[305] μῶλυ (perhaps connected with mollis, “μαλάχη”, malva, etc.) is an unknown plant. Commentators go through the usual routine in dealing with the word, either (1) allegorising its meaning altogether, as Eustath. does, and making it symbolise the general instructions given to Odysseus to resist sorcery; or (2) regarding it as a fanciful creation of the poet, which seems far the most natural solution; or (3) attempting to identify it with some known plant. Theophrastus, Plant. Hist. 9. 15, says, “τὸ δὲ μῶλυ περὶ Φενεὸν καὶ ἐν τῇ Κυλλήνῃ φασὶν εἶναι, καὶ ὅμοιον ᾧ Ὅμηρος εἴρηκε, τὴν μὲν ῥῖζαν ἔχον στρογγύλην, προσεμφερῆ κρομμύῳ, τὸ δὲ φύλλον ὅμοιον σκίλλῃ: χρῆσθαι δὲ αὐτῷ πρός τε τὰ ἀλεξιφάρμακα καὶ τὰς μαγείας. οὐ μὴν ὀρύττειν γε εἶναι χαλεπόν, ὡς Ὅμηρός φησι”. The ‘moly’ of Theophrastus is identified by Sprengel with the Allium nigrum. Other botanists suppose it to be the Allium victoriale. The Schol. P., citing Hippocrates and Galen, will have it to be the wild rue (“ἄγριον πήγανον”).
If one may hazard a further conjecture, the white flower and the dark root seem to suggest Hellebore; which, from the earliest times, has been regarded as a potent antidote for madness; and therefore seems peculiarly suitable here. καλέουσι θεοί. In several passages in Homer a double name is given for some object, a name used by the gods and a name used by men. Thus, in Il.1. 403 we have “Βριάρεως” and “Αἰγαίων” as the two titles of a giant; “Βατίεια” and “σῆμα Μυρίνης” as the two names for a knoll, Il.2. 813; “χαλκίς” and “κύμινδις” for the same bird, Il.14. 291, and “Ξάνθος” and “Σκάμανδρος” to denote the same river, Il.20. 74.The name in use among men is not always quoted, as e. g. here, and in Od.12. 61, where the gods are said to call the ‘wandering rocks’ “Πλαγκταί”, (where see note). Some interpret this as referring to an earlier and later state of the language, as Göttling, who goes so far as to suppose the names given by the gods to be remnants of Pelasgic language. It is simpler to suppose that the ‘divine’ name is the one used by the poets in contrast to the ordinary word used in common life. Here the μῶλυ naturally has no ‘human’ name; as the plant was unknown to men. See especially Lobeck, Aglaoph. 858-863. Monro, on Il.1. 403, says, ‘where two names are given, it will be found that the divine name is the one that has the clearer meaning.’ But this seems doubtful. It is uncertain whether χαλεπόν merely means as Schol. Q. gives it, “χαλεπὸν ὀρύττειν ἐν τῇ γῇ καὶ εὑρίσκειν τὰ εἴδη τοῦ φαρμάκου”, which suits better with “θεοὶ δέ τε πάντα δύνανται”, or whether it possibly refers to any dangerous quality in the plant, “φασὶ δὲ αὐτὸ ἑλκόμενον τῷ τέλει τῆς ῥίζης θάνατον ἐπιφέρειν τῷ ἀνασπῶντι”. Cp. Od.23. 184“χαλεπὸν δέ κεν εἴη” “καὶ μάλ᾽ ἐπισταμένῳ ὅτε μὴ θεὸς αὐτὸς ἐπελθὼν”“ῥηιδίως ἐθέλων θείη ἄλλῃ ἐνὶ χώρῃ”, and Od.11. 156“χαλεπὸν δὲ τάδε ζωοῖσιν ὁρᾶσθαι”, where the meaning seems to lie between difficulty and danger.
