Hide browse bar Your current position in the text is marked in blue. Click anywhere in the line to jump to another position:
This text is part of:
This work is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share
Alike 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.
Book 1 (α)
ἔννεπε is the assimilated form of ἔνσεπε (from stem “σεπ”), as the Aeolic aorist “ἔτεννα” stands for “ἔτενσα”. We may compare the Lat. word insece, which is actually used in the translation of this line by Livius Andronicus, “Virum mihi, Camena, insece versutum.”
μοι is enclitic, = ‘prithee’; as distinguished from the emphatic dative εἰπὲ καὶ ἡμῖν, l. 10. For the order observed as to the place and succession of Enclitics in Homeric Greek, see Monro, Homeric Grammar, Append. E. Μοῦσα = “Μοντια, Μονσα”, from root “μεν”, ‘to think.’ In l. 10 the muse is called “θύγατερ Διός”, as in Il. 2. 491 “Ὀλυμπιάδες Μοῦσαι, Διὸς αἰγιόχοιο θυγατέρες” . They are represented as nine in number in Od. 24. 607, but their names are first given in Hesiod. πολύτροπον, ‘of many devices,’ versutus. This epithet of Odysseus recurs only Od. 10. 330; but it has many equivalents in Il.and Od., e. g. “πολύμητις, πολύφρων, πολυμήχανος, ποικιλόμητις”, the general sense of which seems to fix its meaning. Cp. the phrase by which Odysseus characterises himself, Od. 9. 19 “εἴμ᾽ Ὀδυσεὺς Λαερτιάδης ὃς πᾶσι δόλοισιν” “ἀνθρώποισι μέλω”. Nitzsch explains it as equivalent to “πολύπλαγκτος”, and takes the words “ὃς μάλα πολλὰ πλάγχθη” as its epexegesis. Cp. inf. 300 “πατροφονῆα … ὅς οἱ πατέρα κλυτὸν ἔκτα” , Od. 18. 1 “πτωχὸς πανδήμιος ὃς κατὰ ἄστυ πτωχεύεσκε” , Il. 5. 63; 9. 124; 11. 475; 12. 295; 13. 452; which suggests that the Homeric usage is, in some cases, to repeat some portion of the word, at least, in the epexegetical clause. See Lehrs, Rhein. Mus. 1864, p. 303, and Nitzsch, De Odysseae Exordio, Hannov. 1824.[2] ἔπερσε. Explained by Od. 22. 230 “σῇ δ᾽ ἥλω βουλῇ Πριάμου πόλις” . Cp. Od. 9. 504. Cic. ad Fam. 10. 13 “"Homerus non Aiacem nec Achillem, sed Ulixem appellavit πτολιπόρθιον."”
[3] νόον ἔγνω, i. e. ‘learned what their spirit was like.’ The Schol. well compares
“ ὤ μοι ἐγὼ τέων αὖτε βροτῶν ἐς γαῖαν ἱκάνω;
Ἦ ῥ᾽ οἵ γ᾽ ὑβρισταί τε καὶ ἄγριοι οὐδὲ δίκαιοι,
ἦε φιλόξεινοι, καί σφιν νόος ἐστὶ θεουδής;
”
[4] ὅ γε. This combination is frequent in Homer, to resume the original subject of the sentence (Epanalepsis); cp. inf. 26 31; 2. 132; 3. 90; Il. 10. 514, etc.
[5] ἀρνύμενος. From root “αρ” = gain, as in “μίσθ-αρ-νος”, not connected with “αἴρω”. To “ἄρ-νυ-μαι” belong the common aorists “ἠράμην, ἠρόμην”. Translate— ‘seeking to win.’
[6] οὐδ᾽ ὧς, ‘not for all that.’ For the accentuation cp. Apollon. Lex. Hom. “δασυνόμενον δὲ καὶ περισπώμενον τὸ ὧς τὸ ὁμοίως” [Villois. “ὅμως] δηλοῖ: ἀλλ᾽ οὐδ᾽ ὧς ἑτάρους ἐρρύσατο”.
περ. See on inf. 316.[8] κατὰ … ἤσθιον. On the distinction between the adverbial use of prepositions with verbs, and the separation, called by grammarians Tmesis, see Curtius, Greek Grammar Explained, p. 201; Hoffmann, Die Tmesis in der Ilias; Monro, H. G. §§ 175, 176.
Ὑπερίονος. Hesiod, Theog. 374, makes “Ἠέλιος” the son of “Ὑπερίων”, and (v. 1011) calls him “Ἠ. Ὑπεριονίδης”. So Od. 12. 176 we have “Ὑπεριονίδαο ἄνακτος”. But this does not prove that “Ὑπερίων” is a shortened form for “Ὑπεριονίων”, as Eustathius holds; for even the form “Ὑπεριονίδης” is not necessarily a patronymic, as we find, cp. Eustath., “Ἡρακλείδης” for “Ἡρακλῆς, Σιμιχίδης” for “Σίμιχος” (Lobeck, Aj. 190). Cp. also the form “Οἰδιπόδης”. Nitzsch regards “Ὑπεριονίδης” as non Homeric, holding Od. 12. 176 to be spurious: he leans to the view that “Ὑπερίων” is a quasi-patronymic for “ὕπερος” = child of the height [of heaven]; like “οὐρανίωνες”, for which Euripides (Phoeniss. 823) writes “οὐρανίδαι”, meaning only caelicolae. See by all means Lobeck's note on “ἁλιαδᾶν” Ajax 880.[10] τῶν. This gen. is governed by “εἰπέ” as Od.11. 174“εἰπὲ δέ μοι πατρός”.
ἁμόθεν γε. It is left to the muse to decide at what point the minstrel shall take up the story. Cp. Od.8. 500“ἔνθεν ἑλὼν ὡς, κ. τ. λ.” Translate—‘from any point thou wilt.’ With “ἁμόθεν” cp. “οὐδαμοῦ, ἁμῶς, ἁμῇ”. Curtius, s. v., compares the Gothic sums = any one. καὶ ἡμῖν, sc. that we—the poet and his audience—may know as well as thou; “ὑμεῖς γὰρ [Μοῦσαι] θεαί ἐστε, πάρεστέ τε, ἴστε τε πάντα” Il.2. 485, or, that we may be told, as thou hast told others: cp. Ar. Nub.357“οὐρανομήκη ῥήξατε κἀμοὶ φωνὴν ὦ παμβασίλειαι”. Aristarchus considers the “καί” superfluous, and so the Schol. on Theocr. 4 54 “ὁ” KAI “περισσὸς ὥσπερ καὶ παρὰ Ὁμήρῳ. ‘τῶν ἁμόθεν γε, θεὰ, θύγατερ Διὸς, εἰπὲ καὶ ἡμῖν”.’[11] Ἔνθα, ‘Now.’ The express mark of the point of time at which the Odyssey begins, viz. the end of the seventh year of the sojourn of Odysseus in Calypso's isle.
αἰπύς. Nitzsch interprets this of any form of death the danger of which suddenly comes and is as suddenly escaped. It seems more graphic to render it ‘headlong’ or ‘sheer,’ violent death being regarded as a plunge from some height. Cp. Soph. O. T.877“ἀπότομον ὤρουσεν εἰς ἀνάγκαν”, and the phrase “In tam praecipiti tempore” Ov. Fast. 2. 398.[13] κεχρημένον, ‘desiring,’ ‘requiring;’ perhaps, through the notion of having a thing in constant use, till it becomes indispensable; cp. Il.19. 262.This sense is generally quoted as strictly Epic, but it is found in later Greek also, as “κέχρησαι” Eur. I. A.382; “-ήμεθα” Eur. Med.334; “-ησθε” Theocr. 26. 18.
[16] ἔτος ἦλθε. From the sack of Troy to the return of Odysseus ten years elapsed, which were thus made up:—The voyage from Troy to the isle of Circe, the twelvemonth's sojourn there ( Od.10. 467), and the journey thence to the isle of Calypso take up the first two years. The stay with Calypso lasted seven years (7. 259), which leaves one year for the voyage thence and return to Ithaca. The appearance of the suitors at the court of Ithaca coincided with the seventh year (2. 89); the return of Menelaus and the revenge of Orestes upon Aegisthus with the ninth (4. 82; 3. 306).
ἔτος … ἐνιαυτῶν. ἐνιαυτός is the ‘space of a year;’ “ἔτος” is a year as one in a series of years, which make up time or any given period of time. One “ἐνιαυτός” has nothing to distinguish it from another, while it is the essence of “ἔτος” to be first, second, etc., so that no two “ἔτη” are the same. “ἐνιαυτός” is what we express by ‘twelvemonth;’ “ἔτος” is this or that particular year, a natural epoch, while “ἐνιαυτός” is an arithmetical quantity. Thus our passage is parallel to Virgil's “Veniet lustris labentibus aetas” Aen.1. 283 , not to “Triginta magnos volvendis mensibus orbes” ib. 269 . Cp. Aristoph. Ran.347 “χρονίους ἐτῶν παλαιῶν ἐνιαυτούς” . Curtius connects “ϝέτος” and Lat. vetus with the Skt. vatsa-s, ‘a year.’[18] οὐδ᾽ ἔνθα = ne tunc quidem, the apodosis to “ἀλλ᾽ ὅτε δή” sup. 16. Cp. Od.10. 18; 19.489.
