Abstract

Professor Scott in his paper on ‘Eurynome and Eurycleia’ was inclined to believe, although he did not press the point, that Eurynome and Actoris were one and the same servant, the name Actoris being a patronymic. This explanation was offered also by Hayman, who compares Actorion , but it has been ignored by Wilamowitz and by van Leeuwen-Mendes da Costa, who reject ψ 226 sqq. It is an ingenious attempt to solve a small Homeric problem, and would be convincing but for two reasons, of which the first has to do with the poet's manner and the second with the circumstances of the recognition scene in ψ