Enough and too much has been written about the Epic Cycle. Upon scanty quotations and a jejune epitome a tedious literature has been built. The older writers, such as Welcker, tried to ‘reconstruct’—as profitable and satisfying a task as inferring a burnt manor-house from its cellars; later scholars have gone out in tracing the tradition of the poems through the learned age of Greece—a scaffolding without ties, by which this or that conclusion is reached according to temperamental disposition to this (...) or that fallacy. I do not intend to enter more than is needful into a controversy where so far as I can see everyone has gone beyond the evidence. If I add to the bulk of the literature, it is in the hope of putting things in their proper places and of presenting the data as they appear to a future editor. (shrink)

I. Homeric Hymn to Apollo 334: κκλντε νν μοι γαα κα ορανòσ ερσ περθεν, TιτǴνεσ τε θεοιí π χθον ναιετοντεσ τρταρον μφ μγαν, τν ξ νδρεσ τε θεο τε.

I. Homeric Hymn to Apollo 334: κκλντε νν μοι γαα κα ορανòσ ερσ περθεν, TιτǴνεσ τε θεοιí π χθον ναιετοντεσ τρταρον μφ μγαν, τν ξ νδρεσ τε θεο τε.

As the apparent variant is in the text, Ludvvich alters the scholion into S0009838800018516_inline1, which has not been found in any MS. so far. The only noticeable point prima facie about S0009838800018516_inline2 is that it is an S0009838800018516_inline3 . Therefore I would read S0009838800018516_inline6. Ludwich's index to his A.H.T. gives cases of the omission of ov or OVK in the scholia. We need not restrict S0009838800018516_inline7 There is too much tendency to restrict usage in matters of language. At one time (...) it was believed that μxs22EFποτε was the property of Didymus! S0009838800018516_inline8 ‘passage’ does not occur in the scholia we possess, τόπος however does . Compare the note on H 96S0009838800018516_eqnU1xs22EFν xs1F04λλxs1FF3 xs1F51βριταxs22EF. We must supply in sense χωρxs22EFxs1FF3, for the reference is to Callim. Del. 69, where this is the meaning of xs22EFπειλητxs22EFρες. (shrink)

As the apparent variant is in the text, Ludvvich alters the scholion into, which has not been found in any MS. so far. The only noticeable point prima facie about is that it is an. Therefore I would read. Ludwich's index to his A.H.T. gives cases of the omission of ov or OVK in the scholia. We need not restrict There is too much tendency to restrict usage in matters of language. At one time it was believed that μ⋯ποτε was (...) the property of Didymus! ‘passage’ does not occur in the scholia we possess, τόπος however does. Compare the note on H 96⋯ν ἄλλῳ ὑβριτα⋯. We must supply in sense χωρ⋯ῳ, for the reference is to Callim. Del. 69, where this is the meaning of ⋯πειλητ⋯ρες. (shrink)

A new edition of the Homeric Hymns is in preparation by Mr. W. R. Halliday, Principal of King's College, London, and myself. In the meantime there are some passages in the Hymn to Hermes which call for longer treatment than would be natural in an edition. Some of these notes are suggested by the substantial and valuable edition of Professor L. Radermacher.

A new edition of the Homeric Hymns is in preparation by Mr. W. R. Halliday, Principal of King's College, London, and myself. In the meantime there are some passages in the Hymn to Hermes which call for longer treatment than would be natural in an edition. Some of these notes are suggested by the substantial and valuable edition of Professor L. Radermacher.

Mr. Agar has collected his adversaria on the Odyssey which have been enjoying cold storage these many years in the blue depths of the Journal of Philology, and increased them by about three-quarters. He has produced a very interesting and valuable book, the most important contribution to the linguistic history of the Homeric text that has been made for a long time. Mr. Agar holds that the language of Homer represents the original ‘Achaean’ speech, and that its abnormalities in vocabulary, (...) word-formation and metre are the result of natural unforced processes of transmission. This position, held by so well equipped and so trenchant an investigator as Mr. Agar, is reassuring. It does not involve any of the mythological factors of the Higher or the Lower Criticism still recommended among us by Mr. Leaf, Father Browne and Mr. Verrall–Pisistratus, Onomacritus, the Ionian conquest of Smyrna, the Thessalian Iliad, the original Achilleis,–and disagrees with Professor Murray's sinister diagnosis clear away the Attic surface and there rises beneath another surface with another set of corruptions, where Ionic rhapsodes have introduced just the same elements of confusion into an Aeolic or at least a pre-Ionic language. The confusion of tongues is deep down in the heart of the Homeric, dialect, and no surgery in the world can cut beneath it’ . The last ten years’ work in Comparative Philology has made it clearer and clearer that the rule-of-thumb for distinguishing the historical non-Dorian dialects does not apply to the heroic and post-heroic age, and that the terms ‘Aeolic’ and ‘Ionic’ in their usual sense should disappear from the history of Homer. The Homeric tongue derives directly from the pre-colonial language of Greece wherein two elements are discernible, the original Ionian and the Achaean or North-Greek which overlaid it. (shrink)