πεφυγμένος. Elsewhere used with an accusative, as Od.9. 455; Il.6. 488“μοῖραν πεφυγμένον”. Il.22. 219“πεφυγμένον ἄμμε γενέσθαι”. But, as Nitzsch points out, the shade of meaning is different in the two constructions. The use with the accusative denotes escape from an evil which was imminent, but which never actually came; the genitive implies that the sufferer was already involved in the evil. Cp. Soph. Phil.1044“τῆς νόσου πεφευγέναι”.[19] καὶ μετὰ οἷσι φίλοισι. The sense of this clause can only be determined by that of the preceding, which is certain. The “ἄεθλοι” denote the struggle which Odysseus had to wage with influences adverse to his return, not that which awaited him in Ithaca; for (1) it is the former on which our attention is fixed by the earlier part of this same sentence, and on which we are still kept dwelling in the succeeding one: and (2) the genitive (see above) implies that the dangers had already arrived, while “ἔνθα” answers to “ὅτε δὴ ἔτος ἦλθε”, sc. when the time came for his return, not, when he had returned. It follows that “καί” cannot be rendered ‘even,’ nor does it connect the clause before which it stands with “οὐδ᾽ ἔνθα”, but with “πεφυγ. ἀέθλων”, in the sense of ‘and,’ or, more accurately, ‘or.’ ‘And’ is less natural, as (1) we should expect “πεφυγμένος τε ἀεθ.”, and (2) the two ideas thus brought together have only an accidental connection. For “καί” in the sense of ‘or,’ after a negative, cp. Od.3. 349“ᾧ οὔ τι χλαῖναι καὶ ῥήγεα πόλ? ἐνὶ οἴκῳ”, Od.6. 182“οὐ μὲν γὰρ τοῦ γε κρεῖσσον καὶ ἄρειον”. Translate—‘Not even then was he safe out of danger or among his friends.’ Nitzsch on the other hand, following the Venet. Schol. to Il.16. 46, regards the words “οὐδ᾽ ἔνθα . . φίλοισι” as parenthetical, and makes the apodosis begin with “θεοὶ δ᾽ ἐλέαιρον”. A modification of this view is given by La Roche (Hom. Untersuch. 1869), who places the apodosis at “θεοὶ δ᾽”, but treats the clauses “οὐδ᾽ ἔνθα, καὶ μετά” as belonging to the protasis, and still under the government of “ἀλλ᾽ ὅ τε δή”, and not as parenthetical.
Köchly follows Bekker in rejecting vv. 18, 19. ‘qui quam importune sententiarum cohaerentiam interpellant et Bekkerus dilucide demonstravit nec novissimos fugit editores quamquam ex suorum librorum ratione illam offensionem interpretando occultantes’ (Diss. 1. p. 11); for he maintains that the point of time denoted here is the actual return of Odysseus to Ithaca, which is incompatible with the words “πάρος ἣν γαῖαν ἱκέσθαι”: and several critics of the same school concur in striking out vv. 23-26.[23] διχθὰ δεδαίαται. This division corresponds in the main with that of Herodot. 7. 69, 70 “οἱ ὑπὲρ Αἰγύπτου . . οἱ ἀπὸ τῶν ἡλίου ἀνατολέων Αἰθίοπες”.
[24] δυσομένου. This is the participle of the form in use “δύσετο”, a weak aorist as a Thematic tense (Monro, H. G. § 41), Similarly “ἐπιβησόμενος”, Il.5. 46, should be referred to “ἐπεβησόμην” and not to “ἐπιβήσομαι”. It may be asked whether any difference in meaning can be noted between the aoristic participle and the present “ἀνιόντος” in the same line. Classen (Homerisch. Sprachgebr. Frankf. 1867) reminds us that the present tense is in common use when reference is made to sunrise, cp. “ἅμ᾽ ἠελίῳ ἀνιόντι” Od.12. 429, “ἅμ᾽ ἠοῖ φαινομένηφιν” 4. 407: the aorist, in describing sunset, “ἅμ᾽ ἠελίῳ καταδύντι” Od.16. 366, “ἐς ἠέλιον καταδύντα” Od.3. 138; 9. 161, 556, etc., the notion being that the action of sunset and the succeeding darkness is marked off by sharper limits—the last visible ray— than the growing light of dawn and sunrise.
The genitive is, probably, local, as “Ἄργεος” Od.3. 251, “τοίχου τοῦ ἑτέρου” Od.23. 90, but it may partly depend on the demonstrative “οἱ”, that is, those belonging to the Westward, etc.[25] ἀντιόων, ‘to take part in.’ The context settles the tense as future, not the form of the word, which might be present or future. For the whole question about these forms in “-αω” and “-οω”, see Monro, H. G. § 55, and App. D. We find “ἀντιόωσαν” coupled with “ἐποιχομένην” evidently as a present, Il.1. 31, and joined with a future “κεῖς᾽ εἶμι καὶ ἀντιόω” Il.13. 752.The uncontracted form of the future, “ἀντιάσω”, is found Od.22. 28.
[28] τοῖσι, the Schol. interprets by “ἐν τούτοις τοῖς θεοῖς”, others compare it with Ovid's “Surgit ad hos” Met. 12. 2 . It is better described as a dativus commodi, ‘for them’; ‘with a word ‘for their ear.’ Cp. Od. 3. 69; 5. 202; 22. 261; 24. 490.
[29] ἀμύμων. That which is perfect in any way is described as unsusceptible of blame. Cp. Il.13. 127“φάλαγγες καρτεραὶ . . ἃς οὔτ᾽ ἄν κεν Ἄρης ὀνόσαιτο μετελθών”. So “ἀμύμων” here refers to some special excellence, such as gentle birth or personal beauty and has not necessarily any moral significance, but is almost titular, like our epithet ‘gallant.’ Cp. Od.19. 332“ὃς δ᾽ ἂν ἀμύμων αὐτὸς ἔῃ καὶ ἀμύμονα εἰδῇ”, which means something like the modern phrase—a gentleman by birth and a gentleman in feeling: cp. “δῖα Κλυταιμνήστρη” 3. 266.
[30] τηλεκλυτός is used of Orestes by a prolepsis. The vengeance he would wreak was to be the ground of his fame.
[32] οἷον, exclamatory; ‘to think how!’
[34] ὑπὲρ μόρον. Better so written than joined into a compound adverb. Cp. Herodot. 9. 43 “πολλοὶ πεσέονται ὑπὲρ Λάχεσίν τε μόρον τε”. In Il.20. 336 the phrase “ὑπὲρ μοῖραν” occurs; the adverbial “ὑπέρμορα” is found Il.2. 155.This is a sort of popular solution of the difficulty in reconciling divine power with human free-will. There was a certain amount of inevitable fate ordained as each man's lot, but this fate could be aggravated or hastened by human misconduct. Cp. Milton, Par. L. 3. 86 “"Without least impulse or shadow of fate."”
[37] εἰδὼς αἰπὺν ὄλεθρον, ‘though he knew it would be his utter destruction.’ Cp. the converse of the phrase “τὸν δ᾽ οὐκ εἰδότ᾽ ὄλεθρον ἀνήγαγε” Od. 4. 535.
πρό, adverbial, ‘before’; of time. The word ἡμεῖς is emphatic, to show that the gods, in spite of the reproaches of mortals, were not the cause of this catastrophe.[38] ἀργειφόντην. It seems likely that the “ο” in “φόντης” is the common Aeolic change for “α.” This agrees with the interpretation of Schol. Lips. ad Il. 2. 104 “ὁ ταχέως καὶ τρανῶς ἀποφαινόμενος”. We also find in Alcman (apud Athenaeum 11. 499) “τυρὸν ἐτύρησας μέγαν ἄτρυφον ἀργιφόνταν”, of a bright, white, cheese. And according to the Etym. Magn. “ἀργειφόντης” was an epithet of the Sun-God. The word then refers back to an old myth which connects Hermes with the phenomena of the dawn or the brightness of day. Another view, making Hermes the Wind-God, who drives his fleecy flock of clouds, interprets “ἀργειφόντην”, as ‘sky-clearing’; like “ἀργέστης Νότος”. And this picture of Hermes as a careful shepherd gives a new point to “ἐύσκοπον”. A later age succeeds which is ignorant of these earlier legends, and a new etymology and new associations are invented for a word which has lost its original meaning, and thus we come to such interpretations as the Scholiasts reproduce—“ἢ τὸν ἀργὸν καὶ καθαρὸν φόνου, ἢ τὸν φονεύσαντα Ἄργον τὸν πολυόμματον ὃς ἐφύλασσε τὴν Ἱὼ, ἢ τὸν φονέα τῆς ἀργίας, κ.τ.λ.” The Latin word Argiletum gives a good analogy to this etymological process.
[40] τίσις Ἀτρείδαο, ‘vengeance for the murder of Atreus' son,’ sc. Agamemnon. So “ποινὴ Πατρόκλοιο” Il. 21. 28. Others join “Ὀρέσταο Ἀτρείδαο”, but it is contrary to Homeric custom to use the grandfather's name for a patronymic except in the case of Achilles. For the transition from the obliqua to the directa oratio cp. infra 276, 374; 12. 160; 17. 527.
[41] ἱμείρεται, old form of the aorist conjunctive with short vowel. Cp. “ἅλεται” Il.11. 192; “φθίεται” 20. 173. See Curtius, Verb. p. 311, foll.
[43] ἁθρόα, his death was the one lump sum, as it were, paid as the price of his adultery and assassination.
[44] γλαυκῶπις. The description of Athena as the war-goddess Il.1. 200“δεινὼ δέ οἱ ὄσσε φάανθεν” is parallel to this epithet. The notion contained in it is not that of colour but of brightness and flashing splendour. So Schol. on Apoll. Rhod. 1. 1280 “διαγλαύσσουσιν ἀντὶ τοῦ φωτίζουσι ἢ διαλάμπουσι, ὅθεν καὶ ἡ Ἀθηνᾶ γλαυκῶπις, καὶ γλήνη ἡ κόρη τοῦ ὀφθαλμοῦ, παρὰ τὸ γλαύσσειν ὅ ἐστι λάμπειν. καὶ Εὐριπίδης ἐπὶ τῆς σελήνης ἐχρήσατο γλαυκῶπίς τε στρέφεται μήνη”.
[46] ἐοικότι ( Virg. Aen.4. 696 “merita nec morte peribat” ) to be joined directly with “καὶ λίην”, ‘yea, verily with a fitting doom.’
[47] ὅτις ῥέζοι. Use of the optative in general statements. Cp. Od.6. 286, where the mood changes to subjunctive by way of specializing the general sentence. This line was quoted by Scipio Africanus on the death of Tiberius Gracchus.
[48] δαΐφρονι, ‘skilled.’ It seems quite impossible to accept the common view supported by Buttm. that “δαΐφρων” in the Iliad has the sense of ‘warlike’ from “δαΐς” = battle; and in the Odyssey of ‘prudent’ from “δαῆναι”. Especially as even in the Il.(11. 482) it is used as an epithet of Odysseus. “Δαῆναι” is the only word to which it should be referred, and the circumstance of the poem will suggest the subjects in which the wisdom or knowledge is shown. A warrior is one of those who are “δεδαηκότες ἀλκήν”, a man of peace is learned in counsel and expedients, and the arts of peace generally.
