Book 3 (Γ）
 The simile is copied by
Cf. also vi. 311, Juvenal xiii. 167. οὐρανόθι πρό, before the face of heaven. “πρό” goes with the locative instead of the gen. in two other phrases, 8.561 “Ἰλιόθι πρό,” 11.50 “ἠῶθι πρό”. H. G. § 225.
 φύγον: observe the aor. in the simile — a sort of ‘gnomic’ aor. followed by the present. The voice of the crane in the sky is a sign of winter in Hes. Op. 450.‘The crane is in Greece a bird of passage only . . it breeds farther north, in Macedonia and on the Danube,’ Thompson Gloss. p. 41. See Herod. ii. 23, where this passage is partly quoted. For ἀθέσφατος see Buttm. Lex., where the word is explained as a hyperbole, ‘such as not even a god could utter’; but such hyperbole is not Homeric. Rather ‘not according to an utterance of the gods, hence vaguely portentous, unblest ’ (Monro). But the form of the word is unexplained.
 ἐπί with gen. = towards, as 5.700; H. G. § 200 (3). The streams of ocean seem to represent the bounds of the earth, not any particular direction. Cf. Herod. ii. 23.The war of cranes and pigmies (‘Thumblings’) does not reappear in H., but is very common in later literature, both Greek and Latin; the reff. are collected in Thompson Gloss. p. 43. ‘The legend of the Pigmies appears in India in the story of the hostility between the Garuda bird and the people called Kirāta, i.e. dwarfs .. It is quite possible that this fable has an actual foundation in the pursuit of the ostrich by a dwarfish race’ (ibid.). We know from recent travels that such a dwarfish people lives in the heart of Africa; some report of them may well have reached even prehistoric Greece through the ivory trade. See also Miss Clerke Fam. Studies p. 145. Acc. to Eust. the pigmies lived in Britain!
 ἔριδα προφέρονται, apparently our ‘offer battle,’ or bring strife; so Od. 8.210; cf. Od. 6.92, and 11.529 “ἔριδα προβαλόντες”: see also 5.506, 10.479. ἠέριαι, in early morning, 1.497, Od. 9.52, though the significance of the epithet here is not very clear. Virg. Georg. i. 375 seems to have thought, perhaps rightly, that it meant ‘flying high in the air’; “aeriae fugere grues.”
 The silence of the Achaian advance is contrasted with the Trojan clamour again, 4.429-36, and is one of the very few signs by which H. appears to mark a national difference between the two enemies, who are always represented as speaking the same language. Compare 2.810 and note on 13.41. In 11.50, however, clamour is ascribed to the Greeks.
 There seems to be no choice here but to accept the vulgate εὖτ᾽ in the sense of “ἠύτε”, like as; though the only other instance of it is 19.386 (q. v.). The reading of the Massaliot, “ἠύτε” (“ἠύτ᾽”) “ὄρευς”, introduces a non-Homeric contraction, as Ar. pointed out; the few other instances of it are very suspicious (“Ἐρέβευς, θάρσευς, θέρευς, θάμβευς”, see H. G. § 105. 3). The reading of G, “ὥς τ᾽”, adopted by van L., is merely another instance of the passion of that MS. for the introduction of Attic forms into the text. “ἠύτε” and “εὖτε” are obviously different forms of the same word, cf. “ἠύς” by “εὖ”: there is indeed nothing to prevent our writing “ηὖτε” at once, as in the old alphabet they were indistinguishable. And the two senses as and when pass into one another with the greatest ease, just as with “ὡς”. Some ancient commentators took “εὖτε” in the ordinary sense, when, making 12 into the apodosis; but such a form for the expression of a simile is quite without parallel in H.
 τε … τε, as often, indicate merely the correlation of clauses. The ἐπί, which regularly follows “τόσσον” and “ὅσσον” (see on 2.615), is construed with it; but according to the canon of Ar. does not throw back the accent on account of the intervening particle.
 ἀελλής seems to be the same word as “ἀολλέες”, dense, lit. crowded together, root “ϝελ” of “ϝέλλω, ϝειλέω”, etc., the variation of stem being similar to that between “ἀϊκῶς” and “ἀεικής” (H. G. § 125), doubtless affected by the analogy of the subst. “ἄελλα”. The reading “κονισάλου” attributed to Aph.seems to imply that he read also “ἄελλα” for “ἀελλής”.
 19-20 were obelized by Ar. (and Zenod. included 18 also) on the ground that a warrior would not be arrayed with a bow and panther-skin if he were challenging heavily-armed foes to combat. But this objection would equally apply to “προμάχιζεν” above. Ar. and most of the other ancient critics also omitted the ὁ in 18, but Didymos for once ventures to disagree, remarking that Homer frequently employs phrases like “ὁ δέ”, etc., without any change of subject. He quotes Od. 9.374, which is not to the point; but see appropriate instances in H. G. § 257. 1. αὐτάρ is here merely a particle of transition; if the