HYMN TO APHRODITE
BIBLIOGRAPHYA. LUDWICH, Rheinisches Museum p. 566, 1888. R. PEPPMÜLLER, Philologus xlvii. p. 13 f., 1889. A. FICK, in Bezzenberger Beiträge xvi. 1890, p. 23 f. T. W. ALLEN, J. H. S. xviii. p. 23 f., 1898. TÜMPEL and DÜMMLER, art. “Aphrodite” in Pauly-Wissowa Real-Encycl. L. DYER, Gods in Greece p. 270 f., 1891. L. R. FARNELL, Cults of the Greek States ii. p. 618 f., 1896. A. LANG, The Homeric Hymns (Translation) p. 40 f., 1899.
Character of the poem.—The hymn has often been compared with the “Lay” of Demodocus on the love of Ares and Aphrodite (Od. 8.266 f.). There can be no doubt that the author was acquainted with the lay (see notes on 58 f., 234). But the resemblance is confined to language; for the moral tone of the hymn is far higher than that of the Olympian society depicted by Demodocus. Baumeister (p. 250) misunderstands the character of the hymn in remarking that Aphrodite is represented as Vulgivaga, a lascivious goddess who rejoices in the base love with which she inspires the gods. Against this view Gemoll (p. 258) rightly points out that Aphrodite shews shame and modesty. Her passion for Anchises is no wantonness, but has been forced upon her by Zeus. The poet treats the adventure with considerable frankness, indeed, but not without dignity; and the note of humour and raillery, which is sounded in the Odyssean lay and the hymn to Hermes, is entirely absent. The merits of the poem have been perhaps extravagantly lauded by some critics, but have been unfairly depreciated by others. There may be some inelegance (according to modern taste) in repetitions such as that of “ἔργον”, used five times in 1-16; but these blemishes, which are collected by Suhle,2 do not justify that scholar's verdict that the writer is a permediocris poeta. It is true that there is little originality in work which follows the Homeric language so closely (see below, p. 198); but credit at least is due to an imitator who has successfully caught the spirit as well as the letter of the old epic. The scene of Aphrodite's progress to Ida (67 f.) is finely picturesque; and the whole poem, in Mr. Murray's words,3 “expresses perhaps more exquisitely than anything else in Greek literature that frank joy in physical life and beauty which is often supposed to be characteristic of Greece.” The poet's conception of Aphrodite is simple. She is mistress over the whole world of animal life (2-6); but the hymn gives no hint of a deity who inspires the whole Cosmos—an Aphrodite Urania, by whose agency “ἐρᾷ μὲν ἁγνὸς οὐρανὸς τρῶσαι χθόνα, ἔρως δὲ γαῖαν λαμβάνει γαμοῦ τυχεῖν”. Aesch. fr. 41. Such an idea of the universal love-goddess doubtless grew up, as Mr. Farnell remarks (p. 699), on eastern soil; but in Greek literature it found no full expression until the time of Attic tragedy (e.g. Eur. fr. 89), and later, of the Orphic hymns (cf. Orph. h. lv. 4). Date.—The date of the hymn, as of the others, is very doubtful. Hermann calls it Homeri nomine dignissimum, and some have even thought it contemporary with the Iliad and Odyssey. Windisch4 thinks it as old as the later parts of the Odyssey; Thiele5 assigns it to the time of the Cypria. Others (e.g. Eberhard6), without urging so early a date, consider the hymn to be the oldest in the collection. On the other hand, Suhle7 believes that the author may have been a contemporary of the Pisistratids, or even of Sophocles. This view is extreme; but it will hardly be disputed at the present day that the hymn is later than the earliest parts of the Odyssey. The theory of great antiquity rests mainly on the fact that the hymn is “ὁμηρικώτατος” in diction. As many as twenty verses are taken from Homer with little or no variation; and the poem abounds in epic hemistiches and formulas. But this only proves that the author was a diligent student of the Homeric poems, while there are a number of words and usages which are not Homeric (a full list is given by Suhle p. 16 f.). Reminiscences of Hesiod are scattered through the poem (5, 14, 29, 108, 258, etc.). Still more remarkable is the close connexion between this hymn and that to Demeter. The two hymns have, in common, several words, or uses of words, which do not occur elsewhere in extant Greek literature: 31 “τιμάοχος” (h. Dem. 268), 157 “εὔστρωτος” (h. Dem. 285), 257 “βαθύκολπος”, applied to nymphs (h. Dem. 5), 284 “καλυκῶπις” (h. Dem. 8), which only reappears in the Orphic hymns. Some striking expressions are also confined to the two hymns: 156 “κατ᾽ ὄμματα καλὰ βαλοῦσα” (h. Dem. 194), 173 “μελάθρου κῦρε κάρη” (h. Dem. 188). Unfortunately, scholars are not agreed as to the question of borrowing. Some (e.g. Abel) hold that the writer of the hymn was the imitator; Gemoll and others think it scarcely doubtful that the hymn to Aphrodite is the older. The latter view seems the more probable. In that case, it may well be at least as old as the seventh century B.C. Place of composition.—If the date of the poem is uncertain, the place of composition is not less obscure. According to Groddeck, who is followed by various scholars, including Abel and Fick (B. B. ix. p. 200), the hymn is Cyprian. It is pointed out that Aphrodite is called the goddess of Cyprus in 2, 292, and the rare word “σατίνας” in 13 is supposed to be Cyprian. No argument, however, can be based on the occurrence of the title “Κύπρις”, which is Homeric, and, like “Κυθέρεια”, belongs to the common stock of divine epithets (cf. vi. 2 and 18; x. 1 “Κυπρογενῆ Κυθέρειαν”). The Cyprian origin of “σατίνη” is also very dubious (see on 13); and in any case a word used by Anacreon and Euripides need not be considered distinctly “local,” even in early poetry. Others (Matthiae, O. Müller, etc.) place the home of the author in Asia Minor, and believe the poem to have been recited in honour of a chieftain who claimed descent from Aeneas. But the hymn bears no trace of having been composed for a definite occasion, or in honour of a particular person. The allusion of the revived Trojan kingdom in 196 f. is quite vague, and is merely a reminiscence of the Homeric tradition. Many, without committing themselves to the “Trojan” theory, believe that the author was an Ionian, or at least lived in Asia Minor. This is as likely as the Cyprian view, and as equally incapable of proof. The myth handled by the poet is not local, but Homeric; the love of Aphrodite and Anchises was famous wherever Homer was known. The language may be “very pure Ionic—almost Homeric-Greek,” but it does not follow that the composer was an Asiatic, as Prof. Mahaffy argues (Hist. Greek Lit. i. p. 148). At a time when the epics had become the property of the whole Greek-speaking world, the author of such a hymn might have belonged to any branch of the Hellenic stock. The further argument of those who see a contamination of Aphrodite with the Asiatic Cybele is unsound. It is true that Aphrodite was probably, in the Troad, another form of Cybele (Farnell p. 641), and as a nature-goddess had power over all the brute creation; but the hymn-writer is influenced by the Homeric conception of the goddess, and for Homer Aphrodite is far removed from Cybele. As Gemoll observes, the goddess is called a daughter of Zeus, and her train of beasts is a mere imitation of the animals which follow Circe (see on 69). State of the text.—The general unity of the hymn is so obvious that it has suffered little from the “higher criticism.” The Germans, for the most part, have been content to expunge isolated lines. One passage—the description of the nymphs—was suspected by Groddeck and Ilgen (260-274). The lines are perhaps the most interesting in the poem, and there is absolutely no valid ground for denying them a place in the original document. Hermann's theory of a double recension cannot be neglected; but such a recension, if it existed, has left but slight traces; cf. notes on 97 f., 274 f. Eur. Hipp.447 f.Eur. Hipp., 1269 f., Lucr.i. 1 f.