[50] ὅθι τε. The addition of the particle “τε”, identical with Lat. que, to pronouns and adverbs seems to indicate a constant action rather than an isolated act, a reference to whole classes, rather than to individuals. As instances, we may compare Il.1. 1“μῆνιν . . ἣ μυρἴ Ἀχαιοῖς ἄλγἐ ἔθηκεν”, with Il.5. 876“κούρην οὐλομένην ᾗ τ᾽ αἰὲν ἀήσυλα ἔργα μέμηλε”, and Od.1. 327“νόστον λυγρὸν ὃν ἐκ Τροίης ἐπετείλατο”, with ibid. 341 “ἀοιδῆς λυγρῆς ἥ τέ μοι . . κῆρ τείρει”, in which passages a single fact is contrasted with habitual action. The generalising force of the particle is seen in such phrases as Od.5. 438“κύματος ἐξαναδὺς τά τ᾽ ἐρεύγεται ἤπειρόνδε” = ex eo genere fluctuum qui. Compare too the use of “οἷός τε” Od.5. 422; 13.223; 14.63; 15. 379. So “ὅσος τε” Od.10. 517.On the whole, if we seek for a distinction between this compound relative and the simple relative, we may say that the former often introduces a characteristic of the antecedent, whether, as in the present case, and in v. 52, the antecedent stands alone in its possession of the said characteristic, or whether, as in Il.5. 876, it is one of a class, all the individuals of which possess it. See Monro, H. G. §§ 266 foll.; 331 foll.
[51] νήσῳ … νῆσος. For this anacoluthon cp. Il.6. 396“θυγάτηρ μεγαλήτορος Ἠετίωνος: Ἠετίων ὃς ἔναιε”. Il.10. 436“τοῦ δὴ καλλίστους ἵππους ἴδον ἠδὲ μεγίστους: λευκότεροι χιόνος, κ.τ.λ.”
ἐν, adverbial = ‘therein.’ δώματα ναίει, as Od.4. 811.[52] ὀλοόφρονος, ‘malign.’ Lit. ‘of mischievous intent.’ The word frequently denotes the qualities for which a wizard is feared; so we find it applied to Aeetes, Circe's father, Od.10. 137; and to Minos, for his evil designs against Theseus, 11. 322. Compare the expression “ὀλοφώια εἰδώς”, used of the magician Proteus, Od.4. 460, and “ὀλοφώια δήνεα Κίρκης” 10. 289. The reason of its being applied here to the giant Atlas is more general but still similar; it is implied in “ὅς τε θαλάσσης πάσης βένθεα οἶδεν”: preternatural knowledge makes its possessor suspected of the inclination as well as the power to use it hurtfully. F. G. Welcker (Götterl. 1. 479) interprets the epithet here of the guilt of Atlas in having led a rebellion of the Titans excited by Hera, which was put down by Zeus with the help of Athena and Apollo (Hygin. Fab. 150): and he gives as a comment on “ὅς τε . . οἶδεν” a legend in Pausanias (9. 20. 3) that Atlas sat at Tanagra (“πολυπραγμονῶν τά τε ὑπὸ γῆς καὶ τὰ οὐράνια”. Nägelsbach (quoted by Buchholz, Hom. Real. iii. 1. § 8) connects the myth of Atlas with the western voyages of the Phaenician traders beyond the pillars of Hercules, who jealously concealed (cp. “Καλυψώ” = the concealer) the distant sources of their wealth from other voyagers. He sees in the epithet “ὀλοόφρων” an allusion to the greediness and piracies of this seafaring folk. Atlas, with Calypso, in the West will then answer to Proteus and Eidothea ( Od.4. 384 foll.) in the East, and we may compare the “Protei columnae” (Virg. Aen. 11. 262) with the “Herculis columnae” at the Straits of Gibraltar.
[53] The account of Atlas is thus given in
and again,“ Ἄτλας δ᾽ οὐρανὸν εὐρὺν ἔχει κρατερῆς ὑ? ἀνάγκης
πείρασιν ἐν γαίης, πρόπαρ Ἑσπερίδων λιγυφώνων,
ἑστηὼς, κεφαλῇ τε καὶ ἀκαμάτῃσι χέρεσσι.
ταύτην γάρ οἱ μοῖραν ἐδάσσατο μητίετα Ζεύς:
”
. The locality here intended seems to be the far West, where the sun sinks and whence the darkness proceeds; cp. Od.10. 82.Aeschylus P.V. 348 follows the same account, describing Atlas as “ὃς πρὸς ἑσπέρους τόπους” “ἕστηκε, κίο?” (dual?) “οὐρανοῦ τε καὶ χθονὸς”“ Τῶν πρόσ? Ἰαπετοῖο πάϊς ἔχε? οὐρανὸν εὐρὺν
ἑστηὼς, κεφαλῇ τε καὶ ἀκαμάτῃσι χέρεσσιν
ἀστεμφέως, ὅθι Νύξ τε καὶ Ἡμέρη ἆσσον ἰοῦσαι
ἀλλήλας προσέειπον
”
“ὤμοιν ἐρείδων”. Cp. also P. V.430“οὐράνιόν τε πόλον νώτοις ὑποστεγάζει”. Humboldt (quoted by Paley in his note on Hesiod ) thinks that the Atlas of the early poets was the Peak of Teneriffe, of which vague accounts had been brought by Phoenician mariners. The word αὐτός is emphatic = ‘all by himself.’ The interpretation of ἀμφὶς ἔχουσι is uncertain. It may be rendered ‘which support at either side,’ sc. at East and West; as if the gigantic Atlas, by the enormous breadth of his shoulders, or with the vast span of his outstretched hands, supported pillars wide enough apart to sustain either extremity of the vault of heaven. This accords best with two passages in Pausanias (5. 18. 1) “ἐπὶ τῶν ὤμων κατὰ τὰ λεγόμενα οὐρανόν τε ἀνέχει καὶ γῆν”, and (5. 11. 12) “οὐρανὸν καὶ γῆν ἀνέχων παρέστηκε”. In this case “ἔχουσι” can only refer properly to “οὐρανὸν, γῆν” must be added by a Zeugma, the general idea of stability running through the two expressions; but the “οὐρανός” has its stability from the “κίονες”, that of the earth is in itself. A simpler way is to render “ἀμφὶς ἔχουσι” of vertical not of horizontal distance, ‘which keep asunder;’ the earth lies below, the heaven extends above, and between the two stands Atlas with his pillars keeping them apart.
The myth of Atlas is rationalised in two ways: (1) geographically, to which interpretation we owe the bestowal of the name of Atlas (“ἄ-τλας”, ‘the upholder’) on the cloud-capped range of Garamantian or Nasamonian mountains; and (2) physically, where Atlas represents the power which holds all the universe in its place ( Arist. de Caelo 2. 1; Arist. Metaph.4. 23), or the axis on which the heavens turn (Arist. de Anim. Motu, 3). Cp. Welcker, Götterlehre, 1. 752.
[56] λόγοισι, such as are suggested in 5. 208, foll.
[58] καὶ καπνόν, ‘were it but the smoke.’ Cp. Ov. Epp. ex Pont. 1. 3. 33 “optat Fumum de patriis posse videre focis” ; “καπνὸν πόλεως ὑπερθρώσκοντα” Eur. Hec.823.
[59] περ. The variation of meaning in this particle is exactly analogous to that of “ἔμπης”. Though etymologically they would rather mean ‘very much,’ ‘by all means,’ they are more often used with a qualifying or concessive force = ‘at any rate,’ ‘at least,’ which is reflected upon them from the word with which they are used or the context in which they occur. Cp. Od.2. 199.Monro, H. G. § 353.
[60] οὔ νύ τ᾽ Ὀδυσσεύς. The word elided is “τοι”, i. e. “σοι” governed by “χαρίζετο”, cp. infra 347. So “?” for “μοι” Od.4. 367; Il.9. 673.The hiatus before “οὔ νύ τ᾽ Ὀδ”. is common in the bucolic caesura, especially after a pause in the sense.
[62] ὠδύσαο. A play upon the name “Ὀδυσσεύς”, which, according to this etymology, might be translated ‘a man of wrath’; with the double signification of enduring the wrath of the gods, or dealing wrath to his enemies. Cp. Od.19. 275; 407 foll. Roscher (Curt. Stud. 4. 196 foll.), referring to the forms “Ὀδύξης”, Ulixes, supposes the stem to be “δυκ”, Lat. dux.
[64] ἕρκος ὀδόντων. The ancient commentators generally understood this phrase of the lips. It is better to take it of the teeth themselves, which look like a fence when the lips open to speak. See note in Butcher and Lang's Translation on an Icelandic equivalent for the phrase. That the words were so understood in classical times may be inferred from the line in Solon (Bergk 25. 1) “παῖς . . ἔτι νήπιος ἕρκος ὀδόντων φύσας ἐκβάλλει”. Ameis quotes from Gell. N. A. 1. 16 “vallum dentium”, and from Pliny N. H. 11. 181 “cor munitum pectoris muro.” For the genitive cp. “πύργου ῥῦμα” Soph. Aj.159; “φόβου πρόβλημα” ib. 1076. The construction “σὲ ἕρκος ὀδ. φύγεν” is generally called the “σχῆμα καθ᾽ ὅλον καὶ μέρος”, cp. Il.20. 44“Τρῶας τρόμος ὑπήλυθε γυῖα”. Od.19. 356“ἥ σε πόδας νίψει”. Also Od.11. 578; 18.391; Il.2. 171; 5.98; 12.400. On the passage “τὸν δὲ σκότος ὄσσε κάλυψεν”, Hermann says there is a confusion between “τὸν δὲ σκότος κάλυψεν” and “τοῦ δὲ ὄσσε σκότος κάλυψεν”, but the construction is rather a true instance of Homeric epexegesis, where the subsequent word adds a nearer definition, as in Il.21. 37“ὁ δ᾽ ἐρινεὸν ὀξέι χαλκῷ τάμνε νέους ὅρπηκας”. As a rule the general word comes first, the specific one second, but the other order is found, as in Il.21. 180“γαστέρα γάρ μιν τύψε”. The same construction is used with two datives. Cp. “μηκέτ᾽ ἔπειτ᾽ Ὀδυσῆι κάρη ὤμοισιν ἐπείη” Il.2. 259, “δίδου δέ οἱ ἡνία χερσίν” Il.8. 129.See Monro, H. G. § 141.
