνοντας συμπεραίνονταςHerod.ii. 11.

διὰ ῥινοῖο is unanimously made into an adjective; but if one “διά” has expelled anything, it is more likely to have expelled another preposition: cf. Il. 10.54 ῥίμφα θέων παρὰ νῆας: ἐγὼ δ᾽ ἐπὶ Νέστορα δῖον”; for “παρά” various MSS. read “ἐπί”. So Il. 10.141 κατὰ νῆας ἀνὰ στρατόν”, where “κατὰ στρατόν” is also found; on Il. 10.298 ἂμ φόνον, ἂν νέκυας, διά τ᾽ ἔντεα”, Eust. quotes “ἀνά τ᾽ ἔντεα”. Cf. also the MS. reading in h. Apoll. 452, h. Herm. 453. Here “διά” cannot be original in both places, and as “διὰ ῥινοῖο” is clearly the more appropriate, “κατὰ νῶτα” may be suggested; cf. Od. 7.40 ἐρχόμενον κατὰ ἄστυ διὰ σφέας”, Apoll. Arg. 4.1002κατὰ στόμα καὶ διὰ πέτρας”. There is a simple exchange of “κατά” and “διά” in Il. 13.383, ς” 341.

[50] Π´ηχεις: the arms, made either of wood or goats' horns; see Guhl and Koner fig. 237. Cf. dial. deor. vii. 4 “πήχεις γὰρ ἐναρμόσας καὶ ζυγώσας κτλ.”; dial. mar. i. 4.

Ζυγόν: the crossbar which joined the two horns; cf. Il. 9.107, where it was of silver. There is here no mention of the “κόλλοπες”, pegs by which the strings were fastened to the bar. For the stringing of a lyre cf. Od. 21.406-08.

[51] On the variant in Antigonus of Carystus “θηλυτέρων” see Pref. p. xlv. The fem. of this word in Homer is only used of goddesses or women, with the exception of the variant “νήσων θηλυτεράων” for “τηλεδαπάων” in Il. 21.454. Apollodorus substitutes the entrails of the cows; see on 24. On the seven-stringed lyre see Introd. p. 133. The invention of seven strings is attributed to Hermes by Lucian (dial. deor. vii. 4) and Ovid ( Fast.v. 106), but to Apollo by Callim. (h. Del. 253), and to Amphion by Paus. (ix. 5. 7). According to Timotheus Persae 233 f., Orpheus invented the “χέλυς”, Terpander the tenstringed lyre.

[52] Τεῦξε φέρων, which has given offence, is supported by 63 “κατέθηκε φέρων”: in both cases the present participle contains the action antecedent to the aorist verb, the sense here being “when he had brought and fashioned his plaything.” For a similar vague use of the participle cf. h. Apoll. 491. Gemoll's punctuation “τεῦξε, φέρων” is preferable to the conjectures, but the rhythm requires that “φέρων κτλ.” should be taken with the preceding rather than the succeeding verb.

53, 54 are the model of 419, 420 and 501, 502.

[53] κατὰ μέρος: (each string) in turn. “μέρος” is not Homeric. On the lengthening see Hartel Hom. Stud. 35, 38; Eberhard Metr. Beob. ii. 26.

[54] συερδαλέον: so all MSS. here and in 420, and M in 502 (the rest “ἱμερόεν”). The sense is quite suitable, as “σμερδαλέος” is from [root ]“σμερδ”, Lat. mordeo, Engl. smart (Doederlein gl. 589, Prellwitz Et. Wört. s.v.), and the primary meaning is therefore “acute,” “penetrating,” “clear.” Cf. h. xxxi.9σμερδνὸν δ᾽ γε δέρκεται ὄσσοις”, of acute vision. The adverb “σμερδαλέον” (“α”) is frequent in Homer with “βοᾶν”, etc., where the physical sense may be retained.

[55] “ἠΰτε”: rightly defended by Gemoll; Matthiae's “οἶά τε” would imply that the songs of Hermes were similar in subject to the jests at the banquet. The comparison of course lies in “ἐξ αὐτοσχεδίης”.

[56] Παραιβόλα=“παραβλήδην” (first in Il. 4.4), the meaning of which, however, is doubtful (see Ebeling s.v.). Apollonius (Arg. Il. 2.60, 448, Γ” 107) seems to use “παραβλήδην” for “in answer,” or “by retort.” This cannot be the original meaning of adverbial forms derived from “παραβάλλω”, nor does it suit the Homeric passage. Leaf on Il. 4.4, comparing Il. 9.322 ψυχὴν παραβαλλόμενος”, suggests “by way of risking one's self,” hence “provokingly.” Probably the adverb is connected with “παραβάλλω” in its literal sense, i.e. “with side-thrusts,” “maliciously.”

For the custom, which was especially Dorian, the editors compare Pind. Ol.i. 22, 129, Apoll. Arg. 1.458 (quoted on 454).

[57] ἀμφί, as Baumeister notes, suggests the exordium of a hymn in praise of Zeus and Maia; see on h. xix.1.

[58] ὅν appears to be the internal accusative with “ὠρίζεσκον”, sc. “ὄαρον”. Cf. h. xxiii.3ὀάρους ὀαρίζει”, and for the omission of the substantive (commoner with feminines) the proverbs “ λαγὼς τὸν περὶ τῶν κρεῶν τρέχει”, sc. “δρόμον”, ap. Diogen. vi. 5, Zenob. iv. 85, and non posse suaviter c. 2 “καὶ τὸν” (“τὴν” Bernadakis) “περὶ τῶν κρεῶν ἐπάξειν”; Synes. Ep. 5τὸν ὑπὲρ ψυχῆς θέομεν”, schol. Plato Leg.739A, 820 C “κινήσω τὸν ἀφ᾽ ἱερᾶς” (sc. “πεττόν”). Of the conjectures “ὡς” is inadmissible graphically, and “οἳ” is awkward.

ἑταιρείͅη: not in Homer. The adjective gives a certain dignity to “φιλότης”, “in the comradeship of love.” With the line cf. h. xxiii.2, 3.

[59] For the repetition ὀΝομακλυτὸν ἐΞονομάζων cf. Od. 4.178 ἐκ δ᾽ ὀνομακλήδην Δαναῶν ὀνομάζες ἀρίστους”.

[61] ἐΠηετανούς: whatever the derivation and original meaning may be, the sense “abundant” is quite clear in this passage and in 113.

[62] The line can only mean that Hermes had other plans in view while he was singing; i.e. he was devising the theft of the cattle, while he pretended to be occupied with other themes. This implies that he sang to an audience (see on 17).

[64] κρειῶν ἐρατίζων=Il. 11.551, Ρ” 660 (of a lion).

[65] ἆλτο (M): “ὦρτοxp. The same variant occurs Il. 20.62 (“ἆλτοvulg., “ὦρτο” Massaliotic ed.).

[66] Cf. Od. 4.843 φόνον αἰπὺν ἐνὶ φρεσὶν ὁρμαίνοντες”.

[67] φηληταί: the correct spelling “φη-” is almost entirely the property of p; in 175, however, the family also reads “φι-”. This is not only the result of itacism, but of the authority of Herodian and Tryphon (in An. Ox. ii. 2712); in Hes. Op.375 the MSS. are divided, but elsewhere the iota prevails (Archil. fr. 46, Aesch. Cho.999, Soph. fr. 672, Rhes. 217, Callim. Hecale col. iv. 11 Gomperz). Photius has “φηλοῦν: ἀπατᾶν” in the series “φη”; and “ἐφήλωσενAesch. Ag.497 with schol. We may accept the common derivation from the root of “σφάλλω”, fallo. The word is not Homeric (=“ληϊστήρ”, as in 14). In Rhes. l.c. Hermes is “φηλητῶν ἄναξ”, C. I. G. 2299 (Kaibel Ep.1108) “Ἑρμῆν τὸν κλέπτην τίς ὑφείλετο; θερμὸς κλέπτης

ὃς τῶν φηλητέων ᾤχετ᾽ ἄνακτα φέρων”.

[70] θέων: the variant “θεῶν” came from “θεῶν” 71, and should not have been retained by Gemoll. There is the same variation in Il. 20.53, where “θεῶν” is certainly required. Hermes' haste is marked throughout this part of the hymn; cf. 86, 88, 94, 142, 150.

[71] The hymn-writer calls the cows indifferently the property of the gods (cf. the use of “ὑμέτερος” 276, 310), or of Apollo (18, 22 etc.). On the analogy of the Vedic hymns (see Introd. p. 130) it might appear probable that in the oldest form of the myth the cattle belonged to the Sun, and afterwards to Apollo as Sun-god. In Homer Apollo has no herds of his own; the oxen slaughtered by the comrades of Odysseus belong to Helios (Od. 12.127 f.). In Apollodorus the actual ownership is left vague (“κλέπτει βόας ἃς ἔνεμεν Ἀπόλλων”). The Sun is specified in schol. Dion. Thrac. (Bekker Anecd. i. p. 752). See on h. Apoll. 412 f.

ἄμβροτοι: often of property belonging to the gods, “divine,” not necessarily “immortal”; indeed Hermes kills two of them (though such inconsistency would not be serious in this hymn).

[72] ἀκηρασίους: Curtius' derivation from “κείρω” suits this passage, and many examples of the similar form “ἀκήρατος”: Choerilus fr. 1ὅτ᾽ ἀκήρατος ἦν ἔτι λείμων”, Ibycus fr. 1κᾶπος ἀκήρατος”, Eur. Hipp.73ἐξ ἀκηράτου λειμῶνος”. But in Il. 15.498, ρ 532 κτήματ᾽ ἀκήρατα”, the form “ἀκήρατος” seems to mean “intact,” like “ἀκήριος”, from “κήρ”. In Od. 9.205 ἀκηράσιος” is applied to “οἶνος”, and in Il. 24.303 ἀκήρατος” to “ὔδωρ”. This suggests a connexion with “κεράννυμι”, but the use in these two passages may be due to false etymology, aided by “ἄκρητος”. If, as seems probable, “ἀκηράσιος” and “ἀκήρατος” properly mean “unharmed,” a similar false etymology (“κείρω”) would readily adapt the words to “λειμών” etc.

73, 74. The construction, with a double genitive, is grammatically rather complicated, but the sense is clear; cf. 82.

[75] Πλανοδίας: for the lengthening of the first syllable (of three short syllables) see Schulze Q. E. p. 187 f. The word has been understood by some as a cogn. acc. from a subst. “πλανοδίη”, but it is probably an adj. of three terminations. So Hesych. “πληνοδίᾳ: τῇ πεπλανημένῃ τῆς ὀρθῆς ὁδοῦ”. Schneider's “πληνοδίας” is recommended also by F. D. Allen Harvard Studies iv. 1893.

[76] ἴχνἰ: the MSS. give this form in 218, 220, 342, 351. ἀΠοστρέψας, “turning their footsteps aside”; cf. Il. 22.197 τοσσάκι μιν προπάροιθεν ἀποστρέψασκε παραφθὰς

πρὸς πεδίον”. The words explain “πλανοδίας”, not “ἀντία ποιήσας κτλ. δολίης δ̓ οὐ κτλ.” = Theog. 547; cf. Od. 4.455, 529, Theog. 560.
77, 78. Matthiae and others condemn these lines, objecting to “κατὰ δ᾽ ἔμπαλιν κτλ.”, which they translate “walking backwards”; they argue that Hermes' sandals were a sufficient disguise. But O. Schulze points out that “κατὰ δ᾽ ἔμπαλιν” is only relative to the cows: “he walked the reverse way (to them)”; cf. “κατεναντίον”. That the explanation is correct is proved by 211 “ἐξοπίσω δ᾽ ἀνέεργε κάρη δ᾽ ἔχον ἀντίον αὐτῷ”. Ilgen compares the behaviour of Commodus, Herodian v. 6. Again, Hermann very needlessly objects to the cows walking backwards, as they were driven “by crooked ways.” However the “backing” of the cows is undoubtedly genuine; cf. 211, 221, 345. Hermes is trying to make assurance doubly sure. For this device cf. the story of Cacus, Verg. Aen.viii. 210, Livy i. 7, Auct. orig. gent. vi. 2, Ov. Fast.i. 550, Prop.iv. 9. 12, Mart.v. 65. 6.

79, 80. The principal difficulty in these lines is that the MSS. give two finite verbs (“ἔριψεν” 79, and “διέπλεκε” 80) without connexion. To introduce this, “αὐτίκα” has usually been attacked, as it was omitted in the archetype of x; the lacuna, however, is purely clerical, and gives no ground for suspicion. “ἔριψεν” is further difficult to explain, for Hermes was not now casting off his shoes, as in 139, but putting them on. Hence Matthiae conjectured “ἔραψεν”, an excellent word, were it not identical with “διέπλεκε”. Postgate's brilliant suggestion “ῥιψίν” supplies a word very suitable to the context, and at the same time abolishes the first verb. The Homeric form is “ῥίπεσσι, ε” 286. The word and form are sufficiently rare to make corruption easy. These skis had a real use along the sandy coast between the mouth of the Alpheus and the Triphylian Pylos (for this district see on h. Apoll. 424). So on his return journey (139) Hermes throws them into the Alpheus. The writer, however, whether from imperfect geographical knowledge or from natural epic vagueness, imagines the route between Pieria and Onchestus (79) and the neighbourhood of Cyllene to be sandy; and Apollo states that the first part of Hermes' journey was “διὰ ψαμαθωδέα χῶρον” (350). By this he may have meant the coast below Olympus or nearer Boeotia (Introd. p. 132). For a historical parallel see Arrian quoted on 83.

[80] θαυματὰ ἔργα=440, h. vii.34, Scut. 165. “θαυματός” is not Homeric.

81, 82. The editors compare Il. 10.467 συμμάρψας δόνακας μυρίκης τ᾽ ἐριθηλέας ὄζους”.

μυρσινοειδέας: the latter half of the compound is practically otiose (=“μυρσίνους”), the word being coined on the false analogy of “ἰοειδής” etc. Schäfer, indeed (quoted by Baumeister), on Dion. comp. verb. 170 explains “myrtlelike,” ramos de genere myrtorum.

[82] ἄγκαλον: only here, for “ἀγκαλίς”, a bundle, armful. M's corruption “νεοθηλέαν ἀγκαλωρήν” may, as Hermann thinks, contain a variant “ὥρης” for “ὕλης”. See J. H. S. xv. p. 284.

[83] ἀβλαβέως, “securely,” i.e. so as to walk safely, by disguising his footprints (cf. 222 f.). This somewhat proleptic sense, which Hermann and Schneidewin intended, may be extracted from the text without violence. Pierson quotes Suidas s.v. “λύγος” (from Arrian) “οἱ δὲ κύκλους ἐκ λύγων τοῖς ποσὶ περιαρμόσαντες αὐτοί τε ἀβλαβῶς ἐπήρχοντο κατὰ τῆς χιόνος πιεζομένης ὑπὸ τῶν κύκλων”.

[85] ἀλεγύνων, “preparing” or “busying himself about” his journey; this correction seems necessary to the sense, and is justified by the variants in 361, 557. Hermann retained “ἀλεείνων”, but his explanation “avoiding footprints” is impossible, as “ὁδοιπορίην” cannot mean “ἴχνια”. The only conceivable rendering would be “avoiding (the toil) of walking,” i.e. through the sand (347), where his sandals might serve the purpose of snow-shoes; but, if this is the meaning, it is very obscurely expressed.

[86] The syntax of the line is fixed by Demosth. xix. 165 “τὴν αὐτὴν ὁδὸν . . . καθήμενοι, ... ὅτε δὲ ... ἐπειγόμενοι”, Anth. Pal. ix. 83. 1 “νηὸς ἐπειγομένης ὠκὺν δρόμον”. The first four words of the line therefore go together. δολιχ́ην is not to be altered into “δολίην”; Hermes made haste, for he had a long journey before him; cf. 143 “δολιχῆς ὁδοῦ”. The remarkable words “αὐτοτροπήσας” and “αὐτοπρεπὴς ὥς” should not be abandoned with the facility of most editors. “αὐτοτροπήσας” by its form should be an aorist of “αὐτοτροπεῖν”, for which the lexica give the parallel forms “ἀλλοτροπεῖν, ἀλλοιοτροπεῖν, ἑτεροτροπεῖν”. If these words mean to “vary” or “be like another,” “αὐτοτροπεῖν” may mean to “keep the same” or to “resemble one's self,” i.e. be original. “αὐτογνωμονεῖν” from “αὐτογνώμων” is a similar formation. “αὐτοπρεπής”, cf. “ἀρχαιοπρεπής, δουλοπρεπής”, may have much the same sense: “like one's self, not like any one else.” Either word refers to the “original” or unique appearance of Hermes. As he invented fire and one musical instrument, so he introduced this monstrous, awful (“πέλωρα, αἰνά” 225, 226) mode of progression. This interpretation is perhaps strengthened by the fact that the variants are synonyms. It is therefore unnecessary to suppose that one is a corruption of the other, although such corruption would be easy, cf. Plat. Soph. 219Cἂν διαπρέψειεν, ἀντρέψειεν”.

Of the conjectures Tyrrell's “αὐτοπορήσας” is alone possible; but the sense is weak. How should Hermes lift cows if not on foot?

[87] δέμων ἀΝθοῦσαν ἀλώην: this reading of M was defended in J. H. S. xv. p. 285 against Gemoll's objections. The old man's occupation is more specifically stated 90 “ὅς τε φυτὰ σκάπτεις” and 207 “ἔσκαπτον περὶ γουνὸν ἀλωῆς οἰνοπέδοιο”. His work was somewhat like that of Laertes, Od. 24.227 λιστρεύοντα φυτόν”, i.e. he was digging about his vines in bud (“ἀνθοῦσαν”), clearing the spaces between the rows, and making trenches round the roots. This process was called “γύρωσις” by Greek agriculturists, cf. Xen. Oec.xx. 20, Geopon. v. 20 “γυρώσομεν δέ, τουτέστι περισκάψομεν”; cf. iv. 1. 5, 13. 1 etc. and v. 25 “σκάπτειν δὲ χρὴ πρὸ βλαστοῦ προβολῆς”. A later time for this operation is mentioned by Columella iv. 28 pubescentem vero et quasi adulescentem convenit religare foliisque omnibus nudare, tum et crebris fossionibus implere. This passage amply justifies “ἀνθοῦσαν”. Add Hesiod Op.570-72 “τότε δὴ σκάφος οὐκέτι οἰνέων”; Pallad. iv. 7 Op., iv. 20, Aeschines ii. 156, Menand. Georg.64, Mosch.iv. 100, Theocr. xxv. 27φυτοσκάφος”, and Luke xiii. 8. The verb “δέμειν” may very well be used of this work, “stablishing,” i.e. building up or tending a vineyard to which the epithet “ἐϋκτιμένη” is applied, Od. 24.226. In Homer “δέμειν” is confined to the building of walls or other edifices, but Herodotus uses it for road-making. Fick perversely alters “δέμων” to “νέμων” here, and “νέμοντα” to “δέμοντα” 187 (B. B. xxii. p. 269).

[88] On the site of Onchestus see h. Apoll. 230. The place appears only in this version of the story; see Introd. p. 133.

[90] ἐΠικαμπύλος ὤμους: cf. Od. 24.242 τοι μὲν κατέχων κεφαλὴν φυτὸν ἀμφελάχαινε”. Ruhnken quotes Lucian Tim.7σκάπτει δὲ οἶμαι ἐπικεκυφώς”. The reading of M “ἐπικαμπύλα ξύλα” is unmetrical; it may point to a variant “ἐπικαμπύλα κᾶλα”, borrowed from Hes. Op.427.Cf. 112 infra.ξύλα” would be a gloss on “κᾶλα”. l.c. Proclus explained “κᾶλα” by “ξύλα ἐπικαμπῆ ὄντα τὰ ἀμφιδέα”. The “bent wood” might be in apposition to “φυτά”, of the crooked woody stem of the vine; cf. Eur. Cycl.572τὸ ξύλον τῆς ἀμπέλου”.

[91] Πολυοιν́ησεις: Ilgen's correction (after M) is certain. That the “φυτά” were vines appears from “οἰνοπέδοιο 207. φέρͅησι”, absolutely, “bear,” is well attested; see L. and S. s.v. Il. 1.5. Hermes begins by a compliment, no doubt in a bantering spirit; at all events “πολυοινία, πολύοινος” have a double meaning, and the verb may be intended ambiguously. But the exact point of 91 is obscure, perhaps owing to the lacuna which Groddeck saw to be necessary after the line. The missing verse or verses must have contained a principal verb to govern “εἶναι”. The sense may be “(if you are asked questions remember) not to see when you have seen” etc. In this case there will be no close connexion between the ironic “πολυοινήσεις κτλ.” and 92, 93. It is possible, however, that the results of the vindemia are described in the two latter lines; “πολυοινήσεις” will then mean only “you will be full of wine,” and so “are not like to see when you have seen,” and to be deaf when you have heard, and to hold your tongue (i.e. suffer aphasia from over-drinking) unless your own interests are harmed. This would be a covert hint not to inform on Hermes. (So Matthiae explains; see also J. H. S. xvii. p. 255, but the sense can hardly be deemed satisfactory.)

[92] καί τε ἰδὼν μ̀η ἰδών: it is clear from the inconsistency that the digamma was not felt in “μὴ ἰδών”, and that there is a real hiatus in “τε ἰδών”. The poet knew the latter collocation from Homer (e.g. Il. 4.279), but had no Homeric justification of the metre. See Windisch de hymn. Hom. maj. 1869 p. 40. For the expression cf. P. V. 463 “οἳ πρῶτα μὲν βλέποντες ἔβλεπον μάτην”, “eyes have they, but they see not,” Sept. c. Theb. 246 “μή νυν ἀκούουσ᾽ ἐμφανῶς ἄκοὐ ἄγαν”, Plaut. Mil. Glor. ii. 6, 88, Demosth. xxv. 89 “οἱ μὲν οὕτως ὁρῶντες τὰ τῶν ἠτυχηκότων ἔργα ὥστε, τὸ τῆς παροιμίας, ὁρῶντες μὴ ὁρᾶν καὶ ἀκούοντες μὴ ἀκούειν”, Plutarch de liberis educ. 13 E “ὡς ἔνια τῶν πραττομένων ὁρῶντας μὴ ὁρᾶν καὶ μὴ ἀκούειν ἀκούοντας”.

[93] καταβλάπτͅη: probably passive, “unless you are hurt on your own part,” “τὸ σὸν αὐτοῦ” being then accusative; it might be nominative, “unless your own affairs hurt you,” cf. Eur. Phoen.990μὴ τὸ σὸν κωλυέτω”, but this seems less suitable. The general sense is obviously a request to the old man to “mind his own business.”

[94] συνέσευε: an excellent conjecture of Demetrius; Hermes now drives the cows in a body, not straggling, cf. 106. “βοῶν κτλ.”=Il. 23.260.

[95] αὐλῶνας: not in Homer, who also does not use “κελαδεινός” of places.

[97] ἐΠίκουρος: either general, “that gives help” (rest), opposed to “δημιοεργός”, or aider of Hermes in his theft.

δαιμονίη: for the Homeric “ἄμβροτος, λ” 330.

The editors find difficulties in these lines, and eject either 97, 98 or 99, 100. Gemoll objects that morning cannot be breaking while Hermes has still so much to do: he steals the cattle at sundown 68, comes to the Alpheus at moonrise 99, and finally reaches home in the early morning 143 (cf. 155 “πόθεν τόδε νυκτὸς ἐν ὥρῃ ἔρχῃ;). Moreover, the German scholars argue that one of these two pairs of verses must be spurious, as the moon would not rise in the early morning on the fifth of the month, the day after Hermes was born (cf. 19). This minute criticism may be chronologically and astronomically correct, but it is of no great value in dealing with a hymn in which the blame for such inconsistencies is to be laid on the writer, rather than on a supposed interpolator. Wolfe's poem on The Burial of Sir John Moore affords an exact parallel: the line By the struggling moonbeam's misty light has been shewn to be inaccurate, as the moon was invisible at the time of the burial (Ball Story of the Heavens p. 51); but it has yet to be suggested that the line was “interpolated.” See further on 141.