 διιπετέας, “that fly in the air,” not elsewhere of birds; cf. Il. 17.675 “ ὑπουρανίων πετεηνῶν”. In Homer the word is only applied to rivers “which fall from Zeus”; Baumeister suggests the same meaning here, “sent from Zeus,” comparing Od. 2.182 “ ἐναίσιμοι”, a passage, however, which is rather against his view; for only some birds are “ἐναίσιμοι”, whereas the power of Aphrodite extends over all alike.
 Γλαυκῶπιν Ἀθ́ηνΗν: so in Od. 1.156, Theog. 13, 888, h. Apoll. 314, without variant; “γλαυκῶπιν πολύμητιν” in xxviii. 2. On the other hand, “γλαυκώπιδ᾽ Ἀθήνην” h. Apoll. 323, “γλαυκώπιδα εἴπῃ Θ” 373. See Kühner-Blass i. p. 421 n. 7.ἀΓλαὰ ἔργα: here of arts generally, including masculine accomplishments; below 15, of women's work. See also xx. 2. τέκτονας: for dedications to Athena by “τέκτονες” cf. Anth. Pal. vi. 204 and 205. Athena gave men “τὴν τεκτονικὴν τέχνην” Diod.v. 73; so, as early as Hesiod ( Hes. Op.430), the plough-builder is “Ἀθηναίης δμῶος”.
 σατίνας: this rare word occurs elsewhere only in Anacr.xxi. 12“σατινέων”, Eur. Hel.1311; see Hesych., and “ηεροδ. π. διχρ”. 291. 25. It is derived by G. Meyer Alban. Stud. iii.=Sitzungsber. d. Wiener Akad. 125 p. 51 Anm. 1: “Das Wort stammt aus Vorderasien, und gehört zu ai. śátr<*>s ‘Feind’ air. cath ‘Kampf,’ gall. Caturiges, ahd. hadu, ags. heado.” This is accepted by Solmsen K. Z. xxiv. p. 38 and 69 who adds the Phrygian “Κότυς” and the Thracian tribe “Σάτραι, Σατροκένται”. This etymology and the quotations in literature (in Anacreon the word is part of a description of eastern luxury, in Euripides it represents Cybele's car) seem to make “σατίνη” a Grecised Asian, perhaps Phrygian, word. Fick's view (B. B. ix. p. 200) that the word is Cyprian rests on no better evidence than Hesychius' gloss “σάσαι: καθίσαι. Πάφιοι” (Smyth Melic Poets p. 291).καὶ ἅρματα Ποικίλα χαλκῷ=Il. 4.226 “, Κ” 322, 393. Ruhnken (h. Dem. 274) would neglect position throughout, i.e. write “τε καί”. The question is discussed in J. H. S. xviii. p. 23f. True exx. of “καί” making position (i.e. with no digamma or other consonant lost before the following vowel) are rare, and Ilgen's view cannot be considered as proved, owing to the ease with which “τε” is dropped in the MSS. Flach (B. B. ii. p. 18) omits “τε” in 85, 169, 232; Fick reads “ἰδέ”. 14= Hes. Op.519“παρθενικῆς ἁπαλόχροος”, and ibid. 521 “ἔργα ἰδυῖα πολυχρύσου Ἀφροδίτης”, with which cf. 9. Gemoll remarks that the debt to Hesiod is plain.
 χρυσηλάκατον κελαδειν́ην=Il. 7.183 “, Υ” 70, xxvii. 1. Hesych. is probably right in explaining “χρυσηλάκατος” (for Homer) as=“καλλίτοξος: ἠλακάτη γὰρ ὁ τοξικὸς κάλαμος”. For “ἠλακάτη”=“arrow,” cf. “ἄτρακτος”=“οἰστός”. This is the view of D'Orville J. P. xxv. p. 257, who also compares Soph. Trach.636.The sense “of golden distaff” is quite unsuited to the character of Artemis. The addition of “κελαδεινή” in several passages is a further argument. The epithet refers to the goddess as a hunter who “calls on the hounds”; cf. schol. “Α” on Il. 16.183 “ κυνηγετικῆς: παρὰ τὸν γιγνόμενον ἐν τοῖς κυνηγίοις κέλαδον”. So, probably, in Bacchyl.xi. 37“Ἄρτεμις ἀγροτέρα χρυσαλάκατος . . . τοξόκλυτος”. Later poets (Pindar and Bacchyl.ix. 1) must also have understood the epithet to refer to the distaff.
 φιλομμειδ́ης: Curtius is no doubt right in connecting this with √smi (“μμ” for “σμ”), i.e.=“φιλόγελως”, in spite of the Hesiodean “φιλομμηδέα, ὅτι μηδέων ἐξεφαάνθη”, Theog. 200. So Brugmann Grundriss i. p. 165 and 421, iii. p. 1051.
. M's reading can hardly be due to mere mistake; perhaps a line has fallen out between 18 and 19 “καὶ γὰρ τῇ ἅδε [ . . . πουλύχρυσα δὲ] τόξα κτλ.” The omission was due to homoeomeson, sc. “ἅδε” and “-α δέ. πολύχρυσος” in Homer is applied to persons and places, but Artemis' bow is “παγχρύσεα” in xxvii. 5. “πουλύχρυσος” in not Homeric.
 διαπρύσιοι: the adject. is not found in Homer, though “διαπρύσιον” (adv.) occurs several times; cf. h. Herm. 336. ὀλολυγαί, the cries of women at the dances in honour of Artemis. For the musical character of Artemis see Farnell p. 471, xxvii. 18.
 δικαίων τε Πτόλις ἀΝδρῶν: for Artemis as a lover of justice compare Callim. h. Art. 122 f. “ἀλλά μιν εἰς ἀδίκων ἔβαλες πόλιν” (she slays the unjust with her arrows). “πτόλις” in contradistinction to “ἄλσεα” refers to her political and social character. This side was not very prominent. See Pauly-Wissowa s.v. 1350 f., Farnell Cults ii. p. 467 f. The epithet “πολιήοχος” given her in Apoll. Arg. 1.312 does not seem to occur in actual cult. Although Zeus promises her “thirty cities to cherish no other god but thee, and be called by the name of Artemis” (Callim. h. Art. 34, cf. ib. 225 “πολύπτολι”), these cities, as Farnell points out, are not Greek cities proper, or are unknown to us. At Athens and Miletus, her titles “Βουλαία” and “Βουληφόρος” shew some connexion with civic life; at Olympia she was worshipped as “Ἀγοραία”. Cf. also Anacr. i.“ἥ κου νῦν ἐπὶ Ληθαίου δίνῃσι θρασυκαρδίων ἀνδρῶν ἐσκατορᾷς πόλιν”. Artemis dwells in Metapontum ( Bacchyl.v. 115 f.) as “δέσποινα λαῶν”. But the ordinary Greek conception of Artemis is well expressed by Callim. h. Art. 19 f. “σπαρνὸν γάρ, ὅτ᾽ Ἄρτεμις ἄστυ κάτεισιν. οὔρεσιν οἰκήσω κτλ.”The sing. “πτόλις” is somewhat abrupt, and no doubt produced M's “πόλεις”. However “a city” is after all collective: its inhabitants may possess the “ἄλσεα” and produce the solemnities of 19. “πτόλις” is Cyprian - Arcadian, according to Fick B. B. ix. p. 204, but it is certainly used here purely for metrical convenience, as “πτόλις πτόλεμος” in Homer. Bothe's view, that a single city (Delphi) is meant, cannot be accepted.
