Euthymos was a real person, an Olympic victor from Locri Epizephyrii in the first half of the fifth century bc. Various sources attribute to him extraordinary achievements: he received cult in his own lifetime; he fought with and overcame the ¿Hero of Temesa¿, a daimon who in ritual deflowered a virgin in the Italian city of Temesa every year; and he vanished into a local river instead of dying (extant iconography from Locri shows him as a river god receiving cult (...) a century after his death). By taking an integrative approach to Euthymos¿ legend and cult iconography, this article proposes a new interpretation of the complex. It is argued that Euthymos received cult already in his lifetime in consequence of his victory over the Hero and that he took over, in a modified form, the Hero¿s cult. Various considerations, including the role of river gods as the recipients of brides¿ virginity in prenuptial rites, point to an identification of the Hero as a river deity. In this light it is suggested that the contest between Euthymos and the Hero was conceived as a deliberate emulation of Herakles¿ fight with Acheloos. The case of Euthymos at Locri, for all its peculiarities, draws our attention to some important aspects of the heroization of historical persons in the Classical period. First, the earliest attested cult of a living person in Greece is to be placed around the middle of the fifth century. Second, heroized persons in the Classical period were not always passive in the process of their heroization, but could actively promote it. And third, a common pattern in the heroization of contemporaries in the Classical period was to accommodate them into existing cults. (shrink)

At Catullus 63.5, OGR read: deuoluit iletas acuto sibi pondere silices. The gist of this himself flints with sharp mass’) is improbable, and in particular the form iletas is a non-existent word and two syllables too long for the metre.

At Catullus 63.5, OGR read:deuoluit iletas acuto sibi pondere silices. The gist of this (‘he rolled down from (?) himself flints with sharp mass’) is improbable, and in particular the formiletasis a non-existent word and two syllables too long for the metre.

Modern editions read vulgate (nominative). This yields a different syntax: a rapid double change of subject or, equivalently, a parenthesis interrupting the flow of the sentence. This possibility, raised and dismissed by Eustathius, goes unmentioned by modern scholars, who are often in general (unlike their second-century counterpart Nicanor) ill-disposed to Homeric parentheses. A survey of Homeric parentheses shows the phenomenon in general and the specific instance postulated at Od. 24.398 to be unobjectionable. The validity of the terms and for Homeric (...) discourse is also defended. (shrink)