[98] Πλείων: cf. Il. 10.252 παρῴχηκεν δὲ πλέων νὺξ

τῶν δύο μοιράων, τριτάτη δ᾽ ἔτι μοῖρα λέλειπται”.
ὄρερος: for the Homeric “ἠώς”, first in Hes. Op.577, and Ibycus fr. 7.

δημιοεργός: the morning starts men on their work; cf. Hes. Op.580ἠώς, τε φανεῖσα πολέας ἐπέβησε κελεύθου

ἀνέρας”, Callim. Hecale col. iv. 8 f., Orph. h. 78. 6, Verg. Aen.xi. 183, Ov. Met.iv. 663.So Tennyson In Memoriam 121 Bright Phosphor, fresher for the night, By thee the world's great work is heard Beginning. Hesychius' explanation “δημιουργός: ἥλιος ὅτι πάντα πέσσει καὶ θέρει” is mistaken.

[100] The genealogy of Selene, daughter of Pallas, the son of Megamedes, is confined to this hymn. According to Theog. 371 f., Selene is the daughter of Hyperion and Theia.

With regard to Pallas, Gemoll rightly rejects a connexion with Arcadian myths, in the person of Pallas the founder of Pallantium ( Paus.viii. 3. 1). This hero was son of Lycaon ( Apollod.iii. 8. 1), and could scarcely be related to Selene. The Hesiodean Pallas (a Titan) was son of Crius (Theog. 375 f.) and grandson of Uranus (Theog. 134). The brother of this Pallas, Perses, was father of Hecate (cf. Theog. 377 and 409), and Gemoll suggests that, if Pallas is related to Hecate, he may also be readily connected with Selene. This is probable enough, although the two goddesses are quite distinct in Hesiod. Nothing is known of Megamedes, who here takes the place of the Hesiodean Crius, but there seems no reason to deny his existence; see Mayer die Giganten p. 67.

[101] The description is very elliptical. Hermes first drives the cows to the river (i.e. to the ford, as 398, Thryon or Epitalion) and thence to Pylos (first named at 216). On his return (139) he throws his shoes into the river, when they ceased to be useful. The mention of the Alpheus fixes Pylos as the Triphylian or Lepreatic. The site of this place was lost even in antiquity, but it is generally placed on the hills looking over the lagoons and sandhills which extend from the mouth of the Alpheus southwards. See Introd. p. 132, h. Aph. 424.

[103] ἀδμῆτες, “unyoked”; cf. Ant. Lib. 23. 3ἑκατὸν βοῦς ἄζυγαςἀπελαύνει).” The form (for the more common “ἄδμητοι” ) occurs Hom. Od. 4.637, of mules. There is no objection to the adjective here used adverbially with “ἵκανον” .

ἐς: here used loosely for “ἐπί”, “to” (not “inside,” as the context shews; see on 106).

αὔλιον: for the Homeric “σταθμός”. It is used of the cave itself = “λάϊνον ἄντρον” 401.

[106] καί: in apodosi. ἐς αὔλιον: here the preposition implies actual entrance. Any vagueness here and in 103 is due to the hymn-writer, and is not to be pressed as a mark of interpolation, with Hermann, who ejects 103-105.

ἀθρόας οὔσας: however we account for “-ας”, the word is not to be disturbed. The influence of Hesiod is probably to be traced here, as elsewhere in the hymn; cf. Theog. 60κοῦρας ὁμόφρονας”, Op. 564τροπας ἠελίοιο”; other exx. Theog. 267, 401, 534, 653, 804, Op. 675, fr. 190.

οὔσας: the latter form is defended by h. Ap. 330, where, however, emendation is easy; see note ad loc.

[107] The line is probably modelled on Hom. Il. 2.776λωτὸν ἐρεπτόμενοι ἐλεόθρεπτόν τε σέλινον” (of horses standing by the chariots). Here the writer presumably describes the cows as feeding while they are driven towards the stall; or, possibly, they feed again in the stall. At any rate it is needless to transpose 106, 107 (Matthiae), or to press the line.

[108] ἐπεμαίετο with acc. seems established by 511 “σοφίας ἐκμάσσατο τέχνην”, as against the Homeric use with gen., Hom. Il. 10.401δώρων ἐπεμαίετο θυμός”. M's “τύνη” is probably a meaningless corruption, and does not authorise the conjecture of the dative “τέχνῃ”. Some part of “τέχνη” is certainly required, as the invention of the art of making fire is significant in the myth.

[109] On this primitive method of fire-making in classical times cf. schol. on Apoll. Arg. 1.1184, Sen. quaest. nat. ii. 22, Plin. N. H. xvi. 40, Hesych. s. v. “στορεύς”. Kuhn Herabkunft des Feuers p. 36.

δάφνης: the hard wood of the bay-tree was used as the “τρύπανον” or “borer”; Plin. l.c.sed nihil hedera praestantius, quae teratur, lauro quae terat.

ἐπέλεψε, “prune to a point,” “sharpen,” of the “τρύπανον”. This sense of “ἐπί” in composition is recognised by the lexx. in “ἐπικόπτειν, ἐπιτέμνειν” For the simple verb, of ordinary pruning, cf. Hom. Il. 1.236περὶ γάρ ῥά χαλκὸς ἔλεψε” | “φύλλα τε καὶ φλοιούς”. “ἐνίαλλε”, M's reading, may very possibly, as Postgate thinks, be a transposition of “λείαινε”, for which cf. Quintus xii. 136 “δ᾽ ἄπ᾽ ἀπ᾽ ὄζους λείαινον”.

As Kuhn pointed out, it is clear that a line in which the actual friction is described has been lost; otherwise the “hot blast” would have been the result of “trimming a laurel branch, held firmly in the hand, with a knife.” Moreover, the words “ἄρμενον ἐν παλάμῃ” are appropriate, not to the “τρύπανον”, but to the “στορεύς”, which need to be kept steady. The missing line must have contained a word to indicate the “στρορεύς” (perhaps “κισσός”, cf. Pliny l.c., or “ῥάμνος”, an alternative word in Hesych.) and a verb like “τρίβειν”.

[110] παλάμῃ: the plur. “παλάμῃς” is not necessary, although read by Schneidewin from Hom. Il. 18.600, Hom. Od. 5.234.

ἄμπνυτο: the correct quantity (cf. Schulze Q. E. 324) shews the exactness of M's reading, against the other MSS.

θερμὸς ἀϋτμή= Hes. Theog. 696. On the citation ap. schol. on Hom. Il. 18.222 see p. li n. 1.

[111] The editors eject the line as a gloss, but it may be genuine as is, no doubt, the similar line 25. ἀνέδωκε, “gave forth,” cf. “ἀνέκαιε” 115; not “gave back,” for Baumeister is surely wrong in seeing an allusion to Hes. Op. 50τὸ μὲν αὖτις ἐῢς παῖς Ἰαπετοῖο” | “ἔκλεψ᾽ ἀνθρώποισιν”. According to the usual tradition it was, of course, Prometheus that gave men fire, or restored it when hidden by Zeus. The present line does not necessarily imply a different tradition: Hermes does not discover fire, but only invents one method of ignition by “fire-sticks,” and (so) “gave fire.” Fire was also produced by the flint (Sen. quaest. nat. ii. 22), and by the burning-glass or crystal (see Blaydes on Aristoph. Cl. 768); this was particularly used for sacred fire, Orph. Lith. 184 f.; and the myth of Prometheus is specially concerned with the preservation of fire in the fennel-stalk, although in one account ( Diod. v. 67) the invention of “πυρεῖα” is also attributed to Prometheus; Sikes and Willson on Aesch. P. V. xvi. f.

[113] οὖλα: Gemoll's “αὖα” (from the similar passage Hom. Od. 18.308) cannot be accepted; “οὖλα” is sound, though the meaning is not certain. The Homeric sense of “ϝοῦλος” is “close,” “thick,” but it is applied to wool or hair only. In later Greek the word has a wider extension, of plants or trees (see L. and S.). Here it might be roughly equivalent to “ἐπηετανά”, “in thick bundles,” or possibly “bushy,” with leaves, twigs, and all. Ebeling, however, is probably right in connecting with “ὅλος´” (for “οὖλος” in this sense cf. Hom. Od. 17.343, Hom. Od. 24.118 and infra 137), i.e. “whole” branches; so Meyer (Griech. Et. s.v. “ὅλος” i.e. “ὄλϝος”).

ἐπηετανά: with synizesis, as in Hes. Op. 607, Orph.Ἐργ. και Ἥμ.” 11, 10, Maximus 465; cf. “βασιλῆεςHes. Op. 263,τοκῆεςh. Dem. 137. The word has open vowels in 61.

[114] The MSS. form “φύζαν” may be dialectal; cf. e.g. Herwerden Lex. s.v. Z.

[116] ὑποβρυχίας: the adjective elsewhere means “submerged,” but as two verbs “ὑποβρυχάομαι” and ὑποβρύχω exist, in the sense of “roaring in a low tone,” ὑποβρύχιος may exist in the same meaning. There is, however, the difficulty that the “υ” in “βρυχάομαι” and cognates is long; hence Ludwich with some probability writes “ὑποβρύχους”. But a synizesis of “-ια” is possible.

[119] The manuscript reading seems satisfactory and complete in sense; “ἐγκλίνων”, to which objection has been taken, certainly means much the same as “ἐκύλινδε”, but the action thus pleonastically expressed is clear: the cows being on their backs (118) Hermes “turned them round and rolled them over” in order to reach their “αἰῶνες” or backbones. These he pierced with his “γλύφανον”, a process essentially similar to the modern method of pole-axing; cf. Il. 17.520 f. See J. H. S. xv. p. 286. Gemoll's “ἀγκλίνων”, from Orph. Arg. 314 f. “σφάζον ἀνακλίνας κεφαλήν”, does not suit the context; Hermes would not throw back the cows' heads to strike at their backbones. M's “ἐκκρίνας” can hardly be given a meaning. τετορ́ησας: it is curious that the editors have rejected the manuscript reading here. The form is quite justified as a “reduplicated aorist”; see Leaf on Il. 10.267. So Fick (B. B. xxii. p. 269), comparing Pax381τετορήσω”. The aor. “τετορεῖν” is quoted by Hesych. The usual reading “τε τορήσας” must involve a lacuna, which is here unnecessary.

[120] “ἔργῳ δ̓ κτλ.”: cf. Hes. Op.382ἔργον δέ τ᾽ ἐπ᾽ ἔργῳ ἐργάζεσθαι”.

[122] Γεράσμια: not in Homer; explained by 129.

[124] O. Müller thinks that the writer refers to a stalactite cave, now called “τὸ σπήλαιον τοῦ Νέστορος”, near the Messenian Pylos, the formation of which suggested the skins. The view is attractive, and is accepted by Baumeister and Frazer. In one of the caves at Cheddar there is a stalagmite configuration which closely resembles a curtain; at Adelsberg (Austria) there are stalactites in the form of drapery. But the theory breaks down if the reference is to the Triphylian, not to the Messenian Pylos (see Introd. p. 132); at least there is no known stalactite cave in that region. D'Orville first suggested (see J. P. xxv. p. 254) that these were actual skins, preserved as relics. As Gemoll notes, the skins were probably exhibited outside the cave, which would negative the theory of stalactites (see below). Instances of such relics are quoted in J. H. S. xvii. p. 257 (e.g. the skin of Marsyas, Herod.vii. 26); to these may be added Quaest. Rom. 4 (the horns of a cow dedicated by Servius Tullius in the temple of Diana on the Aventine), Paus.iii. 16. 1(Leda's egg)Paus., vi. 22. 1(bones of Pelops)Paus., ix. 19. 7(plane-tree at Aulis), schol. T on Il. 15.21 (“μύδροι” shown by guides). The list could be amplified, especially for relics which served as talismans (see Frazer on Paus.viii. 47. 5). The hymn-writer seems to refer to a local Triphylian legend; but nothing is known of the cave where the skins were preserved.

In regard to the disposition of the skins of victims in actual ritual, the practice was to sell them (Ath. Mitth. vii. 72, Dittenberger 566, 620; the proceeds were called “δερματικόν”), or they became the perquisites of the priests (Ath. Mitth. xiii. 166, xxiv. 267 f., C. I. G. G. S. 235, Dittenberger 595, 599 f., 734 § 4 etc., Paton and Hicks Inscr. Cos 37, 38).

καταστυφέλῳ: first in Theog. 806; Hesych. explains by “κατάξηρος. ἐΝί”: Barnes' “ἐπί” is from 404, but is not absolutely necessary here; as “ἐνί” can be taken as a loose equivalent of “ἐπί”. At all events the skins were probably hung outside the cave; cf. 404 “πέτρῃ ἐπ᾽ ἠλιβάτῳ”.

[125] The line was left hopelessly corrupt until O. Müller (Hyperbor. Röm. Stud. p. 310, quoted by Baumeister) accepted M's “μέτασσα”. Previous critics had combined “τάμετ̓, τάνυθ̓” etc. The neut. plur. “μέτασσα” is recognised in Cramer An. Ox. i. 280 “ὥσπερ παρὰ τὴν ἐπί γίνεται ἔπισσα οὕτω καὶ παρὰ τὴν μετά μέτασσα”. The fem. occurs Od. 9.221 χωρὶς μὲν πρόγονοι χωρὶς δὲ μέτασσαι”. See Smyth Ionic p. 305 n. 3, Schulze K. Z. xxix. 263. The neuter may no doubt be used adverbially, so that it is unnecessary with Schneidewin and Baumeister to write “μέταζε”. The meaning of “τὰ μέτασσα” may be “in the time intervening.” (from then till now), or, more probably, “thereafter” simply. The sense is further emphasised in the next line by “μετὰ ταῦτα”, just as the idea of “πολυχρόνιοι” is repeated by “δηρὸν καὶ ἄκριτον”.

[126] ἄκριτον: adverbial, as in 577 “τὸ δ᾽ ἄκριτον”, and h. xis. 26 “ἄκριτα”. Gemoll's objection to the word is quite unfounded. The sense is “without bounds,” i.e. continually. Hermann compares Georg.iii. 476nunc quoque post tanto.

[127] χαρμόφρων: the true reading is again preserved by Hesychius, who quotes it as a title of Hermes.

Πίονα ἔργα: elsewhere of rich fields; Gemoll compares Il. 12.283, δ” 318. Here the phrase suggests a parodic style, “the rich works of his hands.”

[128] δώδεκα μοίρας: this is the first reference to a system of twelve gods, of whom Hermes is one. As Gemoll rightly explains, Hermes is consciously claiming his prerogative, and is himself instituting the ritual which is hereafter to be observed by men.

[129] κληροπαλεῖς: “ἅπαξ λεγ. Γέρας”: cf. 122 “νῶτα γεράσμια”, and Od. 4.66 where also the back is the portion of honour. The word was technical in worship for the portion set aside whether for gods or priests; see Dittenberger index s.v.

[130] ὁσίης κρεάων: cf. h. Dem. 211ὁδίης ἕνεκεν”. The “rite” of course lay in eating sacrificial meat.

[131] ὀδμ̀η . . . ἔτειρε: from Od. 4.441 f.

[132] M's “ἐπεπείθετο” is the conjecture of a scribe for metrical reasons, after the loss of “οἱ”, with a reminiscence of Od. 2.103 ἡμῖν δ᾽ αὖτ᾽ ἐπεπείθετο θυμὸς ἀγήνωρ”. For similar instances see J. H. S. xv. p. 287.

The reason why Hermes, although “κρειῶν ἐρατίζων” (64), refrains from eating is not evident. Robertson Smith (Rel. Sem. rev. ed. p. 306) remarks that Hermes is called “βουφόνος” (436, where see note), and that “the story seems to be one of the many legends about the origin of sacrifice.” The present passage, however, appears only to allude to the institution of sacrifice to the twelve gods, with special reference to Hermes' inclusion in the number (see on 128). Further, although Robertson Smith proves the sanctity of oxen in early times, it does not seem that the idea is present here. The sanctity would be violated by killing as well as by eating oxen; whereas Hermes has no scruple in killing, but only refrains from eating. The passage may imply that Hermes was unwilling to eat the flesh of any animal; he was honoured “λιβανωτοῖς καὶ ψαιστοῖς καὶ ποπάνοις” Theopomp. ap. Porphyr. de abst. ii. 16 (at Methydrion); milk and honey were offered to him (cf. Anth. Pal. ix. 72, 318 and 744). It is true that animals were also sacrificed to Hermes, e.g. a ram (Sauppe die Myster. von Andania, ausgewählte Schrift. p. 274), and a goat at Eleusis (C. I. A. i. 5), cf. a vase in the B. M. (Cat.ii. B 362), and victims were offered at Cyllene (Gemin. elem. astr. i. 14); so in Homeric times Od. 19.398 (lambs and goats); but the local ritual recorded by the writer may have demanded a bloodless sacrifice. Otherwise we must accept Gemoll's explanation that Hermes is humorously placed in an awkward predicament: he has sacrificed to the twelve gods, and is now about to begin his meal, like a human sacrificer; but he remembers in time that he is himself one of the twelve, who have to be content with the savour of sacrifice, without its substancc.

Apollodorus (iii. 10. 2) does not follow the hymn; see Introd. p. 130.

[133] †“Περ̂ην†: the scribe who wrote this (and perhaps “πέρην̓” also) intended to read “περῆναι” from “περαίνω”; but neither this verb nor “περᾶν” (Barnes' conjecture usually accepted) are suitable to the act of eating. Perhaps “πέρην” may be retained as an adverb, “πέρην κατά” meaning “across (the “ἕρκος ὀδόντων”) and down the throat.” This would imply a lacuna, with a verb like “καθίημι”, cf. Il. 24.642 λαυκανίης καθέηκα”, and Il. 19.209. The proposal in J. H. S. xvii. p. 258 “ἱμείροντί περ εἷν̓” would introduce this verb, but the metre seems decisive against the emendation. For the throat in this or similar contexts cf. also Eur. Ion1037, Eur. Orest.41, Nicand. Alex. 131.

[134] There has been doubt about Hermes' arrangement; but it seems clear that the two cows were divided into three parts: the skins were left outside on a flat rock (124); the flesh, chines, and tripe, etc. (122), which had been cooked on spits and then divided into twelve portions, were now brought into the cave (134), and put away; lastly the heads and feet were burned. τὰ μέν (i.e. “δημὸν καὶ κρέα”) is answered by “ἐπὶ δέ”. There is no question of a lacuna, as Schneidewin and Baumeister suppose.

[135] “μετ́ηορα κτλ.”; Hermes stowed the portions higher up in the cave (? on a ledge of rock), “to be a memorial of his childish theft.” Here again, some of the commentators see allusion to the natural configuration of the cave, whose stalactites, in what way is not clear, suggested the “twelve portions.” It is more probable that Hermes was initiating some piece of ritual which was afterwards observed inside the cave, in honour of the twelve gods.

[136] φωρ̂ης: Hermann's neat emendation depends on 385, where M (which is wanting here) alone has “φωρήν”; see there on the word.

ἀείρας: “ἀγείρας”, which is usually accepted, is not necessary: Hermes lifted, i.e. piled, fresh wood upon his old fire. The repetition of the verb is no objection. The fire was allowed to burn down to hot embers, before the meat could be roasted (121), as it was held directly over the fire on spits (cf. Il. 9.212 f.); Hermes now needs a blazing fire to burn the heads and feet.

[137] οὐλόποδ᾽ οὐλοκάρηΝα: there was now nothing left of the cows except the heads and feet; Ruhnken is therefore right in understanding these words as substantival, “all the feet and heads.” Gemoll compares “ὁλόπτερος, ὁλόσχοινος”. The words may belong to ritual (as Gemoll suggests); cf. “ὁλοκαυτῶ”. In any case “οὐλο-” is here from “οὖλος”, Ion. for “ὅλος”, in spite of the fact that in Od. 19.246 οὐλοκάρηνος” means “with curly hair.”

[138] κατὰ χρέος: for the Homeric “κατὰ μοῖραν”. So Apoll. Arg. 3.189.

[140] ἐμάρανε: for the form in “α” Hermann compares Il. 21.347 ἀνξηράνῃ. ἀμάθυνε” apparently = “dusted,” “sanded,” like “ἄμαθος”.

[141] The line is ejected by Matthiae and others. Gemoll considers it inconsistent with 99, 100, but genuine if 97, 98 are an interpolation. There seems to be no serious difficulty (see on 97 f.). ΠανΝύχιος: all the rest of the night; Gemoll compares “πανημέριος” in Il. 1.472; add Od. 2.434 παννυχίη” and Il. 18.453 πᾶν ἦμαρ”. M's “παννύχιον” is less idiomatic, but could stand adverbially.

ἐΠέλαμπε: cf. Il. 17.650; but it is an open question whether “κατέλαμπε” (M) should not be preferred, as although not Homeric it is a very suitable word; see L. and

144=Od. 9.521, h. Aphr. 35; cf. Il. 1.339.

[145] οὐδέ: co-ordinate with “οὐδέ τις” 143; the translation “not even” (Edgar) is wrong.

Διὸς . . . Ἑρμ̂ης: the expression is not very common, but perfectly good Greek in poetry from Homer onwards: cf. Il. 2.527 Ὀϊλῆος ταχὺς Αἴας”, Hippon. fr. 21 AΚυλλήνιε Μαιάδος Ἑρμῆ”, Soph. Aj.172Ταυροπόλα Διὸς Ἄρτεμις”, ibid. 1302, Anth. Pal. vi. 334. 3 “Μαιάδος Ἑρμᾶ”, Anth. Plan. i. 11. 3 “Μαιάδος Ἑρμᾶν”.

[146] The cave had an “αὐλή” in the open air (see on 26), but the “μέγαρον”, through the keyhole of which Hermes passed, must be identical with part, at least, of the “ἄντρον”. There is thus a tautology in saying “he passed through the keyhole of the hall, and made straight for the cave.” But this repetition does not warrant us in suspecting 148, 149 with Baumeister, or in seeing two recensions with Hermann.

The temple of Hermes was on the summit of Cyllene; it was in ruins by the time of Pausanias (vii. 17. 1). There is no record of the cave.

δοχμωθείς: the use of “δοχμός, δόχμιος” in Homer (Il. 12.148, Ψ” 116) shews that the verb means “turning sideways,” not, as Baumeister translates, incurvata cervice; so of a boar turning suddenly Scut. 389. The passage is no doubt a reminiscence of Od. 4.802 ἐς θάλαμον δ᾽ εἰσῆλθε παρὰ κληῗδος ἵμαντα”. There the subject is an “εἴδωλον” which is unsubstantial; here “δοχμωθείς” and “ἦκα ποσὶ προβιβῶν” 149 shew that there is no metamorphosis of Hermes, as some commentators suppose; the god only “squeezes through sideways,” like (i.e. as quickly or easily as) a wind or mist. The passage is no support to Roscher's theory of a wind-god.

[147] Cf. Od. 6.20 δ᾽ ἀνέμου ὡς πνοιὴ ἐπέσσυτο δέμνια κούρης” (of a dream). For the double comparison cf. Apoll. Arg. 4.877αὐτὴ δὲ πνοιῇ ἰκέλη δέμας, ἠΰτ᾽ ὄνειρος” (of Thetis). Here two aspects may be illustrated, “as quick as the wind, as invisible as air”; probably, however, the comparison refers simply to the unsubstantial quality of wind and air; see on 45. αὔρͅη ὀΠωρινῌ̂: cf. “ὀπωρινὸς Βορέης, Φ 346, ε” 328, and, for “ὀπωρινός”, Schulze Q. E. 474, Danielsson p. 60. Quintus iv. 111 has “αὔρῃ ὑπηώῃ ἐναλίγκιον”.