 The Ionic form “ἱστίη” (Smyth Ionic § 144) has survived in the greater part of the MSS.; in the two minor hymns xxiv. 1 and xxix. 1 “ἑστίη” is invariable, though at xxix. 6 “ἱστίη” is read by all copies but two. In the four places where the word occurs in the Odyssey, “ἱστ-” is the vulgate, but in all except Od. 20.231 the common form has crept into some copies. In Il. 2.537 “ ἱστίαιαν” does not vary. In Hesiod “ἑστίῃ” is the vulgate ( Op.734), and “ἑστίην” is found sporadically in Theog. 454.
 Ejected by many editors after Heyne. But there is no good reason for suspicion; the poet alludes to the legend of Cronus, who disgorged his children in an order inverse to that in which he had swallowed them ( Theog. 495 f.) Hestia, who was the eldest child, was swallowed first and disgorged last. She could be said to have a second birth, as much as Dionysus, who was born again from the thigh of Zeus. This curious mention of Hestia as the “eldest and youngest” is perhaps connected with the custom of pouring libation to her at the beginning and end of a feast; see xxix. 5.
 The wooing of Hestia by Poseidon and Apollo is not elsewhere mentioned. The myth, as Gemoll suggests, may be an invention of the poet himself. There is no ground for supposing any physical meaning with Preller and Baumeister. Welcker's explanation is more satisfactory, that Poseidon and Apollo stand for the highest suitors; Hestia would not accept any proposal. There was a group of Poseidon, Amphitrite, and Hestia at Olympia ( Paus.v. 26. 2), a conjunction of deities which may have a physical origin, but has certainly nothing to do with the present myth.στερεῶς ἀΠέειπεν=Il. 9.510.
 καλόν: the shortening of the first syllable is not Homeric, but occurs in Hes. Op.63, Theog. 585. The last passage (“δῶκε καλὸν κακὸν ἀντ᾽ ἀγαθοῖο”) is probably the original of this verse (Gemoll). Some older editors omitted “Ζεύς”, reading “δῶκεν καλόν”. Baumeister objected to this on the ground that “πατήρ” is not used with the omission of “Ζεύς”. This, however, is a mistake; cf. Il. 8.69 “, 245, Λ 80, Ξ” 352 etc. See Ebeling s.v. “πατήρ” 147. But no alteration of the text is required.
 Πρέσβειρα does not occur elsewhere before Euripides (I. T. 963).
 τῶν ἄλλων: sc. “οὐδένι. Πεφυγμένον”: for the use of the middle perfect participle cf. Il. 22.219 (neuter, as here). In Il. 6.488 “, ι” 455 it is used in the masc. In Od. 1.18 the object is in the genitive; see Nitzsch ad loc.35=Od. 9.521. ὃς τῶν μὲν ἄλλων δαιμόνων ἔχει κράτος”,
“κείνης δὲ δοῦλός ἐστι”. Add Mosch.i. 76“Κύπριδος, ἣ μούνη δύναται καὶ Ζῆνα δαμάσσαι”.
 εὖτε θέλοι: Baumeister and Gemoll seem right in retaining the form “θέλοι”, as the hymn does not belong to the oldest epic. See note on h. Apoll. 46. Some edd. after M read “εὖτ᾽ ἐθέλῃ”, but the opt. “θέλοι” is to be retained; “ἤγαγε” and “συνέμιξε” are not indefinite in time, but refer to Aphrodite's treatment of Zeus in the past, for which he now punishes her.42-44 were suspected by Ilgen, but rightly defended by Matthiae. The poet is imitating epic prolixity, and airing his mythological knowledge.
 See Introd. p. 196 and cf. 189 f., where Aphrodite's passion is a sorrow to her. Lang (Transl. p. 42) compares Homer's lenient view of Helen, who is the unwilling tool of destiny.
 For the change of mood in εἴπͅη following “εἴη” compare Il. 15.598 (“ἐμβάλῃ . . . ἐπικρήνειε”: Hermann “ἐμβάλοι”), Od. 12.156 (“θάνωμεν . . . φύγοιμεν”: some MSS. and edd. “φύγωμεν”), Il. 5.567 “ πάθῃ . . . ἀποσφήλειε” (where “πάθοι” is read by Leaf after two MSS.). The usage, however, appears to be established; cf. Il. 16.648 “-651, Σ 306, δ” 692. So Il. 24.654 “ αὐτίκ᾽ ἂν ἐξείποι . . . καί κεν ἀνάβλησις λύσιος νεκροῖο γένηται”, where the subj. appears to express the certainty of the further consequence as though the hypothetical case (“αὐτίκ᾽ ἂν ἐξείποι”) had actually occurred (H. G. § 275). In all these cases the subj. indicates that greater stress is laid upon an alternative or consequence.
 ἀΝέμιξε: Schäfer's correction “συνέμιξε” is palaeographically easy, but it is hard to see why, if the MSS. preserve “συνέμιξε” in 39, 50, and “συνέμιξα” 250, they should not have done so here. Ixion read “ἀναμίσγομαι” (for “ἐπιμίσγομαι”) Il. 10.548.54=“ἐν ἀκροπόλοισιν ὄρεσσιν Ε 523, τ 205. Πολυπιδάκου”: the form (for “πολυπίδακος”) was condemned by Aristarchus; cf. schol. “Α” on Il. 14.157 “ τὸ δὲ διὰ τοῦ υ γράφειν τελέως ἄγροικον”. It is given, however, in the Cypria fr. 3. 5 (Athen. xv. p. 682 F); cf. Strabo 602 “πολυπίδακον δὲ τὴν Ἴδην ἰδίως οἴονται λέγεσθαι”. See La Roche Hom. Textkr. p. 343. For the double form cf. “φύλαξ, φυλακός”. Od. 8.362-365, with the addition Il. 14.169 (=60) and Il. 14.172 (=63). 58 is not literally identical with Od. 8.362 (“ἡ δ᾽ ἄρα Κύπρον ἵκανε φιλομμειδὴς Ἀφροδίτη”), and in 59 the hymn has “θυώδης” against “θυήεις” of Od. 8.363. A more important difference is “ἑανῷ” in the hymn 63, against “ἑδανῷ Ξ” 172. As “ἑα^νῷ” cannot be an adj., and as (in Il. 14.172) Athen. 688 E, schol. Il. 14.346, and the papyr. Brit. Mus. 572 have “ἑανῷ”, it is probable that “ἑδανῷ” was original here, and suffered an easy graphical corruption to the common word (see on 63). It might be doubted whether the writer consciously combined the two contexts from “Ξ” and “θ”, or whether the passage in “θ”, which is the closer parallel, was at one time fuller. But he must also have been familiar with “Ξ”; see on 66, 68.
 For the Phoenician temple of Aphrodite at Paphos see Gardner E. in J. H. S. ix. 193-215, Dyer p. 305 f. For the repetition of ἐς cf. note on h. Apoll. 439. It does not appear in Od. 8.362. The inelegancy “θυώδεα—θυώδης” is also due to the imitator. βωμός τε θυώδης following “θυώδεα νηόν” draws special attention to the incense, which was a prominent feature of the Paphian templecult; cf. Verg. Aen.i. 415 f. ipsa Paphum sublimis alit, sedesque revisitlaeta suas: ubi templum illi centumque Sabaeo
ture calent arae sertisque recentibus halant.