[65] ἔπειτα = ‘after all this.’ This “ἔπειτα” is the forerunner of the so-called εἶτα indignantis of later Greek. It is worth noticing that whereas afterwards “ἔπειτα” only retained its literal sense expressive of sequence of time, it has in Homer the more artificial sense as well of sequence in reasoning. Cp. infra 84.
[66] βροτῶν is to be taken with “περὶἐστί” as Od.18. 248“ἐπεὶ περίεσσι γυναικῶν”. In the second clause “περί” is adverbial to “ἔδωκε”. Trans. ‘Who is beyond mortals in wisdom, and beyond [all others] gave sacrifices to the gods.’ Cp. Il.1. 258“οἳ περὶ μὲν βουλὴν Δαναῶν περὶ δ᾽ ἐστὲ μάχεσθαι”.
[68] γαιήοχος, according to the older commentators, ‘earth-surrounding.’ It is doubtful whether this meaning can be assigned to “ἔχειν”, so that it has been proposed to render, ‘earth-supporting,’ carrying out the notion of the earth resting on the sea. Autenrieth prefers ‘lord of earth.’
[70] Πολύφημον, the accusative attracted to the case of the “ὅν” preceding.
ὅου. Curtius seems right in describing this form as only an incorrect way of writing “ὅο”. It only occurs twice, here and in Il.2. 325“ὅου κράτος, ὅου κλέος”. He describes “ὅο” as an intermediate form of the genitive between “-οιο” and “-ου”. On the same view Ahrens would write “Αἰόλοο” Od.10. 36, 60. Cp. Il.2. 518; 15. 66, 554; 22. 313; Od. 14. 239. Cp. Monro, H. G. § 98; and Curt. Explan. Gk. Gram. p. 64. ἐστί. Bekker's “ἔσκε” rests on slight authority. The tense would either mean that the Cyclops was dead or had lost the might he once had.[71] Κυκλώπεσσι. We have a choice of interpretations here, (1) in the eyes of all the Cyclops, or (2) among all the Cyclops. Cp. Od. 11. 485; 16. 265, where “κρατεῖν” is similarly used with a dative. Analogous to this is the phrase “ἀφνειὸς Πυλίοισι μέγ᾽ ἔξοχα” Od. 15. 227. See Ellendt. (Bemerkung über Hom. Sprachgeb. Königsberg, 1863) who maintains that such datives are the regular object dative after the verb, “μέγα κρατέεις νεκύεσσι” Od.11. 485(where see note), “λαῶν οἷσιν ἄνασσε” Od.2. 234, “γιγάντεσσι βασίλευεν” Od.7. 59, “εἰνάκις ἀνδράσιν ἦρξα” Od.14. 230.However we explain the dative it must be carefully distinguished from the use of the genitive after such words, nor could we couple “μέγιστον Κυκλώπεσσι” in the same sense in which a superlative is followed occasionally by a genitive expressing competition and comparison. See Fäsi's note.
[72] ἀτρυγέτοιο. See on Od. 5.140.
[74] ἐκ τοῦ δή = ‘from that time forward.’
[75] οὔ τι κατακτείνει. This may either be taken as the pres. tense of attempt; or, better, as a parenthetical clause = ‘though he does not slay him’; ‘without, indeed, slaying him.’
[76] ἡμεῖς οἵδε, ‘we [that are] here.’ “ὅδε”, like Lat. hic, points to that which is nearest to the speaker. Cp. inf. 185; 2. 47; 4. 26, 235.
[78] ἀντία πάντων. It makes the best antithesis to join “ἀντία πάντων ἐριδαινέμεν οἶος”, ‘to contend by himself against all,’ and to take “ἀθ. ἀέκητι θεῶν” as a separate clause enhancing the force of “πάντων” by showing of whom the “πάντες” consisted.
[82] εἰ μὲν δή. The return to this protasis is “ἔπειτα” 84.
[84] διάκτορος. Eustath. ad l. interprets this as “ὁ διάγων τὰς ἀγγελίας”. Buttm. Lexil. p. 230 combats this, and refers the word to “διάκω”, i.e. “διώκω”, making it = runner, cp. “διάκονος”. Nitzsch retains the derivation from “διάγω”, in the sense of “πέμπειν”, ‘to conduct.’ Cp. the act of Hermes in withdrawing Ares from the battle, Il.5. 390; and conducting Heracles on his quest of Cerberus, Od.11. 625.
[85] Ὠγυγίην. On the possibility of reconciling Homeric geography with actual fact see note on Od. 5.34.
ὀτρύνομεν, aorist subjunctive with short vowel, as “ἱμείρεται”, supra 41.[86] ἐυπλόκαμος does not mean only ‘fair-haired’ like “ἠύκομος”, but points to the beauty of her coiffure; “πλόκαμοι” are ringlets or plaits. Cp. Il.14. 176“χερσὶν πλοκάμους ἔπλεξε φαεινούς”.
νημερτέα βουλὴν νόστον. ‘That which is infallibly purposed,’ viz. that Odysseus shall return. Cp. Od.20. 245“οὐχ ἡμῖν συνθεύσεται ἥδε γε βουλὴ Τηλεμάχοιο φόνος”.[88] αὐτὰρ ἐγών points the contrast to “Ἑρμείαν μέν” supra 84.
Ἰθάκηνδ᾽ ἐσελεύσομαι = ‘will go to the island and into the town.’ See critical note. ὄφρα. The existence of the correlative “τόφρα”, like “ἕως” and “τέως”, seems to settle the question that these particles are related to the pronominal stem “ὁ. ὄφρα” may be for “ὄφι-ρα”, a combination of “ρα” with “ὀ-φι” a locative of “ὁ”.[90] καλέσαντα. Cp. Schol. ad Il.1. 542“ἡ δὲ φράσις συνήθης ἀπὸ δοτικῆς εἰς αἰτιατικὴν ἔρχεσθαι”, that is, from dative to accusative. See note on Od. 6. 60, and 10. 566.
Ἀχαιούς. This is properly the name of the dominant tribe in N. Greece and the Peloponnese. They were also found in Ithaca ( Od.1. 324), and in Crete ( Od.19. 175); but the word was used as the common designation of the Greek race. They wore the hair altogether unshorn (“κάρη κομ”.). Cp. the description of the Abantes, Il.2. 542“ὄπιθεν κομόωντες”.[91] ἀπειπέμεν, ‘to speak out his mind.’ Here the word is used without a following accusative, as Il.9. 431“μάλα γὰρ κρατερῶς ἀπέειπεν”, but the full expression “μῦθον ἀπηλεγέως ἀποειπεῖν” occurs below (373) and Il.9. 309.These passages confute Nitzsch's interpretation of ‘renouncing,’ ‘breaking off with’ the suitors. Cp. Aesch. Agam.934“εὖ τό? ἐξεῖπον τέλος”.
[92] ἁδινά, ‘thick-thronging.’ A descriptive epithet of sheep and goats. This is better than Buttm.'s view, ‘that “ἁδινός” is here a particular epithet for a particular case; the cattle which the suitors slaughtered were always (“αἰεί”) driven thither in herds or numbers,’ Lexil. p. 35. It is of course true, as Buttm. says, that it is not necessary for “ἀδινά” to be a generally descriptive epithet because “εἰλίποδας” is one, but the interpretation given in the note keeps closer to the fundamental meaning assigned by Buttm. himself to “ἁδινός”, sc. ‘compactness.’ See on Od. 4.721.
εἰλίποδας. Buttmann's interpretation, ‘heavy-treading,’ seems doubtful on three grounds. (1) It is probable that the senses assigned by him to the root should be transposed, and that the meaning of ‘roll’ is primary, and that of ‘thrust’ secondary; (2) we do not find it applied in the sense of ‘thrusting’ to the simple vertical pressure of a dead weight. (3) The meaning he gives to “εἰλίπους” does not suit its use in other contexts, as Eupol. Com. 5, where it is applied to women, and the passage quoted by Buttm. himself (Hippocr. de Artic. 7) where the epithet is applied to oxen because their joints are loose set (“χαλαρά”). The explanation of the Schol. is nearer the truth, “ὡς ποιοῦντες τὴν τῶν ποδῶν κίνησιν ὥσπερ ἑλικοειδῆ”, meaning that each foot as it is set forward describes a segment of a circle; a movement made necessary by its being so slightly lifted. Translate, ‘shambling;’ and cp. Lobeck, Path. Elem. 2. 362, who speaks of ‘illa pedum posticorum fluctuatio, qua boves ab aliis animantibus differunt.’ “εἰλίποδες” as an epithet of oxen thus forms a graphic contrast to the word “ἀερσίποδες” applied to horses, Il.3. 327. ἕλικας. Two interpretations are given by Apoll. “ηομ. ἤτοι τὰ κέρατα ἑλικοειδῆ ἐχούσας ἢ ὡς ἔνιοι ἀπὸ τοῦ κατὰ τοὺς πόδας ἑλιγμοῦ”. The former seems to be supported by the phrase in Hymn. ad Mercur. 192 “βόας . . κεράεσσιν ἑλικτάς”. Cp. Hom. Od.12. 348Hom. Od., 355.Others refer “ἕλιξ” to root “σελ”, as in “σέλας”, and render, ‘bright;’ either of colour or sleekness. Or, if we compare the epithet “ἀμφιέλισσαι”, which, as applied to ships, means ‘well-rounded,’ we may interpret ἕλικες as meaning ‘well-rounded,’ i. e. ‘fat,’ ‘goodly’ kine.[93] Πύλον ἠμαθόεντα, see on Od. 3.4.
[95] ἵνα μιν κλέος ἔχῃσι, sc. “ὡς κοπιάσαντα ὑπὲρ τοῦ πατρός”, Eustath. Cp. Il.17. 143“ἦ ς᾽ αὔτως κλέος ἐσθλὸν ἔχει”.