[148] ἰθύσας: governing “ἄντροιο” “making straight for the cave”; cf. Il. 15.693, and the gen. after “ἰθύς, α 119, γ” 17.

Πίονα Νηόν: not the cave generally, but the inner part, which was the nymph's special dwelling-place; cf. the use of “ναός”=the cella of a temple. The word recognizes her divinity, and perhaps alludes also to a later cult in the cave; cf. 247.

[149] Προβιβῶν: for the form see on 225.

ὥς Περ ἐΠ᾽ οὔδει, “as (might be expected) on the floor”; i.e. there was no echo in the cave; cf. the common Attic use of “ὡς” in “οὐδὲ ἀδύνατος, ὡς Λακεδαιμόνιος, εἰπεῖνThuc.iv. 84, etc. This sense seems quite satisfactory, though there is neatness in Fick's “ὥς περ ἐπωδῇ” (B. B. xxii. 269).

[151] It is doubtful whether there is an asyndeton here or at 153. Gemoll punc-tuates at “ἀθύρων”, but that participle and “εἰλυμένος” seem logically to depend on “κεῖτο” rather than on “ἐπῴχετο”. In either case, there is no need to suppose a lacuna, with Schneidewin. The asyndeton is a marked characteristic of this hymn; cf. 17, 25, 111, 237, 438, 447, 478, 482, 512.

εἰλυμένος: there is of course no difficulty in the accusative “σπάργανον”, although the dative is Homeric with this verb, and occurs in 245.

[152] Περ᾽ ἰΓνύσι: “περί”, “about his thighs,” is required by the sense, as in Theocr. xxv. 242περ᾽ ἰγνύῃσιν ἕλιξε κέρκον” (where there are similar variants); “παρά”, of p, is less good, as we should expect “παρ᾽ ἰγνύας”. The question whether “περί” can admit elision, is raised on Pindar Ol.iv. 265 Ol., vi. 38, and (in composition) Pyth.iii. 52, Nem.xi. 40, fr. 122. In composition there are exx. in Hesiod (Theog. 678 “περίαχε, 733 περοίχεται”), and even in Attic ( Aesch. Ag.1144περεβάλοντο”, Aesch. Eum.637περεσκήνωσεν”, recognised by scholia). For the evidence of inscriptions cf. C. I. G. 1064 “περ᾽ ἐμεῖο” (Megara), 1688 “πέροδος”=“περίοδος” (Delphi). Schulze Q. E. 133 n. 7, Smyth Ionic § 683 allow no exceptions; Kühner-Blass i. § 53 give the exceptions to the general rule; van Leeuwen Ench.p. 540 defends the elision in Aeolic and Doric. See further La Roche Hom. Unters. i. p. 121, schol. A on Il. 15.651 where Hellanicus took “περ ἑταίρου” for “περί, Αἰολικῶς”. The possibility of the elision in Pindar seems clearly established, and the licence may very well be allowed in a hymn which admits forms like “ἀθρόα^ς” 106. M‘Daniel's non-Ionic “παλάμῃς περὶ” would remove the elision.

λαῖφος ἀθύρων: both words seem sound; “playing with the bed-clothes” is evidently the meaning required. “λαῖφος” is not found elsewhere in this sense. The construction is hard; “ἀθυρομένη” (485) is of a musical instrument, the pass. of a cognate like “μοῦσαν ἀθύρων”, h. Pan 15. Other exx. in L. and S. , whether material or figurative, are cognate. But the construction is essentially similar to “παίζειν” with acc. of person, “play with,” Anth. Pal. ix. 49 “παίζετε τοὺς μετ᾽ ἐμέ”, ib. x. 64 and 70, Lucian Nigr.20.Possibly, however, the original was a dat. “λαίφει”, or better “λαίφες᾿” (with “ι” again elided). Gemoll's “λαίφεα σύρων” is flat. Matthiae's exchange of “ἀθύρων” and “ἐέργων” is negatived by the objection that “χέλυν ἀθύρων” should mean (with an instrument) playing on his shell; but Hermes is simply holding it like a toy (418 is different).

[155] τίπτε . . . Πόθεν: the double question does not “indicate the haste of the speaker” (Baumeister), but is the usual succinct idiom, like the familiar “τίς πόθεν”, etc. τόδε, “in this way,” or “hither,” as not infrequently in Homer, especially in the Odyssey; see M. and R. on Od. 1.409. Only the singular occurs in this local sense; the corruption of the MSS. (“τάδε”) is paralleled by one MS. (N) in Od. 1.409.

[156] ἀΝαιδείηΝ ἐΠιειμένε=Il. 1.149.

157-159. The passage is usually considered corrupt; Matthiae's “λαθόντα” has been accepted, but this would not account for “λαβόντα”, much less “φέροντα”. The latter can be retained in the sense of “raiding”: for the absolute use (common in combination with “ἄγειν”) cf. Pind. Ol.viii. 14εἴ τις ἐκ δόμων φέρει”, Eq.205ὅτι ἀγκύλαις ταῖς χερσὶν ἁρπάζων φέρει”, Demosth. v. 12 “ἀργύριον . . . οἴχεται φέρων”. The alternatives are that Hermes will either be caught by Apollo, or (if he escapes) he will live an outlaw's life in the glens, eked out by occasional raids. “μεταξύ” may thus stand: Hermes would “rob by whiles,” when necessity should compel; cf. 287 “ὁπόταν κρειῶν ἐρατίζων ἀντῇς κτλ. μεταξύ” might also be “meanwhile,” i.e. “until you are finally caught,” opposed to “τάχα” 157, and this would give equally good sense. The substitution of “μέταζε” is possible; the word is corrupted into “μεταξύ” in Hes. Op.394.The meaning will then be “you will live a robber's life ever afterwards.” For wooded hills as the resort of brigands cf. 287, Dicaearch.i. 8geogr. min. i. p. 100 Müller), Anth. Pal. vii. 544, Juv.iii. 307 with Mayor's note.

Whatever the reading or translation of 159, there are certainly two co-ordinate alternatives; “” (159) cannot stand for “μᾶλλον ”, as Matthiae and Gemoll suppose (i.e. “I think you will be caught sooner than you will have another chance of stealing”). The particle in 157 is therefore disjunctive, and should be accented with Barnes “”.

[158] Λητοΐδου: the patronymic is not found in Homer; the older form would be “Λητοΐδεω”, which Hermann needlessly restores.

[160] Πάλιν should not be supplanted by Ruhnken's “τάλαν”. Maia wishes to escape the responsibility, and bids her son “go back again,” to the scene of his depredations. Cf. “πτᾶσα πάλιν”, of Persephone's forced deparature, h. Dem. 398.

[163] τιτύσκεαι: if this word is to be kept it must bear the sense of “τιτύσκετο θεσπιδαὲς πῦρ Φ” 342 and of the cognate “τετύκοντό τε δαῖτα” etc., but with a figura tive application: “why do you give me this dressing?” In Greek this is conveyed by “πλύνειν”, which properly applies to things, clothes, tripe, etc., and has the parallels lavata di testa, laver la tête in the Romance languages, “dust his jacket,” “dress him down” in English. A legitimate construction is also provided for “ταῦτα”. Of course there is no other instance of this sense of “τιτύσκεσθαι” or “τεύχειν”. Pierson's conjecture “δεδίσκεαι” is strongly supported by the very similar passage Il. 20.200 f. “Πηλεΐδη, μὴ δή μ᾽ ἐπέεσσί γε νηπύτιον ὣς

ἔλπεο δειδίξεσθαι, ἐπεὶ σάφα οἷδα καὶ αὐτὸς
ἠμὲν κερτομίας ἠδ᾽ αἴσυλα μυθήσασθαι”. The change from “τ” to “δ”, however, is improbable, for the instances given on h. Apoll. 244 (“δρύφακτος τρύφακτος” etc.) are phonetic rather than graphical. It should be noted that “δειδίξεσθαι” is fut. of “δειδίσσομαι” “frighten,” whereas “δεδίσκεαι” should mean “welcome” from “δεδίσκομαι”. The correct form would therefore be “δεδίσσεαι”, which, however, is further from the MSS. Later writers seem to have confused the two verbs; cf. Lys.564ἐδεδίσκετο” “scared.”

[164] Παῦρα and αἴσυλα are undoubtedly the best readings, the latter word being supported by the Homeric passage quoted above, where schol. B gives the correct sense “αἴσυλα τὰς παρὰ τὸ καθῆκον λεγομένας ἀπειλάς”: “like a child who knows few words of blame.” M's reading “πολλὰ . . . ἄρμενα” would imply much the same thing conversely, but the negative “παῦρα” is more effective, and to protest against a child possessing “fit thoughts” is perhaps too cynical. The point is that Hermes can blame as well as be blamed.

[165] “καὶ μητρός κτλ.”: added as a kind of afterthought, as the acc. “ταρβαλέον” precedes.

[167] βουκολέων: this correction may be accepted; for the error of the MSS. cf. Il. 13.445, where, for “βουκολέοντι”, the “κο” pap. B. M. 732 has “βουλεοντι”. The older attempts, either to make “βουλεύειν” govern an accusative, or to take it absolutely, “ἐμέ” following “ἐπιβήσομαι”, are impossible. For the metaphor cf. the use of “ποιμαίνω” in Pind. Isthm.iv. 12, Aesch. Eum.91.

[168] Of the two readings, “ἄλιστοι” is the better; throughout the hymn Hermes makes a point of being recognised as a god, to whom gifts and prayers belong. Moreover, “ἄπαστοι” is unsuitable; Hermes and his mother were not starving, with “ἀμφίπολοι”, and stores of nectar and ambrosia (248). Ridgeway (J. P. xvii. p. 109) need not have objected to the form “ἄλιστος”, although “ἄλλιστος” is elsewhere found (see L. and S. ); for the double form cf. “πολύλιστος” and “πολύλλιστος”.

[169] αὐτοῦ τῌ̂δε: Matthiae quotes Herod.vii. 141αὐτοῦ τῇδε μενέομεν”. Add Hom. ep. iii. 5. In Hermes' mouth the words are contemptuous, “in this hole and corner.”

[172] ἀμφὶ δὲ τιμ̂ης: for “ἀμφί” with genitive=de cf. Il. 16.825 πίδακος ἀμφ᾽ ὀλίγης, θ 267 ἀμφ᾽ Ἄρεος φιλότητος”. Gemoll's “τιμῇς” does not seem indispensable. In h. Dem. 85 the accusative is used in the same phrase. See H. G. § 184.

[173] κἀΓώ: in Homer only “καὶ ἐγώ” without crasis. For crasis with “καί” see on h. Dem. 13.

[175] The quantity of φηλητέων (even if we write it “φιλητέων”) requires the omission of “δέ”, but the punctuation is uncertain. Demetrius down to Franke, inclusive, read “πειρήσω: δύναμαι φηλητέων ὄρχαμος εἶναι”. Bothe and Schneidewin, followed by Baumeister, Gemoll, and Ludwich, take “δύναμαι” parenthetically, which is far more elegant here. Cf. the parenthetic “σαφὲς δ᾽ οὐκ οἷδα 208, τὰ δέ τ᾽ οἶδε καὶ αὐτός 376, ἐρατὴ δέ οἱ ἕσπετο φωνή” 426. This frequent use of parenthesis is akin to that of asyndeton (see on 151), and is in keeping with the staccato style of the hymn. For “φηλητής” in connexion with Hermes see on 67, and cf. infra 292.

[176] εἰ δέ μ᾽ ἐρευν́ησει: there is here hardly any distinction to be drawn between this use of “εἰ” with the future and of “εἴ κε” with the subjunctive 174. Strictly, the former use should imply greater probability or necessity; see H. G. § 292 b, and § 326. 5.

[178] μέγαν δόμον ἀΝτιτορ́ησων: cf. Il. 10.267, where for “ἀντιτορήσας” Döderlein (Gloss. 672) reads “ἀντετορήσας”. This is probable, as the preposition “ἀντι-” seems out of place. There is, however, no reason why the real form should not have been forgotten by later imitators, and the false “ἀντιτορέω ἀντιτόρησις” coined. The fact that the hymn-writer seems to have known the form “τετορεῖν” (see on 119), and that Aristophanes has “τετορήσω”, need not tempt us to conjecture “ἀντετορήσων”.

[179] “τρίποδας κτλ.”=Od. 13.217. 181=Il. 8.471, ω” 511; cf. Il. 4.353. For the wealth of the temple at Pytho see h. Apoll. 536 and infra 335.

[183] M's “μήτηρ” seems to be not so much a gloss on “Μαῖα” as a reminiscence of the familiar Homeric phrase; on the other hand it is of course possible that “μήτηρ” is original, and “Μαῖα” a gloss.

[186] For the precinct of Poseidon see on h. Apoll. 230. The accent on the placename Onchestus varies between oxytone and proparoxytone in the MSS. at Il. 2.506 and here; at h. Apoll. 230 they all have the proparoxytone. The genitive, however, is uniformly “-οῖο”, and the paradosis prescribed the oxytone (Herodian i. 223. 29 Lenz). We have therefore written the word oxytone in both hymns.

[187] ἐρισφαράγου: not in Homer; cf. Bacchyl.v. 20Ζηνὸς ἐρισφαράγου”.

[188] If this line is corrupt, as is usually supposed, no convincing emendation has yet appeared. The commentators (except Gemoll) assume that “κνώδαλον” disguises an adjective, with “γέροντα”, or a substantive, as object of a participle after “εὗρε”. With regard to this participle, it is clear that “νέμοντα” will stand if “κνώδαλον” is sound; if not, some other verb is required, as “νέμειν ἕρκος” makes no sense. In J. H. S. xvii. p. 259 the manuscript reading was defended: “κνώδαλον” usually connotes some sort of monster (e.g. a serpent), but it is used of beasts in general in Theog. 582, and of beasts of burden or draughtanimals in P. V. 478, Pind. Pyth.x. 36.It is not out of keeping with the style of this hymn to take it here of “his ox or his ass,” probably of the latter. While the old man was at work (“βατοδρόπε 190, ἔσκαπτον” 207), he let graze (“νέμοντα”) his “beast” by the roadside Pind. Pyth., i.e. outside the “ἀλωή”. There would still be “ἕρκος ἀλωῆς” to explain; and here perhaps lies the main difficulty. Gemoll, who alone of the editors defends the text, understands “νέμειν” to take a double acc., “letting his beast graze on the fence,” which may have been a hedge (cf. “βατοδρόπε”), although in Od. 24.224 the “ἕρκος ἀλωῆς” is a stone-wall; but the construction “νέμειν τινά τι” seems impossible, and Xen. Cyr.iii. 2. 20 is no parallel. The alternative (suggested in J. H. S. l.c.) is to take “ἕρκος ἀλωῆς” metaphorically, in apposition to “κνώδαλον”, “the stay of his vineyard.” This would be a parody of the Homeric “ἕρκος Ἀχαιῶν”, of Ajax; cf. “πύργος Ἀχαιοῖς, ἕρμα πόληος”, and “ἕρκος Ὀλύμπου” viii. 3, of Ares. The parody is not a more violent perversion of Homeric usage than “πίονα ἔργα” 127. Possibly, however, “ἕρκος” is a corruption of “ἐκτός” (cf. h. Aphr. 159ἄρκτων, ἐκ τῶν”). Otherwise we must assume a corruption in “κνώδαλον”, which, however, though found in Hom. , Hes. , and Attic poetry, is too unfamiliar to be readily substituted.

[190] βατοδρόπε: cf. the description of Laertes in the vineyard, Od. 24.230 χειρῖδάς τ᾽ ἐπὶ χερσὶ βάτων ἕνεκ̓”.

[192] κεράεσσιν ἑλικτάς: apparently equivalent to the Homeric “ἕλικας”, which the hymn-writer must have understood to mean “with crumpled horn.” See Leaf on Il. 9.466.

[195] Ἠΰτε φῶτες, ὁμόφρονες, “clever as men, and one in heart” (Edgar).

[196] δ̀η . . . τέτυκται: cf. Il. 18.549 τὸ δὴ περὶ θαῦμα τέτυκτο”, which disposes of Wolf's “μέγα” for “περί” here.

[197] καταδυομένοιο: for the metrical lengthening of the “υ” see Schulze Q. E. p. 136 f.

[202] ἴδοιτο: the omission of “τις”, though rare, is here amply justified by Il. 13.287 οὐδέ κεν ἔνθα τεόν γε μένος καὶ χεῖρας ὄνοιτο, Χ 199 ὡς δ᾽ ἐν ὀνείρῳ οὐ δύναται φεύγοντα διώκειν”; so in Theog. 741, and (with a participle) Op.12 Op., v. l. 291, h. xxix.6, and Il. 14.58 (“γνοίη” Aristoph. ). See Kühner-Jelf § 373. 6, L. and S. s.v. “τις”. In later poetry cf. e.g. Theocr. xvii. 41; for prose cf. Plat. Symp.i. 8, Rep. Ath. i. 10. The indefinite third person is preferable to M's “ἴδοιμι”, which, however, is not necessarily a correction.

[206] Πρόπαν . . . καταδύντα: a common formula; Il. 1.601 etc.

[207] Γουνὸν ἀλῶης οἰΝοπέδοιο=Od. 1.193, λ” 193; cf. also Il. 9.534, Σ” 57.

[208] ἔδοξα (in Homer “ἐδόκησα”): qualified by the parenthetical “σαφὲς δ᾽ οὐκ οἶδα; ὅς τις κτλ.” is only loosely connected with “παῖδα”, not governed by “οἶδα”: “whoever the boy was that . . .” For this use of “ὅς τις” cf. 277, 311, h. Dem. 58, 119, and often in Attic poetry (Blaydes on Nub. 883).

[210] ἐΠιστροφάδηΝ: from side to side, as he followed the oxen; cf. Hippocr. Mochlikon 20 “ὁδοιπορέουσι δὲ περιστροφάδην ὡς βόες”, and vv. 226, 357.

[211] ἔχεν, “held,” “kept” their heads facing him (see on 77). Hermann's “ἔχον”, changing the subject, is not necessary. ἀΝτίον αὐτῷ: the dative with this adverb is not Homeric. The old man is not here said to tell Apollo that Hermes went in the direction of Pylos, though this information is implied in 354 f. “τὸν δ᾽ ἐφράσατο βροτὸς ἀνὴρ

εἰς Πύλον εὐθὺς ἐλῶντα”, and in 216 Apollo starts for Pylos. We need not, however, suppose a lacuna; if there is any inconsistency, it may be attributed to the hymn-writer.

[213] οἰωνὸν . . . τανυσίπτερον: it is disputed whether this refers to the old man's obscure hinting, which Apollo interprets like an “omen,” or whether the god actually saw a bird, which helped to clear up the mystery. Baumeister and Gemoll take the former view, understanding “τανυσίπτερον” as a mere epitheton ornans, here inappropriate to “οἰωνός”. This explanation seems highly improbable, and it is clear that an actual bird of omen is intended, which informed Apollo that the thief was Hermes (214). This view is also supported by Apollodorus (iii. 10. 2, 5) “οἱ δὲ ἰδεῖν μὲν παῖδα ἐλαύνοντα ἔφασκον, οὐκ ἔχειν δὲ εἰπεῖν, ποῖ ποτε ἠλάθησαν διὰ τὸ μὴ εὑρεῖν ἴχνος δύνασθαι. μαθὼν δὲ ἐκ τῆς μαντικῆς τὸν κεκλοφότα, πρὸς Μαῖαν εἰς Κυλλήνην παραγίνεται”.

On the route taken by Apollo (Onchestus—Pylos—Cyllene) see Introd. p. 131.

[216] The first mention of Pylos; the Alpheus was the only geographical indication given in the account of the actual journey (101).

[217] Cf. Il. 16.360 and 790. The dark cloud here makes the god invisible, as in Il. 5.186. In Il. 15.153 ἀμφὶ δέ μιν θυόεν νέφος ἐστεφάνωτο” the “fragrant cloud” is rather for adornment than concealment; so in Od.i. 2. 39nube candentes humeros amictus

augur Apollo.

[224] The reference to the centaur's foot-prints does not help to determine the date of the hymn, as the writer does not explain his conception of the centaur. This verse leaves the question open, whether he regarded the centaur as a hairy wild man, with nothing equine in form (probably the original and Homeric conception; see Mannhardt A. W. F. p. 79 f.); or as having two human and two equine legs (as in archaic art, e.g. the chest of Cypselus); or, finally, with four horse's legs (the fifthcentury type). On the centaurs see reff. in Roscher Lex. s.v.

ἔλπομαι εἶναι, “I guess they are not,” livelier than “ἐστὶν ὁμοῖα”, but there is no difficulty about the construction of the latter; they are alternatives.

[225] βιβᾷ: the form is supported by 149 “προβιβῶν”, h. Apoll. 133ἐβίβασκεν”, Pind. Ol.xiv. 25βιβῶντα”. In Il. 3.22, Η” 213 Aristophanes (followed by most edd.) restored the forms from “βιβάς” for the vulgate “βιβῶν”.

[226] “αἰΝὰ μέν κτλ.”: according to some editors, “αἰνὰ μέν” refers to the cow's footprints, “τὰ δ᾽ αἰνότερα” to those of Hermes. This view is quite possible, as, although Apollo recognises the tracks of the cows, their backward direction might strike him as “strange.” But it is better to understand that Apollo's astonishment refers here to Hermes' unearthly spoor, “strange here, and stranger there”—wherever Apollo looked from one side of the road to the other, Hermes floundered, “ἐπιστροφάδην ἐβάδιζεν” 210, or bustled across the road, “διαπυρπαλάμησεν ὁδοῦ τὸ μὲν ἔνθα, τὸ δ᾽ ἔνθα” 357.

[228] ὄρος καταείμενον ὕλͅη: see on h. Apoll. 225.

[230] ἀμβρόσιος: not in Homer as epithet of persons; the hymn-writer obviously takes it as equivalent to “ἄμβροτος”.

ἐλόχευσε: also a post-Homeric verb, though frequent in later poetry.

[231] “ὁδμ́η κτλ.”: the “pleasant smell” may be a reminiscence of Od. 5.59 f. (the scent of Calypso's fire); but the hymnwriter leaves it doubtful whether he refers (1) to Maia's fire, or (2) to a miraculous scent betokening a deity (cf. on h. Dem. 277), or (3) to the fresh smell of natural earth; cf. Mosch.i. 92λειμῶνος ἐκαίνυτο λαρὸν ἀϋτμήν” (of a flowery meadow); Mart.iii. 65. 4gramina quod redolent quae modo carpsit ovis and 7 gleba quod aestivo leviter cum spargitur imbre), and may be correct, although parallels from early poetry appear to be wanting. Atalanta's cave ( V. H. xiii. 1) is fragrant with flowers. The analogy of “θυωδέος Οὐλύμποιο” (322), and perhaps “ἄντρῳ ἐν εὐώδει” (xxvi. 6), rather supports the second explanation.

[234] αὐτός: in h. Aphr. 151 (“ἑκηβόλος αὐτὸς Ἀπόλλων”) “αὐτός” is forcible, “Apollo's self.” Here the word has been suspected, as the emphasis is not clear. Baumeister rightly gave up his idea that the meaning was “in his own person”; Apollo had not assumed another form. Possibly the antithesis is in “ἄντρον ἐς ἠερόεν”: the bright Far-darter went into the dim cave. More probably the writer uses “αὐτὸς Ἀπόλλων” as a fixed formula, “great Apollo,” without antithesis; cf. Il. 1.47 with Leaf's note, and h. Apoll. 181; so 406 infra, Mosch.iv. 13.In any case “αὐτός” is sound; Baumeister's criticism ““αὐτόςsaepe turbas fecit” is not justified by h. Dem. 371, h. vii.22, where it needs no emendation.

[236] Cf. Scut. 12 “χωσάμενος περὶ βουσί”.