 θύρας ἑΠέθηκε φαεινάς = Il. 14.169 “, φ” 45; cf. Od. 6.19 “, Ε” 751. The doors are “brought to” their “σταθμοί”. The epithet “φαεινάς” probably refers to metal ornament. In the house of Alcinous the door is golden (Od. 7.88).Il. 5.338 the robe of Aphrodite is called the work of the Charites; in the Cypria fr. 2 it is woven by the Charites and Horae. Aphrodite is associated with Charites in the dance; cf. Od. 18.194, h. Apoll. 194 f. The Nymphs and Charites with Aphrodite sing together on Ida— Cypria fr. 3. The connexion is certainly old, although we cannot assert that it is primitive; see Farnell p. 625. At Elis Pausanias (vi. 24. 5) saw statues of the Charites, who bore emblems of Aphrodite, and remarks “Χάριτας δὲ Ἀφροδίτῃ μάλιστα εἶναι θεῶν” (“οἰκείας”). Cf. also Od. 8.362, Hes. Op.73, Mosch.i. 71, Colluth. 16, and other reff. in Roscher Lex. s.v. 875.
 οἶα: the plur. following “ἐλαίῳ” is curious; according to M. and R. (on Od. 8.365) “it is not used merely adverbially, but takes up generally the idea suggested by the emphatic epithet “ἀμβρότῳ”.” This view seems better than to take “οἷα” as= “in such manner as,” in which case “ἔλαιον” will be the subject of “ἐπενήνοθεν”.ἐΠεν́ηνοθεν: second perf. “ἐπ-εν-ἀνθέω”, “flowers out upon” (stem “ἀνοθ” for “ἀνθ” in “ἄνθος” etc.). Others translate “is laid upon,” from “ἐνέθω”; see Et. 304, Buttmann Lexil. 130 f. Meyer (Griech. Et. i.) marks the etymology as doubtful.
 The verse has been generally ejected, but is rightly retained by Gemoll; see further on 97. There is no reason why the writer of the hymn, who apparently borrowed 60 from “Ξ”, should not have added another line from the same context. For the meaning of ἀμβροσίῳ see Leaf on Il. 2.19. There can be little doubt that it is here used as a synonym of “ἀμβρότῳ”, though Gemoll thinks that the writer may have distinguished between the two words. For the close conjunction of the words see Od. 18.191-93.ἑδανῷ: the meaning may be “sweet,” as Apollon. and Herod. understood, but the derivation is unknown; see Meyer Griech. Et. i. s.v., and cf. Solmsen Untersuchungen p. 283, 4. 66, 67. In both lines the reading of M has been accepted. For ἐΠί with gen.= “towards” cf. Il. 3.5 “, Ε 700. ῥίμφα”, as the rarer word, is prima facie more probable than “θοῶς”.
 εὐώδεα: all Cyprus is filled with the fragrance of the goddess. The epithet, as Gemoll notes, is suggested by Il. 14.173 f., where the smell of the oil, with which Hera anoints herself, reaches heaven and earth.68=Il. 8.47 (“ἵκανεν”) and Il. 14.283 (“ἱκέσθην”); the latter verse was probably in the poet's mind, as 67=Il. 14.282. μητέρα θηρῶν: cf. “μητέρα μήλων Β 696, Ι 479, Α” 222, h. Pan 30.
 Lenz remarks that this passage is suggested by the episode of Circe, Od. 10.212 f., where, however, wolves and lions fawn on the companions of Odysseus, not on Circe. But the main idea— the power of a goddess over brutes —is the same. In Apoll. Arg. 1.1144 f. wild beasts fawn on Rhea, and in Arg. Il. 4.672 f. they follow Circe like sheep following a shepherd. So Lucr.i. 16ita capta leporete sequitur cupide quo quamque inducere pergis (pecudes).
 Παρδάλιες Mx, “πορδάλιες” p. The Paris family preserves the Aeolic form (Smyth Ionic § 147. 2), which, however, remained in common use; e.g. Strabo 619. In Homer (Il. 13.103 “, Ρ 20, Φ 573, δ” 457) the MSS. are divided; Aristarchus read “πάρδ-”. D'Orville wished to alter the line so as to assimilate “προκάδων” to the declension “πρόξ, προκός” which we find in Od. 17.295. But “δόρξ, δορκάς” is a sufficient parallel for the double form.
 σταθμοῖξι: the locatival dat. here and in 79 is defended by such passages as Od. 8.66 “ μέσσῳ δαιτυμόνων” (“θῆκε”), Il. 20.22 “ πτυχὶ Οὐλύμποιο ἥμενος”; see H. G. § 145. The use is most common with names of places, as Od. 6.8, 162 etc. (“Σχερίῃ, Δήλῳ”). For exx. in the hymns cf. infra 173, h. Dem. 99, xx. 4.
 ἐΠιγΝαμπτάς: the verb “ἐπιγνάμπτω” is not uncommon, and the adjective, though “ἅπ. λεγ.”, need not be suspected. Baumeister reads “εὐγνάμπτας”, which, however, is of two terminations: Od. 18.294, Apoll. Arg. 3.833, Orph. Arg. 499. “ἔπι γναμπτάς” (Barnes and Döderlein), sc. “ἐπὶ τούτῳ”, is quite impossible.“ἕλικας κτλ.”: the description of the jewels is evidently borrowed from Il. 18.401, which=163 infra. According to Helbig the “ἕλικες” were brooches, such as have been found in graves of the “Mycenean” period, formed of two spirals (H. E. p. 279-82). The κάλυκες were probably earrings in the shape of flower-buds, but nothing is really known about them. The schol. AB on Il. 18.401 gives a choice of several meanings—rings, earrings, and spirals for the hair (cf. Il. 17.52).
 ἐλάμπετο is probably impersonal (Franke, Gemoll). The old view that the subject is “ὅρμοι” (by schema Pindaricum) is most improbable. Baumeister suggests that Aphrodite is the subject, but, as Gemoll observes, the goddess is clothed, and it is the “πέπλος”, not the skin of the goddess herself, which shines (cf. 86). The construction would be simplified if, with Wakefield (followed by Suhle and others), we transpose 89, 90 between 86 and 87, reading “καλὸν χρύσειον παμποίκιλον” in 89; the subject of “ἐλάμπετο” is then clear.
 ἈγχίσηΝ δ᾽ ἔρος εἶλεν: Anchises loved Aphrodite at first sight; lines 143, 144 merely imply that the goddess added to his passion. Peppmüller's “τάφος” for “δ᾽ ἔρος” is no improvement to the sense, and is objectionable on account of the asyndeton.ἄνασσα is only applied to goddesses in Homer: to Demeter Il. 14.326, and Athena Od. 3.380 (in Od. 6.149 Odysseus doubts whether Nausicaa is not a goddess, and uses the word reverently). So in the hymns: h. Dem. 75, 440, 492; xxxii. 17.
 In Homer the Charites are mainly associated with Aphrodite (see on 61), although Charis is the wife of Hephaestus in Il. 18.382, and Hera promises one of the Charites in marriage, Il. 18.267, 275. But in later times they were connected with various other deities, e.g. with Apollo, Artemis, the Muses, Hermes, Dionysus, and Hera. For references see Preller-Robert ii. p. 482 f.97, 98. Here (as in 62, 63 “ἀμβροσίῳ ἀμβρότῳ”) the repetition of Νυμφάων Νυμφῶν has been a ground for assuming two recensions; but (1) in each case the second line introduces a fresh item of description, (2) the redundancy does not involve more than a poverty of art. Therefore it is probable that 63 and 98 are original. “νυμφάων—νυμφῶν”, if remarkable, has the exact parallel of “ὠδῆς—ἀοιδῆς” h. Dem. 494, 495. Lines 97, 99=Il. 20.8, 9 (“οὔτ᾽ ἄρα” for “ἤ τις”). With 98 cf. Od. 6.123 “ νυμφάων αἳ ἔχουσ᾽ ὀρέων αἰπεινὰ κάρηνα” (Od. 6.124=Il. 20.9). Gemoll is wrong in suggesting that the Oreads may be a later conception, owing to their absence in “Υ.” They are mentioned in Il. 6.420 “ νύμφαι ὀρεστιάδες”, as well as in the Odyssey. See on 258. παῖδ᾽ ἐμόν, ὡς καὶ ἐγώ περ, ἀριπρεπέα Τρώεσσιν”.