Mr. Agar has collected his adversaria on the Odyssey which have been enjoying cold storage these many years in the blue depths of the Journal of Philology, and increased them by about three-quarters. He has produced a very interesting and valuable book, the most important contribution to the linguistic history of the Homeric text that has been made for a long time. Mr. Agar holds that the language of Homer represents the original ‘Achaean’ speech, and that its abnormalities in vocabulary, (...) word-formation and metre are the result of natural unforced processes of transmission. This position, held by so well equipped and so trenchant an investigator as Mr. Agar, is reassuring. It does not involve any of the mythological factors of the Higher or the Lower Criticism still recommended among us by Mr. Leaf, Father Browne and Mr. Verrall–Pisistratus, Onomacritus, the Ionian conquest of Smyrna, the Thessalian Iliad, the original Achilleis,–and disagrees with Professor Murray's sinister diagnosis clear away the Attic surface and there rises beneath another surface with another set of corruptions, where Ionic rhapsodes have introduced just the same elements of confusion into an Aeolic or at least a pre-Ionic language. The confusion of tongues is deep down in the heart of the Homeric, dialect, and no surgery in the world can cut beneath it’. The last ten years’ work in Comparative Philology has made it clearer and clearer that the rule-of-thumb for distinguishing the historical non-Dorian dialects does not apply to the heroic and post-heroic age, and that the terms ‘Aeolic’ and ‘Ionic’ in their usual sense should disappear from the history of Homer. The Homeric tongue derives directly from the pre-colonial language of Greece wherein two elements are discernible, the original Ionian and the Achaean or North-Greek which overlaid it. (shrink)

This paper is an attempt to elucidate the senses in which this place-name is used in Homer; to assign meanings to the Homeric terms Achaean, Iason and Pelasgic Arge, to ‘Argive’ as a synonym for Greek, and to establish the nature of the Argos over which Agamemnon ruled. I take the Homeric poems as the unity which they profess to be, and which they must be for historical enquiry. Whatever liberties Homer took with his materials it is plain he was (...) careful to respect events. The effort to distinguish between old and new in the Iliad and Odyssey has caused needless and fruitless encumbrance to the official historians, such as Busolt; the Unitarian position has given us the remarkable results of Professor Myres' . The consistency of Mr. Myres' account, and I venture to hope of mine, allows a fresh inference back to the homogeneity of the poems which are their source. (shrink)

It is usual, since Wolf, to print πέλει in 396 instead of ποτί. The authority for this is very slight: E. M. 214. 33 from Diogenes βρόμος κυρίως το πυρς. ᾒχος. πεποιημένη δέ στιν ων κατ μμησιν το ποτελουµνου ψόφου ν πυρ, οον τσος γε πέλει βρόμος αθοµνοιο. schol. Ap. Rhod. III. 861 the etymology of Bx03B1;θριµώ … ἢ παρ το βρµον το πυρός. τσσος γρ πλεται βρµος γρ θες λαµπαδοΧος. It is not certain that either of these quotations refer (...) to our line; in the former, as will be noticed, πυρς is out of place, and we cannot tell how the second would have continued. In any case, it is not obvious what turned such an easy word as πλει into the difficult ποτ. (shrink)

Testimony, even in the well-worked parts of antiquity, continues to accrue, some from new papyri, some from texts long known but overlooked. In the result the critic is discomfited, honest men come by their own. οιόνδ' πέβη τόδε πργμα. This document, which consists of two lives of Homer and the Agon inserted between them, has long been derived from the Μουσεîον of Alcidamas. The conjecture was contested and the survival of Alcidamas denied. The publication of twenty-five lines from a papyrus (...) of s. II.–III. p. C. by Professor J. G. Winter, containing a Homeric biography signed αλκι] δαμαντος περι ομηρου put an end to the matter. See on the whole question Mr. Winter's remarks and a paper by Sig. Carlo Gallavotti of Bologna, Rivista di Filologia, 1929, 31. (shrink)