[238] ὕλης σποδός: “ὁλοσποδός” is one of M's corruptions (see p. xviii); it may be partly due to “οὐλόποδ᾽ οὐλοκάρηνα 137. ὕλης σποδός” seems original; “σποδός” includes “dust” generally, and the defining genitive of material “wood-ash” is not otiose. In 140 the fire is extinguished with ordinary dust, “κόνις μέλαινα”. The simile is modelled on Od. 5.488 f. where Odysseus keeps up his spark of life in a covering of leaves, just as a man hides a smouldering brand under a heap of ashes. Cf. Theocr. xi. 5, xxiv. 88, Callim. Ep. 44, and perhaps h. Dem. 239.

[239] ἀΝεείλἐ αὐτόν: “ἀλέεινεν” is evidently impossible; a word parallel to “ἀμφικαλύπτει” is required by the simile. Ilgen's “ἀλέαινεν” would naturally mean “warmed himself,” which is unsuitable, and Ludwich's “ἀλέγυνεν”, “took heed to himself” quite misses the sense; this is correctly given by “ἀνειλεῖν” “cuddled himself up,” which Lohsee suggested, although his form “ἀνέειλεν” should be corrected to “ἀνεείλει” or “ἀνεείλἐ”. The latter gives a completer metathesis. For the uncontracted form cf. “κατεκόσμεε Δ 118, μετεφώνεε θ” 201 (“-ει” Ar.), “προσεφώνεε π” 308, 354, Smyth § 665, Hoffmann p. 467. For the sense cf. Plat. Symp. 206Dσυσπειρᾶται . . . καὶ ἀνείλλεται” (v.l. “ἀνειλλεῖται”).

[240] συνέλασσε: not meaningless, as Gemoll thinks; it is vivid and quite appropriate: “he forced together head, hands, and feet, into a small space.”

[241] φ́η: this brilliant emendation of Barnes (who accented it “φῆ”) was made again by Hermann; it is confirmed by the reading of yθῆρα. φ” and “θ” are easily exchanged in MSS.; “φησίν θηρσίν Α 268, αὐτόφι αὐτόθι Μ” 302. For “φή” in Homer and later poets see Leaf on Il. 2.144. It is now found in Callim. Hecale col. iv. 4 Gomperz. For the derivation see Prellwitz B. B. xxii. 76 f., and Et. Wört. s.v.

The comparison is evidently to “a newborn infant asking only for sleep.” The sense is given by “νεόλλουτος” (i.e. newly washed after birth); Martin B. (Varior. lect. ed. 2, 1755) quotes Theocr. xxiv. 3, Lycophr. 321, Callim. h. Del. 6, Jov.16, Plaut. Amphitr. v. 1. 50. The reading of yνέον λοχάων” cannot be explained.

Ἤδυμον: the form recurs infra 449; in h. Aphr. 171, xix. 16 the MSS. give “νήδυμος”. Probably “ἥδυμος” is the older word (from “ἡδύς”, as “κάλλιμος” from “καλός”), “νήδυμος” being a later mistaken form, due to the “ν ἐφελκυστικόν” of preceding words, as in Il. 2.2 (Buttmann Lex. i. 173 f.). The history of the form would therefore be like “a nickname” for “an ekename” etc. Meyer (Griech. Et. i.) rejects this view, holding “νήδυμος” to be original, in which case “ἥδυμος” would be due to a false connexion with “ἡδύς”. Brugmann also (I. F. xi. 277 sq.) returns to “νήδυμος”, and (after schol. Il. 2.2) explains “νη”=down, “-δυμος” from “δύω” “that into which one sinks,” cl. “νηδύς”. In the MSS. of Homer “νήδυμος” prevails, but there is some authority for “ἥδυμος” in Il. 2.2, δ 793, μ” 311. Here and in 449 the form is proved by the metre; but the certainty of “ἥδυμος” in this hymn is no reason for rejecting “νήδυμος” in the two other hymns in which the word occurs.

[242] In this line Martin has successfully emended “ἄγρης: εἰν-” into “ἐγρήσσων”, for which compare Hipponax 89 “Ἑρμῆ μάκαρ καθ᾽ ὕπνον οἶδας ἐγρήσσειν”. For the confusion of “ἀγ, ἐγ” cf. Il. 17.660 where some MSS. give “ἀγρήσσοντες”; so one MS. in Od. 20.53. ἐτεόν” is also certain; the word is corrupted in Il. 20.255. The nearest approach to the MSS. would be “ἐγρήσσων ἐτεὸν δὲ” without a stop (a reading suggested in J. H. S. xvii. 260); but Hermann's punctuation, with the addition of “δέ”, is preferable, as giving a clearer antithesis; for “ἐτεόν γε” cf. Il. 8.423 (one MS. “τε” as here), Il. 12.217, γ” 122 etc.

[243] Γνῶ δ᾽ οὐδ᾽ ἨγΝοίησε= Theog. 551.

[245] ἐΝτροπίͅησι: the sense required is obviously “tricks,” “twists.” The word can bear this meaning, as the cognate “ἐντροπαλίζομαι”=“turn round again and again”; cf. the English “dodge.” Baumeister's translation “shame” (ficto pudore) cannot stand. “εὐτροπία” (Gemoll) is not known for early Greek.

[246] ἀΝά: for this preposition with “παπταίνειν” cf. Il. 12.333, Apoll. Arg. 3.1284. The direct accusative is also possible (cf. Il. 4.200); but “ἀνά” seems forcible here, of an exhaustive search, and “ἄρα” may have been corrupted from it; cf. 514.

[247] ἀδύτους: only here known to be masculine; in Homer (Il. 5.448, 512) the gender is doubtful, as in Pind. Ol.vii. 59, though presumably neuter. Elsewhere the word is applied only to sacred “recesses,” and here also it is probably complimentary, as suitable to the home of a goddess; cf. 148. The “ἄδυτα” of temples served as treasuries.

[252] ἐΞερέεινε: cf. Od. 12.259 πόρους ἁλὸς ἐξερεείνων”. The hymn-writer favours the verb: see on 313.

[254] κατάκειαι: on the form see Schulze Q. E. p. 443, Smyth Ionic § 713.

255-257. A reminiscence of Il. 8.12 f. (Leaf ad loc. suggests that the Homeric passage may be borrowed from the hymn; but this seems improbable, although “Θ” may be a late book). So infra 466= Il. 8.40.

[255] θᾶττον: if the hymn is Boeotian (see Pref. p. lxxiii), this form is probably a survival of the Boeotian dialect remaining in the hymn. The form “ἔλαττον” occurs in the same Oropian inscr. which supports “ἡχοῦ” in 400 (where see note). On “ττ”=“σς” in Boeotian see Meister die griech. Dialekte i. p. 264 f. Baumeister retains “θᾶττον” as an Atticism, but in that case it must have ousted an original “θᾶσσον”, as the hymn must be earlier than the use of “ττ” for “σς” in

ἐΠεί, “or else,” as in Il. 15.228.

[256] λαβών: so Ilgen for “βαλών”, which can hardly be tolerated with “ῥίψω”. The metathesis is of course common. “λαβών” is supported by the equivalent “ἑλών” in the Homeric parallel Il. 8.13, and h. Apoll. 218ῥίψ᾽ ἀνὰ χερσὶν ἑλοῦσα”.

[259] ὀλίγοισι: Hermes will have to be content with the leadership of “little men,” i.e. children, like himself. There is no parallel to this use of “ὀλίγοι ἄνδρες”, but the expression seems to suit the serio-comic style of the hymn. “ὀλίγοισι” is defended by Boissonade and Tyrrell; the latter interprets “for all your primacy among little folk,” but in this case “περ” would seem necessary. Matthiae also keeps the word, but understands it of the dead generally, “feeble folk.” But “ὀλίγος” should bear the same sense as in 245, 456, of a child; cf. e.g. Anth. Pal. vii. 632. 1 “ὀλίγον βρέφος”, Theocr. i. 47ὀλίγος τις κῶρος”. For the place of children in Hades cf. Verg. 427.There is a coincidence of language in Perses' epigram on Hermes Anth. Pal. ix. 334 “κἀμὲ τὸν ἐν σμικροῖς ὀλίγον θεὸν ἢν ἐπιβώσῃς

εὐκαίρως τεύξῃ: μὴ μεγάλων δὲ γλίχου” (B. C. H. xxii. 614). The emendations of “ὀλίγοισι” are at best unconvincing.
Ἡγεμονεύων: not in Homer with a preposition (461 infra is corrupt). Here “μετά” and “ἐν” seem equally good; for the latter cf. Plat. Rep.474 c.

[262] καί: not to be altered to “” (Matthiae, who afterwards restored “καί”, and Baumeister); the sense is “why do you speak so sharply and come in quest of cows?”

263, 264=363, 364. For 263 cf. Od. 23.40.

265, 266. The MSS. give “οὔτε 265, οὐκ” 266. It is therefore open either to alter “οὐκ” into “οὔτε”, or to change “οὔτε” to “οὐδέ, οὐκ” being retained. The latter alternative is perhaps more effective, in view of the asyndetic character of Hermes' words. Hermann's “οὔτι” for “οὔτε” is also possible.

[266] Πάρος, “before that,” i.e. rather than steal cattle; for this use of “πάρος” Ilgen compares Il. 8.166 πάρος τοι δαίμονα δώσω”. Add Il. 16.629 (not “till now”).

[267] Ἡμετέρης: Gemoll suggests that the word marks the dignity of the offended Hermes; cf. 465.

271, 272. Hermes remarks that it would be strange for a child to come in through (“διά”) the door with (“μετά”) cows. This sense seems quite possible, as Apollo expected to find the cows inside the cave (246 f.). According to the general view, Hermes speaks of going out of doors (“διά” for “διέκ”), to fetch the cows. This explanation seems to involve the substitution of “ἐπί” for “μετά”.

[274] θέλεις: for the form see on h. Apoll. 46.

[275] μ̀η . . . ὑΠίσχομαι: for the construction of “μή” with indic. in an oath cf. Il. 10.330, Ο” 41, and occasionally in later poetry (Goodwin M. T. § 686).

[277] Cf. Il. 2.486 κλέος οἶον ἀκούομεν”.

[279] ὀφρύσι ῥιπτάζεσκεν, “kept lifting his eyebrows.” The intransitive use of “ῥιπτάζειν” has been suspected, and Hermann's “ὀφρῦς” has found favour. But the verb is intrans. in Hippocrates (e.g. Acut.ii. 18) of patients tossing in bed, and “ῥίπτει” appears to be intrans. in Eur. Hec.1325.The verb is not elsewhere used in this context, but “ῥιπή”, which is doubtless cognate, is frequent of any quick motion (of wings, eyes, etc.). The hymnwriter is fond of allusions to quick glances or vibrations of the eyelids; cf. 45Eur. Hec., 387.

ὁρώμενος ἔνεα καὶ ἔνεα = Hes. fr. 4 (176). 2, of Argus.

[280] ἀΠοσυρίζων: to shew his indifference; not as Baumeister understands, ad indignationem simul et fiduciam declarandam.

ἅλιον τὸν μῦεον ἀκούων certainly presents a difficulty, which has probably caused the variant “ὡς”. The adverb “ἁλίως” ( Soph. Phil.840) is possible, but E 715 “ἅλιον τὸν μῦθον ὑπέστημεν Μενελάῳ” fixes the words, which must mean “listening to those words as if they were senseless.” For the further predicate with “ἀκούω” cf. 443, a passage which justifies the text. The construction may be dialectal; cf. Suid. and E. M. (s.v. “χαίρω”) “χαίρω σε ἐληλυθότα: Ὀρωπικοὶ οὕτως λέγουσιν”. The corrections of “ἀκούων” are improbable, and rest on the unnecessary belief that “μῦθον” refers to the words of Hermes.

[284] ἐΠ᾽ οὔδεϊ . . . καείσσαι, to “strip,” “plunder”; the expression is no doubt drawn from popular speech, but no close parallel is quoted, and the origin of the phrase is doubtful. Baumeister suggests that it is used by thieves who strip a house to the last chair. Ernesti compares Theocr. i. 51ἐπὶ ξηροῖσι καθίζειν”, where, however, the meaning is obscure. The best illustration is perhaps the proverb attributed to Stesichorus (Aristot. Rhet.ii. 21) “οὐ δεῖ ὑβριστὰς εἶναι, ὅπως μὴ οἱ τέττιγες χαμόθεν ᾁδωσιν”; cf. Anth. Pal. vii. 723 “οἰωνοὶ δὲ κατὰ χθονὸς οἰκία θέντες”. In both cases the reference is to a country devastated by an enemy; this is analogous to a house “stripped to the boards.”

The future “καθίσειν” is suggested by “ἀκαχήσεις” (286), but is not necessary: Apollo regards Hermes as a practised thief, who has already stripped more than one house, and has a wider career before him (cf. 159).

[285] σκευάζοντα: hardly “making all ready” as Passow and L. and S. , but “carrying off the “σκεύη”,” i.e. ransacking the house. Cf. “συσκευάζεσθαι” = vasa colligere, and “σκευωρεῖσθαι” ( Plut. Caes.51τὴν Πομπηΐου οἰκίαν”) in the sense of “plunder.”

οἶ ἀΓορεύεις: i.e. Hermes is and will be as deceitful in deeds as he is in words; the cleverness of his defence marks him as an accomplished thief.

[288] The variants give exactly the same meaning; it is hard to see how one is preferable to the other. Cf. Hollander l.c. p. 27. “ἄντην” seems a corruption; Gemoll's “ἀντῇς” is nearer to “ἄντην” than “ἀντᾷς”, but “η” is doubtful (Smyth Ionic § 637 n.).

[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, 107, Xen. Anab.iii. 2. 9, and other exx. quoted by Bouché-Leclercq Divination i. p. 162 f. and Blaydes on Av.720πταρμόν τ᾽ ὄρνιθα καλεῖτε”. Apollo of course is not deceived by Hermes, but ironically interprets the “omens” in his own way.

[296] ἀΓγελιώτηΝ: elsewhere only in Callim. Hecale col. i. 4.

[299] ἕζετο: perhaps to interpret the omen ex cathedra, with mock gravity (Gemoll).

[302] καὶ ἔπειτα, “in the end,” “after all,” as in Il. 8.520.

[304] Κυλλ́ηνιος: first in Od. 24.1, where Aristarchus objected to the epithet as post-Homeric.

[305] σπουδῌ̂: in Homer the usual sense is “hardly,” but in Od. 15.209 σπουδῇ νῦν ἀνάβαινε” the adv. certainly= “quickly”; so perhaps in Il. 2.99 (Ariston. “ἐν τάχει”), v. 279. This sense suits the passage: Hermes now wishes to get done with the business; cf. 320. The words could not imply his haste in keeping pace with Apollo, non passibus aequis; at least in 321 Hermes leads. Possibly, however, “σπουδῇ” may mean “seriously,” no longer in jest, as often in post-Homeric Greek; cf. “σπουδαῖον” (332), a “serious” thing.

305, 306. The lines are difficult; “ἐλιγμένος” is a vox nihili, and “ἐελμένος” cannot be regarded as certain. The editors mostly correct to “ἐελμένον” or another acc. partic., agreeing with “σπάργανον”; but it is most improbable that an original acc. should become a nom. It is just possible to take “ἐελμένος” absolutely: Hermes “pushed with his hands the clothes up to both his ears, round his shoulders, huddled up” (in the wraps). The clothes had fallen off his head while he was being carried by Apollo; they are now rearranged. On the whole it seems almost necessary to alter “ἐελμένος”. The variant “ἐλιγμένος” points to a corruption; the original may have been “εἰλυμένος”, which, however, has escaped alteration in 245, h. Apoll. 450; “σπάργανον” would be taken “ἀπὸ κοινοῦ” with “ἐώθει” and “εἰλύμενος”. In any case “παῤ” must mean “up to”; not, as suggested in J. H. S. xv. p. 290, “down past,” as if Hermes now uncovers his head. This sense of “παρά” is not justified by such passages as Plat. Symp. iv. 23παρὰ τὰ ὦτα ἄρτι ἴουλος καθέρπει”, where the meaning is really inherent in the verb.

It would be possible to suggest that “παρ᾽ . . . ἐώθει” = “παρεώθει”, governing “ἄμφω οὔατα”, i.e. he “pushed back both his ears,” by rubbing his cheeks; cf. Od. 18.199 τὴν δὲ γλυκὺς ὕπνος ἀνῆκεν

καί ῤ̔ ἀπομόρξατο χερσὶ παρειὰς φώνησέν τε” (see below 361). But the expression, if physically accurate (the flat of the hands being moved away from the eyes across the cheeks), is at least curious, without some further explanation to shew that rubbing the eyes is intended. Otherwise the sense would be excellent: Hermes now pretends to wake up at last. With this translation “σπάργανον” must be governed by the participle “εἰλυμένος” (“ἐελμένος” would be less suitable); for the construction cf. 151.

[307] φέρεις: either “carry,” as in 293, although Hermes is no longer in Apollo's hands; or=“ἐλαύνεις” 330.

[308] ὀρσολοπεύεις: rare and poetic; cf. Hesych. “ὀρσοπολεῖται: διαπολεμεῖται”, “ταράσσεται: Αἰσχύλος” ( Pers.10); so “ὀρσόλοπος”, of Ares, Anacr. fr. 74. Hesychius' explanation, i.e. “harry,” no doubt gives the sense, but the derivation is quite unknown, and the suggestions (mentioned by Gemoll) are not convincing: Müller-Strübing's derivation (“ὄρρος” and “λοπεύειν, λοπίζω” “skin”) would suit the humour of the hymn; but a word of such suggestions could not have been used by Aeschylus unless he was ignorant of its original meaning. Prellwitz s.v. suggests “ὄρνυμι” and “ὀλόπτω”; see also Fröhde B. B. xx. p. 222 who compares the German verran, wirren.

311 = 277 with slight variation. Epic usage would prefer an exact verbal repetition, but later poets are careless of the rule; Gemoll compares 264, 364.

[313] διαρρ́ηδηΝ, “expressly,” elsewhere, apparently, only found in Attic prose.

ἐρέεινον, “questioned,” has been suspected, but is better than Schneidewin's “ἐρίδαινον”, which does not suit “διαρρήδην”. There is no real difficulty: Apollo and Hermes had “questioned” one another explicitly. Perhaps, however, the writer uses the word vaguely in the sense of “speak.” The verb occurs in the hymn with several shades of meaning: “ἐξερέεινε μυχούς” 252 “explored,” “ἐξερεείνῃ 483, ἐρεείνῃ” 487 “questioned,” “made trial of” the lyre, “ἐξερεείνειν” 547 “question” the prophetic art.

[314] οἰοπόλος: by anticipation; Hermes is to be a shepherd-god; cf. 570 f. Matthiae's explanation “dwelling alone” (of a thief) is quite impossible.

Gemoll makes the apodosis begin at this line (reading “φωνῶν” 315). This is almost certainly wrong; the line clearly contains the subject of “ἐρέεινον”; there is a parenthesis in “ μέν κτλ.” (315), and the apodosis is marked by “δὴ ἔπειτα” (320), after an epanalepsis “αὐτὰρ ἐπεί” (319).

[315] φων́ην: the words as handed down give no connexion; hence “φωνὴν” has been altered to “φωνῶν, φωνεῖν, φωνῇ” (“νημερτέϊ”), none of which would have readily passed into “φωνήν”, In Goodwin's edition, “φωρήν” was conjectured, on the analogy of 136, 385; this is a graphical change (“ρ”=“ν”), but it involves the construction “λάζυσθαι Ἑρμῆν φωρήν” “convict Hermes of a clear theft,” which can hardly be defended by the Attic “ἑλεῖν τινά τι”. It is also an argument against “φωρήν” that in 385 M (which here reads “φωνήν”) has “φωρήν” uncorrupted. Tyrrell accepts “φωρήν”, with Baumeister's “ἐκδεδαώς”, for “οὐκ ἀδίκως”; but the latter is not to be disturbed. The alternative therefore seems to be a lacuna of one line, and this is made probable (1) by the excellent sense of “νημερτέα φωνήν”, “a true utterance,” opposed to “αἱμυλίοισι λόγοισι”; (2) by the homoeoteleuton between 315, 316. The lacuna will then have contained a participle (e.g. “ἱείς”) governing “φωνήν”.

[316] οὐκ ἀδίκως: prosaic; see Introd. p. 134. ἐΠὶ βουσὶν ἐλάζυτο, “was haling Hermes for (on account of) the cows.” “ἐπί” here expresses the cause or occasion; commonly “ἐπὶ βουσί” would mean “in charge of cattle”; cf. 200, 556, 571, Od. 20.209 etc.

[322] On the variants see J. H. S. xv. p. 311 f. It may be doubted whether “τέρθρον” and “κήρηνα” are due to independent reciters, or whether “κάρηνα” is a gloss on the comparatively rare “τέρθρον”. The word (which is generally a nautical term) is not elsewhere used as a mountain-top, but it is equivalent to “τέρμα” in Eur. fr. 372 (cf. Erotian Gl. Hipp. p. 366 “τέρθρον γὰρ ἔλεγον οἱ παλαιοὶ τὸ ἔσχατον καὶ ἐπὶ τέλει”); so of the tip of a nose, Emped. 346.

θυώδεος Οὐλύμποιο=h. Dem. 331 (where see note), and cf. supra 231.

[324] δίκης κατέκειτο τάλαντα, “the scales of justice were set”; cf. Bacchyl.xvii. 25δίκας ῥέπει τάλαντον”, Aesch. Ag.250δίκα ἐπιρρέπει”, Anth. Pal. vi. 267. 4 “ἐκ Διὸς ἰθείης οἶδε τάλαντα δίκης”. In Homer Zeus balances the scales of destiny; Il. 8.69, Π 68, Τ223, Χ” 209. With the language of the present passage the editors compare Il. 18.507 f. “κεῖτο δ᾽ ἄρ᾽ ἐν μέσσοισι δύω χρυσοῖο τάλαντα”,

τῷ δόμεν ὃς μετὰ τοῖσι δίκην ἰθύντατα εἴποι”, where the reference is to talents of gold, probably deposited as a court fee (see Leaf ad loc.). Ridgeway (J. P. xvii. 1888, p. 111) argues that in this hymn also the “τάλαντα” are “talents” (not “scales”) deposited with Zeus as judge. In that case the expression would be metaphorical, for Apollo and Hermes have of course deposited no fees. But it is far more probable that the hymnwriter, while possibly imitating the language of Il. 5.507, either misunderstood or consciously perverted the meaning of “τάλαντα” there; he was, no doubt, familiar with the other sense of the word=scales.

[325] The word “εὐμιλίη” or “εὐμυλίη” is not known to exist; in J. H. S. xvii. p. 261, the latter form was defended, as probably connected with “μὺ μῦ Eq.10, “μυλιόωντεςHes. Op.530.μύω μοιμύλλω” etc., of a muttering sound produced by closing the lips. The sense suggested was “a pleasant hum,” which, however, does not seem particularly suited to the present context. Pending the production of fresh evidence, another attempt may be made to derive the word. “ὅμιλος”, formerly connected with “ὁμός”, is now divided “ὅ-μιλ-ος”, as cognate with Sanscr. milati, Lat. miles, mille (Johansson I. F. ii. 34 n., Fick Wörterbuch^{4} i. 177, 723, iv. 235, Stokes B. B. xi. 293, Petr B. B. xxv. 143). From the same stem a formation “εὐμιλία” would not be impossible, and the sense “good fellowship” or merely “company” would be equivalent to “ἠγερέθοντο” in the next line. For the metre cf. Anth. Pal. ix. 573 “κλαιωμιλίη” and “γελοωμιλίη”. This attempt preserves the spelling of M, as the derivation from “μύλλω”, etc., that of the other MSS. Either meaning seems in accordance with the light tone of the scene, which D'Orville recognised by conjecturing “στωμυλίη”. On the other hand, if there is corruption, no emendation commands assent; of the conjectures, those which depart from the letters of the MSS. are too violent, while those that resemble them (“εὐμελίη ἐμμελίη”) do not account for the loss of such familiar words. A rare word is required, and perhaps “εὐκηλίη” satisfies the conditions (the confusion of “κ” and “μ” is common in minuscules). This would involve a rare synizesis, which may have helped the corruption. “εὐκηλία” is attested by Hesychius, and the sense is excellent: the “quiet” of dawn held Olympus— zeus was not thundering. Cf. Theocr. ii. 166εὐκήλοιο νυκτός”, “stilly night”; and for the stillness of a mountain, Callim. h. v.72μεσαμβρινὰ δ᾽ εἷχ᾽ ὄρος ἁσυχία”; ib. 74.