ἄνδρα: Schneidewin's “ἀνδρῶν” is quite unnecessary; nor is “αἰεί” an improvement, although “ἀνήρ” and “αἰεί” are confused in h. Apoll. 151. αὐτὰρ ἔμ̓ αὐτόν κτλ.”: sc. “δός”, supplied from 103. Gemoll's “ἔα” for “ἐΰ” in 105 is not fortunate. Od. 16.187 (“ἀθανάτοισιν”).
 In Il. 3.186 Otreus is a chief of the Phrygians, who was assisted by Priam in an invasion of the Amazons.
 The recognition of difficulties in understanding another's language is quite Homeric, and is not “a note of late authorship, or at least of a self-conscious art not found in very early poetry” (Tyrrell Hermath. ix. p. 48). Cf. Il. 2.804 “, Δ” 437; and later Agam. 1034, Eur. Phoen.301 with schol. A foreign nurse must have been common wherever slave-trading was known.καὶ ἩμετέρηΝ: i.e. “I know your tongue as well as my own.” 118=Il. 16.183 (“ἐν χορῷ”), where Hermes earries off Polymele, whom he himself loves. Lines 119-21 are an amplification of the Homeric passage, characteristic of an imitator. In Eur. Hel.44 f. Hermes earries off Helen.
 ἄκληρον, land which has not been divided into “κλῆροι”, “allotments” (see Il. 15.498). ἄκτιτον, “not built over”; it might possibly=“uncultivated,” as its opposite “εὐκτίμενος” appears sometimes to mean “well-tilled”; cf. Od. 9.130 “, ω” 336, For the omission of “γῆν” cf. Il. 14.308 “, υ” 98, h. Dem. 43 “ἐπὶ τραφερήν τε καὶ ὑγρήν”, h. Apoll. 529. So Il. 10.27 “, δ 709 πουλὺν ἐφ᾽ ὑγρήν”, Theog. 440 etc.
 Ψαύσειν: the present “ψαύειν” would mean “we went (i.e. ran) so fast that I was flying.” This is certainly wrong, for the motion of Gods or persons conveyed by Gods is through the air: e.g. of Hera Il. 14.228, Aeneas Il. 20.335, Hermes Od. 5.40, Persephone h. Dem. 383, Iphigenia I. T. 29, Memnon Smyrn. Quint.ii. 569.The meaning required is: “I thought I should go on for ever, without touching ground.” Ruhnken and Matthiae alone accept the future.
 καλέεσθαι: for the form cf. Od. 7.313 (“αἲ γὰρ”) “ἐμὸς γαμβρὸς καλέεσθαι”, a passage which renders Guttmann's “κλινέεσθαι” quite superfluous. The fut. act. “καλέω” occurs four times in Homer. The fut. pass. “κεκλήσομαι” is commoner in epic, cf. 148; for “καλέεσθαι” cf. Soph. El.971; Kühner-Blass ii. 108 n. 6, Smyth Ionic § 592. 4.ἀλλ᾽ ἐϊκυῖα” neglects the digamma. D'Orville compares Ovid Heroid. v. 83 non tamen ut Priamus nymphae socer esse recuset, aut Hecubae fuerim dissimulanda nurus.
 ἄποινα, “price,” is here used apparently for the presents given to the bride as a dowry by her parents. Cf. Il. 9.147, where the presents are called “μείλια” (see Leaf ad loc.), Il. 22.51. Matthiae understands “ἄποινα” to bear its common meaning of “reward” (as in 210), translating retributio pro reperta et servata filia; but this seems forced and improbable.
 τίμιον apparently refers to a regular marriage, as opposed to illicit intercourse (Baumeister).143=Il. 3.139.
 A striking instance of the retention by M of an earlier stage of language; cf. h. Apoll. 341. Where “ἕκητι” occurs in Homer the digamma is observed (Od. 15.319 “, τ 86, υ” 42) except in <*> 42, where there is a variant “τ᾽ ἀέκητι”. In xxvi. 5 the digamma is neglected.
 ξχ́ησει Πρίν: cf. Il. 16.502 “ οὐ γὰρ <*>ώ γε Ἕκτορα . . . σχήσεσθαι ὀΐω τρὶν . . . βήμεναι ἵππω”. Baumeister and Gemoll find a difficulty in the con<*>truction here which, however, seems perfectly logical and intelligible. We might indeed expect the simple inf., as in Il. 17.182 “ σχήσω ἀμυνέμεναι”, but this construction does not occur again in Homer. The Attic “μὴ οὐ” is, of course, later.κτῆσιν ἐμήν κτλ.”
 κλισίͅη: sc. in the hut; cf. 76. Stephanus printed “πάρ” for “ἄρα”, and this was long believed to be a manuscript reading. For the locative see on h. Dem. 99. The passage in the MSS. is very abrupt; if correct, there is a rhetorical asyndeton, with a sort of climax. The harshness is removed by Ruhnken's “εὐποιήτου δέ”, but there is no motive for such a corruption. A crasis “κεὐποιήτοιο” is a much simpler solution of the difficulty; “κ” might easily drop out after “η”, owing to similarity of minuscules. For exx. of crasis in the hymns see n. on h. Dem. 13. μελάθρου κῦρε κάρη recurs in h. Dem. 188. The substitutes for “κῦρε” in all the MSS. except M are a typical case of the transformation of the minuscule “κ.”
 ε<*>ϋστεφάνου is probably correct. The epithet occurs in this hymn at 6 and 288 without variant. It is Homeric; cf. Od. 8.267 “ ἐϋστεφάνου τ᾽ Ἀφροδίτης. ἰοστέφανος” appears first in vi. 18 (with the variant in p), Solon fr. 19. 4, Theognis 250 etc. In Solon fr. 52 the two words are again variants.
 Hermann omits “τό”, La Roche “με”, to avoid the correption of “πρ”. Franke however compares “σε πρός” 131, 187. For Homeric exx. see H. G. § 370, La Roche Hom. Unters. i. p. 9. On the other hand cf. “τὰ πρῶτα” in 185.στήθεά θ᾽ ἱμερόεντα καὶ ὄμματα μαρμαίροντα”, where Helen recognises Aphrodite through her disguise as an old woman.
 ἀμενΗνόν: the idea that union with a goddess would deprive a man of his vigour is perhaps, as Gemoll suggests, borrowed from the story of Circe, Od. 10.301 “ μή σ᾽ ἀπογυμνωθέντα κακὸν καὶ ἀνήνορα θείῃ” and ib. 340 f. There, however, Circe is a sorceress, not an ordinary goddess. In Homer, the lovers of goddesses have to fear the jealousy of the gods, not danger from the goddesses themselves. Calypso, who is not married to a god, does no harm to Odysseus. But Artemis and Zeus slay Orion and Iasion the lovers of Eos and Demeter (Od. 5.121 f.). Tithonus, too, is the victim of divine jealousy. In folklore the same notion appears in the jealousy with which the fairies regard one of their own number who has loved a mortal.In these cases the underlying idea is that union with a mortal is disgraceful for a goddess, as the superior being. But the explanation of a “φθόνος θεῶν” does not apply to many instances of the wide-spread belief that these mixed unions are disastrous. Probably the superstition often springs from a vague fear of the supernatural, like the belief “that no man may see God and live.” In northern Europe the love of a nymph or giantess was thought to bring death or misfortune to a mortal (EltonPowell Saxo p. lxiv); the natives of New Caledonia think that intercourse with a supernatural being is deadly (see Lang in Kirk's Secret Commonwealth p. xxxi and other exx. in his trans. of the hymns p. 42). Istar's lovers come to an unhappy end; Gilgamesh therefore rejects her overtures (Jastrow Religion of Babylonia p. 482, Sayce Religion of Anc. Egypt and Bab. p. 434). According to Frazer G. B. iii. p. 162 f. the story of Gilgamesh points to the union of a divine pair, of which the male died every year. But this explanation is inapplicable to many examples of the superstition. In the present passage the writer adopts the Homeric view of the “φθόνος θεῶν”, as is plain from 288. But he may also have a confused idea of the essential danger in such a union, as he makes Aphrodite promise that neither she nor any of the gods will hurt Anchises (194 f.).