[97] ὑγρήν. Ameis ad loc. gives a list of such feminine adjectives used substantivally, from which the following specimens are taken, “ἄκρη” Od.5. 513, “ἀμβροσίη” 4. 445, “ζεφυρίη” 7. 119, “ἴση” 9. 42, “σχεδίη” 5. 33.
[99] See on Od. 5.43.
[101] κοτέσσεται, = “κοτέσηται”.
ὀβριμοπάτρη. Bekker and others write “ὄμβριμος” instead of “ὄβριμος” on the authority of some later MSS. The word is probably connected with “βρί-θω, βρι-αρός, βαρύς”, etc., with the prosthetic “ὀ”, as in “Ὀβριάρεως” for “Βριάρεως” (Lobeck El. 1. 80). See Curtius, Gk. Etym. pp. 466, 653.[103] ἐπὶ προθύροις οὐδοῦ ἐπ᾽ αὐλείου, ‘in the outer porch at the threshold of the court.’
[105] Ταφίων. The “Ταφίων νῆσοι” were a number of islets off the Leucadian coast, the largest of which was Taphos (Meganisi). They were inhabited by Teleboans and Taphians (cp. Eur. Herc.19“ἀνδρῶν ἡρώων Ταφίων ἰδὲ Τηλεβοάων”), who were a race of pirates. Cp. Suidas s.v. “Τάφιος” = “ὁ λῃστής”. In Hom. Od.1. 181 they are called “φιλήρετμοι”. The eponymous founder of the Taphian race was Taphos or Taphios, son of Pterelus. Etym. M. 748.
[106] εὗρε δ᾽ ἄρα. This does not mean that she was looking for them, but that she ‘came on them’ there. Lat. offendit. The word “ἔπειτα” will then signify, not the next thing that took place, but the next thing she observed.
[107] πεσσοῖσι. Athenaeus quotes (1. 29) a description of this game as played by the suitors, “ὀκτὼ γὰρ καὶ ἑκατὸν ὄντες οἱ μνηστῆρες διετίθεσαν ψήφους ἐναντίας ἀλλήλαις, ἴσας πρὸς ἴσας τὸν ἀριθμὸν, ὅσοιπερ ἦσαν καὶ αὐτοί. Γίνεσθαι οὖν ἑκατέρωθεν τέσσαρας καὶ πεντήκοντα. Τὸ δ᾽ ἀνὰ μέσον τούτων διαλιπεῖν ὀλίγον κενόν. ἐν δὲ τῷ μεταιχμίῳ τούτῳ μίαν τιθέναι ψῆφον, ἣν καλεῖν μὲν αὐτοὺς Πηνελόπην: σκοπὸν δὲ ποιεῖσθαι εἴ τις βάλλοι ψήφῳ ἑτέρᾳ: καὶ κληρουμένων τὸν λαχόντα στοχάζεσθαι ταύτης. Εἰ δέ τις τύχοι καὶ ἐκκρούσειε πρόσω τὴν Πηνελόπην, ἀποτίθεσθαι τὴν ἑαυτοῦ εἰς τὴν τῆς βληθείσης καὶ ἐξωσμένης χώραν, ἐν ᾗ πρότερον ἦν. καὶ πάλιν στάντα τὴν Πηνελόπην, ἐν ᾧ τὸ δεύτερον ἐγένετο χωρίῳ, ἐντεῦθεν βαλεῖν [τὴν ἑαυτοῦ]. Εἰ δὲ τύχοι ἄνευ τοῦ μηδεμιᾶς τῶν ἄλλων ψαῦσαι νικᾶν, καὶ ἐλπίδας ἔχειν πολλὰς γαμήσειν αὐτήν. Τὸν δὲ Εὐρύμαχον πλείστας εἰληφέναι ταύτῃ τῇ παιδιᾷ καὶ εὔελπιν εἶναι τῷ γάμῳ”.
[109] κήρυκες. It would seem that a distinction must be made between “κήρυκες οἳ δημιοεργοὶ ἔασιν” Od.19. 135 and the private “κήρυκες” attached to the retinue of kings and chieftains. Talthybius, the “κῆρυξ” of Agamemnon ( Il.1. 321), became the eponymous founder of a herald-caste; “εἰσὶ δὲ καὶ ἀπόγονοι Ταλθυβίου, Ταλθυβιάδαι καλεόμενοι, τοῖσι αἱ κηρυκηίαι αἱ ἐκ Σπάρτης πᾶσαι γέρας δέδονται” ( Hdt.7. 134). The “κήρυκες” were of noble or even royal blood; their epithets are “ἀγαυοί” ( Il.3. 268) or “θεῖοι” (4. 192). Their duties were,—the summoning of assemblies ( Il.2. 50, etc.), treating with enemies ( Il.7. 274), preparing for sacrifices ( Od.20. 276), waiting at sacrificial banquets, to which duty the private “κήρυκες” (as here and inf. 143, etc.) must have added that of general attendance at feasts where their masters were present. Gladstone (Hom. Stud. 3. 69) remarks that they are ‘the only executive officers that are found in Homer.’ Thus the office of the private “κῆρυξ” approached that of the “θεράπων”, cp. Od.18. 423“κῆρυξ Δουλιχιεὺς, θεράπων δ᾽ ἦν Ἀμφινόμοιο”. See Buchholz, Hom. Realien. vol. ii, p. 1, §§ 12-14. The περάποντες were at least freeborn, often of noble descent, and they stood in the relation to the chieftains of squires to knights in more modern days. Patroclus is “θεράπων” to Achilles ( Il.16. 244), Meriones to Idomeneus ( Il.23. 113). In the Odyssey their duties are naturally more closely connected with household life, and resemble those of pages.
[110] οἱ μέν, sc. “κήρυκες, οἱ δέ”, sc. “θεράποντες”.
[112] τοὶ δὲ … δατεῦντο. Cp. “δοιὼ θεράποντε δαήμονε δαιτ ροσυνάων” Od.16. 253.πρότιθεν, ‘set tables in front of the seats,’ cp. Od.10. 354“προπάροιθε θρόνων ἐτίταινε τραπέζας”. This is equivalent to the expression used by Tacitus (Germ. 22) “separatae singulis sedes et sua cuique mensa.” That this was not the universal practice appears from Od.17. 93 foll., where two sit at one table; or Il.9. 216, where one table serves for all the guests.
[115] ὀσσόμενος (from “ὄσσομαι” (i.e. “ὀκ”-jo-“μαι”), Curt. Gk. Etym. 407). The first meaning of “ὄσσομαι” is simply ‘to see,’ cp. Od.7. 31; the secondary, ‘to have one's thoughts set on,’ ‘to see in one's mind's eye,’ generally with “θυμός” or “θυμῷ”. Cp. Od.20. 80“ὄφρ᾽ Ὀδυσῆα ὀσσομένη καὶ γαῖαν ὕπο στυγερὴν ἀφικοίμην”.
[116] μνηστήρων τῶν μέν, ‘of the suitors here,’ in strong contrast to “αὐτός”. This position of the demonstrative pronoun is analogous to a use in Attic Greek of “οὗτος”, Cp. “οἱ τῶν ἱκανωτάτων καὶ εὖ καὶ κακῶς ποιεῖν λόγοι, οὗτοι καὶ μάλιστα ἐνδύονται ταῖς ψυχαῖς” ( Xen. Cyr.2. 1. 13), but it is mostly found when a relative clause follows; cp. “ἄνδρα τὸν ὅς” Hom. Od.10. 74, “πόλιν τὴν . . . ὅθι” Hom. Il.4. 41, “συνθεσίαων τάων ἅς” Hom. Il.5. 320, but cp. Hom. Il.7. 461“τεῖχος ἀνορρήξας τὸ μὲν εἰς ἅλα πᾶν καταχεῦαι”,
“αὖτις δ᾽ ἠϊόνα μεγάλην ψαμάθοισι καλύψαι”. Cobet, Miscell. Crit. 422, on the analogy of Hom. Od.20. 225, would read “ἀνδρῶν μνηστήρων”.[117] τιμήν. Nitzsch reckons under the ‘prerogatives’ of the Homeric king, (1) the royal estate, “τέμενος” Il. 6. 193-195; 9. 578; Od.6. 293; (2) tribute and fees, “λιπαραὶ θέμιστες” Il.9. 156; (3) special gifts, “δωτίνῃσι θεὸν ὣς τιμήσουσι” ibid.; (4) daily maintenance at the public cost, Il.17. 249; (5) invitations to feasts, Od.11. 185.Cp. Il.12.310“Γλαῦκε, τίη δὴ νῶι τετιμήμεσθα μάλιστα ἕδρῃ τε κρέασίν τε ἰδὲ πλείοις δεπάεσσιν ἐν Λυκίῃ, πάντες δὲ θεοὺς ὣς εἰσορόωσιν; καὶ τέμενος νεμόμεσθα, κ. τ. λ.”
[119] νεμεσσήθη δέ, where in Attic syntax we should find “νεμ. γάρ”.
[122] καί μιν φωνήσας … προσηύδα. Classen (Homer. Sprachgeb. 117 foll.) reckons forty-four instances of this formula (omitting lines of doubtful authority and two passages from Od.24 and Il.21), and notes that it is used either to mark the first commencement of a speech, or the resumption of one that has been interrupted, or to give a peculiar solemnity or emphasis to the words that follow.
φωνήσας = ‘lifting up his voice,’ “φωνεῖν” is intransitive in Homer. The only exception occurs in Od.24. 535(a later addition) “πάντα δ᾽ ἐπὶ χθονὶ πίπτε, θεᾶς ὄπα φωνησάσης”, which is a palpable imitation of Il.2. 182“ξυνέηκε θεᾶς ὄπα φωνησάσης”, where however the accus. depends on “ξυνέηκε”. The later epic poets, as Ap. Rhod. (3. 673), employ it as a transitive verb, sc. “φώνησέν μιν”, and so the Attic writers, Soph. Aj.73Soph. Aj., 1047; Soph. El.329; Phil. 229, etc In the present line both “μιν” and “ἔπεα” are governed by “προσήυδα”. Similarly, “προσέειπον” occurs thirty-two times with the double accusative, and always in Tmesis, cp. Il.2. 156; 8.426; 13.306; Od.4. 803; 6. 21, etc., etc. With this construction cp. “ἔπος τέ μιν ἀντίον ηὔδα” Il.5. 170, “τί με ταῦτα παρατροπέων ἀγορεύεις” Od.4. 465, “πεπνυμένα βάζεις Ἀργείων βασιλῆας” Il.9. 58.See especially La Roche, Hom. Studien, §§ 95 b, 112. 1, 2.[123] φιλήσεαι, ‘shalt be entreated well.’ In primitive society the showing of friendliness precedes the feeling of friendliness; and, again, of this act the most definite form is hospitality; cp. “ξείνισσα καὶ ἐν μεγάροιοι φίλησα” Il.3. 207, “ἐπεὶ φιλέεσθε παρ᾽ αὐτῇ” Il.13. 627.So Od.4. 29“ἄλλον πέμπωμεν ἱκανέμεν ὅς κε φιλήσῃ Od., 8. 208 τίς ἂν φιλέοντι μάχοιτο Od., 10. 14 μῆνα δὲ πάντα φίλει με”. But the other meaning of “φιλεῖν” is not excluded. Cp. “φιλέεσκε γὰρ αἰνῶς” inf. 264.
[124] ὅττεό σε χρή. For this epic use of “χρή” in the sense of opus est with genitive and accusative cp. Od.21. 110“τί με χρὴ μητέρος αἴνου Od., 3. 14 οὔ σε χρὴ αἰδοῦς”. Compare with this the use of “χρεώ τινά τινος”, sc. “ἵκει, γίγνεται, ἐστί”, Od.5. 189“ὅτε με χρειὼ τόσον ἵκοι Od., 4. 634 ἐμὲ δὲ χρεὼ γίγνεται αὐτῆς”, Il.21. 323“οὐδέ τί μιν χρεὼ ἔσται”, Od.4. 707“οὐδέ τί μιν χρεώ”. The same construction is found in Eurip. Hec. 976 “τίς χρεία ς᾽ ἐμοῦ”; see La Roche, Hom. Stud. p. 247 foll.
[128] δουροδόκης ἔντοσθεν. The interpretation of Eustath. seems simplest, that the “δουροδόκη” was “εἰς κίονα ἐγγεγλυμμένη”, as if the spearshafts rested in the flutings of the column; an interpretation which does not suit well with the epithet “ἐυξόου”. Rumpf, Aed. Hom. 1. 29, regards it as a rack against the wall in the space between two engaged columns at the entrance to the “μέγαρον”. This interpretation he prefers, because in Od.16. 40Telemachus gives up his spear and “ἔστησε φέρων πρὸς κίονα μακρήν” ( Od.17. 29) before he crosses the stone threshold at the entrance of the hall. For ἄλλα, meaning ‘besides,’ ‘as well,’ see on inf. 133.
[130] That λῖτα is an accusative singular seems settled by the use of “λιτί” as the dative, Il.18. 352; both cases must be referred to a nom. “λίς”, cp. “λὶς πέτρη” Od.12. 64; though Eustath. ad loc. takes it as a metaplastic accusative from a nominative “λιτόν”. Nitzsch follows the interpretation of F. A. Wolf (Analect. 4. 501), taking the word as an accusative plural from an old neuter “λί” = “λισσόν”. Cp. Thucyd. 2. 97 “ὅσα ὑφαντά τε καὶ λεῖα”, i. e. unembroidered. Whichever interpretation we adopt it will be better to take the words “ὑπὸ— πετάσσας” as parenthetical, so that the two adjectives “καλὸν δαιδάλεον” should go with “θρόνον”, to which they are appropriate. With the same stem (“λι_τ”) are connected Lat. glitus, and Gk. “γλοιός, γλίσχρος”. See Curtius, Gk. Etym. 330.
[132] “κλισμόν. κλισμοὶ μέν εἰσιν οἱ ἔχοντες κλιντῆρα ἐξέχοντα πρὸς τὴν τῶν ὤμων ἀνάπαυσιν. ἐν αὐτοῖς γὰρ ἐπερείδουσι τοὺς ὤμους οἱ καθήμενοι. οἱ δὲ μὴ ἔχοντες ταῦτα, θρόνοι”. Schol. E. P. Q. If the distinction between the two words can be preserved, it, probably, amounts to this, that the “θρόνος” had a straight, and the “κλισμός” a sloping back. In practice, the “θρόνος” stood higher than the “κλισμός”, and is the word used for a chair of state.
ἔκτοθεν ἄλλων μνηστήρων, ‘apart from the others, the suitors.’ This epexegetic use of a noun after “ἄλλος” is not uncommon in Homer. Cp. Od.5. 105“ἄλλων . . τῶν ἀνδρῶν Od., 10. 485 ἄλλων . . ἑτάρων”. The process seems reversed in such a phrase as “ἅμα τῇ γε καὶ ἀμφίπολοι κίον ἄλλαι” Od.6. 84; cp. Soph. Aj.516“ἄλλη μοῖρα”, Phil. 38 “ἄλλα ῥάκη”. Livy 4. 41 “plaustra iumentaque alia.” Ameis quotes as parallels Od. 2. 412; 8. 368; 15. 407, 449; 18. 416; 19. 601; 20. 324; Il.2. 191; 13. 622.[134] ἁδήσειεν, ‘should feel loathing,’ properly that which comes from satiety. With “ἅδην” cp. Lat. satur, satis. For the quantity and orthography of “α?δην, α?δην, ἄδδην” cp. “κα^λός, κα_λός, κάλλος”, the variation arising from the influence of the Jod after the “δ” or “λ” sometimes being assimilated to the preceding consonant, sometimes only lengthening the vowel, and sometimes disappearing altogether. See Curtius, Gk. Etym. 572.
ὑπερφίαλος, like “ὑπερφυής”, and the Aeschylean “ὑπέρφευ”, has the sense of overgrown (from root “φυ”), which easily passes into that of overweening. With the change of vowel cp. “φυτόν” with “φῖτυ, μόλυβδος” with “μόλιβδος, λύγος” with Lat. lig-are. Curtius, Gk. Etym. 468. Schmidt J. says “ὑπερφίαλος” may come from *“ὑπερφέϝαλος”, like Boeot. “κλίος, ῥίοντας”, instead of “κλέϝος, ῥέϝοντας”, or “θίασος” instead of “θέϝασος”.[136] Join προχόῳ φέρουσα and χέρνιβα ἐπέχευε, sc. χερσίν.
[138] νίψασθαι, ‘for washing.’ See, by all means, the discussion on the form, original meaning, and Homeric uses of the Infin. in Monro, H. G. §§ 231 foll.
Notice here the manner of washing: the guest holds his hands over a basin, while water is poured upon them. “νίπτειν”, as distinguished from “λούειν”, is to wash a part of the body or of any object; as distinguished from “βάπτειν” (only once used, Od.9. 392), it describes the application of water to a thing instead of dipping it into water. “πλύνειν” is only used of inanimate things (see Trench, New Test. Synonyms). παρὰ … ἐτάνυσσε, ‘drew up to the seat.’[140] εἴδατα πόλλ᾽ ἐπιθεῖσα, ‘after she had set on many dainties, giving freely of such things as she had by her.’ The housewife (“ταμίη” (“τέμ-νω”) who gives the portion of meat to the household) does the best she can for the unexpected guest; the “εἴδατα” are probably the leavings from a former meal. Cp. “κρειῶν πίνακας παρέθηκε συβώτης”
“ὀπταλέων, ἅ ῥα τῇ προτέρῃ ὑπέλειπον ἔδοντες” Od.16. 49.παρεόντων is equivalent to the “ἔνδον ἐόντων” of Od.7. 166; 15. 77, 94; 21. 178. The objection to this line, in the present passage, is that it is found elsewhere in the Odyssey to describe such hasty preparations as can be made for an unexpected guest. Buthere, as the following lines show, the full preparation for a banquet is now just ready. To this it may be answered, that this separate provision, which Telemachus had to make for his guest, serves to point the unfriendly relations between the young prince and the suitors.
[141] ἀείρας, sc. from the carving board. The meat was there cut into slices and the guests helped themselves, and ate with their fingers. But πίνακας does not mean ‘slices,’ as some would interpret; but ‘platters.’
[143] αὐτοῖσιν, sc. for the guest and for Telemachus who sat at meat with him: equivalent to the “σφι” of the preceding line. The dative should be joined with “οἰνοχοεύων”.
[147] παρενήνεον, Od.16. 51.The simple form “νήνεον” occurs Il.23. 139, 163; but here Wolf, Bekker, Spitzn, and Dindorf read “νήεον”, as Bekker (ed. 2) does in the present passage and in “ἐπενήεον” Il.7. 428.“νήνεον” certainly is read Ap. Rhod.1. 1123, but it may be a later form. Still there is no difficulty in supposing a reduplicated form of “νέω”, sc. “νήνεω”, though we have tenses from a present “νηέω” in Hom. Od.19. 64; Il. 9. 137, 358; Od.15. 322; Ap. Rhod.1. 403; 3. 1208.
[148] ἐπι-στέφ-εσθαι. This word Curtius (Gk. Etym. 194) rightly refers to the same root as Lat. stipa-re, “στέφειν” being properly analogous in meaning to “πυκάζειν”. But stipare is not far from the common signification of “στέφειν”: cp. stipatores, qui circumdant corpora regum (Fest. p. 314). For Virgil's mistaken rendering of the phrase cp. Geo. 2. 528; Aen.1. 725; 3. 525. Translate, ‘they brimmed the bowls with drink.’ The genitive follows the analogy of the construction after verbs of ‘filling.’ So “ἐπιστεφέας οἴνοιο” Od.2. 431.
[150] ἐξ ἔρον ἕντο. The psychology of this expression demands some remark and explanation. Besides the common application of it to food and drink, with which cp. Il.11. 642“ἀφέτην δίψαν”, we find the following less common usages of it, Il.13. 636“πάντων μὲν κόρος ἔστι, καὶ ὕπνου καὶ φιλότητος”
“μολπῆς τε γλυκερῆς καὶ ἀμύμονος ὀρχηθμοῖο”,“τῶν πέρ τις καὶ μᾶλλον ἐέλδεται ἐξ ἔρον εἷναι”
“ἢ πολέμου”, and Il.24. 226“αὐτίκα γάρ με κατακτείνειεν Ἀχιλλεὺς”,
“ἀγκὰς ἑλόντ᾽ ἐμὸν υἱὸν, ἐπὴν γόου ἐξ ἔρον εἵην”. Reserving the particular explanation of these, we may notice generally that, to Homer, the soul, or rather the person, the man, is passive as to desire (just as he is to thought; “θυμός” is most like an active principle): and so the “ἔρος” in the phrase before us is conceived of not as an emotion arising in the man, but rather as a property of the object presented. On this view, the beginning of actual fruition of the object would represent itself as the admission of the “ἔρος” into the person (cp. “ἵλαον ἔνθεο θυμόν” Il.9. 639): whence we may understand that what is denoted by the dismissal of the “ἔρος” is cessation from fruition—not cessation simply, but cessation at the natural limit; the ‘satisfaction of the natural want’ as we should say. Dismissal of the “ἔρος” is at once succeeded by the presence of “κόρος”, cp. Il.13. 636, quoted above; Od.4. 103“αἰψηρὸς δὲ κόρος κρυεροῖο γόοιο”.
There is pleasure in the whole process of fruition, up to the natural limit (whence we even have, Od.4. 102“γόῳ φρένα τέρπομαι”): but the pleasure is greatest at the moment which is signalised by the attainment of the limit; and hence the form of expression, as above, “ἐέλδεται ἐξ ἔρον εἷναι”. That an “ἔρος” is connected with “γόος”, as Il.24. 228, only shows how early man's own feelings discovered to him that there is a luxury in grief. The use of “ἐξίεσθαι”, in the phrase before us, has its exact contrary in one of the uses of the (nonHomeric) “προσίεσθαι”. That the middle voice is not indispensable in our phrase, appears from two of the passages quoted above, “ἐξ ἔρον εἷναι” and “ἀφέτην δίψαν”. Virgil's “Postquam exemta fames et amor compressus edendi,” Aen.1. 216 ; 8. 184, is criticised by Nitzsch as a poor rendering.
[151] τοῖσιν μέν. The return to this comes inf. 156 “αὐτὰρ Τηλέμαχος”.
[152] μολπή. The Schol. interprets this word as “ἡ μετ᾽ ᾠδῆς παιδιά”. The view taken by Aristarchus was ‘“semper apud Homerum dictum esse de ludo et maxime de lusu saltationis, nonde cantu.”’ (Lehrs, de Aristarch. Stud. 138) “Docuit primitivam vocis significationem esse potius ludendi; quod ex vocabulo me/lphqra (Il. 13. 233) apparere, item in pilea Nausicaae (Od. 6. 101), denique in quibusdam exemplis saltationis lusum offerentibus.” Cp. Il.7. 241; 16.182; 18.572; Od.23. 145.The present passage, however, inclines in the direction of a less strict interpretation. “μολπή” suggests the music and the song of Phemius, and, in verse 421, the suitors “ἐς ὀρχηστύν τε καὶ ἱμερόεσσαν ἀοιδὴν τρεψάμενοι τέρποντο”. On the whole question, Lehrs decides, “Haec omnia cum considero Aristarcho in “μολπή” cantus significationem excludenti assentiri dubito. Sed hoc tenebimus “μολπή” et “ἀοιδή, μέλπεσθαι” et “ἀείδειν” non prorsus idem esse, sed sic dici cantum quatenus lusus et delectatio est.”
τὰ γάρ τ᾽ ἀναθήματα δαιτός. The “τά” is attracted to the gender of the predicate. When the Schol. renders “ἀναθήματα” as “πληρώματα, κοσμήματα. ἡ μεταφορὰ ἀπὸ τῶν τοῖς θεοῖς ἀνατιθεμένων”, the first word chosen is nearer the truth; the second gives a postHomeric sense. “ἀναθήματα” is not here equivalent to “ἀγάλματα”, but is used rather in the sense of ‘accompaniments,’ ‘accessories.’ For “ἀνατιθέναι” in the sense of to ‘attach’ cp. Il.22. 100“ἐλεγχείην ἀναθήσει” with “μῶμον ἀνάψαι” Od.2. 86.So Homer speaks of the “φόρμιγξ” as “δαιτὶ συνήορος” Od.8. 99, “δαιτὸς ἑταίρην” Od.17. 270.[155] ἀνεβάλλετο, ‘struck up.’ The regular word for the prelude to a song. So of the “φόρμιγξ” Pindar, Pyth.1. 6“ὅταν φροιμίων ἀμβολὰς τεύχῃς”. Analogous in use is “ἀνακρούεσθαι”, cp. Theoc.4. 31“κηὖ μὲν τὰ Γλαύκας ἀγκρούομαι”. A few chords probably were all that were played, as at the opening of the modern Recitative. Cp. Ov. Met.5. 339praetentabat pollice chordas. Bergk, Griech. Lit. 1. p. 433, seems to refer “ἀναβάλλεσθαι” to the preparatory ‘flinging back’ of the head; as the singer braces himself for full and unimpeded utterance.
[157] σχών, as distinguished from “ἔχων”, of which it represents the first moment, ‘putting his head near;’ so inf. 4. 70.
[158] νεμεσήσεαι. The apologetic tone of Telemachus comes from the unwillingness to broach any painful subject at meals; see on 4. 193 foll.
[159] τούτοισιν, ‘those suitors yonder.’
[160] ῥεῖα, ‘lightly,’ i.e. without care or trouble.
νήποινον, see inf. 363.[162] “ἢ εἰν ἁλί. ὀστέα” the subject of “πύθεται”, becomes the object of “κυλίνδει”, the sentence would naturally run “ἢ κύματι κυλίνδεται”.
[163] On the question as to the meaning of “εἰ” here see Monro, H. G. § 312, ‘The distinction between wish and supposition in the case of Clauses with “εἰ” is mainly a question of punctuation; which must be decided by the general sense of the context. If the apodosis follows closely, the clause with “εἰ” is necessarily subordinate, and instead of an independent wish, we have a mere supposition, made in order to lead up to the clause of consequence.’ So, here, render “εἰ” ‘if;’ and not ‘would that!’
[164] ἐλαφρότεροι ἢ ἀφνειότεροι. In this use of the double comparative, where two qualities are contrasted in the same subject, the latter adjective is assimilated in degree of comparison to the former: or we may say that the idea of comparison is spread over the whole sentence; cp. the converse of this in Eur. Alc.182“σώφρων μὲν οὐκ ἂν μᾶλλον, εὐτυχὴς δ᾽ ἴσως”, where we should expect “μᾶλλον εὐτυχής” or “εὐτυ-” “χεστέρα”. For similar constructions cp. Hdt.3. 65“ἐποίησα ταχύτερα ἢ σοφώτερα”, Plut. de Audit. 2 “ἔστι δὲ λογικώτερα μᾶλλον ἢ παθητικώτερα”, Cic. pro Mil. 29 “libentius quam verius.”
[166] ἀπόλωλε μόρον, so “ἀπ. ὄλεθρον” Od.9. 303.
[168] φῇσιν. See Monro, H. G. § 292, ‘If the principal is a future (or implies reference to the future) the pure subjunctive with “εἰ” indicates that the speaker expressly avoids contemplating an actual case arising;’ and cp. the reference there given. The force of δέ in τοῦ δ᾽ ὤλετο seems to be strongly adversative. ‘Though many predict his return, yet notwithstanding his hopes of return are gone.’
[169] ἀτρεκέως, connected with “τρέπ-ω”, the “κ” representing “π”, as in “ἄ-τρακ-τος”, and in Lat. torqueo.
[170] τίς πόθεν. This is to be taken not as two distinct questions but as two blended into one. Cp. Soph. Phil.1090“τοῦ ποτε τεύξομαι σιτονόμου μέλεος πόθεν ἐλπίδος”; Eur. Hel.86τίς πόθεν; Soph. Aj.1185“τίς ἄρα νέατος ἐς πότε λήξει ἐτέων ἀριθμός”; Ameis quotes Plin. Paneg. 2. 3 “ex ipso genere gratiarum agendarum intellegatur, cui quando sint actae.” Similar, but not identical in form, are Hdt.1. 35“ὤνθρωπε τίς τ᾽ ἐὼν καὶ κόθεν ἥκων”; Virg. Aen. 8. 114 “qui genus? unde domo?” Propert. 1. 22. 1 “qualis et unde genus, qui sint mihi, Tulle, penates quaeris.”
[171] ὁπποίης. Here a clause of indirect question, as if immediately in construction with “κατάλεξον”, breaks in. The direct question is resumed in “πῶς”.
[172] εὐχετόωντο. The past tense limiting the reference to the time when he was on shipboard with the crew.
[173] πεζόν. A touch of naïve humour, in the mouth of an islander. For expressions in a similar tone cp. inf. 215, ‘It's a wise child that knows its own father;’ 5. 100, the rueful account given by Hermes of his long voyage, ibid. 119; 8. 552; and for humour of a more ironical cast, Od.4. 511.
[174] ἐτήτυμος, a reduplicated form of “ἔτυμος”, cp. “ἐτεός”, to be referred to the root “ἐς”, the substantive verb; so ἐτήτ. = ‘that which really is.’
[175] ἠὲ νέον μεθέπεις, ‘whether thou art but now a visitor.’ The rules laid down by the grammarians, especially by Herodian, for the accentuation of “ἠ”, are as follows:—
(1) The disjunctive “ἢ” (“ὁ διαζευκτικός” or “παραδιαζευκτικός”) is always oxytone. Schol. V. on Il.10. 174“ἢ . . ἄμφω τοὺς συνδέσμους ἐγκλιτέον: διαζευκτικοὶ γάρ εἰσι”. (2) The asseverative “ἦ” (“διαβεβαιωτικός”) is always circumflexed. Herodian on Il.1. 77“τὸ δὲ ‘ἦ γὰρ ὀίομαι’ περισπωμένῃ τάσει ἀναγνωστέον: διαβεβαιωτικὸς γὰρ ὁ σύνδεσμος”. (3) The interrogative “ἦ” in direct questions (“ἐρωτηματικός”) is always circumflexed. Herodian on Il.20. 17“ἦ: ἐρωτηματικὸς ὁ σύνδεσμος καὶ ἅπαξ εἰλημμένος κατὰ μίαν διάνοιαν: διὸ περισπαστέος”. (4) The second “ἦ” in a double question, whether direct or indirect, is always circumflexed (“ἦ” or “ἦε διαπορητικός” or “ἀπορηματικός”). Herodian on Il.1. 190“ἢ . . ἦε: τὸν μὲν πρότερον σύνδεσμον βαρυτονητέον, τὸν δὲ δεύτερον περισπαστέον: διαπορητικὴ γὰρ ἡ σύνταξις καὶ οὕτως ἐν τῇ καθόλου”. See La Roche, Hom. Textkrit. 265. The reason for the circumflex accent in the second clause in a question probably is that the second clause is really the principal one, and this fact is marked by the stronger accent. See Monro, H. G. § 340.[176] ἴσαν. Nitzsch follows the interpretation given by Eustath. “ἔγνων, ἔμαθον”, and takes the word as a pluperfect from “οἶδα”. It is far better to take it as an epic imperfect from “εἶμι” = ‘used to come to our house.’ The construction is found in Od.18. 194“εὖτ᾽ ἂν ἴῃ χορόν”, and is analogous to the use of “ἱκάνειν, ἀφικι εῖσθαι” with accusative.
[177] ἐπεὶ καὶ κεῖνος, ‘for that he too was a visitor of men.’ Cp. Od.17. 486“ἐπιστρωφῶσι πόληας”.
[182] ὧδε. Aristarchus insists that in Homer “ὧδε” never means ‘here,’ but always ‘so.’ Apollon. Lex.872“ὧδε: κατὰ Ἀρίσταρχον οὐδέποτε συνήθως ἡμῖν” (that is “τοπικῶς”) “κεῖται, ἀλλ᾽ ἀντὶ τοῦ οὕτως τάσσεται”. Buttmann combats this, quoting passages which seem to him to refute it: Il.18. 392“πρόμολ᾽ ὧδε Il., 12. 346 ὧδε γὰρ ἔβρισαν Δαναοί”, Od.2. 28“νῦν δὲ τίς ὧδ᾽ ἤγειρε; 17. 544 τὸν ξεῖνον ἐναντίον ὧδε κάλεσσον”, and the present passage “νῦν δ᾽ ὧδε σὺν νηὶ κατήλυθον”. With such phrases it will suffice to compare “στῆθ᾽ οὕτως ἐς μέσσον” Od.17. 447, “ἀμφίπολοι στῆθ᾽ οὕτω ἀπόπροθεν” Od.6. 218, “ἔρρ᾽ οὕτως” Il.22. 498.What “οὕτω” can express can equally well be expressed, mutatis mutandis, by “ὧδε. ὧδε” is related to “οὕτως”, as “ὅδε” is related to “οὗτος”. Now “ὅδε” refers to that which is nearest to the speaker; “οὗτος” to that which is at a greater distance from him, or nearer to the person addressed. Thus “ὅδε” is related to “ἐμός” (cp. “ἀνὴρ ὅδε” as a periphrasis for “ἐγώ”), and “οὗτος” to “σός” (cp. “ὦ οὗτος” as an address = “ὦ σύ”). The meaning of “ὧδε” and “οὕτως” in Homer will be often best expressed by a gesture, e. g. “πρόμολ᾽ ὧδε” = ‘come in this way,’ the hand beckoning in the direction of the speaker's self; “στῆθ᾽ οὕτω” = ‘stand in that way,’ the hand waving in the direction of a more distant spot. This might readily account for the interpretation assigned in later times to “ὧδε”, as if it meant ‘here.’ With “ὧδε κατήλυθον” in the present passage cp. “τόδ᾽ ἱκάνει” inf. 409 with note. See Lehrs, Aristarch. 70, and an elaborate analysis of Funk's dissertation on “ὅδε” and “οὗτος” in Philologus 27. 3, p. 508 foll.
[183] πλέων. A monosyllable by synizesis.
οἶνοψ may possibly mean ‘glittering,’ ‘gleaming,’ like “αἶθοψ” used as an epithet of “οἶνος”. But the older commentators combine in rendering it ‘dark.’ So Eustath. 116. 3 “οἶνοψ, μέλας, κυάνεος, πορφύρεος ὅτι ἔοικε τὸ παλαιὸν ὁ οἶνος μέλας εἶναι τὴν χρόαν”, ‘white’ wines, according to him, being the creation of later luxury.[184] Τεμέση (cp. “Temesaea aera” Ov. Met.7. 207 ), of which the later name was “Τέμψα”, is put by Strabo, 1. 6. 6, 255, in Bruttium, and assigned to Ausonian colonists. But probably “Τεμέση” is here to be identified with “Τάμασος” or “Ταμασσός”, in the middle of the island of Cyprus, famous for extensive copper mines. The word copper (cuprum) is really = aes Cyprium.
[185] ἥδε, deictic, i. e. explained by a gesture = ‘here,’ ‘yonder.’
ἐπ᾽ ἀγροῦ is not a common expression for a ship drawn up on the beach, for “ἀγρός” is cultivated land, and there is nothing in the use of “ἐπί” to forbid our rendering it ‘beside,’ or ‘off;’ so that the ship might still be afloat. On the other hand, the parallel passage, Od.16. 324, is strong—“οἱ δ᾽ ὅτε δὴ λιμένος πολυβενθέος ἐντὸς ἵκοντο”, “νῆα μὲν οἵ γε μέλαιναν ἐπ᾽ ἠπείροιο ἔρυσσαν”. Here “ἐπ᾽ ἠπείροιο” is an equally unusual expression with “ἐπ᾽ ἀγροῦ”, but of course the meaning is made perfectly clear by the use of “ἔρυσσαν”, and “ἐπί” must mean ‘upon.’ Again “ἤπειρος” is as distinct from the beach (see Il.1. 485) as “ἀγρός” is. We may perhaps explain the difficulty by supposing that the ship lay not on the open shore, but on the margin of the creek that served as a harbour, and so, well within the coast line. Such a spot as might be described as “ἤπειρος” or “ἀγρός”. In Od.16. 383 a person between the harbour and the town is said to be “ἐπ᾽ ἀγροῦ νόσφι πόληος”. The word “Ῥεῖθρον” seems to carry out this idea of the creek.[186] Ῥείθρῳ. See appendix on Ithaca.
[188] ἐξ ἀρχῆς, ‘from of old.’ Cp. Od.2. 254; 11.438.
εἴ πέρ τε εἴρηαι, as we say, ‘if you 'll only go and ask.’[190] ἐπ᾽ ἀγροῦ πήματα πάσχειν, ‘lives a hard life on his farm:’ not with any reference here to sorrowing for his lost son. See Od.24. 226 foll.
[191] ἀμφιπόλῳ. Her name was “Σικελή” Od.24. 366.
[192] παρτιθεῖ, i. e. “παρατίθησι”. Parallel to the forms of the “-μι” conjugation we sometimes find others that must be referred to a present in “-ω”, as “διδοῖ” for “δίδωσι, ἵεις” and “ἵει” for “ἵης, ἵησι”, etc.
Join κατὰ-λάβῃσιν, and for μιν … γυῖα cp. sup. 64.[193] γουνός. The existence of such names as “Γοννοκόνδυλος” Livy 39. 25, and “Γοννοῦσσα” Lycophr. 906, as towns of the Perrhaebi, gives some support to the etymology which refers “γουνός” to “γόνυ”, rather than to “γόνος” in the sense of sown land. “γουνός” will then be related to “γόνυ” in the same way as “κνημός” to “κνήμη”, and will mean a ‘bend’ or ‘knoll.’ Cp. “γουνὸν Ἀθηνάων ἱεράων” whence Pindar's (Isth. 3. 43) “ἐν γουνοῖς Ἀθανᾶν”, which is more likely used of an upland or rising-ground than of fertile soil, which was not the characteristic of Attica. ἀλωή, used properly of a threshing floor, which, though flat in itself, would probably lie at an elevation, is here employed only of a plot of ground. Translate, ‘the upland plot of his vineyard;’ literally, ‘the knoll of the plot of vineyard.’
[194] δὴ γὰρ ἔφαντο, ‘for they did say that he was on the spot.’
[195] βλάπτουσι, ‘hinder him from his journey.’ Cp. Od.4. 380“πεδάᾳ καὶ ἔδησε κελεύθου”, Aesch. Ag.120“βλαβέντα λοισθίων δρόμων. βλάπτειν” is to be referred to a root mlā (cp. “μαλακός, βλάξ”), containing the sense of ‘weakening,’ or ‘wearing out.’
[198] χαλεποὶ … ἔχουσιν. The clause that gives the reason is simply coordinated to the preceding; in prose we should expect “ὑπὸ χαλεπῶν ἀνδρῶν ἐχόμενος”.
[201] βάλλουσι, perhaps of a sudden thought, stronger than “ἐνὶ θυμῷ τιθέναι” inf. 320.
[203] δηρόν. Curtius (Gk. Etym. 501) connects “δη-ρό-ν” with the adverb “δήν”, originally “δϝαν”, or “δϝην”, and appearing in Alcman in the form “δοάν. δϝαν” or “διϝαν” is probably an accusatival form from stem “διϝα”, signifying ‘day;’ Lat. die, for dive. The transference of a word that properly signifies ‘a daylong,’ to a general expression of duration, is seen in the use of the Lat. diu.
[204] ἔχῃσι. The subject to this is “δέσματα”. One feels the want of an expressed object to “ἔχῃσι”, so Cobet would write “εἴ πέρ ϝε”, ‘him.’
[207] εἰ δὴ … Ὀδυσῆος, ‘if verily, big as thou art, thou canst be son of Odysseus himself.’
[208] αἰνῶς, of ‘startling’ likeness, as in Il.3. 158“αἰνῶς εἰς ὦπα ἔοικε”.
[209] θαμὰ τοῖον. We find “τοῖον” used in the sense of “οὕτως” as a mere adverb Il.4. 488; 5.7; 22.241; Od.3. 496.As qualifying a noun “σιγῇ