[326] ἄφθιτοι: this cannot be quasiadverbial, as “ἀδμῆτες δ᾽ ἵκανον” 103, for the word makes nonsense if joined closely with “ἠγερέθοντο”. Hence Groddeck's “ἀθρόοι” has been generally accepted; cf. Od. 2.392, ω” 468. But there is no great difficulty in taking “ἄφθιτοι” as an adjective with “ἀθάνατοι” (=“θεοί” as often), i.e. the deathless immortals. Gemoll compares “θνητοὶ βροτοί γ” 3.

μετὰ χρυσόερονον Ἠῶ: this seems preferable to the variant “ποτὶ πτύχας Οὐλύμποιο”, as Olympus has just been mentioned. The reading in the text seems to be a reminiscence of Il. 1.493 f., where the gods assemble on Olympus in the morning; cf. also Od. 5.1 f.

[331] φὺην κ́ηρυκος ἔχοντα: how the infant Hermes had “the look of a herald” is not clear; there can be no allusion to Hermes' speed, as Baumeister supposes. Probably the hymn-writer is merely anticipating the later functions of Hermes as “κῆρυξ”; cf. on “οἰοπόλος” 314.

[332] σπουδαῖον τόδε χρ̂ημα: ironical “a serious matter,” or “a fine thing,” rather than “a costly booty” as Gemoll understands. The adjective is not Homeric.

[334] οὐκ ἀλαπαδνόν: with “σθένος Ε” 783 etc., but not in Homer as epithet of “μῦθος”.

[335] φιλολ́ηϊος: no doubt with special reference to the wealth of Delphi. Baumeister compares Lycophr. 208 “Δελφινίου παρ᾽ ἄντρα κερδῴου θεοῦ”. Apollo's love of gain appears in 495, see also 179; in 549 the idea is probably different.

[336] διαπρύσιον: the proper meaning appears to be “piercing,” “penetrating.” The sense suits h. Aphr. 19, of a piercing noise; cf. “διάτορος”, and the adverb “διαπρύσιον” in Homer, who does not use the adjective. Here the word is applied to a robber; cf. 178 “ἀντιτορήσων, 283 ἀντιτοροῦντα δόμους”. Voss's translation “manifest” is unlikely.

[337] “Πολύν κτλ.”: cf. Hes. Op.635πολὺν διὰ πόντον ἀνύσσας”.

[338] κέρτομον: first in Hes. Op.788, for the Homeric “κερτόμιον”. The word is needlessly suspected here; the meaning may well be “cheating,” “tricky,” as in Eur. Alc.1128(other exx. in L. and S. ), or rather, perhaps, “cheeky.”

[339] λησίμβροτον: only here, on the analogy of “τερψίμβροτος”.

Γαῖαν: the accusative is to be retained; it is not uncommon with “ἐπί”, chiefly in the Odyssey, without any idea of motion; cf. Od. 4.417, η 382, ρ 386, ψ” 371, H. G. § 199. 4.

[342] εὐεύ: first here, for the Homeric “ἰθύ”; cf. 355 “εἰς Πύλον εὐθὺς ἐλῶντα”, which confirms “Πύλονδ̓” in this line.

δοιά: Barnes' conjecture (usually accepted) rests upon 349, but there, and in 225, “τοῖα” has not been corrupted. In J. H. S. xv. p. 265 “δῖα” was proposed; there is, however, no good reason why “δοιά” should not be accepted. The reading of p (“δϊα”) may be paralleled by Od. 4.526, where one MS. has “διά” for “δοιά”. The sense is “there were double footprints, wonderful,” i.e. those of the cows (“μέν” 344), and of Hermes (“δ̓” 346). This was the view of Hermann and Schneidewin. The “ἴχνια” are therefore the footprints of both Hermes and the cows; Gemoll's remark, that “πέλωρα” is only applied to the tracks of Hermes, prejudges the question.

345, 346. The construction is intricate, and there is some probability in Schneidewin's lacuna; he conjectures “ἴχνἰ ἀπέστραπτο” in the missing line (cf. 76). But the passage may be translated as it stands: the dative “τῇσιν βουσίν” is “ethic,” loosely equivalent to the genitive, but rather belonging to the whole sentence than to “βήματα” (see Goodwin G. G. § 184. 5): “As for the cows, the black dust held and shewed their footprints facing towards the meadow,” i.e. the pasture from which they had been stolen; cf. 221 “πάλιν τέτραπται ἐς ἀσφοδελὸν λειμῶνα”. The construction “ἀντία ἐς” is unique, for Od. 17.333 is no parallel, but cf. “ἐναντίον πρόςPlat. Phaed. 60 B and “ἄχρι, πέραν εἰς” (“ἄχρι” and “πέραν” with gen. are analogous to “ἀντίος” with dat.); possibly the meaning is not simply “facing towards,” but “reversed, in the direction of.” Cf. 77 “ἀντία ποιήσας ὁπλάς”, “reversing the feet.” On “κόνι_ς” see Schweizer I. F. x. 205 n.

[346] Since neither “ἑκτός” sixth, “ἑκτός” from “ἔχω”, nor “ἐκτός” (=“outsider,” Aristoph. and Plato) can be entertained, and a connexion with “ἐχθός” = “ἐχθρός” (Wackernagel K. Z. xxxiii. 40, 41) is improbable, Bothe's “ δεκτός” seems the slightest and most satisfactory correction. “δεκτός” appears not to be found before the N. T. (see Stephanus), and is always passive (as Bothe intended it). That verbals of deponents may be active, however, appears from the exx. in K. B. ii. 289 (“μεμπτός, δυνατός, φθεγκτός, πλανητός, λωβητός”). “δεκτός” may mean either “receptive,” sc. thievish (as “δέκτης” of a beggar, Od. 4.248), or “watcher” in the sense of “πυληδόκος”; cf. on 15.

In sense some compound of “ὁδός” (= “ὅδιος, ἐνόδιος”) would be acceptable, but “ὁδαῖος” (Ludwich) and “ὁδουρός” are too far from the tradition. A negative adjective also to balance “ἀμήχανος” might be thought possible; this is given by Hermann's “ἄϊκτος” (=“ἀπρόσιτος” Hesych.), but the resemblance is slight.

[348] διέτριβε: according to Gemoll this refers to the trailing or “rubbing” tracks of Hermes: it is more probably to be explained by “τρίβος”, a “beaten” track. For the short vowel before “τρ” see La Roche Homer. Unters. i. p. 9; cf. “ἀπέκρυψε” 394.

[349] τοῖα Πέλωῤ: either agreeing with “κέλευθα”, or an accusative defining the whole expression “διέτριβε κέλευθα”= “βαίνει”; the latter view is supported by 225 “τοῖα πέλωρα βιβᾷ”.

δρυσί: the instrumental dative is as good as “ποσσίν” and “χερσίν” in 346, 347. For similar datives cf. Il. 12.207 πέτετο πνοιῇς ἀνέμοιο”, Solon xi. 5 “ἀλώπεκος ἴχνεσι βαίνει”. The editors explain “δρυσί” as oak-branches, for which there is no parallel. This translation also neglects the force of “ἀραιῇσι”, which is not otiose: Hermes seemed to be walking on “young trees.” As a matter of fact, he had used “ὄζοι”, branches (81); but Apollo did not know the details.

352, 353. The repetition of στίβον and στίβος seems inelegant, but the hymnwriter is careless on this matter; cf. the repetitions in 340, 342 (“ἐλαύνων, ἐλάων”), 365 (“ἄῤ” twice), 385 (“ποτ̓, ποτέ”) 398, 400 (“ἷξον, ἐξίκοντο”), and see further on 424. “στίβος” must mean “path” in 352, “footprints” in 353; so “ἐπ᾽ ἀριστερά” is used in different contexts 418, 424.

[354] κρατερόν: not elsewhere of hard ground; but Ilgen compares Od. 23.46 κραταίπεδον οὖδας”.

[356] κατέερξε: this reading is right, as Apollo did not know that any cows had been killed (“κατέρεξε”); for the confusion cf. Il. 5.650 ἔρξαντα ῥέξαντα, Ι 535 ἔρξ᾽ ἔρεξ᾽ ῥέξ̓”.

[357] διαπυρπαλάμησεν, “juggled.” Ilgen's correction is certain, and should have been recognised by L. and S. , although the compound verb is elsewhere unknown. Eustathius 513. 30 has “πυρπαλαμᾶσθαι: κακοτεχνεῖν καὶ οἷον διὰ πυρὸς ἰέναι τῇ κακοτεχνίᾳ”. (The explanation is no doubt wrong; Ilgen sees an allusion to juggling with torches, which may be correct; cf. Archil. fr. 87.) Photius and Suidas preserve a substantive “πυρπαλάμης”, explaining “ ταχέως τι ἐπινοῶν καὶ παλαμώμενος ἴσα τῷ πυρί”. Hesychius attests an adjective “πυρπάλαμος”. For similar disintegrations of rare words cf. Hippocr. Mochl.11καταναισιμοῦται” (Galen, Erotian) “κατατεινε: σιμοῦται” etc. MSS., Hipp. 638. 42ἰσεννύουσι” (Galen, lexx.) “ἴσαι νῦν ἔουσαι” MSS. The excellence of M is clearly demonstrated in this line.

ὁδοῦ τὸ μέν κτλ.”: cf. 226.

[358] μελαίνͅη Νυκτὶ ἐοικώς: i.e. invisible; cf. Il. 1.47.

[360] λάων: only here in the sense of “βλέπων”; but Hesychius recognises another (lost) passage: “λάετε: σκοπεῖτε, βλέπετε”. Cf. “ἀλαός”. In Il. 19.229, 230 λάω” can hardly bear this sense but must rather mean “seize,” “grip.” Possibly the hymn-writer may have misinterpreted the Homeric passage; more probably a verb “λάω” was used in both senses, which might be derived from the root “λα” (“λαβεῖν” etc.). Aristarchus explained the verb in Homer by “ἀπολαυστικῶς ἔχων”, “devouring,” as usual neglecting the hymn.

[361] ὠμόργαζε: a brilliant emendation. The form does not recur, but for the radical verb (in the same context) cf. Od. 18.199 τὴν δὲ γλυκὺς ὕπνος ἀνῆκε, καί ῤ̔ ἀπομόρξατο χερσὶ παρειάς”. Baumeister notes that “αὐγαί” for “eyes” is elsewhere first found in Attic tragedy.

ἀλεγύνων: the reading is settled by “ἀγλαΐας ἀλέγυνε” 476; for the variants cf. 85, 557. In Homer “ἀλεγύνειν” is found only in the Odyssey, of preparing a meal.

[362] ἀΠηλεγέως ἀΓόρευεν: cf. Il. 9.309, α” 373. The old derivation of “ἀπηλεγέως” from “ἀπό” and “ἀλέγω”, “outright,” “bluntly,” seems still to obtain.

[365] For the repetition of “ἄρα” Hermann compares Od. 16.213, a very similar passage.

[366] On the alternatives see Hollander p. 26, J. H. S. xv. p. 302. There is no peculiarity in either version to give it a distinct preference. ἄλλον μῦθον, “another story,” i.e. his account of the affair.

[367] δείξατο δ᾽ εις Κρονίωνα, “pointed to Zeus” to call his attention; the gesture, as Gemoll remarks, shews Hermes' audacity, and perhaps the feigned simplicity of childhood. Baumeister's translation ad Iovem convertit orationem cannot be right; Il. 19.83 ἐνδείξομαι” is different. θεῶν σημάντορα Πάντων: so Scut. 56.

[369] Νημερτ́ης: Gemoll repeats Greve's erroneous statement that this word is only applied to things, not persons, in Homer. It is a constant epithet of Proteus, Od. 4.349, 384 etc., and of Nereus in Theog. 235.

[370] Ἦλθεν: the omission of the subject may be intentionally naive (Gemoll), but it is perhaps rather meant as an open discourtesy; Hermes refuses to utter Apollo's name throughout his speech.

ἐς Ἡμετέρου: the genitive in this expression occurs, with varying manuscript support, in Od. 2.55, η 301, ρ” 534. The scholia note the reading, which was that of Aristarchus (see La Roche on Od. 2.55). The genitive is also given by the MSS. in Herod.i. 35Herod., vii. 8.It is no doubt due to the false analogy of “εἰς” “πατρός” etc. Many editors read “ἡμέτερον” in the Odyssey; it is quite possible that the accusative is origiual in Homer, and that the genitive may have become idiomatic by the time of the hymn-writer and Herodotus.

[373] μηΝύειν: on the quantity of “υ_” see Schulze Q. E. p. 340.

[375] φιλοκυδέος: only here and in 481, “loving glory,” “splendid.” The line may be a reminiscence of Theog. 988 “τέρεν ἄνθος ἔχοντ᾽ ἐρικυδέος ἥβης”, but this is no justification for Schneidewin's violent “ἐρικυδέος” here.

[378] “Πατ́ηρ κτλ.”: a parody of the epic “υἱὸς . . . εὔχομαι εἷναι” (Gemoll).

[379] The abruptness of the construction quite suits Hermes' parenthetic style.

ὡς . . . ἔλασσα . . . ἔβηΝ: dependent on “πείθεο, ὣς ὄλβιος εἴην” being interjectional, “so may I prosper.” Hermann unaccountably ejects 379-381, although the whole passage is full of humour. Before Apollo, Hermes did not scruple to perjure himself freely (cf. 263 f., 309 f.); but in the presence of Zeus, his words are literally true, as the editors note: he did not drive the cows home, but to a cave; nor did he step across the threshold on his return journey, but passed through the keyhole.

[381] There is irony in the mention of Helios. Hermes pretends to respect the Sun who sees all things; but the Sun had set when he started, and did not rise until he had returned. There is a further covert allusion to the night-time, in which Hermes loves to thieve (15, 67, 578). Gemoll quotes Hes. Op.607ἡμερόκοιτος ἀνήρ”.

[383] †ἐΠιδαίομαι: this and “ἐπιδεύομαι” are certainly corrupt, and point to an older corruption “ἐπὶ δέομαι”; Barnes' conjecture, “ἐπιδώσομαι”, is too familiar to be mutilated, apart from the fact that the sense of the verb in Il. 22.234 θεοὺς ἐπιδώμεθα” is doubtful; Herwerden's “ἐπιμαίομαι” is not used in the connexion. The suggestion in J. H. S. xv. p. 291 that the original here was “μέγαν δ᾽ ἐπὶ ὅρκον ὁμοῦμαι” may still hold: if “ὅρκον” was once displaced, and added at the end of the line, “δεπιομουμαι ορκον” might give a corruption out of which “δ᾽ ἐπιδέομαι ὅρκον” might arise; such transpositions are frequent; see J. H. S. l.c.

[384] The “great oath” which Hermes swears “by the door” must have some special propriety; according to Bau meister, Hermes swears as “ἀγυιεύς” or “προπύλαιος”. Whatever the ostensible significance, there is no doubt a cryptic allusion to Hermes “πυληδόκος” (see on 15).

[385] καί, which has been suspected, is in character: 385 is an addition, after Hermes has taken his oath.

Ποτ᾽ . . . Ποτέ: the repetition is not more offensive than that of “ἄρα” in 365, and can be justified by the emphasis of the threat “some day—I say—some day.” It is possible, but unlikely, that “ποτ̓” is for “ποτί”, and the elision another Aeolism, like “περ᾽ ἰγνύσι 152; καὶ ποτί” would be for “καὶ πρός” in prose, “ποτὶ δέ” and “ποτὶ δ᾽ αὖ” in Homer, “ποτὶ καί” in Hippocrates e.g. “περὶ ἄρθρων ἐμβολῆς” 97, 247, 286. Or, again, M's “ποτὶ νηλέα” may be right,=“πρός” adverbial, if the preceding “ποτ̓” is for “ποτε”. In any case Hermann's “που”, though appropriate to a threat, and an easy change, is not required.

φωρ́ην: for the accent see Schneider on Nicand. Alex. 273. Cf. Hesych. “φωρᾶν τὸ τὰ κλεψιμαῖα ζητεῖν καὶ φωριᾶν: φώραν δὲ τὴν ἔρευναν”. “Some day I will pay him out for his pitiless search.” There may be here also a hidden meaning as Gemoll suggests: “I will pay him with a pitiless theft” (cf. the use of “φωρή” in 136).

[387] ἐΠιλλίζων: in Od. 18.11 οὐκ ἀΐεις ὅτι δή μοι ἐπιλλίζουσιν ἅπαντες” the verb= “make sidelong glances at a person” (cf. “ἰλλός” “squinting”), with a further idea of “hinting.” So here also Hermes probably “winks” or “leers” at Zeus to enlist his support. In Apoll. Arg. 1.486, Γ” 791, the action is an insult (Matthiae). Cf. Anth. Pal. v. 199. 3 “θῆλυ κατιλλώπτοντι Πριήπῳ”, “leering at,” and other compounds of “ἰλλώπτω”.

[391] ὁμόφρονα θυμὸν ἔχοντας: cf. Il. 22.263, h. Dem. 434, Theogn. 81, 765; a formulaic ending.

[392] διάκτορον: Solmsen I. F. iii. 90 ff. connects this epithet with “κτέρεα, κτερίζω”, etc., in the sense of “giver,” “dispenser.” For other views see Oestergaard Hermes, 1902, p. 333, Cook Class. Rev. 1903, p. 177.

[393] ἐΠ᾽ ἀβλαβίͅησι Νόοιο, “in all innocence of heart,” without guile. The commentators quote Cic. Tusc.iii. 8. 16, where “ἀβλάβεια” is given as the nearest equivalent of innocentia; “Ἀβλαβίαι” are personified, inscr. Dittenberger Syll. 600. 68. The adjective “ἀβλαβής”=“innocent” is more common in this sense. “ἐπί” may imply the purpose (ut animum insontem habeat, Franke, Ebeling), as in 524; but it seems rather to indicate present circumstances, “in,” so that the expression=“ἀβλαβῶς”, bona fide.

[394] δ̀η αὖτ̓ (“δ᾽ αὖτ̓”); see Leaf on Il. 1.340, and for the crasis or elision H. G. § 350. “αὖτε” here emphasises the question: “ποῦ δὴ αὖτ᾽ ἀπέκρυψας” “where have you hidden now?”

ἀΠέκρυψε: for the quantity of the second syllable cf. “ἐνέκρυψε ε” 488; H. G. § 370, and n. on 348.

[400] Ἡχοῦ: this form (=Attic “ὅπου”) is restored by Fick (B. B. xxii. p. 271), who compares “ἡχοῖ” in an inscription of Oropus (“Ἐφ. ἀρχ”. 1885 p. 93, C. I. Gr. Sept. i. 235, Dittenberger Syll. 589); see Smyth Ionic § 716, Hoffmann p. 16, Herwerden Lex. Supp. s.v. “ἡχοῖ”, Solmsen inscr. graec. dial. 1903, p. 95. The inscr., according to Fick, is in the Eretrian dialect, but the form may be local, and its presence in the hymn may be added to the argument for Boeotian authorship (see also on 255).

The previous emendations either depart from the tradition or, as Matthiae, suppose a double relative (“ᾗχ᾽ οὗ”). Ludwich's “ἧχι ἅδην” and Gemoll's “ὦχ̓” are better, but “ὦκα” is distinctly weak.

χρ́ηματ̓, “chattels,” is remarkable for “beasts” in this context, but need not be suspected. If any emendation were required, “κτήνἐ” might be suggested (cf. xxx. 10); the word is sufficiently rare to admit a gloss “χρήματα”. So Hesychius “κτήνεα: χρήματα, βοσκήματα”.

[401] κιω<*>Ν Παρά: Hermes “went to” the cave, and drove out the cattle. The expression is loose, whether we read “παρά” or “ἐς”, as Hermes obviously entered the cave. Franke's explanation that he stood at the mouth of the cave (solent enim boves apertis stabuli valvis, nisi vinculis retinentur, ultro exire) seems over-subtle.

[403] ἀΠάτερθεν, “apart,” i.e. the hides were outside the cave. For the confusion of this word with “ἀπάνευθεν” (M) cf. Il. 5.545.

[405] ἐδύνω: not elsewhere in epic.

[406] αὐτός is as sound here as in 234, where see note.

[407] θαυμαίνω: this seems original, for even with Stephanus' alteration “δειμαίνω, κατόπισθε” must mean “for the future.” The verb occurs in Od. 8.108, h. Aphr. 84.

[409] Here, as Baumeister saw, a lacuna is imperatively required, for “ταί” cannot possibly have an antecedent “δεσμὰ ἄγνου”. A line must have fallen out containing a plural feminine substantive, and referring to some plant (cf. 410, 411), with which Apollo prepares to bind Hermes, either as a punishment for the theft, or in order to prevent further mischief. (The view that Apollo intended to bind the cows is most improbable.) The missing substantive may have been “λύγοι”, which denote the pliant twigs of the “ἄγνος”, agnus castus (Dioscor. i. 136); cf. Il. 11.105, ι 417, κ” 166, h. Dion. vii. 13. The apparent sense may be expressed by a line such as “ἐνδῆσαι μεμαὼς Ἑρμῆν κρατεραῖσι λύγοισι”. It seems necessary, however, to suppose a further loss; for the lacuna should contain a fuller description of Apollo's attempt to bind Hermes, and of the way in which Hermes extricated himself from the withies. A miracle then took place, “Ἑρμέω βουλῇσι”: the withies, as soon as they touched ground (“αἶψα”), rooted on the spot, and multiplied into a thick interlacing grove (“ἐμβολάδην”), which covered the cows (or, perhaps, as D'Orville thought J. P. xxv. 255, entangled their feet).

[411] ἐμβολάδηΝ: with “ἀλλήλῃσι”, “turned to fit into one another,” as if grafted on one another. For the idea of grafting cf. L. and S. , “ἐμβάλλω, ἐμβολάς, ἔμβολος”. The adverb does not elsewhere occur, but is doubtless original, as “ἀμβολάδην” (426) gives no good sense here, and would leave “ἀλλήλῃσι” without construction.

[412] ῥεῖά τε καὶ Πάσιησιν: for “τε καί” coupling an adverb with an adjective Gemoll quotes Theog. 86 “ δ᾽ ἀσφαλέως ἀγορεύων

αἶψά τε καὶ μέγα νεῖκος ἐπισταμένως κατέπαυσε”.

[413] Gemoll places a lacuna after this line; but this is unnecessary, as the sense seems complete from 410 to 415.

[414] θαύμασεν: in Homer the imperfect takes the place of this aorist.

[415] Here again Baumeister's lacuna is justified, for (1) Hermes' action in 415 has no assignable motive; (2) “ἐγκρύψαι” requires an object; (3) some mention of Hermes' lyre is wanted, to explain “ἐπρήϋνεν” in 417, and to provide an object to “λαβών” in 418. What Hermes wished to hide can hardly be discovered; it cannot have been the cows or the skins, which Apollo had seen, nor the cooked meat, which was unimportant when the slaughter of two cows had been admitted. He may have tried to conceal himself, or (as Gemoll thinks) his lyre. It might be suggested that Hermes enchanted the “δεσμά” with his lyre, like Orpheus, and then looked for a place to hide it in; a lacuna to contain a mention of the lyre will still be required after 415.