 βιοθάλμιος: only here. The editors compare Pind. Ol.vii. 20“ζωθάλμιος”, where there is a reading “ζωοφθάλμιος” similar to the curious variant “βιοφθάλμιος” here. The mistake is a case of the effect of a more familiar word, as in “ἀριθμῶ” for “ἀρθμῷ” h. Herm. 524.193=Od. 4.825 (“πάγχυ” for σῌ̂σι). Il. 20.307 “- 8 νῦν δὲ δὴ Αἰνείαο βίη Τρώεσσιν ἀνάξει”, “καὶ παίδων παῖδες, τοί κεν μετόπισθε γένωνται”. For the tradition that the kingdom of the Troad passed, after the destruction of Troy, to Aeneas and his descendants cf. Leaf on Il. 13.460, Pauly-Wissowa 2752, Farnell p. 638, who points out that the character of Aeneas, and the prophecy about him, imply that Homer knew of the tradition. Strabo (607, 608) states, on the authority of Demetrius of Scepsis, that the descendants of Aeneas survived in that town for many generations, and were called kings (“ἔχοντές τινας τιμάς”, probably priestly functions). See also Hellanicus fr. 127, Menecrates F. H. G. ii. p. 343, Acusilaus fr. 26, Conon in Phot. Bibl.139a 16.
 ἐκγεγάονται: if this word is sound, it must be a fut. perf., as Buttmann (G. G. ii. p. 137) supposed. For this Anth. Pal. xv. 40. 20 “ἐκγεγάαντο” only is quoted. Kühner-Blass ii. p. 391 reject the form. Baumeister's ingenious alteration “ἐκγεγάοντες” (Aeolic perf. part.) is accepted by Suhle (p. 8) and Abel. For the dat. “παίδεσσι” with “ἐκγίγνομαι” see exx. in L. and S. s.v. 2.
 αἰΝόν: the significance of a name is Homeric; cf. the well-known instance of “Ὀδυσσεύς” explained by “ὀδύσσομαι, α 62, τ” 407-9. The connexion of “Ἀχιλλεύς” with “ἄχος” (“Ἰλίου” or “λαοῦ”) is not in Homer, but is given by the schol. on Il. 1.1. For heroic etymologies in tragedy see the comm. on I. T. 32, and cf. Aristophanes' excellent parody (fr. 357) “Θόας βραδύτατος ὢν ἐν ἀνθρώποις δραμεῖν”.
 Cf. Il. 18.85 “ ἤματι τῷ ὅτε σε βροτοῦ ἀνέρος ἔμβαλον εὐνῇ”. The conjunctival use of ἕνεκα, “because,” has been suspected, but it occurs, in this sense, in Apoll. Arg. 4.1521 and in Bionxii.(ii.) 7, where Ahrens violently alters “ἕνεχ᾽ οἱ” to “ὅκα οἱ”. Callimachus seems to have used “ἕνεκα” in this way; cf. fr. 187 (quoted by Baumeister, who remarks that he was no doubt following more ancient authority, such as this passage). It=“ὅτι” in Pind. Isthm.viii. 33. Dys. Apollon. and Thrax Dionys. (quoted in Ebeling) call it a “σύνδεσμος αἰτιολογικός”. It may therefore stand, and the repetition (“ου<*>´νεκα” in 198), if offensive, is not worse than “νυμφάων—νυμφῶν” 97, 98. The conjectures are unacceptable; Gemoll's “ὅτε τε” (cf. Il. 18.85 quoted above) is the best.κάλλεος εἵνεκα οἷο, ἵν᾽ ἀθανάτοισι μετείη”. Cf. also Il. 5.265 f. Here Zeus, instead of the gods, carries off Gauymede, apparently in a whirlwind (cf. 208), like the daughters of Pandareus, Od. 20.66. The eagle is a later invention; see PrellerRobert ii. p. 499 f. The variants “ἐπιοινοχοεύειν—τετιμένον—ἀφύσσειν” in M (the second confirmed by the conflation “ος τετιμένονος” =“τετιμένον” in x) are remarkable for consistency. The construction is not impossible, and Ruhnken accepted it, but the change from opt. with “ἵνα” to infin. is very violent, and a copula requires insertion in 206. The infin. may, as Baumeister says, be due to Il. 23.234 “ οἰνοχοεύειν”.
 ἐΠιοινοχοεύοι: the prep. “ε<*>πί” is explained by Baumeister as “ἐπὶ τῇ Ἥβῃ”, which is very forced. Gemoll compares “ἐπιβουκόλος”, where, however, “ἐπί” implies “mastery over.” It is more reasonable to connect the prep. with “θεοῖς”, in the sense of “going from one to another.” Cf. Od. 1.143 “ κῆρυξ δ᾽ αὐτοῖσιν θάμ᾽ ἐπῴχετο οἰνοχοεύων”.ἀΓ´ηρως: so “ἀγήρων” h. Dem. 243, but in h. Dem. 260 the MSS. give “ἀγήραον”. Aristarchus and Aristophanes only admitted the uncontracted form. The word is only found with “ἀθάνατος” in Homer. Cf. Il. 8.539 “. ι<*>σα θεοῖσιν”: the authority of My, which is stronger than that of xp, supports this (=Od. 11.303), and the sense is livelier than with the epic commonplace “ἤματα πάντα”, which is probably due to 209. Fick, however, prefers “ἤματα πάντα” in order to preserve “ἀγήραος”.
 Cf. Od. 5.150.κάλλεος εἵνεκα οἷο, ἵν᾽ ἀθανάτοισι μετείη”. Tithonus was son of Laomedon, and brother of Priam, Il. 20.237. This legend of the eternal old age of Tithonus does not occur in Homer. In Il. 11.1 “, ε” 1 Tithonus is still the consort of Eos. The story is usually supposed to allegorise the change from the fresh morning to the wearisome heat of noonday (see Preller-Robert ii. p. 442). But see note on 188.
 Ξῦσαί τ᾽ ἀΠὸ Γ῀ηρας: cf. Il. 9.446 “ γῆρας ἀποξύσας”. “The metaphor is no doubt that of smoothing away the wrinkles,” Leaf ad loc. Compare also “Νόστοι” fr. 6. 2 “γῆρας ἀποξύσας᾿”. For the form ὀλοιόν see Solmsen Untersuchungen p. 114.
 The beauty of Tithonus was proverbial: Tyrt. fr. 9. 5 “οὐδ᾽ εἰ Τιθωνοῖο φυὴν χαριέστερος εἴη. εἵως”: in Homer “ἧος” is restored, no doubt rightly, but the later form may stand in the hymn, although the earliest instance of “εἵως” appears to be in a Thasian inscr. (end of fifth century B.C.); see Herwerden Lex. Graec. Supplet. s.v.