Testimony, even in the well-worked parts of antiquity, continues to accrue, some from new papyri, some from texts long known but overlooked. In the result the critic is discomfited, honest men come by their own. οιόνδ' πέβη τόδε πργμα. This document, which consists of two lives of Homer and the Agon inserted between them, has long been derived from the Μουσεîον of Alcidamas. The conjecture was contested and the survival of Alcidamas denied. The publication of twenty-five lines from a papyrus (...) of s. II.–III. p. C. by Professor J. G. Winter , containing a Homeric biography signed αλκι] δαμαντος περι ομηρου put an end to the matter. See on the whole question Mr. Winter's remarks and a paper by Sig. Carlo Gallavotti of Bologna, Rivista di Filologia, 1929, 31. (shrink)

The least attentive Hellenist must have noticed that the Greek tongue contains a number of pairs of nouns of identical or nearly related meaning—one in the masculine, the other in the feminine. The subject attracted the notice of Lobeck, Pathoiogia, pp. 7 sq., Technologia, pp. 267 sq.; G. Meyer in Curtius' Studien V., p. 68; Stein in the introduction to his Herodotus, p. lx ; and the resultant list will be found in Kuhner-Blass I., pp. 501, 502. It is not (...) complete , and the question deserves investigation. The only doctrine that can be called such appears to be the remark in schol. BT on Σ 551 , δρεπανας] Iωνκως, οủτο αρ τρεπουσ πάντα είς τφρη, ταρη αστρααλη. (shrink)

The least attentive Hellenist must have noticed that the Greek tongue contains a number of pairs of nouns of identical or nearly related meaning—one in the masculine, the other in the feminine. The subject attracted the notice of Lobeck, Pathoiogia, pp. 7 sq., Technologia, pp. 267 sq.; G. Meyer in Curtius' Studien V., p. 68; Stein in the introduction to his Herodotus, p. lx ; and the resultant list will be found in Kuhner-Blass I., pp. 501, 502. It is not (...) complete, and the question deserves investigation. The only doctrine that can be called such appears to be the remark in schol. BT on Σ 551, δρεπανας] Iωνκως, οủτο αρ τρεπουσ πάντα είς τφρη, ταρη αστρααλη. (shrink)

Circumstances have allowed me to inspect the Paris MSS. of Strabo and to collate them for a portion of Book IX. , in view of an edition of Strabo's Thessaly which Mr. A. J. B. Wace has in contemplation.

Circumstances have allowed me to inspect the Paris MSS. of Strabo and to collate them for a portion of Book IX., in view of an edition of Strabo's Thessaly which Mr. A. J. B. Wace has in contemplation.

οδ γρ εδεης νδρ νον οδ γυναι πρν πειρηθεης σπερ ποζγου, οδ κεν εκσσαις σπερ ποτ’ ς ριον λθν. πολλκι γνμην ξαπατσ’ δαι. ς ριον A , σριον the rest.

οδ γρ εδεης νδρ νον οδ γυναι πρν πειρηθεης σπερ ποζγου, οδ κεν εκσσαις σπερ ποτ’ ς ριον λθν. πολλκι γνμην ξαπατσ’ δαι. ς ριον A, σριον the rest.

An aspect of Pisistratus, which has not hitherto been utilized in this question , appears to justify another presentment of the evidence which connects him with the Homeric tradition. I shall endeavour to be brief and not to repeat what is common property or irrelevant. The literature and the bearing of the controversy are given with his usual clearness by P. Cauer, Grundfragen der Homerkritik,2 pp. 125 sqq. Cauer's private doctrine, that Homer was for the first time written down by (...) Pisistratus, I consider sufficiently refuted by C. Rothe, Die Was als Dichtung, pp. 5–13. Fantastic views lately promulgated in England are1 dealt with conclusively to my mind by Mr. A. Lang, The World of Homer, pp. 281 sqq., to whose account nothing for controversial purposes need be added. On looking back over the literature I find myself most in agreement with Hans Flach, whose treatise, Die litterarische Thdtigkeit des Peisistratos, 1885, has been unduly depreciated. I shall have to repeat my own views expressed in the Classical Review, 1901, p. 7; 1907, p. 18; and in the Classical Quarterly, 1909, p. 84. (shrink)