ὑΠοβλ́ηδηΝ: apparently “askance”; in Il. 1.292 it seems to mean “interrupting.”

Πῦρ ἀμαρύσσων: cf. Theog. 827 “ὑπ᾽ ὀφρύσι πῦρ ἀμάρυσσε”, Quintus viii. 28. “πύκν̓” (on the analogy of 278) is therefore needless.

[416] The schol. on Dion. Thrax (Bekker Anecd. i. p. 752), quoted by Gemoll, fancifully connects “λύρα” with “λύτρα”, adding “ἡνίκα δὲ τοῦ ἡλίου βοῦς κλέψαι ἠβουλήθη, καὶ διὰ τὸ μαντικὸν τοῦ θεοῦ οὐ δεδύνητο, ἀνελήφθη: εἰδὼς δὲ καὶ τοῦ θεοῦ τὸ μουσικὸν δέδωκεν ὑπὲρ ἑαυτοῦ τὴν λύραν λύτραν”. So Boisson. Anecd. iv. p. 459 (there derived from “λύτρον”), from Antiope (Dind. fr. 190) “λύρα βοῶν ῥύσα ἐξερρύσατο” (“λύρᾳ” and “ῥύσἰ” Boisson.).

[418] λαβών is no doubt sound; and as the lyre must have been mentioned after 415, no further expression of the object is here necessary (Baumeister and Ludwich, after Hermann, supply a line).

ἐΠ᾽ ἀριστερὰ χειρός=499; for the sense cf. “ἐπωλένιον” 433. The shell rests “on the arm,” “to the left of the hand” which holds it.

419, 420=53, 54, and, with variations, 501, 502. Line 420 resembles Od. 17.542 σμερδαλέον κονάβησε: γέλασσε δὲ Πηνελόπεια”.

[422] Gemoll should not have objected to this line; its omission by the MSS. (except M) is accidental. The collocation “ἰωὴ ἐνοπῆς” is not elsewhere found, but presents no difficulty, “sound of divine music.” For “ἵμερος”, passion roused by music, cf. Od. 23.144, and “ἱμερόεις” 452; so “ἔρος” 434.

[424] ἐΠ᾽ ἀριστερά: the repetition of this phrase in a different connexion from that of 418 is an example of the writer's carelessness; Baumeister points to the repetition of “κιθαρίζων 423, 425, 433, ἐγέραιρε” 429, 430. Add the recurrence of “ἐρατός” 421, 423, 426. Cf. on 352 f.

[426] ἀμβολάδηΝ: Baumeister translates intenta voce, “lifting up his voice”; cf. Il. 22.476 ἀμβλήδην γοόωσα”, and “ἀμβολάδην Φ” 364, of a seething cauldron. Others render “in a prelude,” comparing “ἀναβάλλεσθαι” in Od. 1.155, etc. (a sense derived from the primary meaning “strike-up”). The Homeric use of the adverb favours Baumeister's translation, butitis possible that the hymn-writer used the word in the other sense; Pindar Nem.x. 33 has “ἀμβολάδαν” apparently “in prelude” (see Bury ad loc.).

[427] κραίνων: the nominative is sound, as “ἐρατὴ δέ οἱ κτλ.” is parenthetic, but “κραίνειν” in this connexion is remarkable. Hesychius explains “κραίνειν” by “τιμᾶν”, following which Maurophrydes in K. Z. vii. 346 gives the sense of “honour in song” definitely to the word here, as in 531 (“ἐπικραίνουσα”) and 559. This may be doubted, but the writer appears to use the word in an unusual sense both here and in 559, probably for “ἀείδων”. The use of the word in Empedocles 462, 3 (Mullach) might suit this sense: “φάρμακα δ᾽ ὅσσα γεγᾶσι κακῶν καὶ γήραος ἄλκαρ

πεύσῃ, ἐπεὶ μούνῳ σοι ἐγὼ κρανέω τάδε πάντα”; and there is a possible ambiguity in Eur. Ion464(compared with 559 of this hymn). See the discussion in Ebeling s.v. The explanation in L. and S. “finish the tale of” is not suited to the context.
Γαῖαν ἐρεμν́ην: Hermes may have begun his song with a cosmogony (cf. Theog. 1-21, Apoll. Arg. 1.496 f., Verg. 31 f.), but the simple mention of “γαῖα”, without “οὐρανός” and “θάλασσα”, hardly implies this. Gemoll prefers to see a reference to the honour paid to the gods on earth. For the language cf. “ἐρεμνὴν γαῖαν ω” 106, where the epithet is more in place, of the underworld.

[429] ΜνΗμοσύνΗν: cf. Theog. 52 f.

[430] λάχε, “was assigned to Hermes” as patron-deity. For the form of expression cf. Il. 23.79 (of the fate assigned to a man at birth), Pind. Ol.viii. 15, Ar. Eccl.999, Theocr. iv. 40, Apoll. Arg. 2.258, Callim. h. Apoll. 45. So in prose, Plato Phaed.107D, Rep.617E, Lysias ii. 78.

[431] κατὰ Πρέσβιν: so Plato Leg. 855 Dκατὰ πρέσβιν ἱζέσθω” (Matthiae). On the word see Johansson K. Z. xxx. 404 n. 2.

[436] βουφόνε: first in this place, although the verb “βουφόνεον” occurs Il. 7.466. The compound no doubt originally expressed the sanctity of oxen in early times (“φόνος”=murder); cf. the “βουφόνια” at Athens, in which the priest was called “ βουφόνος” (see Frazer on Paus.i. 24. 4). But in the Homeric passage the idea of “murder” seems to have disappeared from the verb (see Leaf ad loc.), and here also the substantive (“ox-killer”) has probably lost its early significance, which at Athens might be preserved until the latest times by the familiar local ritual. Even at Athens, however, the adjective “βουφόνος” could be used with no invidious meaning; P. V. 531 “θοίναις βουφόνοις”, quoted by Leaf. See supra 132.

μηχανιῶτα: (only here) formed like “ἀγγελιώτην 296, σπαργανιῶτα 301, εἰραφιῶταh. Dion. 1.2, 17, 20, “χαριδῶτα” xviii. 12, and others.

Πονεύμενε: generally thought corrupt, but perhaps with insufficient reason. The part. may be taken in a quasisubstantival sense, “busy one,” a use which seems justified in hymnal style, among attributes. Cf. Orph. h. 14. 8 “ὀβριμόθυμε”,

ψευδομένη, σώτειρα κτλ.”, ib. 51. 7 “φαινόμεναι, ἀφανεῖς”=55. 10. If these analogies are insufficient, it would be possible to join the part. closely with “μηχανιῶτα”, adjectivally: “busy trickster.” The sense is quite suitable. Schneidewin s “πολεύμενε” is graphically possible (“ν” and “λ” are interchanged Il. 16.726, h. Aphr. 20 etc.), and might be accepted, if combined with “μηχανιῶτα”, “ranging trickster”; but the same commentator's “νυκτός” should not expel “δαιτός”; Hermes is “comrade of the banquet,” as the inventor of the lyre, which is “δαιτὸς ἑταίρη” 31.
The objection to Waardenberg's conjecture “μηχανέων ἀπονήμενε” (made independently by Tyrrell) is that it does not account for the existence of the rare but correctly-formed “μηχανιῶτα”.

[437] “Πεντ́ηκοντα βοῶν κτλ.”: Apollo indirectly proposes an exchange of prerogatives; see on 464.

μέμηλας: the construction of “μέλω” with an accusative (even cognate) is unique, but none of the corrections suggested can be entertained. The passive participle is found (“μεληθένAnth. Pal. v. 200, 3, where however “μελισθέν” or “μελίθρουν” are suggested), and the active with an object accusative may be an extension of the passive.

[440] ἐκ Γενετ̂ης: so M rightly; Hermann compares Il. 24.535, ς” 6. Add (for prose) Aristot. Eth. Nic. vi. 13. 1.

[443] Νέηφατος: only here; cf. “παλαίφατος”.

[447] μοῦσα ἀμηχανέων μελεδώνων: the hiatus may stand in the trochaic caesura of the third foot; Eberhard Metr. Beob. ii. p. 10, H. G. § 382. For μοῦσα=song, cf. h. Pan 15, and in tragedy. The genitive is objective, as Franke explains, “a song for (against) cares.” Cf. Eur. Tro.609μοῦσά θ᾽ λύπας ἔχει. ἀμηχανέων” may come from “ἀμηχανής”, which is elsewhere unknown, but is more probably feminine from “ἀμήχανος”, a poetical exception to the general rule of two terminations in adjectives of this class. The exceptions are numerous in Homer, who uses a feminine termination for the following adjectives compounded with “α” privative: “ἄβροτος, ἀεικέλιος, ἀθάνατος, ἄνιπτος” (so Zenodotus on Il. 6.266), “ἀπειρέσιος, ἄσβεστος”. Hesiod has “ἀκαμάτη”; for the hymns cf. h. Aphr. 133. For μελεδώνων cf. h. Apoll. 532, and for the sentiment Theog. 55, Cypria fr. 10. The conjectures are violent.

[448] τρίβος: not in Homer, nor elsewhere found in connexion with music; “path of song,” like “οἶμος ἀοιδῆς 451. τριβή”, however, “knack” is common, and perhaps that is the sense here. Cf. of the body Hippocr. Mochl.41τὸ ἔθος τρίβον ποιεῖ”.

[449] ἔρωτα: the first indication of a nominative “ἔρως”=the Homeric “ἔρος”.

[450] According to the present hymn, Apollo and the Muses had known only the flute (452) until Hermes invented the lyre; in h. Apoll. 131 Apollo claims the lyre as his own in his childhood. According to a third version, Apollo and Hermes fought for the lyre; e.g. in a group at Helicon, Paus.ix. 30. 1(see B. C. H. xv. p. 399). For other representations of this version cf. Monumenti 1830, pl. ix. 2.

[451] οἶμος ἀοιδ̂ης: it is doubtful whether “ὕμνος ἀοιδῆς” (=Od. 8.429), should not be preferred; Ludwich (Homerica i. p. 6 n.) thinks that “οἶμος” is a phonetic corruption of “ὕμνος”. For the metaphor of “οἶμος” cf. 447 “τρίβος”, Pind. Ol.i. 110ὁδὸν λόγων”, Pind. Ol.ix. 51ἐπέων οἶμον λιγύν”, Callim. h. Zeus 78λύρης εὖ εἰδότας οἴμους”. The word is not found in Homer, who uses “οἴμη” “lay.”

[454] οἶα: for “ἐκείνων . ἐΝδέξια ἔργα”: in apposition to “οἷα”.

Νέων: wrongly altered by Gemoll and Herwerden to “θεῶν”; for the text cf. 55 “ἠυ?τεκοῦροι

ἡβηταὶ θαλίῃσι παραιβόλα κερτομέουσιν”,

οἷά τε πολλὰ νέοι παρὰ δαιτὶ καὶ οἴνῳ
τερπνῶς ἐψιόωνται

(see on 56), Chaerem. fr. 327θαλίαι τε νέων”. ἐΝδέξια, “clever,” only here in this sense. Homer uses only a neuter plural “ἐνδέξια”, always adverbially (in Il. 9.236 the word qualifies “ἀστράπτει”). The hymn-writer probably did not coin the adjective “ἐνδέξιος” (which occurs Eur. Hipp.1360, Eur. Cycl.6 for “on the right”), but he may have assigned to it the meaning “clever” on the analogy of “ἐπιδέξιος”. See on these words Darbishire Relliq. Phil. p. 67 f.

[456] οἶδας: here M has substituted the usual form; in 467 there is no variant. The Ionic “οἶδας” only once occurs in Homer, Od. 1.337 (Smyth Ionic § 702).

457-458. The two lines are preserved by M alone, but this is no sign of interpolation; the omission by other MSS. is probably due to the homoearchon in 456, 458.

[457] The verse is corrupt, and the uncertainty of the sense required makes emendation more difficult. ἷζε seems genuine, but “θυμὸν ἐπαίνει” cannot stand, and one or other of the two words must be emended. (1) In J. H. S. xvii. p. 265 “θυμὸν ἐπίαινε” was suggested: “sit (as a minstrel) and cheer the heart of your elders” (on Olympus). The synizesis “-ιαι-” might stand (cf. “Ἱστίαιαν Β 537, Αἰγυπτίας Ι 382, δ 83, Ἱστιαιεύς” in a Delian inscr. B. C. H. vi. 33 § 41, “ὑγιαίνειν” Athen. 694 F=Lucian pro laps. in salt. 6). But the last vowel would not be lengthened by position in the fourth foot; and “ἐπιαίνειν” (cf. 480) might therefore be suggested; the transition from imper. to infin. is abrupt, but may be justified by Il. 1.20 and Il. 3.459 ἔκδοτε καὶ τιμὴν ἀποτινέμεν”. Otherwise the sense is good: for “ἵζειν” “sit at the board” cf. Theogn. ap. Plat. Meno95D “καὶ παρὰ τοῖσιν πῖνε καὶ ἔσθιε καὶ μετὰ τοῖσιν

ἵζε καὶ ἅνδανε τοῖς ὧν μεγάλη δύναμις”. The compound “ἐπιαίνειν” is not elsewhere found, but the simple verb is common in this connexion; e.g. Od. 4.548, h. Dem. 435, Theocr. vii. 29θυμὸν ἴαινε” (of music), Bacchyl.xiii. 187 Bacchyl., xvii. 131.
(2) Ruhnken retained “ἐπαίνει”, with “μῦθον” for “θυμόν” (a neat metathesis; cf. 256), i.e. “sit (? as a pupil, or in submission; cf. in a game “ὄνος κάθου: ἐπὶ τῶν ἐν πράγματι ἡττωμένων” schol. Plat. Theaet. 146A) and respect the words of your elders.” Apollo, speaking with the gravity of an oracle, bids Hermes listen humbly. For the general “πρεσβυτέροισι” of a particular person cf. 386. But the conjecture is doubtful, as “ἐπαινεῖν τί τινι” is unknown, although it may be defended by Il. 2.335, Σ” 312 taken together.

[460] So Achilles swears by a sceptre, Il. 1.234. κρανέϊΝον”: this form appears to be correct; so Schulze Q. E. p. 253. Fick requires a form “κρανεαῖον” or “κρανέειον”. Cornel - wood was commonly used for bows and spears; see L. and S. s.v. “κράνεια, κρανέϊνος”. Apollo bears the spear (besides the bow) as a warrior, rather than as a herdsman, although Gemoll compares Od. 14.531 for the latter view; add Anth. Pal. vi. 177. 3 (Theocr. Ep. x.).

[461] Ἡγεμονεύσω: almost certainly corrupt; it is just possible that the writer used the verb as equivalent to “ἡγεῖσθαι”, in the post-Homeric sense of “deem,” ducere. There is indeed no parallel, but there are analogies (e.g. the probable misuse of “ἐνδέξια” 454), and the sense is fairly satisfactory. The conjectures are impossible, except Tyrrell's “ἡγέμον᾽ εἵσω”, but no future “εἵσω” is known, although “εἵσομαι” (intrans.) exists.

[464] Περιφραδές, “cunningly”; Apollo had only hinted his wish to obtain the lyre. Hermes, with equal cunning (“μύθοισιν κερδαλέοισιν”) insinuates a veiled request for the cattle while praising the lyre (Baumeister).

[468] θαάσσεις; no doubt correct, although “θοάσσεις” (M) is not a mere clerical error; the grammarians considered “θοάζειν” to be equivalent to “θαάσσειν” (Hesych. “θοάζει: κάθηται”, and schol. Suppl. 595, O. T. 2, Apoll. Arg. 2.1026). In 172 “θαασσέμεν”, and in Homer, there is no variant. Cf. Schulze Q. E. p. 434 f., who gives “θόϝακος” as the original form of “θῶκος” (Hesych. “θάβακος”).

[471] The older critics complicated this sentence by punctuating after “τιμάς” and “Ἑκάεργε”. This involved the change “γε” to “δέ”, and the omission of “θ̓”. But the whole sentence runs on after “φασι; τιμάς”=the ritual due to the gods, to explain which was one of the functions of the Delphic oracle. “Διὸς πάρα” repeats “ἐκ Διὸς ὀμφῆς” emphatically, and “θέσφατα πάντα” recapitulates the whole, in apposition as “θαύματα ἔργα” 80, 440, vii. 34, “ἐνδέξια ἔργα” 454. This is simpler than to make “Διὸς . . . πάντα” a gnome, whether “πάρα” or “γάρ” be read.

[473] The line as it stands is unmetrical. “παῖδ̓” must be corrupt. Neglecting this, we may translate “of which I myself have knowledge”; Hermes claims a share in some of Apollo's accomplishments, i.e. in music. Such a claim suits his bargaining character. For the gen. “τῶν” cf. Il. 21.487 εἰ δ᾽ ἐθέλεις πολέμοιο δαημέναι”; the other l. “καί” is also possible. For “παῖδ᾽ ἀφνειόν” we may read “πεδάφνειον”, Aeolic for “μετά”(“ι”)“φνειον”, “quickly”; Hermes is proud of his rapid progress since his birth. The word is preserved by Hesych. “μεταίφν”(“ε”)“ιος: ἐξαπίνης”. Cf. Hesiod Op.455ἀνὴρ φρένας ἀφνειός” “hasty,” see C. R. xi. p. 397. It is true that Aeolic “πεδ-”=“μετ-” nowhere occurs in Hesiod, but the working of dialectal influence on literature is essentially sporadic (cf. p. lxxiii); words beginning with “πεδ-” are frequent in Aeschylus, who also elides “περί” (see on 152). For inscriptions cf. Meister pp. 117, 284. Otherwise “ἐγώ σε” for “ἔγωγε” is easy, and is usually accepted. With this alteration, Tyrrell's “πεδ᾽ ἀφνειῶς” is ingenious (so “παιδόθεν” for “πεδόθεν” in many MSS. Od. 13.295, παιδίον” for “πεδίον” in MSS. of Hesych. s.v. “Ρ̓άριον”), though the construction is complicated. Hermann's “πανομφαῖον”, which has since been received, stands in no relation to “παῖδ᾽ ἀφνειόν”. In J. H. S. xvii. p. 266, “παῖ” for “παῖδ̓” was suggested, “δ̓” being presumably added to avoid the hiatus. But although Hermes calls Apollo “Διὸς κοῦρε” in 490, a curt vocative “παῖ” seems quite inappropriate to Apollo in the mouth of a child. With regard to the rest of the line, “τῶν . . . ἀφνειόν”, “wealthy in which,” seems (with the reading “ἐγώ σε”) quite sound, but it is possible that the writer used the postHomeric form “ἀφνεόν” (first in Theognis, Pindar and Bacchyl. ; the “α” is common in quantity). This would suggest that “παῖδ̓” is a gloss on the rare accusative “πάϊν” (Apoll. Arg. 4.697), the last syllable being lengthened by ictus: “wherein I myself know that thou wert rich, even as a boy.” Hermes naturally compares his own childhood with that of Apollo. For another probable gloss in this hymn cf. on 90.

[474] αὐτάγρετον: the editors compare Od. 16.148, where “αὐτάγρετα” means “taken of themselves,” “to be had for the taking” (Merry); so here “thou canst lay thy hand on any knowledge.”

[475] ἐΠιεύει: with infinitive, as in Il. 18.175, where see Leaf; Schulze Q. E. p. 340.

[477] δέγμενος: see on h. Dem. 29. κῦδος ὄπαζε: as promised by Apollo 461.

478, 479. As these lines stand in the MSS. (with “ἐπισταμένως”) there is no copula. Of Barnes' two suggestions, “ἐπισταμένην” is bad, and should not have been so generally accepted; “ἐπιστάμενος”, on the other hand, can be explained as due to a scribe who thought of correcting the metre. For the lengthening of the short syllable in Homer see H. G. § 375. In late epic there are examples in the fifth foot (as here) in Apoll. Arg. 1.725ἠέλιον ἀνίοντα”, 1361εὐρεῖαν ἐσιδέσθαι”.

Ludwich's transposition of “εὐμόλπει” and “εὔκηλος” (480, where he reads “φέρων”) is ingenious, but unmotived.

[480] φέρειν: infinitive for imperative; Baumeister compares Hes. Op.671εὔκηλος τότε νῆα θοὴν ἀνέμοισι πιθήσας


[481] φιλοκυδέα: as in 375; in both places the sense of “glorious” suits the context and can be extracted from the word without violence. κῶμον: not in Homer or Hesiod, but the latter has “κωμάζω” (Scut. 281).

[482] For the asyndeton see note on 151. This and the following lines continue the personification of the lyre (“ἑταίρην” 478).

[485] συνΗθείͅησιν: the word is probably original, although the sense is disputed; Baumeister understands “sweet societies,” but it is far preferable to render “gentle practice”=“τέχνῃ καὶ σοφίῃ”. The plural refers to continual and repeated practice, the adjective “μαλακῇσιν” to the soft touch on the strings.

ἀθυρομένΗ: almost certainly passive of the cognate construction, not middle; see on 151.

[486] ἐργασίηΝ φεύγουσα δύηπαθον: if “φεύγουσα” is sound, the meaning (as given in J. H. S. xvii. p. 266) must be “avoiding painful (sc. to the lyre= violent) labour”; i.e. the lyre does not respond to unscientific handling. The metaphor would be similar to Plat. Rep. 531Bἐξαρνήσεως καὶ ἀλαζονείας χορδῶν” (see Adam). We should, however, expect such an antithesis to be marked by “ἀθυρομένη μὲν . . . φεύγουσα δέ”; the two participles, as they stand, can hardly express a contrast. Moreover “ἐργασίη” for “handling” a lyre is perhaps unusual; the subst. generally means “work,” although it is true that “ἐργασία, ἐργάζεσθαι”, are frequent in the sense of exercising or “practising” the arts generally; and the application to an instrument appears precisely parallel to our “practice.” If the text be thought unlikely, we must assume that “φεύγουσα, φθέγγουσα”, are corruptions of another participle, such as “θέλγουσα”, “giving relief from the pains of labour.” δύηπαθον (elsewhere “δυηπαθής”) is perhaps rather strong as an epithet of manual labour, but may be explained by passages like

οὐδὲ γὰρ εὕδειν
ἀνδράσιν ἐργατίναισι κακαὶ παρέχοντι μέριμναι

; and, for the consolation of music in or after work,

καί τι κόρας φιλικὸν μέλος ἀμβάλευ: ἅδιον οὑτῶς


[488] μετ́ηορα: apparently adverbial, like “μάψ”, “uncertainly”; cf. the use of “μετέωρος” in prose.

θρυλίζοι: the manuscript “θρυαλίζοι” points to uncial corruption from “θρυλλίζοι” (a constant variant), but the single “λ” is correct for the word and its cognates; Cobet Misc. Crit. 221, Schanz Plato vii. p. 7, Dindorf on Eq.348.

489=474. The repetition is no doubt a kind of parody of Homeric style; the line itself, as Gemoll notes, is here quite in place, to return to Apollo after the digression. Apollo alone can command the instrument without need of practice.

[491] That Hermes can have the care of cattle only by favour of Apollo is clear not merely from the general context, but by the express word “βουκολίας τ᾽ ἐπέτελλεν” 498. The genitives “ὄρεος, πεδίοιο” depend on “νομούς”, for which cf. Od. 10.159 ἐκ νομοῦ ὕλης” “pasture in the wood.” There is no need to suppose a lacuna, with Baumeister. βουσὶ Νομοὺς . . . Νομεύσομεν: not a poetical equivalent of “βοῦς νομεύσομεν” (schema etymologicum), but=“will eat down the grass with cattle”; cf. “νομοῖο” 198.

[493] ἔνθεν ἅλις: unaccountably thought corrupt by Gemoll; “ἔνθεν” is of course temporal, “ἅλις”=in abundance, with “θηλείας τε καὶ ἄρσενας”, the common Homeric construction; so 180.