 εὐΗγενέος: the presence of the “η” is difficult to explain; it may be due to false analogy with such words as “εὐήνωρ”, where “η” is quite regular. Cf. Il. 11.427 and Il. 23.81 (where it has been corrupted in several MSS. into the common form “εὐγενής”, as in this passage also). Aristoph. and Rhianus on Il. 23.81 read “εὐηφενέων” which is now confirmed by inscriptions (Schulze Q. E. p. 34, Herwerden Lex. s.v. “ἄφενος”). But “εὐηφενής”, “wealthy,” is impossible here. For “εὐγενής” in this connexion Ilgen compares Eur. Ion242“εὐγενῆ παρηι?δα”, Eur. Hel.135“εὐγενῆ δέρην”. The assonance with “γενείου” is no doubt accidental.γῆρας, ὃ καὶ θανάτου ῥίγιον ἀργαλέου”.
234=Od. 8.298 (“ἦν” for δύνατ̓) from the Lay of Demodocus.
 The common line “ἥδε δέ οἱ” (“μοι”) “κτλ.” is followed by an inf. in Il. 2.5 “, Κ 17, Ξ” 161, Hes. fr. 110 (21). 1. In Od. 9.424 “, λ” 230 a main verb follows, as here, with asyndeton (in Od. 9.318 for “γάρ” Platt reads “γ᾽ ἄρ”).237-8. Cf. Od. 11.393-4; Il. 11.669 “, φ 283. κῖκυς”: only here and in Od. 11.393, Aesch. fr. 230.
 ῥεῖ: the hiatus is very awkward (cf. Eberhard Metr. Beob. ii. p. 9); “ῥέει” (Wolf and others) would avoid the difficulty. The editors have raised objections to the verb, and Hermann (followed by Abel) would read “τρεῖ ἄσπετον”, comparing Il. 17.332. But “ῥεῖ ἄσπετος” is no doubt correct, being borrowed from Il. 18.403 “ ῥέεν ἄσπετος” (of Ocean). Gemoll points out the debt of the writer to “Σ”; cf. on 86, 87. The meaning of “ῥεῖ”, however, is disputed. In Il. 1.249 “ ῥέεν αὐδή” is used of a “flow of speech”; cf. Theog. 39 “ἀκάματος ῥέει αὐδὴ”“ἐκ στομάτων ἡδεῖα”, and ibid. 84 “τοῦ δ᾽ ἔπἐ ἐκ στόματος ῥεῖ μείλιχα”. The sense seems therefore to be “his voice flows on ceaselessly” (like that of a garrulous old man). Ernesti's vox fluit immensa and Ilgen's vox fluit tam demissa ut aegre eam sequi et quid dicatur percipere possis are not satisfactory explanations.
 Γ῀ηρας ὁμοίιον=Il. 4.315, where see Leaf's note. “ὁμοίιος” is an epithet of “γῆρας, νεῖκος, πόλεμος” and “θάνατος”, but the meaning is very doubtful, as the usual translation “common to all” has no parallel in any use of “ὁμοῖος”. It is probable that the two words were distinct in origin. Christ connects “ὁμοίιος” with “ὠμός”: Skt. amIva, Lat. aerumna, for “ὀμίϝιος”, i.e. “cruel.”Il. 16.499 “ ἔσσομαι ἤματα πάντα διαμπερές” (“κατηφείη καὶ ὄνειδος”). Kämmerer's transposition “εἵνεκα σεῖο διαμπερὲς ἤματα πάντα” is therefore quite needless, although he rightly notes that “ἤματα πάντα” is regularly found at the end of the verse.
 στόμα χείσεται (Martin) for “στοναχήσεται” is still the best correction, and has lately been supported by Tyrrell (l.c. p. 33). It is true that “χανδάνειν” is chiefly used materially: Od. 18.17 “ οὐδὸς δ᾽ ἀμφοτέρους ὅδε χείσεται”, Anth. Pal. vii. 4. 3 “τόσον χάδεν ἀνέρα νῆσος”. But the present passage is very similar to Il. 11.462 “ ὅσον κεφαλὴ χάδε φωτός”. Of the other conjectures the only one which deserves a bare mention is Buttmann's “ἀχήσεται” (approved by Suhle p. 14), which would be a future of “ἀχέειν” h. Dem. 478, h. Pan 18. But the construction with infin. following seems impossible.
 ὀΝοταστόν: “ὀνομαστόν” has been hitherto received by the editors, and is a natural conjecture, but the sense in Homer and Hesiod is always “what cannot be named,” i.e. countless. The meaning “unmentionable,” i.e. horrible, does not occur till Apoll. Arg. 3.801. Clarke's suggestion “ὀνοταστόν” is undoubtedly what the scribe intended by “ὀνότατον. ὀνοτάζω” occurs h. Herm. 30 and Hes. Op.258; “ὀνοταστόν” corresponds to “ὀνοστά Ι” 164 and many phrases with “ὄνομαι” in Homer; sc. “dreadful,” “not to be made light of”; she has fallen from her proud estate (247-251). J. H. S. xviii. p. 27.
 For the resumptive μιν after “τὸν μέν” Baumeister compares Od. 16.78 f. ὀρεσκῷοι: applied to the centaurs, Il. 1.268; to goats Od. 9.155; and twice in the hymns to animals, h. Herm. 42, h. Pan 43. The last part of the compound appears to be related to “κοῖτος” (“κεῖμαι”), i.e. “sleeping on the mountains”; see Prellwitz Et. Wört. But Döderlein, comparing “κῶν: τὸ κοῖλον, τὸ βαθύ” (E. M.), and “κῶς: εἱρκτή, δεσμωτήριον” (Hesych.), connects the word with “κοῖλος” “dwelling in mountain-caves.”βαθύκολποι, “full-breasted”; the “κόλπος” in Homer is always the breast, not the fold of the robe. The word is applied only to Trojan women in the Iliad (Il. 18.122 “, 339, Ω” 215), but this is no doubt accidental; we are not to suppose that it refers to a form of dress confined to barbarians (see Leaf on Il. 18.122). Mannhardt (A. W. F. p. 7) sees an allusion to luxuriant vegetation, comparing the full breasts of German and Scandinavian tree-nymphs. But the epithet has no such special significance; in h. Dem. 5 the Ocean nymphs are “βαθύκολποι”.
 Ναιετάουσιν ὄρος: it is difficult to distinguish between the mountainnymphs (“ὀρειάδες”) and the tree-nymphs (“δρυάδες”). In their origin, no doubt, the Oreads were tree-spirits, like the Dryads; in a mountainous and wooded country like Greece the largest class of tree-spirits would naturally be that of mountain-nymphs. These, however, often lost their original connexion with the tree, and had their homes in mountain-caves (“ἀντριάδες”); cf. 263. In Il. 6.420 the Oreads (“νύμφαι ὀρεστιάδες”) plant trees on a grave.ὄρος . . . τε= Theog. 2.
 ἕπονται: numerantur in (Hermann).ἀνδρῶν ἡβώντων: ἔλαφος δέ τε τετρακόρωνος:”
“τρεῖς δ᾽ ἐλάφους ὁ κόραξ γηράσκεται: αὐτὰρ ὁ φοῖνιξ”
“ἐννέα τοὺς κόρακας: δέκα δ᾽ ἡμεῖς τοὺς φοίνικας”
“νύμφαι εὐπλόκαμοι, κοῦραι Δίος αἰγιόχοιο” (the “φοῖνιξ” is, of course, the bird, not the plam, as Preller understands; cf. “φοίνικος ἔτη βιοῦν” HH Herm.53), Paus.x. 31. 3“τὰς νύμφας δὲ εἶναι πολὺν μέν τινα ἀριθμὸν βιούσας ἐτῶν, οὐ μέντοι παράπαν γε ἀπηλλαγμένας θανάτου ποιητῶν ἐστὶν ἐς αὐτὰς λόγος”,
, Dionys. xiv. 209 “μηκεδανὸν ζώεσκον ἐπὶ χρόνον” (“Ὀρειάδες”).
 ΣειληΝοί: not Homeric, either in sing. or plur. The cognate “Σάτυροι” occur first in Hes. fr. 198 (44), where they are related to the mountainnymphs. The sileni frequently appear as lovers of nymphs on vases; also on coins of Thasos (Head Hist. Num. p. 227). For Hermes and the nymphs cf. xix. 34 (lover of Dryope), and often. Preller-Robert i. p. 399 f., ii. p. 720.εὔσκοπος: for the trisyllabic form cf. h. Apoll. 36 “Ἴμβρος τ᾽ εὐκτιμένη”. Hermann omitted “τε”, to conform to Homeric usage.
 This passage is the first in which there is a definite mention of the idea that the life of the tree-nymphs (“δρύαδες, ἁδρύαδες, ἁμαδρύαδες”) is bound up with the trees. The belief appears not uncommonly in poetry after Pindar. Cf. Pind. fr. 146 “ἰσοδένδρου τέκμαρ, αἰῶνος λαχοῖσαι” (ap. amat.14; de defect. orac. 11), schol. Apoll. Arg. 2.478,
, Apoll. Arg. 2.481 “μὴ ταμέειν πρέμνον δρύος ἥλικος”, Dionys. ii. 92 f. “Ἁδρυάδες δὲ” “ἥλικες ὠδύροντολιπόσκια δένδρεα νύμφαι”, ib. xiv. 212 “συμφυέες Μελίαι δρυὸς ἥλικος”, ib. xvi. 245 “καὶ δρυὸς ἔντος ἵκανεν ὁμήλικος” (“Μελίη”), ib. xlviii. 641, Ov. Met.viii. 738-878. Similarly the life of the tree-spirits who, under various names (Moosleute, Elfen, etc.) occur in Czech and German folklore, depends on the life of the tree: Mannhardt A. W. F. p. 4 f., B. K. p. 75; Botticher Baumkultus and Frazer G. B. i. p. 166 give instances.
The fir and oak are, of course, only representatives of trees in general. The Dryad stands for any tree-nymph, although the name must go back to the very early time when especial reverence was paid to the oak. Cf. Paus.x. 32. 6“ἐφύοντο” (“νύμφαι”) “ἀπό τε ἄλλων δένδρων καὶ μάλιστα ἀπὸ τῶν δρυῶν”. 267, 268. These verses have been suspected, partly on the ground of the asyndeton. Gemoll avoids it by reading unmetrically “καλαὶ τηλεθάουσαι ἐν δ̓”. It would, of course, be easy to correct this to “ἐν οὔρεσι δ᾽ ὑψηλοῖσιν ἑστᾶς᾿”. But the asyndeton of “ἑστᾶς᾿” is excused by the opening of the parenthesis. ἑ has also been a cause of offence; it is unique as a plural; but cf. “ἑᾶς” of a plural subject Pind. Pyth.iv. 187, which seems to justify the use. It is, of course, possible that the writer has blindly copied such passages as Od. 4.355 “ Φάρον δέ ἑ κικλήσκουσι”; so Dyrott Geschichte des Pron. reflex. 1892, p. 69 f. See also Brugmann ein Problem der hom. Textkritik p. 22, 23. Ἠλίβατοι: in Homer this obscure word is found only in connexion with “πέτρη”, and is taken to mean “abrupt,” “precipitous.” So in h. Herm. 404, h. Pan 10. In Od. 9.243 and Theog. 675 it is an epithet of “πέτρη” in the sense of a moveable “stone,” not a “cliff.” There is a further extension of the meaning in Theog. 483 “ἄντρῳ ἐν ἠλιβάτῳ” a “deep” cave; and in Scut. 421 Rzach reads with one MS. “ὡς ὅτε τις δρῦς ἤριπεν ἢ ὅτε πεύκη” “ἠλίβατος” (the vulg. has “πέτρη” for “πεύκη”). Cf. also the epigram in Plutarch v. T. Q. Flamin. c. 9 “Ἀλκαίῳ σταυρὸς πήγνυται ἠλίβατος”, Euseb. P. E. ix. 14 (Abydenus) “τύρσιν ἠλίβατον”, and see L. and S. s.v. We need not therefore suspect the use of the word, here applied to trees. Schäfer conjectures “ἠλιβάτοις”, with “οὔρεσι. τεμένΗ”: although, according to a wellknown superstition, every tree has some kind of mysterious life or “soul,” a peculiar sanctity attaches to certain trees, as being intimately connected with a god (at Dodona, Aricia, etc.), or as here, with a nymph. It was only such trees that might not be felled. Mannhardt (A. W. F. p. 33) compares the “τέμενος” with the Homeric “ἄλσος” cf. Od. 10.350 “ γίγνονται δ᾽ ἄρα ταί γ᾽ ἔκ τε κρηνέων ἀπό τ᾽ ἀλσέων”, where, however, the “ἄλσεα” seem to be woods in general; so Il. 20.8 “-9 νυμφάων αἵ τ᾽ ἄλσεα καλὰ νέμονται”
“καὶ πηγὰς ποταμῶν καὶ πίσεα ποιήεντα”.
ἀεανάτων: not, of course, the nymphs themselves, who are not immortal, but the gods to whom the sacred groves belong. Compare the tree-nymphs in the grove of Demeter (Callim. h. Dem.), and of Ceres ( Ov. Met.viii. 738 f.).
 There appears to be a double recension, as 274-75 are scarcely consonant with 276-77. We can hardly accept Ilgen's explanation, that the nymphs first shewed the boy to his father, and afterwards Aphrodite brought the child herself. This view is contradicted by the following lines, in which Anchises is to take Aeneas to Ilium as soon as he sees him for the first time (278, 280). Moreover, as Franke notes, “πολυήρατος ἥβη” cannot be applied to a young child; nor can the nymphs be called “θεαί”. Gemoll emends “ἥβη” to “ὥρη”, understanding the line to refer to the birth of the child.
 ἐς Πέμπτον ἔτος: Roscher (die Enneadischen Fristen p. 75) compares Herod.i. 136“παιδεύουσι δὲ τοὺς παῖδας” (sc. “οἱ Πέρσαι”) “ἀπὸ πενταέτεος ἀρξάμενοι . . . πρὶν δὲ ἢ πενταέτης γένηται, οὐκ ἀπικνέεται ἐς ὄψιν τῷ πατρί, ἀλλὰ παρὰ τῇσι γυναιξὶ δίαιταν ἔχει”.
 Νιν (M's “νῦν” is an itacism) is the only example of the Doric acc. in Homer or the hymns; the earliest case of its use is Theognis 364. Hermann's alteration to “μιν” is easy (Il. 18.64 the papyr. Brit. Mus. 107 has “νιν”), but the peculiarity, like that of “ἑ” 267, is possible; Smyth Ionic p. 445 Kühner-Blass i. p. 592.ὀφθαλμοῦ εἴρηται ἀεικελίην ἀλαωτύν”,
“φάσθαι κτλ.” But “φάσθαι” is neither an easy nor a necessary correction here. The construction requires no imperative, as we have “μυθεῖσθαι” 283. The child is to be brought up by the nymphs and handed over to Anchises, who is instructed to explain “they say he is the son of a nymph.” He does not deny paternity, but allows it to be inferred without express statement. For nymphs as mothers of a race see Agroetas “ά Λιβυκῶν” F. H. G. iv. 294.
καλυκώπιδος: see h. Dem. 8.
 According to Matthiae, the line refers to a tradition that Anchises was actually struck by a thunderbolt for boasting of Aphrodite's love. But the tradition (which first occurs in Hyginus) may very well be later than this hymn, and probably arose from this line. In Hyg. fab.94Anchises is slain by thunderbolts; according to Servius he was paralysed or blinded ( Serv. on Aen.i. 617 Aen., ii. 649).