494, 495. The words imply a fear that Apollo's anger may be too strong for his cupidity.

[494] μίγδηΝ: in late epic, for the Homeric “μίγδα”.

[497] ἔχων: probably corrupt, though it is not perhaps more otiose than “ἔχουσα” 345. D'Orville's “ἔχειν” (repeated by Matthiae) hardly accounts for “ἔχων”. Martin's “ἑκών” is possible, and “ἑλών” (suggested in J. H. S. xvii. p. 266) is also a simple correction; for the confusion, cf. Il. 5.136.

501, 502. The lines are a repetition, with further variations, of 53, 54, and 419, 420. M's reading ὑΠένερθε (“ὑπὸ νέρθε” the MS.) is here restored; in sense it is equivalent to “ὑπὸ χειρός” 419. The other MSS. have “ὑπὸ καλόν”, probably due to the next line. σμερδαλέον: so in 54, 420; here the MSS. except M substitute “ἱμερόεν”, for which cf. Il. 18.570 ἱμερόεν κιθάριζε: λίνον δ᾽ ὑπὸ καλὸν ἄειδεν”. It is, however, possible that the actual passage diverged throughout from 53 f. and 419 f., and ran “ δ᾽ ὑπὸ καλὸν ἱμερόεν κτλ.”, and that M preserved one variant, xp the other; cf. h. Apoll. 255 with 295.

ἄεισεν: the tense of the completed action is here as clearly appropriate to the context as the imperfect “ἄειδεν” is required in 54 and Il. 18.570.

[507] καὶ τὰ μέν: it is remarkable that the conjectures “καί θ᾽ μέν”, etc., should have been accepted down to Ludwich's text. Either “τὰ μέν” or “τὸ μέν” gives excellent sense, “firstly,” as often in Greek from Homer onwards (cf. Od. 2.46). “ μέν” would introduce an opposition between persons, whereas Hermes is subject to both actions, “ἐφίλησε” and “ἐκμάσσατο”.

[508] ὡς ἔτι καὶ Νῦν: the reading is amply justified by 125 “ὡς ἔτι νῦν”, where, as here, the writer is thinking of contemporary belief or practice; “διαμπερές” does not necessitate a change to “ἐξέτι κείνου”: Hermes loved Apollo “right through,” as he still loves him. The line refers to the close connexion between the cults of the two gods in various parts of Greece; Baumeister mentions their common altars in Messenia, Olympia and Thebes ( Paus.iv. 33. 4Paus., v. 14. 8Paus., ix. 17. 2). Add to this the cult of the two gods at Cyllene (E. M.Κυλλήνιος: Κυλλήνη δὲ Ἀρκαδίας, ἱερὸν Ἑρμοῦ καὶ Ἀπόλλωνος”), which is more significant in connexion with this hymn; there was a temple of the Muses, Apollo, and Hermes, at Megalopolis, Paus.viii. 32. 2.They had a common altar in Mysia C. I. G. 3588 b. On the Arcadian connexion of Apollo and Hermes see Immerwahr die Kulte u. Mythen Ark. i. p. 95, 135. For the two gods (with the Charites) at Elatea see B. C. H. xi. p. 341; they are joined in Delian votive inscriptions, B. C. H. viii. p. 126, xv. p. 251. See Pauly - Wissowa “Apollon” 37 f., Forchhammer Lex. der Mythensprache p. 43-53, Preller-Robert i. p. 393; Introd. p. 129.

[509] σ´ηματ̓: possibly corrupt, although no alteration is more than plausible. The plural “σήματα” can hardly be right, for Hermes gave only a single “token,” i.e. the lyre; nothing is said about Apollo's gift of the cows. But “σήματ̓” may be for “σήματι”, a dative of “reason” or “occasion,” common in Homer (H. G. § 144). The elision need present no difficulty; cf. Il. 3.349 ἀσπίδ᾽ ἐνὶ κρατερῇ Δ 259 ἐν δαίθ̓, Ε 5 ἀστέρ᾽ ὀπωρινῷ”, and many other examples collected in H. G. § 376 (3). For the position of “ἐπεί” Baumeister compares Il. 6.474, ξ” 175.

[510] ἱμερτ̀ην δεδαώς: the position of “ἱμερτήν” is very remarkable if we take it closely with “δεδαώς”, and the difficulty of the line is increased by uncertainty as to the subject and meaning of “δεδαώς”. The verb might be causal, “teach,” as “δέδαε” bears this sense in Homer; but it seems necessary to refer “δεδαώς” to Apollo, who “knew” the lyre by intuition (cf. 474 “σοὶ δ᾽ αὐτάγρετόν ἐστι δαήμεναι”, and Od. 17.518). This makes Ludwich's correction almost certain.

ἐΠωλένιον: this form is found in all manuscripts at 433, and gives the requisite sense; the lyre rested on, not under, the left arm. “ὑπωλένιον” is due to such expressions as “ὑπὸ χειρός” 419, where the right hand, used in striking the strings, is meant.

[512] The asyndeton is like that in the similar lines 25, 111. On the invention of the flute cf. Apollod.iii. 10. 2. 6Ἑρμῆς δὲ ταύτας νέμων σύριγγα πάλιν πηξάμενος ἐσύριζεν. Ἀπόλλων δὲ καὶ ταύτην βουλόμενος λαβεῖν, τὴν χρυσῆν ῥάβδον ἐδίδου ἣν ἐκέκτητο βουκολῶν”. Apollodorus must have derived the exchange of the pipe for the staff from some other source, as nothing is said of this exchange in the hymn.

There is nothing suspicious about “τηλόθ᾽ ἀκουστήν” (as Gemoll thinks): the epithet is true of the “σῦριγξ”. For the connexion of the flute with Hermes see Euphor. fr. 33 (Athen. iv. 184 A), Preller-Robert i. p. 418, Roscher Lex. i. 2372 f. Roscher, as usual, sees in the flute a characteristic of the whistling wind; it is rather an attribute of Hermes “Νόμιος”—the common instrument of the shepherd.

[515] M's reading “ἅμα κλέψῃς” is usually accepted. But “ἀνακλέψῃς”, a more significant word, seems guaranteed by a Dodonean inscription in Collitz ii. 2, no. 1586 p. 12. 4 “ἀνεκ[λεψεν”], where Hoffmann cites this passage; cf. also Hesych. “ἀνακλέπτεσθαι: ἀναχωρεῖν”. An actual theft of the “τόξα” is recorded by Horace ( Od.i. 10. 10), who may have followed Alcaeus in this particular, and by Lucian (Dial. Deor. vii. 1).

[516] ἐΠαμοίβιμα: the form is well restored by Wolf and Ludwich from M's “ἐπ᾽ ἀμοίβημα”. The variant is due to the comparative rarity of the termination; cf. Il. 4.381 παραίσιμα παραίσια, Ζ 62 αἴσιμα αἴσια”. The humorous identification of “exchange” with “robbery” is characteristic of the style. Matthiae notes that the evil reputation of merchants was due to the Carians and Phoenicians, who combined trading with piracy; but in this respect also Hermes reflects the Greek character.

[518] Cf. Od. 5.178, κ” 343, h. Apoll. 79 (“θεά” for “θεῶν”). θεῶν μέγαν ὅρκον= Il. 2.377, where the context shows the meaning to be “an oath by the gods.” Here the “ὅρκος θεῶν” is the oath by which the gods swear; cf. Od. 10.299. This oath was regularly by the Styx; cf. Il. 15.36, ε” 185, Theog. 784, h. Dem. 260 etc.

[519] κεφαλῌ̂ Νεύσας: a reminiscence of Il. 1.524 f., where the “nod” is the substitute for an oath, in the case of Zeus. That it is here an alternative to the oath by the Styx is no sign of interpolation, as Matthiae and others suppose. ἐΠί: in Homer the simple accusative only is found with “ὄμνυμι” “swear by”; but various prepositions are used in prose with the verb in this sense; see L. and S. s.v.

[520] Hermann's “ἔρδειν” for “ἔρδοις” rests on the use of “εἴ μοι τλαίης κτλ.”, without apodosis, in h. Apoll. 79, but the change is quite needless here; the subject of the “ὅρκος” is sufficiently clear from the context.

[523] Cf. 178.

[524] ἐΠ᾽ ἁρθμῷ καὶ φιλότητι=apparently a stereotyped expression; cf. P. V. 192 “εἰς ἀρθμὸν ἐμοὶ καὶ φιλότητα . . . ἥξει”. So Callim. fr. 199 (“φιλίαν”). There is no probability that Aeschylus borrowed from the hymn, or that Callimachus copied from either source.

[526] Διὸς Γόνον: i.e. a hero such as Heracles; for “ἄνδρα” Baumeister compares the Homeric “ἡμιθέων γένος ἀνδρῶν”. The correction “Διὸς γόνου” misses the point: “θεὸν” and “ἄνδρα Διὸς γόνον” are subdivisions of “ἀθάνατοι”.

A lacuna is here clearly indicated: the transition from indirect to direct narration is not warranted by Il. 4.303, Ψ” 855; Longinus de sublim. defends such transitions in an interesting chapter (xxvii), but his Homeric example Il. 15.348 can be otherwise explained. Moreover, “ἐκ” has no reference, “τέλειον” seems unnatural with “σύμβολον”, and “σε” is indispensable. Since the sanction of Zeus appears necessary both here and in 568f., and is stated in 575 “χάριν δ᾽ ἐπέθηκε Κρονίων”, perhaps a line has fallen out such as “αἰετὸν ἧκε πατήρ: δ᾽ ἐπώμοσεν, σε μάλ᾽ οἶον” (J. H. S. xvii. p. 266). Possibly the missing passage was longer, containing a reference to the exchange of the pipe, and a direct request by Hermes for “μαντεία”. This view, however, is unnecessary; see further on 533.

[527] σύμβολον: this appears to be from “σύμβολος”, and can only refer to Hermes, who is “πιστὸς ἐμῷ θυμῷ”. The meaning is very doubtful; Ilgen's translation, “mediator,” gives an unparalleled sense to the word. We should naturally understand it as “omen,” and this is not impossible; Hermes is the god of luck and of “ἕρμαια”, and might be called a personified “omen” for gods and all alike. But this is undoubtedly harsh; the meaning must remain uncertain owing to the lacuna, which leaves the context unknown.

ἅμα Πάντων: i.e. “ἀνθρώπων”. The expression may be weak, but it is genuine; “ἠδ᾽ ἀνθρώπων” would not have been corrupted.

[529] ῥάβδον: not to be confused with the “μάστιγα φαεινήν” (497), which had already been given to Hermes, as god of cattle. This is, of course, the magic staff, which entrances or wakes men; Il. 24.343 f., Od. 24.2 f. Hence Hermes is “χρυσόρραπις ε 87, κ” 277, 331. It is the staff afterwards called the “κηρύκειον” (see 530), although a distinction is sometimes made in art, Hermes being represented with both “ῥάβδος” and “κηρύκειον” (PrellerRobert i. p. 404). According to Preller, the staff was originally a divining-rod, for finding treasure or gold. It was, indeed, thought to have had this function (see Preller-Robert i. p. 412 n. 3), but the idea is not Homeric, nor probably original. Hermes has a “golden” staff just as he has a golden sword and shoes (“χρυσάορος, χρυσοπέδιλος”); the epithet is common to attributes of the gods. The form of the “κηρύκειον” may have been borrowed from the Phoenicians (Hoffmann Hermes und Kerykeion) but Hoffmann's deduction that Hermes was a Phoenician moon-god does not follow. See on 15.

[530] τριπέτηλον: best explained by Preller (Philologus i. p. 518) as=“with three branches,” one forming the handle, while the other two spring from it, and are united at the top. See also Roscher Lex. 2401, Harrison Proleg. p. 46.

ἀκ́ηριον: passive, “unharmed,” with “σε”. For the order Schneidewin compares Od. 20.47 διαμπερὲς σε φυλάσσω”. Add Od. 23.56 κακῶς δ᾽ οἵ πέρ μιν ἔρεζον”. Ludwich, following the old editions, takes “ἀκήριον” as co - ordinate with the preceding adjectives, “harmless.” The rhythm would favour this view, but there is no certain example of the active use; in Hes. Op.823ἀκήριοι ἡμέραι” are days which bring no fate or destiny.

[531] Πάντας ἐΠικραίνουσα θεούς: the construction “ἐπικραίνειν τί τινος” seems impossible, even if the presumed meaning “confirming all the gods in respect of good words and deeds” made any sense in the context, or could be justified by any known virtue of the “ῥάβδος. πάντας” appears to be sound; cf. Il. 15.599 πᾶσαν ἐπικρήνειε” (“ἀρήν”), “fulfil all the prayer.” Nothing, however, can be said in favour of the numerous conjectures, except that “θεούς” (from “θεόν 526, θεῶν” 537) may have displaced another word; for its introduction cf. h. Apoll. 59. As a correction, “ἐπικραίνουσ᾽ ἄθλους” may be suggested: “fulfilling (winning) all the tasks (whether of word or deed) which I claim to know.” This is supported by Od. 8.159 f. “οὐ γάρ δ᾽ οὐδέ, ξεῖνε, δαήμονι φωτὶ ἐΐσκω

ἄθλων, οἷά τε πολλὰ μετ᾽ ἀνθρώποισι πέλονται”, where the neut. “οἷά τε”, as “ὅσα” here, refers adverbially to the masc. “ἆθλοι” (see M. and R. on Od. 8.108). Cf. also Od. 8.133 ἄεθλον οἶδέ τε καὶ δεδάηκε. ἐπικραίνουσα” would=“ἐκτελέουσα”, cf. e.g. Od. 8.22 ἐκτελέσειεν ἀέθλους”. The “κηρύκειον” would be a certain talisman for victory in any contest, whether of word (e.g. music), or deed (e.g. athletics), unless the reference is more general, to any difficulties in life.

[533] μαντείηΝ . . . Ἣν ἐρεείνεις: unless Hermes asked for the gift of prophecy after 526 (where see note), the request had only been made by a hint at 471 f.; see on 464.

[535] τό: sc. “τὸ μαντεύεσθαι”, from “μαντείην”.

541-549. Matthiae and others have curiously assigned this passage to Hermes; Ludwich prints it after 474. At first sight, indeed, the lines appear more suited to the character of Hermes, as described in 576 f. But the view is certainly wrong; the sentiment is quite appropriate in the mouth of Apollo. No objection should have been raised to the futures “δηλήσομαι” etc.: Apollo means to do as he has always done; the tenses refer to the frequent deception of the oracles, down to the hymn-writer's own day. The tone of his speech sounds like a frank confession of deceitfulness; and, as such, would not be inconsistent with the general spirit of the hymn. The poet need not have been more careful of Apollo's morality than he was in the case of Hermes. But the explanation of the occasional deception in oracles is probably meant to be serious; it might stand as an official vindication of the god in his dealings with men. Stress is laid on the observance of the proper ritual, without which inquirers approach the god at their risk. If they are duly accredited with the right omens, a true answer is obtained; cf. (of Dodona) Hes. fr. 134. Rzach=schol. ap. Soph. Trach.1174ἔνθεν ἐπιχθόνιοι μαντήϊα πάντα φέρονται”,

ὃς δὴ κεῖθι μολὼν θεὸν ἄμβροτον” “ἐξερεείνῃ
δῶρα φέρων ἔλθῃσι σὺν οἰωνοῖς ἀγαθοῖσιν”. See further Schoemann Griech. Alt. ii. p. 321. The uncertainty of the oracle is like that of the lyre, 482 f.; both answer under proper conditions. The language of the Muses in Hesiod is in a similar vein; cf. Theog. 27 f. “ἴδμεν ψεύδεα πολλὰ λέγειν ἐτύμοισιν ὁμοῖα”,
ἴδμεν δ̓, εὖτ᾽ ἐθέλωμεν, ἀληθέα γηρύσασθαι”.

[542] Πολλὰ Περιτροπέων: probably a reminiscence of Od. 9.465 πολλὰ περιτροπέοντες ἐλαύνομεν” (“μῆλα”), where the verb seems to mean “driving about.” So Apoll. Arg. 2.143ἄσπετα μῆλα περιτροπάδην ἐτάμοντο”. So here Apollo “drives” men like silly sheep, i.e. perplexes them. The common translation “deceiving,” “misguiding,” does not suit the present context, as “ἄλλον ὀνήσω” precedes; nor could this sense, which is elsewhere unknown, be easily derived from the Homeric use of the verb.

[544] φωνῌ̂ τ᾽ Ἠδὲ Ποτῌ̂σι: there is no difference in meaning or value between this reading and the variant “φωνῇ καὶ πτερύγεσσι”. The modal datives present no difficulty; “σύν” is added in the Hesiodean line quoted on 541 f.

τεληέντων, “fateful,” “significant.” The editors compare Od. 2.181 ὄρνιθες δέ τε πολλοὶ ὑπ᾽ αὐγὰς ἠελίοιο

φοιτῶς᾿, οὐδέ τε πάντες ἐναίσιμοι”, and

γνωσεῖται δ᾽ ὄρνιθας ὃς αἴσιος, οἵ τε πέτονται
ἤλυθα, καὶ ποίων οὐκ ἀγαθαὶ πτέρυγες

Callim. v. 123

[546] μαψιλόγοισι, “telling a vain tale,” “οὐκ ἐναισίμοις”.

[549] ἐΓὼ δέ κε δῶρα δεχοίμηΝ: if the hymn-writer has as low an opinion of Apollo as he undoubtedly has of Hermes (according to modern ideas), this line might be explained as a cynical admission of “φιλοκέρδεια” (see on 335). But here, as in 541 f., there is probably a serious defence of Apollo's oracle. Baumeister understands the words to be spoken petulanti cum irrisione; but, as he himself allows, the Delphian priests might have used the same language. The “δῶρα” are obligatory, whether a true response is vouchsafed or no; they are, in fact, like money staked in a lottery— necessary for all competitors, without commandingsuccess as a matter of course.

[552] σεμναί, “there are certain reverend ones, sisters, three in number.” The reference is undoubtedly to the Thriae, but there is no reason to substitute “Θριαί” here; the mythology would be sufficiently clear from the context, aided by the emphatic “τρεῖς”, from which the ancients derived “Θριαί”. To an Athenian, “σεμναὶ” (“θεαί”) would probably have suggested the Furies, but the hymn-writer was no Athenian. The variant “μοῖραι”, which is obviously wrong, may have been a gloss due, partly at least, to “τρεῖς”. Apollodorus alluded to the Thriae in his account (“διδάσκεται τὴν διὰ τῶν ψήφων μαντικήν”), but this is no argument that he read “Θριαί” here, nor does he use the actual word. On the “Θριαί” see III. They App. are certainly here closely connected with bees (see on 559) if not actually personifications of the bee.

[554] Πεπαλαγμέναι ἄλφιτα λευκά: first explained by Matthiae; “with white meal sprinkled over their heads,” i.e. white-haired. See III. HermannApp. 's lacuna after this line may be neglected.

[556] μαντείης: obviously with “διδάσκαλοι”. The Thriae were teachers of private divination, although not of the highest oracular “μαντεία”, to which Apollo attained after his boyhood.

ἀΠάνευθε: not “apart from men,” but, as the context shews, “apart from me”; the Thriae had given Apollo his first lesson in divination, and still continued their art, though the god had outgrown it.

[557] ἀλέγιζεν: an evident correction; cf. 361 where the MSS. give all three verbs “ἀλεγύνων, ἀλεγίζων, ἀλεείνων”.

[558] ἄλλοτε ἄλλͅη: for the hiatus Schneidewin compares Od. 4.236 ἄλλοτε ἄλλῳ”; so Hes. Op.713 where for “ἄλλοτε ἄλλον” some MSS. from a desire, as here, to avoid the hiatus give “ἄλλοτέ τ᾽ ἄλλον, ἄλλοτ᾽ ἐς ἄλλον”. Add Phocyl. fr. 12ἄλλοτε ἄλλοι”, Solon fr. 13. 4ἄλλοτε ἄλλος”.

[559] κηρία βόσκονται: honey is the food of gods 562; Callim. i. 49γλυκὺ κηρίον ἔβρως” (of the infant Zeus). Hence honey gave inspiration, prophetic or poetic: cf. the title “μέλισσα” of the Pythia, Pind. Pyth.iv. 60; see also Pind. 47.Compare the common folk-tale that poets and sages were fed by bees, generally in their infancy. (References in Cook's exhaustive essay, p. 7 f.) For the mantic bee in Semitic belief cf. Joseph. Archaeol. v. 6 “Δεβώρα προφῆτις, μέλισσαν δὲ σημαίνει τοὔνομα”, and see generally Robert-Tornow de apium mellisque signif. 1893, Frazer on Paus.x. 5. 7, Usener in Rhein. Mus. (1902) 57. 2 p. 179, Harrison Proleg. p. 91.

[560] The omission of iota in the diphthong “υι” is a common fault in MSS. So Il. 11.180 only the A Ven. and two other MSS. have “θυῖεν”, in Hesiod papyri in some places preserve the iota, in others no trace is left of it; cf. Theog. 109, 131, 848, 874, Op.621; there are similar variants in the case of “γυῖον, ὀπυίειν, μητρυιή”. The papyrus of Timotheus (ed. Wilamowitz 1903) has “ὑπερέθυιεν” v. 75. For “υι, υ” in inscriptions see Meisterhans p. 46 f.

[563] On the variant see J. H. S. xv. p. 302, Hollander l.c. p. 28. The lines are evidently alternatives, but the version of y is far preferable. δονέουσαι (cleverly corrected by Baumeister from “δενέουσαι”) is peculiarly appropriate to bee-women. Cf. Choerilus ap. “ηεροδ. π. μ. λ. 13 μυρία φῦλ᾽ ἐδονεῖτο πολυσμήνοισι μελίσσαις”.

[565] δαείης: the indefinite optative may well be correct, although followed by “ἐπακούσεται”, which suggests the subjunctive “δαείῃς” (“δαήῃς”). For this form cf. Il. 16.423 ὄφρα δαείω”.

[566] αἴ κε τύχͅησι, “if he has good luck”: divination, as well as oracular prophecy, is uncertain.

[568] Here again the syntax shews a lacuna. “ἀνάσσειν κύδιμον Ἑρμῆν” cannot be an imperative, as some commentators suppose; it requires a main verb, and the subject, as Gemoll notices, can hardly be other than Zeus, who authorises this empire over all animals. In J. H. S. xvii. p. 267 two lines were suggested: “ὡς ἔφατ̓: οὐρανόθεν δὲ πατὴρ Ζεὺς αὐτὸς ἔπεσσι

θῆκε τέλος: πᾶσιν δ᾽ ἄρ᾽ γ᾽ οἰωνοῖσι κέλευσε”.

[572] τετελεσμένον: the editors compare Hes. Op.799τετελεσμένον ἦμαρ”, a “perfect” or lucky day. The present context shews that “perfect” here connotes the idea “duly appointed,” with proper credentials; cf. Dem. 171. 19στρατηγὸς τελεσθῆναι” “to be formally appointed general.”

[573] ἄδοτος, “without receiving presents” from Hermes, Latin ultro. Γέρας: this present from Hades to Hermes can only be explained by the preceding line; i.e. the right to be the “ἄγγελος εἰς Ἀΐδην”. Entrance to the underworld by the gods is spoken of as a favour granted by Hades. Hermes is superis deorum gratus et imis ( Od.i. 10. 19). It is just possible that the “present” is mystic, i.e. death (cf. the story of Cleobis and Bito ); “δώσει” would then be general, like “δηλήσομαι” 541, and the recipients would be men; but the context is against this view.

[576] ὁμιλεῖ: genuine, for M's “νομίζει” cannot be justified by such passages as Her.ii. 50(“νομίζειν ἥρωσιν”).

[577] It is astonishing to find objections raised to this passage by some of the older critics. The lines 577-578 conclude with the theme which runs through the whole poem—the deceitfulness and waywardness of Hermes.

Παῦρα ὀΝίνΗσι no doubt ironically corrects the title “ἐριούνιος”, as Baumeister explains.

τὸ δ᾽ ἄκριτον, “endlessly”; cf. 126 (without the article).

1 See II.App. , where the explanation is given at fuller length.

2 See II. App. p. 311. Roscher derives the thievishness from the wind, with which he identifies Hermes (Lex. i. 2369 f.; Hermes d. Windgott, 1878, Nektar u. Ambrosia 1883); but most of his arguments are of little weight (see on 19, 146, 512), and the origin of Hermes is still a mystery. For the hymn-writer, at all events, Hermes had no connexion with any natural phenomenon; he is purely anthropomorphic.

3 See note on 508.

4 On Hermes as a god of divination see Paus.vii. 22. 2Paus., vii. 22. 3Paus., ix. 11. 7.Preller-Robert i. p. 399 n. 3, Roscher i. 2379 f.: on the Thriae see III.

5 Compare the Vedic parallel, in which Ahi steals the cattle of Indra; PrellerRobert i. p. 394 n. 1. For representations of the theft in art see Roscher i. 2429.

6 Cf. Anth. Pal. vii. 390, where a traveller from Pisa to N. Greece is killed by lightning on Cyllene.

7 If the poet was a Boeotian, or an Eretrian, his geography of the northern part of Greece ought not to be merely imagination: and the “sandy shore of the sea” along which Hermes passed after leaving Olympus should correspond to something in reality. The coast between Pieria and the sea southward to the Peneius appears from Leake Northern Greece iii. c. 30 to possess quicksands and lagoons in places. The description, however (in the hymn), would suit any flat coast; see on 79 f.

8 Baumeister (p. 203) and Gemoll (p. 193) quote, amongst others, “ὄρη 95, ἐμάρανε 140, ἔδοξα 208, ἐδύνω 405, φιλῶ” 382. None of these forms need be exclusively Attic; at least one (“θᾶττον” 255) is known to be also Boeotian; see note ad loc.

9 See Pref. p. lxxiii, where this theory is advanced on philological and other grounds. Fick B. B. xxii. 272, principally on account of “ἡχοῦ”, calls the writer an Euboean Ionian.

10 See on 313, 316.

11 See also on 24 f., 47 f.

12 Ruhnken ep. crit. i. p. 28 instances 524 (where see note); Guttmann de h. Hom. historia p. 7 f. can only add 20, which has practically no resemblance to Callim. h. Art. 25.

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 United States License.

An XML version of this text is available for download, with the additional restriction that you offer Perseus any modifications you make. Perseus provides credit for all accepted changes, storing new additions in a versioning system.

hide Dates (automatically extracted)
Sort dates alphabetically, as they appear on the page, by frequency
Click on a date to search for it in this document.
480 BC (1)
hide References (470 total)
  • Commentary references from this page (467):
    • Aeschylus, Agamemnon, 1144
    • Aeschylus, Agamemnon, 250
    • Aeschylus, Agamemnon, 497
    • Aeschylus, Eumenides, 637
    • Aeschylus, Eumenides, 91
    • Aeschylus, Libation Bearers, 999
    • Aeschylus, Prometheus Bound, 16
    • Aeschylus, Persians, 10
    • Aeschylus, Persians, 237
    • Aeschylus, Suppliant Maidens, 11
    • Pseudo-Apollodorus, Library, 3.10.2
    • Pseudo-Apollodorus, Library, 3.8.1
    • Aristophanes, Birds, 720
    • Aristophanes, Ecclesiazusae, 999
    • Aristophanes, Knights, 10
    • Aristophanes, Knights, 205
    • Aristophanes, Knights, 348
    • Aristophanes, Knights, 639
    • Aristophanes, Peace, 381
    • Aristotle, Rhetoric, 2.21
    • Bacchylides, Epinicians, 13
    • Bacchylides, Epinicians, 5
    • Bacchylides, Dithyrambs, 17
    • Demosthenes, On Organization, 19
    • Euripides, Alcestis, 1128
    • Euripides, Cyclops, 40
    • Euripides, Cyclops, 572
    • Euripides, Cyclops, 6
    • Euripides, Hecuba, 1325
    • Euripides, Hecuba, 387
    • Euripides, Heracles, 2
    • Euripides, Hippolytus, 1360
    • Euripides, Hippolytus, 73
    • Euripides, Ion, 1037
    • Euripides, Ion, 464
    • Euripides, Orestes, 41
    • Euripides, Phoenician Women, 990
    • Euripides, Trojan Women, 609
    • Herodotus, Histories, 1.35
    • Herodotus, Histories, 2.11
    • Herodotus, Histories, 3.135
    • Herodotus, Histories, 6.107
    • Herodotus, Histories, 6.129
    • Herodotus, Histories, 7.141
    • Herodotus, Histories, 7.26
    • Herodotus, Histories, 7.8
    • Hesiod, Theogony, 267
    • Hesiod, Theogony, 401
    • Hesiod, Theogony, 534
    • Hesiod, Theogony, 60
    • Hesiod, Theogony, 653
    • Hesiod, Theogony, 696
    • Hesiod, Theogony, 804
    • Hesiod, Works and Days, 105
    • Hesiod, Works and Days, 12
    • Hesiod, Works and Days, 256
    • Hesiod, Works and Days, 263
    • Hesiod, Works and Days, 365
    • Hesiod, Works and Days, 375
    • Hesiod, Works and Days, 382
    • Hesiod, Works and Days, 394
    • Hesiod, Works and Days, 4
    • Hesiod, Works and Days, 427
    • Hesiod, Works and Days, 455
    • Hesiod, Works and Days, 5
    • Hesiod, Works and Days, 50
    • Hesiod, Works and Days, 530
    • Hesiod, Works and Days, 564
    • Hesiod, Works and Days, 570
    • Hesiod, Works and Days, 577
    • Hesiod, Works and Days, 580
    • Hesiod, Works and Days, 603
    • Hesiod, Works and Days, 607
    • Hesiod, Works and Days, 621
    • Hesiod, Works and Days, 635
    • Hesiod, Works and Days, 67
    • Hesiod, Works and Days, 671
    • Hesiod, Works and Days, 675
    • Hesiod, Works and Days, 713
    • Hesiod, Works and Days, 78
    • Hesiod, Works and Days, 780
    • Hesiod, Works and Days, 782
    • Hesiod, Works and Days, 785
    • Hesiod, Works and Days, 788
    • Hesiod, Works and Days, 799
    • Hesiod, Works and Days, 800
    • Hesiod, Works and Days, 820
    • Hesiod, Works and Days, 823
    • Homer, Iliad, 10.141
    • Homer, Iliad, 10.252
    • Homer, Iliad, 10.267
    • Homer, Iliad, 10.298
    • Homer, Iliad, 10.330
    • Homer, Iliad, 10.401
    • Homer, Iliad, 10.467
    • Homer, Iliad, 10.54
    • Homer, Iliad, 11.105
    • Homer, Iliad, 11.180
    • Homer, Iliad, 11.551
    • Homer, Iliad, 11.677
    • Homer, Iliad, 12.148
    • Homer, Iliad, 12.207
    • Homer, Iliad, 12.217
    • Homer, Iliad, 12.283
    • Homer, Iliad, 12.333
    • Homer, Iliad, 13.287
    • Homer, Iliad, 13.383
    • Homer, Iliad, 13.445
    • Homer, Iliad, 13.553
    • Homer, Iliad, 14.58
    • Homer, Iliad, 15.153
    • Homer, Iliad, 15.21
    • Homer, Iliad, 15.228
    • Homer, Iliad, 15.348
    • Homer, Iliad, 15.36
    • Homer, Iliad, 15.498
    • Homer, Iliad, 15.599
    • Homer, Iliad, 15.651
    • Homer, Iliad, 15.693
    • Homer, Iliad, 15.80
    • Homer, Iliad, 16.188
    • Homer, Iliad, 16.360
    • Homer, Iliad, 16.423
    • Homer, Iliad, 16.629
    • Homer, Iliad, 16.726
    • Homer, Iliad, 16.825
    • Homer, Iliad, 17.520
    • Homer, Iliad, 17.650
    • Homer, Iliad, 17.660
    • Homer, Iliad, 18.175
    • Homer, Iliad, 18.222
    • Homer, Iliad, 18.453
    • Homer, Iliad, 18.507
    • Homer, Iliad, 18.549
    • Homer, Iliad, 18.570
    • Homer, Iliad, 18.600
    • Homer, Iliad, 19.117
    • Homer, Iliad, 19.118
    • Homer, Iliad, 19.209
    • Homer, Iliad, 19.229
    • Homer, Iliad, 19.242
    • Homer, Iliad, 19.27
    • Homer, Iliad, 19.374
    • Homer, Iliad, 19.83
    • Homer, Iliad, 1.149
    • Homer, Iliad, 1.20
    • Homer, Iliad, 1.234
    • Homer, Iliad, 1.236
    • Homer, Iliad, 1.292
    • Homer, Iliad, 1.339
    • Homer, Iliad, 1.340
    • Homer, Iliad, 1.47
    • Homer, Iliad, 1.472
    • Homer, Iliad, 1.493
    • Homer, Iliad, 1.5
    • Homer, Iliad, 1.524
    • Homer, Iliad, 1.601
    • Homer, Iliad, 20.200
    • Homer, Iliad, 20.255
    • Homer, Iliad, 20.53
    • Homer, Iliad, 20.62
    • Homer, Iliad, 20.72
    • Homer, Iliad, 21.347
    • Homer, Iliad, 21.454
    • Homer, Iliad, 21.487
    • Homer, Iliad, 22.197
    • Homer, Iliad, 22.234
    • Homer, Iliad, 22.263
    • Homer, Iliad, 22.476
    • Homer, Iliad, 23.260
    • Homer, Iliad, 23.366
    • Homer, Iliad, 23.79
    • Homer, Iliad, 24.24
    • Homer, Iliad, 24.303
    • Homer, Iliad, 24.343
    • Homer, Iliad, 24.535
    • Homer, Iliad, 24.642
    • Homer, Iliad, 2.144
    • Homer, Iliad, 2.2
    • Homer, Iliad, 2.335
    • Homer, Iliad, 2.377
    • Homer, Iliad, 2.486
    • Homer, Iliad, 2.506
    • Homer, Iliad, 2.527
    • Homer, Iliad, 2.6
    • Homer, Iliad, 2.60
    • Homer, Iliad, 2.776
    • Homer, Iliad, 2.99
    • Homer, Iliad, 3.22
    • Homer, Iliad, 3.349
    • Homer, Iliad, 3.459
    • Homer, Iliad, 3.57
    • Homer, Iliad, 4.200
    • Homer, Iliad, 4.279
    • Homer, Iliad, 4.303
    • Homer, Iliad, 4.353
    • Homer, Iliad, 4.381
    • Homer, Iliad, 4.4
    • Homer, Iliad, 4.877
    • Homer, Iliad, 5.136
    • Homer, Iliad, 5.186
    • Homer, Iliad, 5.448
    • Homer, Iliad, 5.507
    • Homer, Iliad, 5.545
    • Homer, Iliad, 5.650
    • Homer, Iliad, 6.266
    • Homer, Iliad, 6.474
    • Homer, Iliad, 7.466
    • Homer, Iliad, 8.12
    • Homer, Iliad, 8.13
    • Homer, Iliad, 8.166
    • Homer, Iliad, 8.40
    • Homer, Iliad, 8.423
    • Homer, Iliad, 8.471
    • Homer, Iliad, 8.520
    • Homer, Iliad, 8.69
    • Homer, Iliad, 9.107
    • Homer, Iliad, 9.212
    • Homer, Iliad, 9.236
    • Homer, Iliad, 9.309
    • Homer, Iliad, 9.322
    • Homer, Iliad, 9.466
    • Homer, Iliad, 9.534
    • Homer, Odyssey, 10.159
    • Homer, Odyssey, 10.299
    • Homer, Odyssey, 12.127
    • Homer, Odyssey, 12.259
    • Homer, Odyssey, 13.217
    • Homer, Odyssey, 13.295
    • Homer, Odyssey, 14.435
    • Homer, Odyssey, 14.531
    • Homer, Odyssey, 15.209
    • Homer, Odyssey, 16.148
    • Homer, Odyssey, 16.213
    • Homer, Odyssey, 17.271
    • Homer, Odyssey, 17.333
    • Homer, Odyssey, 17.343
    • Homer, Odyssey, 17.518
    • Homer, Odyssey, 17.541
    • Homer, Odyssey, 17.542
    • Homer, Odyssey, 18.11
    • Homer, Odyssey, 18.199
    • Homer, Odyssey, 18.308
    • Homer, Odyssey, 19.246
    • Homer, Odyssey, 19.395
    • Homer, Odyssey, 19.398
    • Homer, Odyssey, 1.10
    • Homer, Odyssey, 1.155
    • Homer, Odyssey, 1.193
    • Homer, Odyssey, 1.2
    • Homer, Odyssey, 1.337
    • Homer, Odyssey, 1.409
    • Homer, Odyssey, 20.116
    • Homer, Odyssey, 20.209
    • Homer, Odyssey, 20.47
    • Homer, Odyssey, 20.53
    • Homer, Odyssey, 21.406
    • Homer, Odyssey, 22.175
    • Homer, Odyssey, 23.144
    • Homer, Odyssey, 23.40
    • Homer, Odyssey, 23.46
    • Homer, Odyssey, 23.56
    • Homer, Odyssey, 24.1
    • Homer, Odyssey, 24.118
    • Homer, Odyssey, 24.2
    • Homer, Odyssey, 24.224
    • Homer, Odyssey, 24.226
    • Homer, Odyssey, 24.227
    • Homer, Odyssey, 24.230
    • Homer, Odyssey, 24.242
    • Homer, Odyssey, 24.343
    • Homer, Odyssey, 2.103
    • Homer, Odyssey, 2.181
    • Homer, Odyssey, 2.392
    • Homer, Odyssey, 2.434
    • Homer, Odyssey, 2.46
    • Homer, Odyssey, 2.55
    • Homer, Odyssey, 4.178
    • Homer, Odyssey, 4.236
    • Homer, Odyssey, 4.248
    • Homer, Odyssey, 4.349
    • Homer, Odyssey, 4.417
    • Homer, Odyssey, 4.441
    • Homer, Odyssey, 4.455
    • Homer, Odyssey, 4.526
    • Homer, Odyssey, 4.548
    • Homer, Odyssey, 4.637
    • Homer, Odyssey, 4.66
    • Homer, Odyssey, 4.802
    • Homer, Odyssey, 4.843
    • Homer, Odyssey, 5.1
    • Homer, Odyssey, 5.178
    • Homer, Odyssey, 5.234
    • Homer, Odyssey, 5.47
    • Homer, Odyssey, 5.488
    • Homer, Odyssey, 5.59
    • Homer, Odyssey, 6.20
    • Homer, Odyssey, 7.13
    • Homer, Odyssey, 7.136
    • Homer, Odyssey, 7.138
    • Homer, Odyssey, 7.36
    • Homer, Odyssey, 7.40
    • Homer, Odyssey, 8.108
    • Homer, Odyssey, 8.133
    • Homer, Odyssey, 8.159
    • Homer, Odyssey, 8.22
    • Homer, Odyssey, 8.429
    • Homer, Odyssey, 9.205
    • Homer, Odyssey, 9.221
    • Homer, Odyssey, 9.462
    • Homer, Odyssey, 9.465
    • Homer, Odyssey, 9.521
    • Homeric Hymns, Hymn 19 to Pan
    • Homeric Hymns, Hymn 29 to Hestia
    • Homeric Hymns, Hymn 1 to Dionysus
    • Homeric Hymns, Hymn 23 to Zeus
    • Homeric Hymns, Hymn 2 to Demeter, 13
    • Homeric Hymns, Hymn 2 to Demeter, 137
    • Homeric Hymns, Hymn 2 to Demeter, 211
    • Homeric Hymns, Hymn 2 to Demeter, 230
    • Homeric Hymns, Hymn 2 to Demeter, 260
    • Homeric Hymns, Hymn 2 to Demeter, 277
    • Homeric Hymns, Hymn 2 to Demeter, 29
    • Homeric Hymns, Hymn 2 to Demeter, 331
    • Homeric Hymns, Hymn 2 to Demeter, 371
    • Homeric Hymns, Hymn 2 to Demeter, 398
    • Homeric Hymns, Hymn 2 to Demeter, 434
    • Homeric Hymns, Hymn 2 to Demeter, 435
    • Homeric Hymns, Hymn 2 to Demeter, 58
    • Homeric Hymns, Hymn 2 to Demeter, 85
    • Homeric Hymns, Hymn 31 to Helios
    • Homeric Hymns, Hymn 3 to Apollo, 130
    • Homeric Hymns, Hymn 3 to Apollo, 131
    • Homeric Hymns, Hymn 3 to Apollo, 133
    • Homeric Hymns, Hymn 3 to Apollo, 181
    • Homeric Hymns, Hymn 3 to Apollo, 186
    • Homeric Hymns, Hymn 3 to Apollo, 201
    • Homeric Hymns, Hymn 3 to Apollo, 218
    • Homeric Hymns, Hymn 3 to Apollo, 225
    • Homeric Hymns, Hymn 3 to Apollo, 230
    • Homeric Hymns, Hymn 3 to Apollo, 244
    • Homeric Hymns, Hymn 3 to Apollo, 255
    • Homeric Hymns, Hymn 3 to Apollo, 330
    • Homeric Hymns, Hymn 3 to Apollo, 349
    • Homeric Hymns, Hymn 3 to Apollo, 412
    • Homeric Hymns, Hymn 3 to Apollo, 424
    • Homeric Hymns, Hymn 3 to Apollo, 450
    • Homeric Hymns, Hymn 3 to Apollo, 452
    • Homeric Hymns, Hymn 3 to Apollo, 46
    • Homeric Hymns, Hymn 3 to Apollo, 491
    • Homeric Hymns, Hymn 3 to Apollo, 532
    • Homeric Hymns, Hymn 3 to Apollo, 536
    • Homeric Hymns, Hymn 3 to Apollo, 59
    • Homeric Hymns, Hymn 3 to Apollo, 79
    • Homeric Hymns, Hymn 4 to Hermes, 453
    • Homeric Hymns, Hymn 4 to Hermes, 92
    • Homeric Hymns, Hymn 5 to Aphrodite, 133
    • Homeric Hymns, Hymn 5 to Aphrodite, 151
    • Homeric Hymns, Hymn 5 to Aphrodite, 159
    • Homeric Hymns, Hymn 5 to Aphrodite, 171
    • Homeric Hymns, Hymn 5 to Aphrodite, 19
    • Homeric Hymns, Hymn 5 to Aphrodite, 20
    • Homeric Hymns, Hymn 5 to Aphrodite, 254
    • Homeric Hymns, Hymn 5 to Aphrodite, 257
    • Homeric Hymns, Hymn 5 to Aphrodite, 35
    • Homeric Hymns, Hymn 5 to Aphrodite, 84
    • Homeric Hymns, Hymn 7 to Dionysus, 22
    • Homeric Hymns, Hymn 7 to Dionysus, 34
    • New Testament, Luke, 13.8
    • Pausanias, Description of Greece, 10.5.7
    • Pausanias, Description of Greece, 1.24.4
    • Pausanias, Description of Greece, 2.34.2
    • Pausanias, Description of Greece, 3.16.1
    • Pausanias, Description of Greece, 4.33.4
    • Pausanias, Description of Greece, 4.36.2
    • Pausanias, Description of Greece, 5.14.8
    • Pausanias, Description of Greece, 6.22.1
    • Pausanias, Description of Greece, 8.17.5
    • Pausanias, Description of Greece, 8.32.2
    • Pausanias, Description of Greece, 8.3.1
    • Pausanias, Description of Greece, 8.47.5
    • Pausanias, Description of Greece, 9.17.2
    • Pausanias, Description of Greece, 9.19.7
    • Pausanias, Description of Greece, 9.30.1
    • Pindar, Isthmean, 4
    • Pindar, Nemean, 10
    • Pindar, Nemean, 11
    • Pindar, Olympian, 1
    • Pindar, Olympian, 14
    • Pindar, Olympian, 4
    • Pindar, Olympian, 6
    • Pindar, Olympian, 7
    • Pindar, Olympian, 8
    • Pindar, Olympian, 9
    • Pindar, Pythian, 1
    • Pindar, Pythian, 10
    • Pindar, Pythian, 3
    • Plato, Laws, 739a
    • Plato, Laws, 855d
    • Plato, Republic, 474
    • Plato, Republic, 531b
    • Plato, Republic, 617e
    • Plato, Phaedo, 107d
    • Plato, Phaedo, 60b
    • Plato, Sophist, 219c
    • Plato, Theaetetus, 146a
    • Plato, Symposium, 206d
    • Plato, Meno, 95
    • Sophocles, Ajax, 172
    • Sophocles, Philoctetes, 840
    • Thucydides, Histories, 4.84
    • Xenophon, Anabasis, 3.2.9
    • Xenophon, Cyropaedia, 3.2.20
    • Xenophon, Economics, 20.20
    • Sophocles, Trachiniae, 1174
    • Pindar, Pythian, 4
    • Theophrastus, Characters, 14
    • Callimachus, Epigrams, 29
    • Callimachus, Epigrams, 44
    • Callimachus, Hymn to Demeter
    • Apollonius Rhodius, Argonautica, 1.1184
    • Apollonius Rhodius, Argonautica, 1.1361
    • Apollonius Rhodius, Argonautica, 1.458
    • Apollonius Rhodius, Argonautica, 1.486
    • Apollonius Rhodius, Argonautica, 1.496
    • Apollonius Rhodius, Argonautica, 1.725
    • Apollonius Rhodius, Argonautica, 2.1026
    • Apollonius Rhodius, Argonautica, 2.143
    • Apollonius Rhodius, Argonautica, 2.258
    • Apollonius Rhodius, Argonautica, 3.1284
    • Apollonius Rhodius, Argonautica, 3.189
    • Apollonius Rhodius, Argonautica, 4.1002
    • Apollonius Rhodius, Argonautica, 4.103
    • Apollonius Rhodius, Argonautica, 4.201
    • Apollonius Rhodius, Argonautica, 4.678
    • Apollonius Rhodius, Argonautica, 4.697
    • Apollonius Rhodius, Argonautica, 4.877
    • Theocritus, Epigrams, 10
    • Theocritus, Idylls, 1
    • Theocritus, Idylls, 10
    • Theocritus, Idylls, 11
    • Theocritus, Idylls, 17
    • Theocritus, Idylls, 2
    • Theocritus, Idylls, 21
    • Theocritus, Idylls, 24
    • Theocritus, Idylls, 25
    • Theocritus, Idylls, 4
    • Theocritus, Idylls, 7
    • Aristophanes, Clouds, 768
    • Aristophanes, Lysistrata, 564
    • Hippocrates, Vectiarius, 11
    • Hippocrates, Vectiarius, 41
    • Hippocrates, De diaeta in morbis acutis, 2
    • Ovid, Metamorphoses, 2.676
    • Ovid, Metamorphoses, 4.663
    • Vergil, Aeneid, 11.183
    • Vergil, Aeneid, 6.427
    • Vergil, Aeneid, 8.210
    • Vergil, Eclogues, 6
    • Tacitus, Annales, 2.40
    • Plautus, Amphitruo, 5.1
    • Pliny the Elder, Naturalis Historia, 16.40
    • Cicero, Tusculanae Disputationes, 3.8
    • Plutarch, Caesar, 51
    • Diodorus, Historical Library, 5.67
    • Ovid, Fasti, 1
    • Ovid, Fasti, 5
  • Cross-references in notes from this page (3):
    • Pausanias, Description of Greece, 7.22.2
    • Pausanias, Description of Greece, 7.22.3
    • Pausanias, Description of Greece, 9.11.7
hide Display Preferences
Greek Display:
Arabic Display:
View by Default:
Browse Bar: